2 12 



THE .\ A Tl 'RES TUD Y RE I 'IE W 



[2 : 6 — sept., 1906 



DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE 



[Editorial Note. — The usefulness of this journal would be greatly increased 

 if readers would feel free to write to the Managing Editor for publication their 

 opinions of articles published. Perhaps many readers have forgotten the follow- 

 ing Editorial Note which appeared in No. 1 of Vol. I: All articles in The Review 

 are open to discussion and readers are invited to send their contributions to this 

 department as soon as possible after the publication of the paper to which refer- 

 ence is made. The Editors must reserve the right to select and abridge if space 

 is limited, and to modify criticisms which tend to be so personal or acrimonious 

 as not to be helpful. The weak points of the nature-study movement deserve 

 free discussion, but in the spirit and form of good friendship for all persons who 

 may represent opposing views.] 



Best Books for Nature-Study. — The editor was right when he said, 

 in his introduction to the lists of" " Best Books for Nature-Studv," that 

 "there are many surprises (here) tor the reader." The statement is true 

 but it fails to deal adequately with the situation. The lists are absolutely 

 astounding. That so many accomplished workers should so totally ignore 

 the classics among nature-study books is almost incredible. But the amazing 

 fact remains that these learned persons have put in their lists such trifling 

 things as hand-books and guides, however excellent these may be in certain 

 specific aspects of the study. 



If a literary periodical should call for a list of ten masterpieces from the 

 world's literature, who would suppose that Emerson, Milton, Shakespeare 

 would be omitted and their place supplied by text-books on rhetoric, ele- 

 mentary treatises on grammar, or "lists of English words commonly mis- 

 spelled?" This in effect is what these lists have done. 



I supposed that "best books" meant the best in theory, in spirit and in 

 their suggestions for the use of materials ; but it appears that I was wrong. 

 Suppose that the editor should call for a description of "the best sources 

 of drinking water for our large cities." 1 am prepared, bv the book lists 

 just published, to feel no surprise if you mention sprinkling carts, rain- 

 water hogsheads, fibre pails, soda-water fountains, bar-rooms, tin dippers 

 and pocket drinking cups — to the entire omission of clouds, brooks, reservoirs, 

 lakes and ponds. 



I note that my own list is the only one that includes Gilbert White, 

 jefferies and Thoreau. One unsigned list inciudes Burroughs — with his 

 minor hand-book on squirrels ! And but three mention Gibson ! 



I have no fault to find with the convenient little hand-books that the lists 



