80 THE NATURE-STUDY REVIEW [i. 2, march, 1905 



EDITORIALS 



THE COLLABORATORS OF THE REVIEW 



Unfortunately, it appears that many persons, and even certain 

 journals, have interpreted the long list of collaborators as meaning 

 an aim to include all active leaders of nature-study in the United 

 States and in the Provinces of Canada. As a result of this inter- 

 pretation, we have received several dozen letters calling attention 

 to the fact that certain names, in some cases very well-known 

 ones, are not among those of the collaborators of this journal. 

 We explain as follows : 



The list of collaborators does not at all adequately repre- 

 sent the wide-spread interest in nature-study in America. The 

 list was originally made up on short notice from the suggestions 

 of less than half a dozen persons who knew from personal 

 acquaintance that certain individuals would probably give their 

 time and influence to the movement for a journal of nature-study. 

 The list was necessarily an extended one because the editors 

 needed, especially in the first year, the cooperation of some repre- 

 sentatives of each of the various phases of science in higher educa- 

 tional institutions and of nature-study in schools in various geo- 

 graphical localities. Since the prospectus was issued correspon- 

 dence has indicated that many more names would have to be added 

 if the published list of collaborators was to pretend to be a direc- 

 tory of the leaders of nature-study in the various States and in 

 Canada who would gladly give their cooperation. The original 

 list has already ceased to represent accurately those who have 

 pledged their support to The Review, for some of our most val- 

 uable cooperation is now coming from persons whose names will 

 not be published except when signed to articles. With this expla- 

 nation we trust that there will be no more misunderstanding, and 

 that the editorial board composed of editors and collaborators will 

 be regarded simply an arrangement for promoting the editorial 

 and business interests of the journal, rather than as a directory 

 of active workers in the field represented. 



ARTICLES BY THOSE WHO BOTH THINK AND DO 



The first two numbers of The Review give prominence to more 

 or less theoretical papers on the educational problems of nature- 



