ACADEMY OF SCIENCES.] BIOGRAPHY 15 



some recent work in cryptogamic botany, in which the voice is the voice of Gray but the hand 

 seems most likely to have been that of Farlow. He always warned us who were composing 

 our youthful papers under his direction against too strong statements about any writer or 

 his works. "Do not say," he often remarked, "that he is wrong or make use of any such 

 direct expression, no matter what you think; simply quote him or his work with great 

 respect and then show that he is thoroughly mistaken." This is a practice he always carried out 

 in his own writings. 



Farlow's influence as a builder up of unrivaled facilities for work in cryptogamic botany 

 was supplemented by his influence on the teaching of this subject as well as on the teaching 

 of botany in general. Few of us think of him as the founder of a pedagogical system and per- 

 haps it is not possible to advance that claim; nevertheless, his methods and his viewpoints 

 were so distinct, so analytic, and based so firmly on the psychologic aspects of both teacher 

 and taught that he at least emphasized in botanical pedagogy a distinct and practically novel 

 method. Farlow has given some of his ideas in his Sketch of Cryptogamic Botany at Harvard 

 University from 1S"4 to 1896, and those who have access to a copy of this very interesting and 

 instructive publication will do well to consider most carefully what he says. I suspect, how- 

 ever, that this privately printed document is not readily at hand to many, and I excuse myself 

 for having quoted or abstracted many details from it. His other pedagogical disquisition, 

 Biological Teaching in Colleges (1886), is readily accessible and much of his own attitude 

 toward methodology is contained in it, with touches of his own personality which render it 

 most illuminating. 



It was my own good fortune to be associated with him as assistant (1888-1891) in the 

 first part of what was called natural history 5 (botanical instruction being given the first half 

 and zoological the second) and that, too, at a time when his ideas were fully developed. The 

 first four plants used by him in this course were the distinctive features, since the training toward 

 developing power in observing, recording, and inferring the structure and activity was the point 

 laid stress upon. We began with a yeast cake, rock candy, and water. The rock candy was 

 dissolved in water in a tall but slender glass cylinder and the yeast cake was then pulverized 

 and added. The jar (or several of them) was placed in a warm place, usually on the window 

 sill, where the student could look through it, and this was done several hours, or days even 

 before it was to be used by the class, so that each cylinder might be evidencing proper activ- 

 ity. The details of preparation were announced to the class and they were asked to record 

 in notes and drawings what they saw. The results, of course, are obvious, and the answers 

 varied. The students were led by questions to distinguish their observations from their 

 inferences. The plain facts of the rock candy being sugar and of the fermentation which most of 

 them saw being an inference, as well as how they might, or might not, be able to demonstrate the 

 truth of one or another inference, was brought out through questioning, objecting, and suggesting. 

 Then the students were directed to make examinations with the compound microscope, using 

 low power and then high powers, and to test with iodine and follow that with sulphuric acid 

 of proper strength. Having listened to lectures on the cell and having heard that the "yeast 

 plant" was concerned, all the students found cells, although usually their first finds were either 

 air bubbles or starch grains. Many desired to know what they were to look for and seemed 

 disappointed or even helpless when advised to determine, draw, and describe as many kinds 

 of things as they might be able to distinguish in their preparations. After drawings were made, 

 the students wanted names, but Farlow always suggested that they study each kind of object 

 under each power of the microscope and under the influence of each reagent before coming to 

 a conclusion. When the yeast cells were finally distinguished from the air bubbles, starch 

 grains, and bacteria associated with them, they frequently proceeded to endow them with 

 nuclei and even at times with chlorophyll. By the time the yeast exercise was completed most 

 of the students had come to realize the manner of procedure and to distinguish "what they 

 could see" from "what was purely a matter of inference." 



After yeast came Spirogyra, the same care being exorcised to emphasize method; and 

 besides iodine and sulphuric acid, glycerin was applied to untreated filaments and also strong 



