HOW TO FACILITATE THE STUDY OP BOTANY. 213 



HOW TO FACILITATE THE STUDY OF BOTANY. 



By G. Caestensen, Gead. Hoet. R. D. C. Age. (Copenhagen), 



Superintendent op the Victoeia Gaedens, Bombay. 



In his '« Address to Students of Botany," lately published in the 

 Society's Journal, Mr. A. K. Nairne has attempted to indicate a 

 way by which the study of Botany, or at least the knowledge of 

 common Indian plants might be facilitated. Though the originator 

 of the proposed system is no less a person than the celebrated 

 philosopher, Jean Jacques Rousseau, the system as explained by the 

 author of the address is very deficient, and a closer examination of its 

 details will easily convince the botanist that such a limited defini- 

 tion of characteristic features, peculiar to species, genera and even 

 Natural Orders, as those mentioned in the address, are likely to do 

 much more harm than good, and give rise to serious mistakes. Thus 

 the author remarks, that if a plant with this kind of flower (didy- 

 namous, or two-powered) is a tree, it most probably belongs to 

 Bignoniacece, which very characteristic and distinct order he 

 defines as often being large trees with ample leaves and large 

 flowers, and often pod-like fruits, easily recognised by their verna- 

 cular names, but he omits to mention the frequent presence of 

 pinnate (finned) leaves ; the constant presence of the peculiar 

 bilamellate (two-plated) stigma (scar), and frequently winged seeds, 

 by which any plant belonging to this Order may be easily recog- 

 nised. Following the author, at least one tree, which is very common 

 in the Konkan, Gmelina arhorea, except for its vernacular name, 

 ought to belong to Bignoniacece, whereas it does not require more 

 than ordinary botanical knowledge to recognise it as belonging 

 to Verbenacece, of which Order the author simply says that it is 

 not clearly defined, often trees and shrubs. Similar examples 

 might be cited of other misleading statements too evident to 

 avoid being noticed by the botanist. I have, however, no intention 

 of criticising a paper attempting the praiseworthy object of facilitating 

 the study of Botany, an object to which I hope by the present 

 paper to contribute my humble share. 



Regarding Botany as a science, and not only as a knowledge of 

 names, a pleasant entertainment, or a feeble kind of sport, it may 

 be said, as of all sciences, that a little kuowledge is worse than no 

 knowledge at all ; and I cannot help considering it wrong to attempt 

 to popularise it by considerably curtailing its general principles 



