EDITORIAL 



On What Part Do You Lecture? 



The whole may be geometrically 

 equivalent to the sum of all the parts, 

 but it is not always so from the logical 

 point of view. Suppose that I was to 

 announce that I would give a lecture 

 on mankind. Would you inquire if I 

 were going to divide that into six parts, 

 boy, girl, youth, maiden, man, woman ? 

 No, certainly not. You recognize the 

 fact that mankind stands for far more 

 than the assemblage of the two sexes 

 of various ages. 



But again, suppose I were to an- 

 nounce a lecture on the nation, would 

 you suppose it to be necessary to divide 

 that into as many parts as there are states 

 and to discuss each in turn ? No, cer- 

 tainly not. You recognize that our 

 union stands for something more than 

 a mere assemblage of states. It is a 

 nation with its, own distinct individ- 

 uality, more marked and distinct than 

 the individuality of each state. 



But again, if I may use one or more 

 illustrations, suppose I were requested 

 to talk on the City of Stamford. Would 

 you think it necessary for me to dis- 

 cuss road making, coal carting, ditch 

 digging, pipe laying, storekeeping and 

 school teaching? No, certainly not. 

 You recognize the existence of an in- 

 dividuality about the city, greater and 

 more distinct than the sum of its parts. 

 You perceive that the terms mankind, 

 nation, state, etc., stand for a distinct 

 individuality above, beyond and greater 

 than the assemblage of details. 



Why not use a similar logic with the 

 term nature? Time and again, people 

 have expressed this idea, "I suppose 

 when you talk about nature, you tell 

 about the bugs, the flowers and the 

 trees." Yes, I do and more. A lec- 

 ture on nature is like one on religion. 

 It stands for more than a variety of 

 creeds or than a single department of 

 natural science. Nature has a distinct 



individuality, a personality and lov- 

 ableness of her own. A loving child 

 thinks a mother, a father has an indi- 

 viduality different and greater than his 

 hands, his face, his shoes or his watch. 

 It is one of the essential characteris- 

 tics of the naturalist to think of nature 

 not in detail but as a lovable whole. Do 

 not by mistake think that he does not 

 know the details. He does, but this is 

 another department. He may study 

 the details and be a specialist but when 

 he classifies those details he is a natural 

 scientist. 



You Should be Better than Your Tools. 



"I hear you publish a magazine. Do 

 you think that it would give material 

 for work with the pupils in my school?" 

 That inquiry in practically this form 

 has come to the editor from many 

 teachers personally and otherwise. It 

 is not altogether unselfishness that in- 

 duces teachers thus to think of their 

 children first. There are times when 

 one's self should come first. That is 

 particularly true of a knowledge and 

 love of nature. In this it is the 

 teacher's pesonality that counts most 

 of all. Why does not the average teacher 

 take the amateur naturalist's point of 

 view and say? "I hear that you are 

 publishing much material that will in- 

 struct and inspire me in a knowledge 

 and love of nature. I want the mag- 

 azine for that purpose." 



My dear teacher, you cannot give 

 much that you yourself do not possess. 

 To pass nature to children without 

 your own heart and personality is hand- 

 ing out so much dead wood. You 

 must be alive and growing with your 

 cambium layer in active development. 



Teachers inquire, "How many chil- 

 dren do you think I should take with 

 me on an outing in the woods?" My 

 reply is invariably, "You shoidd sev- 

 eral times practise going alone." If 

 the response is, "I do not care about 

 going into the woods : there is nothing 



