THE AMERICAN BOTANIST 65 



do not change as they often (Id in modern languages. Thus 

 we may have stahiUty in meaning it we cannot have it in 

 nomeclature. 



When it comes to learning the names of plants, it may he 

 said that in l)otan\- as in other siu(He>. there is no roval road. 

 The ordinary road, however, ha^ heen greatly improved of 

 late. The had places have heen hridged hy various "how-to- 

 know" hooks and guides have heen set up that make it increas- 

 ingl\- difficult to miss the way. In any event the present gen- 

 eration lias man\- facilities for identifying plants that the 

 earl\- student did not possess. Peoj)le in middle life can re- 

 member the time when there were no botanical hooks intend- 

 ed expressly for beginners. In tho^e days digging out a .sci- 

 entific name from the technical works was a demonstration of 

 unusual intellectual ability. Nevertheless the study of botany 

 was particularly recommended to young ladies as not too tax- 

 ing to their minds. 



At present there are many ways of becoming acquinted 

 with the plants. One of the easiest is by associating with a 

 more learned comfjanion and obtaining a considerable educa- 

 tion "by absorption." Those who take up botany by them- 

 selves frequently get one of the popular handbooks that are 

 now so common and identify their specimens by color of the 

 fl(jwers or the place of growth. The great trouble with such 

 books is that they frequently omit the very species for which 

 we are looking. We trace it to its group, we encounter re- 

 latives that look much like it. we say "it must be here some- 

 where" — but it isn't. After a few such disappointments the 

 earnest student buys a real Manual and determines to master 

 the technical keys. With such a book, he knows that his 

 species is to be found if he has the ability to trace it. 



