256 



TRANSACTIONS OF THE NORTHERN 



brown thrush he defended. All birds were native, and it was unjust, he argued, that 

 we upstarts in their midst should expel them from their home. 



Considerable punning and sharp shoooting followed, when the subject was dropped 

 for the time. 



H. H. McAfee, of Freeport, read an essay on "How to Popularize Botany. " 



REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON BOTANY — IIOW MAY IT BE POPULARIZED? BY' HENRY H. M'AFEE. 



That a science which embraces SO much which pertains to man's well-being as does botany— the 

 systematized knowledge of the whole vegetable kingdom— should be so far removed from the mind 

 ol the masses of mankind as it is may seem strange to us, upon a cursory view; and yet there are 

 cogent reasons why such general ignorance prevails. To call attention to this general neglect of the 

 science of botany, to assign reasons for such neglect, and to suggest some means of popularizing so 

 useful a study, will be the scope of this report. 



The unpopularity of botany iu schools, and among scholars everywhere, is well known. Occa- 

 sionally little classes of romantic uiisscs are org.iuized aud drilled during the spring and summer 

 terms of school, and a few showy flowers are analyzed; aud Just enough Is learned to be forgotten 

 without mucli effort. The profounder depths of vegetable physiology are not invaded by the 

 amiable young ladies. Perhaps the language of flowers is studied, but rarely the mysteries of 

 osmose, or the greater wonders of fertilization and embryonic growth. Such casual skimming over 

 the surface of science is generally the extent of the progress of the botany classes iu our schools, 

 unless the prospect of a too rigid examination drive the unwilling student a little farther into the 

 merits of his or her study. But few students really study botany in school: in truth, most of the 

 botanists are made such bj' self-culture, after the school days are over, and when the desire to 

 penetrate the mysteries of creation becomes a motive power in the soul. 



To the^ grasping, yearning intellect, never satisfied or satiated witli Nature's lessons, a science, 

 however, hedged about with aiffioulfies, will not long be an obstacle to progress; it will be mastered 

 in time; but put a few long, hard names, and a little intricate reasoning before the sluggish, 

 unwilling student, and you have effectuallj' fenced him out of the "green pastures. " 



Why is botany unpopularV Why do not the people know botany— the people who grow the grains, 

 the grasses, and the fruits'? 



I answer, ijrimarily because of defects In the arrangement of the science as now presented to 

 the student; and, secondarilj', because of the general faultiuess of our present system of primary 

 education, which crams tlie immature mind with dry masses of alistractions during all the first 

 years of school life; crowding the natural sciences out of the primary school entirely, and making 

 them "high school " studies. 



As a rule, every technicality in anj- science or art is a direct bar to the acquisition of knowledge; 

 and, indeed, it is a fact, that a large share of the technical terms used in the arts, and also in the 

 sciences, were invented and applied for the express purpose of concealing material facts from the 

 masses, and making the acquisition of knowledge diflicult, thus securing to experts and scientists a 

 sort of royalty . In botany this masking of meanings by the use of unfamiliar technicalities has been 

 carried to a great extent, because there is so much of forsn and structure to treat of that descriptive 

 terms accumulate , aud form a great part of the bulk of the science. Without a glossary or technical 

 dictionary, no student, not a classical scholar, could master botany at all; and the direct tax upon 

 the perceptive faculties imposed by this mass of new terms is the means of driving off all but the 

 most persevering..students. Common people, boasting only of common sense, can hardly see why 

 "aculeate" is better than "prickly," or why "adsurgenf is better than "ascending," or 

 " alabastrum " better tliau " flower buds. " 



To say that tliese technicalities are derived from the classical languages is no excuse for such 

 excrescences upon a most useful science; and the botanical author in the coming future who will 

 have the courage to eliminate as much of this trash from his pages as has been introduced in the 

 interest of exclusiveness aud pedantry, will well deserve the thanks of all the thoughful people. I 

 know that the claim of a more perfect description is made for the present system, but if the defini- 

 tions are true, and they are much shorter, easier, and more consonant with the common language 

 of the people, there remains no vestige of a reason for using the technicality. 



To popularize botany, then, tlie first step must be to rid it as much as possible of all the unfamiliar, 

 unnecessary technical teruis whicli it is possible to dispense with, aud even then in tlie nomencla- 

 ture (which, of course, could not be changed) we would have enough to task the memory. When 

 this is accomplished, and when the primary education of our schools shall be made up of facts 

 relating to material tilings, and deductions from tangible data; when the young undeveloped mind 

 is strengthened and developed by feeding upon the pabulum of nature, not dwarfed, as now, by the 

 abstract sciences— then will botany be a popular science. 



