DOES THE BOTANIZER NEED A MICROSCOPE? 



BY A. E. WARREN. 



IS a compound miscroscope worth its cost to an amateur botan- 

 ist? Not being an oracle my only way of tackling- the prob- 

 lem is by the light of limited personal experience. Of course 

 everybody knows the miscroscope must be used in studying the 

 lower crytogams and in general plant histology, but this talk is 

 to the ordinary botanizer who confines his attention to pickable 

 posies. Let us hypothetically classify a plant in which the es- 

 sential floral organs are barely discernible to the eye. 

 The lazy way to analyze (?) in an obscure case is to look for 

 its picture ( !) But illustrated popular books don't bother 

 with inconspicuous flowers; they deal with the more showy 

 blossoms. Consequently whether we are lazy or industrious 

 we must depend on our own abilities. 



Now we all know how very hard it is to be absolutely ac- 

 curate in our early observations under such conditions. It is 

 so very easy to 'guess' — but guessing is an unpardonable 

 scientific sin. The use of a hand magnifier helps us along to 

 some extent. The same magnifier mounted over a dissecting 

 stand having hand-rests at the side is another step in the right 

 direction. With these facilities a surprising amount of detail 

 may be made out by a patient observer. But again a limit is 

 reached. With important structural details still just beyond 

 our powers of discernment the danger of guess-work is again 

 at hand. 



Suppose we now have access to a low power compound 

 microscope. The tiny ovules suddenly enlarge into maiwelous 

 little translucent globes filled with changing lights. Details of 

 placentae are no longer obscure. Pollen grains are little pearls 

 covered with intricate tracing of dainty design. Growing 

 pollen tubes may be seen pushing on their wonderful way. 



104 



