THE AMERICAN BOTANIST • 35 



plants in his head and some conception of what the structures 

 are used for. The student may hold still while you lecture 

 him about heterocysts, gametophytes, chromatophores, anthe- 

 ridia and gametangia, but he listens in a bored way, heaves a 

 sigh of relief when it is over and next day forgets it all — well 

 he forgets it the next day after the "test" is passed, anyway 

 and sometimes before. As a general thing, the teacher talks 

 too much. What he is trying to get his class to see is all so 

 very plain to him and it is so much easier to tell them all 

 about it than it is to induce them to see it for themselves that 

 he talks and lectures and explains forever, working his wits 

 and jaws when the pupils ouht to be working theirs — that is, 

 their wits ! Why, some of us are getting to the point where 

 we actually prefer lantern slides, pickled specimens, pictures 

 in the books and prepared microscope slides to fresh material. 

 You see these prepared specimens are sure to come out right 

 but fresh material ! — it is likely to do something, or show 

 something, that is not in the books and then where in the 

 world would we be at ? Brass Tacks says there is one best 

 way of beginning botany, whether in fall, spring, the middle 

 of winter or during vacation, but if he knows he declines to 

 commit himself and we seriously doubt if he does know. 

 But isn't it worth pondering? Are there not certain things 

 about plants that ought to be in the heads of young students 

 before we attempt to put in anything else botanical? Or 

 doesn't it make any difference? Do our courses in botany 

 permanently interest the students in plants, or do they come 

 to like everything about plants except botany? Can we teach 

 botany so that it will stimulate interest or is the proposition 

 hopeless? Can interest be stimulated without contact with 

 living plants? We pause for reply. 



