FAEMEES' INSTITUTES. 233 



Scholars claim that tliese names should be ia a language used by scholars all 

 over tlie world. Without doubt this is very convenient for scholars and very 

 necessary. I can see that if there were '^no t'wo wcajs^'' this would be the best 

 way. The cooperation of scientists speaking different languages would hardly 

 be possible without a common technical language. And there is no measuring 

 the importance of this cooperation. But, Prof. Agassiz, ''we, the people," want 

 to learn the results of your researches as well as the coterie of learned men to 

 whom they are so very interesting. And Prof. Cook, when you write in the 

 Farmer about insects, if it is a sow-bug you are describing, please say sow-lug. 

 After you have said sow-bug for the benefit of tlie masses, you may then, for 

 the benefit of the learned, say po7-cmsanamaUisamus, or some better word, if 

 you can find one, that it will trouble them less to learn the meaning of. 



Simply, then, for these schools, which are "of the people and for the people," 

 we want scientific text books in plain English, names and all. It would do no 

 harm to append in parenthesis the equivalent Latin or Greek Avord, but the 

 English name should stand first. It should have the place of honor. AVhen 

 allowed at all it has stood in brackets and small letters. It has been in dis- 

 grace long enough. Hirsufissimus (hairy). This is the arrangement on the 

 books, if hairy is given at all. Hairy (hirsutissimus). This is the arrange- 

 ment that the people want. A hairy dog, a hairy horse, a hairy plant, a superb 

 hybrid, not hyhriclus superius. 



A little honest, patriotic work is needed by good English scholars. The 

 man or men who will put the names of Gray's botany, Dana's geology, etc., 

 into good English, will command the high regard and love of all intelligent 

 English people. 



What is needed, then, are good schools, a universal attendance secured by 

 just as muciv compulsion as necessary, competent teachers and suitable text 

 books, good school-houses and pleasant surroundings. These s'ecured, every- 

 thing else necessary for the farmers is assured. The giving up of these insures 

 them degradation. 



DISCUSSION. 



Prof. Beal. — It is a mistake to suppose that only the sons of rich men attend 

 the University and Agricultural College. Many students in both, particularly 

 in the latter, are poor. 



Prof. Tracy. — I do not have as much faith in compulsory education as is 

 expressed in the paper read. I would advocate increasing the inducements to 

 attend school, as would be done by limiting the political franchise to those who 

 can read and write. 



Prof. Beal. — I believe compulsory education to be beneficial ; children do not 

 at first go to school from choice. 



Mr, A, D, Dunlap, — As I understand Mr. Curtis in the paper just read, he 

 does not advocate the compelling of the children to attend school, but compell- 

 ing the parents to send them, and that I believe to be right and beneficial. 



I believe in a thorough agricultural education. I came from the east with a 

 prejudice against agricultural colleges, but have no such prejudice now. Edu- 

 cation is too broad for a man to master everything. AVe need schools that teach 

 specialties, and if agriculture is to keep pace with other occupations we must 

 have schools to teach agriculture that farmers mxay be able to do the right thing 

 at the right time and know why they do it. I would like to see a higher edu- 

 cational qualification necessary for entering the Agricultural College, as it would 



