8 BOTANICAL GAZETTE. 



A Heply to Elliesby. — Editor of Botanical Gazette: My 

 genial critic Emesby, in your last issue, says '•'■Systematic Botany Nev- 

 ertheless" with which I am absolutely in accord, and in proof whereof 

 quote from my previously published paper on Modes of Teaching, these 

 words: ''Systematic botany must, if it represents a strictly natural 

 system, be founded on a nice appreciation of the entire organization, 

 the life history of the individual and its relation in past and pres- 

 ent time to allied plants. This, then, is the highest, all embracing trend 

 botanical thought can assume." Surely there is in that nothing but un- 

 qualified respect for systematic botany under whose aegis honored 

 leaders have established a glorious record for our country. 



Neither, my good Emesby, have I ventured to dream, much less 

 to suggest that a final system had been attained. I have told how 

 thorough a ''foundation" Torrey, Gray, En<ielmann and Watson have 

 laid, but the superstructure is another question. I can well admit 

 that systematic botany will boil and bubble into no one knows how 

 many changing forms before it comes to the crystalline condition with 

 its angles clear and sharp and its points absolutely fixed. There is 

 ample work for generations of systematists before the high ideal I 

 have above hinted at shall have been attained, 



Mr. Darwin was named not to encourage any one in the idea 

 that all could enter the harvest field and return with such a load of 

 sheaves as he, but to show what the productiveness of the field was. 



Now then, oh Emesby, friend, why did I write such radical 

 things in that somewhat pointed paper? First, to make those who 

 rest satisfied with the mere name dissatisfied and to lead them to a lit- 

 tle fuller study of the plant itself. Second, to protest might and 

 main against colleges that boast of their thorough teaching outfit al- 

 lowing a 6tudent to go away with the idea that our science had no 

 other side than the systematic. I have in a small way started that 

 "School of Botany," (and 1 wish the teacher were more worthy of the 

 kind words Emesby has written of him) and in it I start with micro- 

 scopic botany, urging that my pupils see for themselves, draw for 

 themselves and come to their own conclusions. After some months 

 in such mental drill, I shall introduce them to systematic botany with 

 the hope that their eyes will be the sharper and their reasoning power 

 the keener for the ordeal that they have passed. Thus I hope to lay 

 a foundation for a better knowledge of many plants and to beg effic- 

 iently for the "highest, all embracing trend botanical thought can as- 

 sume, i. e., Systematic Bctany. Very sincerely yours, 



J. T. Rothroi K. 



Tilt' Botanist in Arizona. — This territory is fast becoming the 

 favorite haunt of our more intrepid collectors, for its physical features, 

 w hile most forbidding so far as comfort is concerned, favor the growth 

 of very peculiar plants. The Lemmons, Pringle, Greene. Vasey, 

 Jones' 1 and James have all been there and nearly all have specimens of 

 the wonderful flora for sale. But when, amidst the comforts of our 

 herbaria, we revel in the riches their carefully prepared bundles bring 



