Botanical Gazette. 



Vol. V. MAY, 1880. No. 5. 



Editorial. — It is proposed to make our monthly editorials a col- 

 lection of odds and ends, rather than a short article upon some spec- 

 ial subject. 



The season has come when hard worked botanists are planning for 

 a summer's campaign. One ot the most profitable ways of spending 

 the time is to attend a summer school of botany. One who has nev- 

 er attended such a place cannot appreciate the pleasure connecf^d 

 with the work there. Persons are met with whose tastes are congen- 

 ial, who can appreciate a devotion to a well loved science without the 

 usual selfish query, "What is it good for ?" Fine instruments, a pro- 

 fusion of material, and masterly lectures, make the time pass most 

 delightfully, and the result is a more thorough knowledge of the 

 science of botany than can be gained by half a dozen seasons of ordi- 

 nary botanical work. The expense of such a summer is exceedingly 

 small, not being half what is so often spent in an aimless jaunting 

 through the country. The editors ot the Gazette have no axe to 

 grind, but it information as to the methods or expenses in such 

 schools is desired, we will cheerfully give it. 



It was a bad slip, on the first line of p. 27, to give the width of the 

 fruit of a Leavemvorthia as '■'■ttcw inches," when only four lines long. 

 The grossness of the mistake will suggest the correction of inches to 

 lines. 



A correspondent refers us to a statement on p. 24, that "all Cruci- 

 fers have powdery pollen," also to the general statement of the books 

 that wind-fertilized flowers have dry powdery pollen, and then wants to 

 know why all cruciferous flowers may not be as readily wind-fer- 

 tilized as Fringlea, and why they need to be entomophilous, since they 

 all have powdery pollen. He should note the difference between 

 "powdery pollen," such as that of the majority of flowers, CrucifercB 

 among the rest, and "dry powdery pollen," with light and perfectly 

 incoherent grains, such as that of amentaceous trees, etc., which are 

 particularly adapted to be wafted by the wind. We cannot here turn 

 to it, but we suppose the original statement about Fringlea was that it 

 was peculiar in having this dry powdery pollen, and thus had an adap- 

 tation for wind-fertilization correlated with the abortion of its petals. 

 This seems to solve the riddle propounded. It may be noticed that 

 the article on p. 12, with which all this imbroglio began, speaks 

 merely of "powdery pollen," and therefore the writer on p. 24 rightly 

 remarked that this was true of all Crucifers. Let us hope that at 

 length we have come to the end of the explanation required by the 

 unfortunate article about Prindea. 



o 



