A I (DRESS OF WKLCOMK. 73 



identified necessarily with ihe acciuireinent of irutli, and so to welcome 

 it to any part of the University is to aslc it to partake further of that 

 upon which it already knows or depends and thai is upon knowledge and 

 upon the search for new truth. 



Now, botany and horticulture stand in close relationship, and so 

 anyone ideutifipc! with botanical work feels that he is welcoming, in a 

 measure, an older brother, when a botanist stands before a gathering 

 of horticulturists and extends the glad hand. In fact, they are now 

 becoming so closely identified that they have reached the stage where 

 they may be called twin brothers, so that when you start out to separate 

 them them you will find it a very serious problem. On one hand we 

 find the botanist doing nothing but horticultural work; on the other 

 hand we have a number of horticulturists doing botanical work. The 

 point of view has changed largely. What satisfied the botanist twenty- 

 five years ago would not be satisfactory at the present time; what sat- 

 isfied the horticulturist twenty-five years ago would be of no value today, 

 at least unsatisfactory. It is not broad enough. Botany of old itself 

 named plants; someone has said they hunted plants very much as you 

 might hunt rabbits. For example, you might chase it into a hole and 

 then photograph the hole. Botany chased plants into names and then 

 went away with the names, and I presume you have seen fellows come 

 back from the University and throw names around indiscriminately 

 and you would think his knowledge was very profound. Of old, botany 

 distinguished new aames of a very tew plants, but botany has grown 

 from the study of names to the study of the behavior of plants; the 

 mere name doesn't imply anything. You may introduce Jones to Smith 

 and not know either one— in fact, you may not care to know them — you 

 simply sic Jones on Smith and assume no responsibility, you know 

 their names, so possession of a name does not necessarily imply pos- 

 session of any knowledge. To know the names of 100, 200, 2,000, or 5,000 

 plants does not necessarily imply any knowledge of botany at all today. 

 So horticulture has also grown side by side with botany. Some 

 thought it was making progress slowly, perhaps traveling on several 

 roads at the same time rather than moving in one direction, but it 

 has made great progress. I can remember very distinctly of succeeding, 

 in a measure, to a chair that had been held by a professor of horticul- 

 ture. This professor had all his trees tagged with nails on which he 

 hung horseshoes, because he was convinced that was an easy method to 

 supply iron to build up the constitution of those trees. There was 

 another professor of horticulture found later who had tied sacks of 

 fertilizer around the trunks of the trees because he wanted to keep 

 it where it would do the mcst good. He wanted to get it right in the 

 middle of things — to save time, in other words. 



Then there are horticulturists who think or consider that they have 

 done their duty when they had planted a few hundred kinds of vege- 

 tables and watched them grow one summer and see that they are 

 gathered and stored away waiting to measure them and thinking they 



