462 PEATTIE 



approach that gives it a frumpish look, which is a pity because many portions, 

 especially those dealing with the flora of the Alps, may still be read with 

 delight. 



The second great class of error is not, like the first, understandable, for it 

 is to deceive by exaggerations or by stating as observed fact that which in 

 fact no one has ever observed and which could not in the nature of things 

 possibly happen. Snake stories, fish stories, and sea monster stories are 

 sources of this unforgivable sort of error; in recent times, however, wolf 

 stories were the favorite of one very popular writer. 



Plants, being immobile, have not, in our times, lent themselves to much 

 nature-faking except for a few hoaxes such as the one in The Atlantic Monthly 

 about a quarter century ago about "blue dandelions," and the man-eating 

 plants of Florida — a myth which has now been removed for its own safety 

 to Madagascar. True, there were some whoppers told about plants in the 

 Middle Ages, but it may be questioned that the medieval herbalists always 

 had the intention to deceive the public with things they knew to be untrue. 

 They were but repeating the vulgar superstitions of the age, just as Johannnes 

 Kepler mingled his brilliant astronomy with astrological rubbish which he 

 believed along with everyone else. 



But if there are few nature-fakers in the botanical field today, neither are 

 too many writers practicing the popularization of our science. We would 

 be hard put to it to find the equal of entomology's Fabre, of ornithology's 

 Hudson, or marine biology's William Beebe. 



There is a considerable body of competent paraphrasing and simplification 

 of botanical information, but very little truly inspired popularizing. Let me 

 make the difference clear by example. Before me lies a little book on ferns 

 and their allies, written by a good scientist and illustrated with accurate but 

 unattractive outline drawings. It gives the habitats and ranges as well as 

 brief descriptions of about 100 species and will quickly lead a student to 

 their names, Latin and vernacular. As this is the chief aim of the little book, 

 one must judge it by its aims only and say that it is an adequate, competent 

 job — one more book among scores almost exactly like it on the same subject, 

 fern identification. It is, however, only a simplification of its science, not a 

 piece of creative popularization. It simply is not interesting except in so far 

 as the Pteridophytes are interesting — if you are already deeply versed in 

 them. The author makes no pretense at telling what he undoubtedly knows 

 about this fascinating phylum of plants. A far finer job of popularization in 

 this same line was done by Willard Clute in Our Ferns, Their Haunts, Habits 

 and Folklore (1938) illustrated by Ida Clute and William Stilson with a 

 beauty and freedom that is far more true to nature than the tight little 

 "correct" pictures in the book to which I have referred above. 



But for greater contrast, read Plants, Life and Man by Edgar Anderson 

 (1952). Anderson is as high an officer of the botanical fraternity as one 



