488 cox AND BEHNKE 



vation, summation of results are learned equally well from specialization in 

 plant morphology as from specialization in plant biochemistry. 



We do suggest, however, that there has been, and perhaps still is, a 

 regrettable tendency to splinter-course offerings at this higher level, to 

 compartmentalize arbitrarily the study of botany into too many courses. The 

 departmental chairman is likely to feel that his department is not up to 

 snuff if it offers fewer courses than other universities of similar size and 

 stature. In our knowledge there is one institution that offers twenty-one 

 "catalogue" courses in the botany department. These courses cover the 

 entire field of botany. It is an impressive listing, especially when one con- 

 siders that this is a two-man department. 



Would it not be better to realign advanced undergraduate courses along 

 broader disciplinary lines? Could not a course in Parasitism be offered which 

 certainly would include much of the meat presently offered in courses in 

 virology, plant pathology, bacteriology, and mycology? Why should not 

 the basic underlying principles of plant physiology, nutrition, and bio- 

 chemistry be presented as a coordinated whole, rather than as three separate 

 courses? A rattling good course in General Vascular Plant Morphology might 

 well replace our university catalogue listings of pteridology, plant morphology, 

 anatomy, cytology, and the necessary accompanying course in microtechnique. 

 Taxonomy and systematics form a disciplinary unit whether applied to 

 Agrostology, Common Weeds, or the Local Flora of Upper Bathurst County. 



We are not here condemning graduate courses in these highly restricted 

 fields. They are obviously necessary to the training of a professional botanist 

 seeking an advanced degree. We are suggesting that a rearrangement of course 

 offerings along these or similar lines would be more attractive to students 

 at the advanced undergraduate level, and we make bold to say that they 

 might be more valuable from an educational and cultural standpoint. 



Is this the answer to the sad plight in which botanical education finds 

 itself today? Perhaps it is; perhaps it is not. The real answer, we suspect, will 

 come eventually as a result of many articles of this type. It will come from 

 unbiased, unemotional soul searching on the part of all botanists. Articles 

 such as this one should be encouraged to stimulate all of us into thinking 

 along many lines. Short notes, letters to the editor of various botanical publi- 

 cations, longer articles, books — in short, anything that will bring into the 

 botanical public domain the ideas all thoughtful botanists now are having 

 will be valuable. We submit that this soul searching is perhaps the most im- 

 portant single thing that botanists can do today. 



