PREFACE 



The roots of botanical inquity reach back into the misty past. The first human 

 being was probably surrounded on all sides by vegetation of one sort or another 

 and no formal education was involved in his trial and error methods of ascertain- 

 ing which plants were suitable for food, which were unpalatable, and which were 

 definitely poisonous. The second generation of mankind profited to the extent 

 that the parents were available as teachers. Life has thus proceeded, learners be- 

 coming teachers. At some point in Man's histor)^ the teaching profession be- 

 came established, partly as a means of making a livelihood and partly as a 

 method of satisfying an urge to open up the wonders of the universe to the un- 

 initiated. 



Botanical instruction has been given to millions of students during the course 

 of hundreds of years. Many of these students have responded to the "call" and 

 have carried the torch of learning fonvard by becoming great teachers or by mak- 

 ing significant contributions to knowledge or by doing both. 



For the most part, the emphasis in botanical instruction has been on straight 

 factual matter. In the last one hundred years or so the pace of factual accumula- 

 tion has gradually accelerated to the point where each teacher begins to know 

 "more and more about less and less." The sum total of knowledge is so great 

 that more careful selection has to be made in the classroom. Much important 

 material has to be omitted or passed over hurriedly. In some schools only really 

 important "blocks" of knowledge are considered, with the "gaps" bridged over 

 by a few well-chosen words. 



In the general botany course, we also have to consider what type of students 

 we are teaching and ask ourselves— why are they taking botany? William James 

 once said "The natural enemy of any subject is the professor thereof." Judging 

 by the course content of many freshman botany courses, it seems apparent that 

 teachers have assumed that the course in question must lay a fundamental back- 

 ground for the more advanced courses. Many botanical philosophers have 

 pointed out the error of this thinking. C. Stuart Gager pointed out that the first 

 course will be the last course for most students. Barzun, in a study of large fresh- 

 man enrollments in midwestern colleges, showed that 50 per cent of those tak- 

 ing Chemistr)' I, 60 per cent of those taking Gcolog\' I, 73 per cent of those 

 taking Phvsics I, 75 per cent of those taking Biolog>' I, and 82 per cent of those 



