EDITORIAL. 405 



investigation, and something to build onto. There -would be no 

 further excuse for working around in circles. Such a treatise would 

 illustrate the meaning of investigation, and open up a vast number 

 of subjects for study. It would help greatly in organizing the sub- 

 ject, and aid in formulating the practical problems in their scientific 

 aspects. 



The prejjaration of such a manual would prepare the way for a 

 classification of horticulture from a scientific standpoint. It would 

 furnish a basis for horticultural science, and would in fact be the 

 beginning of that science. Science as applied to any subject is 

 knowledge verified and arranged in an orderly system, and the office 

 of science is the study of the sequence of phenomena. This, then, is 

 the office of horticultural science — to bring together scientific knowl- 

 edge as it relates to that subject and arrange it in an orderly system, 

 and to study the sequence of phenomena in horticulture. 



The i^aper by Prof. L. H. Bailey, on The Field of Research in 

 Horticulture, w^as a definition of the kind of work needed to develop 

 the fundamentals of horticulture, the kind of men required to carry 

 on such work, and the need for reorganization. It was a frank 

 setting forth of the manner in which horticulture as a subject is 

 lagging behind, both in teaching and investigation. 



Professor Bailey explained that the practices of the present day 

 have grown up in a sort of haphazard and indefinite w^ay. They 

 are in large measure founded on shrewd guesses. Because they have 

 served us very well so far there is no reason to expect them to con- 

 tinue to meet our needs. " Research in horticulture is as much to 

 be furthered as is research in anj^hing else. . . . There really can 

 be no worthwhile horticulture unless it be founded on original scien- 

 tific investigation." 



The definition given of research was clear and explicit. It was 

 characterized as " a competent effort by a competent person to dis- 

 cover principles and facts that are underlying in one year as well as 

 in another, and that do not grow old and out of date, in distinction 

 from the making of tests and the reelaboration of present knowledge." 



Citing an illustration from horticulture of this distinction he said : 

 " To determine what varieties of apricots are best adapted to a region 

 may be one of the most useful undertakings, but it is of temporary 

 value and a new test should be made every five or ten years. To de- 

 scribe the varieties of apricots is of the same order. If, however, 

 one were to inquire for the principles that control the variation of 

 apricots, or that determine the limitations of varieties, or that under- 

 lie the physiological processes in apricot growing, or that explain the 



