STUDY OF BOTANY. 



has no professor of botany, and we know but one college in the United States wbich 

 has a separate professor for that study — the University of Cambridge, near Boston, 

 which has a botanic garden under the supervision of Prof. Gray, who is undoubtedly 

 the best botanist in this country. In the above statement we by no means include 

 the medical colleges, which unquestionably number several distinguished botanists 

 among their professors, but with them little or no knowledge of botany is required for 

 a degree. One great reason that botany is so little studied, is the want of competent 

 teachers, and because its knowledge is not required to get a degree — the great aim of 

 a large portion of students. Suppose the time required for Greek were given to 

 botany, and other branches of natural science, which would be the most useful, espe- 

 cially to any who ever visit the country or garden ? With a knowledge of botany, 

 the world will appear brighter and more beautiful. We would by no means banish 

 the study of Greek from our colleges. AVe have devoted many hours to its study, in 

 order to obtain a degree — not worth one cent. We can not now read a Greek work 

 without the aid of a dictionary, nor do we think that one out of every ten graduates 

 in the country can ; still, it is of great use in affording a better knowledge of the 

 English language, especially of scientific terms. But we think a knowledge of botany 

 to be worth more than all the dead languages. Then why should so much time be 

 given to their study, to the neglect of the things by which we are surrounded, and 

 among which we move and have our being. There are realities worth knowing; and 

 the better we are acquainted with them, the greater will be our fund from which to 

 derive happiness. 



[The natural sciences, botany included, have, up to this time, been surprisingly neg- 

 lected in the greater number of our educational institutions, and it is just the same 

 in Europe; the study of botan}' at schools is a mere sham. One student out of ten 

 thousand acquires a particular taste for the study — pursues it with the aid of books, 

 and becomes a botanist. We would not wish to be understood as expecting that 

 every school boy should be made a botanist, in the ordinary sense of that term; no 

 such thing. To be a botanist requires a life-long study. One great reason wliv so 

 few of those who study it at schools know really anything about it, is, that the teachers, 

 as a general thing, pursue a wrong course. They begin, and go along with their 

 pupils as if they were all aiming at being botanists. If, instead of this, they would 

 merely endeavor to impart some knowledge of vegetable physiology, and of the natural 

 distinguishing characteristics of the more important families of trees and plants, they 

 would very soon impress upon the mind of the student the value of some botanical 

 knowledge, and he would feel a greater inducement to follow it up and apply it. We 

 might say much on this subject, if we could spare the time and space; but the time 

 is evidently not distant when the education of the youth of the country will be 

 conducted on a very different plan from that which prevails at present. — Eu.J 



