120 
not only. wrote several treatises on botany (long since lost), 
but he established (at Athens) the first real botanic garden of 
which we have any clear record; second, he was the teacher of 
Theophrastus, the director of that garden, author of the earliest 
known treatise on pure botany, and quite generally recognized 
by historians of the science as “the first of real botanists in 
point of time.” Thus, while Aristotle could hardly, by any mental 
stretch, be called a botanist, his services to that science, as stu- 
dent, as teacher, and as generous patron, seem clearly to render 
the choice of his name almost a matter of course. 
The above reference to Aristotle as the teacher of Theophras- 
tus, suggest the fact, too often overlooked in our own day, that 
the discovery of new facts and the publication of papers do not 
constitute a man’s only just claim to recognition or meritorious 
contribution to his science. The service of a stimulating teacher, 
inspiring others to scholarly effort, even though his own “ contri- 
butions” and publications may approach the vanishing point, may 
do more for the advancement of the science than the discovery 
of a new chromosome, or of a species “ new to science.” 
It was from such considerations as these that the name of 
Ghini was assigned a place. So far as we know, he never pub- 
lished anything, but about the middle of the sixteenth century 
students from all over Europe were flocking to him as the fore- 
most teacher of botany in the world. He inspired Cesalpino, 
credited by Green as having “created the epoch of modern bot- 
any.” Surely such service, if any, is entitled to recognition when- 
ever honor is done to botanists of past ages. 
It is from similar considerations that Schleiden’s name is en- 
titled to a place on the frieze, to which it was assigned by a large 
majority vote. “If,” says Sachs, “we were to estimate 
Schleiden’s merit only by the facts which he discovered, we should 
scarcely place him above the level of ordinarily good botanists ; 
. . . the most important of the theories which he proposed... 
have long since been set aside . . . his great merit as a botanist 
is due not to what he did as an original investigator, but to the 
impulse he gave to investigation . . . he created, so to speak, 
for the first time an audience for scientific botany capable of 
distinguishing scientific work from frivolous dilettanteism.” 
