The following letter, received by the editor ne 
years ago from a correspondent in the east well illustrz 
disadvantages under which many of us have labored. 
ably explains why so little work is being done now in s 
sadly in need of botanical energy properly applied: oS 
“Yours to hand. I agree very fully with your views 
them. This is ihe only way to do things. Lately I have bee yes 
getting a series of photographs of my own taking of the rarer “Als rs 
and more interesting plants growing in their homes. Such 
photographs can de made to show many points of difference be- 
tween closely related species which are rather obscured in dried 
speciinens. 
It is as you say rather a tendency for a person to look at 
things according to his “bringing up,” at least for a time. 
Mine was unfortunate in a way, as my first botanical work was 
done in California, where my teacher was looked upon by me as 
the complete essence of knowledge, and everything she said was 
right—and such is often the case when one is fourteen years old. 
Accordingly when I first took up elementary botany at San 
Diego, California, I was fully disposed to accept the words of 
iny teacher as being final in all matters. At the time I used to 
range over territory which probably was not searched over bot- 
anically or ornithologically before nor since, going off with one 
or two boy companions for several days’ trip into the mountains. 
Sometimes as a result I would return with 30 or 4o plants, and 
after vain attempts to name them by my botany (Rattan’s Pop- 
ular California Flora) would take them to the teacher. The 
usual words which took place were about as follows on the 
teacher’s part: ‘Can’t you find these in the botany?’ ‘No.’ Study 
of the specimens and consulting the botany followed on the 
teacher’s part, with the usual ending by her saying: ‘They are 
not given in the botany. ‘They are not good for anything on 
