THE STUDY OF THE DANDELION. 9 



Third. We may learn, if we actually study the 

 dandelion itself with care, and not merely read or 

 hear about it, to develop our powers of observa- 

 tion. 



Fourth. If we endeavor to speak about what we have 

 observed, and are not content with repeating what others 

 have told, we may learn, and particularly if we use tech- 

 nical terms, to express more clearly, exactly, and con- 

 cisely what we . have to say. 



Theoretically, we can study the dandelion as an iso- 

 lated thing. Practically, the youngest child in the 

 kindergarten cannot avoid comparing the dandelion with 

 other things he has seen ; in fact, the same habit of com- 

 paring everything we see goes on continually through- 

 out life. Assuming, therefore, that we have learned to 

 recognize the dandelion as a plant, as distinguished 

 from animals and minerals, and to associate it with other 

 plants having flowers, we may begin to make suggestive 

 comparisons. 



Let us first select the buttercup for comparison with 

 the dandelion. The two are alike in having roots, leaves, 

 and flowers, but are unlike in the form and arrange- 

 ment of these parts. Instead of one strong tap-root, 

 such as the dandelion has (see Fig. 1), the buttercup 

 has many rather slender roots, starting from the lower 

 end of the stem (see Fig. 4). Its roots are multiple 

 and fibrous. It has a distinct stem, to which many of 

 the leaves are attached. This stem is cylindrical, and 

 a careful study of a cross-section shows its structure to 



