1889.] BOTANICAL GAZETTE. 315 



unwise —which is not surprising. It will consequently not be amiss to 

 make our position clear. 



It is certainly true that two main lines of botanical work were con- 

 templated for the stations. One important feature is to be original re- 

 search; the other, of equal importance, is the diffusion of knowledge 

 among the practical gardeners, florists, nurserymen and farmers. The 

 latter end may be accomplished by the publication of rlsumls of knowl- 

 edge in particular lines. In the selection of the topics, good judgment is 

 essential, if the publications are to meet with the favor of those who are 

 to be benefited. Undoubtedly there are thousands of facts already known 

 to physiologists which would be of interest and advantage to agricultur- 

 ists to know. Once this is adequately done for any one subject the field 

 will open for the carrying out of the original research which is contem- 

 plated. For no one can make a thorough study of a subject without find- 

 ing out directions in which knowledge can be advanced. How many 

 suggestions will be received and how fruitful in original work these will 

 be will depend altogether upon the acuteness and skill of the individual 

 If our position so far is correct, it will be seen to necessitate the study of 

 botanical literature, a point which we have insisted upon so often that it 



would be tiresome to say more. 



But we must strongly insist that common honesty demand the sep- 

 aration of bulletins of information from bulletins of research. The lat- 

 ter, however, to be complete, must contain a statement of the previous 

 knowledge, and these parts must be distinctly eredi ted to their sources. It 

 is hardly fair to conduct a series of experiments on ground that has al- 

 ready been covered by some foreign investigation and then to publish 

 these as though the matter was new and the ideas originated with the 

 last experimenter. But, it is urged, though the experiments have been 

 conducted in another country, they are of little value because the plants 

 and conditions are not identical with those of this country. Granted, for 

 the sake of the argument ; does it follow that when the experimenter pub- 

 lishes his results he should omit to state that the ground has already been 

 traversed under such and such conditions, and to point out wherein the 

 later experiments differ from the earlier ones ? And if the experiments 

 give the same results and point to the same condusums, of what possible use 

 is it to waste space and time in publishing the details ? 



If this publication of unimportant details continues with no refer- 

 ence to earlier literature, it will deepen the reproach of American botan- 

 ical work, and will confirm the neglect with which it has to contend. 

 Further, such work is open to the suspicion, whether true or not that 

 the failure to give due credit to other observers is prompted by a d< 

 for the glory which of right belongs to others. 



re 



