1887. | BOTANICAL. GAZETTE, 87 
Lack of time permitted only a cursory inspection of these s*veral 
centers of botanical activity, a glance into the plant houses at the Agricul- 
tural Department, and a sight of the Botanic Garden from the distance; 
and it may. be that other botanical attractions in the city were entirely 
overlooked. Enough, however, was seen to make it clear that Washing- 
ton contains many elements of botanical interest, and that valuable botan- 
ical work is being done there, directed by a coterie of genial botanists. 
Let fellow scientists pay the city a visit whenever convenient to do so, and 
they will be amply rewarded.—J. C. A. 
EDITORIAL. 
THE TWO EXTREMES of botanical teaching are frequently referred to. 
They may be called the ancient and the modern, and neither alone is 
productive of the best results. The subject is a much discussed one, but 
is never decided, the chief result being a settling down to some interme- 
diate position which is likely to be the right one. When two methods of 
teaching have their acknowledged advantages, and when the only disad- 
vantage of either is that it lacks the other, it would seem that the best 
method would be to combine the two, and thus obtain all the advantage 
and eliminate all the disadvantage. The ancient method gives a wide 
range of acquaintance with external forms, a general knowledge of the 
plant kingdom and its affinities, a living interest in the surrounding flora ; 
but it disregards the underlying morphology of minute structures and 
chemical processes, the great principles which bring plant life into one 
organic whole. The modern method, on the contrary, takes a few types, 
carefully examines their minutest structures and life work, and grounds 
well in general biological principles; but it loses the relation of things, 
as well as any knowledge of the display of the plant kingdom in its end- 
less diversity, and worse than all for the naturalist, cultivates no love for 
@ flora at hand and inviting attention. The former is the method of the 
field, the latter of the laboratory. The wise teacher will adopt both meth- 
ods and thus avoid the greatest disadvantage of either. The most natural 
way of combining the two seems to be to begin with the old method, an 
unrivalled one in awakening enthusiastic interest and kindling the nat- 
uralists’ fire, and then to lead to the other. What naturalist has not be- 
un with the fever for collecting? And to what more natural impuise 
im the young can appeal be made? Theoretically, the science of botany 
may be said to best begin with the study of protoplasm or Protococcus, 
but the natural order of the human mind in approaching the subject may 
be different. We venture to make the assertion that no competent 
teacher of botany is ever satisfied with the results from using one method 
