1896] EDITORIAL 265 
THE MATTER of the director of the scientific work in the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture came before the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science at the Buffalo meeting. The 
proposition to create such an office received the warm 
endorsement of the Association, as it has of almost 
every body of men to whitch it has been presented. 
It is worthy of note that the action was vigorously advocated by the 
only chief of division in the department who was present at Buffalo, 
indicating that other divisions, if not the botanical ones, favor the plan. 
The open letter opposing the creation of this office is its own best 
answer. The writer acknowledges that the botanical divisions have, 
like Topsy, “jes’ growed.” Unfortunately the conditions did not— 
perhaps could not—conduce to symmetrical development and the 
gardener’s hand is needed to prevent lopsided, ragged, and unsightly 
forms. This does not mean that the vigorous plant is to be clipped 
into a geometrical figure, but that it is to be brought to the highest 
degree of natural symmetry. 
When it is so that one division cannot have opportunity to grow 
the plants it needs, though other divisions have abundant greenhouse 
facilities, it is quite evident that someone, with the same functions as" 
a college president, is required to coordinate—not to subordinate — 
the divisional work. How proper coordination could interfere with, 
instead of promoting, research and “practical” work, is difficult for us 
to understand. 
Scientific Chief 
