DPeN LETTERS. 
BOTANICAL WORK OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
To the Editors of the Botanical Gazette :—In the editorial pages of a 
recent number of the GAZETTE, attention is called to the botanical investi- 
gations of the Department of Agriculture, the statement being made that 
under the present arrangement there is a dissipation of energy and a dupli- 
cation of work, which would be overcome by combining the divisions of 
botany, forestry, agrostology, and vegetable physiology and pathology. I 
feel sure the writer of the article in question is not fully conversant with all 
the facts in the case, else he would see that such a plan as proposed would 
be a most decided step backward. 
Strictly speaking, the work of the divisions mentioned is for the most patt 
botanical. They all deal with plants, and botany is the science of plants, 
both wild and cultivated. If we accept this definition we might include the 
branches of the department engaged in horticultural work, for horticulture 
has for its very foundation botany pure and simple. These branches, how: 
ever, may be omitted from the discussion, and on the ground that bo 
jentiic 
case as in the other. The men engaged in the forestry work, for exam, 
are authorities in their line and are recognized everywhere as such by ee 
scientific and practical men. They are not supposed to know any MY” 
about vegetable pathology than they do about entomology, chemistry, sed a 
of the kindred sciences. Vegetable pathology, on the other hand, as ent 
has nothing more in common with forestry than it has with agriculture * 
horticulture, using these terms in their broadest sense. 
very botanist in the country is aware that the division of boa 
does not cover the whole field of botany, and doubtless, as the editor 
should be rechristened, to indicate more definitely the scope of its WOT 
the past this has largely been a systematic study of our flora, and jopPrEoeh 
266 
prope 
says, It 
In 
