EDLEORIALS. 
As THE NUMBER of botanists in this country increases it is inevitable 
that they will cross each other’s paths more and more. Up to the 
present each worker, except in taxonomy, has been more 
Ae: ; or less independent, and what he has had to say regard- 
of rR OTB ing any given subject has been accepted by his fellows, 
for the time at least, as substantially correct. In taxon- 
omy, however, the number of workers has been greater; their views 
have conflicted, as from the very nature of the subject, they must ; and 
from the criticisms of each other’s work a considerable amount of cold- 
hess Or even aversion has been engendered. In Germany one sees 
this condition in its extreme development; scientific men refusing to 
speak to those who antagonize their views on controverted points, or 
‘ven absenting themselves from societies whose meetings are attended 
by the obnoxious opponent. : 
No ONE CaN believe that American botanists wish such a state of 
affairs to exist here. That being so, it will be well for each to exercise 
“aution in the matter of unfavorable criticism which he may be called 
"pon to make upon the work of his associates. It seems clear that not 
only the right but often the duty to pass such criticism must be main- 
tained. It becomes a question therefore of the manner and the stand- 
Point of criticism, As to manner, it is to be assumed that this will 
hot pass the bounds of courtesy in the future, as it has rarely done in 
the past. Past Sins in this respect have been chiefly in the standpoint 
Of the critic. 
ila tae this to be? The prime consideration in the CHECIE 
roved : i assumption that the investigator whose work is disap- 
te ne neither an ignoramus nor an imbecile. Of course either of 
A Sas a be proven, but the evidence must be very decisive if 
Who atte — believe. Is such an assumption ever possible ? see 
oppecnas ed the Toronto meeting of the British Association had the 
1898} iy hearing one distinguished mycologist make a charge 
129 
