516 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. L. No. 1301 



tually distinct from one another, are so ar- 

 ranged that it is possible for tie student to 

 take them consecutively and practically as one 

 continuous course within a year. In the other 

 group, comprising 30 institutions, both the 

 elementary botany course and the elementary 

 zoology course extend through the entire year. 

 In three institutions both of these schemes are 

 in effect. While it is not the intention of the 

 writer to express his personal views regarding 

 the relative merits of these two schemes, the 

 expressions of opinion elicited from botanists 

 and zoologists at the various institutions where 

 the respective plans are actually in operation, 

 if not conclusive, are certainly suggestive. 

 , In institutions where both elementary bot- 

 any and elementary zoology are half-year 

 courses, consecutively arranged, so that the 

 student can take both vrithin a year and prac- 

 tically as one continuous course, essentially the 

 only objections offered are that in some places 

 it is possible for the student to take one course, 

 but not the other. Assuming, however, that a 

 year's work is required (as of course it would 

 be by either alternative arrangement) the con- 

 sensus of opinion is as follows. This arrange- 

 ment produces results satisfactory to both 

 botanists and zoologists (botanists, 25 :1 ; zool- 

 ogists, 9:0). It possesses no serious disadvan- 

 tages (botanists, 25:2; zoologists, 10:0). It is 

 a satisfactory arrangement, both for the stu- 

 dent who contemplates further work along 

 biological lines (botanists, 25 :1 ; zoologists, 

 10:0) and for the student who plans to go no 

 further (botanists, 20:4; zoologists, Y.l). 

 I In institutions where both elementary bot- 

 any and elementary zoology are full-year 

 courses, wholly independent of one another, 

 the consensus of opinion is as follows. It pro- 

 duces results satisfactory to both botanists and 

 zoologists (botanists, 27:3; zoologists, 16:6). 

 According to the majority of botanists (20:8) 

 it has no serious disadvantages; but the zool- 

 ogists, by a small majority (12:9), are of the 

 opposite opinion. According to the majority 

 of both botanists (21 :4) and zoologists (13 :5) 

 it is a satisfactory arrangement for students 

 who plan further work in the biological sci- 

 ences; but according to the majority of the 



both botanists (16 :13) and zoologists (12 :7) it 

 does not constitute a satisfactory arrangement 

 for the student who contemplates no further 

 work along biological lines. 



The arguments in favor of consecutive half- 

 year courses in botany and zoology are self- 

 evident. This arrangement gives students 

 who will go no further some knowledge of the 

 facts, principles and problems in 'both fields 

 of biology, and at the same time it constitutes 

 a satisfactory introduction to further work in 

 either botany or zoology. Whether and to 

 what extent it should be attempted to coordi- 

 nate the two is a question concerning which 

 opinions seem to vary, and in all probability 

 this should be determined in large measure by 

 local conditions. There is little question, how- 

 ever, that if properly coordinated these two 

 courses will accomplish everything which can 

 reasonably be expected of the general biology 

 course, but with the objectionable features 

 of that course eliminated. Advocates of the 

 full-year elementary botany and zoology 

 courses are of the opinion that a half year is 

 not sufficient time for an elementary course 

 in either botany or zoology; that botany and 

 zoology, like chemistry and physics, should be 

 treated as separate sciences; and that the stu- 

 dent in either course obtains an introduction 

 to the fundamental biological principles, 

 methods, and facts. The chief objection to 

 this scheme is obvious. The student who is 

 going on with botany or zoology loses the ad- 

 vantage of an early introduction to both sci- 

 ences, while the student who takes only one 

 year of biological science loses entirely either 

 one phase or the other. 



But the object of this paper is not to recom- 

 mend any specific arrangement of elementary 

 courses in botany and zoology. It is not to 

 settle questions as to the subject-matter of ele- 

 mentary courses in either subject. The pri- 

 mary purpose of this article is to urge, in the 

 interest of the students, teachers, and depart- 

 ments concerned, and in the interest of the 

 biological sciences themselves, that, in elemen- 

 tary courses, botany should be taught as hot- 

 any and zoology as zoology. The general biol- 



