January 20, 1899.] 



SCIENCE. 



97 



under the direct control of teachers educa- 

 ted thoroughly and in the modern spirit, 

 that is, in the elementary courses in many 

 of the smaller colleges and in most high 

 schools, there are questions and problems 

 enough. Just here lies the center of dis- 

 cussion, effort and advance in methods of 

 botanical teaching at the present time. Be- 

 low the high schools, in primary and gi-am- 

 mar grades, where systematic courses in the 

 sciences are wisely not attempted, but a 

 foundation is laid for them in continuous 

 and thorough courses of ' Nature Study,' 

 there are problems, too, but of a simpler 

 sort, whose solution will follow upon the 

 solution of those of the high school. Just 

 as university teaching has elevated col- 

 lege teaching, both through example and 

 through training teachers for it, just as in 

 the same manner it is college teaching to- 

 day that is elevating high-school teaching, 

 so in the future will good high-school teach- 

 ing improve that of the lower grades. 



In describing the qualitj' of most elemen- 

 tai'y botanical teaching I would not call it 

 bad, but simply insufficient. It is not true 

 that it commonly teaches error, or is useless 

 as training, but it is true that it is far be- 

 hind and unrepresentative of the present 

 state of the science. This backwardness is 

 illustrated in many ways, of which I shall 

 mention but two. First, it is, as a stud}', 

 low in public opinion, good public opinion, 

 which regards it as sj'nonymous with the 

 study of the names of flowers, and hence as 

 a discipline peculiarly fitted to the minds of 

 school girls, or as an appropriate hobby for 

 elderly persons of leisure. Second, it has 

 stood low in the estimation of many univer- 

 sity and college authorities, as shown by 

 their frequent neglect to provide for its 

 proper teaching, while amply providing for 

 the sister science zoology, and some of the 

 leading universities have not considered it 

 as of particular value as an element in 

 training in biology. It must be confessed 



that these opinions are in the main just. 

 Botany, as tauglit, has been too much the 

 study of the names of flowers, and it has 

 had very little to contribute of value for 

 biological training. The reason for this 

 backwardness is plain enough and most in- 

 structive — it is the result of an almost ex- 

 clusive cultivation of a single phase of the 

 science, entailing an abortion of other phases 

 and an inability of the whole to respond 

 elastically to the science as it broadens. 

 This one phase has been classification of the 

 higher plants, a phase determined bj' ihe 

 overpowering influence of Dr. Gray, who for 

 two generations towered so far above all 

 other leaders of botany in America as to set 

 his work as the standard, both for investiga- 

 tors and teachers. Systematic work in- 

 volves an extreme attention to terminology 

 and a concentration upon the statical as- 

 pects of plant structure. In the hands of 

 poorly trained or overworked teachers it 

 has run much to the filling-out of blanks, 

 collection of herbaria and memorizing of 

 lists of terms, thus becoming educationally 

 little better than a sj'stem of mnemonics, 

 or the working-out of mechanical puzzles. 

 This sort of thing is not necessarilj' bad, 

 but it is woefully uneconomical, one-sided, 

 and neglectful of those other phases of the 

 science that are attractive, useful and illumi- 

 nating as knowledge, and rich in breadth 

 and sympathy as training. 



But these conditions have recent)}' begun 

 to change, and to-day are improving with 

 a rapidity not realized outside of a few 

 centers. The movement is with the ex- 

 panding science, especially towards the 

 study of the plant alive and in action. Its 

 best evidence is to be found in the most re- 

 cent elementary text-books, of which a 

 large number, of increasing excellence, have 

 appeared in the past two or three years. A 

 comparison of the works, but a few weeks 

 old, of Barnes or of Atkinson, with the best 

 works of five years ago will show how rapid, 



