October 13, 1916] 



SCIENCE 



519 



individual teacher. 1 For all these reasons, and 

 for others that might be enumerated, the aver- 

 age college teacher finds it much easier, and 

 on the whole more satisfactory to plan labo- 

 ratory exercises rather than field excursions. 

 The present paper is an earnest plea for a 

 larger recognition of field work as an integral 

 part of any course in general botany. The 

 field work should not usurp the place of legiti- 

 mate laboratory studies, but on the other hand 

 it should not be regarded, as it is generally re- 

 garded to-day, as a mere accessory, desirable 

 but inconvenient. Ganong's statement may be 

 appropriately quoted here: 



Very important too, are field excursions, the op- 

 portunity for which varies greatly. Theoretically, 

 it might seem better if most botanical study could 

 be done out of doors, but practically the greater 

 part of it demands tools and other facilities, in- 

 cluding physical comfort, unobtainable away from 

 a good laboratory. In the excursions the teacher 

 will of course direct attention to the larger phe- 

 nomena of adaptation, the topography or physiog- 

 nomy of the vegetation, the plant associations, etc. 

 This kind of study will become much easier and 

 more profitable in the near future as the subject 

 becomes more fully systematized, and good books 

 on it become accessible. It is especially important 

 not to allow too great a number of students to go 

 together on these excursions, and in my own ex- 

 perience not over ten can be profitably taken at 

 any one time. The collecting instinct, so invalu- 

 able to the naturalist, should at such times receive 

 every possible encouragement. 2 



Botany exists first of all out-of-doors, and 

 the college student should have thoroughgoing 

 training in field work as well as in the labo- 

 ratory, herbarium and library. The college 

 student, interested primarily in the large, sig- 

 nificant, dynamic aspects of the subject, rather 

 than in technical minutiss, should be deeply 

 imbued with the idea that he is working with 

 an out-of-door subject, and that a valuable and 



1 As an example of a recent text that does give 

 suggestions for field work, E. F. Andrews, "Prac- 

 tical Botany," American Book Co., 1911, may be 

 cited. Each of the ten chapters concludes with an 

 excellent concise and suggestive section on field 

 studies. 



2 Ganong, W. F., ' ' The Teaching Botanist, ' ' 

 Macmillan, 1899, pp. 64-65. 



essential part of the course is his own train- 

 ing in actual observation of live plants. 



A pedagogical mistake that characterizes 

 much botanic field work is the failure to place 

 sufficient emphasis upon the vital, ecologic as- 

 pects of the studies. As Trafton 8 states, 



The demand for the study of physiology and 

 ecology are protests against the old methods of 

 looking on plants as lifeless things to be analyzed, 

 classified, and laid away like minerals. It is in- 

 sisted that the student shall be taught to look on 

 plants as possessing life just as truly as do ani- 

 mals, and as having life problems to solve. 



All too easily may a trip become a mere 

 dilettante wandering, a grubbing up of plants, 

 a hasty confusion of botanic names, a rude 

 packing of specimens for herbarium or labo- 

 ratory purposes. The essence of field work is 

 to observe the plant in its environment, and to 

 reason scientifically from these observations. 

 As Adams 4 succinctly remarks, 



To learn how to study in the field, and not 

 simply to collect, is one of the most important 

 habits which a field naturalist and the ecologist 

 has to acquire. This is one which he must, to a 

 large degree, master alone, without the ready ac- 

 cess to assistance, as is usually the case in the 

 laboratory study. It is also a subject about which 

 it is difficult to give useful suggestions, other than 

 those of the most general character. 



The herbalistic or laboratory routine, no 

 matter how scientific and thoroughgoing, can 

 never be more than a weak and shadowy sub- 

 stitute for these fundamental studies of organ- 

 ism and environment. Botany is not primarily 

 in a room, it is out-of-doors; the workroom 

 with its equipment and library is an adjunct 

 to nature, and not the reverse. How often one 

 finds botany taught as though the field and 

 woodlands were merely a sort of glorified green- 

 house, from which a few " types " and " illus- 

 trative specimens " were to be culled. Some 

 teachers unconsciously create the impression 

 that the plant kingdom exists primarily for the 



3 Trafton, G. H., ' ' Comparison of Methods of 

 Teaching Botany," School Beview, Vol. 10, 1902 

 (Feb.), pp. 138-145. 



* Adams, C. C, ' ' Guide to the Study of Animal 

 Ecology," Macmillan, 1913, p. 37, Chap. 3, deals 

 with field study. 



