Apbil 28, 1911] 



635 



can succeed in more than one of several 

 pursuits, so most men can succeed in bot- 

 any if they take hold of it seriously. Here 

 again we do not like to acknowledge the 

 truth of this statement; we think that we 

 are made of different kind of stuff. But I 

 do not believe it for a moment. I have no 

 doubt that some of us here might have been 

 millionaires if we had gone into business. 

 What I want to insist upon is this : that we 

 look at this matter squarely, and not try to 

 make out that we are a different kind of 

 people, and made out of different material. 

 We are not, and our business isn 't any dif- 

 ferent ; it isn 't any more sacred. We must 

 be candid in this matter and admit that our 

 profession hasn't anything sacred in it; 

 there is no sacred fire that must touch 

 every man before he can be a botanist. 

 There is nothing in this sentiment. As I 

 said before, botany is comparable to the 

 selling of shoes, or the running of a news- 

 paper. Botany is not extraordinarily dif- 

 ficult, and it does not require geniuses; 

 only just good ability and perseverance; 

 that's all. So men who might have been 

 botanists wiU continue to choose other vo- 

 cations, and some others will choose to be- 

 come botanists, and some of either will fail, 

 and some will succeed, just as is always the 

 case. Some men who might have become 

 brilliant botanists will become brilliant 

 business men instead. It has been said 

 that "botanists are bom and not made." 

 Maybe they are, but if so, they are born 

 with a multiplicity of other possibilities 

 also. 



Brethren, let us remember that we are 

 quite like other men, and that with us the 

 factor of remuneration cuts as great a fig- 

 ure as it does elsewhere in society, in the 

 selection of a vocation. 



Many of those to whom I wrote expressed 

 doubts as to the wisdom and effectiveness 

 of some of our teaching, and out of these 



doubts that have been passed along to me 

 I obtain these suggestions: 



There is some faulty elementary instruc- 

 tion; probably I should have said much 

 faulty instruction. Again, we do not be- 

 gin early enough in bending the human 

 twig in the right direction to make a good 

 botanist. There is a good deal of improper 

 presentation. We too often try to offer 

 "attractive" courses for the sake of draw- 

 ing students into our work. And this is 

 necessarily fatal to a scientific presentation. 

 Some of my correspondents suggest that 

 there are such persons as incompetent as- 

 sistants who supervise our laboratories, and 

 by their incompetence tend to drive away 

 some men. Further, it has been suggested 

 that probably there is nowadays too great 

 a neglect of field work. It used to be that 

 in vacation time the young botanist had 

 something to think about, and something to 

 do. He could go out in the woods on long 

 botanical trips. He can not do this to-day 

 if he is a mere laboratory man. He can not 

 conveniently carry his microscope along 

 with him. A vasculum is a great deal 

 easier to carry than is a microscope, and 

 far easier to handle. I think my corre- 

 spondent was right : we have lost something 

 of our hold on young men because we have 

 nothing to substitute for the old-time field 

 botany. You can not do laboratory work 

 in vacation. Of course you can go to sum- 

 mer school, and sit down by the side of a 

 lake and study some of the alg£e found 

 there, but even that doesn 't compare favor- 

 ably with the old-time tramping for miles 

 and miles through the woods and swamps, 

 with a vasculum slung over your shoulder. 



Some of my correspondents suggested 

 that there is too much narrow training now- 

 adays. I think this probably comes rather 

 close to some of us. We get hold of a 

 bright young fellow after he has had a half 

 year's work, or little more, and put him 



