Apkil 28, 1911] 



SCIENCE 



639 



as I have mapped it out, is very much more 

 than many of us had when we began. It 

 should fit a man for beginning to give in- 

 struction in the smaller colleges or in the 

 minor positions in the universities. It 

 should fit him to lead intelligently the stu- 

 dents that come to him in our normal 

 schools. I take it that it is in this direc- 

 tion that we must move if we are to be 

 able to supply from our schools and our 

 universities the men who are to follow us. 



You will notice that in all this I have 

 said — "men." I have said so because I 

 have found that when the demand comes, 

 it is mostly for men. I do not know why 

 this is so. We say very pretty things about 

 our women students, and give them good 

 high standings, and say complimentary 

 things about them as students; and yet 

 when you yourselves look around for some 

 one to be an instructor, and we write and 

 say — "there is a young woman here who 

 . will make a good instructor ' ' — you say : 

 "Our present circumstances are such that 

 we can not employ a woman." Here is 

 one thing that we ought to change. The 

 supply of competent women is much larger 

 than of competent men, and I can assure 

 you from experience in my own depart- 

 ment that they make admirable instructors. 



I have gone over this problem of the 

 making of botanical teachers in this rapid 

 way in order to stir up thought along many 

 lines. For I hold that it is a serious prob- 

 lem ; and that we as teachers of botany owe 

 it to the future that we should prepare in 

 a proper way for the succession of teachers 

 that must follow us. 



Charles E. Besset 

 Univeesitt op Nebraska 



II. THE PBODUCT OF OUE BOTANICAL 

 TEACHING 



Notwithstanding the frequent assertion 

 that teaching of botany is not what it 



should be, it seems safe to say that there 

 was never a time when there was more 

 good teaching of the subject than we have 

 to-day. That we should have dissatisfac- 

 tion at a time when so much good teaching 

 is being done, is not at all surprising, in- 

 consistent or undesirable. Botany itself 

 has grown so rapidly, its call for new re- 

 searches has been so insistent, its place in 

 the applied sciences and in the affairs of 

 men in general, has assumed such prom- 

 inence and importance, its use as a means 

 of giving a proper education in scientific 

 thought about things that are worth know- 

 ing has been so vigorously claimed, that in 

 consequence our attention is directed as 

 never before to the possibilities and errors 

 of botanical teaching. 



The teaching is not poorer — we merely 

 know more about it. Present practises are 

 not wholly bad and need not be discon- 

 tinued, but with the increasing richness 

 and diversity of botanical knowledge, and 

 with better definitions of the purpose of 

 science education, particularly education 

 by means of botanical science, we need to 

 consider our practises anew. If a promi- 

 nent feature of reform is discontinuance of 

 past vices, a feature of progress is discon- 

 tinuance of past virtues for better and 

 larger ones. 



If the product of our botanical teaching 

 does not meet our ideals, we should look 

 for explanation to some or all of the factors 

 or causes of the very complex situation 

 which confronts us. 



1. First, what are our ideals ? "What do 

 we wish to accomplish through botanical 

 teaching? Do we wish to use the study of 

 botany as a means of developing on the 

 part of the people in general a more de- 

 pendable method of thinking, better reli- 

 ance upon native powers of observation, 

 experimentation and interpretation, an at- 

 titude that demands evidence before judg- 



