March 2, 1894. 
In eastern Maine by far the most abundant and con- 
spicuous of these is So/¢dago nemoralis, covering the dry 
rolling uplands with a yellow carpet of great beauty for 
mile after mile. Along roadsides partly shaded 
S. serotina, var. gigantea is the most common. 
In moister ground S. pudberula prevails, and in the ex- 
tensive swamps S. wliginosa is very abundant, vigorous 
and beautiful. 
This region, especially where it is a little swampy, is the 
paradise of Asters, A. punicens being the most abundant 
and showy. The earliest of all is A. radula, which is 
gradually replaced in southern Massachusetts by A. spec- 
‘tabilis, and again in New Jersey by A. surculosus. In a 
few localities 4. Movae Anglae is very showy and abun- 
dant. > 
In Massachusetts, as: autumn approaches, the fields and 
roadsides are whitened with low, bushy species, which 
are mainly A. multiflorus and A. vimineus, which, as 
we move southward, we find largely replaced by A. e77- 
coides. 
In the vicinity of Washington, D.C., Aster tradescantz, 
diffusus, patens, simplex, undulatus, paniculatus and tenut- 
folius are often seen in sufficient quantity to give character 
to the landscape, which A. dnarizfolius is very abundant, 
and among the pines 4. concolor is occasionally found in 
mass, as is its congener, A. Curtisin, among the North 
Carolina mountains. 
Among the golden rods which color extended areas are 
Solidago bicolor, with its var. concolor, erecta, arguta, rugosa, 
nemoralis, Canadensis and lancolata, while S. sempervirens is 
found in mass, bordering salt marshes from Maine to 
Virginia. 
But perhaps this article is already sufficiently extended 
to call attention to the point desired to be emphasized, 
and tosuggest to botanists the habit of observing and 
putting down in their note-books those species which by 
their abundance give color and character to the landscape, 
and then occasionally sending to scientific journals the 
results of such observations, so that future editors of 
manuals and local floras may be able to give some accurate 
and reliable notes respecting this long neglected depart- 
ment of botanical research. 
BOTANY IN THE SCHOOLS. 
BY KATHERINE E. GOLDEN, PURDUE UNIVERSITY, 
LA FAYETTE, IND. 
THERE has been a great deal published in Sccence upon 
the subject of biology in the colleges, but little or nothing 
has been said relative to the teaching of the subject in 
the common schools. This point was impressed upon me 
more forcibly upon receipt of some school reports. In 
the reports, which are prepared by the superintendent of 
instruction mainly for the benefit of the tax-payers, a 
statement is made in regard to the various subjects 
taught, and for those subjects not in the ordinary 
curricula reasons are given showing their desirability for 
the pupils. 
From the fact that reasons are considered necessary, it 
would seem to imply that the subjects in question are 
considered not entirely essential, this being especially 
true of the subjects that come under the heading ‘‘ nature 
study,” these usually being botany and a very little 
zoology. ‘There is given usually a tabulated statement of 
SCIENCE ~ 
1ig 
the benefits the pupils derive from their study, the 
tabulated statement consisting in many cases of the 
pedagogical principles that a normal school student is 
crammed with before an examination, or that one hears 
rattled off so glibly at a teachers’ institute. 
And yet behind the reasoning and the tabulated state- 
ment there is usually a dense ignorance of the subjects. 
For if the subjects were understood, no person of ordinary 
intelligence would feel called upon to give apologetic 
reasons, or would expect that teachers without any pre- 
vious training in those subjects would be competent to 
teach them. ‘Trained teachers are provided for music, 
drawing, physical culture, sewing, cooking, and manual 
training, who, besides teaching the pupils, meet the 
teachers at stated times to coach them in the work, so 
that they also may be fitted to help the pupils. But in 
“nature study” it is not considered necessary to have a 
special teacher, any ordinary teacher being supposed 
capable of mastering the subjects embraced under that 
head. 
Here is an extract from one report :—‘‘ Truly it is said 
that this work must be done in such a way that it shall 
lead to the love of nature. Here the task-master has no 
place. Only they who can lead in the spirit of the student 
have the power that will inspire in the children the needed 
zeal.’ This reads beautifully from the rhetorical point 
of view, but in the connection in which it was used it was 
the veriest rot, for the writer knew that the teachers, 
being for the most part graduates of his own high school, 
in which neither botany nor zodlogy was taught, knew 
nothing of the subjects. The writer closed his statements 
by saying that elementary botany had been taught the pre- 
vious year, and that, when directed by a teacher in sym- 
pathy with it, always interested the young. 
Botany is the favorite ‘‘nature study,” because the 
teacher can make selections of such pretty flowers, with 
beautifully long names. Then the flower can be separated 
into its constituent parts, and the name of each part 
learned by the pupils; this same process can be gone 
over with other flowers, and all on pedagogical principles 
of the latest date, for is not the pupil using natural 
objects, and finding out things for himself by an analytic 
process? 
Now, if instead of frittering away the children’s time 
by ‘‘ object lessons” of the James Whitcomb Riley ‘‘ pea- 
nut” variety, a competent specialist were to be put in 
charge of the work, one who would have a scheme of 
work that was consecutive, and who could instruct the 
teachers, just as the specialist does in music, drawing, 
etc., a minimum amount of time devoted to the work in 
school would give good results, besides taking a burden 
off the shoulders of the teachers. For the public school 
teachers are much imposed upon in having to teach sub- 
jects of this kind for which they are not prepared, and in 
many cases do not know how to set about making up for 
the deficiency. A subject of this kind is sprung on them, 
so to speak, by the superintendent, who sometimes does 
not realize what its teaching involves. 
It is said that the public schools are overburdened with 
work, and that they cost too much already; well, if that 
be so, then drop the subject altogether from the curricu- 
lum. If this statement as to overburdenment and cost 
be not true, then the subject should be taught in a proper 
manner. And to teach it in a proper manner means‘to 
pay for a specialist who knows the work and who can 
direct it properly. Not an ‘‘object lesson” specialist, 
but a botanist. And it cannot be expected in this work 
that a cheap teacher will do, for nearly invariably a forty- 
dollar man does forty-dollar work. False economy in 
teaching always involves more or less waste of time and 
money. 
