484 



BGIJENCH. 



[Vol. VIII., No. 199 



through the flesh and milk, and through butter and 

 cheese. The disorder proves fatal in man as in ani- 

 mals." As our correspondent says, this subject is 

 one of great interest as a disease affecting both man 

 and animals, and we should be glad to receive any 

 information which will indicate its present home and 

 prevalence. — Ed.] 



The teaching of natural history. 



I have been much interested in reading the rather 

 unjust review of French's ' Butterflies ' in a recent 

 issue of Science, ' A teacher's ' letter in a succeeding 

 number, and Mr. S. H. Scudder's reply in the last. 

 Unlike Mr. Scudder, I have been a teacher, although 

 I have never had but one pupil, — myself ; and, as I 

 have him yet, I want to ask Mr. Scudder what I 

 shall do with him. What education I possess was, 

 with one exception, directed by the faculties of 

 <;ertain institutions, where nothing was known but 

 Latin, Greek, and mathematics. The exception was 

 in a high school where Gray's * How plants grow ' 

 was used as a reading-book. The class never had a 

 plant, a flower, or a leaf. The readers simply stood 

 up and read the first one hundred pages of that 

 "book. The pupils asked no questions, they could not 

 for evident reasons ; neither did the teacher ; and 

 the latter volunteered no remarks ; yet that botani- 

 cal instructor was, it seems to me, adopting the plan 

 advocated by Mr. Scudder, for he was not using 

 Gray's book in ' finding out the mere names of ob- 

 jects:' he was allowing the book to discuss "the 

 nature, meaning, and causes of the relative affinities 

 of organized beings," so far as that little book could 

 do. I did not learn the name of a single plant. I 

 am more than sure that I learned none of the rela- 

 tive aflinities of which Mr. Scudder speaks. How 

 could I ? Without the specimen, what meaning is 

 conveyed to the beginner by, " A flower, with all its 

 parts complete, consists of calyx, corolla, stamens, 

 and pistils ; one from the morning-glory will serve 

 as an example " ? The morning-glory, indeed ! Why, 

 this will never do. Morning-glory is the name of a 

 plant, and Mr. Scudder says, * the name may be 

 called a necessary evil ; and unless, with it, is more 

 emphatically acquired a knowledge of the structural 

 and '■ iological relations of the object which it bears 

 to other objects, it is worse than useless knowledge." 

 In my case the name was not even a necessary evil, 

 for it did not exist. I was supposed to be acquiring 

 knowledge of structural relations in an elementary 

 way, and the book was supposed to be teaching the 

 class the affinities and relations of things botanical ; 

 but, so far as I am concerned, I am free to admit 

 that the result was an abominable failure. How 

 could I have obtained the flower called for, since I 

 did not know the plant producing that flower ? 



When Mr. Scudder goes to a flower-show and sees 

 a strange plant, does he engage the florist in a dis- 

 cussion about biological relations or structural affini- 

 ties ? No, I think Mr. Scudder says, ' What is that ? ' 

 When Mr. Scudder finds a fossil insect, he doubtless 

 ■studies its biological relations, since he is an ad- 

 vanced and accomplished naturalist ; but, if he were 

 an ignorant beginner, he would run to his teacher 

 with the question, ' What is that?' And if he had 

 himself for a pupil, who had not learned the struc- 

 tural affinities of ' the find,' he would ransack the 

 books for the name ; and, having found it, he would 

 en have not only the key that opens the door to 



further knowledge of the work of other investigators, 

 but he would have a peg as well, on which to hang 

 his information and the result of his own investiga- 

 tions. If he would not do this, what would he do ? 

 In all kindness, with the heartiest feelings of esteem 

 for Mr. Scudder, and with a burning desire to in- 

 crease my own knowledge, let me beg Mr. Scudder 

 to tell me what I shall do with my single ignorant 

 pupil. How can I teach myself the biological rela- 

 tions and structural affinities of the butterflies, since 

 I am not supposed to know the name of even the com- 

 monest butterfly ? Without the name, what founda- 

 tion have I on which to erect my future learning ? 

 I got the structural affinities without the names in 

 my earliest botanical instruction. The result I do 

 not approve. But if Mr. Scudder will tell me how to 

 teach myself according to his plan, he will also be 

 telling ' A teacher' how to teach his pupils, although 

 I am not the author of the letter in the last Science. 

 If I am not to begin by finding out the name, where 

 shall I begin ? If I dissect the butterfly, study its 

 histology, and write a monograph on its ontogeny, 

 and know not its name, what shall I call the book, 

 and what will its readers say ? Shall it be ' The 

 structure and life history of a butterfly?' Of what 

 butterfly ? To my uninstructed eyes there seems to 

 be more than one butterfly. If there are more than 

 one, do they all have the same structure and life- 

 history ? Were I allowed to pursue what seems to be 

 a natural and proper course, I would take French's 

 excellent book, and having found the name of the 

 specimen by French's excellent key, and having 

 learned what French has to say in his text, I would, 

 as I do, await the issue of Mr. Scudder's expected 

 work on the butterflies with pleasant thoughts of 

 anticipations about to be agreeably realized. But 

 since this would be the wrong method, will Mr. 

 Scudder kindly tell me what would be the right one ? 



A. Reader. 



The classics versus science. 



An editorial paragraph in Science for Nov. 19 sug- 

 gests some curious reflections. If, as you say, Mr. 

 Lowell's oration at Harvard "is itself a justification 

 of a classical and literary education, and a living ar- 

 gument for a culture loftier and deeper than that 

 which strictly utilitarian theories would provide," 

 does it not logically follow that science deserves no 

 place in the curriculum, and that your own journal 

 has little excuse for being ? 



Science has been added to the course of studies 

 largely because of the demands of the utilitarians ; 

 and only in recent days, and faintly, has its discipli- 

 nary value been urged. 



Certainly, when one sees what is oftentimes taught 

 as science, and is obliged to read the wretched Eng- 

 lish in which some scientific books are written, — 

 which books, by the way, are highly lauded in scientific 

 journals, — and, moreover, when one witnesses the 

 temper of scientific men in treating those who differ 

 with them concerning the latest ephemeral classifica- 

 tion or other equally important point, one is inclined 

 to side with the classicists in the belief that the study 

 of science has little value either for purposes of dis- 

 cipline or culture ; that it scarcely forms ' open- 

 minded ' men in the poet's sense ; and that perhaps 

 it would be better for all concerned that they should 

 be 'digging Sanscrit roots.' F. W. Staebner. 



Westfield, Mass., Nov. 21. 



