117 



Therefore, regarding the use of unlabeled drawings such as are 

 an integral part of the Work Book, it should long ago have been 

 obvious that careful observation and accurate recording of scientific 

 information have but little in common with artistic ability. It has 

 been one of the major crimes of our biology teaching that we have 

 continued to penalize the student who is not congenitally an artist. 

 The argument that the professional botanist should be able to draw, 

 and therefore must learn in the beginning course, is certainly a fal- 

 lacy. Those who advocate this doctrine have somehow forgotten that 

 it is not the function of the introductory course to create professional 

 botanists but to teach botany. It is very doubtful if a group of stu- 

 dents — sounding for all the world like woodpeckers on a tin roof as 

 they vainly try to "stipple in the cytoplasm" with hard pencils — are 

 learning very much about the structure of protoplasm. 



It would seem that I am defending Sampson's Work Book. This 

 is unnecessary for it can stand on its own merits. But there are some 

 who further object to it on the ground that it contains too much ma- 

 terial, that they would not have time to cover all of it in a full year. 

 In general these are the same teachers who admit that they assign 

 a chapter in the text and then "hold the student responsible for every 

 word." It is admitted that the Work Book does contain numerous 

 questions, but it should be obvious that it was not the intention of its 

 author and his collaborators .that all of them be- answered. Certainly 

 many of them were introduced for the sole purpose of arousing dis- 

 cussion and to indicate the limits of our present knowledge, as well 

 as the need for more research before the question can adequately be 

 answered. It is perhaps a healthy mental attitude to instill in the be- 

 ginning student ; he should early realize that the science of plants is 

 not a closed subject and that much yet needs to be done. 



There is also considerable complaint by some that the course does 

 not contain sufficient "morphology." This unquestionably results 

 from the fact that the Work Book is not divided into sections labeled 

 "physiology" and "morphology." There may be some lack of delving 

 into the more obscure of the "life histories" but the course actually 

 contains considerably more real morphology than is at first appar- 

 ent — probably more than most courses — for it is integrated with 

 the functional activity of plants, as it should be. 



There is perhaps one drawback to a wider adoption of the course 

 as outlined in the Work Book. To teach it successfully, it is neces- 



