WAHL: ALTERNATION OF GENERATIONS 11 



"has been so generally adopted" (in the past) does not argue in its favor since 

 it is well recognized that it does not express the present state of knowledge 

 regarding plant relationships. 



Systems of classification reflecting modern ideas of relationships in the 

 entire plant kingdom have been prepared among others by Copeland (1938), 

 Barkley (1939), and Tippo (1942). The systems here referred to certainly 

 are not to be considered "new" at this time since they draw on a wealth of 

 morphological knowledge, most of which has been available for two decades 

 or more. Neither are they only the opinions of their respective authors, since 

 they represent the accumulated efforts and opinions of many specialists in 

 various groups. Herein lies one of their best recommendations. Yet at the 

 present time hardly an elementary textbook even mentions these ideas without 

 apologies ! Where would genetics or plant physiology be if similar accumula- 

 tions of ideas in these fields were studiously withheld until they had mellowed 

 for a quarter of a century? 



Why do elementary texts shy away from the presentation of such accumu- 

 lated knowledge ? The usual claim that the older system is easier is only partially 

 true. One system of classification is not easier than another for a beginner. 

 It is only the one who has been used to the older system who would have, 

 difficulty in making a change. "Easier," then, can only mean that it is easier 

 for the teacher, not that it is easier for the student. 



This leads naturally to the conclusion that textbooks are written for the 

 convenience of the teacher rather than for the information of the student ; — 

 that pedogogy is for the pedagog rather than for the learner. Such a conclusion, 

 is, of course, not valid for the majority of the subject matter in most textbooks 

 available at the present time. But what other reason could be assumed when 

 an author, for example, relegates an admittedly "modern" system of classifica- 

 tion to an appendix while using an admittedly outmoded system in the body 

 of the text ? Or when an author admits that "a better classification" separates 

 plants into groups other than those with which he has tried to make the stu- 

 dent familiar? 



It seems apparent that modern textbooks of elementary botany have been 

 "leaning over backward" in an effort to maintain a conservative viewpoint in 

 the field generally designated as Comparative Morphology. Although there may 

 be room for divergence of opinion as to the relative emphasis to be placed on 

 the various materials presented to beginning students, especially in the briefer 

 courses, there seems to be no tendency to exclude a consideration of the com- 

 parative structural and reproductive features of the 15 to 18 groups (usually 

 classes) of plants ordinarily considered as constituting a fair representation 

 of the plant kingdom. This usually (but not necessarily) involves classification 

 and life cycles. If a system of classification is to be presented, why not let it 

 reflect modern ideas of relationships ? If life cycles are thought desirable, a con- 



