263 
work, as follows: “Not long ago all botanical work done in this 
country was taxonomic work, usually known as systematic botany, 
although much had indeed little of ‘systematic’ in it. Now it is 
different. Courses in taxonomy are almost excluded from the 
curriculum of many of our colleges and universities or if not 
excluded so little esteemed that students are discouraged from 
entering upon them. The taxonomist whether a systematic botanist 
in the true sense or a phytographer, is looked upon by phytogeo- 
graphers, ecologists, physiologists, cytologists, and morphologists as 
of a lower grade of stuff;—as if it took a less fine grain of brain to 
make а first class systematist than any other kind of -ist." 
It might be of interest to taxonomists as well as to those who 
are inclined to look upon physiology or morphology as represent- 
ing the modern idea of what botany is or ought to be, while those 
whom they choose to call “mere taxonomists” are relegated to 
the same category as “stamp collectors," to compare recent views 
as expressed by Dr. Rydberg with those of one of the leading 
English mycologists who worked more than half a century ago. 
In a paper read before the Quekett Microscopical Club on 
February 23, 1877, Dr. M. C. Cooke gave expression to his views 
in the following words: “In all branches of Natural History 
there are workers of two kinds: those who investigate the struc- 
ture, physiology, origin, and development of a few forms, and 
endeavour to comprehend the whole mystery of their existence, 
and relationship to other manifestations of vital force, and those 
who devote themselves almost entirely to the study of various 
forms in any one or more groups, their relationship to each other, 
and their systematic and orderly arrangement, their affinities 
and their differences and their geographical distribution. Jt is 
not uncommon lo find those of the first group, the biologists, or 
physiologists, claiming a higher position for themselves than they 
accord to students of the other class, and even sneering at them as 
mere species-makers, or compilers of catalogues. This is not only 
unjust but untrue; both are equally useful and equally essential 
and should not be made the subject of comparison. The work 
of the former is a great help to the latter whilst without classifica- 
tion there could be no science." 
