May, 1910.] 



448 



Miscellaneous, 



needs of the art have appealed to them 

 strongly, and the commercial and prac- 

 tical aspects of the subject have been 

 alluring and fascinating. 



In a general way there has been agree- 

 ment among horticulturists that there 

 ought to be more investigation in their 

 subject, and a recognition that it is 

 based on the application of principles in 

 science which ought to be worked out. 

 The demands upon them prevented such 

 work in the earlier stages, and this has 

 gradually shaped their attitude toward 

 experimentation in horticulture until, 

 in a way, it has become fixed, so that 

 although the way now opens for research 

 they are not drawn to it. They have 

 not had the inspiration by investigation 

 by foreign horticulturists, or an organi- 

 sation of the field, or a summing up of 

 the status of knowledge from a scientific 

 standpoint. 



Twenty years of experiment station 

 work has changed the view but little. 

 The work has been mostly in circles and 

 has continued largely along beaten 

 paths. Investigation is largely a matter 

 of sympathies and temperament, and 

 these have not been developed. The call 

 is loud and insistent for men of that 

 training, but the demand cannot be met. 

 The difficulty gets back to the colleges. 

 They are not holding up the ideals to 

 the occasional student suited to that 

 sort of career, and developing in him 

 the standards for real progressive 

 work in horticulture, the spirit of 

 research, and the point of view of 

 science as well as of commercialism. 

 Until this is done, until horticultural 

 instruction is put upon a higher plane, 

 and the possibilities for advanced work 

 in science with a horticultural outlook 

 are developed, we shall have to draw 

 largely on the basic sciences for the 

 principles of horticulture. 



More attention needs to be paid to 

 what the basic sciences are contributing 

 which has a bearing on horticulture, and 

 it would be a great help to have the 

 scientific basis of horticulture gathered 

 from all sources and arranged in a 

 systematic way. The knowledge of 

 what has been done is a prerequisite to 

 original investigation in any line. 



It is a singular fact that we have no 

 text-book or treatise on horticulture in 

 its scientific aspects, no book which 

 brings together for the teacher or the 

 student what is really known of the 

 principles which underlie operations in 

 horticulture. We have such books for 

 animal nutrition, for breeding, for agri- 

 cultural chemisty, for soils, and other 

 blanches of agriculture, but not for 

 horticulture, We have, it is true, books 



on the principles of fruit culture and of 

 vegetable growing and the like, but they 

 are the principles or elements of prac- 

 tice, not of science. 



What a help such a book would be to 

 both the teacher and the investigator ! 

 It would give the status of science in 

 horticulture in such a way as to furnish 

 a starting point for original and pro- 

 ductive investigation, and something to 

 build unto. There would be no further 

 excuse for working around in circles. 

 Such a treatise would illustrate the 

 meaning ol investigation, and open up a 

 vast number of subjects for study. It 

 would help greatly in organising the 

 subject, and aid in formulating the 

 practical problems in their scientific 

 aspects. 



The preparation of such a manual 

 would prepare the way for a classifica- 

 tion of horticulture from a scientific 

 standpoint. It would furnish a basis 

 for horticultural [science, and would 

 in fact be the beginning of that science. 

 Science as applied to any subject is 

 knowledge verified and arranged in an 

 orderly system, and the office of science 

 is the study of the sequence of pheno- 

 mena. This, then, is the office of horti- 

 cultural science — to bring together scien- 

 tific knowledge as it relates to that 

 subject and arrange it in an orderly 

 system, and to study the sequence of 

 phenomena in horticulture. 



The paper by Prof. L. H. Bailey, on 

 " The Field of Research in Horticulture," 

 was a definition of the kind of work 

 needed to develop the fundamentals of 

 horticulture, the kind of men required 

 to carry on such work, and the need for 

 recognition. It was a frank setting 

 forth of the manner in which horticul- 

 ture as a subject is lagging behind, both 

 in teaching and investigation. 



Professor Bailey explained that the 

 practices of the present day have grown 

 up in a sort of haphazard and indefinite 

 way. They are in large measure found- 

 ed on shrewd guesses. Because they 

 have served us very well so far there is 

 no reason to expect them to continue to 

 meet our needs. " Research in horticul- 

 ture is as much to be furthered as is 

 research in anything else . . . There 

 really can be no worthwhile horticulture 

 unless it be fouuded on original scientific 

 investigation." 



The definition given of research was 

 clear and explicit. It was charac- 

 terised as "a competent effort by a 

 competent person to discover principles 

 and facts that are underlying in one 

 year as well as in another, and that do 

 not grow old and out of date, in dis- 

 tinction from the making of tests and 



