EDITORIAL 



The well known scientific magazine, Popular Science 

 Mo'nthly^ has recently separated into two distinct publications, 

 and in announcing the change, the editor makes some obser- 

 vations regarding the support given to scientific magazines 

 generally, that is worth pondering by all interested in any 

 branch of science. According to our authority the American 

 people do not care enough for sound and reliable scientific in- 

 formation to pay what it is worth. They are content with the 

 pseudo-science of the daily paper and an occasional sensation 

 of doubtful value in the monthly magazines. Practically 

 every serious publication in the United States devoted to giv- 

 ing scientific news and information to the non-technically ed- 

 ucated citizen has lost money, is still losing it and must con- 

 tinue to do so, in the opinion of this critic, if they are to con- 

 tinue existence. There are over a hundred journals and pro- 

 ceedings devoted to the publication of research work in Amer- 

 ica, not one of which pays its expenses on a regular business 

 basis. Each year they show a deficit which must be made good 

 by individual contributions or the backing of some responsible 

 organization. 



The American Botanist, while in the same general class 

 as the publications mentioned, is in some respects more for- 

 tunate. It is the only botanical publication in North America 

 that is not subsidized and yet has never had a visible deficit. 

 By this latter phrase we mean that it has always earned 

 enough to pay all bills demanding real money, but if the debt 

 it owes to contributors and the editor was estimated in such 



