1^ Editorial. ^ 
tion that was extended to critics in the February number. 
A good share of those to whom the marked copy was sent 
replied, and from these letters we feel that we have now 
gained a glimpse of the magazine from the point-of-view of 
the non-subscribing applicant, at least, that will be most 
helpful to us in planning future issues. The letter which, 
all things considered, we regard as the best, was written 
by Frank R. Miller, R. D. 3, Toledo, Ohio, and the second 
best was sent by D. A. Bright. Larned, Kas. To both of 
these gentlemen the magazine will be sent free for 190G. 
:Mr. Miller also has the privilege, if he chooses, of obtain- 
ing- all the back numbers for $2.00, and Mr. Bright has a 
like privilege at the $3.00 rate. To all other critics a copy 
of the present number will be sent. 
One of the greatest surprises we received was the 
statement in almost ever}- letter that the magazine is t<x) tech- 
nical ! One of these critics, at least, is a graduate of a well- 
known university, but it is possibly needless to say he was 
not in the scientific department. All this time we have been 
flattering ourselves that this is the most untechnical mag- 
azine that ever happened, and now the public rises up and 
asks us to be more intelligible! We fail to see yet how we 
can become more so without dropping into words of one 
syllable. It begins to look as if botanical literature, even 
of the popular sort, has a dialect all its own which is but 
jargon to earsjinaccustomed to it. Those who read and da 
understand may begin to realize the select company they 
