EDITORIAL 
127 
the Sue that had been with him, shar- 
ing all his joys and sorrows for many, 
many years. 
In another department we find, 
“Mother,” written by her daughter, 
Constance Root Boyden. In a similar 
charming way, beginning with the 
“plaything drawer” in mother’s kitchen, 
we learn that that mother is gone. 
This portrayal of every detail of the 
family experience month after month 
but few families could bear with credit, 
yet after many years of reading about 
the smiles of the children, grandchil- 
dren and the great-grandchildren, of 
the loving families, even of the little 
vexations and impatient words, the 
reader becomes more and more in love 
with every one of the Roots. They are 
unique in their family relations. They 
are unique in journalism. In this hasty 
reference it is not possible to do justice 
to this particular number, but I believe 
that every reader of The Guide to 
Nature will find it not only interest- 
ing from the entomological aspect, but 
for its human touches, if he will send 
for a copy. If the reader does not be- 
come interested in the most attractive 
of all insects he will learn to love the 
most attractive of all families in public 
life, the Roots and all their branches, in 
Medina, Ohio. 
Authors Rather Than Books. 
Mr. Lewis R. Horton of Spokane, 
Washington, is appealing to one thou- 
sand educated men and women for a 
list of one hundred best books that 
“every American, between the ages of 
twenty and forty-five, ought to read.” 
He has a list of best books prepared 
long ago by various persons but covets 
a list selected by educated men of to- 
day. He also tells us “that folks do not 
like to read books in sets.” 
We wonder as to the age limit — 
twenty to forty-five. The best reading 
age is before twenty and after forty- 
five. The years between should be 
devoted to the active business of life. 
For the one who is not strictly a pro- 
fessional user of books there should 
be less reading between twenty and 
forty-five than at any other part of the 
active life. The years before twenty 
are the cumulative years, and those 
after forty-five are the best meditative 
years. 
If Mr. Horton is right in his state- 
ment that folks do not like to read 
books in sets then folks are wrong. 
We rather question the accuracy of 
the statement. 
For example, along our own line of 
pursuits, the study of nature, the re- 
quired list of a hundred books more 
or less could be selected from a much 
smaller number of authors. It would 
be, for example, ridiculous to select one 
book from Henry David Thoreau, 
Richard Jefferies, John Burroughs and 
William Hamilton Gibson and assign 
a part of the list to the minor rehash 
writers. Those authors and many 
others are fountain heads. A few foun- 
tain heads can flood the territory. 
W hat shall we say of one who would 
select Emerson’s “Nature” and advise 
that the other books of his set should 
not be read ? 
Frequently we have a request for 
“the best book” on a particular subject 
of nature. To the editor that question 
has little meaning. I believe the best 
modern writer of bird books is Frank 
M. Chapman but who will venture to 
say which of his books is the best? He 
has different types adapted to different 
types of people, age and uses. For 
popular, humanizing books on nature 
I think that most of us would put 
Ernest Thompson Seton at the head, 
but I do not believe that he himself 
could select his best. “Wild Animals 
I Have Known” first made his fame. 
Everything else followed easily. But 
for the technical naturalist Mr. Seton’s 
masterpiece is his large work in two 
volumes, “Life Histories of Northern 
Animals.” We who make close study 
of the four-footed animals value that 
as in some respects better than “Wild 
Animals I Flave Known.” 
To go back to some of the earliest 
writers. Take Thoreau, for example. 
Many people point at “Walden” as his 
best book. It is and it is not. For the 
one who can get the most out of “Wal- 
den” then for that person it is the best, 
but the average naturalist rather than 
the philosopher gets far more out of 
“Journals.” Yet no real lover of 
Thoreau would venture to throw “Wal- 
den” or the “Journals” ahead. We 
must have both to understand what 
Thoreau was teaching. 
“What is the best book on insects?” 
“What is the best book on wild 
