MICHIGAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE. 
119 
All 1 1 j i ,s has reference to the purely scientific work of the Survey. But 
it seems to me that there is another field of endeavor, of even greater 
importance, that should appeal to the Survey, if it lias the real scientific 
interests of the people of this state at heart. I refer to its possible rela- 
tions to our educational system and, if you please, to popular natural 
history. And I speak of it in this connection because it seems to me 
that the department that I represent is most admirably adapted for that 
class of work. 
In 1855, there were in the city of Grand Rapids, alone, four students 
of conch ology and probably as many more in different parts of the state. 
In the year of grace, 1911, so- far as I know, there are only three persons 
in the whole state of Michigan, who are actively interested in the collec- 
tion and study of our mollusca. Thirty years ago, there was not a 
single special teacher of natural science in any school in the state. To- 
day, even the second rate high schools have at least one. Today, hun- 
dreds of scholars in our schools receive some sort of instruction in 
natural science. Whereas a generation ago, no such instruction was 
even attempted. Nevertheless, though during the seventeen years that 
this society has had its regular annual meetings, like “a voice in the 
wilderness,” I have proclaimed the special advantages and opportunities 
for work afforded by my specialty, in all that time, I have not had a 
single inquiry from any high school teacher in this state expressing 
any personal interest in the subject and only one from a teacher re- 
questing information for a scholar. If this indifference were confined 
to conchology alone, it might charitably be ascribed to> the forbidding 
nature of the subject, without necessitating any reflections upon the 
qualifications of its advocate, but, as I have reason to believe it is 
equally true in regard to all the other branches of botany and zoology, 
with the possible exception of ornithology. So far as I have been able 
to ascertain, during the last twenty years, there has not been a single 
fact added to our knowledge of our flora and fauna by the high school 
teachers of this state. If this is true, it is certainly a, lamentable fact 
and I fear that it is so near the truth as to be a serious criticism of our 
present methods of instruction. It would seem as though the love of 
nature played no part in the equipment of a successful teacher of biology. 
And, indeed, it would almost seem that the present method of biologi- 
cal instruction in our schools was actually inimical to the acquisition of 
any practical and intelligent interest in natural history. If the object 
of our present system is to evolve, by a process of more or less natural 
selection, the biological teachers for the next generation, then presum- 
ably it is more or less successful. But if its purpose is the greatest 
good to the greatest number of students, if its object is to lay the foun- 
dation for an active and intelligent interest in the world lying about 
us that shall be a source of inspiration and pleasure in after life, then 
it certainly seems to me that it is questionable whether it does justify 
its existence. 
The study of the classics in our schools and colleges, has through “dry- 
as-dust,” antiquated and impractical methods of instruction, become, 
at the present time, an almost inappreciable element in our system of 
education. It w'ould be a sad day, if, in the not distant future, our 
methods of scientific instruction should likewise be weighed in the bal- 
ance and found wanting. 
