156 
TENTH REPORT. 
today than ever before for such ignorance — especially on the part of the 
teachers of subject that do — or should — include field work. 
The work of the indoor laboratory, valuable as it may be, can in no way 
take the place of the great out-door laboratory, although work in the former 
may be done to supplement the latter in a most helpful way. “One of the 
most valuable attainments into which we can lead our students is the ability 
and desire to interpret the phenomena about them.” Natural History is the 
gateway to the interpretation of these local biological phenomena; and in 
its study afield the student should see the “eternal why ” attached wherever he 
looks quite as keenly and as certainly — and with even greater enthusiasm — 
than he sees even the ob ects themselves. 
Some of these “whys” may never be answered, others are to be hung up 
for present and future consideration, while some simpler matters may be 
answered by the student at the time. Since Natural History is in no way an 
isolated part of Science, it naturally calls into play all other subjects and 
lines of investigation that may be helpful in elucidating its problems. The 
compound microscope, and even a limited amount of simple dissection may 
be helpfully introduced to throw light on many of the problems which the 
study of Natural Historv raises. 
One of the great values of the Natural History method of attack is that it 
stimulates the best kind of observation — the observation of animals and 
plants in their natural surroundings — and along with this should stimulate 
the spirit of investigation thru the numerous “whys” everywhere tacked on. 
To the high school freshman who has raised the question why out of three 
cottonwoods in a certain yard two annually produce a crop of “cotton ” and 
one never does, the later knowledge of dioecious floral arrangement of essential 
organs, comes with a very different meaning than to the pupil who has merely 
read a statement about same in his text-book — or likewise with the lad who 
wonders why woodpeckers have stiff, pointed tail feathers, and then watches 
some woodpeckers at work on the trunk of a tree. 
The number of simple, and more difficult, natural history problems that 
a younger student may work on is limited only by his ability to see and 
think, and the resourcefulness of the teacher; and is it not here that the uni- 
versity trained teacher can show his real worth in suggesting suitable problems 
for his students, as well as suggesting the best methods of attack. 
We hear more or less about the indoor laboratory exercises developing 
the so-called “laboratory babies.” In this there is much truth — in secondary 
schools, and in colleges as well. This is partly because the printed sheet of 
laboratory directions tells the student everything he is expected to see — or 
to do; not much opportunity for original observation and thinking here. On 
the other hand, if the student can be made more interested in the Natural 
History of his region he may get not only a vast amount of practical knowledge 
of plants and animals as they live, but in attempting to answer the questions 
that Nature everywhere raises he is learning to do something of great value 
for himself — for what is the work of the biological investigator but attempting 
to answer the questions, more or less advanced, that Nature asks. 
The clamor of the modern Croesus — be he Hebrew or narrow-minded 
business man — for an education that will turn everything into money is not to 
be considered by serious-minded people. The result of such an education 
would be about as fatal to culture and sound living as was the gold-converting 
power of Croesus of old. Yet serious-minded men and women have a right 
to demand a practical training that will be of value in later life. 
If our biological courses are devoted largely to type studies or dissection 
