Reconstruction of Elementary Botanical Teaching. 51 
It has been suggested that the memorandum was of the nature 
of an encyclical and the words “oppression,” “dragooning,” 
“bolshevism ” have been used in criticism of it. It is true that the 
article was vigorously worded, but that was necessary if it were to 
succeed in its object. Surely it is clear that the memorandum 
was simply a plea for reconstruction on certain lines with a request 
for the support of those in agreement with the views put forward. 
Even if a committee were appointed to further those views, as 
suggested by one writer, its recommendations could not possibly be 
mandatory. To those who know Professor Bower and “Witness” 
the idea of a body of other botanists attempting to coerce 01 
oppress them is distinctly humorous. It is of course, an 
axiom, which all botanists would accept, that no course can be 
satisfactory in which the teacher does not “ express himself no 
two elementary courses would be exactly alike; they would vary 
according to the special knowledge and predilection of the teacher. 
What the memorandum urges is that every teacher should examine 
his elementary course and consider whether it could be modified in 
the directions indicated. The signatories contend that in the light 
of our present knowledge of plants, and of the manifold points of 
contact of botany with other sciences and with human activities 
generally, the elementary course should no longer be centric to 
evolution or have phylogeny as its leitmotif. The main problem to 
be presented to the student seems to them to be that of living, not 
that of origin. Such a view necessitates the reduction of 
comparative morphology to a subordinate position, a view to which 
all the signatories will certainly hold firmly. Anatomy, i.e., a 
description of the facts of structure, is bound to preponderate in 
any elementary course, as pointed out by the Editor, but such facts 
of structure should be mainly used to develop a picture of plants 
as living and struggling organisms rather than a picture of the 
phylogeny of plants. 
Several writers have referred to the important question of the 
psychology of the student and the relative claims of morphology and 
physiology upon his interest. Everyone will agree with Professor 
Bower that the rapid development of the British school of 
morphologists was largely due—apart from the natural stimulus to 
workers from co-operation in the growth of the most rapidly 
developing branch of the subject—to the enthusiastic interest of its 
votaries. 1 do not think that physiologists are in any way wanting 
in admiration and respect for the achievements of the British school 
