52 Some Aspects of the Plea for Reconstruction. 
of morphology, achievements in which Professor Bovver has played 
so striking a part. They would be the first to admit that they 
could do no better than attempt to emulate the enthusiasm of the 
followers of that school. With the advance of time, however, other 
aspects of Botany have opened out; and most botanists would 
admit that comparative morphology cannot now claim to he, as 
formerly, in the main current of botanical progress. The signatories 
to the memorandam, therefore, can hardly be accused of presumption 
or of a tendency towards bolshevism in claiming that the time has 
come to reconsider the balance of various parts of the subject most 
suitable for elementary teaching. In asking that comparative 
morphology, though “good in itself,” should yet occupy a subordinate 
position in an elementary course I find it difficult to understand 
how the signatories have laid themselves open to the accusation of 
Professor Bower, that they are exhibiting “ the spirit that has 
ruined Russia, and endangered the future of civilisation.” 
A proper subordination of parts is the test of a satisfactory 
work of art and of a sound elementary course in botany; a 
subordination of personal freedom in the interest of the community 
—and freedom is “ good in itself”—is surely a test of civilisation. In 
fact the simile might be inverted, and the domination of comparative 
morphology to the detriment of other branches of the subject might 
be compared to the autocratic rule of the bolsheviks which has 
been so serious for other classes of Russian society. 
Dr. McLean has contended that, apart from the special 
enthusiasm of the teacher, the morphological aspects of plants 
make a more general appeal to students than the physiological, 
though this is denied by others. Mr. Small has developed an in¬ 
genious analogy between the receptive student and a synthesising 
organism, and claims that in physiological teaching a much smaller 
proportion of the energy radiated by the teacher “ must impinge 
upon the organism” (student). If the “ photosynthate ” to be 
obtained is simply a “ true and accurate knowledge of plants ” 
the analogy may be accepted. It is a truism however that an 
object of teaching even more important than the acquirement of 
knowledge is the development in the student of a capacity to 
think for himself. For the purpose of encouraging a critical habit 
of mind a discussion of the work of others, which Mr. Small 
appears to deplore in physiological teaching, may be of far more 
value to the student than the assimilation of large quantities of 
“ solid fact.” The accumulation in the mind of the student of a 
