108 Postscript. 
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF 
ELEMENTARY BOTANICAL TEACHING. 
POSTSCRIPT. 
By the Editor. 
T HE discussion which is now brought to a close has well 
served its purpose of thoroughly ventilating the questions 
raised in this journal in December, 1917; and it is superfluous, as 
it would be wearisome, to add any further arguments to those 
which have already been employed. There are however two points 
which seem to call for remark, both concerned with misunder¬ 
standings of the original memorandum. 
The first has formed the foundation of more than one criticism, 
and though these criticisms have already been countered, it is 
desirable that no trace of misunderstanding should be left in the 
minds of readers. The words “ morphology ” and “ morphological ” 
were used, not with reference to the study of external and internal 
structure as such, but as indicating the study of these with a view 
to elucidating phylogeny, whether of organs or of organisms. This 
is so clearly apparent in the original memorandum as to make it a 
little curious that anyone should have been misled. The close 
study of structure is an essential element in the work of 
the student of biology and affords an unsurpassed training in 
accuracy of observation. That is common ground, and it is 
doubtful if any teacher of biology would wish materially to lessen 
the amount of time devoted to the study of structure. What was 
urged is a change in the main centre of interest of elementary 
teaching—a change from interest in lines of descent to 
interest in the plant in all its manifold aspects as a living 
organism. As Professor V. H. Blackman aptly expresses the idea: 
“ The main problem to be presented to the student seems to them 
[the signatories of the original memorandum] to be that of living, 
not that of origin.” The study of structure is most certainly 
essential: the question is the point of view from which it should be 
undertaken, and, as a corollary, which structures should have 
most attention paid to them. 
Secondly it has come to the editor’s knowledge that a 
certain remark in the memorandum : “ Side by side with 
this [the teaching of facts of structure and their interpreta¬ 
tion from the phylogenetic standpoint] there generally goes a 
