Reconstruction of Elementary Botanical Teaching 105 
BOTANICAL BOLSHEVISM. 
To the Editor of the New Phytologist. 
Sir, 
A manifesto on “ The Reconstruction of Elementary Botanical 
Teaching ” has been published over the names of five well-known 
botanists. With much that it contains there will be general accord : 
the aspiration for more “ vitality” is laudable: its end will appeal 
to us all. The means proposed to obtain that end, and the 
statements as to the present deficiencies in method and outlook, 
which stimulated the production of the manifesto, are a different 
matter. They will not carry the same unanimity. 
Two propositions seem to contain the pith of this encyclical:— 
(1) That in the present elementary courses Plant Physiology 
is taught as a separate subject. The teacher does not present the 
plant as a living organism “ because the teaching is mainly in the 
hands of men who are primarily morphologists ” (p. 242). 
(2) That in order to secure improvement, “ comparative 
morphology should be reduced to a subordinate position” (p. 251). 
These propositions imply an antithesis between Physiology and 
Morphology, which morphologists in the vital and living sense* will 
not admit. They teach Organography, which interprets form and 
function as inter-dependent, so fused that the twain are one flesh. 
In fact, they endeavour, as I have always done, to present to an 
elementary class the Living Plant. To such teachers the antithesis 
does not exist, and ought not to exist in elementary teaching : so 
that the whole discussion is, in their view, proceeding on false 
premises, so far as it affects elementary teaching. I have always 
started from Flowering Plants because they give a better chance of 
introducing simple experiment, and demonstration of vital phenom¬ 
ena on the Lecture Table to a large audience. 
Here I must allude to the difficult problem of large practical 
classes. To introduce individual physiological experiment into a 
laboratory of over 100 students at one time, where each place may 
be occupied more than once in the day, and with a limited 
demonstrating staff would be futile. Observations of form and 
structure can be more effectively carried out under such conditions. 
This simple fact accounts for some of the shortcomings that grieve 
the signatories. I do not see in their manifesto any suggestion that 
would meet this very real difficulty. 
Those who teach the Living Plant in the way described will 
particularly resent the explanation that the alleged deficiency 
