THE 
NEW PflYTOIiOGIST. 
Vol. XVII, No. 7. July, 1918. 
[Published July 26th, 1918.] 
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF 
ELEMENTARY BOTANICAL TEACHING. 
Editorial Note. 
Many teachers have contributed to this discussion, and that 
is all to the good; but scarcely any students actually attending 
courses of instruction in botany have sent their views. It is no 
less important to know in what light the existing teaching appears 
to the student, and how far it appeals to him as inspiring, satis- 
fying and useful, than to hear the teacher’s views as to how far 
and on what lines it would be desirable to change or modify his 
teaching. The Editor therefore appeals to any student of botany 
actually under instruction, who may read these lines, to contribute 
to the discussion. If anyone prefers to do so under a pseudonym, 
his confidence will of course be respected. 
“THE STUDENT MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY 
OF HANDLING THE EVIDENCE OF GROWTH 
AND CHANGE.” 
To the Editor of The New Phytoloqist. 
Sir, 
I find myself in hearty agreement with much of the memor¬ 
andum you have published on the reconstruction of botanical 
teaching. That there is room for improvement in our university 
botanical courses will not be denied. The realisation of this has 
been leading already to a more or less gradual change of balance 
and emphasis. The discussion you have initiated will, I hope, be 
followed by a more rapid permeation of botanical teaching with the 
ideas that govern the more recently fruitful lines of progress, 
which must be given a larger place than they receive at present. 
Knowledge of practical value must also be included as far as 
possible, for if the universities do not disseminate up-to-date infor¬ 
mation how is it to be disseminated? 
