192 “ The Student as a Synthesising Organism 
Here vve come to a distinction, not between morphology and 
physiology but between the morphologist and the physiologist as 
sources of synthesising energy. The material dealt with by the 
former is chiefly solid fact, and a very small proportion of the 
radiation is deflected to criticism of the work of others. In the 
latter case the material to be classed as fact is frequently not very 
solid and much of the material dealt with is theory, so that a large 
proportion of the radiant energy is deflected to the criticism of the 
work of other teachers, leaving only a small proportion for trans¬ 
mission to the student. 
Xhis is unfortunate, but it is a fault inherent in the present 
unsettled condition of our knowledge of physiology. Such mis¬ 
direction of energy will remain until the physiologist learns, as the 
morphologist has done, that although a theory may be wrong the 
facts upon which it is based may be real facts and, therefore, 
worthy of careful consideration and incorporation in our current 
knowledge. This point also explains the relative success of the 
two schools in their appeal to the student. 
In my opinion too many of the recent additions to our know¬ 
ledge of physiology are regarded as suitable only for advanced 
students. If the plant as a whole is to be taught to elementary 
students it will be necessary to incorporate’ many recent advances 
in physiology in the elementary course. One must, of course, be 
more or less dogmatic in elementary teaching, and some recent 
theories may be disproved within a few years. The facts as such, 
however, can always be given, and it develops a healthy point of 
view in the average elementary student when he realises that 
botanists do not know all there is to know about plants. 
In this brief and somewhat superficial analysis of the various 
factors influencing the assimilation of effective botanical knowledge 
by the student, no distinction arises between the morphology and 
physiology of the plant. There may be no magic in words, but I 
suggest that the desired point of view might be attained if we had 
no more courses on Morphology, Physiological Anatomy or 
Physiology and taught instead Organography and Ecology. 
Organography might occupy the first year of the pass course and 
would include the essential parts of much that is now taught 
concerning the morphology, anatomy, physiological anatomy and 
cytology of all the larger groups of plants, treated from the point 
of view of causation and function. Ecology might occupy the 
second year and would include the relation of the plant to its 
