252 Botany as the Science of the Living Plant. 
will not enlarge on the position and status of the professional 
botanist, but pass on at once to the question of reconstruction of 
teaching. There can be no doubt that in many departments 
improvement can be effected. But we must realise at the outset 
that in arranging courses what we have to aim at is to give a 
properly balanced presentation of the subject in relation to the 
ultimate object of our students in attending the course. An 
elementary course of botany to medical studentsobviously can with 
advantage differ from an elementary course of botany to students 
who intend to become professional botanists. In many botanical 
departments the same elementary course is provided for all 
students taking the subject, whatever their reason for so doing. 
It seems clear that in such cases the first stage in reconstruction 
should be to separate students into different classes according to 
their purpose in taking the subject. In Leeds we arranged 
special courses for students taking Medical, Science and Arts 
degrees as long ago as 1912. But to give three courses instead of 
one naturally means three times as much work, and obviously the 
enlargement of the teaching staff may be necessary to bring about 
this first stage in improvement. 
Again local conditions must always play a part in determining 
the content and arrangement of courses. 
But on the whole the contention of the signatories of the 
memorandum that the teaching of botany in this country has a 
morphological bias which works to the detriment of physiology 
and those aspects of botany with an outlook on practical life is no 
doubt true. Nevertheless the problem does not strike me as one of 
morphology against physiology. As the signatories of the 
memorandum say, it is not the introduction of more physiology in 
place of some of the morphology that is wanted, it is not patching 
but reconstruction, a complete change of outlook, that is desirable. 
Well, I stand for the doctrine of Botany as the Science of the 
Living Plant. I can make no claim to originality in this conception, 
for it was the motive underlying the work of A.T. Knight nearly a 
century ago. Recently Professor Ganong has written a book 
with the title of “ The Living Plant.” Less than two years ago 
Professor Hans Fitting delivered an academical oration with the 
title “Die Pflanze als lebender Organismus.” In the 
correspondence in these columns Professor Bower claims that he 
teaches the Living Plant. Dr. Keeble, one of the signatories of the 
memorandum, has, as I interpret it, recently expressed the same 
