244 The Reconstruction of 
animal physiology in one section of the British Association. This 
suggestion was, however, vigorously opposed by many botanists, 
who contended that the study of plants must be maintained as one 
subject. Their contention was successful and the new section was 
founded for animal physiology alone. Quite recently a movement, 
this time initiated by plant physiologists, was set on foot at the 
University of London to separate plant physiology from morphology 
in the honours degree examinations of the University, so that a 
student could take his degree in either branch. This movement 
was the outcome of the enormous increase in the content of the 
curriculum of advanced botany, which was felt to impose an 
unnecessary and too burdensome a strain on students whose 
interests were primarily physiological. The proposal met with 
considerable support, but was not carried further at the time owing 
to the outbreak of the war. 
It is inevitable that separation of advanced work on some such 
lines will occur sooner or later. It is already impossible for the 
student adequately to cover anything like the whole of the ground 
represented by modern botany, and some measure of relief cannot 
much longer be refused. If such a splitting as was contemplated 
were carried into effect, the present elementary courses would at 
first no doubt be retained as an introduction to the specialised 
advanced work, on both morphological and physiological sides, but 
it would soon be found that the existing courses were both 
inadequate and redundant as an elementary training for the plant 
physiologist. A movement would then probably be set on foot to 
provide a better training in chemistry and physics for the budding 
plant physiologist and to dispense with the unnecessary and unsuit¬ 
able “ elementary botany.” If this anticipation of the course of 
events is correct, the separation of the old subject of botany would 
then be complete. At this point it may be asked : Why not leave 
events to take their course ? If the tendencies at work lead to such 
a development, why try to deflect them into some other channel ? 
If plant physiology will thus eventually free itself from the shackles 
of morphology why not let the thing happen in that way ? The 
answer is: Because it would be bad for the subject and bad in 
various degrees for everyone concerned. This conviction is based 
not on a mere sentimental desire to maintain the study of plants as 
a single subject, but on the belief that you cannot divorce specialised 
work connected with plants from a sound elementary training in the 
study of plant life as a whole without narrowing and formalising 
