162 Correspondence. 
experience of practical difficulties (even of growing seedlings, or 
measuring tree-shoots) which the students gain, and which I am sure 
cannot fail to be useful to them in their own teaching. It also arouses 
keen interest in plants as living things, and gives greater power of solving 
the many smaller problems of plant-life which are continually cropping 
up in any Botany class. It also provides training in close observation, 
and clear expression* 
A similar method (as indicated in a paper in your June number) would 
be very valuable in a School. Indeed, in so far as my students were 
beginners, the work given them approximated to School work in character, 
although, of course, the treatment of the worker must be rather different 
in School and College but even though my students were grown-up, 
the two hours a week allowed of very little Greek! Indeed we only 
troubled ourselves with technical terms when they were really wanted. 
Bor 1 have alwa} 7 s thought that botany is voted “ dry’' only because the 
learning of an entirety new language is too often the introduction to the 
subject. When the beginner is presented first of all with the actual 
plants, and is led to see the relations between form and function, etc., he 
can only be fascinated. The necessary terms can then be brought in as 
the need for them is felt, the result being a far more real, if less pretentious, 
knowledge of the plant-world. 
Although many improvements suggest ihemselves in our experiment 
of this year, we—class and teacher—have found it so useful and interesting 
that we shall have no hesitation in making fresh experiments on the same 
lines next Session. 
With thanks to the “Nkw PhyToi.ogisT ” for the original suggestion, 
and hoping to hear of the experiences of others who have acted upon it, 
I am, Sir, 
Yours, etc., 
Darlington, Emma E. Hart. 
July xst , 1902. 
SYSTEMATIC BOTANY FOR CHIEDREN. 
To the Editor of the “Nkw Phytoi.ogist.” 
Dkar Sir, 
A writer in the June number of the “Nkw PhytokogisT’’ makes 
some useful suggestions with regard to the teaching of Botany to children. 
May I draw attention to one phase of the subject, the systematic, which, 
to say the least, is not encouraged in the article to which I refer. We know 
that it has been much abused in the past, but that is no reason why it 
should not prove helpful in the future. It is quite possible to learn 
something of the relationships of plants to each other, as well as to 
insects and other factors in their environment, without the burden of 
numerous technical terms. 
Take for instance the Rose family (you need not call it Rosaceae)—a 
very short walk will enable you to find quite a number of members which 
have certain points in common, and certain special characteristics, both 
easily observed. Bor instance at present you can find wild roses with the 
young fruits sunk in a cup, the Strawberry and Potentilla with them 
raised on a central cushion, which in one case becomes fleshy, in the other 
remains dry; then if you like you can go 011 to the less obscure case as 
shown in the ripening apples where the young fruits have grown to the 
flower-cup. Then there are Blackberry, Herb-Benuet, Burnet, the latter 
flower small but full of possibilities, both family and biologic,—its 
Poteutilla-like leaves give a clue to the family, and if a lens is available 
there is the flower-cup comparable with that in the rose, but dry 
instead of fleshy and protecting a limited not an indefinite number of 
fruits. Throughout 30m find the persistent sepals, the numerousstamens, 
and (except in Apple) the free fruits, while the leaves though showing 
great variety are all stipulate, this character sometimes even invading the 
flower. Compare the Buttercup with these; the stamens and carpels are 
numerous but the sepals fall easity, the leaves have 110 stipules, while the 
convex axis affords a striking contrast to the flower-cup in the rose. 
If Clematis is handy, note the same type of flower, but without petals: 
the University teacher may some day be delighted not to have to expatiate 
on the absurdity of a group Apetalae based merely on absence of petals. 
