Meristematic Tissues and Protein I so-electric Points 191 
(7) Loeb, Jacques, Proteins and the Theory of Colloidal Behaviour. New 
York, 1922. 
(8) Priestley, J. H. and Tupper Carey, R. M., Physiological Studies in 
Plant Anatomy IV. The Water Relations of the Plant Growing 
Point. New Phyt. 21, pp. 210-229. 1922. 
(9) Priestley, J. H. and Woffenden, L. M., Physiological Studies in Plant 
Anatomy V. Causal Factors in Cork Formation. New Phyt . 21, 
pp. 252-268. 1922. 
(10) -The Healing of Wounds in Potato Tubers and their Propaga¬ 
tion by Cut Sets. Ann. of Applied Biol. 10, pp. 1-20. 1923. 
( 11 ) Sachs, J., Uber Saure, alkalische und neutrale Reaktion der Safte lebender 
Pflanzenzellen. Bot. Zeit. 1862, and Ges. Ahhandl. uber Pflanzen- 
physiologie, 1, pp. 660-674. Leipzig, 1892. 
CONTENT, METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS 
IN THE TEACHING OF ELEMENTARY BOTANY 
By FREDERIC E. CLEMENTS 
T he first step in carrying the ecological method of teaching into 
effect is to ascertain what is actually being accomplished in a 
particular course. This demands the clear recognition of the objectives 
sought. The definite formulation of objectives in teaching is perhaps 
as rare as the use of experiment and measurement, and a large 
number of teachers have but a vague idea of what they are striving 
to attain. Probably the aim most frequently expressed is to give 
the student an adequate idea of the subject, but this requires closer 
definition. To some it means a mass of facts, while to others it 
signifies an emphasis of principles and a disregard of facts, but to 
nearly all it denotes the covering of the traditional ground in the 
traditional time. In biology the almost universal aim is to “teach 
evolution,” with which is usually combined the desire to dignify the 
subject in the student’s eyes and to stress the great names in its 
development. It seems superfluous to point out that these are pro¬ 
fessional objectives, having in mind the interests of the professor and 
his subject, and assuming that these are identical with those of the 
student. They explain the prevalence of lecture and text-book, and 
throw light upon the abyss between scientific men and the public. 
They are the inevitable outcome of extreme specialization and of the 
practice of using such specialists as teachers of general students. 
In the sharpest contrast to these objectives are those that spring 
from making the interests and needs of the student paramount, and 
