96 Some Criticisms and Suggestions.

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "96 Some Criticisms and Suggestions."

Barry Stokes
5 years ago
Views:

1 96 Some Criticisms and Suggestions. very welt complete itself, for the science of plants is certainly not doing it8 duty to the country. The great practical difficulty in carrying out reforms such as you advocate seems to me to be the absence of the men to carry them out. The few bright young men who are interested in what matters and who have survived the morphological mill, naturally have no chance of settling what shall be taught, and from the people in established positions, apart perhaps from your co-signatories, it does not look as though you would ^et much help. Still if you can get the things that matter constantly held up before the teachers you may get a gradual change in the right direction. How would it be to ask those (and I imagine there are some) who are trying to teach on more fundamental lines to publish their syllabuses? Would it be possible to get out an elementary text book of the right sort? Is there anyone who could and would write it, or would co-operation be possible? These few halting suggestions are, I am afraid, all I have to ofifer by way of constructive proposals. In conclusion I would say: Do not be discouraged by apathy and the HOH possumus attitude which you are certain to meet. Your theoretical position is so eminently sound that in the long run it must commend itself, except to those whose minds have become ossified. I follow the example of "Witness" and sign myself Yours pseudonymously but faithfully. AJAX. SOME CRITICISMS AND SUGGESTIONS. To the Editor of the NBW PHYTOLOOIST. SIR, Most Botanists will probably be in agreement with the fundamental criticisms of present-day botanical teaching that the treatment is too largely morphological and phylogenetic, and takes too little cognisance of physiology. But when one turns to the translation of general principles of improvement into practice several obvious dangers present themselves. The time is not so very remote when botanical teaching was as much dominated by the taxonomic point of view as it now is by the morophlogical. Taxonomy however at the present day only forms a very small part of the botanical curriculum, but, nevertheless, far from this being accompanied by a better and more fundamental treatment, there is probably no part of th* subject which is more inadequately tauj{ht. The restricted time available for systematic Botany is usually devoted to the study of certain groups that are

2 Reconstruction of Elementary Botanical Teaching. 97 required by some syllabus, and tbe average student, after taking a "Pass" dej^ree, is not merely unacquainted witb many common plants, but as a rule is quite incapable of utilising a flora to tbe best advantage. Tbis is tbe more to be deprecated since, in tbefieldsof economic and applied Botany generally, tbe importance of critical forms, as distinct from tbe larger aggregates, is becoming more and more empbasised. It is tberefore manifestly important tbat tbe contemplated curtailment of morpbological studies sbould not be open to tbe same objection and result in a barren remnant of little educational value. Tbe necessity of a sound morpbological training cannot be too strongly empbasised, for, wbetber tbe student proposes ultimately to follow ecology, pbysiology, or applied Botany in its many brancbes, a tborougb acquaintance witb plant-structure is a necessity, not merely for tbe proper comprebension of tbe problems wbicb nature affords, but also as a safeguard against viewing tbe plant as a mere aggregation of cbemical and pbysical pbenomena. Tbe sterility of morpbology and taxonomy is largely, if not entirely, an outcome of tbe fact tbat tbey are taugbt as ends in tbemselves and not as essential tools in tbe mental equipment of tbe student. As a consequence we find at tbe present day tbat many of tbose engaged in applied Botany are very inadequately trained in tbese respects. To a large extent tbe ecological view-point will, witb its comprebensive vista, a ford a corrective to tbis attitude, but tbe general introduction of ecology into tbe elementary course (especially in tbe first year) is not devoid of danger in tbe bands of inexperienced teacbers. Many of tbe results of ecology are as yet necessarily tentative, and as sucb are not suited for presentation, except to a mind already trained to critical consideration. Tbe complex of factors involved in tbe relation of plants to tbeir environment is only beginning to be unravelled and, as a consequence, tbere is a risk, well exemplified in current ecological literature, of regarding problems in tbe ligbt of single factors, ratber tban as tbe resultant of tbe inter-action of many. Nowbere perbaps is tbis criticism more pertinent, or tbe inadequacy of our knowledge more patent, tban in tbe domain of autecology, and tberefore we regard witb some misgiving tbe suggestion (Memorandum, p. 246) tbat tbe elementary course sbould embrace " a treatment of tbe pbysiological life bistory of tbe individual plant." Witb due recognition of tbese difficulties we fully support tbe

3 98 Some Criticisms and Suggestions. suggestion that ecology in the broadest sense, together with its bearing on agriculture, horticulture, and forestry, should occupy a prominent position in the elementary curriculum, and that the physiological conception should be infused into morphology and anatomy. We feel that one of the great faults of morphological teaching at the present time is the retention of details that are comparatively irrelevant. As instances we may cite the details of archesporial development, comparative stelar anatomy (especially in the Pteridophyta), the methods of segmentation in meristematic tissues, the details of flower and fruit structure in Angiosperms (which are readily acquired in the use of a flora), the cytological details of Pungi, etc. On the other hand morphological training, for pure and applied Botanists alike, should include a thorough grounding in the essential characters of the chief groups of the Vegetable Kingdom. The course of lectures dealing with this part of the subject could be relatively brief, but the practical work should be of such a nature as to enable the student to determine the approximate systematic position of any form which might come within his purview. That is to say the training should be a preparation for the acquisition of knowledge to meet future requirements and not tlie mere assimilation of a large number of facts. In the domain of physiology we support the recommendation of Mr. T. G. Hill that students should be encouraged to devise and construct their own apparatus wherever feasible. In view of the importance to be given to ecology and the economic trend a moderate-sized garden should be available for experiments on the living and undisturbed plant. The general principles of cultivation, of the application of manures, etc., should be tested by the students themselves on suitable plots in this garden. Nothing is better calculated to inculcate the practical application of physiological principles than the actual cultivation, on the part of students, of a small area of ground. Any change in the teaching of Botany which is to be not merely temporarily effective must aim at the removal of the domination of the lecture-room and laboratory by the examination. To this end the syllabus should lack rigidity and thus leave scope for the individuality of the teacher. It is desirable coo that there should be accompanying modifications in cognate subjects {e.g.. Chemistry and Physics), so that courses in these latter dealing

4 Reconstruction of Elementary Botanical Teaching. 99 witb those aspects more especially concerning tbe biologist mijjbt be available. Tbe suggestion tbat eacb department sbould bave a pliysicist and cliemist attacbed is an ideal tbat will probably at present prove not to be witbin tlie scope of practical policy. We fully agree witb Mr. T. G. Hill tbat tbe different subjects sliould be taken consecutively and not concurrently, all tbe more as otber laboratory subjects {e.^., Cbemistry and Pbysics) form tbe best adjuncts to Botany. We also endorse tbe view tbat a Pass degree sbould be a necessary step to graduation in an Honours scbool. As regards tbe subjects for tbe former, we sbould deprecate too restricted a cboice of combinations, since for some morpbological minds it is conceivable tbat, for instance. Botany, Zoology, and Geology migbt yield good results. For tbis reason too tbe suggested Honours scbools, namely Pbysiology and Ecology, Biocbemistry and Biopbysics, and Morpbology are open to objection, since in tbe case of an agricultural student, for example, tbe grouping of Ecology and Biocbemistry would probably be more advantageous tban any otber. We are. Sir, etc., P. H. FRITSCH. E. J. SALISBURY. A SUGGESTION POR AN HONOURS COURSE. To the Editor of the NEW PHYTOLOGIST. SIR, Tbat tbe university teacbing of botany needs vitalising can scarcely be doubted; and we owe a great debt to tbe NEW PHYTOLOGIST for raising tbe question in sucb a practical manner. As tbe matter is being discussed, I venture to put forward an alternative proposal. It will readily be granted tbat botany is now too large a subject to be covered adequately in a two years' course. Some form of specialisation is clearly necessary; and yet I cannot regard witbout misgiving tbe division of botanical learning into tbree scbools. We cannot look back witbout envy on our ancestors wbo were able, not so very long ago, to bave a fair working knowledge of tbe wbole of science, wbilst today, most of us bave an adequate acquaintance witb only one department of it. Need we carry tbe process a stage furtber and condemn our botanical descendants to a

THE TOWARDS AN IDEAL BOTANICAL CURRICULUM. PART III.' ADVANCED UNIVRKSITY TEACHING.

THE TOWARDS AN IDEAL BOTANICAL CURRICULUM. PART III.' ADVANCED UNIVRKSITY TEACHING. HEW THE PHYTOIiOGIST. Vol. 2., No. I. JANUARY I6TH, 1903. TOWARDS AN IDEAL BOTANICAL CURRICULUM. PART III.' ADVANCED UNIVRKSITY TEACHING. THE conditions governing advanced botanical work, such as should