ANNEXURE "B." POPULATION IN THE UNITED STATES AND INCREASE IN EACH * This does not include population of Indian reservations, etc., now included in the official census for the first time. ANNEXURE "C." POPULATION OF AUSTRALASIA AT DIFFERENT DATES, WITH ANNUAL INCREASE PER CENT. IN EACH DECADE. By S. SCHONLAND, HON. M.A. OXON., PH.D., PROFESSOR OF BOTANY, RHODES UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, AND DIRECTOR OF THE ALBANY MUSEUM, GRAHAM'S TOWN. The attitude of the general public (including the majority of socalled educated people) out here towards the teaching of Botany is very curious, and would be amusing, if it did not concern a matter which I, for one, consider of some importance, both with reference to general education, and even as regards the welfare and prosperity of the country, as I hope to show later on. As a rule, people have an idea that Botany consists in collecting and drying plants, and putting them neatly on sheets of paper, or in counting stamens and such like things; that the greatest Botanists are those who succeed in getting together the biggest collections, and remember the greatest majority of horrible names, that Botany may therefore be made a hobby for people who have not much else to do, and that as a means of training the minds of young people it is valueless. I need scarcely say that these and similar opinions, current in South Africa, and, I believe, also in England, are based on absolute ignorance of the subject. It is very peculiar that such views should be generally current amongst British people, since the British possess the finest botanical establishment in the world, kept up at an enormous cost. I refer, of course, to Kew Gardens, with its Museums, Herbarium Research Laboratory, and Library, and since also the researches of the British Botanists of the present day do not suffer in comparison with the work of the Botanists of any other nation; and, if we go back in the history of Science amongst European nations, we find that ever since the revival of true scientific work, the English Botanists have to a remarkable extent contributed towards the development of their Science, just as in other Sciences the work of Englishmen also can be traced as sign-posts in their development. A few examples, taken at random, will prove my statement as regards Botany. Shortly after Francis Bacon, about the beginning of the 17th Century, had pointed out that the only true way of studying nature consists in going straight to nature and asking her questions by means of observation and experiments, we find that the Oxford Botanic Garden was established (1632), one of the earliest establishments of its kind. Several of the earlier Professors, notably Morrison and Dillenius, left their mark on the science of Botany. Robert Hooke, who lived from 1635-1703, made considerable improvement in the construction of the compound microscope, and became incidentally the father of Vegetable Anatomy, which, during his lifetime, had a distinguished exponent in the person of Nehemiah Grew. In the 17th century England could also boast of John Ray, who first attempted a natural classification of plants, previous attempts in this direction having been of the crudest. He also made valuable investigations into the nutrition of plants and the movement of sap, and these were followed up by Stephen Hales (1677-1761); but Sachs states, in his History of Botany, published in 1875, that with Hooke and Grew the new light was extinguished in England, one might almost say up to the present day, but this is far too sweeping an assertion. There arose from time to time giants amongst English botanical investigators, such as Robert Brown, Lindley, Knight, and last, but not least, Charles Darwin. However, the first half of the last century saw, especially in Germany, a revival of investigations in Vegetable Anatomy, Physiology, and Morphology, based on developmental studies which, until the last 15 or 20 years, were not in a striking degree forwarded or even shared by English Botanists, and not until the best German text-books had been translated into English, and all coming men of distinction amongst English Botanists had been trained in Germany, did a striking change take place. Naturally, therefore, we could not expect to have English teachers trained to teach Botany properly in schools. It is curious to find that even Charles Darwin's works were more highly appreciated in Germany, and led, generally speaking, to more fruitful results amongst German Botanists than amongst their English colleagues. I cannot go fully into the reasons for this apparent anomaly. Splendid work was done, especially at Kew, during this time by the Hookers, Bentham, Oliver, Baker, and others, but the time of these men was fully occupied by work in Systematic Botany, and, incidentally, by work on the distribution of plants, with the abundant material which was poured in from all parts of the British Empire, South Africa included, but at the centres of learning, little original work was accomplished, and the students were mostly fed with such dry stuff as the external morphology of plants and their systematic arrangement affords. It was not realised that to make the study of plants worthy of a place amongst academical studies, the teaching of Botany must deal with plants in the first place as living beings. That under such circumstances the general public looked upon Botany with indifference or even contempt goes without saying. A Science which dealt chiefly with hard names could not command sympathy, and quite rightly, too. It was forgotten that these names are only a means to an end, and I am afraid that this wrong notion has largely survived. All seats of higher teaching in Great Britain are now splendidly equipped both for research and the training of students in Botany, but I am not aware that the teaching of Botany in British schools has made very great progress yet. It is different in America. From a book called the "Teaching Botanist," published at New York in 1899 by Dr. W. F. Ganong, I gather that in the United States between the advanced college and the lower school work, "botanical teaching is now in a state of wonderfully rapid expansion and transition. Three causes are contributing to this result. First, the natural reaction from its former extreme backwardness; second, a widening recognition of the value of the science, of which Botany is a leading one, in general education; third, its acceptance as an entrance subject by some of the leading colleges." Such a breaking away from old traditions on the part of the Americans, who are always looked upon as so remarkably acute, deserves our most serious attention. American educationalists, like educationalists of other civilised nations, have recognised that in order to round off education, to sharpen and polish the minds of those who are to be educated, it is not only desirable, but necessary, to include in any scheme of liberal education an inductive science, such as Botany. The true end of education, apart from moral training, is to enable man not only to make the best present use, but to realise the utmost potentialities, of his great weapon by which he rules the universe his mind. By means of the subjects usually taughtMathematics and Languages-his deductive faculties are greatly developed, but the other side of his mental power, the inductive faculties, are left undeveloped. With your permission, I will therefore first of all try to show how this great gap in our general educational system can be filled up. Although I do not hold with the current idea that knowledge acquired at school should be of immediate use, I can, however, show that a sound knowledge of I will Botany is of very great use, especially in a country like ours. also try to show that the teaching of Botany might be made to assist the moral training of pupils, and, lastly, I will try to indicate how time for the study of Botany in our schools could be found. I will not deal with the question whether any other science is equally good for the purpose for which I recommend Botany. Broadly speaking, one Science is as good as another for developing a scientific spirit in boys and girls, but Botany has the advantage that the material for teaching is everywhere available, a kitchen garden being just as useful for teaching its first principles as the richest wild Flora or the well-stocked greenhouses of large botanical establishments. It has, further, the advantage that for its proper understanding, some fundamental principles of other Sciences, such as Chemistry and Physics, have to be mastered, and thus it does not make the pupil too one-sided; at the same time I must admit that other Sciences have advantages peculiar to themselves, and circumstances may make it desirable that these be substituted. On one point, however, I should like to express my disapproval, namely, with regard to the opinion current in this country, that Botany is only suited to girls. Once the great educational value of the teaching of Botany is established, there is no reason why boys, as in German schools, should not learn it also. Botany, I maintain, is an excellent subject for making the mind active and alert by developing the scientific instinct in boys and girls. Of all scientific instincts," Dr. Ganong truly remarks in the book already quoted, the very foremost is that for exact observation. No others can be of much value if it be lacking." Now, whatever branch of Botany we take up, whether Morphology, which concerns itself with the forms, origin, and relationship of the parts of a plant, or Anatomy, which deals with the internal structure of plants, or Physiology, which deals with the functions their organs. perform, or Systematic Botany, which classifies plants-observation, strict observation, and accurate observation is a sine qua non. The material for observation has, however, to be carefully selected by the |