print less than one-fourth of that number. The part printed gave only the slightest description of the method of the problem, and no qualifying explanation. It was, in fact, but a series of tables and dogmatic assertions. Chagrined, I asked the privilege of printing the paper in full in some other magazine and this was done in Education, vol. xxiv, p. 603-13, June, 1904.

Had Professor Jastrow happened to run across it there he would, I dare say, hardly have thought it worth the while to emphasize so many of the possibilities of error, for they are there pointed out. So generally are the points that he criticised in the World's work paper touched upon in the Education article that it seems hardly worth the while to discuss them in detail at this time.

However, briefly. First. It is true that I used The World Almanac as the source of data for living oraduates. The table is headed "Communicated to the World Almanac by the presidents of the respective institutions." It has, moreover, the appearance of exactness since a very large proportion of the figures are carried out to the place of units. For instance, the five colleges coming first in the edition used give 772, 72, 566 and 985 respectively. It is interesting to know that our college presidents are not taking proper care in making returns.

Second. The possible effect of the more rapid increase in student body of some colleges than of others is discussed at length in the Education article, as is the lag in making place in Who's who.

Third. The presence of technical students among the graduates of some colleges and not of others is also considered. However, Who's who contains the names of large numbers of such and we have no reasons to suppose that they are in any way discriminated against.

Fourth. The question of coeducation in its effect upon the returns is given considerable space. Even Professor Jastrow does not, if I understand his paper, follow what he asserts to be the only "fair method" and "exclude this factor absolutely." EDWIN G. DEXTER

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

VIII

REVIEWS

Special method in elementary science for the common school-By C. A. MCMURRY. New York: The Macmillan Co. 275 P. 75 cents.

This is in part a revision of McMurry's Special method in science (1896), and to the original book are added plans for the four upper grades of the elementary school.

The first seven chapters discuss the general bearings of "science" in elementary education under the following chapter headings: I, Introductory discussion; II, History and aim of science teaching; III, Planning the course of study and means of simplifying it; IV, The basis for selecting and arranging topics for the course of study; V, The gradual approaches to science; VI, The application of science to life; VII, Method in science lessons.

In commenting on the contents of the book, we note first the word "science" in the title. The school work under consideration is so elementary that certainly little of it is really science, but rather nature-study, as that term is now understood by most scientific men who have given attention to elementaryschool work. It appears that the author felt uncertain in his use of the word "science," for the terms nature-study and science are used quite interchangeably and synonymously in his text. For example, in Chapter IX the first sentence refers to the "course of study in elementary science," and the plan for this begins five pages beyond with the bold heading, "Outline for nature-study." It is unfortunate that these terms are used so loosely in this new edition. It is time that educators drop the word "science" for elementary-school studies of nature, no matter how superficial they may be, and by so doing avoid confusion with high-school work, to which "elementary science" may be more properly applicable.

In Chapter III there is presented the now commonly accepted idea that nature-study should deal with the child's home envi

tration, but he has sought to give English and American teachers detailed accounts of class lessons witnessed by him in the subjects of study taught during the compulsory period of elementary-school attendance.

Mr. Winch notes that in the United States and Germany there is wide-spread recognition of the need of comparative work, with definite tests, but that in England this need is still without noticeable recognition; and he offers the results of his labors as a preliminary study for the use of English teachers. It is useless, he thinks, to pile up work in educational exhibitions, or to show samples of great excellence, unless we know the conditions of their production.

German educational authorities, he notes, are more inclined than English to believe that the scientific problems,—psychological and other,-upon which education is based, are matters for specialistic and scientific research. The English are prone to decide such questions upon a basis of information gained from teachers and inspectors, most of whom are too busy with actual administration, even if they possess the necessary scientific equipment. In Germany, on the other hand, such questions are assigned to trained psychologists and educational experts. In Breslau, to cite but one example, the school authorities recently commissioned Professor Ebbinghaus, at the head of the psychological laboratory of the university in that city, to investigate the nature and extent of nervousness and mental fatigue among the school children of that city.

After a brief statement of the grading, hours, fees, discipline, and promotion in German schools, the author proceeds to give pen pictures of lessons in arithmetic, reading, spelling, writing, composition, history, grammar, modern language, elementary science, drawing, gymnastics, and singing witnessed in the schools of Frankfort, Hamburg, Leipzig, and Berlin. In work in arithmetic in Leipzig he noted the almost exclusive use of auditory memory in solving problems, in contrast with the readiness of the English teachers to employ the visual memory. He found the reading work in the same city exceedingly well done, but greater limitation of reading matter than in England. German teachers of history give instruction; they do not merely hear lessons from a book as in England (and America). In

fact," saying lessons to the teacher," which is the basis of practically all work in elementary schools, and most of that in secondary schools in the United States and England, receives slight recognition in Germany. "The German teachers," says Mr. Winch, " do not hold that their object is merely to stimulate interest in this subject [history], but to give a firm basis of sound elementary information."

More surprises in store for the English (and American) teachers in the study of geography in Germany. "The pupils had no geography books, but every boy had an atlas which was clear and uncrowded; for geographical information which the map did not provide, the scholars were entirely dependent upon the oral lessons of the teacher, supplemented by such notes as he was able to give them." The German schoolboy's power of description from a map Mr. Winch thought quite astonishing.

The chief value of Mr. Winch's book lies in its painstaking and accurate descriptions of class lessons in many subjects, and at the different stages of advancement of German school children. Since English reviewers are unfailing in the detection of provincialisms and Americanisms in educational books published on this side of the Atlantic, attention may be called to the use of the word scholar for lads in their teens, and even before. The absence of an index is one of the common faults of English publications of this class.

STATE NORMAL SCHOOL,
WESTFIELD, MASS.

WILL S. MONROE

A college text-book of botany-By GEORGE FRANCIS ATKINSON. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1905. xvi+737 p. $2.00 net.

The present book is a revision and elaboration of the author's Elementary botany, published in 1898. The plan of treatment remains essentially unchanged, the subject being discussed from physiological, morphological, and ecological standpoints. Part I, dealing with physiology, remains practically untouched, altho considerable new matter has been added in the discussion of the subjects of nutrition and digestion. In Part II, in which the principal chapters on morphology are unchanged, note should be made of the additional consideration given to

the classification and relationships of the various groups. In each of the great groups of plants attention is first directed to several examples which illustrate in a marked way the progressive stages in the development of the plant body and the reproductive processes, after which additional types are briefly considered, with a view to giving a broader understanding of the relationships as represented in the regular sequences of classes, orders, and families.

The most noteworthy departure in the book will be found in the author's treatment of ecology, Parts III and IV. This portion of the work has been completely rewritten and so extended as to form the major feature of the book. Part III is devoted to plant members in relation to environment. Consideration is given to the organization of the plant and to the special functions and relations of the different members of the plant body. Part IV deals with vegetation forms in relation to environment. The topics discussed comprise the factors of environment, the laws of migration, the analysis of plant formations and societies. The composition and character of the various plant societies of the earth are considered in considerable detail. In Part V the work closes with a study of the representative families of angiosperms. Directions are given to the student in the prosecution of his work, and suggestions are offered to the teachers in the methods of presentation and in the preparation of material and laboratory supplies.

The scheme and spirit of the book are commendable. It is to be hoped that we are passing away from the generalities of picture-book botany, and we feel sure that this presentation of the essential facts and principles of botanical science will meet with hearty approval. The advisability, however, of confining within the limits of the present volume so extended a consideration of the subject may be questioned. It is evident that the author has been obliged in many chapters to resort to an unfortunate condensation in the discussion of topics. This treatment gives at times an unevenness to the discussion and destroys the balance in the consideration of the topics. This is particularly noticeable in the chapters on morphology, where it has been necessary to mention certain orders and families with but a line of comment, whereas co-ordinate