Page:Science vol. 5.djvu/225

 PRIDAT, MARCH 13. 1886.

��COMMENT AND CRITICISM. A VLAS is on foot for establishing in Mouut Kojal park, Montreal, a botanic garden, to be under tUe joint care and patronage of Mc- Gill uDivereitj' and the Horticultural societj'. ••' Those who are familiar with the superb park and ita deservedly famous drives will nt once aoderatand what an uni-ivslled opportunity Bloiiireal possesses for giving to its citizens another source of enjoyment. With a water- supply practically limitless, and with every aeedlVil exposui'e to the snn uj>on Its slopes, the mouutnin fVirnishes ««< fine a location for a botanic garden at the north as can be imagined. Il is wisely suggested that much prominence b« given, in the new enterprise, to the special bonicullural and arboriculturnl features which offer so wide a field for profitable study in our nortUem climates.

Of the educational advantages to nniversity •Uidenta, of a Imtanic garden and an arboi-e- Uim, it is superfluous to speak, since they are self-evident; but it may be well to refer briefly to the great value to a community of a botanic gard«n aa a means of culture to the children in the public sehoots, as well as to the thousands wbo can find little time, anil who have but Httle inclination, to acquaint themselves with tbe world of beauty around them. In u properly arranged botanic garden, the groups of plants having different and interesting habiU — for instant*, the climbers, the insec- tivorous plants, the weather- pi ants, and those which fbmisb tlic piincipal vegetable products — u« visited and carefully esamiued h_v many who would otherwise seldom look into the liook ot natore. We presume that no scientific man can object in any reasonable way to such ft method of popularizing science. The enter- prise is fortunately to receive the judicious care

��of Professor Penhallow of McGill university. We wish the plau all s

��We iiavk given space to Mr. Cox's long letter attacking our comments upon microseo- pists, because he has brought against us an accusation of unfairness. We can assure Sir. Cos that our ex[iressions were induced by no animuH or personal feeling, but were called forth by the tendency, speciaUy marked in this country, to give a separate dignity to microscopy, and to glorify the tool at the ex- pense of the work. The microscope is a tool, like the tweezers or the hammer; and the sci- ences cAnnot be divided according to the tool used. That microBco[)es are so fine and elabo- rate mtiy explain, but does not lessen, the error of regarding microscopy as a separate science. To make microscopy as generally understood, a little petrography is patched together with a little anatomy, some parts of botany, a little crystallography and ehemisti-y. and some optica. Mr. Cos invites a compari- son with astronomy as the science of what is beyond vision in distance; but the astrono- mer is not a telescopist, and does not claim that every thing which can be done with a telescope should be groujied together under one science. lie rec<^nizes his instrument as his tool.

The raicrosco|>e is a noble apparatus; and one who tltoroughly studies all the principles involved in its construction, and invents im- provements in it or its use, is desenedly to be called both a mteroscopist and a scientific man. Usually' the microscopisl is, however, confes- seitly an amateur, and gives his attention to very various objeota; while those who use the microscope constantly — the ]mlhologists, embryolc^ists, botanists, pclrographers, etc. — unquestionably prefer to be called after the department of science they follow, not micros- copists after their instruments. We think

��I

��I

�� �