Within the last few years the interest that has been aroused throughout the country in "nature-study," has caused a great demand for this class of books. Writers and publishers have hastened to meet the demand and as a result the market has been flooded with books that were made to sell. Too often the writers have not been scientific persons, and as a result the books have been mere compilations, or were not true to facts. They lacked the true spirit of science. Other authors have not separated the element of fiction from that of science, thinking that the child could only be interested in nature by means of a story. The writer of this paper does not believe that science books should be made story books. "Tenants of an old farm," by McCook, is a good illustration of the combination of the science and story element. The author is a naturalist and whatever facts are presented may be accepted as being as nearly correct as it is possible to make them since they represent the results of careful personal observation. The author himself did not believe that the truths of nature were so unattractive that they needed to be woven into a story in order that the book might find its way to the general reader. Then why did he employ this method? He was persuaded by his friends to change the original plan of the book and presented it, after much hesitation, in its present form. The book has thereby lost much of its usefulness. Another element that many authors have employed to a greater or less extent is personification. That the value of a book is lessened thereby and its power over the reader greatly decreased, is beyond question. There may be some excuse for a limited amount of personification in the treatment of bees, wasps, or ants, but the majority of forms of plant and animal life does not need the human factor in order to make clear life-relationships. Grant Allen, in his "Story of the plants," has described the use of the stamens and pistils as "how plants marry" and the modes of fertilization as "various marriage customs." Allen Gould, in "Mother Nature's children," speaks of the "snakehead" fish and its young as "Mr. and Mrs. Snakehead and their babies" and of the seed-vessels of plants as "ways the mother plants have of cradling their babies." This method of treating nature's truths does not make the facts any clearer to the child; it only tends to diminish the grandeur of that truth. Some writers have considered it desirable to embody the thought in terms that are already, or are supposed to be, familiar to the child, that he may be able to grasp the truth. The author forces upon the child a double task, since he must first get the thought as it appears and then search for the concealed fact. This process is not liable to be successful. Mrs. Dana, in "Plants and her children," uses the term "sweet stuff" for nectar, "watery-broth" for the cell-sap of plants. The food of plants is spoken of as the "plant's bill of fare," and in