MYCOLOGIC AND PHYTOPATHOLOG1C WORK 425 



assembled from such experimentation, and it is not surprising that 

 the epithet "squirt-gun pathologists" came to be applied to such 

 workers. 



Although plant pathologists have gradually assumed charge of 

 studies on the prevention and control of plant diseases, some still 

 fail to acquire or to utilize knowledge of the seasonal cycle of 

 development of the pathogen, of its epiphytology, and of agencies 

 of its dissemination as a basis for instituting experiments on how 

 best to control the given disease. Two obvious reasons may be 

 offered for this situation. It may arise from lack of adequate 

 mycological training or else from pressure exerted by administra- 

 tive officials for the publication of experimental findings. In any 

 event the net result is reflected in the content of published reports 

 and of papers presented at conferences or meetings. It is apparent 

 in many cases that too little cognizance has been taken of exist- 

 ing knowledge of the disease and that the materials presented are 

 preliminary and are fragmentary rather than comprehensive in 

 scope. For these reasons they are intrinsically limited in applica- 

 tion and in usefulness. The validity of these criticisms is sup- 

 ported by the fact that many papers presented at meetings are 

 not deemed of sufficient merit for publication. 



At present, plant pathologists do not occupy positions of re- 

 spect and honor in society comparable with those held by medi- 

 cal practitioners. Of course, the difference in age of the two 

 professions is a causal factor, but several other reasons, such as 

 the following, seem equally plausible and more fundamental in ac- 

 counting for this state of affairs. 



1. Remuneration for services rendered by plant pathologists is 

 made from funds raised by taxation. Plant pathologists are there- 

 fore public servants whose help and advice on the problems of 

 diagnosis and treatment of plant diseases must be given gratuitously 

 to all who request aid. The public has ironically come to feel 

 that the cost of things and their* real value to them as individuals 

 are either identical or at least closely correlated. 



2. Reports, both those dealing with very meritorious research 

 on pathogenic fungi and those having little or no value, are alike 

 published and distributed free of charge. The public is not al- 

 ways able to differentiate between these two types of reports 

 nor to evaluate them, and they are, in consequence, appraised as 

 though of equal value. It is unfortunate that they should be simi- 



