316 Recognition in America 



mination of Refractory Spores," "^ culled from recent studies 

 made by Dr. Jacob Eriksson of Stockholm. 



Smith reviewed the work of botanists from other nations. In 

 1896 he described the experiments of M. Gaston Bonnier of Paris 

 on " Changes in Structure of Plants due to Feeble Light "^°- and 

 on "Changes due to an Alpine Climate""^; and that year he 

 told of the find by Dr. F. A. F. C. Went, the Dutch botanist, of 

 an "Algal Parasite on Coffee," ^°* Cephaleurus coffeae. These 

 were three among many others. 



During this period A. Engler's and K. Prantl's great work, Die 

 Natmiichen Pflanzenfa?niiien, was being compiled, arranging in 

 ordinal sequence the life histories of phanerogams, algae, fungi, 

 bryophytes, pteridophytes, etc. In 1899 Smith would review lie- 

 ferung 180, the first part of Fiinfstiick's account of the Lichenes,^"^ 

 and more than pointing out that of 20,000 described species, 

 varieties or forms only about 4,000 were well known, he would 

 comment on points of classification. " It may be assumed," he 

 wrote, " that nearly every one knows that lichens are symbiotic 

 growths. It is now just thirty years since the publication of 

 Schwendener's memorable paper, and the matter was fought over 

 and settled in the seventies. In different lichens the relation 

 between the fungus and the alga is very different." He thought 

 of himself as a " non-lichenologist " but his interest in proto- 

 plasmic chemistry and sexual reproduction among the lower plant 

 orders caused him to study this new work with enthusiasm. 

 " Ripening of Fleshy Fruits " ^"^ was another review which clearly 

 showed an interest in the chemistry and physiology of his subjects. 



In 1896 he had reviewed lieferung 129 of Die Natiirlichen 

 Pflanze}2fa??iilien. This was entitled "A New Classification of 

 Bacteria " ^"^ and had to do with an arrangement by Professor 

 W. Migula of Karlsruhe which was believed " more practical and 

 satisfactory than that of Alfred Fischer." This paper, Smith told 

 his readers, " ought to be in the hands of every working bac- 

 teriologist." He believed that the classification, appearing " to 

 have grown out of a long and wide experience in the laboratory," 



^"^ Idem 64-65. 



^°~Idem 30(^53): 405-408. ^"^ Idem 30(349): 67. 



^"Udem 30(349): 61-63. ^"Udem 33(390): 540-543. 



'"'"Idem 32(375): 208-210. This was based on a study by C. Gerber (1898). 



^"^ Idem 30(354): 490-493. 



