280 Recognition in America 



else, F. von Tavel's Vergleichende Morphologie der Vtlze}" 

 Other works by Hermann Vochting, G. Haberlandt, H. Graf 2u 

 Solms-Laubach, Louis Mangin, Treub and Nawaschin, E. Kroeber, 

 Bokorny, and other Europeans were included in reviews. A few 

 works by Americans were also chosen, including that of Professor 

 J. M. Macfarlane on paraheliotropism and Thomas B. Osborne's 

 study of proteids of the rye kernel and barley and the chemical 

 nature of diastase/^ 



August 23, 1895, Pammel of Iowa Agricultural College con- 

 gratulated Smith: 



I have just received your interesting paper on Bacillus tracheiphilus . . . 

 in Centralbl[att} f. Bakt[eriologie] u. Parasitenk[unde}. It is an excellent 

 paper. It seems to me you have adopted the proper vi^ay of describing species 

 of bacteria. No one will be able to recognize many species of bacteria 

 described by authors. ... I have sent a paper on certain gas producing 

 species to [the] St. Louis Academy [of Sciences] which will probably appear 

 sometime this fall. In this paper several species are fully described. . . . 



That year, in bulletin 27 of the Iowa experiment station, 

 Pammel described the " Bacteriologists of rutabaga " and its causal 

 organism, Bacillus campestris. In May, under this title, he pub- 

 lished on it in the American Monthly Microscopical Journal.^'^ 

 During the summer Pammel had " very little opportunity ... to 

 do Bacteriological work." He promised to send a copy or abstract 

 of his paper. 



Smith in August 1896 began to publish in the American 

 Naturalist his critical evaluations of the present state of knowl- 

 edge of bacterial diseases of plants. ^^ Pammel on December 25, 

 after reading the first three or four of these, sent another 

 letter to Smith. First, he explained that he had lacked for many 

 months a place to carry forward his investigations in bacteriology 

 and could not furnish him cultures of Bacillus campestris. He 

 thought Smith's " scheme outlined in American Naturalist is a 

 most excellent one, and should be followed. This has not been 

 done by many of us," he added, " but what can be expected in 



'''']our. Mycology 7(4): 389-396, Aug. 1894. 



'^^ Amer. Nat. 29: 1100-1103 (Macfarlane), Dec. 1895; " Separation of enzymes," 

 Anier. Nat. 29: 586, June 1895. 



^* 16: 145 ff. 



^^ The bacterial diseases of plants: a critical review of the present state of our 

 knowledge, Amer. Nat. 30 (356): 627 (first of series), Aug. 1896. 



