Of thi; SriPNCi- of Plant Ba( tf.iuoi.oc.v 285 



decades later. The American Jour/htl of Botany, ofiicial publication 

 of the Botanical Society of America, and published by the Brook- 

 lyn Botanic Garden with Newcombe as its editor-in-chief, appeared 

 on the American scientific scene. 



In American botany, the year 1895 was prophetic in another 

 particular. December 30 of that year, J. E. Humphrey, now of 

 Johns Hopkins University, soon to be promoted, and as part of 

 his work to deliver a course of eight public lectures on the history 

 and present outlook of Botany, addressed a communication to 

 Smith: , 



At a meeting of botanists present at the Philadelphia meetings -^ a 

 committee of live, comprising E. F. Smith, L. H. Bailey, [W. F.] Ganong, 

 Bessey, and myself, was chosen to canvass the botanists of the country, 

 especially of the east, for an expression as to whether they favor and will 

 actively cooperate in the organization of a botanical society to meet with 

 the several other scientific societies which meet during Christmas week. 

 We are also charged with getting suggestions as to the scope of such a 

 society, and, if the response is sufficiently encouraging, to make definite 

 recommendations for organization to the meeting next year, and to prepare 

 a program for that meeting. I hope you are willing to act as a member of 

 the committee and that you will agree to canvass the Washington botanists 

 thoroughly on the question. 



At this time neither plant physiology nor plant morphology 

 were mentioned in the wording of this letter or in a printed form, 

 prepared June 1, 1896, by the committee, and circulated among 

 botanists. However, by letter of Janaury 3, 1896, Humphrey 

 advised Smith that if the latter had been present at Philadelphia 

 he " would have seen that the whole sentiment of the botanical 

 meeting was morpho-physiological." The prominent participants 

 in the meeting had been W. P. Wilson, Macfarlane, Ganong, 

 Miss Gregory, and H. W. Conn, who to Humphrey represented 

 bacteriology. Humphrey had begun to attend meetings of the 

 Washington scientific societies. In the autumn of 1896 he told 

 Smith that botanical work at the university had begun " with 

 distinct gains." He and Smith, however, did not agree wholly as 

 to the scope and purposes of the new society, although their 

 differences were chiefly whether the research fields of plant phy- 

 siology and morphology were sufficiently developed to warrant a 

 new society, and not whether each was needed. Plant physiology, 



-'' Of the ArriQrican Society of Naturalists. 



