Of thu Sciench of Plant Bactfriology 291 



perhaps, in brief, skives a better idea of the progress of pathology . . . than 

 an enumeration of the then-recognized classes of the rod-shaped bacteria. 

 Fliigge's groups of these bacteria arc named from prominent organisms in 

 each group and those containing parasites arc as follows: The hay-bacillus 

 group, the anthrax group, the oedema bacillus group, the symptomatic 

 anthrax group, the tetanus group, the proteus group, tlie lluoreSLcnt bacilli, 

 the water bacilli (here plant parasites), the Bacillus aerogeues group, the 

 Bacillus coli and typhoid group, the hemorrhagic septicaemia group (here 

 mouse typhus), the Bacillus sputigenes group (here mouse plague), the 

 intiuenza bacillus group, the swine measles group, the glanders group, the 

 diphtheria group, and the tubercle group. At the end Fliigge has a catch- 

 all for diseases of uncertain origin, variously ascribed to bacteria, but all 

 imperfectly understood and requiring further investigation: such diseases 

 as rabies, smallpox, measles, typhus fever, whooping cough, yellow fever, 

 beri-beri, and trachoma. 



As yet, no book had been writen on bacteria which affected 

 plants. In a prepared " Memorandum of things to do," of date 

 September 12, 1895, Smith listed as the second item, "Write a 

 book on Bacterial diseases of Plants." He began this by putting 

 in order for the American Naturalist his historic critical reviews 

 of the present state of knowledge concerning, first, diseases 

 of clearly established bacterial origin; second, diseases which 

 appeared to be constantly associated with bacteria and which were 

 believed probably due to some specific organism, but full proof 

 of which had not been furnished; third, diseases said to be more 

 or less closely associated with the presence of bacteria and ascribed 

 thereto, but in which little or no proof had been brought forward 

 to establish the causal relation; and, fourth, communicable dis- 

 eases which had been ascribed to bacteria but associated with 

 which no organism had been found and which were believed 

 probably of non-bacterial nature.-' Arranged according to hosts 

 and based on materials supplied so far as possible by the most 

 reputable authorities who themselves had studied and first pub- 

 lished on the diseases — for example, Wakker in yellow disease 

 (1883) of hyacinth — these studies, preceded in America only by 

 Dr. Russell's thesis on bacteria in relation to vegetable tissue, 

 represented the lirst real effort by an American scientist to evaluate 

 the existing knowledge on plant diseases caused by bacteria. 



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

 knowledge, Amer. Naturalist 30 (356): 642, Aug. 1896. 



