320 Recognition in America 



" contains the best summary in any general treatise on plant 

 diseases. . . . The statements in it, carefully as the literature 

 has been gone over by Dr. Lindau, show, however, perhaps as 

 clearly as anything, the great need for a reexamination of the 

 whole subject by some one experimentally familiar with it." That 

 year, 1905, Smith, after carefully working over " in the laboratory, 

 field, and greenhouse, as opportunity offered, all of the so-called 

 bacterial diseases of plants, submitting each supposed parasite to 

 all of the tests of modern pathology," ^^^ began to publish his 

 three-volume monograph Bacteria in Relation to Plant Diseases 

 in which he expected to treat or touch upon " more than 125 

 diseases . . . many of which [had] come under [his] own observa- 

 tion." In this he included an " outline of methods of work " 

 started several years previously and evidently first submitted for 

 criticism to Dr. V. A. Moore. He had profited from Moore's 

 booklet of laboratory directions for beginners in bacteriology. 



Smith, all the while, studied fungous, as well as bacterial dis- 

 eases of plants. His review in the American Naturalist ^"^ of 

 " Chemotropism of Fungi," a study emphasizing the researches 

 of Manabu Miyoshi, a student of Pfeffer at Leipzig, on " the 

 behavior of fungi toward particular substances," was an illustra- 

 tion of what he estimated as of importance. In 1897 he presented 

 before Section G a paper on the " Nature of certain pigments 

 produced by fungi and bacteria, with special reference to that 

 produced by Bacillus solanacearumJ' ^^^ 



His tabular account of the " Sensitiveness of Certain Parasites 

 to the Acid Juices of the Host Plants," ^" given the next year 

 before the second meeting of the Society for Plant Morphology 

 and Physiology, was not confined to one organism and one disease, 

 but several, and was typical of the work of a comparative path- 

 ologist. Inoculating acid nutrient solutions with Pseudomonas 

 campestris, Pseudomonas phaseoli, Pseudomonas hyacinthi, Pseudo- 

 monas stewarti, Bacillus a??iyloporus, Bacillus oleae, and other 

 bacteria parasitic to plants, he demonstrated the wide difference 

 in their susceptibility to plant acids. The three yellow plant para- 



^^^ Bad. in re!, to pi. dis., op. cit., preface, 1: iii and iv. 



^'"31(368): 717-720, Aug. 1897. 



^-^ Proc. Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci. 46: 288. 



^^^Amer. Nat. 33(387): 208, Mar. 1899. 



