324 Recognition in America 



Trepanosoma lewisi from the blood of a rat and T. brucei from 

 the blood of a dog brought from Africa could be cultivated on 

 blood agar very much advanced the study of protozoan blood 

 parasites. Smith ''- classed this in point of time and comparable 

 importance with Negri's discovery of " bodies " present in hydro- 

 phobia in the ganglion cells, with DeSchweinitz's and Dorset's 

 proof that hog cholera is due to a filterable virus, and he ranked 

 Novy's and McNeal's work next in order, chronologically,- to 

 Welch's and Nuttall's description at Johns Hopkins of Bacterium 

 welchii, " their anaerobic gas oedema bacillus . . . type of a group 

 causing deadly wound-diseases." 



In November 1897 E. O. Jordan, Assistant Professor of Bac- 

 teriology at the University of Chicago, T. M. Prudden of the 

 department of pathology at the College of Physicians and Sur- 

 geons, and E. C. Jeffrey of the biological department of the Uni- 

 versity of Toronto, each thanked Smith for a copy of his paper 

 on Pseudomonas campestris and each found its contents interesting. 

 On November 18 T. J. Burrill of the University of Illinois con- 

 gratulated Smith, and from him congratulations were a coveted 

 honor among plant scientists: " Please accept my thanks for your 

 Pseudomonas campestris paper. I have read the article with much 

 interest both on acc[oun]t of the subject matter and as an illus- 

 tration of good work well recorded." 



In 1902, after Smith's address, " Plant pathology: a retrospect 

 and prospect," given as president of the Society for Plant Mor- 

 phology and Physiology, had been published, America's pioneer 

 plant bacteriologist paid Smith a higher tribute: 



You have put things together and made a presentation of the subject 

 so that the position of American workers, individually and as a body, is 

 for the first time set forth. The progress which you show to have been 

 made is perhaps not wonderful when the conditions are understood, but 

 it seems to me that it is at least very creditable to those engaged in the 

 work. If this is true, I may add that to no one is the forward movement 

 due, and the presentation of the same in print, more directly traceable than 

 to yourself. 



Burrill sent his " best wishes for [Smith's] future endeavors." 

 Roland Thaxter of the Farlow Herbarium of Harvard was " greatly 

 obliged [for Smith's] very interesting paper on Pseudomonas." 



"- Fifty years of pathology, op. cit., 31. 



