Recognition of Plant Bac thrioi.oc.v in Euroim; 343 



(3) Bacillus hyacinthi-septicus,Hcur/. (1889); ( i) Bjcillns tra- 

 cheiphiliis. Smith; (">) Bjcillus soLiHiicearinn, Smith; and (6) 

 Pseudofnouiis cunpcstris, Pammcl. In Fischer's Vorlesungen iiber 

 Bitkterien (Jena, 1897) had appeared statements " so contrary to 

 fact " that Smith soutjht, and obtained, space in the Centnilhlalt 

 to answer him."" He first disposed of the German's totally erro- 

 neous declaration that infections by water pores are impossible 

 and some equally false assumptions respecting wound infections. 

 " Instead of there being no plant diseases attributable to bacteria," 

 Smith contended, 



if the whole truth were known, there are probably as many plant diseases 

 due to bacteria as there are animal diseases caused by these organisms. 

 I made this same statement more than two years ago and see no reason 

 for retracting it. On the contrary, a wider outlook and a better grasp of 

 the subject lead me to reaffirm it. . . . Six diseases of cultivated plants 

 have already been referred to, viz. pear blight, cucurbit wilt, brown rot of 

 potatoes, black rot of cabbages, the yellow disease of hyacinths, and the 

 bacteriosis or water-spot disease of beans. I will add two other plant 

 diseases, viz. the soft rot of hyacinths and the olive tuberculosis. It has 

 been definitely settled that these eight diseases, not to mention several 

 others, are due to bacteria, and the evidence on which this opinion rests is 

 of the same sort and is just as conclusive as the evidence of the bacterial 

 origin of anthrax, glanders, symptomatic anthrax, tuberculosis, diphtheria, 

 hog cholera, typhoid fever, or asiatic cholera, eight well recognized animal 

 diseases due to bacteria, or at least to well known organisms commonly 

 classed as bacteria. ... I select these eight plant diseases because I am 

 familiar with each one, and know from my own experiments in six of the 

 eight that they are due to as many different bacteria. Each of these six 

 organisms I have studied in pure cultures and am familiar with their 

 morphology and cultural characters. The specific bacterial growth is con- 

 stantly present in each of these six diseases. . . . 



Without known exception, Smith enjoyed the endorsement of 

 American scientists, once the controversy had assumed proportions 

 and it was realized that eminent German scientists remained 

 adamant and unmoved from the traditional position taken years 

 earlier by DeBary, Robert Hartig, and others. Dr. Farlow frowned 

 on the argument as undignified. But no rift between Smith and 

 Farlow followed. In fact, later Farlow helped to secure Smith's 



"° Erwin F. Smith, Are there bacterial diseases of plants? A consideration of some 

 statements in Dr. Alfred Fischer's Vorlesungen iiber Bakterien, Centralb. f. Bukt. etc. 

 II, 5(8): 271-278, 1899. 



