Recognition oi Plant Bacti^riology in Europh 345 



now convalescing from an illness of several months, was again 

 taking up his studies 



regarding a new Bacteriosis and hopc[d] to be able [to publish} a pre- 

 liminary [account of this in the proceedings of] the imp[crial] roy[al] 

 Academy of Science in Vienna. 



I [wrote R.'uhay] am quite convinced, that there are Phytobacterioses 

 and that the objections of Prof. Dr. Alfred Pischcr concerning the existence 

 of them are not at all founded. 



I have learned very much by studiing your treati[s]es and am very 

 grateful, that you had the kindness of sending me them. 



I will only mention, that the Bacteriosis, which I found to be the cause 

 of the malady [disease] has the same colour of citron-yellow as your 

 Pseudomonas. 



You may be sure, that I shall full enter in my treat[ise] for the existence 

 of Phytobacteriosis. 



Smith received other letters from Europe during this year. But 

 none referred to the polemic with Fischer. December 2, 1899, 

 M. C. Potter of the Durham College of Science, Newcastle-upon- 

 Tyne, England, sent " an abstract of a paper on a Bacterial Dis- 

 ease of tlic Turnip caused by a Pseudomonas but evidently not 

 the same as P. cajupestris." November 22, 1899, Smith's bulletin 

 17, " Wilt Disease of Cotton, Watermelon, and Cowpea [Neo- 

 cosmospora nov. gen.) ," ^° was published by the Division of Vege- 

 table Physiology and Pathology. This publication contained a 

 bibliography of the previous writings on the subject by Atkinson 

 and Smith, and distinguished it from the wilt disease described 

 the cotton-root rot of Texas and another wilt of cotton, cowpeas, 

 etc., first described by Rolfs of Florida. December 1899, Dr. Franz 

 Lafar of Vienna, Austria, thanked Smith for his publication. 

 June 19, 1900, Dr. George Delacroix of the vegetable pathological 

 station of the Ministry of Agriculture of Paris, France, wrote con- 

 cerning a plant disease and referred complimentarily in his letter 

 to Smith's publications. The first preserved letter received by Smith 

 from Dr. Otto Appel of Charlottenburg, Berlin, Germany, was 

 written in 1901 anci expressed great interest, without mentioning 

 Fischer, in Smith's studies. Recognition from Appel must have 

 pleased Smith, as also a letter of January 11, 1901, from F. Krai 



" 72 pp. 10 pi., Washington, Gov't Print. Office, 1899. 



