Rlcogmtion of Plant IUc;ti;rioi.(x,v in Europh 349 



ranks of scientists in plant pathology anJ eventually culminate 

 in his being elected to the presidency of the American Phyto- 

 pathological Society in 1911. Smith in his address, " Pifty Years 

 of Pathology," ^* referring to several literary works which became 

 available in 1900 to American plant pathologists, included one 

 prepared by Sclby. Said Smith: 



In 1900 Sturt;is published his " Literature of Plant Diseases." In 1900 

 Sclby published his condensed handbook of the diseases of plants in Ohio. 

 In 1900 appeared Liberty Hyde Bailey's mat;nificcnt " Cyclopedia of 

 American Horticulture " in 4 volumes, useful to everybody interested in 

 plants. That year appeared also the third edition of Hartig's "" Lehrbuch." 



Selby took a strong interest in Smith's controversy with Fischer. 

 His letters were proof of his scholarship and thorough acquain- 

 tance with the historical background. Early in 1899 Selby read 

 Smith's article, "Are there bacterial diseases of plants?" and 

 Fischer's reply, and he hastened "' to give expression to [his] 

 interest in this matter and further to congratulate " Smith. Selby 

 reasoned that '" DeBary's sarcasm concerning what Dr. Burrill 

 holds for the cause of pear blight, has served as a text for nearly 

 all subsequent German authors who have treated the subject of 

 plant diseases." Much other criticism of Fischer's answers was 

 set forth. May 22, 1899, Smith thanked Selby for his letter, and 

 with characteristic resolution, added, 



I am not yet through with the discussion and when I have finished he 

 will certainly be very sorry for what he has written. As 1 have facts on 

 my side and he has only assumptions on his, the matter will, I judge, make 

 rather spicy reading. . . . His reply is that of a special pleader, who is 

 interested in bolstering up his own case rather than in finding out what is 

 the truth. . . . DeBary was certainly wrong, but at the time he wrote, 

 things looked very different in respect to bacteriological diseases of plants 

 than they do at the present time. On the whole I have the greatest respect 

 for the works of Anton DeBary. He is certainly one of the greatest 

 German botanical writers of this century, if not the greatest. 



Smith said more in his letter, but substantially what has already 

 been set forth in his memorandum, " Reasons for desiring to 

 publish final reply to Alfred Fischer." Selby did not wish Smith 

 to interpret falsely what he had said about DeBary. In a letter 

 of May 25, Selby urged, " I wish to make myself perfectly straight 



'^ Op. cit., 2^. 



