Recognition of Plant Bacti-riologv in Europi- 3'>3 



"On the Role of Insects, AracliniJs ;uk1 Myriapods in the Spread 

 of Bacterial and Parasitic Diseases of Man and Animals." 



Ervvin Smith's vigorous publications on pathogenic bacteria in 

 plant diseases were also being read by pathologists in medical 

 schools. Philip Hanson Hiss of the department of pathology at 

 the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia thanked 

 Smith on September 13, 1901, for his "valuable paper on 'The 

 Cultural Characters of Pseudomonas Hyacinthi, Ps. Campestris, 

 etc.,' . . . Some of the sections," he said, " are of particular interest 

 to me, especially those relating to fermentation tests." Dr. William 

 George MacCalium was then an associate professor of pathology 

 at Johns Hopkins. In 1909 he was to be honored by a professor- 

 ship at tiic College of Physicians and Surgeons, and in 1917, after 

 his text-book on pathology had been published, was to return to 

 Johns Hopkins as professor of pathology^ and bacteriology. On 

 July 6, 1901, he sent Smith his " best thanks for your most 

 interesting papers on the bacterial diseases of plants " and added: 

 " I was especially interested in what you say as to the sharp 

 specificity of these bacteria. Have not any of these bacteria the 

 least pathogenic activity for animals?" 



Smith was known at Johns Hopkins not alone for his work on 

 plant bacterial diseases. At least once he had helped to diagnose 

 a disease of humans caused by a parasitic fungus. In 1898 the 

 Johns Hopkins Bulletin '■"' published Benjamin Robinson Schenck's 

 study, " On Refractory Subcutaneous Abscesses Caused by a Fun- 

 gus possibly related to the Sporotricha," and, in the paper, Smith's 

 work on " many of the points relating to the morphology and 

 development of the organism," especially " the more difficult and 

 obscure points pertaining to its life history and classification," 

 was acknowledged. Since the specimen submitted to Smith proved 

 to be only a " conidial fructification " and not " the perfect spore 

 form," he had been unable to determine the species and to which 

 of three possible form genera the organism belonged. But he 

 believed that the description fitted " best into Sporotrichum." On 

 April 18, 1898, Dr. Flexner and Schenck thanked him for his 

 "very full report" and Schenck planned to "work over some 

 of the points which [Smith] suggest[ed]." Dr. Welch was " much 

 interested " in Smith's letter on the subject. That year Schenck 



»'9(93): 286-290, Dec. 1898. 



