508 Second European Journey 



When Director V. A. Moore of the New York State Veterinary 

 College had read in 1916 Smith's paper, " Further Evidence that 

 Crown Gall of Plants is Cancer," " he was " much interested in 

 the statement relative to the variety of lesions due to the same 

 organism. There is," Moore wrote, " some analogy between this 

 statement and the one made by Vaughan in regard to the poison 

 group of the protein molecule." Smith's concluding plea in his 

 paper then had been: " Cancer, according to my notion, is a 

 problem for the experimental biologist and the bacteriologist. 

 The morphologist has gone as far as he can go and the energy 

 of cancer research from now on must, I believe, be turned into 

 new channels, if we are to expect results commensurate with the 

 needs of humanity. . . . Whatever else may be denied," he had 

 said in his discussion, " the bold fact now stands out de?nonstrably 

 that all the leading types of cancerous proliferation can be pro- 

 duced in plants with one 77jicroorganism " and the '" four principal 

 groups " were, as Smith viewed the problem, the sarcomas, the 

 carcinomas, the so-called mixed tumors, and the embryonal tera- 

 tomas. In his paper, " Embryomas in Plants," "*^ he said: " Whether 

 epitheliomas and carcinomas can also be produced in plants by 

 bacterial inoculation remains to be determined, but I believe they 

 can be," and, while admitting that this subject was for " further 

 experiment," he seemed to have no doubt of the validity of what 

 he called " plant sarcomas " and " plant embryomas " and of his 

 view that " the kind of tumor depends on the type of cells 

 stimulated." " This subject will be discussed further in Chapters 

 XI and XII. 



What was more important than Smith's classifying of various 

 types of tumors in plants, during this period, was his splendid 

 work on the mechanism of tumor growth in crown gall. Dr. 

 Moore believed his paper on this subject " most excellent work. 

 ... It seems to me," Moore wrote in February 1917, " that you 

 have clinched your points so thoroughly that future investigations 

 cannot overthrow your deductions." Professor of Physiology 

 Jacques Loeb ^^ told Smith, " You have unquestionably opened 



'^Science, n. s.. 43(1121): 871-889, June 23, 1916. 

 ''" Op. cit., recapitulation, point 14. 

 '^ Mechanism of overgrowth in plants, op. cit., 442. 



''^ Of the University of California but letter written on stationery of the Rocke- 

 feller Institute for Medical Research. 



