EEPOHT OF SOCIETY 25 



it was the pioneer period. The diseases were often different from those in 

 Europe or manifested themselves more destructivel3\ The introduction of 

 imported plants from Europe, the distribution of the agricultural flora, etc., all 

 combined to make America an interesting field for plant pathologists. 



Another feature affecting the point of view is that these men were trained 

 as mycologists — thej' had come under the influence of De Bar}' and others and 

 so followed along those lines in this country. Those men in Europe wrestled 

 with problems of plant diseases to be sure, but particularly the mycological 

 phase of the problems. One — ]\Iillardet — in France, experimenting in plant 

 disease control, discovered Bordeaux mixture, and this was the beginning of the 

 economic development in plant patholog}'. 



This discovery is of interest because it led to the second line of development 

 of plant patholog}' in America. America came very early into contact with 

 Bordeaux mixture. Shortly after the outbreak of the grape mildew in Europe, 

 there came to the United States Department of Agriculture at Washington, a 

 French pathologist to study the disease over here, and it happened that the 

 Department had at that time a number of young men who had begun to interest 

 themselves in mycology. The cultivated vine in this country had also been 

 attacked and these men began experimental work with Bordeaux mixture. This 

 was the beginning of economic plant pathology on this continent. 



The economic side was stressed from 1883 to 1906, and the study of plant 

 pathologj^ was taken up by mycologists who gradually became known as pathol- 

 ogists. Even at the present time very few men have been trained as plant 

 pathologists. I was trained as a mycologist. It is true that in Experiment 

 Stations they were given the title of "plant pathologist", but the}' were, for the 

 most part, mycologists. The trouble was that plant pathology was not recog- 

 nized then as a definite science. There was no chair of plant pathology in any 

 university in the States. There was, however, a chair of plant pathology in 

 Asia — in a Japanese University, about a year before the one at Cornell was 

 established. Plant pathology was taught in courses, but an examination of any 

 of these courses Avould make it evident that it was a course in mycology, so that 

 the development of our science in most of our universities was strongly mycol- 

 ogical, necessarily so because of the training of the men who worked in this field. 

 It will be a generation yet before the men who determine the trend of plant 

 pathology will be real plant pathologists. The thing that determines whether a 

 man is a plant pathologist or not is his point of view. A man may work out the 

 control of diseases in plants and still not be a plant pathologist. 



Plant patholog}' is not a fundamental science. I am not sure that it is a 

 science — among friends, I can admit that there are two sides to the question — 

 but it is perfectly true that plant pathology is built upon other sciences. It is an 



