M— AGRICULTURE 239 



called the International Conference of Agro-Geology. At it Britain, so 

 far as I am aware, was not represented. The Conference was called 

 mainly because of a division of opinion in Central Europe as to whether 

 soils should be mapped and classified on a geological system or on the 

 Russian system, which was already becoming known in countries bordering 

 on Russia. The Russians were represented by Glinka, and his arguments 

 in favour of treating soils as an independent subject of study and of naming, 

 mapping and classifying them entirely in accordance with soil genetics, 

 independently of geology, produced a great impression, as did also his 

 statement of the view that climate was by far the most important factor 

 in producing different types of soil. 



It was decided to hold another agro-geological conference in the 

 following year in Stockholm at the same time as, but independently of, 

 the International Congress of Geology. At this conference further 

 discussion took place and a number of different sections, or commissions, 

 was founded. The outbreak of the world war prevented the holding of 

 further international meetings for a time and the next was not held till 

 1922 when it met at Prague. The fourth and greatest of all was held in 

 Rome in 1924, where this country was represented by a number of leading 

 soil workers. The Rome conference was much more largely attended than 

 its predecessors and there the International Society of Soil Science was 

 formed and it was decided to hold the first International Congress of the 

 new Society in Washington in 1927. The United States Government 

 took an interest in the matter and, through the President of the United 

 States, invitations were issued to foreign governments to send delegates 

 to the Congress. At this great Congress a strong party of Russians, 

 headed by Glinka, was present, and the discussions which took place with 

 them in Washington and their demonstrations of their views on the soils 

 of America during a journey right across the continent from the Atlantic 

 to the Pacific by a southern route and back again by a northern route, 

 including a large section of Canada, did more to open the eyes, and to bring 

 the meaning of the new soil philosophy to the knowledge of the large 

 number of soil workers who were present from many countries, than 

 anything that had gone before. A strong British party was present at 

 this Congress and to many of us it was a new education in soil science, 

 and not the less so because we found that many of the leaders in soil 

 science in America as well as those from several European countries were 

 in distinct sympathy with the Russians on many of the new views which 

 they were advocating. I would not like to make you think that there 

 were no differences of opinion among the Russians themselves. There 

 were. There were also differences of view between them and other 

 leaders in soil science in America and elsewhere. But these international 

 discussions and differences only made the whole congress the more 

 stimulative and thought-provoking, and those of us who were present 

 came away with our minds clarified and knowing much more definitely 

 than before what was this fresh viewpoint in soil science of which 

 we had been reading and hearing more or less garbled accounts for a few 

 years previously. 



Out of these international congresses and conferences and the renewed 



