362 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XL VI. No. 1189 



by a single polar flagellum. It is therefore re- 

 ferable to Cohn's Bacterium as amended by 

 Smith and is given the name Bacterium taba- 

 cum. The detailed account of the cultural 

 studies and inoculation experiments which 

 have been made, and of the distribution and 

 dissemination studies which are in progress, 

 is reserved for subsequent publication. 



F. A. Wolf, 

 A. C. Foster 

 NoETH Carolina Experiment Station 



PLANT DISEASES IN CANADA 



To the Editor of Science: Two plant 

 diseases have recently been observed in the 

 Dominion of Canada which have not been 

 recorded before, viz., Dothichiza Populea 

 Sacc. et Briard, on Lombardy poplar, St. 

 Andrews, N. B., and C olletotrichum cereale 

 Manns, on spring wheat, Charlottetown, 

 P. E. I. 



A third disease affecting seed pods of tur- 

 nips grown for seed in P. E. I. caused by 

 Leptosphaeria Napi (Fuckel.) Sacc, of which 

 the conidial form Sporidesmium exitiosum 

 was found, does not appear to have been re- 

 corded as causing trouble on the continent of 

 America. It is well known in Europe, where 

 it is disastrous to seed turnip cultures. 



H. T. Gijssow 



COMMON PLANT NAMES 



To THE Editor of Science : May I draw at- 

 tention to a point in the discussion on popular 

 names- of plants, which M. A. Bigelow, in 

 Science of July 6, seems to ignore; that is, 

 the great literary value of a good common 

 name and the danger that such names may 

 be lost through being ignored by teachers. 

 Of course children can learn any name — ^they 

 memorize far more easily than grown people 

 — but do not let us give them scientific names 

 to learn as a part of nature study, unless they 

 are going in for botany as a science. Scien- 

 tific names are usually clumsy and pedantic, 

 almost always lacking in character, and often 

 can not be gracefully absorbed into the Eng- 

 glish language. 



The names which Professor Bigelow cites as 

 being both popular and scientific are suffi- 

 ciently euphonious, but are almost all those of 

 garden plants, which may be allowed to bear 

 florists' names. The few wild flowers he men- 

 tions all have good common names, which ap- 

 parently he is willing to discard. Primrose 

 is an older name than Primula, I fancy, and 

 for the matter of that, surely rose, lily and 

 violet antedate the systematists ! Clematis 

 and Trillium, are pretty enough, but virgin's 

 bower and wake-robin are names to make a 

 poet sing for joy. Most eastern wild flowers 

 have fairly good names and even in the west 

 — a young civilization is apt to be content 

 with variations of " bells " and " roses " — they 

 have some fine names, such as " our Lord's 

 candle " {Yucca Whipplei), " sweet-after- 

 death" {Aclilys triphylla) and "flaming 

 sword" (Fouquiera splendens) . Such names 

 as these enrich our language and should be 

 preserved at all costs. 



Shall we encourage children to gather nose- 

 gays of Blepharipappus, Mesemhryanthemum 

 and Malacothrix? Heaven forbid ! Only give 

 them time and children will evolve good names 

 for all conspicuous wild flowers, if we do not 

 thwart them by teaching the scientific ones 

 unnecessarily. Cat's breeches, named by Utah 

 children, may not be elegant, but it is quaintly 

 appropriate and is certainly better for every- 

 day use than Hydrophyllum capitatum. Let 

 us go slowly in these matters and so long 

 as men like Dr. Jepson are continually on the 

 lookout for good common names we need not 

 despair. 



Margaret Armstrong 



a simple explanation 

 In Science, August 31, 191Y, page 212, 

 Professor C. A. Mooers writes as follows : 



The writer has assumed that Dr. Hopkins could 

 give a simple explanation for his conflicting esti- 

 mates, as given in Science, November 3, 1916, p. 

 652, and in Science, March 2, 1917, p. 214. In 

 the former article he says: "For each dollar in- 

 vested rock phosphate paid back $2.29," but in the 

 latter article he says, with regard to the same 

 data, "Easy computations show profits per dollar 

 invested of . . . $1.29 from phosphate rock." 



