April 11, 1919] 



SCIENCE 



341 



general, and then gradually withdraws from 

 the fellowship of pure botanists. 



But the pure botanist is not without fault, 

 for he too often matches the narrowness of the 

 applied botanist with his own intolerance. I 

 have seen mycologists bored to extinction while 

 pathologists excitedly discussed the effects of a 

 serious outbreak of late blight of potatoes, and 

 only become interested when the discussion 

 turned to the morphology of Phytophthora in- 

 festans. Surely no science is more closely 

 bound up with human life than the study of 

 plants, which furnish us food and drink, shelter 

 and clothing, and supply so many of our other 

 needs, physical, intellectual and esthetical. 

 Yet botany has appeared to dread the economic 

 taint and has seemingly endeavored to keep its 

 skirts free from the stain of the soil in which 

 plants grow. Certainly she has allowed the 

 applied branches to struggle on without the 

 full benefit of a mother's firm yet tender guid- 

 ance, and too often has repaid the wayward- 

 ness of the child with aloofness and neglect. 



Separations which have occurred already in 

 the botanical field probably were inevitable, and 

 perhaps were for the best interests of the sub- 

 jects concerned. But there can be no doubt 

 that further divisions would be disastrous. 

 More than that, at this time when botany 

 should face the future with a united front, we 

 can not permit the forces of disunion to go 

 unchecked and any divergences which now 

 e.xist amongst us must be abated. Such diver- 

 gences do exist and if neglected will increase in 

 extent. The immediate danger point is found, 

 I believe, in plant pathology. That patholo- 

 gists have been growing apart from other bot- 

 anists there can be no doubt, and I have not 

 yet observed any extensive effort on either side 

 to stay the process. Certain conditions sur- 

 round plant pathology unlike those pertaining 

 to any other branch of botanical science, and 

 some of these conditions make for disunion. 

 In briefly presenting some of these features for 

 your consideration this afternoon I will speak 

 of pathologists on the one hand and of bota- 

 nists on the other. This distinction is merely 

 for convenience. Pathologists are botanists 

 still, and it is my earnest hope that they may 

 always remain so. 



Plant pathologists constitute the largest 

 single group of botanical workers, and the only 

 large group directly connected with the eco- 

 nomic field. The latest printed lists of mem- 

 bers show 384 names in the roll of the Amer- 

 ican Phytopathological Society, and 630 names 

 in that of the Botanical Society of America. 

 One hundred and eighty names are common to 

 both societies, making a total of 834 names on 

 both rolls. Of these 834 names, 384 or 46 per 

 cent, belong to pathologists, or to botanists, 

 largely mycologists, who are sufficiently inter- 

 ested in pathology to join the American Phyto- 

 paithological Society. These facts are worthy 

 o{ attention. Pathology is not only one divi- 

 sion of botany, it is by far the largest division, 

 it is a young division, it is growing very 

 rapidly and must continue to grow rapidly in 

 the future. As a result most pathologists are 

 young, with the zeal and enthusiasm of youth 

 and of expanding opportunity. 



Another important fact to be noted is that 

 pathologists constitute a remarkably homo- 

 geneous group as compared with the diversity 

 amongst botanists. Plant diseases show almost 

 infinite variety and the problems they present 

 are equally varied. Yet whatever their pre- 

 vious training and experience, whatever the 

 requirements of their particular problems, all 

 pathologists speak the same language and think 

 in the same terms. All recognize that they are 

 working toward the same end on different 

 phases of the great disease problem. Hence 

 there has arisen a community of intereet 

 amongst pathologists unknown among botanists 

 and imjKJSsible for them to develop. Patholo- 

 gists are rapidly forming an esprit de corps 

 which is an asset of the greatest value and will 

 prove to be a powerful factor in future 

 development. 



The rapid growth of phytopathology in im- 

 portance during the past few years has brought 

 the pathologist more and more closely in touch 

 with both producer and consumer of plant 

 products. The world war has greatly increased 

 his resiKinsibilities in connection with the food 

 supply. He has taken his place on the battle 

 front of world action and more and more is 

 losing the independence of the botanist as he 



