Septembbe 27, 1895.] 



SCIENCE. 



411 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



ALLEGED SUPPRESSION OF DISCUSSION. 



Mk. Erwin p. Smith, of the United States 

 Department of Agriculture, has printed a pam- 

 phlet on 'The Botanical Club Check List,' of 

 which an abstract contributed by the author 

 was published in the issue of Science of May 

 24th, pp. 587-8. In an introduction Mr. Smith 

 writes: 



' ' This paper was offered to the Botanical 

 Gazette, passed through the hands of two of its 

 editors, was accepted for publication and an- 

 nounced to appear in the June nvimber. Subse- 

 quently it was rejected unless I would submit 

 to have it out down tivo-thirds. A much briefer 

 statement of the case was previously accepted 

 by Science, and proof sent to me, after which 

 it was rejected as too long and too personal. 

 Evidently every effort is being made to limit 

 adverse criticism." * * * 



An editorial article in the Journal of Botany 

 (London) quotes and apparently endorses^ even 

 more explicit charges of suppression of discus- 

 sion. In answer to these charges the present 

 writer sent the following letter : 



' ' In the issue of the Journal of Botany ^ for 

 July (p. 213) you quote from a correspondent 

 who writes : ' The journals in question will 

 not publish articles which give a true account 

 of what has been said against the American sys- 

 tem in Berlin and Vienna. A notice stating the 

 facts was sent to Science and actually put in 

 type, but the botannical editor suppressed it.' 

 As you state, this is a serious charge, and I 

 venture to ask you to insert this letter denying 

 it. Your correspondent has been misinformed, 

 as no article on the nomenclature question has 

 been rejected by the botanical editor of Science. 

 The only contribution presented to Science on 

 this subject and not accepted was an account of 

 an extemporary discussion (partly against and 

 partly in favor of the proposed system) follow- 

 ing the reading of a paper before the Biological 

 Society of Washington. This discussion was 

 considered by the undersigned not suitable in 

 form for publication, but the speakers were in- 

 vited to contribute a discussion of the subject to 

 Science, and a paper by one of them, Mr. Er- 

 win F. Smith, presenting views similar to those 

 of your correspondent, was contributed by him 



in abstract and printed in the issue of May 

 24th." 



The Journal of Botany has printed this letter, 

 excepting that the beginning has been altered 

 so that the phrase ' as you state ' may be omitted. 

 The editor does not, however, withdraw the 

 charges made in his journal. 



In regard to the Botanical Gazette the editor 

 of the Journal of Botany writes : 



"We have received a similar communication, 

 which we have unfortunately temporarily mis- 

 laid, from the editor of the Botanical Gazette, 

 pointing out that articles opposing the neo- 

 American nomenclature have appeared in that 

 journal, and stating that the paper on the subject 

 referred to in the extract we printed was re- 

 jected by him on grounds altogether apart from 

 the line of argument adopted. The editor, 

 however, in the number of the Gazette just to 

 hand, publishes his justification in terms which 

 are hardly free from the ' personalities ' to 

 which he objects in his contribution; and this 

 can be consulted by those who wish to pursue 

 the subject further." 



The editorial article referred to is as follows: 



' ' Under the caption 'American nomenclature, ' 

 the editor of the Journal of Botany prints in the 

 July number a portion of a private letter from 

 some American correspondent in which occurs 

 the following: 



" 'The only two botanical journals are con- 

 trolled by reformers. * * * The journals in 

 question will not accept articles which give a 

 true account of what has been said against the 

 American system in Berlin and Vienna. A 

 notice stating the facts was sent to Science, 

 and * * * suppressed. It was then sent to 

 the Botanical Gazette, but was declined.' 



" Inasmuch as the editor has sufficient grace 

 to recognize this charge of suppression of the 

 truth as a serious one, it would seem to have 

 been his duty to determine whether it was true 

 or false before publishing it. He could hardly 

 have failed to observe that the Gazette has been 

 publishing articles adverse to the reform move- 

 ment in nomenclature, and had he re-examined 

 them he would have found four of the six on 

 this topic by opponents of reform and only two 

 in favor of it. Another, likewise adverse, is 

 published in this number. We challenge our 



