Apeil 16, 1915] 



SCIENCE 



575 



rector of the laboratories of pathological and 

 surgical research in. Marquette University, 

 Wisconsin. 



Dr. Harold B. Myers, Portland, formerly 

 connected with the University and Bellevue 

 Hospital Medical College of New York City, 

 has become professor of materia medica and 

 pharmacology, and Dr. Howard D. Haskins, 

 Cleveland, formerly connected with Western 

 Reserve University School of Medicine, pro- 

 fessor of physiologic chemistry at the Univer- 

 sity of Oregon. 



Dr. H. Roy Dean, professor of pathology in 

 the University of Sheffield since 1912, has been 

 appointed to the chair of pathology and patho- 

 logical anatomy in the University of Man- 

 chester. 



DISCUSSION AND COBBESPONDENCE 



BOTANY m AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES 



In Science for February 5, 1915, Professor 

 C. V. Piper, of the United States Department 

 of Agriculture, calls attention to botany in 

 agricultural colleges. The article referred to 

 directs attention to the previous article by Dr. 

 E. B. Copeland on the same subject in Science 

 for September 18, 1914. It would seem to be 

 especially true that "this opens up discussion 

 of a many-sided question of high pedagogical 

 importance to agriculture." The articles, re- 

 ferred to above, have presented valuable views 

 and the discussion ought to be continued, per- 

 haps by those more able to do so than the 

 writer. The present is desired to be taken as 

 discussion rather than argument, and cer- 

 tainly not adverse argument. 



Dr. Copeland apparently emphasized that 

 "the raising of crops is essentially nothing 

 more or less than applied botany." Professor 

 Piper has forcefully presented the idea that 

 " in striking contrast with chemists, botanists 

 have shrunk from what may be a major appli- 

 cation of their science, namely, that of crop 

 production." It would seem that these writers 

 might be on common ground in the belief that 

 the problem of crop production must of neces- 

 sity be solved with the attention of botanists. 



It is possible that the writer may call atten- 

 tion to some difficulties of administration that 



are bound to exist in agricultural colleges, so 

 long as the boundary lines are not clear be- 

 tween botany and applied botany and possibly 

 agricultural botany, on the one hand, and 

 agronomy and horticulture on the other. 



If it be true, as Dr. Copeland suggests, " the 

 raising of crops is nothing more or less than 

 applied botany," then there is smaU need for 

 agronomy as a collegiate subject. 



If it be true, as per Professor Piper, that the 

 whole field of plant culture, or crop produc- 

 tion, being one of plant ecology and plant 

 physiology, must be so recognized by botanists, 

 before progress in crop production will con- 

 tinue, then likewise the future of agronomy, 

 at least the crop side of it, must necessarily 

 trust to the mercy of the conservative botanist. 



What is agronomy? 



Agronomy is the sum of information or of 

 research directly concerning soils and crops 

 grouped essentially in relation to the business 

 of farming. 



Agronomy may be called a science where it is 

 understood that a science is a group of related 

 facts, or, again, it may be called an applied 

 science where it is understood that it has use 

 for many kinds of information which may be 

 drawn from pure science. But any effort to 

 define agronomy as a pure science or to accom- 

 plish the work of agronomy by conforming it 

 to any given pure science must result in con- 

 fusion or in begging the question of agronomy 

 entirely. 



It is a perfectly logical question to ask 

 whether agricultural colleges need to recognize 

 any such subject as agronomy. It is perfectly 

 logical to inquire whether the purposes of such 

 colleges may not be better accomplished with- 

 out any departments of agronomy. It is con- 

 ceivable that the work of agronomy in all agri- 

 cultural colleges and experiment stations might 

 be accomplished, or at least attempted, through 

 the efforts of the several departments of pure 

 science, which severally furnish sources of in- 

 formation from which agronomy must con- 

 stantly draw. 



The organization of agronomy as a group of 

 facts in agricultural colleges is thus not abso- 

 lutely necessary. It is no more absolutely 

 necessary to organize departments of agron- 



