38 



In commenting on his report, Mr. Dorph-Petersen thanked 

 Professor Munn warmly for the assistance which North 

 America had given him. He laid stress on the necessity for 

 close study of the tables embodied in his report and, with 

 reference to the paragraph relating to the Dodder Committee, 

 he expressed the view that there was now a prospect of the work 

 of this Committee proving successful. 



Professor Johannsen described the Report as very interesting 

 and laid stress on the fact that whereas stations whose methods 

 were similar often obtained different results, those whose methods 

 differed sometimes arrived at the same results. 



Professor Zaleski expressed the view that stations which were 

 not fully equipped with modern apparatus should also be allowed 

 to take part in the work of conducting comparative tests. Those 

 stations whose staffs were efficient could do the work even if the 

 apparatus were not modern. In this connection he referred to 

 the Paris Station. He also suggested that some stations should 

 be asked to specialise ; for instance, Egypt, which was mainly 

 concerned with cotton, should not be expected to test seeds in 

 which they were not specially interested. 



Professor Bussard intimated that the staff at the Paris Station 

 had been trained for many years and that in his opinion tradition 

 counted for something, as did also the esprit de corps which 

 animated the staff. Dr. von Degen concurred in the opinion 

 expressed by Professor Bussard. At his station apparatus was 

 used as little as possible as he considered that hands and eyes 

 were more dependable than apparatus. 



Professor Showky Bakir appealed to the Association to take 

 up the question of testing cotton seeds, pointing out that the 

 annual value of the Egyptian cotton crop was as much as 

 £80,000,000. 



Dr. Andronescu stated that the differences in results shown 

 in the tables embodied in Mr. Dorph-Petersen*s report were to 

 be expected. The seed was a living organism, and as such was 

 affected by all external agents. They could not expect the 

 results obtained in countries where the circumstances — atmos- 

 pheric pressure, humidity of the air, and methods of testing — 

 were different, to be the same as those obtained in Denmark. 

 He accepted the differences with equanimity. 



Dr. Buchholz was of the opinion that apparatus and human 

 skill were equally important and that the importance of apparatus 

 increased when the work was heavy. 



Dr. Ghmelaf suggested that the differences shown in the 

 tables might be due to the fact that the preparation of samples 

 was not ah easy matter ; that samples were sometimes too small ; 

 and that the various stations held different views as to the value 

 of seeds, for instance, broken seeds, which in Czecho -Slovakia 

 were regarded very seriously. He suggested that stations should 



