February, ’24] 
BUSINESS PROCEEDINGS 
11 
the plant quarantine idea from the standpoint of an economist, and of course the 
influence of our own Quarantine 37 was apparent in the animus of many speeches 
which were made both at the conference and at informal receptions and lunches of 
which there were a number. The writer of this report was rather glad, on the whole, 
that none of the members of the U. S. Federal Horticultural Board were present, 
although he does not doubt in the least their ability to defend their attitude. 
The excursions to different points of agricultural and horticultural interest were 
extremely interesting, and the hospitality shown to the conference by the people in 
Holland was very marked. The final dinner which occurred on the last night of the 
conference at Scheveningen, a beautiful seaside resort, was given to the conference 
by the government of Holland, and at its close a telegram of thanks was sent to the 
Queen of Holland who was at that time in England. 
While your delegate was the Honorary President of the conference, the sessions 
were conducted by the Active President, Dr. H. M. Quanjer, who showed an extra¬ 
ordinary degree of tact and courtesy and such a perfect familiarity with the English, 
French and German languages that he made an ideal executive for such a conference 
where many languages were spoken. Although the official language of the Conference 
was English, papers were also read in French and in German. The Secretary of the 
conference, Dr. T. A. C. Schoevers, like so many Hollanders, was equally familiar 
with the languages mentioned, and was extremely competent in performing the 
manifold duties of the secretary of an international affair. 
The delegates were especially pleased to meet Dr. Ritzema Bos, for many years 
prominent in the phytopathological and entomological world, who is now retired 
but who attended all of the sessions at Wageningen. 
This report should not be concluded without a further statement in regard to the 
writer’s effort to secure the recognition of economic entomology as an independent 
branch of applied science. Realizing that the acceptance by the International 
Institute of Agriculture at Rome of the European signification of the term phyto¬ 
pathology had in a way rather fixed this meaning, he has endeavored to secure a 
modification of the title of the section in question of the Institute. The following 
letter was sent to the Institute last August through the Secretary of Agriculture: 
The Honorable August 15, 1923. 
The Secretary of Agriculture. 
Dear Mr. Secretary: 
I wish to suggest that a recommendation be sent to the International Institute at 
Rome for consideration at the next general assembly of the Institute which I under¬ 
stand will be held in May, 1924. The suggestion which I wish to make may be 
worded as follows: 
The United States suggests that the International Institute of Agriculture 
change the name of the bureau now entitled “Bureau of Agricultural Intelligence 
and Plant Diseases” to “Bureau of Agricultural Intelligence and Plant Pro¬ 
tection.” 
My reason for proposing this change is that under the present bureau all matters 
relating to insect damage to plants are considered under the head of “plant diseases.” 
It is difficult to see how, logically, an insect which feeds upon a plant may be considered 
as a plant disease; and yet this construction is made by several European nations 
who use the terms “phytopathology” and “maladies des plantes” as including in¬ 
vestigations of insects that feed on plants. In most English-speaking countries a 
clear distinction is drawn between economic entomology (the study of injurious 
insects) and phytopathology (the study of diseases of plants). The suggested change 
is obviously desirable, since it will insure a heartier cooperation on the part of the 
large governmental services which exist in many countries for the study of injurious 
