PLANT SCIENCE BULLETIN
A Publication of the Botanical Society of America, Inc.
VOLUME 2, NUMBER 2, APRIL, 1956
HARRY J. FULLER, Editor 203 Nat. Hist. Bldg., University of Illinois, Urbana.
George S Avery - Brooklyn Botanic Gardens
Harlan P. Banks - Cornell University
Harriet Creighton - Wellesley College
Sydney S. Greenfield - Rutgers University
Paul B. Sears - Yale University
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Some Problems of Professional Botanical Journals
Education Committee Venture
Soviet Opposition to Lysenko
The George R. Cooley Awards in Taxonomic Botany
NEW QUARTERS AT YALE
AIBS and the Society
EDITORIAL COMMITTEE OF VIII INTERNATIONAL BOTANICAL CONGRESS
FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY CONTRIBUTIONS
50th ANNIVERSARY MERIT AWARDS
PHYCOLOGICAL SECTION OF BOTANICAL SOCIETY IS ORGANIZED
STORRS MEETINGS AUGUST 26-30 50th ANNIVERSARY OF THE SOCIETY
Some Problems of Professional Botanical Journals*
WILLIAM C. STEERE
Editor, American Journal of Botany, and Professor of Biology Stanford University
My remarks here will apply primarily to the peculiar characteristics of those
journals published by a society--or membership journals--in contrast to non-membership
journals operated with funds derived from subscriptions or outright grants-in-aid.
Within the category of membership journals, my comments will be confined to
botanical journals, although they may apply also to journals in other fields.
The editor of a scientific journal supported by the membership dues of a professional
society has certain advantages over the editor of a non-membership journal,
but he also suffers some disadvantages. Ralph B. Smith underlined these differences
very neatly in his paper entitled "Publishing as Applied Science,"
presented before this conference last year. Speaking of the 27 McGraw-Hill publications
he represented, he remarked as follows: "It is no enterprise in which to
play hunches, gamble on sheer editorial intuition, trust to tradition, or bet
that habits don't change. The cold facts that perhaps hit us first in our exposed
position must also blow upon the somewhat less naked society and institutional
publications. Indeed, I imagine that an ill-wind blowing upon them from some
quarter of reader-discontent can be noisier, if not more disturbing, than the
quiet dropping of renewal percentages that has been our historic warning of
trouble. I am told that hell hath no fury like a dues-paying professional society
member grown scornful of his society publication."
With clear perspective, Smith recognized precisely the basic element that most
clearly differentiates the problems of subscription vs. membership journals--the
emotional conviction of the society member that his payment of dues entitles
him not only to full participation in the activities of his society, but also
of its journal. He feels completely free to suggest or to urge drastic measures
for the betterment of his journal, whereas the clientele of the non-membership
journal, when displeased, just quietly fails to renew subscriptions. If the
editor of a membership journal does not agree to some extent with the principle
that members have the privilege of voicing their opinions, his problems are
multiplied to the point of frustration. My own experience comes entirely from
the restricted area of membership publications-four years as editor of the Michigan
Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, associated with an incomparable editor,
Dr. Eugene S. McCartney; seventeen years as editor of the Bryologist, journal
of the American Bryological Society; and now as editor of the American Journal
of Botany, official publication of the Botanical Society of America. My remarks,
which will reflect this rather specialized experience, will emphasize questions
and problems of policy facing the American Journal of Botany, the major journal
in an important field.
When the editor of a membership journal presents his annual report to the business
meeting of the society of which he is the somewhat unruly servant, all aspects
of the journal and of its operation are open for full discussion, whether he
likes it or not. Although an editor may wish to stand on tradition or behind
the by-laws that govern his activities, he still cannot help but be impressed
by well-taken points, especially if they have the approval of a large segment
of his society. Even large and conservative societies will bring considerable
pressure on their journals if the ill-wind of reader-discontent blows too strongly.
For example, some years ago an influential segment of the Botanical Society
of America protested the high cost and the long delays in publication of the
American Journal of Botany. From the advice given by a competent committee established
to study the problems, the journal was completely reconstructed in typography,
format, and policy. Largely because of this revision, the American Journal of
Botany is now one of the few major membership-supported scientific journals
that is financially solvent and that has no appreciable back-log of manuscripts--when
any issue goes to the printer, no finally accepted and revised manuscripts remain
on hand. Of course, the editor of the non-membership journal could say, with
justifiable complacence, that he would have taken these steps much earlier and
with- out the intervention of a committee, because of his much more independent
status and responsibility.
One of the problems that tends to be debated perennially at business meetings
concerns the number of issues per year. At present, the American Journal of
Botany appears monthly, except for August and September. With surprising frequency
members suggest that the Journal appear bi-monthly for purposes of greater economy--and
economy would undeniably result thereby, since covers, addressing, envelopes,
mailing, etc., for each issue cost at least $100.00. However, when this problem
was put to the editorial committee, the majority
(continue after “this issue”)
The Editor is gone (on a sabbatical-a European junket, purportedly educational),
long live the Editor, say we, the "acting" editorial "we."
The quarterly issuing of this Bulletin is one of the important activities of
our Society. Besides providing for publication of short articles of interest
primarily to botanists, it is the Society's only means of conveying to all of
its members requests, news and notes of concern to us as professional botanists.
Within the past few months we have talked with representatives of several other
Societies which are planning to publish similar bulletins because they feel
the need of an inexpensive means of communicating with their membership. Most
of us regret the need for spending time and effort in communicating, but in
this day of highly organized professional groups we botanists have to get ourselves
together or we will be left out in the pasture. We have as good or better ideas
about teaching, about research, about ways of furthering understanding of basic
science and applied science than any other group of scientists. If a members'
bulletin can help us develop an esprit de corps, let's back it by submitting
articles, announcements and notes, and by discussion of the articles already
published in it. The Editorial Board will be glad to hear from you. George S.
Avery, Jr., who is editing the June issue, will be especially glad for contributions.
(continued from page 1)
voted to maintain the monthly schedule, primarily for subjective reasons. The
Committee felt that a journal appearing frequently is far more in the scientific
mind than one appearing bimonthly or quarterly, and that the prestige of a monthly
journal is worth the extra cost to the Society, especially as this cost represents
only a small percentage of the annual cost of printing.
The American Journal of Botany has a hard and fast regulation that no paper
may exceed eight printed pages, including illustrations and tables, unless the
author is willing to accept responsibility for the extra cost, at approximately
$25.00 per page. Each page of the journal (with 6000 characters) contains as
much material as two pages of many single-column journals, yet many authors
complain at being confronted by the dilemma of choosing between what they consider
to be a too frugal page allowance and a too generous cost of extra pages. In
spite of the occasional hardship it causes authors in fields that require detailed
descriptions and longer manuscripts, a firm policy on length of papers seems
justified because it enables more author-members to publish in each volume.
One of my friends who serves as editor for a journal without restrictions on
the length of papers has to ask almost every author to reduce his paper by a
certain percentage--and he finds that authors pad their manuscripts in advance
of revision in order to achieve the amount of space they really want! The suggestion
by one of our most sincere contributors that joint authors should be allowed
to add together their page allotments and thus build up longer papers without
extra cost is an excellent one--if less conscientious authors would not multiply
themselves for this specific purpose and if some fields would not benefit at
the expense of others.
Few authors realize that their papers will be read in their entirety by a shockingly
small (to them) proportion of those who receive the journal. Long tables are
expensive out of all proportion to straight composition and yet are rarely read.
Consequently, we now recommend strongly to authors that they make overly extensive
tabular material available through photoduplication by the ADI Auxiliary Publications
Project of the Library of Congress, and refer to the document number and price
in a footnote to their article.
In a recent symposium on improved communication of scientific information,
Dr. Ralph Cleland predicted that journals may eventually be forced by several
considerations to restrict themselves to the publication of short versions or
digests of papers and to make the whole contribution available, on request,
in the form of photoduplicated copies (microfilm, microcard, etc.), to those
relatively few individuals who wish to read it in extenso.
The editorial control of content is a point at which membership and non-membership
journals in the same field usually diverge sharply. The editor of a non-membership
journal is free to determine arbitrarily the content of each issue and of each
volume, and to restrict the scope in any way, especially since he can hold manuscripts
as long as he wishes, or as long as the author will permit him to. The membership
journal, however, is expected to cover the whole field represented by the society
that publishes it, and botany, for example, is a large and complex field. However,
the editor has the obligation to accept the better papers without regard for
the segment of the whole field into which they fall or for the conformity with
readers' interests, percentagewise. Consequently, issues and even volumes may
show a preponderance of papers in some area that is developing rapidly. Readers
complain that occasional issues contain too many papers on morphology and that
others have too much physiology. Some minor fields, better unspecified, complain
continuously of lack of representation. The editor's only retort to the complaining
member can be to ask him how recently he submitted an acceptable paper himself,
since the most carefully prepared statistics are apt to fall on deaf ears. In
other words, the content of a membership journal tends to be
determined solely by the accident of what authors put into the editor's hands.
Although a back-log of unpublished manuscripts would enable an editor to achieve
a much better balance for each issue, prompt publication is demanded by the
authors and expected by the membership. For those aesthetic reasons peculiar
to editors I would prefer a better balance in the content of issues, yet I am
convinced that the editor of a journal publishing the results of original research
has an obligation to publish manuscripts as promptly as possible.
The backbone of the operation of the American Journal of Botany is the large
group of highly competent botanists who are willing to read and criticize manuscripts
in their special fields. This system is especially important in a field as complex
and as extensive as botany, since no person could be competent to evaluate papers
in all aspects of the field. I am continually impressed by the thoughtful and
detailed reviews, which are helpful to the authors as they are to the editor.
In fact, I have seen reviews that represented as much thought as the original
manuscript, and one review contained so much additional information and original
thought that it had to be published! In the reviewing operation, especially,
the feeling of participation that membership gives becomes extremely important,
as most members appear to feel an obligation to prepare reviews, without recompense,
simply as a benefit to their journal. Few requests for reviews are refused,
and then the member usually feels called upon to give some valid reason for
his refusal. This remarkable situation contrasts strongly with that in one of
the best non-membership botanical journals, whose editor told me recently of
his difficulty in finding competent reviewers.
The reactions of authors to the reviews, in general, are good, although occasionally
they are hurt by strong criticisms or by the reviewer's lack of comprehension
of what they meant, commentary on the author's writing. The cloak of anonymity
usually conceals the identity of the reviewer, although some authors delight
in shrewd guessing. Others, not realizing how blunt their friends and colleagues
can be, angrily suggest that we resubmit the manuscript to someone who really
knows the field, and may nominate the very persons whose reviews so irritated
him. Occasional reviewers insist on signing reviews and others correspond directly
with authors, an admirably sincere approach. However, since anonymous reviews
naturally tend to be franker than signed ones, they thereby give the editor
better criteria for the selection of papers and the author reason for more careful
Perhaps the most difficult editorial task is the rejection of an author's manuscript.
Certainly this is the point at which editor and author find themselves opposed
on an ancient battlefield! Manuscripts represent the last step of an investigation,
and the author tends to identify himself with his research and his written words.
Consequently, the rejection of a manuscript is not infrequently taken as a rejection
of the individual. The sense of disappointment and of outrage felt and expressed
by many authors upon the rejection of their papers becomes especially acute
if they are members of the organization publishing the journal, since consciously
or unconsciously they feel that the payment of their dues gives them the right
to publish. The editor of a non-membership journal finds himself in a relatively
less vulnerable position, therefore. The emotional component inherent in the
rejection of a manuscript is clearly recognized in a recommendation in the policy
and style manual assembled by previous editors of the American Journal, as follows:
"In the case of rejection, ordinarily the comments of reviewers or of the
editorial committee members should not be sent to the author as this usually
results only in long and profitless argument." However, my predecessor
chose not to follow this recommendation and decided to return reviews with rejected
papers. I have continued this procedure with gratifying results, as after the
first shock, many authors write to say that they understand why the paper was
rejected and that they are grateful for the information by which now to rewrite
the paper or recast the experiment. Moreover, some of the onus is thus removed
from the editor, who becomes the agent of the editorial committee, rather than
an unreasonable individual, who has rejected the paper for some vague reason.
Of course, rejection imposes considerable burden on the editor's judgment and
discrimination, since he must first convince himself that unfavorable reviews
do not represent the reviewers' possible bias or lack of comprehension. Perhaps
the worst crime to be committed by an editor would be the rejection of a good
paper because of unfavorable criticism from reviewers belonging to an opposing
school of thought. The editor of a membership journal has to remember his peculiar
responsibility to protect the equity of the author as well as the standards
of the journal.
In conclusion, then, it appears that the problems of editors of membership
and non-membership journals differ. In spite of some exceptions, the editors
of membership journals are not generally free to be arbitrary but must depend
on group decisions, since all important matters of policy are decided by the
editorial committee or larger groups. The acceptance and rejection of papers
depends also on a group decision, since in areas unfamiliar to the editor, he
must depend largely on the opinions of the reviewers. The only real autonomy
possessed by the editor is his responsibility for the maintenance of standards
of excellence for manuscripts and for illustrations. The editor of a membership
journal is peculiarly exposed to criticism, constructive and otherwise, by the
membership and by authors who may feel a certain vested right to publish in
their journals regardless of the quality of their contributions. The problem
of the editor is to select those ideas and suggestions that will benefit the
journal, and to stand firm against those that will not be helpful. Moreover,
he has to accept the fact that the content of his journal depends more upon
the accident of what is submitted than upon any design. However, these hazards
are more than compensated for by the warm feeling of participation in the operation
of the journal demonstrated by authors, reviewers, and the membership at large.
* Portion of a paper presented at the Third Conference on Scientific Editorial
Problems at AAAS meetings. Berkeley. Calif., Dec., 1954.
Education Committee Venture
HARLAN P. BANKS, Cornell University
In his retiring address as President of the Society, Dr. Ralph Wetmore suggested
at Gainesville, Florida, in September 1954 that consideration be given to summer
courses at which botany teachers from small colleges could acquaint themselves
with current work in the field. Following the Gainesville meetings H. P. Banks
and G. H. M. Lawrence of Cornell wrote a proposal, embodying this principle,
for submission to National Science Foundation. The Council of the Society agreed
to its submission under the name of the Society but funds for the support of
1955 summer institutes were by then exhausted.
During the following year, aided by officers of the National Science Foundation
and by data collected at previous Foundation-supported summer institutes. Banks
recast the proposal and presented it to the Education Committee of the Society
at the East Lansing meetings. September 1955. This Committee had previously
given considerable thought to ways and means of ensuring a high level of proficiency
throughout the profession. The Committee added its revisions and recommended
its acceptance by the Council as a "Botanical Society of America proposal
for a summer institute for Botany teachers from small colleges-to be held at
Cornell University July 2-August 11. 1956:' The Council approved its submission
with H. P. Banks as Director. A committee consisting of the then-President-elect
Creighton, Past President Wetmore, and the Director will make the stipend awards.
The aims of the Institute are to present advances in subject matter and in methods
by leaders in specialized fields of botany, to encourage free discussion of
subject matter by persons with common interests, and to encourage, and to offer
advice on, the initiation of modest personal research programs. If we experience
the same glowing results that have accompanied summer institutes in other disciplines,
improvement in the competence of the teachers, in the content of the curriculum
and in the enthusiasm with which the material is handled will inevitably result.
On December 27. 1955, President Creighton was notified of the award of $31,400
by the National Science Foundation to the Society for the implementation of
this project. Both the Foundation and the officers of the society are keenly
aware of the key role played by teachers in increasing our technical potential
and of the necessity of helping teachers fulfill their role in the production
of high quality scientists. It is gratifying to many that the Botanical Society
is undertaking a form of leadership that has long been commonplace in some of
the physical sciences.
The key points in the summer institute are good lecturers and 50 stipends of
$300 each that are available to college teachers currently giving course work
in at least one area of botany. In addition, 100 dependency allowances of $75
each are available to stipend holders. It is our earnest hope that those awarded
stipends will secure some additional aid from their own institutions.
A preliminary announcement was mailed to each member of the Society and a longer
brochure has gone out to all, or nearly all, colleges in the country.
The subject matter to be covered includes Plant Physiology, Plant Anatomy,
Plant Geography, and Phycology. Approximately sixteen outstanding lecturers
Our institute is unique in being confined to Botany. It is further unique in
being confined to Botany for College teachers. Examination of the twenty-one
institutes being supported this summer by National Science Foundation and of
the twenty-odd additional programs otherwise supported, emphasizes the importance
that is being attached to the refreshment of High School teachers. It is our
belief that Botany has a key role to play and that botanists at small colleges
who have produced so many leaders in the Field are equally deserving of this
kind of opportunity. Let us hope that all concerned can demonstrate that Botany
can produce results worthy of continued recognition and support.
For further information write Dr. Harlan P. Banks, Director, Summer Institute
of Botany, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
It has been suggested to the Editor that PLANT SCIENCE BULLETIN should publish
for the information of members of the Society the policy concerning Corresponding
Memberships. Section d of Article II of the By-Laws of the Society states: "Corresponding
Members. Corresponding members shall be chosen from authors of important contributions
to the science of botany. The number of such members shall be limited to forty.
Corresponding members will be nominated by the Council, which will receive recommendations
and credentials submitted by members. Corresponding members will be elected
only by The Society in open meeting."
The Treasurer's records indicate that the Society now has 29 corresponding
members. Although the above- mentioned By-Law does not so specify, all present
corresponding members are citizens of foreign countries. Corresponding members
pay no dues, receive the Amer. Jour. of Bot., and enjoy the same privileges
as all other members of the Society. Any member of the Society in good standing
(or any group of members) may suggest botanists for corresponding membership;
such suggestions accompanied by letters of recommendation, bibliographies of
published works of the nominee, and other supporting materials, should be sent
to the Secretary of the Society well in advance of the annual meeting of the
Council, held each September.
Soviet Opposition to Lysenko
CHARLES R. FREITAG
Research Supervisor, Department of Defense
Botanists who remember the elevation in 1948 of Trofim D. Lysenko to virtual
dictatorship over Soviet biology will probably receive with some interest the
news that he has been subjected during the past three years to a mounting stream
of criticism in the technical journals and the Party press.
The focal point of the controversy is an article by Lysenko entitled "New
Scientific Developments Concerning Biological Species," originally published
in the November-December 1950 issue of Agrobiologiya, and containing the following
(1) Although Darwin was right in his "materialistic" theory of evolution,
he was wrong in stressing the quantitative nature of differences (Lysenko insists
that they are qualitative), in deriving from Malthusian doctrine the idea of
intraspecific competition and divergence (Lysenko says Malthus' doctrine is
"reactionary" and "pseudoscientific"), and in postulating
an evolutionary continuum which lacks hard and fast lines between species and
varieties (Lysenko postulates "leap-like" changes from one species
to another as well as hard and fast lines of demarcation, because these things
accord with the dialectic mode of development postulated by Marx);
(2) "A species is a special qualitatively well-defined state of a living
form of matter. . . . The qualitative distinction between intraspecific interrelationships
and interspecific interrelationships constitutes one of the most important criteria
for distinguishing between species and varieties”; 2
(3) A species gives rise to another species by means of a "leap-like"
change which results in the direct formation of an "embryo" of the
new species within the "womb" of the old, the process taking place
as a direct result of a change in the environment;
(4) Data published by various Soviet biologists demonstrate that cultivated
plants directly give rise to seeds of their own "weeds" (hard and
soft wheat give rise to each other and to rye, oats to oat grass, and branched
wheat to both hard and soft wheat), which proves the correctness of the theory
of species formation. Except for the last two items, which are more in the nature
of technical elaborations than new developments, these views of Lysenko do not
differ from those he has long publicly upheld, and it was not until 1952 that
Botanicheskij Zhurnal initiated the controversy by announcing that the problem
of species and species formation needed to be publicly discussed. The journal
opened the discussion (in its issue of November-December 1952) with articles
written by N. V. Turbin and N. D. Ivanov.
In their discussions, both authors attacked Lysenko's original article. Turbin,
by quoting extensively from Engels, Stalin, and Michurin, tried to prove Lysenko
guilty of heterodoxy because of his (Lysenko's) rejection of Darwin's views
(see item 1 above). Turbin also contended that Lysenko's views on species formation
(see items 3 and 4 above) were ill-supported by evidence despite the numerous
specific case-histories and examples published by Soviet authors in 1951 and
1952. Ivanov, on the other hand, indulged in some extraordinary verbal and logical
gymnastics in order to demonstrate that Lysenko's position is both theological
and teleological, as well as very similar to the "mutation" theory
of the "Weismannist-Morganists." Like Turbin, he quoted from Soviet
"authorities" (Stalin, Timiryazev, Michurin) in order to demonstrate
Lysenko's theoretical and ideological heterodoxy.
Although the "discussion" was initially confined to the pages of
various technical journals, the controversy eventually resulted in the publication
(in a dozen or so periodicals) of several hundred articles, about 40 of which
have been examined (most of them in the original Russian). The anti-Lysenko
articles repeated (with variations) the themes set forth by Turbin and Ivanov,
refuted some of the specific examples of "leap-like" changes, and
charged further that Lysenko and his followers employed poor technique, engaged
in deliberate misrepresentation, and did not understand the criteria employed
in according specific and varietal status. The content of the pro-Lysenko articles
ranged from ideological quibbling and name-calling to simple citation of further
examples of "leap-like" changes.
Of the articles which started appearing in the general press late in 1953,
the most significant were probably Pravda articles of 21 and 26 March 1954,
in which Lysenko was held up to public ridicule and contempt because of his
ill-advised attempt to force the granting of a doctorate to a student who had
written a dissertation of species transformation (Khrushchev, 1954 and Stankov,
1954); a March 1954 editorial in Kommunist which criticized Lysenko's V. 1.
Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences for "suppressing living
scientific thought"; and a Pravda article of 2 July 1954, in which Academician
S. N. Sobolev criticized editors
1 Based on detailed examination of a reprint published (at Lysenko's request)
in Botanicheskij Zhurnal [Botanical Journal] 38(1): 44-56, January-February
1953. The article was also printed in at least four other media.
2 Ibid., p. 48. (Translated by this writer.)
who refused to publish articles because "their authors disagreed in some
way with the established views of certain scientists--for example, Academician
T. D. Lysenko. . . "
In the March-April, 1955, issue of Botanicheskij Zhurnal, the editors closed
down their discussion section by calling for an end to scientific dogmatism,
observing in conclusion that "much harm was done not only to agriculture
and forestry but to the teaching of biology in secondary schools by T. D. Lysenko's
It would probably be wrong to conclude that Soviet biology has returned from
its long exile, for while the attempt of the anti-Lysenko faction to prove the
pro-Lysenko faction guilty of Communist heresy may represent a token obeisance,
it also suggests an attempt to substitute one rigid doctrine for another. Moreover,
whatever the motivation of the anti-Lysenko group may be, the Soviet articles
published during the past three years indicate fairly conclusively that Lysenko
still has strong support, and Soth (1955), as recently as August 1955, noted
that there was "little sign of dissent [from Lysenko' s doctrines] in the
agricultural institutes." About the most that can be said at this time
is that he has lost the position of preeminence which he enjoyed from 1948 to
1952, and that his theories no longer have the force of law in all biological
"Discussions: Expand and Intensify Creative Discussion of Species and
Species Formation," Botanicheskij Zhurnal 40(2): 206- 213, March-April
1955 [translated in Current Digest of the Soviet Press 7(24): 5-8, 27 July 1955]
"(Editorial)--Science and Life," Kommunist No.5, pp.3-13, March 1954
[translated in Cur. Dig. Sov. Press 6(14): 3-7, 19 May 1954]
Ivanov. N. D. "O Novom Uchenii T. D. Lysenko o Vide [Concerning T. D. Lysenko's
New Doctrine on Species]," Bot. Zhurn. 37(6): 819-842, November-December
Khrushchev, N. S. "On Further Increasing the Country's Grain Production
and Putting Virgin and Idle Lands in Cultivation" [a report given at the
Party Central Committee Plenary Session of 23 February 1954], Pravda, pp. 1-5,
21 March 1954 [translated in Cur. Dig. Sov. Press 6(12): 3-13. 5 May 1954]
Lysenko, T. D. "Novoe v Nauke o Biologicheskom Vide [New Scientific Developments
Concerning Biological Species]," Agrogiologiya No.6, pp. 15-25, November-December
1950, and Bot. Zhurn. 38(1): 44-56, January-February 1953
Sobolev, S. N. "A Scientist's Notes: On Scientific Cricitism, In- novation
and Dogmatism." Pravda, p. 2, 2 July 1954 [translated in Cur. Dig. Sov.
Press 6 (26): 15-16, 11 August 1954]
Soth, Lauren. "Soviet Farm Research is Bent to Fit Theories," Des
Moines Register and Tribune, pp. 1 and 4, 26 August 1955 [one of a series of
Stankov, S. "Letters to the Editor: Concerning a Faulty Dissertation,"
Pravda. p. 2. 26 March 1954 [translated in Cur. Dig. Sov. Press 6(12): 13,5
Turbin, N. V. "Darvinizm i Novoe Uchenie o Vide [Darwinism and the New
Doctrine on Species]," Bot. Zhurn. 37(6): 798-818, November-December 1952
The George R. Cooley Awards in Taxonomic Botany
Through the generosity of Mr. George R. Cooley, the American Society of Plant
Taxonomists is able to offer two cash awards yearly for five years. One of these
awards carries an honorarium of $500.00, the other an honorarium of $100.00.
The award of $500.00 is to be given for a published paper based on original
research and concerned largely with the taxonomy of plants of Southeastern United
States, including Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Papers published in the calendar
year prior to that in which the award is given will be considered by a committee
of the American Society of Plant Taxonomists appointed for the purpose. The
committee will select an award paper using excellence as the primary guide.
Any and all phases of the paper and the research reported upon may be taken
into account. If, in the judgment of the committee, no paper is submitted that
is meritorious and of sufficiently high quality, the award may be postponed,
and the over-all period in which awards will be given will thus be extended.
The committee to administer the above award is composed of Dr. Donovan S. Correll,
Chairman (U. S. Department of Agriculture, Plant Introduction Section, Beltsville,
Md.); Dr. Harold W. Rickett (New York Botanical Garden, Bronx Park, New York
58, N. Y.); and Dr. Edgar T. Wherty (Botanical Laboratory, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia 4, Pa.). Papers should be sent to Dr. Correll for consideration.
The award of $100.00 is to be given for an oral paper on any phase of plant
taxonomy delivered before the membership of the American Society of Plant Taxonomists
at its annual meeting. All papers given on the program will be considered and
judged on their excellence by a committee consisting of Dr. Robert T. Clausen,
Chairman (Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.); Dr. John M. Fogg (Morris Arboretum,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.); and Dr. H. L. Mason (University
of California, Berkeley 4, California).
Papers presented at the next annual meeting to be held at the University of
Connecticut, Storrs, August 26-30, 1956, will be considered for the award. R.
C. Rollins, Secretary, American Society of Plant Taxonomists.
NEW QUARTERS AT YALE
The Plant Science Department at Yale University has recently moved into its
new offices and laboratories in the Josiah Willard Gibbs Research Laboratories.
The new quarters provide controlled-condition growth chambers and other research
facilities in plant physiology, cytogenetics, and pollen analysis, together
with other laboratory facilities.
AIBS and the Society
Most of us realize what a good job the AIBS is doing for our Society and for
each of us as professional botanists by representing us in Washington governmental
conclaves and at manpower, science education, teacher training, and other sorts
of meetings. Unless we realize the number of such gatherings where engineers,
chemists, doctors, etc., are represented and so taken into account, we can have
no idea how important it is that an AIBS representative, often a botanist, is
present to see that we are not overlooked, and to present a biological point
of view, if there is one. The following report from Hiden T. Cox, Executive
Director, a member of the Botanical Society, gives some good news of the financial
progress of the AIBS. The Committee on Education mentioned has as its Chairman.
Oswald Tippo, and two of its members are Ronald Bamford and Harriet Creighton.
Watch the AIBS Bulletin for reports of its activities.
"A significant milestone has been passed that is most gratifying to all
of us on the AIBS staff. The Bulletin has completed its fifth full year of publication
and the January issue marked the beginning of Volume 6. Perhaps you noticed
the congratulatory advertisement on the back cover. The gradual development
of the Bulletin into a publication of importance is the product of the efforts
of many people during the past five years. I feel, however, that a major share
of credit is due its editor--Mrs. Ileen E. Stewart--and that all of us are greatly
indebted to her.
"The AIBS contract for providing advisory services to the Office of Naval
Research is in process of being renewed on a longevity basis through December
31, 1957. Previously this contract has been annually renewable. The new plan
not only will give us a rather considerable financial cushion for the next two
years, but I think it bespeaks the growing confidence that governmental agencies
have in the future of AIBS.
"The newly formed Committee on Education and Professional Recruitment
held its first meeting in New York City, January 12th and 13th. Many recommendations
were made and a number of projects were proposed. There is not space to enumerate
them here, but most of them will be noted in future education columns of the
"Two plans for financial underwriting of the publication of an AIBS symposium
series are now under consideration by the Executive Committee. In either case,
AIBS would be able to inaugurate a series of letterpress printed, board-bound
volumes at a price considerably lower than others now on the market.
"I have been informed unofficially that the Society of Systematic Zoology
voted at its last meeting to become an Affiliate of AIBS. This brings to thirty-three
the number of societies who are Affiliates or Members of AIBS. I think this
action also might be interpreted as an expression of confidence from biologists
in the future of AIBS."
EDITORIAL COMMITTEE OF VIII INTERNATIONAL BOTANICAL
The Committee appointed at Paris in 1954 to carry out the directives of the
Nomenclature Section of the Congress held a meeting at Utrecht November 13-18,
1955. All members were present: J. Lanjouw, Utrecht, chairman; C. Baehni, Genève;
W. Robyns, Bruxelles; R. C. Rollins, Cambridge; R. Ross, London; J. Rousseau,
Montréal; G. M. Schulze, Berlin; A. C. Smith, Washington; R. de Vilmorin,
Paris; F. A. Stafleu, Utrecht, secretary. The changes authorized by the Congress
were incorporated in a new edition of the Code, which is expected to be published
about the middle of 1956. Parallel English, French, and German versions will
be provided, together with a key showing the fate of the Articles and Recommendations
of the present (1952) edition. The Committee does not guarantee that the new
edition will solve all the problems of taxonomists.
The Committee enjoyed the hospitality of the botanical staffs at the Universities
of Utrecht and Leiden, being at a reception at each of the Universities, and
on one occasion participating in an afternoon outing on the seacoast with the
botanists of the two institutions who seldom, it is rumored, get together so
amicably. It is hoped that social activities did not interfere with the Committee's
The Darbaker Prize Committee of the Botanical Society of America will accept
nominations for an award to be announced at the annual meeting of the Society
in 1956. Under the terms of the bequest, the award is to be made for meritorious
work in the study of the algae, particularly the microscopic algae. The Committee
will base its judgment primarily on the papers published by the candidate during
the last two full calendar years previous to the closing date for nominations.
Only papers published in the English language will be considered. Nominations
for the 1956 award accompanied by a statement of the merits of the case and
by reprints of the publications supporting the candidacy should be sent to the
Chairman of the Committee in order to be received by May 15, 1956. The value
of the prize for 1956 will depend on the income from the trust fund but is expected
to be about $150.00.
Harold C. Bold, John D. Dodd, Ruth Patrick, Richard C. Starr, George F. Papenfuss,
Chairman, Dept. of Botany, University of California, Berkeley, California.
FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY CONTRIBUTIONS
As stated on page 8 of the October 1955 BULLETIN, the Society needs contributions
from its members to help defray expenses of its Golden Jubilee to be celebrated
in 1956. If you wish to help, send your check to President Harriet Creighton,
Dept. of Botany, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Mass. Your check should be made
payable to "Bot. Soc. 50th Anniversary Fund."
50th ANNIVERSARY MERIT AWARDS
At its last annual meeting the Botanical Society of America decided upon the
awarding of fifty Certificates of Merit at its 50th Anniversary meeting to be
held this year at Storrs, Connecticut. These awards are intended for living
American botanists who have made outstanding contributions to botany. The term
"American" is interpreted in its widest sense to apply to any botanist
who has done all or a substantial part of his professional work in any part
of the Americas. The term "botany" is also interpreted in a broad
sense to cover all fields of plant science. Recipients of these awards need
not be members of the Botanical Society of America. Members of the undersigned
committee have been appointed to select the recipients of these awards. However,
in order to insure that as nearly as possible no person qualified for consideration
will be overlooked, we have decided to first solicit nominations from members
and friends of the Society. Any such person may make one or more nominations;
each such nomination should include at least a brief statement of the qualifications
of the nominee. Nominations will not be accepted for persons who are members
of the committee. Nominating letters should be sent to the chairman of the committee
at the Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Ohio State University, Columbus
10, Ohio, not later than May 15, 1956.
Ronald Bamford, Norman H, Boke, Pierre Dansereau, James H, Jensen, Rogers McVaugh,
Donald P. Rogers, Bernard S. Meyer, Chairman.
PHYCOLOGICAL SECTION OF BOTANICAL SOCIETY IS ORGANIZED
The Council of the Botanical Society, polled by mail ballot, has approved the
organization of a Phycological Section. A group of phycologists presented a
petition to establish such a section to the officers of the Society at the E.
Lansing meeting. The petition cited the increasing number of investigations
dealing with algae and the increasing importance of the latter in basic research.
In view of the number of botanists who are members both of the Botanical Society
and of the Phycological Society of America, it is planned to hold joint program
meetings of the Section and the Phycological Society. Harold C. Bold of Vanderbilt
Univ. is serving as acting chairman of the new section and Paul C. Silva, Univ.
of Illinois, as its secretary. Members of the Botanical Society who wish to
affiliate with the Phycological Section should notify one of these officers.
The difficulties encountered with the projection of lantern slides is a major
source of irritation at the National Meetings. Mr. William G. Smith, biological
photographer of the Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, calls to our
attention that certain standards have been established for the preparing of
engineering and scientific charts for lantern slides.
These standards are fully explained in the booklet, Engineering and Scientific
Charts for Lantern Slides (ASA-ZI5.1-1932, reaffirmed 1947). This may be purchased
from The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 29 West 39th Street, New
York 18, N. Y., at a cost of ninety cents per copy.
Members of the profession are urged to obtain a copy of this booklet and see
that their slides conform to the standards approved by the American Standards
THE SIXTH ANNUAL SPRING WILD FLOWER PILGRIMAGE in the Great Smoky Mountains
will be April 25, 26, 27, and 28. There will be hikes for those interested in
wild flowers and photography, bird walks led by competent ornithologists, two
evening illustrated lectures on Southern Appalachian topics and two evening
wild flower clinics. The Saturday morning hike is to see ferns and mosses. For
further information write the Gatlinburg, Tennessee, Chamber of Commerce.
STORRS MEETINGS AUGUST 26-30
50th ANNIVERSARY OF THE SOCIETY
Plans for the annual meetings to be held with many other Societies belonging
to the AIBS are going forward under the guidance of our Local Representative,
W. H. Camp. There will be field trips before the meetings for those who want
to learn, or review their acquaintance with parts of New England. Several symposia
of general interest will be scheduled and of course there will be the Dinner
for All Botanists at which the retiring President, O. Tippo, will be the speaker.
William Easterly needs flower buds, pressed specimens and seeds of any of the
6 species of Ptilimnium for a morphological study. He will pay cash on delivery.
Write him for details at the Dept. of Biology, West Virginia University, Morgantown,