Plant Science Bulletin archive

Issue: 1966 v12 No 1 SpringActions


A Publication of the Botanical Society of America, Inc.


Adolph Hecht, Editor, Department of Botany, Washington State University Pullman, Washington 99163
Editorial Board
Harlan P. Banks - Cornell University
Norman H. Boke - University of Oklahoma
Sydney S. Greenfield - Rutgers University
William L. Stern - Smithsonian Institute
Erich Steiner - University of Michigan

Botany in a Changing World
AJB: Things To Come
Is a Microscope a Viewer or a Research Tool in the Beginning College Botany or Biology Course?
Summer Institute at Massachusetts
Meetings of the Pacific Section
Meetings of the Canadian Botanical Association
Scholarship in Mycology
Botanical Society Officers for 1966
Botanical Society Committees
Note from the Editor
Jacquelin Smith Cooley 1883-1965

Changes of Address: Notify the Treasurer of the Botanical Society of America, Inc., Dr. Harlan P. Banks, Department of Botany, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

Subscriptions for libraries and persons not members of the Botanical Society of America are obtainable at the rate of $2.00 a year. Send orders with checks payable to "Botanical Society of America, Inc." to the Treasurer.

Material submitted for publication should be typewritten, double-spaced, and sent in duplicate to the Editor. Copy should follow the style of recent issues of the Bulletin.

Botany in a Changing World1
Paul J. Kramer
Department of Botany, Duke University

The biological sciences are undergoing changes as far reaching as those occurring in our political and social systems. The old and familiar boundaries separating scientific disciplines, such as those between botany and zoology, between chemistry and physics, and even between the biological and the physical sciences, are disappearing. As a result biologists in general and botanists in particular probably are suffering from greater feelings of uncertainty and insecurity today than at any time since Darwin shook the biological world a century ago. These feelings are aggravated by the pressures of increasing student enrollments and rapid increase in biological knowledge. It is evident that numerous important changes must be made in our course content, our methods of teaching, and our research if we are to keep abreast of these rapid changes.
Problems Created by Increasing Numbers of Students

Perhaps the most pressing problem on college campuses during the next decade will be to find ways of educating the rapidly increasing numbers of students. If the college enrollment doubles in the next decade where will we find competent staff to teach the additional sections of botany? It is difficult to find good replacements for existing vacancies, and the prospect of attempting to double our teaching staff in botany is appalling. In fact it probably is impossible.

We obviously must find new methods of instruction by which good teachers can instruct more students as effectively as they do by present methods. Perhaps we place too much emphasis on teaching students and should give more attention to developing methods by which students can learn for themselves. The introductory botany course at Purdue University is an interesting example of such an approach, and other new approaches are needed. I will not predict what form they will take, but I am certain that we will find it necessary to make changes in both the content and the methods of teaching during the next decade.

The increase in number of students in botany and zoology will be accompanied by an increase in diversity of ability and previous training which will increase the difficulty of teaching them. The increasing use of BSCS curricula in high schools means that many students will arrive with a knowledge of biology at least superficially equal to that of students who have completed some college freshman courses. On the other hand, many students enter college with no worthwhile knowledge of biology. Obviously, we must make greater use of advanced placement tests to screen out the better-trained students and to place them in advanced courses. Likewise, we must continually revise and update not only our introductory courses, but all of our other courses, in order to keep pace with the improved training and increased scientific sophistication of many of our students.

We face two problems in attempting to revise our introductory courses in botany. One is the reluctance of faculties to change their methods and schedules; the other is the uncertainty concerning our objectives in teaching botany.

Most serious is the lack of certainty concerning our objectives in teaching botany. Some years ago Waddington asked in his book, The Scientific Attitude, "What are the Universities really training their students for? Are they giving a general education in culture and citizenship, or are they trying to turn out technical experts?"

We might ask the same question about our objectives in botany courses. Are we trying to turn out professional botanists or broadly trained citizens with an appreciation of the importance of plants and plant science? Since less than 1 percent of the students who take introductory botany courses become botanists it seems reasonable to argue that our first objective in introductory courses should be to give students the kind of understanding of the importance of plants which will make them better citizens. In fact, I am taking the viewpoint in this paper that our first responsibility in developing introductory courses in botany and the other sciences is to make a worthwhile contribution to the education of our future citizens. This cannot be done with the single introductory course which currently fulfills the science requirement on most campuses. I believe that the average nonscience undergraduate should have at least two years of science. The first year should consist of a carefully integrated course in chemistry and physics, emphasizing the important principles of physical science, followed by a second- year


course in the biological sciences which emphasizes both the basic similarities and the important differences between plants and animals.

This kind of training will turn out citizens who have at least some appreciation of the importance of science, both biological and physical, and how it operates. It will enable them to view the world more intelligently, to understand the differences between science and technology, and to appreciate how the former contributes to the latter. Equally important, it will give college students a better basis for understanding the scientific issues on which they must soon pass judgment as citizens and voters.

Biology versus Botany and Zoology

Such a viewpoint concerning the function of introductory courses in science raises questions concerning their organization. Arguments over the relative merits of biology courses versus separate botany and zoology courses have raged as long as I can remember. Unfortunately, most of these arguments have been based on emotion and defense of self interest rather than on logic. Here again, if we could decide the objectives of our courses in the biological sciences we might be able to view this argument more reasonably. If we agree that the first objective of a college education is to produce well-informed citizens then there is a strong argument for giving college students some understanding of both plants and animals. Whether this can be done better by a biology course or by integrated courses in botany and zoology is debatable. Probably it depends on the individual preferences of the staff members involved.

In any event, the content of introductory courses ought not be determined by the vested interests of departments or by current fashions in biological research, but by careful consideration of what will best equip our future voters to understand the important biological problems of the world they live in. Most of these problems are related to the world's rapidly increasing population. Obviously, feeding these people will strain our biological knowledge to the utmost, but many other important problems will develop. For example, we need more research on the biology of reproduction to learn why the population explosion occurred. Population pressure and increasing knowledge of genetics is likely to bring about consideration of programs for the improvement of man as we now improve crops and livestock. The control of sex is likely to become possible, and other biologically interesting but ethically and socially disturbing discoveries concerning the modification of human heredity will doubtless be made. What was science fiction yesterday tends to become fact today. To deal with such problems sensibly requires a citizenry well educated in basic biological principles.

Equally important are the ecological and physiological problems resulting from man's disturbance of his environment. All of us are familiar with the increasing pollution of air and water which threatens to render certain areas uninhabitable (see Cottam, Bioscience, July 1965). The ability of man to change his environment seems unlimited, but the fu11 biological consequences of these changes are seldom considered. Engineers are seriously discussing changing the courses of rivers such as the Columbia, digging a sea-level canal from the Atlantic to the' Pacific, and modifying weather patterns to bring rainfall to deserts. Such drastic changes may have serious biological consequences which ought to be evaluated before irreparable damage is done.

Appreciation of the importance of these problems requires an understanding of plants and animals at the level of the organism and the community. Solving these kinds of problems is less glamorous than breaking the genetic code or putting a man on the moon, but it probably is much more important to the immediate survival of the human race. Solution of them seems to depend more on increased understanding of ecology and environmental physiology than on molecular biology. Thus we must be careful to maintain balance in our biology courses and not allow one area to dominate simply because it is currently fashionable.
At this point I wish to inject a word of caution concerning the current tendency to overemphasize the similarities of plants and animals. It is true that the differences seem minor at the molecular level, but there are quite important differences in structure and functioning between cells of mammals and those of seed plants. At the organism level the differences between plants and animals are very important indeed, as anyone knows who has ever grown and studied cows and corn plants. To neglect these differences is foolish because they are of paramount importance in dealing with mankind's most pressing problems which are so evident at the level of the organism and the community. To overemphasize molecular biology at the expense of the study of the whole organism in relation to its environment would be just as serious a mistake as to neglect it entirely. We need both kinds of study of plants.

Before leaving this problem a few words on the administrative


organization of biology are in order. There are seemingly logical arguments that combining the study of plants and animals in a single department should simplify curriculum planning, decrease duplication of courses and equipment, and reduce overhead. However, these assumed advantages may well be outweighed by the psychological advantages of smaller groups working toward common objectives. Perhaps in small schools a biology department is the most feasible administrative arrangement, but the staffs of large departments often tend to fragment and divide as badly as though they were in separate departments. Furthermore, as Dr. Cheadle commented to this group a few years ago, it is a great mistake to suppose that 30 good men in one department can obtain as much support as 15 equally good men in each of two separate departments. Nevertheless, modern biology requires greater cooperation among its various branches than generally exists today.

In considering this problem we should remind ourselves that the conventional organization of biology is not the only possible one. The Division of Biology and Medicine of the National Science Foundation has a very unconventional organization which makes no mention of botany or zoology, yet it has worked satisfactorily through a decade of dealing with botanists and zoologists. Some of the new universities are planning equally unconventional organizations. Possibly the terms botany and zoology may some day become obsolete, but the study of plants and animals will always be necessary. Our primary problem is not the defense of a term such as botany, but to make certain that the study of plants is so obviously important that it is supported adequately whatever it is called and in whatever organization of biology it is found in future years.

The New and the Old in Biology

One of our most troublesome problems results from the rapid increase in biological information and the development of new areas unknown one or two decades ago. Advances in chemistry and physics have provided new methods for research on plants and animals, and new fields are developing which are so productive and glamorous that they threaten to overshadow older fields in ability to obtain support. This naturally has aroused some resentment among classical botanists who are unhappy over the rapid expansion of these newcomers. However, it would be very unfortunate for botany if we fail to make full use of new methods and new concepts to produce a more interesting and more productive science.

We need research on plants at all levels, molecular, cellular, organismal, and community. We still need research in such classical fields as anatomy, morphology, and taxonomy, but this research should make use of new methods and new concepts. It is not so much the classical fields of botany themselves that are in danger of becoming obsolete as the methods and the intellectual approach of some workers in those fields. If botanists in classical areas insist on clinging to old concepts and methods they will lose students and support, and botany will be the worse for it.

Invasion of Biology by Chemists, Physicists, and Engineers

We also should take notice of an increasing tendency for nonbiologists to turn their attention toward biological problems. It has been suggested that the latter part of the 19th century was the age of chemistry, the first half of this century the age of physics, and the second half is the age of biology. If botanists are going to share fully in the discoveries of this age they must make full use of the intellectual concepts and methods of the period in which they are working. Otherwise the biochemists, the biophysicists, and even the engineers will take over the most important problems and make the most exciting discoveries in biology, leaving the botanists and zoologists with only the commonplace and the routine work.

This invasion by the physical scientists should be flattering, but it also poses dangers lest these outsiders carry off the honors in research. They certainly will do that if we stand still and let them take over our most interesting problems simply because these problems are in unfamiliar territory and require the use of unfamiliar methods.

Competition for Money, Time and Prestige

There are other important sources of tension on campuses which affect botanists. Among them are the competition for men, money, space, and prestige between the humanities and the sciences, between teaching and research, and among the various fields of science. All of these forms of competition have been intensified in recent years by the increased amount of money made available to science by government agencies.

Perhaps the most striking change in botany since World War Two has been the great increase in support of research by government agencies. This has been very beneficial to botany, but it also has created some problems which deserve our consideration. For example, serious questions are being raised in Congress and elsewhere concerning possible undesirable effects of our grant system on colleges and universities. It is claimed that the present system diverts emphasis from teaching to research, weakens the loyalty of faculty members to their institutions, and produces unbalance among various fields, particularly between the sciences and the humanities (Walsh, Science, July 2, 1965). These complaints contain enough truth to make them dangerous, and they deserve our careful attention. Unfortunately, they also tend to arouse emotional responses, and it is difficult to keep discussion of them on a logical basis.

Research and Teaching. There is no doubt that research competes with teaching for personnel, for time, and even for money, and there is little doubt that the time and energy of many good teachers are diverted from the classroom by the easy availability of research funds and the prestige of grant-supported research. On the other hand if there were no research there would be nothing new to teach and science would stagnate. Furthermore, teachers who do no research are much more likely to fall behind in their knowledge of new developments than those who carry on research. It is likely that the heavy


teaching loads often found on small college campuses which prevent any research are a greater menace to good teaching than are overexpanded research programs on larger campuses.

Critics should be reminded that teaching is only one of the functions of a university. The other two are the preservation of existing knowledge and the acquisition of new knowledge, that is, carrying on research. These activities are essentially inseparable on a university campus, and if properly balanced they result in better teaching rather than worse. However, to keep them in balance requires more courage and leadership than is usually found on college campuses where too often programs are allowed to grow and proliferate without reference to any overall plan.

The most effective way of insuring that we have enough teachers is to make certain that good teaching is rewarded as generously as good research. Sometimes it is, but the rewards are often slower in coming because it is more difficult to evaluate teaching than to count publications.

The Sciences and the Humanities. The extent of the conflict between the sciences and the humanities probably has been exaggerated by writers such as Sir Charles Snow and certainly has been aggravated by the complaints of humanists who resent losing their dominant place on the campus. The decline in influence of the humanities was not caused by the hostility of scientists but results from the fact that we are living in a period when human action is increasingly dominated by the effects of scientific discoveries and technological developments. Science therefore tends to occupy an increasingly important place in our educational system, whether we like it or not. Perhaps, however, we need to pay more attention to the humanistic values in science and should be more willing to discuss the moral implications of scientific discoveries. It is doubtful if anyone has the right to carryon his scientific work without regard to its effects on the society in which he works and which supports him. When properly taught, courses in science can broaden the viewpoint of students as effectively as courses in the humanities.

Competition among Fields in Science. The hottest conflicts are likely to develop within science itself because they involve competition for large sums of money to build and operate expensive research facilities. The conflict within botany becomes particularly lively when workers in classical fields compete with workers in newer and more glamorous fields which are currently better supported.

The situation in botany is only one aspect of the large and complex problem of how to allocate research funds among the various fields of science. This problem will become more serious if the present trend toward leveling off appropriations for support of research in various government agencies continues. Some people argue that all competent scientists ought to be given adequate support to work on problems of their own choice and all fields are equally deserving of support. I doubt if this view is correct in theory, and I am certain that it is impossible in practice.

There never is enough money to support everyone, and some kinds of research will always seem more important than others. Alvin Weinberg discussed this problem in the winter issue of Minerva for 1963, and Orlans discussed it in the July 2, 1965, issue of Science. Weinberg suggested that we must consider not only the intrinsic scientific merits of research projects, but also their extrinsic merits in terms of their contributions to other fields of science and to society in general. If such criteria are applied to research in various fields of botany it becomes inevitable that at a given time certain fields will seem more important than others and will therefore receive more support. It may be depressing to those who prefer to work in fields currently judged to be less important, but it does no good to complain against the better-supported fields. It would be more effective for the complainants to search for ways of making their fields more productive and therefore more deserving of support.

Discussion of the relative importance of various kinds of research inevitably leads to discussion of basic versus applied research. I rather regret that this distinction is made so frequently. What we really need is effective research on important problems. Good basic research often supplies information needed to solve applied problems, and applied problems often supply the stimulus and even the financing for good basic research. The two are most productive when they proceed together. There have been and perhaps still are botanists who look with disdain on its applied branches such as agriculture, forestry, and horticulture. We can no longer afford to hold such a view. Botany as a basic science should never lose sight of its important relationships and its contributions to these applied areas.


The pressures of increasing enrollments and the rapid increase in knowledge are bringing about changes in the biological sciences as far reaching as those occurring in our political and social systems. The boundary lines between botany and zoology are becoming blurred, and new concepts and new fields are appearing which were unheard of a decade ago. As a result, botanists are being forced to make important changes in their curricula, their teaching, and their research in order to avoid becoming obsolete.

It may be disturbing to some botanists to find new concepts, new methods, and even new fields developing which are beginning to overshadow the classical fields in attractiveness to students and in ability to obtain support. However, such changes are inevitable, so instead of complaining about them let us see how we can use the new concepts and new methods to revitalize old fields and solve problems which we could not solve by old methods.

If we stand still and waste our energy in defending the past we will be unable to share in the future. If we wish to preserve botany as an important part of biological science we must be willing to modernize our courses, our research procedures, and even our methods of teaching. Only by continually adjusting to new ideas and new methods can we keep botany vigorous and productive. If it does not prosper in the next decade we have only ourselves to blame.

1 Abbreviated version of the address of the President of the Botanical Society of America, presented at the Society’s annual banquet, August 18, 1965 at Urbana, Illinois.


AJB: Things To Come

Carrying out of projected plans for the business operations of AJB during the period 1965-1970 will depend on general economic conditions in the country and in the world. A number of factors present in America's economic picture today may result in the cancellation of any or all of the plans itemized below: 1. If the already spiraling inflation gets out of hand; 2. The dollar is devalued; 3. The British pound sterling collapses; 4. Foreign demand for our gold drastically increases; 5. More wars, petty or large, break out and spread. The financial structure of our Journal will be strongly influenced. Although America is skating on very thin ice in some of these areas (1967 will very likely be the crucial year), I personally believe the USA will weather the storms.

A number of well-known, privately or societally owned scientific journals are having financial difficulties. AJB is not, and I hope will not during the coming years. The Botanical Society supplies about $16,000.00 per annum toward the financial operation of AJB; this is enough to run the Journal for about 3.5 months. The remainder of our income comes from institutional subscriptions (divided equally between foreign and domestic), advertising, back order sales, and interest.

Five years ago we were publishing approximately 80 pages per issue, and it is hoped that in the coming five years this figure will double. However, if we are to publish 160 pages per month, the editor of that day will be editing the equivalent of 20 issues of the 1959-1960 period! The burden on the editorial office will be staggering. Our editors are usually chairmen of departments, full professors with graduate responsibilities. Unless the editor, now and in the future, receives considerably more assistance, the editing of AJB could become a job no one would or could afford to take on. In respect to this situation, some changes have already been instituted, as it must be recognized that the editor needs as much editorial and secretarial help as he can get. Reserves, built up over that last few years, will aid in the immediate future until several plans can be put into effect which will (hopefully) supply not only funds for editorial assistance, but continued improvement and expansion.

Of course more pages per year will reduce the waiting time between submission of papers and then publication; this, however, depends on the increase in volume of papers during the period, a phenomenon with which both Dr. Bold and Dr. Heimsch have contended.

The Council has approved raising the price of the Journal to institutional subscribers and has left the spacing of the raise or raises to the discretion of the business manager. A complete revamping of the excess pagination charges is also envisioned. Heretofore it has been our policy to be content when excess pagination paid for itself. If the Journal is to hold its own, especially if it is to go on to greater things, this concept has to be changed, and excess pages must not only pay for itself, but for a portion of other functions of the Journal. Granting agencies and many institutions realize that publication of scientific articles is an expensive proposition, and are ready and willing to support publication of articles. (Neither the editor nor the business manager plan any kind of change of the policy, in effect during the last five years, of allowing publication of excess pages by individuals who must support the charges personally, i.e., waiving such charges on writing to either the editor or business manager. Needless to say, it will continue to be the responsibility of the editor to judge the value of the excess pages so published.)

During the Council meeting held at Urbana the editor and the business manager proposed changes for the cover of AJB. Not drastic changes, but changes which will make the cover more attractive; a definite lightening of the green and more interesting print for that portion of the covering in which titles are not listed. Ideas are presently being circulated among Council members. No change in the dimensions of the Journal is contemplated; rows of AJB on your shelf will be even! The quality of the paper used in printing will be maintained or improved where possible (paper quality is a very costly item).

Advertising during the last two years has shown signs of improving. Large scientific instrument companies are beginning to advertise (and, indeed, E. Leitz also became a Sustaining Member for 1965). It is hoped that advertising will continue to increase, and efforts will be made (and are being made) to bring this about.

Circulation increases can also be planned on during this period. Smaller institutions are growing and expanding their libraries. The government will no doubt continue to pour money into higher education.

Therefore, barring unusual world or American economic conditions, the state of AJB should remain sound, and we should continue to grow and improve during the coming years.
Lawrence I. Crockett
Business Manager, AIB

Is a Microscope a Viewer or a Research Tool in the Beginning College Botany or Biology Course?
Hiram F. Thut
Eastern Illinois University

Several years ago, I had a visitor from out of town who complained bitterly because there was almost no clutter in the laboratory. The students got their microscopes on entering the laboratory. They got a prepared slide from the slide box; they spent time naming the parts and making drawings. At the end of the laboratory period, the microscopes were put away, the slide boxes were closed and put on the proper shelf, and the laboratory was almost spotless. Everything was very neat and anything carried


into the laboratory was discouraged for that tended to clutter up the laboratory.

From many reports, I gather that the above is quite common procedure. If it is, why do they have a laboratory? If the microscope is only a viewer, then the laboratory is run as a very inefficient experience. Pictures would be better for most pictures are taken by experts and are usually well done. Why should a student have to hunt to see a slide picture in the microscope? Why not just label pictures? True, there is the item of observation that might be developed by using a microscope. Microscopic slides, wall charts, slide projectors, and movies are an easy way to "keep" a laboratory, and everything can be quickly put in its place. Sure, students learn something, and memory is important. We are in the audio-visual generation.

If the microscope is a research tool, then the laboratory can be an experience. A student makes his own fresh mount slide by stripping off the epidermis, by cutting a cross section, by gathering some algae from his environment, or by raising his own bacteria after contaminating media plates and then observing them. He not only uses his ears and eyes in audio-visual experiences but his other senses too. From muscular manipulation, touch, smell, and maybe taste, much can be learned above sight and sound. The living material or the actual specimen is in his possession or is associated with his environment. Many features and characteristics are available to his senses which a prepared slide or chart cannot convey. If he makes his observations in the presence of other students, they can and should compare microscopic mounts as well as specimens and should note differences as well as similarities. An instructor is always subject to the unpredictable, or sometimes the hard to name or explain. But in so doing, botany comes alive.

Most of us will probably not admit being instructors of the first type, and it can be quite time-consuming to get ready for a class of the second type, so we range somewhere between. What is the answer to the question first posed? Is the microscope a research tool? It is an achievement for a student to find a live nucleus or crush a root and then by staining find the chromosomes in a cell. This might be very elementary research, but he has found something for himself. Isn't that what a researcher does?

If you are encouraging students to find out for themselves, what do you do with the prepared slides and charts? If you swamp them with these "know it all' things, what incentive is left? Charts and prepared slides are valuable teaching aids. A student should not have to find material to substantiate a chart if he is using live plant material; rather the chart should verify his findings. If charts and prepared slides are used in this context, they are valuable aids to good teaching.

Maybe teaching should not be mentioned, but somewhere along the line we have not "sold" botany nor biology very well to the college student. Enrollment in such courses is not heavy unless they are required. Maybe some of the lack of interest in our courses stems from the use of the microscope.


Summer Institute at Massachusetts

As announced in our last issue the Botanical Society's Sixth Summer Institute for College Teachers of Botany will be held at the University of Massachusetts, June 20 to July 15, 1966. Edward L. Davis will serve as Director, with David P. Meyer as Associate Director for the Institute. The following botanists and biologists have agreed to serve as the teaching staff for the subjects, as indicated:

Herbert G. Baker, Professor of Botany and Director of the Botanical Garden, University of California (Berkeley). The relationships between reproductive biology and ecology, evolution and taxonomy.

Roderick K. Clayton, Senior Investigator in Biophysics, Charles Kettering Research Lab. A biophysical approach to photobiology.

Ralph E. Cleland, Professor of Botany, Indiana University. Problems in nuclear cytology.

Theodore Delevoryas, Professor of Botany, Yale University. Techniques and aims of paleobotany; ontogeny of fossil plants; evolutionary problems in paleobotany.

William S. Hillman, Plant Physiologist, Brookhaven National Laboratory. Photoperiodism, photomorphogenesis, and phytochrome.

William P. Jacobs, Professor of Biology, Princeton University. Hormone transport and cell differentiation in higher plants.

William A. Jensen, Professor of Botany and Associate Dean, University of California (Berkeley). Histochemical and ultrastructural studies in plant embryology.

Gleb Krotkov, Professor of Botany, Queens University, Canada. Plant metabolism (respiration and biosynthesis of plant compounds).

Irene Manton, Professor of Botany, Leeds University, England.

Keith R. Porter, Professor of Biology, Harvard University. Recent observations on the fine structure of plant cells and tissues.

Jerome Schiff, Professor of Biology, Brandeis University. Comparative aspects of photosynthesis and sulfur metabolism.

Franklin W. Stahl, Professor of Biology, Institute of Molecular Biology, University of Oregon. Bacteriophage, a veritable microcosm of general biology.

If you have not already received a brochure describing the forthcoming Institute, you may obtain one by writing to Dr. Edward L. Davis, Department of Botany, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01002.

Meetings of the Pacific Section

The Pacific Section of the Botanical Society of America will again hold its annual meeting with the Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The meeting will be June 13-16 at the University of Washington, Seattle. Members of the Society residing in the Pacific States (Washington, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Hawaii, California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona) and the Pacific Provinces (British Columbia, Alberta) will receive the preliminary announcement of the meeting in March. The final program of the Section and the abstracts are mailed only to members of the Section. Membership is available at 50¢ a year and may be sent to the Secretary-Treasurer. All those interested are cordially invited to join.--Janet R. Stein, Secretary-Treasurer, Pacific Division, c/o Department of Botany, University of British Columbia, Vancouver 8, Canada.


Meetings of the Canadian Botanical Association

The Canadian Botanical Association, founded in 1965, will hold its first annual meeting at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., on June 1 to 3, 1966. The CBA will be meeting in conjunction with the Canadian Phytopathological Society and the Canadian Society of Plant Physiologists. Premeeting and postmeeting field trips through British Columbia are scheduled. Those interested in the sessions of any of the three societies may receive further information by writing to D. J. Wort, Chairman Local Committee Canadian Plant Societies Meeting, Botany Department, University of British Columbia, Vancouver 8, Canada.

Scholarship in Mycology

The Gertrude S. Burlingham Scholarship in Mycology for advanced predoctoral study at The New York Botanical Garden will be available for the summer of 1966. The stipend is $800-$1,000. Work under this appointment may begin at any time after June 1 and should continue for approximately three months. Graduate students in mycology whose research program can use the herbarium, laboratory, and library of the Garden are especially urged to apply for this scholarship. Field work can be combined with studies at the Garden. The scholarship is under the supervision of Dr. Clark T. Rogerson, Mycologist and Curator of Cryptogamic Botany. Nominations or applications should be sent before April 15 to the Director, The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York 10458.

Botanical Society Officers for 1966

Harold C. Bold, President
Department of Botany, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712

Ralph Emerson, Vice-President
Department of Botany, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720

Richard C. Starr (1965-69), Secretary
Department of Botany, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405

Harlan P. Banks (1965-67), Treasurer
Department of Botany, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14850

William A. Jensen (1964-66), Program Director
Department of Botany, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720

Theodore Delevoryas (1964-66), Editorial Committee
Department of Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520

Harlan Lewis (1965-67), Editorial Committee
Department of Botany, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90024

Anton Lang (1966-68), Editorial Committee
Plant Research Laboratory, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48823

Charles Heimsch, Editor, American Journal of Botany
Department of Botany, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 45056

Adolph Hecht, Editor, Plant Science Bulletin
Department of Botany, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99163.

Lawrence J. Crockett, Business Manager, American Journal of Botany
The City College, University of the City of New York, Convent Avenue & 139th Street, New York, New York 10031

Sectional Officers and Council Members for 1966*
*Aaron J. Sharp, Past President, 1965
Department of Botany, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37916

*Paul J. Kramer, Past President, 1964
Department of Botany, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27706

*Constantine J. Alexopoulos, Past President, 1963
Department of Botany, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712

Developmental Section
*Walter R. Tulecke, Chairman (1966-68)
Boyce Thompson Institute, 1086 N. Broadway, Yonkers, New York 10701

Watson M. Laetsch, Vice-Chairman (1966-68)
Department of Botany, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720

Richard M. Klein, Secretary (1964-66)
New York Botanical Garden, Bronx Park, New York, New York 10458

General Section
Dominick J. Paolillo, Chairman (1966)
Department of Botany, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61803

William F. Millington, Vice-Chairman (1966)
Department of Biology, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53233

*Shirley C. Tucker, Secretary-Treasurer (1964-66)
Department of Botany, University of California, Davis, California 95616

Historical Section
Conway Zirkle, Chairman (1966)
Department of Botany, Leidy Laboratory, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104

Joseph Ewan, Vice-Chairman (1966)
Curator of Botany, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80304

*Jerry W. Stannard, Secretary-Treasurer (1966)
Department of History, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80304

Microbiological Section
C. W. Hesseltine, Chairman (1966)
Northern Regional Research Lab., 1815 North University, Peoria, Illinois 61604

Howard Whisler, Vice-Chairman (1966)
Department of Botany, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98105

Ian K. Ross, Secretary (1966)
Department of Biological Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106

*Robert M. Page, Representative to the Council (1966)
Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305

Paleobotanical Section
Francis M. Hueber, Chairman (1966)
Division of Paleobotany, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560

*Donald A. Eggert, Secretary-Treasurer (1966-68)
Department of Botany, State University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52240

Phycological Section
Walter R. Herndon, Chairman (1966)
Department of Botany, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37916

*Bruce C. Parker, Secretary (1965-67)
Department of Botany, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130

Physiological Section
_____________, Representative (1966)

Systematic Section
*Kenton L. Chambers, Chairman (1966)
Department of Botany, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331

Lawrence R. Heckard, Secretary (1966)
Department of Botany, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720

*Those persons whose names are marked with an (*) are members of the Council. The Council also includes the Officers of the Society except those elected to the Editorial Committee.


Teaching Section
Paul A. Vestal, Chairman (1966)
Department of Biology, Rollins College, Winter Park, Florida 32791

Helena A. Miller, Vice-Chairman (1966)
Department of Biology, Duquesne University, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania 15219

*J. L. Martens, Secretary (1965-67)
Department of Biology, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois 61761

Central States Section
*Albert S. Rouffa, Chairman (1966)
Division of Biological Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, Chicago, Illinois 60680

Robert B. Kaul, Vice-Chairman (1966)
Department of Botany, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68508

Paul L. Redfearn, Jr., Secretary (1965-67)
Department of Biology, Southwest Missouri State College, Springfield, Missouri 65802

Northeastern Section
*Ronald Peterson, Chairman (1966)
Department of Botany, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37916

Robert K. Zuck, Secretary-Treasurer (1966-68)
Department of Botany, Drew University, Madison, New Jersey

Pacific Section
Paul C. Silva, Chairman (1966)
Department of Botany, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720

Arthur R. Kruckeberg, Vice-Chairman (1966)
Department of Botany, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98105

*Janet R. Stein, Secretary-Treasurer (1963-66)
Department of Biology and Botany, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Southeastern Section
Fred T. Wolf, Chairman (1966)
Department of Biology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37203

*W. H. Murdy, Secretary (1964-67)
Department of Biology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322

Botanical Society Committees
(With Expiration Dates)

Committee on Corresponding Members*
Aaron J. Sharp (1968), Chairman 1966
Paul J. Kramer (1967), C. J. Alexopoulos (1966)

Membership Committee*
Richard C. Starr, Chairman (Secretary)
Subcommittee Chairmen: Council Representatives from the Geographical Sections

Darbaker Prize*
Mary B. Allen, Chairman (1967), Institute for Arthritis, NIH Bethesda, Maryland
E. Yale Dawson (1968), Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Robert F. Scagel (1969), University of British Columbia
Frank R. Trainor (1970), University of Connecticut
Paul Green (1966), University of Pennsylvania

Merit Awards Committee*
F. C. Steward, Chairman (1966)
William D. Billings (1967), A. S. Foster (1968)
Ex: officio: President

New York Botanical Garden Award*
Carlos O. Miller, Chairman (1966)
Lincoln Constance, Henry N. Andrews, Jr., John R. Raper

Education Committee*
S. N. Postlethwait, Chairman
Harriet B. Creighton, E. C. Clebsch, R. B. Channell, Robert M. Page, Russell B. Stevens, Richard Klein
Ex officiis: President; Secretary; Secretary Teaching Section; Editor, PSB; Rep. to AAAS Goop. Committee

*Standing Committees

Note from the Editor

Although the Editorial Board was not unanimous in approving the modification in format of this issue I have gone ahead with these changes in order to obtain reactions from a wider spectrum of our readers. If you have any reactions favorable or unfavorable to the new appearance of the Bulletin, or have any alternate suggestions, please send them in.

Corrigenda. My apologies to Dr. John J. Wurdack, whose name was misspelled in the last issue. In the next sentence the word "Cryptogams" was incorrectly spelled.


Dr. Louis G. Nickell has recently been named assistant director of the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association Experiment Station. He will currently continue his present duties as head of the physiology and biochemistry department, which position he has had since 1961. Dr. Nickell was associated with the Brooklyn Botanical Garden, 1949-1951, and the Charles Pfizer & Co., 1951-1961.

Dr. Richard S. Cowan, formerly Associate Curator in the Department of Botany and Deputy Director of the Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution, has been made Director of the Museum of Natural History. Dr. Cowan is a specialist in the taxonomy of the legumes of the tropics and in the flora of northern South America. Before coming to the Smithsonian, he was on the staff of the New York Botanical Garden.

Our immediate past-president, Dr. A. J. Sharp, has again been honored by his selection as the University of Tennessee's eleventh Distinguished Service Professor. Jack Sharp has been a member of the University of Tennessee faculty since 1929, and for 10 years, 1951 to 1961, served as head of the Department of Botany. We look forward to Distinguished Service Professor Sharp's address at the Society's forthcoming annual banquet.

Jacquelin Smith Cooley 1883-1965
Dr. Cooley, a member of the Botanical Society for 38 years, was born July 24, 1883, in Virginia. He received his A.B. at Randolph-Macon College, an M.S. at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, and a Ph.D. under Dr. B. M. Dugger at Washington University in St. Louis. After some 37 years with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Dr. Cooley retired in 1951 but continued an active interest in gardening and the breeding of daylilies, Narcissus and Iris. His professional work included studies of storage diseases of apples and peaches, perennial canker of apples and pears, and storage rots affecting sweet potatoes. Dr. Cooley died on July 8, 1965.

Back to overview