PLANT SCIENCE BULLETIN
A Publication of the Botanical Society of America, Inc.
8 DECEMBER 1962 NUMBER 4
of Modern Biology
of California, Santa Barbara
is of course a great honor for me to give this retiring President's address.
Though it has been held by some that these addresses tend to be very dry and
uninteresting, I have found something of interest in each one I have heard.
Some discourses may have seemed better than others, but in looking back over
the years that I have attended these affairs, because of the great variation
in the performances I have always found at least a thought or two of use to
me. I suppose most of the talks could be said to have been erudite addresses
and to have featured the speaker's own field of research interest. Some addresses
have been exhortatory—the let-us-get-on-the-ball type—and others
have been in the nature of travelogues, such as Kenneth Thimann's absorbing
account of the trip he took to Russia shortly before he gave his address last
must be, accordingly, some precedent among all these addresses for the type
of short talk I wish to give tonight. It will consist of comments—sometimes
a little disconnected—on biology and botany today, and will be entirely
subjective; I shall have essentially no scientific data upon which to base
my remarks. The point of view I am taking is probably an outcome of my recent
desertion—or rather, near desertion—from the ranks of researchers
and teachers. In this connection, incidentally, I wish to make clear that
technically I still retain my professorship of botany—I mean I have
tenure as a botanist—and that I shall continue to do a little research.
And I am now at liberty to tell the last two or three of you who do not al-ready
know that my esteemed and truly distinguished col-league at Davis, Professor
Katherine Esau, is moving to Santa Barbara, I hope some time within this fiscal
year. Were it not for her coming, I would probably not even attempt to carry
on research of any importance. But with her as a magnificent crutch for me
as well as a tremendous worker solely on her own, we shall continue, I hope,
with a sizeable program on xylem and phloem in the monocotyledons, and dicotyledons,
and other subjects, with considerable emphasis on electron microscopy.
present administrative position has heightened my interest in the organization
of biology and of its component parts, and that is what I wish chiefly to
talk about. As everyone knows, we have in this country about every possible
kind of administrative arrangement involving subject: matter in biology. Likewise,
we have about every conceivable kind of higher education and therefore every
conceivable kind and quality of institution purveying higher education.
naturally arise as to which administrative arrangements are most effective
for what kinds of biology in these various kinds of colleges, and universities,
and technical institutes—and especially whether any one kind of arrangement
could serve all.
don't want to get lost in these exhaustive general subjects, so let me restrict
myself to a very few points. The first two arc of a background nature.
presumably there are some real distinctions among two-year colleges, four-year
colleges, universities, and technical institutes. I'm sure we can't agree
on the distinctions, but at least we can set the two-year colleges to one
side because they obviously concern themselves with but two years of college
work. The four-year college frequently now becomes a five- or six-year one,
with the Master's degree as its highest earned award. Furthermore, colleges
tend to be small, although some large ones appear, especially in California.
Universities commonly offer the doctorate as well as the masterate and/or
have professional schools among their administrative components. Universities
may become huge although some are resisting the forces of change and in fact
arc remaining quite small. I understand that Harvard College still has less
than 5,000 undergraduates, for example, and is outnumbered by the graduate
and professional students in Harvard University. Technical institutes are
frequently narrowly monolithic, that is, they have a restricted spectrum of
interests but often go all the way with the ones they do have. As you know,
the best ones tend to have small and highly selective student bodies. Two
comments should be made about these different kinds of institutions in connection
with later remarks I wish to make. The missions of these institutions differ
remarkably in de-tail, and their enrollments vary enormously in number (and
quality, for that matter).
second point I wish to make concerns biology itself. The study of living things—even
if we disregard study of the brain, including concepts of the mind—has
become so complicated in some respects these days that only mathematicians,
chemists, physicists, and others knowing little or nothing about it have the
courage to define biology for us. Some university administrators—I guess
you could call them educators, to use the term loosely—say that the
first half of the twentieth century belonged to the physical scientists and
that the second half will belong to the biologists. But not many physical
scientists will swallow that. They are likely to say that having solved the
major or glamorous problems
PLANT SCIENCE BULLETIN
WILLIAM L. STERN, Editor
25, D. C.
P. BANKS Cornell University
NORMAN H. BOKE University of Oklahoma
S. GREENFIELD Rutgers University
QUARTERMAN Vanderbilt University
ERICH STEINER University of Michigan
DECEMBER 1962 VOLUME 8
OF ADDRESS: Notify the Treasurer of the Botanical Society of America. Inc.,
Dr. A. J. Sharp, Department of Botany, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
for libraries and persons not members of the Botanical Society of America
are obtainable at the rate of $2.o0 a year. Send orders with checks payable
to "Botanical Society of America, Inc." to the Business Manager, Dr. Lawrence
J. Crockett, Department of Biology, The City College, Convent Avenue and 139th
Street, New York 31, New York.
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 physical sciences it is now high time that they got on with settling the
biological ones. And I'm not so naive as to think they may not be correct.
But let us say, at least, that biology, with the help of other sciences, is
in fact to hold center front on the stage during the remaining decades of
the twentieth century. How should we be organized to deal with and to deliver
most effectively the fruits of our complicated labors in biology?
before even attempting to answer this question, I must ask naively what biologists
are trying to do in the various segments of our institutions of higher education.
don't wish to attempt delivery of any profound statements in this connection.
I take it that for a first objective all institutions try to introduce vital
information about organisms, present and past, in their biological courses.
And it is not surprising that the organisms used in such courses should have
an important bearing on what is taught. In earlier days, the differences between
plants and animals seemed more complete than we know them to be now. Currently
in many institutions only the similarities among all organisms tend to be
stressed and the biggest plays—including grandstand ones—are related
to those similarities. But anyone with any breadth of understanding of biology
knows there are many ways in which organisms differ—particularly higher
plants and animals. How to introduce students adequately to any segment of
collegiate biology, or to the discipline as a whole, is a question not easy
to resolve satisfactorily; and its resolution becomes increasingly difficult.
The question itself is tough enough, but perhaps sensitive toes, vested interests,
and prima donna attitudes are greater obstacles to the achievement of intelligent
balance in such introductory courses. Maybe we shouldn't try to arrive at
any even reasonably uniform introductory courses, but I nevertheless look
forward to careful study of this matter by individuals concerned about the
future of biology
of botany, and especially about the desirability of providing minimum background
in biology for all who graduate from any college or university or institute
of any repute.
is interesting to note in this connection that the huge University of California
will likely convene delegates from its various campuses this year to discuss
elementary courses and other matters relating to academic biology.
second objective of biology in the various kinds of collegiate institutions
is, of course, research. I suppose we can agree that all in all the major
part of the research in biology is done in universities, but some extremely
important re-search is done elsewhere, especially in institutes (both in those
with and in those without primary teaching responsibilities). The total research
done covers an enormously varied fare, from practically pure chemistry—bordering
on molecular biology—to the most simple sort of observations, with equipment
and space needs of equal diversity.
with this much generalized information behind us, let_ us look quickly at
biology as a modern discipline or as congeries of disciplines. It consists
of almost limitless "-ologies," depending upon how the organisms are divided
up, how economically important the various groups of organ-isms are, and how
many methodologies, such as genetics and biochemistry, are to be considered
as separate disciplines and separate administrative entities. Even that part
of biology known classically as botany is extremely diverse and is itself
now separated—in one kind of institution or another—into a great
variety of narrow areas of specialization, almost all of which have independent
existence only be-cause of their economic importance. Which reminds me of
how blurred our concepts are of what is applied and what is basic science.
But the point I am making at this juncture concerns how complicated our biological
disciplines—let alone botanical—have become.
briefly considered some differences in the institutions of higher education
that offer educational experiences in biology, having mentioned something
of the complexity of biology today, both as regards teaching and research,
presumably now we may consider the problem of (I really mean raise questions
about) how to administer our biology so that we may efficiently carry out
our responsibilities. What we do eventually with biology as a whole will of
course have a bearing on what happens to botany, a field I shall say a few
words about later. Granted the many common features of plants and animals,
can we safely put all our biological eggs in one biological basket administratively?
In the University of California at Davis, there are over 250 biologists—whatever
else you might call them—on the academic ladder; that is, they all have
full academic status. In addition, there are many other biologists not on
the academic ladder, and many of them are very good scientists, indeed. Should
all these biologists be in one department or division? At many smaller colleges
the staff in biology may be at most ten or a dozen; should they all have residence
in the same department or division? At the Santa Barbara cam-pus, we shall
have twelve or fifteen thousand students in ten or twelve years, 75 per cent
of whom will be under-
Shall we continue to have one biology department for all biologists at enrollments
of 5,000, or 10,000, or 15,000, or 20,000 students?
the proportions of students in various academic levels have an important bearing
on the problem? For ex-ample, if a goodly proportion of the students are on
the graduate level—where specialization tends to be more narrow—does
this possibly mean more divisions of biology into a group of smaller subdisciplines,
such as zoology, botany, bacteriology, or microbiology? I use these just as
starters in mentioning subdisciplines, for the bacteriologists started a never-ending
stream of economically motivated secessions from classical biology, and many
of the individuals concerned were in subdisciplines that had temporary residence
is the cutoff point in size of staff that can be man-aged successfully? At
what size are chairmen likely to fail in providing the broad-gauged but still
intimate leadership necessary for satisfactory development of all aspects
of a discipline as broad as biology is? I don't know and I wish you could
tell me. But I believe biology is at the crossroads administratively and its
management needs intensive study by those most concerned with its welfare.
relation to management of biology, I want to make somebody angry with me so
I make some bold assertions. Nothing could be more silly or naive than to
think that because present administrative practices are proper and useful
in certain prestige organizations they should have equal applicability in
other ones or in those less prestigious. To be specific, because a given kind
of organization works at Harvard or Princeton or Yale or Stanford or Michigan
or California doesn't mean it would work as well anywhere else or vice versa.
So let's not indulge in pontifical statements about the absolute worth of
such patterns when we undertake a study of our administrative organization
of biology. But neither, of course, should we disregard these experiences.
administration of biology needs intensive study for many reasons, but I want
to mention only two. First, every-body knows that many biological problems
have been reduced to biochemical terms—particularly those problems dealing
with activities common to all organisms. If we don't have sense enough to
recognize that a good deal of our biological resources must be swept into
the biochemical maw, then such research will he done only in chemical laboratories.
One of the currently glamorous aspects of biology would thus be lost to biology
and with it the funds which such developments almost invariably attract. Biology
will be the loser. The second reason for the study of administration is that
we need to keep some balance in biology or no one but nucleic acid specialists
and electron microscopists will be needed in biological laboratories, either
to teach or do research, and there may not he much for electron microscopists
shall say something more about biology before I conclude but I wish now to
turn briefly to botany. I want to complain and overaccentuate, too, as I do
so, hut I mean as well to take a positive position or two. I thought we all
used to know what the word botany stood for, but when one actually looks hard
at the splinter subject groups that have split away from the field botany
theoretically represented, he has a hard time making any definition come out
sensibly. The only assurance one has any more is that the splintering is almost
certain to be related to economic importance and not to any sound academic
reasoning, or any academic reasoning at all. I don't know that this is necessarily
had, but it does seem to be true. Botanists in the National Academy of Science
include quite a wide variety of plant science people many of whom consider
themselves as something else in every day humdrum operations. So when we attempt
to plan how botany ought to be organized in higher education, it is pretty
hard to tell what we are trying to organize.
for example, one would say that purely botanical subjects of a basic nature
should be taught in botany departments—or failing that, in biology departments.
But even that outlook is becoming more difficult to maintain. Members of departments
whose research and/or teaching missions were originally in the practical realm
now are frequently expected to do some fundamental research if they are to
be promoted, and it is easy to develop an appetite for a little fundamental
teaching to go along with the research. On some campuses, especially large
land-grant ones, we could thus have each of half a dozen such practically
motivated departments offering the same fundamental course at the same level
in the same area. And maybe the botany department might try one, too, since
that happens to be its mission. So we have administrative problems. But some
organization has to have charge of the mission for the development of fundamental
work in the general field of botany.
a department of botany is a poor organizational device to use for teaching
and research in botany. Maybe, as some mention, although I shudder with incredulity
as I say it, the word botany is just outmoded and has outlived its obvious
usefulness. Maybe, as some say, botany should be submerged or united with
some other discipline in order to sense a more useful purpose. I emphasize
the word usefulness, for the pragmatic outlook, in fact, seems to be the important
one these days. We sometimes fool ourselves in this respect, however. For
example, all things else being equal, if you think thirty members in one department
are sure to get as much support per man as fifteen members each in two departments
you are pretty uninformed. For two good departmental chairmen add up to more
than twice as much. There is nothing so important, accordingly, as a noisy
champion for every discipline. The big problem for a campus administrator
is to define the disciplines so he knows how many champions—and therefore
organizational units—he needs to get the job done on a distinguished
botany were to be put in intimate association with other disciplines or subdisciplines
in one organizational unit, how then do you establish reliable responsibility
for maintaining balance in botany, or plant science, or whatever you want
it? Who would remain to say that just because some-thing new is uncovered
in botany, all else need not be dropped? Who would remain to proclaim that
molecular botany is just great but that another kind or two might still be
provocative? (Just because jet airplanes and rockets are here, as it were,
we aren't giving up all other means of locomotion.) Who will remain to say
that if someone wish-es to work on leaf hairs his research doesn't have to
be linked to some ecological cliche, or a genetic abstraction of some sort,
to be important enough for study? And this leads me to an especially sore
all the emphasis on the pragmatic attitude toward research in this last decade,
anyway? I thought fundamental research was research we wanted to do on the
nature of things. It seems eminently proper to justify expense for research
by pointing out generally how one is able to carry off the research. But since
when must we spend our valuable time explaining to some pragmatist why we
want to do it, and what use we shall make of it. Could it be because we can't
get funds if we don't explain this to some temporary bureaucrats in Washington
acting as judges? Status these days, incidentally, seems to be linked with
grants and especially with seats on the councils that decide who shall and
who shall not do what research. Galling, isn't it. to us free spirits?
is not surprising that the humanists wonder whether scientists ever think
of anything except movement, energy. bond splitting, and the like. Is, for
example, falling in love with knowledge now romantically taboo? Is, for another.
the unlocking, for its own sake, of the beauty, and pattern. and continuity
of nature now to be frowned upon or to be no longer intellectually respectable?
If so, who made or is to make the decision? See, for one clue, the article
on the Future of Botany in the AIBS Bulletin a couple of issues ago. Nobody
asked me about such a decision; nobody asked a lot of other people I know.
And if this in fact comes to pass, we shall he the poorer for it. Such a decision
won't stop me from looking at phloem and wood and looking for just exactly
what I'm interested in finding out. And by whatever means that seem proper
and reasonable. And don't get the idea that I'm really worried about these
money providers in Washington I mentioned, much as we seem to need them in
modern financial operations. They know no more than the rest of us and have
too much money avail-able to shut out very many people who write convincing
applications, whatever the subject. And, it is pitiful, hut we all sooner
or later recognize the key phrases and learn to lay out the revolting pragmatism
have made these remarks because I still have some residual idealism about
freedom and independence. and because I think the remarks needed to be made
to a large audience of botanists who have the same idealism.
I must be realistic and mindful of our bounties. Most of its now are in the
game of grantsmanship and I say with no more than casual reservation that
the National Science Foundation has clone a remarkable job in supporting research
that could find no support elsewhere. And I guess we should be happy indeed
to lind any honorable way possible to justify support of such research. We
are in a new era in financing research, and we have been fortunate to have
the National Science Foundation fonds avail-able.
as we teeter back and forth trying to walk along a line between complete freedom
to do what research our minds lead us to and what we can get supported, I
hope we have sense enough and courage enough never to sell or desert that
freedom. We may retreat temporarily here and there for the sake of some advantage,
but let us not sell or desert it. Rather, let us remember, it is the heritage
of universities to seek out the basic truths on all fronts. We should seek
to maintain some semblance of balance, not a static balance, but one responsive
to modern changes. Universities don't have to become vastly lopsided as they
delve into the newest intellectual fads. Whatever any other kind of institution
does, true universities—whatever they may he called—must preserve
all truths, teach the truth, and, I re-peat, seek out the basic truths on
all fronts—and this applies, of course, to botany.
that I have found a way of getting these remarks on botany off my chest—and
I trust it has helped relieve others as much as it has me, as I seemingly
stir myself up to an inaugural pitch—let me conclude by making some
remarks again about the administration of biology and the attitude of botanists,
whatever they may call themselves, concerning it.
us recall that we have many kinds of institutions in higher education (and
outside it) doing research in biology and many teaching it under various titles.
Let us emphasize to ourselves that biology is indeed entering a period of
extraordinary accomplishments. Let us recognize that these notable or glamorous
accomplishments are likely to be centered chiefly in the submicroscopic world—at
least at first; that they will move in much closer to the ultimate answers;
that they will be dealing with matters capable of the kind of "proving" that
is supposed to characterize science. The accomplishments will likely be in
the solving of the kinds of problems that are more and more adaptable to the
application of physical and chemical laws, the kinds of problems that are
farther and farther removed from the multicellular complicated organisms we
recognize as the most highly evolved.
as sure as we are sitting here tonight, these glamorous accomplishments will
not provide us all the answers to the makeup and functioning of higher plants
and animals. Our organizations in biology thus must make possible the incorporation
of the relevant workers in submicroscopic and/or molecular biology into our
midst and still leave—or make room for—the renewed efforts in
classical biology that will be motivated by the findings of the molecular
biologists. In this way, incidentally, biologists will ir1 fact, if they are
big enough to deserve it, have the control and influence in biology. Biology
should not be controlled by scientists essentially ignorant of the fact that
organisms are something more than atoms and molecules, no matter how
or deviously these components react. Let me reiterate. For molecular biologists
we can and should make every effort to speed up provision of curricular assignments
and research opportunities in our biology departments where, in my opinion,
these specialists belong.
have no pat system of organization to suggest for today's and tomorrow's botany
or biology. But don't let apathy and plaintive hand wringing inactivate us.
If we can't rejustify what is being done today, or if we refuse to try, then
some-body else will take the play away from us, and in that event we would
have only ourselves to blame. I would like to suggest, or to make as an obvious
remark, that one kind of organization is not going to do the job in all centers
of higher education. Thus it would be of tremendous help to administrators
if biologists would set up study groups to ponder administrative problems
in biology. Eventually, these groups could provide guide lines as to the kinds
of aggressive administrative ordering needed for the various groupings within
modern biology. We want to provide intelligent balance and thus the greatest
justice to the greatest number—for the ulimate good of biology. Yet
we must pro-vide adequately for the minority facets in biology, for no one
knows how long they may be minority facets. And we want to help plan these
provisions for every sort of institution of higher education. I feel certain
that a steering committee of some sort set up by the Governing Board of the
AIBS and perhaps financially supported by the National Science Foundation
could come up with an outline of administrative studies that would have the
approval of the various societies in the field of biology.
these studies would reveal that biology is in such a poor state of organization
as to be hopeless administratively, but I am more optimistic than that myself.
Botanical Society of America would demonstrate its strength, I think, by making
the suggestion for a thorough study of administrative structure in biology.
It would have a large stage on which to make its significance felt and to
remind all biologists of the importance of a balanced pro-gram of teaching
and research and how to preserve it in a truly dynamic period of change.
seems to me that we should make this move if only to protect many of our colleagues
from the petty tyranny of small-minded administrators, of which I profoundly
hope I am not one.
the conclusion of Past-President Cheadle's speech. which began in-formally
by chiding President Stebbins about his idiossncracies real and otherwise,
Dr. Stebbins responded by rendering a ditty in a melodious, baritone voice.
Because of the matchless quality of his presentation, his ingenuity in composing
it on the spot, and the salutary effect on the assembled, it is fitting that
the words be recorded below along with Dr. Stebbins's dedication.
to Vernon I. Cheadle, Chancellor of Santa Barbara College. University of California.
Tune: `The Law is the True Embodiment,' from 'Iolanthe.' Apologies to Gilbert
told you that one torrid fall, I threw the typewriter into the hall,
said I sang too loud and long; it really was an innocent song.
said I was a real screwball, a botanist with no balance at all.
kind of a nut--I was the bust of his wisecracks !hat amused you all.
took it as a compliment, for he's stn.h a powerful Chancellor,
really was a compliment, for he's such a POWERFUL CHANCELLOR!"
of the Business Meeting
Oregon State University,
meeting was called to order by President Stebbins at 1:10 p.m. in the Home
Economics Auditorium. Aft. proximately 70 members were present, this constituting
a quorum. Since the Minutes of the 1961 Business Meeting had been published
in the Plant Science Bulletin, these were not read, but were accepted as
instructed by the Council, the Secretary presented the names of those on
the second nominating ballot who stood in the top three places as a result
of the balloting in which more than 1600 votes had been received. These
names, listed in order, highest in each category, were as follows :
A. J. Sharp
P. J. Kramer
W. H. Wagner
O. D. Keck
A. W. Galston
motion was made, seconded, and carried unanimously that the candidates with
the highest number of votes in each category be elected. The officers for
1963, therefore, are:
Stebbins thanked Dr. A. J. Sharp on behalf of the Society for his long
and dedicated service as Treasurer and personally congratulated him as
the new Vice-President elect.
Stebbins announced that the Council, under the provisions of the By-Laws,
had decided to meet with the A.I.B.S. in 1963 (Universit) of Massachusetts).
But, because the International Botanical Congress is to be held in Scotland
during August of 1964, the Council voted to hold the Botanical Society
of America meetings with the A.A.A.S. in Boston during December of that
year instead of in Boulder, Colorado with the A.I.B.S. (Note the additional
action taken on this matter during Session II, Item 12, below.)
was announced that various reports from the Society's Sections and Committees
had been received and approved by the Council.
Dr. Stebbins announced the appointment of Dr. Adolph Becht as the new Chairman
of the Committee on Education, replacing Dr. Harriet Creighton, and the appointment
of Dr. W. H. Wagner as the new Chairman of the Membership Committee, replacing
Dr. W. C. Steere. The President expressed the appreciation of the Society
to the retiring chairmen for their long and dedicated service.
The President reported that the Council had approved a lengthy report from
the Committee to Consider the Establishment of a National Tropical Botanical
Garden in Hawaii. He asked that the Society consider and support the following
resolutions, which were read by the Chair-man of this Committee, Dr. Pierre
The Botanical Society of America recommends very strongly that a major tropical
botanical garden be developed on U. S. Territory as soon as possible.
The Botanical Society of America endorses the efforts of the Hawaiian Botanical
Gardens Foundation towards this objective.
Constance E. Hartt, Secretary of the Hawaiian Botanical Gardens Foundation,
was introduced and she spoke briefly on the question. She personally thanked
the Society, and in particular, the Committee for its excellent report. Dr.
Hartz emphasized that both the A.A.A.S. and A.I.13.S. had already gone on
record as supporting the objectives of the Foundation.
some additional discussion, the resolutions were passed unanimously.
The President reported that a new position of Pro-gram Director had been established
by the Council, this initially to be a three-year appointed position, the
duties of which would include that of arranging the annual pm-gram, serving
as a liaison officer between the various topical sections so as to coordinate
activities, etc. Under the pro-visions of Article VIII of the By-Laws, Dr.
William Jensen was appointed by the Council as Program Director for a three-year
term beginning in January, 1963. The Secretary was instructed to distribute
to the Society, as directed by Article X of the By-Laws, proposed amendments
to the By-Laws such that the Program Director might become a member of the
Council and, further, serve as the fourth member of the Executive Committee.
In the absence of Dr. P. J. Kramer, the representative of the Society on the
A.I.B.S. Governing Board, Dr. H. C. Bold, presented an oral report on the
deliberations of this body which had met only the clay before. He re-ported
that the Board planned to broaden the base of A.I.B.S. support by permitting
membership on an individual basis, much as is done in the A.A.A.S. It was
felt that this would strengthen biology as a whole and improve the journal
activities of the A.I.B.S. This organizational change, if carried out, would
be enacted over a fivevear period and would not affect the present status
of society memberships. The A.I.B.S. Governing Board also voted to increase
registration fees for next year's meetings from $5.00 to $Io.00 for full members,
but retained the present $3.on registration fee for graduate students.
Dr. R. H. Goodwill presented an oral report on the current status of the proposed
Federation of Plant Science Societies. In view of the contemplated reorganization
of the A.I.B.S., and in view of the questionable relationship of the Federation
within the new framework, it was felt that formal establishment of such a
Federation was not desirable at this time. However, agreement was reached
by the representatives of the Plant Science Societies on the Governing Board
of the A.I.B.S. to meet as a group during the annual A.I.B.S. meetings to
consider mutual problems. The formal resolution adopted by this group follows:
representatives of the Plant Science Societies here assembled recommend to
the President of the A.I.B.S. that the Plant Science Society representatives
on the Governing Board of the A.I.B.S. meet as a Council of Plant Science
Societies at the regular meetings of the Governing Board, and that the President
of the A.I.B.S. appoint a chairman of this Council.
is further recommended that each of the Plant Science Societies that is a
non-member of the A.I.B.S. be invited to send a representative to the meetings
of the Council.
was noted by President Stebbins that no action by the Society was needed to
implement this arrangement; there-fore, the Council merely voted a resolution
to the effect that they approved, in principle, of such a meeting.
called to order by President Stebbins at 1:00 p.m.; 40 persons were present,
this constituting a quorum.
Creighton and Dr. Cleland raised the question of the meeting site for
the 1964 meetings (A.A.A.S. in Boston) which had been set by the Council
in its earlier deliberations. After considerable discussion, it was the
consensus of opinion that the Council of the Botanical Society of America
ought to reconsider its decision to meet with the A.A.A.S. in Boston,
particularly since the A.I.B.S. will have met in the Boston area during
1963. President Stebbins then announced that the item would be placed
on the agenda of the Council for reconsideration at their 1963 meetings.
:;. The Interim Reports and Proposed Budgets of both the Treasurer and the
Business Manager were approved.
There being no further business before the Society, the meeting stood adjourned
at 1:55 p.m.
submitted, B. L. Turner, Secretary
the annual banquet of the Botanical Society of America, this year held at
Oregon State University in Corvallis the following testimonials were awarded:
SOCIETY MERIT AWARDS
MORTON RI-tom es, cytogeneticist, whose funda-
contributions to our knowledge of chromosome structure and behavior, and of
the relations between nucleus and cytoplasm, have greatly advanced the science
of genetics, and furthered the development of improved strains of crop plants,
especially of maize.
ROCKWELL GODDARD, for his perceptive investiga-
of respiratory enzymes and respiratory mechanisms in plants, his deep interest
in problems of cellular growth, and his wise counsel to students, colleagues
and fellow botanists.
AWARD OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANT TAXONOMISTS
to DR. OTro T. SOLERIG, Gray Herbarium, Harvard University, for the best paper
presented at the annual meeting of the A.S.P.T. Dr. Solbrig's paper was entitled,
"Infraspecific variation in the Gutierrezia sarothrae complex (Compositae:
BOTANIC GARDEN AWARD
for outstanding contributions in the interpretation of botany to the general
public to PAUL BIGELOW SEARS, Professor Emeritus of Botany, Yale University.
YORK BOTANICAL GARDEN AWARD
for outstanding contributions to the fundamental aspects of botany to Roderic
B. Park and Ming G. Pon of the University of California, Berkeley.
Presented for outstanding contributions to phycology to MARY BELLE ALLEN of
the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute, Richmond, California.
Report of the Committee on
Future Affairs of the
Botanical Society of America'
the Executive Council meeting of the Botanical Society held at Corvallis,
Oregon, 1962, a report was presented from the Committee on Future Affairs
of the Botanical Society of America. Several of the recommendations of this
report were acted upon favorably by the Council and subsequently approved
by the membership of the Society at the business meeting.
most far-reaching of the recommendations dealt with the conduct of the annual
meetings. The committee felt that the size to which meetings have grown necessitates
closer coordination among the various parts of the Society. This coordination
can not be accomplished under the present system where each section of the
Society operates independently as a separate unit in preparing programs for
the Society's annual meetings. These sections initiate symposia and organize
contributed paper sessions. Almost every topical section now has a full three-day
meeting. The Secretary of the Society was in charge of organizing the meetings
and coordinating the activities of the various sections. The job of the Secretary
is, however, an exacting one and he is responsible for a large number of other
demanding activities. The necessary long-range planning
prepared by William A. Jcnscn, Chairman. Other committee members were: William
\V. Brandt, Charles R. IT(iscr, Jr., Taylor A. Steeves, and Alfred Traverse.
and coordination needed to arrange more successful future meetings appeared
to the committee to be beyond the capacity of one man who is, in addition,
the Secretary of the Society.
committee, therefore, proposed that an additional officer be named in the
Society to act as Program Director. It would be the responsibility of this
officer to organize and coordinate the annual meeting of the Society. In this
capacity he would act as chairman of a committee consisting of the officers
of the various topical sections in charge of the program for each section.
He would work throughout the year with the Secretary and the President of
the Society to coordinate the presentation of symposia and to avoid, insofar
as it is possible, any overlap between the activities of the various sections.
Moreover, he would he the officer through whom coordination with other societies
could be effected in the unification of the program. It was envisioned by
the committee that this officer have considerable power in arranging the program
and in aiding the sections in their efforts to organize their meetings. The
tenure of office of the Program Director would be three years, and in the
motion finally accepted by the Council. the office was designated appointive
under the jurisdiction of the Council.
it is important that the Program Director have a seat on the Council and a
vote in that body, an amendment to the existing By-Laws will be circulated
to the member-ship later in the year. It should be emphasized that the post
of Program Director has been established by the Council and the By-Law amendment
is to make the Program Director a voting member of the Council.
Council not only posted the resolution to create the office of Program Director,
but named William A. Jensen to that position. Dr. Jensen will begin his duties
immediately and be the Society's Program Director for the next meeting.
committee also recommended certain other changes which it felt would benefit
the Society. These suggestions hinged on strengthening the sections of the
Society. The committee believed that all sections should be represented on
the Executive Council by a representative who will have a term of office greater
than one year. At present, representatives of the sections feel an acute lack
of continuity with the business of the Council and of having relatively little
voice in the business of the Council because they have not been present at
previous Council meetings during discussion of vital matters. The committee
believed that the Council would more truly represent the entire Botanical
Society, of America if the representation of the sections was on a more continuous
basis. Several sections have already adopted this recommendation and it is
hoped that additional sections will do so.
Daniel Grover Clark of the Cornell Department of Botany passed away on April
13, ip6a at the age of 61. Professor Clark was born in Ithaca on August 20,
all of his education in Ithaca, first in the public schools, subsequently
at Cornell University. He received the B.S. in 1929 and the PhD. in 1936.
Clark's teaching duties were confined to plant physiology where he saw at
an early date the necessity of utilizing the tools of biochemistry in physiological
research. His first concern was that students recognize the need to explore
all avenues to the solution of a problem. As a result of his labors the self-reliance
and imagination of a host of Cornell undergraduates were tremendously stimulated.
Clark's own research centered on problems of photosynthesis, enzyme activity,
hormones and vitamins, biological nitrogen fixation and hybrid vigor. An out-growth
of some of this work was a splendid movie film on the opening and closing
major share of Professor Clark's time was devoted to advising graduate students
who minored in plant physiology. At the time of his death over 70 were registered
with him and more than 350 came under his tutelage at various times. Dr. Clark
collaborated with the late Professor Otis F. Curtis to write Introduction
to plant physiology which was published in 1950.
death of Professor Clark deprives his colleagues of a true friend and counselor,
his graduate students of a skilled and devoted advisor, his undergraduates
of a gifted and inspiring teacher.—HA1tu.AN P. BANKS, Cornell University.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION will award grants
defray partial travel expenses for a limited number of American scientists
who wish to participate in the Third International Congress of the International
Society of Biometeorology. This Congress is scheduled to meet in Pau, France,
September 2 through 7, 1963. Application blanks may be obtained from the National
Science Foundation, Washington 25, D. C. Completed forms must be submitted
by March 1, 1963.
SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY or GROWTH_ AND DEvELOPMENT has elected the following
officers for 1963: John G. Torrey, President; William A. Jensen, Secretary;
Marcus Singer, Treasurer; Michael Locke, Editor of Symposium Volume; Clement
Markers, Member of the Executive Committee.
twenty-second annual symposium of the SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT will he held at the University of Connecticut, Storrs, on July
17-19, 1963. It will be devoted to the general topic, "Cellular Membranes
in Development." Inquiries about the Society or the symposium may be directed
to the Secretary. Dr. William A. Jensen, Department of Botany, University
of California, Berkeley 4, California.
PACIFIC FLORAS: THE POLLEN STORY, is to be
by the University of Hawaii Press on or about January r, 1963. This volume
consists of the fourteen papers presented before the Pollen Symposium at the
Tenth Pacific Science Congress held in Honolulu in August, 1961. Further information
may be obtained by writing to Dr. Lucy Cranwell, 5045 East Grant Road, Tucson,
Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California, will publish a paperback
volume entitled, RECENT ADVANCES IN BOTANY. This book will contain the results
of a symposium presented jointly by the Botanical Society of America and Section
G of the A.A.A.S. during meetings of the latter society in Denver last December.
The publication is edited by Dr. William A. Jensen and Dr. Leroy G. Kavaljian
and is to appear on December 15, 1962. It will include papers by James Bonner,
Lawrence Bogorad, William A. Jensen, Frank Salisbury, and Beatrice Sweeney.
Four sessions in biometry are to be held at the A.A.A.S. meetings in Philadelphia,
December 26-30, 1962. These sessions are being co-sponsored by Section U (Statistics)
of A.A.A.S. and E.N.A.R. under the following headings: "Some uses of high speed
computers in statistics," "Some problems of mathematical biology," "Sampling
for zoologists," and "Statistical problems of genetics and evolution."
FRANCIS M. HUEBER has been appointed Associate Curator in the Division of
Invertebrate Paleontology and Paleobotany of the Smithsonian Institution beginning
November 1, 1962. It is anticipated that within a year Dr. Hueber will head
up a new Division of Paleobotany in the Department of Geology of the Smithsonian.
Previously, Dr. Hueber was geologist with the Geological Survey of Canada.
His research interests involve studies in Devonian plant life.
DAVID GREGORY has completed work toward his doctoral degree at the Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic Garden, and has been appointed Assistant Professor in the
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology at the University of Maine. His degree
will be conferred by the Claremont Graduate School.
RICHARD H. EYDE has recently been appointed to the staff of the Smithsonian
Institution as Associate Curator in the Division of Woods. Dr. Eyde recently
completed his doctorate at Harvard University where he worked on present-clay
and fossil species of Nyssa. He intends to continue morphological and phylogenetic
studies in Corn-;tceae and related families.
ALBERT C. Snlrrrl, formerly Director of the Museum of Natural History of the
Smithsonian Institution, was appointed Assistant Secretary on November 1,
1962. This position is secondmost only to the Secretary, the Institution's
chief executive officer. Dr. Smith has previously been associated with the
New York Botanical Garden, the Arnold Arboretum, and the Department of Botany
of the Smithsonian where he was Curator of the Division of Phanerogams. He
also served as Program Director for Systematic Biology in the National Science
A. CARL LEOPOLD is spending the fall semester of 1962 as Carnegie Visiting
Professor of Plant Physiology at the University of Hawaii. In February, he
will return to Purdue University where he is Professor of Physiology of Horticultural