PLANT SCIENCE BULLETIN
A Publication of the Botanical Society of America, Inc.
1970 Volume Sixteen Number Two
Terminology in the Plant Sciences1
of Biological Sciences
State University of New York at Albany
of us are engaged in teaching general biology, general botany, plant morphology,
and related courses. From time to time each of us probably experiences a sense
of frustration or embarrassment over the inconsistencies, in-accuracies, and
redundancies in the definition and use of terms as applied to plants and presumed
plant-like organ-isms in our textbooks.
the standpoint of a biologist-botanist, I would like to suggest that the effect
of inappropriate usage of terminology is to contribute to the isolation of
botany from biology in the minds of the general student, and to con-tribute
to a diminished interest in botany on the part of the biology major. The increasing
proliferation of both texts and terminology seems to be intensifying the problem.
others are concerned with this matter is indicated by prior papers which have
appeared in the Plant Science Bulletin. In 1965, under the title "Problems
in Botanical Terminology," Howard Stein (8) proposed that "the Botanical Society
take the lead in studying the problem of terminology and consider possible
solutions." Stein suggested that the "AIBS is the logical organization to
co-ordinate activity with sister institutions."
a subsequent Plant Science Bulletin article, Emily Wolff (9) seconded Stein's
proposal, and listed examples of what she considered problem terminology.
The fact that there is considerable overlap between Wolff's list, and my list
independently arrived at, suggests that there may be wide areas of agreement
in these matters.
problem increases in scope when one realizes that it is not confined to the
teaching level, but extends, logically enough, into research. Thus a colleague
remarked that he gives his own definitions of terms he is using in each of
his papers so that readers will not misconstrue his meanings in the framework
of their definitions of these same terms.
terms division and phylum are illustrative of many of the points involved.
One of the prescriptions of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature
is that the category or rank division be used as the category above
This paper, with some modifications, was originally presented before the Plant
Science Session, AIBS Meetings, University of Vermont, August 18, 1969. class.
Elsewhere the Code prescribes that "Botanical nomenclature is independent
of zoological nomenclature." To continue to use the term division in the face
of the term phylum seems to me one way of isolating botany from the mainstream
of biology. It means a built-in redundancy as we in teaching state to our
students, in zoology it is a phylum, in botany it is a division. What should
it be in general biology? An author of a leading text solves the problem as
shown in Figure 1, on two facing pages setting forth a system of classification.
my opinion a student, observing this contrast set forth in boldface type,
consciously or unconsciously assumes an inherent significant difference, seldom
explained, but nevertheless implied, between the 'conceptions division and
phylum, and therefore between plants and animals. And if, indeed, one of the
functions of science is to reduce diversity to identity, here is a place for
botanists to begin. Perhaps events set in motion in Seattle may alter the
situation in this particular example.
related form of overlap or repetition is illustrated by the nomenclature in
use for what is essentially the same taxon, depending on the author or source.
The sphenopsids are variously referred to as the Sphenophyta, the Calainophyta,
and the Arthrophyta. The lycopsids are variously referred to as the Lycophyta,
the Lycopodophyta, the Lepidophyta, and the Microphyllophyta. Another example
appears in Figure 2; the texts from which the example is taken were published
in recent, successive years.
plethora of terms may pose no problem for the practiced eye, but may have
the effect, in the vernacular, of turning off the interest of an undergraduate.
as emphasis on division for plants, and phylum for animals tends to dichotomize
biology, we can strengthen or biologize biology by including data from botany
at every opportunity. Here are a few examples.
Cenozoic is the Age of Mammals and the Age of Flowering Plants; the Mesozoic
is the Age of Reptiles and the Age of Gymnosperms; the Devonian is the Age
of Fishes and the Age of Early Vascular Plants. XY inheritance occurs in fruit
flies, man, in some liverworts (e.g., Sphaerocarpos), and in some flowering
plants (e.g., in the pink, T ychnis) .
mammalian oogenesis reduction division yields one functional egg and one or
three polar bodies, thus theoretically removing a set of chromosomes from
the scene but conserving cytoplasm for the functional egg. In the majority
of angiosperm life cycles reduction division leads to a parallel of one functional
megaspore and three nonfunctional megaspores.
are examples to which each of you could probably contribute.
reference was made to the names of various taxa, or groups of organisms, e.g.,
the Centrales, the Lycopsida. The term taxon is both widely, and, I believe,
erroneously used in the sense of rank or category or level in a taxonomic
hierarchy, as in the following definitions or statements: "'axon: any taxonomic
unit of classification"; "taxon: a category used in classification"; "sometimes
the taxon subgenus is used between the genus and the species."
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (1959) defines taxon as follows:
"Taxonomic groups of any rank will, in this code, be referred to as taxa (singular:
taxon)." That is, a taxon is a group or population of organisms, irrespective
of its level of classification. A taxon is not a category. Category and taxon
bear the relationship of a box (the category) and its contents (the taxon).
Family is a category; the Aceraceae constitute a taxon.
PLANT SCIENCE BULLETIN
ADOLPH HECHT, Editor
Department of Botany
Washington State University
Pullman, Washington 99163
Harlan P. Banks, Cornell University
Sydney S. Greenfield, Rutgers University
Robert W. Long, University of South Florida
William L. Stern, University of Maryland
Erich Steiner, University of Michigan
December 1970 Volume 16
term spore has so many connotations in biology that its unqualified use might
well be discontinued in a majority of instances in favor of, minimally, the
terms mitospore or mciospore. This is, indeed, already the case in at least
a few texts.
of our students complete an introductory botany or biology course and remain
unaware of the correspondence, if not possible homology, of moss spores, fern
spores, basidiospores, microspores, and megaspores. The common denominator
here is that we are dealing with products of reduction division, or meiosis,
i.e., with meiospores.
students are apt to equate, for example, the so-called asexual spores, or
mitospores, of Rhizopus and Penicillium, with moss, fern, and other meiospores.
parallel situation pertains generally to the term sporangium. Compare, for
example, the sporangium of Rhizopus with that of a fern. Or, for example,
students may know that Peziza has an ascus, but do not know that the ascus
is essentially a meiosporangium equivalent to that of mosses, ferns, and basidiomycetes.
term prothallus is variously defined as: "the gametophyte of a vascular plant,"
and "the gametophyte of a pteridophyre." Some texts define and discuss the
fern prothallus without mentioning gametophyte, and life cycle diagrams have
a labelled sporophyte and a labelled prothallus. but the term gametophyte
does not appear in the labelling.
student is led to believe that fern life cycles have a prothallus, moss life
cycles have a protonema, pine life cycles have a female gametophyte and a
pollen grain, and angiospern life cycles have an embryo sac. The student is
led to believe or he assumes that, in view of the differing terminology, these
life cycles and structures are intrinsically different, and unrelated, special
cases, and hence involve only rote memory, rather than basic patterns common
to many organisms.
terms homothallic and heterothallic were originally coined by Blakeslee (2)
in his study of mating strains in Rhizopus early in the nineteen hundreds.
A careful reading of his paper shows the bases for different interpretations
in the meanings of these terms. In reference to heterothallic, for example,
he wrote (2, p. 208) : "The condition is essentially similar to that in dioecious
plants and animals." He then continues: "Inasmuch, however, as conjugation
is possible only through the interaction of two differing thalli, we can express
this fact by calling all species the sexual relations of which correspond
to the Rhizopus type, heterothallic." Thus Blakeslee's emphasis is indeed
on incompatibility due to distribution of sex organs on different thalli.
In considering the term homothallic, Blakeslee uses Sporodinia as the type
form. He places emphasis on self-compatibility due to a condition "comparable
to hermaphrodites among the higher plants. Such forms may therefore be called
Blakeslee seems to have neglected the possibility that "hermaphrodites among
higher plants" may be either self-fertile or self-sterile, he paved the way
for more than one interpretation of the terms he originated, and this is indeed
what has occurred. For example, in defining heterothallic, Alexopoulos (1,
p. 553) writes as follows: "According to one version: refers to a species
self-sterile (self-incompatible) individuals, requiring therefore the union
of two compatible thalli for sexual re-production, regardless of the possible
presence of both male and female organs on the same individual. According
to another version: refers to a species in which the sexes are segregated
in separate thalli, two different thalli being required for sexual reproduction."
second version cited by Alexopoulos seems to con-form more closely to Blakeslee's
original use of the term, i.e., heterothallic implies incompatibility due
to distribution of sex organs rather than a self-compatibility even though
both sex organs are present. The terminology re-quires clarification therefore
to deal specifically with the two cases of "hermaphroditic" or "monoecious"
individuals, those which are self-compatible and those which are self-incompatible.
outcome of Blakeslee's original paper has been the restriction imposed on
the use of the terms homo- and heterothallic to those organisms "lacking distinguishable
male and female gametangia" (7). Blakeslee himself with reference to Rhizopus
wrote: "In this case the two complementary individuals which arc needed for
sexual reproduction are not in general so conspicuously differentiated morphologically
as in the higher forms," but, nevertheless, "such a morphological difference
is often visible, and would undoubtedly be considered by systematists generally
as an amply sufficient basis for their specific separation." Thus it seems
to me that Blakeslee's original paper does not support the necessity for the
restriction of isomorphism imposed by some authors.
plant morphology there is at present an increasing emphasis on flagellation,
in view of its presumed phylogenetic significance (6, 7). Some authors recognize
three general types of flagella, as follows:
lacking appendages: simple, whiplash or hair-less
terminating in a short fibril: acronematic
bearing lateral appendages.
least one author equates the acronematic type with the first category of simple
or whiplash. In this connection, Manton (6) questions the validity of the
term acronematic, since the implication is that the terminal fibril is comparable
to the laterals of the pantonematic type, which is, according to Manton, "in
fact never the case." Faagellar appendages are themselves variously designated
as (I) lateral fibrils, (2) flimmers, (3) mastigonemes, and (4) hairs.
a detailed consideration of flagellar terminology, Manton states ". . . my
own strong recommendation is to discard for the time being all special terms
except perhaps the two oldest, Peitschengeissel (whiplash flagellum) and Flimmergeissel
(hairy flagellum), limiting these however to the special case of the two differentiated
members of a heterokont pair in the conventional heterokont groups." Manton
warns of "premature systematization of nomenclature which can obscure genuine
and phyletically significant differences under the artificial unity of a system
of Latin names."
designation testa is a minor but interesting ex-ample of the failure of a
term to die. It is variously de-fined in different texts as: a seed coat,
the seed coat, the outer seed coat, and the hard outer portion of the seed
coat. One author additionally gives the synonymy: seed coats, testa or tegmen,
and another states that if there are two seed coats, the inner is termed the
number of general botany texts omit the term. Others include it, in which
case it is apt to appear in the index, glossary, and in the text, as is the
case, for example, in a recently published botany text specifically designed
for one semester.
of other considerations, it is interesting to note that the term testa is
often and variously defined but seldom if ever used.
few years ago I started to read an article entitled "kinins" (3), expecting
to learn more about an aminopurine derivative which promotes cell division
in plant tissues. Instead I found myself reading about blood- and tissue-produced
polypeptides which influence smooth muscle action, blood vessel dilation,
and sensitivity to cutaneous pain. I learned that these polypeptide kinins
are also present in wasp and hornet venom.
basis for my confusion is illustrated in Figure 3. In the steady flow of today's
literature, it is difficult to be aware of all the terms which have been pre-empted
in other areas. The sequence is an instructive example in the historical development
of a particular term.
term periplast is frequently defined as the usually flexible, limiting, sometimes
rigid membrane around the protoplast of certain cell wall-free protists. The
periplast is often considered as essentially equivalent to, or comparable
to, the plasma membrane, as shown in the following definitions: "a complex,
often ornamented plasma membrane"; "a living, clearly differentiated plasma
membrane"; and "outer part of protoplast, comparable to the plasma membrane."
in some cases the term pellicle (in contrast to periplast) is explicitly defined
as a "cuticle" or "exoskeleton," it is at other times considered synonymous
to, and used interchangeably with, the term periplast.
most frequent use of periplast in botany and plant morphology is in relation
to Euglena. Yet the studies of Leedale (5), including electron microscopy,
clearly indicate that the periplast is neither an exoskeleton nor a plasma
membrane, but an essentially proteinaceous intracellular structure bounded
externally by the plasma membrane.
to Leedale (5, p. 96) : "the flat interlocking pellicular strips are intracellular
structures lying immediately beneath the plasmalemma, a continuous tripartite
membrane 80-100 Angstroms thick. The pellicle is not equivalent to the cell
wall, since the latter is always laid down outside the plasmalemma." Nor is
it equivalent to the plasma membrane, since (p. 99) : "the whole of the pellicular
system lies within the plasma membrane."
in definition or meaning of a term, as in this instance, may reflect problems
of technique rather than of terminology per se.
term umbel is variously defined in texts and in the literature as: (1) "a
determinate inflorescence (basipetal or centrifugal maturation) ," and (2)
"an indeterminate inflorescence (acropetal or centripetal maturation)."
apparent contradiction is clarified by the following statement from Lawrence
(4, p. 61-62) : ". . . in many cases the presumed distinction of an inflorescence
being determinate or indeterminate is without validity .... For example, the
umbel of members of the Umbelliferae is an indeterminate type whose outer
flowers open before the inner ones. However, in many of the Amaryllidaceae
(as in Allium) the umbel is a determinate inflorescence as indicated by the
central flower opening prior to the outer flowers. Structurally, the inflorescence
is an umbel in either family, but phyletically the two kinds of umbel are
unrelated, and represent reduction by two different evolutionary lines."
would not be in character if I did not have a term to add rather than to subtract
majority of general botany (but not general biology) texts use and discuss
the term and concept of in-florescence, e.g,, in considering raceme, umbel,
and head: "The inflorescence characteristic of the Compositae, the head."
my knowledge, the parallel and descriptive term, infrutescence, is not in
general use. I find this term helpful in establishing developmental relationships
and parallels, e.g., in considering: "the infrutescence which develops from
the snapdragon raceme," "the multiple fruit, or infrutescence of pineapple,"
and "an ear of corn, or pistillate infrutescence."
use of this term, as illustrated in Figure 4, would, I believe, underscore
common denominators, as does the corresponding term, inflorescence, and would
be preferable 'to "fruiting inflorescence" used in some texts.
this paper and by these various examples I have at-tempted to illustrate some
problems in botanical terminology, with special emphasis on how they relate
to the teaching of undergraduate biology and botany courses.
an effort to reduce the extent of these problems, and in addition to the proposals
of Stein, already cited, I pro-pose:
presentation of papers dealing in depth with specific terms or concepts
before teaching and other AIBS sessions;
of these papers in Plant Science Bulletin, hopefully profiting from any
discussion at the meetings or correspondence arising therefrom;
appropriate individual, for example, the chair-man of the Teaching Section
of the Botanical Society, or the editor of Plant Science Bulletin, could
invite papers from one or more experts to discuss and more clearly delineare
particular terms and/or concepts; such papers could be invited from authorities
in other countries as well as our own;
summaries of the status of specific terms could be published in BioScience,
the American Biology Teacher, and similar journals, including their foreign
and international counterparts.
author wishes to express his appreciation to Dr. Gary Hillebrand, Dr. Frederick
Truscott, and to the Editor of the Plant Science Bulletin for helpful suggestions
received in the preparation of this paper.
C. J. 1962. Introductory Mycology. 2nd ed. Wiley and Sons, Inc.
A. F. 1904. Sexual reproduction in the Mucorineae. Proc. Am. Acad. Arts
& Sci. 40: 205-319.
H. O. J. 1962. Kinins. Sci. Am. 207 (2) : 111-118.
G. H. 1951. Taxonomy of Vascular Plants. Mac-Millan Co.
G. F. 1967. Euglenoid Flagellates. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
I. 1965. Some Phyletic Implications of Flagellar
in Plants. Adv. Bor. Res. 2: 1-34. Academic Press.
F., Bandoni, R. et al., 1965. An Evolutionary Survey
the Plant Kingdom. Wadsworth Publ. Co.
Howard J. 1965. Problems in Botanical Terminology: A Proposal. Pl. Sci.
Bull. 11 (2) : 3-4.
Emily T. 1965. Problems in Botanical Terminology (Continued) . Pl. Sci.
Bull. 11 (3) : 8-9.
Mature Stand of .Pines taeda Near Columbia, South Carolina
Stalter Pfeiffer College
recent years conservationists have become cognizant of the existence of an
unusually large tract of nearly virgin bottomland timber lying within twenty
miles of Columbia, South Carolina, in the Congaree swamp. This tract, containing
13,300 acres, is almost as wild and primitive as it was when the settlers
first arrived in this region.
is known of this tract prior to the Civil War. Artifacts in fields on the
south bank of the Congaree River and one or two Indian mounds in the nearby
wooded swamps point to previous occupation by Indians ( John V. Dennis, personal
communication, 1968). Also, several "cattle mounts" exist, one said by Dennis
(1967) to contain several trees almost as large as those in the nearby forest.
At the end of the Civil War the Beidler family bought part of the swamp; this
part until 1905 was logged for cypress, representing an intrusion upon an
otherwise virgin forest. In 1920 a hunting club acquired rights to the Beidler
tract and much adjacent woodland, and maintains these rights today.
have been made to preserve this forest. In 1959 the National Park Service
made a preliminary in-
of the Congaree swamp to ascertain its scenic, scientific, historical, and
recreational values and recommended that an area of approximately 21,000 acres
be set aside as a national monument. Owing to lack of popular support and
Iand acquisition problems this recommendation has not prompted any action
on the part of the Park Service (Dennis, 1967).
of the most impressive sights in the swamp is the numerous large overmature
loblolly pine (Pines taeda). Most of the trees are from 24 to 44 inches in
diameter. Many of these trees appear very healthy and may live for another
50 years, as several of the oldest pine trees are 50 to 100 years older than
the majority of the trees in the stand. Observations of borings and of the
annual rings evident on the few cut pine trees indicate that most of the trees
are from 100 to 175 years old; a few trees are even older. One giant with
a DBH of 58 inches is estimated to be at least 250 years old.
there is a paucity of pine stands such as this one can be seen by examining
the work of Oosting (1942), and Ellerbe and Smith (1961). Oosting (1942) states,
"That before this age (60 years) the trees (pine) can be used for lumber and,
especially on good sites, lumbering or clear-cutting for cordwood is possible
at a much earlier age. There are then . . . very few mature or over-mature
concerned readers will write to biologists and congressmen in South Carolina
asking for their consideration and cooperation toward enacting legislation
to preserve this magnificent stand of pine.
J. V. 1967. Woody plants of the Congaree forest swamp, South Carolina. Ecological
Studies Leaflet No. 12: 35-42.
C. M., and G. E. Smith, Jr. 1961. Soil survey interpretations for woodland
H. J. 1942. An ecological analysis of the plant communities of Piedmont, North
Carolina. Amer. Midl. Nat.
Vadis, Botanicum? Procede, Terge!
of Natural Science Michigan State University
a beginning teacher of freshman botany thirty-five years ago, I asked myself
the title question many times. For years I searched for answers in botany
and in the history and philosophy of science in general. My answer, "Forward,
Onward," stands out clearly and forcefully in light of the findings of my
search. But many botanists, and many biologists, will not like what I found
in my search because I found a beautiful discipline being inefficiently presented
without the intellectual excitement that accompanied the
of the discipline.
a few paragraphs I can only sketch or hint at the basis of my optimism and
my disgruntled view of the presentation of our discipline. But if readers
take me to task, support from specific examples can be quickly mustered and
discipline in the sciences is determined by: 1) a group of intellectual constructs
(mostly theories and relational laws), 2) facts subsumed by the constructs,
3) intellectual activity associated with established constructs and with the
discovery of new constructs, 4) experimental and observational activity designed
to clarify, to extend, or to define the limits of established constructs or
designed to test nascent constructs, and 5) other miscellaneous knowledge.
the moment accept this definition of a science discipline and then enumerate
the theories and relational laws that guide our professional thinking. Do
you not find that, with few exceptions, every major theory and law in botany
is a major theory and law in zoology? Thus in one sense both botany and zoology
are dead. They are unified in one discipline—biology.
I accept this view of botany, how can I be so optimistic about the future
of botany? How can I say, "Botany, forward, onward!"? It is simple—1)
by defining botany as the study of plants in the context of biology, 2) by
knowing the history of the development of biology and by knowing the numerous
and crucial contributions of botany to that development, and 3) by knowing
about the many, many recent advances that have come and are coming from the
study of plants.
their unity in one discipline, both botany and zoology are more alive than
at any earlier time. Wherever I look at the advancing front of biology, whether
it be in evolution, ecology, differentiation, genetics, molecular ecology,
or any of the aspects of molecular biology, I find men who study plants making
superb contributions. This is botany at work. True, many of the men doing
the work do not call themselves botanists. But why worry about this? This
is in the tradition of botany. Were not many of the outstanding botanists
of earlier times medical doctors, chemists, booksellers, or the like? Was
not Linnaeus also a zoologist?
botanists and zoologists worry about their elementary course being replaced
by a biology course. This change is probably inevitable because of the growth
of unifying constructs. But this trend could be countered in institutions
where there are a large number of majors in the plant sciences by offering
a course in plant biology. The general topics would be the same as in a regular
biology course with most, not all, of the illustrative material drawn from
botany. This would permit a more rapid advance of students in their study
of plants without loss of a general understanding of the parent discipline,
botanists worry about being combined in the same department with zoologists.
When this occurs botany will not be swamped if botanists bring to the situation
the knowledge, the vigor, and the intellectual activity which made botany
a leader and an innovator in the construction of much of today's biology.
However, if the combination occurs and brings together men who are ignorant
of botany and zoology, nothing much can be done to save the situation because
it is already lost.
the study of plants, has before it a magnificent future. But it will not be
a future of static descriptive botany such as I was taught. Rather it will
be concerned with facts in relation to ideas—the concern that contains
the active intellectual component of the discipline. Darwin said, "Facts to
be of any service must be for or against some view." C. E. Bessey (Ann. Mo.
Bot. Garden 2:110. 1915) said, ". . . one can go but a short distance indeed
in any science without finding it necessary to erect a speculative framework
upon which to arrange his observed facts." If the words of these exceptional
men are heeded so that botanical teaching and research constantly display
the excitement of intellectual activity as facts and speculations interact
in thought, botany will move forward with increasing success.
FROM THE- EDITOR
members as well as libraries have at times been puzzled about the number of
issues of the Plant Science Bulletin that have appeared each year. We have
currently settled to a pattern of four issues per annual volume, and this
has been the pattern for all but five previous years, as follows: Vol. 4 (1958),
6 numbers; Vol. 5 (1959), 5 numbers; Vol. 6 (1960), 5 numbers; Vol. 10 (1964),
1 number; Vol. I] (1965), 3 numbers.
this column of our last issue your attention was called to the appointment
of a committee to nominate a person to serve as Editor of the Plant Science
Bulletin for the five-year term beginning in 1971. Please send any suggestions
you may have to one of the members of this committee: William L. Stern, University
of Maryland; William T. Jackson, Dartmouth College; and Adolph Hecht (chairman),
Washington State University.
Evolutionary Events and the Geological-Record of Plants
of a symposium with this title, held at the 11th International Botanical Congress,
Seattle, 1.969, are expected to appear in the July number of Biological Re-views
(Cambridge, England), and will include the complete symposium, with illustrations
and tables. Among the papers included are those by J. W. Schopf on the Precambrian;
W. G. Chaloner on early Devonian; C. B. Beck on later Devonian events such
as origin of the secondary body; J. M. Pettitt on the origin of the seed;
and J. Muller on palynological evidence of the origin of angiosperms. Separate
copies of this number of the Journal will be printed and sold, but the Editor
would like a clue as to the number needed. Dr. Harlan P. Banks, 214 Plant
Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850, has offered to collect this
information for the Editor of Biological Reviews; please let Dr. Banks know
of your interest in purchasing a copy (copies) of this publication.
Systematics in Canada
Mycology and Vascular Plant Taxonomy sections of the Canada Department of
Agriculture's Plant Research Institute have recently moved into a newly renovated
and remodelled building on the "Central Experimental Farm" Campus in Ottawa.
The dedication ceremonies and reception, held on March 19, 1970, were attended
by some 200 visitors. Mr. S. G. Shetler, Associate Curator, Division of Phanerogams,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, and Secretary of the Flora North America
project, gave a special seminar on "Biosystematics in the Computer Age."
new accommodation brings together the two parts of the Canada Department of
Agriculture's research pro-gram in systematics with a staff of 24 research
scientists engaged in taxonomic, biosystematic, and evolutionary studies on
fungi and higher plants. The National Mycological Herbarium (DAOM—170,000
specimens) and the Vascular Plant Herbarium (DAO-562,000 specimens) along
with the fine taxonomic library have been brought together under one roof,
providing an excellent systematics research facility not only for the staff
of the Department of Agriculture but also for visiting biologists from elsewhere
in Canada and throughout the world.
newly organized American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) will hold its first
national meeting in 1970. The meeting will be held in Yellowstone National
Park and at Montana State University in Bozeman, Montana, from Friday evening,
August 28 through Tuesday evening, September 1. The meeting will include two
days of field conferences, with discussions on broad topics of general interest
illustrated by the Quaternary features in and around Yellowstone Park and
Bozeman, and two days de-voted to a symposium and sessions of papers on "Climatic
Changes from 14,000 to 9,000 Years Ago."
information can be obtained from the AMQUA Secretary, Margaret Davis, Great
Lakes Research Division, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104.
Biology Programs in Community Colleges
Teaching Section of the Botanical Society of America and the AIBS Office of
Biological Education will jointly sponsor a symposium, "The Development of
Balanced Biology Programs in Community Colleges," which will be held on August
26, 1970, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, in conjunction with the AIBS meetings at
Indiana University. Dr. Irving Knobloch of Michigan State University will
serve as chairman of this symposium. The program is as follows:
of the Problem: Is There any Botany in the Two-Year College?
O. J. Eigsti
for the Integration of Botany in the Biology Program of Two-Year Colleges
Expanding Plant Sciences in the Two-Year Colleges Mr. Robert Gillespie
of the University in Providing Trained Botanists for Undergraduate Education
Can OBE Be Helpful in the Development of Balanced Biology Programs?
Elwood B. Ehrle
Office of Biological Education
for Use of the R/V ALPHA HELIX
R/V ALPHA HELIX, designed and built as a floating laboratory for experimental
biology, will be made available for half of each year for 1970, 1971, and
1.972 for short cruises for biological oceanographic research that is suited
to its facilities.
distinct possibility exists that the National Science Foundation will grant
support for operation of the vessel for the second half of these calendar
years for biological oceanography. The support would come from research funds,
but cruises that include an element of graduate student training or for advanced
predoctoral research will be considered. The support is expected to be only
for ship time; Scripps Institution of Oceanography will have no funds for
travel to or from the ship or for direct scientific costs. It may in some
cases be able to provide equipment not normally carried by the ALPHA HELIX.
will generally be between two days and two weeks in the eastern Pacific north
of the equator. Projects proposed may include from one to ten persons in the
should be sent to the Director, Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Those
for July-December, 1970 that have been received up to April 15 will be considered
together. For 1971 and 1972 proposals should be received by January 15, 1971
and 1972, respectively. The National Advisory Board for the R/V ALPHA HELIX
will select programs from those submitted on the basis of scientific merit,
justification for the ALPHA HELIX, and compatibility with other programs.
vessel may be outward bound for Antarctica for the austral summer of 1970-71
(passing near or through interesting areas such as the Costa Rica Dome and
the Cromwell current) and north bound from the Palmer Peninsula to the Marshall
Islands in March (traversing areas little known biologically). Proposals for
observations or sampling during these transits are in order.
J. W., AND J. M. ARENA. Human Poisoning from Native and Cultivated Plants.
Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina, 1969. 167 pages, 55 illus.
interesting book is concerned with the common native and introduced plants
of the United States (including Alaska and Hawaii) and Canada that may cause
poisoning in humans. Plants are treated that cause allergies or allergic reactions
and dermatitis or skin irritations as well as those that cause poisoning as
a result of inges-
Several facets of this book make it valuable for those who need a summary
of such information. This is especially true since almost all previous literature
on poisonous plants has been oriented toward those plants that are poisonous
to livestock. Information is given for most of the plants on their description,
distribution, and toxicity, and in the event of poisoning the symptoms and
treatment of humans. The entire coverage appears quite adequate especially
as the book was written by a team composed of a plant taxonomist and a pediatrician,
both of whom have previously published bulletins and papers on poisoning and
poisonous plants. The authors have combined experiences with poisonous plants
from the field, laboratory and clinic, and information from the herbarium
and library. Certainly one of the highlights of this book must be the inclusion
of many ornamental plants that are poisonous. In this group there are house-plants
of the cooler regions such as Philodendron spp. and Euphorbia spp., as well
as many ornamental shrubs and herbs of the warmer parts of the United States.
The Iisting of several hallucinogenic plants such as nutmeg, peyote and marijuana
is particularly timely. An especially valuable photograph of the notorious
jequirity pea (Abrus psecatorius) is provided. Equally useful are the ways
to prevent plant poisoning, a section on first aid, a list of poisonous and
non-poisonous berries, a number of general references, and many good illustrations.
have only a few minor criticisms of the work. Recommendations on the treatment
of dermatitis caused by plants were omitted, and these would have been most
useful. Suggestions should have been included on how to distinguish between
poison sumac (Toxicodendron ves-nix) and the non-poisonous sumacs (Rhos spp.).
The two full pages of photographs of pokeweed (Phytolacca) could have been
reduced to one page. Additional photographs or line drawings of a few more
of the common trouble-some plants would have been useful. An illustration
of a plant more likely to cause poisoning directly in humans could have been
used instead of the drawing of corn cockle (Agrostemma githago) which is a
weed of grain fields. Perhaps some mention should have been made of the recent
and extremely dangerous use of Datura to pro-duce hallucinations. Likewise
omitted was reference to the occasional but apparently safe use of the ripe
fruits of, the well known "wonderbcrry" (Solanum busbankii?) in pies. All
of these criticisms are very minor in comparison with the many valuable facets
of this book. In all, this book is well and interestingly written in a clearly
B. Jones, Jr.
B. E. J. An Introduction to Plant Diseases. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., London.
1969. ix + 374 pp. $12.75.
book is basically organized around types of diseases, i.e., general kinds
of diseases are discussed together regardless of their causes. For example,
the chapter entitled "Wilts" deals with diseases caused by various fungi,
bacteria, parasitic phanerogams, and even insects. In addition to fifteen
chapters so organized, there is an introduction
five chapters dealing specifically with disease assessments and control principles.
The approach is different and commendable. However, certain chapters, or parts
of chapters, are uneven in quality and potential usefulness in the classroom.
specific examples of likes and dislikes are as follows. In the introductory
chapter definitions and concepts are given rather briefly and with little
discussion. Indeed, it will be difficult for some students to "pick out" important
terms. It would have been useful to italicize such terms as "infection," etc.
In the chapter on damping off and seedling blights it is said that Pythium
species "reproduce by sporangia and oospores," but the student is told little
more about these structures. Similar cases of unexplained terminology and
concepts are found in most chapters. The chapter on root and foot rots is
accurate, but very general; not enough is mentioned concerning basic concepts.
However, in the same chapter, the short portion on "control" seems excellent.
In the chapter on "Wilts" almost nothing is said about the mechanics whereby
causal organisms accomplish wilting. The chapter on powdery mildews seems
quite good, except that the more recent studies (ultrastructure of haustoria,
etc.) could have been cited. The same chapter does include some of the most
beautifully executed drawings of erysiphaceous ascigerous stages that I have
seen. The chapter dealing with rust diseases omits much on the cytology, genetics,
and physiology of rust fungi and their hosts. One must arrive at chapter 11,
"Leaf Spots," before the Fungi Imperfecti are clearly defined, even though
pre-ceding chapters deal with many diseases caused by Deuteromycetes. The
latter chapters concerning disease assessment and control seem good, excepting
chapter 21 which deals with breeding resistant varieties. That chapter is
so brief and incomplete that it serves no purpose; it should not have been
book is recommended to teachers who primarily emphasize disease symptoms.
Teachers who emphasize interactions between host and causal agent and who
stress the mechanics of disease development will probably choose from among
other extant textbooks.
ROBERT C. Origins of Mendelism. - Schocken, New York, 1969. 204 pp. illus.
centennial observance of the first publication of what we know as Mendel's
Laws stimulated the publication of many volumes on Mendel and the science
he helped develop. It is now known that all of Mendel's discoveries had been
made earlier, but no one had put all the discoveries together nor seen their
significance as Mendel did. Robert C. Olby, a librarian of the Botany School,
Oxford, England, describes enthusiastically the growth of ideas about inheritance
and variation which preceded Mendel. The book was originally published in
1966 by Schocken and is now released as a paperback.
of Mendelism may be divided into three sections, of two chapters in each section.
The first section deals with the pre-Mendelian hybridists, the second with
contemporaries, and the third with Mendel and the rediscovery of his findings.
The pre-Mendelian hybridists are treated with the greatest depth and perception.
Interactions between Koelreuter and Linnaeus over whether hybrids were new
true breeding species are vividly de-scribed. The flowering of Koelreuter's
Nicotiana hybrids in the spring of 1761 has great significance when placed
by the author in this context of eighteenth-century scientific thought. Parr
of the depth of this section may be attributed to the research by the author
in preparing a biographical essay on Koelreuter, which was also published
in 1966 .as part of a book on late eighteenth-century European scientists.
This section alone is worth the price of the book.
two chapters on Mendel's contemporaries contain less detail. Even here, however,
the thrill of development and discovery is conveyed by the author. The reader
follows a thread of reasoning which might well have occurred in the minds
of scientists. One begins to understand the confusion of such scientists as
Naudin, Galton, and Darwin in trying to explain the many varieties of results
from hybridization experiments involving genic interaction, pseudogamy, and
polyploidy when complicated by somatic mutations and viral infections. The
highlight of this section is an examination of the correspondence between
Galton and Darwin which indicates that Galton had worked out the Mendelian
explanation of hybridization but never demonstrated it. Olby raises the question
of what Darwin's response might have been had he not been influenced by his
own theory of pangenesis.
last two chapters of the book may appear to some as afterthoughts but they
are necessary to show the fruition of the preceding century's growth. Gregor
Mendel's life is briefly sketched and the report of his correspondence with
Naegeli over the then confusing results of apomixis in Hieraciumn emphasizes
his brilliance as an experimentalist. Olby reconstructs the events which led
to the re-discovery of Mendel's Laws, noting the contributions of the cytologists,
Weismann and Flemming, in preparing the basis for de Vries' independent discovery
of Mendelian ratios. He postulates that de Vries had known of Mendel in 1896
or 1897 but underestimated the significance of Mendel's work compared to his
own which had the additional cytological backing.
informative book is easy reading and a necessary addition to every scientific
library. The author's use of extensive notes and bibliography at the end of
each chap-ter and the inclusion in the appendices of some of the original
writings of the scientists mentioned in the chapters makes the book even more
valuable to the student.
T. P., AND MARGARET E. MCCULLY. Plant Structure and Development. A Pictorial
and Physiological Approach. The Macmillan Company, New York, 1969. 114 pp.
$9.95 hardbound, $5.50 paper-back.
book should be a welcome addition to the library of instructors and students
in modern biology or botany courses. An understanding of structure and function
each field with increased significance, and this book attempts to relate the
two. This book presents a large number of light- and electron micrographs
to illustrate the brief text descriptions. As is necessary in so few pages,
many exceptions or deviations from those illustrated or described arc omitted,
and one interested in greater depth should be prepared to make frequent use
of plant anatomy or plant physiology books to supplement the material in Plant
Structure and Development. For those who wish to study further, the list of
general references, reviews, and research papers at the end of each section
adds much to the value of the book.
the strongest contribution that this book makes is a result of liberal use
of many light micrographs to enable one to make the tremendous leap from unaided-eye
observations to the wealth of detail characteristic of an electron micrograph.
The beginner, or even the expert on another plant or organ, can feel lost
when faced abruptly with unfamiliar territory unless orientation is provided.
first section deals with "The Cell" and provides one of very few chapters
in any textbook that is specific for plant cells. The brief paragraph on plastids
is remedied somewhat by material on chloroplasts in the section on leaves.
The second section on "Cell Production: Mitosis" is beautifully illustrated,
and to some extent these illustrations offset the brief text descriptions.
The next three sections on "The Root," "The Shoot Apex and Leaf Initiation,"
and "The Leaf" are again very brief and, I think, should be supplemented by
other references to pre-vent one from assuming that the material presented
is in any way exhaustive. Section 6 on "Buds" is the most in-complete of any
section and presents little information beyond what one would find in a college
freshman botany book. Section 7 on "The Stem" is illustrated with four light
micrographs in color and is one of the more fully developed sections. In section
8 on "The Reproductive Tissue" the scanning electron micrographs and text
material on pollen are a definite improvement over treatments of the subject
one usually encounters. The last section (9) on "The Seed" is less than five
pages and much too brief to give one an appreciation for the large variation
present in seeds of various species. The appendix, giving some technical details
on light micrography and some staining techniques, is only two pages long
RUBERT BURLEY, SR. Diseases of the Cultivated Plants of the Southwest. The
University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, 1969. 390 pp. $9.50.
written as a compendium of plant diseases in the southwestern U.S.A., this
book could be entitled, "Manual of Plant Diseases of the Semi-arid Environment."
Using an informal approach, and drawing on forty-three years of experience
as a teacher and practitioner of plant pathology in Arizona, the author lists,
briefly discusses, and, in many cases illustrates, parasitic and nonparasitic
diseases of about 275 cultivated plant species and varieties. The twenty-eight
chapters are grouped under seven sections, the first of which deals specifically
with the semi-arid environment and its effect on plants as well as plant diseases.
The remaining sections are by plant category and range from
of Field Crops" to "Diseases of Cacti, Other Native Plants and Greenhouse
Plants." The appendix includes a handy list of conversion factors (units of
measure, rates of application for agricultural chemicals, etc.) and a list
of common and scientific names of host plants. The index is conveniently divided
into I, Host Names and Diseases, and II, Causal Organisms and Agents.
book is intended and well suited for use by ex-tension, agribusiness, botanical
garden, nursery, and lay personnel. It is further intended for the classroom
as a supplement to current texts. The author has avoided an intentional focus
on basic concepts and principles of plant pathology, mechanisms of pathogenesis,
and definition of terms, and, instead, has concentrated on etiology, symptoms,
and control of a systematic listing of plant diseases. His choice of terms
is designed to reach the laity as well as the professional plant pathologist.
By recording more than four decades of personal observations and records of
plant diseases of the southwest, Dr. Streets has indeed per-formed a service
to botany, plant pathology, and agriculture.
MARGARET K., AND V. C. RUNECKLES (Editors).
Advances in Phytochemistry, Volume 2. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York. 1969.
175 pp. $9.75.
second volume of a series, designed to present a critical survey of current
research in the expanding field of plant chemistry, serves well this purpose.
The articles are all informative, timely, and useful to the research scientist
interested in learning the fundamentals of the topics covered. Chapter 1,
by J. J. Katz and H. C. Crespi, de-scribes new applications of nuclear magnetic
resonance to the study of isotope effects in plants. Chapter 4, by A. M. Duffield,
discusses the new uses of mass spectrometry in the field of natural product
chemistry, particularly sterols. Chapter 5, by E. von Rudloff, describes the
use of gas chromatography for chemosystematic studies with terpenes. Chapters
2 and 3 blend this volume with reviews of recent advances and techniques in
the fields of lignin chemistry by J. M. Harkin and plant tissue culture by
E. J. Staba.
volume is not only valuable as a concise introduction into the scope of usefulness
and limitations of the methods and techniques, but as an introduction to the
kinds of elegant research that are possible using these approaches.
EDGAR, AND BRIAN LAMB. The Pocket Encyclopedia of Cacti and Succulents In
Color. Blanford Press Ltd., London, 1969. First American Edition, Macmillan,
New York, 1970. 217 pp + 326 color photo-graphs + 21 figures. $4.95.
of this book (pages 49 through 160) consists of excellent colored photographs
of cacti, succulents, and related plants of dry habitats. Thirty pages of
descriptions of the species that are illustrated follow these pages of photo-graphs.
The remaining sections of the book are concerned largely with procedures and
advice about growing these plants. The principal chapters are on soil mixtures,
water management, pests and diseases, greenhouse culture, outdoor culture
in warm climates, vegetative propagation and grafting, and growing the plants
from seed. The volume is concluded with an index to species, genera, and descriptive
topics; the index includes separate references to each of the 326 colored
J. Evolution and Phylogeny of Flowering Plants. Dicotyledons: Facts and Theory.
Academic Press, London and New York, 1969. .717 pp., illus. $25.00.
turns to this "Companion or Supplement" to Dr. Hutchinson's "Families of Flowering
Plants, 2nd Ed., Vol. I, Dicotyledons" with great hopes that it will provide
the rationale in some detail for the author's often extraordinary groupings
of families and orders of dicotyledons. Unfortunately, these hopes are soon
deflated. Although considerable fascinating detail, generously extended with
many original drawings, is supplied for critical or unusual genera in many
families, little evidence is presented to explain or justify the Hutchinsonian
arrangements and suggested relationships. The author does in his preface note
that much of the phylogeny of each order has been taken from the early English
least two new families of angiosperms have been established in this book.
The tribe Salpiglossideae of the Scrophulariaceae has been promoted to the
Salpiglossidaceae; and two specialized herbaceous genera of Capparidaceae,
Oxystylis Torr. & Frem. and Wislizenia Engelm., have been segregated as
the Oxystylidaceae. Both families seem quite unwarranted. In attempting to
under-stand Dr. Hutchinson's penchant for taxonomic inflation in some families,
the following quotations may be revealing. In regard to recognizing the celastraceous
genus Goupia as a distinct family, he comments that, "If only on account of
these diverse views it seems better to regard it as a separate family." He
petulantly disposes of possible criticism of his treatment of the Hypericoideae
as a family distinct from the Clusiaceae by grumbling, "But taxonomic botanists,
especially beginners fresh from college, are some-times apt to differ from
established authority, thereby at times revealing their ignorance or immature
judgment." Many of us not so fresh from college would be forced to join the
youngsters here, no doubt revealing otir immature judgment and disrespect
for established authority. Calling upon authority, no matter how firmly established,
is seldom ever, and especially today, an adequate substitute for solid evidence
rationally presented. The failure of the Hutchinsonian system to gain wide
recognition in the botanical world is possibly due in large extent to the
author's continued refusal to "put his cards on the table."
usual with Dr. Hutchinson's monumental efforts, there is much to be praised
in this book. It is Iucidly written and beautifully illustrated. The author's
vast, if somewhat imperfect, knowledge of the families and genera of dicots
is obvious on every page. He has supplied many maps to show the discontinuous
distribution of various wide-ranging genera or families, apparently mostly
selected to support his belief in relatively recent continental drift. The
variation in fruit types, as in the Leguminales, Brassicaceae, and Apiaceae,
and in certain other critical reproductive organs is shown in generous detail
for selected large families. The exceptional and largely obsolescent family
names like Guttiferae, Compositae, and Labiatae have uniformly been replaced
by those based upon type genera, as Clusiaceae, Asteraceae, and Lamiaceae.
The author, finally, has the courage to flush out the abundance of factual
information with both phylogenetic and biogeographic speculation, which, whether
one agrees with it or not, certainly arouses the reader's interest.
arrangement of families in this book is essentially that found in "Families
of Flowering Plants, 2nd Ed., Vol. I, Dicotyledons," published by Dr. Hutchinson
in 1959. Be-cause of my probable bias in phylogenetic matters, I prefer not
to comment upon the phylogeny presented in this and the author's other books
further than to express my regret that the author still continues to ignore
generally the often highly suggestive and useful information presented abundantly
by the wood anatomists, palynologists, cytotaxonomists, chemotaxonomists,
and other comparative systematists. For example, in maintaining the South
African Heteropyxis as a separate family near the Rhamnaceae, he ignores the
definitive paper of Dr. W. L. Stern showing that the genus is an African outlier
of the Australian Leptospermoideae of the Myrraceae. Eames and McDaniels long
ago adequately proved that the fleshy parse of the pome is largely floral
tube, not receptacle. Dr. Hutchinson's repeated use of the phrase "dioecious
flowers" is most inaccurate and distracting. Flowers cannot be dioecious or
monoecious; they are perfect or imperfect, bisexual or unisexual. Species,
if they bear unisexual flowers, are dioecious, monoecious, or polygamous.
of discussing phylogeny, I prefer to examine some of the factual material.
The author is often careless with his facts, particularly those having to
do with geography and plant distribution. He is especially weak in American
geography, flora, and history. My home state of Florida, at most only a few
million years raised from the sea-bed and not raised far at that, is hardly
an "ancient piece of land." The dwarf oaks pictured for the Florida Keys are
found only in sandy barrens mostly in the central part of the Florida peninsula.
Leitneria occurs in fresh-water, not saline, swamps in the southeastern United
States. Parthenocissus tricuspidata Planch. is Boston-ivy; P. quinquefolia
Planch. is the Virginia Creeper. They are quite distinct species from different
continents. The accepted name for the American Slippery Elm is Ulmus rubra
Muhl., not U. fulva Michx. Benjamin Franklin, remembered botanically by the
beautiful Franklinia Bartr. ex Marshall, though a great and wise American
printer, publisher, author, scientist, diplomat, public servant, and founding
father, was never a president of the United States of America.
Hutchinson is somewhat remiss in his geography for other parts of the world
also. Laportea gigas Wedd., now called Dendrocnide excelsa (Wedd.) Chew, is
a giant stinging tree of eastern Australia, not of Polynesia, and it can attain
heights of 30 to 35 meters. Eucommia ulmoides Oliv. is indeed known in the
wild state in the mountains of central China. Embothriunt is monotypic and
restricted to southern South America; Oreocallis is the proteaceous
found in both South America and eastern Australia and New Guinea. Daphoiphyllunt
reaches not only Timor but New Guinea as well. Not only Ostrearia but also
Neostrearia of the Hamamelidaceae occur in Australia. Eupomatia is not confined
to eastern Australia for it is found also in New Guinea. Similarly, Balanops,
better treated as one genus, is found in Fiji as well as in New Caledonia
and northern Queensland. Galbulimima is the correct name for the single genus
of the Himantandraceae, and a recently published study indicates that the
two or three species" are really only one. Fagus is not found in the Andes
nor elsewhere in South America as a native plant. Crossosoma is not monotypic
but has two rather dissimilar species, C. californicunz Nutt., restricted
to the islands off the coasts of southern and Baja California, and C. bigelovii
S. Wats., of rocky desert canyons of the Southwest.
addition to numerous errors of fact, there are unfortunate omissions, as in
the table differentiating the Apiaceae from the Araliaceae. The author neglects
therein to mention that there are herbaceous araliads and woody apiads and
that there are mericarps among the Araliaceae, as in the New Caledonian Myodocarpus.
He confines Licania of the Chrysobalanaceae to tropical America, but there
are at least four species of the genus known from New Caledonia. On the other
hand, he claims Hamamelis as the only hamamelidaceous genus to be found in
both the eastern United States and eastern Asia; surely Liquidambar deserves
mention here too. The Saurauiaceae are not confined to Asia; Saurauia is heavily
represented in tropical America and Australasia as well as in eastern Asia.
In addition to the species of Fuchsia in America and New Zealand, there is
a rare species in Tahiti. Vacciniunz, listed as rarely epiphytic, has, like
Rhododendron, many epiphytic species in the highlands of New Guinea. In describing
northern hemisphere Rhamnaceae as hum-drum Rhamnus-types, Dr. Hutchinson has
apparently for-gotten the varied and beautiful Ceanothus species of west-ern
North America. The Rutaceae are represented by more than the small tribe Ruteae
in the north temperate parts of the world. The author might have mentioned
Choisga Kunth, Cneoridium Hook. f., Esenbeckia H. B. K., Phellodendron Rupr.,
Ptelea L., and Zanthoxylum L. among others. Tropaeolunz is not the sole member
of the Tropaeolaceae; the family is also represented by Magallana.
many British and other European authors, Dr. Hutchinson likes to present his
distribution maps with Europe and Africa centrally placed, presumably because
the prime meridian runs through Greenwich, England. This is unfortunate for
illustrating the distribution of many wide-ranging taxa, as in his maps of
Anaxagorea, Pachysandra, Enzbothrium (Oreocallis) , Caulophyllum, Lardizabalaceae,
and Fuchsia, wherein the Pacific Ocean deserves central placement. His map
of Coriaria rusci f olia L. and C. thyzni f olia H. B. K., really only one
species, points not to a former land connection between the Andes and New
Zealand, but to relatively recent long-distance dispersal of the fleshy fruits
the price of this expensive tome, the editors could well have afforded to
hire an expert plant geographer and taxonomist or two to check the factual
content of the text. It is to be hoped that any future printing of
volume will correct the many errors and omissions, of which only a sample
has been listed here. Robert F. Thorne
GEORGE H. M., A. F. GUNTHER BUCHHEIM, GILBERT S. DANIELS, AND HELMUT DOLEZAL,
editors. B-P-H, Botanico-Periodicum-Huntianum. 1063 pp. Hunt Botanical Library,
Pittsburgh, Pa., 1968. $30.00.
years botanists have struggled with the Union List of Serials and similar
library reference books in tedious searches for the full title of an obscurely
cited journal in order to locate a seemingly important publication. The B-P-H,
as the editors designate it, has gone a long way toward relieving the pain
of such searches by listing many different ways that a journal has been cited,
even through name changes, and by listing the location of the entry in the
Union List of Serials. Each abbreviation listed is cross-referenced to a recommended
abbreviation followed by a concise statement of the title in full, changes
in name and numbering of volumes, original place of publication, the number
of volumes published, and years of publication. More than 12,000 titles are
provided with recommended abbreviations and descriptions including "not only
botanical periodicals per se, but also those that are only partly botanical
in scope, e.g., those dealing with agriculture, agronomy, bacteriology, biology,
ecology, floriculture, forestry, fruit growing, genetics and plant breeding,
geography, horticulture, hydrobiology and limnology, microbiology and microscopy,
paleontology, pharmacology and pharmacognosy, plant pathology, and vegetable
crops." Taxonomists, especially, will be pleased that special attention has
been given periodicals containing new taxa, even to the level of cultivars.
However, environmental biologists, physiologists, and applied scientists should
not despair because their interests also have been considered carefully and
they will find the B-P-H as helpful to them as to the taxonomist.
introduction explains the manner in which the citations are drawn up, the
rules followed for development of abbreviations, the handling of synonymous
abbreviations, and the system of transliterating non-roman languages. .
appendices, comprising pages 1005-1063, complement the introduction. Appendix
I lists words or abbreviations of words used in B-P-H abbreviations in much
greater (and hence more useful) detail than in the widely used Style Manual
for Biological Journals published by the American Institute of Biological
Sciences. It is clear that great effort has been dedicated to development
of suitably unambiguous titles, but some recommendations will doubtless be
ignored initially. As abbreviations used by most botanists are included in
the Periodical Listing, this appendix may seem superfluous but many ephemeral
government leaflets, congress publications, and newly created serials not
listed may be cited in botanical publications. The breadth of coverage of
this appendix makes possible creation of appropriate and unambiguous abbreviations
to fit almost every need. Botanical editors take note.
II, Political Chronology, deals with the vexing, frustrating, and often confusing
matter of shifting
alignments with corresponding name changes of countries and cities. Countries
are listed first with a brief sketch of their history as applicable to botanical
bibliographic considerations. The list of Geographical Name Equivalents will
be greeted with enthusiasm by anyone who has ever struggled, sometimes without
success, to trace a name overlooked in contemporary gazetteers and atlases.
Thus, the uninitiated can learn that Bees, Bets, Vindobonum, and Wien are
all names for Vienna or that Budapest, including subdivisions, may be referred
to in literature as Alt-Ofen, Aquincum, Buda, Obuda, Ofen, Pest, or Pethini.
This is a most useful adjunct which perhaps could be expanded in a future
B-P-H edition although it serves its stated function well.
majority of the text, pp. 25-1003, is the Periodical Listing with all periodicals
listed in alphabetical order by the abbreviations. Every entry, whether a
variant abbreviation or a full title with description, is numbered on each
page. This numbering system is apparently a device for correcting errors and
omissions which may occur in the computer printed text. This is not ordinary
text, how-ever, as some 45 languages have to be accommodated, and a type train
of 120 characters was specially designed for the print-out. Some minor details
related to hyphenation and accent marks have been handled mechanically but
in no way affect the high quality or usefulness of the text.
will not be fully satisfied with all recommended abbreviations as some are
contrary to habit and a• bit unwieldy. It would seem that acceptable
and unambiguous shorter abbreviations could be found for Aardappelstudiecentrum
Kleinhandel, Bernice P. Bishop Mus. Bull., Occas. Pap. Bernice Pauahi Bishop
Mus. (it is the same museum), Profess. Pap. Ser. Florida State Board Conservation
Mar. Lab., or Verōff Forstl. Bundesversuchsanst. Mariabrunn Schonbrunn
Abt. Standortserkund. Citation of periodicals with similar titles by including
the place of origin or the editor is quite acceptable but why must parentheses
be used so that the time-honored Bot. Mag. Tokyo becomes Bot. Mag. (Tokyo)
? Why is Bot. Mag. for Curtis's Botanical Magazine acceptable when one of
the oldest American botanical journals is cited by the unwieldy Bot. Gaz.
(Crawfordsville) just because three volumes of a Botanical Gazette were issued
1849-51 in Lon-don? It seems reasonable to let today's Bor. Gaz. be just that
and distinguished from Bot. Gaz. London. A similar situation is found for
Bot. Jahrb. Syst. (our familiar Bot. Jahrb.) because a single volume so obscure
it is not in the Union List of Serials was produced in 1799 and listed as
Bot. Jahrb. Jedermann. The several Journals of Botany have been dealt with
in line with long usage and, save my personal distaste for the parentheses,
are not objectionable.
B-P-H has been put to considerable use for several months in my laboratory
and the content has generally performed admirably. However, a troublesome,
though I know not how frequent, problem did arise. The often cited Acta Soc.
Bot. Poloniae is in the Union List only as Polski towarzystwo botaniczne.
The handy little citation of 4-3391-3 in B-P-H leads one to the correct page
and column where there is appended a note of the Latin name, but it would
have been more convenient to have the Union
name as well as its geographic coordinates when pre-paring literature search
lists with only the B-P-H at hand.
errors have been detected so far but the entry under Rev. Bryol. Lichenol.
seems to be incomplete and misleading. I have been unable to locate publications
for "Annēe" 42, 43, 44, 45, or 46 (1915-1919). Husnot, the founder, had
no part in the journal after 1926, Annēe 53, so Revue Bryologique effectively
ceased to exist at that time. Pierre Allorge picked up the title and shifted
publication to the Laboratoire de Cryptogamie, Paris, beginning the Nouvelle
sērie with volume 1 with note of the 55`' annee on the masthead in 1928.
With volume 5 (59e annee) in 1932, the title became Revue Bryologique et Lichenologique,
and annual publication continued under that title through volume 11 dated
1938 and produced in 1939. The next issue, now considered volume 12, was is-sued
with a 1941-1942 date as Melanges Bryologiques et Lichenologiques, a title
which does not appear in B-P-H. The following four issues, now considered
volumes 13, 14, and 15 (1 & 2), appeared 1942-1946 as Travaux Bryologiques,
duly listed in the B-P-H but not described in the primary entry. With volume
16 (70e annee), 1947, the journal returned to its present title. This periodical
continues to appear erratically and it seems to be better to cite volume numbers
rather than the "annee" designations which are not always consecutive.
such occasional minor differences with the editors about details, every botanist
should luxuriate in the concise explanation of 413 entries beginning with
the ever-troublesome Acta, or a variation, as the first word of the title
or of the 229 entries under Izvestija. . . . In less than a year's use, the
B-P-H has saved me dozens of man hours, as well as unknown quantities of adrenalin
and aspirin, and has improved rapport with our willing, but chronically overworked,
librarians. The fringe benefit of the ease by which new editions can be prepared
by computer so that any current edition will be not more than five years old
heralds a new era in bibliographic research. We can hope that such applications
will spread as our literature becomes even more cumbersome and difficult to
handle by conventional means.
B-P-H is a big book having 11 x 8½ inch pages with narrow margins. It
is substantially bound in a library-quality buckram with the fascicles sewn
so that the book lays flat wherever opened. Quality of production is high
as befits a book designed for heavy use. The price is moderate for these times
and is well within the reach of plant scientists as well as many graduate
students who should be introduced to it at the earliest opportunity. Botanists
should note that continuation of the B-P-H depends upon widespread support
by purchase and use of the book and by reporting difficulties, additions,
and even disagreements to the editors. Such support is strongly encouraged.
C. Smith observed of the B-P-H in the Hawaiian Botanical Society Newsletter,
"The botanical community, and all other individuals interested in any phase
of plant life, may offer sincere congratulations to the editors and publishers
of this compendium of unsurpassed value. It has a place in every library where
scholarship is allied to an interest in the plant sciences." I could not agree