Harvard Botany Libraries

3 2044 1

05 174

38

W " £*

Library

Arnold Arboretum

of

Harvard University

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2015

https://archive.org/details/journalofwashing5019wash

JOURNAL

of the

WASHINGTON

ACADEMY

* * *

" "

•V, ^

-I- -vi

jv-

SCIENCES

Vol. 50 • No. 1

January, 1960

Ht

JOURNAL OF THE WASHINGTON ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Editor: Chester H. Page, National Bureau of Standards

Managing Editor: Ilekn E. SVewart, National Science Foundation

Associate Editors

Frank L. Campbell, National Academy of Russell B. Stevens, Geo. Washington Univer-

Sciences sity

Samuel B. Detwiler, Jr., U.S. Dept, of Agri- John K. Taylor, National Bureau of Standards

culture

Contributors

Ralph E. Gibson, Applied Physics Laboratory

Henry P. Ward. Catholic University

Elliott B, Roberts, Coast & Geodetic Survey

Margaret D. Foster, Geological Survey

Russell B. Stevens, Geo. Washington University

Moddie D. Taylor, Howard University

Frank L. Campbell, NAS-NRC.

Bourdon F. Scribner, National Bureau of

Standards

Howard W. Bond, National Institutes of Health

Allen L. Alexander, Naval Research Laboratory

Victor R. Boswell, USDA, Beltsville

Henry S'tevens, USDA, Washington

William H. Bailey, University of Maryland

This Journal, the official organ of the Washington Academy of Sciences, publishes: (1)

historical articles, critical reviews, and scholarly scientific articles, (2) original research, if the

paper, including illustrations, do$s not exceed 1500 words or the equivalent space, (3) notices of

meetings and proceedings of meetings of the Academy and its affiliated societies, and (4) regional

news items, including personal news, of interest to the entire membership. The Journal appears

eight times a year in January to May and October to December.

Manuscripts and original research papers should be sent to the Editor. They should

be typewritten, double-spaced, on good paper; footnotes and captions should be numbered and

submitted on a separate sheet. The Editor does not assume responsibility for the ideas expressed

by any author.

Contributions to the regular columns should be sent to the appropriate Associate

Editor whose name appears at the beginning of each column, or to one of the Contributors, listed

above. The deadline for news items is approximately three weeks in advance of publication date.

News items should be signed by the sender.

Proof of manuscripts will generally be sent to an author if he resides in the Washington

area and time allows. Otherwise the Editor will assume responsibility for seeing that copy is

followed.

Subscription rate $7.50 per yr. (U.S.)

Single issues $0.50 per copy.

Subscription Orders or requests for back numbers or volumes of the Journal, or copies of the

Proceedings, should be sent to the Washington Academy of Sciences. 1530 P St., N.W., Washing-

ton, D.C. Remittances should be made payable to ‘‘Washington Academy of Sciences”.

Claims for missing numbers will not be allowed if received more than 60 days after date

of mailing plus time normally required for postal delivery and claim. No claims will be allowed

because of failure to notify the Circulation Manager of a change of address.

Changes of address should be sent promptly to the Academy Office, 1530 P St.. N.W.,

Washington, D. C. Such notification should include both old and new addresses and postal zone

number, if any.

Advertising rates may be obtained from the Managing Editor, lleen E. Stewart, Office of

Science Information Service, National Science Foundation, Washington 25, D. C.

Reprint prices may also be obtained from the Managing Editor.

Prices of back numbers and volumes, of Monograph No. 1, ‘‘The Parasitic Cuckoos of

Africa” by Herbert Friedmann, Index to Vols. 1-40, and Proceedings may be obtained by writing

to the Academy Office.

Entered as second class matter at the Post Office, Washington, D. C. Printing by McArdle

Printina Co.. Washinaton. D. C.

The Journal for 1960

Frank L. Campbell

All members of the Washington Acad-

emy of Sciences would probably agree that

its Journal should contain whatever the

majority wants, within the bounds of finan-

cial and human feasibility. If the Board

of Managers can be regarded as a fair

sample of the membership, it is certain

that the majority does not want the kind of

Journal we have had in recent years, but

we still do not know what the majority

does want. It is also possible, but* im-

probable, that the Board does not repre-

sent the opinions on the Journal of the

membership as a whole. Because of these

uncertainties the Board at its December

meeting authorized a referendum on the

question of the contents of the Journal.

We must act now on the probability that

changes in content are desired, but if the

referendum shows that the majority wishes

to support an archival Journal such as we

have had, we can and will promptly revert

to it. If it shows that the majority do

not wish to support such a Journal but

are not sure what they do want, then we

should experiment with the contents of the

Journal guided by comments we hope to

receive from interested members. It will

be much easier for members to offer sug-

gestions after they have in hand some-

thing to criticize.

The new editorial group has only one

conviction at this time; namely, that the

Journal should serve in part as a medium

of communication between the officers and

members of the Academy, and between the

Academy and its affiliated societies. But

some members disagree even on this point.

They fear that the use of the Journal as a

medium of local communication may cause

it to become essentially a house organ and

submerge or extinguish its scholarly as-

pects. This feeling is prevalent not only

among those who favor an archival Journal

but among those who will not give up hope

that the Journal could become a medium

for the publication of papers reporting

original research in both experimental and

descriptive science. Experience shows,

however, that such a hope is not realistic.

Only a Journal having lavish financial re-

sources for free and prompt publication

could hope to draw all kinds of high-grade

research articles away from specialized pro-

fessional journals. We doubt that such a

hope could be realized even under optimum

conditions because experimental scientists

have a strong desire to publish their most

significant results in journals that are seen

regularly by their own professional col-

leagues.

It seems to us that local communications

in the Journal need not destroy its scholar-

ly character. If the Journal can no longer

be a factor in the publication of primary

research, it should and can publish its

share of papers concerned with the later

processes in the growth of knowledge—

what Paul Weiss calls the digestive and

assimilative processes leading to the pro-

duction of knowledge. Such papers may be

called historical articles, critical reviews,

critiques, etc., papers that bring together

existing information and opinions and

integrate them into the body of knowledge.

Members of the Academy have ideas and

opinions to publish in the Journal that

will be of interest to scientists everywhere.

We think such feature articles will take

up much of the space in the Journal. They

should be articles that every member of the

Academy and other scientists can read

with interest and with profit. Not all such

articles will have permanent value, but they

should give to the world examples of the

synthetic writing of Washington scientists.

Some members contend seriously that

there is no need for a Journal that can be

read with interest. They argue that we

already have more general publications

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

1

than we can read and that the Academy

can make its best contribution to science

by publishing an archival journal. There

is much to be said for this point of view.

It is true that we all have too much to read.

We guess that few scientists could state that

they read every issue of Science from cover

to cover, and yet we think most scientists

like to feel they are paying for a periodical

that may contain something they want very

much to read, and when something ex-

traordinary comes along, the word travels

rapidly on the grapevine; for example,

“Have you read in Science Warren Weav-

er’s proposal on special committees?”

If the referendum indicates that our

members want a Journal they can read if

they wish, then we can go ahead toward

producing a Journal that more and more

of them will want to read. This first issue

from the new editorial group is the best that

could be done under present difficult cir-

cumstances. Subsequent issues should be-

come progressively more comprehensive

and interesting as the volunteer organiza-

tion needed to produce such a Journal be-

comes experienced and effective. Please

remember, however, that dues were not in-

creased for 1960 and that we can spend

this year, for the production of the Journal,

only $4000, less than half as much as we

did in 1959. Therefore, the Journal will

be smaller than it was last year and the

possibilitities for improvement will be re-

stricted until greater support can be pro-

vided. We hope that you will be patient

and tolerant as we move toward a Journal

in which the Academy can take new pride.

Virchow’s “Cellular Pathology” in the

Framework of Biology and Medicine*

Alfred Plaut

Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, D. C.

This title is chosen because the cen-

tenary has brought the words “Cellular Pa-

thology” to the attention of many. The

topic at hand, however, is cellular physiol-

ogy and cellular histology as well ; it is cel-

lular biology. The terms theory and doc-

trine also are used without intending to

establish a standpoint a priori. Virchow

himself liked the neutral term cellular

principle.

When his lectures were published in the

Fall of 1858 with the title “Die Cellular-

pathologie in ihrer Begruendung auf physi-

ologische und pathologische Gewebelehre”

the words “cellular” and “cell” had been

used for more than a century. One is

tempted to marvel at the prophetic vision

of the poet when one reads Voltaire’s ques-

tion, written about 1755. 1 “In what corner

of cellular tissue lies the genius of Homer

and Virgil?” But, cellular tissue was in

the 18th century what since 1834 has been

called connective tissue, and it was sup-

posed to contain the vital force. Blumen-

bach, the father of anthropology, saw in it

the seat of the “nisus formativus”, the

tendency to create; for Caspar Friedrich

Wolff, the pioneer of embryology, it har-

bored the “vis essentialis” the real life

force. An analogous misunderstanding has

made Lamarck a precursor of the cellular

principle. The old meaning survives in

the term “cellulitis” used for an inflam-

mation in subcutaneous connective tissue.

* This article is based on a lecture given at the

Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, on Novem-

ber 12, 1958, as part of the Institute’s Virchow

Centennial Program.

2

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

An 800 page American pathology book

of 1845, 2 speaks about “cellular trans-

formation”, meaning transformation of

another tissue into loose connective tissue,

which the author calls “cellular tissue”.

The word “cell”, as far as I can see, is

mentioned only casually in the book.

When things seen under the microscope

in sections of cork were called “cells” for

the first time (Hooke, 1665) the name was

given on account of the thick rectangular

walls. It is a far cry from there to the

still valid definition of a cell as “a lump

of protoplasm with a nucleus”.3 We reckon

the cellular era from the year 1839 when

Theodor Schwann in Berlin published his

“Microscopic Investigations on the Ac-

cordance in the Histological Structure and

Growth of Plants and Animals”. The thesis,

implied in the title, that not only plants

but animals also are composed of cells

had been voiced before by several people

more or less clearly but had failed to make

an impression on the scientific world. Dut-

rochet in 1824 had declared the cell “the

fundamental part” of the animal organ-

ism.4 It is difficult to know how far his

“cells” and those of other observers in the

late 18th and early 19th century really

were cells and not starch granules, drop-

lets of some substance, or artifacts caused

by the chromatic aberration of the lenses

and the lack of condensers. The often used

term “globules” makes one doubtful, and

it might be wise not to accept “cells” as

such unless they are unambiguously de-

scribed or illustrated.

Johannes Mueller, the teacher and spirit-

ual father of a whole group of men whose

names are connected with the develop-

ment of cellular ideas in Germany

(Schleiden, Schwann, Virchow, Remak,

Henle) recognized the cellular compo-

sition of tumors in 1838. Purkinje in

Breslau, who was ahead of his time in

several respects, had perhaps the clearest

ideas about cells before Schwann. The

good observations of Goodsir in Edin-

burgh were recognized by Virchow him-

self. (The second edition of the Lectures

on Cellular Pathology is dedicated to

Goodsir.) Virchow’s publications begin

to show his preoccupation with cells in

1847, in the first volume of his “Archiv”,

but at this time he still believed with

Schwann and others that cells were formed

in an amorphous substance, the “blastema”.

Later he shared Ilemak’s 5 view that cell

division is the only source of cell for-

mation. Much about cells had been writ-

ten by others, and much he had said him-

self in his lectures and written about them

during his professorship in Wuerzburg

(1849-1856). One can understand there-

fore that he was astonished about the

success of the book, saying that it did not

contain much that was new. He wanted

to ascribe the effect to its easy style. As

it appears today it was more the exhaus-

tive, convincing presentation and the offer

of a promising method.

The change caused by the “Cellular

Pathology” was perhaps even greater in

France than in Germany. Cruveilhier was

professor of pathology in Paris until 1866.

his atlas of gross pathology is unsur-

passed in beauty but he did not use a

microscope. One of his pupils 6 went to

Berlin and studied under Virchow together

with four Scandinavians. He transplanted

modern pathology into France. As he said

many years later, Virchow’s teaching had

been a revelation, pathological anatomy

became alive, it became connected with

physiology. The difference between medi-

cal teaching before the “Cellular Path-

ology” and afterwards was perhaps great-

est in Russia. The influence on pathology

in England was characterized as replace-

ment “by orderly arranged and objective

facts of what was before a tangled wilder-

ness of old superstitions and modern dis-

connected observations”. Similar opinions

were voiced at the celebration of Virchow’s

80th birthday “from Archangelsk to Cadiz”,

not to forget Japan, and the United States.

William Osier, with his historically

trained mind, realized that such a revolu-

tion in medicine could not be ascribed to

one man. that the “Zeitgeist” worked like

a leaven. “But”, he continued, “no phy-

sician of our time has done more to pro-

mote the change, or by his individual ef-

forts to win his generation to accept it

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

3

than Virchow”. The cellular theory stimu-

lated people to make use of the improved

microscope. As long as a man believed

that alterations of body fluids or disturb-

ances in innervation were the essential

factors in disease he could not expect to

learn much about disease by looking into

the microscope. But when he expected

to find meaningful alterations of cells then

he had reason enough for using this lately

improved gadget.

The English translation of the cellular

pathology 7 appeared in 1860, and within

a few years, seven American editions were

sold out, in spite of the fact that path-

ological anatomy always has been a step-

child in the United States. Before 1865,

that means in the years when Virchow’s

interests were essentially in pathology,

American students went to England and

France rather than to Germany, thus Vir-

chow had no important direct American

pupil. Welch, the nestor of American

pathology, worked under Virchow’s pupil

Cohnheim, whose experiments had laid

the foundation for modern concepts of

inflammation. In Welch’s laboratory at

Johns Hopkins Hospital, Virchow’s pos-

tulate of combining morphology and ex-

perimental pathology was fulfilled to a

degree but it is tempting to speculate how

American pathology might have developed

if Welch had worked in Virchow’s insti-

tute. The unprecedented impact of Vir-

chow’s publication — Welch said it was the

greatest advance ever made by scientific

medicine — must have had several causes.

One of them might have been that it offered

a striking fact of which people were not,

or not sufficiently aware, namely the cellu-

lar composition of the body, and at the

same time a unifying principle. People

suddenly were made to realize that the

human body was composed of cells like

any other organism, and that human dis-

eases were disturbances in the life processes

of these cells. In the middle of the nine-

teenth century, the human being was to

most people something apart from the

rest of creation, and diseases were entities

apart from the body. The new teaching

thus catered to man’s desire for unified

concepts.

Important progress in medicine is gen-

erally attributed to technical inventions,

and impulses given by changes in theo-

retical concepts are overlooked. The tran-

sition of tumor surgery from knife shyness

to optimistic activity in the later decades

of the nineteenth century was undoubtedly

caused by the emergence of anesthesia,

antisepsis and asepsis. But about at the

same time, cancer became a local disease in

the minds of physicians while it had been

a constitutional one before. And what is

the use of performing a local operation

for a constitutional ailment?

The much discussed topic of the precur-

sors to Virchow and the cellular doctrine

may be dealt with by quoting what Sir

Gavin de Beer recently has written about

Darwin: “For various reasons, including

imperfect formulation of the problem and

insufficiency of evidence, none of these i

precursors was able to compel attention, 1

let alone adherence, to these views; and it

is because of the completeness of his dem-

onstration . . . that the world owes its

debt to Darwin”.s Claude Bernard and

internal secretion furnish another parallel, i

The idea of internal secretion existed in

the mind of Albrecht von Haller, almost

a century before Bernard’s publications; !

several people voiced similar opinions, and

in 1849 A. Berthold reported a successful

substitution experiment by implantation

of testicle into a castrated rooster.9 None i

of these workers gave internal secretion I

to the scientific world, but Claude Bernard

did. There are more points of compari-

son, in spite of the fact that the “Cellular

Pathology” did not shake mankind as the

“Origin of Species” did. Both represent

the synopsis of painstakingly accumulated

observations, many of which were made

after the general idea had been conceived.

Both ran counter to feelings that had been

dear to man since time immemorial: Dar-

win offended the idea of man’s exalted

position in nature. Virchow hurt the

human individual’s proud feeling of being

a truly indivisible entity. As Virchow

4

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

said, all plant physiology was based on

the cellular principle, and the reluctance

of people to introduce the concept into

animal physiology was based only on

esthetic and moral objections. Darwin

as well as Virchow may have had a deep-

seated personal feeling for their theories.

Darwin s in his notebook from the Gala-

pagos Islands (1835) calls animals “our

fellow brethren in pain, disease, death,

suffering and famine, our slaves in the

most laborious works, our companions in

our amusements,” and he continues “they

may partake of our origin in one common

ancestor — we may be all melted together.”

His just conceived theory obviously agreed

with his love of animals. And through

Virchow’s whole life, there goes the idea

of true democracy in which every individ-

ual feels as a participant in a harmonious

whole, namely the state. He often talked

about the “Zellenstaat”, he called the

body “a free state of single beings with

equal rights,” and continued, “they keep

together because the single parts are de-

pendent upon each other.” A few years

later, he used the term federation to desig-

nate the relation of the cells to the body as

a whole. His antimonarchial, democratic

heart made him overdo such comparisons;

he loved them. When we read what he

said in parliament (1867) about decentral-

izing the administration of the state . . .

“the administration to be based on the

freedom of the communities . . . the con-

stitutional life built from below . . .” 10

then we almost expect to find something

about cells in the next line.

When we draw etiological conclusions

from histological pictures, we remember

that the patterns in which a tissue can

react may be few, and that diverse causa-

tive factors may result in one and the same

picture. This is well exemplified in der-

matology. But one should not forget that

the number of ideas a rational human

being is prone to conceive about a group

of phenomena is restricted also, and that

identical or closely related ideas spring

up independently in different minds. Most

of us enjoy having the good idea and let

it go at that, genius, however, puts it to

work. This historical reasoning applies

to some of Virchow’s ideas which can be

found in various writings of the German

Romantic period, and I hesitate to assume

from this a philosophical underpinning of

Virchow’s theories. We know that he

liked to read Aristotle but it would be

difficult to prove that his idea of the cell

state stems from Aristotle’s concept of the

body as a well-governed commonwealth,

neither do I know whether he ever read

Kant’s “Critique of Judgment” in which a

similar comparison is made.

The history of cellular doctrine through

the century of its existence is in no small

measure a comedy of errors or misunder-

standings. Virchow insisted that he had

based everything on observation, and that

criticism could come from observations

only. Others maintain that his work had

its basis in philosophical ideas of the

Romantic school. Virchow saw the main

merit of his work in abolishing systems

and speculation, but Ricker called the

cellular pathology anthropomorphistic na-

ture philosophy.11

An impressive almost incomprehensible

foreshadowing of cellular theory may be

seen in the words of Goethe,12 who was

a biologist in his own sublime way. “Every

living thing is not a single thing but is a

plurality. Even when it appears to us

as an individual it still remains an as-

sembly of independent living beings, that

are equal according to the idea, to the

anlage, while in fact they may appear

equal or similar, unequal or dissimilar

. . . The more imperfect a being is, the

more equal or similar are these parts and

the more they resemble the whole. The

more perfect the being becomes, the more

dissimilar will the parts be. The sub-

ordination of the parts indicates a perfect

being.” And he was conscious of both

the analytic and synthetic standpoint

when he wrote to Alexander von Hum-

boldt: “Your observations start from the

element, mine from the gestalt.”

Virchow was proud that his doctrine

was purely scientific, not burdened with

a system of therapeutics as the old “schools”

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

5

were. But Klebs, Virchow’s brilliant, re-

bellious pupil said that cellular pathology

could not amount to much since it had

not even created new therapeutics. Vir-

chow insisted from the beginning that it is

not so much the morphology but the life

of the cell that counts; nevertheless cellu-

lar pathology, even today, evokes in some

people the idea of one-sided, “dead”

morphology.

The history of cellular doctrine in the

framework of biology can be studied by

considering the standpoint of those who

oppose it for scientific reasons or other-

wise. Virchow’s pupil Cohnheim, who by

his famous experiment proved that leuco-

cytes migrate through the capillary walls,

has been considered an opponent of cellu-

lar theory by the medical historian Baas

and by others. In reality Cohnheim only

refuted Virchow’s erroneous ideas that the

blood vascular system is entirely closed

and that all pus cells are formed in loco,

but he was not opposed to cellular theory.

In his lectures on general pathology, he

calls the cells “living beings with a metabo-

lism . . . which certainly is a very active

one in many of them.” Thus I rather

agree with Cameron that Cohnheim’s ex-

periment gave a new impetus to cellular

pathology. It showed cells, namely the

leucocytes, in action, while they are not

in contact with other tissues.

The most vigorous attack upon cellular

pathology was made by Gustav Ricker in

1924. He wanted to replace it by “relation

pathology.” He denied that the cell has

any life by itself in health or disease, he

did not believe that the cell has a choice

in taking substances out of the surround-

ing blood. Virchow’s idea that the cell has

the faculties of function, nutrition and

proliferation appeared metaphysical to him

and an obstacle to clear, scientific causal

thinking. The cell, he said, cannot be

looked at in any way as separate from

its relation to the central nervous system

and to the blood. He denied even the

anatomical concept of the cell, pointing to

syncytial formations like the myocardium,

the fetal part of the placenta or the skin

epithelium with its intercellular fibres. The

functions and diseases of the body, Ricker

concluded, after decades of purposeful

animal experimentation, are located in the

central nervous system. It governs every-

thing by means of the nerves that accom-

pany all blood vessels, even the smallest

ones, and that form delicate networks

around and in the cells. The cell does

nothing, according to Ricker, things are

done to it. A statement made by Virchow

in 1855 represents a powerful argument

against Ricker’s theory. He wrote that an

entirely general innervation of the parts is

not sufficient for explaining “the many

special happenings in the course of nu-

trition and formation.” The restriction

of special happenings to structures as small

as cells could be explained only by isolated

and qualitatively different effects exerted

by the same nerve. And this, Virchow

continues, “is contrary to all available

experiences.” 13 Unless I am mistaken the

second part of this argument still holds

while the first one has been superseded by

the discovery of nerve endings in many

cells. What happens in the organs, rest

and function, anabolism and catabolism

follows, according to Ricker, a definite

law, his “Stufengesetz.” Constriction and

dilatation of vessels, which are regulated

by the central nervous system through the

vasomotor nerves, are the essential factors.

Morphological findings and localization

in the sense of Morgagni, Rokitansky and

Virchow are not of primary importance,

according to Ricker they are only one item

in diagnosis. The whole body is the seat

of disease. In Ricker’s opinion, Virchow’s

anatomical thinking has been proved in-

fertile by the history of medicine. Form

is to Ricker no scientific reality but a con-

cept of reflexion that can induce only

philosophical thoughts without heuristic

value. (To avoid misunderstandings, it

might be inserted here that Ricker con-

sidered Virchow’s merits immortal). Simi-

lar thoughts have been brought forward

in 1934 by Speransky,14 a pupil of Pavlov.

He believed that he could produce most

known pathological lesions by local freez-

ing of cerebral cortex, by withdrawing and

i-

1:

0

1:

t •

jfc

l

a:.:

ir.

e -■

k

i :

c

f*

■nt

u

k

K

6

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

Kchou- Vikciiow i\ rm-: s atk '}H50\

reinjecting spinal fluid repeatedly, or by

squeezing the hypothalamus into a glass

ring. He acknowledged the achievements

of cellular pathology in systematizing

pathological processes morphologically but

he doubted its value for constructing a

dynamic theory. Not only Virchow’s ideas

but also the medicine of Pasteur and Ehr-

lich was approaching exhaustion in Sper-

ansky’s opinion, and could not cope with

the contradictions that have arisen. Sper-

ansky’s book makes fascinating reading

and has influenced some people, notably

in Germany, to a degree designated as

“Speransky psychosis” by others. At-

tempts at repeating his experiments how-

ever, were successful only when the dogs

were infected with leptospira.15 Ricker

had, and still has, followers, but more and

more people declare themselves unable to

confirm his “Stufengesetz” which is sup-

posed to regulate the bloodstream after an

irritation has taken place. And it has

been shown long ago that nerveless

tissue of vertebrates can react to a stimu-

lus.16 I agree with those who think that

Ricker’s work is mainly of historical in-

terest today, and few people, I trust, will

share the opinion of Claudius Mayer that

Ricker’s ideas will become as important

for the future development of medical

research as was Virchow’s cellular theory

for the second half of the 19th century.17

Theories and doctrines are essentially

a matter of emphasis. Ricker, the most

important enemy of cellular pathology,

knew everything that was to be known

about cells but he stressed the dominat-

ing influence of vascular innervation. In

the same way, Virchow knew that the

organs are subject to changes in blood

supply, and are innervated, though the

finest nerve endings were not known in

his time but he minimized that because

he was so enraptured by the cells. No-

body denies that Virchow sometimes exag-

gerated in this respect, but one could

quote numbers of his utterances that show

appreciation of the body as a whole. And

Ricker’s theory neglects the many life

phenomena of organs and cells that are

separated from their nerves and from

their normal blood supply. Even the

complex Goldblatt phenomenon, the rise

in blood pressure after reduction of ar-

terial flow to one kidney, can be pro-

duced when the kidney first is trans-

planted to the neck, which entails a drastic

disturbance of perivascular nerves. In

all such discussions, we forget too easily

that plants function as organic units with-

out having a nervous system. Opponents

of cellular theory who stress the nerve

conditioned totality of the metazoan body

often refer to Pavlov. A survey of Pav-

lov’s writings, however, does not indicate

that he was opposed to cellular theory.

He used expressions like “the struggle for

existence among the cellular elements,”

he calls the cell “a whole organism, if a

small one;” he talks about disturbance in

cerebral cells as cause of the behavior of

an animal; he lets cells have “capacity for

work,” mentions “relaxation of nerve

cells” and “weakened irritability of gastric

cells.” 18 Speransky’s ideas had been ac-

cepted in Russia for a while but have been

repudiated lately.

The teaching of pathology, histology and

embryology at medical schools has not

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

7

been significantly influenced by the ob-

jections raised against cellular doctrine.

Numbers of recent textbooks, English,

French or German, teach according to

cellular doctrine, mentioning the theory

or simply taking it for granted. E. R.

Long in his history of pathology wrote in

1928: “We are all cellular pathologists

today, taking our post Virchowian cellu-

lar sense for granted.” 19 A recent French

textbook of zoology and a German text on

botany also stress cellular structure, al-

most unreservedly as did the botanist

Kuester in a historical survey of the prob-

lem in 1938.20 Such an attitude must be

expected because histology and pathology

can neither be practised nor taught from

the holistic standpoint, no matter how

much one might be enamoured of it

philosophically or esthetically. Horst

Oertel, in his General Pathology (1921)

emphasized the interrelations of cells whose

disturbance by a local process might be of

more consequence than the local process

itself, and that means disease of the whole

organism.21 The holistic totality aspect

and the atomistic (cellular) one are the

two horns of a dilemma out of which

there is no escape for the pathologist or

any other biologist. The poet-biologist

Goethe has worded it succinctly, in 1832.

a few weeks before his death: 22 “Thus

one is driven from the whole to the detail

and from the detail to the whole whether

one wants to or not.” If we stress the

heuristic standpoint, we can say that to

consider the whole body as the main object

of investigation means replacing one riddle

by another one: but the man who is essen-

tially interested in the patterns of nature

will strive again and again to comprehend

the totality of the organism without get-

ting lost in too much detail. An author

who with a subtle logical distinction, ex-

presses doubt whether pathology of the

cell really means “cellular pathology” de-

clares in the same paper that the cellular

doctrine is, today more than ever, one of

our secure possessions.23 He even thinks

that Virchow’s much attacked cellular

ideas about inflammation have more of a

future than the accepted vascular concept

of inflammation as established by Cohn-

heim. A philosophically minded patholo-

gist, wrote in 1928 that pathology is not

pure cellular pathology anymore, which

does not mean that it is wrong, but that

pathology has unending variations and

thus cannot be deduced from one single

principle. Roessle, the third successor in

Virchow’s chair, characterized Virchow’s

concept of the body as “a state of autono-

mous, widely independent cells,” and for-

mulated his own as “non autonomous

single cells cooperating with each other

and with blood and the nervous system.”

I feel that Roessle in this exaggerated Vir-

chow’s emphasis of the independence of

the cell, but what with the multitude and

variety of Virchow’s statements, this re-

mains a matter of personal taste. Many

authors have an ambivalent attitude to-

wards the cell concept because on the one

hand they see the cells, their role in

physiology and pathology, and work with

them all the time; but on the other hand

they see the body as a whole and are un-

willing to give up its individuality. An

example for this is furnised in a modern

English textbook of pathology.24 It regards

the cell as the ultimate unit of structure

and function however complex the tissue

or organ may be. But, it continues, “it

is more profitable to regard the organism

as the individual, . . . and the cells not

as units of which it is built up, but rather

as parts into which it is divided in order

to provide for the necessary division of

labor. ( Adami 25 expressed the same stand-

point in 1910). The conception of the

cell thus remains, but no longer requires or

is capable of the strict definition that was

needed when the word was supposed to

represent a fundamental biological entity.”

One should note the words “in order to

provide,” in the second half of the state-

ment. This is teleology and shows the

danger inherent in the biological totality

concept. When the authors say “it is more

profitable to regard the organism as the

individual,” I agree with them from the

psychological standpoint but I have doubts

from the standpoint of biological method-

ology. Hueck. whose studies of the

8

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

i- mesenchyme have played an important

)• role in the discussions about the cellular

it doctrine, considers the totality concept as

h absolutely necessary but, he too adds that

it we can study only the parts.26 The titles

d of publications are revealing. The first

e volume of the handbook of microscopic

ti anatomy (Moellendorf ) which appeared

s in 1929 bears the title: “Living Matter”,

i- thus referring collectively to the substance

of the organism and ignoring the cell,

s while the corresponding volume of the

r handbook of general pathology in 1955 is

titled: “The Cytoplasm,” which means the

stuff cells are made of.

{ Our tendency toward accepting one

1 opinion and condemning the opposed one

smacks of man’s primitive fighting instinct,

i- and he who objects to a theory is prone

to exaggerate it because that makes it

e vulnerable. Opponents of the cellular

i doctrine have invested it with a primitively

i additive character neither Virchow nor his

1 followers had seriously in mind. Thus

. we read in a modern textbook of histology :

i “Every cell of the human body, according

i to Virchow, is a kind of homunculus, and

s the combined efforts of these well special-

> ized microhumans shall result in the pre-

3 posterous cell state that represents the

t organism.” 27

i This book leaves out the word “cell”

t in its definition of tissue; it uses the words

r “elementary parts” and “masses.” The

r author tells us that “function can be con-

f ceived only dependent upon the undefin-

able totality of the organism.” Since

^ this gives us no hope of understanding this

r totality why not stick to less hopeless

. problems, reserving the totality concept

) for fields in which we can use it, or for a

’ remote future? At the other end of the

) line we have the statement made by a

zoologist in 1957: “The living part of na-

» ture is an atomized system; its atoms are

, the cells.” 28

t The period of rising bacteriology and

e immunology brought many attacks on cellu-

t lar pathology which were mainly based on

$ lack of knowledge in both fields. A French

author wrote in 1885: “Cellular pathology

e has lived. Down with the cells.” The ideas

of sera, of circulating antibodies brought

a resurgence of some kind of “humoral

pathology.” Deeper insight, furthered by

Paul Ehrlich’s work, showed how such

substances are manufactured by cells, and

today we see no contradiction between

immunology and the cellular doctrine.

Internal secretion, in health and disease,

has been considered as an expression of

the total organism and as contradicting the

cellular concept. But since we know that

giantism, acromegaly, and other endocrine

disorders are caused by alterations of hor-

mones, and since the hormones are pro-

duced by cells, sometimes by relatively few

cells, the phenomena of internal secretion

might be marshalled as well in favor of

cellular doctrine as against it.

While cellular doctrine was under heavy

attack the science of the cell was started and

grew. The term cytology seems to have

been used first in England about 1885;

a magazine “La Cellule” was founded in

Belgium in 1884; Verworn 29 wrote his

much maligned book on general physiology

in 1895. Today we have an imposing

monograph, Cameron’s “The Pathology

of the Cell” (which in spite of its title con-

tains much criticism of cellular doctrine),

in the same year Caspersson 30 published

his “Cell Growth and Cell Function.” And

what would Virchow say if he could see

the title “The Mammalian Cell as an In-

dependent Organism?” 21

The way tissues are formed by cells

suggests that the cells are morphological

and functional units. The existence of

syncytia, continuous masses of protoplasm

with many nuclei, seemed to contradict the

universal applicability of this statement.

Opponents of cellular theory have written

much about these structures,32 but without

agreeing among themselves, and in the

opinion of some, including myself, not

with convincing power. Structures with

two or more nuclei had been seen in 1802

long before the true cellular era 33 and

purley syncytical organisms, mycetozoa,

were described in 1860 (see Baker). But.

to my knowledge, no highly complex plant

or animal is entirely or even essentially

composed of syncytia. A crustacean

5

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

9

(Peroderma) has been mentioned as having

no cellular structure, but this is a parasitic

animal, and its lack of cellular organiza-

tion is a secondary adaptation to parasitic

life. Related species consist of cells, as

other crustaceans do, and we can reason-

ably assume that the free living ancestors of

Peroderma were cellular, not syncytial.

The absence of visible cell boundaries

apart from the fact that our optical meth-

ods may be at fault does not necessarily

indicate absence of functional boundaries.

The botanist Sachs, in 1893, postulated

smaller functional units in syncytia, each

dominated by a nucleus, he called them

“energids.” This concept, which has not

gained much recognition, appears plausible

when nuclei are evenly distributed; it is

convincingly demonstrated when two

flagella are found near each nucleus. The

idea that syncytial structure prevails in

the metazoan body has led to describing

the body as “a lump of living matter.” 32

Others stress especially the syncytial nature

of the mesenchyme (Hueck). The continu-

ous character of connective tissue had im-

pressed Virchow himself. He wrote in

1862: “The body appears composed of a

more or less continuous mass of connective

tissue like parts, as Reichert has pointed

out.” 34 The decision whether to call

something a group of cells or a syncytium

is sometimes an arbitrary one because cells

which have distinct outlines are often con-

nected by bridges or fibrils. Every medical

student learns about the intercellular

bridges of the skin epithelium. But it is

more than doubtful if these fibers are

biochemical pathways at all and actually

make a syncytium out of the skin epithe-

lium. Our daily experience as pathologists

speaks against it since we see severely

altered single epidermal cells surrounded

by normal ones or near normal ones.

Schultze, who in 1861 defined the cell as

a lump of protoplasm with a nucleus, de-

nied that even broader connections inter-

fered with the individuality of cell life.8, 33

The fibrils which seem to connect the

epithelial cells of the skin may well have

a mechanical function. It is noteworthy

that these so-called intercellular bridges

do not seem to interfere with the isolating

of cells by microdissection. The concept

of the cell certainly is not abolished by the

existence of connections,35 and syncytial

structures are the exception in the essen-

tially cellular metazoan organism. But

anticellular considerations based on the

textbook concept of syncytial structures

begin to be only of historical interest.

Electron microscopy has shown cell boun-

daries in most so-called syncytia, first in

the neurons, the very embodiment of con-

tinuity, then in neuroglia, and lately also

in heart muscle, skeletal muscle, nervous

endplates, myoepithelium of glands, and

squamous epithelium. This marks, “the

beginning twilight for syncytial theories

in which the lode star of cellular doctrine

shines more brilliantly than ever.” 36 Oskar

Hertwig has called the cell “one step in the

organization.” With the progressive dis-

appearance of syncytia, this step gains in

importance.

The supposed active and decisive role of

noncellular mesenchymal ground substance

in the genesis of collagen diseases did not

agree with cellular theory. But the factor

that characterizes the classical collagen dis-

ease Lupus erythematosus disseminatus

(the L. E. factor) seems to counteract an

enzyme which normally inhibits depoly-

merization of nucleoproteins. This enzyme

(desoxyribose nuclease inactivator) is

found in cells, and provided these rela-

tively recent findings will stand the test of

time, the cellular doctrine will be vindi-

cated once more. A similar situation exists

concerning the formation of collagen fibrils.

They can be formed in a solution of col-

lagen molecules without the help of cells.

But the collagen molecules in turn have

been secreted by cells.37 This knowledge,

arrived at by our most modern techniques,

was theoretically anticipated long ago.

Adami wrote in 1910 “we can well admit,

with Virchow, that the cells discharge liv-

ing molecules of the order of enzymes

which act upon and modify the surrounding

matrix.” At least two other supposedly

cell free structures have been believed to

be “living:”

10

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

The vitreous of the eye forms hyaluronic

acid but as has been shown recently cells

are numerous in its outer layers.38 The

second example is more striking. In fishes

and in other animals, a long filament, which

appears structureless on ordinary micro-

scopic examination, extends from the brain

deep down into the central canal of the

spinal cord ; it is called Reissner’s fibre, its

function is unknown. Older literature

stated that the distal portion of this fibre

could regenerate itself after transverse cut-

ting, and this distal portion is not in

contact with cells while the proximal is.

Recent work however does not confirm

this; the peripheral portion disappears after

transection, and secreted material accumu-

lates cephalad to the cut.39 No metabolism

that is independent of cells has been demon-

strated to my knowledge. Johannes Muel-

ler wrote in 1838 about the cellular com-

position of tumors, a year before Schwann’s

studies appeared, and since that time the

tumor cell has been the center of onocology.

The aggressive cancer cell evokes the

image of an animal more vividly than the

normal tissue cell does. Uncounted work

hours have been spent in anatomical, physi-

ological, and chemical laboratories with

attempts at determining its characteristics.

The practical diagnosis of malignancy in

the hospital laboratory, however, has been

based not so much on the characteristics of

the single tumor cell as on the structures

formed by tumor cells and their behavior

toward the adjoining normal tissue, in

short, it is more structural than cellular.

Only in the last decades, following the

work of Papanicolaou, has cytological tu-

mor diagnosis gained momentum, and

exfoliative cytology has become a recog-

nized branch of clinical pathology. Com-

bined with the hoped for progress in histo-

chemistry this may develop into an im-

portant diagnostic method based on the

characteristics of single cells. The fail-

ure of all the ingenious methods devised

for a humoral diagnosis of cancer might

be referred to in this connection. Develop-

ing in a time when cellular pathology was

vigorously attacked, exfoliative cytology

has, wittingly or not, furnished a prop

for it.

Theoretical cytology is expanding

rapidly, urged on by modern methods, and

even the time hallowed, often belittled

routine procedure of studying the paraffin

section has added something to the bio-

logical importance of the cell, namely the

sex chromatin. The single cell that bears

the hallmark of as decisive a general body

character as sex is, may claim a higher

dignity than that of a brick in the building.

The cell is the only component of the

metazoan body that also exists as an in-

dependent, motile organism, namely the

protozoon. Neither organs nor tissues,

nor any postulated units have a free living

animal as counterpart, and the few exist-

ing syncytial organisms are poorly differ-

entiated ones like the myxomycetes. This

may be the strongest claim the cell has for

being called “elementary organism,” a

title conveyed upon it not by an anatomist,

but by the physiologist Bruecke in 1861.

Another physiologist, Max Verworn, de-

clared it inadmissible in 1895 to call a

structure an elementary unit unless we

knew about an analogous free living or-

ganism.29, 8 The unicellular character of

many protozoa is evident beyond doubt,

and while complicated organelles and

skeletal structures give others an organ-

ismic habitus they still remain a mass of

protoplasm with a nucleus, and thus a cell.

The cellular nature of bacteria has been

proved, and viruses as well as bacte-

riophages, which are not cellular, are not

free living organisms either.

The converse question namely how far

the cells of the metazoan body have the

nature of living organisms is much more

difficult because their variety is so great

and because “life” and “living organism”

are ill defined concepts. Something half-

way between the two problems may be seen

in the behaviour of the cells of certain

sponges, primitive sessile metazoa. When

separated by squeezing the sponge through

a porous cloth, they swim around with

ameboid motion and sometimes reunite to

form another sponge. This remarkable

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

11

sponge experiment did not create much of

a stir perhaps because sponges are such

lowly creatures. But, as has been shown

recently, even mammalian embryonic kid-

ney cells, when carefully separated, can

reassemble and be organized into typical

kidney structures.57 This almost exempli-

fies what Oken wrote in 1805, “Organisms

are a synthesis of infusoria.” A genera-

tion later, Schwann went to the core of

the problem when he wrote that each

metazoan cell could lead an independent

life if the relations it bore to its new

surroundings were but similar to those in

which it stands in the organism.40

In dealing with this problem, namely

the autonomy of the cell, we must differ-

entiate between the potential autonomy and

the actual one. The former can be proved

by single cell culture, e.g., but the latter

is beyond accurate proof. I cannot imagine

a method for proving autonomous be-

haviour of a cell while it is in its normal

place within the metazoan organism. This

is a kind of Heisenberg situation. Virchow,

while repeatedly referring to the import-

ance of neural and vascular influences,

stressed the individual reaction of the cell

very much, sometimes in an exaggerated

way. Ricker, who believed that all re-

actions in the body are regulated by

vasomotor nerves, denied any reactivity

of single cells. Many opinions between

these extremes have been voiced, and no

general answer can be expected when we

compare the dependent status of a ganglion

cell with the relative freedom a leucocyte.

During phagocytosis the leucocyte must

breach its cell membrane and reestablish

it after having engulfed the foreign par-

ticle, and it accomplishes this tricky phys-

icochemical feat without being in contact

with other tissue not to mention a nerve.

The power of locomotion is one of the

criteria of life, but it stands to reason

that metazoan cells, caught as they are in

the tissues, cannot move around much.

Leucocytes move; the term “wandering

cells” speaks for itself ; each type of

myeloid cell has is own characteristic style

of ameboid motion, and so has the lympho-

cyte. Motility of tumor cells has been

observed long ago, and migration of non-

tumorous mammalian cells occurs in the

pituitary gland of man, where basophile

cells of the intermediate zone are seen

singly invading the posterior lobe. I have

little doubt that these cells are actually

migrating.

As said before, one must differentiate

between the actual and the potential mo-

tility of the cell. The latter must be wide-

spread since all cell types in tissue cul-

tures exhibit ameboid motion.41

The double nature of metazoan cells

manifests itself in the tissue culture. Mam-

malian cells, isolated by trypsination, can

be grown in serum free media.42 They

move around, more or less in the fashion

of amoebae, single cells can be observed

in the motion picture eating their way

through the medium. Even ganglion cells

move. Single cells break off their con-

tact with the others, especially before

dividing, and they rejoin the others. Cells

do not only adhere to each other by

stickiness, but form protoplasmatic con-

nections through which material, pigment,

e.g. has been seen carried from one cell

to the other. Stimuli also are transmitted

from cell to cell since waves of ciliary

movement run along a row of cells and

can be interrupted by injuring one cell. 41

The growth curve of a single cell in tissue

culture turned out to be a counterpart

of that of a bacterium. Mutant strains

of such cells “have been identified, isolated

and established as standard stocks.” Some

mutant characteristics have remained stable

after more than 200 generations, corre-

sponding to stable mutations of micro-

organisms. These astounding similarities

between the metazoan cell and the free

living unicellular organism justify the

designation of the body cell as a unit of

life. Virchow and the men who shared

his opinions could hardly know how right

they were in many respects.

The dominance of morphological studies

under the influence of Virchow and his

school has misled people into identifying

12

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

the cellular doctrine with a one sided

morphological attitude that neglects func-

tional, physiological aspects. Virchow’s

numerous statements to the contrary have

been quoted so often that I am reluctant

to repeat them. May I just point to his

one dictum that “pathological physiology

is the main fortress of medicine while the

pathological anatomy and the clinic are out-

lying bastions”.43 He postulated in his

early years, and in 1900, that pathology

should be pathological physiology. Young

Virchow’s first great scientific accomplish-

ment was experimental, namely the demon-

stration of embolism (he coined the term).

But the fact remains that he and his

pupils worked mainly in tissue pathology.

People who complain about this and lay

it at the door of cellular theory do not

realize that this morphological work created

the basis for later physiological studies.

Furthermore, no methods were available

at the time for cellular physiology, and

physiology did not furnish ideas for cel-

lular study. The anatomist Fleming,44 who

did classical work on cells and cell division,

stated in 1882 that cell problems mostly

belonged to the field of physiology, espe-

cially physiological chemistry. “But,” he

continued, “both seem hesitant to direct

their action into a truly microscopic area.”

And as late as 1900 Eugen Albrecht, who

was a man of vision, was pessimistic

about a future cellular physiology. Mod-

ern techniques have made it possible.

The terms cytochemistry and biochemi-

cal cytology refute the idea that the cellular

concept is necessarily a morphological one.

These disciplines remedy the antiquated

situation in which biochemistry did not

apply the localization principle, be it Mor-

gagni type according to organs or Virchow

type according to cells, and they bring

the cellular aspect once more into the fore-

ground of medical science. Clinical blood

chemistry, notwithstanding its practical

usefulness, is like touring a state in a low

flying airplane and counting the number

of freight cars that are loaded with coal.

That will not tell us how much coal is

burning in furnaces, lying in covered sheds

or still underground, and this may be more

important than the amount in transit.

Pflueger’s proof that metabolism takes place

in the tissues and not in the blood was the

real death blow for humoral pathology. A

recent paper, “The cellular principle in

today’s biochemistry,” 45 describes the

chemical accomplishments of the cell in

detail, how it transports glucose and ami-

noacids even against the concentration

gradient, how it keeps sodium out of the

cell, and how the membranes which sur-

round the nucleus and the mitochondria

function in similar ways. It concludes that

modern biochemical knowledge shows the

correctness of the cellular principle.

The functional completeness of the single

cell decreases with evolution, it is best

preserved in the sex cell. But many mam-

malian cells do have a specific metabolism

which represents a functional separateness

perhaps inherited from a chemical mutation

in a single cell, and how shall one interpret

the different phases of secretion in neigh-

bouring glandular cells if not by individual

differences in reactivity?

The division of matter from energy hav-

ing disappeared, it has become meaningless

to separate form from function. If we

elaborate Karl Ernst von Baer’s delight-

ful idea of having our life extremely com-

pressed in time or extremely stretched, and

imagine an exaggerated slow motion picture

of a living cell at a magnification that

shows the molecules, then substance and

function will be one, and histology will

be identical with cytochemistry. A hundred

years ago, Virchow said that the basis for

the normal and pathological life of the cell

was to be found for the time being in

histology, in the finest anatomy. Mor-

phology to him was the way to physiology,

and pathology as well as biology have

travelled this road a good distance in the

last century. Thus it does not sound too

paradoxical any more when we say that

biochemistry is micro-micro-anatomy, that

in the ever flowing stream of a living

system, a histological aspect and a func-

tional phase are identical, or that “the

anatomy of an organism is the greatly

magnified expression of its chemistry.46

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

13

Life processes, like everything else, take

place in a space-time configuration.

It is an ever returning wish to make bi-

ology or one of its branches like pathology

into an exact science. This was Virchow’s

dream, and he went a long way in the

right direction. Almost 70 years after the

publication of the “Lectures on Cellular

Pathology,” Ricker, this sharp opponent of

Virchow, gave his book the title “Pathol-

ogy as Natural Science,” 11 and in 1950, V.

Bertalanffy closed his paper on “Open

Systems in Physics and Biology” by ex-

pressing the hope that this will “pave the

way for biology to become an exact

science.” 47 Finally in 1955, the anatomist

Zeiger wrote that it does not appear im-

possible anymore to resolve cytology into

physics and chemistry.35 The cellular doc-

trine opened the way to this desired goal.

Science often has been thwarted by

ecclesiastical or political interference, and

the cellular doctrine has not been spared.

An Austrian book from the National-So-

cialist era lets the “crazy idea” of cellular

pathology originate in the brain of a

French Jacobine (meaning Raspail), and

Virchow, it says, succeeded by a coup over-

night in introducing it, because Germany,

at the time, was infected wdth liberalistic,

materialistic ideas.48 Conversely we learn

from a paper, which appeared in Warsaw

in 1950, that cellular theory is built on

idealism and reactionary metaphysics,

and that its vestiges must be eradicated.49

In the same year, a new “dialectic-material-

istic” cell theory by Lepeshinskaya gained

official recognition in Russia and was

given a Stalin prize. This theory revived

Schwann’s belief that cells are formed in

a fluid, a blastema, which belief, ironical-

ly, had represented idealism to the Nazi,

in opposition to Virchow’s materialism.

Fortunately Lepeshinskaya has been dis-

avowed lately,50 and the “omnis cellula

e cellula” is recognized again in Russia.

Such things appear to us extreme, almost

unpardonable; but how will future histor-

ians judge our generation’s attitudes to-

ward the Malthus problem or to the ge-

netic danger of radioactive fallout?

Today’s situation of medicine is not un-

like that of 100 years ago in some re-

spects: The improved microscope of 1830

yielded a multitude of not always easily

digestible new facts, and the electron

microscope does the same today. One-

sided theories had to be and are to be

dealt with: humoral and solid pathology

then, systems like those of Ricker and

Speransky in our time. And the danger of

metaphysics encroaching upon medical

science which was so great in the “Roman-

tic” era should not be underrated today

either. We still live in the era of cellular

pathology and therefore are unable to

judge it historically. Its beginnings, three

generations back, are sufficiently removed,

and we can say that the cellular doctrine

has freed biology and medicine from

metaphysical chaos and thus gained last-

ing fame. Future history of science will

have to decide about the merits of anti-

cellular theories because they keep us from

a one-sided attitude and about their de-

merits because they raise anew the spectre

of metaphysics. Philosophical minds have

often dealt with analogies between world

and man, considering both as entities, and

the extremely holistic anticellular atti-

tude evokes the saying of a 16th century

humanist: “The world is one; not the

sum total of atoms that are subject to

chance, devoid of reason and incapable of

building up an orderly cosmos.” 51

Our ego feeling, the consciousness of

the human being as an indivisible unit,

may be the real basis of the biological

totality concept. But none of the theories

which accuse the cellular doctrine of neg-

lecting the organism as a whole has helped

us in grasping the genesis of our ego

consciousness.

As long as we have no method for at-

tacking the problem how the totality of the

metazoan organism is realized, it will re-

main preferable to study the parts that

make this totality, the cells, the tissues, the

organs. I am no judge of how far the

concept of the whole organism as an open

system in stream equilibrium (Bertalanffy)

has heuristic value, with the mathematical

14

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

possibilities which are claimed for it. But

it seems that the single cell with its in-

dividual metabolism also represents such

a system.

People will react in different ways to a

dictum like “every branch of science has

its roots in metaphysics.” 17 It may be

easier to accept Goethe’s formulation: “My

way of looking at things is my thinking,

and my way of thinking determines the way

I am seeing.” This shifts from metaphysics

to psychology, and it catches the pivotal

word “theory” in its original meaning of

“to see.” Even the sober Darwin once said

that there is no good observation without a

theory. The struggle between cellular doc-

trine and the totality aspect of living or-

ganisms is based to a large extent on dif-

ferences of personality. The totality aspect

is tempting esthetically ; the whole, the all

embracing, has more appeal than the de-

tails, one can feel like Faust compared

with his unimaginative famulus. The

philosophically trained Virchow knew how

to deal with such feelings. After describ-

ing how the analytical method leaves us

with the parts in our hands instead of the

whole, he continues “is not this whole de-

structive (zersetzende) natural science a

dead end street, and is it not truly high

time that we turn back to other pathways?

If only there were any: But we have no

choice.” 12, 51 The holistic aspect does not

only satisfy philosophical urges, it has in-

estimable value in practical medicine. No

good therapeutics are thinkable without

it. the total person should always be treated

not the localized disease. But psychother-

apy also must have a means of entry, which

may be represented by influencing a cere-

bral field of energy about whose function

we have not even a nebulous idea. All this

is beside the point when we look at theories

as tools of science, as means of finding out

more and more about the world around us

and in us. The whole, from the empirical

standpoint, always remains something we

add by thinking to the parts we perceive,

fein Hinzugedachtes) . Fr. Kraus,52 who

was the protagonist of constitutional medi-

cine, saw no discrepancy between it and

cellular doctrine. He believed that cells

retain a certain autonomy within the or-

ganism they form. The question thus be-

comes quantitative. Do we think more of

a federation (Staat) of rather independ-

ent cells as Virchow was inclined to do?

Or do we think of mutually dependent cells

which act together somehow through the

blood and the nervous system. This “some-

how” is the crux, the great question mark,

of biology and natural philosophy. Schwann

had recognized it clearly, twenty years

before the Lectures on Cellular Pathology

appeared. Virchow accepted the concept

of the unity of the organism in the realm of

psychology. His slogan for the practising

physician: “to console, to alleviate, to

cure” shows that the analytic cellular the-

ory need not interfere with a healthy holis-

tic attitude toward man, in medicine or

otherwise. Few will deny that the body

consists essentially of cells and their prod-

ucts since this is an observation not an

interpretation. Neither Virchow nor his

pupils have, to my knowledge, ever main-

tained that the cells lead an entitrely in-

dependent life, they only underestimated

the importance of interrelations.

The importance of the cell as the small-

est unit of life has been denied not only

by those who prefer larger units, but also

by those who in atomistic fashion look for

ever smaller ones.

The many colorful names given to imag-

inary units have disappeared from the lit-

erature, and so have Haeckel’s anuclear

protists and the “naked” nuclei. Locke, in

“ignorabimus” fashion, declared that man.

even with instruments, could never hope to

see the smallest units of biological func-

tion. R. Altmann in 1890 wrote a much dis-

cussed monograph with the title “The ele-

mentary organisms and their relationship

to the cells.” He described granules, “bio-

blasts”, as the ultimate units of living mat-

ter. The cell appeared too complex for him

for being the unit of life. I would rather

say that life is extremely complex, and a

simple unit therefore is unthinkable.

The idea even has been proposed that the

cell can disintegrate into minute particles

each of which will give rise to a new cell

in analogy to sporulation. Electron micro-

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

15

scopy has brought many details of cellular

structure to light, but not one of them so

far resembles a free living organism. Nor

do we see the postulated symbiotic con-

glomeration of virus sized living particles.

Granting that a gene and a virus may

sometimes be identical, and that viruses

are organisms in a way, the fact remains

that viruses do not lead an independent

life but need the host cell. In this respect,

the much compartmentalized cell still is the

smallest unit of complete independent life,

and there seems to be consensus about this.

When people doubt the role of the cell as a

fundamental unit because a denucleated

fragment of an amoeba retains properties

of living matter for some time, then the

conclusion does not appear cogent. The

anuclear fragment cannot divide and thus

survive, it can ingest particles but cannot

digest them, it can use glucose as a source

of food but cannot synthesize nitrogenous

compounds from glucose and urea. A de-

nucleated plant cell does not form a new

cellulose wall unless it is in contact with

a complete cell.

Similarly, a denucleated egg cell can

sometimes undergo cleavage, but develop-

ment does not go further than the blastula,

and the anuclear cells of such a blastula

do not react to induction stimuli. The addi-

tion of a nucleus to the previously denucle-

ated egg cell is followed by normal de-

velopment in many instances. We do not

know how far the evolution of life out of

ordinary molecular structures took place

slowly in minute steps or what role sud-

den, mutation like, changes have played.

No matter how this has been there must

have been precursors to the cell. But

nothing compels us to assume that any

existing forms resemble the postulated pre-

cursors. To take viruses as the precursors

of cells is as unfounded as calling the

chimpanzee the ancestor of man. We may

discover smaller entities that possess some,

but not all, characteritics of life, but we

will have to be wary about assigning to

them ancestorship to the world of cellular

life. Maybe we should declare a mora-

torium on theories about the microstruc-

ture of living matter until a larger body of

electron microscopic data and correspond-

ing microchemical data is available. But

I seriously doubt that we ever shall find a

“unit of life” at the Angstrom level.

The concept of the atom as the smallest

particle of matter existed for two millennia

before methods were devised to prove its

reality; that means: theory preceded obser-

vation. It was the converse with the cell

since cellular theory came about 150 years

after cells had been seen. Virchow, in 1855,

considered it easier to build the basic

ideas of biology upon the cellular ele-

ments than to build physics upon molecules

and atoms since “cells are within the boun-

daries of sensual perception while the units

of the physicists, the molecules and atoms,

are only conclusions from sensual percep-

tions and are philosophically so little sat-

isfactory that we can look at their assump-

tion only as a temporary termination of

research.” 13 The inner structure of cells

as well as atoms appears more and more

complex with improving methods of in-

vestigation. Both were originally consid-

ered static structures but appear now as

dynamic systems.

A historical comparison between physics

and biology as far as small units are con-

cerned may not be out of place. Howt real

is the connection between the atomic ideas

of Democritus and the modern concept of

atoms, and what about the relationship

between cellular theory and Leibniz’s

monads? Dalton’s publications on atoms,

which began in 1803, were in part re-

sponsible for the interest in small units of

living matter. But the urge to know about

the atoms of life had been strong for gen-

erations in the best minds: Leibniz,

Locke, Buffon, to mention only a few7. The

divisibility of matter, living or not, ap-

pears as a logical postulate, a thought that

arises independent of observation. Thus

when Virchow7 applied the recently proved

cellular composition of the animal body to

the often voiced idea of everything consist-

ing of small units he fulfilled a strong log-

ical desire of his generation, and similar

ideas had been voiced in the decades before

him by people who had not made original

observations. The large number of new

16

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

anatomical observations that had accumu-

lated since 1830 made a theory into which

new facts could be fitted doubly welcome.

The comparison between physics and biol-

ogy may have entered a new phase in our

days with the concept of feedback. How far

do we think of the computer as a whole, a

totality, and how far do we think of the

single tubes or transistors. One might call

that a “seeming problem” (Scheinproblem)

not a true problem but could one not say

the same of the totality aspect and the cel-

lular aspect in biology?

The cells serve two masters, one rules

from inside the cell by Virchowian law, the

other resides in the organism of which the

cells are a part, but where and how he rules

is unknown. In the fertilized egg, the cell

and the organism are the same. When Spe-

mann, using a fine hair, carefully sepa-

rated the two blastomeres which had re-

sulted from the first division of an am-

phibian egg, each cell developed into a

complete larva, in spite of the fact that it

was not under the influence of the total or-

ganism. When Roux, the founder of ex-

perimental embryology, had attempted in

1888, the same experiment by destroying

the one cell with a hot needle, the result

had been different: only half an embryo

was formed. The remaining cell was pre-

vented from following its inherent power

of forming a complete larva by the rem-

nants of the destroyed cell which so to say

reminded it of its dependent status in re-

lation to the total organism. Removal of

certain cells from a young embryo general-

ly leads to malformation of the larva be-

cause the total organism has been dis-

turbed. But careful removal (Ubisch) has,

in certain animals, resulted in defects of

only that part of the body that cor-

responded to the removed cell.54 That

means: the totality influence was nil, only

the removed cell counted. This ambival-

ence is demonstrated in grotesque fashion

by the chimaera experiment. A fragment

of a young frog embryo is taken from the

area that is destined to become central

nervous system, and is transplanted into

that part of a salamander embryo that

will form the mouth. The fragment will de-

velop into a mouth, in spite of the fact

that it was meant to become nervous tis-

sue; thus it obeys the law of the total or-

ganism to which it now belongs. But this

mouth will be a frog’s mouth in a sala-

mander body because the transplanted

cells also obey their inherent nature.

Thus, there is no yes-or-no-answer to

the question of independence or depend-

ence of the cell. Simple answers hardly

ever do justice to the complexity of life

processes.55 Even the staunch enemy of

cellular doctrine, M. Heidenhain,56 con-

sidered the antithesis between cellular

dominance and organismic dominance as

erroneous since “all and everything in the

living body is based on interrelation be-

tween the whole and the part.” But who,

may I ask, no matter how philosophy

minded he may be, can refrain from

searching for the source and seat of this

mysterious force which the whole exerts

over the parts? We come back to the above

quoted word of the 80 year old Goethe:

“Thus one is driven from the whole to the

detail and from the detail to the whole

whether one wants to or not.” We can ex-

pect the cell to remain, for some time to

come, if not our unit of life so certainly

our main unit of investigation, and the cel-

lular doctrine will remain a most valuable

guide in the progress of biology and that

part of it which we call medical science.

REFERENCES

1 de Voltaire, J. F. A., “La Pucelle”, chant 21.

3 Gross, S. D., 1845, Elements of Pathological

Anatomy, 2 ed., Barrington and Haswell, Phila-

delphia.

3 Schultze, M., 1861, Arch. f. Anat. u. Physiol,

u. wissenschaftl. Med. 9, 24.

4 Rich, A. R., 1926, Johns Hopkins Hosp. Bull.

39, 330.

5 Remak, R., 1951, quoted by G. R. Cameron,

The Pathology of the Cell, C. C. Thomas, Spring-

field, 111. p. 24.

3 Cornil, V., 1901, Berk Klin. Wchnschr., Oct.

14, 1936.

7 Virchow, R., 1860, Cellular Pathology as

Based upon Physiological and Pathological His-

tology. Twenty lectures delivered at the Patho-

logical Institute of Berlin during the months of

February, March and April 1858, R. M. DeWitt.

New York.

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

17

8 tie Beer, Sir Gavin, 1958, in C. Darwin and

A. R. Wallace, Evolution by Natural Selection,

Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 1-22.

* Berthold, A., 1849, Arch. f. Anat. u. Physiol,

u. wissenschaftl. Med.

10 Klein-Hattingen, 0., 1871, Geschichte des

Liberalismus in Deutschland, Berlin-Schoeneberg,

Buchverlag der Hilfe, 1, 377.

11 Ricker, G., 1924, Pathologie als Naturwis-

senschaft, Berlin.

18 Goethe, quoted by R. Virchow, 1862, “Atome

und Individuen” in Vier Reden ueber Leben und

Kranksein, Georg Reimer, Berlin, p. 58.

13 Virchow, R., 1855, Arch. path. Anat., 8, 33.

14 Speransky, A. D., 1935, A basis for the

Theory of Medicine, transl. and ed. by C. P.

Dutt in collab. with A. A. Sobkov, Internat.

Publ., New York.

15 Randerath, E., 1956, Deutsches med. J. 7, 49.

16 Lange, F., W. Ehrich and A. E. Cohn, 1930,

J. Exp. Med. 52, 65.

17 Mayer, C. F., 1952, Bull. Hist. Med., 25, 71.

18 Pavlov, J. P., 1953-54, Saemtliche Werke,

Akademie Verlag, Berlin.

19 Long, E. R., 1928, A History of Pathology,

William and Wilkins, Baltimore.

29 Kuester, E., 1938, “Die Entwicklung der

Lehre von der Pflanzenzelle” in Hundert Jahre

Zellforschung, vol. 17, of Protoplasma-Mono-

graphien Deuticke, Berlin.

21 Oertel, H., 1921, General Pathology, P. B.

Hoeber, New York.

22 Goethe, in letter to Sulpiz Boisseree, Feb. 25,

1832, Ausgabe letzter Hand, 1833, 55, 96, Cotta

Verlag, Stuttgart u. Tuebingen.

23 Doerr, W., 1958, Deutsche Med. Wchnschr.

83, 370.

24 Beattie, J. M., and W. C. Dickson, 1948, A

Textbook of Pathology, Gruene and Stratton,

New York.

25 Adami, G. J., 1910, The Principles of Pa-

thology, 2 ed., Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia,

vol. 1, p. 40.

20 Hueck, W. 1920, Beitr. z. Pathol. Anat., 66,

330.

27 Stoehr, P., Jr., 1951, Lehrbuch der Histologie

und der mikroskopischen Anatomie des Menschen,

Springer Verlag, Berlin.

28 Mnzia, D., 1957, “The Life History of the

Cell”, in Science in Progress, ser. 10, G. E.

Baitsell, Ed. (Yale Univ. Press, New Haven,

Conn.) .

29 Verworn, M., 1895, Allgemeine Physiologie,

Ein Grundriss der Lehre vom Leben, Fischer-

Jena.

30 Casperson, T. 0., 1950, Cell Growth and Cell

Function. A Cytochemical Study, Norton and Co.,

New York.

31 Puck, T. T., 1957, The Mammalian Cell as

an Independent Organism. Spec. Publ. of the

New York Acad. Sc. 5, 291.

38 Studnicka, F. K., 1929, Die Organisation der

lebendigen Masse, in Handbuch der mikroskopi-

schen Anatomie des Menschen, W. v. Moellendorf

Ed. (Springer Verlag, Berlin) 1/1/1, 421.

33 Bauer, 1952, quoted by J. Baker, The Cell

Theory: A Restatement, History and Critique,

Part 3, “The Cell as a Morphological Unit,”

Quart. J. Microsc. Sc. 93, 157.

34 Virchow, R., 1862, Die Cellularpathologie in

ihrer Begruendung auf physiologische und patho-

logische Gewebelehre, 3 Aufl, August Hirschwald,

Berlin.

35Zeiger, K., 1955, Zur Geseschichte der Zell-

forschung und ihrer Begriffe, in Handbuch der

allgem. Pathologie, Buechner, Letterer, Roulet

ed., Springer Verlag, Berlin, Goettingen, Heidel-

berg, 2 part 1.

30 Bargmann, W., 1958, Deutsche Med.

Wchnschr., 83, 361.

37 Gross, J., 1958, Bull. New York Acad. Med..

43, 701.

38 Szirmai, J. A., and E. A. Balazs, 1958, Arch.

Opthalm. 59, 34.

39 Olssen, R., 1957, Z. Zellforschung 46, 12.

40Wightmann, W. P. D., 1951, The Growth of

Scientific Ideas, Yale Univ. Press, New Haven,

Conn. p. 388, 390.

41 Fischer, A., 1946, Biology of Tissue Cells,

Cambridge Univ. Press, p. 53, 58.

42 Pumper, R. W., 1958, Science, 128, 363.

43 Virchow, R., 1847, Arch, pathol. Anat. 1, 19.

44 Fleming, W., 1882, Zellsubstanz, Kern und

Zellteilung, Vogel Verlag, Leipzig.

45 Netter, H., 1958, Deutsche Med. Wchnschr.

83, 364.

46 Wald, G., 1958, Science, 128, 1481.

47 Bertalanffy, L. V., 1950, Science, 111, 23.

48 Lartschneider, J., 1940, Hippokrates oder

Virchow, Franz Deuticke, Vienna.

49 Krupinsky, J.. 1950, Polski Tygodnik Lekar-

ski, 5, 1137. '

50 Zhinkin, L. N., and V. P. Mikhailov, 1958,

Science, 128, 182.

51 Reuchlin, J., quoted by W. Ppgel, 1958,

Paracelsus, S. Karger Verlag, Basel and New

York, p. 292.

52 Kraus, F., 1919, Die allgemeine und spezielle

Pathologie der Person, Allgemeiner Teil, Leipzig,

Georg Thieme Verlag, p. 51.

53 Altmann, R., 1890, Die Elementarorganismen

und ihre Beziehungen zu den Zellen, Veit und

Co., Leipzig.

54 von Ubisch, 1957, quoted by W. Bargmann,

Vom Bau und Werden der Organismen, Rowohlt

Verlag, Hamburg, p. 46.

55 Plaut, A., 1924, Beitr. z. Path. Anat. u. Allg.

Path., 72, 654.

56 Heidenhain, M., 1937, Synthetische Mor-

phologie der Niere des Menschen, E. J. Brill

Publ., Leiden.

57 Moscona, A. A., 1959, Scientific Amer. 200,

132.

For further references see:

G. R. Cameron, 1951. Pathology of the Cell,

C. G. Thomas, Springfield, 111.

18

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

The Insecticide Society of Washington

C. M. Smith

In January 1959 there was affiliated with

the Washington Academy of Sciences an

organization known as the Insecticide So-

ciety of Washington. It is believed that

members of the Academy will be interested

in an account of the founding and nature

of this organization, and this seems an

appropriate time to so acquaint them be-

cause the Society was started by Dr. F. L.

Campbell, the 1959 President of the Acad-

emy, and October of that year marked the

25th anniversary of its founding.

The U. S. Department of Agriculture has

long been interested in avoiding or con-

trolling the damage caused by insects at-

tacking crops, farm animals, and even man

himself. As the interest in controlling

these pests grew it was natural that chemi-

cal compounds were tried and recommend-

ed for the purpose. The manufacture

and sale of such chemical insecticides as-

sumed such dimensions that there arose a

need for some form of control over their

purity and for keeping a check-rein upon

the validity of the claims made for their

efficacy. In 1910 the U. S. Congress passed

the so-called Insecticide Act. The Insecti-

cide and Fungicide Board, composed of

representatives from the U. S. Bureaus of

Entomology, Plant Industry, Animal Indus-

try, and Chemistry, was appointed to ad-

minister the act. There also was estab-

lished in the Bureau of Chemistry an In-

secticide Division for the analysis of chem-

ical insecticides. Naturally, need arose

for a considerable amount of research

work to develop the knowledge necessary

properly to enforce the act. The regula-

tory and research activities were finally

separated, with each group building up

laboratories staffed by scientists of vari-

ous kinds.

In October 1934, Dr. F. L. Campbell,

an entomologist in the Division of Control

Investigations of the Bureau of Entom-

ology, recognized the need for closer per-

sonal association of the scientists in the

Washington area who were working in the

field of insecticides, particularly to pro-

vide for informal exchange of ideas and

discussion of technical and scientific prob-

lems. In a letter dated October 4, he re-

ported to the Chief of his Division the

results of a meeting held at his house the

previous evening. This meeting was at-

tended by all members of his own labora-

tory and by Dr. R. C. Roark and Mr.

C. M. Smith of the Insecticide Division,

Mr. W. S. Abbott of the Insecticide Testing

Laboratory at Beltsville, and Dr. C. A.

Weigel from the Truck Crop and Garden

Insects Division. This group decided to

hold an organizing meeting on October

17 and this action was then called to the

attention of all those men in the nearby

laboratories of the Department of Agricul-

ture and the University of Maryland at

College Park, who conceivably might be

interested. This meeting was held as

planned in Dr. Campbell’s laboratory at

7710 Blair Road. Takoma Park.

The response was very gratifying, 55

persons attended. A temporary committee

composed of Mr. W. S. Abbott, Chairman,

and Drs. L. A. Hawkins, R. C. Roark, E.

H. Siegler, and C. A. Weigel, was ap-

pointed to suggest an outline for the na-

ture of the organization and the rules and

regulations to govern the conduct of future

meetings. This committee met in the

Takoma Park laboratory on October 24,

1934 and drafted such a set of recommen-

dations. They then set the date for the

next meeting November 14, at which time

temporary chairman, Mr. W. S. Abbott

brought the recommendations before the

membership and the following rules were

adopted in lieu of a formal constitution

and by laws:

I. The name of the organization shall be

“The Insecticide Society of Washing-

ton”.

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

19

2. The membership shall be limited to

federal and state men who are inter-

ested in insecticides.

3. A nominating committee shall be ap-

pointed to suggest candidates for the

following offices: Chairman, Vice-Chair-

man, Secretary, Treasurer, and a “Steer-

ing Committee” to be composed of the

first two officers and three other mem-

bers.

4. The Steering Committee shall be au-

thorized to perform all the functions

that are usually assigned to several

committees in larger organizations; i.e.,

executive, program, membership, ar-

rangements for meetings, and refresh-

ment. This committee shall endeavor to

secure speakers best qualified to talk

on the topic chosen. Non-members, in-

cluding employees of commercial firms

may be invited to speak.

5. Meetings shall be held preferably on the

third Wednesday of each month from

September to June, inclusive.

6. Dues shall be SI. 00 per year per mem-

ber.

The nominating committee suggested in-

dividuals for the four offices and the mem-

bers confirmed Dr. F. L. Campbell as

Chairman, Mr. C. M. Smith as Vice-Chair-

man, Mr. J. W. Bulger as Secretary, and

Mr. S. C. Billings as Treasurer. Drs. E.

L. Griffin, C. A. Weigel, and E. H. Siegler

were chosen to be the steering committee.

Following a lapsus linguae by the secre-

tary, this committee came to be called for

quite some time, the “steerage committee”.

Some of these regulations were changed

as time passed. The two offices of secre-

tary and treasurer were merged into one

and the election date changed to May, the

officers then serving from July to June.

At the suggestion of the Entomological So-

ciety of Washington, the Insecticide Society

soon devoted the June meeting to partici-

pating in the annual picnic of that other

affiliate of the Washington Academy. The

most significant change, however, was to

broaden the membership to include inter-

ested scientists and technical people from

industry.

Since the membership of the Insecticide

Society consisted mainly of entomologists

and chemists, it immediately became the

practice to elect a Chairman from among

the former one year, and from the latter

the next year. In most cases this conven-

tion has been followed to the present day.

The Society has used a number of meet-

ing places over the years, as necessity and

expediency demanded. The first ten meet-

ings were held at Dr. Campbell’s labora-

tory in Takoma Park. Meetings numbered

11 to 52, inclusive, were held at the nearby

Jesup-Blair House on Georgia Avenue,

just outside the District of Columbia.

With the coming of World War II, this

building was taken over by the county

draft board and the next three meetings

had to be held in other county buildings

in Silver Spring. One of these was in a

room over the police station and the other

two over the liquor dispensary. The

record does not make clear whether the

latter two were better attended or more

lively than those held elsewhere! Meetings

numbered 56 to 62 were held at the

Bethesda Recreation Center Building at

4700 Norwood Place, Bethesda. Finally,

Dr. E. N. Cory, then Professor of En-

tomology at the University of Maryland

in College Park, and State Entomologist

of Maryland, kindly made arrangements for

the Society to meet in his quarters in

Morrill Hall at the University. This proved

to be quite satisfactory and the Society

met here until October 1954. That year

the Entomology Department moved to new

quarters in Symons Hall and the Society

went along, meeting in lecture rooms and

later in the auditorium.

One unique feature of the Society that

deserves comment is that the dues of one

dollar per year, established in 1934, have

never been increased. Where else will a

dollar buy as much today as 25 years ago?

In the course of 25 years over 300 papers

have been presented at the meetings. The

first two were given by Mr. J. S. Yip, a

specialist in the cultivation of the insecti-

cidal plant, pyrethruin, and Dr. F. B.

Laforge, a chemist long identified as an au-

thority on the chemistry of the insectici-

20

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

dally active constituents of this plant. It

seems quite appropriate that the Society

began its existence by consideration of

this, one of the most important and inter-

esting of plant insecticide materials.

Through the years the topics discussed

have ranged over the entire broad field of

pesticides and their use. There also have

been excellent papers on such diverse sub-

jects as plant growth regulators, photo-

periodism in plants and insects, insect

physiology and even scientific travelogues.

The list of speakers includes bureau and

division chiefs from various civil agencies,

professors, representatives of the Armed

Services, prominent authorities from in-

dustry and members of Congress. We also

have had prominent guests from other

countries from time to time. Among the

early speakers were Mr. R. H. LePelley, a

government entomologist from Kenya Col-

ony, British East Africa, and Dr. F. Tat-

tersfield, Head of the Department of In-

secticides and Fungicides at the Rotham-

stead Experiment Station in England. The

Society honored the latter at a dinner meet-

ing at the Cosmos Club on May 31, 1935.

Now for a few words concerning the

attendance at the meetings of the Society

through the years. Naturally the number

soon dropped below the 55 who attended

the organizational meeting, but an average

of 45 was maintained through the eight

meetings of the first year. In April 1939,

Dr. L. P. Ditman, then Secretary-Treasurer,

presented a report on the attendance fig-

ures. He stated “Many individuals seemed

rather surprised that the Society has existed

for so long a period. Many are still rather

uncertain as to the future of the Society”

and concluded his memorandum with his

own comment, “As far as the future of

the Society is concerned, the Secretary feels

that it will exist as long as a minimum of

20 good souls will continue to brave such

nights as were experienced during January,

February, and March of 1939”. His faith

in the Society was well founded, for al-

though the attendance figure once dropped

to 13, the Society has now lasted an ad-

ditional 20 years. It also speaks well for

the insight of Dr. Campbell and the other

founders of the Society, that the purpose of

the organization is still the same — a place

where these “20 or more good souls” can

meet in an informal atmosphere to en-

hance their knowledge of insecticides and

like matters; to listen, to discuss, even

to argue at times; and, not the least, to

enjoy the company of our colleagues. It

also is gratifying that the Society has the

stature to be honored as an affiliate of the

Washington Academy of Sciences.

REPRINT PRICES

for the journal

To take advantage of the following prices, orders must be placed by authors when

they return galley proof.

100 reprints $1.60 per pg.

200 $2.65

300 $2.95

400 $3.40

500 $3.75

600 $4.20

700 $4.65

800 $5.05

900 $5.50

1000 $5.95

Four page covers, printed on one side of one page only, may also be ordered at

the same time.

100 covers $13.00

Additional 100’s $ 2.50

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

21

Science in Washington

SCIENTISTS IN THE NEWS

This column will present brief items

concerning the activities of members of

the Academy. Such items may include

notices of talks given, important confer-

ences or visits, promotions, awards, elec-

tion to membership or office in scientific

and technical societies, appointment to

technical committees, civic activities, and

marriages, births, and other family news.

Formal contributors are being assigned for

the systematic collection of news at in-

stitutions employing considerable numbers

of Academy members (see list on mast-

head). However, for the bulk of the

membership, we must rely on individuals

to send us news concerning themselves and

their friends. Contributions may be ad-

dressed to S. B. Detwiler, Jr., Associate

Editor. 2605 S. 8th St., Arlington, Va.

Applied Physics Laboratory

Alfred J. Zmuda has been appointed

a consultant to the Geophysics Panel of the

Air Force Scientific Advisory Board.

Coast & Geodetic Survey

Dean S. Carder was appointed chief

seismologist of C&GS in October, 1959.

During December he was elected a member

of the Scientific Council of the Geological

Society of Washington; also, he partici-

pated as observer and analyst in Phase l

of the Louisiana “Cowboy Shots.” Dr.

Carder is serving as president of Rapidan

Camps. Inc., a cooperative camping group

in the Blue Ridge.

Charles A. W hitten, chief of the Tri-

angulation Branch, presented a paper on

the computation and adjustment of geo-

detic networks as part of an international

symposium held at Cracow, Poland, Sep-

tember 9-13, 1959. The presentation was

made by invitation of the Polish Academy

of Sciences.

Aaron L. Shalowitz has been elected

a fellow of the American Geographical

Society. Dr. Schalowitz represented

C&GS at the recent Third Annual Meeting

of the Florida Shore and Beach Preser-

vation Association.

David G. Knapp recently visited Peru,

Chile, Argentina, Brazil, and Puerto Rico,

to confer with geophysical scientists; he

was accompanied by Mrs. Knapp. Dr.

Knapp participated in the Symposio Ant-

artico de Buenos Aires, held November

17-25 under the sponsorship of the Insti-

tuto Antartico Argentino.

Thomas J. Hickley was recently

made chief of the Instrument Davision.

Geological Survey

At the annual meeting of the Mineralogi-

cal Society of America in early November,

George Switzer was elected secretary, and

Marjorie Hooker the treasurer of the

organization. George T. Faust was ap-

pointed to the Nomenclature Committee for

1960-62, while Edwin W. Roedder was

appointed to the Board of Associate Editors

for 1960-62, and to the Awards Committee.

At the annual meeting of the Geochemi-

cal Society last November, George T.

Faust was re-elected treasurer and reap-

pointed to the Advisory Board on the

International Critical Tables.

Francis R. Fosberg attended AAAS

Council meeting in Chicago, December 26-

30. While in Chicago he presented a

paper, “Problems of Tropical Herbaria,”

before the Society of Plant Taxonomists

on December 28. On December 10, Dr.

Fosberg sat with the NAS Committee on

Science in UNESCO, as U. S. member on

the Advisory Committee on Science Re-

search in the Humid Tropics.

While on a vacation trip in November

and December. Margaret D. Foster

visited points of interest in Morocco, Spain,

Majorca, Sicily, Italy, and southern France.

National Bureau of Standards

On January 4. Director Allen V. Astin

resumed his duties on a part-time basis fol-

lowing recuperation from a heart attack.

22

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

Three NBS staff members presented

invited papers at a symposium on weights

and measures at the Chicago AAAS meet-

ings, December 28-29. Lewis V. Jutlson

spoke on “Our Units of Weights and Meas-

ures”; Irvine C. Gardner discussed

“Adoption of a New System of Weights

and Measures”; and Wiliner Souder

presented “Metric Usage — Report of Spe-

cial AAAS Committee.” At the same meet-

ing, George C. Paffenbarger spoke on

“Dental Materials from 1939 to 1959.” Dr.

Paffenbarger is a research associate of the

American Dental Association, stationed at

NBS.

Two staff members have been appointed

to editoral boards of the American Chemi-

cal Society for the three-year term 1960-63.

Roger G. Bates, assistant chief of the

Chemistry Division, was appointed to the

Advisory Board of Chemical and Engi-

neering News, and Bourdon F. Scribner,

chief of the Spectrochemistry Section, will

serve on the Advisory Board of Analyti-

cal Chemistry.

Kurt E. Shuler spoke on “Energy

Transfer and Relaxation Processes in Gas

Phase Collisions” at the Harvard MIT

Physical Chemistry Colloqium held at

Cambridge on January 7.

Walter J. Hamer, chief of the Electro-

chemistry Section, on December 15 was

elected vice president of the Electrochem-

ical Society for the three-year term 1960-

63. He will assume office on May 1, at

the Society’s national meeting in Chicago.

On completion of his term as vice presi-

dent. Dr. Hamer will become president of

the Society for the 1963-64 term.

On January 5, William J. Youden

presented a paper on “Experiments In-

volving Several Variables” at the Air Re-

duction Corporation, Murray Hill, N. J.,

and a paper on “Statistical Ideas Useful in

Experimentation” at a meeting of the So-

ciety for Applied Spectroscopy in New

York City.

William F. Meggers, former chief of

the Spectroscopy Section and now retired,

left Washington January 15 on a trip

around the world, accompanied by Mrs.

Meggers. The couple plans to visit Near-

and Far-Eastern countries during a 60-day

tour.

Alan D. Franklin was appointed act-

ing chief of the Mineral Products Division

in November; he replaces Irl C. Schoon-

over, who will devote full time to his

duties as associate director for planning.

Dr. Franklin, who received the Ph.D. de-

gree from Princeton in 1950, served as

chief of the Franklin Institute’s Magnetics

Section from 1945 to 1955, when he came

to NBS. Since joining the Mineral Prod-

ucts Division he has conducted research

on the fundamental properties of ferroelec-

tric materials.

Karl G. Kessler was appointed chief

of the Spectroscopy Section last August.

In this capacity Dr. Kessler will direct

work in interferometry, analysis of spectra,

and the study of hyperfine structure and

isotope shift in spectra; additionally, he

will continue to head the Bureau project to

develop a new wavelength standard of

length, using atomic beams as a light

source.

National Institutes of Health

Erich Mosettig of the Laboratory of

Chemistry, National Institute of Arthritis

and Metabolic Diseases, returned to

Bethesda December 23 after an unusual

international lecture tour of extensive prop-

portions. The trip, sponsored jointly by

NIAMD and the Cancer Chemotherapy

National Service Center, involved over

25 formal lectures and informal talks be-

fore scientific groups in Honolulu. Japan.

Hong Kong, Thailand, India, Pakistan.

Lebanon, Turkey, and Austria. These lec-

tures covered various aspects of the NIH

research program, including the biochem-

istry of steroidal compounds, modern anal-

gesics, endogenous carcinogenesis, and

cancer chemotherapy.

State Department

Wallace R. Brode, science adviser to

the Secretary of State, has won the Amer-

ican Chemical Society’s 1960 Priestley

Medal, according to recent announcement

by retiring ACS President John C. Bailar.

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

23

Jr. The gold medal — highest honor in

American chemistry — was awarded to

Dr. Erode for ‘‘distinguished services to

chemistry”; it will be presented at the

137th national meeting of ACS in Cleve-

land next April. Immediate past president

of AAAS, Dr. Brode is on leave from the

National Bureau of Standards, where he

has been associate director for the past

12 years; he was for 20 years professor

of chemistry at Ohio State University.

Deaths

Rees F. Tener, assistant chief of the

Testing and Specifications Section, Na-

tional Bureau of Standards, died suddenly

on December 25. A native of Sinking

Springs, Ohio, Mr. Tener received the

M.S. degree from GWU in 1926. After

Army service during World War I and

science teaching experience, he joined the

NBS staff in 1924, serving in the Rubber

Section until 1930 and thereafter in the

Testing and Specifications Section. Mr.

Tener, a recipient of the Commerce De-

partment’s Meritorious Service Award, was

an authority in various fields of rubber

chemistry and on the development of speci-

fications and test methods for organic and

fibrous products. He was particularly ac-

tive in committee work for ASTM and

the American Standards Association.

Walter J. Murphy, editorial director

of the American Chemical Society’s applied

journals, died of cancer on November 26.

Dr. Murphy’s death came at the height

of a notable career devoted to bettering

the chemical profession and industry. Un-

der his leadership over a 17-year period,

the ACS applied publications became the

largest scientific publication program in

the world, with a total circulation of over

165,000. He was also director of the

Society’s News Service, the public rela-

tions organization serving the chemical

profession.

Following a successful start in the chem-

ical process industries, Dr. Murphy en-

tered the technical publication field in

1930, when he was named managing edi-

tor, and later editor and general manager,

of Chemical Industries. Subsequently he

was named editor of Chemical and Engi-

neering News and Industrial and Engineer-

ing Chemistry. In 1953 he initiated the

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chem-

istry, and in 1959 the Journal of Chemical

and Engineering Data. In 1947 he had re-

ceived the honorary D.Sc. degree from

Centre College of Kentucky.

AFFILIATED SOCIETIES

As time goes on, we hope to establish in

this section of the Journal periodic reports

of the activities of the some twenty-six

scientific bodies affiliated with the Wash-

ington Academy of Sciences, reports which

will be of interest and service to members

of the Academy. Experience will indicate,

as we go along, just what sorts of material

are both obtainable and worthwhile, but at

this stage we have in mind such items as:

meeting places, dates, and topics, special

projects, summaries of society proceedings,

educational and promotional programs,

public relations efforts, and so on. Machin-

ery is gradually being set up whereby one

individual in each affiliate will keep us in-

formed of what goes on in his particular

organization. In addition, we will include,

as data become available to us, names of

incumbent president and secretary of each

society listed, with indications of changes

as they occur.

We solicit information from individual

members of the Academy as a most wel-

come supplement to the established chan-

nels.— Russell B. Stevens, Associate Edi-

tor, George Washington University.

American Meteorological Society,

District of Columbia Branch

Oct. 21. panel discussion on the “Use of

Artificial Satellites in Meteorology,” with

Sigmund Fritz, David Wark, Charles Bris-

tor, Jay Winston, Lester Hubert, and David

Johnson, all of the U. S. Weather Bureau,

participating.

Nov. 18, address by A. H. Mikesell, U. S.

Naval Observatory, on “Finding the Jet

Stream by Star Twinkling.”

24

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

Dec. 16, panel discussion on “Oceano-

graphic Forecasting,” with John Schule,

Richard James, Howard French, and Wal-

ter Wittman, all of U. S. Navy Hydro-

graphic Office as participants.

Jan. 20, meeting in Lecture Room, NAS-

NRC, 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W., 8:00

P.M., with a talk by Albert P. Crary, Geo-

physical Research Directorate, on “Antarc-

tic Meteorology.”

Feb. 10, meeting scheduled as above, to

hear Joseph Smagorinsky, U. S. Weather

Bureau, discuss “Digital Simulation of the

General Circulation.”

American Society for Metals,

Washington Chapter

President: William L. Holshouser

(NBS). Secretary : Glenn W. Geil (NBS)

Nov. 16, meeting and address by Robert

F. Thompson, General Motors Corporation,

on “Automotive Gas Turbines.”

Dec. 21, joint meeting with AWS and lec-

ture by Alexander Lesnewich, Air Reduc-

tion Company, on “Electron Beam Weld-

ing.”

Jan. 18, Meeting and talk by Morris

Tanenbaum, Bell Telephone Laboratories,

on “Metallurgy in Electronics.”

Feb. 8, Burgess Memorial Lecture, Ar-

lington Towers, by R. H. Aborn, U. S. Steel

Corporation.

March 21, John E. Hilliard, General

Electric Company, “Pressure - Induced

Transformation in Metals.”

April 18, Walter L. Finlay, Crucible

Steel Company, “Titanium and Competi-

tive Stainless Steels.”

May 16, National Officers Night, fea-

turing address by the National President,

Walter Crafts, on “Facing the Productivity

Challenge: Men and Metals of the Next

Decade.”

The Washington Chapter, ASM, spon-

sored a series of six Thursday Night Talks

on Metallurgy, Oct. 29-Dec. 10, for high

school students, metal workers, and others.

A second series, sponsored by the NBS

and local technical societies, is scheduled

for the Department of Commerce audito-

rium at 7:30 P.M., on Tuesday evenings,

Jan. 12, 19, 26 and Feb. 2, 9, on the gen-

eral topic: “Materials Development in the

Space and Atomic Age.” All interested per-

sons are invited.

Anthropological Society

of Washington

Three meetings were held in the fall of

1959, as follows: (1) Oct. 27, Carlson

Gadjusek, National Institutes of Health,

an illustrated lecture on “Child Growth

and Development Patterns in New Guinea”;

(2) Nov. 16, Eugene I. Knez, The Smith-

sonian Institution, a “Korean Dance Festi-

val,” featuring dances in costume by five

Korean women and children; and (3) Dec.

11, Louis J. Luzbetak, two color films on

tribal life in the interior of New Guinea.

Botanical Society of Washington

President: Harold T. Cook (USDA). Cor-

responding Secretary: Muriel J. O’Brien

(USDA)

Dec. 1, presidential address by H. C.

Hanson, Catholic University, on the flora

of Alaska.

Jan. 6, regular meeting and presenta-

tion by H. C. Murphy, Department of

Agriculture on “Oat Diseases are Shifty

Enemies.”

Feb. 2, next regular meeting, Powell

Auditorium, 2170 Florida Ave., N.W., at

8:00 P.M.

Chemical Society of Washington

President: Allen L. Alexander (NRL).

Secretary: John L. Torgesen (NBS).

Dec. 10, general meeting of the society,

featuring an address by Wallace R. Brode,

Department of State, on “Formulation of

a Science Program.” A Board of Managers

meeting, on the same date, under the chair-

manship of President W. W. Walton, heard

reports as follows: (1) Committee on Edu-

cation— CSW is cooperating with the ACS

Division of Chemical Education in can-

vassing local high schools for requests for

the Visiting Lecturer Program; (2) Com-

mittee on Programs — arrangements are

being completed for a joint meeting with

the Maryland Section of the ACS, prob-

ably Friday. May 6. at the University of

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

25

Maryland; (3) from R. F. Gould of ACS

Headquarters concerning the chemistry

merit badge of the Boy Scouts of America

— which problem will be studied by the

Committee on Education.

Geological Society of Washington

President: Harry S. Ladd (USGS). Cor-

responding Secretary: j. Thomas Dutro

(USGS).

Dec. 9, address by retiring President

Joseph W. Greig, Carnegie Institution,

on “Development of Phase Equilibrium

Studies in the Interest of Petrology.”

Jan. 13, council meeting.

Helminthological Society

of Washington

President: George W. Luttermoser (NIH).

Corresponding Secretary: Edna M. Buhrer

(USDA) .

Dec. 1, joint meeting with the Washing-

ton Tropical Medicine Association and the

Howard University Chapter of Sigma Xi,

at Howard University, at which Sir Phillip

Manson-Bahr. London School of Tropical

Medicine, spoke on “Wild Game and Man

in Central Africa,” illustrating with slides

the life-cycles of some common parasites of

man and animals.

Jan. 20, meeting at 8:00 P.M., McMahon

Hall. Catholic University, with two sched-

uled addresses: (1) Benjamin Schwartz,

“'Discovery of Trichinae and Determina-

tion of their Life History and Pathoge-

nicity”; and (2) Major R. I. Anderson,

“Serological Diagnosis of Schistosoma

mansoni Infection.”

Feb. 17, meeting at University of Mary-

land.

Mar. 16, meeting at National Institutes

of Health.

Oct. 8, Fiftieth Anniversary meeting

of the Society, with morning and afternoon

scientific programs and an evening banquet.

Society for Experimental Biology and

Medicine, District of Columbia Section

President: George A. Hottle (NIH). Secre-

tary: Edwin P. Laug (FDA).

Dec. 3, four papers as follows: (1) H.

Wishinsky, E. Poole, and S. P. Erkel,

Sinai Hospital, Baltimore, “Gamma Glo-

bulin Separation Using ‘RivanoF ”; (2)

Jiro Oyama and R. Lorimer Grant, FDA,

“Serum Insulin-like Activity as Measured

by the Mouse Diaphragm Method”; (3)

Elsworth R. Buskirk, NIH, “Study of Hu-

man Energy Metabolism as Influenced by

Food and by Cold”; and (4) Emilio

Weiss and Harry R. Dressier, NMRI, “Cen-

trifugation of Rickettsiae and Viruses onto

Entodermal Cells and its Effect on their

Absorption.”

Feb. 4, 8:00 P.M., program of scientific

papers in Hall A, The George Washington

University School of Medicine, 1335 H

Street, N.W.

April 7, meeting at same location.

June 2, Annual Dinner Meeting, time

and place to be announced later.

ACADEMY ACTIVITIES

Board of Managers. January Meeting

These notes are intended to outline

briefly , for the information of the mem-

bership., the principal actions taken at

Board meetings. They are not the official

Minutes as prepared by the Secretary. —

Ed.

The Board of Managers held its 523rd

meeting on December 15 at NAS, with

President Campbell presiding.

The Secretary (Dr. Specht) distributed

draft Minutes of the 521st and 522nd

meetings of the Board. Approval was de-

ferred until the next meeting.

Dr. Campbell reported that in recent

balloting on the proposal to increase

Academy dues from $6 to $10 annually,

only 61 percent of the voting members had

favored the change. Since a two-thirds

majority was required for adoption, the

proposal had failed.

Dr. Campbell reported on the Executive

Committee meeting held just prior to the

Board meeting, and on a meeting held

December 14 between Academy officers

and a number of members from the Smith-

sonian Institution. At the latter meeting,

26

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

the Smithsonian members had expressed

concern over recent Board actions di-

rected toward changes in the Journal —

that is, from a publication containing

chiefly scientific material of a descriptive

character, as in the past, to a publication

containing original cross-disciplinary ar-

ticles as well as news of the Academy and

local scientific activities. The Smithsonian

members had felt that they should have

been given an opportunity to vote on the

proposed changes.

The Board agreed that it had acted

within its authorization in approving a

curtailment of the Journal — and indeed,

that such curtailment was imperative in

view of the failure of the dues increase

proposal. However, it was decided that the

Secretary should conduct a referendum to

determine the preferences of the member-

ship as to the content of the magazine.

Dr. Goldberg reported on two informa-

tional resolutions passed at a recent meet-

ing of the Philosophical Society. The

Society felt that the Academy should re-

duce its capital before increasing dues.

Secondly, the Society indicated its expec-

tation to publish its papers in national

journals, its Minutes in the Journal of

the Academy.

Chairman Biberstein of the Committee

on Awards presented the Committee’s

recommendations on award recipients at

the next annual meeting of the Academy,

in the categories of physical sciences,

mathematics, engineering sciences, bio-

logical sciences, and teaching of science.

His report was accepted with the Board’s

commendation for its thoroughness.

Chairman Schubert of the Committee

on Encouragement of Science Talent re-

ported on current activities of the Wash-

ington Junior Academy of Sciences. He

mentioned that the Junior Academy had

scheduled a meeting on December 28 for

the presentation of scientific papers, and

that at least a third of the membership

was expected to be present.

Dr. Schubert introduced David Chen,

president of the Junior Academy. Mr.

Chen presented a proposed change in

Article IX of the WJAS constitution, which

would change the procedures for amending

the bylaws in order that 7th- and 8th-grade

students might be admitted to the Junior

Academy. The Board approved the pro-

posed change.

Dr. Campbell presented the recommen-

dation of the Executive Committee, that

$4,000 be budgeted to the Journal for its

expenses in calendar 1960. (This repre-

sents less than half the cost of the maga-

zine in 1959, which is estimated at $9,500.)

He estimated other Society obligations in

1960 at $8,475 and its income at $9,100,

and that a deficit of about $3,400 could

accordingly be expected. The Board ap-

proved the budget for the Journal.

Dr. Frenkiel objected to the apparent

inconsistency of approving a budget for

the Journal while simultaneously prepar-

ing to ask the membership’s opinion on

the future policy of the magazine. Dr.

Campbell replied that the proposed refer-

endum was concerned only with the con-

tent of the Journal, and that a reduction

in size and frequency of issue, and hence

in overall cost, had already been estab-

lished.

Dr. Campbell presented a report on four

Academy projects for which a 1960 pro-

posal would be submitted to the National

Science Foundation. These projects are

a continuation of those undertaken in 1959,

except that two are to be expanded; the

total amount involved is $47,000. The

Board approved submission of the grant

request.

Chairman Kushner of the Membership

Committee presented for first reading the

names of seven candidates for membership

in the Academy. Dr. Kushner thereupon

presented for second reading the names of

seven other candidates previously proposed,

as follows: Roy J. Barker, Lafe R. Ed-

munds, Robert B. Fox, Stanley A. Hall,

Thomas C. Hoering, Ronald E. Kagarise,

and Gunnar Kullerud. These candidates

were then elected to membership.

Dr. Campbell presented a report from

Chairman Van Evera of the Committee on

Grants-in-aid for Research, recommending

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

27

grants to two area high school students

in a total amount of $141.82. The Board

approved the grants.

In the absence of Chairman Shepard of

the Committee on Bylaws, Dr. Gurney

presented a third draft of the proposed re-

vision of the Bylaws. It was agreed that

this draft should be distributed to the

Academy membership for consideration

and approval.

The Amateur and the Academy

SurjiTJiary of the Retiring President’s

Address , to he presented at the February

18 meeting of the Academy.

Because membership in the Washington

Academy of Sciences has been restricted

to those “who by reason of original re-

search or scientific attainment are deemed

eligible . . it has been and is an or-

ganization composed almost exclusively of

professional scientists: that is, of those who

earn their living in some kind of scientific

work and who are usually highly skilled

specialists. Although amateurs are not spe-

cifically excluded, few have been admitted

to the Academy because as a rule they

neither publish original research nor hold

important positions in the scientific com-

munity.

Past-President Campbell will argue that

amateurs, teachers of science, professional

neophytes, and intelligent citizens who

recognize the philosophic, economic, and

social importance of science and seek to

understand it should all be encouraged to

apply for membership in the Academy after

its Bylaws on membership have been suit-

ably amended. He believes that amateur

interest in science should be encouraged

by the Academy, not only among young

students, as is now being done, but among

adults; that observation of nature offers

the readiest and most interesting introduc-

tion to science for the amateur; and that

the amateur can, if he tries, add something

to the great body of informational data

from which knowledge is derived. By

way of illustration of what can be done.

Dr. Campbell will show some beautiful

color photographs of animal and plant

specimens that were taken by two enthu-

siastic amateurs, both over seventy years

of age. Frank L. Campbell

JUNIOR ACADEMY NEWS

By David Malin, Chairman

Publications Committee, W.J.A.S.

The December 28th convention of the

Washington Junior Academy of Sciences

held at the Burlington Hotel was the high

point of the organization’s activities in

1959. Thirty-three papers based on orig-

inal research were given by junior sci-

entists of this area to more than two

hundred of their scientifically minded con-

temporaries. Separate sessions were held

in Biology, Physics, Chemistry, and

Mathematics.

To give some indication of the interest

and achievement of this area’s young sci-

entists, the titles of the papers are listed

here:

Biology

Iris Lipkowitz, “Observations on the

Nutritional Requirements of Spirostemum

amhiguum ”

Grover Sherlin, “Information from Tree

Rings”

Barbara Miller, “The Production of

Antibiotics — From Mold to Medicine”

Morgan Morrison, “Determination of the

Efficiency of Organic Pesticides on Com-

mon Economic Insect Pests”

Mark Levy, “The Sodium Chloride Tol-

erance of Certain Chlorella”

Carol Anne Love, “The Effect of Tem-

porary Cooling on the Development of the

Chick Embryo”

Betty Jane Sherlin, “Studies of Trees in

Winter”

Heijia Lee, “Effect of Cholesterol on the

Growth of Chorioallantoic Membranes”

David Chen, “Experiments on Hormonal

Control of Insect Metamorphosis”

Dennis Marienfeld, “Do the Widely Ad-

vertised ‘Germ Killers' Really Kill Germs?”

Harlan Himel, “The Cellular Slime

Molds”

28

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

Daniel Wheeler, “Simple Techniques of

Photomicrography Applicable to Biologi-

cal Research”

Physics

Robert Schooley, “Radioactivity in

Washington, D.C. Milk”

Janet Price, “What is a Cloud Cham-

ber?”

Eugene Wengert, “Radioactive Probe

I Currents and Potential Gradient Related

to Storms and Fair Weather”

Barbara Levin, “Analysis of Properties

of Concrete”

David Malin, “A System for Automatic

Optical Recognition of Printed Char-

; acters”

Dennis Herrin, “Solar Energy”

Jerome Dufour, “X-Ray Diffraction”

Michael Brownstein, “A Seismic Model

Study”

Delo Mook, “Using a Tape Recorder as

a Multi-Channel Recording System for In-

dustrial Control”

Chemistry

Harold Weiler, “Paper Chromotography

in Medical Research”

Barbara Blount, “Corrosion of Metals”

Raymond Baggs, “Correlation of Re-

spiratory Decline with Amount of Vita-

min E in Rat Liver Tissue”

Michael Mitchell, Jr., “Development of

I an Experimental Universal Wax Crayon

from Ordinary Household Ingredients”

Margaret Ferguson, “Acid Production

in the Mouth”

Cathy Briggs, “A Chemical Study of

Carotenoids and Vitamin A in Inverte-

brates”

Gil Fritz, “Physical and Chemical Prop-

| erties of Polymers”

Morgan Morrison, “Experimental Studies

of Proteolytic Enzymatic Hydrolytic Sys-

tems”

Mathematics

Joel Dressier, “Universal Mathematics”

David Zalkind, “Theory of Probability

and Pascal’s Triangle”

Kenneth Taylor, “A Logical Approach

to Space”

James Baker, “Game Mathematics”

JOINT BOARD

The Joint Board on Science Education

of the Greater Washington Area has an-

nounced that it has planned expenditures

for I960 in the amount of $10,500. The

items contained in this budget are:

Science fairs expenses-local, national..! 3,100

Science teacher awards 750

Publication of The Reporter 2,200

Frontiers of Science lecture series 250

Research training projects 300

Publication of Science Projects Guide

Book 2,500

Administrative, Committee, and Direc-

tory 1,100

Miscellaneous 300

Total $10,500

In addition, the Joint Board has been

intrusted with the administration of the

4-fold science projects of the Washington

Academy of Sciences financed by a grant

from the National Science Foundation.

Although this grant amounts to $35,200,

none of these funds may be allocated to the

regular program of the Joint Board.

In consideration of other sources of

income, the Board will need to raise $8,000

of the above $10,500. These funds are

being solicited from technical societies and

industrial and business organizations. Al-

though all voluntary gifts from persons are

acceptable, no solicitation of individual

scientists and engineers is being made, in

the belief that they participate indirectly

in society or organization giving. Certainly

their principal contribution is one of con-

tact, counselling, speaking, or advising,

within the Joint Board program.

The success of the local educational

program lies in the unselfish services of

many scientists, engineers, and teachers

freely given and with extreme dedication.

It would be very foolish to assume that

the importance of this work has lessened.

Only on ostrich-like individual could fail

to heed to the warnings of Iron-Curtain

countries concerning their plans to surpass

us, particlarly in science.

Many technical societies of this area

have been outstanding in their financial

support of the educational activities of the

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

29

Joint Board. Others have given only token

support. Every scientist in the Washing-

ton area is urged to encourage their so-

cieties, organizations and business or

industrial connections to give liberally to

the Joint Board’s solicitation for funds

for 1960. John K. Taylor, National Bu-

reau of Standards.

SCIENCE AND DEVELOPMENT

The annual Tidal Current Tables

for 1960 covering: 1. the Atlantic Coast

of North America, 2. the Pacific Coast of

North America and Asia, 3. Europe and

the West Coast of Africa, including the

Mediterranean Sea, 4. Central and West-

ern Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean

have been published by the Coast and

Geodetic Survey of the U.S. Department

of Commerce. Tide tables have been is-

sued by the Survey since 1853. The tables

are now published in four volumes which

include the entire maritime world. They

contain daily predictions for 190 refer-

ence stations and tidal differences and

ranges at about 5,000 subordinate stations.

Culminating three years of exploratory

work, a plastic foam shelter was dem-

onstrated recently by the Atlantic Research

Corporation (Arlington, Va.) and the Army

Quartermaster Corps. The shelter, twelve

feet in diameter and six feet high, was

formed by spraying a rigid polyurethane

plastic foam onto an inflated canvas

hemisphere. The foam rises in a few

minutes and hardens in less than an hour.

The shelter weighs under 200 lbs. and is

almost completely impervious to the ele-

ments. A better insulator than cork, the

foam, one and a half inches thick, can

easily be cut by a knife or bayonet. All

components are portable making the foam

shelter ideal for field use.

The National Science Foundation esti-

mated in No. 16 of the series “Reviews

of Data on Research and Development”,

that total funds for scientific research

and development in the U.S. A. will

reach an all-time high of $12 billion

for the year 1959-60. up $7 billion from

30

the 1953 level. An increase of nearly |

160% in funds used in the performance

of R&D by private firms and related or-

ganizations from 1953-54 to 1959-60 was

found.

A highly efficient, large capacity

“Fogger” has been developed by the

Sanitary Engineering Branch of the U.S.

Army Engineer Research and Development

Laboratories, Fort Belvoir, Va. for use in

control of mosquitoes and other flying

insects. Using a solution of DDT the

“fogger” can practically rid an area of

insects in 10 minutes. In tests, fog was •

detected more than a mile from the point

of release when the fog generator was held

in a stationary position and operated at

full output.

Modern mass education may be sup-

pressing the development of “genius”

claimed Dr. Harold G. McCurdy, Univer-

sity of North Carolina psychologist in a

recent Smithsonian Institution report. In

his study of the childhood of 20 generally »

admitted men of supreme ability, Dr.

McCurdy found three factors common to ;

all: 1. A high degree of attention focused

on the child by parents and other adults,

2. Isolation from other children, espe-

cially outside the family, 3. A rich efflores-

cence of fantasy. The author remarked I

that “the mass education of our public

school system is, in its way, a vast experi- |

ment on the effect of reducing all three of •

these factors to minimal value and should,

accordingly, tend to suppress the occur-

rence of genius”.

The history of science, invention

and technology is featured in a new

publication released in December by the

Smithsonian Institution. The volume con-

tains 11 research articles written by mem-

bers of the Museum’s staff. Alexander

Graham Bell’s part in making the phono-

graph a workable device is the subject of

one article. Among other articles are ones !

that tell of the introduction of English

patent medicines in colonial America, the

failure of an early attempt to make a

dollar watch, and the battle between Besse-

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences j

mer and certain of his contemporaries over

patent rights to the process for producing

cheap steel.

W. F. Libby, who served as a Research

Associate in the Geophysical Laboratory

at the Carnegie Institution of Washington

during his entire term as Atomic Energy

Commissioner, spent the past year in-

vestigating the radioactive strontium

content of rainfall during the crucial

period March-May, 1959, following an in-

tensive series of bomb tests fired by the

Soviet Union in October 1958. This event

afforded a unique opportunity to test the

characteristics of fallout from injections

of nuclear materials at polar latitudes, as

contrasted with the equatorial explosions

fired by the U.S. and the United Kingdom.

Analysis of samples collected during the

critical period showed that the radioactive

materials from the Russian shots had ap-

proximately one-year of residence in the

stratosphere as contrasted with a residence

time of three years or more for equatorially

injected material. This discussion and

many others appeared in the 1958-59 An-

nual Report of the President of the In-

stitution.

The Optical Society of America has

recently undertaken to translate the

Russian journal, Optika i Spektro-

scopiya , with the help of a grant-in-aid

from the National Science Foundation.

This translation journal is being distributed

free to OSA members as part of their

membership privileges. It is also available

to non-members in a package deal with

the OSA Journal, at $25 per year.

“Preservation of Documents by

Lamination”, by W. K. Wilson and B.

W. Forshee has been issued by the Na-

tional Bureau of Standards (Monograph

No. 5). Subjects covered include prop-

erties of an ideal laminating film; prop-

erties of cellulose acetate film; degradation

of film and paper during lamination; pre-

liminary studies of films other than cellu-

lose acetate; and specifications for archival

laminating film formulated from cellulose

acetate. The study was requested and

supported by the National Archives, U.S.

Army Map Service, Library of Congress

and Virginia State Library.

Officers of the Washington Academy of Sciences

President Lawrence A. Wood, National Bureau of Standards

President-elect Philip H. Abelson, Carnegie Institution

Secretary Heinz Specht, National Institutes of Health

Treasurer Carl Aslakson, Coast & Geodetic Survey

Archivist Morris C. Leikind, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology

Custodian of Publications Harald A. Rehder, U.S. National Museum

Editor Chester H. Page, National Bureau of Standards

Managers to 1961 Bourdon F. Scribner, Keith C. Johnson

Managers to 1962 Philip H. Abelson, Howard S. Rappleye

Managers to 1963 William B. Brombacher, A. 0. Foster

Board of Managers All the above officers plus the vice-presidents rep-

resenting the affiliated societies

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

31

Vice-Presidents of the Washington Academy of Sciences

Representing the Affiliated Societies

Acoustical Society of America

Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences

Anthropological Society of Washington

Society of American Bacteriologists

Biological Society of Washington

Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine

Botanical Society of Washington

Chemical Society of Washington

American Society of Civil Engineers

International Assn, for Dental Research

American Inst, of Electrical Engineers

Washington Society of Engineers

Entomological Society of Washington

Society of American Foresters

National Geographic Society

Geological Society of Washington

Helminthological Society of Washington

Columbia Historical Society

Insecticide Society of Washington

Amer. Society of Mechanical Engineers

Medical Society of the Dist. of Columbia

American Society for Metals

American Meteorological Society

American Nuclear Society, Washington Section .

Philosophical Society of Washington

Institute of Radio Engineers

Society of American Military Engineers

Richard Cook

Not Named.

Regina Flannery

Mary Louise Robbins

Herbert Friedman

Kathryn Knowlton

Herbert C. Hanson

William J. Bailey

Not Named.

Gerhard Brauer

Robert D. Elbourn

Howard S. Rappleye

Harold H. Shepard

Not Named.

Alexander Wetmore

Carle Dane

Carlton M. Herman

U. S. Grant, III

Joseph Yuill

William G. Allen

Fred 0. Coe

John A. Bennett

Morris Tepper

Urner Liddel

Louis R. Maxwell

Robert Huntoon

Not Named.

Chairmen of Committees

Standing Committees

Executive

Meetings

Membership

Monographs

Awards for Scientific Achievement

Grants-in-aid for Research

Policy and Planning

Encouragement of Science Talent .

Science Education

Ways and Means

Public Relations

Frank L. Campbell, National Research Council

Ralph B. Kennard, American University

Lawrence M. Kushner, National Bureau of Standards

Dean B. Cowie, Carnegie Institution of Washington

Frank A. Biberstein, Catholic University

B. D. Van Evera, George Washington University

Margaret Pittman, National Institutes of Health

Leo Schubert, American University

... Raymond J. Seeger, National Science Foundation

Russell B. Stevens, George Washington University

John K. Taylor, National Bureau of Standards

Special Committees

Bylaws Harold H. Shepard, U. S. Department of Agriculture

Directory James I. Hambleton, U. S. Department of Agriculture (Ret.)

Library of Congress John A. O’Keefe, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

32

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

\ oliime 50

JANUARY 1960

No. 1

CONTENTS

Page

The Journal for 1960. FRANK L. CAMPBELL 1

Virchow’s “Cellular Pathology” in the Framework of Biology and

Medicine. ALFRED PLAUT 2

The Insecticide Society of Washington. C. M. SMITH 19

Science in Washington

Scientists in the News 22

Affiliated Societies 24

Academy Activities 26

Junior Academy News 28

Joint Board 29

Research and Development 30

~ a-rnnid Arboretum

Library of Arnoia

22 Divinity Ave

Cambridge 3° Mass

WAS

1

4

JOURNAL

of the

WASHINGTON

ACADEMY

of

SCIENCES

Vol. 50 * No. 2

February, 1960

JOURNAL OF THE WASHINGTON ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Editor: Chester H. Page, National Bureau of Standards

Managing Editor: Ileen E. Stewart, National Science Foundation

Associate Editors

Frank L. Campbell, National Academy of Russell B. Stevens, Geo. Washington Univer-

Sciences sity

Samuel B. Detwiler, Jr., U.S. Dept, of Agri- John K. Taylor, National Bureau of Standards

culture

Contributors

Albert M. S'tone, Applied Physics Laboratory

John A. O'Brien, Jr., Catholic University

Elliott B. Roberts, Coast & Geodetic Survey

Margaret D. Foster, Geological Survey

Russell B. Stevens, Geo. Washington University

Moddie D. Taylor, Howard University

Frank L. Campbell, NAS-NRC.

Bourdon F. Scribner, National Bureau of

Standards

Howard W. Bond, National Institutes of Health

Allen L. Alexander, Naval Research Laboratory

Victor R. Boswell, USDA, Beltsville

Harold R. Curran, USDA, Washington

William H. Bailey, University of Maryland

This Journal, the official organ of the Washington Academy of Sciences, publishes: (1)

historical articles, critical reviews, and scholarly scientific articles, (2) original research, if the

paper, including illustrations, does not exceed 1500 words or the equivalent space, (3) notices of

meetings and proceedings of meetings of the Academy and its affiliated societies, and (4) regional

news items, including personal news, of interest to the entire membership. The Journal appears

eight times a year in January to May and October to December.

Manuscripts and original research papers should be sent to the Editor. They should

be typewritten, double-spaced, on good paper; footnotes and captions should be numbered and

submitted on a separate sheet. The Editor does not assume responsibility for the ideas expressed

by any author.

Contributions to the regular columns should be sent to the appropriate Associate

Editor whose name appears at the beginning of each column, or to one of the Contributors, listed

above. The deadline for news items is approximately three weeks in advance of publication date.

News items should be signed by the sender.

Proof of manuscripts will generally be sent to an author if he resides in the Washington

area and time allows. Otherwise the Editor will assume responsibility for seeing that copy is

followed.

Subscription rate $7.50 per yr. (U.S.)

Single issues $0.50 per copy.

Subscription Orders or requests for back numbers or volumes of the Journal, or copies of the

Proceedings, should be sent to the Washington Academy of Sciences, 1530 P St., N.W., Washing-

ton, D.C. Remittances should be made payable to “Washington Academy of Sciences”.

Claims for missing numbers will not be allowed if received more than 60 days after date

of mailing plus time normally required for postal delivery and claim. No claims will be allowed

because of failure to notify the Circulation Manager of a change of address.

Changes of address should be sent promptly to the Academy Office, 1530 P St., N.W.,

Washington, D. C. Such notification should include both old and new addresses and postal zone

number, if any.

Advertising rates may be obtained from the Managing Editor, lleen E. Stewart, Office of

Science Information Service, National Science Foundation, Washington 25, D. C.

Reprint prices may also be obtained from the Managing Editor.

Prices of back numbers and volumes, of Monograph No. 1, “The Parasitic Cuckoos of

Africa” by Herbert Friedmann, Index to Vols. 1-40, and Proceedings may be obtained by writing

to the Academy Office.

Entered as second class matter at the Post Office, Washington, D. C. Printing by McArdle

Printing Co., Washington, D. C.

Adaptive Radiation in the

Flowering Plants

Hui-Lin Li

Morris Arboretum , University of Pennsylvania

Introduction

The plasticity of living organisms is

I more obvious in the widely divergent adap-

tations, which are structural as well as

I functional, in some groups of animals, such

j as mammals and insects, than in flower-

ing plants.1 In these groups of animals,

adaptive trends often are reflected in dis-

tinctive taxonomic groupings of major

rank, such as families or orders. On the

other hand, in flowering plants the major

orders seemingly all occupy the same range

of habitats and most of them have about

the same range of types in their external

| appearance.

This leads Stebbins (1951) to state that

“One of the most striking impressions

j which results from a comparison between

I the major subdivisions — families, orders,

( and classes — of the animal kingdom and

i the corresponding ones in the higher plants,

is that while in animals the characters on

l which these subdivisions are based are for

: the most part of obvious adaptive signifi-

I cance, and must have evolved through the

guidance of natural selection, in plants this

!• is by no means the case.”

This seemingly less obvious significance

1 of adaptation in the classification of flower-

i| ing plants is apparently due to their essen-

tially similar methods of obtaining foods,

[j As photosynthetic autotrophs, they all pos-

| sess chlorophyll and a root system anchored

fi permanently in the soil to absorb minerals,

(i As the large majority of flowering plants

adhere to this basic type of existence, it

ft gives the impression that flowering plants

H as a whole are less versatile in differenti-

*| ating into habitat groups along phylogenetic

i| lines.

When all families of flowering plants are

reviewed, actually many forms are to be

found which are extraordinarily modified

in adaptation to the most diverse environ-

mental situations. These adaptations to the

same environmental conditions are often

repeated independently many times along

different and distinct phylogenetic lines and

resulted not infrequently in the formation

of highly differentiated families or even

orders.

The large majority of existing flowering

plants are terrestrial plants inhabiting more

or less mesophytic habitats. Radiating

from this basic and generalized habitat,

various other types of plants are evolved

which are specialized for very different

habitats and modes of existence.

Climbing plants

While the majority of these plants are

autonomous, a number of them need sup-

port for ascending into the air up into the

light. Adaptations for climbing are thus

chiefly evident in a lengthening of the

stems. This may result in the twining of

the stems themselves or the development

of modified accessory structures of at-

tachment from the branches or leaves such

as tendrils, adventitious roots and sensitive

petioles. Climbing plants or klinophytes

occur in numerous widely divergent fami-

lies and among both herbaceous and

woody plants. The following families are

cither exclusively or predominantly vines:

Actinidiaceae

Ancistocladaceae

1 The term flowering plant is used in this paper

as equivalent to angiosperms.

1

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

Convolvulaceae

Dioscoreaceae

Lardizabalaceae

Menispermaceae

Passifloraceae

Sargentodoxaceae

Schisandraceae

Vitaceae

Epiphytes

The climbing habit seems to lead in the

family Marcgraviaceae into the epiphytic

habit. Another essentially epiphytic family,

but of an entirely different type of appear-

ance, is the Bromeliaceae, wnich contains

generally acaulescent herbs and are also

eminently xerophytic. Epiphytic plants are

also found scattered in many other large

families, such as the Araliaceae, Ericaceae,

Rubiaceae, etc. and are more particularly

abundant in the Orchidaceae.

Saprophytes

Deviating from the basic photosynthetic

autotrophic mode of nutrition, some plants

become heterophytic either as saprophytes

or parasites. Not a few flowering plants

are saprophytes, deriving their nourishment

from humus. Chlorophyll becomes un-

essential and thus disappears. The stems

become yellowish or reddish and the leaves

become scale-like. The subterranean rhi-

zome or root system is solely responsible

for absorption of nutrients. The individ-

ual plants thus become of very small size

and the essential dominant feature is often

the large inflorescence which is of prime

importance for perpetuating the race.

Saprophytic plants evolve independently

in several distinct families such as the

Orchidaceae and the Pyrolaceae. The family

Triuridaceae, constituting solely the order

Triuridales, is exclusively saprophytic. The

family Burmanniaceae, with the exception

of a few autotrophic species with greatly

reduced green leaves, consists also of

chlorophyll-less saprophytes. The family

Pyrolaceae consists of strongly geophytic

but independent plants (subfamily Pyrolo-

ideae) and saprophytes (subfamily Mono-

tropoideae or sometimes treated as a dis-

tinct family Monotropaceae) .

Parasites

Parasitism in flowering plants begins in

liemiparasites, in which the plants remain

green but live partially on the roots of

other plants. It culminates in holopara-

sites in which chlorophyll disappears entire-

ly and the plants depend solely on the host

plants for nutrition. Parasitism occurs re-

peatedly and separately in different fami-

lies, such as Cassytha in the Lauraceae and

Cuscuta in the Convolvulaceae, and also

notably in the tribes Geradieae and Rhin-

antheae of the Scrophulariaceae. The orders

Balanophorales and Santalales consist

mostly of parasitic plants. The families of

these orders as well as other families en-

tirely or predominantly of parasitic plants,

including hemiparasites or holoparasites

or both, are as follows:

Balanophoraceae

Cynomoriaceae

Hydnoraceae

Lennoaceae

Loranthaceae

Myzodendraceae

Orobanchaceae

Rafflesiaceae

Santalaceae

Geopliytes

Among normally terrestrial plants, there

are a large number of many different

families assuming geophytic habitats. They

frequently develop strong underground

stems. Families like the Begoniaceae in

the Dicotyledons and the Taccaceae and

Zingiberaceae and many others in the

Monocotyledons are distinctly geophytes

persisting for a short or long period by

thickened subterranean parts. In extreme

cases the plants spend most of their life

underground with parts appearing above

ground only during a brief period of the

year when flowering and fruiting are con-

summated very quickly. Such families as

the Podophyllaceae and others contain

nearly all members of the subterranean

habitat.

Xerophytes

Plants adapted to extremely dessicated

2

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

situations in the deserts and steppes of

the Old and New Worlds are found in

many families, notably in the Gramineae.

Liliaceae, etc. Some of these plants be-

; come succulents while others become highly

sclerophyllous to check excessive transpi-

1 ration. The xerophytic Cactaceae and

Aizoaceae, predominant in America and

i Africa respectively, are especially notable,

i Lack of a large dominant family in the

Asiatic deserts may indicate their relatively

| recent origin. The following families are

predominantly xerophytes. The families

Cactaceae, Casuarinaceae and Proteaceae

are the sole members of the orders Cactales.

i Casuarinales and Proteales respectively.

Aizoaceae

Cactaceae

Casuarinaceae

Crassulaceae

IPortulacaceae

Proteaceae

STamaricaceae

Aquatic plants

Many large families of flowering plants

I contain some members that are adapted

to the aquatic habitat such as the Ranun-

culaceae and Scrophulariaceae. A very

considerable number of families in the

! Dicotyledons are solely aquatic or semi-

: aquatic in habitat. These hydrophytes as-

sume a wide variety of structural differen-

tiation modified for varied existence as

; floating or attached plants and living in

still or rapidly running waters. While

most of these are either completely sub-

merged or floating some are adapted to

marshy or semiaquatic habitats. These

l aquatic Dicotyledonous families are:

Barclayaceae

Hi Callitrichaceae

Cabombaceae

Ceratophyllaceae

Elatinaceae

Euryalaceae

Haloragaceae

Hippuridaceae

Hydrostachyaceae

Nelumbonaceae

]| Nymphaeaceae

Podostomaceae

Tristichaceae

Trapaceae

Trapellaceae

The aquatic habitat is especially pre-

dominant in the Monocotyledons, a large

proportion of which are aquatics or semi-

aquatics. The large order Helobiales con-

tains eight families entirely of hydrophytes.

The aquatic families in the Monocotyle-

dons are as follows: (These include plants

living in freshwater as well as in brackish

water and in the sea).

Alismaceae

Aponogetonaceae

Butomaceae

Hydrocharitaceae

Juncaginaceae

Lemnaceae

Najadaceae

Pontederiaceae

Potamogetonaceae

Sparganiaceae

Typhaceae

Zanichelliaceae

A distinct type of aquatic adaptation is

manifested by the so-called mangrove plants

with highly specialized modifications in

vegetative as well as reproductive struc-

tures to survive and perpetuate along

muddy coasts and estuaries in the tropics.

The most notable modifications are aerial

roots and viviparous germination. Man-

grove plants are found in the families

Sonneratiaceae, Combretaceae, Verbena-

ceae, etc. The family Rhizophoraceae

consists entirely of mangrove plants.

Insectivorous plants

A very special trend of adaptation in

plants is the insectivorous or carnivorous

habitat which seems to be associated with

semi-aquatic habitats where insect life is

especially abundant. The order Sarra-

ceniales 2 is entirely insectivorous, with

2 The Sarraceniales, while generally recognized

as an order, are found by many authors to be a

composite group of unrelated stocks. The family

Nepenthaceae should probably be more appro-

priately included in the Aristolochiales and the

Droseraceae either in the Parietales or the Rosales.

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

3

I lie three families Droseraceae, Nepentha-

ceae and Sarraceniaceae developing very

different structural modifications in their

leaves for trapping and digesting insects

as a means of nutrition. The large pre-

dominently aquatic and insectivorous Len-

tibulariaceae are of an entirely different

phylogenetic stock, of the order Tubiflorae.

Another order, the monotypic Cephalotales,

with one family of a single species, is also

an unique insectivorous plant.

Discussions

The above brief account summarizes the

versatile adaptability of the flowering

plants, in spite of the limitation in their

method of obtaining food. It seems that

in the flowering plants there is an inherent

potential of evolution to adapt themselves

to widely different environmental condi-

tions just as in some groups of animals. As

is generally believed and for instance

summarized by Stebbins (1950), all long

continued evolutionary trends in plants as

well as in animals apparently occur through

a progressive series of random mutations

guided by natural selection. Recently,

Waddington (1953), while discrediting the

inheritance of acquired characters, con-

siders this current biological belief as an

extreme view and postulates a hypothesis

of genetic assimilation of such characters,

which thus become hereditarily fixed. The

whole problem is in need of much more

experimental study than has now been

made.

The number of plant families recogniz-

able mainly by their adaptive features is

impressive. Among these 27 or over 10

percent are entirely aquatic in habitat.

Ten families or about 4 percent are climb-

ing plants. Seven families or about 3 percent

are solely adapted to dry situations. Simi-

larly 9 families or about 4 percent are

wholly parasitic plants. Five families or

about 2 percent are adapted to the very

unique insectivorous habitat. In view of

their immobility and their similar mode of

obtaining food, these figures, showing ma-

jor groupings of flowering plants differ-

entiated by means of adaptive trends, are

surprisingly high. This situation compares .

favorably with the conditions expressed in

the mammals which have the different or-

ders occupying different habitats. In ad-

dition to the seed habit, the adaptability

of the flowering plants is largely responsible

for the dominant position they hold in the

plant world of today.

The different adaptive trends in these

plants require structural modifications of

considerable magnitude, not only in inter-

nal organization but also in gross outward

appearance. The difference in appearance

between an aquatic Ceratophyllum, a para-

sitic Rafflesia and a xerophytic Cactus is as

great as if not greater than that between an

aquatic whale, a volant bat and a fossorial

gopher. It is natural that these modifica-

tions in the plants are manifested in vege-

tative parts like roots, stems and leaves,

while the reproductive organs and the

methods of reproduction remain little

changed. The same is also true in animals.

It seems that botanists on the whole lay

more emphasis on the evolutionary signifi-

cance of reproductive structures than zool-

ogists and consequently overlook generally

the relative importance of vegetative struc-

tures in phylogeny. Perhaps this is true

only in the study of higher plants as habi-

tats are generally recognized as of great

importance in the major divisions of lower

plants. For instance, if habitats are not

considered as of prime importance, some

of the Chlorophyceae would perhaps assume

closer relationship in phylogenetic schemes

w ith some of the Phycomycetes than among !,

their respective selves.

The various trends of adaptation in the

flowering plants seem to radiate from a

more generalized terrestrial and moist

mesophytic habitat. In other words they

represent derivative types. While the re-

lationships of some of these specialized

families are uncertain or disputed, the kin- [

ships of many others are well established

and generally recognized from morphologi- i

cal and anatomical studies.

For instance, among the parasitic fami- u

lies, the Hydnoraceae are regarded as de- I

rived from the large family Aristolochiaceae 1

4

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences I

loranthaceae

DIOSCOREACEAE

V IT ACE A E

MARCGRAVIACEAE

POOOPHYLLACEAE HYOROCHARITACEAE C E R AT 0 PH Y LL AC E A E S A R R A C E N I A C E A E

Fig. 1. Diagram of parallelism in evolution and adaptive radiation in the flowering plants.

e and the Orobanchaceae from the large

family Scrophulariaceae. Similarly among

I the aquatic plants, the Ceratophyllaceae

r are supposed to be modified types derived

l i from the Onagraceae, the Trapellaceae from

f the Pedaliaceae, and the Podostomaceae

e probably from the Saxifragaceae. Among

, the others, the mangrove family Rhizo-

ff I phoraceae are probably derived from the

i Lythraceae, the essentially saprophytic

Monotropaceae from the Pyrolaceae and

a | Ericaceae, and the essentially epiphytic

;| Marcgraviaceae from the Ternstroeiniaceae.

v This situation is comparable to that

e- 1 occurring in the mammals although in the

d latter, habitat groups are often differen-

n- dated at ordinal ranks such as the Chirop-

d tera, an entirely volant group, and the

[i Cetacea, an entirely aquatic group. In

others, however, such as the Carnivora, the

ii- 1 component groups are adapted to various

le- different habitats as digging, swimming,

ae and walking forms, a situation very simi-

esI Journal of The Washington Academy

lar to most of the larger orders or families

of the flowering plants.

It is clear that these various adaptive

trends occur repeatedly and independently

at different times and from different stocks.

This serves to show not only adaptive radi-

ation but also parallelism in evolution in

the flowering plants (Figure 1).

As stated above, these trends of adapta-

tion in the flowering plants are sometimes

manifested in entire families and orders

but also in genera and species among other

families. This differentiation presumably

has some significance in the relative age of

these groups, although the difference in the

rate of evolution should also be considered.

However, little can be said on either case at

our present state of knowledge.

It does seem clear that the flowering

plants as a whole are inherent in their

great adaptability. In large families, these

various trends are sometimes manifested

within a single family. As the time goes

of Sciences 5

i

on. these trends may lead on to additional

parallel but independent evolutionary peaks

which represent taxonomically and momen-

tarily as orders and families.

As an illustration, we may select the

large and relatively recent family Scro-

phulariaceae. The family contains over

250 genera and over 3,000 species. They

occur widely in all continents from warm

to cold parts. There are woody as well as

herbaceous members. While the majority

are terrestrial plants of mesophytic habitats

abundant especially in moist lands in

warmer parts of the world, special trends

of adaptation are apparent in various other

situations. Generally they are erect plants,

but some may be prostrate and creeping, as

in some Veronicas, and in Mazus , Linaria,

etc. Many plants are adapted to marshy

habitats and true aquatics occur in Am-

biilia, Hydrotriche , etc. A large number

of genera, such as Euphrasia , Pedicularis,

Odontites , Melampyrum, Bartsia, Rhinan-

thus , etc. are hemiparasites which are green

plants but attach themselves by suckers or

the reduced lateral roots to roots of grasses.

In Lathraea, Harvey a and Hyobanche, there

are true parasites devoid of chlorophyll.

The same trend apparently leads into the

development of the wholly parasitic family

Orobanchaceae. The insectivorous Len-

tibulariaceae are related and probably de-

rived from the Scrophulariaceae.

On the generic level, habitat groups cir-

cumscribed as taxonomic entities are very

numerous and are found in nearly all large

families. There are many large and

ecologically variable genera such as the

oaks and willows. However, many smaller

genera are adapted to narrow ecological

niches. Some such habitat groups are

highly specialized and are thus distinctly

recognizable, such as the already mentioned

parasitic genera Cassytha in the Lauraceae

and Cuscuta in the Convolvulaceae. Others

are of a more subtle nature, but their dis-

tinct adaptive trends often also become

apparent upon closer scrutiny.

In the later category, we may select

at random a few examples. In the genus

Alnus , the Alders, although there are some

30 species distributed widely in the north-

ern hemisphere, they are all more or less

restricted ecologically to cool climates and

moisture-laden soils. On the other hand,

the Chestnut trees, Castanea, with some 10

species in the temperate regions of the

northern hemisphere, are adapted to

warmer situations and well-drained soils.

These trees can in fact withstand drought

better than most other trees of temperate

mesophytic habitats.

A very notable feature in plant evolu-

tion, as shown by the many families men-

tioned above, is that these widely divergent

trends of evolution occur most especially

in the tropics and subtropics. Bews (1927)

has demonstrated that the moist warm con-

ditions are most effective in bringing

about a differentiation among the most

primitive types of angiosperms. The vari-

ous derivative types of plants as discussed

above are shown by him to originate

mostly under moist favorable conditions.

Evolution is apparently a subject that is

best studied in the tropics where it is being

carried on by nature on the fullest scale

and at the fastest rate. Our knowledge of

evolution will certainly be greatly aug-

mented as we know more about the develop-

ment of tropical vegetation.

The above mentioned author has made

a very important contribution in his at-

tempt to ascertain plant phylogeny from an

ecological point of view, which he called

ecological evolution. The study of plant

taxonomy and plant phylogeny has much

to gain from a geographical approach,

which in this sense is used to include

ecology. The advantage of this approach

in plant taxonomy has been amply demon-

strated by many modern monographical

and revisional studies. As indicated by

Camp (1947) and others, its advantage in

studying phylogeny is equally promising.

Summary

Among the flowering plants, specialized

habitat groups are developed parallelly

along different phylogenetic lines. These are

usually accompanied by pronounced struc-

tural modifications and often resulted in

6

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

the differentiation of major taxonomic

groupings such as families or orders. Radi-

ating from a generalized terrestrial meso-

phytic focus, trends of adaptation are par-

ticularly notable for climbing, epiphytic,

saprophytic, parasitic, geophytic, xerophy-

tic, aquatic, and insectivorous habitats.

There are many whole families that follow

strictly one of these lines of adaptive

radiation. The great inherent adaptability

of the flowering plants is largely respon-

sible, in addition to the seed habit, for their

dominant position in the plant world of

today.

The Referendum

The results of the referendum on the con-

tents of the Journal of the Washington

Academy of Sciences reveal that the mem-

bership is divided into three parts. The

largest group is indifferent to the question,

the next largest wants a change, and the

third group, a vociferous minority, wants

the Journal to remain a primary research

publication. It is clear that the best com-

promise would require two publications:

one like the Journal of the past, the other

a house organ. At present the Academy

cannot afford to publish two periodicals;

it cannot even afford to maintain the Jour-

nal as it was. Therefore an attempt will

be made to please the long-suffering ma-

jority with a smaller journal of scientific

thought and action characteristic of the

Academy.

Although we would have accepted a man-

date to maintain an archival periodical, our

heart would not have been in it. We are

not among the minority who believe that

the most important function of the Academy

is to publish an archival journal. We are

not impressed by those who cry that the

Academy will lose its dignity, prestige, or

reputation if the old Journal is not con-

tinued.

The practice of publishing in one journal

research articles in all fields of natural

science is a venerable one and is maintained

REFERENCES

Bews, J. W. 1927. Studies in the ecological

evolution of the angiosperms. New Fhytol. 26:

1-21, 65-84, 129-148, 209-248, 273-294.

Camp, W. H. 1947. Distribution patterns in

modern plants and the problems of ancient dis-

persal. Ecol. Monog. 17: 159-183.

Stebbins, G. L. 1950. Variation and evolution

in plants. Columbia University Press, New York,

643 pp.

Stebbins, G. L. 1951. Natural selection and the

differentiation of angiosperm families. Evolu-

tion 5: 299-324.

Waddington, C. H. 1953. The evolution of

adaptations. Endeavour 12: 134-139.

by the Royal Society, the National Acad-

emy of Sciences, and many other academies.

No doubt the prestige thought to be con-

nected with such a practice flows down

from the old and very distinguished scien-

tific organizations that adopted it of neces-

sity before the rise of specialized scientific

societies and their journals and other out-

lets for the publication of scientific work.

Now that natural science has become high-

ly specialized, it takes great prestige to

draw good research articles away from spe-

cialized journals into over-all journals.

The Washington Academy, having rela-

tively little prestige, could get for its jour-

nal as a rule only descriptive articles that

become effective after they arrive upon

library shelves. To a taxonomist it does

not matter where his article is published so

long as he can get reprints and a good dis-

tribution of it in the libraries of the world.

We zealously advocate and defend the

need for more systematic work in the life

and earth sciences and for its prompt and

complete publication and pertinent distri-

bution. At the same time we contend that

systematic articles should not be published

in the Journal of the W ashington Academy

of Sciences , because it is unfair to accept

subsidy for their publication from unwilling

scientists and wasteful to distribute them

among people who do not need them. We

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

believe that systematists should re-examine

their publication requirements and the

means of meeting them in the 1960’s.

At present most archival papers are writ-

ten and offered for publication by profes-

sional scientists; i.e.. by those who are paid

to work in the field on which they write.

We believe that a continuous and persistent

effort should be made by these workers and

all other professional scientists to convince

their employers that the cost of publication

is an integral part of the cost of scientific

work and must be paid for in full by the

employer. Looking to the future when the

problem of storage, filing, and transporta-

tion of special libraries will become acute,

we feel that very serious consideration

should be given to the original publication

of systematic articles on microcards. There

is a tendency to dismiss this less expensive,

faster, and more manageable system be-

cause the present International Rules do not

recognize species described in microfilm.

Would it not, however, be more progressive

to begin to use microcards and press for

the improvement of readers and the repeal

of the repressive rule?

The Academy should not disregard this

problem but, perhaps through the work of

a special committee, should try to increase

outlets for publication of taxonomic papers.

For a time during a period of transition

grants might be made from the reserve fund

of the Academy to assist publication of pro-

fessional taxonomic papers in such local

journals as that of the Biological Society

and of the Entomological Society. We also

hope there will always be amateurs at work

whose publications ought to receive sup-

port from private funds.

Our colleagues who are genuinely con-

cerned about the effect our new publication

policy may have on the alleged prestige of

the Academy should be invited to state

their case in this column as frankly as we

have presented our point of view. We do

not believe that recent publication of pro-

fessional scientific research in the Journal

reflects much credit on the Academy. The

work would have been done and no doubt

published whether the Academy existed or

not. The Academy, as such, usually has

played no part in the initiation, guidance,

or criticism of the research published in its

Journal; it has served only as a publisher

and payer of bills that should have been

paid by the employer. The Academy really

counts in those activities that require or-

ganized effort toward the promotion of

science in the Washington area. In such

effort we can take pride and we can make

known our work and stimulate our mem-

bers and many others through the Journal.

Frank L. Campbell

Dr. Lawrence A. Wood

1960 President of the Washington Academy of Sciences

At the 62nd Annual Meeting and Ban-

quet of the Washington Academy of Sci-

ences, which was held on Thursday, Janu-

ary 21, 1960, at the John Wesley Powell

Auditorium in Washington, D. C., Dr.

Lawrence A. Wood was installed as the

society’s President for the year 1960.

Dr. Wood was born in Peekskill, N. Y. in

1904. He received an AB degree in chem-

istry and mathematics from Hamilton Col-

lege in 1925. He then transferred to Cornell

University for his graduate work, where

he changed his field of science to physics

and received his PhD degree in 1932. He

remained at Cornell as an instructor in

physics for three years, where he conducted

research and published papers in the field

of electricity, and then came to the Na-

tional Bureau of Standards as a member of

the Rubber Section. In 1943 he became

chief of this section, a position which lie

still holds today.

8

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

Dr. Lawrence A. Wood

Dr. Wood’s early research work on rub-

ber Avas concerned with measurement and

interpretation of the basic physical con-

stants and properties of natural rubber.

However, his interests later turned toward

the synthetic rubbers, and his subsequent

experience with these new materials proved

to be extremely valuable to rubber science

and technology. In 1940, when very few

people realized the importance of synthetic

rubbers, he prepared an excellent compre-

hensive review article on the composition,

properties, and uses of various synthetic

rubbers. This paper was published as a

National Bureau of Standards Circular, and

the demand for it was so great that several

reprintings were required by the Govern-

ment. Because of its timeliness and im-

portance it was translated by the Germans

and the Japanese into their languages and

printed in their journals.

Dr. Wood is the author or coauthor of

more than forty other scientific papers.

His early research with rubber was con-

cerned largely with transitions; and as a

result of his excellent work in this field he

was selected to prepare the chapter on

“Crystallization Phenomena in Natural and

Synthetic Rubbers” for a book “Advances

in Colloid Sciences,” published in 1946. He

was also selected to write the chapter on

“Physical Chemistry of Synthetic Rubbers”

for a comprehensive treatise on “Synthetic

Rubbers” published in 1954. In 1938, and

again in 1948, Dr. Wood was an official

delegate from the U.S. Department of

Commerce to an International Rubber Con-

ference held in London, England. At both

of these meetings he presented invited

papers.

As a result of Dr. Wood’s recognition

as an outstanding authority on synthetic

rubber he is called upon very frequently

for advice by many Government agencies.

He has collaborated with many of them

and also with several congressional com-

mittees, furnishing them with technical ad-

vice and recommendations for guidance on

synthetic rubber problems. Several times

during World War II he was called into

private conferences with the Secretary of

Commerce, the Honorable Jesse Jones, con-

cerning vital problems related to the Gov-

ernment’s production of synthetic rubber.

For his excellent work and outstanding

achievements in research he received in

1943 the Physical Science Award of the

Washington Academy of Sciences. In 1958

he also received the Meritorious Service

Award from the U.S. Department of Com-

merce for his valuable fundamental contri-

butions to the science and technology of

rubber.

Dr. Wood has always shown a great in-

terest in scientific societies, both locally

and nationally. In addition to being a

member of the Washington Academy of

Sciences he is also a member of the Philo-

sophical Society of Washington and the

American Chemical Society and is a Fellow

of the American Physical Society. He was

one of the founders of the Division of High

Polymer Physics of the American Physical

Society and has held several offices in this

Division, including the chairmanship in

1947. He has also held various offices in

the Philosophical Society of Washington,

including its Presidency in 1955. Be-

cause of Dr. Wood’s distinguished career as

a scientist and because of his interest and

activities in the WAS and other societies,

the Washington Academy of Sciences is to

be congratulated on its choice of Presi-

dent for 1960. Norman Bekkedahl

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

9

Academy Activities in 1959

A Report to Nonresident Members

Frank L. Campbell, Retiring President

It occurred to me that nonresident mem-

bers of the Washington Academy of Sci-

ences, who could not attend the Annual

Meeting on January 21, would like to

have some idea of what the Academy was

doing last year. Let me try to report briefly

to you as I did to those present at the

annual meeting.

The Board of Managers

The Academy is governed by a large

Board of Managers consisting of seven

officers, six elected members-at-large, and

representatives of 26 affiliated local scien-

tific and engineering societies, who have

been called vice-presidents of the Academy.

These 39 people are expected to meet on

the third Tuesday of each month, except

July, August, and September. There is a

regular order of business calling for reports

of the officers, of 13 standing committees,

and of whatever special committees are

active. Therefore up to 17 chairmen of

committees should also appear at Board

meetings. These members, plus our paid

administrative secretary, add up to a throng

of 57 people who might gather for meetings

of the Board, which in 1959 were held be-

tween 8 and 10 p.m. in the so-called Read-

ing Room of the National Academy of

Sciences — National Research Council. Of

course no such number ever appeared, but

attendance at regular meetings was re-

markably good. There is also an Execu-

tive Committee consisting of five of the

above officers, which often met prior to

Board meetings to study and make recom-

mendations to the Board on fiscal matters.

The Board meetings of 1959 departed

from the routine, regular order of business

at nearly every meeting. Two subjects were

of principal concern to the Board: (1)

the recommendation of the Executive Com-

mittee that dues be increased from $6 to

$10 per year and (2) revision of the By-

laws. Both questions would have to go

to the membership for approval by mail

ballot.

The Journal of the Academy

The first question became connected with

the cost of operating a central office and of

publishing the Journal of the Washington

Academy of Sciences because both were

responsible for the operating deficit that

made necessary an attempt to increase dues.

The Board did not attack the central office,

but did challenge the Journal , calling it a

publication not worth to most of the mem-

bers the money being spent on it. The

Committee on Policy and Planning and

that on Ways and Means were asked to

study the problem and report. The an-

swers did not come easily and are still

tentative. The Board favored a change

in the character of the Journal and gave

the president the authority to appoint a

volunteer staff that could do more than

receive and process manuscripts for pub-

lication— a staff that could solicit material,

write and rewrite, and establish communi-

cation among the members of the Academy

and its affiliated societies. The experi-

ment on the Journal, as you see, is under-

way and we want your comments and

criticisms, knowing that we cannot please

everyone. Please bear in mind, too, that

we are allowed only $4,000 to spend on the

Journal in 1960, whereas $10,000 were

spent on it in 1959. The decision of the

Board to change the character of the

Journal was supported by a referendum to

the membership.

Revision of the Bylaws

A thorough revision of the Bylaws re-

quired hours of the Board’s time for dis-

cussion of controversial items. Thanks to

the willingness of some members to attend

10

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

two special meetings of the Board the job

was finished (temporarily, of course) in

1959. The revised Bylaws will soon go to

the membership for approval. An expla-

nation of substantive changes will accom-

pany the document. 1 might say here that

the Board thought it somewhat ridiculous

for the Academy to have 26 vice presidents

and to require that they be elected (en

masse!) at the annual meeting of the

Academy. The revised Bylaws will call

them Delegates from the affiliated societies,

and the Academy will seat whomever is

designated by the affiliated society, pro-

vided he is a member of the Academy.

There is now a move afoot to make these

delegates members of a new Council of the

Academy, analogous to the Council of the

AAAS. Thus the Board of Managers would

be relieved of the weight of their numbers

at most Board meetings and yet could get

advice from them from time to time, par-

ticularly on questions affecting the affili-

ated societies.

The Joint Board

Enough for the Board of Managers, for

there is another Board that should be

known to you. I refer to the Joint Board

on Science Education for the Washington

Area, usually known locally as “the Joint

Board.” It is composed of the Committee

on Science Education of the Academy and

a similar group from the D. C. Council

of Engineering and Architectural Societies.

The Joint Board has its own budget, com-

mittees, and meetings and takes only policy

direction from the Academy. It effectively

helps students and teachers of science in

this area, particularly those in the second-

ary schools. Its Secondary School Con-

tacts Committee provides liaison between

every junior and senior high school, public,

private, and parochial, in this area and the

professional scientific and engineering com-

munity. There is a contact man or woman

for every school, to help in any way he can.

And back of him are large numbers of

volunteers who will lecture, teach, counsel,

demonstrate, or evaluate as needed. Just the

bookkeeping on the roster of volunteers is

a large task. Beginning in 1959, thanks

to the National Science Foundation and the

central office of the Academy, an assistant

could be employed to bring the roster up

to date, maintain, and operate it. This was

one of four projects supported by a grant

of $35,000 from the new Academy pro-

gram of NSF. Our Academy was ready for

it and was among the first to receive this

support. Two other projects have to do

with experimental teaching in elementary

and secondary schools, combining mathe-

matics and science, with advice from special

committees of the Joint Board. The fourth

project brings together for free discussion

teachers in secondary schools and univer-

sities and scientists in government or pri-

vate employment on the general topic of im-

proving science education leading to careers

in science. All these projects have been

under way since last September, and sup-

port for a second year has already been

requested.

All secondary school teachers are kept

informed of Joint Board activities through

a monthly 8-page newspaper written and

edited by a member of the Board. It is sup-

ported by a grant from a private founda-

tion.

In addition to contact work with the

schools, the Board is concerned with local

science fairs, sending the winners to the

national fair, participating in an annual

event of the D. C. Council called Engineers,

Scientists, and Architects Day, etc.

The Office of the Academy

You have noted that I have so far not

mentioned the names of people on or con-

nected with the Board of Managers of the

Academy or with the Joint Board. I have

omitted them deliberately because there are

so many to whom credit is due. I could not

name them all even if I would. You will

learn the names of many as you read the

new Journal. However, I do want to men-

tion here our Administrative Secretary,

Mrs. R. R. Fell, a woman of unusual com-

petence who works full time for a modest

salary in our central office in the room that

the Carnegie Institution of Washington has

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

11

provided free of charge for the Academy’s

use. It is just to the right of the entrance

of the Carnegie building at 1530 P Street

N.W. It is open only during working hours,

from 8:30 to 5:30 Monday through Fri-

day. I suggest you drop in when you are

in Washington. There you will find Mrs.

Fell and Miss Juliette Grant, Assistant to

the Joint Board, and you will then ap-

preciate the work they are doing.

1 helped to set up the central office in

the summer of 1958 when Mrs. Fell came

to us from the University of Virginia.

It was in full operation in 1959. First Mrs.

Fell took over the business of getting out

the weekly Science Calendar, a list of

meeting announcements of local scientific

and engineering societies that is published

in the local newspapers. Gradually as the

records and materials of the secretary,

treasurer, custodian, and archivist were

brought into the office, she undertook the

routine work of bookkeeping, member-

ship records, filling orders for back issues

of the Journal, etc. — everything that should

be done in the office of a society. She also

helped to revise the directory of the Acad-

emy’s membership, which was published

recently, and summarized many of the

voluminous minutes of the secretary. More

and more the office is serving as the most

convenient source of information about the

Academy and the Joint Board and their

work; the telephone is busy.

I have tried to give you a picture of

Mrs. Fell s work so that you can answer

anyone who tells you that the office is

an unnecessary luxury. As a matter of fact,

Mrs. Fell is now doing regularly and well

necessary work that some of our volunteer

officers did irregularly and incompletely.

Her work on Journal subscriptions, re-

prints, and sales of back issues brought

in gross receipts greater than the amount

of her salary.

Report of the Treasurer

At this point I suggest you look at the

appended summary financial report for

1959. You will see that although we had

an operating deficit of more than $4,000.

the value of the Academy’s investments

suffered little loss during the year. There

is no need to build up this reserve any

further; on the other hand, it could be

seriously reduced if we should continue to

spend more than we receive. That is the

reason for curtailing expenditures on the

Journal in 1960. An increase in dues or in

membership or both will permit an ex-

panding Journal. On the other hand, in-

come from subscriptions to the Journal

will probably diminish, because it will no

longer be an archival publication that li-

braries must keep.

Membership

In 1959 a well-organized, hard-working

membership committee prevented any net

loss of dues-paying members and the total

membership increased from 1066 to 1083.

In 1960 there may well be a temporary j

net loss of dues-paying members owing to

impulsive resignations of some who op- ]

posed a change in the character of the

Journal. But these defections should soon

be overcome by new members who will

like a journal that keeps them informed

about scientific activities in their own com-

munity. The growth of the Academy could

be very rapid if it will admit all who are

interested or may become interested. The

present members, who are persons of con-

siderable experience and achivement in

science, could become Fellows of the Acad-

emy, and people of all ages without special

qualifications could become members and

make the work of the Academy in the

scientific community more cooperative and

less benevolent.

Meetings

The Academy holds eight meetings per

year on the third Thursday of the month

including the annual dinner meeting in

January. In 1959 the annual meeting was

held at the Kennedy-Warren apartments.

The officers’ reports and Academy awards

were presented at the annual meeting. In

February the meeting was held in the

John Wesley Powell auditorium of the

Cosmos Club. Retiring President McPher-

12

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

son gave a remarkable address on food and

civilization, from the beginning of agri-

culture to the future when expanding popu-

lations may require production of food

by chemical industry. In March the Acad-

emy met jointly with the Junior Academy

in the auditorium of the U. S. National

Museum to hear Dr. F. 0. Rice and rec-

ognize members of the Junior Academy

who had distinguished themselves in the

National Science Talent Search. The next

three meetings were held in the Powell

Auditorium. In April two Academy award

winners, Drs. Bolton and Branscomb,

talked about their work in biophysics and

physics respectively. In May the Academy

was addressed by Dr. Hugh L. Dryden

on space science, in October by Dr. Ed-

ward Teller on Project Plowshare, the

constructive utilization of atomic explo-

sions. In November members of the Acad-

emy met for dinner at the Johns Hopkins

Applied Physics Laboratory in Howard

County, Md. After dinner some of the

laboratories were opened for inspection

and then a meeting was held in the Lab-

oratory’s auditorium at which Academy

award winners Rubin and Shen spoke

about their work in radiocarbon dating

and aeronautical engineering, respectively.

The December meeting in the Powell Audi-

torium was addressed by Mr. Willard

Bascom on the Mohole, the project of the

American Miscellaneous Society to take

a sample of the mantle of the earth and

of all that lies above it on the bottom of

the deep ocean. All nondinner meetings

of the Academy were preceded by small

dinners at which the officers entertained the

speakers, and all meetings in the Powell

Auditorium were followed by light re-

freshments for all.

Awards for Scientific Achievement

In the preceding paragraph Academy

awards were mentioned. These are cer-

tificates of merit in the biological sciences,

the physical sciences, the engineering sci-

ences, and in teaching. In 1959 for the

first time an award was made in mathe-

matics. Each of these fields was rep-

resented by a carefully selected panel of

six or seven Academy members, each a

scholar in his own subject. The task of

obtaining nominations, coordinating the

work of the panels, and reporting the re-

sults was done by the chairman of the

overall committee. These awards, estab-

lished in 1939, have been very significant

as shown by the subsequent careers of the

young men and women who have received

them. Award winners are invited to become

members of the Academy, if they were

previously overlooked.

Encouragement of Science Talent

A committee on this subject pays par-

ticular attention to the Washington Junior

Academy of Sciences. In 1959 it had a

hand or a voice in various activities of the

Junior Academy: The Science Fair; the

Science Talent Search; the Science Trip

to New York; the first Science Conference,

an all -day paper-reading session at the

Burlington Hotel attended by 150 high

school students, the meetings of the Gov-

erning Council, etc. In addition the Com-

mittee sponsored a summer research pro-

gram that gave selected students an op-

portunity to work without remuneration

at the National Institutes of Health. Of

course, this committee cooperates with the

Joint Board. We are very proud of its

altruistic work among the junior scientists

of this area.

Miscellaneous

In 1959 the Washington Section of the

American Nuclear Society became affiliated

with the Academy.

The Academy’s second monograph, on

microsomal particles, was published by

Pergainon Press and had a satisfying sale.

Two small grants-in-aid for research

were made to high school students, who re-

quested support of less than $100 each for

the purchase of supplies and equipment

for their projects on the speed of light and

paper chromatography.

Aided by representations from a special

committee of the Academy on the need for

science service in the Library of Congress

after the usual working hours, the Librar-

ian succeeded in getting support for longer

Library hours.

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

13

Summary Financial Report for 1959

Washington Academy of Sciences

W. G. Brombacher, Treasurer

RECEIPTS

Dues $5,377.50 t'

Journal subscriptions and reprints 4,572.33 i

Sales of back numbers of the Journal 1,096.59 a

Interest and Dividends 3,413.20 :

Miscellaneous Income 90.60 ij

Total income, 1959 $14,550.22

EXPENDITURES

Journal: Printing, reprints, editorial assistant (11 issues) $10,712.55

Routine operations; officers and meetings 2,231.62

Headquarters office expense 4,884.75

Membership certificates (backlog cleared up) 338.99

Joint Board, Science Education 500.00

Science calendar 75.00

Total expenditures, closely, in 1959 $18,742.91

Deficit, 1959 operations $4,192.64

Cash balance, WAS only, December 31, 1958 $6,919.16

Bonds matured and cashed 2,000.00

Savings bank account closed out 1,586.25

Cash balance, WAS only, December 31, 1959 6,321.82

Investments, WAS only

Value, December 31, 1958 (includes savings account) $70,218.98

Value, December 31, 1959 70,097.88

Junior Academy

In checking account,

December 31, 1958 $833.59

December 31, 1959 1,337.04

In savings account, American Security & Trust Co., Dec. 31, 1959 2,000.00

Grant, National Science Foundation

June 1959 $35,250.00

Expended to December 31, 1959 13,512.92

Balance in checking account, December 31, 1959 $21,737.08

Grand total in checking account, December 31, 1959 $29,395.94

Science in

SCIENTISTS IN THE NEWS

This column will present brief items

concerning the activities of members of

the Academy. Such items may include

notices of talks given , important confer-

ences or visits , promotions , awards , elec-

tion to membership or office in scientific

and technical societies , appointment to

technical committees , civic activities, and

marriages, births, and other family news.

Washington

F ormal contributors are being assigned for

the systematic collection of news at in-

stitutions employing considerable numbers

of Academy members (see list on mast-

head). However, for the bulk of the mem-

bership, we must rely on individuals to

send us news concerning themselves and

their friends. Contributions may be ad-

dressed to S. B. Detwiler, Jr., Associate

Editor, 2605 S. 8th St., Arlington, V a.

14

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

i Catholic University

Virginia F. Grilling, professor of

chemistry, participated in a Symposium on

| “Comparative Effects of Various Radia-

; tions,” held February 15-20 under the

auspices of the NAS Photobiology Sub-

i committee. The meetings took place on the

Rio Piedras campus of the University of

Puerto Rico.

Regina F. Herzfeld, professor of anth-

ropology, presented a paper entitled “The

| Missionary’s Knowledge of Local Lan-

guage and Culture” at the Fordham Uni-

versity Conference of Mission Specialists,

! January 23-24.

Herbert C. Hanson, research profes-

| sor of biology, has been elected first vice-

chairman for 1960 of the Capital Section,

American Society of Range Management.

Frank A. Biberstein, Jr., professor

of civil engineering, was a member of

the Advisory Panel for the New Laboratory

Equipment Program to the NSF, which

j met in Washington February 4-5.

George Washington University

During the week of January 4, Ben-

jamin D. Van Evera, in company with

Acting President Colclough and Meredith

Crawford, director of the Human Resources

Research Office, visited GWU’s Human Re-

sources Research Units at Fort Knox,

! Rucker, and Benning, for conferences and

! demonstrations of the work these units

j are doing in the field of Army training.

On behalf of the Washington Board of

• Trade, Dean Martin A. Mason is direct-

ing a study of desirable improvements in

graduate study opportunities in the Wash-

ington area. The purpose is to strengthen

and improve the attraction of the area

for private research and development com-

panies.

Mary Louise Robbins, professor of

bacteriology, was recently elected a Charter

Fellow of the American Academy of

Microbiology and President of the Wash-

ington Branch, Society of American Bac-

teriologists for 1960.

Journal of The Washington Academy

NAS-NRC

Walter H. Larrimer brought to a suc-

cessful conclusion, last August, the ten-year

NAS-NRC project on the production of

Handbooks of Biological Data. Work on

the Handbooks will be continued by the

Federation of American Societies for Ex-

perimental Biology. Dr. Larrimer is now

serving temporarily as a staff officer of the

Division of Biology and Agriculture, in

charge of arrangements for certain meet-

ings and conferences.

Naval Research Laboratory

Herbert Friedman appeared on the

CBS Conquest program, “Mystery of the

Sun,” on January 24, illustrating the back-

ground of, and recent advances in, rocket

astronomy.

Dr. Friedman was recently elected to the

Board of Directors of the American Rocket

Society for a three-year term beginning

January 1. On January 27 he attended the

Board’s first 1960 meeting in New York

City.

Richard Tousey attended the First In-

ternational Space Science Symposium of

the Committee on Space Research

(COSPAR), held recently in Nice, France,

and presented a paper, “The UV Spectrum

of the Sun.” This paper reported recent

rocket spectrograms in the range 500-

1800A.

Horace M. Trent gave two talks at

Virginia Polytechnic Institute on January

18. He addressed the Mathematics Club

on “Some Contributions of Mathematics

and Mathematicians to the Work Carried

on at the U. S. Naval Research Labora-

tory”; and he addressed the Naval Re-

search Reserve Unit on “The Functions of

the Naval Research Laboratory as set up

under the Office of Naval Research.”

George R. Irwin and J. A. Kies pre-

sented a paper, “Fracture Theory as Ap-

plied to High Strength Steels for Pressure

Vessels,” at the Golden Gate Metals Con-

ference, held in San Francisco February

4-6. On February 15 Dr. Irwin and J. S.

Srawley presented a paper, “Brittle Frac-

of Sciences

15

ture." before the American Institute of

Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum En-

gineers in New York City.

Smithsonian Institution

The American Ornithologists’ Union has

presented the Brewster Award — its highest

honor — to Alexander Wetmore, re-

search associate and former secretary of

the Smithsonian Institution. This award

was granted at the Union’s 77th Stated

Meeting, held August 25-30 in Regina.

Saskatchewan. The citation read in part:

“In Alexander Wetmore we hail a biologist

who, during a career that now spans more

than 50 years, has been one of the chief

architects of American ornithology.”

USD A, Beltsville

Bei •nice G. Schubert has been ap-

pointed technical editor of Economic

Botany , effective February 1. This journal

is now the official organ of the new Society

for Economic Botany, formed last sum-

mer.

Erwin L. LeCIerg, director of biometri-

cal services, Agricultural Research Service,

served as chairman of a meeting of Agricul-

tural Experiment Station statisticans, held

concurrently with the annual meeting of

the Biometric Society in Washington, late

in December. Dr. LeClerg was elected to

serve again as chairman of this group at

its next meeting, at Stanford University

next August.

John H. Martin and Reece I. Sailer

served as members of a USDA team that

visited India, Pakistan, and Egypt during

October and November, 1959, to negotiate

grants for agricultural research by scienti-

fic institutions in these countries. The

grants will be financed by Public Law

480 funds received from sales of surplus

farm products.

Myron S. Anderson, before his re-

tirement an employee of the Agricultural

Research Service, has accepted an invita-

tion from William Penn College, Iowa, to

conduct a short course next May on the

topic, “Soil and Civilization.” He has

prepared a syllabus designed to present

soil science as a cultural subject, suitable

for consideration in a liberal arts college.

J. L. Lowe and R. L. Gilbertson of

the New York School of Forestry were

guest workers at Plant Industry Station

for two weeks in January, in cooperation

with the Forest Disease Research Labora-

tory and the National Fungus Collections.

Both men are specialists in the classifica-

tion of Polyporaceae, one of the principal

groups of wood-rotting fungi.

Paul R. Miller has been appointed to

the Editorial Committee of Annual Reviews

of Microbiology for a five-year term ef-

fective January 1.

Lawrence Zeleny of the Grain Divi-

sion, Agricultural Marketing Service, spoke

before the Chesapeake Section, American

Association of Cereal Chemists, at its meet-

ing on January 28. Dr. Zeleny’s topic,

“Wheat Quality Requirements in Asia

and Europe,” was based upon observations

during his trip to Japan, Hong Kong, In-

dia, Pakistan, Holland, Germany, and Eng-

land during the summer of 1959, under

the sponsorship of USDA’s Foreign Agri-

cultural Service and the Great Plains

Wheat Market Development Association.

Jolm W. Mitchell has been appointed

head of the Growth Regulator and Anti-

biotic Laboratory of the Crops Research

Division, Agricultural Research Service.

Dr. Mitchell, who described his research on

plant regulators to Premier Khrushchev

during the latter’s visit to the United States,

has recently published several papers on

absorption and trans-location of agricul-

tural chemicals by plants, and on methods

used in studying responses of plants to

regulating chemicals.

Arthur W. Lindquist represented the

Entomology Research Division, Agricul-

tural Research Service, at a meeting of the

WHO Committee on Insecticide Evalua-

tion held at Geneva, November 30-Decem-

ber 5. The committee consisted of single

representatives from seven research organ-

izations. Purpose of the meeting was to

plan how WHO could speed up evaluation

16

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

of insecticides for control of Anopheles

mosquitoes that are resistant to DDT, diel-

drin, and BHC.

USDA, Washington

Hazel K. Stiebeling was a member of

the U. S. delegation to an FAO conference

in Rome, November 1-21, 1959, serving

as advisor on matters relating to human

nutrition and home economics.

Wilbur T. Pentzer attended the 10th

International Congress of Refrigeration,

held in Copenhagen last August, as a dele-

gate appointed by NAS-NRC. At the Con-

gress, he was elected vice-president of the

Technical Board for the International In-

stitute of Refrigeration, 1959-63, and vice-

president of Commission 4, which deals

with the refrigeration of foods and other

agricultural commodities.

Dorothy Nickerson is author of a

paper, “Light Sources and Color Render-

ing,” which appeared in the January is-

sue of the Journal of the Optical Society

of America. The paper summarizes prog-

ress on industrial and agricultural prob-

lems concerned with good color rendering

of light sources, including progress being

made nationally by a committee of the Il-

luminating Engineering Society and inter-

nationally by a committee of the Inter-

national Commission on Illumination.

Edson J. Hambleton attended the

Sixth Session of the FAO Desert Locust

Control Committee meeting, held in Rome

June 29-July 4, 1959. After the meeting,

he made an inspection tour of Regional

Insect Control Project operations in Tuni-

sia, Libya, the Sudan, Ethiopia, Lebanon,

and Iran.

Last December, Dr. Hambleton attended

the annual conference of the Regional In-

sect Control Project, held in Beirut, Le-

banon, and afterward inspected project

operations in Ankara. The Control Project

is operated by USD /Vs Plant Pest Control

Division in cooperation with ICA.

Joseph R. Spies attended the annual

meeting and postgraduate course of the

American Academy of Allergy, held at

Hollywood, Fla., January 10-13.

On November 3, Kenneth W. Parker

presented an illustrated talk, “Recent Ad-

vances in Range Management Research,”

before the Botanical Society of Washing-

ton. On December 16 Dr. Parker gave his

impressions of New Zealand in a talk, “Life

Down Under,” presented to the Bethesda-

Chevy Chase Chapter of the Izaak Walton

League of America.

A three-week holiday in Mexico, De-

cember 19- January 8, gave Harold H.

Shepard an opportunity to observe the

considerable improvement in road and

lodging conditions since his last visit in

1957. In some areas, the economic condi-

tion of the people also appeared better.

An informal visit to the archeological site

of El Tajin, near Poza Rica, was extreme-

ly interesting; Dr. Shepard recommends it

to others who may desire to learn some-

thing of Mexico outside the capital city

and Acapulco.

University of Maryland

S. Fred Singer, professor of physics,

presented a research paper before the

American Astronautical Society on Jan-

uary 2L during its Sixth Annual Meeting

in New York City. His topic was, “The

Radiation Belts of Planet Mars and

Venus.”

Monroe H. Martin, director of the

University’s Institute for Fluid Dynamics

and Applied Mathematics, has been ap-

pointed honorary lecturer in mathematics

at St. Salvator’s College in Scotland. Cur-

rently on a year’s sabbatical leave from

Maryland. Professor Martin is now at St.

Andrews, Scotland, where he is carry ing on

studies on the uniqueness of solutions to

linear and non-linear boundary problems

for partial differential equations.

Retirements

Benjamin Schwartz of the Animal

Disease and Parasite Research Branch.

Agricultural Research Service, retired No-

vember 30 after more than 43 years in Gov-

ernment service. Dr. Schwartz, whose maj-

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

17

or interests and contributions lay in the

fields of parasitology and helminthology,

received his formal education at CCNY,

Columbia University, and GWU (Ph.D..

1920) . He spent several years in the Philip-

pines, where he served as professor of

parasitology at the University of the Philip-

pines, director of hookworm research for

the Philippine Health Service, and co-

editor of the Philippine Journal of Science.

He was U. S. delegate to the International

Congress of Tropical Medicine and Malaria

in 1948, and president of the American

Society of Parasitology in 1951. Dr.

Schwartz plans to remain in Washington,

and to write a book on parasitology and

helminthology.

Deaths

Word was recently received at the Acad-

emy office of the death on July 23, 1959, of

C. E. Van Orstrand, a retired member

who had been living in Manito, 111., since

1947. Mr. Van Orstrand, formerly with

the Geological Survey here, was elected

to the Academy in 1909.

AFFILIATED SOCIETIES

American Institute of Electrical

Engineers, Washington Section

Chairman : Wade M. Edmunds (REA).

Secretary-Treasurer: Irvin L. Cooter

(NBS). Meetings in PEPCO Auditorium,

10th and E, N.W., 8:00 P.M. on 4th Tues-

day.

March 22, “Modern Automatic Dispatch-

ing for Electric Power Systems,” R. L.

Tremaine, Westinghouse Electric Mfg. Co.

American Meterological Society,

District of Columbia Branch

President: Jack C. Thompson (WB). Se-

cretary: Raymond McGough (USN Hydro.

Off.) Meetings at NAS-NRC, 2101 Con-

stitution Ave., N.W., on 3rd Wednesday.

March 16, “The Tracks of Tropical Hur-

ricanes,” William Haggard, U.S. Weather

Bureau.

American Society for Metals,

Washington Chapter

President: William L. Holshouser (NBS).

Secretary: Glenn W. Geil (NBS)

March 21, “Pressure-Induced Trans-

formations in Metals,” John E. Hilliard,

General Electric Company.

American Society of Civil Engineers,

National Capital Section

President: W. 0. Hiltabidle. Secretary:

Daniel P. Jenny. Meetings usually in John

Wesley Powell Auditorium

Chemical Society of Washington

President: Allen L. Alexander (NRL).

Secretary: John L. Torgesen (NBS).

The Board of Managers met on January

14 at the Cosmos Club, with incoming

President A. L. Alexander presiding.

Dr. Alexander introduced the Society’s

guest of the evening, Aristid von Grosse

of Temple University, who was later to

address the general meeting. He also in-

troduced new members of the Board and

several new chairmen of standing commit-

tees.

The minutes of the December 13 meet-

ing were read by retiring Secretary W. J.

Bailey, and approved. The financial re-

port for 1959 was presented by Treasurer

S. B. Dewiler, Jr.; this showed income of

$4,147 and expenses of $3,474, with year-

end balances of $1,000 in the checking ac-

count) $6,198 in the savings account, and

$8,511 in the ACS Cash and Investment

Pool.

Dr. Bailey stated that a summary annual

report of the secretary for 1959 would be

read at the general meeting, and that a

comprehensive annual report was expected

to be completed and forwarded to the

American Chemical Society about Feb-

ruary 1.

Chairman C. R. Naeser of the Budget

Committee presented a 1960 budget of

$3,670, stating that it was based on an

anticipated allotment from the American

Chemical Society of $3,731. Principal

changes from 1959 involved increases in

18

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

the Hillebrand Award and the Education

Committee budget, and decreases in the

Entertainment Committee budget and the

councilors’ travel fund. The budget was ac-

cepted by the Board.

J. M. Leonard reported for Chairman

Leo Schubert of the Education Commit-

tee that $1,600 was expected to be avail-

able to pay for bus fare and lunches for

high school students who will engage in

research projects at NIH next summer.

Of this amount, $1,000 will be contributed

by the Washington Junior Academy of

Sciences and $300 by the senior Academy,

while $300 has been authorized by the

Chemical Society of Washington. It is

anticipated that 20 students may be sub-

sidized with these funds.

Chairman P. J. Hannan of the Enter-

tainment Committee reported on arrange-

ments for the February 11 Board meet-

ing at Caruso’s Restaurant, and for the

Hillebrand Award dinner on March 10

at the Presidential Arms. In an effort to

publicize the dinner, an art contest for

posters is being sponsored in collobora-

tion with the Art Academy. After the con-

test, the posters will be displayed at various

insitutions.

Chairman W. A. Zisman of the Programs

Committee reported on tentative program

plans for 1960. Dr. Bailey announced that

the joint meeting with the ACS Maryland

Section would be held on Friday after-

noon and evening, May 6. The meeting is

expected to have co-chairmen, symposia,

and twice the number of papers as at the

regular May meeting of CSW.

Chairman R. P. Maickel of the Public

Relations Committee reported on the Com-

mittee’s recent survey of other ACS local

sections, to determine the use by news-

papers of academic titles in referring to

scientists. About half of the sections re-

sponded; they indicated that of 204 news-

papers surveyed, only eight liimted the use

of the title, “Doctor,” to the medical pro-

fession and the clergy.

Insecticide Society of Washington

Chairman: Milton S. Schechter (Ag. Res.

Cent.) Secretary-Treasurer: James F.

Cooper (Plant Ind. Sta.) Meetings in

Symons Hall Auditorium, 8:00 P.M. on

3rd Wednesday

Medical Society of the District of

Columbia

Secretary: Theodore Wiprud

Meetings in auditorium of Medical Society

Building, 1718 M St., N.W.

Society for Experimental Biology and

Medicine, District of Columbia Section

President: George A. Hottle (NIH). Sec-

retary: Edwin P. Laug (FDA)

April 7, meeting in Hall A, G. W. Univ.

School of Medicine, 1335 H St., N.W.

Society of American Foresters,

Washington Section

Chairman: James M. Owens

Mar. 17. “The National Wood Promo-

tion Program”, Mortimer B. Doyle, Exec.

V. Pres., National Lumber Manufacturers

Assoc., Washington, D.C.

Washington Society of Engineers

President: Adm. Charles Pierce (CDS).

Secretary: William R. Ganser, Jr.

Feb. 3, “The Bulldozer and the Rose,”

Dana E. Doten, USPHS, and Garnet W.

Jex, USPHS.

ACADEMY ACTIVITIES

New Members Since October 1959

Akers, Robert P.

National Institutes of Health

Allen, William G.

Maritime Administration

Birks, L. S.

Naval Research Laboratory

Buras, Edmund M., Jr.

Harris Research Laboratories

Burke, Bernard F.

Carnegie Institution of Washington

Crafton, Paul A.

George Washington University

Dawson, Reed

Department of Defense

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

19

Drummeter, Louis F., Jr.

Naval Research Laboratory

Haines, Kenneth A.

Agricultural Research Service

Hauptman, Herbert

Naval Research Laboratory

Karle, Isabella

Naval Research Laboratory

Karle, Jerome

Naval Research Laboratory

Krasny, J. F.

Harris Research Laboratories

Kruger, Jerome

National Bureau of Standards

Menkart. John

Harris Research Laboratories

Newton, Clarence J.

National Bureau of Standards

Orem, Theodore H.

National Bureau of Standards

Shen, Shan-fu

University of Maryland

Voss, Gilbert L.

Marine Laboratory, Miami, Fla.

Weil, George L.

Consultant, Washington, D. C.

Yaplee, Benjamin S.

Naval Research Laboratory

Yuili, Joseph S.

Forest Service, Beltsville, Md.

Reinstatement

Withrow, Alice P.

National Science Foundation

Corrections to 1959 Directory

Name F rom T o

Ford, Tirey F 1AW 1DNRL

JOINT BOARD

As part of the program supported by

a grant from the National Science Founda-

tion to the Washington Academy of Sci-

ences, the Joint Board on Science Educa-

tion is holding a series of curriculum con-

ferences. The purpose of these is to bring

together high school teachers, college in-

structors, and scientists to discuss prob-

lems in science education.

The agenda of these conferences con-

sist of informal discussions on such topics

as: problems in high school teaching aris-

ing from the need for college preparation;

problems in college teaching owing to high

school preparation; establishing better

liaison between high school teachers, col-

lege instructors, and the scientific com-

munity on matters related to science and

mathematics teaching.

In order to facilitate active participa-

tion of all attendees, the conferences have

been limited to about 30 persons equally

divided among the three types of par-

ticipants. Three area conferences — Mary-

land area, D.C. area, and Virginia area —

have been held for each of the disciplines

of biology, chemistry, mathematics, and

physics, or 12 in all. Participants met

on Saturdays from 9:30 to 4:00 P.M. A

group luncheon was sponsored by the

Joint Board. The biology meetings were

held in public schools while the chemistry

groups met at three different universities.

Private schools were chosen for the sites

of the physics conferences, and govern-

ment and private laboratories were hosts

to the mathematics meetings.

The second phase of the program is

now in progress. This consists of one area-

wide summary conference in each of the

four disciplines. To these have been in-

vited representatives from the preceding

conferences and, in addition, a few per-

sons from national scientific societies who

are particularly interested in secondary ed-

ucation.

Dr. Falconer Smith of NIH, who is

also Chairman of the Joint Board, has

chaired all of the conferences in biology;

Dr. John K. Taylor of NBS presided at

the chemistry conferences. Dr. Franz Alt

of NBS has been chairman of the mathe-

matics meetings, while Dr. Raymond J.

Seeger of NSF has presided at the physics

discussions.

The final phase of the conferences will

be a meeting between science and mathe-

matics supervisors of the local school sys-

tems and the chairmen of the preceding

conferences. Dr. Raymond J. Seeger, chair-

man of the Joint Board’s curriculum com-

mittee will preside. One objective of this

20

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

meeting will be to explore ways in which

the Joint Board and the local scientific

i comunity can establish better liaison with

the schools.

SCIENCE AND

DEVELOPMENT

High -purity tungsten can now he

easily plated on metal surfaces by us-

ing a vapor deposition process developed

for the Navy by the National Bureau of

Standards. The method, devised by W. E.

Reid and Abner Brenner of the Bureau’s

electrodeposition group, involves reducing

gaseous tungsten hexafluoride with hydro-

gen by passing it over the heated object

to be plated. At temperatures above 300°C.,

tungsten is deposited on the hot surface,

and the only other reaction product, hydro-

gen fluoride, passes out with the excess of

hydrogen.

Geophysicists Rutledge Brazee and

Frank Werner, of the Coast and Geodetic

Survey, are conducting site tests in several

Western States for a suitable location of

a proposed seismological laboratory.

Some of the states that are being surveyed

are Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming,

Arizona, and Utah. Among its activities,

the new laboratory will conduct research

programs in the design, development, and

calibration of sensitive seismographic in-

struments.

A “Space Vehicles Group*’ that has

worked together as a unit for seven years

has been added to the staff of Atlantic

Research Corporation. This group has

! had extensive experience — averaging over

15 years per man — in the design, fabrica-

tion, and launching of multi-stage rocket

hardware for missions exploring the upper

atmosphere and space beyond the earth’s

atmospheric blanket. Formerly with the

Aerolab Development Company (now a

division of Ryan Aeronautical Company),

principal members of the group have par-

ticipated in major space projects such

as “Argus,” in which three atomic bombs

were exploded at a 300-mile altitude over

the South Atlantic.

Catholic University has begun con-

struction of a new building for the

School of Engineering and Architec-

ture. The Engineering Library and the

Departments of Civil, Chemical, Electrical,

and Mechanical-Aeronautical Engineering,

at present located in several buildings, will

be housed in the new structure.

The Biology Department of Catholic-

University is offering a new course, “Ra-

dioisotopes in Biology,” in the spring

semester, 1960. Part of the instrumenta-

tion necessary for the course was provided

by a grant from the Atomic Energy Com-

mission.

Proprietary medicines have a long

and flamboyant history. Some of the fan-

tastic extremes of the past are cited in a

study of old English patent medicines

which had a wide use in the American

colonies, recently published by the Smith-

sonian Institution. It is the work of George

B. Griffenhagen of the American Phar-

maceutical Association, and James H.

Young of Emory University. Such English

nostrums as Daffy’s Elixir Salutis, Turling-

ton’s Balsam of Life, Steer’s Opodeldoc,

Hooper’s Female Pills, and Bateman’s

Pectoral Drops appealed to the busy co-

lonial settlers with little time and small

means. The proprietors pioneered in both

advertising psychology and the develop-

ment of distinctive packaging. The popu-

larity of these remedies, some of which

have lasted into our own century, owed

much to the fact that though the ingredi-

ents inside varied (unbeknownst to the

customer), the shape of the bottle did not.

In a wind-blown, white sand desert

of northern South America — the great

Guajira Peninsula — a nomadic, polyga-

mous, matrilineal race of Indians has main-

tained its independence and ways of life for

nearly 500 years. The people of this cul-

tural island, the Guajiros, are described

by Raymond E. Crist of the University

of Florida, in a report recently pub-

lished by the Smithsonian Institution.

A notable characteristic of these people is

the survival of the matrilineal, polygamous

family. A man acquires a wife by pur-

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

21

chase from her family, paying in cattle,

jewelry, etc.; hence a girl child represents

a certain wealth to her parents, while a

boy child represents an economic drain.

Blood relationship is traced almost entire-

ly through the mother.

The forthcoming seventh edition

of the Merck Index , an outstanding

chemical reference book, is scheduled for

publication in March. This unique encyclo-

pedia of chemicals and drugs, now con-

aining 1,600 pages of text, has been pub-

lished by the Merck organization for more

than 65 years, and has become a standard

reference work for chemists, pharmacists,

physicians, dentists, veterinarians, botan-

ists, and members of allied professions. The

prepublication price of the new edition

is $11.

A grant of $22,388 has been

awarded by AEC to the University of

Maryland Physics Department for

purchase of equipment to be used mainly

in training senior physics students in an

atomic and nuclear energy course. Stu-

dents also will be enabled to use other faci-

lities such as the Department’s Van de

Graaf accelerator and related equipment

purchased from University funds.

A bibliography on plasma physics

and magnetohydrodynamics, the first

book to be compiled on the subject, has

been published by the University of Mary-

land. Prepared by James D. Ramer, a for-

mer librarian at Maryland, the publication

contains over 1700 subject titles, an author

index, and a numerical index to interna-

tional atomic energy reports.

Total domestic iron-ore resources

of the United States have been placed

at about 75 billion long tons of crude ore.

according to recent estimates by Geological

Survey scientists. Of this amount, about

10 billion tons is classed as reserves —

material usable under existing economic

and technologic conditions. The remaining

65 billion tons is potential ore — material

likely to become available under more

favorable conditions. The potential ore

may yield 25 billion tons of concentrates

and direct-shipping ore.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

February 11, 1960

I regret to note the erroneous impres-

sion given on pg. 26-27 of the January i

1960 issue of the Journal of the Washing - *

ton Academy of Science to the effect that

the meeting on December 14 was “between i

Academy officers and a number of mem-

bers from the Smithsonian Institution”.

We made it entirely clear at that meeting

that the individuals with whom the of-

ficers conferred represented the Geological

Survey (Paleontology and Stratigraphy

Branch) and the Department of Agricul-

ture (Insect Identification and Partite

Introduction Laboratories) as well as the

Smithsonian Institution. As you well know,

the Institution provides quarters for staff

members of these groups (and also for

certain Fish and Wildlife scientists whose

viewpoint was implied at our meeting),

but they are in no sense to be considered

“Smithsonian members”.

The quoted notes imply that the view-

point expressed on December 14 was a

Smithsonian viewpoint: this is an error of

fact, as a much wider group of scientists

was represented. I wish to object to the

misrepresentation of the viewpoint as com-

ing only from “Smithsonian members”.

An objection must also be registered to

the implication that the scientists at the

December 14 meeting wish the Journal to

contain “. . . chiefly scientific material of a |

descriptive character, . . .”. Our viewpoint

was unmistakably stated as favoring the

publication of scholarly contributions j

within the fields of interest of all members ,

without discrimination and insofar as fi-

nances permit.

A. C. Smith, Director,

Museum of Natural History j

Smithsonian Institution.

Editor’s note. This column is now avail-

able to Academy members for comments, I

criticism, statements of policy, and pro-

posals about either the Journal or Acad-

emy actions. Contributions should be

limited to 100-200 words and sent direct-

ly to the Managing Editor.

22

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

ACADEMY ANNUAL MEETING-1960

AWARD WINNERS AND GUESTS: (reading from left to right) TOP ROW:

Betty Schaaf, science teaching award; Helen L. Garstens, science teaching award;

Harvey R. Chaplin, Jr., engineering sciences award; Frank L. Campbell,

President, 1959-60; MIDDLE ROW : Dwight W. Taylor, biological sciences award;

Geoffrey S. S. Ludford, mathematics award; Alan C. Kolb, physical sciences

award; David Chen, President, Washington Junior Academy of Sciences. BOTTOM

ROW: Ralph B. Kennard, chairman, Committee on Meetings; Thomson King,

Director, Maryland Academy of Sciences; W. Doyle Reed, member, Committee

on Meetings. (Photos by Pat Krauss)

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

23

Officers of the Washington Academy of Sciences

President Lawrence A. Wood, National Bureau of Standards

President-elect Philip H. Abelson., Carnegie Institution

Secretary Heinz Specht, National Institutes of Health

Treasurer Carl Aslakson, Coast & Geodetic Survey

Archivist Morris C. Leikind, National Institutes of Health

Custodian of Publications Harald A. Rehder, U.S. National Museum

Editor Chester H. Page, National Bureau of Standards

Managers to 1961 Bourdon F. Scribner, Keith C. Johnson

Managers to 1962 Philip H. Abelson, Howard S. Rappleye

Managers to 1963 William B. Brombacher, A. 0. Foster

Board of Managers All the above officers plus the vice-presidents rep-

resenting the affiliated societies

Vice-Presidents of the Washington Academy of Sciences

Representing the Affiliated Societies

Acoustical Society of America

Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences

Anthropological Society of Washington

Society of American Bacteriologists

Biological Society of Washington

Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine

Botanical Society of Washington

Chemical Society of Washington

American Society of Civil Engineers

International Assn, for Dental Research

American Inst, of Electrical Engineers

Washington Society of Engineers

Entomological Society of Washington

Society of American Foresters

National Geographic Society

Geological Society of Washington

Helminthological Society of Washington

Columbia Historical Society

Insecticide Society of Washington

Amer. Society of Mechanical Engineers

Medical Society of the Dist. of Columbia

American Society for Metals

American Meteorological Society

Institute of Radio Engineers

American Nuclear Society, Washington Section

Philosophical Society of Washington

Society of American Military Engineers

Richard Cook

Not Named.

Regina Flannery

Mary Louise Robbins

Herbert Friedman

Kathryn Knowlton

Herbert C. Hanson

William J. Bailey

Not Named.

Gerhard Brauer

Robert D. Elbourn

Howard S. Rappleye

Harold H. Shepard

Not Named.

Alexander Wetmore

Carle Dane

Carlton M. Herman

U. S. Grant, III

Joseph Yuill

William G. Allen

Fred 0. Coe

John A. Bennett

Morris Tepper

Robert Huntoon

Urner Liddel

Louis R. Maxwell

Not Named.

24

Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences

T SSBH q£ sSpT-iqureo

8AV zz

YM innqaJoq.iv ptoujy J°

Volume 50 FEBRUARY 1960 No. 2

CONTENTS

Page

Adaptive Radiation in the Flowering Plants. HUI-LIN LI 1

The Referendum. FRANK L. CAMPBELL 7

Dr. Lawrence A. Wood. NORMAN BEKKEDAHL

Academy Activities in 1959. FRANK L. CAMPBELL 10

Science in Washington

Scientists in the News 14

Affiliated Societies 18

Academy Activities 19

Joint Board 20

Science and Development 21

Letters to the Editor

22

JOURNAL

of the

WASHINGTON

ACADEMY

of

SCIENCES

Vol. 50 • No. 3

March, 1960

JOURNAL OF THE WASHINGTON ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Editor: Chester H. Page, National Bureau of Standards

Managing Editor: Ileen E. Stewart, National Science Foundation

Associate Editors

Frank L. Campbell, National Academy of Russell B. Stevens, Geo. Washington Univer-

Sciences sity

Samuel B. Detwiler, Jr., U.S. Dept, of Agri- John K. Taylor, National Bureau of Standards

culture

Contributors

Albert M. STone, Applied Physics Laboratory

John A. O’Brien, Jr., Catholic University

Elliott B. Roberts, Coast & Geodetic Survey

Margaret D. Foster, Geological Survey

Russell B. Stevens, Geo. Washington University

Moddie D. Taylor, Howard University

Frank L. Campbell, NAS-NRC.

Alphonse F. Forziati, National Bureau of

Standards

Howard W. Bond, National Institutes of Health

Allen L. Alexander, Naval Research Laboratory

Victor R. Boswell, USD A, Beltsville

Harold R. Curran, USDA, Washington

William J. Bailey, University of Maryland