TION.

Saluvugii

UTION

NVINOSHLIWS

PY aly

NOILALILSNI

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

LIBRARIES

YURI

Pv;

(gp)

“UTION

‘ Ww

ye =

Ney

\ 5 wy

Nee

SMITHSONIAR

NVINOSHLIWE

SMITHSONIAN

NVINOSHLIWS

NVINOSHLIW

Pe)

LIBRARIE

NOILNLILSNI

Ysi] LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILALILSNI

INSTITUTION NOILALILSNI

INSTITUTION

NOILALILSNI, NVINOSHLINS S3IYVYRIT LIBRARIES

S S3IYVHUSIT LIBRARIES

SMITHSONIAN

NVINOSHLIW

SMITHSONIAN

ARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILOALILSNI NVINOSHLINS S3IYu¥Vug

LIBRARIES

UTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS S31uvuaIq LIBRARIES

INSTITUTION NOILALILSNI

SSIYVHEtT LIBRAR]

SSalaYVd9l

LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

NYINOSHLIWS

SMITHSONIAN

NYINOSHLIWS

UTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS S3IYVYgsq

NOILOLILSNI

NOILNLILSNI

LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI

INSTITUTION

NOILOLILSN!I NVINOSHLINS SJIYVUSIT LIBRARIES

VOSHLINS S3IYVHSIT LIBRARIES

&THSONIAN

THSONIAN

{

NVINOSHLIWS

SMITHSONIAN

LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTIC

)

us Z

2 Wee

eaY. =A

Be S ‘

er = P i

NVINOSHLIWS Saiuvag

a te) eZ

a =

a :

: = ]

am | 2

(po MITHSONIAN

[ep

SMITHSONIAN

bts

LIBRARIES

SMITHSONIAN

INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI

Saluvugiq

NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS S31UVY ail

SMITHSONIAN

NVINOSHLIWS

LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTIO

N ¥8 SS

NVINOSHIIWS

INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI

SMITHSONIAN

IOSHLINS SAIYVUGIT LIBRARIES

HSONIAN

a < = gp, =

Zz 5 = = ty, =

5 Na = AWS A ro)

n “SY n eel wn ute tf)

pi By ‘¢ Mas ‘ © - Ao (@) I 7: a

E WN YS Zs eS =. < =

= SS > = > =

22) beet ah ” ses ”

SAtYVYG!IT_ LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

tw Zz Ni ; z “

ee ” A o es

Z : = e

. ¢ . <

S oc Ss oc = oc

‘ ise) x Mm. — a

oot ae 2 3 S a

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLIWS Salyuvugi7_L! BRARI

ee = r z Js

. ae) = 0 o oO

ee) 2 ie Bo)

> Fa > = >

w — eo) es a

he a et a =—

a z a he D

S S3JIYVYSIT_LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

z z Ne 2 2 ak z

ee 4 eS WS. > M& 5

x hi 5 VE x 6 Ge ane

(9) “yy ae NN Oo aot. ie)

OG Lem sx 2 E z

i 79) *.

_ SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI_NVINOSHLIWS S31uvVuaiT_

me. .be 2 e €& © &

i bey, 2x wy i = S A ANS es at

Bie 2 < 2X = é

if tenn cS a Sa

Z = a KO = a

Vij e = 8 \Y za S

peat

NVINOSHLIWS LIBRARIES _ SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION _

: z ie 2 Se S)

Ee R na @ _ Yy, oO 3S

Nea 5 2 5 £4, 5

VSS a = Yt fo? E

Ns = iz = C07 Re 2 =

ie Se eee ee 2 = a

SW » ae ee rt 2

A = n = a) =

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS Salu¥vugl),

ye a z ee

les z WA = - = Why, *

= ro) SN ae i) Bi Wig 2

Chee Da a BQ @ ee) N Ve ie aa

3 hes AN 9 = 9 MS #7 =

= a FI oe _ ee =

z = = S

“NVINOSHLINS S3ZIYVYSIT LIBRARIES INSTITUTION

eat oe z on = i

ne z er Z WW

Y. on ” uw =~

ex oc ee ~ are ac

= a =A xt aan t

= [es Cc ow (ane a

8 « g = g 5

Ea |

RiES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NYINOSHLINS SJIYVYNSII

: z= Go z= = = FS

= o 2 = ° m9

3 So] = = om 9)

E> z = Can E =

E ee: - aed = ~

bd mm ” m ioe) m

= nO. i z wo ye oO

pos eW¥ Sl ILIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

& =z he eet Z . =

z ee) SN) IS z =

to) SE Bho rs) WSS “ a6 o) =

Yds 2X 8 2 Z

rs 9 Gus: «= SO Fa

NOILNL

ih |

LIBRAR|

LIBRAR

NOILNLL

SY diye

OG:

D2 W223

7 Ua VOLUME 62

Journal of the . anes

WASHINGTON

ACADEMY .-SCIENCES

Issued Quarterly

at Washington, D.C.

CONTENTS

Features:

ALPHONSE F. FORZIATI: Detergent Composition and

MNSIGGAT (CAPRIS elt er Se 5 eRe eee enna ee aa RR a 2

EDWARD S. AYENSU: The Need for Training in Technological

Management in Developing Countries — Ghana, A

Case in Point i

Research Reports:

ROBERT D. GORDON: The Tribe Noviini in the New World

(Coleoptera Coccinellidac inn. 6 5 ea ec a te 23

ASHLEY B. GURNEY: The South American Katydid Genus

Acanthacara: Descriptive Notes and Subfamily Position

(Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae, Agraeciinae) ............ a2

E. L. TODD: Descriptive and Synonymical Notes for Some

Species of Noctuidae from the Galapagos Islands

(icpidoptcia) ierarwt wetter Cie, Loni. ae laude nants 36

WILLIS W. WIRTH and ALEXANDER A. HUBERT: A New

Oriental Species of Culicoides Breeding in Tree Rot

Cavities (Diptera Ceratopogenidaeyay. 2). - 2. 4a 4]

Academy Affairs:

Board of Managers Meeting Notes — November and

December. mlOd pec crs howe. Are Met oie) 0 uy al AMES 22 43

Electionsdoshellowshipy iis). )5) oie chick ome Gibee 2, slates 46

CIE MISES UIA H NENIGe smile = Oa) eager afk akc clic) ieee! >

Washington Academy of Sciences

Founded in 1898

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

President

Mary Louise Robbins

President-Elect

Richard K. Cook

Secretary

Grover C. Sherlin

Treasurer

John G. Honig

Board Members

Samuel B. Detwiler, Jr.

Kurt H. Stern

BOARD OF MANAGERS

All delegates of affiliated

Societies (see facing page)

EDITOR

Richard H. Foote

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

Elizabeth Ostaggi

ACADEMY OFFICE

9650 Rockville Pike (Bethesda)

Washington, D. C. 20014

Telephone (301) 530-1402

The Journal

This journal, the official organ of the Washington Aca-

demy of Sciences, publishes historical articles, critical

reviews, and scholarly scientific articles; proceedings

of meetings of the Academy and its Board of Mana-

gers; and other items of interest to Academy members.

The Journal appears four times a year (March, June,

September, and December) — the September issue

contains a directory of the Academy membership.

Subscription Rates

Members, fellows, and patrons in good standing re-

ceive the Journal without charge. Subscriptions are

available on a calendar year basis only, payable in ad-

vance. Payment must be made in U.S. currency at the

following rates:

WES and’ Canada\ey- clei $8.00

ONSUNe A Aa bacoonoodos 9.00

Single Copy Price....... 2.50

There will no longer be special 2- and 3-year rates after

December 1969. Those subscribers who have paid for

special rates and are now receiving the Journal at these

tates will continue to receive the publication until the

date of expiration of their agreement.

Back Issues

Back issues, volumes, and sets of the Journal (Volumes

1-58, 1911-1968) can be purchased direct from Walter

J. Johnson, Inc., 111 Fifth Ave., New York, N.Y.

10003. This firm also handles the sale of the Proceed-

ings of the A‘cademy (Volumes 1-13, 1898-1910) and

the Index (to Volumes 1-13 of the Proceedings and

Volumes 1-40 of the Journal). Single issues from 1969

to present may be obtained directly from the

Academy office (address elsewhere this page).

Claims for Missing Numbers

Claims 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 al-

lowed because of failure to notify the Academy of a

change in address.

Changes of Address

Address changes should be sent promptly to the Aca-

demy office. Such notification should show both old

and new addresses and zip number.

Published quarterly in March, June, September, and December of each year by the

Washington Academy of Sciences, 9650 Rockville Pike, Washington, D.C. Second class

postage paid at Washington, D.C.

DELEGATES TO THE WASHINGTON ACADEMY OF SCIENCES,

REPRESENTING THE LOCAL AFFILIATED SOCIETIES

Baneernicalisociety Of Washington: 2 2036. 6 se i os a sls seme ciel § Edward Beasley

Anthropological Society of Washington ........--. 6 cee eee eee eee ee eee Jean K. Boek

Bimoricalisocietyior Washington «2.5.6.5. 26s eee eee ee ve ee ee Delegate not appointed

EMME TOSOCIELVZOL WASHINGTON 5/6, or Sdile) Hosts ee ee sss Se cle weeps, eum ld ens Joseph C. Dacons

Baromolopical'Society of Washington ...-...-5.. 26 eeecee ee ee eee anes Reece I. Sailer

MaMOnAGEOPTADNIC SOCICLY . 25. 6 csc ks ee ee ee ee ee oe hb es Alexander Wetmore

PPIMOMeCASOCICLY Of WaSHINStON ..66)5 20 ce eh ee ee ee Aa a ee Hs ees Charles Miller

Medical Society of the District of Columbia ..................,.-.. Delegate not appointed

eolmMbiaelistonicaliSOCIEty 2.6 6clncc de eas ee ee ee ee be Delegate not appointed

Babanicallsociety of Washington. «22... 66s ee ee ee ee eee Conrad B. Link

BURICRVAOIAINCTICANIEOLCSLEIS) «1. 2 5 oss ce ke ee ee ee ew ewe Robert Callaham

MASDINSLOMISOCICDYOLENSINECTS .. nn. ee ee ee er een eee George Abraham

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ................--2204- Leland D. Whitelock

American Society of Mechanical Engineers ...........--.-.-200 eee euee William G. Allen

Helminthological Society of Washington ...........-... 0-0 eee eee eee eee Edna Buhrer

Ninehicamsociety for Microbiology . 02.66. bs ee ee ee ee ee ees Lewis Affronti

Society o@American) Military Engineers .. 2.2... ee ee ee H.P. Demuth

Anehicanisocicty,oh Civili PNgiNeers, 2 abies cece Fe He ee eee ee eee Carl H. Gaum

Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine .................-.-..4.: Carlton Treadwell

American Society for Metals ................-45 Sa tie fabateite Ome Pekan Melvin R. Meyerson

International Association for Dental Research................2-20-0 +--+ ee euee N.W. Rupp

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics...................... Robert J. Burger

AmerncaniMetcorological Society .. 0-0-2 ee ec ee ee te et ce ee Harold A. Steiner

Insecticide Society, of Washington ...........--0.622+52 eset eres eee .. H. Ivan Rainwater

ACOUSTICAIS OCIELY OfAINETICA: «cdc Gis ners a Ae wales ale be We aw Cw ee we we eee Alfred Weissler

PMINCHCANPNGUCICATASOCICLY «20. 6 32 sie ae ee oe ee ie ee ee oes ele Delegate not appointed

Institutcomeood Technologists 22.0. 206i eee ee ewe ee ee eee ee George K. Parman

ATE tI CATING CIAMMUCISOCICEY lect seb agsie evans: erie eyed fe ger qeiteateb eles 06 6) lo. 4) 10) A stvenatines ds Puree sies J.J. Diamond

EI ECIROCG IGTIIGAlSOCGIAE Nes clnmare BeaiDrOrnncno tn Onn ECan cee cee tig ne reno eric one eere ore Kurt H. Stern

WashingtoniEHistory, of Science/Club) . «2. 62 c see ee we ele tee ee le cin Morris Leikind

American Association of Physics Teachers ...........-..--+-+ eee eeeees Bernard B. Watson

OpticallSocietyot#Amenicae a. ais cies 2 chal eue es eH sie ve. th gna fe, ahiouediecar Sue) levis) alsa a) eats Elsie F. DuPré

American Society of Plant Physiologists..........-.--.+--2-+2++eeeeeee Walter Shropshire

Washington Operations Research Council ..............--2---0 2 ee eee reese John G. Honig

Instrumentssocietysof-America qa. ctevstetepasls 60s =) cei wie oti oi Soe lieve eA swe Gee H. Dean Parry

American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical

anGgyhetroleumiEngineerse wre as teers che Scie] Pcs ete cee ce ee Bernardo F. Grossling

Nationall(CapitolVAstronomers: F228 Gn cose se) © 2 severe eG. g Sips ie @ os Gres @ewrels William Winkler

Delegates continue in office until new selections are made by the respective societies.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972. 1

FEATURES

Detergent Composition and Water Quality

Alphonse F. Forziati

Chief, Measurements and Instrumentation Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

It is a pleasure to speak to you tonight on

the effects of components of detergents on

the quality of our nation’s waters. The prob-

lems caused by phosphorus in waterways,

the role of phosphorus in detergents, the

consequences of introducing substitutes for

phosphorus in detergents, and the costs of

removing phosphorus in municipal sewage

by modern treatment plants are complicated

by many factors. In the short time allowed

me this evening, I can only present a very

rapid overview of these four basic problem

areas.

Phosphorus in Natural Waters

Let us start with an examination of some

natural waters. Lakes, rivers, streams, and

even oceans are living systems. They are

born, proceed through childhood to ma-

turity, become old, and finally die. This pro-

cess occurs whether man is present or not. It

is due to siltation of the waters by erosion of

the drainage areas, rain-washed inflow of

nutrients from the decay of vegetation on

the slopes, and the growth and decay of

aquatic plants in the water itself. The three

stages in the life cycle of lakes and water-

ways are referred to as “oligotrophic” (from

1A semipopular address delivered to a mixed

audience of scientists and non-scientists present at

the Academy meeting of May 19, 1971 by the

Academy’s retiring President. The opinions ex-

pressed do not necessarily represent the views of

EPA. :

the Greek oligos, few or little; and ““trophe,”

nourishments); “mesotrophic” (from mesos,

middle or intermediate); and “eutrophic”

(from eu, good or well nourished). Without

the intervention of man, the ageing process

is very slow. It is estimated that Lake Erie

would probably have attained its present

state of eutrophication around the year

50,000 by natural processes. Similarly Lake

Superior may not become eutrophic until

the year 100,000 if not polluted by man.

Before one can proceed to improve the

trophic state of a lake or stream, one must

have a quantitative, objective method of

measuring the current trophic level. Such a

method is also needed to monitor the

changes brought about by any treatment or

control process. Water courses are often

characterized by measuring chemical and

biological parameters. Chemical analyses

alone are not sufficient to establish the tro-

phic level of watercourses. The results of

biological analyses, however, are very signifi-

cant and can be used as a trophic index. For

example, oligotrophic waters may contain

many species of organisms but only a few of

each species. The system is well diversified

and in balance. Eutrophic waters, on the

other hand, generally contain few species

but a very large number of each species. In

most eutrophic waters, certain organisms

usually referred to as algae predominate.

Thus a study of the number and diversity of

organisms present in a body of water is very

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

helpful in assessing its trophic state. How-

ever, such studies are less useful to measure

the short term changes that might result

from the elimination of a nutrient or pol-

lutant. Considerable time is required for a

biological system to equilibrate. A rapid as-

say method is needed. The Pacific Northwest

Water Research Laboratory of the Environ-

mental Protection Agency was assigned the

task of developing such a method. In co-

operation with the detergent, chemical and

food industries, the Tennessee Valley Au-

thority and the U.S. Department of Agricul-

ture, this laboratory developed an algal assay

procedure? which can be carried out in three

different ways: 1) in a flask, referred to as

the “bottle test’; 2) in a continuous flow

chemostat system; and 3) in situ. The sim-

plest of the three is the “bottle test.” Here

one simply places a filtered sample of the

water to be tested in a flask, adds a known

inoculum of the test organism, exposes the

flask to light of known constant intensity at

a controlled temperature, counts the number

of cells at prescribed time intervals, and

plots a growth curve. The second method

involves the use of a continuously flowing

water system to which is added the test or-

ganism. The flow rate is adjusted until the

number of cells per unit volume remains

constant. This system gives a truer measure

of growth rate, but is more time-consuming

and expensive. The third method consists of

immersing a large glass or plastic container

into the lake or river of interest, adding the

test organism to the water in the container,

and allowing the organism to grow under the

natural environmental conditions that pre-

vail over the lake or river. Samples are taken

out periodically and the number of cells

counted. This procedure is the best approxi-

mation to the natural system but again is

slower and much more expensive than the

“bottle test.”” Thus we shall confine our dis-

cussion to the “bottle test.” The organisms

recommended for this test are: Selenastrum

capricornutum, a nitrogen fixer; and Micro-

2Algal Assay Procedure, Battle Test; National

Eutrophication Research Program, Environmental

Protection Agency, August 1971, Corvallis, Oregon

97330.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972 -

cystis aeruginosa, a non-nitrogen fixer. These

organisms are grown under standard condi-

tions to a preset number of cells per milli-

liter and are then used to inoculate waters

under test.

In the fall of 1970, a program was ini-

tiated to conduct a series of algal assays on

waters from nine Oregon lakes on a quarter-

ly basis?. The objectives of the study were

to 1) determine the effects of seasonal

changes on the ability of the waters to sup-

port algal growth, 2) correlate the chemistry

of the waters with their ability to support

algal growth, and 3) evaluate the effects on

algal growth of adding various nutrients to

the waters. The assays were carried out in

500-ml Erlenmeyer flasks each containing

250 ml of water sample which had been fil-

tered through a 0.45-micron filter to remove

organisms naturally present in the water.

Each flask was inoculated with a seven-day-

old culture of Selanastrum capricornutum.

The contents were incubated at 2442°C for

21 days under continuous cool-white fluor-

escent lights producing an intensity of 400

foot-candles and shaken gently. The number

and size of organisms were then measured by

means of an electronic particle counter

equipped with a “mean-cell volume” com-

puter. The chemical compositions of the

waters in the nine lakes are listed in Table 1

(see footnote 3). Upper Klamath Lake is ob-

viously the most polluted and Waldo Lake

the least. Let us see how their waters re-

spond to inoculation with Selenastrum

capricornutum. Table 2 (see footnote 3)

contains the data from such studies. Note

that water from Lakes Diamond and Tri-

angle with the highest dissolved phosphorus

concentration also show the greatest algal

growth rate, whereas Upper Klamath Lake

water with the highest dissolved inorganic

carbon and dissolved nitrogen but inter-

mediate dissolved phosphorus concentra-

tions yielded intermediate S. capricornutum

3Algal Responses to Nutrient Additions In

Natural Waters: Laboratory Assays; Thomas E.

Maloney, William E. Miller and Tamotsu Shiro-

yama; National Eutrophication Research Program,

National Environmental Research Center, Environ-

mental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon

97330.

Table 1.—Chemical properties of filtered lake waters

Ten

Mile

Determination | Woahink Tahken-

ltch

pH 6.7 7.0 7.0

Alkalinity (as CaCO3)| 9 16 21

NH,-N (0.010 0.100 (0.010

NO,-N 0.024 0.066 0.004

Kjeldahl-N 0.400 0.500 0.500

Ortho-P 0.001 0.004 0.001

Total Dissolved P 0.006 0.016 0.009

Sol. inorganic C 1.0 3.0 5.0

Sol. organic C 2.0 5.0 3.0

1All chemical concentrations in mg/l.

growth rates. Fig. 1—9 (see footnote 3) show

the effect on the algal growth rates when

soluble nutrients containing nitrogen, phos-

phorus, and carbon are added to the lake

waters. Note that 20 times as much nitrogen

and 200 times as much carbon as _phos-

phorus was added to produce the observed

growth rates. In the case of Upper Klamath

Lake water, it was already so rich in nutri-

ents that further additions produced only a

slight increase over the very high control

growth rate. Nontheless, 200 times as much

carbon as phosphorus was required to pro-

duce the same algal growth rate observed.

Diamond and Triangle Lake waters also pro-

duced high growth rates without the addi-

tion of nutrients, and again, additions pro-

duced little or no effect. Waldo Lake water,

on the other hand, was so deficient in all

nutrients that additions of nitrogen, phos-

phorus, carbon, and even combinations of

these nutrients produced a relatively small

increase in the algal growth rate. Several ad-

ditions would have been required to signifi-

cantly affect the growth rate.

If one plots the algal growth rate in all

the lake waters against the nitrogen content

of the lake waters (fig. 10) (see footnote 3),

there appears to be no correlation. A similar

plot for growth rate versus soluble inorganic

carbon (fig. 11) (see footnote 3), likewise

shows no correlation. On the other hand, if

the growth rates are plotted against the con-

centrations of phosphorus in the waters, the

points fall essentially on a straight line (fig.

12) (see footnote 3). This plot is very strong

Lake of Upper

the -

Woods

14 54 22 17 2 14

{0.010 0.350 0.290 0.020 (0.010 0.220

0.014 0.038 0.032 0.010 0.010 0.01

1.000 1.200 0.800 0.300 0.100 0.700

(0.001 0.017 0.038 0.026 0.001 0.040

0.009 0.040 0.058 0.029 (0.005 0.063

3.0 13.0 5.0 4.0 (1.0 3.0

2.0 10.0 4.0 1.0 (1.0

Diamond Odell Waldo Triangle

Klamath

Toll Voll 7.0 6.9 6.1

evidence that phosphorus is the algal growth

rate controlling element in these nine lake

waters. Studies on other water bodies have

produced similar results in most cases. There

are a few exceptions. Some lakes are so de-

ficient in carbon and nitrogen nutrients that

these two elements appear to be the growth-

controlling substances. Some marine waters

tend to show this behavior. By and large

though, the algal growth rate is proportional

to the phosphorus concentration. Thus, the

input of phosphorus into our waters should

be carefully limited. True, it cannot be eli-

minated entirely, but reducing the phos-

phorus content of many waters by even 50%

will cut the algal growth rate in two. In

waters where the phosphorus content is

close to the critical eutrophic level reducing

the phosphorus input by a factor of two

may protect the lake from algal blooms in-

definitely. Of course, there are differences of

opinion as to how this reduction is to be

achieved. As detergents account for about

60% of the phosphorus in municipal sewage,

some advocate complete elimination of all

forms of phosphorus from detergent formu-

lations. Others point out the problems as-

sociated with the use of some phosphorus-

free substitutes and strongly recommend re-

moval of the phosphorus compounds at the

municipal sewage treatment plant rather

than banning them from detergent formula-

tions. A look at the role of phosphorus in

detergents and at the costs of removing

phosphorus from municipal sewage may

shed some light on this controversy.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

Phosphorus in Detergents

The Detergent Process

A detergent must accomplish three basic

actions to effectively wash clothing or clean

any substance: 1) it must preferentially wet

the substrate, in this case the cloth, be it

cotton or synthetic fiber, so that the soil is

lifted off the substrate; 2) once the soil has

been released from the substrate, the deter-

gent solution must either dissolve the soil or

keep it in suspension in such a manner that

it is not redeposited on the fabric; and 3) it

must remove the ions which would interfere

with this suspension process. These ions are

responsible for the “hardness” of the water

and usually consist of calcium, magnesium

and iron in the ferric state. Thus, a detergent

formulation must include at least three con-

stituents: 1) a surfactant to “wet” the fabric

and the soil particles; 2) a protective colloid,

to coat the soil particles with a very thin

film to prevent their coalescing into large

clumps which would then deposit on the

fabric; and 3) a precipitant or sequestering

agent, to either precipitate the undesirable

“hard” ions or bind them into uncharged

complexes which can no longer interfere

with the soil suspension process.

Precipitating Detergents

Soap—For years soap was used to ac-

complish all three functions. However, soap

is successful only to a limited extent for the

following reasons. Soap is made by the re-

action of animal and vegetable fats with lye

(sodium hydroxide) or for special soaps, pot-

ash. Thus soap is the sodium or potassium

salt of stearic, palmitic, or oleic acids, de-

pending upon the fat used (beef fat or oils

such as palm, olive, corn, or cottonseed).

When soap is “dissolved” in water, it does

not really dissolve. Most of the soap remains

suspended in the water in groups of mole-

cules known as micelles. The suspended soap

is capable of wetting both the fabric and

many soil particles, thereby removing the

soil from the fabric and suspending it within

the micelles. A small amount of soap does

dissolve. The dissolved soap dissociates into

‘dium or potassium ions and ions of the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972 -

| 2 3

= WOAHINK TAHKENITCH TEN MILE

= 6

{e)

—

wy)

= |

fe)

<_<

Wy)

WALDO TRIANGLE

o ¢

ow |

o ¢

Fig. 1-9.—Effect of various nutrient additions

to lake waters on the growth rate of S. capri-

cornutum. A = 1.0 mg nitrogen/l; B = 0.05 mg

phosphorus/1; C = 10.0 mg carbon/l; D = 1.0 mg

nitrogen + 0.05 mg phosphorus/I; E = 1.0 mg nitro-

gen + 10.0 mg carbon/1; F = 0.05 mg phosphorus +

10.0 mg carbon/1; G = 1.0 mg nitrogen + 0.05 mg

phosphorus + 10.0 mg carbon/l; and H = control

(no nutrient added).

Table 2.-Comparison of average daily growth rates of S. capricornutum with dissolved nitrogen and

phosphorus concentrations in lake waters.

Ave. Algal

Growth Rate

Woahink

Tahkenitch

Ten Mile

Lake of the Woods

Upper Klamath

Diamond

Odell

Waldo

Triangle

1NH.-N+NO3-N

fatty acid characteristic of the fat from

which the soap had been made. Some of the

fatty acid ions combine with the hydrogen

ions in the water to form undissociated fatty

acid molecules which remain suspended in

the water. The remaining hydroxyl ions en-

hance the process of soil suspension as they

are negatively charged and tend to stabilize

the colloid formed. The hydroxyl ions also

convert some soil substances to forms which

are more soluble in water. Thus soap appears

0.35

fe)

te)

fe)

fe}

pe,

0.10

TOTAL DISSOLVED NITROGEN—mg/L

02 04 06 0.8

AVERAGE DAILY GROWTH RATE—S. ¢qpricornutum

Fig. 10.—Effect of the concentration of total

dissolved nitrogen on the growth rate of S. capri-

cornutum.

Dissolved N1

mg/1

Dissolved P

meg/1

to be a reasonably effective cleaning agent.

Unfortunately, calcium, magnesium, and

iron ions, commonly found in hard waters,

form insoluble salts with fatty acid ions.

These salts precipitate as a scum of varying

hardness depending upon the fatty acid used

to make the soap; salts of stearic acid are the

hardest and those of the oleic acids are the

softest (hard and soft as used here refer to

their tactile (feel) properties and not to their

chemical properties as when speaking of

water hardness).

tr) @ fo) nD

TOTAL SOLUBLE INORGANIC CARBON—mg/L

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

AVERAGE DAILY GROWTH RATE—S. copricornutum

Fig. 11.—Effect of the concentration of total

soluble inorganic carbon on the growth rate of S.

capricornutum.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

8 B g 8 3

TOTAL DISSOLVED PHOSPHORUS—mg/L

AVERAGE DAILY GROWTH RATES, cgpricornutum

0.2 0.4 06

Fig. 12.—Effect of the concentration of total

dissolved phosphorus on the growth rate of S.

capricornutum,

Scum formation not only uses up soap,

requiring more soap for effective cleaning,

but also has a tendency to deposit a sticky

layer on clothing and laundry equipment.

This layer attracts and holds other dirt on

fabric surfaces thereby imparting the char-

acteristic “tattle-tale gray” to clothing after

a dozen or so washings. On laundry equip-

ment, the deposits interfere with proper

functioning of machine items with close

tolerances (pumps and valves) thereby in-

creasing service frequency. Fig. 13 contains a

table of commonly used fats, the cor-

responding fatty acids, melting point of the

fatty acids, a typical saponification reaction

using beef fat and lye, and the ionization

and combination reactions of dissolved soap.

As shown in the figure, soap consists of a

long, water insoluble tail and a short water-

soluble head. The long, water insoluble, or-

ganic tail can wet and stick to many dirt

surfaces which are not wet by water. As the

water-soluble head of the soap molecule has

a strong affinity for water, dirt particles wet

by the organic tail are removed from the

fabric or other articles and suspended in the

water. This process is illustrated sche-

J. WASH, ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972.

matically in fig. 14. Laboratory studies

showed that the more soluble the head of

the molecule was in water and the more

soluble the tail in organic substances, the

more powerful the surfactant. This observa-

tion served as the basis for the synthesis of

the very effective surfactants used in modern

detergents.

Washing Soda Formulations.—From the

above discussion, it is obvious that the pre-

vention of scum formation is highly de-

sirable. Thus some soap makers included

sodium carbonate (washing soda) into their

mix when pressing the bars. The sodium car-

bonate in these soaps precipitated the cal-

cium, magnesium and iron as insoluble,

powdery salts thereby reducing the tendency

to form sticky scums. As the fatty acids

competed with the carbonate for the “hard-

ness” ions, some scum still formed. The

marketing of washing soda in a separate box

was tried. The user was advised to add the

soda to the wash water before adding the

soap. This precipitated the hardness ions in

the desired fine, powdery, non-adhering

form without interference by the soap. To

some extent, this was reasonably successful.

However, some of the precipitated material

still deposited on the fabric and machine

parts as the water level dropped during the

wash-water discharge cycle.

With the discovery of synthetic surfac-

tants (wetting agents) in 1930, combinations

of surfactant and sodium carbonate were

marketed. These were more successful than

the soap/carbonate mixtures as they did not

contain fatty acids to form sticky residues.

Nonetheless, some of the precipitated cal-

cium, magnesium and iron carbonates did

adhere to the fabrics giving the material a

harsh feel. When the water contained iron

salts, the precipitate was particularly un-

desirable as it imparted a yellow color to

white items in the wash. To minimize these

effects, antiredeposition agents (car-

boxymethylcellulose), blueing, and even

bleaches were added to the products mar-

keted in the twenty-year period from 1930

to 1950. ;

In 1970, sodium carbonate-based formu-

lations reappeared on the consumer market.

PRINCIPAL EMPIRICAL

FAT FATTY ACID FORMULA M.P. °C

beef fat stearic Ci 7H35 con 69-70

paim oil palmitic Ci5 Hz, Cok 63-64

olive oil oleic Ci7H33C—OH 14

cotton seed linoleic

C2 ~~

SAPONIFICATION REACTION

fe)

-0-Cc*

CH5-0-C 5 17 3s CH, OH i

CH—O-C&—C,_H, + 3NaqaQOH — CHOH + 3C,7Ha6 C—O-Na

-o-c2c_H CH.OH \

Came igiss “aaa soap

beef fat lye glycerine 025i

CH, CH. CH. CH. CH H. CH. CH, CH. 0 y

ts Le Le Ne Le Re Re Re

CH, CH, CH, CH, CH, CH, CH, CHy! G Na i

water insoluble,organic tail

°, .

“Seesseeeoe®

water soluble head

C,7H3,.C—O-Na + H,0 — C,H ce O-H + Na’ + OH

free fatty acid

| in water

[ec

O = +

i735 C—0-| + Na

f stearate ion

2[cpHs,c0-] + ca** — (cH coo), ¢

17°35 f 17°35 a“

hardness ion

sogp scum

Fig. 13.—Soap and its reactions.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

F=Cross Fibers

dadetergent

Fig. 14.—The removal of organic soil from a cloth fiber.

Current formulations may include from

50-85% sodium carbonate, about 6% modi-

fied sodium silicate (Na, O.2SiO.),20 to 10%

surfactant (usually of the non-ionic type),

about 1% carboxymethylcellulose and the

rest optical brighteners and fillers. The pH of

solutions of these formulations is about

10.5. This value is higher than that of solu-

tions of soap (about 9) or the formulations

which will be discussed later. As pointed out

above, these formulations depend upon the

precipitation of calcium, magnesium, and

iron ions as insoluble carbonates, thereby

softening the water. The surfactant then re-

leases the soil from the fabric. The car-

boxymethylcellulose prevents the redeposi-

tion of the soil and, to some extent, of the

precipitated carbonates. Although one man-

ufacturer claims that no problems are en-

countered by users of his product, regardless

of water hardness, our research indicates

there is a definite buildup of inorganic solids

in fabrics washed with these materials. Build-

up of inorganics is referred to as “ash build-

up” because of the manner in which the in-

organics are determined analytically. The

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972 .

cloth is slowly charred in a crucible, the cru-

cible is then heated to a dull red heat, cooled

and weighed. High inorganic salt content not

only imparts a coarse feel to the fabric but

also decreases its wear resistance. Of course,

in high-iron areas, white items will appear

yellowish after a few washings just as with

the earlier formulations. Furthermore, pri-

vate information suggests that at least one

large home washer manufacturer is ex-

periencing interference with proper func-

tioning of his washers when carbonate-based

formualtions are used.

Borax.—The compound borax (sodium

tetraborate decahydrate) has been marketed

as a cleaning agent with no additives for

many years. Its cleaning power is due to the

alkalinity developed when the compound is

hydrolyzed by water and also on the forma-

tion of insoluble borates with the “hard-

ness” ions previously discussed. Borax never

enjoyed wide acceptance as a household

laundry detergent but has maintained consis-

tent, though small, sales as a hard-surface

cleaner.

Recently, a formulation containing 30%

sodium perborate (NaBO,.H,0) has been in-

troduced as a phosphate-free detergent.

However, most formulations which include

perborates use only about 2% to impart mild

bleaching action. This occurs only at high

water temperatures. As the water tempera-

ture used by American home washers is

generally about 135°F, very little if any

bleaching takes place. The product has been

more or less successful in Europe where

180°F water is used. Humans are very tol-

erant to borates. About 10 to 20 mg may be

ingested daily in food with no apparent ill

effects.

The U.S. Public Health Service recom-

mends that drinking water contain not more

than | mg of boron per liter of water, but

western U.S. waters may contain 5-15 mg/

liter. However, because of its phytotoxicity

(0.5 to 1.0 mg/liter damaging sensitive

plants), boron containing formulations

should not be encouraged.

Surfactant/Soap Combinations —There

are a number of liquid, all-purpose cleaners

which consist of 80% saponified vegetable

oils, 10-15% surfactant of the non-ionic

type, a few percent of an organic solvent

such as butylcellosolve, sometimes free am-

monia, and an optical brightener. These per-

form satisfactorily as general purpose, hard-

surface cleaners. Their performance in the

household-type washer is being checked.

One formulation consists of about 80%

saponified vegetable oil, 15% ethoxylated al-

cohols, assorted impurities, and 0.1% optical

brightener. Its manufacturer claims it to be

completely biodegradable and it well may

be. How well it washes is unknown at this

time. Scum formation may be a problem.

Non-Precipitating Detergents

Water Softeners .—It is now clear that for

the best washing efficiency, one must either

remove the interfering “hardness” ions by a

completely separate operation, not in the

presence of soap, or render these ions in-

active by binding them into neutral com-

plexes which are very soluble, do not

precipitate out, and are discharged with the

wash water. The first alternative may be ac-

complished by installing a water softener for

the entire household, or more economically

by attaching a small water softener to the

wash water intake of the home washer. One

machine manufacturer did develop such a

device about 15 years ago. It consisted of a |

cylinder about 18” long and 5” in diameter ©

filled with conventional water softening |

zeolites which could be regenerated by add- |

ing a pound of salt to the cylinder. About 6 ©

months wash use between regenerations, for

the average family, was claimed. The item

never reached the consumer market because

of the advent of the highly efficient, chelat-

ing (sequestering) detergent which obviated

its need. Today synthetic ion-exchange

resins in replaceable or regenerable cartridges

could be readily attached to the home

washer at very reasonable cost. Information

from the home laundry industry indicates

that the device is being reconsidered by

machine manufacturers.

Sequestering Formulations.—In 1946 the

discovery that sodium tripolyphosphate

(STPP) was able to bind the hardness ions

into soluble, noninterfering complexes revo-

lutionized the detergent industry. Within the

next decade, practically all of the formula-

tions intended for heavy duty use contained

from 25 to 50% STPP by weight; presoaks

contained as much as 70-80% STPP. They

also contained enzymes. However, enzymes

are a completely separate problem so they

will not be discussed in this paper.

Sodium Tripolyphosphate (STPP).—

Having discussed the functions of a deter-

gent, we are now in a position to appreciate

the composition of a moder, high effi-

ciency detergent given below:

Each item in this formulation was in-

cluded after extensive research and testing.

Therefore, the deletion of any one would

result in some reduction in the performance

of the product. Substitutes should be care-

fully considered before changes are made

lest the cure be worse than the disease.

From a performance standpoint, STPP

appears to be the ideal builder. It is capable

of sequestering the “hardness” ions into

soluble, neutral complexes; it is mild, pH of

solutions of formulations are about 9.9; and

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

Typical Heavy-Duty Granular, Detergent Formulation

Material

sodium dodecylbenzene

MRR ECAP EEE Sous W 222 ch ts 'Siiays: ap ecel'bp'suaos: dar avalere sues

sodium xylene sulfonate......................

dethanolamide of coconut

BP TOETGICLSPEAE IC Met i=) oy = Folcis, alisha) 0 “elvalic sale wlgvelles siete’

sodium tripolyphosphate.....................-

REMPINUREIIESTITS LUCIEN ee oye ae oo ohana Sy ethos ie) alias) dllal eae

carboxymethylcellulose..................--4--

Ohi SRS Se

IST ZONTEZOIG: 6 2.0 o's Setar en eee a paeienere Cena oreretenS

other inorganic salts and water.................

Percent by wt. Purpose

SHO ee relays Geer tera te tenn surfactant

See SHO ieee ortraickbs sore kaya ley ootveiee ee antidusting agent

we DEO ive tiie oiteiyeusieay sum syne foam booster

SUMO peers sti nD cee on oe builder (sequestrant)

sxe ROLO sanctus or tadroveteteitars teuane anticorrosion agent

res OSSR ies ahtheuesls me. hae soil redeposition

preventive

sro PSs ic. th nsvene ebicneusiess Mites fluorescent whitener

eee Oil si 2, seiko wanderers eierteusrepb tors antitarnishing agent

we OSE vetrdn alten cuapbteheteuelis. Ssce 1suays fillers (usually sodium

sulfate)

4This is usually a 50/50 mixture of a fluorescent dye which attaches itself to cotton and a fluorescent dye

which combines with synthetic fibers. Typical examples are bis stilbenedisulfonate and triazolylstilbene-

sulfonate.

it possesses sufficient reserve alkalinity to

saponify (convert to soluble salts) oily soil

removed from clothing. Furthermore, so-

dium tripolyphosphate readily hydrolyzes

into sodium orthophosphate which has no

appreciable sequestering power, thereby re-

leasing the metal ions previously solubilized.

These ions combine with the orthophos-

phate ions to form insoluble salts which then

precipitate out. Thus the hardness ions are

held in solution during the washing process

but are released to precipitate out later

either during the sewage treatment process

or in septic tank drain fields. It is interesting

to note that the phosphates of heavy metals

such as mercury, cadmium, and lead are also

only slightly soluble. Thus the presence of

orthophosphate ions in water tends to limit

the concentration of these toxic metal ions

to values frequently less than one part per

million. The exact value will depend upon

the pH of the water and upon the dissolved

oxygen content, that is, whether the system

is predominatly in an oxidized or a reduced

state.

Unfortunately, as discussed above, ortho-

phosphate ions have been identified as con-

tributing to accelerating the growth of un-

desirable algal species, therevy contributing

to the premature aging of watercourses.

Legislation limiting the amount of STPP, or

any other phosphate, in detergents has been

enacted by some communities; others are

planning to ban the use of all phosphates in

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972 >

detergent products sold within their jurisdic-

tion.

The furor about the use of phosphates

has led to the appearance of many phos-

phate-free formulations with varying degrees

of washing efficacy. Most formulations are

rehashes of the precipitating detergent

formulas discussed in the earlier parts of this

paper. A few detergent manufacturers substi-

tuted some other sequestering agent for

STPP. Some of the sequestrants used were:

NTA (nitrilotriacetic acid).—Until very re-

cently, NTA appeared to be the most

promising sequestering substitute for STPP.

However, serious questions as to its tera-

togenicity have been raised by the early

work by the Public Health Service. The soap

and detergent industry is voluntarily with-

holding this compound until further studies

prove or disprove the existence of the haz-

ards suggested.

EDTA (ethylenediamine tetracetic

acid).-EDTA has been known to be a very

effective chelating agent (sequestrant) long

before NYA. However, it was also known to

biodegrade very slowly so its use in house-

hold detergents was not pushed by the in-

dustry. It has been and is used to a very

limited extent in special purpose cleaners.

Sodium Citrate.—The citrates should: be

ideal substitutes as they biodegrade readily,

are not toxic, and can be prepared in large

quantities at reasonable cost. Unfortunately,

citrates are only good chelators at high pH

values—about 12. Products with such a high

pH would not meet product safety stan-

dards. Recent research indicates that citrates

are effective at lower pH values if special

surfactants are used. Several new formula-

tions are being evaluated.

SODA (disodium oxydiacetate)—SODA

is a new compound which has chelating

properties midway between STPP and NTA.

It is said to biodegrade readily with prac-

tically no acclimitization period. As it does

not contain phosphorus, nitrogen, or potas-

sium, biostimulatory effects would not be

anticipated. Being weaker in chelating power

than NTA, it may not transfer metals across

the placental barrier and into the fetus as

appears to be the case with NTA. However,

no experimental information is available on

this point. SODA can be prepared cheaply

and in the amounts required as the raw ma-

terials are formaldehyde, carbon monoxide

and water. At this time, all that can be said

is that the compound is “of interest.”

Pollution Potential vs. Detergent Type

A simple way of estimating the amounts

of components of a detergent formulation

which would be added to receiving waters if

that particular formulation were adopted by

all users is to compute the amount of phos-

phorus presently contributed by detergents

and compute the equivalent amount of de-

tergent formulation involved. Then assume

that the same weight of any other formula-

tion would be used. From the percent com-

position of the formulation, the amount of a

particular component can be readily calcu-

lated. This method is superior to deter-

mining the total sales of detergent products

and using that figure as a base because the

amount used by owners of septic tank sys-

tems is difficult to determine and most of

the discharge from these systems remains in

the ground. Furthermore, the computation

method given below will furnish data on the

upper limit of resulting concentrations with-

out requiring extensive rainfall or river flow

data. It is understood that the computed

values are estimates which may be in error

by 50% (that is, may be higher or lower by

% of the value assigned) but nonetheless

they are useful estimates. The procedure is

as follows:

A. Assumptions:

1. 60% of the elemental phosphorus in muni-

cipal sewage effluent is contributed by detergents;

the other 40% is probably from human excreta,

discarded food products, discharges from various

process industries, etc.

2. 15% of the elemental phosphorus entering a

municipal sewage treatment plant is removed, in

the activated sludge or trickling filter, etc. Thus we

may assume a 15% phosphorus loss in passing

through the plant.

3. The average detergent contains 40% by

weight, STPP. Until very recently, this has been a

representative value. During the last few months,

manufacturers have attempted to reduce the STPP

content, but for the purposes of our calculations

40% is valid.

4. The increment of phosphate from tap water

to secondary effluent is 25 mg/liter. This value is

based on the fact that municipal drinking water has

a practically zero phosphate content, whereas,

secondary effluent contains 25 mg/liter phosphate.

The 25 mg/liter phosphate content of the munici-

pal sewage effluent must represent the increase

through one water-use cycle. The equivalent

amount of elemental phosphorus is 8.3 mg/liter.

B. Calculations:

1. If 15% is removed during treatment, the true

P increment per use is 8.3 x 100/85 = 9.8 mg/liter,

or approximately 10 mg/liter.

2. However, only 60% is from detergents, so .6

x 10 = 6 mg/liter of P is from detergents.

3. This corresponds to 6 x 3.95 = 23.7 mg/liter

of STPP.

4. The corresponding concentration of the

total detergent formulation is 23.7 x 100/40 =

59.3 mg/liter.

5. To simplify calculations, it is a justifiable

assumption that 60 mg/liter be used instead of

59.3. Thus, regardless of the composition of the

detergent, the total dissolved solids (TDS) incre-

ment would be 60 mg/liter. This is about 10% of

the average TDS present in effluents.

6. Suppose a carbonate-based, non-chelating

detergent completely replaced phosphate-based de-

tergents and it contained 40%, by weight, sodium

carbonate and 10% modified sodium silicate,

Naz0.2Si05. The carbonate, silicate, and sodium

ions added to the effluent would be:

a. amount of NagCO3 would be 40/100 x

60 = 24 mg/liter, and the corresponding CO3 = 24

x CO3 /NazCO3 = 24 x 60/106 = 13.6 mg/liter. If

acidified this would generate about 14 mg/liter of

bicarbonate, an increase of less than 5% of the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

amount now present in sewage effluent. Thus, inso-

far as bicarbonate formation may be of concern,

even complete substitution does not appear to con-

stitute a threat to the aquatic environment. The

addition of 14 mg/liter of carbonates to the 310

already present can hardly be critical. Formula-

tions containing 60% sodium carbonate would add

1.5 times the amounts calculated above. These

amounts still do not appear to be cause for alarm.

b. The amount of modified sodium silicate

introduced would be 6 mg. The corresponding

amount of silicate is 6 x 152/182 = 5 mg, or about

10% of the amount already present in sewage efflu-

ent. Here again, it is difficult to foresee how this

increase could be deleterious but firm data is lack-

ing.

c. The sodium ion introduced by both the

sodium carbonate and modified silicate is 24 x

46/106 = 10.4 mg/liter (from the carbonate) and 6

x 46/182 = 1.5 mg/liter (from the silicate), giving a

total of 11.9 or 12 mg/liter. This again is about

10% of the amount already present. In judging the

effects of carbonate/silicate formulations, it should

be remembered that many current phosphate for-

mulations contain 6% silicate, so at the most the

change from the amount of sodium ions now being

introduced, due to the increased silicate content,

would be half the amount calculated above, i.e.,

1.5 x 1/2 = 0.8 mg/liter of Nat. As 23.7 mg of

STPP contribute 7.3 mg/liter of sodium ions, the

Nat contribution by the sodium carbonate formu-

lations is only 3.9 mg/liter greater than that intro-

duced by STPP formulations. This is about 3% of

the amount now present in municipal sewage ef-

fluent.

7. Calculations for sulphate will not be dis-

cussed in detail as the amount of sodium sulphate

used in the phosphate-free formulations is usually

about the same as in the STPP-based detergents

now in use. At the most a 4% increase could be

anticipated; this is unlikely.

8. Assuming the new 30% sodium perborate

formulation completely replaced the STPP deter-

gents, the amount of boron discharged to our

waterways would be 30/100 x 60 x B/NaBOz.H20

= 30/100 x 60 x 11/100 = about 2 mg/liter. Al-

though one could drink water of this boron con-

tent without harm, the water would be unsuitable

for irrigation purposes. As mentioned before,

boron at the 0.5-1.0 mg/liter level damages sensi-

tive plants; 4 mg/liter damages all plants. Thus, if

boron containing detergents captured 25% of the

market, an environmental problem might result.

This could be particularly acute in areas where ef-

fluents are used downstream or directly for crop

itrigation or in areas where septic tanks were used

extensively. The accumulation of boron in the

drain fields would soon render the area unsuitable

for any plant life. On the other hand, fish seem to

be very tolerant to boron compounds; i.e., 96 hour

TLs50 values in excess of 3000 mg/liter have been

recorded.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL, VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972 -

9. Since surfactant/liquid soap formulations

are said to be completely biodegradable, the prob-

lem seems to be one of biochemical oxygen de-

mand load on the rivers and streams. This load

should be no greater than if ordinary soap were

used. There is good reason to believe that the com-

ponents of these detergents would degrade at

about the same rate as other biodegradable

organics in municipal sewage. Thus the load would

be on the treatment plant; a properly operating

plant would discharge no more than at present.

Septic tank systems should also be able to degrade

these materials as effectively as materials now in

use. The performance of liquid soap formulations

in the home laundry remains to be established.

10. NTA is a more effective chelating agent

than STPP. On a weight basis, 1 gram of NTA will

chelate as much calcium or magnesium as 1.4

grams of STPP. Thus a formulation using 40 wt %

of STPP will require 40/1.4 or 28.6 wt % NTA.

This corresponds to 17.2 grams of NTA if 60 grams

of formulation are used as assumed above. The

nitrogen added will be 17.2 x N/NTA = 17.2 x

14/257 = about 1 mg/liter. This is only about 3%

of the total nitrogen currently present in waste

waters. It is difficult to see how this small incre-

ment could generate environmental problems. Un-

fortunately, NTA is a powerful chelating agent. Ex-

periments suggest that cadmium chelates of NTA

may be transported across the placental barrier

with consequent damage to the fetus. Use of NTA

has been voluntarily withheld by the detergent

soap industry until additional experiments are

completed.

11. On a weight basis, SODA (disodium oxy-

diacetete) is said to be 1.4 times as effective as

NTA and 2.1 times as efficient as STPP. In addi-

tion, SODA is said to biodegrade without acclima-

tization; if so, it may impose no discernible envi-

ronmental load. Its chelates are said to be inter-

mediate in stability to those of NTA and STPP.

Thus, heavy metal chelates may not be transported

past the placental barrier. On the basis of very pre-

liminary information, SODA appears to have some

promise as a substitute builder. Considerable re-

search on its degradation mechanism and the

toxicity of intermediate degradation products re-

mains to be done.

Costs of Phosphorus Removal from Sewage

The sewage treatment process used by

various cities and municipalities may consist

of a simple sedimentation basin to remove

suspended solids or an elaborate series of

sedimentation basins, activated sludge aera-

tion tanks to microbiologically degrade dis-

solved organics in the sewage, adsorption

towers to remove organics that resist micro-

biological degradation, and finally chlorina-

tion to destroy bacteria and viruses before

the sewage is discharged to the receiving

waters.

Phosphorus may be removed from the

sewage microbiologically. By carefully con-

trolling the concentration of nutrients (raw

sewage) fed to the activated sludge tanks the

bacteria are made to “take-up” the maxi-

mum amount of phosphorus. However, even

under optimum conditions, the maximum

phosphorus removal achieved by this tech-

nique is about 80%. As it is difficult to main-

tain optimum conditions continy sly, only

15-20% phosphorus removal is « ained by

most treatment plants. The si:ip!est and

most effective method of removiig phos-

phorus from sewage is by the use of chemi-

cal precipitants after the activated sludge

treatment. The chemicals used and their re-

actions with phosphate ions are given in

Table 3. The particular chemical selected

TABLE 3

Removal of Phosphate by Chemicals

: a a- 2-

Al,(S0,),°14H,0 + 2P0) 2aipo,t +3505 +14H,0

phosphate solid

alum lon precipitate

3-0 =

Fecl, + PO, FePo,! + 3ci

In pickle liquor

B- 2-

Fen(S04)s + 2Pp03” — 2FePo,) + 3 sof

+ b- Fe

10 Ca(OH), 6PO, Ca(OH), (PO, ) | +180H

slaked lime hydroxyapatite

will, of course, depend upon the location of

the treatment plant and the price of the

chemicals delivered to the plant. For ex-

ample, a plant located close to a steel pro-

cessing mill will find it advantageous to use

“pickle liquor” which is rich in ferric ion

and is a waste product the steel mill is anx-

ious to dispose of. On the other hand, a

plant located close to a bauxite mine might

find it most economical to use an aluminum

salt as a precipitant. As lime is available

everywhere at low cost, it is the most uni-

versally used chemical precipitant. However,

all three metallic ions (aluminum, ferric, and

calcium) may be used at reasonable cost at

all locations. Whereas the cost to treat 1000

gallons of sewage decreases as the plant size

increases, the cost for the chemicals used is

relatively constant, except for the small ad-

vantage of large quantity purchasing: The

values listed in Table 4 are based on a phos-

phorus concentration of 10 mg/liter in the

influent sewage, 80% removal, and the as-

sumption that all chemicals are purchased at

average delivered prices.

Of course, there are additional costs.

Chemical storage tanks, feeders, and mixers

must be installed. The additional sludge

formed by the chemical precipitants must be

handled and disposed of. Additional power

and labor will be required. Taking all these

factors into consideration, some representa-

tive cost figures are listed in Table 5. The

costs are very reasonable. Perhaps removal at

the treatment plant may be the solution to

the phosphorus in detergents dilemma.

TABLE 4

Cost of Phosphorus Removal®

(in cents per thousand gallons,80% removal)

Plant Size Chemical Cost Including Amortization

mgd! Cost of Treatment Equipment*®

| 1.4 16

10 1.4 =)

100 1.4 6

‘million gallons per day. does not Include costs for

chemical storage tanks and sludge handling equipment.

®more detailed cost data In reference 3.

TABLE 5 4

Average Total Cost of Phosphorus Removal?

4% P Removed a

80 2.50

90 4.00

98 5.00

‘loo mgd plant. 120 gallons of water per capita per day.

®more detailed cost data In reference 3.

May I conclude with a few words in reply

to the claims that the detergent industry is

over-selling detergents by recommending the

use of more than is necessary. Figure 15 isa

plot of the amount of STPP required to se-

quester varying amounts of calcium ions in

water and the calcium ions in the soil of the

washload. (It is assumed that all the hard-

ness is present in the form of calcium ions;

magnesium and iron ions would show a

similar relationship.) It is obvious that 1 cup

of detergent product is insufficient for

waters containing more than about 60 mg/

4Process Design Manual for Phosphorus Re-

moval, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Technology Transfer Program No. 17010 GNP,

Contract No. 14-12-936, October 1971.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

PHOSPHORUS REQUIRED TO REMOVE 1120

HARDNESS IN SOE ON CLOTHES

CUPS OF DETERGENT

25 50 75 100 123

WATER HARDNESS, parts per million

Fig. 15.—Phosphorus and detergent required to

bind the hardness in water and soil, assuming a

detergent product containing 35% sodium tripoly-

phosphate and a 17-gal capacity household washing

machine.

liter (60 parts per million) of hardness ions.

Approximately 90% of the U.S. population

is using water containing more than this

amount of hardness. As an example, the

drinking water distributed to consumers in

the District of Columbia contains, on the

average, about 120 ppm of hardness ions.

Assuming the household wash load is soiled

with particulate matter equivalent to 3

grams of phosphorus, about 10.25 grams of

phosphorus or 1% cups of detergent formu-

lation per wash load (using a top loading

household washing machine) would be re-

quired. Of course, not all clothing is soiled

to this extent. For example, ladies garments

frequently are soiled with only a small

amount of perspiration. But even in this

case, | cup of detergent is required to se-

quester the hardness ions in the water if Dis-

trict of Columbia water is used. Thus, “ex-

perts” who claim that it is possible to wash

clothes with small quantities of detergents

(1/2 to 1/10 cup) either are unaware of the

basic principles of chemical stoichiometry or

are deliberately misrepresenting the facts, to

the detriment of the public.

Summary

1. At the present state of the art, seques-

tering detergent formulations appear to be

superior to precipitating formulations in

laundering performance.

2. No environmentally acceptable, effec-

tive sequestrants have been positively identi-

fied to date. Sodium citrate would be an en-

vironmentally acceptable sequestrant if it

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972°

could be used at lower pH values, e.g. 10 to

10.5. Research to develop suitable surfac-

tants to produce effective washing formula-

tions incorporating sodium citrate as the

builder is in progress. A new compound,

disodium oxydiacetate (SODA) has been an-

nounced as possibly meeting the require-

ments of being a nonpollutant and a satisfac-

tory sequestrant. Little is known about its

degradation mechanism, degradation end

products, and the membrane transport

characteristics of its chelates.

3. Some phosphate-free detergent formu-

lations containing sodium carbonate and

modified sodium silicate as builders have ap-

peared on the market. Tests indicate at least

one is not as effective as phosphates in its

ability to remove soil form permanent press

or synthetic fiber fabrics. However, prelimi-

nary calculations revealed no detrimental im-

pact on the environment. Further research

may improve the washing performance of

such formulations.

4. An interim solution to the detergent

problem may be to limit the amount of

phosphorus compounds in detergents to that

required to sequester 120 ppm hardness in

water. This will accommodate the residents

of 71 of the 100 largest cities of the United

States which account for 25% of the total

population of the U.S. (This does not mean

that 75% of the people use water harder

than 120 ppm. It simply indicates a lack of

data for the very small municipalities and

the individual well supplies.) The amount of

STPP required to sequester 120 ppm hard-

ness corresponds to about 7.25 grams phos-

phorus per wash load.. (This value does not

include the phosphorus required to sequester

the hardness in the soil.) Users in other areas

could use proportionate amounts of formu-

lation. An alternative might be to publish

“hardness values” for different areas of the

country and to package ‘the phosphate

separately. Each user would add the phos-

phate required to sequester the hardness in

the water and the soil in the clothing, as

indicated by the published table. (Soil values

would be simply light, medium, and heavy

and correspond to 1, 2, and 3 grams of phos-

phorus, respectively.)

5. Phosphorus may be removed to any ment plant may prove to be the ultimate

desired degree by most treatment plants at solution to the problem of eutrophication of

nominal cost, averaging about $5.00 per the nation’s waters by phosphorus.

year per capita. Thus removal at the treat-

16 J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

The Need for Training in Technological

Management in Developing Countries--

Ghana, A Case in Point'

Edward S. Ayensu

Chairman, Department of Botany, U.S. National Museum of Natural History,

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560

ABSTRACT

The need for the development of a cadre of scientific and industrial managers in the

developing countries is discussed by citing Ghana as an example. Suggestions are made to

the developing countries to establish clear-cut definitions of their needs, in terms of the

utility of science and technology, the selection and training of suitable administrators to

man programs, and the proper financial backing from government and industry. These

and other discussions are indicative of the concerns shown by citizens in developing

countries who are sensitive to the need for cultivating a sound crop of scientific and

industrial managers.

The need for training managers and ad-

ministrators in science and technology activi-

ties in developing countries is more acute

now than ever before because of the desire

of most developing countries to catch up

with the developed countries. It is therefore

necessary that before any serious technology

is undertaken certain criteria have to be met.

The first task that a developing country

must address itself to, in my opinion, is to

establish a clear-cut definition of the role

that science and technology can and must

play in the industrial development of that

particular country.

The second task is the selection of quali-

fied persons, preferably science administra-

tors, who understand and appreciate the

kinds of technology that will answer to the

needs of that country.

The third task involves the realization of

the government in power that sound finan-

cial backing of both basic and applied re-

search would ultimately redound to the ad-

vancement of most sectors of that country’s

growth.

1Remarks presented before the Advisory Panel

on Training Opportunities for The Management

and Senior Staff of Technological Institutes in De-

veloping Countries, National Academy of Sciences,

Washington, D.C., June 17, 1971.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

The fourth and perhaps the most critical

is the proper utilization of the available man-

power in the country and how best this man-

power can be supplemented and fortified

with the assistance of willing developed

countries.

Ghana is definitely one of the developing

countries that has need for training of man-

agers in its scientific and industrial concerns.

Unfortunately this need has not been met

successfully partly because of the lack of

definition of the scientific goals, partly be-

cause of the poor utility of the available +

manpower, and partly because of unneces-

sary duplication of efforts aimed at a single

goal. Furthermore, various “‘bio-political”

activities among the management have ob-

scured many steps that should otherwise be

taken to improve the overall image and use-

fulness of the scientific and industrial activi-

ties of the country.

In 1966 the Ghana Government, i.e. the

National Liberation Council, appointed a

committee? headed by the late Sir John

Cockcroft of Cambridge University to advise

on the future of the Ghana Academy of Sci-

ences (fig. 1) which was set up in 1959 by

2Report of the Committee of Experts to advise

on the Future of the Ghana Academy of Sciences.

Ghana Information Services. Accra 1966.

‘oyqndoy jsitj oy} SuLINp soUdINg Jo AWapeoy euRYs OY} JO oINjONI}s SAWeINSUIUIpYW—"{ “S17

FLNLILSAI

YVISTY

Sd0UD

E77 es OZ ee ZZ ZZ Pe C0 ee CZ eZ CZ

FFILLIWNOD

LNIWHSITEVLSF

CONV TINNOSYId

SIFLL

LNIWdOTIAIC

CONV FINVMIF

IWWOJ

FFILLIWWOD

INILYNIGIO-OD

HIAVISTIA

NVWYUVHI

HIYWVISTIY IVIGLSNONI CNV

IFILNIIIS AOS WINNOD

VNVHID FO INJANYTAOD

LNLILSM

¥0I09

FIFLLIWWOD

IAILNIIXI

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

ce)

the First Republic to oversee and to manage

all scientific and technological endeavours in

the country. The Cockcroft Committee’s re-

port was published in 1967 and I am glad to

say that many of their recommendations

have been implemented. However, there are

many areas of crucial concern bearing on the

theme of this meeting that have not been

carried out.

For example, the Cockcroft Committee

recommended that the Crops Research Insti-

tute and the Soil Research Institute, which

until 1962 was a single organization under

the Ministry of Agriculture, should be amal-

gamated and placed under the Ministry of

Agriculture again.

While it is desirable to encourage amalga-

mation of units where necessary, it should

be pointed out that the importance and the

effective contributions that the above Insti-

tutes can make to the total agricultural im-

pact on the nation can easily be relegated to

the background, especially if careful exami-

nation of all the facts is not undertaken be-

fore they are placed under the Ministry of

Agriculture. In my own opinion, the Minis-

try of Agriculture itself can stand drastic re-

organization before its own usefulness can

be felt in the nation’s economy.

Likewise, the Cockcroft Committee rec-

ommended that the Institute of Aquatic

Biology under CSIR and the Volta Basin Re-

search Project based at the University of

Ghana should be merged and placed under

the University. Again, while on the surface

this seems to be a worthwhile approach in an

effort to eliminate “unnecessary duplication

of effort and dispersal of resources,” the

basic interests of the Institute of Aquatic

Biology and the Volta Basin Research Pro-

ject should be carefully examined and

analyzed before any such amalgamation is

effected.

The Cockcroft Committee also observed

that certain administrative problems have

contributed to the frustrations of the Re-

search Institutes. For example, it was clear

from the Committee’s report that shortage

of funds, particularly operating funds, has

affected the performance of the Institutes.

Of their total budget the Committee learned

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

that 90% of the Institutes’ funds were allo-

cated for salaries and wages and only 10%

were available for research activities.

The Committee strongly recommended

that the Government should take steps to

rectify this situation. The following specific

recommendations were put forth:

(i) that in the preparation of budgets,

the proportion of the budget de-

voted to research and operating ex-

penses should be increased to be ap-

proximately equal to the budget for

personal emoluments, even though

this may require some retrench-

ment in non-technical supporting

staff;

(ii) that negotiations should be opened

with the Cocoa Marketing Board

and the Timber Marketing Board

for contributions from commodity

funds;

(iii) overseas organizations such as the

United Kingdom Ministry of Over-

seas Development who second staff

to work in Research Institutes

might be asked to contribute suffi-

cient foreign exchange to ensure

that their staff on arrival will have

the equipment and supplies re-

quired to make them effective.

A few months ago a branch of the U.S.

National Academy of Sciences conducted a

workshop in Ghana, following discussions

with the Vice Chancellor of the University

of Ghana here in Washington, to address it-

self on some of the problems I have men-

tioned. I visited Ghana soon after the work-

shop and you will be delighted to know that

the discussions that emenated from the

workshop are receiving serious considera-

tion. It is hoped that the results of the work-

shop and other inputs from the technologi-

cal and scientific concerns in this country

will ultimately be translated into an effective

Ghana-U.S. scientific cooperation.

Current Management

Council for Scientific and Industrial Re-

search .—This Council (fig. 2) was established

in October 1968 following the recommenda-

tions of the Cockcroft Committee. However,

“YyorRasoy [LI]SNPU] PUL SIJIUSIOS IOF [LOUNOD OY} Jo oINJonI}s yUOIIND—"Z “31

NO/LIAS

SIINIIIS

7TVIISO 10/9

NO/. | NO/LIIS

hid SIINIIIS

TWWOIISAHd

SILNLILSNI

FFLLIWNOD JINFOVIV

LVIGVLIYIIS |

SIFLLINWOI-ENS SLI INV

FILLINWOI SISOPINd IWYINTI

| MO/SSINWOD ADUINT JIWOLY YNVHS

WIIGISIVd

SMO17T94 SO IMLIIW IVIINII

SLIFLOUd ONV SLINN

SIILLIWNOD AYOSIAQY SLI ONY

FFLLIWWOD HO4VISTY

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

(=)

the Council’s history dates back to August

1958 when the dissolved National Research

Council was created by the Ghana Govern-

ment to organize and to co-ordinate scienti-

fic research in the country.

The Council is made up of 26 members

representing the universities of Ghana, re-

search institutes, certain specified Govern-

ment Ministries and Departments, and a

number of production and development

agencies from both private and public sec-

tors.

The following table represents the current

make-up of the Council:

Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)

Membership of Council (26)

Chairman (appointed by Government)

2 other appointments by Government—Head Research Branch, Bank of Ghana, Direc-

tor of Medical Services

6 appointed by Government after consultation with the Ghana Academy of Arts and

Sciences—Director Cocoa Research Inst., Dept. of Chemistry, University of Ghana,

Principal, Cape Coast University Cell.,

Dept. of Medicine & Therapeutics Med.

School, Dean, Faculty of Agriculture University of Ghana, Chief Executive, Volta

River Authority

2 appointed by Directors of the Research Institutes of the CSIR—Director, Crop Re-

search, Director, Institute of Aquatic Biology

Representatives of the Universities

Director of the National Standard Board

Be NY WO =

Secretary of the Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences

Representative of the Atomic Energy Commission

Representatives of Government Ministries

Representatives of the Ghana Chamber of Commerce

Representative, National Council for Higher Education

Council is further serviced by the following

committees:

Executive Committee._Takes decisions

on behalf of the Council in between Council

Meetings.

Research Co-ordinating Committee.—Co-

ordinates the Research being done in the In-

stitutes of the Council.

Finance and Development Committee.—

Advises Council on financial matters, includ-

ing annual budgets submitted by the various

institutes.

Personnel and Establishment Commit-

tee.—_Advises Council on personnel and ad-

ministrative matters.

The number of Research Institutes of the

Council is currently twelve:

Animal Research Institute

Building & Road Research Institute

Cocoa Research Institute

Crops Research Institute

Food Research Institute

Forest Products Research Institute

J. WASH, ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972 -

Institute of Aquatic Biology

Institute of Standards & Industrial Research

Soil Research Institute

National Atlas Project

Water Resources Research Unit

Herbs of Ghana Project

Each Research Institute is semi-

autonomous and is managed on behalf of the

Council by a Management Board established

by Council. For example, the Food Research

Institute Management Board is composed of

the following:

Director of Medical Services of Ghana

(Chairman)

Agricultural Co-ordinator, Ministry of

Agriculture

Dept. of Biochemistry, Univ. of Science

& Technology

Deputy Director, Ghana Medical Services

Director, Food Research Institute

Nutrition Division, Ministry of Health

Research Officer, Food Research Insti-

tute

Department of Biochem, Food and Nutri-

tion, Univ. of Ghana

Principal Project Officer, Ministry of

Trade & Industry

Representative, Ghana Manufacturers

Assoc.

The Food Research Institute was established

by the Ghana Government in October 1963.

It became part of the CSIR when this Coun-

cil was established in October 1968. The In-

stitute started with the assistance of United

National Development Program acting

through FAO. Assistance in the form of

post-graduate fellowships for Ghanaian re-

search scientists, the acquisition of labora-

tory and processing equipment, and the de-

velopment of research projects by inter-

national experts were obtained.

The FRI was conceived to assist the local

food industries at all levels of organization,

to improve on and diversify operations and

thereby promote agricultural productivity in

the country.

To achieve the aim of the Institute, the

following research activities were under-

taken.

1. Food processing

2. Preservation

3. Storage

4. Marketing and distribution

The Institute also provides services and

advice to private industries and public or-

ganizations in the following areas:

1. Food analysis

2. Quality control

3. Product improvement and development

4. Marketing and distribution of food.

The above example is presented to demon-

strate how each Research Institute operates.

Research Administration and Management

It is often assumed that every Ph.D.

holder is capable of teaching at a university

or is well equipped to manage a research unit

by virtue of his degree. One does not have to

look hard enough to come to the conclusion

that such is not the case. In fact, most Ph.D.

holders are not good administrators. Fur-

thermore, good scientists who are also good

administrators are few and far between. In |

developing countries, where the production ©

of scientists is low keyed, the general tend- |

ency is to call on the available scientists to ©

become “instinct managers,” not because of —

their ability as administrators but because of

their academic achievements. I may point

out that in some cases these persons are

neither. In some cases scientists are ap-

plinted managers because of their political

inclinations. These types of makeshift ad-

ministrators have governed the scientific in-

stitutions of the developing countries and to

some extent the developed countries over

the years. Some of the managers have made

tremendous strides; others have proved

abysmal failures.

As I mentioned earlier, in an ideal situa-

tion qualified science administrators should

be appointed to the posts of managers.

Whereas most developing countries have

schools of administration organized to train

competent staff to man the various govern-

ment agencies, similar schools are non-

existent for the manning of the scientific

and industrial concerns.

It is therefore necessary that selected sci-

entists who have demonstrated the ability to

become good managers of research units are

given the opportunity to have on-the-job

training in developed countries such as the

United States where science administration:

has been developed with considerable sophis-

tication. The idea is not to give only spe-

cialized administrative technique. Rather it

will be more profitable for the managers

from developing countries to be exposed to

formal instructions supplemented with on-

the-job training that will have general ap-

plicability in their areas of study.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

RESEARCH REPORTS

The Tribe Noviini in the New World

(Coleoptera: Coccinellidae)

Robert D. Gordon

Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agr. Res. Serv., USDA,

c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560

ABSTRACT

The genera and species belonging to the tribe Noviini in the New World are reviewed.

The genus Vedalia is removed and placed in the Exoplectrini. Four new Anovia species,

punica, peruviana, weisei and mexicana, ate described. Keys to genera and species are

included, and pertinent morphological characters are illustrated.

Korschefsky (1931) lists 5 genera in the

Noviini. All of these except Eurodolia Weise

(1895) and Novius Mulsant (1850) are repre-

sented in the New World. One genus, Vedalia

Mulsant, is at present erroneously included

in the Novini and is here placed in the Ex-

oplectrini near Chnoodes Chevrolat. With

Vedalia removed, the tribe Novini becomes

an easily defined, compact group character-

ized as follows: dorsal surface with dense,

short pubescence, finely and densely punc-

tured; head with labrum obviously on a low-

er plane than clypeus; eye densely pub-

escent, not emarginate; antenna 8-seg-

mented, basal segment expanded (fig. 1);

prosternum with intercoxal process pro-

tuberant, extending beyond the anterior

coxa (except Novius); tarsus trimerous; ab-

domen with 6 visible sterna, apical sternum

more or less emarginate in male (figs. 6, 7);

postcoxal line narrow, complete or nearly

so.

It is quite possible that some of the spe-

cies presently placed in Novius will have to

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL. VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

be transferred to Rodolia. A series of speci-

mens from Australia identified as Novius

bellus Blackburn in the USNM collection be-

longs to Rodolia, and chances are excellent

that at least some of the Australian species

belong to Rodolia also. To further compli-

cate matters, my preliminary examination of

male and female genitalia suggests that at

least some of the Australian and Asian spe-

cies presently in Rodolia should be removed

to other genera. Lack of specimens of many

species has prevented a complete study at

present.

Rodolia cardinalis (Mulsant) is perhaps

the best known member of the Noviini, at

least in North America, due to the publicity

given the successful control of the cottony

cushion scale. Rodolia cardinalis was intro-

duced into California from Australia by Al-

bert Koebele. Less well known, but as effec-

tive a predator of cottony cushion scale, is

Rodolia koebelei (Coquillett), also intro-

duced from Australia by Koebele.

Fig. 1; Anovia virginalis, antenna. Fig. 2; Rodolia cardinalis, front leg. Fig. 3; Rodolia cardinalis, hind

leg. Fig. 4; Anovia virginalis, front leg. Fig. 5; Anovia virginalis, hind leg. Fig. 6; Rodolia cardinalis, male

abdomen. Fig. 7; Anovia virginalis, male abdomen. Fig. 8; Rodolia cardinalis; spermatheca. Fig. 9; Anovia

virginalis, spermatheca.

24 J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

Key to genera of New World Noviini

Prosternum with intercoxal process densely pubescent, margined anteriorly; pronotum

with sides not completely arcuate, posterior angles apparent.....................

Shi Stee Mine eve ameaeer nies Rodolia Mulsant

Prosternum with intercoxal process sparsely pubescent, not margined anteriorly;

pronotum with sides completely arcuate, posterior angles not apparent

Genus Rodolia Mulsant

Rodolia Mulsant, 1850, p. 280. Type-species: Ro-

dolia ruficollis Mulsant, by subsequent

designation of Crotch, 1874, p. 280. Korschef-

sky (1931) mistakenly records rubea Mulsant as

the type species of Rodolia.

Macronovius Weise, 1885, p. 63 (subgenus of Ro-

dolia).—Weise, 1895, p. 149 (synonym of Ro-

dolia).—Sicard, 1907, p. 68.—Korschefsky,

1931, p. 98.

Priore (1963) gives an exhaustive account

of the internal and external morphology of

the adult and immature stages of Rodolia

cardinalis (Mulsant). Priore’s findings will

not be reiterated here. Priore does not illus-

trate the receptaculum seminis which is

short, stout, lacks an accessory gland, and

has a relatively short sperm duct (fig. 8).

Rodolia and Anovia adults are quite diffi-

cult to separate on the basis of morphologi-

cal characters and the temptation to unite

the 2 genera would be great if it were not for

larval characters. Rees (1947) compared the

larvae of R. cardinalis, R. koebelei and A.

virginalis (Wickham) and found those of Ro-

dolia to have 2-segmented antennae, while

those of Anovia have only | segment. This,

with adult characters and differences in dis-

tribution, warrant the continued separation

of the genera.

Key to the New World species of Rodolia

Elytron always red with numerous black markings

Fern otdlata oboe cardinalis (Mulsant)

Elytron varying from entirely red to red with an elongate, sutural spot and broad black

spot laterally

Rodolia cardinalis (Mulsant)

ices. 6, 10; 11. 12

Vedalia cardinalis Mulsant, 1850, p. 906.

Novius cardinalis: Crotch, 1874, p, 283.

Eurodolia cardinalis: Weise, 1895, p. 150.

Rodolia cardinalis: Weise, 1905, p. 220.—Weise,

1916, p. 50 Wacronovius group).

Rodolia aegyptiaca Sicard, 1907, p. 67.—Korschef-

sky, 1931, p. 99.

Macronovius cardinalis: Weise, 1922, p. 104.

Macronovius cardinalis ab. obnubilatus Weise,

1922, p. 104.—Korschefsky, 1931, p. 99.

Male and Female.—Length 2.65 to 4.18 mm,

width 2.00 to 3.33 mm. Form elongate, elytron

nearly parallel-sided, widest at middle. Color red,

basal area of pronotum and head black; meso- and

metasternum, femora and median area of first 2

abdominal sterna piceous; elytron with black mac-

ulation. Front leg with tibia and femur narrower

than hind leg (fig. 2). Hind leg with tibia broad,

femur with pubescence nearly absent on inner side

(fig. 3). Male abdomen with last segment deeply

emarginate medially (fig. 6). Male genitalia short,

stout; basal lobe bent upward in apical one-third;

paramere abruptly widened, sides parallel in apical

one-half (fig. 10, 11); sipho wide, widened at base

with a dorsal projection (fig. 12).

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972 -

koebelei (Coquillett)

Type locality.—“la Nouvelle Hollande

(collect. Hope)”.

Type depository.—Oxford University,

England.

Distribution.—Australia, southern

Europe, North and South Africa, Java,

North and South America.

The elytral color pattern is quite constant

considering the wide geographic range of this

species. The elytral variation is limited pri-

marily to the partial fusion of some of the

spots. The basal balck area on the pronotum

may entirely cover the pronotum.

Rodolia cardinalis has had a confused his-

tory of generic placement. Mulsant (1850)

erred when he placed cardinalis with the

New World species sieboldii In the genus

Vedalia. Crotch (1874) further confused the

matter by placing cardinalis in the genus

Novius and erroneously transferring 2 Mul-

sant species from Rodolia to Vedalia. The

name Macronovius was proposed by Weise

(1885) as a subgenus of Novius Mulsant for

Novius limbatus Motschulsky and Rodolia

concolor Lewis. The character used to sepa-

rate Novius s. str. and Macronovius was the

presence of an expanded and emarginate

tibia allowing for the concealment of the

tarsus in Macronovius, the tibia not being

expanded or emarginate in NVovius. Weise ap-

parently was not aware that Rodolia had an

expanded, emarginate tibia. In 1895, Weise

again discussed Novius and related genera,

describing a monobasic new genus, Eurodo-

lia, and giving a key to separate Novius, Ro-

dolia and Eurodolia. He listed 15 species of

Rodolia, divided them into 2 unnamed

groups on the basis of whether the claws

were toothed or cleft, and limbatus, the type

species of Macronovius, was placed in the

first group (claws toothed). In the same

paper he stated that Macronovius was a

synonym of Rodolia. After the description

of Eurodolia he stated that Vedalia cardi-

nalis might belong in Eurodolia. In 1905,

Weise placed cardinalis in Rodolia, stating

that it belonged in the Macronovius group

because of the toothed claws. In 1916, Weise

referred to ‘“‘Eurodolia cardinalis” from “W.

Australien” (sic). In 1922, Weise referred a-

gain to “Macronovius cardinalis”’, describing

an aberration, obnubilatus. Korschefsky

(1931) treated Macronovius as a synonym of

Rodolia and placed cardinalis in Rodolia.

There is little doubt that this arrangement is

correct. I have examined several species of

Rodolia and have concluded that the claw

character Weise used to separate his 2 groups

within the genus is sexual. Males have a cleft

claw and females have only a basal tooth on

the claw.

Rodolia koebelei (Coquillett)

Fig. 13, 14, 15

Novius koebelei Coquillett, 1893, p. 20.—Lea,

1901, p. 493.—Leng, 1920, p. 214.

Rodolia koebelei: Korschefsky, 1931, p. 101.

Male and Female.—Length 2.55 to 3.10 mm,

width 2.00 to 2.65 mm. Form elongate-oval,

widest anterior to middle of elytra. Color red; pro-

notum and head black; meso- and metasternum

and legs except tarsi piceous; elytron with a dark

brown, elongate area on suture, a small. lateral,

submarginal spot medially. Male abdomen with last

sternum slightly emarginate. Male genitalia elon-

gate; basal lobe flattened dorso-ventrally, broad,

narrowed to a blunt tip at apical one-sixth; para-

mere narrow (fig. 13, 14); sipho wide, base un-

modified (fig. 15).

Type locality.—Los Angeles, California.

Type depository.-USNM (neotype here

designated).

Distribution .—Australia, California.

The elytra vary from completely red to

having large sutural and lateral areas dark,

these dark areas becoming contiguous post-

medially.

Coquillett (1893) was apparently the first

to describe koebelei, and he did so by des-

cribing the egg, 4 larval instars, and the

pupa. No adult description was given. Lea

(1901) stated that the name koebeli was a

manuscript name in the A. S. Olliff collec-

tion and that the species was introduced into

the United States under this name. There are

3 larvae and 1 pupa of koebelei in alcohol in

the USNM collection received from Co-

quillett in 1892. There is no indication that

these are actually the specimens upon which

Coquillett based his description, but they

were received from him and are possibly

type material. There are also 7 first-instar

and 1 second-instar larvae mounted on

points in the USNM collection which may

also be type material, as well as several

adults, all labeled “5575”. In addition, the

adults are labeled “‘Coquillett, Los Angeles,

Calif.”, which is the type locality. Since it

cannot definitely be established that these

immature stages are type material, no lecto-

type is designated here. A neotype is here

selected instead, a fourth-instar larva in the

USNM alcohol collection matching Coquil-

lett’s description and bearing the label “No.-

896 P.O.-13 No.-16, Rodolia (Vedalia n. sp.)

on Icerya”. Larval specimens of R. cardinalis

bearing the same data are also labeled “Los

Angeles, Calif., July "92, Coquillett”’, so it is

assumed that the neotype of koebelei is also

from Los Angeles.

Anovia Casey

let i144 5 9)

Anovia Casey, 1908, p. 408. Type species:

Scymnus virginalis Wickham, by monotypy.

Head pubescent, clypeus thick, labrum on a dis-

tinctly lower plane than clypeus; eye finely

faceted, pubescent, not emarginate; antenna 8-seg-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

mented, club 3-segmented (fig. 1); maxillary palpus

with last segment large, securiform. Pronotum

pubescent, deeply emarginate anteriorly, finely

margined laterally and posteriorly in middle, hind

angle obliterated, evenly rounded. Elytron

pubescent, short, stiff setae present internally, la-

teral margin slightly explanate, epipleuron descend-

ing externally, not foveolate for reception of legs.

Prosternum with intercoxal area strongly pro-

tuberant, extending beyond coxa, usually sparsely

pubescent, not margined anteriorly. Proleg with

femur deeply emarginate apically for reception of

tibia (fig. 4); meso- and metafemora shallowly

emarginate apically for reception of tibiae (fig. 5);

tarsus 3-segmented. Abdomen with postcoxal line

shallow, complete or nearly so, last sternum emar-

ginate in male (fig. 7). Male genitalia with basal

lobe curved upward and apex more or less bent

downward in lateral view; paramere long, slender;

sipho long, slender, pointed at apex, expanded

basally. Female genitalia with receptaculum semi-

nis short, stout, narrowed basally, lacking cornu

and accessory gland (fig. 9).

Anovia is the only known native New

World member of the Noviini; it closely

resembles Rodolia, differing as noted in the

generic key and discussion of Rodolia. Until

now virginalis (Wickham) has been the only

species placed in Anovia. A syntype of

Zenoria circumclusa Gorham was loaned by

R. D. Pope of the British Museum, and this

species belongs in Anovia rather than

Zenoria (Gordon, 1971).

Key to species of Anovia

Each elytron dark with a median red spot of varying size and sometimes a red sub-

PNT CL AMATO Aiereva «meine deyedritevish s ossu taser Sitaueiney a1 tadchslesaye Soaveueue euen MPs bev ceherlel sles a, 6 ¥ lace 2

Each elytron unicolorous or red with a dark submarginal band.................... 3

Epipleuron red or light reddish brown; elytron with a red subnumeral area ...........

2000.06 0.60, O.aCGE ENS CHONG lS DR CROSERE ON RETR Ee Co eee ee eat virginalis (Wickham)

ne peleailas Ohvcp ive vo ayspeesenc Popo Gots mexicana, n. sp.

Elytron black; inner margin of eye not parallel, farther apart at lower margin than at

upper margin; peru

Se eee er ote in aR cies peruviana, n. sp.

Elytron not black; inner margin of eye usually nearly parallel; not known from Peru....

Male genitalia with basal lobe broad in ventral view, abruptly narrowed at apical one-

third (fig. 23); dorsal color usually purple or reddish brown ......... punica, n. sp.

Male genitalia with basal lobe not as described above; dorsal color variable

Dorsal color reddish purple; pronotum with lateral one-third red; male genitalia with

apical one-half narrower than basal one-half in ventral view (fig. 26) ..............

I oe Pete a ateeedias ai Didar sv ee Se eeE ee Be RRS weisei, n. sp.

Dorsal color uniformly red or red with a dark submarginal border; male genitalia with

basal lobe slender, evenly tapered to apical point in ventral view (fig. 19) ..........

Anovia virginalis (Wickham)

Fig. 16,17, 18

Seymnus virginalis Wickham, 1905, p. 166.

Anovia virginalis: Casey, 1908, p. 408

Male and Female.—Length 2.43 to 3.05 mm,

width 2.00 to 2.44 mm. Form elongate-oval,

widest anterior to middle of elytron. Color red;

pronotum except anterior angle, head, and basal

portion of femur piceous; elytron with a median

ted spot and a subhumeral red area. Male abdomen

with last sternum slightly emarginate medially (fig.

7). Male genitalia with basal lobe broad, pointed,

very slightly bent downward at apex, ventral sur-

face with lateral margin extending inward medially;

paramere long, narrow (fig. 16, 17); sipho slender,

pointed, basal end abruptly expanded (fig. 18).

Type locality —Chad’s Ranch, Utah (Vir-

gin River Valley).

Type depository —USNM.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972°

Sinise Reda cay's TEM ta circumclusa: (Gorham)

Distribution._United States: Arizona,

New Mexico, Texas, Utah. Mexico: Sonora,

San Luis, Vera Cruz, Victoria.

The red median spot on each elytron var-

ies from a small discal area to a large spot

occupying most of the elytron. This species

has been recorded as attacking Steatococcus

plucheae (Cockerell) and Icerya rileyi Cocke-

rell in New Mexico.

Anovia circumclusa (Gorham)

Bice 19F 20n21 Sil 32133134.

Zenoria circumclusa Gorham, 1899, p. 262.—Kor-

schefsky, 1931, p, 108.—Blackwelder, 1945, p.

443.

Anovia circumclusa: Gordon, 1971, p. 1.

Male and Female.—Length 2.60 to 3.10 mm,

width 2.43 to 2.59 mm. Form elongate-oval,

\\W)

ial

13 15

()) ; Wy,

28 30

Fig. 10-30, male genitalia. Fig. 10-12, Rodolia cardinalis. Fig. 13-15; Rodolia koebelei, Fig. 16-18;

Anovia virginalis. Fig. 19-21; Anovia circumclusa. Fig. 22-24; Anovia punica. Fig. 25-27; Anovia mexi-

cana. Fig. 28-30; Anovia weisei. ;

28 J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

widest anterior to middle of elytra. Color reddish

yellow; a black band completely encircling elytron

and extending onto basal part of pronotum, discal

spot and elytral margin reddish yellow (fig. 31);

ventral surface pale yellow. Male abdomen with

last sternum slightly emarginate medially. Male

genitalia with basal lobe long, slender, curved

downward at apex, in ventral view evenly tapered

to pointed apex; paramere long, slender (figs. 19,

20); sipho slender, pointed, gradually curved up-

ward near apex, basal end abruptly expanded (fig.

21).

Type locality.—Panama; Volcan de

Chiriqui.

Type depository British Museum (lecto-

type here designated).

Distribution.—Guatemala: Salama. Hon-

duras: Tegucigalpa; La Ceiba. Mexico: Tam-

pico. Panama: Volcan de Chiriqui.

The specimens from Tampico lack the

black zonate band on the elytron. The male

genitalia of the Tampico specimens are iden-

tical to those of the zonate specimens, and

since this zonate color pattern is quite vari-

able in several genera of Neotropical Coc-

cinellidae, these specimens are here consi-

dered to be circumclusa (fig. 32-34). A

syntype of circumclusa in the British Mu-

seum bearing the following labels is here de-

signated lectotype: “Syntype”; V. de

Chiriqui, 4000-6000 ft., Champion”; “cir-

cumclusa Gorham.”

Anovia punica, n. sp.

Fig. 22, 23, 24

Male.—Length 3.42 mm, width 2.97 mm. Form

oval, widest anterior to middle of elytra. Color red-

dish purple; narrow lateral margin of elytron, an-

terior margin and angles of pronotum and ventral

surface red. Head finely punctured, punctures

separated by 1 to 2 times their diameter; covered

with grayish white, semi-decumbent pubescence;

inner margin of eye nearly parallel. Pronotum fine-

ly punctured, punctures separated by 1 to 4 times

their diameter; covered with grayish white, semi-

decumbent pubescence. Elytron finely punctured,

punctures separated by 2 times their diameter;

coveted with grayish white, semi-erect pubescence.

Abdomen with last sternum slightly emarginate.

Genitalia with basal lobe broad, abruptly narrowed

to a blunt point in apical one-third; paramere long,

slightly widened apically (fig. 22, 23); sipho long,

slender, apex pointed, base suddenly expanded

(fig. 24).

Female.—Similart to male in all respects except

sexual characters.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

Variation.—Length 3.00 to 3.30 mm, width

2.71 to 3.00 mm. Four specimens from Colombia

have the dorsal surface entirely red with no trace

of purple. Two specimens from Trinidad have the

dorsal surface red with the black band as in typical

circumclusa.

Holotype.—Male. Venezuela: Edo.

Aragua, Maracay, 22-VII-41, C. H. Ballou,

eating [cerya purchasi (USNM 71725).

Paratypes.—Total 83. Colombia: Can-

delaria, 17-X-39; La Esperanza, Feb. 21,

1938, L. M. Murillo; Buga, 21-II-38, L. M.

Murillo. Honduras: La Ceiba, March 21-20,

WM Mann. Panama: Canal Zone, Oct. 29,

1918, F. F. Dietz; Cristobal, Canal Zone,

July 5, 1918, H. F. Dietz, Zetek & Molina;

Panama City, July 30, 1918, H. F. Dietz; XX

Plantation, Feb. 11, 1930, Blackwelder.

Trinidad: Warren, III, 1953, F. D. Bennett;

Balandra, Feb. 1965, F. D. Bennett;

V-9-1911, A. Busck. Venezuela: same data

as holotype; El Valle, C. H. Ballou; Yuma, E.

Carabobo, 3-VI-1950, F. Fernandez.

(USNM) (Inst. Zoology. Agric., Maracay,

Venezuela).

This species has been recorded feeding on

Icerya purchasi Maskell and Icerya montse-

rratensis Riley and Howard in Venezuela

and Panama.

The color pattern shows the same range

of variation from red to red with a zonate

band to dark purple that is found in several

species of Zenoria and Epilachna, as well as

A, circumclusa. In some instances, parti-

cularly in Zenoria, this is apparently linked

with the maturity of the specimens, but this

does not seem to be the case for A. punica.

Anovia mexicana, n. sp.

lang, 2), 26, 27)

Male.—Length 3.00 mm, width 2.60 mm. Form

oval, widest anterior to middle of elytra. Color

black; narrow lateral margin of pronotum, labrum

and entire ventral surface except epipleuron and

pro- and mesosternum ted; elytron with a small,

red discal spot. Head finely punctured, punctures

separated by their diameter; covered with grayish

white, semi-decumbent pubescence; inner margin

of eye nearly parallel. Pronotum finely punctured,

punctures separated by their diameter or less;

covered with grayish white, semi-decumbent

pubescence. Elytron finely punctured, punctures

separated by less than to twice their diameter;

covered with grayish white, semi-erect pubescence.

Fig. 31-34; habitus views, Anovia circumclusa.

Abdomen with last sternum feebly emarginate.

Genitalia with basal lobe broad, narrowed to a

blunt point in apical one-third; paramere slender,

angled upward in apical one-third (fig. 25, 26);

sipho short, broad, apex pointed (fig. 27).

Female .—Similar to male except last abdominal

sternum mote deeply emarginate.

Variation.—Length 3.00 to 4.00 mm, width

2.60 to 3.48 mm. The red, discal spot on the ely-

tron is slightly larger in some specimens than

others.

Holotype.—Male. Mexico: Morelos, 16

mi. south Cuernavaca, Aug. 22, 1958, H.

Howden (Canadian National Collection, Ot-

tawa).

Paratypes.—Total 4. Mexico: Guerrero,

17 mi. N. Mexcala, Aug. 23-24, 1958, H. F.

Howden; Guerrero, 13 mi. N. Chilpancingo,

Aug. 25, 1958, H. F. Howden; Guerrero, 8

mi. N: Iguala, Aug. 23, 1958. H. F. Howden.

(CNC) (USNM)

The male genitalia of this species are near-

est those of punica but the sipho is short and

stout in mexicana, long and slender in

punica. In addition the dorsal color is pre-

dominantly black in mexicana, reddish pur-

ple in punica. In external appearance mexi-

cana resembles virginalis , but mexicana is lar-

ger and has the punctures on the head and

pronotum denser than does virginalis.

Anovia weisei n. sp.

Fig. 28, 29, 30

Male .—Length 4.00 mm, width 3.66 mm. Form

nearly round, slightly elongate, widest at middle of

elytra. Color yellowish ted; vertex of head and

median one-third of pronotum black; elytron en-

tirely reddish purple. Head finely punctured, punc-

tures separated by their diameter or less; covered

with dense, grayish white pubescence; inner margin

of eye feebly rounded. Pronotum finely punctured,

punctures separated by 1 to 4 times their diameter;

covered with grayish white, semi-decumbent pubes-

cence. Elytron with punctures coarser than on pro-

notum, separated by their diameter or less; covered

with grayish white, semi-erect pubescence. Abdo-

men with last sternum slightly emarginate. Geni-

talia with basal lobe shorter than paramere, an-

terior one-half narrower than basal one-half in ven-

tral view, narrowed before blunt apex in lateral

view; paramere gradually widened toward apex

(fig. 28, 29); sipho long, slender, acuminate at apex

(fig. 30).

Female .—Not known.

Holotype.—Male. Guatemala: “ex Guate-

mala’’, N. Orleans 60-20819 (USNM 71726).

Paratype.—Total 1. Same data as holo-

type. (USNM).

Externally weisei most nearly resembles

the dark form of A. punica, but the lateral

red area of the pronotum occupies one-third

of the elytron in weisei and is only a narrow

border in punica. The male genitalia are

quite different in the 2 species. The 2 type

specimens were intercepted by Plant Quaran-

tine inspectors at New Orleans and are

labeled as being from Guatemala.

Anovia peruviana, n. sp.

Female,—Length 4.00 mm, width 3.59 mm.

Form oval, widest near middle of elytra. Color

black; metasternum, anterior and middle tibiae,

hind legs and abdomen brownish yellow. Head

finely punctured, punctures separated by their dia-

meter or less; covered with grayish white, nearly

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

erect pubescence; inner margin of eye distinctly

rounded, not parallel, divergent toward lower mar-

gin of eye. Pronotum very finely punctate, punc-

tures finer than on head, separated by 1 to 4 times

their diameter; covered with grayish white pubes-

cence. Elytron finely punctured, punctures sub-

equal to punctures on head, separated by 1 to 2

times their diameter; covered with grayish white,

nearly erect pubescence.

Holotype._Female. Peru: Tingo Maria,

1949, J. Dieguez (USNM 71727).

The type is unique and is the only speci-

men of the genus seen from as far south as

Peru. The large size, divergent eyes and shin-

ing, black dorsal surface separate it from any

presently known species of Anovia.

References Cited

Blackwelder, R. E. 1945. Checklist of the Coleop-

terous Insects of Mexico, Central America, the

West Indies, and South America, Part 3. United

States National Museum Bulletin 185, 188 p.

Casey, T. L. 1908. Notes on the Coccinellidae.

Can. Entomol. 40: 393-421.

Coquillett, D. W. 1893. Report on some of the

beneficial and injurious insects of California. U.

S. Department of Agriculture Entomol. Bull.

30: 9-33.

Crotch, G. R. 1874. A Revision of the Coleop-

terous family Coccinellidae. 311 p. London.

Gordon, R. D. 1971. A revision of the genus

Zenoria Mulsant (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae).

Smith. Contr. Zool. No. 86, 22 p.

Gorham, H. S. 1899. Biologia Centrali-Americana,

Insecta, Coleoptera, Supplement to Endomy-

chidae and Coccinellidae 7: 257-265.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972 ©

Korschefsky, R. 1931. Pars 118, Coccinellidae I.

Volume 16, p. 1-224, in Coleopterorum Cata-

logus.

Lea, A. M. 1901. New species of Australian Col-

eoptera. Proc. Linnean Soc. New South Wales

36: 448-513.

Leng, C. W. 1920. Catalogue of the Coleoptera of

America, North of Mexico. 470 p. Mount Ver-

non, New York.

Mulsant, E. 1850. Species des coléopteres trimeres

securipalpes. Annales des Sciences Physiques et

Naturelles, Lyon 2(2): 1-1104.

Priore, R. 1963. Studio morfo-biologico sulla

Rodolia cardinalis Muls., Bolletino del Labora-

torio de Entomologia Agraria Filippo Silvestri

di Portici 31: 63-193.

Rees, B. E. 1947. Taxonomy of the larvae of some

North American Noviini (Coleoptera, Coc-

cinellidae). Pan-Pac. Entomol. 23: 113-119.

Sicard, A. 1907. Description d’une nouvelle espece

de Coccinellide palearctique (Col.). Bull. Soc.

Entomol. France 5: 67-68.

Weise, J. 1885. Bestimmungs-Tabellen der euro-

paischen Coleopteren, II. Coccinellidae. 83 p.

1895. Uber die mit Novius Muls.

verwandten gattungen. Ann. Soc. Entomol.

Belgique 39: 147-150.

1905. Ueber Coccinelliden. Deutsche En-

tomol. Zeitschr. 2: 217-220.

1916. Results of Dr. E. Mjoberg’s Swe-

dish Scientific Expedition to Australia

1910-1913, II. Chrysomeliden und Coccinel-

liden aus West-Australien. Arkiv Zool. K. Sven-

ska Vetenskaps. 10: 1-51.

1922. Ueber einige amerikanische und

australische, nach Sudfrankreich eingefuhrte

Coccinelliden. Wiener Entomol. Zeitung 29:

104.

Wickham, H, F. 1950. New species of Coleoptera

from the western United States II. Can. En-

tomol. 37: 165-171.

The South American Katydid Genus Acanthacara:

Descriptive Notes and Subfamily Position

(Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae, Agraeciinae)

Ashley B. Gurney

Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agr. Res. Serv., USDA,

c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560

ABSTRACT

The katydid genus Acanthacara, based on the single species A. acuta Scudder, is

found to belong to the tettigoniid subfamily Agraeciinae. The taxonomic basis for this

assignment is given. In early U.S. literature the name Acanthacara was applied to the

present genus Belocephalus.

During recent studies of various Copi-

phorinae, I became interested in the genus

Acanthacara, based by Scudder (1869) on a

single species from Ecuador, which Karny

(1913a: 10) tentatively placed in the Copi-

phorinae. After having been privileged to ex-

amine the unique type specimen of A. acuta

Scudder belonging to the Museum of Com-

parative Zoology, and finding the specimen

to belong to the subfamily Agraeciinae in-

stead of the Copiphorinae, it appears worth-

while to publish clarifying notes and photos

of the previously unfigured and scantily de-

scribed holotype. A sidelight of this study

has been the examination of several early

mistaken uses of the name Acanthacara for

North American species which in reality be-

long to Belocephalus. This old usage is now

chiefly of historical interest, but it is docu-

mented briefly for students who otherwise

may be confused.

The unique holotype of Acanthacara

acuta (Fig. 1-3) is a female, apparently in the

last instar prior to maturity. It is labelled

“Quito to Napo” and was collected by Pro-

fessor James Orton of Vassar College while

on an 1867 expedition in Ecuador. Accord-

ing to Orton (1876: 177-182), the journey

from Quito to Napo occurred between Octo-

ber 30 and about mid-November, 1867, but

it is uncertain whether the type specimen

was collected east of the main mountain

ridge and thus in Atlantic drainage.

Of the specimen’s legs, only the right —

middle one remains, though a posterior one —

was described by Scudder. The ovipositor,

even in his time, was damaged. The follow-

ing descriptive notes supplement Scudder’s:

A transverse line of demarcation between

base of fastigium and front, but no sulcus;

prosternum unarmed; posterior margin of

pronotum very broadly concave; vestiges of

immature tegmina present; middle femur un-

armed on ventral or dorsal margins, genicular

lobes each with 1 apical-ventral spine, the

anterior one clearly shorter than posterior

one; tibia with 5 pairs of small ventral spines

in apical half; tarsal segments 1 and 2 with

lateral linear furrows; last tergum prior to

epiproct with posterior margin deeply emar-

ginate with sharply V-shaped incision; apex

of subgenital plate nearly entire, with trace

of emargination at narrowed apex. Measure-

ments in millimeters: Overall, 20.5; fasti-

gium in front of anterior margin of com-

pound eyes, 2.0; pronotal length, 3.7, great-

est width, 3.3; length of posterior genicular

spine of middle femur, 0.45.

Although Scudder (1869) initially did not

give a subfamily assignment for Acanthacara,

he later (Scudder, 1896: 210) referred it to

the Pseudophyllinae. Contrary to his an-

nounced reason, however, I do not find the

margins of the antennal sockets as strongly

formed as in most Pseudophyllinae, and the

structure of the vertex is different from

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

Figs. 1-3.—Holotype of Acanthacara acuta Scudder. 1, lateral view; 2, dorsal view; 3, lateral view

(slightly ventral) of head and thorax (all much enlarged) (Photos by Victor E. Krantz, Smithsonian

Institution).

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972 33

Pseudophyllinae with which I am familiar.

The logical choice of subfamily position thus

appears to be either Copiphorinae, as

favored by Karny (1913a), or Agraeciinae,

and my judgement is that the characters of

Acanthacara place it in the subfamily Agrae-

ciinae, where it seems closely related to

Agraecia and Eschatoceras.

The following characters indicate an

agraeciine rather than a copiphorine posi-

tion: 1) vertex separated from frons only by

a line of demarcation; 2) vertex without a

ventral tooth near base; 3) basal part of fasti-

gium above narrower than first antennal seg-

ment; 4) ovipositor curved dorsally; 5) gen-

eral color brownish instead of green.

Several described species of Eschatoceras

occur in the region of the Upper Amazon

River (Karny, 1913b: 19), and the fastigium

of Agraecia subulata Redt. likewise is sugges-

tive of Acanthacara. In the absence of more

adequate material of Acanthacara acuta, es-

pecially mature specimens, a final decision

on the generic distinctness of Acanthacara

cannot be made.

The misapplication of Acanthacara to

North American species probably occurred

because of the superficial resemblance of the

sharp, curved fastigium of Belocephalus to

that of true Acanthacara, though in reality

the ventral tooth and wide transverse sulcus

at the base of fastigium in Belocephalus indi-

cate a fundamentally different relationship.

Thomas (1874: 71) used the name

Acanthacara acuta Scudder for a female

from an unstated locality; from his descrip-

tion, it belongs to Belocephalus. Also in

1874, Glover completed but did not publish

an illustration (Pl. 16, fig. 17) which he la-

belled Acanthacara; it is cited by Hebard

(1926: 148), but Scudder (1875) referred to

the illustration as unpublished. Dodge

(1888) reviewed Glover’s work in detail; the

first 13 plates of Orthoptera in Glover’s Il-

lustrations were published in 1872 and the

same plus 5 additional ones of Orthoptera

were included in his final large work in

1878. In an April 10, 1874 letter to Osten-

Sacken (see Dodge, lc., page 49) Glover

wrote “I am busy revising and correcting

names, notes and figures of my Orthoptera,

and have etched from additional plates from

Thomas’ new species collected by Hayden

and Wheeler.” It is likely that copies of the

new Orthoptera plates were sent to Cam-

bridge, Mass. at the same time he corres-

ponded about Diptera plates with Osten-

Sacken, who then was in Cambridge, and

that Scudder saw them. At any rate, Belo-

cephalus was first proposed a year later

(Scudder, 1875), and on Plate 16 of Glover’s

work distributed in 1878 the name Belocep-

halus subapterus appeared with the notation

“in Scudder’s letter,” showing that Glover

received from Scudder the correction of the

earlier wrong use of Acanthacara. Scudder

(1901: 1) cited Glover’s 1874 use without

further comment.

One further use of Acanthacara occurred

when Riley and Howard (1889) published

the name Acanthacara similis as quoted from

a letter to a correspondent who had submit-

ted a specimen from Florida with an inquiry.

There is now in the National Museum a fe-

male specimen identified as Belocephalus

davisi R. & H. by Hebard in 1926 and also

seen by him in 1915. It is from Florida and

bears a Thomas manuscript type label, but

the name was never validated. The specimen

may be the same one Thomas called A. acuta

in 1874; I do not know of active work on

Orthoptera publications by him after 1880.

Acknowledgments

In addition to the cooperation of Dr.

Howard E. Evans, Harvard University, in

making a type specimen available for study,

I am indebted to Dr. Irving J. Cantrall, Uni-

versity of Michigan, for comparing photos of

Acanthacara acuta with specimens of Tet-

tigoniidae in the Museum of Zoology.

References Cited

(with annotations)

Dodge, C.R. 1888. The life and work of the late

Townend Glover, first entomologist of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture. U. S. Dept. Agr.,

Div. Entomol., Bull. 18: 1-68, illus. (includes

complete list of publications with detailed ac-

count of Glover’s Illustrations of North Ameri-

can Entomology.)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

Glover, Townend. 1872. Illustrations of North

American Entomology (United States and

Canada). Orthoptera. i-v+11 p., 13 pl. (Some

copies with colored plates, others lacking color;

each plate with opposite sheet bearing printed

list of names; 50 copies distributed; no new

species included.)

1878. Illustrations of North American

Entomology in the orders of Coleoptera, Or-

thoptera, Neuroptera, Hymenoptera, Lepidop-

tera, Hemiptera and Diptera. 273 pl., Washing-

ton, D.C. (Includes 18 plates on Orthoptera; for

all orders except Lepidoptera the names were

hand-lettered at the bottom of the plates; some

lists of names also included; 12 copies distri-

buted, a few others preserved; some plates

colored; no new species included; probably con-

stitutes publication though issue was very small;

as cited by Dodge (1888), the title included

Homoptera instead of Hemiptera, and this form

has been cited elsewhere.)

Hebard, M. 1926. A revision of the North Ameri-

can genus Belocephalus (Orthoptera; Tet-

tigoniidae). Trans. Amer. Entomol. Soc. 52:

147-186, illus.

Karny, H. 1913a. Orthoptera, Fam. Locustidae,

Subfam. Copiphorinae. Genera Insectorum,

Fasc. 139: 1-50, illus.

1913b. Orthoptera, Fam. Locustidae,

Subfam. Agraeciinae. Genera Insectorum, Fasc.

141: 1-47, illus. (Both Karny publications bear

the imprint 1912 but were distributed in early

to mid-1913.)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

Orton, James. 1876. The Andes and the Amazon;

or across the continent of South America. 3rd

ed., 645 p., illus. (General account, written fol-

lowing a second trip, 1873.)

Riley, C.V., and L.O. Howard (Editors). 1889.

Acanthacara similis injuring pineapple in Flori-

da. Insect Life 1(7): 217-218. (Consists of 2

letters from a correspondent and 1 reply giving

name of specimen submitted, with notes.)

Scudder, S.H. 1869. Notes on Orthoptera collected

by Professor James Orton on either side of the

Andes of Equatorial South America. Proc. Bos-

ton Soc. Nat. Hist. 12: 330-345. (Also distri-

buted as a reprint under the heading Entomo-

logical Notes, pp. 15-30; Karny (1913a) gave

1868 as the year of publication, but published

Society records indicate that the paper ap-

peared in 1869.)

1875. A century of Orthoptera. Decade

II. Locustariae. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 17:

454-462. (Also issued in reprint form in 1879,

pp. 7-15.)

1896. List of exotic Orthoptera des-

cribec by S.H. Scudder, 1968-1879, with a re-

vision of their nomenclature. Proc. Boston Soc.

Nat. Hist. 27: 201-218.

1901. Alphabetical Index to North

American Orthoptera Described in the Eigh-

teenth and Nineteenth Centuries. Separate pub-

lication, Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., 398 p.

Thomas, C. 1874. Description of some new Or-

thoptera and notes on some species but little

known. Bull. U. S. Geolog. & Geograph. Surv.

Terr. 1(2): 63-71.

Descriptive and Synonymical Notes for Some

Species of Noctuidae from the

Galapagos Islands (Lepidoptera)’

E.L. Todd

Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agr. Res. Serv.,

U.S. Department of Agriculture; c/o U.S. National

Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560

The following comments pertaining to

species of the genera Spragueia Grote, 1875,

and Catabena Walker, 1865, have been lifted

from manuscript revisions of those genera

and are presented herein in order that Mr.

Alan Hayes of the British Museum (Natural

History) might use the appropriate names in

a proposed catalog of the Macroheterocera

of the Galapagos Islands.

Spragueia creton Schaus

Spragueia creton Schaus, 1923, Zoologica 5(2): 38,

pl. 1, fig. 9.

Spragueia plumbeata Schaus, 1923, Zoologica

5(2): 38, pl. 1 fig. 10. [New synonymy].

When Schaus proposed the specific names

cited above he was studying material col-

lected by William Beebe during the Williams

Galapagos Expedition of the New York

Zoological Society, 1923. The number of in-

dividuals collected, the localities, the dates

and usually the sexes of the specimens are

listed on pages 23 through 31. Schaus stated

in the introductory comments that the types

of the new species were deposited in the col-

lections of the United States National

Museum, but he usually did not indicate

either in the list or in the descriptions that

follow which specimen was the type. He did

cite a type catalog number for each species.

In the case of Spragueia creton Schaus, a

male and a female from Tower Island [Isla

Contribution No. 138 of the Charles Darwin

Foundation.

Genovesa] collected April 28, 1923 and a

male from South Seymour [Isla Baltra] col-

lected April 23, 1923 were available for

study by Schaus. The specimen in the '

United States National Museum is labeled:

“Spragueia creton Schs., type”; “Tower

Island, Galapagos, April 28, 1923”; “Type

No. 26512 U.S.N.M.”; “Photo Noc. 151”;

and “‘o genitalia on slide E.L.T. 4601”. The

specimen has been selected, labeled, and is

presently designated as lectotype. Spragueia

plumbeata was based on a unique female

from Conway Bay, Indefatigable [Isla Santa

Cruz]. The holotype is in the collection of

the United States National Museum. The

types of the two names are illustrated in figs.

1 and 2.

In the original description of creton,

Schaus stated: “Allied to S. dama Guenee.”

Spragueia dama (Guenee) is very closely re-

lated to creton. It is one of the most variable

species of the genus in coloration of the

wings and is a common, wide-spread species.

It occurs in the Gulf States of the United

States of America, in the Greater Antilles,

México, Central America and South America

south to Chile and Argentina. There is con-

siderable sexual dimorphism in the colora-

tion of the forewings of dama. Some females

have the forewings colored as in dark males,

but most females are very decidedly darker,

the forewings largely black with the orange

areas generally greatly reduced. In considera-

tion of the color variation and dimorphism

in dama and because of the close relation-

ship of dama and creton, it is my opinion

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

Figs. 1-4. Dorsal view of adults:

that plumbeata represents an extremely dark

example of creton. Therefore, I have placed

_S. plumbeata Schaus in the synonymy of S.

creton Schaus.

Initially I believed that creton and plum-

beata would probably fall as synonyms of

dama, but examination of the types of the

Schaus species, study) of the original descrip-

tions, and comparison with specimens of

dama have dictated a change in opinion.

Differences appear to exist, but I have been

able to examine only the types of creton and

plumbeata, and subsequent study of other

material from the Galapagos Islands will be

required in order to determine whether the

differences noted are consistent. It appears

that the fringe of the forewing of creton is

black or black tipped with white. In the very

large series of dama available for study the

fringe of the forewing at the apex and on the

caudal half is bright orange, even in the dark-

est females. In other species of Spragueia the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972 —

1, Spragueia creton Schaus, lectotype 6, Tower Island [Isla

Genovesa] , Galapagos, USNM; 2, S. plumbeata Schaus, holotype ?, Conway Bay, Indefatigable [Isla Santa

Cruz], Galapagos, USNM; 3, Catabena seorsa n. sp., paratype of Academy Bay, Isla Santa Cruz, Galapa-

gos, USNM; 4, same, paratype ?, Charles Island [Isla Santa Maria], Galapagos, BMNH.

coloration of the fringe of the forewing is

rather constant for a species and usually

characteristic. The male genitalia of the lec-

totype of creton differs from those of speci-

mens of dama examined in the nature of the

apical part of the costal margin of both the

left and right sacculi (see figs. 7, 8). The

projection of the apical part of the costal

margin of the left sacculus in creton is very

broad and rounded while in dama both the

distal margin and the middle of the costal

margin of the sacculus of the left valve are

more or less emarginate, resulting in a nar-

rower, more digitiform process. The degree

of emargination of the margins of the left

sacculus and the width of the projection is

somewhat variable in the genitalia of dama,

but none of those examined approached

closely that of creton in width of the pro-

cess. The corresponding area of the sacculus

of the right valve is developed into a short

process in creton while in dama that process

Figs. 5-6. Male and female genitalia of Catabena seorsa n. sp.: 5, & genitalia, caudal view, aedeagus

removed and shown in lateral view, genitalic preparation no. 2147, E. L. Todd, paratype, Academy Bay,

Isla Santa Cruz, Galapagos; 6, 2 genitalia, ventral view, genitalic preparation no. 2151, E. L. Todd,

paratype, Academy Bay, Isla Santa Cruz, Galapagos.

is either not developed or only slightly so.

When more material of creton is available

perhaps the consistency of the differences

and their significance may be determined

and the relationship of creton and dama bet-

ter understood. On the basis of present

knowledge it seems best to consider creton

as distinct.

Catabena seorsa, new species

Catabena sp. ? Schaus, 1923, Zoologica 5(2): 25.

Head with proboscis well developed; labial palpi

slightly upcurved, reaching about to middle of

frons, third segment shortest, only about one-third

length of second segment, palpi loosely-scaled es-

pecially ventral margins, nearly white, second seg-

ment with some scattered gray scales, third seg-

ment. darker; frons slightly bulbous, exceeding an-

terior margin of eye approximately one-third

length of eye, vestiture of frons white except a

transverse band of dark brown scales below an-

tennae; antennae filiform in both sexes. Vestiture

of thorax, patagia, and abdomen of pale gray and

white-tipped scales; thorax and abdomen lacking

tufts. Pectus clothed with white scales and hair;

tympanum moderate and only partially shielded by

abdominal hood; legs unmodified, hindleg nearly

white with only a small area of dark brown scaling

near base of each tarsal segment, midleg and hind-

leg progressively darker in coloration.

Pattern of maculation as illustrated (figs. 3, 4),

reniform, orbicular, and claviform spots not de-

veloped. Ground color of forewing cream white or

pale gray; antemedial line, postmedial line, and

short subterminal striae in cells Ma Mg Cup, and

1st Anal dark brown or black, other maculation

gray brown; fringe checkered, interrupted at the

veins. Hindwing white with conspicuous fuscous

marginal band and weakly checkered fringe in both

sexes. Undersurface of forewings pale with darker

shading in apical half, but without definite macula-

tion of dorsal surface, discal cell clothed with

sparse, long pale hairs; undersurface of hindwing

like dorsal surface except marginal band not as well

developed. Length of forewing, male, 9-11 mm, fe-

male, 8-12 mm.

Male genitalia as illustrated (fig. 5). Size

moderate for species size, distance from base of

uncus to tip of vinculum approximately 2 mm,

length of aedeagus also 2 mm. Shape of valvae

characteristic, ventral margin of each valve triangu-

larly produced ventrad immediately distad of sac-

culus; clasper of right valve rather long and slightly

sinuous, that of left valve swollen apically, with a

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

Figs. 7-8. Male genitalia of Spragueia species: 7, S. dama (Guenée), genitalic preparation no. 4605,

E.L. Todd, Cayuga, Guatemala; 8, S. creton Schaus, genitalic preparation no. 4601, E.L. Todd, lectotype,

Tower Island [Isla Genovesa] , Galapagos.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972 39

short costal lobe near middle, foot-shaped; aedea-

gus with a moderately large (1/3 length aedeagus)

cornutus; costal margin of right sacculus strongly

concave, a short, rounded dorsal process at apex.

Female genitalia as illustrated (fig. 6). Length

from ostial opening to anterior end of corpus bursa

approximately 5 mm. Sclerotization of proximal

part of corpus bursa as wide as long, irregularly

triangular in outline.

Holotype, male, Academy Bay, Isla Santa

Cruz, Galapagos Arch., Feb. 7, 1964, R.O.

Schuster; 30 and 39 paratypes, same data;

lo‘and 4 paratypes, same place and collec-

tor, Feb. 6, 1964; 1c and 69 paratypes, same

place and collector, Feb. 8, 1964, 1¢ para-

type, same place and collector, Feb. 3, 1964;

4° paratypes, same place and collector, Feb.

10, 1964; 12 paratype, same place and col-

lector, Feb. 18, 1964; 12 paratype, same

place, Feb. 20, 1964, D. Q. Cavagnaro and

D.O. Schuster; and 1? paratype, same place

and collectors, Feb. 23, 1964, in the collec-

tion of the California Academy of Science,

San Francisco. Two female paratypes,

Charles Island, Galapagos, July 31, 1924,C.

L. Collenette, St. George Expedition, in The

British Museum (Natural History), London,

England. One male paratype, Academy Bay,

Isla Santa Cruz, Galapagos Arch., Feb. 10,

1964, R. O. Schuster; 1c paratype, same

place and collector, Feb. 8, 1964; 10 para-

type, same place and collector, Feb. 6, 1964;

12 paratype, same place, Feb. 24, 1964, D.

Q. Cavagnaro and R. O. Schuster, in the

United States National Museum, Washing-

ton, D.C.

This species is a member of the vitrina

complex of the genus Catabena. It resembles —

Catabena terens (Walker) in maculation, but §f

the forewing is paler, the antemedial and ©

postmedial lines more contrasting, the me-

dian shade broader, and the marginal band ©

of the hindwing broader and developed

farther toward the anal angle. It differs from

all the described species of the vitrina com-

plex in that the ventral margins of the valves

of the male genitalia are triangularly pro-

duced ventrad beyond the sacculus (see

figure 5). The actual relationship of seorsa to

the other species of the complex cannot be

discussed at this time and must of necessity

await the descriptions of several other un- .

described species.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to acknowledge the

assistance of the authorities of the California

Academy of Sciences and of the British

Museum (Natural History). The loan of ma-

terial from these institutions has made

possible the study and description of Catabe-

na seorsa, new species. The photographs uti-

lized for the illustrations were made by the

staff of the National Museum of Natural His-

tory Photographic Laboratory.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

A New Oriental Species of Culicoides Breeding

in Tree Rot Cavities (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae)

Willis W. Wirth and Alexander A. Hubert

Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agr. Res. Serv.,

USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560; and

Lt. Colonel, MSC, Department of the Army, 406th Medical Laboratory,

APO San Francisco 96343, respectively.

ABSTRACT

Culicoides dryadeus Wirth and Hubert, new species, is described. It was reared from

wet soil in a tree hole in Selangor, Malaya.

In this paper we describe a new species of

Culicoides Latreille to make the name avail-

able for workers reporting on biting midges

in India. The description was extracted from

a comprehensive revision that we have in

preparation on the Culicoides of Southeast

Asia. Our terminology was explained in

papers by Wirth and Blanton (1959) and

Wirth and Hubert (1959).

Culicoides dryadeus

Wirth and Hubert, new species

(Fig. 1-8)

Female.—Length of wing 0.97 mm.

Head: Eyes narrowly separated, bare. Antenna

(fig. 1) with lengths of flagellar segments in propor-

tion of 20-15-15-16-15-16-16-19-23-24-24-25-28,

antennal ratio 0.95; sensoria present on segments

3, 11-15. Palpal segments (fig. 2) with lengths in

proportion of 13-33-35-14-10; third segment

moderately swollen subapically, with a small,

round, shallow, subapical, sensory pit; palpal ratio

2.5. Proboscis moderately long, P/H Ratio 0.80;

mandible with 15 teeth.

Thorax: Dark brown, without apparent pattern

in slide-mounted specimen. Legs (fig. 5) dark

brown, femora slightly paler at bases; femora with

faint subapical pale rings, tibiae with distinct sub-

basal pale rings; knee spots blackish; hind tibial

comb (fig. 3) with 4 spines, the one nearest the

spur longest.

Wing (fig. 4): Pattern as figured; intensely dark

gray, even more so in region between radius and

costa; with 4 prominent yellowish spots, a moder-

ately large transverse spot over r-m crossvein not

quite reaching costa or vein M, a small round spot

on anterior margin just distad of second radial cell,

a small transverse spot straddling base of media a

third of distance between basal arculus and r-m

crossvein, and a larger transverse spot straddling

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

mediocubital stem almost halfway to its fork, the

latter spot sometimes absent (in one paratype) or

broken into 2 spots, over mediocubital stem and

over anal vein. Macrotrichia very long and abun-

dant, reaching to base of cell M2 and anal cell

abundantly; costal ratio 0.58; second radial cell

moderately broad, with distinct lumen. Halter

deeply infuscated.

Abdomen: Brown. Spermathecae (fig. 6) 2,

ovoid with slight taper to very short, slender,

sclerotized necks; subequal, each measuring 0.058

by 0.044 mm.

Male Genitalia (fig. 8).—Ninth sternum with

broad, shallow, caudo-median excavation, the ven-

tral membrane not spiculate; ninth tergum moder-

ately long and tapered, caudal margin transverse

with a pair of very long, slender, slightly flaring,

apicolateral processes. Basistyle with ventral root

very slender, moderately long, dorsal root longer

and stouter; dististyle moderately slender, nearly

straight, with bent, bluntly pointed tip. Aedeagus

with basal arch extending to about a third of total

length, the basal arms stout, nearly straight with

ends abruptly bent caudolaterad, main portion

tapering to broad distal tip with 3 small teeth.

Parameres (fig. 9) each with short, laterally direc-

ted basal arm with enlarged basal knob; stem

moderately swollen a short distance at base, taper-

ing distally and straight in midportion, with fine

pointed apex abruptly bent laterad and then ven-

trad.

Distribution.—India, Malaya, Sarawak,

Sumatra, Thailand.

Types.—Holotype, female, Ampang For-

est Reserve, Selangor, Malaya, 20 September

1960, C. Manikumar, reared from soil in tree

hole (Type no. 71177, USNM). Allotype,

male, same data but reared 28 June 1961.

Fig. 1-8. Culicoides dryadeus n. sp.: 1, female antenna; 2, female palpus, 3, hind tibial comb; 4, female

wing; 5, legs, left to right, fore, mid, and hind; 6, spermathecae; 7, male parameres; 8, male genitalia,

parameres removed.

Paratypes, 2 males, 23 females, as follows:

MALAYA: Same data except dates Septem-

ber 1960 and June, July, September 1961,

15 females. Subang Forest Reserve, Selang-

or, 4 May 1962, C. Manikumar, reared from

tree hole, 2 females. INDIA: Calcutta, 3 Sep-

tember 1924, P. J. Barraud, 2 males, 2 fe-

males (in British Museum (Nat. Hist.), Lon-

don). SARAWAK: Matang, 15 September

1958, Maa and Gressitt, at light, 1 female

(Bishop Museum, Honolulu). SUMATRA:

King Ke, Fairchild Coll, 1 female. THAI-

LAND: Chiengmai, April-May 1958, V.

Notananda, light trap, 1 female; July 1962,

J. E. Scanlon, light trap 1 female.

Discussion —Culicoides dryadeus is easily

recognized by the wing pattern, intensely in-

fuscated and with 4 distinct pale spots on

the anterior and proximal portions. The

hairy wing with distinct pale spots, the an-

tennal sensory pattern, the deep sensory pit

with small pore opening on the third palpal

segment, and the structure of the male geni-

talia identify this species as a member of the

Culicoides neavei group. The wing pattern of

dryadeus differs from that of members of

this group, such as bifasciatus Tokunaga,

claggi Tokunaga, geminus Macfie, javae

Tokunaga, mackerrasi Lee and Reye, mar-

ginatus Delfinado, neavei Austen, and sher-

mani Causey, in lacking pale spots on the

distal portion and along the posterior mar-

gin.

References

Wirth, W.W., and F.S. Blanton. 1959. Biting midges

of the genus Culicoides from Panama (Diptera-

Heleidae). Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 109: 237-482. -

Wirth, W.W., and A.A. Hubert.1959. Trithecoides,

a new subgenus of Culicoides (Diptera, Cera-

topogonidae). Pacific Insects 1: 1-38.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

ACADEMY AFFAIRS

BOARD OF MANAGERS MEETING NOTES

November, 1971

The 616th meeting of the Board of Man-

agers of the Washington Academy of Sci-

ences was called to order at 5:03 p.m. No-

vember 18, 1971 in the New South Faculty

Lounge at Georgetown University.

Announcements.—The minutes of the

615th meeting, which were distributed prior

to the meeting, were discussed and cor-

rected. At the close of the discussion, Presi-

dent Robbins declared the minutes to be ap-

proved as corrected. Dr. Treadwell, Dr. Wat-

son and Dr. Weissler, who were not present

at the last meeting, were introduced to the

new delegates and committee chairman.

Dr. Patricia Sarvella was recognized in her

new position of Chairman of the Joint Board

on Science Education. She moved up from

Vice Chairman upon the resignation of Dr.

Roy Foresti. In other related developments,

Dr. Robbins stated that she had appointed

Dr. John K. Taylor and Dr. Edward Hac-

skaylo to represent the Academy on a six-

member blue ribbon committee that will

study the JBSE and make recommendations

to the parent organizations. The committee

will be directed: 1) to look into the activities

of the JBSE as it functions as a single body

to serve the two parent organizations, 2) to

determine whether the present objectives of

the JBSE are relevant, and (3) to recom-

mend organizational and bylaws changes if

such are found necessary. The six-member

committee is scheduled to meet on Novem-

ber 20, 1972 with Dr. Robbins, Dr. Sarvella,

and Mr. William A. Foster, Chairman of the

D. C. Council of Engineering and Architec-

tural Societies.

Membership Committee —In the absence

of Chairman Landis, Dr. Honig moved that

J. WASH. ACAD, SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

Bernard K. Dennis, K. C. Emerson, and

Frank Reggia be accepted as Fellows of the

Academy. Following a second by Dr.

Forziati, the candidates were accepted by

voice vote. Two new candidates for fellow-

ship were offered by the committee. Perti-

nent citations for each were read in prepara-

tion for formal decision at the next meeting.

Policy and Planning Committee —Chair-

man Stern offered for consideration first a

change in the bylaws and a change in the

standing rules. The bylaws change would be

in line 3 of Section 9sd Article IV, Officers:

Read “two or more persons” instead of pres-

ent “one person”. A new standing rule,

Number 14 was proposed as follows:

“The President shall appoint each year

a Special Committee, called the Nomi-

nation Advisory Committee, consisting

of the most-recent available past presi-

dent and five fellows, at least three of

whom served as delegates during the

previous year. This committee will

meet prior to the first regular meeting

of the Board of Managers to consider

candidates for the offices of Presi-

dent-elect, Secretary, Treasurer, and

Managers-at-Large for the Board. The

committee shall prepare a recom-

mended slate, containing two or more

candidates for each available position,

for consideration by the Nominating

Committee”’.

Dr. Stern expressed his belief that such

changes would fulfill the wants of the Board

of Managers as voted in the meeting of May

10, 1971. Although he was not present at

that meeting, he thought that it was the in-

tent to provide the Nominating Committee,

many of whose members are newly ap-

pointed delegates, with more information

concerning qualified candidates that it

would otherwise have. He noted further that

the Nominating Committee would not be

bound by the recommendations of the Nom-

ination Advisory Committee. As initially

conceived, the changes in bylaws from single

slate to multiple slate would make the elec-

tion of officers more meaningful.

Dr. Stern moved and R. Rupp seconded a

motion to adopt the bylaws changes as

stated. In the discussion that followed Dr.

Cook stated that the proposed changes were

considerably different from what he had

proposed on May 10. In his proposal a com-

mittee similar in make-up to the Nomination

Advisory Committee would replace and

carry out the functions of the Nominating

Committee. Further discussion showed that

some members of the Board favored Dr.

Cook’s one-step procedure for producing a

slate of officers because the committee

could be a small efficient working group.

While other members of the Board recog-

nized possible efficiency, they expressed

concern for possible input from the affili-

ated societies acting through the delegates,

and the further possibility that a two-step

procedure would provide a bulwark against

inbreeding in the one-step Nominating Com-

mittee. Dr. Forziati moved and Dr. Cook

seconded a motion to refer the matter to the

Bylaws and Standing Rules Committee. Such

action was accomplished by voice vote. An

informal vote was then taken to sense the

present thinking of the Board. For one-step

there were nine in favor, for two-step there

were six, and six did not commit themselves.

Dr. Stern next presented the application

of the Maryland-District of Columbia Sec-

tion of the Mathematical Association of

America for affiliation. Following a motion

by Dr. Stern and a second by Dr. Weissler,

the Board voted to submit the application to

the full membership for vote.

Completing the work of his committee,

Dr. Stern proposed that the Academy estab-

lish a competition for undergraduate college

students in each of the broad areas of sci-

ence covered by the present science awards.

Topics would be chosen by the Academy

and the competitions would begin with the

1972—73 academic year. When offered as a

motion, Dr. Weissler seconded; however, Dr.

Honig proposed that an ad hoc committee

contact the local universities to determine

the extent of interest. Dr. Honig’s proposal

was accepted as a substitute motion which

carried by voice vote.

Meetings Committee .—Dr. Irving was pre-'

pared to give more definition to the plans:

for monthly meetings. On December 16,

there will be a tour of the Goddard Space

Flight Center. The Symposium will consti-

tute the January meeting. In February, Dr.

E. E. Saulmon from USDA will speak.

Speakers for March and April are not firm

yet.

Grants in Aid.—Dr. Sarvella presented a

proposal that grants be made to four boys

and to one girl in amounts ranging from $40

to $95 to support specific research. Her pro-

posal in the form of a motion was seconded

by Dr. Forziati and passed by voice vote.

Encouragement of Science Talent .—Dr.

Ederer presented members present with a

copy of WJAS Proceedings which listed basis

for membership. WJAS now wants to change

procedure to accept members based on letter

of recommendation from teacher or from

supervisor in a summer research program.

The Board of Managers voted approval of

this change.

Public Information.—Symposium bro-

chures have been mailed to all Government

agencies, and a special letter went to the sci-

entific counselors of embassies requesting

that they designate an office or individual

that would be contacted when the subject

matter of meetings would be of special in-

terest to them.

December, 1971

The 617th meeting of the Board of Man-

agers of the Washington Academy of

Sciences was called to order at 8:04 p.m. on

December 14, 1971 in the Conference room

of the Lee Building at FASEB.

Announcements.—Minutes of the pre-

vious meeting had been distributed prior to

the meeting. An opportunity was given for

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

comments or discussion of the minutes and

then President Robbins declared the minutes

accepted as prepared,

Dr. Robbins stated that she has a letter

from the Instrument Society of America to

the effect that the delegate did not wish to

continue. Discussion indicated that the

matter should be pursued further through an

informal contact by Dr. Robbins with the

president of that Society.

Treasurer .—Treasurer Honig presented a

report labeled “Treasurer’s Dilemma” be-

cause anticipated funds toward expenses

could be several thousand dollars less that

the expenses. The estimated symposium ex-

penses seemed to be the surprising element

of the report. The Treasurer recommended

that $7,500 of stocks be liquidated to meet

these expenses. The stock holdings were esti-

mated to be $69,000.

Many alternatives to the liquidation were

offered in the ensuing discussion. President

Robbins acknowledged the need for the

1972 budget and promised to meet with the

President-elect, the Treasurer, and the Chair-

man of the Ways and Means Committee to

prepare it.

A plea to delay the liquidation until a

firmer figure was available to define the fi-

nancial need. Dr. Forziati offered a interest-

free loan and Grover Sherlin urged that it be

accepted together with a supplement from

him. After extended discussion, a motion

was made that the Treasurer be authorized

to accept an interest free loan up to $8,000

from Forziati and Sherlin. By voice vote the

motion was approved.

Membership Committee.—_Two nominees

for fellowship had been presented at the pre-

vious meeting. Following the second reading

of the nominations, Sam Detwiler seconded

the nominations and then by voice vote Rev.

Charles L. Currie, S.J. and Dr. Wharton

Young were elected Fellows of the Aca-

demy.

Meetings —Dr. Irving urged that all note

that the December meeting at Goddard

Space Flight Center would start at an earlier

time that usual, 7:30 p.m. He then reviewed

his plans for monthly meetings in February,

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

March, April and May. The Symposium will

be considered the January meeting.

Awards for Scientific Achievement.—

Chairman Dickson reported that a number of

nominations had been received and that the

panels will be making their selections in

January. Some panel chairman had inquired

about the possibility of multiple awards. The

awards chairman was urged to limit the se-

lections to one person or one team per

panel.

Grants-in-Aid.—Chairman Sarvella re-

ported that letters had been sent to the stu-

dents informing them of the grants approved

at the last meeting and that AAAS had also

been notified in anticipation of the usual re-

fund for the grants. The students who re-

ceived the grants are listed with their

schools: Michael R. Maroney, Western High

School; Howard N. Moore, McKinley High

School; Kathy O’Donnell, Washington Lee

High School; Harrell Shoun, Jr., Luther

Jackson Intermediate School; Wayne E. Pax-

ton, Calvin Coolidge High School.

Public Information.—Chairman Noyes

described the extensive publicity that he has

carried out for the Symposium to the pro-

fessional societies, the school systems, the

chamber of Commerce, newspapers, etc. Dr.

Noyes stated that he planned to count bona

fide newspaper reporters as guests, partic-

ularly at refreshment time. Copies of the

final brochures of the Symposium were dis-

tributed.

ByLaws.—Dr. Cook reported for Dr. L. A.

Wood with a draft of the proposed amend-

ments to change the procedure for nomina-

tion of officers. An amendment to the pro-

posed changes was offered by Dr. Honig and

Dr. Boek. Parliamentary procedures brought

about approval of the following wording to

be submitted to the full voting membership

for approval:

Article VI, Section 2

The President, with the approval of the Board

of Managers, shall appoint a Nominating Commit-

tee of six fellows of the Academy, at least one of

whom shall be a Past President (see Article IV,

Section 9).

Article IV, Section 9

The Nominating Committee (Article VI, Sec-

tion 2) shall prepare a slate listing two or more

persons for each of the offices of President-elect,

of Secretary and of Treasurer, and four persons for

the two Managers-at-Large and at least two persons

to fill each vacant unexpired term of Manager-at-

Large whose terms expire each year. The slate shall

be presented for approval to the Board of Managers

at its first meeting in October. Not later than

November 15, the Secretary shall forward to each

Academy member and fellow an announcement of

the election, the committee’s nomination for the

offices to be filled, and a list of the incumbents.

Additional candidates for such offices may be pro-

posed by any member or fellow in good standing

by letter received by the Secretary not later than

December 1. The names of any eligible candidate

so proposed by ten members or fellows shall be

entered on the ballot.”

Joint Board on Science Education.—Dr.

Oswald asked that the Academy provide of- |

fice services to the JBSE as a contribution. :

The discussion was a reminder to Dr. Rob- |

bins that the $300 contribution had not yet”

been made, but should be made without de- :

lay. Dr. Cook phrased a motion to the effect”

that the Executive Committee consider

promptly the request of the JBSE for office

service, meeting with the JBSE Executive

Committee to work out the details of a pro-

posal. After Sam Detwiler’s second, a voice

vote gave approval.

ELECTIONS TO FELLOWSHIP

The following persons were elected to fellowship in the Academy at the December, 1971,

Board of Managers meeting:

Charles L. Currie, S. J., Assistant Profes-

sor of Chemistry, Georgetown University,

Washington, D.C., in recognition of his con-

tribution in the field of photochemistry, and

in particular his researches at the forefront

of flash photolysis techniques.

M. Wharton Young, Professor of Neuro-

anatomy, Howard Medical College,

Washington, D.C., for his outstanding contri-

bution to teaching and research in anatomy,

and in particular his work on the anatomical

basis for labyrinthine hydraulics in hearing

and deafness.

SCIENTISTS IN THE NEWS

Contributions to this section of your Journal are earnestly solicited. They

should be typed double-spaced and sent to the Editor in care of the Academy

office by the Ist of the month preceding the issue for which they are in-

tended.

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

Benjamin H. Alexander has been named

assistant chief of the General Research Sup-

port Branch, Division of Research Re-

sources.

Dr. Alexander will assist the branch chief

in administering GRSB programs and in de-

veloping new responses for institutional sup-

port of biomedical research.

He comes to DRR from the Health Serv-

ices and Mental Health Administration

where he has been serving as health science

administrator since 1968.

Dr. Alexander was special assistant to the

Director for the Disadvantaged, National

Center for Health Services Research and De-

velopment, HSHMA, from 1968 to 1969.

He was administrator from 1969 to 1970

with the New Health Career Projects, and

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL, VOL, 62, NO. 1, 1972

Leonard M. Murphy receiving 1971 NOAA award December 3, 1971. Pictured left to right are:

§ Murphy, NOAA Deputy Administrator Howard W. Pollock, and NOAA Administrator Robert M. White.

served on a part-time basis as Deputy Equal

Employment Opportunity Officer.

Dr. Alexander received his B.A. at the

University of Cincinnati, his M.S. at Bradley

University, and his Ph.D. from Georgetown

University.

He is the author of over 45 published re-

search papers in chemical and related fields,

and has written some 150 articles on educa-

tional subjects, community and racial prob-

lems, and ecology.

NOAA

Leonard M. Murphy of Rockville, Md.,

has been selected by the Commerce Depart-

ment’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration as one of the seven winners

of the 1971 NOAA awards for unusually sig-

nificant achievements. The award includes a

plaque and $1000. |

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

Murphy received the award for “his out-

standing contributions to engineering seis-

mology and earthquake science.” The recip-

ient is connected with the NOAA Environ-

mental Research Laboratories’ Earth Sci-

ences Laboratories in Rockville, Md.

The award winners were selected by the

Special Awards Panel of the National Acad-

emy of Sciences-National Academy of En-

gineering Advisory Committee to NOAA.

In announcing the award, NOAA stated

that Murphy “has played a leading role in

the establishment of the Tsunami Warning

System, the seismic and tidal network

throughout the Pacific Basin; in the develop-

ment of the Global Earthquake Location

Program, which provides rapid earthquake

location reporting service never before avail-

able: and in the establishment of the World-

wide Network of Seismograph Stations.”

The latter is a network of 115 stations in 61

countries that provides data for earthquake

studies and in developing a program for

evaluating the seismicity of proposed sites

for nuclear reactors.

“His achievements have resulted in better

understanding of earthquake phenomena,”

said NOAA, “and contributed to the de-

velopment of engineering measures that can

significantly relieve the devastating impact

of earthquakes.”

Murphy’s entire career since 1942 has

been in the field of seismology with the

Commerce Department’s Coast and Geodetic

Survey, National Ocean Survey and Environ-

mental Research Laboratories. He was chief

of the Seismology Division for eight years

until the unit was transferred to ERL head-

quarters in Boulder, Colo. He now heads the

Seismology Investigation Group in Rock-

ville.

A native of Whitehall, N. Y., he graduated

from Whitehall High School in 1934, then

received a bachelor of science degree from

Fordham College in 1938 and a master’s de-

gree in 1940. He resides with his wife, the

former Mary Ann Murray, of Poughkeepsie,

N. Y., and family in Rockville. Murphy is

the son of the late Mr. and Mrs. Maurice

Murphy of Whitehall. He is a member of

numerous scientific bodies, including the

Seismological Society of America, American

Geophysical Union (President, Seismology

Section, 1959-61), Washington Academy of

Sciences, Philosophical Society of Washing-

ton and American Institute of Geology.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 1, 1972

General

Type manuscripts on white bond paper

either 8% by 11 or 8 by 10% inches. Double

space all lines, including those in abstracts,

tables, legends, quoted matter, acknowledg-

ments, and references cited. Number pages

consecutively. Place your name and com-

plete address in the upper right hand corner

of the title page.

Title, Author, and Affiliation

Page 1 of your manuscript should contain

only this information and your name and

address. Choose a concise but complete and

meaningful title. In research papers con-

cerning biological subjects, include an indi-

cation of the order and family of the taxa

discussed. Academic degrees will not nor-

mally be included unless the author so

specifies. If possible, combine your affilia-

tion and mailing address (including Zip) so

that readers can write to you directly.

Abstract

Type on a separate sheet at the end of the

manuscript. Make the abstract intelligible

without reference to the text of the paper.

Write an informative digest of the significant

content and conclusions, not a mere descrip-

tion. Generally, the abstract should not ex-

ceed 3% of the text.

Footnotes

Use footnotes as sparingly as possible.

Number text footnotes consecutively with

Arabic numerals and type them on a sepa-

rate sheet of paper at the end of the manu-

script. Type table footnotes, if any, below

each pertinent table on the same page.

Illustrations and Legends

The quality of all original illustrations

must be high enough to facilitate good offset

reproduction. They should have ample mar-

gins and be drawn on heavy stock or

fastened to stiff cardboard to prevent bend-

ing. They should be proportioned to column

(1 x 3) or page (2 x 3) type-dimensions,

leaving space for legend material. Photo-

JOURNAL OF THE WASHINGTON ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Instructions to Contributors

graphs should have a glossy finish. They re-

produce best when the contrast is fairly

high. Identify each illustration with number

and author in light pencil marks on the

reverse side. Submit all illustrations sepa-

rately — please do not glue or clip them to

the pages of the manuscript.

Do not type or write legends directly on

the illustrations. Type legends on a separate

sheet or sheets at the end of the manuscript.

Indicate where you want illustrations to

appear in the printed paper by writing the

figure numbers lightly in the text margins,

and be sure that each figure is properly re-

ferenced in the text itself. Original “art” will

be returned only at the author’s request and

expense.

Tables

Include tables only when the same infor-

mation cannot be presented economically in

the text, or when a table presents the data in

a more meaningful way. Consider preparing

extremely complicated tabular matter in a

form suitable for direct reproduction as an

illustration. In such cases, the use of the

typewriter is not recommended.

References to Literature

Limit references within the text and in

synonymies to author and year (and page if

needed). In a “‘Reference Cited” section, list

alphabetically by senior author only those

papers you have included in the text. Like-

wise, be sure all the text references are

listed. Type the “References Cited” section

on a separate sheet after the last page of

text. Abbreviations should follow the USA

Standard for Periodical Title Abbreviations,

Z39.5-1963.

Submission of Manuscripts

Send completed manuscripts and sup-

porting material to the Academy office (see

address inside front cover) in care of the

Editor. Authors will be requested to read

Xerox “proofs” and invited to submit re-

print orders prior to publication.

Reprints - Prices for reprints may be obtained on request.

Washington Academy of Sciences

Room 29, 9650 Rockville Pike (Bethesda)

Washington, D.C. 20014

Return Requested with Form 3579

Smithsonian Inst,

Library Acquisitions

Washington, D.c. 20560

2nd Glass Postage

Paid at

Washington, D.C.

J-WAS

VOLUME 62

Number 2

J Our nal of the | June, 1972

WASHINGTON

ACADEMY .. SCIENCES

Issued Quarterly

at Washington, D.C.

Symposium

Issue

a Symposium — Science and the Environment (II): The Fate of the

i Chesapeake Bay

MAROC ROBBINS: Welcome... 005 ee ee ob be we eee

The Current Status of the Chesapeake Bay

MICHAEL J. PELCZAR, JR.: Opening Remarks ............--+++4-: 54

J.R. SCHUBEL: The Physical and Chemical Conditions i

Pamper Chesap cake bayer rape oe. os dias ew \\0.'e celebs el ottalte ys folie Ne. eon leire 56

FRANCIS S.L. WILLIAMSON: Biology and the Chesapeake Bay ......... 88

JOHN J. BOLAND: The Fate of the Chesapeake Bay: Socio-

EMCI OTHLCOANS DCEUS) caaj ates ore) sha al eustelucne puny Speen tue bebe esa cdenm elves 102

ROBERT:H. ROY: Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. ............ 109

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ....... ae RATERS la ich 's ecw te ease fore 112

The Major Threats to the Chesapeake Bay

AEE ARC ke Opening Remarks)... 2.46 ids «+ ele eleesels sp elale ee ene 118

4 WILLIAM J. LOVE: Hydrodynamic Changes in the Chesapeake Bay ...... 118

4 GERALD E. WALSH: Insecticides, Herbicides, and Polychlorinated

< PSMCTIVASHITINE SLUARICS A oy apo eit eaa ats crete lose oeyaeemaarletelle (arale| ef et eljestetie ens 122

# RUTH PATRICK: The Potential of Various Types of Thermal:

| Biie Gesion) Chesapeake Bay” fie. aiaiesic ere | ala eieel ei > elle) s «#0 (oe) 0 140

: M.E. BENDER, R.J. HUGGETT, and H.D. SLONE: Heavy Metals—

a aninventory.of Existines Conditions ... 52.424 5---1-2s5.66-- 144

F.C. YOUNG: Trace Element Analysis by Proton-Induced X-ray

ERIE AGI OM 5 oer ek ire ints lsuin ale Ramus Vous Rates! wie: schol ele tele usireWs 8 yoylete led ete 153

THOMAS D. MCKEWEN: Human Wastes and the Chesapeake Bay ....... 157

QUESTIONS AND: ERERS Eee re AH 42 y aor see Gem Sie ee eal a Sle

(Continued on Back Cover)

306,45 | lin,

Washington Academp of Sciences

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

President

Mary Louise Robbins

President-Elect

Richard K. Cook

Secretary

Grover C. Sherlin

Treasurer

John G. Honig

Board Members

Samuel B. Detwiler, Jr.

Kurt H. Stern

BOARD OF MANAGERS

All delegates of affiliated

Societies (see facing page)

EDITOR

Richard H. Foote

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

Elizabeth Ostaggi

ACADEMY OFFICE

9650 Rockville Pike (Bethesda)

Washington, D. C. 20014

Telephone (301) 530-1402

Founded in 1898

The Journal |

This journal, the official organ of the Washington Aca-

demy of Sciences, publishes historical articles, critical)

reviews, and scholarly scientific articles; proceedings:

of meetings of the Academy and its Board of Mana!

gers; and other items of interest to Academy members.

The Journal appears four times a year (March, June,

September, and December) — the September issue}

contains a directory of the Academy membership.

Subscription Rates

Members, fellows, and patrons in good standing re-

ceive the Journal without charge. Subscriptions are

available on a calendar year basis only, payable in ad-’

vance. Payment must be made in U.S. currency at the |

following rates:

U.S. and Canada ....... $10.00

ROLeignia vrei 11.00

Single Copy Price....... 3.00

Back Issues

Back issues, volumes, and sets of the Journal (Volumes

1-58, 1911-1968) can be purchased direct from Walter

J. Johnson, Inc., 111 Fifth Ave., New York, N.Y.

10003. This firm also handles the sale of the Proceed-

ings of the Academy (Volumes 1-13, 1898-1910) and

the Index (to Volumes 1-13 of the Proceedings and

Volumes 1-40 of the Journal). Single issues from 1969

to present may be obtained directly from the

Academy office (address elsewhere this page).

Claims for Missing Numbers

Claims 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 al-

lowed because of failure to notify the Academy of a

change in address.

Changes of Address

Address changes should be sent promptly to the Aca- |

demy office. Such notification should show both old |

and new addresses and zip number.

Published quarterly in March, June, September, and December of each Yea by the

Washington Academy of Sciences, 9650 Rockville Pike, Washington, D.C.

postage paid at Washington, D.C.

econd class

DELEGATES TO THE WASHINGTON ACADEMY OF SCIENCES,

REPRESENTING THE LOCAL AFFILIATED SOCIETIES

Philosophical Society of Washington Ove SSO Ren CNG CURR oii de Ae ra a Edward Beasley

muatnropolopical) Society of Washington... 25.6 6626 0206 0s0eee eee cueenans Jean K. Boek

Broloricaysocietyof Washington 2.66.6 6c ce ee wee ee ea ns Delegate not appointed

Whremicalisociety of Washington .. 5.6. ceca wee meee eee waeahweaaws Fred E. Saalfeld

EntomologicalSociety of Washington . . 2... jem se ew we eee Reece I. Sailer

NanlonalGeopraphiciSociety: 0... ed a ee bebe ee tee eee es Alexander Wetmore

Meolosicalisocietyof Washington .. 552520. bee ce ee ee sae eee ne nes Charles Milton

Medical Society of the District of Columbia ....................... Delegate not appointed

MMO IAMIStOLICAlWSOCICTY® i 6.65: ca cd eae Secetos eo, eves ey 6.9) (6 ws Boe wp aie muse edie wi we velar e Paul H. Oehser

Botanicalisocietyzol Washington 2. i.e ee ee ties we ea eee wee Conrad B. Link

DOLIEH FOlMmAMenI CANE OFesters. 25 2.6 5 tees sled oS oe Dela eis Sew sas eek ade Robert Callaham

Washinetonisociety Of Engineers 22... eee ee ne ee ee eee eee George Abraham

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ...................... Leland D. Whitelock

American Society of Mechanical Engineers ..................-2-.-022005. William G. Allen

Helminthological Society of Washington ............0..--2-2-00 ese eeeee Aurel O. Foster

American Society for Microbiology .............. 2c e cere eee eee eee ele Lewis Affronti

Society of American Military Engineers ............ 0.0.00 e eee eee eee ee eee H.P. Demuth

MINE HI CARS OCIELYZOl Civil NEINCELS), 204 bo (6) ere crs aieieicie sie ees 6 Qi i Aes alle © Carl H. Gaum

Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine .....................--. Carlton Treadwell

Amencanisocieuysron Metals... 5. vaste cme nee cata eheg ens ecb bees Glen W. Wensch

International-Association for Dental Research....... “sore Oso o Hele U-Clp Norman H.C. Griffiths

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics...................... Robert J. Burger

american) Meteorolopical)Society (2. a... see en ee ee ee ee Harold A. Steiner

Insecticide Society Of Washington 5... 0.2 2. 6s ee ee ene ee we ee H. Ivan Rainwater

PNCOMSLICAUSOCIELYAOfyATNCE CA) 20s feces, Geen oie cater eoh Sede ays oe ete Gwe eam es Alfred Weissler

AtimenicanuNuciean Society 7252 aes Sobale hs oe eee eee ae Delegate not appointed

MSLItutCLOMnOOGMechnOlogists! | eu. sine se oe ble ere een ee ee Lowrie M. Beacham 3

ANMeriGaneCe©ralmiciSOClety a c\s\Nausscence ee a aie ee eivate shelec cyel ec ats echt, esha lls ee ens saene J.J. Diamond

BIC CtLOCMEMICAIS OCICLYa eto elo She) sieves eee erie eh of emcee Moe ead Ge Sao aew aia aha oe Kurt H. Stern

Washington History of Science Club .............. 00000 eeeeeuee Delegate not appointed

American Association of Physics Teachers .............-2.220+020200- Bernard B. Watson

OpticallSocictyaoteAmenicaijeubasiau Levee ies p sual a swe le cee aici octane cwaete eoeue eee Elsie F. DuPré

American Society of Plant Physiologists.................--20-05--000- Walter Shropshire

Washington Operations Research Council ............--..0200-0 eee eeee John G. Honig

instrumentisocietyiol America erase a creel) oa et ee Gielen i> Delegate not appointed

American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical

andpbhetroleumpeneineersmya ere rieieien-l nial aeiieicn seen uence) ai Delegate not appointed

National(CapitolvAstronometsmer ecient e cieie licks ili meri oees William Winkler

Mathematical Society of America ..............- 002+ e eee eceenee Delegate not appointed

Delegates continue in office until new selections are made by the respective societies.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972 49

EDITORIAL

The articles in this symposium issue represent talks presented at the Aca-

demy’s symposium Science and the Environment—TII sponsored jointly by the

Washington Academy of Sciences, the American Ordnance Association, and

the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Maryland. The program,

approximated by the table of contents, was conducted during three half-day

sessions on January 7 and 8, 1972 in the Adult Education Center on the

campus of the University of Maryland at College Park.

The symposium committee was as follows:

Dr. Mary Louise Robbins, President, Washington Academy of Sci-

ences; George Washington University.

Dr. Rita R. Colwell, Chairman, Symposium Committee; George-

town University.

Dr. Frances Allen, Environmental Protection Agency.

Dr. Richard H. Foote, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Dr. Alphonse F. Forziati, Environmental Protection Agency.

Dr. John G. Honig, Office, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, Pentagon.

Mr. William Jabine, II, Maryland Department of Natural Re-

sources.

Mr. Paul W. McKee, Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

Dr. Howard EF. Noyes, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

Norman I, Shapira, Col. (USA-Ret.), Advance Planning Consul-

tant, Dunkirk, Md.

Dr. Louis G. Swaby, Environmental Protection Agency.

Miss Elizabeth Ostaggi, Office Manager, Washington Academy of

Sciences.

This symposium is the second in a series being conducted by the Washing-

ton Academy of Sciences. A primary purpose of these symposia is to lay

before the concerned public the scientific facts underlying the environmental

issues of the day. The present symposium was designed to deliberate the fate

of the Chesapeake Bay in a scientific framework, and its three major sessions

treated the current status of the Bay, the major threats to it, and the research

currently being conducted to counter those threats.

This printed version of the symposium was made possible by the prompt

and willing cooperation of the participants, for which this editor gratefully

extends his appreciation.

A large share of the cost of publishing this Symposium was borne by a

grant from the Environmental Protection Agency.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

SYMPOSIUM

PROCEEDINGS

Welcome

Mary Louise Robbins!

President, Washington Academy of Sciences; George Washington

University School of Medicine, Washington, D.C. 20005

This welcome is from me personally as

the President of the Washington Academy of

Sciences and from the other sponsors. A lit-

tle less than a year ago, under the very cap-

able direction of Dr. Alphonse F. Forziati,

who was then President of the Academy, we

had our first symposium on Science and the

Environment. We did not have the temerity

to call it our first annual symposium, but

that is what it turned out to be. It was en-

titled “Lead in Gasoline—Good or Bad.” As

I say, we did not call it the first annual

symposium but by the time it was published

we were calling it Science and the Environ-

ment—I. That meant that we had to have

Science and the Environment—II about a

year later, and the result is today’s sympo-

sium, The Fate of the Chesapeake Bay.” I

1Dr. Robbins received her B.A. in biology at

American University and her M.A. and Ph.D. in

bacteriology at George Washington University, and

has taken additional training at Harvard Medical

School and Cold Spring Harbor. Her academic ap-

pointments include experience in Camp. Detrick,

Md.; Martinsburg, W. Va.; Cairo, Egypt; Baghdad,

Iraq; and Fukuoka, and Tokyo, Japan. She was the

recipient of an Alumni Recognition Award in 1966

from American University and a Public Health

Service Special Research Fellowship in 1968-69. A

member of nine professional organizations, she

has served in prominent offices in the Society of

the Sigma Xi, Graduate Women in Science (former-

ly Sigma Delta Epsilon), and the American Society

for Microbiology. She is author of 45 scientific

publications. At present she is full Professor of

Microbiology at the George Washington University

School of Medicine.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

want to acknowledge the sponsorship by the

American Ordnance Association of both last

year’s and this year’s symposia, and for this

year I acknowledge the sponsorship of the

Department of Natural Resources of the

State of Maryland.

I asked Governor Mandel to participate in

our symposium. Unfortunately, he was un-

able to do so, but he did write a note ending

with this message:

“Please accept and convey my sincere re-

grets and extend my best wishes to all in

attendance. Sincerely, Marvin Mandel,

Governor.”

Today, I received another letter addressed

to all of you. It reads:

“To the participants of the second sym-

posium on Science and the Environment.

The subject of your symposium, The Fate

of the Chesapeake Bay, is one of special in-

terest to me. Having served as Governor of

the State of Maryland I can attest to the

singular value which the Chesapeake Bay has

to the people of the State of Maryland, the

region and the nation. The participants of

this symposium deserve commendation for

their demonstrated interest in the ecology

of the Bay and their concern for the effect

of the manifold activities of man upon the

Bay’s environment. Only by properly

directed and comprehensive research of the

effect of competing uses of the Bay upon its

exceedingly complex ecosystems can we ob-

tain sufficient facts upon which to base

future planning for maintenance and en-

hancement of the Bay environment. Because

of its importance to the life of all those

within the Chesapeake Bay region it is essen-

tial that this conference and others like it

provide the stimulus and direction through

research and continuing exchange of infor-

mation as data are developed for other

estuarian areas throughout the nation. The

interdisciplinary nature of your presenta-

tions is evident from the broad scope of sub-

jects considered by your symposium and the

interest of the organizations you represent. I

extend my best wishes to you for a success-

ful and fruitful meeting.” (Signed, Spiro T.

Agnew.)

Now I want to introduce the Chairman of

this Symposium Committee. My job on this

Introduction to the Symposium

Rita R. Colwell!

Symposium was to appoint a committee. I

made up my mind that it was going to be a

very, very good committee, as indeed it has

been under the chairmanship of Dr: Rita R.

Colwell, who is Associate Professor of

Biology at Georgetown University. As a

specialist in marine biology, especially the

biology of the Chesapeake Bay, she is ideally

suited to chair this Symposium. It is my

pleasure to present to you Dr. Rita R. Col-

well.

Department of Microbiology, University of Maryland,

College Park, Maryland 20742

The significance of estuaries has been

amply demonstrated by research showing

that the major estuaries of the United States

serve as nursery grounds for fishes (Cronin

and Mansueti, 1971) and shellfish (Wallace,

1971), as highways for commerce, in recrea-

tional boating and swimming, as sources of

sand and gravel, and as repositories for in-

dustrial and domestic wastes (Lauff, 1967).

Estuaries are zones of ecological transition

between fresh water and salt water. As de-

fined by Pritchard (1967), an estuary is a

semi-enclosed coastal body of water which

has a free connection with the open sea and

within which sea water is measurably diluted

with fresh water derived from land drainage.

1Dr. Colwell received her B.S. (Bacteriology) in

1956 and M.S. (Genetics) from Purdue University

and her Ph.D. (Marine Microbiology) from the Uni-

versity of Washington at Seattle. She subsequently

served as a Guest Scientist at the National Research

Council of Canada (1961-1963) before joining the

faculty at Georgetown University in Washington,

D.C. Dr. Colwell is now Professor of Microbiology

at the University of Maryland and is a member of a

number of different Societies, including the Ameri-

can Society for Microbiology, and has authored

over 100 papers and 4 books on marine micro-

biology and microbial systematics.

The Chesapeake Bay, a coastal plain estuary,

i.e., a “drowned river valley,” is the largest,

most varied and most important estuary for

aquatic organisms in the mid-Atlantic coastal

area (Massmann, 1971). The Chesapeake Bay

is vitally involved in the economics of the

States bordering the Bay, since, for example,

Maryland ranks fifth in the United States

following Alaska, Washington, Oregon and

Maine in terms of manpower involved in

some aspects of fisheries and seafood pro-

duction.

A meaningful and useful series of sym-

posia on the environment is being provided

by the Washington Academy of Sciences.

The first in the series dealt with air pollution

(Forziati, 1971) and this symposium, of

course, concerns the aquatic resource com-

prising Chesapeake Bay. The underlying pur-

pose of this Symposium is to bring together

the working scientists knowledgable of the

science, both practical and theoretical, pre-

sently being applied and that which ought to

be applied to the problems of our Chesa-

peake Bay. It was the intent of the Sym-

posium Committee to bring together the in-

terested and the actively practicing scientists

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

in a public forum, with the dialogue appear-

ing in the open scientific literature, i.e., via

publication of the proceedings in the Journal

of the Washington Academy of Sciences. A\-

though a number of conferences on Chesa-

peake Bay have been held, publications are

not, in general, available in the open scienti-

fic literature. The Proceedings of the Gover-

nor’s Conference on Chesapeake Bay, held at

the Wye Institute in Maryland, September

12-13, 1968, published by the Westinghouse

Ocean Research and Engineering Center,

Annapolis, Maryland, and the RANN

(IRRPOS) Project Report No. 4 & Sea Grant

Program Report No. 4 (Hargis, 1971) con-

tain much useful information and many

valuable statistics, as well as thought-

provoking ideas. Fortunately, many such

documents are reaching print as a result of

the National Sea Grant Program efforts. It is

our hope that the dialogue established

through this Symposium will strengthen

communication among the many physical,

chemical, and social scientists involved in

various aspects of research and study in

Chesapeake Bay. The event of this Sym-

posium is not only of local or specifically

parochial interest, but draws focus of the na-

tion since Chesapeake Bay is but one of a

number of estuaries in the United States.

This Symposium will, we hope, identify

the many needs that must be met from the

natural resources of the Bay. These range

from the commercial to the recreational for

those inhabitants who enjoy the sailing that

is so pleasant in the Chesapeake Bay. There

is, indeed, a litany of usages imposed on the

Bay that can be recited, beginning with the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

major one, the use of the Bay as a repository

for domestic and industrial wastes. The ques-

tion facing us, then, is simply stated: How

do we provide for the many demands made

on Chesapeake Bay and yet preserve this re-

source? That is what we must ponder during

this Symposium and thereafter. Our time

grows short and the problems loom large.

References Cited

Cronin, L.E., and A.J. Mansueti. 1971. The biology

of the estuary. In: A Symposium on the Bio-

logical Significance of Estuaries. Sport Fishing

Institute, Washington, D.C., (Houston, Texas,

February 13, 1970), pp. 14-39.

Forziati, A.F. 1971. Introduction to the Sympo-

sium. Proc. Symposium on Science and the En-

vironment (I). Lead in Gasoline. J. Wash. Acad.

Sci. 61(2): 55-56.

Hargis, W.J., Jr. 1971. Research on Chesapeake

Bay and Contiguous Waters of the Chesapeake

Bight of the Virginian Sea. RANN (IRRPOS)

Project Report No. 4 & Sea Grant Program Re-

port No. 4. Virginia Institute of Marine Science,

Gloucester Point, Va. 192 pp.

Lauff, G.H. 1967. Estuaries. Amer. Assoc. Adv.

Sci., Publ. 83, Washington, D.C. 757 pp.

Massmann, W.H. 1971. The significance of an es-

tuary on the biology of aquatic organisms of

the middle Atlantic region. Jn: A Symposium

on the Biological Significance of Estuaries.

Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, D.C.,

(Houston, Texas, February 13, 1970), pp.

96-109.

Pritchard, D.W. 1967. What is an estuary: physical

viewpoint. In: Estuaries, Amer. Assoc, Adv.

Sci., Publ. 83, pp. 3-5.

Wallace, D.H. 1971. The biological effects of es-

tuaries on shellfish of the middle Atlantic. Jn:

A Symposium on the Biological Significance of

Estuaries. Sport Fishing Institute, Washington,

D.C. (Houston, Texas, February 13, 1970), pp.

716-85.

The Current Status of the Chesapeake Bay

Opening Remarks

Michael J. Pelczar, Jr.!

Vice President for Graduate Studies and Research,

University of Maryland, College Park 20742

It is a real pleasure for me to have the

opportunity to make a few remarks to this

large group gathered here for the purpose of

exchanging information on the Chesapeake

Bay. This, incidentally, is at least the third

major conference of this academic year

which has centered attention to an assess-

ment of the Bay. The attendance at each can

be characterized by a “standing room only”

participatory audience. This fact in itself de-

notes the keen interest and priority given to

the status of the Bay by professionals and

laymen alike.

All of us in this room are familiar to

greater or lesser degrees with facts about the

Bay. It might serve a useful purpose to sum-

marize, albeit briefly, some of the salient sta-

tistics associated with the Chesapeake Bay

and the contiguous land mass.

The Bay is the largest estuary in the

United States; it is 195 mi in length and

varies from 4 to 30 miles in width. The

water surface area measures 4,300 mi2; as a

1Dr. Pelczar received his B.S. and M.S. degrees

from the University of Maryland and his Ph.D. de-

gree from the University of lowa in bacteriology

and biochemistry. He is a member of 4 honorary

and 9 professional societies, in several of which he

has held prominent positions. His former national

and international committee positions are numer-

ous and now include 3 in the Council of Graduate

Schools in the U.S.; Governor’s Science Advisory

Board; IUBS; ONR; WHO; and the Association of

American Universities. He is Past-President of the

Maryland Chapter, American Association of Uni-

versity Professors; Washington Branch of the Amer-

ican Society for Microbiology; and the University

of Maryland Chapter of Sigma Xi. His awards in-

clude a Distinguished Citizenship Certificate from

Gov. Mandel and a Sigma Xi Annual Award for

Scientific Achievement. He is author or co-author

of 6 books, has written numerous scientific papers,

and has held his present university position since

1966.

drainage basin, the measurement is 64,170

mi2. The total shoreline measures 4,600 mi.

The deepest point in the Bay is at Bloody

Point where there is a depth of 174 ft. Nine

major river streams feed into the Bay, name-

ly, the Choptank, Patuxent, Pocomoke,

Potomac, Nanticoke, Susquehanna, York,

Rappahannock, and James.

The commercial seafood harvest, in re-

cent years, has exceeded one-half billion

pounds annually at a value in excess of $65

million. To this must be added the numbers

caught by sports fishermen—the rockfish

catch by sports fishermen may match that of

the commercial catch. Waterborne com-

merce exceeds 100 million tons annually.

The population within the drainage basin’s

tributary to the Bay was estimated at 11 mil-

lion in 1960 and is projected to reach 30

million by the year 2020. These facts, im-

pressive as they are, fail to convey the per-

sonality of the Bay—that is, the great variety

in the scenery, the life and life styles, and

the activities of the inhabitants by day and

by season.

I would like to surface another matter

that I am sure will be discussed during this

symposium, namely, the multiplicity of

agencies (together with their studies) that

are associated with investigations of the Bay.

This has pointed up the need for coordina-

tion, if not direction, of a “total plan” or, as

they say, a holistic approach to performance

of our studies on the Bay. We are moving in

that direction. As some of you are aware, a

Consortium is being organized that will pro-

vide a holistic design for Bay studies. Johns

Hopkins University, the Smithsonian Insti-

tution, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences,

and the University of Maryland comprise

this Consortium. Along this same line it is

appropriate to mention that the Governor of

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Maryland created the “Chesapeake Bay In-

teragency Planning Committee” which will

make its report during the year. This com-

mittee, in addition to other objectives, is

directed to defining appropriate institutional

arrangements for Bay resource management.

Indeed “management” becomes a key word.

Not only do we need to develop and adopt

practices that are consistent with mainte-

nance of a high quality environment, but

these must be under some program of man-

agement to provide surveillance of the total

system.

This leads me to another point which I

am sure will receive your attention, namely,

the necessity for interdisciplinary studies. A

basic component essential toward arriving at

realistic, workable solutions to environ-

mental problems is the development of in-

tegrated knowledge about the environment

for which we must depend upon our best

scientific and technological skills. The

paucity of such comprehensive knowledge

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

and understanding of the interfacial relation-

ships of environmental parameters makes it

essential that we adopt new and innovative

organizational mechanisms that foster multi-

disciplinary studies. No single field of

science can possibly bring into use the broad

range of insights necessary to understand, let

alone deal with, the totality of problems as-

sociated with the Bay. It is not simply the

Bay alone; it is the land-air-water interac-

tions; it is biology, chemistry, physics, and

economics; it is recreation, employment, and

commerce; it is all of these and more!

As you have already noted from the pro-

gram, the thrust of this symposium is

directed toward 3 major concerns, namely

an assessment of the current status of the

bay, major threats to the present environ-

ment; and means to counter the threats.

Stated in a less sophisticated manner, they

are: where are we now, where are we going,

and what do we have to do to get there!

The Physical and Chemical Conditions

of the Chesapeake Bay

J.R. Schubel!

Chesapeake Bay Institute, The Johns Hopkins

University, Baltimore, Md. 21218

ABSTRACT

As assessment of the physical and chemical conditions of the Chesapeake Bay estuar-

ine system indicates: (1) that there are marked natural spatial and temporal variations

of temperature, and that man has had a measurable effect, in local areas, on the tempera-

ture distribution, but that the present inputs of heated waters from power plants do not

pose a threat to the Bay; (2) that there are large natural spatial and temporal variations

of salinity, and that man has had almost no effect on the salinity distribution; (3) that

man’s activities have increased the frequency, duration, and extent of low oxygen zones

in the upper reaches of a number of the tributaries; (4) that man’s activities have resulted

in large inputs of nutrients which have produced undesirable conditions in a number of

the tributaries, but that the nutrient levels in the main body of the Bay are at an

acceptable level; (5) that the Bay is being rapidly filled with sediments, and that the

fine-grained sediments have a number of deleterious indirect effects on the ecology of

the Bay; and (6) that there are large natural variations in the distributions of heavy

metals, and suggests that levels have probably always been relatively high.

The Chesapeake Bay is an estuary—a

semi-enclosed coastal body of water having

free access to the ocean and within which

seawater is measurably diluted by freshwater

from land drainage (Pritchard, 1967). Fresh-

water from numerous rivers and streams is

mixed within the semi-enclosed Chesapeake

Bay basin with seawater that enters through

the Virginia capes. The mixing, primarily by

tides, produces density gradients that drive

the characteristic two-layered circulation

pattern that eventually leads to the discharge

of the freshwater into the Atlantic Ocean.

1Dr. Schubel received his Bachelors degree

from Alma College, his Masters degree from Har-

vard University, and his Ph.D. degree in Oceano-

graphy from The Johns Hopkins University. He has

taught oceanography at The Johns Hopkins Uni-

versity, the University of Maryland, the University

of Delaware, and Franklin and Marshall College.

He has published more than 25 papers on various

aspects of estuaries, and in 1972 convened an

American Geological Institute short course entitled

The Estuarine Environment. He is a memberof Sig-

ma Xi and of the Maryland Academy of Sciences’

Advisory Panel on the Environmental Impact of

Power Plants, and is also a member of a number of

professional and scientific societies.

The Chesapeake Bay is actually a complex

estuarine system comprising the Bay proper

and its tributary estuaries.

The Chesapeake Bay estuarine system was

formed by the most recent rise in sea level

which began approximately 15,000-18,000

years ago. With the retreat of the glaciers at

the end of the Wisconsin glaciation, sea level

rose rapidly from a position approximately

125 m below its present level. As it rose it

advanced across the previously exposed con-

tinental shelf, reaching the present mouth of

the Chesapeake Bay basin less than 10,000

years ago. The sea penetrated into the Bay

basin, drowning the ancestral river valley

system which was carved during the previous

low stand, transforming the riverine system

into an estuarine system.

The Chesapeake Bay is a classic example

of a drowned river valley estuary. The age of

the estuary decreases from mouth to head;

the northern Chesapeake Bay is probably no

more than 3,0004,000 years old. The Chesa-

peake Bay estuary then, is very young geo-

logically. Like other estuaries it is an

ephemeral feature on a geologic time scale.

It is being rapidly filled with sediments; sedi-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

aa,

ments from rivers, from shore erosion, from

primary productivity, and from the sea. As

the Bay contracts in volume, depth, and

eventually in area, the intruding’sea will be

progressively displaced seaward, transform-

ing the estuary back into a river valley sys-

tem. Finally, the Susquehanna will reach the

sea through a depositional plain and the

transformation will be complete. If relative

sea level remains nearly constant, this pro-

cess will take, at most, a few tens of thou-

sands of years to complete. If relative sea

level falls, the estuary’s lifetime will be

shortened. If relative sea level rises, the life

of the estuary will be increased.

Man’s activities can greatly accelerate the

rate of infilling, thus shortening the Bay’s

geological lifetime. But, more important, the

by-products of his activities such as sewage,

pesticides, herbicides, heavy metals, and

sediment may alter the estuarine system, or

segments of it, to the extent that its useful

biological and recreational lifetimes will be

cut drastically shorter than its geological life-

time—perhaps several orders of magnitude

shorter.

The Chesapeake Bay, like other estuaries,

is a dynamic environment characterized by

marked natural fluctuations of many of its

physical and chemical properties. The fluctu-

ations, both short- and long-term, may be

produced by processes active within the Bay,

or they may be inherited from processes ac-

tive in the drainage basin, perhaps hundreds

of kilometers away. The water that enters

the Bay from each of the tributaries carries

with it a set of properties produced by that

water’s history; a history in part natural and

in part man-made.

The purposes of this paper are to describe

some of the prevailing physical and chemical

conditions of the Chesapeake Bay estuarine

system and to assess man’s impact on these

conditions. This requires the establishment

of the existing spatial and temporal distribu-

tions of several of the important characteris-

tic properties and an evaluation of how these

characteristics have been affected by man

and his activities. Some of the more impor-

tant properties are: (1) temperature, (2)

salinity, (3) dissolved oxygen, (4) nutrients,

(5) sediment, (6) heavy metals, (7) pesti-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

cides, (8) herbicides, and (9) oil. Because of

limitations of time, space, and data, I will

confine my remarks to the first 6 items. The

last 3—pesticides, herbicides, and oil—may

represent major threats to the Bay, but there

are very few data.

Temperature

Water temperature is important because

of its effect on density, on oxygen solu-

bility, and on a number of other important

physico-chemical properties of seawater.

Temperature is also very important bio-

logically. It is one of the most important

factors governing the occurrence and be-

havior of all forms of life.

During the past 20 years the Chesapeake

Bay Institute has determined the distribu-

tion of temperature in the main body of the

Chesapeake Bay and its major tributaries a

relatively large number of times. The results

have been presented in a series of graphical

summary reports (Whaley and Hopkins,

1952; Stroup and Lynn, 1963; Seitz, 1971).

There are marked natural temporal and

spatial variations of water temperature in the

Chesapeake Bay estuarine system. Fig. 1 il-

lustrates the spatial variations in surface

SURFACE TEMPERATURE, °

Oe nN a

N @ wo

lo) 50 100 150 200 250 300

D.STANCE IN KILOMETERS FROM HEAD OF BAY

Fig. 1. Longitudinal profile of surface tempera-

ture (°C) along axis of Chesapeake Bay during

August, 1961.

temperature that can occur along the longi-

tudinal axis of the Bay. These data depict

the distribution of surface temperature along

the axis of the Bay in August, 1961. The

data show a range in surface temperature

28 Q

26 9

_ oF a e

3 20 ee

@ ¢ Bottom

(

16 we

WwW

a 16 va

q 14 Zs

a A

a 12 ;

= ©

= 10 Vy

M A M J J A

1968

‘a

5 ‘3

1969

Fig. 2. Monthly variation of temperature (°C) at a station (818P) in the mid-Bay (from Seitz, 1971).

greater than 7°C and local gradients some-

times exceeding 1°C/km. This distribution is

somewhat unusual in the magnitude of the

variation, but the general features of the spa-

tial variation are representative. More- or

-less randomly-spaced variations of 1.5-2.5°C

are not unusual. In addition, temperatures in

the Virginia portion of the Bay are, on the

average, about 0.5°C warmer than those in

the Maryland portion.

There are also marked temporal variations

in water temperature. The average diurnal

variation of water temperature at a depth of

about 1.2 m below mean low water (MLW)

in the mouth of the Patuxent estuary was

1.2°C during 1947 (Beaven, 1960). The

maximum diurnal variation Bevan observed

at this depth was 3.0°C, which occurred

several times in late winter, spring, and early

fall.

The annual range in temperature in the

open Bay is from about 0°C to approxi-

mately 29°C. Fig. 2 shows the variations of

surface and bottom temperature over a

13-month period in 1968-1969 at a 34-m

station in the mid-Bay. The surface tempera-

ture ranged from about 1.7°C in March to

more than 28°C in August. The temperature

of the bottom waters showed a similar pat-

tern of seasonal heating and cooling, with

only a slightly smaller range.

In addition to the seasonal changes, there

are relatively large short- and long-term vari-

ations of water temperature. Daily measure-

ments of surface temperature were taken for

more than 50 years by the Coast and Geo-

detic Survey at selected tidal observation sta-

tions in some of the tributary estuaries. Sim-

ilar data are not available for the Bay proper,

Departure from 25 year Mean

Surface Water Temperature, 1938-1962

Baltimore Harbor (#), Mean 15.22 °C

Solomons, Md.,

(O) , Mean I5.11 °C

Departure of Annual Average from Long Term Mean, °C

Fig. 3. Departures of mean annual surface tem-

peratures (°C) from 25-year mean surface tempera-

tures at Fort McHenry (Baltimore Harbor) and

Solomons, Maryland (Patuxent estuary).

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

t0.5

TOLD

-0.0

Departure of Annual Average from Long Term Mean, °

-2.0

Departure from 49 year Mean

Surface Water Temperature

Baltimore Harbor, 1914-1962.

Mean, 1914-1962 =14 83°C

Fig. 4. Departures of mean annual surface temperatures (°C) from 49-year (1914-1962) surface tempera-

tures off Fort McHenry. Mean surface temperatures averaged over periods of several years are also shown.

but comparison of the monthly or yearly

averages of the data taken at stations in

widely separated tributaries indicates that

these data are quite representative of large

segments of the Bay. This is shown by fig. 3,

which summarizes surface-temperature data

collected at Fort McHenry in Baltimore Har-

bor and at Solomons, Maryland on the lower

Patuxent estuary more than 100 km away.

The departures of the average annual tem-

peratures from their long-term 25-year mean

temperatures are plotted for each of these

stations. The 2 curves track each other very

well, indicating that the annual variations in

water temperature occur over a large seg-

ment of the Bay system and suggesting that

these data are representative of conditions in

the Bay proper.

An extended temperature record for Fort

McHenry is presented in fig. 4, which is a

plot of the departure of the annual mean

surface temperature from the long-term,

49-year mean for the period 1914-1962. The

figure shows that the mean annual tempera-

ture had a range over the 49-year period of

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

about 3.5°C, and the maximum difference

between consecutive years was greater than

1.5°C. The data also show that the mean

temperature, averaged over periods of several

years, departs significantly from its long-

term, 49-year mean. For example, over the

14-year interval from 1944 through 1957,

the mean temperature was about 0.7°C

higher than the 49-year mean of 14.8°C.

There are then, marked natural spatial

and temporal variations in water tempera-

ture. Superimposed upon these natural fluc-

tuations are the thermal effects of man’s ac-

tivities. Man directly affects the distribution

of temperature in segments of the Bay and

its tributaries where he utilizes part of the

available water as cooling water for the con-

densers of electric generating plants (fig. 5).

It might be useful to look at examples of the

magnitude and the areal extent of the tem-

perature increases associated with 2 power

plants—one in operation and the other under

construction.

The Chalk Point power plant is a fossil

fuel plant located on the upper Patuxent

77°00 76°30° -\ 76°00’

@ Operating

Fy. SCALE ape ‘ ® Under Construction

wo NAUTICAL MILES i RY A

[ O seeed- —!Cegl 20 25 ( = Proposed

os 0 8 2025 aw arn 197

STATUTE MILES A

7° 00" £30!

= ae — = = s = Se

- 77°00' ° 30" i 200’ 75°30' 75°00!

I. oe ll aoe er ome ee Cher moet ee ee 5 -

Fig. 5. Map of electric generating plants in Chesapeake Bay region.

60 J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

estuary. The plant has a design power pro-

duction of 710 MWE from 2 units. At this

loading, the plant rejects heat to the environ-

ment at a rate of about 1.2 x 10!9 cal/sec

(2.8 x 10? BTU/hr). When operating near

full capacity the plant utilizes cooling water

at the rate of about 31 m3/sec, or approxi-

mately 1/3 of the total available dilution

water from the Patuxent. After the cooling

water passes through the condensers it flows

through a long canal and discharges into the

Patuxent approximately 2.4 km upstream

from the plant.

The Chesapeake Bay Institute made a de-

tailed study of the temperature and salinity

distributions in the vicinity of the plant be-

tween 25 September and 5 October 1967

(Carter, 1968). Carter used these data to

compute the distribution of excess tempera-

ture produced by the plant—the temperature

elevation above that which would occur if

PATUXENT RIVER

=| 5© SoC

>1.0°C

GMB >2.0°c

DISCHARGESY

iy,

Fig. 6. Horizontal distribution of excess tem-

perature minimum (°C) of Chalk Point Plant (H.H.

Carter, personal communication).

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

the plant were not operating. The excess

temperature was greater than 1°C over the

entire cross-section of the estuary adjacent

to the plant, and the sectional mean value of

the excess temperature in this segment was

about 2°C. The effects on the longitudinal

distribution of temperature were also quite

pronounced. The mean sectional excess

temperature exceeded 0.5°C for a distance

of about 18.5 km along the estuary.

The horizontal distribution of the excess

temperature minimum is shown in fig. 6.

The figure represents the minimum excess

temperatures observed during a tidal cycle.

Superimposed upon this distribution is a

plume of higher excess temperature which

oscillates with the tide. The plume is not

shown in fig. 6. The maximum excess

temperatures in the plume and in the dis-

charge canal reach more than 5°C higher

than those shown.

Clearly the Chalk Point power plant has a

demonstrable effect on the temperature dis-

tribution of the Patuxent estuary. The more

important question however, is whether the

observed temperature increases have a

measurable ecological effect on the system.

Since the plant has been operating, there

have been 2 mass mortalities; one of finfish,

including many striped bass, and the other

of blue crabs. Both of these kills were con-

fined to the discharge canal. The finfish kill

was very probably caused by an overdose of

chlorine, and not by thermal effects as ori-

ginally reported. The cause of the crab kill

may have been a combination of high tem-

perature and high levels of chlorine in the

canal.

The massive finfish kill occurred some

time in the early morning of 27 September

1967. On the evening before the kill, mem-

bers of the Chesapeake Bay Institute fished

in the discharge canal and did not observe

any dead fish. The plant operated near full

capacity the day of the kill, and throughout

the 5-day periods preceding and succeeding

the kill. The continuous record of tempera-

ture in the canal, near its mouth, shows

clearly that on the day of the kill there was

not an increase in temperature (fig. 7). In

fact, higher temperatures were observed

both before and after the massive kill with-

Ww 24

o'20 21 22. «23 24 25. 26

SEPTEMBER

DATE OF

FISH

KILL

27 28 29 30 | 2 3 4

OCTOBER

Fig. 7. Temperature record (°C) from Chalk Point Plant discharge canal covering period of massive fish

kill on 27 September 1966.

out any apparent harmful effects. Fig. 7

shows no evidence to indicate the possibility

of thermal shock, and indicates that a stress

other than temperature must be sought to

explain the massive mortality of fish.

At the time of the kill a dye tracer,

Rhodamine B, was being injected into the

plant discharge. It is well known that this

dye is not a biocide and would not have

caused the kill. The dye however, gives a

clue to the probable cause of the kill. At the

time of the kill there was a sharp loss of dye

within the canal; a loss which could not be

explained by physical processes. Since it was

known that chlorine destroys the dye, the

plant’s chlorination log was inspected and it

was found that at the time of the mass kill

the concentrations of free chlorine in the

cooling water reached levels as high as 6

ppm—approximately 12 times the normal

level (H.H. Carter, personal communication).

A massive kill of blue crabs (Callinectus

sapidus) occurred in the discharge canal near

the end of August, 1966. It was estimated

that there were at least 40,000 dead crabs,

both juveniles and adults, in the canal

(Mihursky, et al, 1967). Temperatures in the

canal are not available for this period, but

the water temperature at a location approxi-

mately 0.3 km off the mouth of the canal

reached a maximum temperature of 34.6°C

(Mihursky, et al., 1967). Many of the dead

crabs were discolored, and Mihursky, et al.

(1967) suggested that ““The reddish color of

many crabs may indicate a heat kill; how-

ever, at this time we cannot rule out the

possibility of a chemical kill.”” Temperatures

in the canal probably did not exceed 36°C.

Crabs are among the most temperature-

tolerant of all Chesapeake Bay organisms.

The temperatures in the canal were however,

near the lethal limit for blue crabs (Tagatz,

1969). Tagatz acclimated blue crabs to

various temperatures for 21 days and then

exposed adult and juvenile crabs to test tem-

peratures at 2°C intervals near the estimated

upper and lower limits of their temperature

tolerances for 48 hours. The results of

Tagatz’s experiments with adult female crabs

in 20% sea water are shown as a tolerance

LETHAL TEMPERATURE

(50% MORTALITY AFTER 48 HRS.)

5 Gap | G5) G24 UNS oO

ACCLIMATION TEMPERATURE °C

Fig. 8. Thermal tolerance of adult (mature fe-

male) blue crabs in 20%seawater (after Tagatz,

1969).

diagram in fig. 8, which is a plot of lethal

temperatures (temperatures at which 50%

mortality occurs after 48 hours) against ac-

climation temperatures. The area inside the

curve represents the thermal possibilities un-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

der which adult crabs survive for a pre-

sumably indefinite time. The results of

Tagatz’s experiments indicate that crabs in

the canal were probably near their upper

lethal limit—about 36°C—at the time of the

kill. Temperatures in the canal were proba-

bly near 36°C for a number of days, and

since the crabs had to work to stay in the

discharge canal, there may have been an ad-

ditional and important stress. Crabs do not

turn red at temperatures of 36°C. They can

turn red however, when free chlorine levels

are high. In view of this, and the more recent

evidence of a chlorine kill of finfish, it seems

likely that the crab kill may have been

caused by a combination of factors—

temperature and chlorine. The additional

stress of high chlorine levels on organisms

living near their upper limit of temperature

tolerance may have been sufficient to pro-

duce the massive kill. Unfortunately, the

plant’s chlorination and temperature records

are no longer available for examination.

The only unequivocally documented eco-

logical effects of the waste heat from the

Chalk Point plant are the mortalities of

plankton which occur during passage

through the plant and discharge. The extent

of such mortalities is increased by the poor

design of the discharge system. The time of

passage through the canal is excessive—

nearly 2% hours—and there is very little

cooling within the canal. Organisms are sub-

jected to excess temperatures of greater than

5°C for about 24% hours.

The comments above are not meant to

imply that there are no subtle, long-term

ecological effects from the observed in-

creases in temperature. These can only be

documented through very careful and de-

tailed long-term studies. Their documenta-

tion will be difficult however, because man

is affecting the Patuxent estuary in other

ways. The concentrations of nutrients in the

upper Patuxent have risen markedly in the

past 10 years, the concentration of inorganic

nitrogen has increased by at least an order of

magnitude, and there has been a substantial

increase in the level of inorganic phos-

phorous.

Another power plant which has received a

considerable amount of attention is the Cal-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

vert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant which is be-

ing built by the Baltimore Gas and Electric

Company. The plant is scheduled to begin

operations some time in 1973. The plant de-

sign calls for two nominal 875 MWE units.

The predicted rate at which heat will be re-

jected to the environment is about 5.0 x

1019 cal/sec (1.2 x 10!9 BTU/hr). At a

temperature rise across the condensers of

5.5°C, approximately 153 m3/sec of cooling

water will be required. This represents ap-

proximately 6% of the available water. The

cooling water will be drawn into the plant

from the Bay below 8 m and discharged as a

submerged jet. The time of travel from the

point of intake to the point of discharge is

about 3 minutes.

Pritchard (1969) has made first-order esti-

mates of the probable distribution of excess

39°40'

CHESAPEAKE

BAY

39°20'

76°30 76°20 76°10

Fig. 9. Estimate oof horizontal distribution of

excess temperature, C, in vicinity of Calvert Cliffs

Nuclear Power Plant, for the period of flood tide

(from Pritchard, 1969).

temperature that will be produced by the

Calvert Cliffs plant. The predicted horizontal

distribution of excess temperature in the

layer having maximum excess temperature is

presented in fig. 9. The distribution is for

the end of a flood period. On the ebb tide

the plume will be bent over and elongated

down the Bay.

The vertical distribution of excess tem-

perature at slack water along the axis of the

(km)

Depth (m)

Fig. 10. Distribution of excess temperature, 2;

on a vertical section along axis of plume at slack

water (from Pritchard, 1969).

plume is shown in fig. 10. The predicted

mean sectional excess temperature in the

tidal segment of the Bay opposite the plant

is about 0.2°C, and only about 1% of the

entire cross-section adjacent to the plant will

have excess temperatures greater than 1°C.

Clearly, the impact of the Calvert Cliffs

Plant on the temperature distribution of the

adjacent Bay will be much less than that the

Chalk Point Plant now has on the tempera-

ture distribution of the Patuxent. The bio-

logical effects should also be less. The mor-

tality rate during entrainment should be con-

siderably lower, since the time of entrain-

ment is only about 3 minutes compared to

2% hours at the Chalk Point Plant.

In summary, there are marked natural,

temporal, and spatial variations of water

temperature throughout the Chesapeake Bay

estuarine system. Superimposed upon the

natural temperatures are the “excess tem-

peratures” which result from the discharge

of condenser cooling water from power

plants. These excess temperatures can be

predicted and determined with a reasonable

degree of accuracy. The ecological effects of

the man-made temperature elevations how-

ever, are more difficult to ascertain. No sig-

nificant ecological damage to the Chesa-

peake Bay has been unequivocally docu-

mented from present inputs of heated dis-

charges, nor is any likely to occur from the

plants now under construction (Fig. 5). But

additional plants will be needed. Man’s

power consumption is increasing at an alarm-

ing rate—a doubling approximately every

decade.

Salinity

Salinity is important because of its affect

on density, and on a number of other impor-

tant physico-chemical properties. Salinity is

also very important biologically. It exerts a

marked influence on the distribution and ac-

tivity of many organisms that inhabit the

Bay.

The distribution of salinity in the main

body of the Bay and its tributaries has been

studied by the Chesapeake Bay Institute for

over 20 years. The results have been pre-

sented in a series of graphical summary re-

ports (Whaley and Hopkins, 1952; Stroup

and Lynn, 1963; Seitz, 1971).

The spatial and temporal distributions of

salinity in the Chesapeake Bay and its tribu-

tary estuaries are determined by the fresh-

water inflow. The mixing of the freshwater

and the seawater is produced primarily by

tidal action, with the total freshwater inflow

to the Chesapeake Bay system averaging

approximately 1950 m3/sec from 1951

through 1970. The major source of fresh-

water is the Susquehanna River, which ac-

counts for approximately 50% of the total

input of freshwater. The discharge of the

Susquehanna accounts for more than 90% of

the total freshwater input above Annapolis

and more than 85% of the freshwater enter-

ing the Bay above the mouth of the Poto-

mac. The Susquehanna has a long-term

(38-year) annual average flow of about 985

m?/sec. The range in the annual average flow

of from about 550-1525 m3/sec represents a

fluctuation about the 38-year mean flow of

greater than + 44%. The yearly averages

show a standard deviation greater than 20%

of the 38-year mean. Seasonal fluctuations

ir the average flow are even greater; the

minimum monthly discharge averages about

215 m3/sec, and the maximum monthly

flow averages approximately 3256 m3/sec.

Relatively large short-term fluctuations also

occur. For example, during March of 1964

the average discharge of the Susquehanna

was approximately 4200 m3/sec, while the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

SALINITY (%e)

ye Vaio tae

Fig. 11. Surface salinity at Solomons in the Patuxent estuary between 1938 and 1957. The monthly

means ate connected by solid lines, the monthly extremes are indicated by vertical lines, and the dotted

curve represents a moving ten-day average of twenty-year daily means (from Beaven, 1960).

SALINITY (%o)

‘u

“Soon eM aera ee

Vea

Fig. 12. Monthly average salinities at Fort McHenry in Baltimore Harbor between 1914 and 1948

(from Beaven, 1946).

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972 65

180 160

SALINITY (%o)

|| APRIL 1968

140 120 100

Distance from Entrance of Bay (km)

Depth (meters)

300 280 260 240 180 160

140 120

Distance from Entrance of Bay

SALINITY (%o)

28 FEB. 1969

80 60 40 20 ie} -20

100

(km)

Fig. 13A (above). Longitudinal salinity distribution along axis of Chesapeake Bay during a period of

high river flow (from Seitz, 1971).

Fig. 13B (below). Longitudinal salinity distribution along axis of Chesapeake Bay during a period of

low to moderate river flow (from Seitz, 1971).

maximum daily discharge during the month

was about 14160 m3/sec. At present there is

no significant regulation of the flow of the

Susquehanna.

The second largest river debouching into

the Bay is the Potomac, which contributes

approximately 16% of the total freshwater

input to the Bay. The Potomac has a long-

term average discharge of about 310 m?/sec.

It is a flashy river with a recorded range in

flow of 20 m3/sec to about 1360 m3/sec.

There is no significant regulation of its flow.

The third largest source of freshwater is the

James River.

The marked variations of the freshwater

inflow produce large temporal variations of

salinity. The variations are most marked, of

course, in the upper reaches of the Bay and

its tributary estuaries. Near Pooles Island in

the upper Chesapeake Bay the salinity dur-

ing 1960, a year of relatively high river flow,

ranged from 0.4%oin April to 8.3%oin

December—more than a 20-fold range. Dur-

ing 1964, a year of relatively low river flow,

the range in salinity was from 0.8%. in March

to 13.3%o in December.

Long-term records of the variations of

salinity observed at 2 stations in the Bay are

shown in figs. 11 and 12. Fig. 11 is a record

of the monthly mean salinities, and the ex-

tremes, at Solomons, Maryland, near the

mouth of the Patuxent estuary between

1938 and 1957 (Beaven, 1960). A curve is

also shown depicting the results of a moving

10-day average of the 20-yr daily mean

salinities.

Fig. 12 is a plot of the monthly average

salinity values between 1914 and 1945 at

Fort McHenry in Baltimore Harbor (Beaven,

1946). These figures show relatively large

monthly, seasonal, and longer-term varia-

tions in salinity at these locations.

The longitudinal variation in surface

salinity over the length of the Bay ranges

from the salinity of the Susquehanna River

water, about 0.1%o, near the head of the Bay

to a salinity of about 25-30%.at the mouth.

The longitudinal distribution in the Bay for

a period of high river flow is shown in fig.

13A, and for a period of low to moderate

river flow in fig. 13B. During periods of high

flow, the “mouth” of the Susquehanna may

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

be extended to a point nearly 45 km into

the main body of the Bay. During such

periods the transition from river to estuary is

marked by a sharp front separating the fresh

river water from the salty estuary water.

Salinity gradients greater than5%oin 5 km

are not uncommon in the frontal regions.

With subsiding river flow the characteristic

2-layered net circulation regime is reestab-

lished in the upper Bay. Salt is advected into

the region by the lower layer and the salinity

distribution illustrated in fig. 13A is trans-

formed to resemble that shown in fig.

13B—the distribution characteristic of

2-layered estuarine circulation regimes. The

rate of recovery is not well known, but it is

almost certainly less than 1 week and may

be only a few tidal cycles.

There are, then, marked natural spatial

and temporal salinity variations. The changes

are greatest in the upper reaches of the

estuaries, but relatively large variations occur

throughout the Chesapeake Bay estuarine

system.

To date, man has had little effect on the

salinity distribution in the Bay or its tribu-

taries. Recently, however, there has been

concern over the possible effects of the en-

largement of the Chesapeake and Delaware

Canal on the salinity distribution and on the

ecology of the upper Chesapeake Bay. The

Canal channel is being widened from 76 m

to 137 m, and deepened from 8.2 m to 10.7

Because of differences in the tidal charac-

teristics at the Chesapeake and Delaware

ends of the Canal, there is a net non-tidal

flow through the Canal from the Chesapeake

Bay to the Delaware Bay. Pritchard (1971)

estimated that the net non-tidal eastward

flow through the 8.2-m-deep Canal is about

28 m3/sec, and he predicted that the net

flow through the enlarged Canal would in-

crease by a factor of 2.7 to about 76 m?/sec.

The tidal velocities and the tidal excursions,

which may be of greater ecological signifi-

cance than changes in the net volume rate of

flow, will be increased by a factor of only

about 1.2.

Using a 1-dimensional time-dependent

numerical model of the salinity distribution

in the upper Chesapeake Bay developed by

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Boicourt (1969), Pritchard (1971) made esti-

mates of the probable effects of the enlarge-

ment of the Canal on the Salinity distribu-

tion. His analysis showed that the increased

diversion of freshwater through the Canal to

the Delaware Bay would have very little ef-

fect on the salinity distribution during

periods of high river flow when salinities are

at a minimum. The average minimum salini-

ty would probably increase from 8.60 to

8.79%o at the Bay Bridge, from 1.14 to

1.19%0at Pooles Island, and would be un-

changed, 0.13% o, at Turkey Point. The

greatest effects would, of course, be ob-

served during periods of very low river flow

when salinities are a maximum. Pritchard

(1971) predicted that the average maximum

salinity would probably be increased from

about 17.23 to 17.62%o at the Bay Bridge,

from 9.00 to 11.58% at Pooles Island, and

from 2.14 to 2.94%. at Turkey Point.

Changes in the salinity distribution in the

upper Bay would also result from flow regu-

lation of the Susquehanna River. Flow regu-

lation would reduce the natural variations of

the spatial and temporal salinity distribu-

tions in the upper Chesapeake Bay, and

therefore the variations in the associated cir-

culation patterns in the upper Bay and in a

number of the tributary estuaries.

The temporal variations in salinity in the

upper Bay provide the basic mechanism for

the flushing of tributary estuaries such as the

Gunpowder, Bush, Back, Magothy, and

Severn (Pritchard, 1968). The small fresh-

water input to these tributaries is insuf-

ficient to maintain a steady circulation pat-

tern, and the water that fills them is derived

largely from the adjacent Bay. It is only in

the upper reaches of these tributaries that

the salinity distribution is significantly af-

fected by the freshwater inflow. The pri-

mary factor controlling the exchange of

water between these tributaries and the Bay

is the temporal variation in the salinity of

the upper layer in the adjacent Bay. The

salinity of the surface layers of the upper

Bay varies seasonally with maximum values

in the fall and minimum values in the spring.

The salinity changes in the tributaries lag be-

hind those in the adjacent Bay. During win-

ter and early spring when the salinity in the

Bay is decreasing with time, the salinity in

the tributaries is, at any given time, higher

than in the Bay. As a result water flows into

the tributaries at the surface from the Bay,

and out of the tributaries in the deeper

layers into the Bay. In late spring, summer,

and early fall when the salinity of the Bay is

increasing, the salinity in the tributaries is

less than in the adjacent Bay, and hence the

waters of the tributaries flow out at the sur-

face, while Bay waters flow into the tribu-

taries along the bottom. Since these estuaries

IN METERS

DEPTH

23 JAN.- 7 FEB. 1958

DISSOLVED O5 (mi/1)

39°20 39°00’

IN METERS

(eo)

DEPTH

307 97 APR-1I7 MAY 1960

DISSOLVED Op (mi/I)

39°20 39°00!

are shallow—channel depths generally less

than 6 m—only the upper layer of the Bay

participates in the exchange with the tribu-

taries.

The circulation pattern in these tributar-

ies is thus reversed at least twice each year. |

Some of the smaller estuaries tributary to |

the head of the Bay, such as the Gunpowder

and the Bush, are renewed more often. ©

These estuaries are subject to rapid renewal |

rates because of large, short-period fluctua- ©

tions in the salinity of the adjacent Bay;

38°00 37°40' 37°20' 37°00'

LATITUDE

Fig. 14. Longitudinal distribution of dissolved oxygen along axis of Chesapeake Bay during winter

(above) and spring (below).

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

fluctuations produced by sudden, marked

changes in the discharge of the Susquehanna

River. Pritchard (1968) has pointed out that

if the flow of the Susquehanna were con-

trolled to the extent that the seasonal

changes in salinity in the upper Bay were to

disappear, the primary mechanism for the

flushing of a number of the small tributaries

would disappear, and pollution problems

would be intensified.

In summary, there are marked natural

temporal and spatial variations of the

salinity particularly in the upper reaches of

the Bay and its tributary estuaries. To date,

man has had little effect on the distribution

of salinity in the Chesapeake Bay estuarine

system.

Dissolved Oxygen

Dissolved oxygen is added to the water

by exchange across the air-sea interface

(naviface) and by photosynthesis. Oxygen is

removed from the water by loss across the

naviface, by respiration, by oxidation of or-

= i, 23S

= (|

2 4

+20

—

(a)

3016-17 JULY 1959 5 MILES

DISSOLVED O5 (mi/!) | :

39°20 ©. 39°00. Ss « 38°40’ -—s_ «38°20 =Ss 38°00 = «37°40 «= 37°20’ = 37°00

LATITUDE

fe)

w lO

—

+ 20

(a)

22 AUG.-9 SEPT. 1960

DISSOLVED O5 (mi/1)

39°20) 39°00' 38°40

LATITUDE

Fig. 15. Longitudinal distribution of dissolved oxygen along axis of Chesapeake Bay during summer.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

ganic matter, and by reactions with reduced

materials such as sulfides, and iron!. Dis-

solved oxygen is removed from all depths,

but it is added only to the upper part of the

water column—to the depth of the euphotic

zone. There are marked natural variations in

the temporal and spatial distributions of dis-

solved oxygen. Near the surface of most of

the estuary, the values stay near saturation

throughout the year, but in the lower layer

the concentrations of dissolved oxygen may

go from near saturation to near 0 over the

year. Superimposed upon these natural varia-

tions are fluctuations resulting from man’s

activities.

The natural variations are explainable in

terms of the characteristic physical, chemi-

cal, and biological processes. We will ex-

amine the seasonal variations of dissolved

oxygen along an axial section of the Chesa-

peake Bay, (figs. 14-15). During the winter

the water is cold, saturation values are high,

and mixing is relatively intense. The estuary

is nearly uniformly high in dissolved oxygen

content throughout the water column. In

the spring, the water temperatures rise in re-

sponse to increased solar insolation and

warm spring rains. Because of the increased

water temperatures, saturation values of dis-

solved oxygen decrease. Near the surface the

concentrations of dissolved oxygen stay near

saturation, but in the lower layer the values

decrease more rapidly than at the surface,

and soon become much less than the satura-

tion values. In the early spring the river flow

increases because of increased precipitation

and melting snow. The additional freshwater

inputs increase the stability of the water

column, thereby decreasing the vertical mix-

ing. The source of oxygen to the lower layer

has thus been greatly diminished. Utilization

of oxygen, however, increases with increas-

ing temperature. By mid-June the concentra-

tion of dissolved oxygen in the deeper layers

of the Bay may be less than 1 ml/l, while the

surface values which are near saturation may

be greater than 5 ml/l. This condition con-

tinues throughout the summer months. By

mid-summer the concentration of dissolved

oxygen at depths greater than 12 m may be

less than 0.1 ml/l. Anaerobic conditions have

not been observed in the main body of the

Bay, but the deeper areas of a number of the

tributaries including the Severn, the Poto-

mac, and Eastern Bay go anaerobic in the

summertime.

In late summer, usually near the end of

August, rapid changes in the vertical distri-

bution of dissolved oxygen often occur. A

few clear, cool nights cool the surface waters

sufficiently to increase their density above

that of the underlying water. Vertical down-

ward mixing is initiated and the deeper

water is thus replenished with dissolved oxy-

gen. Another warm spell may re-establish a

strong vertical density gradient, and the oxy-

gen in the deeper layer will again decrease.

By the middle of October the concentration

of dissolved oxygen has started to increase

steadily at all depths, and within a few

weeks the Bay becomes nearly uniform in

dissolved oxygen.

There are also diurnal variations of the

concentration of dissolved oxygen in the

euphotic zone. Values are higher during the

daylight hours of photosynthetic activity

than during the hours of darkness when

photosynthetic production of oxygen ceases

but respiratory consumption continues. The

“natural” diurnal variations are generally

small, but in highly productive areas they

may be large.

Superimposed upon these natural fluctua-

tions are variations resulting from man’s ac-

tivities. These effects have resulted largely

from the introduction of nutrients which

stimulate primary productivity and are most

readily observable in the upper reaches of

some of the tributary estuaries. When nutri-

ents are no longer limiting, solar energy is,

and there is frequently a sequence of intense

blooms separated by massive die-offs. The

die-offs produce large oxygen depletions,

sometimes resulting in anaerobic conditions.

Low oxygen zones in the tributaries pro-

bably began to increase in frequency, dura-

tion, and extent as early as the latter part of

the 18th century as a result of increased agri-

culture. The additional nutrients introduced

into the triburaries stimulated primary pro-

ductivity. The organic detritus placed heavy

oxygen demands on the estuaries. The nutri-

ents in the sewage and municipal wastes of a

burgeoning population have seriously

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

(1) average summer curve,1932, before

treatment plant.

(2) average Sept. curve, 1913.

[°]

Dissolved Oxygen (% Saturation)

Pliont

<i Outfoll

oO 5 10 15 20 25

Distance Below Three Sisters Islands

40 40 on

Q a

A bees

20 Sewer Treatment 20 Treatment

Outfall Fort Plant Fort

Washington

C) Average summer curve, 1932, before

treatment plant (as in A).

(2) Average summer curve, 1938, after

treatment plant.

G) Average summer curve obtained by averog-

ing minimum daily values observed over 28-

consecutive- low flow — day periods.

A. Between 1954-1967

B. Between 1960-1967 only

SD)

Out fall Washington

30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

( km)

Fig. 16. Longitudinal distributions of dissolved oxygen in tidal reaches of Potomac. Fig. at right after

Wolman (1971).

aggravated the problem in a number of the

tributaries.

The effects of man on the distribution of

dissolved oxygen are readily apparent in the

Potomac, particularly in the tidal reaches of

the River below Washington, D.C. Large

amounts of nutrients added by the metro-

politan Washington area sewerage system to

an already enriched Potomac result in a high

level of primary productivity and large bio-

chemical oxygen demands (BOD).

Recently Wolman (1971) reported some

observations of dissolved oxygen made be-

tween 1932 and 1967 in the tidal reaches of

the Potomac River. He presented a curve de-

picting an average longitudinal variation of

dissolved oxygen minima expressed as %

saturation for the summer of 1932 before

construction of the Washington treatment

plant, and a similar curve for the summer of

1938 following construction of the treat-

ment plant. He also presented a curve of the

average longitudinal distribution of dissolved

oxygen minima obtained by averaging the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

lowest daily oxygen values observed over

28-consecutive-day periods of minimum

river flow between 1954 and 1967. A similar

curve was plotted for 1960-1967 only. These

curves are shown in fig. 16. Fig. 16 shows a

curve depicting the average distribution of

dissolved oxygen in 1913 during the month

of September, the month of lowest oxygen

levels (Cumming, et al., 1916). All of the

curves in fig. 16 show a sag in the oxygen

levels below Washington. There were no

1913 data in the region of the sewer outfall.

Upstream from the outfall, the 1913 oxygen

levels were slightly lower than the 1932

levels while downstream from the outfall

they were slightly higher. The differences

may not be significant, but the higher levels

in 1913 downstream from the sewer outfall

might be explained by the dense growth of

submerged vegetation that covered nearly all

of the bottom outside of the channel in

1913 but which disappeared in the 1920’s.

In 1938, following construction of the

Blue Plains sewage treatment plant, the oxy-

gen levels rose significantly, but the thera-

peutic effects of the plant were apparently

relatively short-lived. The average oxygen

minimum curve for periods of low flow be-

tween 1954 and 1967 indicates that not on-

ly had the concentrations of dissolved oxy-

gen apparently decreased to levels below

those observed before any treatment was

provided, but the zone of low oxygen ex-

tended farther downstream. For the period

1960-1967 the situation was apparently

slightly improved.

The trends indicated by the curves in fig.

16 are very probably real, but one must, for

a number of reasons, be prudent in compar-

ing these observations which span 54 years:

the accuracy and precision of the measure-

ments are uncertain; the averaging processes

used by the investigators are obscure; and

the diurnal fluctuations of the concentration

of dissolved oxygen which are appreciable in

this region were apparently not considered

in sampling.

Improvement of the levels of dissolved

oxygen in the tidal reaches of the Potomac

presents a formidable challenge. As Wolman

(1971) pointed out, “Despite expenditures

upward of $70 million from 1938 through

1965, in recent years dissolved oxygen dur-

ing the summer months has retreated to the

position occupied by similar curves in 1932

before major treatment works were installed

in 1938.” The low concentrations of dis-

solved oxygen result from massive die-offs of

intense blooms which are stimulated by the

high nutrient levels. Even if all of the

nutrients were to be removed from the

Washington metropolitan area waste efflu-

ent, the nutrient levels in the River would

still be at an undesirable level.

In summary, man’s activities have certain-

ly increased the frequency, extent, and dura-

tion of low oxygen zones in the upper

reaches of the Potomac and of a number of

other tributaries. Because of the lack of his-

torical data, however, it is not possible to

chronicle these changes.

‘Low levels of dissolved oxygen are a

symptom of a much more serious problem,

probably the most serious, that threatens the

Bay—the influx of nutrients from municipal

and agricultural wastes.

Nutrients

The nutrients nitrogen and phosphorous

are necessary for primary productivity. They

are added to the Chesapeake Bay estuarine

system by natural sources and as a result of

man’s activities. They have not only always

been present in the Chesapeake Bay and

other estuaries because of their natural

sources, but have probably, because of the

dynamic processes in the estuary, always

been present in relatively high concentra-

tions—high relative to other parts of the

marine environment. But large additional in-

puts of nitrogen and phosphorous have been

added to the Chesapeake Bay and other

waterways by man’s activities. It has been

estimated that the total amount of phos-

phorous discharged into United States water-

ways probably exceeds that of 50 years ago

by a factor of 3 or 4 (Man’s Impact on the

Global Environment, 1970). Large amounts

of nutrients are introduced directly into the

Chesapeake Bay estuarine system through

the discharges of municipal treatment plants.

In addition, rivers convey large quantities of

nutrients into the Bay—nutrients which re-

sult in large part from man’s activities in the

drainage basin, perhaps hundreds of kilo-

meters away. Nutrients are added to the

rivers in sewage, in runoff from fertilized

fields, and from animal feedlots.

Both nature and man concentrate their ef-

fects on the tributaries and on the upper

reaches of the Bay. These zones have buf-

fered man’s impact on the main body of the

Bay, but many of them have been degraded

by undesirably high levels of productivity

stimulated by high nutrient concentrations.

In the Maryland portion of the Bay the

effects of nutrient-loading from municipal

wastes are most apparent in the upper Poto-

mac and in Back River; the receiving waters

for the wastes from the metropolitan Wash-

ington, D.C., and Baltimore areas. The dra-

matic increases in nutrient levels which have

recently been reported in the upper Patux-

ent (Flemmer, 1971) are a result of the

wastes from the burgeoning population in

the small drainage basin of that river. The

effects of local inputs from the septic field

drainage of largely unsewered land areas are

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

observable in some of the smaller tributaries

including the South, Magothy, Miles, Ches-

ter, and Severn estuaries. In the upper

teaches of the main body of the Bay, the

Susquehanna is the major conveyor of

nutrients—nutrients derived from extensive

agricultural areas and from a population that

exceeds | million in the drainage basin.

Assemblages of primary producers are ad-

justed to certain ranges of the concentra-

tions of the essential nutrients and to certain

tanges of their relative abundances. The

limits of the ranges characteristic of “unpol-

luted” and “polluted” waters have not been

firmly set. Some guidelines are necessary,

however. After examination of the literature

and discussion with several of my colleagues,

the following conclusions were tentatively

determined. In unpolluted, productive

waters the ratio of total N to total P

probably does not fall below 10:1, and the

limit may be 15:1. In addition, concentra-

tions of total P greater than about 3 yg at./l

are probably undesirable.

The Potomac River with an average flow

of about 310 m?/sec is the second largest

river discharging into the Chesapeake Bay

estuarine system. It is a flashy river with no

significant flow regulation; the recorded

flow range is from about 20 m?3/sec to 1360

‘m3/sec. The Potomac drains approximately

28,490 km of forested and agricultural land

above Washington and 5,180 km? of urban

area within the metropolitan Washington

area. The transition from the Potomac

estuary to the Potomac River, marked by

the upstream limit of sea salt, occurs be-

tween 80-100 km above the mouth of the

estuary. This is approximately 35-55 km be-

low Washington, D.C. The tidal effects ex-

tend farther upstream to the fall line just

above Washington. The freshwater region be-

tween the upstream limit of sea salt and the

head of tide is called the “tidal reaches of

the river.”

Nutrients are introduced into the upper

reaches of the Potomac River by drainage of

agricultural areas and by additions of sew-

age. Measurements made in 1965-1966

showed that in the river just above Washing-

ton the concentrations of nitrate were

100-150 ug at./l during periods of high river

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

flow, and the concentrations of phosphate

about 5 ug at./l (Carpenter, et al., 1969).

During periods of low river flow the concen-

trations of nitrate were about 50-70 mg at./l,

and the concentrations of phosphate about

34 Mg at./l. THe levels of phosphorous in

the River are already at undesirable levels,

even before the river reaches Washington,

DC.

The sewerage systems of the Washington

metropolitan area presently discharge into

the Potomac River about 1.1 x 10° m3/day

(290 MGD) containing more than 6 metric

tons of phosphorous and 10 metric tons of

nitrogen, and these values are expected to

double within 30 years. Probably more than

half of the phosphorous is from phosphate

in detergents. These inputs produce very

high local concentrations of nutrients, par-

ticularly during periods of low river flow.

For example, with a river flow of about 85

m?/sec, the input of sewage would increase

the concentrations of phosphorous by about

180 ug at./l (Carpenter, et al., 1969). During

1965 the river flow exceeded 85 m?3/sec less

than 1/3 of the time. These high concentra-

tions of nutrients do not extend very far

downstream; they are primarily restricted to

the tidal reaches of the river.

Carpenter et al., (1969) have described

the distributions of nutrients in the Poto-

mac, and this discussion is based in large part

on their report. The longitudinal distribution

of nutrients in the Potomac varies season-

ally, with concentrations of total nitrogen in

the estuary generally being highest during

January, February, and March, (fig. 17).

The monthly longitudinal distributions of

total phosphate show increases in the tidal

reaches of the river during late fall and win-

ter, displacement of the high values down-

stream into the estuary with increasing flow

in the spring, and then relatively moderate

and uniform concentrations in the estuary

throughout the summer and most of the fall,

(fig. 18). The concentrations of inorganic

phosphate are high in the tidal reaches of the

river and constitute an appreciable fraction

of the total phosphate concentrations. Far-

ther downstream in the estuary, however, in-

organic phosphate concentrations exceed 0.5

ug at./l only after high river flow.

220

POTOMAC RIVER

Total Nitrogen (yg at/L)

200

180

160

140

120

100

JAN, FEB, MARCH

APRIL

AUG, SEPT,

OCT., DEC

Blue Plains

Treatment Plant

(Haines Pt)

Wash , DC

20 40 60 80 100 120

KILOMETERS UPSTREAM FROM MOUTH

Fig. 17 Longitudinal distribution of total nitrogen in the Potomac (from Carpenter, et al., 1969).

140 150

POTOMAC RIVER

Total POF ( wp gat/L)

JUNE-JULY—

AUG.= SEPT.

—=

FEB-SURFACE —

Cea on aee MARCH-APRIL

‘s)

Ga (at as

io Of

Oo (=

Oe woes

oo eS

3a 8 0D

aoe st

0) 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 150

KILOMETERS UPSTREAM FROM MOUTH

Fig. 18. Longitudinal distribution of total phosphate in the Potomac (from Carpenter, et al., 1969).

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

In the tidal reaches of the Potomac River

the concentrations of total phosphorous are

at undesirably high levels, and the ratio of

nitrogen to phosphorous is lower than in

“healthy” productive waters. Farther sea-

ward, in the estuary, the concentrations of

phosphorous fall below 3 ug at./l, and the

ratio of N to P is greater than 10:1. The

nutrient patterns are reflected in the longi-

tudinal distributions of chlorophyll, which

show very high concentrations in the tidal

reaches of the River—concentrations which

frequently exceed 70 g/l. These high values

are produced primarily by Microcystis

aeruginosa. These organisms collect in mats

along the shoreline, producing repugnant

conditions. In the estuarine sections of the

Potomac chlorophyll levels are appreciably

lower and are comparable to those in the

upper Chesapeake Bay.

Clearly man has had a major and un-

desirable effect on the nutrient levels in the

upper Potomac. Historical data are not avail-

able to chronicle the evolution of this im-

pact, but one can get some idea of the inputs

of nutrients from the Washington area by

examining the population and waste water

records. The Washington metropolitan area

treatment plant (Blue Plains) was con-

structed in 1938. Prior to this, Washington

had a sewerage system but did not have a

treatment plant. In 1970 the treatment plant

served a population of about 1.8 million and

discharged approximately 1.1 x 10° m3/day

(290 MGD) into the Potomac. This waste

water contributed approximately 6 metric

tons of phosphorous and 10 metric tons of

nitrogen to the Potomac each day. In 1970

Washington, D.C. had a population of

756,510. In 1940 the Blue Plains treatment

plant served a population of about 0.8 mil-

lion and discharged approximately 0.4 x 10°

m?/day (100 MGD). At that time Washing-

ton, D.C. had a population of 663,091. If

the concentrations of phosphorous and ni-

trogen in the waste water were the same in

1940 as in 1970, this would represent daily

inputs of about 2 metric tons of phosphor-

ous and 3 metric tons of nitrogen. The con-

centrations of nutrients were probably less

in 1940 than in 1970, but even if they were

only 50% of the 1970 values, these lower

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

inputs would result in undesirably high nu-

trient levels. The oxygen data, discussed else-

where in this paper, also suggest that prob-

lems of eutrophication in the upper Potomac

are of long standing. Following the introduc-

tion of soap powders containing phos-

phorous circa 1938, the concentrations of

phosphates in the tidal reaches of the Poto-

mac probably rose significantly, but they

have probably been at undesirable levels for

well over 50 years.

In some other tributaries the increases of

nutrient concentrations to undesirable levels

have been much more recent. In the upper

Patuxent the concentrations of inorganic ni-

trogen increased by 10-15 times between

1962-64 and 1971, and inorganic phos-

phorous has also shown substantial increases

over this period (Flemmer, 1971). The con-

centrations of nutrients in the upper Patux-

ent frequently reach levels comparable to

those in the upper Potomac. The standing

crop, aS measured by chlorophyll, has in-

creased, but not to the point of nuisance

blooms such as those occurring in the upper

Potomac (Flemmer, 1971).

In the main body of the upper Chesa-

peake Bay the nutrients are derived

primarily from the inflow of the Susque-

hanna River. The upper Chesapeake Bay is

the estuary of the Susquehanna River. The

Susquehanna, with a long-term average flow

of about 985 m3/sec, discharges more than

85% of the total freshwater into the Bay

above the mouth of the Potomac. The Sus-

quehanna drains about 71,225 km? of New

York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. The

watershed has extensive agricultural areas

and a population of more than 1 million.

These sources combine to contribute large

quantities of nitrogen and phosphorous to

the river (Carpenter, et al., 1969). The in-

puts are modified along the course of the

river by biological removal which occurs in

broad, shallow reaches of the river and in the

series of reservoirs. When the river reaches

the head of the Bay at Havre de Grace,

Maryland, the concentrations of total phos-

phorous range from about 1.5 g at./l dur-

ing winter and spring to about 1.0 1g at./l

during summer and fall. Nitrogen levels

range from 80-105 g at./l during spring to

| | UPPER CHESAPEAKE BAY

| NO3z+ NOs (yg at/L)

15 -24 MARCH 1965

OD 10 NAUTICAL MILES

———

BALTIMORE...

x HRWASHINGTON | Ber 3

UPPER CHESAPEAKE BAY

NOz + NOo (pg at/L)

1-5 JUNE 1964

O 5 10 NAUTICAL MILES

Gir

¥f tie ay Past

Fig. 19. Surface nitrate distributions (NO3 + NO.) in upper Chesapeake Bay (J.H. Carpenter, personal

communication).

16 J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

UPPER CHESAPEAKE BAY

NO3z +NO>5 (pg at/L)

3-7 AUGUST 1964

(0) 5 10 NAUTICAL MILES”

(cu ni

UPPER CHESAPEAKE BAY

NOz +NOo (pg at/L)

7-15 SEPTEMBER 1965

O 5 IO NAUTICAL MILES

+—_+—

BALTIMORE .

—< ss

Be PST ens Ga |

2 J

- Q

P r

: 1

-f

Fig. 20. Surface nitrate distributions (NO + NO.) in upper Chesapeake Bay (J.H. Carpenter, personal

communication).

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972 77

about 50 yg at./l during other seasons. Most

of the nitrogen is present as nitrate.

The spatial distribution of nitrate in the

upper Bay indicates that the Susquehanna

River is the primary source, (figs. 19-20).

Nearly half of the total annual flow of the

Susquehanna occurs during a 3-month

period in late winter and early spring. Since

the nitrate concentrations are highest during

this period, the Susquehanna discharges

more than 60% of its total annual nitrate

input during these 3 months. By the middle

of April the Bay has a rather uniform nitrate

distribution with concentrations of about 45

ug at./l. Throughout the late spring and

summer the concentrations generally de-

crease and by September may be less than 1

hg at./L.

The distributions of phosphorous differ

markedly from those of nitrogen. Total

phosphate values are relatively uniform and

have a range of only about 1-2 wg at./l.

Phosphorous is apparently cycled at least

twice between May and August, since the

disappearance of some 45 pg at./l of nitro-

gen is not accompanied by changes in phos-

phate. During the summer more than half of

the total phosphorous is present as dissolved

organic phosphate.

In the main body of the upper Bay nu-

trient levels and phytoplankton production

are high, but the grazing rate is also high

thereby preventing an undesirable buildup of

algae such as occurs in the tidal reaches of

the Potomac. Nutrient levels are probably

near the upper limit for “healthy” condi-

tions. Pritchard (1968) estimated that a

doubling of present nutrient levels in the

main body of the Bay would produce un-

desirable conditions. Anumber ofthe upper

Bay’s tributaries are already over-enriched,

and any additional inputs will be detri-

mental.

The municipal wastes from Baltimore are

treated at the Back River treatment plant,

which discharges about 0.6 x 10 m3 (150

MGD) of treated effluent each day. Of this,

approximately 0.4 x 106 m3/day (100

MGD) are utilized by Bethlehem Steel as in-

dustrial cooling water and discharged into

Baltimore Harbor. The remaining 0.2 x 106

m3/day (50 MGD) is discharged into Back

River, a small estuary that is tributary to the

Bay and located just north of Baltimore Har-

bor. Nutrient levels in Back River are very

high, and blue green algae thrive. In 1965

chlorophyll concentrations exceeded 60 ug/l

from March through November and reached ~

levels of 400 ug /1 in October. Eutrophica- |

tion in Back River is intense, but the effects —

are restricted to the tributary and are not

apparent in the adjacent Bay. There are

marked decreases in chlorophyll and total

phosphate near the mouth of the tributary—

decreases greater than can be accounted for

by dilution. Deposition of algal cells in the

sediment is the most probable process of re-

moval. The Back River estuary is acting as a

type of tertiary treatment pond, and the sac-

rifice of this tributary has protected the

main body of the Bay.

The waste ferrous sulfate added to the

part of the effluent used as cooling water by

Bethlehem Steel is apparently sufficient to

precipitate the phosphate in the Harbor so

that little of it reaches the Bay. The nitrate

is apparently also being rapidly removed

either by a component added to the effluent

during its use as a cooling water, or by a

constituent in the receiving waters, but the

process by which this happens is not clear.

While the effects of the treated sewage

discharged into Baltimore Harbor and Back

River are readily observable in these tribu-

taries, they are not apparent in the adjacent

Bay. Carpenter et al., (1969) pointed out:

“During the prolonged drought of 1965, dis-

charge of the Susquehanna River was 4,000

ft3/sec (113 m3/sec) during July, August,

and September. The admixture of this in-

flowing freshwater with seawater produced a

density-driven circulation in the Bay off

Baltimore with a flow in the upper layer of

about 3 times the freshwater discharge, or

12,000 ft3/sec (340 m3/sec). This flow

would provide a dilution for the sewage dis-

charge of 1 to 50, which corresponds to a

possible increase of 6 wg at. per liter of

phosphorous and 36 yg at per liter of nitro-

gen in the mixture. Such increases are not

observed in the bay.”

In summary, man has had an appreciable

effect on the distributions of nutrients in the

Chesapeake Bay estuarine system, particular-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL, VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

ly in the upper reaches of the Bay, and ofa

number of the tributaries. In the Maryland

portion of the Bay, nutrients are at unde-

sirable levels in the upper Potomac and in

Back River, and are near the upper limit in

the upper Bay, the Patuxent and in many of

the smaller tributaries. The discharge of im-

properly treated sewage and municipal

wastes constitute the most serious imme-

diate threat to the Chesapeake Bay estuarine

system. °

Sediments

The general features of the geology of the

Chesapeake Bay and the surrounding region

have been discussed by Ryan (1953) and

more recently by Wolman (1968). The

characteristics of the bottom sediments have

been described by Ryan (1953) and Biggs

(1967). The sediments accumulating in the

Bay are predominantly fine-grained silts and

clays except in the littoral zone, where sand

locally derived from shore erosion predomi-

nates (Ryan, 1953; Schubel, 1968a). The

sources of sediment have been considered by

Schubel (1968a, 1971a) and Biggs (1970),

and the relationships between the circulation

patterns and the sedimentation patterns have

been investigated by Schubel (1971b).

The archenemy and ultimate conqueror

of every estuary is the sediment that fills the

basin and drives out the intruding sea. Sedi-

ments are introduced into the Chesapeake

Bay by rivers, by shore erosion, by biological

activity, and by the sea. The sources are thus

external, marginal, and internal. Most of the

inputs are poorly known. The only rivers for

which reliable estimates are available are the

Susquehanna (Schubel, 1968b; Schubel,

1972) and to a lesser extent the Potomac

(Wolman, 1968). The Susquehanna dis-

charges approximately 0.3-0.8 x 10° metric

tons/yr, while the Potomac probably dis-

charges more than 2.3 x 10° metric tons/yr.

The sediment discharged by the rivers is

fine-grained silt and clay. Most of it is

trapped in the upper reaches of the estuaries

by the net non-tidal circulation, which

creates a very effective sediment trap in the

transition zone where the net upstream flow

of the lower layer dissipates until the net

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

flow is downstream at all depths (Schubel,

1971b). Fine particles that settle into the

lower layer are carried back upstream by its

net upstream flow, leading to a rapid accu-

mulation of sediment. The sedimentation

rate in the upper Bay is probably at least an

order of magnitude greater than in the mid-

dle and lower reaches of the Bay. Similar

patterns exist in the tributary estuaries. Be-

cause of the net non-tidal circulation and the

mixing there are also accumulations of sus-

pended sediment in the upper reaches of the

Bay and larger. tributary estuaries. Such fea-

tures, called “turbidity maxima’, are charac-

terized by turbidities and suspended sedi-

ment concentrations that are higher than

those either farther upstream in the source

river or farther seaward in the estuary. The

turbidity maximum in the upper reaches of

the Bay has been described by Schubel

(1968c).

Since the Susquehanna is the only river

that debouches directly into the main body

of the Bay, it is the only major source of

fluvial sediment to the Bay proper (Schubel,

1971a, b). Most of the sediment discharged

by the other rivers is deposited in the upper

reaches of their estuaries and does not reach

the Bay proper. In the middle and lower

reaches of the Bay, shore erosion is not only

a major source, but probably the most im-

portant source of sediment (Schubel, 1968a,

1971; Biggs, 1970). The margins of the Bay

are being digested at an alarming rate

(Singewald and Slaughter, 1949; Schubel,

1968a).

The remains of the large populations of

plankton, nekton, and benthos contribute

little directly to the total accumulation of

sediment. Filter-feeding benthos (Haven and

Morales, 1966) and zooplankton (Schubel,

1971; Schubel and Kana, 1972), however,

play an important role in the Bay’s sedimen-

tation. These organisms bind fine suspended

particles into larger composite particles

which are ultimately deposited. Without ag-

glomeration many of the finer particles

would not be deposited in the Bay but

would be carried through the estuary and

discharged to the ocean. Biological agglomer-

ation is an important geological process.

Because of their circulation patterns, the

Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are effec-

tive sedimentation traps, and sedimentation

rates are naturally high. But man has mark-

edly increased the sedimentation rates by in-

creasing the inputs of sediment. With the

clearance of forested land for agriculture in

colonial days, sediment yields increased

from an average of less than 35 metric

tons/km2/yr to 140-280 metric tons/km2/yr

(Wolman, 1967). Hundreds of thousands of

acres of forested lands were cleared with axe

and fire for tobacco farming. After 2 or 3

crops, the nutrients in the soil were depleted

and new lands were needed for growing to-

bacco. The old fields were frequently aban-

doned and left bare to be eroded by the

wind and rain. Much of the sediment was

carried by streams and rivers into the estuar-

ies tributary to the Bay.

Even before 1800, siltation was a serious

problem in harbors such as Upper Marlboro

on the Patuxent River, Port Tobacco on the

Port Tobacco River (a tributary to the Poto-

mac), and Joppa Town at the mouth of the

Little Gunpowder. In the early 1700’s Joppa

Town was the county seat of Baltimore

County and Maryland’s most prosperous and

important seaport. By 1750 the port had de-

clined in importance, primarily because of

sedimentation problems, and in 1768 the

county seat was moved to Baltimore. Stone

mooring posts that once held the hawsers of

seagoing vessels are now 2 or more miles

from navigable water (Gottschalk, 1945).

According to Gottschalk (1945), who sum-

marized observations on the sedimentation

of colonial ports, the limit of open tidewater

in Baltimore Harbor was 7 miles farther in-

land in 1608 when John Smith visited the

Harbor than it is today.

In more recent years local sediment yields

have been dramatically increased by impru-

dent land clearance for construction—yields

sometimes reach 10,000 or even 35,000 me-

tric tons/km2 /yr.It has been estimated that

sediment from construction sites in the me-

tropolitan Washington, D.C. area probably

accounts for 25-30% of the total sediment

load entering the Potomac at Washington

(Wolman, 1968). Sediment derived from

construction sites in the metropolitan Balti-

more area is probably a major source of the

sediment being discharged into Baltimore

Harbor. After completion of urban construc-

tion projects, the new asphalt and concrete

“and” may reduce sediment yields to levels

well below those characteristic of forested

regions.

But man’s activities can also decrease the |

masses of sediment discharged into the Ches-

apeake Bay estuarine system. The construc- |

tion of a series of dams along the lower —

courses of the Susquehanna River has de-

creased the quantities of sediment dis-

charged into the upper Bay.

The effect of man’s activities during the

18th and most of the 19th centuries was to

increase sedimentation rates in the main

body of the Chesapeake Bay and its tribu-

tary estuaries. In the latter part of the 19th

century and during the 20th century, with

better soil conservation practices, less land

under cultivation, and the construction of a |

series of dams on the lower reaches of the ©

Susquehanna, the overall sedimentation rate

was decreased. In some tributaries, however,

which drain areas of urban construction, the

local sedimentation rates were greatly in-

creased. The net effect of man’s activities

has been an increase in the overall “natural”

sedimentation rate, but we can not say by

how much.

In addition to the direct effects of filling

the estuarine basin and thereby expelling the

intruding sea, the fine-grained sediments

have many indirect effects on the estuary.

While suspended they limit the penetration

of light, and therefore the depth of the

euphotic zone and the primary productivity.

Because of their high sorptive capacity, clay

particles concentrate heavy metals, nu-

trients, oil, pesticides, biocides, and other

“pollutants.” Since these pollutants are “at-

tached” to fine particles, they are concen-

trated in the sediments, both suspended and

deposited, in the upper reaches of the Bay

and its tributary estuaries. Filter-feeding or-

ganisms which ingest these particles concen-

trate the contaminants. Butler (1966) has

pointed out the ability of oysters to concen-

trate DDT in their pseudo feces, making it

available in a more concentrated form to de-

posit feeders. Increases in the concentration

of contaminants at each trophic level are

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

well documented for radioactive elements

and pesticides (Woodwell, 1967). This phe-

nomenon has been referred to as “biological

magnification.”

Although there are few analyses of pesti-

cides, herbicides, and heavy metals in Chesa-

peake Bay organisms, it might be anticipated

that the concentrations of these constituents

will be relatively high.

In summary, sediments are the estuary’s

natural archenemy and ultimate conqueror.

As they fill in the basin they expel the in-

truding sea, converting the estuarine system

back into a river valley system. At times, a

man’s activities have tended to both accel-

erate and decelerate this process, but their

net effect has been to increase the overall

sedimentation rate. The indirect effects of

the sediments, particularly the fine-grained

sediments that are accumulating in the Bay

and its tributaries, are of greater significance

to man than the long-term direct effects of

filling. These indirect effects are poorly un-

derstood.

Heavy Metals

The so-called heavy or trace metals (tran-

sition metals) are of considerable interest be-

cause certain of these metals are highly toxic

to plants and animals, including man but are,

of course, also essential for life. They are

highly persistent and retain their toxicities

for prolonged periods of time. Most heavy

metals are concentrated in the bodies of or-

ganisms where they remain for prolonged

periods of time and function as cumulative

poisons. There are approximately 2 dozen

metals which are highly toxic to plants and

animals, but the most toxic, persistent, and

abundant heavy metals in the marine envi-

ronment include mercury (Hg), arsenic (As),

cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), chromium (Cr),

and nickel (Ni). Since heavy metals are pre-

sent in the earth’s crust, they are carried

both in solution and in suspension by rivers

andstreamsinto the Chesapeake Bay estu-

arine system and the rest of the marine en-

vironment. Man also contributes heavy me-

tals to the Bay. Some heavy metals have

been used extensively as pesticides and bio-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

cides and have been introduced into the en-

vironment from these sources.

There are very few data on the temporal

and spatial distributions of any of the heavy

metals in the Chesapeake Bay estuarine

system or its tributary rivers. The most ex-

tensive studies have been made by J.H. Car-

penter of The Johns Hopkins University’s

Chesapeake Bay Institute. He has kindly per-

mitted me to summarize some of his un-

published results. Carpenter analyzed sam-

ples of Susquehanna River water collected at

approximately weekly intervals from April

1965 through August 1966 at Lapidium,

Maryland, located about 1 mile downstream

from the dam at Conowingo. Using atomic

absorption techniques, the samples were

analyzed for the concentrations of iron,

manganese, zinc, nickel, copper, cobalt,

chromium, and cadmium in both the dis-

solved and suspended states. Carpenter dis-

tinguished between the solid material that

was deposited by gravity settling after 10-14

days, and the solid material remaining in sus-

pension after this settling period but which

could be removed by filtration through

membrane filters with an average pore size

of 0.2u. The heavy metals were extracted

from the particulate matter in normal HCl at

60°C with constant agitation for 72 hours.

The river flow, the concentration of total

suspended solids (suspended sediment) and

the total concentrations of the several heavy

metals were all highly variable during the

period of observation, (figs. 21-23). The pat-

tern of river flow shown in fig. 21 illustrates

the characteristic seasonal variation of flow

of the Susquehanna and other rivers in this

region—high discharge in the spring followed

by low to moderate flow throughout the

summer and most of the fall. The obvious

positive correlation between river flow and

the concentration of suspended sediment il-

lustrated in fig. 21 is well documented. The

most striking thing about the heavy metal

analyses is their marked variability. In

general, high concentrations of the heavy

metals were associated with high concentra-

tions of suspended sediment, but there were

some exceptions notably zinc, nickel, and

cobalt during January, 1966.

1965 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV A

Be DEC | JAN FEB MAR APR SMAVERJUN JUL _ AUG 1966

SOLIDS

ppm

WATER FLOW

AT CONOWINGO

average

103 m3/sec

WwW

average

becetaaher are cae

i ! f EEE

1965 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP I966

Fig. 21. Flow of the Susquehanna-River and concentration of suspended sediment between April 1965

through August 1966 (J.H. Carpenter, personal communication).

LAUG SEP OCT NOV DEC) JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 1966

1965 APR MAY JUN JUL l B_ MAR APR MAY Jt

450 Min

300

ppb

150

ppb

3000

2000 average

Yes

1000

1965 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC'JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 1966

Fig. 22. Concentrations of total iron and manganese in Susquehanna River samples (J.H. Carpenter,

personal communication).

82 J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

1965 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG

ppb

SEP OCT NOV DEC | JAN

FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 1966

average

ppb

° 1965 APR MAY JUN

JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC! JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP [966

Fig. 23. Concentrations of total Cu, Ni, and Zn in Susquehanna River samples (J.H. Carpenter,

personal communication)

The partitioning of iron, manganese, zinc,

nickel and copper among the soluble, fil-

tered solids and settled solids fractions

showed marked seasonal variations. The oc-

currence of manganese in a soluble form, for

1965SEP OCT NOV DEC|JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG 1966

T on T T T lige eNpaasT T

ppb

ppm

fo}

io)

WLLL

ss fSK PR | MAY

1965 SEP’ OCT ' NOV

Fig. 24. Concentrations of iron and manganese

in the soluble, filtered solids, and settled solids

fractions of Susquehanna River samples (J.H. Car-

penter, personal communication).

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

example, appears to be seasonal with the

necessary conditions being present during

winter and early spring, (fig. 24). the season-

ality of both the total concentration and the

solubilization of many metals suggests the

significance of organic matter and metals de-

tived from decaying vegetation (Carpenter,

personal communication). Vegetation in the

drainage basin then appears to be a major

source of heavy metal “pollution” to the

Susquehanna and to the upper Chesapeake

Bay.

It is obvious from Carpenter’s data that

estimates of the inputs of the several metals

must take into account the variability of the

source. Estimates based on one sample

(Turekian and Scott, 1967) or even on several

samples are naive and are apt to be very mis-

leading. Table 1 provides a comparison of

estimates of the annual inputs of several

heavy metals based on one sample (Turekian

and Scott, 1967) with estimates based on

weekly samples (Carpenter, 1971, personal

communication).

For each of the 3 heavy metals for which

there were common analyses, Turekian and

Table 1.—Heavy Metal Input to Chesapeake Bay

From the Susquehanna River

Estimate Based on Estimate Based on

One Sample Coleen 52 Weekly Samples

. in June of 1966 Collected during

Constituent (tons/year) 1965-19662

Manganese 120,000 5,300

Nickel 3,000 215

Cobalt 1,500 88

Scott (1967) estimated annual discharges

were more than an order of magnitude high-

er than Carpenter’s. (Turekian and Scott

1967) attributed the high concentrations of

heavy metals to industrial contamination

and suggested that the inputs were suffi-

ciently large to be of possible economic in-

terest.

The Susquehanna River, supplying more

than 90% of the total freshwater input to

the Bay north of the Potomac, is the major

source of freshwater and fluvial sediment to

the upper Chesapeake Bay. Tidal currents

provide most of the energy for the mixing of

the fresh river water with the salty estuary

water. There are very few reliable data on

the spatial distributions of heavy metals in

the waters of the Bay itself, and data on

temporal distributions are not available. To

assess man’s affect on the distributions of

heavy metal one must examine the only his-

torical record that exists—the sedimentary

record. Unfortunately, that record has re-

ceived only meager examination.

Sediment samples taken on a cross-

section near the Chesapeake Bay Bridge at

Annapolis show variations in the concentra-

tions of both iron and zinc of more than an

1Data from Turekian & Scott (1967), who fil-

tered their water sample through an 0.45 u APD

Millipore filter, ashed it, and analyzed the residue

spectrographically. This procedure results in a de-

termination of something close to the concentra-

tions of the total particulate fraction of the various

metals.

? Data from J.H. Carpenter, personal communi-

cation. Carpenter’s methods result in determina-

tions of the dissolved fraction and the “‘extract-

able” particulate fraction. The extractable part of

the particulate fraction may be less than the total

particulate fraction, but it is probably never less

than 50% of it.

order of magnitude. The variations are asso-

ciated with changes in the grain size of the

sediments; the coarser-grained sediments are

impoverished in heavy metals relative to the

finer sediments. There are also local spatial

variations associated with spoil deposits

which are enriched in certain of the heavy

metals.

There are a few data that suggest there is

a longitudinal gradient of heavy metals in

the fine sediments of the Bay. Concentra-

tions of heavy metals tend to be higher near

the head of the Bay than farther seaward in

the estuary. This might have been antici-

pated, since the fine sediments in the upper

Bay are derived primarily from the Pied-

mont, while the fine sediments in the middle

and lower reaches of the Bay are probably

derived primarily from the shore erosion of

Coastal Plain sediments—sediments originally

derived from the Piedmont and now im-

poverished in heavy metals relative to their

source rocks. The differences in the sources

of organic matter may also be important in

producing this gradient. This is an important

problem; one which deserves further study.

Analyses of the longer-term sedimentary

record are even more scarce. Recently a

135-cm-long core was taken in the upper

Bay off Howell Point. Since the sedimenta-

tion rate in the area is probably between 5

and 10 mm/yr, the core represents 135-270

years of sedimentary history. The core was

analyzed for extractable? iron and zinc at

the surface and at 20-cm increments to the

bottom of the core. One might have antici-

pated that the concentrations of iron and

zinc would decrease with depth, since man’s

impact has presumably increased with time.

The results showed, however, that below the

surficial layer the concentrations were nearly

uniform with depth. The concentration of

zinc was about 70 ppm (dry weight) and the

concentration of iron about 20 ppt. The uni-

formity may be attributable in part to the

homogenization of the sediment by burrow-

ing organisms. The core may not have been

long enough to pass through the sedimentary

horizon corresponding to the initiation of

3Using techniques described previously.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

mining in the Susquehanna drainage basin

about 130 years ago. These scant data do

not demonstrate, however, that man’s activi-

ties have increased the levels of iron and zinc

in the upper Bay off Howell Point. Further-

more, they do not violate the hypothesis

that the concentrations of these heavy me-

tals have always been naturally high at this

location, and that man has not has a measur-

able effect on their concentrations.

It might be anticipated that the industrial

enrichment of heavy metals in the sediments

of the Maryland portion of the Bay would

be most obivous in Baltimore Harbor. Sam-

ples of surface sediment from Baltimore Har-

bor show large variations in their concentra-

tions of heavy metals. Local areas are en-

riched by more than an order of magnitude

in certain of the heavy metals, such as Zn,

Cu, and Cd, over contiguous areas where

levels are approximately equal to those in

the open Bay. Man has almost certainly in-

creased the concentrations of heavy metals

in Baltimore Harbor, but the magnitude of

his impact is not clear. The pertinent data

are being compiled for a report to the Sub-

merged Lands Commission of the State of

Maryland (J.H. Carpenter, personal com-

munication).

In summary, because of their presistence,

and their toxicity at high concentrations,

heavy metals are potentially dangerous pol-

lutants. Heavy metals are introduced into

the Bay, in solution and adsorbed on fine

particles, as a result of the natural processes

of weathering and erosion. They are also in-

troduced into the Bay as a direct and in-

direct result of man’s activities. Man’s use of

heavy metals in pesticides, biocides, and in-

dustrial applications have tended to increase

the inputs of heavy metals to the Bay, as

have mining and agriculture in the drainage

basin. Man’s dam building activities have

tended to decrease the inputs. Dams on the

lower Susquehanna trap large amounts of

sediment and heavy metals, thus preventing

them from reaching the Bay. The extent of

man’s impact on the spatial and temporal

distributions of heavy metals in the Chesa-

peake Bay estuarine system is obscure.

The spatial and temporal distributions of

heavy metals should be determined in the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

water, in the bottom sediments, and in se-

lected organisms. Filter-feeding and deposit-

feeding organisms which ingest fine sedimen-

tary particles may be exposed to diets with

relatively high concentrations of adsorbed

heavy metals. Like many other estuarine pol-

lution problems, the problem of heavy me-

tals is not amenable to facile solution. This is

an important area of research—one which

has received far too little attention. It will

require extensive sampling programs to es-

tablish the inputs of heavy metals to the Bay

and to delimit their routes, rates, and reser-

voirs within the estuary.

Summary

This paper describes the prevailing physi-

cal and chemical conditions of Chesapeake

Bay and attempts to assess man’s impact on

these conditions. The properties which are

considered are temperature, salinity, dis-

solved oxygen, nutrients, sediment, and

heavy metals. Other important items are

pesticides, herbicides, and oil.

There are marked natural spatial and tem-

poral variations of water temperature

throughout the Bay. Superimposed upon

these are the “excess” temperatures which

result from the discharge of condenser cool-

ing water from power plants. The inputs of

heated discharges from present power plants

and from those now under construction do

not appear to pose a threat to the Bay.

Man’s power “requirements,” however, are

increasing at an alarming rate, and the Bay

does have a limit on its capacity to receive

waste heat.

There are marked natural temporal and

spatial variations of salinity in the upper

reaches of the Bay and its tributaries. Man

has had little effect on the distribution of

salinity in the Chesapeake Bay system. Flow

regulation of the Susquehanna would de-

crease the fluctuations of salinity in the up-

per Bay and would have a serious effect on

the flushing of a number of small tributary

estuaries.

There are relatively large natural spatial

and temporal variations in dissolved oxygen.

Low levels of dissolved oxygen have always

occurred in the deeper waters of the main

body of the Bay during the summer months

as a result of natural processes. But man’s

activities have certainly increased the fre-

quency, extent, and duration of low oxygen

zones in the upper reaches of a number of

the tributaries.

Man has dramatically increased the inputs

of nutrients to the Chesapeake Bay estuarine

system. The effects of the increased nutn-

ents are concentrated in the upper reaches of

the tributaries and in the upper Chesapeake

Bay. In the Maryland Portion of the Bay,

nutrients are at undesirable levels in the up-

per Potomac, and in Back River, and are

near the upper limit in the upper Bay, the

Patuxent, and in many of the smaller tribu-

taries. The discharge of improperly treated

dewage and municipal wastes constitute the

most serious immediate threat to the Chesa-

peake Bay estuarine system.

Sediments are the estuary’s natural

archenemy and ultimate conqueror. Man’s

activities have, at times, tended to both in-

crease and decrease the natural sedimenta-

tion rates, but his net effect has been to in-

crease the overall sedimentation rate. The in-

direct effects of the fine-grained sediments

are of more immediate concern than the di-

rect effects of the infilling of the basin.

These are poorly understood.

There are marked variations of heavy me-

tals in the water, and in the sediments of

Chesapeake Bay. The sources of heavy me-

tals, the routes and rates of transport, and

the patterns and rates of accumulation in the

sediments are very poorly known. This is an

important area of research.

There is very little published data on the

occurrence of pesticides and herbicides in

the waters, sediments, or organisms of the

Chesapeake Bay estuarine system. It might

be predicted however, that the concentra-

tions would be relatively high in some of the

filter-feeding and deposit-feeding organisms.

There have been a number of oil spills in

Chesapeake Bay, but all have been relatively

minor. Oil from illegal pumping of bilges,

oils and greases in municipal wastes, and oil

from filling stations that are washed into

storm drains and eventually into the Bay

pose an increasing threat.

Most of the serious sources of pollution

that threaten the Bay can be reduced to ac-

ceptable levels by existing technology if suf-

ficient funding is provided, and if efforts are

directed to the “‘real’’ problems.

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to my colleagues, H.H. Car-

ter, D.W. Pritchard, and J.H. Carpenter of

the Chesapeake Bay Institute, for their ad-

vice in the preparation of this report, and for

their generosity in allowing me to use their

unpublished data. This does not imply that

these individuals necessarily agree with the

author’s interpretations. I also want to thank

my wife for editing the manuscript. The

figures were prepared by W.L. Wilson and D.

Pendleton, and the manuscript was typed by

A.W. Sullivan. The preparation of this review

was supported by the Fish and Wildlife Ad-

ministration of the State of Maryland and by

the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of

Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of

the Interior through Dingell-Johnson Funds,

Project F-21-1. Contribution 170 from the

Chesapeake Bay Institute of The Johns Hop-

kins University.

References Cited

Beaven, G.F., 1946. Effect of Susquehanna River

stream flow on Chesapeake Bay salinities and

history of past oyster mortalities on upper Bay

bars. Maryland Board Nat. Res. Ann. Rep.,

App. B., P. 4, p 123-133.

, 1960. Temperature and salin-

ity of surface waters at Solomons, Maryland.

Chesapeake Sci. 1: 2-11.

Biggs, R.B., 1967. The sediments of Chesapeake

Bay, p. 239-260, in Estuaries, G.H. Lauff (ed.),

Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci., Pub. 83, Washington,

D.C., 757 p.

, 1970. Sources and distribu-

tion of suspended sediment in northern Chesa-

peake Bay. Marine Geol. 9: 187-201.

Boicourt, W., 1969. A numerical model of the sa-

linity distribution in upper Chesapeake Bay.

Tech. Rep. 54, Chesapeake Bay Institute of The

Johns Hopkins University, 69 p.

Butler, P.A., 1966. Fixation of DDT in estuaries.

31st N. Amer. Wildlife and Nat. Res. Conf.

Carpenter, J.H., D.W. Pritchard, and R.C. Whaley,

1969. Observations of eutrophication and nutn-

ent cycles in some coastal plain estuaries, in

Eutrophication: causes, consequences, correc-

tives. National Academy of Sciences, Washing-

ton, D.C., 1969, p. 210-221.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Cumming, Hugh S., Purdy, W.C., and Homer P.

Ritter, 1916. Investigation of the Pollution and

Sanitary Conditions of the Potomac Watershed,

Hygienic Laboratory Bulletin 104. Treasury De-

partment, U.S. Pub. Health Serv.

Carter, H.H., 1968. The distribution of excess tem-

perature from a heated discharge in an estuary.

Tech. Rep. 44, Chesapeake Bay Institute of The

Johns Hopkins University, 39 p.

Flemmer, D.A., 1971. Effects of hot water dis-

charges studied in Patuxent River. Commercial

Fisheries News, V.4, N.4, p 1-2, July 1971, Fish

and Wildlife Administration of Maryland.

Gottschalk, L.D., 1945. Effects of soil erosion on

navigation in upper Chesapeake Bay. Geogr.

Rev. 35: 319-338.

Haven, D.S., and R. Morales-Alamo, 1966. Aspects

of biodeposition by oysters and other inverte-

brate filter feeders. Limnol. and Oceanogr. 11:

487-498.

Man’s Impact on the Global Environment; Assess-

ments and Recommendations for Action, 1970.

Mass. Inst. Tech. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 319

Mihursky, J.A., A.J. McErlean, W.R. Roosenburg,

V.S. Kennedy, and C.I. Gibson, 1967. Progress

Report Period 1 July 1966 - 31 December 1966

from Univ. of Maryland Natural Resources, en-

titled: Patuxent Thermal Studies, 26 p.

Pritchard, D.W., 1967. What is an estuary: physical

viewpoint, p. 3-5 in Estuaries, Lauff, G.H. (ed.),

Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci., Washington, D.C., 757

pp.

Pritchard, D.W., 1968. Modification and manage-

ment of water flow in estuaries. Paper pre-

sented at the National Research Council’s

Symposium on Beneficial Modifications of the

Marine Environment held at Washington, D.C.

on March 10-12, 1968.

, 1969. A report to the Gover-

nor’s task force on nuclear power plants. Ap-

pendix D in Nuclear Power Plants in Maryland,

W.W. Eaton, ed., pages not numbered consecu-

tively.

, 1971. Chesapeake and Dela-

ware Canal Affects environment. Amer. Soc.

Civil Eng. Nat. Water Res. Eng. Meeting, Phoe-

nix, Arizona, 1971, 26 p.

Ryan, J.D., 1953. The Sediments of Chesapeake

Bay. Maryland Dept. Geol., Mines and Water

Res. Bull. 12, 120 p.

Schubel, J.R., 1968a. Suspended sediment of the

northern Chesapeake Bay. Tech. Rep. 35, Ches-

apeake Bay Institute of The Johns Hopkins

Univeristy, 264 p.

_C,«1968b. Suspended sediment

discharge of the Susquehanna River at Havre de

Grace, Maryland, during the period 1 April

1966 through 31 March 1967. Chesapeake Sci.

9: 131-135.

, 1968c. Turbidity maximum

of northern Chesapeake Bay. Science 161:

1013-1015.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

, 1971a. Sources of Sediments

to Estuaries, p V-1 to V-19, in The Estuarine

Environment, estuaries and estuarine sedimen-

tation. Schubel, J.R., (ed.). Amer. Geol. Inst.,

Washington, D.C.

_______, 1971b. Sedimentation in the

upper reaches of the Chesapeake Bay, p VII-1

to VII-31, in The Estuarine Environment, estu-

aries and estuarine sedimentation, Schubel,

J.R., (ed.). Amer. Geol. Inst., Washington, D.C.

—_____, 1972. Suspended sediment

discharge of the Susquehanna River at Cono-

wingo, Maryland during 1969. Chesapeake Sci.

(in press).

and T.W. Kana, 1972. Agglom-

eration of fine-grained suspended sediment in

northern Chesapeake Bay. Powder Tedhn. (in

press).

Seitz, R.C., 1971. Temperature and salinity distri-

butions in vertical sections along the longi-

tudinal axis and across the entrance of the

Chesapeake Bay (April 1968 to March 1969).

Graphical Summary Rep. No. 5, Reference

71-7, Chesapeake Bay Institute of The Johns

Hopkins University, 99 p.

Singewald, J.T., and T.H. Slaughter, 1949. Shore

erosion in tidewater Maryland. Maryland Dept.

of Geol., Mines, and Water Res., Bull. 6, 140 p.

Stroup, E.D., and R.J. Lynn, 1963. Atlas of salin-

ity distributions in Chesapeake Bay 1952 -

1961, and temperature and seasonal averages

1949 - 1961. Graphical Summary Rep. No. 2,

Reference 63-1, Chesapeake Bay Institute of

The Johns Hopkins University, 410 p.

Tagatz, M.E., 1969. Some relations of temperature

acclimation and salinity to thermal tolerance of

the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. Trans. Amer.

Fisheries Soc. 98: 713-716.

Turekian, Karl K., and Martha R. Scott, 1967. Con-

centrations of Cr, Ag, Mo, Ni, Co, and Mn in

Suspended Material in Streams. Environ. Sci.

Techn. 1: 940-942.

Whaley, H.H., and T.C. Hopkins, 1952. Atlas of

the salinity and temperature distribution of

Chesapeake Bay 1949 - 1951. Graphical Sum-

mary Rep. 1, Reference 52-4, Chesapeake Bay

Institute of The Johns Hopkins University,

pages not numbered.

Wolman, M.G., 1967. A cycle of sedimentation and

erosion in urban river channels. Geograf. Ann.

49: 385-395, Ser. A.

, 1968. The Chesapeake Bay:

geology and geography, p. II-7 to II-48, in Pro-

ceedings of the Governor’s Conference on Ches-

apeake Bay, September 12-13, 1968.

, 1971. The Nation’s Rivers,

problems are encountered in appraising trends

in water and river quality. Science 174:

905-918.

Woodwell, G.M., 1967: Toxic substances and

ecological cycles. Sci. Amer. 216: 24-31.

Biology and the Chesapeake Bay

Francis S. L. Williamson!

Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental Studies, Smithsonian

Institution, Route 4, Box 622, Edgewater, Maryland 21037

ABSTRACT

Threats to the biological productivity of the Chesapeake Bay have grown in magni-

tude and complexity as correlates of diverse social, economic, and engineering

developments engendered by an ever increasing bayside human population. There is

growing agreement that the biological problems have evolved as a resuit of failure to (1)

recognize the Bay (and its watershed) as a large, complex system, and (2) to deal with its

problems as parts of an interrelated whole. Each sector of the public and private interest

has used and/or abused this common resource in a manner deficient in concern for the

resultant combined and cumulative effects of these uses on the physical, chemical, and

ultimately the biological, state of the system. Problem areas must be delineated and

research priorities established to provide the direction for federal, State, and university

laboratories that allows them to be more responsive to the needs of management and

regulatory agencies, and the society these agencies serve. The current modus operandi of

many laboratories is ineffective for ecological problem-solving, and can be corrected only

by the development of appropriate methodologies, by more rigid programming and

direction of research, and by improved liaison with managers and planners.

The title of this symposium, “The Fate of

the Chesapeake Bay’’, has a gloomy, almost

ominous ring that, unfortunately, may be al-

together appropriate. The use of the word

fate (from the Latin fatum = oracle, pro-

phetic declaration), and its definition as that

principle, or determining cause or will, by

which things in general are supposed to

come to be as they are, or events to happen

as they do, or foreordination by which

either the universe as a whole or particular

happenings are predetermined, implies to me

that we are little more than chroniclers of

events over which we exercise surprisingly

1Dr. Williamson received his B.S. degree

(Zoology) from San Diego State College, his M.A.

(Ecology) from The University of California, and

his Sc.D. (Ecology, Pathobiology) from The Johns

Hopkins University. He serves on the Steering and

Advisory Committees of the Chesapeake Bay

Study (Corps of Engineers), the Research Planning

Committee and Steering Committee of the Chesa-

peake Research Consortium, Inc., the Board of

Directors of the Chesapeake Environmental Protec-

tion Association, and the Power Plant Siting and

Human Health and Welfare Studies Group (Mary-

land Department of Natural Resources). He serves

as Director of the Chesapeake Bay Center.

meager control. This paper is an attempt to

examine the extent to which this is true, at

least with respect to our present and pro-

spective ability to deal with the biological

problems of the Chesapeake Bay in such a

way as to insure its continued functioning as

a productive biological system.

The present generation of symposia on

the Chesapeake Bay began a little over 3

years ago (Sept., 1968) with the Governor’s

Conference at Wye Institute. That meeting

was particularly well attended by a group

that included teachers, scientists, industrial

executives, businessmen, government offi-

cials from many local, State, and federal

organizations, and officers and representa-

tives from trade organizations, conservation

and voter groups. The conference was con-

ducted in what seemed to be an almost fes-

tive manner, perhaps stemming from a more

or less general, and a more or less subliminal,

belief that so many important people could

not possibly assemble to discuss so many

matters of concern about a major natural re-

source without the emergence of definitive

solutions to management problems. In fact,

virtually every speaker offered recommenda-

tions ranging from the need for more re-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

search of all kinds on just about everything

in, on, or around the Bay, to a review of

proposed and potential management

schemes by Federal agencies, 6 and 7 speci-

fic management goals for State and local

governments, respectively, and ending with a

grand plan for organizing a coordinated re-

sources management structure (The Chesa-

peake Bay Conservation Commission) for

the Bay (Proc. Gov. Conf. Chesapeake Bay,

1968). During the concluding discussions of

that first maulti-institutional, interdisci-

plinary conference, however, the question

was raised as to just what had been accom-

plished as a result of the lengthy delibera-

tions, and the remark was made that the

conference had supplied a very good plat-

form on which to base another conference.

Indeed, the Steering Committee recom-'

mended similar meetings, i.e., ones directed

toward the orderly development of Chesa-

peake Bay, at 2-year intervals.

Since that first of the super-conferences,

a host of somewhat less impressive symposia

and conferences have been sponsored by a

variety of agencies, and seemingly endless

thetoric has been dedicated to (1) revealing

the status of our knowledge of this vast es-

tuary; (2) delineating the problems that are

steadily, almost inexorably, reducing its

value for diverse and often conflicting uses;

and (3) issuing endless recommendations for

solutions of these problems. Perhaps this

kind of interplay is necessary for the de-

velopment of solutions to the many prob-

lems confronting the Bay, and we have not

substituted rhetoric and verbiage for more

substantive progress. We must all hope so be-

cause conferences, symposia, workshops and

SO On, are expensive and time-consuming en-

terprises, and we are in real need of time and

money for the solution of clearly identified

existing problems, as well as those we know

are surely to come.

The Chesapeake Bay, like so many other

large natural systems, has demonstrated a re-

markable degree of resiliency in its capacity

to withstand, and/or to recover from, literal-

ly hosts of deleterious, man-induced pertur-

bations. Not only is this capacity likely

enhanced as a result of a biota adapted to

the naturally unstable conditions that char-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

acterize any estuary (Caspers, 1967), but it

is made the more striking because of the

vastness of this particular system. The wide-

ly varying temperature, salinity, and tur-

bidity that are associated with tidal cycles

and the mixing of fresh and ocean waters in

the Bay tend to mask and to ameliorate

changes due to man’s activities, especially

those that are simply the acceleration of

otherwise natural processes. Unfortunately,

the exponential increase in such accelera-

tions, combined with a seemingly endless

variety of novel abuses, is now reflected by

adverse and grossly manifest changes in the

system. Seasonal fish kills are relatively com-

monplace, large algal blooms are phenomena

sO conspicuous as to be observed by laymen,

municipal beaches have been closed for

swimming, oil spills are not uncommon, ap-

proximately 70,000 acres of shellfish beds

are closed, and the annual harvest of oysters

has dropped from 8-10 million bushels to

2-3 million. There is general recognition,

even among observers of modest sophistica-

tion, that there exist serious threats to the

continued maintenance of a high level of

biological productivity of the Chesapeake

Bay, and that these problems are growing in

magnitude and complexity as correlates of

diverse social, economic, and engineering de-

velopments engendered and demanded by a

bayside human population that is increasing

at an annual rate of about 1.7%. The human

population within the drainage area of the

Chesapeake Bay, estimated to be 11 million

persons in 1960, is projected to increase to

30 million persons within the next 40-50

years. For this population the Chesapeake

Bay is a natural resource available for a mul-

tiplicity of uses, many of which conflict. It

is not realistic to expect, after a review of

the decisions that have been made, that are

currently being made, and the ones that will

need to be made in the immediate future,

that this estuary can possibly have other

than steadily increasing use as a channel for

commerce, and as a sink for disposal of in-

dustrial and domestic wastes. It is difficult,

if not impossible, to predict whether the Bay

can continue to be used for these purposes

to a greater extent each day, month, and

year and still function productively as a bio-

logical system. If not, it will almost certainly

cease to function as a recreational and esthe-

tic resource. Already, several of the major

tributaries have ceased to have biological,

and thus recreational and esthetic, value,

signs of similar changes are apparent in

others, and disturbing changes are seen in

the main stem of the Bay.

I believe that this introduction serves to

outline a disturbing trend, i.e., the inability

of our scientific and political systems to

cope with the problems evolving from the

staggering multiplicity of conflicting uses of

a large, complex natural system.

The Biological Significance of the Chesapeake Bay

Like other estuaries, the Chesapeake Bay

is a remarkably productive biological system.

An excellent recent review of the role of the

Bay has been provided by Masmann (1971).

The shallow, warm waters of the myriad sub-

estuarial systems, such as the lower reaches

of the Patuxent River, possess phytoplank-

ton communities that fix 1-3 g carbon/

cm2/day, or the equivalent of 2-3 tons of

plant production/acre annually (Stross and

Strottlemeyer, 1965). Even more important

as units for primary production are the

400,000 acres of wetlands that border much

of the Bay; an area equivalent in size to 28%

of the surface area of the Bay’s tributary

system (main stem to head of tide). Produc-

tion of vegetation on marshes in Virginia,

principally grasses in the genus Spartina, has

been shown to average 5.1 tons/acre annual-

ly, and to be as great as 10 tons (Wass and

Wright, 1969). The diverse functions of wet-

lands, and their major role in the functioning

of the estuarine ecosystem, has been charac-

terized by Cronin and Mansueti (1971) as

follows: “...they are organic factories,

traps for sediments, reservoirs for nutrients

and other chemicals, and the productive and

essential habitat for a large number of in-

vertebrates, fish, reptiles, birds and mam-

mals. Annual plant growth and decay, pro-

viding continuing large quantities of or-

ganic detritus, is one of the major compo-

nents of the cycling of nutrients in es-

tuaries.” Secondary productivity is equally

impressive. The annual harvest of fish, in-

cluding both sport and commercial catches,

is about 125 lb/acre, with a potential for

harvesting 600 lb./acre (McHugh, 1967). In

1966, the commercial harvest of finfish

(303.6 million lb.), oysters and clams (27.8

million lb.), and blue crabs (95.1 million lb.)

totalled 426.5 million lb. Adding the annual —

sport catch of 22 million Ib. (Stroud, 1965) —

brings the total harvest of recent years to |

nearly one-half billion pounds. Nearly two-

thirds (63%) of the commercial catch of fish

on the Atlantic coast are species believed to

be estuarine-dependent (McHugh, 1966). At.

present levels of development of the fisher-

ies, this is equivalent to about 535 lb./acre

of estuaries; i.e., for each acre of estuary

destroyed there could be a loss in yield of

535 lb. of fisheries products on the continental

shelf (Stroud, 1971). Many birds, including

approximately 350,000 Canada geese,

550,000 ducks, 50,000 whistling swans, and

hosts of shorebirds are dependent on the

Chesapeake Bay as a wintering area (Mas-

mann, 1971). Eagles, ospreys, herons, gulls,

and terns are important nesting species. Im-

portant mammals associated with the Bay in-

clude the muskrat, raccoon, land otter, and

mink.

The biological significance of the Bay is

manifest in another extremely important

way; its use as a recreational resource. Swim-

ming, boating, fishing, hunting, and other

recreational activities have become increas-

ingly important as the human population has

grown. As pointed out in The Chesapeake

Bay Plan of Study (1970), accelerating ur-

ban development, an abundance of leisure

time, and a generally expanding level of per-

sonal income have created in the Bay area a

great demand for water-based recreation.

The industrial and economic base of the

prosperity that generated the demand also

threatens to destroy the existing recreation

potential by its deleterious effect on the

water quality that maintains the integrity of

the aquatic environment upon which water-

based recreation depends. As demands in-

tensify in the future, recreational activities

may conflict not only with other beneficial

water uses, but among themselves.

Lastly, the Bay is a truly unique esthetic

resource that will lose all value and impor-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

tance without the continued maintenance of

the system as a biologically productive one.

In a decision-making process, economic

values such as labor, capital, energy, ma-

terial, products, and consumers are com-

modities and easily quantifiable values. Be-

cause we are not yet confident of our hu-

man judgment we tend to ignore those

values which are not so readily quantifiable.

The real result has often been that the

quantitative factors are evaluated against

nonquantitative factors on a quantified

scale. Since nonquantifiable factors such as

the future quality of life, natural and cul-

tural diversity, and esthetics cannot be

plugged into this system, the quantifiable

factors become, in fact, the end or the goal

of the decision-making process.

Biological Problems of the Chesapeake Bay

The biological problems of estuaries

generally, and the Chesapeake Bay

specifically, have been very well outlined in

a host of publications including: The Chesa-

peake Bay Plan of Study (1970); Lauff

(1967) (Estuaries); A Symposium on the

Biological Significance of Estuaries, 1971;

Proceedings of the Governor’s Conference

on Chesapeake Bay, 1968; Eutrophication:

Causes, Consequences, Correctives, 1969; A

Research Program for Protection and En-

hancement of the Biological Resources of

the Chesapeake Bay, 1971; A Report of the

Review Panel of the Smithsonian Institution,

1971; The Chesapeake Bay, Report of a Re-

search Planning Study, 1971; Schubel,

(1972) (The Physical and Chemical Condi-

tions of the Chesapeake Bay: An Evalua-

tion); and Cronin, (1967) (The Condition of

the Chesapeake Bay). Consideration of the

data in these and hosts of other technical

publications, combined with the knowledge

of many of those persons who have had the

greatest first-hand experience in dealing with

the physical, chemical, and biological sys-

tems of the Chesapeake Bay, resulted in the

rostering of causes of biological problems

shown in Table 1. This listing, together with

that of the geographical areas of greatest

concern (Table 2), was prepared by The Re-

search Planning Committee of the newly-

formed Chesapeake Research Consortium,

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Inc. and resulted in the establishment of

priorities for those critical problems of the

Bay most in need of research emphasis.

Table 1.—Causes of biological problems in the

Chesapeake Bay.

Material Primary Sources/Causes

Emissions and Additions to the Bay

Nutrients Municipal and domestic wastes,

agriculture

Sediments Agriculture, urbanization,

road building

Biocides Agriculture, pest control

Metals Industry, biocides, mining

Petroleum Boats, municipal and

suburban runoff

Radionuclides Nuclear power plants

Leachates Land fills

Other Chemicals Industry, power plants

Heat Thermal discharges

Introductions, deliberate

or accidental

Exotic species

Deletions from the Bay

Process or product

Fresh water Dams, consumptive use,

diversion Chesapeake &

Delaware Canal

Fishery Exploitation, poor

products fishing techniques

Alterations of Wetlands, Shorelines and Shallows

Process

Shoreline Natural processes,

erosion wetlands destruction

Habitat Dredging, dumping,

destruction filling

Loss of Dredging, dumping,

productivity filling

Flooding, Dredging, dumping,

sedimentation filling

Cumulative Effects of Multiple Engineering Changes

Process

Erosion Filling Bulkheading

Sedimentation Dredging Piling placement

Habitat Groin Construction

destruction construction

Loss of Spoil

productivity deposition

These are (1) nutrient loading, (2) addition

of hazardous substances, (3) sedimentation,

(4) effects of engineering activities, (5) ex-

traction of living resources, (6) problems re-

sulting from alterations and destruction of

wetlands, and (7) the impact of regional

population growth and distribution. The

following remarks relating to these priorities

arose from the deliberations of the Chesa-

peake Research Consortium.

Dissolved nutrients play a fundamental

role in the general food chain in large es-

tuaries such as Chesapeake Bay. However, an

excessive nutrient supply can, and often

does, create undesirable effects by causing

certain species to flourish at the expense of

others. These perturbations, resulting in

blooms and their associated by-products, are

responsible for water-quality deterioration in

many regions of the world. The best known

and documented cases of the effects of ex-

cessive nutrient loading are found in fresh

water streams and lakes and in low salinity

parts of estuaries. Saline waters, however,

are not exempt from blooms, though the

biological participants are often quite differ-

ent from the typical blue-green algae which

causes problems in fresh water.

In Chesapeake Bay, the effects of nu-

trient loading from municipal and industrial

wastes are most apparent in the upper Poto-

mac and in Back River, the receiving waters

for the wastes from the metropolitan Wash-

ington and Baltimore areas, and in the upper

and lower James River, from the Richmond

and Hampton Roads-Newport News regions.

In the upper Potomac, levels of phosphorous

are at disruptive levels even before the river

reaches Washington, D.C., while in the tidal

reaches the concentrations of total phos-

phorous and the ratio of nitrogen to phos-

phorous are considered to be characteristic

of less productive, “unhealthy” waters.

These high nutrient levels result intermit-

tently in low concentrations of dissolved

oxygen, and it has been estimated that in

recent years dissolved oxygen levels during

the summer months have retreated to the

levels occurring in the early 1930’s, prior to

the installation of major treatment works for

the Washington area (Wolman, 1971). Nu-

trient levels in Back River are very high, and

the results of over-enrichment are intense.

This estuary acts as a type of tertiary treat-

ment pond and in this sense protects the

main body of the Bay from the nutrient

loading associated with municipal wastes

from Baltimore (Schubel, 1972).

Dramatic rises in nutrient levels have re-

cently been reported in the upper Patuxent

(Flemer et al., 1970) where concentrations

of nutrients now frequently reach levels

comparable to those in the upper Potomac.

This is mainly the result of a rapidly increas-

ing population in the small drainage basin of

the river. Local inputs from septic field

drainage of largely unsewered land areas are

observable in the smaller tributaries of the

western shore. Nutrient inputs from agricul-

tural areas are most noticeable from the Sus-

quehanna, Northeast, and Bohemia Rivers.

In summary, the effects of the increased

nutrients are concentrated in the upper

reaches of the tributaries, and in the upper

portions of the Bay. Nutrients are at un-

desirable levels in the upper Potomac and in

Back River, and are near undesirable levels in

the upper Bay, the Patuxent, the James, and

in many smaller tributaries. Although most

of the open Bay is currently in good condi-

tion, it is generally believed that the dis-

charge of improperly treated sewage and

municipal wastes constitute the most serious

immediate threat to the Chesapeake Bay es-

tuarine system (Cronin, 1967).

The problem of nutrient loading in Chesa-

peake Bay, particularly its tributary es-

tuaries, is not new and is not likely to de-

cline in the near future for several reasons.

The population in the Bay region is growing

and is predicted to continue to increase in

the foreseeable future. Hence, additional

waste loading from domestic and municipal

treatment plants is a certainty. The nutrients

provided from these sources, particularly

phosphorus and nitrogen,-not to mention a

host of lesser items, will most likely increase

faster than new, expanded, or upgraded

treatment plants can be provided for remov-

ing them. Actually, significant removal of

phosphorus and nitrogen from effluent re-

quires tertiary treatment which is expensive

and certainly not commonplace in future

planning for the area—the Blue Plains Plant

in Washington representing the exception.

Simultaneously, increased attention is being

given to the Bay and its tributaries for

recreation, housing, and industrial activities

by the nearby populace. This redistribution

or crowding by the presently growing popu-

lation will cause, and is causing, an intensifi-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

cation of the loading in close proximity to

the Bay. In one form or another, population

pressure is the major causal factor in the nu-

trient loading problem.

Concern about hazardous Aduitions that

are wasted to the Bay, and which might have

lethal effects on the biota, has developed as

the result of such observations as fish kills

near Sparrows Point and other areas, oil

spills at a number of locations around the

Bay, and heavy metals found in shellfish.

However, considerable uncertainty exists

about the magnitude and effects of certain

additions, since measurements of many of

these materials have not been made until re-

cently, and then only at a few locations. For

example, the sources of heavy metals, the

routes and rates of transport, the patterns

and rates of accumulation in the sediments

and the biota, and the biological effects are

poorly known. There is very little published

data on the occurrence of pesticides in the

waters, sediments, or organisms of the

Chesapeake Bay estuarine system, despite

their wide-spread use and the tendency of

some of the filter-feeding and deposit-

feeding organisms to concentrate such

materials. A number of oil spills have oc-

curred in Chesapeake Bay but all have been

minor. Oil from illegal pumping of bilges,

oils, and greases in municipal wastes, and oil

from filling stations that is washed into

storm drains and eventually into the Bay,

pose an increasing threat (Schubel, 1972).

Evidence available from other areas suggests

that significant effects on the exceptionally

important biota of the Chesapeake Bay, and

possible hazards to man, can be expected

from the above materials under appropriate

conditions, and that intensive evaluation of

these inputs should be undertaken. In addi-

tion, preparations should be made to deal

with new exotic additions as the need arises.

Pesticides have caused local mortalities of

crabs in Virginia, and the capacity of oysters,

clams, and other molluscs to extract some

pesticides and concentrate them to

50-70,000 times above ambient concentra-

tion has caused continuing concern. A recent

preliminary report from the Department of

Natural Resources suggests that pesticides,

especially chlordane, may be present in

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

softshell clams at levels sufficient to injure

the organisms and also make them totally

unacceptable in interstate commerce as

food. Longer-term observations on fish in

the Potomac and Susquehanna Rivers do not

disclose any dangerous pesticides at levels

which threaten either the fish or human con-

sumers. Pesticides do not now present a ma-

jor problem in the Bay, but they merit

thorough understanding because of the ex-

ceptional value and pesticide vulnerability of

shellfish.

As indicated above, there is relatively lit-

tle quantitative information available on the

extent or effects of the addition of hazard-

ous materials into Chesapeake Bay. The sta-

tus of heavy metals is of particular concern

because certain of these metals are highly

toxic to plants and animals, including man,

and they are highly persistent, retain their

toxicities for prolonged periods of time, and

generally function as cumulative poisons.

The most toxic, persistent, and abundant

heavy metals in the marine environment in-

clude mercury, arsenic, cadmium, lead,

chromium, and nickel (Schubel, 1972).

There are very few data on the temporal

and spatial distributions of any of the heavy

metals in the Chesapeake Bay estuarine

system or its tributary rivers. The unpub-

lished work of Carpenter at the Chesapeake

Bay Institute (discussed in Schubel, 1972)

indicates that concentrations of heavy

metals in the Susquehanna River are

generally associated with concentrations of

suspended sediments. The seasonality of

both the total concentration and the solu-

bilization of many metals suggests the signi-

ficance of organic matter and metals derived

from decaying vegetation. Vegetation in the

drainage basin, then, may be a major source

of heavy metal pollution to the Susquehanna

and the upper Bay.

Relatively few measurements have been

made of heavy metal discharges and of his-

torical and geographical deposition in sedi-

ments. In the matter of discharges it is

known that input estimates must take into

account the variability of the source, and

that small samples may be extremely mis-

leading. In 2 studies of heavy metals in the

Susquehanna, the estimated annual dis-

charges of 3 common metals differed by

more than an order of magnitude. Regarding

spatial distribution, there are a few data that

suggest there is a longitudinal gradient of

heavy metals in the fine sediments of the

Bay. Concentrations of heavy metals tend to

be higher near the head of the Bay than fur-

ther seaward in the estuary, apparently re-

flecting the different source materials from

the Piedmont and Coastal Plain sediments

and the removal of metals into sinks. The

differences in the sources of organic matter

may also be important in producing this

gradient.

Temporal sedimentary records of heavy

metal deposition are also scarce, but analyses

to date do not demonstrate that man’s acti-

vities have increased the levels of at least

iron and zinc in portions of the upper Bay.

Even the magnitude of man’s activities rela-

tive to heavy metals in Baltimore Harbor is

not clear in view of the wide variation (an

order of magnitude in certain cases) in con-

centrations in contiguous areas.

In summary, because of their persistence

and their toxicity at high concentrations,

heavy metals are potentially dangerous pol-

lutants. Heavy metals are introduced into

the Bay in solution and adsorbed on fine

particles, as a result of the natural processes

of weathering and erosion. They are also in-

troduced into the Bay as a direct and in-

direct result of man’s activities. Man’s use of

heavy metals in pesticides, biocides, and in-

dustrial applications have tended to increase

the inputs of heavy metals to the Bay, as

have mining and agriculture in the drainage

basin. Man’s dam-building activities have

tended to decrease the inputs. Dams on the

lower Susquehanna trap large amounts of

sediment and heavy metals, thus preventing

them from reaching the Bay. The extent of

man’s impact on the spatial and temporal

distributions of heavy metals in the Chesa-

peake Bay estuarine system is obscure.

Natural processes deliver millions of tons

of sediment to Chesapeake Bay every year

with water runoff from the entire watershed.

These processes are being accelerated by

earth-moving and construction, so that an

estimated 8,000,000 tons/year enters the tri-

butaries (Wolman, 1968). Dredging and spoil

disposal practices contribute additional mil-

lions of tons to the problem, with further

contributions coming from shore erosion

from natural action and engineering activity.

Such sediments can have devastating ef-

fects on the uses of the Bay. Navigational

channels are so filled as to require expensive

dredging, recreational waters are made too

shoal for use, and biological populations can

be smothered or impaired.

Therefore, reasonable decisions must be

made by management agencies about regula-

tions on land use, on construction practices,

on shore erosion control, and on the spoil

disposal which is to be permitted. Each of

these may involve large costs for landowners,

construction firms, municipal, State and

federal governments; and for many of those

who use the Bay for related purposes. Man-

agement decisions must, therefore, be based

on realistic understanding of the estuarine

effects involved.

Very gross estimates have been made of

the total input of sediment to the Bay from

upland runoff and from marginal erosion.

Schubel and Biggs (1969) estimated for the

upper Bay that river-sourced sediment input

is 0.6-1.0 X 109 kg/year, and Singewald

and Slaughter (1949) showed that shore ero-

sion contributes about 0.3 X 10? kg/year in

the same area. Gaging stations and other lo-

cal observations provide additional data, but

the full annual budget for input distribution,

deposition, resuspension in part, and other

sedimentary patterns has not been deter-

mined.

Sherk and Cronin (1970) and Sherk

(1971a, 1971b) have summarized available

data on the effects of suspended and de-

posited sediments on estuarine organisms.

Both field observations and laboratory ex-

periments have been conducted on these ef-

fects, and there is strong evidence that sedi-

ments can reduce photosynthetic activity,

kill benthic organisms, and seriously impair

the welfare of eggs, larvae, and adults by sub-

lethal damage. The review also demon-

strated, however, that adequate prediction

of sediment effects is rarely possible and

that properly designed research is of excep-

tional urgency.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

The fine sediments which are abundant in

the Bay present enormous total surface area

for sorption, and they have important roles

in the removal and storage or later release of

nutrients, toxic chemicals, and other ma-

terials.

Important engineering changes that have

cumulative effects include filling principally

around major cities, for parks, industry,

housing, and airports; and the dredging that

is associated with filling because of the

necessity for deposition of spoil. These acti-

vities contribute to the problems of sedimen-

tation and to the losses of productive wet-

lands and shallows.

The linkage of all of these problems to

human population growth is obvious. It is

also obvious, from perusal of Table II, that

we have made the decision to eliminate sev-

eral sub-estuaries as productive and estheti-

cally pleasing parts of the Chesapeake Bay

system. How many more we are prepared to

sacrifice is an important and unanswered

question.

As discussed above, there is a general un-

derstanding of the biological value of wet-

lands and their role as one of the 3 distinct

production units involved in primary fixa-

tion of energy in estuaries (Odum and Smal-

ley, 1957). An up-to-date, comprehensive re-

view of marsh production, including a litera-

ture summary, has been presented by Keefe

(in Flemer et al., 1970). It is apparent from

this review that little work has been done on

the biology of wetlands bordering the Chesa-

peake Bay, where situations vary widely in

salinity regimes.

Tuming to the significance of wetland

sediment interactions, we know that marshes

act as sources and sinks for sediments. The

marsh surface itself is built by deposition of

organic and inorganic sediments. Much of

the inorganic sediment trapped in the marsh

has its origin from the rivers tributary to the

Bay. The marsh-derived organic sediment is

largely the detrital vegetation which is trans-

ported via the marsh drainage system to the

estuary (Odum and de la Cruz, 1967). The

channels flooding and draining the marsh are

thus the critical transport link in delivering

detritus to the estuarine food chain. It may

be anticipated that the drainage desnity

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

(area/enclosed stream length) of a marsh de-

termines, to some extent, the level of de-

composition of detritus prior to its introduc-

tion to the system. At present we have a

relatively poor understanding of the sedi-

ment transport processes within marsh chan-

nels and of the deposition or erosional char-

acteristics of marsh surfaces. It is imperative

that we understand more of the details of

these transport processes if we are to specify

the transport rates of detritus and nutrients.

Another major consideration is that of

Shoreline utilization. Although the possible

management of marshes has received special

attention, it is important to keep in mind

that the marshlands are but one component

of the broader question of shore line utiliza-

tion and management. Since management

agencies have (perhaps only temporarily)

adopted a more conservative posture regard-

ing alternate usage of marshes, the less bio-

logically productive shoreline reaches are,

and will continue to be, subject to additional

stresses for development. The increasing con-

centration of the population near shorelines

which generally have a high recreational ap-

peal has made shorelines the most expensive

property in the Bay region. This enhanced

value has lead to a deeper awareness of the

significance of shoreline erosion.

As in any resource problem, that of

shoreline use is dynamic, since it is the result

of many interacting factors that vary

through time. However, a rather detailed un-

derstanding of the physical and biological

processes and current land use is a prerequi-

site to the formulation of a shore utilization

policy which will accomplish the desired ob-

jective. Specific actions are needed in the ac-

quisition of baseline erosion data leading to

recommendations for correction. Further-

more the research activities focused on un-

derstanding tidal river-bank erosion pro-

cesses is needed for the improved design of

river bank erosion control structures (Com-

monwealth of Virginia, 1971). Finally, it is

very important to assemble for the land

planners and managers the relevant data

needed in shoreline planning. These data

should include physical characteristics of the

shoreline, the erosion rates, the key biologi-

cal characteristics, current land use, and

Table 2.—Geographical areas of the Chesapeake Bay of particular concern for solution of biological problems

Area

Reason for concern

Immediacy of problems

(if this is reason for concern)

Susquehanna River

Bush River

Back River

Patapsco River

Magothy, Severn and

South Rivers

West and Rhode Rivers

Calvert Cliffs

Cove Point

Patuxent River

Chesapeake &

Delaware Canal

Chester River

Choptank River

Dorchester County

Maryland & Virginia

Upper Tidal

Potomac River

Lower Tidal

Potomac River

Lower eastern

shore

Rappahannock

River

Upper York

River

Lower York

River

Upper Tidal James River

(above Jamestown)

Lower Tidal James River

(below Jamestown)

Hampton Roads

Nansemond, Elizabeth and

LaFayette Rivers

Lynhaven system

Bay-mouth area

Maryland— Western Shore

Nutrients, modification of fresh water flow,

sediments, energy, fisheries

Proposed thermal addition

Municipal waste, nutrients

Municipal and industrial wastes, dredging,

spoil disposal, all hazardous materials

Residential wastes, agricultural runoff

(nutrients), recreation

Protected area of low stress for baseline

data and experimental study

Thermal addition, radionuclides, political

problems

Proposed liquid natural gas terminal, dredging,

spoil disposal

Thermal addition, nutrients, area of immediate

stress

Maryland—Eastern Shore

Modification of freshwater flow, dredging

and spoil disposal, shipping, oil spills

Heavy metals, biocides

Nutrients, sedimentation

Shoreline erosion

Urbanization, municipal wastes (nutrients),

sediments, legal and institutional problems

Oil spills, dredging, fisheries

Economy, agricultural wastes, wetlands,

fisheries, erosion, access to water, industrial

development

Virginia

l'reshwater flow modification, industrial

wastes, area of relatively low stress, nutrients

Industrial wastes, freshwater flow modification

wetlands, fisheries

Thermal addition, oil transport, dredging, spoil

disposal, wetland alteration, fisheries,

residential wastes, VIMS

Industrial and municipal wastes, dredging,

heavy metals, human health (bacterial counts)

Industrial and municipal wastes, transportation

(water & vehicular), spoil disposal, dredging,

thermal addition, fisheries, heavy metals

Transportation (water & vehicular), ship waste,

spoil disposal, recreation

Heavy metals, municipal wastes, fisheries,

urbanization, oil handling and transport,

shipping, shoreline modifications

Residential development, nutrients, shoreline

modifications

Only exit from system to sea, sedimentation,

fisheries (crab spawning area)

Freshwater flow—immediate:

others—chronic

Near term

Immediate

Chronic

Immediate

Long range

Near term

Chronic

Near term

Immediate

Freshwater flow—immediate:

others—chronic

Freshwater flow—immediate:

others—chronic

Immediate

Immediate and chronic

Immediate

Chronic

Near term

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

recommendations for siting specific activities

which are based on the physical and biologi-

cal characteristics.

The preceding comments on the biologi-

cal problems of the Chesapeake Bay em-

phasize, I believe, that nutrient loading is the

matter of primary concern and that this

problem, like so many others, has resulted

from a series of more or less unconscious

decisions that continue to the present day.

There are about 25 major subestuaries ring-

ing the Bay. To reach this high count, I have

included areas as small as the Middle River,

north of Baltimore, with ones as large as the

Potomac. Ten of these are presently affected

by overenrichment to one degree or another.

Four of them, the (upper) Potomac, the (up-

per) Patuxent, the Back, and the Patapsco

Rivers, as well as the “Upper Bay”, are so

severely affected by nutrient loading that

their productivity and esthetic qualities are

impaired. Nonetheless, there has been no

public outcry, and no formation of state-

supported advisory committees like those re-

lating to the siting of power plants in Mary-

land. This is of special interest in light of

the concensus opinion that nutrient loading

is the major problem affecting the Bay, and

that sewage treatment plants are proliferat-

ing at a rapid rate. I have even heard com-

plaints from a county official that a particu-

lar sewer main was carrying well below capa-

city volume; a matter that should be cor-

rected forthwith by the adjustment in zon-

ing that would permit new home construc-

tion.

Who is going to make the decision(s) con-

cerning the number of subestuaries we

should preserve? These are vital parts of the

Bay, remarks concerning the usefulness of

the Back River as a nutrient trap that pro-

tects “the Bay” notwithstanding. Who is go-

ing to make the decision about the upper

level of nutrients that the entire system can

tolerate? Perhaps we can only wait and see;

it should not take very long.

Biological Research on the Chesapeake Bay

As a result of extensive research on this

estuary, there has been accumulated a great

deal of knowledge concerning the more than

2,000 species of plants and animals that we

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

know to be important members of the

Chesapeake Bay biological community and,

concerning these, there has been developed

in excess of 1,000 publications. Thus, we do

know a great deal at the present time about

the biology of the Chesapeake Bay. This

knowledge has been obtained by investiga-

tors in a host of State and federal labora-

tories as well as those of a number of uni-

versities. In many instances, it has been re-

search of an opportunistic nature evolving

from the curiosity and interests of particular

investigators concerning particular species or

problems of biological interest. Much of it

has also necessarily been research on eco-

nomically important species. In regard to the

latter, there have been certain constraints on

the scope of the work in that it evolved

around existing economic values; that is,

economically important species concerned

with the fishery resource. Thus, to a large

extent, this research can be defined as

autecology concerned with single taxa or

groups of taxa. However, much of it has in-

volved research more germane to an under-

standing of the Bay as a biological system

and has resulted in some understanding of

the interrelationships between many of the

important biological species and the physical

and chemical parameters that control their

distribution and abundance. Consequently,

enough has been learned about some natural

and social systems for realistic selection and

assignment of priorities. And, we have been

able to supply to management and regula-

tory agencies much of the information they

need regarding the sustained harvesting of

economically important species, or the use

of these in other ways. However, there has

emerged from this background the unfortu-

nate recognition that most of these studies

have not been of the in-depth character

needed for the solution of major environ-

mental problems. This is not a phenomenon

peculiar to the Bay; it is one that relates

equally to other large scale biological-

physical systems. Even if we had long ago

comprehended the Bay as a large, intricately

interrelated system of physical, chemical,

and biological units, we would not have

studied it as such because the demand for

such elaborate consideration was not neces-

sary, and the funds, personnel and expertise

were not available. The Bay, like other large

systems, had in the past the resiliency to

withstand the environmental insults to

which it was being subjected without a signi-

ficant or appreciable loss in (1) its biological

productivity, (2) its use as a recreational re-

source, or (3) in loss of its esthetic value.

Now, however, in many of the subestuarial

systems which form the bulk of the bio-

logically productive parts of the Bay, we are

alarmed by gradual changes related to social

development and economic growth which

may or may not be irreversible, which have

reduced biological productivity, and which

have reduced the use of these systems for

recreational purposes, and have made them

esthetically displeasing. We are alarmed be-

cause we know that we do not have the data

necessary for the solution of large scale en-

vironmental problems. We recognize that

there are a very large number of known and

unknown independent variables which must

be uncovered and, although we already pos-

sess some of the legal machinery necessary

to regulate the quantities of nutrients, indus-

trial wastes, sediments, toxic chemicals,

heat, and so on that may be delivered to the

Bay, we do not know all the organisms in-

volved in the food webs, their responses to

natural and man-induced pertubations and

their short and long term interactions. Fur-

ther, we know very little about the cumula-

tive and synergistic effects of diverse uses.

Unless we decide what changes may be ac-

ceptable, it will be impossible to say “how

much” or “how long’. In such an atmos-

phere of ignorance of quantitative limits

public support can be dissipated into

rather non-essential, but highly visible direc-

tions while basic but more complex prob-

lems progress unchecked to crisis propor-

tions. We recognize that the Chesapeake Bay

is a vastly complex system and that its tribu-

taries and watersheds, its terrestrial and

aquatic populations, including human popu-

lations, collectively present a formidable

open-ended study that could quite literally

involve thousands of investigators and tens

of millions of dollars for an indefinite time.

Unless some priorities are established in the

direction of our research efforts, it is quite

conceivable that many of the irreversible and

sometimes catastrophic consequences of

man’s intrusion on the ecosystem will come

about long before the system can be

described, much less understood.

An Approach to the Solutions of

Biological Problems in the Chesapeake Bay A |

The States of Maryland (Department of |

Natural Resources, Department of Planning) |

and Virginia (Marine Resources Commission, |

Virginia Institute of Marine Science) have

the major management responsibilities for

the Chesapeake Bay. The basic objectives of

State management of the Bay are difficult to

make explicit, but they can be expressed in

the most general terms as the maintenance

or increase of the following overlapping Bay

attributes: health, productivity, safety,

cleanliness, and esthetic quality. The transla-

tion of these generalities into operationally

useful objectives moves on to categories such

as: maintenance of biological stability and

protection of the capacity of the system to

recover from perturbations (health), mainte-

nance or increase in the yields of desired

species (productivity), removal of hazards to

human health and well being (safety),

achievement and maintenance of politically

determined water quality standards (cleanli-

ness), and maintenance of indirectly ex-

pressed standards of sensible parameters

(esthetic qualities). All of these categories

admit to measurement, and become opera-

tionally useful to the extent that they are

measured and measurable. The question be-

comes one of how do we make the critical

measurements, and how do we make them

operationally useful?

Estuarial managers frequently lament that

they lack sufficient biological information

for solving key resource management prob-

lems. The obvious solution to this deficiency

is to identify problems in advance, deter-

mine the kinds of information necessary to

solve those problems, and launch data collec-

tion and research necessary to produce this

information, to be available when needed

(Jenkins, D.W., personal communication).

This exercise is as difficult as it is ob-

vious. Problem identification involves mak-

ing predictions about the future that are

necessarily tenuous, considering the pace of

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

technological change. Once problems are

identified, the kinds of information neces-

sary for their solution are by no means self-

evident. Identification of information useful

to making a decision implies the existence of

an explicit decision-making process which

can seldom be found, let alone described,

outside a resource allocation textbook.

Finally, there is the difficulty of linking

specific research to specific management-

information needs. The complexity and in-

terrelatedness of the biological system sug-

gests the necessity of having a total systems

predictive capability before important deci-

sions can be based on firm biological evi-

dence.

Notwithstanding these difficulties, the ex-

ercise is presumed to be a useful one. It

would require management to state as ex-

plicitly as possible its anticipated informa-

tion needs, with the scientific community

responding as to how this information could

be produced. The cycle would be completed

if management then solicited and received

public funds for the generation of this infor-

mation, and called upon scientists for the

conduct of the necessary research.

How has this approach actually worked in

practice? There is presently minimal coordi-

nation between the hosts of federal, State,

university, and private laboratories conduct-

ing research on the Chesapeake Bay, and the

bulk of these are not responsive to the ur-

gent needs of the regulatory and manage-

ment agencies of Maryland and Virginia.

Further, it is not always clear just which

federal or State management agency has pri-

mary responsibility or authority for a parti-

cular area of concern. Thus, it becomes ap-

parent that a central research organization,

with a program designed to meet the needs

of management, be clearly identified, and

that this research group be responsive to at

least the State agencies with primary man-

agement and regulatory responsibility. Such

a step has been taken in the formation of the

Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., with

support from the National Science Founda-

tion. The member institutions of this con-

sortium include The Johns Hopkins Uni-

versity, The University of Maryland, The

Virginia Institute of Marine Science, and the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Smithsonian Institution. Thus, not only is

the bulk of Chesapeake Bay expertise made

available from a host of institutional depart-

ments, but the central bayside laboratories

are also included. This consortium is open-

ended, it will enlarge, and it has the promise

of providing the properly coordinated scien-

tific program so vital to the future of the

Bay.

Solution of the complex problems of the

Bay requires an approach that is novel to

most investigators. Interdisciplinary teams,

including economists, sociologists, attorneys,

land-planners, representatives of industry,

and biological and physical scientists, must

be assembled for work on well-defined prob-

lem areas. The planning of the program must

include representatives of regulatory and

management agencies, and their participa-

tion should result in the collection and avail-

ability of that data most needed for imme-

diate decisions concerning immediate prob-

lems. The highest priority must be for

directed research designed specifically for

problem solving, and this research must be

rigidly programmed and directed. Basic re-

search is needed for the identification of

problems not yet identified, but limitations

of personnel, time, facilities, and money de-

mand that priority be given to directed re-

search on already well-identified or antici-

pated problems whose solution is manda-

tory. Only in this way will we ever achieve

any success in the balancing of the conflict-

ing uses of the Bay, and the establishment of

those policies that will protect the Bay asa

multiple use resource. Information presented

earlier clearly indicates that present legal

authority, e.g., the Wetlands Acts of Mary-

land and Virginia, the Power Plant Siting Act

of Maryland, the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act, the proposed Federal Toxic

Substances Control Act, and many others, is

insufficient to cope with management

problems, particularly at the local level.

Finally, there is a distinct need for the

development of a methodology that pro-

duces data sufficiently adequate to cope

realistically with the problems of such a vast

natural system. Since we obviously cannot

study all areas and all problems with equal

intensity, a bonafide case must be made for

the validity of extrapolating from locally de-

rived results to arrive at some understanding

of effects on the Bay as a whole. If a small

change or a multiplicity of small changes in

one locale has a given effect, what is the

cumulative effect of a host of such changes

in comparable communities within the entire

system? Secondly, we must use the available

knowledge and supplement it with that

which is lacking (i.e., largely the separation

of effects deriving from natural as distinct

from unnatural perturbations, and the rather

different information derived from inter-

disciplinary research that is temporally and

spatially coincident) to establish clearly

what sorts of change(s) result from what

type(s) of alteration(s) to carefully selected

areas. Empirical data gathered in these areas,

combined with results from experimental

manipulations, will enhance the possibility

of success.

Man-induced, deleterious changes in ma-

jor natural systems are traditionally subtle,

difficult to detect and measure, and they of-

ten confound us in our efforts to establish

definitive cause and effect relationships. This

is true because measurable changes usually

result from the cumulative effects of small

perturbations seemingly insignificant as iso-

lated events, occurring over long periods of

time. When the major natural system is a

land-water complex as vast as the Chesa-

peake Bay and its drainage basin, the detec-

tion and solution of environmental problems

becomes especially difficult. This methodo-

logy should be of major assistance in over-

coming these problems.

None of these proposals has referred to

the role of the political process in making

decisions concerning the use of natural re-

sources. We can reasonably assume that all

decisions result from assessments of conflict-

ing benefits and costs, and that those which

approach cost-benefit equality and involve

conflicting values and non-quantified ele-

ments become extremely difficult and con-

tentious. Unfortunately, decisions based on

the benefits to be derived from a particular

use of any component of the Bay, or a com-

ponent of any other large and complex

natural system, are often or usually removed

in time from an assessment of the costs. Im-

100

mediate economic gain (benefits) is under-

stood by everyone, but cumulative harmful

effects (costs) are not nearly so easy to eluci-

date. Compounding this problem is the role

of political expediency in decision making,

and the fact that this often renders the best

efforts of everyone to absolute zero. Since ©

this is the case, our best efforts must be |

made even better.

Summary

What we term the Chesapeake Bay is ac-

tually a vast natural system that has, because

of size and peculiar biological and phyiscal

attributes, been able to withstand and/or re-

cover from, a large number of deleterious,

man-induced perturbations. These changes

have been difficult to separate from natural

processes that also change the character of

the Bay, many of which have been ac- ©

celerated by man’s activities. It is now pos-

sible to detect gross changes in the Bay that

include the virtual extinction of several sub-

estuaries as biologically and estheticly use-

ful resources. These events are foreboding

in that we can foresee the possibility of

their continuing unchecked until the entire

Bay is similarly affected.

The Chesapeake Bay has enormous bio-

logical, and thus economical, significance in

terms of the large commercial fishery, and

its use as an esthetic and recreational re-

source. The longevity of all of these things

depends upon the continued maintenance of

the physical and chemical integrity of the

Bay, i.e., maintenance in a state that sup-

ports all of the trophic levels and relation-

ships.

The principal biological problems of the

Bay result from excessive nutrient loading,

the addition of hazardous materials, erosion

and sedimentation, the cumulative effects of

engineering activities, the exploitation of liv-

ing resources, and the alteration and destruc-

tion of the wetlands. All of these things are

related to the impact of human population

growth in the Chesapeake Bay Region, and

the conflicting demands placed by these

people on a multiple-use resource.

Previous biological research on the Chesa-

peake Bay has been inadequate in failing to

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

provide much of the information needed by

management and regulatory agencies. This

has resulted primarily from failure of the ap-

proach used to deal effectively with the Bay

as a large interrelated system, and thus to

identify all of the key organisms in food

webs, their responses to natural and man-

induced perturbations, and their short and

long term interactions. Little is known about

cumulative and synergistic effects of diverse

uses of the Bay, what changes are accept-

able, and the establishment of quantitative

limits.

There is a distinct need for the manage-

ment agencies of Virginia and Maryland, as

well as those of the Federal government, to

join with the academic community in an ef-

fort to obtain the information needed for

decision-making, and to do this in as expedi-

tious a manner as possible. This effort will

require a major interdisciplinary approach

based on a sound methodology that can deal

constructively with the complex problems of

the Chesapeake Bay.

References Cited

Beers, R.F., Jr., et al. 1971. The Chesapeake Bay:

A research program to assist in better manage-

ment of complex environmental systems. Johns

Hopkins University, University of Maryland,

VIMS. xiii + 211 pp.

Berger, B.B., et. al. 1971. Report of the review

panel of the Smithsonian Institution on a te-

search program for protection and enhance-

ment of the biological resources of Chesapeake

Bay. 19 pp.

Caspers, H. 1967. Estuaries: Analysis of definitions

and biological considerations. p. 6-9 In Lauff,

G.M., (Ed.) Estuaries. Amer. Assn. Adv. Sci.

Pub. 83, Washington, D.C. 757 pp.

Cronin, L.E. 1967. The condition of the Chesa-

peake Bay. Trans. 32nd N.A. Wildlife and Na-

tural Resources Conf., Wash. D.C., pp. 138-150.

Cronin, L.E., and J.J. Mansueti. 1971. The biology

of the estuary, pp. 14-39. In A Symposium on

the Biological Significance of Estuaries. Spon-

sored by the Sport Fishing Inst. in cooperation

with Sportsmen’s Clubs of Texas, Inc. and Nat.

Wildlife Fed. xi+ 111 pp.

Douglas, P.A., and R.H. Stroud. 1971. A sympo-

sium on the biological significance of estuaries.

Ibid., xi+ 111 pp.

Flemer, D.A., D.M. Hamilton, C.W. Keefe, and J.A.

Mihursky. 1970. The effects of thermal loading

and water quality on estuarine primary produc-

tion, NRI, Ref. 71-6.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Hargis, W.J., Jr., and B.L. Laird. 1971. The en-

vironmental resource-use and management

needs of the Coastal Zone. Spec. Sci. Rep. No.

57, Virginia Inst. of Marine Science.

Lauff, G.M. (Ed.). 1967. Estuaries. Amer. Assn.

Adv. Sci. Pub. 83. Washington, D.C. 757 pp.

Masmann, W.H. 1971. The significance of an es-

tuary on the biology of aquatic organisms of

the Middle Atlantic Region. pp. 96-109. In A

Symposium on the Biological Significance of

Estuaries, sponsored by the Sport Fishing Inst.

in cooperation with the Sportsmen’s Clubs of

Texas, Inc., and the Nat. Wildlife Fed. xi+ 111

pp.

McHugh, J.L. 1966. Management of estuarine fish-

eries, pp. 133-154. In A Symposium on Es-

tuarine Fisheries. Spec. Pub. No. 3. Amer. Fish-

eries Soc. Washington, D.C.

ee 96/- estuarine mektonsipp:

581-620. In Lauff, G.M. (ed.). Estuaries. Amer.

Assn. Adv. Sci. Pub. 83. Washington, D.C..757

Pp.

National Academy of Sciences. 1969. Eutrophica-

tion: causes, consequences, correctives.

(Symposium proc.). Nat. Acad. Sci., Washing-

ton, D.C. 659 pp.

Odum, E.P., and A.A. de la Cruz. 1967. Particulate

organic detritus in a Georgia saltmarsh estuarine

ecosystem, pp. 383-388. Jn Lauff, G.M. (ed.).

Estuaries. Amer. Assn. Adv. Sci. Pub. 83. Wash-

ington, D.C. 757 pp.

Odum, E.P., and A.E. Smalley. 1957. Trophic

structure and productivity of a salt marsh eco-

system. Progress Report, N.S.F.

Proceedings of the Governor’s Conference on

Chesapeake Bay, 1968. 218 pp.

Schubel, J.R. 1972. The physical and chemical

conditions of Chesapeake Bay: an evaluation.

Spec. Report, 21. Chesapeake Bay Inst., 73 pp.

Schubel, J.R., and R.B. Biggs. 1969. Distribution

of Seston in Upper Chesapeake Bay. Chesa-

peake Science 10: 18-23.

Sherk, J.A., Jr. 1971a. The effects of suspended

and deposited sediments on estuarine organ-

isms—Literature summary and research needs,

Ches. Biol. Lab. Contributions, 443. 73 pp.

. 1971b. The effects of sedi-

ments in the marine environment including es-

tuaries. Report to Panel on Water Quality Cri-

teria for Marine Aquatic Life and Wildlife, Nat.

Acad. Sci. CBL Ref. 71-93. 37 pp.

Sherk, J.A., Jr., and L.E. Cronin. 1970. The effects

of suspended and deposited sediments on es-

tuarine organisms—an annotated bibliography

of selected references. CBL Ref. No. 70-19. 61

pp.

Singewald, J.T., and T.H. Slaughter. 1949. Shore

erosion in tidewater Maryland. Md. Dept. Geol.,

Mines, and Water Res. Bull. 6. 141 pp.

101

Stross, R.G., and J.R. Strottlemeyer. 1965. Pri-

mary production in the Patuxent River.

Chesapeake Sci. 6: 125-140.

Stroud, R.H. 1965. Chesapeake Bay Fishing. SFI

Bull. 164: 6.

"=, 1971. Introduction. In Doug-

las, P.A., and R.H. Stroud. Symposium on the

Biological Significance of Estuaries. Sponsored

by the Sport Fishing Inst. in cooperation with

Sportsmen’s Clubs of Texas, Inc. and Nat. Wild-

life Fed. xi+ 111 pp.

The Chesapeake Bay Plan of Study. 1970. Corps of

Engineers and Advisory Group to the Chesa-

peake Bay Study. iv + 95 pp.

Wass, M.L., and T.D. Wright. 1969.Coastal Wet-

lands of Virginia. Interim Report to the Gover-

nor and General Assembly; VIMS. No. 10. x +

154 pp.

Wolman, M.G. 1968. The Chesapeake Bay:

Geology and Geography, Proc. Gov. Conf. on

Chesapeake Bay. pp. 11-48.

=, 1971. The nationis' rivers:

Science 174: 905-918.

The Fate of the Chesapeake Bay: Socio-Economic Aspects

John J. Boland 1

Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering,

The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 21218

ABSTRACT

Much of the attention directed to the Chesapeake Bay is quite properly concerned

with the response of the Bay’s natural systems to the industrial, recreational, and other

uses which are made of its waters and shorelands. Another aspect of the problem lies in

the nature of the social and economic systems whose functioning is known to affect the

Bay. This paper describes a study of the electric generating industry in the Chesapeake

Bay region, now underway. The purpose of the study is to learn how that industry can

be expected to respond to policies regarding the use of the Bay as a heat sink. Specific

investigations include analyses of future electric energy demands, future demands for

generating sites, and the role of public policy in siting new generating facilities.

The Chesapeake Bay as a Resource

It must strike the participants in this

Symposium as self-evident that the Chesa-

1Mr. Boland is an environmental engineer with

a background in economics and public administra-

tion. His professional career includes local govern-

ment service in the municipal public works field.

He was Chief of Utility Operations for Anne Arun-

del County, Maryland. More recently, he served as

Chief, Water Resources Section, Hittman Asso-

ciates, Inc., offering consulting services to various

levels of government in the water resource manage-

ment field. Mr. Boland received his B.E.E. (Electri-

cal Engineering) from Gannon College, Erie, Pa.,

and his M.S. (Government Administration) from

George Washington University, Washington, D.C.

He is presently a Ph.D. candidate at the Johns Hop-

kins University, where he serves as a research asso-

ciate on the study entitled “Economic Considera-

tions in Power Plant Siting in the Chesapeake Bay

Region.” This research is supported by the State of

Maryland and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commis-

sion.

102

peake Bay is a natural resource of inestima-

ble value. This follows, not from any mind-

boggling list of numbers and varieties of spe-

cies of life found in its waters, but from its

enormous capacity for making this part of

the world a better place to live, now and in

the future.

We have grown accustomed to using the

Bay for many things. It supports a wide

variety of recreational and leisure-time ac-

tivities—those of us fortunate enough to live

near its shores are constantly aware of even

the visual pleasures it affords. The Bay pro-

vides some of the more delectable items in

our diet from its range of harvestable finfish

and shellfish. It is an important water trans-

portation route. Its abundant waters have

supported the growth of a large and diversi-

fied industrial community in Maryland and

Virginia, in part by offering a sink for the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

chemical and thermal wastes which result

from many kinds of human activity.

This last use of the Chesapeake Bay is

now the source of much concern. It becomes

more and more evident that we cannot con-

tinue to treat the Bay as a waste sink and

expect to maintain some of the other uses,

uses which make important contributions to

the quality of our life. Even if the trade-off

between uses were to appear attractive now,

the slow or doubtful reversibility of many of

the predicted effects suggests that much of

the burden of our decision will fall on future

generations.

Much of the interest and study devoted

to this problem has quite properly been fo-

cused on physical, chemical and biological

phenomena. It is essential that we under-

stand as completely as possible the exact re-

sponse of the natural system to various

man-made perturbations. That the discharge

of a specified quantity of a certain waste at a

particular place will have an effect on the

Bay is usually clear, but we should not rest

until we can predict with some accuracy the

exact nature and magnitude of that effect. It

may appear that when this level of under-

standing is reached, the proper management

of the Bay will be assured. For all we need

do is determine which discharges are accept-

able and which inacceptable, and create laws

or regulations to prohibit the latter.

Such a simplistic approach ignores a

major part of the subject area—the man-

made system which generates the discharges.

This man-made system is fully as complex as

the natural system, and our ability to predict

its behavior is no further advanced. It is

comprised of that group of firms, utilities,

governments, institutions public and private,

which provide goods and services to the pub-

lic, and in turn, dispose of its wastes. The

nature, quantity, and location of waste dis-

charges depend on numerous factors, includ-

ing economic growth, technological ad-

vances, changing tastes, and the various laws

and regulations affecting discharge. If our

goal is the development of public policy

which will insure the best use of the Chesa-

peake Bay, now and in the future, it is neces-

sary to understand the operation of the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

man-made system as thoroughly as that of

the natural system. Anything less carries the

risk of creating larger problems than those

solved.

At the present time, at The Johns Hop-

kins University, we are conducting a study

of one portion of the man-made system—

specifically, the electric power generating in-

dustry. As the principal discharger of waste

heat, the electric power industry is and will

continue to be a major feature of the Chesa-

peake Bay scene. At the same time, electric

energy has become indispensable to civiliza-

tion as we know it today. We demand in-

creasing quantities of electricity not only to

provide conveniences and comforts to a

growing population, but to power many of

the processes designed to control waste dis-

charges from other industries and activities.

This is the dilemma—too-strenuous ef-

forts to reduce heat discharges from electric

generation may cause a shortage of energy

more harmful to our society that the heat

discharge avoided, yet even when the regula-

tions appear to strike the right balance,

growth or technological change in other sec-

tors of the economy may wipe out any

gains.

With these possibilities in mind, the

Chesapeake Bay Cooling Water Studies

Group, with the support of the U.S. Atomic

Energy Commission and the State of Mary-

land, Department of Economic and Com-

munity Development, inaugurated almost

one year ago a major socio-economic study

of the electric generating industry in the

Chesapeake Bay region. I will attempt to

describe some features of that study, and to

indicate the type of results that might be

expected from it.

The Electric Power Generating Industry

The region contiguous to the Chesapeake

Bay is served by five major electric utilities,

plus a number of smaller cooperatives, muni-

cipal utilities, and private generating facili-

ties. Four of the 5 utilities and 4 industrial

facilities are currently operating a total of 20

fossil-fueled steam-electric generating sta-

tions, which together discharge about 225 x

1012 BTU’s of waste heat each year, almost

103

all of it directly into the Bay or its tidal

tributaries.

Still, the Bay has escaped bearing what

might be considered its fair share of the ther-

mal load. Only about 2/3 of the generating

capacity required to serve the electric de-

mand in the area is actually located on the

shores of the Bay. Much of the remainder is

composed of large, coal-burning plants lo-

cated in the Appalachian coal fields, their

energy transmitted long distances over

shared transmission lines.

The Keystone and Conemaugh mine-

mouth plants in western Pennsylvania, which

are owned and operated by utility joint ven-

tures including several of the Chesapeake

Bay area utilities, are examples of this prac-

tice. The considerable savings in fuel trans-

portation costs outweighed, in these in-

stances, the additional costs of waste heat

disposal through cooling towers and trans-

mission losses. This pattern of power plant

location cannot be expected to continue in-

to the future, however. Even before the

finite nature of the Appalachian coal re-

source becomes a problem, the existence of

air quality standards limiting sulfur emis-

sions from such plants may place a heavy

burden on their operation.

Another well-known trend in the utility

industry figures in these calculations. There

seems little doubt but that a very large share

of new generating capacity will be nuclear-

fueled. In the case of the Chesapeake

region, 48% of all new capacity planned for

operation before 1980 will consist of nuclear

units. Two facts stand out: currently avail-

able nuclear plants have substantially lower

thermal efficiency than the best con-

temporary fossil plants, discharging up to

50% more waste heat for each unit of electri-

cal output; and nuclear technology creates

unusually strong incentives for very large

plant sizes.

Thus we find that the 225 x 10!2 BTU’s

of waste heat discharged annually by the

Chesapeake Bay electric generating industry

will most probably swell to 680 x 10!2

BTU’s by 1980, tripling itself in less than 10

years. Furthermore, the heat will be pro-

duced by a relatively few, very large plants,

104

greatly aggravating the problems of dispersal

and assimilation. This forecast rests on cur-

tently accepted projections of electric de-

mand and actual plans regarding new capa-

city and technology. It is presented here to

underline the importance of learning some-

thing of the process which is capable of pro- |

ducing such profound changes.

Socio-Economic Studies

Our studies are presently directed to 3

major subjects:

e The future demand for electric energy;

e The future demand for electric generat-

ing sites; and

e The relationship between public policy

and generating plant siting.

As these investigations are completed, we ex-

pect to examine more closely the linkages

between the electric utility industry and the —

rest of the region’s economy, as well as ini-

tiating a comprehensive study of the internal

and external costs associated with the dis-

posal of various residuals from electric gener-

ation. Near the end of the study, about 3

years from now, these various lines of in-

quiry should converge as a reasonably com-

plete model of the electric generating indus-

try in the Chesapeake Bay region.

The Demand for Electric Energy.—A

basic ingredient in any study, prediction, or

speculation about the industry is a forecast

of future demand for electric energy. Fore-

casts are prepared by the utilities themselves,

as an indispensable element in their plan-

ning; by regional groups such as the utility

interconnections, or the regional reliability

councils; and by national groups including

the Federal Power Commission (FPC) and

the Edison Electric Institute (EEI). Most re-

gional forecasts tend to be simple aggrega-

tions of utility forecasts, but national fore-

casts are sometimes performed independent-

ly.

The central theme of recent forecasts is

familiar to everyone—the demand for electri-

city is rising exponentially, doubling every

8-10 years. Clearly, in a resource-limited

world, no demand can grow exponentially

without sooner or later encountering certain

checks and balances which modify the rate

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

of growth. This will happen in the utility

industry, but no one knows when. An im-

portant fact to remember is that, so long as

existing forecasting techniques are retained,

there will be no advance notice of any

change in the rate of growth.

Forecasting methods in use by Chesa-

peake Bay region utilities, and in general, by

utilities elsewhere, rely heavily on extra-

polation of past trends. If demand doubled

in the last 9 years, the tendency to make the

same prediction for the next 9 is very strong.

These extrapolations are not always per-

formed uncritically, and several utilities

study the expansion plans of their larger

users, compute the impact of specific com-

mercial developments, etc., modifying the

exponential growth assumption accordingly.

Still, such adjustments merely reflect an

awareness of short-term fluctuations in the

growth rate and do not represent a critical

examination of long-term trends.

A need exists for an econometric model

of electric demand, relating its growth to

changes in residential, commercial, and in-

dustrial activity, to relative prices of electric

energy and related goods, and to other fac-

tors which pertain to the actual workings of

the energy market. We have initiated the de-

velopment of such a model for the region,

although it is too early to offer any more

specific description of its nature. With the

aid of this econometric description of elec-

tric demand, changes in the structure of the

economy, to the extent that they are pre-

dictable, can be linked with changes in the

level and structure of demand for electric

energy.

This approach has many advantages over

methods now available. Should the measures

necessary to protect resources such as the

Chesapeake Bay result in a substantial in-

crease in the cost of electric power, as some

suggest, the demand for energy will be af-

fected. Not only will the average level of de-

mand be reduced, but the pattern of peak

demands will be altered in a way which can-

not now be predicted. These changes, in

tum, affect the design and operation of

generating facilities, and their impact on the

environment. The environmental protection

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

measures appropriate to the original problem

may no longer be so, after some period of

adjustment. The purpose of an econometric

demand model is to provide visibility of this

chain of causes and effects which weave

through the entire economy.

The Demand for Generating Sites —One

product of improved methods for forecast-

ing energy demand is a fresh perspective on

the problem of forecasting the demand for

generating sites. Electric utilities possess a

number of options with respect to satisfying

energy demands. They can build and operate

generating facilities sufficient to meet all an-

ticipated demands from their own capacity.

They might enter into cooperative agree-

ments with neighboring utilities, pooling cer-

tain facilities for operating purposes, and

capturing the advantages of their collective

diversity. This arrangement is usually highly

advantageous, and is typified by the success-

ful PJM Interconnection of utilities in 4

states, including all but one of the utilities in

this region. Another alternative is to pur-

chase all or a portion of the required power

from other utilities on a wholesale basis.

With respect to the generating capacity

provided by a utility in this region, it may or

may not be located on the Chesapeake Bay,

or any of its tidal tributaries. It is quite feasi-

ble to locate a large plant inland, and this is

done when other incentives are great

enough. Through the medium of joint ven-

tures and other arrangements, utilities some-

times invest in plants considerable distances

outside of their service areas. Even without

leaving the service areas, 2 of the region’s

utilities have the ability to site plants on the

Atlantic Ocean, and one of them operates

plants on the Delaware Bay.

A study of the electric generating indus-

try of the Chesapeake Bay requires some

knowledge of the electric generation to be

expected on the Bay. It should be clear that

a projection of energy demand in the region

is not sufficient information. Before a fore-

cast of Bay-sited generation can be made, a

thorough understanding of the factors which

influence utility decisions in these matters

must be available. The function of the inter-

connections, and the economic incentives

105

provided by them to the individual utilities

must be studied. The relative cost of inland

siting, remote siting, and ocean siting must

be taken into account. The policies of the

utilities with respect to reserve capacity

must be known. These and other factors

must be understood as they are today, and

as they are likely to be tomorrow.

Ultimately, we expect to be able to make

reliable forecasts of the demand for generat-

ing sites on the Bay, their number and the

probable size of units to be erected on them.

Furthermore, we hope to predict the utiliza-

tion of these plants, including seasonal pat-

terns of generation, and peak levels. Studies

of this type form an important link in the

overall model of the industry.

Public Policy and Power Plant Siting.

One of the most widely publicized aspects of

the electric generating industry is the prob-

lem of siting new facilities. The process of

selecting and evaluating sites and of obtain-

ing the necessary permits and licenses has

been transformed almost overnight from a

relatively invisible, routine function of utili-

ties and regulatory agencies to a cause

celebre. Decisions once scarcely questioned

outside the offices of the affected utility are

now reviewed in detail by numerous govern-

ment agencies, by public interest groups, by

enviornmental interests, and in the press.

The public policies which have evolved to

deal with such matters are not only under

attack but, not surprisingly, are undergoing

active change.

Public policy with respect to power

plants and the environment is formulated in

2 areas. The first is related to existing facili-

ties and is concerned with permissible modes

of operation and waste discharge practices.

In the present example, this type of policy

takes the form of water quality standards

regulating the conditions of waste heat dis-

charge into the Chesapeake Bay, and of

various other permits, regulations, and stipu-

lations intended to prevent existing plants

from causing undue damage to the environ-

ment.

The second area of public policy applies

to the siting of new generating facilities. De-

pending on the type of plant contemplated,

106

and the nature of the site, a variety of per-

mits, approvals, and licenses are required by

state, local and federal agencies prior to con-

struction. These are intended to protect the

public interest in areas such as air and water

emissions, safety, land use, utility rates, etc.

Even in cases where adequate laws exist to

regulate discharges after construction, every

effort is made by public agencies to verify

that the contemplated facility is capable of

complying with those laws.

Examples of specific agency interests are

the Atomic Energy Commission’s regulations

of nuclear reactor construction and opera-

tion, the Corps of Engineer’s control of

structures and construction operations in

navigable waterways, the state regulatory

agencies’ interest in the economic justifica-

tion for the facility and in its ability to com-

ply with environmental standards, as well as

local governments’ concern with land-use

questions. The result, in many areas, is a

lengthy, complex process of public review,

in which the utility is repeatedly called upon

to defend its siting decisions.

Many critics of this type of policy feel

that it does not lead to a balanced, compre-

hensive review of decisions to build generat-

ing facilities at specific sites. The utilities

argue, with some justification, that the

lengthy, disorganized review process imposes

substantial costs on them, and, in turn, on

the consumer. On either count, there is rea-

son to examine the existing public policy

with respect to power plant siting. The ex-

amination should determine, first of all,

whether public policy is effective in insuring

the proper level of resource utilization, and

whether the implementation of that policy

creates unnecessary costs.

An excellent opportunity exists in this re-

gion for review of policy as it was in the

immediate past. Within a period of 2 years

(March 1967 to March 1969), applications

were filed with the U.S. Atomic Energy

Commission for permission to construct 3

nuclear-fueled generating stations in the

Chesapeake Bay region. The Virginia Electric

and Power Company (VEPCO) were the first

to announce their plans, proposing the Surry

project to be located on the James River

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

about 25 miles northwest of Norfolk, Vir-

ginia. The Surry plant will initially consist of

2 units of 800 megawatts capacity each. The

Baltimore Gas and Electric: Company

(BG&E) requested a construction permit for

its Calvert Cliffs plant, located on the Chesa-

peake Bay in Calvert County, Maryland, and

similar in size to the Surry plant. VEPCO

followed with the announcement of the

North Anna facility to be located on the

North Anna River about 24 miles from

Fredericksburg, Virginia. At 875 megawatts

capacity per unit, this installation is also

similar in size to Surry and Calvert Cliffs.

We are now conducting a detailed review

of the public review of these 3 installations,

covering the period from first announce-

ments to Fall, 1971. The purpose of this re-

view is to document the public policy with

respect to power plant siting as it existed in

Maryland and Virginia during that period; to

expose such deficiencies in the policy as may

be evident; and to obtain insights into why

the policy and regulatory process is as it is.

Although this is obviously a complex sub-

ject, and our review is not complete, I can

report a few general observations.

One interesting comparison pertains to

the level of public interest and controversy

surrounding the various approval processes.

VEPCO escaped almost completely on both

the Surry and North Anna sites, the public

outcry that has accompanied many nuclear

power plant proposals. BG & E, on the other

hand, encountered virtually every type of

objection, every class of intervenor, every

form of legal and procedural challenge con-

ceivable under existing regulatory practice.

The Calvert Cliffs plant became a household

word even before it was the subject of a

landmark decision by Judge Skelly Wright of

the D. C. Court of Appeals; a decision which

precipitated a major revision of the AEC’s

procedures for handling such matters.

While it might be interesting to discover

the reasons for the apparent contrast be-

tween the experience of BG & E and

VEPCO, it is more to the point to inquire

whether or not the difficulties of BG & E

served some constructive purpose. In all 3

cases, the public review process resulted in

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

minor changes in the original plans of the

utilities. If the plant designs, as they now

exist, show any marked differences in terms

of potential environmental impact, it is not

evident. In no case was public pressure suc-

cessful in producing significant departures

from the originally announced design con-

cepts. A major result of the Calvert Cliffs

experience, however, pertained not to the

plant design but to the public review process

itself.

It is fair to say that the review and regula-

tory processes encountered by these 2 utili-

ties proved satisfactory to neither the utili-

ties, the public agencies, nor the opponents

of the proposed facilities. The histories of all

3 cases abound in confusion and frustrations

for all concerned. In both states there were

instances of public agencies incorrectly de-

fining their jurisdictions, only to be subse-

quently reversed by court action. Each such

event was time consuming, expensive, and

embarrassing. In Maryland, these uncer-

tainties and inadequacies achieved a high

level of visibility, due to the prominence of

the Calvert Cliffs controversy in the press.

As a direct consequence of these events,

the State of Maryland initiated a thorough

review of its policies with respect to power

plant siting. Early in 1971, legislation was

enacted in the General Assembly of Mary-

land, creating a state power plant siting pro-

gram, including the following features:

e “One-stop” site evaluation and review

procedure, coordinating all regulatory and

review functions of state agencies through a

single agency;

e A state-operated advance site selection

and acquisition program; and

e A supporting environmental research

and monitoring program.

These activities are funded through a sur-

charge on electric generation within the

state, initially set at 0.1 mill/KWH.

While we have yet to observe Maryland’s

new program in action, it does represent one

of the most comprehensive and innovative

approaches to this problem adopted by any

state. To the extent that this program re-

sulted form the Calvert Cliffs siting process,

107

the difficulties experienced by all concerned

may be said to have had a constructive re-

sult.

Conclusion

These individual studies have been de-

scribed in an attempt to convey some flavor

of the range of investigations which fall un-

der the heading “socio-economic research.”

While they do not yet form an integrated

exploration of the subject matter, it should

be obvious that as additional studies are

launched, and existing ones broadened, a

broad and useful knowledge of the electric

generating industry in the Chesapeake Bay

region will emerge.

The major point which I would like to

make today is that studies of this type repre-

sent neither a luxury, nor the eccentricity of

certain social scientists. They are an absolute

necessity if the knowledge gained by physi-

108

cal and biological scientists is to be con-

verted to effective action.

We have all been impressed by the com-

plexity and subtlety of natural systems, and

by the range of physical, chemical and bio-

logical effects which man is capable of mak-

ing on a system such as the Chesapeake Bay.

It is too easy to forget that the social and

economic apparatus which man has erected

around himself is no less intricate and frag-

ler

If we are to protect the usefulness of our

natural resources, it appears certain that we

will have to intervene in the normal func-

tioning of our society to accomplish this. We

can propose various laws, regulations, taxes,

etc., but unless we understand how they will

affect the man-made system, we cannot pre-

tend to understand the resultant impact of

the man-made system on the natural system.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc.

Robert H. Roy!

Dean, Engineering Science, The Johns Hopkins

University, Baltimore, Md. 21218

ABSTRACT

This paper describes a planning study for research on the Chesapeake Bay, to be

carried on by a newly formed organization, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc.,

whose member institutions are Johns Hopkins, University of Maryland, Smithsonian

Institution, and Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Prediction also is made that en-

vironmental management increasingly will encounter problems of regulating human be-

havior, in addition to reliance upon technology and economic rewards and sanctions.

As the morning has passed, I have become

increasingly aware that my speech has been

made for me, partly by Dr. Williamson and

partly by Dr. Boland. I will be very brief not

only because of this but also because Dr.

Pelczar feels that the meeting will be more

rewarding if there is opportunity for dia-

logue. I will try to allow time for that ex-

change to take place.

What I had planned to say and what Dr.

Williamson has already said bears consider-

able resemblance because he and I have been

part of a group that has engaged in prepara-

tion of a research proposal which will be

filed with the National Science Foundation

in the name of the Chesapeake Research

Consortium, Inc. The charter and bylaws of

this proposed organization have been agreed

to by counsel of the 4 institutions that are

to be represented—Johns Hopkins, Uni-

versity of Maryland, Smithsonian Institu-

tion, and the Virginia Institute of Marine

Science—and will be considered and hope-

TRobert H. Roy is Professor and Chairman of

Operations Research and Industrial Engineering,

and Dean of Engineering Science at the Johns Hop-

kins University. During the past two years he has

served as Chairman of a Steering Committee whose

members have conducted a planning study for re-

search on the Chesapeake Bay. The most signifi-

cant outcome of these deliberations has been the

formation of Chesapeake Research Consortium, a

corporation whose institutional members are the

University of Maryland, Virginia Institute of Ma-

tine Science, Smithsonian Institution, and Johns

Hopkins University.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

fully approved during the month of January

by the respective regents, directors and trus-

tees. The signed and notarized charter is

ready for submission to the State of Mary-

land now. (Note: The Corporation was char-

tered on January 28, 1972.)

This represents a kind of culmination of

work which began in the Spring of 1970,

when a group from these institutions began

to conduct a planning study for the Chesa-

peake Bay, and one of the recommendations

of the Report submitted in March 1971 was

that a consortium be formed. You have al-

ready heard from Dr. Williamson about 2

facets of that program—first, that it will be

problem-oriented; second, that it will be a

more directed and better integrated research

effort than has characterized the research

carried on independently by these institu-

tions. I will not dwell upon the problems to

be studied because Dr. Williamson already

has done so, but I would like to say a little

bit about the framework for the research

that we intend to carry on. Fig. 1 shows the

region of the Bay as a system in which are

depicted two boxes, “Natural Systems” and

“Man Systems,” arbitrarily labeled but rea-

sonably self-explanatory. Between each of

these and the larger box for the region are

light lines and arrows, each bearing a symbol

and subscript to indicate the nature of the

baseline interactions between and within

each of the several parts of the system.

For each of the boxes and for each kind

of interconnecting arrow there are also bold

109

THE CHESAPEAKE BAY

Analysis

Sythesis

Evaluation

Feedback arrow

to all components

Fig 1. Framework for the research program.

Light lines indicate existing “baseline” conditions

and interactions at present time t. Bold lines indi-

cate past or future conditions and interactions at

past time t-,t or future time t+ jt, t+2 At, etc.

lines. These are intended to delineate inter-

actions at past and, more importantly, fu-

ture periods of time: t-At,ttAt, t+2 At,etc.

Among the several class of interactions,

those symbolized by Alm are most impor-

tant to those charged with environmental

management, for these depict the changes,

or threatened changes which arise, or

threaten to arise, from the multitudinous ac-

tivities of human organizations.

Preservation of environmental quality re-

quires that decisions be made about these

man-related stresses and impacts, to grant or

deny permission or to modify or ameliorate

the stress to be imposed. Despite the fre-

quency and urgency and importance of these

decisions, it is unfortunately true that

presently more depends upon wisdom and

sagacity than upon knowledge. Now and in

the foreseeable future political processes

rather than science will lead to the decisions

which must be made.

Because of this important fact, the box in

the diagram for research (Fig. 1) contains a

series of classifications by way of indicating

110

le interactions

Cumberland, peste of Economics at the

University of Maryla

development—efd predictive environmental

that basic knowledge must be acquired in a

number of disciplines if tomorrows’ de-

cisions are to have the assistance which sci-

ence can provide. We hope to engage in this

research, to synthesize and evaluate it, and

to make it available to any and all who need

this kind of information.

Finally, the feedback arrow, which re-

mains unconnected, is intended to indicate

that management needs will influence all

parts of the research program as well as the

region of the Bay itself.

Important parts of research strategy in-

clude plans for inventorying the entities

which_lie- piel tegion and, over time,

them. Dr. John

, is working toward

input-output model derived from the eco-

nomic method of Leontief, a task of great

difficulty but of comparable promise. To

provide information of the kinds which will

be needed for this effort we have some

hopes for student, citizen, and voluntary

participation in extending the inventory of

entrepreneurial entities. Our ideas about this

approach are presently structured but as yet

untested.

For extension of the inventory of biologi-

cal entities, we have been fortunate enough

to receive a grant through National Science

Foundation by inter-agency exchange from

the Corps of Engineers for inventorying the

biota of the Bay. The lead i in this

work is the ee of Ma

and the tate Tate cones

also are participating.

I would like to reinforce and amplify

what Dr. Boland has said about the relation-

ship of this research and management. We do

not ourselves wish to become—and indeed

will make strong efforts not to become—

managers, but we have every wish and every

intention of becoming useful to management

agencies. Within the Consortium, investiga-

tors at Virginia Institute, at the Chesapeake

Biological Laboratory, at the Chesapeake

Bay Institute at Johns Hopkins, and at the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Smithsonian have had many connections

with Maryland, Virginia, and Federal regula-

tory agencies, and we hope that these may

be enhanced and strengthened. The Consor-

tium itself does not intend to become a ma-

jor research laboratory facility in the manner

of Woods Hole, because at VIMS, at CBI, at

CBL, at CBCES, and the prospective Horn

Point Laboratory of the University of Mary-

land, there are and will be extensive labora-

tory facilities.

As the regulatory agencies confront needs

for decisions, it is my opinion that they will

confront increasingly difficult decisions.

Here I venture into the domain of social

philosophy for which I am not well quali-

fied. But I think it can be shown that histori-

cal technological progression has been char-

acterized by two things: (1) capital invest-

ment requirements have increased at expo-

nential rates; and (2) technological life ex-

pectancies have diminished, also exponen-

tially. It would be quite fanciful to say that

we have as yet reached threshholds of in-

finite first cost and infinitesimal life ex-

pectancy but, if you are willing to let your

fancy roam, the thermonuclear warhead is

not too far from these ultimate threshholds.

In any event, society beyond doubt has

become increasingly interdependent, and the

kind of interdependence that has been so

eloquently demonstrated by Dr. Boland is, I

think, going to require increasing regulation.

In the American ethic certain things have

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

been deeply ingrained. The independence of

the frontiersman is still a part of the Ameri-

can ethic, despite the fact that this kind of

independence has given way to the interde-

pendencies of our larger, much more spe-

cialized population. Additionally, we revere

continued growth and accept the tech-

nological and economic regulation of that

growth. My surmise is that we are going to

have to look ahead to regulation of conduct

in ways which hitherto has not been a part

of our ethic. The ethic of growth will give

way to a quest for stability. In addition to

considering how we can best increase avail-

able electric power, it will be necessary to

consider how we may utilize less of it. Thus,

regulation will encounter—collide with—the

vagaries of behavior. Reference to such

regulatory efforts as prohibition, to current

efforts toward civil rights, and to our in-

ability to control crime suggests that we are

much less successful in this behavioral do-

main. It will be acceptable if someone dis-

covers a fuel that produces less harmful

emissions, but it will be much less acceptable

when government decrees reduced car mile-

age. I am therefore very much inclined to

agree with Dr. Boland that research effort

must be directed toward the total environ-

ment, not just the Bay. We must discover

how to govern ourselves. This will be the

most difficult, the most protracted, and cer-

tainly the most controversial of all the re-

search that will be necessary.

111

The Fate of the Chesapeake Bay: Current Status

Questions and Answers

Moderator:

Panelists:

Dr. Michael Pelczar, University of Maryland

Dr. J.R. Schubel, The Johns Hopkins University

Dr. Francis §.L. Williamson, Smithsonian Institution

Mr. John J. Boland, The Johns Hopkins University

Dr. Robert H. Roy, The Johns Hopkins University

Q—The Maryland Department of Planning

predicts that Maryland industry will grow

only 0.4% per year in the next decade. Why

does the power industry expect a doubling

of power needs? Isn’t the power industry us-

ing Madison Avenue techniques on the pub-

lic?

MR. BOLAND-—It’s factually correct that

the demand for electric energy is growing at

a rate substantially faster than the economy.

One way of looking at this is to look at the

use of electric energy in industry. The pro-

ductivity of electric energy in industry over

the past 20 years is the value added to final

products per kilowatt hour. It has been

falling steadily for the past 20 years. I think

it was about half the level in 1966 as it was

in 1946. At the same time, however, the pro-

ductivity of labor—the value added per man-

hour—has been rising at about the same rate.

We’re learning to substitute electrical energy

for other things, in this case for manpower.

This is what we call progress. The thrust of

most of technological change and develop-

ment effort is do exactly this—substitute

energy for people, and improving the pro-

ductivity of our own labor. This is how we

improve our standard of living. Now, per-

haps we could stop doing that and lead a

different life within our technological so-

ciety, or devise some other kind of society,

but I don’t hear a great public outcry for

doing it. The power industry has been ac-

cused of using Madison Avenue techniques

on the public—they are often criticized for

the promotion of electric heat. Electric heat,

as you may know, is grossly inefficient from

an energy utilization or cost point of view.

Dean Abrahamson has suggested the only

less efficient way to heat a home would be

112

to burn it down. But at the same time most

of the utilities in this area experience their

peak load in summer. To promote the use of

electric heat adds load in the winter when

plants are partially idle, permitting an in-

crease in operating efficiency. There are

great advantages to industry in doing that,

and the advantage to you is the lower unit-

cost of power. The effect on the environ-

ment of the generation of power for electric

heat is probably very minimal. Industry

might be critized for promoting electric

heat, but it isn’t quite as serious as it looks

on first examination.

Q—Your final and strongest point incrimi-

nated the military as the major single source

of ecological impact on the Bay. Other than

restricting areas to boat traffic because of

bombing targets, etc., what does the military

do to the portion of the Bay (17%) which it

has restricted?

DR. SCHUBEL-—That was not the point I

wanted to make. I did not mean to imply

that the military activity has done anything

to damage the ecology of the Bay or the

waters of the Bay, although I’m sure there

have been fish killed by bombing and shells.

Let me say that, in terms of any sort of

persistent damage to the ecology of the

waters of the Bay from military activities, I

don’t think it has amounted to anything sig-

nificant. The point I wanted to make is that

people seem to like to measure man’s im-

pingement on the estuary by looking at areas

where his activities have been either re-

stricted or prohibited. We see figures that

30,000 acres of oyster bars are closed be-

cause of pollution; man’s harvesting activi-

ties there have been prohibited. Because of

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

military activities the use of about 1/5 of the

Bay is restricted or prohibited in some way.

If | am part of the ecology, then my rela-

tionship to the Bay has been affected in a

greater percentage of it by military activities

than by any other single factor.

Q—When do you think thermal pollution

would become a problem in the Bay?

DR. SCHUBEL—We don’t have the data

to answer that question, and the kinds of

studies that are now being done will not pro-

vide the information that is necessary to

answer it.

Q—What are the options for siting loca-

tions for the generating plants? As an ex-

ample, what about the ocean as a potential

site?

MR. BOLAND-—The ocean is an option of

course. In fact, 2 of the utilities in this area

serve communities on the ocean front, have

the ready option of siting plants there. The

difficulty is that the greatest concentration

of electric demand and population is on the

Western shore of the Chesapeake Bay, and

there are some major costs involved in

getting power from the ocean across or

around the Bay to the Western shore. Before

the utilities can be expected to move all

their plants to the ocean there will have to

be some major costs associated with locating

the plants on the Chesapeake Bay to provide

the incentive—it will no doubt happen if

thermal pollution turns out to be a problem

in the Bay.

Q—Would you care to comment on the

history of sedimentation in the Chesapeake

Bay with a view to the possible forecast of

its effect?

DR. WILLIAMSON-—The most definitive

data that we have shows that natural erosion

from the Applachian plateau across the Pied-

mont into the Bay in undisturbed conditions

(that is, presettlement forest) was something

on the order of 100 tons of sediment/mi2/

year. I think this is the basis for Dr. Schu-

bel’s earlier remarks that the Bay is, by

natural processes, receiving large amounts of

sediment and has a predicted lifespan now of

some 50,000 years. The increase in sedimen-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

tation as a result of human activities has of

course been very great. The cause for most

of it can be attributed to subdivision de-

velopment, highway building, and early agri-

cultural clearing of land. More recently, hu-

man population and activities have in-

creased, and most of the political subdivi-

sions have failed to enact proper grading and

erosion control ordnances, or if they have

been enacted, they are not properly en-

forced. At the level of Washington, D.C., in

the Potomac system, there are currently

some 1 million tons of sediment (180

tons/mi2/yr.) reaching the estuary per year,

and about 30% of this is from the metropoli-

tan area. This is the order of magnitude of

change that we are talking about. Prompting

my statement is the fact that in both Vir-

ginia and Maryland there were enacted

ordnances to control grading, erosion and

sedimentation of stream’s in the early

1700’s. If I remember correctly, the first

Maryland ordnance was passed in 1735. It

has a rather interesting wording that I can’t

repeat at this time from memory, but it said

something about the undue silting up of our

streams. I guess that ordnance is still in ef-

fect. The effects of sedimentation have been

very great, of course. I think Dr. Cronin

could bear me out on it. One of the major

reasons we have lost some 40-50 thousand

acres of shellfish beds in the upper Bay is

due to sedimentation. We can look forward

to further changes of this magnitude in the

future. A final comment. In our little es-

tuary, the Rhode River, we are doing an up-

to-date bathymmetry, and we have a little

bit of history. In the last 100 years at one

point in the estuary, water that was pre-

viously only about 7 ft. deep is now only 3

ft. due to sedimentation. This is a change in

only one small system.

Q—How or when will education of the

general public be initiated so that it will ac-

cept the regulations coming into the

picture?

DR. ROY-—I can’t give a simple answer

like Dr. Williamson—I don’t know. I have en-

gaged in some dialogue with Secretary Coul-

ter both orally and in writing on the general

hypothesis that some of the necessary regu-

113

lation for environmental preservation will

tend to be counter-cultural. He rebuts that,

and I think properly so, by saying that cul-

ture is not a static but a dynamic quality. He

thinks that our cultural values will change

sufficiently rapidly to make this possible. I

suspect he is right, and I think there are

some signs one can perceive. As you walk

out on the campus of the University of

Maryland or on the campus where I work,

and draw a mind’s eye contrast between the

students that you see—the way they look

and behave—with those who were in uni-

versities and colleges when we were younger,

you might be able to conclude that today’s

youth have much more kinship with

Thoreau than with Horatio Alger and are

much less interested in the progression of

gross national product than we have been

throughout our lives. I can’t profess to know

or to say whether this has anything to do

with education or how these social changes

came about. It may be combinations of per-

ceived threats; it may be subtle changes in

the social climate that I am unable to identi-

fy. I might be able to give a little more direct

answer to this question, however, by concen-

trating upon the field of engineering educa-

tion, about which I do know a little more.

Up to World War II, engineering education

was intensely pragmatic and technological

and to a very considerable extend dedicated

to the teaching of the art of engineering. As

a consequence of World War II and the for-

midable problems that were attacked and re-

solved, not by engineers but by those trained

in the physical sciences, engineering

awakened to the realization that if it was to

become and remain a viable profession, it

had to embrace the physical sciences. En-

gineering programs changed radically to in-

clude two things—additional physical science

and graduate study. In engineering education

today there is recognition of the need to add

a third dimension—the social sciences. En-

gineers can no longer promulgate public

works of the kinds to which they have be-

come accustomed in the past without be-

coming aware of the social consequences. I

am inclined to think, therefore, that profes-

sional education, not just in engineering but

in medicine and public health and other

114

fields as well, will have to take on additional

social dimensions if it is to meet the kinds of

needs that are inferred by the question.

That’s not a very succinct answer but it is

the best I can contrive.

Q—Has the possibility been considered

that stabilizing or reducing fluctuating

natural temperature cycles by thermal load-

ing of power plants could be the danger

point for thermal alterations?

DR. SCHUBEL—The temperatures that

we are talking about are excess tempera-

tures—temperature elevations superimposed

upon the natural fluctuations. The fluctua-

tions will still be present unless the genera-

tion of electricity is seasonally controlled so

that more electricity is generated in the win-

ter than in the summer. Since I have the

microphone I want to make a couple of

comments about sedimentation. Man’s initial

impact on Chesapeake Bay was to increase

the sedimentation rate by probably at least

an order of magnitude because of his agricul-

tural activities, which started early in the

17th century. This impact was particularly

acute because man was growing tobacco on

land that was once forested. Since there was

an abundance of land, he would raise 2 or 3

tobacco crops and then just move onto dif-

ferent land after the nutrients had been de-

pleted, leaving the barren land behind. So we

had very early sedimentation problems.

Later in the 1800’s, sedimentation rates

went down because of better agricultural

practices and because less land was being cul-

tivated. When we started to build dams on

the Susquehanna River, the major effect was

to decrease the amount of sediment being

brought into the main body of the Bay.

Thus sedimentation was increased and then

decreased. The net effect, I’m sure, has been

to increase the sedimentation rate over what

it would have been had man not been in the

area at all. The clearing of land for construc-

tion is certainly a serious problem. Most of

this is relatively local, but whereas agricul-

tural losses may represent 3 or 4 hundred

tons/mi?/year, clearing an equal area to

build shopping centers could increase losses

to several thousand tons/mi2/year.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

»:

Q—[Regarding erosion of Poplar Island.]

DR. WILLIAMSON-I have a special in-

terest in this particular locality because it is

part of the property in my charge, at least

for the present. Many of you who boat on

the Bay are familiar with Poplar Island.

Actually, it is a cluster of islands. What pre-

viously was Poplar Island comprises 4 small

islets with a total of about 50 acres. There

are 2 adjacent islands, Jefferson and

Coaches; Coaches Island on the south side

was formerly a part of Poplar Island as re-

cently as less than 50 years ago. The original

acreage of Poplar Island, first surveyed in

1634, exceeded 1,000. As late as 1915, if I

remember correctly, people lived and farmed

on the island; I think the Post Office and

school were finally closed about 15 years

later. It’s interesting because it’s an example

of the very rapid rate of shoreline erosion on

the eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay in

Talbot and Dorchester counties. We are in-

terested in it because we have an idea for

shoreline stabilization that could have

broader applicability to other areas along the

eastern shore and that perhaps could pay for

itself. Specifically, we would build a revet-

ment which we would backfill with debris

from construction and demolition, cover the

fill with soil, thus extend the acreage of the

island and stabilize it. Fill material would be

barged in from the large metropolitan cen-

ters on the west side of the Bay. We think

the plan is feasible, and we are in the process

now of completing our own evaluation. We

might be able to demonstrate that shoreline

can be stabilized on that side of the Bay

while utilizing the debris from adjacent ur-

ban centers at the same time. But in the

meantime, we are losing 2-3 ft. of shoreline a

year.

Q—Is it enough to show that natural vari-

ations in the Bay exceed expected manmade

variations when even natural events create

unacceptable conditions? Should we consi-

der man’s effect in terms of added potential

for the creation of unacceptable conditions?

DR. SCHUBEL—I’m showing natural

variations to get some idea of whether these

things would be harmful. For example, if the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

temperature is increased by x degrees, would

you expect a current to result? Then you

can examine a place where the temperature

is x degrees higher, and so on. This is why I

say long-term studies will be required to es-

tablish any data base. We certainly must con-

sider man’s effect in terms of added poten-

tial for the creation of unacceptable condi-

tions.

MODERATOR-I might ask Dr. William-

son if he would comment in response to this

question in terms of nutrients that might be

added to increase productivity rather than as

pollutants?

DR. WILLIAMSON-—The best predictions

indicate that, by embarking upon a very

serious program of aquaculture, we could

vastly increase the productivity of the Bay.

Of course one of the key nutrients is phos-

phorous, which is also one of the principal

nutrients in domestic waste. Now, I almost

have to hear you rephrase the question to go

on.

MODERATOR-— By way both of tempera-

ture variation and/or chemical variations, in

many instances the first response is to view

adding nutrients as being an undesirable

event. Is there a possibility that some of

these nutrients might be used for desirable

transformations?

DR. WILLIAMSON—I know. very little

about aquaculture and its use of nutrients,

but I know that the normal flux of nutrients

in the upper regions of any tidal tributary

are very great simply due to the productivity

of the wetlands adjacent to these waters.

Production is such that dissolved oxygen

swings are very great in the productive part

of the year. I don’t know that I can com-

ment on the ways these nutrients can be

made more productive. We are presently

searching for ways to augment productivity

on wetlands and in shallows by adding nu-

trients.

DR. SCHUBEL—Yovu also have to keep in

mind that you can’t begin to talk about

man’s effects unless you know what the

natural spacial and temporal variations of

some of these properties are. I tried to point

out how someone was very badly misled cal-

115

culating the flux of heavy metals in the

Chesapeake Bay from 1 sample. You have to

know the natural variations in order to ‘assess

man’s impact. But can we stop everything

until all the answers are known? Either you

do that, or you make the best estimates with

the information you have.

Q—Do you anticipate a shoreline land-use

policy for the Bay and a one-agency, one-

stop application permit for any development

on the Bay such as the San Francisco Con-

servation and Development Commission?

MR. BOLAND-Let me say first that I’m

not advocating the one-agency, one-stop

policy process particularly. I think the Mary-

land action to coordinate all of the State

functions is a worthwhile move, but to carry

that to its logical conclusion—walking into

one agency and getting one permit for every-

thing—is running the risk of submerging

some of the decisions so that no one knows

what is going on; the opportunity for any

kind of public interest or intervention is re-

duced. Somewhere between that situation

and the existing one there must be the right

balance. I anticipate a better policy of shore-

line land use. The only thing we have in

Maryland now is the land-use zoning laws

enacted by the various local subdivisions.

One result is that we have a very serious

problem in Maryland with public access to

the Bay. At the maximum there are only 60

miles of some 3000 miles of Bay shoreline in

Maryland that are actually available to the

public. A proper land-use policy might have

avoided that.

MODERATOR—Along that same line,

Mr. Boland, there is a question: “Is not pri-

vate exploitation of the Bay shoreline easily

the most serious impact of man upon his

ecology”?

MR. BOLAND-I don’t think I’m quali-

fied to say what is the most severe impact on

the ecology on the Bay. A completely un-

planned private exploitation of the Bay is a

serious problem.

MODERATOR-Dr. Williamson, again

along those same lines in connection with

wetlands and wetlands legislation?

116

DR. WILLIAMSON-The question is

“What is the quality of wetlands legislation

in East coast States, and do all States have

such legislation?’ I can’t really address

myself to all the States. Of course Maryland

has wetlands legislation now in House Bill

285, which was passed year before last. My

impression is that it is a good bill and would

do a very great deal to protect the wetlands

in the state of Maryland if it is properly en-

forced. As far as I have been able to deter-

mine, Virginia does not yet have the same

high quality of legislation with which to

back up enforcements regarding wetlands,

but such a bill is now pending in the Virginia

legislature. It almost goes without saying

that this is a very essential kind of legisla-

tion. The number of acres of wetlands

around this Bay is very great. To give you

some idea—the 400,000 acres of wetlands

are the equivalent of about 28% of the total

surface area of all the sub-tributary systems

of the Bay (main stem to head of tide) and

are those tributary systems I mentioned

earlier as being the highly biologically pro-

ductive parts of the system. Production on

these lands can be as great as 3-10 tons of

plant material/acre/year (average 5.1 tons).

These plants multiply proteins during the de-

composition and, through the detritus food

chain, supply nutrients to the adjacent es-

tuary. The wetlands in the past have been

very rapidly filled or reclaimed for various

uses. I will make one comment here that

we've been batting around for the last

couple of days about wetlands—we need to

be able to assign a dollars-and-cents value to

any given unit of a particular type of wet-

land, some being more productive and more

valuable than others. If we can’t do that,

then we suffer on the witness stand when

the other guy puts the dollar-and-cents value

on a house or a road or some other sort of

development which might really be a very

poor swap for the particular piece of wet-

land. In other words, we need a sound basis

for decision-making.

MODERATOR~Here is a $64 question.

We will be accused of being responsible for

your getting cold mashed potatoes for lunch,

but I will read this question and ask each

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

—_—

member of the panel to give a 60-second re-

sponse. We will begin with Dr. Schubel. The

question reads as follows, “What is the great-

est technology need to adequately handle

the Chesapeake Bay environment problem;

i.e., to preserve the ecology?”

DR. SCHUBEL—First of all, I think most

of the technology now exists to handle most

of the problems that threaten the Bay. It is a

question of identifying the real problems

and being willing to spend the money to at-

tack them.

DR. ROY-—I am inclined to say that the

greatest need—I don’t know whether tech-

nological or intellectual—is the development

of a successful dynamic system model cap-

able of providing quantitative answers with

reasonable accuracy and capable of taking

into account the value differences which ex-

ist in our assessment of variables. Such a

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

model would provide better and more defi-

nite means for making wise decisions con-

cerning the environment. I don’t think I will

live to see that.

DR. WILLIAMSON-—I agree with Dr.

Roy. Further, I don’t know if my answer

concerns technological need, but I think it is

the construct of adequately informed and

highly benevolent dictator.

MR. BOLAND-Perhaps my response is

related to that. A technological need is not

the greatest need—it is the change in our

social philosophy and our system of values

to which Dr. Roy alluded earlier. We must

place sufficiently high value on the Chesa-

peake Bay so that our lifestyle will reflect

that value. At that point the survival of the

Bay as we nowknow it will be assured. I

don’t think I will live to see that either.

117

The Major Threats to the Chesapeake Bay

Opening Remarks

Ruth Patrick!

Limnology Department, Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,

19th and the Parkway, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Thank you and good afternoon. I’m sure

that all of us here are very thankful for the

Chesapeake Bay and realize it is not only

one of the largest but one of the most beau-

tiful estuaries or bays in the world. Today,

though locally you see many of the impacts

of man’s activities upon the Bay, these are

more or less restricted to local areas and as a

result much of the Bay retains its natural

beauty. However, our challenge is to see to it

1A short biographical sketch will be found else-

where in this issue.—Ed.

Hydrodynamic Changes in the

William J. Love!

that the Bay remains beautiful and in a con- ©

dition many can enjoy. Today we can enjoy

many kinds of sports such as sailing, fishing,

and swimming in the Bay. It is important in

the Bay’s symposium that we consider some

of the major threats to the Bay and initiate

plans so they will never materialize.

The first speaker this afternoon is Col.

William J. Love, who is general manager and

chief engineer of Hampton Roads Sanitary

District, Norfolk, Va. He is going to speak

about threats to the hydrodynamics of the

Bay or hydrodynamic changes.

Chesapeake Bay

General Manager and Chief Engineer, Hampton Roads

Sanitation District, Box 1741, Norfolk, Va. 23501

ABSTRACT

Past and present physical changes in the configuration of Chesapeake Bay, and their

impact upon the hydrodynamics of the Bay, are discussed. Included are natural and

manmade influences which have altered the Bay, and a projection of what may be

expected in the future. The need for technical knowledge on which political, economic,

and environmental decisions can be reached is stressed. The tools available to assist the

decision maker are discussed, and future advances in technology are considered.

This symposium is rightly entitled the

“Fate of the Chesapeake Bay.” This title

1Col. William J. Love retired from the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers on 1 July 1971. His last

assignment was as District Engineer of the Balti-

more District, where he supervised the Corps of

Engineers’ comprehensive water resource manage-

ment study of the Chesapeake Bay.

118

neither prejudges nor presupposes an out-

come, good or bad. It simply poses the ques-

tion, and to a degree lays down the chal-

lenge. Because we are all interested in the

future of this invaluable asset, it expresses

our concern, and I suppose our hope, that

the fate of the Bay within our lifetime and

for many years to come will be “good.” The

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL. VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

“good” is a general characterization from

which we assume that we will be able to not

only continue to reap the many benefits

now available from the use of the Bay and

its tidal waters, but that we will also be able

to enhance them and to make them available

to our successors for many generations to

come.

Our symposium is considering the many

pressures which are exerted upon the Bay by

forces of man and nature. We are interested

in its past, as the happenings of history can

give us greater wisdom to evaluate the

present pressures upon the Bay and to pro-

vide an insight into its future management.

Although it is interesting to read the re-

corded annals of the history of the Bay, be-

ginning possibly with the diaries of John

Smith and extending through more recent

times, what we are really trying to do is to

picture the time change chart of the Bay to

use as a barometer in measuring the present

health and future prognosis of the Bay. I

hesitate to refer to the Bay as our patient,

because that indicates a degree of illness or

possibly a diseased condition which I person-

ally do not believe to be the case. However,

like a good patient visiting the doctor for a

checkup, we are interested in examining lo-

cal irritations, in looking at rashes causing

specific discomfort, and are most interested

in taking the temperature of the entire body.

We are certainly interested if the entire body

shows an elevated temperature indicating

either temporary or long term malaise.

There is general agreement that the Bay is

a sunken river caused by natural phenomena

involving probably the simultaneous depres-

sion of the old Susquehanna river bed, pos-

sibly inter-related with some upheaval of the

surrounding land. Certainly the Eastern

Shore areas of Maryland and Virginia, as we

see them today, exhibit little of the upheaval

phenomena which is seen to a marked degree

on the western shore, for instance, in the

Scientist-Calvert Cliff areas. Being a river,

though submerged, it has followed for possi-

bly the last 10,000 years the characteristics

of other rivers with which we are familiar. It

has continued to receive natural loadings of

upstream material which have both flowed

in the depths and shoaled the shoulders. Al-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL, VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

though it is easy enough to say that the

average depth of the Chesapeake Bay on a

geometric basis is some 28 feet, itis

more significant for our interests to note

that there have been large shoal areas estab-

lished with average depths on the order of 2,

5, and 6 feet. These areas have tremendous

significance today when studying either

Benthic populations or fin-fish habitats.

Some shoal areas, due to the action of wind

and water over the years, have partially sur-

faced and have added to the marsh land

census of the Chesapeake Bay. Similarly,

natural erosion of the shore line by wind and

wave in turn have reduced prior highlands,

especially on the Eastern Shore, to marsh

land. The shoaling or rising of the shallows

and the lowering of the highlands have for

our purposes resulted in the same _phe-

nomena. These natural processes, contri-

buted to for many years by the suspended

and bedload carrying abilities of all the

streams tributary to the Chesapeake, have

established what is within a time scale of

interest to us, an equilibrium which we now

call the hydrodynamic environment of the

Chesapeake. Continuation of these natural

forces will of course on a long range time

scale affect the future of the Bay. However,

it is where these longterm or very slow act-

ing processes of nature are overridden and

supplemented by the works of man that we

may find indications of trouble. Hydrody-

namic changes brought on by silt loadings,

aggravated by urban development, by sani-

tary waste disposals in a not necessarily sani-

tary fashion, by urban community develop-

ment surrounding the Bay, and by hap-

hazard, if not reckless dredging and filling

operations for private, municipal or cor-

porate interests, have provided a period of

change in a handful of years that nature

could not have duplicated in many centuries.

I emphasize that in my opinion at this time,

these hot spots of stress are local in nature,

are far from uncontrollable, and may be sa-

tisfactorily brought into rational balance if

intelligent decisions can be made in the

future.

Over the years in an effort to utilize the

water resources of the Bay, we have over

emphasized some particular use, possibly at

119

the degradation of the capabilities of the

Bay to fill other uses. Some channel dredg-

ing and land filling must fall in this category.

Much of the channel development has not

been haphazard in nature and has been

proven to be extremely compatible—in fact

even beneficial—to the current health of the

Bay. By establishing and maintaining a main

channel in sections of the Bay where one did

not exist, the Corp of Engineers principal

ship channel developments have over the

years provided a counter effect to the filling

process which nature itself has been carrying

out. A positive benefit also has been the

many well planned and executed spoil dis-

posal areas of many projects, both by the

Corp’s and by other municipal and private

developers which today are prized as highly

valuable wetland areas. This has occurred

where the spoil materials, either by design or

circumstances of nature, have been con-

tained and in many cases added to by wind

and tide action. In those cases where nature

took over and provided the vegetative cover

which led to a re-establishment, or a new

establishment in many cases, food chains,

nesting habitats, and hatchery areas now of

great value were established. Havre de Grace

Island and the unnamed island off the

mouth of Skiffes Creek in the lower James

River are excellent examples. | hope my

meaning here is quite clear. Dredging per se

is not bad; improperly planned and executed

dredging is. To allow spoil material to hap-

hazardly enter a waterway is just as serious

an offense against the environment of the

Bay as to allow sediments of urban develop-

ment to enter haphazardly. The creation of

artificial wetlands has been successfully ac-

complished in the past, possibly as an acci-

dental corrollary of other projects, but none-

theless has been done. I see no reason why

future efforts to maintain our waterways, be

they for navigation or recreation, cannot in

most cases have exactly the same beneficial

effect to even a more marked degree. As an

objective this is certainly desirable because it

makes entirely viable, then, a very serious

conflict in conjunctive uses of the Bay. Cer-

tainly as an asset the waterways which

presently provide recreational boating to

over 70,000 licensed recreation vessels in

120

Maryland alone must be considered. It will

not do to merely state as an objective the

use of the Bay as some sort of gigantic fish-

ery and bird haven at the expense of all

other uses.

Although not necessarily directly related

to hydrodynamic considerations, this ration- |

ale must hold true for certain other conjunc-

tive uses of the Bay. Cooling water uses, for

instance, which are frequently associated

with hydrodynamic changes because of inlet

and outlet works, must be considered as an

asset of the Bay. The use of the Bay to re-

ceive properly treated effluents of the waste

water treatment plants of the communities

surrounding the Bay is a perfectly legitimate

use. Further, without the return of properly

treated waste waters to the Bay the entire

system would actually suffer losses from the

upstream use of waters which should be re-

turned to the system.

The high rate of erosion of many of the

areas surrounding the Bay, particularly those

of the Eastern Shore of Maryland and Vir-

ginia, poses some very serious problems. It

has been estimated that the approximate

2,000 miles of tidal shoreline in Maryland is

being eroded at the rate of nearly 300

acres/yr. A guess for the entire Bay is on the

order of 700 acres/yr. It may be that the

forces of nature and the balances of our

economy may give us little voice, at least at

the present time, in the retardation or slow-

ing of this erosion. However, to the property

owners affected, or to the marsh lands which

may well be eliminated as a result of these

forces, this is a very serious problem indeed.

Many of us who have worked with the prob-

lem are staggered by the costs involved in

the present state-of-the-art techniques to

eliminate or even to slow these processes of

erosion. However, most of us who have

worked in this area are even more frustrated

by our imperfect engineering and scientific

ability to make reasonable predictions of the

effect upon erosion, or shore control as I

prefer to call it, when engineering proposals

are put forward. Various proposals, be they

small or large, which have been made over

the years have been reacted to by the regula-

tory or jurisdictional bodies having responsi-

bility on a one-at-a-time and a seat-of-the-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

pants type decision making process. We

know, for instance, that if a 300-ft groin is

suddenly interspersed with a number of 50-

or 75-ft groins, there is going to be an im-

pact. We can guess only imperfectly at the

present at the nature of this impact. We

know that the deepening and precise align-

ment of a channel, be it a shallow recreation

type channel or a much more significant nav-

igational channel, will have an impact. We

can only guess at that impact based on de-

veloped empirical experience. Mathematical

modeling thus far has not enabled us to

make a more reasonable and accurate predic-

tion. The hydraulic modeling which has been

done in the past on various relatively small

sections of the Bay has provided certain

answers for those specific locations. We des-

perately need the proposed Corp hydraulic

model of the entire Bay to enable us to de-

velop similar insights for the management of

the entire region. The time has long since

passed when “guesstimates,” be they munici-

pal or by a regulatory agency, can be ac-

cepted. I am strongly convinced that the

construction and operation of the Corp

model as now proposed and planned at

Matopeak on Kent Island in Maryland will

not only give us the immediate answers to a

number of problems but may well have a far

greater benefit in the future. It can supply

the answers to some of the basic relation-

ships involved in the hydrodynamics of the

Bay and give us a more accurate understand-

ing of the co-efficients which must be ap-

plied to those relationships.

Thanks to the work of Pritchard and

others, we now have a gross understanding

of the major currents at work in the Bay. We

know that there is a net flow of fresh water

to the sea, concentrated in the upper stra-

tum of the waters during the periods of high

fresh-water inflows which is somewhat re-

versed during the winter months. We know

something of the flushing characteristics of

individual bays, inlets, and tributary tidal

waters. Thanks to the work led by Cronyn

and Hargis, we are beginning to get an under-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

standing of the ecological relationships of

the biota of the Bay. The missing link at the

present time is a reasonable understanding of

the impact of the many works and activities

of man on the Bay. How much use may be

made of Bay waters at what locations and

for what purposes by man without straining

or destroying present living relationships

within the Bay? What are the alternatives to

man? At what cost? The answers to these

questions involve study in many disciplines.

Without exception the geometry and the

derived hydrodynamics of the Bay must be

considered in every case. What is needed is a

quantum jump in our technology—in our

capability to derive a rational understanding

and predictive capability for the impact of

man and of nature for that matter—on the

environment of the Chesapeake. What

greater need can be stated for the rapid com-

pletion and early operation of the Corps

hydraulic model!

I hope my thoughts and observations

about what we can and must do to insure

the future health of the Bay are clear. Man-

agement techniques must be found to enable

decision makers at the Federal, State, local,

and regional level to make rational deci-

sions—to enable us to have beneficial use of

the Bay in the future involving all of the

conjunctive uses to which it is and should be

put. Wetlands are an extremely valuable re-

source. This has now been officially recog-

nized by Maryland and Virginia, and the ef-

forts of the States to survey, catalog, and

assign priorities of use should proceed. The

construction of artificial wetlands in areas

determined by model and analytical study to

be suitable should be encouraged. Random

changes in the geometry of the Bay, be they

large or small, cannot be permitted. All pro-

posed changes must be subject to analysis

after adequate hydraulic model testing. Fi-

nally, and most importantly, we must insist

as a citizenry that all decisions affecting our

Bay by our decision makers be based on

fact—not speculation—and be in the best in-

terests of present and future generations.

Insecticides, Herbicides, and Polychlorinated

Biphenyls in Estuaries

Gerald E. Walsh!

Environmental Protection Agency—National Environmental Research Center,

Corvallis, Oregon; Gulf Breeze Laboratory, Sabine Island, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561

ABSTRACT

Pesticides are present in estuaries throughout the world, and it is probable that they

will remain there for an indefinite period of time. Production rate of chemical pesticides

has increased by about 16% each year since 1964. About 390 chemicals are used in pest

control, and some of them reach estuaries through runoff from land, discharge of muni-

cipal and industrial wastes, direct application to marshes, aerial drift, and accidental

discharge. Residues of pesticides are found in water, sediment, and at all levels of

estuarine trophic pyramids, but there is still uncertainty as to what these residues mean

in terms of toxicity, reproduction, and other factors which relate to estuarine organisms

in the field. Data from both laboratory and field studies suggest a few beneficial and

many harmful effects of pesticides in estuaries. In this presentation, insecticides, herbi-

cides, and polychlorinated biphenyl compounds are discussed in relation to survival,

photosynthesis, behavior, metamorphosis, resistance, and chemical changes in tissues, in

estuarine organisms.

Pesticides are ubiquitous in estuaries

throughout the world (Dustman and Stickel,

1966; Butler, 1967; Moden, 1969) and pol-

lution by these chemicals will probably con-

tinue in the foreseeable future. Production

of chemical pesticides has increased approxi-

mately 16% per year since 1964 (Neumeyer

et al., 1969). Herbicides are the sales leaders

among pesticides, increasing at the rate of

20% per year. In 1955, purchases of pesti-

cides by farmers were valued at 184 million

dollars. By 1968, value was slightly more

than 1 billion dollars, and it is estimated that

this will be greater than 2.3 billion dollars by

1975. The reasons for such growth in use of

1Dr. Walsh received his B.S. in Zoology from

Loyola University, his M.S. in Biology from De

Paul University, and his Ph.D. in Zoology with

specialization in Marine Ecology from the Univer-

sity of Hawaii. He served on the staff of the De-

partment of Biochemistry of the University of IIli-

nois College of Medicine; was a post-doctoral fel-

low in the Systematics-Ecology Program, Marine

Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Massachusetts;

and was Assistant Professor in the Zoology Depart-

ment, University of Hawaii. He presently is Project

Coordinator, Environmental Protection Agency

Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, Florida.

122

chemical pesticides are mainly economic.

Crop losses due to pests in the United States

in 1968 were estimated at approximately

11.2 billion dollars, with an additional 2 bil-

lion dollar loss during crop storage (Neu-

meyer et al., 1969).

About 390 chemicals are used to control

unwanted species, and some of the chemicals

reach estuaries as the result of rainout from

the atmosphere, runoff into rivers, and other

means. Approximately 4,000 tons of pesti-

cides are applied annually to land, including

wetlands, in the United States. Types used

include insecticides, herbicides, algacides,

defoliants, molluscicides, fungicides, amebi-

cides, rodenticides, miticides, virucides,

fumigants, and soil sterilants. In addition to

largescale application to agricultural land,

approximately two million acres of estuarine

marsh and tidelands are treated annually

with insecticides to control noxious insects.

Pesticides and related compounds such as

the industrial pollutants polychlorinated bi-

phenyls (PCB’s) concentrate in estuaries.

They originate from several sources: (1) run-

off from the land after agricultural applica-

tion (Goodman, 1965; Weibel et al., 1966;

Haderlie, 1970; Frere, 1971), (2) discharge

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

of industrial and municipal wastes (Butler,

1967), (3) direct application to estuaries

(Coppage and Duke, in press), (4) aerial drift

and rainout (Cohen and Pinkerton, 1966;

Abbott et al., 1966; Tarrant and Tatton,

1969; Foy and Bingham, 1969), and (5) ac-

cidental discharge and careless use (Duke et

al., 1970). Also, migrating animals probably

transport pesticides along their migratory

routes. High concentrations have been found

in migrating porpoises (Butler, 1967), whales

(Wolman and Wilson, 1970), fishes (Hansen

and Wilson, 1970), and ducks (Heath and

Prouty, 1967; Reichel and Addy, 1968).

Pesticides that are ordinarily insoluble in

water are made soluble by humic acids,

which reduce the surface tension of water

(Wershaw ef al., 1969).

Transport of pesticides that are adsorbed

on particulate matter suspended in river

water is well known (Duke, 1969; Pfister et

al., 1969). Deposition of silt and ionic

flocculation of dissolved materials from

freshwater as it enters the estuary add to the

concentrations of pesticides in sediments.

Differential solubilities of pesticides and

PCB in fresh and salt water probably result

in precipitation and deposition in sediments

in areas where the 2 types of water mix

(Walsh, in press, a). Also, pesticides are pres-

ent on detritus in estuaries (Odum ef al.,

1969) and compounds such as 2,4-D may be

sorbed to organic compounds in solution

(Wershaw et al., 1969). Pesticides in solution

and sorbed on organic and inorganic parti-

cles in the water and substratum are avail-

able for introduction into food chains in

estuaries. There is ample evidence of uptake

of pesticides from solution and particles by

animals and plants, so that pesticides in estu-

aries are partitioned between living and non-

living portions.

Chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides are

persistent and are concentrated within the

bodies of marine organisms. Related com-

pounds such as PCB’s are also persistent and

are accumulated by marine forms (Nimmo et

al., 1971a, b). Even though usage of herbi-

cides is growing more rapidly than all other

classes of pesticides, it is not generally

known that the urea, triazine, and picloram

herbicides are almost as persistent as chlori-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

nated hydrocarbon insecticides (Kearney et

al., 1969). Except for unicellular algae

(Ukeles, 1962; Walsh and Grow, 1971;

Walsh, in press, b), little is known about ef-

fects of these herbicides in estuaries.

In the following review, effects of insecti-

cides, herbicides, and PCB’s on estuarine

Organisms are discussed. It is not an exhaus-

tive summary nor a popular review. It is,

rather, a review of the scientific literature

from papers readily available to the author

and may be of use to researchers and others

interested in the field of pesticide pollution.

Insecticides

Algae

Most literature reports on pesticides in es-

tuaries concern chlorinated hydrocarbons

such as DDT, endrin, dieldrin, and aldrin. In

freshwater, adsorption of these compounds

to particles is related to composition of the

particles. Thus, lindane was found in greatest

concentration on inorganic particulate

matter, endrin and aldrin with organic de-

tritus and unicellular organisms, and DDT

with all fractions (Pfister et al., 1969).

Three species of unicellular algae and two

species of ciliates were exposed to | ppm

(part per million) of DDT and the organo-

phosphate parathion for 7 days (Gregory et

al., 1969). The organisms concentrated DDT

99 to 964 times and parathion 50 to 116

times the concentration in the medium. Stu-

dies on the distribution of DDT between

particulate and liquid phases of seawater

have shown that approximately 90% of the

chemical is associated with particles of algal

size (Cox, 1971a). The same studies showed

a saturation value for uptake by Dunaliella

salina independent of the ambient concen-

tration of DDT. Cox hypothesized that ad-

sorption of DDT to cell surfaces of algae is a

more likely explanation for uptake than

phase-partitioning of the toxicant in lipid, as

he had previously suggested (Cox, 1970b).

Whatever the method of uptake, Cox

(1970b) did show that Syracosphaera car-

terae (a coccolithophorid), Amphidinium

carteri (a dinoflagellate), and Thalassiosira

fluviatilis (a centric diatom) removed from

16 to 54% of radioactive DDT added to cul-

tures.

123

Phytoplankton probably act as primary

concentrators of pesticides in water. There is

evidence that these toxicants reduce photo-

synthesis, but bioconcentration by algae

may be more important ecologically because

they transfer many materials to higher

trophic levels.

Residues of DDT, DDD, and DDE in the

wet weight of marine phytoplankton in

Monterey Bay, California, increased from

about 0.2 ppm to approximately 0.6 ppm in

1969, and the data suggest that the partition

coefficient of DDT in phytoplankton dimin-

ishes as the density of phytoplankton in-

creases (Cox, 1970a). The significance of

DDT residues to phytoplankton is suggested

by the fact that DDT reduced the rate of

photosynthesis in 4 genera of marine algae

(Wurster, 1968).

Genera of algae differ in their response to

chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides (Men-

zel et al., 1970). Dunaliella tertiolecta was

insensitive to treatment with DDT, dieldrin,

and endrin, whereas Cyclotella nana was

slightly affected at concentrations of diel-

drin and aldrin between 0.1 and 1.0 ppb

(parts per billion). Ukeles (1962) tested ef-

fects of DDT and toxaphene on 5 species of

unicellular marine algae and found that con-

centrations of DDT to 1.0 ppm did not af-

fect growth of Protococcus sp., Chlorella sp..,

Dunaliella euchlora, Phaeodactylum _tri-

cornutum, and Monochrysis lutheri. Toxa-

phene, however, was toxic to all species at

0.15 ppm. More recently, Derby and Ruber

(1971) reported that DDT inhibited oxygen

evolution by D. euchlora, P. tricornutum,

Skeletonema costatum, and C. nana. Con-

centrations of 10 ppb inhibited oxygen evo-

lution by 30% in D. euchlora and 36% in S.

costatum; | ppm reduced evolution of oxy-

gen by P. tricornutum 35% and by C. nana

33%. The marine diatom P. tricornutum was

more susceptible to DDT than was the fresh-

water species Chlorella pyrenoidosa (Hannan

and Patouillet, 1971).

DDT was found to be concentrated in an

oil slick in Biscayne Bay, Florida (Seba and

Corcoran, 1969), and it is possible that such

a film promotes absorption of the chemical

by phytoplankton.

124

Uptake and metabolism of DDT were

studied in seven species of marine phyto-

plankton by Bowes et al. (1971). Rates of

cell division by 7. fluviatilus, C. nana, A.

carteri, D. tertiolecta, and Porphyridium sp.

were unaffected by 80 ppm DDT. Coc-

colithus huxleyi and S. costatum exhibited |

lag phases at that concentration: thereafter,

rates of cell division in treated and untreated |

cultures were the same. These authors also |

studied effects of DDT and DDE on photo- ©

synthetic and mitochondrial electron trans-

port. They suggested that the site of action

of the toxicants is in either the electron

transport chain between photosystems I and

Il or the water-splitting mechanisms. One

wonders, however, what relationship such

high laboratory concentrations (e.g. 80 ppm)

have to algae living in the estuary or ocean

because such high concentrations are not

found in nature, except for occasional acci-

dental spills.

Organochlorine compounds are not the

only insecticides which inhibit primary pro-

ducers. Ukeles (1962) demonstrated toxicity

of 15 other pesticidal compounds to 6

marine unicellular algae. The most toxic

compound was Lignasan, an organomercurial

bactericide-fungicide that affected all species

at concentrations above 0.6 ppb. Organo-

mercurial compounds are very toxic to

marine algae; 1 ppb of the fungicides PMA

(Phix), Panogen, and MEMMI caused signifi-

cant reduction of photosynthesis and

growth by the diatom Nitzschia delicatissima

(Harriss et al., 1970). Baytex and Abate

(organophosphates) and Baygon (a

carbamate) were toxic to marine algae

(Derby and Ruber, 1971). At 0.01 or 0.1

ppm, all caused reduction of oxygen evolu-

tion, and the order from least sensitive to

most sensitive was C. nana, P. tricornutum,

S. costatum and D. euchlora. Interestingly,

Derby and Ruber reported D. euchlora to be

the least resistant species, whereas Menzel et

al. (1970) found it to be the most resistant

to organochlorines.

Vascular Plants

Organochlorine insecticides have been de-

tected in marine macrophytes also, though

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

their effects are not understood. Croker and

Wilson (1965) applied technical grade DDT

to a tidal marsh ditch at the rate of 0.2

Ib/acre, a recommended rate for mosquito

control. Uptake of DDT by Ruppia maritima

and Cladophora sp. was measured for 7

weeks after application. Residues in plants

increased rapidly until the 4th week, when

the average was 75 ppm, but fell rapidly

thereafter, reaching 9.1 ppm 7 weeks after

treatment. Fucus serratus from the North-

umberland coast contained 2 ppb p,p’-DDT

and 1 ppb HEOD (the major constituent of

technical dieldrin) and Laminaria digitata

contained 3 ppb p,p-DDT and 0.1 ppb

HEOD (Robinson et al., 1967). Woodwell et

al. (1967) reported that the shoots of Spar-

tina patens contained 0.33 ppm and the root

2.80 ppm DDT. It is conceiveable that when

the macrophytes died, the toxicants entered

the detritus-based food web.

Invertebrates

Increasing concentrations of pesticides in

ascending levels of food chains is well

known. Examples of bioaccumulation in es-

tuarine trophic pyramids were reported by

Woodwell et al. (1967) and Robinson et al.

(1967).

Effects of pesticides occur at all trophic

levels. In laboratory populations of the cilia-

ted protozoan Tetrahymena pyriformis

strain W, growth rate and maximal popula-

tion density attained were reduced signifi-

cantly by 1.0 ppb mirex, a chlorinated

hydrocarbon insecticide (N.R. Cooley, per-

sonal communication).

Chronic exposure to sublethal concentra-

tions of pesticides can reduce productivity

of estuarine fish and shellfish (Butler, 1969;

Miller and Berg, 1969). The insecticides

DDT, toxaphene, and parathion are toxic to

oysters at concentrations of approximately |

ppm in water (Butler, 1963). When exposed

to only 1.0 ppb of each of these insecticides

separately, no effects were noted in young

oysters (Lowe et al., 1971a). However,

growth was slowed and pathological changes

occurred when young oysters were reared in

seawater which contained a mixture of 1.0

ppb each of DDT, toxaphene, and parathion.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Lowe et al. did not speculate as to whether

the effects were due to the greater total

amount of insecticide, to synergism of the 3

pesticides, or to both. Engle et al. (1971)

exposed quahogs, Mercenaria mercenaria, to

sublethal concentrations of DDT and lindane

for 30 weeks, and found that activity of the

enzyme glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase

was stimulated, while phosphofructokinase,

fructose diphosphate, and pyruvate kinase

were inhibited. They suggested that the

chlorinated hydrocarbons interfere with glu-

coneogenesis.

DDT prevented metamorphosis of barna-

cle larve in oyster beds (Loosanoff, 1947),

and also inhibited the setting of oyster larvae

(Waugh ef al., 1952; Waugh and Ansell,

1956; Loosanoff, 1960). Lindane and Guth-

ion are toxic to the eggs of oysters, Crasso-

strea virginica, and clams, Venus (Mer-

cenaria) mercenaria (Davis, 1961).

Quahog clams, M. mercenaria, were sub-

jected to graded concentrations of methoxy-

chlor (an organochlorine insecticide) and

malathion (an organophosphorous insecti-

cide) by Eisler and Weinstein (1967). All

clams survived exposure to 37 ppm mala-

thion and 1.1 ppm methoxychlor for 96

hours, and there was no difference in appear-

ance or behavior between exposed and un-

exposed animals. However, large differences

between the groups were found in concen-

trations of Ca, Zn, Na, Mg, and Fe in the

whole clam, mantle, gills, and muscles. The

authors suggested that such changes in metal

ion concentration could result in abnormal

metabolism of clams.

Emst (1969, 1971) exposed the poly-

chaetes Nereis diversicolor and Lanice con-

chilego to DDT dissolved in seawater. After

5 days of daily treatment with 0.3 ppb, N.

diversicolor contained 4.2 ppm of the chemi-

cal in or on its body. Three days after a

single dose of 0.009 ppb, L. conchilego con-

tained 2.1 ppb DDT. Metabolites of DDT

were not found in either species, but this is a

good example of bioaccumulation of a pesti-

cide by lower organisms.

As insecticides were developed for the

specific purpose of killing arthropods, it is

not surprising that they affect estuarine

forms such as zooplankton, shrimp, and

125

crabs. According to Butler (1966a), marine

crustaceans generally appear to be affected

more by organophosphorous than by organ-

ochlorine compounds. However, there is ex-

tensive literature on effects of organo-

chlorine insecticides on estuarine forms.

Grosch (1967) showed that the proportion

of resting eggs to non-resting eggs of the

brine shrimp, Artemia salina, was increased

by treatment with DDT, and concluded that

decreased. fecundity was due to maternal

debility. Conversely, Bookout ef al. (in

press) found direct effects of mirex on larval

development of the stone crab, Menippe

mercenaria, and the mud crab, Rhithro-

panopeus harrisii. They reported that the

duration of developmental stages, and the

total time of development of R. harrisii were

lengthened as concentration of the toxicant

increased between 0.01 and 10.0 ppb. No

such effect was found with M. mercenaria.

Survival of larvae was reduced by treatment

of both species, but M. mercenaria was more

sensitive to mirex than was R. harrisii. M.

mercenaira crab stages reared in a solution of

0.01 ppb mirex contained 0.13 ppm, where-

as R. harrisii reared in the same medium con-

tained no detectable residue. When reared in

0.1 ppb mirex, M. mercenaria contained

0.24 ppm and R. harrisii contained 0.13

ppm.

In a field study, DDT, endrin, and Baytex

(Bayer 29493), formulated on granules, sig-

nificantly reduced numbers of the salt-marsh

copepod Microcyclops bicolor (Ruber,

1963). In laboratory studies, exposure to

0.008 ppm Baytex, 0.06 ppm endrin, or

0.25 ppm DDT caused total mortality of VM.

bicolor. For the ostracod, Ostracoda vidua,

24-hour LC-100 values were: endrin, 2.6

ppb; DDT, 1 ppm; Baytex, 2 ppm; and for

the cladoceran, Ceriodaphnia quadrangula,

they were: Baytex, 1.3 ppb; endrin, 0.026

ppm; DDT, 0.12 ppb.

Eisler (1969) reported acute toxicities of

7 organochlorine (heptachlor, aldrin, diel-

drin, lindane, methoxychlor, endrin,

p,p’-DDT) and five organophosphorous

(Delnav, malathion, Phosdrin, DDVP, and

methyl parathion) insecticides to sand

shrimp (Crangon septemspinosa), grass

shrimp (Palaemonetes vulgarus), and a her-

126

mit crab (Pagurus longicarpus). At 20C and

24 ppt (parts per thousand) salinity, the

organochlorine compounds DDT (96-hr

LC-50 range=0.6-6.0 ppb) and endrin (96-hr

LC-50 range=1.7-12 ppb) were most toxic,

and heptachlor (96-hr LC-5 range=8-440

ppb) was least toxic. Among the

organophosphorous insecticides, methyl

parathion was most toxic (96-hr LC-50

range=2-7 ppb) and Delnav or malathion the

least toxic (96-hr LC-5O range=33-285 ppb).

Eisler showed that slainity and temperature

were important to toxicity. Shrimp were

more resistant to Phosdrin and DDVP at

salinities of 18 ppt and lower than at 24 ppt

and higher. Conversely, when exposed to

DDT, endrin, or heptachlor, they were most

susceptible at 12 ppt salinity and most resis-

tant at 36 ppt. Toxicity of both classes of

insecticide was related directly to tempera-

ture, mortality being least at the lowest

temperature (10C) and greatest at the high-

est temperature (30C). Eisler stated that the

96-hour LC-50 values for crustaceans fell

within the range for various freshwater

groups and, in contrast to Butler (1966a),

concluded that the organochlorine insecti-

cides are more toxic to marine fauna than

most other agricultural, industrial, and

domestic pollutants.

Using laboratory populations of the brine

shrimp, Artemia salina, Grosch (1967) ob-

tained total mortality of adults within 5

days of treatment at a DDT concentration of

1 ppb. This concentration was also toxic to

larvae, which died within 3 weeks after ex-

posure before reaching maturity.

The euphausiid shrimp, Euphausia paci-

fica, obtained DDT directly from water and

by assimilation from food. Changes in the

lipid content of the animal which accom-

pany reproductive cycles and seasonal

changes in feeding have impact on DDT resi-

due, and DDT is transported directly in the

lipid of food organisms to the lipid reservoir

of the consumer (Cox, 1971c).

Penaeid shrimp are among the most sensi-

tive crustaceans to organochlorine insecti-

cides. Butler and Springer (1966) reported

48-hour LC-50 values for pink shrimp,

Penaeus duorarum, and brown shrimp, P.

aztecus, were 0.03 - 0.4 ppb when exposed

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

to heptachlor, endrin, and lindane. The

values were 1-6 ppb for DDT, chlordane,

toxaphene, and dieldrin. Baytex, an organo-

phosphorous insecticide used in mosquito

control, was the most toxic compound (48-

hr LC-50=0.03 ppb). Nimmo ef al. (1970)

reported DDT residues in various organs of

P. duorarum, and the white shrimp, P. seti-

ferus, exposed in the laboratory. Residues

were always greatest in the hepatopancreas,

least in’ the exoskeleton and tail muscle.

When exposed to 0.05 ppb DDT for 56 days,

the hepatopancreas of P. duorarum con-

tained 0.7 ppm, the ventral nerve 0.4 ppm.

In all shrimp, the ventral nerve contained

relatively high concentrations of DDT. Possi-

ble effects on nerve tissue were shown by

Narahashi and Haas (1968) who found that

DDT forms charge transfer complexes with

nerve components of lobsters. When exposed

to a lethal concentration of 0.2 ppb, the

hepatopancreas contained 40.4 ppm DDT.

The authors concluded that concentrations

of DDT in some estuaries may be high

enough to kill shrimp (Nimmo et al., 1970).

Burnett (1971) used the sand crab,

Emerita analoga, as an indicator of pollution

along the coast of California. After exposure

for 24 hours to 7.8 ppt DDT dissolved in

seawater, crabs contained an average of 1

ppb of the chemical. It appeared that the

DDT was actively taken up because the

major surfaces for passive absorption con-

tained very little insecticides. In the field,

crabs contained between 2.9 and 6,900 ppb

DDT, with highest concentrations at the Los

Angeles County sewer outfall. Much of this

DDT appeared to have come from a pesti-

cide manufacturing plant. Also E. analoga

obtained DDT from particulate matter that

had rested among bottom sediments until re-

suspended by rough winter seas.

Lowe (1965a) exposed juvenile blue

crabs, Callinectes sapidus, to several concen-

trations of DDT in water. He found that 0.5

ppb was the approximate highest concentra-

tion tolerated and suggested that a sudden

slight increase above this concentration

could be disastrous to blue crabs. Below

this concentration, however, growth and

molting proceeded normally. Lowe (unpub-

lished data) also exposed blue crabs to the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticide mirex,

in the laboratory. After exposure to 0.84

and 8.7 ppb mirex in water for 72 hours,

separate populations contained 0.093 and

0.21 ppm mirex respectively as whole body

residues. No mortality occurred. When fed

fish flesh containing 5.0 ppm mirex, crabs

accumulated 1.4 ppm as whole body residue.

No deaths occurred in the feeding tests.

After treatment of a marsh ditch with

DDT, Croker and Wilson (1965) detected up

to 4.97 ppm of the chemical in the whole

body of the fiddler crab, Uca minax. An-

other species, Uca pugnax, was fed detritus

which contained 10 ppm DDT for 11 days

by Odum ef al. (1969). During that time, no

crabs died, but 5 days after exposure, all had

lost muscular coordination. Concentrations

of DDT in the muscles of the large claw in-

creased from 0.235 ppm before exposure to

0.885 ppm after 11 days. There was no

change in concentration in untreated crabs.

In the field, DDT residues appeared to be

associated with particulates in the size range

of 250 to 1,000 microns. Because crabs and

other detritus-feeding animals consume

particulate matter of that size range, the

authors concluded that organic detritus par-

ticles constitute a reservoir from which pesti-

cides enter food chains.

Vertebrates

It is well known that marine fishes con-

tain insecticides and, in general, are less

susceptible to poisoning than some other

aquatic forms (Table 1). Organophosphorous

compounds tend to be more acutely toxic

than the organochlorines, and herbicides are

less toxic than insecticides (Butler, 1971).

Effects of organophosphates may last for

only hours or days, however, whereas the

organochlorines are more persistent and ex-

ert their effects following bioaccumulation

and magnification in trophic pyramids.

Residue values of DDT and its metabo-

lites ranged from 15 ppb in ocean perch

(Sebastodes alutus) to 220 ppb in hake

(Merluccius productus) from the north-

eastern Pacific Ocean (Stout, 1968). Duke

and Wilson (1971) pointed out that in fish

from that same area, highest concentrations

of pesticides were found in prespawning go-

127

Table 1.—Acute toxicity (24 hours) of 240 pesticides to estuarine fauna (from Butler, 1971).

No effect Toxic to 20% of test population

Pesticide (ppm) 1.0 0.1-1.0 0.01-0.1 0.001-0.01

% %o %o %

Fish 46 16 28 10

Shrimp 33 14 33 20

Oysters 41 21 33 5

nads and liver. Duke and Wilson (1971) re-

ported DDT, DDD, DDE, PCB, and dieldrin

in livers, but did not find BHC, heptachlor,

heptachlor epoxide, aldrin, toxaphene,

chlordane, methoxychlor, or endrin.

The amount of pesticide in a field popula-

tion may vary over the seasonal cycle in dif-

ferent species and Cox (1970c) showed that

concentrations of DDT in Triphoturus mexi-

canus increased with size of the fish. Hansen

and Wilson (1970) reported annual variation

in the content of DDT and its metabolites in

5 species of fish from the estuary near Pensa-

cola, Florida. Concentrations ranged from

undectable in spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)

and croaker (Micropogon undulatus) in

June, to an average of 1.11 ppm (whole

body, wet weight) in pinfish (Lagodon

rhomboides) in July. For fish in general,

DDT residues were highest in summer and

fall. When spot and croaker were exposed to

0.1 ppb DDT in the laboratory, whole body

concentrations ranged from 10,000 to

38,000 times that in the water. After 4

weeks in pesticide-free water, pinfish which

had been exposed to 1.0 ppb DDT for 2

weeks lost 41% of the accumulated chemi-

cal. After 8 weeks in pesticide-free water,

loss of DDT from pinfish and croaker ex-

posed to 0.1 ppb for 5 weeks was 87 and

78%, respectively. Hansen and Wilson also

pointed out that when exposed to 0.1 ppb

DDT, pinfish stored 2.4 times as much DDT

as did croakers, so differences in rates of

storage must be considered when comparing

pesticide contamination in different areas

which contain different fish species. They

stated that pesticide residues in benthic

fishes which remain in 1 location are better

indicators of pollution than residues in

pelagic fishes.

Croker and Wilson (1965) applied techni-

cal grade DDT to a tidal ditch in a marsh.

Within 1 week after application of 0.2

Ib/acre, mortality of fishes was 90%. Young

mullet (Mugil cephalus) died first, followed

by several cyprinodont species, silversides

(Menidia beryllina), spot, and gobies

(Gobinoellus boleosoma). Several months af-

ter application of DDT, the fish population

was as large or larger than before spraying

and there seemed to be no permanent effects

(Butler, 1966a). A similar response was ob-

served by Harrington and Bidlingmayer

(1958) after application of dieldrin at the

rate of 1 lb/acre to a marsh.

Bearden (1967) treated a marsh with

Dibrom, and organophosphorous insecticide,

at rates as high as 72 ppb/acre foot of water

without apparent effect on brown shrimp,

white shrimp, blue crabs, killifish, or spot.

He ascribed the lack of effect to adsorption

Table 2.—Acute toxicity of endrin to 5 species of marine fish (from Lowe, 1965).

24-hr LC-50, Temp., Salinity,

ppb C ppt

Species

Mullet (Vugil cephalus) 2.6 29 21

Menhadden (Brevoortia patronus) 0.80 27 29

Spot (LZ. xanthurus) 0.45 17 23

Sheepshead (C. variegatus) 0.32 28 29

Killifish (Fundulus similis) 0.23 25 19

128

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

of Dibrom to particulates in water, ad-

herence of the spray to the stems and leaves

of emergent vegetation, and tidal flushing.

Uptake of DDT by the. flatfishes

Platyichthys flesus and Solea solea was

measured by Ernst (1970a, b). DDT adminis-

tered orally in 1-2ug doses for 1-2 weeks was

absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract and

was detected in the brain, kidney, muscle

and gastrointestinal tract. In S. solea, 10% of

the total dose was degraded to DDD 9 days

after treatment. Small amounts of DDE were

found in both species.

O’Brien (1967) stated that fishes are

generally more resistant to pesticides than

shrimp and oysters but are the most sensitive

of all vertebrates to organochlorine pesti-

cides. Fishes do, however, vary in their re-

sponses to these toxicants.

DDT is thought to exert its toxic effects

upon the nervous system by inhibition of

adenosine triphosphatase (Matsumura and

Patil, 1969). Janicki and Kinter (1971)

showed that DDT impaired fluid absorption

in the intestinal sacs of the eel, Anguilla

rostrata, by inhibiting the Na*- and K* -acti-

vated, Mg* -dependent adenosine triphos-

phatase system of the intentinal mucosa.

They suggested that effects of organo-

chlorine pollutants on marine teleosts may

be related to disruption of osmoregulatory

transport mechanisms.

Northern puffer fish, Sphoeroides

maculatus, were exposed for 96 hours to

methoxychlor (organochlorine) and methyl

parathion (organophosphorous) singly and in

combination by Eisler (1967). Those ex-

posed to 30 ppb methoxychlor were unaf-

fected, whereas those exposed to 20.2 ppm

methyl parathion or to a mixture of 10.1

ppm methyl parathion and 15 ppb metho-

xychlor refused to eat, were sluggish, and

mortality increased rapidly at 96 hours. Sur-

vivors had total inhibition of serum esterase

and less hemoglobin and fewer erythrocytes,

less magnesium in the liver, and less zinc in

the liver and gill filaments than did un-

treated fish. In a similar study on effects of

endrin on puffers, Eisler and Edmunds

(1963) showed that concentrations of so-

dium, potassium, calcium, and cholesterol in

blood serum were higher in exposed than in

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

unexposed fish. Concentrations of sodium,

potassium, calcium, magnesium, and zinc

were higher in the livers of treated animals.

Exposure to sublethal concentrations of

endrin (0.05-1.0 ppb) caused impaired liver

function.

Organophosphate insecticides inhibit ac-

tivity of brain acetylcholinesterase in

estuarine fishes. Enzyme activities of spot

(L. xanthurus) and sheepshead minnows

(Cyprinodon variegatus), from waters pol-

luted with organophosphorous compounds

were 73 to 88% of normal (Holland ef al.,

1967). Coppage (1971) developed an accu-

rate method for measurement of acetyl-

cholinesterase activity in fish brain, and ap-

plied the method in a study of the effects of

Guthion, phorate, and parathion on sheeps-

head minnows (Coppage, in press). He

demonstrated that inhibition to less than

87% of normal activity is necessary to indi-

cate exposure. Death occurred when enzyme

activity fell below 17.7% of normal. Cop-

page concluded that brain acetylcholines-

terase activity, when properly assayed, is a

dependable indicator of exposure and im-

pending death of fish. In a field study, Cop-

page and Duke (in press) demonstrated that

brain acetylcholinesterase activities of spot,

croaker, and mullet, Mugil cephalus, were

depressed after application of malathion to a

salt marsh in Louisiana.

Chronic exposure of spot to 0.1 ppm of

the carbamate insecticide, Sevin, for 5

months had no effect upon growth, survival,

histology, activity of cholinesterase, and sa-

linity tolerance (Lowe, 1967). In earlier

studies with Sevin, Butler (1963) reported

24-hour TLM values of 1.75 ppm for long-

nose killifish (Fundulus similis), and 4.25

ppm for the white mullet (Mugil curema). A

detailed report on effects of Sevin on marine

organisms is given by Milleman (1966).

Because of their effects on the nervous

system, it would be expected that pesticides

cause behavioral pathology in fishes. Warner

et al. (1966) and Anderson and Peterson

(1969) showed that pesticides affect condi-

tioned responses of freshwater fishes. Ander-

son (1968) reported that 24-hour exposure

to sublethal concentrations of DDT caused

impairment of the neurophysiological func-

129

tion of the trunk lateral line nerve of the

brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis. It was

shown that, after exposure of trout to 0.1,

0.2, or 0.3 ppm DDT, stimulation of the

lateral line nerve caused a marked prolonga-

tion of the multifiber response. The prolong-

ation was most pronounced at low tempera-

tures, which correlates well Cope’s (1965)

evidence that DDT is more toxic to fresh-

water fish at lower than at higher tempera-

tures. In contrast, Ogilvie and Anderson

(1965) showed that the effect of DDT on

temperature selection by young Atlantic sal-

mon, Salmo salar, was greater for fish accli-

mated to warm water (17C) than to cold

water (8C). Also, fish exposed to a low con-

centration of DDT (5 ppb) selected lower

temperatures than did fish exposed to high

concentrations (up to 50 ppb). Hansen (in

press) exposed mosquitofish to 5, 10, and 20

ppb DDT at a salinity of 15 ppt then tested

their salinity preference. These fish selected

significantly higher salinities than did unex-

posed fish, and Hansen suggested that the

pesticide changed the fish’s preference capa-

city to discriminate between salinities. No

effect on salinity preference was found with

malathion. Hansen (1969) also found that

sheepshead minnows avoided water which

contained DDT (0.01 or 0.05 ppm), endrin

(0.1 or 1.0 ppb), the organophosphorous in-

secticide Dursban (0.1, 0.25, or 10.0 ppm),

and the herbicide 2,4-D (0.1, 1.0, or 10.0

ppm). When fish were given a choice of 2

concentrations of the pesticides, the highest

concentration of 2,4-D was avoided, but the

highest concentration of DDT was preferred.

Fish did not discriminate between concen-

trations of endrin or Dursban and did not

avoid Sevin or malathion.

In the work cited above, Hansen sug-

gested that if the capacity to avoid a pesti-

cide is controlled genetically, fish which sur-

vive pollution by this means would produce

more offspring with the capacity to avoid

the chemical. Thus, genetic ability to avoid

pesticides would have survival value for the

species.

Another mechanism for resistance has

been suggested by Fabacher and Chambers

(1971). They found that mosquitofish from

130

a heavily insecticide-contaminated site in

Mississippi were resistant to organochlorine

pesticides. The total-body lipid content of

resistant mosquitofish was 1.8 times greater

than that of susceptible fish. Organochlorine

pesticides tend to accumulate in the liver,

and the livers of resistant fish contained 1.7

times more lipid than did non-resistant fish.

Ludke (1970, cited by Fabacher and Cham-

bers, 1971) found that the livers of resistant

mosquitofish were approximately twice as

large as those of susceptible fish. Increased

size of the liver is due, at least in part, to

high lipid content.

Resistance of estuarine fishes to pesti-

cides was demonstrated by Vinson ef al.

(1963) and described in further detail by

Boyd and Ferguson (1964a, b) and Ferguson

and Boyd (1964). Ferguson et al. (1966)

showed that mosquitofish from areas heavily

contaminated with insecticides had a 36-

hour TL,, value of 1,000 ppb. For mos-

quitofish from uncontaminated areas, the

value was | ppb. A combination of 2 insecti-

cides (e.g. endrin-DDT, endrin-toxaphene,

endrin-methyl parathion, DDT-toxaphene,

DDT-methyl parathion, and toxaphene-

methyl parathion) produced higher mortali-

ty in resistant mosquitofish than did either

insecticide alone (Ferguson and Bingham,

1966). However, the sum of mortalities

caused by individual insecticides exceeded

that for the same insecticides in combina-

tion, indicating that there were no additive

effects.

The potential hazard of endrin-resistnat

mosquitofish was demonstrated by Rosato

and Ferguson (1968). They fed an endrin-

exposed mosquitofish each day to fish,

frogs, turtles, snakes, and birds. All, except

red-eared turtles (Pseudemys scripta elegans)

and the cottonmouth moccasin (Ancistro-

don piscivorus), experienced 100% mortality

after 2 weeks. Mortality of turtles was 72%,

and cottonmouths 91%.

Sensitivity to organochlorine compounds

may be passed from parent fish to offspring.

Sheepshead minnows whose parents had

been exposed to 20-40 ppb DDT were more

sensitive to DDT and endrin than were off-

spring of fish which were not exposed (Hol-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

—

land et al., 1966). Holland and Coppage

(1970) later suggested that lipid metabolism

and maturation of ova were greatest when

the parent fish were exposed. Incorporation

of DDT via lipids into the ova may have

been the factor that caused increased sensi-

tivity when the lipids were utilized by the’

larvae.

Extensive literature exists on effects of

pesticides on estuarine birds (see especially

the papers of Moore and Tatton, 1965; Rise-

brough eft al., 1967; Hickey and Anderson,

1968; Porter and Wiemeyer, 1969; Heath et

al., 1969; Anderson et al., 1969; Lamont et

al., 1970; and Lamont and Reichel, 1970).

Little is known, however, about pesti-

cides in marine mammals. DDT was found in

seals from Antarctica (Sladen et al., 1966)

and in grey seals (Halichoerus grypus), com-

mon seals (Phoca vitulina), and harbor por-

poises (Phocoena phocoena), in England

(Holden and Marsden, 1967). Koeman and

Genderen (1966) found 9.6 to 27.4 ppm of

DDT and 0.07 to 2.3 ppm of dieldrin in har-

bor seals in the Netherlands. Anas and Wil-

son (1970a) examined livers and brains of 30

fur seals, Callorhinus ursinus , from the Pribi-

lof Islands and the Washington State coast.

All samples contained DDE, 21 contained

DDD, 24 contained DDT, and 3 contained

dieldrin. Concentrations in the liver were al-

ways higher than in the brain. DDE was pres-

ent in livers from 3 of 7 fetuses and in brain

tissue from two. DDD, DDT, and dieldrin

were not found in fetal liver and brain. The

same authors (1970b) examined muscle,

brain, liver, blubber, and ingested milk from

nursing fur seal pups. Pesticides were found

in every sample of tissue and ingested milk.

Of 20 pups, all contained DDD, 17 con-

tained DDT, and 5 contained dieldrin. The

highest concentration of any pesticide was

45 ppm of DDE in the blubber of one pup.

Pesticides have also been found in whales

(Wolman and Wilson, 1970). Blubber of grey

whales (Eschirichtius robustus) and sperm

whales (Physeter catodon) from waters near

San Francisco, California, contained up to

6.0 ppm DDT. Highest dieldrin concentra-

tion in grey whales was 0.075 ppm, and in

sperm whales 0.019 ppm.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL, VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Herbicides

Very little is known about effects of

herbicides in estuaries. Herbicides are cur-

rently being used in protected coastal marine

areas (Thomas, 1968; Haven, 1969) and are

used in bays for control of Eurasian water-

milfoil, Myriophyllum spicatum, (Rawls,

1965). Use of herbicides in estuaries will

probably increase due to expanding use of

these natural resources for recreation and for

industrial development.

A great amount of research has been done

on herbicides in freshwater ecosystems (see

reviews of Klingman, 1963; House et al.,

1967; Fryer and Evans, 1968; Mullison,

1970; and the book published by the Na-

tional Academy of Sciences-National Re-

search Council, 1966).

Ukeles (1962) was the first to report ef-

fects of herbicides on marine unicellular al-

gae. She found that the substituted urea

herbicides diuron, monuron, neburon, and

fenuron were among the most toxic com-

pounds tested against Protococcus sp.,

Chlorella sp., Dunaliella euchlora, Phaeo-

dactylum tricornutum, and Monochrysis

lutheri. Diuron, at a concentration of only

0.02 ppb, inhibited growth of all genera ex-

cept Chlorella. Walsh (in press,b), in a

study of effects of 30 herbicidal formula-

tions, confirmed that low concentrations of

urea herbicides inhibit both gorwth and

photosynthesis by marine unicellular algae

(Chlorococcum sp, D. tertiolecta, I. galbana,

and P. tricornutum). He also showed that

the triazine herbicides (e.g. ametryne, atra-

zine, simazine) are as toxic, or more so, than

the ureas. In a study on effects of urea herbi-

cides on marine algae in relation to salinity,

Walsh and Grow (1971) found a decrease in

the amount of carbohydrate in cells after

treatment of 6 species that was related di-

rectly to salinity. Chlorococcum, the most

susceptable alga, lost 65.6% of its total car-

bohydrate when treated with concentrations

that inhibited growth by 50 to 75% at 30

ppt salinity.

Rawls (1965) tested Silvex and 3 formu-*

lations of 2,4-D on blue crabs, eastern oy-

sters, softshell clams (Mya arenaria), and

pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus).

131

Only 2,4-D acetamide powder applied at 20

Ib active ingredient/acre was toxic to these

animals. An undesired side-effect however,

was caused by death of Eurasian water-

milfoil brought about by treatment in the

field. Anaerobic conditions created by de-

composition of dead plants caused severe

losses of estuarine fauna. Thomas (1968)

and Thomas and Duffy (1968) tested effects

of the butoxyethanol ester of 2,4-D on eel-

grass, Zostera marina. They suggested use of

this formulation to eliminate weeds in oys-

ter-growing areas for increase of shellfish

production.

Softshell clams and oysters did not ac-

quire residues of Diquat when exposed in

the field (Haven, 1969). Kobayashi et al.

(1970) demonstrated that the herbicide

pentachlorophenate was detoxified by the

shellfish Tapes philippinarum.

On the other hand, Butler (1965) found

that 1 ppm of 2,4-D reduced uptake of

radioactive carbon by 16% in a natural popu-

lation of plankton composed mainly of dino-

flagellates and diatoms. He (1963, 1964) al-

so reported that continuous exposure of

oysters to 3.75 ppm 2,4-D reduced oyster

shell growth 50%. No effects of 1 ppm of a

combination of 2,4-D and picloram were

found on phytoplankton, oysters, shrimp,

and fish (Butler, 1965).

An estimate of possible effects of herbi-

cides on estuarine crustaceans may be ob-

tained from the freshwater work of Sanders

(1970). He tested 37 herbicidal formulations

on 6 species of crustaceans: Daphnia magna,

Cypridopsis vidua, Gammarus fasciatus,

Asellus brevicaudus, Palaemonetes kadia-

kensis, and Orconectes nais. Dichlone, a

naphthoquinone, was the most toxic chemi-

cal to all species (48-hr TL-50=0.025-3.2

ppm). The propylene glycol butyl ether ester

of 2,4-D was almost as toxic (48-hr

TL-50=0.10-2.7 ppm except for O. nais).

The propylene glycol butyl ether ester of

Silvex and technical formulations of triflura-

lin and molinate were toxic at concentra-

tions of less than 1 ppm.

In a study of effects of 2,4-D on behavior

of fish, Hansen (private communication)

found that mosquitofish sought water free

132

of 1.0 or 10.0 ppm of the butoxyethanol

ester, but not free of 0.1 ppm.

Polychlorinated biphenyls

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s) are

aromatic organochlorine compounds that are

similar in structure to chlorinated hydro-

carbon insecticides such as DDT and metho-

xychlor. The sole manufacturer of these

chemicals in the United States is the Mon-

santo Chemical Co., Saint Louis, which mar-

kets them under the trade name “Aroclor.”

The same compounds are also marketed in

the United States as Chlorextol, Dykanol,

Inerteen, Noflamol, Pyramol, and Thermi-

nol. They are also manufactured abroad un-

der the trade names Phenochlor and Pyra-

lene (France), Clophen (Germany), Fenclor

(Italy), Kannechlor (Japan), and Soval (Rus-

sia). PCB’s are made by substitution of

chlorine atoms for 1 or more hydrogen

atoms on the biphenyl structure. When

biphenyl hydrocarbons are chlorinated, the

result is a mixture of compounds. The de-

gree of chlorination is used to identify the

commercial product. For example, Monsan-

to markets 8 formulations of Aroclor, desig-

nated 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1260,

1262, and 1268. The last 2 digits indicate

the percentage by weight of chlorine.

PCB’s have low vapor pressures, low

water solubility, and high dielectric con-

stants. They also are inert, stable at high

temperatures, resistant to acids and bases,

soluble in fat, and resistant to microbial

breakdown. These properties make them

very persistent in the natural environment.

Recently, Safe and Hutzinger (1971) re-

ported that 2,4,6,2’,4’,6’-hexachloro-

biphenyl was degraded to di-, tri-, tetra-,

and pentachlorobiphenyls when irradiated

for 100 min at A,,,, 3100A in hexane.

As early as 1944, Miller noted that there

were hazards to humans associated with the

use of PCB’s. He showed that guinea pigs,

rats, and rabbits, when exposed to PCB with

an approximate chlorine content of 42%

over a period of 6 days, developed liver and

skin pathologies. Similar results were re-

ported by Oettingen (1955). Recent studies

have shown that chronic toxicity to animals

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

is a significant factor in survival (Gustafson,

1970).

PCB’s tend to be less toxic than DDT and

dieldrin. Lichtenstein et al. (1969) compared

toxicity of 11 polychlorinated bi- and tri-

phenyls with dieldrin and DDT to houseflies

(Musca domestica) and fruit flies (Droso-

phila melanogaster). Dieldrin was the most

toxic compound, PCB’s the least toxic. Tox-

icity of PCB’s was related inversely to chlor-

ine content. More important, however, is

that sublethal dosages of PCB increased the

toxicity of dieldrin and DDT.

Ubiquity of PCB’s was brought to notice

in 1966 (Anon.) when concern over the find-

ings of Jensen was expressed. The anony-

mous author stated that increased amounts

of PCB were entering the air from industrial

and rubbish-dump smoke and were absorbed

by water, from which they were taken up by

fishes and humans. Since then, Holden

(1970) reported crude sewage sludge as a

source of PCB’s in Scotland, and Schmidt et

al. (1971) found PCB’s in sewage outfalls in

California. In Escambia Bay, Florida, Duke

et al. (1970) found that a PCB originated

from leakage of a heat-exchange fluid from

an industrial plant.

PCB’s are present in all components of

estuarine ecosystems. Duke eft al (1970)

found Aroclor 1254 in water, sediment, and

biota of Escambia Bay. Sediment contained

up to 486 ppm. Flounder, croaker, men-

haden, pinfish, speckled trout, shrimp, and

blue crabs contained from 1.0 to 184 ppm.

In the Netherlands, the presence of PCB’s

was reported in mussels, fish, and birds

(Koeman et al., 1969). In Sweden, Jensen et

al. (1969) found residues in the fat of mus-

sels, Mytilus edulus, (1.9-8.6 ppm), herring,

Clupea harengus, (0.5-23.0 ppm), and seals,

H. grypus, (16-56 ppm), and in the eggs of

guillemot, Uria aalge (140-360 ppm), muscle

of eagle, Haliaeetus albicilla, (8 400-17,000

ppm), and muscle of heron, Ardea cinerea,

(9,400 ppm).

Dr. Nelson Cooley, of the Environmenta

Protection Agency Laboratory at Gulf

Breeze, Florida, has found that Tetrahymena

pyriformis W, a euryhaline ciliated proto-

zoan, accumulated 167.9 ppb of Aroclor

J. WASH. ACAD. SCIL., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

1254 (dry weight) when exposed to 10.0

ppb for 7 days.

These data suggest strongly that biologi-

cal concentration of PCB’s occurs in food

chains.

Invertebrates

Effects of Aroclor 1254 on oysers (C. vir-

ginica) during 96-hour exposures were

reported by Duke ef a/. (1970). The rate of

shell growth was reduced 19% by only 1.0

ppb and completely inhibited by 100 ppb.

Oysters exposed to 1.0 ppb PCB contained

8.1 ppm and those exposed to 10.0 ppb con-

tained 33.0 ppm of the toxicant in soft tis-

sues. Aroclor 1254 killed Gammarus oceani-

cus at concentrations between | and 10 ppm

(Wildish, 1970) and uptake occurred across

the general integument (Wildish and Zitko,

1971). The mean rate of uptake by living

animals exposed to 1.0 ppm PCB was 0.057

mg/hr/mm~. Wildish suggested that crus-

taceans were most susceptible to PCB poi-

soning during molting, and additional evi-

dence for this was given by Duke ef al.

(1970) and Nimmo et al. (197 1a).

Acute toxicity of Aroclor 1254 to juve-

nile pink shrimp, P. duorarum, was reported

by Duke et al. (1970) and Nimmo ef al.

(1971a). No mortality occurred among

shrimp exposed to 1.0 or 10.0 ppb for 48

hours. When exposed to 100 ppb, mortality

was 80% after 48 hours and 100% after 96

hours. After 48 hours, shrimp exposed to

1.0 ppb contained 0.14 ppm PCB (whole

body residue), those exposed to 10.0 ppb

contained 1.3 ppm, and those (dead and

moribund) exposed to 100 ppb had 3.9

ppm. In chronic studies, Nimmo ef al.

(197 1a) showed that Aroclor 1254 was more

toxic to juvenile pink shrimp than to adults.

For shrimp 2.5 to 3.8 cm long, 0.94 ppb

killed 51% of the animals after 15 days. For

shrimp 9.5 to 12.5 cm long exposed to 3.5

ppb, 50% mortality was not attained until

35 days. PCB was incorporated into the

body organs through the water and through

the food. Most of the toxicant was found in

the hepatopancreas, least in the exoskeleton

and abdominal muscle. When shrimp were

placed in uncontaminated water, PCB was

133

transferred from the hepatopancreas to

other organs. Whole-body loss in uncontami-

nated water was about 60% in 5 weeks.

Crustaceans may also obtain PCB ad-

sorbed on particles of sediment. Nimmo et

al. (1971b) exposed pink shrimp and fiddler

crabs, Uca pugilator, to various concentra-

tions of Aroclor 1254 on silt. Uptake by the

animals was related directly to amount in

the sediment. The hepatopancreas of shrimp

exposed to sediment containing 61.0 ppm

PCB for 30 days had an average of 240 ppm.

Hepatopancreas of fiddler crabs in the same

experiment contained an average of 80 ppm.

Vertebrates

PCB does not seem to be acutely toxic to

some estuarine fishes. It was present in the

livers and fat of fishes from the northeastern

Pacific Ocean (Duke and Wilson, 1971) but

Duke ef al. (1970) obtained no mortality of

juvenile pinfish after exposure to 100 ppb

Aroclor 1254 for 48 hours, although the fish

did absorb the chemical. Those exposed to 1

ppb had 0.98 ppm in whole body residues.

At an exposure of 100 ppb whole body resi-

due was 17.0 ppm. Later, Hansen ef al.

(1971) reported that pinfish and spot died

when exposed to 5 ppb Aroclor 1254 for 14

to 45 days. Delayed toxicity was demon-

strated when 48% of fish exposed to 5 ppb

for 26 days died within 1 week after being

placed in PCB-free water. Most PCB was

stored in the liver, but residues were also

found in the brain, gills, heart, muscle, gall

bladder, gonad, gut, and skin.

A possible mechanism for effect of PCB’s

in fish was suggested by Yap et al. (in press).

They found that Aroclor 1221, 1254, and

1268 inhibited the ATPase enzyme system

of the blue-gill sunfish, Lepomis macro-

chirus, at concentrations less than 1 ppm.

Residues of PCB’s have been reported in

many birds (see Risebrough et al., 1968;

Koeman ef al., 1969; Jensen et al., 1969;

Bagley et al., 1970; Prestt et al., 1970; Heath

et al., 1970; Vos and Koeman, 1970). Stick-

el et al. (1970) found 230 ppm of PCB, 385

ppm DDE, 6 ppm DDD, 2.2 ppm dieldrin,

and 0.4 ppm heptachlor epoxide in the brain

134

of a bald eagle found sick in the field. Low

dietary levels (25 and 50 ppm) of Aroclor

1254 had no measureable reproductive ef-

fects on mallard ducks, Anas platyrhyncos,

and bobwhite quail, Colinus virginianus. PCB

was less toxic to birds than DDT, but the |

joint toxicity of Aroclor 1254 and DDE was |

additive and not synergistic.

Mussels and fish contained more PCB’s of .

lower percentage chlorine than birds (Jensen ©

et al., 1969; Koeman et al., 1969). These ©

authors suggested that PCB’s with lower

chlorine values were metabolized or excreted

faster than those with more chlorine and are

thus lost at a greater rate from the food

chain. The gas chromatographic pattern of

ingested PCB’s changes as they are stored in

bird tissues, a phenomenon also reported by

Nimmo et al. (1971a) for shrimp.

PCB’s affect reproductive physiology of

birds. Reproductive failure of pheasants,

Phasianus colchicus, occurred after ingestion

of PCB (Dahlgren and Linder, 1971). In the

American kestrel, Falco sparverius, micro-

somal breakdown of oestradiol after ingestion

of bird flesh which contained Aroclor 1254

or 1262 was reported by Lincer and Peakall

(1970). Studies on effects of Aroclor 1254

on secondary sexual characteristics of White

Leghorn cockerels by Platonow and Funnell

(1971) suggest that the toxicant exerts an

anti-androgenic affect. The authors

described a delayed reaction in which testi-

cular weights of treated animals were lower

than those of untreated birds. The difference

was not noted until 6 weeks after the experi-

ment began. It is possible that similar effects

occur in estuarine birds. The data of

Platonow and Funnell (1971), Dahlgren and

Linder (1971) and Lincer and Peakall (1970)

suggest that reproduction by both male and

female birds is affected by PCB’s.

It is also possible that PCB’s reduce resis-

tance to disease in birds. Mallard ducklings

were fed Aroclor 1254 for 10 days, and

showed no apparent clinical effects. Given

PCB-free food and challenged 5 days later

with duck hepatitis virus, they suffered signi-

ficantly higher mortality than did birds

which were not fed PCB (Friend and

Trainer, 1970).

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Trace amounts of PCB were found in

muscle, liver, blubber, and ingested milk of

nursing fur seal pups (Anas

and Wilson

1970b).

Acknowledgments

I thank P.A. Butler, N.R. Cooley, D.L.

Coppage, T.W. Duke, DJ. Hansen, Jl.

Lowe, and D.R. Nimmo, all of the Environ-

mental Protection Agency laboratory at Gulf

Breeze, Florida, for making their files of

literature on pesticides available to me.

References Cited

Abbott, D.C., R.B. Harrison, J.O’G. Tatton, and J.

Thompson. 1966. Organochlorine pesticides in

the atmosphere. Nature 211: 259-261.

Anas, R.E., and A.J. Wilson, Jr. 1970a. Organo-

chlorine pesticides in fur seals. Pestic. Monit. J.

3: 198-200.

. 1970b. Organochlorine pesti-

cides in nursing fur seal pups. Pestic. Monit. J.

4: 114-116.

Anderson, D.W., J.J. Hickey, R.W. Risebrough,

D.F. Hughes, and R.E. Christensen. 1969. Signi-

ficance of chlorinated hydrocarbon residues to

breeding pelicans and cormorants. Can. Field

Nat. 83: 91-112.

Anderson, J.M. 1968. Effect of sublethal DDT on

the lateral line of brook trout, Salvelinus fon-

tinalis. J. Fish. Res. Board Canada 25:

2677-2682.

Anderson, J.M., and M.R. Peterson, 1969. DDT:

Sublethal effects on brook trout nervous sys-

tem. Science 164: 440441.

Anonymous. 1966. Report of a new chemical haz-

ard. New Scient. 32: 612.

Bagley, G.E., W.L. Reichel, and E. Cromartie.

1970. Identification of polychlorinated bi-

phyenyls in two bald eagles by combined gas-

liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry.

J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 53: 251-261.

Bearden, C.M. 1967. Field tests concerning the ef-

fects of “Dibrom 14 Concentrate” (Naled) on

estuarine animals. Contrib. No. 45 from the

Bears Bluff Labs., Wadmalaw Island, S. C. 14

pp.

Bookhout, C.G., A.J. Wilson, Jr., T.W. Duke, and

J.1. Lowe. Effects of mirex on the larval de-

velopment of two crabs. Water, Air, Soil Pollut.

In press.

Bowes, G.W., R.W. Gee, and A.F. Carlucci. 1971.

Biochemical studies of marine phytoplankton

in the presence of DDT. FAO Fish. Rep. 99

(abstracts). Report of the FAO Technical Con-

ference on Marine Pollution and its Effects on

Living Resources and Fishing. Rome, 9-18 De-

cember 1970. p. 162.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Boyd, C.E., and D.E. Ferguson. 1964a. Spectrum

of cross-resistance to insecticides in the mos-

quitofish, Gambusia affinis. Mosquito News 24:

19-21.

at . 1964b. Susceptibility and re-

sistance of mosquitofish to several insecticides.

J. Econ. Entomol. 57: 430-431.

Burnett, R. 1971.DDT residues: Distribution of

concentrations in Emerita analoga (Stimpson)

along coastal California. Science 174: 606-608.

Butler, P.A. 1963. Commercial fisheries investiga-

tions. Pesticide-Wildlife Studies: A Review of

Fish and Wildlife Service Investigations during

1961 and 1962. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Serv. Circ.

167: 11-25.

96425 Comimencialatishentes

investigations. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Serv. Circ. 199:

5-28.

. 1965.Effects of herbicides on

estuarine fauna. Proc. South. Weed Conf. 18:

576-580.

. 1966a. The problem of pesti-

cides in estuaries. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.

95(Suppl.): 110-115.

1966b. Pesticides in the

marine environment. J. Appl. Ecol. 3(Suppl.):

253-259.

. 1967. Pesticides in the es-

tuary. In J.D. Newsom (ed.). Proc. Marsh Es-

tuary Manage. Symp., Baton Rouge, Louisiana,

T.J. Moran’s Sons, Inc., Baton Rouge, pp.

120-124.

1969 ealhemsionificancemon

DDT residues in estuarine fauna. Jn M.W. Miller

and G.G. Berg (eds.). Chemical Fallout. C.C.

Thomas, Springfield, Illinois. pp. 205-220.

. 1971. Influence of pesticides

On marine ecosystems. Proc. R. Soc. Lond., Ser.

By. UVIS SA ies vo)

Butler, P.A., and P.F. Springer. 1966. Pesticides—A

new factor in coastal environments. Trans.

28th. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 4-6

March 1963, pp. 378-390.

Cohen, J.M., and C. Pinkerton. 1966. Widespread

translocation of pesticides by air transport and

rainout. Adv. Chem. Ser. No. 60: 163-176.

Cope, O.B. 1965. Agricultural chemicals and fresh-

water ecological systems. In C.O. Chichester

(ed.), Research in Pesticides. Academic Press,

Inc. New York., pp. 115-127.

Coppage, D.L. 1971. Characterization of fish brain

acetylcholinesterase with an automated pH stat

for inhibition studies. Bull. Environ. Contam.

Toxicol. 6: 304-310.

__ CC. Organophosphate pesticides:

Specific level of brain AChE inhibition related

to death in sheepshead minnows. Trans. Am.

Fish. Soc. In press.

Coppage, D.L., and T.W. Duke. Effects of pesti-

cides in estuaries along the Gulf and southeast

Atlantic coasts. Proc. Nat. Conf. Mosq. Control.

In press.

135

Cox, J.L. 1970a. DDT residues in marine phyto-

plankton: Increase from 1955 to 1969. Science

170: 71-73.

a 97 Obs ownambientmlevel

uptake of '4C-DDT by three species of marine

phytoplankton. Bull. Environ. Contam.

Toxicol. 5: 218-221.

a i, IOIOG, Aconimulbition Of

DDT residues in Triphoturus mexicanus from

the Gulf of California. Nature 227: 192-193.

. 1971a. DDT residues in sea-

water and particulate matter in the California

Current system. Fish. Bull. 69: 443-449.

. 1971b. DDT increasing in the

marine environment. Biol. Conserv. 3: 272-277.

. 1971c. Uptake, assimilation,

and loss of DDT residues by Euphausia pacifica,

a euphausiid shrimp. Fish. Bull. 69: 627-633.

Croker, R.A., and A.J. Wilson, Jr. 1965. Kinetics

and effects of DDT in a tidal marsh ditch.

Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 94: 152-159.

Dahlgren, R.B., and R.L. Linder. 1971. Effects of

polychlorinated biphenyls on pheasant repro-

duction, behavior, and survival. J. Wildl. Manag.

35: 315-319.

Davis, H.C. 1961. Effects of some pesticides on

eggs and larvae of oysters (Crassostrea virginica)

and clams (Venus mercenaria). Commer. Fish.

Rev. 28: 8-23.

Derby, S.B. (Sleeper), and E. Ruber. 1971. Primary

production: Depression of oxygen evolution in

algal cultures by organophosphotus insecticides.

Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 5: 553-557.

Duke, T.W. 1969. Estuarine pesticide research—

Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Proc. Gulf

Caribb. Fish. Inst., 22nd. Annu. Sess., pp.

146-153.

Duke, T.W., J.I. Lowe, and A.J. Wilson, Jr. 1970.

A polychlorinated biphenyl (Aroclor® 1254) in

the water, sediment, and biota of Escambia

Bay, Florida. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.

5: 171-180.

Duke, T.W., and A.J. Wilson, Jr. 1971. Chlorinated

hydrocarbons in livers of fishes from the north-

eastern Pacific Ocean. Pestic. Monit. J. 5:

228-232.

Dustman, E.H., and L.F. Stickel. 1966. Pesticide

residues in the ecosystem. Jn Pesticides and

Their Effects on Soils and Water. Am. Soc. of

Agron. Spec. Pub. No. 8, pp. 109-121.

Eisler, R. 1967. Tissue changes in puffers exposed

to methoxychlor and methyl parathion. U.S.

Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl., Tech. Pap. No. 17, 15

pp.

. 1969. Acute toxicity of in-

secticides to marine decapod crustaceans.

Crustaceana 16: 302-310.

Fisler, R., and P.H. Edmunds. 1963. Effects of en-

drin on blood and tissue chemistry of a marine

fish. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 95: 153-159.

Eisler, R., and M.P. Weinstein. 1967. Changes in

metal composition of the quahaug clam, Mer-

136

cenaira mercenaria, after exposure to insecti-

cides. Chesapeake Sci. 8: 253-258.

Engel, R.H., M.J. Neat, and R.E. Hillman. 1971.

Sublethal chronic effects of DDT and lindane

on glycolytic and gluconeogenic enzymes of the

quahaug, Mercenaria mercenaria. FAO Fish.

Rep. 99. Report of the FAO Technical Confer-

ence on Marine Pollution and its Effects on Liy-

ing Resources and Fishing. Rome, 9-18 Decem-

ber 1970, 7 pp.

Ernst, W. 1969. Stoffwechsel von Pesticiden in

marinen Organismen. I. Vorlaufife Unter-

suchungen uber die Umwandlung und Akkumu-

lation von DDT-'4C durch den Polychaeten,

Nereis diversicolor. Veroff. Inst. Meeresforsh.

Bremeth. 11: 327-332.

Se 97 OaaeStotiwechselmavon

Pesticiden in marinen Organismen. II. Biotrans-

formation und Akkumulation von DDT-'4C in

Plattfischen, Platichthys flesus. Veroff. Inst.

Meeresforsch. Bremerh. 12: 353-360.

Ss) 97 0b stofiwechselmmvon

Pesticiden in marinen Organismen. III. Abbau

und Speicherung von DDT-'4C in Plattfischen,

Solea solea. Veroff. Inst. Meeresforsch, Bre-

meth. 12: 361-364.

a 197 1 Accumulationgand

metabolism of DDT-'4C (Dichloro-diphenyl-

trichloro-ethane) in marine organisms. FAO

Fish. Rep. 99. Report of the FAO Technical

Conference on Marine Pollution and its Effects

on Living Resources and Fishing. Rome, 9-18

December 1970, 3 pp.

Fabacher, D.L., and H. Chambers. 1971. A possible

mechanism of insecticide resistance in mosqui-

tofish. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 6:

372-376.

Ferguson, D.E., and C.E. Boyd. 1964. Apparent

resistance to methyl parathion in mosquitofish,

Gambusia affinis. Copeia 1964: 706.

Ferguson, D.E., and C.R. Bingham. 1966. The ef-

fects of combinations of insecticides on suscep-

tible and resistant mosquitofish. Bull. Environ.

Contam. Toxicol. 1: 97-103.

Ferguson, D.E., J.L. Lundke, and G.G. Murphy.

1966. Dynamics of endrin uptake and release

by resistant and susceptible strains of mosquito-

fish. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 95: 335-344.

Foy, C.L., and S.W. Bingham. 1969. Some research

approaches toward minimizing herbicidal zesi-

dues in the environment. Residue Rev. 29:

105-135.

Frere, M.H. 1971. Requisite sampling frequency

for measuring nutrient and pesticide movement

with runoff waters. J. Agric. Food Chem. 19:

837-839.

Friend, M., and D.O. Trainer. 1970. Polychlori-

nated biphenyls: Interaction with duck hepati-

tus virus. Science 170: 1314-1316.

Fryer, J.D., and S.A. Evans. 1968. Weed Control

Handbook, Vol. 1, Principles. Blackwell Scienti-

fic Publications, Oxford and Edinburgh. 494

Pp.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Goodman, R.N. 1965. Effect of pesticides from

land drainage in farm pond waters. In C.O.

Chichester (ed.). Research in Pesticides. Aca-

demic Press, Inc. New York, pp. 129-133.

Gregory, W.W. Jr., J.K. Reed, and L.E. Priester, Jr.

1969. Accumulation of parathion and DDT by

some algae and protozoa. J. Protozool. 16:

69-71.

Grosch, D.S. 1967. Poisoning with DDT: Effect on

reproductive performance of Artemia. Science

155: 592-593.

Gustafson, G.C. 1970. PCB’s—prevalent and persis-

tent. Environ. Sci. Technol. 4: 814-819.

Haderlie, E.C. 1970. Influence of pesticide run-off

in Monterey Bay. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1: 42-43.

Hannan, P.J., and C. Patouillet. 1971. Nutrient and

pollutant concentrations as determinants in al-

gal growth rates. FAO Fish. Rep. 99. Report of

the FAO Technical Conference on Marine Pol-

lution and its Effects on Living Resources and

Fishing. Rome, 9-18 December 1970. 7 pp.

Hansen, D.J. 1969. Avoidance of pesticides by un-

trained sheepshead minnows. Trans. Am. Fish.

Soc. 98: 427-429.

. DDT and malathion: Effect

on salinity selection by mosquitofish. Trans.

Am. Fish. Soc. In press.

Hansen, D.J., P.R. Parrish, J.1. Lowe, A.J. Wilson,

Jr., and P.D. Wilson. 1971. Chronic toxicity,

uptake, and retention of Aroclor® 1254 in two

estuarine fishes. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxi-

col. 6: 113-119.

Hansen, D.J., and A.J. Wilson, Jr. 1970. Signifi-

cance of DDT residues from the estuary near

Pensacola, Florida. Pestic. Monit. J. 4: 51-56.

Harrington, R.W., and W.L. Bidlingmayer. 1958.

Effects of dieldrin on fishes and invertebrates

of a salt marsh. J. Wildl. Manag. 22: 76-82.

Harriss, R.C., D.B. White, and R.B. Macfarlane.

1970. Mercury compounds reduce photosyn-

thesis by plankton. Science 170: 736-737.

Haven, D.S. 1969. Levels of the herbicide Diquat

in two estuarine molluscs and in the water and

mud. Va. J. Sci. 20: 51-53.

Heath, R.G., and R.M. Prouty. 1967. Trial moni-

toring of pesticides in wings of mallards and

black ducks. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2:

101-110.

Heath, R.G., J.W. Spann, and J.F. Kreitzer. 1969.

Marked DDE impairment of mallard reproduc-

tion in controlled studies. Nature 224: 47-48.

Heath, R.G., J.W. Spann, J.F. Kreitzer, and C.

Vance. 1970. Effects of polychlorinated bi-

phenyls on birds. Proc. XV Int. Ornithol.

Congr. 20 pp.

Hickey, J.J., and D.W. Anderson. 1968. Chlori-

nated hydrocarbons and eggshell changes in

taptorial and fish-eating birds. Science 162:

271-273.

Holden, A.V. 1970. Source of polychlorinated bi-

phenyl contamination in the marine environ-

ment. Nature 228: 1220-1221.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Holden, A.V., and K. Marsden. 1967. Organo-

chlorine pesticides in seals and porpoises. Na-

ture 216: 1274-1276.

Holland, H.T., D.L. Coppage, and P.A. Butler.

1966. Increased sensitivity to pesticides in

sheepshead minnows. Trans. Am, Fish. Soc. 95:

110-112.

. 1967. Use of fish brain acetyl-

cholinesterase to monitor pollution by organo-

phosphorus pesticides. Bull. Environ. Contam.

Toxicol. 2: 156-162.

Holland, H.T., and D.L. Coppage. 1970. Sensitivity

to pesticides in three generations of sheepshead

minnows. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 5:

362-367.

House, W.B., L.H. Goodson, H.M. Gadberry, and

K.W. Dockter. 1967. Assessment of ecological

effects of extensive or repeated use of herbi-

cides: Final report. Midwest Res. Inst., Kansas

City, Missouri. 369 pp.

Janicki, R.H., and W.B. Kinter. 1971. DDT: Dis-

rupted osmoregulatory events in the intestine

of the eel Anguilla rostrata adapted to seawater.

Science 173: 1146-1148.

Jensen, S., A.G. Johnels, S. Olsson, and G. Otter-

lind. 1969. DDT and PCB in marine animals

from Swedish waters. Nature 224: 247-250.

Karinen, J.F., J.G. Lamberton, N.E. Stewart, and

L.C. Terriere. 1967. Persistence of carbaryl in

the marine environment. J. Agric. Food Chem.

15: 148-156.

Kearney, P.C., E.A. Woolson, J.R.,Plimmer, and

A.R. Isensee 1969. Decontamination of Pesti-

cides in Soils. Residue Rev. 29: 137-149.

Klingman, G.C. 1963. Weed Control: Asa Science.

John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. 421 pp.

Kobayashi, K., H. Akitake, and T. Tomiyama.

1970. Studies on the metabolism of pentachlor-

ophenate, a herbicide in aquatic organisms III.

Isolation and identification of a conjugated PCP

yielded by a shell-fish, Tapes philippinarum.

Jap. Soc. Sci. Fish. Bull. 36: 103-108.

Koeman, J.H., and H. van Genderen. 1966. Some

preliminary notes on residues of chlorinated

hydrocarbon insecticides in birds and mammals

in the Netherlands. J. Appl. Ecol. 3(Suppl.):

99.

Koeman, J.H., M.C. Ten Noever de Brauw, and

R.H. de Vos. 1969. Chlorinated biphenyls in

fish, mussels, and birds from the River Rhine

and the Netherlands coastal area. Nature 221:

1126-1128.

Lamont, T.G., G.E. Bagley, and W.L. Reichel.

1970. Residues of 0,p’-DDT in brown pelican

eggs and mallard ducks. Bull. Environ. Contam.

Toxicol. 5: 231-236.

Lamont, T., and W. Reichel. 1970.Organochlorine

pesticide residues in whooping cranes and Ever-

glade kites. Auk 87: 158-159.

Lichtenstein, E.P., K.R. Schulz, T.W. Fuhremann,

and T.T. Liang. 1969. Biological interaction be-

tween plasticizers and insecticides. J. Econ.

Entomol. 62: 761-765.

137

Lincer, J.L., and D.B. Peakall. 1970. Metabolic ef-

fects of polychlorinated biphenyls in the Amer-

ican kestrel. Nature 228:783.

Loosanoff, V.L. 1947. Effects of DDT upon set-

ting, growth, and survival of oysters. Fish. Gaz.,

New York 64: 94-96.

. 1960. Some effects of pesti-

cides on marine arthropods and molluscs. In

Trans. 1959 Seminar, Public Health Serv.

(U.S.), Tech. Rept. W60-3, pp. 89-93.

Lowe, J.I. 1964. Chronic exposure of spot,

Leiostomus xanthurus, to sublethal concentra-

tions of toxaphene in seawater. Trans. Am.

Fish. Soc. 93: 396-399.

. 1965a. Chronic exposure of

blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus, to sublethal con-

centrations of DDT. Ecology 46: 899-900.

. 1965b. Some effects of en-

drin on estuarine fishes. Proc. 19th Ann. Conf.

Southeast. Assoc. Game Fish. Comm., Tulsa,

Okla. 10-13 October 1965, pp. 271-276.

. 1967. Effects of prolonged

exposure to Sevin® on an estuarine fish, Leio-

stomus xanthurus Lacepede. Bull. Environ.

Contam. Toxicol. 2: 147-155.

Lowe, J.I., P.D. Wilson, A.J. Rick, and A.J.Wilson,

Jr. 1971a. Chronic exposure of oysters to DDT,

toxaphene, and parathion. Proc. Natl. Shellfish.

Assoc. 61: 71-79.

Lowe, J.I., P.R. Parrish, A.J. Wilson, Jr., P.D. Wil-

son, and T.W. Duke. 1971b. Effects of mirex

on selected estuarine organisms. Trans. 36th

North Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. Portland,

Oregon, 7-10 March 1971, pp. 171-186.

Ludke, J.L. 1970. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Missis-

sippi State University, 19 pp. (cited by Faba-

cher and Chambers, 1971).

Matsumura, F., and K.C. Patil. 1969. Adenosine

triphosphatase sensitive to DDT in synapses of

rat brain. Science 166: 121-122.

Menzel, D.W., J. Anderson, and A. Randtke. 1970.

Marine phytoplankton vary in their response to

chlorinated hydrocarbons. Science 167:

1724-1726.

Milleman, R.E. 1966. Effects of pesticides on estu-

arine organisms. Progress Report from Oregon

St. Univ., U.S. Public Health Serv., Grant 5

RO1 EF-00628. 44 pp.

Miller, J.W. 1944. Pathologic changes in animals

exposed to commercial chlorinated biphenyl.

Publ. Health Rep. 59: 1085-1093.

Miller, M.W., and G.G. Berg. 1969. Chemical Fall-

out. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.

531 pp.

Moden, J.C. 1969. Residues in fish, wildlife, and

estuaries. Pestic. Monit. J. 3: 1-7.

Moore, N.W., and J. O’G. Tatton. 1965. Organo-

chlorine insecticide residues in the eggs of sea

birds. Nature 267: 42-43.

Mullison, W.R. 1970. Effects of herbicides on

water and its inhabitants. Weed Sci. 18:

738-750.

138

Narahashi, T., and H.G. Haas. 1968. Interaction of

DDT with the components of lobster nerve con-

ductance. J. Gen. Physiol. 51: 177-198.

National Academy of Sciences—National Research

Council. 1966. Principles of Plant and Animal

Pest Control. Vol. 2, Weed Control. Natl. Acad.

Sci. Wash., D.C. 471 pp.

Neumeyer, J., O.D. Gibbons, and H. Trask. 1969.

CW report: Pesticides, Part I. Chem. Week 104: —

37-68.

Nimmo, D.R., A.J. Wilson, Jr., and R.R. Blackman. —

1970. Localization of DDT in the body organs

of pink and white shrimp. Bull. Environ.

Contam. Toxicol. 5: 333-341.

Nimmo, D.R., R.R. Blackman, A.J. Wilson, Jr., and

J. Forester. 1971a. Toxicity and distribution of

Aroclor® 1254 in the pink shrimp Penaeus

duorarum. Mar. Biol. 11: 191-197.

Nimmo, D.R., P.D. Wilson, R.R. Blackman, and

A.J. Wilson, Jr. 1971b. Polychlorinated bi-

phenyl absorbed from sediments by fiddler

crabs and pink shrimp. Nature 231: 50-52.

O’Brien, R.D. 1967. Insecticides: Action and Me-

tabolism. Academic Press, New York. 332 pp.

Odum, W.E., G.M. Woodwell, and C.F. Wurster.

1969. DDT residues absorbed from organic

detritus by fiddler crabs. Science 164: 576-577.

Oettingen, W.F. von. 1955. The halogenated

hydrocarbons - toxicity and potential dangers.

U.S. Public Health Serv. Publ. No. 414, p. 306.

Ogilvie, D.M., and J.M. Anderson. 1965. Effect of

DDT on temperature selection by young Atlan-

tic Salmon, Salmo salar. J. Fish. Res. Board

Canada 22: 503-512.

Pfister, R.M., P.R. Dugan, and J.I. Frea. 1969.

Microparticulates: Isolation from water and

identification of associated chlorinated pesti-

cides. Science 166: 878-879.

Porter, R.D., and S.N. Wiemeyer. 1969. Dieldrin

and DDT: Effects on sparrow hawk eggshells

and reproduction. Sicence 165: 199-200.

Platonow, N.S., and H.S. Funnell. 1971. Anti-

androgenic-like effect of polychlorinated bi-

phenyls in cockerels. Vet. Rec. 88: 109-110.

Prestt, I., D.J. Jefferies, and N.W. Moore. 1970.

Polychlorinated biphenyls in wild birds in Bri-

tain and their avian toxicity. Environ. Pollut. 1:

3-26.

Rawls, C.K., 1965. Field tests of herbicide toxicity

to certain estuarine animals. Chesapeake Sci. 6:

150-161.

Reichel, W.L., and C.E. Addy. 1968. A survey of

chlorinated pesticide residues in black duck

eggs. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 3:

174-179.

Risebrough, R.W., D.B. Menzel, D.G. Martin, Jr.,

and H.S. Olcott. 1967. DDT residues in Pacific

seabirds: A persistent insecticide in marine food

chains. Nature 216: 589-591.

Risebrough, R.W., D.B. Peakall, S.G. Herman, M.N.

Kirven, and P. Rieche. 1968. Polychlorinated

biphenyls in the global ecosystem. Nature 220:

1098-1102.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

a _

Robinson, J., A.Richardson, A.N. Crabtree, J.C.

Coulson, and G.R. Potts. 1967. Organochlorine

residues in marine organisms. Nature 214:

1307-1311.

Rosato, P., and D.E. Ferguson. 1968. The toxicity

of endrin-resistant mosquitofish to eleven spe-

cies of vertebrates. BioScience 18: 783-784.

Ruber, E. 1963, The effects of certain mosquito

larvacides on microcrustacean populations.

Proc. 50th Annu. Meet. N.J. Mosq. Exterm.

Assoc., 12-15 March 1963, pp. 256-261.

Safe, S., and O. Hutzinger. 1971. Polychlorinated

biphenyls: Photolysis of 2,4,6,2’,4’,6’-hexa-

chlorobiphenyl. Nature 232: 641-642.

Sanders, H.O. 1970. Toxicities of some herbicides

to six species of freshwater crustaceans. J.

Water Pollut. Control Fed. 42: 1544-1550.

Schmidt, T.T:, R.W. Risebrough, and F. Gress.

1971. Input of polychlorinated biphenyls into

California coastal waters from urban sewage

outfalls. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 6:

235-243.

Seba, D.B., and E.F. Corcoran. 1969. Surface slicks

as concentrators of pesticides in the marine en-

vironment. Pestic. Monit. J. 3: 190-193.

Sladen, W.J.L., C.M. Menzie, and W.L. Reichel.

1966. DDT residues in adelie penquins and a

crab-eater seal from Antarctica: Ecological im-

plications. Nature 210: 670-673.

Stickel, W.H., L.F. Stickel, and F.B. Coon. 1970.

DDE and DDD residues correlated with mor-

tality of experimental birds. Jn W.B. Deich-

mann (ed.). Pesticides Symposia. Helios and As-

sociates, Miami, Florida, pp. 287-294.

Stout, V.F. 1968. Pesticide levels in fish of the

northeast Pacific. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxi-

col. 3: 240-246.

Tarrant, K.R., and J.O’G. Tatton. 1968. Organo-

chlorine pesticides in rainwater in the British

Isles. Nature 219: 725-727.

Thomas, M.L.H. 1968. Control of eelgrass using

2,4-D in oyster-growing areas. Fish. Res. Board

Canada, Mar. Ecol. Lab., Gen. Ser. Circ. No. 1,

pp. 13-16.

Thomas, M.L.H., and J.R. Duffy. 1968. Buto-

xyethanol ester of 2,4-D in the control of

eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) and its effects on

oysters (Crassostrea virginica Gmelin) and other

benthos. Proc. Northeast Weed Control Conf.

22: 186-193.

Ukeles, R. 1962. Growth of pure cultures of

marine phytoplankton in the presence of toxi-

cants. Appl. Microb. 10: 532-537.

Vinson, S.B., C.E. Boyd, and D.E. Ferguson. 1963.

Resistance to DDT in the mosquitofish, Gam-

busia affinis. Science 139: 217-218.

Vos, J.G., and J.H. Koeman. 1970. Comparative

toxicologic study with polychlorinated bi-

phenyls in chickens with special reference to

porphyria, edema formation, liver necrosis, and

tissue residues. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 17:

656-668.

Walsh, G.E. a. Lack of effect of mirex and

PCB (Aroclor® 1254) upon evolution of oxy-

gen by unicellular algae. Jn Progress Report of

the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Center for

Estuarine and Menhaden Research, Pesticide

Field Station, Gulf Breeze, Florida, Fiscal Year

1970. U.S. Dept. Interior Circ. In press.

. b. Effects of herbicides on

photosysnthesis and growth of marine unicel-

lular algae. Hyacinth Control J. In press.

Walsh, G.E., and T.E. Grow. 1971. Depression of

carbohydrate in marine algae by urea herbi-

cides. Weed Sci. 19: 568-570.

Warner, R.E., K.K. Peterson, and L. Borgman.

1966. Behavioural pathology in fish: A quanti-

tative study of sublethal pesticide toxication. J.

Appl. Ecol. 3(Suppl.): 223-247.

Waugh, G.D., and A. Ansell. 1956. The effect on

oyster spatfall of controlling barnacle settle-

ment with DDT. Ann. Appl. Biol. 44: 619-625.

Waugh, G.D., F.B. Hawes, and F. Williams. 1952.

Insecticides for preventing barnacle settlement.

Ann. Appl. Biol. 39: 407-415.

Weibel, S.R., R.B. Weidner, J.M. Cohen, and A.G.

Christianson. 1966. Pesticides and other con-

taminants in rainfall and runoff. J. Am. Water

Works. Assoc. 58: 1075-1084.

Wershaw, R.L., P.J. Burcar, and M.C. Gold-

berg.1969. Interaction of pesticides with

natural organic material. Environ. Sci. Technol.

3: 271-273.

Wildish, D.J. 1970. The toxicity of polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCB) in sea water to Gammarus

oceanicus. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 5:

202-204.

Wildish, D.J., and V. Zitko. 1971. Uptake of poly-

chlorinated biphenyls from sea water by Gam-

marus oceanicus. Mar. Biol. 9: 213-218.

Wolman, A.A., and A.J. Wilson, Jr. 1970. Occur-

rence of pesticides in whales. Pestic. Monit. J.

4: 8-10.

Woodwell, G.M., C.F. Wurster, Jr., and P.A. Isaac-

son. 1967. DDT residues in an east coast es-

tuary: A case of biological concentration of a

persistent pesticide. Science 156: 821-823.

Wurster, C.F., Jr. 1968. DDT reduces photo-

sysnthesis by marine phytoplankton. Science

159: 1474-1475.

Yap, H.H., D. Desaiah, R.B. Koch, and L.K. Kut-

komp. The sensitivity of fish ATPases to poly-

chlorinated biphenyl compounds. Nature. In

press.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

139

The Potential of Various Types of Thermal

Effects on Chesapeake Bay

Ruth Patrick!

Limnology Department, Academy of Natural Sciences

of Philadelphia, 19th and the Parkway, Philadelphia, Pa, 19103

ABSTRACT

_ Shifts in natural temperatures have physical, chemical, and biological effects upon

the receiving body of water. They may affect the viscosity of water and thus the ability

of plankton to float. They may affect the circulation pattern of water and hence the

current pattern in the Bay. Raising or lowering the temperatures decreases or increases

the oxygen-carrying capacity of the water. Shifts in temperature also have considerable

effect upon the organisms living in the Chesapeake Bay—for example, their physiological

activities. Shifting the natural rhythms of temperature may affect the reproduction of

organisms. The effects of sudden changes of temperature are closely related to time of

exposure. Organisms can withstand higher shifts in temperature for short exposures than

if the temperatures are of longer duration. Much more research needs to be done as to

the beneficial effects of temperature. In conclusion, important biological, chemical and

physical conditions for power plant siting are set forth.

The Chesapeake Bay is one of the largest

estuaries in the world. It is approximately

180 miles long and has a mean width of

about 15 miles (Wolman, 1968). However, it

is a relatively shallow estuary, as the mean

depth of the Bay proper is 25-30 ft. Because

it is so large and shallow, the waters are tur-

bulent and during most of the year well

mixed, although stratification does occur

during the summer months. The shallow

water margins of the Bay where most of the

aquatic life lives is subject to strong wave

action during most of the year and also to

the deposition of sediments due to bank ero-

sion.

The Chesapeake estuary is a drowned por-

tion of the Susquehanna River system and is

1Dr. Patrick, a member of 14 scientific socie-

ties, received an honorary Sc.D. degree from PMC

Colleges and an honorary L.LD. degree from Coker

College. She was elected to the National Academy

of Sciences in 1970, and has received the Pennsyl-

vania Award for Excellence in Science and Tech-

nology for 1970 and a Merit Award from the Bo-

tanical Society of America. She is a member of

Pennsylvania’s Environmental Control Board and a

member of Governor Shapp’s Science Advisory

Committee. She has been Curator and Chairman of

the Limnology Department of the Academy since

1947.

140

estimated to be about 10,000 years old. The

greatest inflow of water is from the Susque-

hanna, which has a mean annual flow of

40,000 cfs. The Potomac, Rappahannock,

and James Rivers also have significant flows

of fresh water, but it is the flow of the Sus-

quehanna which has the greatest influence

on water quality, particularly on the west

side of the Bay.

The increase in population in the drainage

area of the watershed and the Bay proper

has brought about a fairly high amount of

pollution in certain areas. I refer particularly

to suspended solids and nutrients.

The suspended solids are brought in by

various tributaries and by the erosion and

deposition of sediments forming the coast-

line of the Bay. Prior to the clearing of the

portions of the watershed forests for agricul-

ture, the sediment contribution to the sys-

tem was probably in the order of 100 tons/

mi2/year. However, with the clearing of the

land for agriculture and urbanization these

values rose to 400 to 800 tons/mi2/year.

The Potomac and the Patuxent, although

having much less flow than the Susque-

hanna, are the largest contributors of sedi-

ments. The dams on the Susquehanna great-

ly reduce the suspended solids contribution

of this river.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

With the increase in population has come

increases in nutrients entering the basin. This

is particularly evident in Baltimore Harbor

and in many of the small embayments where

towns and industrial development have tak-

en place. Indeed, in some of these areas pol-

lution is heavy, and bluegreen algal blooms

in the summer months are extensive. How-

ever, the contribution of nutrients to the

Bay are negligible because of the size and

degree of mixing of the Bay water. The Sus-

quehanna River contributes a large portion

of the nutrients in the form of NO, to the

Bay, particularly during the spring of the

year when the concentration in the flow is

80-105 ug atm/1 and concentrations in the

upper Bay may reach 45 ug atm/1.

The importance in considering these 2

types of pollution in relation to temperature

is that the deposition of sediments together

with increased nutrients and small increases

in temperature often bring about increased

growth in benthic algae and rooted aquatics,

which may or may not be beneficial depend-

ing on the species that develop. If they are

effective food sources, productivity of fish

and other organisms increase, whereas if

they are species of little value as food and

predator pressure is low, nuisance growths

may develop.

Temperature, unlike some pollutants such

as some heavy metals and pesticides, is part

of the natural environment. All organisms

have a range of temperature in which they

live and a smaller range in which optimum

living and growth conditions occur. This

range of tolerance and optimum activity

varies with the species and with the life stage

of the organisms. Typically, as shown by di-

atom experiments which I have conducted,

if one raises temperatures a few degrees

toward the optimum, the number of species

in the community and the sizes of their pop-

ulations increase, and as a result diversity in-

creases. The biomass also may increase. For

example, small increases from 2.8 to 10°C

and from 5.7 to 10.4°C. Since diatoms are a

nutritive food source, the productivity of

the whole system may be increased. How-

ever, if one moves away from the optimum

range, either up or down, species reduction

and/or reduction in sizes of populations of

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

most species and of biomass occurs. It is true

that a few species which are tolerant to the

new condition may develop large popula-

tions which result in lower diversity. In-

creases in temperature often bring about

changes in the species composing communi-

ties. For example (Patrick et al., 1969), if

one maintains the temperature above 33°C

in White Clay Creek in Pennsylvania, one can

bring about a change from a diatom-

dominated to a blue-green dominated flora

at any season of the year. Since blue-greens

are not as desirable a food source, predator

pressure goes down and the efficiency of

energy transfer in the system and the pro-

duction of fish is reduced.

Temperature affects the chemical and

physical characteristics of the aquatic en-

vironment as well as the organisms them-

selves. The viscosity of water is greatly af-

fected by temperature, and plankton which

can float in cold or cool water will sink in

warm water to that depth at which the vis-

cosity of the water will support them. Like-

wise, suspended solids will sink more quickly

in warm than in cold water. Typically the

deeper waters of the Chesapeake Bay are

cooler than the surface waters and lower in

oxygen in the summer. The introduction of

warm water into these cooler layers might

locally produce considerable change in the

circulation pattem of water with accom-

panying alteration in the oxygen and salinity

and perhaps nutrient patterns natural to the

bay. Most chemicals are more soluble in

warm water. The oxygen-carrying capacity

of water is reduced with increases of temper-

ature, and as a result fish and other gill-

breathing organisms have to dilate their gills

much more rapidly in warm than in cold

water to obtain enough oxygen for life. In-

deed the respiration rate of many organisms

increases with increases in temperature, but

in some organisms after acclimation the

respiration rate returns to its former level.

Examples of alteration in the natural

functioning of other physiological processes

are changes in the lipid content in the brain

and spinal cord of fish (Aequidens

portalegrensis); and in acetyl cholinesterase

in bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) brains,

both of which have been correlated with

141

changes in temperature (Schneider, 1969;

Hogan, 1970). Acclimation to low tempera-

tures for 8 days produced in crayfish an in-

crease in hepatopancreas weight, lipid un-

saturated lipids, ribonucleic acid, and free

amino acid. Suppression of defecation rates

in the tubificid worms (Peloscolex multi-

setosus) has been shown to occur when the

temperature is raised from 14 to 18°C.

Many organisms cease to feed, or feed at

a slower rate at low temperatures. Examples

are the oyster drill (Urosalpinx cinerea) and

the flatworm (Stylochus ellipticus), which

feed at a much slower rate at 10°C or less

(Manzi, 1969, 1970; Landers and Rhodes,

1970).

Temperature rhythms are important in

the natural functioning of many organisms.

For example, in Maryland the reproduction

of bass seems to be triggered by the tempera-

ture of the water increasing from the low

sixties (CF) to the high sixties in the Spring

of the year. In the Missouri River the spawn-

ing of the freshwater drum (Aplodinotus

grunniens) occurred when the river water

reached 18°C. Oysters in the Chesapeake

spawn when the temperature of the water

passes from the high sixties to the low seven-

ties in the Spring. The emergence of insects

in the Spring may be advanced by raising the

temperature 10°F (experiments at Stroud

Water Research Center).

Sudden changes of temperature may have

a profound effect on aquatic life. The sud-

den increase in temperature of water may

bring about the release of gas bubbles in the

blood of fish (embolism) which causes

death. This phenomenon may occur when

the flow of cold water from a dam is sudden-

ly stopped and the pool of water at the base

of the dam warms quickly. Sudden rise in

temperature such as occurs when organisms

are entrained through a power plant may

have adverse effects. The severity of the ef-

fect seems to be determined by the degree of

temperature to which organisms are exposed

and the length of time they are exposed to

the higher temperatures. Many organisms

can withstand for a very short period of time

(a few minutes) temperatures which would

be lethal under longer exposures. The length

of exposure to high temperature seems to be

142

very important in determining the severity

of the effect. The effect on entrained or-

ganisms in coolant water seems to be related

to the size and characteristics of the species,

the degree to which the temperature rises,

and the time of exposure.

In general, acclimation of organisms to a

new temperature regime is a slow process

and if carried out too quickly will result in

deleterious effects and even death. There-

fore, very short sudden rises of temperature

and subsequent quick return to ambient not

involving acclimation has less deleterious ef-

fect than sudden rises of temperature with

prolonged exposure to the higher tempera-

ture, which necessitates acclimation, parti-

cularly if the organism has not been cor-

rectly acclimated.

Abnormal temperature regimes have also

been shown to affect the susceptibility of

organisms to disease and predation. For ex-

ample, oysters seem to be more susceptible

to Dermocystidium when exposed to tem-

peratures of 75°F and over lor long periods

of time. Parasitized snails (McDaniel, 1969)

are less tolerant to high temperature than

non-parasitized snails. Furthermore, preda-

tor pressure from oyster drills and flatworms

(cited above) seem to be less at temperatures

of 10°C or less.

From this discussion it is evident that all

species of organisms have a range of tem-

perature tolerance and within this range a

shorter range of optimum temperature. This

range varies from species to species and be-

tween races of the same species. It also may

be different for different stages in the life

history of an organism. There is evidence

that moderate raising or lowering of tem-

peratures toward the optimum is favorable

for species.

The precise temperature, high or low,

which is deleterious or kills a species is close-

ly related to the time of exposure. Shifts in

natural temperature regimes may indirectly

affect organisms in various ways. It may in-

crease the susceptibility of the species to dis-

ease and predator pressure, it may change

other chemical and physical characteristics

of the environment in which the aquatic

community lives and thus indirectly alter

competition and predator pressure.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

a _

Most of the experimentation to date has

been directed toward deleterious effects of

temperature. However, there are a number

of experiments now in progress directed

toward showing beneficial uses of warm

water in oyster, shrimp, and fish culture; in

treatment of sewage; in treatment of water

for industrial use; and in beneficial effects in

irrigation. Many of these show considerable

promise for the use of this low-heat re-

source.

To date the impact of altered tempera-

ture regimes in the Chesapeake Bay are local.

Although there are many plants on the tribu-

taries, there are very few fossil fuel plants (2

in Baltimore Harbor and 4 close to the

mouth of the Bay) located on the Bay pro-

per, and 1 nuclear plant in the process of

construction. By the year 2000 it is ex-

pected that 10 plants about the size of the

Calvert Cliffs plant will be erected. It is im-

portant that the various States bounded by

the Bay develop uniform plans for the de-

velopment of all industries and population

centers on the Bay so that the least impact

which might be deleterious to its natural

functioning will occur. It is as important to

plan for the preservation of natural areas as

for development.

In developing plans for siting power

plants and other industries with thermal dis-

charges, one must consider biological, chemi-

cal, and physical aspects of the Bay. Some of

the more important biological considerations

are:

1. What are the kinds of aquatic life living in the

vicinity of the proposed plant site and what are the

temperature optimums and tolerance for these or-

ganisms?

2. Are there nursery and spawning areas?

3. Is the plant site in the area of an important

migratory path of fish and crabs?

4. Do fish form large schools in deep water in

the winter time in the vicinity of the site?

5. Do large populations of crabs hibernate in the

bottom sediments in the area?

6. What are the characteristics of the plankton

in the area and does the plankton at certain seasons

of the year contain the young of many species?

I. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Some of the more important chemical as-

pects to consider are:

1. What is the nutrient level of the water and are

these nutrients biodegradable?

2. What are the oxygen and salinity regimes of

the water, and will the intake and heating of water

at that particular site produce more than a local

effect on these regimes which might be deleterious

to aquatic life?

Some of the physical considerations are:

1. Is the flow sufficient so that the volume of

water passing through the plant will be only a small

portion of the total flow?

2. How will the introduction of the projected

volume of coolant water affect the current pattern

of water in the area?

3. What will be the isotherms of increased tem-

perature produced by plant operation, and how

much of the bay will be affected by a significant

rise of temperature?

4. Will the removal of water from the deep lay-

ers be sufficient to alter the general pattern of

stratification, particularly in the summer?

5S. Will reverse flow cause accumulation of

heated water in marsh areas which are often impor-

tant breeding and spawning grounds? At some sea-

sons of the year and under some conditions this

effect might be beneficial, and others detrimental.

The design ot the plant may also greatly

minimize thermal effects—for example, the

location of the discharge away from the shal-

low water areas where most organisms live

and reproduce; the use of low intake speeds

to minimize the entrainment of fish and

macro-invertebrates; the placement of the in-

takes so that cool water with low plankton

content is taken in; the minimization of time

of exposure and degree of heat to which or-

ganisms in entrained water are exposed; the

use of substances similar to Amertap for

slime removal; and the use of chlorine in

such a way that there is no or very little free

chlorine residual entering the receiving body

of water.

I have for the most part mentioned some

of the more important ways to minimize

deleterious effects of thermal changes in

Chesapeake Bay. I believe that much more

emphasis than in the past must be placed in

the future in optimizing the use of warm

water, which should have an ultimate bene-

ficial effect on the Bay.

143

References Cited

Hogan, J.W. 1970. Water temperature a source of

variation in specific activity of brain acetyl-

cholinesterase of bluegills. Bull. Environ. Con-

tam. Toxicol. 5: 347.

Landers, W.S., and E.W. Rhodes. 1970. Some fac-

tors influencing predation by the flatworm,

Stylochus ellipticus (Girard), on oysters. Chesa-

peake Sci. 11: 55.

Manzi, J.J. 1969. The effect of temperature on the

feeding rate of the rough oyster drill, Eupleura

caudata (Say). Proc. Nat. Shellfish Ass. 60: 54.

ee 97 OmCombinedweffectssof

salinity and temperature on the feeding, repro-

ductive, and survival rates of Eupleura candata

(Say) and Urosalpinx cinerea (Say) (Prosob-

ranchia: Muricidae). Biol. Bull. 138: 35.

McDaniel, S.J. 1969. Littorina littorea: lowered

heat tolerance due to Cryplocotyle lingua.

Exper. Parasitol. 25: 13.

Patrick, R., B. Crum, and J. Coles. 1969. Tempera-

ture and manganese as determining factors in

the presence of diatom or blue-green algal floras

in streams. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 65: 472-478.

Schneider, M.J. 1969. Effects of the size and ther-

mal history on central nervous system lipids in

the fish, Aequidens portalegrensis. Ph.D. thesis,

University of Oregon, Eugene.

Wolman, M.G. 1968. The Chesapeake Bay:

Geology and Geography. Jn: Proceedings of

Governor’s Conference on Chesapeake Bay, pp.

II-7 to II-49.

Heavy Metals —an Inventory of Existing Conditions!

M_E. Bender?, R.J. Huggett, and H.D. Slone

Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062

ABSTRACT

In this paper we report on studies undertaken to: (1) establish mercury levels in biota

and sediments from the lower portion of Chesapeake Bay; (2) describe the pattern of

metal distribution in oysters from 3 Virginia estuaries; and (3) determine if estuarine

sediments can be used to detect the effects of man’s activities on the environment. To

date, mercury analyses of biota from the Bay area have shown no levels in excess of FDA

guidelines, nor have they indicated any influence of man’s activities in the areas studies.

Oysters have been shown to vary naturally in their body burdens of the heavy metals—

copper, cadmium, and zinc—and techniques are suggested whereby unnatural heavy

metal inputs can be identified. Sediments from an industrialized river system have been

shown to reflect the inputs from human activities.

An attempt is made in this report to in-

ventory the status of knowledge on certain

metallic elements in the lower portion of

Chesapeake Bay. Some of the data presented

have been published or submitted for publi-

1VIMS Contribution No. 435.

Dr. Bender received his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D.

degrees in zoology, fisheries, and environmental

sciences, respectively. He is a member of 9 profes-

sional societies, is currently the principal investi-

gator or co-investigator of 6 research grants, and

has co-authored 13 scientific papers. He is the As-

sistant Director, Virginia Institute of Marine

Science.

144

cation elsewhere, and in all cases the sources

of information are identified. Much can be

learned from what we have called the inven-

tory approach, as one in an attempt to ex-

plain what has been observed is usually

forced to consider many variables which a

priori were not thought to be significant.

During this process, interpretations are fre-

quently made which suggest avenues for fu-

ture research. Initially, however, the objec-

tive of any inventory is to establish the exist-

ing conditions—in this case, the distribution

of certain heavy metals in sediments and

biota from the Bay region. Studies of the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

inventory nature are generally begun for a

variety of reasons. Among these are:

1. Do the residue levels in certain com-

mercial species exceed health standards or

guidelines?

2. How is the distribution of certain ele-

ments influenced by natural phenomena?

3. Can one discern the influences of man

upon natural systems?

In this paper we report on studies under-

taken to: 1) establish mercury levels in biota

and sediments from the lower portion of

Chesapeake Bay; 2) describe the pattern of

metal distribution in oysters from 3 Virginia

estuaries; and 3) determine if estuarine sedi-

ments can be used to detect the effects of

man’s activities on the environment.

Mercury in Sediments and Biota

All analyses for mercury were conducted

by flameless atomic absorption spectro-

photometry. Sediment samples from the

James, York, and Rappahannock were col-

lected during the fall of 1970 from the

channel at each station with a Petersen grab.

(ppm)

MERCURY

RAPPAHANNOCK

Three grabs were taken from each location

and the upper 3 cm of sediment from each

was removed for individual analysis. Dried

samples were screened through a 63-micron

sieve, and only that portion of sediment

passing through the screen was retained for

analysis. The core sample was obtained from

the Rappahannock River and subsamples

from it were not screened. Approximate age

of the oldest, i.e. lowest, portion of the core

is 300 years (Nichols, personal communica-

tion). Digestion of the sediment samples was

accomplished by oxidizing a 0.25-g sample

with 5 ml of concentrated H,SO,4 and 7.5

ml of a 6% aqueous potassium permanganate

solution.

Mercury determinations in animal tissues

were conducted on edible muscle only, with

the exception of oysters which were com-

pletely digested. Duplicate samples from fish

and crustacenas were taken. Collections were

made during the fall of 1970 and the spring

and summer of 1971.

Results obtained from the survey of 3

Virginia rivers are shown in Fig. |. Statistical

analyses showed no differences (5% signifi-

«= JAMES

O 10 20 30 40

50 60 70 90

RIVER MILES

Fig. 1.—Distribution of mercury in sediments from three Virginia rivers.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

145

—

MERCURY

(wdd) AYNOYAW

02:0 S!0 (oN Ke) S00

Szo

o¢o

146

0.10:

0.05

O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 930 100 lO 120 130

DEPTH (cm)

Fig. 2.—Mercury vs. depth in a core sample from Rappahannock.

NUMBER OF SPECIMENS ANALYZED

3 @ a

——d)

ins)

-Ol

$133. }-————e———_+4/ 91

savyo 3n18

SYua1SAO | -_—————p» —___|

$Y¥31S801 eH

HSIS1V9

ssv@ Gadi41s }__——_——e—_

HOYad 3LIHM = -———e—_}

FDA LIMIT

Fig. 3.—Mercury levels in selected animals.

cance level) within rivers. with respect to dis-

tance from the mouth, or between rivers

(Huggett et al., 197 1a).

Mercury concentrations found in the core

sample as a function of depth are shown in

Fig. 2. No indication of man’s influence is

evident from this core sample, as has been

recently shown by Kennedy et al. (1971)

from sediment cores ‘taken in Lake Michigan.

Fig. 3 shows the mean and range of mer-

cury levels found in vatious specimens col-

lected from the Bay and Continental Shelf

regions. Lowest levels were found in lobsters

collected from Norfolk Canyon, while the

highest were found in striped bass collected

in the York River. The highest mean value,

i.e. for striped bass, of 0.13 mg/g was well

below the FDA limit of 0.50 ug/g.

Patterns of Metal Distribution in Oysters

The study described in this section is

based on an investigation conducted during a

period from February to May 1971 in which

a total of 495 oysters were collected from

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

BAY

CHIE S 4 fp EA ike IE

CA- 0-400 ppm

EE 400-800ppm ;

M$ 800-!1200ppm |

Hi 1600-2000 ppm

>> 2000ppm

NAUTICAL MILES

SSS ee)

ce) 2 4 6 6 10

WANSEw

Fig. 4.-The distribution of zinc in oysters from Virginia’s major rivers (from Proceedings of 7th

National Shellfish Sanitation Conference).

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972 147

BAY

Ps «

iin =

‘ ey, Wy

Agee: 5

~ Np) y; qT

E3 0-25ppm

BB 25-50ppm

EN 50-t0Oppm

FE) 100-\50ppm

150-200ppm

NAUTICAL MILES

— ae

fe} 2 4 6 6 10

Fig. 5.-The distribution of copper in oysters from Virginia’s major rivers (from Proceedings of 7th

National Shellfish Sanitation Conference).

148 J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

BAY

OC EES APE ARK E

[J <0.6 ppm

(1 0.6 - 1.0 ppm

1.0-1.5 ppm

GH |.5-20ppm

ES 2.0- 2.5ppm

Ml >2.5 ppm

| oo

| he owe, ae

" NORFOLK

Q hs :

Res: x 2 a

Fig. 6.—The distribution of cadmium in oysters from Virginia’s major rivers (from Proceedings of 7th

National Shellfish Sanitation Conference).

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

149

99 stations in the lower Bay (Huggett ef al.,

1971b). Salinities at these stations ranged

from 32%. for the ocean side Eastern Shore

to 7%o in the upper reaches of the rivers.

Five specimens from each site ranging in

weight from 2 to 35 g were digested in con-

centrated nitric acid. The dissolved samples

were analyzed for cadium, copper and zinc

by atomic absorption.

Examination of the data showed that al-

though. oysters from the same location often

varied in concentration by 100%, there was

no relationship between age of the oyster as

indicated by weight and the metal concen-

tration.

Average metal concentrations were used

in this study only to establish the areal dis-

tribution of metals in the various river sys-

tems. The means showed that a concentra-

tion gradient existed in all systems, and that

each metal increased in concentration as

fresh water was approached (Figs. 4, 5, 6).

To account for these observations, the

following assumptions are proposed:

1) The metals (Cd, Cu, and Zn) available

to oysters in non-industrialized areas are

from the natural weathering of rocks.

2) The ratio of copper to zinc in the

weathering rocks is relatively constant with-

in a drainage basin.

3) Oysters accumulate a constant per-

centage of each element available to them.

4) Some factor, e.g. salinity or humic

acid concentration, varies predictively with

distance, causing the amount of metal avail-

able for uptake to vary.

If these assumptions are valid, one should

be able to establish a relationship between

various metals in oysters taken from areas

which have similar drainage basins. Further-

more, if such relationships for naturally

occurring phenomena can be established,

perhaps a method can be developed to iden-

tify unnatural inputs.

To establish whether there was a relation-

ship between one metal and another, the

zinc and copper concentrations from all

samples taken from rivers which extend

above the fall line and in which there is no

known unnatural zinc or copper source are

plotted in Fig. 7.

150

The placement of confidence bands

around this line, which is intended to repre-

sent background conditions, would allow for

a simple and direct method to detect outliers

or “unnatural” inputs. However, the use of

normal confidence intervals requires that

there be an independent and a dependent |

variable. If the assumptions previously out-

lined are correct, then both variables are in-

dependent, i.e., the zinc concentration does

not control the copper concentration.

Hence, the authors have placed a band, con-

sisting of 2 straight lines, around the least

squares line. The band encompasses 95% of

the points and can be thought of as an ap-

proximate confidence band. The equations

for the 2 lines are:

Y = -33 + 0.07X

Y= =30 + OID

Oysters collected from areas of suspected

unnatural inputs, as well as those falling out-

side the limits established from Fig. 7, are

plotted along with the confidence band in

Fig. 8. It appears that the Elizabeth River

and Hampton Roads, both highly indus-

trialized, are contaminating the oysters in

their immediate areas as well as the lower

reaches of the James River with zinc. In the

upper James, an unnatural source of copper

is indicated by points falling on the copper

side of the band in Fig. 8.

Metal Sediment Relationships

In the late summer of 1971 a survey of

the pollutants present in sediments of the

James River system was initiated. The objec-

tive of the study was primarily to establish

whether the existing levels of certain ma-

terials in these sediments would prohibit the

disposal of dredgings into open waters, as

based on guidelines established by the En-

vironmental Protection Agency. The results

reported here were obtained from the South-

ern Branch of the Elizabeth River, where at

present all spoil materials from dredging

Operations are disposed of in a specially con-

structed site (Craney Island). Three samples

collected across the channel were obtained

at 0.25-mi intervals with a 3-ft gravity corer.

Sediment from each core was completely

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

260

240

200

40-

1000

COPPER vs ZINC IN OYSTERS i

I500 2000 2500

ppm Zn

Fig. 7.—Relationship between zinc and copper in oysters from Virginia’s major rivers (from Proceed-

ings of the 7th National Shellfish Sanitation Conference).

homogenized before subsamples were taken

for analysis.

Concentrations of the metals copper,

lead, mercury, and zinc found in Elizabeth

River sediments are shown in Fig. 9. Several

significant observations can be made from

this figure: 1) there appears to be an input

of all metals at miles 9.5 and 8.5; 2) an input

of just zinc at about mile 7; and 3) inputs of

both zinc and copper at mile 5. From these

data it is apparent that the levels of metals in

these sediments reflect inputs from man’s ac-

tivities and that the sediment levels are suffi-

ciently distinct to allow for the recognition

of specific metal inputs.

Discussion

Mercury levels reported for sediments

from 3 Virginia rivers—the James, York and

Rappahannock—did not show evidence of

man’s influence. However, sediments from

the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River,

a much smaller river, did indicate inputs

from man. The only other analyses for mer-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

cury in sediments from the Bay have been

reported by Pheiffer (1972) for the Poto-

mac—the levels found there were extremely

low, highest value reported 26.20 ppb, com-

pared with our results.

The concentration banding of heavy

metals by oysters has been shown to follow

a predictable pattern and allows for the use

of the oyster to identify unnatural metal in-

puts. The cause of this banding pehnomenon

is, however, unknown. Drobeck and Carpen-

ter (1970) reported variations in metal up-

take with salinity and attempted to discern

the role of sediments in the uptake of metals

by the oyster. They concluded that metal

uptake was highest in low salinities and was

not related to natural sediment loads. A re-

cent laboratory study completed by Lunz

(1972) confirmed their results, demonstrat-

ing that dissolved copper was taken up much

more readily than copper adsorbed to clay

particles. The authors believe that the form

of the metal in solution is responsible for the

banding phenomenon and that the inter-

151

OYSTER DATA INDICATING UNNATURAL METAL INPUTS

O JAMES RIVER

@ HAMPTON ROADS fe)

240 @ ELIZABETH RIVER rs)

(o}

200 °

fe} ° fo) “+

160 fo) Ase —@> 3270

oO 0 “** 9 B<ci00

= 120 7 % 9% —@e 6100

a fo) 4*

a ool —@e 000

80 aa —@e 3000

D bs oS @ fe)

oO @

@ [o) ® —@= 3200

40 ®

e ® 2700-O=> se —@> oo

@ 4400 -O= -@> Te00

(@) 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

ppm Zn

Fig. 8.—Oyster data indicating unnatural metal inputs (from Proceedings of 7th National Shellfish

Sanitation-Conference).

60075

500 1

= 40075

€

300 7 3 =

Fa) €

<a &

Ww S

ing

<= e

° &

z =

wi ind

i x

fo}

rs)

Nad

——T—

4 6 8 lo l2 14

MILES FRCM MOUTH

Fig. 9.—Metals in sediments from the Southern

Branch of the Elizabeth River.

152

action of the sediments, which serve as

sumps for metals, with the overlying waters,

plays an important role in the overall pro-

cess.

A study is underway to determine

whether metal concentration ratios, deter-

mined on certain size fractions of sediments,

can be used to detect unnatural metal in-

puts. This study is an extension of our

oyster work and if successful should allow

investigators to survey entire river systems,

where oysters limit the investigators to par-

ticular salinity regimes.

Sediments from the Southern Branch of

the Elizabeth have been shown to reflect in-

puts from man’s activities. Similar results

have been reported by Pheiffer (1972) in a

study of the Potomac, where sediment

analysis showed increases of lead, cobalt,

chromium, cadmium, copper, nickel, zinc,

silver, barium, aluminum, iron, and lithium

in a critical area of the upper estuary. Inputs

were attributed to both wastewater treat-

ment facilities in the upper river and steam

generating electric plants further down-

stream.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

References Cited

Drobeck, K.G., and J. Carpenter. 1970. Shellfish

accumulation of heavy metals in Chesapeake

Bay. Progress Report to: Maryland Depart-

ments of Health and Public Works. Nat. Res.

Inst., Univ. of Maryland.

Huggett, R.J., M.E. Bender, and H.D. Slone.

1971a. Mercury in sediments from three Vir-

ginia estuaries. Chesapeake Sci. 12: 280-282.

1971b. Utilizing metal concen-

tration relationships in the eastern oyster

(Crassostrea virginica) to detect heavy metal

pollution. Proceedings: 7th National Shellfish

Sanitation Workshop. Wash. D.C. Oct. 1971.

Kennedy, E.J., R.R. Ruch, and N.F. Shrimp. 1971.

Distribution of mercury in unconsolidated sedi-

ments from Southern Lake Michigan: Ill. State

Geol. Surv., Environm. Geol. Note No. 44, 18

Lunz, J.D. 1971. The importance of particulate

clay in the uptake and accumulation of copper

by the American oyster, Crassostrea virginica

(Gmelin). M.S. Thesis, Long Island University.

Pheiffer, T.H. 1972. Existing conditions report:

metals, Unpublished manuscript.

Trace Element Analysis by Proton-Induced X-ray Excitation

F.C. Young!

Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Maryland,

College Park, Maryland 20742. Present address: Naval Research

Laboratory, Washington, D.C. 20390

ABSTRACT

A new technique for detecting trace elements by exciting characteristic X-rays

through proton bombardment is described. Typical results from analyses of algae, perch

blood serum, perch liver, and sediment samples are presented.

Today I want to bring to your attention a

new technique for trace element analysis

that should be useful in evaluating many pol-

lution problems of the Chesapeake Bay. The

technique involves the excitation of atomic

X-rays by bombardment with energetic pro-

tons. The X-ray production probabilities for

such bombardments are sufficiently large

that only small sample size is required. For

example, one drop of blood is sufficient to

detect trace elements in blood.

The technique is described schematically

in Fig. 1. A beam of protons from the Uni-

versity of Maryland 3 MV Van de Graaff ac-

'The author is an experimental nuclear physi-

cist by training and has carried out numerous inves-

tigations into the structure of the light nuclei using

nuclear reactions induced by ions from Van de

Graaff accelerators. His recent interests have ex-

tended to using positive ions in studies of radiation

effects, atomic physics, and trace element detec-

tion.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

celerator is incident upon a target sample.

The incident protons pass through the thin

target and lose a small fraction of their en-

ergy in the target by interaction with elec-

trons in the target. Some protons remove

electrons from the K-shell of atoms in the

target with subsequent characteristic X-ray

emission. The X-rays leave the target and

pass through a 1-mil Be window on the tar-

get chamber and into a Si(Li) X-ray detec-

tor. It is the development of this high resolu-

tion detector that makes this technique so

feasible and attractive. An X-ray from the

target is completely absorbed in the active

volume of the detector, producing an elec-

tronic signal of amplitude proportional to

the incident X-ray energy. These signals are

amplified and stored in a multichannel

pulse-height analyzer. A measurement of the

energy of the characteristic X-ray identifies

the element in the target from which the

X-ray originated. Knowledge of the number

153

protons from

Van de Graaff O

0.001" Be window

—+» to Faraday cup

absorber

Si (Li) detector

preamp

amplifier

pulse -height

analyzer

Fig. 1.-Experimental layout of the apparatus used for proton-induced X-ray excitation measurements.

of X-rays of a given energy indicates the

quantity of the element in the target.

Several attractive features of this tech-

nique should be noted. Only a small quanti-

ty of a sample is required. In a given

measurement all elements from silicon to

uranium can be detected. A single measure-

ment takes only 5-10 minutes, and samples

can be remeasured with various absorbers be-

tween the target and detector to accentuate

the detection of some elements relative to

others.

This technique is currently being de-

veloped to detect the presence of trace ele-

ments in a variety of materials, including

samples relevant to the Chesapeake Bay. The

spectrum obtained from an algae sample is

shown in Fig. 2. The X-ray energy is scaled

along the horizontal axis, and peaks in the

spectrum are labeled by the element corres-

ponding to the characteristic X-ray energy.

For elements lighter than the rare earths, Ky

X-rays are strongly excited. Weaker K

X-rays are observed for K, Fe, and Zn. For

154

elements heavier than the rare earths, L-shell

X-rays are strongly excited. The Lg and Lg

X-rays for Pb are observed in this algae spec-

trum.

Pulse-height spectra measured for perch

liver and perch blood samples are shown in

Fig. 3. In addition to the many lighter ele-

ments identified in these spectra, there is

positive evidence for the presence of Br in

the perch blood serum and Se in the perch

liver. The quantity of these elements present

is of the order of ppm, and procedures are

being developed to quantify such measure-

ments.

For the measurements the samples were

mounted on filter paper backings. This back-

ing contributes very little to the trace ele-

ments observed but is responsible for a signi-

ficant bremstrallung continuum which limits

the detection of very small quantities. For

comparison a pulse-height spectrum ob-

tained from a sediment sample deposited on

a thin carbon foil (~100 times thinner than

the filter paper) is shown in Fig. 4. Nineteen

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

50. 30.

CHANNEL NUMBER

ENERGY io 8.8 10.0 Tl. 125

2.5 3.8 s.0 6.3

Fig. 2.—Pulse-height spectrum of X-rays from an algae on filter paper sample excited by 2.5 MeV

protons.

PERCH| BLOOD SERUM

10000.

wy PS co ST, Mn Fe Fe) Ni Cu Zn Zn Br

: os Weegee as ata gh, Jt : ;

“= == = = = = == | —

= = —— : = = |

COUNTS

ENERGY (keV)

Fig. 3.—Pulse-height spectra of X-rays from perch liver (top) and perch blood serum (bottom) samples

on filter paper excited by 2.5 MeV protons.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972 155

CHESAPEAKE BAY SEDIMENT

DRUM POINT

I5K

(op)

ZIOK ae

,o) S SG {kk Gy 1m YW Ge Ma

ad } Wales: dent oat

x 10 + Ke

CHANNEL

Fig. 4.—Pulse-height spectrum of a sediment sample taken from the Drum Point region of the Chesa-

peake Bay excited by 2.5 MeV protons.

different elements are positively identified in

this spectrum, and the continuum in the

lower portion of the spectrum is greatly re-

duced compared to the previous spectra.

Acknowledgments

The collaboration of M. L. Roush and P.

Berman in this research is gratefully ack-

156

nowledged. Appreciation is expressed to

University of Maryland staff P. Orris

(Botany Department) for the algae

samples, R. Morgan (Chesapeake

Biological Laboratory) for the perch

samples, and R. Belcher (Chemical

Engineering Department) for the sediment

samples.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Human Wastes and the Chesapeake Bay

Thomas D. McKewen!

Director, Maryland Environmental Service,

State Office Building, Annapolis, Md. 21401

ABSTRACT

The Chesapeake Bay is generally considered to be a healthy body of water, but its

future quality is in jeopardy so long as major tributaries remain polluted. Past pollution

abatement actions, and most current ones, were directed toward removing oxygen-

consuming substances, solids, and microorganisms. New plant designs provide greatly

increased removal efficiencies. Such increased efficiency is essential if present pollution

levels are to be reduced as projected population growth takes place. In addition, nutrient

reductions will become increasingly important. With improved treatment of sewage and

industrial wastes, the effects of urban and rural runoff and sedimentation will become

more important. Already silt is the most important pollutant in some streams and urban

and rural runoff will become the limiting factors in water quality when adequate control

of point sources has been achieved.

In geologic terms, the Chesapeake Bay is

young. Early man may have witnessed the

formation of at least parts of it. Some fear

has been expressed that contemporary man

may witness its destruction. And, of course,

the same geologic and climatic forces that

created the Bay a few thousand years ago

will ultimately submerge the Bay under the

ocean or convert it to dry land. Our narrow

perception of time permits us to view such a

future catastrophe with equanimity. The

“Save the Bay” bumper stickers that were

popular at one time were not a plea to pre-

vent further fluctuations of the ocean level

or to legislate against orogeny. They re-

flected a much more practical concern that

man’s uses of the Bay are being threatened.

What we are concerned about, then, is

not the threat to the Bay, but the threat to

the Bay’s utility. What profits it a man to

save the Bay if he cannot swim, sail, or fish

1Mr. McKewen received his Bachelor of En-

gineering degree and his Master of Science in En-

gineering from The Johns Hopkins University. He

has served successively in the Maryland Depart-

ment of Health as Field Engineer, Division of Sani-

tary Engineering; Head, Public Water Supply Pro-

gram; Head, Planning Section, Division of Water

and Sewerage; Director, Bureau of Resources Pro-

tection; and Director, Environmental Health

Services. He has held his present position since

1970.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

it? This egocentric view, while it may not

sound noble, is appropriate since the princi-

pal threat to man’s use of the Bay is man’s

use of the Bay. To be more accurate, the

principal threat is man’s unwise use of the

Bay.

It is important but not always easy to

distinguish between wise and unwise uses,

and between beneficial and harmful uses. In

fact, the same use can be both wise and un-

wise, both beneficial and harmful depending

upon such variables as time, location, and

one’s attitude. Some uses of the Bay are not

even recognized as such by the user. The

contractor or farmer who does not guard

against erosion is using the Bay as a sediment

trap. The community or industry which dis-

charges liquid wastes is using the Bay as a

waste transportation and treatment device.

Such uses are, in one sense, extensions of

natural processes which occurred before man

arrived on the scene. Erosion and subsequent

sedimentation predates and likely will post-

date man. Similarly, addition of organic ma-

terials to the Bay is a natural process that is

in part responsible for the rich population of

beneficial organisms in the Bay.

There is a vast difference, however, be-

tween natural rates of sedimentation and

those existing today; and between natural

runoff that bears life-giving levels of nutri-

157

ents and massive discharges that suffocate or

expel higher forms of aquatic life.

The title assigned to this discussion im-

plies that emphasis is to be given to prob-

lems rather than solutions. For this I am

grateful, since it makes for an easier and

safer task. However, it is not possible to

separate the two cleanly, particularly since

some of today’s problems were yesterday’s

solutions.

To complete this prologue, I will make

one more general remark. Attitudes toward

wastes handling can be put in three general

categories, labeled: discard, control, and

manage. There has been an uneven but rapid

evolution from the first to the last in recent

years. As we go through a discussion of the

unpleasant assortment of pollutants that

comprise my topic, some examples will be

given of this evolution and an attempt will

be made to assess its significance.

Liquid Wastes

Sanitary sewage and industrial liquid

wastes are the classic villains. Recently, they

have been upstaged at times by such

Johnny-come-latelies as heavy metals and

thermal effects, but as sustained, publicly

accepted threats, they have no equal.

The Chesapeake Bay drainage area is

populated by about 10 million people, and

this figure may double by the turn of the

century. It would seem, therefore, that in

order to hold the line at present water qual-

ity levels, we will in the future need to do

twice as effective a job of liquid waste treat-

ment as we are presently doing. Doubling

the effectiveness of any kind of process is

usually considered a substantial accomplish-

ment. In this instance, such an approach

would be naive. For one thing, doing no bet-

ter than simply maintaining present water

quality levels would hardly be a worthwhile

accomplishment. For another, treatment

processes commonly employed today are

rather selective. For example, the perfor-

mance of sewage treatment plants is usually

stated as the percentage removal of oxygen

demanding substances or BOD. By this

measure, performance could be improved

without reducing levels of phosphates and

158

nitrogen—nutrients whose pollution poten-

tial is causing increasing concern.

Another complication is the changing

value of liquid wastes. Today, with few

exceptions, they are considered to have a

negative economic value. However, as efflu-

ents of higher and higher quality are pro- |

duced, coupled with increasing demands for

water for potable, industrial, agricultural,

and recreational purposes, it will become in-

creasingly desirable and ultimately essential

to reuse rather than discharge. Some types

of reuse—drinking water is an obvious ex-

ample—will require extremely high, and

therefore expensive, levels of pollution re-

duction and reliability. Agricultural use, on

the other hand, may require less expensive

treatment than would direct discharge to a

stream.

The handling of liquid wastes offers a

good example of the previously mentioned

evolution from discard through control to

management. The time has long passed when

the simple discharge of raw wastes to the

nearest stream was considered acceptable.

Such discharges from municipalities and in-

dustries were once the most serious pollu-

tant in many tributaries of the Bay. The

great acceleration in sewage treatment plant

construction that took place during the past

decade eliminated most of these. The major

problems that remain are in the metro-

politan areas of Washington and Baltimore.

Barring an inconceivable backing-off from

present projects and commitments, these

problems will be eliminated and point source

raw waste discharges need not be considered

a long-range threat to the Bay or its tribu-

taries.

Of more concern is the impact of con-

trolled discharges—controlled both in the

sense of receiving treatment before discharge

and in the sense of being regulated by

government. Although sewage treatment is

not a new art, and some communities to

their credit, built plants back in the days

when polluted water and smoking stacks

were viewed as symbols of economic pro-

gress, it is only recently that pollution con-

trol measures have kept pace with the

growth of pollution generation. In Maryland,

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

EEO

for example, it was not until 1968 that a

chronological plot of sewage treatment plant

capacity began to parallel and then approach

a similar plot of sewage generated.

The effort to provide adequate treatment

capacity is obviously not over. It will never

be over so long as population and per capita

waste generation continue to grow. But, at

least, the trend is in the right direction and

the quantitative battle appears to be in good

shape. The effort to provide adequate quali-

ty of treatment is less clear. It is rather un-

settling to look at the history of sewage

treatment. At one time, simply achieving an

adequate volumetric ratio between receiving

water and raw sewage discharged was con-

sidered adequate, leading to the old adage,

“Dilution is the solution to pollution.”

Then, plain sedimentation, or primary treat-

ment, became the accepted minimum. More

recently so-called secondary treatment, using

biological processes to remove additional

fractions of the pollutants, was set as the

goal.

Now there is much discussion of further

steps, usually, if vaguely, referred to as ter-

tiary or advanced waste treatment. These

terms are sometimes employed to refer to

processes which are meant to improve the

BOD or solids removal performance of a

standard secondary plant, but they are more

specifically used to designate nutrient re-

moval facilities.

Few matters are more important to fu-

ture protection of Bay quality than resolu-

tion of the questions concerning critical

levels of nutrients in the Bay. The Chesa-

peake Bay is already rich biologically. Al-

though over-enrichment does not appear to

be an immediate problem in the Bay proper,

it has occurred in tributaries such as the

Potomac Estuary and Back River. Both of

these bodies of water are in effect helping to

protect the Bay, but at severe cost to their

own quality.

The decision has already been made to

include nitrogen and phosphate reduction at

the Blue Plains Sewage Treatment Plant serv-

ing the District of Columbia and areas of

suburban Maryland and Virginia. The extent

to which such action will be required else-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

where has not yet been determined. The

Maryland Department of Natural Resources

has appointed a committee to review exist-

ing water quality standards and recommend

changes in them where needed. A special

subcommittee has been charged with ex-

amining the issue of nutrients.

Another important issue is reliability. As

the performance of treatment plants im-

prove, there is a commensurate need for con-

sistency in that performance. High perfor-

mance means high water quality that will

support the more demanding and valuable

forms of aquatic life and permit recreational

uses. Even a fairly short period of bypassing,

or discharge of poorly treated wastes, will

have serious consequences in such waters.

Reliability will impose additional costs in

construction, monitoring, and operation.

This, coupled with increased costs brought

about by the need for more effective treat-

ment plants, will give increased emphasis to

cost-effectiveness considerations. This is al-

ready becoming evident in the administra-

tion of the Federal and State grant pro-

grams. Although this is hardly the time to

cut back on expenditures for pollution

abatement, it is the time to make certain

that the maximum water quality is pur-

chased with the money available.

Surface Runoff

Similar in pollutional effects to domestic

sewage and industrial wastes, but far dif-

ferent in its susceptability to control land

runoff, urban runoff is a serious problem

now and is likely to remain one for some

time to come. The first increment of rain

that flushes city streets, alleys, and yards has

chemical and bacteriological characteristics

not too different from those of raw sewage.

Unlike raw sewage, however, it is not con-

veyed to a treatment plant prior to discharge

but piped to a nearby stream along with the

cleaner runoff that follows the initial flush.

Whether urban runoff can be considered a

long-range threat to the Bay is problematic-

al, but it clearly contributes to local water

quality degradation. As cleaner water results

from improved handling and treatment of

159

sewage and industrial wastes, urban runoff

will become proportionately more impor-

tant. It may well become the limiting factor

in attaining water quality.

The major problem with urban runoff is,

of course, its volume. A system of pipes and

other structures adequate to convey the run-

off from a good-sized rainfall in a large city

to one or even several treatment plants

would be of staggering proportions. The

plants, too, would be huge even though they

would stand idle most of the time.

Several possible approaches are being ex-

plored, including storage followed by con-

trolled release and treatment, treatment of

the first flush only, and filtration at each

storm water outlet. Near-future prospects

for effective solutions are not bright.

Agricultural runoff poses many of the

same problems, with the additional one that

it is even less controlled; reaching water-

courses through a diffuse array of trickles,

rivulets, and ditches.

Fortunately, this area has not had to con-

tend with the proliferation of huge feed lots

that have seriously polluted streams in some

other parts of the country. However, we

have problems enough. On some streams

agricultural runoff is an important source of

bacteriological pollution and may be a sig-

nificant source of nutrients. Like its city sis-

ter, agricultural runoff will increase in im-

portance as the treatment of municipal and

industrial wastes improves. Again, near fu-

ture prospects for adequate control are not

bright.

Urban and agricultural runoff have one

other commonality. The best place to con-

trol pollution is at the source. In the city,

this means improved solid wastes storage and

collection. On the farm, it means improved

methods of applying agricultural chemicals

and managing livestock.

Sediment

To those who like to measure, photo-

graph, and otherwise record pollutional

effects, few pollutants are as obliging as sedi-

ment. Although, as mentioned earlier, sedi-

mentation is a natural process, that process

has been accelerated greatly by man and his

160

activities. Forested land that may have lost

100 tons/mi2/yr or less will lose several

times as much when cleared for farming, and

even more, though for a briefer period of

time, when cleared for a construction pro-

ject.

Some colonial ports in the Bay area can |

be reached now only by a flat bottom skiff

or, in some aggravated instances, by a pedes-

trian. Other ports have not suffered this in-

dignity because of frequent dredging. The

Bay and most of its tidal estuaries are al-

ready quite shallow. They can ill afford

rapid siltation.

Sedimentation is one pollutant which can

be adequately controlled only at its source.

Effective measures have barely begun, but

new legislation such as that enacted recently

in Maryland should permit substantial pro-

gress for the first time.

Some forms of pollution are of such mag-

nitude and complexity that the individual

citizen may feel he is powerless to make any

significant contribution to their solution.

This is not true of sediment. Anyone who

owns or controls a piece of land can make a

contribution. In fact, that is just about the

only way the job can be done. Sediment

control does not lend itself to radical tech-

nological breakthroughs or heroic single-shot

solutions. Willing and knowledgable coopera-

tion of many people will be required.

This leads to my final thought. Only in

recent years has the magnitude of the pollu-

tion control effort begun to approach the

magnitude of the pollution problem. It is

hardly a coincidence that also only in recent

years has there been a widespread expression

of public concern over environmental con-

trol.

It was not until a few years ago that man

discovered that he was not only surrounded

by but was in fact part of the environment.

The courtship between man and his newly

found enviornment saw the strengthening of

pollution control laws and budgets. The fur-

ther discovery of ecology convinced man

that he had better marry the environment

before she gave her favors to a more prudent

species.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

a |

Today, it seems, the excitement of the

honeymoon is nearing an end, but the pro-

spects for a stable and mutually rewarding

marriage appear good. If so, the prospects

for the Chesapeake Bay are also good; but

should man become again inattentive and

Questions and Answers

apathetic, the prospects for the Bay will be

very dim. That may not make much dif-

ference to man though, for if impregnable

apathy is to be his way of life, his prospects

are also dim.

The Fate of the Chesapeake Bay: Major Threats

Moderator:

Panelists: Col. W.J. Love, Retired

Dr. Ruth Patrick, Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia

Dr. Gerald Walsh, Environmental Protection Agency

Dr. Michael Bender, Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Mr. Thomas McKewen, Maryland Environmental Service

Q-—In the rivers oyster-metals study, was

anything else analyzed—for example, hydro-

carbon residues or herbicide residues?

DR. BENDER—No, just those elements

we particularly mentioned. We did analyze

for mercury but did not find those kinds of

relationships. We have, however, a contract

with Gulf-Breeze Labs for monitoring pesti-

cides in 10 locations, and we have monitored

for polychlorinated biphenyls and DDT

since 1968. In the southern branch of the

Elizabeth we find the highest levels of poly-

chlorinated biphenyls reaching a peak at

about 2% parts/million in the oysters. The

DDT levels are quite low in at least the lower

portion of the Bay that we are monitoring. I

don’t believe we ever found a total residue

higher than 0.2 part/million in the past. In

localized instances on the Eastern Shore,

when spraying operations occur, higher

levels occur in crabs and in oysters.

Q—In your talk you made no mention of

the hydrodynamic effects of the enlarging of

the Chesapeake Bay-Delaware Canal. Can

you say something about that?

COL. LOVE—Not too much. There will

be effects of net transfers between the

Chesapeake Bay and the Delaware Bay.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

These are under study now and have been

under study for some time, but I don’t know

if reports have been made on them.

Q—Do you feel the Corps of Engineers

should change the percentage of various land

forms in Chesapeake Bay? If so, which type

should be increased and which decreased?

COL. LOVE-I don’t think the Corps of

Engineers should change too many land

forms. If the question were, “Should land

forms be changed in the Chesapeake?” I

would say as little as possible.

Q—Do the figures, amounts, and dollars

on herbicides include employment by mili-

tary in Viet Nam?

DR. WALSH—The amount used in Viet

Nam is a drop in the bucket. With cessation

of the use of herbicides in Viet Nam there is

no change expected in the economy of pesti-

cides in this country.

Q—Has there been any case of contamina-

tion of drinking water with pesticides in

which standard water treatment practice has

failed to remove them?

DR. WALSH-In 1964 the U.S. Public

Health Service reported the presence of

dieldrin and endrin in the municipal water of

161

Vicksburg and New Orleans. The report

stated this was cause for concern, but clini-

cal symptoms of pesticide poisoning were

never observed.

Q—Any oyster with 10,000 parts/million

of zinc is 1% metal. Have you tried to see

how large an accumulation of zinc an oyster

can contain without physiological complica-

tions?

DR. BENDER—No we haven’t. It seems

pretty evident from looking at their general

condition that oysters don’t seem to be par-

ticularly harmed by zinc. There have been

several studies in South Carolina indicating

about the same thing. I’m sure that at some

high concentration some effect would be evi-

dent. With some metals like cadium and mer-

cury I would be more certain. Some of the

ores mined in various parts of the country

are quite a bit lower than 1%. We are work-

ing on a wet-weight basis, but if you base

figures on a dry-weight basis, that’s a lot of

zinc. It might be a good extraction tech-

nique.

Q—Drinking water standard for zinc is 5

mg/l. A man who eats lots of your metallic

oysters would certainly get more zinc than

his share. When do you expect the FDA to

take action? What is the FDA’s zinc recom-

mendation?

DR. BENDER—To my knowledge there

are no specific levels for metals other than

mercury set for oysters or other seafoods.

This becomes a big problem in deciding how

many oysters or how much seafood at a

particular level a person is going to consume.

If studies are based on methods similar to

those used to establish radioactivity stand-

ards, | think you would find that a person

would have to eat a lot of oysters to be

harmed. In many of these cases the oysters

that are high in zinc are also high in copper,

and people just don’t like to eat green

oysters. Greening has been found to occur

much before any harm is done to the oyster

itself. These oysters are not marketable for

either soups or other types of use—they are

just objectionable and, as you know, people

arent apt to eat a green one. | should

clarify—zine doesn’t turn green, but in most

162

cases when oysters contain that much zinc

they are also green from copper.

Q—Apparently the 3 spoil areas you al-

luded to were the overboard disposal type.

Were these areas vegetated by natural or

man-made means?

COL. LOVE-—I know of no attempts by

man to vegetate in those cases I mentioned.

Vegetation was extended or implanted in

completely natural forms. | think the point

is obvious. We can assist that process by im-

planting the grasses and the flora matching

that of the wetlands, rather than waiting for

several hundred or thousand years. We can

assist nature in that respect.

Q—Are the plants that exist marsh plants

or upland plants?

COL. LOVE—Marsh plants in all cases,

because in all cases they show at least some

chloride content. Although at Susquehanna

and Havre-de-Grace, concentrations are very

low.

Q-—I think it should be pointed out that

many spoil-disposal projects have resulted in

either marsh destruction or in the replace-

ment of good marsh with relatively unpre-

dictable reed grass.

COL. LOVE—No question about it. Our

management practices in the future can and

should alleviate that to a good degree. How-

ever, we must recognize that if we are going

to have places to take all these pleasure

boats that we all seem to want to have in

greater and greater numbers, some priority

must be given to spoil areas where we cannot

either effectively create good marsh lands or

where we may have to dedicate to the use of

spoil the existing possibly higher grade bot-

tom or marsh land. This goes back to a sys-

tem of priorities which Maryland, particular-

ly, is assessing against their marsh lands—not

necessarily for spoil purposes or for any

other specific purposes, but for some pri-

ority or ranking. If we must have the boats,

we need the channels. If we need the chan-

nels, we must maintain them. If we maintain

them, then let’s do the most productive

thing with the spoil material from them.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

—__

Q—To what extent are ecological and at-

mospheric effects being factored into the

hydrodynamic model of the Bay?

COL. LOVE-—The Corps is trying to ci-

pher out the atmospheric effects as much as

they can. This is quite a problem because it

works with a scale model as opposed to a

full-scale normal situation. The effect of a

falling leaf on a 1:1000 horizontal scale is a

lot more than it is out in the Bay itself. The

simple way, of course, is to enclose this

structure to avoid the effects of dust, wind,

and rain. Obviously rain would put you out

of action. A hydraulic model is not a direct

demonstrator of biological modeling by any

matter of means; it is only indirectly by a

study and prediction of current changes, for

instance, that there can be some inter-

relationships drawn on the biological scale.

Q—Do you foresee any hydrodynamic

changes associated with the Hart-Miller Is-

land diked disposal complex?

COL. LOVE—Undoubtedly. Just as the

emplacement of Crany Island, some 2 miles

on each side, in the lower James had a gross

effect, so will the emplacement of any con-

tained spoil area have an effect any place in

the Bay. The Hart-Miller proposal, being the

size that it is, will have an effect. That effect

must be studied, possibly modeled, and cer-

tainly analyzed. The detrimental effects

must be minimized and very possibly the

beneficial effects maximized. This can be

done.

Q—What explanation can you give for

urea-type and triazine compounds being

more toxic to marine biota than fresh-water

organisms?

DR. WALSH~—I said that the urea and tri-

azine herbicides were the most toxic com-

pounds we have tested on marine algae. The

urea herbicides caused a decrease in the

amount of carbohydrate in algae. The de-

crease was greatest at 30 parts per thousand

salinity and least at 5 parts per thousand.

Perhaps there is a greater demand on carbo-

hydrate reserves in relation to osmoregula-

tion at the higher salinity.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Q—If $11.2 billion loss to insects in farm

products occurred, what effect would this

have on farm economics and soil-bank pay-

ments?

DR. WALSH~—I see a conflict of interest.

Q—Perhaps what we need is more land in

use but operating less efficiently without

any pesticides.

DR. WALSH-—There’s no doubt we would

like to use fewer pesticides if possible, and

there is a great movement in favor of “‘organ-

ic” farming. With increase in numbers of the

population, most people that I’ve talked to

say it is impossible to continue to feed our

people without pesticides.

Q-—You have given very good data on

DDT in seafoods. How does this compare

with other foods, vegetables, and meats?

DR. WALSH-—If you wash vegetables

enough you won’t have any problems be-

cause most of the pesticides are on the out-

side. The intake of insecticides by farm ani-

mals is quite well known. Their feeds are

monitored for insecticide contamination,

and in most cases if there is any contamina-

tion of animals it is lost rather quickly. I’m

thinking of things like picloram and tri-

fluralin, which are lost in a matter of hours

after ingestion. You may find insecticides in

the milk of cows, but after they are removed

from the feed the levels in milk go down and

are lost within a matter of days.

Q—As a result of rising concentrations of

pesticides in the marine environment, it

would seem we may already have caused

major changes in the natural populations of

lower trophic levels. Are there any data that

have indicated such changes?

DR. WALSH—I’m not familiar with it.

Cox has shown that the DDT concentration

in algae in Monterey Bay has increased since

1964. Whether this has caused any changes

in productivity I’m not sure. People often

say that productivity is going down, yet it’s

hard to tell the cause. In some areas produc-

tivity is rising. Certainly there has been a

decrease in productivity in many Florida

bays; a lot of people would like to blame

pesticides, but most of the people I have

163

talked to feel that it results from a degrada-

tion of nursery grounds or a combination of

things like industrial and municipal affluents

rather than insecticides.

Q—From the shrimp studies, you have

found high levels of DDT in the liver and

pancreas. In man, there has been an increase

in the incidence of cancer of the liver and

pancreas, especially in the black male, and

studies have shown higher residues of DDT

in black males than in white males or fe-

males. Do you think there is a correlation

between DDT in the environment and the

increased incidence of cancer?

DR. WALSH-—I don’t know.

Q-—EPA currently is conducting hearings

on cancellation of all uses of DDT. Do you

have an opinion on whether DDT should be

banned? If so, why? If not, why not? If you

feel it should, what do you feel might be the

impact of a United States ban on developing

countries that must use DDT for public

health purposes?

DR. WALSH-—I think DDT has done a

good job for what it was made for. But a

good example of banning DDT occurred in

Mayala, where DDT was completely banned.

Before that ban, malaria was virtually wiped

out. Since that ban in the last few years,

malaria has come back and has become a

problem again. Now the Malayan govern-

ment is starting to use DDT again. I believe

that if DDT will do the job on a limited basis

it should be used. However, I would like to

see something less persistent used whenever

possible.

Q— [Question not heard. ]

DR. WALSH—My point was: There are

cases when DDT has more goods than bads.

If a situation arose in the United States in

which the only solution was DDT, and either

people were going to die of a disease or the

pelicans were going to go, I would opt for

the people every time.

-Q—Because shrimp flushed out quickly,

would other organisms?

DR. WALSH—Rapid flushing has been

shown in oysters. Oysters are excellent in

164

this regard, and they can be used for moni-

toring. According to Butler they reflect the

level of DDT in water very accurately.

Q—You stressed the complexity of pesti-

cide work because of numbers of organisms

and numbers of pesticides. Then you

generalized from 2 specific observations: 1) |

that because shrimp flushed out quickly,

other organisms would; 2) that because toxic

effects of DDT compared to PCBs on shrimp

were higher, this relation would hold for

other organisms. Please comment on this dis-

crepancy.

DR. WALSH-—I don’t recall making such

generalizations. I wish I could.

Q-—Is total recycling of wastes the ulti-

mate, hence preferred, mechanism of han-

dling sewage and waste waters?

MR. MCKEWEN—Whether it is the ulti-

mate, I don’t know. You get kind of cynical

about ultimates, especially after they have

failed. There’s no question that recycling,

which really means reducing the residual you

discharge to the environment to the mini-

mum, will be a very major part of any kind

of ultimate solution to the problem. At the

moment a great deal of work is being done

in solid waste recycling, and some recycling

processes are now available for certain frac-

tions of solid waste. There are some installa-

tions—not many and not very large—where

sewage is being treated and is being sprayed

back onto the surface of the ground. This

may be one way to utilize the nutrient value

of sewage rather than to discharge it to an

environment perhaps not prepared to accept

it. This method will require a much lower

investment in capital operating costs in sew-

age treatment plants because it eliminates

the step for advanced waste treatment.

Chances are, present State and federal poli-

cies will lead to much wider use of spray

irrigation in the future than we’ve seen to-

day. Whether it is feasible to spray-irrigate

sewage from a city the size of Baltimore or

Washington is problematical. It might make

more sense to recycle by providing very high

degrees of treatment and then pumping the

effluent upstream of the water intake. The

step beyond that, which we are not prepared

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

technologically to take, would simply be to

make the outlet of the sewage plant the inlet

of the water treatment plant. That step will

undoubtedly come, but not in the imme-

diate future. One kind of reclamation, hope-

fully to be practiced to a much larger extent

in the near future, is the re-use of the solids

removed from sewage during the treatment

process. Instead of adding organics to the

load that the water body is asked to take,

put them back on the land where they can

do some positive good. This process may re-

quire more money than to incinerate the

sludge. Without going into economics and

environmental control deeply, I would like

to make the point that a number of things

appear to be advantageous—filling in strip

mines with fly ash or utilizing sewage sludge

to reclaim barren soils. Many, perhaps most,

of these will require a greater dollar outlay

than some other lower-cost solution. The

difference between the lowest cost and what

is conceived to be the project of greatest

social value will determine where those dol-

lars will come from. Undoubtedly they will

have to come from a form of public subsidy.

Q-—You say sewage treatment will im-

prove over the next 10 years—a very short

time. Is there in fact a statewide plan in be-

ing for improving sewage treatment facili-

ties?

MR. MCKEWEN—Obviously we have a

plan for everything. Offhand I don’t know

how many primary plans are left. There were

only a handful and they are programmed for

early conversion to secondary. Beyond that

I’m not certain at this point whether we go

to advanced waste treatments at all plants or

at most plants.

Q—Would you care to comment on the

pollution caused by the marine toilets on

pleasure boats? There are only 400,000 such

toilets in the United States, and they are

much used only on weekends and holidays.

A navy vessel in the Bay would contribute

much more, but both forces would appear

insignificant. Why has the federal govern-

ment banned marine toilets as a way to re-

duce pollution?

MR. MCKEWEN-It is rarely that I have a

chance to speak for the federal government,

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL, VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

so I welcome this opportunity. There are 2

kinds of effects of disposal from waste from

boats. Neither of them have anything to do

with either the overall or the long-range

quality of a body of water such as the Chesa-

peake Bay, because the total amount of

waste is quite small. However, in 2 situations

it can be significant. One is at a marina or

any other harborage where a large number of

vessels are occupied over a long period of

time. This local pollution has been measured

a number of times—it obviously happens. In

the case of the marina, the problem could be

solved by the enforcement of regulations re-

quiring the head and using shore facilities.

The second instance in which it has signifi-

cance, particularly in the case of the Bay, is

where you have craft passing directly over

shellfish beds and where fecal matter is being

deposited directly on the shellfish. I don’t

know a way to quantify that hazard. I think

we are safe in assuming that it exists. What is

it worth to remove the hazard? Frankly I

don’t know, and I wouldn’t want to guess.

There is a third point: If we were really seri-

ous about the integrity of the environment,

we would utilize any reasonable tactic we

could to improve the quality of the environ-

ment. I think that part of the reason EPA

has imposed restrictions on marine toilets is

that this is simply another way to improve

environmental quality. It is, if you will, part

of an environmental ethic.

Q—Is there a possibility for making use of

the wetlands’ ability to convert nutrients to

production in reducing expense of sewage

treatments?

MR. MCKEWEN-Three years ago I made

that suggestion in a letter and received about

50 letters in response, pointing out that I

was trying to pollute wetlands, so I hesitate

to say it again. I am not a biologist. A few

biologists have told me they think there is

some merit to this idea. Based on my past

experience, I will let it drop at that and sug-

gest you ask Dr. Williamson or someone else

more qualified.

Q—Do you have data which correlates

with incidence of hepatitis from eating raw

oysters? If so, in this problem area, how do

165

Chesapeake oysters compare with those

from Long Island Sound?

MR. MCKEWEN-Choosing Long Island

Sound as a base for comparison makes the

answer fairly simple. We are in far better

shape. I’m sure there is some general data

relating the incidence of hepatitis to eating

raw oysters; people have contracted the dis-

ease when they have eaten contaminated raw

oysters. To the best of my knowledge no

incidents have been reported in Maryland

from Chesapeake Bay oysters. | do have a

recollection of 1 instance last year—the

source proved not to be shellfish. ’'m not

aware of any hepatitis from this source in

the Chesapeake Bay area. A public health

person might provide a better answer.

Q—The pressures for residential develop-

ment on DelMarVa and the western side of

the Bay can be expected to become even

greater in the future. The possible effects on

the Bay would appear to be critical for dis-

cussion here. Could someone describe briefly

the potential types of pollution, their vari-

ous effects on the biota, in a cycle even-

tually impinging back upon man? Where do

you see the trade-off between stopping pol-

lution and continued economic development

and new industrial processes?

MR. MCKEWEN~—They are 2 interesting

questions. I’m not sure anybody can do full

justice to both. There is obviously mounting

pressure to develop the DelMarVa peninsula.

One response to that development pressure,

for example, is in Queen Anne’s County.

With the new parallel Bay Bridge, greater

growth can be anticipated in the area. They

have learned from mistakes made on the

Western Shore years ago. They are at the

moment cooperating with our agency in con-

ducting a study to bring about an adequate

sewage system, to make it available just be-

fore the development explodes, if in fact

that occurs, and to make certain that the

growth of the sewage system parallels and

anticipates the population growth. The tools

are available for handling additional waste

generated by a larger population. The big

question is whether or not anyone desires a

complete change in the character of the Del-

166

MarVa peninsula due to increased develop-

ment—that is an environmental question

rather than a waste management question

per se. There is a trade-off between stopping

pollution and continued economic develop-

ment. No matter to what low level you drive

residuals, no matter how small a percentage —

of polluting ability is left, something will al-

ways be discharged to the environment. And

whatever that something is, one can postu- |

late a population and accompanying indus-

trial development that will cause even that

low percentage of pollution to exert a very

large effect on the environment. I don’t

think that you can take the extreme. I can’t

postulate any control measure that is going

to be completely satisfactory if population

and industrialization continue indefinitely.

We have to assume that somewhere a plateau

is reached. There is a trade-off that is taking

effect right now at present levels. More and

more of the gross national product, even

though the amount may be small, is being

put into pollution control measures. Not

only does this have the effect of reducing

the amount of waste being discharged to the

environment—it also has the effect of reduc-

ing the gross national product, because any

dollar put into sewage treatment is not a dol-

lar that is turning out automobiles or electri-

cal power, etc. As the percentage of the

gross national product invested in environ-

ment control increases, as apparently it will

for at least some time to come, some day an

optimum balance between environmental

pollution and economic sacrifices will be

achieved. The greater the public insistence

upon clean environment, the higher that bal-

ance point will be in favor of environmental

quality, and conversely, the lower the pres-

sure exerted for it, the lower will be the final

point of environmental quality. The last part

of the question had to do with new indus-

trial processes. There is a point at which the

industrial manager can achieve a certain

quality of effluent by changing his process

rather than by putting more money into

treatment. As the standards for effluent

quality become more stringent, I’m sure we

can anticipate still more changes in industrial

processes to reduce the investment in treat-

ment facilities. Someone made the point this

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

morning that perhaps power plants would be

built on the ocean, but only if it could be

demonstrated that the cost of building them

on the periphery of the Bay had become un-

acceptable. This notion is the same one

governing the paper mill that converts to a

new papermaking process to reduce cost of

waste treatment.

Q—Please estimate the fraction of sani-

tary sewage entering the Bay without

treatment. Is it changing fast enough?

MR. MCKEWEN-I don’t know if I can

give you a precise fraction. The 2 major

sources of raw sewage in the Bay today are

Washington and Baltimore. In Baltimore

several million gallons per day are lost by

leakage from the many old sewers that aren’t

able to convey all the collected sewage down

to the plant. In Washington, D.C., combined

sewers discharge raw sewage into storm

drains, and there are inadequate sewers and,

at the moment, an inadequate sewage treat-

ment plant. In both cities construction is

underway now to eliminate the problem. It

will take longer in Washington because doing

something about some of the combined

sewers is an extremely difficult and costly

engineering problem. But the bulk of raw

sewage now reaching the Bay should be re-

duced to a very low level in the very next

few years by virtue of construction work

either actually underway at the moment, or

in the case of Baltimore City, about to get

underway this current year. I would guess

the fraction is presently somewhere under 4

or 5%. Within a few years it would be down

well under 1%, and this value occurring only

during rainfalls when combined sewers are

surcharged by the combination of sanitary

sewage and runoff.

Q—If you burn the sewage sludge at Blue

Plains, what level of air pollution will be

reached?

MODERATOR~I was going to answer in

a sort of general way by saying that the in-

cineration of sludge is a part of research to

reduce the bulk of sludge without air pollu-

tion.

Q—What would be done with the burned

sludge?

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

MODERATOR-This again is part of a re-

search effort to find ways to incorporate this

inert oxide product into cement or mortar,

or to find some kind of beneficial use for it.

Q—Will oysters expel metals if they are

placed in beds where metal concentrations in

water and sediments are low? If so, what

percent?

DR. BENDER—Oysters will lose metals.

There is not a great wealth of data that can

be relied upon concerning the exact rate of

loss. Of course the loss depends upon the

concentration you put them in. Pringel, in

laboratory studies in which he raised the oy-

sters to high metal levels fairly rapidly,

showed a loss of 1mg/kg/day, with a sugges-

tion that different metals vary slightly. Now

that’s not a very high loss rate in an oyster

with 2000 parts/million zinc (or milligrams

per kilogram, micrograms per gram, etc.).

Obviously, it would take a long time for him

to drop back down to a low level. All of the

problems aren’t answered, but there is no

doubt that oysters lose metals this way.

Q-—Many speakers have mentioned the

dangers of persistent materials. The point

has not been made clear how fortuitous it is

that the flushing rate of Chesapeake Bay is

as great as it is. Your problems would be

compounded many fold if the flushing rate

were cut in half and the load remained the

same. Consider the problems in Lakes Michi-

gan and Superior with persistent materials.

The flushing times are 100 and 500 years

respectively. Count your blessings. What is

the flushing rate for Chesapeake Bay?

COL. LOVE-—I don’t know. The flushing

rate of the Patapsco River, Baltimore Har-

bor, is about 15 days. This is indeed fortu-

nate because a strictly freshwater transfer

series of coefficient would give you on the

order of 200 days. We get a lot of help from

other currents related to salinity differences

found in the tidal estuaries. Yes, indeed, we

can count our blessings. We get a lot of help

from Mother Nature!

Q—Is the Bay sick? Five characteristics:

1) very high plate counts of 2000; 2) poot

land-use planning (i.e., Calvert Cliffs and

Columbia LNG in pristine areas); 3) high

167

pollution in Baltimore Harbor and the Poto-

mac; 4) low water clarity; and 5) shores of

the bay littered with junk.

COL. LOVE—I’ve already answered that.

I don’t think it is sick. It has a few rashes

here and there that we have to treat before

they grow together.

DR. BENDER-—!I don’t know if I want to

answer that either. However, recent studies

conducted by the Virginia State Health De-

partment and reviewed by the FDA have re-

sulted in the closure of relatively large areas

previously open to the direct marketing of

shellfish. Unless appropriate measures are

taken to treat sewage adequately, these

types of actions will continue as the popula-

tion grows.

DR. WALSH—Coming from Florida, ’m

afraid | don’t know enough about conditions

in the Bay, so I'll pass.

MR. MCKEWEN-—The questioner has ob-

viously reached his own conclusions. I don’t

think the Bay is sick. I think the tributaries

of the Bay are sick, and that sickness can

spread and in fact was spreading until recent-

ly. It has been checked but by no means has

been pushed back. That is still going to take

some effort and time. The evidence seems to

indicate that improved land-use planning

could turn out to be one of the most impor-

tant actions needed to protect Bay quality. |

don’t know whether this group ever plans to

condict future seminars of this type, but if

so, one might well be held on the question

168

of land-use policy as it relates to environ-

mental quality.

Q—What funds are available and projected

in Maryland for pollution abatement: air,

water, solid waste, Chesapeake Bay?

MR. MCKEWEN-I don’t have all those |

figures in mind, but I can give you some. For

water pollution the State has provided about

$175 million during the past 10 years, $150

million of that over 3 years for grants to

counties and municipalities for sewage treat-

ment plant construction. The budgets for

the 2 regulatory agencies—the Division of

Water and Sewage in the Health Department

and Department of Water Resources—during

the past few years have at least doubled. The

Air Quality Division in 1968 comprised 4 or

5 people who were really equipped to

measure air pollution rather than to reduce

it. That Division now has about 75 people, a

commensurate increase in equipment, and a

much stronger law. About 5 years ago | man

was devoting somewhat less than half his

time to solid waste. There is now a division

in the Health Department for solid waste

control which employs about 20, and addi-

tional people are employed by county health

departments in control of solid wastes. Try-

ing to be as objective as I can, I have to add

that the State put in a new liquid-waste and

solid-waste management agency, the Mary-

land Environmental Service, just last year.

So the State has greatly increased both regu-

lation and direct financial assistance as well

as making management assistance available

to local government and to industry. I think

the effects are showing.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Research to Counter the Threats to Chesapeake Bay

Opening Remarks

Rita R. Colwell, Moderator!

At this juncture we might pause to con-

sider what has been covered in the talks

comprising the first 2 of the 3 sessions of

this Symposium. The physical, chemical,

biological, socio-economic, and industrial as-

pects of the Chesapeake Bay, in terms of the

current situation and present needs and de-

mands on this resource, have been touched

upon in the first session. The current status

of the Bay—its “‘vital signs,” as it were—have

been described. The threats arising from the

alterations and impositions of man upon the

Bay have been cited, in part, by the speakers

of the second session. We now reach the

1For Dr. Colwell’s affiliation and biographical

sketch, see “Introduction to the Symposium.”—

Ed.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

most important considerations: What future

uses and needs can be predicted for Chesa-

peake Bay and what are the research activi-

ties that should be carried on to permit in-

formed decision-making in meeting these fu-

ture uses and needs. It is in the socio-

economic and political arena that the judge-

ments most seriously affecting the survival

of a viable, healthy, and aesthetically pleas-

ing natural resource as the Chesapeake Bay

are made. The Chesapeake Bay, as any living

entity, can be depleted, rendered nonviable,

and destroyed. It can, on the other hand, be

used wisely and resourcefully. Wisdom, in

this instance, must come from knowledge

and the knowledge from research. The last

session, thus, is devoted to exploring the re-

search that is needed to know Chesapeake

Bay and to use it wisely.

169

Research and Decisions

James B. Coulter!

Secretary, Department of Natural Resources, State of

Maryland, State Office Building, Annapolis, Md. 21401

ABSTRACT

Although man can create changes in the Bay, very few of the changes he makes are

itreversable; man’s concern to save the Bay may be based primarily on a false sence of his

own importance. Many large-scale phenomena such as siltation will continue despite

man’s attempts to create change. Therefore, he must set goals that do not conflict with

the overpowering natural forces that continue to operate. Likewise, he must not over-

anxiously apply controls to apparent pollution that, in effect, is natural to the Bay and

its life. Man requires 6 capabilities for the effective handling of the Bay’s problems: a) to

measure phenomena accurately, b) to analyze the data, c) to predict the effects of

man-made changes, d) to test action decisions, e) to command action, and f) to follow

up action with further changes.

Researchers are motivated for any num-

ber of reasons. Some search for truth out of

curiosity alone. Others diligently investigate

simply because they are driven by a restive

mind that won’t stop until its thirst for un-

derstanding of some phenomenom is

quenched. Some seek the fame, others seek

the fortune that new discoveries can bring.

IMr. Coulter received a Master of Science De-

gree from Harvard University in 1954 after com-

pleting graduate study in Sanitary Engineering. His

undergraduate degree, in civil engineering, was ob-

tained in 1950 at the University of Kansas. His

association with the State of Maryland began in

1966 when he joined the Department of Health as

Assistant Commissioner for Environmental Health

Services, providing direction for department pro-

grams embracing air quality control, solid waste

disposal, water supply, sewerage, food and milk,

shellfish sanitation, radiological health, drug con-

trol and sanitation.

Mr. Coulter is Chairman of the Council on En-

vironment of the American Public Health Associa-

tion. He is a Diplomate of the American Academy

of Environmental Engineers, and a member of

Harvard University’s Visiting Committee to the De-

partment of Engineering and Applied Physics. He is

the Commissioner for Maryland on the Ohio River

Basin Commission and serves as Governor Mandel’s

alternate on the Susquehanna River Basin Com-

mission. He is also active in a number of other

regional and national environmental councils and

commissions. He was appointed Secretary of the

Department by Governor Marvin Mandel on Sep-

tember 22, 1971.

170

Without passing any form of judgment

on the potential contributions of the

curious, or the restless, or those that seek

fame or fortune, my comments, for what

they are worth, are directed to a different

group. Hopefully, these remarks will be help-

ful to a handful of dedicated scientists who

choose to do research that will improve de-

cisions which could affect the fate of the

Chesapeake Bay.

Admittedly, the goal is narrow in scope

and pragmatic in nature. But the scientific

complexities of the Bay form a worthy chal-

lenge for the best of mortal minds, and while

the potential for world-wide fame is rather

low, few goals are more important to the

future of Maryland’s natural resources.

While I do not pretend to have the intel-

ligence or scientific skills needed to direct

researchers, | do have some knowledge of

the Chesapeake Bay and in relation to the

decisions that will affect its fate. It is con-

venient to think of those decisions in 2

categories, short-term and long-term.

The short and the long have very little to

do with time as it relates to the Bay itself. I

count myself among those who would “Save

the Chesapeake Bay”. But sometimes I

wonder, save it from what? What is the evil

that threatens to destroy the Bay? Is it

municipal and industrial pollution with

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

over-abundance of algae and sporadic major

fishkills? Is it commerce with boats and

bridges and shellfish farms that would take

precedence over pleasure craft, sportfishing,

hunting, and uncluttered scenery? Is it the

pesticides, PCB’s, heavy metals and other

poisonous compounds? Is it the proliferation

of power plants, the consumptive loss of

water in the Susquehanna, or the destruction

of wetlands?

Some say it is all of those coupled with

the many careless acts of man. But I won-

der. With a few all-important exceptions,

what man has done, he can undo. If man

picked up all of his visual works and left the

scene, the Bay would forget him in a hurry. I

have heard it said that the upper Bay has a

memory of about 2 years. Which means that

after as little as 2 years—or more conserva-

tively if you like, by the end of a decade at

most—man’s former influence on water

quality and aquatic life of the Bay would be

undetectable.

Man’s residues might be found in inert

deposits by some later-day intelligence.

Otherwise, the Bay could and would forget

him, provided that man had not committed

one or more of a few unforgettable acts. If

he changed the composition of gasses in the

atmosphere permanently, if he fouled the

natural water cycle with indestructible sub-

stances that evaporated and condensed ex-

actly like water, if he altered the terrain in a

way that created a new hydrodynamic

regime, if his wastes induced lasting muta-

tions, or if he wiped an entire species from

the face of the earth, the Bay would not

forget.

Where there is any reasonable chance of

producing an irreversible change, control

agencies should be ultraconservative. On the

other hand, in most matters, I wonder if our

concern to save the Bay isn’t somehow

rooted in a false and exaggerated sense of

our own importance. Compared with the

natural forces at work, man’s efforts are

puny indeed.

The Bay was created by a slight adjust-

ment in the earth’s surface. Our geologists

tell us that in terms of the earth’s history,

evidence shows that such adjustments are

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

frequent. Any one of a number of events

that have a definable possibility might occur

that could greatly alter or completely elimi-

nate the Bay as we know it.

In fact, one such event is occurring even

now. The Bay is very young. The soil that

makes up much of the eastern shore is not

stable when wetted. As a result, shore ero-

sion is progressing at an alarming rate. To

put it another way, the eastern shore is

washing away. Do we let it go, hoping that

erosion will stop before Bay meets ocean, or

do we save the Bay. If so, where do we get

the money and how do we overcome the

argument that the land saved isn’t worth the

expenditure required for erosion protection?

A fool might claim that God is dead (and

thereby open himself to a request for proof

that God was alive as a condition to proving

that he is now dead), but it would take a

super fool to claim that natural forces shap-

ing the face of the earth have ceased to act.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the

control of sediment. Sediment is a major

source of pollution, and Maryland is having

measurable success in controlling it. How-

ever, success is not measured against a goal

of preventing silt from entering the Chesa-

peake Bay. During intense storms last sum-

mer, more silt was carried into the Bay with-

in a few hours than had been retained on the

land by all of the control works in operation

throughout the year.

Do we save the Bay from all silt pollution

or even a major part of it? If you feel we

should, visualize the Potomac Valley and es-

timate how many millions of tons of silt

were transported downstream while it was

forming. Now, concede that the forces that

formed the valley will go right on working

until the last hill is leveled, and the fall line

at Great Falls recedes to meet the Ohio di-

vide.

With a series of high and low dams in

conjunction with other works, energy could

be absorbed and much of the silt could be

controlled. Those measures would depart

from the concept of a free-flowing river, in-

undate the C & O Canal, and in other ways

cause changes that many people would dis-

like. In fact, so strong is the resistance that

171

there is little likelihood in the near future of

a major dam being built on the mainstream

anywhere near the head of the estuary.

In the meantime, 2.5 million tons of silt

pour into the Potomac every year. Experts

have estimated that at this rate the Washing-

ton shoreline will silt in within the next 50

years.

In the face of nature’s mighty forces, mis-

conceived and misdirected efforts to control

the environment are simply pathetic. They

might be compared with the well-organized

efforts of an industrious colony of ants

building an ant hill in the path of a bull-

dozer.

I am not saying that man should abandon

his new-found ecological conscience. I am

not saying that man should quit trying to

improve the quality of his environment. I am

saying that he would be wise to set goals

that will satisfy him for some reasonable

period of time after they are reached, goals

that are not in conflict with the overpower-

ing natural forces of the system, and goals

that have a reasonable expectation of accom-

plishment within the time horizon and with-

in the cost burden that man is willing to

tolerate. Otherwise, we are not too different

from the ants doing their tribal thing in the

shadow of the bulldozer.

In this setting, the 2 categories of deci-

sions, long-term and short-term, are related

to man’s time opportunities as opposed to

the natural time-related changes affecting

the Chesapeake Bay. Short-term decisions

could relate to the operation of works that

are in place and functioning. For instance,

the operation of a sewage treatment plant,

or the release of water from Conowingo

Dam, or the shifting of the load from one

generator to another in the power grid.

Short-term actions could include the

measures taken to avert disaster or minimize

damage during an emergency such as a major

oil spill. Another example is the choice of

strategies to minimize losses or to give the

best chance of avoiding some catastrophe

during adverse weather periods.

Long-range decisions are made with

greater deliberation because of their long-

range commitments and consequences. One

172

set of these decisions concerns new invest-

ments for environmental control. Typical

would be the location, size, capability, and

date of construction for a sewage treatment

plant. Another example that illustrates a

common situation is the choice between

once-through cooling or a recirculating cool-

ing tower for a thermal process. If no tower

is provided, the heat-induced damage to the

Bay might be greater than expected and too

great to tolerate. In that event, a cooling

tower would have to be built. On the other

hand, if the cooling tower were built and it

was found that the losses created by salt

drift were greater than expected and too

great to tolerate, the tower might have to be

taken out of use. However, in that event, the

cost of the tower would be a complete loss.

Another type of long-range decision is

found in environmental laws. It might be

argued that laws can be changed as fast as

law makers change their minds. In fact, that

is the case in the water pollution control

field. Nevertheless, the law in effect at any

one time is enforced. Those complying take

the law into consideration, and it weighs

heavily on their selection of water pollution

control measures. A subsequent change in

the law might render their earlier decisions

obsolete and set off another round of long-

range decisions. However, the control works

that result from the first decisions are still in

place. They must be paid for, and even

though their usefulness might be diminished

or eliminated entirely, their presence be-

comes a condition on the next set of deci-

sions.

Other long range decisions include the lo-

cation and controls placed on major indus-

tries, environmental inputs for land use plan-

ning, and the choices that must be made

from the ever-present array of conflicting

goals. The adoption of water quality

standards for the Chesapeake Bay represents

a very special case of long-range decision

making. The clean-water crusader, acting on

good intentions and misinformation, often

ignores an inescapable fact. Impurities con-

tained in the waters of the Chesapeake Bay

promote its productivity and make it the

treasured natural resource that it is. If it

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

To my knowledge, no one has made an

accurate inventory of the tons of phos-

phorous that leave the Bay with the harvest

of sport and commercial fishes, including the

crabs, oysters, and clams. The little know-

were not for organics, nitrogen, phos-

phorous, traces of heavy metals, and all of

the other vital impurities, the waters of the

Bay would be clean, clear, and unproductive.

There seems to be a natural tendency to

pass laws and adopt regulations that in spite

of any good intentions would result in harm

to the Bay if enforced. For instance, under

the recent amendments to the Water Pollu-

tion Control Act as passed by the Senate,

the intrusion of salt water into estuaries

would be prohibited. Federal guidelines have

been developed, and while their legal status

is unclear, they are in fact being used to

regulate the disposal of dredged materials.

The guidelines list permissible concentra-

tions of heavy metals that in some cases are

far below the concentrations found in

natural deposits in the Bay. For instance, the

zinc concentration is one order of magnitude

greater than that permissible under the

federal guidelines in the pleistocene deposits

laid down about 10 thousand years ago.

Contrary to the flurry of concern over

phosphorous—the laws that would ban the

use of phosphate detergents and the frantic

search of scientists for the mythical phos-

phorous concentration below which blue-

green algae could not bloom—literally noth-

ing is known about the daily replenishment

of phosphorous needed to keep the Chesa-

peake Bay healthy and productive.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

ledge that is available concerning the frac-

tion of phosphorous released by decaying

plants and organisms that becomes locked

up in the bottom layers and deposits seems

to be ignored. There must be a net transfer

of phosphorous between that carried in by

the bottom currents of ocean waters enter-

ing the Bay and that which empties out into

the sea. If in the long run, it is shown that

the sea water, including the living things in

the water, brings more phosphorous into the

Bay than the Bay discharges into the ocean,

our expenditures to control phosphorous

from sewage discharges might seem futile if

not absurd.

Let me close with a description of 6 basic

capabilities required by the decision-maker

in arriving at the greatest return for his ef-

forts in doing something about the Bay:

e@ The ability to measure events ac-

curately.

® The ability to bring all of the measure-

ments together and analyze and display

them in a meaningful way.

@ The ability to predict the effect of

man-made changes based on such measure-

ments.

@ The ability to test action decisions

based on economics and the social sciences

in combination with the physical sciences.

@ The ability to command action.

@ The ability to follow up our actions by

creating further changes that may result

from our previous activity.

Then, the cycle begins anew by under-

taking the task of measuring events in the

light of our actions.

173

Physical-Chemical Crisis Indicators—Are There Any?

Jerome Williams!

Associate Chairman, Department of Environmental

Sciences, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md. 21402

ABSTRACT

The variation of pH, salinity, oxygen, and temperature is examined at 3 different

locations in Chesapeake Bay. It is shown that the natural variation is so great that any

attempt at delineating a dangerous environmental situation by the simple monitoring of

any single parameter would probably not be successful. The concept of a station signa-

ture is introduced, where the ratio of extreme value to average value is plotted for a

number of selected parameters. Since these ratios are non-dimensional, the relative

variation of different parameters may be directly compared. Even though these signa-

tures vary from station to station, the treatment of a series of different parameters

together seems to hold more promise than that of one parameter by itself.

At this time there appears to be no magic black box which may be implemented to

signal a crisis. Future work seems to be required in the areas of background determina-

tion for desired parameters, investigation of wide extreme persistence, effects of the

same magnitude change in a particular water property at different levels of the same

property, and the effect of a particular variation of one parameter at different levels of

another seemingly independent parameter. It is suggested that the choice of crisis indica-

tors should be determined by the particular ecological problem involved and will proba-

bly be different for different types of problems. Not only is it necessary to measure a

series of parameters rather than 1 to indicate a crisis, but it also appears that data must

be taken over a long enough period of time so that an average value for this period may

be determined with which to compare the extreme values encountered.

In the previous papers in this symposium

Chesapeake Bay has been described as a

long, thin estuary with an average depth

somewhat less than 10 m. This estuary is a

very dynamic one, with “new” water being

added from the ocean in addition to the

1Mr. Williams received his undergraduate train-

ing in physics at the University of Maryland and his

graduate training in physical oceanography at The

Johns Hopkins University. He has been employed

in various research and teaching positions by the

Chesapeake Bay Institute and the United States

Naval Academy, where he is presently Associate

Chairman of the Environmental Sciences Depart-

ment.

The author of many technical and scientific

papers, Professor Williams has also written 3 books

and has 2 more scheduled for publication in the

near future. He has recently finished the design and

development of a series of estuarine instruments

suitable for high school use which is being mar-

keted by a major instrument manufacturer. He is a

member of a number of professional societies and

is Vice President of the Estuarine Research Federa-

tion. His major research interests lie in the fields of

underwater optics, instrumentation, and estuarine

physics.

174

fresh water input from the rivers. The river

flow and the tidal forces drive the circula-

tion of the Chesapeake Bay and produce the

flow patterns that are found to exist. Con-

trary to some other types of arms of the sea,

the physical processes of evaporation and

wind seem to have a very small effect on the

average flow conditions of the Bay, although

they may have a strong short term effect.

In order to examine such a system and

delineate any crisis indicators which may be

utilized in environmental management, it ap-

pears necessary to determine first exactly

what is meant by a crisis. Ostensibly a crisis

is a situation wherein one or more water pro-

perties have reached such a value that the

Bay is lessened in its usefulness for beneficial

purposes or has reached a point where there

is a public outcry. These 2 events may or

may not be causally related. Generally

speaking, there is an implication of some

large variation from normal value of a parti-

cular parameter or group of parameters.

However the definition is a rather subjective

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

one because the words “large” and “‘normal”

are somewhat difficult to characterize quan-

titatively. It is supposed that the term

“large” will be defined in laboratory and

field studies by the biologist who will deter-

mine the limits to which organisms may be

stressed. The term “normal” will be dis-

cussed in this paper.

Stream Flow and Tidal Variations

The natural variation of most measure-

able parameters in Chesapeake Bay is very

large. An excellent example of this is in-

volved with the 2 driving forces mentioned

previously as being responsible for the flow

patterns found in Chesapeake Bay. Fig. 1

shows a plot of monthly maximum and min-

imum values for the stream discharge of

fresh water into Chesapeake Bay during the

period 1951-1971. The numbers appearing

200

52 51

“”

& 150

)

5 59

°o

£ ae

= 100

re 55 2

= 55

a 60

68 56

50 Pa a

ae 64

66 66 6a 63

JAN FEB MAR APRMAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Fig. 1.—Stream discharge into Chesapeake Bay,

1951-71. Monthly ranges.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL, VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

at the ends of the vertical lines indicate the

year in which these extreme values occured.

It may be seen that the monthly maximum

amount of fresh water discharged into Ches-

apeake Bay in 1958 is 30 times as great as

the monthly minimum discharge in 1964.

Even when comparing the maximum and

minimum values experienced in 2 record

years during the same month, a wide ex-

treme is found. For example, in the month

of April the maximum value is about 4 times

as great as the minimum value, going from

about 65,000 to about 240,000 ft3/sec.

Tidal currents. also vary rather markedly

and within a relatively short period of time.

This is demonstrated by the difference be-

tween the spring and neap situation. In Fig. 2

is shown a typical tidal current record for a

point near the Chesapeake Bay Bridge in

January, 1970. During the neap tide period

the maximum tidal current range is about

1.5 knots (0.9 flood to 0.6 ebb). During the

spring tide, following about 7 days later, the

maximum range is about 2% knots (1.3

knots maximum flood to 1.2 knots maxi-

mum ebb). Comparing these 2 extremes

shows a ratio of 1.67, indicating that within

a period of a week the tidal currents changed

by almost 70%.

In addition to the extremes in water velo-

city due to the effect of the tide, the tide

also moves a large volume of water past any

given location. During | tidal cycle (about

12 hours, 25 minutes) of this spring tide, for

example, a water mass almost 6 nautical mi

long will have passed over an oyster on the

bottom in this area. It is not surprising, then,

that when various chemical and physical

water properties are observed, they are

found to vary a great deal.

Choice of Parameters and Stations

Four parameters are examined in this

paper, but there are very many others that

could have been included. A partial list of

physical-chemical properties of interest in

pollution studies might include the follow-

ing: salinity, temperature, nitrate, hydro-

gen-sulphide, phosphate, pH, oxygen,

turbidity, currents, water color, smell, taste,

fluorescence, and radioactivity, in addition

to fresh water inflow and the magnitude of

175

SPRING

NEAP

Ebb

MMAAUAA

Fig. 2.—Typical tidal currents off Sandy Point over period of 13 days.

tidal currents. Many of these, such as color,

smell, and taste, are difficult to measure

quantitatively, and there is very little data

available for others. For these 2 reasons only

pH, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and tempera-

ture where chosen for this study. It was also

felt that these 4 parameters are probably as

characteristic of unspoiled environments as

any others.

Most of the data used covered a period of

about 10 years and were obtained from a

total of 31 cruises occuring at more or less

random intervals. Although these cruises

were scattered throughout the 4 seasons

(since the summer is more amenable to work

at sea), somewhat more summertime data is

available than for any of the other seasons.

Fig. 3 shows the location of 3 stations

that were chosen to examine these data. One

is located in the upper portion of the Bay

about 4 mi north of the Chesapeake Bay

bridge, 1 in the middle of the Bay very close

to the mouth of the Patuxent River, and 1 in

the lower portion of the Bay just opposite

the entrance of the York River. Station

707 and 904N both have a depth of about

12 m, while station 818N has a depth of

about 14 m.

176

The variation of pH at the 3 stations is

shown in fig. 4. As before, the numbers ap-

pearing at the top of the vertical lines indi-

cate the time at which the extreme value

occurred, in this case the month, while the

lines span the maximum and minimum

values. For each station there is a surface (S)

and bottom (B) data series that encompasses

a 10-yr period, and for 1 of the stations

there is another data series taken on cruises

made about every 4-6 weeks for a period of

2 years. These latter data were obtained at

the surface and at a depth of 10 M. Note

that the pH varies markedly at all levels, but

that the greatest range appears to be in the

freshest water (Station 904N).

Salinity

A similar type of plot for salinity at these

3 stations is shown in fig. 5. As would be

expected, stations closer to the ocean have

higher average salinities, but note that the

maximum surface salinity recorded at Sta-

tion 904N is greater than the minimum sur-

face salinity recorded at Station 7079,

about 120 mi south. An additional set of

data is shown in this figure in that a 12-hr

tidal cycle was examined with hourly read-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

CHESAPEAKE BAY

SURFACE

Fig. 3.—Location of Chesapeake Bay stations.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

177

9.0

10 YRS

9 8

2YRS 10 YRS

10 YRS

Ss Ss

8.0 s B

pH B

I2 =e

4 2

TO 6

904N BI8N 707¢

6.6

Fig. 4.-pH range of 3 stations in Chesapeake

Bay.

ings taken at stations 818N and 707¢ in the

month of May. Even over a time period as

small as 12 hours there is a salinity variation

of as much as 2°/o0.

Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature

In fig. 6 is shown a similar type of varia-

tion for dissolved oxygen. Note that during

the summer months the oxygen level on the

bottom and even at a depth of 10 m is ex-

tremely low. There have been occasions

where zero oxygen has been reported, al-

though they did not appear in these sets of

data.

178

Fig. 7 shows similar variations for tem-

perature data including tidal cycle data tak-

en at the same time as the salinity observa-

tions shown in fig. 5. Note that within a

12-hr period the surface temperature varia-

tion at station 707@ was about 3°C.

Not only does the local temperature vary |

markedly both seasonally and daily, but the

variation in temperature throughout the Bay

may also be very great. Fig. 8 shows the sur-

face temperature taken during a cruise in

August, 1961 over a distance of about 150

mi from the head of the Bay down to the

ocean. The 3 stations considered in this

study are pinpointed on the abscissa of the

graph. There is a total range of temperature

shown here of 8°, and even though these

data were not taken simultaneously, they

were obtained within a period of about 3

days. The anomalous blob of warm water

appearing in the southern section of the Bay

during this period is unexplained at this

time, nor is it known how long this condi-

tion persisted.

The Station Signature

It appears from these data that any at-

tempt to pinpoint a crisis on the basis of

extreme values, of at least these 4 para-

lOYRS 1I2HRS

1o 10

lOYRS 2 YRS lOYRS I2HRS

25 (3) S

Salinity (Yoo)

Fig. 5.—Salinity range at 3 stations in Chesa-

peake Bay.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

904N 8I8N TOT ¢

10 1OYRS 2YRS 10 YRS 10 YRS

Oxygen (milliliters per liters)

7 7

Fig. 6.—Dissolved oxygen range at 3 stations in

Chesapeake Bay.

meters, would be somewhat useless since ex-

treme values are not that uncommon under

natural conditions. In order to classify more

accurately the nature of unusual values it

would seem somewhat more meaningful if

the variations were compared to some

measure of central tendency (an average of

sorts) rather than examined as large or small

independently. One possible method of do-

ing this is to develop an extreme-to-average

ratio for each parameter using all of the data

at hand. This ratio seems highly useful if the

assumption that something akin to the

Weber-Fechner Law holds for the response

of organisms to extreme changes in the en-

vironment. This law, although designed for

the description of threshold values in percep-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

tion, seems as though it might be applicable

here.

The Weber-Fechner law states very simply

that the minimum stimulus an organism can

detect is related not only to the magnitude

of the stimulus but also to the ambient level

above which a response must be elicited.

Thus, sounds very small in magnitude may

be heard if the surroundings are very quiet,

but in order to hear sounds in a very noisy

atmosphere these minimum perceptible

sounds must be quite large. It is suggested

that this relationship be extended to the cri-

tical extremes of the environment. Thus we

shall assume that small changes in the en-

vironment occurring at low ambient levels

are just as dangerous as large changes im-

posed on high ambient levels. A salinity

change of 1°/oo in an area where the average

salinity is 3°/o.0 may very well be just as

damaging to certain organisms, for example,

as a salinity change of 10°/oo in an area

where the salinity averages 30°/o0. It thus

appears that the ratio of the extreme value

to an average might be somewhat more

meaningful than the extreme value by itself.

An average for some time period of the

available data was calculated for each of the

parameters, and the extreme values for

these periods were then divided by the aver-

2 YRS

10 YRS

s} 8

lO YRS 10 YRS

Temperature (°C)

904N SiON 707

Fig. 7.-Temperature range at 3 stations in

Chesapeake Bay.

179

SURPACE TEMPERATURE, °C

8I8N 707¢

a a =

DISTANCE, MILES (NAUTICAL) ALONG AXIS OF BAY

Fig. 8.—Surface temperatures along axis of

Chesapeake Bay, August 1961.

ages. Fig. 9 shows the results for 2 particular

locations. In the upper left corner a little

table of the raw data is indicated to show

the mechanism involved. For example, the

average of salinity at the bottom of station

707 for all summer stations was 27.0°/oo.

Min

fo)

T | 23.9/21.48/0.90

fo) 0.5

1.0

The minimum value measured during the

summer was 20.99, therefore the minimum

ratio was 0.78. This is plotted at the top of

fig. 9. The same type of calculation was

made for both maximum and minimum

values for all 4 parameters for Station 707¢

on the bottom during the summer and Sta- '

tion 904N at the surface for all data avail-

able covering all 4 seasons. Since the ratios

obtained in this manner are all non-

dimensional, it is now possible to compare

variations in | water property with those of

another, instead of considering a single pro-

perty individually. These plots will be called

station signatures; a few other examples are

shown in the following figures.

Selected Station Signatures

In fig. 10 the surface signatures of Station

904N are shown for summer, winter, and

yearly data. Seasonal changes in the total en-

vironment are quite evident.

The total environment of different sta-

tions during the same season is also at vari-

ance. The surface signatures during the win-

Ss 7074 BOTTOM SUMMER

(e)

904N SURFACE YEARLY

2.0

1.5

Extreme to Average Ratio

Fig. 9.-Two contrasting signatures, Chesapeake Bay.

180

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

S s SUMMER

O re)

s WINTER

re)

fo) YEARLY

oO 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Extreme to Average Ratio

Fig. 10.—904N surface signatures.

Extreme to Average Ratio

Fig. 11.—Surface winter signatures, Chesapeake Bay.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972 181

ter at 2 stations widely separated in Chesa-

peake Bay are shown in fig. 11, and although

they are unique, similarities may be identi-

fied. In fig. 12 are shown 2 signatures for

bottom conditions during the summer at

Stations 707¢ and 904N, and it may be seen

that again there is a marked contrast. At Sta-

tion 904N the oxygen protion of the signa-

ture is markedly different than it is at 707,

although the other 3 parameters seem to

have about the same general coordinates.

Fig. 13 shows both surface and bottom

conditions at Station 904N during the sum-

mer. Even here it may be seen that the oxy-

gen situation at the bottom of the station

outweighs all other characteristics and lends

the characteristic shape to the signature. One

advantage of this presentation seems to be

that a particular parameter is highlighted

when it has a large effect on the environ-

ment, as oxygen does in this case.

From these data it seems that at this time

it is not possible to implant a magic box in

Chesapeake Bay that will automatically sig-

nal an alarm whenever a crisis appears. Part

of the problem is involved with the previous

discussion indicating that parameters are

very variable, but another portion of the

problem is involved with the fact that for

each particular environmental situation there

are different physical-chemical parameters to

be considered. Just which of the various

water properties are of major import is a

management decision that is hopefully based

on both laboratory and field data.

Since each parameter varies in a different

manner at each location, the signature con-

cept appears very desirable. However there is

a major disadvantage in that for each signa-

ture large amounts of data are required for

each depth, each season, and each stage of

the tide. There seems to be no easy out.

Future Research

The suggestion for employing station

signatures is one based on very preliminary

data and will certainly require a great deal of

exploration to validate not only the concept

of the signature but also the concept of the

greater validity of the extreme to average ra-

tio as compared with the absolute value. It is

suggested then that future research should

fall into 4 general areas:

@ The first of these would be determina-

tion of background information for the de-

sired parameters in much greater detail than

is presently available.

e The second area is the investigation of

the persistence of wide extremes of particu-

lar parameters and their effects on various

organisms.

Extreme to Average Ratio

Fig. 12.-Bottom summer signatures, Chesapeake Bay.

182

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

° 0.5 1.0

SURFACE

BOTTOM

Extreme to Average Ratio

Fig. 13.—904N summer signatures.

e Third, it is suggested that investigation

be made of the effects of the variation of 1

parameter on an organism when the ambient

level of that parameter is changed. It would

be expected, for example, that a rapid

change of 5°C would be somewhat more

noticable to an organism if this occurred at

an average temperature of 1° as compared to

this change occuring at a temperature of

20°. Investigations of this nature would de-

termine the validity of the utilization of the

extreme-to-average ratio.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

e Lastly, it is suggested that research is

required into the effects of variation of |

parameter at different levels of another.

This, of course, is an extremely complex

procedure requiring a great deal of experi-

ment, and it is an area in which very little

work has been done. Since the natural en-

vironment exhibits such marked changes in

sO many parameters, a knowledge of the re-

sponse of organisms to variations of | water

property at different levels of another

should be of extreme importance.

183

Some Biological Indicators of Marine

Environmental Degredation

Carl J. Sindermann!

Middle Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service,

NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce, Highlands, New Jersey 07732

ABSTRACT

Evidence is accumulating that marine organisms can provide clues to the extent of

degradation of inshore waters resulting from human activity. The warning signs include

mass mortalities, changes in species composition, and increasing occurrences of diseases

and abnormalities in fish and shellfish. A critical present need exists for more informa-

tion which will enable us to distinguish man-induced phenomena from natural phe-

nomena.

As the human species, in the midst of a

global population explosion of unprece-

dented proportions, begins to make harmful

impact on the shallow edges of the seas, the

marine organisms whose immediate sur-

roundings are being degraded attempt to

communicate their displeasure and

discomfiture. The methods of communica-

tion, if we are perceptive enough to be aware

of them and to interpret them, can provide

us with an early warning system about in-

creasing levels of environmental contamina-

tion. Some elements of the system are un-

doubtedly subtle and may well escape obser-

vation; others are relatively overt and ob-

vious.

I hope, in this paper, to identify some of

the more obvious biological warning signs of

environmental damage in inshore marine

areas—itemizing some of the forms in which

the protests manifest themselves and indicat-

ing the kinds of research we should do to

best interpret the signals we are receiving.

Some of the following material is frankly

'Dr. Sindermann is presently Director of the

Middle Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Center, and Ad-

junct Professor, Division of Fisheries Sciences,

Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sci-

ences, University of Miami. He is a native of North

Adams, Massachusetts and received his advanced

degrees at Harvard University. He has published 2

books and over 70 scientific articles concerned

with ocean resources.

184

speculative; the rest is based firmly on the

very thin layer of specific information now

available to us. The thesis to be defended is

that damage is being done to inshore marine

environments and populations, and that re-

sponses of marine organisms can give us

clues to the nature and extent of that

damage.

Mass Mortality

Probably the best, and certainly one of

the most apparent, indications of environ-

mental degradation, whether by toxic or in-

fective material, or chemical or thermal addi-

tion, is mass mortality, usually of localized

nature in areas of heaviest contamination.

Examples of this phenomenon are becoming

increasingly abundant. One of the most re-

cent and the most devastating concerns

repeated and extensive mortalities of fish

and shellfish in Escambia Bay in northern

Florida—a bay grossly polluted, principally

by the poorly controlled effluent of several

large chemical production plants. Beginning

in 1967, summer fish kills have occurred

there with increasing frequency and severity,

and in 1971 over 90% of the oyster popula-

tion of that Bay was destroyed within the

space of a few days. Fish mortalities have

been attributed to toxic chemicals dumped

in the Bay, and to low oxygen levels result-

ing from massive eutrophication. Mortalities

of fish and shellfish have also been character-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

istic of other chemically polluted bays such

as Raritan Bay in New Jersey.

It is important to note, though, that mass

mortalities due to natural causes are

probably more abundant and more signifi-

cant than those caused by human activities.

Man has merely added another group of

stress factors.

Changes in Species Composition

The next best indication of environmen-

tal degradation takes the form of drastic or

subtle changes in the flora and fauna of an

area, either in terms of reduced abundance

or in disappearance of certain species.

Generally such changes can be summarized

in 3 categories:

a) the decline and disappearance of species

valuable as food or sport for man, and their

replacement by rough species with lower

value to man;

b) the development of a monotonous

fauna consisting of fewer and more resistant

species (such as certain worms) able to

tolerate low oxygen conditions; and

c) changes in the algal flora, often result-

ing in appearance of blooms (often as red

tides); and the predominance of blue-green

and brown algae, the latter often occurring

as a scum on inshore bottoms.

Occasionally, environmental changes may

also result in population explosions of cer-

tain animal species which are normally in-

conspicuous parts of the fauna. An invasion

of sea urchins in a sector of Florida coast

previously affected by a massive red tide

outbreak in the summer of 1971 is a most

recent example. An earlier invasion by sea

urchins occurred several years ago in kelp

beds on the California coast.

Several reports (Raney, 1952; Chitten-

den, 1971) point to habitat destruction by

industrial and domestic pollution as a cause

for drastic decline of striped bass and other

anadromous fishes from certain Middle At-

lantic estuaries, particularly the lower Dela-

ware River.

An interesting recent report by Glover er

al. (1971) indicates that over the past 22

years there has been a progressive decline in

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

the abundance of many species and in the

biomass of zooplankton in parts of the

North Atlantic, together with a shortened

season of biological activity. Among the

many variables suggested as potential causes

was the depressive affect of pesticides on

phytoplankton photosynthesis. Such large-

scale, long-term observations in the sea are

all to rare, but they may indicate major de-

rangements of man-made origin.

Abnormalities and Diseases

Another, and a more recently identified

indicator of environmental contamination

and degradation is the appearance of unusual

or increased frequencies of abnormalities

and diseases in eggs, larvae, juveniles and

adults of estuarine and marine species. Docu-

mentation of this phenomenon is still very

incomplete but is adequate enough even at

present to suggest that it will become a

powerful tool in assessing the extent of

damage to the marine environment caused

by effluvia of human civilization. Some of

the varied forms include:

a) an apparent increase in observations of

tumers and abnormal growths (Fig. 1) on

fish taken from grossly polluted waters (in-

formation is available from California and

Florida waters);

b) appearance of fin and skin erosion—

called “fin rot’”—(Fig. 2) in fish from pol-

luted waters (information is available from

waters of the New York Bight, California

and Florida);

c) erosion of the exoskeletal projections

of Crustacea taken from polluted waters (in-

formation is available from New York Bight

waters);

d) increased frequency of fungus infec-

tions of eggs carried by Crustacea, in areas of

gross pollution (Sheader and Chia, 1970);

e) growth abnormalities in certain sessile

invertebrates associated with chemical con-

taminants (Powell et al., 1970); and

f) appearance of lymphocystis (a virus

disease of fish) in certain Gulf of Mexico

estuaries with high pollution loads, and ab-

sence of the disease in certain other less pol-

luted areas (Christmas and Howse, 1970).

185

Fig. 1.-Abnormal growths on mullet (above) and snapper (below) taken from Biscayne Bay, Florida.

186 J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Fig. 2._Normal (above) and fin rot infected (below) bluefish from the New York Bight area (photo-

graphs by Malcolm J. Silverman, NMFS).

Several of these conditions (such as fin

rot and lymphocystis) could result from in-

creasing infection pressure by facultative

pathogens, possibly combined with increas-

ing environmental stress imposed by pollu-

tants. Domestic and industrial effluents con-

taining carcinogenic compounds or viruses

introduce additional environmental hazards

for estuarine and inshore species.

Egg and larval abnormalities may also

serve as sensitive indicators of environmental

pollution. Sheader and Chia (1970), report-

ing on a study of a bay on the coast of Bri-

tain, found that amphipods (Marinogam-

marus obtusatus) tended to be more abun-

dant near a sewer effluent, and those nearest

the effluent carried a much higher per-

centage of diseased eggs than those remote

from the effluent (27% of a sample of 92

mature females versus less than 1% of fe-

males from other parts of the bay). The

authors suggested that microorganisms in the

sewage may produce egg infections directly

or that low salinities near effluents could kill

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

the eggs or render them more susceptible to

infection.

Crustacean and molluscan larvae can serve

as extremely sensitive indicators of environ-

mental degradation. Use of larvae as bioassay

organisms has a significant history on the

west coast in pulp mill pollution studies

(Woelke, 1967; 1968), and is receiving in-

creasing attention on the east coast as well—

particularly at the Milford (Connecticut)

laboratory of the National Marine Fisheries

Service, where current studies concern the

effects of heavy metals on survival and de-

velopment of eggs and larvae.

Speculations

The signals, then, are present, if we are

observant or perceptive enough to recognize

and interpret them. | am particularly in-

trigued by the possible role that viruses and

bacteria may play in contaminated coastal

waters. Allowing for some speculation, cer-

tain of the viruses of human origin may pos-

sibly be pathogenic to marine animals in

187

their natural or mutated state. Interesting re-

cent reports (Farley, 1969) of very—high

prevalences of neoplastic disease in shellfish,

and observations of tumors in fish from pol-

luted zones, offer some basis for such a pos-

sibility. Viruses which might be benign or

hidden in humans could produce quite dif-

ferent effects in marine animals. Evidencé

exists, for example, that fish cell lines are

susceptible to a wide array of viruses of

homoiothermic origin (Solis and Mora,

1970). Carrying speculation one step fur-

ther, it is conceivable that viruses (and

bacteria) of human origin may be able to

multiply in certain marine species without

causing an observable effect, and then serve

as a reservoir of infection for humans who

enter the marine environment or who eat the

animals. This might result, just as an ex-

ample, in an increase in superficial skin warts

or other skin infections among skin divers or

bathers who frequent grossly polluted

waters.

I have already suggested that bacteria of

human origin may be facultatively patho-

genic in stressed populations of marine ani-

mals, where they may produce effects unlike

those produced (if any) in normal hosts. Or-

ganic loads from sewer effluents and sludge

dumping could promote bacterial growth, in-

cluding that of heterotrophic marine or

estuarine bacterial species, leading to tre-

mendous infection pressure on fish and

other animals by such facultative micro-

organisms. The suggestion has been made,

and some limited evidence exists (Janssen

and Meyers, 1968), that certain bacterial

pathogens of humans are able to infect fish.

Antibodies against such pathogens were

demonstrated in fish from polluted waters,

but not in those from relatively clean waters.

This work needs to be extended, but it does

suggest that antibodies in fish may be used

as sensitive indicators of pollution, whether

the fish become grossly infected or not.

There is also the likelihood that populations

of bacteria such as the vibrios and pseu-

domonads, which may be pathogenic for hu-

mans who enter marine waters or eat the

animals, may be enormously expanded by

the availability of rich organic soups in out-

fall and sludge dumping areas.

188

In terms of impact on living marine re-

sources, it seems reasonable to expect that

the synergistic, cumulative effect of pollu-

tants may well exceed the mere summation

of individual effects. Thus, for example,

chemical erosion of the mucus of a fish may

expose it to invasion by facultative micro- §

organisms; or modification of the physiology —

of a marine animal by high levels of heavy |

metals may lower its resistance to such |

facultative microorganisms. |

Suggested Areas for Research

With the present climate of increasing

concern about the state of well-being of the

planet and its continued ability to support

life as we know it, the opportunity to con-

duct relevant research is enhanced. Some of

the indications of marine environmental

damage considered in this paper are just

that—indications—and so require substantial

study. Among the research areas which need

augmentation are the following:

1. Firmer data should be obtained link-

ing decline or disappearance of certain

species to pollution (at present, alternative

causes could be argued). This will require

both field and experimental studies and will

require careful continued assessment of

abundance of such species.

2. Broad trends in ocean productivity

should be examined and a search made for

causes of any changes detected. The analysis

of copepod abundance by Glover ef al.

(1972) is an excellent example of what

should be done regionally and locally, as

well as on a broader scale. Fish and benthic

organisms should be examined in the same

way.

3. Bioassay work, especially that using

larvae and juveniles of fish and invertebrates,

should be expanded. Since larval survival to

a large extent determines abundance of

adults, and since larvae are remarkably sensi-

tive to many environmental contaminants,

such studies have far-reaching significance.

Studies should include consideration of

growth rates, metamorphosis, and abnormal-

ities, as well as mere survival.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

4. Tumors and neoplasms of marine fish

and shellfish should be carefully examined,

and the role of environmental carcinogens

introduced by man as well as that of viruses

should be determined.

5. Increasing reports of localized and

widespread red tides should be studied in re-

lation to pollution levels and other man-

induced environmental changes.

6. The non-commercial marine animals

should be scrutinized for changes in species

composition and for abnormalities indicative

of environmental stress. This is particularly

needed in coastal areas with gross contami-

nation.

7. Specific and obvious leads—such as the

appearance of fin rot disease in fish from

polluted waters, and the occurrence of anti-

bodies in fish to human pathogens—should

be exploited vigorously.

Conclusion

These indications can be considered as

small, scarcely audible voices of protest and

warning—protest against effluvia from the

land that threatens the existence and well-

being of coastal species, and warning of pos-

sibly more serious disruption of marine eco-

systems if the degrading processes persist.

Running throughout is also a thread of in-

creasing danger to humans who enter the

corrupted marine waters, or who consume

products from that source.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

References Cited

Chittenden, M.E. 1971. Status of the striped bass,

Morone saxatilis, in the Delaware River. Chesa-

peake Sci. 12: 131-136.

Christmas, J.Y., and H.D. Howse. 1970. The oc-

currence of lymphocystis in Micropogon un-

dulatus and Cynoscion arenarius from Mississip-

pi estuaries. Gulf Res. Repts. 3: 131-154.

Farley, C.A. 1969. Sarcomatid proliferative disease

in a wild population of blue mussels (Wytilus

edulis). J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 43: 509-516.

Glover, R.S., G.A. Robinson, and J.M. Colebrook.

1970. Plankton in the North Atlantic—an ex-

ample of the problems of analysing variability in

the environment. F.A.O. Technical Conference

on Marine Pollution (preprints of conference

papers).

Janssen, W.A., and C.D. Meyers. 1968. Fish: sero-

logic evidence of infection with human patho-

gens. Science 159: 547-548.

Powell, N.A., C.S. Sayce, and D.F. Tufts. 1970.

Hyperplasia in an estuarine bryozoan attri-

butable to coal tar derivatives. J. Fish. Res.

Board Canada 27: 2095-2096.

Raney, E.C. 1952. The life history of the striped

bass, Roccus saxatilis (Walbaum). Bull. Bingham

Oceanog. Coll. 14: 5-97.

Sheader, M., and F-S. Chia. 1970 Development,

fecundity and brooding behavior of the am-

phipod, Marinogammarus obtusatus. J. Mar.

Biol. Assoc. U.K. 50: 1079-1099.

Solis, J., and E.C. Mora. 1970. Viral Susceptibility

range of the fathead minnow (Pimephales

promelas) poikilothermic cell line. Appl. Micro-

biol. 19: 1-4.

Woelke, C.E. 1967. Measurement of water quality

with the Pacific oyster embryo bioassay. Water

Qual. Criteria, ASTM, STP 416, Amer. Soc.

Testing Mats. 112-120 (1967).

. 1968. Application of shellfish

bioassay results to the Puget Sound pulp mill

pollution problem. Northwest Sci. 42: 125-133.

189

The Corps of Engineers Chesapeake Bay Study

Col. Louis W. Prentiss, Jr.!

Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers,

U.S. Army, P.O. Box 1715, Baltimore, Md. 21203

ABSTRACT

The Corps of Engineers Chesapeake Bay Study is a comprehensive estuarine study

encompassing engineering and the physical, biological, and social sciences. The primary

output of the study will be a water-land management program which will include urgent-

ly needed programs, a mechanism for evaluating proposed actions, and identification of

the institutional arrangement that appears most desirable for management of the Chesa-

peake Bay’s water and associated land resources. The primary tool in the development of

the management program will be a Hydraulic Model of the Chesapeake Bay which will

provide a means of reproducing some of the physical phenomena that occur throughout

this large and complex system as a result of various structural and management alter-

natives.

The Corps of Engineers Chesapeake Bay

Study is by no stretch of the imagination a

pure research effort, but it represents a most

important step forward in research activity.

Through the Chesapeake Bay Committee the

research community will have for the first

time an opportunity to gain an overview of

the proposed research activities of all

Federal, State, and local agencies and institu-

tions. The researchers will also be able to

gain an insight into what the future holds for

the Bay and focus attention, where

necessary, on those unknowns which may be

the key elements in a harmonius man-

ecology relationship.

Problems

The rapid growth of the population and

the accompanying rapid increase of water

oriented pursuits have created conflicting

opinions regarding optimum development of

the Bay’s resources. Increasing nutrient,

1Col. Prentiss is a native of Washington, D.C.

He is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and

received his Master of Science degree from Prince-

ton University. A registered professional engineer,

he is a member of the Society of American Military

Engineers, American Society of Civil Engineers,

and the National Society of Professional Engineers.

He is currently serving as District Engineer of the

Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers.

190

chemical, and thermal waste loads; diversion

of freshwater inflows; disposal of dredged

materials; sedimentation and shoaling; ero-

sion and hurricane damage are some of the

many problems which are becoming more

and more critical in the Bay.

Chesapeake Bay Study

Authority and Scope of Study

The complexities of the hydraulic char-

acteristics and the emerging environmental

problems of the Bay generated within the

Maryland and Virginia Congressmen the

need for a comprehensive study and hy-

draulic model. To meet this need, Section

312 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965

authorized a complete investigation and

study of water utilization and control of the

Chesapeake Bay basin. In order to carry out

this task, a hydraulic model of the Chesa-

peake Bay and an associated technical center

is to be constructed in the State of Mary-

land. A monetary limit of $6,000,000 was

set for the study and model at that time.

Objectives

The objectives of the Corps Chesapeake

Bay Study can be divided into 3 broad cate-

gories. The first objective is to provide an

understanding of the existing physical,

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

chemical, biological, economic, and environ-

mental conditions of the Bay. The study will

serve as a focal point for all research and

management programs of the various

Federal, State, and local agencies having an

impact on Chesapeake Bay.

The second objective is to define the

standards or levels of attainment for the

water-land resources of the Bay which are

required to meet the needs of the people.

These standards will be formulated based on

the following criteria: economic efficiency,

regional development, environmental qual-

ity, and the well-being of the people. It will

be most important that the standards set for

each water resource activity be made com-

patible with all other activities.

The last objective of the study will be to

provide a water-land management program

to be used by all Bay-management organiza-

tions for development, enhancement, conser-

vation, preservation, and restoration of the

Bay’s resources. The program would consist

of guidelines, management strategies, and

programs that may be needed to assure wise

utilization of the Bay’s resources.

Organization and Management

General._The magnitude of this study,

the large number of participants, and the

complex spectrum of problems to be

analyzed requires smooth coordination of

activities. The planning of this study was co-

ordinated with the National Council on

Marine Resources and Engineering Develop-

ment through its Committee on Multiple Use

of the Coastal Zone. This study is conceived

as a coordinated partnership between

Federal, State, and interested educational in-

stitutions. Each involved agency is charged

with exercising leadership in those disci-

plines in which it has special competence

and will be expected to review and comment

on work performed by others. To realize

these ends, an Advisory Group, a Steering

Committee, and 5 Task Groups were estab-

lished.

Advisory Group.—The Advisory Group

assists the District Engineer in establishing

broad guidance and providing general direc-

tion under which all participants will work

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

in producing the resource study and the final

management program. The group also ad-

vises the District Engineer on establishing

policy regarding both the execution of tasks

and the resolution of conflicts that may arise

during the study. The group is made up of

representatives from various Federal agen-

cies, each involved State, and several of the

scientific institutions.

Steering Committee.—The Steering Com-

mittee is responsible for reviewing the work

of the other groups and bringing to their at-

tention any pertinent advances in the art of

water resource development or the environ-

mental sciences, and making recommenda-

tions as to their utilization. This group will

also formulate plans for scientific activities

that may become a necessary adjunct to this

study.

Task Groups.—The Chesapeake Bay

Study is divided into 5 general areas—

Economic Projections; Water Quality and

Supply, Waste Treatment, and Noxious

Weeds; Flood Control, Navigation, Erosion,

and Fisheries; Recreation and Fish and Wild-

life Coordination. Task Groups have been

established and are functioning as basic work

groups in each of the 5 study areas. The indi-

vidual task groups are composed of those

agencies interested in the study problems as-

signed to that group. Through this mechan-

ism, it is intended that constant liaison,

work review, and agency interaction be

maintained between the various participants.

Details on the composition, chairmanship,

and assignments of the coordination groups

have not been mentioned, as subsequent

parts of this presentation will indicate how

the task groups have functioned to date and

the degree of coordination accomplished.

Coordination with non-governmental agen-

cies and the public will also be covered later

in the presentation.

Study Management .—The overall manage-

ment of the Chesapeake Bay Study is the

responsibility of the Planning Division, Balti-

more District, under the direction of the Dis-

trict Engineer. Within the newly formed

Planning Division a Chesapeake Bay Study

Group consisting of 2 sections has been

191

formed—a Study Coordination and Evalua-

tion Section, responsible for the overall man-

agement of the study and model and coordi-

nation of the study work with other partici-

pating agencies; and a Technical Studies and

Data Development Section, responsible for

data collection activities for both the study

and model and preparation of designs and

cost estimates for water resources projects in

the Chesapeake Bay.

Outputs

The primary output of the study will be a

water-land management program for the

Chesapeake Bay. The major tool in the de-

velopment of the program will be the hy-

draulic model, shelter, and technical center,

which will be used to provide presently un-

available cause-and-effect information. Addi-

tional outputs of the study will be 6 distinct

reports, each to be published following a

phase of the study. The preparation of these

periodic reports will provide all who are con-

cerned with management of the Bay a better

understanding of the problems outside their

own activities, and also provide a starting

point for the next phase of the study.

Report on Existing Conditions —The first

report, a report on existing conditions, is

scheduled for completion in June 1972 and

will describe the existing physical, biological,

economic, social, and environmental condi-

tions of the Bay and the various Federal,

State, and local programs in the Bay area.

Only existing data will be used, and the re-

port will be divided into a main report and 4

appendices titled, “The People and the

Economy,” “The Land-Use and Resources,”

“The Bay-Processes and Resources,” and a

“Map Folio.” Each of the water-resources

categories will be discussed and available

existing information will be displayed. For

example, the navigation portion would

describe the existing projects and programs,

the existing and past waterborne commerce,

existing dredging requirements and methods,

and the existing recreational boating facili-

ties and boats. This report will also identify

areas where additional studies or model tests

are required to further define the existing

conditions. Standard mapping at a scale of

192

1:250,000, to be prepared and distributed

by the Corps, will be used in the map folio

to present some of the inventory data and

will indicate areas where conflicts exist or

may be expected to occur.

Report on Future Conditions.—The

second report will describe the future condi-

tions of the Bay based on the existing con-

ditions, the economic and population projec-

tions, and the proposed actions and develop-

ments by public and private interests. Again,

the report will be divided into the different

water resource categories and will further

identify areas requiring model studies.

Economic Base Study Report.—Concur-

rent with the future conditions report, an

economic base study will be prepared. This

will be a combined report of the final eco-

nomic and population projections and the

studies of the activities which have special

significance on the economy or utilization of

water resources of the area. The economic

and population projections will be based on

recent economic base studies of the Chesa-

peake Bay modified by projections from the

Office of Business Economics (OBE) and

1970 census data.

Definition of Objectives Report.—In June

1974 an objectives report will be published.

This report will thoroughly describe, with

numerical parameters where possible, the ob-

jectives or goals which all future programs

should seek to obtain. Objectives will be es-

tablished for all water resource categories for

the Bay and tributaries, with care taken to

assure that all objectives are compatible and

meet the needs of the people. For example,

the water quality objectives must be com-

patible with the amount and type of recrea-

tion envisioned and the planned fish and

wildlife utilization of the area.

Report on Alternative Management Stra-

tegies.—Following a definition of the

objectives, a report on the alternative man-

agement strategies will be prepared. Manage-

ment strategies are defined as the programs,

projects, and the various methods of manag-

ing the resources of the Chesapeake Bay.

This report would discuss possible manage-

ment strategies which would help meet the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

defined objectives or goals. The anlaysis of

each strategy would include the results of

model testing, costs of instituting the man-

agement strategy, the benefits from the

strategy, and any positive or negative en-

vironmental, social, or economic effects of

the strategy.

Final Report on Formulated Management

Strategy.—The final report scheduled for

completion in December 1976 will present a

management strategy which may include ur-

gently needed programs, a mechanism for

evaluating proposed actions, and an identifi-

cation of the institutional arrangement that

appears most desirable for management of

the Chesapeake Bay’s water and associated

land resources.

Hydraulic Model

As I mentioned previously, the Hydraulic

Model will be the major tool in the develop-

ment of the water-land management pro-

gram and will be used to evaluate the effects

of proposed structural and management pro-

grams. The model will provide a means of

reproducing, to a manageable scale, some of

the physical phenomena that occur through-

out this large and complex system as a result

of various alternative management strategies.

In addition, as an instrument and physical

display, the model will be unexcelled in its

potential for the education of an interested

public in the scope and magnitude of the

problems and conflicts of use that can beset

this water resource in the future. As an oper-

ational focal point, it will promote more ef-

fective liaison among the agencies working in

the Bay waters, helping to reduce duplica-

tion of research and leading also to acceler-

ated dissemination of knowledge among the

interested parties and the public. Following

completion of those tests required for the

resource study, the model will continue to

be used by the decision makers to evaluate

the impact of proposed management actions.

The model will be of the fixed-bed type

and will be a formed concrete slab with the

topography of the Bay reproduced through

the use of templates. The model will be built

with scales of 1 to 1000 horizontally and 1

to 100 vertically and will encompass the Bay

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

proper, all of its tributaries up to the head of

tidewater, and the adjacent overbank areas

to the 20-foot-above-mean-sea-level contour.

Based on the shallow depths of the Bay, the

effects of distortion on the dynamic simili-

tude of the model and prior Corps’ ex-

perience with hydraulic models, the horizon-

tal and vertical scales selected were con-

sidered to be the smallest practical scales

suitable for solving Bay problems.

Shelter and Technical Center

Protection of the model against the ele-

ments is considered essential as wind and

rain would adversely affect water surface ele-

vation and salinity measurements. There is

an equally important need for keeping the

model clean of dust, leaves, and other air-

borne debris. In selecting the type of build-

ing for housing the model, the large size and

configuration of the model, the need for

column-free space, required clear-height for

model photography, and the aesthetic ap-

pearance of the structure were the governing

factors. The most economic and funcitonal

of the building types considered, which meet

the above criteria, is a prefabricated conven-

tional steel truss frame structure.

While the Technical Center is not further

defined in the authorizing act, facilities to

include administrative offices, conference

rooms, an electronic computer system, and

space for visiting consultants and research

workers have been included. Inexpensive ac-

commodations for visitors and tourists,

which include a small exhibition hall and

auditorium, were also considered desirable.

Prototype Data Collection Program

In order to verify that model hydraulic

and salinity phenomena are in acceptable

agreement with those of the prototype, the

tidal elevations, tidal current velocities and

directions and salinities must be measured at

many locations in the prototype. The total

collection program will cost approximately

$2,000,000 and will include 72 recording

tide gages for tidal observations and a total

of 743 velocity and salinity observation

points along 105 ranges established through-

out the Bay. Freshwater inflow from all tri-

193

butaries and various meteorological data will

also be compiled concurrent with the Bay

collection program.

Interagency Coordination

As the Bay offers such potential for the

study of the environmental impact of urban-

ization on a large natural resource, keeping

an inventory of and coordinating with the

many governmental and non-governmental

agencies studying the Bay is a major under-

taking. The organization of this study with

an Advisory Group, Steering Committee,

and Task Groups has provided, to date, an

excellent vehicle to meet this task. However,

to further coordinate Bay activities, the In-

teragency Committee on Marine Science and

Engineering has requested the Corps to form

a Chesapeake Bay Committee composed of

Washington representatives of Federal agen-

cies and representatives of affected states.

The charge to the committee is to:

a. Inventory agency programs.

b. Review future program plans.

c. Review legislative authorization of

Federal programs.

d. Perform an analysis of the above pro-

grams to uncover any unknowing duplica-

tion and recommend program coordination

accordingly.

The initial meeting of this committee will be

held next week with future meetings to be

held periodically to review and analyze

marine science and engineering and related

programs in the Chesapeake Bay area.

Public Participation and Information Program

Public participation for the Chesapeake

Bay Study is a continuous two-way com-

munication process which has as its objec-

tives:

a. Promoting a full public understanding

of the processes by which water resources

problems and needs are investigated and

solved.

b. Keeping the public fully informed

about the status and progress of studies and

the findings and implications of plan formu-

lation and evaluation activities.

194

c. Actively soliciting from all concerned

citizens their opinions and perceptions of

objectives and needs, their preferences te-

garding resource use and alternative develop-

ment or management strategies, and any

other information and assistance relevant to

plan formulation and evaluation.

To meet the aforementioned objectives, a

program consisting of periodic publications,

public meetings (formal and informal), co-

ordination with non-governmental or citi-

zens groups through a citizens advisory

group, and local planner workshops has been

formulated.

Study Progress

Since the initial study allotment in 1967,

significant progress has been made on the

Chesapeake Bay Study Program. A site at

Matapeake, Maryland, was chosen for the

location of the Hydraulic Model and Techni-

cal Center and the land was donated by the

State of Maryland. Design of the hydraulic

model is being conducted at the Waterways

Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississip-

pi, and to date has consisted of sizing the

hydraulic components of the model water

supply and tide generator, plotting moulding

templates for model construction and defin-

ing prototype date requirements for model

verification. The General Design Memoran-

dum for the model and shelter has been ap-

proved and a consultant is currently prepar-

ing the plans and specifications for the shel-

ter and technical center. Agreements have

been reached with the Virginia Institute of

Marine Science, The Chesapeake Bay Insti-

tute (JHU), the Chesapeake Biological

Laboratory (U. of Md.) and the National

Ocean Survey for collection of the proto-

type data. Tidal elevation, current, and salin-

ity date have been collected in the Potomac,

Rappahannock, and James Rivers; Mobjack

Bay and in the upper Bay. With regard to the

resource study, work has been progressing

well on the existing conditions report. Corps

work by both the Baltimore and Norfolk

Districts has included inventories of flood

control, navigation, water supply, hydro-

logic, and land-use data, and interagency

agreements have been reached with the Of-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

fice of Business Economics, the Bureau of

Outdoor Recreation, the U.S. Geological

Survey, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and

Wildlife, the National Marine Fisheries

Service, and the National Science Founda-

tion for various segments of the report lying

within their areas of expertise.

Future Study Activities

Contingent upon timely receipt of fund-

ing from the Congress, some of the major

program milestones in the near future in-

clude:

a. Completion of the existing conditions

report in June 1972.

b. Collection of prototype data in the

York River the Middle Bay and several of

the major Eastern Shore tributaries in the

summer of this year.

c. Start of Shelter and Hydraulic Model

construction in FY 1973.

Other Bay-Related Corps Activities

C&D Canal Study

In addition to the Chesapeake Bay Study,

I would also like to mention briefly several

other Bay-related Corps activities. The Phila-

delphia District of the Corps has an ongoing

contract with the Natural Resources Insti-

tute of the University of Maryland for an

investigation of the hydrographic and eco-

logical effects of the enlargement of the

C&D Canal. The objective of the investiga-

tion is to develop basic hydrographic and

biological data for the long-term study of

the effects of the canal on the ecology of the

upper Bay. The work includes hydrographic

and biological field data collection, the con-

struction of a hydraulic model of the C&D

Canal, and the development of math models

to define salinity distribution in the Canal

and adjacent waters.

Permit Program

Another Corps responsibility which has a

major impact on the Bay is the issuing of

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

permits for certain activities. Section 10 of

the River and Harbor Act of 1899, which is

also known as the Refuse Act, requires that

a Department of the Army permit be ob-

tained prior to commencement of any work,

such as the construction of structures, dredg-

ing and filling in navigable waters. Under

current policies and procedures of the Corps,

all applications are now reviewed to assure

that the work will not be adverse to the en-

vironment. Also, Section 13 of the same act

requires that permits be obtained for exist-

ing and future discharges and deposits into

navigable waters and their tributaries. While

this program covers only industrial and other

non-domestic wastes, it is both an important

and necessary action required to help clean

up our nation’s waters.

Summary

In summary, the Corps’ Chesapeake Bay

Study is a comprehensive estuarine study en-

compassing engineering and the physical,

biological, and social sciences. The primary

output of the study will bea water-land man-

agement program which will include urgent-

ly needed programs, a mechanism for evalu-

ating proposed actions, and identification of

the institutional arrangement that appears

most desirable for management of the Chesa-

peake Bay’s water and associated land re-

sources. While the study is not a pure re-

search effort, the hydraulic model and pro-

totype data collection program will provide

the scientific community with valuable in-

formation on some of the physical phe-

nomena that occur throughout this large and

complex system. In turn, the scientific com-

munity must take the available physical,

chemical, and biological data and provide

the decision-makers an assessment of the im-

pact of various alternative management ac-

tions. With this melding of viewpoints and

expertise, I feel a dynamic management pro-

gram can be developed for this dynamic na-

tural resource.

195

Interdisciplinary Research in Chesapeake Bay

Howard Seliger!

McCollum Pratt Institute, The Johns Hopkins

University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218

ABSTRACT

Some questions are asked about environmental priorities, about the ways

in which problems can be formulated. The success of some types of biological

monitoring is doubted. An interdisciplinary approach to ecosystem study at

the Rhode River is described.

It is a pleasure to have been here these

past 2 days. I am really very surprised, first

of all at the number of people who were

here yesterday, and even more at the num-

ber of people who are still here today, which

is Saturday. I’ve been asked to talk aobut

some of our research on the Bay, and I am

very pleased to be considered as qualified.

An expert is usually someone from out of

town; I’m not quite sure that I have come a

great enough distance to fit the category. I

do have some ideas about the Bay and about

the environment in general, and I would like

to preface my remarks about our Rhode

River research with some of these ideas.

Usually in discussions with my students

about their own research, to get them to

think, to overcome the feeling of being spo-

ken to by a PROFESSOR and therefore hav-

ing been told the truth with capital letters, I

usually make a lot of statements in a very

declarative way. Some of the statements are

true because I have been able to prove them

experimentally. Some of them I have very

little evidence for and some of them are ac-

'Dr. Seliger is Professor of Biology at The

Johns Hopkins University. He is also chairman of

the Committee on Radiation Protection and Radia-

tion Safety Officer for the University. He has been

a member of both the Governor’s Task Force on

Nuclear Power Plants and the Maryland Academy

of Sciences Panel on Power Plants. At present he is

chairman of the Maryland Academy of Sciences

Advisory Panel on Monitoring the Environmental

Effects of Power Plants. He has been studying bio-

luminescent bays in Jamaica and Puerto Rico since

1960, but considers himself a neophyte on the

Chesapeake Bay.

196

tually the result of very faulty reasoning.

The student must weigh therefore what we

talk about, question some of the basic ideas

and not be embarrassed to ask sometimes

rather naive questions. I feel that I’m on my

way to developing a scientist rather than a

technician when a student can say, “No.

that’s wrong, let’s look at it this way.” Dur-

ing this talk, I would like to play this game

with you, and possibly you can pick out

which of my statements I truly believe in

and which of them I have put there to make

you question. And so let’s talk a little bit

about priorities.

The title of this symposium is “The Fate

of the Chesapeake Bay”—and by the way, I

agree with Frank Williamson; that sounds

like a rather somber title. It’s almost like a

Victorian melodrama, and in this case we

have 3 acts. Yesterday morning we saw the

Bay with her magnificent meandering shore-

lines. In the afternoon a villain, actually a

renegade ex-army officer called MAJOR

THREATS, was assaulting the longevity of

this young lady—plying her with nutrients,

intent on anaerobic layering and eventually

dredging her canals. Now this morning in the

third act, our hero, pure research—is going to

solve the problem and save our fair Bay

aided by the forces of goodness—Jim Coul-

ter, Lee Zeni, and the National Science

Foundation.

But is the Bay in danger? Are Col. Love’s

rashes growing together? Jerry Schubel

seems to think that heating from power

plants is negligible. Although he is going to

hedge and say he’s not quite sure about

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

eS ee ae ee

long-term effects. Mike Bender can find

heavy metals anyplace he sets his instru-

ments. Dr. Walsh can find pesticides and Dr.

Patrick and many other people in this au-

dience are aware that heat is required in or-

der to steam crabs. But the question really is

how much and how long? This is a basic

research question and it is a question that

becomes answerable from so many sources

because there is an adage that says in the

presence of ignorance everybody is an ex-

pert. So we have to ask questions in a slight-

ly different way than before. Before we even

ask questions about the Bay, we might ask

some of the following very simple questions:

Do we really want to swim in Baltimore Har-

bor when we are truly afraid to walk down

the streets to get to it? And must our rivers

be made sparkling clean when roaches march

in ghettos? I’d like to make a distinction

here. For an oyster, the ecosystem is the

Chesapeake Bay. For we human beings, our

ecosystem is our cities and our people and

our air and our Bay. And so it is our way of

life that is our ecosystem. The Bay is only a

small part of this. And we can’t really clean

the one while we ignore the magnificent

piles of garbage in other areas of our ecosys-

tem.

In the early sixties, during the previous

boom in cancer research, Dr. Szent-Gyorgyi

remarked, facetiously of course, that cancer

was supporting more people than it was kill-

ing. Interestingly enough and contrary to

most biological trends, pollution has actually

been responsible for staggering increases in

both standing crops and diversity of ecolo-

gists in city, county, State, and federal

agencies and symposia devoted to its con-

trol. There have even been days on the

Rhode River when the scientists taking read-

ings have outnumbered the citizens.

The new power plant siting law in the

State of Maryland is unique. It is unique in

that it pays for itself and specifically states

that the tax money shall go for research and

monitoring in areas that are considered im-

portant for the environment in the State of

Maryland. There is an interesting history in

terms of the development of this power

plant siting law which is paying for a large

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

fraction of this research. It was mainly the

result of a great deal of emotionalism about

2 subjects which are really relatively minor

in the ordering system of priorities for our

human ecosystem. These are of course radio-

activity pollution and thermal pollution. But

we mustn’t look a gift horse in the mouth.

We have a very good law, because it says we

have to look at the environment carefully. It

doesn’t say anything about eutrophication.

It doesn’t say anything about the fact that

sewerage plants are putting a great deal of

nutrients into our waters, or that faulty sep-

tic sewage systems are putting a great deal of

nutrients into our waters, or that poor ero-

sion control practices are putting a great deal

of sediments into our waters. It really

doesn’t matter. The main thing is that in or-

der to get the research done, one has to look

at eutrophication because it occurs in the

same body of water where one might be

looking for the effects of the emissions of

power plants.

There is a way of thinking about these

problems in general. We tend to try to solve

what we consider to be problems with the

techniques of the preceding generation. With

things that we know have worked for us be-

fore and therefore are obviously the method

of choice today. It is difficult to change this

way of thinking. Not only that, it requires

taking risks. The risks are mainly financial

and therefore to my mind retrievable, but

this is not generally considered to be the

case in fiscal offices. Above all, it requires

thinking. Let me give you an example of

what I mean. Instead of the piecemeal ap-

proach to the location of power plants,

might it be possible to improve and develop

for commercial use in an extremely short

time the breeder reactor in order to replace

the present light-water reactor? At our pro-

jected rate of use of nuclear fuel with a

light-water reactor program the inexpensive

nuclear fuel will be dissipated within the

next 25 to 30 years. If we develop a breeder

reactor we won't have to worry about the

availability of nuclear fuel for at least the

next 10 generations which will give us suffi-

cient time to approach the problem of fu-

sion reactors if we desire to do so. There is a

197

very specific break that has to be made here

in the decision to change over from a type of

reactor for which fuel is becoming more and

more scarce. With this leeway, then, to de-

velop a fusion reactor which in a sense will

give us an unlimited source of energy, we

will be able to worry about the limitations

to our environment. We will be able to set

these limitations in terms of total heat loads

that can be delivered to the environment

without changing the mean temperature and

increasing the sea level by melting some of

the polar ice. We can devote our attention to

the amount of CO, we put into the air,

which as far as I can see is not considered to

be a pollutant by anyone. We can develop

the technology for long-range underground

power transmission. Any country which is

able to develop the technology for sending

people to the moon or for sending space

stations waiting outside when we have to

wait longer for buses on some of our cor-

ners, should be able to develop technology

for long-range underground power trans-

mission. This one technological break-

through will allow us to locate power centers

and power plants away from the places

where the power is used. This has always

been the restriction on power plants—they

must be placed close to the place where

energy is used. If we are able to do this we

can build our power plants up north where

presumably the excess heat can be put to

really beneficial use. We could build power

plants on the continental shelf where they

would be far enough away from cities and

people so that even in the unlikely case of

accident there would be no possibility for

the loss of human life. We could designate

various lakes or rivers in our country as

ecological sacrifices and use them specifi-

cally for cooling. This would leave every-

thing else beautiful. The principle is very

old—it is called the principle of the garbage

dump. We don’t spread our garbage around

uniformly—we use one place to put our gar-

bage. We surround it with a fence, we paint

the fence green and we still have a clean

place where we can proceed with our tech-

nology. This would eliminate a great deal of

fossil fuel requirement. It would eliminate a

great deal of the stripping of Appalachia. It

198

would eliminate a great deal of unsightliness

associated with delivery of coals and disposal

of coal wastes. It would reduce the amount

of SO, and particulates added to our atmos-

phere and possibly reduce the greenhouse ef-

fect if there truly is such a thing.

We might also recognize that economic |

growth in this country and in the developed

nations is truly being limited by critical sup- |

plies of raw materials. We have a population ~

problem, not a problem in cleanliness. But it

relates to our entire ecosystem approach to

-the setting of priorities. | think we must

think about important things first. I think

that old tires and debris in Baltimore Harbor

are actually placed there by politicians who

want to get their pictures taken. I think that

noise pollution is being pushed by physicists

who can measure decibels and who feel

neglected because of the recent cutbacks in

physics research. We sold 10 million auto-

mobiles last year. The Ford Motor Company

estimates that antipollution devices will cost

$750 per automobile. That is an additional

cost to the public of 7.5 billion dollars per

year. That is just about enough to build

rapid transit from Sacramento all the way to

Coney Island.

Talking a little more directly about some

research on the Bay: I had a different hat on

sometime ago when I was a member of the

Governor's TaskForce on Power Plants in

the State of Maryland. With that different

hat I listened while a large number of people

who had been working on the Bay for quite

a long time were asked to visit with us and

give us their feelings about what effect the

Calvert Cliffs plant might have on the Chesa-

peake Bay. It was at that time I decided

that, although the research that had been

done on the Chesapeake Bay was good—was

very good—it was not tied together because

the research was individual reserach. It was

related to individual species. It related to

specific times of the year. In some cases it

related to distributions of various organisms

but it didn’t tie anything together in terms

of asking the questions, ““What would hap-

pen to a species distribution if the mean

temperature changed by 0.5°C?” “What

would happen to the mean species distribu-

tion if the nutrients were increased by

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

7 _

10%?” There is a problem of man-made per-

turbations. But as Don Pritchard has put it,

unless (and in some cases this has occurred)

there are evidences of gross stupidity in the

placing of power plants, no acute effects

have been observed. The point is that indivi-

dual power plants, individual sewage treat-

ment plants, individual housing develop-

ments, produce effects which are small com-

pared to the natural oscillations which you

have heard described during the past 2 days

by the various speakers. How can we then

determine what the cumulative effects of

these man-made perturbations would be

when we are working in a noisy system?

How can we work within the noise of this

system in order to determine for example

how many Calvert Cliffs plants can be placed

at Cove point—one, two, six?

I will make a prediction: I predict that it

will be impossible to observe any significant

biological effects due to the presence of the

Calvert Cliffs plant at Cove Point. But that

doesn’t mean that the Calvert Cliffs plant

will not have an effect on the Chesapeake

Bay—on the biota of the Chesapeake Bay.

The reason I’m able to propose that we will

not observe a significant effect is I believe

that the natural variations will be such as to

obscure most of the effects of the Calvert

Cliffs Plant, which admittedly will be small.

When we are finished with this research, will

we be able to say how many Calvert Cliffs

plants would be permitted at Cove Point or

whether a plant should go into Bush River or

whether a plant should be taken out of

Chalk Point?

The power company is involved in this

ecological program in a rather strange way.

During World War II, there was a method of

paying for airplanes and munitions that was

called CPFF, cost-plus-fixed-fee. It was the

easiest way to get things done because the

manufacturer could make all the mistakes he

wanted and he got a percentage of what he

spent. The power company is regulated by

the Public Service Commission and it gets a

percentage of what it spends. There is no

financial incentive for the power company

to decide that it is going to go out of its way

to improve the environment. It is going to

do exactly what the State asks it to do. If

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

the State were to say to BG&E, “In order to

have a permit at Calvert Cliffs, 1 want you to

turn the water blue after it comes out of

your condensor-” that water would be blue.

The State has said, ““We want a 10°F change

in temperature and no greater,’ we have a

10° change in temperature. Should it have

been 9°, or could 18° have been as good?

These really are the questions that we have

to answer and these are the decisions for

which the State Department of Natural Re-

sources cannot pass the buck. In the final

analysis it has to say what the regulations

must be. I think the approach that the State

has been using in terms of this new law and

even prior to it has been an excellent one

because it has turned to the scientist and it

has asked the scientist what should we

do—“How can we translate your data into

regulations?”

This leads us to the work that we are do-

ing at the Rhode River. I'll release you from

the questioning. This is somehting that I

truly do believe in. I believe it is a slight

change in the way in which research is ap-

proached, in the kinds of questions that are

being asked. The individual research may be

the same. It may be as good or better or it

may not be as good as the research that has

been done before in other areas and at other

times. We are trying to ask slightly different

questions. The Rhode River estuary research

program is directed by Frank Williamson. I

am Deputy Director of the program. Frank

and I have worked for a long time, with sev-

eral others who are associated with this re-

search program, in order to develop the con-

cepts and the mechanism to get people to

work in a particular direction. This is not

applied research in the prosaic sense. We are

not talking about engineering. I was a little

nonplused to find that the Corps of En-

gineers plans to have its final report com-

pleted by 1976, because that really doesn’t

give too much time to do the next 100 years

of research. I hope we can work faster. The

problem as we see it is the following: If we

are interested in studying terrestrial plants,

water quality, heavy metal concentrations,

or algal physiology, we can do each one of

these things separately. We can do it in vari-

ous parts of the Bay. We can do it in the

199

laboratory—we can do it essentially in the

way research has been done previously in

universities, in individual laboratories, with

occasional communication. Or we can ask

the following questions: If all of these physi-

cal, chemical, and biological parameters are

involved in the ecosystem, how do they in-

teract with one another? Might it be possible

to describe this ecosystem in terms of both

the kinetics and the description of the popu-

lation distributions? When you visit your

doctor and you want to know the state of

your health there are 2 things a doctor can

do, he can take a series of measurements of

your blood pressure, your heart rate, your

EKG, your urine, and he can plot these as a

function of time. Eventually you will die

and he will have very good data document-

ing your deterioration. But this is not why

you go to him, and I would think, Mr. Coul-

ter, this is not why you come to the Uni-

versity. The documentation does not require

the research. What we would like to do is to

develop techniques for prediction as differ-

entiated from the recognition of crisis

indicators. This is a difficult problem

because this is where the basic research

comes in. We are working again in a black

area, and it is necessary to probe and to

spend money (and sometimes to spend

money without success or in directions

which will not be fruitful) in order to gain a

sufficient understanding of the biochemistry

and physiology of the organisms with which

we are working.

I will give you a brief example of what I

mean. I thought the easiest way to do this

would be to read to you some of the ques-

tions that we have proposed in our plankton

research program to give you some idea of

the direct interdisciplinary nature of the

kinds of questions that are asked. For exam-

ple, we must know waterflow patterns in the

various areas in order to compare dilution,

predation, and changes of growth patterns.

A distinction must be made between dis-

solved nutrients, nutrients bound to detritus,

and the requirements of the plankton popu-

lations for both forms. To what extent does

tidal resuspension of benthic sediments con-

tribute to the nutrient requirements of the

200

plankton? Are there different types and size

distributions of delivered sediments depend-

ing on land use in the watershed? How do

sediment distributions affect the spectral dis-

tribution of the underwater light? How do

sediment distributions affect the distribu-

tions of attached aquatic plants? How much

of the nutrient budget in the estuary is de-

livered by land runoff, how much from the

marshes, and how much from attached aqua-

tic plants and their epifauna as well as their

epiflora? What is the turnover rate of phos-

phorus and nitrogen in benthic sediments?

Do the observed phytoplankton standing

crops have any direct effects on oyster and

clam growth rates? How do nutrient pulses

due to runoff affect the rate of development

of the anaerobic bottom layer in the Bay

during the summer? How would a known

increase of treated waste delivered to the

Rhode River affect the observed plankton

distribution? What would be the increase in

erosion and sedimentation and the subse-

quent decrease in the depth of the photic

zone if a wooded area were cut down or if a

roadbed were constructed?

It is obvious, therefore, that what we are

talking about here is the interaction of a

great many disciplines in describing one par-

ticular watershed where the measurements

are made coincident in space and time. This

is an approach which, while obvious, has not

been carried out in very many places. We

have gathered together a group of re-

searchers from the University, of Maryland,

from the Smithsonian Institution, from the

U.S. Geological Survey, from the Catholic

University, and from The Johns Hopkins

University who are working on problems of

hydrology, sedimentation, aquatic plants,

epifaunal populations, foraminifera, benthic

bivalves, protozoan and bacterial popula-

tions, benthic sediments, phytoplankton and

zooplankton energy budgets in the wetland

area at the Rhode River, and the way in

which scientific decisions can be translated

into community action. This latter is a very

basic point. In our Rhode River research we

are actually integrating the scientific pro-

gram with the community. When any scienti-

fic decisions are made they do not come as a

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

‘

shock to the community because this is part

of the total effort. We hope to use this kind

of approach in a small area. Admittedly

Rhode River is a small area and not neces-

sarily representative of some polluted tribu-

taries on the Chesapeake Bay. However, it is

a manageable area and there should be a

great deal, in terms not only of the way in

which the methodology is developed for this

research but the way in which this research

is applied to community programming, that

can be transferable to a great many other

areas.

I would like to close with a very short

historical note. This is a very little known

fact in the life of Rembrandt van Rijn. Rem-

brandt never made out very well. He was a

true artist and a craftsman in the use of

paints and pigments but nobody ever sup-

ported him. Occasionally he would get a fee

from a rich merchant or a group of politi-

cians down at City Hall who wanted their

portraits painted. All of a sudden the paint

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

began to peel very seriously from the City

Hall, which was constructed of wood. None

of the other painters in town, who were just

ordinary house painters, could succeed in

keeping a layer of paint on the City Hall,

possibly because it had never occurred to the

town that knowing why paint stuck to wood

was as important as brushing it on. And so

the city fathers went to Rembrandt and said,

“Rembrandt, we need you to paint the City

Hall,’ and Rembrandt said, “I’m engaged in

doing something creative like making por-

traits,’ and they said, “Don’t bother us with

art, don’t you have any patriotism? We want

you to paint the City Hall before it falls

apart.” And Rembrandt made a very inter-

esting decision. He said, “If you really

haven’t been interested in me as an artist,

I’m really not very interested in painting

your City Hall.” And so at the present time

we have magnificent paintings and the City

Hall has fallen to dust. There might be a

moral to this in terms of basic research—we

could have had both.

201

Certainties and Uncertainties in Economic Development

as they Relate to the Future of the Chesapeake Bay

Edwin E. Holm!

Division of Industrial Development, Commonwealth of Virginia,

1010 State Office Building, Richmond, Va. 23219

ABSTRACT

It will mainly be people-growth rather than industry-growth that will put pressure on

the resources of the Chesapeake Bay. Of the 7.5 million people living in the Chesapeake

Bay-Tidewater region, approximately 6.5 million are in 4 metropolitan areas. To the year

2000 the population of this region is expected to grow at double the national rate and to

be even more highly concentrated in these metropolitan areas, with the Washington area

accounting for 50% of the region’s population. It is Federal government employment,

not manufacturing or industry growth, that has caused and is likely to cause the high

rate of growth for the region.

I would like to emphasize at the begin-

ning the word “uncertainties” in my subject.

In looking to the future, there is much less

certainty in projecting the course of the

social factors that will affect the Bay than in

the physical factors. I would also like to

point out that we will be taking a look at the

economies of the larger communities in the

Chesapeake Bay area rather than analyzing

the economy of the Bay as a whole. These

communities have largely been independent

of one another in their development to

date—proceeding in this way will give us a

better understanding of the impact of the

economic growth on the environmental

problems of the Bay. We shall give the

broad-brush treatment to the economies of

the major communities, attempting to iso-

late those factors which have accounted for

growth or lack of growth and which are

most likely to be important in the future.

Most of this discussion will deal with the

tidal areas of the Bay only, but before pro-

ceeding, it is worthwhile to examine recent

economic development in some of the main

- 'Edwin E. Holm is currently Director of Re-

search with the Virginia Division of Industrial De-

velopment. He did graduate work at the University

of Virginia and the University of Chicago and for

twenty years has worked on various research pro-

jects for the State of Virginia.

202

tributaries—the Susquehanna, the Shenan-

doah before it enters the Potomac, and the

James.

The Susquehanna drainage area from its

headwaters in New York, through its passage

in Pennsylvania, to its entrance in the Chesa-

peake Bay in Maryland has been a slow-

growth area during the past decade. The

metropolitan areas of Scranton and Wilkes-

Barre experienced absolute losses in popula-

tion during the decade of the 60’s. Bingham-

ton increased by only 5%, and Harrisburg,

even though it is the capital of Pennsylvania,

experienced only a 10% growth in popula-

tion. The striking fact about the Susque-

hanna drainage area, however, is that on the

whole it has a substantial rate of manufac-

turing growth, and this was in contrast to

the lack of such growth in the metropolitan

areas of New York and Pennsylvania to the

east. This manufacturing growth did not

contribute to much population growth,

largely because it was offset by sharp em-

ployment declines in agriculture and mining.

The growth of manufacturing in this area

would appear to be promising in the future

and, therefore, would contribute to the pol-

lution problems that arise from having more

people and more industry. The drainage

areas of the Shenandoah and the James,

both in Virginia, experienced a very high

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

; =

rate of manufacturing growth during the

decade of the 60’s, and this growth can be

expected to continue for the next 10 and 20

years into the future. The type of industry

that has been coming into these areas, how-

ever, has been dry-process industries that

have not placed the demands upon the water

resources that the pulp mills, chemical

plants, and other wet-process industries did

that came into the areas in earlier periods.

The communities in these areas, even at the

largest population centers of Charlottesville

and Lynchburg, are quite small compared to

the population of the major metropolitan

areas in the tidal portion of the Chesapeake

Bay and therefore are not likely to generate

any great strain on the water resources of

the Chesapeake Bay.

Now let us take a look at the tidal por-

tion of the Chesapeake Bay, an area with a

population of 7.5 million people. A signifi-

cant fact is the concentration of this popula-

tion in a few large metropolitan areas. Three

million persons are in the Washington metro-

politan area alone. Two million are in the

Baltimore area. One-half million is in the

Richmond area and 1 million is in the Hamp-

ton Roads area, which includes Norfolk-

Portsmouth and Newport News-Hampton.

These few population centers account for

6.5 of the 7.5 million people in the tidal

portion of the Chesapeake Bay. The remain-

ing 1 million persons are scattered on the

Virginia-Maryland Eastern Shore and on the

fingers that jut into the Chesapeake Bay on

the west side. These areas have been ex-

periencing a slow rate of growth and, as a

whole, have a population density of less than

100 persons/mi?.

The Washington metropolitan area in the

decade of the 60’s was the most rapidly

growing metropolitan area of 2 million or

more in the nation, increasing by 38%. There

is much speculation as to how rapidly it will

continue to grow. A study prepared for the

Council of Governments gave the most

probable population for the year 2000 as 7.7

million people. This would be an increase of

3%%/yr. Federal government employment is

overwhelmingly the basic cause of the

growth in the Washington area. It was pro-

jected to more than double, thereby causing

this huge increase in population. In relation

to its size there is only a modest amount of

manufacturing in the Washington area. The

50,000 persons employed in manufacturing

are largely in food processing, the manufac-

ture of building materials, and in printing—

all service-type manufacturing for the area’s

population.

Baltimore, with its 2 million population,

increased by 13% during the decade of the

60’s. This was the same rate of growth as

was experienced nationally. Manufacturing

has been of great significance in the Balti-

more area, which accounts for 200,000 of

Maryland’s 270,000 in this segment of the

economy. It is important to note that there

Table 1.—Percentage distribution of personal earnings by broad industrial sources

for metropolitan areas in the Chesapeake Bay area, 1969.

Transpor-

tation, Farm

communi- Whole- Finance, mining,

cations, sale & insurance, contract

Govern- Manufac- & public retail & real construc-

ment turing utilities trade estate Services tion Total

Sum of all SMSA 16.0 29.8 74 17.1 6.0 IS)37/ WS) 100.0

areas in nation

Baltimore, Md. 24.2 26.9 7.8 16.3 5.0 13.3 6.5 100.0

Washington, D.C.— 43.5 4.1 5.6 14.0 4.9 Sal 6.5 100.0

Md.—Va.

Richmond 16.6 14.4 8.9 19.8 8.6 13.8 ed 100.0

Newport News—Hampton 42.5 Die 39) 9.6 2.5 9.7 4.9 100.0

Norfolk—Portsmouth 53.3 7.6 6.1 Wet 3353) 10.4 Snd/ 100.0

1Source: Survey of Current Business, U.S. Department of Commerce, May 1971.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL, VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972 203

was no increase in manufacturing in the Bal-

timore area in the decade of the 60’s. Ac-

tually, manufacturing employment declined

by 4 or 5 thousand, and there were signifi-

cant shifts in the types of manufacturing in

the area. In spite of this no-growth situation,

Baltimore’s performance was better than

that of the Philadelphia or New York City

area. The growth in population experienced

in the Baltimore area during the 60’s was not

caused by manufacturing but by the other

diversified activities that grew in importance.

The Richmond area, with somewhat more

than 0.5 million population, has $0,000 per-

sons employed in manufacturing. If the

Hopewell area to the south, with its chemi-

cal complex, is included, and if the West

Point area 25 miles to the southeast, which

has the only pulp mill on the Chesapeake

Bay, is also included, we have an area with a

manufacturing employment of 70,000. Dur-

ing the 1960’s the Richmond area grew in

population at substantially above the nation-

al rate but at a considerably less rapid rate

than in the 2 preceding decades. As we have

noted earlier, most metropolitan areas in the

country are experiencing retardation in their

growth.

Approximately 70% of the population in

the Hampton Roads area live on the Nor-

folk-Portsmouth side and the remaining 30%

on the Newport News-Hampton side. As was

the case with the Washington area, over-

whelmingly the most important source of

basic employment is the Federal govern-

ment. In the Norfolk-Portsmouth area, 53%

of the income received by individuals is de-

rived from Federal government employment.

This is a higher proportion than for any large

metropolitan area in the country. This area

has only 20,000 persons in manufacturing,

and much of this manufacturing in its initial

location was closely tied to the waterways of

the area. On the Newport News-Hampton

side the Federal government is also basic to

the economy, and manufacturing features

more prominently because of the large New-

port News Shipbuilding and Drydock Com-

pany. This one company accounts for ap-

proximately 0.75 of the manufacturing em-

ployment. The remaining 6,000 manufactur-

204

ing employment is in a variety of industries,

many of which have located in recent years.

In summary, in the Hampton Roads area

manufacturing has been of only modest im-

portance, and it is really the Federal govern-

ment activities which have brought the

people there.

The tidal areas of the Chesapeake Bay

have been experiencing a much higher rate

of population growth than the nation. What

is the outlook for population growth for this

region in the future—say to the year

2000—and what will be the impact of this

people growth on the environmental re-

sources of the Bay? The most important

single point to consider is what is happening

to the rate of population growth for the na-

tion as a whole. This rate has slowed con-

siderably in recent years and currently is

averaging 1.2% annually. There is much un-

certainty as to what this rate will be 10, 20,

or 30 years from now, but perhaps the safest

estimate is to project at a rate of 1.2% an-

nual increase to the year 2000.

As has been the case in the recent past,

there is likely to be great differences in the

rate of population growth for the 5 major

metropolitan areas in the Bay region. You

will recall that consultants in a major study

for the Washington metropolitan area pro-

jected as the most probable population in

the year 2000 for that area 7.7 million

people. This would be an increase of over

3%% annually during the 30-year period.

Again, there is much uncertainty as to

whether this increase will actually develop.

As indicated earlier, growth in the Washing-

ton area will be largely determined by the

rate of continuing expansion in Federal em-

ployment. It is possible that decisions could

be made that would slow down this rate

from that which has been projected, thereby

reducing the projected rate of population

growth. Perhaps the safest assumption for

the Baltimore area is to assume that it would

continue to grow at approximately the na-

tional rate to the year 2000, thereby increas-

ing the population of 2 million in 1970 to

2.7 million by the year 2000. For the Rich-

mond area our Virginia estimates are that it

will continue to grow at a higher than na-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

a eT ee

tional rate, increasing the population from

slightly over 0.5 million to approximately |

million by the year 2000. The 2 metropoli-

tan areas in Hampton Roads have a com-

bined 1970 population of approximately 1

million. Currently, the Newport News-

Hampton side is growing at somewhat above

the national rate, while the Norfolk-

Portsmouth side is growing somewhat below

the national rate. If we project this area at

the national rate of growth of 1.2% to the

year 2000, it would have a population of 1.4

million. The remaining portion of the Chesa-

peake Bay region, outside these 5 metropoli-

tan areas, has a population of approximately

1 million. These areas have been growing

very slowly and in some communities there

have been actual declines in population.

There is nothing on the horizon to indicate a

greatly stepped-up rate of growth, so we as-

sume that these more rural areas will be

growing at less than the national rate to the

year 2000.

In summary, the rates of growth assumed

above for each of the metropolitan areas

would give the Chesapeake Bay region an an-

nual rate of growth of 2.4% to the year

2000—double the annual rate of 1.2% for

the nation—and the Washington area alone

by the year 2000 would account for more

than 0.5 of the population in the Basin. This

would indicate that our environmental prob-

lems resulting from people growth are likely

to be increasingly concentrated in the metro-

politan areas.

Skipping from people growth to indus-

trial growth in the Bay region, I think the

major point to grasp is that since World War

II this region has not attracted the heavy

water-using industries that it did in earlier

periods. These conditions may continue in

the future. A use of census of manufacturing

figures for 1964 showing water intake and

water discharge for each type of manufactur-

ing industry is helpful in examing this point

(Table 2). Four of the 20 major manufactur-

ing categories—chemicals, primary metals,

pulp and paper, and petroleum refining—

account for 85% of all the water intake by

manufacturing in the nation. Even within

these broad categories, it is only selected

subindustry groups that are actually large

water users. In the Chesapeake Bay region 3

of the major categories—chemicals, primary

metals, and pulp and paper—account for

85% of the water intake by industry.

Let us look ahead. It is true that in recent

years we have a few examples of chemical-

process industries that have located in Mary-

land and Virginia, but they are modest in

their water use compared to particular plants

that came in earlier. There is the large Beth-

lehem Steel facility at Sparrows Point.

About 10 years ago, a study was made to

determine whether another large steel facil-

ity would be feasible in the Hampton Roads

area. The study indicated, largely because of

the lack of a large enough market and also

because of a change in technology, that

another large steel facility was not feasible

Table 2.—Water intake by major manufacturing industries,

United States and Chesapeake Bay region, 1964 (in billions gallons). z

Industry Chesapeake

Groups Bay

Totals VS 7

Food and kindred products D9)

Textile mill products 3

Paper and allied products 119

Chemicals and allied products 180

Petroleum and coal products ~

Rubber and plastic products 8

Stone, clay, and galss products 15

Primary metal industries 341

Electrical machinery 5)

Transportation equipment 14

All other

% Distribution U.S. % Distribution

100.0 14,050 100.0

3.8 760 5.4

4 148 Lt

IS. 2,071 14.8

23.8 3,889 Dia

— 1,398 9.5

itl 163 12

2.0 249 1.8

45.0 4,578 32.6

Pi, 105 8

1.8 247 1.8

5.7 3.3

source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Water Use in Manufacturing, 1963 Census of Manufacturers.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

205

for the Chesapeake Bay area and was not on

the horizon in the foreseeable future. A few

years ago, primary aluminum producers were

taking a look at the Chesapeake Bay area.

The high cost of electric power quickly

brought an end to their consideration. As for

pulp and paper, there is a single mill in Vir-

ginia on the York River. It is the belief of

our forestry people that the timber resource

of the area is not sufficiently large to sup-

port another facility.

There are 2 major categories of large

water-using industries—petroleum refining

and chemicals—for which the Chesapeake

Bay region may have a potential in the fu-

ture. The modest Amoco refinery at York-

town is the only petroleum refinery that has

located in this region since World War I.

Currently, the nation has a demand for

slightly more than 5 billion gallons of crude

or refined petroleum annually. Approxi-

mately 0.25 of this is imported. The pressure

has been steadily building up for this nation

to receive much larger quantities of imports.

The National Petroleum Council in its /n-

terim Report on U.S. Energy Outlook pre-

dicts that the demand for oil imports to the

United States in 1975 will more than double

the 1970’s demand, and by 1980 more than

triple it. We are therefore facing considerable

pressure along the Atlantic Seaboard as to

where this refining capacity should be lo-

cated. What draft will these large petroleum

ships require? What receiving areas will be

accessible to them? Can the unloading of the

petroleum product be made absolutely safe?

Are there any polluting effects from new re-

fineries using the current technology? I be-

lieve that the Corps of Engineers is giving

some attention to this problem of greater

imports of petroleum products, but this

would appear to be a responsibility of our

206

States and the people in the Maryland-

Virginia area, too.

Only about 5% of the output of the pe-

troleum industry goes into petrochemicals.

If petrochemicals were available in the

Chesapeake Bay area, it is the thought of

many that it would rejuvenate the growth of

the chemical industry in this area. One ad-

vantage of the chemical industry is the high

wage paid, leading to higher per capita in-

come for those employed. I believe that

what is in front of us on petroleum refining

and the chemical industry in the Chesapeake

Bay region is a much stickier consideration

than the location of new power plants to

which we have given so much time in this

Symposium.

In closing, let us give some attention to

the major portion of the land area of the

Chesapeake Bay region—that portion that

falls outside the metropolitan areas. Minus

the metropolitan areas, the Chesapeake Bay

region has a population of approximately

100 persons/mi? and has experienced little

or no growth in recent years. Most of this

area is outside the commuting range of the

metropolitan areas that are growing so rapid-

ly. This rural area has a strong recreational

resource but its continuing development will

give only modest employment. It is possible

that in the years ahead the local leadership

in these more rural areas will be more deter-

mined to promote industrial development,

and such development would mean jobs to

keep the young people at home, would raise

per capita income, and would lead to new

investments subject to local taxation. While

there is nothing on the horizon to point to a

greatly stepped-up development, I would

point out that this is another area of uncer-

tainty for the long run.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Questions and Answers

The Fate of the Chesapeake Bay:

Research to Counter the Threats

Moderator:

Panelists:

Dr. Rita Colwell, Georgetown University

The Hon. James B. Coulter, Secretary, Maryland

Department of Natural Resources

Mr. Jerome Williams, U.S. Naval Academy

Dr. Carl Sindermann, U.S. Bureau of Commercial

Fisheries

Col. Louis W. Prentiss, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Dr. Howard Seliger, Tie Johns Hopkins University

Mr. Edwin Holm, Virginia Division of Industrial

Development

Dr. Joel Hedgpeth, Oregon State University

Q—After 10,000 years of apparent extinc-

tion, the brackish water clam Rangia kinyata

has experienced a population explosion all

along the Atlantic Coast, including the Ches-

apeake. Could this now be considered a crisis

indicator?

DR. SINDERMANN-This raises a very

important point. We should be aware, not

only of the decline or disappearance of spe-

cies as a result of environmental changes, but

of the positive explosion type of response as

well. As an example, sea urchins on the west

coast of Florida increased in abundance

dramatically in the autumn of 1971, in an

area previously ravaged by extensive red

tides. It may well be that those forms which

already have developed, or which can de-

velop, resistance to pollutants of various

kinds will be the ones which populate the

inshore waters. Simplification of inshore

ecosystems often results in population ex-

plosion of certain species, and we should ex-

pect to see more of this phenomenon.

Q—Has there been a comprehensive sur-

vey of significant changes in commercial

fisheries patterns as a function of time. Has

there been any attempt to define such

changes as natural or man-made?

DR. SINDERMANN-—A paper should be

available from the National Marine Fisheries

Service within the next 6 months, as far as I

know, covering just about the last 2 decades

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

for most of the significant commercial and

sport species of the Atlantic Coast. I don’t

think this study will attempt to relate to en-

vironmental changes, but at least it will give

a rather interesting picture of what has hap-

pened to the abundance and distribution of

a number of species. It is surprising at the

present time the amount of misinformation

available. Most of us feel intuitively that

many species have declined and virtually dis-

appeared. But some of the species which one

might assume to be most severely affected

by inshore environmental modifications are

just as abundant overall as they were a

decade or two ago. True, there may be local

extinction or reduction in abundance, but

looking at the species as a whole, the kinds

of decline in abundance you might antici-

pate don’t exist. This statement anticipates

the findings of the paper, which I have no

right to do, but this is one general statement

that could be made about it.

Q—Are there any field or laboratory data

suggesting that pesticides, even at concentra-

tions an order of magnitude greater than

those found in North Atlantic waters, have

measurable effects on plankton? Can you

cite a figure for pesticide levels in North At-

lantic Ocean water?

DR. SINDERMANN-—I'm sure there are

others in the audience who could give a

more satisfactory answer. There are many

207

papers on the effects of pesticides on phyto-

plankton and zooplankton organisms. Most

of them, however, are concerned with ef-

fects of relatively high pesticide levels on an-

imals in experimental situations. Among

those which might be mentioned are:

Wurster (Science, 159, 1474-1475, 1968)

documenting reduction of photosynthesis by

4 species of phytoplankton exposed to DDT;

Bookhout et al. (Water, Air and Soil Pollu-

tion, 1, 44-59, 1972; and Harvey et. al.

(Nobel Symposium, Chlorinated Hydrocar-

bons in Open Ocean Organisms, /n Nobel

Symposium, “Changing Chemistry of the

Oceans.”

Q—How much will your hydraulic model

cost?

COL. PRENTISS—The total study pro-

gram is authorized by the Congress at $15

million, which includes money for the model

and all the study elements. An estimate for

the model to include all of the supporting

facilities is about $10 million.

Q—Who determines and manages pro-

grams for the future of the upper Chesa-

peake Bay: the State of Maryland or the

Army Engineers?

MR. COULTER~—Both the State of Mary-

land and the Army Engineers are influential

in programs that determine the future of the

upper Chesapeake Bay. In addition, there are

many others that have a strong voice. In the

first place, given a democratic setting, the

people of the region will have much to say

about the future of the Bay. The Susque-

hanna River Basin Commission has been

created and is just now becoming active.

Maryland is a full participant in the Com-

mission because we expect it to take actions

that will protect our interests in the Bay.

The Corps of Engineers study and the

knowledge obtained from experiments with

the hydraulic model will produce needed

and useful information. But I have confi-

dence that the State of Maryland will survive

for many thousands of years and that the

State will have a major voice in matters con-

cerning the Bay. In that respect, I think we

must avoid a parochial attitude and recog-

nize that although Maryland has a responsi-

208

bility for custodianship, the Chesapeake Bay

doesn’t belong to us exclusively. It is a

treasured asset for the nation, and I would

hope that the federal government recognizes

its custodial responsibility also.

Finally, in thinking of the future of the

Bay, let me point out that I have two |

children who are smarter than I am and that

they are going to be derelict in their duty if —

my grandchildren aren’t smarter than they |

are. That being so, we might be wise to con- ~

centrate on the problems that we have in-

herited and be careful not to create new

problems in our own time. If we do that, I

have a good deal of confidence that the fu-

ture in the hands of future generations will

be secure.

Q-—Can you give any specific examples of

success in your inter-disciplinary approach at

the Rhode River?

DR. SELIGER—I’m glad that question |

was asked. Frank Williamson and I spent a

whole year putting a proposal together, get-

ting the investigators sufficiently enthusias-

tic so that they would divert their activities

from the particular areas where they were

Operating to operate at Rhode River. We

were funded 2 weeks ago, and at the present

time we have spent all of our time writing a

proposal for renewal.

Q-You emphasized that we cannot look

at the environment piece by piece. How does

coordination come about? Who does it and

what does it consist of?

MR. WILLIAMS—One of the things I

don’t know anything about is coordination.

Perhaps someone else on the panel could

help.

Q—Please repeat and elaborate on the

work of Thomas at Harvard 15 years ago

relative to benefit costs, and how you feel

his findings relate to water quality standards

[apparently the questioner did not find the

significance of this reference clear].

MR. COULTER~—Harold Thomas is a re-

markable scholar and a professor at Harvard

University who, some years ago, wrote a lit-

tle treatis called the Animal Farm. It was

published in one of the economic journals—I

am sorry I can’t cite it for you right now.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Essentially he took the Howard Seliger ap-

proach. He described a farmer’s daughter

who had somehow broken the male barrier

and gone to Harvard University.-Her father

had a problem with chickens that became ill

from some disease. The question was

whether the father should take the losses

from the disease, which by the way was

transmitted through water, or treat the

water and get more income from the birds

thus saved. In this little treatis Dr. Thomas

brought in the factors that should be con-

sidered in almost every problem of standard

setting and through a series of fundamental

mathematical manipulations showed how

these factors actually imputed a cost-benefit

ratio. It is like the law of gravity—you can’t

escape it. Any standard deliberately set has

costs and benefits associated with it. Or if

you do nothing and just let things happen to

you, then by your indifference you establish

a standard which has costs and benefits as-

sociated with it.

Q—What is the planning construction

timetable of the model at Matapeake? What

is the plan of the disposal of the sewage and

waste?

COL. PRENTISS—We have not been

funded for construction at this time. Until

we are funded for construction, a definite

schedule cannot be established; however, if

funding is received in a timely manner, the

model and shelter could be completed in

1974. Regarding sewage disposal, a treat-

ment plant utilizing secondary treatment

measures will be constructed at the model

site.

Q—How many people are to be employed

at the hydraulic model?

COL. PRENTISS—In the construction

phase we would have about 50 Corps of En-

gineers employees, especially trained in

model construction. We would use contracts

for the structure and supporting facilities;

contractors could have perhaps up to 100

employees. After construction, the opera-

tional requirement will be about 25 to 50

employees.

Q—Dr. Williams implied that “normal”

means a single valued function. On the con-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

trary, we must recognize that normal is a

dynamic function of given characteristics.

Man’s attempt to reduce its natural varia-

tions may be exactly the wrong thing to do.

However, we are sufficiently sophisticated to

be able to determine variations from the

norm if that norm is a complex function.

Would you like to comment on that?

MR. WILLIAMS-—I certainly agree with

the first part of the statement, and I’m sorry

if my meaning was misconstrued. The nor-

mal function is a very dynamic thing and

therefore very difficult to determine. I was

trying to say that this is another way of

looking at normalcy—to draw an envelope

around the excursions of a particular para-

meter and treat it as a normal function

rather than a single valued function. I’m not

so sure that we are sufficiently sophisticated

to be able to determine variations from the

norm, especially if we don’t know what the

norm is.

Q—Have you formulated a mathematical

model to display observable functional rela-

tions in the framework of necessary

boundary conditions?

MR. WILLIAMS—No.

Q—Do you really think there would be no

effects from Calvert Cliffs, considering that

the 10° rise would cause large kills during

mid-winter shutdowns; that EPA and many

aquatic biologists consider a 10° rise exces-

sive; and that the power company knew the

standard would be revised downward long

ago during the design.

DR. SELIGER—The pedagogical trick

that I told you about during my talk has

several advantages. If I say something dumb,

and a student comes out later and disproves

it, he is never quite sure whether I meant it

or not. No one can say “no effects.” Using a

concept in statistics called normalization, we

have to talk about the relative effects. Now,

Dr. Pritchard has made very strong noises

about the difference between a temperature

rise in a laboratory container and tempera-

ture-time relationships for moving organisms

in a dynamic plume. | think this is a rather

critical point. When we consider a 10°

209

temperature rise, we have to consider the

time during which an organism may be en-

trained at that temperature and then develop

its subsequent history. A 10° rise is excessive

if it occurs at the optimum temperature for

that particular species. In fact, at the maxi-

mum temperature for a species, a 0.1° rise

could be quite serious. These are all very

relative terms, so I don’t think it is possible

to discuss the problem in terms of absolute

numbers. What if water that flowed through

the Calvert Cliffs plant were disposed of in-

land in some black hole, causing whatever

biota were contained in this volume of water

to disappear from the Bay. Would this cause

an irreversible change in the species distribu-

tion of all of the upper trophic levels in the

Chesapeake Bay? This is rather an important

question and I think if we try to answer it,

we might be able to relate it to what we

might consider the maximum effects of this

temperature-time relationship.

MR. WILLIAMS—I think I detected in

that question an assumption that the Chesa-

peake Bay or some significant portion of it

would be raised 10° in temperature. This is

not so. The 10° that was referred to is the

AT, or the drop across the condenser plates

in the plant with the water that comes in

contact with the plants. Many people have

asked how we could fry all those delicate

organisms in that system. Bear in mind that

the steam being used is about 90-92°F on

the hot side of the condenser. The design at

Chesapeake Laboratory limits the 10° drop

across the condenser such that you will not

have a mixing zone in the Chesapeake Bay

itself. In fact the temperature impact at the

surface will be a rise in temperature of about

0.5° within several acres of the discharge

site. | want to make it quite clear that the

Chesapeake Laboratory has not raised the

temperature of the Chesapeake Bay or any

significant portion of it by 10°.

Q-You have talked about the industrial

impact on the ecosystem. | understand your

statistics to show there is negligible indus-

trial growth in Baltimore and hardly any in-

dustry at all in D.C. and Virginia. I am

curious to know if industry is supposed to

be a problem in the Bay, or if will become a

210

problem. Please explain whether your statis-

tics were supposed to be optimistic or pes-

simistic as to the future of the ecosystem of

the Bay.

MR. HOLM—It has been said many times

here that we have more of a people problem

in the Bay area than an industry problem.

We will not have export industries in any

great size developing in the Washington area

and I think that the Baltimore area’s outlook

is for growth in non-manufacturing activi-

ties. The point I was emphasizing concerning

any model for the future is that there are

certain industrial crises that I would not fore-

see today but that may well be on the hori-

zon 10 years from now.

Q—What State and federal agencies are in-

volved in your Chesapeake Bay study, and

what is their contribution?

COL. PRENTISS—All federal and State |

agencies that are involved in water-resource

planning, such as the Department of Inter-

ior, EPA, Fish & Wildlife Service, Smith-

sonian, and State agencies like Mr. Coulter’s

organization which is involved in the Chesa-

peake Bay. Their contributions are in their

area of expertise.

Q—How many biologists are involved

directly in planning the Bay study?

COL. PRENTISS—I have no idea of the

numbers the various agencies have em-

ployed, but I am sure they will be in the

hundreds.

Q—What scale factors had to be taken in-

to account in developing that hydraulic

model?

COL. PRENTISS—Empirical data from

the Vicksburg waterway experimental Sta-

tion has shown that, for a model of the

depth we are working with, 1:100 vertical

and 1:1000 horizontal are the optimum

scales that will accurately reproduce hy-

draulic phenomena of the Bay.

Q—In your list of objectives you said,

“and lastly the well-being of the people.” Is

this the last, or perhaps the least, considera-

tion?

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

COL. PRENTISS—No, you could put

them in any order. They are obviously the 4

national objectives. The well-being of the

people is being considered more and more in

all planning these days and it’s probably at

the top, certainly with this group.

Q—How long will it be before a person

will be swimming in the Potomac below Blue

Plains; the Annapolis area, Back Creek, Spa

Creek, etc; or the Baltimore area? How long

will it be before a person will not be able to

safely swim in the Bay at all?

MR. COULTER—Blue Plains depends on

Congress. The Blue Plains sewage treatment

plant, as many of you know, has been the

subject of an interminable federal con-

ference. It started in 1957 and has gone

through several sessions and several sets of

recommendations. The primary problem

since 1957, as we said yesterday, has been

money. Financing, | believe, has been ar-

ranged, depending upon how the final

amendments to the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act are handled. That financing pro-

vides for an investment in this one sewage

treatment plant alone of something like 1/3

to 1/2 billion dollars. When those invest-

ments are in place, the water that is dis-

charged from the Blue Plains plant will be of

a very much higher quality than any con-

ceivable natural water in the Potomac

estuary or in the Potomac River. Concerning

the other places that were mentioned, the

State of Maryland’s objective is to restore all

waters to a quality suitable to support

recreation. Back in 1966, more than 1 mil-

lion people in this State flushed their toilets

and let the material go directly to the water-

ways without treatment. At that time Mary-

land provided the money and undertook a

program to make sure that the flushing from

every toilet ran through a tight pipe to a

cleansing plant with final disinfection. I’m

happy to say that tremendous progress has

been made. The objective was to have all of

the plants either constructed, or under de-

sign, or under construction and financed by

1971. I think it’s rather healthy that that

objective has been achieved. The State is

now moving on to higher objectives: Where,

what, and how to remove things like phos-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

phorous. We do wonder what in the world

would-be scientists are talking about when

they demand nitrogen removal. In an atmos-

phere around us of 85% nitrogen, and con-

sidering the solubility of the gas, we have a

little bit of trouble in designing a sewage

treatment plant that will remove 98% of the

nitrogen. When we know what is involved,

then we will proceed with designs. We are

taking on those higher objectives in the next

year or so, and we will have the common

parameters for swimming pretty well under

control.

Q—What are some of the facultative

pathogens? Have you demonstrated this

ability directly? I think there is some con-

fusion on that term.

DR. SINDERMANN-—Probably one of

the best examples would be finrot disease,

characteristic of the New York Blight area

since 1967. Three different genera of bac-

teria (Aeromonas, Pseudomonas and Vibrio)

have been shown to be responsible for this

condition. These organisms—some of them

at least—are capable of multiplying in the

organic soups that we are depositing in the

Bays. In sufficient concentration they are

able to invade and infect fish. In this sense

they are facultative. They are not noted—

most of them at least—as primary pathogens

of fish or invertebrates, but when they are

concentrated, sufficient infection pressure is

created to infect fish. I think it has probably

been best demonstrated in the case of the

finrot condition. There probably will be

other examples of the same kind of phe-

nomenon in the future.

Q—With respect to your graph of 10-year

ranges of pH, salinity, temperature, oxygen:

Do we know indeed that these are normal

ranges due to natural causes, especially at

the northern-most station? Do these same

data evidence any trends? Also, have there

been any discernible changes in the quantity

and/or quality of fisheries in the same

general area as the northern-most station?

MR. WILLIAMS—Generally speaking, it is

very difficult to determine whether these

tremendous ranges and variables are ex-

clusively man-made, exclusively non-man-

211

made, or some combination of the two. I

tried to pick stations halfway between the 2

shores to get out in the water that was least

affected by man, and I also picked a period

of time, approximately 1950 to 1960, when

the excursions by man on Chesapeake Bay

were not as great as at present. Generally

speaking, the data do not show any trends.

The extremes seem to occur in more or less

random years. The data is similar to weather

data, which doesn’t show any particular

trends. Although some people seem to think

there has been a slight warming trend over

the last 50 or 60 years, this can be disputed

depending upon where the temperature is

measured. It seems to me the natural varia-

tions in fisheries are so great that it’s very

difficult to determine whether anything

really significant has happened during such a

short period as 10 years.

Q—Many speakers have pointed out that

changes in temperature produced by power

plants are small compared to natural varia-

tions. However, it has been argued by some

that natural variations are always random,

whereas power-planning effects are uni-

directional. Would you comment on this?

DR. HEDGPETH—In the first place,

natural temperature variations in the en-

vironment should not be considered random.

There are seasonal cycles, both of tempera-

ture and light, and these are interrelated. We

have yet to sort out the effects of light and

temperature cycles in many plants and ani-

mals. There are of course many minor varia-

tions within the annual temperature cycles

that are unpredictable and might be thought

of as random. The temperature effects of a

power plant in a recirculating system such as

an estuary may be such as to stabilize the

temperature or at least narrow its range, and

thus to smooth out the annual cycles. We do

know that many organisms seem to require a

seasonal or regular variation in temperature

and do not do so well under constant condi-

tions. Also, a rapid rise of temperature at a

certain period of the year, which may or

may not be related to length of day or quan-

tity of light, may affect or stimulate

development of gonads. It has been demon-

strated in England in some work with warm

212

water from a power plant that it is possible

with a steady source of heat to advance re-

production so that larval stages may be out

of phase with the rest of the system. Some-

thing like this may have happened naturally

to the California sardine. For a period of

perhaps 9 years the natural fluctuation of

temperature was less than it had been for the

previous 25-50 years, and reproduction of

the sardines was reduced. It is possible that

the sardine larvae got out of phase with the

phytoplankton cycle, which is more closely

related to light conditions than temperature.

Heavy fishing at the same time added to the

effect and we had a major population crash

of an important fishery. In tropical or even

warm-temperature situations, the steady in-

crease in temperature and damping of sea-

sonal ranges could reduce the margin of

safety between death and survival of many

warm water species, already living near the

limits of their temperature tolerances in

natural conditions.

Q—How do you plan to integrate the

changing shoreline configuration of Chesa-

peake Bay with the fixed shore-line con-

figuration of the model?

COL. PRENTISS—Just change the model.

If there is a desire to make a major man-

made variation in the Bay area, we will re-

move the old section, put the new configura-

tion in, run the model, and see what hap-

pens. That is the purpose of a model like

this. It will be a dynamic model that can be

changed at will.

Q—Will the hydraulic model reproduce

the salt and freshwater layers of the Bay and

its mixing processes? What other parameters

will be reproduced—tides, currents, flushing,

etc?

COL. PRENTISS—Yes,

That’s what we are going after.

all of them.

Q—Can nonfederal and private agencies

use the model?

COL. PRENTISS—That is the proposal.

After the model is completed, we will verify

the model using field data being collected at

the present time. We have over 200 collec-

tion stations all over the Bay to determine

various temperatures, salinities, tidal fluctua-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

tions, and current velocities. After the model

verification and the testing program to be

undertaken as part of the study, the model

will be available to any research-agency de-

siring to use it for Bay research. How it will

be managed at that particular point has yet

to be determined.

Q-—If that model merely represents physi-

cal characteristics, how can it help to answer

biological questions which seem much

harder to understand, since their interaction

with physical characteristics have not yet

been adequately defined? What critical

answers will this model provide?

COL. PRENTISS—Certainly it will pro-

vide the physical answers to support the

biologist who is trying to make that kind of

determination. The model should be able to

provide what he requires from a physical

standpoint to further his investigation.

Q-You indicated that money spent to

control phosphorous is wasted, if it could be

shown that there is a net import of phos-

phorous to the Bay from the ocean. In view

of the extensive data available from the

Chesapeake Bay Institute and John Rathers’

work at Woods Hole, this seems rather to be

an impossibility. Can you amplify what you

meant?

MR. COULTER —It certainly wouldn’t be

the first time in my life that I suggested

something that was impossible. I don’t know

of information from Woods Hole or any-

where else that gives the basis for a mass

balance. It seems to me there are 2 valid

questions that the rational manager would

ask: First, after I take this step, what impact

will it have on the total budget of the

natural system, or the system as it exists—in

other words, after I take out all of the phos-

phorous being contributed with domestic

sewage, what will that do to change the

phosphorous budget of the Chesapeake Bay?

And the second question that is very impor-

tant to me and I think should be important

to you: If I replace phosphorous with some

other material to do the cleansing that we

want in our washing, ablutions, or whatever,

what will that do to the Chesapeake Bay and

the creatures living in it, and what counter-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL, VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

measures should I take in order to offset any

undesirable effects? Without knowing the

answers to those 2 questions, I would reserve

some judgement on the investments that are

being made for phosphorous reduction.

Q-—In reference to heavy metals, you

noted that the level in sediment cores is al-

ready in excess of levels allowable in water

quality standards. In those standards the

reference is to the water, not to what is con-

tained in the mud.

MR. COULTER~—I don’t know who asked

the question, but that is not so. The figures

that I am talking about are ones in guidelines

that have not been promulgated as stand-

ards, so they have not had the scrutiny that

standards would have. Furthermore, the

figures in the guidelines refer to the dry

weight of substance in the mud being

dredged from the Bay.

Q-Col. Prentiss mentioned that some of

the pbulic seems to feel that action, not

studies, is required. This implies an anti-

intellectual attitude that could be a funda-

mental threat to the programs we have been

talking about. Do you have any feeling that

the public’s tolerance of research may be

lessening, thus providing a roadblock to solv-

ing some of the Bay’s problems?

DR. HEDGPETH-—I didn’t intend to im-

pugn any anti-intellectual approach to the

urgent feelings of some people that some-

thing has to be done. As I indicated, the

anti-ecologic interpretation that some people

are getting a little impatient with studies is

confusing matters here. I don’t know how

much research the public tolerates. Certainly

it seems to tolerate a great deal in the San

Francisco Bay area, and by the public there,

I mean industry and the local governments

that have put up very substantial sums of

money. The City of San Francisco hired con-

sulting engineers who certainly aren’t cheap,

and the communities in the southern part of

the Bay hired other consultants. The real

problem is that too many people are tread-

ing over each other’s grapes and the wine is

getting a bit thin.

213

The Fate of the Chesapeake Bay (Dinner Address)

David H. Wallace!

Associate Administrator for Marine Resources, NOAA,

U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, Maryland 20852

ABSTRACT

In the 1930’s, pollution of Chesapeake Bay was considered to be of limited signifi-

cance and environmental modification was seldom mentioned, industrial pollutants being

limited to areas near Baltimore, Hampton Roads, and Norfolk. It is obvious that environ-

mental problems now are of far greater concern than in 1936; one indicator is the

change in abundance of key species of fish and shellfish. Although some conservationists

contend the resources of the Bay are depleted, this is not so. But estuarine development

has deteriorated, and if allowed to continue, this deterioration could result in the de-

struction of the Bay’s productivity. The Bay must be studied as a single biological

system, possibly as a subset of an even larger one including Delaware Bay and the

Atlantic waters. All levels of government must be involved in planning, law-making, and

resource management and development.

It is always a pleasure for me to partici-

pate in a discussion of the Chesapeake Bay.

Since I was raised on the Eastern Shore of

Maryland, did my academic training at Mary-

land institutions, and spent a major part of

my career in marine biological research and

management on the Chesapeake, it is not

surprising that I have some rather strong

feelings about the future of this magnificant

body of water. I want to make it clear in the

very beginning that I do not subscribe to the

emotional concepts of the “Harbingers of

Doom” who believe that it is already too

late to preserve the Bay for future genera-

tions. Nor can I support the views of some—I

hope a limited number—that the Bay is

capable of withstanding great alterations and

IMr. Wallace received his M.S. degree from the

University of Maryland and has been closely asso-

ciated with Bay activities as a research biologist

and as Administrative Assistant, Executive Secre-

tary, and Director and Chairman of the Maryland

Department of Tidewater Fisheries. He was Execu-

tive Director of the Oyster Institute of North

America and the Sponge and Chamois Institute

from 1951 to 1962, and has held a number of

significant positions in the Federal government. He

is the author of many technical and popular

articles on fish, shellfish, and ecology and belongs

to a number of professional societies.

Mr. Wallace was dinner speaker for the Sym-

posium, but his talk was not detailed in pre-con-

ference announcements.

214

large amounts of pollutants without substan-

tial changes in its future productivity. I sup-

pose I could be categorized as a conservative

moderate who wants to see decisions made

involving conflicting uses on the best facts

available and with options weighed and

evaluated. This talk this evening is subjective

since I will attempt to recall my impressions

of the Bay as it appeared to me as a young

research biologist at the Chesapeake Biologi-

cal Laboratory in 1936 and my impressions

of it some 35 years later in 1972.

Up to 1936 the amount of research that

had been carried out on the Chesapeake Bay

and its resources was relatively limited ex-

cept for continuing studies of oysters. Dr.

R.V. Truitt at the University of Maryland

had been struggling for a number of years to

obtain support to establish a marine labora-

tory and had finally obtained enough funds

to build a modest teaching-research labora-

tory in the early 1930’s. Dr. Truitt himself

had been carrying out studies on the oyster

following after the pioneer works of Dr.

Brooks of Johns Hopkins University and Dr.

Caswell Graves. Dr. Truitt and his students

had also done some research on the blue

crab and other limited research projects had

been carried out by scientists of the US.

Bureau of Fisheries and during the twenties

by Drs. Cowles and Bramble of The Johns

Hopkins University.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Dr. Truitt was determined to expand

studies of the Bay. He formed a group of

Maryland Colleges who contributed support

to the laboratory. Summer courses for ad-

vanced students were developed and outside

visiting scientists were encouraged to spend

the summer doing research in the areas of

their interest.

The main concern about the Bay in the

1930’s was depletion of certain fisheries al-

legedly because of overfighting and creeping

pollution from Baltimore Harbor into the

Upper Bay. Pollution was. considered of

limited significance then and environmental

modification was hardly ever mentioned ex-

cept in the case of the Conowingo Dam and

its possible adverse affect on anadromous

fish such as the shad. It is not surprising that

these attitudes prevailed at that time. Most

stretches of the shores of the Bay were rela-

tively free of developed communities. Large

farms encompassing hundreds of acres and

small groups of summer cottages nestled ad-

jacent to the sandy beaches dominated the

shoreline. Vast salt marshes stretched for

miles along the southern Eastern Shore of

Maryland and northern Virginia. Water

quality based on coliform measurements in-

dicated a high degree of purity with only

limited areas adjacent to a few of the larger

cities and towns closed to the taking of shell-

fish.

Industrial pollution was limited to areas

around Norfolk, Hampton Roads, and Balti-

more. Since it was confined to very limited

stretches of the Bay and its tributaries, such

pollution aroused little concern from either

conservationists, biologists or the public.

Some people complained sufficiently to

bring about pollution studies of Baltimore

Harbor and the Hampton Roads area, but

the overall threat of pollution was con-

sidered minimal.

Heated water effluents released to the

Bay and its tributaries from power plants

were unheard of as a possible pollutant.

While a small power plant existed near the

headwaters of the Nanticoke River, where

striped bass spawn, the only apparent effect

of its effluent was to stimulate the stripers

to spawn a few weeks earlier in the River

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL, VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

than elsewhere in the Bay. Very few indus-

trial plants of any kind were located along

the Bay and its tributaries except in the vi-

cinity of the larger cities.

The C&P Canal was built but little was

known about what ecological changes had

resulted from its construction. The Balti-

more Harbor Channel was dredged regularly

and the sludge-muck was dumped in deep

water off Kent Island, but this operation

seemed to have no effect on fish and shell-

fish. Silting was changing the Susquehanna

flats as a result of farming practices in up-

state New York and in Pennsylvania. Some

fishermen were predicting that the Conowin-

go Dam would end the runs of anadromous

fish in the Chesapeake, but shad and herring

were still relatively abundant.

Other than these few “minor” pressure

points, no problems seemed to be significant

environmentally. What were considered de-

pleted fisheries held the interest and atten-

tion of the States and the public.

In Virginia waters, where extensive pri-

vate oyster farming was encouraged, the

oyster business was thriving and providing

employment for thousands. The supply of

seed oysters from the James River seed

grounds seemed inexhaustible. Every week-

day evening from fall until spring, many

buy boats were on the James River to take

aboard their seed from the tongers. The

James River was considered the finest seed

oyster grounds in the world and there was

little reason to believe this would change.

The James River seed, when planted in the

lower Bay, produced excellent oysters. This

enormous production, coupled with produc-

tion from public beds yields in Maryland,

made the Chesapeake Bay the foremost

oyster producing body of water in the

world.

Catches of crabs fluctuated widely from

year to year. Almost continuously, charges

of lack of conservation were hurled back and

forth between Maryland and Virginia govern-

ment officials and watermen. On each occa-

sion, just as the crab catches declined to low

levels, a large-year class would come along to

replenish the stocks and peace and harmony

would be restored again between the

brothers—Maryland and Virginia watermen.

215

Croakers and weakfish could be caught

everywhere. Almost anyone could row out a

quarter of a mile from shore in a skiff and

catch quickly as many of these species as he

would need. But all was not rosy in the fish-

ing area. In 1933 and 1934 landings of

striped bass—called rockfish by people

around the Chesapeake Bay—dropped to the

lowest recorded commercial catch in history,

even though hundreds of nets of all descrip-

tions were being fished. Many conservation-

ists and sportsmen bemoaned the wanton

overfishing allegedly taking place and pre-

dicted that this species would become ex-

tinct if all commercial fishing was not halted

immediately.

In 1935 the Maryland General Assembly,

faced with this concern, appropriated

$15,000 to study this fish, looking toward a

management program which would save the

striped bass. It was at this point I came to be

involved with research and management,

since I was appointed as the Assistant to Dr.

V.D. Vladykov, who was employed to con-

duct the study.

The shad and herring also had declined

drastically and during the late thirties and

early forties Federal and State agencies

studied the shad, hoping to stem the de-

cline. Overproduction had already declined

drastically since the turn of the century in

Maryland, and the trend had not been halted

in spite of extensive shell planting on the

part of the State.

In summary, in 1935 we had a series of

contradictions—while some species were de-

pleted, others were at peak abundance, and

there appeared to be no correlation between

the intensity of fishing and the abundance or

scarcity of a given species.

What are the conditions of the environ-

ment and the living resources in the Chesa-

peake Bay some 35 years later? I am unable

to give personal appraisal of the Bay since I

have not been intimately associated with the

Bay and its resources in recent years. How-

ever, the proceedings of the Governor’s Con-

ference on the Chesapeake Bay in 1968 and

some papers in the proceedings of the semi-

nar held in 1970 by the Sports Fishing Insti-

tute on the biological significance of es-

216

tuaries give considerable insight on current

levels of production of living organisms, the

conflicts in use which exist, and the environ-

mental alterations which have and are taking

place.

It is apparent that environmental prob-

lems now are of far greater concern than in

1936. In the view of many, these problems

are more significant and important than the

current status and health of the individual

species of living organisms.

Pollution of the tributaries of the Bay has

increased greatly compared to 1936. Adverse

conditions have resulted from discharges

from sewage affecting the biological and

chemical qualities of such major tributaries

the James and Potomac Rivers. While coli-

form levels are still generally acceptable for

shellfish production, some 42,000 acres of

shellfish ground are now closed because of

domestic sewage pollution and some

250,000 acres are less desirable for finfish

because of pollution. Contamination of Bay

waters near Baltimore is still a fact of life

just as it was in 1935. The threat of oil pol-

lution is a constantly growing one as the de-

mands for this energy source continues to

grow and ever-increasing qualities of oil are

transported into the Chesapeake area.

Major power plants using Chesapeake

water for cooling purposes are now located

at several sites and more are under construc-

tion or in the offing. The demand for electri-

cal energy is growing at an extraordinary

rate. The impact of the heated water on the

Bay system is already being given careful

study and scrutiny by various Federal and

State agencies and other academic and pub-

lic institutions.

Navigational channel dredging has in-

creased greatly to accommodate to the

changing ocean transport methods with ma-

jor impact on the Chesapeake system—for

example, the deepening of the Chesapeake

and Delaware Bays. This will affect the fresh

water salt balance. The extent of the total

impact remains to be seen. Dredging requires

the disposal of spoil. In the last 10 years

such disposal has become of major impor-

tance and concern. Various studies have

demonstrated the adverse effects of spoil

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

deposition on salt marshes, and underwater

disposal poses major problems.

The changes in the abundance of key

species of fish and shellfish are just as

startling in some instances as the changes in

the environment. Instead of becoming ex-

tinct as was feared by some in 1935, the

striped bass is at a peak level of abundance

and catch. The commercial landings exceed

8 million pounds as compared to less than 1

million in 1935. Furthermore, over the past

4 years there have been several highly success-

ful dominant year classes which should en-

sure a high level of abundance for years to

come. On the other hand, croakers and

weakfish have become so scarce they are of

little significance in fin fish production in

the Bay.

Oyster production has also changed signi-

ficantly. While production in Maryland has

been maintained by a massive subsidy by the

State for public shell planting, seed trans-

planting, and other cultural practices, the

lower Bay has suffered a disastrous decline

because of the disease organism Minchinia

nelsonii (commonly called MSX). This

oyster disease in 1959 decimated the stocks

of oysters in the lower parts of the Bay,

where salinity is high. It still remains virulent

and because of it, oyster production is con-

fined to waters of low salinity. Crab abun-

dance still continues to fluctuate widely

from year to year, just in the 1930's.

Shellfish production has actually in-

creased because of the development of gear

which made it possible to harvest economi-

cally the soft clam in the upper Chesapeake

below the low tide mark. This species was

known to exist in 1935 but no equipment

had been developed to extract the clams

from the bottom.

While some conservationists still contend

the resources of the Bay are depleted, the

facts are that the productive capability of

the Bay has not been destroyed and if the

striped bass was used as an example one

could even say it had been enhanced.

The simple facts are that the estuarine en-

vironment has deteriorated and if this de-

terioration is allowed to continue unchecked

it could result in the destruction of its basic

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

productivity. I am sure all of us would like

to be able to visualize what will be the con-

dition of the Bay in 2007, another 35 years

from now. Will we have allowed pollution to

continue to grow? Will we have modified the

environment with forethought in such a way

as to have destroyed the capability to sup-

port living organisms? Will we have dredged

the Bay to great depths to accommodate

deep draft tankers? Will we have raised sub-

stantially the overall temperature of the Bay

by permitting unrestricted numbers of

power plants to use the Bay waters for cool-

ing purposes?

Or will we have joined together to de-

velop a comprehensive plan for the wise

management and use of the Chesapeake Bay

and its resources, and having done so, taken

all necessary steps at one or another level of

government to see that the necessary con-

trols are carried out. I think it is apparent to

all of us here, who are leaders in marine

science, planning and management, that this

is the course we must and will follow. Even

now major steps are being taken in this di-

rection. The comprehensive Federal study

currently underway with the participation of

both States and the academic community

could well be the mechanism to do the long-

term job. The knowledge base available and

potentially available through the 3 major re-

search institutions—Chesapeake Bay Insti-

tute of The Johns Hopkins University,

Natural Resources Institute of the University

of Maryland, and the Institute of Marine

Sciences in Virginia—is probably as broad

and with as much scientific capability as any

other place in the United States. If one adds

to this scientific capability the multiple man-

agement tools of the States and the determi-

nation of the Federal government to partici-

pate aggressivley in research, planning, man-

gement, and enforcement, it is apparent that

the components are already acting and re-

acting to insure the future welfare of the

Bay. I am not saying the problems are

solved—far from it. Many things must be

considered! The Bay must be treated as the

single biological entity it is. The moving

waters and the fish don’t know the

boundary line existing between Maryland

217

and Virginia. Our government and people

must also forget about the artificial line in

their planning and management. The Bay

must be handled as a single system, possibly

even as a subset of an even larger system

including Delaware Bay and the adjacent At-

lantic waters. All levels of Government must

be involved and carry out the responsibilities

in planning and zoning, laws to controt en-

vironmental modification, and resource man-

agement and development.

Symposium Summary

Joel W. Hedgpeth!

Yaquina Biology Laboratory, Oregon

State University, Newport, Oregon 97365

It’s a large order to attempt a summary of

a conference, but I suspect I was brought

here from 3,000 miles in the hope I would

be neutral, impartial, and objective.

It was my understanding that the purpose

of this Conference was to bring together the

working scientists of the Chesapeake area to

discuss the present status of the Chesapeake

Bay, to determine what should be done, and

apply the collective knowledge to the prob-

lems. Management was implicit in this idea, I

believe. However, the real management of

this area, the Chesapeake Bay and its water-

shed, does not reside in this conference. The

decision makers, who may not always realize

it, are the power-and-light people, Bethle-

hem Steel, the coal diggers of Pennsylvania,

and the pesticide spreaders of the Shenan-

doah. Most of you are here trying to figure

out what to do because of what these people

1Dr. Hedgpeth was born and educated in Calli-

fornia. He received all of his advanced degrees,

including his Ph.D., at the University of California

at Berkeley in zoology. He is an outstanding spe-

cialist in marine ecology and pycnogonids and the

author of many papers (in his own words, “‘envi-

ronmental polemics”), including “‘Guide to Sea-

shore Animals of the San Francisco Bay Region.”

He acts as Head of the Yaquina Biology Labora-

tory.

218

It seems to me that a great opportunity

exists for the development of a plan and at-

tainment of management of the Chesapeake

Bay which could serve as a model for the rest

of the country. NOAA is vitally interested in

working with and assisting other Federal agen-

cies, the States and local government in de- |

veloping such a concept so that our children

and our childrens’ children will have the same

kind of benefits from the Chesapeake as we

have been so fortunate to have ourselves.

have done. Nevertheless, they must hear the

evidence and come to some decision on their

own. Perhaps they have been to other meet-

ings (indeed some of them were—one such

meeting was held here September 16-18,

1971; see Bergoffin, 1971). Perhaps a lot of

them will be back on the 24th of February

to attend “The 10th Annual Maryland As-

phalt Paving Conference” in this room. The

closest to management at this meeting is the

State official from Maryland but he also, like

the scientists, is trying to catch up with the

people who are doing the shaking and mov-

ing.

I was reminded of a meeting held about 2

weeks ago on the problems of San Francisco

Bay. Today, as at that meeting, I have heard

the usual complaint of how little is known

and how more research is needed. At the

same time we are being reassured that the

Chesapeake Bay is not sick yet and things

aren’t all that bad—there is hope we can still

save the environment. A new note creeps in.

Everything must be done at once—bring the

biologists, geographers, social and physical

scientists together and get all possible per-

mutations into a categorized inventory. Feed

it into a giant problem solver. The name of

this game of expensive problem solving is

“Systems Analysis.” I presume it will tell us

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

what to decide—perhaps to abolish the as-

phalt paving people. Naturally it’s safe to do

studies—our commitments and decisions can

thus be deferred. I don’t think we really

have to consider for very long in order to

decide how we want things to be—we choose

to eat our cake and have it: we want a.

heavily industrialized region in as near a

natural environment as possible. It reminds

me of a prayer breakfast at which I was

asked to speak on coastal problems. The di-

vine gentleman who prayed for our souls and

gave thanks for the food asked the Lord to

help us exploit this environment and keep it

lovely in His sight. I, of course, could not

resist saying that was quite a tall order to ask

even of God Almighty.

In some of the remarks at this conference

there is the feeling that we want to go home

again to the good old days without giving up

too many of the bad new ones. The answer

is a comprehensive multidisciplinary study

to produce a giant holistic view. A disturbing

aspect of the systems-analysis approach is

the assumption that diversity is a real pro-

perty related to long-term stability in bio-

logical systems. This is implicit in some of

the remarks made during the conference.

This concept is, however, a point of conten-

tion among theoretical ecologists. Putting

this theoretical idea as a circuit into the

system may be simply holding something in

front of a mirror and getting the same pic-

ture back as held up. Thus, there is the dan-

ger of grinding a preconceived idea into the

system. What is stability? What is the age of

this system? It is a comparatively young

system—estuaries are young, they don’t last

very long in time. They fill up and disappear

or, if the sea level rises, they expand—that

might be a solution to all our problems. If

20 billion people were now on earth, the

earth would be heated up enough to melt

the ice without the need for power plants.

Estuaries may be old in an evolutionary

sense, but individual estuaries are not. The

Chesapeake is a mere few tens of thousands

of years old and perhaps never had time to

develop a natural system of diverse

ecological specialists, viz. coral reefs, tropical

rain forests, or even Antarctic bottom com-

munities, which are surprisingly diverse.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

I wonder if some diverse groupings are

not a sign of ecological senescence and in-

stability. Over-specialization may slow up a

process, like our civilization right now—

people able to turn only one knob or not

allowed to open the door to the furnace

room to open the furnace door—a carpen-

ter’s union must open the door to the fur-

nace room, or something similar. We don’t

know. Whatever the situation of ecological

theory and fancy, we shouldn’t forget we are

examining the Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps

when Homo sapiens var. pollutans arrived on

the scene, this Bay was just beginning to

stabilize in an ecological sense. It may have

been a few thousand or a few hundred

thousand years after the glacial period and

the Chesapeake Bay was beginning to settle

down and become less productive. It was

silty and very rich. Incidentally, very little is

given in the history of the country, espe-

cially for school boys, of the significance of

this area for the development of the United

States, i.e., sheltered harbors and abundant

fish and shellfish upon which the pioneers

were able to survive. True, the original set-

tlers also survived in New England, but what

a difference in the life there and here in

Chesapeake Bay.

Resedimenting the Bay perhaps kept it in

its productive state. The example of the

striped bass is a very interesting one, which

we ought to remember. The striped bass is a

remarkably hardy fish. Short of fishing them

all out of the Bay, there doesn’t seem to be

too much that you can do to them. Of

course, this may be a slight overstatement. It

is known that striped bass will not live in

still or slack water. They live in moving

water. The young striped bass in San Fran-

cisco Bay require a certain density or level of

total dissolved solids (a lovely sewage en-

gineers’ term).

About 100 years ago, some striped bass

were taken across North America in old

fashioned tank cars filled with cakes of ice.

The fish were dumped in San Francisco Bay

at a time when the sedimentary load de-

posited in the Bay was at its height due to

mining operations. Hydraulic mining was not

stopped in California until 1884; the

striped bass were naturalized natives by

219

1879. Here was an ecologically simple sys-

tem with “a big hole in it” in terms of

niches. The striped bass simply took it over.

We must keep this example in mind when we

hear striped bass are doing well in a dis-

turbed environment. At the same time we

must not be complacent about the present

state of affairs. Several speakers stated that

we cannot continue an uncontrolled modifi-

cation of our environment. Sooner or later

we come to the crunch. Other speakers said

we must face up to meeting our needs for

energy; we have got to keep moving. I failed

to hear anybody really say they thought pro-

gress was good, a very consoling thought for

me, since, as some of you know, I founded

the Society for the Prevention of Progress in

1944. We are slowly getting there, or at least

we now hear it clearly said that we must

recognize the error of our ways.

I do believe that the people of the Chesa-

peake Bay region are much ahead of those of

San Francisco Bay. I didn’t hear anybody

exhibit such a complete lack of understand-

ing of tidal hydraulics as demonstrated by

several people in the California State govern-

ment, where those in charge of the Califor-

nia Water Plan have no idea what an estuary

is all about.

In Oregon there is the Western Environ-

mental Trade Association, established about

2 weeks ago to offset ecological hysteria and

get rid of “ecological McCarthyism.” Mem-

bers include the leader of organized labor in

Oregon (a sad commentary on where they

stand in a conservative State), a newspaper

man, and a gentleman from Georgia Pacific.

A picture of the members of the Western

Environmental Trade Association appeared

in a newspaper. The picture reminded me of

a remark at an environmental meeting by the

economist Kenneth Boulding, who waved his

hand over the audience and said, ““Here we

talk about our needs for food and our over-

population problem. At least 59% of the

people in this room are overweight.”

Much has been said at this conference

-about highest and best use, benefits, “trade-

offs” etc., in terms suggesting we believe we

are the owners of this estuary. Enough was

not said about the problem of the entire

system, all 64,000 square miles of it.

220

Much information about temperature,

salinity, pesticides, metals, and enlightened

dredging policies has been given here. All of

it seemed assuring—at least no one is propos-

ing to turn off the water as they have threat-

ened to do in California. Yet the mere indi-

cation that most of what we have been

changing is still within tolerable limits does |

not tell the whole story, because living pro- |

cesses are subject to subtle pervasive factors |

and we could, as has been implied, destroy |

the whole system before we knew it. We

could suddenly wake up and find that 10 or

15 years ago something might have gone

wrong. It has been pointed out, for example,

that it took 50 years after the Erie Canal was

opened for migration of certain fishes

through the Canal to be accomplished, with

the consequent disruption of the ecology of

the Great Lakes.

This little matter of calefaction, as Dan —

Merriman called it in an article in the Scien-

tific American, merits comment. That term

means a bit of heat, a little warming up. Mer-

riman dredged that word out of the un-

abridged dictionary. I looked it up—it’s there

and I couldn’t help but realize that it had

the same stem as “malefactor” and is the

same kind of word. Well, perhaps in the Con-

necticut River the warming up by the Had-

dam’s Neck Plant hasn’t done much more

than be associated (we must use the scienti-

fic weasel words very carefully) with a

marasmus of catfish. I had to look that word

up as well, and it means wasting away. An

article written by Merriman was published in

the establishments’ establishment conven-

tion proceedings, the International Atomic

Energy Authority meeting in New York on

this same subject. It was a little less reas-

suring. Merriman did state that perhaps the

thermal loading of the Connecticut River

had about reached its limit—perhaps they

shouldn’t do any more (see Merriman, 1970,

1971).

The entire temperature cycle must be

considered. It may be logical to say that a

little jolt through a whole cycle keeps a nice

big, wide curve just a degree or so higher. A

couple of problems are involved with this.

At the peak of the curve a lethal limit for

many animals in the tropics, as well as in the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL, VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Chesapeake, is reached. At 34 to 35°C many

animals in nature will die. Thus in summer

the peak load of power plants in this area

occurs, since everybody has air conditioning.

We lived as a species for thousands of years

without air conditioning. In fact, the Consti-

tution of the United States was drawn up

over a long hot summer by people without

air conditioning. Perhaps cooling off our

brains is not good for us! I might mention

that power companies in the Pacific North-

west are trying to sell air conditioning in or-

der to get a more stable load situation. No-

body in Oregon needs air conditioning and

may even need electric heat sometimes in

cool summers. In any case, to return to the

subject at hand, a degree or two increase in

summer will be lethal for some organisms. It

is also possible that down in the lower ranges

where not much effect is noted (apparently

organisms are not killed), larval cycles may

be upset. In Chesapeake Science an article

suggests just this in the case of bivalve larvae

(see Kennedy and Mihursky, 1971). By some

rather small temperature changes, larvae de-

velop a little out of phase, emerging too

early for the food provided in the environ-

ment. It is little things like this that start the

bad cycles going—like picking out the bot-

tom can in the supermarket and the con-

founded pyramid collapses.

Biological processes do not fit engineering

design criteria, so we need these fluctuations

within limits, even if we don’t completely

understand them. Not mentioned during this

conference is the possibility that our experi-

mental protocol may have something to do

with our results, especially toxicity tests and

LD-50 answers obtained by placing animals

in tanks and running water through. The

tanks are kept as clean as possible and are

changed while maintaining a constant con-

centration of whatever is being tested. Thus

a system is set up that does not exist in na-

ture. It has already been demonstrated for

some tests with oyster and mussel larvae that

the lag time (so-called biological half-life) in

the laboratory is much less than it is in the

field (see Romeril, 1971). In other words, in

nature the animals don’t flush quite as rapid-'

ly as they may in laboratory tanks and we

are getting misleading answers. Animals may

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

not be quite as hardy under natural condi-

tions where the lag may be longer. This is

why we need to keep checking all these

things in the field.

Another little problem I was reminded of

by a question asked from the floor is that we

ought to try to avoid confusing people with

terminology. The hepatopancreas of a

shrimp is a very different organ from the

liver and pancreas of Homo sapiens. What

happens to the hepatopancreas of a shrimp

may have no relationship to what happens to

the liver of man. I am sure Dr. Sindermann

knows very well the confusion that has

arisen in the study of neoplasms, especially

of oysters, because, let us say, some non-

M.D. invertebrate pathologists applied what

they ill-remembered of mammalian histology

to oyster tissues. This can lead to very mis-

leading ideas.

It is my opinion that the real problem of

the Chesapeake Bay is people. I didn’t hear,

except delicately stated, that population

limitation is an answer. If we want to save

the Bay for the chosen few as a beautiful

environment, there must be fewer people—

that is the logic. People will have to be one

of the “trade-offs.”

We have spoken of some of the decisions

which will affect the next or following

generations. We are being affected by the de-

cisions made by the generation before us,

which is, then, the same problem. Our pa-

tient, the Chesapeake, does indeed have

many fine doctors and preventive medicine

should be possible.

A brief summary of what the real prob-

lems are was given us: (1) money; (2) a good

model (really meaning the need for an ade-

quate understanding of what is going on);

(3) a benevolent dictator; and (4) a change

in our social philosophy. Certainly we can-

not say, as some people have, that when it

comes to a choice between ecology and

people, ecology will have to go. Ecology is

simply a word for processes. It is not a fash-

ion like beards and strings of beads. What we

are really asking is how we can manage our-

selves so we can have both pelicans and

people, a value decision. It is obvious a good

life for pelicans and people is meant. It may

221

very well mean fewer people, as well as

fewer pelicans. To achieve this goal, we must

surrender a certain degree of sovereignty

over what we are doing, at least to nature.

An example is the San Francisco Bay situa-

tion where things were getting out of hand.

Approximately 49 governmental entities had

a finger in the pie; something had to be done

before San Francisco Bay was absolutely

filled up and subdivided, (the most irrevoc-

able change that can be made in an

estuary—fill it up and subdivide it). The in-

dustrial interests and the politicians have to

yield. Without the giving and yielding, the

Chesapeake will give and yield beyond its

capacity to regenerate.

It was my impression that the Honorable

Mr. Coulter stated that our concern is based

on a false sense of our own importance. An

irreversible change is not, therefore, desired.

We are trying to avoid that, but, at the same

time, we want to go home again, to para-

phrase Thomas Wolfe. The problem is that

within the last 25 years we have developed

the capacity to change the environment ex-

ponentially. Our enemy is the complacent

accpetance of, “we just have to keep grow-

ing.” Mr. Coulter didn’t say this as such, be-

cause as an officer of the State of Maryland

he couldn’t, but somebody had to run this

system. He did say we need the ability to

assemble and display data and this implies a

central situation, a sort of war room for

operations, so we can all see what is going

on, .e., a physical locus as well as some sort

of controlling entity for the 64,000 square

miles of the drainage area. Where is the pen-

tagon of power to rule the Bay? It sounds as

if the Army Corps of Engineers wants to do

the job. This may be what you want and if

so, it’s your decision. I don’t feel that a

physical model will answer all the questions.

I am sure that Col. Prentiss doesn’t believe it

either, but I am a little less optimistic about

the model than he is. With the discussion of

decisions and trade-offs, you should examine

the implications of the Chesapeake Study

very carefully. The big model and its central

command post is a glittering package but

needs very careful consideration. Some way

should be found for the people concerned

222

with the Chesapeake area to have a voice in

deciding whether the Army should take

them over and run the Chesapeake Bay for

them or whether they should have a differ-

ent kind of entity. I hope it’s realized this is

a matter of governmental decisions, of in-

voking the democratic process. I feel a little

uneasy when I’m confronted with an implied

take-over.

I shall not attempt to summarize for the

last 2 speakers. Dr. Seliger summarized some

things himself, but I did get a little con-

cerned in hearing Mr. Holm’s discussion of

oil—a great amoeboid movement of oil and

huge tankers in deep channels in the Bay.

Again, who is making the decision? He did

say that local interests seek the tax dollar,

which influences their decisions. Decisions

are coming, perhaps in the United States Su-

preme Court and certainly they have come

up in State courts, that are going to make

this local thirst for tax dollars a bit aca-

demic, especially for schools that have to be

equalized over a State-wide basis. This may,

I hope, do away with some of the rather

thirsty governmental types, who have the

highest motives—dispassionate and disin-

terested—yet viewing all the lovely tax dol-

lars in their coffers as a gain for the best

interests of the people.

Postscript

Although I did not suggest that there

should be an end to the State of Maryland,

and I have no quarrel with the idea that it

should last a thousand years, I would like to

emphasize that if it is the preservation and/

or continued utilization of an ecosystem like

the Chesapeake that concerns us, we cannot

expect to attain such a goal with a system of

governing our actions in relation to the eco-

system without some respect for the needs

of the system itself. In short, an ecosystem

must be ordered and husbanded within its

own terms. Unfortunately, human political

jurisdictions and limitations are too often

anti-ecological in their ultimate impact.

Maryland can exist for a millenium, but too

much insistence on simply existing may as-

sure the death of the Chesapeake long before

that time. It seems unfortunate that we ap-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

parentiy have competing forces in rivalry for

largesse from the federal treasury in order to

obtain the power and the glory of doing the

research. Often these involve some of the

same people or at least the same organiza-

tions sitting in somewhat different chairs

around slightly different tables. Finally, with

respect to the very large and expensive

model proposed by the Corps of Engineers,

the question was asked and not really

answered about the capacity of this model

to elucidate ecological impacts. I might raise

a parting question in this context: Will such

a model be capable of making an empirical

demonstration of the hypothesis that oyster

larvae move upstream along the boundary re-

gion or zone of “no net motion?” In other

words, can we test hypotheses of larval dis-

persion as related to density differences and

similar situations? We might finally ask, how

will the inherent properties of a model of

this size as opposed to the system to be

modeled be adjusted to predict the real

world?

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

References Cited

Bergoffin, W. (ed). 1971. Conference Report.

Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay.

The working conference University of Mary-

land, College Park, Maryland, September

16-18, 1971. National Resources Institute.

University of Maryland, NRI Reference

71-77, 86 pp. (mimeo).

Kennedy, V.S., and J.A. Mihursky. 1971. Up-

per temperature tolerances of some es-

tuarine bivalves. Chesapeake Sci. 12(4):

193-204.

Merriman, D. 1970. The calefaction of a river.

Sci. Amer. 222(5): 42-52.

1971. Does industrial cale-

faction jeopardize the ecosystem of a long

tidal river? Symposium on Environmental

Aspects of Nuclear Power Stations, Interna-

tional Atomic Energy Agency, United Na-

tions, pp. 507-533, S figs.

Romeril, M.G. 1971. The uptake and distribu-

tion of 65ZN in oysters. Marine Biol. 9:

347-354, 5 figs.

223

ACADEMY AFFAIRS

SCIENTISTS RECEIVE ACADEMY’S ANNUAL AWARDS

Awards for outstanding scientific achieve-

ment were conferred on five research

scientists at the annual awards dinner meet-

ing of the Academy on March 16 at the Cos-

mos Club.

The scientists honored were W. French

Anderson of the National Institutes of

Health in the biological sciences, O.W.

Greenberg of the University of Maryland in

the physical sciences, C. Nicholas Pryor of

the Naval Ordnance Laboratory in the en-

gineering sciences, Alfred Gray of the

University of Maryland in mathematics, and

Gart Westerhout of the University of Mary-

land in the teaching of science.

Award winners were introduced by

Donald S. Fredrickson, Director of Intra-

mural Research, National Heart and Lung In-

stitute, National Institutes of Health; John

S. Toll, President of the State University of

New York at Stony Brook; G.K. Hartman,

Technical Director of the Naval Ordnance

Laboratory; and Charles Bishop, Chancellor

of the University of Maryland.

The Academy’s awards program was ini-

tiated in 1939 to recognize young scientists

of the area for “noteworthy discovery, ac-

complishment, or publication” in the bio-

logical, physical and engineering sciences. An

award for outstanding teaching was added in

1955, and another for mathematics in 1959.

Except in teaching, where no age limit is set,

candidates for awards must be under 40. Pre-

vious award winners are listed at the end of

this article.

Biological Sciences

W. French Anderson was cited “for the

first successful isolation of human messenger

RNA from diseased human cells.”

224

Dr. Anderson has been studying the

mechanism of protein synthesis in mam-

malian cells for several years and has been

investigating hemoglobin synthesis in rabbit

and human red blood cells, both normal and

diseased. In 1968 he showed that the rate

that proteins are synthesized in the cell

could be influenced by the numbers and

types of transfer RNA molecules within the

cell. He then turned his attention to develop-

ing a cell-free protein-synthesizing system

W. French Anderson

which could actively initiate the synthesis of

new hemoglobin chains. During these investi-

gations he succeeded in isolating and char-

acterizing three initiation factors (called M,,

M,, and M3) from mammalian red blood

cells (reticulocytes). These protein factors

are required for starting the synthesis of new

polypeptide chains. Over the past 2% years,

Dr. Anderson and his colleagues have been

able to determine many of the properties as

well as the biological function of these initia-

tion factors. Many other laboratories around

the world are now isolating initiation factors

from various types of higher organisms using

the techniques originally developed by the

Anderson group.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Utilizing the initiation factors, Dr. Ander-

son and his coworkers succeeded in develop-

ing a completely fractionated cell-free sys-

tem which was able to synthesize complete

chains of hemoglobin. The basic technique

was simple: fractionate the red blood cell

into each of the many components required

in protein synthesis, then add all the com-

pounds back together in the right way and

incubate the mixture. This system has been

described in a series of papers published in

Journal of Biological Chemistry, Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences, and

Nature. In the November, 1971, issue of Pro-

ceedings is a paper culminating much of this

work: the precise requirements for the

synthesis of complete hemoglobin chains

utilizing isolated and purified messenger

RNA.

Concurrent with his studies on the rabbit

red blood cell, Dr. Anderson carried out in-

vestigations with blood from patients suffer-

ing various types of hemolytic anemias. He

was able to develop cell-free systems from

human red blood cells capable of synthe-

sizing human hemoglobin chains in a manner

similar to that of intact cells. He then inves-

tigated the molecular defect in the synthesis

of hemoglobin found in the human heredi-

tary anemia called 6-thalassemia. This is a

genetic anemia which, in the homozygous

state, is usually lethal in the first decade of

life. Patients require blood transfusions

every 6-8 weeks to sustain life from the age

of one year. Dr. Anderson and his laboratory

were able to fractionate the red blood cells

from patients with G-thalassemia and were

able to substitute normal cell components

one at a time for the thalassemic compo-

nents in the cell-free system. As a result of

these studies, Dr. Anderson was able to

demonstrate that the molecular defect in

B-thalassemia had to reside in the ribosome-

messenger RNA portion of the cell. He then

succeeded in isolating the messenger RNA

from the thalassemic cells, as well as from

normal human cells, and was able to demon-

strate that the molecular defect in the gene-

tic disease B-thalassemia could be reproduced

in the test tube utilizing only the messenger

RNA from the diseased cell with all other

components from normal cells. This is the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

first time that a human genetic disease has

been reproduced in the test tube by utilizing

just the defective molecule from the diseased

cell in an otherwise normal system. Similar

studies have been successful in isolating

messenger RNA from sickle cell anemia pa-

tients and reproducing the synthesis of the

defective hemoglobin S in the test tube. It

has also been shown that both thalassemic

and sickle cell anemia cells will synthesize

normal human hemoglobin in response to

normal human messenger RNA.

Dr. Anderson was born in Tulsa, Okla-

homa, December 31, 1936. He received his

A.B. degree, magna cum laude, from Harvard

College in 1958; an M.A. degree with honors

from Cambridge University, (England), in

1960; and an M.D. degree, magna cum laude,

from Harvard Medical School in 1963. He

interned at Children’s Hospital Medical Cen-

ter (Boston, Massachusetts) in 1963-4 and

was a postdoctoral fellow in the Department

of Bacteriology and Immunology at Harvard

Medical School, 1964-5. Since 1965 he has

worked in Biochemical Genetics at the Na-

tional Heart Institute, N.I.H., Bethesda,

Maryland. At present he is Head, Section on

Molecular Hematology, Molecular Disease

Branch, National Heart and Lung Institute,

N.LH.

Physical Sciences

O.W. Greenberg was cited “for contribu-

tions to the understanding of the spectra of

elementary particles.” Professor Greenberg

has made several outstanding contributions

to the theory of elementary-particle and

high-energy physics. One very significant

contribution was his development of a quark

model for baryon resonances. This was a

simple and elegant extension and modifica-

tion of the idea, first introduced by Gell-

Mann, that baryons, heavy subnuclear parti-

cles including protons and neutrons, were

built up out of more “elementary” constitu-

ents called quarks. Professor Greenberg

showed, in a series of papers over a three-

year period, how this theory could be made

more realistic and more attractive. He

demonstrated that the Pauli Exclusion Prin-

ciple would not be violated for quarks and

pointed out that dozens of baryon excited

225

states could be described in a simple way

using the same quark constituents. Quarks

have not yet been found experimentally, but

the success and plausability of the quark

model leads experimentalists to search for

them in each new energy range that becomes

available.

O.W. Greenberg

Professor Greenberg has also shown a

great critical sense. He analyzed in depth the

concept of parastatistics, a sype of particle

statistics different from the usual Fermi-

Dirac or Bose-Einstein statistics that were in-

troduced in the 1920’s. With a sophisticated

analysis of a very large amount of experi-

mental data, he and Professor Messiah

showed that no known particles could obey

this kind of statistics. An additional signifi-

cant critical contribution was his timely

paper that showed that space-time sym-

metries and internal symmetries could not

be coupled in any simple way. (This paper

was reproduced in a book on “Symmetry

Groups in Nuclear and Particle Physics”

edited by F.J. Dyson.)

He first came to the attention of the

theoretical physics community by a brilliant

work with Professor F.E. Low in 1961 that

established rigorous high-energy limits for

scattering cross-sections of any two particles.

He has made many other interesting and im-

portant contributions in the field of scatter-

ing theory, both from the very abstract

rigorous approach and from a rather practi-

cal approach with which he introduced a

new quantum mechanical approximation

technique. He is a brilliant lecturer and has

guided many students in their Ph.D. disserta-

tions.

226

O.W. Greenberg was born in 1932 in New

York City. Following his undergraduate

training at Rutgers University, where he was

elected to Phi Beta Kappa, Dr. Greenberg

entered Princeton University where he was

awarded the Ph.D. degree in 1957. A holder

of an NSF postdoctoral fellowship at MIT,

he proceeded to serve as a physics instructor

at Brandeis Univeristy until 1961. Dr. Green-

berg became Assistant Professor of Physics

at the University of Maryland in 1961,

achieving the rank of Professor of Physics in

1967, a position he now holds. He is the

recipient of an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship, a -

John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Fellow-

ship, and recently was elected a Fellow of

the Physical Society.

Engineering Sciences

C. Nicholas Pryor was cited “for out-

standing contributions to the field of signal

processing.” Dr. Pryor is the U.S. Naval

Ordnance Laboratory’s Program Manager of

the Airborne Signal Processing WEPTASK as

well as being NOL’s inhouse expert in the

general field of signal processing.

During the past two years, Dr. Pryor has

been heavily involved in Vietnam-oriented

programs, the most significant of which was

his work in the field of intrusion-detection

devices. Because of his unusual talent and

C. Nicholas Pryor

grasp of all aspects of signal processing, he

was able to diagnose a specific problem and

generate a unique solution. Under his direc-

tion, a group of young engineers did all the

experimental work, construction, and final

testing within a period of less than a year.

His design has been accepted by the Navy

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

and assigned for production to one of the

largest electronic companies.

Dr. Pryor’s ancillary duties include teach-

ing courses at the University of Maryland

and Catholic University, serving as an advisor

to NOL employees who are pursuing ad-

vanced degrees in Electrical Engineering, and

serving in a staff capacity in NOL’s MIT Co-

op Program by teaching courses and direct-

ing Master’s thesis research. He is also a fre-

quent speaker in the Laboratory’s Lecture

Bureau, which supplies speakers for techni-

cal presentations to colleges and universities

across the nation.

One of Dr. Pryor’s noteworthy achieve-

ments is his contribution to the new air-

borne anti-submarine warfare system (DI-

FAR), which is of critical importance to the

Navy. Parallel development contracts were

let to two very large companies so that there

would be competitive bidding for the pro-

duction contract for the system. Dr. Pryor,

designated to follow the technical progress

of these efforts, was able to determine that

one of the companies would be in serious

trouble if it did not drastically change its

approach. Recognizing the validity of over

twenty specific recommendations by Dr.

Pryor, the company accepted them and re-

gained its competitive status. On the basis of

the low production bid later submitted by

this company, Dr. Pryor’s work on this pro-

ject was very instrumental in saving the

government in excess of 100 million dollars.

The true measure of Dr. Pryor’s excep-

tional career is brought out by his original

contributions to the theory and design of

automatic digital electronic trackers, tran-

sistorized post integrators, digital filters, the

utilization of large digital computers to sim-

ulate multiplier correlators and learning

machines, and, recently, the successful de-

sign and development of a small digital sim-

ulator and computer (DISAC) from com-

mercially available logical building blocks

and accessory input-output equipment.

DISAC has been used successfully in the

quantitative evaluation of a large ASW fire

control sonar in the laboratory. This com-

puter is of his conception. He either de-

signed or supervised the design of all the

logic circuits in the computation sections.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

He provided the specifications for all of the

input-output equipment and the computer

memory and solved all of the interface prob-

lems associated with the computer. He per-

sonally completed much of the documenta-

tion on design, prepared instructions for its

use, and developed a programming system

oriented to problems in signal processing.

C. Nicholas Pryor had an exceptional col-

lege record at MIT where he graduated from

the 5-year cooperative electrical engineering

program in June 1960 (BS and MS degrees)

with a 4.9 average out of a possible 5-point

average. During the course of his studies at

MIT, Dr. Pryor became interested in the

work of NOL, and initially entered on duty

at the Laboratory as an MIT Co-op student

in September 1957. He served in this capa-

city until February 1958; and subsequently

was employed as a Co-op student from June

to September 1958, February to June 1959,

and June to September 1959. Following his

graduation, Dr. Pryor came to the Naval

Ordnance Laboratory in June 1960. Since

then his advancement has been rapid. He has

received numerous performance awards, in-

cluding seven Superior Accomplishment

awards for inventions. In 1961 he received a

Meritorious Civilian Service Award for “‘con-

tributions to the improvement of submarine

trackers, post integrators, digital filters and,

in particular, to the successful utilization of

the NOL digital computer to simulate a

learning machine for ASW application.” Dr.

Pryor has 29 NOL technical reports and

memoranda and 3 publications in Navy

journals to his credit. He has also published

numerous magazine articles (electronics and

flying subjects) over the period 1957 to

present.

Mathematics

Alfred Gray was cited “for fundamental

research in differential geometry.” Professor

Gray had done significant work in two areas

of mathematics, in the theory of entire func-

tions of a complex variable, and in differen-

tial geometry.

His work on entire functions (done joint-

ly with Professor S.M. Shah) centered on a

conjecture of P. Erdos that u(r)/M(r) has a

limit as r increases, where u(r) and M(r) are

227

the maximum term and the maximum

modulus of an entire function. Gray and

Shah succeeded in establishing this conjec-

ture in many interesting cases, though in full

generality the conjecture turned out to be

incorrect.

Alfred Gray

In differential geometry his work has

centered in four areas: almost complex

manifolds, holonomy groups, relations be-

tween curvature operators, and characteristic

classes and symmetric spaces.

Aside from the classical types of almost

complex manifolds—Kahler and Hermitian—

Dr. Gray has shown that there are several

other types of interesting almost complex

manifolds. He has extended to these mani-

folds a large number of results about the

cohomology of Kahler manifolds, and in a

joint paper with J. Wolfe he has given amny

interesting examples of nearly Kahler mani-

folds.

In the course of his work on describing

the holonomy groups of Riemannian mani-

folds, Dr. Gray has shown the significance of

vector cross products on manifolds which

generalize to higher dimensional manifolds

the ordinary vector cross product of elemen-

tary physics. He has extensively investigated

the relations between vector cross products,

non-associative algebras, holonomy groups

and obstruction theory. A very readable ex-

position of the elementary theory of vector

_cross products may be found in his paper

with R.B. Brown, Vectors cross products,

Comment. Math. Helv. 42:226-236 (1967).

Professor Gray has made several interest-

ing contributions to the problems of

describing topological properties of Rieman-

228

nian manifolds by means of its curvature

operator. The importance of results of this

type is that the formulas for topological in-

variants in terms of the curvature are inde-

pendent of the particular choice of the

metric.

Dr. Gray has recently prepared for pub- |

lication an excellent paper on homogeneous

spaces, “‘Riemannian manifolds with

geodesic symmetries of order 3.” A Rieman- ©

nian manifold with a geodesic symmetry of |

order 2 is called a symmetric space. Such

spaces were first studied by E. Cartan, who

classified them in terms of irreducible

symmetric spaces, which are homogeneous.

These spaces are so important that many

mathematicians today study them exclusive-

ly. In his paper, Dr. Gray completely classi-

fied all Riemannian manifolds with geodesic

symmetries of order 3. Hence, using his

paper, it may be possible to generalize many ©

theorems about symmetric spaces to this —

setting.

Alfred Gray was born in Dallas, Texas on

October 22, 1939. He received his BA degree

in 1960 from the University of Kansas and

his M.A. from the same University in 1961.

In 1964 he received his Ph.D. from the Uni-

versity of California at Los Angeles. He was

an NDEA Fellow at the University of Kansas

from 1960 to 1961. From 1961 until 1964

he was an NSF Fellow and Research Fellow

at U.C.L.A. From 1964 until 1968 he was at

the University of California at Berkeley as

Instructor, NSF Postdoctoral Fellow, and

Assistant Professor. In 1968, he came to the

Mathematics Department of the Unviersity

of Maryland, where he now holds the rank

of Professor. He is a member of many pro-

fessional and honorary societies, including

AMS, MAA, AWM, Phi Beta Kappa, Sigma

Xi, and Pi MuEpsilon. Dr. Gray is the author

of more than thirty papers.

Teaching of Science

Gart Westerhout was cited “for contribu-

tion to the teaching, appreciation and public

enjoyment of astronomy.” Dr. Westerhout

has been instrumental in the creation and

building of the Astronomy Program of the

University of Maryland. It was begun only in

1962, and by 1970 had taken a place among

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

the top ten graduate astronomy programs in

the periodic survey by the American Council

on Education. The Program has already

granted 18 Ph.D.’s, 26 Master of Science de-

grees, and 17 BS. degrees in its short 9 years

of existence. There are currently 60 graduate

students and 50 undergraduate majors en-

rolled.

Gart Westerhaut

Among the undergraduates on the cam-

pus, however, the Astronomy Program is

better known for two things, both Professor

Westerhout’s creations. The first is

Astronomy 100, his course in Astronomy

for the non-scientist, and the second is the

highly popular Open House at the Observa-

tory.

At the University of Maryland, every stu-

dent is required to take at least one course in

a physical science, however reluctantly. The

overwhelming choice of a majority of stu-

dents is Astronomy 100, which has grown in

enrollment from 150 students in 1963-64 to

3,500 students enrolled in 1970-71. This is

largely a result of Dr. Westerhout’s concep-

tion of the course as a vehicle for stressing

the methods of science and what it is like to

be a scientist, as well as a subject matter

general enough for even the most non-

scientifically oriented student.

The success of the course is primarily a

reflection of Professor Westerhout’s concep-

tion of the teaching role of the Department

and the University. It is significant that he

has made one of his principal interests the

development of a course for non-scientists.

He stresses strongly the idea that his Depart-

ment should be concerned not only with the

students who come to it for specialized

training, but equally in educating and pro-

viding a cultural resource for the entire com-

munity.

In the same spirit is the bimonthly Open

House at the Observatory. The University

Observatory is primarily a teaching facility,

and Professor Westerhout has successfully

turned it into a community resource as well.

Twice a month the Observatory is open to

visitors from within and outside the Uni-

versity for viewing celestial objects and short

discourses on Astronomy. These have been

enormously popular; on a recent clear night

there were 600 visitors, long lines, and a ma-

jor traffic jam on Metzerott Road.

Dr. Westerhout was born June 15, 1927

in The Hague, Netherlands, and received his

doctor’s degree in Astronomy and Physics

from the University of Leiden in 1958. He

was the Chief Scientific Officer, Leiden Ob-

servatory from 1956 to 1962 and Professor

and Director of Astronomy at the University

of Maryland from 1962 to the present. Dr.

Westerhout is a member of the Dutch

Astronomical Society, the Royal Astro-

nomical Society, the International Astro-

nomical Union, the American Astronomical

Society, the Astronomical Society of the

Pacific, the Scientific Radio Union, Sigma

Xi, and NATO Fellowship—1959. He is the

author of more than 40 publications.

Past Winners of Scientific Achievement Awards

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

1939 Herbert Friedman 1952

1940 No award given

1941 G. Arthur Cooper

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Ernest A. Lachner

1953 Bernard L. Horecker

1954 Leon Jacobs

1962 Marshall W. Nirenberg

1963 Brian J. McCarthy

1964 Bruce N. Ames

229

230

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1951

Past Winners of Scientific Achievement Awards (Continued)

Robert S. Campbell

Jason R. Swallen

Norman H. Topping

Henry K. Townes

Waldo R. Wedel

No award given

Robert J. Huebner

Edward G. Hampp

David H. Dunkle

Edward W. Baker

Paul A. Smith

Harry Diamond

Theodore R. Gilliland

Walter Ramberg

Lloyd V. Berkner

Galen B. Schubauer

Kenneth L. Sherman

Martin A. Mason

Harry W. Wells

Maxwell K. Goldstein

Richard K. Cook

Wilmot H. Bradley

Ferdinand G. Brickwedde

Sterling B. Hendricks

Milton Harris

Lawrence A. Wood

George A. Gamow

Robert Simha

G. W. Irving, Jr.

Robert D. Huntoon

J. A. Van Allen

John A. Hipple

Philip H. Abelson

Milton S. Schechter

Harold Lyons

Geoffrey S.S. Ludford

Philip J. Davis

Lawrence E. Payne

Bruce L. Reinhart

James H. Bramble

Helen N. Cooper

Phoebe H. Knipling

Dale E. Gerster

Carol V. McCammon

Betty Schaaf

Helen Garstens

Karl F. Herzfeld

Pauline Diamond

1955 Clifford Evans

Betty J. Meggers

Robert Traub

Earl Reese Stadtman

Maurice R. Hilleman

Ellis T. Bolton

H. George Mandel

Dwight W. Taylor

Louis S. Baron

Robert W. Krauss

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

ENGINEERING SCIENCES

1950 Samuel Levy

1951 Max A. Kohler

1952 William R. Campbell

1953 Robert L. Henry

1954 W.S. Pellini

1955 Arthur E. Bonney

1956 M.L. Greenough

1957 Joseph Weber

1958 San-fu Shen

1959

1960

PHYSICAL SCIENCES

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

Romald E. Bowles

John R. Pellam

Samual N. Foner

Terrell Leslie Hill

Elias Burstein

Ernest Ambler

Raymond Hayward

Dale Hoppes

Ralph P. Hudson

Lewis M. Branscomb

Meyer Rubin

Alan C. Kolb

Richard A. Ferrell

John Hoffman

Edward A. Mason

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

MATHEMATICS

1964 David W. Fox

1965 Joan R. Rosenblatt

1966 George H. Weiss

Marvin Zelen

1967 Leon Greenberg

TEACHING OF SCIENCE

1961 Ralph D. Myers

Charles R. Naeser

1962 Francis J. Heyden, S.J.

1963 Frank T. Davenport

George M. Koehl

Leo Schubert

1964 Donald F. Brandewie

Herman R. Branson

Harvey R. Chaplin, Jr.

1965 Gordon M. Tomkins

1966 James L. Hilton

1967 Marie M. Cassidy

Charles S. Tidball

1968 Janet W. Hartley

1969 Maxine F. Singer

1970 Glenn W. Patterson

1971 W. French Anderson

1961 Rodney E. Grantham

1962 Lindell E. Steele

1963 Gordon L. Dugger

1964 Thorndike Saville, Jr.

1965 Ronald E. Walker

1966 Henry H. Plotkin

1967 Robert D. Cutkosky

1968 Charles R. Gunn

1969 Thomas E. McGunigal

1970 Robert L. Dedrick

1971 C. Nicholas Pryor

1963 George A. Snow

1964 James W. Butler

1965 Albert L. Schindler

Robert P. Madden

Keith Codling

1966 Robert W. Zwanzig

1967 Charles W. Misner

1968 Marilyn E. Jacox

Dolphus E. Milligan

1969 W. Kent Ford, Jr.

1970 Edwin C. Becker

Thomas C. Farrar

1971 O.W. Greenberg

1968 Joseph Auslander

1969 William W. Adams

1970 Alan J. Goldman

1971 Alfred Gray

1965 Irving Lindsay

Stephen H. Schot

1966 Martha L. Walsh

1967 Raymond A. Galloway

1968 Kelso B. Morris

1969 John Fowler

1970 William W. Dunkum

1971 Gart Westerhaut

TEACHING OF SCIENCE SPECIAL AWARDS

Howard B. Owens

1952 Keith C. Johnson

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

BOARD OF MANAGERS MEETING NOTES

February, 1972

The 618th meeting of the Board of Man-

agers of the Washington Academy of

Sciences was called to order by President

Robbins at 8:10 p.m. on February 10, 1972

in the Conference room of the Lee Bldg. at

FASEB.

Announcements .—President Robbins ob-

served that the Board members had received

copies of the minutes of the 617th meeting

and that each member was probably familiar

with the contents. After inviting corrections

or comments and hearing none she declared

the minutes to be accepted as prepared.

New delegates have been appointed from

three societies that change officers on a

calendar-year basis. Dr. Lewis F. Affronti re-

places Dr. Rita R. Colwell for the American

Society for Microbiology, Dr. Edward E.

Beasley replaces Dr. L. Marton for the Philo-

sophical Society of Washington, and Dr.

Charles Milton replaces Dr. Ralph Miller for

the Geological Society of Washington.

Dr. Robbins acknowledged receiving a

copy of Dr. R.K. Cook’s letter to Dr. Ripley

thanking him for an appointment to the Ad-

visory Committee of the AAAS Meeting in

Washington in December 1972.

A contribution of $100 has been received

from the IEEE.

Dr. Alfred Weissier has agreed to chair an

ad hoc committee to determine the interests

of the local universities in an award for an

undergraduate college student. He will select

other members for the committee.

Dr. Irving A. Berger has resigned from the

Joint Board on Science Education due to

reasons of health.

Dr. Robbins expressed concern that there

has been no concerted effort to recruit

members or to identify candidates for

fellow. A much larger membership is essen-

tial to the maintenance of the office services

and facilities. She will appoint a committee

on membership promotion; however, she

asked everyone to try to exceed her goal of

five new fellows sponsored by herself.

Policy Planning.—Dr. Stern stated that

the American Congress on Surveying and

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

Mapping has inquired about but has not

formally applied for affiliation.

Treasurer's Report.—Dr. Honig provided

the members with a tabulation of receipts

and of expenses for the calendar years 1969,

1970, and 1971. Included were budgeted

values for 1971 and proposed values for

1972. After considerable discussion it was

moved and seconded that the financial re-

port be accepted. It was accepted by voice

vote. Discussion on the proposed budget

concerned the basis of agreements for shar-

ing the expenses of operating the office, the

cash flow problem indicative of our opera-

tion on next years income, and the possibili-

ty of receiving a grant to help defray part of

the expenses of Symposium II. Subsequently

there was a motion by Dr. Cook, a second

by Mr. Gaum, and a voice vote to approve

the budget.

Membership.—Chairman Landis’ written

report showed that of the new delegates, Dr.

Affronti and Dr. Milton, were already mem-

bers of the Academy, but by virtue of being

delegates all three were candidates for Fel-

low of the Academy. Following a motion by

Dr. Boek, a second by Dr. Foote, and a voice

vote, the delegates were elected to be Fel-

lows. Mr. Landis’ report included the nomi-

nations of three candidates for Fellow. The

first reading of the report was accomplished.

Dr. Benjamin L. Snavely requested reinstate-

ment as an active fellow and paid his back

dues. Mr. Detwiler and Dr. Cook initiated a

motion for Dr. Snavely’s reinstatement. It

was approved.

Dr. Robbins acknowledged that there has

been an oversight of the formality to be fol-

lowed in the election of new delegates to be

Fellows. Last fall the formality was not fol-

lowed at the time Mrs. Elsie DuPre, Mr. Carl

H. Gaum, and Dr. Conrad B. Link were in-

troduced. Upon a motion by Dr. Cook and a

second by Dr. Sailer, an affirmative vote by

the delegates accomplished the procedure.

Meetings.—In the absence of Dr. Irving,

Dr. Robbins stated that Dr. E.E. Saulmon

would speak at the February meeting at

Georgetown University. The March meeting

231

would be the occasion for Awards for Scien-

tific Achievement.

Scientific Achievement .—Chairman Dick-

son announced the following award winners

for 1971: Biological Sciences, W. French

Anderson; Physical Sciences, O.W. Green-

berg; Engineering Sciences, C. Nicholas

Pryor; Mathematics, Alfred Gray; Teaching

of Science, Gart Westerhout.

Symposium IT.—Dr. Colwell has met with

her committee prior to the meeting of the

Board of Managers. She spoke briefly of the

accomplishments, the large attendance, and

the evidence of increased interest of the

scientific community in additional symposia

sponsored by the Washington Academy of

Sciences. She urged that plans for Sym-

posium III for next year be started at once.

AAAS Counci#—Dr. Cook reported on

proposed changes in the constitution of

AAAS that would reduce the size of the

Council. Also that the national meetings

probably will not be held at Christmastime

after this year. He expressed hope that he

would continue to work with the ad hoc

committee until the Christmas meetings

were over.

Editor.—Dr. Foote stated that the June

issue of the Journal would contain the

232

papers presented at the Symposium, that all

speakers have been contacted, and that five

manuscripts are now ready to edit.

Joint Board on Science Education.—In —

the absence of Dr. Oswald, Dr. Robbins re-

ported that letters had been sent to previous |

donors and to prospective new donors, re- —

questing donations to support the current

programs of the JBSE.

New Business.—Dr. Boek inquired about

the selection of the Areas for Awards for

Scientific Achievement. She desired that an

award be considered for outstanding work in

Anthropology. The opinion was expressed

that the committee had authority to

recommend special awards in other areas.

Stimulated by a comment by Dr. Foote,

discussion generated the proposal that the |

new committee on membership promotion ~

establish follow-through procedures that will

hasten the processing of membership appli-

cations and fellow nominations.

Dr. Noyes expressed concern that the

Symposium issues of the Journal were not

selling fast enough. Several suggestions

pointed to the desirability of his working

with Dr. Foote to promote the sale of the

Journal.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 2, 1972

- General

Type manuscripts on white bond paper

either 8% by 11 or 8 by 10% inches. Double

space all lines, including those in abstracts,

tables, legends, quoted matter, acknowledg-

ments, and references cited. Number pages

consecutively. Place your name and com-

plete address in the upper right hand corner

of the title page.

Title, Author, and Affiliation

Page 1 of your manuscript should contain

only this information and your name and

address. Choose a concise but complete and

meaningful title. In research papers con-

cerning biological subjects, include an indi-

cation of the order and family of the taxa

discussed. Academic degrees will not nor-

mally be included unless the author so

specifies. If possible, combine your affilia-

tion and mailing address (including Zip) so

that readers can write to you directly.

Abstract

Type on a separate sheet at the end of the

manuscript. Make the abstract intelligible

without reference to the text of the paper.

Write an informative digest of the significant

content and conclusions, not a mere descrip-

tion. Generally, the abstract should not ex-

ceed 3% of the text.

Footnotes

Use footnotes as sparingly as possible.

Number text footnotes consecutively with

Arabic numerals and type them on a sepa-

rate sheet of paper at the end of the manu-

script. Type table footnotes, if any, below

each pertinent table on the same page.

Illustrations and Legends

The quality of all original illustrations

must be high enough to facilitate good offset

reproduction. They should have ample mar-

gins and be drawn on heavy stock or

fastened to stiff cardboard to prevent bend-

ing. They should be proportioned to column

(1 x 3) or page (2 x 3): type-dimensions,

leaving space for legend material. Photo-

JOURNAL OF THE WASHINGTON ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Instructions to Contributors

graphs should have a glossy finish. They re-

produce best when the contrast is fairly

high. Identify each illustration with number

and author in light pencil marks on the

reverse side. Submit all illustrations sepa-

rately — please do not glue or clip them to

the pages of the manuscript.

Do not type or write legends directly on

the illustrations. Type legends on a separate

sheet or sheets at the end of the manuscript.

Indicate where you want illustrations to

appear in the printed paper by writing the

figure numbers lightly in the text margins,

and be sure that each figure is properly re-

ferenced in the text itself. Original “art” will

be returned only at the author’s request and

expense.

Tables

Include tables only when the same infor-

mation cannot be presented economically in

the text, or when a table presents the data in

a more meaningful way. Consider preparing

extremely complicated tabular matter in a

form suitable for direct reproduction as an

illustration. In such cases, the use of the

typewriter is not recommended.

References to Literature

Limit references within the text and in

synonymies to author and year (and page if

needed). In a “Reference Cited” section, list

alphabetically by senior author only those

papers you have included in the text. Like-

wise, be sure all the text references are

listed. Type the “References Cited” section

on a separate sheet after the last page of

text. Abbreviations should follow the USA

Standard for Periodical Title Abbreviations,

Z39.5-1963.

Submission of Manuscripts

Send completed manuscripts and sup-

porting material to the Academy office (see

address inside front cover) in care of the

Editor. Authors will be requested to read

Xerox “proofs” and invited to submit re-

print orders prior to publication.

Reprints - Prices for reprints may be obtained on request.

Research to Counter the Threats to Chesapeake Bay —Opening Remarks

Academy Affairs:

CONTENTS (Continued from Front Cover)

RITA R= COLWELE: Opening Remarks) is -hetei care seine ee) eae 169

JAMES BY COULTER: Researchiand! Decisions » 32). ie) ale ene enna eee 170

JEROME WILLIAMS: Physical-Chemical Crisis Indicators—

Are. There’ Any?) «tte saneet how a, anrd eleecewentuc! 6 ie os ells crn gsecate meee ae 174

CARL J. SINDERMANN: Some Biological Indicators of Marine

Environmental Depradation| ji 75 pci.) ee eet «ee tellin ens) ulster enteee 184

LOUIS W. PRENTISS, JR.: The Corps of Engineers Chesapeake

Baye Stu dy: 3 20 a aces hives ' cows, ts falceslican. odcay efeitos cone este aciteito cahoots fe Rea ee 190

HOWARD SELIGER: Interdisciplinary Research in Chesapeake Bay ...... 196

EDWIN E. HOLM: Certainties and Uncertainties in Economic

Development as they Relate to the Future of

Chesapeake; Bay. 5 actos: cece ie eke «6 sacl Gran eites een ctepen se Site elena team 202

QUESBIONSVAND- ANSWERS) 5 28h 6) = 6 fe) eles ocr elicl ns) Ste tee ee

DAVID H. WALLACE: The Fate of the Chesapeake Bay—(Dinner Address). .

JOEL W. HEDGPRELH: Symposium|Summaty ......+ 2.4. «+ see eels

Scientists Receive Academy’s Annual Awards

Board of Managers Meeting Notes ..........

Washington Academy of Sciences

Room 29, 9650 Rockville Pike (Bethesda)

Washington, D.C. 20014

Return Requested with Form 3579

‘LIBRARY CRE:

U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20025

2nd Class Postage

Paid at,

Washington, D.C.

able. Ve

VOLUME 62

Number 3

J ournal of the — SEPTEMBER, 1972

WASHINGTON

ACADEMY.. SCIENCES

Issued Quarterly

at Washington, D.C.

Directory Issue

CONTENTS

Features:

MARY LOUISE ROBBINS: A Smoother Road for Women Scientists? .234

GEORGE W. IRVING, JR.: The Role and Future of Pesticides

Mm Vaniatmine hOOMISUPPLY) acc eas. oe yee eee ie ec ees on 240

Research Reports:

HENRY MERCHANT: Estimated Population Size and Home Range

of the Salamanders Plethodon jordani and Plethodon

GMAT VOSUD ibe: Sib odio. 0 Sap eee a De GO eee 248

D.E. HOPKINS and W.F. CHAMBERLAIN: Susceptibility of the Stages of

the Cattle Biting Louse (Mallophaga; Trichodectidae) to Juveth,

Piminsectiuveniic Hormone Analog 2. .2..-.5..2--+2- 68: ene 258

WILLIAM E. BICKELY: Some Aspects of Behavior of Mosquito

aiac (Diptera C@ulicidae)) sme cma cecs sce e a8 ee sd eee 261

GEORGE C. STEYSKAL: Two New Species of Melanagromyza Hendel

(Diptera: Agromyzidae) that Bore in Tomato Stalks in

Colombia.and Ecuador .............. Mate RR ene cece

Academy Affairs:

SEMIS TEN UNG NAS 5 6.0.0 0 0 ERS IEE PE RON ROR EET et en ea

Washineton Junior Academyiof Sciences) .. 2.4.) 222.0226 oes ns

Ee Aw SIOMmUNCwACAG CIII\ nnn tea Se las hl sie utile a iclt «diy ei Sie alee

DIRECTORY, 1972

IPORGWAIG! 3 Yoo e-0, &-o aapecicl UBio tree OBES Rmn IE Rear cs: haere pes

CodenomSocieticssandssociety Officers... oelc-e-

Alphabetical List of Fellows and Members.......... =. ......

Washington Academy of Sciences

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

President

Richard K. Cook

President-Elect

Grover C. Sherlin

Secretary

Kurt H. Stern

Treasurer

Nelson W. Rupp

Board Member

Samuel B. Detwiler, Jr.

BOARD OF MANAGERS

All delegates of affiliated

Societies (see facing page)

EDITOR

Richard H. Foote

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

Elizabeth Ostaggi

ACADEMY OFFICE

9650 Rockville Pike (Bethesda)

Washington, D. C. 20014

Telephone (301) 530-1402

Published quarterly in March, June, September, and December of each year by the

Washington Academy of Sciences, 9650 Rockville Pike, Washington, D.C. Second class

postage paid at Washington, D.C.

Founded in 1898

The Journal

This journal, the official organ of the Washington Aca-

demy of Sciences, publishes historical articles, critical

reviews, and scholarly scientific articles; proceedings

of meetings of the Academy and its Board of Mana-

gers; and other items of interest to Academy members.

The Journal appears four times a year (March, June,

September, and December) — the September issue

contains a directory of the Academy membership.

Subscription Rates

Members, fellows, and patrons in good standing re-

ceive the Journal without charge. Subscriptions are

available on a calendar year basis only, payable in ad-

vance. Payment must be made in U.S. currency at the

following rates:

WiSvand(@anadameeeeeee $10.00

EOIN sogaocaaccou0 11.00

Single Copy Price....... 3.00

Back Issues

Obtainable from the Academy office (address at bot-

tom of opposite column): Proceedings: Vols. 1-13

(1898-1910) Index: To Vols. 1-13 of the Proceedings

and Vols. 1-40 of the Journal Journal: Back issues,

volumes, and sets (Vols. 1-62, 1911-1972) and all cur

rent issues.

Claims for Missing Numbers

Claims 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 ak

lowed because of failure to notify the Academy of a

change in address.

Changes of Address

Address changes should be sent promptly to the Aca-

demy office. Such notification should show both old

and new addresses and zip number.

DELEGATES TO THE WASHINGTON ACADEMY OF SCIENCES,

REPRESENTING THE LOCAL AFFILIATED SOCIETIES

BnilGsopuicalisociety of Washington’ «2.253.623.4582 b ee esos eds scans Edward Beasley

Anthropolosical'Society of Washington ...........2 050002 een eee eee beeen Jean K. Boek

Biological SOCIELVZOfAW aSMINGLON -jealen= ois ey saints Boos asi eyecare ot) 3 ei Delegate not appointed

Sifemicalsociety of Washington << 625% sie eos sie we sos ne Ee Sree ow 6b Wiesel s Harvey Alter

BuromolosicaliSociety of Washington’ ....0. 5 6 sees ee ae eee ee a we Reece I. Sailer

MOHAN GCOPTAD MICS OGICLY: a. cce1 2 6 cine hi ci erere aie wears sie eye no Srees aoe Geers Alexander Wetmore

iScoloricalisociety of Washington... ...4..05. 0065 ye ee eee eee ee eee Charles Milton

Medical Society of the District of Columbia ....................... Delegate not appointed

ET AEELISEOLIGA ES OCICLY metaes a iaretarcier ee aicbeiis ace 2 hs ora nae Seeds Sra a ee Paul H. Oehser

EOENICAMSOCICLYAOLWaSNINStON =. 2.5 sees ce ce ce ee ele oe Re we a we Conrad B. Link

SAIE VAI ANTI CHI CATINEOLCSLCIS occ cy ain ce sre ere a eige core) Laeiel te, sue geleilens pedi = Sherine Robert Callaham

WashinstoniSociety of Engineers .. 2... 0.2. cee cee ee eee ee wale ele George Abraham

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ................-...--.- Leland D. Whitelock

American Society of Mechanical Engineers ....................---2+0--0-- William G. Allen

Helminthological Society of Washington ..............000 000 e eee eeeeee Aurel O. Foster

PMenican society, for Microbiology: . . <6 jes ie ee wee ete eee ee ele ae Lewis Affronti

Societyjof American Military Engineers .. =... 5-265. 60. e ee ee ees H.P. Demuth

PInericansocierysol CiviliEngineers: ~ 4. i. ee ae Sn eee il te a eh te ee ee a Carl H. Gaum

Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine .................-+-+.-4- Carlton Treadwell

American Society for Metals ................... 2 vss acct c Reena Aa Kee Glen W. Wensch

International Association for Dental Research.................----- Norman H.C. Griffiths

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics...............-...... Robert J. Burger

munciicanevietcorolopicaliSociety 3-2. 5.62 ee ew eet ee bee ee ee ee es Harold A. Steiner

MHSeCHCIGe SOciety Of Washington. 23 6 ee 6 ee ee le ee we ee ee H. Ivan Rainwater

PICOMSACAIES OCICLVAOMWAMENICAl ssc cscs si sce 2s) op Se a GA) Sos whee acl aS baw ees wee Alfred Weissler

PSIMCTICANENTICICATASOCICLY) a5 a) aicsy-cp vensneecuie tere a .ce0h cea aps) Bee) eed 3 Delegate not appointed

Pustituteofprood Mechnologists '. 4.2 2.26.5 ss 2 ee De ese ee ee ee Lowrie M. Beacham

PEC TICAI CCTAINICISOGICLY emir seciexe cas Oe Neuen ee een) nS A en ne Sra Cee J.J. Diamond

PACCEEOEMEINCAlESOCICLY Merit v-eete on late ls: Blears ce, 3 ke Diino emo a ait eta idue gesbaeens Stanley D. James

WashinetonHistory of Science'Club 2225.5 .. 2.2 2555266255 sees ee Delegate not appointed

American Association of Physics Teachers ..........--.----+-+-++++-055 Bernard B. Watson

WMPLicaSOcictyaOlgAMeCEi Caussa-t Alay yin coee isu GUS © aN SIR Sesaae Te eee Elsie F. DuPre

American) society of Plant Physiologists’. ....- 2 -- 3-2-2222 + eee hee eee Walter Shropshire

Washington Operations Research Council ............---.222---202 eee eee John G. Honig

Inisiniment society of America| 2 esr stl n as See eikciets oe ee ee Delegate not appointed

American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical

ANGIELELLOLCUMUETIPINECIS| cy atal|eyariatai ears ieestie eye) se) ose ons wel Delegate not appointed

National CapitolVAStronomersy ey cones esis eee ee. Gee cetera ev Ge elie owe or etiel el ene - John A. Eisele

Mathematical Society of America ........ 5.2.2.0 ee eee eee ete eens Daniel B. Lloyd

Delegates continue in office until new selections are made by the respective societies.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL. VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972 233

FEATURES

A Smoother Road for Women Scientists?’

Mary Louise Robbins

Department of Microbiology, The George Washington University

School of Medicine, 1339 H St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005

ABSTRACT

The road traveled by women scientists has always been an obstacle course. Now the

women themselves are beginning to tear down the obstacles. Whether with kid gloves or,

if necessary, with bared claws, some progress is being made in smoothing the road.

A look into the past reveals that women

are not by any means new to science. They

have been engaged in scientific activities of

various sorts for thousands of years. Of

course no one knows exactly who deserves

the title of “first woman scientist,” but a

very early contender would be Mary the

Jewess, who was just possibly the sister of

Moses. In her work as an alchemist, Mary

invented the water bath, one type of which

is still known as “Bain-Marie.”

Scattered throughout history, but always

in small numbers, are names of successful

women scientists. Five have received the

very epitome of recognition, the Nobel

Prize: Marie Curie (twice); Irene Joliet-Curie;

Gerty Cori; Maria Goeppert Mayer (who

died this year); and Dorothy Hodgkin. Two

have been presidents of the most prestigious

scientific organizations: Dame Kathleen

Lonsdale, President of the British Associa-

tion for the Advancement of Science, and

Dr. Mina Rees, of the American Association

for the Advancement of Science. (Unfortu-

nately, not a one of these very top-ranking

scientists could possibly be a member of the

club whose membership qualifications are

Presidential address delivered to a meeting of

the Washington Academy of Sciences on May 16,

1972.

234

based on professional excellence, which is

why we are not meeting at the Cosmos Club

tonight.) Of course there are thousands of

less distinguished but highly successful wo-

men in science today. But the list of such

women is all too short in comparison with

successful men in science. I must give you a

few statistics here.

According to the National Science

Foundation (NSF) National Registry of Sci-

entific and Technical Personnel for 1970, 9%

of the 313,000 scientists in America are wo-

men (National Science Foundation, 1972).

(The percentage for the Washington

Academy of Sciences is only 7.7%.) This per-

centage is of course all too small. But even

worse is the tiny number of these women in

the high-success brackets. There are only 11

women in the National Academy of Sciences

out of a membership of 950. In 10 leading

universities, less than 1% of the full pro-

fessors in physics, biclogy, and the social

sciences are women. Microbiology is con-

sidered more of a woman’s field than is

physics, let’s say, or certainly engineering;

24.5% of the members of the American

Society for Microbiology are women. Yet

only 4.5% of these women are full professors

as compared with 15% of the men. And only

9 of the 309 academic departments that give

degrees in microbiology are headed by wo-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

men—and 4 of those 9 are in women’s col-

leges!

Another measure of success, which of

course cannot be completely separated from

high position, is salary. The median salary

for male scientists in 1970 was 31% higher

than for women scientists (National Science

Foundation, 1972). I found a disconcert-

ingly interesting parallel in my analysis of

microbiologists with the doctoral degree—

the difference was 32%. The highest paid

scientists are physicists, computer scientists,

Statisticians, and economists. Women scien-

tists are concentrated in chemistry, mathe-

matics, psychology, and the biological sci-

ences, none of which are in the high-salary

categories. Furthermore, the lowest salaries

are in teaching—the dominant scientific

activity for women. Even in teaching, as I’ve

already pointed out, women are not general-

ly in the top ranks.

Still other measures of success come in

the forms of service on government advisory

panels and editorial boards of scientific pub-

lications, election to office in scientific so-

cieties, chairing of sessions at scientific meet-

incs, etc. The percentage of women serving

in such capacities is much smaller than the

| percentage of women in science itself. This

kind of activity results in visibility of our

scientific colleagues and its absence means

low visibility and therefore low recognition

of women.

I could—but I won’t—give you many

many more examples of the lower status of

women in scientific fields. I could—but I

won’t—compare the situation in America

with that in other parts of the world. (If I

did, you might be surprised at the similarity

in many instances, rather than at the fre-

quently publicized differences.) All I wanted

to do with my brief statistical survey was to

remind you that the rough road does indeed

still exist.

Acknowledging that the road is rougher

for women, let’s see if we can account for

the bumps. Many reasons are offered, many

of them blaming women. Some are myths,

some are real. A questionnaire designed to

explore some of the myths was given to par-

ticipants at the 1971 annual meeting of the

American Society for Microbiology. Here are

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

some of the myths and some of their refuta-

tions:2

1. Women’s lower status is the result of

her family responsibilities. If this were so,

women who combined family and career

would be less successful in microbiology

than their unmarried female colleagues. The

married women do make less. Married wo-

men 20-29 years after receiving the Ph.D.

degree make $2600 less than single women

in the same category. But these single wo-

men make $5700 less than their male

counterparts!

2. Women move more often than men be-

cause their husbands move to new jobs.

Actually there is no difference in their

mobility—only in the reason for it. The fact

that a man might move to take a better posi-

tion seems to be more acceptable to a pro-

spective employer than the possibility that

his female employee might move to accom-

pany her husband who is leaving a different

employer!

3. Women take off too much time from

their careers to expect to advance to the top.

In fact, 62% of the married women ques-

tioned had taken no time off, except pre-

sumably to have their babies. One very suc-

cessful woman scientist I heard of recently

had all her children on the Fourth of July,

and I believe she had 4 of them. Of course

this sort of planning takes a certain amount

of cooperation from a sympathetic husband.

Back to the microbiologists—of those wo-

men who did take time off from their ca-

reers, % took off less than 1 year.

4. Women like it the way it is; they want

less demanding posts. This too is only partly

true. At the Ph.D. level, 38% of the women

said that their present positions were not

commensurate with their ability, as opposed

to 25% of the men.

If we have exploded some of the favorite

myths, what then do we have left to account

for this rocky road? There are plenty of real

reasons—no myths are needed. And under-

2Presented by Dr. Loretta Leive and Dr. Eva

Kashket at a seminar, ““A Current Problem in

Microbiology: Women,” at the 1972 Annual Meet-

ing of the American Society for Microbiology.

235

lying almost all of them is the attitude of

society. This attitude has been described as

“occupational segregation” and as a “caste

system” (Bergman, 1972). A “high-status

scientist” is not the proper caste for a wo-

man, in the eyes of most people, who are

uncomfortable about any change in caste.

Along with that attitude is the historical one

that femininity and high achievement are in-

compatible. This attitude gives rise to what

Dr. Mary Bunting, President of Radcliffe

College, calls the “climate of unexpectation”

among college girls (Bunting, 1971) and to

the “motive to avoid success,’ to use the

term coined by psychologist Dr. Matina

Horner (Horner, 1969). Unfortunately this

negativism toward successful women is in-

creasing among college women—from 66% in

1964 to 88% in 1970, in one study (Horner,

1969; Horner and Walsh, 1972). However,

this reverse motivation is no longer limited

to women. The same surveys showed that

fear of success for themselves increased in

college men from 10% in 1964 to 50% in

1970. This attitude in women college stu-

dents is certainly heightened by something I

wish were a myth, but unfortunately isn’t

always—that is an actual distrust of success-

ful women by women themselves. Among a

number of studies that bring out this trait is

an intriguing one in which a fictitious scien-

tific report was distributed to 2 groups of

college women (Goldberg, 1968). The report

given to one group was said to have been

written by John T. McKay. The identical re-

port given to the other group was pur-

portedly written by Joan T. McKay.

Answers to appropriate questions revealed

that for the paper written by Joan McKay

the students didn’t trust the author, ques-

tioned the validity of the data, claimed the

author was too emotional, etc. But the iden-

tical paper written by John McKay was a

perfectly valid, well-balanced report of good

scientific research, according to the girls.

Other much discussed factors that tend to

keep many women out of science in the first

‘place are subtle pressures at home against

being “different”; the advice by some high

school teachers and vocational counselors

that science isn’t for girls; and the absence of

successful women scientists to serve as role

models.

236

A very important factor that makes it dif-

ficult for the many women who want to

combine family life with a full-time career is

the extreme shortage in modern America of

both adequate domestic help and adequate

day-care facilities. This shortage is of course

behind much of the current demand for’

day-care centers.

What about the factors that act against a

woman when she has overcome the obstacles

and has her graduate degree and is looking

for a job, or when she wants to change posi-

tions, or when she feels that she is entitled

to a promotion? Here we run into a whole

gamut of actions that are actually discrim-

inatory, even though not always intentional-

ly so. Many times women are simply not

thought of when a position is open, because

of their small numbers and their low visi-

bility, and because positions are so often

filled by means of the peer referral system,

which tends to overlook the women. Anti- |

nepotism laws were not specifically designed

to discriminate against women—after all,

they were originally aimed at nephews! But

in effect they usually act against wives.

Other times discrimination is outright and

intentional, as indicated by studies in which

identical fictitious curricula vitae are made

up, One under a man’s name, one under a

women’s name. The evaluation of these cur-

ricula vitae for possible employment indi-

cates a real bias by some prospective em-

ployers in favor of the men, in some cases

even in favor of “ordinary” men over “su-

perior’” women.

Certainly the picture is not as bright as it

should be in this enlightened end-of-the-

20th-century era. The road for women scien-

tists is indeed full of obstacles. But the ab-

stract to my talk says that some progress is

being made in smoothing the road. Everyone

who knows me well knows that I am an in-

curable optimist. My optimism sees a num-

ber of good omens.

Earlier I had quite a bit to say about

salary differentials between men and wo-

men. The differences are great, but 2 sepa-

tate studies show a slight narrowing of the

gap. According to NSF figures, salaries for

male scientists increased 12.6% between

1968 and 1970; for women the increase was

16% (National Science Foundation, 1970,

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

1972). The differential was thus reduced

from 35% to 31% in just 2 years. The same

trend was shown in microbiologists’ salaries

for 1970 and 1971. (Of course the increases

were much less than for the less belt-

tightening years of 1968 to 1970 reported

by NSF.) In that 1 year (1970-71) women

microbiologists’ salaries rose 5.3%; the in-

crease for men was 3.1%.

On a quantitatively small but qualitatively

large scale, recognition of women scientists

is increasing. Of the 11 current women mem-

bers of the National Academy of Sciences, 6

were elected in the 3 years 1970, 1971, and

1972. The other 5 were elected over a span

of 25 years—1944 - 1968. The percentage of

women members is only 1.1; the percentage

of women elected in 1970 through 1972 is

3.4.

These examples of straws in the wind do

suggest a much-needed change in direction,

but they are only a small step. Many con-

certed efforts are being made to speed up

the process of change, and to initiate it where

it has not already started. There is no ques-

tion that the cries of liberal women through-

out the land are having their effect. Women’s

caucuses and committees have been formed

within scientific organizations. Independent

women’s science associations have been es-

tablished. (One of these, Graduate Women in

Science, is hardly new; it celebrated its

Golden Anniversary last year, just after its

name was changed from Sigma Delta Epsi-

lon.) These groups are very active in trying

to improve the status of women in science.

There has been so much emphasis in the

news media on the sometimes radical activi-

ties of a very few of these groups—even a

very few members of some of them—that the

real accomplishments of the groups have not

always had the recognition that they de-

serve. I shall quote from a statement in an

article on “Women in the Professional Cau-

cuses” by Dr. Ruth Oltman, of the American

Association of University Women:

These caucuses have succeeded in gain-

ing acceptance by their total

associations by increasing the number

of women on governing boards, of-

ficial adoption of recommendations on

policy, and inclusion of more women

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972 —

on convention programs. Through

careful research efforts, they have

dispelled many myths and docu-

mented their recommendations with

objective facts, gaining the support of

many men thereby. They have dissemi-

nated information widely, established

rosters of women, encouraged more

active recruitment of women for their

respective graduate disciplines, de-

veloped women’s studies programs,

and defined new research areas (Olt-

man, 1971).

Lest you are under the impression that it

is only the caucuses that are effective, I want

to say something about the committees on

the status of women. Dr. Oltman was includ-

ing the committees in her statement about

caucuses. At least 8 scientific organizations

have responded to requests from members—

sometimes demands by caucuses—for the

establishment of such committees as part of

the official organizational structure. These 8

are:

American Anthropological Association

American Association of Geographers

American Association of Immunologists

American Chemical Society

American Physical Society

American Psychological Association

American Society for Microbiology

American Society of Biological Chemists

These committees have the opportunity to

work with their organizations and to pro-

pose constructive actions that might be en-

dorsed by the organization’s hierarchy. For

example, last year the Council of the Ameri-

can Society for Microbiology approved of 2

important resolutions submitted by the

Society’s Committee on the Status of Wo-

men Microbiologists. One was to support the

Equal Rights Amendment, and the Execu-

tive Director of the Society notified Con-

gress of the Council’s support. The other

concerned guidelines for employers of

microbiologists to assist them in improving

the status of their present and future female

employees. The committee sponsored semi-

nars on the status of women microbiologists

at the 1971 and 1972 annual meetings of the

Society. It was also instrumental in increas-

237

ing the number of sessions chaired by wo-

men from 7 in 1971 to 31 in 1972. This

same committee has been invited to work

with the Society’s Placement Committee and

Board of Education and Training on some of

their programs. I am sure that other commit-

tees have won the support of their organiza-

tions for similar activities as well. I just used

as an example the one I am most familiar

with, since I am its chairperson.

Last. December the Council of the Ameri-

can Association for the Advancement of

Science (AAAS) agreed to request the Board

of Directors of the Association to consider

establishing an Office for Women’s Equality

to work toward full representation and op-

portunity for women in scientific training

and employment, affairs of the Association,

and in the direction of national science poli-

cy. The Board has since then established an

ad hoc committee to study the question.

The committee’s recommendations are due

in a few weeks. If such an office is set up in

the AAAS, women scientists would have a

most powerful aid in removing road blocks.3

Another way the organizations are help-

ing their female members is exemplified by a

conference I attended recently. This “Con-

ference on Successful Women in the Sci-

ences: An Analysis of Determinants,” spon-

sored by the New York Academy of Sci-

ences, was handled exactly the same way the

Academy’s strictly scientific meetings are

handled, and will be published in a regular

issue of the Academy’s annals.

Certainly the biggest roadscraper in use

for smoothing the road is the Federal

Government. Beginning with the Equal Pay

Act of 1964, a whole series of antidiscrimi-

nation measures has been passed. These

measures are designed for women (as well as

minority groups) in many kinds of employ-

ment, of course, not just scientists. But wo-

men scientists are covered by many of the

provisions. I will briefly review a few of the

measures for you.

First of all is the Equal Pay Act, followed

quickly by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with

SAt its meeting in June, 1972, the Board of

Directors voted to establish an office that will in-

clude concerns of women scientists among its du-

ties. ;

238

its famous Title VI. It is Title VII that pro-

hibits discrimination based on race, color, re-

ligion, sex, or national origin. You are all too

well acquainted with the general provisions

of Title VII for me to repeat them. But there

is an intriguing one I hadn’t known about

that might interest you: an employer may |

not discharge female employees because of |

marriage or parenthood unless it treats men |

equally!

An Executive Order of October 1968 re- |

quires federal government contractors to de-

velop and implement affirmative action pro-

grams to eliminate sex discrimination. An-

other Executive Order, the next year, ex-

tended sex discrimination provisions to

Federal Government positions. Now there is

an amended Title VII, the Equal Employ-

ment Opportunity Act of 1972, signed by

President Nixon on March 24. Among other

provisions, it puts teachers and administra- |

tive personnel in educational institutions un-

der the Title.

These various measures under Title VII,

and the Executive Orders to establish affirm-

ative action plans, have led to some interest-

ing developments in university administra-

tion. I am now receiving letters from women

with such titles as Associate Provost of

Wesleyan University; Affirmative Action

Consultant, San Francisco State College;

Special Assistant for Women’s Affairs, Office

of the President, Ohio University, as well as

from male administrators. These letters ask

for everything from a roster of women

microbiologists to the names of women who

might be considered for presidencies of 4

campuses of the State University of New

York. Mina Rees, last year’s President of the

AAAS, is President of the Graduate Division

of the City University of New York, so these

requests are not to be taken lightly.

Other ways to get positions and qualified

women scientists together are being de-

veloped. The Ford Foundation has just

awarded a grant to the New England Con-

sortium for Women in Higher Education to

establish a placement office that will serve

200 New England schools. Rosters of wo-

men in science are being prepared by various

societies and organizations. And the le-

galities of some of this “discrimination in

reverse’ are being ironed out!

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

Nobody—either man or woman—should

be anywhere nearly satisfied with the

smoothing out of the few bumps that has

occurred during the past few years. There is

still a long long way to go before the great

majority of women scientists receive the

same opportunities for full advancement in

their professions as do the men, and proba-

bly an even longer way before the factors

that keep women out of science in the first

place are removed. Women as well as men

must work to change the attitudes that dic-

tate that little girls are given nurses’ kits but

never doctors’ kits, and that cause some stu-

dents to address the senior professor of a

department as “Miss” but all the junior male

teachers as “Doctor.”” Women must make it

perfectly obvious that they do want posi-

tions of responsibility in their professions.

So many women have demonstrated that

they are eminently capable in these positions

when given the chance to be so that there is

no reason in the world for any qualified wo-

men who wants it not to have that chance.

When this goal is reached, the road for wo-

men scientists still may not be exactly

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972 ~

smooth, but it will not any longer be so

much rougher than the road traveled by

their male colleagues.

References Cited

Bergman, B. 1972. The economics of Women’s

Liberation. Jn Conference on Successful Wo-

men in the Sciences: an Analysis of Determi-

nants. New York Academy of Sciences, May

11-13, 1972 (to be published).

Bunting, M.I. 1971. From Serratia to Women’s Lib

and a bit beyond. ASM News 37(3): 46-52.

Goldberg, P. 1968. Are women prejudiced against

women? Trans-action (April 1968): 28-30.

Horner, M.A. 1969. Fail:bright women. Psychol.

Today (Nov. 1969): 36.

Horner, M.A. and Walsh, M.R. 1972. Causes and

consequences of the existence of psychological

barriers to self-actualization. Jn Conference on

Successful Women in the Sciences: an Analysis

of Determinants. New York Academy of Sci-

ences, May 11-13, 1972 (to be published).

National Science Foundation. 1969. American Sci-

ence Manpower, 1968. NSF Bull. No. 69-38.

G.P.O., Washington, D.C.

eee 1971. American Science

Manpower, 1970. NSF Bull. No. 71-45. G.P.O.,

Washington, D.C.

Oltman, R.M. 1971. Women in the professional

caucuses. Amer. Behavioral Sci. (Nov.-Dec.

1971): 281-302.

239

The Role and Future of Pesticides in Maintaining Food Supply!

George W. Irving, Jr.

Research Associate, Life Sciences Research Office, Federation of

American Societies for Experimental Biology, Bethesda, Md.

ABSTRACT

During the next few decades, U.S. farm population and land available for farming will

decline while total population will be increasing steeply. It follows that food production

per farm and labor unit must be increased. To accomplish this, agriculture must not only

continue to use its most effective, efficient tools and practices in all operations, but must

significantly improve most of them. Among the most important of these operations is

control of diseases and pests. The most efficient tools now available for this purpose are

chemicals. Alternatives to the use of chemicals, the use of biological or physical means or

combinations of them with or without small amounts of chemicals, exist, several show

great potential and most have advantages ecologically. But the development of these

tools is inherently slow at best, and few will reach the stage of practical application in

time to have much impact in the decades immediately ahead. Meantime, we will con-

tinue to depend on chemicals, used selectively and prudently, to assure maintaining

adequate food supply. Use of some chemicals will decrease, and some will cease to be

used altogether, but the total used for disease and pest control in agriculture can be

expected to increase as the need for food production increases.

Discussion of a topic like this requires

that we make some assumptions. We recog-

nize it is difficult to assess and predict the

net impact of change among the many de-

pendent, controllable variables that charac-

terize the agricultural food production com-

plex, superimposed as they are on the un-

controllable ones. An excellent report, pre-

pared by the College of Agriculture, Texas A

& M University, is but one of many that

illustrate these complexities (1). This means

that it is difficult, in turn, to provide the

consumer and those who need to make de-

cisions all along the line with a rough pic-

ture, let alone a precise and uncomplicated

one, of the tradeoffs, consequences and cost

of maintaining food supply using each of the

several options we have for achieving it.

Moreover, if and when the advantages and

disadvantages of the alternative ways we

1A talk presented before the Seventh Middle At-

lantic Regional Meeting, American Chemical So-

ciety, Symposium on the Problem of Food, Feb.

16, 1972 at the Marriott Motor Hotel, Philadel-

phia, Pa. At that time Dr. Irving was a consultant

and Administrator, Agricultural Research Service,

USDA, retired. He is indebted to Dr. E.F. Knipling,

Agricultural Research Service, U.S.D.A. for advice

and assistance in preparation of this paper.

240

have for creating and/or maintaining a food

supply are clearly delineated, it is speculative

at best how soon people will be forced, or be

ready to accept some of them.

Yet today, concerned as we are with the

quality of the environment, people in the

U.S. and some other countries are demand-

ing, or at least expecting, that our ways of

doing things be changed to avoid or amelio-

rate adverse environmental impacts. Some

are urging that we adopt alternatives im-

mediately for those traditional agricultural

practices that now foul the public nest, and

could insist here in the U.S. for example,

through public involvement in the decision-

making process, that significant changes be

made. Some have already been made and

others are possible but largely unpredictable.

These uncertainties lead one to be less

confident about assumptions than he would

like to be but we will make some simple

ones to get on with our topic.

Assumptions

We will consider the “future” as the next

25-30 years. In this period:

1. The world’s population will increase.

Effective population controls will not be in-

stituted or felt within the next quarter cen-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

Dn ee

tury. There will be more people to feed—

conservatively 40% more—by the year 2000

than there are now (2).

2. The character—basic make-up, variety

and quality—of food will not change signifi-

cantly. In some parts of the world this could

be wrong. Certainly, amino acid supplemen-

tation, shifts from cereals to legumes, use of

textured meat extenders and supplements

from vegetable protein, consumption of

more marine products, and use of foods de-

rived from petroleum will be a choice or

necessity in some areas. But in the developed

countries, present food preferences are un-

likely to change.

3. We will continue to produce non-food

crops—forest products, cotton and other

fibers—at about present levels, scaled up in

proportion to population increase.

4. All pesticidal chemicals will not be can-

celled for agricultural use.

I add the following assumptions as par-

ticularly applicable to the U'S.:

5. We will maintain and probably increase

present levels of food export.

6. The competitive level for the food pro-

duction industry will continue to be deter-

mined by the one-fifth, or less, of his take

home pay that the consumer now pays for

food.

7. There will be a net loss in farm labor

before farm-city migration diminishes, in

about 1985, to the point where farm popula-

tion is stabilized (3).

General Projections

With such assumptions it is possible, of

course, to make some general projections

with respect to several of the inputs and out-

puts of agriculture. My topic is pesticides so

we'll stick to that and in rather general

terms.

Bearing in mind that the world will need

to produce more food in each year of the

next three decades than it did in the preced-

ing year, let's look at some relevant con-

siderations.

Of the earth’s land area (33 billion acres),

one-third is now tilled or in pasture; one-

fifth is in perpetual snow and ice; two-fifths

is taken up by mountains, inhospitable

plateaus, deserts and arid zones. Borgstrom

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL. VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

eee errr

(4) has calculated that the reserve available

for tillage is less than 1 billion acres. If this

were added to what we now till, and water (a

most important if) and other essentials were

also available, this would increase agricul-

tural production area about 10%—hardly

enough to meet the additional needs of the

population increase we expect by 2000. And

this 1 billion new acres does not visualize

leveling forests needed for water collection

and erosion prevention. Nor does it include

substantial additional use of tropical soils

which, while fertile, resist intensive crop-

ping. So the limits to agricultural land ex-

pansion are very real. It is this fact that has

startled many in recent years as the prob-

lems of a burgeoning population have be-

come reality. Moreover, without workable

systems of population control, we will have

even less land for agricultural use as time

goes on.

The necessary increase in food must

come, then, largely from the way available

land—essentially present farm land—is used,

and from non-agricultural sources. In any

event, to fulfill its role, conventional agri-

culture is going to have to produce to the

maximum and take prompt advantage of re-

search developments to improve the effi-

ciency of all its practices. We must also solve

the second and third generation problems

that will be emerging from the “green revo-

lution’. By maximum we mean the greatest

output per unit of input through the use of

the best yielding varieties for the locality,

the best land and water management and

production practices, the most efficient

blend of hand labor and machines, and the

most efficient means for the control of in-

sects, weeds, diseases and other pests. Said in

another way, conventional agriculture can-

not afford to be less efficient than it now is,

despite the great benefits of the “green revo-

lution or the good possibilities of food from

non-agricultural sources.

Pest Control

We'll look now in detail at pest control

and the alternatives for accomplishing it. Use

of pesticidal chemicals is now the method of

choice in most of the world’s agriculture.

Let’s see why this is so and what the outlook

241

is for doing it differently in the next quarter

century.

To meet the pressures for more food,

world agriculture will move, when it can,

toward the efficient monoculture system

that the United States and some others have

employed so successfully. In such a system,

crops and livestock are produced in regions

of a country that are best suited in soils and

climate for optimum production both in

quantity and quality. However, large un-

broken acreages of a single crop or large con-

centrations of livestock provide inviting en-

vironments for pests and diseases to thrive

and spread. The balance is heavily weighted

on the side of the pests unless steps are tak-

en to suppress or control them. The synthe-

tic organic pesticides, which can be applied

quickly over great areas at relatively low

cost, are particularly well suited to the con-

trol of pests in this kind of agriculture.

But in the light of the questions that have

been raised concerning the wisdom of con-

tinuing to add pesticides, some of which are

quite persistent, to the environment, it is

reasonable to examine and adopt where

practicable, alternatives to the use of pesti-

cides.

What is the “state-of-the-art”’ with respect

to these alternatives?

In regions of the world that are fortunate

enough to be free of a particular, important

pest, an obvious first step in avoiding the

problems this pest could create, is to keep it

out of the country. In many countries,

quarantines are used for this purpose and the

United States has had as much successful ex-

perience as any with this means of protect-

ing its agriculture. An example is the Medi-

terranean fruit fly (Medfly), which is exotic

to the United States and which attacks citrus

and many other soft fruits and vegetables.

Plant quarantine inspectors intercept and

destroy the Medfly in incoming cargo and

baggage some 150 times each year. Despite

_such a vigorous quarantine, the Medfly has

invaded the United States 4 times in the past

15 years. Three of these invasions were dis-

covered and eradicated fairly quickly but 1

cost some $10 million to eradicate through

intensive use of pesticides and other prac-

tices. To have been invaded 4 times in 15

242

years is nothing to be proud of, but it could

have been worse and more costly without

the quarantine. At the very least we could

have had many more than 4 expensive bat-

tles with this insect if 150 times a year it had

not been intercepted at our borders.

Quarantine, then, is effective but can

never be completely effective. This will be:

especially true in the years ahead. Even now, |

at a time when international travel is rapid |

and frequent and plane capacity for passen-

gers and freight is increasing steeply, inspec-

tion systems are being taxed beyond their

effective limits. Moreover, travelers and

shippers are understandably impatient with

delays occasioned by the present inspection

process and would be even more so if more

intensive and time consuming practices were

instituted. This means that countries can

tely less now than formerly upon quaran- ,

tines to keep out unwanted pests, even |

though they will be continued as appropriate

as a means for reducing the total ultimate

cost of pest control. Foreign pests and

diseases can and will gain entry to any part

of the world where conditions are favorable

for their survival.

Eradication of a pest that creates expen-

sive problems is another way of avoiding,

ultimately, the problem of controlling it.

The United States, for example, eradicated

the screwworm, a serious pest of livestock,

and we believe now that we may have the

necessary tools to eradicate the boll weevil,

the picture-book pest of cotton. Attractive

as it is, eradication is usually a most expen-

sive process, and with the limited tools avail-

able in the past, the efforts made have often

been unsuccessful. When it appears tech-

nologically feasible to eradicate, decisions

must be made as to whether the immediate

and long-term benefits justify the com-

mitment of money and other resources to

such an effort in lieu of continuing in-

definitely, present means of control. Not

counting the cost of the research that made

it possible, it cost $22 million to earadicate

the screwworm, spent over a period of 7

years. More than $5 million continues to be

spent each year to prevent re-establishment

of the pest from Mexico. As a result, how-

ever, the U.S. livestock industry now suffers

no damage from a pest that formerly caused

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

$120 million worth of damage each year in

losses and control costs. The $5 million con-

tinuing, annual expenditure could be re-

duced substantially by moving the barrier

that now protects us, from the region of the

Rio Grande to the narrower Isthmus of

Tehuantepec, but this requires a joint effort

with Mexico to rid that country of the pest

at an estimated cost of $38 million and will

probably take as much as 5 years. The ques-

tion before the decision-makers in both the

U.S. and Mexico is: Are such costs presently

justifiable?

Currently, a pilot eradication trial for the

boll weevil is underway on 25,000 acres in

the South, in a cooperative effort by Federal

and State Departments of Agriculture and

the cotton industry. Several biological,

physical and chemical methods are being in-

tegrated, timed and spaced, to accomplish

the job over a period of at least 2 crop years.

The cost of this trial is $2 million per year.

If the trial demonstrates that eradication is

technologically feasible, decision-makers will

be faced with the problem of deciding

whether total eradication should be under-

taken. The cost of such a program, if un-

dertaken, has not been determined, but the

scientists involved believe the job could be

done at less cost than the annual losses now

suffered due to this pest, which range be-

tween $200 and $300 million. If this were

the case, the economic benefits are clearly

apparent but this would not be the only, or

even the greatest, reward. It is estimated that

the elimination of this pest would reduce the

need for insecticides for agriculture by at

least one-third.

It should be emphasized that registered

insecticides will need to be used as part of

the boll weevil eradication process and in

areas awaiting the eradication effort as well.

This eradication program, if implemented,

would require a minimum of 6 to 8 years

and would be expected to have small net

impact on the use of insecticides on cotton

in the next 10 years. When one considers

that the boll weevil is but 1 important pest

of 1 important crop, and visualizes the de-

velopment of analagous, practical programs

for eradicating others, the cost and time re-

quired are evident.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972 .

In the case of a country’s native pests,

and those that slip through National quaran-

tines and become established, regional quar-

antines can delay spread, but ultimately it

becomes a matter of “living with” the pest—

of using every available means to suppress it

to levels that can be tolerated. As a practical

matter, living with native pests and with

more recent invaders is more nearly the nor-

mal way of life for agriculture. To refine our

means for doing so there is a current effort

by Federal and State extension agencies to

organize pest management programs involv-

ing cotton and other major crops. The objec-

tive is to keep the numbers of key insects in

a given area below the level that can cause

economic damage. The program calls for

close supervision of pest conditions and for

application of minimum amounts of insecti-

cides based on need. Such programs, if fully

developed could reduce substantially the

need for insecticides within the next decade.

However, despite these efforts, so great is

the need that much research the world over

is being focused on additional tools for im-

proving the farmer’s competitive position in

the “living with” process: resistant crop

varieties; improved cultural practices; the use

of parasites, predators, and pathogens as

biological agents; development of genetic de-

fects such as sterility; physical devices; and

more selective chemicals such as attractants

and hormonal insecticides. Many believe that

integrated use of such of these tools as are

found practicable to suppress pest numbers,

is likely to be the practice of the future. I

might add that prudent use of chemicals is

visualized as essential in such integrated pro-

cedures.

Let’s look at the prospects for a number

of these alternatives (5).

Resistant crop varieties and cultural prac-

tices._The development of resistant crop

varieties is obviously an ideal means for pest

control. By growing crops that are substan-

tially resistant to diseases and insects we

compound benefits by avoiding crop losses,

saving costs of other control measures, and

reduce contamination of the enviornment.

But breeding crops that are resistant to

diseases, and particularly to insects, is nota

simple undertaking. The relationship be-

243

tween the host and the parasite is intricate

and the physiology of each is complex.

Breeders have been successful in developing

varieties, notably wheat, corn, alfalfa and

potatoes, that are resistant to certain

diseases, and continuing research keeps them

so despite loss of resistance due to mutation

of pathogens. Progress in developing crop

varieties resistant to insects, however, has

been less spectacular although several suc-

cesses have been achieved. Wheat varieties,

for example, have been developed and are

grown on millions of acres that are virtually

immune to the Hessian fly. More effort in

recent years is going into this means of at-

tack on insects and substantial progress can

be anticipated in the long range future. How-

ever, since it requires, generally, 10 years or

longer to discover and transfer insect resis-

tant germ plasm into varieties that possess all

desired agronomic qualities, such future de-

velopments are not likely to reduce signifi-

cantly the need for insecticides in the next

couple of decades.

Meantime, cultural practices, the chief re-

sort of farmers before other sophisticated

methods were available, continue to be ex-

ploited: Sanitation, early planting, destruc-

tion of crop residues, tillage, crop and ani-

mal rotation, where feasible, strip cropping,

destruction of volunteer plants, and specific

harvesting procedures. These practices are

still used to the extent circumstances war-

rant but in the monoculture system they are

inadequate unless used in conjunction with

other methods. Most frequently, chemical

control is also needed and used.

Biological control.—The use of parasites,

predators, and diseases is another attractive

way of controlling pest numbers. Research

to discover such beneficial agents in parts of

the world where they are now reasonably

effective, and their establishment in parts of

the world where they are not, has been going

on for nearly a century. A few examples will

illustrate extent of progress. Of better than

500 species of insect parasites and predators

imported into the U.S., slightly more than

100 have become established and barely 20

have provided significant control, among

them coccinellid beetles against the citrus

mealy bug and parasitic wasps against the

244

pea aphid. Bacillus thuringiensis has received

considerable attention as a pathogen against

the cotton bollworm and certain pests of

vegetables, and recently received approval of

the Environmental Protection Agency for

use against the gypsy moth. Field studies of

a polyhedrosis virus for control of bollworm |

and cabbage looper have shown it to be

promising, but approval of its use awaits |

completion of extensive safety tests and |

economical production of the viruses has not

yet been perfected. A flea beetle, introduced

to control alligator weed in Florida and

South Carolina, has multiplied sufficiently

to make an important contribution to the

control of this reservoir- and canal-choking

pest. Such experience is promising enough to

justify continuing the quest for other bio-

logical agents to control weeds, but we can-

not anticipate any marked reduction in the

need for herbicides as the result of introduc-

tions of biological agents in the foreseeable

future. Research is also underway on the

possibilities of mass-producing parasites and

predators to control certain insects but here

again we cannot expect developments in this

field to obviate the need for insecticides

within the next decade or two.

Insect sterility.—The manipulation of in-

sects for their own destruction by inducing

sexual sterility, or introducing other harmful

genetic traits, is relatively new and, where

applicable, has been quite successful. Two

methods of using sterility as a control are

being exploited. One method is based on

rearing massive numbers of a pest, sterilizing

them with gamma radiation, and releasing

the insects to compete for mates in the

natural population. The resulting eggs do not

hatch and the insect population dwindles.

The second method involves the application

of chemosterilants to native populations at a

central source. The treated insects then dis-

perse and serve to reduce the reproduction

of target pests in the environment. The first

method was used to eradicate the screw-

worm as has been mentioned, and is proving

effective against the Mexican and Oriental

fruit flies. Work is being done to develop this

method for use against the boll weevil, pink

bollworm, codling moth, gypsy moth, corn

earworm, tobacco hornworm, tobacco bud-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

worm, cabbage looper, fall armyworm, and

hornfly. The sterility principle is most at-

tractive but it requires for its application a

thorough knowledge of the biology, ecology,

and population dynamics of each target

insect. Each insect presents unique problems

with respect to the mass rearing of the bil-

lions needed to flood adequately the target

population, and in accomplishing steriliza-

tion without impairing the aggressive charac-

teristics of the released insects to enable

them to compete for mates in the native

population. Another limiting factor is that

the method is effective only when the target

population is at a natural low ebb or when

the population is first reduced by insecti-

cides or other methods of control (6). The

sterility technique is usually successful as a

tool for eradication or continuous suppres-

sion of an insect only when used in conjunc-

tion with other methods of pest control or

when insect populations are reduced by

natural causes. It will take a great many

years to develop such practical means, even

for those insects where it appears now to be

feasible, for control of very many of the in-

sects that plague agriculture.

Attractants and hormones.—One of the

latest trends is research to identify and de-

velop attractants and hormones for insect

control; some insects are attracted or re-

pelled by substances in the host, by chemical

sex attractants, by light, and by sound.

Naturally occurring attractants are highly

specific and active in infinitesimal amounts.

The synthetic lure, methyl eugenol, has been

used experimentally to eradicate the Orien-

tal fruit fly on the island of Rota. Another

recent trend is research on hormones and

hormone-like materials that may be used as

insecticides to disrupt insect development

rather than cause immediate death. These,

too, are generally species specific and effec-

tive in fantastically small amounts. Sterility

in adult insects may result soon after treat-

ment with molting hormones. Juvenile hor-

mones act by interrupting insect develop-

ment and producing monster insects that

eventually die, or if they become adults, can-

not reproduce. There is very active coopera-

tion among Federal, State, university and in-

dustrial scientists to push developmental re-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972 ©

search on the juvenile and molting hormones

and their analogs. Extensive screening pro-

grams involving hundreds of compounds are

under way. Interesting leads are emerging

but at present they can hardly be considered

more than that. It will be some time in the

future before some of these chemicals will

be ready for practical use. Not many are

likely to be established very soon.

It should be pointed out and emphasized

that the development and implementation of

certain biological control methods, such as

the sterility technique for insect control, re-

quire extensive, costly and time-consuming

research. Depending on the insect and our

knowledge of it, considerabie new informa-

tion may be needed concerning the numbers

of different stages of the insect per acre, the

nutritional requirements for mass rearing,

the comparative vigor and competitiveness

of reared and sterilized insects and the native

strains. After the basic data have been ob-

tained, areawide control procedures for each

insect must be tested in a large area or an

isolated area such as an island. If results are

favorable, it may still be necessary to perfect

mass rearing methods for the agents to be

used then test them in an area where they

are required to protect an agricultural crop.

At the conclusion of the testing, it must be

decided whether the procedure is worth the

cost of using it and who should be responsi-

ble for its further development. An obstacle

to the rapid advancement of such means of

insect control is, I repeat, the high cost of

research and development.

I conclude from all of this that pesticides

will be with us as an important part, perhaps

the most important part, of our armamen-

tarium in controlling pests for the foresee-

able future. This does not mean that use of

pesticides is the only method we will have

available for combatting pests and diseases.

Nor does it mean that current pesticides

must continue to be used in present quanti-

ties. It does mean that chemicals are now the

most effective weapons agriculture has for

pest control and that in the future chemicals

will continue to be an essential part of the

integrated control programs farmers will

have to use. The use of some pesticides will

decrease and some will cease to be used en-

245

tirely, but the total amount of chemicals

used for control of insects, weeds, and other

agricultural pests can be expected to increase

as the need for agricultural production in-

creases and until alternative methods are

eventually perfected.

I don’t by any means want to imply pessi-

mism about either the attractiveness of bio-

logical controls for pests or the liklihood

that many will indeed become a part of our

weaponry before the next quarter century

ends. I can agree in principle with Huffaker’s

statement in “Biological Control”, (7) a col-

lection of papers he recently edited, even if I

disagree with his choice of some words

which I believe magnify the gravity of our

present situation with respect to pesticidal

chemicals and the environment ..... “If we

are to reverse the trend toward an ever-

intensified over-loading of the environment

with polluting and highly toxic pesticides,

we must show that biological control, com-

bined with restricted usage of selective

chemicals, use of resistant varieties and other

integrative measures can, in fact, solve many

of our pest problems without resort to such

disturbing and polluting chemicals.” I only

contend that it will take longer, even with a

wholly adequate research and development

effort, than some proponents of change

think it will.

But because there is reason to be sensible

about the hazards—known, unknown, and

doubtful—of the accumulation of unnatural

chemicals in the environment, there will be

change. Perhaps the greatest change in the

pesticide picture will be a qualitative one.

One of the beauties of the 3-decade pesticide

era just concluding, is that many of the

most-used synthetic pesticides are relatively

non specific and are persistent, making them

capable of controlling many different pests

with a limited number of applications. These

very attributes are the Achilles’ heel of pesti-

cidal chemicals as the environmentalists view

it. Qualitatively, pesticides will change

toward chemicals that are more specific with

Tespect to target insects and less persistent

after application. The research needed to

find and develop chemicals of this sort is

enormous compared to that which was re-

quired, great though it was, to yield

effective, broad spectrum pesticides. And

246

the cost to the farmer of the application of

several non persistent pesticides more fre-

quently to control the variety of deleterious

pests that beset a crop, will also be greater.

It would be meaningless to attempt, how-

ever, to estimate the quantitative change to

be expected in the use of pesticides between |

now and the year 2000.

I might add, parenthetically, that we like ©

now to make quantitative comparisons of —

the use and environmental accumulation of |

pesticides by years, and we will continue to,

but there is no common denominator for

such comparisons. Tons of production or use

mean nothing with chemicals of different ef-

fectiveness, persistence, and degradation

products, the nature and toxicity of which

are largely unknown. But we need one, if

only to provide a mutually acceptable

measure of change in the debates on this

issue that will continue.

This is the end of my story. It goes with-

out saying, of course, that if one chooses to

make different assumptions than I made at

the outset, his projections would likely be

different. If one believes, for instance, that a

substantial fraction of the world’s food will

come from non-agricultural sources within

the next 30 years, conventional agriculture

could be spared by that much, probably

with concomitant sparing of the pesticides

needed to control pests. If one believes that

people of developed countries like the

United States will decide to spend more for

food—say one-fourth rather than one-fifth of

their pay—and the difference is used to de-

fray the added cost of using presently less

efficient methods to control pests, the need

for pesticides could be somewhat reduced.

I'd like to share one final thought with

you. I believe that the creators and

adherents of the environmental ethic are

showing signs of mellowing—not weakening,

just mellowing. And so are those in agri-

culture and industry. The environmentalists

are becoming aware that some of the con-

sequences of summary banning of pesticides

are very real and are less eager to insist on

changes that, as Handler (8) says, will “‘re-

place known devils with insufficiently under-

stood unknown devils.” Those of us close to

agriculture or industry are more ready to

agree that we have had and still have ample

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

room to improve the way we do our jobs

and are not as reluctant to move away from

the status quo. I believe most of us now

realize that we are not at the brink of

disaster in projecting the continued prudent

use of certain pesticides. In the years ahead

the necessary tradeoffs of change will be

more clearly understood. Short and long

term hazards of pesticides will also be better

understood and will find their appropriate

position relative to the other hazards to

which we deliberately expose ourselves. We

will be increasingly willing to accept certain

risks in the use of pesticides just as we ac-

cept the risks of driving an automobile and

riding airplanes. We will strive to become

better informed and we will have more help

in this regard than we have had in the past

from all parties at interest. And being better

informed, we will come closer to knowing

than in the past, the meaning and conse-

quences of the National actions we insist

upon.

It might be a good thing too, I believe,

for all parties in the environmental contro-

versy to devote some of their zeal and con-

siderable energies to solving the key

problem—unlimited world population in-

crease. McHarg (9) suggests that people are a

planetary disease, and it’s hard to disagree

with him. Scarcely a major problem exists

that does not arise because of population

pressures or the certainty that they will

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972 -

worsen. One might ask a host of questions

around this point, but since our topic is

food, Pll leave you with just 2. Why strain

our resources to feed ever increasing num-

bers of people when we know there will

come a day when we will not be able to?

Why not harness all of our 20th. century

sophistication, surmount the apparently in-

surmountable, and find and set in motion a

sensible, workable, acceptable means for

limiting the number of people we will im-

pose on Earth?

References Cited

(1) Impact of drastic reduction in the use of agri-

cultural chemicals on food and fiber

production and cost to the consumer. Special

Report College of Agriculture, Texas A. and M.

University, July, 1970.

(2) Population Reference Bureau. July, 1970.

(3) Irving, G.W., Jr., Agriculture’s future in an ur-

ban society. Presented as part of a symposium,

Man and Environment II, Second National

Biological Congress, Miami Beach, Fla., Octo-

ber 23, 1971.

(4) Borgstrom, G.A. Food Science Department,

Michigan State University.

(5) Irving, G.W., Jr. Agricultural pest control and

the environment. Science 168: 1419-1424

(1970).

(6) Knipling, E.F. Agricultural Science Review 1:

2 (1963).

(7) Huffaker, C.B. Biological Control. Plenum

Press, September, 1971.

(8) Handler, Philip In defense of science. Jour

Washington Acad. Sci. 61: 175-84 (1971).

(9) McHarg, I.L. Man: planetary disease? Catalyst

for Environmental Quality II: 13-15 (1971).

247

RESEARCH REPORTS

Estimated Population Size and Home Range of

the Salamanders Plethodon jJordani and Plethodon glutinosus

Henry Merchant |

Department of Biology, George Washington University,

Washington, D.C. 20006

ABSTRACT

In a study area in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, North Carolina, the

density of Plethodon jordani (one individual for every 12.5 ft2) was estimated to be

about 4 times that of Plethodon glutinosus (1 individual for every 46.3 ft2). The propor-

tion recaptured estimates agreed well with the Lincoln-index estimates. Male P. jordani

moved significantly farther between captures than female or juvenile P. jordani. For P.

jordani, the estimated home range sizes were: males, 123.5 ft2; females, 30.3 ft2; juve-

niles, 18.5 ft2. For P. glutinosus, the estimated home range sizes were: males, 154.9 ft2;

females, 70.2 ft2; juveniles, 81.1 ft2. Within the study area, both species were associated

with large logs and trees. The adults of the 2 species did not appear to be intermixed

within the study area.

Regardless of the parameter being con-

sidered, the impact of a species upon the

community in which it lives is dependent

upon the density of that species. In this re-

spect, the density of a species becomes an

important constant by which the influence of

the individual member of the species must

be multiplied in order to determine the

quantitative effect of the species upon its

environment.

Plethodon jordani Blatchley and Ple-

thodon glutinosus (Green) are 2 closely re-

lated species of lungless woodland salaman-

ders which are sympatric in some areas of

the southern Appalachian Mountains (Hair-

ston, 1951; Highton, 1962). In these areas, it

is readily apparent to collectors that the 2

‘forms are not equally abundant. Closer

study of the relative abundance in a given

area might better quantify the numerical re-

lationships of these 2 species.

With these considerations in mind, a

study, the objective of which was the estima-

248

tion of the relative densities of these forms

in an area where they were sympatric, was

undertaken during the summers of 1963,

1964, and 1965. Mark-release techniques

were employed so that the movements of

individual salamanders could be monitored

throughout the summer. This provided infor-

mation regarding the home range, migration,

and dispersion, as well as density of the 2

species.

The study area was located 50 yards

north of a small creek (Taywa Creek) at an

elevation of 4,000 ft. above sea level on the

western slope of Hughes Ridge in the Great

Smoky Mountains National Park, Swain

County, North Carolina. A grid 100 x 50 ft.

was established such that the long axis ex-

tended in an east-west direction. Population

size estimates were made for the eastern half

of the study area (Fig. 1). For the first 2

summers, the entire 5,000 ft2 were used in the

study of movements and home range.

Throughout the grid, stakes were placed at

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

Fig. 1. Scale diagram of the study area. The population size estimates reported in the text are for the

eastern half of the study area. The entire area was used to study movements and home range during 1963

and 1964. Darkened rectangular areas represent fallen logs greater than 4 inches in diameter. Other

objects are stumps (St) or trees greater than 4 inches in diameter: beech (B), silverbell (S), tulip (T), oak

(O), cherry (C).

intervals of 10 ft., subdividing the grid into

50 ten-by-ten squares, and making no point

in the grid more than 7 ft from a stake. Of

the 12 trees greater than 4 inches dbh, 5

were beech (Fagus grandifolia), 2 were silver-

bell-tree (Halesia carolina), 2 were red oak

(Quercus rubra), 2 were tulip-tree (Lirioden-

dron tulipifera), and 1 was cherry (Prunus

sp.). Of the 12 trees that were less than 4

inches dbh (but were at least 5 ft tall before

the trunk forked), 11 were beech (Fagus

grandifolia), and 1 was sugar maple (Acer

saccharum). The floor was covered with

much litter and debris including decaying

chestnut (Castanea dentata).

Materials and Methods

As an attempt to standardize the level of

darkness at which sampling began, entering

the grid was delayed until it became too

dark to see a given tree from a fixed place 10

yards away. As soon as this level of darkness

was reached, a systematic search of the

study area along established routes was be-

gun. In order to avoid sampling the same

portion of the grid at the same time, the

place of initial sampling was determined ran-

domly.

While sampling, the grid was carefully

scrutinized with the aid of a 6-v dry cell-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

powered lantern. Only animals found walk-

ing on the surface or extending part-way

from burrows were recorded. Thus there was

a minimum of destruction to the habitat.

When an animal was observed, it was cap-

tured and identified as to species and sex. If

it had not previously been marked, a unique

combination of toes was clipped with scis-

sors or fingernail clippers. The animal was

measured (tip of snout to anterior angle of

vent) in millimeters by stretching it along

the edge of a ruler. The distance from the

nearest stake was estimated. The animal was

then released exactly where it had been cap-

tured, taking care to see that when released,

at least the animal’s head was beneath a leaf

or similar object so that the light and further

activity in the immediate vicinity would not

disturb it. This precaution was taken after it

was observed that occasionally a released

animal would start moving rapidly away and

in a straight line—neither of which it had

been doing before it was captured. Animals

thus carefully released were never observed

to begin moving rapidly, but would either

push their way farther under the leaves or

would remain stationary with their heads un-

der the leaves. Normally, depending upon

the number of animals present on the sur-

face, from 2 to 4 hr were spent in this man-

249

ner going through the grid. Identification as

to sex was based upon the fact that the adult

males of these species possess a swollen men-

tal gland beneath the chin. Animals without

the gland and greater than 44 mm (snout-

vent length) were considered to be adult

females. Without the gland and less than 48

mm, they were regarded as juveniles. Be-

cause of regeneration of the toes, marking

could not be recognized from one summer

to the next, and so new marking were given

to all animals each year. Sampling in 1963

extended from June 14 through September

1;in 1964, from June 16 through July 19; in

1965, from June 13 through August 24.

In arriving at an estimate of the popula-

tion size, the data gathered in the above

manner were analyzed in 2 ways. In the first

analysis, use was made of the Lincoln-index

technique in which P = MN/m (where P is

the estimate of the population size, M is the

number of marked animals released into the

population, N is the size of a subsequent

sample, and m is the number of marked ani-

mals in the subsequent sample). Since more

than 2 samples were taken, the same method

was applied by grouping the samples into 2

groups—a marking and a recapture group.

Outings were grouped such that the 1st half

of the samples were considered as used for

marking and releasing, and the 2nd half of

the samples were considered as used for re-

capturing. In all cases, for an odd number of

samples, the odd sample was included in the

marking and releasing group.

The standard deviations associated with

the Lincoln-index estimates were calculated

using the method summarized by South-

wood (1966), in which the variance asso-

ciated with the estimate is given by the fol-

lowing formula:

2N(N-

Varp = M2N(=m)

where: M, N, and mare as defined above.

The second method of analyzing the data

made use of the fact that as marked animals

were continually released into the popula-

tion, subsequent samples showed an increase

in the proportion of marked animals. This

increase in proportion of marked animals

should continue until at 1 point, subsequent

samples consist of 100% marked animals

250

(Hayne, 1949b). In the present study, the

point of 100% recaptures was never reached,

but the population size was estimated by fit-

ting the best line (method of least squares)

to a plot of proportion recaptured vs. the

cumulative marked. From the resulting

graph, the number of animals needed to be

marked to give 100% recaptures was deter-

mined. The fitted line as pointed out by

Hayne (1949b) must be forced through the

origin, since at O cumulative marked, 0 re-

captures is the only possible observation.

The size of the home range of an indivi-

dual was estimated by using the method

described by Hayne (1949a). In this method,

the center of activity of an individual animal

was determined by calculating the geometric

center of the capture locations. The average

distance from this center of activity to the

capture locations was calculated and was

used as the radius of the home range. The

estimated home range then extended as a cir-

cle around the center of activity.

Results

The results obtained by using the

Lincoln-index methods of estimating num-

bers are reported in Table 1 for Plethodon

jordani and in Table 2 for Plethodon glu-

tinosus.

The proportion recaptured results for P.

jordani are presented graphically in Fig. 2

and are summarized in Table 3. The data for

P. glutinosus were not treated with this

method because the sample sizes were too

small.

Support for the hypothesis that the popu-

lation of P. jordani did not change from year

to year was obtained by comparison of the

rate at which the population was marked

each year. If the population were greatly

larger or smaller one year than another, then

the rate at which the population was marked

should be significantly different. The slope

of the lines in Fig. 2 is a measure of the rate

at which the population was marked. Confi-

dence intervals for the slopes were calculated

according to Snedecor and Cochran (1967).

The 95% confidence intervals for the slopes

all overlapped, and so there was no signifi-

cant difference in the rate at which the

population was marked from one year to the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

Table 1. Estimated number of Plethodon jordani using the Lincoln-index method.

See text for method of calculating the standard error.

Number of Samples

in Estimate 1963

2 39+ 25.4

3 170 + 161.3

4 102+ 53.8

5 140+ 56.7

6 140+ 44.6

7 188+ 99.1

8 162+ 40.4

9 162+ 31.1

10 166+ 31.2

11 165+ 26.8

12 167+ 26.0

13 186+ 27.5

14 187+ 27.3

15 221+ 34.7

16 230+ 35.1

17 244+ 35.6

18 243+ 34.3

19 Vasa 39).9)

20 249+ 33.0

21 268+ 37.2

22 278+ 38.5

23 289+ 40.0

24 283 + 37.2

25 277+ 31.9

26 283+ 31.7

27 275+ 29.7

28 295+ 32.4

29 248+ 22.0

30 295+ 27.0

31 295+ 21.0

Ave. est. number: 216 174 184

Ave. est, number for all 3 years: 200

next. Since the differences among the years

were not significant at the 95% level, a

combined regression line was fitted to all the

data, and a combined estimate calculated

(Fig. 2 and Table 3). Using the confidence

limits of the slopes, estimated population

sizes were calculated, and the resulting range

of values are reported in Table 3.

The points of capture for each individual

were mapped and the distances moved be-

tween captures were measured. The resulting

distribution of movements approximated a

Poisson distribution, so the data were trans-

formed by using the transformation (x + 1)”

(Snedecor and Cochran, 1967). The trans-

formed data were then subjected to an

analysis of variance (Table 4). The mean

male, female, and juvenile movements and

the mean for each year are reported in Fig.

3. In view of the non-overlapping of the con-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

1964 1965

— 196 + 188.9

95+ 60.1 102 = 104.6

171 +114.0 144+ 74.9

— 148+ 90.6

208 = 112.8 159+ 52.5

198+ 73.5 153+ 38.1

193+ 61.6 163+ 37.8

156+ 41.5 E38 6e2)

156+ 34.9 198+ 41.4

219+ 53.4 203+ 34.7

198+ 31.9

202+ 29.4

217+ 31.7

217+ 28.4

228+ 27.7

fidence interval of the males with that of the

females or juveniles, it was decided that

separate estimates of the male, female, and

juvenile home range size should be made.

The lack of a significant difference between

the years indicated that the average move-

ment was not significantly different from

year to year, and so all movements within a

sex were summed over the 3 years to obtain

the results in Tables 5 and 6. Because of the

small number of individuals involved, and

because of the large variation observed in the

results obtained, no statistical analysis of the

movements or home range size of P. glu-

tinosus was performed. The results reported

for P. glutinosus are therefore estimates, the

validity of which is unmeasured.

The results of estimating the home ranges

are in Table 5 for P. jordani and in Table 6

for P. glutinosus. Individuals which were

251

Table 2. Estimated number of Plethodon glutinosus using the Lincoln-index method.

See text for method of calculating the standard error.

Number of Samples

in Estimate 1963

2 es

3 2a

4 ae

5 ee

6 ee

7 35+19.2

8 63 + 39.3

9 51+ 35.3

10 61 + 30.7

11 48 +17.5

12 51+19.0

13 54 + 20.2

14 58+21.7

15 45+12.4

16 45+12.4

17 44+11.8

18 53+ 15.5

19 55+ 15.6

20 55+ 15.6

21 68 + 23.7

22 78 + 28.5

23 101 + 43.4

24 73 + 22.0

25 77+ 21.7

26 71+ 18.6

27 60 + 12.0

28 60+ 11.6

29 62+ 12.1

30 62+ 12.5

31 64£12.7

Ave.est.number:60 26 46

Ave. est. number for all 3 years: 53

captured only 2 times are included in the

results in Tables 5 and 6. Their inclusion in

Table 5, however, does not alter the conclu-

sions, since the large variance associated with

the estimates calculated on the basis of 3 or

more captures included the mean calculated

on the basis of only 2 captures. Again, the

small sample size of P. glutinosus prevented

such a comparison for that species.

In obtaining the results in Tables 5 and 6,

the home ranges are represented as circles. It

must be emphasized that no claim is made to

the effect that the actual home ranges are

circular. The circles are merely a convenient

estimate of the size of the home range.

It was readily apparent while in the field

that not all portions of the study grid were

used to the same degree by the salamanders.

Thus, an analysis of the dispersion of the

individuals within the study area became a

252

1964 1965

12+ 6.9 =

14+ 8.4 _

20 + 10.0 _

20 + 20.0 _

37£11.9 =

52 + 33.8 _

50+ 14.1

37+ 9.7

consideration. The total number of captures

within each 10-ft subsquare was determined,

and a variance/mean ratio for the resulting

data was calcualted. For P. jordani, this ratio

equalled 8.964, and for P. glutinosus, the

ratio was 5.059. Both ratios were significant-

ly greater than expected on the basis of

chance (P. jordani: t = 29.822, df=49,P<

001; P. glutinosus: t = 20.296, df =49,P<

.001). A variance/mean ratio significantly

greater than one indicates a clumped disper-

sion (Greig-Smith, 1964). Comparison of the

centers of activity with the distribution of

large objects (logs and trees) in the study

area (Fig. 1) suggested that the dispersion

might be associated with the distribution of

the large objects. The area occupied by large

logs and trees plus an area bounded by | ft

in all directions from the edges of these ob-

jects represented 26% of the total area in the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

Q) 1.0

Lud

Yr 2

Ee)

= 2

5 5

x 5

QO. e

(ag

13 ees AOMGOMCOMIOO

év

Ss Ka)

KP Ge

1963 (e): Y = .0055X

1964 (0): Y = .0054X

1965 (m): Y = .0044x

COMBINED : Y = .O050X

120 140 160 180 200 220 240

CUMULATIVE MARKED

Fig. 2. Proportion recaptured vs. cumulative marked. Thepopulation size estimates (i.e. the values on

the abscissa corresponding to the point 1.0 on the ordinate) for 1963, 1964, 1965, and for all years

combined are respectively 182, 185, 227, and 200 individuals. See Table 3 for the confidence intervals of

the slopes.

study area. The distance of 1 ft from the

edge of these objects was arbitrarily decided

to be a reasonable quantitative estimate of

“close to” these objects. If the animals were

distributed about the area independently of

the objects within it, then there should be

proportionally no greater number of cap-

tures “close to” the objects than “far from”

them. Comparison of the observed number

of captures “close to” and “far from” the

large objects for each year with the number

expected on the basis of the proportion of

the total area which the objects occupy re-

vealed that there was a significantly greater

number of captures “‘close to” the large ob-

jects that expected on the basis of the area

occupied by the objects (P. jordani: X2 =

18.96, df - 1,P < 005; P. glutinosus: X? =

10.45, df=1,P <.005).

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972 —

The number of centers of activity falling

“close to” large objects and the number of

centers of activity falling “far from” large

objects for each year was not significantly

different from what was expected on the

basis of the number of captures occurring

“close to” and “far from” large objects (P.

jordani: X* = 0.29, df =2, .75 <P <.90;P.

glutinosus: X? = 3.74, df = 2, 10 <P<

25).

If one ignores juveniles, then P. jordani

and P. glutinosus had centers of activity

which did not appear to be readily inter-

spersed but rather appeared to be grouped in

different regions of the study area.

Discussion

It is concluded that the density of Ple-

thodon jordani in the study area was about

253

nn SS SSS (Ss. u—=u«nm"

Table 3. Population size estimates of Plethodon jordani based on the proportion

recaptured method.

Est. 95% Range of Population-size

population confidence interval estimates based on confidence

Year Slope size of slope interval of slope

1963 .0055 182 .0072 >b > .0038 139-263

1964 .0054 185 .0065 >b > .0025 154-400

1965 .0044 227 .0063 >b > .0025 159-400

Combined .0050 200 .0060 >b > .0040 167-250

200 animals per 2500 ft2, or 1 P. jordani for

every 12.5 ft2. Plethodon glutinosus was

found to be only about % as abundant as P.

jordani, there being an estimated 54 P. glu-

tinosus in the study area, or | P. glutinosus

for every 46 ft2.

— = MEAN

| = JUST SIGNIFICANT CONFIDENCE INTERVAL

FO —

Ano —

MEAN DISTANCE MOVED BETWEEN CAPTURES

op)

Fig. 3. Comparison of mean movements in feet

-between captures for Plethodon jordani. The

means for males, females, and juveniles summed

over years are compared and the means for 1963,

1964, and 1965 summed over sex are compared.

Non-overlapping Just Significant Confidence Inter-

vals (JSCI’s) indicate significant differences at the

95% level. JSCI corresponds to the D value of

Snedecor and Cochran (1967). ;

254

While other estimates of the population

density of P. jordani and P. glutinosus are

not available for comparison with the results

obtained in the present study, several esti-

mates of the population density of Pletho-

don cinereus have been reported. Burger

(1935), working in Pennsylvania and New

Jersey, stated that densities of P. cinereus

may equal | individual for every 18 ft2. Test

and Bingham (1948) reported densities in

Michigan of 1 individual for every 189 ft2,

but implied that the real density was greater.

Klein (1960) in Pennsylvania estimated the

density of P. cinereus to be 1 individual for

every 51 ft2.

The present study was an attempt to esti-

mate the number of salamanders in the open

on the surface and during the time period of

approximately 8:30 to 11:30 P.M.. The ma-

jor assumption was that on successive nights

the same population was being dealt with.

Taub (1961) found that with mark-release

techniques applied to caged populations of

P. cinereus, better estimates (estimates closer

to the actual number present) were obtained

when the individuals were kept on the litter

and not permitted to penetrate to lower soil

layers. Thus exchange of individuals between

the lower soil levels and the litter layer—

which could not be prevented in the field

study—have undoubtedly influenced the esti-

mates herein reported. Horizontal migration,

while not conclusively disproved, is assumed

to be of little importance in the present

study for several reasons. First, whenever

studies have been made of Plethodon with

regard to horizontal movements of non-

displaced individuals, no evidence for their

occurrence has been uncovered. Klein

(1960) reported that no marked P. cinereus

were found outside his study area; Test and

Bingham (1948) stated that there appeared

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

Table 4. Analysis of variance for movements of Plethodon jordani.

Source DF SS MS EMS

Total 455 1551.2433

Years 2 25.9660 129830) 02+ 0.2 + 2.20;2 + 51.70,2 + 130130,

Sex (years) 6 260.7156 43.4526 02+ 0,2 + 1.80;2 + 46.60,2

Individ. (sex) 245 886.8456 3.6198 02+0,2 + 1.80;

Samples (individ.) 202 377.7131 1.8699 o02+0,2

to be little shifting in the population after a

census. had been taken. Taub (1961) re-

ported no evidence of horizontal migration

of P. cinereus. Highton (1956) reported that

the largest observed movement between cap-

tures of marked P. glutinosus was 14.5 ft.

This movement took place during an interval

of 28 days, however, other individuals

showed no movement over intervals of as

much as 341 days. Secondly, searches of the

peripheral area in the present study and the

direction of recorded movements within the

study area gave no indication of migration.

Thirdly, a significant difference in the per-

centage of animals recaptured in inner areas

of the grid (44.75%) vs. the percentage of

animals recaptured in border areas of the

grid (45.89%) might have indicated

migration, but no such difference was found.

Comparison of the number of recaptured in-

dividuals and the number of individuals

never recaptured in border and inner squares

gave a X2 value of 0.12 (df =1, 50< P<

Bil)

Variation within an individual’s activity

period (as measured by its being out in the

open) may also have contributed to the error

in the estimates. On several occasions, the

study area was sampled a second time, begin-

ning after the Ist sample was completed at

approximately 11:30 P.M.. When 2 samples

were taken on the same night, the majority

of the animals in the 2nd sample were dif-

ferent from those taken in the earlier sam-

ple. The 2nd sample always included animals

which had been marked in 8:30-11:30 sam-

ples. A more striking aspect of this can be

seen by looking at the results of a sample

taken from 3:00-4:00 A.M. in another study

area. In this sample, all the animals which

were recaptured had been marked in

8:30-11:30 samples. The percentage of re-

captures (50%) in this early morning sample

was greater than the percentage (27%) in the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

sample taken at 11:30 P.M. the night before.

In addition, 1 marked animal captured at

3:00 A.M. was recaptured again at 8:30 P.M.

that night. Thus it appears that a given ani-

mal does not always have the same period of

activity. This report includes only data taken

in 8:30-11:30 samples, and thus differences

in activity periods of an individual as well as

vertical migration could have influenced the

estimated numbers reported herein.

The movement-between-captures data for

P. jordani were highly variable, and no at-

tempt was made to eliminate outliers. In

spite of this, the difference in the mean

movement between males and females or

juveniles was significant, and thus the dif-

ference can be taken as a biologically real

and presumbably important difference asso-

ciated with the sex of the individual. A pos-

sible explanation of this difference may be

related to the reproductive behavior of this

species. The general pattern of courtship of

the plethodontid salamanders has been

described by Noble and Brady (1930), and

that of P. jordani and P. glutinsosus by Or-

gan (1958, 1960). In these descriptions, it is

the male that initiates courtship, the role of

the female during the initial phases being

described as passive. Thus, the larger home

range of the males may be the result of their

moving farther during periods of activity

which results, during the breeding season, in

a greater probability of their contacting a

receptive female.

The fact that there was no significant dif-

ference between the mean home range of P.

jordani based upon 3 or more captures, and

the mean home range based upon 2 captures

is expected, considering that the small

number of captures for a given individual

probably does not indicate loss of the indivi-

dual from the study area but probably

means that the individual was either not at

the surface or was not active at the time of

255

Table 5. Estimated mean radius and mean area of home range of Plethodon jordani.

Radius of home range in ft

Year Males Females Juveniles

1963 6.43 3.56 2.35

1964 6.732 2.75 2.52

1965 5.38 2.46 2.51

Ave. 6.27 3.11 2.42

4Based on less than 10 animals.

Table 6. Estimated mean radius and mean

glutinosus.

Radius of home range in ft

Year Males Females Juveniles

1963 7.702 3.062 5.884

1964 9.20» 8.63 —

1965 1.50b — 3.654

Ave. 7.024 4.73 5.08

4Based on less than 10 animals.

bbased on 1 animal.

the survey. In addition, in many cases the 2

captures were 4 or more weeks apart, there-

by supporting the hypothesis that only 2

captures does not necessarily indicate a

home range which is really an artifact of the

method of analysis applied to an individual

which does not actually have a home range.

The selection of 1 ft away from the edge

of large objects as a measure of “close to”

the objects, while arbitrary, was not unrea-

sonable since it is well within the mean dis-

tance moved between captures of both sexes

and juveniles.

The agreement between the location of

the centers of activity and the locations of

capture indicates that the mathematically

determined centers of activity reflect the

biology of the species in 2 ways. First, the

centers of activity are positionally located

“close to” large objects in the area as are the

sites of capture. Thus, an individual animal

directs its activities about these objects.

Secondly, the individual’s movements, as re-

vealed by changes in the location of capture,

are such that for the most part they do not

cross large areas that lack either large logs or

large trees. If such areas were crossed, then,

although the individual might always be cap-

tured near large objects, the geometric cen-

ter of the capture sites would more often

that was observed by shifted away from the

256

Area of home range in ft?

Males Females Juveniles

128.68 39.81 17.35

141.024 23.76 19.95

91.61 19.01 19.79

123.46 30.27 18.46

area of home range of Plethodon

Area of home range in ft2

Males Females Juveniles

186.262 29.424 108.662

256.99b 233.86 —

7.07» — 41.854

154.882 10.24 81.11

objects toward the center of the areas lack-

ing large objects.

The interesting aspect of the association

of P. jordani and P. glutinosus with large logs

or trees is that the asosciation exists after

dark. Daytime collection of these forms re-

veals that, in general, more individuals are

found by looking beside or under logs, bark,

stones, etc. than by scratching around under

leaves. But the daytime association is not

just the result of retreat into sheltered areas

which the individuals abandon after dark.

The activity of the animal after dark, as re-

vealed by its position at the time of capture,

is also restricted to areas “close to” these

large objects. The association with large ob-

jects is not necessarily to the exclusion of

smaller objects, and in fact, the association

with large trees may very well be due to the

fact that many of the trees possessed hollow

bases, sloughed off bark around the base, or

obvious crevices about the visible portion of

the roots. There probably are minimum tre-

quirements which cover must fulfill before it

is suitable—requirements that a layer of fal-

len leaves does not fulfill—and which are

provided by objects other than large logs and

large trees, but the data as collected do not

include the location of these smaller objects.

With reference to the observed association

between these species of Plethodon and large

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

objects, it should be emphasized that areas

of the grid without large objects were scru-

tinized for salamanders just as carefully as

were those areas with large objects.

The distribution of the 2 species relative

to each other may reflect an interaction be-

tween the adults of these 2 closely related

species, but a firm conclusion relative to this

matter must await further investigation.

Acknowledgment

The advice and encouragement of Dr.

Richard Highton in carrying out this work is

gratefully acknowledged. NSF research parti-

cipantships and an NSF grant to Dr. Highton

supported this work.

References Cited

Burger, J.W. 1935. Plethodon cinereus (Green) in

eastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Amer.

Nat. 69: 578-586.

Greig-Smith, P. 1964. Quantitative Plant Ecology.

2nd ed. Plenum Publ. Corp., New York.

Hairston, N.G. 1951. Interspecies competition and

its probable influence upon the vertical distri-

bution of Appalachian salamanders of the genus

Plethodon. Ecology 32: 266-274.

Hayne, D.W. 1949a. Calculation of the size of

home range. J. Mammal. 30: 1-18.

—___________. 1949b. Two methods for es-

timating populations from trapping records. J.

Mammal. 30: 399411.

Highton, R. 1956. The life history of the slimy

salamander, Plethodon glutinosus, in Florida.

Copeia 1956: 75-93.

a ee ee 1962. Revision of North

American salamanders of the genus Plethodon.

Bull. Fla. State Mus. 6: 235-367.

Klein, H.G. 1960. Population estimate of the red-

backed salamander. Herpetologica 16: 52-54.

Noble, G.K., and M.K. Brady. 1930. The courtship

of the plethodontid salamanders. Copeia 1930:

52-54.

Organ, J.A. 1958. Courtship and spermatophore of

Plethodon jordani metcalfi. Copeia 1958:

251-259.

poe eee ene eee ee 1960. The courtship and

spermatophore of the salamander Plethodon

glutinosus. Copeia 1960: 3440.

Snedecor, G.W., and W.G. Cochran. 1967. Statisti-

cal Methods. 6th ed. Iowa State Univ. Press.

Ames.

Southwood, T.R.E. 1966. Ecological Methods.

Methuen and Co. Ltd., London.

Taub, F.B. 1961. The distribution of the red-

backed salamander, Plethodon c. cinereus. with-

in the soil. Ecology 42: 681-698.

Test, F.H., and B.A. Bingham. 1948. Census of a

population of the red-backed salamander (Ple-

thodon cinereus). Amer. Midl. Nat. 39:

362-372;

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

257

Susceptibility of the Stages of the Cattle Biting Louse

(Mallophaga: Trichodectidae) to Juveth, an Insect

Juvenile Hormone Analog

D.E. Hopkins and W.F. Chamberlain

Agr. Res. Serv., USDA, Kerrville, Texas 78028

ABSTRACT

When eggs of the cattle biting louse, Bovicola bovis (L.), were exposed to the vapors

of or treated topically with juveth, an analog of the insect juvenile hormone, a super-

numerary nymphs resulted. However, metamorphosis was affected only when the

penultimate stage (31d-instar nymph) was exposed to hormonal residues from the treated

eggs. Latent or programmed effects did not occur.

We previously reported that Bovicola lim-

bata (Gervais) treated topically in the first 2

days of the 3rd stage with juveth (ethyl

10,11-epoxy-7-ethyl-3,1 1-dimethyl-2 ,6-tri-

decadienoate), a juvenile hormone analog,

developed to atypical 4th-stage lice, but that

those treated during the latter part of the

3rd stage developed to typical adults (Hop-

kins et al. 1970).

Latent effects that altered the adult meta-

morphosis of Hemiptera (Riddiford 1969,

1970) and Homoptera (White 1968) but left

1 or more immature stages apparently un-

changed have reportedly occurred as a result

of treatment of eggs or early instars with

synthetic juvenile hormone or with analogs

of synthetic juvenile hormone. A like result

was observed in Lepidoptera (Riddiford and

Williams 1967) after treatment of eggs.

Willis and Lawrence (1970) also observed

metamorphic changes in late-stage

Oncopeltus fasciatus after eggs were treated.

They indicated that the effects were de-

ferred, the result of the hormone’s being

progressively transferred through the in-

tegument as each molt occurred, but not the

result of latent action.

We report here that treating eggs of B.

bovis (L.), the cattle biting louse, with

juveth resulted in atypical phenotypes (Hop-

kins et al. 1970) only when 3rd- or

penultimate-stage nymphs were reared on

diet that contained residues from treated

eggs and mohair. .

258

In preliminary tests, we observed that a-

typical 4thnstar phenotypes developed

from eggs of B. bovis exposed to juveth va-

por. However, we also observed that atypical

phenotypes developed on diet coated with

50 ppm of juveth only if the lice were reared

on the diet during the 3rd nymphal stage.

Those that were reared on the diet during

only the Ist or only the Ist and 2nd stages

developed to typical adults.

This inconsistency of results when eggs

and nymphal forms were treated and the

possibility that latent effects might occur

was investigated by a variety of tests. The

test eggs were taken from our colony of B.

bovis which is fed a diet of the surface scrap-

ings of cowskin (Hopkins and Chamberlain

1972). The tests were always conducted at

72% RH and 37+1.5°C except that during

the period of exposure to vapor the eggs

were in vials that had been sealed at room

RH.

For the exposure to juveth vapor, the

juveth was dissolved in glass-distilled acetone

(1 mg/200 p1), and 200 ul of the solution

was pipetted into a 20-ml glass vial. The low-

er two-thirds (ca.) of the inner surface of the

vial was coated with the juveth by tilting and

rotating the vial by hand until the acetone

had evaporated. Then bundles of mohair

(10-15 pieces each about 1.5 cm long) each

with 20 attached O- to 1-day-old louse eggs

were secured to the center of the cork-

backed metal foil liner of the screw cap of

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

the vial with two 2X8-mm strips of masking

tape, and the cap was screwed onto the vial

(care was taken that the eggs or hair did not

touch the treated surface). A similar un-

treated vial contained bundles with control

eges. On the 6th day of exposure (the eggs

began to hatch the 7th day), the eggs and

hair were removed from the vials, and each

bundle was dipped once in and flushed twice

with acetone in an attempt to remove any

juveth that might have been deposited on

the surfaces of the eggs or the hair. The con-

trols were treated similarly. The hair and

eges were then placed at 3 conditions to de-

termine which stage(s) were susceptible to

the effects of the juveth: (1) a bundle with

treated eggs was placed in a 0.5-dr glass shell

vial with 20 mg of diet; (2) a bundle with

control eggs was placed in a similar vial along

with another bundle containing 20 vapor-

treated eggs that had been killed by freezing

(held at -5°C for 1-2 hr); (3) a bundle with

control eggs was placed in a vial with diet.

Each of these vial tests was replicated 4

times. The vials were then held in normal

rearing conditions. At 6 days posthatch, the

unhatched eggs, egg shells, and mohair were

removed from all vials, and the nymphs were

left to feed on the diet for 2 more days.

At 8 days posthatch, most nymphs were

2nd instars, and the numbers alive were

recorded. Some late 2nd instars that had

hatched from treated eggs and some that had

hatched from untreated eggs subsequently

confined with killed vapor-treated eggs were

placed on new diet in new vials. The re-

mainder in the test vials and those in the

control vials were allowed to finish develop-

ment on original diet. When all lice had

molted to the 4th instar or had died, the

numbers of typical and atypical phenotypes

in each vial were recorded.

As shown in Table 1, atypical (nym-

phoid) 4th instars developed only from 3rd

instars that had been left on diet exposed to

treated eggs and hair, and latent effects were

not demonstrated.

In a 2nd test, eggs of B. bovis were

treated topically with juveth in acetone solu-

tion in a manner similar to the way Riddi-

ford (1970) treated the eggs of Pyrrhocoris

apterus and Oncopeltus fasciatus. Three ace-

tone solutions of juveth were prepared, and

each was applied to separate groups of

twenty O- to 1-day-old and 6- to 7-day-old

eggs (2 replications of each age and each

solution) with micrometer-actuated syringes:

0.52 wl of 0.5%/egg with a 0.25-ml syringe

and 0.05 wl of 1 or 2%/egg with a 100-y1

syringe. Also, 2 control groups of each age

(20/group) were treated with each amount

of acetone alone. Each group was placed in a

Table 1. Phenotypes of 4th-Instar B. bovis Resulting from Eggs Treated with Juveth

and Subsequent Rearing on Diet Containing Hormonal Residues and Control Diets.

Diet of Nymphs

Beginning 8 Days

No. and Phenotype

Treatment Posthatch of 4th Instars

Vapor treatment

Treated 15 on original diet 12 nymphs

12 on fresh diet 11 adults

Untreated@ 30 on original diet 27 nymphs

27 on fresh diet 26 adults

Untreated 70 on original diet 67 adults

Topical treatment

0.5 pg/ege 16 on original diet 12 nymphs

14 on fresh diet 11 adults

Untreated 20 on original diet 18 adults

14 on old® diet 8 nymphs

4Held with treated frozen eggs and mohair for last day of egg stage and first 6 days of

nymphal stage.

bDiet that had been in a vial with treated eggs for about 9 days.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

259

0.5-dr glass shell vial with diet and allowed

to hatch and develop for 8 days; then new

diet in a new vial was provided for some of

the lice while the remainder were left on the

original diet, and records were taken when

all lice had molted to the 4th instar or died.

In addition, some diet that had originally

been exposed to treated eggs and mohair was

used as food for some 2nd-instar nymphs

from the acetone-treated controls.

In each test, O- to 1-day-old eggs treated

topically with juveth failed to hatch, but all

controls hatched. The hatchability of treated

6- to 7-day-old eggs equaled that of the con-

trols, but the rate of survival of nymphs was

low (<50%) for the higher doses. The results

of the test with 0.05 ul of 1%/egg or 0.5

ug/egg are presented in Table 1 (the results

of the other tests were similar, but survival

was best in this test). Obviously latent ef-

fects from treated eggs were not demon-

strated, but atypical phenotypes developed

when lice were exposed to contaminated

diet.

For 50 ppm of juveth, which was an ef-

fective dose, to be present in the 20 mg of

diet used in the vapor tests, at least 1000 ng

would have to be transferred somehow from

the wall of the vial to the eggs and hair and

subsequently, despite the washing of the

eggs and hair, to the diet; we placed 1 mg (or

1000X that amount) of juveth on the wall of

the vial. In the tests of topical treatment, we

used 10X (10,000 ng/20 eggs) that amount

per vial. We feel that these amounts of ju-

veth were adequate so at least 50 ppm could

have been transferred to the diet.

260

We conclude that, in this species of Mallo-

phaga, treatment with an active juvenile hor-

mone analog produces a response only if the

lice are treated during the 3rd instar. The

occurrence of latent or deferred effects

when hemipteran and lepidopteran eggs were

treated with an analog of JH and not when §f

mallophagan eggs were treated may be the

result of fundamental differences in the re-

spective metamorphoses. However, hor-

monally active materials usually act at such

low concentrations that the carryover of

minute amounts affects results.

References Cited

Hopkins, D.E., and W.F. Chamberlain. 1972. In

vitro colonization of the cattle biting louse,

Bovicola bovis. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer.

65(3):771-2.

Hopkins, D.E., W.F. Chamberlain, and J.E. Wright.

1970. Morphological and physiological changes

in Bovicola limbata (Mallophaga: Tricho-

dectidae) treated topically with a juvenile hor-

mone analogue. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer.

63(5): 1360-3.

Riddiford, L.M. 1969. Juvenile hormone applica-

tion to hemipteran eggs: delayed effects on

postembryonic development. Amer. Zool. 9:

1120.

. 1970. Prevention of meta-

morphosis by exposure of insect eggs to juve-

nile hormone analogs. Science 167(3916):

287-8.

Riddiford, L.M., and C.M. Williams. 1967. The ef-

fects of juvenile hormone analogues on the em-

bryonic development of silkworms. Proc. Nat.

Acad. Sci. U. S. 57: 595-601.

White, Dinah F. 1968. Postnatal treatment of the

cabbage aphid with a synthetic juvenile hor-

mone. J. Insect Physiol. 14(7): 901-12.

Willis, J.H., and P.A. Lawrence. 1970. Deferred ac-

tion of juvenile hormone. Nature 225: 81-83.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

Some Aspects of the Behavior of Mosquito Larvae

(Diptera: Culicidae)'

William E. Bickley

Department of Entomology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742

ABSTRACT

This review of the recent literature dealing with behavior of mosquito larvae empha-

‘sizes newer knowledge of feeding habits, orientation to the water surface, reactions to

physical stimuli, formation of aggregations or clusters, and effects of overcrowding. Of

particular interest are growth retardant factors produced by larvae of a given species

which play a part in competitive displacement.

In recent years considerable attention has

been given to the eggs of mosquitoes with

particular reference to quiescence, diapause,

and hatching stimuli. Much research has

been conducted on adult behavior, with

special emphasis on feeding, mating, oviposi-

tion, and flight. Not so much consideration

has been given to the behavior of larvae. Cle-

ments (1963) reviewed the subject very

briefly.

The larva, for all practical purposes, is un-

able to choose its environment. Its mother

has that responsibility. It can move only

short distances to select slightly different

conditions of temperature and light, to reach

food sources, or to evade enemies. Because

predaceous larvae are relatively rare they will

not be considered here. Larvae of various

species have evolved adaptations to many

different kinds of water. Variations in the

nature of the aquatic environment, for the

most part, involve the following factors:

temperature, light, movement of water, dis-

solved gases, hydrogen-ion concentration, or-

ganic matter, and inorganic salts. Each of

these may have an effect indirectly as well as

directly. For example, shade may influence

the growth of micro-organisms which consti-

tute the larval diet. Quantities of salts which

larvae will tolerate are known for several spe-

cies.

‘Scientific Article No. A1777, Contribution

No. 4567, of the Maryland Agricultural Experi-

ment Station, Department of Entomology. Aided

by a grant from the Society of the Sigma Xi and

RESA Research Fund.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972-

According to Bates (1949), food is rarely

a limiting factor. That is, competition for

food is hardly ever intense, although larvae

in small containers at times are affected by

food shortages. Young larvae are said to feed

primarily on bacteria. Older larvae take in

larger micro-organisms such as algae, yeasts,

fungi, and protozoa. They also swallow small

particles of organic matter. Laboratory in-

vestigations by several workers show that

suboptimum amounts of food cause an in-

crease in the duration of larval and pupal

stages and a decrease in size and weight of

adults. Larvae of Aedes aegypti were reared

under sterile conditions by Trager (1935).

He was able to dissolve the right combina-

tion of nutrients and vitamins in water so

that the larvae in his experiments swallowed

sufficient quantities of the medium to de-

velop to maturity. The surfaces of eggs were

sterilized, and the medium was kept entirely

free of micro-organisms. Similar procedures

have been carried out by several other

workers using a few different species. Re-

cently Wallis and Lite (1970) reported on

the axenic rearing of Culex salinarius. Vita-

mins are an essential part of an artificial diet.

In nature bacteria and other micro-organisms

appear to produce growth-stimulating sub-

stances.

Normally larvae use their mouth brushes

to filter out particulate matter. Anopheles

larvae which remain at the surface create

eddies and tend to suck so that currents at

the surface film move toward them (Renn,

1941). This facilitates the filtering out of

261

particles resting on the surface. Surtees

(1959) classified non-predaceous larvae as

either filter feeders or browsers. Many culi-

cines are filter feeders and produce currents

below the water surface. Browsers are usual-

ly bottom feeders. The brushes of their

mouth parts are shorter and stiffer than

those of filter feeders. Browsers abrade solid

material and manipulate fairly large parti-

cles, breaking them down to smaller sizes so

that they can be swallowed. For example,

they break loose clusters of micro-organisms

clinging to large pieces of debris. They fre-

quently are seen browsing on their own

bodies. According to Pucat (1965), filter

feeders may feed on particles stirred up by

browsers.

Locomotion of larvae depends largely on

body jerks, but the mouth brushes are used

for pulling the body along. The ventral brush

is used as a sculling organ (Ross, 1951), and

it probably serves at times as a rudder.

Larvae are sensitive to changes in light, to

vibrations, and to differences in tempera-

ture. Nearly all of them are heavier than

water. When they are at the surface they re-

spond to shadows moving across the water

or to vibrations by sinking to the bottom of

the medium. These alarm reactions were

studied in some detail by Folger (1946),

Thomas (1950), and Mellanby (1958).

“Crash diving” is not demonstrable in some

species but is well developed in many

Anopheles and other species which spend

most of the time at the water surface. Some

species are more responsive to vibrations

than to changes in light intensity. Mellanby

(1958) showed that Aedes aegypti larvae can

be conditioned or habituated to the rapid

repetition of a stimulus that initially causes

an alarm response. Crash-diving results when

the side of a dish containing A. aegypti lar-

vae is tapped, and the larvae stay at the bot-

tom for 4 minutes. But if the container is

tapped once every second the larvae, in ef-

fect, ignore the tapping. One may reasonably

ask if these larvae go through a learning pro-

cess! Contitioning to light changes has also

been observed.

One of my students, Shahin Navai, is cur-

rently studying responses of Aedes

atropalpus larvae to vibrations and has found

262

that they behave somewhat like A. aegypti

larvae. However, tapping the container pro-

duces different reactions among larvae which

are part of a group of 10 compared with

reactions of single larva in a dish. We are

now studying the effects of vibrations from

a tuning fork, and perhaps we can ascertain

whether or not these larvae are capable of

“hearing”’.

Nearly all mosquito workers have ob-

served the “balling” or clustering of large

numbers of larvae in a relatively small pool

or in a container. Hocking (1953) attributed

such aggregations to mutual orientation of

larvae toward their shadows. Detailed studies

of Aedes taeniorhynchus \arvae by Nayar

and Sauerman (1968) have shown that aggre-

gations probably occur in response to visual

stimuli and bodily contacts. Aggregations do

not occur at night. They are related to tem-

perature and the nutritional state of the lar-

vae, and it is suggested that they aid in the

synchronization of pupal ecdysis. A relative-

ly few controlled experiments prove that

photo-period, apart from temperature, af-

fects growth rates. Chiba (1968) found that

in the case of Armigeres subalbatus, which

overwinters in the larval stage, long days ac-

tivate larvae to pupate and short days cause

larvae to remain in the 4th instar. Some lar-

vae, of course, complete their development

in complete darkness (Bickley, 1954).

There are numerous studies on tempera-

ture effects. One of the most interesting con-

cerns the aggregation of larvae in Arctic

pools. Clusters of larvae move around small

pools in a clockwise direction just as the sun-

light strikes the pools. Haufe (1957)

measured horizontal and vertical tempera-

ture gradients which cause a 3-dimensional

displacement of larvae. The balling of larvae

was also considered in relation to light and

gravity.

Optimum, minimum, and maximum tem-

peratures for a number of species have been

established. Larvae of nearly all species are

killed when actually frozen. The effects of

low temperatures may be ameliorated by a

process of acclimatization. In other words, a

gradual decline in temperature to a low

point is not as detrimental as a sudden

change (Mellanby, 1960).

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

There have been few experiments using

water with temperature gradients. Aedes

aegypti larvae respond to horizontal gra-

dients and select a favorable zone. According

to Omardeen (1957), they move to the spot

which is less irritating to them.

It is generally recognized that the orienta-

tion of culicine larvae to the surface essen-

tially is a result of the need for obtaining air.

Temperature, light, and gravity are entirely

secondary. Meola (1961) reared larvae of

Aedes aegypti in culture tubes where the

only source of air was from below. Keeping

the tail-end down caused no serious prob-

lems. One of my students, John B. Duvall,

has reared larvae of Aedes atropalpus “up-

side down”. We can get the larvae to pupate

but have been unable to obtain adults.

Mosquito larvae with few exceptions

avoid currents. This, in part, accounts for

the fact that larvae are generally absent from

open water. The other reason why they shun

open water may be attributed to a natural

thigmotropism or thigmotaxis. It may be as-

sumed that, as species evolved, the instinct

to touch or at least stay close to vegetation

or other objects in the water had tremen-

dous adaptive value in protecting larvae from

fish and other predators. Even so, it is rather

surprising to find that in small ponds elimi-

nation of vegetation around the edges

generally prevents development of mosquito

larvae.

Schober (1966) reported that agitation of

the water surface by continuous sprinkling

actually killed larvae and pupae of Culex

pipiens and prevented oviposition. This pro-

cedure has practical value in controlling mos-

quito breeding in lagoons designed for hold-

ing organic wastes.

In most aquatic communities mosquito

larvae are not dominant members (Bates,

1949). There are certain notable exceptions

such as bromeliads, small containers, tem-

porary rain-pools, and certain types of heavi-

ly polluted water.

Shannon and Putnam (1934) were among

the first to report on the effects of over-

crowding of Aedes aegypti and on the effect

of water “previously fouled” by larvae. In

recent years there has been increasing in-

terest in competition among larvae of the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

same species and between different species.

If a given species competes favorably against

another species and is dominant, then it is

said that that species occupies a particular

ecological niche. The less successful species

is said to occupy a different ecological niche.

It is difficult to explain just how these speci-

fic adaptations evolved and why they persist.

It now appears that in several cases the most

important single factor involved in popula-

tion regulation or competitive displacement

is a substance produced by larvae. Moore

and Fisher (1969) have suggested GRF, or

growth retardant factor, as the name for this

substance. In their studies, A. aegypti larvae

produced a substance which slowed down

the growth of A. albopictus. This was proved

by placing larvae of A. albopictus in water

“fouled” by A. aegypti. Peters et al. (1969)

reported that the presence of A. aegypti lar-

vae in a culture of Culex pipiens caused sig-

nificant mortality of the latter species. Bar-

bosa et al. (1972) reared A. aegypti larvae at

various densities. Overcrowding resulted in

decreased survival and pupal weights.

Mechanical agitation probably caused a de-

crease in feeding although there appeared to

be evidence that metabolites had an effect

on growth. Wada (1965) stated that the

detrimental effects of high densities on A.

aegypti larvae could not be attributed to

metabolic wastes. Wilton (1968) found that

A. aegypti larvae were more efficient in

utilizing food than A. triseriatus larvae. Con-

sequently A. aegypti has a competitive ad-

vantage. Ikeshoji and Mulla (1970) reared

Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus larvae under

crowded conditions and found that toxic

chemical factors produced by the larvae af-

fected larvae of the same species and larvae

of C. tarsalis, A. aegypti, and Anopheles al-

bimanus. Toxic factors were ether extract-

able, and progress was made in identifying

biologically active materials by thin layer

chromatography. There is good reason to be-

lieve that at some time toxic factors pro-

duced by larvae can be further identified and

synthesized. These substances may be the

larvicides of the future.

References Cited

Barbosa, P., T.M. Peters, and N.C. Greenough.

1972. Overcrowding of mosquito populations:

263

Response of larval Aedes aegypti to stress. En-

viron. Entomol. 1(1):89-93.

Bates, M. 1949. The Natural History of Mosquitoes.

The Macmillan Co., New York, 379 pp.

Bickley, W.E. 1954. Notes on the light reactions of

larvae of Culex restuans Theo. N.J. Mosquito

Extermin. Assoc. Proc. 41:198-199.

Chiba, Y. 1968. The effect of photoperiod on the

pupation of Armigeres subalbatus. Jap. J. Ecol.

18(1):43-45.

Clements, A.N. 1963. The physiology of mosqui-

toes. New York: The Macmillan Co. 393 pp.

Folger, H.T. 1946. The reactions of Culex larvae

and pupae to gravity, light, and mechanical

shock. Physiol. Zool. 19(2):190-202.

Haufe, W.O. 1957. Physical environment and be-

haviour of immature stages of Aedes communis

(deg.) (Diptera: Culicidae) in subarctic Canada.

Canadian Entomol. 89(3):120-139.

Hocking, B. 1953. Notes on the activities of Aedes

larvae. Mosquito News 13(2):77-81.

Ikeshoji, T., and M.S. Mulla. 1970. Overcrowding

factors of mosquito larvae. J. Econ. Entomol.

63(1):90-96.

Mellanby, K. 1958. The alarm reaction of mosqui-

to larvae. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1(3):153-160.

. 1960. Acclimatization affect-

ing the position of the cold and heat death

points of larvae of Aedes aegypti. Bull.

Entomol. Res. 50(4):821-823.

Meola, R. 1961. Some preliminary observations of

mosquito larvae and pupae confined to a bot-

tom airt-water interface. Ohio J. Sci. 61(1):38.

Moore, C.G., and B.R. Fisher. 1969. Competition

in mosquitoes. Density and species ratio effects

on growth, mortality, fecundity, and produc-

tion of growth retardant. Ann. Entomol. Soc.

Amer. 62(6):1325-31.

Nayar, J.K., and D.M. Sauerman, Jr. 1968. Larval

aggregation formation and population density

interrelations in Aedes taeniorhynchus, their ef-

fects on pupal ecdysis and adult characteristics

at emergence. Entomol. Exp. Appl.

11(4):423-442.

Omardeen, T.A. 1957. The behaviour of larvae and

pupae of Aedes aegypti (L.) in light and tem-

264

perature gradients. Bull. Entomol. Res.

48(2):349-357.

Peters, T.M., B.I. Chevone, and R.R. Callahan.

1969. Interactions between larvae of Aedes

aegypti(L.) and Culex pipiens L. in mixed ex-

perimental populations. Mosquito News

29(3):435-438.

Pucat, A.M. 1965. The functional morphology of

the mouthparts of some mosquito larvae.

Quaestiones Entomol. 1(2):41-86.

Renn, C.E. 1941. The food economy of Anopheles

quadrimaculatus and A. crucians larvae: Re-

lationships of the air-water interface and the

surface-feeding mechanism, in “A Symposium

on Hydrobiology”. Univ. of Wisc. Press, Madi-

son, pp. 329-342.

Ross, H.H. 1951. Conflict with Culex. Mosquito

News 11(3):128-132.

Schober, H. 1966. Agitation of water surfaces by

sprinkling to prevent mosquito breeding. Mos-

quito News 26(2):144-149.

Shannon, R.C., and P. Putnam. 1934. The biology

of Stegomyia under laboratory conditions. 1.

The analysis of factors which influence larval

development. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash.

36(7):185-216.

Surtees, G. 1959. Functional and morphological

adaptations of the larval mouthparts in the

sub-family Culicinae (Diptera) with a review of

some related studies by Montschadsky. Proc.

Roy. Entomol. Soc. London (A)34(1/3):7-16.

Thomas, I.M. 1950. The reactions of mosquito lar-

vae to regular repetitions of shadows as stimuli.

Austral. J. Sci. Res. (B) 3(1):113-123.

Trager, W. 1935. The culture of mosquito larvae

free of microorganisms. Amer. J. Hyg.

22:18-25.

Wada, Y. 1965. Effect of larval density on the de-

velopment of Aedes aegypti (L.) and the size of

the adults. Quaestiones Entomol. 1(4):223-249.

Wallis, R.C., and S.W. Lite. 1970. Axenic rearing

of Culex salinarius. Mosquito News

30(3):427-429.

Wilton, D.P. 1968. A laboratory study of larval

competition between Aedes aegypti (L.) and

Aedes triseriatus (Say). Mosquito News

28(4):627-630.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

Two New Species of Melanagromyza Hendel

(Diptera, Agromyzidae) that Bore in Tomato Stalks in Colombia

and Ecuador

George C. Steyskal

Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA

(mail address: c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560).

ABSTRACT

Melanagromyza caucensis and M. tomaterae (Diptera: Agromyzidae), the former

from Colombia and the latter from Colombia and Ecuador, are described as new to

science. Both species were reared from larvae boring in the stems of tomato plants.

The species here described were received,

one of them several times, from workers in

South America who reared them from the

stalks of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum

Mill., family Solanaceae). Owing to their

habit of boring in the stems, the early stages

of even a heavy infestation will produce lit-

tle or no visible indication. No published in-

formation is available on the effect of

agromyzid stem miners in such crops as

tomato, but it is likely that weakened or

broken stalks and considerable reduction in

yield of fruit could result.

The species of Melangromyza are small

black flies very similar to each other in

general appearance. Many species may be

distinguished only by postabdominal char-

acters requiring dissection. As noted below,

the species here described are very similar to

certain described species, M. tomaterae being

very similar to M. colombiensis Spencer, the

host of which is not known, and ™M.

caucensis being apparently most closely re-

lated to M. chenopodii Spencer (host,

Chenopodium ambrosioides Linnaeus) and

an undescribed species noted by Spencer.

Both new species run in the key to neo-

tropical Melanagromyza by Spencer (1963:

306) to the first part (“squamal fringe pale,

whitish”). M. tomaterae will run to couplet

3 because of its partly white halter, but ©.

caucensis, with wholly black halter, 2 pairs

of dorsocentral bristles, orbits and ocellar

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

triangle only moderately shining, and

foretibia lacking lateral bristle, will go to

couplet 12; among the species which follow

thereafter, only the male postabdomen will

give reliable differentiation.

Melanagromyza caucensis, new species

(Fig. 1)

Very similar to M. chenopodii Spencer

(1963: 308) and an unnamed species figured

by Spencer in the same place, possibly even

identical with the latter. It differs from /.

chenopodii in narrower cheek, lower lunule,

and in postabdominal details.

Male.—Length of wing 2.6-2.7 mm. Head with

frons distinctly raised above eye margin, matt

black, 0.35 of head-width; orbits and ocellar tri-

angle only weakly shining; orbital bristles strong;

orbital setulae largely reclinate, except for a few in

front; eyes bare; lunule parabolic, half as high as

wide; cheek 0.18 of eye-height; arista short-

pubescent. Mesoscutum and abdomen shining

blackish, a little bronzy greenish. Postabdomen as

in Fig. 1; anterior process of epandrium short,

acute, with a few short apical setae; basiphallus a

complete ring; sperm pump (Fig. 1A) with short,

thick subcapitular process.

Holotype (male) and 1 male paratype,

Pradera, Valle, Colombia, 28 September

1968, ex tomato stem (Ingeborg Zenner J.),

no. 72252 in U.S. National Museum.

The name is an adjective pertaining to the

Cauca Valley of Colombia.

265

3 COLOMBIENSIS

Fig. 1. Melanagromyza caucensis, n. sp., male postabdomen; 1A, sperm pump. Fig. 2. M. tomaterae, n.

sp., male postabdomen; 2A, sperm pump; 2C, apical segment of ovipositor; 2D, egg guide; 2E, sperma-

thecae. The 100-micron scale refers only to figs. 2C, 2D, and 2E. Fig. 3. M. colombiensis Spencer,

postabdomen of male paratype. All figures show a lateral view of the postabdomen together with

aedeagus (a) and fulcral region (b) viewed in direction of arrows.

Melanagromyza tomaterae, new species bristles, conspicuously pubescent arista, and

(Fig. 2) in postabdominal details.

Male.—Length of wing 2.7 mm. Head with front

Similar to M. colombiensis Spencer, dif- matt black, very slightly raised above eye margin,

fering in narrower front, 3 lower orbital 0.37 of head-width; orbits and ocellar triangle

266 J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

clearly distinguishable, but only weakly shining;

lower orbital bristles 3, distinctly smaller than up-

per orbitals; orbital setulae numerous and long,

usually all reclinate; eye rather densely pilose on

upper surface; lunule parabolic, half as high as

wide; cheek 0.12-0.20 of eye-height; antenna with

3rd segment roundish, moderate in size, arista

long-pubescent. Mesoscutum and abdomen shining

blackish, with rather strong bluish to greenish

metallic glint. Wing with costa extending to 4th

vein, last section of Sth vein more than half as long

as penultimate section. Halter (fig. 2B) black, with

broad white margin along apical sulcus (most ap-

parent in fresh specimens or those preserved in li-

quid). Postabdomen as in Fig. 2; anterior process

of epandrium curved, projecting more than 1/3 of

length of epandrium and bearing a few short setae

apically; arms of basiphallus rather broad apically

and narrowly disjunct; sperm pump (Fig. 2A) with

narrow blade sinuate on side with long, slender

subcapitular process.

Female.—Length of wing 2.8-3.2 mm. Post-

abdomen with ovipositor sheath only little taper-

ing, 0.33 mm long; ovipositor with apical segment

as Fig. 2C, egg guide as in Fig. 2D, and spermathe-

cae as in Fig. 2E.

Holotype (male), allotype, and 10 male

and 16 female paratypes from the following

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

localities: Cauca Valley, Colombia, 1968, ex

stem mines in tomato (Mario Calderon C.),

including holotype and allotype; Medellin,

Antioquia, Colombia, December 1971, en

tomato (Raul Velez-Angel); Pradera, Valle,

Colombia, 28 September 1968, ex tomato

stem (Ingeborg Zenner J.); Portoviejo,

Manabi, Ecuador, 6 October 1970 (P.

Alcivar A.); all deposited in U.S. National

Museum, type no. 72253.

The name is from Spanish tomatera

‘tomato plant, treated as Latin and placed

in the genitive case.

For purposes of comparison the male

postabdomen of a paratype of M. colom-

biensis (topotypical, from Bogota, Colom-

bia) in the U.S. National Museum is shown

in Fig. 3.

Reference Cited

Spencer, K.A. 1963. A synopsis of the neotropical

Agromyzidae (Diptera). Trans. Entomol. Soc.

London 115: 291-389.

267

ACADEMY AFFAIRS

SCIENTISTS IN THE NEWS

Contributions in this section of your Journal are earnestly solicited. They

should be typed double-spaced and sent to the Editor by the 10th of the

month preceding the issue for which they are intended.

CARNEGIE INSTITUTION

Hatton S. Yoder, Jr. is the first recipient

of the Arthur L. Day Prize and Lectureship

of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr.

Yoder is director of the Geophysical Labora-

tory of the Carnegie Institution of Washing-

ton. The award includes a sum of $10,000

and the invitation to deliver from four to six

lectures, which would be published in a

monograph or book. A leading petrologist,

Dr. Yoder developed an apparatus that en-

ables scientists to investigate a wide range of

phenomena within the earth’s crust.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Ruth M. Leverton, ARS, has received the

Federal Woman’s Award in recognition of

her significant contributions in the field of

nutrition.

Dr. Leverton is science advisor in nutri-

tion, Office of the Administrator, ARS. As

science advisor, she appraises nutrition re-

search developments that affect human wel-

fare and the quality of life. She evaluates the

need for new nutrition knowledge and re-

views nutrition research policies of ARS.

Dr. Leverton came to USDA in 1957, and

in 1961 became Assistant Administrator of

ARS. Her chief responsibility was for the

program in nutrition and consumer and food

economics, textiles and clothing, and hous-

ing and household equipment. She was

named science advisor in 1970.

Dr. Leverton has represented the United

States at four Biennial Conferences of the

Food and Agriculture Organization, United

Nations, since 1965. She has been a contri-

buting member of U.S. delegations to inter-

national nutrition conferences in the Far

East and Pacific areas, Latin America and

Europe.

268

Theodore C. Byerly, Assistant Director of

Science and Education for the U.S. Depart-

ment of Agriculture, has been honored in

special ceremonies, after 42 years of dis-

tinguished service. A plague presented to Dr.

Byerly on the occasion was inscribed:

“To Theodore C. Byerly, scientist, administrator,

world citizen—In recognition of his many years of

outstanding leadership in the service of agriculture

and with gratitude for his dedication and extra-

ordinary intellectual competence as a scientist in

the service of man.”

Among those who paid tribute to Dr.

Byerly’s achievements at the ceremony were

Secretary of Agriculture, Earl L. Butz; Dr.

Ned D. Bayley, Director of Science and Edu-

cation for USDA; representatives of: the Na-

tional Academy of Science; the American

Association for the Advancement of Science;

the National Science Foundation; the Agri-

cultural Research Policy Advisory

Committee; the Departments of Interior,

State, and Health, Education and Welfare;

and the Environmental Protection Agency as

well as hundreds of his coworkers.

Dr. Byerly will continue his present du-

ties, including those of USDA Coordinator

of Environmental Quality Activities.

Paul R. Miller has just returned from

Buenos Aires, Argentina, where he con-

ducted a graduate course in crop disease los-

ses, epidemiology and forecasting at the In-

stituto Nacional Tecnologia Agropecuaria

(National Institute of Agricultural Tech-

nology). INTA is a federal experiment station

with branches throughout Argentina devoted

largely to research. It gives graduate training

in selected agricultural sciences at headquar-

ters in Buenos Aires. Specialists from the

United States and other countries are

brought in to lecture in certain subject areas.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

—

George W. Irving Jr., has been appointed

as the program coordinator of a study being

undertaken by the FASEB Life Sciences Re-

search Office for the Food and Drug Ad-

ministration to evaluate data being collected

on items on the Generally Recognized as

Safe (GRAS) List of substances added to

foods.

Dr. Irving, Administrator retired, Agri-

cultural Research Service, USDA, was born

November 20, 1910, in Caribou, Maine. He

holds a B.S. degree in chemistry and M.A.

and Ph.D. degrees in biochemistry from

George Washington University. Dr. Irving

serves as a Public Trustee of The Nutrition

Foundation and as a member of the Agricul-

tural Board of the National Research Coun-

cil. Author of more than 50 scientific arti-

cles and books on pituitary hormones,

amino acid and protein chemistry and me-

tabolism, plant and animal proteolytic en-

zymes, antibiotics and plant growth regula-

tors, and an equal number of articles on

various aspects of research administration,

he was elected to membership in the Ameri-

can Society of Biological Chemists in 1946.

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

Alfred T. Myers, research chemist for the

U.S. Dept. of Interior, Denver, Colorado,

80225, retired on June 30, 1972, from the

U.S. Geological Survey after 46 years of

Government Service. His career in spectro-

chemistry began in the U.S. Dept. of Agri-

culture (22 years of service) in 1936, where

he made numerous contributions to spectro-

chemistry and plant nutrition research. In

the Geological Survey he served for 25 years,

and in particular for the past 20 years, in

Denver, he supervised the Spectrographic

Services and Project. He has made many con-

tributions to both spectrochemical and geo-

chemical research.

Mr. Myers was Vice President and Presi-

dent: of the Rocky Mountain Section,

Society for Applied Spectroscopy. Later he

was general chairman of the Fourth National

Meeting of the Society for Applied Spectro-

scopy held in Denver. He is a member of the

Washington Academy of Sciences and the

American Institute of Chemists. He received

an outstanding service award for 1969, from

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

wee ee ———eaeeE

the Rocky Mt. Section of S.A.S. He also is a

member of the American Chemical Society,

the Mineralogical Society of America, the

Geochemical Society and the Colorado Sci-

entific Society.

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY

Leonard Carmichael, vice president for re-

search and exploration, National Geographic

Society, is the 1972 recipient of the Hartley

Public Welfare Medal, the only National

Academy of Sciences medal presented for

achievements other than direct contributions

to scientific knowledge. The gold metal is

presented approximately every three years

for “eminence in the application of science

to the public welfare.” Former secretary of

the Smithsonian Institution and president of

Tufts University, Dr. Carmichael has studied,

written, and lectured in many fields of re-

search.

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

Maxine F. Singer, of NIA-MDD’s Labora-

tory of Biochemistry and Metabolism, has

been appointed to a 6-year term on the

board of trustees of Wesleyan University,

Middletown, Conn.

Dr. Singer is a research biochemist in the

laboratory’s Section on Enzymes and Cellu-

lar Biochemistry, National Institute of

Arthritis, Metabolism, and Digestive Dis-

eases.

Maurice Bender has been named Acting

Director of the Arctic Health Research Cen-

ter at Fairbanks, Alaska. He has served as an

executive level Scientist-Administrator in the

Public Health Service since 1958.

Dr. Bender was HSMHA study chairman

of the FAST Task Force in the Office of the

Deputy Under Secretary and also served as

Pharmacologist-Administrator for liaison be-

tween the Division of Air Pollution and the

Air Pollution Research Center at the Uni-

versity of California. He was chief, research

and training, grants branch, Division of Air

Pollution, PHS, from 1960 to 1965. Earlier,

he was executive secretary to the Cancer

Chemotheraphy Study Section at NIH and a

public health research program analyst also

at NIH.

269

Ileen E. Stewart has been appointed to a

3-year term on the NIH Library Advisory

Committee as a representative of the Divi-

sion of Research Grants and the extramural

program staff of the Institutes. She is execu-

tive secretary of the Applied Physiology,

Biomedical Communications, and History of

the Life Sciences Study Sections.

G. Burroughs Mider, deputy director of

the National Library of Medicine, was

honored on June 26 at a retirement dinner

in Bethesda.

Dr. Mider, who came to NLM in 1968,

was previously Director of Laboratories and

Clinics, NIH, and has been on the staff of

NIH for 24 years.

He will replace Dr. Ralph Knutti, former

National Heart Institute Director, as Execu-

tive Officer for the Universities Associated

for Research and Education in Pathology,

Inc., and the American Society of Experi-

mental Pathology.

At the retirement party, Dr. John F.

Sherman, NIH Deputy Director, discussed

““A Man to Remember,” stressing the high

esteem in which Dr. Mider is held.

He will be remembered, said Dr. Sher-

man, not only as a tough-fninded administra-

tor but also for the breadth of his knowledge

and his humanistic interests.

As tokens of this esteem, Dr. Mider was

presented with an engraved silver tray from

NLM’s Board of Regents; a silver pitcher and

a 1937 edition of Audubon’s Birds of Ameri-

ca from the staff at NLM, and from other

friends at NIH, a telescope and tripod to aid

his birdwatching.

Kenneth Cole, senior biophysicist, Na-

tional Institute of Neurological Diseases and

Stroke, has been named a Foreign Member

of the Royal Society of London. Only a few

Americans have received this honor.

Dr. Cole will participate in the formal ad-

mission ceremonies of the society next

November, in London.

In 1954, the year he came to NINDS, Dr.

Cole organized the Laboratory of Bio-

physics, and he also served as chief of that

laboratory.

He is internationally known for his

pioneering studies of electrical properties of

nerves and other living cells. His electrical

270

studies, particularly those done on the axon

of the giant squid, have been found to apply

to membranes of various other nerve cells

and muscle fibers.

Dr. Cole’s explanation of the electrical

aspects of living cell membranes has given

impetus to numerous biophysical research

projects, particularly those related to the

nervous system.

For this work he has received the Nation-

al Order of the Southern Cross of Brazil,

particularly in recognition of his work at the

Instituto de Biofisca of the University of

Brazil.

He has also received the honorary degree

of Doctor of Medicine from the University

of Uppsala, Sweden, and honorary doctor-

ates in Science from Oberlin and the Uni-

versity of Chicago.

He was also given the Silver Medallion

commemorating the 200th Anniversary of

Columbia University College of Physicians

and Surgeons, and the 1967 National Medal

of Science award.

Dr. Cole’s book, Membranes, Ions and

Impulses, which was written in 1968 under

the joint auspices of the University of Cali-

fornia at Berkeley and NIH, has entered its

second printing.

NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY

Lendell E. Steele, supervisory research

physicist, head, Reactor Materials Branch,

and J. Russell Hawthorne, research metal-

lurgist, consultant in advanced structural

metals, Reactor Materials Branch, both of

the Metallurgy Division, Naval Research

Laboratory, Washington, D.C., received on

June 27 (1972) the Charles B. Dudley Medal

from the American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM). The award presentation

was made by Andrew Van Echo, assistant

chief, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,

during the 75th Annual Meeting of ASTM in

Los Angeles, Calif.

The Charles B. Dudley Medal is given to

the author(s) of a paper or series of papers,

published by ASTM, of outstanding merit

constituting an original contribution in the

technical areas of the society. Steele and

Hawthorne received the award for a series of

papers on “Structure and Composition Ef-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

Lendell E. Steele

fects on Irradiation Sensitivity of Pressure

Vessel Steels and Welds.”

A native of Kannapolis, N.C., Steele re-

ceived his B.S. degree from George Washing-

ton University in 1950, and his M.A. degree

from American University in 1959.

He began his professional career in 1948

as a physical science aid with the National

Bureau of Standards. He was later with the

U.S. Geological Survey as a scientific aid and

later a chemist with the National Agricul-

tural Research Center. Steele joined the Na-

val Research Laboratory in 1951 as a chem-

ist for a short period prior to spending sev-

eral years as a research and development and

radiological safety officer with the U.S. Air

Force. He returned to the Naval Research

Laboratory as a chemist, 1953-1956; a

physicist, 1956-1964; and as a research

physicist, head, Reactor Materials Branch,

1964-1966. During 1967 he was a metallur-

gical engineer with the U.S. Atomic Energy

Commission Steele assumed his present posi-

tion in 1968 with the broad program re-

sponsibility for fundamental and applied re-

search on radiation damage phenomena and

on materials for advanced nuclear power

systems including thermal, fast and thermo-

nuclear reactors. He directs the related High

Level Radiation Laboratory for Naval Re-

search Laboratory serves as co-director of

the new inter-divisional research effort called

Cooperative Radiation Effects Stimulation

(CORES) Program. He has authored more

than 100 technical articles in his field.

A member of ASTM, Steele was the first

vice-chairman of Committee E-10 on Radia-

tion Effects and Radioisotopes from 1970 to

1972 when he was elected chairman. He is

also a member of the American Nuclear So-

ciety, American Society for Metals, Re-

search Society of America, and the Washing-

ton Academy of Sciences. Included in his

honors are the Washington Academy of Sci-

ences Award in Engineering Sciences, 1962;

Research Society of America Award for Ap-

plied Science, 1964; and the American Nu-

clear Society Special Award for work in

Neutron Damage of Materials.

WASHINGTON JUNIOR ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Officers for 1972-1973

President William R. Kanter 299-9446

Vice-President Luther Miller 966-0195

Secretary Charles Green 387-3735

Treasurer Cindee Corthell 451-5992

Membership Councilors

Nathan Tickel Arlington-Alexandria 671-1438

Michelle Bonhomme District of Columbia 829-4604

Mike Bragale Montgomery County 299-6206

Donald Barber Prince Georges County 772-3537

Roy Beverige Independent 536-6328

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

271

(Washington Junior Academy of Sciences—continued)

Committee Chairmen

Alumni Affairs Mitch Kanter

Membership John Cini

Field Trips Henry Salton

Sponsors and Advisors Sponsors and Advisors

Elizabeth Miller 966-0195 David Ederer 966-9157

Lewis Townsend Elaine Shafrin 638-0164

Joseph Yao 299-4379 Berenice Lamberton 337-9010

272 J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

BYLAWS

Washington Academy of Sciences

Last Revised in February 1972

Article I. OBJECTIVES

Section 1. The purposes of the Washington Academy of Sciences shall be: (a) to stimulate

interest in the sciences, both pure and applied, and (b) to promote their advancement and the

development of their philosophical aspects by the Academy membership and through cooperative

action by the affiliated societies.

Section 2. These objectives may be attained by, but are not limited to:

(a) Publication of a periodical and of occasional scientific monographs and such other

publications as may be deemed desirable.

(b) Public lectures of broad scope and interest in the fields of science.

(d) Promoting science education and a professional interest in science among people of high

school and college age.

(e) Accepting or making grants of funds to aid special research projects.

(f) Symposia, both formal and small informal, on any aspects of science.

(g) Scientific conferences.

(h) Organization of, or assistance in, scientific expeditions.

Gi) Cooperation with other Academies and scientific organizations.

(@) Awards of prizes and citations for special merit in science.

(k) Maintaining an office and staff to aid in carrying out the purposes of the Academy.

Article I. MEMBERSHIP

Section 1. The membership shall consist of three general classes: members, fellows and patrons.

Section 2. Members shall be persons who are interested in and will support the objectives of

the Academy and who are otherwise acceptable to at least two-thirds of the Committee on Member-

ship. A letter or application form requesting membership and signed by the applicant may suffice for

action by the Committee; approval by the Committee constitutes election to membership.

Section 3. Fellows shall be persons who by reason of original research or other outstanding

service to the sciences, mathematics, or engineering are deemed worthy of the honor of election to

Academy fellowship.

Section 4. Nominations of fellows shall be presented to the Committee on Membership as 2

form approved by the Committee. The form shall be signed by the sponsor, a fellow who has

knowledge of the nominee’s field, and shall be endorsed by at least one other fellow. An explanatory

letter from the sponsor and a bibliography of the nominee’s publications shall accompany the com-

pleted nomination form.

Section 5. Election to fellowship shall be by vote of the Board of Managers upon recom-

mendation of the Committee on Membership. Final action on nominations shall be deferred at leas.

one week after presentation to the Board, and two-thirds of the vote cast shall be necessary to elect.

Section 6. Each individual (not already a fellow) who has been nominated as a Delegate by a

local affiliated society or who has been chosen to be the recipient of an Academy Award for Scientific

Achievement shall be considered nominated for immediate election to fellowship by the Board of

Managers without the necessity for compliance with the provisions of Sections 4 and 5.

Section 7. An individual of unquestioned eminence may be recommended by vote of the

Committee on Membership Promotion for immediate election to fellowship by the Board of Managers,

without the necessity for compliance with the provisions of Sections 4 and 5.

Section 8. Persons who have given to the Academy not less than one thousand (1,000) dollars

or its equivalent in property shall be eligible for election by the Board of Managers as patrons (for life)

of the Academy.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972 © 273

Section 9. Life members or fellows shall be those individuals who have made a single payment

in accordance with Article III, Section 2, in lieu of annual dues.

Section 10. Members or fellows in good standing who are retired and are no longer engaged in

regular gainful employment may be placed in emeritus status. Upon request to the treasurer for

transfer to this status, they shall be relieved of the further payment of dues, beginning with the

following January first; shall receive notices of meetings without charge; and at their request, shall be

entitled to receive the Academy periodical at cost.

Section 11. Members or fellows living more than 50 miles from the White House, Washington,

D.C., shall be classed as nonresident members or fellows.

Section 12. An election to any dues-paying class of membership shall be void if the candidate

does not within three months thereafter pay his dues or satisfactorily explain his failure to do so.

Section 13. Former members or fellows who resigned in good standing may be reinstated upon

application to the Secretary and approval by the Board of Managers. No reconsideration of the

applicant’s qualifications need be made by the Membership Committee in these cases.

Article III. DUES

Section 1. The annual dues of each class of members shall be fixed by the Board of Managers.

No dues shall be paid by emeritus members and fellows, life members and fellows, and patrons.

Section 2. Members and fellows in good standing may be relieved of further payment of dues

by making a single payment to provide an annuity equal to their annual dues. (See Article II, Section

9.) The amount of the single payment shall be computed on the basis of an interest rate to be

determined by the Board of Managers.

Section 3. Members or fellows whose dues are in arrears for one year shall not be entitled to

receive Academy publications.

Section 4. Members or’fellows whose dues are in arrears for more than two years shall be

dropped from the rolls of the Academy, upon notice to the Board of Managers, unless the Board shall

otherwise direct. Persons who have been dropped from membership for nonpayment of dues may be

reinstated upon approval of the Board and upon payment of back dues for two years together with

dues for the year of reinstatement.

Article IV. OFFICERS

Section 1. The officers of the Academy shall be a President, a President-elect, a Secretary, and

a Treasurer. All shall be chosen from resident fellows of the Academy.

Section 2. The President, with the approval of the Board of Managers, shall appoint a Nominat-

ing Committee of six Fellows of the Academy, at least one of whom shall be a past President of the

Academy, and at least three of whom shall have served as Delegates for at least one year. The

Chairman shall be a past President. (See Article IV, Section 9.)

Section 3. The Secretary shall act as secretary to the Board of Managers and to the Academy at

large. He shall conduct all correspondence relating thereto, except as otherwise provided, and shall be

the custodian of the corporate seal of the Academy. He shall arrange for the publication in the

Academy periodical of the names and professional connections of new members, and also of such

proceedings of the Academy, including meetings of the Board of Managers, as may appropriately be of

interest to the membership. He shall be responsible for keeping a register of the membership, showing

such information as qualifications, elections, acceptances, changes of residence, lapses of membership,

resignations and deaths, and for informing the Treasurer of changes affecting the status of members.

He shall act as secretary to the Nominating Committee (see Art. VI, Sect. 2).

Section 4. The Treasurer shall be responsible for keeping an accurate account of all receipts

and disbursements, shall select a suitable depository for current funds which shall be approved by the

Executive Committee, and shall invest the permanent funds of the Academy as directed by that

Committee. He shall prepare a budget at the beginning of each year which shall be reviewed by the

Executive Committee for presentation to and acceptance by the Board of Managers. He shall notify

the Secretary of the date when each new member qualifies by payment of dues. He shall act as

274 J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

business advisor to the Editor and shall keep necessary records pertaining to the subscription list. In

view of his position as Treasurer, however, he shall not be required to sign contracts. He shall pay no

bill until it has been approved in writing by the chairman of the committee or other persons author-

ized to incur it. The fiscal year of the Academy shall be the same as the calendar year.

Section 5. The President and the Treasurer, as directed by the Board of Managers, shall jointly

assign securities belonging to the Academy and indorse financial and legal papers necessary for the uses

of the Academy, except those relating to current expenditures authorized by the Board. In case of

disability or absence of the President or Treasurer, the Board of Managers may designate the Presi-

dent-elect or a qualified Delegate as Acting President or an officer of the Academy as Acting

Treasurer, who shall perform the duties of these officers during such disability or absence.

Section 6. An Editor shall be in charge of all activities connected with the Academy’s publi-

cations: He shall be nominated by the Executive Committee and appointed by the President for an

indefinite term subject to annual review by the Board of Managers. The Editor shall serve as a member

of the Board.

Section 7. An Archivist may be appointed by the President. If appointed, he shall maintain the

permanent records of the Academy, including important records which are no longer in current use by

the Secretary, Treasurer, or other officer, and such other documents and material as the Board of

Managers may direct.

Section 8. All officers and chairmen of standing committees shall submit annual reports at the

May meeting of the Board of Managers.

Section 9. The Nominating Committee (Article VI, Section 2) shall prepare a slate listing two or

more persons for each of the offices of President-elect, of Secretary and of Treasurer, and four or

more persons for the two Managers-at-large whose terms expire each year and at least two persons to

fill each vacant unexpired term of manager-at-large. The slate shall be presented for approval to the

Board of Managers at its first meeting in October. Not later than November 15, the Secretary shall

forward to each Academy Member and Fellow an announcement of the election, the committee’s

nomination for the offices to be filled, and a list of incumbents. Additional candidates for such offices

may be proposed by any Member or Fellow in good standing by letter received by the Secretary not

later than Dec. 1. The name of any eligible candidate so proposed by ten Members or Fellows shall be

entered on the ballot.

Section 10. Not later than December 15, the Secretary shall prepare and mail ballots to

members and fellows. Independent nominations shall be included on the ballot, and the names of the

nominees shall be arranged in alphabetical order. When more than two candidates are nominated for

the same office the voting shall be by preferential ballot in the manner prescribed by the Board of

Managers. The ballot shall contain also a notice to the effect that votes not received by the Secretary

before the first Thursday of January, and votes of individuals whose dues are in arrears for one year or

more, will not be counted. The Committee of Tellers shall count the votes and report the results at the

annual meeting of the Academy.

Section 11. The newly elected officers shall take office at the close of the annual meeting, the

President-elect of the previous year automatically becoming President.

Article V. BOARD OF MANAGERS

Section 1. The activities of the Academy shall be guided by the Board of Managers, consisting

of the President, the President-elect, the immediate past President, one Delegate from each of the

affiliated societies, the Secretary, the Treasurer, six elected Managers-at-Large, and the Editor. The

elected officers of the Academy shall hold like offices on the Board of Managers.

Section 2. One Delegate shall be selected by each affiliated society. He shall serve until re-

placed by his society. Each Delegate is expected to participate in the meetings of the Board of

Managers and vote on behalf of his society.

Section 3. The Board of Managers shall transact all business of the Academy not otherwise

provided for. A quorum of the Board shall be nine of its members.

Section 4. The Board of Managers may provide for such standing and special committees as it

deems necessary.

Section 5. The Board shall have power to fill vacancies in its own membership until the next

annual election. This does not apply to the offices of President and Treasurer (see Art. IV, Sect. 5),

nor to Delegates (see Art. V, Sect. 2).

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972 - 275

Article VI. COMMITTEES

Section 1. An Executive Committee shall have general supervision of Academy finances, ap-

prove the selection of a depository for the current funds, and direct the investment of the permanent

funds. At the beginning of the year it shall present to the Board of Managers an itemized statement of

receipts and expenditures of the preceding year and a budget based on the estimated receipts and

disbursements of the coming year, with such recommendations as may seem desirable. It shall be

charged with the duty of considering all activities of the Academy which may tend to maintain and

promote relations with the affiliated societies, and with any other business which may be assigned to it

by the Board. The Executive Committee shall consist of the President, the President-elect, the Secre-

tary and the Treasurer (or Acting Treasurer) ex officio, as well as two members appointed annually by

the President from the membership of the Board.

Section 2. The Delegates shall constitute a Nominating Committee (see Art. IV, Sect. 9). The

Delegate from the Philosophical Society shall be chairman of the Committee, or, in his absence, the

Delegate from another society in the order of seniority as given in Article VIII, Section 1.

Section 3. The President shall appoint in advance of the annual meeting an Auditing Com-

mittee consisting of three persons, none of whom is an officer, to audit the accounts of the Treasurer

(Art. VII, Sect. 1).

Section 4. On or before the last Thursday of each year the President shall appoint a committee

of three Tellers whose duty it shall be to canvass the ballots (Art. IV, Sect. 10, Art. VII, Sect. 1).

Section 5. The President shall appoint from the Academy membership such committees as are

authorized by the Board of Managers and such special committees as necessary to carry out his

functions. Committee appointments shall be staggered as to term whenever it is determined by the

Board to be in the interest of continuity of committee affairs.

Article VII. MEETINGS

Section 1. The annual meeting shall be held each year in May. It shall be held on the third

Thursday of the month unless otherwise directed by the Board of Managers. At this meeting the

reports of the Secretary, Treasurer, Auditing Committee (see Article VI, Sect. 3), and Committee of

Tellers shall be presented.

Section 2. Other meetings may be held at such time and place as the Board of Managers may

determine.

Section 3. The rules contained in “Robert’s Rules of Order Revised” shall govern the Academy

in all cases to which they are applicable, and in which they are not inconsistent with the bylaws or

special rules of order of the Academy.

Article VIII. COOPERATION

Section 1. The term “affiliated societies” in their order of seniority (see Art. VI, Sect. 2) shall

be held to cover the:

Philosophical Society of Washington

Anthropological Society of Washington

Biological Society of Washington

Chemical Society of Washington

Entomological Society of Washington

National Geographic Society

Geological Society of Washington

Medical Society of the District of Columbia

Columbia Historical Society

Botanical Society of Washington

Washington Section of Society of American Foresters

Washington Society of Engineers

Washington Section of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

Washington Section of American Society of Mechanical Engineers

Helminthological Society of Washington

Washington Branch of American Society for Microbiology

Washington Post of Society of American Military Engineers

National Capital Section of American Society of Civil Engineers

District of Columbia Section of Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine

276 J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

Washington Chapter of American Society for Metals

Washington Section of the International Association for Dental Research |

Washington Section of American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics |

D.C. Branch of American Meteorological Society |

Insecticide Society of Washington |

Washington Chapter of the Acoustical Society of America

Washington Section of the American Nuclear Society

Washington Section of Institute of Food Technologists

Baltimore-Washington Section of the American Ceramic Society

Washington-Baltimore Section of the Electrochemical Society

Washington History of Science Club

Chesapeake Section of American Association of Physics Teachers

National Capital Section of Optical Society of America

Washington Section of American Society of Plant Physiologists

Washington Operations Research Council

Washington Section of Instrument Society of America

American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers

National Capital Astronomers

Maryland-District of Columbia-Virginia Section of the Mathematical Association of America

and such others as may be hereafter recommended by the Board and elected by two-thirds of the

members of the Academy voting, the vote being taken by correspondence. A society may be released

from affiliation on recommendation of the Board of Managers, and the concurrence of two-thirds of

the members of the Academy voting.

Section 2. The Academy may assist the affiliated scientific societies of Washington in any

matter of common interest, as in joint meetings, or in the publication of a joint directory: Provided, it

shall not have power to incur for or in the name of one or more of these societies any expense or

liability not previously authorized by said society or societies, nor shall it without action of the Board

of Managers be responsible for any expenses incurred by one or more of the affiliated societies.

Section 3. No affiliated society shall be committed by the Academy to any action in conflict

with the charter, constitution, or bylaws of said society, or of its parent society.

Section 4. The Academy may establish and assist a Washington Junior Academy of Sciences for

the encouragement of interest in science among students in the Washington area of high school and

college age.

Article IX. AWARDS AND GRANTS-IN-AID

Section 1. The Academy may award medals and prizes, or otherwise express its recognition and

commendation of scientific work of high merit and distinction in the Washington area. Such recog-

nition shall be given only on approval by the Board of Managers of a recommendation by a committee

on awards for scientific achievement.

Section 2. The Academy may receive or make grants to aid scientific research in the Wash-

ington area. Grants shall be received or made only on approval by the Board of Managers of a

recommendation by a committee on grants-in-aid for scientific research.

Article X. AMENDMENTS

Section 1. Amendments to these bylaws shall be proposed by the Board of Managers and

submitted to the members of the Academy in the form of a mail ballot accompanied by a statement of

the reasons for the proposed amendment. A two-thirds majority of those members voting is required

for adoption. At least two weeks shall be allowed for the ballots to be returned.

Section 2. Any affiliated society or any group of ten or more members may propose an

amendment to the Board of Managers in writing. The action of the Board in accepting or rejecting this

proposal to amend the bylaws shall be by a vote on roll call, and the complete roll call shall be entered

in the minutes of the meeting.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972 | 277

ACT OF INCORPORATION OF

THE WASHINGTON ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

We, the undersigned, persons of full age and citizens of the United States, and a majority being

citizens of the District of Columbia, pursuant to and in conformity with sections 545 to 552, inclu-

sive, of the Revised Statutes of the United States relating to the District of Columbia, as amended by

an Act of Congress entitled “An Act to amend the Revised Statutes of the United States relating to

the District of Columbia and for other purposes,” approved April 23, 1884, hereby associate ourselves

together as a society or body corporate and certify in writing:

1. That the name of the society is the Washington Academy of Sciences.

Dp That the term for which the Corporation is organized shall be perpetual.

3. That the Corporation is organized and shall be operated exclusively for charitable, educa-

tional and scientific purposes and in furtherance of these purposes and for no other purpose shall have,

but not be limited to , the following specific powers and purposes:

a. To encourage in the broadest and most liberal manner the advancement and promotion

of science.

b. To acquire, hold, and convey real estate and other property and to establish general and

special funds.

To hold meetings.

To publish and distribute documents.

To conduct lectures.

To conduct, endow, or assist investigation in any department of science.

To acquire and maintain a library.

And, in general, to transact any business pertinent to an academy of aciences.

Provided, however, that notwithstanding the foregoing enumerated powers, the Corpora-

tion shall not engage in activities, other than as an insubstantial part thereof, which are not in

themselves in furtherance of its charitable, educational and scientific purposes.

4. That the affairs, funds, and property of the Corporation shall be in general charge of a

Board of Managers, the number of whose members for the first year shall be nineteen, all of whom

shall be chosen from among the members of the Academy.

5. That in the event of dissolution or termination of the Corporation, title to and posses-

sion of all the property of the Corporation shall pass to such organization, or organizations, as may be

designated by the Board of Managers; provided, however, that in no event shall any property of the

Corporation be transmitted to or vested in any organization other than an organization which is then

in existence and then qualified for exemption as a charitable, educational or scientific organization

under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended.

Editor’s Note: This Act of Incorporation is shown as amended in 1964 by Francois N.

Frenkiel, President, and George W. Irving, Jr., Secretary, acting for the Washington Academy of

Sciences, in a Certificate of Amendment notarized on September 16, 1964. A copy of the original Act

of Incorporation dated February 18, 1898, appears in the Journal for November 1963, page 212.

so mo ao

278 J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

THE DIRECTORY OF THE ACADEMY FOR 1972

Foreward address and membership in affiliated societies by |

The present, 47th issue of the Academy’s July 30, 1972. In cases in which cards were not

directory is again this year issued as part of the received by that date, the address appears as it was

September number of the Journal. As in previous used during 1971, and the remaining data were

years, the alphabetical listing is based ona postcard taken from the directory for 1971. Corrections

questionnaire sent to the Academy membership. should be called to the attention of the Academy

Members were asked to update the data concerning office.

Code for Affiliated Societies, and Society Officers

1 The Philosophical Society of Washington (1898)

President: Edward E. Beasley, Physics Dept., Gallaudet College, Washington, D.C.

20002

Vice-president Bradley F. Bennett, 3301 Macomb St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008

Secretary: Robert J. Rubin, 3308 McKinley St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015

Delegate: Edward E. Beasley

2. Anthropological Society of Washington (1898)

President: Wilton Dillon, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560

Vice-president: Mrs. Hertzog-Flannay

Secretary: Cjarny Hume, Dept. of Anthropology, American University, Washington,

D.C. 20016

Delegate: Jean K. Boek, National Graduate Univ., 1630 Kalmia Rd., N.W., Washing-

ton, D.C. 20012

3 Biological Society of Washington (1898)

President: Joseph Rosewater, Smithsonian Institution

Secretary: Richard C. Banks, Smithsonian Institution

4 Chemical Society of Washington (1898)

President: F.E. Saalfeld, Naval Research Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390

President-elect: | Harvey Alter, Gillette Research Institute, Rockville, Md. 20850

Secretary: Robert Brady, Bureau of Customs, Washington, D.C.

Delegate: Harvey Alter

5 Entomological Society of Washington (1898)

President: Curtis W. Sabrosky, 8610 Grant St., Bethesda, Md. 20034

President-elect: Arthur K. Burditt, 4218 Ulster Rd., Beltsville, Md. 20704

Secretary: Dewey M. Caron, 11262 Evans Trail, Beltsville, Md. 20705

Delegate: Reece I. Sailer, 11144 Oak Leaf Dr., Silver Spring, Md.

6 National Geographic Society (1898)

President: Melvin M. Payne, National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. 20036

Secretary: Robert E. Doyle, National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. 20036

Delegate: Alexander Wetmore, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560

7 Geological Society of Washington (1898)

President: David B. Stewart, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 20242

Vice-president: | Edwin Roedder, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 20242

Secretary: J. Stephen Huebner, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 20242

Delegate: Charles Milton, Dept. of Geology, George Washington Univ. Washington,

D.C. 20005

8 Medical Society of the District of Columbia (1898)

President: William S. McCune

President-elect: Frank S. Bacon

Secretary: Thomas Sadler

9 Columbia Historical Society (1899)

Exec. Secretary: Col. R.J. McCarthy, 1307 New Hampshire Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.

Vice-president: | Wilcomb E. Washburn, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560

Secretary: William L. Ellis, 1307 New Hampshire Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.

Delegate: Paul H. Oehser, National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. 20036

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972 . 279

280

Botanical Society of Washington (1902)

President: William L. Stern, Dept. of Botany, Univ. of Md., College Park, Md. 20742

Vice-president: William L. Ackerman, U.S. Plant Industry Station, Glen Dale, Md. 20769

Secretary: Tom van der Zwet, Plant Industry Station, USDA, Beltsville, Md. 20705

Delegate: Conrad B. Link, Dept. of Horticulture, Univ. of Md., College Park, Md.

20742

Society of American Foresters, Washington Section (1904)

Chairman: Malcolm E. Hardy, 6924 Fern Lane, Annandale, Va. 22003

Vice-president: Carrow Prout, R.D. Box 210, Owings, Md. 20836

Secretary: Elmer Shaw, 1101 Third St., S.W., No. 813, Washington, D.C. 20024

Delegate: R.Z. Callaham, 3720 Acosta Rd., Fairfax, Va. 22030

Washington Society of Engineers (1907)

President: Burton H. Tower 2009 14th St. No. Arlington, Va. 22201

Vice-president: | Walter H. McCartha, 3804 14th St. No. Arlington, Va. 22201

Secretary: Gerald H. Laird, 6006 N. 35th St., Arlington, Va. 22207

Delegate: George Abraham, Code 4024, Naval Research Lab., Washington, D.C.

20390

Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers, Washington Section (1912)

Chairman: Forrest G. Hogg, 611 Frederick St., S.W., Vienna, Va. 22180

Vice-chairman: Stuart Bouchey, PEPCO Bldg., Rm. 307, 1900 Pa. Ave., N.W. Washington,

D.C. 20006

Secretary: Marjorie Townsend, 3529 Tilden St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008

Delegate: L.D. Whitelock, 5614 Greentree Rd., Bethesda, Md. 20034

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Washington Section (1923)

Chairman: Charles P. Howard, Catholic University of America

Vice-chairman: Robert A. Cahn, Agency for International Development

Secretary: Patrick F. Cunniff, University of Maryland

Delegate: William G. Allen, 8306 Custer Rd., Bethesda, Md. 20014

Helminthological Society of Washington (1923)

President: E.J.L. Soulsby, Dept. of Pathobiology, Univ. of Pa., Phila., Pa. 19104

Vice-president Frank Douvres, National Animal Parasite Lab., USDA, Beltsville, Md.

20705

Secretary: Edna M. Buhrer, 5415 Conn. Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015

Delegate: A.O. Foster, 4613 Drexel Rd., College Park, Md. 20740

Washington Society for Microbiology, Washington Branch (1923)

President: Carl Lamanna, Dept. of Army, 3045 Columbia Pike, Arlington, Va. 22204

Vice-president: Rita R. Colwell, Dept. of Biology, Georgetown Univ., Washington, D.C.

20007

Secretary: Charles R. Manclark, Division of Biological Standards, NIH, Bethesda, Md.

20014

Delegate: Lewis F. Affronti, Dept. of Microbiology, George Washington Univ. Medi-

cal School, Washington, D.C. 20005

Society of American Military Engineers, Washington Post (1927)

President: Capt. W.F. Reed, Jr., 3319 Albion Ct., Fairfax, Va. 22030

Vice-president: | Capt. Robert Munson, Washington Sci. Ctr., Bldg. 1, Rockville, Md. 20852

Secretary: LCDR. W.G. Matthews, 8811 Queen Elizabeth Blvd., Annandale, Va.

22003

Delegate: Hal P. Demuth, 4025 Pinebrook Rd., Alexandria, Va. 22310

American Society of Civil Engineers, National Capital Section (1942)

President: W. Cambell Graeub, 5202 West Park Rd., Washington, D.C. 20015

Vice-president: | Alfred W. Maner, 1092 Wooded Court, Adelphi, Md. 20783

Secretary: Herbert A. Pennock, 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.

20418

Delegate: Carl H. Gaum, 9609 Carriage Rd., Kensington, Md. 20795

Society for Experimental Biology & Medicine, D.C. Section (1952)

Chairman: Donald Flick, 930 19th St. South, Arlington, Va. 22202

President-elect: | Harriet F.M. Maling, Bldg. 3, Rm. 202, NIH, Bethesda, Md. 20014

Secretary: Vera Usdin, 2924 N. Oxford St., Arlington, Va. 22207

Delegate: Carleton R. Treadwell, 1339 H St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

20 American Society for Metals, Washington Chapter (1953)

Chairman: Klaus M. Zwilsky, U.S. Atomic Energy Comm., Washington, D.C. 20545

Vice-chairman: Alan H. Rosenstein, Air Force Office of Scientific Res., 1400 Wilson Blvd.,

Arlington, Va. 22209

Secretary: Joseph Malz, NASA, Code RWM, Washington, D.C. 20546

Delegate: Glen W. Wensch, U.S. Atomic Energy Comm., Washington, D.C. 20545

21 International Association for Dental Research, Washington Section (1953)

President: H.I. Copeland, Andrews Air Force Base

Vice-president: Jeanne C. Sinkford, Howard University

Secretary: Maj. E.F. Huget, Walter Reed Army Medical Ctr.

Delegate: N.H. Griffiths, Dental School, Howard Univ., Washington, D.C. 20001

22 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, National Capital Section (1953)

Chairman: Robert H. Herrmann, Thiokol Chemical Co.

Vice-chairman: James D. Redding, Univac

Secretary: Charles K. Kraus, Rocketdyne, Division. of North American Rockwell

Corp.

Delegate: Col. Robert J. Burger, National Academy of Engineering, 2101 Constitu-

tion Ave., Washington, D.C. 20418

23 American Meteorological Society, D.C. Chapter (1954)

Chairman: Clifford J. Murino, National Science Foundation

Vice-chairman: James K. Angell, ESSA

Secretary: Mary Ann Ruzecki, ESSA

Delegate: Harold A. Steiner, Hq., U.S. Air Force, The Pentagon, Rm. 5-D-982, Wash-

ington, D.C. 20330

24 Insecticide Society of Washington (1959)

President: Alexej B. Borkovec, Entomology Research Div. USDA, Beltsville, Md.

20705

Vice-president: Richard L. Cowden, Plant Protection Div., USDA, Hyattsville, Md. 20740

Secretary: Robert E. Menzer, Dept. of Entomology, Univ. of Md., College Park, Md.

20740

Delegate: H. Ivan Rainwater, Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Div., USDA, Hyatts-

ville, Md. 20782

25 Acoustical Society of America (1959)

Chairman: Richard K. Cook, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234

Vice-chairman: Herbert M. Nenstadt, Electrical Engineering Dept., U.S. Naval Academy,

Annapolis, Md. 21402

Secretary: Gerald J. Franz, Naval Ship R&D Ctr., Washington, D.C. 20034

Delegate: Alfred Weissler, Food & Drug Admin., Code SC-8, Washington, D.C.

20204

26 American Nuclear Society, Washington Section (1960)

Chairman: Oscar M. Bizzell, Atomic Energy Comm.

Vice-chairman: Justin L. Bloom, Atomic Energy Comm.

Secretary: Leslie S. Ayres, Arms Control & Disarmament Agency

27 Institute of Food Technologists, Washington Section (1961)

Chairman: Richard W. Sternberg, 1133 20th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

Vice-chairman: John N. Yeatman, ARS Market Quality Res., Color Res. Lab., Beltsville,

Md. 20705

Secretary: Cleve B. Denny, 1133 20th St., N.W., Washington, D.C.

Delegate: Lowrie M. Beacham, Food & Drug Adm., Rm. 3171, S. Bldg., Washington,

D.C. 20204

28 American Ceramic Society, Baltimore-Washington Section (1962)

Chairman: Samuel J. Schneider, Jr., Rm. A305, Matls. Bldg., National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234

Chairman-elect: Wate T. Bakker, General Refractories Co., P.O. Box 1672, Baltimore, Md.

21203

Secretary: Roy Rice, Code 6136, Naval Research Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390

Delegate: Jacob J. Diamond, National Bureau of Standards, Rm. B150, Physics Bldg.,

Washington, D.C. 20234

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972 281

282

Electrochemical Society, National Capital Section (1963)

Chairman: Gerald Halpert, 5011 Regina Dr., Annandale, Va. 22003

Vice-chairman: James R. Huff, 8603 Buckboard Dr., Alexandria, Va. 22308

Secretary: Judith Ambrus, 13128 Greenmount Ave., Beltsville, Md. 20705

Delegate: Stanley D. James, U.S. Naval Ordnance Lab., Code 232, White Oak, Md.

20910

Washington History of Science Club (1965)

Chairman: Richard G. Hewlett, Atomic Energy Comm.

Vice-chairman Deborah Warner, Smithsonian Institution

Secretary: Dean C. Allard

American Association of Physics Teachers, Chesapeake Section (1965)

President: Lee Anthony, Roanoke College, Salem, Va. 24153

Vice-president: Bernard Weigman, Loyola College, Baltimore, Md. 21212

Secretary: John B. Newman, Towson State College, Baltimore, Md. 21204

Delegate: Bernard B. Watson, Res. Analysis Corp., McLean, Va. 22101

Optical Society of America, National Capital Section (1966)

President: Elsie F. DuPre, Optical Sciences Div., Naval Res. Lab., Washington, D.C.

20390

Vice-president: Bruce Steiner, Rm. B-312, Metrology Bldg., National Bureau of Standards, §

Washington, D.C. 20015

Secretary: Irving H. Malitson, A-251 Physics Bldg., National Bureau of Standards, @

Washington, D.C. 20234

Delegate: Elsie F. DuPre

American Society of Plant Physiologists, Washington Section (1966)

President: Donald T. Krizek, USDA, Plant Industry Station, Beltsville, Md. 20705

Vice-president: Neal Barnett, Botany Dept., Univ. of Md., College Park, Md. 20742

Secretary: William R. Krul, USDA, Plant Industry Station, Beltsville, Md. 20705

Delegate: W. Shropshire, Jr., Radiation Biology Lab., Smithsonian Institution, 12441

Parklawn Dr., Rockville, Md. 20852

Washington Operations Research Council (1966)

President: Ellison Burton, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

20242

President-elect: Armand Weiss, Logistics Management Institute, 4701 Sangamore Rd.,

Washington, D.C. 20016

Secretary: Charles Kezar, General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. 20548

Delegate: John G. Honig, Office Chief of Staff, Army, The Pentagon, Rm. 1E 620,

Washington, D.C. 20310

Instrument Society of America, Washington Section (1967)

President: Francis C. Quinn

President-elect: John I. Peterson

Secretary: Frank L. Carou

American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical & Petroleum Engineers (1968)

President: Robert N. Morris, Southern Railway Systems

Vice-president: Ralph C. Kirby, Bureau of Mines

Secretary: Harold W. Lynde, Jr., Department of Commerce

National Capital Astronomers (1969)

President: John A. Eisele, 3310 Curtis Dr., No. 202, Hillcrest Heights, Md. 20023

Vice-president: | Henning E. Leidecker, 4811 Avondale Rd., Washington, D.C. 20018

Secretary: Estelle Finkle, 939 26th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037

Delegate: John A. Eisele

Maryland-District of Columbia and Virginia Section of Mathematical Assoc. of America (1971)

Chairman: Geraldine A. Coon, Goucher College, Baltimore, Md.

Secretary: John Smith, George Mason College, Fairfax, Va.

Delegate: Daniel B. Lloyd, 5604 Overlea Rd., Bethesda, Md. 20016

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

Alphabetical List of Members

M=Member; F=Fellow; E=Emeritus member. Numbers in parentheses refer to numerical code in foregoing

list of affiliated societies.

AARONSON, STUART A., 1600 S. Joyce St.,

Arlington, Va. 22202 (F)

ABBOT, CHARLES G., Smithsonian Institution,

Washington, D.C. 20560 (E-1, 23,32)

ABELSON, PHILIP H., President, Carnegie Insti-

tution of Washington, 1530 P St., N.W., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20005 (F-1,4,7,16)

ABRAHAM, GEORGE, M.S., 3107 Westover Dr.,

S.E., Washington, D.C. 20020 (F-1, 6, 12, 13,

31)

ACHTER, M.R., Code 6306, U.S. Naval Research

Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390 (F-20, 36)

ADAMS, CAROLINE L., 242 North Granada St.,

Arlington, Va. 22203 (E-10)

ADAMS, ELLIOT QO., 1889 Edgewood Dr.,

Twinsberg, Ohio 44087 (E)

ADAMS, ELLIOT O., 1889 Edgewood Dr., Twins-

berg, Ohio 44087 (E)

AFFRONTI, LEWIS,Ph.D, Dept. of Microbiology,

George Washington Univ. Sch. of Med., 1339 H

St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 (F-16)

AHEARN, ARTHUR J., Ph.D., 9621 East Bexhill

Dr., Box 294, Kensington, Md. 20795 (F-1)

AKERS, ROBERT P., Ph.D., 9912 Silverbrook Dr.,

Rockville, Md. 20850 (F-6)

ALBUS, JAMES S., 6100 Westchester, #1406,

College Park, Md. 20740 (F)

ALDRICH, JOHN W., Ph.D., 6324 Lakeview Dr.,

Falls Church, Va. 22041 (F-3)

ALDRIDGE, MARY H., Ph.D., Dept. of Chemis-

try, American University, Washington, D.C.

20016 (F-4)

ALEXANDER, ALLEN L., Ph.D., Code 6120,

Naval Research Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390

(F-4)

ALEXANDER, BENJAMIN H., Ph.D., 2522 S.

Dakota Ave., N.E., Washington, D.C. 20018

(F-4)

ALLEN, J. FRANCES, 7507 23rd Ave., Hyatts-

ville, Md. 20783 (F-3)

ALLEN, WILLIAM G., 8306 Custer Rd., Bethesda,

Md. 20034 (F-14)

ALTER, HARVEY, Ph.D., Nat. Center for Re-

source Recovery, Inc., 1211 Connecticut Ave.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (F)

ALTMAN, PHILIP L., 9206 Ewing Dr., Bethesda,

Md. 20034 (M)

AMIRIKIAN, ARSHAM, Sc.D., 6526 Western

Ave., Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F-17, 18)

ANDERSON, ELIZABETH P., 6017 Tilden Lane,

Rockville, Md. 20852 (M)

ANDERSON, FRENCH, Nat. Heart & Lung Inst.,

Nat. Inst. Health, Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F).

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

ANDERSON, MYRON S., Ph.D., 1433 Manchester

Lane, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20011 (F-4)

ANDERSON, WENDELL L., Rural Rt. 2, Box

2069G, La Plata, Md. 20646 (F-4)

ANDREWS, JOHN S., Sc.D., Animal Parasitology

Inst., Agr. Res. Cent., USDA, Beltsville, Md.

20705 (F-15)

APPEL, WILLIAM D., B.S., 12416 Regent Ave.,

N.E., Albuquerque, N.Mex. 87112 (E-6)

APSTEIN, MAURICE, Ph.D., Harry Diamond

Labs., Connecticut Ave. & Van Ness St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20438 (F-13)

ARGAUER, ROBERT J., Ph.D., 4208 Everett St.,

Kensington, Md. 20795 (F)

ARMSTRONG, GEORGE T., Ph.D., Natl. Bureau

of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-1, 4,

ARNOLD, KIETH, Ph.D., 6303 Cedell St., Camp

Springs, Md. 20031 (F)

ARSEM, CCLLINS, 6405 Maiden Lane, Bethesda,

Md. 20034 (M-1, 6, 13)

ASLAKSON, CARL I., 5707 Wilson Lane, Bethes-

da, Md. 20034 (F-1, 6, 12, 18)

ASTIN, ALLEN V., Ph.D., 5008 Battery Lane,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F-1, 13, 22, 31, 35)

AXILROD, BENJAMIN M., 9915 Marquette Dr.,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-1)

AYENSU, EDWARD S., Ph.D., 103 G St.,

N.W.,B219, Washington, D.C. 20024 (F-10)

BAKER, ARTHUR A., Ph.D., 5201 Westwood Dr.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-7)

BAKER, LOUIS C.W., Ph.D., Dept. of Chemistry,

Georgetown University, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20007 (F-4)

BALLARD, LOWELL D., 722 So. Colonial, Ster-

ling, Va. 22170 (M-1, 13, 32)

BARBEAU, MARIUS, Natl. Museum of Canada,

Ottawa, Ont., Can. (F)

BARBROW, LOUIS E., Natl. Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-1, 13, 32)

BARGER, GERALD L., 1527 Ainsley Rd., Silver

Spring, Md. 20904 (F-23)

BARNHART, CLYDE S., Sr., 715 Joppa Farm

Rd., Joppatowne, Md. 21085 (F).

BARRETT, MORRIS K., Mrs. Ph.D., 5528 John-

son Ave., Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-6)

BARSS, H.P., 2545 S.W. Terwilliger Blvd., Apt.

534, Portland, Oregon 97201 (E-3, 10)

BARTONE, JOHN C., Sci. & Life Consultants

Bur., 4111 Gallows Rd., Annandale, Va. 22003

(M-19)

283

BASS, ARNOLD M., Ph.D., 11920 Coldstream Dr.,

Potomac, Md. 20854 (F-1, 32)

BEACH, LOUIS A., Ph.D., 1200 Waynewood

Blvd., Alexandria, Va. 22308 (F-1, 6)

BEACHAM, LOWRIE M., Jr., 200 C St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20250 (F-4, 27)

BEACHEM, CEDRIC D., Code 6322 Metallurgy

Div., Naval Res. Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390

(F-6, 20, 36)

BEASLEY, EDWARD E., Ph.D., Physics Dept.,

Gallaudet College, Washington, D.C. 20002

(F-1)

BECKER, EDWIN D., Inst. Arthritis & Metabolic

Dis., National Institutes of Health, Bethesda,

Md. 20014 (F-4)

BECKETT, CHARLES W., 5624 Madison St.,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F-1, 4)

BECKMANN, ROBERT B., Dean, College of En-

gineering, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Md.

20742 (F-4, 6)

BEDINI, SILVIO A., 4303 47th St., N.W., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20016 (F)

BEIJ, K. HILDING, B.S., 69 Morningside Dr.,

Laconia, N.H. 03246 (F-1)

BEKKEDAHL, NORMAN, Ph.D., 405 N. Ocean

Blvd., Apt. 1001, Pompano Beach, Fla. 33062

(E-4, 6)

BELSHEIM, ROBERT, Ph.D., Code 8403, U.S.

Naval Research Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390

(F-1, 12, 14)

BENDER, MAURICE, Ph.D., Arctic Health Res.

Center, PHS, Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 (F)

BENESCH, WILLIAM, Inst. for Molecular Physics,

Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Md. 20742

(F-1, 32)

BENJAMIN, C.R., Ph.D., 10/AGR, Dept. of State,

Washington, D.C. 20520 (F-10)

BENNETT, JOHN A., 7405 Denton Rd., Bethesda,

Md. 20014 (F-20)

BENNETT, LAWRENCE H., 6524 E. Halbert Rd.,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-20)

BENNETT, MARTIN TOSCAN, 1775 Church St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (F)

BENNETT, ROBERT R., 5312 Yorktown Rd.

Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-6, 7)

BENNETT, WILLARD H., Dept. of Physics, North

Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, N.C. 27607 (F)

BERCH, JULIAN, Gillette Res. Inst., 1413 Res.

Blivd., Rockville, Md. 20850 (F-4)

BERLINER, ROBERT W., M.D., National Institutes

of Health, Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

BERNTON, HARRY S., 4000 Cathedral Ave.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-8)

BEROZA, MORTON, Ph.D., Agr. Res. Center

(East), USDA, Beltsville, Md. 20705 (F-4, 5,

19, 24)

‘BESTUL, ALDEN B., 9400 Overlea Ave., Rock-

ville, Md. 20850 (F-1, 6)

BICKLEY, WILLIAM E., Ph.D., Dept. of Entom-

ology, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Md.

20742 (F-5, 24)

284

BIRD, H.R., USAID/Education, American Em-

bassy, APO San Francisco, Calif. 96356 (F)

BIRKS, L.S., Code 6680, U.S. Naval Research

Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390 (F)

BLAKE, DORIS H., M.A., 3416 Glebe Rd., North,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (E-5)

BLANDFORD, J., Miss, Blair Plaza, Apt. 1624,

1401 Blair Mill Rd., Silver Spring, Md. 20910

(F) ‘

BLANK, CHARLES A., 5110 Sideburn Rd., Fair-

fax, Va. 22030 (M-6)

BLOCK, STANLEY, Ph.D., National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-4—

LUM, WILLIAM, Ph.D., 5525 Partridge Lane,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (E-4, 6, 20, 29)

BLUNT, ROBERT F., 5411 Moorland Lane,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

BOEK, JEAN K., Ph.D., Natl. Graduate Univ.,

1630 Kalmia Rd., N.W., Washington, D.C.

20012 (F-2)

BOGLE, ROBERT W., 1400 S. Joyce, Apt. B1608,

Arlington, Va. 22202 (F-1, 6, 22)

BONDELID, ROLLON O., Ph.D., Code 6610,

Naval Research Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390

(F)

BORTHWICK, HARRY A., 13700 Creekside Dr.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20904 (E-10, 33)

BOWLES, RONALD E., Ph.D., Bowles Fluidics

Corp., 9347 Fraser Ave., Silver Spring, Md.

20910 (F)

BOWMAN, PAUL W., 3114 5th St. N., Arlington,

Va. 22201 (F)

BOWMAN, THOMAS E., Ph.D., Div. of Crustacea,

U.S. Nat. Mus. Nat. Hist., Smithsonian Institu-

tion, Washington, D.C. 20560 (F-3)

BOZEMAN, F. MARILYN, Dept. of Rickettsia

Disease, Walter Reed Army Inst. of Res., Walter

Reed Army Med. Ctr., Washington, D.C. 20012

(F-16, 19)

BRANCATO, E.L., Code 4004, U.S. Naval Re-

search Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390 (F)

BRANDEWIE, DONALD F., 6811 Field Master

Dr., Springfield, Va. 22153 (F)

BRAUER, G.M., Dental Research A-123 Polymer,

Natl. Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

20234 (F-4, 21)

BRAZEE, RUTLAGE J., 619 Kenbrook Dr., Silver

Spring, Md. 20902 (M)

BRECKENRIDGE, R.G., Atomics International,

P.O. Box 309, Canoga Park, Calif. 91364 (F)

BREGER, IRVING A., Ph.D., 212 Hillsboro Dr.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20902 (F-4, 6, 7)

BREIT, GREGORY, State Univ. of N.Y. at

Buffalo, 4248 Ridge Lea Rd., Amherst, N.Y.

14226 (F)

BRENNER, ABNER, Ph.D., 7204 Pomander Lane,

Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F-4, 6, 29)

BREWER, CARL R., Ph.D., 8113 Lilly Stone Dr.,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-16)

BRICKWEDDE, F.G., Ph.D., 104 Davey Lab.,

Dept. of Physics, Penn. State University, Uni-

versity Park, Pa. 16802 (F-1)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

BRIER, GLENN W., M.A., 1729 N. Harrison St.,

Arlington, Va. 22205 (F-23)

BROADHURST, MARTIN G., 504 Calvin Lane,

Rockville, Md. 20851 (F)

BROMBACHER, W.G., 6914 Ridgewood Ave.,

Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (E-1)

BROOKS, RICHARD C., M.S.E., 301 Tiger Lane,

Apt. 417, Columbia, Mo., 65201 (M-13)

BROWN, B.F., Sc.D., Code 6320, Naval Research

Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390 (F-20, 29)

BROWN, EDWARD H., U.S. Office of Education,

P.O. Box 8240, Washington, D.C. 20024 (M)

BROWN, RUSSELL G., Dept. of Botany, Univ. of

Maryland, College Park, Md. 20742 (F-10)

BROWN, THOMAS McP., S. 25th St. and Army-

Navy Dr., Arlington, Va. 22206 (F)

BRUCK, STEPHEN D., Ph.D., 1113 Pipestem PI.,

Rockville, Md. 20854 (F-4, 6)

BRYAN, MILTON M., 3322 N. Glebe Rd., Arling-

ton, Va. 22207 (M-11)

BRYANT, JAMES I|., Ph.D., Office Chief of Res. &

Develop., Dept. of Army, Washington, D.C.

20310 (M)

BUGGS, C.W., Dean, Fac. Allied Health Sci., Drew

Postgrad. Med. School, 1620 E. 119th St., Los

Angeles, Calif. 90059 (F-6, 16, 19)

BUNN, RALPH W., M.P.H., Box 411A, Route 3,

Wild Rose Shores, Annapolis, Md. 21403 (F-5)

BURAS, EDMUND M.., Jr., Gillette Research Inst.,

1413 Research Blvd., Rockville, Md. 20850 (F)

BURGERS, J.M., D.M.P.S., 4622 Knox Road, Apt.

7, College Park, Md. 20740 (F-1)

BURINGTON, RICHARD S., Ph.D., 1834 N.

Hartford St., Arlington, Va. 22201 (F-1, 6)

BURK, DEAN, Natl. Cancer Institute, Bethesda,

Md. 20014 (F)

BURNETT, H.C., Metallurgy Division, Natl Bureau

of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F)

BYERLY, PERRY, Ph.D., Dept. of Geology &

Geophysics, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.

94720 (F)

BYERLY, T.C., Asst. Director, Science & Educa-

tion, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington,

D.C. 20250 (F)

CALDWELL, FRANK R., 4821 47th St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (E-1, 6)

CALDWELL, JOSEPH M., 2732 N. Kensington St.,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (E-18)

CALLAHAM, ROBERT Z., Ph.D., 3720 Acosta

Rd., Fairfax, Va. 22030 (F-11)

CAMERON, JOSEPH M., A345 Physics Bldg.,

Natl. Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

20234 (F-1)

CAMPAGNONE, ALFRED F., P.E., F., 9321

Warfield Rd., Gaithersburg, Md. 20760 (F)

CAMPANELLA, S. JOSEPH, 18917 Whetstone

Circle, Gaithersburg, Md. 20760 (F)

CAMPBELL, F.L., Ph.D., 2475 Virginia Ave.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037 (F-5, 24)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972 —

CANNON, E.W., 5 Vassar Circle, Glen Echo, Md.

20768 (F-1)

CARDER, DEAN S., Ph.D., 682 Forest St., Ash-

land, Oreg. 97520 (E)

CAREY, FRANCIS E., 12 N. Edison St., Arling-

ton, Va. 22203 (F)

CARHART, HOMER W., Ph.D., 6919 Lee Place,

Annandale, Va. 22003 (F-1, 6)

CARLISS, JOSEPH J., 6618 Bellview Dr., Ellicott

City, Md. 21043 (M)

CARLSTON, RICHARD C., Calif. State Polytech-

nic Coll., San Luis Obispo, Calif. 93401 (F-6,

20, 29)

CARMICHAEL, LEONARD, Ph.D., Natl. Geo-

graphic Society, 17th & M Sts., N.W., Washing-

ton, D.C. 20036 (F-19)

CARROLL, WILLIAM R., 4802 Broad Brook Dr.,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

CARRON, MAXWELL K., U.S. Geological Survey,

Washington, D.C. 20242 (F-4, 71)

CARTER, HUGH, 2039 New Hampshire Ave.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009 (F)

CASH, EDITH K., Box 44, Nineveh, N.Y., 13813

(E-10)

CASSEL, JAMES M., Route 1, Sunnyview Dr.,

Germantown, Md. 20767 (F-4, 20)

CATHEY, HENRY M., 1817 Bart Dr., Silver

Spring, Md. 20904 (F-33)

CHALKLEY, HAROLD W., Ph.D., 4609 Highland

Ave., Bethesda, Md. 20014 (E-19)

CHAPLIN, HARVEY P., Jr., 1561 Forest Villa

Lane, McLean, Va. 22101 (F-22)

CHAPLINE, W.R., 4225 43rd St., N.W., Washing-

ton, D.C. 20016 (E-6, 10, 11)

CHEEK, CONRAD H., Ph.D., Code 8330, U.S.

Naval Research Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390

(F-4)

CHEZEM, CURTIS G., Ph.D., Mgr., Nuclear Activ-

ities, Middle South Services, Box 61000, New

Orleans, La. 70160 (F-26)

CHURCH, LLOYD E., D.D.S., Ph.D., 8218 Wis-

consin Ave., Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F-1)

CLARK, FRANCIS E., ARS Research Lab., P.O.

Box E, Ft. Collins, Colo. 80521 (F)

CLARK, GEORGE E., Jr., 4022 North Stafford

St., Arlington, Va. 22207 (F)

CLARK, JOAN ROBINSON, Ph.D., U.S. Geo-

logical Survey, Washington, D.C. 20242 (F-7)

CLARK, KENNETH G., Ph.D., 4816 46th St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016 (E-4)

CLAIRE, CHARLES N., 4403 14th St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20011 (F)

CLAUSEN, CURTIS P., University of California,

Riverside, Calif. 92507 (E-5)

CLEMENT, J. REID, Jr., 3720 Weltham St.,

Washington, D.C. 20023 (F)

CLEVEN, GALE W., Ph.D., Normandy House,

Apt. 107, 1701 N. Kent St., Arlington, Va.

22209 (F-1, 6)

COHN, ERNST M., 103 G St., S.W., Apt. 620-B,

Washington, D.C. 20024 (M-4, 29)

COHN, ROBERT, M.D., 7221 Pyle Road, Bethes-

da, Md. 20034 (F-1)

285

COLE, KENNETH S., Ph.D., National Institutes of

Health, Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F-1)

COLLINS, HENRY 8B., Dept. Anthropoloty,

Smithsonian Inst., Washington, D.C. 20560

(E-2)

COLWELL, R.R., Ph.D., Dept. of Microbiology,

Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Md. 20742

(F-6,16)

COMPTON, W. DALE, Executive Dir., Sci. Res.

Staff, Ford Motor Co., 20000 Rotunda Drive,

Dearborn, Mich. 48121 (F)

CONGER, PAUL S., M.S., U.S. National Museum,

Washington, D.C. 20560 (E)

COOK, HAROLD T., Ph.D., Box 303, Rt. 3,

Edgewater, Md. 21037 (E-10)

COOK, RICHARD K., Ph.D., Room A311, Bldg.

226, Natl. Bur. Standards, Washington, D.C.

(F-1, 25)

COOKE, C. WYTHE, Ph.D., Princess Issena Hotel,

Daytona Beach, Fla. 32020 (E-7)

COOLIDGE, HAROLD J., 2101 Constitution Ave.,

Washington, D.C. 20037 (E-6)

COOLIDGE, WILLIAM D., 1480 Lenox Rad.,

Schenectady, N.Y. 12308 (F)

COONS, GEORGE H., Ph.D., 7415 Oak Lane,

Chevy Chase, Md., 20015 (E-10)

COOPER, G. ARTHUR, U.S. Natl. Museum, Wash-

ington, D.C. 20560 (F-7)

CORNFIELD, JEROME, 9650 Rockville Pike,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

CORY, ERNEST N., Ph.D., 4710 College Ave.,

College Park, Md. 20742 (E-5, 24)

COSTRELL, LOUIS, 241,02 Natl. Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-1, 13)

COTTAM, C., Welder Wildlife Foundation, Box

1400, Sinton, Texas 78387 (F-3, 6)

COX, EDWIN L., Biometrical Services, ARS, Ag.

Res. Center, Bldg. 228, Beltsville, Md. 20705

(F-6)

COYLE, THOMAS D., National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-4, 6)

CRAFT, CHARLES C., U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,

Box 700, Pomona, Calif. 91766 (F)

CRAFTON, PAUL A., P.O. Box 454, Rockville,

Md. 20850 (F)

CRAGOE, CARL S., 6206 Singleton Place, Bethes-

da, Md. 20034 (E-1)

CRANE, LANGDON T., Jr., 7103 Oakridge Ave.,

Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F-1, 6)

CREITZ, E. CARROLL, 10145 Cedar Lane,

Kensington, Md. 20795 (E)

CRESSMAN, GEORGE P., 9 Old Stage Court,

Rockville, Md. 20852 (F-23)

CROSSETTE, GEORGE, 4217 Glenrose St.,

Kensington, Md. 20795 (M-6, 9, 11, 17)

CULBERT, DOROTHY K., 812 A St., S.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20003 (M-6)

CULLINAN, FRANK P., 4402 Beechwood Rad.,

Hyattsville, Md. 20782 (E-6, 10, 33)

CURRAN, HAROLD R., Ph.D., 3431 N. Randolph

St., Arlington, Va. 22207 (E-16)

286

CURRIE, CHARLES L., S.J., Dept. of Chemistry,

Georgetown Univ., Washington, D.C. 20007

(F-4)

CURTIS, ROGER W., Ph.D., 6308 Valley Rd.,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F)

CURTISS, LEON F., 1690 Bayshore Drive, Engle-

wood, Fla. 33533 (E-1)

CUTHILL, JOHN R., Ph.D., 12700 River Rad.,

Potomac, Md. 20854 (F-20, 36)

CUTKOSKY, ROBERT Dale, 19150 Roman Way,

Gaithersburg, Md. 20760 (F-6, 13)

CUTTITTA, FRANK, 12911 Bluhill Rd., Silver

Spring, Md. 20906 (F-4, 6, 7)

DACONS, JOSEPH C., Ph.D., Naval Ordnance

Lab., White Oak, Silver Spring, Md. 20910

(F-4)

DARRACOTT, HALVOR T., M.S., 3325 Mansfield

Rd., Falls Church, Va. 22041 (F-13)

DAVENPORT, JAMES C., Virginia State College,

Petersburg, Va. 23803 (M)

DAVIS, CHARLES M., Jr., 8458 Portland Place,

McLean, Virginia 22101 (M-25)

DAVIS, MARION MACLEAN, M.M.D., 5315 29th

St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015 (F-4, 6)

DAVIS, R.F., Ph.D., Head, Dept. of Dairy Science,

University of Maryland, College Park, Md.

20742 (F)

DAVIS, RAYMOND, 5315 29th St., N.W., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20015 (E-1, 4)

DAVISSON, JAMES W., 4654 Cedar Ridge Dr.,

S.E., Washington, D.C. 20021 (F-1)

DAWSON, ROY C., 4019 Beechwood Rd., Univ.

Park, Md. 20782 (E-16)

DAWSON, VICTOR C.D., 9406 Curran Road,

Silver Spring, Md. 20901 (F-6, 14, 20, 22)

DE BERRY, MARIAN B.,.1116 Lamont St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20010 (M)

DE CARLO, MICHAEL, Rt. 1, Box 131, Cypress

Way, Carmel, Calif. 93921 (M)

DE FERIET, J. KAMPE, Prof. A. La Faculte

Des-Sci., de L’Univ. de Lille, 82 Rue Meurein,

Lille, France (F)

DE PACKH, DAVID, 100 Vista Terrace, S.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20022 (F-1)

DE PUE, LELAND A., Ph.D., Code 2302.3, Naval

Research Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390 (F-6,

20)

DE VOE, JAMES R., 17708 Parkridge Dr., Gaith-

ersburg, Md. 20760 (F-4, 6)

DE VORE, CHARLES, 2243 N. Trenton St.,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (M-12, 13, 26)

DE WIT, ROLAND, Metallurgy Division, National

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234

(F-1, 6, 36)

DEDRICK, ROBERT L., Ph.D., Natl. Insts. Health,

Bg. 13, Room 3W13, Bethesda, Md. 20014

(F-1)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

DEHL, RONALD E., 3895 Rodman St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (F)

DEITZ, VICTOR R., 3310 Winnett Rd., Chevy

Chase, Md. 20015 (F-28) ;

DEMUTH, HAL P., M.S., 4025 Pinebrook Rd.,

Alexandria, Va. 22310 (F-13, 17)

DENNIS, BERNARD K., 915 Country Club Dr.,

Vienna, Va. 22180 (F)

DESLATTES, RICHARD D.., Jr., 610 Aster Blvd.,

Rockville, Md. 20850 (F)

DETWILER, ROBERT H., 5027 N. 30th St.,

Arlington, Va. 22210 (M)

DETWILER, S.B., Sr., 631 S. Walter Reed Dr.,

Arlington, Va. 22204 (E)

DETWILER, SAMUEL B., Jr., 631 S. Walter Reed

Drive, Arlington, Va. 22204 (F-4)

DI MARZIO, E.A., 14205 Parkvale Rd., Rockville,

Md. 20853 (F)

DIAMOND, J.J., Physics B-150, National Bureau

of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-1,4,

6, 28)

DIAMOND, PAULINE, 6436 Bannockburn Dr.,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-1, 4, 28)

DICKSON, GEORGE, M.A., Dental Research

Section, National Bureau of Standards, Wash-

ington, D.C. 20234 (F-6, 21)

DIEHL, WALTER S., 4501 Lowell St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-22)

DIEHL, WILLIAM W., Ph.D., 1512 N. McKinley

Rd., Arlington, Va. 22205 (E-3, 10)

DIGGES, THOMAS G., 3900 N. Albemarle St.,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (E-20)

DOCTOR, NORMAN, B.S., 3814 Littleton St.,

Wheaton, Md. 20906 (F-13)

DOETSCH, RAYMOND N., Ph.D., Microbiology

Dept., Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Md.

20742 (F-16)

DOFT, FLOYD S., Ph.D., 6416 Garnett Drive,

Kenwood, Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (E-4, 6, 19)

DONNERT, HERMANN J., Ph.D., RFD 4, Box

136, Terra Heights, Manhattan, Kans. 66502

(F)

DOSS, MILDRED A., 109 Park Valley, Silver

Spring, Md. 20910 (F-15)

DOUGLAS, CHARLES A., Section 221.12, Natl.

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234

(F-1, 6, 32)

DOUGLAS, THOMAS B., Ph.D., 3031 Sedgwick

St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008 (F-4)

DRAEGER, R. HAROLD, M.D., 1201 N. 4th St.,

Tucson, Ariz. 85705 (E-32)

DRECHSLER, CHARLES, Ph.D., 6915 Oakridge

Rd., University Park (Hyattsville), Md. 20782

(E-6, 10)

DRUMMETER, LOUIS F., Jr., Code 6420, U.S.

Naval Res. Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390 (F)

DU PONT, JOHN ELEUTHERE, Newton Square,

Pennsylvania 19073 (M)

DUPRE, ELSIE, Mrs., Code 6553, Optical Sci.

Div., Naval Res. Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390

(F-32)

DUERKSEN, J.A., 3134 Monroe St., N.E., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20018 (E-1, 6)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

DUNKUM, WILLIAM W., 256 Burgess Ave., Alex-

andria, Va. 22305 (F)

DUNNING, K.L., Ph.D., Code 6670, Naval Re-

search Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390 (F-1)

DUPONT, JEAN R., M.D., 818 Moore St., Sikes-

ton, Mo. 63801 (F-19)

DURIE, EDYTHE G., 5011 Harna Dr., Alexandria,

Va. 22310 (M)

DURST, RICHARD A., Ph.D., Chemistry Bldg.,

Rm. A219, National Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-4)

ECKHARDT, E.A., 840 12th St., Oakmont, Alleg-

heny County, Pa. 15139 (E-1)

ECKLIN, JOHN W., 5100 8th Rd., S., 508,

Arlington, Va. 22204 (M)

EDDY, BERNICE E., Ph.D., Div. Biologic Stand-

ards, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda,

Md. 20014 (F-6, 16, 19)

EDDY, NATHAN B., M.D., 7055 Wilson Lane,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-4, 6, 19)

EDERER, DAVID L., Far U V Physics Section,

Rm. A251, Bldg. 221, National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-32)

EDMUNDS, LAFE R., Ph.D., 6003 Leewood Dr.,

Alexandria, Va. 22310 (F-5)

EGOLF, DONALD R., 3600 Cambridge Court,

Upper Marlboro, Md. 20870 (F-10)

EISENHART, CHURCHILL, Ph.D., Met A-123,

National Bureau of Standards, Washington,

D.C. 20234 (F-1, 30)

EL-BISI, HAMED M., Ph.D. 1017 Aponi Rad.,

Vienna, Va. 22180 (M-16)

ELBOURN, ROBERT D., 8221 Hamilton Spring

Ct., Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-1, 13)

ELLINGER, GEORGE A., 739 Kelly Dr., York,

Pa. 17404 (E-6)

ELLIOTT, F.E., 7507 Grange Hall Dr., Oxon Hill,

Md. 20022 (F)

EMERSON, K.C., Ph.D., 2704 No. Kensington St.,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (F-3, 5)

EMERSON, W.B., 415 Aspen St., N.W., Washing-

ton, D.C. 20012 (E)

ENNIS, W.B., Jr., 4011 College Heights Dr.,

Hyattsville, Md. 20782 (F)

ESTERMANN, |., Dept. of Physics, Technion,

Haifa, Israel (E-1)

ETZEL, HOWARD W., 7304 River Hill

Washington, D.C. 20021 (F)

EWERS, JOHN C., 4432 26th Road, North,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (F-2)

Rd.,

FAHEY, JOSEPH J., U.S. Geological Survey,

Washington, D.C. 20242 (E-4, 6, 7)

FALLON, ROBERT, 8251 Toll House Rd., Annan-

dale, Va. 22003 (F)

287

FARR, MARION M., Miss, 515 Thayer Ave., Silver

Spring, Md. 20910 (F-15)

FARROW, RICHARD P., National Canners Assn.,

1133 20th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

(F-4, 6, 27)

FAULKNER, JOSEPH A., 1007 Sligo Creek Pky.,

Takoma Park, Md. 20012 (F-6)

FAUST, GEORGE T., Ph.D., 9907 Capitol View

Ave., Silver Spring, Md. 20910 (F-7, 31)

FAUST, WILLIAM R., Ph.D., 5907 Wainut St.,

Temple Hills, Md. 20031 (F-1, 6)

FEARN, JAMES E., Ph.D., A367 Chem., Organic

Chemistry Section, National Bureau of Stand-

ards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-4)

FELSENFELD, OSCAR, Tulane Research Center,

Covington, La. 70433 (F-6)

FELSHER, MURRAY, Sr. Staff Geologist, Off.

Techn. Anal. Enforcement, EPA, Washington,

D.C. 20460 (M-1, 7)

FERGUSON, ROBERT E., 6307 Tone Dr., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20034 (F-4)

FERRELL, RICHARD A., Ph.D., Dept. of Physics,

University of Maryland, College Park, Md.

20742 (F-6, 31)

FIELD, WILLIAM D., Dept. Entomology, Smith-

sonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560

(F-5)

FINLEY, HAROLD E., Head, Dept. of Zoology,

Howard University, Washington, D.C. 20001

(F-3)

FIVAZ, ALFRED E., 804 Dale Drive, Silver

Spring, Md. 20910 (E-11)

FLETCHER, DONALD G., Natl. Bureau of Stand-

ards, Rm. A102, Bldg. 231—IND, Washington,

D.C. 20234 (M-4)

FLETCHER, HEWITT G., Jr., Box 217, Sandy

Spring, Md. 20860 (F)

FLINT, EINAR P., U.S. Bureau of Mines, 4513

Interior Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20240 (F-4,

20, 28, 36)

FLORIN, ROLAND E., Ph.D., Polymer Chemistry

Section, B-328 Poly, National Bureau of Stand-

ards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-4)

FLYNN, DANIEL R., 17500 Ira Court, Derwood,

Md. 20855 (F)

FLYNN, JOSEPH H., Ph.D., 5309 Iroquios Rd.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-4)

FOCKLER, H. H., MSLS, 10710 Lorain Ave.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20014 (M)

FONER, S. N., Applied Physics Lab., The Johns

Hopkins University, Silver Spring, Md. 20910

(F-1)

FOOTE, RICHARD H., Sc.D., 8807 Victoria

Road, Springfield, Va. 22151 (F-5, 6)

FORD, W. KENT, Jr., Dept. of Terrestrial Mag-

netism, Carnegie Institution of Washington,

- 5241 Broad Branch Rd., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20015 (F)

FORZIATI, ALPHONSE F., Ph.D., 9812 Dameron

Dr., Silver Spring, Md. 20902 (F-1, 3, 21, 29)

FORZIATI, FLORENCE H., Ph.D. 9812 Dameron

Dr., Silver Spring, Md. 20902 (F)

288

FOSTER, AUREL O., 4613 Drexel Rd., College

Park, Md. 20740 (F-15, 24)

FOURNIER, ROBERT O., 108 Paloma Rad.,

Portola Valley, Calif. 94025 (F-6, 7)

FOURT, LYMAN, 5510 Johnson Ave., Bethesda,

Md. 20034 (F)

FOWELLS, H. A., Ph.D., 10217 Green Forest,

Silver Spring, Md. 20903 (F-11)

FOWLER, EUGENE, U.S. Atomic Energy Comm.,

Washington, D.C. 20545 (M-26)

FOX, DAVID W., The Johns Hopkins Univ.,

Applied Physics Lab., Silver Spring, Md. 20910

(F)

FOX, ROBERT B., Naval Res. Lab., Code 6120,

Washington, D.C. 20390 (F-4, 6)

FRAME, ELIZABETH G., Ph.D., 7711 Radnor

Rd., Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F)

FRANKLIN, PHILIP J., 5907 Massachusetts Ave.

Extended, Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-4, 13)

FRANZ, GERALD J., M.S., 9638 Culver St.

Kensington, Md. 20795 (M-6, 25)

FREDERIKSE, H. P. R., Ph.D., 9625 Dewmar

Lane, Kensington, Md. 20795 (F)

FREEMAN, ANDREW F., 5012 N. 33rd St.,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (M)

FRENKIEL, FRANCOIS N., Applied Math. Lab.,

Naval Ship Res. & Develop. Ctr., Washington,

D.C. 20034 (F-1, 22, 23)

FRIEDMAN, LEO, Ph.D., Director, Div. of

Toxicology (BF-150), Bureau of Science, Food

& Drug Admin., H.E.W., Washington, D.C.

20204 (F-4, 19)

FRIESS, S. L., Ph.D., Environmental Biosciences

Dept., Naval Med. Res. Inst. NNMC, Bethesda,

Md. 20014 (F-4)

FRUSH, HARRIET L., 4912 New Hampshire Ave.,

N.W., Apt. 104, Washington, D. C. 20011 (F-4,

FULLMER, IRVIN H., Warwick Towers, Apt.

1003, 1131 University Blvd. W., Silver Spring,

Md. 20902 (E-1, 6, 14) ©

FULTON, ROBERT A., 530 Merrie Dr., Vorvallis,

Oregon 97330 (E-4, 5)

FURUKAWA, GEORGE T., National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-1, 4, 6)

FUSILLO, MATTHEW H., VA Hospital, 50 Irving

St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20422 (M-6, 16)

GAFAFER, WILLIAM M., 133 Cunningham Dr.,

New Smyrna Beach, Fla. 32069 (E)

GAGE, WILLIAM, Ph.D., 2146 Florida Ave., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20008 (F-2)

GALLER, SIDNEY, 6242 Woodcrest Ave., Balti-

more, Md. 21209 (F-6)

GALLOWAY, RAYMOND A., Dept. of Botany,

University of Maryland, College Park, Md.

20742 (F-10, 33)

GALTSOFF, PAUL S., Ph.D., P.O. Box 167,

Woods Hole, Mass. 20543 (E-3)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

GALVIN, CYRIL J., Jr., 2915 Tennyson St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20015 (F-7, 18, 30)

GANT, JAMES O., Jr., 1835 Eye St., N.W., Suite

201, Washington, D.C. 20006 (M) .

GARDNER, IRVINE C., Ph.D., 9531 E. Stanhope

Rd., Rock Creek Hills, Kensington, Md. 20795

(E-1, 6, 32)

GARNER, C. L., The Garfield, 5410 Connecticut

Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015 (E-1, 4,

12, 17, 18)

GARVIN, DAVID, Ph.D., 4000 Tunlaw Rd., N.W.,

Apt. 323, Washington, D.C. 20007 (F-4)

GAUM, CARL H., 9609 Carriage Rd., Kensington,

Md. 20795 (F-18)

GEIL, GLENN W., 123 S. Adelpha Cir., Enid,

Okla. 73701 (F)

GEORGE, BOYD W., Ph.D., P.O. Box 2484,

College Sta., Pullman, Washington 99163 (M)

GHAFFARI, ABOLGHASSEM, Ph.D., D.Sc., Fac.

Sciences, Univ. of Teheron, Shahreza, Teheron,

Iran (F)

GIBSON, JOHN E., Box 96, Gibson, N.C. 28343

(E)

GIBSON, KASSON S., 4817 Cumberland St.,

Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (E)

GINTHER, ROBERT J., Code 6060, U.S. Naval

Research Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390 (F-28,

29)

GISH, OLIVER H., 7107 S. Indian River Dr., Fort

Pierce, Fla. 33450 (E-1, 6)

GLASGOW, A. R., Jr., Ph.D., 4116 Hamilton St.,

Hyattsville, Md. 20781 (F-4, 6)

GLASSER, ROBERT G., Ph.D., 2812 Abilene Dr.,

Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F)

GLICKSMAN, MARTIN E., 2223 Hindle Lane,

Bowie, Md. 20715 (F-20)

GODFREY, THEODORE B., 7508 Old Chester

Rd., Bethesda, Md. 20034 (E)

GOLDBERG, MICHAEL, 5823 Potomac Ave.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-1)

GOLDMAN, ALAN J., Applied Mathematics Div.,

Inst. for Basic Standards, Natl. Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F)

GOLDSTEIN, GORDON D., 9520 Saybrook Ave.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20901 (M)

GOLUMBIC, CALVIN, ARS, USDA, Rm. 637

Fed. Center Bg., Hyattsville, Md. 20782 (F)

GONET, FRANK, 4007 N. Woodstock St., Arling-

ton, Va. 22207 (F-4)

GOODE, ROBERT J., B.S., Strength of Metals Br.,

Code 6380, Metallurgy Div., U.S.N.R.L., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20390 (F-6,20,36)

GOODMAN, RALPH, 6600 Melody Lane,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F)

GORDON, CHARLES L., 5512 Charles St.,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F-1, 4, 6)

GORDON, NATHAN, 1121 Univ. Blvd. Apt. 205,

Silver Spring, Md. 20902 (F-4)

GORDON, RUTH E., Ph.D., Inst. of Microbiology,

Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. 008903

(F-16)

GRAF, JOHN E., 2035 Parkside Dr., N.W., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20012 (F-3, 5, 6)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

GRASSL, CARL O., Sugar Plant Field Station,

P.O. Box 156, Canal Point, Fla. 33438 (F)

GRAY, ALFRED, Dept. Math., Univ. of Maryland,

College Park, Md. 20742 (F)

GRAY, IRVING, Georgetown Univ., Washington,

D.C. 20007 (F)

GREENBERG, LEON, Ph.D., 6209 Poindexter

Lane, Rockville, Md. 20852 (F)

GREENBERG, O. W., Dept. Phys. & Astron., Univ.

of Maryland, College Park, Md. 20742 (F)

GREENOUGH, M. L., M.S., Rm. A109 Poly,

National Bureau of Standards, Washington,

D.C. 20234 (F)

GREENSPAN, MARTIN, 12 Granville Dr., Silver

Spring, Md. 20902 (F-1, 25)

GRIFFITHS, NORMAN H. C., 3100 20th St.,

N.E., Washington, D.C. 20018 (F-21)

GRISAMORE, NELSON T., 9536 E. Bexhill Dr.,

Kensington, Md. 20795 (F)

GROSSLING, BERNARDO F., U.S. Geological

Survey, Rm. 5216, GSA Bg., Washington, D.C.

20242 (F-7)

GUARINO, P. A., 6714 Montrose Rd., Rockville,

Md. 20852 (F-13)

GURNEY, ASHLEY B., Ph.D., Systematic Entom-

ology Lab., USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum,

Washington, D.C. 20560 (F-3, 5, 6)

HACSKAYLO, EDWARD, Ph.D., Plant Industry

Station, USDA, Beltsville, Md. 20705 (F-6, 10,

11, 33)

HAENNI, EDWARD O., Ph.D., Div. Chem. &

Phys., BF-140, FDA, Washington, D.C. 20204

(F-4)

HAINES, KENNETH A., ARS, USDA, Federal

Center Blg., Hyattsville, Md. 20781 (F-5)

HAKALA, REINO W., Ph.D., 2817 N.W. 21st St.,

Oklahoma City, Okla. 73107 (F)

HALL, E. RAYMOND, Museum of Natural

History, Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence, Kans.

66044 (F)

HALL, R. CLIFFORD, M.F., 316 Mansion Drive,

Alexandria, Va. 22302 (E-11)

HALL, STANLEY A., Agric. Res. Center (East),

USDA, Beltsville, Md..20705 (F-24)

HALL, WAYNE C., 1755 Ivy Oak Square, Reston,

Va. 22070

HALLER, H.L., 4407 38th St., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20016 (E-4, 5, 6, 24)

HALLER, WOLFGANG, Ph.D., National Bureau

of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F)

HALSTEAD, BRUCE W., World Life Research

Institute, 23000 Grand Terrace, Colton, Calif.

92324 (F-6, 19)

HAMBLETON, EDSON J., 5140 Worthington Dr.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (E-3, 5, 6)

HAMER, WALTER J., 3028 Dogwood St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20015 (F-6, 13, 19)

HAMILTON, C.E. MIKE, Federal Power Comm.,

441 G St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20426 (M-7,

36)

289

HAMMERSCHMIDT, W.W., Ph.D., 7818 Holmes

Run Dr., Falls Church, Va. 22042 (M)

HAMMOND, H. DAVID, Ph.D., 14 Chappel St.,

Brockport, N.Y. 14420 (M-10)

HAMPP, EDWARD G., D.D.S., National Institutes

of Health, Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F-21)

HANCOCK, JUDITH M., Biol. Dept., St. Joseph's

College, North Windham, Me. 04062 (M)

HAND, CADET H., Jr., Bodega Marine Lab.,

Bodega Bay, Calif. 94923 (F-6)

HANSEN, LOUIS S., D.D.S., School of Dentistry,

San Francisco Med. Center, University of Cali-

fornia, San Francisco, Calif. 94122 (F-21)

HANSEN, MORRIS H., M.A., Westat Research,

Inc., 11600 Nebel St., Rockville, Md. 20852

(F-34)

HARDENBURG, ROBERT EARLE, Ph.D., Plant

Industry Station, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,

Beltsville, Md. 20705 (F-6)

HARRINGTON, FRANCIS D., 4612 N. 2nd Rd.,

Arlington, Va. 22203 (M)

HARRINGTON, M.C., Ph.D., Physics Directorate

(NPP), Air Force Off. Sci. Res., 1400 Wilson

Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22209 (F-1, 13, 22, 31,

32)

HARRIS, MILTON, Ph.D., 3300 Whitehaven St.,

N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20007 (F)

HARRIS, ROBERT H., Ph.D., 12915 Travilah Rd.,

Rockville, Md. 20850 (M)

HARRIS, THOMAS H., Office of Pesticides, Public

Health Service, HEW, Washington, D.C. 20201

(F)

HARRISON, W.N., 3734 Windom PI., N.W., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20016 (F-1)

HARTLEY, JANET W., Ph.D., National Inst. of

Allergy & Infectious Diseases, National Insti-

tutes of Health, Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

HARTMANN, GREGORY K., 10701 Keswick St.,

Garrett Park, Md. 20766 (F-1, 25)

HARTZLER, MARY P., 3326 Hartwell Ct., Falls

Church, Va. 22042 (M-6)

HASKINS, C.P., Ph.D., 2100 M St., N.W., Suite

600, Washington, D.C. 20037 (F)

HASS, GEORG H., 7728 Lee Avenue, Alexandria,

Va. 22308 (F)

HAUPTMAN, HERBERT, Ph.D., Medical Founda-

tion of Buffalo, 73 High St., Buffalo, N.Y.

14203 (F-1)

HAZELTON, L.W., Ph.D., Hazelton Labs., 9200

Leesburg Pike, Vienna, Va. 22180 (F-4)

HEINRICH, KURT F., 804 Blossom Dr., Woodley

Gardens, Rockville, Md. 20850 (F)

HEINZE, P.H., Ph.D., Horticultural Crops Re-

search, USDA, ARS, MQ., Rm. 803 F.C.B.,

Hyattsville, Md. 20782 (F-4, 6, 10)

HELLER, ISIDORE, Dept. of Mathematics, Cath-

olic University, Washington, D.C. 20017 (F)

HENDERSON, E.P., Div. of Meteorites, U.S.

National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560 (E)

HENDERSON, MALCOLM C., Ph.D., 2699 Shasta

Rd., Berkeley, Calif. 94708 (F-1)

HENNEBERRY, THOMAS J., 2608 Shenandale

Dr., Silver Spring, Md. 20904 (F-5, 24)

290

HERMACH, FRANCIS L., 2415 Eccleston St.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20902 (F-13, 35)

HERMAN, ROBERT, Theoretical: Physics Dept.,

General Motors Research Lab., 12 Mi & Mound

Rds., Warren, Mich. 48091 (F-1)

HERSCHMAN, HARRY K., 4701 Willard Ave.,

Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F-20)

HERSEY, MAYO D., M.A., Div. of Engineering,

Brown University, Providence, R.!. 02912 (E-1)

HERZFELD, KARL F., Dept. of Physics, Catholic

University, Washington, D.C. 20017 (F-1)

HERZFELD, REGINA F., Ph.D., Dept. of Anthro-

pology, Catholic University, Washington, D.C.

20017 (F-1, 2)

HESS, WALTER C., 3607 Chesapeake St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20008 (E-4, 6, 19, 21)

HEWSTON, ELIZABETH M.., Felicity Cove, Shady

Side, Md. 20867 (F)

HEYDEN, FR. FRANCIS, Manila Observatory,

American Embassy, APO San Francisco, Calif.

96528 (F-32)

HIATT, CASPAR W., Ph.D., Univ. of Texas Medi-

cal School, San Antonio, Texas 78229 (F)

HICKLEY, THOMAS J., 626 Binnacle Dr., Naples,

Fla. 33940 (F-13)

HICKOX, GEORGE H., Ph.D., 9310 Allwood Ct.,

Alexandria, Va. 22309 (F-6, 14, 18)

HICKS, V., Ph.D., 4000 Sunset Blvd., Minneapolis,

Minn. 55416 (F)

HILDEBRAND, EARL M., 11092 Timberline Dr.,

Sun City, Ariz. 85351 (E)

HILL, FREEMAN K., 12408 Hall’s Shop Rd.,

Fulton, Md. 20759 (F-1, 6, 22)

HILSENRATH, JOSEPH, 9603 Brunett Ave.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20901 (F-1)

HILTON, JAMES L., Ph.D., Plant Industry Sta-

tion, USDA, ARS, Beltsville, Md. 20705 (F-33)

HINMAN, WILBUR S., Jr., Marlborough Point,

P.O. Box 56, Brooke, Va. 22430 (F-13)

HOBBS, ROBERT B., 7715 Old Chester Rd.,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-4)

HOERING, THOMAS C., Carnegie Inst. of Wash-

ington, Geophysical Lab., 2801 Upton St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008 (F-4, 7)

HOFFMANN, C.H., Ph.D., 6906 40th Ave., Uni-

versity Park, Hyattsville, Md. 20782 (F-5, 11,

24)

HOGE, HAROLD J., Ph.D., Head, Thermodyn.

Lab. Prd., U.S. Army Natick Labs., Natick,

Mass. 01760 (F-1)

HOLLIES, NORMAN R.:S., Gillette Research Insti-

tute, 1413 Research Blvd., Rockville, Md.

20850 (F-4)

HOLLINSHEAD, ARIEL C., Ph.D., Lab. for Virus

& Cancer Research, Dept. of Medicine, 2300 K

St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037 (F-16, 19)

HOLMGREN, HARRY D., Ph.D., P.O. Box 391,

College Park, Md. 20740 (F-1)

HOLSHOUSER, WILLIAM L., Bureau of Aviation

Safety, Natl. Trans. Safety Board, Washington,

D.C. 20591 (F-6, 20)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

HONIG, JOHN G., Office Chief of Staff, Army,

The Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 20310 (F-1, 4,

34)

HOOD, KENNETH J., 2000 Huntington Ave.,

#1118, Alexandria, Va. 22303 (M-33)

HOOKER, MISS MARJORIE, U.S. Geological

Survey, Washington, D.C. 20242 (F-7)

HOOVER, JOHN |., 5313 Briley Place, Washing-

ton, D.C. 20016 (F-1, 6)

HOOVER, THOMAS B., Ph.D., Southeast Water

Lab., Athens, Ga. 30601 (F-29)

HOPKINS, STEPHEN, M.Ed., Trash Masters Corp.,

2135 Wisconsin Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.

20007 (F)

HOPP, HENRY, Ph.D., 7003 Wells Parkway,

Hyattsville, Md. 20782 (F-11)

HORNSTEIN, IRWIN, 5920 Bryn Mawr Rad.,

College Park, Md. 20740 (F-4, 27)

HOROWITZ, E., Deputy Director, Institute for

Materials Res., National Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D.C. 20234 (F)

HORTON, BILLY M., 3238 Rodman St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20008 (F-1, 13)

HOUGH, FLOYD W., C.E., Woodstock, Virginia

22664 (E-17, 18)

HOWE, PAUL E., 3601 Connecticut Ave., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20008 (E3, 4, 6, 8, 19)

HUBBARD, DONALD, 4807 Chevy Chase Dr.,

Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F-4, 6, 32)

HUBERT, LESTER F., 4704 Mangum Rad., College

Park, Md. 20740 (F-23)

HUDSON, COLIN M., Ph.D., Chief Scientist, U.S.

Army Weapons Command, Rock Island, Ill.

61201 (F-22)

HUGH, RUDOLPH, Ph.D., George Washington

Univ. Sch. of Med., Dept. of Microbiology,

1339 H St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005

(F-16, 19)

HUNDLEY, JAMES M., American Heart Associa-

tion, 44 E. 23rd St., New York, N.Y. 10010 (F)

HUNTER, RICHARD S., 9529 Lee Highway, Fair-

fax, Va. 22030 (F-27, 32)

HUNTER, WILLIAM R., Code 7143, U.S. Naval

Research Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390 (F-1, 6,

32)

HUNTOON, R.D., Ph.D., 13904 Blair Stone Lane,

Wheaton, Md. 20906 (F-1, 13)

HUTCHINS, LEE M., Cacao Ctr., Institute of

Agriculture, Turrialba, Costa Rica (E-10, 11)

HUTTON, GEORGE L., 6304 Kirby Road, Bethes-

da, Md. 20034 (F-5, 6)

INSLEY, HERBERT, Ph.D., 5219 Farrington Rd.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-1, 7)

IRVING, GEORGE W., Jr., Ph.D., 4836 Langdrum

Lane, Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F-4, 27)

IRWIN, GEORGE R., Ph.D., 7306 Edmonston

Rd., College Park, Md. 20740 (F-1, 6)

ISBELL, H.S., 4704 Blagden Ave., N.W., Washing-

ton, D.C. 20011 (F-4)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

SO eee lt

JACKSON, H.H.T., Ph.D.,

Durham, N.C. (E-3)

JACOBS, WOODROW C., Ph.D., 6309 Bradley

Bivd., Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-23)

JACOBSON, MARTIN, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,

Agric. Research Center, Beltsville, Md. 20705

(F-4, 24)

JACOX, MARILYN E., Ph.D., National Bureau of

Standards Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-4)

JAMES, L.H., The James Laboratories, 189 W.

Madison St., Chicago, II|. 60602 (F)

JAMES, MAURICE T., Ph.D., Dept of Entom-

ology, Washington State University, Pullman,

Washington 99163 (E-5)

JANI, LORRAINE L., 2733 Ontario Rd., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20009 (M)

JAY, GEORGE E., Jr., Ph.D., National Cancer

Inst., Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F-6)

JEN, C.K., Applied Physics Lab., 8621 Georgia

Ave., Silver Spring, Md. 20910 (F)

JENKINS, ANNA E., Route 3, Walton,

13856 (E-3, 6, 10)

JESSUP, R.S., 7001 W. Greenvale Pkwy., Chevy

Chase, Md. 20015 (F-1, 6)

JOHANNESEN, ROLF B., National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-4)

JOHNSON, DANIEL P., 9222 Columbia Blvd.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20910 (F-1)

JOHNSON, KEITH C., 4422 Davenport St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (F)

JOHNSON, PHYLLIS T., Ph.D., Nat. Marine Fish-

eries Serv., Oxford Lab., Oxford, Md. 21654

(F-5, 6)

JOHNSON, WILBUR V., Apt. 627, 4000 Massa-

chusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016

(M-1, 4, 31)

JOHNSTON, FRANCIS E., 307 W. Montgomery

Ave., Rockville, Md. 20850 (E-1)

JONES, HENRY A., Desert Seed Co., Inc., Box

181, El Centro, Calif. 92243 (F)

JORDAN, GARY BLAKE, 7185 So. Birch Way,

Littleton, Colo. 80122 (M-13)

JUDD, NEIL M., Georgian Towers, Apt. 120-C,

8715 First Ave., Silver Spring, Md. 20910 (E)

JUDSON, LEWIS V., Ph.D., 314 Main St., Cumber-

land Center, Maine 04021 (E-1, 6)

KAISER, HANS E., 433 South West Dr., Silver

Spring, Md. 20901 (M-6)

KARLE, ISABELLA, Code 6030, U.S. Naval Res.

Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390 (F)

KARLE, JEROME, Code 6030, U.S. Naval Re-

search Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390 (F-1, 4)

KARR, PHILIP R., 5507 Calle de Arboles, Tor-

rance, Calif. 90505 (F-13)

KARRER, ANNIE M.H.,

20676 (E)

122 Pincecrest Rd.,

N.Y.

Port Republic, Md.

291

KARRER, S., Port Republic, Md. 20676 (F-1, 4, 6,

31, 32)

KAUFMAN, H.P., Box 1135, Fedhaven, Fla.

33854 (F-12)

KEARNEY, PHILIP C., Ph.D., 13021 Blairmore

St., Beltsville, Md. 20705 (F-4)

KEGELES, GERSON, RFD 2, Stafford Springs,

Conn. 06076 (F)

KENNARD, RALPH B., Ph.D., 3017 Military Rd.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015 (E-1, 6, 31, 32)

KENNEDY, E.R., Ph.D., Biology Department,

Catholic University, Washington, D.C. 20017

(F-16)

KESSLER, KARL G., Ph.D., Atomic Physics Divi-

sion, National Bureau of Standards, Washing-

ton, D.C. 20234 (F-1, 6, 32)

KEULEGAN, GARBIS H., 215 Buena Vista Dr.,

Vicksburg, Miss. 39180 (F-1, 6)

KING, PETER, 1120 Cameron Rd., Alexandria,

Va. 22308 (F-1, 4, 6)

KINNEY, J.P., Hartwick, Otsego County, N.Y.

13348 (E-11)

KLEBANOFF, PHILIP S., Aerodynamics Sect.,

National Bureau of Standards, Washington,

D.C. 20234 (F-1, 22)

KLINGSBERG, CYRUS, Natl. Academy of Sci-

ences, 2101 Constitution Ave., Washington,

D.C. 20418 (F-28)

KLUTE, CHARLES H., Apt. 118, 4545 Connecti-

cut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008 (F-1,

KNAPP, DAVID C., 4855 Ricava Dr., Boulder,

Colo. 80303 (F)

KNIPLING, EDWARD F., Ph.D., Sc.D., Science

Advisor, ARS-OA, USDA, Room 205, Nat. Agr.

Library, Beltsville, Md. 20705 (F-5)

KNIPLING, PHOEBE H., Ph.D., 2623 N. Military

Rd., Arlington, Va. 22207 (F)

KNOBLOCK, EDWARD C., 12002 Greenleaf Ave.

Rockville, Md. 20854 (F-4, 19)

KNOPF, ELEANORA B., Ph.D., Sch. of Earth

Sciences, Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif.

94305 (E)

KNOWLTON, KATHRYN, Apt. 837, 2122 Massa-

chusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008

(F-4, 19)

KNOX, ARTHUR S., M.A., M.Ed., U.S. Geological

Survey, Washington, D.C. 20006 (M-6, 7)

KOHLER, HANS W., 607 Owl Way, Bird Key,

Sarasota, Fla. 33577 (F-6, 13, 31)

KOHLER, MAX A., NOAA Office of Hydrology,

Natl. Weather Serv., Silver Spring, Md. 20910

(F-18, 23)

KRAUSS, ROBERT W., Dept. Botany, Univ. of

Maryland, College Park, Md. (F)

’

_KRUGER, JEROME, Ph.D., Rm B254, Materials

Bldg., Natl. Bur. of Standards, Washington,

D.C. 20234 (F-4, 29)

KULLBACK, SOLOMON, Statistics Dept., George

Washington Univ., Washington, D.C. 20006

(F-13)

292

KULLERUD, GUNNAR, Sc.D., Head, Dept. Geo-

sciences, Purdue Univ., Lafayette, Ind. 47907

(F-6)

KURTZ, FLOYD E., 8005 Custer Rd., Bethesda,

Md. 20014 (F-4)

KURZWEG, HERMAN H., 731 Quaint Acres Dr.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20904 (F-1, 22)

KUSHNER, LAWRENCE M., Ph.D., Dept.:Dr.,

Natl. Bur. of Standards, Washington, D.C.

20234 (F-36)

LADO, ROBERT, Ph.D., Georgetown Univ., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20007 (F)

LAKI, KOLOMAN, Ph.D., Bldg. 4, Natl. Inst. of

Health, Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

LAKIN, HUBERT W., U.S. Geological Survey,

Bldg. 25, Denver Fed. Ctr., Denver, Colo.

80201 (F)

LAMANNA, CARL, Ph.D., 3812 37th St., N.,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (F-16, 19)

LAMBERTON, BERENICE, Georgetown Univ.

Observ., Washington, D.C. 20007 (M)

LANDER, JAMES F., Nat. Earthquake Info.

Center, NOAA, ERL, R101S, Boulder, Colo.

80302 (F)

LANDIS, PAUL E., 6304 Landon Lane, Bethesda,

Md. 20034 (F-6)

LANDSBERG, H. E., 5116 Yorkville Rd., Temple

Hills, Md. 20031 (F-1, 23)

LANG, WALTER B., M.S., Kennedy-Warren, Wash-

ington, D.C. 20008 (E—4, 6, 7, 36)

LANG, MARTHA E.C., Kennedy-Warren, Washing-

ton, D.C. 20008 (F-6, 7)

LANGFORD, GEORGE S., Ph.D., 4606 Hartwick

Rd., College Park, Md. 20740 (F-5, 24)

LAPHAM, EVAN G., 5340 Cortez Ct., Cape Coral,

Fla. 33904 (E)

LASHOF, THEODORE W., 10125 Ashburton

Lane, Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F)

LASTER, HOWARD J., Ph.D., Dept. of Physics &

Astron., Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Md.

10742 (F-1, 31)

LATTA, RANDALL, 2122 California St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20008 (E-5)

LAYMAN, JOHN, Ed.D., Science Teaching Center,

Univ. Maryland, College Park, Md. 20742 (M)

LE CLERG, ERWIN L., 14620 Deerhurst Terrace,

Silver Srping, Md. 20906 (E)

LEE, RICHARD H., RD 2, Box 143E, Lewes,

Delaware 19958 (E)

LEINER, ALAN L., Hopinson House, 602 Wash-

ington Square So., Philadelphia, Pa. 19106 (F)

LEJINS, PETER P., Univ. of Maryland, Dept. of

Sociology, College Park, Md. 20742 (F-10)

LENTZ, PAUL LEWIS, 5 Orange Ct., Greenbelt,

Md. 20770 (F-6, 10)

LEOPOLD, LUNA B., Room 3203, 95 A Bidg.,

Washington, D.C. 20242 (F)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

LEVERTON, RUTH M., Ph.D., Office of Admini-

strator, ARS, USDA, Washington, D.C. 20250

(F)

LEVIN, ERNEST M., 7716 Sebago Rd.,.Bethesda,

Md. 20034 (F-4, 28)

LEVY, SAMUEL, 2279 Preisman Dr., Schenect-

ady, N.Y. 12309 (F)

LEWIS, KEITH H., Ph.D., 1701 No. Kent, Apt.

1006, Arlington, Va. 22209 (M)

LEY, HERBERT L., Jr., M.D., P.O. Box 34434,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-6, 8, 16)

LI, HUI-LIN, The Morris Arboretum, Chestnut

Hill, Philadelphia, Pa. 19118 (F)

LIDDEL, URNER, 4600 Connecticut Ave., N.W.,

Apt. 617, Washington, D.C. 20008 (E-1)

LIEBERMAN, MORRIS, 107 Delford Ave., Silver

Spring, Md. 20904 (F-4, 6, 33)

LINDQUIST, ARTHUR W., Rte. 1, Bridgeport,

Kans. 67424 (E-6)

LINDSEY, IRVING, M.A., 202 E. Alexandria

Ave., Alexandria, Va. 22301 (E)

LING, LEE, Food & Agri. Organ. of U.N., Viale

Delle, Terme Di Caracalla, Rome, Italy (F)

LINK, CONRAD B., Dept. of Horticulture, Univ.

of Maryland, College Park, Md. 20742 (F-6, 10)

LINNENBOM, VICTOR J., Ph.D., Code 8300,

Naval Res. Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390 (F-4)

LIST, ROBERT J., 1123 Hammond Pkwy., Alex-

andria, Va. 22302 (F-23)

LITTLE, ELBERT L., Jr., Ph.D., U.S. Forest Ser-

vice, Washington, D.C. 20250 (F-10, 11)

LLOYD, DANIEL BOONE, 5604 Overlea Rd.,

Sumner, Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-6)

LOCKARD, J. DAVID, Ph.D., Botany Dept., Univ.

of Maryland, College Park, Md. 20742 (M-33)

LOCKHART, LUTHER B., Ph.D., 6820 Wheatley

Ct., Falls Church, Va. 22042 (F-4)

LONG, AUSTIN, 2715 E. Helen St., Tucson, Ariz.

85716 (F)

LORING, BLAKE M., Sc.D., 8104 Carey Branch

Dr., Oxon Hill, Md. 20022 (F-20, 36)

LUSTIG, ERNEST, Ph.D., FDA, HEW, BF-145,

Washington, D.C. 20204 (F-4)

LYMAN, JOHN, Ph.D., 404 Clayton Rd., Chapel

Hill, N.C. 27514 (F-23)

LYNCH, MRS. THOMAS J., 4960 Butterworth PI.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016 (M)

MA, TE-HSIU, Dept. of Biological Science, West-

ern Illinois Univ., Macomb, III. 61455 (F-3)

MAC DONALD, TORRENCE H., 622 Chain Bridge

Rd., McLean, Va. 22101 (M)

MADDEN, ROBERT P., A251 Physics Bldg., Natl.

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20034

(F-32)

MAENGWYN-DAVIES, G.D., Ph.D., 2909 34th

St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008 (F-4, 6, 19)

MAGIN, GEORGE B., Jr., 7412 Ridgewood Ave.,

Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F-6, 7, 26)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

MAHAN, A.I., 10 Millgrove Gardens, Ednor, Md.

20904 (F-1)

MAIENTHAL, MILLARD, 10116 Bevern Lane,

Potomac, Md. 20854 (F-4)

MALONEY, CLIFFORD J., Bureau of Biologics,

FDA, Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

MANDEL, H. GEORGE, Ph.D., Dept. of Pharma-

cology, George Washington Univ. Sch. of Med.,

1339 H St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005

(F-4, 19)

MANDEL, JOHN, A345 Chemistry Bg., Natl. Bur.

of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-1)

MANNING, JOHN R., Metal Physics Section, Natl.

Bur. of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234

(F-20)

MARCUS, MARVIN, Ph.D., Dept. Mathematics,

Univ. of California, Santa Barbara, Calif. 93106

(F-6)

MARGOSHES, MARVIN, Ph.D., 69 Midland Ave.,

Tarrytown, N.Y. 10591 (F)

MARSHALL, LOUISE H., Div. Med. Sci., Room

351 NAS-NRC, 2101 Constitution Ave., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20418 (F)

MARSHALL, WADE H., 4209 Everett St., Ken-

sington, Md. 20795 (F-1)

MARTIN, BRUCE D., P.O. Box 234, Leonard-

town, Md. 20650 (F-7)

MARTIN, JOHN H., 124 N.W. 7th St.. Apt. 303,

Corvallis, Oregon 97330 (E-6)

MARTIN, ROBERT H., 2257 N. Nottingham St.,

Arlington, Va. 22205 (M-23)

MARTON, L., Ph.D., Editorial Office, 4515

Linnean Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008

(E-+, 13)

MARVIN, ROBERT S., Natl. Bur. of Standards,

A537 Admin., Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-1, 4,

MARYOTT, ARTHUR A., Natl. Bur. of Standards,

Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-4, 6)

MARZKE, OSCAR T., Westchester Dr., Pittsburgh,

Pa. 15215 (F-14, 20)

MASON, HENRY LEA, Sc.D., 7008 Meadow

Lane, Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F-1, 6, 14, 35)

MASSEY, JOE T., Ph.D., 10111 Parkwood Dr.,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

MATHERS, ALEX P., 320A Mansion Dr., Alex-

andria, Va. 22302 (F-4)

MATLACK, MARION, Ph.D., 2700 N. 25th St.,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (E)

MAUSS, BESSE D., Rural Rt. 1, New Oxford, Pa.

17350 (F)

MAXWELL, LOUIS R., Ph.D., 3506 Leland St.,

Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F)

MAY, DONALD C., Jr., Ph.D., 5931 Oakdale Rd.,

McLean, Va. 22101 (F)

MAY, IRVING, U.S. Geological Survey, Washing-

ton, D.C. 20242 (F-4, 7)

MAYER, CORNELL H., 1209 Villamay Blvd.,

Alexandria, Va. 22307 (F-1, 6, 13)

MAYOR, JOHN R., A.A.A.S., 1515 Massachusetts

Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 (F)

293

MAZUR, JACOB, Natl. Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-6)

MC BRIDE, GORDON W., Ch.E., 100 Park Ave.

Suite 2209, New York, N.Y. 10017 (F)

MC CAMY, CALVIN S., All Angels Hill Rd.,

Wappingers Falls, N.Y. 12590 (F-32)

MC CLELLAN, WILBUR D., Ph.D., Agr. Res.

Center (West), USDA, Beltsville, Md. 20705

(F-6, 10)

MC CLURE, FRANK T., 810 Copley Lane, R.F.D.

1, Silver Spring, Md. 20904 (F-1, 4)

MC CULLOUGH, JAMES M., Ph.D., 6209 Apache

St., Springfield, Va. 22150 (M)

MC CULLOUGH, N.B., Ph.D., M.D., Dept. of

Microbiology & Public Health, Michigan State

Univ., East Lansing, Mich. 48823 (F-6, 8)

MC ELHINNEY, JOHN, Ph.D., 11601 Stephen

Rd., Silver Spring, Md. 20904 (F-1)

MC GRATH, JAMES R., Ph.D., 5900 Madawaska

Rd., Washington, D.C. 20016 (M-25)

MC GUNIGAL, THOMAS E., J.D., 13013 Ingleside

Dr., Beltsville, Md. 20705 (F-1, 13)

MC INTOSH, ALLEN, 4606 Clemson Rd., College

Park, Md. 20740 (E-6, 15)

MC KEE, S. A., 5431 Lincoln St., Bethesda, Md.

20034 (F)

MC KELVEY, VINCENT E., Ph.D., 6601 Brox-

burn Dr., Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-7)

MC KENZIE, LAWSON M., 5311 Westpath Way,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-1)

MC KIBBEN, EUGENE G., Ph.D., 4226 Long-

fellow St., Hyattsville, Md. 20781 (F-12)

MC KINNEY, HAROLD H., 1620 N. Edgewood

St., Arlington, Va. 22201 (E-6, 10, 16, 33)

MC KOWN, BARRETT L., M.S., 3580 So. River

Terr., Edgewater, Md. 21037 (M-6)

MC MILLEN, J. HOWARD, Ph.D., 4200 Stanford

St., Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (E)

MC MURDIE, HOWARD F., Natl. Bur. of Stand-

ards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-28)

MC NESBY, JAMES R., Natl. Bur. of Standards

223.53, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F)

MC PHEE, HUGH C., 3450 Toledo Terrace, Atp.

425, Hyattsville, Md. 20782 (E-6)

MC PHERSON, ARCHIBALD T., Ph.D., 4005

Cleveland St., Kensington, Md. 20795 (F-1, 4,

6, 27)

MEADE, BUFORD K., NOAA—National Ocean

Survey, Washington Science Ctr., Rockville,

Md. 20852 (F-17)

MEARS, FLORENCE, Ph.D.,

Lane, Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

MEARS, THOMAS W., B.S., 2809 Hathaway Ter-

race, Wheaton, Md. 20906 (F-1, 4, 6)

MEBS, RUSSELL W., Ph.D., 6620 32nd St., N.,

Arlington, Va. 22213 (F-12, 20)

MEINKE, W. WAYNE, Ph.D., Analytical Chemis-

try Div., Natl. Bur. of Standards, Washington,

D.C. 20234 (F-4)

MELMED, ALLAN J., 732 Tiffany Court, Gaith-

ersburg, Md. 20760 (F)

8004 Hampden

294

MENDLOWITZ, HAROLD, 708 Lamberton Dr.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20902 (F)

MENIS, OSCAR, Analytical Chem. Div., Natl.

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234

(F)

MERRIAM, CARROLL F.,

Maine 04669 (F-6)

MEYERHOFF, HOWARD A., 3625 S. Florence

Pl., Tulsa, Okla. 74105 (F-7)

MEYERSON, MELVIN R., Ph.D., Rm. A349,

Bldg. 224, National Bureau of Standars, Wash-

ington, D.C. 20234 (F-20)

MEYKAR, OREST A., P.E., 200 E. Luray Ave.,

Alexandria, Va. 22301 (M-13, 14)

MEY ROWITZ, ROBERT, 555 Thayer Ave., Apt.

209, Silver Spring, Md. 20910 (F-4)

MICHAELIS, ROBERT E., National Bureau of

Standards, Chemistry Bldg., Rm. B330, Wash-

ington, D.C. 20234 (F-20)

MICKEY, WENDELL V., 1965 KOHLER Dr.,

Boulder, Colo. 80303 (F)

MIDDLETON, H. E., 430 E. Packwood, Apt.

H-108, Maitland, Fla. 32751 (E)

MIDER, G. BURROUGHS, M.D., Exec. Off.,

Amer. Soc. Exper. Path. & Univ. Assoc. Res.

& Educ. Pathol., 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethes-

da, Mr. 20014 (F)

MILLAR, DAVID B., NMRI, NNMC, Environ-

mental Biosciences Dept., Physical Bio-

chemistry Div., Washington, D.C. 20014 (F)

MILLER, CARL F., 18 W. Windsor Ave., Alex-

andria, Va. 22301 (E-/0

MILLER, CLEM O., Ph.D., 6343 Nicholson St.,

Falls Church, Va. 22044 (F-4, 6)

MILLER, J. CHARLES, 10600 Eastbaurne Ave.,

Apt. 7, W. Los Angles, Calif. 90024 (E-7)

MILLER, PAUL R., Ph.D., Fort Valley State Col-

lege, Box 889, Ft. Valley, Ga. 31030 (F-10)

MILLER, RALPH L., Ph.D. 5215 Abington Rd.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-7)

MILLER, ROMAN R., 1232 Pinecrest Circle,

Silver Spring, Md. 20910 (F-4, 6, 28)

MILLIGAN, DOLPHUS €E., Ph.D., National

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234

(F-4)

MILLIKEN, LEWIS T., SSL Res. Inst., 43-20,

NHTSA, 400 7th St., S.W., Washington, D.C.

20590 (M-1, 4, 7)

MILTON, CHARLES, Dept. of Geology, George

Washington Univ., Washington, D.C. 20006

(F-7)

MITCHELL, J. MURRAY, Jr., Ph.D., 1106 Dog-

wood Dr., McLean, Va. 22101 (F-6, 23)

MITCHELL, JOHN W., 9007 Flower Ave., Silver

Spring, Md. 20901 (F)

MITTLEMAN, DON, 80 Parkwood Lane, Oberlin,

Ohio 44074 (F)

MIZELL, LOUIS R., 108 Sharon Lane, Greenlawn,

N.Y. 11740 (F)

MOEZIE, FATEMEH TAYMOORIAN, 5432 N.

24th St., Arlington, Va..22205 (M)

Prospect Harbor,

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

MOHLER, FRED L., Ph.D., 2853 Brandywine St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008 (E-1)

MOLLARI, MARIO, 4527 45th St., N.W., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20016 (E-3, 5, 15)

MOLLER, RAYMOND W., Ph.D., Catholic Univ.

of America, Washington, D.C. 20017 (F)

MOORE, GEORGE A., Ph.D., Natl. Bur. of Stand-

ards 312.03, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-6, 20,

29, 36)

MOORE, HARVEY C., Dept. of Anthropology,

American Univ., Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-2)

MORAN, FREDERICK A., 7711 Kipling Pkwy.,

Washington, D.C. 20028 (M-23)

MORRIS, J.A., 23-E Ridge Rd., Greenbelt, Md.

20770 (M-6, 15, 16)

MORRIS, JOSEPH BURTON, Chemistry Dept.

Howard Univ., Washington, D.C. 20001 (F)

MORRIS, KELSO B., Howard Univ., Washington,

D.C. 20001 (F-4)

MORRISS, DONALD J., 102 Baldwin Ct., Pt.

Charlotte, Fla. 33950 (E-11)

MORTON, JOHN D., M.A., 10217 Forest Ave.,

Fairfax, Va. 22030 (F-16, 23)

MOSHMAN, JACK, LEASCO, Inc., 4033 Rugby

Ave., Bethesda, Md. 20014 (M-34)

MOSTOFI, F.K., M.D., Armed Forces Inst. of

Pathology, Washington, D.C. 20305

MUEHLHAUSE, C.O., Ph.D., 9105 Séven Locks

Rd., Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-1, 26)

MUELLER, H.J., 4801 Kenmore Ave., Alexandria,

Va. 22304 (F)

MUESEBECK, CARL F.W., U.S. Natl. Museum,

Washington, D.C. 20560 (E-3, 5)

MURDOCH, WALLACE P., Ph.D., Rt. 2, Gettys-

burg, Pa. 17325 (F-5)

MURPHY, LEONARD M., Seismology Div., U.S.

Nat. Ocean Surv., Rockville, Md. 20852 (F)

MURRAY, WILLIAM S., 1281 Bartonshire Way,

Potomac Woods, Rockville, Md. 20854 (F-5)

MYERS, ALFRED T., USGS Geochemistry &

Petr., Denver Federal Ctr., Denver, Colo. 80225

(F-4, 6)

MYERS, RALPH D., Physics Dept., Univ. of Mary-

land, College Park, Md. 20740 (F-1)

MYERS, WILLIAM H., Natl. Oceanographic Data

Ctr., Washington, D.C. 20390 (M)

NAESER, CHARLES R., Ph.D., 6654 Van Winkle

Dr., Falls Church, Va. 22044 (F-4, 7)

NAMIAS, JEROME, Sc.D., 2251 Sverdrup Hall,

Scripps Institution of Oceonography, La Jolla,

Calif. 92037 (F-23)

NELSON, R.H., 7309 Finns Lane, Lanham, Md.

+ 20801 (E-5, 6, 24)

NEPOMUCENE, SR. St. JOHN, Villa Jolie, Valley

Rd., Stevenson, Md. 21153 (E-4)

NEUENDORFFER, J.A., 911 Allison St., Alex-

andria, Va. 22302 (F-6, 34)

NEUSCHEL, SHERMAN K., U.S. Geological Sur-

vey, Washington, D.C. 20242 (F-7)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972 |

NEWMAN, MORRIS, Natl. Bur.

Washington, D.C. 20234 (F)

NEWMAN, SANFORD B., Ph.D., Room A1000

Administration Bldg., Natl. Bur. of Standards,

Washington, D.C. 20234 (F)

NEWTON, CLARENCE J., Ph.D., 1504 S. 2nd

Ave., Edinburg, Texas 78539 (E)

NICKERSON, DOROTHY, 2039 New Hampshire

Ave., Washington, D.C. 20009 (E-6, 32)

NIKIFOROFF, C.C., 4309 Van Buren St., Uni-

versity Park, Hyattsville, Md. 20782 (E)

NIRENBERG, MARSHALL W., 7001

Pkwy., Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-4)

NOFFSINGER, TERRELL L., Spec. Weather Serv.

Br., NOAA/NWS, Gramax Bldg., Silver Spring,

Md. 20910 (F-23)

NOLLA, J.A.B., Ph.D., Apartado 820, Mayaguez,

Puerto Rico 00708 (F-6)

NORRIS, KARL H., 11204 Montgomery Rd.,

Beltsville, Md. 20705 (F-27)

NOYES, HOWARD E., 4807 Aspen Hill

Rockville, Md. 20853 (F-16, 19)

O'BRIEN, JOHN A., Ph.D., Dept. of Biology,

Catholic Univ. of America, Washington, D.C.

20017 (F-10)

O’HERN, ELIZABETH M., Ph.D., 633 G St., S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20024 (M-16)

O’KEEFE, JOHN A., Code 640, Goddard Space

Flight Ctr., Greenbelt, Md. 20771 (F-1)

OBOURN, ELLSWORTH S., Ph.D., 2100 S. Ocean

Dr., Apt. 2CD, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. 33316 (E-1,

OEHSER, PAUL H., 9012 Old Dominion Dr.,

McLean, Va. 22101 (F-1, 3, 9, 30)

OKABE, HIDEO, Ph.D., A243, 222, Natl. Bur. of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-4)

OLIPHANT, MALCOLM W., Ph.D., Hawaii Loa

Coll., P.O. Box 764, Kaneohe, Oahu, Haw.

96744 (F)

OLSEN, HAROLD W., Br. of Engr. Geol., U.S.

Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Rd., Menlo

Park, Calif. 94025 (M)

OLSON, JOSEPH C., Ph.D., BF-210, Food & Drug

Admin., 200 C St., N.W., Washington, D.C.

20204 (M-16, 27)

OLTJEN, ROBERT R., 3514 Susquehanna Dr.,

Beltsville, Md. 20705 (F)

ORDWAY, FRED, Ph.D., 5205 Elsmere Ave.,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F-4, 6, 20, 28)

ORLIN, HYMAN, NOAA-NOS, Rockville, Md.

20852 (F-17)

OSER, HANS J., 8810 Quiet Stream Ct., Potomac,

Md. 20852 (F-6)

OSGOOD, WILLIAM R., Ph.D., 2756 Macomb St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008 (E-14, 18)

OSWALD, ELIZABETH J., Genetic Toxicology

Br., FDA, 200 C. St. N.W., Washington, D.C.

20204 (F-16)

of Standards,

Orkney

Rd.,

295

OWENS, JAMES P., M.A. 14528 Bauer Dr., Rock-

ville, Md. 20853 (F-7)

PACK, DONALD H., 1826 Opalacka Dr., McLean,

Va. 22101 (F-23)

PAFFENBARGER, GEORGE C., D.D.S., ADA

Res. Div., Natl. Bur. of Standards, Washington,

D.C. 20234 (F-21)

PAGE, BENJAMIN L., 1340 Locust Rd., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20012 (E-1, 6)

PAGE, CHESTER H., 15400 Layhill Rd., Silver

Spring, Md. 20906 (F-1, 6, 13)

PAGE, R.M., 10222 Berkshire Rd., Bloomington,

Minn. 55437 (F-13)

PARK, J. HOWARD, 3614 59th Ave., S.W., Seat-

tle, Washington 98116 (F-13)

PARKER, KENNETH W., 6014 Kirby Rd., Bethes-

da, Md. 20034 (E-3, 10, 11)

PARMAN, GEORGE K., c/o UNIDO, P.O. Box

837, A-1011, Vienna, Austria (F-27)

PARR, L.W., 302 Scientists Cliffs, Port Republic,

Md. 20676 (E-16, 19)

PARRY, H. DEAN, NOAA-National Weather Ser-

vice, Gramax Bldg., 8060 13th St., Silver

Spring, Md. 20910 (F-13, 23, 35)

PASSER, MOSES, Ph.D., 6647 32nd PI., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20015 (F)

PATTERSON, GLENN W., 8916 2nd St., Lanham,

Md. 20801 (F-4, 33)

PATTERSON, WILBUR I., Ph.D., Blakely Island,

Washington 98222 (F)

PAYNE, L.E., Dept. Math., Cornell Univ., Ithaca,

N.Y. 14850 (F)

PEISER, H. STEFFEN, 638 Blossom Dr., Rock-

ville, Md. 20850 (F-1, 4, 28)

PELCZAR, MICHAEL J., Jr., Vice-Pres. for Grad.

Studies & Research, Center of Adult Education,

Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Md. 20742 (F)

PELL, WILLIAM H., National Science Fndn. 1800

G St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20550 (F-6, 14)

PERROS, THEODORE P., Ph.D., Dept. of Chem-

istry, George Washington Univ., Washington,

D.C. 20006 (F-1, 4)

PHAIR, GEORGE, Ph.D.,

Potomac, Md. 20854 (F-7)

PHILLIPS, MRS. M. LINDEMAN, Union Farm,

Mount Vernon, Va. 22121 (F-1, 13, 25)

PIKL, JOSEF, 211 Dickinson Rd., Glassboro, N.J.

08028 (E)

PITTMAN, MARGARET, Ph.D., 3133 Connecticut

Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008 (E)

PLOTKIN, HENRY H., 1801 Briggs Rd., Silver

Spring, Md. 20906 (F-1)

POLACHEK, HARRY, 12000 Old Georgetown

Rd., Rockville, Md. 20852 (E)

POMMER, ALFRED M., 3117 Fayette Rd., Ken-

sington, Md. 20795 (F-4, 7, 19, 35)

14700 River Rd.,

296

POOS, F.W., 3225 N. Albemarle St., Arlington, Va.

22207 (E-5, 6, 26)

POPENOE, WILSON, Antigua, Guatemala, Central

America’ (E-3, 11)

PRESLEY, JOHN T., 3811 Courtney Circle,

Bryan, Texas 77801 (E)

PRO, MAYNARD J., 7904 Falstaff Rd., McLean,

Va. 22101 (F-26)

PRYOR, C. NICHOLS, Ph.D., Naval Ord. Lab.,

White Oak, Silver Spring, Md. 20910 (F)

PUTNINS, PAUL H., 10809 Georgia Ave., Apt.

202, Wheaton, Md. 20902 (F-6, 23)

RABINOW, JACOB, 1.A.T., Nat. Bureau of Stand-

ards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F)

RADER, CHARLES A., 15807 Sherwood Ave.,

Laurel, Md. 20810 (F-4)

RADO, GEORGE T., Ph.D., 818 Carrie Court,

McLean, Va. 22101 (F-1)

RAINWATER, H. IVAN, Plant Protection and

Quarantine Programs, APHIS, Fed. Center Bg.,

Hyattsville, Md. 20782 (E5, 6, 24)

RALL, DAVID P., Director, National Institute of

Envir. Health Sciences, P.O. Box 11233, Re-

search Triangle, Raleigh, N.C. 27709 (F-6, 19)

RAMBERG, WALTER, Stone Hall, Cuba Rd.,

Cockysville, Md. 21030 (E-1)

RAPPLEYE, HOWARD S., 6712 4th St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20012 (E-1, 6, 12, 17, 18)

RAUSCH, ROBERT, Arctic Health Res. Center,

U.S. Public Health Service, Fairbanks, Alaska

99701 (F-3, 15)

RAVITSKY, CHARLES, M.S., 1808 Metzerott

Rd., Adelphi, Md. 20783 (F-32)

READING, O.S., 6 N. Howells Point Rd., Bellport

Suffolk County, New York, N.Y. 11713 (E-1)

REAM, DONALD F., Halavallagata 9, Reykjavik,

Iceland (F)

RECHCIGL, MILOSLAV, Jr., 1703 Mark Lane,

Rockville, Md. 20852 (F-4, 19)

REED, WILLIAM D., 3609 Military Rd., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20015 (F-5, 6)

REEVE, WILKINS, 4708 Harvard Rd., College

Park, Md. 20740 (F-4)

REEVES, ROBERT G., Ph.D., 12524 W. Virginia

Ave., Denver, Colo. 80228 (F-7, 14)

REGGIA, FRANK, 6207 Kirby Rd., Bethesda, Md.

20034 (F-6, 13)

REHDER, HARALD A., U.S. National Museum of

Nat. Hist., Washington, D.C. 20560 (F-3, 6)

REICHELDERFER, F.W., 3031 Sedgwick St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008 (F-1, 6, 22, 23)

REINHART, FRANK W., 9918 Sutherland Rd.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20901 (F-4, 6)

REINHART, FRED M., P.O. Box 591, Oak View,

Calif. 93022 (F-20)

REINING, PRISCILLA, 3601 Rittenhouse St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015 (F-2)

REITEMEIER, R.F., 7563 Spring Lake Dr.,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

REYNOLDS, ORR E., 2134 LeRoy Place, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20008 (F)

RHODES, IDA, 6676 Georgia Ave., N.W., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20012 (F)

RICE, DONALD A., 1518 East West Highway,

Silver Spring, Md. 20910 (F)

RICE, FREDERICK A.H., 8005 Carita Court,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-4, 6, 19)

RICKER, P.L., 623 Town House Motor Hotel,

San Angelo, Texas 76901 (E)

RINEHART, JOHN S., 756 Sixth St., Boulder,

Colo. 80302 (F-6, 20)

RIOCH, DAVID McK., M.D., 2429 Linden Lane,

Silver Spring, Md. 20910 (F-3, 8)

RITT, P.E., Ph.D., GTE Laboratories, Inc., 40

Sylvan Rd., Waltham, Mass. 02154 (F)

RITTS, ROY E., Jr., Dept. of Microbiology, Mayo

Clinic, Rochester, Minn. 55901 (F)

RIVELLO, ROBERT M., Dept. of Aerospace

Engng., Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Md.

20740 (F-14, 22)

RIVLIN, RONALD S., Lehigh University, Bethle-

hem, Pa. 18015 (F)

ROBBINS, MARY LOUISE, Ph.D., George Wash-

ington Univ. Sch. of Med., 1339 H St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20005 (F-6, 16, 19)

ROBERTS, ELLIOT B., 4500 Wetherill Rd., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20016 (E-1, 18)

ROBERTS, RICHARD B., Ph.D., Dept. Terrestrial

Mag., 5241 Broad Branch Rd., N.W., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20015 (F)

ROBERTS, RICHARD C., 5170 Phantom Court,

Columbia, Md. 21044 (F-6)

ROBERTSON, A.F., Ph.D., 4228 Butterworth PIl.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016 (F)

ROBERTSON, RANDAL M., Ph.D., 1404 High-

land Circle, S.E., Blacksburg, Va. 24060 (F-1,

ROCK, GEORGE D., Ph.D., The Kennedy Warren,

3133 Conn. Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.

20008 (E)

RODNEY, WILLIAM S., 8112 Whites Ford Way,

Rockville, Md. 20854 (F-1, 32)

RODRIGUEZ, RAUL, 3533 Martha Custis Drive,

Alexandria, VA. 22302 (F-17)

ROGERS, L.A., Patten, Maine 04765 (E-16)

ROLLER, PAUL S., 825 Colorado Bldg., 1341 G

St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 (E)

ROMNEY, CARL F., 4105 Sulgrave Dr., Alex-

andria, Va. 22309 (F-7)

ROSADO, JOHN A., 1709 Great FAIIs St., Mc-

Lean, Va. 22101 (F)

ROSENBLATT, DAVID, 2939 Van Ness St., N.W.,

Apt. 702, Washington, D.C. 2008 (F-1)

ROSENBLATT, JOAN R., 2939 Van Ness St.,

N.W., Apt. 702, Washington, D.C. 20008 (F-1)

ROSENSTOCK, HENRY M., 10117 Ashburton

Lane, Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F)

ROSENTHAL, SANFORD, M., Bldg. 4, Rm. 122,

National Insts. of Health, Bethesda, Md. 20014

(E)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972 -

ROSS, SHERMAN, National

2101 Constitution Ave.,

D.C. 20418 (F)

ROSSINI, FREDERICK D., Dept. Chemistry, Rice

Univ., Houston, Tex. 77001 (F-1)

ROTH, FRANK L., M.Sc., Box 441, Nogales Star

Rt., Amado, Ariz. 85640 (E-6)

ROTH, ROBERT S., Solid State Chem. Sect.,

National Bureau of Standards, Washington,

D.C. 20234 (F)

ROTKIN, ISRAEL, 11504 Regnid Dr., Wheaton,

Md. 20902 (F-1, 13, 34)

RUBIN, MORTON J., M.Sc., Bldg. 5, NOAA, 6010

Executive Bldg., Rockville, Md. 20852 (F-23)

RUBIN, VERA C., Ph.D., 3308 McKinley St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015 (F)

RUPP, N.W., D.D.S.; American Dental Assoc., Re-

search Division, National Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-21)

RUSSELL, LOUISE M. Bg-A, Agr. Res. Center,

(West), USDA, Beltsville, Md. 20705 (F-5)

RYALL, A. LLOYD, Route 2, Box 216, Las

Cruces, N. Mex. 88001 (E-6, 10, 27)

RYERSON, KNOWLES A., M.S., Dean Emeritus,

15 Arlmonte Dr., Berkeley, Calif. 94707 (E-6)

SAALFIELD, FRED E., Naval Res. Lab., Code

6110, Washington, D.C. 20390 (F-4)

SAENZ, ALBERT W., Nuclear Sciences Div., Naval

Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C. 20390

(F)

SAILER, R.I., Ph.D., Bg-A, Agr. Res. Center

(West), USDA, Beltsville, Md. 20705 (F-5, 24)

SALISBURY, LLOYD L., 10138 Crestwood Rd.,

Kensington, Md. 20795 (M)

SAN ANTONIO, JAMES P., Agr. Res. Center

(West), USDA, Beltsville, Md. 20705 (M)

SANDERSON, JOHN A., Ph.D., 303 High St.,

Alexandria, Va. 22203 (F-1, 32)

SANDOZ, GEORGE, Ph.D., Office of Naval Re-

search, Chicago Office, 536 Clark St., Chicago,

111. 60605 (F-6, 20)

SARVELLA, PATRICIA A., Ph.D., 4513 Romlon

St., Apt. 302, Beltsville, Md. 20705 (F-6)

SASMOR, ROBERT M., 12 Old Mamaroneck Rad.,

White Plains, N.Y. 10605 (F)

SAULMON, E.E., 202 North Edgewood St.,

Arlington, Va. 22201 (M)

SAVILLE, THORNDIKE, Jr., M.S., 5601 Albia

Rd., Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-6, 18)

SAYLOR, CHARLES P., 1001 Riggs Rd., Adelphi,

Md. 20783 (F-1, 4, 32)

SCHAFFER, ROBERT, Chemistry A 367, Nat.

Bur. Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F)

SCHAMP, HOMER W., Jr., 521 Overdale Rd.,

Baltimore, Md. 21229 (F-1)

SCHECHTER, MILTON S., 10909 Hannes Court,

Silver Spring, Md. 20901 (F-4, 5, 24)

Research Council,

N.W., Washington,

297

SCHEER, MILTON D., 811 N. Belgrade Rd., Silver

Spring, Md. 20902 (F-1, 4)

SCHINDLER, ALBERT I., Sc.D., Code 6330, U.S.

Naval Res. Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390 (F-1)

SCHMID, HELLMUT, 20740 Warfield Court,

Gaithersburg, Md. 20760 (F-6, 17)

SCHMIDT, CLAUDE H., MRRL, ARS, USDA,

State University Sta., Fargo, No. Dak. 58102

(F-5)

SCHMITT, WALDO L., Ph.D., U.S. National Muse-

um, Washington, D.C. 20560 (E-3)

SCHNEIDER, SIDNEY, 239 N. Granada St.,

Arlington, Va. 22203 (M)

SCHOEN, LOUIS J., 8605 Springdell Pl., Chevy

Chase, Md. 20015 (F)

SCHOENEMAN, ROBERT LEE, 217 Sachem

Drive, Forest Heights, Washington, D.C. 20021

(F)

SCHOOLEY, ALLEN H., 6113 Cloud Dr., Spring-

field, Va. 22150 (F-6, 13, 31)

SCHOOLEY, JAMES F., 13700 Darnestown Rd.,

Gaithersburg, Md. 20760 (F-6)

SCHOONOVER, IRL C., National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-1, 4)

SCHRECKER, ANTHONY W., Ph.D., National In-

stitutes of Health, Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F-4)

SCHUBAUER, G.B., Ph.D.,, 5609 Gloster Rd.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-22)

SCHUBERT, Leo, Ph.D., The American Univ.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-1, 4, 30)

SCHULMAN, JAMES H., 2284 Dunster Lane,

Rockville, Md. 20854 (F)

SCHULTZ, E. S., 2 Martins Lane, Benwyn, Pa.

19312 (E-6)

SCHWARTZ, ANTHONY M., Ph.D., Gillette Re-

search Inst., 1413 Research Blvd., Rockville,

Md. 20850 (F-4)

SCHWARTZ, BENJAMIN, Ph.D., 888 Mont-

gomery St., Brooklyn, N.Y. 11213 (E)

SCHWERDTFEGER, WILLIAM J., B.S., 9200

Fowler Lane, Lanham, Md. 20801 (F-13)

SCOFIELD, FRANCIS, 2403 Eye St., N.W., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20037 (M-4, 32)

SCOTT, DAVID B., D.D.S., Dean, Case Western

Reserve Univ., Sch. of Dentistry, 2123 Abing-

ton Rd., Cleveland, Ohio 44106 (F-21)

SCRIBNER, BOURDON F., National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-4, 32)

SEABORG, GLENN T., Ph.D., Lawrence Berkeley

Lab., Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.

94720 (F)

SEEGER, RAYMOND J., Ph.D., 4507 Wetherill

Rd., Washington, D.C. 20016 (E-1, 30, 31)

SEITZ, FREDERICK, Rockefeller University, New

York, N.Y. 10021 (F-36)

SERVICE, JERRY H., Ph.D., Cascade Manor, 65

W. 30th Ave., Eugene, Oreg. 97405 (E)

SETZLER, FRANK M., Sc.D., 950 E. Shore Dr.,

Culver, Ind. 46511 (E-2, 3, 6)

SHAFRIN, ELAINE G., M.S., Apt. N-702, 800 4th

St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20024 (F-4)

298

SHALOWITZ, A.L., 1520 Kalmia Rd., N.W., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20012 (E-17)

SHANAHAN, A. J., 7217 Churchill Rd., McLean,

Va. 22101 (F-16)

SHAPIRA, NORMAN, 86 Oakwood Dr., Dunkirk,

Md. 20754 (M)

SHAPIRO, GUSTAVE, 3704 Munsey St., Silver

Spring, Md. 20906 (F)

SHAPIRO, MAURICE M., Ph.D., U.S. Naval Re-

search Lab., Code 7020, Washington, D.C.

20390 (F-1)

SHELTON, EMMA, National Cancer Institute,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

SHEPARD, HAROLD H., Ph.D., 2701 S. June St.,

Arlington, Va. 22202 (F-5, 24)

SHERESHEFSKY, J. LEON, Ph.D., 9023 Jones

Mill Rd., Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (E)

SHERLIN, GROVER C., 4024 Hamilton St.,

Hyattsville, Md. 20781 (F-1, 6, 13, 31)

SHIELDS, WILLIAM ROY, A.M.S.S., Natl. Bur. of

Standards, Physics Bldg., Rm. A25, Wash-

ington, D.C. 20234 (F)

SHMUKLER, LEON, 151 Lorraine Dr., Berkeley

Heights, N.J. 07922 (F)

SHOTLAND, EDWIN, 418 E. Indian Spring Dr.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20901 (M-1)

SHROPSHIRE, WALTER A., Ph.D., Radiation

Bio. Lab., 12441 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, Md.

20852 (F-6, 10, 33)

SIEGLER, EDOUARD HORACE, Ph.D., 201

Tulip Ave., Takoma Park, Md. 20012 (E-5, 24)

SILBERSCHMIDT, KARL M., Instituto Biologico,

Caixa Postal 7119, Sao Paulo, Brazil (F)

SILVER, DAVID M., Ph.D., Applied Physics Lab.,

Johns Hopkins Univ., Silver Spring, Md. 20910

(M-4, 6)

SILVERMAN, SHIRLEIGH, Academic Liaison,

Natl. Bur. of Standards, Washington, D.C.

20234 (F-1)

SIMMONS, JOHN A., Rm. A157, Bldg. 223, Natl.

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234

(F-1)

SIMMONS, LANSING G., 4425 Dittmar Rd., N.,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (F-18)

SIMHA, ROBERT, Case Western Reserve Univ.,

Cleveland, Ohio 44106 (F)

SITTERLY, BANCROFT W., Ph.D., 3711 Brandy-

wine St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016 (E-1,

31, 32)

SLACK, LEWIS, 106 Garden Rd. Scarsdale, N.Y.

10583 (F)

SLADEK, JAROMIL V., 2940 28th St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20008 (F-4)

SLAWSKY, MILTON M., 8803 Lanier Dr., Silver

Spring, Md. 20910 (F-6, 12, 22, 31)

SLAWSKY, ZAKA |., Naval Ordnance Lab., White

Oak, Silver Spring, Md. 20910 (F)

SLOCUM, GLENN G., 4204 Dresden St., Kensing-

ton, Md. 20795 (E-16, 27)

SMITH, BLANCHARD DRAKE, M.S., 2509 Rye-

gate Lane, Alexandria, Va. 22308 (F-6, 13)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

SMITH, EDGAR R., Box 52, Lottsburg, Va. 22511

(E-4)

SMITH, FLOYD F., Ph.D., 9022 Fairview Rd.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20910 (F-5, 24)

SMITH, FRANCIS A., Ph.D., 1023 55th Ave.,

South, St. Petersburg, Fla. 33705 (E-6)

SMITH, HENRY LEE, Jr., Ph.D., 112 Depew Ave.,

Buffalo, N.Y. 14214 (F-2)

SMITH, JACK C., 3708 Manor Rd., Apt. 3, Chevy

Chase, Md. 20015 (F)

SMITH, NATHAN R., 322 S. Washington Dr., St.

Armands Key, Sarasota, Fla. 33577 (E-6, 10,

16)

SMITH, PAUL A., 4714 26th St., N., Arlington,

Va. 22207 (F-6, 7, 18, 22)

SMITH, ROBERT C., Jr., 4200 Peachtree PIl.,

Alexandria, Va. 22304 (F-4, 22)

SMITH, SIDNEY T., D. Eng., 5811 Sunderland

Court, Alexandria, Va. 22310 (F-1, 13, 32)

SMITH, WILLIE, Natl. Insts. of Health, Bethesda,

Md. 20014 (F-19)

SNAVELY, BENJAMIN L., 721 Springloch Rd.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20904 (F-25, 31, 32)

SNAY, HANS G., 17613 Treelawn Dr., Ashton,

Md. 20702 (F-6, 25)

SOKOLOVE, FRANK L., 2311 S. Dinwiddie St.,

Arlington, Va. 22206 (M)

SOLLNER, KARL, Lab. of Physical Bio., Natl.

Insts. of Health, Bethesda, Md. 20014 (f-4, 29)

SOLOMON, EDWIN M., 11550 Lockwood Dr.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20904 (M)

SOMMER, HELMUT, 9502 Hollins Ct., Bethesda,

Md. 20034 (F-1, 13)

SONN, MARTIN, Ph.D., Ed.D., 5 Watson Dr.,

Portsmouth, R.!. 02871 (F)

SORROWS, H.E., 8820 Maxwell Dr., Potomac,

Md. 20854 (F)

SPALDING, DONALD H., Ph.D., 17500 S.W. 89th

Ct., Miami, Fla. 33157 (F-6, 10)

SPECHT, HEINZ, Ph.D., 4429 Franklin St.,

Kensington, Md. 20795 (F-1, 6)

SPENCER, LEWIS V., Box 206, Gaithersburg, Md.

20760 (F)

SPERLING, FREDERICK, 1131 University Blvd.,

W., L1122, Silver Spring, Md. 20902 (F-19)

SPICER, H. CECIL, 2174 Louisa Drive, Belleair

Beach, Florida 33534 (E-7)

SPIES, JOSEPH R., 507 N. Monroe St., Arlington,

Va. 22201 (F-4)

SPOONER, CHARLES S., Jr., M.F., 346 Spring-

vale Rd., Great Falls, Va. 22066 (F)

SPRAGUE, G.F., 10206 Green Forest Dr., Silver

Spring, Md. 20903 (F)

ST GEORGE, R.A., 3305 Powder Mill Rd.,

Adelphi Station, Hyattsville, Md. 20783 (F-3,

5, 11, 24)

STADTMAN, E.R., Bldg., 3, Rm. 108, Natl. In-

stitutes of Health, Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

STAIR, RALPH, P.O. Box 310, Newburg, Oreg.

97132 (E-6)

STAKMAN, E.C., Univ. of Minnesota, Inst. of

Agric., St. Paul, Minn. 55101 (E)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL. VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

STAUSS, HENRY E., Ph.D., 8005 Washington

Ave., Alexandria, Va. 22308 (F-20)

STEARN, JOSEPH L., 6950 Oregon Ave., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20015 (F)

STEELE, LENDELL E., 7624 Highland St.,

Springfield, Va. 22150 (F-20, 26)

STEERE, RUSSELL L., Ph.D., 6207 Carrollton

Ter., Hyattsville, Md. 20781 (F-6, 10)

STEGUN, IRENE A., Natl. Bur. of Standards,

Washington, D.C. 20234 (F)

STEINER, ROBERT F., 2609 Turf Valley Rd.,

Ellicott City, Md. 21043 (F-4)

STEINHARDT, JACINTO, Ph.D., Georgetown

Univ., Washington, D.C. 20007 (F-4)

STEPHENS, ROBERT E., Ph.D., 4301 39th St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-1, 32)

STERN, KURT H., Ph.D., Naval Res. Lab., Code

6160, Washington, D.C. 20390 (F-4, 29, 30)

STERN, WILLIAM L., Dept. Botany, Univ. of

Maryland, College Park, Md. 20742 (F-10)

STEVENS, HENRY, 5116 Brookview Dr., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20016 (E)

STEVENS, RUSSELL B., Ph.D., Div. of Biology &

Agric. N.R.C., 2101 Constitution Ave., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20418 (F-10)

STEVENSON, JOHN A., 4113 Emery PIl., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (E-6, 10)

STEWART, 1!.E., 4000 Tunlaw Rd., N.W., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20007 (F)

STEWART, T. DALE, M.D., 1191 Crest Lane,

McLean, Va. 22101 (F-2)

STIEBELING, HAZEL K., 4000 Cathedral Ave.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (E)

STIEF, LOUIS J., Ph.D., Code 691, NASA Goa-

dard Space Flight Ctr., Greenbelt, Md. 20771

(F-4)

STIEHLER, ROBERT D., Ph.D., Natl. Bur. of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-1, 4, 6,

14) é

STILL, JOSEPH W., M.D., 1146 E. Garvey, West

Covina, Calif. 91790 (F)

STILLER, BERTRAM, 3210 Wisconsin Ave.,

N.W., Apt. 501, Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-1)

STIMSON, H.F., 2920 Brandywine St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20008 (E-1, 6)

STIRLING, MATHEW W., 3311 Rowland PI.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008 (F-2, 6)

STRAUB, HAROLD W., Ph.D., 7008 Richard Dr.,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-32)

STRAUSS, SIMON W., Ph.D., 4506 Cadell PI.,

Camp Springs, Md. 20031 (F-4)

STUART, NEIL W., 1341 Chilton Dr., Silver

Spring, Md. 20904 (F-10)

SULZBACHER, WILLIAM L., 8527 Clarkson Dr.,

Fulton, Md. 20759 (F-16, 27)

SWEENEY, WILLIAM T., 8411 Buckland Mill Rd.,

Gainesville, Va. 22065 (F-16, 21)

SWICK, CLARENCE H., 5514 Brenner St., Capitol

Heights, Md. 20027 (F-1, 6, 12)

SWINGLE, CHARLES F., Ph.D., Pauma Valley,

Calif. 92061 (E)

299

SYKES, ALAN O., 304 Mashie Dr., S.E., Vienna,

Va. 22180 (M-25)

SYSKI, RYSZARD, Ph.D., Dept. of Mathematics,

Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Md. 20742 (F)

TALBERT, PRESTON T., Dept. of Chemistry,

Howard Univ., Washington, D.C. 20001 (F-4)

TALBOTT, F. LEO, R.D. #4, Bethlehem, Pa.

8015 (F-1, 6, 31)

TASAKI, ICHIJI, M.D., Ph.D., Res. Branch Natl.

Insts. of Mental Health, Bethesda, Md. 20014

(F)

TATE, DOUGLAS R., B.A., 11415 Farmland Dr.,

Rockville, Md. 20852 (F-1)

TAUSSKY, OLGA, California Inst. of Technology,

Pasadena, Calif. 91109 (E)

TAYLOR, ALBERT L., 3913 Wyoming Ave.,

Tampa, Fla. 33616 (E-15)

TAYLOR, JOHN K., Chemistry Bldg., Rm. B-326,

Natl. Bur. of Standards, Washington, D.C.

20234 (F-4, 29)

TAYLOR, LAURISTON S., 7407 Denton Rad.,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (E)

TAYLOR, MODDIE D., Ph.D., 4560 Argyle Ter-

race, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20011 (F-4)

TCHEN, CHAN-MOU, City College of New York,

Mechanical Engr. Dept., New York, N.Y. 10031

(F)

TEAL, GORDON K., Ph.D., 5222 Park Lane,

Dallas, Tex. 75220. (F-6, 13, 29)

TEELE, RAY P., 3713 Jenifer St., N.W., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20015 (F-1, 6, 32)

TEPPER, MORRIS, 107 Bluff Terrace, Silver

Spring, Md. 20902 (F-22, 23)

THAYER, T.P., Ph.D., U.S. Geological

Washington, D.C. 20242 (F-7)

THEUS, RICHARD B., 8612 Van Buren Dr., Oxon

Hill, Md. 20022 (F)

THOM, H.C.S., Cons. Engr., 14310 Bauer Dr.,

Rockville, Md. 20853 (F-20)

THOMAS, H. REX, Ph.D., 3907 Beechwood Rad.,

Hyattsville, Md. 20782 (F-10)

THOMAS, JAMES L., 13900 Glen Mill Rd., Rock-

ville, Md. 20850 (F)

THOMPSON, JACK C., 281 Casitas Bulevar, Los

Gatos, Calif. 95030 (F)

THURMAN, ERNESTINE B., Louisiana State

Univ., 1542 Tulane Ave., New Orleans, La.

70118 (F)

TIDBALL, CHARLES S., Physiology Dept.,

George Washington Univ., 1339 H St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20005 (F-8)

TILDEN, EVELYN B., Ph.D., Apt. 1006, 55 West

Chestnut St., Chicago, II. 60610 (E-6)

TITUS, HARRY W., 7 Lakeview Ave., Andover,

N.J. 07821 (E-6)

TODD, MARGARET RUTH, Miss, U.S. Natl. Mu-

seum, Washington, D.C. 20560 (F-7)

Surv.,

300

TOLHURST, GILBERT, Ph.D., 7 Red Fox Lane,

Amherst, Mass. 01002 (F)

TOLL, JOHN S., Pres., State Univ. of New York,

Stony Brook, L.I., N.Y. 11790 (F)

TORGESEN, JOHN L., Natl. Bur of Standards,

Materials Bldg. B-354, Washington, D.C. 20234

(F-4, 6)

TORIO, J.C., 226 Cedar Lane, Apt. 84, Vienna,

Va. 22180 (M-4)

TORRESON, OSCAR W., 4317 Maple Ave.,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (E-6)

TOUSEY, RICHARD, Ph.D., Code 1740, Naval

Res. Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390 (F-1, 32)

TRAUB, ROBERT, Ph.D., 5702 Bradiey Blvd.,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F-5)

TREADWELL, CARELTON R., Ph.D., Dept. of

Biochemistry, George Washington Univ., H St.

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 (F-19)

TROMBA, F.G., VSR, ARS, Agric. Res. Ctr.,

Beltsville, Md. 20705 (f-15)

TRUEBLOOD, MRS. CHARLES K., 7100 Armat

Dr., Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F-19)

TRUBUL, THEODORE S., Sc.D., 11711 River Dr.,

Lorton, Va. 22079 (M-14, 34)

TRYON, MAX, 6008 Namakagan Rd., Washington,

D.C. 20016 (F-4, 6)

TULANE, VICTOR J. Assistant President, Living-

stone Coll., Salisbury, N.C. 28144 (F)

TUNELL, GEORGE, Ph.D., Dept. of Geol. Sci.,

Univ. of California, Santa Barbara, Calif. 93106

(E-7)

TURNER, JAMES H., 11902 Falkirk Dr.,

Potomac, Md. 20853 (F-15)

UHLANER, J.E., Ph.D., U.S. Army Behavior and

Systems Res. Lab., Rosslyn Commonwealth

Bldg., 1300 Wilson Bivd., Arlington, Va. 22209

(F)

USDIN, EARL, 2924 N. Oxford St., Arlington, Va.

22207 (F-4, 19)

’

VACHER, HERBERT C., 2317 Huidekoper PI.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007 (E)

VAN EVERA, R.W., 901 No. Kensington St.,

Arlington, Va. 22205 (F)

VAN TUYL, ANDREW H., Ph.D., 1000 W.

Nolcrest Dr., Silver Spring, Md. 20903 (F-1, 6,

22)

VEITCH, FLETCHER P., Jr., Ph.D., Dept. of

Chemistry, Univ. of Maryland, College Park,

Md. 20742 (F-4)

VERDIER, PETER H., 8827 McGregor Dr., Chevy

Chase, Md. 20015 (F)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL, VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

VERNICK, SANFORD H., 3501 John Marshall

Dr., Arlington, Va. 22207 (M)

VESTINE, E. H., 901 Hartzell

Palisades, Calif. 90272 (F)

VIGUE, KENNETH J., Dir., Internati. Projects,

ITT Corp., ITT Bldg., 1707 L St., N.W., Wash-

ington, D. C.20036 (M-13, 31)

VINTI, JOHN P., Sc.D., M.I.T. Measurement

Systems Lab., 70 Vassar St., Cambridge, Mass.

VISCO, EUGENE P., B.S., Geomet. Inc., 50

Monroe St., Rockville, Md. 20850 (M-1, 34)

VON BRAND, THEODOR C., Ph.D., 8606 Hemp-

stead Ave., Bethesda, Md. 20034 (E-15)

VON HIPPEL, ARTHUR, 265 Glen Rd., Weston,

Mass. 02193 (E)

St., Pacific

WwW

WACHTMAN, J.B., Jr., Ph.D., B306 Matls. Bldg.,

Natl. Bur. of Standards, Washington, D.C.

20234 (F-1, 6, 28)

WAGMAN, DONALD D., 7104 Wilson Lane,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-4)

WAGONER, ANN, Miss, 1508 34th St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20007 (M)

WALKER, E. H., Ph.D. 7413 Holly Ave., Takoma

Park, Md. 20012 (E-10)

WALKER, RAYMOND F., Ph.D., 670 Shawnee

Dr., Franklin Lakes, N.J. 07417 (F-6, 28)

WALTER, DEAN I., Code 6370, Naval Res. Lab.,

Washington, D.C. 20390 (F-4, 6)

WALTHER, CARL H., 1337 27th St., N.W., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20007 (F-6, 18)

WALTON, W.W., Sr., 1705 Edgewater Pkwy.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20903 (F-4)

WARD, HENRY P., Ph.D., 2713 17th St., N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20018 (E-4, 6)

WARGA, MARY E., Optical Society of America,

2100 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20037 (F-1, 4, 6, 32)

WARING, JOHN A., 8502 Flower Ave., Takoma

Park, Md. 20012 (M-30)

WATERMAN, PETER, 25 Brandywine St., S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20032 (F-6)

WATSON, BERNARD B., Ph.D., Res. Analysis

Corp., McLean, Va. 22101 (F-6, 31)

WEAVER, DE FORREST E., MS., Geological

Survey, Washington Bldg., Rm. 110, 1011

Arlington Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22209 (E-4)

WEAVER, E.R., 6815 Connecticut Ave., Chevy

Chase, Md. 20015 (E-4, 6)

WEBER, EUGENE W., B.C.E., 2700 Virginia Ave.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037 (F-6, 12, 17, 18)

WEBER, ROBERT S., 1825 Martha Ave., Harl-

ingen, Tex. 78550 (M)

WEIDA, FRANK, 19 Scientists Cliff, Port Re-

public, Calvert County, Md. 20676 (E-1)

WEIDLEIN, E.R., Weidacres, P.O. Box 445,

Rector, Pa. 15677 (E)

WEIHE, WERNER K., 2103 Basset St., Alexandria,

Va. 22308 (F-32)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972 ©

WEINBERG, HAROLD P., B.S., 1507 Sanford

Rd., Silver Spring, Md. 20902 (F-20)

WEINTRAUB, ROBERT L., 305 Fleming Ave.,

Frederick, Md. 21701 (F-4, 10, 16, 33)

WEIR, CHARLES E., Rt. 3, Box 260B, San Louis

Obispo, Calif. 93401 (F)

WEISS, FRANCIS JOSEPH, Ph.D., Sc.D., 6121

Montrose Rd., Rockville, Md. 20852 (E-1, 4, 6,

10, 16, 26, 27, 33)

WEISS, RICHARD A., 3609 N. Delaware St.,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (F-6, 13)

WEISSBERG, SAMUEL, 14 Granville Dr., Silver

Spring, Md. 20901 (F-1, 4)

WEISSLER, ALFRED, Ph.D., 5510 Uppingham

St., Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F-1, 4, 25)

WELLMAN, FREDERICK L., Dept. of Plant

Pathology, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh,

N.C. 27607 (E)

WENSCH, GLEN W., Esworthy Rd., Rt. 2, Ger-

mantown, Md. 20767 (F-6, 20, 26)

WEST, WALTER S., U.S. Geological Survey,

Wisconsin State Univ., Rountree Hall, Platteville,

Wis. 53818 (M-7, 14)

WEST, WILLIAM L., Dept. of Pharmacology,

Howard Univ., Washington, D.C. 20001 (M-19,

26)

WESTERHAUT, GART, Ph.D., Astronomy Pro-

gram, Space Sciences Bg., Univ. of Maryland,

College Park, Md. 20742 (F)

WETMORE, ALEXANDER, Ph.D., Smithsonian

Inst., Washington, D.C. 20560 (F-3, 6)

WEXLER, ARNOLD, Phys. B 356, Natl. Bur. of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-1, 35)

WHEELER, WILLIS H., 3171 N. Quincy St.,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (E-6, 10)

WHERRY, EDGAR T., Ph.D., Dept. Botany, Univ.

of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. 19104 (E)

WHITE, CHARLES E., Ph.D., 4405 Beechwood

Rd., Hyattsville, Md. 207 2 (E-4)

WHITE, HOWARD J., Jr., 8028 Park Overlook Dr.

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-4)

WHITE, JOHN A., Physics Dept., American Univ.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (M-1)

WHITE, ORLAND E., Sc.D., 1708 Jefferson Park

Ave., Charlottesville, Va. 22903 (E)

WHITE, ROBERT M., NOAA, U.S. Dept. Com-

merce, Washington, D.C. 20230 (F)

WHITELOCK, LELAND D., B.S.E.E., 5614 Green-

tree Rd., Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-13)

WHITMAN, MERRILL J., 3300 Old Lee Highway,

Fairfax, Va. 22030 (F-26)

WHITTAKER, COLIN W., Ph.D., 1705 Lanier PI.,

N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009 (E-4)

WHITTEN, CHARLES A., 9606 Sutherland Rd.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20901 (F-1, 6)

WICHERS, EDWARD, Ph.D., 9601 Kingston Rd.,

Kensington, Md. 20795 (E-4)

WILDHACK, W.A., 415 N. Oxford St., Arlington,

Va. 22203 (F-1, 6, 22, 31, 35)

WILHELM, PETER G., 6710 Elroy Pl., Oxon Hill,

Md. 20021 (F)

301

WILLIAMS, DONALD H., 4112 Everett St.,

Kensington, Md. 20795 (M-27)

WILSON, BRUCE L., 20 N. Leonora Ave., Apt.

204, Tucson, Ariz. 85711 (F-1, 6)

WILSON, WILLIAM K., M.S., 1401 Kurtz Rd.,

McLean, Va. 22101 (F-4)

WINKLER, WILLIAM R., 1001 Rockville Pike,

Apt. 1033, Rockville, Md. 20852 (F-23, 37)

WINSTON, JAY S., Ph.D., 3106 Woodhollow Dr.,

Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F-6, 23)

WINT, CECIL, 7 St. Andrew Park, Kingston 10,

Jamaica, W.1. (F)

WISE, GILBERT H., 8805 Oxweel Lane, Laurel,

Md. 20810 (M-6)

WITHINGTON, C.F., 3411 Ashley Terr., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20008 (F-7)

WITTLER, RUTH G., Ph.D., Dept. of Bacterial

Diseases, Walter Reed Army Inst. of Res., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20012 (F-16)

WOLFF, EDWARD A., 1021 Cresthaven Dr., Silver

Spring, Md. 20903 (F-6, 13, 22, 23)

WOLFLE, DAEL, Graduate School of Public

Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle,

Washington 98195 (F)

WOLFRAM, LESZEK J., Gillette Res. Inst., 1413

Research Blvd., Rockville, Md. 20850 (F)

WOLICKI, E.A., Nuclear Sciences Div., Code 6601,

U.S. Naval Res. Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390

(F)

WOMACK, MADELYN, 11511 Highview Ave.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20902 (F-4, 19)

WOOD, LAWRENCE A., Ph.D., Natl. Bur. of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-1, 4)

WOOD, MARSHALL K., M.P.A., 2909 Brandy-

wine St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008 (F)

WOOD, REUBEN E., 3120 N. Pershing Dr., Arling-

ton, Va. 22201 (F-4, 29)

WOODS, MARK W., Natl. Cancer Inst., Bethesda,

Md. 20014 (F-10, 19)

WORKMAN, WILLIAM G., M.D., 5221 42nd St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015 (E-6, 8)

WRENCH, CONSTANCE P., 10230 Democracy

Lane, Potomac, Md. 20854 (M-6)

WRENCH, JOHN W., Jr., 10230 Democracy Lane,

Potomac, Md. 20854 (F-6)

302

WULP, OLIVER R., Noyes Lab. of Chem. Phys.,

Calif. Inst. of Tech., Pasadena, Calif. 91108 (E)

WYMAN, LEROY W., Ch. E., 134 Island View Dr.,

Cape St. John, Annapolis, Md. 21401 (F-6, 20,

36)

YAO, AUGUSTINE Y.M., Ph.D., 4434 Brocton

Rd., Oxon Hill, Md. 20022 (M-23)

YAPLEE, BENJAMIN S., 6104 Westland Dr.,

Hyattsville, Md. 20782 (F-13)

YOCUM, L. EDWIN, 1257 Drew St., Apt. 2,

Clearwater, Fla. 33515 (E-10, 33)

YODER, HATTEN S., Jr., Geophysical Lab., 2801

Upton St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008 (F-4,

YOLKEN, H.T., Rm. B314, Natl. Bur. of Stand-

ards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-29)

YOUNG, BOBBY G., Dept. of Microbiology, Univ.

of Maryland, College Park, Md. 20742 (M)

YOUNG, CLINTON J.T., M.S., 300 Rucker PI.,

Alexandria, Va. 22301 (M-32)

YOUNG, DAVID A., Jr., PH.D., 612 Buck Jones

Rd., Raleigh, N.C. 27606 (F-5)

YOUNG, M. WHARTON, 3230 Park Pl., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20010 (F)

YUILL, J.S., M.S., 4307-A Hartwick Rd., College

Park, Md. 20740 (E-5, 6, 24)

ZELENY, LAWRENCE, Ph.D., 4312 Van Buren

St., University Park, Hyattsville, Md. 20782 (E)

ZEN, E-AN, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington,

D.C. 20242 (F-7)

ZIES, EMANUEL G., 3803 Blackthorne St., Chevy

Chase, Md. 20015 (E-4, 6, 7)

ZOCH, RICHMOND T., 12612 Craft Lane, Bowie,

Md. 20715 (F)

ZWANZIG, ROBERT W., Inst. for Fluid Dyn. &

Applied Math., Univ. of Maryland, College

Park, Md. 20740 (F-1, 6)

ZWEMER, RAYMUND L., 5008 Benton Ave.,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (E)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 3, 1972

JOURNAL OF THE WASHINGTON ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Instructions to Contributors

General

Type manuscripts on white bond paper

either 8% by 11 or 8 by 10% inches. Double

space all lines, including those in abstracts,

tables, legends, quoted matter, acknowledg-

‘ments, and references cited. Number pages

consecutively. Place your name and com-

plete address in the upper right hand corner

of the title page.

Title, Author, and Affiliation

Page 1 of your manuscript should contain

only this information and your name and

address. Choose a concise but complete and

meaningful title. In research papers con-

cerning biological subjects, include an indi-

cation of the order and family of the taxa

discussed. Academic degrees will not nor-

mally be included unless the author so

specifies. If possible, combine your affilia-

tion and mailing address (including Zip) so

that readers can write to you directly.

Abstract

Type on a separate sheet at the end of the

manuscript. Make the abstract intelligible

without reference to the text of the paper.

Write an informative digest of the significant

content and conclusions, not a mere descrip-

tion. Generally, the abstract should not ex-

ceed 3% of the text.

Footnotes

Use footnotes as sparingly as possible.

Number text footnotes consecutively with

Arabic numerals and type them on a sepa-

rate sheet of paper at the end of the manu-

script. Type table footnotes, if any, below

each pertinent table on the same page.

Illustrations and Legends

The quality of all original illustrations

must be high enough to facilitate good offset

reproduction. They should have ample mar-

gins and be drawn on heavy stock or

fastened to stiff cardboard to prevent bend-

ing. They should be proportioned to column

(1 x 3) or page (2 x 3) type-dimensions,

leaving space for legend material. Photo-

graphs should have a glossy finish. They re-

produce best when the contrast is fairly

high. Identify each illustration with number

and author in light pencil marks on the

reverse side. Submit all illustrations sepa-

rately — please do not glue or clip them to

the pages of the manuscript.

Do not type or write legends directly on

the illustrations. Type legends on a separate

sheet or sheets at the end of the manuscript.

Indicate where you want illustrations to

appear in the printed paper by writing the

figure numbers lightly in the text margins,

and be sure that each figure is properly re-

ferenced in the text itself. Original “art” will

be returned only at the author’s request and

expense.

Tables

Include tables only when the same infor-

mation cannot be presented economically in

the text, or when a table presents the data in

a more meaningful way. Consider preparing

extremely complicated tabular matter in a

form. suitable for direct reproduction as an

illustration. In such cases, the use of the

typewriter is not recommended.

References to Literature

Limit references within the text and in

synonymies to author and year (and page if

needed). In a ‘Reference Cited” section, list

alphabetically by senior author only those

papers you have included in the text. Like-

wise, be sure all the text references are

listed. Type the “References Cited” section

on a separate sheet after the last page of

text. Abbreviations should follow the USA

Standard for Periodical Title Abbreviations,

Z39.5-1963.

Submission of Manuscripts

Send completed manuscripts and sup-

porting material to the Academy office (see

address inside front cover) in care of the

Editor. Authors will be requested to read

Xerox “proofs” and invited to submit re-

print orders prior to publication.

Reprints - Prices for reprints may be obtained on request.

Washington Academy of Sciences 2nd Class Postage

Room 29, 9650 Rockville Pike (Bethesda) Paid at

Washington, D.C. 20014 Washington, D.C.

Return Requested with Form 3579

Smithsonian Ins

‘c.

Library Acquisitions si

Washington, D.C. 20560

"5 2. = ino

1) aus

Number 4

Journal of the . DECEMBER, 1972

WASHINGTON

ACADEMY... SCIENCES

VOLUME 62

Issued Quarterly

¢———#t Washington, D.C.

Directory Issue

CONTENTS

Features:

HAROLD E. BAMFORD, JR: A Concept for Applying Computer

Technology to the Publication of Scientific Journals ............... 306

CHARLES MILTON: Note on a Drawing by M.C. Escher.............. SiS)

Profile:

E.E. SAULMON: Scientific and Regulatory Aspects of

Meuceuciansequine Encephalitis... 4. 49-6425 -05-6sesenn peas SY)

Research Reports:

H.E. LANDSBERG: Noise Increase in an Urbanizing Area ............. 329

JOHN A. FLUNO: Grooming in Polistes exclamans (Viereck),

a Forerunner of Communications in Social Hymenoptera ........... 332

Academy Affairs:

BoatdotsManagers: Meeting NOteSi a6 > nam oe of is wee cies ee ie ce 334

PRM U CCIM INEM teenie errata atin Ween manatee rN tet a th cathe owes die aaeys 337

The Philosophical Society of Washington: By-Laws,

Officers, and Committees, 1 October1972....................... 339

Washington Academy of Sciences

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

President

Richard K. Cook

President-Elect

Grover C. Sherlin

Lae

Secretary

Kurt H. Stern

Treasurer

Nelson W. Rupp

Board Member

Samuel B. Detwiler, Jr.

BOARD OF MANAGERS

All delegates of affiliated

Societies (see facing page)

EDITOR

Richard H. Foote

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

Elizabeth Ostaggi

ACADEMY OFFICE

9650 Rockville Pike (Bethesda)

Washington, D. C. 20014

Telephone (301) 530-1402

Founded in 1898

The Journal

This journal, the official organ of the Washington Aca-

demy of Sciences, publishes historical articles, critical

reviews, and scholarly scientific articles; proceedings

of meetings of the Academy and its Board of Mana-

gers; and other items of interest to Academy members.

The Journal appears four times a year (March, June,

September, and December) — the September issue

contains a directory of the Academy membership.

Subscription Rates

Members, fellows, and patrons in good standing re-

ceive the Journal without charge. Subscriptions are

available on a calendar year basis only, payable in ad-

vance. Payment must be made in U.S. currency at the

following rates:

WiSand(Canadasee eee $10.00

IRGYSHN copctoccoaadds 11.00

Single Copy Price....... 3.00

Back Issues

Obtainable from the Academy office (address at bot-

tom of opposite column): Proceedings: Vols. 1-13

(1898-1910) Index: To Vols. 1-13 of the Proceedings

and Vols. 1-40 of the Journal Journal: Back issues,

volumes, and sets (Vols. 1-62, 1911-1972) and all cur

rent issues.

Claims for Missing Numbers

Claims 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 al-

lowed because of failure to notify the Academy of a

change in address.

Changes of Address

Address changes should be sent promptly to the Aca-

demy office. Such notification should show both old

and new addresses and zip number.

Published quarterly in March, June, September, and December of each year by the

Washington Academy of Sciences, 9650 Rockville Pike, Washington, D.C. Second class

postage paid at Washington, D.C.

DELEGATES TO THE WASHINGTON ACADEMY OF SCIENCES,

REPRESENTING THE LOCAL AFFILIATED SOCIETIES

Botlosophicalisociety of Washington’ . 35.52. ee ee Edward Beasley

Puno pologicalsociety Of Washington = jee ee ls ne le ee sw wie ee ers oes Jean K. Boek

ENOIOPIGASOCIeLyOb Washington! jo. osc ek es fe se se Delegate not appointed

MRE TIIGAES OG LYAOlaWaShinetontr. «ci. mis cs, 609, « ee Sd es ey ey we mye iwi sc @ were Harvey Alter

EntomologicaliSocietyiof Washington! «3. 2. fee we ee ee me Reece I. Sailer

National Geographic SOCIELYAE secs rte tone ear Skee le Berca Gm w cheba elie, ere Alexander Wetmore

MeoloricalesocietyzotwashinetOn . 2. Ge ew i se lee ee ee eee fe ee reine) oe. ss Charles Milton

Medical Society of the District of Columbia ....................... Delegate not appointed

ics Pritam elStOLiGa IESOCIC OVE ann sists ces ng ocr ia de ee cistesire ee es. cay Gi & aCe eprone isere eine Paul H. Oehser

BotanicalsociesyonWashington 2. ..¢26266.08 540s. aoe whe eee eee Conrad B. Link

MOCICLYAOleNMercaninOresters) <6). 2 ee dele sah bbe wae eS alee eee ee ee Robert Callaham

BvasiinetonpsociebysOMmeEnpineers 62... ee se eS eRe eee ee Sone George Abraham

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ...................-.. Leland D. Whitelock

American society of Mechanical Engineers ........-...../6.-:..-.2.-.+.-- William G. Allen

HMelminthological, Society of Washington .......2-.---5+-+-+25+-+-+-+e+e ees Aurel O. Foster

PumcnicantisocictyfornMicrobiology 5.222. 26F bbe. de se eee eh ese yes Lewis Affronti

paciety of American Military Engineers ...- 2... 2.220026 see sees eee eee H.P. Demuth

AmericamsocietysofCivilEngineers 22 so te Se es ee ee el a eee Carl H. Gaum

Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine ........................- Carlton Treadwell

Aimericanysociety for Metals .... 2.2.2. ..5.5222 5885 AE Mite eee es tenet neal Glen W. Wensch

International Association for Dental Research.................-..-.- Norman H.C. Griffiths

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics......... ............ Robert J. Burger

EMInemcanmVeteorological Society, 22 4a2..acee nese e ees, + Wek eels ee Harold A. Steiner

MISeChicide SOClebysOtaWwasningtoOn\ sei cs oe es ee ee ee ew H. Ivan Rainwater

PECOUSTIGAIES OCIELVsOlWAIMELICAl sc fsceeucis oa cigs Bl «siti eR weet) Om Gee we ei Gpe Hoare Alfred Weissler

AUN CHICAMENUCICATESOCICtViE 1 fla aya. ated seo yean sublets Suen ety @ beste he a Delegate not appointed

BHStitUutcotmmoodmhechnolopists! 20) nse els en ee ee eee oe es Lowrie M. Beacham

STROH (COR TIG SOC RIN Aura AARNet ace Oe LSet Be 6, Geeta Oi ae a ea ue J.J. Diamond

FICCIROCHE MICAS OCIE LA ue a sacra oor ICON eit nS IGE, foun RE a Stanley D. James

Washinstonsaistonysolescience Cluby a. ela is Chae en eee Delegate not appointed

MIMehicarwA ssoclationofehysicsieachers) seein ose ee ee adeees ose e ac Bernard B. Watson

WpticaltsocietysoleAmentCale, very tsi a ees ee a Lae Sid fe eos es Se Elsie F. DuPre

AIMnencanisocietyoleblantbhySioloristsieie eis eee acie cne elec ice eee Walter Shropshire

Washinton OperationsyResearchtCouncilusem eee) anaes eicie e e a er neee John G. Honig

| POATUTIST SCOEOLAOMNME NEN) 5 glo sno uo oto go.clalo oO ulalcte cio elolde oo clap Delegate not appointed

American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical

andibetroleumpengineens, wt ie ee cieees els <isis Huse ie cei obes «© Sie Delegate not appointed

Nationall@apitolcAstronomers: ore oe cece coe ees cae cls ites hee cba, Bike, cher evs John A. Eisele

Mathematical societyiof Ametical. 4) aia aan oem eae ie ein a cree! Daniel B. Lloyd

Delegates continue in office until. new selections are made by the respective societies.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972 : 305

FEATURES

A Concept for Applying Computer Technology

to the Publication of Scientific Journals!

Harold E. Bamford, Jr.2

Office of Science Information Service, National

Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. 20550

ABSTRACT

Although computer technology has been introduced into every other phase of sci-

entific communication, relatively little use has yet been made of it in primary dissemina-

tion—perhaps because of the limited operational scale of the typical journal. An editorial

processing center (EPC) is conceived as a mechanism for combining small publishing

operations to achieve a scale great enough for significant computerization while leaving

each editor in full command of his own publication. The EPC’s computer assists authors,

editors, and referees to perform their essential, intellectual functions by relieving them

of non-essential, programmable functions. Its

photocomposition. The EPC concept is presented by tracing the path of a single manu-

script from preparation to publication. The costs and benefits of an EPC are then

assessed, and a number of questions are raised

The past 5 or 6 years have witnessed the

introduction of computer technology into

nearly every phase of scientific communica-

tion. One compelling factor behind this

trend is the promise of operational econo-

mies. In abstracting and indexing, for ex-

ample, there is a real danger that without

computerization, some services will be

forced into a self-defeating spiral of rising

prices, increasing delays, and declining

quality.

Another factor is equally valid, if some-

what less urgent. Through computer tech-

nology it is possible to improve established

information services and introduce novel

1Based on a paper presented at the Sixteenth Con-

ference of the Council of Biology Editors,

Rochester, Minnesota, May 15-16, 1972.

2The views expressed in this paper are those of the

author and do not necessarily reflect those of the

National Science Foundation.

306

i— 7

—=—= —<

)

final output is a magnetic tape for use in

for further study.

ones. Expanded coverage of existing

knowledge, increased speed in propagating

new information and retrieving old, better

screening of the relevant from the irrelevant,

more effective presentation—in these ways

we can hope to enhance the productivity of

the scientists, educators, and technologists

who use the information services. And user

productivity is, after all, the name of the

game we are playing. Scientific communica-

tion has no other payoff.

The electronic digital computer was con-

ceived as an instrument for scientists to use

in the analysis of their data. From data

analysis to retrieval of the data to be

analyzed is no great step, and banks of em-

pirical data to be searched are beginning to

appear in many fields. At the same time,

computer-accessible files of bibliographic

references are making possible information

services which were altogether out of reach

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972

only a few years ago. Usually these files are

by-products of the computerized production

of abstracts and indexes.

Secondary processors are achieving signi-

ficant economies through their use of com-

puters to derive a variety of printed

products from a single input keyboarding.

Further economies would be possible if

secondary processing could be based on a

by-product of primary publication, just as

bibliographic searches are now based on

computer-accessible files created in the

course of secondary processing.

But relatively little use of the computer

has been made in primary dissemination.

Computer-controlled photocomposition is

beginning to compete with conventional

typesetting, and subscription fulfillment has

been computerized successfully by some of

the larger societies. They could use the same

computers to assist editors and writers, as

popular magazines and the daily press have

done; but none of them appears to have

tried it.

The main obstacle to computerization of

journal publication is probably the limited

scale of operations involved. Although the

significant life sciences literature to be pub-

lished in 1972 may fill more than half-a-

million pages, it will appear in upwards of

1,000 journals in many different countries.

An obvious solution is to combine some of

these separate operations so as to achieve a

scale which would make significant com-

puterization worthwhile. But how can this

be done without sacrificing editorial control

of the journals?

Before suggesting an answer to this ques-

tion, it may be well to make explicit some of

the assumptions on which the answer will

rest. Any concept for applying computer

technology to the publication of scientific

journals must presume some model of the

publication process as it exists today. Let us

distinguish 5 functions:

@ Evaluation

®@ Typesetting and correction

® Printing and distribution

The initial preparation of a manuscript is

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972 -

indisputably the author’s responsibility, al-

though he is expected to seek the counsel of

his colleagues prior to submitting it to a

journal. Most of its subsequent refinement is

also accomplished by the author, but under

the more or less pointed guidance of the edi-

tor. A final stage of refinement, known

variously as copy editing, subediting, or

redaction, may be carried out by the editor

himself or by specialists under his super-

vision.

By selecting the journal to which his

manuscript is submitted, the author takes

the initiative in channeling his message to its

ultimate readers. The editor must concur in

the author’s selection of a communication

channel, of course; and he may refer the

manuscript to another journal. In such a case

the author would have to concur in the edi-

tor’s channel selection.

Once a manuscript has been submitted,

its evaluation is wholly in the hands of the

editor. Inevitably, he relies on his colleagues

for assistance; but the responsibility is un-

divided. At any point in the evaluation pro-

cess he may reject the manuscript, call for its

refinement, or seek advice on its merit.

If he chooses not to exercise any of these

options, the manuscript is ready to be set in

type by a printer, who then provides galley

proofs for final correction by author and

editor.

That done, an issue of the journal is pro-

duced and distributed to subscribers.

Probably not less than 3, and quite pos-

sibly more than 15, months have elapsed

since the manuscript was submitted. And the

first copy will have cost somewhere between

$25 and $95/1,000 words to produce, de-

pending on the publishing scale, processing

efficiency, and standard of quality involved,

and on the extent to which editorial services

are donated.

Such is the model behind the concept

which will now be presented. As Fig. | indi-

cates, the concept involves authors, editors,

referees, and printers essentially no different

from those assumed in the model. But in-

serted in their midst are one or more things

called “editorial processing centers”, or

~EPC@s”’.

307

AUTHORS

SECONDARY |

PROCESSORS |

REFEREES

EDITORIAL

PROCESSING

CENTER (S}

PRINTERS

EDITORS

| I

| ANALYSIS !

| CENTERS |

Fig. 1. The concept schematized.

As a manuscript moves from preparation

to publication, there are many processing

steps which can be economically delegated

to a computer, provided the scale of opera-

tions is great enough. An EPC is a device for

combining operations to achieve such a

scale. Its computer assists authors, editors,

and referees to perform their essential, intel-

lectual functions by relieving them of non-

essential, programmable functions. Its final

output is a magnetic tape for use by a

printer in photocomposition.

The EPC may be an independent entity,

either proprietary or not for profit; or it

may be established within the framework of

an existing institution. Some of the econo-

mic aspects are considered below, but first

let us trace the path of a single manuscript

from preparation to publication to see how

an EPC might work. As we proceed, please

bear in mind that what is being presented is

a concept. A great many details would have

to be worked out in order to arrive at a

finished system design.

To begin, the author has his manuscript

308

typed on special form sheets with a type-

writer approved for its typeface, adjustment,

and other factors affecting its ability tof

make impressions which can be read by opti-

cal character recognition, or OCR, equip-§

ment. The form sheets, which can be distri- §

buted through campus bookstores, are also

intended to facilitate OCR scanning. They §

have ruled margins and spaces for title, #

authors, abstract, references, footnotes, page §

numbers, etc. When the manuscript has been

typed to the author’s satisfaction, he marks ff

it for the attention of the editor of his

chosen journal and mails it to the editorial &

processing center (Fig. 2). At the EPC a mail

clerk enters the manuscript into a computer

system by means of an OCR scanner. No

special skill is required for this process,

which is termed “recording” The special

form sheets assure reliable scanning and en-

able the computer to “tag” the various com-

ponents of the manuscript for suitable pro-

cessing. Housekeeping functions are carried

out automatically. These would include the

assignment of a control number to the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972

AUTHOR

EPC

@ SUBMITS MS======a=2=2=2£====90 RECORDS

EDITOR@-7~

@ SIGNALS

@ FORWARDS

PRINTOUT

oo”

as =

DISPOSITION ====={={=2{={={={—=p0 RECORDS

@ EXECUTES

Fig. 2. Submission and screening of manuscript.

manuscript and the acknowledgement of its

receipt by a postal card to the author.

Once the manuscript has been satis-

factorily recorded it is simply discarded. A

computer printout in a form optimized for

editorial use is automatically prepared and

mailed to the editor. This is followed by a

tracer if the editor does not respond within a

reasonable period of time.

The editor examines the printout and

transmits his decision to the EPC, where a

telephone clerk records his instructions by

means of an on-line keyboard. The computer

system immediately displays the clerk’s in-

put on a cathode-ray tube, and the clerk

reads it back to the editor. If the editor is

satisfied that his signal has been correctly

recorded, he discards his printout, and the

computer system proceeds to execute his in-

structions.

For the purpose of illustration, let us sup-

pose that the editor has a choice of 4 pro-

cessing sequences. After stating his name and

the manuscript’s control number:

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972.

@ he can say “reject”. This is enough to

initiate an automatic sequence in

which the computer’s files are purged

and a notice of rejection is mailed to

the author.

@ he may wish to refer the manuscript to

the editor of another journal. In such a

case he can identify that journal by its

CODEN or its International Standard

Serial Number, and the computer

system will simply forward a printout

to the indicated editor.

@ a single word is sufficient to initiate an

accept sequence, as described below.

@ but let us assume that the editor wants

to have the manuscript reviewed by

experts in 1 or more specialties. He

can indicate those specialties by iden-

tifying codes, which he can look up in

a manual. Of course, if he wants to

designate 1 or more referees by name

he is free to do that as well.

In fact, provision can easily be made for

him to insert free-language remarks into the

309

REFEREE

EPC

EDITOR@-7"~

® SIGNALS

DISPOSITION

@ MARKS UP AND

@ ACCUMULATES

a= © FORWARDS

PRINTOUT

RETURNS = 227======s9e RECORDS

AUTHOR #-7 ~~

@ EXTRACTS

_= © FORWARDS

PRINTOUT

Fig. 3. Review and evaluation of manuscript.

record in connection with any of these op-

tions.

The EPC maintains a register of qualified

specialists who are willing to serve as refer-

ees. The computer system selects names

from that register in accordance with the

editor’s specifications. Other factors may be

considered as well, such as a potential

referee’s past performance and current re-

view assignments, any potential conflicts of

interest, and the journal’s editorial policies

respecting the number and qualifications of

its referees.

Printouts of the manuscript are auto-

matically mailed to the selected referees, to-

gether with any instructions required by edi-

310

torial policy. If any of the selected indivi-

duals declines to serve, a substitute is auto-

matically selected. And if any of the selected

individuals fails to respond within a reason-

able time, the EPC follows up automatically.

Each referee reviews the printout which

he received from the EPC (Fig. 3) and has

his comments typed on standard form sheets

with an approved typewriter. These he for-

wards to the EPC, where a mail clerk records

them with an OCR scanner in the same

fashion as a manuscript and discards them.

Comments are accumulated by the computer

system until all the referees have responded,

at which time the entire file is automatically

printed out and forwarded to the editor.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972

AUTHOR

@ MARKS UP AND

RETURNS WITH

EPC

NEW MATERIAL -=-======-@ RECORDS

EDITOR “~*~

@ MARKS UP AND

RETURNS

@ SIGNALS

@ REVISES MS

_ = © FORWARDS

PRINTOUT

DISPOSITION] = ===={={=2=2== =) @ RECORDS

@ EXECUTES

Fig. 4. Refinement of manuscript.

— Again, follow-up is automatic if it becomes

necessary.

The editor examines this new printout,

which includes the manuscript and all of the

referees’ comments. Having done so, he may

telephone the EPC and exercise any of his

original 4 options: to reject, refer to another

journal, accept for publication, or send the

manuscript out for additional review.

Alternatively, he may mark portions of

the referees’ comments to be extracted and

sent to the author. In this case, he mails the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972

marked-up printout to the EPC, where a

mail clerk records the markings by on-line

keyboard. The manuscript is then printed

out, along with the editor’s extracts from

the referees’ comments, and forwarded to

the author.

The author examines his printout (Fig.

4), has new material typed on special form

sheets with an approved typewriter, marks

the printout to indicate deletions and the

points at which new material is to be in-

serted, and mails the package to the EPC.

311

AUTHOR

@ MARKS UP AND

RETURNS WITH

NEW MATERIAL

@ SIGNALS

EPC

APPROVAL ============)6 RECORDS

@ ACCUMULATES

@ FORWARDS

TAPES

e PRINTER

e SECONDARY

e ANALYSIS

Fig. 5. Author’s review of edited manuscript.

Note that there is no need to retype any part

of the original manuscript, which is still in

the computer system’s file.

At the EPC a mail clerk records the new

material by OCR scanner and the author’s

markings by on-line keyboard. The original

manuscript is than automatically revised to

incorporate the authors changes, and a

printout of the complete file is mailed to the

editor.

Following his examination of this new

printout, which consists of the revised manu-

script and all of the referees’ comments, the

editor can mark it up again and cansend it

back to the author for further refinement, or

he can exercise any of his original 4 options.

Let us suppose that this time he signals the

312

EPC to accept the manuscript for publica-

tion.

The “accept” sequence begins with pro-

grammed copy editing, in which the EPC’s

computer system adjusts the fine detail of

the approved manuscript in accordance with

the journal’s detailed editorial rules and

standards. A printout of the edited manu-

script is then sent to the author for his ap-

proval prior to publication.

If the author takes exception to any of

the editorial adjustments he can mark up the

printout and recycle it (Fig. 5). Otherwise he

telephones the EPC and indicates his ap-

proval.

His signal recorded by on-line keyboard,

the manuscript is accumulated with other

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972

manuscripts until press time, when it is

transferred to a computer tape and for-

warded to the printer. Copies of the tape

may also be sent to abstracting and indexing

services and to information analysis centers.

There you have it: a concept for combin-

ing small publication operations to achieve a

scale great enough for worthwhile computer-

ization while leaving each editor in full com-

mand of his own publication. It is just a

technical concept, of course. No attempt has

been made to deal with the political/

organizational arrangements for implement-

ing it. Forgetting such things for the mo-

ment, let us add up the benefits and costs

suggested by the technical concept.

Consider first the immediate operating

economies. Publishing costs should be less

with no galley proofs to correct and no need

to have manuscripts re-keyboarded by a

compositor. And labor costs should decrease

markedly with the computerization of filing,

acknowledgement, follow-up, and other

routine correspondence, not to mention

teferee selection, manuscript revision, and

copy editing. However, to the extent that

labor is donated by authors, reviewers, edi-

tors, or their institutions, the savings will not

show up on the publishers’ books.

The effectiveness of communication

could gain in several respects. Speed of pub-

lication can only benefit from computer pro-

cessing, which is not only fast but eliminates

the need to check for and correct human

errors. Standardization and quality control

could readily be implemented at the sub-

editorial level. And the quality of exposition

and even of the scientific content could be

raised through the systematic use of referees

which the EPC would make possible.

Implementation of an EPC would create a

base for further development. A participat-

ing journal would gain a considerable mea-

sure of flexibility to vary the form of its

product in an effort to increase the value of

that product to its users. Looking further

ahead, it would be only a minor variation on

the EPC concept to link the editors to the

central computer by on-line console. The

variation could be extended by easy steps to

the referees, to the authors, and finally to

the readers.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972

This is not at all fantastic. Let me quote

from a 1970 report by the Council on Bio-

logical Sciences Information:

... We can probably look to a time when an

author will compose his “manuscript” [at a

computer terminal] and transmit it... over

the network to the editor, who will transmit

it similarly to the reviewers. When he re-

ceives the reviewers’ comments, the author

will revise his text, using a computer pro-

gram to make insertions and deletions.

When the revised version is approved, the

editor will “publish” it instantaneously by

releasing it to the network with a notation

signaling its approval by a specific review

group. The network will automatically feed

the work to [abstracting and indexing serv-

ices] where it will be indexed and classified,

perhaps in hundreds of different ways for

different users, for alerting and retrieval pur-

poses.

Such a scheme is not likely to be imple-

mented in a single leap, but stepwise it may

not be hard to realize.

Getting back to the more immediate

benefits of the EPC, some of these would be

realized not by the primary publishers them-

selves but by abstracting and indexing serv-

ices and by data analysis centers. Computers

can be used to advantage in secondary pro-

cessing and for data compilation if the cost

of input is not too great. With the primary

literature already in machine-readable form,

input costs would be quite modest.

On the other side of the ledger are the

costs of developing and operating the EPC.

The development costs will not be very large

if the various technologies are as advanced as

we are led to believe. The real challenge will

be to organize for the exploitation of those

technologies. A great deal of time and effort

will have to be invested, but the dollar in-

vestment is likely to be small relative to the

continuing cost of operation.

The costs of the plant, labor, and ma-

terials needed to operate an EPC, on the

other hand, are not likely to be small, even

allowing for the economies anticipated. For

some scale of operations and for some pack-

age of functions those economies should be

great enough to make participation clearly

preferable to independent operation. But

careful studies are needed to provide a basis

for workable arrangements.

Numerous questions can be raised. For

313

example,

@ are today’s publication practices as

amenable to computerization as in the

model, or has the non-routine com-

ponent been underestimated?

@ is the technology of optical character

recognition ready for this application?

@ how far are we from programmed

copy editing?

@ is automatic referee selection a feasible

idea?

It may be asked whether this concept of

an editorial processing center addresses the

whole range of editorial activities. Of course

it does not. For one example, the handling

of pictorial, graphic, and tabular material

submitted with the manuscript is totally

neglected. One may also challenge the bene-

fits credited to the EPC:

@ would it really effect significant reduc-

tions in labor and publishing costs?

@ would it actually reduce publication

lag?

e@ could it truly be used to raise the

quality of publication?

This description of an EPC has been fairly

concrete, but for each specific feature indi-

cated there are equally concrete alternatives.

For example, the submission of manuscripts

on magnetic tape would probably be feasible

and might be preferable to the use of optical

character recognition. More important, the

whole complex of functions attributed to

the EPC is only one package among many

possibilities. The computer has been used as

fully as possible simply to show the full

potential of the EPC concept. But there has

314

been no detailed analysis, and as a practical

matter it might be desirable to start with a

more austere package and add on functions

as successive configurations were proved out.

The level of investment required for a

minimum package and for each of a series of

add-ons would have to be determined.

Equally necessary would be good, firm esti-

mates of the net operating costs of each con-

figuration. Such estimates would have to be

made over a range of operating levels reflect-

ing the participation of different numbers of

publishers with different input volumes. The

key to organizing a workable system would

be the determination of a breakeven point

for each functional package considered—i.e.,

the particular operating level at which the

net operating costs would equal the present

dollar outlays for comparable functions.

But even with full planning information

there would remain a question as to the

community’s readiness to depart from its

traditional methods of publication. Con-

ceivably the potential for improved dissemi-

nation and the advantages to analysis centers

and secondary processors would induce par-

ticipation at the breakeven point. More like-

ly, the immediate economic advantages of

participation would have to exceed some

subjective threshold to precipitate a decision

like that. The answers to these questions can

be round through objective analysis of fac-

tual data, but only if the scientific com-

munity accepts the responsibility for putting

together and implementing a workable pack-

age of functions will anything come of them.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972

Note on a Drawing by M. C. Escher

Charles Milton

Research Professor, Department of Geology,

George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 20006

ABSTRACT

M.C. Escher’s “Metamorphose” illustrates this exceptional artist’s unique ability to

communicate with scientists.

Many have noted and deplored the com-

munications gap separating the worlds of the

scientists and humanists. Some scientists, in-

deed physicists and mathematicians especial-

ly, do have artistic, often, musical avoca-

tions; but rare is it to find an artist having

any strong interest or concern with scientific

study. One can recall a few, of the greatest;

da Vinci, Rembrandt, and in our times Eak-

ins, who studied human anatomy as a basis

for their art. But M.C. Escher (1898-1972)

was the first great artist to deeply and sys-

tematically concern himself with fundamen-

tal philosophical problems confronting hu-

man intelligence, so that his art became the

expression of profound and rigorous abstract

reasoning. In so doing, Escher has succeeded

in communicating with scientists to an amaz-

ing degree, historically unique, as attested by

some 70 technical books and articles in

which his work had appeared as frontispiece

or other illustrations, or as the theme of sci-

entific discussion up to 1970.1 A few of

these are: H.M. Coxeter, Introduction to

Geometry, New York and London, 1969; P.

Terpstra and L.W. Codd, Crystallometry,

London, 1961; C.H. MacGillavry, Symmetry

Aspects of M.C. Escher’s Periodic Drawings,

Utrecht, 1965.

But the list extends far beyond the

mathematical disciplines, into works on nu-

clear physics, solid state reactions, chemical

evolution, interstellar communication, opti-

cal illusions and related psychological phe-

nomena, decision making theory, teaching

methods, x-ray diffraction, opthalmology;

even, as the cover piece for a United States

Park Service brochure? describing the Ever-

glades National Park: a geometrical array of

swimming fish transformed into an identical

array of flying waterfowl—a symbolic formu-

lation of the ecological unity of the Florida

water-land as scientifically precise as it is

aesthetically charming. It is this combination

of intellectual depth with draftsmanship of a

strangely haunting beauty, that characterizes

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972

watt WO

315

Escher’s work.

This note however concerns itself with a

single minuscule item of Escher’s creativity:

the depiction of a chess game in one of his

drawings, Metamorphose (in English, Meta-

morphosis). One sees a reverie, in which idea

follows idea by a psychological process of

“free association” with each theme deriving

from the preceding, and in turn determining

that which follows. One of these themes is a

chess game. In Escher’s words “...The

blocks give rise to a city on the sea shore.

The tower standing in the water is at the

same time a piece in the game of chess; the

board for this game, with its light and dark

squares, leads back once more to the letters

of the word ‘Metamorphose’.3

For the significance of this chess game,

with its relatedness to the profoundly philo-

sophic spirit implicit in all of Escher’s work,

I am indebted to my friend Mr. David

Fleischer, a chess scholar. It may be noted,

by the way, that the chess pieces of this

game are plain conventional Staunton de-

sign, far from the ostentatiously gaudy

pieces usually shown by commercial artists

in advertisements, in positions invariably ab-

surd and meaningless.

Escher has placed his pieces so that the

game depicted has a deep—one might say—a

tragic symbolism. Mr. Fleischer observes

(written communication, 1971):

“..Uhis is the ‘smothered mate’, com-

monly known as ‘Philidor’s Legacy.’ It

goes back as far as 1496, being first pub-

lished by one Lucena. Usually the white

rook is at K1, there is no black bishop, and

the queen is somewhere on the KN1-QR7

diagonal. Then Black plays 1 N-B7ch;

2K-N1, N-R6 dbl ch; 3K-R1 (Gif K-B1, Q-B7

mate), Q-N8ch: 4 RXQ, N-B7 mate.”

Thus the white king is doomed, inescapably;

and it is his own rook who in attempting to

defend him from the hostile queen, blocks

his only possible escape from the advancing

black knight who will give the fatal blow.

316

This theme of inevitable doom appears

again in ““Predestination”, where “an aggres-

sive voracious fish and a shy vulnerable bird

are the actors in this drama; such contrasting

traits of character lead inevitably to the

denouement ...a black, devilish fish and a

white bird, all innocence, but sad to say, ir-

revocably doomed to destruction...”4 In

“Encounter’,> the theme is again the

fore-ordained meeting of white and black

figures, of good and evil, though here there

is a note of acceptance, or, at least, resigna-

tion. And in “Circle Limit [IV Heaven and

Hell’ we see once more the ineluctable in-

terrelatedness of white and black, of angels

and devils, of good and evil, oppressively

clear and frightening in our midst, but as our

vision expands to the limits of our con-

sciousness and understanding, diminishing

and ultimately vanishing into incompre-

hensible nothingness.

References and Acknowledgment

1J3.L. Locher, Editor, The World of M.C. Escher,

New York, 1971, pp. 55-56. Mr. C.V.S. Roose-

velt, Washington, D.C., who had kindly permit-

ted reproduction of the illustration (copyright)

from his private collection informs me that the

actual number of such publications is now fat

greater. In a letter (Oct. 22, 1972) he refers to

some 200 titles, in English, Dutch, French,

German, Swedish, Italian, Danish, Russian,

Polish, Hungarian, etc.

? Interpretative Folder for the Everglades National

Park, Florida, 1966, U.S. Gov. Printing Office.

3The Graphic Work of M.C. Escher, London and

New York, 1961, p. 16. This woodcut, Meta-

morphose, with Escher’s work up to that time,

was the subject of a remarkable review by

G.H.’s Gravesande (1940), M.C. Escher and his

Experiments: an Exceptional Graplic Artist;

De Vrije Bladen, The Hague; translated into

English by Maarten C. Bolle; published and

copyrighted by C.V.S. Roosevelt.

4ivid. p. 17.

“ibid, p. 16.

Sibid, p. 23.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972

PROFILE

Scientific and Regulatory Aspects

of Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis!

E.E. Saulmon

Deputy Administrator, Veterinary Services,

APHIS, Washington, D.C. 20250.

ABSTRACT

Recognized mosquito-borne, viral encephalomyelitis in the United States consists of

Western (WEE), Eastern (EEE), Venezuelan (VEE), St. Louis (SLE), and California (CE)

strains. WEE, EEE, and VEE cause clinical disease problems in equines. Horses are

dead-end hosts for WEE and EEE but are amplifying hosts for VEE. Thus, the latter is of

greater public health significance. Laboratory support is required for differential diag-

nosis of the three diseases. Equines are considered primary sentinels for the detection of

epizootics of VEE.

VEE swept across Mexico, in less than 1 year, killing in excess of 10,000 horses.

Epidemic VEE entered the United States from Mexico in June 1971, and appears to have

established itself in the small mammal populations of Texas. Numerous mosquito species

in the United States are capable of transmitting VEE. The disease was brought under

control using aerial pesticide spraying, quarantine, and vaccination of horses. The epi-

demic virus of VEE has been isolated from animals in 25 Texas counties. It has not been

found outside Texas.

Equine encephalitis has been with us for a

considerable time. An epizootic of what was

probably viral encephalitis of horses oc-

curred on Long Island, New York, in 1828

and again in 1836 and more than 500 horses

died. In 1882 and 1897, horses in Texas died

in numbers described as “by the thousands.”

In 1912, a disease called Horse Plague caused

losses estimated at 35,000 in Nebraska,

Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Missouri.

In the 1930’s, equine encephalitis was re-

garded as the most important disease affect-

ing horses in the United States. During the

1930’s, much additional information was de-

veloped in regard to the encephalitides of

Equidae. The eastern type (EEE) and the

14 speech presented at the February 17, 1972

meeting of the Washington Academy of Sciences.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972

western type (WEE) of equine encephalitis

were found to be caused by filterable

viruses, and in South America a virus (VEE)

was found to be causing a similar en-

cephalitis of horses.

Early clinical signs of encephalomyelitis

in horses include marked depression and

high fever. Other signs include incoordina-

tion, circling, mystagmus, drooping lower

lip, and dehydration. The disease may be

acute or subacute and may result in prostra-

tion and death, or incomplete or complete

recovery. In an outbreak situation many in-

fected horses may not show clinical evidence

of the disease.

WEE virus was isolated from horses in

California in 1930. Human cases were first

described in 1932 and the virus first isolated

317

from man in 1938. The virus of WEE was

isolated from mosquitoes in 1941. WEE is

found primarily in western and midwestern

states and also in western Canada where it

has extended to as far north as the south

part of Hudson Bay. The disease has also

been reported in some southeastern states of

this country and WEE virus has been re-

covered from birds and mosquitoes in north-

eastern United States. WEE probably also

exists in South America in Argentina, Peru

and Chile. Culex tarsalis mosquitoes (which

feed on birds, horses, and man) are con-

sidered the primary vector of WEE with wild

birds a primary reservoir. Domestic birds can

also become infected and WEE virus has also

been isolated from squirrels and garter

snakes. Significant outbreaks of WEE occur

in man as well as horses, both horse and

man can be considered dead-end hosts of the

virus. The case-mortality rate in horses is

about 50%.

EEE virus was isolated in 1933 following

investigation of equine encephalitis in New

Jersey, Virginia, Delaware, and Maryland.

The virus was isolated from humans, pigeons

and pheasants in 1938. EEE virus has been

found in Canada, eastern and southern

United States, and along the gulf coast area

extending through Mexico and Central

America, and northern and eastern South

America as far south as Argentina. Islands in

the Caribbean have been involved. The

epizootiology of EEE includes a sylvan cycle

involving fresh-water swamp mosquitoes and

swamp-dwelling birds. The virus can thus

cycle over a long period of time until the

opportunity is presented for it to “spill

over” to other birds and to other mosquitoes

which attack horse and man. Horse and man

are considered, as with WEE, for practical

purposes, to be dead-end hosts. EEE virus

causes significant disease outbreaks in horses

but fewer cases in man than does WEE. In

pheasant flocks direct bird-to-bird transmis-

sion has been found.

St. Louis encephalitis (SLE) was recog-

nized in the early 1930’s and since has been

an important largely urban and sometimes

rural mosquito-borne human disease of the

continental United States, northern Mexico

318

and the Caribbean. The virus can cycle be-

tween mosquitoes and wild birds with man

as incidental dead-end host. SLE is not im-

portant as a disease of horses nor are they or

other mammals, including man, believed to

perpetuate the disease. Horses do develop

serological SLE titers.

California encephalitis virus (CE) was first

isolated from mosquitoes in California in the

early 1940’s and since has been found in

widely separated states. Small wild mammals

(perhaps rabbits and squirrels) and mosquito

vectors probably maintain the virus in na-

ture. Horses are not an important factor in-

sofar as CEV is concerned.

When one recalls that there are more than

200 recognized arboviruses, I suppose it is

only natural that this array can create rather

difficult and sometimes bewildering prob-

lems. The few just mentioned are those

which may come to the attention of scien-

tists in this country. The encephalitides are

important diseases of horses and man and

from both an economic and public health

standpoint are cause for considerable con-

cern to the livestock owners, the general

public, and to public health, research and

regulatory scientists.

Venezuelan Equine Encephalomyelitis (VEE)

VEE was first noted in horses in Colom-

bia in 1935 and in Venezuela in 1936. The

virus was first isolated from an equine brain

in Venezuela and identified in 1939. VEE

appeared as epizootics from time to time in

these countries and was later reported in

Trinidad, Ecuador, British Guiana, French

Guiana, Surinam, Brazil, Curacao, West In-

dies, Peru, and Panama. The disease has been

observed to cause significant outbreaks in

humans since 1944. In 1961 and 1962, a

severe outbreak of the disease occurred in

humans in Colombia, northwest Venezuela

(32,000 cases were reported with at least

190 fatalities) and in Panama where several

hundred people became infected. In Ecua-

dor, 31,000 human cases with 250-400

deaths were reported in 1969.

VEE Virus

Like other arboviruses of Group A, VEE

is a relatively small (40-70 mu) RNA virus. It

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972

is not readily inactivated by formalin and

can be preserved by lyphilization or in 50%

buffered glycerol at -70°C. It can be readily

recovered from blood and nasopharyngeal

washings if collected during the acute phases

of the disease and for longer periods of time

from other tissues (e.g., bone marrow,

spleen, liver, lung, kidney, thymus, adrenal,

heart, lymph nodes). The virus has been iso-

lated from the nasal, eye and mouth

secretions and from the urine and from

milk of infected mares. VEE virus can be

inactivated by propylene glycol, glycolic

acid, thioglycolic acid, thiourea, and methyl

thioglycolate.

This agent is notorious for its ability to

infect laboratory personnel working with the

virus, usually by inhalation of airborne ma-

terial. No chemical has been shown to have

significant activity, in vivo, against VEE

virus, thus specific chemotherapy is not

available at present. This also explains the

desirability for a vaccine as was developed

by the Army in their TC-83 vaccine for pro-

tection of high-risk personnel.

Horses affected with VEE may die of

either a fulminating systemic disease or a

typical encephalitis. It is not possible to

distinguish clinically among the diseases re-

ferred to as WEE, EEE, and VEE. Histologic

changes furnish only presumptive evidence.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972.

Fig. 1.—Colt with VEE symptoms, Brownsville, Tex.

Unfortunately, a veterinarian is often called

to examine a suspect case after obvious clini-

cal signs are present and viremia is decreasing

and antibody levels for serological tests have

not yet peaked.

We must depend upon the laboratory for

serological and virus isolation work in order

to determine which virus is involved.

Three serological tests are used routinely.

Listed in the order of their specificity they

are:

1. (SN) Virus-Serum Neutralization Test:

Neutralizing antibodies often appear within

a few hours after infection and may persist

throughout the animal’s life.

2. (CF) Complement-Fixation Test: At

higher antibody levels the CF test is ap-

parently quite specific for VEE.

3. (HI) Hemagglutination Inhibition Test:

Using the HI test, a relatively high degree of

cross reactivity between VEE and other virus

has been observed. Antibodies detected by

HI appear somewhat later and probably per-

sist throughout the host’s life.

Significant SN, CF, and HI antibodies

may develop as early as six days after virus

inoculation. Virus isolations may be made

by using a variety of laboratory animals in-

cluding mice, rats, guinea pigs, hamsters, and

monkeys. Embryonated hens’ eggs readily

become infected and die in 15-48 hours.

319

Chicken embryo, fetal guinea pig heart, baby

hamster or bone marrow cells can also be

used as tissue culture systems. A practical

commonly used laboratory procedure is to

inoculate suckling mice with tissues from the

suspect case (blood, serum, spleen, brain).

If mice are killed, a crude complement

fixation antigen is made from the mouse

brain. If the CF test is positive for VEE, the

mouse brain is inoculated into guinea pigs or

adult mice. If these are killed, this is taken as

evidence that epidemic VEE virus is present.

If they do not die, this is evidence that

either vaccine virus or an endemic strain of

VEE is involved. The agent may be further

identified by means of the kinetic HI test.

VEE in Man

The incubation period in man is con-

sidered to be short, ranging from 2-5 days;

the onset is usually very sudden. Symptoms

may include severe headache, fever lasting

from 14 days, malaise, chills, nausea or

vomiting, and myalgia. Severe encephalitis or

generalized systemic illness may occur, and

in rare instances, tremors, diplopia, and

lethargy. Symptoms persist 3-5 days in mild

cases and as long as 8 days in more serious

attacks. A prompt and apparently complete

recovery usually takes place. Fatalities

generally involve children less than 15 years

of age.

VEE Distribution in Wild

Mammals and Birds

Isolation of VEE virus from wild mam-

mals includes those from monkeys, fox,

spiny rat, forest spiny pocket mouse, ter-

restrial rice rat, short-tailed cane mouse, cot-

ton rats, opossums, and from certain species

of wild birds. Bats appear experimentally to

be excellent hosts for the VEE agent. Signifi-

cant viral titers persisted for at least 26 days

and low titers for at least 90 days. The infec-

tion is apparently not lethal to the bats.

The VEE virus differs from EEE and

WEE viruses in that it seems to multiply bet-

ter in mammals than in birds. However, VEE

virus has been isolated from a number of

naturally infected pigeons, chickens, sand-

wich tern, green heron, groove-billed ani, lit-

tle blue heron, black-cowled oriole, gray-

320

capped flycatcher, social flycatcher, keel-

billed toucan, scarlet-rumped tanager, and

clay-colored robin. The 10 last-named spe-

cies of birds were caught in Panama, al-

though several of these migrate to North

America.

English sparrow-mosquito-English spar-

row transmission was demonstrated experi-

mentally. Virus levels were usually quite low

in all birds inoculated or subjected to

mosquito bites, and the birds did not show

clinical signs or encephalitis. One species of

striated herons with rather low viremias were

able to infect feeding mosquitoes. Chicks

less than one month old were fatally sus-

ceptible to experimental infection; those

older than one month produced antibodies

but no clinical signs or viremia.

VEE Distribution in

Domestic Animals

VEE virus has been isolated from natural-

ly infected horses, mules, and donkeys. Neu-

tralizing and HI antibodies of significant

titers have been found in sera from dogs,

goats, swine, sheep, and cattle. Of dogs ex-

perimentally inoculated with VEE, some

died of the infection. Contact transmission

from infected to noninfected dogs was

demonstrated.

Epizootiology of VEE

The epizootiology of VEE seems to in-

clude a sylvan cycle utilizing mosquitoes and

wild rodents such as the cotton rat. A large

number of species of mammals and birds de-

velop antibodies to VEE virus and virus can

be isolated from many of these. Many dif-

ferent species of mosquitoes can be vectors

of the disease; however, depending on geo-

graphical and climatical factors, and the

strain of VEE virus involved. Some species

are more efficient vectors than others. Al-

though the mosquito has not been proven to

transmit the virus transovarally, the virus

multiplies considerably in the mosquito,

which can remain infected for life.

Viremia in the horse persists only for a

few days. However, it can reach such high

levels as to infect nearly all appropriate spe-

cies of mosquitoes which feed upon it. Con-

trary to the other viral encephalitides we are

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972

concerned with, the horse serves as a very

important amplifying host, thus is extremely

important from a public health standpoint.

One often hears the expression, perhaps an

oversimplification, that if you don’t have

sick horses you don’t have an epidemic in

humans. However, man can also develop a

rather high viremia. Although direct trans-

mission from horse to horse has been experi-

mentally: proved, it is unlikely that this plays

a significant part in the natural spread of the

disease.

In order to understand the encephalitides

of man and animals, it is essential that we

develop the best possible information on the

viral agents involved, which vectors and

which host animals are instrumental in main-

taining the disease in endemic or sylvatic

form, and those hosts necessary for the de-

velopment of epidemics. It is necessary to

determine virus-vector-host relationships,

which vectors are potentially the most effi-

cient as well as which animals are capable of

infecting them. Many warm or cold-blooded

animals are susceptible to mosquito-borne

infection, but only certain ones develop suf-

ficient levels of viremia to infect mosquitoes

with minimal infection thresholds.

To be an effective carrier or reservoir of

infection, the host must be not only suscep-

tible to infection but must also develop and

circulate a threshold level of virus sufficient

to infect the vector. Some hosts circulate

less virus and are able to infect only some

species of mosquitoes while others circulate

more virus and can infect less efficient

mosquito vectors. If the host animal de-

velops too low a viremia to infect mosqui-

toes, it is considered a blind or dead-end

host.

The selective feeding habits of mosqui-

toes must also be considered. Vectors which

feed predominantly on birds, although heavi-

ly infected, may not be a hazard for mam-

mals. A similar situation exists for vectors

which feed predominantly on only certain

species of mammals.

Epidemics are dependent upon the effi-

ciency of the host species and the vector spe-

cies to propagate the virus and whether both

exist in sufficient numbers. The level of viral

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972 .

VAbvsiti A!

Fig. 2.—Blood sample being taken from colt,

Brownsville, Tex. Samples were sent to laboratories

at Denver and at Atlanta to be tested for VEE.

activity depends not only upon the type of

virus present but also on the subtype in-

volved. These vary in their ability to infect

hosts and vectors. A certain subtype may,

for example, require a certain species of

mosquito to maintain viral activity. How-

ever, if sufficiently high viral activity is in-

volved other mosquitoes and additional re-

servoir animals could contribute to addition-

al viral activity. Biologically, broader host

and vector spectrums increase the spread and

survival probabilities of arbovirus diseases.

Although mosquitoes are believed to be the

only important vectors of VEE, there have

been observations which suggest that others

should be investigated.

In the United States, in southern Florida,

during the years 1963 through 1969, 99 iso-

lations of VEE virus (an endemic strain)

were made from 5 species of mosquitoes and

from cotton rats. Public health officials have

also reported naturally-occurring cases in

humans in Florida. These were shown by

serology, not by virus isolation. The strain in

Florida has not caused clinical disease in

horses.

Epizootic strains of VEE classified as IA

321

have been isolated from Colombia and

Venezuela, IC in Venezuela, and IB (the one

which reached Texas) has also been found in

Peru, Ecuador, Central America, Mexico,

and perhaps Argentina. Fortunately, the

TC-83 type vaccine offers protection against

all of these. Endemic strains include ID in

Colombia and Panama, IE on east coast of

Central America and Mexico, II Florida

(only), and III and IV in Brazil. The kinetic

HI test has been used to differentiate these

isolates.

VEE in Mexico

Epizootic VEE had not been reported

north of Panama until mid-1969 when the

disease occurred in El Salvador and also in-

vaded Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua.

The disease further extended into southern

Mexico and into Costa Rica. As VEE pro-

gressed into Central American countries and

on into Mexico, extensive use was made of

the U.S. Army TC-83 vaccine in an attempt

to protect individual horses and by creating

an immune barrier of vaccinated animals.

Although the vaccine proved to be very

effective in protecting vaccinated animals,

the virus was able to breach the “immune

barriers” created to contain it. A number of

factors could, of course, have weakened such

barriers. The most obvious possibilities are

that too many animals did not receive the

vaccine, in some cases the vaccine may not

have been carefully cared for, or perhaps the

mass vaccination program did not begin soon

enough or include a large enough geographi-

cal area.

It is difficult to know just when epidemic

and/or endemic VEE virus first entered

Mexico. Neutralizing bodies were found

there in 1962. VEE virus was isolated in the

State of Veracruz in 1963. In 1966, the

disease was reported as affecting some 1,000

horses (with a 30% mortality) in northern

Veracruz and southern Tamaulipas states.

In August 1969, an epizootic of equine

encephalitis began in the State of Chiapas

adjacent to Guatemala. Approximately 300

horses died from December 1969 to Febru-

ary 1970. Vector control measures were un-

dertaken in some areas. The outbreak sub-

sided in March.

322

The disease again appeared in June 1970

in the same general area and an active vac-

cination program began in August with close

to 500,000 horses being vaccinated in

Chiapas, Oaxaca, and Veracruz states. The

mortality rate in sick animals was about 80%

with 7,000 horses reported as having died

out of a population of 300,000. Deaths

stopped about 7 days following vaccination;

however, by the middle of September the

disease had penetrated the vaccination belts

to reach north of the Port of Veracruz on

the Gulf area by October 1970 and north of

Acapulco on the Pacific side of Mexico by

November. It was estimated that during

1970, 10,000 horses died in the States of

Chiapas, Oaxaca, Veracruz, Guerrero, and

Michoacan. It is not known whether human

deaths occurred. In April 1971, VEE mani-

fested itself again in southern Veracruz.

During FY 1971, nearly 1 million doses

of TC-83 vaccine were made available to

Mexico, the most recent being in May 1971

when the 200,000 doses were sent to Mexico

in anticipation of a cooperative program to

vaccinate a buffer zone in Mexico along the

gulf coast between Tampico, Mexico, and

Brownsville, Texas. Application of the vac-

cine in this zone was subsidized by the

United States Department of Agriculture.

However, by June, epidemic VEE virus

had reached the Texas-Mexico border at

Brownsville, Texas. Although initially the

disease advanced mainly along the gulf

coastal and other areas of lower altitude in

Mexico, outbreaks also appeared inland in

areas of lower rainfall in the high plains. The

disease continued to advance north and west

toward El Paso, Texas, and northward

through the Pacific coastal and inland areas

of Mexico, and continues to appear at

various locations in Mexico in animals that

were missed when the vaccination brigades

were in the area.

Buffer zones of vaccination in Mexico al-

so failed to hold the disease, and it advanced

from southern Mexico in June 1970 to the

Texas border in June 1971, a distance of

1,000 miles in a year. It spread into the

United States in the last week of June.

Mexico plans to vaccinate all of her near-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972

ly 9 million Equidae. The task is near com-

pletion. It is difficult to obtain accurate

morbidity and mortality rates. Up to 25,000

deaths of horses probably occurred in Mexi-

co. There may have been up to 12,000 hu-

man cases with an unknown, probably very

low, mortality rate.

Control of Venezuelan Equine

Encephalomyelitis in the United States

This past summer’s outbreak of Vene-

zuelan equine encephalomyelitis was the

number one agricultural news story of 1971

in the United States. The virus spread from

Mexico into southern Texas, killed several

hundred horses, and hospitalized approxi-

mately 100 people. On July 16, 1971, the

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture declared the

existence of a “national emergency threaten-

ing the entire horse industry.” The Secretary

did not have the authority to declare the

emergency until the disease was confirmed

in this country. This confirmation was re-

ported on July 9, 1971.

The fight against VEE was a Herculean

task. More than 4,000 practicing veteri-

narians, federal and State scientists and in-

spectors, private aerial pesticide application

operators, military personnel, and chemical

industry officials were battling the disease at

the height of the federal-State cooperative

VEE control program.

Three principal weapons were used to

bring VEE under control: quarantines to

prevent the movement of non-vaccinated

Fig. 3.—VEE victim. This horse had wandered

across the Mexican-U.S. border, was caught and

held in quarantine pen, where it died.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCL., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972.

horses from infected areas; vaccination to

develop an immune horse population; and

aerial pesticide spraying to reduce mosquito

vector populations. Use of these weapons re-

quired massive planning and coordination.

Quarantines

Federal quarantines on all Equidae were

applied to Texas on July 13, 1971, to

Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and New

Mexico on July 19; and to Mississippi on

August 2. Horses moving from any State un-

der federal quarantine were required to have

a veterinary health inspection and certificate

and a VEE vaccination more than 14 days

prior to movement. Individual states also

placed restrictions on horses brought into

the State, and persons wishing to move

horses were advised to contact State Animal

Health officials of the State concerned.

Federal quarantines were removed from

New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Arkansas on

September 10, 1971; from Mississippi on

November 9, 1971; and from Louisiana on

January 17, 1972.

Vaccination

The U.S. Department of Agriculture fur-

nished TC-83 VEE vaccine for horses in the

states of Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma,

Arkansas, Louisiana, California, Arizona,

Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida,

Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South

Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and

New Jersey. The Department also paid for

the administration of the vaccine by

veterinary practitioners in these States. More

than 2.8 million horses have been vaccinated

since the vaccination program began in June

1971. This broad experience with the vac-

cine to date indicates that it is both effective

and safe for use in horses and other Equidae

even though originally it was designed for

use in man (people at high risk). VEE vac-

cine offers horses protection against VEE

virus but not against eastern or western en-

cephalomyelitis, However, vaccines have

been available against these diseases for a

number of years.

This organized vaccination program was

not extended to other States, as they were

considered to be in a lesser risk category.

323

However, since August 25, 1971, a licensed

commercial VEE vaccine has been available

in all States in which State Animal Health

officials authorize its use.

Vector Control Program

Although epidemic VEE was moving

rapidly northward through Mexico on rather

broad fronts, it was observed that greatest

disease pressures were generally along the

Gulf coast area and extending inland along

major water courses and in areas of lower

altitudes. The vector control program in the

United States was designed to reduce vector

populations in more critical areas, provide

time for vaccinating the horse population,

and give vaccinated animals time to develop

immunity. The area considered most critical

was an area extending up the Rio Grande

River and up the Gulf coast from Browns-

ville, Texas. When it was known that the

disease was present in a larger area, the

vector control program was extended to an

area stretching from Falcon Dam, Texas, to

Lake Charles, Louisiana. Unfortunately, we

were unable to arrange with the government

of Mexico for U.S. planes to apply the pesti-

cide on the Mexico side of the border.

A detailed mosquito control plan out-

lining all aspects of the proposed treatment

program was drawn up by the vector control

staff of the task force sent into Texas to

combat the outbreak. Cooperating federal

and State agencies, the governors of Texas

and Louisiana, and the President’s Council

on Environmental Quality reviewed and ap-

proved the plan before spraying got under-

way. This clearance included approval of the

use of malathion, a chemical that is one of

the safest insecticides in use today. Mala-

thion residues break down a few days after

application, and the formulation is relatively

harmless to humans, livestock, and other

warm-blooded animals. Later the Council ap-

proved the use of Dibrom, which is also non-

persistent and low in toxicity to warm-

blooded animals.

Meanwhile, the Public Health Service dis-

patched mosquito surveillance teams to

Texas because of the danger to humans who

might be bitten by infected mosquitoes. The

teams set up light traps throughout the

324

southern portion of the State and began sur-

veying mosquito species and populations. By

early July, the Center for Disease Control of

PHS had determined that adult mosquito

counts were high enough to justify aerial

spraying. Information from vector surveys

enabled the vector control staff to (1) keep

track of mosquito populations and buildups,

(2) pinpoint areas where spraying was

needed to control mosquitoes, and (3)

measure the effectiveness of chemical appli-

cations.

Fig. 4.—Aerial spraying for mosquitoes in

Houston area—part of vector control effort in the

VEE program.

Spraying began on July 10 and when

completed on August 13, 9.6 million acres

had been sprayed. Local mosquito abate-

ment agencies added another 3.1 million

acres making a total of 12.7 million acres

sprayed once or twice. Supplemental fund-

ing was arranged for 5 county mosquito

abatement units along the coastal area of

Texas.

Seven major aerial applicators received

contracts. The type of aircraft to be used

was restricted, for reasons of economy,

speed, and proper application of the chemi-

cal, to multi-engine planes with swath widths

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972

of at least 750 ft and airspeeds of not less

than 175 mph. A single DC-3 can do the

work of 8-10 single-engine spray planes. An

air-ground communications network was set

up connecting spray aircraft with their bases

and emergency task force headquarters in

Houston. Positions of all planes and acreage

were plotted on a master control map in the

headquarters.

As the program progressed, responsibility

for compiling and evaluating survey informa-

tion passed from the Public Health Service

to USDA’s leadership. The new mosquito

survey team sent into the field was symbolic

of the cooperative nature of the VEE con-

trol program, with entomologists from

USDA, DOD, Texas A&M University, HEW’s

Center for Disease Control, and from Loui-

siana State University.

More than 200 federal, State, county and

military personnel participated in the VEE

mosquito control program. This included

USDA pilots who were important factors in

maintaining high spraying safety and ac-

curacy. The pilots’ daily duties included

checking swath widths, making certain that

only acreage scheduled for treatment was

sprayed, and performing tests to maintain

proper aircraft calibration and droplet size

and coverage. To further insure environ-

mental protection, pesticide monitoring

teams regularly sampled water, sediment,

and aquatic organisms from 19 sites through-

out the area.

Cooperation received from the Chevron

Chemical Company and American Cyanamid

(makers of Dibrom and malathion respective-

ly) were also important to the success of the

mosquito control program. The production

and movement of Dibromand malathion

were increased in coordination with program

needs. In addition, both companies sent

teams of experts to Texas to aid in monitor-

ing chemical usage and safety precautions.

The VEE mosquito control program

ended after 90% of the horses in the infected

area and the buffer zone beyond had been

vaccinated. During the program’s 35 days of

operation, most species of adult mosquito

populations in the control area were reduced

to near zero.

The low toxicity of the insecticides used,

Fig. 5.—Ground fogging for mosquitoes, Atlanta, Ga.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972 -

325

fine atomization and low application

rates—3 oz/a for malathion and % oz/a for

Dibrom—enabled the task force to achieve

mosquito control without endangering local

ecologies. All aircraft were inspected in ad-

vance of spraying to determine that the cor-

rect nozzle sizes were used and that no leaks

would cause droplet sizes in excess of those

recommended. Close surveillance was main-

tained by USDA pilots in chase planes to

assure adequate performance by spray air-

craft. The insecticide flow rate was moni-

tored in the air. Dye cards and glass slides on

the ground were exposed to the spray to as-

sure correct droplet size and dispersion.

Environmental Protection Agency person-

nel collected samples of water, aquatic or-

ganisms, sediment, and fish, and otherwise

monitored the possible environmental ef-

fects of the spray program. Beekeepers were

advised in advance to take suitable pre-

cautions.

Survey teams reported excellent control

of adult Aedes sollicitans, A. taeniorhyn-

chus, and Psorophora confinnis. Except

where ground fogging equipment was used

to spray barns and sheds, adult Anopheles

were not controlled.

The role of the federal and State govern-

ments was to stop the epidemic and to mini-

mize the number of human and equine cases

rather than eradicate the disease. The con-

trol program was successful in this respect.

Isolations of epidemic VEE virus were

limited to south Texas and to 74 horses and

88 humans in 26 counties. No humans are

known to have died from the disease.

Any discussion of the control program

must necessarily make special note of the

splendid cooperation that was given to the

U.S. Department of Agriculture by the De-

partment of Defense, the Department of

Health, Education and Welfare, various State

agencies, and a vast number of individuals.

This assistance was invaluable in conducting

the campaign.

Surveillance

The epidemic strain of Venezuelan equine

encephalomyelitis (VEE) virus was isolated

only from the southern part of Texas in

‘ 's 2.

BA eee

Fig. 6.—VEE vaccination program, Atlanta, Ga.

326

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972

1971. It is believed that further spread of

the virus in the U.S. equine population was

prevented by establishing a massive barrier

of vaccinated horses, and the vector control

measures.

The most important part of VEE surveil-

lance is the prompt reporting and investiga-

tion of all suspected encephalitis cases in

horses or other Equidae in the entire United

States. Prompt laboratory diagnostic results

must be obtained from all suspicious cases to

effectively control the disease. Samples from

these animals will be tested for virus isola-

tion and serum antibody to VEE, EEE, and

WEE. However, it cannot be assumed that

further viral spread did not or will not occur.

Further, there is no information on how far

the disease may have spread in those species

of animals which may harbor the virus with-

out visible evidence of disease such as small

mammals.

A surveillance system is being established

to further determine the area of VEE viral

activity and to establish an early warning

alert system regarding the spread of this

disease. A primary surveillance zone has

been established across the southern United

States. This zone consists of a band that

varies in width from 150-300 mi wide north

of the United States-Mexico border, crosses

through mid Texas in an east-west direction

and lies north of the Gulf coast of Louisiana

and Mississippi and the Alabama-Georgia-

Florida borders.

In the primary surveillance zone, serum

samples for antibody detection will be col-

lected from the following animals known to

be capable of developing VEE antibodies:

dogs, foxes, coyotes, opossums, raccoons,

deer, and other wildlife native to the area.

Horses in the area will be of limited value for

this purpose since most horses have been

vaccinated against VEE. Hamsters and rab-

bits may be used as sentinel animals when

necessary to provide adequate surveillance in

certain strategic locations, such as in the

Mississippi, Sabine, and Pecos River valleys.

To assist in this surveillance, Veterinary

Services of the Animal and Plant Health In-

spection Service, United States Department

of Agriculture, in addition to their own per-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972 .

Fig. 7.-All horses vaccinated for VEE were

identified.

sonnel, is seeking assistance from other agen-

cies. The Department of Defense will co-

operate in disease and vector monitoring

systems on their military bases. Also, a large

number of predatory control personnel in

Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California

will assist in the surveillance. The South-

eastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study

(a study group coordinated at the University

of Georgia) will participate in the surveillance

in the southeastern part of the United

States. In return, USDA will notify these co-

operating agencies of the laboratory results

for Venezuelan, eastern, and western equine

encephalomyelitis.

Summary

In the summer of 1971, VEE was brought

under control using 3 principal weapons:

quarantine and vaccination of horses and

other equidae, and aerial pesticidal spraying

for vector control.

In more than 1,500 U:S. investigations of

horses suspected of having encephalitis, the

327

epidemic virus of VEE has been isolated accomplished only through the cooperative

from animals only in 26 south Texas effort of many individuals and agencies.

counties. A surveillance system has been estab-

The Herculean task of stopping the north- lished to detect any new outbreaks or other

ward spread of VEE in the United States was spread of VEE.

328 J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972

RESEARCH REPORTS

Noise Increase in an Ubanizing Area

H.E. Landsberg

Institute for Fluid Dynamics and Applied Mathematics,

University of Maryland, College Park 20742

ABSTRACT

Measurements in a large wooded area and in a small shopping center at Columbia,

Md. showed a significant difference in sound levels attributed solely to human activity.

Urbanization increases noise levels. Na-

ture has her own sounds: the rustling of

leaves, the murmuring brook, the pounding

of the surf, the song of the birds. Occasional-

ly these have their own crescendos: the

howling gales, the crashing thunder. But, by

and large, in our regions nature is usually

quiet. Man has intruded with noisier and

noisier activities as his numbers per unit area

grow. Noise has in recent years been some-

what redundantly designated as a pollutant.

Within the framework of an investigation

of changes in the local atmospheric environ-

ment, caused by urbanization, casual obser-

vations of sound levels were also made. The

locale has been the growing town of Colum-

bia, Maryland, a so-called planned com-

munity. Located in the Washington-

Baltimore corridor, it has grown from about

200 inhabitants in a rural farm setting in

1967 to about 17,000 in 1972.

The micrometeorological changes have al-

ready been profound. They have been re-

ported on as they occurred (Landsberg,

1970; Landsberg and Maisel, 1972) and re-

main under continuing surveillance. The

sound measurements were made coincidental

1Contribution No. 58, Graduate Program in

Meteorology.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972

to a series of mobile micrometeorological

surveys. These were traverses through the

area of the new town from the rural edges

through various sectors which are in various

stages of urbanization. It became immediate-

ly obvious that there was a notable increase

in sound level as the areas of dense settle-

ment were approached.

This led to an experiment in which

greater statistical detail on the sound levels

was sought. On 2 meteorologically similar

days 2 selected sites were placed under sur-

veillance. In each case sound was con-

tinuously recorded for 6 hours, from 8:30

a.m. to 14:30 p.m. One site was a large

wooded area in a sector of the town not yet

urbanized. The day of the survey, to mini-

mize influence of outside sound sources, was

Sunday. A traffic artery of the settlement

was, however, within hearing distance. The

second site was a small shopping center in

one of the residential villages of the town. It

has a supermarket, small stores and a size-

able parking lot. Data were collected on a

weekday.

The sound levels were evaluated every

minute, which was about as detailed as the

resolution of the equipment permitted. This

yielded a sample of 360 readings at each site.

329

SHOPPING

50 CENTER

PER CENT OBSERVATIONS

30 40 50 80 90

60 70

WOODLAND

i) (ey >

Co) (o) fo)

PER CENT OBSERVATIONS

Ko)

Fig. 1.—Frequency distribution of noise levels, by 5-db intervals, in Columbia, Md.

area. Left shows daytime values in urbanized sector on moderately busy day. Right

shows daytime condition in a sector of undeveloped woodland, representative of condi-

tions prior to urbanization of area.

This should be a representative sample of the

2 settings.

These surveys did, indeed, result in 2

notably different samples of sound levels.

These sites are undoubtedly representative

of the “undisturbed” environment of the

area and of one moderately affected by ur-

ban activities. The samples support only in

greater detail what had also been established

on some 50 mobile micrometeorological sur-

veys from 1969-1971. On these instan-

taneous sound was measured at 18 fixed

points in the townsite and a few casual

measurements on a farm 3 mi to the west.

These measurements, which will be referred

to below, are entirely consistent with the

hypothesis that the differences between the

2 survey sites are caused by the absence of

human activity at the first and their presence

at the second.

Fig. 1 shows the frequency distributions

of sound levels by 5-db intervals. For the

shopping center only a 5-hr interval was used

in this graph during hours maximum activi-

ty. For the other hour, prior to much ac-

tivity, a different pattern was prevalent, to

be referred to again later. As is readily not-

able from the histograms, the frequency dis-

tributions are fairly compact with strong

modes. In the woodland this mode is at the

35-40 db level, a very quiet environment. In

330

the shopping center the principal level was

55-60 db, considered to be an intrusive noise

level. At the shopping center the level never

sank below 50 db. In the early morning be-

fore much activity in the center the mode of

the frequency distribution is between 50 and

55 db.

The distribution in the woodland is very

skewed, with some quite high levels re-

corded. These occasional loud noises were

caused extraneously by automobiles on the

neighboring thoroughfare and aircraft pass-

ing overhead. In the shopping center histo-

gram some arrows mark occasional peak

noises of 70-80 db caused by jet aircraft in

the take-off and landing patterns of Friend-

ship International Airport (14 miles east of

Columbia), a facility perhaps a bit too close

for a “planned” community.

The highest noises in these surveys, as

well as during the mobile observations over a

3-yr interval, were screaming sirens of emer-

gency vehicles and the clanging of trash dis-

posal trucks. These reached the 80-85 db

level. All noises resulting from the ephemeral

activities of construction, such as bull-

dozing, earth-tamping and steelwork were

eliminated from the data. They, too, reached

high levels in the 70 and 80 db class. How-

ever, they cannot be considered as perma-

nent parts of the community life. Present

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972

levels of sound during daytime in Columbia,

as revealed by the mobile surveys, yield the

following average outdoor values: open resi-

dential areas 56 db, dense housing areas 61

db, business districts 66 db. Most of these

noise levels are created by automobile traf-

fic. At night these values are reduced by 5 to

8 db, on an average.

During the early days of construction

there was a chance to measure the sound

reduction by trees. A row of townhouses

had been built and occupied. It was screened

by a 75-m-wide belt of deciduous trees, 15

m high, without underbrush. On the other

side was a highway with moderate traffic. At

the edge of the highway, during daytime

hours sound levels of 70 db prevailed but in

the backyard of the shielded houses the

sound was reduced to a 58-db average. This

gives a shielding value of 5 db/30 m of

shelterbelt. Other work has shown that 6-8

db/30 m reduction can be achieved by trees

and shrubbery, judiciously planted

(Leonard, 1971; Cooke and Haverbeke,

1971). The Columbia shelterbelt has now

made way to more housing and the sound

levels in the whole section have risen. This is,

of course, the result of a blend of noises

from the highway and those internally pro-

duced.

Although our project was not designed to

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972 -

make a systematic noise survey, the data ob-

tained are likely to be representative of areas

in the process of urbanization. The result of

an approximate 30-db increase in noise level

for an essentially residential community is

not encouraging. It also indicates the need

for considerably more imaginative land plan-

ning and use of vegetation in new communi-

ties than heretofore.

Acknowledgments

The help of Miss D.W. Galvin and Mr.

T.N. Maisel in the survey work is greatly ap-

preciated. The support of our work by NSF

(Atmospheric Science Section) through

Grant GA-29304X is gratefully acknowl-

edged.

References Cited

Cook, D.I., and Haverbeke, D.F. v, 1971: Trees

and shrubs for noise abatement; Trees and

Forests in an Urbanizing Environment, Univ. of

Mass. Coop. Ext. Serv. Monogr., pp. 39-41.

Landsberg, H.E., 1970. Climatic consequences of

urbanization; J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 60: 82-87.

Landsberg, H.E., and Maisel, T.N., 1972. Micro-

meteorological observations in an area of urban

growth; Boundary-Layer Meteorology 2:

365-370.

Leonard, R.E., 1971. Effects of trees and forests in

noise abatement; Trees and Forests in an Ur-

banizing Environment, Univ. of Mass Coop.

Ext. Serv. Monogr., pp. 35-38.

331

Grooming in Polistes exclamans (Viereck),

a Forerunner of Communications in Social

Hymenoptera

John A. Fluno!

Entomology Research Division, Agr. Res. Serv., USDA, Beltsville, Md. 20705

ABSTRACT

The behavior pattern in a nest of Polistes exclamans (Viereck) is described, and

colony development before and afterwards is recorded. Similarity of this behavior to the

dance of the honeybee suggests that this behavior may be a forerunner to communicative

dancing as found in the honeybee,

In July 1971, I was fortunate enough to

observe a behavior pattern in a nest of

Polistes exclamans (Viereck) not unlike com-

municative dancing on the comb of the

honey bee, Apis mellifera L. The events ob-

served and colony development before and

after the event are herein described.

In the vicinity of Silver Spring, Maryland,

some P. exclamans come out of hibernation

as early as February 7, but most probably do

not survive, although I saw one queen out of

hibernation on February 18, 1971. Thus the

queen that built the nest over the east door

of the North Building, Plant Industry Sta-

tion at Beltsville, Md., probably left hiberna-

tion some time in March or early April. I

first noted the nest May 14; it was on a cor-

nice over the upper righthand corner, about

45 inches above the actual swinging door

(which swings inward). The nest contained 4

cells; by May 27, it had 15 cells. On June 8,

there were 20 cells, and two of these were

capped, indication of prepupae or pupae

within. The queen spent quite a bit of time

June 8 near the capped cells. Then, between

‘Mr. Fluno retired from ARS June 30, 1972. His

present address is 1234 Lakeview Drive, Winter

Park, Florida 32789.

332

1:15 p.m. EDST and 2:05 p.m., the first

worker emerged. By July 13, at least 8

workers and the queen were present; by July

20, there were at least 11 workers.

During the week of July 13 to July 20,

on five different occasions, one or more of

the wasps performed a “‘waggle dance”’ simi-

lar to that commonly performed by honey

bees. For the record, my notes on those oc-

casions are given here in their entirety:

“July 13—At 7:55 a.m., EDST, 8 on nest.

At9:05 a.m., 6 on cells, 1 behind nest, all

fairly quiet. At 11:50 a.m., 8 or 9 on nest,

very active. As I watched, 1 arrived, ap-

parently carrying no meat. She performed a

“waggle dance’’ like a honey bee, oriented

towards 1 o’clock [6 o’clock was toward the

building]. She repeated the “‘dance”’ twice

more, circling each time to the same initial

position and then preened or groomed her-

self. So far as I could tell, the dance drew no

attention from her sister wasps.

“July 15—At 8:05 a.m. EDST, 6 very ac-

tive on nest. At 11:33 a.m., as I stepped out

to observe, 1 wasp was doing a waggle dance

towards 7 o’clock—I think she was the

queen. The others paid no attention and she

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972

did not groom herself afterwards. Is this plea

for grooming a forerunner to communica-

tion as it occurs in honey bees? At this time,

I counted 7 wasps on the nest. At 4:50 p.m.,

I could see only 5 on the nest. Were all but

the queen and 4 workers out foraging for

food?

“July 16—At 8:06 a.m. EDST, at least 7

on nest. At 10:37 a.m., when I first looked,

1 finished a waggle dance and then groomed

herself. At 5:33 p.m., 8 on nest and 1 be-

hind. Two were grooming themselves and 1

did a waggle dance towards 9 o’clock and

then went behind the nest.”

“July 20—At 8:45 a.m. EDST, at least 12

on nest; at 11:32 a.m., while I was attempt-

ing to count, 1 arrived with meat. The meat

was divided and just about every wasp (now

10 of them) promptly took a head-down

position in a cell, obviously feeding larvae

and doubtless getting fed in return. Several

then performed the waggle dance in several

different directions. Some then began preen-

ing or grooming themselves. At 5:03 p.m., I

counted only 6 on the nest; this is obviously

now a thriving, successful colony, with as

many as 6 away from the nest at a time,

hunting food or paper-making materials.”

At this time, the nest was about 3 inches

in diameter. It hada ring of 19 capped cells

placed a bit offcenter. The ring was as nar-

row as | cell wide in places but several cells

wide in other places. That there were larvae

in the cells inside as well as outside the ring

was evidenced by the activities of the

workers in parceling out meat brought to the

nest.

I was out of town between July 23 and

August 30 and thus could not observe the

nest during this period. By September 1, the

nest was about 6 inches in diameter. There

were at least 25 wasps on the nest, and a

major emergence on September 7 at least

doubled the number of wasps in the colony.

From then until mating and dispersal began

on October 13, there appeared to be no

room for waggle dancing. It would appear

that observance of the dancing behavior is

dependent upon relatively small numbers of

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972

wasps on the nest so room is available for

the activity. Yet I suspect the colony must

be a successful one. It is possible that caring

for the sexual brood may play a role in

triggering the behavior. I made many obser-

vations before July 13 without seeing any

indications of the dance. Fortunately, the

nest was within a few feet of my office, and

observation was not time-consuming, so I

did not hesitate to dash out to look at the

nest from time to time, often as many as

four times a day.

Time of day did not seem to be a factor.

Waggle dances were observed at 10:37 a.m.

(July 16), 11:32 a.m. (July 20), 11:33 a.m.

(July 15), and 11:50 a.m. (July 13), but also

at 5:33 p.m. (July 16).

I saw no evidence that any direction-

giving was accomplished by the dancing be-

havior, but grooming almost always oc-

curred. The activity of dancing in a preda-

tory hymenopteran was totally unexpected.

However, this kind of behavior has been re-

ported by others. Esch (1971) described the

waggle dance in Polistes versicolor vulgaris

Bequaert and reported a sound-burst at the

turning point of the dance. Eberhard (1969)

reported waggle dancing in Polistes fuscatus

(Fabricius).

The opinions of the two authors concern-

ing the significance of the dance do not

agree. Esch feels it may be part of a defen-

sive behavior, but Eberhard calls it an ex-

pression of dominance by the queen or an-

other female that ranks high in the nest

hierarchy.

Regardless of the true meaning or func-

tion of the waggle dance, if any, its simi-

larity to the dance of the honey bee suggests

that the behavior may be a forerunner to

communicative dancing in the socially more

fully evolved honey bee.

References Cited

Eberhard, M.J.W. 1969. The social biology of polis-

tine wasps. Museum of Zoology, U. of Mich.,

Misc. Pub. No. 140, 101 pp.

Esch, H. 1971. Wagging movements in the wasp

Polistes versicolor vulgaris Bequaert [Hymenop-

ae eee Zeit. Vergleich. Physiol. 72:

1-25.

333

ACADEMY AFFAIRS

BOARD OF MANAGERS MEETING NOTES

April,

The 619th meeting of the Board of Man-

agers of the Washington Academy of Sci-

ences was called to order at 8:07 p.m. on

April 13, 1972 by President Robbins in the

Conference of the Lee Building at FASEB.

Announcements.—Since the minutes of

the 618th meeting had been mailed to mem-

bers of the Board prior to the meeting, Dr.

Robbins invited comments or corrections. It

was requested that the attendance record be

corrected to show that S.B. Detwiler, Jr. was

present. After due consideration the minutes

were declared to be accepted as corrected.

Dr. Robbins introduced Dr. Edward E.

Beasley, the new delegate from the Philoso-

phical Society of Washington (elected to fol-

low in Feb. 10, 1972); and Dr. Edward

Hacskaylo, who would later report the find-

ings of the special committee that studied

the JBSE.

Two letters received recently by Dr. Rob-

bins were instrumental in her decision to

move the location of the Annual Meeting

from the Cosmos Club to the George Wash-

ington University Club. The letters voiced

objection to the refusal of the Cosmos Club

to admit women as members. Her sympathe-

tic action was in keeping with her plan to

speak on the problems of Women in Science

in her address as the retiring president of the

Washington Academy of Sciences. The meet-

ing date will be the third Wednesday instead

of the third Thursday of May.

Two meetings were announced. The 33rd

Annual Conference of the Chemurgic Coun-

cil would be held in the Statler Hilton Hotel

on May 11 and 12, 1972. The annual Teach-

er Recognition and Awards Dinner of the

JBSE would be held on May 15th. Dr. Sar-

vella updated the announcement to state

that the dinner would probably be held at

the Broadmoor Csikos Restaurant.

Upon arrival of Mr. William A. Deiss from

334

NOT 2

the Smithsonian Institution, further business

was delayed that he might speak. Mr. Deiss

had previously requested permission from

Dr. Robbins to discuss with the Board of

Managers, the desire of the Smithsonian to

become the custodian of the archives of the

Washington Academy of Sciences. He pro-

vided each board member with a copy of a

Smithsonian publication entitled “A Guide

to Archives.” The archives are located in the

main building and can handle 4,000 cubic

feet of records. 1500 cubic feet are now in

service. The archives at the Smithsonian may

be broadly grouped as official records of the

Smithsonian and as the manuscript collec-

tion. The archives of the Philosophical So-

ciety of Washington are now held by the

Smithsonian.

Mr. Deiss indicated that of particular in-

terest to historians or scholars would be the

financial records and both published and un-

published manuscripts. He explained that a

complete set of the Academy Journals

would have interest to scholars mainly to fill

in gaps of history where certain of the de-

sired records and manuscripts were missing.

He explained further that the Smithsonian

Library had the Journal and the Proceedings

of the Washington Academy of Sciences.

Mr. Detwiler recalled several interesting

facts. He could provide a complete set of the

Journal and Proceedings prior to 1950. He

remembered that Dr. Heinz Specht when

secretary had compiled voluminous, detailed

minutes of each meeting. He also recalled

that before the move from 1530 P Street,

N.W. to Bethesda, Dr. Malcolm Henderson

had gone through the files and discarded

heavily. Dr. Robbins thought that some past

officers and Committee Chairmen might

have some records that no longer exist in the

Academy office files.

Dr. Deiss emphasized that archivists

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972

generally have a different point of view

about such records than do the scientists;

therefore he would like for the Smithsonian

to see all of the records before any are dis-

carded. He extended an invitation for mem-

bers of WAS to visit the archives during

Monday through Friday, between the hours

of 8:45 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. Other times are

possible under special arrangements. He sug-

gested that a call for appointment be made

to 381-5355.

Dr. Honig moved that the “proposal to

place our past documents and papers into

the custody of the Smithsonian archives be

accepted in principal.” There followed a

second by Mr. Detwiler and a voice vote of

approval.

Treasurer. —Treasurer Honig had good

news on the financial state of the Academy.

Since his last report an amount of $5000

had been received as dividends from invest-

ments. Also a grant in support of Sym-

posium II had been received from EPA. Al-

though the account books are practically

balanced at the moment; there still exists the

state of deficit spending where we are de-

pendent on the receipt of next year’s dues to

meet bills for the rest of the fiscal year. Dr.

Honig urged Miss Ostaggi to send out fol-

low-up letters for the collection of this

year’s dues.

Ad Hoc Committee on the JBSE.—Dtr.

Hacskaylo was invited to give his report at

this time in view of the lateness of the hour

and in view of the number of committee re-

ports yet to be heard. Dr. Hacskaylo stated

that the committee had met on five occa-

sions since late December in order to ac-

complish the following assignment:

1) to make a thorough study of the rela-

tionship between the Joint Board and

the parent organizations.

2) to recommend to the parent organiza-

tions whether the relationship should

be continued or not.

3) if the recommendation is that the rela-

tionship be maintained, to establish a

set of rules that clearly indicate the

role of the parent organizations on the

one hand and of the Joint Board on

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972 -

the other in all of their relationships

with each other. These rules will then

be the basis for rewritten By-laws of

the Joint Board.

The report as submitted represented the

opinion of the majority of the committee.

There is a possibility of a minority report. It

appears to be unanimous in the committee

that the activities of the JBSE and its rela-

tions with the parent organizations had been

reviewed thoroughly. Also there was unani-

mous agreement that there is a continuing

need for an organization or board such as

the Joint Board. The report gave recom-

mendations on the number of members that

constitute the JBSE, the selections of mem-

bers of the board and the term of office, and

the rotation of chairmen between appointees

of the two parent organizations. Regarding

relations between the JBSE and the Parent

organizations, the committee pointed out

need for improved communications, need

for adequate financial support, need for re-

structuring of the by-laws, and the need for

a continuing review of the JBSE programs to

increase their effectiveness.

Although Dr. Hacskaylo responded to nu-

merous questions during the presentation of

the report, the Board of Managers indicated

a desire to study the recommendations and

make decisions on another occasion. A mo-

tion by Dr. Honig and a second by Dr. For-

ziati was approved by voice vote to receive

the report as presented, with expression of

gratitude for the diligent work of the ad hoc

committee.

Membership .—A first reading of the nomi-

nations for fellowship was given at the Feb-

ruary 10, 1972 meeting. Following a second

reading at this meeting, and upon a motion

by Mr. Detwiler and a second by Dr. Sarvella

and a voice vote of approval, Dr. James S.

Albus, Mr. Alfred F. Campagnone, and Dr.

Melvin Reich were accepted as Fellows of

the Washington Academy of Sciences.

Information about nine additional candi-

dates was submitted by mail to the Board of

Managers by Chairman Landis in a memoran-

dum dated March 29, 1972. A second read-

ing was given by Dr. Robbins with the ex-

planation that these candidates were now eli-

335

gible for final consideration. In this group

were Dr. Anton M. Allen, Dr. Stuart A.

Aaronson, Dr. Ronald Fayer, Dr. Andrew M.

Lewis, Jr., Dr. Robert R. Oltjen, Dr. Robert

H. Purcell, Dr. Theron S. Rumsey, Dr. David

R. Smith, and Dr. Sidney Teitler. A voice

note of approval followed a motion to that

effect by Dr. Sarvella and a second by Mr.

Detwiler.

In a memorandum from Chairman Land-

is, Mr. Paul H. Oehser (already a fellow) was

identified as the new delegate from the

Columbia Historical Society. Pertinent infor-

mation about two additional nominees for

fellowship was read by Dr. Robbins for the

first time.

Policy and Planning.—Dr. Retsigle, Presi-

dent Elect of the District of Columbia Insti-

tute of Chemists, has requested information

leading to an application for affiliation.

Ways and Means.—Dr. Honig inquired of

Dr. Robbins as to the existence of an audit-

ing Committee. One will be appointed

promptly.

Meetings.—At the April meeting, Dr. Wal-

ter Boek will talk about the National Gradu-

ate University.

Awards for Scientific Achievement.—

Chairman Dickson was congratulated for the

success of the Awards meeting. He inquired

about awards in other disciplines being made

next year, and was given guidance that the

committee had considerable latitude in pro-

posing special awards.

Grants-in-Aid.—Dr. Sarvella’s report in-

volved a plan to award the available AAAS

grant for this year to secondary school stu-

dents, unaware of the fact that an amount of

$360 had already been paid out to the Sum-

mer Research Participation Program at

American University. She proposed to con-

tact AAAS and then keep the awards within

the budget.

Public Information.—Chairman Noyes

stated that he had compiled a list of 30 or-

ganizations that probably would be in-

terested in announcing in their newsletters

about the existence of publications on

Symposium I and on Symposium II. He pro-

336

posed to write to each organization and he

also asked for permission to place an ad in

the magazine “Science.” Dr. Sarvella and Dr.

Forziati initiated a motion to authorize the

committee to place an advertisement in “Sci-

ence” at a suitable price. Motion carried.

Tellers.—Chairman Detwiler noted that

President-Elect Cook will move into the

President’s position at the annual meeting in

May. For the other position there were two

or more candidates on the ballot this year

for the first time. The votes were distributed

as follows:

President-Elect Grover C. Sherlin 200

Secretary Kurt H. Stern 209

Treasurer Nelson W. Rupp 172

Richard P. Farrow 125

Jean Boek 111

John G. Honig 145

Managers at Large Selected by the Hare

system were Leland

A. DePue and Eliza-

beth Oswald for

three-year terms. In

addition Raymond

J. Seegar was se-

lected to complete

the post vacated

when Father Heyden

moved to the Phil-

lipines.

On Ballot II the Maryland, District of

Columbia-Virginia Section of the Mathemati-

cal Association of America was voted into

affiliation, 320 to 4.

On Ballot III, Amendment of the By-laws

were approved by a vote of 307 to 10. In the

future the Nominating Committee is di-

rected to qualify at least two candidates for

each elective position on the Ballot.

Special AAAS Committee.—Dr. Cook ex-

plained that there were two interlinked mat-

ters that he was concerned with on this com-

mittee. For one thing, there is a proposal

that students be secured either through the

efforts of the FBSE or the WJAS to serve as

ushers at the Sheraton Park and the Shore-

ham Hotels during the AAAS meetings in

Washington, D.C. December 26-30, 1972.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972

The second thing concerns the subject for

Symposium III. Dr. Cook believes that four

other meetings in Washington, in a time span

of three months, on the aspects of Noise Pol-

lution will satiate all interest in Noise

Symposiums for a while. Other possible

topics proposed were Solid Waste Disposal,

Food Additives, and Pandemic Gonorrhea.

Other topics may be proposed, looking

toward possible sources of financial support.

The meeting adjourned at 10:47

p.m.—Grover C. Sherlin, Secretary

ANNOUNCEMENT

Due to the lateness of the present issue, and to the fact that the Society is

undergoing a change in printers, the March 1973 issue will present a some-

what expanded “Academy Affairs” section containing news that could not be

included here.—Ed.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972 -

337

BY-LAWS OF

THE PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON

(Adopted by the Society, November 24, 1917; as amended December 4, 1920, May 21, 1932

December 3, 1938 and April 14, 1972.)

Article l. THE OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY, THEIR ELECTION AND DUTIES

Section 1. The elective officers of the Society shall be a President, First and Second Vice-Presi

dents, a Corresponding Secretary, a Recording Secretary, a Treasurer and four members-at-large of th

General Committee. These officers, together with the latest two living ex-Presidents of the Society an

the Chairmen of the Program and Membership Committees, shall constitute the board of management o

the Society, to be called the General Committee. The elective officers shall be chosen by ballot at o

previous to the Annual Meeting of the Society, shall start their terms of office at the close of this Annu

Meeting and hold office until the close of the Annual Meeting in the year in which their successors are}

elected. Any vacancy occurring among the officers shall be filled by the General Committee until the next

Annual Meeting, when such vacancy shall be filled by the Society. No member of the Society shall hold

any one office for more than two years in succession.

Section 2. The President, First and Second Vice-Presidents and Treasurer shall be elected annually,

and shall serve for one ye7r. The Corresponding Secretary, the Recording Secretary and the members-at-

large of the General Committee shall serve for two years. The Chairmen of the Program and Membership

Committees shall be elected by the General Committee not later than the last meeting in February and

shall hold office for one year beginning June 1. Other members of these committees shall be elected by

the General Committee not later than the first meeting in May and shall hold office for the year starting

June 1.

Section 3. The President shall preside at meetings of the Society and of the General Committee,

and shall applint all committees not otherwise provided for. In the case of the absence of the President his

duties shall devolve upon the officers of the Society in the following order:

1. First Vice-President.

2. Second Vice-President.

3. Corresponding Secretary.

4. Recording Secretary.

5. Treasurer.

Section 4. The Corresponding Secretary shall conduct the general correspondence, keep the

minutes of the General Committee, keep the register of members showing dates of their election, trans-

fers, resignations, deaths, etc., and make an annual report jointly with the Recording Secretary.

Section 5, The Recording Secretary shall keep the minutes of the Society, and shall be in charge of

the publication of scientific papers and abstracts.

Section 6. The Treasurer, or in his absence or inability to act, the Acting-Treasurer provided for in

Article I, Sec. 7, shall, under the direction of the General Committee, have charge of the funds and

investments of the Society, shall keep a correct copy of the register of members of the Society, shall make

collections and disbursements, and shall render an annual report. His accounts shall be audited annually

by an appointed Committee of the Society not members of the General Committee.

Section 7. The General Committee shall have power to designate any one of its members except

the President, a Vice-President or a Secretary, as Acting-Treasurer to serve during the absence of the

Treasurer or his inability to act.

Section 8. Not later than ten weeks before the Annual Meeting the President shall appoint a

Committee on Elections consisting of three members who are former Presidents. The Committee shall

serve as a nominating committee and shall have charge of the Annual Election of Officers.

Article II. THE GENERAL COMMITTEE

Section 1. The General Committee shall have the control and management of the affairs, property

and funds of the Society. Five members shall be a quorum for the transaction of business, but not fewer

than four affirmative votes shall be necessary for any financial action. It shall adopt by-laws for the

establishment and government of standing committees, for the nomination and election of new members,

for the dues of members and for such other matters not covered herein as may be necessary to carry out

the objects of the Society.

Section 2. The General Committee shall make, or cause to be made, rules and specifications for the

conduct of nominations and elections.

338 J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972

Article II]. MEETINGS OF THE SOCIETY

Section 1. Regular meetings of the Society for the consideration and discussion of scientific

subjects shall be held on alternate Fridays from October to May, inclusive, unless the General Committee

shall otherwise direct. Special meetings of the Society may be called by the General Committee.

Section 2. The first regular meeting in January shall be set apart for the address of the retiring

President.

Section 3. The last regular meeting in December shall be the Annual Meeting for the presentation

of annual reports, and, if necessary, the completion of the election of officers.

Section 4. The meetings of the Society shall be held at such place and hour as the General

Committee shall designate.

Article IV. ANNUAL MEETING

Section 1. At the Annual Meeting of the Society the order of proceeding shall be as follows:

. Reading of minutes of last Annual Meeting.

. Report of Treasurer.

. Report of Auditing Committee.

. Report of Secretaries.

. Report of Committee on Elections.

. Election of Officers not already decided.

. Business presented by General Committee.

. Discussion of Society policies and recommendations to the General Committee.

. Reading of rough minutes of the meeting.

Article V. AMENDMENTS

Amendments of the foregoing By-laws shall only be made by a two-thirds vote of those members

of the Society present at a regular meeting, after notice of the proposed change shall have been mailed to

each member at least two weeks previously.

WOMIDHARWNHE

THE PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON

Officers and Committees

1 Oct 1972

President Members-at-Large

Edward E. Beasley Earl Callen (1970-72)

Herbert Jehle (1970-72)

Harold Glaser (1971-73)

Ralph P. Hudson Heber J. R. Stevenson (1971-73)

Corresponding Secretary Past Presidents on the General Committee

Robert J. Rubin (1971-73) Langdon T. Crane, Jr.

Herbert Hauptman

Vice Presidents

Bradley F. Bennett

Recording Secretary : i

James J. Krebs (1970-72) Membership Chairman

Bernard E.. Drimmer (1972-73)

Program Chairman

Dirse W. Sallet (1972-73)

Treasurer

George E. Hudson

Joseph Henry Lecture Committee (for May 1973)

Ralph P. Hudson, Chairman

Julian Eisenstein

Paul H. E. Meijer

Committee on Elections (for December 1972)

John A. O’Keefe, Chairman

Langdon T. Crane, Jr.

Louis R. Maxwell

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 62, NO. 4, 1972

| General

Type manuscripts on white bond paper

Feither 8'%4 by 11 or 8 by 10% inches. Double

Space all lines, including those in abstracts,

‘tables, legends, quoted matter, acknowledg-

“ments, and references cited. Number pages

“consecutively. Place your name and com-

plete address in the upper right hand corner

of the title page.

Title, Author, and Affiliation

Page | of your manuscript should contain

Only this information and your name and

address. Choose a concise but complete and

/Meaningful title. In research papers con-

cerning biological subjects, include an indi-

Cation of the order and family of the taxa

discussed. Academic degrees will not nor-

mally be included unless the author so

specifies. If possible, combine your affilia-

tion and mailing address (including Zip) so

that readers can write to you directly.

Abstract

Type on a separate sheet at the end of the

manuscript. Make the abstract intelligible

Without reference to the text of the paper.

Write an informative digest of the significant

content and conclusions, not a mere descrip-

tion. Generally, the abstract should not ex-

ceed 3% of the text.

Footnotes

Use footnotes as sparingly as possible.

Number text footnotes consecutively with

Arabic numerals and type them on a sepa-

Tate sheet of paper at the end of the manu-

Script. Type table footnotes, if any, below

each pertinent table on the same page.

Illustrations and Legends

The quality of all original illustrations

must be high enough to facilitate good offset

reproduction. They should have ample mar-

gins and be drawn on heavy stock or

fastened to stiff cardboard to prevent bend-

ing. They should be proportioned to column

(1 x 3) or page (2 x 3) type-dimensions,

leaving space for legend material. Photo-

JOURNAL OF THE WASHINGTON ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Instructions to Contributors

graphs should have a glossy finish. They re-

produce best when the contrast is fairly

high. Identify each illustration with number

and author in light pencil marks on the

reverse side. Submit all illustrations sepa-

rately — please do not glue or clip them to

the pages of the manuscript.

Do not type or write legends directly on

the illustrations. Type legends on a separate

sheet or sheets at the end of the manuscript.

Indicate where you want illustrations to

appear in the printed paper by writing the

figure numbers lightly in the text margins,

and be sure that each figure is properly re-

ferenced in the text itself. Original “art” will

be returned only at the author’s request and

expense.

Tables

Include tables only when the same infor-

mation cannot be presented economically in

the text, or when a table presents the data in

a more meaningful way. Consider preparing

extremely complicated tabular matter in a

form suitable for direct reproduction as an

illustration. In such cases, the use of the

typewriter is not recommended.

References to Literature

Limit references within the text and in

synonymies to author and year (and page if

needed). In a “Reference Cited” section, list

alphabetically by senior author only those

papers you have included in the text. Like-

wise, be sure all the text references are

listed. Type the “References Cited” section

on a separate sheet after the last page of

text. Abbreviations should follow the USA

Standard for Periodical Title Abbreviations,

Z39.5-1963.

Submission of Manuscripts

Send completed manuscripts and sup-

porting material to the Academy office (see

address inside front cover) in care of the

Editor. Authors will be requested to read

Xerox “proofs” and invited to submit re-

print orders prior to publication.

Reprints - Prices for reprints may be obtained on request.

Washington Academy of Sciences 2nd Class Postage

Room 29, 9650 Rockville Pike (Bethesda) Paid at

Washington, D.C. 20014 Washington, D.C.

Return Requested with Form 3579

LIBRARY 3

U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20029

VOLUME 63

Number 1

Journal of the — MARCH, 1973

WASHINGTON

“ACADEMY... SCIENCES

Issued Quarterly

at Washington, D.C.

Directory Issue

CONTENTS

Features:

FREDSCHULMAN: Technology and Our Standard of Living 2

WALTER E. BOEK: Institutional Stability and Innovation

UTP ek OE GICAL OM, bic saan 2 tie cee. adic oy els 11

LEEJ. SHERVISand R. D. SHENEFELT: Poor Access to

Apanteles Species Literature Through Titles, Abstracts, and

Automatically Extracted Species Names as Keywords

Research Reports:

BARNARD D. BURKS: North American Species of Calosota

Cintisn(aymenoptera: Bupelmidae)) 9 --......-:-..:-- 26

Academy Affairs:

SCLentiStSwinmtneuINGwSrme ciety sncie eerie nas fn sn aeloke

Obituaries

WV Adem LipealVialkSiallis meen seis Sn chew coh be gaa wae BO

WAC DMS LIT Glihle muniess hoMetn tds. cflst'e cote ialetele gle anes 3

INIGTHIES. ses BG SOS Bc Glos Oe cs Oren RE ORI een a ea

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

President

Richard K. Cook

President-Elect

Grover C. Sherlin

Secretary

Kurt H. Stern

Treasurer

Nelson W. Rupp

Board Member

Samuel B. Detwiler, Jr.

BOARD OF MANAGERS

All delegates of affiliated

Societies (see facing page)

EDITOR

Richard H. Foote

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

Elizabeth Ostaggi

ACADEMY OFFICE

9650 Rockville Pike (Bethesda)

Washington, D. C. 20014

Telephone (301) 530-1402

Washington Academy of Sciences

Founded in 1898

The Journal

This journal, the official organ of the Washington Aca-

demy of Sciences, publishes historical articles, critical

reviews, and scholarly scientific articles; proceedings

of meetings of the Academy and its Board of Mana-

gers; and other items of interest to Academy members.

The Journal appears four times, a year (March, June,

September, and December) the September issue

contains a directory of the Academy membership.

Subscription Rates

Members, fellows, and patrons in good standing re-

ceive the Journal without charge. Subscriptions are

available on a calendar year basis only, payable in ad-

vance. Payment must be made in U.S. currency at the

following rates:

WiSyand(@anadaweernener $10.00

RONEN Gogoouo00nda00 11.00

Single Copy Price....... 3.00

Back Issues

Obtainable from the Academy office (address at bot-

tom of opposite column): Proceedings: Vols. 1-13

(1898-1910) Index: To Vols. 1-13 of the Proceedings

and Vols. 1-40 of the Journal Journal: Back issues,

volumes, and sets (Vols. 1-62, 1911-1972) and all cur-

rent issues.

Claims for Missing Numbers

Claims 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 al-

lowed because of failure to notify the Academy of a

change in address.

Changes of Address

Address changes should be sent promptly to the Aca-

demy office. Such notification should show both old

and new addresses and zip number.

Published quarterly in March, June, September, and December of each year by the

Washington Academy of Sciences, 9650 Rockville Pike, Washington, D.C. Second class

postage paid at Washington, D.C.

DELEGATES TO THE WASHINGTON ACADEMY OF SCIENCES,

REPRESENTING THE LOCAL AFFILIATED SOCIETIES

Eimlosophicalsocietyof Washington’: =o. oie oa ee ee ev els cle ee) cle el lous Edward Beasley

Anthropological Society of Washington... 3. fe ee ee Jean K. Boek

iemicalprocietysot washington: sac. sa se eeu el eon oe init Mel eis eos We eon eine eltaro Harvey Alter

EMtomolopicalrsociety of Washington: 46. .0- 6s. oe ee a ee ee ee eo eee Reece I. Sailer

NAHOMALGCOPTADIMICISOCIELY = = hit tn beers ied a oe Gay ee each ete ene a tance Alexander Wetmore

eeGlopicalbsocietysOf Washington) «fc oe eee elec es ow jel eee a ovens welts ns Charles Milton

Medical Society of the District of Columbia ....................... Delegate not appointed

Bolom biaeistoniGaliSOClety. | his 4c «0 .<) ols oS alia 0b 0 Gon ae olay ald) elaneeclee )slelccveuatane: 6 Paul H. Oehser

BOLAMICASOCLEbYAOLIWaSHINPtON) 5 56.265 4c eee ae ie seeks se a He hess Conrad B. Link

WOCIEhVAOIATICLCATOROLESLEIS) a5, 2 soos Gs Sw See Gos Sew «SS el aemee eal eke nas Robert Callaham

MAaShinetonisocietysor ENgGMeeIs: 2.5 2 ee els we Eee me ag ee ee he George Abraham

Institute of Electrical and Electronics ISSN IS joe Slaliclcavounidues dco. corm ean mist Leland D. Whitelock

Amenicanisocietyrot Mechanical/Engineers 5-5. --.- 5-522 22-s eee ene William G. Allen

Helminthological Society of Washington ...............-- ee eee eee ee nee Aurel O. Foster

AIMETICATIS OCleLYAfOLIMICrODIOIOZY (5 sc hes ees Senet ss oie ese Gliese o ieide) Go aes Bie i: Lewis Affronti

Societysotomernican Military Engineers i. 2... 8 2 bee ee ee oe ee H.P. Demuth

AINetICAMOOCICLYIONGIVINENGINCETS 464 icc) e cis ge le Slee eeu eaielsn wie oe de) ene Carl H. Gaum

Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine ....................-..-.. Carlton Treadwell

UNE HICANBSOCICOVALON etal Si isin iocs exc y edocs cous le Roce aes dete) BiG. Setticumet elec we eau Glen W. Wensch

International Association for Dental Research...................... Norman H.C. Griffiths

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics...................... Robert J. Burger

American Meteorological Society ................. Der a ete Uae eR a Harold A. Steiner

Insecticide Society of Washington... .- 2. 5s bc ee ee ee H. Ivan Rainwater

FICOUSHICAIPS OCICLYZOMOAMETICA). 2, -) suse euisy 4 wie eee shee uae Bushee wes ie ge le) coarse ee Alfred Weissler

PMIMETICATION IN ClOATES OCICLY 0 inca cc sues a versaey us eile. 5) eee a Gee) che EMe eames ere ie Delegate not appointed

MrIStibECROMmMOOGMNECHNOlOPISES) G5 cue. ci se le, de eel cheeses enon alse e tee 6's Lowrie M. Beacham

PATHE TI CANKGCTAIMIGISOCIELY 605 cics Seeks ai soe uso as aishnue metic sey men mlaue eb eB Soe Sel J.J. Diamond

NE CITOCHEMICATS OCIELY rs ca) crits: ses lm iia esl Eich ni lo. Ss eel ares EU oy Se av aanee Sele las Stanley D. James

Washinptonvistorysof science)Club) s)6 ccm ae coe eects suse Gee cle elec sree oe Delegate not appointed

American Association of Physics Teachers ..........0.. 02-0000 e ee ueae Bernard B. Watson

@pttcalkSocietyzolyA merical Leyes eee sie 5 So ele eu wae Meee eis ey eos Nase enh Elsie F. DuPre

American Society of Plant Physiologists. ................00 00 ee eee eeee Walter Shropshire

WashingtoniOperationssResearch\Councill = 4a ane een oe ed ae aio a eee es John G. Honig

Instrument society of Americal. lesa ae eae dee semen oe ee Delegate not appointed

American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical

andgbetroleumyENPineersun ate mnie cee ciara avai ae A eneye Delegate not appointed

Nationali@apitolyAstronomersis ars ieee ect homeo cere ewes Sr lecGl ei aisha au Geese John A. Eisele

Mathematicali Society, ofsAmenicaa is aveds th essen in coe caret oie teste ieee pier iel ei ete selovietre Daniel B. Lloyd

EnilosophicalmSoctefyaol Washington sane sere ceite cece eae ede ein Bradley F. Bennett

ClremicalmSocietyofmWashing fom sees ysas econ ten eon eee rpeyeeielayseauce ae Alfred Weissler

EntomologicalpSociety, ob aWashingtoniyy-eepeerer ae ccineerieee ln lem oee ase cre - William E. Bickley

Delegates continue in office until new selections are made by the respective societies.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973 ~ 1

FEATURES

Technology and Our Standard of

Living

Fred Schulman

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, Washington, D.C. 20546

ABSTRACT

A general picture is given of the dynamic position of research and technology in

the complex ebb and flow of this country’s economic health which supports our high

standard of living. It is the power from nuclear energy which almost alone can sustain

the American standard of living for the foreseeable future under conditions as they

are emerging here and abroad. The precarious nature of our present energy resources

makes it important that the current downward trend in real national investment in research

and technology be reversed.

I am delighted to be here this evening

to give you my impressions of how

technology affects our lives and our stan-

dard of living. Since this is a very com-

plex and provoking subject, obviously,

there will be many differing thoughts on

the subject, and I hope to give you in

the next few minutes a point of view

which perhaps may not be often

expressed. I will therefore say at the

beginning of my talk that the opinions

I will express are my own personal opin-

ions and not those of either the Atomic

Energy Commission or the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration.

At the outset, let me say that we are

now in the midst of a revolution, fully

as far reaching in our daily lives as was

the great American Political Revolution

of the 18th Century and the Industrial

Revolution of the 19th Century. This 20th

1Presented at ajoint meeting of the [EEE Nuclear

Sciences Group and the Washington Academy of

Sciences, Cosmos Club, Washington, D.C.

January 18, 1973

Century revolution is the Scientific

Revolution. Because we are in the midst

of this revolution, we are not often able

to see where it is taking us, but that it

is enriching our lives as well as posing

problems common to all revolutions,

such as rapid change, is obvious. Com-

peting for primacy and threatening to sup-

plant it are the subdivisions now gaining

attention such as the energy revolution

and the social revolution, with the out-

come still in doubt. The warriors in this

revolution are you and I. It is often said

that more than three-fourths of all the

scientists who have lived since creation

are still alive today. Therefore, it is not

surprising that the products which

account for about one-half of the profits

of many large companies such as duPont,

did not even exist as recently as twenty

years ago. The result of all this activity

and research is a national growth rate and

GNP far above the average of that

obtained earlier in this century as I shall

show.

What has all this to do with the stan-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

dard of living? We see around us growing

unemployment, particularly of highly

mained technical people at

unprecedented levels for this country.

We see an energy crisis growing with

shortages already evident, with cost of

fuels for home and industry rising at such

a high rate that the U.S. economy, which

is based on the wasteful use of abundant

cheap energy, is becoming threatened.

How long do you think that prices of oil

can continue to rise 16% in three years,

or coal 40%, or natural gas 300% in three

years, as reported by the American

Chemical Society without shutting down

considerable portions of our industry.

What do the lessons of history tell us?

First, you may be surprised that this is

really not the first time there has been

such high levels of technology unem-

ployment. Let me go back for a moment

to the Renaissance of the early 15th Cen-

tury. The highest standard of living and

highest degree of culture was attained by

the Italian city-states, Florence, Venice,

Genoa, etc. The Italians living in this

area were really the “‘spacemen’”’ of that

day, if we define space technology as the

highest technology of the period. This

was due to the leading activities of the

Renaissance Italians in shipbuilding,

instrumentation, navigation, astronomy,

mathematics, etc. This advanced

technology was required because they

carried on a very lucrative trade with the

East, which in turn sustained their

advanced culture. In 1453, when the

Turks captured Constantinople and

thereby cut the trade routes, there was

no longer any need for employment of

the Renaissance ‘“‘spacemen.’’ Within a

generation or two, the unemployed

““spacemen’’ had been dispersed to the

undeveloped countries of the time, such

as England, France, and Spain, with the

results that we all enjoy today. And, as

you know, the city-states of Italy disap-

peared from the leadership of history.

The United States was and may still

be the leading technological society of

our day. It still enjoys the highest per

capita standard of living in the world.

Cheap energy does most of our work and

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

sustains our transportation system. Our

rate of technology investment has con-

tinuously increased during this century

until 1965, when for the first time the rate

of investment in research and develop-

ment began to decline and is still declin-

ing. We sometimes forget that there is

a definite relationship between standard

of living and productive investment.

Thus, Professor Edward Shapiro of the

University of Detroit has written that

without technological innovation, invest-

ment will languish and without the neces-

sary rate of investment, the private enter-

prise economy will stagnate. According

to the United Nations, the five countries

with the highest per capital GNP in 1970

were the United States, Kuwait, Sweden,

Canada, and Switzerland, with per capita

incomes ranging from $3,670 in the

United States to $2,310 in Switzerland.

All of these countries have enjoyed con-

siderable research and development with

the exception of Kuwait which does,

however, enjoy a fantastic oil income and

investment. It might be interesting to

note that Kuwait consumes even more

energy per capita then does the U.S., its

consumption amounting to 11,905 kg coal

equivalent per capita to 10,331 kg for the

U.S. The countries with the lowest per

capita national product are Burundi,

Somalia, Upper Volta, and Ethiopia with

per capita GNP of only $50 to $60 per

year. I needn’t mention, I think, that

none of these countries has much

technology. Recently, Prof. David

White, of MIT in a speech in New York

in the ASME Forum on the Energy

Crisis, indicated that this trend is contin-

uing.

It is interesting to note that since 1910

the population of this country has

increased 122%, while the real gross

national product has increased 600% so

that living standards have risen steadily

despite the huge increase in population.

The per capita income during this period

rose from approximately $1200 to $3500

per year. But, and this is the important

point, we are currently on a plateau, and

there is no real growth in per capita

national product. If there is no growth

in the national product per person, how

are we going to pay for better schools

and better health and social needs? How

are we going to provide the energy

needed to make the U.S. comfortable and

productive from fast-dwindling cheap

sources without a high order of new

technology? Since we are traveling

together through the present, and don’t

yet have the benefit of hindsight, it is

difficult to say with certainty whether the

decline in technology investment in the

United States which commenced in 1965

was really the start of most of the prob-

lems facing us today. Since the United

States enjoys high wages, it obviously

requires jobs which can produce suf-

ficient real wealth to support those

wages. Furthermore, new industries

must be created to absorb the approx-

imately one million new workers who

enter the labor force each year.

How can we do this without discover-

ing new products and processes which

are the direct result of research and

development? How will nuclear breeders

and fusion or solar energy progress from

promise to fact? I frankly feel the answer

is more research and development, not

less. [ will return in a moment to nuclear

energy and the energy crisis. But now

let me pursue the relationship of

technology with more direct everyday

concerns of living standards. The dollar

is under severe pressure from abroad.

Inflation is very difficult to reduce.

Advanced technology can help to solve

both these problems. Let us see how

technology relates to the strength of the

dollar. Since 1964, net exports of U.S.

goods and services have fallen from a sur-

plus of $8.5 billion to the first deficit of

the century last year. Furthermore, the

largest American exports, except for

food, have been the high technology pro-

ducts of research and development such

as electronic and aerospace products,

chemicals and drugs and machinery. If

our know-how in this area becomes

further eroded, you probably can expect

to see a further weakening in our export

position and, hence, a continual erosion

in the international value of our currency.

Thus the Smithsonian currency agree-

ments, reached after last years devalua-

tion of the dollar, are already under great

pressure and the price of gold in dollars

has risen to more than $60 from $40 in

only one year making further erosion in

the value of the dollar quite likely. It is

significant, I think, that, in 1970 the per-

centage of goods manufactured abroad

reached the unprecedented percentage of

56% of imports and last year this trend

continued, reaching 67.6%, or more than

two thirds of all imports into the U-S.

In other words, it is becoming cheaper

to produce most products abroad and

import them to the United States than

to manufacture them here. Were it not

for new atomic energy and aerospace pro-

ducts, this state of affairs would be even

worse. This tendency can be reduced by

the discovery of new products with high

technology content. In fact, continuity of

discovery is probably a new requirement

for U.S. economic health, since modern

communications and faster transfer of

technology abroad has reduced the

economic advantage to the innovator

nation to about only 7-10 years as com-

pared to an average of more than thirty

years before World War II. The Presi-

dent has recognized the importance of

technology in these areas. In addition to

numerous moves to strengthen U.S.

technology, he has set up a special task

force to look at technology opportunities

aimed at the effective employment of the

vast technical and scientific talent which

are unused today. Let me give you just

a brief background for this. Federal

expenditures for R&D in the Physical

Sciences rose from $600M in 1960 to

$1,705M in 1965 and has since declined

to $1,131M in 1968. Similarly, R&D in

the Engineering Sciences increased from

$690M to $1,576M, and then has declined

slightly over the same period. During

those same years, the level of research

performed by industry rose nearly 40%

from 1960 to 1965, and then increased

by less than 20% to 1968. The rate of

industrial research is still declining. This

is the situation which confronts the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

country, and the threat to our living stan-

dards should be clearly recognized.

It is interesting to review the period

of high technology investment spurred by

the space program during the years 1960

to 1965 with the periods immediately pre-

ceding and following this period. During

the decade 1950 to 1960 the per capita

GNP grew very slowly. It was almost

flat, rising from about $2500 to $2700,

while from 1960 through 1966 it grew from

$2700 to more than $3400. If it were able

to continue at that rate, the per capita

GNP would have reached more than

$4,000 today. This would have produced

a real increase in GNP of more than $100

billion. Think what this extra $100 billion

could do to meet the needs of the nation.

Since federal income is approximately

18.6% of GNP, there would have been

an extra $18.6 billion available to meet

pressing housing and other social needs

even without raising taxes. It is also

important, I think, to recognize that the

current budget for the federal govern-

ment already includes more than $60 bil-

lion for income security and $25 billion

for health and education. I think it is obvi-

ous that the elimination of the federal

investment in space technology amount-

ing to about $3 billion would hardly have

a significant effect in providing additional

1970 LoS) 1980 1985

Total Domestic Energy Consumption 67,827 83,481 102,581 124,942

Total Projected Domestic Supply

Oil 21,048 22,789 24,323 23,405

Gas 22,388 20,430 18,030 14,960

Coal 13,062 15,554 18,284 21,388

Hydropower 2,07) 2,840 3,033 3), Jka}

Nuclear 240 3,340 9,490 21,500

Geothermal 7 120 343 514

Synthetic Oil = = = 197

Synthetic Gas = 380 570 940

Total Domestic Supply 59,422 65,453 74,073 86,022

Shortage Indicated 8,405 18,028 28,508 38,920

Projected Imports and Other

Means for Supplying Fuels

to Make Up for Shortage

Imported Oil 7,455 15,284 22,163 29,997

Imported Gas 950 1,610 3,880 6,280

Additional Coal Production - 756 1,643 1,762

Additional Residual Fuel Imports -_ mes 7/8 822 881

Total 8,405 18,028 28,508 38,920

(1)

Nov. 1971

U.S. Energy Outlook Volume Two - National Petroleum Council

Fig. 1.—Total future U.S. energy requirements. Units intrillion BTU.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

money for these other programs, but it

could have a devastating effect if reduc-

tions in space technology are continued

and are followed by similar reductions

in other technology areas such as phar-

maceutical, chemical, nuclear and elec-

tronic research, as I have already out-

lined.

Up to this point in this talk I have given

a general picture of the dynamic position

of research and technology in the com-

plex ebb and flow of this country’s

economic health which supports our high

standard of living and I have given some

examples of the space program in this

picture. Now let me turn to the specific

effects of atomic energy.

It really is fortunate that decades ago

a few farsighted individuals laid the

foundations for what is now the atomic

power industry. It is the power from nu-

clear energy which almost alone can sus-

tain the American standard of living for

the forseeable future under conditions as

they are emerging both here and abroad.

It is important to realize that total energy

consumptions increased by 50% in the

decade 1960-70 (from 44.6 to 67.8 qua-

drillion BTUs). Total future U.S. energy

requirements have been estimated by the

National Petroleum Council as 83.5 x

10'° BTU in 1975, growing at 4.2% per

eee ti) WAS s< OH IBIMU! im ISIS, lars

is shown in fig. 1.

The energy crisis may perhaps be put

in perspective by the following findings

made by the 1971 report to the Secretary

of Interior by his advisory National Pe-

troleum Council: These are tabulated as

fig. 2

1. NPC estimates U.S. energy con-

sumption growth at 4.2% annually during

1971-85 with electric utility consumption

rising at 6.7% per year. This is roughly

4 to 7 times the population growth

estimated by the Bureau of the Census.

2. Oil imports will rise to 57% of oil

consumption and 25% of total energy use

in 1985.

3. Natural gas imports which now

amount to 4% of gas supplies will rise

to more than 28% in 1985.

4. Coal production will rise to 1,071

20,000

10,000

5,000

MUGLER

2,000 ==

1,000

5 500 Coal

Gas

s Z =

0) L=—

S 200g—=—-

100 7 ~— FORECAST OF GENERATION

ld ,

Oxil 7 OF

50 /— ELECTRICITY IN U. S. A.

/ BY

a i TYPES OF FUEL

i Billion (102) Kilowatthours

iO 1 |

O65) 7470) 7/5) 18 0 SSL OELO 5m O

Fig. 2.—Summary of the report of the Secretary

of Interior’s advisory National Petroleum Council.

million tons in 1985 from 590 million

tons in 1970 if SOz can be commercial-

ly controlled.

5. Nuclear power will rise from 23 bil-

lion kwhr in 1970 to 2,068 billion kwhr

in 1985 or about 48% of electricity supply.

6. Energy sources other than oil, gas,

coal and nuclear will not exceed 3% of

need by 1985.

7. Huge capital costs of about $375 bil-

lion will be necessary in the period 1971-85

to make available the above energy

resources. Remember that this estimate

compares with only 67.8 x 10'° BTU con-

sumed in 1970. But in 1975 the U.S. will

be able to supply only 65.5 x 10’° BTU

and only 86.0 x 10!° BTU in 1985 leaving

deficits of 18 and 39 x 101° BTU, respec-

tively. During this period nuclear power

grows from 0.2 to 21.5 x 101° BTU, which

is a growth rate of 100 times the 1970

output.

By the end of the century, nuclear

power is expected to provide about 50%

of the nations’ needs for energy. But

there is a note of caution that I must

introduce here. Delays have developed

in the nuclear power field for a variety

of technical, mechanical, environmental

and regulatory reasons which together

have resulted both in a shortage of cur-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

barrels of oil per day to the U.S. even

if we could pay for it. Of course huge

new seaports and terminals would have

to be built to accommodate these ships

in an ecologically satisfactory manner.

We also would need to build new oil refin-

ing capacity at 2% times the rate of the

last decade if we are to reach the 10 mil-

lion barrels new capacity required in 1985

and we are already behind schedule. Such

delays will probably result in gasoline

shortages which will reach the man in

the street in the form of higher gasoline

prices, restrictions on use, or both.

Trillion Trillion

eTu BTU

(eTuI0'?) (BTU 10'2)

130000 TOTAL 130000

OEMAND TetAMaL

S Bill KWH)

00° NUCLEAR 120000

“(2067

* pin

110000 KWH) 110000

(316

Bill KWH)

100000 100000

90000 90000

GEO -

THERMAL

80000 80000

NUCLEAR 4 (O.9TCF)

(23 :

Bill KWH) GAS (6.1 TCF)

IMPORTS 70000

(SYNE 60000

CRUDE

FROM

SHALE

0.1 MM

= $0000

— 40000

30000

20000

—— 10000

fo)

Fig. 4.—Proved U.S. fuel reserves.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

rently available energy and in a projected

need to import the deficit at a significant

cost to the country. For example, only

25% of the 1972 projected nuclear plants

are in service today. The others are in

various stages of approval, construction

or check-out. The shortfall is significant

when one realizes that to make up the

expected 1975 and 1985 deficits, the U.S.

will have to import from overseas nearly

40% of its oil in 1975 and more than half

its oil in 1985 and will import nearly 30%

of its gas requirements by 1985. These

supply sources are shown graphically in

fig. 2 and fig. 3. As you know the

U.S.S.R. has recently offered to deliver

2 billion cu. ft/day to the east coast of

the U.S. Soviet gas reserves have been

estimated by academician V.S.

Emelyanov as 1,860 billion cu m. An

investment amounting to billions of dol-

lars will be needed to produce and ship

this gas.

Nuclear plant delays have an

immediate cost impact to the consumers

affected. For example, the Wisconsin

Public Service Commission was recently

requested to approve a 5.7% rate increase

to compensate the utility for increased

U30g Breeder Reactors >

Heating Value 1018 sru

iS)

Fig. 3.—Forecast of generation of electricity in

the U.S. by types of fuel.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

electric energy costs due to one to two

years delay in approval and construction

of two nuclear power plants, and the

three-year delay in availability of Indian

Point-2 is increasing costs to a similar,

equivalent, rate increase.

Obviously, nuclear technology is an

important, though often misunderstood,

factor in both the near-term and long-

term solution to energy, unemployment

and balance of trade problems. First; by

selling nuclear fuel services and reactors

abroad, it is contributing to strengthening

the value of the dollar by reducing the

balance of payments deficit. Second: by

providing electrical and process energy,

it is reducing the need for foreign oil, with

all the attendant political, diplomatic and

financial strains which such reliance

implies. Third; by helping to maintain an

adequate supply to energy in this

country, brownouts, black-outs and shut-

down of industry can be avoided.

Mr. Gerard C. Gambs, Vice-President

of the management engineering firm o

Ford, Bacon, David Inc. of New York

has estimated that a delay of only 10,000

MWe requires the importation of

100,000,000 barrels of oil per year. Since,

Mr. Gambs does not believe it feasible

to import the huge amounts of oil and

gas that may be needed, he forsees a ces-

sation of industrial plant expansion and

rationing of fuels. The difficulty of

importing such fuels can be seen from

the President’s Economic Report of

January 1972, in which a balance of pay-

ments deficit of $23.4 billions was

recorded for 1971. Fuel imports can eas-

ily double this deficit before 1985 as

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Com-

merce Stanley Nehmer said recently at

an international conference and I’m sure

economists will surely propose measures

to prevent this from happening. Such

measures are bound to have considerable

effect on the lives of all of us. For

example, in order to provide the energy

expected to be used in this country in

1985, just twelve years away, at least 350

huge supertankers of a quarter million

dead weight tons would have to be built

during 1971-85 to carry the 14.8 million

Furthermore we would need to build 120

Liquid-Natural-Gas-Tankers of 790,000

barrels capacity in the period 1971-85 to

haul the 4 billion cu. ft./day of liquified na-

tural gas that must be imported in 1985 to

supplement dwindling domestic sup-

plies. Large liquefaction storage and

gasification plants will obviously be

needed to handle this large amount of

liquified natural gas.

How can technology help? I have

already described in general terms, the

relationships of research and develop-

ment activity to the general well being.

In the nuclear technology area, efficiency

in energy use and generation from fission

reactors can assist in the immediate years

ahead. Beyond this, there is the prospect

of breeder reactors multiplying nuclear

fuel reserves at reasonable prices (S $15/

lb. Us Os) by more than a factor of 100

(to 33.6Q) as seen in fig. 4. Note that Mr.

— CONVERSION

80j— FACTORS

i CRUDE OIL

}io BBLS N.AT. GASOLINE —

10°KWH (THERMAL) —

[Oz=nONSACOn

20+}10° CORDS woop eso 3—

107

QUADRILLIONS (10!) BTU'S AND POPULATION x10 7

Gambs raises this estimate to more than

45Q. For comparison 1Q is equivalent

to 173 billion barrels of oil or 970 billion

cubic feet of natural gas. Geothermal and

solar sources can contribute large

amounts of energy if the needed

technology is created. There is also the

prospect of doubling available natural gas

reserves by controlled nuclear explosions

in tight gas formations when the

technology finds both technical and pub-

lic acceptance as suggested by Prof.

Edward Teller of the University of

California. Finally in the long term, there

is the prospect of nuclear fusion with

almost limitless energy possibilities, ifthe

scientific and engineering problems can

be solved. The AEC fusion research

program has been making good progress

in recent years and a five-phase program

leading to a demonstration fusion reactor

power plant of from 500 to 2,000 Mwt

a eae

ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION

OF THE U.S.A

aes

al ea

NUCLEAR

/ POWER

eo /70 ‘eo

'30 40 ‘50 ‘90 2cC0

PROJECTION AT

3% AVG. TOTAL

ENERGY

Fig. 5.—U.S. energy consumption by fuels since 1850.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

continuous output in the year 2000 has

been outlined by the Office of Science

and Technology. The U.S. Social goal

of a continuing rise in the standard of

living for more and more of its citizens,

including winning the war on poverty,

will require an increase in the per capita

consumption of energy and so will

attempts to improve the quality of life

through environmental control. It has

been estimated that these goals alone can

add 66% to the current per capita energy

consumption (Chase National Bank).

Fig. 5 shows the historical use and

sources of energy in the U.S. since 1850

and projects future energy needs for the

American standard of living. The precari-

ous nature of our energy resources is

clearly indicated. Note the role projected

for nuclear energy. With confidence in

the future and hope that the current

environmental, technical and economic

problems can be solved. American

utilities in 1972 ordered a record 39 nu-

clear electric generating power plants

totalling 42,000 megawatts. If we are

to do all things I mentioned to provide the

technology for future energy sources and

thus help to provide a decent standard

of living in the future, it is important that

the current downward trend in real

national investment in research and

technology be reversed. Fortunately,

there are signs that this indeed will occur.

The data I have used in this talk are

derived from the President’s Economic

Reports of 1971 and 1972, Statistical

Abstracts of the United States for 1970

and 1972, and from material presented

at the Federal Executive Institute and

ASME forum on the Energy Crisis, Nov.

1972 and other sources. In summary, I

have touched on only a few of the high-

lights of the many inter-relations between

technology and our standard of living. I

think you see that they not only are

quite complex, but also that it is impor-

tant for each of us to try to understand

them as best we can so that as informed

citizens, we can participate in the drama

of the scientific revolution and help make

it socially rewarding by reaching the goals

desired by all of us.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

Institutional Stability and Innovation

in Higher Education’

Walter E. Boek

President, National Graduate University, Washington, D.C.

ABSTRACT

Starting with the essence of greatness in a university, i.e. the quality of relationships

among teacher-knowledge-student and environment, some antecedents of the modern

university model are presented. Mentioned are early influences from preliterate,

Sumerian, Greek, Athenian, and Roman societies as well as religions such as Judaism,

Christianity and Mohammedanism. Also discussed is the transference of European prac-

tices to American such as the right of a university to govern itself and to organize

into faculties. Models are cited such as the Academy of Plato, monastery colleges,

guild universities, the American college quadrangle, the University of Virginia plan,

land grant colleges, ‘‘the great universities,’’ and National Graduate University.

The substance of a university is actu-

ally quite simple. It amounts to a teacher

and a student in an appropriate scholarly

atmosphere where knowledge can be fos-

tered and transferred from one to the

other, the greatness of a university being

dependent on the type and quality of the

relationship among these: teacher-

knowledge-student-environment.

In this paper, I will give 1) a brief

accounting of some antecedents of our

modern university model; 2) a diagram-

matic, somewhat historical, presenta-

tion of relationships among determinant

variables, and 3) some strengths and

weaknesses in a few current innovations

in the model including what is being done

at National Graduate University

Antecedents

It is a unique characteristic of humans

that from the nearly two million years

since the key mutations occurred permitt-

ing separation from other animals, adjust-

ments to environmental variations have

largely been in the cultural sphere rather

than the genetic one. Thus, when an

understanding of institutions of higher

education, a most significant invention,

it sought, it is important to be cognizant

of their social evolution.

1After-dinner presentation at the June 20, 1972

meeting of the Washington Academy of Sciences.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

Formal education is not the invention

of literate societies, for organized training

of youth, with graduation ceremonies or

“‘rites of passage’? which give personal

recognition of standards met and a public

announcement of their changed role as

a result of the training, were common in

preliterate societies. Hence, such influ-

ences, along with those of the Sumerian

schools with their clay practice tablets,

undoubtedly were present when the

Greeks began to develop their methods.

And it is in such cultures that foundations

were laid for education as we know it

today in the Western world.

Citizenship and rule in the Greek city

state were dependent upon two things

—you had to come from the right family

and you had to be properly educated in

political, military and religious thinking.

Early in Athens a schooling schedule had

een developed whereby the boy from

to 16 went to a private teacher known

as a grammatist to learn writing, reading,

and counting, to a citharist for music and

to a palestra for physical education.

Teaching was by rote, witha slave known

as a pedagog employed to drill the stu-

dents on their lessons. The state super-

vised the education, and if a father did

not pay for his son’s schooling, the son

was excused from having to support him

in old age.

From 16 to 18, the Athenian youth was

in a state gymnasium, learning the laws,

religious rites, dances, songs, and physi-

cal fitness exercises. At 18, the father

presented his son as a candidate for

citizenship, his long hair was cut and he

pledged to ‘‘transmit my fatherland, not

only not less, but greater and better, than

it was transmitted to me...’ At 20 he

became a citizen-elect, or ephebus, and

trained to be a soldier, with an examina-

tion at the end of his next year. From

21 to 22 he was a soldier on the frontier,

after which he took another examination.

Later in Greece this pattern changed

to having the years 16 through 20 devoted

to much more intellectual pursuits,

although still oriented to political affairs,

with the Sophists as teachers, following

their dictum, ‘‘man is the measure of all

things.’’ By 350 B.C. Greek school

education had been differentiated into the

three divisions so familiar to us today:

primary education with a grammatist

from age 7 or 8 to 13, who taught reading,

writing, arithmetic and chanting; secon-

dary education from 13 to 16 with

geometry, drawing, and music, again

with a grammatist; and higher or univer-

sity education for those beyond 16.

Critical in this Greek educational

scheme were Socrates, with his interest

in developing not only knowledge of par-

ticular facts, but also a right judgment,

or sophia, as to what is true and good;

Plato who formed an Academy in 386

B.C., which was a union of teachers and

students, both men and women, who pos-

sessed in common a chapel, library, lec-

ture and living rooms, where philosophy,

math and science were of concern; and

Aristotle who taught in the Lyceum in

355 B.C.

After Greece was taken over by Philip

of Macedonia and his son, Alexander,

and later annexed by Rome, the Athens

Assembly was allowed to continue in

operation. It created professorships

under its supervision in what came to be

known as the University of Athens which

functioned for about 400 years until

closed by the Roman Christian Emperor

in 529 A.D. During this time also, the

University of Alexandria developed a li-

brary, with perhaps as many as 700,000

manuscripts, along with a museum or

Temple to the nine muses where men of

letters carried on investigations sup-

ported by the royalty. In this manner was

Greek science, literature and philosophy

preserved for 10 centuries.

In spite of destruction of this library

and conquest of Greece, the Romans did

not annihilate either the Greek intel-

lectual or his educational system.

Instead, Greek teachers flowed into Italy

where they first taught in Greek until

finally changing to Latin in primary and

secondary schools and schools of

rhetoric. From these, students went east

to Greek universities such as Athens and

Rhodes. By 70 A.D., they could also

attend the University of Rome which

seemed to have been established by the

Emperor Vespasiano in the Temple of

Peace. At the same time Greek and

Roman systems flourished, the Hebrews

had scribes or scripture scholars who

taught the law. In 64 A.D., Joshua ben

Gamalo ordered establishment of an

elementary school in each village.

As it gained acceptance, Christianity

initially concentrated on laws and psalm-

ody of the church. Monasteries starting

about 330 A.D. produced a religious

scholasticism with rules such as those of

Benedict who required eight hours of

labor and two hours of reading each day.

A novice had this status from 12 to 18.

Later during the dark ages, monastaries

preserved learning of the past that was

compatible with Christian ideology.

Thus up to this time, literature and

philosophy were contributed to the

educational system primarily by the

Greeks, administration and the law by

the Romans, moral responsibility by the

Hebrews, and a distribution system by

the ubiquitous Christians.

By the eighth century, in Northern

England, the Cathedral of York had a

large library containing most of the Latin

authors and textbooks then extant. When

Alcium, a student from York, joined

Charlemagne’s court, Charlemagne in

787 issued a proclamation in which he

encouraged establishment of schools as

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

well as education in the thinking of the

church.

In Europe between the ninth and the

sixteenth centuries until the end of the

age of chivalry, education for a

privileged boy was up to the age of 7

or 8 at home, from 7 to 14 serving as

a page to a lady while learning to read

and write, from 14 to 21 as a squire or

personal servant of the lord, and at 20

perhaps becoming a knight after swearing

an oath to defend the church. By 1150

the church exercised central supervision

of the training of all teachers in the dio-

cese through issuance of licenses to

teach. The seven liberal arts of the Mid-

dle Ages became grammar, rhetoric,

dialectic (logic), arithmetic, geometry,

astronomy and music, which emerged as

another persistent influence on educa-

tional developments.

The Mohammedans had also

developed a center of learning at

Baghdad. Learned Greeks and Jews

taught in their schools, and they had a

university with a library and an obser-

vatory. The Eastern learning of Greece

and the Mohammedans was carried to

Spain through the many universities

found there by the Arabians.

In the 13th century, the guild system

was adopted in north central Europe by

teachers and students who received char-

ters from the Pope or kings granting them

special privileges. One was that of Cas-

satio, or the right to stop lectures and

go on a strike as a means of enforcing

a redress of grievances against either

town or church authority. Through this

came into being the rights of a university

to govern itself, to defend itself against

encroachment of its freedom to teach and

study, to discipline members of its guild,

to examine, and to grant the license to

teach.

These universities were primarily

places for apprentices in the arts to be

developed into journeymen and masters

who were certified after a public presen-

tation and test which served as their rite

of passage. Masters were organized into

faculties by the teaching subjects of arts,

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

law, medicine and theology. With the

invention of paper brought to Europe by

the Arabs and the printing of the first

book in 1456 by the Germans, the use

of textbooks became possible, freeing

teaching from some of the rote learning

necessary before.

Moving now to Luther and Calvin, we

find that Luther admonished the towns,

once they were free of Rome, to spend

money for schools. In 1559 the German

state of Wurtemberg set up a state system

of schools, with elementary ones for both

boys and girls, followed by Latin schools,

and then by the colleges or universities

of the state. The Calvinists demanding

religious and civic education of all, had

their synods make appropriations for uni-

versities, with municipalities paying for

lower level education.

During the Counter Reformation,

Jesuits established colleges with dor-

mitories, classrooms, dining halls and

playgrounds, and at one time, apparently,

had 200,000 students in them.

Coming out of this middle European

background, the pilgrims in America

required towns to have grammar schools

to perpetuate their religion. In 1636 the

General Court of the Massachusetts Bay

Company founded Harvard College to

produce an educated ministry. In this

new institution, medieval theological

instruction was combined with the arts

under the sole teaching of President Mas-

ter Dunster for the first fifty years.

In contrast to New England, adherents

of the National Church who came to Vir-

ginia felt that education was no business

of the state. Later, in 1819 a significant

decision made by the Supreme Court pre-

served the sanctity and independence of

the university by deciding that Dar-

tmouth’s Charter was a contract and that

a legislature could not infringe on it by

making that college into a state

institution.

With this historical sketch as back-

ground, I turn to the _ teacher-

knowledge-student-environment equa-

tion and proceed with a diagrammatic

analysis.

Fig. ~1.—Teacher-Knowledge-Student Re-

lationships

Relationships Among Determinant Variables

The story-teller who reiterates the his-

tory of the tribe and its moral fiber to

the youth is illustrated by (fig. 1) as would

be Socrates and his students.

As teaching aids were developed which

enhanced learning and instruction, a

slightly more complicated situation

existed with the teacher and his tools and

the student with his. The wampum belt

of the Iroquois Indians is an example of

a teaching aid. The Onondaga historian-

keeper of the belt taught a youth in his

family the historical and political signifi-

cance of designs on it. This ensured per-

petuation of individual tribal traditions

along with the history and rules of the

League of the Iroquois, which was an

effective United Nations organization in

a preliterate society lasting more than 400

years.

This straight-forward, teacher-student

relationship as an educational model

varied as larger groups of youth were

Lecture de = K < S Living

Fig. 2.—The Academy of Plato

trained in many societies, including

Greece, by separating them from their

families and housing them together. It

was with Plato’s Academy that the model

began to take a more modern shape, as

in fig. 2, in that the chapel, library, lecture

rooms and living rooms were clustered

together. The attractant was knowledge

which brought students to the teacher;

the focus of knowledge centered around

religion, which in turn helped to preserve

fundamental human experience in reg-

ulating relationships to the environment

and to other people.

A further elaboration of this was

the monastic colleges, in which walls

were built as diagramed in fig. 3.

Required here was the senior friar as the

administrator, but he still taught, and

teachers and students were not unduly

separated. Again, center of attention was

on knowledge, especially its use to reach

God.

The European guild universities were

similar in that their members, teachers

and students segregated themselves from

the townspeople, obtaining special rights

and privileges still reserved today in our

educational institutions. To a consider-

able extent, this separation is necessary,

of course, because the townspeople or

non-academics are concerned with day-

to-day affairs of acquiring a livelihood

Fig. 3.—Monastic Colleges

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

while the scholar has to be interested in

the past, present and future. However,

the scholar’s livelihood must also come

from somewhere. Contributions or fees

directly from students has seldom been

adequate. For this reason, patrons in the

form of wealthy individuals, the religious

entity, rulers, or the government have

supplied the means by which teachers

and students could have the time to bring

together, store and use knowledge to pro-

duce more knowledge. For their part,

monks attempted to be self sufficient

through agricultural and craft production.

To some extent the European univer-

sities did have a role beyond their walls

due to their responsibilities for training

teachers for the lower schools. Their

independence of teaching and action,

however, was restricted by their neces-

sity to have a positive attitude toward

the state or church or both. When Ger-

man philosophy came to proclaim its fa-

mous doctrine of Academic Freedom,

Lernfreiheit and Lehrfreiheit, for

example, it imposed upon itself the fol-

lowing ground rules:

“It is necessary to place one restriction, if

not upon the thinker, at least upon the

teacher appointed by the State and supported

by the public funds: he must assume a posi-

tive attitude toward the State.’’?

While the focus was on knowledge and

the student, as depicted in fig. 4, the guild

as did the monastery tended to encourage

the seeking of solutions to problems by

sitting around discoursing rather than

bothering to look at the phenomenon

itself.

Oxford was one of the guild univer-

sities which went through a critical period

in 1408 and 1410 when students and

young masters rose, defied Archbishop

Arundel, forced their own chancellor to

resign, and actually fortified the campus.

In this fashion ended the intellectual his-

tory of medieval Oxford.

During the 15th century, universities

began to lose their independence. After

*Friedrick Paulsen. The German Universities

and University Study. Hildefheim, Germany.

Olms. Reprinted 1966. (First Printing 1902 in Berlin

by A. Asher and Company).

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

Fig. 4.—The Guild Universities

1629, Bishop Laud enriched Oxford with

benefactions, adorned it with buildings

and at the same time assumed that it

would be an institution of orthodoxy;

decorous, disciplined and correct. To

insure this, he required a detailed weekly

report of discipline and doctrine.?

With the initiation in America of Har-

vard, William and Mary, and other col-

leges, European patterns were followed,

eventuating in a number of buildings

placed around the familiar quadrangle

(fig. 5). Studies stemmed from the Greek

and Latin works and the seven liberal

arts of the Middle Ages (again grammar,

rhetoric, philosophy, mathematics,

geometry, astronomy, and religion).

Separate faculties were also established

as colleges within the universities.

Visionary Thomas Jefferson varied

this somewhat in his blue-print for the

University of Virginia. His early design

(fig. 6) called for students to be domiciled

near their teachers, with rules of behavior

set by the university. The significant

change was that in educating for the new

nation, Jefferson went beyond the clas-

sics because he wanted students to study

such subjects as agriculture as well as

3In his A Brief History of Education, Ellwood

P. Cubberley summarized much of the literature

on early educational developments (New York.

Houghton Mifflin Co. 1922. Pp. 4-62 plus index).

Headmaster

President

See

v NT

Fig. 5.—American University Quadrangle

Latin. The relation between the commu-

nity of scholars and society was a simple

one for him: the autonomous academic

community would be a leader in an open-

ended decentralized democracy. At the

University of Virginia there was to be

no taking of attendance and no grading.

Moreover, Jefferson believed that a man

was not qualified as a professor knowing

nothing but his own profession; rather

he should be well-educated in the sci-

ences generally. To have a community

of faculty, he felt it was necessary to have

teachers not entrenched in their private

thoughts and specialist ambitions. He

conceived of professionals talking to one

another. His was to be a general univer-

sity, like Bologna or Padua, in being pro-

fessionally oriented, where a youth

would say, ““Show me how,”’ and find

a teacher who would show him, and also

be like Paris or Oxford in its notion of

a unitary faculty where a_ thinker

professed a truth he knew and a fas-

cinated youth latched onto him to ask,

“‘what”’ and “‘why”’

Perhaps the most far-reaching altera-

tion in character of higher education

came with the land grant colleges set up

over 100 years ago. Designed to serve

the rural nation, their teachers, scholars

and students devoted themselves to the

study of farming from the viewpoint of

agronomy, plant science, engineering,

animal husbandry and social relations.

The interest of agriculture, industry

and government in universities, which

has been fostered since then, has resulted

in quite a different model which began

to look like fig. 7. Knowledge per se

and students were no longer the only

interest of professors. Rather, instructors

had to be concerned about producing

knowledge that could be utilized by non-

ute

Student

Master

Family

Student

Fig. 6.—University of Virginia Concept

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

Ne ws

ee pee.

Fig. 7.—Land Grant College Influence

university members, and they extended

themselves eventually with the agricul-

ture and home economic agents they

trained.

The regents or board of trustees

became outside the once academic com-

munity. Actually, the original regents

were the teaching masters who ruled the

guilds. When separate faculties came into

being, regents became non-teachers who

still controlled the universities. After a

while, they were no longer within the

institutions, but still were in charge. At

present, we have state-wide boards who

govern multi-universities and who have

made substantive incursions into institu-

tional autonomy. Some have additionally

been given authority over private univer-

sities as well as those owned by the

government.

We now have reached a state where

fig. 8 may be the university model. The

student and teaching have become rela-

tively unimportant while relations with

industry and government represent the

goal for the college administrator and

faculty. Association with them furnish

prestige and money, while students are

shunted off on less important junior

faculty or apprentices. The signs on

doors of faculty “‘available by appoint-

ment only’’ during a few hours of the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

week are a clear indication of the disinter-

est in students. Teaching and learning

require personal relationships, and if pro-

fessors will not provide this, students will

create their own separate social system

for this purpose with their own stan-

dards.

The intense concentration of federal

funds—five billion dollars or more from

about 40 federal agencies going to 2,100

institutions—has tended to give a high

priority and influence to the training of

technicians and to the implementation of

knowledge that can serve the government

and society. Concerning this, Senator

Mark Hatfield has asked, ‘‘But in this

entire process, where do the priorities fall

—upon obtaining research grants, serv-

ing the federal government, and con-

tributing to the corporate economy or

upon really enriching the human lives of

the students at the university?’’

‘‘Having public relations outside the

university become more important than

having relations within the university? Is

our mistake that we have not realized that

the questions of values, the personal

dimension of the student’s life, and his

searchforidentity and self-expression will

inevitably be affected by the environment

of his college and university?”’

The late Paul Goodman, commenting

on the uniformity among our colleges,

noted that a great number have faculty

members who are creative and learned

and can teach what they want. Yet, he

asks, if anyone can name 10 out of the

3,000 that strongly stand for anything

peculiar to themselves—peculiarly wise,

radical or even peculiarly dangerous,

stupid or licentious. How can there be

so many self-governing communities, he

wonders, yet so much conformity to the

national norm?#

““Not only is one campus more and

more like the next, but increasing num-

bers of campuses are parts of larger

systems,’ wrote the nine authors of the

Report on Higher Education prepared

4Paul Goodman. Compulsory Mis-education and

The Community of Scholars. N.Y. Vintage Books,

9G 2eep sales

é |

ue ')

Affairs |

Industry

3 7

ae Ee

Fig. 8.—The Great Universities

for the Secretary of Health, Education,

and Welfare in March, 1971. As the only

institutions capable of expanding rapidly

enough to meet the postwar demand,

public multi-campus systems have grown

°>Frank Newman (Chairman) and others. Report

on Higher Education. March 1971. Washington,

D.C. Office of Education, United States Depart-

ment of Health, Education and Welfare, p. ix.

rapidly, until today they dominate higher

education. Without quite realizing it, the

states have built bureaucracies that

threaten the viability and autonomy of

the individual campus.°

During the last few years a number of

new models for higher education have

been advanced. One of these is the free

university organized primarily by stu-

dents and the younger teachers. Ina way,

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

it strives to create the Socrates-student

relationship wherein free discussion

reigns. It fails dismally because teachers

and students do not have enough knowl-

edge to exchange without adding to it and

refreshing it with laboratory research of

their own or others. It is well and good

to have soap box orations and discussions

in Picadilly or Union Square but boring

and unendurable for the scholar.

Another much-touted alteration is one

which eliminates the formal teacher. The

administration sets standards for the di-

ploma, devises examinations and awards

them with little direct contact with can-

didates. One would suspect that such an

administration could also decide the

proportion of the people in each popula-

tion segment who should have each

advanced degree and then give out that

number with little concern for academic

achievement.

The Skinnerian operant conditioning

model, if applied to higher education,

would have our colleges become teaching

machines. In it the learner would be

reduced to a primitive organism who

would produce a low-grade behavioral

response.

The free university, the administrative

university or the teaching machine uni-

versity, separately or in combinations are

dramatic reactions that have come about

to meet the external as well as internal

pressures of the politician, the govern-

ment official, the liberal educator, and

the unindoctrinated student. There are

also many other very academically and

socially healthy and productive educa-

tional innovations which receive far less

public attention like the joining together

of MIT and Harvard in the environmen-

tal science field or the adjustments being

made within colleges to make education

more valid in our time.

Pressures on the equilibrium of our uni-

versities are both internal and external.

The external ones—government,

industry, agriculture, labor and some

parts of education—now are asking for

1) training of more doers rather than

researchers to meet the shortage of well-

trained professionals who can act on the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

basis of research; 2) inclusion of non-

academic experience as part of the qual-

ifying requirements for graduation; 3) the

admission of heretofore unqualified stu-

dents and, furthermore, the graduation

of them; and 4) the conducting of

problem-oriented research.

Internally, there are three main

sources of pressure: First, students

demanding more relevance to the outside

world, more competence in their

teachers, and a better relationship both

in quantity and quality with them. (Some

of the “‘relevance’’ pressure comes from

individuals who do not understand that

registering in a university involves enter-

ing the subordinate student role to learn

what that institution offers. This became

a serious problem when the university’s

normal selection and rejection proce-

dures are interferred with.) Second,

administrators concerned with manage-

ment and budgets whose orientation thus

tends to be away from the teacher-

knowledge-student core of the univer-

sity. Some teachers have also accepted

this mentality, as illustrated by fig. 8 pre-

sented earlier. Third, the internal force

still emanating from the significant pro-

portion of faculty members who continu-

ally exert pressure to maintain the funda-

mental qualities of the true university

where knowledge can be pursued by both

faculty and students in a permissive

environment. If this were not so, higher

education would be in a tragic decline.

National Graduate University Model

The National Graduate University vi-

sion is one such attempt to assist students

in achieving satisfactory professional

status as scientists or practitioners in

education, administration, or the social

sphere. The teacher-knowledge-student

environment equasion is being

strengthened by gleaning from the past

and present those methods of learning

and teaching which characterize the real

university and then protecting them by

constructing a model that will work

today. In this task we are indebted to

hundreds of scholars who have con-

Fluid and Solid

Mechanics

Celestial

Mechanics

Theory of

Statistics

Science

Management

Mathematical

Analyses

Open Seminars for Teachers,

Ecology

Physical

Chemistry

Political Science

and Economics

Reaction

Kinetics

Thermodynamics

Philosophy of

Science

GENERAL PHASE

Students and Guests

Preliminary Design

Specialty

Education

Doctorate

Degree

Dissertation

Research

Advanced Phase

Fig. 9.—Environmental Science College Preliminary Design.

tributed their thinking to our curricula

development.

Just as the Greek, medieval and Euro-

pean guild universities were related to

issues of the day sc our Colleges are to

modern society. The first two, just get-

ting underway are Human Service and

Management, with Natural Resources

soon to follow. We also expect to have

Developmental Planning; Behavioral

Science, and Environmental Science col-

leges established before many years pass.

The plan within each college is to

insure that students have a broad founda-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

tion of knowledge through study ina

series of what Dr. Hatton S. Yoder, Jr.,

Waldo E. Smith, Dr. Richard A. Prindle

and others called “‘core areas of study.”

Later Drs. Raymond J. Seeger, Carl F.

Hawver, George W. Irving, Jr., and their

fellow curriculum-development commit-

tee members labeled these ‘‘general

phase fields,’’ as is indicated in fig. 9.

Upon satisfactory completion of these

general fields or core areas, the advanced

phase is entered, with concentrated

attention given to the more specific inter-

ests of students. For completion of the

doctorate degree, practical experience in

a research laboratory or human service

or management position, depending on

the College the student is enrolled in, is

requisite as is a dissertation.

Lecture courses are not given. We

agree with the philosophy that expound-

ing is not teaching. The teacher is to pro-

vide the model of scholarship, to stimulate

students in learning and to provide the

means by which it may be enhanced. Stu-

dents meet with the professor in small

groups, usually for a minimum of three

hours twice each week. A carefully pre-

pared syllabus with adequate references

is utilized to guide their reading between

sessions.

Since learning, which exceeds the

primary transfer of uncontested knowl-

edge, i.e., that with which the learner

already agrees, is greatly enhanced by

significant people in the learner’s world,

the instructor has two major respon-

sibilities: the first is to make himself one

of the significant people in the student’s

world and the second is to make the stu-

dents important to one another. For this,

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

he must have the type of ego that thrives

upon open discussion in which it is per-

missible for mature students to ask for

substantiation of generalizations and to

add results of reliable research they have

discovered. Rather than just being con-

cerned about his own status and role, the

instructor guides students in building

constructive relationships with one

another as an essential step in the learning

process.

The length of study for a student or

group of students is dependent upon

beginning competency, intensity of work

and progress. Academic credits for

courses are not given except for transfer

purposes. Examinations are the means

to determine whether or not the standards

have been met by students. Three people

are involved in the examination prepara-

tion and evaluation, which are on a pass-

or-fail basis. One of these is the instructor

and one is a person qualified in that field

from outside of the University. The third

is usually another faculty member.

We feel that this National Graduate

University model respects the extra-

university world at the same time it pre-

serves the integrity of the university. It

recognizes individual competencies and

interests, yet maintains high academic

standards. The maximum interaction

among students and faculty encourages

scholarly efforts and makes it possible

for teachers to impart values as well as

facts.

I appreciate this opportunity of being

able to offer these ideas here this evening

and invite your guidance and assistance

in our undertaking.

Poor access to Apanteles' species literature

through titles, abstracts and automatically

extracted species anmes as keywords?

Lee J. Shervis and R. D. Shenefelt?

Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin, Madison 53706

ABSTRACT

. A collection of 183 documents on 3 species of A panteles was examined for 1) frequency

of the species names in titles, 2) frequency of the species names in published abstracts,

and 3) variations in spelling of the species names in the original texts. These species

were mentioned in 0-3% of the titles and in 0-29% of 97 published abstracts, suggesting

the need for greater depth of analysis of the literature. Numerous variations in spelling

of the genus, species and author components of the species names were encountered

in the full texts, creating a special problem in the use of wholly automatic full text

processing and searching.

Titles and abstracts, no matter how

carefully written, cannot convey the

entire content of a long or complex docu-

ment. An information retrieval system

which indexes only titles or abstracts,

therefore, omits access to information

which does not comprise a large percen-

tage of the full document. Automatic full

text processing techniques, such as those

discussed by Wilson (1966) have been

suggested as a solution to this problem.

This technology involves the mechanical

conversion of the printed or microfilmed

page to machine readable form, automat-

ic extraction of keywords from full docu-

ments and automatic retrieval of informa-

tion from the resulting files through

keywords selected by the user.

A cursory examination of Braconidae

literature showed that information on a

given species, in spite of its absolute

length, frequently comprised too small a

proportion of a complete text to be

treated in an abstract. It was also noticed

that the scientific names of the species

1Hymenoptera: Braconidae

2Research supported by the College of Agricul-

tural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin,

Madison, and by means of a cooperative agreement

between the College and the Agricultural Research

Service, USDA.

3Specialist and professor, respectively.

were frequently misspelled in the

literature, presenting an apparent obsta-

cle to efficient retrieval through automat-

ic full text processing and searching. The

purpose of this study was to obtain quan-

titative data on the above problems, using

a selected portion of Braconidae litera-

ture as the working base. The study was

part of preliminary work toward the con-

struction of a prototype Braconidae infor-

mation retrieval system.

Methods

A collection of 183 documents? on 3

species of Apanteles was examined for

1) frequency of the species names in

titles, 2) frequency of the species names

in published abstracts, and 3) variations

in spelling of the species names in the

original texts. The species studied were

Apanteles melanoscelus (Ratzeburg)

1844, A. porthetriae Muesebeck 1928,

and A. ocneriae Ivanov 1899, all parasites

of the gypsy moth, Porthetria dispar (L.).

167 of the documents dealt with melanos-

celus, 38 with porthetriae and 14 with

ocneriae. Twenty-seven of the docu-

ments contained information on 2 or all

of these species.

‘The bibliography will be published in the June,

1973 issue of this Journal.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

The documents consisted of journal

articles, U.S. federal, U.S. state and

foreign government publications, confer-

ence proceedings and technical books

(catalogs, manuals, textbooks, etc.) in 12

languages. Species information from a

document ranged in length from a single

sentence or footnote to over 30 pages.

The documents themselves were from 1-2

pages to 1400 pages in length.

The Review of Applied Entomology

(Series A: Agricultural) was used to

obtain abstracts of these documents. It

was selected as the best single source for

our subject matter because of its exten-

sive and early (1913-present) coverage of

the world literature. Abstracts for 97 of

our documents were obtained, located

through the author index. The documents

pertaining to melanoscelus, porthetriae

and ocneriae were represented by 93, 16

and 3 abstracts, respectively. The

number of abstracts obtained did not

reflect the relative coverage of RAE;

some of the 183 documents were pub-

lished before 1913, others were men-

Table 1.—Variations in spelling of scientific names— A. melanoscelus, A. porthetriae,

A. ocneriae.

I. Apanteles melanoscelus (Ratzeburg) 1844 (167 documents)

Genus variations: A Author variations: (blank)

Ap Latr

Apantales Ratz

Apanteles Ratzb

Ratzbg

Species variations: m Ratzeberg

malanoscelus Ratzeburg

melanocelis Rbg

melanocelus Ritg

melanocephalus Rtz

melanoscelis Rtzb

melanoscellus Rtzbg

melanoscelus

melanoschelus

melanoseclis

melinosus

Il. Apanteles porthetriae Muesebeck 1928 (38 documents)

Genus variations: A Author variations: (blank)

Apanteles IL,

Mues

Species variations: portehtriae Muesb

portethriae Muesebeck

portheriae Mus

porthertiae Nees

porthetria new species

porthetriae

porthretiae

porttetriae

III. Apanteles ocneriae Ivanov 1899 (14 documents)

Genus variations: A Author variations: Iv

Ap Ivan

Apanteles Ivanov

Ivanow

Species variations: ochneriae Iw

ocneria Iwanov

ocneriae lv

Stanov

Svan

Svanow

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

tioned by title only, a few were missed

because of publishing time lag, and one

year’s volume was not available.

Results

Titles. — Only 4 of the 167 documents

containing information on A. melanos-

celus (3%) mentioned this species in the

title. None of the A. porthetriae or A.

ocneriae documents contained the

species names in the titles.

Abstracts.—The species was men-

tioned in 27 of the 93 abstracts of A.

melanoscelus documents, in 2 of 16 for

A. porthetriae and in none of 3 for A.

ocneriae, or 29%, 12.5% and 0%, respec-

tively. The percentage probably would

not have improved had a complete set

of abstracts been available, since most

of the documents mentioned only by title

were long works in which the species

information was relatively brief.

The low frequency of the species

names in titles and abstracts suggested

the need for greater depth of analysis of

the literature to achieve thorough access

to species-level information.

Spelling of Species Names.—The mis-

spelling of words in original documents

is seldom mentioned as an important

problem in automatic full text processing,

and it probably isn’t for normal words.

Our sample collection, however,

revealed a rather significant variety of

spellings of the names of the 3 Apanteles

species. These variant spellings appar-

ently were due to 1) alternate interpreta-

tions of the Latin grammar rules in the

International Code of Zoological

Nomenclature, 2) inconsistent abbrevia-

tions of the genus and/or author compo-

nents, 3) the failure of authors to

adequately verify spellings prior to pub-

lication, and 4) typographical errors.

The spellings encountered are listed in

Table 1. Synonyms were not recorded,

nor were variations in punctuation and

capitalization, e.g. ‘“‘?Apanteles mela-

noscelus’’, ‘‘L’Apanteles melanos-

celus’’, ‘‘A. Por-thetriae’’, ‘‘(Ratz)’’.

The accepted spellings ‘‘melanos-

celus’’, ‘‘porthetriae’’ and ‘‘ocneriae”’

failed to occur at least once in 13%, 19%,

and 21% of the respective documents.

The combination of the correctly

spelled species term plus the most

common stem for the author component

(‘‘Ratz--’’, ‘“Mues--’’, ‘‘Ivan--’’) failed

to occur in 36%, 24% and 64% of the

respective documents.

Conclusions and Discussion

The occurrence of spelling variations

in technical entomological literature

creates a special problem worth noting,

in spite of the fact that automatic full text

processing is perhaps not a viable alterna-

tive for efficiently handling the existing

literature. The recent ‘‘Wigington

Report’’ (1972) states that technical prob-

lems still exist in converting the printed

page to machine readable form without

keyboarding its content. One such prob-

lem is the high error rate of present opti-

cal character recognition equipment

when multiple font recognition is

required.*° A more fundamental problem,

however, is the well known one of inher-

ently poor recall-precision levels.

It isn’t our intention to dismiss any pos-

sible alternative that may ultimately aid

in coping with the information problem,

or parts of it, but we thought it desirable

to point out some of the problems of par-

ticular importance in handling the exist-

ing literature of the 1% million described

species of insects.

A manual literature processing

technique has been developed (Shervis

et al., 1972) which offers the potential

for virtually complete recall of published

species information with acceptable

levels of noise. It is hoped that this

technique will eventually prove useful in

handling portions of the existing body of

entomological literature.

Acknowledgment

Our appreciation is expressed to Dr.

Richard H. Foote for reading the manu-

>It was tempting to illustrate the remarkable vari-

ety of fonts encountered in our collection; in one

document (Crossman, 1922) the species name alone

occurred in 12 different fonts.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

script and for many suggestions regard- Shervis, L. J., R. D. Shenefelt, and R. H. Foote.

ing the research. 1972. Species-level analysis of biological litera-

ture for storage and retrieval. BioScience 22: 651-

655.

[Wigington Report] National Academy of Sciences.

Computer Science and Engineering Board. Infor-

mation Systems Panel. 1972. Libraries and infor-

Heferenecs)/ Cited mation technology; a national system challenge.

Crossman, S. S. 1922. Apanteles melanoscelus, an Washington, D.C., Nat. Acad. Sci. xi + 84p.

imported parasite of the gipsy moth. U.S. Dep. Wilson, R. A. 1966. Optical page reading devices.

Agr. [Dep.] Bull. 1028: 1-25. New York, Reinhold. ix + 197p.

NOTICE

1973 Programs

John Wesley Powell Auditorium

Cosmos Club, 2170 Florida Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.

8:00 P.M. Public Welcome

April 19

Dr. Max V. Matthews Acoustical and Behavioral Research Center,

Bell Telephone Laboratories

Computer Music and Other Unusual Computer Applications

This subject will intrigue those who are interested in using computers for functions

other than performing arithmetic operations very rapidly or handling masses of data.

The speaker will demonstrate how useful a computer could be to a composer, for instance,

if he had a program available which took his score and produced a tape on which

the composition has been “‘performed’’ by the computer and which he can play on

his tape recorder. In addition, he will discuss one or more of the other unusual uses

to which he has been putting computers, such as an aid to composing music, and for

typesetting.

May 17

Dr. Richard K. Cook President, Washington Academy of Sciences

Annual Dinner Meeting

For information contact:

Washington Academy of Sciences Office

9650 Rockville Pike (Bethesda), Washington, D.C. 20014

Telephone:530-1402

PARKING: Available at the Cosmos Club, on the street, and at the

Fairfax Hotel across from the Cosmos Club (2121 Massachusetts Ave.)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973 25

RESEARCH REPORT

North American Species of Calosota Curtis

(Hymenoptera: Eupelmidae)

Barnard D. Burks

Systematic Entomology Laboratory, ARS, USDA,

clo U.S. National Museum, Washington, D. C. 20560

ABSTRACT

A revision of the North American species of the eupelmid genus Calosota is presented.

A key, illustrations, and descriptions of the 2 known (C. longiventris, C. metallica)

and 3 new (C. pseudotsugae, C. kentra, C. montana) species are included. Most of

the species of Calosota for which hosts are known parasitize wood-boring Coleoptera.

The species of Calosota have a distinc-

tive appearance, with the pronotum

greatly reduced, the mesoscutum and

praescutum fused into a semi-quadrate

sclerome that shows hardly any traces

of the notaulices, the axillae greatly

reduced and widely separated, and the

body elongate and slender, resembling in

habitus many of the genera of the

Cleonymini of the Pteromalidae.

Calosota species do not look, a first

glance, like eupelmids.

Yet Calosota is an eupelmid genus.

The mid coxae are attached in such a

way that they can be rotated either

anteriorly or posteriorly, the mid tibia has

a Saltatorial apical spur, the basal mid

tarsal segments are enlarged and bear

ventral spines or teeth, the mesopleuron

lacks a femoral furrow, and the prepectus

is enlarged and projects over the anterior

margin of the mesepisternum.

Boucek (1958, p. 354) has proposed a

subfamily Calosotinae in the Eupelmidae

for Calosota and a few allied genera.

Bolivar y Pieltain (1923, 1929) has twice

revised the Spanish species of Calosota,

and Hedqvist (1963, p. 138) has recharac-

terized the genus. Calosota occurs in all

faunal regions and is especially well rep-

resented in the Oriental region. Most of

the species of Calosota for which hosts

are known parasitize wood-boring

Coleoptera.

Up to now, 2 species of Calosota have

been known for North America. In this

paper I describe 3 more and give a key

and descriptions for the separation of all

the North American species. I undertook

the revision of this interesting little genus

when Mr. M. A. Deyrup of Washington

State submitted a series of an unde-

scribed species for which he needed a

name.

Genus Calosota Curtis

Calosota Curtis, 1836, Brit. Ent. 13:

596.—Ruschka, 1920, Verh. Zool.—Bot. Ges.

70: 248.—Gahan and Fagan, 1923, U.S. Natl.

Mus. Bul. 124: 26.—Bolivar y Pieltain, 1923,

Rev. Fitopat. 1: 62.—Bolivar y Pieltain, 1929,

Eos 5: 123.—Peck in Muesebeck et al., 1951,

U. S. Dept. Agr. Monog. 2: 508.—Nikolskaya,

1952, Opred. Fauna S.S.S.R. 44: 480.—Hegqvist,

1956, Ent. Tidskr. 77: 96.—Boucek in Kra-

tochvil, 1957, Klié Zvireny CSR 2:

244.—Hedgqvist, 1963, Studia Forest. Suec. 11:

139.—Nikolskaya, 1963, Keys Fauna U.S.S.R.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

44: 493 (Eng. transl.).—Boucek, 1964, Ent. Soc.

Canada Mem. 34: 60 (Eng. transl.).—De Santis,

1967, Buenos Aires Com. Inv. Cient., Cat. Him.

Arg., Ser. Par., p. 172.

Type-species.—Calosota vernalis Curtis. Orig.

desig. :

Calosoter Walker, 1837, Ent. Mag. 4:

358.—Ashmead, 1896, Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 4:

falas Lorre, 1898, Cat. Hym 5:

270.—Ashmead, 1904, Carnegie Mus. Mem. 1:

288, 290.—Schmiedeknecht, 1909, Gen. Ins.,

fasc. 97: 172, 174, 184.—Gahan, 1922, Proc.

U.S. Natl. Mus. 61 (24): 16.—Risbec, 1952,

Mem. Inst. Sci. Madagascar, ser. E, 2: 61, 132.

Type-species.—Calosoter vernalis Walker. Desig.

by Westwood, 1840.

Generic description.—Eyes large, pubescent;

antennae inserted at or slightly below level of ven-

tral margins of compound eyes; malar furrow pre-

sent; margins of clypeus indistinct; anterior ocellus

located outside scrobe cavity; surface within scrobe

cavity mostly or entirely shining and smooth, rest

of frons sculptured; face and ventral half of para-

scrobal spaces pubescent; antenna lacking true ring

segments, but first funicular segment shorter than

second, being 2/5 to 4/5 as long as second segment,

8 funicular segments present. Pronotum reduced

in size, scarcely visible from dorsal aspect, laterally

with a more or less distinct femoral furrow;

notaulices absent or faintly indicated anteriorly;

axillae small and widely separated; mid coxae

attached so as to rotate either anteriorly or pos-

teriorly, mid tibia with an apical, saltatorial spur,

mid tarsus with basal segments thickened and bear-

ing ventral teeth or spines in 2 parallel, longitudinal

rows; hind tibia with 2 apical spurs, mesopleuron

without femoral furrow; forewing with basal cell

completely setose, speculum present or absent.

Propodeum in female extremely short on meson,

posterior margin almost or quite in contact with

anterior margin, in male propodeum slightly longer

on meson; propodeal spiracles large and round.

Gaster of female long and slender, with apical ter-

gum acuminate, ovipositor often projecting; basal

2 to 5 gastral terga in female with posterior margins

emarginate on meson, male usually with only first

tergum emarginate.

Calosota pseudotsugae, new species

This species differs from all other

North American species in having a lon-

gitudinal speculum in the forewing below

the base of the marginal vein, fig. 1; other

species either lack a speculum or have

it lying parallel to the basal vein (path

of obsolete vein Rs).

Female.—Length 3.0-4.0 mm. Head with

metallic bronzy luster, shading to green on meson

below antennal sockets; antennal scape yellow at

base, black with faint metallic green luster apically,

pedicel and flagellum black; mesoscutum blue-

green, praescutum bronze color; scutellum black

with very faint metallic green luster; propodeum

blue-green; gaster black, faintly iridescent laterally;

wings hyaline, veins tan; coxae dark blue-green,

anterior femora and tibiae black with bases and

apices yellow, mid and hind femora and tibiae tan,

all tarsi tan. All pubescence silvery.

Antennae inserted at level of ventral margins of

compound eyes; basal funicular segments slender

and elongate, apical ones relatively shorter and

broader but not quadrate, pedicel 3 times as long

as first funicular segment, second to sixth funiculars

equal in length and each twice as long as first,

seventh and eight equal in length and each 7/8 as

long as sixth, club as long as apical 3 funiculars,

first club segment 2/5 length of club; width of malar

space 1/2 as great as height of compound eye; ocel-

locular line 1/6 as long as postocellar line.

Entire thoracic dorsum with slightly irregular,

netlike sculpture, this formed of minute, raised

lines, netlike figures slightly larger on meson than

North American Species of Calosota Curtis

Key to Females

1. Forewing with a longitudinal speculum below base of marginal vein, fig. 1

PT i Bes eek ren hea al rapedave gn tectabeseveaavarand ieee antacueds pseudotsugae, new species

Forewing either lacking a speculum or having one parallel to basal vein (path

OMODSOLETOMVEITIBIRS) aller Sane see sr cmRs eI oeceleteiay sie Uysrer chorea cheese arcu cbenanede 2

2. Scutellum not flat, but roundly elevated in posterior half, its surface sculpture

closely set, slightly irregular, longitudinal carinulae; head and body mostly

bright metallic blue or blue-green 2-3-2224) ee metallica Gahan

Scutellum flattened, its surface sculpture netlike; head and body black or black

with dark metallic green, bronze, or lavender luster.................--.---- 3

3. Gaster elongate and acuminate, 5 times as long as thorax, and with seventh

gastral tergum much longer than sixth ................. longiventris Ashmead

Gaster shorter, not over 2-% times as long as thorax, and with seventh

tergum equal to or shorter than sixth

4. Forewing shaded with tan; thorax black, without metallic luster; forewing

GMO GSM cocogocconsnpnansscadcnsdoooqbODbooudC kentra, new species

Forewing hyaline; thorax dorsally with metallic blue in longitudinal lateral and

median stripes a pair of submedian bronze colored stripes lying between the

blue ones; forewing with speculum, fig. 3.............. montana, new species

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973 27

elsewhere; prepectus with similar sculpture;

mesopleuron with minute, netlike sculpture

anteriorly, sculpture becoming fainter posteriorly,

this posterior sculpture a plexus of minute, closely-

set, lineolate engraved lines; forewing with marginal

vein twice as long as stigmal, 1 2/5 times as long

as postmarginal; a longitudinal speculum present

below base of marginal vein, fig. 1; scutellum flat-

tened.

Propodeum with a median smooth area as wide

as scutellum, this smooth area containing 2 or 3

strong, longitudinal carinae on each side of meson,

rest of propodeal surface minutely shagreened;

posterior margin of propodeum a low lamina on

meson, carinate elsewhere, posterior and anterior

propodeal margins just in contact at meson; each

spiracle situated in a depression that is completely

surrounded by a low ridge. Gaster slender,

acuminate, 2 1/2 times as long as thorax; sixth and

seventh gastral terga equal in length; ovipositor

slightly exserted.

Male.—Length 4.0 mm. Color as in female,

except that propodeum is entirely black. Antennae

with scape broader than in female, pedicel twice

as long as first funicular, second to sixth funiculars

equal in length and each as long as pedicel, seventh

and eighth each 7/8 as long as sixth, club as long

as sixth and seventh combined; propodeum with

entire surface shagreened and as long on meson

as postscutellum; a shield-shaped figure on meson

of propodeum formed by a pair of parenthesis-

shaped, longitudinal carinae, numerous irregular,

longitudinal carinulae in this shield-shaped area;

gaster | 3/4 times as long as thorax.

Type-locality.—Maytown,

Co., Washington.

Type.—U. S. N. M. Catalog No.

72481.

Described from 5 female, 1 male speci-

mens. Holotype female, allotype male,

and 4 female paratypes, Maytown,

Washington, reared April 6 -12, 1972,

from material of downed Pseudotsuga

menziesii that also yielded specimens of

the beetle Pseudohylesinus nebulosus

(LeConte), Hymenoptera Spathius

sequoiae Ashmead, Heydenia unica

Cook and Davis, Cecidostiba thomsoni

Crawford, Eurytoma tomici Ashmead

and E. cleri Ashmead, and the dipteron

Medetera aldrichii Wheeler. The rearing

was done by M. A. Deyrup.

Thurston

Figs. 1-4 Portions of forewings of species of Calosota. 1, pseudotsugae, n. sp., showing longitudinal

speculum below base of marginal vein; 2, kentra, n. sp., stigmal vein; 3, montana, n. sp., showing

narrow speculum parallel to basal vein; 4, metallica (Gahan), showing large speculum.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

Biological relationships.—This

species probably is a primary parasite of

the scolytid beetle Pseudohylesinus

nebulosus (LeConte).

Calosota metallica (Gahan)

Calosoter metallicus Gahan, 1922, Proc. U.S.

Natl. Mus. 61(24): 16, 2, 3.

Calosota metallica (Gahan) Packard, 1928, U.S.

Dept. Agr. Tech. Bul. 81: 14.—Gahan, 1933, U.

S. Dept. Agr. Misc. Pub. 174: 58.—Knowlton

and Janes, 1933, Utah Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 243:

12.—Rockwood and Reeher, 1933, U. S. Dept.

Agr. Tech. Bul. 361: 18.—Phillips and Poos,

1937, U. S. Dept. Agr. Farmers Bul. 1323:

8—Knowlton and Harmston, 1939, Proc. Utah

Acad. Sci. 16: 62.— Chamberlin, 1941, U.S.

Dept. Agr. Tech. Bul. 784: 39.—Peck in

Muesebeck et al., 1951, U.S. Dept. Agr. Monog.

2: 508.—Nikolskaya, 1952, Opred. Fauna

S.S.S.R. 44: 483—Phillips and Poos, 1953,

U.S. Dept. Agr. Farmers Bul. 1323 (rev.):

5.—Nikolskaya, 1963, Keys Fauna U.S.S.R. 44:

497 (Eng. transl.).

This species differs from all other

Nearctic ones of this genus in being

almost entirely bright metallic blue or

blue-green, in having the scutellum

elevated rather than flat and having lon-

gitudinal, lineolate sculpture, and in lack-

ing the double row of minute teeth on

the ventral side of the midtarsal segments

(in metallica these teeth are replaced by

short spines). The female gaster of this

species is also only moderately

lengthened and is scarcely acuminate

apically. It may be desirable to place

metallica in some genus other than

Calosota.

Female.—Length 2.5 — 4.0 mm. Head and body

bright metallic blue or blue-green with iridescent

green or purple luster on pleura; antennal scape

metallic blue, pedicel green, flagellum dark brown

or black; coxae metallic blue or lavender, femora

and tibiae pale tan or yellow at bases and apices,

middle parts blue or blue-green, tarsi tan with apical

segment of each brown; wings hyaline with yellow

veins. All pubescence silvery.

Antennae inserted very slightly below level of

ventral margins of compound eyes; basal funicular

segments slightly longer than wide, apical ones

wider than long, pedicel 4 times as long as first

funicular, second funicular twice as long as first,

third to fifth equal in length and each 1 1/4 times

as long as second, sixth and seventh equal in length

and each 9/10 as long as fifth, eighth 4/5 as long

as fifth, club 3 times as long as fifth, first club seg-

ment 1/2 as long as club; width of malar space 3/5

as great as height of compound eye; ocellocular

line 1/7 as long as postocellar line.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

Mesoscutum and praescutum with minute, net-

like sculpture, scutellum with this sculpture so mod-

ified as to form closely set, longitudinal striae;

scutellum not flat but very slightly depressed on

meson in basal half, posterior half with surface

slightly elevated and rounded; prepectus with sculp-

ture similar to scutum; mesopleuron almost

smooth, but with faint coriaceous sculpture, the

lines of this sculpture transverse in anterior half,

becoming longitudinal in posterior half; forewing

with stigmal and postmarginal veins usually equal

in length (postmarginal sometimes slightly the

longer), marginal vein 4 times as long as stigmal,

a relatively broad speculum along basal vein, fig.

4; mid tarsus with spines rather than teeth on ventral

surface; apical spur of mid tibia relatively weak.

Propodeum almost smooth, with faint alutaceous

sculpture; propodeal spiracles not set in depres-

sions. Gaster subflattened dorsally, as wide as

thorax, and twice as long as thorax; basal 2 terga

emarginate on meson of posterior margin; seventh

tergum 2/3 as long as sixth; ovipositor slightly

exserted.

Male.—Length 2.0-3.0 mm. Color and sculpture

as in female; first funicular segment 1/4 as long

as pedicel, second funicular 2 1/2 times as long as

first, third to eighth equal in length and each 1 1/5

times as long as second; club almost 3 times as

long as eighth funicular, first club segment 1/3 as

long as club; width of malar space 1/3 as great as

height of compound eye; ocellocular line 1/9 as long

as postocellar line. Length of propodeum on meson

2/3 as great as length of postscutellum; gaster

shaped as in female, but only 1 1/4 times as long

as thorax.

Type-locality.—San Miguel, Cal-

ifornia.

Type.—U. S. N. M. Catalog No.

24988.

Distribution.—Idaho,

Oreg., Calif.

Biological relationships.—Associated

with grasses, attacking various hosts in

the stems. This has been reared as a pri-

mary parasite of several species of Har-

molita and, as a secondary parasite, from

Ditropinotus aureoviridis Crawford and

Eurytoma parva Phillips, these 2 being

primary parasites of Harmolita. It also

has been reared as a primary parasite of

Mayetiola destructor (Say).

Utah, Wash.,

Calosota longiventris (Ashmead)

Calosoter longiventris Ashmead, 1896, Proc. Ent.

Soc. Wash. 4: 12,2, d.—Dalla Torre, 1898, Cat.

Hym. 5: 270.—Schmiedeknecht, 1909, Gen. Ins.,

fasc. 97: 185.

Calosota longiventris (Ashmead) Peck in

Muesebeck et al,, 1951, U.S. Dept. Agr. Monog.

2: 508.—Peck, 1963, Canad. Ent. Suppl. 30:

474.\Burks in Krombein and Burks, 1967,

U.S. Dept. Agr. Monog. 2, Suppl. 2: 245.

This species differs from all other

North American species of Calosota in

having the seventh gastral tergum of the

female so greatly lengthened that it is 4

times as long as the sixth tergum.

Female.—{Redescribed from the single fragmen-

tary lectotype specimen.) Length 6.0 mm. Head,

thorax and propodeum black with faint metallic

green luster, gaster black; antennal scape black with

faint metallic bronze luster, pedicel and flagellum

black: coxae black with very faint bronze luster,

femora and tibiae dark brown, tarsi slightly lighter;

wings hyaline, veins brown. Pubescence silvery.

Antennae inserted slightly below level of ventral

margins of compound eyes: pedicel and funicular

segments elongate, pedicel 5/6 as long as the com-

bined first and second funiculars, first funicular 1/2

as long as second, second to fourth equal in length,

fifth and sixth each 5/6 as long as fourth (apical

parts of antenna missing); width of malar space 1/2

as great as height of compound eye: ocellocular

line 1/4 as long as postocellar line.

Entire dorsum of thorax with minute, slightly

irregular, netlike sculpture, this formed by minute

raised lines; median, longitudinal band on praes-

cutum slightly depressed and having surface sculp-

ture a little coarser than elsewhere on dorsum;

prepectus sculptured as is mesoscutum; mesop-

leuron with faint, longitudinal, semi-lineolate sculp-

ture; forewing with marginal vein 3 times as long

as stigmal, postmarginal | 1/3 times as long as stig-

mal; speculum absent; scutellum flattened.

Propodeum faintly sculptured, almost smooth;

posterior margin of propodeum slightly elevated as

a low lamina, this touching anterior margin on

meson; spiracles of propodeum not in depressions.

Gaster elongate, slender, 5 times as long as thorax;

seventh tergum greatly lengthened, 4 times as long

as sixth tergum; ovipositor projecting froma distance

1/6 as great as length of seventh tergum.

Male.—Length 3.0 — 4.0 mm. Head black with

faint brassy luster; thorax black, faintly metallic

green laterally; propodeum shining black, gaster

black with faint iridescent luster; antenna stouter

than in female, scape widened apically and funicular

segments thicker and shorter than in female; pedicel

twice as long as first funicular, second | 2/5 times

as long as first, second to fifth equal in length, sixth

7/8 as long as fifth, seventh and eighth equal in

length and each 5/6 as long as sixth, club as long

as 3 apical funiculars; width of malar space 2/5 as

great as height of compound eye; ocellocular line

1/6 as long as postocellar line; gaster 2 1/3 times

as thorax.

Type-locality.—Santa Cruz Moun-

tains, California.

Types.—Lectotype female, U. S. N.

M. Catalog No. 3463. Specimen labeled,

**Sta. Cruz Mts. Cal., Calosoter lon-

giventris Ashm. ?.’’ Present designation

of lectotype. There also are 2 male

paralectotype specimens in the collec-

tion, | labeled as is the type, the other

labeled, “‘Argus Mts. May 91 K.”’

Distribution.—Idaho, Calif.

Biological relationships.—Unknown.

Calosota kentra, new species

This species agrees with longiventris

Ashmead in that it has a long, slender

gaster with an exserted ovipositor, but

they may be separated by the fact that

this species has shaded wings, the

seventh gastral tergum is only as long as

the sixth, and the stigma of the forewing

is enlarged and has a long, slender uncus,

fig. 2.

Female.—Length 4.0 mm. Head black, with faint

iridescent blue luster on face and at eye margins,

scrobe cavity lavender; thorax black with faint

metallic blue luster at apices of scutellum and post-

scutellum, and at posterior margin of mesepister-

num; propodeum dark metallic blue; gaster black

with basal tergum metallic blue; antennal scape dark

blue-green, pedicel and flagellum black; coxae dark

metallic blue; femora and tibiae black, shading to

tan at apices, tarsi tan with apical segment of each

dark brown; wing veins light brown, forewing

shaded with tan on disc below marginal vein and

around stigmal vein; hindwing hyaline. All pubes-

cence silvery.

Antennae inserted slightly below level of ventral

margins of compound eyes; antenna with all

funicular segments elongate, first funicular segment

1/2 as long as second, the second to fourth funiculars

equal in length, fifth 9/10 as long as fourth, sixth

9/10 as long as fifth, seventh slightly shorter than

sixth, eighth slightly shorter than seventh, club

twice as long as second funicular, first club segment

1/2 as long as club; width of malar space 2/3 as

great as height of compound eye; ocellocular line

1/3 as long as postocellar line.

Entire thoracic dorsum with slightly irregular,

minute, netlike sculpture, this formed by minute

raised lines; prepectus with similar sculpture;

mesopleuron faintly sculptured, amost smooth;

forewing with marginal vein twice as long as post-

marginal and 1 3/5 times as long as stigmal, the

stigma enlarged and with a long, slender uncus,

fig. 2; speculum absent: scutellum flattened.

Propodeum with surface shagreened, posterior

margin carinate, this margin in contact with anterior

margin on meson, numerous short carinae extend-

ing anteriorly from posterior margin in lateral areas

of propodeum. Gaster slender, twice as long as

thorax; seventh gastral tergum as long as sixth;

Ovipositor exserted for a distance 1/2 as great as

length of sixth tergum.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

Male.—Unknown.

Type-locality.—Albany, New Hamp-

shire.

Type.—U. S. N. M. Catalog No.

2, 1958, by W. J. Morse.

Biological relationships.—Unknown.

Cecidostiba montana, new species

This species greatly resembles the

European species vernalis Curtis in hav-

ing the frons iridescent blue-violet shad-

ing to green on the vertex, the thoracic

dorsum has alternating longitudinal blue

and greenish bronze stripes, the prop-

odeum is blue-violet, and the hind tibiae

are entirely brown in contrast with the

anterior and mid tibiae, which are mostly

black with faint metallic green luster, the

apices tan. They differ in that the sixth

and seventh gastral terga are equal in

length in vernalis, but the sixth is longer

than the seventh in this species.

Female.—Length 4.5 mm. Head metallic blue-

violet, shading to green on vertex; dorsum of thorax

with a blue longitudinal stripe at each lateral margin

and on meson, with 2 metallic greenish bronze

stripes between the blue ones; thoracic pleuron and

sternum blue-violet; coxae dark blue-violet, femora

black with faint green luster, apices tan, anterior

and mid tibiae the same color, hind tibiae uniformly

dark brown, all tarsi pale tan with apical segment

of each darker; wings hyaline, veins brown; prop-

odeum blue-violet; gaster black with blue luster

ventrally. All pubescence silvery.

Antennae inserted slightly below level of ventral

margins of compound eyes; basal funicular seg-

ments of antenna elongate, apical ones semi-

quadrate, pedicel 1 1/4 times as long as first funicular

segment, second and third funiculars each as long

as pedicel, fourth 9/10 as long as third, fifth 9/10

as long as fourth, sixth and seventh each 4/5 as

long as fourth, eighth 2/3 as long as fourth, club

twice as long as pedicel, basal club segment not

quite 1/2 as long as club; width of malar space 3/8

as great as height of compound eye; ocellocular

line 1/4 as long as postocellar line.

Entire thoracic dorsum with slightly irregular,

minute, netlike sculpture, this formed by minute

raised lines; prepectus with similar sculpture;

mesopleuron with similar sculpture in anterior half,

posterior half with much fainter and finer reticulate

surface sculpture; forewing with marginal vein

1 2/3 times as long as postmarginal and 2 1/2

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, No. 1, 1973

times as long as stigmal; a narrow speculum along

basal vein; scutellum flattened.

Propodeum with surface shagreened, posterior

margin strongly carinate, this margin not quite

touching anterior margin on meson; a pair of lon-

gitudinal, submedian carinae present just behind

lateral margins of scutellum; numerous short, stout

carinulae extending anteriorly from posterior mar-

gin in lateral areas of propodeum; each propodeal

spiracle situated in a depression that is surrounded

laterally and posteriorly by a low ridge. Gaster

2 1/2 times as long as thorax; basal 5 gastral ter-

ga medianly emarginate on posterior margin; sixth

tergum | 1/7 times as long as seventh.

Male.—Length 3.5 mm. Head black with very

faint metallic green luster on ventral half, faintly

iridescent bronze-green on vertex; thorax black

with faint metallic blue luster on dorsal meson and

on pleura; gaster black with faint iridescence lateral-

ly; legs and wings colored as in female; antennal

pedicel 2 1/2 times as long as first funicular segment,

second funicular 2 1/4 times as long as first, third

and fourth each as long as second, fifth 7/8 as long

as fourth, sixth to eighth equal in length and each

2/3 as long as fourth, club as long as apical 3

funiculars, first club segment 1/3 as long as club;

width of malar space 2/3 as great as height of com-

pound eye; ocellocular line 1/6 as long as postocellar

line; gaster 1 1/2 times as long as thorax.

Type-locality.—Rock Creek, Granite

Co., Montana.

Type.—U.S.N.M. catalog no. 72483.

Described from 1 female, 1 male

specimens. Type female, Rock Creek,

Montana, reared Feb. 11, 1969, from

unidentified gall on Pinus contorta, by

J. G. Bringuel under his accession no.

1602; allotype male, same data, but

reared Feb. 10, 1969, under accession no.

1601.

Biological relationships.—Essentially

unknown; may parasitize some gall

maker on pine.

References Cited

Bolivar y Pieltain, C. 1923. Especies espanolas de

Calosota Curt. Rev. de Fitopat. 1: 62-69.

. 1929. Estudio monografico de las

especies espanolas del genero Calosota (Hym.

Chalc.). Eos 5: 123-142.

Boucek, Z. 1958. Eine Cleonyminen-

studie . . . eingeschlossen einige Eupelmidae

(Hym. Chalcidoidea). Acta Ent. Musei Nat.

Pragae 32: 353-386.

Hedqvist, K.-J. 1963. Die Feinde der Borkenkafer

in Schweden, I. Erzwespen (Chalcidoidea).

Studia Forest. Suec. 11, 176 pp.

ACADEMY AFFAIRS

SCIENTISTS IN THE NEWS

Contributions in this section of your Journal are earnestly solicited.

They should be typed double-spaced and sent to the Editor two months

preceding the issue for which they are intended.

BATTELLE LABORATORIES

Bernard K. Dennis has been named

Chief, Information Systems Research,

for Battelle’s Columbus Laboratories.

He is in charge of the research organiza-

tion’s Washington, D.C., information

operations.

Before joining Battelle-Columbus in

1964, Dennis developed and managed

one of industry’s first computer-based

technical information systems. This sys-

tem has been in operation since 1957, sup-

plying information to more than 2,000

engineers and scientists.

At Battelle, his research has involved

the design, development, and evaluation

of information systems. He is the author

of a number of technical papers on the

subject.

Dennis received his B.S. from the

University of Cincinnati, where he

specialized in mathematics and physical

sciences. His master’s was granted by

the same institution. His professional

affiliations include the American

Association for the Advancement of

Science, American Ordnance

Association, American Society for Infor-

mation Science, Armed Forces Com-

munications and _ Electronics

Association, Operations Research Soci-

ety of America, and Special Libraries

Association. He was recently named a

Fellow by the Washington, D.C.,

Academy of Sciences.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Martin Jacobson, Leader of the Biolog-

ically Active Natural Products

Laboratory, AEQI, has isolated from the

female gypsy moth, identified, and pre-

pared synthetically a compound capable

of inhibiting the growth of a human tumor

system, Walker intramuscular car-

cinosarcoma 256, in rats. The work was

carried out in cooperation with the

natural products program of the National

Cancer Institute, National Institutes of

Health, Bethesda, Maryland. The

characterization of this compound, of a

type never before shown to have anti-

tumor activity, provides a valuable lead

for preparing related compounds possibly

possessing higher activity in this and

other tumor systems.

Henry T. Skinner, director of the

National Arboretum, has retired after 20

years of dedicated service in building the

institution into one of national and inter-

national prominence. This was

announced at a reception this afternoon

at the arboretum honoring Skinner.

Skinner’s primary interests have long

been devoted to the development of

research and the educational aspects of

the National Arboretum. During this

period many educational features have

been added to the institution.

Some of the noteworthy features are

the Fern Valley Trail which was

developed by the National Capital Area

Federation of Garden Clubs, the Touch-

and-See Nature Trail for the blind, the

Fred Lee Memorial Garden of late

flowering azaleas, the Gotelli Collection

of 1,500 naturally dwarf conifers (needled

evergreens), aS well as the large collec-

tion of flowering crabapples (over 200

varieties), the collection of daylilies,

peonies (which includes many of the

Saunders hybrid tree peonies), some 200

boxwoods, 750 species and varieties of

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

holly, 60 varieties of flowering cherries,

150 species and cultivars of magnolias,

and many more fine collections of plants.

When one adds these to the famous

azalea and rhododendron collections, the

year around value of the Arboretum to

the public becomes evident. An illustra-

tion of this flowering season is the display

in November of the fall flowering Sasan-

qua camellias.

The spring flowering season starts with

the azaleas and dogwoods followed by

the Camellia japonica, flowering crabap-

ples, flowering cherries, peonies, day-

lilies and many others. The home gar-

dener studies these collections to see

which would be best suited to his garden

and the general public enjoys the beauty

and arrangement of the plants in this 415-

acre arboretum.

The staff of technical experts in the

arboretum conduct a continuous breed-

ing program on woody plants. It has so

far released to commercial propagators

a number of hardy large flowered

hibiscus, crape myrtle, magnolias, hol-

lies, viburnums and firethorn. Many are

particularly interested in the hardy

firethorn Mojave recently released which

is noted, in addition to its hardiness, for

its resistance to fire blight and scab.

Other research work includes the study

and propagation of desirable shade trees.

This project involves the production of

new desirable kinds and how to propagate

them. These projects on woody plants

are a necessary part of the work of an

arboretum since they involve many

years’ work by highly skilled experts.

Skinner’s education began at the Wis-

ley School of the Royal Horticultural

Society (England) and continued at Cor-

nell University and the University of

Pennsylvania. He was curator of the

Morris Arboretum in Philadelphia before

his appointment as director of the

National Arboretum in 1952.

Because of his work, Skinner has

received many awards and citations for

his services to horticulture which include

the Jackson Dawson Medal of the Mas-

sachusetts Horticultural Society for

research contributions in plant prop-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

agation, the American Home Achieve-

ment Medal, the Arthur Hoyt Scott Hor-

ticultural Award for work and writings

on horticultural and botanical subjects,

the Gold Medal of the American

Rhododendron Society for studies espe-

cially of American native azaleas, the

Norman J. Colman Award of the Ameri-

can Association of Nurserymen for con-

tributions in the field of horticultural

research, the Superior Service Award of

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the

Garden Club of America Medal of Honor

for service to horticulture, the Distin-

guished Achievement Medal of the Penn-

sylvania Horticultural Society, and the

American Horticultural Society’s

Liberty Hyde Bailey Medal for his role

in building the arboretum into a place of

national and international prominence in

the plant world.

In addition to these activities, Dr.

Skinner has been active in many profes-

sional horticultural and botanical

societies. He is a Past President of the

American Association of Botanical Gar-

dens and Arboreta; Past President of the

American Horticultural Society, and is

a member of the Commission on Nomen-

clature and Registration of the Interna-

tional Society for Horticultural Science.

Recently he has served as a member

of the executive committee of the Inter-

national Society for Horticultural

Science. He has been a popular speaker

at many horticultural meetings. More

especially, he has been a guide and coun-

selor to many horticultural groups as well

as a popular writer.

Many will miss Dr. Skinner’s

guidance, but will be thankful for his con-

tributions to horticulture and for his

leadership.

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

Sanford M. Rosenthal, former chief of

the Laboratory of Pharmacology and

Toxicology, National Institute of

Arthritis, Metabolism, and Digestive

Diseases, has been awarded the Harvey

S. Allen prize from the American Burn

Association for his studies on treatment

and cause of traumatic shock and burns.

Dr. Rosenthal’s work has led to an

increased understanding of the role of

electrolyte disturbance in burns shock

and to the use of large quantities of

isotonic saline by mouth for its treatment.

Prior to Dr. Rosenthal’s studies,

intravenous infusions with plasma exten-

ders had been considered essential for

the effective treatment of burn shock.

His work is of particular value for

potential use in the rapid treatment of

traumatic shock and burns in mass disas-

ter where intravenous plasma extenders

and the skilled personnel to administer

them are not always available.

Since his retirement in 1961, Dr.

Rosenthal has been a consultant to

NIAMDD Director, Dr. G. Donald

Whedon.

NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY

George T. Rado, Head of the Naval

Research Laboratory’s (NRL’s) Mag-

netism Branch here, has been elected

Chairman of the Magnetism Commission

of the International Union of Pure and

Applied Physics (IUPAP) for a 3-year

term, 1972-1975.

George T. Rado

The election was held during the Four-

teenth General Assembly of IUPAP at

the National Academy of Sciences here

September 20 to 25.

The NRL scientist has been a member

of the IUPAP Magnetism Commission

since 1966 and served as its Secretary

from 1969 to 1972. Included in the Com-

mission headed by Dr. Rado are one rep-

resentative each from Australia, Den-

mark, France, E. Germany, W.

Germany, Hungary, Israel, Japan, The

Netherlands, United Kingdom and the

Soviet Union.

Dr. Rado has received international

recognition for his research in mag-

netism. He won the NRL-RESA Pure

Science Award in 1957, the E. O. Hulburt

Science Award for 1965 and the Navy

Award for Distinguished Achievement in

Science in 1971.

Dr. Rado joined the NRL staff in 1945.

He had attended the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology from 1937 to 1943

where he received his SB, SM and PhD

degrees in Physics. He has published

numerous articles in professional jour-

nals and co-edited the five-volume treat-

ise entitled, ‘‘Magnetism’’.

Dr. Rado, his wife Leanore and their

two daughters reside at 818 Carrie Court,

McLean, Va.

Lendell E. Steele, supervisory research

physicist, head, Reactor Materials

Branch, Metallurgy Div., Naval

Research Laboratory, Washington,

D.C., was recently elected chairman of

Committee E-10 on Radioisotopes and

Radiation Effects of the American Soci-

ety for Testing and Materials.

ASTM is the world’s largest source of

voluntary consensus standards for mate-

rials, products, systems, and services. It

is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pa.,

with 22,000 members throughout the

world.

Committee E-10 promotes the knowl-

edge of the use of radioisotopes in materi-

als testing and the investigation of the

changes in the properties and constitution

of materials as a function of exposure to

radiation.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

Lendell E. Steele

A native of Kannapolis, N.C., Steele

received his B.S. degree from George

Washington University in 1950, and his

M.A. degree from American University

in 1959.

He began his professional career in

1948 as a physical science aid with the

National Bureau of Standards. He was

later with the U.S. Geological Survey as

a scientific aid and later a chemist with

the National Agricultural Research

Center. Steele joined the Naval Research

Laboratory in 1951 as a chemist for a

short period prior to spending several

years as a research and development and

radiological safety officer with the U.S.

Air Force. He returned to the Naval

Research Laboratory as a chemist, 1953-

1956; a physicist, 1956-1964; and as a

research physicist, head, Reactor Mate-

rials Branch, 1964-1966. During 1967 he

was a metallurgical engineer with the

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Steele

assumed his present position in 1968 with

the broad program responsibility for fun-

damental and applied research on radia-

tion damage phenomena and on materials

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973.

for advanced nuclear power systems

including thermal, fast and thermonu-

clear reactors. He directs the related High

Level Radiation Laboratory for Naval

Research Laboratory and serves as co-

director of the new inter-divisional

research effort called Cooperative Radia-

tion Effects Stimulation (CORES) Pro-

gram.

A member of ASTM, Steele was the

first vice-chairman of Committee E-10 on

Radiation Effects and Radioisotopes

from 1970 to 1972 when he was elected

chairman. He was a co-recipient of the

1972 Charles B. Dudley Medal for a

series of papers published by ASTM on

“‘Structure and Composition Effects on

Irradiation Sensitivity of Pressure Vessel

Steels and Welds.”’

He is also a member of the American

Nuclear Society, American Society for

Metals, Research Society of America,

and the Washington Academy of Sci-

ences.

Included in his honors are the

Washington Academy of Sciences

Award in Engineering Sciences, 1962;

Research Society of America Award for

Applied Science, 1964; and the American

Nuclear Society Special Award for work

in Neutron Damage of Materials.

Steele has authored more than 100

technical articles in his field.

OBITUARIES

Wade H. Marshall

Wade H. Marshall, 64, former

National Institute of Mental Health sci-

entist, died Nov. 4, 1972, at his home

in Kensington, Md.

Dr. Marshall retired as chief of the

Laboratory of Physiology in 1970 after

serving with NIMH for 17 years.

He spent the major portion of his

career investigating the functions and

vital processes of the central nervous

system.

Using electrophysiological methods,

Dr. Marshall was the first to map the

portion of the brain responsible for

vision.

He earned his Ph.D. at the University

of Chicago in 1934 and later taught

physiology at George Washington

University Medical School.

Dr. Marshall then went to Johns Hop-

kins Medical School where he did

research on brain function.

During World War II, he helped

develop rocket propulsion fuels at Johns

Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory

and worked with Bowen and Company

on the development of a pilot assembly

line for the proximity fuse.

Upon Dr. Marshall’s retirement, he

received an unusual honor from 40 col-

leagues who had been members of the

laboratory he supervised.

Each contributed an original paper to

The International Journal of Neurosci-

ence which dedicated two issues to him.

Dr. Marshall is survived by his wife,

Dr. Louise Marshall, a physiologist with

the National Academy of Sciences; a

son, Thomas, assistant professor of

chemistry at Northern Illinois Univer-

sity; a daughter, Mrs. Percy Martin of

Washington, D.C., and four

grandchildren.

Walter D. Sutcliffe

Walter D. Sutcliffe, 80, of Forest Hill

Road, Baltimore, died at Frederick

Memorial Hospital. He was the husband

of Edna Krum Sutcliffe and the son of

the late John and Amanda Sutcliffe. He

was born in West Park, New York.

He was graduated from Syracuse

University in 1913 with a degree in civil

engineering. He was a member of Tau

Beta Pi and Sigma Beta fraternities.

He served as a hydrographic and

geodetic engineer in the U.S. Coast and

Geodetic Survey and worked in various

parts of Alaska and the continental U.S.

From 1917 to 1946 he was in charge of

computation of first order base line and

traverse work. Promoted to chief of the

field records section he continued his

work until retirement in 1954.

He served as a consultant engineer in

his son’s firm, D. K. Sutcliffe &

Associates, Frederick. He was the

author of four professional books. He

was a member of the Washington

Academy of Sciences, the Washington

Society of Engineers, the American Con-

gress on Surveying and Mapping, the

American Museum of Natural History,

the Society of American Military

Engineers, the New York State Society

of Washington, Philosophical Society of

Washington, Syracuse University

Alumni Association of Baltimore, and

the Varsity Club of Syracuse University.

In 1953 he was awarded the U.S.

Department of Commerce silver medal

for meritorious service.

Mr. Sutcliffe was married in

Poughkeepsie, N.Y., in 1915. He was a

member of St. Mark’s United Methodist

Church, Baltimore, and served as a

member of the administrative board. He

also served as a troop committeeman and

treasurer for the Boy Scouts.

Besides his wife, Mr. Sutcliffe is sur-

vived by one son, Draper K. Sutcliffe,

Knoxville; two granddaughters, Sandra

L. Sutcliffe and Susan A. Sutcliffe,

Knoxville; one brother, Charles Sut-

cliffe, Poughkeepsie, N.Y.; one nephew

and several cousins.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 1, 1973

JOURNAL OF THE WASHINGTON ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Instructions to Contributors

General

Type manuscripts on white bond paper

either 8% by 11 or 8 by 10% inches. Double

space all lines, including those in abstracts,

tables, legends, quoted matter, acknowledg-

ments, and references cited. Number pages

consecutively. Place your name and com-

plete address in the upper right hand corner

of the title page.

Title, Author, and Affiliation

Page 1 of your manuscript should contain

only this information and your name and

address. Choose a concise but complete and

meaningful title. In research papers con-

cerning biological subjects, include an indi-

cation of the order and family of the taxa

discussed. Academic degrees will not nor-

mally be included unless the author so

specifies. If possible, combine your affilia-

tion and mailing address (including Zip) so

that readers can write to you directly.

Abstract

Type on a separate sheet at the end of the

manuscript. Make the abstract intelligible

without reference to the text of the paper.

Write an informative digest of the significant

content and conclusions, not a mere descrip-

tion. Generally, the abstract should not ex-

ceed 3% of the text.

Footnotes

Use footnotes as sparingly as possible.

Number text footnotes consecutively with

Arabic numerals and type them on a sepa-

tate sheet of paper at the end of the manu-

script. Type table footnotes, if any, below

each pertinent table on the same page.

Illustrations and Legends

The quality of all original illustrations

must be high enough to facilitate good offset

reproduction. They should have ample mar-

gins and be drawn on heavy stock or

fastened to stiff cardboard to prevent bend-

ing. They should be proportioned to column

(1 x 3) or page (2 x 3) type-dimensions,

leaving space for legend material. Photo-

graphs should have a glossy finish. They re-

produce best when the contrast is fairly

high. Identify each illustration with number

and author in light pencil marks on the

reverse side. Submit all illustrations sepa-

rately — please do not glue or clip them to

the pages of the manuscript.

Do not type or write legends directly on

the illustrations. Type legends on a separate

sheet or sheets at the end of the manuscript.

Indicate where you want illustrations to

appear in the printed paper by writing the

figure numbers lightly in the text margins,

and be sure that each figure is properly re-

ferenced in the text itself. Original “art” will

be returned only at the author’s request and

expense.

Tables

Include tables only when the same infor-

mation cannot be presented economically in

the text, or when a table presents the data in

a more meaningful way. Consider preparing

extremely complicated tabular matter in a

form suitable for direct reproduction as an

illustration. In such cases, the use of the

typewriter is not recommended.

References to Literature

Limit references within the text and in

synonymies to author and year (and page if

needed). In a “Reference Cited” section, list

alphabetically by senior author only those

papers you have included in the text. Like-

wise, be sure all the text references are

listed. Type the “References Cited” section

on a separate sheet after the last page of

text. Abbreviations should follow the USA

Standard for Periodical Title Abbreviations,

Z39.5-1963.

Submission of Manuscripts

Send completed manuscripts and sup-

porting material to the Academy office (see

address inside front cover) in care of the

Editor. Authors will be requested to read

Xerox “proofs” and invited to submit re-

print orders prior to publication.

Reprints - Prices for reprints may be obtained on request.

Washington Academy of Sciences 2nd Class Postage

Room 29, 9650 Rockville Pike (Bethesda) Paid at

Washington, D.C. 20014 Washington, D.C.

Return Requested with Form 3579

Smiths wiian inst. J-Ws

Washingtim. ».C. 2C5¢0

Wa Was

VOLUME 63

Number 2

Journal of the - JUNE, 1973

WASHINGTON

PACADEMY.. SCIENCES

Issued Quarterly

at Washington, D.C.

CONTENTS

Feature:

WILLIAM FITZHUGH: Environmental Approaches to the Pre-

HistonyaotstheNonthy sass wicca cesses cies ton tm celts oieeeacne

Profile:

CLAUDE H.SCHMIDT and JOHN A. FLUNO: Brief History of

Medical and Veterinary Entomology in the USDA ......... 54

Research Reports:

LEE J. SHERVIS and R. D. SHENEFELT: A Bibliography on

Apanteles melanoscelus (Ratzeburg), A. porthetriae Muese-

beck and A. ocneriae Ivanov, Parasites of the Gypsy Moth,

LORE TE ALIS CAME) rors tocar cee ay Sof see ere iG eee ee 61

PAUL M. MARSH: New Synonyms and New Combinations in

North American Doryctinae (Hymenoptera; Braconidae) .... 69

ROBERT W. MATTHEWS and PAUL M. MARSH: Notiospa-

thius, a New Neotropical Genus (Hymenoptera; Braconidae)... 73

RICHARD E. WHITE: New North American Euvrilletta and

Xyletinus With Keys to Species (Coleoptera; Anobiidae).... 76

Academy Affairs:

Scientists Receive Academy’s Annual Awards ................. 82

Oar OF MEMES IMIGSHINe INGWES sococcacqsugcccs0Goodu0undne 85

Scientistsgimathe sNews reais cee oe a raclianmmmnare te kok tcathioe ese Se milous 87

Obituaries:

IN@ thant Bee day: acme s trae crane ale ceuaiaiee eS eoreeo MME Praia ee 88

ECO ACW all Ee aetna eae er PR ya te gee nS MBS) lbs

LOST AS a d'a 0 Otho foie Obie CEE OTeD » Oaln on tatarciens ceolen’s Ceatnrn en ERNE | Jenene

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

President

Grover C. Sherlin

President-Elect

Kurt H. Stern

Secretary

Patricia Sarvella

Treasurer

Nelson W. Rupp

Board Member

Samuel B. Detwiler, Jr.

BOARD OF MANAGERS

All delegates of affiliated

Societies (see facing page)

EDITOR

Richard H. Foote

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

Elizabeth Ostaggi

ACADEMY OFFICE

9650 Rockville Pike (Bethesda)

Washington, D.C. 20014

Telephone (301) 530-1402

Washington Academy of Sciences

Founded in 1898

The Journal

This journal, the official organ of the Washington Aca-

demy of Sciences, publishes historical articles, critical

reviews, and scholarly scientific articles; proceedings

of meetings of the Academy and its Board of Mana-

gers; and other items of interest to Academy members.

The Journal appears four times a year (March, June,

September, and December) — the September issue

contains a directory of the Academy membership.

Subscription Rates ww —,

Members, fellows, and patrons in good standing re-

ceive the Journal without charge. Subscriptions are

available on a calendar year basis only, payable in ad-

vance. Payment must be made in U.S. currency at the

following rates:

WsStandiCanadawere erro $10.00

Foreign jevecusioretectonte 11.00

Single Copy Price....... 3.00

Back Issues

Obtainable from the Academy office (address at bot-

tom of opposite column): Proceedings: Vols. 1-13

(1898-1910) Index: To Vols. 1-13 of the Proceedings

and Vols. 1-40 of the Journal Journal: Back issues,

volumes, and sets (Vols. 1-62, 1911-1972) and all cur-

rent issues.

Claims for Missing Numbers

Claims 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 al-

lowed because of failure to notify the Academy of a

change in address.

Changes of Address

Address changes should be sent promptly to the Aca-

demy office. Such notification should show both old

and new addresses and zip number.

Published quarterly in March, June, September, and December of each year by the

Washington Academy of Sciences, 9650 Rockville Pike, Washington, D.C. Second class

postage paid at Washington, D.C. and additional mailing offices.

DELEGATES TO THE WASHINGTON ACADEMY OF SCIENCES,

REPRESENTING THE LOCAL AFFILIATED SOCIETIES

Philosophical Society of Washington .............. ccc cece eee eee tee eaee Bradley F. Bennett

Anthropological Society of Washington ........... 0... c cece cette een e een nes Jean K. Boek

Biologicalesociety of Washington .. 00.06... cce0cs.cccccureceserecness Delegate not appointed

Whemicalesociety of Washington ss... os ecrenaie «oe acre oe eies otiaye ous see sieve Glass 6 Alfred Weissler

Bntomolorical Society of Washington -........050.0.s.ccensnceeecsree eens William E. Bickley

IN AMON Alm GEOCTAD MIC GSOCICLY, <5, cl. caye1aic.o-4.a1 soi aseslont’s ace Qieuavieers sia sierevesevekewlerale oi Alexander Wetmore

IG EMIOPICAIMSOCICLYMOn IWaShINGtOM 4s ccc. acce voidiens cies oo sidnic esis wi oloie g aislaleietin ee irs Charles Milton

Medical Society of the District of Columbia ......................0-- Delegate not appointed

AOA Diam ELIStOGICAl SOGICLY: 5 sfoyorc 5 «3 shone ave ooo ws asauere es crcueroe ae eleydtovsitale cissnl due 'eie obits Paul H. Oehser

BOranicaleSocietynoh Washingtom s.¢ x/./s:.esecie ayers ss .6ls ote tel s ore etree sinere wieletae evaue Conrad B. Link

SOSA OF ATO TCEINV I ROC Cie ee nee ee ene ee ee Robert Callaham

Wiashinetony society; of Engineers ..0. 6s sccccc ese ces eee wea ere wees diese esas George Abraham

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ....................-0-- Leland D. Whitelock

American Society of Mechanical Engineers .................. cece eeeeaeeees William G. Allen

Helminthological Society of Washington ................ 000 e cece cence eee eeee James H. Turner

American Society for Microbiology ...........0..0ccccceseececteerntssseeneds Lewis Affronti

SocietysofvAmenican! Military Engineers .. 2.6... .-000 csc sees meee eve news cece H.P. Demuth

American Society of Civil Engineers.................cccceeee ccc cence eeneeees Carl H. Gaum

Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine ....................20ee0e: Carlton Treadwell

ANTROMEAM SOSTEINY SOI (1 SRI en ee Glen W. Wensch

International Association for Dental Research .....................05- Norman H.C. Griffiths

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics ...............2...eeeeeeee Franklin Ross

American Meteorological Society ......2.....002e0c cress neseneeneres Delegate not appointed

Insecticide Society of Washington ...............:ccce eee e sects tee rerees H. Ivan Rainwater

Ncousticalsociety of America’... : ccc cecc a cece oes che us eee ee seen a ee cemes Alfred Weissler

PATE CATIMINUIGLE ATF SOCIELY. 55... cialesccayepeih eres avsiaeie Give raitslatscne shalom elwlocacete aye Delegate not appointed

Instiiutesotmrood> Technologists... .....0..c02s-stehegei eves scceesen ene: William Sulzbacher

PNINOLICANME © ChaIMiCn SOCICLY, more, <serece axons chic ai ah siacsiarram eledeie| eleaisue oi eee ogee) ecdhatiovelan deve sven J.J. Diamond

BIECIROCHEMNCAESOCICLY) hye siasvosncrersiava pisuers (atescyors svecs sioe mene stecsienta Cie aes wae esas Stanley D. James

Washington History of Science Club................... eee eee eae Delegate not appointed

American Association of Physics Teachers..............-.++e-seeeeeeeee Bernard B. Watson

OpticalBSocietysof Aime riGas 55.0 cece ease clos sss sisi sne Gi cevelsi eine cevene lols oleieieyeuele stare James B. Heaney

American Society of Plant Physiologists................2--seeeee eee ees Walter Shropshire

Washington Operations Research Council ............0.0ceeeee cece ect e ee eeees John G. Honig

Instrument Society of America .....5.....0ccscceetcnte sees teeeenesee Delegate not appointed

American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical

andwretroleumuEngineersaremiciicvele cicero ee esac ciesee eh eae Delegate not appointed

National Capitoll “Astronomers: <o5);.fotcis lens elec cba eee reso sieislioies si eleve eel eiere tleress eins © John A. Eisele

Mathematical Association of America ...............- cece sere een e eens Daniel B. Lloyd

PCa Institutexoh Chemists) = ...c25 sta nocewine csoereeia wis a mucyea ao ae chsreeal sue es Miloslav Recheigl, Jr.

Delegates continue in office until new selections are made by the respective societies.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973 37

ig)

| es

fe)

yal

‘S)

Dn.

FEATURE

Environmental Approaches to the

Prehistory of the North

William Fitzhugh

Associate Curator of North American Archeology,

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C. 20560

ABSTRACT

Archeological research in the Arctic and Subarctic has expanded recently to include

a wide variety of scientific disciplines including geology, ecology, and palynology. The

use of these approaches is discussed in relation to an archeological project being con-

ducted on the central Labrador coast where a 5500 year record of human occupation

has been uncovered. This interesting approach to archeology has led to a better under-

standing of man’s relationship to the North.

Serious anthropology in the Arctic

began less than 100 years ago when Frans

Boas made his historic visit to the Central

Eskimo in 1883. Archeological investiga-

tions of Eskimo prehistory, however, did

not begin until the pioneering research

of Therkel Mathiassen as part of the Dan-

ish Fifth Thule expeditions in 1924.

Mathiassen’s work, and that of other

archeologists following him, grew out of

desire to link the living peoples of the

Canadian and Greenland Arctic to old

living sites and legends of an earlier race,

called Tunnits. These sites were

semisubterranean sod and earth houses

with whalebone-supported roofs, and

they were frequently associated with

stone burial cairns. The numerous bone

artifacts and debris found in these settle-

ments indicated that unlike their descen-

dants these earlier Eskimos were whale

‘From a talk presented at the March, 1973 meeting

of the Academy in Washington, D. C.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

hunters, but otherwise they had an

economy and material culture very

similar to that of their ethnographic

descendants. Excavation and interpreta-

tion of the early Eskimo culture, later

known as Thule culture, could be accom-

plished by reference to the well-known

historic Eskimo culture. Indeed, the

archeologist’s task was greatly simplified

by his Eskimo digging companions, who

were frequently able to name and identify

the function of excavated tools—not,

however, without frequent aspersion to

the parochialism and backward styles of

their forebears.

This ethnographic approach to Eskimo

archeology persisted as the only recog-

nized system of interpretation until a dif-

ferent form of prehistoric culture was dis-

covered which preceded Thule culture

and whose remains consisted mainly of

minute flaked stone implements of an Old

World mesolithic character. The con-

trast between Dorset and Thule culture

was marked. Dorset people did not hunt

whales; nor did they appear to use dog

traction, covered earth houses or cairn

burial. Their sites were on open, exposed

locations, and the forms of their harpoons

and lances were quite distinct from Thule

implements. In fact, the archeologist’s

Eskimo companions were as puzzled as

he was about the nature of this strange

new mini-culture. Eskimo working with

archeologist Louis Giddings in Alaska

decided that the Dorset people and their

Denbigh predecessors must have been a

race of midgets, so small and seemingly

ineffectual were their precisely flaked

stone implements. Yet their face masks

and skeletalized art work grippingly por-

trayed a psyche and world view riddled

with powerful, mysterious demons and

malignant spirits.

Not long after the discovery of Dorset

culture archeologists uncovered the

traces of a still earlier people of the East-

ern Arctic. Prosaically dubbed ‘‘Pre-

Dorset,’’ this culture was clearly

descended from an earlier microlithic cul-

ture in Alaska and appeared to represent

the earliest Eskimo occupation of the

Eastern Arctic. Their arrival in the east

about 4000 years ago was equally drama-

tic as the later migration of Thule culture,

for within a few centuries they had spread

from Alaska east to northern Greenland

and Labrador. While Pre-Dorset people

were well adapted to the full range of

arctic conditions, their economy was

based on a greater degree of land hunting

of caribou and muskox than were the later

Eskimo cultures. In general their culture

was similar to that of the Dorset people,

into which Pre-Dorset evolved around

1000 B.C. without major new influence

from the Western Arctic or the Canadian

forests to the south. These 2 early cul-

tures compose a single historical con-

tinuum known as the Paleo-Eskimo tradi-

tion beginning as early as 2200 B.C. and

persisting until the arrival of the Thule

migrants with their dogsleds and whaling

harpoons around A.D. 1000. Thereafter,

Dorset culture disappears with the

exception of possible acculturated

enclaves in Southampton Island and

Hudson Strait.

The historical events and environmen-

tal conditions surrounding this cultural

trilogy in the Eastern Arctic poses a great

number of questions of interest to north-

ern archaeologists. In fact, the unique-

ness of cultural adaptations in the Arctic

zone creates topics of general theoretical

interest for anthropologists throughout

the world. The focal point of the problem

is, of course, the same one that has

always stimulated interest in Eskimo cul-

ture, beginning with Frobisher’s

encounter with Baffin Island Eskimos in

1577 and which reached such a near

fever-pitch following 19th century Arctic

explorations of Franklin, Kane, Hall,

Greeley and others—namely, what

motivated man to inhabit this climatically

fierce region and how did he sustain life

in the face of this hardship? For the

archeologist, the query went into more

detail, however. The list of questions

includes: What were the effects of clima-

tic cooling and warming on northern ter-

restrial and marine mammals? Do popu-

lation declines occur periodically which

might affect human subsistence? What

are the structural differences between the

northern land and sea ecosystems which

influence human adaptations? These

more theoretical questions were followed

by a host of specific problems, involving

the origins of Pre-Dorset, Dorset, and

Thule cultures, their distributions and

variability.

Answers to these questions were not

forthcoming from studies of Eskimo

ethnography and mythology, which had

supplied extensive detail for early recon-

struction of Thule culture. The discovery

of a 3000-year Paleo-Eskimo tradition

was a radical new development in East-

ern Arctic prehistory which required a

totally new approach to archeological

interpretation. Partly in response to this

challenge a new type of research is being

conducted in the Eastern Arctic. As a

result of the more impoverished physical

remains of the Paleo-Eskimo sites this

work draws much of its support from

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

techniques of the natural sciences includ-

ing biology, animal behavior, oceanog-

raphy, meteorology, and geology.

While not dismissing the importance

of Eskimo ethnography, the new strategy

emphasizes a conjunctive approach in

which culture and environment are

studied as interrelated variables on the

assumption that human populations exist

within a geographic and environmental

system and that changes in the system

are reflected in various aspects of a cul-

ture’s adaptation. In a harsh environ-

ment, such as the Arctic, the physical

restraint on cultural expression is rela-

tively strong. The very nature of human

groups, however, requires the considera-

tion of cultural tradition and history into

this scheme. A simple deterministic

approach to environmental control of cul-

ture cannot be maintained. Thus the task

of the archeologist is to determine the

weighting of various environmental and

historical factors in the explanation and

cultural reconstruction of prehistory. It

is this dualism between biophysical con-

ditions and socio-cultural expression that

makes the search for the reality of prehis-

tory so elusive to archeologists. There-

fore, for the purposes of this paper it will

be expedient to consider only those

aspects of northern prehistory in which

the role of natural science is paramount.

We proceed with the discussion of 6

major types of analysis which can be used

to elucidate environmental relationships

of some of the early Eskimo and Indian

occupants of the Arctic and Subarctic.

Geological Analysis

Much of the information available to

the archeologist comes through investiga-

tion of the physical environment. In order

to reconstruct the prehistoric landscape

of 500, 2000, or 4000 years ago, one must

understand the physical and biological

processes that have modified the land.

In the north 2 factors—climatic change

and post-glacial geographic mod-

ification—have been primarily responsi-

ble for these changes.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973 |

During the last glaciation it is estimated

that an ice sheet approximately 1 mile

thick developed on the Canadian Shield

and the Labrador-Quebec plateau. The

tremendous weight of this ice resulted in

plastic deformation of the earth’s crust.

Following deglaciation the land

“‘floated’’ back to its original position,

and the highest maine terraces and lowest

limit of glacial erratic boulders give some

indication of the extent of glacial depres-

sion. Northeastern Hudson Bay was

depressed between 500-800 ft, while in

Central Labrador it varied from 600 ft

on the interior to 250 ft on the coast.

Farther south, in the Gulf of St. Law-

rence and Upper Great Lakes, the

greater thickness of ice buildup is regis-

tered by upper marine limits of nearly

1000 ft.

In areas of sandy deposits, relic beach

lines and terraces provide a relative

chronology of post-glacial uplift from the

highest formations to the lowest, contem-

porary ones. By radiocarbon dating fossil

shells, peat, or driftwood contained in

these beachlines, it is possible to con-

struct an absolute isostatic curve for the

post-glacial period. In all areas where this

has been done the curve is found to be

generally logarithimic, with an initial

rapid period of adjustment of up to 25-40

ft per century in the first few millenia

after deglaciation and thereafter slowing

to a current rate of less than 1 ft per cen-

tury. Even today uplift is perceptible to

Labrador fishermen who remark on the

shoaling of harbors which no longer

accommodate their boats as they did a

generation or two earlier.

Along the sea coast uplift can be useful

to the archeologist in several ways. Most

immediately, the sequence of beachlines

provides a relative timescale for the

chronological ordering of prehistoric set-

tlements found associated with active

beaches in the past. Older sites must be

confined to the upper beaches and ter-

races while younger sites are generally

found along the more recent formations.

Since most cultures occupying the

maritime regions of the Subarctic and

Arctic were active seafarers, relative

elevations have proven to be valuable

chronological indicators, and detailed

chronologies have been developed for the

uplifted Arctic regions of Baltic and

North Norway, Greenland, and the East-

ern and Central Arctic. Unfortunately,

coastal submergence has occurred in the

Northern Hemisphere in the regions

immediately adjacent to uplifted zones,

such as in Alaska, New England, and

northern Europe. This makes it difficult

to relate sites on the northern beaches

to contemporary cultural and chronologi-

cal developments in southern coastal

zones where several thousand years of

prehistory lie submerged.

In the Eastern Arctic the most com-

plete cultural sequence so far developed

comes from the Igloolik area of northern

Fox Basin. Here, Jorgen Meldgaard of

the National Museum of Denmark has

identified a series of Eskimo cultures

beginning with Pre-Dorset settlers of

about 2000 B.C. located on the upper

beachlines. Later sites are found on suc-

cessively lower beach levels, document-

ing the transition into Dorset culture

along the 800 B.C. beaches and continu-

ing through the arrival of Thule cultures

and subsequent developments down to

the present day. Since Igloolik is an area

of relatively slight vertical relief, these

sequential settlements are horizontally

separated from each other and there is

relatively little contamination of earlier

settlements by those immediately fol-

lowing. As aresult, Meldgaard feels con-

fident in studying the evolution of tool

types from house to house and believes

that it is occasionally possible to identify

stylistic developments within single gene-

rations, a substantial improvement over

the precision of radiocarbon dating!

Unfortunately, the lack of preservation

of the stylistically most sensitive bone

tools do not allow this approach to be

applied with equal success in many other

areas of the North. Other areas where

geological dating has facilitated relative

archeological dating include the Cape

Krusenstern sequence developed by

Louis Giddings in Alaska and the Hamil-

ton Inlet chronology developed by the

author for the central coast of Labrador.

Precise control of uplift information is

not often available for an area in which

an archeologist is working. This was the

case in Hamilton Inlet when archeologi-

cal work began in 1968. Therefore a major

part of the continuing archeological prog-

ram in this area has involved collecting

geological data pertinent to archeological

problems. The elevation of raised ter-

races and beachlines was recorded, and

datable samples, such as marine shells

and bones from stranded whales found

associated with these fossil shorelines,

were submitted for radiometric dating.

This research has resulted in 2 prelimi-

nary uplift curves (fig. 1) for the Hamilton

Inlet region. Normally 1 curve would

adequately describe uplift conditions for

a given region. However, in Hamilton

Inlet the maximum limit of marine sub-

mergence in western Lake Melville was

found to be nearly 500 ft while on the

outer coast the marine limit is only 250

ft. The difference appears to be a result

of greater ice build-up toward the center

of ice dispersal in the Labrador-Quebec

interior, while the ice sheet remained

thinner at the coast due to the moderating

influence of the ocean. An inspection of

the 2 curves reveals a dramatic difference

betwee western Lake Melville and the

outer coast 150 miles to the east. Terraces

on the outer coast at 40-55-ft elevation

were available for cultural occupation by

5500 years ago, while elevations with

comparable dates in North West River

now lie over 100 ft above sea level. There-

fore, there is greater potential for vertical

separation of archeological sites belong-

ing to different cultural periods on the

interior.

One of the most intriguing aspects of

the geological investigation of Hamilton

Inlet results from the reported existence

of a few fossil whale skeletons north of

Groswater Bay and near Cape Harrison

where they are claimed to lie at elevations

nearly 1000 ft above sea level. If the

elevation of these whale fossils is correct

they are far above the most recent post-

glacial marine limit, and they pose

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

@® ARCHEOLOGICAL DATES

ELEVATION (METERS)

GOOSE Bay / NWR

ro)

ELEVATION OF

MARINE LIMIT

: 7

COASTAL SERIES

ro)

120

RIGOLET

RATTLERS BIGHT SHELL, 4.1M, 2310250, SI-1105

110 RATTLERS BIGHT SHELL, 5.0M, 2545-55, SI-I106

. RATTLERS BIGHT SITE, 6.7M, 38902145, SI-932

100 . RATTLERS BIGHT SITE, 6.7M, 45257155, Si-929

SANDY COVE

SANDY COVE 5, 13.8M, 5I30*110, SI-1279

90 . BLACK ISLAND COVE, 10.7M, 542575, SI-1277

MICHAEL RIVER SHELL, 50.0M, 8640230, GSC-1453

INDIAN HARBOR

P INTERIOR SERIES

APPROXIMATE

70 . SUSAN RIVER FOSSIL TREES, 9.1M, |611*217, BLAKE 1956 INTERIOR UPLIFT

. SUSAN RIVER FOSSIL TREES, 9.1M, 20227195, BLAKE 1956 CURVE

60 . SUSAN RIVER FOSSIL TREES, 9.1M, 21104245, BLAKE 1956

. RED OCHRE SITE, 24M, 3090180, GSC-I280

. NORTH WEST RIVER POND, 29M, 4805255, SI-1332 |

. NORTH WEST RIVER SHELL, 33M, 53304170, SI-1135

* COASTAL UPLIFT

. ALEXANDER POND, 110.4M, 59857140, SI-133!

40 CURVE

TIME - 10°

Fig. 1.—Uplift curves for the Hamilton Inlet region of Labrador. Two curves are presented: one

(solid curve) for the interior Goose Bay region in western Lake Melville and another (dashed line)

for the outer coastal zone. The maximum elevation of the marine limit is indicated at the top.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973 43

NWR AREA

CONTEMPORARY

GEOGRAPHY

LAKE MELVILLE

NWR

ca.3000 B.C.

(100 ft contour)

NWR

Geography

caiooo B.C.

(50 11. contour)

NORTH WEBT

RIVER

present

choreline

NWR

ca.4500 B.C.

(180 ft, comtour)

Fig. 2.—Geographic changes in the North West River region, western Lake Melville, during the

past 6500 years. The most important changes in terms of human occupation took place about 3500

years ago when uplift closed the island passes along the North West River moraine and created the

present exit of the Naskapi River at North West River.

a unique challenge to geological inter-

pretation. At present our understanding

of Pleistocene events in Labrador does

not permit glaciation of the extent that

could result in land submergence on the

order of 1000 ft. Additionally, current

evidence indicates that all but possibly

the highest mountains of norther Lab-

rador have been completely overridden

by the ice sheet in the past glaciation.

The presence of stranded whales at the

reported elevation would thus require

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

substantial revision of current geological

thought, including the existence of for-

merly more extensive glaciation and the

occurrence of nunataks (ice-free sum-

mits) during the most recent glacial

maxima. Nunataks have been suggested

as possibilities for the 4-5000-ft-high Torn-

gat peaks of northern Labrador. To find

them at 1000-ft elevations in central Lab-

rador would be unique indeed.

Paleo-Geography

The uplift curve is important to the

archeologist for more than relative dating

of prehistoric sites. It is an important tool

in paleo-geographic studies and interpre-

tation of settlement pattern shifts through

time. We have noted that landforms have

changed far more significantly on the

interior than they have on the coast dur-

ing the early period of human occupancy

of central Labrador about 4000 B.C. At

this time uplift in the North West River

area may have been as great as 5-10 ft

per century, enough to change landforms

significantly during a man’s lifetime. As

new land merged, old living sites were

abandoned and settlements shifted to

new sites with more favorable circum-

stances. No sites have been found dating

to this period in North West River

because it was at that time a small off-

shore island in a large marine estuary (fig.

2a). We may assume that these sites are

present in the Naskapi River Valley at

elevations above 150 ft. By 1500 B.C.

the land had emerged enough to bring

the North West River recessional

moraine out of the sea near the 70-ft

topographic contour (fig. 2b). At this time

there were 2 exits for the Naskapi River

into Lake Melville, one via the present

channel and a second a few miles to the

north. As uplift continued the northern

channel closed (fig. 2c) and human move-

ment between the coast and the interior

for the next 3500 years became channeled

through the present debauchment (fig.

2d).

Archeological data follows this geolog-

icalreconstructionvery closely (fig. 3). No

sites have been found at North West

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

River above the 78-ft beaches when it

was an island. However, initial occupa-

tion began shortly after 1500 B.C. on the

60-70-ft terraces. As the land continued

to rise the river cut down through the

morainal sands, producing successively

lower terraces for occupation by later

Indian cultures. This process has enabled

a detailed chronological sequence of cul-

tures to be constructed for the area—this

has been substantiated independently by

typological and radiocarbon dating.

Although the uplift on the outer coast

is less and does not provide such precise

vertical zonation, it is possible to use the

same techniques of relative archaeologi-

cal dating and geographic analysis in these

areas. Here, however, there were no

large rivers to provide reworked sand

deposits for persistent settlement at a

single locale through time. Rather, uplift

changes resulted in extensive lateral dis-

placement of archeological sites to new

harbors and marine terraces as they

emerged from the sea and became more

desirable than those harbors with

perched terraces and rock-strewn en-

trances.

Physical Analysis

Another type of analysis which has

proven useful in archeological interpreta-

tion in central Labrador involves

mineralogical and petrographic identifi-

cation of lithic raw materials used in the

stone tool industry of the early Indians

and Eskimos. The Canadian Shield,

which is the basic geological province

encompassing much of northeastern

Canada, is composed of granites and

gneisses and other igneous and

metamorphosed rocks of great age. Lack-

ing sedimentary deposits, it is an area

devoid of cherty rocks with concoidal

fracture which were of main importance

to man.

Central Labrador does have some

remnant metamorphosed sedimentary

and igneous beds which contain useful

material, but the outcrops are small and

localized in nature and are extremely var-

iable in color, texture, and other prop-

CULTURE

CHRONOLOGY

SESACIT

PT. REVENGE

NORTH WEST R.

D. MICHELIN

RADIOCARBON

AGES BEFORE

PRESENT

ELEVATION OF CULTURES AT NORTH WEST RIVER

370290

435+90

7207130

8951125

CH Re se-A1 7 dial letra arenes oslo te

= K0\ 0 Sel (On iieasoeearcictgra coro Unico aancaceranioe

2022-7196 CC i i re ce er rr]

2110+ 245 Ce

31952120

Scoarers FIRST OCCUPATION

LITTLE LAKE —>

(EARLY COAST

CULTURES NO

PRESENT DUE

TO SUBMER-

GENCE OF

NWR)

INITIAL EMERGENCE OF

NWR CHANNEL. MAIN-

FRESH a Z2— | AND FORMATION.

WATER Za

ATOMS NWR POND EMERGENCE

: Ba ON ISLAND. FIRST BOREAL

6” VEGETATION.

SALT WATER DIATOMS

j= Ze SALT WATER SHELL DEPOSITION

AT 108 FT.

) GEOLOGICAL SAMPLES () arcHEoLosicaL SAMPLES

Fig. 3.—Archeological sequence at North Wester River, Labrador. This sequence represents the

last 3000 years of a longer 5500-year culture history which has been defined for Hamilton Inlet. The

cultural chronology at North West River clearly reflects the relationship between prehistoric sites, their

elevation above sea level, and radiocarbon dates. Geological information includes fossil sea shells and

salt water diatoms found in 5000-year-old uplifted sediments at approximately 100-foot elevations. More

recent samples of fossil trees in the 2000-year range may indicate either fresh or salt water deposition.

4805=55

53302170

erties. No single source was of domiant belonging to a particular culture group.

importance such that all prehistoric Forinstance, one group may consistently

peoples used it; rathereachcultureseems choose to use a commonly available

to have found and utilized different quar- material such as quartzite, available in

ries. Their choice of raw materials thus the glacial and beach deposits, while a

indicates a cultural preference which is subsequent group preferred a high quality

replicated repeatedly in different sites chert of a diagnostic type. A third might

46 J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

6(0'°) in ice accumulated

3 during the last 15,000 years. _ te

Vertical time scale in 10° years before present

4 14

=7'5

-18

1i ————— 11

laa Alleroed

12 a : 12

Boelling

13 13

14 18 14

8(0)

15 15

-42 -40 -38 -36 -34 -32 -30 -29 -28%e.

Fig. 4.—Climatic variations in the Camp Century, Greenland, ice core over the past 15,000 years,

reflected by oxygen isotope variations. The data points in the upper part of the curve represent time

periods of from 25 to 50 years. The step curve in the lower portion represents a continuous sequence

of measured samples, each extending over approximately 100 years. (After Dansgaard, et al. 1969,

Science 199(3903): fig. 4).

choose an exotic material available only

from distant sources and for which exten-

sive travel or trade must have occurred.

In this way, not only are individual cul-

tures characterized by a certain raw

material complex, but the geographic

origins of these materials, if they can be

precisely defined, gives an indication of

the extent of movement or external con-

tacts of a particular group. For this

reason archeologists in the North and

elsewhere have recently become

interested in vigorous scientific methods

of identifying raw materials found in

archeological sites.

One of the raw materials which was

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

of special importance for interpreting cul-

tural movements is a distinctive translu-

cent, granular stone commonly found in

coastal archeological sites and rarely

found on the interior. This material,

known as Ramah chert, has a geological

origin in northern Labrador where it out-

crops as a thin band in a sedimentary

series far north of the treeline on the

northern coast of Labrador, 350 mi from

Hamilton Inlet.

The presence of Ramah chert in

archeological sites in central Labrador

and further south indicates a remarkably

long-distance trade network which seems

to have been most extensive in the Mari-

time Archaic period about 2000 B.C.,

a time in which points of this material

were traded south as far as southern New

England. That such a trade net existed

along the coast but did not penetrate the

interior implies a maritime orientation

with good navigational capabilities,

extensive contact, and cultural and prob-

ably linguistic homogeneity between the

participating cultures from northern Lab-

rador to southern Maine. The use of

Ramah chert in central Labrador and its

southern dispersion ceases abruptly after

1800 B.C., coincident with the disappear-

ance of Maritime Archaic culture from

the central coast of Labrador and the

appearance of Pre-Dorset Eskimos in

northern Labrador in the vicinity of the

Ramah chert beds. Here we have an

example of the importance of raw mater-

ial distributions as an indicator of shifts

in cultural geography. Following this

early period Ramah chert is not exten-

sively used until Indian cultures again

develop a coastal adaptation following

until the appearance of the Point Revenge

complex begins about 500 A.D. During

the intervening period Indian cultures

rarely utilized the coast except for brief

summer sojourns, and their activities

apparently did not extend north to the

Ramah beds. This is documented by the

lack of coastal raw materials in their tool

inventories and the absence of coastal

settlements.

This type of interpretation from lithic

materials can be made only if it is possible

to develop exact methods of identifying

lithic material from an archeological site

and its purported geological parent. This

has proved difficult owing to variability

within rocks from one geological source

location. However, a number of

techniques, including X-ray diffraction

and flourescence, neutron activation,

electron microprobe, and various

mineralogical and petrographic methods,

have been used with results which range

from excellent to poor, depending on the

characteristics of the material and the

state of the science. Research in this area

is still in a developmental stage, but pro-

mising results have been obtained from

neutron activation of obsidians and

cherts. The best results have come from

metallurgical analyses of Near Eastern

metal ore bodies. In some cases, how-

ever, it appears that simple petrographic

and visual studies are sufficient for accu-

rately identifying the more distinctive

materials. These techniques have proven

as successful for identifying Ramah chert

as preliminary neutron activation.

Environmental Models

The best source of data for reconstruct-

ing past environments often comes from

archeological deposits where any mater-

ial reflects human agency and cultural

activities. Unfortunately, subarctic

archeological sites are habitually devoid

of preserved organic material of any sort

due to the acidic soils of the Canadian

Shield and the lack of extensive terres-

trial deposits. Under these limitations the

archeologist is forced to adopt a game

plan which relies on secondary informa-

tion sources. Using the ethnographic

analogy of recent Indian and Eskimo

activities and the local setting of a site,

it is generally possible to determine the

main purpose of acamp. One can be fairly

certain that river mouth sites were fishing

camps; inland camps were more likely

caribou hunting stations; and sites found

on exposed regions of the coast were

probably seal and sea bird hunting camps.

Combining this information with contem-

porary animal distribution one can

develop a model which can be projected

into the past with some assurance, pro-

viding major environmental changes have

not occurred. However, even with

environmental and climatic change this

technique of ‘‘using the present as a key

to the past’’ provides an archeologist with

workable environmental models and

hypotheses. For, if he knows the factors

governing present animal distributions

and the effects of climatic change on the

environment, he can reasonably accu-

rately predict the probable effects of

environmental shifts on these species.

Correlations can then be developed with

cultural distributions to see if their shifts

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

through time correspond with these in the

natural environment.

Two examples demonstrate the use of

environmental modeling in archeological

research in Labrador and Hudson Bay.

One of the major problems is the variabil-

ity in the Indian adaptations from the

central Labrador region. Here, initial

Indian occupation began with the

Maritime Archaic tradition with a strong

coastal orientation between 5500-3800

years ago. Following this long period of

cultural stability came 2000 years of cul-

tural instability in which a number of dif-

ferent cultures occupied both the interior

and coast, succeeding each other at

approximately 500-year intervals. There

is no evidence of in-place development

of these groups, and they are interpreted

as new introductions of people and ideas

from the south. After 500 A.D. the Point

Revenge culture appeared and continued

to develop until historic times with a

strong maritime orientation. The record

thus indicated a long initial period of cul-

tural stability within a maritime adapta-

tion followed by a several-thousand-year

period of cultural instability and replace-

ment with only limited coastal adap-

tation. The last culture period is again

one of stability with a maritime adap-

tation.

The description of culture history such

as this is only the beginning of archeologi-

cal interpretation. The immediate ques-

tion that arose from this sequence

involved an explanation of the various

periods of continuity and discontinuity

in the record. Was this the result of

idoiosyncratic cultural events or of more

general effects of environmental vari-

ables? To determine this an investigation

of present day ecology of both marine

and terrestrial environments was under-

taken with specific reference to mammals

of importance to man and the factors that

govern their distribution and population

structure.

Structural Ecology

The northern terrestrial environment

is a relatively species-poor ecosystem

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

characterized by a simple food chain and

trophic structure. It is an unstable system

subject to periodic and strong perturba-

tion by fire and winter icing, both of

which may precipitate population

declines of man’s basic resource, the

caribou. Since caribou are herbivores

adapted to lichen grazing in the boreal

forest and tundra, any alteration of the

lichen fields either by fire or winter glaze

storms can result in population crashes

or migration shifts. If these drops occur

during a time when human populations

are Near carrying capacity, starvation is

likely to occur. Ethnographic documen-

tation provides abundant support to this

cycle of events in northern Labrador and

Quebec.

In terms of climatic variation, it

appears that forest fires produced largely

by lightning are more prevalent during

warm, dry summers, while cool, damp

summers have a lower pyrotechnic index.

Correspondingly, cold dry winters do not

present the severe icing conditions that

cause caribou starvation if occasionally

rainstorms strike the winter feeding

grounds. Speaking only in terms of fire

and icing (excluding predation), one

would expect caribou herds to increase

in cool climatic periods and to fall in

warm periods. In fact, historical informa-

tion on herd sizes gives some support to

this model with caribou peaks in the cool

periods around 1900 and 1960-70 and

with lows in the warm period between

1915-1955. Data on caribou herds in the

Central Barren Grounds and Alaska sug-

gest similar systematic correlations.

Marine ecosystems are not subject to

the same inherent instability of northern

terrestrial ecosystems. The marine envi-

ronment is species-rich and most animals

have a broad food base. Food chains are

complex and population oscillations are

not great. Here, sea ice is the primary

ecological determinant, and its distribu-

tion and nature affect not only the abun-

dance of marine mammals such as seals,

walrus, and whales, but more impor-

tantly, their availability to man. In par-

ticular, stormy weather may be a signifi-

cant factor in the ability of a hunter to

reach the game. In the marine ecosystem

faunal shifts appear to occur more

gradually, with less population oscillation

than is characteristic for northern land

mammals, and geographic shifts due to

shifting climate and ice conditions are

both gradual and directional. This

enables the marine-oriented hunter to

better predict the availability of game

than is possible on the interior. Thus,

cooling climates result in southern move-

ment of arctic marine mammals down the

Labrador coast coincident with a retreat

of the northern forest limit. Warming con-

ditions reverse this situation.

In short, we have presented an

environmental model in which interior

cultures have a potentiality for instability

and periodic extinction, which is not a

dominant structural component of

maritime adapted cultures. Furthermore,

there is a strong possibility that interior

adaptations are more unstable in warm

climate periods than in cool periods.

However, during warm periods the coast

offers a relatively diverse and stable

resource base at a time when the forest

limit is likely to extend further north pro-

viding shelter and firewood for Indian

cultures.

Climatic and Vegetation History

It remains, then, to determine climatic

events in relation to the culture history

developed for Hamilton Inlet. Fig. 4 pre-

sents an oxygen isotope analysis of an

ice core taken from Camp Century,

Greenland. The results show a remark-

ably precise temperature determination

for the past 15,000 years and are in agree-

ment with temperature data based on

medieval historical records and North

European pollen studies. It will be seen

that the peak temperature periods fall

during the times of strongest cultural con-

tinuity for Indian coastal adaptations in

central Labrador. Furthermore, the cold

spells at 1800 B.C., 500 B.C., and 1500

A.D. correspond to southern movements

of Eskimos in Labrador. These are times

when one might expect southern forest

shifts and Indian retreats from the coastal

zones.

Similar results are seen in the analysis

of pollen cores taken from the Hamilton

Inlet region as part of the Smithsonian

Institution’s Hamilton Inlet Project. The

core from Alexander Lake, near Goose

Bay (fig. 5), contains a 6000-year record

of post-glacial vegetation changes

beginning with deglaciation around 6500

B.P. Tundra vegetation, represented by

high birch, alder, willow, grass, and

sedge, becomes established by 6000 B.P.

and lasts until the dramatic influx of the

spruce forest about 4500 B.P. Thereafter

the forest composition does not register

climatic events because the sample loca-

tion is well within the main boreal forest

limits. Charcoal counts indicate that fires

have been an important part of both the

tundra and boreal periods, with a major

fire horizon in the tundra zone about 5500

B.P. and subsequent peak fire periods in

the peak boreal period, ca. 5000-4000

B.P., followed by a drop and then gradual

increase during the past 1500 years. A

second pollen core (fig. 6) from Sandy

Cove Pond, located on the forest-tundra

boundary in outer Hamilton Inlet, is

more sensitive to climatic events. It has

a profile showing an initial and very brief

period of tundra beginning about 5000

B.P. followed by spruce forest invasion

ca. 4500 B.P. Here, however, at the for-

est edge, the spruce record shows con-

siderable variation suggesting a forest

maximum between 4500-3500 B.P. and

declines between ca. 3500 and ca. 2000

B.P. with an intermediate cool period.

The charcoal frequency reinforces the

spruce curves by indicating fire peaks

corresponding to the spruce maxima.

Finally, the initial date of revegetation at

ca. 5000 B.P. is remarkably late in this

coastal core and suggests that final de-

glaciation of this region was far later than

previously thought.

The pollen data from Hamilton Inlet

provide important correlations between

the cultural sequence of Indian and

Eskimo settlement and adaptation types

and the environmental models for caribou

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

@® FRESH

CIRCUMNEUTRAL WATER

4 FRESH WATER ? DIATOM ASSEMBLAGE

RADIOCARBON DATE

DEPTH IN METERS

J SEDIMENT

SAMPLE NO.

: S

i) A

3 %o,

4+ e

s 6 >

ro} “aK i-

8 “p Sq m

: PINE =

ro) ma ez

5 RG eS

g “Gy mG)

34 S. 22

8 zi o

8 ~ Om

3+ g 2”

2 SAG)

é ol me

5 ce + eee ee WILLOW 2S

8 =

aes

S @

By BIRCH atime»

> a DP

8 : x Oo

eee EAH 2 ©

ce COMPOSITS one

+ + GRASS roe

+++++ +44++ +4++4+ SEDGE ci

\ ++++4+4+++4+4+4+4+ ++ ++ CLUBMOSS

+++++ ++ ++++4+FERNS EB B+

3s oa OD © UV

S ©, Oo Shs ve

° 4, SS = nw

g ee Oy Lae otaes

$ Oo, 22 %

: alts

3 =

= Pe)

3 a.

8 S

g =]

ford)

(NVONOP ‘HY “IWNV)

% OF!

Fig. 5.—Pollen diagram from Alexander Lake, Goose Bay, Labrador, calculated as percentages of

total arboreal pollen.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973 51

DIATOM ASSEMBLAGE

RADIOCARBON DATE

IN METERS

DEPTH

SEDIMENT

0.5

O74

4555

M145

@ ACID FRESH WATER

4 FRESH TO SLIGHTLY

SALINE

SAMPLE NUMBER

GROSWATER BAY,

SANDY COVE POND, LABRADOR

%\0 20 30 40506070

(REO /NsSalbs ))

= = o

4 fo} ron

gee gf i ct eee

a a »~ = ot SG

+ + +++

+++

+ + +++

+ +tt

+ +++

+ + +++

+ ++

+ + +++

+ +++

+ + ttt

+ + +++

+ + + +

+ + +++

+ + ++

+ ttt

+ + ope

+ ++

IN N hah

7 ees pret

10 Yo 10 203040% 10 20 30%

rc) oz

{va}

mn ©

10% 10% 10%

(54°24'N/ 57°43'W )

+ Present

B39 Gyttja

{] Gyttja/clay transition

[2] Grey clay

10 20 30405060708090100 120 140

(ANAL. R.H. JORDAN )

160

180

Pollen diagram from Sandy Cove Pond, Groswater Bay, Labrador, 160 mi east of Goose

Fig. 6.

Bay.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

ecology. First, it will be noted that ice

blocked the occupation of the central

Labrador interior until nearly 6000 B.P.

and perhaps persisted in the coastal

regions until the end of the hypsithermal

at 4500 B.P. The first known occupation

of this region was by Indians who arrived

about the same time as the introduction

of the boreal forest and spread north with

the forest to its northern limit in northern

Labrador. The important maritime focus

of this early culture may result partially

from its being a more stable adaptation

during this peak period of forest fire (and

inferentially, winter icing) activity, which

declines during the cooler period follow-

ing 3800 B.P. The intermediate period

between 3800-1500 B.P. is cooler, and

the forest seems to have retreated some-

what from the outher coast. Perhaps this,

as well as improved hunting coditions on

the interior, resulted in the limited use

of the coast by Indians during this period.

The appearance of Dorset Eskimo cul-

ture from northern Labrador between

2700-2300 B.P. was another important

factor. Following the disappearance of

Dorset culture and climatic warming

beginning around 1500 B.P. Indians of

the Point Revenge complex recolonized

the coast and moved into northern Lab-

rador with the northern forest expansion

of the Climatic Optimum. It is at this

time that Ramah chert again appears in

the tool industry as it did in the northern

expansion of Maritime Archaic around

4500 B.P. A final cooling period around

400 years ago coincident with the impetus

for European trade, resulted in the south-

em expansion of Labrador Eskimo into

central Labrador. This movement dis-

placed the protohistoric Indian peoples

into the interior, where they still exist

today, deprived of their traditional

summer coastal hunting and fishing

grounds.

It would thus appear that cultural

movements in central Labrador have

resulted from a combination of environ-

mental and historical conditions. There

has been a strong tendency for interior

Indian cultures throughout prehistory to

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

adopt summer coastal adaptations. Dur-

ing warm periods these adaptations inten-

sified and spread to the north, perhaps

at the expense of Eskimo cultures. Any

cooling period, however, especially if it

resulted in retreat of the forest from the

coast, has caused Indians to decrease use

of the coast and to concentrate on interior

hunting. That interior caribou hunting

was insufficient for long-term cultural

stability is suggested by the discontinuity

of interior cultures of these cool periods.

These are times when Eskimo cultures

often moved south, introducing cultural

and historical factors into the already

complex relationships governing culture

distributions and developments.

Conclusion

The foregoing discussion has pre-

sented a few of the more important scien-

tific approaches to northern archeology.

These techniques are by no means

restricted to the study of arctic and sub-

arctic archeology but have wide applica-

bility in other areas. Archeologists are

increasingly turning to these methods for

information to increase the understand-

ing of culture history and especially to

investigate possible causes of culture

change. In this process many other

techniques are being used as well. Satel-

lite photography is available today which

permits extremely detailed environmen-

tal analyses, and in the Arctic where ice

conditions are important in the distribu-

tion of animals and man they are proving

extremely valuable sources of infor-

mation. The development of new scien-

tific techniques and the advancing ability

of the archeologist to properly interpret

the results of these analyses will continue

to be a well-spring of future research in

prehistory. In the future, archeology will

only prosper through an increasingly

integrated position between the social

and natural sciences, one which mediates

between the extremes of nihilistic histori-

cal particularism and mechanistic

environmental causation.

§3

PROFILE

Brief History of Medical and Veterinary Entomology

in the USDA

Claude H. Schmidt and John A. Fluno!

North Central Region, Agricultural Research Service, USDA,

Fargo, North Dakota 58102.

ABSTRACT

A chronological list of developments in medical and veterinary entomology in the last

120 years includes some of the many contributions made by U. S. Department of Agri-

culture entomologists and chemists that were associated with the Insects Affecting Man

and Animals Research Branch.

This chronology had its genesis in 1969

when the junior author, then Assistant

to the Chief of Insects Affecting Man

and Animals Research Branch, visited

several of the larger field laboratories. He

found, to his dismay, that many of the

newer employees did not have back-

ground information on what scientists in

the Branch had accomplished, and he was

asked numerous questions. To remedy

this situation, we prepared a rough draft

of some of the highlights which we

thought would be interesting and infor-

mative. The manuscript was never com-

pleted because of more pressing matters.

The next thing we knew the junior author

was retiring and the Agricultural

Research Service (ARS) was being reor-

ganized. So it was high time to resurrect

the old draft and bring it up to date.

Perhaps a few words about ARS and

its past and present organization will help

1Retired June 1972; present address Winter Park,

Florida.

the reader put things in perspective.

From 1953 to 1972, ARS organized and

managed its research program through

various Divisions and Branches. During

this 19-year period, ARS grew from less

than 4,000 to over 10,000 employees. It

is therefore not surprising that such a tre-

mendous growth resulted in a need to

restructure the organization of ARS.

Thus, as of July 1972, ARS underwent

a reorganization—or more to the point,

a regionalization. Divisions and

Branches within ARS were replaced by

Regional and Area Headquarters. For

example, the senior author served for 5

years as the Chief of the Insects Affecting

Man and Animals Research Branch of

the Entomology Research Division and

is now Area Director for ARS research

for the Dakotas and Alaska. Obviously

these organizational changes affect the

management of research, but ARS sci-

entists at the laboratory level continue

to work on the same types of research

they undertook before reorganization.

Thus, those scientists who were part of

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

the Insects Affecting Man and Animals

Research Branch continue their research

under the direction of Area and Regional

Headquarters.

_ For those scientists who belonged to

‘the Insects Affecting Man and Animals

Research Branch and the many other sci-

entists who made or contributed to

accomplishments in the field of medical

and veterinary entomology, we have

assembled a brief chronological history

of important entomological events that

occurred shortly before and during the

period when Federal scientists working

in these fields were part of a more or

less formal organization. Of course, not

all the developments listed were the

exclusive discoveries of scientists of the

Insects Affecting Man and Animals

Research Branch, but Branch scientists

played an important role, either directly

or in cooperation with other scientists,

in many of the events listed. Indeed,

close cooperation and friendly competi-

tion among Federal and State agencies

has been the order of the century.

When you look over our compendium,

you will agree that the Branch was in

existence during a dynamic period in

medical and veterinary entomology.

Moreover, ARS can be justly proud of

the many contributions made by its

entomologists and other scientists. These

investigators have left an enviable

record, and the authors feel that under

the new system the research effort in this

important field will be continued and even

intensified. There are still many perplex-

ing problems that need to be solved, and

they will require all of our ingenuity,

dedication, and cooperative effort. In the

new ARS, there are mechanisms for

faster decision-making at the local level

to meet local problems. In addition,

thanks to the National Program Staff at

Beltsville, there is increased coordination

at the national level between the different

disciplines.

List of Events—Medical and Veterinary Entomology

1855-58 Pyrethrum first used in the

United States. (Before crea-

tion of USDA in 1862.)

1862-66 During the Civil War, there

were 1,585,196 cases of

diarrhea and dysentery

resulting in 37,794 deaths.

Wire window and door

screening first began to be

used in U. S.

1881

1887 Horn fly first noted in United

States, near Philadelphia.

1892 L. O. Howard obtained first

practical use of kerosene as

mosquito larvicide.

Role of cattle tick in trans-

mission of Texas cattle fever

discovered (Smith and Kil-

bourne).

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

First recommendation to

public for control of insects,

ticks, and mites affecting

livestock.

1896

1897 Horn fly had spread over

entire U. S., east of Rocky

Mountains, to California,

and Hawaii.

Oil of citronella used as an

insect repellent.

1898 House fly proved to be car-

rier of typhoid fever.

Transmission of malaria by

Anopheles mosquitoes

proved (Italy).

1900 Plague discovered in U. S.

(San Francisco).

Mosquito-yellow fever rela-

tionship proved.

1901

1898-1902

1902

1906

1909

1910

1911

““Swat the Fly’’ campaign

began.

During the Spanish-

American War, 185,056

cases and 1,500 deaths from

diarrhea and dysentery.

Disease caused 80% of all

war deaths; as many as 600

malaria cases per 1,000 men.

Mosquitoes discovered to be

vectors of dengue.

Ticks proved to be vectors

of Rocky Mountain spotted

fever. Arsenic dips

developed for tick control on

livestock; fever tick eradica-

tion program began; quaran-

tine covered about 750,000

square miles.

Typhus shown to be trans-

mitted by human body lice.

Tularemia discovered in

California.

First record we can find of

Insects Affecting Man and

Animals research. Title:

‘‘Investigations of Insects in

Their Direct Relation to the

Health of Man and Domes-

tic Animals.’’ This was the

work of W. D. Hunter and

F. C. Bishopp (under the

direction of L. O. Howard,

Chief of Bureau of

Entomology) on cattle fever

ticks and other ticks.

First trip to northern Mexico

to survey for ticks that might

cross the border.

Boll weevil driving Negro

tenant labor away; sub-

stitute white farm labor suf-

fering from malaria in the

South.

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

W. D. Hunter supervised

tick work; he apparently

became the first Chief,

. Insects Affecting Man and

Animals, at this time.

. First field station set up for

screwworm control at

Uvalde, Texas.

Man and Animals research

became part of Southern

Field Crop Insect Investiga-

tions with W. D. Hunter as

Chief of the new investiga-

tions.

Borax found useful for fly

control in manure.

Screwworm research began:

‘*Paralucilia macellaria is

not the only species

concerned.”’

Hypoderma bovis found in

Canada; surveys begun in

the U.S. for bovis.

Pyrethrum-kerosene sprays

began to be produced com-

mercially for control of

household pests.

Malaria control by fluctuat-

ing water levels first

observed.

Research on insects affect-

ing man reported separately

by Chief of Bureau for first

time; same would apply to

insects affecting animals; all

work still under W. D.

Hunter, Southern Field

Crops Investigations.

Carbolineum first used for

control of poultry parasites.

Sodium fluoride discovered

effective for poultry lice

control.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1926

Argentine ant bait

developed.

USDA fly trap designed and

recommended.

Man and Animals research

combined again; still under

Hunter in Southern Field

Crops Investigations.

Human body louse research

began (in cooperation with

National Research Council

and War Department).

Airplane first used for sur-

veying mosquito-breeding

areas.

During World War I, 79,537

cases of diarrhea and dysen-

tery among troops causing

267 deaths; as many as 15

malaria cases per 1000 men.

Screwworm annual loss

estimated at $4,000,000.

Paris Green first noted as

mosquito larvicide; revolu-

tionized malaria control.

Rotenone reported effective

against cattle grub and cattle

lice.

Benzol and pine tar first

recommended for screw-

worm control.

Airplane first used in insec-

ticide application for

disease-vector insects—

Paris Green for mosquito

larvae, Louisiana.

Insects Affecting Man and

Animals Investigations

apparently first established;

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1933

W. V. King headed up Man

research; F. C. Bishopp

Animals research.

Value of pyrethrum sprays

shown in control of flies in

dairies.

F. C. Bishopp in charge,

Insects Affecting Man and

Animals, but stationed in

Dallas, Texas.

F. C. Bishopp moved to

Washington, D. C., in

charge, M&A; remained

Chief of Branch (or Divi-

sion) of Insects Affecting

Man and Animals until No-

vember 9, 1941.

New Jersey mosquito light

trap and Clear Lake gnat

trap invented.

Sulfur dips developed for

control of lice on sheep and

goats.

Rocky Mountain spotted

fever found in Eastern U. S.

Blow fly maggots first

recommended for treatment

of osteomyelitis.

First recommendations

(whose?) yellow electric

lights as nonattractive to

night-flying insects.

‘‘Screw-worm’’ discovered

to be two. species,

hominivorax and macel-

laria.

Ditching found effective in

controlling salt-marsh mos-

quitoes and sand flies.

Transmission of encephalitis

by mosquitoes proved.

WI)

1937

1939

1941

1942

1943

Phenothiazine first tested as

insecticide; used in horn fly

control.

DeMeillon (South Africa)

showed pyrethrum sprays in

homes lowered malaria

spleen rate.

Urea and allantoin, excreted

by maggots, found to pro-

mote healing of wounds; can

we call this first antibiotic

work?

FE. F. Knipling proposed

eradication of screwworm

through sterile males.

Diphenylamine found effec-

tive in wounds against

screwworms.

Development of aerosol

bomb for mosquito control.

EQ-62 screwworm remedy

developed.

E. C. Cushing became

Chief, Man and Animals on

retirement of F. C. Bishopp;

Cushing was Chief until

June 10, 1942, when he was

called to active military

duty, and again from

November 2, 1945, until

retirement on September 14,

1946.

W. E. Dove became Chief,

Man and Animals; Chief

until October 31, 1945.

Insecticide and repellent

testing for Armed Forces

began at Orlando, Florida;

Dimethyl phthalate, benzyl

benzoate, other repellents

discovered or developed.

DDT developed for control

of insect vectors of typhus,

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1951

malaria, other vector-born

diseases; shown practical for

control of house flies, bed

bugs, and fleas for civilian

' and military uses.

DDT sprays and dusts

developed for control of

horn fiies and lice on cattle

and for control of lice on

other livestock.

Chigger area control shown

with BHC, chlordane, or

toxaphene.

During World War II,

525,004 cases of diarrhea

and dysentary, with 130

deaths; as many as 160 cases

of overseas malaria per 1,000

men in 1943.

Area control of ticks demon-

strated with chlordane,

DDT, and toxaphene.

E. F. Knipling became

Chief, Man and Animals;

remained Chief until July 1,

1953, when succeeded by A.

W. Lindquist.

DDT resistance in house

flies discovered.

Methoxychlor proved effec-

tive for control of lice, flies

on cattle.

Mosquitoes in some locali-

ties found to be DDT-resist-

ant; lindane recommended

as substitute.

EQ-335 smear developed for

screwworm control.

First automatic sprayer

developed for fly control on

livestock.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

1953,

1954

1955

1957

1958

Insecticides found effective

against imported fire ant.

First lice colony resistant to

DDT established in

Orlando, Florida, from lice

collected in Korea.

M-1960 clothing repellent

developed and used in

Korea.

Sugar baits proved effective

in fly control.

The most effective insect

repellent (deet) developed.

A. W. Lindquist became

Branch Chief; held the office

until retirement May 31,

1962.

Screwworms eradicated

from Curacao, Dutch West

Indies.

First effective, safe cattle

grub systemic found (ronnel,

Corvallis, Oregon).

Second effective, safe catile

grub systemic found

(coumaphos, Kerrville,

Texas).

Colony of lindane-resistant

lice from West Africa estab-

lished at Orlando, Florida.

First recommendations for

cattle grub control by sys-

temics. Initiation of a

chemosterilant screening

program for both male and

female sterilants.

Screwworms eradicated

from Southeastern United

States by the sterile male

method.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

1962

1963

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

W. C. McDuffie became

Branch Chief; held position

until December 30, 1966.

Effective international col-

laboration program

developed with World

Health Organization for

testing insecticides; as many

as 1400 compounds tested in

next 10 years.

Mirex proved highly effec-

tive, selective maierial for

the control of the imported

fire ant.

First large-scale use of ULV

aerial technique to control

mosquito vectors of St.

Louis encephalitis in Dailas,

Texas, by U. S. Public

Health Service.

C. H. Schmidt became

Branch Chief July 2, 1967.

Synthetic attractant found

for yellow jackets.

Ground ULV shown super-

ior to high volume thermal

aerosols for mosquito con-

trol. (Gainesville, Florida.)

Experiment at Sea Horse

Key, Florida, demonstrated

that mosquitoes can be con-

trolled by the sterile male

technique.

First report on use of sterile

male technique for the con-

trol of tsetse fly on an

isolated island.

Use of systemic insecti-

cides to control rodent fleas

demonstrated.

1971

Venezuelan equine enceph-

alitis epidemic in Texas con-

quered by ultra-low volume

aerial application of insecti-

cides and massive horse vac-

cination program.

Development of repellent-

treated netting for bed nets,

head nets, and jackets.

(Gainesville, Florida.)

Evidence of house fly

pheromone found, and sex

pheromone in female house

flies identified.

1972

First demonstration of field

effectiveness of juvenile hor-

mone for control of the horn

fly. (College Station,

Texas.)

Regionalization of ARS on

July 1, 1972, terminated the

existence of the Insects

Affecting Man and Animals

Research Branch and the

Entomology Research

Division.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

RESEARCH REPORTS

A Bibliography on Apanteles melanoscelus (Ratzeburg),

A..porthetriae Muesebeck and A. ocneriae Ivanov',

Parasites of the Gypsy Moth, Porthetria dispar (L.)?3

Lee J. Shervis and R. D. Shenefelt

Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin, Madison 53706

The documents cited in this bibliog-

raphy constitute an experimental file used

in preliminary work toward the construc-

tion of a prototype Braconidae informa-

tion retrieval system (Shervis and

Shenefelt, 1973). The file was built up

through intensive literature searches for

each species, the goal being to find as

much published information as possible

on each species regardless of its

originality, length, apparent accuracy or

importance. A total of 183 documents is

listed—167 deal with melanoscelus, 38

with porthetriae and 14 with ocneriae.

Twenty-seven of the documents contain

information on 2 or all of these species.

The titles of non-English documents

are given in the language of the original

full text, followed by an English trans-

lation. Parentheses ( ) indicate that an

English translation of the title was pre-

sent in the original document. Square

brackets [ ] indicate that an English

translation of the title was obtained

1Hymenoptera: Braconidae

?Lepidoptera: Liparidae

3Research supported by the College of Agricul-

tural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin,

Madison, and by means of a cooperative agreement

between the College and the Agricultural Research

Service, USDA.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

elsewhere. For documents in Russian

and Bulgarian, (Cyrillic alphabet) only an

English translation of the title is given.

Where transliteration from Russian or

Bulgarian was required (author names,

serial titles, etc.) the Library of Congress

system was used, taken from the A.L.A.

Cataloging Rules for Author and Title

Entries (1949).

Serial titles were abbreviated in accord

with the American Standard for Periodi-

cal Title Abbreviations (1964). A list of

the full titles of serials is given following

the bibliography.

The page numbers given represent the

full documents, not the pages containing

information on the Apanteles species.

An asterisk (*) preceding the citation

indicates that part of the bibliographic

information was obtained from a secon-

dary source, although copies of the rele-

vant text portions were seen.

The letters ‘‘m’’, ‘‘p’’, and ‘‘o”’ follow-

ing the citation indicate the species dealt

with in the document.

Bibliography

Anon. 1890. The imported gipsy moth (Ocneria

dispar L.). Insect Life 2: 208-211. m

Aullo, M. 1925. Organizacién de las campanas de

extinci6n contra plagas de Lymantria dispar L.

[Organization of eradication campaigns against

outbreaks of Lymantria dispar L.] Rev. Fito-

patol. 2-3: 5-12. m

Balduf, W. V. 1938. Bionomic notes on Exartema

ferriferanum Walk. (Lepid., Olethreutidae) and

its parasites (Hym: Brac., Chalc.). J. N. Y.

Entomol. Soc. 46: 23-26. m

Bess, H. A. 1961. Population ecology of the gypsy

moth Porthetria dispar L. (Lepidoptera: Lyman-

tridae). Conn. Agr. Exp. Sta. (New Haven)

Bull. 646: 1-43. m

Bischoff, H. 1927. Biologie der hymenopteren.

[Biology of the Hymenoptera.] Berlin, J.

Springer. vii + 598 p. m

Brammanis, L. 1957. Die forstentomologie in der

Russischen zeitschrift ‘‘Lesnoje Chosjaistwo”’

(forstwirtschaft) jahrgang 1953-1955. [The forest

entomology in the Russian journal “‘Lesnoe

Khoziaistvo’’ (forestry) years 1953-1955.] Z.

Angew. Entomol. 40: 343-370. p

. 1963. Die forstentomologie in der Sow-

jetrussischen zeitschrift ‘‘Lesnoje Chosjaistwo”’

(forstwirtschaft) jahrgang 1958. [The forest en-

tomology in the Soviet Russian journal ‘“‘Lesnoe

Khoziaistvo’’ (forestry) year 1958.] Z. Angew.

Entomol. 52: 412-424. p

Brauns, A. 1964. Taschenbuch der waldinsekten.

[Handbook of forest insects.] Stuttgart, G.

Fischer. xiii + 817 p. m

Britton, W. E. 1935. The gypsy moth Porthetria

dispar Linn. Conn. Agr. Exp. Sta. (New

Haven) Bull. 375: 621-647. m

. 1937. The satin moth. Conn. Agr. Exp.

Sta. (New Haven) Bull. 396: 361-364. m

. 1938. Additions to the check-list of the

insects of Connecticut. Bull. Conn. State Geol.

Natur. Hist. Surv. 60: 1-201. m

and J. T. Ashworth. 1923. Report of work

in suppressing the gipsy and brown-tail moths.

Season of 1921-1922. Conn. Agr. Exp. Sta.

(New Haven) Bull. 247: 290-326. m

and J. T. Ashworth. 1925. Report of gipsy

moth work. Year ending June 30, 1924. Conn.

Agr. Exp. Sta. (New Haven) Bull. 265: 254—

2S, in

and J. T. Ashworth. 1931. Gipsy moth

control in Connecticut in 1930. Conn. Agr.

Exp. Sta. (New Haven) Bull. 327: 501-518. m

Brown, R. C. 1931. Observations on the satin moth

and its natural enemies in central Europe. U.S.

Dep. Agr. Circ. 176: 1-20. m

Burgess, A. F. 1915. Parasite work. Mass. State

Forest. Annu. Rep. 11: 84-86. m

. 1915. Report on the gipsy moth work in

New England. U.S. Dep. Agr. [Dep.] Bull.

204: 1-32. m

. 1916. Parasite work. Mass. State Forest.

Annu. Rep. 12: 81-84. m

. 1923. Controlling the gipsy moth and the

brown-tail moth. U.S. Dep. Agr. Farmers’

Bull. 1335: 1-28. m

eS . 1924. The value of natural enemies of

injurious insects. Rep. Entomol. Soc. Ontario

54: 30-36. m

. 1926. The present status of the control of

the gipsy moth and the brown-tail moth by means

of parasites. J. Econ. Entomol. 19: 289-293. m

. 1930. The control of some imported tree de-

foliating insects. Int. Congr. Entomol. (4th,

Ithaca, August 1928) Trans. p. 571-578. m

. 1930. The gipsy moth and the brown-tail

moth. U.S. Dep. Agr. Farmers’ Bull. 1623:

1-33. m

and W. L. Baker. 1938. The gypsy and

brown-tail moths and their control. U.S. Dep.

Agr. Circ. 464: 1-38. m

and S. S. Crossman. 1927. The satin moth,

a recently introduced pest. U.S. Dep. Agr. Dep.

Bull. 1469: 1-22. m

and S. S. Crossman. 1929. Imported insect

enemies of the gipsy moth and the brown-tail

moth. U.S. Dep. Agr. Tech. Bull. 86: 1-148.

x Ws JY

Capek, M. 1960. Zoznam parazitov dochovanych

z hmyzich Skodcov vo VULH v Banskej Stiav-

nici. I. €asf-hostitelia lum¢ikov-Braconidae (Hy-

menoptera). [List of parasites bred from insect

pests at VULH at Banska Stiavnica. Part I.-

hosts of the Braconidae (Hymenoptera).]

Vedecké Prace Vyskumného Ustavu Lesného

Hospodar. Banskej Stiavnici 1: 199-212. p

Ceballos, G. 1956. Catalogo de los himendépteros

de Espana. [Catalog of the Hymenoptera of

Spain.] Madrid, Inst. Espah. Entomol. 554 p.

m, Dp

Chorbadzhiev (Tschorbadjiew), P. 1925. Beitrag zur

erforschung der parasiten der schadlichen in-

sekten in Bulgarien. [Report on studies of the

parasites of destructive insects in Bulgaria.]

Bulgarsko Entomol. Druzh. 2: 84-89. m

(Tchorbadjieff), P. 1933. [The insect pests of

fruit trees in Bulgaria.] Sofia, Min. Zemedielieto

i Dirzhavnitie Imoti. vii + 239 p. p

Clausen, C. P. 1956. Biological control of insect

pests in the continental United States. U.S. Dep.

Agr. Tech. Bull. 1139: 1-151. m

. 1958. The biological control of insect pests

in the continental United States. Int. Congr.

Entomol. (10th, Montreal, August 1956) Proc. 4:

443-447. m

1962. Entomophagous

York, Hafner. x + 688 p. m

Collins, C. W. [1933 ?] Natural enemies of the

gypsy moth, brown-tail moth and a few other

pests in Massachusetts. Mass. Commissioner

Conserv. State Forest. Annu. Rep. 1932: 27-

31. m

. 1934. Natural enemies of the gypsy moth,

brown-tail moth, and some other forest and shade

tree pests in Massachusetts. Mass. Com-

missioner Conserv. State Forest. Annu. Rep.

1933: 31-32. m

and T. H Jones. 1932. Gipsy and brown-

tail moth infestations are checked by imported

parasites. U.S. Dep. Agr. Yearbook Agr. 1932:

236-239. m

Craighead, F. C. 1950. Insect enemies of eastern

forests. U.S. Dep. Agr. Misc. Publication 657:

1-679. m

Crossman, S. S. 1922. Apanteles melanoscelus, an

insects. New

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

imported parasite of the gipsy moth. U.S. Dep.

Agr. [Dep.] Bull. 1028: 1-25. m

. 1925. Foreign travel and entomologists met

while searching for enemies of the gipsy moth. J.

Econ. Entomol. 18: 164-172. m

. 1925. Two imported egg parasites of the

gipsy moth, Anastatus bifasciatus Fonsc. and

Schedius kuvanae Howard. J. Agr. Res. 30:

643-675. m

and R. T. Webber. 1924. Recent European

investigations of parasites of the gipsy moth,

Porthetria dispar L., and the brown-tail moth,

Euproctis chrysorrhoea L. J. Econ. Entomol. 17:

67-76. m

Cushman, R. A. 1927. New species and new forms

of Ichneumonidae parasitic upon the gipsy-moth

parasite, Apanteles melanoscelus (Ratzeburg). J.

Agr. Res. 34: 453-458. m

Dalla Torre, C. G. 1898. Catalogus hymenop-

terorum. [Hymenoptera catalog.] 4. Braconidae.

Leipzig, G. Engelmann. 323 p. m

Dasch, C. E. 1971. Ichneumon-flies of America

north of Mexico: 6. Subfamily Mesochorinae.

Mem. Amer. Entomol. Inst. 16: 1-376. m

Davidson, R. H., and L. M. Peairs. 1966. Insect

pests of farm, garden and orchard. 6th ed. New

York, J. Wiley. ix + 675 p. m

DeBach, P., ed. 1964. Biological control of insect

pests and weeds. New York, Reinhold. xxiv

+ 844p. m

De Lépiney, J. 1930. Contribution 4 1’étude du com-

plexe biologique de Lymantria dispar. {Contribu-

tion to the study of the biological complex of

Lymantria dispar.| Mém. Soc. Sci. Natur. Maroc

23: 1-100. m

De Saeger, H. 1942. Les Apanteles hyménoptéres,

braconides, parasites de lépidoptéres. [Apante-

les. Hymenoptera, Braconidae, parasites of Lepi-

doptera.] Bull. Agr. Congo Belg. 33 (2-3): 234

288 (Reprint 1942, 56 p.) m

Diaz, B. 1923. Pardsitos de Lymantria dispar L.

Apanteles vitripennis Hal. [Parasites of Lyman-

tria dispar L. Apanteles vitripennis Hal.] Rev.

Fitopatol. 1: 80-82. m

Dowden, P. B. 1961. The persistence of gypsy

moth parasites in heavily sprayed areas on Cape

Cod, Massachusetts. J. Econ. Entomol. 54:

873-875. m

—. 1962. Parasites and predators of forest in-

sects liberated in the United States through 1969.

U.S. Dep. Agr. Agr. Handbook 226: 1-70.

m, p

Dutu-Lacatusu, M. 1958. Contributii la cunoasterea

biologiei braconidelor (insecte hymenoptere).

[Contributions to the knowledge of the biology

of the Braconidae (Hymenoptera).] Anal. Univ.

C.I. Parhon-Bucuresti. Ser. Stiint. Natur. 19:

135-144. p

Essig, E. O. 1931. A history of entomology. New

York, Macmillan. vii + 1029p. m

*Fahringer, J. 1936. Opuscula braconologica.

[Notes on Braconidae.] Vol. 4. Palaearktische

region. [Palearctic region.] Parts 1-3. Wien, F.

Wagner. 256 p. m,p,o

*Felt, E. P. in Atwood, G. G. 1922. The gipsy

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

moth, an imminent menace to the forest and

shade trees of the State of New York. N.Y.

State Dep. Farms & Markets Agr. Bull. 148:

1-58. m

Ferriére, C. 1927. Les parasites et hyperparasites

de Lymantria dispar au Maroc. [The parasites

and hyperparasites of Lymantria dispar in Mor-

occo.] Ann. Epiphyt. 13: 175-180. m

Flanders, S. E. 1963. Hyperparasitism, a mutual-

istic phenomenon. Can. Entomol. 95: 716—

720. m

Forbush, E. H., and C. H. Fernald. 1896. The gypsy

moth. Porthetria dispar (Linn.). Boston, Wright

& Potter Printing Co. xii + 495 +cp. m

Friend, R. B. 1945. The gypsy moth in Connecti-

cut. Trans. Conn. Acad. Arts Sci. 36: 607—

6295 m

Gabler, H. 1955. Forstschutz gegen tiere. [Forest

protection against animals.] Radebeul, Neu-

mann. 368 p. m,p

Gahan, A. B. 1927. Miscellaneous descriptions of

new parasitic Hymenoptera with some synony-

mical notes. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 71 (article 4):

1-39. m

Garcia Mercet, R. see Mercet, R. G.

Goidanich, A. 1931. Gli insetti predatori e paras-

siti della Pyrausta nubialis Hiibn. [Insect preda-

tors and parasites of Pyrausta nubialis Hubn.]

Boll. Lab. Entomol. R. Inst. Superiore Agr.

Bologna 4: 77-218. m

Graham, S. A. 1952. Forest entomology. 3rd ed.

New York, McGraw-Hill. xii + 351 p. m

Gyorfi, J. 1939. Adatok a fiirkeszdarazsak erdés-

zeti jelento6ségéhez. [Information on parasitic

wasps of forest importance. ] Erdészeti Kisérletek

41: 117-242. m

1945. Megfigyelések a flirkészdarazsak

nemzoinek taplalkozasarol. [Observations on the

nutrition of the adults of hymenopierous para-

sites.] Erdészeti Kisérletek 45: 87-114. m

. 1945. Okolégiai vizsgdlatok a hymenop-

terak életébol. [Ecological observations on the

lives of the Hymenoptera.] Erdészeti Kisérletek

45: 1-70. m,p

. 1951. Die schlupfwespen und der unter-

wuchs des waides. [The parasitic wasps and the

undergrowth of the woods.] Z. Angew. Entomol.

33: 32-47. m,p

Hinckley, A. D. 1972. The gypsy moth. Environ-

ment 14: 41-47. m

Howard, L. O. 1914. Report of the entomologist.

U.S. Dep. Agr. Annu. Rep. 1914: 183-198. m

. 1915. Report of the entomologist. U.S.

Dep. Agr. Annu. Rep. 1915: 211-231. m

. 1916. Report of the entomologist. U.S.

Dep. Agr. Annu. Rep. 1916: 213-236. m

. 1917. Report of the entomologist. U.S.

Dep. Agr. Annu. Rep. 1917: 227-250. m

. 1918. Report of Dr. L. O. Howard, United

States entomologist. Mass. State Forest. Annu.

Rep. 14: 45-46. m

. 1918. Report of the entomologist. U.S.

Dep. Agr. Annu. Rep. 1918: 233-256. m

. 1919. Report of the entomologist. U.S.

Dep. Agr. Annu. Rep. 1919: 247-273. m

. 1920. Report of the entomologist. U.S.

Dep. Agr. Annu. Rep. 1920: 307-342. m

. 1922. A side line in the importation of insect

parasites of injurious insects from one country

to another. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 8:

133-139. m

. 1923. Report of the entomologist. U.S.

Dep. Agr. Annu. Rep. 1923: 381-417. m

and W. F. Fiske. 1911. The importation

into the United States of the parasites of the

gipsy moth and the brown-tail moth. U.S. Dep.

Agr. Bur. Entomol. Bull. 91: 1-344. m

Imms, A. D. 1931. Recent advances in entomology.

Philadelphia, P. Blakiston. viii + 374 p. m

*Ivanov, P. 1899 (1898). [Braconidae (cryptogasters

and areolarii) of the vicinity of Koupiansk,

with synoptic tables of the genera and species of

these insects.] Tr. Obshchest. Estestvoispyt.

Imperatorskom Khar’kovskom Univ. 33: 276—

277, 311, 315-355. o

Jackson, D. J. 1928. The biology of Dinocampus

(Perilitus) rutilus Nees, a braconid parasite of

Sitona lineata L.-Part I. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lon-

don 1928: 597-630. m

*Kirchner, L. 1867. Catalogus hymenopterorum

Europae. [Catalog of European Hymenoptera. ]

Vindobonae, Soc. Zoologico-Bot. 285 p. m

Komarek, J. 1937. Kritisches wort tiber die bedeu-

tung der insektenparasiten der nonne. [Critical

word on the significance of the insect parasites of

the nun moth.] Z. Angew. Entomol. 24: 95-

G/5 on

Krombein, K. V., and B. D. Burks. 1967. Hymenop-

tera of America north of Mexico; synoptic cata-

log. Second suppl. U.S. Dep. Agr. Agr. Monogr.

2: 1-584. m

Kurir, A. 1944. Anastatus disparis Ruschka, eipara-

sit des Lymantria dispar L. [Anastatus disparis

Ruschka, egg parasite of Lymantria dispar L.]

Z. Angew. Entomol. 30: 551-586. m

Lyle, G. T. 1916. Contributions to our knowl-

edge of the British Braconidae. No. 3. Micro-

gasteridae. Entomologist 49: 121-125, 160-163,

185-187, 206-208, 228-232, 251-254, 268-

272. m

Maksimovié, M. 1953. Neka zapazanja o krizi

gradacije gubara 1950 godine u nizinskoj i planin-

skoj Sumi. (Some observations about gradation

crisis of gypsy moth in plane and mountain

forests in 1950.) ZaStita Bilja 15: 12-27. m

, P. Bjegovi¢ and L. Vasiljevié. 1970.

Odrzavanje povecane brojnosti neprijatelja

gubara kao metod bioloSke borbe. (Maintaining

the density of the gypsy moth enemies as a

method of biological control.) ZaStita Bilja 107:

3-15.

Marlatt, C. L. 1928. Report of the entomologist.

U.S. Dep. Agr. [Annu. Rep. 1928]: 1-34. m

. 1929. Report of the chief of the Bureau

of Entomology. U.S. Dep. Agr. [Annu. Rep.

1929]: 1-39. m

. 1931. Report of the chief of the Bureau

of Entomology. U.S. Dep. Agr. [Annu. Rep.

1931]: 1-87. m

. 1932. Report of the chief of the Bureau

of Entomology. U.S. Dep. Agr. [Annu. Rep.

1932]: 1-38. m

. 1933. Report of the chief of the Bureau of

Entomology, 1933. U.S. Dep. Agr. [Annu. Rep.

1933]: 147, m

Marshall, T. A. 1885. Monograph of British Bra-

conidae. Part I. Trans. Entomol. Soc. London

1885: 1-280. m

2 . 1901. Spécies des hyménoptéres d’ Europe

et d’ Algérie. [Hymenoptera species of Europe

and Algeria.]. 5 bis: catalogue. m

Matheson, R. 1944. Entomology for introductory

courses. Ithaca, N.Y., Comstock. xiv + 600

p. m

. 1951. Entomology for introductory courses.

2nd ed. Ithaca, N.Y., Comstock. xiv + 629

p. m

McIntire, M. H. 1922. Report of the field agent,

gypsy moth work. Annu. Rep. Commissioner

Agr. Maine 20: 45-47. m

. 1924. Report of field agent, gypsy moth

work. Rep. Commissioner Agr. Maine 1922—

1924. 21: 48-52. m

*Meier (Meyer), N. F. 1927. [Parasites (Ichneu-

monidae and Braconidae) bred in Russia from

injurious insects during 1881—1926.] Leningr. Izv.

Otd. Prikladnoi Entomol. 3: 75-91. o

Mercet, R. G. 1932. Los parasitos de los insectos

perjudiciales. [The parasites of the injurious in-

sects.] Barcelona, Salvat. 151 p. m, p

Muesebeck, C. F. W. 1920. A revision of the North

American species of ichneumon-flies belonging to

the genus Apanteles. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 58:

483-576. m

. 1927. New species of chalcid flies para-

sitic on the gipsy-moth parasite, Apanteles

melanoscelus (Ratzeburg). J. Agr. Res. 34; 331-

333. m

. 1928. A new European species of Apanteles

parasitic on the gipsy moth. Proc. Entomol. Soc.

Wash. 30: 8-9. p

. 1931. Monodontomerus aereus Walker,

both a primary and a secondary parasite of the

brown-tail moth and the gipsy moth. J. Agr. Res.

43: 445-460. m

and S. M. Dohanian. 1927. A study in hyper-

parasitism, with particular reference to the para-

sites of Apanteles melanoscelus (Ratzeburg).

U.S. Dep. Agr. Dep. Bull. 1487: 1-35. m

, K. V. Krombein and H. K. Townes. 1951.

Hymenoptera of America north of Mexico;

synoptic catalog. U.S. Dep. Agr. Agr. Monogr.

2: 1-1420. m

Narayanan, E. S., B. R. Subba Rao, and G. A.

Gangrade. 1956. The biology and rate of repro-

duction and the morphology of the immature

stages of Apanteles angaleti Muesebeck. Beitr.

Entomol. 6: 296-320. m

Nichols, J. O. 1962. The gypsy moth in Pennsy]l-

vania—its history and eradication. Penn. Dep.

Agr. Misc. Bull. 4404: 1-82. m

*Nunberg, M. 1925. Masowy pojaw brudnicy nie-

parki (Lymantria dispar L.) w okolicy Bochni w.

r. 1924. [Mass emergence of the gypsy moth

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

(Lymantria dispar L.) in the vicinity of Bochnia

in 1924.] Pol. Pismo Entomol. 4: 118-133. m

and S. Wiackowski. 1958. Meczelkowate

(Braconidae, Hymenoptera) jakow pasozyty

owad6w lesnych. [Braconidae (Hymenoptera) as

parasites of forest insects.] Folia Forest. Pol.

Ser. A 1: 129-135. m

Ordonez, R. A. see Riesgo Ordéfiez, A.

Padirt, N. N. 1953. [Utilization of a biological

method for controlling the gypsy moth.] Lesnoe

Khoz. 6: 44-47. p

Papp, J. 1967. Results of the zoological explora-

tions of Dr. Z. Kaszab in Mongolia. 101.

Braconidae (Hymenoptera) I. Acta Zool. Acad.

Sci. Hung. 13: 191-226. m

Parker, D. L. 1935. Apanteles solitarius (Ratze-

burg), an introduced braconid parasite of the

satin moth. U.S. Dep. Agr. Tech. Bull. 477:

1-17. m

Pawlowicz, J. 1936. Beobachtungen tiber einige in

Porthetria dispar L., Malacosoma neustria L.

und Stilpnotia salicis L. (Lep.) schmarotzende

hymenopteren und dipteren. [Observations on a

few Hymenoptera and Diptera parasitic on

Porthetria dispar L., Malacosoma neustria L.

and Stilpnotia salicis L. (Lep.).] Zool. Pol. 1:

99-118. m,p

Peairs, L. M. 1941. Insect pests of farm, garden,

and orchard. 4th ed. New York, J. Wiley.

xvii + 549 p. m

Peterson, A. 1934. A manual of entomological equip-

ment and methods. Part I. Ann Arbor, Mich.,

Edwards. 21 + xiii p. + 138 plates. m, p

. 1937. A manual of entomological equip-

ment and methods. Part II. St. Louis, J. Swift.

334 p. m,p

. 1953. A manual of entomological tech-

niques. Ann Arbor, Mich., Edwards. v + 367

Dp: nie P oo

Prell, H. 1925. Uber Apanteles solitarius Ratz.

als parasit der nonnenraupen. [On Apanteles

solitarius Ratz. as parasite of nun moth larvae. |]

Anz. Schadlingskunde 1: 103-105. m

Proper, A. B. 1931. Eupteromalus nidulans, a

parasite of the brown-tail and satin moths. J.

Agr. Res. 48: 37-56. m

. 1934. Hyperparasitism in the case of some

introduced lepidopterous tree defoliators. J. Agr.

Res. 48: 359-376. m

*Ratzeburg, J. T. C. 1844. Die ichneumonen der

forstinsecten in forstlicher und entomologischer

beziehung... [The Ichneumonidae of forest in-

sects, with emphasis on forestry and entomol-

ogy...] Vol. 1. Berlin, Nicolai. 224 p. m

. 1852. Die ichneumonen der forstinsecten

in forstlicher und entomologischer beziehung.. .

[The Ichneumonidae of forest insects, with em-

phasis on forestry and entomology...] Vol. 3.

Berlin, Nicolai. 272 p. m

Reinhard, H. 1880. Beitrage zur kenntniss einiger

braconiden-gattungen. [Reports on the identifica-

tions of a few braconid genera.] Deut. Entomol.

Z. 24: 353-370. m

Riesgo Ordonez, A. 1929. La fauna del Valle de

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

los Pedroches. [The fauna of the Pedroches

Valley.] Rev. Fitopatol. 4-6: 53-58. m

Romanyk, N., and A. Ruperez. 1960. Principales

parasitos observados en los defoliadores de

Espana con atencion particular de la Lymantria

dispar L. [Observations on the principal para-

sites of defoliators in Spain, with particular em-

phasis on Lymantria dispar L.] Entomophaga 5:

229-236. m, p

Rondani, C. 1872. Degli insetti parassiti e delle

loro vittime. [Some insect parasites and their

hosts.] Bull. Soc. Entomol. Ital. 4: 41-78, 229-

258, 321-342. m

. 1873. Degli insetti nocivi e dei loro para-

ssiti. [Destructive insects and their parasites.]

Bull. Soc. Entomol. Ital. 5: 3-30, 133-165, 209-

232. m

Ross, H. H. 1948. A textbook of entomology. New

York, J. Wiley. ix + 532 p. m

Rudnev, D. F., and N. A. Telenga. 1958. [Bio-

logical methods to combat forest pests.] Lesnoe

Khoz. 11: 37-40. p

Rudow. 1917. Die gattung Microgaster und ihre

wirte. [The genus Microgaster and their hosts.]

Entomol. Z. Frankfurt a. M. 31: 5-6, 10-11,

13-14, 19-20, 22-23. m

Russo, G. 1959. I principali parassiti dei lepidotteri

defogliatori forestali in Italia. [Important para-

sites of the forest-defoliating Lepidoptera in

Italy.] Boll. Lab. Entomol. Agr. Filippo Sil-

vestri 17: 172-188. m

. 1960. I principali parassiti dei lepidotteri

defogliatori forestali in Italia. [Important para-

sites of the forest-defoliating Lepidoptera in

Italy.] Ann. Fac. Sci. Agr. Univ. Stud. Napoli

25: 71-84. m

Ryvkin, B. V. 1957. (Peculiarities of the gipsy

moth outbreaks and their causes.) Zool. Zh.

36: 1355-1358. p

Salati¢, S. 1963. Rezultati ispitivanja nekih faktora

efektivnosti jajnih parazita gubara. (Results of

investigations of some factors of effectiveness of

gypsy moth egg parasites.) ZaStita Bilja 76: 693—

699 m,p

Schaffner, J. V., Jr. 1934. Introduced parasites of

the brown-tail and gipsy moths reared from

native hosts. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 27:

585-592. m

and C. L. Griswold. 1934. Macrolepidoptera

and their parasites reared from field collections

in the northeastern part of the United States.

U.S. Dep. Agr. Misc. Publication 188: 1-

160. m

Schedl, K. E. 1936. Der schwammspinner (Porthe-

tria dispar L.) in Euroasien, Afrika und Neueng-

land. [The gypsy moth (Porthetria dispar L.)

in Eurasia, Africa and New England.] Monogr.

Angew. Entomol. 12: 1-242. m, p,o

Schread, J. C., W. T. Brigham, and G. R. Smith.

1942. Alternate host study of the parasites of the

oriental fruit moth. Conn. Agr. Exp. Sta. (New

Haven) Bull. 461: 490-502. m

Serafimovic (Serafimovski), A. 1954. Ciklus razvica

topolinog gubara u okolini Beograda. (A contri-

bution to the knowledge of the development

cycle of the satin moth (Stilpnotia salicis L.).)

Zastita Bilja 25: 18-40. m

Shapiro, V. A. 1956. [The principal parasites of the

gypsy moth (Porthetria dispar L.) and the pros-

pects of using them.] Zool. Zh. 35: 251-265. p

. 1959. (The ways of stimulation of the

activity of oligophagous parasites in the suppres-

sion of herds of dangerous forest pests.) Int.

Conf. Insect Pathol. Biol. Contr. (1st, Praha,

August 1958) Trans. p. 491-494. p

. 1960. (Role of parasites in the decreasing

of tent caterpillar population.) Tr. Vsesoiuznogo

Nauchno-Issled. Inst. Zashchity Rastenii 15:

71-86. m

Shchepetil’nikova (Shepetilnikova), V. A. 1959. (Re-

sults of the studies on use of parasites in the

insect control in the Soviet Union.) Int. Conf.

Insect Pathol. Biol. Contr. (Ist, Praha, August

1958) Trans. p. 441-453. p

Shchepetil’nikova, V. A. 1963. (The problem of

biological methods in plant protection.) Tr.

Vsesoiuznogo [Nauchno-Issled.] Inst. Zashchity

Rastenii 17: 162-185. p

Shenefelt, R. D. 1972. Braconidae 4. Microgas-

terinae. Apanteles. in Van der Vecht, J. and

R. D. Shenefelt, eds. Hymenopterorum cata-

logus (nova editio). Pars 7. Gravenhage, W.

Junk. p. 429-668. m, p, 0

Smith, G. A. 1921. Report of the superintendent

of gypsy-moth work. Mass. Commissioner Con-

serv. State Forest. Annu. Rep. 1920: 53-60. m

Smulyan, M. T. 1936. A revision of the chalcid

flies of the genus Perilampus Latreille occurring

in America north of Mexico. Proc. U.S.

Nat. Mus. 83: 369-412. m

Stadler, H. 1933. Ein neuer ichneumonide aus

schwammspinnerraupen (Lymantria dispar L.).

[A new ichneumonid from gypsy moth larvae

(Lymantria dispar L.).] Entomol. Anz. 13: 27—

30, 43-45, 58-60. m, p,o

Stellwaag, F. 1921. Die schmarotzerwespen (sch-

lupfwespen) als parasiten. [The parasitic wasps

as parasites.] Monogr. Angew. Entomol. 6:

1-100. m,o

Swan, L. A. 1964. Beneficial insects; nature’s al-

ternatives to chemical insecticides... New

York, Harper & Row. xvii + 429 p. m

Sweetman, H. L. 1936. The biological control of

insects. Ithaca, N.Y., Comstock. xii + 461

p. m

. 1958. The principles of biological control.

Dubuque, Ia., W. Brown. xii + 560 p. m

Szepligeti, G. V. 1904. Hymenoptera fam. Bra-

conidae. Genera Insectorum 22: 1-253. m, o

Szmidt, A. 1955. Mozliwosci wykorzystania paso-

zyt6w rodzaju Apanteles Foérst do biologicznego

zwalezania barczatki sosnéwki (Dendrolimus

pini L). (Prospects of utilizing the parasite Apan-

teles Forst. in biological combating of Dendro-

limus pini L.) Sylwan 99: 490-500. m, p

Tadic, M. 1961. Prilog poznavanju dijapauze jajnog

parazita gubara Anastatus disparis R. na Hvaru.

(A contribution to the knowledge of the diapause

of the gypsy moth egg parasite Anastatus dis-

paris R. on the Island Hvar.) ZaStita Bilja

63-64: 13-19. m

Tadic, M. D., and B. Binéev. 1959. Ooencyrtus

kuwanai How. u Jugoslaviji. [Ooencyrtus kuwa-

nai How. in Yugoslavia.] Zastita Bilja 52-53:

51-59. m

*Taschenberg, E. L. 1880. Praktische insekten-

kunde... [Practical insect study...] Vol. 3.

Die schmetterlinge. [The butterflies.] Bremen,

M. Hensius. 311 p. m

Tchorbadjieff, P. see Chorbadzhiev, P.

*Telenga, N. A. 1955. [Fauna of the URSS. Hymen-

optera. Vol. V, Pt. 4. Fam. Braconidae: Sub-

fam. Microgasterinae, Subfam. Agathinae.]

Moscow, Zool. Inst. Akad. Nauk SSSR. 312 p.

m, p, 0

Thatcher, T. O. 1961. Forest entomology. Minne-

apolis, Burgess. iii + 225 p. m

Thompson, W. R. 1944. A catalogue of the para-

sites and predators of insect pests. Section 1.

Parasite host catalogue. Part 4. Parasites of the

Hymenoptera, Isopoda and Isoptera. Belleville,

Can., Imp. Parasite Serv. v + 130 p. m

. 1946. A catalogue of the parasites and

predators of insect pests. Section 1. Parasite

host catalogue. Part 7. Parasites of the Lepidop-

tera, (G-M). Belleville, Can., Imp. Parasite Serv.

p. 259-385. m

. 1946. A catalogue of the parasites and

predators of insect pests. Section 1. Parasite

host catalogue. Part 8. Parasites of the Lepidop-

tera, (N-P). Belleville, Can., Imp. Parasite Serv.

p. 386-523. m, p,o

. 1947. A catalogue of the parasites and

predators of insect pests. Section 1. Parasite

host catalogue. Part 9. Parasites of the Lepidop-

tera, (Q-Z). Belleville, Can., Imp. Bur. Biol.

Contr. p. 524-627. m

. 1953. A catalogue of the parasites and

predators of insect pests. Section 2. Host para-

site catalogue. Part 2. Hosts of the Hymenop-

tera (Agaonidae to Braconidae). Ottawa, Com-

monwealth Inst. Biol. Contr. ii + 190p. m,p,o

. 1954. A catalogue of the parasites and

predators of insect pests. Section 2. Host para-

site catalogue. Part 3. Hosts of the Hymenop-

tera (calliceratid to evaniid). Ottawa, Com-

monwealth Inst. Biol. Contr. p. 191-332. m

. 1957. A catalogue of the parasites and

predators of insect pests. Section 2. Host para-

site catalogue. Part 4. Hosts of the Hymenop-

tera (Ichneumonidae). Ottawa, Commonwealth

Inst. Biol. Contr. p. 333-561. m

. 1958. A catalogue of the parasites and

predators of insect pests. Section 2. Host para-

site catalogue. Part 5. Hosts of the Hymenoptera

(Miscogasteridae to Trigonalidae), Lepidoptera

and Strepsiptera. Ottawa, Commonwealth Inst.

Biol. Contr. p. 562-698. m

and F. J. Simmonds. 1964. A catalogue of

the parasites and predators of insect pests. Sec-

tion 3. Predator host catalogue. Farnham Royal,

Engl., Commonwealth Inst. Biol. Contr. 204

and F. J. Simmonds. 1965. A catalogue of

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

the parasites and predators of insect pests. Sec-

tion 4. Host predator catalogue. Farnham Royal,

Engl., Commonwealth Inst. Biol. Contr. 198

pom

*Tobias, V. I. 1954. [Data relating to the fauna

and biology of Braconidae of West Kazakhstan. ]

Tr. Zool. Inst. Akad. Nauk SSSR 16: 417-

426. m

. 1971 (Review of the Braconidae (Hymenop-

tera) of the USSR.) Tr. Vsesotznogo Entomol.

Obshchest. 54: 156-268. m, p, o

and A. B. Jakimavicius. 1971. (Key to

braconid parasites (Hymenoptera, Braconidae)

of orchard pests.) Tr. Vsesomiznogo Entomol.

Obshchest. 54: 269-285. m, p,o

Torre, C. G. Dalla see Dalla Torre, C. G.

Tschorbadjiew, P. see Chorbadzhiev, P.

Turner, N. 1963. The gypsy moth problem. Conn.

Agr. Exp. Sta. (New Haven) Bull. 655: 1-

36. m

Vasi¢, K. 1958. Parazitske Hymenoptera gubara.

(Parasitic Hymenoptera of gypsy moth.) Zastita

Bilja 41-42: 17-21. m,p

and L. Jankovic. 1958. Prilog poznavanju

indikatora za prognozu stanja gradacije gubara.

(A contribution to the knowledge of indicators

for the prognostication of the evolution of the

gypsy moth gradation.) ZaStita Bilja 41-42:

3-15. m

and S. Salatic. 1959. Novi prilog poznavanju

parazitskih Hymenoptera gubara. Parazitske

Hymenoptera gubara u 1958 godini. (A new

contribution to the knowledge of the parasitic

Hymenoptera of the gypsy moth. Parasitic

Hymenoptera of the gypsy moth in 1958.)

ZaStita Bilja 52-53: 47-50. m

Wardle, R. A. 1929. The problems of applied

entomology. New York, McGraw-Hill. xii

+ 587 p. m

Webber, R. T., and J. V. Schaffner, Jr. 1926.

Host relations of Compsilura concinnata

Meigen, an important tachinid parasite of the

gipsy moth and the brown-tail moth. U.S. Dep.

Agr. Dep. Bull. 1363: 1-32. m

Wilkinson, D. S. 1936. A list of Lepidoptera from

which parasites are particularly desired. En-

tomologist 69: 81-84. m,o

Wolff, M., and A. Krausse. 1922. Die forstlichen

lepidopteren. [The forest Lepidoptera.] Jena, G.

Fischer. vii + 337 p. m

Full titles of serials

Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hunga-

ricae

Analele Universitatea C. I. Parhon—Bucuresti.

Seria Stiintele Naturii

Annales des Epiphyties

Annali della Facolta di Science Agrarie della

Universita degli Studii di Napoli

Annals of the Entomological Society of America

Annual Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture

of Maine

Anzeiger fiir Schadlingskunde

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

Beitrage zur Entomologie

Bollettino del Laboratorio di Entomologia del R.

Instituto Superiore Agrario di Bologna

Bollettino del Laboratorio di Entomologia Agraria

Filippo Silvestri

Bulgarsko Entomologichno Druzhestvo

Bulletin Agricole du Congo Belge

Bulletin of the Connecticut State Geological and

Natural History Survey

Bullettino della Societa Entomologica Italiana

Canadian Entomologist

Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station (New

Haven) Bulletin

Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift

Entomologische Zeitschrift, Frankfurt a. M.

Entomologischer Anzeiger

Entomologist

Entomophaga

Environment

Erdészeti Kisérletek

Folia Forestalia Polonica. Seria A

Genera Insectorum

Insect Life

International Conference of Insect Pathology and

Biological Control (...) Transactions

International Congress of Entomology (...) Pro-

ceedings

International Congress of Entomology (...) Trans-

actions

Journal of Agricultural Research

Journal of Economic Entomology

Journal of the New York Entomological Society

Leningrad. Izvestita Otdela Prikladnoi Entomologii

Lesnoe Khoziaistvo

Massachusetts Commissioner of Conservation and

State Forester. Annual Report

Massachusetts State Forester. Annual Report

Mémoires de la Societé des Sciences Naturelles

du Maroc

Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute

Monographien zur Angewandten Entomologie

New York State Department of Farms & Markets.

Agricultural Bulletin

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. Miscel-

laneous Bulletin

Polskie Pismo Entomologiczne

Proceedings of the Entomological Society of

Washington

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

of the United States of America

Proceedings of the United States National Museum

Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London

Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture of

Maine

Report of the Entomological Society of Ontario

Revista de Fitopatologia

Sylwan

Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts

and Sciences

Transactions of the Entomological Society of

London

Trudy Obshchestva Estestvoispytateler pri Im-

peratorskom Khar’kovskom Universita

Trudy Vsesoiuznogo Entomologicheskogo Obsh-

chestva

Trudy Vsesoiuznogo Nauchno-Issledovatel’skogo

Instituta Zashchity Rastenit

Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta Akademii Nauk

SSSR

U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Handbook

. Agriculture Monograph

. Annual Report

Bureau of Entomology. Bulletin

Circular

Department Bulletin

Farmers’ Bulletin

Miscellaneous Publication

Technical Bulletin

. Yearbook of Agriculture |

Vedecké Prace Vyskumného Ustavu Lesného

Hospodarstva v Banskej Stiavnici

Zastita Bilja

Agriculture

Zeitschrift fiir Angewandte Entomologie

Zoologica Poloniae

Zoologicheskii Zhurnal

References

American Library Association. Divison of Catalog-

ing and Classification. 1949. A. L. A. cataloging

rules for author and title entries. 2nd ed. Chicago,

American Library Association. xxi + 265 p.

American Standards Association. 1964. American

standard for periodical title abbreviations. New

York, American Standards Association. 19 p.

Shervis, L. J., and R. D. Shenefelt. 1973. Poor

access to Apanteles species literature through

titles, abstracts and automatically extracted

species names as keywords. J. Wash. Acad.

Sci. 63: 22-25.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

New Synonyms and New Combinations in North American

Doryctinae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae)

Paul M. Marsh

Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

Mail address: % U.S. National Museum, Washington, D. C. 20560.

ABSTRACT

New specific and generic synonyms are listed along with the resulting new name

combinations for several groups of North American Doryctinae.

During the preparation of the Bra-

conidae section of the forthcoming re-

vised Catalog of Hymenoptera of North

America, it has become necessary to pro-

pose several new synonyms and new

combinations, particularly in the sub-

family Doryctinae. There is a possibility

that the Doryctinae section of the new

Hymenopterorum Catalogus being pre-

pared by Roy D. Shenefelt will appear

at about the same time as the North

American catalog. Since it is uncertain

which catalog will appear first and, there-

fore should include the new synonyms

and new combinations, it seems desirable

to propose them at this time.

I am grateful to several persons who

have helped by allowing me to study

types in their collections or by offering

information: J. W. Beardsley, University

of Hawaii; Karl-Johan Hedqvist, Swed-

ish Museum of Natural History; E.

Kieryck, Polish Academy of Sciences;

J. Papp, Hungarian Natural History Mu-

seum; U. Parenti, University of Turin;

J. R. Steffan, National Museum of Na-

tural History, Paris; and G. C. Varley,

University of Oxford.

Genus Acrophasmus Enderlein

Acrophasmus immigrans (Beardsley),

new combination

Doryctes immigrans Beardsley, 1961. Proc. Haw.

Entomol. Soc. 16:326.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

Acrophasmus lycti Marsh, 1968. Proc. Entomol.

Soc. Wash. 70:105. NEW SYNONYMY.

This species, previously known from

the southwestern United States, is now

recorded from Hawaii also. It was un-

doubtedly introduced accidently into

Hawaii. The new synonymy is based on

the comparison of the type of /ycti with

specimens of immigrans from Hawaii

sent by J. W. Beardsley.

Acrophasmus scobiciae (Marsh), new combination

Doryctodes scobiciae Marsh, 1966. Trans. Amer.

Entomol. Soc. 92:513.

Acrophasmus atriventris (Cresson),

new combination

Exothecus atriventris Cresson, 1872. Trans. Amer.

Entomol. Soc. 4:189.

Doryctodes atriventris (Cresson): Marsh, 1966.

Trans. Amer. Entomol. Soc. 92:506.

The above two species were tenta-

tively placed in the genus Doryctodes,

but after further study I feel they

should be assigned to Acrophasmus.

Genus Allorhogas Gahan

Allorhogas pallidiceps (Perkins),

new combination

Ischiogonus pallidiceps Perkins, 1910. Fauna Haw.

2(6):684.

Doryctes pallidiceps (Perkins): Beardsley, 1961.

Proc. Haw. Entomol. Soc. 17:364.

Doryctes strioliger Kieffer, 1921. Bull. Agr. Inst.

Sci. Saigon 3:134. NEW SYNONYMY.

Monolexis brugirouxi Cheesman, 1928. Ann. Mag.

Nat. Hist. (Ser. 10) 1:185. NEW SYNONYMY.

The new combination and synonymies

above are based on examination of types

and authentically determined speci-

mens. Nixon (1939. Ann. Mag. Nat.

Hist. (Ser. 11) 3:493) synonymized brugi-

rouxi with strioliger. | have seen speci-

mens from Florida reared from Oeme

rigida (Say) which is the first record of

pallidiceps for North America.

Genus Curtisella Spinola

Curtisella Spinola, 1853. Mem. Roy. Acad. Sci.

Torino 13:30. Type-species: Curtisella pim-

ploides Spinola.

Neorhyssa Szépligeti, 1902. Term. Ftiz. 25:57.

Type-species: Neorhyssa nigra Szépligeti

(=Curtisella pimploides Spinola).

Lissophrymnus Cameron, 1911. Timehri 1:312.

Type-species: Lissophrymnus annulicaudus

Cameron (=Curtisella pimploides Spinola).

Subcurtisella Roman, 1924. Arkiv Zool. 16:33.

Type-species: Subcurtisella waterstoni Roman.

NEW SYNONYMY.

Polystenoides Muesebeck, 1950. Proc. Entomol.

Soc. Wash. 52:79. Type-species: Polystenoides

lignicola Muesebeck.

The synonymy of Polystenoides with

Curtisella was made in an earlier paper

(Marsh, 1971. Ann. Entomol. Soc.

Amer. 64:844), and the complete generic

synonymy is presented here. Neorhyssa

and Lissophrymnus were synonymized

by Roman (1924. Arkiv Zool. 16: 38);

I have seen both type specimens and

confirm this action. The synonymy of

Subcurtisella is based also on recent

examination of the type.

Genus Doryctes Haliday

Doryctes Haliday, 1836. Entomol. Mag. 4:43.

Type-species: Bracon obliteratus Nees, not

sensu. Haliday (=/chneumon mutillator

Thunberg).

Ischiogonus Wesmael, 1838. Nouv. Mém. Acad.

Sci. Bruxelles 11:125. Type-species: Ischiogonus

erythrogaster Wesmael (=Bracon leucogaster

Nees).

Udamolcus Enderlein, 1920(1918). Arch. Natur-

gesch. 84(A)(11):142. Type-species: Udamolcus

herero Enderlein.

Pristodoryctes Kieffer, 1921. Bull. Agr. Inst. Sci.

Saigon 3:133. Type-species: Pristodoryctes stria-

tiventris Kieffer (=Doryctes tristriatus Kieffer).

NEW SYNONYMY.

Paradoryctes Granger, 1949. Mém. Inst. Sci.

Madagascar (Sér. A) 2:102. Type-species: Para-

doryctes coxalis Granger. NEW SYNONYMY.

Nixon (1939. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist.

(Ser. 11) 3:498) first mentioned the pos-

sible synonymy of Pristodoryctes, stating

that striativentris was probably the male

of Doryctes tristriatus Kieffer. After

studying the descriptions of these species

and specimens of tristriatus, I concur

with this conclusion and hereby establish

the synonymy of Pristodoryctes with

Doryctes. The synonymy of Parado-

ryctes is based on recent examination of

the type.

Genus Heterospilus Haliday

Heterospilus Haliday, 1836. Entomol. Mag. 4:40.

Type-species: Rogas (Heterospilus) quaestor

Haliday.

Bracon (Synodus) Ratzeburg, 1848. Ichn. For-

stins., v. 2, p. 31. Preoccupied by Gronovius,

1763 and Latreille, 1828. Type-species: Bracon

incompletus Ratzeburg.

Caenophanes Forester, 1862. Verh. Naturh. Ver.

Rheinlande 19:236. New name for Synodus

Ratzeburg.

Telebolus Marshall, 1888. In André, Spec. Hym.

Eur. Alg., v. 4, p. 202. Type-species: Tele-

bolus corsicus Marshall.

Kareba Cameron, 1904. Invert. Pac. 1:50. Type-

species: Kareba flavipes Cameron. NEW

SYNONYMY.

Anacatostigma Enderlein, 1920(1918). Arch. Na-

turgesch. 84(A)(11):131. Type-species: Anacato-

stigma paradoxum Enderlein. NEW SYN-

ONYMY.

The synonymy of Kareba and Anaca-

tostigma is based on recent examination

of the types. A revision of the genus

Heterospilus is now in progress but notes

on the following two species are given

now.

Heterospilus cephi Rohwer

Heterospilus cephi Rohwer, 1925. Jour. Wash.

Acad. Sci. 15:178.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

Heterospilus basifurcatus Fischer, 1960. Polskie

Pismo Entomol. 30:38. NEW SYNONYMY.

The synonymy of basifurcatus is based

on recent examination of the holotype.

This species, which is a parasite of the

European wheat stem sawfly in North

America, was probably accidently intro-

duced into this country with its host.

Heterospilus scolyticida (Ashmead)

Lysitermis scolyticida Ashmead, 1893. Can. En-

tomol. 25:74.

Heterospilus blackmanni Rohwer, 1919. Can. En-

tomol. 51:161. NEW SYNONYMY.

Specimens under both of these names

were reared from Scolytus quadrispino-

sus Say and the synonymy is based on

examination of the holotypes.

Genus Ontsira Cameron

Ontsira Cameron, 1900. Mem. Proc. Manchester

Lit. Phil. Soc. 44:89. Type-species: Ontsira

reticulata Cameron.

Doryctes (Doryctodes) Hellén, 1927. Acta Soc.

Fauna Flora Fenn. 56:40. Type-species: Rogas

imperator Haliday. NEW SYNONYMY.

Doryctodes Hellén: Marsh, 1966. Trans. Amer.

Entomol. Soc. 92:503.

The above synonymy of Doryctodes

with Ontsira is based on recent examina-

tion of the type-species of Ontsira. The

new combinations for the North Ameri-

can species included in my recent revi-

sion (loc. cit. supra) are as follows.

Ontsira antica (Wollaston), new combination

Clinocentrus anticus Wollaston, 1858. Ann. Mag.

Nat. Hist. (Ser. 3) 1:24.

Doryctes gallicus Reinhard, 1865. Berlin. Entomol.

Ztschr. 9:248. NEW SYNONYMY.

Doryctes incertus Ashmead, 1889(1888). Proc. U.

S. Natl. Mus. 11:627. NEW SYNONYMY.

Doryctodes gallicus (Reinhard): Marsh,

Trans. Amer. Entomol. Soc. 92:508.

1966.

Ontsira carinata (Ashmead), new combination

Rhyssalus carinatus Ashmead, 1889(1888). Proc.

U. S. Natl. Mus. 11:630.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

Doryctodes carinatus (Ashmead): Marsh, 1966.

Trans. Amer. Entomol. Soc. 92:507.

Ontsira imperator (Haliday), new combination

Rogas imperator Haliday, 1836. Entomol. Mag.

4:46.

Ischiogonus zonatus Wesmael, 1838. Nouv. Mém.

Acad. Sci. Bruxelles 11:127.

Bracon praecisus Ratzeburg, 1852. Ichn. Forstins.,

Vie3.ipe 36:

Syngaster cingulatus Provancher, 1880. Nat. Can.

12:162.

Doryctodes imperator (Haliday): Marsh,

Trans. Amer. Entomol. Soc. 92:509.

1966.

Ontsira krombeini (Marsh), new combination

Doryctodes krombeini Marsh, 1966. Trans. Amer.

Entomol. Soc. 92:511.

Ontsira mellipes (Ashmead), new combination

Doryctes mellipes Ashmead, 1889(1888). Proc. U.

S. Natl. Mus. 11:627.

Doryctodes mellipes (Ashmead):Marsh,

Trans. Amer. Entomol. Soc. 92:511.

1966.

Ontsira occipitalis (Marsh), new combination

Doryctodes occipitalis Marsh, 1966. Trans. Amer.

Entomol. Soc. 92:512.

Ontsira tuberculata (Marsh), new combination

Doryctodes tuberculatus Marsh, 1966. Trans.

Amer. Entomol. Soc. 92:514.

Ontsira wasbaueri (Marsh), new combination

Doryctodes wasbaueri Marsh, 1966. Trans. Amer.

Entomol. Soc. 92:515.

Genus Pioscelus Muesebeck and Walkley

Pioscelus borealis (Ashmead), new combination

Caenophanes borealis Ashmead, 1891. Can. En-

tomol. 23:2.

Heterospilus borealis (Ashmead):Muesebeck and

Walkley, 1951. U. S. Dept. Agr., Agr. Monog.

2:179.

This generic transfer is based on recent

examination of the holotype.

Genus Rhaconotus Ruthe

Rhaconotus Ruthe, 1854. Stettin. Entomol. Ztg.

15:349. Type-species: Rhaconotus aciculatus

Ruthe.

Hedysomus Foerster, 1862. Verh. Naturh. Ver.

Rheinlande 19:238. Type-species: Hedysomus

elegans Foerster.

Hormiopterus Giraud, 1869. Ann. Soc. Entomol.

France (4) 9:238. Type-species: Hormiopterus

ollivieri Giraud.

Rhadinogaster Szépligeti, 1908. Notes Leyden

Mus. 29:223. Type-species: Rhadinogaster tes-

tacea Szépligeti. NEW SYNONYMY.

Euryphrymnus Cameron, 1910. Wien. Entomol.

Ztg. 29:100. Type-species: Euryphrymnus testa-

ceiceps Cameron.

The synonymy of Rhadinogaster is

based on recent examination of the type.

A revision of the North American species

of Rhaconotus is now in progress.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

Notiospathius, a New Neotropical Genus

(Hymenoptera: Braconidae)

Robert W. Matthews and Paul M. Marsh

Respectively: Department of Entomology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602;

and Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA—

Mail Address: % U.S. National Museum, Washington, D. C. 20560.

ABSTRACT

The new genus Notiospathius is proposed for those species from Central and South

America formerly placed in Spathius. The type-species N. terminalis (Ashmead) is

redescribed and Stenophasmus apicalis Ashmead is a new synonym of it. Thirteen

previously described species are transferred to the new genus.

A recent revision of the North Ameri-

can Spathius (Matthews, 1970) pointed

out that the spathiines appeared to have

undergone extensive radiation in Central

and South America. However, while

sharing the general habitus of typical

Spathius, certain striking venation

anomalies suggested that these Neotropi-

cal species may not be congeneric with

Spathius as currently defined. Further

study has confirmed this; therefore, as

a prelude to a published revision of the

Neotropical spathiines, those described

species belonging to this group are here

segregated into a newly described genus,

Notiospathis to allow their more accurate

placement in the Doryctinae in the

Braconidae section of the forthcoming

Hymenopterorum Catalogus being pre-

pared by Dr. R. D. Shenefelt.

Notiospathius Matthews and Marsh, new genus

Type-species.—Stenophasmus __ ter-

minalis Ashmead, 1894. Present desig-

nation.

Description.—Head subcubical, variously sculp-

tured; occipital carina fused with hypostomal

carina ventrally; first flagellar segment longer than

second; fore wing with 3 cubital cells; recurrent

vein entering first cubital cell, rarely interstitial with

first intercubitus; subdiscoideus leaving first

brachial cell below middle; hind wing with mediel-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

len cell narrow, its widest part less than 4 greatest

hind wing width; first segment of mediella about

6X basella length; radiella absent or at most very

weakly developed; abdomen petiolate; first abdomi-

nal tergum lengthened, and distinctly dilated

towards apex; fore tibia with a row of 5 or more

stout spines on anterior edge; ovipositor varying

in length.

The species included in this genus are

superficially similar to those in the genus

Spathius, but differ in wing venation by

having the recurrent vein received by the

first cubital cell and the subdiscoideus

arising below the middle of the brachial

cell in the fore wing and by the narrow

mediellen cell, very long first segment of

the mediellen and absence or only weak

development of the radiella in the hind

wing. This venation is widespread among

Neotropical braconids having the

Spathius general habitus. However,

several other less common venation

types also exist among undescribed

Neotropical spathiines, including one

specimen which was found to possess the

typical Spathius venation (recurrent vein

received by second cubital cell, the sub-

discoideus arising above the middle of

the brachial cell in the fore wing and

mediellen cell at least as wide as 12 hind

wing width, the first segment of the

mediella not more than 3X basella length

and radiella distinct).

Another character which is useful in

distinguishing the two is shape of the hind

coxa. In many Spathius, including all

North American species, there is a ven-

tral tooth near the base of the hind coxa.

This ventral tooth is absent in Notios-

pathius (and some Oriental species of

Spathius).

Notiospathius terminalis (Ashmead), n. comb.

(Figs. 1-2)

Stenophasmus terminalis Ashmead, 1894, p. 114.

Stenophasmus apicalis Ashmead, 1900, p. 296.

(Not Stenophasmus apicalis Westwood, 1882).

Nomen nudum.

Female.—Body length, 4.0-6.0 mm; ovipositor

4.0-5.5 mm. Color brownish orange, palpi and fore

and mid coxae tan, antennal tips white, ovipositor

sheaths brown except white subapical annulus.

Head subcubical, vertex and frons uniformly trans-

versely striate; temples smooth; malar space

smooth, about % eye height; temple width about

2/5 eye height; ocellar triangle slightly wider than

long, lateral ocelli separated by less than their

diameters; ocellocular distance less than width of

ocellar triangle; antennae about as long as body,

each with about 36 flagellomeres, the apical 6 white.

Pronotum with distinct wide lateral areas with

several irregular cross carinae; proepisternum

rugulose; notauli weakly impressed, fused pos-

teriorly into broad area of longitudinal rugosity;

mesonotal lobes strongly transversely rugose,

median lobe weakly depressed centrally; scutellar

furrow deep, with 4-6 cross carinae; scutellar disc

smooth; mesopleural disc smooth and shining above

sternaulus, becoming longitudinally rugose-striate

dorsally; mesosternum smooth; sternaulus shallow

with weak cross carinae anteriorly; prepectal carina

complete; prepectal area smooth; propodeum slop-

ing gradually to petiole, lacking distinct carinae or

defined areas, rather the whole longitudinally

strigose-granular becoming rugulose laterally. Fore

tibiae with an irregular row of 6—9 spines along

anterior margin and a row of 6 or 7 apically; hind

coxae elongate cylindrical with a basal tooth ven-

trally and weakly transversely strigose-granular

dorsally. Wings hyaline, veins light brown; venation

as in Fig. 1. Petiole (Fig. 2) straight, 34% times as

long as apical width and about as long as hind tibiae,

uniformly coarsely granular, except apical medial

lobe smooth; tergum (2 + 3) strongly granular over

basal 34, apically smooth, the lateral margins thic-

kened along full length; tergum 4 with weaker

granular sculpture anterior to subapical transverse

row of setae and lateral margins thickened; remain-

ing terga smooth; ovipositor about equal to body

length.

Male.—Essentially as in female; vertex and

frons only weakly transversely striate; mesonotum

granular, lacking distinct transverse strigosity;

antennae entirely brown with 29-31 flagellomeres.

Distribution.—West Indies: Islands of St. Vin-

cent and Grenada.

Ashmead described this species from

23 specimens, of which 10 are now in

the U. S. National Museum, the remain-

der being in the British Museum (Natural

History). We are deferring any lectotype

2 1

Figs. 1 and 2,

abdominal tergum of female.

Notiospathius terminalis (Ashmead); 1, fore and hind wings of female; 2, first

J. WASH. ACAD. § CI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

designations until all of the specimens

concerned are studied.

Based on examination of all but 3 of

the types, we here transfer 13 other

described Neotropical braconids to

Notiospathius. All appear to possess the

characters of the genus and are listed

below together with the location of the

type. Redescriptions are deferred until

a full revision and keys can be presented.

The two Fabricius species were not seen,

but appear to belong here based on com-

ments by Schulz (1912) and Townes

(1961).

Notiospathius caudatus (Szepligeti), n. comb.

Psenobolus caudatus Szepligeti, 1902. Term. Fuz.

25: 49. Brazil. (Budapest)

Notiospathius columbianus (Enderlein), n. comb.

Psenobolus columbianus Enderlein, 1912. Archiv

Naturges. 78(A) (2): 6. Colombia. (Warsaw)

Notiospathius diversus (Szepligeti), n. comb.

Spathius diversus Szepligeti, 1902. Term. Fuz.

25: 50. Brazil. (Budapest)

Notiospathius eleutherae (Ashmead), n. comb.

Spathius eleutherae Ashmead, 1896. Bull. Lab.

Nat. Sci. St. Univ. Iowa 1896: 32. Bahamas.

(Ames, Iowa)

Notiospathius flavotestaceus (Ashmead), n. comb.

Spathius flavotestaceus Ashmead, 1895. Proc.

Zool. Soc. London 1895: 783. Grenada.

(London)

Notiospathius fuscipes (Cameron), n. comb.

Spathius fuscipes Cameron, 1887. Bio. Cent.-

Amer., Hymen. 1: 381. Panama. (London)

Notiospathius leucacrocera (Enderlein), n. comb.

Psenobolus leucacrocera Enderlein, 1912. Archiv

Naturges. 78(A) (2): 8. Brazil. (Warsaw)

Notiospathius meliorator (Fabricius), n. comb.

Pimpla meliorator Fabricius, 1804. Systema Pieza-

torum, p. 118. British Guiana. (Copenhagen)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

Notiospathius necator (Fabricius), n. comb.

Pimpla necator Fabricius, 1804. Systema Pieza-

torum, p. 117. British Guiana. (Copenhagen)

Notiospathius ornaticornis (Cameron), n. comb.

Spathius ornaticornis Cameron, 1887. Bio. Cent.-

Amer., Hymen. 1: 381. Panama. (London)

Notiospathius sculpturatus (Enderlein), n. comb.

Psenobolus sculpturatus Enderlein, 1912, Archiv

Naturges. 78(A) (2): 7. Columbia. (Warsaw)

Notiospathius striatifrons (Cameron), n. comb.

Spathius striatifrons Cameron, 1887. Bio. Cent.-

Amer., Hymen. 1: 382. Panama. (London)

Notiospathius tinctipennis (Cameron), n. comb.

Spathius tinctipennis Cameron, 1887. Bio. Cent.-

Amer., Hymen. 1: 379. Panama. (London)

References Cited

Ashmead, W. H. 1894. Report upon the parasitic

Hymenoptera of the island of St. Vincent. (In:

Riley, C. V., Ashmead, W. H. and Howard,

L. O.) J. Linn. Soc. (Zool.) 25: 56-254.

. 1900. Report upon the Aculeate Hymenop-

tera of the islands of St. Vincent and Grenada,

with additions to the parasitic Hymenoptera and

a list of the described Hymenoptera of the

West Indies. Trans. R. Entomol. Soc. Lond.,

1900: 207-367.

Matthews, R. W. 1970. A revision of the genus

Spathius in America north of Mexico (Hymenop-

tera: Braconidae). Contr. Amer. Entomol. Inst.

4(5): 1-86.

Schulz, W. A. 1912. Aelteste und alte Hymenop-

teren skandinavischer Autoren. Berlin. Ent.

Ztschr. 57: 52-102.

Townes, H. 1961. Some species described as ich-

neumonids but belonging to other families (Hy-

menoptera). Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 63:

287-289.

Westwood, J. O. 1882. Descriptions of new or

imperfectly known species of Ichneumones

adsciti. Tijdschr. Ent. 25: 17-48.

New North American Euvrilletta and Xyletinus

with Keys to Species (Coleoptera: Anobiidae)

Richard E. White

Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

Mail address: % U. S. National Museum, Washington, D. C. 20560.

ABSTRACT

The new species Euvrilletta californica from California and Nevada, E. serricornis

from Nevada, Xyletinus obsoletus from Nevada, and the new subspecies X. mucoreus

variabilis from Maryland, are described. An identification note is given for X. distans

Fall. Keys are given for the North American species of Euvrilletta and Xyletinus; illustra-

tions are presented.

The following descriptions of 3 new

species and a new subspecies result from

study of collections recently sent to me

for identification.

Euvrilletta californica, n. sp.

(Fig. 2, 3)

General.—Elongate-cylindrical, body 2.6 to 2.7

times as long as wide, elytra nearly parallel-sided

at about basal 3/5; body color beneath pubescence

orange or red-brown to moderately dark brown,

color of legs as that of body, antennae more or

less orange-brown; pubescence tan, with a silky

sheen in proper light, moderately dense, obscuring

surface, mostly appressed, dorsal surface and head

with short, bristling hairs.

Head.—Surface with very small, moderately

dense granules on a nearly smooth, shining, finely

punctate background, vertex with a fine, longitudi-

nal carina, a fine groove adjacent to eye; eyes of

femal small, bulging, separated by 4.7 to 4.8 times

frontal width of an eye, eyes of male moderately

large, bulging, separated by 2.4 to 3.3 times frontal

width of an eye; antenna of male about 0.6 times

as longas body, segment 3 weakly serrate, segments

4 through 8 more distinctly serrate, each of these

5 segments progressively more elongate than 1 pre-

ceding it, 9th segment 1.4 times as long as segment

8, segments 9 through 11 as long as 7 preceding

segments combined, segments 9 and 10 weakly ser-

rate, each about 3.5 times as long as wide, 11th

segment 5 to 6 times as long as wide; antenna of

female alittle less than 4% as long as body, segments

3 through 10 moderately serrate, last 3 segments

united as long as 6 to 7 preceding united. Last seg-

ment of maxillary palpus subfusiform, that of male

nearly 3 times as long as wide, that of female about

2 times as long as wide; last segment of labial palpus

subfusiform, that of male about 3 times as long

as wide, that of female about 2 times as long as

wide.

Dorsal surface.—Pronotal disk nearly evenly

rounded throughout in both sexes, very slightly

depressed at base each side of center, often slightly

depressed along margin above anterior angle,

extreme side in male sometimes flattened, usually

nearly evenly rounded, sometimes slightly, broadly

bulging, side in female broadly, more distinctly

bulging than in male; lateral margin in male com-

plete, usually narrowly produced, sometimes mod-

erately produced and explanate, lateral margin of

female sometimes (1 of 3 specimens) incomplete

anteriorly, margin narrowly produced; sculpture at

side of pronotum of small (moderately dense)

granules on a very finely granulate surface. Scutel-

lum about as wide as long, apex rounded to some-

what pointed. Elytra more or less distinctly striate,

each elytron with 10 complete, 1 short scutellar

and 1 short subhumeral stria, striae of small, elon-

gate punctures, intervals usually obscurely to

weakly convex; surface extremely finely granulate;

pubescence of female usually (2 or 3 specimens)

forming weak vittae.

Ventral surface.—Metasternal carina behind

middle coxae broadly angulate, metasternum lon-

gitudinally, more or less distinctly grooved at

center, groove weak to absent basally; surface

finely punctate-granulate. Abdomen with first

suture more impressed than others, surface finely

granulate-punctate; outer face of front tibia concave

at apex only, outer face of middle tibia more or

less flattened to concave at apex.

Length.—S5.0 to 7.8 mm.

The holotype (male, no. 72496 in

USNM) bears the data ‘‘SAN YSIDRO,

CA; VII-25 1970; BLACKLIGHT.”’

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

Fig. 1-5, Antennae: 1, Euvrilletta serricornis, n. sp., male holotype; 2, Euvrilletta californica, n.

sp., male paratype; 3, Euvrilletta californica, n. sp., female paratype; 4, Xyletinus distans Fall, male

paratype; 5, Xyletinus distans Fall, female holotype; Figs. 6-8, lateral views: 6, Xyletinus variabilis,

n. sp., male holotype; 7, Xyletinus fucatus Leconte; 8, Xyletinus obsoletus, n. sp., male paratype.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

The allotype (in USNM) bears the same

data except that it was taken on VII-21,

1970. Four paratypes with the following

data are in USNM: ‘“‘Box Spr. Mats.,

Cal., Riverside; VII-9-64, G. E. Wal-

lace; light’, 2 ; ‘Riverside, Calif., VIII-

5-65; at Hight. Be les chilingenmansco rs

““CAL., Alameda Co., 3 m. S. Sunol,

22-VIII-1971, W. H. Tyson; Collected

at u.v. light’’, do ; and “‘Riverside, Calif.,

VII-12-64; at light, E. I. Schlinger’’, 3.

Five male paratypes (4 in NDA, 1 in

USNM) have the data “‘Oak Springs

Summit, Lincoln Co., Nev., VIII-

10-1971, elev. 6231’; G. M. Nishida, D.

F. Zoller Collectors’’. One female (in

NDA) bears the data ‘‘Reno, Nev.,

Washoe Co., VII-7-1966; R. C. Bechtel

Collector’. A single male specimen (in

CAS) bears the following ‘‘Daggett, San

Bern. Co., Cal. 7-22-57; D. Giuliani Col-

lector’’. A male paratype (in William

Tyson collection) bears the data ““CAL.,

Alameda Co., 3 m. s. Sunol, 22-

VIII-1971, W. H. Tyson; Collected at

u.v. light’’. In total, 14 specimens have

been seen.

For the differences between califor-

nica and texana VanDyke, its nearest

relative, see the key, below, to Euvril-

letta species.

Euvrilletta serricornis,n. sp.

(Fig. 1)

General.—Elongate-cylindrical, body 2.5 to 2.7

times as long as wide, elytra nearly parallel-sided

at about basal 34; dorsal surface, metasternum, and

legs red-brown, pronotum and metasternum

clouded with dark brown, head and abdomen very

dark brown, head at vertex and apex, and abdomen

at base more or less red-brown, antennae more or

less orange-brown; pubescence tan, with a slight

silky sheen in bright light, very short, not bristling,

less than moderate in density, not obscuring sur-

face.

Head.—Surface with small, moderately dense

granules on a finely granulate background; vertex

with a fine, longitudinal carina, weaker apically,

attaining level of eyes, with an obscure groove adja-

cent to each eye; eyes of male large and bulging,

separated by about 1.4 to 2.0 times frontal width

of an eye; antenna of male just over 0.5 as long

as body, 3rd segment serrate, segments 4 through

8 strongly serrate, 4 through 7 subequal, 8th a little

longer than others, segments 9 through 11 as long

as 7 preceding united, 9th and 10th serrate at apex.

Last segment of maxillary palpus subtriangular,

over 2 times as long as wide, widest beyond middle,

apex obliquely truncate; last segment of labial pal-

pus subtriangular, about 1.6 times as long as wide,

widest beyond middle, apex obliquely truncate.

Dorsal surface.—Pronotal disk nearly evenly

rounded, pronotum at base each side of middle shal-

lowly depressed, bulging at side, at side behind

anterior margin and before bulge somewhat to dis-

tinctly depressed, lateral margin complete, moder-

ately produced; surface at side with small, moder-

ately dense granules on a finely granulate back-

ground. Scutellum about as wide as long, apex

bluntly pointed. Elytra more or less clearly striate,

each elytron with 10 complete, more or less clearly

indicated striae plus a short scutellar and a short

subhumeral stria, striae of small, elongate, impres-

sed punctures, intervals weakly convex; surface at

base with small, moderately dense granules on a

very finely granulate background, small granules

sparse to nearly absent over rest of elytron, fine

granules occurring throughout.

Ventral surface.—Metasternal carina behind mid-

dle coxae small, angulate, metasternal surface

finely, longitudinally grooved at middle, weak to

absent at base; surface finely granulate-punctate.

Abdomen with first suture slightly more distinct

than others; surface finely punctate and minutely,

obscurely granulate; outer face of fore and middle

tibiae flattened nearly throughout.

Length.—4.8 to 5.8 mm.

The holotype (¢ , in NDA) and 3 male

paratypes (2 in USNM, 1 in NDA) bear

the data “‘Sawmill Canyon, Nye Co.,

Nev., VII-21-1964, elev. 7600’, Light

trap; R. C. Bechtel, collector.”’

This species is most similar to texana

VanDyke, and xyletinoides Fall; for the

differences see the key to Euvrilletta

species.

There is a female specimen (in NDA)

which I have identified as serricornis or

near. The metasternal carina is broadly

arcuate; this and other differences from

male types of serricornis cause doubts

as to whether it is the female of ser-

ricornis or not.

The addition of E. serricornis and E.

californica to our known fauna emphas-

ises the arbitrary nature of the distinction

between Euvrilletta and Xyletinus. These

genera are separated on the basis of the

length of the last 3 antennal segments as

compared with the rest of the antenna

(club as long as all preceding segments

combined in Euvrilletta, as long as 5 to

6 preceding in Xyletinus), but this distinc-

tion is not good, for there is no sharp

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

dividing line between the somewhat

lengthened last 3 antennal segments of

X. distans, through the moderately

lengthened last 3 segments of X. brevis

White, to the distinctly lengthened last

3 segments of E. californica, E. ser-

ricornis, and E. texana. I am convinced

that a revision of the genera is desirable.

In such an endeavor consideration should

be given to restriction of Xyletinus to the

small-eyed, stout-bodied species (these

agree with X. ater the type-species),

restriction of Euvrilletta to the type-

species xyletinoides, and erection of 1 or

2 new genera for the remaining species

now placed in Xyletinus or Euvrilletta.

Xyletinus mucoreus variabilis Nn. ssp.

(Fig. 6)

General.—Elongate-cylindrical, body 2.47 to

2.50 times as long as wide, elytra nearly parallel-

sided at basal 24; body color beneath pubescence

as follows, head red-orange, darker red-orange

(nearly brown) along mid-line and at top, pronotal

color as on head, darker red-orange basally (nearly

brown), lightest apically, elytra light red-orange to

dull orange, ventral surface dark red-orange, metas-

ternum clouded with brown, abdomen predomi-

nantly dark brown to nearly black, apex of each

abdominal segment more or less lighter than

remainder, legs (except tarsi) and first antennal seg-

ment red-orange, tarsi and antennal segments 2-11

dull light orange; pubescence of all surfaces semi-

erect, moderately dense, with a light yellow sheen,

more or less obscuring surface sculpture.

Head.—Front very finely, densely granulate,

granules of 2 sizes; surface most strongly rounded

at vertex, very shallowly depressed above eyes,

vaguely, longitudinally carinate at center, with a

narrow, more or less distinct groove over each eye.

Antenna of male about 0.5 times as long as body

(female not seen), segment 3 weakly serrate, seg-

ments 4 through 10 distinctly serrate, outer seg-

ments of this portion becoming more elongate, seg-

ments 4 and 5 similar, a little longer than wide, seg-

ment 6 as long as wide, wider than 4 and 5, segment

7 large, wider than 6, a little longer than wide, seg-

ment 8 as long, not as wide as 7, longer than wide,

segment 9 as wide as 8 but longer, about 1.6 times

as long as wide, segment 10 not as wide as 9, slightly

shorter, more than 2 times as long as wide, 11th

segment elongate-cylindrical, 4.6 times as long as

wide, 9th through 11th segments as long as 5 preced-

ing united. Eyes of male large and bulging,

separated by 1.8 to 2.0 times frontal width of an

eye. Last segment of maxillary palpus elongate,

pointed, widest near middle, 2.4 to 2.7 times as

long as wide; last segment of labial palpus similar

to that of maxillary palpus, 2.5 times as long as

wide.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

Dorsal surface.—Pronotal disk nearly evenly

rounded, at base slightly depressed each side of

middle, at side flat or slightly concave, weakly

undulate; lateral margin sharp, distinct, raised,

more or less undulate between posterior and

anterior angles; surface finely, evenly granulate

throughout, granules of 2 sizes. Scutellum slightly

wider than long, apex rounded. Elytra distinctly

striate, each elytron with 10 complete striae, a

scutellar stria and 2 short striae diagonally below

humerus, striae irregular, of impressed, broken

lines, or elongate punctures, intervals more or less

convex; surface very finely, nearly evenly granulate

throughout, intervals with minute, shallow punc-

tures.

Ventral surface.—Metasternal process behind

middle coxae arcuate to nearly angulate, surface

of metasternum rather finely granulate, lon-

gitudinally, deeply, rather broadly grooved on

midline from posterior margin to past middle. First

abdominal suture a little less distinct than others,

surface granulate-punctate; outer face of anterior,

middle, and hind tibiae more or less flat.

Length.—4.4 to 5.1 mm.

The male holotype (USNM no. 72495)

and 2 paratypes (both males, I believe;

in USNM) bear the data ‘“‘Snow Hill,

Md. Spring-1950, WHAnderson; reared

from dead holly branch.’’ Most of the

abdomen of 1 paratype is missing with

just the sternites present, and the entire

abdomen of the other paratype is missing.

I find no differences between the

genitalia of the holotype of m. variabilis

and m. mucoreus Leconte. The external

differences between these subspecies and

the distribution are given in the key to

Xyletinus species.

Xyletinus obsoletus, n. sp.

(Fig. 8)

General.—Elongate-robust, 1.7 to 1.9 times as

long as wide, elytra widest at middle; body and

head dark red-brown, head, pronotum, and, to a

lesser extent, ventral surface and elytra clouded

with black, appendages red-brown, antennae often

lightest, sometimes nearly orange; pubescence of

dorsal surface dark, blending into background,

extremely short, very sparse, individual hairs

separated on an average by a little less than their

length, hairs of ventral surface longer, lighter in

color, more prominent than those of dorsal surface,

pubescence appressed throughout.

Head .—Front finely, very densely punctate,

punctures varying in size; surface nearly evenly

rounded throughout, but often with shallow depres-

sions each side of midline near center. Eyes small,

not or slightly bulging, eyes of 3 separated by 5.0

to 5.7 times frontal width of an eye, those of female

separated by 6.2 to 7.0 times frontal width of an

eye. Antennae of male about 0.4 times as long as

body, that of female about 0.3 times as long as

body, antenna of male with segments 4 through

10 serrate, basal segments of this portion a little

wider than long and outer segments more elongate,

longer than wide; antenna of female with segments

4 through 10 serrate, basal segments of this portion

about as wide as long and outer segments longer

than wide, last segment (both sexes) about 2 times

as long as wide. Last segment of maxillary palpus

(both sexes) about 2 times as long as wide, inner

margin arcuate, tip blunt; last segment of labial pal-

pus (both sexes) nearly triangular, longer than wide,

inner angle very broadly rounded.

Dorsal surface.—Pronotum rounded nearly

throughout, inflated at sides, male often with shal-

low depressions on disk each side of center, at base

(both sexes) rather broadly depressed each side of

center; surface of disk very finely, densely pun-

ctate, at side punctures larger, very dense, partially

running together, surface thus finely scabrous;

lateral margin sharp, explanate at posterior half,

weaker before middle of side, usually broadly

absent anteriorly, sometimes feebly indicated to

near anterior margin, side of pronotum rounded at

anterior 44. Scutellum a little wider than long, apex

rounded. Elytra striate, each elytron with 10 com-

plete, distinct, finely impressed grooves (a little

weaker apically), plus a short scutellar, and 1 or

2 short striae at side below humerus, striae most

deeply impressed below humerus, intervals flat,

some more or less convex at apex; surface finely,

densely punctate, punctures often running together

and forming more or less distinct transverse ridges.

Ventral surface.—Metasternal process behind

middle coxae arcuate, surface densely punctate,

punctures varying in size; first abdominal suture

less distinct than others, Sth segment of male shal-

lowly depressed before apex, that of female shal-

lowly depressed and with a small tubercle each side

of depression; outer face of anterior and middle

tibiae shallowly concave except at base, outer face

of hind tibia flat.

Length.—3.0 to 4.9 mm.

The male holotype, the allotype and

23 paratypes (9 males, 14 females) bear

the data ‘‘Incline Village, Washoe Co.

Nev., V-7-1971; House; C. W. Haas Col-

lector; Nev. Dept. Agr. No. 71 E 10-3.”’

Four paratypes are in the USNM, the

holotype and the rest of the specimens

are in NDA.

This species is nearest X. fucatus

Leconte; the differences are given in the

key to Xyletinus species.

Xyletinus distans Fall

(Fig. 4, 5)

Xyletinus distans Fall, 1905, p. 200.

I have, for some years, confused one

or the other of the species I herein

described as Euvrilletta californica and

E. serricornis with Xyletinus distans.

The female type has recently been sent

to me (no. 24666 in MCZ, with data ‘‘S.

Madre, Cal.; June; distans, TYPE;

M.C.Z. Type 24666’’) and a male

paratype (in CAS, with data “‘SAN

DIEGO. CAL.; Xyletinus distans Fall.;

Blaisdell Collection.’’) so I can now

assign the name with certainty. The local-

ity at which the female type was collected

is not given in the original description.

The male and female antennae of this

species are illustrated.

Key to North American Species of Euvrilletta

1. Last 3 antennal segments as long as all 8 preceding together.........

Aner cee anacm bora xyletinoides Fall

Last 3 antennal segments no longer than 7 preceding together........ 2

2(1).

Hairs of dorsal surface entirely appressed, bristling hairs absent......

NE Hise nO cocoa. OUI serricornis White

Hairs of dorsal surface with both appressed and short, or minute, bristl-

IND GN AITS each kche epee Sats) As SNe AOS OA EE Reo eee 3

3(2). Length of each antennal segment of male from 4 through 7 subequal to width;

GRAS ee Shae ot ae OS oars ec agate ae ee Sree nas et Carp ele texana VanDyke

Length of each antennal segment of male from 4 through 7 nearly 2 times

widths Califonmiaigs csancsvy aaa ase eo ENTS eee californica White

Key to North American Species of Xyletinus

1. Body more elongate, 2.3 to 2.7 times as long as wide; eyes large, separated by

Body less elongate, 1.6 to 2.0 times as long as wide; eyes small, separated by

ATtoOm/mtimesairontalmwidthwoteaney.Crrre rer tthe tt ett ttn 9

80 J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

2(1). Pubescence of dorsal surface with both appressed and short, or minute,

Eom SULITT MI AIT Soros oneastev aiiteceuyveve ya cust Js tacretevs vile: o ebovsheuen eevee ten diavers avenenaeie eyesore 3

Pubescence of dorsal surface entirely appressed, bristling hairs absent 4

3(2). Head and pronotum red-brown, ventral surface predominantly dark brown,

elytra orange-brown; Maryland ............... mucoreus variabilis White

Color nearly uniform red-brown to brown throughout; South Carolina to

lord aw towmMexasineccca crisp anc ce Weiter nle coors erent m. mucoreus Leconte

4(2). Antennal segments 9 through 11 together subequal in length to preceding 4

TOMSIBSEEIMOMUS eerste reapers eee pe ae D ocean St Are Ce eee 5

Antennal segments 9 through 11 together subequal in length to preceding 5

US) “7 GETTIN So ooo s eheerg LAAN tc5 SIGE GI ee LODO RIO Oo So ceo ao omaes 6

5(4). Side of pronotum distinctly rounded, lateral margin very narrow and not

RU was CACC INE OT Wo So sascocccsercncssvoccsaod peltatus (Harris)

Side of pronotum flat to weakly rounded, lateral margin rather broad and

renexed muon neriW anSssands@anadameernr ne teenie aa harrisii Fall

6(4). Metasternal carina adjacent to mesocoxae broadly, nearly evenly arcuate 7

Metasternal carina adjacent to mesocoxae not as above, angulate..... 8

7(6). Body orange-brown; pronotal lateral margins more broadly produced; striae

WGELS (CEiiioynVe Remade eum einen ee ain yo cine omer arene distans Fall

Body red-brown to brown; pronotal lateral margins narrower; striae strong;

Southy@arolmasto-South Dakotarerenanee eect eae: brevis White

8(6). Intermediate antennal segments longer than wide........ grossus VanDyke

Intermediate antennal segments wider than long ....... sequoiae VanDyke

9(1). Tarsi elongate and slender, last segment 4 to 5 times as long as wide;

WAVODNITES conetto tebe aeons Oto earch oimotion Gerraas . elements gracilipes Fall

Tarsi stout, last segment not over 2 times as long as wide .......... 10

10(9). Pubescence of elytra patterned, yellow with brown patches; southern Texas

Pubescence of elytra unicolorous; various localities .................. 11

11(10). Lateral margin of prothorax incomplete (fig. 8) ........... obsoletus White

Lateral margin of prothorax complete (fig. 7)..............-.-+-++08- 12

12(11). Outer face of anterior tibia concave only at apical half; Texas.......

000-8 GBS) Oe Oe ree DEAE CN RRC oy CASE Seni ea ca te pubescens Leconte

Outer face of anterior tibia concave throughout; various localities .... 13

13(12). Eyes larger, separated by 4.0 to 4.5 times frontal width of an eye (males) 14

Eyes smaller, separated by 5 to 7 times-frontal width of an eye (females) 15

14(13). First two abdominal segments with a median longitudinal line of erect hairs

66; 6) BSSERO EIHEAEE OCG 8 CCE RORE Fe RECO ECR eee EEE lugubris Leconte

First two abdominal segments lacking a line of erect hairs...........

oo 6 OBIS Staci 8 6-cSS Cate ani HERONS ocotcra MeCiaNG Ci aa oosecreme eres fucatus Leconte

15(13). Intermediate segments of antennae two times as wide as long........

SiG 2c) eT EPO ENCE CEC NORA eT RCO RGR SEER eo eek rae lugubris Leconte

Intermediate segments of antennae but slightly wider than long.......

Acknowledgements of Agriculture (NDA), and to William

Tyson of Fremont, California, for loan

My thanks are offered to John Law- of specimens.

rence of the Museum of Comparative

Zoology (MC Z) at Harvard, and to Hugh

Leech of the California Academy of Sci- Reference

ences (CAS) for loan of type specimens; Fail, H. C. 1905. Revision of the Ptinidae of Boreal

to Robert Bechtel, Nevada Department America. Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 31: 97-296.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973 81

ACADEMY AFFAIRS

SCIENTISTS RECEIVE ACADEMY’S ANNUAL AWARDS

Awards for outstanding scientific

achievement were conferred upon two

research scientists and two science

teachers at the Annual Awards Dinner

Meeting of the Academy on March 15

at the Cosmos Club.

The research investigators honored

were James L. Reveal of the University

of Maryland in the biological sciences,

and Martin E. Glicksman of the Naval

Research Laboratory in the physical

sciences.

The science teachers honored were

Jerry B. Marion of the University of

Maryland’s Department of Physics, and

Robert C. Vincent of George Wash-

ington University’s Department of

Chemistry.

Award winners were introduced by

Dr. David S. Sparks, Dean of the

Graduate School at the University of

Maryland, Dr. J. H. Schulman, Associ-

ate Director of Research of the Naval

Research Laboratory, and Dr. Charles

R. Naeser, Head of the Department of

Chemistry at George Washington

University.

The Academy’s awards program was

initiated in 1939 to recognize young scien-

tists of the area for ‘“‘noteworthy dis-

covery, accomplishment or publication’’

in the biological, physical and engineer-

ing sciences. An award for outstanding

teaching was added in 1955 and another

for mathematics in 1959. Except in

teaching, where no age limit is set, can-

didates for awards must be under 40.

Previous award winners are listed at the

end of the article.

Biological Sciences

James L. Reveal was cited ‘‘for dis-

tinguished research in Plant Systematics,

especially in Eriogonium and for the In-

termountain Flora.’’ Dr. Reveal, an

Assistant Professor in the Department of

Botany at the University of Maryland,

has made major contributions to the sys-

tematics of a large group of plants and

has worked with several senior investiga-

tors in the preparation of an important

flora.

James L. Reveal

Dr. Reveal was born March 29, 1941

in Reno, Nevada. He obtained his B.S.

and M.S. from Utah State University in

1963 and ’65 respectively. He received

his Ph.D. from Brigham Young Univer-

sity in 1969 where he was selected as the

outstanding graduate student in 1968. His

professional experience, teaching assis-

tantships at Utah State (1963-65) and

Brigham Young (1965-68), Predoctoral

Internship, Smithsonian Institution

(1966-67), NSF Traineeship, Brigham

Young (1968-69) and Assistant Professor

at the University of Maryland since 1969,

has embraced field work in Utah,

Mexico, California, Arizona, Nevada,

Colorado, New Mexico, Texas and the

Chesapeake Bay Region. In addition to

his remarkable research record (over 70

publications), Dr. Reveal serves as

Research Associate, Smithsonian

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

Institution, and Secretary, Steering

Committee, First International Congress

of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology,

and he gives numerous talks to local pub-

lic schools on botany, fossil plants,

ecology, flowering plants and

mushrooms. He is a member of Sigma

Xi, AAAS, AIBS, ACPT, BSA, CBC,

and IAPT.

Physical Sciences

Martin E. Glicksman was cited ‘‘for

outstanding contributions to physical

metallurgy and materials science.’’ Dr.

Glicksman, Branch Head, Transforma-

tions and Kinetics Branch, Metallurgy

Division, Naval Research Laboratory,

was honored for the development and

quantitative application of gradient hot-

Stage electron microscopy to the study

of crystallization and nucleation proces-

ses in metals and the sequelae of theoreti-

cal studies leading to the new concept

Martin E. Glicksman

of heterophase dislocations. He con-

ceived the idea that, with proper thermo-

mechanical constraints (the gradient hot

stage) a thin metallic specimen could be

melted and solidified under precisely con-

trolled conditions within the transmission

electron microscope, thus permitting in

situ observation of sub-micron processes

accompanying the solid-liquid phase

transition. It represents an important

advance in the application of electron

microscopy.

Dr. Glicksman’s professional educa-

tion and training include two degrees

earned at Rensselaer Polytechnic Insti-

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

tute (B. Met. E., June 1957 and Ph.D.,

February 1961). For the two-year period

Feb. 1961 to Feb. 1963, he held a Na-

tional Academy of Science—National

Research Council Postdoctoral Associ-

ateship. Professional positions with

which he has been associated recently are

Metallurgist, Research Staff, Naval Re-

search Laboratory (Feb. 1963—Oct.

1967); Section Head, Code 6330, NRL

(Oct. 1967-Feb. 1969); and Branch

Head, Code 6350, NRL (June 1969-

present). He holds membership in several

technical societies. Asards and honors

received by him are the following: RESA

Award in Pure Science (1968); A. S.

Fleming Award (1968); Outstanding

Young Men of America (1969); NRL Re-

search Paper Award (1969); American

Society for Metals, Grossman Award

(1971); NRL Research Paper Award

(1971). Dr. Glicksman has published

more than one hundred research papers

in leading science periodicals.

Teaching of Science

Jerry B. Marionand Robert C. Vincent

share the Teaching of Science Award.

Dr. Marion, a professor in the Physics

Department at the University of Mary-

land, was cited ‘‘for contributions to the

teaching of science personally and

through his books.’’ Dr. Vincent, a pro-

fessor in the Chemistry Department at

George Washington University, was

cited “‘for his dedicated and inspiring

service as a teacher of analytical

chemistry.”’

Professor Marion is not only an excel-

lent and highly productive research scien-

tist but also an unusually effective class-

room teacher. On both a national and

international level he has made great con-

tributions to teaching through the writing

and editing of influential and popular

books. He has written nine textbooks in

elementary and intermediate physics

which have become used and accepted

textbooks at universities all over the

world. His books range from Classical

Electromagnetic Radiation and Mathe-

matical Preparation for General Physics

Jerry B. Marion

for the serious student of physics to

Physics: The Foundations of Modern

Science and Physics and the Physical

Universe for the non-scientist and gen-

eral reader.

Professor Marion was born in Mobile,

Alabama, December 10, 1929. He

obtained his B.A. from Reed College in

1952 and his M.S. and Ph.D. both from

Rice Institute in 53 and ’55, respectively.

Following an NSF post-doctoral fellow-

ship in 1955-56, and an instructorship at

the University of Rochester in 1956—-57,

he came to the University of Maryland

as an Assistant Professor in 1957 with

promotions to Associate Professor in

1960 and full Professor in 1962. He was

a Guggenheim Fellow in 1965. With over

125 publications, Professor Marion is one

of the nation’s most outstanding Univer-

sity science educators. ‘“His writing style

and illustrations make physics exciting

- to learn. He is a champion lecturer and

author who strives for excellence in sci-

ence education and never loses sight of

the basic needs and interests of the

student.”’

Professor Vincent’s greatest interests

are chemistry and students. His lectures

are models of clarity and exposition and

he holds his students to high standards of

performance. As an inspiring teacher he

has influenced many of his students to

select chemistry as their undergraduate

major.

Robert C. Vincent

His interest in students extends well

outside of the classroom. He served

seventeen years as the advisor to the pre-

medical students, ten years as the faculty

advisor to Alpha Chi Sigma, and served

as faculty sponsor for the pre-medical

group that received a charter to establish

Alpha Epsilon Delta, the national honor-

ary pre-medical society. Currently he is

serving as faculty advisor to that group.

Because of his demonstrated interest in

and assistance to students, he was elected

to Omicron Delta Kappa, an undergradu-

ate organization for campus leaders.

Professor Vincent was born in Maine,

New York, in September, 1912. He

obtained his A.B., A.M. and Ph.D. all

from Cornell University in 1935, 1937,

and 1940 respectively. His life-long devo-

tion to teaching began with an in-

structorship at the George Washington

University in 1940-41. On military leave

as a Captain in the United States Army

from 1942-45, he returned to George

Washington University as an Assistant

Professor in 1946, was promoted to

Associate Professor in 1949 and full

Professor in 1953. The personality and

sincerity of Professor Vincent inspires

his students with a desire to reciprocate

with a far-above-average effort to suc-

ceed. His patience, understanding and

sympathy make a lasting impression and

he sends his students off with a feeling

of warmth and durable respect.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

BOARD OF MANAGERS MEETING NOTES

October 1972

The 620th meeting of the Board of

Managers of the Washington Academy

of Sciences was called to order at 8:10

p.m., October 3, 1972 by President-elect

Sherlin in the Conference Room of the

Lee Building at FASEB.

Treasurer.—Treasurer Rupp _ pre-

sented an interim report for the period

Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, 1972. The general con-

clusion is that the Academy is running

a deficit of approximately $6000 for 1972.

Mr. Sherlin moved, seconded by Dr.

Robbins, acceptance of the report. The

motion passed.

Auditing.—Mr. Detwiler reported the

satisfactory audit of the Treasurer’s

books.

Nominating.—The committee report

was presented by the Chairman, Dr.

Robbins. The following slate of nominees

was prepared for 1973-74:

President-elect: Richard P. Farrow,

Kurt H. Stern

Secretary: Jean Boek, Patricia Sarvella

Treasurer: George Abraham, Nelson

W. Rupp

Managers-at-Large (two to be

elected): Rita R. Colwell, Alphonse

F. Forziati, Howard J. Laster, H.

Ivan Rainwater, Mary Louise Rob-

bins, Alfred Weissler.

Mr. Detwiler, seconded by Dr. Gaum,

moved acceptance of the report. The

motion passed. On a motion of Dr.

Irving, seconded by Dr. Griffiths, the

slate was approved for submission to the

Academy members.

Executive Committee.—Dr. Cook dis-

cussed the agreement with George

Washington University for the use of half

the Academy’s office space for Mr.

Cornfield’s project. FWU will pay half

the rent on a month-to-month basis.

Meetings Committee.—Dr. Ederer

announced that the first meeting of the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973 _

Academy would be held jointly with the

Junior Academy on October 28 at

Georgetown University with Dr. Wes-

terhout of the University of Maryland as

speaker. The problem of declining Junior

Academy membership was also dis-

cussed.

Dr. Honig announced that the

November meeting would include a panel

discussion with university students and

Academy members concerning student

motivation in science. The December

meeting tentatively has been arranged

with the President’s science adviser as

speaker.

Symposium Committee.—Drs. Cook

and Forziati described tentative plans to

have the symposium center on inadver-

tant man-made climatic changes.

Membership Committee.—On a

motion by Dr. Stern, seconded by Dr.

Robbins, the following individuals were

elected to fellowship: L. D. Ballard, E.

H. Fife, Jr., Kun-Yen Huang, P. E.

Menzer, H. K. Sleeman, G. L. Wright,

Jr. Also approved were R. A. Ward and

R. N. Ghose.

Grants-in-Aid.—Dr. Sarvella read

several letters of thanks from grant

recipients and announced that $630, reim-

bursable by AAAS, was currently avail-

able for distribution.

Encouragement of Science

Talent.—Dr. Ederer presented a list of

Junior Academy meetings.

Membership Promotion.—Dr.

O’Hern described the committee’s

activities. Letters have been sent to all

delegates asking for a list of affiliated

society members eligible for fellowship.

These individuals will then be contacted.

Public Information.—Dr. Noyes read

a letter he is sending to various organiza-

tions to promote sales of symposium

issues. He requested a lead time of two

weeks for announcements.

Editor.—Dr. Foote reported that the

September issue is in print. He suggested

a committee be formed to promote the

sale of symposium issues.

Joint Board.—Dr. Oswald described

the planned use of WAS office space by

JBSE. A motion, to approve the financial

arrangements proposed for this purpose,

passed.

Miscellaneous.—Dr. Irving described

the D.C. Institute of Chemists which has

requested affiliation with WAS. His

motion to approve the request passed.

Mr. Abraham suggested a divisional

structure for WAS, similar to the N. Y.

Academy of Sciences. The suggestion

will be passed on the to Policy Planning

Committee for study.—Kurt H. Stem,

Secretary.

February, 1973

The 621st meeting of the Board of

Managers was called to order by Presi-

dent Cook at 8:10 p.m. in Conference

Room of the Lee Building at FASEB.

Announcements.—The minutes of the

October 3, 1972 meeting were approved

after the attendance record was corrected

as follows: G. W. Irving and L. A. Depue

present, J. Honig absent.

Secretary.—Dr. Stern presented the

membership figures of recent years,

showing a 20% drop since 1968 and sug-

gested that delegates be more active in

recruiting Members and Fellows. He also

mentioned that the Academy has a large

supply of Dr. Farber’s last book which

has not been sold due to lack of publicity.

As a result of subsequent discussion the

Editor offered to have a review of the

book published in the Journal. This will

be used to stimulate sales.

Treasurer.—Dr. Rupp presented the

budget for 1972-3 and the projected (bal-

anced) budget for the following year.

After extensive discussion the budget

was approved as presented. Dr. Rupp

also read a letter from Dr. Leo Schubert

asking for continued support from the

Academy for the summer institute for

high school students at American

University. Such support will become

particularly important when and if NSF

discontinues its funding. It was the sense

of the Board that, although it could not

commit future Boards, financial support

was desirable and should continue.

Executive Committee.—Dr. Cook

reported on the meeting of Feb. 7 at

which the following actions were taken:

1. The move toa less expensive office

at FASEB was approved.

2. The budget was approved.

3. A cost-of-living increase for Miss

Ostaggi was approved.

4. A ‘‘brainstorming’’ session will be

held shortly to gather ideas for a

(self-supporting) symposium in the

Fall.

Membership Committee.—On a

motion by Dr. Weissler, seconded by Dr.

Honig, the following nominees for fellow-

ship were approved: Hope E. Hopps,

Lester D. Shubin, Frederick K. Wil-

lenbrock, Bradley F. Bennett.

Awards for Scientific Achievement.

Dr. Cook read Dr. Aldridge’s report

recommending the following nominees:

For Biological Sciences: James L.

Reveal, Univ. of Md.; For Physical Sci-

ences: Martin E. Glicksman, Naval

Research Lab.; Teaching of Sciences, a

joint award: Jerry B. Marion, Univ. of

Md., Robert C. Vincent, The George

Washington Univ.

The Board approved the awards which

will be presented at the March 15

meeting. [See elsewhere this issue. Ed.]

Grants-in-Aid.—Dr. Sarvella read the

list of five applications accepted for finan-

cial support:

Robert H. Cooke, McKinley High

School, Washington, D.C.

Jeffrey R. Cousins, Central Senior

High School, Seat Pleasant, Md.

Cecil D. Haney, Eastern High School,

Washington, D.C.

Richard M. Prevatt, West Springfield

High School, Springfield, Va.

Parma Yarkin, Washington-Lee High

School, Arlington, Va.

Membership Committee.—Dr.

O’Hern urged delegates who have not

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

yet sent her the list of eligible members

and/or fellows from their societies, to do

so. She will draft a letter to invite these

people to submit applications.

Tellers Committee.—Mr. Detwiler

announced the results of the recent elec-

tion as follows:

President-elect: Kurt H. Stern

Secretary: Patricia Sarvella

Treasurer: Nelson W. Rupp

Managers-at-Large (1973-76):

Alphonse F. Forziati, Mary Louise

Robbins. [See elsewhere this issue.

Ed.]

NEW BUSINESS .—Mr. Sherlin

announced that the Catholic high schools

in the D.C. area will hold a Science Fair,

April 6 at St. Bartholomews Church on

River Road. Students from public

schools are eligible to participate.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:50

p.m.—Kurt H. Stern, Secretary.

SCIENTISTS IN THE NEWS

Contributions in this section of your Journal are earnestly solicited.

They should be typed double-spaced and sent to the Editor two months

preceding the issue for which they are intended.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Ashley B. Gurney, Systematic

Entomology Laboratory, discussed a

field trip made in Nevada and adjacent

states during June 1972, at the February

1 meeting of the Entomological Society

of Washington. The main purpose of the

trip was to observe and record current

populations of the ‘‘Nevada sage

grasshopper,’ Melanoplus rugglesi.

Solitary populations, not adequately

reported previously, were found and

observed in typical range-land areas of

five different states. These thinly dis-

tributed colonies, made up of small rela-

tively short-winged individuals which

remain in closely localized areas, are in

contrast to migratory populations of

large, long-winged, highly mobile and

gregarious individuals which threatened

native range shrubs in the late 1940’s and

early 1950’s.

Reece I. Sailer, former Chairman of the

Insect Identification and Beneficial

Insect Introduction Institute, retired

effective March 2, 1973, to accept a posi-

tion as Research Professor of Biological

Control at the University of Florida. Dr.

Sailer’s government service began in

1942 as USDA’s specialist on the tax-

onomy of heteropterous insects (the true

bugs), soon becoming a world authority

in this field. Since 1960, when he became

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

Officer-in-Charge of the European

Parasite Laboratory in Paris, Dr. Sailer’s

research and interests have been primar-

ily in the field of biological control, and

in this field too, he has become a leading

world figure. In 1966, he returned to the

States to serve as Assistant Chief of the

Insect Identification & Parasite

Introduction Research Branch of the

former Entomology Research Division at

Beltsville, and became Chief of the

Branch in July 1967. Since the ARS reor-

ganization in July 1972, he has served

as Chairman of IIBIII. In these

capacities, he has not only provided able

leadership and coordination of the Divi-

sion’s biological control program, includ-

ing the many PL 480 research programs

in this area, but his many worldwide con-

tacts enabled him to serve as a guiding

influence in enlarging the European

Organization Internationale de Lutte

Biologique into a truly worldwide

organization, the International Organiza-

tion for Biological Control, and in creat-

ing the Western Hemisphere Regional

Section of this organization.

A party in Dr. Sailer’s honor was held

Friday, February 23, in the Conference

Room of the new Bioscience Building at

Beltsville, on the occasion of his retire-

ment and to wish him well in his new

position. Obviously his retirement from

ARS after 30 years of outstanding service

in insect taxonomy and biological control

will mean a real loss to the Depart-

ment’s work in this important area.

Russell L. Steere of the ARS Northeast

Region, Beltsville, Md., received the

Ruth Allen Award and the Fellow Award

of the American Phytopathological

Society. The Ruth Allen Award is pre-

sented annually to an individual whose

research has contributed significantly to

the science of plant pathology. The Fel-

low Award is presented in recognition

of contributions to scientific research and

to the profession of phytopathology.

Both Awards were presented to Dr.

Steere at the Society’s meeting in Mexico

City.

Henry M. Cathey, Northeast Region,

Beltsville, was named a Fellow of the

American Society for Horticultural

Science. The honor was conferred in rec-

ognition of his outstanding research con-

tributions to horticultural science, par-

ticularly on the interaction of light and

growth-controlling chemicals as they

affect plant growth.

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

Aaron L. Shalowitz of the Coast and

Geodetic Survey (now the National

Ocean Survey) was recently honored by

the Government, through its Board on

Geographic Names, when it named a

newly discovered underwater mountain

(technically known as a “‘seamount’’) for

him. The Shalowitz seamount is located

in the northeast Pacific Ocean off the

Oregon-Washington coast. It rises 6800

feet from the ocean bottom. This is the

first time an underwater geographic fea-

ture has been named for a living person.

The Board cited Dr. Shalowitz for his

‘* . monumental contributions for more

than three decades in the realm of the

law of the sea, particularly seaward

boundaries, culminating in his two-

volume work, Shore and Sea Boun-

daries, which has become a classic in the

fields of oceanography, marine cartog-

raphy, and the law of the sea.”

Dr. Shalowitz retired in 1964 as a Spe-

cial Assistant to the Director of the Coast

and Geodetic Survey after serving nearly

five decades in both field and office. He

is a fellow of the Academy.

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Marilyn E. Jacox, internationally rec-

ognised research chemist, is one of six

government career women who received

the 13th annual Federal Women’s

Award. The winners received the awards

at a dinner March 6, 1973, in the

Shoreham Hotel. As a public service,

Woodward and Lothrop defrays all

expenses connected with the award.

Judges for the 1973 Federal Woman’s

Award were Dr. Philip A. Abelson, pres-

ident, Carnegie Institution of Washing-

ton; Rep. Martha W. Griffiths, D-Mich.;

Mrs. Mary D. Janney, president,

Washington Opportunities for Women,

Inc.; John H. Johnson, publisher and

editor of Ebony, Black Stars, and Black

World magazines, and Mrs. Mary G.

Roebling, chairman of the board, the

National State Bank, Trenton, N.J.

OBITUARIES

Nathan B. Eddy

Dr. Nathan B. Eddy, 82, well known

for research on pain-relieving drugs, died

March 29 at his home in Bethesda.

A widely recognized authority on drug

addiction and analgesics, Dr. Eddy

retired from the National Institute of

Arthritis, Metabolism, and Digestive

Diseases in August 1960.

He had served as a PHS consultant

in addition to having served as executive

secretary of the Committee on Drug

Addiction and Narcotics of the National

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

Academy of Sciences, National

Research Council.

Dr. Eddy’s lifetime devotion to the

study of narcotics made his office a world

clearinghouse for information concerning

all aspects of narcotics, analgesics, and

addiction.

In 1951, Dr. Eddy and Dr. Everette

L. May, also of NIAMDD’s Laboratory

of Chemistry, undertook a research pro-

gram to develop synthetic substitutes for

the pain-relieving drugs, morphine and

codeine, which are derived from the

opium poppy.

From this research emerged a new

class of pain-relieving agents, the ben-

zomophans, which in many instances are

more potent than morphine, but less

liable to produce addiction.

Since 1930 Dr. Eddy had been con-

cerned almost exclusively with research

in the field of analgesia and analgesics

with particular emphasis on chemical

_ structure, analgesic activity, and depen-

dence liability relationships.

Born in Glen Falls, N.Y., Dr. Eddy

received his M.D. from Cornell Univer-

sity Medical School in 1911, University

Medical School in 1911, and practiced

medicine in New York City until 1916.

After 13 years of teaching at a number

of universities, he joined NIH as a princi-

pal pharmacologist and became chief of

the Section on Analgesics, Laboratory

of Chemistry, in 1951.

Since 1960 Dr. Eddy had been a con-

sultant for the Section on Medicinal

Chemistry, NIAMDD.

During his career Dr. Eddy received

several awards including an honorary

D.Sc. from the University of Michigan

in 1963, the William Freeman Snow

Award (for distinguished service to

humanity) in 1967, and a year later the

Hillebrand Prize which he shared with

Dr. May for their analgesic research.

In 1972 he won the Edward W. Brown-

ing Achievement Award for Outstanding

Contribution to Prevention and Treat-

ment of Drug Addiction.

Dr. Eddy is survived by his wife, the

former Wilhelmina Marie Ahrens.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

Leo A. Wall

Dr. Leo A. Wall, a prominent

Washington area research chemist who

also was well known in track and field

circles here, was found dead on a beach

on Smith Island in Chesapeake Bay,

apparently the victim of a boating

accident.

Dr. Wall, 54, had been a lifelong resi-

dent of the District until he moved to

a home in McLean, Va., about three

years ago.

He was chief of the polymer chemistry

section at the National Bureau of Stan-

dards, where he had worked for 26 years.

He had planned to retire in about two

years. Dr. Wall had received many hon-

ors for his work and had written a number

of scientific papers and books.

He also was a track and field star during

the 1930’s at McKinley Tech High

School here and at Catholic University,

where he excelled as a high jumper and

hurdler. Since then, he frequently judged

area track meets.

The Coast Guard said Dr. Wall’s body

was found near his overturned 20-foot

sailboat after a fisherman had reported

seeing the capsized craft. A search led

to discovery of the body.

Coast Guard vessels and a Navy

helicopter also combed the area after-

ward until it was determined no one else

was with Dr. Wall.

His wife, the former Leola Grace

Ingalls of Washington, said Dr. Wall set

out alone in his newly-acquired sailboat

from their summer home in Colonial

Beach, Va., on Sunday.

Dr. Wall was born in the McKinley

High School area. He was graduated

from there in 1936 and received his B.S.

degree in physics from Catholic Univer-

sity in 1941, and his Ph.D degree in 1945.

Dr. Wall first joined the Bureau of

Standards in 1946 and had been there ever

since except for brief periods with the

California Research Corp. in 1947 and

as a Fulbright Fellow at the University

of Paris in 1951-52.

He was the recipient of the two highest

awards from the Commerce Department

—the Gold Medal for exceptional ser-

vice in 1962 and the Silver Medal for

meritorious service in 1955. In 1957, he

received the Arthur S. Fleming Award

from the U.S. Junior Chamber of Com-

merce as one of the outstanding young

men in government service. In 1964, he

was awarded the Catholic University of

America Alumni Achievement Award.

He was a member of Phi Beta Kappa

and Sigma Xi honor societies, the

Washington Academy of Sciences, Cos-

mos Club, American Chemistry Society

and was a fellow of the American

Association for the Advancement of

Science.

Professionally, Dr. Wall had been

chairman of two Gordon Research Con-

ferences, had co-authored about 120

research papers and was awarded

approximately 20 patents.

He was an instructor at Catholic

University from 1943 to 1945 and had

been teaching polymer chemistry at

American University since 1966.

Dr. Wall lived in the vicinity of North

Capitol Street in the District until he

moved to Stoneham Court in McLean.

Besides his wife, he leaves four mar-

ried daughters, Mrs. Julia Ann Barnes

of Washington, Mrs. Mary Ellen Beck-

ham of Newport, R.I.; Mrs. Kathleen

Prangley of Baltimore and Mrs. Margaret

Riesinger of Alameda, Calif.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

Dear Sir:

I refer to the brief article in the

December 1972 issue of the Journal of

the Washington Academy of Sciences by

Dr. Charles Milton titled Note on a

Drawing by M. C. Escher.

For almost 20 years I have admired

and collected Mr. Escher’s unusual

prints. During that time I first came to

know him through correspondence, and

later met with him on several occasions.

On one of these in June 1968 I found

myself in The Hague on Mr. Escher’s

70th birthday when he was being honored

by an important retrospective exhibition

of his graphics at the Gemeentemuseum.

The afternoon following the opening

of the exhibition I visited him at his house

in Baarn, and our conversation ranged

far and wide. In the course of our discus-

sions he asked if I had ever heard of any-

one having published an explanation of

the position of the chessmen in his wood-

cut Metamorphose.

I replied that I had not. He repeated

to me what he had often said to others:

that his ““‘prints were games, serious

games’’, and he went on to explain the

significance of the situation displayed on

the chessboard. He asked that I not tell

anyone else since he was curious to see

when someone would notice the game

within a game he had played in this print.

I promised him I would say nothing,

but would keep my eyes open and report

to him as soon as I read of anyone having

noticed the position of the chessmen and

identified what he had in mind.

Mr. Escher died almost exactly a year

ago today so I was unable to write him

and tell him that Dr. Milton was, so far

as I know, the first person to notice and

correctly identify what was happening on

the chessboard in Metamorphose, the

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

LETTERS

first edition of which Mr. Escher had pro-

duced a third of a century ago.

Sincerely yours,

C. V. S. Roosevelt

2500 Que St., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20007

Dear Sir:

Over the past twenty-two months the

Milton S. Eisenhower Library of the

Johns Hopkins University has been col-

lecting and collating the papers of the late

Hugh L. Dryden (1898-1965), who was

the aerodynamicist in the National

Bureau of Standards, 1919-1947, director

of the old National Advisory Committee

for Aeronautics (NACA), 1947-58, and

deputy director of NASA, 1958-65.

His papers have been located at Johns

Hopkins at the request of Mrs. Dryden

because Hugh Dryden was a Hopkins

graduate. He received his Ph.D. in

mathematics and physics from Hopkins

in 1919 when he was 20 years old.

The Basic Collection of the Dryden

Papers is now complete. An archival sys-

tem is now ready to receive all other let-

ters, memoranda, notes, reports, photo-

graphs and other forms of documentation

that directly relate to the life and times

of Hugh L. Dryden, by way of expanding

the existing Collection.

It is hoped that those friends and

associates of Hugh Dryden’s who pre-

sently hold correspondence (and other

relevant documentation), in their private

files, will see fit to donate these items

to the Dryden Collection. In cases in

which the material may have intrinsic

value to the donor, the Collection will

be equally pleased by xerox copies.

Hugh Dryden’s career cut across the

lives of tens of thousands of persons in

hundreds of different ways. In addition

to documentation, the Collection also

wishes to include those things that but

rarely get put on paper. Anecdotes live

only in the minds of mortal men, and

when they die the anecdotes die with

them. Those persons who have Dryden

anecdotes to contribute are especially

invited to send them in.

Those who wish to contribute their

Dryden materials to the Hugh L. Dryden

Papers should send their materials to me

at the address given below.

Sincerely,

Richard K. Smith

Hugh L. Dryden Papers

Milton S. Eisenhower Library

Johns Hopkins University

Baltimore, Maryland 21218

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 2, 1973

General

Type manuscripts on white bond paper

either 8% by 11 or 8 by 10% inches. Double

space all lines, including those in abstracts,

tables, legends, quoted matter, acknowledg-

ments, and references cited. Number pages

consecutively. Place your name and com-

plete address in the upper right hand corner

of the title page.

Title, Author, and Affiliation

Page | of your manuscript should contain

only this information and your name and

address. Choose a concise but complete and

meaningful title. In research papers con-

cerning biological subjects, include an indi-

cation of the order and family of the taxa

discussed. Academic degrees will not nor-

mally be included unless the author so

specifies. If possible, combine your affilia-

tion and mailing address (including Zip) so

that readers can write to you directly.

Abstract

Type on a separate sheet at the end of the

manuscript. Make the abstract intelligible

without reference to the text of the paper.

Write an informative digest of the significant

content and conclusions, not a mere descrip-

tion. Generally, the abstract should not ex-

ceed 3% of the text.

Footnotes

Use footnotes as sparingly as possible.

Number text footnotes consecutively with

Arabic numerals and type them on a sepa-

tate sheet of paper at the end of the manu-

script. Type table footnotes, if any, below

each pertinent table on the same page.

Illustrations and Legends

The quality of all original illustrations

must be high enough to facilitate good offset

reproduction. They should have ample mar-

gins and be drawn on heavy stock or

fastened to stiff cardboard to prevent bend-

ing. They should be proportioned to column

(1 x 3) or page (2 x 3) type-dimensions,

leaving space for legend material. Photo-

JOURNAL OF THE WASHINGTON ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Instructions to Contributors

graphs should have a glossy finish. They re-

produce best when the contrast is fairly

high. Identify each illustration with number

and author in light pencil marks on the

reverse side. Submit all illustrations sepa-

rately — please do not glue or clip them to

the pages of the manuscript.

Do not type or write legends directly on

the illustrations. Type legends on a separate

sheet or sheets at the end of the manuscript.

Indicate where you want illustrations to

appear in the printed paper by writing the

figure numbers lightly in the text margins,

and be sure that each figure is properly re-

ferenced in the text itself. Original “art” will

be returned only at the author’s request and

expense.

Tables

Include tables only when the same infor-

mation cannot be presented economically in

the text, or when a table presents the data in

a more meaningful way. Consider preparing

extremely complicated tabular matter in a

form suitable for direct reproduction as an

illustration. In such cases, the use of the

typewriter is not recommended.

References to Literature _

Limit references within the text and in

synonymies to author and year (and page if

needed). In a “Reference Cited” section, list

alphabetically by senior author only those

papers you have included in the text. Like-

wise, be sure all the text references are

listed. Type the “References Cited” section

on a separate sheet after the last page of

text. Abbreviations should follow the USA

Standard for Periodical Title Abbreviations,

7b333) JNO Se

Submission of Manuscripts

Send completed manuscripts and sup-

porting material to the Academy office (see

address inside front cover) in care of the

Editor. Authors will be requested to read

Xerox “proofs” and invited to submit re-

print orders prior to publication.

Reprints - Prices for reprints may be obtained on request.

Washington Academy of Sciences

Room 29, 9650 Rockville Pike (Bethesda)

Washington, D.C. 20014

Return Requested with Form 3579

2nd Class Postage Paid

at Washington, D.C.

and additional mailing offices.

LIBRARY

U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20025

VOLUME 63

Number 3

Jour nal of the SEPTEMBER, 1973

WASHINGTON

ACADEMY.. SCIENCES

Issued Quarterly

at Washington, D.C.

Aer

Directory Issue

CONTENTS

[DO TTIOTRIA| o''g Sta AcivOlin: see yal ue atelier are Rona a a

Directory, 1973

FRORCW OGG S nee een ce thin, iti Uta, epi a Dea meni ae 8

Wikectory, of ther Academy > scan sscsee ee see ce neeess ee

PMIPSM Ae MC AlesOES TIM On sete. (Snares eee aersptnan.. ahonsted generac es

Bvlawsnot the Academy. .:..o..6cc0ce cece cine oo teal peeves ese

Washington Academy of Sciences

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

President -

Grover C. Sherlin

President-Elect

Kurt H. Stern

Secretary

Patricia Sarvella

Treasurer

Nelson W. Rupp

Board Member

Samuel B. Detwiler, Jr.

BOARD OF MANAGERS

All delegates of affiliated

Societies (see facing page)

EDITOR

Richard H. Foote

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

Elizabeth Ostaggi

ACADEMY OFFICE

9650 Rockville Pike (Bethesda)

Washington, D.C. 20014

Telephone (301) 530-1402

Founded in 1898

The Journal

This journal, the official organ of the Washington Aca-

demy of Sciences, publishes historical articles, critical

reviews, and scholarly scientific articles; proceedings

of meetings of the Academy and its Board of Mana-

gers; and other items of interest to Academy members.

The Journal appears four times a year (March, June,

September, and December) — the September issue

contains a directory of the Academy membership.

Subscription Rates

Members, fellows, and patrons in good standing re-

ceive the Journal without charge. Subscriptions are

available on a calendar year basis only, payable in ad-

vance. Payment must be made in U.S. currency at the

following rates:

WeStand!Canadaee creer: $10.00

ROreigm) eewoeretete oes 11.00

Single 'Copy Price)> = .7-.4- 3.00

Back Issues

Obtainable from the Academy office (address at bot-

tom of opposite column): Proceedings: Vols. 1-13

(1898-1910) Index: To Vols. 1-13 of the Proceedings

and Vols. 1-40 of the Journal Journal: Back issues,

volumes, and sets (Vols. 1-62, 1911-1972) and all cur-

rent issues.

Claims for Missing Numbers

Claims 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 al-

lowed because of failure to notify the Academy of a

change in address.

Changes of Address

Address changes should be sent promptly to the Aca-

demy office. Such notification should show both old

and new addresses and zip number.

Published quarterly in March, June, September, and December of each year by the

Washington Academy of Sciences, 9650 Rockville Pike, Washington, D.C. Second class

postage paid at Washington, D.C. and additional mailing offices.

DELEGATES TO THE WASHINGTON ACADEMY OF SCIENCES,

REPRESENTING THE LOCAL AFFILIATED SOCIETIES

SEOSODMICASOCIELY OL WaShiIngtOM ..sc.66.00.5 200 ores sieeve siniorel eae a: withedeve detente Bradley F. Bennett

PetHEOnologicale Society Of Washington) 5. acs ced co ce nics deve bee ae we Deluge nea @ hes Jean K. Boek

PRO SICAINSOGIEHY OL Washimetome jeyecs cc's cere ceive gsieceos eaves cutie etere emcee eens Delegate not appointed

DER CAS OCIELY A OlMW ASNING TOM! as: s esis) oc c.g encls stevens. oe Aiscettve tier auate susevea gs @euvaa sta Alfred Weissler

Pete OLOPI CAMS OCIELY Ole WASMIN TON) «2/5, c:oee.e. «savess ate cencssunveiths areieie 4 sie sqecerdione eee William E. Bickley

Me IORET TNO OO AP MI GIRS OCIEDY ar ety ence rteral coe eis loses ect oaetien cous vox sirrsewistel even nisaenete bere copes Alexander Wetmore

Dee OCICAIMSOGICNV MOL WASHINGTON... <.e)e0 oi ocamiein eon wave eleveleteione waite ach ons oe coe Charles Milton

Mecdicalzsociety of the District of Columbia ...............02.000--:---- Delegate not appointed

ECE AMER IS LOU CAI SOCICLY < coie- sera cts noo s cxgcetea lausy alais lav succayesteaenie lloeoke rhe ceis sie eenusvanee Paul H. Oehser

EAA CAMMSOCICOV MOL WASHINELON: 22054. «cis: coe sce qyoweaaiel diate outa gla dale silals sles wale ovale es Conrad B. Link

MAE WMO NIMCTICANP HOLESTETS: |<) 2. hej cos secs ndise ne Sewmlts Ge does dundee enenncs Robert Callaham

ee COMMS OCICLVBOL ENGINES: ..22 4.46 asians oe a claves) ctaisisinvc ceeielels wees eo pole evens George Abraham

institute: of Electrical and Electronics Engineers .............0cceceeceececeeocccress Harry Fine

Pancucanmsociety, of Mechanical Engineers: .....58066..6 6 esce0 «saci cucssejele ceo cse e/cseisecelers Michael Chi

Benimtnolosicaly Society Of Washington) .. ..ccc0.. ec ke eee oc eevee meee ees James H. Turner

Panehicane SOclehy fon UMICTODIOIOSY: 6.5.5 5 cic wc levee ee sie sectors elas e gus sities eaves Lewis Affronti

Baciciy mot vmencan) Military Engineers... .--.s. ses scacns ac scdeeedameeede sane cea H.P. Demuth

Pencnicanmsocietynof Civil Engineers «<< <.aaccs.6 ceive severed an ae case e/saelt aes ee ae Carl H. Gaum

Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine ......................:....0.. Carlton Treadwell

RiMenicanmSocletyaror Metallss. ccc 8 a accccte acs olereet cere toeeiarane rales aveyad wiiiveve wieve/evotare Glen W. Wensch

International Association for Dental Research ...................2000000- Norman H.C. Griffiths

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics .................00eseeeeeeees Franklin Ross

American Meteorological Society ..................000: SH Se Ae ence CCL AS ere Delegate not appointed

MASc CHEIGEMSOCIEYMOl) WASHINGTON: 2/4. dons cc. essoscsreiccs eis ciate ode es Ser cerversibieeucier a chelele.s H. Ivan Rainwater

PRANITS i CAlBS OCIENV Ole AMCTICA «...2:0.cbs; ce, ciresaiouensuesei sie ra 6 gles sla aigusuere: ae: ol avapiousyiere le) eves elerevetecdue Gerald J. Franz

ERE CAMB NN CIOATHS OCICLY 5... ey-y-ccnya avers soeausierale ciate Sajaeid a eve (esd sais Anais eyeisveicleua se Delegate not appointed

MISHiutemOtmEOOdMMECHNOLOSISS <0... secre cds nes ee co eeves se wee meats eseeers William Sulzbacher

ATTOMCcaAT CORITITC SOC Be een ee reo mcce Ane nial Gioia ad toca cicricnaatat occ perrtretale W.T. Bakker

Eleeinee iemircall Qoeeih Gate peta elects eee eters once lara arene tenaic or eeerecIienG cee Stanley D. James

Mashingtonmdistony, of Science Club. 45. .c.n eee eens: os sere emee anes eee Delegate not appointed

EUMehicanmeNssociation) of Physics) Meachers,-5 9---. 2025040. 15eneee ee eee ae Bernard B. Watson

Syeiingall QOeretit7: Oy ANTI) g (ee are teeerceeri Hien Oc herceeic ote Acecacec ee isee oer incr es eeree ee ecient a James B. Heaney

Pnchicalms ocieLy ols Elant Physiologistsen- once cides ns ee Walter Shropshire

Mvashineton Operations Research’ Council. .-. 2.3.2.2 sees seen ence eee ee ne John G. Honig

Lisimmment QeSGiy OF Nii ae ooo oue rors Dood onuoede aco cca asics Delegate not appointed

American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical

AnGm Retro leUMyENEINE CHS) eves ciolscyeieievs icc eee seas emis ous chade sineeisieenseaecie Delegate not appointed

INAtiOna le @apitol@AsthOnO Mens’ «cise ciate = eres sueraie mic iste hate ateie: aslo nl siauelinyacern Sess ua aaienst John A. Eisele

MathematicalmAssociationuoh Amenicalr cree cieiacionioe see iia cleieiclasrsio steer eve = Daniel B. Lloyd

BKC, LURES CIRCE ITS Ia a ee eee On cle moron Ore Oren ican odie cnc iene mre Miloslav Recheigl, Jr.

Delegates continue in office until new selections are made by the respective societies.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973 93

Editorial

The universal question these days—‘‘where has the time gone?’’—

remains unanswered. Your editor answers the question with the conten-

tion that lack of time is not a matter of wasting it. Rather, less time is in

fact available to us now than ever before. Hence, the size of the present

issue is due entirely to the editors lack of available time during the late

summer!

A number of interesting articles have had to be relegated to the

December 1973 Journal, but I am sure that when you receive Vol. 63,

No. 4, you will agree that it was worth waiting for. The present Directory

Issue is offered in its present state for the sake of making a current

Directory and alphabetical listing available for those who need it.

Lack of available time also prevented your editor from recreating any

of the adjunct listings that once accompanied the alphabetical list of

members. He welcomes suggestions from the users of the Directory

concerning the most effective way to re-sort the alphabetical membership

list for use in the next Directory Issue.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973

THE DIRECTORY OF THE ACADEMY FOR 1973

Foreward

The present, 48th issue of the Academy’s

directory is again this year issued as part of the

September number of the Journal. As in previous

years, the alphabetical listing is based on a postcard

address and membership in affiliated societies by

July 30, 1973. In cases in which cards were not

received by that date, the address appears as it was

used during 1972, and the remaining data were

taken from the directory for 1972. Corrections

questionnaire sent to the Academy membership.

should be called to the attention of the Academy

Members were asked to update the data concerning

office.

Code for Affiliated Societies, and Society Officers

1 The Philosophical Society of Washington (1898)

President: Bradley F. Bennett, 3301 Macomb St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008

Vice-President: George E. Hudson, code 026, Naval Ordnance Lab, Silver Spring, Md.

20910

Robert J. Rubin, 3308 McKinley St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015

Bradley F. Bennett

Secretary:

Delegate:

2 Anthropological Society of Washington (1898)

President: Regina F. Herzfeld, Dept. of Anthropology, Catholic Univ., Washington,

D.C. 20017

Bela C. Maddy, Cultural Anthropology Fellowship Review Office, NIMH,

NIH, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Md. 20852

Vice-President:

Secretary: Gary Hume, Dept. of Anthropology, American Univ., Washington, D.C.

20016

Delegate: Jean K. Boek, Director, Div. of Special Studies, National Graduate Univ.,

3408 Wisconsin Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016

3 Biological Society of Washington (1898)

President: Joseph Rosewater, Smithsonian Institution

Secretary: Richard C. Banks, Smithsonian Institution

4 Chemical Society of Washington (1898)

President: Harvey Alter, National Center for Resource Recovery, 1211 Conn. Ave.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

Vice-President: Alfred Weissler, Food & Drug Adm., Washington, D.C. 20204

Secretary: Robert F. Cozzens, Dept. of Chemistry, George Mason Univ., 4400 Univ.

Dr., Fairfax, Va. 22040

Delegate: Alfred Weissler

5 Entomological Society of Washington (1898)

President: Victor E. Adler, USDA, Biol. Act. Nat. Prod. Lab., Rm. 108, Bldg. A-476

Agricultural Research Ctr., East, Beltsville, Md. 20705

Barnard Burks, Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA, U.S. National

Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560

President-elect:

Secretary: Raymond J. Gagne, Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA, U.S. National

Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560

Delegate: William E. Bickley, Dept. of Entomology, Univ. of Md. College Park,

Md. 20742

6 National Geographic Society (1898)

President: Melvin M. Payne, 17th & M Sts., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

Vice-President

& Secretary:

Delegate:

Robert E. Doyle, 17th & M Sts., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

Alexander Wetmore, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560

7 Geological Society of Washington (1898)

President: Douglas M. Kinney, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 20242

Vice-President: E. A. Zen, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 20242

Secretary: Douglas Harwood, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 20242

Delegate: Charles Milton, Dept. of Geology, George Washington Univ. Washington,

D.C. 20005

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973 95

Medical Society of the District of Columbia (1898)

President: William S. McCune

President-elect: Frank S. Bacon

Secretary: Thomas Sadler

Columbia Historical Society (1899)

President: Hemer T. Rosenberger, Rose Hill, Waynesboro, Pa. 17268

Vice-President: Wilcomb E. Washburn, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560

Secretary: William L. Ellis, 1307 New Hampshire Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.

Delegate: Paul H. Oehser, National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. 20036

Botanical Society of Washington (1902)

President: Richard H. Eyde, Dept. of Botany, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,

D.C. 20560

’ Vice-President: John J. Wurdack, Dept. of Botany, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,

D.C. 20560

Secretary: Theodore R. Dudley, U.S. National Arboretum, Washington, D.C. 20225

Delegate: Conrad B. Link, Dept. of Horticulture, Univ. of Md., College Park,

Md. 20742

Society of American Foresters, Washington Section (1904)

Chairman: Carrow T. Prout, Jr., Soil Conservation Serv., USDA, Washington,

D.C. 20250

Chairman-elect: Thomas B. Glazebrook, 7809 Bristow Dr., Annandale, Va. 22003

Secretary: Murl Storms, 5003 Wenruth PI., Annandale, Va. 22003

Delegate: R. Z. Callaham, 3720 Acosta Rd., Fairfax, Va. 22030

Washington Society of Engineers (1907)

President: Walter H. McCartha, 3804 14th St., N., Arlington, Va. 22201

Vice-President: Thomas P. Meloy, 6715 Electronic Dr., Springfield, Va. 22151

Secretary: Joseph L. Scott, 140 11th St., S.E., Washington, D.C. 20020

Delegate: George Abraham, 3707 Westover Dr., S.E., Washington, D.C. 20020

Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers, Washington Section (1912)

President: Stuart Bouchey, 1900 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006

Vice-President: Marjorie Townsend, 3529 Tilden St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008

Secretary: Robert Briskman, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W., Suite 6204, Washington,

D.C. 20024

Delegate: Harry Fine, 808 Hyde Court, Silver Spring, Md. 20902

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Washington Section (1923)

Chairman: Henry M. Curran, Hittman Assoc., Columbia, Md. 21045

Vice-chairman: Andre H. Gage, PEPCO, 1900 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20006

Secretary: William H. Walston, Jr., Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Univ. of Md.,

College Park, Md. 20742

Delegate: Michael Chi, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Catholic Univ.,

Washington, D.C. 20017

Helminthological Society of Washington (1923)

President: Harry Herlich, Animal Parasitology Institute, ARS, Beltsville, Md. 20705

Vice-President: Kendall G. Powers, National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases,

NIH, Bethesda, Md. 20014

Secretary: Robert S. Isenstein, Animal Parasitology Institute, ARS, Beltsville,

Md. 20705

Delegate: James H. Turner, Division of Research Grants NIH, Bethesda, Md. 20014

American Society for Microbiology, Washington Branch (1923)

President: Carl Lamanna, Dept. of Army, 3045 Columbia Pike, Arlington, Va. 22204

Vice-President: Lewis F. Affronti, Dept. of Microbiology, George Washington Univ.

Medical School, Washington, D.C. 20005

Secretary: Charles R. Manclark, Division of Biological Standards, NIH, Bethesda,

Md. 20014

Delegate: Lewis F. Affronti

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973

Society of American Military Engineers, Washington Post (1927)

President: Capt. W. F. Reed, Jr., 3319 Albion Ct., Fairfax, Va. 22030

Vice-President: Capt. Robert Munson, Washington Sci. Ctr., Bldg. 1, Rockville, Md. 20852

Secretary: LCDR. W. G. Matthews, 8811 Queen Elizabeth Blvd., Annandale, Va.

22003

Delegate: Hal P. .Demuth, 4025 Pinebrook Rd., Alexandria, Va. 22310

American Society of Civil Engineers, National Capital Section (1942)

President: Alfred W. Maner, 1902 Wooded Court, Adelphi, Md. 20783

Vice-President: Floyd D. Peterson, 9627 Hzywick Dr., Kensington, Md. 20795

Secretary: Bernard M. McCarthy, 4733 Bethesda Ave., Washington, D.C. 20014

Delegate: Carl H. Gaum, 9609 Carriage Rd., Kensington, Md. 20795

Society for Experimental Biology & Medicine, D.C. Section (1952)

Chairman: Harriet Maling, Bldg. 10, NIH, Bethesda, Md. 20014

Vice-chairman: Benjamin Bruckner, NIH, Parklawn Bldg., Bethesda, Md. 20014

Secretary: Vera Usbin, Gillette Laboratories, Rockville, Md. 20852

Delegate: Carleton R. Treadwell, 1339 H St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005

American Society for Metals, Washington Chapter (1953)

Chairman: Klaus M. Zwilsky, U.S. Atomic Energy Comm., Washington, D.C. 20545

Vice-chairman: Alan H. Rosenstein, Air Force Office of Scientific Res., 1400 Wilson Blvd.,

Arlington, Va. 22209

Secretary: Joseph Malz, NASA, Code RWM, Washington, D.C. 20546

Delegate: Glen W. Wensch, U.S. Atomic Energy Comm., Washington, D.C. 20545

International Association for Dental Research, Washington Section (1953)

President: James M. Cassel, Dental Res. Section, NBS, Washington, D.C. 20234

Vice-President: Francis A. San Filippo, 8644 Woodward Ave., Alexandria, Va. 22309

Secretary: Louis W. Wachtel, Westwood Bldg., Natl. Inst. of Dental Res., Bethesda,

Md. 20014

Delegate: Norman H. C. Griffiths, 3100 20th St., N.E., Washington, D.C. 20018

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, National Capital Section (1953)

President: Philip R. Compton, 6303 Mori St., McLean, Va. 22101

Vice-President: | Jack Suddreth, Code RLC/Aero. Prop. Div., NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C. 20546

Secretary: Paul M. Burris, The Boeing Co., 955 L’Enfant Plaza North, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20024

Delegate: Franklin J. Ross, Deputy for Rqmts., Off. Asst. Sec. of A.F., The

Pentagon, Rm. 4E973, Washington, D.C. 20330

American Meteorological Society, D.C. Chapter (1954)

Chairman: Clifford J. Murino, National Science Foundation

Vice-chairman: James K. Angell, ESSA

Secretary: Mary Ann Ruzecki, ESSA

Insecticide Society of Washington (1959)

President: Alexej B. Borkovec, Entomology Research Div. USDA, Beltsville,

Md. 20705

Vice-President: Richard L. Cowden, Plant Protection Div., USDA, Hyattsville, Md.

20740

Secretary: Robert E. Menzer, Dept. of Entomology, Univ. of Md., College Park,

Md. 20740

Delegate: H. Ivan Rainwater, Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Div., USDA,

Hyattsville, Md. 20782

Acoustical Society of America (1959)

Chairman: Pearl G. Weissler, 5510 Uppingham, Chevy Chase, Md. 20015

Vice-chairman: John A. Molino, Sound Section, National Bureau of Standards Washington,

D.C. 20234

Secretary: Gerald J. Franz, 9638 Culver St., Kensington, Md. 20795

Delegate: Gerald J. Franz

American Nuclear Society, Washington Section (1960)

Chairman: Oscar M. Bizzell, Atomic Energy Comm.

Vice-chairman: Justin L. Bloom, Atomic Energy Comm.

Secretary: Leslie S. Ayres, Arms Control & Disarmament Agency

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973 97

Institute of Food Technologists, Washington Section (1961)

Chairman: Tannous Khalil, Giant Foods, Inc., Landover, Md. 20785

Vice-chairman: Florian C. Majorack, Food & Drug Adm., Washington, D.C. 20204

Secretary: Glenn V. Brauner, National Canners Assoc., Washington, D.C. 20036

Delegate: William Sulzbacher, 8527 Clarkson Dr., Fulton, Md. 20759

American Ceramic Society, Baltimore-Washington Section (1962)

Chairman: W. T. Bakker, General Refractories Co., P.O. Box 1673, Baltimore,

Md. 21203

Chairman-elect: L. Biller, Glidden-Dirkee Div., SCM Corp., 3901 Hawkins Point Rd.,

Baltimore, Md. 21226

Secretary: Edwin E. Childs, J. E. Baker Co., 232 E. Market St., York, Pa. 17405

Delegate: W. T. Bakker

Electrochemical Society, National Capital Section (1963)

Chairman: Gerald Halpert, 5011 Regina Dr., Annandale, Va. 22003

Vice-chairman: James R. Huff, 8603 Buckboard Dr., Alexandria, Va. 22308

Secretary: Judith Ambrus, 13128 Greenmount Ave., Beltsville, Md. 20705

Delegate: Stanley D. James, U.S. Naval Ordnance Lab., Code 232, White Oak,

Md. 20910

Washington History of Science Club (1965)

Chairman: Richard G. Hewlett, Atomic Energy Comm.

Vice-chairman: Deborah Warner, Smithsonian Institution

Secretary: Dean C. Allard

American Association of Physics Teachers, Chesapeake Section (1965)

President: William Logan, D.C. Teachers College, 2565 Georgia Ave., Washington,

D.C. 20001

Vice-President: Eugenie V. Mielczarek, George Mason Univ., 4400 University Dr.,

Fairfax, Va. 22030

Secretary: John B. Newman, Towson State College, Towson, Md. 21204

Delegate: Bernard B. Watson, Res. Analysis Corp., McLean, Va. 22101

Optical Society of America, National Capital Section (1966)

President: C. Verne Muffoletto, Muffoletto Optical Co., 6100 Everall Ave.,

Baltimore, Md. 21206

Vice-President: Joseph A. Curcio, Code 6532, Naval Res. Lab., Washington, D.C. 20375

Secretary: William B. Fussell, Optical Radiation Section, National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234

Delegate: James B. Heaney, Code 765, Goddard Space Flight Ctr., Greenbelt,

Md. 20771

American Society of Plant Physiologists, Washington Section (1966)

President: Neal M. Barnett, Dept. of Botany, Univ. of Md., College Park, Md. 20742

Vice-President: William R. Krul, USDA, Plant Hormone and Reg. Lab., Plant Industry,

Beltsville, Md. 20705

Secretary: Bert Drake, Smithsonian Radiation Biology Lab., 12441 Parklawn Dr.,

Rockville, Md. 20852

Delegate: W. Shropshire, Jr., Radiation Biology Lab., Smithsonian Institution, 12441

Parklawn Dr., Rockville, Md. 20852

Washington Operations Research Council (1966)

President: Armand B. Weiss, Logistics Management Institute, 4701 Sangamore Rd.,

Washington, D.C. 20016

Vice-President: Donald Gross, George Washington Univ., Washington, D.C. 20005

Secretary: Gerald McNichols, Office, Director Defense Programs, Analysis &

Evaluation, The Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 20310

Delegate: John G. Honig, Office, Chief of Staff, Army, The Pentagon, Rm. 1E,

620, Washington, D.C. 20310

Instrument Society of America, Washington Section (1967)

President: Francis C. Quinn

President-elect: John I. Peterson

Secretary: Frank L. Carou

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973

American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical & Petroleum Engineers (1968)

President: Robert N. Morris, Southern Railway Systems

Vice-President: Ralph C. Kirby, Bureau of Mines

Secretary: Harold W. Lynde, Jr., Department of Commerce

National Capital Astronomers (1969)

President: John A. Eisele, 3310 Curtis Dr., No. 202, Hillcrest Heights, Md. 20023

Vice-President: Henning E. Leidecker, 4811 Avondale Rd., Washington, D.C. 20018

Secretary: Estelle Finkle, 939 26th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037

Delegate: John A. Eisele, 3310 Curtis Dr., #202, Hillcrest Heights, Md. 20023

Maryland-District of Columbia and Virginia Section of Mathematical Assoc. of America (1971)

Chairman: Geraldine A. Coon, Goucher College, Baltimore, Md.

Secretary: John Smith, George Mason College, Fairfax, Va.

. Delegate: Daniel B. Lloyd, 5604 Overlea Rd., Bethesda, Md. 20016

D.C. Institute of Chemists (1973)

President: Miloslav Rechcigl, Jr., 1703 Mark Lane, Rockville, Md. 20852

President-elect: Kelso B. Morris, 1448 Leegate Rd., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20012

Secretary: Edmund M. Buras, Jr., 824 Burnt Mills Ave., Silver Spring, Md. 20901

Delegate: Miloslav Rechcigl, Jr.

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973 99

Alphabetical List of Members

M=Member; F=Fellow; E=Emeritus member. Numbers in parentheses refer to numerical code in

foregoing list of affiliated societies.

AARONSON, STUART A., 1600 S. Joyce St.,

Arlington, Va. 22202 (F)

ABBOT, CHARLES G., Smithsonian Institution,

Washington, D.C. 20560 (E-1, 23, 32)

ABELSON, PHILIP H., President, Carnegie

Institution of Washington, 1530 P St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20005 (F-1, 4, 7, 16)

ABRAHAM, GEORGE, M.S., 3107 Westover Dr.,

S.E., Washington, D.C. 20020 (F-1, 6, 12, 13,

31)

ACHTER, M. R., Code 6306, U.S. Naval Research

Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390 (F-20, 36)

ADAMS, CAROLINE L., 242 North Granada St.,

Arlington, Va. 22203 (E-10)

ADAMS, ELLIOT Q., 1889 Edgewood Dr.,

Twinsberg, Ohio 44087 (E)

ADLER, SANFORD C., 14238 Briarwood Terr.,

Rockville, Md. 20853 (M-1)

AFFRONTI, LEWIS, Ph.D., Dept. of Microbiology,

George Washington Univ. Sch. of Med., 2300

Eye St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037 (F-16)

AHEARN, ARTHUR J., Ph.D., 9621 East Bexhill

Dr., Box 294, Kensington, Md. 20795 (F-1)

AKERS, ROBERT P., Ph.D., 9912 Silverbrook Dr.,

Rockville, Md. 20850 (F-6)

ALBUS, JAMES S., 6100 Westchester, 1406, Col-

lege Park, Md. 20740 (F)

ALDRICH, JOHN W., Ph.D., 6324 Lakeview Dr.,

Falls Church, Va. 22041 (F-3)

ALDRIDGE, MARY H., Ph.D., Dept. of Chemistry,

American University, Washington, D.C. 20016

(F-4)

ALEXANDER, ALLEN L., Ph.D., Code 6120, Naval

Research Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390 (F-4)

ALEXANDER, BENJAMIN H., Ph.D., 2522 S.

Dakota Ave., N.E., Washington, D.C. 20018

(F-4)

ALGERMISSEN, S. T., 3355 Heidelburg Dr.,

Boulder, Colo. 80303 (F)

ALLEN, ANTON M., 11718 Lakeway Dr.,

Manassas, Va. 22110 (F)

ALLEN, J. FRANCES, 7507 23rd Ave., Hyattsville,

Md. 20783 (F-3)

ALLEN, WILLIAM G., 8306 Custer Rd., Bethesda,

Md. 20034 (F-14)

ALTER, HARVEY, Ph.D., Nat. Center for

Resource Recovery, Inc., 1211 Connecticut

Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (F)

ALTMAN, PHILIP L., 9206 Ewing Dr., Bethesda,

Md. 20034 (M)

AMIRIKIAN, ARSHAM, Sc.D., 6526 Western Ave.,

Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F-17, 18)

ANDERSON, FRENCH, Nat. Heart & Lung Inst.,

Nat. Inst. Health, Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

ANDERSON, MYRON S., Ph.D., 1433 Manchester

Lane, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20011 (F-4)

100

ANDERSON, WENDELL L., Rural Rt. 2, Box

2069G, La Plata, Md. 20646 (F-4)

ANDREWS, JOHN S., Sc.D., Animal Parasitology

Inst., Agr. Res. Cent. (E), USDA, Beltsville,

Md. 20705 (F-15)

ANDRUS, EDWARD D., 1600 Rhode Island Ave.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (M-7, 25)

APPEL, WILLIAM D., B.S., 12416 Regent Ave.,

N.E., Albuquerque, N. Mex. 87112 (E-6)

APSTEIN, MAURICE, Ph.D., Harry Diamond

Labs., Connecticut Ave. & Van Ness St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20438 (F-13)

ARGAUER, ROBERT J., Ph.D., 4208 Everett St.,

Kensington, Md. 20795 (F)

ARMSTRONG, GEORGE T., Ph.D., 1401 Dale Dr.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20910 (F-1, 4, 6)

ARNOLD, KIETH, Ph.D., 6303 Cedell St., Camp

Springs, Md. 20031 (F)

ARONSON, C. J., 3401 Oberon St., Kensington,

Md. 20910 (M-1, 32)

ARSEM, COLLINS, 6405 Maiden Lane, Bethesda,

Md. 20034 (M-1, 6, 13)

ASLAKSON, CARL I., 5707 Wilson Lane,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (E-1, 6, 12, 18)

ASTIN, ALLEN V., Ph.D., 5008 Battery Lane,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F-1, 13, 22, 31, 35)

AXILROD, BENJAMIN M., 9915 Marquette Dr.,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-1)

AYENSU, EDWARD S., Ph.D., 103 G St., N.W.,

#B219, Washington, D.C. 20024 (F-3, 10)

BAKER, ARTHUR A., Ph.D., 5201 Westwood Dr.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-7)

BAKER, LOUIS C.W., Ph.D., Dept of Chemistry,

Georgetown University, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20007 (F-4)

BALLARD, LOWELL D., 722 So. Colonial, Ster-

ling, Va. 22170 (M-1, 13, 32)

BARBEAU, MARIUS, Natl. Museum of Canada,

Ottawa, Ont., Can. (F)

BARBROW, LOUIS E., Natl. Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-1, 13, 32)

BARGER, GERALD L., Ph.D., The Bay House,

Apt. 312, 2103 San Sebastian Ct., Houston,

Tex. 77058 (F-23)

BARNHART, CLYDE S., Sr., 715 Joppa Farm Rd.,

Joppatowne, Md. 21085 (F)

BARRETT, MORRIS K., Mrs., Ph.D., 5528

Johnson Ave., Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-6)

BASS, ARNOLD M., Ph.D., 11920 Coldstream Dr.,

Potomac, Md. 20854 (F-1, 32)

BEACH, LOUIS A., Ph.D., 1200 Waynewood

Blvd., Alexandria, Va. 22308 (F-1, 6)

BEACHAM, LOWRIE M., Jr., Rm. 4815, 200 C St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20204 (F-4, 27)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973

BEACHEM, CEDRIC D., Code 6322 Metallurgy

Div., Naval Res. Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390

(F-6, 20, 36)

BEASLEY, EDWARD E., Ph.D., Physics Dept.,

Gallaudet College, Washington, D.C. 20002

(F-1)

BECKER, EDWIN D., Inst. Arthritis & Metabolic

Dis., National Institutes of Health, Bethesda,

Md. 20014 (F-4)

BECKETT, CHARLES W., 5624 Madison St.,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F-1, 4)

BECKMANN, ROBERT B., Dean, College of

Engineering, Univ. of Md., College Park, Md.

20742 (F-4)

BEDINI, SILVIO A., 4303 47th St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (F)

BElJ, K. HILDING, B.S., 69 Morningside Dr.,

Laconia, N.H. 03246 (F-1)

BEKKEDAHL, NORMAN, Ph.D., 405 N. Ocean

Blvd., Apt. 1001, Pompano Beach, Fla. 33062

(E-4, 6)

BELSHEIM, ROBERT, Ph.D., Code 8403, U.S.

Naval Research Lab., Washington, D.C.

20390 (F-1, 12, 14)

BENDER, MAURICE, Ph.D., Arctic Health Res.

Center, PHS, Fairbanks Alaska 99701 (F)

BENESCH, WILLIAM, Inst. for Molecular Physics,

Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Md. 20742

(F-1, 32)

BENJAMIN, C. R., Ph.D., |O/AGR, Dept. of State,

Washington, D.C., 20520 (F-10)

BENNETT, BRADLEY F., 3301 Macomb St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20008 (F)

BENNETT, JOHN A., 7405 Denton Rd., Bethesda,

Md. 20014 (F-20)

BENNETT, LAWRENCE H., 6524 E. Halbert Rd.,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-20)

BENNETT, MARTIN TOSCAN, 3700 Mt. Vernon

Ave., Rm. 605, Alexandria, Va. 22305 (F-4)

BENNETT, ROBERT R., 5312 Yorktown Rad.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-6, 7)

BENNETT, WILLARD H., Dept. of Physics, North

Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, N.C. 27607 (F)

BENSON, WILLIAM, 2101 Constitution Ave.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418 (M)

BERCH, JULIAN, 2100 Washington Ave., #10B,

Silver Spring, Md. 20910 (E-4)

BERLINER, ROBERT W., M.D., National

Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

BERNTON, HARRY S., 4000 Cathedral Ave.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-8)

BEROZA, MORTON, Ph.D., Agr. Res. Center (E),

Rm. 312 So. Lab., USDA, Beltsville, Md. 20705

(F-4, 5, 19, 24)

BESTUL, ALDEN B., 9400 Overlea Ave., Rock-

ville, Md. 20850 (F-1, 6)

BICKLEY, WILLIAM E., Ph.D., Dept. of

Entomology, Univ. of Md., College Park, Md.

20742 (F-5, 24)

BIRD, H. R., Animal Science Bg., Univ. of Wis-

consin, Madison, Wisc. 53706 (F)

BIRKS, L. S., Code 6680, U.S. Naval Research

Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390 (F)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973

BLAKE, DORIS H., M.A., 3416 Glebe Rd., North,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (E-5)

BLANK, CHARLES A., Ph.D., 5110 Sideburn Rad.,

Fairfax, Va. 22030 (M-6)

BLOCK, STANLEY, Ph.D., National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-4)

BLUNT, ROBERT F., 5411 Moorland Lane,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

BOEK, JEAN K., Ph.D., Natl. Graduate Univ., 3408

Wisconsin Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 2001

(F-2)

BONDELID, ROLLON O., Ph.D., Code 6610, Naval

Research Lab., Washington, D.C. 20375 (F)

BORTHWICK, HARRY A., Ph.D., 13700 Creekside

Dr., Silver Spring, Md. 20904 (E-10, 33)

BOWLES, ROMALD E., Ph.D., 2105 Sondra Ct.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20904 (F-6, 22)

BOWMAN, PAUL W., 3114 5th St. N., Arlington,

Va. 22201 (F)

BOWMAN, THOMAS E., Ph.D., Div. of Crustacea,

U.S. Nat. Mus. Nat. Hist., Smithsonian Inst.,

Washington, D.C. 20560 (F-3)

BOZEMAN, F. MARILYN, Dept. of Rickettsia

Disease, Walter Reed Army Inst. of Res., Wal-

ter Reed Army Med. Ctr., Washington, D.C.

20012 (F-16, 19)

BRANCATO, E. L., Code 4004, U.S. Naval

Research Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390 (F)

BRANDEWIE, DONALD F., 6811 Field Master Dr.,

Springfield, Va. 22153 (F)

BRAUER, G. M., Dental Research A-123 Polymer,

Natl. Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

20234 (F-4, 21)

BRECKENRIDGE, R. G., Atomics International,

P.O. Box 309, Canoga Park, Calif. 91364 (F)

BREGER, IRVING A., Ph.D., 212 Hillsboro Dr.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20902 (F-4, 6, 7)

BREIT, GREGORY, State Univ. of N.Y. at Buffalo,

4248 Ridge Lea Rd., Amherst, N.Y. 14226 (F)

BRENNER, ABNER, Ph.D., 7204 Pomander Lane,

Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F-4, 6, 29)

BREWER, CARL R., Ph.D., 8113 Lilly Stone Dr.,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-16)

BRICKWEDDIE, F. G., Ph.D., 104 Davey Lab.,

Dept. of Physics, Penn. State Univ., University

Park, Pa. 16802 (F-1)

BRIER, GLENN W., M.A., 1729 N. Harrison St.,

Arlington, Va. 22205 (F-23)

BROADHURST, MARTIN G., 504 Calvin Lane,

Rockville, Md. 20851 (F)

BROMBACHER, W. G., 6914 Ridgewood Ave.,

Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (E-1)

BROOKS, RICHARD C., M.S.E., 301 Tiger Lane,

Apt. 417, Columbia, Mo., 65201 (M-13)

BROWN, EDWARD H., U.S. Office of Education,

P.O. Box 8240, Washington, D.C. 20024 (M)

BROWN, RUSSELL G., Dept. of Botany, Univ.

of Maryland, College Park, Md. 20742 (F-10)

BROWN, THOMAS McP., S. 25th St. and Army-

Navy Dr., Arlington, Va. 22206 (F)

BRUBAKER, GERALD L., Ph.D., 2958 Hewitt

Ave., #314, Silver Spring, Md. 20906 (M-4)

BRUCK, STEPHEN D., Ph.D., 1113 Pipestem PI.,

Rockville, Md. 20854 (F-4, 6)

101

BRYAN, MILTON M., 3322 N. Glebe Rd.,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (M-11)

BRYANT, JAMES |., Ph.D., Office Chief of Res.

& Dev., Dept. of Army, Washington, D.C.

20310 (M)

BUGGS, C. W., 5600 S. Verdun Ave., Los An-

geles, Calif. 90043 (F-6, 16, 19)

BURAS, EDMUND M., Jr., Gillette Research Inst.,

1413 Research Blvd., Rockville, Md. 20850

(F-4)

BURGER, ROBERT J., (USAF Ret.) Natl. Acad.

Engineering, 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20418 (F-22)

BURGERS, J. M., D.M.P.S., 4622 Knox Road, Apt.

7, College Park, Md. 20740 (F-1)

BURINGTON, RICHARD S., Ph.D., 1834 N. Hart-

ford St., Arlington, Va. 22201 (F-1, 6)

BURK, DEAN, Natl. Cancer Institute, Bethesda,

Md. 20014 (F)

BURKE, KENNETH S., 310 Souder Rd., Bruns-

wick, Md. 21716 (M-25)

BURNETT, H. C., Metallurgy Division, Natl.

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

20234 (F)

BYERLY, PERRY, Ph.D., Dept. of Geology &

Geophysics, Univ. of California, Berkeley,

Calif. 94720 (F)

BYERLY, T. C., Asst. Director, Science &

Education, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,

Washington, D.C. 20250 (F)

CALDWELL, FRANK R., 4821 47th St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (E-1, 6)

CALDWELL, JOSEPH M., 2732.N. Kensington St.,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (E-18)

CALLAHAM, ROBERT Z., Ph.D., 3720 Acosta Rd.,

Fairfax, Va. 22030 (F-11)

CAMERON, JOSEPH M., A345 Physics Bldg.,

Natl. Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

20234 (F-1)

CAMPAGNONE, ALFRED F., P.E., 9321 Warfield

Rd., Gaithersburg, Md. 20760 (F)

CAMPBELL, F. L., Ph.D., 2475 Virginia Ave.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037 (F-5, 24)

CAREY, FRANCIS E., 12 N. Edison St., Arlington,

Va. 22203 (F)

CARHART, HOMER W., Ph.D., 6919 Lee Place,

Annandale, Va. 22003 (F-1, 6)

CARLSTON, RICHARD C., Calif. State

Polytechnic Coll., San Luis Obispo, Calif.

93401 (F-6, 20, 29)

CARMICHAEL, LEONARD, Ph.D., Natl. Geo-

graphic Society, 17th & M Sts., N.W., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20036 (F-1, 6, 19)

CARROLL, WILLIAM R., 4802 Broad Brook Dr.,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

CARRON, MAXWELL K., 2404 Esther Ct., Silver

Spring, Md. (F-4, 7)

102

CARTER, HUGH, 2039 New Hampshire Ave.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009 (F)

CASH, EDITH K., Box 44, Nineveh, N.Y., 13813

(E-10)

CASSEL, JAMES M., Route 1, Sunnyview Dr.,

Germantown, Md. 20767 (F-4, 20)

CATHEY, HENRY M., 1817 Bart Dr., Silver Spring,

Md. 20904 (F-33)

CHALKLEY, HAROLD W., Ph.D., 4609 Highland

Ave., Bethesda, Md. 20014 (E-19)

CHANEY, JAMES G., Rt. 2, Box 232L, Sotterley

Hghts., Hollywood, Md. 20636 (M)

CHAPLIN, HARVEY P., Jr., 1561 Forest Villa Lane,

McLean, Va. 22101 (F-22)

CHAPLINE, W. R., 4225 43rd St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (E-6, 10, 11)

CHEEK, CONRAD H., Ph.D., Code 8330, U.S.

Naval Research Lab., Washington, D.C.

20390 (F-4)

CHEZEM, CURTIS G., Ph.D., Mgr., Nuclear

Activities, Middle South Services, Box 61000,

New Orleans, La. 70160 (F-26)

CHRISTIAN, ERMINE A., 7802 Lakecrest Dr.,

Greenbelt, Md. 20770 (M)

CHURCH, LLOYD E., D. D. S., Ph.D., 8218 Wis-

consin Ave., Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F-1)

CLAIRE, CHARLES N., 4403 14th St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20011 (F-1, 12)

CLARK, FRANCIS E., ARS Research Lab., P.O.

Box E, Ft. Collins, Colo. 80521 (F)

CLARK, GEORGE E., Jr., 4022 North Stafford St.,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (F)

CLARK, JOAN ROBINSON, Ph.D., U.S. Geologi-

cal Survey Nat. Center, 906 So. Lakes Dr.,

Reston, Va. 22092 (F-7)

CLARK, KENNETH G., Ph.D., 4816 46th St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (E-4)

CLAUSEN, CURTIS P., University of Calif., River-

side, Calif. 92507 (E-5)

CLEEK, GIVEN W., 5512 N. 24th St., Arlington,

Va. 22205 (M-4, 28, 32)

CLEMENT, J. REID, Jr., 3720 Weltham St.,

Washington, D.C. 20023 (F)

CLEVEN, GALE W., Ph.D., Normandy House, Apt.

107, 1701 N. Kent St., Arlington, Va. 22209

(F-1, 6)

COHN, ERNST M., 103 G St., S.W., Apt. 620-B,

Washington, D.C. 20024 (M-4, 29)

COHN, ROBERT, M.D., 7221 Pyle Rd., Bethesda,

Md. 20034 (F-1)

COLE, KENNETH S., Ph.D., National Institutes

of Health, Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F-1)

COLLINS, HENRY B., Dept. Anthropology,

Smithsonian Inst., Washington, D.C. 20560

(E-2)

COLWELL, R. R., Ph.D., Dept. of Microbiology,

Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Md. 20742

(F-6, 16)

COMPTON, W. DALE, Executive Dir., Sci. Res.

Staff, Ford Motor Co., 20000 Rotunda Drive,

Dearborn, Mich. 48121 (F)

CONGER, PAUL S., M.S., U.S. National Museum,

Washington, D.C. 20560 (E)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973

COOK, HAROLD T., Ph.D., Box 303, Rt. 3,

Edgewater, Md. 21037 (E-10)

COOK, RICHARD K., Ph.D., Room A311, Bldg.

226, Natl. Bur. Standards, Washington, D.C.

(F-1, 25)

COOKE, C. WYTHE, Ph.D., Princess Issena Hotel,

Daytona Beach, Fla. 32020 (E-7)

COOLIDGE, HAROLD J., 2101 Constitution Ave.,

Washington, D.C. 20037 (E-6)

COOLIDGE, WILLIAM D., 1480 Lenox Rad.,

Schenectady, N.Y. 12308 (F)

COONS, GEORGE H., Ph.D., 7415 Oak Lane,

Chevy Chase, Md., 20015 (E-10)

COOPER, G. ARTHUR, U.S. Natl. Museum,

Washington, D.C. 20560 (F-7)

CORLISS, JOSEPH J., 6618 Bellview Dr.,

Columbia, Md. 21046 (M)

CORNFIELD, JEROME, 9650 Rockville Pike,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

CORY, ERNEST N., Ph.D., 4710 College Ave.,

College Park, Md. 20742 (E-5, 24)

COSTRELL, LOUIS, Chief 241. 02, Natl. Bureau

of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234

(F-1, 13)

COTTAM, C., Welder Wildlife Foundation, Box

1400, Sinton, Texas 78387 (F-3, 6)

COX, EDWIN L., Biometrical Serv., ARS, Bg. 226,

Ag. Res. Center (E), Beltsville, Md. 20705 (F-6)

COYLE, THOMAS D., National Bureau of Stan-

dards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-4, 6)

CRAFT, CHARLES C., U.S. Dept. of Agricuiture,

Box 700, Pomona, Calif. 91766 (F)

CRAFTON, PAUL A., P.O. Box 454, Rockville, Md.

20850 (F)

CRAGOE, CARL S., 6206 Singleton Place,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (E-1)

CRANE, LANGDON T., Jr., 7103 Oakridge Ave.,

Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F-1)

CREITZ, E. CARROLL, 10145 Cedar Lane, Ken-

sington, Md. 20795 (E-32)

CROSSETTE, GEORGE, 4217 Glenrose St., Ken-

sington, Md. 20795 (M-6, 9, 11, 17)

CUEBERI DOROTHY K>. 6il2 Al st-, SEs,

Washington, D.C. 20003 (M-6)

CULLINAN, FRANK P., 4402 Beechwood Rad.,

Hyattsville, Md. 20782 (E-6, 10, 33)

CURRAN, HAROLD R., Ph.D., 3431 N. Randolph

St., Arlington, Va. 22207 (E-16)

CURRIE, CHARLES L., S.J., Dept. of Chemistry,

Georgetown Univ., Washington, D.C. 20007

(F-4)

CURTIS, ROGER W., Ph.D., 6308 Valley Rd.,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F)

CURTISS, LEON F., 1690 Bayshore Drive, Eng-

lewood, Fla. 33533 (E-1)

CUTHILL, JOHN R., Ph.D., 12700 River Rd.,

Potomac, Md. 20854 (F-20, 36)

CUTKOSKY, ROBERT DALE, 19150 Roman Way,

Gaithersburg, Md. 20760 (F-6, 13)

CUTTITTA, FRANK, 12911 Bluhill Rd., Silver

Spring, Md. 20906 (F-4,.6, 7)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973

DACONS, JOSEPH C., Ph.D., Naval Ordnance

Lab., White Oak, Silver Spring, Md. 20910

(F-4)

DARRACOTT, HALVOR T., M.S., 3325 Mansfield

Rd., Falls Church, Va. 22041 (F-13)

DAVENPORT, JAMES C., Virginia State College,

Petersburg, Va. 23803 (M)

DAVIS, CHARLES M., Jr., 8458 Portland Place,

McLean, Virginia 22101 (M-25)

DAVIS, MARION, MACLEAN, M.M.D., 5315 29th

St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015 (F-4, 6)

DAVIS, R. F., Ph.D., Chairman, Dept. of Dairy

Science, Univ. of Maryland, College Park,

Md. 20742 (F)

DAVIS, RAYMOND, 5315 29th St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20015 (E-1, 4)

DAVISSON, JAMES W., Ph.D., 400 Cedar Ridge

Dr., Oxon Hill, Md. 20021 (F-1)

DAWSON, ROY C., 4019 Beechwood Rad., Univ.

Park, Md. 20782 (E-16)

DAWSON, VICTOR C. D., 9406 Curran Road,

Silver Spring, Md. 20901 (F-6, 14, 20, 22)

DE BERRY, MARIAN B., 1116 Lamont St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20010 (M)

DE FERIET, J. KAMPE, Prof. A. La Faculte Des-

Sci., de L’Univ. de Lille, 82 Rue Meurein, Lille,

France (F)

DE PUE, LELAND A., Ph.D., Code 2303.3, Naval

Res. Lab., Washington D.C. 20375 (F-6, 20)

DE VOE, JAMES R., 17708 Parkridge Dr., Gai-

thersburg, Md. 20760 (F-4, 6)

DE WIT, ROLAND, Metallurgy Division, Natl.

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

20234 (F-1, 6, 36)

DEHL, RONALD E., 3895 Rodman St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (F)

DEITZ, VICTOR R., 3310 Winnett Rd., Chevy

Chase, Md. 20016 (F-28)

DELANEY, WAYNE R., The Wyoming Apts., 111,

2022 Columbia Rd., N.W., Washington, D.C.

20009 (M-6, 20, 22, 32)

DEMUTH, HAL P., MSEE, 4025 Pinebrook Rad.,

Alexandria, Va. 22310 (F-13, 17)

DENNINGHAM, ROBERT L., 321 Terrell Ave., For-

est Heights, Md. 20021 (M)

DENNIS, BERNARD K., 915 Country Club Dr.,

Vienna, Va. 22180 (F)

DESLATTES, RICHARD D., Jr., 610 Aster Blvd.,

Rockville, Md. 20850 (F)

DETWILER, ROBERT H., 5027 N. 30th St.,

Arlington, Va. 22210 (M)

DETWILER, SAMUEL B., Jr., 631 S. Walter Reed

Dr., Arlington, Va. 22204 (F-4)

DI MARZIO, E. A., 14205 Parkvale Rd., Rockville,

Md. 20853 (F)

DIAKNOK, OREST L., 6038 Richmond Hwy., Alex-

andria, Va. 22303 (M)

DIAMOND, J. J., Physics B-150, Natl. Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-1, 4,

6, 28)

DIAMOND, PAULINE, 6436 Bannockburn Dr.,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-1, 4, 28)

103

DICKSON, GEORGE, M.A., Dental Research Sec-

tion, National Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-6, 21)

DIEHL, WALTER S., 4501 Lowell St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-22)

DIEHL, WILLIAM W., Ph.D., 1512 N. McKinley Rd.,

Arlington, Va. 22205 (E-3, 10)

DIGGES, THOMAS G., 3900 N. Albemarie St.,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (E-20)

DOCTOR, NORMAN, B.S., 3814 Littleton St.,

Wheaton, Md. 20906 (F-13)

DOETSCH, RAYMOND N., Ph.D., Microbiology

Dept., Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Md.

20742 (F-16)

DOFT, FLOYDS., Ph.D., 6416 Garnett Drive, Ken-

wood, Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (E-4, 6, 19)

DONNERT, HERMANN J., Ph.D., Dept. Nuclear

Engineering, Kansas State Univ., Manhattan,

Kans. 66506 (F)

DOUGLAS, CHARLES A., Sec. 221.12, Natl.

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

20234 (F-1, 6, 32)

DOUGLAS, THOMAS B., Ph.D., 3031 Sedgwick

St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008 (F-4)

DRAEGER, R. HAROLD, M.D., 1201 N. 4th Ave.,

Tucson, Ariz. 85705 (E-32)

DRECHSLER, CHARLES, Ph.D., 6915 Oakridge

Rd., University Park (Hyattsville), Md. 20782

(E-6, 10)

DU PONT, JOHN ELEUTHERE, Newton Square,

Pennsylvania 19073 (M)

DUPRE ELSIE, Mrs., Code 6553, Optical Sci. Div.,

Naval Res. Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390

(F-32)

DUERKSEN, J. A., 3134 Monroe St., N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20018 (E-1, 6)

DUNKUM, WILLIAM W., 256 Burgess Ave., Alex-

andria, Va. 22305 (F)

DUNN, JOSEPH P., 14721 Flintstone La., Silver

Spring, Md. 20904 (M)

DUNNING, K. L., Ph.D., Code 6670, Naval Res,

Lab., Washington, D.C. 20375 (F-1)

DURIE, EDYTHE G., 5011 Harna Dr., Alexandria,

Va. 22310 (M)

DURST, RICHARD A., Ph.D., Radiometer A/S,

Emdrupvej 72, DK 2400 Copenhagen NV,

Denmark (F-4)

EASTER, DONALD, Research Mgr. CRSR, Cor-

nell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 (M)

ECKHARDT, E. A., Ph.D., 840 12th St., Oakmont,

Allegheny County, Pa. 15139 (E-1)

EDDY, BERNICE E., Ph.D., Div. Biologic Stand-

ards, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda,

Md. 20014 (F-6, 16, 19)

EDERER, DAVID L., Far U V Physics Section,

Rm. A251, Bldg. 221, National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-32)

EDMUNDS, LAFE R., Ph.D., 6003 Leewood Dr.,

Alexandria, Va. 22310 (F-5)

104

EGOLF, DONALD R., 3600 Cambridge Court,

Upper Marlboro, Md. 20870 (F-10)

EISELE, JOHN A., 3310 Curtis Dr., #202, Hillcrest

Hghts., Md. 20023 (F)

EISENHART, CHURCHILL, Ph.D., Met A-123,

National Bureau of Standards, Washington,

D.C. 20234 (F-1, 30)

EL-BISI, HAMED M., Ph.D., 1017 Aponi Rd.,

Vienna, Va. 22180 (M-16)

ELBOURN, ROBERT D., 8221 Hamilton Spring

Ct., Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-1, 13)

ELLINGER, GEORGE A., 739 Kelly Dr., York, Pa.

17404 (E-6)

ELLIOTT, F. E., 7507 Grange Hall Dr., Oxon Hill,

Md. 20022 (F)

EMERSON, K. C., Ph.D., 2704 N. Kensington St.,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (F-3, 5)

EMERSON, W. B., 415 Aspen St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20012 (E)

ENNIS, W. B., Jr., 4011 College Hgts. Dr.,

Hyattsville, Md. 20782 (F)

ETZEL, HOWARD W., 7304 River Hill Rd.,

Washington, D.C. 20021 (F)

EWERS, JOHN C., 4432 26th Rd., N, Arlington,

Va. 22207 (F-2)

FAHEY, JOSEPH J., U.S. Geological Survey,

Washington, D.C. 20242 (E-4, 6, 7)

FALLON, ROBERT, 8251 Toll House Rd., Annan-

dale, Va. 22003 (F)

FARROW, RICHARD P., National Canners Assn.,

1133 20th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

(F-4, 6, 27)

FAULKNER, JOSEPH A., 1007 Sligo Creek Pky.,

Takoma Park, Md. 20012 (F-6)

FAUST, GEORGE T., Ph.D., 9907 Capitol View

Ave., Silver Spring, Md. 20910 (F-7, 31)

FAUST, WALTER L., Ph.D., U.S. Naval Res. Lab.,

Code 6510, Washington, D.C. 20375 (M)

FAUST, WILLIAM R., Ph.D., 5907 Walnut St.,

Temple Hills, Md. 20031 (F-1, 6)

FEARN, JAMES E., Ph.D., A867 Chem. Organic

Chemistry Sec., Natl. Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-4)

FELSENFELD, OSCAR, M.D., Tulane Research

Center, Covington, La. 70433 (F-6)

FELSHER, MURRAY, Sr. Staff Geologist, Off.

Techn. Anal. Enforcement, EPA,

Washington, D.C. 20460 (M-1, 7)

FERGUSON, ROBERT E., 6307 Tone Dr.,

Washington, D.C. 20034 (F-4)

FERRELL, RICHARD A., Ph.D., Dept. of Physics,

University of Maryland, College Park, Md.

20742 (F-6, 31)

FIELD, WILLIAM D., Dept. Entomology, Smithso-

nian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560 (F-5)

FIFE, EARL H., Jr., 6412 Elliott Pl., Hyattsville,

Md. 20783 (F)

FINLEY, HAROLD E., Head, Dept. of Zoology,

Howard Univ., Washington, D.C. 20001 (F-3)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973

FIVAZ, ALFRED E., 804 Dale Drive, Silver Spring,

Md. 20910 (E-11)

FLETCHER, DONALD G., Natl. Bureau of Stand-

ards, Rm. A102, Bldg. 231-IND, Washington,

D.C. 20234 (M-4)

FLETCHER, HEWITT G., Jr., Box 217, Sandy

Spring, Md. 20860 (F)

FLINT, EINAR P., 6229 Radcliffe Rd., Alexandria,

Va. 22307 (F-4, 20, 28, 36)

FLORIN, ROLAND E., Ph.D., Polymer Chemistry

Section, B-328 Poly, National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-4)

FLYNN, DANIEL R., 17500 Ira Court, Derwood,

Md. 20855 (F)

FLYNN, JOSEPH H., Ph.D., 5309 Iroquois Rd.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-4)

FOCKLER, H. H., MSLS, 10710 Lorain Ave., Silver

Spring, Md. 20014 (M)

FONER, S. N., Applied Physics Lab., The Johns

Hopkins University, Silver Spring, Md. 20910

(F-1)

FOOTE, RICHARD H., Sc.D., 8807 Victoria Road,

Springfield, Va. 22151 (F-5, 6)

FORD, W. KENT, Jr., Dept. of Terrestrial Mag-

netism, Carnegie Institution of Washington,

5241 Broad Branch Rd., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20015 (F)

FORZIATI, ALPHONSE F., Ph.D., 9812 Dameron

Dr., Silver Spring, Md. 20902 (F-1, 4, 21, 29)

FORZIATI, FLORENCE H., Ph.D., 9812 Dameron

Dr., Silver Spring, Md. 20902 (F-4)

FOSTER, AUREL O., 4613 Drexel Rd., College

Park, Md. 20740 (F-15, 24)

FOURNIER, ROBERT O., 108 Paloma Rd., Por-

tola Valley, Calif. 94025 (F-6, 7)

FOWELLS, H. A., Ph.D., 10217 Green Forest,

Silver Spring, Md. 20903 (F-11)

FOWLER, EUGENE, U.S. Atomic Energy Comm.,

Washington, D.C. 20545 (M-26)

FOWLER, WALTER B., Code 673, Goddard

Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. 20771

(M)

FOX, DAVID W., The Johns Hopkins Univ.,

Applied Physics Lab., Silver Spring, Md.

20910 (F)

FOX, ROBERT B., Naval Res. Lab., Code 6120,

Washington, D.C. 20390 (F-4, 6)

FRANKLIN, PHILIP J., 5907 Massachusetts Ave.

Extended, Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-4, 13)

FRANZ, GERALD J., M.S., 9638 Culver St., Ken-

sington, Md. 20795 (M-6, 25)

FREDERIKSE, H. P. R., Ph.D., 9625 Dewmar

Lane, Kensington, Md. 20795 (F)

FREEMAN, ANDREW F., 5012 N. 33rd St.,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (M)

FRENKIEL, FRANCOIS N., Computation and

Math. Lab., Naval Ship Res. & Develop. Ctr.,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-1, 22, 23)

FRIEDMAN, LEO, Ph.D., Director, Div. of Tox-

icology (BF-150), Bureau of Foods, Food &

Drug Admin., HEW, Washington, D.C. 20204

(F-4, 19)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973

FRIESS, S.L., Ph.D., Environmental Biosciences

Dept., Naval Med. Res. Inst. NNMC, Bethesda,

Md. 20014 (F-4)

FRUSH, HARRIET L., 4912 New Hampshire Ave.,

N.W., Apt. 104, Washington, D.C. 20011

(F-4, 6)

FULLMER, IRVIN H., Lakeview Terrace Retire-

ment Center, P.O. Box 116, Altoona, Fla.

32702 (E-1, 6, 14)

FULTON, ROBERT A., 530 Merrie Dr., Corvallis,

Oregon 97330 (E-4, 5)

FURUKAWA, GEORGE T., Ph.D., National

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

20234 (F-1, 4, 6)

FUSILLO, MATTHEW H., VA Hospital, 50 Irving

St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20422 (M-6, 16)

GAFAFER, WILLIAM M., 133 Cunningham Dr.,

New Smyrna Beach, Fla. 32069 (E)

GAGE, WILLIAM, Ph.D., 2146 Florida Ave., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20008 (F-2)

GALLER, SIDNEY, 6242 Woodcrest Ave., Bal-

timore, Md. 21209 (F-6)

GALLOWAY, RAYMOND A., Dept. of Botany,

University of Maryland, College Park, Md.

20742 (F-10, 33)

GALTSOFF, PAUL S., Ph.D., P.O. Box 167,

Woods Hole, Mass. 20543 (E-3)

GALVIN, CYRIL J., Jr., 2915 Tennyson St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20015 (F-7, 18, 30)

GANT, JAMES O., Jr., 1835 Eye St., N.W., Suite

201, Washington, D.C. 20006 (M)

GARNER, C. L., The Garfield, 5410 Connecticut

Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015 (E-1, 4,

12, 17, 18)

GARVIN, DAVID, Ph.D., 4000 Tunlaw Rd., N.W.,

Apt. 323, Washington, D.C. 20007 (F-4)

GAUM, CARL H., 9609 Carriage Rd., Kensington,

Md. 20795 (F-18)

GELLER, ROMAN F., 4977 Battery Lane, #406,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (E)

GHAFFARI, ABOLGHASSEN, Ph.D., D.Sc., 7109

Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.

20015 (Life-1)

GHOSE, RABINDRA N., 8167 Mulholland Terr.,

Los Angeles Hill, Calif. 90046 (F)

GIBSON, JOHN E., Box 96, Gibson, N.C. 28343

(E)

GIBSON, KASSON S., 4817 Cumberland St.,

Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (E)

GINTHER, ROBERT J., Code 6406, U.S. Naval

Res. Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390 (F-28, 29)

GISH, OLIVER H., 7107 S. Indian River Dr., Fort

Pierce, Fla. 33450 (E-1, 6)

GIWER, MATTHIAS M., 204-206 S. St. Asaph St.,

Alexandria, Va. 22314 (M)

GLADSTONE, VIC S., 7 Deauville Ct., Baltimore,

Md. 21208 (M-6, 25)

GLASGOW, A. R., Jr., Ph.D., 4116 Hamilton St.,

Hyattsville, Md. 20781 (F-4, 6)

105

GLASSER, ROBERT G., Ph.D., 2812 Abilene Dr.,

Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F)

GLICKSMAN, MARTIN E., 2223 Hindle Lane,

Bowie, Md. 20715 (F-20)

GODFREY, THEODORE B., 7508 Old Chester

Rd., Bethesda, Md. 20034 (E)

GOLDBERG, MICHAEL, 5823 Potomac Ave.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-1)

GOLDMAN, ALAN J., Applied Math. Div., Inst. for

Basic Standards, Natl. Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D.C. 20234 (F)

GOLDSMITH, HERBERT, 238 Congressional

Lane, Rockville, Md. 20852 (M)

GOLDSTEIN, GORDON D., 9520 Saybrook Ave.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20901 (M)

GOLUMBIC, CALVIN, ARS, USDA, Rm. 637 Fed.

Center Bg., Hyattsville, Md. 20782 (F)

GONET, FRANK, 4007 N. Woodstock St.,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (F-4)

GOODE, ROBERT J., B.S., Strength of Metals

Br., Code 6380, Metallurgy Div., U.S.N.R.L.,

Washington, D.C. 20390 (F-6, 20, 36)

GOODMAN, RALPH, 6600 Melody Lane,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F)

GORDON, CHARLES L., 5512 Charles St.,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F-1, 4, 6)

GORDON, NATHAN, 1121 Univ. Blvd., Apt. 205,

Silver Spring, Md. 20902 (F-4)

GORDON, RUTHE., Ph.D., Inst. of Microbiology,

Rutgers Univer., New Brunswick, N.J. 08903

(F-16)

GRAF, JOHN E., 2035 Parkside Dr., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20012 (F-3, 5, 6)

GRAHN, MRS. ANN, 1508 34th St. N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20007 (M)

GRASSL, CARL O., Sugar Plant Field Station,

P.O. Box 156, Canal Point, Fla. 33438 (F)

GRAY, ALFRED, Dept. Math., Univ. of Maryland,

College Park, Md. 20742 (F)

GRAY, IRVING, Georgetown Univ., Washington,

D.C. 20007 (F)

GREENBERG, LEON, Ph.D., 6209 Poindexter

Lane, Rockville, Md. 20852 (F)

GREENBERG, O. W., Dept. Phys. & Astron., Univ.

of Maryland, College Park, Md. 20742 (F)

GREENOUGH, M.L., M.S., Rm. A109 Poly,

National Bureau of Standards, Washington,

D.C. 20234 (F)

GREENSPAN, MARTIN, 12 Granville Dr., Silver

Spring, Md. 20902 (F-1, 25)

GRIFFITHS, NORMAN H. C., 3100 20th St., N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20018 (F-21)

GRISAMORE, NELSON T., 9536 E. Bexhill Dr.,

Kensington, Md. 20795 (F)

GROSSLING, BERNARDO F., U.S. Geological

Survey, Rm.5216, GSA Bg., Washington, D.C.

20242 (F-7)

GUARINO, P. A., 6714 Montrose Rd., Rockville,

Md. 20852 (F-13)

GURNEY, ASHLEY B., Ph.D., Systematic

Entomology Lab., USDA, % U.S. National

Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560 (F-3, 5, 6)

106

HACSKAYLO, EDWARD, Ph.D., Plant Industry

Station, USDA, Beltsville, Md. 20705 (F-6, 10,

Ti, 28)”

HAENNI, EDWARD O., Ph.D., Div. Chem. & Phys.,

BF-140, FDA, Washington, D.C. 20204 (F-4)

HAGAN, LUCY B., Natl. Bur. Stds., Rm. A155,

Bg. 221, Washington, D.C. 20243 (M)

HAINES, KENNETH A., ARS, USDA, Federal

Center Bldg., Hyattsville, Md. 20781 (F-5)

HAKALA, REINO W., Ph.D., 2817 N.W. 21st St.,

Oklahoma City, Okla. 73107 (F)

HALL, E. RAYMOND, Museum of Natural History,

Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence, Kans. 66044 (F)

HALL, R. CLIFFORD, M.F., 316 Mansion Drive,

Alexandria, Va. 22302 (E-11)

HALL, STANLEY A., Agric. Res. Center (E),

USDA, Beltsville, Md. 20705 (F-24)

HALL, WAYNE C., 1755 Ivy Oak Square, Reston,

Va. 22070 (F-1, 6, 13, 31)

HALLER, WOLFGANG, Ph.D., National Bureau

of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F)

HAMBLETON, EDSON J., 5140 Worthington Dr.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (E-3, 5, 6)

HAMER, WALTER J., 3028 Dogwood St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20015 (F-6, 13, 29)

HAMILTON, C. E. MIKE, Federal Power Comm.,

441 G St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20426

(M-7, 36)

HAMMERSCHMIDT, W. W., Ph.D., 7818 Holmes

Run Dr., Falls Church, Va. 22042 (M)

HAMMOND, H. DAVID, Ph.D., 14 Chappel St.,

Brockport, N.Y. 14420 (M-10)

HAMPP, EDWARD G., D.D.S., National Institutes

of Health, Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F-21)

HANCOCK, JUDITH M., Biol. Dept., St. Joseph's

College, North Windham, Me. 04062 (M)

HAND, CADET H., Jr., Bodega Marine Lab.,

Bodega Bay, Calif. 94923 (F-6)

HANSEN, LOUIS S., D.D.S., School of Dentistry,

San Francisco Med. Center, Univ. of Callif.,

San Francisco, Calif. 94122 (F-21)

HANSEN, MORRIS H., M.A., Westat Research,

Inc., 11600 Nebel St., Rockville, Md. 20852

(F-34)

HARDENBURG, ROBERT EARLE, Ph.D., Plant

Industry Station, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,

Beltsville, Md. 20705 (F-6)

HARRINGTON, FRANCIS D., Ph.D., 4612 N. 2nd

Rd., Arlington, Va. 22203 (M)

HARRINGTON, M. C., Ph.D., Physics Directorate

(NPP), Air Force Off. Sci. Res., 1400 Wilson

Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22209 (F-1, 13, 22, 31,

32)

HARRIS, MILTON, Ph.D., 3300 Whitehaven St.,

N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20007 (F)

HARRIS, ROBERT H., Ph.D., 12915 Travilah Rd.,

Rockville, Md. 20850 (M)

HARRISON, W. N., 3734 Windom PI., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-1)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973

HARTLEY, JANET W., Ph.D., National Inst. of

Allergy & Infectious Diseases, National

Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

HARTMANN, GREGORY K., 10701 Keswick St.,

Garrett Park, Md. 20766 (F-1, 25)

HARTZLER, MARY P., 3326 Hartwell Ct., Falls

Church, Va. 22042 (M-6) j

HASKINS, C. P., Ph.D., 2100 M St., N.W., Suite

600, Washington, D.C. 20037 (F)

HASS, GEORG H., 7728 Lee Avenue, Alexandria,

Va. 22308 (F)

HAUPTMAN, HERBERT, Ph.D., Medical Founda-

tion of Buffalo, 73 High St., Buffalo, N.Y.

14203 (F-1)

HAYDEN, GEORGE A., 1312 Juniper St. N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20012 (M)

HEANEY, JAMES B., Code 765, Goddard Space

Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. 20771 (F)

HEINRICH, KURT F., 804 Blossom Dr., Woodley

Gardens, Rockville, Md. 20850 (F)

HEINZE, P. H., Ph.D., Horticultural Crops

Research, USDA, ARS, MQ., Rm. 803 F.C.B.,

Hyattsville, Md. 20782 (F-4, 6, 10)

HENDERSON, E. P., Div. of Meteorites, U.S. Na-

tional Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560 (E)

HENDERSON, MALCOLM C., Ph.D., 2699 Shasta

Rd., Berkeley, Calif. 94708 (F-1)

HENNEBERRY, THOMAS J., 2608 Shenandale

Dr., Silver Spring, Md. 20904 (F-5, 24)

HENVIS, BERTHA W., Code 6472, Naval Res.

Lab., Washington, D.C. 20375 (M)

HERMACH, FRANCIS L., 2415 Eccleston St.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20902 (F-13, 35)

HERMAN, ROBERT, Theoretical Physics Dept.,

General Motors Res. Lab., 12 Mi & Mound

Rds., Warren, Mich. 48091 (F-1)

HERSCHMAN, HARRY K., 4701 Willard Ave.,

Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F-20)

HERSEY, JOHN B., 8911 Colesbury PI., Fairfax,

Va. 22030 (M)

HERSEY, MAYO D., M.A., Div. of Engineering,

Brown Univ., Providence, R.|. 02912 (E-1)

HERZFELD, KARL F., Dept. of Physics, Catholic

Univ., Washington, D.C. 20017 (F-1)

HERZFELD, REGINA F., Ph.D., Dept. of

Anthropology, Catholic Univ., Washington,

D.C. 20017 (F-1, 2)

HESS, WALTER C., 3607 Chesapeake St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20008 (E-4, 6, 19, 21)

HEWSTON, ELIZABETH M., Felicity Cove, Shady

Side, Md. 20867 (F)

HEYDEN, FR. FRANCIS, Manila Observatory,

P.O. Box 1231, Manila, Philippines D-404

(F-32)

HIATT, CASPAR W., Ph.D., Univ. of Texas Health

Science Center, 7703 Floyd Curl Dr., San

Antonio, Texas 78284 (F)

HICKLEY, THOMAS J., 626 Binnacle Dr., Naples,

Fla. 33940 (F-13)

HICKOX, GEORGE H., Ph.D., 9310 Allwood Ct.,

Alexandria, Va. 22309 (F-6, 14, 18)

HILDEBRAND, EARL M., 11092 Timberline Dr.,

Sun City, Ariz. 85351 (E)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973

HILL, FREEMAN K., 12408 Hall’s Shop Rad.,

Fulton, Md. 20759 (F-1, 6, 22)

HILSENRATH, JOSEPH, 9603 Brunett Ave., Silver

Spring, Md. 20901 (F-1)

HILTON, JAMES L., Ph.D., Plant Industry Station,

USDA, ARS, Beltsville, Md. 20705 (F-33)

HOBBS, ROBERT B., 7715 Old Chester Rd.,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-4)

HOERING, THOMAS C., Carnegie Inst. of

Washington, Geophysical Lab., 2801 Upton

St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008 (F-4, 7)

HOFFMANN, C.H., Ph.D., 6906 40th Ave., Univer-

sity Park, Hyattsville, Md. 20782 (F-5, 11, 24)

HOGE, HAROLD J., Ph.D., Head, Thermodyn.

Lab. Prd., U.S. Army Natick Labs., Natick,

Mass. 01760 (F-1)

HOLLIES, NORMAN R. §S., Gillette Research

Institute, 1413 Research Blvd., Rockville, Md.

20850 (F-4)

HOLLINSHEAD, ARIEL C., Ph.D., Lab. for Virus

& Cancer Research, Dept. of Medicine,

2300 K St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037

(F-16, 19)

HOLMGREN, HARRY D., Ph.D., P.O. Box 391,

College Park, Md. 20740 (F-1)

HOLSHOUSER, WILLIAM L., Bureau of Aviation

Safety, Natl. Trans. Safety Board,

Washington, D.C. 20591 (F-6, 20)

HONIG, JOHN G., Office Chief of Staff, Army,

The Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 20310 (F-1,

4, 34)

HOOD, KENNETH J., 2000 Huntington Ave., 1118,

Alexandria, Va. 22303 (M-33)

HOOKER, MISS MARJORIE, U.S. Geological

Survey, Washington, D.C. 20242 (F-7)

HOOVER, JOHN |., 5313 Briley Place,

“Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-1, 6)

HOPKINS, STEPHEN, M.Ed., Compackager

Corp., 2135 Wisconsin Ave., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20007 (F)

HOPP, HENRY, Ph.D., 7003 Wells Parkway,

Hyattsville, Md. 20782 (F-11)

HOPPS, HOPE E., Mrs., 1762 Overlook Dr., Silver

Spring, Md. 20903 (F)

HORNSTEIN, IRWIN, 5920 Bryn Mawr Rd., Col-

lege Park, Md. 20740 (F-4, 27)

HOROWITZ, E., Deputy Director, Institute for

Materials Res., National Bureau of Stan-

dards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F)

HORTON, BILLY M., 3238 Rodman St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20008 (F-1, 13)

HOUGH, FLOYD W., C.E., Woodstock, Va. 22664

(E-17, 18)

HOE, PAUL E., 3601 Connecticut Ave., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20008 (E-3, 4, 6, 8, 19)

HUANG, KUN-YEN, 6100 Johnson Ave.,

thesda, Md. 20034 (F)

HUBBARD, DONALD, 4807 Chevy Chase Dr.,

Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F-4, 6, 32)

HUBBARD, HARVEY H., 23 Elm Ave., Newport

News, Va. 23601 (M)

HUBERT, LESTER F., 4704 Mangum Rad., College

Park, Md. 20740 (F-23)

Be-

107

HUDSON, COLIN M., Ph.D., Chief Scientist, U.S.

Army Armament Command, Rock Island, Ill.

61201 (F-22)

HUGH, RUDOLPH, Ph.D., George Washington

Univ. Sch. of Med., Dept. of Microbiology,

2300 Eye St. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037

(F-16, 19)

HUNDLEY, JAMES M., American Heart Assn., 44

E. 23rd St., New York, N.Y. 10010 (F)

HUNT, W. HAWARD, 11712 Roby Ave., Beltsville,

Md. 20705 (M)

HUNTER, RICHARD S., 9529 Lee Highway,

Fairfax, Va. 22030 (F-27, 32)

HUNTER, WILLIAM R., Code 7143, U.S. Naval

Research Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390 (F-1,

6, 32)

HUNTOON, R. D., Ph.D., 13904 Blair Stone Lane,

Wheaton, Md. 20906 (F-1, 13)

HUTCHINS, LEE M., Cacao Ctr., Institute of

Agriculture, Turrialba, Costa Rica (E-10, 11)

HUTTON, GEORGE L., 809 Avondale Dr., W.

Lafayette, Ind. 47906 (F)

INSLEY, HERBERT, Ph.D., 5219 Farrington Rd.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-1, 7)

IRVING, GEORGE W., Jr., Ph.D., 4836 Langdrum

Lane, Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F-4, 27)

IRWIN, GEORGE R., Ph.D., 7306 Edmonston Rad.,

College Park, Md. 20740 (F-1, 6)

ISBELL, H. S., 4704 Blagden Ave., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20011 (F-4)

JACKSON, H. H. T., Ph.D., 122 Pinecrest Rd.,

Durham, N.C. (E-3)

JACOBS, WOODROW C., Ph.D., 6309 Bradley

Blvd., Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-23)

JACOBSON, MARTIN, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,

Agr. Res. Center (E) Beltsville, Md. 20705

(F-4, 24)

JACOX, MARILYN E., Ph.D., National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-4)

JAMES, L. H., The James Laboratories, 189 W.

Madison St., Chicago, III. 60602 (F)

JAMES, MAURICE T., Ph.D., Dept. of

Entomology, Washington State University,

Pullman, Washington 99163 (E-5)

JAMES, STANLEY D., U.S. Naval Ord. Lab., Code

232, White Oak, Md. 20910 (F)

JANI, LORRAINE L., 2733 Ontario Rd., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20009 (M)

JAY, GEORGE E., Jr., Ph.D., National Cancer

Inst., Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F-6)

JEN, C. K., Applied Physics Lab., 8621 Georgia

Ave., Silver Spring, Md. 20910 (F)

108

JENKINS, WILLIAM D., 1829 Ingleside Terr.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20010 (M-20)

JENSON, ARTHUR S., Ph.D., Westinghouse

Defense & Electronic Systems Ctr., Box 1521,

Baltimore, Md. 21203 (M-13, 32)

JESSUP, R. S., 7001 W. Greenvale Pkwy., Chevy

Chase, Md. 20015 (F-1, 6)

JOHANNESEN, ROLF B., National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-4)

JOHNSON, DANIEL P., 9222 Columbia Blvd.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20910 (F-1)

JOHNSON, KEITH C., 4422 Davenport St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (F)

JOHNSON, PHYLLIS T., Ph.D., Nat. Marine

Fisheries Serv., Oxford Lab., Oxford, Md.

21654 (F-5, 6)

JOHNSTON, FRANCIS E., 307 W. Montgomery

Ave., Rockville, Md. 20850 (E-1)

JONES, HENRY A., Desert Seed Co., Inc., Box

181, El Centro, Calif. 92243 (F)

JORDAN, GARY BLAKE, 1012 Olmo Ct., San

Jose, Calif. 95129 (M-13)

JUDD, NEIL M., Georgian Towers, Apt. 120-C,

8715 First Ave., Silver Spring, Md. 20910 (E)

KAISER, HANS E., 433 South West Dr., Silver

Spring, Md. 20901 (M-6)

KARLE, ISABELLA, Code 6030, U.S. Naval Res.

Lab., Washington, D.C. 20375 (F)

KARLE, JEROME, Code 6030, U.S. Naval

Research Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390

(F-1, 4)

KARR, PHILIP R., 5507 Calle de Arboles, Tor-

rance, Calif. 90505 (F-13)

KARRER, ANNIE M. H., Port Republic, Md. 20676

(E)

KARRER, S., Port Republic, Md. 20676 (F-1, 4,

6, 31, 32)

KAUFMAN, H. P., Box 1135, Fedhaven, Fla. 33854

(F-12)

KEARNEY, PHILIP C., Ph.D., 13021 Blairmore St.,

Beltsville, Md. 20705 (F-4)

KEGELES, GERSON, RFD 2, Stafford Springs,

Conn. 06076 (F)

KENNARD, RALPH B., Ph.D., 3017 Military Rd.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015 (E-1, 6, 31, 32)

KENNEDY, E. R., Ph.D., Biology Department,

Catholic University, Washington, D.C. 20017

(F-16)

KESSLER, KARL G., Ph.D., Optical Physics Div.,

Natl. Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

20234 (F-1, 6, 32)

KEULEGAN, GARBIS H., Ph.D., 215 Buena Vista

Dr., Vicksburg, Miss. 39180 (F-1, 6)

KINNEY, J. P., Hartwick, Otsego County, N.Y.

13348 (E-11)

KLEBANOFF, PHILIP S., Aerodynamics Sect.,

National Bureau of Standards, Washington,

D.C. 20234 (F-1, 22)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973

KLINGSBERG, CYRUS, Natl. Academy of Sci-

ences, 2101 Constitution Ave., Washington,

D.C. 20418 (F-28)

KLUTE, CHARLES H., Ph.D., Apt. 118, 4545 Con-

necticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008

(F-1, 4)

KNAPP, DAVID C., 4695 Osage Dr. Boulder, Colo.

80303 (F)

KNIPLING, EDWARD F., Ph.D., Sc.D., Science

Advisor, ARS-OA, USDA, Rm. 205, Nat. Agr.

Library, Beltsville, Md. 20705 (F-5)

KNIPLING, PHOEBE H., Ph.D., 2623 N. Military

Rd., Arlington, Va. 22207 (F)

KNOBLOCK, EDWARD C., 12002 Greenleaf Ave.,

Rockville, Md. 20854 (F-4, 19)

KNOPF, ELEANORA B., Ph.D., Sch. of Earth Sci-

ences, Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif. 94305

(E)

KNOWLTON, KATHRYN, Apt. 837, 2122 Mas-

sachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.

20009 (F-4, 19)

KNOX, ARTHUR S., M.A., M.Ed., U.S. Geological

Survey, Washington, D.C. 20006 (M-6, 7)

KNUTSON, LLOYD V., Ph.D., Systematic

Entomolegy Lab., ARS, USDA, Bg. 003, ARC

(W), Beltsville, Md. 20705 (M-5)

KOHLER, HANS W., 607 Owl Way, Bird Key.

Sarasota, Fla. 33577 (F-6, 13, 31)

KOHLER, MAX A., NOAA Office of Hydrology,

Natl. Weather Serv., Silver Spring, Md. 20910

(F-18, 23)

KRAUSS, ROBERT W., College of Science,

Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Oregon 97331

(F-3)

KRUGER, JEROME, Ph.D., Rm B254, Materials

Bldg., Natl. Bur. of Standards, Washington,

D.C. 20234 (F-4, 29)

KRUL, WILLIAM R., 1809 Belvedere Blvd., Silver

Spring, Md. 20902

KULLBACK, SOLOMON, Statistics Dept., George

Washington Univ., Washington, D.C. 20006

(F-13)

KURTZ, FLOYD E., 8005 Custer Rd., Bethesda,

Md. 20014 (F-4)

KURZWEG, HERMAN H., 731 Quaint Acres Dr.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20904 (F-1, 22)

KUSHNER, LAWRENCE M., Ph.D., Commis-

sioner, Consumer Product Safety Commis-

sion, Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-36)

LABENZ, PAUL J., 9504 Kingsley Ave., Bethesda,

Md. 20014

LADO, ROBERT, Ph.D., Georgetown Univ.,

Washington, D.C. 20007 (F)

LAKI, KOLOMAN, Ph.D., Bldg. 4, Natl. Inst. of

Health, Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

LAKIN, HUBERT W., U.S. Geological Survey,

Bldg. 25, Denver Fed. Ctr., Denver, Golo.

80201 (F)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973

LAMANNA, CARL, Ph.D., 3812 37th St., N.,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (F-16, 19)

LAMBERTON, BERENICE, Georgetown Univ.

Observ., Washington, D.C. 20007 (M)

LANDER, JAMES F., Nat. Earthquake Info.

Center, NOAA, ERL, R1015, Boulder, Colo.

80302 (F)

LANDIS, PAUL E., 6304 Landon Lane, Bethesda,

Md. 20034 (F-6)

LANDSBERG, H. E., 5116 Yorkville Rd., Temple

Hills, Md. 20031 (F-1, 23)

LANG, WALTER B., M.S., Kennedy-Warren,

Washington, D.C. 20008 (E-4, 6, 7, 36)

LANGFORD, GEORGE S., Ph.D., 4606 Hartwick

Rd., College Park, Md. 20740 (F-5, 24)

LAPHAM, EVAN G., 5340 Cortez Ct., Cape Coral,

Fla. 33904 (E)

LARMORE, LEWIS, Off. of Naval Res., 800 N.

Quincey St., Arlington, Va. 22217 (M)

LASHOF, THEODORE W., 10125 Ashburton

Lane, Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F)

LASTER, HOWARD J., Ph.D., Dept. of Physics

& Astron., Univ. of Maryland, College Park,

Md. 20742 (F-1, 31)

LATTA, RANDALL, 2122 California St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20008 (E-5)

LAYMAN, JOHN, Ed.D., Science Teaching

Center, Univ. Maryland, College Park, Md.

20742 (M)

LE CLERG, ERWIN L., 14620 Deerhurst Terrace,

Silver Spring, Md. 20906 (E)

LEE, RICHARD H., RD 2, Box 143E, Lewes, Del.

19958 (E)

LEINER, ALAN L., Hopinson House, 602

Washington Square So., Philadelphia, Pa.

19106 (F)

LEJINS, PETER P., Univ. of Maryland, Dept. of

Sociology, College Park, Md. 20742 (F-10)

LENTZ, PAUL LEWIS, 5 Orange Ct., Greenbelt,

Md. 20770 (F-6, 10)

LEOPOLD, LUNA B., Room 3203, 95 A Blidg.,

Washington, D.C. 20242 (F)

LEVERTON, RUTH M., Ph.D., 3900 16th St. N.W.,

Apt. 240, Washington, D.C. 20011 (F)

LEVIN, ERNEST M., 7716 Sebago Rd., Bethesda,

Md. 20034 (F-4, 28)

LEVY, SAMUEL, 2279 Preisman Dr., Schenec-

tady, N.Y. 12309 (F)

LEWIS, ANDREW M., Jr., MD, NLAID, LVD Bg.

7, Rm. 313, NIH, Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

LEWIS, KEITHH., Ph.D., 1701 No. Kent, Apt. 1006,

Arlington, Va. 22209 (M)

LEY, HERBERT L., Jr., M.D., P.O. Box 34434,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-6, 8, 16)

LI, HUI-LIN, The Morris Arboretum, Chestnut Hill,

Philadelphia, Pa. 19118 (F)

LIDDEL, URNER, 2939 Van Ness St. N.W., Apt.

1135, Washington, D.C. 20008 (E-1)

LIEBERMAN, MORRIS, 107 Delford Ave., Silver

Spring, Md. 20904 (F-4, 6, 33)

LINDQUIST, ARTHUR W., Rte. 1, Bridgeport,

Kans. 67424 (E-6)

LINDSEY, IRVING, M.A., 202 E. Alexandria Ave.,

Alexandria, Va. 22301 (E)

109

LING, LEE, Food & Agri. Organ. of U.N., Viale

Delle, Terme Di Caracalla, Rome, Italy (F)

LINK, CONRAD B., Dept. of Horticulture, Univ.

of Maryland, College Park, Md. 20742 (F-6,

10)

LINNENBOM, VICTOR J., Ph.D., Code 8300,

Naval Res. Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390

(F-4)

LIPKIN, LEWIS E., Bg. 36, Rm. 40-25, NIH,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (M)

LIST, ROBERT J., 1123 Hammond Pkwy., Alex-

andria, Va. 22302 (F-23)

LITTLE, ELBERT L., Jr., Ph.D., U.S. Forest Ser-

vice, Washington, D.C. 20250 (F-10, 11)

LLOYD, DANIEL BOONE, 5604 Overlea Rad.,

Sumner, Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-6)

LOCKARD, J. DAVID, Ph.D., Botany Dept., Univ.

of Maryland, College Park, Md. 20742 (M-33)

LOCKHART, LUTHER B., Jr., Ph.D., 6820 Wheat-

ley Ct., Falls Church, Va. 22042 (F-4)

LONG, AUSTIN, 2715 E. Helen St., Tucson, Ariz.

85716 (F)

LONG, B. J. B., Mrs., 416 Riverbend Rd., Oxon

Hill, Md. 20022 (M)

LORING, BLAKE M., Sc.D., Rt. 2, Laconia, N.H.

03246 (F-20, 36)

LUSTIG, ERNEST, Ph.D., GMBF, D3301 Stock-

heim/Braunschweig, Mascheroder Weg 1, W.

Germany (F-4)

LYMAN, JOHN, Ph.D., 404 Clayton Rd., Chapel

Hill, N.C. 27514 (F-23)

LYNCH, MRS. THOMAS J., 4960 Butterworth PI.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016 (M)

MA, TE-HSIU, Dept. of Biological Science, West-

ern Illinois Univ., Macomb, III. 61455 (F-3)

MAC DONALD, TORRENCE H., 622 Chain Bridge

Rd., McLean, Va. 22101 (M)

MADDEN, ROBERT P., A251 Physics Bldg., Natl.

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

20034 (F-32)

MAENGWYN-DAVIES, G. D., Ph.D., 2909 34th St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008 (F-4, 6, 19)

MAGIN, GEORGE B., Jr., 7412 Ridgewood Ave.,

Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F-6, 7, 26)

MAHAN, A. I., 10 Millgrove Gardens, Ednor, Md.

20904 (F-1)

MAIENTHAL, MILLARD, 10116 Bevern Lane,

Potomac, Md. 20854 (F-4)

MALONEY, CLIFFORD J., Bureau of Biologies,

FDA, Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

MANDEL, H. GEORGE, Ph.D., Dept. of Phar-

macology, George Washington Univ. Sch. of

Med., Washington, D.C. 20037 (F-4, 19)

MANDEL, JOHN, A345 Chem. Bg., Natl. Bur. of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-1)

MANNING, JOHN R., Ph.D., Metal Physics Sec.,

Natl. Bur. of Standards, Washington, D.C.

20234 (F-20)

110

MARCUS, MARVIN, Ph.D., Dept. Math., Univ. of

California, Santa Barbara, Calif. 93106 (F-6)

MARGOSHES, MARVIN, Ph.D., 69 Midland Ave.,

Tarrytown, N.Y. 10591 (F)

MARION, JERRY B., Dept. of Physics, Univ. of

Maryland, College Park, Md. 20742 (F)

MARSHALL, LOUISE H., Div. Med. Sci., Rm. 351

NAS-NRC, 2101 Constitution Ave.,

Washington, D.C. 20418 (F)

MARTIN, BRUCE D., P.O. Box 234, Leonardtown,

Md. 20650 (F-7)

MARTIN, JOHN H., Ph.D., 124 N.W. 7th St., Apt.

303, Corvallis, Oregon 97330 (E-6)

MARTIN, ROBERT H., 2257 N. Nottingham St.,

Arlington, Va. 22205 (M-23)

MARTON, L., Ph.D., Editorial Office, 4515 Lin-

nean Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008 (E-

i, is)

MARVIN, ROBERT S., Natl. Bur. of Standards,

A537 Admin., Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-1,

4, 6)

MARYOTT, ARTHUR A., Natl. Bur. of Standards,

Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-4, 6)

MASON, HENRY LEA, Sc.D., 7008 Meadow Lane,

Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F-1, 6, 14, 35)

MASSEY, JOE T., Ph.D., 10111 Parkwood Dr.,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

MATHERS, ALEX P., 320A Mansion Dr., Alex-

andria, Va. 22302 (F-4)

MATLACK, MARION, Ph.D., 2700 N. 25th St.,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (E)

MAUSS, BESSE D., Rural Rt. 1, New Oxford, Pa.

17350 (F)

MAXWELL, LOUIS R., Ph.D., 3506 Leland St.,

Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F)

MAY, DONALD C., Jr., Ph.D., 5931 Oakdale Rd.,

McLean, Va. 22101 (F)

MAY, IRVING, U.S. Geological Survey,

Washington, D.C. 20244 (F-4, 7)

MAYER, CORNELL H., 1209 Villamay Blvd., Alex-

andria, Va. 22307 (F-1, 6, 13)

MAYOR, JOHN R., A.A.A.S., 1515 Massachusetts

Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 (F)

MAZUR, JACOB, Ph.D., Natl. Bureau of Stan-

dards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-6)

MC BRIDE, GORDON W., Ch.E., 100 Park Ave.,

Suite 2209, New York, N.Y. 10017 (F)

MC CAMY, CALVIN S., All Angels Hill Rd., Wap-

pingers Falls, N.Y. 12590 (F-32)

MC CLELLAN, WILBUR D., Ph.D., Rm. 4114,

Federal Bg., 1130 O St., Fresno, Calif. 93721

(F-6, 10)

MC CLURE, FRANK T., 810 Copley Lane, R.F.D.

1, Silver Spring, Md. 20904 (F-1, 4)

MC CULLOUGH, JAMES M., Ph.D., 6209 Apache

St., Springfield, Va. 22150 (M)

MC CULLOUGH, N. B., Ph.D., M.D., Dept. of Mic-

robiology & Public Health, Michigan State

Univ., East Lansing, Mich. 48823 (F-6, 8)

MC ELHINNEY, JOHN, Ph.D., 11601 Stephen Rd.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20904 (F-1)

MC GRATH, JAMES R., Ph.D., 5900 Madawaska

Rd., Washington, D.C. 20016 (M-25)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973

MC GUNIGAL, THOMAS E., J.D., 13013 Ingleside

Dr., Beltsville, Md. 20705 (F-1, 13)

MC INTOSH, ALLEN, 4606 Clemson Rd., College

Park, Md. 20740 (E-6, 15)

MC KEE, S. A., 5431 Lincoln St., Bethesda, Md.

20034 (F) :

MC KELVEY, VINCENT E., Ph.D., 6601 Broxburn

Dr., Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-7)

MC KENZIE, LAWSON M., 5311 Westpath Way,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-1)

MC KINNEY, HAROLD H., 1620 N. Edgewood St.,

Arlington, Va. 22201 (E-6, 10, 16, 33)

MC KOWN, BARRETT L., M.S., 3580 So. River

Terr., Edgewater, Md. 21037 (M-6)

MC MURDIE, HOWARD F., Natl. Bur. of Stand-

ards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-28)

MC NESBY, JAMES R., Natl. Bur. of Standards

223.53, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F)

MC PHEE, HUGH C., 3450 Toledo Terrace, Apt.

425, Hyattsville, Md. 20782 (E-6)

MC PHERSON, ARCHIBALD T., Fh.D., 4005

Cleveland St., Kensington, Md. 20795 (F-1,

4, 6, 27)

MC WRIGHT, CORNELIUS G., 7409 Estaban PI.,

Springfield, Va. 22151 (M)

MEADE, BUFORD K., NOAA, Nat’! Ocean Survey,

Washington Science Ctr., Rockville, Md.

20852 (F-17)

MEARS, FLORENCE, Ph.D., 8004 Hampden

Lane, Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

MEARS, THOMAS W., B.S., 2809 Hathaway Ter-

race, Wheaton, Md. 20906 (F-1, 4, 6)

MEBS, RUSSELL W., Ph.D., 6620 32nd St., N.,

Arlington, Va. 22213 (F-12, 20)

MEINKE, W. WAYNE, Ph.D., Analytical Chemistry

Div., Natl. Bur. of Standards, Washington,

D.C. 20234 (F-4)

MELMED, ALLAN J., 732 Tiffany Court, Gaith-

ersburg, Md. 20760 (F)

MELOY, THOMAS P., 5124 Baltan Rd., Sumner,

Md. 20016 (M)

MENDLOWITZ, HAROLD, 708 Lamberton Dr.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20902 (F)

MENIS, OSCAR, Analytical Chem. Div., Natl.

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

20234 (F)

MENZER, ROBERT E., Ph.D., 7203 Wells Pkwy.,

Hyattsville, Md. 20782 (F)

MERRIAM, CARROLL F., Prospect Harbor,

Maine 04669 (F-6)

MEYERHOFF, HOWARD A., Ph.D., 3625 S. Flor-

ence PI., Tulsa, Okla. 74105 (F-7)

MEYERSON, MELVIN R., Ph.D., Rm. A349, Bldg.

224, National Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-20)

MEYKAR, OREST A., P.E., 200 E. Luray Ave.,

Alexandria, Va. 22301 (M-13, 14)

MEYROWITZ, ROBERT, Analytical Chem.,

Environmental Geology Progr., Univ. So.

California, Los Angeles, Calif. 90007

MICHAELIS, ROBERT E., National Bureau of

Standards, Chemistry Bldg., Rm. B316,

Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-20)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973

MICKEY, WENDELL V., 1965 Kohler Dr., Boulder,

Colo. 80303 (F)

MIDDLETON, H. E., 430 E. Packwood, Apt. H-108,

Maitland, Fla. 32751 (E)

MIDER, G. BURROUGHS, M.D., Exec. Off., Amer.

Soc. Exper. Path. & Univ. Assoc. Res. & Educ.

Pathol., 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Md.

20014 (F)

MILLAR, DAVID B., NMRI, NNMC, Environmental

Biosciences Dept., Physical Biochemistry

Div., Washington, D.C. 20014 (F)

MILLER, CARL F., 18 W. Windsor Ave., Alex-

andria, Va. 22301 (E-6)

MILLER, CLEM O., Ph.D., 6343 Nicholson St.,

Falls Church, Va. 22044 (F-4, 6)

MILLER, J. CHARLES, 10600 Eastbourne Ave.,

Apt. 7, W. Los Angeles, California 90024 (E-7)

MILLER, PAUL R., Ph.D., ARS, USDA, Beltsville,

Md. 20705 (F-10)

MILLER, RALPH L., Ph.D., 5215 Abington Rd.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-7)

MILLER, ROMANR., 1232 Pinecrest Circle, Silver

Spring, Md. 20910 (F-4, 6, 28)

MILLIGAN, DOLPHUSE E., Ph.D., National

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

20234 (F-4)

MILLIKEN, LEWIS T., SSL Res. Inst., 43-20,

NHTSA, 400 7th St., S.W., Washington, D.C.

20590 (M-1, 4, 7)

MILTON, CHARLES, Dept. of Geology, George

Washington Univ., Washington, D.C. 20006

(F-7)

MITCHELL, J. MURRAY, Jr., Ph.D., 1106 Dog-

wood Dr., McLean, Va. 22101 (F-6, 23)

MITCHELL, JOHN W., 9007 Flower Ave., Silver

Spring, Md. 20901 (F)

MITTLEMAN, DON, 80 Parkwood Lane, Oberlin,

Ohio 44074 (F)

MIZELL, LOUIS R., 108 Sharon Lane, Greenlawn,

N.Y. 11740 (F)

MOEZIE, FATEMEH T., 5432 N. 24th St.,

Arlington, Va. 22205 (M)

MOHLER, FRED L., Ph.D., 2853 Brandywine St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008 (E-1)

MOLLARI, MARIO, 4527 45th St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (E-3, 5, 15)

MOLLER, RAYMOND W., Ph.D., Catholic Univ.

of America, Washington, D.C. 20017 (F)

MOORE, GEORGE A., Ph.D., Natl. Bur. of Stand-

ards 312.03, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-6,

20, 29, 36)

MOORE, HARVEY C., Dept. of Anthropology,

American Univ., Washington, D.C. 20016

(F-2)

MORAN, FREDERICK A., 7711 Kipling Pkwy.,

Washington, D.C. 20028 (M-23)

MORRIS, J. A., 23-E Ridge Rd., Greenbelt, Md.

20770 (M-6, 15, 16)

MORRIS, JOSEPH BURTON, Chemistry Dept.

Howard Univ., Washington, D.C. 20001 (F)

MORRIS, KELSO B., Howard Univ., Washington,

D.C. 20001 (F-4)

MORRISS, DONALD J., 102 Baldwin Ct., Pt. Char-

lotte, Fla. 33950 (E-11)

111

MORTON, JOHN D., M.A., 10217 Forest Ave.,

Fairfax, Va. 22030 (F-16, 23)

MOSHMAN, JACK, LEASCO, Inc., 4033 Rugby

Ave., Bethesda, Md. 20014 (M-34)

MOSTOFI, F. K., M.D., Armed Forces Inst. of

Pathology, Washington, D.C. 20306 (F)

MUEHLHAUSE, C. O., Ph.D., 9105 Seven Locks

Rd., Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-1, 26)

MUELLER, H. J., 4801 Kenmore Ave., Alexandria,

Va. 22304 (F)

MUESEBECK, CARL F. W., U.S. Natl. Museum

of Nat. Hist., Washington, D.C. 20560 (E-3, 5)

MURDOCH, WALLACE P., Ph.D., Rt. 2, Get-

tysburg, Pa. 17325 (F-5)

MURPHY, LEONARD M., Seismology Div., U.S.

Nat. Ocean Surv., Rockville, Md. 20852 (F)

MURRAY, WILLIAM S., 1281 Bartonshire Way,

Potomac Woods, Rockville, Md. 20854 (F-5)

MYERS, ALFRED T., USGS Geochemistry &

Petr., Denver Federal Ctr., Denver, Colo.

80225 (F-4, 6)

MYERS, RALPH D., Physics Dept., Univ. of Mary-

land, College Park, Md. 20740 (F-1)

NAESER, CHARLES R., Ph.D., 6654 Van Winkle

Dr., Falls Church, Va. 22044 (F-4, 7)

NAMIAS, JEROME, Sc.D., 2251 Sverdrup Hall,

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La

Jolla, Calif. 92037 (F-23)

NELSON, R. H., 7309 Finns Lane, Lanham, Md.

20801 (E-5, 6, 24)

NEPOMUCENE, SR. ST. JOHN, Villa Julie, Valley

Rd., Stevenson, Md. 21153 (E-4)

NEUENDORFFER, J. A., 911 Allison St., Alex-

andria, Va. 22302 (F-6, 34)

NEUSCHEL, SHERMAN K., U.S. Geological

Survey, Washington, D.C. 20244 (F-7)

NEUSTADT, HERBERT M., E.E. Dept., U.S. Naval

Academy, Annapolis, Md. 21042 (M-25)

NEWMAN, MORRIS, Natl. Bur. of Standards,

Washington, D.C. 20234 (F)

NEWMAN, SANFORD B., Ph.D., Room A 1000,

Administration, Natl. Bur. of Standards,

Washington, D.C. 20234 (F)

NEWTON, CLARENCE J., Ph.D., 1504S. 2nd Ave.,

Edinburg, Texas 78539 (E)

NICKERSON, DOROTHY, 2039 New Hampshire

Ave., Washington, D.C. 20009 (E-6, 32)

NIKIFOROFF, C. C., 4309 Van Buren St., Univer-

sity Park, Hyattsville, Md. 20782 (E)

NIRENBERG, MARSHALL W., 7001 Orkney

Pkwy., Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-4)

NOFFSINGER, TERRELLL., Spec. Weather Serv.

Br., NOAA/NWS, Gramax Bldg., Silver Spring,

Md. 20910 (F-23)

NOLLA, J. A. B., Ph.D., Apartado 820, Mayaguez,

Puerto Rico 00708 (F-6)

NORRIS, KARL H., 11204 Montgomery Rad.,

Beltsville, Md. 20705 (F-27)

NOYES, HOWARDE., Ph.D., 4807 Aspen Hill Rd.,

Rockville, Md. 20853 (F-16, 19)

112

O’BRIEN, JOHN A., Ph.D., Dept. of Biology,

Catholic Univ. of America, Washington, D.C.

20017 (F-10)

O’CONNOR, JAMES V., 5309 Riverdale Rd.,

#325, Riverdale, Md. 20840 (M)

O’HERN, ELIZABETH M., Ph.D., 633 G St., S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20024 (M-16)

O'KEEFE, JOHN A., Code 640, Goddard Space

Flight Ctr., Greenbelt, Md. 20771 (F-1)

OBOURN, ELLSWORTHS., Ph.D., 2100S. Ocean

Dr., Apt. 2CD, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. 33316

(E-1, 6)

OEHSER, PAUL H., 9012 Old Dominion Dr.,

McLean, Va. 22101 (F-1, 3, 9, 30)

OKABE, HIDEO, Ph.D., 316.00, Natl. Bur. of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-4)

OLIPHANT, MALCOLM W., Ph.D., Hawaii Loa

Coll., P.O. Box 764, Kaneohe, Oahu, Haw.

96744 (F)

OLSEN, HAROLD W., Br. of Engr. Geol., U.S.

Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Rd.,

Menlo Park, Calif. 94025 (M)

OLSON, JOSEPH C., Jr., Ph.D., BF-210, Food &

Drug Admin., 200 C St., S.W., Washington,

D.C. 20204 (M-16, 27)

OLTJEN, ROBERT R., 3514 Susquehanna Dr.,

Beltsville, Md. 20705 (F)

ORDWAY, FRED, Ph.D., 5205 Elsmere Ave.,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F-4, 6, 20, 28)

ORLIN, HYMAN, Ph.D., NOAA-NOS, Rockville,

Md. 20852 (F-17)

OSER, HANS J., 8810 Quiet Stream Ct., Potomac,

Md. 20852 (F-6)

OSGOOD, WILLIAM R., Ph.D., 2756 Macomb St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008 (E-14, 18)

OSWALD, ELIZABETH J., Ph.D., Genetic Tox-

icology Br., FDA, 200 C St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20204 (F-16)

OWENS, JAMES P., M.A., 14528 Bauer Dr., Rock-

ville, Md. 20853 (F-7)

PACK, DONALD H., 1826 Opalacka Dr., McLean,

Va. 22101 (F-23)

PAFFENBARGER, GEORGE C., D.D.S., ADA Res.

Div., Natl. Bur. of Standards, Washington,

D.C. 20234 (F-21)

PAGE, BENJAMIN L., 1340 Locust Rd.,

Washington, D.C. 20012 (E-1, 6)

PAGE, CHESTER H., 15400 Layhill Rd., Silver

Spring, Md. 20906 (F-1, 6, 13)

PAGE, R. M., 10222 Berkshire Rd., Bloomington,

Minn. 55437 (F-13)

PARK, J. HOWARD, 3614 59th Ave., S.W., Seattle,

Washington 98116 (F-13)

PARKER, KENNETH W., 6014 Kirby Rd.,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (E-3, 10, 11)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973

PARKER, ROBERT L., Ph.D., Chief, Crystalliz. of

Metals Sect., Rm. B-164 MATLS, Natl. Bur.

of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F)

PARMAN, GEORGE K., % UNIDO, P.O. Box 837,

A-1011, Vienna, Austria (F-27)

PARR, L. W., 302 Scientists Cliffs, Port Republic,

Md. 20676 (E-16, 19)

PASSER, MOSES, Ph.D., 6647 32nd Pl., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20015 (F)

PATTERSON, GLENN W., 8916 2nd St., Lanham,

Md. 20801 (F-4, 33)

PATTERSON, WILBUR I|., Ph.D., Blakely Island,

Washington 98222 (F)

PAYNE, L. E., Dept. Math., Cornell Univ., Ithaca,

N.Y: 14850 (F)

PEISER, H. STEFFEN, 638 Blossom Dr., Rock-

ville, Md. 20850 (F-1, 4, 28)

PELCZAR, MICHAEL J., Jr., Vice Pres. for Grad.

Studies & Research, Univ. of Maryland, Col-

lege Park, Md. 20742 (F)

PERROS, THEODORE P., Ph.D., Dept. of

Chemistry, George Washington Univ.,

Washington, D.C. 20006 (F-1, 4)

PFEIFFER, M. M., Whitehall, Apt. 701, 4977 Bat-

tery Lane, Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

PHAIR, GEORGE, Ph.D., 14700 River Rad.,

Potomac, Md. 20854 (F-7)

PHILLIPS, MRS. M. LINDEMAN, Union Farm,

Mount Vernon, Va. 22121 (F-1, 13, 25)

PIKL, JOSEF, 211 Dickinson Rd., Glassboro, N.J.

08028 (E)

PITTMAN, MARGARET, Ph.D., 3133 Connecticut

Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008 (E)

POLACHEK, HARRY, 12000 Old Georgetown

Rd., Rockville, Md. 20852 (E)

POMMER, ALFRED M., Ph.D., 3117 Fayette Rd.,

Kensington, Md. 20795 (F-4, 7, 19, 35)

POOS, F. W., Ph.D., 3225 N. Albemarle St.,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (E-5, 6, 26)

POPENOE, WILSON, Antigua, Guatemala,

Central America (E-3, 11)

POTTS, B. L.,119 Periwinkel Ct., Greenbelt, Md.

20770 (F)

PRESLEY, JOHN T., 3811 Courtney Circle, Bryan,

Texas 77801 (E)

PRINZ, DIANNE K., Ph.D., Code 7121.5, Naval

Res. Lab., Washington, D.C. 20375 (M)

PRO, MAYNARD J., 7904 Falstaff Rd., McLean,

Va. 22101 (F-26)

PRYOR, C. NICHOLAS, Ph.D., Naval Ord. Lab.,

White Oak, Silver Spring, Md. 20910 (F)

PURCELL, ROBERT H., Rt. 1, Box 113B, Boyds,

Md. 20720 (F)

RABINOW, JACOB, I. A. T., Natl. Bur. of Stand-

ards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F)

RADER, CHARLES A., 15807 Sherwood Ave.,

Laurel, Md. 20810 (F-4)

RADO, GEORGE T., Ph.D., 818 Carrie Court,

McLean, Va. 22101 (F-1)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973

RAINWATER, H. IVAN, Plant Protect. & Quaran-

tine Programs, APHIS, Fed. Center Bg. #1,

Hyattsville, Md. 20782 (E-5, 6, 24)

RALL, DAVID P., Director, National Institute of

Envir. Health Sciences, P.O. Box 11233,

Research Triangle, Raleigh, N.C. 27709

(F-6, 19)

RAMBERG, WALTER G. C., Belfast Rd., Sparks,

Md. 21152 (E-1)

RANEY, WILLIAM P., Code 102, Office of Naval

Research, Arlington, Va. 22217 (M)

RAPPLEYE, HOWARD S., 6712 4th St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20012 (E-1, 6, 12, 17, 18)

RAUSCH, ROBERT, Arctic Health Res. Center,

U.S. Public Health Service, Fairbanks, Alaska

99701 (F-3, 15)

RAVITSKY, CHARLES, M.S., 1808 Metzerott Rd.,

Adelphi, Md. 20783 (F-32)

READING, O. S., 6.N. Howells Point Rd., Bellport

Suffolk County, New York, N.Y. 11713 (E-1)

REAM, DONALD F., Holavallagata 9, Reykjavik,

Iceland (F)

RECHCIGL, MILOSLAV, Jr., Ph.D., 1703 Mark

Lane, Rockville, Md. 20852 (F-3, 4, 19)

REED, WILLIAM D., 3609 Military Rd., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20015 (F-5, 6)

REEVE, WILKINS, 4708 Harvard Rd., College

Park, Md. 20740 (F-4)

REEVES, ROBERT G., Ph.D., 12524 W. Virginia

Ave., Denver, Colo. 80228 (F-7, 14)

REGGIA, FRANK, MSEE, 6207 Kirby Rd.,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-6, 13)

REHDER, HARALD A., U.S. Natl. Museum of Nat.

Hist., Washington, D.C. 20560 (F-3, 6)

REICH, MELVIN, Dept. Microbiology, George

Washington Univ. Med. Ctr., 2300 Eye St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037 (F)

REINHART, FRANK W., 9918 Sutherland Rd.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20901 (F-4, 6)

REINHART, FRED M., P.O. Box 591, Oak View,

Calif. 93022 (F-20) ]

REINING, PRISCILLA, Ph.D., 3601 Rittenhouse

St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015 (F-2)

REMMERS, GENE M., 7322 Craftown Rd., Fairfax

Station, Va. 22039 (M)

REVEAL, JAMES L., Ph.D., Dept. Botany, Univ.

of Maryland, College Park, Md. 20742 (F)

REYNOLDS, CALVIN O., 3661 E. Virginia Beach

Bivd., P.O. Box 12342, Norfolk, Va. 23502 (M)

REYNOLDS, ORR E., 2134 LeRoy Place, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20008 (F)

RHODES, IDA, MRS., 6676 Georgia Ave., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20012 (F)

RICE, DONALD A., 1518 East West Highway,

Silver Spring, Md. 20910 (F)

RICE, FREDERICK A. H., 8005 Carita Court,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-4, 6, 19)

RINEHART, JOHN S., 756 Sixth St., Boulder,

Colo. 80302 (F-6, 20)

RIOCH, DAVID MckK., M.D., 2429 Linden Lane,

Silver Spring, Md. 20910 (F-3, 8)

RITT, P. E., Ph.D., GTE Labs., Inc., 40 Sylvan

Rd., Waltham, Mass. 02154 (F)

113

RITTS, ROY E., Jr., Dept. of Microbiology, Mayo

Clinic, Rochester, Minn. 55901 (F)

RIVLIN, RONALD S., Lehigh University,

Bethlehem, Pa. 18015 (F)

ROBBINS, MARY LOUISE, Ph.D., George

Washington Univ. Med. Ctr., 2300 Eye St.

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037 (F-6, 16, 19)

ROBERTS, ELLIOT B., 4500 Wetherill Rd.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (E-1, 18)

ROBERTS, RICHARD B., Ph.D., Dept. Terrestrial

Mag., 5241 Broad Branch Rd., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20015 (F)

ROBERTS, RICHARD C., 5170 Phantom Court,

Columbia, Md. 21044 (F-6)

ROBERTS, RICHARD W., Director, Natl. Bureau

of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F)

ROBERTSON, A. F., Ph.D., 4228 Butterworth PI.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016 (F)

ROBERTSON, RANDAL M., Ph.D., 1404 Highland

Circle, S.E., Blacksburg, Va. 24060 (F-1, 6)

ROCK, GEORGE D., Ph.D., The Kennedy Warren,

3133 Conn. Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.

20008 (E)

RODNEY, WILLIAM S., 8112 Whites Ford Way,

Rockville, Md. 20854 (F-1, 32)

RODRIGUEZ, RAUL, 3533 Martha Custis Drive,

Alexandria, Va. 22302 (F-17)

ROGERS, L. A., Patten, Maine 04765 (E-16)

ROLLER, PAUL S., 825 Colorado Bidg., 1341 G

St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 (E)

ROMNEY, CARL F., 4105 Sulgrave Dr., Alex-

andria, Va. 22309 (F-7)

ROSADO, JOHN A., 1709 Great Falls St., McLean,

Va. 22101 (F)

ROSENBLATT, DAVID, 2939 Van Ness St., N.W.,

Apt. 702, Washington, D.C. 20008 (F-1)

ROSENBLATT, JOAN R., 2939 Van Ness St.,

N.W., Apt. 702, Washington, D.C. 20008 (F-1)

ROSENSTOCK, HENRY M., 10117 Ashburton

Lane, Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F)

ROSENTHAL, SANFORD, M., Bidg. 4, Rm. 122,

National Insts. of Health, Bethesda, Md.

20014 (E)

ROSS, FRANKLIN, Off. of Asst. Secy. of the Air

Force, The Pentagon, Washington, D.C.

20310 (F)

ROSS, SHERMAN, National Research Council,

2101 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20418 (F)

ROSSINI, FREDERICK D., Dept. Chemistry, Rice

Univ., Houston, Tex. 77001 (F-1)

ROTH, FRANK L., M.Sc., Box 441, Nogales Star

Rt., Amado, Ariz. 85640 (E-6)

ROTH, ROBERT S., Solid State Chem. Sect.,

National Bureau of Standards, Washington,

D.C. 20234 (F)

ROTKIN, ISRAEL, 11504 Regnid Dr., Wheaton,

Md. 20902 (F-1, 13, 34)

ROWEN, JOHN W., Washington Towers #2407,

9701 Fields Rd., Gaithersburg, Md. 20760 (F)

RUBIN, MORTON J., M.Sc., Bldg. 5, NOAA, 6010

Executive Bldg., Rockville, Md. 20852 (F-23)

RUBIN, VERA C., Ph.D., 3308 McKinley St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20015 (F)

114

RUPP, N. W., D.D.S., American Dental Assoc.,

Research Division, National Bureau of Stand-

ards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-21)

RUSSELL, LOUISE M., Bg. 004, Agr. Res. Center

(West), USDA, Beltsville, Md. 20705 (F-5)

RYALL, A. LLOYD, Route 2, Box 216, Las Cruces,

N. Mex. 88001 (E-6, 10, 27)

RYERSON, KNOWLES A., M.S., Dean Emeritus,

15 Arimonte Dr., Berkeley, Calif. 94707 (E-6)

SAALFIELD, FRED E., Naval Res. Lab., Code

6110, Washington, D.C. 20390 (F-4)

SAENZ, ALBERT W., Nuclear Sciences Div.,

Naval Research Laboratory, Washington,

D.C. 20390 (F)

SAILER, R. |., Ph.D., 3847 S.W. 6th PI., Gaines-

ville, Fla. 32601 (F-5, 24)

SALISBURY, LLOYD L., 10138 Crestwood Rad.,

Kensington, Md. 20795 (M)

SALLET, DIRSE W., 12440 Old Fletchertown Rd.,

Bowie, Md. 20715 (M-1)

SAN ANTONIO, JAMES P., Agr. Res. Center

(West), USDA, Beltsville, Md. 20705 (M)

SANDERSON, JOHN A., Ph.D., 303 High St., Alex-

andria, Va. 22203 (F-1, 32)

SANDOZ, GEORGE, Ph.D., Office of Naval

Research, Chicago Office, 536 Clark St.,

Chicago, II. 60605 (F-6, 20)

SANFORD, ROBERT B., Jr., 1719 N. Nelson St.,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (M)

SARVELLA, PATRICIA A., Ph.D., 4513 Romion

St., Apt. 302, Beltsville, Md. 20705 (F-6)

SASMOR, ROBERT M., 12 Old Mamaroneck Rad.,

White Plains, N.Y. 10605 (F)

SAULMON, E. E., 202 North Edgewood St.,

Arlington, Va. 22201 (M)

SAVILLE, THORNDIKE, Jr., M.S., 5601 Albia Rd.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-6, 18)

SAYLOR, CHARLES P., 10001 Riggs Rad.,

Adelphi, Md. 20783 (F-1, 4, 32)

SCHAFFER, ROBERT, Chemistry A367, Natl.

Bur. Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F)

SCHECHTER, MILTON S., 10909 Hannes Court,

Silver Spring, Md. 20901 (F-4, 5, 24)

SCHEER, MILTON D., 811 N. Belgrade Rd., Silver

Spring, Md. 20902 (F-1, 4)

SCHINDLER, ALBERT I., Sc.D., Code 6330, U.S.

Naval Res. Lab., Washington, D.C. 20390

(F-1)

SCHMID, HELLMUT, 20740 Warfield Court,

Gaithersburg, Md. 20760 (F-6, 17)

SCHMIDT, CLAUDE H., 1827 No. 3rd St., Fargo,

No. Dak. 58102 (F-5)

SCHMITT, WALDO L., Ph.D., U.S. National

Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560 (E-3)

SCHNEIDER, SIDNEY, 239 N. Granada St.,

Arlington, Va. 22203 (M)

SCHOEN, LOUIS J., Ph.D., 8605 Springdell PI.,

Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973

SCHOENEMAN, ROBERT LEE, 217 Sachem

Drive, Forest Heights, Washington, D.C.

20021 (F)

SCHOOLEY, ALLEN H., 6113 Cloud Dr., Spring-

field, Va. 22150 (F-6, 13, 31)

SCHOOLEY, JAMES F., 13700 Darnestown Rad.,

Gaithersburg, Md. 20760 (F-6)

SCHOONOVER, IRL C., National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-1, 4)

SCHRECKER, ANTHONY W., Ph.D., National

Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md. 20014

(F-4)

SCHUBAUER, G. B., Ph.D., 5609 Gloster Rd.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-22)

SCHUBERT, LEO, Ph.D., The American Univ.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-1, 4, 30)

SCHULMAN, JAMES H., 2284 Dunster Lane,

Rockville, Md. 20854 (F)

SCHWARTZ, ANTHONY M., Ph.D., 2260 Glen-

more Terr., Rockville, Md. 20850 (F-4)

SCHWARTZ, BENJAMIN, Ph.D., 888 Montgom-

ery St., Brooklyn, N.Y. 11213 (E)

SCHWARTZ, MANUEL, 321-322 Med. Arts Bg.,

Baltimore, Md. 21201 (M)

SCHWERDTFEGER, WILLIAM J., B.S., 9200

Fowler Lane, Lanham, Md. 20801 (F-13)

SCOFIELD, FRANCIS, 2403 Eye St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20037 (M-4, 32)

SCOTT, DAVID B., D.D.S., Dean, Case Western

Reserve Univ., Sch. of Dentistry, 2123 Abing-

ton Rd., Cleveland, Ohio 44106 (F-21)

SCRIBNER, BOURDON F., National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-4, 32)

SEABORG, GLENN T., Ph.D., Lawrence Berkeley

Lab., Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.

94720 (F)

SEEGER, RAYMOND J., Ph.D., 4507 Wetherill

Rd., Washington, D.C. 20016 (E-1, 30, 31)

SEITZ, FREDERICK, Rockefeller University, New

York, N.Y. 10021 (F-36)

SERVICE, JERRY H., Ph.D., Cascade Manor, 65

W. 30th Ave., Eugene, Oreg. 97405 (E)

SETZLER, FRANK M., Sc.D., 950 E. Shore Dr.,

Culver, Ind. 46511 (E-2, 3, 6)

SHAFRIN, ELAINE G., M.S., Apt. N-702, 800 4th

St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20024 (F-4)

SHALOWITZ A. L., 1520 Kalmia Rd., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20012 (E-17)

SHANAHAN, A. J., 7217 Churchill Rd., McLean,

Va. 22101 (F-16)

SHAPIRA, NORMAN, 86 Oakwood Dr., Dunkirk,

Md. 20754 (M)

SHAPIRO, GUSTAVE, 3704 Munsey St., Silver

Spring, Md. 20906 (F)

SHELTON, EMMA, National Cancer Institute,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

SHEPARD, HAROLD H., Ph.D., 2701 S. June St.,

Arlington, Va. 22202 (F-5, 24)

SHERESHEFSKY, J. LEON, Ph.D., 9023 Jones

Mill Rd., Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (E)

SHERLIN, GROVER C., 4024 Hamilton St.,

Hyattsville, Md. 20781 (F-1, 6, 13, 31)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973

SHIELDS, WILLIAM ROY, A.M.S.S., Natl. Bur. of

Standards, Physics Bldg., Rm. A25,

Washington, D.C. 20234 (F)

SHMUKLER, LEON, 151 Lorraine Dr., Berkeley

Heights, N.J. 07922 (F)

SHOTLAND, EDWIN, 418 E. Indian Spring Dr.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20901 (M-1)

SHROPSHIRE, W., Jr., Ph.D., Radiation Bio. Lab.,

12441 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, Md. 20852

(F-6, 10, 33)

SHUBIN, LESTER D., Proj. Mgr. for Standards,

NILECJ/LEAA, U.S. Dept. Justice,

Washington, D.C. 20530 (F)

SIEGLER, EDOUARD HORACE, Ph.D., 201 Tulip

Ave., Takoma Park, Md. 20012 (E-5, 24)

SILVER, DAVID M., Ph.D., Applied Physics Lab.,

Johns Hopkins Univ., Silver Spring, Md.

20910 (M-4, 6)

SILVERMAN, SHIRLEIGH, Academic Liaison,

Natl. Bur. of Standards, Washington, D.C.

20234 (F-1)

SIMHA, ROBERT, Ph.D., Case Western Reserve

Univ., Cleveland, Ohio 44106 (F)

SIMMONS, JOHN A., Rm. A157, Bldg. 223, Natl.

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

20234 (F-1)

SIMMONS, LANSING G., 4425 Dittmar Rd., N.,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (F-18)

SITTERLY, BANCROFT W., Ph.D., 3711 Bran-

dywine St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016

(E-1, 31, 32)

SITTERLY, CHARLOTTE M., Ph.D., 3711 Bran-

dywine St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016

(E-1, 6, 32)

SLACK, LEWIS, 106 Garden Rd. Scarsdale, N.Y.

10583 (F)

SLADEK, JAROMIL V., 2940 28th St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20008 (F-4)

SLAWSKY, MILTON M., 8803 Lanier Dr., Silver

Spring, Md. 20910 (F-6, 12, 22, 31)

SLAWSKY, ZAKA |., Naval Ordnance Lab., White

Oak, Silver Spring, Md. 20910 (F)

SLEEMAN, H. KENNETH, Ph.D., Div. Biochem,

WRAIR. Washington, D.C. 20012 (F)

SLOCUM, GLENN G., 4204 Dresden St., Ken-

sington, Md. 20795 (E-16, 27)

SMILEY, ROBERT L., 1444 Primrose Rd., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20012 (M-5)

SMITH, BLANCHARD DRAKE, M.S., 2509 Rye-

gate Lane, Alexandria, Va. 22308 (F-6, 13)

SMITH, EDGAR R., Box 52, Lottsburg, Va. 22511

(E-4)

SMITH, FLOYD F., Ph.D., 9022 Fairview Rd.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20910 (F-5, 24)

SMITH, FRANCIS A., Ph.D., 1023 55th Ave.,

South, St. Petersburg, Fla. 33705 (E-6)

SMITH, HENRY LEE, Jr., Ph.D., 112 Depew Ave.,

Buffalo, N.Y. 14214 (F-2)

SMITH, JACK C., 3708 Manor Rd., Apt. 3, Chevy

Chase, Md. 20015 (F)

SMITH, NATHAN R., 322 S. Washington Dr., St.

Armands Key, Sarasota, Fla. 33577 (E-6, 10,

16)

115

SMITH, PAUL A., 4714 26th St., N., Arlington,

Va. 22207 (F-6, 7, 18, 22)

SMITH, ROBERT C., Jr., 4200 Peachtree PI., Alex-

andria, Va. 22304 (F-4, 22)

SMITH, SIDNEY T., D.Eng., 5811 Sunderland

Court, Alexandria, Va. 22310 (F-1, 13, 32)

SMITH, WILLIE, Natl. Insts. of Health, Bethesda,

Md. 20014 (F-19)

SNAVELY, BENJAMIN L., 721 Springloch Rd.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20904 (F-24, 31, 32)

SNAY, HANS G., 17613 Treelawn Dr., Ashton, Md.

20702 (F-6, 25)

SNOW, C. EDWIN, 14317 Chesterfield Rd., Rock-

ville, Md. 20853 (M)

SOKOLOVE, FRANK L., 2311 S. Dinwiddie St.,

Arlington, Va. 22206 (M)

SOLLNER, KARL, Lab. of Physical Bio., Natl.

Insts. of Health, Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F-4,

29)

SOLOMON, EDWIN M., 11550 Lockwood Dr.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20904 (M)

SOMERS, IRA I|., 1511 Woodacre Dr., McLean,

Va. 22101 (M)

SOMMER, HELMUT, 9502 Hollins Ct., Bethesda,

Md. 20034 (F-1, 13)

SONN, MARTIN, Ph.D., Ed.D., 5 Watson Dr.,

Portsmouth, R.1. 02871 (F)

SORROWS, H. E., 8820 Maxwell Dr., Potomac,

Md. 20854 (F)

SPALDING, DONALD H., Ph.D., 17500 S.W. 89th

Ct., Miami, Fla. 33157 (F-6, 10)

SPECHT, HEINZ, Ph.D., 4229 Franklin St., Ken-

sington, Md. 20795 (F-1, 6)

SPENCER, LEWIS V.. Box 206, Gaithersburg,

Md. 20760 (F)

SPERLING, FREDERICK, 1131 University Blvd.,

W., #1122, Silver Spring, Md. 20902 (F-19)

SPICER, H. CECIL, 2174 Louisa Drive, Belleair

Beach, Florida 33534 (E-7)

SPIES, JOSEPH R., 507 N. Monroe St., Arlington,

Va. 22201 (F-4)

SPOONER, CHARLES S., Jr., M.F., 346 Spring-

vale Rd., Great Falls, Va. 22066 (F)

SPOONER, RONALD L., Ph.D., Planning Sys-

tems, Inc., 7900 Westpark Dr., McLean, Va.

22101 (M-25)

SPRAGUE, G. F., Dept. Agronomy, Univ. of

Illinois, Urbana, Ill. 61801 (E)

ST. GEORGE, R. A., 3305 Powder Mill Rd.,

Adelphi Station, Hyattsville, Md. 20783 (F-3,

5, 11, 24)

STADTMAN, E. R., Bldg. 3, Rm. 108, Natl.

Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

STAIR, RALPH, P.O. Box 310, Newburg, Oreg.

97132 (E-6)

STAKMAN, E. C., Univ. of Minnesota, Inst. of

Agric., St. Paul, Minn. 55101 (E)

STALLARD, JOHN M., Ph.D., Naval Ord. Lab.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20910 (M)

STAUSS, HENRY E., Ph.D., 8005 Washington

Ave., Alexandria, Va. 22308 (F-20)

STEARN, JOSEPH L., 6950 Oregon Ave., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20015 (F)

116

STEELE, LENDELL E., 7624 Highland St.,

Springfield, Va. 22150 (F-20, 26)

STEERE, RUSSELL L., Ph.D., 6207 Carrollton

Ter., Hyattsville, Md. 20781 (F-6, 10)

STEGUN, IRENE A., Natl. Bur. of Standards,

Washington, D.C. 20234 (F)

STEIDLE, WALTER E., 2439 Flint Hill Rd., Vienna,

Va. 22180 (F)

STEINER, BRUCE W., 6624 Barnaby St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20015 (M)

STEINER, ROBERT F., Ph.D., 2609 Turf Valley

Rd., Ellicott City, Md. 21043 (F-4)

STEINHARDT, JACINTO, Ph.D., Georgetown

Univ., Washington, D.C. 20007 (F-4)

STEPHAN, ROBERT M., Ph.D., 4513 Delmont

Lane, Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F-21)

STEPHENS, ROBERT E., Ph.D., 4301 39th St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016 (E-1, 32)

STERN, KURT H., Ph.D., Naval Res. Lab., Code

6160, Washington, D.C. 20390 (F-4, 29, 30)

STERN, WILLIAM L., Dept. Botany, Univ. of Mary-

land, College Park, Md. 20742 (F-10)

STEVENS, HENRY, 5116 Brookview Dr.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (E)

STEVENS, RUSSELL B., Ph.D., Div. of Biological

Sciences, N.R.C., 2101 Constitution Ave.,

Washington, D.C. 20418 (F-10)

STEVENSON, JOHN A., 4113 Emery PI., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (E-6, 10)

STEWART, |. E., 4000 Tunlaw Rd., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20007 (F)

STEWART, T. DALE, M.D., 1191 Crest Lane,

McLean, Va. 22101 (F-2)

STIEBELING, HAZEL K., 4000 Cathedral Ave.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (E)

STIEF, LOUIS J., Ph.D., Code 691, NASA God-

dard Space Flight Ctr., Greenbelt, Md. 20771

(F-4)

STIEHLER, ROBERT D., Ph.D., Natl. Bur. of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-1, 4, 6,

14)

STILL, JOSEPH W., M.D., 1146 E. Garvey, West

Covina, Calif. 91790 (E)

STILLER, BERTRAM, 3210 Wisconsin Ave., N.W.,

Apt. 501, Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-1)

STIMSON, H. F., 2920 Brandywine St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20008 (E-1, 5)

STIRLING, MATHEW W., 3311 Rowland PI., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20008 (F-2, 6)

STRAUSS, SIMON W., Ph.D., 4506 Cedell PI.,

Camp Springs, Md. 20031 (F-4)

STUART, NEIL W., 1341 Chilton Dr., Silver

Spring, Md. 20904 (F-10)

SULZBACHER, WILLIAM L., 8527 Clarkson Dr.,

Fulton, Md. 20759 (F-16, 27)

SWEENEY, WILLIAM T., 8411 Buckland Mill Rd.,

Gainesville, Va. 22065 (F-16, 21)

SWICK, CLARENCE H., 5514 Brenner St., Capitol

Heights, Md. 20027 (F-1, 6, 12)

SWINGLE, CHARLES F., Ph.D., Pauma Valley,

Calif. 92061 (E)

SYKES, ALAN O., 304 Mashie Dr., S.E., Vienna,

Va. 22180 (M-25)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973

SYSKI, RYSZARD, Ph.D., Dept. of Mathematics,

Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Md. 20742

(F)

TALBERT, PRESTON T., Dept. of Chemistry,

Howard Univ., Washington, D.C. 20001 (F-4)

TALBOTT, F. LEO, R.D. #4, Bethlehem, Pa.

18015 (F-1, 6)

TASAKI, ICHIJI, M.D., Ph.D., Lab. of Neuro-

biology, Natl. Inst. of Mental Health,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F)

TATE, DOUGLAS R., B.A., 11415 Farmland Dr.,

Rockville, Md. 20852 (F-1)

TAUSSKY, OLGA, California Inst. of Technology,

Pasadena, Calif. 91109 (E)

TAYLOR, ALBERT L., P.O. Box 12017, Gaines-

ville, Fla. 32604 (E-15)

TAYLOR, JOHN K., Ph.D., Chemistry Bidg., Rm.

B-326, Natl. Bur. of Standards, Washington,

D.C. 20234 (F-4, 29)

TAYLOR, LAURISTON S., 7407 Denton Rad.,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (E)

TAYLOR, LEONARD S., 706 Apple Grove Rad.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20904 (M)

TAYLOR, MODDIE D., Ph.D., 4560 Argyle Ter-

race, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20011 (F-4)

TCHEN, CHAN-MOU, City College of the City

Univ. of New York, New York, N.Y. 10031 (F)

TEAL, GORDON K., Ph.D., 5222 Park Lane,

Dallas, Tex. 75220 (F-6, 13, 29)

TEELE, RAY P., 3713 Jenifer St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20015 (F-1, 6, 32)

TEITLER, S., Code 6470, Naval Res. Lab.,

Washington, D.C. 20390 (F)

TEPPER, MORRIS, 107 Bluff Terrace, Silver

Spring, Md. 20902 (F-22, 23)

THAYER, T. P., Ph.D., U.S. Geological Surv.,

Washington, D.C. 20244 (F-7)

THEUS, RICHARD B., 8612 Van Buren Dr., Oxon

Hill, Md. 20022 (F)

THOM, H. C. S., Cons. Engr., 14310 Bauer Dr.,

Rockville, Md. 20853 (F-20)

THOMPSON, ARTHUR H., Dept. Horticulture,

Univ. Maryland, College Park, Md. 20742 (M)

THOMPSON, JACK C., 281 Casitas Bulevar, Los

Gatos, Calif. 95030 (F)

THURMAN-SCHWARTZWELDER, E. B., 30 Ver-

sailles Blvd., New Orleans, La. 70125 (F)

TILDEN, EVELYN B., Ph.D., Apt. 1006, 55 West

Chestnut St., Chicago, Ill. 60610 (E-6)

TITUS, HARRY W., 7 Lakeview Ave., Andover,

N.J. 07821 (E-6)

TODD, MARGARET RUTH, Miss, U.S. Natl.

Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560 (F-7)

TOLHURST, GILBERT, Ph.D., 7 Red Fox Lane,

Amherst, Mass. 01002 (F)

TOLL, JOHN S., Pres., State Univ. of New York,

Stony Brook, L.I., N.Y. 11790 (F)

TORGESEN, JOHN L., Natl. Bur. of Standards,

Materials Bldg. B-354, Washington, D.C.

20234 (F-4, 6)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973

TORIO, J. C., 226 Cedar Lane, Apt. 84, Vienna,

Va. 22180 (M-4)

TORRESON, OSCAR W., 4317 Maple Ave.,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (E-6)

TOUSEY, RICHARD, Ph.D., Code 7140, Naval

Res. Lab., Washington, D.C. 20375 (F-1, 32)

TRAUB, ROBERT, Ph.D., 5702 Bradley Blvd.,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (F-5)

TREADWELL, CARLETON R., Ph.D., Dept. of

Biochemistry, George Washington Univ.,

2300 Eye St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037

(F-19)

TRENT, EVAM., Mrs., 413 Tennessee Ave., Alex-

andria, Va. 22305 (M)

TRUEBLOOD, MRS. CHARLES K., 7100 Armat

Dr., Bethesda, Md. 20014 (E-19)

TRUBUL, THEODORE S., Sc.D., 11711 River Dr.,

Lorton, Va. 22079 (M-14, 34)

TRYON, MAX, 6008 Namakagan ARd.,

Washington, D.C. 20016 (F-4, 6)

TULANE, VICTOR J., Assistant President, Living-

stone Coll., Salisbury, N.C. 28144 (F)

TUNELL, GEORGE, Ph.D., Dept. of Geol. Sci.,

Univ. of California, Santa Barbara, Calif.

93106 (E-7)

TURNER, JAMES H., Ph.D., Westwood Bg. Rm

A-25, Nat. Insts. Health, Bethesda, Md. 20014

(F-15)

UHLANER, J. E., Ph.D., U.S. Army Behavior and

Systems Res. Lab., Rosslyn Commonwealth

Bldg., 1300 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22209

(F)

USDIN, EARL, 2924 N. Oxford St., Arlington, Va.

22207 (F-4, 19)

VACHER, HERBERT C., 2317 Huidekoper PI.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007 (E)

VAN DERSAL, WILLIAM R., Ph.D., 6 S. Kensing-

ton St., Arlington, Va. 22204 (F-6)

VAN EVERA, R. W., 901 No. Kensington St.,

Arlington, Va. 22205 (F)

VAN TUYL, ANDREW H., Ph.D., 1000 W. Nolcrest

Dr., Silver Spring, Md. 20903 (F-1, 6, 22)

VEITCH, FLETCHER P., Jr., Ph.D., Dept. of

Chemistry, Univ. of Maryland, College Park,

Md. 20742 (F-4)

VIGUE, KENNETH J., Dir., Internatl. Projects, ITT

Gordy, We tllele, W/O 1b Ste, Ilo.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (M-13, 31)

VINCENT, ROBERT C., Dept. Chem., George

Washington Univ., Washington, D.C. 20006

(F)

117

VINTI, JOHN P., Sc.D., M.I.T. Measurement Sys-

tems Lab., Rm. 37-340, 70 Vassar St., Cam-

bridge, Mass. 02139 (F-1, 6)

VISCO, EUGENE P., B.S., Geomet. Inc., 50

Monroe St., Rockville, Md. 20850 (M-1, 34)

VON BRAND, THEODOR C., M.D., Ph.D., 8606

Hempstead Ave., Bethesda, Md. 20034 (E-15)

VON HIPPEL, ARTHUR, 265 Glen Rd., Weston,

Mass. 02193 (E)

WACHTMAN, J. B., Jr., Ph.D., B306 Mattls. Bidg.,

Natl. Bur. of Standards, Washington, D.C.

20234 (F-1, 6, 28)

WAGMAN, DONALD D., 7104 Wilson Lane,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-4)

WALKER, E. H., Ph.D., 7413 Holly Ave., Takoma

Park, Md. 20012 (E-10)

WALKER, RAYMOND F., Ph.D., 670 Shawnee Dr.,

Franklin Lakes, N.J. 07417 (F-6, 28)

WALTER, DEAN I., Code 6310, Naval Res. Lab.,

Washington, D.C. 20375 (F-4, 6)

WALTHER, CARL H., Ph.D., 1337 27th St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20007 (F-6, 18)

WALTON, W. W., Sr., 1705 Edgewater Pkwy.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20903 (F-4)

WARD, RONALD A., 15404 Carrolton Rd., Rock-

ville, Md. 20853 (F)

WARGA, MARY E., 2475 Virginia Ave., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20037 (F-1, 4, 6, 32)

WARING, JOHN A., 8502 Flower Ave., Takoma

Park, Md. 20012 (M-30)

WATSON, BERNARD B., Ph.D., General

Research Corp., McLean, Va. 22101 (F-6, 31)

WATSON, ROBERT B., 1167 Wimbledon Dr.,

McLean, Va. 22101 (M)

WEAVER, DE FORREST E., M.S., Geological

Survey, Washington Bldg., Rm. 110, 1011

Arlington Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22209 (E-4)

WEAVER, E. R., 6815 Connecticut Ave., Chevy

Chase, Md. 20015 (E-4, 6)

WEBB, RAYMON E., Agr. Res. Center, USDA,

Beltsville, Md. 20705 (M)

WEBER, EUGENE W., 8.C.E., 2700 Virginia Ave.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037 (F-6, 12, 17, 18)

WEBER, ROBERT S., 1825 Martha Ave., Harl-

ingen, Tex. 78550 (M)

WEIDA, FRANK, 19 Scientists Cliff, Port Repub-

lic, Calvert County, Md. 20676 (E-1)

WEIDLEIN, E. R., Weidacres, P.O. Box 445,

Rector, Pa. 15677 (E)

WEIHE, WERNER K., 2103 Basset St., Alexandria,

Va. 22308 (F-32)

WEINBERG, HAROLD P., B.S., 1507 Sanford Rd.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20902 (F-20)

WEINTRAUB, ROBERT L., 305 Fleming Ave.,

Frederick, Md. 21701 (F-4, 10, 16, 33)

WEIR, CHARLES E., Rt. 3, Box 260B, San Louis

Obispo, Calif. 93401 (F)

118

WEISS, FRANCIS JOSEPH, Ph.D., Sc.D., 6121

Montrose Rd., Rockville, Md. 20852 (E-1, 4,

6, 10, 16, 26, 27, 33)

WEISSBERG, SAMUEL, 14 Granville Dr., Silver

Spring, Md. 20901 (F-1, 4)

WEISSLER, ALFRED, Ph.D., 5510 Uppingham

St., Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F-1, 4, 25)

WELLMAN, FREDERICK L., Dept. of Plant

Pathology, North Carolina State Univ.,

Raleigh, N.C. 27607 (E)

WENSCH, GLEN W., Esworthy Rd., Rt. 2, Ger-

mantown, Md. 20767 (F-6, 20, 26)

WEST, WILLIAM L., Dept. of Pharmacology,

Howard Univ., Washington, D.C. 20001 (M-19,

26)

WESTERHAUT, GART, Ph.D., Astronomy

Program, Space Sciences Bg., Univ. Mary-

land, College Park, Md. 20742 (F)

WETMORE, ALEXANDER, Ph.D., Smithsonian

Inst., Washington, D.C. 20560 (F-3, 6)

WEXLER, ARNOLD, Phys. B 356, Natl. Bur. of

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-1, 35)

WHEELER, WILLIS H., 3171 N. Quincy St.,

Arlington, Va. 22207 (E-6, 10)

WHERRY, EDGART., Ph.D., Dept. Botany, Univ.

of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. 19104 (E)

WHITE, HOWARD J., Jr., 8028 Park Overlook Dr.,

Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-4)

WHITE, ROBERT M., NOAA, U.S. Dept. Com-

merce, Washington, D.C. 20230 (F)

WHITELOCK, LELAND D., B.S.E.E., 5614

Greentree Rd., Bethesda, Md. 20034 (F-13)

WHITMAN, MERRILL J., 3300 Old Lee Highway,

Fairfax, Va. 22030 (F-26)

WHITTEN, CHARLES A., 9606 Sutherland Rad.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20901 (F-1, 6)

WICHERS, EDWARD, Ph.D., 9601 Kingston Rd.,

Kensington, Md. 20795 (E-4)

WILDHACK, W. A., 415 N. Oxford St., Arlington,

Va. 22203 (F-1, 6, 22, 31, 35)

WILHELM, PETER G., 6710 Elroy Pl., Oxon Hill,

Md. 20021 (F)

WILLENBROCK, F. KARL, Director, Inst. for Appl.

Tech., Natl. Bur. Standards, Washington,

D.C. 20234 (F)

WILLIAMS, DONALD H., 4112 Everett St., Ken-

sington, Md. 20795 (M-27)

WILSON, BRUCE L., 20 N. Leonora Ave., Apt.

204, Tucson, Ariz. 85711 (F-1, 6)

WILSON, WILLIAM K., M.S., 1401 Kurtz Rd.,

McLean, Va. 22101 (F-4)

WINSTON, JAY S., Ph.D., 3106 Woodholiow Dr.,

Chevy Chase, Md. 20015 (F-6, 23)

WISE, GILBERT H., 8805 Oxwell Lane, Laurel,

Md. 20810 (M-6)

WITHINGTON, C. F., 3411 Ashley Terr., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20008 (F-7)

WITTLER, RUTHG., Ph.D., 83 Bay Dr., Bay Ridge,

Annapolis, Md. 21403 (F-16)

WOLFF, EDWARD A., 1021 Cresthaven Dr., Silver

Spring, Md. 20903 (F-6, 13, 22, 23)

WOLFLE, DAEL, Graduate School of Public

Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle,

Washington 98195 (F)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973

WOLFRAM, LESZEK J., Gillette Res. Inst., 1413

Research Blvd., Rockville, Md. 20850 (F)

WOLICKI, E. A., Ph.D., Nuclear Sciences Div.,

Code 6601, U.S. Naval Res. Lab.,

Washington, D.C. 20390 (F)

WOMACK, MADELYN, 11511 Highview Ave.,

Silver Spring, Md. 20902 (F-4, 19)

WOOD, LAWRENCE A., Ph.D., Natl. Bur. of Stan-

dards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-1, 4)

WOOD, MARSHALL K., M.P.A., 2909 Brandywine

St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008 (F)

WOOD, REUBEN E., 3120 N. Pershing Dr.,

Arlington, Va. 22201 (F-4, 29)

WOODS, MARK W., Natl. Cancer Inst., Bethesda,

Md. 20014 (F-10, 19)

WORKMAN, WILLIAM G., M.D., 5221 42nd St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015 (E-6, 8)

WRENCH, CONSTANCE P., 10230 Democracy

Lane, Potomac, Md. 20854 (M-6)

WRENCH, JOHN W., Jr., 10230 Democracy Lane,

Potomac, Md. 20854 (F-6)

WULF, OLIVER R., Noyes Lab. of Chem. Phys.,

Calif. Inst. of Tech., Pasadena, Calif. 91108

(E)

WYMAN, LEROY W., Sr., Ch. E., 134 Island View

Dr., Cape St. John, Annapolis, Md. 21401 (F-6,

20, 36)

YAO, AUGUSTINE Y. M., Ph.D., 4434 Brocton

Rd., Oxon Hill, Md. 20022 (M-23)

J. WASH. ACAD. SCI., VOL. 63, NO. 3, 1973

YAPLEE, BENJAMIN S., 6105 Westland Dr.,

Hyattsville, Md. 20782 (F-13)

YEATMAN, JOHN N., 11106 Cherry Hill Rd.,

Adelphi, Md. 20783 (M)

YOCUM, L. EDWIN, 1257 Drew St., Apt. 2, Clear-

water, Fla. 33515 (E-10, 33)

YODER, HATTEN S., Jr., Geophysical Lab., 2801

Upton St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008

(F-4, 7)

YOLKEN, H. T., Rm. B314, Natl. Bur. of Stand-

ards, Washington, D.C. 20234 (F-29)

YOUNG, BOBBY G., Dept. of Microbiology, Univ.

of Maryland, College Park, Md. 20742 (M-16)

YOUNG, CLINTON J. T., M.S., 300 Rucker PI.,

Alexandria, Va. 22301 (M-32)

YOUNG, DAVID A., Jr., Ph.D., 612 Buck Jones

Rd., Raleigh, N.C. 27606 (F-5)

YOUNG, M. WHARTON, 3230 Park PIl.,

Washington, D.C. 20010 (F)

YUILL, J. S., M.S., 4307-A Hartwick Rd., College

Park, Md. 20740 (E-5, 6, 24)

ZELENY, LAWRENCE, Ph.D., 4312 Van Buren

St., University Park, Hyattsville, Md. 20782 (E)

ZIES, EMANUEL G., 3803 Blackthorne St., Chevy

Chase, Md. 20015 (E-4, 6, 7)

ZOCH, RICHMOND T., 12612 Craft Lane, Bowie,

Md. 20715 (F)

ZWEMER, RAYMOND L., 5008 Benton Ave.,

Bethesda, Md. 20014 (E)

119

BYLAWS

Washington Academy of Sciences

Last Revised in February 1972

Article I. OBJECTIVES

Section 1. The purposes of the Washington Academy of Sciences shall be: (a) to stimulate

interest in the sciences, both pure and applied, and (b) to promote their advancement and the

development of their philosophical aspects by the Academy membership and through cooperative

action by the affiliated societies.

Section 2. These objectives may be attained by, but are not limited to:

(a) Publication of a periodical and of occasional scientific monographs and such other

publications as may be deemed desirable.

(b) Public lectures of broad scope and interest in the fields of science.

(d) Promoting science education and a professional interest in science among people of high

school and college age.

(e) Accepting or making grants of funds to aid special research projects.

(f) Symposia, both formal and small informal, on any aspects of science.

(g) Scientific conferences.

(h) Organization of, or assistance in, scientific expeditions.

(i) Cooperation with other Academies and scientific organizations.

Gg) Awards of prizes and citations for special merit in science.

(k) Maintaining an office and staff to aid in carrying out the purposes of the Academy.

Article Il. MEMBERSHIP

Section 1. The membership shall consist of three general classes: members, fellows and patrons.

Section 2. Members shall be persons who are interested in and will support the objectives of

the Academy and who are otherwise acceptable to at least two-thirds of the Committee on Member-

ship. A letter or application form requesting membership and signed by the applicant may suffice for

action by the Committee; approval by the Committee constitutes election to membership.

Section 3. Fellows shall be persons who by reason of original research or other outstanding

service to the sciences, mathematics, or engineering are deemed worthy of the honor of election to

Academy fellowship.

Section 4: Nominations of fellows shail be presented to the Committee on Membership as a

form approved by the Committee. The form shall be signed by the sponsor, a fellow who has

knowledge of the nominee’s field, and shall be endorsed by at least one other fellow. An explanatory

letter from the sponsor and a bibliography of the nominee’s publications shall accompany the com-

pleted nomination form.

Section 5. Election to fellowship shall be by vote of the Board of Managers upon recom-

mendation of the Committee on Membership. Final action on nominations shall be deferred at least