Sebastodes are viviparous, the young being developed internally and in multitudes, to be extruded when about two or three millimeters in length. The development of the young should indicate the phylogeny of the group. If the total number of vertebræ in Sebastodes is 24, we may infer with strong plausibility that Scorpaena, with its 24 vertebræ was the ancestral type. If the number is 31 we would grant this place to Sebastes. In either case, Sebastodes is intermediate.

Through the interest of Professor Edwin C. Starks, I have secured a number of young of a species of Sebastodes from Long Beach, California. These are very recently hatched, one to two millimeters in length. Vertebræ do not appear, but the muscular impressions which will correspond to them are 27 in number.

This agrees with the number of vertebræ in the adult of all the Sebastodes recorded. This test, therefore, fails to decide the question of origin, though it may be held to show that the separation of Sebastodes from Sebastes or from Scorpæna is really very old, and in spite of the strong resemblances of the forms concerned.

I may further note that all allies of Scorpæna with 24 vertebræ have 12 spines in the dorsal fin, Sebastodes, and its relatives with 27 vertebræ have 13, and Sebastes, with 30 or 31 vertebræ, has 15 or 16 dorsal spines, the numbers of fin rays corresponding in a degree to the number of vertebral segments.

DAVID STARR JORDAN

Since the above was in type, I have obtained from the diatomaceous shales of the Puente formation (Miocene) of Orange, California (E. E. Hadley coll.), a fossil fish apparently of the Sebastodes group. This specimen has the vertebræ about 32 in number, 1020 being preserved. The head of the specimen is lost, but the fish must belong to the Sebastinæ, as no other forms unite the characters of stiff dorsal spines, anal rays III, 10, with small scales and the vertebræ more than 24. In other respects, this new genus (soon to be described and figured), seems nearest Sebastosomus Gill (S. mystinus). The

discovery of this form is again not decisive, though it indicates the possibly primitive character of the Sebastina fishes having the larger numbers of vertebræ.

DAVID STARR JORDAN

THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS

THE fourth annual meeting of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists was held at the Adolphus Hotel, Dallas, Texas, on the 13 to the 15 of March. More than two hundred petroleum geologists and a great number of visitors were present from all portions of the United States, the association being especially honored by the presence of David White, chief geologist of the U. S. Geological Survey; I. C. White, state geologist of West Virginia; Ralph Arnold, valuation expert of the Internal Revenue Department of the U. S. Treasury, and Professor Chas. Schuchert, of Yale University.

The opening meeting of the association was called to order on Thursday morning by the president, Alexander Deussen. Gilbert H. Irish, of the Dallas Chamber of Commerce, delivered an address welcoming the geologists to Dallas. Short talks were made by Dr. David White, Dr. I. C. White; Dr. J. A. Udden, state geologist of Texas; W. F. Cummins; J. A. Taff, of San Francisco, and Leo Hager, of Houston.

The first technical session was held Thursday afternoon, attention being devoted to the geology of the oil producing districts of north central Texas. John A. Udden, chief geologist of the Sinclair Oil Company, read a paper dealing with the subsurface geology of the oil-producing districts of north central Texas, and accompanied his paper by a set of well samples and slides of the formations penetrated in some of the wells of north central Texas. Chas. R. Eckes, chief geologist of the Texas Company, gave a description of cuttings from the Duffer well of the Texas Company at Ranger, and displayed a set of samples from this well. F. B. Plummer, of the Roxana Petroleum Company, gave a description of the cuttings from the Goode well of the Roxana Company, in Young County, and the Dye well in Palo Pinto County. Wallace E. Pratt, chief geologist of the Humble Oil & Refining Company, read a paper entitled "Notes on structure of surface rocks as related to subsurface structure and petroleum accumulation in north Texas." Dr. David White read a paper by G. H. Girty, on the "Bend formation and its

correlation." Dr. Girty pointed out that the lower part of the Bend Series of the Bend shale proper belonged to the Mississippian, and the upper part of the Bend, including the Marble Falls limestone and the Smithwick shale, belonged in the Pennsylvanian, with an unconformity between the Bend shale and the Marble Falls limestone.

At 8:15 in the evening a popular meeting was held in the auditorium of Municipal Building, Dr. I. C. White presiding. A large contingent of townspeople were in attendance. The session was addressed by Dr. David White, who made a plea for the accumulation of petroleum reserves in foreign countries by the American companies so that the future of the American oil industry would be assured. Dr. J. A. Udden read a paper on oilbearing formations in Texas, and Mr. M. L. Fuller, chief geologist of the Sun Company, delivered an illustrated lecture on China.

On Friday morning papers were read by Dr. J. W. Beede, of the bureau of economic geology of the University of Texas, on "Notes on the structures and oil showings in the Red Rocks of Coke County, Texas," by J. A. Udden, on "Observations on two deep borings on the Balcones Faults," and by M. L. Fuller, "On the water problems of the Bend series, and its effect on the future production and flooding of oil sands."' T. W. Gregory, of the U. S. Fuel Administration, read a paper on "Gas conservation and distribution under the U. S. Fuel Administration."

On Friday afternoon papers were read by W. L. Matteson, giving "A review of developments in the central Texas oil fields,' one by Walter R. Berger, of the Empire Gas & Fuel Company, on the "Extent and interpretation of the Hogshooter Gas Sand," a paper by Dr. Raymond B. Moore, state geologist of Kansas, on the "Correlation of the Bend."' Dr. Moore's conclusions were different from those of Dr. Girty's, the collections made by Dr. Moore, for the Roxana Petroleum Company, indicating that the lower Bend, or the Bend shale proper, belongs to the Pennsylvania instead of the Mississippian. Sidney Powers read a paper on the "Geologic work of the American Expeditionary Forces.' "" The afternoon session was concluded by a paper by Dr. Ed. Bloesch, on "Unconformities in Oklahoma."'

Friday evening a banquet was tendered the association and the oil producers by the Dallas Chamber of Commerce & Manufacturer's Association in the junior ball room of the Adolphus Hotel. The meeting was addressed by Ralph Arnold, who out

lined the policy of the federal government in the matter of valuation and taxation of oil properties. Mr. Arnold's address was followed by two minute talks by F. W. Shaw, David White, Chester Washburne, Judge Greer, attorney for the Magnolia Company, J. Edgar Pew, vice-president of the Sun Company, and others.

Saturday morning was devoted to a symposium on valuation methods, Dr. I. C. White presiding. Papers were read by Ralph Arnold on "Problems of oil lease valuation," by Carl H. Beall on "Factors in the valuation of oil lands," by Professor Roswell H. Johnson on "Decline curve methods," and by E. W. Shaw, of the U. S. Geological Survey, on “Valuation of gas properties.”

Saturday afternoon a paper was read by Mr. E. H. Sellards, of the bureau of economic geology, University of Texas, on "Structural conditions in the oil fields of Bexar County, Texas." Dr. Schuchert gave an illustrated lecture on contacts, and Professor Roswell H. Johnson presented a "Statistical investigation of the influence of structure on oil and gas production in the Osage Nations.''

The following papers were read by title: D. F. MacDonald, "Notes on the stratigraphy of Panama and Costa Rica."'

FRIDAY, APRIL 11, 1919

339

345

THE UNIFICATION OF AMERICAN

BOTANY1

A GLANCE at the history of botany in America shows that on several occasions special branches of the science have attained prominence, have separated from the parent stock and taken independent root. These offspring are now counted as separate sciences which yield little or no allegiance to the parent stock, and whose :47 devotees no longer call themselves botanists. As examples we may mention bacteriology, forestry and the group of agricultural sciences represented by agronomy and horticulture-all subjects essentially botanical, with large and active corps of workers, but belonging to botany no longer.

350

353

355

356

358

359

This dissociation is undoubtedly the natural result of the growth of botany and the development of its several fields, each of which, as it assumes a position of special importance, develops more or less of autonomy and sometimes independence. Other sciences show the same tendency, and I shall not attempt to decide whether botany shows this trend toward dissociation to an exceptional degree. The questions of immediate importance to us are: What are the causes of this dissociation? Are they still operative? What new developments may be expected? How far can the process go without serious injury to botany in general? Can the tendency be overcome in whole or in part? And if so, how? It is fitting that these questions should receive the serious consideration of all botanists at this time for the future is heavy with possibilities. The changes of reconstruction may prove to be more fundamental than those of war, and the responsibility

1 Invitation paper before Section G of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in joint session with the Botanical Society of America and the American Phytopathological Society, Baltimore, December 26, 1918.

for American botany during this period of flux rests upon the botanists themselves.

That the tendency amongst botanists toward dissociation is too strong to be disregarded is shown by an examination of the recent botanical programs of these winter meetings in comparison with those of a few years ago. Formerly all botanists met with Section G of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and with the Botanical Society of America for the reading of papers on miscellaneous botanical subjects. Now, the plant pathologists, the geneticists and the ecologists have independent societies; the physiologists and systematists have separate sections of the Botanical Society with independent programs; and still other groups of botanists are beginning to request recognition and to urge that special sessions be devoted to their subjects. The grouping of papers according to subject matter and the formation of special programs are made necessary by the rapid increase in the number of papers presented, and doubtless are desirable in every way. The formation of different sections by the Botanical Society of America, and even the launching of independent societies by various groups of botanists, are the natural results of rapidly mounting numbers and of increasing specialization.

There is no question but that the evolution of our winter programs indicates healthy growth, yet we must recognize the lurking danger, for we see here one evidence of the centrifugal tendency amongst botanists. Separate programs denote and foster a concentration of effort along special lines. They are one sign of our inclination to segregate into groups, the special subjects in which we are interested acting as the foci of attraction. This segregation, within proper limits, undoubtedly makes for efficiency, but we must take care that it does not lead to undue slackening of interest in other botanical fields than our own, to loss of perspective and to inability to grasp other points of view. If this occurs we shall have crossed the danger line, ultimate estrangement amongst botanists becomes a mere matter of time, and efficiency will give place to disunion and narrowness. Botanical science could not

then be compared with a healthy tree surrounded by vigorous offspring in the shape of subsciences; rather would it be likened to an ancient trunk denuded of many of its most important branches which have struck root for themselves and are now selfishly competing with one another and with the impoverished parent stem.

Our problem then is to preserve the unity of American botany without losing the benefits of specialization. It is the old problem of controlling and directing the vital forces which underlie growth and development that they may make for efficiency and strength rather than for disunion and weakness.

I believe there is one factor more potent than any other in promoting disunion amongst botanists. That factor is not the fundamental scientific importance of a given field of botany, nor the speed of its development. We have seen the rise to importance of one subject after another without witnessing their withdrawal from the botanical hearthstone. It is not the development of a peculiar and highly specialized technique, nor the concentration of interest in a particular group of plants. Neither is it mere number of workers in a given field, nor close affiliation with non-botanical subjects. All these factors contribute to dissociation within the ranks of botanists, but do not necessarily lead to rupture of those ranks. Perhaps not all combined are so potent in this respect as is economics. Whenever any branch of botany becomes of especial economic importance its centrifugal tendency is enormously increased. The general public is then interested and becomes instrumental in determining the course of development. There is a new and greatly enlarged staff of workers, many of whom have not received orthodox botanical training. These workers in the new field of applied botany lose the isolation of the pure scientist, and come more closely in touch with the problems of human life. New methods of thought appear and new standards of value arise. While the applied botanist is developing the ideals of service to his fellow men, he often over-emphasizes the importance of his own field, loses his catholic interest in botany in

general, and then gradually withdraws from the fellowship of pure botanists.

But the pure botanist is not without fault, for he too often matches the narrowness of the applied botanist with his own intolerance. I have seen mycologists bored to extinction while pathologists excitedly discussed the effects of a serious outbreak of late blight of potatoes, and only become interested when the discussion turned to the morphology of Phytophthora infestans. Surely no science is more closely bound up with human life than the study of plants, which furnish us food and drink, shelter and clothing, and supply so many of our other needs, physical, intellectual and esthetical. Yet botany has appeared to dread the economic taint and has seemingly endeavored to keep its skirts free from the stain of the soil in which plants grow. Certainly she has allowed the applied branches to struggle on without the full benefit of a mother's firm yet tender guidance, and too often has repaid the waywardness of the child with aloofness and neglect. Separations which have occurred already in the botanical field probably were inevitable, and perhaps were for the best interests of the subjects concerned. But there can be no doubt that further divisions would be disastrous. More than that, at this time when botany should face the future with a united front, we can not permit the forces of disunion to go unchecked and any divergences which now exist amongst us must be abated. Such divergences do exist and if neglected will increase in extent. The immediate danger point is found, I believe, in plant pathology. That pathologists have been growing apart from other botanists there can be no doubt, and I have not yet observed any extensive effort on either side to stay the process. Certain conditions surround plant pathology unlike those pertaining to any other branch of botanical science, and some of these conditions make for disunion. In briefly presenting some of these features for your consideration this afternoon I will speak of pathologists on the one hand and of botanists on the other. This distinction is merely for convenience. Pathologists are botanists still, and it is my earnest hope that they may always remain so.

Plant pathologists constitute the largest single group of botanical workers, and the only large group directly connected with the economic field. The latest printed lists of members show 384 names in the roll of the American Phytopathological Society, and 630 names in that of the Botanical Society of America. One hundred and eighty names are common to both societies, making a total of 834 names on both rolls. Of these 834 names, 384 or 46 per cent. belong to pathologists, or to botanists, largely mycologists, who are sufficiently interested in pathology to join the American Phytopathological Society. These facts are worthy of attention. Pathology is not only one division of botany, it is by far the largest division, it is a young division, it is growing very rapidly and must continue to grow rapidly in the future. As a result most pathologists are young, with the zeal and enthusiasm of youth and of expanding opportunity.

Another important fact to be noted is that pathologists constitute a remarkably homogeneous group as compared with the diversity amongst botanists. Plant diseases show almost infinite variety and the problems they present are equally varied. Yet whatever their previous training and experience, whatever the requirements of their particular problems, all pathologists speak the same language and think in the same terms. All recognize that they are working toward the same end on different phases of the great disease problem. Hence there has arisen a community of interest amongst pathologists unknown among botanists and impossible for them to develop. Pathologists are rapidly forming an esprit de corps which is an asset of the greatest value and will prove to be a powerful factor in future development.

The rapid growth of phytopathology in importance during the past few years has brought the pathologist more and more closely in touch with both producer and consumer of plant products. The world war has greatly increased his responsibilities in connection with the food supply. He has taken his place on the battle front of world action and more and more is losing the independence of the botanist as he