Index to this volume
Jepson Field Book Transcriptions · Jepson Herbarium
Index to all books
|
51_86 Cambridge, England ates [delegates] were instructed by their government to withdraw from the Congress and return home if the Russian language were not recognized equally with French, German and English, - this in case Latin were not made the sole compulsory language for diagnoses. Naturally the Congress stuck to Latin. All the Continental botanists, nearly, were for Latin, almost solidly. A.S. Hitchcock spoke for Latin, though hitherto following the American code which does not require Latin. E.D. Merrill spoke, prefatorily, when the subject was introduced, in a remarkable frank manner, as he has a habit of doing occasionally, or even rather frequently. I am referring now to a peculiar kind of frankness, as thus he said: In college |
51_87 Aug. 20, 1930 I had no Latin. For the last fifteen years I have been writing Latin diagnoses. Doubtless, he said, his Latin was very poor but it passed. Latin was finally voted with Jan. 1932, as the date from which we start. The majority was heavy. Bacteriology caused debate. A representative of the Worlds Micro-biology Congress stated that the Congress were against Latin for bacteria. Ramsbottom, who says facetious things, intimated that systematic botany did not need to take care of such morphologically poor organisms as bacteria! The bacteria representative struck back and said that if Botany would not make some concession to Bacteriology, Bacteriology was quite prepared to go its own way. But the Congress was placating and voted to reserve this matter until 1935. |
ms. | Copyright © 2007 Regents of the University of California | Credits: |
ms.