Pioneering Women in Plant Pathology by Scientific Societies

This book is dedicated to the many women plant pathologists whose lives have not been chronicled but have worked tirelessly in the past and continue to work today to improve our understanding of plant diseases and their management, to increase our food supply, and to make the world a better place for all humanity.

Acknowledgments This book could not have been written without the hard work, dedication, and support of numerous individuals. I am indebted to Anne Alvarez who served as APS PRESS senior editor on the project. Many thanks to Carolee Bull, USDA, Salinas, CA, and Rebecca Grube, University of New Hampshire, for reviewing each chapter after my initial review. Many thanks to the staff of APS PRESS for their work on the book. My greatest thanks go to each of the 36 authors of the 26 chapters, who withstood my numerous e-mails and prodding and took the time to document the history of the women scientists whose biographies they have shared. Special thanks to Roger Plumb, emeritus plant pathologist from Rothamsted Research, United Kingdom, who helped finish the chapter on Mary Glynne after the untimely death of the author, Geoffrey Salt. Thanks to Jean Stamps, who worked on the chapter on Grace Waterhouse after the death of Kitty Brady. Thanks to Pam Puryear for her technical editing. I thank the APS Office of Public Relations and Outreach for funding a portion of the work. I thank the late Lee Campbell for sharing photographs and stories of some of the early USDA women that stimulated my curiosity to learn more about their work. Lastly, I thank my mother, Josephine D. Beagle, who gathered information for the Effie Southworth chapter at the National Archives and who has passed her love of history, genealogy, and ancestry on to me.

Authors Pedro Amaro Instituto Superior de Agronomia Tapada da Ajuda, Lisboa Portugal carlacouto@isa.utl.pt

Carolee T. Bull USDA-ARS 1636 E. Alisal Avenue Salinas, CA 93905 cbull@pw.ars.usda.gov

J. G. Baldwin Department of Nematology University of California Riverside, CA 92521 james.baldwin@ucr.edu

David J. Chitwood Nematology Laboratory USDA-ARS Bldg. 011A, Rm. 165B, BARC-West Beltsville, MD 20705 chitwood@ba.ars.usda.gov

K. R. Barker Department of Plant Pathology North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695 krbpp@unity.ncsu.edu

José Constantino Sequeira Departamento de Protecção das Plantas Estação Agronómica Nacional Oeiras Portugal constantinosequeira@yahoo.co.uk

B. L. Brady (deceased) formerly CAB International Mycological Institute Ferry Lane Kew, Surrey United Kingdom

Lisa DeCesare Botany Libraries Harvard University Herbaria Cambridge, MA ldecesar@oeb.harvard.edu

Clive M. Brasier Forest Research Agency Farnham, Surrey GU10 4LH United Kingdom clive.brasier@forestry.gsi.gov.uk

J. D. Eisenback Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology and Weed Science Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA 24061 jon@vt.edu

John Bridge CABI UK Centre Egham, Surrey TW20 9TY United Kingdom j.bridge@cabi.org vii

viii

AUTHORS

Kurt R. Gegenhuber The American Phytopathological Society 3340 Pilot Knob Road St. Paul, MN 55121 kgegenhuber@scisoc.org Ann Yarwood Goldman Berkeley, CA Polly H. Goldman USDA-ARS 1636 E. Alisal Avenue Salinas, CA 93905 pgoldman@pw.ars.usda.gov Peter S. Gooch Rosecliff Pounds Lane Bishop Lydeard TA4 3AY United Kingdom Bryan D. Harrison Scottish Crop Research Institute Invergowrie, Dundee DD2 5DA United Kingdom bharri@scri.sari.ac.uk R. Kenneth Horst Department of Plant Pathology Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 rkH1@cornell.edu David J. Hunt CABI UK Centre Egham, Surrey TW20 9TY United Kingdom d.hunt@cabi.org Carol A. Ishimaru Department of Plant Pathology University of Minnesota St. Paul, MN 55108 Cishimar@umn.edu

James A. Kolmer USDA-ARS Cereal Disease Laboratory Department of Plant Pathology University of Minnesota St. Paul, MN 55108 jkolmer@umn.edu Jan Leach Department of Plant Pathology Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 jan.leach@colostate.edu Christina Matta Department of History of Science University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, WI 53706 cxm@plantpath.wisc.edu Robert McSorley Department of Entomology and Nematology University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611-0620 rmcs@ifas.ufl.edu Susan L. F. Meyer Nematology Laboratory USDA-ARS Bldg. 011A, Rm. 165B, BARCWest Beltsville, MD 20705 meyerf@ba.ars.usda.gov Manuel M. Mota Department of Biology University of Ă&#x2030;vora 7002-554 Evora Portugal mmota@uevora.pt

AUTHORS

Mary E. Palm Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory USDA/APHIS Rm. 329, B-011A, BARC-West Beltsville, MD 20705-2350 mary@nt.ars-grin.gov Roland N. Perry Plant Pathogen Interactions Division Rothamsted Research Harpenden, Herts AL5 2JQ United Kingdom roland.perry@bbsrc.ac.uk Paul Peterson Pee Dee Research and Education Center Clemson University 2200 Pocket Road Florence, SC 29506 Ppeters@clemson.edu Donald H. Pfister Harvard University Cambridge, MA dpfister@oeb.harvard.edu Jean Beagle Ristaino Department of Plant Pathology North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695 Jean_Ristaino@ncsu.edu Amy Y. Rossman Systematic Botany & Mycology Laboratory USDA-ARS Beltsville, MD 20705 amy@nt-grin.gov

Geoffrey A. Salt (deceased) formerly Rothamsted Research Harpenden, Herts AL5 2JQ United Kingdom D. J. Stamps formerly CAB International Mycological Institute Ferry Lane Kew, Surrey United Kingdom Jennifer Thorsch Cheadle Center for Biodiversity and Ecological Restoration Kids in Nature Program University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9615 thorsch@lifesci.ucsb.edu Sue A. Tolin Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA 24061 stolin@vt.edu Ariena H. C. van Bruggen Biological Farming Systems Wageningen University and Research Centre Marijkeweg 22 Wageningen 6709 PG The Netherlands Ariena.vanBruggen@wur.nl Jan C. Zadoks Herengracht 96-c Amsterdam 1015 BS The Netherlands jczadoks@xs4all.nl

Table of Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Early Women in the United States and at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Mary Elizabeth Banning Christina Matta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Effie A. Southworth Jean Beagle Ristaino and Paul Peterson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Flora W. Patterson Amy Y. Rossman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Vera Katherine Charles Amy Y. Rossman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Charlotte Elliott Christina Matta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Anna E. Jenkins Mary E. Palm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Edna Marie Buhrer and Grace Whitney Sherman Cobb Susan L. F. Meyer and David J. Chitwood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Women Plant Pathologists in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Mary Dilys Glynne Geoffrey A. Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Mary T. Franklin John Bridge, David J. Hunt, and Peter S. Gooch . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Audrey M. Shepherd Roland N. Perry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Marion Augusta Watson Bryan D. Harrison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Eva Sansome Clive Brasier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

xii

CONTENTS

Grace Marion Waterhouse B. L. Brady, D. J. Stamps, and Jean Beagle Ristaino . . . . . . . . 143 Johanna Westerdijk Jan C. Zadoks and Ariena H. C. van Bruggen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Mathilde BensaĂşde Manuel M. Mota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Maria de Lourdes Vieira Borges JosĂŠ Constantino Sequeira, Pedro Amaro, and Kurt R. Gegenhuber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Rosalind Franklin Sue A. Tolin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

North American University Faculty and Private Practitioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Helen Margaret Gilkey Donald H. Pfister and Lisa DeCesare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 Cynthia Westcott R. Kenneth Horst. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Katherine Esau Jennifer Thorsch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 Margaret Newton James A. Kolmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Helen Hart Kurt R. Gegenhuber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 Ruth F. Allen Polly H. Goldman, Ann Yarwood Goldman, and Carolee T. Bull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 Anne Marie Kopecky Vidaver Carol A. Ishimaru and Jan Leach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 Virginia R. Ferris Robert McSorley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 Hedwig Hirschmann Triantaphyllou J. D. Eisenback, J. G. Baldwin, and K. R. Barker. . . . . . . . . . . . 323

Introduction As we begin preparations and celebrations for the 2008 centennial year of the founding of The American Phytopathological Society (APS), we must not only ponder our future as a science but reflect on our history. I was struck as I viewed the APS Centennial Committees’ images of past presidents of APS by what is not shown in the photographic gallery. Where are the many faces of the women scientists who have worked in our science from its inception? The time is appropriate to document the many contributions of those early women scientists as pioneers in the development of the science of plant pathology. The Farlow Archives and Herbarium at Harvard University contains significant collections of letters written by prominent mycologists of the past. During sabbatical research at the archives in 1997, I uncovered a letter written by plant pathologist George P. Clinton of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station (fourth president of APS, in 1912) to William Farlow, his former advisor and pioneering mycologist, at Harvard University (Fig. 1). Clinton writes on January 12, 1909, “Dear Professor Farlow: The Baltimore meetings of the A.A.A.S. and the Bot. Soc. of Amer. were the most-interesting of any that I have attended. I was sorry that you could not be present and I heard a number of inquiries after you, so others missed you also. One thing that impressed me was that botany is getting effeminate again. Leastwise there were more than the usual numbers of women botanists present. These seemed to come chiefly from the Div. of Veg. Path. at Washington. They apparently make cultures and cut sections chiefly. It wasn’t bad when Patterson was the only one but now they have spread out into a dozen or more!” Clinton’s letter mentions Flora Patterson (see page 29), who was hired by Beverly Galloway, in 1896, as an assistant pathologist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Division of Vegetable Physiology and Pathology. Clinton’s letter indicates that a number of women scientists attended the 1909 Botanical Society of America meeting and were employed at the USDA in Washington and elsewhere at the turn of the century (Fig. 2). However, the presence of women in the inner circles of science was not yet fully accepted, as is illustrated by Clinton’s comments. It is noteworthy that many women were present at the founding meeting of The American Phytopathological Society as described in Clinton’s letter from the 1909 Botanical Society of America meeting in Baltimore. 1

INTRODUCTION

Effie Southworth (see page 19) holds the distinction of being the first woman researcher hired at the USDA. The USDA had employed women prior to Southworthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s arrival but only in technical positions, primarily to mount specimens. It was not unusual for women to take an interest in botany during the nineteenth century (Fig. 3). Some drew and painted beautiful illustrations of plant, fungal, and animal species. Mycologists, such as Mary Banning (see page 11), who studied and illustrated mushrooms in the field, often worked in isolation and were viewed as eccentric (Fig. 4). Much of their work remains unpublished. Women pursued botanical collecting and filled college classrooms, although these interests rarely translated into a career in science. Many of these women were hobbyists and not paid professionally for their work. This situation began to change during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Certainly Erwin F. Smith was a progressive individual and provided opportunities for women to pursue science in his laboratory at the USDA (Figs. 5 and 6). In fact, it was Smith, who was a classmate of

Figure 1. Letter written by George P. Clinton to William G. Farlow, January 12, 1909. (Reproduced with permission of the Archives of the Farlow Reference Library of Cryptogamic Botany, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.)

INTRODUCTION

Southworth’s in Michigan, who provided a reference for Southworth to Galloway at the USDA. Women had to provide substantial written references and “convince” their mentors of their worthiness for entrance into a graduate program (see page 47). Patterson, after being widowed, pursued a degree later in life and moved her family across the country, only to be turned away from the botany program at Yale University, where she had expected to conduct research. However, not deterred, the doors of Radcliffe College were opened to her, where she completed a mycology degree. We can thank Patterson’s pathogen diagnostic work for the beautiful Japanese cherry trees that now adorn the nation’s Mall in Washington, DC. The first section of the book discusses these early women scientists at the USDA. Some made the transition from teaching in women’s colleges to government research laboratories, since married women were forbidden from teaching at some of the women’s colleges and sought employment elsewhere during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Figure 2. Agnes Quirk worked in the laboratory of E. F. Smith in 1903 at the Division of Vegetable Pathology, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. (Courtesy National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC)

INTRODUCTION

Figure 3. Botany classroom at Iowa State University. (Courtesy Iowa State University Library, University Archives)

Figure 4. An illustration of Lactarius indigo drawn by Maryland mycologist Mary Banning in her The Fungi of Maryland. (Courtesy New York State Museum)

INTRODUCTION

Figure 5. Laboratory of Plant Agriculture, January 1905. Florence Hedges, and Alice (Courtesy National Archives Washington, DC)

Pathology, U.S. Department of Dean Swingle, Agnes Quirk, Haskins working in the lab. and Records Administration,

Figure 6. Women scientists working in the laboratory of Erwin F. Smith in 1921. From left to right: Standing: Charlotte Elliott, Hellie A. Brown, Edith Cash, Mary Katherine Bryan, Anna Jenkins, and Lucia McCulloch. Seated: Florence Hedges, Pearle Smith, and Angie Beckwith. (Courtesy National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC)

INTRODUCTION

In the second part of the book, we take a look at the women who conducted research at major research institutions in Europe. The Rothamsted Research Center in Harpendum, England, hired many women pathologists who worked on a variety of fungal, viral, and nematode disease problems. A core group of women worked at the Rothamsted Experimental Station, and the camaraderie certainly fostered excellence in science. Some women, such as Mary Glynne (see page 87), played important roles during World War II in Britain’s effort to feed its population by monitoring cereal crop disease losses in the country. Other British scientists, such as Eva Sansome (see page 129), were sent to the United States for safe haven during the war. At Cold Springs Harbor, Sansome worked on a top-secret U.S. effort to improve penicillin production. Her seminal work, the discovery of diploidy in the class Oomycetes, was done later as she traversed the globe with her husband to Africa and juggled teaching, researching, and raising a family. The idea that oomycetes were diploid was controversial and not readily accepted. However, she relentlessly pursued the work and had a different mind’s view from her training as a plant cytogeneticist. Sansome, a diminutive woman, towered above many and inspired other greats in her field, including the oomycetes mycologist Grace Waterhouse (see page 143). There is much more beneath the words in the stories of the research careers of these women scientists. Waterhouse and D. J. Stamps reminisce about the work they did on the Review of Applied Mycology at Kew while huddled beneath blankets and their desks piled high with books. Often, the laboratory facilities were less than adequate, yet these women continued their work. Johanna Westerdijk (see page 155) single handedly developed and funded her laboratory and went on to make significant contributions to the mycological collections in the Netherlands and to research on Dutch elm disease. Rosalind Franklin’s (see page 189) X-ray equipment at Birkbeck College was housed in the basement in a former kitchen with a leaky ceiling. Franklin would have been the only woman on the program for the 50th anniversary celebration of APS if inadequate knowledge of the risks from X-ray exposure had not led to the premature death of this great scientist from ovarian cancer. In the third section of the book, we examine the lives of women plant pathologists in the faculty at North American universities or in private practice. Helen Margaret Gilkey (see page 213), the first woman to receive a Ph.D. degree in botany from the University of California-Berkeley, worked relentlessly with limited resources to build the mycological herbarium at Oregon State University. She was a noted botanical illustrator and a prolific book writer. Cynthia Westcott (see page 227) created her own position, when an academic position was not an option, and became a leading plant disease practitioner. Her timeless Plant Disease Handbook still takes a prominent place on many bookshelves. Katherine Esau (see page 239), a noted plant taxonomist and virologist, also conducted pioneering work on plant virus movement. A notable accolade included the President’s National Medal of

INTRODUCTION

Science for her work on plant development. Margaret Newton (see page 251) and Helen Hart (see page 259) worked on important cereal pathogens and enhanced our understanding of host–parasite interactions of cereal diseases. Hart crossed the glass ceiling and rose to become the first woman elected president of APS. Hart used a strategy that was illustrative of what women’s historian Margaret Rossiter calls “a strategy of over qualification and personal stoicism” and was typical of the new generation of American women scientists who were utterly self sacrificing for their science. Dedication, loyalty, and silence were important character traits these women developed. The biographies are illustrative of the culture of science for women during the latter part of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in Europe and the United States. As the pages unfold, you will see similar themes emerge and learn the strategies that worked for their success as women scientists. The pioneering breakthroughs in plant pathology conducted by the many women in this book are truly amazing and will no doubt change your perspective of our science. As we mentor and educate the next generation of scientists during the twenty-first century, I hope you will teach your students the full history of our science and broaden their minds with the works from this volume. Jean Beagle Ristaino

Early Women in the United States and at the U.S. Department of Agriculture

Mary Elizabeth Banning (1822–1903) The Forgotten Mycologist Christina Matta

Mary Elizabeth Banning amassed the most comprehensive pictorial record of Maryland fungi of the late nineteenth century. She published a smattering of essays and short communications about her findings in periodicals such as Botanical Gazette, Field and Forest, and The Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. Her manuscript, The Fungi of Maryland, was her crowning achievement. The text and its accompanying 175 watercolor illustrations represent almost 20 years of dedicated collecting and study and include 23 species of fungi theretofore unknown to botanists. Largely disenfranchised from the mycological community at large, her work equaled that of academic scientists. She maintained 20 years of mycological correspondence with botanist Charles Peck at the New York State Museum and donated her manuscript to the museum in 1890. This mycologist/naturalist/ artist represents the epitome of the “botanizing” nineteenth-century woman in science. Historians of science have made much of botany in the nineteenth century as a pursuit that was especially appealing and well suited to women. Collecting, examining, and drawing plants (occasionally referred to collectively as “botanizing”) allowed women the chance to study the natural world despite remaining firmly within the domestic sphere, thus balancing the acquisition of botanical knowledge with a more sentimental, romantic understanding of nature. Largely barred from professional science and from most scientific societies, many of these women carved their niches in nature study and science education, conservation, and natural illustration. In many respects, the life and science of Mary Elizabeth Banning epitomizes this dual nature of the nineteenth-century woman naturalist: disenfranchised from recognized scientific communities, yet so dedicated in her pursuits as to develop an expertise to rival that of academic scientists (Fig. 1). 11

UNITED STATES AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Banning devoted her life to studying the fungi of Maryland, where she was born in 1822 to a prominent family as the youngest of nine children (seven of which were her father’s children from a previous marriage). Little is known about her youth and her education, but her parents provided her with the best possible schooling available in Talbot County, in which her family lived. Her father shared her appreciation for nature, and Banning later noted that her “admiration” for “toad stools” began in her early childhood under his tutelage. She began to pursue her attraction to fungi more fully only in the 1860s, however, possibly as a release from nursing her ailing mother and sister following their move to Baltimore some time after her father’s death. Her study served a second purpose as well—Banning was simultaneously deeply religious and interested in children’s education, and she re-

Figure 1. Mary Elizabeth Banning. (Reproduced with permission of the New York State Museum)

BANNING

garded collecting and painting fungi as a means of developing children’s minds as well as their character. As she wrote in 1889, “[M]y first idea of drawing and painting the Fungi of Maryland had for its object educational training in a mission school . . . what more common objects to the poor boy and girl who roam through the forests and over meadows, coming into contact with what they are taught to dread and to name ‘Toad stools?’ . . . [T]he study of Natural Science in any of its departments has a refining influence – that when used in its truest highest sense it is the Divinely appointed means of teaching faith as well as cultivating the minds and morals” (Banning’s The Fungi of Maryland). Here, Banning appears as the quintessential American woman-as-naturalist, imparting natural knowledge to younger generations and nurturing an appreciation of nature—all while retaining the traditional role of women’s domesticity. Banning’s own faith and character benefited greatly from the time she spent engaged directly with nature as well. The words in which she described her mycological excursions reflect a nineteenth-century entwining of scientific diligence with sentimental appreciation for the natural world, and the delight Banning took in her research is likewise evident in her work. She wrote, “As each day brings its pleasant little episodes, so does each collecting trip, and as time rolls on they have become bright spots which my memory loves to refer to” (7). Her travels introduced her to a wealth of new species of fungi and also to a cadre of new friends with whom she explored the Maryland countryside, resided during her brief trips away from Baltimore, and shared her joy in even the most odious fungi. In the process, Banning amassed the most comprehensive pictorial record of Maryland fungi of the late nineteenth century. She published a smattering of essays and short communications about her findings in periodicals such as Botanical Gazette, Field and Forest, and The Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club (2–6; Banning’s The Fungi of Maryland). Banning’s writings combined an emphasis on descriptive morphology of nineteenth-century natural history with the breadth of her own knowledge and skill as a naturalist. Her description of Corynites ravenelii, for example, included a discussion of its taxonomic relationships, its coloration, and its structure, along with the observation that “the spores [of C. ravenelii] are in liquid and therefore cannot be carried through the air by the wind” (4). From this, along with C. ravenelii’s rather pungent odor, she hypothesized that there may be a subgroup of fungi whose spores could only be disseminated by insects. Her essays were full of such “scientific” observations, yet she also often shared tales of encounters from her collecting trips. In 1881, she described with amusement two young boys who, having heard of her undertaking and eager to please, appeared at her hotel with a bucket of fungi and asked to see “that frog-stool lady that stays here” (5). That Banning saw fit to include this tale in its entirety in Botanical Gazette illustrates both her appreciation of fungi and her eagerness to share her field anecdotes with other naturalists.

UNITED STATES AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Even so, Banning often found herself the object of disbelief and incredulity on the part of other local residents who wondered what she might want with “toad stools”. While on an excursion in 1879, Banning stopped to inquire of a local man if he had seen any fungi in the area in which he had been working. The man responded with incredulity, asking, “What does anybody want with them pison [sic] things? You’ll pison yourself to death.” When she encountered the same man some days later, he was no more sympathetic to her efforts and informed her, “Better leave frog stools alone! That’s my advice to everybody.” Banning confessed rather sadly that, upon their departure, her companion heard the man mutter, “Poor thing, crazy, certain sure. Clean gone mad!” (3). She found this statement and similar expressions irritating only as far as they impeded her work, but she refused to succumb to such derision, declaring of such naysayers, “How I pity their ignorance!” (1). Banning’s inability to find an audience among botanists at large to return her enthusiasm exacerbated these irritations. Indeed, for all her travels throughout Maryland and her understanding of botanical terminology, she remained isolated from professional science and other mycologists. She felt this isolation very strongly and voiced her frustration in her private correspondence.

Figure 2. Agaricus fascicularis Huds. in Banning’s The Fungi of Maryland. (Courtesy New York State Museum)

BANNING

She wrote to Charles H. Peck in 1879, “You are my only friend in the debatable land of fungi and your kind instruction is valued above all measure by this enthusiastic worshipper” (7). Peck, then a botanist at the New York State Museum in Albany (and later a state botanist), proved to be Banning’s mainstay for mycological guidance and scientific companionship. He responded to her personal stories and scientific queries with letters full of Latin nomenclature, taxonomical clarifications, and descriptions of fungal morphology. (Peck was also a mentor and correspondent for at least one other woman botanist— Lucy Bishop Millington, a New York State native who, like Banning, sought his assistance with curious species and taxonomic difficulties.) Banning and Peck exchanged letters for more than 2 decades and, out of gratitude for his continued attention and support, Banning presented her manuscript, The Fungi of Maryland, to the New York State Museum in 1890 (Figs. 2 and 3).

Figure 3. Agaricus muscarius Linn. in Banning’s The Fungi of Maryland. (Courtesy New York State Museum)

UNITED STATES AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

This manuscript was Banning’s crowning achievement. The text and its accompanying 175 watercolor illustrations represent almost 20 years of dedicated collecting and study and include 23 species of fungi theretofore unknown to botanists. She wrote both warmly and protectively of her work; although she was well aware that her manuscript was too large to be published without incurring significant expense, she regarded it as “a beloved friend with whom I have spent many pleasant hours” and expressed her hope that her labor would prove to be of use to other mycologists (1). In the letter to Peck that accompanied the volume, she wrote, “In my heart [the manuscript] is the most treasured volume I possess. It is this which prompts me to place it in a scientific institution where it will be preserved. It is the work of nearly twenty years, begun under the greatest of difficulties, but pursued with the most untiring zeal” (1). Banning’s health began to fail in the early 1890s and deteriorated further after 1896. She died in Winchester, Virginia, in 1903, and in accordance with her wishes, her body was transported back to Baltimore and interred with her sister. No obituary appeared in the Baltimore papers. Her triumphant manuscript remains at the New York State Museum, and Banning herself is still virtually without notice in the history of American mycology, aside from an orange-red fungus named Hypomyces banningii in her honor. Yet, although Banning and so many other women who engaged with the natural world fulfilled their interest outside of professional science, their influence in creating botanical knowledge is undeniable. As Vera Norwood has noted in her study of American women and nature, “the lessons [women] learned from closely observing America’s plants and animals validated their domestic round while opening the public sphere to their influence. Nineteenth-century women made their first contributions in natural history not with a paper given before a professional society but in the nature essay and the nature drawing” (8). Mary Banning’s devotion to and tireless pursuit of her science, so representative of women naturalists in the nineteenth century, are a striking reminder that science does not always flourish through widespread acclaim or fame, but by diligence, persistence, and above all, a singular passion for the natural world. Acknowledgment

The author thanks John H. Haines of the New York State Museum for generously sharing biographical and unpublished materials about Banning and for his expert advice and guidance. Literature Cited

1. Anonymous. The biography of Mary E. Banning. Reprinted 1989 in: Mary Banning: The woman who painted mushrooms. J. H. Haines. Md. Naturalist 33:43-56.

BANNING

2. Banning, M. E. 1877. Notes on the fungi of Maryland. Field For. 3:42-47, 59-63. 3. Banning, M. E. 1880. Notes on fungi. Bot. Gaz. 5:5-10. 4. Banning, M. E. 1881. Maryland fungi. I. Bot. Gaz. 6:200-202. 5. Banning, M. E. 1881. Maryland fungi. II. Bot. Gaz. 6:210-215. 6. Banning, M. E. 1882. The Tuckahoe. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 9(10):125-126. 7. Haines, J. H. 1995. Mushrooms to cultivate minds and morals: The works of Mary Banning. McIlvainea 12:54-62. 8. Norwood, V. 1993. Made from this Earth: American Women and Nature. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.

Effie A. Southworth (1860–1947) First Woman Plant Pathologist Hired at the United States Department of Agriculture Jean Beagle Ristaino and Paul Peterson

Effie A. Southworth holds the distinction of being the first woman researcher hired at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). She graduated from the University of Michigan in 1887, taught botany for 2 years at a women’s college, Bryn Mawr, and was then hired at the USDA’s Bureau of Plant Industry in Washington, DC, on the recommendation of E. F. Smith. She worked as an assistant mycologist for 6 years and was heavily involved in the diagnosis and recommendation of plant disease control strategies for a diverse range of crops. She is most noted for her work on cotton anthracnose and described the pathogen Colletotrichum gossypii. Effie Southworth (Fig. 1) was born in North Collins, New York, in 1860. She studied Latin, German, French, mathematics, English, physics, and zoology at Allegheny College for 1 year prior to transferring to the University of Michigan. She continued studies at the University of Michigan in French, English, and German and also took classes in chemistry, astronomy, physics, geology, botany, physiology, history, and watercolor drawing. She earned her bachelor of science degree in 1885 and then accepted a 2-year appointment as a fellow in biology and an instructor in botany at Bryn Mawr College (12). Bryn Mawr, a women’s college in Pennsylvania, had just been established in 1885, when Southworth joined the faculty. Women’s colleges were among the first to hire women on their faculty and these colleges were instrumental in training the first generation of women scientists in the United States (9). The description of her work by a mentor at Bryn Mawr College stated, “Miss Southworth began work in the Botanical laboratory about the beginning of the second semester. She took as a subject for special work, the mechanical system of plants, especially as exhibited in monocotyledons. She worked on the anatomical structure of certain plants, Alocasia, Banana, Palm, etc. This work was interrupted by news of a position in 19

UNITED STATES AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Washington and by the sending from there of specimens for her to work out, as evidence of her ability both as to theory and technique. She worked out partially, the development of one fungus, Asteroma, and made various drawings for publications. This with some miscellaneous work in classifying and collecting Phanerogerms, completed the work done” (letter courtesy of the Bryn Mawr College Archives). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had employed women prior to Southworth’s arrival but only in technical positions, primarily to prepare specimens. It was not unusual for women to take an interest in botany during the nineteenth century, but most were not paid professionally for their work. This situation began to change in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (8–10). Southworth was part of the changing milieu. She moved to Washington, DC, in 1887 when she was hired, on the recommendation of Erwin F. Smith, a fellow classmate in Michigan, as an assistant mycologist for the newly created Section of Mycology in the USDA (11). Her résumé contained a long list of former professors who offered letters of credentials for her work. In 1887, the Section of Vegetable Pathology and the Section of Mycology occupied the third floor of the old administration building in Washington, DC, and the staff consisted of Southworth, Beverly T. Galloway, and Smith (3). Smith was hired first, followed by Southworth and Galloway (3). Galloway wrote “Miss Southworth was appointed assistant on the first of November last. This is I believe the first time in the his-

Figure 1. Effie A. (Southworth) Spaulding, 1920s. (Courtesy University Archives, University of Southern California, Los Angeles)

SOUTHWORTH

tory of the department that a woman has been appointed to such a position” (Galloway to Spaulding, November 10, 1888; letter courtesy of the National Archives). Later, in 1888, David Fairchild was added to the staff, Galloway was promoted to section chief and Southworth was also promoted (Fig. 2). Southworth, Smith, and Fairchild focused on the etiology and control of fungal diseases during this time period. Southworth was an expert microscopist, and at the USDA, she studied fungal pathogens (13,19). A search of the U.S. National Fungus Collections database indicates that at least 69 fungal specimens and four additional specimens of the oomycete pathogen Phytophthora infestans (Fig. 3) are still preserved that were collected, identified, and deposited by Southworth into the USDA’s developing herbarium. Southworth’s work included, in many cases, collecting trips to the field, as indicated by the late blight specimen collected in Smith Mills, New York, in September 1891. Southworth

Figure 2. Title page from the Journal of Mycology, September 10, 1890, volume 6.

Figure 3. Specimen label from a potato sample infected with Phytophthora infestans, collected by Southworth in Smith Mills, New York, September 15, 1891. (Courtesy U.S. National Fungus Collections, USDA, Beltsville, MD)

UNITED STATES AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

conducted extensive work on the diagnosis of an array of plant diseases and corresponded with hundreds of growers. Her letters of correspondence are housed in the National Archives for the USDA. Section Chief Galloway was frequently traveling and in his absence Southworth often signed her letters “Assistant in Charge” (Fig. 4). Over several years, as assistant mycologist, Southworth prepared numerous mycological publications on fungi that caused diseases of economically important plants, including ripe rot of grape and apples and anthracnose of hollyhock (14,16–18). She also published with Galloway on the chemical treatment of apple scab and on the etiology of a destructive oat disease (5,6). Perhaps her most significant contribution was an 1890 Journal of Mycology article on anthracnose of cotton (15). She is credited with describing, for the first time, Colletotrichum gossypii, the pathogen that causes anthracnose of cotton. Southworth sent several specimens to other mycologists, including J. B. Ellis and M. C. Cooke, for verification. They believed the pathogen was Gloeosporium carpigenum. The fungus was widely distributed in Ellis’s exsiccati of North American Fungi under this name. Southworth obtained the type specimen of G. carpigenum from H. W. Harkness in San Francisco and determined that the cotton anthracnose was not a Gloeosporium species but a Colletotrichum species, based on the presence of setae (Fig. 5). “There seems to be no record of any species name ever having

Figure 4. While at the USDA Division of Vegetable Pathology, a signature of Southworth as “Assistant in Charge” on a letter written to a grower regarding the diagnosis of a grape disease, ca. 1890s. (Courtesy National Archives)

SOUTHWORTH

been given it and I will call it Colletotrichum gossypii.â&#x20AC;? She described the external symptoms of the disease on cotton bolls and also tried to grow the pathogen in culture. Southworth inoculated bolls and reproduced the symptoms of the disease. She recommended measures of control, including sanitation and chemical treatments with Bordeaux mixture, to growers in Louisiana and Alabama (15). Southworth noted in her paper of 1890 that G. Atkinson of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute in Auburn had also been investigating anthracnose of cotton (15). Southworth began working on the disease in the summer of 1888 when growers from Louisiana and Alabama sent her diseased plant

Figure 5. Plate IV from Southworthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s article on anthracnose of cotton, caused by Colletotrichum gossypii, published in 1890 in the Journal of Mycology. (Reprinted from Southworth [15])

UNITED STATES AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

specimens. Southworth said, “Since this article was prepared, Professor Atkinson read a paper on the same subject before the Association of American Agricultural Experiment Stations (AAES) at Champaign, IL. The work in both cases was entirely independent, except where I have cited Professor Atkinson’s authority in regard to the parts of the host attacked” (15). Southworth’s work focused on boll infections and morphological descriptions of the fungus, while Atkinson examined the field symptoms of the disease beginning in 1890 (Fig. 6). Atkinson sent Southworth a letter on November 7, 1890, prior to his departure to the AAES meeting in Illinois, where he intended to speak on cotton anthracnose. In the letter, he stated, “as you are preparing an article for the J. of Mycology, you would not care to duplicate the subject by publishing also one from me. But I have made extensive

Figure 6. Symptoms of anthracnose on cotton bolls from Atkinson’s article in the Journal of Mycology. (Reprinted from Atkinson [1])

SOUTHWORTH

field descriptions and watched and studied the disease for several months and I have I think a fine series of drawings showing its development and structure. I think they ought to be published somewhere in a complete form together with my observations. So I will find another means of publication, but would I chance to go to press before your published description appears, I will use your name of Colletotrichum gossypii, Mon. n.sp, giving yourself authority for the species.” They exchanged letters over the next several months in which they discussed the disease, including spore morphology and their observations on setae (Fig. 5). Southworth’s paper on cotton anthracnose appeared in the Journal of Mycology before Atkinson’s paper (1,15). Atkinson stated in the last paragraph of his paper, “The Colletotrichum on cotton seems to have been hitherto an undescribed species. Since completing this work thus far I found that Miss E. A. Southworth had been giving the fungus some study, having had specimens of it on cotton bolls. She has proposed the name Colletotrichum gossypii, n. sp., which is eminently appropriate” (1). In 1892, after only 6 years, Southworth left the USDA. It is unclear why she chose to leave her position at the USDA. Southworth moved to New York and became an assistant in botany at Barnard College, where she worked until 1895. Columbia University in New York had established Barnard in 1889 as the coordinate institution for women (9). Barnard hired many talented women scientists to be on its faculty (9). However, married women were not permitted to retain their faculty positions at Barnard (9). This may explain why Southworth left her position in 1895. She married Volney Spaulding in 1896, head of the Botany Department at the University of Michigan and a leading botanical educator, and spent the next 9 years in Michigan working as Spaulding’s assistant (2). Southworth worked at the Desert Botanical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institute of Washington in Tucson, Arizona, from 1905 to 1911 with Spaulding (4,21). Her research reports in the Carnegie Institute yearbooks between 1905 and 1911 indicate that at this point in her career she had shifted directions from the etiology of fungal diseases to the physiology of the desert Saguaro cacti (Cereus giganteus) (4). Her association with Spaulding led to research trips to the Santa Cruz Valley in Arizona to study desert plants in their native habitats. Southworth’s work at the Desert Botanical Laboratory for the Carnegie Institute demonstrated that the size and shape of the giant cactus were controlled not only by water content but also by temperature and illumination. She made detailed measurements of changes in growth and form as impacted by various environmental factors (4). Spaulding retired in 1909 because of ill health and spent the remaining years of his life in a tuberculosis sanatorium in Loma Linda, California (20) (Fig. 7). In fact, their move to the drier climates of Arizona and California was prompted when Spaulding contracted tuberculosis (21). Southworth joined the botany faculty of the University of Southern California after Spaulding’s death in 1918. In 1922, she completed a master of science degree in botany at the age of 62. Her thesis was entitled “Form alterations

UNITED STATES AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Figure 7. Effie Southworth Spaulding (right) with her husband Volney Spaulding and an unidentified individual (left) in Loma Linda, California, ca. 1909. (Courtesy National Archives)

and growth in cactiâ&#x20AC;? (information courtesy of the University Archives, University of Southern California, Los Angeles). She is listed in the faculty catalogs as a professor at the University of Southern California and was named honorary curator of the herbarium in 1938. Her last entries into the herbarium records appeared in 1946 and early 1947, when Southworth was 87 years old! She remained dedicated to her duties at the herbarium until her death in April 1947 in Los Angeles, California, at the age of 87 (7). Given the dearth of women who reached positions of prominence in the earliest years of plant pathology in the United States, Effie Southworthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s important, although brief, tenure as a mycologist at the USDA stands out as a monumental achievement for a woman during the formative years of plant pathology in the United States. Acknowledgments Special thanks to Amy Rossman and David Farr, USDA, ARS, National Fungus Collections, Beltsville, MD; Josephine Beagle, genealogist, Silver Spring, MD; Alan Whittemore, U.S. National Arboretum; Don Pfister and Lisa DeCesare, Farlow Archives and Herbarium, Harvard University; and Gregory Parra, Clay Griffith, and the late Lee Campbell, North Carolina State University, for providing archival and bibliographical information for this chapter.

SOUTHWORTH

Literature Cited 1. Atkinson, G. F. 1891. Anthracnose of cotton. J. Mycol. 6:173-177. 2. Barnhardt, J. H. 1965. Biographical Notes upon Botanists, 1903-1941. New York Botanical Garden, G. K. Hall and Co., Boston. 3. Campbell, C. L., Peterson, P. D., and Griffith, C. S. 1999. The Formative Years of Plant Pathology in the United States. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MN. 4. Carnegie Institute of Washington. 1905–1911. Yearbooks no. 4–11. The Institute, Washington, DC. 5. Galloway, B. T., and Southworth, E. A. 1889. Treatment of apple scab. J. Mycol. 5:210-214. 6. Galloway, B. T., and Southworth, E. A. 1890. Preliminary notes, a new and destructive oat disease. J. Mycol. 6:72-74. 7. Los Angeles Times. 1947. Obituary for E. A. Spaulding. Los Angeles Times, Tuesday, April 11. 8. Rodgers, D. P. 1981. A Brief History of Mycology in North America. Mycological Society of America, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 9. Rossiter, M. 1982. Women Scientists in America. Struggles and Strategies to 1940. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 10. Rudolph, E. D. 1982. Women in 19th century American botany; a generally unrecognized constituency. Am. J. Bot. 69:1346-1355. 11. Smith, E. F. 1929. Fifty years of pathology. Proc. Int. Congr. Plant Sci. 1:13-46. 12. Southworth, E. 1887. Notes and news. Bot. Gaz. 12:171. 13. Southworth, E. A. 1889. Gloeosporium nervisequum (Fckl.) Sacc. J. Mycol. 5:51-52. 14. Southworth, E. A. 1890. A new hollyhock disease. J. Mycol. 6:45-50. 15. Southworth, E. A. 1890. Anthracnose of cotton. J. Mycol. 6:100-105. 16. Southworth, E. A. 1890. Additional observations on anthracnose of hollyhock. J. Mycol. 6:115. 17. Southworth, E. A. 1890. A new hollyhock disease (Colletotrichum althaeae). Am. Nat. 24:286. 18. Southworth. E. A. 1891. Ripe rot of grapes and apples. J. Mycol. 6:164172. 19. Southworth, E. A. 1891. Notes on some curious fungi. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 18:303-304. 20. Stafleu, F. A., and Cowan, R. S. 1976, 1979, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988. Taxonomic Literature: A Selective Guide to Botanical Publications and Collections with Dates, Commentaries and Types, 2nd ed., vols. 1–7. Regnum Vegetabile, vols. 94, 98, 105, 110, 112, 115, 116. Bohn, Scheltema and Holkema, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 21. University of Michigan. 1919. Obituary of Volney Morgan Spaulding. Mich. Alumnus 26:20-21.

Flora W. Patterson1 (1847â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1928) First Woman Mycologist at the United States Department of Agriculture Amy Y. Rossman

Flora Patterson started service in the government late in life at the age of 48. Starting in 1896, Patterson worked at the Bureau of Plant Industry in Washington, DC, for 27 years. She began her scientific career out of necessity after her husband became disabled and eventually died, leaving her with two young children in a time without a government safety net. Her legacy encompasses systematics research on plant-pathogenic fungi; inspection of agricultural commodities, including the famous Japanese cherry trees on the Mall in Washington, DC; and most significantly, recognition of the need to build a reference collection of fungi and the addition of more than 90,000 specimens to the U.S. National Fungus Collections (6). Flora Wambaugh Patterson was born in 1847 in Columbus, Ohio, where her father was a Methodist minister. She became interested in fungi as a hobby while still a young girl (17). She studied at Antioch College, earning an A.B. degree in 1865, and later, in 1883, she received an A.M. degree from Wesleyan College, Cincinnati, Ohio. In August 1869, she married Captain Edwin Patterson, and they had two sons. A few years later, her husband was injured in a steamboat explosion that left him helpless and the family without a breadwinner. She cared for her husband and their children for the next 10 years until her husband died. After her husbandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s death, Patterson then took up the study of biology at the State University of Iowa, where her brother was a professor. In 1893, she packed her familyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s belongings, moved east, and placed her sons in a college preparation school while planning to continue her own studies at Yale University. 1

This chapter is in the public domain and not copyrightable. It may be freely reprinted with customary crediting of the source. The American Phytopathological Society, 2008. 29

UNITED STATES AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

“Thinking all conditions for pursuing work at Yale had been arranged, she went there only to find the doors closed against her, women not being eligible at that time. In spite of the keen disappointment and inconvenience, she persisted in her desire to continue botanical investigations, and, going to Cambridge, registered for work at Radcliffe College” (6). Fortunately for Patterson, the doors were open for her and other women scholars at Radcliffe College. Patterson took courses in botany at Radcliffe for the next 3 years while working in the Gray Herbarium at Harvard University. She received training in mycology, plant pathology, and care of the fungal collections at the Gray Herbarium, one of the foremost botanical repositories of the day. Patterson took the Civil Service examination in 1895 and was appointed assistant pathologist in the Division of Vegetable Physiology and Pathology of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in Washington, DC (Fig. 1). Recognizing the importance of the burgeoning USDA fungal collections, Beverly T. Galloway hired both Franklin Sumner Earle and Patterson to assist with the herbarium work. Earle lasted only 1 year, leaving for Alabama and eventually to the newly established New York Botanical Garden. In contrast, Patterson stayed at the USDA almost 3 decades. When the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) was formally established, Galloway became chief and, soon thereafter, he appointed Patterson as mycologist in charge of mycological and pathological collections, a title that she held until her retirement in 1923 (Fig. 2). A letter written in 1909 by George P. Clinton to his former Harvard advisor William Farlow was found in the Farlow Archives and Herbarium at Harvard University and is referenced in the introduction to this book by J. Ristaino. The letter mentions Patterson as one of the women plant pathologists who worked at the turn of the century at the USDA’s Division of Vegetable Pathology. The letter epitomizes the climate experienced by women scientists in the United States at this point in time. Clinton, however, knew of Patterson’s capabilities and credentials and stated “it was not bad when Patterson was the only one but now they have spread out into a dozen or more!” The U.S. National Fungus Collections (BPI) One of Patterson’s many accomplishments from which mycologists and plant pathologists still benefit is her contribution to the development of the U.S. National Fungus Collections. In the course of her inspection work and discovery of many unusual fungi, Patterson saw the critical need for a reference collection of fungi. Initially, the USDA collections of plants and fungi were combined with those of the Smithsonian Institution. They were housed in the “famous old red building on the Mall which sheltered all of the activities of the Department of Agriculture in Washington for many years after its erection in 1867” (15) (Fig. 2). In 1893, the plant collections were

PATTERSON

Figure 1. This brief article and photograph of Patterson appeared in the Washington Star on December 9, 1917.

UNITED STATES AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

returned to the Smithsonian. The fungal collections of the Smithsonian remained with the USDA to form the combined USDA–Smithsonian collections of fungi. Patterson and her successors expended considerable effort building what is today the largest collection of fungal reference specimens in the world, the U.S. National Fungus Collections, now located in Beltsville, Maryland. She succeeded in increasing the number of reference specimens in the U.S. National Fungus Collections from 19,000 to 115,000 during her time with the USDA (4). In 1896, Patterson took over as the major contributor and keeper of the USDA–Smithsonian fungal collections. She followed her two famous predecessors, F. Lamson Scribner, the first federal government plant pathologist who went on to become chief of the Division of Vegetable Pathology, and Galloway, later chief of BPI (5). In the years just prior to Patterson’s arrival, Galloway bemoaned the loss of mycologists to the “new field of plant pathology.” “The glamour of field service in phytopathology . . . was irresistible so that our collections and herbaria were beginning to languish and our mycological technique becoming rusty from [lack of] use. . . . It was the conviction of my colleagues of the period that our only hope was to find a good man, rich in experience and so wedded to mycology and its attendant interests that nothing could swerve him from the then recognized beaten path” (7).

Figure 2. Staff of the Bureau of Plant Industry in front the USDA building, ca. 1900s. Flora Wambaugh Patterson is seated in the front row on the left. Beverly Galloway is standing to the right of the stairs. He was the section chief and hired Patterson. (Courtesy National Archives)

PATTERSON

Fortunately for mycology, that “good man” was a woman, Patterson. Patterson assembled a staff, organized programs, and emphasized the systematics of plant-pathogenic fungi, especially those of plant quarantine significance, a priority that continues to this day (9). John Stevenson, director of the U.S. National Fungus Collections from 1927 to 1960, wrote that Patterson had “for 28 years devoted herself unceasingly to the upbuilding of the collections” (15). In addition to receiving, collecting, and identifying many fungal specimens associated with imported agricultural commodities, she actively sought out specimens from other scientists as a means of documenting new records of fungi. Writing to H. B. Humphrey, USDA plant pathologist working on cereal diseases, she thanked him for his rust specimens collected in the western United States and concluded that “It would be extremely gratifying if all of the pathologists of the Bureau would be so thoughtful in depositing material here” (Patterson to Humphrey, February 1, 1922; letter courtesy of the U.S. National Fungus Collections General Correspondence P-Q through 1959). Documenting research with voucher specimens is still often overlooked today by plant pathologists (1). Patterson communicated with scientists all over the world, seeking fungal specimens that were available for purchase or exchange. This was a time when examination of accurately identified specimens, rather than the scientific literature, served as the primary reference tool for the identification of fungi. Without copy or fax machines, literature was difficult to obtain. Instead, sets of reference specimens called exsiccati were collected, identified, assembled, and sold to institutions. This was a source of livelihood for many of the early American mycologists, including J. B. Ellis, H. W. Ravenel, and A. B. Seymour (16). In addition to obtaining funds for the purchase of exsiccati sets and increasing the number of reference specimens, Patterson and her staff developed card files of information about fungi. These files are still in existence and were continuously updated on cards until the advent of computerized databases in the early 1980s. They include an extensive host index for all specimens in the U.S. National Fungus Collections and all published reports of fungi associated with plants, as well as a file of all described fungi and their synonyms. Today, Patterson’s legacy continues as a computerized database of information about plant-associated fungi that is available on the Web (USDA ARS Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory) for the use of plant pathologists, mycologists, and plant regulatory officials. Plant Quarantine Work—New Diseases Arriving One of Patterson’s major responsibilities was the inspection of imported commodities for nonnative, potentially invasive fungal pathogens. In 1906, a formal plant inspection program was initiated in which Patterson and her three employees were charged with detecting and identifying fungal diseases. Many unusual and previously unknown fungi were found, and the

UNITED STATES AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

mycologists worked tirelessly on the identification of these fungi as well as on methods for their eradication. Among their interceptions was the dangerous potato wart disease caused by Synchytrium endobioticum, which they identified for the first time on potatoes for import into the United States. This fungus remains the subject of considerable plant quarantine interest. Patterson worked on the front lines during several of the major fungal pandemics in the United States, including the chestnut blight disease that altered the landscape of the eastern deciduous forests. Patterson played an important role in the identification of the chestnut blight fungus following its initial discovery and subsequent rapid spread along the eastern seaboard of the United States. Chestnut blight, caused by Cryphonectria parasitica (â&#x2030;Ą Endothia parasitica), was initially discovered in 1904 on the chestnut trees at the Bronx Zoological Park in the Bronx, New York. Specimens were sent to Patterson, who conducted the decisive identification of the pathogen (3). By 1907, chestnut blight had spread up the Hudson River to Poughkeepsie, New York, and south to Trenton, New Jersey. Despite urgent calls to implement stringent control measures, the disease eventually spread throughout the eastern United States, killing all of the mature chestnut trees that dominated the deciduous forests at that time. Even today, chestnut trees can be seen only as sprouts or half-dead trees that become cankered and die as they approach maturity, never producing viable chestnuts (2). One of the most memorable episodes among her plant quarantine activities concerned the Japanese flowering cherry trees that were given to the United States as a present from the Mayor of Tokyo. Upon the arrival of 2,000 highly prized plants in January 1910, the exotic trees were found to be infected with numerous fungi and insects (8). Recognizing the potential danger these organisms posed to U.S. agriculture, Patterson and her colleagues, including Nathan Cobb, a nematologist, and J. G. Sanders, an entomologist, took a politically unpopular position and advised that the cherry trees be destroyed. In a letter written by Patterson about the infected trees, she noted that, in addition to crown gall â&#x20AC;&#x153;present on 45% of the trees, . . . the girdling of five trees apparently has resulted from the attack of a Pestalozzia sp. . . . It is impossible to decide with the limited time available for research if the Pestalozzia is of an indigenous species.â&#x20AC;? Despite the passing of almost a century, members of the genus Pestalozzia (now spelled Pestalotia) and its segregate genera are still very difficult to identify to the species level. The unidentified specimen of the Pestalotia sp. from the first set of cherry trees still resides in the U.S. National Fungus Collections (Fig. 3). The three USDA scientists who inspected the first shipment of Japanese cherry trees were able to convince the U.S. government of the potential danger posed by these infected plants. The entire lot of trees was burned in a bonfire on the Mall in Washington, DC (Fig. 4). A carefully worded, diplomatic letter was composed and sent to Japan. Eventually, a second set of highly fumigated trees was shipped and arrived free of insects and diseases. These new cherry trees still adorn the Tidal Basin in downtown Washing-

PATTERSON

ton, DC, and are a mainstay of the many pleasurable springtime visits to the Mall in Washington, DC. Eventually, the threat of potato wart disease, the incident of the infected Japanese cherry trees, as well as the catastrophic introduction of the chestnut blight fungus led to Congressional legislation. The Plant Quarantine Act of 1912 was passed (5) and aimed at preventing the inadvertent introduction of invasive organisms. Having seen the devastating effects of newly introduced fungi, Patterson strongly defended the need for the inspection of ag-

Figure 3. USDA plant pathologists and entomologists inspecting the first set of Japanese cherry trees that were infected with exotic fungi and insects. (Reprinted from Jefferson and Fusonie [8])

Figure 4. The first set of Japanese cherry trees being burned on the Mall following the discovery of potentially harmful plant pathogens and insects. (Reprinted from Jefferson and Fusonie [8])

UNITED STATES AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

ricultural commodities brought into the United States, and her work was instrumental in the passage of the Plant Quarantine Act. In 1914, apparently as a cost-cutting measure, the mycologists in the Division of Mycology and Mycological Collections, now four in number (of whom three were women), were threatened with transfer to an organization at which they would no longer inspect incoming plant germplasm. Patterson wrote in response, “It is significant that each fungous disease which has been called to public attention through the Department or by other workers had first been noted by the inspectors either directly or by means of correspondence. As instances of this nature may be mentioned English potato scab, silver scurf, chestnut blight disease and citrus canker, specimens of all of which had been secured by correspondence or requests for mycological assistance” (Patterson to Wm. A. Taylor, November 9, 1914; letter courtesy of the U.S. National Fungus Collections General Correspondence P-Q through 1959). Truly, Patterson was at the front line of defense against fungal invaders! She recognized the importance of inspection activities to prevent the inadvertent introduction of invasive pathogens and the need to base plant quarantine decisions on reference specimens (9). Inspection of plant material for invasive organisms and the decision of whether to allow infected plant material entry into the United States are still largely based on systematic knowledge and reference specimens, which serve as the foundation for that knowledge. This activity has become even more important with the potential threat of a deliberate release of crop-destroying agents into the food supply. Research on Other Plant-Pathogenic Fungi Early in her career, Patterson published one of the few accounts of leafparasitic fungi in the family Exoascaceae that attack living leaves (10,11). These fungi are now known as species in the genus Taphrina, causing such diseases as peach leaf curl and witches’-broom of cherry. Her delicate line drawings of the naked asci accurately represent the structures still used to identify these fungi (Fig. 5). Patterson identified about 800 specimens in the U.S. National Fungus Collections. Many of these were microfungi on exotic tropical plants growing in the USDA greenhouses, newly discovered pathogens on crop plants, or fungi found during inspection of agricultural commodities at ports of entry. Based on specimens obtained while inspecting newly imported commodities, Patterson described a number of new species and one new genus (14). For example, she described the cause of witches’broom of bamboo as a new genus and species, Loculistroma bambusae (14). She and her colleagues also worked to develop control measures, such as fumigation, to control pineapple rot, caused by Thielaviopsis paradoxa (14). Her most widely distributed publications were two bulletins, one entitled Mushrooms and Other Common Fungi and the other Some Common Edible and Poisonous Mushrooms, in which common fleshy fungi were described and illustrated (12,13). Included in this publication was a discussion of their

PATTERSON

edibility or poisonous nature as well as recipes, such as deviled mushrooms, oysters with mushrooms, mushrooms baked with tomatoes, and even mushroom catsup (Fig. 6). Flora Patterson retired at the age of 75, having contributed enormously to the development of the U.S. National Fungus Collections as well as to the knowledge of numerous plant-pathogenic fungi associated with imported agricultural commodities. She was made a fellow of the American Associa-

Figure 5. Line drawings by Patterson of asci with ascospores of Taphrina spp. (Reprinted from Patterson [10])

Figure 6. Recipe for mushroom catsup from Pattersonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bulletin Mushrooms and Other Common Fungi. (Reprinted from Patterson and Charles [12])

UNITED STATES AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

tion for the Advancement of Science and a fellow of the Botanical Society of America and was a member of five other professional societies, including the American Association of University Women. After retirement, she lived with her son in New York City, where she died at the age of 80. During her tenure at the USDA BPI, three more women mycologists were hired to work under Patterson, including Vera K. Charles (1903–1942; see page 41), Anna Jenkins (1912–1952; see page 57), and Edith Cash (1913–1958; see page 1). It was indeed true that women were “spreading out” as Clinton had suggested in his letter to Farlow—well, at least to four2 by the end of 1923. All of these dedicated women mycologists worked for 40 or more years at the USDA. Their vigorous activities resulted in setting a strong mycological research base to the work at the USDA that continues to this day. Acknowledgments

Special thanks to David Farr, USDA, ARS, U.S. National Fungus Collections, Beltsville MD; Don Pfister and Lisa DeCesare, Farlow Archives and Herbarium, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA; and Paul Peterson and Jean Ristaino, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, for providing archival and bibliographical information for this chapter. Literature Cited

1. Agerer, R., Ammirati, J., Blanz, P., Courtecuisse, R., Desjardin, D. E., Gams, W., Hallenberg, N., Halling, R., Hawksworth, D. L., Horak, E., Korf, R. P., Mueller, G. M., Oberwinkler, F., Rambold, G., Summerbell, R. C., Triebel, D., and Watling, R. 2000. Always deposit vouchers. Mycol. Res. 104:642-644. 2. Anagnostakis, S. L. 1987. Chestnut blight: The classical problem of an introduced pathogen. Mycologia 79:23-37. 3. Anderson, J. P., and Rankin, W. H. 1914. Endothia canker of chestnut. Cornell Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 347. 4. Benjamin, C. R. 1963. The National Fungus Collections. Plant Sci. Bull. 9:1-6. 5. Campbell, C. L., Peterson, P. D., and Griffith, C. S. 1999. The Formative Years of Plant Pathology in the United States. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MN. 6. Charles, V. K. 1929. Mrs. Flora Wambaugh Patterson. Mycologia 21:1-4.

Flora Patterson was the first of the “dozen or more” women botanists in the Division of Vegetable Pathology that G. F. Clinton complained about to W. G. Farlow in 1909. In fact, only after more than 100 years has the number of women mycologists in the USDA reached the dreaded “dozen or more”. The three mycologists mentioned here were followed by Edith Cash, Bessie Kanous, Alice Watson, Flora Pollack, Marie “Lennie” Farr, Amy Rossman, Mary Palm, Lisa Castlebury, and Mary Catherine Aime.

PATTERSON

7. Galloway, B. T. 1928. Flora W. Patterson 1847â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1928. Phytopathology 18:877-879. 8. Jefferson, R. M., and Fusonie, A. E. 1977. The Japanese Flowering Cherry Trees of Washington, D.C.: A Living Symbol of Friendship. U.S. Natl. Arbor. Contrib. 4. 9. Palm, M. E. 1999. Mycology and world trade: A view from the front line. Mycologia 91:1-12. 10. Patterson, F. W. 1894. Species of Taphrina parasitic on Populus. Proc. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. 43:293-294. 11. Patterson, F. W. 1895. A study of North American parasitic Exoascaceae. Iowa Univ. Bull. Lab. Nat. Hist. 3:89-135. 12. Patterson, F. W., and Charles, V. K. 1915. Mushrooms and other common fungi. U.S. Dep. Agric. Bull. 175. 13. Patterson, F. W., and Charles, V. K. 1917. Some common edible and poisonous mushrooms. U.S. Dep. Agric. Farmers Bull. 796. 14. Patterson, F. W., Charles, V. K., and Veihmeyer, F. J. 1910. Some fungous diseases of economic importance. I.â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Miscellaneous Diseases. II. Pineapple rot caused by Thielaviopsis paradoxa. U.S. Dep. Agric. Bur. Plant Ind. Bull. 171. 15. Stevenson, J. A. 1955. The National Fungus Collections. Taxon 4:181-185. 16. Stevenson, J. A. 1971. An account of fungus exsiccati containing material from the Americas. Beih. Nova Hedwigia 36:1-563. 17. Washington Star. 1917. Mrs. Flora Waumbaugh Patterson. December 9.