PLANT SCIENCE BULLETIN

FALL 2005 VOLUME 51 NUMBER 3
The Botanical Society of America: The Society for ALL Plant Biologists

Published quarterly by Botanical Society of America, Inc., 4475 Castleman Avenue,St. Louis , MO 63166-0299 . The yearly subscription rate of $15 is included in the membership dues of the Botanical Society of America, Inc. Periodical postage paid at St. Louis, MO and additional mailing office.

With the onset of a new school year many of us will be rushing to get the "nuts and bolts" of our courses together - - writing syllabi, ordering supplies, checking laboratory equipment, etc. For those of us who are "veterans" this will probably be a routine task that is now second nature. Pull out last terms syllabus and modify the dates. Maybe fine tune it a bit by changing the sequence of topics or adding a little more time to one topic and chopping a bit from another. Pull out last year's supplies order form and again correct the "date needed" and perhaps the quantities required. OK, I'm ready!

The process may be a little more involved for faculty in their middle-years. Will I ever finish digitizing my slide and overhead collection so I can use them in Power Point presentations or post them on the web? How does this grade book in Blackboard™ work and can I incorporate the chat room function into my teaching? And what about all that stuff on the web? And perhaps there's the doubting question - -is this worth the effort?

For new faculty the task can be daunting. During the first term every course is new and everything must be done "from scratch." ( or more likely from the notes and syllabi received as a student taking a similar course). If you're lucky, you'll be more than a day ahead of your students! Then there is the time spent learning what resources the department already has and finding where to order the missing things you'll need to offer the courses the way you want to. Of course, the "rookie" still has the problem of moving all of this information to the electronic format that your newly remodeled classroom (sans 2x2 or overhead projector and chalkboard) requires. Luckily, for most new faculty, this will be an easier transformation than for their more senior colleagues!

Does any of this sound familiar? My guess is that it does. But the middling's concerning question is there - - is this where we should be concentrating our time and effort? In the second article of this issue I summarize what appears to be a standardized syllabus for introductory botany courses around the country, based on syllabi submitted by members following a call for contributions last year. You may or may not be surprised by the results but to me it's a wakening call that is at least partially addressed by David Hershey in his lead article. There are certainly stereotypes about plants, widespread among biology teachers, that we do not do a good job of addressing. One approach is to confront these stereotypes head on with alternative viewpoints and documented examples. David provides some interesting examples that can certainly be incorporated into our introductory botany courses (if we are willing to make a place for them).

Finally, I think most of us will agree that the most important factor influencing how students perceive botany is not the substance of the course but rather the enthusiasm of the teacher. In the third article Ray Evert reflects on his most inspirational teacher _ Katherine Esau. This is the first of a series of tributes to some of the BSA's past-presidents that we will run during the next year and a half to commemorate the Societies first 100 years. I think you'll enjoy it. Have a great academic year! - editor .

EVOLUTION - NEVER:

Tune: God Save the King (My country tis of thee)

God bless our status quo:

Grant that we never grow.

No need to change.

We're perfect as we be:

So was our ancestry.

And thus posterity:

No need to change!

in : Songs of Biology, 4th ed. 1953

Plants Are Indeed Intelligent

Biology Today columnist Maura Flannery (2002) rejected Anthony Trewavas (2002) thesis that plants have intelligence mainly by assuming it was merely an "animal metaphor". However, Trewavas (2002, 2003) was not being metaphorical, he was being literal. Flannery (2002) arbitrarily restricted the term intelligence to "an animal way of doing things." However, Webster's dictionaries don't restrict intelligence to animals.

Webster's dictionaries define intelligence as "the ability to cope with a new situation" (Agnes 2002) or "the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations" (Woolf 1973). Flannery (2002) described how plants cope with new or trying situations such as high temperatures, water deprivation, and attacks by herbivores and pathogens. Therefore, no "animal metaphor" is required. Plants literally fit a dictionary definition of intelligence. Trewavas (2002) said effectively the same thing as Webster; plants are intelligent because they have "adaptively variable behavior." Trewavas (1999) has evidence that plants learn, which also qualifies as intelligence according to the dictionary definition.

Flannery (2002) stated that all animals, "even a slug", have higher IQs than any plant. However, several plant species are intelligent enough to produce caffeine, which Flannery (2002) noted is a highly effective pesticide against slugs. Was the inventor of Velcro, George de Mestral, more intelligent than the cocklebur (Xanthium stumarium) which gave him the idea (Jacobs 1996)? Was Joseph Paxton, the designer of London 's famous Crystal Palace of 1851, more intelligent than the giant waterlily (Victoria amazonica) whose leaf venation inspired his design (Carter 1985)? Are the chemists who first synthesized taxol in the laboratory more intelligent than the Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia), which synthesized it first and provided them with the structure of taxol? Are the thousands of plant products in a supermarket just an indication of human accomplishment or do plants deserve some credit? Humans often take sole credit for accomplishments that were really made by plants. Many people do not seem to realize that "Man and all other animals are in reality guests of plants on this earth" (Karling 1956).

If the modern Plant Kingdom, consisting of bryophytes and vascular plants, was suddenly wiped out, humans would not be able to respond to the "trying situation" without mass starvation. Humans might even go extinct due to wars over, or overexploitation of, the remaining food chains anchored by algae and photosynthetic bacteria. However, if humans were suddenly wiped out, plants would actually benefit in several ways because they could recolonize all the areas occupied by buildings and paving and would no longer have the destructive effects of humans destroying their habitats, overcollecting wild plant species into extinction, introducing nonnative invasive plants, and polluting the air, water and soil. Even if all animals were wiped out, the many plant species that do not depend on animals for pollination and seed dispersal would not be negatively impacted. Even many of the plants that coevolved with animals might be able to survive without them.

Common themes in science fiction, and goals of real science, are human cloning and suspended animation for long space voyages. However, plants have used cloning and suspended animation for over 100 million years. Seeds can survive in suspended animation for decades or centuries (Shen-Miller et al. 1995). Plants have numerous cloning methods such as adventitious plantlets, apomictic seeds, bulbs, corms, fragmentation, layering, rhizomes, runners, suckers, and tubers. Flannery (2002) noted the "problem" Trewavas (2002) was addressing as "the view of plants as passive and therefore not very interesting organisms". However, Trewavas (2002) was only dealing with the view of plants as passive. He never stated or implied that plants were "not very interesting." Given that Flannery (1999) wrote a column on plant blindness, it would have been much more desirable to have stated the problem more accurately, i.e. "Although a common misconception, it is a huge mistake to view plants as passive or uninteresting." Flannery (1999) actually dismissed the misconception of plants as uninteresting rather well when she asked "Why deprive ourselves of the joy of learning about organisms that have come up with so many fascinating strategies to deal with the challenge of life on Earth."

How can parasitic and carnivorous plants be considered passive when they are stealing energy and nutrients from other plants or murdering animals, respectively? The strangler figs (Ficus aurea and other Ficus spp.) are notorious for murdering their host trees. Plants are constantly battling each other to the death. Even seemingly harmless epiphytes are considered "nutritional pirates" who intercept mineral nutrients and effectively steal from their host trees (Benzing 1980). Plants may be stationary but their seeds or fruits may fly, float, be forcibly discharged or carried by animals to other locations. Fruits of coconut (Cocos nucifera) may float for hundreds of km in the ocean, and the fruit of the sandbox tree (Hura crepitans ) "explodes" when it dries and can forcibly discharge its seeds up to 100 m (Ray et al. 1983).

Plants also face hordes of herbivores and pathogens, resource shortages and harsh environments. It is hardly passive that plants use a multitude of mechanical and chemical weapons and ally themselves with a variety of bacteria, fungi and animals in their battle for survival. Their allies include nitrogen-fixing bacteria, mycorrhizal fungi, animal pollinators, animal seed dispersers, endophytic fungi and endophytic bacteria and even ants that serve as live-in bodyguards. Plants not only communicate with other plants, they communicate with their allies. For example, an Acacia tree produces a chemical in its flowers that tells its ant bodyguards not to attack the insect pollinators that visit the flowers (Ghazoul 2001).

The sizzling sex life of plants is hardly passive either. Plants flaunt their sex organs and often advertise them with flashy petals or bracts, delicious fragrances or a horrible stench. Some flowers even generate heat to attract pollinators or better disperse floral scents ( Seymour 1997). Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum ) changes its sex depending on the resources available (Policansky 1987). Plants fill the air with untold trillions of pollen grains. Plants sometimes even trick animals into pollinating their flowers or dispersing their seeds without giving them the expected rewards.

Contrary to Flannery (2002), I think it is a fundamental requirement that students be able to contrast animal and plant strategies to deal with basic challenges, such as energy accumulation, environmental sensing, solid and liquid intake, gas exchange, waste disposal, internal transport, mechanical support, temperature control, defense, growth and reproduction. If students are not able to describe how plants meet these basic biological challenges, then they are suffering from plant blindness. Darley (1990) noted that plants' nutritional mode requires them to be stationary because they are "collectors and concentrators" and concluded that "If we feel animals are superior, it is only because we are animal chauvinists" (Darley 1990). Whether called animal chauvinism, plant blindness or plant neglect (Hershey 1993, 2002, Hoekstra 2000, Wandersee and Schussler 1999), the problem remains that there are many biology teachers, and thus their students, "whose familiarity with plants is little more than skin-deep" (Nichols 1919). Perhaps Trewavas (2002) discovery that plants are intelligent might make biology teachers take plants a bit more seriously. David R. Hershey, dh321z@yahoo.com

Literature Cited

Agnes, M. E. (2002). Webster's NewWorld Compact Desk Dictionary and Style Guide. New York : Hungry Minds.

Benzing, D.H. (1980). Biology of the Bromeliads . Eureka, California: Mad River Press.

Carter, T. (1985). The Victorian Garden. New York: Salem House.

Darley, W.M. (1990). The essence of "plantness." American Biology Teacher, 52, 354-357.

http://www.plantbio.uga.edu/courses/pbio1210 /plantness.html

Flannery, M.C. (1999). Seeing plants a little more clearly. American Biology Teacher, 61, 303-307.

Flannery, M.C. (2002). Do plants have to be intelligent? American Biology Teacher, 64, 628-633.

Ghazoul, J. (2001). Can floral repellents pre-empt potential ant-plant conflicts. Ecology Letters, 4, 295-299.

Hershey, D.R. (1993). Prejudices against plant biology. American Biology Teacher, 55, 5-6.

http://www.angelfire.com/ab6/hershey/prejudices.htm

Hershey, D.R. (2002). Plant blindness: "We have met the enemy and he is us." Plant Science Bulletin, 48, 78-85.

http://www.botany.org/bsa/psb/2002/psb48-3.html#Plant

Hoekstra, B. (2000). Plant blindness: The ultimate challenge to botanists. American Biology Teacher, 62, 82-83.

Jacobs, M.I. (1996). Unzipping Velcro. Scientific American, 274(4), 116.

Karling, J.S. (1956). Plants and man. American Biology Teacher, 18, 9-13.

Nichols, G.E. (1919). The general biology course and the teaching of elementary botany and zoology in American colleges and universities. Science, 50, 509-517.

Policansky, D. (1987). Sex choice and reproductive costs in jack-in-the-pulpit, BioScience, 37, 476-481.

Ray, P.M., Steeves, T.A. and Fultz, S.A. (1983). Botany. Philadelphia: Saunders.

Seymour, R.S. (1997). Plants that warm themselves. Scientific American, 276(3), 104-109.

Shen-Miller, J., Mudgett, M.B., Schopf, J.W., Clarke, S. and Berger, R. (1995). Exceptional seed longevity and robust growth: Ancient sacred lotus from China. American Journal of Botany , 82, 1367-1380.

Trewavas, A, (1999). How plants learn. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 96, 4216-4218.

http://nature.berkeley.edu/luanlab/pdfs/comment.pdf

Trewavas, A. (2002). Mindless mastery, Nature , 415, 841.

http://www.biology.ed.ac.uk/plant/PDF/2002/Trewavas -2002-841.pdf

Trewavas, A. (2003). Aspects of plant intelligence. Annals of Botany, 92, 1-20.

http://aob.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/92/1/1

Wandersee, J.H. and Schussler, E.E. (1999). Preventing plant blindness. American Biology Teacher, 61, 82, 84, 86.

Wandersee, J.H. and Schussler, E.E. (2001). Toward a theory of plant blindness. Plant Science Bulletin, 47, 2-9.

http://www.botany.org/bsa/psb/2001/psb47-1. html#Toward_a_Theory_of_Plant

Woolfe, H.B. (1973). Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary . Springfield, Massachusetts: G. and C. Merriam Company.

What Are We Teaching In Our Introductory Courses?

Last year in these pages I requested that members submit a copy of their introductory botany course syllabus to be used in comparing what is being taught to introductory students in a variety of institutions from around the country. Forty members responded and their syllabi form the basis of the following summary. It includes 15 introductory courses for botany majors, the botany component of 11 introductory biology courses for majors, and non-majors botany courses from 14 institutions. Among these were two of the "best" botany departments and two of the "best" comprehensive university biology departments based on their course offerings (PSB 50(1): 2-7). Only 2 schools had a multi-term sequence of required botany. Eighty-one percent of the majors' botany courses had a corresponding laboratory while 89% of the majors' biology courses had a laboratory component. Only 38% of the nonmajors' botany courses had a laboratory experience. While not a large response, the breadth of the sample suggests that the syllabi submitted present a fair representation of what is covered today in introductory botany courses around the country.

To score coverage, the majors' botany courses were used as a standard. Only topics receiving a full lecture of coverage in a majors' syllabus were scored. For each topic identified in this way the percentage of syllabi including that topic in each category was calculated. These topics were then ranked in descending order of coverage in majors' botany courses (Table 1)

Before examining the content of the introductory course, it will be useful to reflect briefly on the purposes this course fulfills. A major purpose is to provide a solid foundation for subsequent courses in the discipline. A second function is to begin to develop some of the skills necessary for students to become proficient practitioners in the discipline. A third function is to attract students to the discipline. With these goals in mind we can begin to evaluate the effectiveness of our course.

It quickly became evident that there is considerable uniformity in the topics covered _ particularly in the botany majors' course. Survey of the plant kingdom, sensu lato is a major component of more than 70% of all majors' courses. Angiosperms and gymnosperms are particularly popular, occurring in more than 90% of all courses. Photosynthesis and organ systems, roots, stems and leaves, earned at least a full lecture each in 87% of the courses reported. By comparison, in the majors' biology course only photosynthesis was covered in more than 70% of the courses. In terms of survey, only gymnosperms and bryophytes were covered in more than half of the courses. Not surprisingly, coverage of these topics in the nonmajors' courses was much lighter. The one exception is organ systems. While only 1/3 of the courses spent a full lecture on each system, another third combined the three in a single lecture. Overall, the structure of roots, stems, and leaves, at 72%, is the most commonly included topic in the nonmajors' syllabus.

Table 1. Topics Covered (Percent) in: Introductory Botany Courses for Majors; Majors' Biology; and Non-majors Botany Courses.

Topic Botany Biology Non-majors

Gymnosperms 0.93 0.55 0.36

Angiosperms 0.93 0.45 0.29

Roots 0.87 0.45 0.36

Stems 0.87 0.45 0.36

Leaves 0.87 0.45 0.36

(Plant Structure) 0.36

Photosynthesis 0.87 0.73 0.36

Fungi 0.80 0.45 0.29

Algae 0.73 0.45 0.50

Bryophytes 0.73 0.55 0.29

Ferns & Allies 0.73 0.18 0.21

Taxon & Systematics 0.73 0.36 0.50

Life Cycles 0.67 0.27 0.43

Transport 0.67 0.36 0.14

Secondary Growth 0.60 0.18 0.21

Cells 0.60 0.73 0.43

Flowers 0.53 0.27 0.36

Tissues 0.53 0.55 0.50

Prokaryotic 0.47 0.64 0.21

Development 0.47 0.45 0.21

Hormones 0.47 0.36 0.29

Meiosis 0.47 0.45 0.21

Environmental Effects 0.47 0.27 0.07

Respiration 0.45 0.60 0.29

Cell Cycle 0.40 0.45 0.14

Fruits 0.40 0.09 0.21

Mineral Nutrition 0.40 0.45 0.29

Water relations 0.40 0.18 0.29

Biological Evolution 0.27 0.45 0.36

Biomolecules 0.27 0.45 0.07

General or Plant Ecology 0.33 0.27 0.50

Economic Botany 0.27 0.09 0.64

In the group of topics constituting between about 50% and 70% coverage, life cycles and transport were the most common topics for majors. Not surprisingly, fewer than a third of the biology majors covered life cycles but more than 40% of the nonmajors address this topic. Cell structure and prokaryotic cells are the only topic in this group of concepts that is covered more extensively in majors' biology than in the majors' botany course. Plant tissues (xylem and phloem) is the only topic covered about equally in all three course types - - about 50%. Development, hormones and meiosis are treated about equally in the two majors' courses. Noteworthy (if you've ever questioned a student about it during a masters or Ph.D. examination) is that fewer than half of the majors' courses spend a full lecture on meiosis!

The final group of topics, covered in about 30-50% of the majors' courses, include several concepts that receive greater coverage in the biology course. Notable discrepancies involve respiration, biological molecules, and evolution. Given the emphasis on plant kingdom, it was surprising to see the general concepts of evolution covered in only about ¼ of the botany majors' courses. In fact, the non-majors botany courses provided greater coverage. Two other topics that received greater coverage in the nonmajors' than the major's courses were ecology and economic botany. The surprise here is not so much that nonmajors' get more economic botany but that majors' get less ecology.

The weighting of topics covered provides some indications of all three of the purposes of the introductory course. Frequency of coverage should be a good indicator of what concepts are considered foundational to the discipline. The topics covered also may suggest the kinds or skills that will be required and give some indication of interest to students. Perhaps a better indicator of the latter is what is the first topic covered in the course? Can it serve as a good hook to catch students attention and draw them to the discipline? Table 2 indicates the frequency of the initial topics, by course type.

Table 2. Initial Topic Covered in Introductory Course.

Topic Botany Biology Non-majors

Evolution (Survey) 0.44 0.67 0.15

Cells 0.19 0.22 0.08

Organs 0.12 0 0.23

Molecules 0.12 0.11 0

Nature of Science 0.06 0.11 0.08

Ecology 0.06 0 0.30

Plants and People 0 0 0.15

Given the emphasis on survey in the majors' botany course it is not surprising that the majority of courses begin with this information. What was surprising was the number of majors' biology courses that did the same thing. The difference here was that in the biology course the first lecture usually concerned general evolutionary principles (as do several popular textbooks). The survey component, of all the diversity of life, usually fell somewhere in the middle of the course.

So what about the laboratory? The percentage coverage of lab topics is presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Topics Covered (Percent) in Introductory Laboratories for Botany Majors, Biology Majors, and Non-majors' Botany.

LABS Majors Biology Non-majors

Gymnosperms 0.92 0.25 0.6

Angiosperms 0.77 0.25 0.2

Algae 0.69 0.75 0.8

Fungi 0.8 0.38 0.4

Fruit 0.8 0.25 0.4

Cells 0.54 0.63 0.4

Flowers 0.54 0.25 0.4

Photosynthesis 0.54 0.25 0.6

Stems 0.54 0 0.4

Water Relations 0.54 0.5 0.4

Taxonomy 0.46 0 0.4

Leaves 0.46 0.13 0.4

Roots 0.46 0 0.4

Seedless Plants 0.46 0.5 0.6

Bryophytes 0.38 0.5 0.4

Microscopy 0.38 0.38 0.6

Prokaryotes 0.38 0.25 0.4

Secondary Growth 0.38 0.13 0.2

Tissues 0.38 0.13 0.2

Mitosis/Meiosis 0.31 0.38 0

Roots/Stems/:eaves 0.31 0.63 0.2

Seeds & Germination 0.31 0.38 0.2

Perhaps the biggest surprise here is the lower coverage of plant diversity in the majors laboratory relative to the lecture. While the percent coverage of diversity is lower In the non-majors course, there is nearly a 1:1 correspondence between lecture and laboratory. This is not true for the botany majors. My biggest surprise with this data is that only 1/4 of the biology majors' lab courses include a lab on photosynthesis! This is a significant drop from lecture coverage of a basic biological concept - - that happens to be botanically oriented!

What does the information summarized above tell us about what we are covering in our introductory botany courses? What it tells me is that there is a lot of inertia in the botany curriculum! The distribution of effort in the majors botany course looks very similar to what I experienced as an undergraduate nearly 40 years ago! This is despite the growing body of literature demonstrating that exposing students to a breadth of content is NOT an effective way for them to learn the content we want them to learn. Is this approach successful in achieving the purposes of the introductory course? Is it providing a solid foundation for anything or is it simply providing a (often bitter) taste of everything? Is it developing analytical and critical thinking skills or is it simply encouraging rote memorization? Is it successful in attracting students to botany or is it reinforcing a stereotype of botany being dull, and unexciting? I know what I think - - it's time to reevaluated the content of freshman botany! Marshall D. Sundberg, Emporia State University.

Objective Tests

Tune: Reuben, Reuben

Teacher, teacher, I've been thinking:

What an ogre you must be.

When you put a simple freshman

Throught this torrid third degree.

Does Planaria have a coelom?

Does a tapeworm have a mouth?

Are the uropods of Crayfish

On the north side or the south?

What mysterious process makes the

Tail of tadpole disappear?

Is the gene for epilepsy

Linked to that for drinking beer?

Leeuwenhoek, the mighty searcher,

Can you tell if he did see

In the depths of dank dish-water

Tiny animalcule?

Who invented evolution?

Planted phylogenetic trees?

Are diseases caused by germ cells?

How did Mendel cook those peas?

Indicate by plus or minus:

Bedbugs breed bubonic plague.

Tsetse carries sleeping sickness

On the tarsus of its leg.

Cysticercus lurks in liver.

Eyes of fruitflies are convex

Tricky Trichinella's toxic.

Kinsey first discovered sex.

Corti cooked up protoplasm,

Weismann's theme goes on and on.

Robert Hooke discovered hookworm.

What did Schleiden say to Schwann?

Socrates had lively pupils

Who enjoyed their little jests.

They gave hemlock to their teacher

For inventing true-false tests.

Fellow students, we must always

Greek tradition emulate.

Givers of objective quizes

Should expect a martyr's fate.

F. G. Brooks, Cornell College in : Songs of Biology, 4th ed. 1953.

100th Anniversary Series

Katherine Esau: A Personal Perspective

Ray F. Evert

I first learned of Katherine Esau in 1953, when I was enrolled in David A. Kribsplant anatomy course at PennState . During the first class session, Dr. Kribs, my M.S. mentor, expressed great disappointment that Dr. Esau's new book Plant Anatomy (lst edition, Wiley, 1953) was not yet available for class use. Throughout the course, Dr. Kribs spoke glowingly of Dr. Esau as he cited one after another of her papers. It was quite clear that she was an exceptional person.

When I obtained a copy of Plant Anatomy, I was enrolled in a seminar conducted by Dr. Kribs, the seminar topic: the phloem tissue. Unlike the rather dull approach to plant anatomy taken by the book previously used in Dr. Kribscourse, Esaus Plant Anatomy took a dynamic, developmental approach, which enhanced ones understanding of and interest in plant structure. I was not the only one so affected. Plant Anatomy had an immediate impact worldwide and literally brought about a revival of the discipline. It soon became known as the Bible.

Having read Plant Anatomy from cover to cover, by the end of the phloem seminar I was hooked. I would go on to pursue the Ph.D. in botany, become a plant anatomist, and work on phloem. Dr. Kribs tried to dissuade me from pursuing a career as a plant anatomist. After all, there was no future in plant anatomy. When he realized that I was determined to do so, he said, Well then, you must go to Davis so that you can learn from Katherine Esau. I certainly knew who Katherine Esau was. But, where was Davis? Unknown to me at the time, Dr. Kribs wrote to Dr. Esau on my behalf. His letter must have been fairly convincing, because, to my very good fortune, Dr. Esau agreed to have me as a student. Also, a teaching assistantship would be available for me.

In August 1954, I packed my car (a Hudson shaped like an inverted bathtub) with all my earthly possessions and headed west to the Golden State. It certainly was an exciting time. When I arrived in Davis (it was on a weekend), I called Dr. Esau and made an appointment to meet with her on Monday morning. I arrived early that morning and watched as a distinguished-looking woman pulled up to the botany building (a garage converted into a few offices, a laboratory, and classrooms) on a bicycle. As the appointed time approached and no one else appeared, I realized that I had seen Dr. Esau. That first meeting with Dr. Esau was comforting. She proved to be a friendly person, with a wonderful sense of humor. She asked me if I knew that Davis (population at the time, probably less than 10,000) had a subway. It was the name given to the railway underpass at the town entrance from what is now Interstate 80.

Dr. Esau already had examined my PennState transcripts and had prepared a list of the courses I would take to fulfill the requirements for the Ph.D. in Botany. French and German reading requirements were included. Before my first week at Davis had passed, Dr. Esau and I had agreed on my research topic: a study of seasonal phloem development in the pear tree, a study that would parallel that conducted by Dr. Esau on the grapevine. During the first year and one-half, I met weekly with Dr. Esau as we examined my latest tissue preparations. During that period, Dr. Esau patiently taught me how to examine tissue critically, how to interpret developmental stages, and how to see things many investigators overlook. There was a running conversation, during which Dr. Esau shared her thoughts and her insights. After I was weaned, the meetings became less frequent. Periodic, written progress reports were expected, but she was always available and gave unselfishly of her time.

I have often thought that Dr. Esau's life story would make a best-selling novel, beginning with her early years in Czarist Russia, and her family's flight from the Bolsheviks on a German troop train to Berlin (a journey that lasted two weeks from 20 December, 1918, to 5 January, 1919, because of many delays along the way). There she continued her studies at the Berlin Landwirtschaftliche Hochschule with the then famous geneticist Erwin Baur as an advisor. In 1922 the Esaus immigrated to America, passing through Ellis Island on their way to Reedly, California, a largely Mennonite Community. From 1924 to 1927 Dr. Esau worked at Spreckels to develop a sugar beet resistant to the curly-top disease, a viral disease transmitted by the beet leafhopper. In the fall of 1927 she moved to Davis with a truckload of sugar beets to begin working for the Ph.D. in Botany. She planned to continue work on developing a curly-top resistant sugar beet for her Ph.D. research. However, unexpected circumstances required her to change the direction of her Ph.D. research to a study on the development of both healthy and diseased sugar beets, with the aim of determining the effect of the virus on the plant. Fortuitously her research area would be plant anatomy or, more specifically, pathological anatomy. Upon the receipt of the Ph.D. (from U.C. Berkeley, December, 1931), Dr. Esau was appointed Instructor of Botany and Junior Botanist in the Experiment Station of the College of Agriculture. Thus began her distinguished teaching and research career on the faculty at Davis. She served six years, the maximum number, in each rank until the attainment of full professorship in 1949, at the age of 51. (Dr. Robbins, chairman of the Botany Division, did not believe in accelerated promotions.) In 1962, a year before retirement, Dr. Esau moved to Santa Barbara in order to continue her collaborative research on phloem with Dr. Vernon I. Cheadle, who had been appointed Chancellor of the U.C. Santa Barbara campus. She had begun a second career. Dr. Esau considered her years at Santa Barbara to be her most productive and satisfying. She published her last research paper at the age of 92.

The facilities in the Botany Division at Davis when Dr. Esau began her faculty career were poor, to say the least. Because microscopy would be critical to her research, Dr. Esau purchased a research quality microscope with proper illumination. (The standard illumination source in the Botany Division at the time was a blue-tinted light bulb mounted in an asparagus can.) She also purchased photomicrographic equipment, which later was moved to a make-shift darkroom in a house built by her family in 1938. During the 40s and 50s all of her published photomicrographs, including those for the first edition of Plant Anatomy , were home products. When Dr. Esau built a second house in Davis, it was made square so that a new darkroom could be located exactly in the center, free of any windows and light leaks. When she moved to Santa Barbara she searched for and found an apartment suitable for a large built-in work bench with drawers large enough to store many of the drawings and diagrams used for her books and research papers.

Dr. Esau made virtually all of the drawings and diagrams used in her publications. Recently, while thumbing through some of the German textbooks she used as a student in Berlin , I discovered pages of drawings she made during her taxonomy classes. The drawings are amazingly beautiful and accurate, and accompanied by detailed notes, all in German. She was a talented artist.

Being of Mennonite stock, Dr. Esau was highly disciplined. Everything she undertook, she did with great care and with excellence. She often told me: "Ray, one can never be too careful." She was fluent in Russian, German, French, and English, which she spoke without an accent, and had a reading knowledge of several other languages as well. This command of languages permitted Dr. Esau to read all of the pertinent literature, which she did with relish. By the late 1930s she had written numerous research articles and two important review articles: Some anatomical aspects of plant virus disease problems . Bot. Rev. (Lancaster) 4:548-579, 1938, and Development and structure of the phloem tissue. Bot .Rev. ( Lancaster) 5:373-432, 1939. Within just eight years after receiving the Ph.D., Dr. Esau was recognized as one of the worlds foremost plant anatomists. Perhaps, even more surprising, she had never taken a course in plant anatomy; moreover, her Ph.D. research committee did not include an anatomist. There were no plant anatomists at either Davis or Berkeley at the time.

Dr. Esau visiting U.W. Madison, spring, 1968 - courtesy of Ray Evert

Dr. Esau was exceedingly neat and well organized. There was a place for everything and everything was in its place. All of the pencils were needle-sharp, of uniform length, with the points oriented in the same direction. (One colleague described Dr. Esau's house the most efficient in all Davis.) Her research notes and records are a sight to behold: printed by hand, they are thoroughly documented and clearly legible. Virtually anyone could use them without difficulty to reconstruct her research or to find a related print or negative.

Dr. Esau led a relatively Spartan life. Her meals were simple but well balanced, with lots of fruit. She often made a meatloaf that she would then freeze, so as to save time preparing dinners. She rarely, if ever overindulged. One of her favorite candies was chocolate mints which she would ration out to herself two a day. She also exercised and took walks daily.

Except for osteoporosis, Dr. Esau enjoyed excellent health into her early 90s. At 92, she had to undergo a hip replacement. The operation took place just five weeks before I was to travel to Santa Barbara for a working session with her. She would not hear of my postponing the visit. By the time I arrived, she was back on her feet and driving her car.

When Dr. Esau joined the faculty at Davis, she as assigned to teach Plant Anatomy, Systematic Botany, Morphology of Crop Plants, and Microtechnique. Although she was pleased with her appointment in the Experiment Station, it would afford her time for research, she was apprehensive about teaching. The apprehension was short-lived. With her total command of and enthusiasm for the subject matter, and her delightful sense of humor she was a truly outstanding teacher. On one occasion when she began an anatomy lecture humorously with "Once upon a time…" ,one of my fellow graduate students quipped: "Aha, another of Esau's fables!"

Dr. Esau was a gifted storyteller, an attribute that contributed significantly to her effectiveness as a teacher. Many a group of graduate students were captivated with her accounts of life in Czarist Russia, of her family's escape from the Bolsheviks, of her experiences as a student in Berlin, etc. Her sense of humor and compulsion as a storyteller are reflected in her story of The Saga of Vladimir the Virus , or the Account of the Tragic Fate of Norman the Nucleus, which she illustrated with electron micrographs. It is an account of the sequence of development of infection of sugar beet leaves with the beet western yellow virus.

Dr. Esau read extensively in English, German, and Russian. Her library contained a broad variety of books, novels (The Grapes of Wrath, The Great Gatsby, Wuthering Heights, For Whom the Bells Toll, among others), biographies, and historical books, especially Russian history. She loved opera, fine art, and classical music. Her radio was always tuned to the classical music station of Public Radio. She was a Renaissance woman.

Although she was not particularly religious, Dr Esau's roots as a Mennonite were very deep. When she passed away, the bulk of her estate went to a Mennonite college in Indiana and to a Mennonite retirement home in Canada . Deeply devoted to her
parents, her ashes were interred next to her mother and father at the Davis cemetery with a Mennonite-inspired memorial service. She was 99 years old when she died.

I consider myself most fortunate not only in having had Dr. Esau as a mentor but also as a close friend. In 1989, I had the honor of receiving on her behalf the National Medal of Science from President Bush. At that time Dr. Esau was just the sixth woman over a 27 year period to be so honored. The citation read: In recognition of her distinguished service to the American community of plant biologists, and for the excellence of her pioneering research, both basic and applied, on plant structure and development, which has spanned more than six decades; for her superlative performance as an educator, in the classroom and through her books; for the encouragement and inspiration she has given a legion of young, aspiring plant biologists; for providing a special role model for women in science.

Works about Katherine Esau

Evert, R.F. Katherine Esau. Plant Science Bulletin 31 (5):33-37 (1985).

Russell, D. Life in Czarist Russia: a conversation with Katherine Esau. Soundings: Collections of the University Library 23 (29):5-32. University of California, Santa Barbara (1992).

OHern, E.M. Katherine Esau. The Botanical Review 62 (3):209-271 (1996).

Turpentine

Tune: "Clementine"

1

In a pine tree

In the barrens

Overgrown with poison vine,

Grows a substance,

Soft and jummy,

And it's name is turpentine.

Chorus

Oh my sticky,

Oh my gummy,

Oh my oily turpentine.

I will put you

In my bottle.

Then I know that you'll be mine.

continued on p. 94

News from the Society

2005 Award Recipients:

2005 YOUNG BOTANIST OF THE YEAR Award

Certificate of Special Achievement

Bishop, Andrew Ohio University, Department of Environmental and Plant Biology

Caravello, Tanisha California State University, Davis, Department of Plant Sciences

Clopton, Jessica University of Connecticut , Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

Culpepper, Erin E. James Madison University, Department of Biology

Douglas, Ryan Truman StateUniversity , Division of Science

Dunn, Emily Truman StateUniversity , Division of Science

Gray, William California State University, Chico, Department of Biological Sciences

Isaacson, Karin Barnard College, Department of Biological Sciences

Israel, Sarah Barnard College, Department of Biological Sciences

Jensen, Nicholas California State University, Davis, Department of Plant Sciences

Johnson, Eric E. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Plant Biology Department

Jones, Jeffrey North Carolina StateUniversity , Department of Botany

Lopez-Smith, Renee Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Plant Biology Department

McGrath Taylor, Kelly A. Truman State University, Division of Science

Nguyen, Hanh Truman State University , Division of Science

Shannon, Sarah M. California State University , Davis, Department of Plant Sciences

Stewart, Jodi University of California, Santa Cruz,

Taylor, Mackenzie L. Truman State University, Division of Science

Uyeda, Josef Willamette University

Withers, John Ohio University , Department of Environmental and Plant Biology

2005 J. S. KARLING GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH AWARD

Daniel Fulop, Harvard University (Supervisor: Elena M. Kramer) - “Integrating phylogeny, biomechanics and pollination ecology in a study of the genus Catasetum (Orchidaceae)”

2005 BSA GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH AWARD

Michelle Barthet, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Supervisor: Khidir W. Hilu)_"Molecular and Genetic analysis of the matK gene"

Iju Judy Chen, University of Florida (Supervisor: Steven R. Manchester) "Fossil records and phytogeography of Vitaceae, the grape family"

Susan E. Elliott, Dartmouth College, (Supervisor: Rebecca E. Irwin) "Distinguishing between pollen-limitation and pollinator-limitation of seed production for the perennial bumblebee-pollinated plant, Delphinium barbeyi (Ranunculaceae)."

Courtney C. Finch, Saint LouisUniversity (Supervisor: Janet C. Barber) _ "Pollination Biology and Evolution of the Orchid Genus Thelymitra "

Nicole A. Hardiman, University of Cincinnati, Department of Biological Sciences (Supervisor: Theresa Culley) _ "Intra-Specific Hybridization as a Mechanism of Invasiveness in Pyrus calleryana"

Rebecca Hufft, University of California, Santa Cruz, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (Supervisor: Ingrid M. Parker) _ "Mechanisms maintaining coexistence of sympatric cytotypes of Arnica cordifolia (Asteraceae)"

G. K. Johnson, Wake Forest University, Department of Biology (Supervisor: William K. Smith) "Evaluation of cloud emersion, acidic deposition, leaf wettability, and cuticle damage in refugial populations of Fraser fir"

Shannon C. K. Straub, Cornell University, Department of Plant Biology and L.H. Bailey Hortorium (Supervisor: Jeff J. Doyle) "Systematics of Amorpha L. (Fabaceae): phylogenetics, evolution, ecology, and conservation"

Ping Zhou, Duke University, Department of Biology (Supervisor: Jonathan Shaw) "Evolutionary history and causation of Sphagnum cribrosum "wave form" in North Carolina "

The BSA and the Developmental & Structural section are pleased to announce the 2005 "VERNON I. CHEADLE STUDENT TRAVEL AWARD"

Erin Bissell University of Colorado, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

Erika Edwards Yale University

Anna Jacobsen Michigan State University, Department of Plant Biology

Cassandra Rogers Southern Illinois University, Department of Plant Biology

Phycological Section Student Travel Award

Kevin Kocot Illinois State University "Ultrastructure and Morphology of Development in the Charophycean Green Alga Chaetosphaeridium (Coleochaetales)"

Pteridological Section Student Travel Awards

2005 Award International University, Advisor: Steven F. Oberbauer "Biomechanics of Equisetum giganteum L. in the Atacama Desert and northwestern Argentina" and "Ecophysiology of Equisetum giganteum in the Atacama Desert, northern Chile"

Shane Shaw Miami University, Advisor: R. James Hickey "Natural History of the Puerto Rican soral cryptic Lepidopteran"

Susan T. Klimas University of Colorado, Advisor: Thomas Ranker "Phylogenetic relationships and ecology of the tree fern genus Sphaeropteris"

James E. Watkins University of Florida , Advisors: Steven Mulkey and Michelle Mack "Stress physiology of fern gametophytes: consequences for distribution and abundance"

Letters

In response to Scott Russell's article on AJB Open access... (PSB 51(2):47) Douglas Darnowski wrote:

I liked your article in PSB on open access. I think that BSA should keep its current policies.

Varmus' original statements were foolishly irresponsible at best, for most journals—just what happens when sucessful scientists go outside their own limited field of scientific research (Pauling, Watson, you name `em, they generally say and do poorly thought-out things).

If the government wants to pay for AJB, that would be a different matter, if of course BSA voted to allow it. But then, flying pigs are still fairly rare.

Scott Russell's reply:

Thanks for your comments. One reason that I wanted to discuss Open Access (note capitalization) is that it, like mom and apple pie are difficult to oppose in some form without more information. What has become OA is not merely ability of all scientists to download information for free (which AJB has managed to do with older content), but a dramatic shifting of the information and revenue stream that decreases the number of payers and increases the number of players. That is a difficult market when the payers are scientists and grants are getting larger, but number funded are getting smaller. Scientists don't buy journal subscriptions, so if the journal is essential to their work, price is not a direct concern compared to the ideal of being able to have access to high impact journals. The commercial publishers realize that researchers are not going to pay en masse for what they could have for free, or fire a graduate assistant so they can publish more papers this year. For all that Springer has done, they hold free submission as a very high ideal. Germany does not permit payment of page charges on grants and they support their scientists in this practice. Charging what the market can bear is the tricky part and only in the marketplace do we find out how much the market can bear. It is a complicated situation and non-profits have too small a cash reserve to make mistakes! Thanks again.

LETTER TO: William M. Dahl, Executive Director, Botanical Society of America

Dear Bill,

At the close of the Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences' Centennial celebrations, we offer a grateful Thank-You to you and the Botanical Society of America for your time and contributions towards making it a most successful year. We are especially appreciative of the BSA Historical Sections generous sponsorship of the sessions on the Legacy of Liberty Hyde Bailey, presented at the Agricultural History Symposium, which was held at Cornell as part of our Centennial tribute.

Best wishes,

Lee B. Kass
for the CALS Centennial Committee

In Memoriam:

Zane B. Carothers - 1924-2005

Zane B. Carothers, Professor Emeritus of Plant Biology at the University of Illinois , died on 3 Feb 2005. He was 80 years old.

Zane was born in 1924 in Philadelphia . After serving in the U.S. Army Air Force during World War II, Zane received his BS and MS degrees in education from Temple University and his PhD in botany from the University ofMichigan with his doctoral dissertation on "Comparative stem anatomy of some shrubby members of the Geraniaceae." He taught at the University of Kentucky from 1957-1959 and the University of Illinois from 1959-1991. He was Professor of Botany or Plant Biology from 1976-1991 and became Professor Emeritus of Plant Biology at his retirement in August 1991

At Illinois, Zane guided six masters (including Robert C. Scott III, Kathie Gilmore, Stephen Wolniak, and Beverly Williams) and six doctoral students (James Seago, Gerald Kreitner, John Moser, Dorothy Zinsmeister, David Haas, and Robert Robbins), and he served on dozens of doctoral committees. After his last doctoral students, he also hosted postdoctoral and senior collaborators: Roy Brown, Ann E. Rushing, and Karen S. Renzaglia.

Zane influenced many students with his courses in classical plant anatomy and morphology. He was very well known for his teaching because his classes were punctuated by his utterly careful preparations and by his dynamic teaching style and use of his voice. He was especially adept at changing the tone of his voice in order to emphasize points. He had a major impact on the teaching styles of many students who passed through his classes. His precise illustrations of plant anatomy provided a key to understanding complex topics and have been fondly used by many former students. Zane was a very much sought after reviewer by botanical journals (especially AJB) because he was so careful, thorough, and constructive in his criticisms and so knowledgeable of the literature.

His research covered the spectrum from stems and roots to bryophytes, which were the major emphases of his life's work. On the root/stem side of his work, the paper he coauthored with David Haas on maize root endodermis development (Haas' dissertation) is still a much cited paper. Zane was well known among bryologists for his meticulous interpretations of electron micrographs and reconstructions of bryophyte spermatids. He authored or coauthored 34 papers on the topic, including several major review articles.

Zane's avocation was submarines. He was a life member of the Navel Institute and Submarine Veterans Inc. and an associate member of the U.S. Submarine Veterans of World War II for which he served as president of the Wolf Pack chapter.

In his honor, the Zane B. Carothers Memorial Fund has been established at the Montgomery Botanical Center in Coral Gables, Florida. The Montgomery Botanical Center is dedicated to research and conservation of cycads and palms. Zane loved all plants but was particularly fascinated by the large sperm of cycads. For more information about this fund, contact Ann_Rushing@baylor.edu.

_ Ann E. Rushing, Department of Biology, Baylor University, Waco, TX 76798 and James L. Seago Jr., Department of Biology, SUNY Oswego, Oswego, NY 13126.

Vincent Ray Franceschi 1953-2005

Vincent Ray Franceschi, Director of the School of Biological Sciences, and the Electron Microscopy Center, Washington State University, died unexpectedly on Saturday at Pullman Regional Hospital , Pullman, Washington.

Vince was born on March 1, 1953, in Napa,California . He was the son of Giuseppe and Rita Bertolucci Franceschi. While Rita was on a visit to Tuscany, Italy, she met and married Guiseppe. Later, he immigrated to Napa , California, Rita's home town. He worked as a shoemaker, and she as a seamstress as they raised their three children, Joe, Vince and Angela. Vince attended Napa High School and later, NapaJunior College .

Vince graduated from the University of California, SantaBarbara, in 1976, obtained an MS from Iowa State University in 1978, and earned a doctorate in Botany from the University of California, Davis , in 1981.

Over the course of his career, Vince received many honors, all well-deserved. While still a student, he became a member of Phi Beta Kappa Honor Society, and was named a Regents Fellow at the University of California, Davis. He received a Lady Davis Fellowship from Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 1981. Vince was the recipient of the WSU College of Sciences Distinguished Faculty Research Award in 2004. Also in 2004, he was included on the ISI list of researchers Most Highly Cited in Animal and Plant Sciences, a distinction based on the high-profile nature of his over 150 publications.

In 1982, following a year of postdoctoral study at E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington , Delaware, Vince accepted a position at WSU in the Department of Botany. He rose to the rank of Full Professor in 1992 and assumed the Directorship of the WSU Electron Microscopy Center two years later, a position he still held at his death. The Department of Botany, along with several other departments, was reorganized into the School of Biological Sciences in 1999.

Despite the intensity of his research and instructional load, Vince volunteered in 2001 to assume the Director's position for the School, a multi-campus academic unit with more than 35 faculty, 60 graduate students and a burgeoning undergraduate program. Through his stewardship, the School moved forward with the successful addition of new faculty, reassessment of its undergraduate course offerings and a sharper image of its future. Vince instinctively understood the needs and aspirations of each faculty mem