ASIH-History of the Society

A Chronology of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists

Through 1982

by

Tim M. Berra


[Berra, Tim M. 1984. A Chronology of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Through 1982. Special Publication Number 2, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas. ISSN 0748-0539.]


Introduction | Chronology | The AIBS Affair | The Navy Manual Affair | The IRS Affair | Resolutions | Figures


INTRODUCTION

ORGANIZATIONS, like organisms, are subject to evolution via selection. They must adapt to their environments or become extinct. The American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists exhibits the highest degree of Darwinian fitness. We are leaving multitudinous offspring in the form of published research and inspiration and stimulation for new members. Our "fossil record" dates back to 27 December, 1913 when the first issue of Copeia was published. Copeia, like life itself, evolved from a modest beginning and radiated into a prestigious quarterly journal recognized around the world as a leading source of technical articles on ichthyology and herpetology.

What follows is not the definitive history of the Society, but rather a chronological or stratigraphic look at past events. The procedure used was analogous to a paleontologist's attempt to reconstruct the phylogenetic history of a species by piecing together bits and pieces of the fossil record. There are gaps in the fossil record, and there are gaps in the information available to the historian. For example, I can find very little data on the early years of the Society from 1913-1930. So far, attempts to locate the archives of John Treadwell Nichols have been unsuccessful. This does not necessarily support the punctuated equilibrium mode of evolution. The history of the Society shows a gradual transition periodically interrupted by quantum leaps, just as is shown by the history of organisms. Both modes of advance are important.

If we think of the history of the Society as one continual event dating back to 1913, we have an advantage over the paleontologist. We have members who can remember the early days and the people involved. I would like to call upon these people to contribute their experience to a fully developed history of the ASIH.

Our current problem of how to maintain herpetological interest in the Society is not a new one. The following was written by ASIH founder John T. Nichols to Major Chapman Grant on 30 November 1934:

From long association with many kinds of naturalists I have come to think of mammalogists usually being industrious, ornithologists companionable, herpetologists quarrelsome, ichthyologists opinionated, and so forth and so on. Possibly you have not thought of these class distinctions, having only recently become a good deal of a herpetologist and having been derived from an ornithological background. As a matter of fact one of the difficulties of holding the A.S.I.H. together and keeping "Copeia" going on an even keel is due to the herpetological temperament. Hence I hate to hear mention of anyone resigning on account of the getting of goats, which is quite a common occurrence.

The material in this report was obtained from four sources. (1) Each issue of Copeia from 1913 through 1982 was examined page by page and notes were made of interesting items. (2) The official repository of ASIH documents is the Smithsonian Institution Archives. The ASIH file contains about 18 cubic feet of material in 42 boxes, much of which is tissue copies of correspondence of officers. It would take a full-time researcher at least a year to read and digest all this material. I worked at the Archives for a total of 10 days on two visits. (3) The Secretary's notebook contains lists of various committees and other tabular information. Much of this information, such as lists of Governors, has been omitted from this report in order to save space. (4) Correspondence and conversations with ASIH members and others produced some information. Various drafts of this report were read by Reeve M. Bailey, Arnold Grobman, Clark Hubbs, Laura Hubbs, Robert R. Miller, Jay M. Savage, Aaron Wasserman, and George R. Zug. Identification of the people in Figure 1 was provided by Reeve M. Bailey, Roger Conant, Arnold Grobman, Laura Hubbs, George S. Myers, and M. Graham Netting.

CHRONOLOGY



ESSAY 1. THE AIBS AFFAIR

In the late 1940's, biologists generally became aware that, relative to physicists and chemists, they were neither receiving their proportionate share of grants from the NSF nor equivalent attention from congressional and federal agencies. Biologists were fragmented into a large number of small special interest societies, while physicists and chemists each had their own major societies to represent them.

In order to provide a comparable national voice for biologists, as existed for chemists and physicists, the officers of a number of biological societies convened to discuss this situation. Those discussions led to the foundation of an umbrella organization with offices in Washington, D.C., the American Institute of Biological Sciences. The AIBS was essentially a federation of diverse independent biological societies and was funded primarily through dues collected by the individual societies amounting, at first, to $.50 per member.

The AIBS was successful in the late 1950's and early 1960's. Government officials increasingly turned to the AIBS for advice. The AIBS initiated a periodical that kept biologists informed about the Washington scene in a way that had never been done before. It organized highly successful national conventions at which a number of biological societies met jointly, and those meetings provided the opportunity for valuable cross-disciplinary symposia. The AIBS took on projects that no individual biological society was capable of or interested in. For example, it developed the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, which produced a new generation of high school biology textbooks, the content of which was determined by professional biologists rather than by commercial textbook publishers.

The AIBS, perhaps due to its fundamental structure as a federation of societies, was in constant financial trouble. One of the results was that more than a prudent part of the cost of operations of AIBS was being met by overhead from grants. In 1962 the AIBS was accused of fiscal irregularities by the National Science Foundation. For example, NSF funds, awarded for the curriculum study, were diverted to support the AIBS Film Service without NSF approval. Funds received from the sale of publications were not held in escrow as the NSF maintained they should have been. Interest was drawn on NSF funds and not repaid to the government as a directive required. Business management operations were criticized and irregularities in charges for entertainment and travel were identified.

To extricate itself from these difficulties AIBS needed to raise at least $250,000. In early February 1963 a mimeographed appeal for funds was sent to all ASIH members. Included in this solicitation was a note from the ASIH representative to the AIBS, Richard G. Zweifel, who expressed his personal opinion (so identified) that the AIBS provided a necessary service for all of biology. This note and fund appeal were mailed by the AIBS; and the envelope used bore the printed return address "American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists 2000 P Street N.W. Washington, 6, D.C." This actually was the address of the AIBS. Several ASIH members in leadership positions (William A. Gosline, James A. Peters, Jay M. Savage) strongly objected to this inappropriate and unauthorized of use of the ASIH name. These individuals felt the use of the ASIH name was unethical, if not illegal, and reflected the same sort of shady practices which caused AIBS to be in difficulty in the first place. Other member societies' names were similarly used, e.g. American Society of Limnology and Oceanography.

Arnold B. Grobman, writing on behalf of the AIBS to ASIH secretary Peters attempted to dismiss the importance of the use of the ASIH name on the AIBS fund solicitation. Peters inserted a statement in Copeia 1963 (1): 224 that the appeal for donations to AIBS was not approved by ASIH and that the ASIH did not maintain an office at the address shown on the envelope.

At the 1963 business meeting a motion that the ASIH withdraw from the AIBS was tabled until the Board of Governors meeting. The Board voted 21 to 20 to withdraw from AIBS in 1964. A mail poll of the membership in 1965 resulted in 459 members voting to stay out of AIBS and 175 favored rejoining.

ESSAY 2. THE NAVY MANUAL AFFAIR

The first edition of the Office of Naval Intelligence's Poisonous Snakes of the World was published on 30 June 1962. This manual was intended to serve as a training aid and identification guide of the most widely distributed species of venomous snakes. It was reviewed by Sherman A. Minton, Jr. and Herndon G. Dowling in Copeia 1964 (2): 458-9 who referred to it as "an uncritical and naive compilation." After pointing out many errors they wrote that "the entire publication gives the impression that someone who did not realize the enormity of the task turned it over to a group of untrained subordinates who were expected to produce the work by a certain deadline. "

The frustrating machinations that followed were colorfully summarized in a memo to the Executive Committee from J. A. Peters (Secretary) and V. G. Springer (Treasurer) dated 24 May, 1965. The details below are paraphrased or copied from that memo.

In late 1964, Arnold Grobman approached the Executive committee with a proposal, originating with the Navy, and specifically from Captain John R. Seal, that the society participate in a revision of the Navy manual "Poisonous Snakes of the World." The Executive committee indicated its willingness to permit an eight-man committee to be organized and to see what could be done. The committee was appointed, with Roger Conant as chairman, and began local contact with Commander Granville Moore to try to arrange the mechanics of the procedure.

Springer and Peters discussed the arrangements and contract with Moore and Lieutenant Hartgrove, fiscal officer in the Navy. It had become apparent that the committee proposed complete revision from beginning to end of the manual, and that Commander Moore felt that such revision could not be done. The gap between what the Navy expected and what the Committee felt had to be done was so great that Peters felt the only solution was to have a preliminary meeting at which the committee and the Navy got together to discuss the entire problem. The Navy, however, could not finance such a preliminary meeting unless a contract to do the entire job was signed. Since it was entirely possible that the meeting would reach an impasse, and the committee would decide it could not function within the limits set by the Navy, it was not clear who would then have to fulfill the contractual obligations. In addition there was concern on the part of some members of the committee that the society was obligating itself to put a stamp of approval on the final revised manual either directly or through a committee, but that there was not mechanism to insure that the comments of the committee would be accepted and/or incorporated in the manual.

The problems and difficulties were communicated to the committee, now effectively composed of seven people. Three voted that we discontinue all efforts on the project, three indicated a small committee might be able to do more. Conant voted as chairman to break the tie and cast his ballot in favor of a small committee.

A three-man committee, composed of Findley Russell, Sherman Minton (chairman) and Herndon Dowling, was appointed and immediately indicated the necessity of getting together with the Navy to see if anything could be done. Again, it was impossible for them to do so unless the contract was signed. By this time a copy of the contract drawn up by the Navy was available. Conversation involving Peters, Russell, a representative of the ONR Grants Office, Commander Moore, and several high ranking officers in the Navy, resulted in Peters' drawing up a letter to be attached to the contract upon which the contract would be conditional.

The Navy signed a contract with this letter attached, although when they returned the contract to Peters, the letter had been removed, and there was no immediately obvious guarantee that they planned to honor it.

On the strength of this letter, and the assurance of Commander Moore that with this letter it would be possible to receive payment for the preliminary meeting even though the committee decided that they could not continue to work on the manual. Peters arranged a meeting in Washington on April 14.

Shortly after the meeting in Washington, Dowling and Russell turned in requests for the funds they had expended in attending the meeting, asking for payment. Peters called Commander Moore to find out what had to be done to obtain payment. Moore indicated that it was a simple matter of filling our standard government travel vouchers and submitting them for payment of the Navy. Springer started to work on the task and made a series of telephone calls to various Navy offices, but got little satisfaction. Finally, May 20, he got some action.

Two Navy auditors showed up in Springer's office, and requested to see his books. Springer asked why, and was told that the contract we had signed gave the Navy the privilege of an audit of our books at any reasonable time. He immediately opened his records. After reviewing them, the officers made the following statements:

1. The ASIH bookkeeping system is inadequate to handle the type of contract we have with the Navy; the Navy should have investigated the society beforehand, and never signed the contract with us.

2. There is a possible conflict of interest involved, since the bookkeeping and secretarial functions are performed on Government property, and this should have been investigated before the contact was signed.

3. The contract we have with the Navy is set up in such a way that the Society must pay out of its own operating funds any bills submitted for payment out of this contract (the amount, obviously, could run up to $7500). After such payment, the bills, with receipts showing that the payment had been made, are submitted to the Navy which would then issue funds to cover the disbursements. Thus, to pay Dowling and Russell, our treasurer must pay them out of the current operating funds of the society.

4. The Society must give advance notice to the Navy contracting of officer on the letting of any subcontracts. The auditing officers considered each member of the three-man committee an individual subcontractor, and there is some question in our minds as to whether they were authorized to assemble in Washington without prior approval of the Navy.

5. The Society must inform the Navy of any fees, salaries, etc. to be paid to subcontractors. When the auditors were told that Commander Moore and the members of the committee had decided that they would get $75.00 a day for their work, they indicated that this might well be considered excessive by the contracting officer, under which conditions he could refuse to pay. He would approve the amount, however, if we could "establish that this was a normal consulting fee for a herpetologist . "

6. The records of expenditures on the contract must be maintained and available to the Navy for audit for three years after termination of the contract. At any time during this three-year period, the Navy may decide that we paid too much for certain items, or that certain items were not allowable. If this happens, the society (NOT the subcontractors) will have to reimburse the Navy. It is possible (although not very probable) that the Navy could decide that the contract had not been fulfilled, and request the entire sum to be paid back by the society. This would undoubtedly lead to litigation

7. The auditors said that although overhead is allowable on the contract, they could not see where we would have any overhead, and would not receive any.

8. Both the secretary and treasurer of the society are government employees, and time spent in behalf of the society in working with this contract, cannot be salaried.

None of these things were pointed out to the society by any of the representatives of the Navy. When strong misgivings about some of the clauses in the enormously detailed contract were felt, the society was reassured that most of the details applied to general contracts. Russell talked with several high Navy officers during his visit prior to the meeting of the committee, and the general results of those conversations, was that the society had nothing to worry about. Now it develops that none of these people talked to represented the Navy Auditing Department, and that the latter group is planning to give us every bit of a hard time they can on every point in the contract .

In a memo of 28 May 1965 Peters and Springer apologized to the two Navy auditors and stated that the auditors met with Springer as a result of Springer's request for explanations of how to obtain funds for payment on the contract.

To make a long story short, the problems were eventually resolved and the second edition of Poisonous Snakes of the World was issued. The preface bore the statement, "This revision has been made with the assistance of a committee appointed by the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists."

The above account is primarily about the kind of conflict that occurs between bureaucratic granting agencies and earnest scientists. The same kind of time-consuming nonsense would be going on today at many university campuses were it not for the fact that most universities have placed a research foundation or grants administration between the granting agency and the investigator.

ESSAY 3. THE IRS AFFAIR

The American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists was granted exemption from tax on 21 June, 1950 under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. On 23 August, 1968 IRS auditor William Hamilton checked the ASIH returns and account book for 1966 and 1967. On 22 October, 1968 the Society was informed by the IRS that our tax exempt status was to be revoked retroactive to 1950. This decision was based upon two grounds: 1.) The balance in the Endowment Fund allegedly represented an unreasonable accumulation of income, and 2.) our bylaws required the principal in the Endowment Fund by kept intact. Both of these points violate IRS rules for tax exempt organizations.

The Society retained the law firm Hanson, Cobb, Tucker, and O'Brien of Washington, D.C., to deal with this problem. A hearing was held on 21 March, 1969 and included J . A. Peters, R. H. Gibbs, Jr., D. Cohen, and R. Highton, lawyers representing ASIH and Mr. Lewis of the IRS. It was argued that the entire Endowment Fund was necessary as a reserve for the obligation to life members, and that the income accumulated in the Fund was exceeded by the actual amount needed for the publication costs of sending Copeia to life members. Therefore the balance in the Fund did not represent an unreasonable accumulation of income.

The Society conceded that our accounting system was not the most sophisticated and that the term "Endowment Fund" was more properly called a reserve. However, the provision in the ASIH bylaws requiring that the principal of the Endowment Fund be kept intact was actually revoked in June 1968, prior to the IRS audit. The Society also demonstrated an error in the IRS calculations indicating that ASIH had a balance of $18,470 in the Fund rather than the $34,111 indicated by the IRS.

On 15 April, 1969 the IRS notified the ASIH that the proposed revocation of our tax exempt status was withdrawn, and our returns for 1966 and 1967 were accepted as filed. We were warned that our exempt status could be adversely affected if we accumulated more income than needed to carry out the functions forming the basis for our exemption. Changes in the constitution and bylaws designed to avoid future problems of this nature are listed in Copeia 1969 (4):873.

RESOLUTIONS

(Positions taken by the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists)

FIGURES

Figure 1
Figure 1. Annual meeting of American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists at National Museum in Washington, DC, on 5 May 1932.
Scherer Photo from the Carl L. Hubbs Papers courtesy of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography Library.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Annual meeting of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists at National Museum in Washington, DC, 13-17 June 1962.
Photograph from the Carl L. Hubbs Papers courtesy of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography Library.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Membership and subscriptions from 1931 through 1982.

Figure 4
Figure 4. Total number of pages in Copeia and number of ichthyological and herpetological titles from 1913 through 1982. A few papers dealing with fish and herps have been counted in both categories.





ASIH Home
This page maintained by ASIH
Last modified
© 2001 ASIH