Prof. J. Dagys (1906.X.11 – 1993.I.31)

WE WILL REMEMBER THEM Prof. J. Dagys (1906.X.11 — 1993.I.31) Last year, at the age of 86, the distinguished botanist, habilitated doctor, professor, and corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences Jonas Dagys died. His research interests were very broad: plant physiology and morphology, substances that stimulate yeast growth, phytoncides, the ecology of plants on the Baltic coast, the history of Lithuanian botany, plant guttation, and the effects of vitamins and trace elements on enzyme activity, chlorophyll content, and the intensity of photosynthesis in plant leaves. J. Dagys—a student of Professors K. Regelis and L. Vailionis—wrote important works in biological science, devoted much effort to training specialists in botany, and also wrote textbooks for higher education, popular booklets, reviewed extensively, and edited Lithuanian Botanical Dictionary (1938, vol. 1), Dictionary of Botanical Terms (1965), Flora of the Lithuanian SSR (1959–1980, 6 vols.), and other publications. J. Dagys’s contribution to Lithuanian science as a scholar and educator is important not only to botany but also to terminology. The professor devoted particular attention to Lithuanian botanical terminology. For many years he was a member of the Commission for the Botanical Dictionary (before the war), and later its chair, as well as a member of the Terminology Council under the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences. His efforts to improve the language of science are evidenced not only by the botanical terminology dictionaries he edited, but also by articles, textbook reviews, and letters. In tribute to the Professor, we present several excerpts on botanical terminology from his articles (language unchanged). J.G. It is impossible to write scholarly works without terminology, yet before Pabrėža no one had attended to botanical terms in the Lithuanian language. Thus J. Pabrėža’s complaint in “Taislius” ([2], p.9) is entirely understandable: “But oh, how difficult a thing it is to bring forth such a child in a language in which no Samogitian has yet even thought of writing on that subject!” <...> “Taislius auguminis” is not intended for broad sections of society, and “Samogitian farmers” would not understand that book even now, let alone the serfs of those times. It is a specialized, purely scholarly work, not a work of popular science; it could have served as a textbook for a higher education institution. 71 The second part of the introduction is entitled “On the system and botanical terms.” In the first section, Linnaeus’s system of plants is presented, slightly supplemented according to K. Sprengel. The following terms are used for taxonomic units: gauja (classis), rėda (ordo), veislė (genus), skirtis (species), and atmaina (varietas). Today they are called differently: class, order, genus, species, and varietas. In Lithuanian, veislė means something quite different—it is a variety developed through human selection. Skirtis may perhaps also be a suitable term for species, since in commerce the word rūšis has a different meaning. J. Pabrėžos gyvenimas ir darbai// Jurgis Pabrėža (1771--1849). V., 1972. P. 15--16. Some of Pabrėža’s vivid proposed terms have survived in botanical dictionaries to this day, for example: pažiedis (bracteae), purka (stigma), rinkinys (annulus), terlytėlė (cyphella), ankštara (siliqua), ankštarėlė (silicula), aukšlys (utriculus), and others. Until about 1930, instructors in the Department of Botany at Kaunas University also called the essential parts of the flower, following Pabrėža, motelės (pistils) and vyrukai (stamens), but these terms were later abandoned because of their anthropomorphism. Pabrėža’s writings contain more such anthropomorphisms, for example, liežtuvis (ligula), strajus (anthera). Ten pat. P. 18. In general, the work of Rev. Fedoravičius contains a great many new plant names, but they are of greater historical value and provide a striking example of attempts in the scientific literature of that period to represent words that were lacking. The editors of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language view them this way, as did the editor of the Lithuanian Botanical Dictionary appearing this year, including from Fedoravičius’s manuscript only genus names as synonyms in the dictionary. Unsuccessful Polonisms were not included at all. But in those days, when Lithuanian literature was so meager and the language contaminated with barbarisms, Fedoravičius’s collection of plant names should be regarded as a work that required considerable painstaking effort and was executed well. It is strange that Rev. Fedoravičius, although acquainted with Rev. A. Pabrėža and even having received material from his herbarium, borrowed nothing from Pabrėža’s nomenclature or terminology. If some names coincide, it is only because they are widespread throughout Lithuania or were taken from K. G. Hagen’s work, which both authors used. 72 the work “Preussens Pflanzen”. Although the authors’ name lists are similar in form, both having been composed according to the Linnaean system, A. Pabrėža’s list contains fewer foreignisms. Rev. Juozapas Fedoravičius—a botanist of the Ilūkštė and Zarasai region (1776–1860) // Gamta. 1938. No. 3. P. 181. In summarizing Prof. Vailionis’s scholarly work and achievements, I would also like to emphasize that he was a quintessential Lithuanian scholar and a champion of Lithuanian culture. I have already mentioned that Lithuanian identity was decisive for him in choosing research topics. The professor likewise strove, in matters of form, to be and remain an exemplary Lithuanian. He published his works only in Lithuanian scholarly journals, although, for this reason, they received little notice in the international press. It is true that he belonged to two Western European botanical societies: Société Botanique de France and Deutsche Botanische Gesellschaft; but his membership was entirely passive, since the professor attended neither the meetings of these societies nor wrote for the journals they published. But the concerns of Lithuanian botanists were always important to him. Above all, the professor devoted himself tirelessly to creating and standardizing an appropriate Lithuanian botanical nomenclature and terminology. Thanks to Prof. Vailionis’s efforts, the Lithuanian Botanical Dictionary Commission was organized in 1926 for this purpose, although, according to the professor himself, the initiative had come from Dr. K. Grinius. Without Prof. Vailionis’s efforts, the Commission’s work would not have expanded so far or progressed so rapidly as it in fact did. Prof. Vailionis put his whole heart into creating the Botanical Dictionary: he collected material himself, invited collaborators, paid from his own funds the expenses associated with collecting material, assigned me, his assistant, editorial work, and was himself at every moment a sincere adviser on editorial matters. Finally, he crowned this enormous undertaking by publishing Part I of the Lithuanian Botanical Dictionary at his own expense. It is true that this left him and his family with a heavy debt. But with this work Prof. Vailionis immortalized his name in the history of Lithuanian botany, because this volume, covering not only nomenclature but also the geographical and ecological distribution of plants, their significance, and their uses in agriculture, medicine, and other fields, will serve several more generations of Lithuanian naturalists. This dictionary 73 In preparing it, Prof. Vailionis was highly resourceful in coining new words where plant names collected from living speech were lacking. Whereas other members of the Dictionary Commission often tended to leave plants without a folk name with their Latin name, merely adding a Lithuanian ending, Prof. Vailionis accepted this last resort only in cases of dire necessity, when nothing suitable could be devised. Thus Prof. Vailionis gave our dictionary many successful plant names, such as marazolė (Tunica prolifera), puikūnas (Mimulus guttatus), šiaudenis (Anthericum ramosum), and others. In plant anatomy terminology, too, Prof. Vailionis stubbornly defended certain Lithuanian terms, for example akelė, refusing to use celė, customary among other biologists. It is a great pity that he will no longer be able to contribute to the preparation of Part II of this dictionary (terms in plant anatomy, morphology, and physiology)—here there would have been an even broader field for his creativity. Liudas Vailionis (1886–1939) // Gamta. 1939. No. 3. P. 194–195. When discussing microorganisms, which represent a completely new world to the pupil, broader descriptions and illustrations are essential. <...> By the way, Volvox and Ulothrix illustrations are upside down and transposed. Lithuanian names should have been devised for these microorganisms, or senior colleagues consulted, or at least a Lithuanian transcription provided: how is a first-year pupil supposed to pronounce the word Vaucheria? A. Jakučionis. Nature Textbook for the First Reformed Class. K., 1936. 110 p. – Review: J. Dagys: [Untitled] // Gamta. 1937. No. 2. P. 121. Prepared by Jolanta GAIVENYTĖ Prof. L. Mulevičius and the terminology of history In the spring of 1993, just before Easter, the distinguished Lithuanian historian, Prof. habil. dr. L. Mulevičius, died. An honorable and very virtuous man departed for the land of Hades, where, in the words of the poet A. Žukauskas, “nothing will ever begin and nothing will ever end”... 74