Leonard Peter Schultz
and the Beginning of the Fish Collection
The College
(i.e., School) of Fisheries at the University
of Washington was established in
1919 (Fig.
4). The founding Dean was John
Nathan Cobb, who lived from 1868-1930 (Fig. 5). Cobb was not a scientist; indeed, he did not
even possess a college degree. He was
experienced in fisheries, however, and was highly respected in the commercial
fishing community. He had worked as a
“field agent” for the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries in the Pacific
Northwest and Alaska,
for the west coast commercial fishing industry, and as an editor of the trade
magazine Pacific Fisherman.8
During
the first decade of its existence, the School was directed toward “practical”
aspects of the commercial fishing industry.
Courses in food preservation, canning, techniques of fishing, and fish
culture were the focus of the curriculum (Fig. 6). Many people in the University did not
appreciate the emphasis of the School on such “non-academic” subjects
(Stickney, 1989). Cobb, hoping to
deflect some of this criticism, decided to establish a Department of
Ichthyology that would be “separate” from the more applied aspects of the
School, and in 1927 he began to search for an ichthyologist to fill the new
position.9
One
of the first applicants for this advertised position was Leonard Peter Schultz
(1901-1986).10 Schultz was then an instructor in zoology at Michigan
State Normal College
at Ypsilanti (Fig. 7). He received an M.S. degree in zoology in 1926
under Carl Leavitt Hubbs (1894-1979) at the University
of Michigan (Anon., 1976a).11 Schultz was apparently planning to pursue a
Ph.D. in ichthyology at Michigan. He was familiar with the School
of Fisheries as he had accompanied Hubbs to Washington
State on a collecting trip in the
summer of 1926. Schultz also met Cobb
during that trip.12 Cobb offered the new position to Schultz.13
Schultz
was hired for the academic year 1928-1929 at the rank of instructor with a
salary of $2,500. Schultz was to teach
ichthyology, a course to be called “problems in ichthyology” that he was to
develop, and to participate in seminars.
He was to complete his doctoral degree, at which time he would be
advanced to assistant professor.14 Schultz moved to Seattle
in September 1928 and immediately began to collect fishes and to establish a
systematic fish collection at the School.
Many
years later, Schultz recalled that when he arrived at the School a small
collection of fishes was housed in the basement of the fish hatchery
building. It apparently contained a few
thousand specimens and Schultz wrote that the Collection contained “co-types”
obtained in the 1880s and 1890s.15 The
Collection had been built up over the years by the Young Naturalists’ Society
of Seattle (Benson, 1986a, b; Pietsch, 1997).16
Both Schultz and Dean Cobb
had great expectations for the future of ichthyology at the School
of Fisheries. At Cobb’s direction, Schultz planned new
laboratories for the study of fishes as well as a vault for the storage of the
Collection. In a 1928 proposal titled
“Equipment for Proposed New
Fisheries Building,”
Schultz asked for four tables and 25 chairs to accommodate 20 people in the
“Library of the Ichthyology Department,” in just one aspect of the initiative.17
Dean Cobb had
heart problems and died in January 1930 (Schultz, 1930). The proposed “Department of Ichthyology” did
not materialize. The UW President, Matthew Lyle Spencer (1881-1969), was not
impressed with the applied emphasis of the School
of Fisheries and, upon Cobb’s
death, dissolved the School. All faculty
of the School were dismissed, except for Schultz, who was considered a “bona
fide” academic and was transferred to the Department of Zoology (Stickney,
1989).
The termination
of the School brought a wave of protest from the students in the School as well
as from representatives of the commercial fishing industry. After the intervention of Governor of
Washington Roland Hill Hartley (1864-1952) in 1930, the School was
re-established as a Department of Fisheries in a new College
of Science.18 William Francis Thompson (1888-1965), the
Director of the International Fisheries Commission then housed in the School
of Fisheries buildings, was
appointed Director of the new Department on a part-time basis (Fig. 8).19 Schultz was re-assigned to Fisheries from the
Department of Zoology (Stickney, 1989).
Schultz
completed his doctorate in 1932 in the UW Department of Zoology, writing his
dissertation on the life history of the bay smelt, Atherinops afinis oregonia, of the Pacific
Coast (see Appendix; Schultz,
1933). He was duly promoted to Assistant
Professor. Schultz taught ichthyology
and supervised the graduate work of several students, most notably William McCleod Chapman (1910-1970) who would later become Director
of the School of Fisheries
and a renowned expert on commercial fisheries (Appendix). He published keys to the fishes of Washington
and Oregon (Schultz, 1936) and a
distributional paper on the fishes of the Pacific Northwest
(Schultz and DeLacy, 1935, 1936). Schultz also produced other papers on fishes
of the region.20
Schultz undertook a
vigorous collection program during his nine-year tenure at the University
of Washington. Indeed, even today his efforts account for an
estimated 20% of the number of adult fishes in the Collection. He entered into the Collection an estimated
4,216 lots of fishes (Table 1),
thus establishing a valuable teaching and research resource. 21
In late
1936, Schultz accepted a position as an assistant curator at the U.S. National
Museum (USNM), Smithsonian Institution, at a considerable increase in
salary. On 26 November 1936, Schultz shipped, without
permission, 525 lots containing 6,860 fishes to the USNM, either as a gift or
loan to be determined upon Schultz’s arrival at the Museum. Of the six tanks and one keg shipped to the
Museum, all but two contained cataloged specimens from the School’s Fish
Collection; the remaining specimens were uncataloged.22 On 8 December 1936, Schultz sent to the USNM “a
typewritten list of the fish specimens recently sent from the School of Fisheries collection
to the U.S. National Museum by me.” The
list indicates the transfer included five holotypes,
17 paratypes, and 14 “co-types.”23
Schultz did
not tell Director Thompson of his action, but left him an inventory of the
specimens that had been shipped to the USNM.
Thompson was dismayed, writing to Schultz on 26 January 1937, “We have just been looking
over the fish collection here and over the list of specimens which you left as
having been sent to the U.S. National Museum.”
He further wrote, “it is apparent that the
collection is in many respects reduced so far as to embarrass the teaching
during the coming quarter. I am having
some difficulty explaining the situation.”24
Schultz
responded to Thompson on 1 February
1937, “It was with considerable surprise that I received your
letter of Jan. 26 in regard to the fish collection there at Seattle with the
general idea that I had sent so many fish to the U. S. National Museum that
perhaps the collection there was depleted.
I can not quite agree with you in this matter and shall attempt to
discuss the matter at some length.”
Schultz then discussed the Collection and noted that many additional uncataloged fishes were available for teaching
purposes. He claimed that the specimens
sent to the USNM did not “represent 1/50th of the cataloged
collection.” Schultz wrote, “Of course
if you wish I can return the entire lot or any portion of it that is requested
but I feel you will not need the fish right away after examining the collection
more carefully.”25
Schultz
then gave his rationale for the transfer of fishes. “Incidentally over 80% of the fish which I
sent here were collected by me at my own expense and on my own time. During the 9 years of my tenure at the
University of Washington, that institution contributed but 36 dollars toward
the collection of fish, and that for Atherinops [i.e.,
for his dissertation work], all of which specimens are still there.” He then told Thompson that there should be
“no difficulty” in explaining the situation concerning the fishes “for there
still remain somewhere at 100,000 or more cataloged and unidentified fish at
the School of Fisheries.”26
Schultz,
however, offered an “exchange” for the fishes taken. “If you desire an exchange and wish to
deposit the specimens which I sent here as an exchange
I think it could be arranged.” He asked
Thompson what the latter wanted and indicated that he would cooperate, as “he
did not wish to embarrass anyone.”
Schultz concluded his defense, writing, “I regret that you should have
had occasion to feel that I depleted the fish collection there for I am sure
that that is not the case.”27
Further
correspondence ensued and an agreement to exchange fishes was made between
Schultz and Thompson on 10 June
1937.28 Arthur Welander, a
fishery biologist who replaced Schultz in overseeing the Collection and in
teaching ichthyology, compiled a list of fishes the School desired in exchange and
Thompson forwarded it to Schultz.29 In September 1937, Schultz sent a proposed
exchange list containing 114 or more species in 90 families. Schultz also proposed to return, as requested
in Thompson’s letter, 58 lots of UW cataloged fishes containing about 114
specimens. Finally, there were another
29 lots of UW cataloged fishes, containing about 494 specimens that Schultz
desired to keep for “further study.” In
a compromise about this latter group, he proposed to return one-half the
samples to the UW and to retain the remainder at the USNM. 30
The School
agreed to these terms of exchange in late September and it was completed in
November 1937.31 The USNM exchanged considerably fewer total
fishes than Schultz had “transferred.”
Schultz sent a total of only 1,066 specimens in 198 lots to the UW. This total included the return of 78 lots and
607 specimens previously transferred to the USNM. Apparently the School was mainly interested
in preserving a teaching collection of fishes, with rather little thought
directed toward retaining a research collection. However, the specimens shipped to UW from
USNM added significantly to the geographical diversity of the UW Fish
Collection, as the exchanged specimens were collected from various localities
in the U.S., Central
America, central and southeast Asia, and
the Caribbean.32 The completion of the exchange seemed to end
the controversy over the “missing fishes.”33
Over the
years, however, Schultz became a frequent critic of the School of Fisheries for its
failure to pursue a vigorous program in systematic ichthyology. Ichthyological
research was not conducted in the School from the time Schultz left in 1937
until 1948 when Albert Herre was hired to oversee the
Fish Collection and to conduct research on Philippine fishes. But Herre did not
teach nor did he supervise graduate students.
Herre retired in 1957 due to failing health.
In 1958,
rather than writing directly to Richard Van Cleve (1906-1984), the Dean of the
School, Schultz wrote to the President of the University, Charles E. Odegaard (1911-1999).
In that letter, Schultz commented on the “unfavorable reputation of Academic
quality of systematic ichthyology at the University of Washington….” He mentioned work done by two graduate
students in the School of Fisheries whom he
felt lacked proper guidance and counseling that resulted in their submitting
for publication either poorly or erroneously prepared manuscripts. Schultz had reviewed these manuscripts and he
attached copies of the correspondence concerning these papers. Schultz emphasized that he was not blaming
the students who had sought counsel from the USNM; rather he felt that
competent advice should have been available to the students within the School of Fisheries. He concluded his letter by recommending “the
appointment of a young Ph.D. who is productive in ichthyological
research and has ability to teach an excellent course in ichthyology.”34
Schultz’s
letter to President Odegaard was duly referred to the
School of Fisheries for
reply. In a cover letter to the Provost of
the University, Van Cleve defended the School’s position and blamed a lack of
funds for the absence of an ichthyologist on the faculty. Should funds become available, he wrote, the
School would be interested in hiring an ichthyologist. In a three-page appendix to this letter, the
School responded to each point made in Schultz’s letter. The School also disparaged Schultz’s work,
commenting particularly on a paper he published in 1958 describing three new
species of serranid fishes. Van Cleve wrote, “In our opinion Dr. Schultz
has not demonstrated that these fish are new species. It is unfortunate that a man of his stature
would attempt to publish such a paper.”
Later, Van Cleve wrote, “We are now part of a long list of fisheries
workers who are the subject of Dr. Schultz’s hypercritical remarks.”35
Schultz
wrote a second letter to the University President in June 1960. He pointed out that among the 34 members of
the teaching and research faculty, and research staff in the School of Fisheries, not one
was an ichthyologist. This, Schultz
asserted, “shows a lack of balance in the basic sciences of ichthyology.”36
It is of interest to note that despite the
disagreements between the School of Fisheries
and Leonard P. Schultz, these differences appeared to be confined to a
professional level. Schultz remained
friends with Thompson and Van Cleve, as numerous letters in the UW Archives
will attest. Schultz was apparently a
very likeable fellow. In an obituary of
Schultz, Springer (1987) wrote, “Leonard had detractors amongst his colleagues,
and was subjected to considerable criticism.
Had his research been regarded more highly by his peers he might have
escaped much of their obloquy. Many who
were not ichthyologists, and some who were, however, liked and respected
Leonard for his generous and kindly nature, and the great many important good
things he accomplished.”
Table
of Contents Literature
Cited