Mycology is a relatively small and young discipline that has yet to achieve the institutional presence of similar disciplines such as botany and zoology. Because of this, mycological histories are often written by practitioners aiming to establish a narrative of professionalization that confirms mycology as a scientific discipline instead of a natural history pursuit. George Edward Massee (1845–1917) was one of the foremost mycologists of the late nineteenth century, achieving the top position in the field as Principal Assistant (Cryptogams) at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and publishing over 250 books and articles. Providing a link between the great Victorian mycologists Mordecai Cubitt Cooke (1825–1914) and the Revd Miles Joseph Berkeley (1803–1889) and the more modern school that included the likes of Elsie Maud Wakefield (1886–1972), he achieved this position without a university education. However, since his death, his achievements have been subject to multiple negative assessments and, as a result, he has become increasingly obscured in the history of British mycology. The majority of these unfavourable appraisals originated from the publications of Dr John Ramsbottom (1885–1974), a mycologist and historian who was a key member of the British Mycological Society and a founding member of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History. These articles were published across the first half of the twentieth century, and Ramsbottom's works have since become standard texts in both the biography of Massee and the history of British mycology. Here I question the validity of the substance of Ramsbottom's claims against Massee, given the circumstances under which Ramsbottom's articles were written and the relationship between Massee and the fledgling British Mycological Society, initially run by Carleton Rea (1861–1946) and of which Ramsbottom was a senior member. I examine wider reasons for such strong criticism of Massee and explore the professional differences and relationships between Massee and Ramsbottom, placing the analysis firmly in the context of changing scientific practice occurring in the early twentieth century.
Two kinds of theory: What psychology can learn from Einstein
