_ in Russia is S. mors-uvae to be considered indigenous, 
648 SALMON : SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ON ERYSIPHACEAE 
quite distinct from U. Sengokuz in the longer narrower appen- 
dages, and the regularly 8-spored asci, etc. 
I have also received from Professor Shotaro Hori some beau- 
tiful specimens of Uncinula verniciferae P. Henn. with. perfectly 
ripe perithecia. These specimens were collected, some on the 
leaves of Rhus vernicifera DC. (Prov. Hidachi, Japan; 10 Oct. 
1901), and some on the fruit of R. swccedanea L. (Prov. Idzumo, 
Japan, coll. F. Tanaka, 12 Oct. 1901; and Prov. Miye, coll. N. 
Miura, 17 Oct. 1g01).- An examination of this material shows 
U. verniciferae to possess these characters : 
Amphigenous on leaves and fruit, mycelium subevanescent on 
the leaves, persistent on the fruit; perithecia gregarious or scat 
tered, subglobose, black, very variable in size, 80-140 y in diam., 
cells of outer: perithecial wall about 15 » wide ; appendages variable 
in number, 15~35, or rarely as few as 6, equalling, to 134 times 
exceeding, the diameter of the perithecium, simple, or very rarely 
forked towards the apex, colorless, aseptate, about 6 wide at the 
base, lower half becoming thick-walled, refractive, and often rough, 
narrowed into a closely coiled sometimes helicoid apex ; ascl 3-9 
broadly ovoid, 45-60 x 35-45 , stalk short ; spores 6-8, rarely 5, 
ellipsoid, 20 x 11-12. : 
U. verniciferae is extremely variable in the size of the perithe- 
cium and in the number of its appendages, but may be readily recos- 
nized by the appendages being narrowed upwards to the closely 
coiled apex, 
_ With regard to the reported occurrence of Sphaerotheca mors- 
uvae in Belgium (ane, p. 94), I am now able to state on the 
authority of Professor E. Marchal that this record was due to @ 
mistake, and is to be expunged. 
Quite recently, however, Hennings (1) has reported the occ 
rence of S. mors-uvae in Russia—‘ Government of Moskau, Gut 
Michailowskoje,” where it was collected by Mr. N. A. Mossolow 
in July 1901. Hennings (2. c.) observes of the fungus : ae 
selbe tritt anscheinend epidemisch auf kultivierten Stachelbect” a 
auf. Eine Einschleppung des Pilzes aus Nordamerika oder au e 4 
anderen Gebieten hat zweifellos nicht stattgefunden, sondern ¢5 
dieser Pilz jedenfalls in Russland heimisch.” Magnus (2), 0" 
‘ r 
other hand, has expressed his opinion that neither in Ireland oa 
but that © 
has been introduced from North America. The reason that Mag” 
