LASIODIPLODIA. 461 



and Chcetodiplodia diver sis fora March., with spores 25-33 X 

 13-15 J,. 



Recently Ridley (20) has recorded a new fungus disease of 

 Hevea brasiliensis in the Federated Malay States. The fungus 

 attacked the shoots and worked down the stem until the tree 

 was killed. In some places a black fungus was found emerg- 

 ing irom the cracks in the bark, and on the older parts of the 

 branch the bark was covered with larger elevated patches, 

 black in colour and looking as if soot had been thrown on the 

 tree. Ridley states that the perithecia are enibedded in a 

 black stroma and that the spores are oval and transversely 

 divided, but he refers the fungus to Cucurbitaria. The 

 disease is said to be a rapid one, kilHng two-year old trees 

 almost down to the base in twelve days ; but this record is 

 uncertain, since the tree was thought to be "wintering " when 

 first observed. Subsequently, the same fungus was recorded 

 (21) from Selangor : in this case it attacked stumps about 

 3 inches in girth, and killed 80 per cent, of them. 



The symptoms described by Ridley are exactly those of the 

 " dieback " and stump disease caused, in Ceylon, South 

 India, and Burma, by Botryodiplodia iheobromce. The fungus 

 has, however, been described by Massee (23) as Diplodia 

 rapax — " Perithecia 3-7 aggregata, globosa atra, primo 

 tecta, dein erumpentia, rugulosa, glabra, 160-180 p. diame- 

 tro., ostiolo minuto vix stromatis superficiem attingente 

 donata. Sporse serogense, eUipticse, utrinque obtusae, medio 

 l-septatae, haud constrictse, opace fuHgineae, 32-35 X 15- 

 16 [x." Massee (22) suggests that it is a stage in the Hfe 

 cycle of some species of RoseUinia ! The fungus was received 

 at Kew, almost at the same date, from Singapore and the 

 Gold Coast, and it is suggested (23) that it " has been con- 

 veyed along with the seed, as it is difficult to reahze that the 

 same species of fungus csin have adapted itself to rubber trees 

 in two distant countries, and within so short a period of time." 

 From the descriptions, it would appea.r that the fungus should 

 have been described as a Botryodiplodia. Its spores are not 

 larger than those of Botryodiplodia theobromce as measured by 

 Patouillard. There is no mention of any paraphyses, but this 

 apparent difference may be, as usual, an oversight. It is in 



6(11)10 (60) 



