THIELAVIOPSIS PARADOXA. 525 



has an endoconidial stage, though it is doubtful whether that 

 stage is identical with Thielaviopsis. His account contains 

 several misquotations. He writes : " Massee states that an 

 endospore condition consisting of macro- and micro-conidia 

 very frequently develojied in pure cultures of the Melanconium 

 fungus in the Laboratory at Kew. Prilheux and Delacroix 

 confirm this, and moie recentty Lewton Brain has also 

 obtained them in Hawaii." Massee, however, only records one 

 instance of this in Mask cultures, and none in hanging drops : 

 on the same evidence it would be possible, from Ceylon 

 experience, to claim that Pestalozzia palmarum was a stage of 

 Thielaviopsis. Further, Prillieux and Delacroix did not 

 confirm Massee's culture results ; they merely found the 

 Melanconium and endoconidia together in diseased cane ; 

 and no account of Lewton Brain's experiments has yet been 

 published. 



He further states that subsequent cultures from single 

 spores have disproved Went's suggestion that Massee's 

 culture was impure ; but here again this apparently rests upon 

 unpubHshed work, and cannot be accepted without some 

 particulars. Another statement is to the effect that Butler 

 suggests that the endoconidia of Sphceronema adiposum may be 

 identical with Thielaviopsis , but no such suggestion appears in 

 Butler's paper. 



Four arguments are put forward in favour of the view that 

 the two fungi are genetically connected. The last three of 

 these prove nothing ; and the first is misleading, since it 

 states that Trichosphceria sacchari forms endoconidia in 

 cultures. As a matter of fact, nothing was obtained from the 

 spores of Trichosphceria sacchari ; Thielaviopsis is claimed to 

 have been produced from Melanconium spores, but there is 

 no proof that the Melanconium is a stage of tlie Trichosphceria. 

 There is another error in the third argument : Stockdale 

 (West Indian Bulletin, VIII. , p. 163) did not find Trichosphceria 

 on pineapples ; Howard found Thielaviopsis, but Stockdale 

 records it under Massee's name, as he apparently accepts 

 Massee's proof that the two are forms of the same fungus. 



The arguments quoted in opposition to Massee's view are 

 equally weak, and there is an error in the statement that 



6(11)10 (68) 



