8 CONTROL OF PEACH BROWN-ROT AND SCAB. 



During the past season (1909) the work on this important problem 

 was carried out on a large scale somewhat in the nature of a demon- 

 stration. The results of this work, together with directions for pre- 

 paring and applying the mixture for the treatment of brown-rot and 

 scab, are presented in the following pages. 



The peach grower now has at his command an effective weapon 

 with which to combat two of his worst fungous enemies — brown-rot 

 and scab. In view of the excellent results obtained from the experi- 

 ments of the past three years, the writers are of the opinion that 

 self-boiled lime-sulphur will soon become almost, if not quite, as 

 indispensable to the peach grower as Bordeaux mixture has been 

 to the apple grower. 



PEACH BROWN-ROT. 



HISTORY OF THE DISEASE. 



The fungus causing brown-rot was first described by Persoon a in 

 1796 as Torula fructigena, and he later transferred it to the genus 

 Monilia. In 1893 Schroter b placed the fungus in the ascomycetous 

 genus Sclerotinia, although its perfect stage was not known until 

 discovered by Norton in 1902. The fungus is reported by Saccardo d 

 as occurring in Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, and 

 Austria, as well as in the United States. Perhaps the first to recog- 

 nize it as of economic importance were Von Thumen e and Hallier^ 

 and it has been discussed by Frank, c Prilleux,* Welimer/ Sorauer/ 

 Woronin,* Aderhold/ and other European writers who have con- 

 tributed largely to our knowledge of the life history of this fungus. 



In the United States this disease has been known for many years 

 and has had more or less attention from nearly all the pathologists of this 

 country. In 1881 Peck m gave what appears to be the first economic 

 account of the disease, and since that time it has been the subject 

 of study by a large number of investigators, notably Arthur, 71 Gallo- 



a Observationes Mycologies, vol. 1, p. 26. 



& Kryptogamen Flora von Schlesien, vol. 3, Pilze, p. 07. 



c Transactions, Academy of Science, St. Louis, vol. 12, no. 8, 1902, pp. 91-97. 



^Sylloge Fungorum, vol. 4, 1886, p. 34. 



e Oesterreiches Landwirtschaftliehes Woehenblatt, no. 41, 1875, p. 484; see also 

 Fungi Pomicoli, 1879, pp. 22-24. 



/Wiener Obst- und Garten- Zeitung, 1876, p. 117. 



g Krankheiten der Pflanzen, 2d ed., vol. 2, 1896, p. 360. 



''Maladies des Plantes Agricoles, vol. 2, 1897, pp. 449^153. 



iBerichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft, vol. 16, 1898, pp. 298-300. 



iBerichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft, vol. 17, 1899, pp. 186-189. 



k Memoires de l'Acadernie Imperiale des Sciences de St.-Petersbourg, ser. 8, vol. 

 10, no. 5, 1900, pp. 18-29. 



I Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft, vol. 22, 1904, pp. 262-266. 



m Thirty-fourth Report, New York State Museum, Natural History, 1881, pp. 34-36. 



« Fourth Report, New York Agricultural Exporiment Station, 1886, pp. 281-285. 

 174 



