MICHIGAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE. • 283 



Malkoff believes that tlie fungus he observed was perhaps not exactly 

 the same as that described by Cavara, for, he remarks, "If my diagnosis 

 is compared with the original diagnosis (Cavara), one may see that they 

 entirely agree except for the size and form of conidia, which are not 

 entirely sarcina-like." 



Just what lie meant by "not entirely sarcina-like" or whether his 

 conception of the term sarcina was diti'erent cannot be determined. That 

 the fungus studied by the present author, may, by analogy with the 

 coccus bacteria grouped in packets, (Sarcina liitea, for example), be 

 considered as sarcina-form, is entirely within the common acceptation of 

 this term. This is evidently what Cavara had in mind when he named 

 the fungus. 



While the average length of the conidiophores when the fungus is 

 grown on culture media is greater than that of those growing on the 

 host, the length of the conidiophores is given by Cavara is much less than 

 that given by the author. According to the former's measurements, they 

 are only a little over one-half the length of the spore (12-18:24-28), 

 while his figure represents the ratio as about 2:1, an apparent contradic- 

 tion. 



One important point, wherein Malkoff differs with both Cavara and 

 the author, would indicate that he was perliajjs dealing with another 

 species. He states that the spores are somewhat warty. Cavara does 

 not mention this (a point he could have hardly overlooked) and the author 

 has not found this to be the case with spores from the material of Cavara 

 and other sources. In this connection the warty spores on alfalfa already 

 referred to, is of interest. 



There is also considerable difference in the apjaearance of the leaf 

 spots on Cavara's material, (herbarium specimen) and on his figure 

 which accompanies it. The spots as compared with American specimens, 

 are smaller, far more numerous, irregular in shape, and do not bear the 

 concentric markings so typical of the spot on the latter specimens. The 

 small size and greater number of spots may be due to the smoothness 

 of some European varieties of red clover. A smooth leaf surface has a 

 better chance of retaining many small droplets of moisture than a hairy 

 surface, whereon the droplets have a tendency to collect in one or several 

 large drops on the hairs. A photograph of a diseased leaf accompanies 

 the description given by Malkoff, but it is too blurred to be of any use 

 for comparison. 



The specimens collected in Manhattan, Kan., in 1889 and identified 

 later by G. H. Hicks, bear a question mark after the name, (Macrospor- 

 ium sarcinae forme Cav. ?) indicating that this critical mycologist had 

 some doubt as to whether it was the same fungus. 



