:«2 



misled on this point. Fuclvol ('(i2)' (lescrilx'd IHjtlodia iiuilonon and D 

 P'icudo-Diplodia on tiio branclu's of aiiplc. and according to his descrip- 

 tion iS'. iiiiil'innii is identical with Uu^e. Dohicroix ("0:^)= states tliat. 

 since /S. Dtulontnt I'l<. is only a s])ecies. which was formerly observed by 

 L'nckel and descriixMl l)y liini mider the name Diplodia pseudo-DipIodiu. 

 the name »S'. maloniut I'k. should disappear. As a substitute for all pre- 

 vious names be says that the loi^ical name should be Sphaeropsis pseiido- 

 Iilplodia (Fuckel) Delacroix. 



Scheweiuitz ('34)^ in bis treatment of the North American Funsi de- 

 scribed a fungus which be called SpJiarria Sumachi. Cook and Ellis 

 ('70)* evidently recognized this organism as a Sphaeropsis, for they listed 

 it as Spha crops is Sidiiadii (Schw.) C. & E. giving Sphaeria Sumachi Schw. 

 as a synonym. According to their description and figures, this organism 

 is identical with N. iiinloriiiii I'k. If this is ti'ue. then Sphacropsis Su- 

 iiKichi (Schw.) ('. i>i: E. is most ancient, and should stand. 



Scliweinit/, (1. c.. ji. 2ls) described a fungus, calling it SpJiacria 

 rlinind. Starback evidently considered this fungus as a Sphacropsis for 

 Sa<-cai'(l<» ("li-")" lists it as ^'////(fc;■o/^s•/.s• rhoiiiii (Schw.) .Starb. ; Itut we 

 have not seen Starback's original description. 0"Gara (1. c. pp. ■434-43")). 

 as we have pointed out. has shown that .S'. rlioimi (Schw.) Starb. and S. 

 iiialoriiNi I'k. are identical. We lind again that Schweinitz (I. <•.. p. U't'.ii 

 descriJH'd a fungus which he called SjiJiaciia pomonnn. ("onke ("tfJ).'' 

 after having examined Schweinitz's collection, states that it should l>p 

 classed with the s])ecies of Sphacropsis. and that it is prolialily identical 

 with S. miiloniiii I'k. 



At this ])oint it mi^ht lie stated that the writer has collected species 

 of Sphacropsis on several diffcient hosts, all of which agree morpbologi- 

 Crtlly with the Sphacropsis mttJoniin of I'eck; so that in order to clear up 

 this confusion, these <lifferent spcMitic names may also have to be con- 

 sidered in the synonomy. Tliis will be delei'uiined by cross-in(»culation 

 work. The hosts follow: .\pple (wood, bark, leaf, and fruit). Uhiis 



>'69. Fuckel, L. Symbolae Mycoiagicju-. 1869:!!)r). 



''0.3. Delacroix, G. Sur ridontitc reollo i^ph.ii'ropsi.s iiKiloniiii I'ccU. Bull. Soc. M,\c. Friincc 

 19:350-352. 1903. 



•'34. de Schwoinitz, I^. D. Synopsis Funiioriiiu .Anii'iica lioivali iiu-iiia (ioni'iiliuiii. Trans. 

 Ainier. Phil. Soc.n.H. 4:205. 1834. 



«'7fi. Cook. M.C. and Ellis, J. n. New Jor.soy Kunici. (bvv.5::U. ISTC. 



•'95. Saccardo, P. A. .SjIIoko Kunnorutn. 11:51'-'. ISil.i. 



•'92. Cooke, M.C S|)lia<Miaci>af Iniperfcctac Cognilao. Circv. 20:Sli. IS')'.'. 



