140 Journal of Agricultural Research voi. iv.No. a 



No reference to the publication in which this change of name was 

 announced is given, and efforts to find it have failed. Moreover, Lind 

 (28, p. 415), who had full access to Rostrup's specimens and publica- 

 tions, lists Phoma hetae Rostr. under Phoma beiae Fr. as a synonym. 

 Frank suggested the name "Phoma betae" in the article previously cited 

 (16), published in 1892, which contains a description of the fungus, 

 accompanied by figures and a somewhat extended discussion of the 

 root-rot produced by it on the sugar beet. In view of the established 

 identity between Phoma and Phyllosticta on sugar beets it would 

 appear that Oudemans' description in 1877 (29) has first claim to 

 priority. 



For these reasons it seems proper and convenient to retain the name 

 which has persisted in most general use in literature, but with a correc- 

 tion to insure proper acknowledgment to Oudemans. The name "Phoma 

 betae (Oud.) Fr." is therefore used in this pamper. Pool and McKay, who 

 agree in the justice of this usage, also employ it in a current paper (34). 



Neither Frank (17) nor Kriiger (25, 26) were able to find evidences 

 of a perfect stage of this fungus in their cultural studies. Peters (31, 

 32, 33) also failed to find sexual fruits, and the same is true of the work 

 of the writer. It should be pointed out, however, that Rostrup (40, 

 p. 746) believed Sporodesmium putrejaciens Fuck, to be a perfect stage of 

 Phomn, betae, and Prillieux and Delacroix (37) regarded Phoma betae as 

 the pycnidial form of Sphaerella tabiflca Delacr. 



IDENTITY OF PHOMA AND PHYLLOSTICTA ON THE) SUGAR BEET 



Hedgcock (22) has presented evidence by cross-inoculation of the 

 identity of Phyllosticta and Phoma on the sugar beet. He grew beets 

 from seed treated with concentrated sulphuric acid for 30 minutes, fol- 

 lowed by an alkali, and successfully produced Phyllosticta spots by 

 spraying upon the leaves spores of a Phoma culture isolated from decay- 

 ing beets. Beets whose leaves were covered with Phyllosticta were 

 placed in a dry cellar and held under observation for two months, during 

 which time the characteristic black rot of Phoma passed from the leaf 

 petioles to the crown of the beet. 



While Hedgcock's conclusions are undoubtedly correct, the seed 

 treatment he employed does not destroy the viability of Phoma, and it 

 will be shown later that beets whose foliage was free from visible evi- 

 dence of Phyllosticta decayed from Phoma when they were placed in a 

 relatively dry environment. The case may be strengthened, therefore, 

 by the presentation of the additional evidence now available. Cultures 

 from Phyllosticta spots, as well as from decayed beets and from damped- 

 off seedlings, have been found equally capable of producing damping-ofif 

 of sugar beets, and a somewhat extended study of the morphology of 

 the fungus from the three sources mentioned has revealed no differences 



