366 Journal of Agricultural Research voi. vi, no. 10 



connection. He observed in 1S95 ripe tomatoes affected by Mucor sto- 

 lonijcr which reduced the pulp of the tomato to an almost fluid mass. A 

 species of Fusisporium found at the same time on the tomatoes produced 

 a dry-rot quite in contrast to the wet condition produced by the species 

 of Mucor. Behrens found on microscopic examination that the mycelium 

 of Fusisporium sp. penetrated the cells of the host, while the mycelium 

 of Khicor stolonijer grew entirely in the intercellular spaces. 



The relation of these fungi to each other in their attack on the berry 

 is much clearer. In comparatively few cases have both fungi been 

 found on the same berry and in no instance has the writer found a berry 

 in which Rhizopus sp. had followed in a place originally infected by 

 Botrytis sp. 



Numerous cases have, of course, been found in which there were two 

 fungi in the same berry; for instance, Botrytis sp. and Fusarium sp., 

 Botrytis sp. and Alternaria sp., Rhizopus sp. and Fusarium sp. These 

 fungi do not, however, seem to have entered in the same place, but rather 

 from different portions of the berry. The mycelia of the two fungi 

 sometimes mingle in the tissues of the berry — for example, Botrytis sp. 

 and F^lsarium sp., Rhizopus sp. and Fusarium sp. — or they may occupy 

 different portions of the berry with a marked line of division between 

 them, each apparently being unable to invade tissue occupied by the 

 other fungus — for example, Botrytis sp. and Alternaria sp. 



These observations do not preclude the possibility of Rhizopus sp. 

 following in an area originally infected by Botrytis sp. or some other 

 fungus, and this may occur in the field or in badly affected berries which 

 are thrown out as culls in packing. They do, however, plainly indicate 

 that Rhizopus sp. is not dependent on the presence of any other fungus 

 in its attack on strawberries during shipment and on the market. 



