Melanconium and the others. They called the fungus ConiotJiyriiim 

 melasporum following Saceardo's name, as they believed their fun- 

 gus to be identical with Darluca melaspora. 



Thistleton-Dyer (34) published a summary of the cane diseases 

 in Barbados, in which he reiterates the statement that at Kew Col- 

 leiotrichum falcatum Went is considered merely as one phase in the 

 life history of Trichospkaeria sacchari. It should be noted that it 

 was not claimed that Colletotrichuni falcatum was the same as any 

 other stage of TricJiosphaeria, for from its appearance there could 

 be no confusion as to that. It was stated that Colletotrichum was 

 considered a stage in the life history of Trichosphaeria. There was, 

 however, no proof brought forward to support this claim and sub- 

 sequently the idea was given up. At present they are believed by 

 investigators in general to be distinct fungi. 



Went (39) published in 1896, in an article on sugar-cane diseases^ 

 criticisms of IMassee's work on Trichosphaeria, together with the 

 statement that Massee's macro- and micro-spores of Trichosphaeria 

 were remarkably like the macro- and micro-spores of Went's Thiela- 

 viopsis ethaceticus. Went's opinion was strengthened by examina- 

 tion of West Indian material. He also found Melanconium spores 

 in Java and from pure cultures obtained both the Melanconium^ 

 spores and macrospores. Thistleton-Dyer (1. c.) believed Went's 

 Melanconium was not really the Melanconium sacchari of the West 

 Indies. 



]\Iassee (1. c.) had claimed that Thielaviopsis was the same as 

 his macro- and micro-spores of Trichosphaeria, thus agreeing on this 

 point with Went except that the latter did not connect them with 

 the perfect stage of Trichospliaeria. 



Prillieux and Delacroix (1. c.) agreed with Massee in considering 

 Thielaviopsis ethaceticus to represent the macro- and micro-spore con- 

 dition of the Melanconium fungus which they called Coniofhiirium. 



Finally in the history of the rind disease Howard issues a paper 

 (19) in which he shows that Colletotrichuni falcatum and Melan- 

 conium are not stages of the same fungus, but he claims that the 

 former is the cause of the rind disease and not the latter. As- 

 Howard has made a most unfortunate confusion between cause and 

 effect here, it will be necessary to discuss the matter more fully. 



In preceding pages of this paper there was given a description 

 of the fungus causing the rind disease and producing those symp- 

 toms commonly recognized as belonging to the rind disease, i. c, 

 numerous eruptions of the rind from which issue black masses of 

 spores. As to whether this disease causes further destruction of the 



23 



