tissues or as to whether there are other fungi that cause the destruc- 

 tion of the rind or of other tissues, that matter has not been dis- 

 cussed. The description of Colletotrichum falcatum. as given by 

 Went is as follows: 



Setis nunc seriatis, nunc in psuedo-conceptaculum, cOngregatis, cuspidatis, 

 100-200 X 4, conidiis falcatis, 25 x 4, hyalinis, ad basim setulorum, basidiis ovoi- 

 deis, 20 x 8, hyalinis vel fuscis, suffultis. 



Went found the fungus on living cane, but most of the reports 

 definitely state that while the vegetative hyphae are common on liv- 

 ing cane, fruiting bodies are very rare except on dead cane. Such 

 beihg the case, it is not clear how Colletotrichum falcatum produces 

 any eruptions on the rind. As to whether it does cause a serious 

 disease of the cane is entirely a different matter. 



From the foregoing descriptions it will be seen that five different 

 names have been given to black erumpent fungi on sugar cane, Stru- 

 mella sacchari, Darluca melaspora, Trullula saccharic Melanconium 

 sacchari and Coniothyrium melasporum, the last being admittedly 

 the same as Darluca. It mil be desirable to ascertain if all these 

 names may apply to one and the same fungus. It must first be 

 stated that the common fungus producing these black eruptions on 

 cane throughout the West Indies, Hawaii, Mauritius, Natal, Aus- 

 tralia, and other places appears to be one and the same and to be 

 correctly classed as Melanconium sacchari. More rarely are found 

 similar forms which might be mistaken for Melanconium. It will 

 be desirable to review the descriptions of the fungi already men- 

 tioned in order to judge whether they may be considered to be 

 Melanconium or distinct fungi. 



1. Strumella sacchari. — Said by Thistleton-Dyer (85) to be the 

 same as Melanconium sacchari. Strumclla belongs in the Tuhercu- 

 lariaceae, quite a distinct group from that containing Melanconium. 

 There is nothing in the description to indicate that the fungus is 

 a true Strumella or that it cannot go in Melanconium. In fact, 

 investigators seem agreed that these two names really lielong to one 

 and the same fungus. 



2. Darluca melaspora. — INIassee (28) states that this species is 

 founded on material sent to Berkeley in 1878 from Porto Rico and 

 not from Australia as stated by Cooke. Furthermore he states that 

 the material itself shows the fungus to be a Diplodia and not a Dar- 

 luca. It would seem that Massee's examination ought to settle the 

 question, but it is not clear how C^ooke's description of Darluca me- 

 laspora can apply to a Diplodia. Rather does it resemble Melan- 

 conium with the one-celled binucleate spores, 12 x 5 microns, and 



24 



