lin MONTAGNE ON" 



of the Bordeaux Commission, Letellier, Leveille, C. des Moulins, 

 I'eporter of the Orleans Commission, Oudart, Panizzi, Targioni- 

 Tozzetti, and Count de Treviran. 



Amici in his memoir, and Victor Rendu in his remarkable 

 report to the Minister of the Interior for Agriculture and Com- 

 merce, remain in a state of philosophic doubt, and do not venture 

 to pronounce for either the one or the other opinion. 



Those who adhere to the second opinion, viz., that the Oidiura 

 is the cause of the disease, are Berkeley, Berthola,'" reporter of 

 the Turin Commission, Bouchardat, Cuppari, Gaddi, Keller, 

 Louis Leclerc, Hugo Mohl, Morren, Payen, Marquis Piidolfi, 

 Savi, Tulasne, and Visiani and Vittadini, reporters of the Venice 

 Commission. The latter view has been signally confirmed by 

 a discovery made by the Venetian botanist, Zanardini, a distin- 

 guished phycologist, and the reporter of the Venice Commission. 

 He lias shown, by microscopical observations, that the threads of 

 Oidium Tuckeri throw out at irregular intervals on their under 

 side cei'tain processes which serve at once as means of attachment 

 to the subjacent tissue, and as suckers, by means of which the 

 juices necessary for the sustenance of the fungus are imbibed. 

 This discovery, sanctioned by every member of the commission, 

 has been recently confirmed by a celebrated botanist, Hugo Mohl, 

 a corresponding member of the French Academy. He has deeply 

 studied the disease; and in two memoirs,! both of which, inconse- 

 quence of their importance, I have translated, he details the 

 facts which he has observed in Italy and Southern Switzerland. 



I cannot enter into the details which the interesting observations 

 made by Mohl through two consecutive years would require. 

 The facts which he adduces appear to me irrefragable, j 



Now, if without the slightest degree of prejudice or party spirit 



* Those who have still any doubts may be confidently referred to the 

 report of Berthola. He exhausts the arguments for and against, and 

 remains convinced that the Oidium is the priraaiy cause of the vine mil- 

 dew. Those who do not read Italian -will find a translation in the report 

 of the Bordeaux Commission by Dr. Cuigneau. 



t The translations were read before the Imperal Society of Agriculture, 

 April 7, 1852, and Nov. 9, 1853, and are printed in the Transactions of 

 the Society. A translation of the former memoir will be found in this 

 journal April, 1852, and of the second, Jan., 1854. 



X In the original a long extract from Mohl's second memoir follows, 

 which it is unnecessary to reproduce here, as it will be found in oiu' last 

 number from p. 6 to the middle of p. 8. Dr. Montague refers in a note to 

 the fact of his discovery of processes at the base of the threads of Botrytis 

 infestaus. resembling the suckers of the Oidium. 



