Periodical Literature. 743 



opinions of American pathologists are presented. It is but 

 natural that the delegates should differ radically regarding the 

 advisability of attempting to control the disease and in outlin- 

 ing the methods to be employed. Those interested in the question 

 of this very destructive fungus should consult the original doc- 

 ument 



In studying the distribution of the chestnut blight in Pennsyl- 

 vania the Andersons found a saprophytic fungus closely resembl- 

 ing Diaporthe parasitica externally, but with larger asci and larger 

 and differently shaped ascospores. The differences in cultural 

 characters are quite marked and readily distinguish the two or- 

 ganisms. The new fungus apparently never kills chestnut trees 

 nor will it grow actively on the living portions, although it is 

 very common on dead stumps and logs. It appears to be distri- 

 buted over, southwestern Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia 

 and eastern Tennessee, and will probably be found throughout the 

 eastern states and southward, occurring on oak as well as chestnut. 



In an attempt to clear up the systematic position of the new 

 organism the authors have compared it with all its known Ameri- 

 can relatives, with the result that they consider it a new species 

 for which the name Endothia virginiana is proposed. As regards 

 the identity of the chestnut blight fungus, Diaporthe parasitica 

 Murr. with Endothia radicalis (Schw.) Fr. the authors hold them 

 as distinct, while Endothia gyrosa is apparently an entirely dif- 

 ferent thing from any of them. 



In F. Q. X., No. 2, a short review of Shear's work on the 

 identity of the blight fungus was given. Since publishing his 

 former article Dr. Shear has returned from his European trip. 

 While abroad he collected abundant material of Endothia radicalis 

 of European authors on chestnut in Italy and Switzerland. He 

 considers this morphologically identical with Diaporthe parasitica, 

 but inoculation experiments are not far enough along to say whe- 

 ther they behave the same physiologically. The European fungus 

 is not parasitic on chestnut in Italy and Switzerland, although 

 common on stumps. 



As yet no European specimens of typical Endothia radicalis, 

 sensu Schweinitz, have been seen and, likewise, no intergrading 

 forms between this and D. parasitica, which fact bears out the 

 work of Anderson. Authentic material of Endothia gyrosa in 



