364 Wilson : North American Peronosporales 



Coulter from Colorado. The close relationship between this and 

 the usually recognized hosts of P. Corydalis gave the determina- 

 tion an air of probability which might not have been questioned 

 were it not for the fact that another species, P. arboresccm, is 

 known in Europe and Asia on various species of Papaver. A 

 careful comparison of the material in question with authentic Eu- 

 ropean material of both the species in question shows that the 

 American material belongs to P. arborescens, a species not hereto- 

 fore recorded for North America. 



Peronospora Floerkeae Kellerman 



This species has so far been recorded only from central Ohio 

 and central Indiana. About the same time Dr. Kellerman collected 

 the type material Mr. H. S. Jackson of the Delaware Experiment 

 Station collected it in the vicinity of Newark, Delaware, and Mr. 

 Holway collected it on the Wisconsin side of the Mississippi op- 

 posite some Minnesota point. From these new records it ap- 

 pears that the fungus and host are coextensive in range. 



Peronospora Nicotiaxae Speg. 



This species was originally described by Spegazzini from 

 Buenos Aires on Nicotiana longifiora * and later recorded by him 

 on various other species of the same genus from this general 

 region. From Buenos Aires there has been introduced into 

 California, Texas and northern Mexico Nicotiana glauca, upon 

 which in 1885 Dr. Farlow collected a Peronospora in California. 

 This material was determined and distributed as P. Hyoscyanu de 

 Bary and records of its occurrence published in this country 



* m - 



and 



t 



Hyoscyamus appear to 



narbor two species of Peronospora, P. Hyoscyami and P. duOia, u* 

 first of which bears a superficial resemblance to our species, while 

 the second would never be confused with it. Both, however, 

 belong to Berlese's section Intermedial while our species belongs 

 to the Divaricatae. Evidently, then, the European and American 

 species are distinct. A comparison of our material with the de- 



* Rev. Argent. Hist. Nat. 1 : 36. 1 F 1891. 



t Bot Gar. 10 ■ 246. 1885. Gardeners' Chron. II. 9 : 21 I. i89» 



