8 E. J. BUTLER. 
The virulent strain of the water-melon fungus was isolated from 
an internal microconidium and maintained its virulence as long as 
the work extended, through several years. No perithecia ever 
appeared in these cultures or in any made from external or internal 
conidia taken from cotton or water-melon. The genetic connection 
of the conidial forms on water-melon was proved, but not their 
connection to the perithecia. No inoculations were made with 
cultures derived from ascospores from the perithecia of the water- 
melon fungus. Hence, while it was proved that the water-melon 
wilt is due to a fungus possessing microconidial (Cephalosporium) 
and macroconidial (Fusarium) stages, it was not proved that this 
fungus is Neocosmospora vasinfecta ; the only evidence being that 
Neocosmospora possesses exactly similar stages. 
Orton (3) in a paper published the year following Smith’s, 
mentions that the cotton wilt had been subsequently produced in 
healthy cotton plants by inoculating the soil in which they grew 
with pure cultures of conidial stages of Neocosmospora vasinfecta. 
It is not, however, stated that these cultures were derived from 
ascospores ; in other words, it is not proved (so far as the published 
observations go) that the fungus used really belonged to Neocos- 
mospora vasinfecta. 
More recently Reed (4) has endeavoured to throw doubt on the 
parasitism of Neocosmospora, in the case of a wilt disease of gin- 
seng (Aralia quinquefolia). The disease agrees with that described 
by Smith and the fungus present resembles the conidial stages of 
Neocosmospora, to which Reed refers it while holding that it always 
follows in the path of other fungi, and is, therefore, only a weak 
parasite. As, however, perithecia were not observed, there is no 
evidence at all that Reed’s work was done with Neocosmospora. 
When this was pointed out by Smith, Reed subsequently admitted 
that the two fungi may not prove to be identical.' 
Outside of the United States wilt diseases of various plants 
have been attributed to Neocosmospora vasinfecta in several 
1 See discussion in Science, New Series, Vol, XXVI, 1907, under heading, * The para- 
sitism of Neocosmospora—ipference versus fact’ by E. F. Smith, p, 347, and ‘‘ The parasitism 
of Neocosmospora’”’ by H. S, Reed, p. 441. 
