332 



uiisled oil this point. Fnckel ('62)' describecl DipJodia malonnn ami D 

 psendo-Dlplodia on the brunches of apple, and according to his descrip- 

 tion S. maloruin is identical with these. Delacroix {'0?,)- states that, 

 since -S. malorum Pk. is only a species, which was formerly observed by 

 I'uckel and described by him under the name Biplodia pscudo-Diplodia, 

 the name S. maloruin Pk. should disappear. As a substitute for all pre- 

 \ious names he says that the logical name should be Spliacropsls psendo- 

 Inplodia (Fuckel) Delacroix. 



Scheweiuitz ('34)^ in his treatment of the North American Fuiigi de- 

 scribed a fungus wliich he called Sphacria Sumach i. Cook and Ellis 

 ('76)* evidently recognized this organism as a Sphaerojhsis, for they listed 

 it as Splmcrops'is Sumachi (Schw.) ('. & E. giving Sphacria Sumach i Schw. 

 as a synonym. According to their description and figures, this organism 

 is identical witli N. imilorum I'k. If tliis is true. X\\e\\ Sphacropsrs Su- 

 iiiiiilii (Schw.) ('. & K. is most nncicnt. and sliould stand. 



Schweinitz (1. c. p. 2is) desci-ibed a fungus, calling it Sphacria 

 rhnina. Starback evidently considered this fungus as a Spliacrnpsis for 

 Saccanlo ("li.")" lists it as Spltacropsis ilidiiKi (Schw.) S(arb. ; but we 

 liave not seen Starback's original description. 0'(iara (1. c, pp. 434-435). 

 as we have jiointed out. has sliown that S. rlioina (Schw.) Starb. and S. 

 iiKiloriDii Pk. are identical. We lind again that Schweiiut/. (1. c.. ]i. L'lO) 

 described a fungus which be called Siiliacria pomorum. Conke (■1)2)," 

 after having examined Schweinitz's collection, states that it should be 

 classed with the species 4)f Kiilntcropsi.s. and that it is ])robably identical 

 v.-ith S. mnlorum Pk. 



At this point it iiiiulit be stated tlnit the writer has collected species 

 of Sphacropsia on several different liosts, all of which agree morphologi- 

 cally witli tlie Sphacrop.sifi malorum of Peck ; so that in order to clear up 

 this confusion, these different sp(>cific names may also have to be con- 

 sidered in tlie synonomy. This will I)e determined by cross-inoculation 

 work. The hosts folhiw: Ai)iile (wood, bark, leaf, and fruit), RIius 



■'69. Fuckel, L. Symboiaa Mycologicae. ISee:*!!)'). 



''03. Delacroix, G. Sur I'identite reello Sphaeropsis maloruin Peek. Bull. Soc. Myc. France 

 19:350-352. 1903. 



•'34. de Schweinitz, L. D. Synopsis Fungorum .\niprica boreali media degcntium. Trans. 

 Amier.Phil.Soc.n.s.. 4:205. 1834. 



. «'76. Cook, M.C. and Ellis, J. B. New Jersey Fungi. Grev. 5:31. 1876. 



•'95. SaccardcP.A. Sylloge Fungorum. 11:512. 1895. 



•'92. Cooke, M.C. Sphaeriaccae Imperfectac Cognitae. G re v. 20:80. 1892. 



