55 



reverted from a pod to the stem. By pliicing pièces of 

 diseased pods in the bark, canker could be produced in it. •) 



New in liis two first reports ^) ^) G a r r u t h e r s dis- 

 cusses his observations on diseased pods. The mycélium 

 he found in them, was différent from that in the stem; 

 in cultures made of them a Peronosx>ora developed (in a 

 later report he calls it Pliytophtora ■*), which also was 

 observed on pods in the field. He therefore made this 

 fungus responsible for the disease. In his third report ^) 

 however, he came to quite a différent conclusion. On 

 further examination he had found the small cankerconi- 

 dia between the large masses oîPeronospora-{Fhytophtora-) 

 sporangia; the first were sometimes found alone, but yet 

 nearly always speedily associated with Perowospora; hence 

 he supposed, that Peronospora lived as a saprophyte on 

 the tissues killed by the canker. 



In my opinion he is not entitled to this conclusion, for 

 the following reasons : The symptons of the disease in 

 pods, as was also noted by v. Faber, correspond closely 

 to those, caused by Phytophtora; Carruthers' own 

 observations regarding the occurrence of the fungus in 

 the pods-, makes it highly probable, that the disease is 

 due to Phytophtora; besides, according to Petch") the 

 Nectria on cacaopods in Ceylon is not the same as that 

 on the stem. He says: „If the stem- and pod-diseases are 

 the same they cannot be due to Nectria." 



Nor is it proved by the observations made in other 

 countries. Howard'') does not mention a iVeci'na on pods, 



1) See C a r r u t h e 1- s, 1902, p. 444. 



2) and 3) See C a r r u t h e r s, 1898 acd 1899. 



4) See Carruthers, 1902, p. 444. 



5) See C a r r u t h e r s, 1899, p. 505. 



6) P e t c h, p. 7. 



7) Ho ward, p. 196 and p. 198. 



