242 



the naked eye or with a simple lens. The same condition 

 is observed in diseased brandies, whicli hâve remained 

 dry; the white spore tendrils protrude from fissures 

 in the barlc (fig. 10) and the pycnidia are hairless. If 

 such branches are placed in a moist atmosphère, a few 

 hairy pycnidia are indeed formed, but the strong contami- 

 nation with other fungi often prevents further observation. 

 It results from the above, that it dépends entirely on 

 CLiltural conditions, whether the pycnidia are glabrous or 

 hirsute. As the hairyness of the pycnidia is the only 

 character, by which Chaetodiplodia is distinguisted from 

 Diplodia, there is no reason for retaining thèse two as 

 différent gênera and accordingly the first generic name 

 must disapi)ear. Ôur fungus dift'ers in no constant charac- 

 ter from the Diplodia cacaoicola examined by Howard 

 and we must assume that we are dealing with the same 

 fungus. This identity is also supported by Howard's 

 observation regarding the fungus on pièces of diseased 

 sugar cane, when placed in a moist chamber: „There 

 was a considérable development of hairliko processes on 

 the walls and round the oiiening of the pycnidium, giving 

 the colonies a furry appearance which was never noted 

 in the cane in urdinary circumstances." ') 



On branches and to a less degree on pods the pycnidia 

 are often nol found isolated in the plant tissue but then 

 occur in groups, giving the impression that they lie in a 

 stroma. Tliis may already be obsorved in Fig. 9, but 

 especially in Fig. 11, which was drawn from a i)reparation 

 of a branch. With such a disposition of the pycnidia one 

 would call the fungus Lasiodiplodia, for Diplodia and Lasio- 

 diplodia agrée completely, except as regards the grouping 

 of the pycnidia. Whereas thèse are solitary in Diplodia, 



1) A. Howard, Aiinals of Uotany. Vol. XV, p. 



686. 



