74 



ill Pliiladelpbia, and I have also examined Scliweinitzian speci- 

 mens in the Curtis Herbarium at Harvard. Unfortunately I 

 have not as yet succeeded in finding a ^clnveinitziau specimen of 

 aS'. radicalis Avhich shows ascospores; possibly none of the so- 

 called ^. radicalis has ascospores, but 1 am not yet certain that 

 that is the fact. Specimens supposed to be ^'. yijvosa are com- 

 mon in American herbaria and have frequently been distributed 

 in different sets of exsiccati. Unfortunately of the considerable 

 number of specimens I have examined, the greater part were 

 sterile although judging by the habit alone, they might very well 

 be aS'. (jijrosa. I have, however, seen no specimens in the older 

 American herbaria Avhere the fungus supposed to be ^. (jyrosa 

 was certainly growing on chestnut. In general the hosts Avere 

 not specificially stated but a large per cent. Avere evidently on 

 oak. There is a fungus common on oak in the Soutliern states 

 which has the external habit of Endothia, and appears fre- 

 quently in herbaria as Endothia gijrosa. An examination of a 

 number of fertile specimens on oak from different localities, hav- 

 ing all the appearance of being E. gyrosa, has shown that the as- 

 cospores are unlike those of the Endothia of Northern Italy or 

 like those of what is called Diaportlie parasitica. Stated in 

 words the differences may seem to be slight but in practice one 

 can without difficulty distinguish the two. The spores of the 

 form on oak have hardh^ half the diameter of those of the chest- 

 nut and the spores are nearly linear. Naturally no definite ac- 

 count of the spores was given by Schweinitz and therefore ex- 

 cept by an examination of authentic specimens we are not able 

 to say whether the form on oak should be considered the true H. 

 yyrosa of Schweinitz or not. As I have said, I have not 3^et been 

 able to complete my examination of original material, not as yet 

 having found mature S. radicalis. 



Although further examination is necessary before expressing 

 a final opinion, certain facts seem to be settled. Our form on 

 chestnut called Diaportlie parasitica, described in 1906, and that 

 on chestnut in Italy collected by Daldini in 1862 are identical as 

 far as can be determined by a study of the dried, herbarium 

 specimens which we have been able to examine. As far as I have 

 been able to examine the older herbaria, I have found no speci- 

 men of Eiidofliin on cliesfnut in Norlh Amcrirn. Tliere is, how- 



