80 



ported on elicstinil, oak and various oilier hosts in different 

 places, but apparently the natural lionie of tlie fungus is South- 

 ern Europe, as it lias been reported most frequently from Italy 

 and France. In Germany, Winter reported that it x^roduced its 

 pycnidial, but not its perfect stage, though both are found in 

 Italy. Now, if Endothia [/ijrosa has a variet}^ of hosts, including 

 chestnut, in Europe, and prefers a southern habitat, what of its 

 preferences in this country? From an examination of literature 

 and of specimens in the New York Botanical Gardens, it is ap- 

 parent that Endothia gyrosa has been reported much more fre- 

 quently south of Pennsylvania than north of it. For two years, 

 I and others have been looking for it in Connecticut, and only 

 this winter was it found by our forester. This specimen, like 

 those reported by V\^inter from (Jermany, has onl}^ its pycnidial 

 stage, though this is the time of year to iind the asco-stage. En- 

 dothia gyrosa has been found on as many hosts in this country 

 as in Europe, and likewise chiefly from the south. Why may we 

 not then expect to find it there on the chestnut? We certainl}' 

 have had trouble enough with the chestnuts in the South in for- 

 mer years to believe that it miglit occur there.* 



The second point expressed in my view is that the chestnut 

 blight fungus is also a native of Europe. Briefly stated, my rea- 

 sons for this belief are: (1) The specimens in deThueman's 

 exsiccati on chestnut in Ital}^ already referred to; (2) the state- 

 ment of Professor Farlow that he has seen identical herbarium 

 specimens of it from Europe; and (3) a recent letter from Pro- 

 fessor Saccardo of Italy, who states that he and Professor IIoli- 

 nel simultaneo\isly recognized tliat Diaporthc parasitica Murr. 

 is the same thing as Eudoihla gyrosa, both in its ascospore and 

 conidial stages. A critical study of more specimens on all liosts 

 from each country may, however^ settle differently^ some points 

 at present not clear to me. 



*After the Havrislmrg confpreuce the wi-iloi- went South especially to see if EnOnthia {rurnsa or 

 Diai'orth'e pnraMtica oc?iirro(l there on chestnut, as sng^rested in this i):iper, though never having 

 been so reported. Stops were made at Roanoke nnd Blaoksburs, Va.. Bristol. Va., and in Ten- 

 nessee and at Asheville and Tryon, Nortli Carolina, and I ynchhnrg. Va., and at each place there 

 was found the suspected fungus on both chestnut and oak, and more frequently on the former. This 

 fungus occurred as a languishing parasite or as a saprophyte, usually at the base or on the roots of 

 the trees, and was never found forming isolated cankers on the otherwise sound sprouts, as is 

 Diaporthe parnHticn in the North. Apparently this fungus is the same on both the oak and 

 chestnut, and the same thing as the so-called Emlntlna pyrosa on the same hosts in Europe. What 

 its exact relationship is to niaportJia parasitica has not yet been fully determined. In gross ap- 

 pearance its fruiting pustules are scarcely different, except possibly slightly less luxuriant, 

 as a rule. Its pycnidial spores or Cytospora stage is apparently identical witli that of I), para- 

 sitica, hut the asco-spores are evidently as n whole less luxuriant: that is, they are somewhat 

 smaller, and especially slightly nairower. Whether these differences are those of a strain, variety, 

 or distinct species, is yet to be determined by cultures, inoculations, and further study. 



