261 
in France. Prillieux (42) mentions the mycelium in the vessels, also in 
a brown surface development in flecks. McAlpine in 1898 (46) lists 
numerous fungi on diseased wheat, among them being Cladosporium 
herbarum, Macrosporium graminum and M. cerealium, and Epicoccum 
neglectum. He reters to Dr. Cobb’s conclusion and says “It is premature 
to speak of it [Cladosporium herbarum] as the take-all fungus.” 
In 1898, 1899, and 1902 Mangin (47) (56) (70) contends that 
Leptosphaeria is the main cause of the disease and that Ophiobolus is 
secondary, as are also several other fungi which were present. Inocu- 
lations with spores in water suspension gave positive results. Frank in 
1900 (64) describes Ophiobolus herpotrichus as the cause of the disease, 
while Delacroix (67) in 1901 asserts, on the basis of inoculation ex- 
periments, that both Leptosphaeria and Ophiobolus are parasitic, the 
disease appearing three or four months after inoculation. In 1901 Ophi- 
obolus was first recorded in Australia (68). In 1902 Mangin (70) con- 
tends that Leptosphaeria is the primary cause and Ophiobolus of sec- 
ondary importance. 
In 1902 Cordley (75), in Oregon, notes a disease which from the 
description is indistinguishable from that now in Illinois. In 1904 Mc- 
Alpine (84) claims to prove that Ophiobolus is the cause of take-all, 
since wheat planted in plots with diseased stubble became diseased and 
bore spores of Ophiobolus within fifty-two days. It is to be noted that 
McAlpine did not employ pure cultures, and it is not clear how he recog- 
nized with certainty “the young mycelium of Ophiobolus.” In 1906 
take-all was noted on barley and other grasses in Australia (89). Kirch- 
ner (90) holds that the disease follows weakening of the plant from 
other causes. Robinson, 1907 (93), notes perithecia in the sheaths, and 
says that wheat sown in diseased stubble soon becomes sick and in two 
months may all be dead and covered with perithecia. In 1908 Kriiger 
(95) holds that fungi are not the immediate cause but that the disease 
is due to weakening of the plant. Richardson, in 1910 (111), in Austra- 
lia, found upon close examination that the Ophiobolus vegetative myce- 
lium was present in every case. “Swollen roots’, he says, “were im- 
pregnated with a black sooty incrustation.” He also notes the disease 
on Hordeum, and says that a good stubble-burn gives good crops follow- 
ing. Pridham, 1911 (112) describes the disease as negligible in favor- 
able years, and adds that in all cases of disease there is a blackening of 
the stalk at the foot. Fron, in 1912 (120), notes the presence of felt- 
like brown masses and finds Leptosphaeria on all specimens ; Ophiobolus, 
rarely. From infection experiments he concludes that Leptosphaeria is 
the cause. Eriksson, in 1912 (121), refers to Coniosporium as the 
conidial stage of the causal fungus. Averna-Sacca (124) writes in 
Brazil of the disease. St6rmer and Kleine in 1912 (129) say the disease 
can also be caused by Typhula. Voges in 1912 (130) says that fungi are 
not the primary cause, but that the disease is due to lowering of the 
vitality of the wheat plant by environmental conditions. Schaffnit in 
1912 (131) attributes a foot-rot of rye to Fusarium nivale. 
