TRITICUM 



RUST IN \\IIKAT VULGARB 



Cultivation 



customary to sow senji '/< /-/-./,/, ,,,,,//.,,-,/, among cotton, so M 

 to raise u rnhi forage crop. I' b commonly seen abo among wheat 



(Fitidrr, in D.K.I'.. ..... 116). 



Diseases. 80 much has been written on thb subjr< m con- Diseases. 



Meet ion \\itli India alone, that many pages would have to be devoted 

 to the subject before anything like a satisfactory abstract could be pro- 

 duced. Kust is by far the most important or serious. It b known to 

 In Natives as geru, germir, or jeru. According to the belief of the ruin- 

 valors, it attacks the crops only when sown on irrigated land or when 

 .in undue amount of rain falls or heavy clouds prevail, during the early 

 -row ing stages. For some yean the late Dr. Arthur Barclay devoted much 

 ;i; trillion to the study of wheat rust and arrived at many surprising con- 

 clusions, one of which may be here stated, \i/.. th.it while the barberry 

 1 1 us 1 1 of the Himalaya bears abundantly rocidial cluster-cups, which he 

 supposed to be those of I'm < ini f/rniniiiis. the rust of the wheatfiekb 

 is /'. I'lihiiiu-i-i-rii (Journ. Bot., 1892, xxx., 46). In the Agricultural 

 Ledger (1895, No. 20, 287-98) will be found an illustrated description of 

 the two chief forms of the rust, viz. /'. ?//<//////*/. ;md /'. r<ti'i -rero 

 and their various stages of existence. Massee (Textbook PI. Diseases, 

 1903, 247-9) deals very briefly with black rust and crown V few 



years ago the Colonies of Australia held a series of conferences on rust in 

 wheat. As a consequence, voluminous reports of the deliberations of the 

 Commissioners were published from 1890 to 1896. These were ably 

 reviewed by Prain (Agri. Ledg., 1897, No. 16). About the same time 

 Cunningham and Prain published a Note on Indian Wheat Rust (Rec. 

 Bot. Surv. Ind., i., 99-124), in which they point out that perhaps five species 

 of 1* tin-in in attack the wheat of the plains of India. They also describe 

 an secidial fungus on L<im'(i, which they suggested may possibly be the 

 source of the Shibpur wheat rust. Butler (Dept. Agri. Ind. Butt., 1903, 

 pt. i., No. 1) carried the subject a step further by throwing doubt on 

 the aecidial fungus of the Himalayan barberries being at all connected 

 with wheat rust. He then remarks, "I have found that the common 

 I itliiun on the barberry at Mussourie is not allied to the wheat fungus, 

 but is a distinct and remarkable species, accompanied by a / /< '/"-form 

 on the barberry itself, and giving rise to witch's brooms on the attacked 

 bushes. The barberry may be entirely left out of account in India." He 

 then points out that the /*. nihif/o-rcra of Indian writers comprehends 

 several species, more especially /*. t/linmirnnt and /'. tritifimt. Under 

 the former he places the Ferozpur wheat rust and the Mogul Serai 

 barley rust of Cunningham and Prain. /'. i/lniiutrmn appears earlier 

 than /'. </r<iiniiiis, and as far as Indian experience goes, is much more 

 destructive to the grain. 



The next paper of importance that appeared in India is that by Butler 

 and Hayman, to which is appended a note by Moreland (Mem. Dept. 

 Agri. Ind., 1906, i., No. 2, 1-57, tt. i.-v.). This reviews the main facts 

 already mentioned, then pointedly exhibits the issues that remain unsolved 

 regarding the propagation of rust from season to season (I.e. 10), and in 

 the concluding summary speaks of three distinct rusts met with in I 

 viz. /'. </r<nninis (black rust), /'. <ilnnm,-itin (yellow rust), and /'. 

 tritifinn (orange rust). All three commonly attack wheat, and the 

 first two barley also. In conclusion, it may be said that these aut 

 seem inclined to accept Eriksson's theory of hereditary infection in Hwedity. 



1091 



