70 



some results wliicli be desired to present to us at sometime dur- 

 ing the Conference. It lias' been suggested to me that, as it is 

 a little late, it would be best to put over all general discussion 

 until this evening, when we are to have only one set paper and 

 at this time to call npon the gentleman from Connecticut, Pro- 

 fessor Clinton, who has his results in llie form of two short 

 papers. If that meets with your approval, then, we will ask 

 Professor Clinton to speak at this time. He is not ''a long, lean 

 man ^nth a grizzled beard," but he has some other points that 

 will commend tliemselves to us. (Applause). 



PKOFESSOK CEORGE I\ CLIKTON (Botanist, Connecti- 

 cut Agricultural {Station ) : Mr. Chairman, Ladies and (Jenth'- 

 men : The first paper that I will i^resent is written by Profes- 

 sor FarloAV, of Harvard University. For the benefit of those 

 who do not know Professor Farlow, I will say that he is the 

 oldest mycologist in this country, has had the greatest experience 

 in studying fungi and has some of the best herbaria dealing with 

 fungi, especially those bound in book form, known as Exsiccati, 

 in the world, fle took np the study of the nomenclature of the 

 chestnut blight disease, at my request, about two years ago. He 

 has not supplied a title to the paper wliich I will now present. 



PAPER BY PROPESSbit W. G. FARLOW, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, 



MASSACHUSETTS. 



The cause of the disease of chestnut trees prevalent in our 

 Eastern States is ascribed to the growth of the fungus named 

 DiaportliG jjurasitica by Murrill in 190G. If as is generally be- 

 lieved, this fungus is the cause of the disease, in searching for 

 the best method of cond^ating it we not only should obtain all the 

 information possible in regard to the microscopic structure and 

 pathogenic action of tlie fungus, but we should see whether we 

 may not get some practical suggestions from what lias been 

 written in regard to the distribution and pathological action of 

 fungi which are most nearly related to our chestnut fungus. 



The first question we ma}^ ask is: Is DiaportJie parasitica^ as 

 at first supposed, really a species new to science? If so, is it 

 a native species which has hitlierto escaped the notice of our my- 

 cologists, or has it been introduced from some other country? 

 In disease due to fungi llic ]»r('sump( i<»n is always in favor of the 



