70 



some results which he desired to present to us at sometime dur- 

 ing the Conference. It has 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 upon the gentleman from Connecticut, Pro- 

 fessor Clinton, w r ho has his results in the 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 with a grizzled beard," but he has some other points that 

 will commend themselves to us. (Applause). 



PROFESSOR GEORGE P. CLINTON (Botanist, Connecti- 

 cut Agricultural Station) : Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentle- 

 men: The first paper that I will present is written by Profes- 

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

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

 oldest niycologist 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. He took up 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 which I will now present. 



TAPER BY PROFESSOR 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 

 Diaporthe parasitica by Murrill in 1906. If as is generally be- 

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

 the best method of combating it we not only should obtain all the 

 information possible in regard to the microscopic structure and 

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

 may not get some practical suggestions from what has 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 may ask is: Is Diaporthe parasitica, as 

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

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

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

 In disease due to fungi the presumption is always in favor of lli<> 



