78 



like the gypsy moth work in Massachusetts, to prevent re-infec- 

 tion. If the above points, however, are not true, it seems to me, 

 at least, that the efforts for control planned for this State will be 

 time, money and trees thrown away. 



The author of the lirst view has not, to my knowledge, claimed 

 that the chestnut blight was imported from Europe, or that the 

 European chestnuts in this country are especially immune to 

 the disease. If he should ever advocate that it is a European im- 

 portation, I do not see how he can account for the fact that it 

 has caused no very noticeable trouble on that continent, and yet, 

 when introduced here, kills off the European chestnuts as readily 

 as the native ones; unless he admits that weather or other con- 

 ditions have been unfavorable for these chestnuts, and have thus 

 favored the development of the fungus. 



Proceeding now to my own theory, let me take it up point by 

 point. 



First, that the chestnut blight is a native of this country. In 

 1909 I sent to Professor Farlow, of Harvard University, the ih'st 

 specimen of Dlaporthc parasitica that he had examined, and 

 asked his opinion as to whether or not it was the same as a cer- 

 tain species that Schweinitz had years before described on chest- 

 nuts from this country. He replied that it was not, but that it 

 agreed more perfectly with the genus Endothia than with Dia- 

 porthe, and that it was closely related to, but apparently dis- 

 tinct from, Endothia cjyrosa. Endothia cjyrosa Avas originally 

 described from Carolina and Pennsylvania by Schweinitz as 

 tiphacria radicalis and Sphaeria gyrosa, and reported by him on 

 Fagus and Juglans. It has since been reported in the United 

 States on Liquidambar and Quercus species, chiefly on the lat- 

 ter. 



With the clue furnished by Professor Farlow, I found and so 

 stated in my 1908 report, that a specimen of fiittlothia gyrosa 

 on chestnut collected by Scarrado in Italy had been issued in de 

 Thuemen's Myc. Univ. No. 769, and that so far as its gross ap- 

 pearance and pycnidial stage (the only stage present in my speci- 

 men) were concerned, I could not distinguish it from Diaporthe 

 parasitwa Murr. As the ascospore stage was not present, I did 

 not venture to claim that they were the same species. 



