360 CONNECTICUT EXPERIMENT STATION REPORT, 1912. 



After a preliminary paper in the Journal of the New York 

 Botanical Garden (45), published in June, 1906, he described 

 in Torreya (47), in September of the same year, the specific 

 fungus responsible for the trouble, a species new to science 

 which he called Diaporthe parasitica. 



Previous to this outbreak there is no record, so far as the 

 writer knows, of a disease of chestnuts in this country, or else- 

 where, that can be surely attributed to the same cause, though 

 there have been troubles of chestnuts in the Southern States 

 that may or may not have been due to it. These will be 

 discussed more fully later. Since the disease has been called 

 to the attention of the public, however, there are a number of 

 persons who have reported that they believe that they have 

 seen this or a very similar trouble previous to 1904. 



For example, Metcalf and Collins (36, p. 45) say: "No 

 earlier observation than this is recorded, but it is evident that 

 the disease, which would of necessity have made slow advance 

 at first, must have been in this general locality for a number 

 of years in order to have gained such a foothold by 1904." 

 And further on (p. 46) they add: "Observations by the junior 

 writer indicate that this disease may have been present in an 

 orchard in Bedford County, Va., as early as 1903, and that in 

 Lancaster County, Pa., it was probably present as early as 



1905." 



Dr. Britton of this Station informs the writer that as far 

 back as 1889 he knew of a seedling chestnut tree on a farm 

 near Keene, N. H., that suddenly, during the summer, developed 

 a progressive canker trouble that now seems to him to have 

 been the chestnut blight. 



Professor Davis, in the discussion at the Pennsylvania 

 Chestnut Blight Conference at Harrisburg (54, p. 102), said: 

 "I will say that I think I saw the blight on Long Island in 

 1897 or 1898. * * * That was in Cold Spring Harbor, in 

 Huntington, especially back of Huntington, through the hills 

 around there. So I think it was in 1898 well established in 

 those localities." Mr. Child, of Putnam, Conn., at this same 

 conference (54, p. 107) also said: "I know two men about 

 sixty years of age who state that they are positive that they 

 saw this blight twenty years ago, or something that looked the 

 same as is shown in the blight to-day." 



