362 CONNECTICUT EXPERIMENT STATION REPORT, IQI2. 



Pennsylvania, with Heald, formerly of Texas, in charge of the 

 laboratory investigations. 



Collins (16) has contributed to our knowledge of the treat- 

 ment of individual trees. Rankin (59, 60), of New York, has 

 reported on results of inoculation tests as to time of year, 

 water content of trees, etc. Fulton (24), of Pennsylvania, 

 has made a variety of field observations as to distribution of 

 spores, conditions of infection, etc. The Andersons (i, 2) 

 have reported on the character of the fungus in cultures, 

 inoculation tests, etc. Craighead (17) and others have studied 

 its relation to insects. Miss Rumbold (62, 63) has experimented 

 with chemicals to determine their effect on the trees as regards 

 blight resistance, etc. 



Farlow (20, 21), Shear (64, 65), the Andersons (i, 2) and 

 the writer (8-10) have studied the nomenclature and systematic 

 relationships of the fungus. Stewart (70), Murrill (51, p. 194) 

 and the writer have regarded unfavorably extensive control by 

 cutting-out methods. Mickleborough (40, 41), Smith (67, 68) 

 and others have contributed articles of interest to the general 

 public. In Europe, von Hohnel (29), Rehm (61), and Pantanelli 

 (52, 53) have published notes or papers on the subject. 



Identity. In the study of a disease it is always very desir- 

 able to know exactly the fungus that causes it. While Murrill 

 proved conclusively that his Diaporthe parasitica was the 

 immediate cause of the chestnut blight, this did not necessarily 

 prove, as he claimed, that it was a species new to science. 

 The question naturally arises, has this fungus been previously 

 known under some other name? As a vigorous parasite, 

 killing off chestnut trees* there is certainly no record of any 

 fungus that can be definitely identified with it. The writer 

 from the first was skeptical about the fungus having entirely 

 escaped previous observation by botanists, especially if it might 

 under certain conditions exist as a weak parasite or a sapro- 

 phyte. One of the first things we set about to learn, therefore, 

 was whether or not this fungus had had a previous botanical 

 record. 



Schweinitz, a Bavarian minister, who lived at Salem, N. C, 

 and Bethlehem, Pa., and made his botanical studies from 

 about 1812 to 1834, was one of the first and most extensive 

 collectors of fungi in this country. He described many species 



