matter in the soil, helped toward development by a peculiar low and damp atmo^'' 

 phere. The use of muscle-bed mud for culture of onions is well known but we have 

 not ascertained whether such manuring is liable to the fly or not. An overmanured 

 soil made so by too much putrescent animal or vegetable matters could be treated 

 with lime ashes or charcoal, which by helping to absorb the ammonia would check 

 the fermentary process so favorable to the growing of fungi of every kind. 



"It would be interesting to ascertain whether this particular species of smut 

 is to be found upon the leaves of the wild garlic (Allium canadense) for it may be 

 that a more succulent condition of the cultivated plant as in our field onion, may be 

 more susceptible to this disease from the high culture which it obtains. Such para- 

 sitic plants destructive to crops, indicate the tendency toward extinction of a par- 

 ticular variety, and the remedy may lie in changing the seed or by inducing some 

 newer form not liable to be thus affected." 



The next published record of the disease is in the appendix of the 17tli annual 

 report of the Massachusetts Board of Agriculture (51:10) in which is printed an 

 address bj^ Mr. Benjamin P. Ware, a Marblehead farmer, before the Essex Agricul- 

 tural Society on September 29, 1869. He states that smut is "very destructive, 

 turning the most promising fields ... to scenes of desolation," and that it "so im- 

 pregnates the land with its spore as to render it unsafe to plant onions for several 

 years on land thus affected." In view of our present knowledge of the long time 

 required for impregnation of the land, these statements indicate that smut was not a 

 new disease in Essex County in 1869, but that it must have existed for many years. 

 There is evidence according to Thaxter (44:131) that it occurred in Connecticut as 

 early as 1860, although there is no published record. In his report of the U. S. 

 Department of Agriculture for 1869 (7:224) the commissioner, Mr. Horace Capron, 

 devotes a page to onion smut, but mentions no locality except Massachusetts. 

 From this, one judges that it was not known to occur in other states at that time. 

 In the U. S. Commissioner's report for 1872, (43:193) Mr. Thomas Taylor, the 

 microscopist, mentions a field of four acres in Swampscott where the disease was so 

 bad that the field was aljandoned. In the same report, he published the first figures 

 of onion smut spores. The first accurate scientific description of the disease and its 

 causal fungus is by Farlow (14: '64) in the appendix of the report of the Massachu- 

 setts Board of Agriculture for 1876. He states that at that time it was not known 

 to occur anywhere except in Massachusetts and Connecticut and presents convinc- 

 ing evidence that it was of recent origin. 



Summing up all the evidence in regard to the origin of smut we may say that in 

 all probability it e dsted on some native American plant closely related to the onion 

 and first made its appearance on the cultivated species about 1850 in New England. 



From New England it has spread to all of the onion-growing regions of the north- 

 ern United States, but is not known to occur in the southern states. In 1889 it was 

 known to be present in Ohio and Pennsylvania (44:135) and in Vermont (25:141), 

 New Jersey in 1890 (20:352), New York, previous to 1869 (37), Iowa, about 1900, 

 (30:216) and reached the Pacific coast about 1911 (6:187). The date of introduc- 

 tion into other states is not recorded, but at present it is known to occur in Indiana, 

 Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, North Dakota, Delaware, Kentucky, Tennessee, West 

 Virginia, Kansas and Minnesota. 



It is probable that it spread from America to Europe and other parts of the 

 world. It was reported from near Amiens, France, as early as 1872 (12:40), from 

 southern France in 1877 (34:379) and from the neighborhood of Paris in 1879 

 (10 :51) . It is said by Frank (17 :186) to have been found the same year in Germany 

 near Leip7ig, but ZilUg (54:298) questions this since he fuids the first official report 

 of its occurrence in Germany in 1909. If it occurred in Germany during the inter- 

 vening years it must have iDeen very inconspicuous. Zillig (1923) states that in 

 that country it sometimes causes a loss of 60 per cent of the crop. The first pub- 

 lished record of smut in England was in 1919 (13:168) but there is evidence that it 

 occurred in the British Isles as early as 1900 (52:443). Walker (49:15) reported it 

 as common in Holland. It has also been reported from Denmark. The wi'iters 

 were also informed by Dr. Ito of the Sapporo Experiment station that it is not un- 

 common in Japan. The losses from smut in countries other than America have not 

 usually been considered serious. 



