specific organism responsible for this trouble, but also as to the 

 efficacy of certain remedial measures. 



The fungus Macrosporium tomato, Cook, is associated with 

 a tomato rot, and according to Jones and Grout^ is the same as 

 Alternaria fasciculata, (Cke., Jones and Grout). It is, however, 

 a saprophytic species widely disseminated and not capable in 

 itself of producirfg tomato rot, whether applied to the fruit 

 externally or internally. This view has been confirmed by F. 

 S. Earle^ and Miss E. H. Smith, both having found it impossible 

 to produce tomato fruit rots by inoculations with the fungus. On 

 the other hand, B. T. Galloway, who was among the first to 

 give tomato rots serious attention, found that the spores of the 

 Macrosporiiifn tomato would not cause rot when placed on the 

 smooth cuticle of the fruit, but when the exposed inner tissue 

 was inoculated or the spores were placed in fissures on the sur- 

 face of the tomato, rot followed very quickly. The evidence 

 derived from observations and experiments therefore would seem 

 to preclude the probability of Macrosporium being the sole cause 

 of tomato rot. 



Dr. Galloway^ also found, in connection with the tomato rot, 

 a fungus known as Fusarmm solani, Mart., which he associated 



Fig. 1, showing blossom 

 end rot of tomato. 



with the rot. His inoculation experiments showed that when the 

 spores of this fungus were placed on the injured cuticle of either 

 green or ripe tomatoes, no infection occurred, but when they 

 were inserted under the skin of green, half-ripe and ripe fruit, 

 only the latter rotted, and these were affected very quickly. 



Miss Smith isolated a species of Fusarium from greenhouse 

 tomatoes, which in only one instance, however, produced a char- 

 acteristic rot on green fruit when the fungus was placed about 

 the style, but in numerous cases rot was produced on both the 

 green and ripe fruit when inoculation was made by puncturing 



1. Vt. Agr. Exp. Sta., 10th Ann. Rept., 1896-97, pp. 50, 51. 



2. Ala. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bui. No. 108, 1900, pp. 19—25. 



3. U. S. Dept. Agr. Rept., 1888, p. 344. 



