THE ONION-SMUT. . 167 



difficult to decide. In the Report of the Massachusetts State 

 Board of Agriculture for 1869-70, Appendix, p. 10, is a 

 report of an address delivered by Mr. Benjamin P. Ware, at 

 Newburyport, in which he speaks distinctly of the smut as 

 doing great injury. The same gentleman, however, in a 

 discussion in 1866,* makes no mention of the disease, which 

 he would probably have done had it prevailed extensively at 

 that time. In the Report of the Agricultural Department, 

 Washington, 1869, p. 224, it is stated that " the onion is 

 subject to few diseases, the fungus or smut being the only 

 one which has caused any serious difficulty in its cultivation 

 in this country." In the Report for 1872, p. 193, the smut 

 is again referred to, and the experience of Mr. Ware is quoted. 

 An examination of the Reports of the Connecticut State 

 Board of Agriculture fails to show any reference to the smut, 

 and as late as 1871, Mr. T. B. Wakeman,f writing from 

 Westport, Conn., states that "onions are the most profitable 

 crop a farmer can raise." Yet, in spite of this statement, in 

 June, 1876, Mr. S. B. Sherwood writes from Green's Farms, 

 in the immediate vicinity of Westport, that "the smut causes 

 an injury of several thousand dollars annually to this town," 

 and he implies that it has been known for several years. 

 From such conflicting statements we can hardly do anything 

 more than infer that, in spite of its virulence, the smut is 

 limited in its range, and that, although it may have existed 

 for some time, it certainly has not, until within the last ten 

 years, been so serious as to attract marked attention. 



As we have already said, in the spring of 1876 specimens 

 of smutty onions were received from Green's Farms and 

 Wethersfield, Conn., and, with this material, we have exam- 

 ined the fungus producing the smut. The fungus, which is 

 peculiar to America, has, as far as we know, never been 

 described. In June, 1876, we received some specimens from 

 Mr. C. C. Frost of Brattleborough, Vt., bearing the manu- 

 script name of Urocystis Cejmlce, which name we will adopt 

 in speaking of the fungus. The specimens first received were 

 three or four inches long, and some were examined at once, 

 whilst others were placed in alcohol for future study. The 



* Vide Report of Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture, 1866-67, p. 176. 

 t Vide Report of Connecticut State Board of Agriculture, 1871, p. ^75. 



