u 



Bulletin of the University of Texas 



articles on Texas fungi, and tlie results of Ileald's and Wolf's 

 ''Piant Disease Survey" (63), little had been published upon 

 this important group of plants. The only important referenees 

 in all previous literature being several lists of collections of 

 Texas fungi (38, 69). 



In justice to the investigators engaged in botanical work 

 in this region during this period of the history of Texas botany 

 it should be stated that their achievements, however important, 

 are yet too close to us to be seen in their proper relation to 

 Texas botany as a whole. A glance at the bibliography is sufifi- 

 eicnt to show the activity in the field of Texas botany during 

 these last two decades. 



