718 
cause serious trouble in the country from 
which it came, is able to produce disastrous 
effects on our native species which have 
not through long exposure become more or 
less immune to the fungus. It has been 
suggested that the chestnut-tree fungus 
was introduced from Japan. The argu- 
ments advanced by those who adopt this 
view do not seem to me to be at all con- 
clusive. That the Diaporthe parasitica is 
a native of Japan remains to be proved. 
Furthermore, we have no accounts of any 
disease of chestnuts in Japan similar to 
our present disease. If I am not mistaken, 
the main reason for thinking that the dis- 
ease might have come from Japan was the 
statement which had been made that Jap- 
anese chestnuts grown in this country did 
not contract the disease. That they are 
really immune is, to say the least, very 
doubtful, and is positively denied by some 
experimenters. 
The first fruiting specimens of the chest- 
nut-blight fungus which I was able to ex- 
amine struck me as having a close resem- 
blance externally to what is generally 
known in American herbaria as Endothia 
gyrosa and also to a specimen issued in an 
Italian series of fungi exsiccati. With re- 
gard to the North American specimens of 
Endothia I shall speak later. The Italian 
specimen to which I refer is No. 986 of the 
first series of the Erbario Crittogamico 
Italiano issued in 1863. The label states 
that the fungus grew on chestnut trunks at 
Locarno on Lake Maggiore, where it was 
collected by Daldini in 1862. The name 
there given is Hndothia radicalis, on which 
more needs to be said in connection with 
American specimens. The Italian speci- 
men referred to has ascospores which seen 
to me to be the same as those of American 
specimens of Diaporthe parasitica, and my 
opinion is shared by some other mycolo- 
gists who have examined the specimens in 
SCIENCE 
[N.S. Vou. XXXV. No. 906 
question. Of European botanists who have 
expressed the opinion that Diaporthe para- 
sitica and Endothia gyrosa are identical 
may be mentioned Von Hohnel and Sac- 
cardo. 
But the Italian fungus, by whatever 
name we call it, is not known to cause a 
disease of chestnuts in Italy, where, in con- 
sequence of the commercial value of the 
chestnut, the fungi which attack it have 
been carefully studied. Several diseases of 
chestnuts, due to fungi, are known in Italy, 
but the fungi which cause them are not 
any form of Endothia. In spite of the 
fact that the Hndothia does not cause a 
recognized disease in Italy, it is conceivable 
that, if introduced into this country, it 
might cause serious damage to American 
species of chestnuts, since they have not 
by long exposure to the fungus become 
immune. 
In this connection it should be stated 
that the Italian chestnut trees cultivated 
in this country are said to be attacked and 
destroyed by Diaporthe parasitica as well 
as our native species of chestnuts. We 
have also some recent experiments of Pan- 
tanelli, who in the Rendiconti Accademia 
det Lincet of 1911 gave an account of in- 
oculations made at Rome with spores of 
Diaporthe parasitica received from Amer- 
ica. He made three sets of experiments. 
In one he inoculated sterilized dead 
branches of the Italian chestnut; in an- 
other living branches kept in closed cul- 
tures, and in the third he inoculated small 
chestnut trees placed in dishes in his labo- 
ratory. From the first two series of experi- 
ments, although the spores of the American 
material germinated, and developed a my- 
celium and conidia, we can infer only that 
the fungus in closed cultures may be made 
to grow as a saprophyte on the Italian 
chestnut, but we can infer nothing as to its 
parasitic action. In the third series of 
