NovemsBer 1, 1918] 
been published recently. In this list citations 
of specimens are chiefly to the herbarium of 
the author which has resulted in showing a 
very limited distribution for a great part of 
the species. Some descriptive notes are given 
and occasionally a key to species. Among the 
latter is one of Carex contributed by Mac- 
kenzie. 
Specific limits are closely drawn and sub- 
species are numerous. Eight new species and 
thirty-five subspecies are described. The 
nomenclature which is based upon absolute 
priority, is worked out with the assistance of 
Dr. J. A. Nieuwland, and entails changes in 
over 230 of the 1,246 names on the list. 
Fifteen new names are proposed for genera 
and a considerable synonymy is given. ; 
Changes in names are unpopular with many 
people and narrow limitation of species yet 
more. But is not the “splitter” entitled to a 
certain measure of credit? Not infrequently 
do some of his discoveries become accepted, 
even by the conservative. Radical move- 
ments have ever resulted in notable advances 
in some respect. Among cultivated plants we 
have races of greatly different values which 
are scarcely separable by the smallest descrip- 
tive characters. The describer of new forms 
has at least brought new facts to attention of 
others. If variations in plants can be shown 
to the result of certain conditions, our knowl- 
edge has advanced. This seems to be one of 
the great fields for botanical investigation at 
the present time. 
A first list of fungi* of the state has just 
been completed. This list includes nearly 900 
species distributed as follows: Phycomycetes, 
22; Ascomycetes, 271; Lower Basidiomycetes, 
161; Higher Basidiomycetes, 119; Fungi In- 
perfecti 119. The completion of this notable 
contribution is especially fortunate since the 
author, formerly a physician at Kulm, N. D., 
is now in the military service. His work is 
already known through his “Fungi Dako- 
tenses” of which eighteen fascicles of twenty- 
five numbers each had been issued. In the 
4 Brenckle, J. F., ‘‘ North Dakota Fungi,’’ Myco- 
logia, Vol. 9, pp. 275-293, 1917; Vol. 10, pp. 199- 
221, 1918. 
SCIENCE 
449 
course of his work many new species have 
been deseribed, chiefly by Rehm and Saccardo. 
These are indicated in the list by the designa- 
tion “n. sp.” but no reference is given to 
place of publication. One new species is de- 
scribed, Hendersonia Crategi. 
O. A. Stevens 
AGRIOULTURAL COLLEGE, N. D. 
SPECIAL ARTICLES 
PEAR BLIGHT WIND BORNE 
Waite! in 1891 proved that bees were able to 
transmit the bacteria of pear blight from flow- 
ers and in this way spread the disease. Of re- 
cent years several important papers have ap- 
peared which demonstrate clearly that certain 
other insects can act as carriers or agents of 
transfer. The number of insects which have 
now been convicted is quite large. The list in- 
eludes Adelphocoris rapidus Say, Aphis 
avene Fab.,3 Aphis pomi De Geer,t Campy- 
lomma verbasci Mey,2 Empoasca mali Le 
Baron,’ Lygus pratensis Linn.,5 Orthotylus 
flavosparsus Sahlberg,2 Plagiognathus politus 
Uhler,*® Peciloscytus basalis Reuter? Scolytus 
rugulosus Ratzeburg.? 
Notwithstanding the fact that it is thus 
clearly demonstrated that insects can transfer 
this bacillus, the question yet remains as to 
how important they actually are in spreading 
this disease. While they can evidently trans- 
fer the disease are they chief or even impor- 
tant agents in its transfer? In order to make 
tests bearing on this question two pear trees 
about four meters high were enclosed last year 
in wooden frames measuring four meters 
square on the ground and four meters high. 
These structures were covered with 14-mesh 
wire mosquito netting. The intention was to 
1 Waite, M. B., report in Smith, Erwin F., ‘‘Bac- 
teria in Relation to Plant Diseases,’’ 2: 55. 
2Stewart, V. B., and Leonard, M. D., Phyto- 
pathology, 5: 117-123. 
3 Burrill, A. C., Phytopathology, 5: 343-347. 
4Stewart, V. B., N. Y. (Cornell) Agr. Exp. 
Sta. Bull. 329. 
5 Stewart, V. B., Phytopathology, 3: 273-276, 
6 Stewart, V. B., and Leonard, M. D., Phyto- 
pathology, 6: 152-158. 
7 Jones, D. H., Ontario Agr. College Bull. 176. 
