908 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXVI. No. 939 



name. Professor Farlow calls our attention to the 

 fact that ' ' it comes more naturally under the 

 genus EndotMa, and is closely related to E. 

 gyrosa." In de Thiimen's "Myc. Uni.," No. 769, 

 is a specimen under this name on Castanea vesca 

 collected by Saccardo in Italy in 1876, whose Cy- 

 tospora stage (the only stage showing in our speci- 

 men) seems quite like that of our chestnut fungus. 



Ever since writing the above the writer has 

 been endeavoring to gain additional evidence 

 along this line. Since so-called Endothia 

 gyrosa had been reported by Ellis and others 

 on Quercus in this country, we made a special 

 search on that host in Connecticut for this 

 and similar fungi. It was not, however, until 

 a field trip was made to Eock Creek Park, 

 Washington, D. C, during the American Asso- 

 ciation for the Advancement of Science meet- 

 ing of 1912, that we ran across the object of 

 our search. Here we found, besides Dia- 

 porthe parasitica in its asco-stage on chestnut, 

 a very similar fungus, also in the asco-stage, 

 on two species of oak. A careful microscopic 

 examination of the fungus on the oaks showed 

 that it differed slightly from that on the chest- 

 nuts through its slightly narrower ascospores. 



Shortly after making these collections we 

 received from Saccardo specimens of Endothia 

 gyrosa in their asco-stage on both chestnut 

 and oak from Italy, and a careful microscopic 

 examination of these showed that they were 

 not only identical with each other, but also 

 with those collected on oaks at Washington. 

 This led me to say in a paper read shortly 

 after at the conference called by the Pennsyl- 

 vania Chestnut Blight Commission : 



The writer has since made a careful hunt for 

 Endothia gyrosa, and has specimens of it on two 

 species of oak collected in [Connecticut? and] the 

 District of Columbia. Cultures have been made 

 from these and from Diaporthe parasitica on 

 chestnut obtained from the same localities. Our 

 studies of these cultures and specimens from vari- 

 ous localities are not yet complete, but they have 

 gone far enough to say definitely that Diaporthe 

 parasitica belongs in the same genus with the 

 Endothia gyrosa on oak, and is at least very 

 closely related to it, though at present my opinion 

 is that they are distinct species. 



And further on we said: 



Now, if Endothia gyrosa has a variety of hosts, 

 including chestnuts, in Europe, and prefers a 

 southern habitat, what of its preferences in this 

 country? . . . Endothia gyrosa has been found on 

 as many hosts in this country as in Europe, and 

 likewise chiefly from the south. Why may we not 

 expect to find it there on the chestnut? 



In fact, we were then on our way south with 

 this purpose in view, and we succeeded in 

 finding at all the places which we visited 

 Endothia gyrosa on both chestnut and oak 

 that in its asco-stage or otherwise could not 

 be distinguished microscopically from the 

 fung-iis on the oaks at Washington and on the 

 oak and chestnut sent by Saccardo from Italy. 

 This led us to add, as a footnote to our Har- 

 risburg paper, the following statement: 



After the Harrisburg conference, the writer 

 went south especially to see if Endothia gyrosa 

 or Diaporthe parasitica occurred there on chestnut, 

 as suggested in this paper, though never having 

 been so reported. Stops were made at Roanoke 

 and Blacksburg, Va., Bristol, Va. and Tenn., at 

 Ashville and Tryon, N. C, and at Lynchburg, Va., 

 and at each place the suspected' fungus was found 

 on both chestnut and oak, and more frequently on 

 the former. This fungus occurred as a languish- 

 ing parasite or as a saprophyte, usually at the 

 base or on the roots of the trees, and was never 

 found forming isolated cankers on the otherwise 

 sound sprouts, as is Diaporthe parasitica in the 

 north. Apparently this fungus is the same on 

 both the oak and chestnut, and the same thing as 

 the so-called Endothia gyrosa on the same hosts 

 in Europe. What its exact relationship is to 

 Diaporthe parasitica has not yet been fully deter- 

 mined. In gross appearance its fruiting pustules 

 are scarcely different, except possibly slightly less 

 luxuriant as a rule. Its pycnidial spores, Cytos- 

 pora stage, are apparently identical with those 

 of D. parasitica, but the ascospores are evidently 

 as a whole less luxuriant; that is, they are some- 

 what smaller, and especially slightly narrower. 

 Whether these differences are those of a strain, 

 variety, or distinct species, is yet to be determined 

 by cultures, inoculations and further study. 



At the request of the writer. Professor Par- 

 low also vsTote a paper (which was read by 

 the writer) for the Chestnut Blight Confer- 

 ence, presenting his studies as to the identity 

 of the chestnut-blight fungus. Farlow had a 



