Decembeb 27, 1912] 



SCIENCE 



909 



linear-spored Endothia on oak from America 

 that he decided was related to but distinct 

 from Diaporthe parasitica, and the European 

 specimens of Endothia gyrosa, which latter, he 

 stated, could not be distinguished morpholog- 

 ically from D. parasitica. It is quite evident, 

 therefore, that Farlow was the first to call 

 specific attention to the fact that in America 

 there is a linear-spored Endothia on oak that 

 is distinct both from Diaporthe parasitica of 

 America and Endothia gyrosa of Europe; 

 while the writer first called attention to the 

 fact that there is a narrowly-oval spored form 

 on both chestnut and oak in this country that 

 is apparently distinct from D. parasitica, but 

 identical with Endothia gyrosa on the same 

 hosts in Europe. 



Neither at this meeting, nor previously, had 

 any other American botanist published on his 

 own observations any statement of the rela- 

 tionship of Diaporthe parasitica to the genus 

 Eiidothia. Eankin, however, in his paper pre- 

 sented at this conference, did say: 



The speaker has recently collected and exam- 

 ined a fungus indistinguishable from the chestnut 

 canker disease on dead chestnut bark in several 

 places in Virginia, 



thus showing that he (and also Spaulding, 

 as was learned later by discussion with him) 

 had collected Endothia gyrosa without recog- 

 nizing it. Some time before the Pennsyl- 

 vania conference, however, von Hohnel, of 

 Austria, and Saccardo, of Italy (in a letter to 

 the writer), had compared specimens of Dia- 

 porthe parasitica from America with Endothia 

 gyrosa from Europe, and, like Earlow, had 

 come to the conclusion that morphologically 

 they were identical. They knew nothing 

 about the linear-spored Endothia and the real 

 Endothia gyrosa in America. 



Shortly after the conference a paper by 

 Shear appeared in the April number of Phyto- 

 pathology, in which he says: 



Out early unpublished studies of the chestnut 

 bark fungus, made in 1907, convinced us that it 

 was most closely related to the genus Endothia, 

 as that genus is at present interpreted by mycol- 

 ogists. This opinion was also reached by Dr. Far- 

 low, as reported by Clinton in 1908. 



He also remarks further on: 



It is still uncertain whether Diaporthe parasitica 

 is an indigenous American fungus or not. It is 

 also a question whether the fungus reported as 

 Endothia gyrosa and E. radicalis in Europe is the 

 same as that to which the same names are at 

 present applied in this country, and the exact rela- 

 tion of this European fungus to Diaporthe para- 

 sitica is also somewhat doubtful. The writer is 

 investigating these questions and hopes to discuss 

 them more fully later. One point at least we 

 believe to be definitely determined, and that is the 

 specific distinction between Diaporthe parasitica 

 Murrill and Endothia radicalis (Schw.). 



This last point had already been pointed out 

 by Earlow in his paper, since he and Shear 

 both had reference to the linear-spored form 

 of Endothia, as shown by specimens since 

 received by the writer from both. 



In Science (May 10, 1912) Earlow repub- 

 lished his Harrisburg conference paper with 

 some additions. In this paper Earlow speaks 

 for the first time of the specimens collected 

 by the writer. He says : 



As far as one can distinguish species by their 

 morphological, apart from their pathogenic, char- 

 acters, Diaporthe parasitica seems to me to re- 

 semble the Italian Endothia radicalis so closely 

 that they can not be separated specifically unless 

 it be by some peculiarity not hitherto recorded. 

 There is still another point which should be con- 

 sidered. Is the fungus of our chestnut blight ever 

 found on other trees? I have received a series of 

 interesting specimens collected by Professor G. P. 

 Clinton, which will illustrate this point. In some 

 the bark of chestnuts and in others the bark of 

 oaks is infested with an Endothia which in general 

 appearance and in microscopic structure seem to 

 me to be the same species. 



Earlow further states that these specimens 

 are distinct from the linear-spored form on 

 oak. 



Yet, in spite of all these statements, there 

 have recently appeared in the October number 

 of Phytopathology a second article by Shear 

 and another by P. J. and H. W. Anderson — 

 two papers which ignore, probably uninten- 

 tionally, the published statements of Earlow 

 and the writer, thereby giving their readers 



