[Reprinted from Soranox, WN. 8., Vol. XXXVIII., No. 989, Puges 857-858, December 12, 1913] 
THE CHESTNUT BARK DISEASE ON CHESTNUT FRUITS! 
Stnce the chestnut bark disease has been so 
widely studied by the many investigators who 
have given attention to it within the last few 
years, numerous articles have been published 
ealling attention to the various ways by which 
the infection is known definitely to be spread 
from place to place, as well as of some meth- 
ods that have been assumed to contribute to its 
spread. The most prominent of those thus far 
mentioned have been due to the transportation 
of spores through the agencies of wind, rain, 
insects, birds, rodents, man, etc., or to the 
transportation of various fruiting and vege- 
tative parts, or fragments of the fungus, by 
means of infected cordwood, poles, ties, bark, 
grafting scions, nursery stock, etc. So far as 
the writer knows, no one has called special 
attention to the danger of the disease being 
transmitted by means of infected chestnut 
fruits, yet infected nuts at times undoubtedly 
are capable of spreading the disease, as will be 
realized from what follows, which describes 
one case which has come to our notice. 
In September, 1912, Professor R. Kent 
Beattie, Dr. T. C. Merrill and the writer 
found numerous nuts and burs, which had 
been lying on the ground in Lancaster county, 
Pennsylvania, for several months, upon which 
were many reddish brown pustules, in a buff 
or yellowish mycelium. These looked very 
much like the pycnidial pustules and myce- 
lium of Endothia parasitica. Portions of the 
diseased fruits were inoculated by the writer 
into the bark of a grafted Paragon chestnut 
tree, while for comparison some inoculations 
1 Published by permission of the Secretary of 
Agriculture. 
were made at the same time from a typical 
canker. The infected nuts were collected on 
September 4, 1912, and the infected bark was 
collected and the inoculations made on the 
following day. The records and results of 
these inoculations are given below. 
The limb selected for inoculation was 
healthy-looking, apparently free from disease, 
from one to two inches in diameter, but on a 
tree that was already diseased on some other. 
limbs. Eighteen cuts through the bark were 
made with a sterile knife-blade, except as 
noted below in the case of two cuts. For con- 
venience in referring to these cuts they have 
been numbered consecutively from 1 to 18. 
Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 18, 14, 17 and 18 
were checks, all uninoculated in the ordinary 
sense, though cuts 13 and 14 were made with 
the knife-blade after it had been used to cut 
some of the infected bark to be inserted in cuts 
15 and 16. 
Cuts 8 and 4 were inoculated with pieces of 
the mycelium-covered shell of the nut after the 
pustules had been cut away; cuts 9 and 10 were 
inoculated with pieces of the shell to which 
pustules were still attached; and cuts 15 and 
16 were inoculated with pieces of bark from_a 
disease lesion on the bark of an American 
chestnut tree. ' 
On July 22, 1913 (about ten and one half 
months after the inoculations were made), the 
inoculations and checks were reexamined and 
records made of their condition. Cuts 1 anda 2. 
were uninfected. Cut 3 likewise was unin- 
fected. Cut 4 had developed a characteristic, 
lesion about 4 inches long. Cut 5 was -sur- 
