CHESTNUT BARK DISEASE. 415 
origin, which no one claims, so far as we know. Again, neither 
the chestnut blight fungus nor the closely related Endothia 
Syrosa has ever been reported from Japan, so far as the writer 
has been able to learn. In order to look into this matter a little 
more thoroughly, we wrote to three of the leading Japanese 
mycologists on this point. None of them could give us any 
information of the occurrence of these fungi there, or of any 
serious chestnut trouble that could be attributed to them. One 
of them naively answered: “Some botanists in your country 
seem to entertain the opinion that this chestnut blight fungus is 
of Japanese origin —an apparently plausible opinion in accord- 
ance with a popular belief in certain quarters of your country that 
things obnoxious come from the other side of the Pacific. Let 
us see whether the words of these chestnut prophets prove to 
be the fact or not.” 
(2, 3) We have attempted, under the head. “Manner of Dis- 
tribution,” to show that this disease did not originate in one 
locality, where first reported, and that its spread has not been 
from a single, but from many centers. 
(4) Regarding Chester’s Cytospora on Japanese chestnut, we 
can say definitely that this was not the blight fungus. We are 
indebted to the Delaware Experiment Station for the opportunity 
of examining the herbarium specimen of this, and we find that 
it is an entirely different fungus, being similar to a Phoma-like 
fungus not uncommon on dead and dying chestnut sprouts. 
Europe. While Farlow (20, p. 70) was one of the first to 
call attention to the very close relationship, if not exact identity, 
of our chestnut blight with Endothia gyrosa as found in Europe, 
he has made no claim that the disease was introduced into this 
country from Europe. He merely asks, “Is Diaporthe para- 
Sitica, as at first supposed, really a species new to science? If 
so, is it a native species which has hitherto escaped the notice 
of all mycologists, or has it been introduced from some other 
country?” One can infer from his article, however, that if the 
fungus was proved to be an imported one he would favor Europe 
rather than Japan as being its native home. 
Shear (65, p. 212), however, comes out with a more definite 
statement as regards the European origin of the fungus, as 
follows: “As a result of our studies to date, we are of the 
opinion that Diaporthe parasitica Murr. is the same as Endothia 
