CHESTNUT BARK DISEASE. 425 
identified as the same thing as Endothia gyrosa. We give below 
the nomenclature which probably applies to the fungus in 
question. 
Endothia gyrosa (Schw.) Fr. 
? Sphaeria fluens Sow. Eng. Fung. ¢. 438 (with ¢. 420). 
1809? 
Sphaeria gyrosa Schw.* Fung. Car. Sup. n. 24. 1822. 
Sphaeria Tuberculariae, Rudolphi in Linnaea 4: 393. 1829. 
? Sphaeria radicalis Schw.t N. A. Fung. n. 1269. 1831. 
Endothia gyrosa Fr. Summ. Veg. Scand.: 385. 1845. 
Diatrype radicalis Mont. Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. 3:123. 1855. 
Valsa radicalis Ces. & De Not. Schem. Sfer. Ital.: 33. 
1863. 
Endothia radicalis De Not. Sfer. Ital. 11:9. 1863. 
Melogramma gyrosum Tul. Sel. Fung. Carp. 2:87. 1863. 
Nectria gyrosa B. & Br.t Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 15: 86. 
1877. 
Chryphonectria gyrosa Sacc.$ Syll. Fung. 17:784. 1905. 
Endothiella gyrosa Sacc. Ann. Myc. 4:273. 1906. 
Endothia virgiiana Anders. Phytop. 2: 261. D. 1912. 
Endothia gyrosa var. parasitica. We have previously spoken 
of the very close connection of Endothia gyrosa to the chestnut 
blight, and have shown that Farlow and Shear in this country, 
and von HGhnel, Saccardo and Rehm in Europe recognize them 
morphologically as'a single species. Recently we sent ascospore 
specimens of the two on chestnuts from this country to these 
European botanists for further comparison,’ and their opinion 
as to the relationship. They still maintained that the American 
chestnut blight was not different specifically from E. gyrosa as 
found in Europe and America, but was merely a more luxuriant 
strain that had so developed through its parasitic habit. It is 
to be remembered, however, that all of the above investigators, 
except Shear, have based their conclusions merely on micro- 
scopic examination, since they have not had opportunity to 
study the situation in the field, and have not made cultures or 
inoculation experiments. On the other hand, it is to be taken 
* The conidial stage of the fungus described. 
+The asco-stage of the fungus described. Fries apparently published 
his description before Schweinitz. 
£ This fungus, according to von Héhnel (29). 
