Enpotuia CANKER OF CHESTNUT 537 
The chestnut is noted for its ability to sprout from the collar after the 
tree is cut, forming a dense growth of coppice. Practically all the second 
and successive growths of chestnut in the Eastern States have come 
about in this way. This coppicing method of reproduction is followed 
in forestry practice to great advantage. The influence of different factors 
on the thriftiness of coppice growth are discussed by Zon. Many persons 
have contended that this practice has devitalized the chestnut, making 
it more susceptible to diseases; however, as Metcalf (1912 b: 81-82) says, 
there seems to be no substantiating evidence for such an assertion. The 
marked abundance of dead branches on slow-growing chestnuts has been 
taken as a sign of their debility. 
The opinion that the chestnut has not always been thrifty throughout 
its range is based on observations of various writers. Clinton (1913: 
407-408) discusses this subject, quoting extensively from many sources. 
He states: ‘‘It is well known that in times past the chestnut trees in 
this country have suffered severely in certain districts, particularly in the 
South, in some cases being practically exterminated, so that their range 
is now considerably lessened from what it was originally. Strangely 
enough, no one has surely accounted for any of these devastations. Per- 
sonally we believe that this tree is extremely susceptible to changes in the 
natural environment, and that.such changes, with water playing an 
important part, have been the chief factors back of the gradual decline 
of this important forest tree. Other factors, such as forest fires, deteriora- 
tion through repeated cuttings, insect and fungus attacks, are contributing 
causes varying in different localities.’ 
THE DISEASE 
NAME 
The present epiphytotic disease of the chestnut has become known 
by several common names. Metcalf (1908 a) applied the name ‘“ bark 
disease,’ and since that time this name, as well as the name “ blight,” 
has been used by most writers. Murrill (1908 b) used the name “ canker,”’ 
but unfortunately this name has found preference with but few writers. 
There are arbitrary rules, at least, for the naming of types of diseases. 
The term “canker ’’ has come to mean, both to the pathologist and to 
the layman in this country, a disease which causes the death of definite 
areas of the bark of the limbs or the trunks of trees. The various apple- 
tree cankers are well known. ‘There is no conflict in meaning, therefore, 
between the names ‘‘ bark disease ” and ‘‘ canker,” for they are synony- 
mous; but, since we already have in common use the name ‘“‘ canker,” 
8Zon, Raphael. Chestnut in southern Maryland. U.S. Forestry Bur. Bul. 53:1-31. 1904. 
