Enpotuia CANKER OF CHESTNUT 551 
gyrosa on Fagus and Juglans, and in 1828 by Fries as S. radicalis on Fagus 
(or Quercus) from the same State, and which is found commonly on oaks, 
chestnuts, and a number of other trees in Europe as well as in America. 
Von Héhnel (1909) says that Diaporthe parasitica Murr. is identical 
with Endothia gyrosa (Schw.) Fuckel; also that the genus Valsonectria 
is not different from Endothia, which he would place among the Hypo- 
creales because of its bright-colored stroma rather than in the Sphaeriales 
where it is usually placed. He gives two reasons why the fungus is an 
Endothia rather than a Diaporthe: (1) the bright-colored stroma is typical 
of the former, but not of the latter; (2) the conidial fruit form of Diaporthe 
is Plenodomus Preuss (Phomopsis Sacc.), while that of Endothia is Endo- 
thiella Sacc., characterized by irregular chambers in the stromata, without 
a definite wall and with small, rod-shaped spermatia. 
Clinton (1912 .¢:79-80), at the Harrisburg Conference in February, 
1912, states that he believes Diaporthe parasitica to be closely related 
to Endothia gyrosa, but of a different species. In a footnote, written after 
the conference, he states that he found E. gyrosa common as a languishing 
parasite or saprophyte on chestnuts and oaks in Virginia, North Carolina, 
and Tennessee; and that it differs from Diaporthe parasitica in that the 
stromata are less luxuriant, and especially that the ascospores are smaller 
and narrower, but he is not sure ‘“‘ whether these differences are those 
of a strain, variety, or distinct species.” At the same time Farlow (1912 
a:74) gives it as his opinion that Endothia gyrosa and Diaporthe parasitica 
are identical. Rankin (1912b:47) states that he found a saprophyte 
common on the chestnuts in Virginia which is indistinguishable from 
the canker fungus. So far as the literature shows, Rankin was the first 
to find this saprophytic Endothia on chestnuts in America. 
All the writers quoted above consider Endothia gyrosa (Schw.) Fr. 
and E. radicalis (Schw.) de Not. as synonymous. Shear (1912 a) questions 
their identity, and in the same paper states that there is a specific difference 
between Diaporthe parasitica and Endothia radicalis (Schw.). It appears 
from Shear’s later papers (1912b and 19134) that he was applying the 
latter name to a form with bacilloid spores found commonly in the Southern 
States, first brought to notice by Farlow (1912 a:74) and later called 
‘by Clinton (1912 a) the “ linear-spored Endothia.”’ 
Farlow (1912 b) in Science repeats his previous statement that Diaporthe 
parasitica and Endothia radicalis (European form) are identical, and 
states that his opinion is shared by von Hohnel and Saccardo. 
Since 1909 the generic position of the fungus has not been seriously 
questioned, all authorities apparently agreeing that it is an Endothia. 
Outside those already mentioned, the most valid reason for placing the 
fungus in Endothia rather than in Diaporthe or Valsonectria may be 
