Be2 BULLETIN 347 
stated thus: Endothia was erected in 1846, with Sphaerid gyrosa Schw. 
as the type. When the new fungus that causes the canker was studied, 
it was found to resemble E. gyrosa (as defined by Saccardo) so closely 
that even such authorities as Saccardo, von Hohnel, and Farlow could 
not distinguish the two species. Also the very few other species that 
have been referred to this genus resemble these two so closely that no 
one would think of putting them in different genera. Wherever one is 
placed they must all go. If one is placed in Diaporthe they must all 
be placed there, that is, the whole genus must be combined with Diaporthe. 
But, according to our rules of nomenclature, when the members of two 
genera are combined they take the name of the species first described, 
which in this case happens to be an Endothia. Therefore, even if there 
were not sufficient generic differences to keep the two genera separate, 
the canker fungus would still be Endothia, not Diaporthe nor Valsonec- 
tria — genera which were established many years later. The question 
from this time on was in regard to the specific name to be applied. 
Shear (1912 b), after a summer in Europe, stated that the Endothia 
radicalis of European authors is morphologically identical with Diaporthe 
parasitica; also that the American Endothia radicalis (Schw.) is the long- 
-spored form of the Southern States; also that the latter is different from 
the European FE. radicalis. He later retracted the first and the second 
of these statements (1913 a). 
Anderson and Anderson (1912 a) made a study of the saprophytic 
American Endothia, which they found common on chestnuts and oaks 
in southwestern Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and Tennessee. 
They found marked morphological, biological, and cultural differences 
between this and the true canker fungus. They consider these differences 
of specific value, and propose the new combination Endothia parasitica 
(Murr.) for the canker fungus and E. virginiana sp. nov. for the saprophytic 
form. The most noticeable morphological differences are: 
E. parasitica E. virginiana 
Mycelium forms thick, fan-like No such mats perceptible 
mats in the bark and on the cam- 
bium 
Size of ascospores, 8.6 by 4.5 u Size of ascospores, 7 by 2.98 
Shape of ascospores, broad: pro- Shape of ascospores, narrow; pro- 
portion of diameter to length, 1:2.7 portion of diameter to length, 1:1.9 
Constriction at septum of asco- Constriction very slight, if any 
spores distinct 
Length of ascus, 51.3 p Length of ascus, 34 u 
