ENbDoTHIA CANKER OF CHESTNUT 611 
College of Agriculture, for suggestions during their investigations and 
for criticism of their manuscript; to the New York State Conservation 
Commission and the Pennsylvania Chestnut Tree Blight Commission, 
in whose employ the majority of the writers’ investigations were made; 
and to Dr. Haven Metcalf, of the Office of Forest Pathology, Washington, 
D. C., for much valuable collaboration. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
Anderson, P. J. 
1913 Wind dissemination of the chestnut blight organism. Phytopath. 
3:68. 
Abstract of paper read before the American Phytopathological Society, 
January, 1913. Experiments show that spores are carried in great numbers 
by the wind. 5 : 
1914 The morphology and life history of the chestnut blight fungus. 
Pennsylvania Chestnut Tree Blight Com. Bul. 771-44. 
Histological studies on the development of the fruit bodies. 
Anderson, P. J., and Anderson, H. W. 
1912 a The chestnut blight fungus and a related saprophyte. Phyto- 
path. 2:204-210. 
Describe the closely related saprophytic species of Endothia as E. vir- 
giniana sp. nov., and describe the characters separating it from the blight 
fungus. 
1912 b Endothia virginiana. Phytopath. 2: 261-262. 
Give a scientific description of the new species and propose the combi- 
nation Endothia parasitica as a name for the blight fungus. 
1913. The chestnut blight fungus and a related saprophyte. Penn- 
sylvania Chestnut Tree Blight Com. Bul. 4:1~-26. 
Give the same data as are contained in the previous article under this 
title in Phytopathology, but in greater detail. 
Anderson, P. J., and Babcock, D.C. 
1913 Field studies on the dissemination and growth of the chestnut 
tree blight fungus. Pennsylvania Chestnut Tree Blight Com. 
Bul. 321-32. 
Diseeinaeon, rate of growth of cankers at all seasons of the year, and 
factors influencing susceptibility and rate of growth. 
Clinton, G. P. ‘ 
1908 Notes on fungous diseases, et cetera, for 1907. Connecticut 
Agr. Exp. Sta. Rept. 31-32 (for 1907-1908) : 345-346. ; 
Reports the presence of the disease in Connecticut, but does not consider 
the situation alarming. 
1909 Chestnut bark disease, Diaporthe parasitica Murr. Connecticut 
Agr. Exp. Sta. Rept. 31-32 (for 1907-1908) :879-890. 
Discusses symptoms of the disease, distribution in Connecticut, and the 
causal organism. Presents arguments supporting his theory that winter 
and drought injury are predisposing factors in the epidemic. 
