26 



THE BITTER ROT OF APPLES. 



He refers to the description of a grape-rotting fungus two years 

 before, and seems inclined to doubt the wisdom of considering the 

 apple fungus a new species. 



The spores (of the apple fungus) are more inclined to be curved, rather longer, 

 and not so variable in size, and the want of a peritheciurn separated the two widely 

 from each other. * * * At the same time these organisms are so different in dif- 

 ferent conditions that I would not affirm that the two productions are essentially 

 different, and the more especially because in external appearance and habit they are 

 so perfectly identical. 



Berkeley's figures of this fungus are reproduced in figure 5. 



In 1859 Berkeley published the name Gloeosporium Iseticolor n. sp., 

 applying it to a fungus growing on peaches and nectarines. He evi- 

 dently regarded this species as quite distinct from the apple and grape 



Fig. 4. — Berkeley's grape-rot fungus {Srpturia rufo-maculanslBetk.). 



figure.] 



[Drawn from the original 



fungi, as he speaks of these in the following words (p. 676): "A plant 

 of the same genus, destructive to apples, is figured and described in 

 this journal (Gardeners' Chronicle, 1856, p. 245). * * * We may 

 also refer to the very similar production on grapes." 



In 187-1 Berkeley and Curtis described a fungus growing on apples 

 in South Carolina, calling it Gloeosporium versicolor n. sp. They 

 appeared anxious to emphasize the fact that this new fungus was not 

 Gloeosporium fructig<n wm, as they say: i; It is very different in habit." 



In the years following this last description the accounts dealing with 

 the bitter-rot fungus on apples in the United States speak of it as 

 Gloeosporium fructigenum Berk., using the name given for the fun- 

 gus on apples by Berkeley in 1856. 



When Miss Southworth. in 1891. published an article on the bitter- 

 rot fungus she reviewed the older accounts of fungi causing bitter rot 



