2 



0U8 hosts. Thus there is no simple means oi separating them, 

 Quaintance^ in 1900 reported " Monilia f ructlgena " as occuring 

 in the Unixed States on stone fruits in particular and to a 

 much less extent on pomeceous, but says (page 247) "the par- 

 asite is in all cases the same". Bartram^ makes a sximmary 

 of the conclusions that have been arrived at by those who have 

 worked on these fungi from that time to this. The distinctions 

 are as follows: the conidia of S. fructigena are larger than 

 those of S. cinere a. the conidial tufts are brownish yellow 

 and large^ the shape of the conidia is ellipsoidal, it occurs 

 in nature on pomes^ and the ascospores are pointed and large, 

 on the other hand S, cinerea has smaller conidia, they are more 

 or less rounded, the tufts are always ash grey and small, and 

 it is in nature found on stone fruits. It has no disjunctors 

 between the conidia and the ascospores are rounded and smaller 

 than those of S. fructip:ena . Ewert also found a difference 

 in that the conidia of S. cinerea ware capable of living over 

 winter while those of S. fructigena usually lose their power 

 to germinate early in the winter, Bartram also reports Methany 

 and Jehle^ as concluding that the most comiaon form in the unit- 

 ed States is S. cinerea . Reade-*-*^ in New York found it to be 

 S. fructigena as did Pollock^^ in Michigan. Conel^^ in Urbana, 

 Illinois, found that the fungus was nearer the description of 

 S. cinere a than to that of S. fructi gena. Bartram himself 

 finds that the commonest form of Brown Rot of stone fruits in 

 Vermont is S. ci nerea. There are no data given as to which is 



