300 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



tumour was set fortH by M. C. Potter* in the Journal of the Board of 

 Agriculture for December 1902. Potter definitely describes the 

 organism as Chrysophlyctis endohiotica, although there were im- 

 portant discrepancies between his own observations and those of 



SCHILBERSZKY. 



Of the three identifications, there is no doubt whatever that the 

 attitude adopted by Miss Lorrain Smtih was the scientifically correct 

 one under the particular circumstances of the case. And if contem- 

 poraneous observers had exercised a similar caution, there would have 

 been no controversy. 



To Potter, however, belongs the credit of having experimented 

 with the supposed Chrysophlyctis, discovering by so doing that soil 

 once infected by the organism became potentially able to bring about 

 infection of the potato plant in successive years. This writer also 

 describes to a certain extent the way in which the tumour is formed. 



In 1903 a short description of the disease was written by E. S. 

 MACDOUGALLf from material received from farms in Cheshire in the 

 winter 1902-03, and another by J. W, EASTnAM,i of Holmes Chapel, 

 in 1904. The disease had been known at Holmes Chapel since 1896. 

 In August 1907 an outbreak in Scotland was recorded by H. W. 



B0RTHWICK.§ 



Although Magnus had pointed out in 1903 that the organism was 

 not Oedomyces leproides, this name appeared again in Mas see's text- 

 book published in 1907. |1 The name Chrysophlyctis endohiotica, 

 Potter (doubtful of Schilberszky), was used in the Journal of the Bd. 

 of Agric. in 1908. In December 1908, however, at a meeting of the 

 Linnean Society of London, H he explained that he had observed the 

 germination of the " spores " and that the reproductive bodies of the 

 parasite corresponded closely to those of Synchytrium. 



In 1909 J. Percival,** in an article to the Gardeners' Chronicle 

 entitled " New facts concerning Warty disease of Potato," stated that 

 he had been able to distinguish two kinds of " spore," and that he 

 had observed the germination of the resting "spores." He stated 

 that his observations led him to believe that the organism belonged to 

 the genus Synchytrium. He published a more detailed account of the 

 life-history and cytology in 1910, ft renaming the organism Synchy- 

 trium endohiolicmn, Percival. 



The observation that the British organism possessed two kinds of 

 "spore," however, removed one of the chief difficulties in establish- 

 ing the identity with Chrysophlyctis endohiotica. 



* M. C. Potter, Jour. Bd. Agr., ix. (1902), p. 320. 



t R. S. Macdotjgall, T7an^. Highland and Agr. Soc. Scot.^ ser. 5, xv. 

 (1903), p. 312. 



t J. W. Eastham, Yrar-hook^ Coll Agr. and Hort., Holmes Chapel (1904). 

 p. 11. 



§ H. W. Borthwick, Notes B.G.B. Edin., xviii. (1909), p. 115. 

 II G. Massee, Text-hooh of Plant Diseases, p. 453. 

 H G. Massee, Proc. Linn. Soc. Jjond. (1909), p. 6. 



J. Percival, Gard. Citron., xlvi. (1909). p. 79. 

 tt J. Pepctval, Cenfr. f. Bakf.. bd. 25 (1910), p. 439. 



