BY D. McALPINE. 
453 
etc. — Puccinia pruni-spinosce, Pers.," and have incorporated some 
of his references in the literature of the subject. There are 
several points in it worthy of comment, as showing the different 
behaviour of the same fungus under different conditions of 
existence. After noting that the fungus has been described 
under several different names, he remarks : — " Some confusion 
has probably arisen from the fact that the uredo stage alone 
occurs upon the peach and from the resemblance of the uredo- 
spores to the teleutospores of Uromyces." Both the uredo-stage 
and teleuto-stage, as we have seen, occur upon the peach in 
Australia, nevertheless the latter is comparatively rare and has 
undoubtedly led to misunderstanding of the true nature of the 
fungus from the absence of two-celled teleutospores. The uredo- 
spores are certainly suggestive of Uromyces on a superficial view, 
but their germination, not by a single apical pore, but by a band 
behind the apex, excludes the idea. 
Again he states : — " The uredospores may or may not be present 
on the plum, but on the specimens examined a few have been 
found in all cases mingled with the teleutospores." In specimens 
of plum leaves described by me in Bulletin xiv. of the Victorian 
Department of Agriculture in March, 1891, only uredospores were 
present at that time, while on specimens examined by Professor 
De Bary only teleutospores were present and no uredospores. 
Again he remarks : — " Teleutospores have never yet been found 
upon the peach, and it is probable that they do not occur upon it 
at all, since specimens gathered in Texas as late as December 26th 
failed to show any." 
It is rather a strange and striking fact that teleutospores 
which are commonly regarded as winter spores should occur upon 
the peach in a climate such as ours and not in America. 
To show the thorough agreement between American specimens 
of Puccini i pruni, Pers., and Australian so-called Uromyces 
amygdali, Cooke, I have reproduced some of Professor Scribner's 
drawings for comparison (fig. 14). They prove conclusively the 
identity of the two forms and disprove, if such were needed, and 
in spite of Dr. Cooke's pertinacity, the Uromyces-character of 
