10 BULLETIN 759, IT. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
The second suggestion that Pseudopeziza produces conidia comes 
from the work of Brefeld (1891, p. 325). In the course of his study 
of Pseudopeziza on both clover and alfalfa he germinated the asco- 
spores. The cultures thus obtained of these fungi behaved alike. 
Very little mycelium was produced. After about 14 days conidia 
were cut off laterally from certain threads and from the ends of side 
branches. These conidia were not observed to germinate. After 
describing them, Brefeld refers them to the conidia described by 
Tulasne (probably referring to the conidia of Sporonema phaeid- 
ioides), but he does not state whether he regards his conidia iden- 
tical with those described by Tulasne or not. The structures which 
Brefeld describes and figures as conidia appear to be identical with 
those already described as occurring in culture. 
The third and most extended reference to a conidial stage of 
Pseudopeziza medicaginis is that of Voges (1909). In the course of 
a study of an outbreak of the disease in fields under his observation 
in Germany, he reports that he finds closely associated with the fruit- 
ing disks of Pseudopeziza on living leaves the pycnidia of a Phylio- 
sticta which does not appear to him to belong to a previously de- 
scribed species. Unfortunately, his own description of this Phyllo- 
sticta is so meager that it does not serve to identify it. He states that 
the spores are differentiated into two f orms — a smaller 1-celled spore 
and a larger, often 2 -celled spore. No mention is made of any 
attempt to determine whether or not the two types really belong to 
the same fungus or not, nor does he explain why such a fungus should 
not be called Ascochyta rather than Phyllosticta. 
Yoges next attempts to identify the Phyllosticta with Pseudope- 
ziza by cultural methods. He places fragments of Pseudopeziza fruit 
disks on a nutrient substratum. When this is done in March and 
October, no results are obtained ; but in June he gets a fungus on his 
plates which first produces aerial conidia and later pycnidia like 
those previously found on the leaves. Inoculations made on alfalfa 
leaves with these leaf-spot cultures produced typical Phyllosticta 
spots. Inoculation of alfalfa leaves with fragments of Pseudopeziza 
fruiting disks gave like results. Consequently he concludes that the 
Phyllosticta and Pseudopeziza are identical and that Pseudopeziza 
has three spore forms — aerial conidia, conidia in pycnidia, and asco- 
spores. Finally he inoculates clover leaves with fragments of his 
Phyllosticta culture and finds that typical spots bearing Phyllosticta 
spores are produced. Hence he concludes that the Pseudopeziza on 
alfalfa must be identical with that on clover. 
Even if these results of the few experiments which he performed 
are accepted at their full value, the conclusions which he draws are 
manifestly not justified. In the first place, the fact that he was 
unable to get cultures of his Phyllosticta from Pseudopeziza spots 
