1. eS > cannes = 9. be ae 
LITERATURE ON BUNT OF WHEAT. 19 
winter and spring wheats, of Triticum vulgare, T. compactum, T. 
turgidum, T. durum, T. spelta, T. dicoceum, T. polonicum, and 
~monococcum. The results varied from 0 to 85.92 per cent bunt. 
# Ohio was bunt free for 1905 and gave 0.7 per cent bunt in 1906. 
_ In most winter varieties that were tested in both years, 1903 and 
- 1904, the percentage of bunt was much larger in the crop of the 
' second year. The 1903 sowing was made on September 9 and that 
' of 1904 on October 7. One variety of einkorn was tested for three 
~ years and in all three was bunt free. In his article published in 1908, 
_ Kirchner (206) expresses doubt as to resistance being dependent on 
- quick germination and growth as a varietal character, though he 
- concedes that such characters would lessen liability by shortening 
| the period of susceptibility. He says it is necessary to investigate 
' closely te what extent these traits are inherent transmissible charac- 
_ ters rather than changeable phenomena due to external factors. 
| Kirchner continued his investigations up to 1916. Important 
| reports were published by him in 1913 (207) and 1916 (208). He 
- (209) states that his investigations have been carried on since 1903, 
_ during which time he has tested for resistance to bunt 241 varieties 
' of winter wheat and 119 of spring wheat. - In winter wheats he found 
* Cimbal’s First Hatzfeld and Honenheimer No. 77 very resistant. 
_ The last named was attacked in his experimental piats but four times 
~ in 10 years. Some of the Galician wheats gave favorable, though 
e somewhat inconstant, results. Beardless Odessa was tested six 
_ times, four tests being smut free, while one gave 2.5 per cent of bunt 
: and another 0.56 per cent. These results agree with those obtained 
_ by Hecke (144, 146). Miracle, a smooth, red rivet wheat, was bunt 
_ free four years in succession. Kirchner found the durum wheats 
: generally hard to infect, and two varieties proved very resistant. 
3 He described them as white, hard, smooth, the awns of one variety 
black, the other white. The Polish wheats were hard to infect. 
the spelts, two blue ones never showed infection. He notes that 
the same botanical group will contain varieties of high and low 
susceptibility. He recognizes external factors as having a great 
influence on infection, and he agrees with Hecke that degree of 
resistance is a constant hereditary varietal character. He was 
unable to establish any relation between germinative power and 
resistance. His observations led him to the conclusion that resistance 
is dependent on chemical composition and that the acid content of 
_ resistant varieties is comparatively higher than that of susceptible 
_ ones possessing the same morphological characters. In 1909 Pye, of 
_ Australia (315), stated that for several years he had been trying to 
_ obtain resistant varieties possessing other desirable qualities by 
_ crossing resistant varieties with other high-typed wheats which 
_ possessed some resistance. In these crosses he made considerable 
~ use of Medeah, a bearded durum. In his varietal tests, the highest 
percentage of bunt obtained was 58. The well-known wheats shown 
in Table 3 are selected from his results. 
__. McAlpine (253) reports the following percentages of bunt infec- 
_ tion: Federation, 88 to 100; Ohio, 4.3; Genoa, 4.5. 
Hecke, in his admirable paper, “‘ Der Einfluss von Sorte und Tem- 
_peratur auf den Steinbrandbefall” (147), in 1909, gives the results 
of studies begun in 1903. He tested 208, varieties, including both — 
a a 2 a lr er Re scm i ee 
ce OU SRR ef ae ee 
OCR a Ae) Ee oe ee Leer 
.... ee ees Ge i ee 
AE El ay li cl i i (lle ee 
