Ta > - VJ - ae 
LITERATURE ON BUNT OF WHEAT. Hs) 
the smuts. 
Schreber (339) undertook to refute Tillet’s conclusions in toto. 
He denied that bunt was infectious, basing his conclusion on the 
fact that a clean crop could sometimes be produced from smutty 
seed. He argued that bunt was due to a disordered sap produced 
_ by atmospheric conditions. He agreed with Tillet that rust was in 
no way related to the smuts. Even at this date there were persons 
_who held the opposite view. 
In 1763 Benevenuti (42) asserted that smut or bunt was an ad- 
vanced stage of rust, or at least resulted from it, and that rust was 
caused by concentration of the sun’s rays on drops of dew or rain 
- water. 
In marked contrast to Schreber’s article is one by J. L. Sturler 
_ (359), who strongly supported Tillet. After presenting evidence of 
_ the infective nature of the disease he proceeds to a somewhat vigorous 
expression of his opinion of such farmers as refuse to treat their seed. 
Referring to the evidence he had presented, he says: 
_ In spite of this clear demonstration few farmers make use of this easy and cheap 
' means of help. Deplorable blindness and unaccountable laziness! Were they igno- 
" rant and prejudicial peasants my surprise would be less. But shall not one grieve 
_ that people of another sort, some of whom belong to the first rank, should persist in 
_ their old humdrum ways and stiffneckness? I know such without having made a sin- 
gle experiment maintain that smut is an accidental disease of the grain which man 
' can not anticipate or prevent and that the powder can not infect sound grain. Can 
3 an error be more plain? However, we will hope that time and the light which the 
_ society [Economic Society of Bern] is distributing wil! help even such impaired 
_ understandings! 
Schulthess (342) makes what is probably the first mention of the 
_ use of copper sulphate as a treatment medium. 
_ Tscharner (371) supports Tillet, but thinks bunt can be avoided 
_ by sowing old seed. Tscharner states that red spelt is less liable to 
_ bunt than white spelt, a fact observed by him in fields containing 
_ both varieties. So far as the writers can determine, this is the first 
_ mention of varietal difference in resistance to bunt. 
In 1774 Johann Christian Fabricius (105) published a paper on 
phytopathology, in which he took the ground that fungi found in 
plant lesions were distinct organisms and not morbid plant tissues. 
How much influence this had on the final discovery of parasitism in 
its relation to plant diseases in general and smuts in particular is 
hard to say. | 
In 1783 and 1786 Tessier (568, 369) repeated Tillet’s experiments, 
_ confirmed his conclusions, and performed some further experiments of 
_hisown. He says: : 
According to the experiments of Mr. Tillet and myself, the stinking smut spreads 
. 
itself by contact with great facility and muitiplies rapidly. 
From his own experiments he came to the conclusion that the 
original cause is not to be found in the proximity of bushes, kind of 
fertilizer used, or the nature of the soil, but thinks the disease must 
_ originate from some inherent peculiarity of individual plants. He 
_ observed that the presence of smut “powder”’ on the grain retarded 
germination. He gives a very accurate morphological description 
_ of the affected heads at different stages of their development, from 
_ just before their emergence from the boot until maturity, and of the 
Microscopic appearance of the spores, from which one would conclude 
ae. Ae mY 
ment. However, he rejected the theory that rusts were related to | 
i a 5 Ce 6—C CC tCi«:Ciéi«d ee ey a eee, ee ee ee ee 
- go. eee eee, 68 OA Oia eee os 
