SORGHUM SMUTS AND VARIETAL RESISTANCE 31 
This durra is more promising agronomic ally than either of the two 
previously mentioned. 
A White durra (C. I. No. 529; S. P. I. No. 24305) received from 
Limavida, Chile, has proved practically free from kernel smut, only 
one smutted plant being recorded at Amarillo and one at Manhattan, 
where it was grown two seasons. It is a typical White durra, with 
compact ovoid heads, pithy stems, few leaves, and slightly flattened 
white seeds. 
A White durra (C. I. No. 437; S. P. I. No. 28995) received from 
Merv, Turkestan, has proved very slightly susceptible to the kernel 
smut. Meyer mentions it as J a good quality of djugara grown by the 
natives. It does not seem to possess any special value for either for- 
age or grain in the United States. This strain was grown during 
four years at both Manhattan and Amarillo. At the former station 
2.9 per cent of the plants were infected and at Amarillo less than 1 
per cent. 
White durra (S. P. I. No. 38592) obtained from Gizeh, Egypt, 
also has proved somewhat susceptible to the kernel smut. It was 
grown four years at both Manhattan and Amarillo. At Manhattan 
11.2 per cent of the plants were infected and at Amarillo 2.8 per cent. 
This durra appears to be of little agronomic value. 
Altogether, five strains of Brown durra were grown in the course 
of the experiments, and all proved susceptible. Strains of Missouri 
No. 30 and C. I. No. 246 showed the highest percentages of infec- 
tion. Five strains of the common White durra were grown, and 
with one exception, the Missouri No. 6 grown in 1915 at Columbia, 
showed some infection. Of the six recently introduced white durras, 
three (S. P. I. Nos. 14628, 24305, and 28995) show marked resistance. 
While these do not appear to possess characteristics which fit them 
to compete with other sorghums in this country, yet their resistance 
to covered kernel smut may make them of some value in hybridiza- 
tion experiments with a view to combining this resistance with 
desirable agronomic characters. 
RESULTS WITH MILO AND FETERITA 
Milo (3, 7) was first noted in this country soon after 1880. It 
was grown to a considerable extent in South Carolina and Georgia 
and was widely advertised by a seed firm in Atlanta in the spring 
of 1887. Soon afterwards it was introduced into western Texas and 
the drier sections of adjacent States. Milo has proved to be a suc- 
cessful crop in the Great Plains area, because it produces grain and 
forage under conditions where corn and other crops fail. As a result, 
the acreage has steadily increased. In the Southern States, how- 
ever, where milo was first grown, the crop has not been able to com- 
pete with corn. 
Milo has midsized pithy stems, which grow 5 to 8 feet tall; short 
narrow leaves; large ovoid, compact, and often pendent heads; and 
large yellow or white somewhat flattened seeds. The original milo, 
grown in western Texas under the old name of Giant milo, has been 
improved greatly by selection. The improved varieties combine the 
earliness and drought resistance of the Giant milo with uniformity 
of height and ripening. 
