46 BULLETIN 727, U. §. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
other bearing one lesion near the tip of a cotyledon, one lesion on the 
first leaf, two on the second, and four on the third leaf. Unfor- 
tunately, thinning had again been completed. The next day 
in another part of the field an infected plant was found which had 
three lesions on the first leaf but none on the cotyledons. The 
same day two other centers of two infected plants each were found 
and the next day two more similar centers were found. In all of 
these cases the lesions were fairly large, indicating that infection 
had occurred perhaps two weeks previously. : 
In the other four fields, similar original centers of apparently the 
same age were found at about the same time. In field 2, the first 
one found consisted of two adjacent plants, one with numerous 
lesions on the first leaf. The first original center found in field 3 also 
consisted of two diseased plants, of which one bore lesions on the 
first leaf and on a cotyledon. In field 4 the first anthracnose center 
was one very badly spotted plant, and in field 5 the first center noted 
consisted of two diseased plants. Whether or not the originally 
diseased plant was present in any of these cases is rendered question- 
able because of the previous thinning operation. Just how the 
fungus had passed the five weeks elapsing since the time of planting 
the seed can not be answered at present. 
Near Albany, Ga., in a large watermelon field not previously 
planted with this crop, careful search of about 1,000 hills revealed 
only two single-hill centers of anthracnose. In each of three melon 
fields near Monticello, Fla., one single plant center of anthracnose 
was found. Single plant centers of anthracnose were found in one 
field of cucumbers near Norfolk, Va. 
Under the fairly well controlled conditions among the Madison 
fields in 1916, the simultaneous appearance of a few scattered centers 
in each of the five experimental fields on land not previously sown 
to this crop furnishes quite convincing evidence of disease intro- 
duction with seed. But still more striking is the fact that anthrac- 
nose appeared only in the five fields planted with seed from the same 
source and not in the two private fields and numerous gardens also 
under close observation (21). This correlates the occurrence of dis- 
ease with seed from a particular source. 
ANTHRACNOSE IN SEED FIELDS. 
In view of the probability of seed carriage of the disease, as indi- 
cated above, the next step was to ascertain what opportunity there 
was for the seed to become contaminated. First, was the disease 
present in the seed fields ? 
A visit was made the first week in October, 1916, to a seed farm in 
Ohio. The vines were dead at this time, but anthracnose was found 
very prevalent on the fruits in certain fields. Since the seed fruits 
