200 
Mycologia 
its conidiophores, has recently appeared on the sugar beet in Cali- 
fornia. So far as recorded the species appears to be known only 
on cultivated beets, except in Portugal where Professor Lager- 
heim found it on the wild Beta marina. Fortunately from the 
agricultural standpoint the fungus does not seem to thrive as well 
in our climate as have some other imported forms. It is to be 
hoped that it may not prove a serious pest here. 
Peronospora effusa (Grev.) Ces. 
This name has been applied very loosely to various members of 
the genus Peronospora from hosts of several widely separated 
families, but in recent years the name has been restricted to the 
Peronospora on Chenopodiaceous hosts other than the genus Beta. 
Two forms of P. effusa are usually recognized by mycologists, but 
there is such wide diversity in the application of the names that 
the material referred to var. minor by one author is called var. 
major by another. While the taxonomic history of the species 
is not long in list of names the earlier descriptions were drawn 
up at a time when “ brevity was indeed the soul of wit.” 
The description of Botrytis effusa Grev. is accepted as the 
starting point of the history of the species. This name was pro- 
posed for a parasite of Spinicia oleracea in Scotland. The fun- 
gus was figured a few years later by Desmaziers 6 who represents 
the divaricate form on spinage. He also adds Atriplex, Cheno- 
p odium , Urtica and Rhinanthus to the list of hosts and makes a 
query as to whether or not B. effusa Grev. and B. farinosa Fries 
are identical. The latter species is evidently rather closely related 
to the former which is not mentioned by Fries. The type of B. 
farinosa came from leaves of Atriplex , but older saprophytic spe- 
cies are cited as synonyms.. From the descriptions of these two 
species of Botrytis we may feel sure that the first refers to the 
Peronospora on Spinicia and the second to that on Atriplex. 
The species were transferred to Peronospora by Cesati and 
within a few years other names were added to the synonymy of 
the species. Schlechtendal had just previously described a species 
on Chenopodium hybridum which he called Peronospora Cheno- 
podii. While his description is very indefinite, his material is quite 
<3 Ann. Sci. Nat. II. 8: pi. i. f. i, 2. 1837. 
