u 
Carxe — lirou'n Itoi <>f ( itrus. 
fro'ii llu' Me.litrrvaiifnn it is ])rol)a})le tliat '-lie disease has ber-ii 
J,i-ouo;!d in OH lemons or even on eitrus plants wliieh have oeeasioo- 
ally lio.Mi hniu,si-ht into Australia from the same region in past years. 
Ther<‘ remain only two reeovds of the oc('urrenee of P. ciiropiiihor.i 
on eii'-ie; fiuits outside California, namely in Xew Zealand (9) aii-l 
South Afi'ira (111). In Inttii eases cultural derails have not heeir 
pnhlished. No definite statements, in the absence of detailed in- 
fonnatioip can be mad(‘ on, these records. From the description rf 
the New Zealand disease, -which occurs only on lemons, it wouH 
appear to he of different orio'=n to the Australian rot. The drawings 
given of tin* conidia of the hloutli African disease appear to be 
(hdiiiitely of Piiihiacystis ritropJiihoxi. 
Cif-rus Ib'oAvn Kot was noted in the file^ of the Di'partment of 
Agricultiu'e of Western Australia as earlv as 1916, l)ut the first 
published record was made in 1923 by Nawcett (Id) who stated 
that in l‘M7 he was infornuul bv Dr. F. Stowaial, then Plan,t Patholo- 
,gist to the Western Australian Department of Agricnltiire tliat he 
had isolated P. citmp]ithora from lemons affected with Brown Kot, 
It ma_y be hero stated that the rvriter has examined fruit from every 
citrus area in the Stat(‘ during the iiash three seasons, and has found 
the jtathogen responsible for BroAvn Kot to lie Phipopltihora Inhcrn- 
(d/.s*. Tlu' record of P. citroplithoni fiaun Western Australia was un- 
doubtedly the result of mistakes in ideiitification. 
Brittlebank recorded citrus Brown Kot due to Pythiacys^is 
oilrnphfhoro in orangvs received in Victoria from Queensland in 1918. 
and in A ictorian orchards later in the same year (4 and 26). \ 
detailed aecouiit of the fi('ld symptoms in Victoria was given bv 
Cole in 192] (10). These symptoms agree identically with those 
(H-curnng in Itrown Rot outbreaks in Western Australia, and diff‘ ■ 
considerably from tiiose ri'sulting from Piifhiacystis citrophfhora i 7 i 
(■alifoiuia. In South Australia, (f. Samuel recorded PyihiacysilH 
Brown Rut lu 1922 (26). Imt pointed out that the symptoms sonw- 
vlial diffen'd fiom those recor<led i.‘i California. An orange with 
t\ picul iiifw'tion forwarded bv him iu 192.) proved to be affected 
with PhyfaphtJiora iiihcnufUf^ and not with Pythiacystis. 
In 1917 DanielbSmith writing to Fawcett (1.)) stated that 
Pytlnarystis liad been found associated witli gummosis of citrus 
tiees fi'om Norfolk Islaml. No details were given but there is no 
doubt tliat tliis record must be classed with other records of gumnuv 
sis (|uoted hy Fawcett (1.1) . as due to PythiacystisPik-e fungi. 
J- rom the fm-egoing it is olivions that Pyihiaccytis citropU- 
ihora IS known with certainty only from California, that it is possi- 
ble that it also (K-t'urs in South Africa and New Zealand, but that 
tinu'e IS no definite evidence of its presence iu Australia. 
