Feb., 1902.] 
Botanical Correspondence. 
213 
41. Ustilago syntherismae Schw. 
On Panicum proliferum Lam. 
Columbus, Ohio. October 5, 1901. 
Coll. F. J. Tyler and O. E. Jennings. 
“ Ustilago (Caeoma subgen. Uredo) syntherismae, L. v. S. C. in 
vaginis etiam junioribus sese ostendit ante evolutionem. Sporidiis 
cinereo-atro viridibus, laxissime effusis inquinantibus.” I.. D. de 
Schweinitz, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 
Philadelphia, 4 : 290. 1834. 
42. Ustilago tritici (Pers.) Jensen. 
Uredo tritici Persoon. 
On Triticum sativum Lam. 
Columbus, Ohio. June 12, 1901. 
Coll. W. A. Kellerman. 
“Uredo segetum : pulvere copioso nigro in graminum spiculis 
s. glumis proveniente. (Disp. meth. fung., p. 56.) 
“ Reticularia segetum, fusco-nigricans graminum parasitica, 
intus filamentosa. (Bull, champ. 1. pag. 90. t. 472. f. 2.) 
“ b. Uredo tritici: subeffusa.” D. C. H. Persoon, Synopsis 
Methodica Fungorum, 1 : 224. 1801. 
BOTANICAL CORRESPONDENCE AND NOTES 
FOR AMATEURS, III. 
Conducted by W. A. Keixerman. 
Item 9. Mr. F. H. Burglehaus, of Toledo, sends the following 
note : “I have found in working over Rubus americana Britton, 
that the description in Graj^’s and Britton’s Manuals — “stems 
annual, herbaceous, or slightly woody’’ — does not accurately 
cover the common form here. All the specimens taken here have 
six inches or more of woody stem of previous j'ear’s growth. The 
new flowering stems are delicate, herbaceous, generally branching 
from the stem of the previous j’ear. Is this generally the case in 
Ohio ? ’ ’ 
Mr. F. J. Tyler examined the specimens in the Ohio Herbarium 
and found “ the branches coming from a stem of previous j'ear’s 
growth. This old stem was in some cases three inches high, but 
mostly it had been killed to the surface of the ground ; the young 
branches started from buds which had been protected by leaf 
mold or soil. Probably the description in the floras referred to 
b)^ Mr. Burglehaus is correct for all cases except where the plant 
is protected. 
Item 10. Occasion will be taken here to call attention to a 
note which Mr. Burglehaus published in Torreya, t : 55, relative 
to specimens of Circaea lutetiana found at Toledo, July 29, 1900, 
with smooth fruit. These were growing with the ordinary Circaea 
lutetiana, which otherwise they resembled. Dr. Britton stated 
