A NOTE ON INDIAN WHEAT-RUSTS. 
121 
their not having yet been formed. Still as has been noted already, 
the pustules present were very peculiar in containing spores of two 
quite ditierent sizes. 
There is unfortunately as yet no collateral evidence available re- 
garding the relationship of this “ Ferozepur Rust to barley or to other 
grasses. And there is not as yet any means of judging whether this 
“ Ferozepur Rust, or the ** Shibpur Rust with similar uredospores, 
is the more destructive to the wheat crop. 
It has been already recorded that on one plant of barley at Mozuf- 
ferpur in North Behar, and again on many plants of barley at Mogul 
Serai in the North-Western Provinces, a rust was found, the leading 
features of which were that the very small lemon-yellow ure- 
dosporic pustules lay arranged in many parallel longitudinal rows on 
the leaf-blades. This rust was only met with on these two occa- 
sions ; because it happened to be more plentiful at that place, we have 
termed it the “ Mogul Serai Rust. " No teleutospores were found. 
The rust appeared to do no tangible harm even at Mozufferpur, where 
the conditions had evidently not been unfavourable to the develop- 
ment of at least the ‘‘Shibpur Rust. ^ It does not, however, follow 
that under all circumstances this need remain equally harmless, and 
though it has not as yet been met with on wheat, it is nevertheless 
a “ rust that must be reckoned with in any subsequent enquiry. 
Regarding its possible identity little can be said. It certainly 
appears to us impossible to refer it either to the Shibpur blight or to 
the Mozufferpur one, still less to the Ferozepur blight. Future work- 
ers may find it advisable to compare it with a little understood 
European Pucctma, also like this one apparently confined to barley, 
of which the secidial fructification and the intermediate host are 
equally unknown. The rust in question is one that was differentiated 
by Fueckel (Symbol. Nachlr, ii. i6) as Pucctma Hordei and by 
Rostrock (Herb^ MyceU Oeconom. n, 451) as P, anomala^ but was 
afterwards supposed by Koernicke (Land^undFofsiw.Zeitung^ 1865, 
n, 50) to be only a variety (var. simplex) of P. rubigo-vera<> Winter 
agrees (loc. cit.) with Koernicke ; Plowright {loc. cit.) apparently does 
the same. Eriksson and Henning (loc. cti.) have returned to 
FueckeFs view, and treat it as a distinct species. Von Tubeuf, with a 
fine impartiality, adopts both views and enumerates the rust twice. 
But it will be apparent from this divergence of view that even this 
European Puccinia is hardly completely understood. 
Finally the very distinct rust met with only at Saharanpur and 
only on one plant has to be referred to. This “ Saharanpur Rust 
differed markedly from all the other specimens obtained, in the dls« 
c 
