104 
Spores were also sown in a decoction of cotton bolls in agar-agar. In 
this thefungus grew more luxuriantly and rapidly, but was much slower 
in producing setae, and when these were first discovered, nearly a week 
after they were sown, they were already bearing spores. For the first 
few days only colorless basidia could bo found. When a spore was 
produced on this mycelium it was cut off from the end of the basidium 
and another formed on the same place, pushing the former one aside. 
This may occur until there is a large collection of spores at the end of 
the basidium, the spores that are pushed aside lying adjacent to the 
second one along their entire length (Fig. 7). 
When spores are sown in pure water they exhibit a phenomenon 
which can scarcely be called anything but budding (Figs. 1-5, 7, 8, p. 
103). They become once septate, and while one division sends out a germ 
tube the other gives rise to another spore, separated from the first only 
by a short neck. The germ tube also frequently sends out a spore just 
beyond the point where it leaves the spore (Figs. 3, 5, p. 103). By the 
time a spore has been two days in water the cell that at first gave rise 
to the germ tube may also have produced several spores, either by bud¬ 
ding or upon a short thread. 
Secondary dark colored spores (Fig. G, p. 103) are also often produced 
in great numbers both when the spores are germinated in water and in 
nutritive media. In the latter they are sometimes so abundant as to 
give the mycelium a dark color when seen by the naked eye. These 
bodies are usually regular at first, but become very irregularly lobed and 
even reproduce themselves by constriction. They also give rise to 
other mycelial filaments. I do not understand their special function. 
GENERAL NOTES. 
Just how long the disease has existed or has been a source of trouble 
to cotton growers can not well be ascertained ; but those who have writ¬ 
ten us concerning it speak of it as new, and it is safe to say that it has 
greatly increased in destructiveness during the last three years and has 
now become a source of danger to the cotton industry. 
It was first brought to our attention in the summer of 1888 by a letter 
from a cotton grower in Louisiana. Last year, we received no complaints 
in regard to it, but during the last few mouths repeated inquiries have 
been sent in, and in two cases, one from Alabama and one from Louisiana, 
it is reported as destroying 75 per cent, of the crop. In general, however, 
it seems to destroy from 10 to 25 per cent. The disease is evidently 
not a new one, as a specimen dating back five or six years has been 
found in the Department herbarium. In this case, however, only a 
saprophytic fungus which had nearly overgrown the true cause of the 
trouble was named on the label. 
It seems to have appeared at first on the improved varieties and is 
worse in wet seasous. That it is widespread is evidenced by the fact 
