32 
Journal of Mycology 
[Vol. 11 
previous year these hosts responded to the inoculations! More¬ 
over, I am ready to express the belief in view of all the work done 
on Puccinia helianthi by all the experimenters from Woronin 
down to the present, that there is but one species of Rust inhab¬ 
iting the several species of Helianthus. 
PINE RUST, PERIDERMIUM PINI. 
Aecidiospores of Peridermium pini were obtained at Sugar 
Grove, Ohio, June 1st, and sowings made on Campanula amer- 
icana. The plants used in the greenhouse — not being well estab¬ 
lished because of recent transference from the woods—succumbed 
before the normal time for appearance of any results of possible 
inoculation. Plants in a neighboring woods were therefore used 
without being removed from their natural habitat. Pustules of 
uredospores appeared June 8 on the leaves to which the aecidio¬ 
spores were applied. The neighboring plants were free from 
uredo — careful search being made at the time and again at inter¬ 
vals later. It is therefore demonstrated that Coleosporium cam- 
panulae (Pers.) Lev. and Peridermium pini are alternate forms 
of one and the same species. 
PUCCINIA THOMPSONII Hume. 
Cultures were made with the teleutospores of this species 
from Carex frankii and the results were published in this Jour¬ 
nal, p. 173 (vol. 10), but for the sake of completeness of this 
report the account is here reproduced: 
In default of guiding clues random cultures were made in 1903 with 
the teleutospores of Puccinia thompsonii Hume, a widely occurring rust 
on Carex frankii, but no success attended the attempted inoculations. 
Suspecting a possible connection with the Aecidium of the Elder, Sam- 
bucus canadensis, and noting the strong morphological resemblance be¬ 
tween this species and the forms previously described as Puccinia bol- 
leyana by Saccardo (1891) and Puccinia atkinsoniana by Dietel (1897), 1 
attempted inoculations were renewed the present season. 
Partially successful results were at first discredited in spite of the 
strong suspicion entertained that the alternate form would prove to be 
none other than Schweinitz’s Aecidium sambuci. At this time I com¬ 
municated my suspicion to Dr. Arthur, also asking for good culture 
material in case he had any to share with me. He kindly replied 
1 These were pronounced by Arthur to be one and the same species 
and the name Puccinia sambuci (Schw.) Arthur was applied. Cfr. Bot. 
Gaz. 35:15. Jan. 1903. 
For convenience of reference the accepted name and synonomy may 
here be summarized. 
Puccinia sambuci (Schw.) Arthur). Bot. Gaz. 35:15. Jan. 1903. 
Aecidium sambuci Schweinitz. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. Philadelphia, 
4:294. 1834. 
Puccinia bolleyana Saccardo. Am. Mon. Micr. Jour. 10:1 (fig.) Aug. 
1889. Sylloge Fungorum, 9:303 (descr.) 15 Sept. 1891. 
Puccinia atkinsoniana Dietel. Bull. Bull. Cornell Univ. (Science), 
3:19. June 1897. 
Puccinia thompsonii Hume. Bot. Gaz. 29:352. May 1900. 
