Dec. 3, 1917 
Podblight of Lima Bean 
477 
That the writer has been working with the same fungus which Ellis 
and Everhart described as Phoma subcircinata there is little doubt. 
Material, collected by Dr. J. B. Ellis at Newfield, N. J., and identi¬ 
fied by him as Phoma subcircinata , has been examined and found 
to be identical with material collected at Vineland, N. J., only 4 
miles distant from Newfield. It should be mentioned in this connec¬ 
tion that the material from which Ellis and Everhart made their de¬ 
scription was likewise collected at Newfield, in 1892. In 1890, three 
years before Ellis and Everhart's description of Phoma subcircinata 
appeared (15, p. 158), Ellis collected and identified as Phyllosticta 
phaseolina some material from Newfield which upon examination the 
writer has found to be identical with material later identified by him 
(Ellis) as Phoma subcircinata and also identical with the material the 
writer has been studying. 
Phoma subcircinata E. and E. was described by Ellis and Everhart 
(15, p. 158) as follows: 
On pods of Lima Beans, Newfield, New Jersey, October, 1892. 
Perithecia subcuticular, 70-90 \x diam., sublenticular, subconfiuent pierced above, 
membranous, black, subcircinately arranged in large (1 cm.), round, faintly zonate 
spots, finally spreading and occupying the entire surface of the pods. Sporules 
oblong-elliptical, hyaline, 2-nucleate, 5 -6 by 2-2.5 f*> on simple basidia rather larger 
than the sporules. 
This description fits perfectly the fungus the writer has been studying, 
with the exception of the size of spores and pycnidia. An examination 
of the material collected and identified by Ellis as Phoma subcircinata 
shows the spores to be somewhat larger (6.4 to 8.0 by 2.4 to 3.6 /x, average 
7.4 by 2.95 /x), and the pycnidia considerably larger (142 to 276 /x, average 
185.8 /x). Material collected and identified by Ellis three years earlier as 
Phyllosticta phaseolina and which he probably later took for Phoma sub- 
circinata , bore spores (6.0 to 8.0 by 2.8 to 3.2 y, average 7.2 by 2.88 /x) 
and pycnidia (197.5 to 260.0 /x, average 219.0 /x) of about the same size. 
On material which the writer has collected and from which isolations 
have been made for inoculation work the spores varied from 6.0 to 8.6 
by 2.4 to 4.1 fij average 7.50 by 3.23 /x, and the pycnidia from 158.0 to 
475-0 tx, average 245.86 jtx. From the data at hand it appears evident 
that the fungus described by Ellis and Everhart as Phoma subcircinata 
is the same as the one the writer has been studying. 
In view of the fact that the fungus causing podblight has been con¬ 
nected with a perfect stage, the genus to which the imperfect form should 
properly belong is of no great consequence, but it may be of interest to 
know that this fungus, like a number of others which have been classed 
as Phoma, belongs to the form genus Phomopsis. In morphological 
structures the podblight fungus is identical with similar structures of the 
genus Phomopsis as laid down in Diedicke’s (13) revision of the group— 
