772 
Journal of Agricultural Research 
Vol. XXIII, No, io 
different localities have been observed to be very similar and in general 
they answer the descriptions for take-all and footrot as given in the 
foreign papers by Prillieux and Delacroix (26), Mangin ( 22 ), McAlpine 
(19), Foex (4)/and Waters (37). 
The rosette disease of wheat was not reported until 1919; however, 
many farmers in the infested areas are certain that they have observed 
the trouble in wheat for many years. While such reports, of course, are 
not entirely conclusive, they indicate that the trouble may have been in 
existence in certain of the infested areas for a considerable length of time. 
The fact that the disease has recurred each year since it was reported in 
1919 adds weight to this possibility. Furthermore, all attempts to 
establish its origin through channels of introduction have failed, indica¬ 
ting still further that the introduction of the disease has not occurred 
recently. 
As early as 1802 a destructive wheat disease was reported by Hollings¬ 
worth (7, 8), and Mease (25) 6 from the district near Elkton, Md. In 
some ways the descriptions of this malady fit the symptoms for the 
rosette disease, while in other respects they seem to fit those for the true 
take-all. The descriptions of this trouble are not adequate, making it 
difficult or impossible to tell exactly whether or not it was the same as the 
rosette disease. Further light may be thrown on the matter of origin after 
the cause of the rosette disease has been determined. 
COMMON NAME OF THE DISEASE 
Shortly after the discovery of the disease in Illinois, the name take-all 
was applied to it by Humphrey and Johnson (9). Later, Stevens (33) 
designated the disease by the name footrot; and Johnson and Haskell 
( 12) and McKinney (20) 7 have designated the trouble by the tentative 
name “so-called take-all.” Since all of the evidence indicates that the 
disease is not the same as the Australian take-all, obviously the name 
take-all is not an appropriate one for it. With reference to the name 
footrot the American and the foreign literature shows that as a common 
name footrot is closely associated with the name take-all. This concep¬ 
tion is confirmed further by plant pathologists from Australasia and 
Europe with whom the writer has conferred. 8 McAlpine (19), Massee 
(23), and Dana (2) consider these names to be practically synonymous. 
In view of this relationship, the writer prefers not to accept the name 
footrot for the Illinois disease. It, therefore, seems advisable to desig¬ 
nate the disease by the more descriptive name “ the rosette disease of 
wheat.” 
6 These rather obscure references were brought to the attention of the writer through the kindness of Dr. 
G. H. Coons of the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station. 
7 McKinney, H. H. resistance in wheat to the so-called take-all disease. In U. S. Dept. Agr. 
Bureau Plant Indus. Off. Cer. Inves., Cereal Courier, v. 12, no. 17, p. 229-231. 1920. Mimeographed. 
8 Dr. A. D. Cotton, Mycologist to the Board of Agriculture, Kew, England; Dr. E. T. Foex, Director of 
Station of Vegetable Pathology, Paris; Dr. A. H. Cockayne, Government Biologist, New Zealand Depart¬ 
ment of Agriculture, Wellington, New Zealand; Dr. W. L. Waterhouse, University of Sydney, Sydney, 
New South Wales; W. R. Birks, Chatswood, New South Wales. 
