250 
Journal of Agricultural Research 
Vol. XXIX, No. 5- 
phaseoli EFS. Furthermore, soybeans 
are not readily infected by Bad. phase¬ 
oli EFS. 
3. Bad. phaseoli sojense does not pro¬ 
duce pustules on Phaseolus. On the 
other hand, the best infections on the 
latter are not to be distinguished from 
those caused by Bad. phaseoli EFS. 
4. The pustules are caused by both 
hypertrophy and hyperplasia chiefly of 
the parenchyma. 
5. Bad. phaseoli sojense is easily iso¬ 
lated from fresh material by the poured- 
plate method. It has also been isolated 
from herbarium material 8 months old. 
6. Artificial infection has been ob¬ 
tained by pure culture inoculation on 
a number of varieties of soybean, and 
natural infection has been observed on 
40 varieties in experimental plats at 
Arlington Farm, Va. 
7. Successful inoculations have been 
made on Lima, string, and wax beans of 
the genus Phaseolus. 
8. There is some evidence that pas¬ 
sage of Bad. phaseoli sojense through 
Phaseolus increases its virulence for the 
same. 
9. In comparative inoculations on 
Phaseolus with Bad. phaseoli sojense (di¬ 
rectly from soybean) and Bad. phaseoli 
EFS. the latter was much more infectious. 
10. Bad. phaseoli EFS. is only very 
weakly pathogenic to soybean plants. 
Only once did infection occur in a long 
series of hothouse inoculation experi¬ 
ments made according to the method 
which was so successful with this organ¬ 
ism on Phaseolus, or with Bad. phaseoli 
sojense on Phaseolus or soybean. In this 
exceptional case infection was very slight 
and did not resemble that caused by 
Bad. phaseoli sojense on soybean. Brown 
spots and streaks but no pustules were 
produced. The organism was reisolated. 
11. Bad. phaseoli EFS. produced in¬ 
fection on soybean seedlings (1) grown 
from seed treated with formaldehyde or 
sulphuric acid and germinated in damp 
chamber and inoculated therein imme¬ 
diately after germination; (2) grown 
from formaldehyde-treated seed, ger¬ 
minated in damp chamber, transferred 
to Sachs’ solution as soon as the seed¬ 
lings had made sufficient growth, and 
inoculated eight days after sowing; (3) 
growing in pots from formaldehyde- 
treated seed germinated in damp cham¬ 
ber and sprayed in inoculating cages 
when they had developed the first pair 
of leaves,~ the leaves being rubbed be¬ 
tween the thumb and forefinger after 
the spraying. No infection on leaves 
not so rubbed. (4) Grown from seed 
treated with sulphuric acid, washed, 
dipped in a water suspension of Bad. 
phaseoli sojense and germinated in damp 
chamber. By far the best infections 
were obtained in (1). In none of these 
experiments were pustules formed. 
12. With the exception of the colo¬ 
nies on beef agar plates Bad. phaseoli 
sojense behaves on all the culture media 
tested like Bad. phaseoli EFS. Some 
additional cultural work was done with 
the two organisms. Some of the most 
favorable media are steamed potato 
cylinders, whey agar, potato agar plus 
10 per cent dextrose, and Kellerman’s 
synthetic agar plus Congo red. 
13. Neither Bad. phaseoli sojense nor 
Bad. phaseoli EFS. loses its virulence 
readily, and both can be kept alive in beef 
agar stabs in the ice box for a year or more 
if small-bore (lj^-cm.) tubes are used. 
14. The disease is known to occur in 
Texas, Virginia, Louisiana, South Caro- 
lina, Kansas, Delaware, and Arkansas. 
LITERATURE CITED 
(1) Braun, H. 
]920. PRESOAK METHOD OF SEED TREATMENT: A 
MEANS OF PREVENTING SEED INJURY DUE TO" 
CHEMICAL DISINFECTANTS AND OF INCREASING- 
GERMICIDAL efficiency. Jour. Agr. Research 
19: 363-392, illus. 
(2) Bryce, P. I. 
1918. INJURIOUS FUNGI OF STE. ANNE DE BELLE¬ 
VUE, 1917. Ann. Rpt. Quebec Soc. Prot. 
Plants (1917/18) 10: 49-51. 
(3) Clinton, G. P. 
1916. NOTES ON PLANT DISEASES OF CONNECTICUT- 
Conn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Ann. Rpt. (1915) 15; 
421-451, illus. 
(4) COERPER, F. M. 
1919. BACTERIAL BLIGHT OF SOYBEAN. Jour. Agr.- 
Research 18: 179-194, illus. 
(5) Haskell, R. J., and Martin, G. H. 
1919. SUMMARY OF PLANT DISEASES IN THE UNITED* 
STATES IN 1918. IH. DISEASES OF FIELD ANJ> 
vegetable crops. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. 
Plant Indus. Plant Disease Surv. Bui. Suppl. 3 r 
p. 84-118. [Mimeographed.] 
(6) Heald, F. D. 
1906. report on plant diseases prevalent in 
NEBRASKA DURING THE SEASON OF 1905. Nebr.- 
Agr. Exp. Sta. Ann. Rpt. (1905) 19: 19-81. 
1906. NEW AND LITTLE KNOWN PLANT DISEASES 
in Nebraska. (Abstract) Science 23 : 624. 
(8) Hedges, F. 
1922. A BACTERIAL WILT OF THE BEAN CAUSED- 
BY BACTERIUM FL ACCUMF ACIENS NOV. SP. 
Science 55 : 433-434. 
1922. bacterial pustule of soybean. Science 
56: 111-112. 
(10) Johnson, A. G., and Coerper, F. M. 
1917. a bacterial blight of soybean. (Ab¬ 
stract) Phytopathology 7: 65. 
(11) Manns, T. F. 
1915. some new bacterial diseases of legumes 
AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE ORGANISMS- 
causing the same. Del. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 
108, 44 p., illus. 
(12) Quirk, A. J., and Fawcett, E. H. 
1923. HYDROGEN-ION CONCENTRATION VS. TITRA- 
TABLE ACIDITY IN CULTURE MEDIUMS. JOUT 
Infect. Diseases 33: 1-59, illus. 
