May 31,1924 
Fusarium moniliforme 
919 
mycelium but no conidia. The mycelium is like that of F. moniliforme but might 
equally well be some other fungus. 
Reviewing the data, it seems that only evidence of the presence of macro- 
conidia in Oospora verticilloides is necessary to establish its identity with Fusarium 
moniliforme. 
Cuboni (2) states that occasionally he found a spore with two or three divi¬ 
sions, but there is nothing in his drawings to indicate macroconidia. No other 
reference to septate spores has been found. 
To those who have worked with Fusarium moniliforme, this discrepancy will 
not appear impossible of explanation. The macroconidia found on corn are 
very few, so few ordinarily that they might not be found at all with examinations 
of abundant material, or probably would be regarded as spores of some other 
fungus. The variability of cultures in their tendencies to produce macroconidia 
is well known, and the media used by many of the investigators were not conducive 
to the production of macroconidia. 
Since the evidence is so strongly in favor of Oospora verticilloides Sacc. and 
Fusarium moniliforme Sheldon being identical it seems unfortunate that the 
lack of description of macroconidia for the former species or an opportunity to 
compare authentic cultures of the two, makes it impossible to decide the case 
definitely. 
Tiraboschi (26) considers the matter of synonomy and concludes that Oospora 
verticilloides, 0. hyalinula Sacc., and 0. candidula Sacc. are identical. He 
obtained specimens of 0. verticilloides and 0. hyalinula from Saccardo, and grew 
them and the fungus he, himself, had identified as 0. verticilloides in parallel 
series on all the media he used. He states that he could not tell one from the 
other. He was not able to obtain a specimen of 0. candidula, but notes that 
Saccardo pictures it with a branched chain of conidia,.a condition never found 
in the fungus with which he was working. He includes it in synonomy, however, 
because Saccardo’s description of it agrees more closely with his fungus than 
Saccardo’s description of either 0. verticilloides or 0. hyalinula He also notes 
the fact that the name 0. hyalinula antedates 0. verticilloides , but chooses the 
latter name because it was established by the more complete description. Oospora 
hyalinula was originally described as Torula hyalinula Sacc. (20, v. 1, p. 265), 
the transfer to Oospora being made by Penzig (16, p. 453) for Saccardo. To 
these synonyms he adds the following list, doubtful not because their descriptions 
disagree with that of 0. verticilloides, but because they are inadequate: 0. dubiosa 
(Speg.) Sacc. and Vogl. ? 0. alba (Preuss.) Sacc. and Vogl. ? 0. ovalispora 
(Berk.) Sacc. and Vogl. ? 0. circinans (Bon.) Sacc. and Vogl. ? 0. epilobi^ 
(Cord.) Sacc. and Vogl. ? 0. hypoxylicola (Preuss) Sacc. and Vogl. ? 0. 
nectricola Rich. ? 
Obviously the only way in which the relations of these various organisms can 
be satisfactorily determined is by comparing authentic cultures of them, a 
method not practicable for the present, at least. It does seem reasonable, how¬ 
ever, to regard 0. hyalinula as a synonym of 0. verticilloides on the basis of the 
comparison of authentic cultures of them made by Tiraboschi. 
Even the taxonomic meaning of Sheldon’s Fusarium moniliforme is doubtful 
from the standpoint of the fusariologist. Sherbakoff (25) has stated that he 
believes there are several distinct species among those answering Sheldon’s 
description of F. moniliforme and has established the new section, “ Moniliform,” 
for the group with the following characters: 
Macroconidia of intermediate Roseum-Elegans type, with very thin walls, mostly 3-septate; micro 
conidia also in chains; no chlamydospores; color of substratum from none to violet. 
Differences in the cultures studied in the present investigations might confirm 
this view. However, the following observations also have been made. Certain 
