962 
Journal of Agricultural Research voi. xxvii, No. i* 
Jar No. 3.—Inoculated with Cephalosporium sacchari. One plant dead 
and one equal to those in the control jars. 
Jar No. 4.—One plant dead and one equal to the control plants. Both 
living plants looked fairly healthy. (One of these plants grew until about 
April 17 and the other grew practically to maturity and produced a small 
ear and a tassel about the last of May.) 
Jar No. 5.—Inoculated with Cephalosporium sacchari and Fusarium 
moniliforme. Both plants dead. A considerable quantity of Tricho- 
derma koningii was found on top and around the sides of the jar. The 
stems of the plants when examined showed F. moniliforme ; there was 
fairly good root growth. 
Jar No. 6.—Both plants were dead. The stem when examined showed 
Fusarium moniliforme. F. moniliforme was also found fruiting around 
the edge of the jar. There was good root growth. 
Jar No. 7.—Inoculated with Gibberella saubinetii f Diplodia zeae, Fusa¬ 
rium moniliforme , and Cephalosporium sacchari. Both plants were dead. 
Jar No. 8.—(Duplicate of jar No. 7.) One plant was dead and the other 
was almost dead. A large number of Fusarium moniliforme spores was 
found on the stem and throughout the jar. The plants in both jars had 
good root growths. 
Jars No. 9 and 10, controls.—The plants in both jars were healthy and 
apparently doing well. (The plants in one of the jars grew until May 2, 
when it was removed to make room for another jar; the plants in the other 
jar were in a healthy condition until June 8, at which time the work was 
discontinued.) 
In the second series of experiments eight jars were used. Two were 
inoculated with Diplodia zeae , two with Fusarium moniliforme , two with 
Gibberella saubinetiif and two were held as controls. This series was 
planted March 28 and the first notes were taken on April n. At that 
time one plant was dead in each of the G. saubinetii jars and one was dead 
in one of the F. monilifotyie jars. The plants in all other jars were growing 
well and showed no noticeable difference from the control. On April 2 5 
the jars were again examined. The controls were growing splendidly. 
The F. moniliforme jars showed much improvement and no further effects 
of the inoculation were visible. The D. zeae jars showed the effects of the 
inoculation. The plants were a little smaller than the controls and had 
begun to wilt. (See PI. 2, A, B, and C.) 
The third and last series of inoculations was begun on May 5. There 
were twelve plantings in this series. Two jars were inoculated with 
Diplodia zeae; two with Fusarium moniliforme; two with Gibberella saubin¬ 
etii; two with the so-called Cephalosporium sacchari from the United States 
(the fungus found by Manns and Adams ( 10 ) so plentifully in seed com 
and tentatively referred by them to C. sacchari) ; and two with Cephalo¬ 
sporium sacchari Butler from India. The cultures of C. sacchari used in 
the two last-mentioned jars were isolated by Dr. F. J. F. Shaw, Pusa, 
India, and forwarded to the senior author by Dr. E. J. Butler of the 
Imperial Bureau of Mycology, Kew Gardens, England. This culture 
when examined was found to be a Fusarium. Doctor Butler forwarded a 
second culture from Doctor Shaw, which when examined was also 
found to be a Fusarium. 
Two of the plantings were used as controls. (See PI. 2, D, E, F, and 
PI. 3, C, D, taken May 16; PI. 3, A, B, and PI. 4, A, B, D, taken May 30.) 
