New YorK AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 285 
APPENDIX. 
THE IMPLICATED MYCOSPH HRELLA (LASTADIA) CUCURBITACEARUM 
(SCHW.) ? CKE. 
The confusion wrought by Mr. Smith’s last paragraph (p. 259 
of this discussion) brings out some things of interest. Though 
the fungus or fungi involved seem not to be the same as the 
parasite discussed in this article, it is thought advisable to 
make an attempt at clearing up the difficulty. He has simply 
condensed the complications, to be found in Saccardo’s Sylloge 
Fungorum and similar publications, regarding Spheria Cucur- 
bitacearum Fries and like named species found or described 
by others. The original specimens not being accessible, it be- 
comes necessary to use only the published references of the 
names involved and therefore only suggestive conclusions may 
be given. Thanks are here expressed to Dr. E. J. Durand for 
suggestions regarding the reference ‘‘ No. 1699 in Schw. Syn. 
N. Am. Fungi,” to Prof. G. F. Atkinson for lending a specimen 
of Roumeguere’s, labeled Lestadia Cucurbitacearum (Schw.) 
Sac., for examination, and also to the Director of the Royal 
Botanic Gardens, for a statement regarding specimens in the 
Kew Herbarium. 
Spheria Cucurbitacearum Fries published 1882, in Systema 
Mycologicum, II, p. 502, seems to be the original species; later 
de Schweinitz found what he took to be the same fungus and 
published it under that name as No. 1699 in his Synopsis of N. 
Am. Fungi (1831), referring it to Fries, though he fails to give 
the correct reference in Systema Mycologicum. 
In an article,** appearing March 1883, “On Spheerella and 
its Allies,” Dr. M. C. Cooke describes, among others, “ Sphe- 
rella (Lastadia) Cucurbitacearum (Schwein. No. 1699) ; 
Spheria cucurbitacearum Fr. Sys. Mye. II. 502.” The article 
purports to contain additions and corrections to Volume I of 
7 Journ, Bot. 21:71, also copied in Hedw. 22: 137. 
