nmm sP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$WI LD R LATI\IES CROP PLANTS IN INDIA$

$~\\~SAnfF~~~ ,$

112 THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI protruding sterile hyphae intermixed with the sporogenous hyphae. Sporidia globose to elliptical. Sporidial germination by a filamentous mycelium or by the formation of fusiform secondary spores. Graphiola phoenicis Poit. , Palm Smut Oraphiola phoenicis Poiteau, Ann. Sci. nat. iii, 473, 1824 [G. phoenicis (Moug.) de Toni [as '(Moug.) Poit.'] {PRacidium phoenicis Mougeot, 1821) is a later homonym]. Sari in the leaves, erumpent, rounded, 1-1-5 mm. wide, 0-5 mm. high, each with a hard black outer wall surrounding a thin colourless membrane, at first closed, then with an apical opening through which fascicles of yellowish hyphae protrude 2 mm. or more. Sporidial mass yqUowish, granular. Sporidia globose to elliptical, colourless, smooth, 3-6 /x diam. On date-palm (Phoenix dactylifera) in greenhouses. Eccsiccati: Vize, Fungi Brit., 171; Fungi exsicc. Select, ex Herb. M. C. Cooke, on palms, Kew Gardens, April, 1855. DOUBTFUL AND EXCLUDED SPECIES Doassansia comari (Berk. & White) de Toni & Massee {Protomyces comari Berk. & White) = Physoderma comari (Berk. & White) Lagerh. See Sampson (1940). Melanotaenimn ari (Cooke) Lagerh. [Protomyces ari Cooke (Grevillea, i, p. 7, 1872) on leaves of Arum maculatum, Chichester) has frequently been accepted as a smut but an examination of the type specimen and other European material in Herb. Kew. supports the opinion expressed by Beer (1920) that this species does not belong to the UstUaginales. The thick-walled spores are possibly oospores. Sorosporiom scabies (Berk.) Fisch. v. Waldh. (Tuburcinia scabies Berk.) = Spongospora subterranea (Wallr.) Lagerh. Sphacelotheca reiliana (Kiihn) Clinton on maize was compiled by Cooke (1906) but no British record has been traced. Tilletia berkeleyi Massee (1899) on Triticum vulgare, King's Cliffe, Northants. (Rev. M. J. Berkeley). The type specimen, which has no spores, gives no clue to this very doubtful species. Tilletia sphagni Nawaschin in capsules oi Sphagnum papillosum Lindb., Blelham Tarn, nr. Ambleside, Westmorland, 24 March 1948 (D. Walker, 1948), is of doubtful affinity. Tolyposporium montiae (Rostr.) Rostr. (Sorosporium montiae Rostr.) which was recorded on Montia fontana. West Kilbride, Ayrshire (D. A. Boyd) by Wakefield & Dennis {Trans. Brit, mycol. Soc, xxix, p. 145, 1946) is of doubtful affinity and does not, it is felt, justify the introduction of either Tolyposporium or Sorosporium into the British list. IlstilagO caidui Fisch. v. Wald. on Carduus was recorded by Cooke (1878) and Plowright (1889). No British specimen has been traced but there is a record on Girsium paltistre (F. A. Mason, Naturalist, 1921, p. 349). Ustilago cucumis A. B. Grifiiths, zooglea threads in root nodules of Cucumis sativa.
THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI 113 Ustilago ficuum Eeichardt on figs, Plowright (1889), p. 85 (footnote) is a species of Aspergillus, probably of the A. niger series, fide Thom & Raper, Manual of the Aspergilli, 1945. Ustilago grammica Berk. & Br. on Aira aquatica, Oxton, Notts., is probably a species of Pirostoma and the host may be Olyceria aquatica. See Sampson (1940). Ustilago phoenicis Corda on dates, Plowright (1889) p. 85 (footnote) = Aspergilliis phoenicis (Corda) Thom. UstUago rudolphi Tul. was recorded on Dianthu^ deltoides in a Norwich garden by Southwell {Gfrevillea, x, p. 67, 1881) and described by Plowright (1889) as Sorosporium saponariae Rudolphi. The description does not agree with S. saponariae, which is confined to Saponaria, and in the absence of a specimen the identity of the fungus recorded on D. deltoides must remain in doubt. REFERENCES AAMODT, O. S. (1931). Varietal trials, physiologic specialization, and breeding spring wheats for resistance to Tilletia tritici and T. levis.—Canad. J. Bes., Sect. C, v, pp. 501-28. & JOHNSTON, W. H. (1935). Reaction of barley varieties to infection with covered smut (Ustilago /lorcJei [Pers.] K. & S.).—Canad. J. Res., Sect. C, xii, pp. 590-613. ToEEiE, J. H., & TAKAHASHI, K. (1936). The effect of several coUectipns of Tilletia tritici and T". levis on the morphology of spring wheats.—Phytopathology, xxvi, pp. 344-59. ArnswoETH, G. C. (1950). The gladiolus smut.—Trans. Brit, mycol. Soc., xxxii, pp. 255-7. ALLISON, C. C. (1937). Studies on the genetics of smuts of barley and oats in relation to pathogenicity.—Tech. Bull. Minn, agric. Exp. Sta. 119, 34 pp. AMEMCAN PHYTOPATHOLOGIOAL SOCIETY (1944). Greenhouse method for testing dust seed treatments to control certain cereal smuts.—Phytopathology, xxxiv, pp. 401-3. ANDEKSON, P. J. (1921). Development and pathogenesis of the onion smut fungus.—Tech. Bull. Mass. agric. Exper. Sta. 4, 34 pp. ANDEUS, C. F. (1941). Preparation of inoculum with a mechanical liquifier.—Phytopathology, xxxi, pp. 566-7. ABLAND, A. (1924). Der Haferflugbrand, Ustilago avenae (Pers.) Jens. Biologische Untersuehimgen mit besonderer Berilcksichtigimg der Infektions- und Anfalligkeitsfrage.— Bot. Archiv, vii, pp. 70-111. ATANASOFF, D. (1929). Cereal smuts in Bulgaria. First communication.—Ann. Univ. Sofia, Pac. Agron., 1928-1929, vii, pp. 180-202. ATKINS, I. M. (1943). Reaction of some varieties and strains of winter wheat to artificial inoculation of loose smut.—J. Amer. Soc. Agron., xxxv, pp. 197-204. AUSTIN, W. W., & ROBEETSON, D. W. (1936). Inheritance of resistance to Ustilago levis (K. & S.) Magn. (covered smut) in a cross between Markton and Colorado 37 oats.— •7. Amer. Soc. Agron., xxviii, pp. 467-71. BAMBERG, R. H. (1931). Bacteria antibiotic to Ustilago zeae—Phytopathology, xxi, pp. 881-90. (1941). Fall-sown spring wheat susceptible to dwarf bunt.^—Phytopathology, xxxi, pp. 951-2. HOLTON, C. S., RODBNHISBH, H. A., & WOODWABD, R. W. (1947). Wheat dwarf bunt depressed by common bunt.—Phytopathology, xxxvi^, pp. 556-60. BARNEY, A. F. (1924). The inheritance of smut resistance in crosses of certain varieties of oats.—J. Amer. Soc. Agron., xvi, pp. 283-91. BARTHOLOMEW, L. K., & JONES, E. S. (1923). Relation of certain soil factors to the infection of oats by loose smut.—J. agric. Bes., xxiv, pp. 669-75. DE BABY, A. (1853). Untersuchungen iiber die Brandpilze und die durch sie verursachten Krankheiten der Pflanzen mit RUchsicht aufdas Oetreide und andere Nutzpflanzen. 144 pp., Berlin. (1866). Morphologic und Physiologic der Pilze, Flechten und Myxomyceten. 316 pp. (1884). Vergleichende Morphologic und Biologic der Pilze, Mycetozoen und Bacterien. Leipzig. H
Page 1 and 2:
THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI ^ (USTILAGIN
Page 3:
FOREWORD THIS volume was started wh
Page 6 and 7:
6 PBEFACE We also acknowledge the b
Page 9 and 10:
INTRODUCTION THE smut fungi, which
Page 11 and 12:
INTRODUCTION H of bushels of wheat
Page 14 and 15:
FIG. 1. Vstilago avenae on Arrhenat
Page 16:
^^ THE BBITISH SMUT FUNGI Young hea
Page 19 and 20:
BIOLOGY 15 less than the normal, in
Page 21 and 22:
BIOLOGy 17 and united with it, fina
Page 23 and 24:
BIOLOGY 19 eermination in a collect
Page 25 and 26:
BIOLOGY 21 genus, and the manner of
Page 27 and 28:
BIOLOGY 23 species of Entyloma, and
Page 29 and 30:
3036^ BIOLOGY 25 in others. Dickins
Page 31 and 32:
CYTOLOGY THE discovery of nuclei in
Page 33 and 34:
GENETICS INCOMPATIBILITY KNIEP'S di
Page 35 and 36:
GENETICS • 31 direction of growth
Page 37 and 38:
GENETICS 35 when a few sporidia fro
Page 39 and 40:
GENETICS 37 lines retained their di
Page 41 and 42:
TECHNIQUE COLLECTION AND EXAMINATIO
Page 43 and 44:
TECHNIQUE 41 be undesirable. Weak a
Page 45 and 46:
TECHNIQUE 43 in one season (see p.
Page 47 and 48:
TECHNIQUE 45 barley with loose smut
Page 49 and 50:
TECHNIQUE 47 (1939), Holton & Heald
Page 51 and 52:
TECHNIQUE 49 Allen's, modification
Page 53 and 54:
CLASSIFICATION THE morphological ch
Page 55 and 56:
THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI MOST of the
Page 57 and 58:
FIG. 2. Spore geimination in Ustila
Page 59 and 60:
THE BRITISH SMUT FUJJGI 57 from one
Page 61 and 62:
THE BRITISH SMUT FUKGI 59 of exsert
Page 63 and 64: THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI 61 noticeabl
Page 65 and 66: THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI 63 Evidence
Page 67 and 68: THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI 65 winter in
Page 69 and 70: THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI 67 Ustilago
Page 71 and 72: THE BRITISH SMUT FUlJGI 69 material
Page 73 and 74: THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI 71 results o
Page 75 and 76: THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI 73 TTstilago
Page 77 and 78: THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI 75 Species i
Page 79 and 80: " TJSE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI 77 Ustila
Page 81 and 82: THE BKITISH SMUT FUNGI 79 On Carex
Page 83 and 84: THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI 81 Exsiccati
Page 85 and 86: THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI 83 Tilletia
Page 87 and 88: THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI 85 bunt ball
Page 89 and 90: THE BEITISH SMUT FUNGI 87 globose t
Page 91 and 92: THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI 89 FIG. 13.
Page 93 and 94: FIG. 15. Spore geimination in Taboi
Page 95 and 96: FIG. 17. Spore germination in Urocy
Page 97 and 98: THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI 95 separate
Page 99 and 100: THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI 97 8ori in t
Page 101 and 102: THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI 99 Urocystis
Page 103 and 104: 30390 THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI 101 pr
Page 105 and 106: FIG. 20. Spore geimination in Entyl
Page 107 and 108: THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI 105 Sori in
Page 109 and 110: On Ranunculus ficariae and B. scler
Page 111 and 112: THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI 109 Infectio
Page 113: THE BKITISH SMUT FUNGI 111 [Sporidi
Page 117 and 118: REFEEENCES 115 BBETT, M. A. (1940).
Page 119 and 120: REFERENCES 117 ^ DniON WESTON, W. A
Page 121 and 122: REFERENCES 119 GRIFFITHS, MAEIOK A.
Page 123 and 124: REFERENCES 121 HtjTTiG, W. (1933).
Page 125 and 126: REFEBENCES 123 LiMBOtruN, E. J. (19
Page 127 and 128: REFERENCES 125 NOBLE, E. J. (1934).
Page 129 and 130: REFERENCES 127 RoDENHiSEE, H. A., &
Page 131 and 132: BEFERENCES 129 STAKMAK, E. C, XCEEN
Page 133 and 134: EEFEEENCES 131 WAXTBE, J. M. (1934)
Page 135 and 136: INDEX to generic and specific names
Page 137 and 138: Muscari Ustilago vaillantii, 59 Myo
Page 139 and 140: Ustilago ficuum Reich., 113 —flps
Page 141 and 142: 2i}:y0 ANDHRA PRADESH AGRICULTURAL
show all

nmm sP

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?