nmm sP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

$~\\~SAnfF~~~ ,$

120 THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI HiBSCHHOKN, ELISA, & HiESCHHOEN, J. (1939). Pormas fisiologicas en 'Ustilago zeae' de diversas localidades de la Argentina. Su caraoterizacion geografica.—Physis, B. Aires, xviii, 50, pp. 181-222. HoHNEL, FBANZ VON (1924). Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Gattung Cylindrosporium Grev.— Ann. mycol., Berl., xxii, pp. 191-203. HoLTON, C. S. (1930). A probable explanation of recent epidemics of bunt in durum wheats.—Phytopathology, xx, pp. 353-7. i (1931 a). The relation of physiologic specialization in TiUetia to recent epiphytotics of bunt in dunnn and Marquis wheats.—Phytopathology, xxi, pp. 687-94. —— (1931 b). Hybridization and segregation in the oat smuts.—Phytopathology, xxi, pp. 835-42. (1932). Studies in the genetics and the cytology of Ustilago avenae and Ustilago levis.— Tech. Bull. Minn, agric. Exp. Sta. 87, 34 pp. • (1935). Studies on seven differentiating characteristics of two physiolog'ie forms of T. tritici.— Phytopathology, xxv, pp. 1091-8. (1936 a). Origin and production of morphologic and pathogenic strains of the oat fungi by mutation and hybridization.—J. agric. Res., lii, pp. 311-17. (1936 b). Inheritance of chlamydospore characteristics in oat smut fungi.—J. agric. Res., lii, pp. 535-40. •—-— (1938 a). A new pathogenically distinct race derived from a cross between TiUetia tritici and T. levis.—Phytopathology, xxviii, pp. 371-2. . (1938 b). A simple method of inoculating wheat seedlings with paired monosporidial lines of TiUetia tritici and T. levis.—Phytopathology, xxviii, pp. 618-20. (1943). Chlamydospore germination in the fungus causing dwarf bunt of wheat.— Phytopathology, xxxiii, pp. 732-5. — (1944). Inheritance of chlamydospore and sorus characters in species and race hybrids of TiUetia caries and T. foetida.—Phytopathology, xxxiv, pp. 586-92. (1947). Host selectivity as a factor in the establishment of physiologic races of TiUetia caries and T. foetida produced by hybridization.—Phytopathology, xxxvii, pp. 817-21. • & FisoHEK, G. W. (1941). Hybridization between Ustilago avenae and U. perennans.—• J. agric. Res., Ixii, pp. 121-8. • & HEALD, F. D. (1936). Studies on the control and other aspects of bunt of wheat.—• BuU. Wash. St. agric. Exp. Sta. 339, 35 pp. —— (1941). Bunt or stinking smut of wheat. 211 pp. — & JOHNSON, A. G. (1943). Physiologic races in Urocystis tritici.—Phytopathology, xxxiii, pp. 169-71. & HoDENHiSEU, H. A. (1942). i5ew physiologic races of Tilletio tritici and T. levis.—• Phytopathology, xxxii, pp. 117-19. & SuNESON, C. A. (1942). Varietal reaction to bunt in the western wheat region of the United States.—J. Amer. Soc. Agron., xxxiv, pp. 63-71. (1943). Wheat varietal reaction to dwarf bunt in the western wheat region of the United States.—J. Amer. Soc. Agron., xxxv, pp. 579-83. HoppB, P. E. (1948). Seed treatment with mercury dusts injurious to com with mechanical injuries near embryo.—Phytopathology, xxxviii, pp. 82-3. HtJBBAED, V. C, & STANTON, T. B. (1934). Influence of smut infection on plant vigor and other characters in smut-resistant oat varieties.—/. agric. Res., xlix, pp. 903-8. HtJLEA, A. (1947). Speciile de TiUetia care produc malura graului.—Publ. Inst. Cere, agron. Roman., 99, 178 pp. HTJMPHKEY, H. B., & CoFFMAN, F. A. (1937), A study of the reaction of Fj oat hybrids and their respective parental lines to inoculation with smuts and rusts.—Phytopathology, xxvii, pp. 183-9. & TAPKB, V. F. (1925). The loose smut of rye {Ustilago tritici).—Phytopathology, xv, pp. 598-605. HxTNGEKFORD, C. W. (1922). The relation of soil moisture and soil temperatiu'e to bunt infection in wheat.—Phytopathology, xii, pp. 337-52. HUNT, W. H., & THOMPSON, M. R. (1938). A pharmacological study of Ustilago.—J. Amer. pharm. Ass., xxvii, pp. 740-52. HxHRD, A. M. (1921). Seed coat injury and viability of seeds of wheat and barley as factors in susceptibility to molds and fungicides.—J. agric. Res., xxi, pp. 99-122. HtTTCHiNQs, H, L., & 51.UTMAN, B. F. (1938). Spine development on the spores of Ustilago zeae.—Phytopathology, xxviii, pp. 859-60. HiJTTiQ, W. (1931). Uber den Einfluss der Temperatur auf die Keimung und Geschlechtsverteilung bei Brandpilzen.—Z. Bot., xxiv, pp. 529-57.
REFERENCES 121 HtjTTiG, W. (1933). tjber physikalisohe und chemische Beeinflussungen des Zeitpunktes der Chromosomenreduktion bei Brandpilzen.—Z. Hot,, xxvi, pp. 1-26. IMMEB, F. R. (1927). The inheritance of reaction to Vstilago zeae in maize.—Tech. Bull. Minn, agric. Exp. Sta. 51. & CHBISTBNSBN, J. J. (1925). The reaction of selfed lines and crosses of maize to Vstilago zeae.—Phytopathology, xv, pp. 699-707. (1928). Influence of environmental factors on the seasonal prevalence of com smut.—Phytopathology, xviii, pp. 589-602. (1931). Further studies of reaction of corn to smut and effect of smut on yield.— Phytopathology, xxi, pp. 661-75. ISENBECK, K. (1935). Untersuchungen iiber die Physiologie von Sphacelotheca sorghi, den gedeckten Kornerbrand von Sorghum.—Phytopath. Z., viii, pp. 165-82. ITZBBOTT, DOEOTHEA (1938). Die Wirkung wuchsstoffhaltiger Substanzen junger Maispflanzen auf das Waohstum von Vstilago zeae.—Arch. Mikrobiol., ix, pp. 368-74. JAOZBWSKI, A. A. DB (1925). A new smut fungus on rye.^—Ann. Inst. exp. Agron. Petrogr., iii, pp. 106-9. JARBKTX, PHYLLIS H. (1932). Investigations on flag smut of wheat.—J. Coun. sci. industr. Res. Aust., V, pp. 165-9. JOHNSON, A. G. (1914). Experiments on the control of certain barley diseases.—Phytopathology, iv, p. 46. JOHNSON, DELIA E. (1931). The antibiosis of certain bacteria to smuts and some other fungi.—Phytopathology, xxi, pp. 843-63. JOHNSTON, W. H. (1934). Studies on the dehulling of barley kernels with sulphvu-ic acid and on the inheritance of reaction to covered smut, Vstilago hordei, Pers. (K. & S.) infection in crosses between Glabron and Trebi barleys.—Canad. J. Res., Sect. C, xi, pp. 458-73. JOHNSTON, C. O., & LBFEBBE, C. L. (1939). A chlorotic mottling of wheat leaves caused by infections of bunt {Tilletia levis).—Phytopathology, xxix, pp. 456-8. JoNBS, EDITH S. (1923 a). Influence of temperature, moistiu-e and oxygen on spore germination of Vstilago avenae.—J. agric. Res., xxiv, pp. 577—96. (1923 b). Influence of temperature on the spore germination of Vstilago zeae.—J. agric. Res., xxiv, pp. 593-6. JONES, G. H. (1939). Systematic and automatic warm water steeping to control loose smut of wheat.—Bull. Minist. Agric. Egypt. 220, 12 pp. JosBPHSON, L. M. (1942). Physiologic races in the fungus causing the intermediate loose smut of barley.—Phytopathology, xxxii, p. 11. JtJEL, O. (1894). Mykologische Beitrage II.—Ofvers. FSrh. vete^sk. Akad., ix, pp. 491-502. KAISEB, W. (1936). .Z\ir Biologie \md Entwioklungsgesohiehte einigen Entyloma-Aii^n. Angew. Bot., xviii, pp. 81-131. KAMAT, M. N. (1933). Observations on Tolyposporium filiferum, cause of 'long smut' of sorghum.—Phytopathology, xxiii, pp. 985-92. KiMMBBLiNG, H. (1929). tJber Gesehlechterverteilung imd Bastardierung von Vstilago longissima und ihrer Varietat macrospora.—Z. Bot., xxii, pp. 113-42. KELLBBMAN, W. H., & SWINGLE, W. T. (1890). Report on the loose smut of cereals.—Rep. Kans. agric. Exp. Sta. 2, pp. 213-88. KEENKAMP, M. F. (1939). Genetic and environmental factors afiecting growth types of Vstilago zeae.—Phytopathology, xxix, pp. 473—84. (1942). The relative effect of environpient and genetic factors of growth types of Vstilago zeae.—Phytopathology, xxxii, pp. 554r-67. & MARTIN, W. J. (1941). The pathogenicity of paired haploid lines of Vstilago zeae versus the pathogenicity of numerous mixed haploids.—Phytopathology,sssi,'pp.\()h\-Z. & PETTY, M. A. (1941). Variation in the germination of chlamydospores of Vstilago zeae.—Phytopathology, xxxi, pp. 333-40. KHABBUSH, S. S. (1927). Contribution a I'^tude des phenom^nes sexuels chez les XJstilaginaceae.—Ann. Sci. nat. Bot.,'Ser. 10, ix, pp. 285-97. (1928). Recherches histologiques sur les Ustilaginees.—Rev. Path. veg. Ent. agric., xv, pp. 48-56. KiENHOLZ, J. R., & HEALD, F. D. (1930). Cultures and strains of the stinking smut of wheat.^—Phytopathology, xx, pp. 495-512. KiLDUTF, T. (1933). Inheritance of bunt and loose smut reaction and of certain other characters in Kota X Red Bobs and Garnet crosses.—Canad. J. Res., Sect. C, viii, pp. 147-72. KTLLIAN, C. (1924). Le developpement du Qraphiola phoenicis Poit. et ses affinites.—Rev. gen. Bot., xxxvi, pp. 385-94, 451-60. KNIBP, H. (1919). Untersuchungen iiber den Antherenbrand (Vstilago violacea).—Z. Bot., xi, pp. 257-84.
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 and 114: THE BKITISH SMUT FUNGI 111 [Sporidi
Page 115 and 116: THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI 113 Ustilago
Page 117 and 118: REFEEENCES 115 BBETT, M. A. (1940).
Page 119 and 120: REFERENCES 117 ^ DniON WESTON, W. A
Page 121: REFERENCES 119 GRIFFITHS, MAEIOK A.
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?