nmm sP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

$~\\~SAnfF~~~ ,$

126 THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI KAWiTSOHi:K,r.(19l2). Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Ustilagineen. i.-r-Z. Bo«., iv, pp. 673-706. (1914). Zur Sexualitat der Brandpilze. Tilletia iritici.—Ber. dtsch. bat. Oes., xxxii, pp. 310-14. - I (1922). Beitrage ziir Kenntnis der Ustilagineen. ii.—Z. Bot., xiv, pp. 273-96. REED, G. M. (1924). Physiologic races of oat smuts.—Amer. J. Bot., xi, pp. 282-92. (1925 a). Varietal susceptibility of oats to loose and covered smuts.—Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. 1275, 39 pp. ' (1925 b). The inheritance of resistance of oat hybrids to loose'smut.—Mj/coiogria, xvii, pp. 163-81. (1927). Further evidence of physiologic races of oat smuts.—Mycologid, xix, pp. 21-8. (1928 a). Physiologic races of bunt of wheat.^—Amer. J. Bot., xv, pp. 157-70. (1928 b). The inheritance of resistance of oat hybrids to loose and covered smut.—Ann. N.Y. Acad. ScL, xxx, pp. 129-76. (1930). New physiologic races of the oat smuts.—Bull. Torret/bot. CZ., Ivi, pp. 449-70. •—— (1931). Inheritance of smut resistance iu hybrids of Early Gothland and Monarch oats.—Amer. J. Bot., xviii, pp. 803-15. (1932 a). Inheritance of resistance of loose and covered smut ia a hybrid of Early Gothland and Victor oats.—Amer. J. Bot., xix, pp. 194^203. (1932 b). Inheritance of resistance to loose and covered smut in hybrids of Hull-less with Early Gothland and Monarch oats.—Amer. J. Bot., xix, pp. 273-301. (1934). Inheritance of resistance to loose and covered smut in hybrids of Black Mesdag with Hull-less, Silvermine, and Early Champion oats.—Amer. J. Bot., xxi, pp. 278-91. —•— (1935). Inheritance of resistance to loose smut in hybrids of Fulghum and Black Mesdag oats.—Bull. Torrey bot. Gl., Ixii, pp. 177-86. (1938). Influence of the growth of the host on-oat smut development.—Proc. Amer. phil. Soc, bcxix, pp. 303-26. (1940). Physiologic races of oat smuts.—Amer. J. Bot., xxvii, pp. 135-43. • & STANTON, T.B. (1925). Relativesuseeptibility of selections from a Fulghum-Swedish Select cross to smuts of oats.^—J. agric. Bes., xxx, pp. 375-91. (1932). Physiologic races of Ustilago levis and U. avenae on red oats.—J. agric. Res., xliv, pp. 147-53. (1936). Reaction of oat varieties to physiologic races of loose and covered smuts of red oats.—J. agric. Res., lii, pp. 1-16. (1937). Inheritance of resistance to loose arid covered smuts in oat hybrids.—• J. Amer. Soc. Agron., xxix, pp. 997-1006. • (1938). Inheritance of resistance to loose and covered smuts in Markton oat hybrids.—J. agric. Res., Ivi, pp. 159-75. RBICKBBT, I. (1930 a). A new strain of Tilletia tritioi in Palestine.—Ann. appl. Biol., xvii, pp. 720-4. •——- (1930 b)'. The susceptibility of American wheat varieties resistant to Tilletia tritici.— Phytopathology, xx, pp. 973-80. (1931). Tilletia tritici on Aegilops.—Trans. Brit, mycol. Soc, xvi, pp. 133-5. RoDENHiSEB, H. A. (1926). Physiologic specialization of Ustilago nuda and Ustilago tritici.—Phytopathology, xvi, pp. 1001-7. • (1928). Physiologic specialization in some cereal smuts.—Phytopathology, xviii, pp. 955-1003. (1932). Heterothallism and hybridization in Sphacelothecd sorghi and S. cruenta.—J. agric. Res., xlv, pp. 287-96. (1934). Studies on the possible origin of physiologic forms of Sphacelotheca sorghi and S. cruenta.—J. agric. Res., xlix, pp. 1069-86. (1937). Eohinulation of chlamydospores and the pathogenicity of a previously undescribed race of Sphacelotheca cruenta.—Phytopathology, xxvii, pp. 643-5. & HoLTON, C. S. (1937). Physiologic races of Tilletia tritici and T. levis.-—J. agric. Res., Iv, pp. 483-96. (1942). Variability in reaction of wheat differential varieties to physiologic races of Tilletia levis and T. tritici.—Phytopathology, xxxii, pp. 158-64. (1945). Distribution of races of Tilletia caries and T. foetida and their relative virulence on certain varieties and selections of wheat.—Phytopathology, xxxv, pp. 955-69. & MAXWELL, L. R. (1941). Efiect of X-radiation on the germination of chlamydospores of Ustilago hordei.—Phytopathology, xxxi, pp. 175-80. & QTJISESTBBBBY, K. S. (1938). Pimt reaction of some varieties of hard red winter wheat.^—J. Amer. Soc. Agron., xxx, pp. 484-92.
REFERENCES 127 RoDENHiSEE, H. A., & STAKMAN, E. C. (1927). Physiologic specialization in TiUetia levis and T. tritici.—Phytopathology, xvii, pp. 247-53. & TAYLOR, J. W. (1940). Effects of soil type, soil sterilization, and soil reaction on bunt infection at different incubation temperatures.—Phytopathology, xxx, pp. 400-8. (1943). The effect of photoperiodism on the development of bunt in two spring wheats.—Phytopathology, xxxiii, pp. 240-4. RoEMBE, T., & BAETHOLLY, R. (1933). Die Aggressivitat verschiedener 'Steinbrandherkiinfte' {TiUetia tritici (Bjerk.) Wint.) und ihre Veranderung durch die Wirtssorte.— Phytopath. Z., vi, pp. 469-506. EucHS, W. H., & IsBNBEOK, K. (1937). Die Zuchtung resistenter Rassen der Kulturpflanzen.—Kuhn-Archiv, xlv, pp. 1-427. RosENSTiEL, K. V. (1929). Untersuchungen iiber die Widerstandsfahigkeit von Haferarten und -sorten gegen Haferflugbrand (Ustilago avenae (Pers.) Jens.) imd ihre Vererbung.— Phytopath. Z., i, pp. 317-60. RoSTEUP, E. (1898). Et nyt Vaertskifte hos Uredinaceeme og Konidier hos Thecaphora convolvuK. Overs, danske Vidensk. Selskabs Porh., 5, pp. 269-76. RuDOBF, W., & RosBNSTiBL, K. V. (1934). Untersuchungen iiber die Widerstandsfahigkeit bei Weizensorten gegen Weizenflugbrand, und iiber ihre Vererbung in Kreuzungen.^— Z. ZiicM., A, xix, pp. 324r-32. RTJMP, L. (1926). Studien iiber den Gerstenhartbrand {Ustilago hordei. Kell. u. Sw.).— Forsch. PflKr., Burl., ii, pp. 21-76. RtrssELL, R. C. (1946). Testing seed for smut spores as an aid in controlling cereal smuts in Saskatchewan.—Sci. Agric., xxvi, pp. 372-80. RUTTLE, MABEL (Mrs. Nebel) (1934). Studies on barley smuts and on loose smut of wheat.— Tech. Bull. N.T. agric. exp. Sta. 221, 39 pp. SAMPSON, K. (1925). Some infection experiments with loose and covered smuts of oats which indicate the existence in them of biological species.—Ann. appl. Biol., xii, pp. 314r-25. (1928). The biology of oat smuts, i. Viability of the chlamydospores.—Ann. appl. Biol., XV, pp. 586-612. (1929). The biology of oat smuts, ii. Varietal resistance.—Ann. appl. Biol., xvi, pp. 65-85. (1933). The biology of oat smuts, iii. The development of two biological species of Ustilago holleri (Wille) in a selection of Avena strigosa orcadensis (Marquand).—Ann. appl. Biol., XX, pp. 258-71. (1940). List of British tlstilaginales.—Trans. Brit, mycol. Soc, xxiv, pp. 294- 311. & DAVIBS, D. W. (1925), Dry treatment for smut diseases of cereals.—Welsh. J. Agric., i, pp. 169-76. -^ ' (1926). Some experiments on the control of bunt in wheat by copper carbonate and other chemicals, . . .—Welsh J. Agric, ii, pp. 188-212. (1927). The influence of TiUetia tritici (Bjerk.) Wint. and T. laevis Kuhn on the growth of certain wheat varieties.—Ann. appl. Biol., xiv, pp. 83—104. - & WESTERN, J. H. (1938). Biology of oat smiuts. v. A ten years' survey of six spore collections, propagation, screening and monospore isolation experiments.—Ann. appl. Biol., XXV, pp. 490-505. (1941). Diseases of British grasses and herbage legumes. 85 pp. SAETOEIS, G. B. (1924). Studies in the life history and physiology of certain smuts.—Amer. J. Bot., xi, pp. 617-47. SAVTjLESOtr, T., & SAITOTJ-VILLB, C. (1939). incercari pentru stabiUrea raselor fiziologice la cele doua specii de TiUetia ce produc malura graului in Romania.—Anal. Inst. Cere. agron. Roman., x, pp. 518-631. SOHAFEB, E. G. (1923). Division of Farm Crops.—JRep. Wash, agric. Exp. Sta., xxxiii, pp. 29-32. SoHAPFsriT, E. (1926). Zur Physiologic von Ustilago hordei Kell. u. Sw. Ber. dtsch. bot. Oes., xliv, pp. 151-6. SCHATTBNBBEG, H. (1934). Investigations on the reaction of varieties, hybrid progeny, and hybrid populations to different collections of loose smut of oats.—KiXhn-Archiv, xxxvii, pp. 409-49. SCHELLBNBBEO, H. C. (1907). Die Vertreter der Gattung Sphacelotheca de By. auf den Polygonumarten.—Ann. mycol., Berl., v, pp. 385-96. .—— (1911). Die Brandpilze der Schweiz. (Beitrage zur Kryptogamenflora der Schweiz), iii, 2, xlvi and 180 pp. Bern.
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 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: REFERENCES 125 NOBLE, E. J. (1934).
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?