nmm sP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

$~\\~SAnfF~~~ ,$

128 THE BRITISH SMUT FUNGI SoHLEHUBEB, A. M. (1933). Genetics of resistance to four physiologic foi^ms of bunt in two winter wheat crosses.—-Northw. Sci., vii, pp. 43-8. (1935). Wheat inheritance: reaction to four bunt biotypes, ^ike density, and seed colour.—Bull. Wash, St. agrie. exp. Sta. 323 (Tech. paper), 32 pp. (1937). Studies on the eflfeot of bunt, Tilletia tritici and Tilletia levis, on wheat.— Phytopath. Z., x, pp. 614-31. ', (1938). The inheritance of reaction to physiologic races of Tilletia tritici (Bjerk.) Wint. in a winter wheat cross.—Res. Stud. St. Coll. Wash., vi, pp. 75-96. SoHMiTT, C. G. (1940). Cultural and genetic studies on XJstilago zeae.-—Phytopathology, xxx, pp. 381-90. ScHOPFEE, W. H. (1937). tTber die Einwirkung von Aneruin auf das Wachstum von Ustilago violacea.—Ber. dtsch. bot. Ges., Iv, pp. 572-6. & BLTJMEB, S. (1938). Les faoteurs de croissance des espfeces du genre Ustilago.— C.if. Acad. Sci., Paris, covi, pp. 1141-3. ScHBOETEB, J. (1877). Bemerkungen und Beobaohtungen iiber einige Ustilagineen.— - Cohn, Beitr. Biol. Pfl., ii, pp. 349-85. (1887). DiePilzeSchlesiens,i (Cohn: Kryptogamen-Flora vonSchlesien,ni),-pp. 261-91. SCHWARTZ, E. J. (1910). Parasitic root diseases of the Juncaceae.—Ann. Bot., Land., xxiv, pp. 611-22. SEHTERT, J. (1926). Kiinstliche Bluteninfektionen ziu" Untersuchung der Empfangliehkeit versohiedener Gerstensorten fur Ustilago hordei und nuda vmd der Einfluss der ausseren Bedingungen auf die Hohe des Brandprozentes.—KiXhn-Archiv, xii, p. 423. SEMBNitTK, W. (1940). Physiologic races of Ustilago hordei (Pers.) K. & S. in Alberta.— Canad. J. Res., Sect. C, xviii, pp. 76-8. SETCHBLL, W. A. (1892). An examination of the species of the genua Doassansia Cornu.— Ann. Bot., Lond., vi, pp. 1-47. SEYFEBT, R. (1927). tJber Schnallenbildung im Paarkemmyzel der Brandpilze.—Z. Bot., xix, pp. 577-601. SHANDS, R. G. (1941). Disease resistance of Triticum timopheevi transferred to oonunon winter wheat.^—J. Amer. Soc. Agron., xxxiii, pp. 709-12. SHBN, T. H. (1934). The inheritance of resistance to flag smut (Vrooystis tritici Koern.) in ten wheat crosses.—Bull. Nanking Coll. Agric. For., N.S., xvii, 16 pp. SiMMONDS, P. M. (1946). Detection of the loose smut fungi in embryos of barley and wheat.— Sci. Agric., xxvi, pp. 51-8. SLEXTMBE, H. O. (1932). tJber SexuaUtat und Zytologie von Ustilago zeae (Beckm.) Unger.— Z. Bot., XXV, pp. 209-63. SMITH, D. C, & BEESSMAN, E. N. (1931). SusceptibiUty of Markton and other varieties of oats to covered smut {Ustilago levis).—J. Amer. Soc. Agron., xxiii, pp. 465-68. SMITH, W. K. (1932 a). The effect of different temperatures on the reaction of Hope wheat to bimt.—Phytopathology, xxii, pp. 615-27. (1932 b). Reaction of Martin wheat to three physiologic forms of Tilletia tritici.— Phytopathology, xxii, pp. 847-50. (1933). Inheritance of reaction of wheat to physiologic forms of Tilletia levis and T. tritici.—J. agric. Res., xlvii, pp. 89-105. SNEIXL, K. (1938). Die Priifvmg der Widerstandsfahigkeit von Getreide und Riibensorten.— Angew. Bot., xx, pp. 446-53. SoBEL, M. (1933). The viability of the spores of the cereal smuts.—Biologist, xv, pp. 95-6. SPANGENBBEG, G. E., & GuTNEB, L. S. (1936). Investigation in the field of the physiological races constituting wheat bunt {Tilletia levis Kuhn and T. tritici Wint.).—Summ. sci. Res. Wk Inst. PI. Prot. Leningr., 1935, pp. 489-91. [In Russian, Rev. appl. Mycol., xvi, p. 27.] STAKMAN, E. C. (1913). Spore germination of cereal smuts.—Bull. Minn, agric. Exp. Sta. 133, 52 pp. (1936). The problem of specialization and variation in phytopathogenic fungi.— Oenetica, xviii, pp. 372-89. , CASSBLL, R. C, & MooEE, M. B. (1934). The cytology of Urocystis occulta.—Phytopathology, xxiv, pp. 874^89. & CHEISTBNSBN, J. J. (1927). Heterothallism in Ustilago zeae.—Phytopathology, xvii, pp. 827-34. , , EiDE, C. J., & PETUBSOK, B. (1929). Mutation" and hybridization in Ustilago zeae.—Tech. Bull. Minn, agric. Exp. Sta. 65, 108 pp. (Part 2, Hybridization. By J. J. Christensen). , KEENKAMP, M. F., MAETIK, W. J., & KINO, T. H. (1943). The inheritance of a white mutant character in Ustilago zeae.—Phytopathology, xxxiii, pp. 943-9.
BEFERENCES 129 STAKMAK, E. C, XCEENKAJIP, N. F., THOMAS, H. K., & MABTIN, W. J. (1943). Genetic factors for mutability and mutant characters in Ustilago zeae.—Amer. J. Bot., xxx, pp. 37-48. TYLER, L. J., & HAFSTAD, G. E. (1933). The constancy of cultural characters and pathogenicity in variant lines of Ustilago zeae.—Bull. Torrey bot. CI. Ix, pp. 565-72. & SHABVBI;LE, E. G. (1935). Experiments on physiologic specialization and nature of variation in Ustilago zeae.—Phytopathology, xxv, p. 34 STANPOED, E. H. (1941). A new factor for resistance to bunt, Tilletia tritici linked with the Martin and Turkey factors.—J. Amer. Soc. Agron., xxxiii, pp. 559-68. STANTON, T. R. (1933). Navarro oats.—J. Amer. Soc. Agron., xxv, pp. 108-12. BBED, G. M., & COPFMAN, F. A. (1934). Inheritance of resistance to loose smut and covered smut in some oat hybrids.—J. agric. Res., xlviii, pp. 1073-83. SHEPHERD, D. E., & GAINES, E. F. (1924). Markton, an oat variety immune from covered smut.—Circ. U.S. Dept. Agric, 324, 8 pp. STAPLEDON, R. G. (1921). Variety trials with oats.—Bull. Welsh Plant Breed. Sta., Ser. C, i, pp. 28-31. STEMPBLL, K. L. (1935). Studien fiber die Entwicklungsgesehichte einiger Entyloma-Arten und xiber die systematische Stellung der Familie der Sporobolomycetes.—Z. Bot., xxviii, pp. 225-59. STEVENS, F. L. (1913). The fungi which cause plant disease. 754 pp. STEVENS, H. (1936). The eiiect of latent infection on the smut-resistant Markton oat.— J. Amer. Soc. Agron., xxviii, pp. 711-13. STEVENSON, J. A., & JOHNSON, A. G. (1944). The nomenclature of the cereal smut fungi.— Plant Dis. Beptr, xxviii, pp. 663-70. SzBMBEL, S. J. (1926). Some observations on the biology of the smut fungus Urocystis cepulae Frost.—La Defense des Plantes, Leningr., ii, pp. 524^30 (R.A.M., v, p. 646) TALIEFF, V. I., & GRIGOROVITOH, A. I. (1923). On the influence of smut on the host plant.— Trans, mycol. phytopath. Sect., Russinn bot. Soc, i. Trans. Moscow Branch, 47-53, [French sunimary]. TAPKB, V. E. (1924). Effects of the modified hot-water treatment on germination, growth and yield of wheat.-^-J. agric Res., xxviii, pp. 79-97. (1929). Influence of varietal resistance, sap acidity, and'certain environmental factors on the occurrence of loose smut in wheat.—J. agric Res., xxxix, pp. 313-39. (1931). Influence of humidity on floral infection of wheat and barley by loose smut.— J. agric Res., xUii, pp. 503-16. (1932). An undescribed loose smut oi haxley.—Phytopathology, xxii, pp. 869-70. (1935 a). A study of the cause of variabihty in response of barley loose smut to control through seed treatment with surface disinfectants.—J. agric Bes., li, pp. 491-508. (1935 b). An eSective and easily applied method of inoculating seed barley with covered smut.—Phytopathology, xxv, pp. 1038-9. (1936). Pathogenic strains of Ustilago nigra.—Phytopathology, xxvi, pp. 1033-4. •—— (1937 a). A method of inoculating seed barley with black loose smut for use in studies on physiologic races.—Phytopathology, xxvii, pp. 115—16. —— (1937 b). Physiologic races of Ustilago hordei.—J. agric. Res., Iv, pp. 683-92. — (1938). Influence of environment, after seedling emergence, on covered smut in barley.—Phytopathology, xxviii, pp. 370-1. ^^ * -——• (1940). Studies on the natural inoculation of seed barley with covered smut.—J. agric. Res., Ix, pp. 787-810. (1941). A technique for identifying loose smut of barley.—Phytopathology, xxxi, pp. 284-6. (1943 a). Occurrence, identification, and species validity of the barley loose smuts, Ustilago nvda, U. nigra, and U. medians.^^Phytopathology, xxxiii, pp. 194^209. (1943 b). Physiologic races of Ustilago nigra.—Phytopathology, xxxiii, pp. 324^7. (1944). Evidence of hybridization between physiologic races of Ustilago hordei in passage through host.—Abs. in Phytopathology, xxxiv, p. 993. (1945). New physiologic races of Ustilago hordei.—Phytopathology, xxxv, pp. 970-6. (1948). Environment and the cereal smuts.—Bot. Rev., xiv, pp. 359-412. & BEVEE, W. M. (1942). Effective methods of inoculating seed barley with covered smut (Ustilago hordei).—Phytopathology, xxxii, pp. 1015-21. THAXTER, R. (1890). On certain fungus diseases of the onion (Allium cepa).—Rep. Conn. agric Exp. Sta. 1889, pp. 129-53. THIBTTMALACHAB, M. J., & DICKSON, J. G. (1947). Chlamydospbre germination and artificial culture of Ustilago striiformis from timothy and blue grass.—Phytopathology, xxxvii, pp. 730-4.
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 and 128: REFERENCES 125 NOBLE, E. J. (1934).
Page 129: REFERENCES 127 RoDENHiSEE, H. A., &
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?