Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T11:16:38.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XIX.—The Biology, Culture, Morphology, and Relationships of Lophodermium vagulum sp. nov.; the Cause of a Disease of Chinese Rhododendrons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

Malcolm Wilson  and
Noel F. Robertson
Malcolm Wilson
Affiliation:
Reader in Mycology, The University of Edinburgh
Noel F. Robertson
Affiliation:
From Mycology Department, University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A disease of Chinese Rhododendrons associated with a Lophodermium sp. was found by one of us in April 1933 (Wilson, 1937). The fungus was first noticed as apparently causing the production of large irregular spots on the leaves of the hybrid Rhododendron Souliei × R. Thomsonii. Later, fructifications were observed on the stems of this hybrid and of many other species, and were found also on the fallen leaves. In 1934 the fungus was discovered on the stems of several species growing at the Forestry Commission Estate at Benmore, Argyllshire. Plants sent to the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, from Cumberland in February 1935 were also found to bear similar fructifications on the stems. As a number of species of Lophodermium have been described on the Ericaceae and one on Rhododendron, it was desirable to ascertain the systematic relationships of the fungus especially to L. Rhododendri Ces., which has been recorded from Britain (Smith and Ramsbottom, 1914; Wilson, 1924) and which is not uncommon on R. ponticum in the vicinity of Edinburgh. It was also desirable to study the effects of the fungus upon the host plant since it is difficult in some cases to decide the degree of its pathogenicity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , 1947 , pp. 517 - 531
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1947

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References to Literature

Billings, J. S., 1871. “The Genus Hysterium and some of its Allies,” Am. Nat., v, 626–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisby, G. R., 1923. “The Literature of the Classification of the Hysteriaceae,” Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc., VIII, 176–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudier, E., 1907. Histoire et Classification des Discomycetes d'Europe, Paris.Google Scholar
Brefeld, O., 1891. Untersuchungen aus dem Gesammtgebiete der Mykologie, Hefte IX und X, 172–272, Munster.Google Scholar
Briquet, J., 1935. International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, Ed. 3, Jena.Google Scholar
Cartwright, K. St G., 1929. “A Satisfactory Method of Staining Fungal Mycelium in Wood Sections,” Ann. Bot., Lond., XLIII, 412–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, M. C., 1874. “New British Fungi,” Grevillea, III, 66.Google Scholar
Darker, G. D., 1932. “The Hypodermataceae of Conifers,” Contr. Arnold Arbor., 1.Google Scholar
Dowson, W. J., 1932. “A Method of Paraffin Infiltration,” Ann. Bot., Lond., XLVI, 377–378.Google Scholar
Ellis, J. B., and Everhart, B. M., 1892. The North American Pyrenomycetes, Newfield, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Gäumann, E. A., 1928. Comparative Morphology of the Fungi (Trans. Dodge, C. W.), New York.Google Scholar
Gwynne Vaughan, H. C. I., and Barnes, B., 1937. The Structure and Development of the Fungi, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Handel-Mazzetti, H., 1937. Symbolae Sinicae, I–VI, Vienna.Google Scholar
Hawker, L. W., 1936. “The Effect of Certain Accessory Growth Substances on the Sporulation of Melanospora destruens and of Some Other Fungi,” Ann. Bot., Lond., L, 699–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilitzer, A., 1929. “Étude Monographique sur les espèces de l'ordre Hysteriales, trouvées en Bohème, et sur les épiphyties qui en sont causées,” Trav. sci. Acad. tchecosl. Agric., III, 1–162. (Quoted by Terrier, 1942.)Google Scholar
Höhnel, F. Von, 1917. “System der Phacideen, v. H.,” Ber. dtsch. bot. Ges., xxxv, 416–422.Google Scholar
Jones, S. G., 1925. “Life History and Cytology of Rhytisma acerinum (Pers.) Fries.,” Ann. Bot., Lond., xxxix, 41–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, S. G., 1935. “The Structure of Lophodermium Pinastri (Schrad.) Chev.,” Ann. Bot., Lond., XLIX, 699–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Killian, C., and Likhite, V., 1924. “Observations sur le genre Lophodermium,” C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris, II, 574–576.Google Scholar
Langer, W., 1933. “Über die Schüttekrankheit der Kiefernadeln,” Phytopath. Z., v, 625–640.Google Scholar
Likhité, V., 1926. “Recherches sur le Développement et la Biologie de quelques Ascomycetes,” Rev. gen. Bot., XXXVIII, 5–30 and 95–106.Google Scholar
Lindau, G., 1896. Hysteriineae in Engler and Prantl, Die naturlichen Pflanzenfamilien, I, Abt. 1, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Nannfeldt, J. A., 1932. “Studien über die Morphologie und Systematik der nicht-lichenisierten inoperculaten Discomyceten,” Nova Acta Soc. Sci. Upsal., Ser. 4, VIII, no. 2.Google Scholar
Peck, C. H., 1875. “Report of the Botanist in Report by the Regents of the University of the State of New York,” Ann. Rpt. New York State Mus. Nat. Hist., XXVII, 73–116.Google Scholar
Peck, C. H., 1883. In “A Catalogue of the Native and Naturalised Plants of the City of Buffalo and its Vicinity,” by Day, D. F., Bull. Buffalo Soc. Nat. Sci., IV, 65–279.Google Scholar
Rabenhorst, L., 1844. Deutschlands Kryptogamen-Flora, oder Handbuch zur Bestimmung der kryptogamischen Gewächse Deutschlands, etc., i, 156. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Rawlins, T. E., 1933. Phytopathological and Botanical Research Methods, London.Google Scholar
Rehm, H., 1887. Hysteriaceen in Rabenhorst's Kryptogamen-Flora von Deutschland und der Schweiz, 2nd Ed., in, 1–56. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Rehm, H., 1912. “Zur Kenntnis der Discomyceten Deutschland, etc.,” Ber bayer. bot. Ges., XIII, 116.Google Scholar
Ridgway, R., 1912. Color Standards and Nomenclature, Washington.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saccardo, P. A., 1883 and 1889. Sylloge Fungorum, II and VIII. Patavii.Google Scholar
Schweinitz, L. D. De, 1832. “Synopsis fungorum in America boreali media degentium,” published as a separate paper in 1832 and in Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc., xv, n.s. 4, 141–316, 1834.Google Scholar
Seymour, A. B., 1929. Host Index of the Fungi of North America, 1–732. Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Smith, A. L., and Ramsbottom, J., 1914. “New or Rare Microfungi,” Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc, iv, 325.Google Scholar
Stoughton, R. H., 1930. “Thionin and Orange G for differential Staining of Bacteria and Fungi in Plant Tissues,” Ann. Appl. Biol., XVII, 162–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tehon, L. R., 1935. “A Monographic Rearrangement of Lophodermium” Univ. III. Bull., XXXII, no. 51.Google Scholar
Tehon, L. R., 1939. “New Species and Taxonomie Changes in the Hypodermataceae.” Mycologia, xxxi, 674–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terrier, C. A., 1942. Essai sur systématique des Phacidiaceae (Fr.) sensu Nannfeldt (1932), Berne.Google Scholar
Tubeuf, C., 1910. “Kultur parasitischer Hysteriaceen,” Natur. Z. Forst- u. Land., VIII, 408–411.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. F., 1925. “Insect Pests of Rhododendrons,” Journ. Roy. Hort. Soc. Lond., 46–54.Google Scholar
Wilson, M., 1924. List of Microfungi, Rpt. Crypt. Soc. Scotland, 43rd Ann. Conf., 13–14.Google Scholar
Wilson, M., 1937. “Some Diseases of the Rhododendron,” New Flora and Silva, ix, 209–216.Google Scholar
Zeller, S. M., 1927. “Contributions to our Knowledge of Oregon Fungi. II. Mycological Notes for 1925,” Mycologia, xix, 130–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar