Chapter IV: Part 4

EFFICIENCY OF THE CUTTING-OUT METHOD OF CONTROL.

To determine the efficiency of sanitation in controlling the disease, a careful reinspection of 67 spot infections which had been treated a year or more previous to the examination, was made in the fall of 1913. The results of these investigations are shown in the following tabulation:

TABLE IV.

RESULTS OBTAINED, IN ONE YEAR, IN CUTTING OUT 20
ADVANCE SPOT INFECTIONS OF CHESTNUT BLIGHT.

(A) = Number of infected trees removed.
(B) = Number of infected trees.
(C) = Number of treated stumps with infected sprouts.
(D) = Probable age of oldest infection.
(E) = Distance of furthest infection from center (yards).
=====+===========+================+====+===========+====+===+====+===
Tract| County. | First | | Second | | | |
no.| | Inspection. | (A)|Inspection.| (B)|(C)|(D) |(E)
-----+-----------+----------------+----+-----------+----+---+----+---
1 |Blair, |April, 1913,[12]| 1 |Feb., 1914,| 1 | 0 |1913|10
2 |Clearfield,|Nov., 1912,[12]| 1 |Jan., 1914,| 0 | 0 | |
3 |Tioga, |Dec., 1912,[12]| 1 |Jan., 1914,| 0 | 0 | |
4 |Tioga, |Sept., 1912,[12]| 1 |Jan., 1914,| 0 | 0 | |
5 |Tioga, |Nov., 1912,[12]| 1 |Jan., 1914,| 0 | 0 | |
6 |Tioga, |Sept., 1912,[12]| 1 |Jan., 1914,| 0 | 0 | |
7 |Bradford, |Jan., 1913,[12]| 1 |Jan., 1914,| 0 | 0 | |
8 |Bradford, |Jan., 1913,[12]| 1 |Jan., 1914,| 0 | 0 | |
9 |Bradford, |Jan., 1913,[13]| 1 |Jan., 1914,| 0 | 0 | |
10 |Bradford, |Jan., 1913,[12]| 1 |Jan, 1914,| 0 | 0 | |
11 |Blair, |Dec., 1912,[12]| 2 |Aug., 1913,| 0 | 0 | |
12 |Cambria, |Jan., 1913,[12]| 3 |Jan., 1914,| 0 | 0 | |
13 |Tioga, |Jan., 1913,[12]| 3 |Aug., 1913,| 0 | 0 | |
14 |Tioga, |Dec., 1912,[12]| 4 |Jan., 1914,| 4 | 0 |1913|30
15 |Huntingdon,|Jan., 1913,[12]| 6 |Jan., 1914,| 5 | 0 |1912|70
16 |Blair, |Feb., 1913,[14]| 7 |Aug., 1913,| 10 | 0 |1912|50
17 |Blair, |Jan., 1913,[12]| 8 |Aug., 1913,| 1 | 0 |1913|
18 |Blair, |Jan., 1913,[13]| 22 |Aug., 1913,| 4 | 0 |1912|50
19 |Blair, |Jan., 1913,[12]| 26 |Aug., 1913,| 3 | 0 |1912|
20 |Huntingdon,|March, 1913,[12]| 30 |Jan., 1914,| 7 | 0 |1912| 5
-----+-----------+----------------+----+-----------+----+---+----+---
|Averages, | |6.05| |1.75| 0 | |35.8
-----+-----------+----------------+----+-----------+----+---+----+---

[12] Sanitation well done—stumps well peeled, well burned or creosoted, and refuse burned.

[13] Sanitation fairly well done, but stumps not thoroughly peeled or burned.

[14] Sanitation poorly done—no burning done, and stumps poorly peeled in some cases.

TABLE V.

Results Obtained, in Two Years, in Cutting Out
35 Advanced Spot Infections of Chestnut Blight.

=======+=============+======================+==========+
| | | Number |
Tract | | First | of |
number.| County. | Inspection. | infected |
| | | trees |
| | | removed. |
-------+-------------+----------------------+----------+
1 | Blair, | August, 1912,[15] | 1 |
2 | Blair, | August, 1912,[15] | 1 |
3 | Blair, | June, 1912,[15] | 1 |
4 | Blair, | July, 1912,[15] | 1 |
5 | Huntingdon, | April, 1912,[15] | 1 |
6 | Huntingdon, | November, 1912,[15] | 1 |
7 | Warren, | October, 1912,[15] | 1 |
8 | Huntingdon | January, 1912,[17] | 2 |
9 | Elk, | July, 1912,[15] | 2 |
10 | Elk, | June, 1912,[15] | 3 |
11 | Clearfield | June, 1912,[17] | 3 |
12 | Blair, | August, 1912,[15] | 3 |
13 | Blair, | July, 1912,[15] | 3 |
14 | Blair, | April, 1912,[16] | 4 |
15 | Blair, | May, 1912,[15] | 4 |
16 | Blair, | June, 1912,[15] | 4 |
17 | Warren, | July, 1912,[15] | 4 |
18 | Blair, | July, 1912,[15] | 5 |
19 | Blair, | June, 1912,[16] | 6 |
20 | Blair, | July, 1912,[15] | 6 |
21 | Blair, | July, 1912,[16] | 6 |
22 | Huntingdon, | April, 1912,[17] | 6 |
23 | Blair, | July, 1912,[15] | 7 |
24 | Blair, | April, 1912,[16] | 7 |
25 | Blair, | August, 1912,[15] | 7 |
26 | Clearfield, | July, 1912,[15] | 7 |
27 | Clearfield, | September, 1912,[15] | 7 |
28 | Clearfield, | June, 1912,[16] | 9 |
29 | Warren, | October, 1912,[15] | 11 |
30 | Blair, | July, 1912,[15] | 11 |
31 | Blair, | June, 1912,[16] | 15 |
32 | Blair, | July, 1912,[15] | 17 |
33 | Clearfield, | September, 1912,[16] | 19 |
34 | Blair, | August, 1912,[15] | 25 |
35 | Blair, | August, 1912,[17] | 27 |
-------+-------------+----------------------+----------+
| Averages, | | 6.8 |
-------+-------------+----------------------+----------+

=======+=====================+==========+==========+
| | Number | Number |
Tract | Second | of | of |
number.| Inspection. | infected | treated |
| | trees | stumps |
| | removed. | with |
| | | infected |
| | | sprouts. |
-------+---------------------+----------+----------+
1 | December, 1912, | 0 | 0 |
2 | December, 1912, | 0 | 0 |
3 | December, 1912, | 0 | 0 |
4 | December, 1912, | 0 | 0 |
5 | December, 1912, | 0 | 0 |
6 | March, 1913, | 0 | 0 |
7 | April, 1913, | 0 | 0 |
8 | November, 1912,[15] | 0 | 0 |
9 | May, 1913,[15] | 2 | 0 |
10 | April, 1913,[15] | 3 | 0 |
11 | December, 1912,[17] | 1 | 0 |
12 | December, 1912, | 0 | 0 |
13 | April, 1913,[16] | 3 | 0 |
14 | December, 1912, | 0 | 0 |
15 | March, 1913,[15] | 4 | 0 |
16 | March, 1913,[15] | 7 | 0 |
17 | April, 1913, | 0 | 0 |
18 | December, 1912, | 0 | 0 |
19 | March, 1913,[16] | 1 | 0 |
20 | December, 1912, | 0 | 0 |
21 | December, 1912, | 0 | 0 |
22 | May, 1913,[16] | 5 | 0 |
23 | April, 1913,[16] | 1 | 0 |
24 | March, 1913,[17] | 2 | 0 |
25 | March, 1913,[17] | 3 | 0 |
26 | December, 1912,[15] | 2 | 0 |
27 | December, 1912, | 0 | 0 |
28 | December, 1912,[17] | 8 | 0 |
29 | April, 1913, | 0 | 0 |
30 | March, 1913,[17] | 5 | 0 |
31 | April, 1913,[17] | 10 | 1 |
32 | April, 1913,[17] | 9 | 0 |
33 | December, 1912,[17] | 11 | 1 |
34 | March, 1913,[15] | 3 | 0 |
35 | March, 1913,[17] | 9 | 0 |
-------+---------------------+----------+----------+
| Averages, | 2.5 | .06 |
-------+---------------------+----------+----------+

=======+=================+==========+==========+===========+========
Tract | Third | Number | Number | Probable |Distance
number.| Inspection. | of | of | age | of
| | infected | treated | of |furthest
| | trees. | stumps | oldest |infection
| | | with | infection.| from
| | | infected | | center
| | | sprouts. | |(yards.)
-------+-----------------+----------+----------+-----------+--------
1 | February, 1914, | 0 | 0 | |
2 | February, 1914, | 0 | 0 | |
3 | February, 1914, | 1 | 0 | 1913 | 12
4 | February, 1914, | 0 | 0 | |
5 | January, 1914, | 0 | 0 | |
6 | August, 1913, | 0 | 0 | |
7 | December, 1913, | 0 | 0 | |
8 | August, 1913, | 7 | 0 | 1912 | 20
9 | January, 1914, | 0 | 0 | |
10 | January, 1914, | 3 | 0 | 1912 | 13
11 | December, 1913, | 4 | 2 | 1912 | 37
12 | February, 1914, | 0 | 0 | |
13 | February, 1914, | 1 | 0 | 1913 | 6
14 | February, 1914, | 1 | 0 | 1913 | 4
15 | February, 1914, | 2 | 1 | 1913 | 3
16 | February, 1914, | 3 | 0 | 1913 | 10
17 | December, 1913, | 0 | 0 | |
18 | February, 1914, | 3 | 0 | 1913 | 20
19 | February, 1914, | 1 | 0 | 1911 | 300
20 | February, 1914, | 0 | 0 | |
21 | February, 1914, | 1 | 0 | 1913 | 10
22 | January, 1914, | 1 | 1 | 1912 | 0
23 | February, 1914, | 0 | 0 | |
24 | February, 1914, | 1 | 0 | 1913 | 0
25 | February, 1914, | 1 | 3 | 1913 | 5
26 | December, 1913, | 10 | 0 | 1912 | 15
27 | December, 1913, | 0 | 0 | |
28 | December, 1913, | 5 | 2 | 1912 | 7
29 | December, 1913, | 0 | 0 | |
30 | February, 1914, | 7 | 5 | 1913 |
31 | February, 1914, | 6 | 2 | 1913 | 35
32 | February, 1914, | 9 | 9 | 1912 | 200
33 | December, 1913, | 8 | 1 | 1913 | 50
34 | February, 1914, | 3 | 0 | 1913 | 5
35 | February, 1914, | 4 | 9 | 1913 | 35
-------+-----------------+----------+----------+-----------+-------
| Averages, | 2.3 | 1.0 | | 37.5
-------+-----------------+----------+----------+-----------+-------
[15] Sanitation well done—stumps well peeled, well burned or
creosoted, and refuse burned.

[16] Sanitation fairly well done, but stumps not thoroughly peeled or burned.

[17] Sanitation poorly done—no burning done, and stumps poorly peeled in some cases.

TABLE VI.

RESULTS OBTAINED IN CUTTING OUT 8 LARGE SPOT
INFECTIONS OF CHESTNUT BLIGHT.

=======+==============+======================+==========+
Tract | County. | First | Number |
number.| | Inspection. | of |
| | | infected |
| | | trees |
| | | removed. |
| | | |
| | | |
-------+--------------+----------------------+----------+
1 | Elk, | August, 1912,[19] | 34 |
2 | Clearfield, | September, 1912,[20] | 36 |
3 | Blair, | November, 1912,[20] | 93 |
4 | Huntingdon, | March, 1913,[20] | 100 |
5 | Huntingdon, | March, 1912,[20] | 271 |
6 | Elk, | November, 1912,[18] | 296 |
7 | Cambria, | November, 1912,[18] | 480 |
8 | Huntingdon, | October, 1912,[19] | 822 |
-------+--------------+----------------------+----------+
| Averages, | | 266.5 |
-------+--------------+----------------------+----------+

=======+=====================+==========+==========+
Tract | Second | Number | Number |
number.| Inspection. | of | of |
| | infected | infected |
| | trees | stumps |
| | removed. | with |
| | | infected |
| | | sprouts. |
-------+---------------------+----------+----------+
1 | May, 1913,[19] | 4 | 0 |
2 | December, 1912,[20] | 12 | 0 |
3 | August, 1913, | 14 | 0 |
4 | January, 1914, | 46 | 0 |
5 | November, 1912,[19] | 82 | 0 |
6 | April, 1913,[18] | 23 | 0 |
7 | June, 1913,[18] | 5 | 0 |
8 | June, 1913,[20] | 24 | 0 |
-------+---------------------+----------+----------+
| Averages, | 26.2 | 0 |
-------+---------------------+----------+----------+

=======+===================+===========+==========+===========
Tract | Third | Number | Number | Age
number.| Inspection. | of | of | of
| | infected | infected | oldest
| | trees. | stumps | infection.
| | | with |
| | | infected |
| | | sprouts. |
-------+-------------------+-----------+----------+-----------
1 | January, 1914, | 2 | 2 | 1912
2 | January, 1914, | 36 | 0 | 1912
3 | | | | 1912
4 | | | | 1912
5 | August, 1913, | 88 | 6 | 1910
6 | December, 1913, | 51 | 0 | 1911
7 | August, 1913, | 9 | 0 | 1913
8 | August, 1913, | 91 | 0 | 1912
-------+-------------------+-----------+----------+-----------
| Averages, | 46.2 | 1.3 |
-------+-------------------+-----------+----------+-----------

[18] Sanitation well done—stumps well peeled, well burned or creosoted, and refuse burned.

[19] Sanitation fairly well done, but stumps not thoroughly peeled or burned.

[20] Sanitation poorly done—no burning done, and stumps poorly peeled in some cases.

NOTES OF RE-INSPECTION.

Over 60 spot infections located on the western advance line were examined between August, 1913, and February, 1914. The spots were located in 7 counties on the extreme western advance line of the disease, and also some distance back of this line. The cutting out had been done by practically as many owners as there were spots, under supervision of various field men, so that the conditions were averaged in every way. The point which was brought out most prominently by the re-examination was the fact that where the stumps were well peeled and thoroughly charred and where the tops and refuse were well cleaned up and burned, and the merchantable material promptly removed from the vicinity of the spot infection, there was no reinfection of the stumps or sprouts of the treated trees. Where the work was carelessly done, there was more or less reinfection. However, there were exceptions in both cases. In some cases where the work was done only fairly well or even poorly, there was less infection than might naturally be expected. In some other cases where the work was done as well as it can be expected under field conditions, there was a considerable reinfection. This variation is probably explained by other factors which undoubtedly enter into the effectiveness of sanitation cutting. Probably the age of the original infection center is one factor governing the number of new infections which appear after the first cutting out. If the original infection is still so young that there is a comparatively small canker, or if the condition of the growth has been unfavorable for the production of ascospores, a small amount of new infection may be expected, since the wind apparently distributes most of the infection to the surrounding trees. On the other hand, if the diseased area of bark at the center of an infection is large and has produced a great number of perithecia, and the climatic conditions have been favorable for the ejection of ascospores, a large number of incipient infections are very apt to be left in the surrounding trees at the time of the first removal cutting.

Just how long after cutting it takes these incipient infections to develop so that they can be detected in scouting depends on a number of conditions, such as the location of the diseased area on the tree and the height above ground where infection occurs, size of the tree, season of the year and climatic conditions following the occurrence of infection, location of the spot infection relative to topography, etc. Probably the most important factor governing the number of new infections after a removal cutting is the character and quality of the man who scouted the area. Certain men have much better scouting ability than others, and in some of the spots examined, at least, this factor alone is sufficient to account largely for the conditions found on reinspection. However, even the best scout cannot detect small twig infections in the tops of tall trees before they have girdled the twigs, and it is frequently very easy to miss well developed cankers either at the base of large trees when no fruiting bodies have been produced, or on the upper trunks of tall trees before the tops have been girdled.

It was very noticeable that new infections appearing in a spot where the original infection had been properly removed were almost always within a short distance of the original infection. Probably half of the new infections found, even after the second inspection, were on trees that grew on the same stump or in the same tree group as an original infected tree, and 90 per cent. of the newly infected trees were so close that their tops interlocked or were directly exposed to the tops of the previously infected trees. The accompanying diagram illustrates the characteristic manner in which new infection appears. In several cases the farthest infection as noted in the tabulated data was an old infection which was missed at the time of the first inspection, and which really constituted a separated spot infection.

Blight spots in northern Pennsylvania seem to be smaller, more widely scattered, and to spread less rapidly from the center than spots in the southern part of the State. One reason for this may be that there is, as a rule, a much lower percentage of chestnut in the forest and the chestnut appears to be sounder and in better health than much of the chestnut in the southern part of the State. Further south along the advance line, greater injury is noticed on young trees from the bast miner; damage from ice storms and hail storms also appears to be greater. Another possible factor is that the climate is warmer, and favorable to the copious formation and ejection of ascospores over a longer period than in the northern part of the State. Another possible factor is differences in topography which favor the carrying of spores long distances along regular “air lanes.” This may be the explanation for long chains of spot infections which occur along the lower edges of timber of the long, forested ridges, and on benches half way up mountain sides. This is put forth merely as a suggestion and not as a fact, although there is some evidence to warrant a hypothesis of this kind.

The results of the investigation show clearly that the chestnut trees immediately within and adjoining a spot infection (say 25 feet beyond the outermost infected trees), should be cut out and the stumps sterilized whether the trees appear to be infected at the time the cutting is done, or not (Fig. 4). The investigation proves that these trees in the majority of cases will become infected later on, and it means extra expense and less effective control to wait until the infection appears. In very small spot infections or even those of considerable size, it is believed that such treatment will avoid a recurrence of the blight in the majority of cases. However, to cut out these apparently healthy trees is not sufficient; the sanitation work must be done as thoroughly as if the trees were diseased. Even though the merchantable portions are taken out of the woods and the tops burned, the unpeeled stumps are very apt to become infected, especially if nearby diseased trees have been ejecting ascospores. Four treated spot infections were examined which proved this very conclusively. The following facts relative to these spots are interesting:—

_Spot 1._ Five infected trees in Huntingdon County were treated in April, 1912, by digging up the trees, stumps and all, and burning them in an open field. In March, 1913, the spot was re-examined and three infected trees found. The stumps were peeled and the tops burned, but not over the stumps. At the same time all of the chestnut trees on a half acre surrounding the spot that were large enough for fence posts were cut out, the tops burned and the rest of the trees removed. The stumps were left unpeeled and in January, 1914, 6 new infections were found on small saplings that remained after the cutting, and all but 4 out of 75 stumps from which the bark was not peeled showed pycnidia on the cut surface of the wood or bark, pustules in the dead bark on the side of the stump, and usually, mycelium growing downward toward the base of the stump through the live bark.

_Spot No. 2._ Seven infected trees cut March, 1913; stumps well peeled but not burned over. In January, 1914, 9 new infections were found on adjoining trees and 50 new infections were found on the stumps of healthy trees cut in close proximity to the spot in March, 1913. These stumps were not peeled and the pustules appeared in the bark on the side of the stump, and in many cases showed mycelium running through the live bark of the lower part of the stump.

_Spot No. 3._ Seven trees cut June, 1912; stumps peeled and well burned. March, 1913, 7 infections were cut out, the stumps poorly peeled and not burned. At this time 17 healthy trees were cut within a radius of 30 yards and the bark was not peeled from the stumps. In January, 1914, no new infections had appeared on any of the surrounding trees, but 8 of the stumps were infected.

_Spot No. 4._ One infection cut July, 1912. Stumps peeled and burned. In April, 1913, 16 new infections were found on stumps cut at the time the original infection was removed and immediately surrounding the infected trees. These stumps were located as follows: One stump 3 yards west of center; 3 stumps northwest of center (farthest 35 yards); 3 stumps north of center (farthest 20 yards); 5 stumps northeast of center (farthest 12 yards); 2 stumps east of center (farthest 3 yards); 2 stumps southeast of center (farthest 8 yards); these stumps were peeled and not burned over. In February, 1914, 4 additional infected stumps were found, the farthest being 12 yards from the center.

East of the advance line sanitation has proved effective in hindering the progress of the disease, but not in eradicating it. Inspections made of a tract of blighted chestnut at Haverford, Pa., cut in 1910 and the stumps peeled, but not burned, showed both in 1912 and 1913, that only about 20 per cent. of the stumps and sprouts were reinfected. On a nearby tract where the trees were cut at the same time and stumps left unpeeled, the reinfection was approximately 80 per cent. At Hummelstown, Pa., on several acres of diseased chestnut, cut in the winter in 1911-12, a portion of the stumps were peeled and lightly burned. In the spring of 1913, 80 per cent. of the peeled stumps and 90 per cent. of the unpeeled stumps were reinfected. The reasons for the high per cent. of reinfection was the fact that the peeled stumps were not well burned, and the nearness of disease on trees in the adjoining woods and on the adjoining unpeeled stumps. This is shown by the location of the infection on the sprouts as follows:

TABLE VII.

INFECTION ON SPROUTS AROUND STUMPS OF BLIGHTED
TREES CUT AT HUMMELSTOWN, PA.

PEELED STUMPS.

==========+========+==============================
Stump | Number | Infected Sprouts.
Number. | of +---------+---------+----------
|sprouts.|Infected |Infected | Basal
| | on |in insect|infection.
| |crotches.| galls. |
----------+--------+---------+---------+----------
1, | 42 | 5 | 11 | 0
2, | 28 | 0 | 0 | 0
3, | 35 | 4 | 7 | 0
4, | 20 | 4 | 1 | 0
5, | 11 | 0 | 3 | 0
6, | 12 | 2 | 0 | 0
7, | 50 | 0 | 2 | 0
8, | 10 | 0 | 2 | 0
9, | 15 | 1 | 3 | 1
10, | 28 | 0 | 0 | 0
+--------+---------+---------+----------
Average,| 25.1 | 1.6 | 2.9 | 0.1
----------+--------+---------+---------+----------

UNPEELED STUMPS.
==========+========+=========+=========+==========
1, | 15 | 4 | 3 | 0
2, | 24 | 0 | 4 | 1
3, | 30 | 1 | 0 | 1
4, | 10 | 0 | 2 | 1
5, | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0
6, | 46 | 0 | 4 | 0
7, | 54 | 1 | 3 | 0
8, | 55 | 1 | 1 | 0
9, | 23 | 0 | 1 | 0
10, | 40 | 1 | 3 | 0
+--------+---------+---------+----------
Average,| 29.9 | .8 | 2.1 | .3
----------+--------+---------+---------+----------

The investigation at Hummelstown shows that there is little or no difference in the number and vigor of the sprouts produced by peeled and unpeeled stumps. In many cases, the sprouts reached a height of six feet or more in a single year’s growth. The sprouts from peeled stumps frequently spring from the roots, 2 to 4 inches from the stump, and push through three inches or more of soil. This will undoubtedly aid in keeping them free from disease, and the new growth will be better rooted than ordinary stump sprouts.

RECOMMENDATIONS.

It has been shown that with the less effective methods of cutting out spot infections used in the beginning of its work by the Pennsylvania Chestnut Tree Blight Commission, the amount of blight has been substantially reduced. It is reasonable to suppose that much more efficient results will be obtained by using the methods which have been developed by experience, and which are recommended in this report:

(1) Cutting out all chestnut trees inside the limits of a spot infection, also immediately beyond, regardless of whether or not they all show visible signs of the blight.

(2) Great care in peeling the stumps and in burning or removing from the woods all felled portions of the treated trees.

(3) Thorough disinfection of the peeled stumps, preferably by burning.

(4) A force of well-trained and experienced men to do both the scouting and sanitation cutting.

REGULATING SHIPMENTS OF CHESTNUT NURSERY STOCK.

The Commission issued the appended official regulations for the better protection of buyers of chestnut nursery stock, and to aid in the effort to prevent the spread of the chestnut tree bark disease. So far as could be learned, the railway and other transportation companies generally complied with these instructions, recognizing their meaning and importance, knowing that diseased nursery stock was a serious menace.

REGULATIONS RESPECTING CHESTNUT NURSERY STOCK; ADOPTED BY THE CHESTNUT TREE BLIGHT COMMISSION, MARCH 4, 1913.

_Whereas_, It is found necessary to make certain regulations in order to provide efficient and practical means for the prevention, control, and eradication of the chestnut tree blight; therefore, in pursuance of the powers conferred by Act of Assembly, it is resolved by this Commission that the following regulations be adopted, and as occasion may arise, such other and further regulations, and the altering or amending of the same, as it may seem necessary.

Regulation No. 1. Railroad companies, express companies, and other common carriers must not accept for shipment, until further notice, any chestnut nursery stock which does not bear the official inspection tags of this Commission. Chestnut nursery stock shipped from without the State and intended for delivery within the State not being accompanied by an official inspection tag issued by the proper authorities of the State or Country wherein such shipment originated, certifying apparent freedom from chestnut blight, must be held at a convenient place within the State, and this Commission immediately notified. Every such shipment must be retained in its original package, unopened, and must not be delivered to the consignee until after an examination shall have been made by an inspector representing this Commission, and then not until the inspector shall have attached thereto the official inspector’s tag of this Commission.

The official inspection tag of the Commission bears the official seal of the Pennsylvania Chestnut Tree Blight Commission, and reads as follows:

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Commission for the Investigation and Control of the Chestnut Tree Blight Disease in Pennsylvania.

CERTIFICATE OF INSPECTION

_This is to Certify_ that the chestnut nursery stock to which
this certificate is attached, under my supervision, was carefully
examined, and at the time of shipment was found to be apparently
free from any infection by blight caused by the fungus _Diaporthe
parasitica_.

Dated ...................... 191 ...... at ............... Pa.

.................................... Inspector.
For the Chestnut Tree Blight Commission.

Each bundle, bale, or package of chestnut nursery stock shall bear the above tag, and in addition each tree shall have attached thereto a numbered and signed tag of which the following is a copy:

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Commission For the Investigation and Control of the Chestnut
Tree Blight Disease in Pennsylvania.

Certificate of Single Tree Inspection.

Tree Number ....

_This is to Certify_ that the chestnut tree to which this tag
is attached, under my supervision, was carefully examined, and at
the time of shipment was found to be apparently free from any
infection by blight caused by the fungus _Diaporthe parasitica_.

Dated ...................... 191 ...... at ............... Pa.

.................................... Inspector.

Regulation No. 2. No chestnut tree nursery stock shall be removed from any nursery or other place where the same may be growing, for the purpose of sale or shipment until said trees shall first have been inspected by this Commission and the official inspection tag attached thereto. “Removed” is here construed to mean the final tying up into an original package, transporting from the premises where grown, or offering same to a common carrier for shipment.

Regulation No. 3. All chestnut tree nursery stock intended for sale or shipment must first be dipped into an approved fungicide prior to delivery or shipment. The official inspection tag will not be attached to stock unless first so treated.

Regulation No. 4. All chestnut tree nursery stock found to be infected with the chestnut bark fungus must be immediately destroyed. This regulation applies to diseased stock found at the time of inspection for shipment, and also to inspections in the nursery before stock is marketed.

Regulation No. 5. Nurserymen and common carriers, who, after receiving notice of the above regulations, negligently or willfully fail to refuse to be governed thereby, will, without further notice, subject their chestnut stock and shipments to quarantine, which will be maintained by this Commission.

All correspondence relative to nursery inspection should be addressed to Dr. F. D. Heald, Pathologist, Zoology Building, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.

THE AMENDED CHESTNUT TREE BARK DISEASE ACT.

The work of the Chestnut Blight Commission was suspended not because of the lack of a desire to proceed, or lack of opportunity to render most valuable services, but for reasons stated in the letter at the beginning of this report. While the legislation recognized the need of continuing active work of this character by providing for a continuation of the Commission, it did not see its way clear to have the work advance with that vigor which the Commission believed necessary in order to achieve the most marked success.

The original Act of Assembly approved June 14, 1911, provided that the Commission should continue operations for a period of three years from the date of the approval of the Act. This period would have expired by limitation, June 14, 1914. To continue the Act in force, and to provide for a Commission to take up the work at any time, should it be thought in the future desirable to do so, the original Act of Assembly was amended by extending the term of the original Commission to a period of five years from the date of their appointment, and to continue thereafter for so long, as in the judgment of the Governor, it might be necessary to have work done in accordance with the terms of the law. This makes the Commission a continuing one to be revived at the pleasure of the Governor. Section one, of foregoing Act, as amended[21] by the 1913 Legislature, reads as follows:

[21] See P. L. 1913, p. 313.

“Section 1. _Be it enacted, etc._, That a commission, to consist of five members, to be appointed and commissioned by the Governor for a period of five years from the date of their appointment, and to continue thereafter for such period as, in the judgment of the Governor, may be necessary to enable them to complete the work to be done under this Act, and to be called The Commission for the Investigation and Control of the Chestnut Tree Blight Disease in Pennsylvania, is hereby created; with power to ascertain, determine upon and adopt the most efficient and practical means for the prevention, control, and eradication of a disease of the chestnut tree, commonly known as the chestnut tree blight disease; and for this purpose, in collaboration with the Department of Forestry, or otherwise, to conduct scientific investigations into the nature and causes of such disease and the means of preventing its introduction, continuance, and spread; to establish, regulate, maintain, and enforce quarantine against the introduction and spread of such disease; and, from time to time, to adopt and prescribe such regulations and methods of procedure as to it may seem necessary and proper for carrying into effect the purpose of this Act, and exercising the powers and authority hereby conferred: Provided, That in the work of collaboration by the Commission with the Department of Forestry, said Department may employ such means, and make detail of such men, and do such other things, as may seem to be necessary or expedient to accomplish the purpose of this Act. Provided further, That if the fungus causing the aforesaid disease be found to attack other species of trees, such trees shall be deemed to come within the purview of this act.”

Bibliography
of the
Chestnut Bark Disease

By R. KENT BEATTIE, FOREST PATHOLOGIST,
U. S. Department of Agriculture.

A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE CHESTNUT BARK DISEASE.[22]

Prepared for the Pennsylvania Chestnut Tree Blight Commission.

By R. KENT BEATTIE, _Forest Pathologist_,

BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

DECEMBER 31, 1913.

The rapid rise and spread of the Chestnut Bark Disease since its introduction into the United States from the Orient, probably in the nineties, has called it to the attention both of scientific men and the general public. The result of this almost universal notice in the eastern states has been the production of numerous articles written from many different standpoints.

It has been the effort in this bibliography to cite all the writings of a scientific or semi-scientific nature, with the aim of making a good working bibliography of the disease. Since it is manifestly impossible for any such bibliography to be complete, the author will be glad to have called to his attention any omissions or any corrections in the citations here given.

Because of their importance in the chestnut bark disease problem, references to _Endothia radicalis_ and _Endothia gyrosa_ as well as those to _Endothia parasitica_ have been included in this bibliography.

[22] Published by permission of the Secretary of Agriculture.

1. Anderson, H. W. Notes on the genus _Endothia_.
Phytopathology. Vol. 3, p. 67. February, 1913.

2. Anderson, P. J. Field Investigations in Pathology.
Report Pennsylvania Chestnut Tree Blight Commission,
July 1 to December 31, 1912. p. 42-45. 1913.

3. Anderson, Paul J. Wind Dissemination of the Chestnut
Blight Organism. Phytopathology. Vol. 3, p. 68.
February, 1913.

4. Anderson, Paul J. and Anderson, H. W. The Chestnut
Blight Fungus and a Related Saprophyte. Phytopathology.
Vol. 2, p. 204-210. October, 1912.

5. Anderson, Paul J. and Anderson, H. W. _Endothia
virginiana._ Phytopathology. Vol. 2, p. 261-262.
December, 1912.

6. Anderson, P. J. and Anderson, H. W. The Chestnut Blight
Fungus and a Related Saprophyte. Pennsylvania Chestnut
Tree Blight Commission. Bulletin No. 4. October, 1913.

6a. Anonymous. Disease of Chestnut. Forestry Quarterly. Vol. 4
p. 320. December, 1906.

7. Anonymous. A Disease of the Chestnut. Woodland and Roadside.
Vol. 6, p. 31-32. June, 1907.

8. Anonymous. A New Tree Disease. The Outlook. Vol. 88, p. 621.
21 March, 1908.

9. Anonymous. Destruction of Chestnut Forests.
The Minnesota Forester. Vol. 1, No. 3, p. 31-32. March, 1908.

10. Anonymous. Are Chestnut Trees Doomed? American Fruits.
Vol. 8, p. 5. June, 1908.

11. Anonymous. Editorial. Engineering News. Vol. 60, p. 339.
24 September, 1908.

12. Anonymous. Fighting the Chestnut Blight. Country Life in
America. Vol. 15, p. 88. November, 1908.

13. Anonymous. Hope for the Chestnut. Country Life in
America. Vol. 15, p. 171. December, 1908.

14. Anonymous. News and Notes. Mycologia. Vol. 1, p. 136.
January, 1909.

15. Anonymous. [The Chestnut Tree Canker.] Torreya. Vol. 9,
p. 214-215. October, 1909.

16. Anonymous. The New Pine and Chestnut Diseases. Woodland
and Roadside. Vol. 8, p. 41. November, 1909.

17. Anonymous. Tree Diseases. Fourth Annual Report
Commissioner of Forestry, Rhode Island. p. 9-10. 1910.

18. Anonymous. [No title.] Torreya. Vol. 10, p. 99. April, 1910.

19. Anonymous. News and Notes. Mycologia. Vol. 2, p. 251-252.
September, 1910.

20. Anonymous. American Forestry Association, Thirtieth
Annual Meeting. American Forestry. Vol. 17, p. 99-111.
February, 1911.

21. Anonymous. Editorial Appreciation of Pennsylvania’s
Forest Management. Forest Leaves. Vol. 13, p. 3.
February, 1911.

22. Anonymous. The Doom of the Chestnut Tree. Harper’s Weekly.
Vol. 55, p. 15. February, 1911.

23. Anonymous. Chestnut Blight. Forestry Quarterly. Vol. 9,
p. 353. June, 1911.

24. Anonymous. Pennsylvania Forestry Legislation in 1911.
Forest Leaves. Vol. 13, p. 50-51. August, 1911.

25. Anonymous. [Pennsylvania Chestnut Blight Commission.]
Forestry Quarterly. Vol. 9, p. 518-519. September, 1911.

26. Anonymous. The Chestnut Bark Disease. American Forestry.
Vol. 17, p. 693. November, 1911.

27. Anonymous. Narrative of the Annual Meeting of the
Pennsylvania Forestry Association. Forest Leaves. Vol. 13,
p. 83. December, 1911.

28. Anonymous. [Work of the Pennsylvania Commission.]
Forestry Quarterly. Vol. 9, p. 651. December, 1911.

29. Anonymous. An Attempt to Suppress the Chestnut Blight.
Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests.
Eleventh Report. p. 5, 19-20. 1912.

30. Anonymous. Quaker City News. American Lumberman.
No. 1912. p. 68. 6 January, 1912.

31. Anonymous. Proposed Forestry Legislative Procedure in
the Empire State. American Lumberman. No. 1913. p. 65.
13 January, 1912.

32. Anonymous. Chestnut Bark Disease. Report Maryland State
Board of Forestry, 1910-1911. p. 6, 8, 18-21, 30.
January, 1912.

33. Anonymous. Chestnut Tree Blight Conference. Forest Leaves.
Vol. 13, p. 97, 98. February, 1912.

34. Anonymous. The Chestnut Tree Blight Commission.
American Forestry. Vol. 18, p. 136. February, 1912.

35. Anonymous. The Chestnut Bark Disease.
Scientific American. Vol. 106, p. 105. 3 February, 1912.

36. Anonymous. Fighting the Chestnut Tree Blight.
American Lumberman. No. 1917. p. 43. 10 February, 1912.

37. Anonymous. Resolutions passed at the Conference Called
by the Governor of Pennsylvania at Harrisburg, February
20 and 21, for the consideration of the measures to
be taken to control the chestnut tree bark disease.
Report Second Annual Meeting, Northern Nut Growers’
Association, December 14 and 15, 1911. p. 122-123. 1912.

38. Anonymous. Conference of States on Chestnut Tree Blight.
The Southern Lumberman. Vol. 65, No. 857. p. 33-34.
24 February, 1912.

39. Anonymous. Conference on the Chestnut Tree Blight.
American Lumberman. No. 1919. p. 73-75.
24 February, 1912.

40. Anonymous. Harrisburg Chestnut Blight Conference. The
Southern Lumberman. Vol. 65, No. 859, p. 24.
9 March, 1912.

41. Anonymous. Cure for the Chestnut Blight. The Southern
Lumberman. Vol. 65, No. 859, p. 46. 9 March, 1912.

42. Anonymous. The Chestnut Tree Blight. Scientific
American. Vol. 106, p. 241-242. 16 March, 1912.

43. Anonymous. Three Enemies of Forests. The Southern
Lumberman. Vol. 65, No. 860, p. 37. 16 March, 1912.

44. Anonymous. At Work in Pennsylvania. The Southern
Lumberman. Vol. 65, No. 862, p. 27. 30 March, 1912.

45. Anonymous. Forestry Problems of Three Sections. American
Lumberman. No. 1926. p. 51. 13 April, 1912.

46. Anonymous. Lumbermen and Forestry. American Forestry.
Vol. 18, p. 285. April, 1912.

47. Anonymous. Resolutions of Chestnut Tree Blight
Conference. Forest Leaves. Vol. 13, p. 116. April, 1912.

48. Anonymous. The Chestnut Trees Must Go. The Guide to Nature.
Vol. 4, p. 395-397. April, 1912.

49. Anonymous. [The Harrisburg Conference.] Phytopathology.
Vol. 2, p. 91. April, 1912.

50. Anonymous. Chestnut Blight in Massachusetts.
Country Life in America. Vol. 22, p. 92, 94. 1 May, 1912.

51. Anonymous. [News Notes and Map.] American Forestry. Vol. 18,
p. 335, 342, 347, 350. May, 1912.

52. Anonymous. The Chestnut Trees Going. American Forestry.
Vol. 19, p. 457. July, 1912.

53. Anonymous. Chestnut Blight Warning. American Forestry.
Vol. 18, p. 473. July, 1912.

54. Anonymous. Boy Scouts Aiding. American Forestry. Vol. 18,
p. 541. August, 1912.

55. Anonymous. Boy Scouts to Save Trees. American Forestry.
Vol. 18, p. 542. August, 1912.

56. Anonymous. Narrative of Bushkill Meeting of the
Pennsylvania Forestry Association. Forest Leaves. Vol. 13,
p. 146. August, 1912.

57. Anonymous. The Pennsylvania Chestnut Blight Conference,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Forest Leaves. Vol. 13, p. 158.
August, 1912.

58. Anonymous. Progress in Fighting the Chestnut Disease.
Hardwood Record. Vol. 34, p. 23. 10 September, 1912.

59. Anonymous. News Note. Science. N. S. Vol. 36, p. 429.
4 October, 1912.

60. Anonymous. The Scientific and Operative Staff of the
Pennsylvania Chestnut Tree Blight Commission. Science.
N. S. Vol. 36, p. 512. 18 October, 1912.

60a. Anonymous. The Chestnut Blight Disease. Pennsylvania
Chestnut Tree Blight Commission. Bulletin 1. October, 1912.

61. Anonymous. Treatment of Ornamental Chestnut Trees
Affected with the Blight Disease. Pennsylvania Chestnut
Tree Blight Commission. Bulletin 2. October, 1912.

62. Anonymous. [News Note.] American Forestry. Vol. 18, p. 811.
December, 1912.

63. Anonymous. Chestnut Blight. Forestry Quarterly. Vol. 10,
p. 742-743. December, 1912.

64. Anonymous. News and Notes. Forestry Quarterly. Vol. 10,
p. 772. December, 1912.

65. Anonymous. Phytopathological Notes. Vol. 2, p. 274.
December, 1912.

66. Anonymous. Narrative of the Annual Meeting of the
Pennsylvania Forestry Association. Forest Leaves. Vol. 13,
p. 178-179. December, 1912.

67. Anonymous. Pennsylvania Forestry Association. American
Forestry. Vol. 19, p. 21. January, 1913.

68. Anonymous. State News, Pennsylvania. American Forestry.
Vol. 19, p. 55. January, 1913.

69. Anonymous. The Chestnut Bark Disease. Journal of the
Board of Agriculture (London). Vol. 19, p. 848-850.
January, 1913.

70. Anonymous. Governor Tener on Forestry. Forest Leaves.
Vol. 14, p. 2. February, 1913.

71. Anonymous. Chestnut Tree Blight Bulletins. Forest
Leaves. Vol. 14, p. 11-12. February, 1913.

72. Anonymous. News and Notes. Mycologia. Vol. 5, p. 90.
March, 1913.

73. Anonymous. Use of Second Growth Chestnut. Lumber World
Review. Vol. 24, No. 5, p. 24. 10 March, 1913.

74. Anonymous. Chestnut Tree Blight. American Lumberman.
No. 1974. p. 58-59. 15 March, 1913.

75. Anonymous. A Remedy for Chestnut Blight.
Hardwood Record. Vol. 35, p. 27. 25 March, 1913.

76. Anonymous. Fighting the Chestnut Bark Disease.
The Scientific American. Vol. 108, p. 314. 5 April, 1913.

77. Anonymous. [No title.] Arnold Arboretum, Harvard
University. Bulletin of Popular Information. No. 47.
26 June, 1913.

78. Anonymous. Using Blight-Killed Chestnut.
American Forestry. Vol. 19, p. 449. July, 1913.

79. Anonymous. The Chestnut Tree. Methods and Specifications
for the Utilization of Blighted Chestnut. Pennsylvania
Chestnut Tree Blight Commission. Bulletin 6. 15 August, 1913.

80. Anonymous. Pennsylvania’s Fight Against the Chestnut
Blight is Suspended. American Forestry. Vol. 19,
p. 556-558. August, 1913.

81. Anonymous. [No title.] Mycologia. Vol. 5, p. 280.
September, 1913.

82. Anonymous. [No title.] The Outlook. p. 237.
27 September, 1913.

83. Anonymous. [No title.] Forestry quarterly. Vol. 11,
p. 449-450. September, 1913.

84. Anonymous. Report of the Pennsylvania Chestnut Tree
Blight Commission. Forest Leaves. Vol. 14, p. 77.
October, 1913.

84a. Anonymous. Conquering the Chestnut Tree Blight. The St.
Louis Lumberman. Vol. 52, No. 11, p. 59.
1 December, 1913.

85. Ashe, W. W. Chestnut in Tennessee. State Geological
Survey, Tennessee. Bulletin 10, part B, p. 11.
January, 1911.

86. Baker, H. P. The Chestnut Blight and the Practice of
Forestry in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Chestnut Blight
Conference Report. p. 137-143. 1912.

87. Baker, Hugh P. Blight Commission Instruction.
American Forestry. Vol. 18, p. 267. 1912.

88. Barney, Chas. T. Report of the Executive Committee. New
York Zoological Society. Tenth Annual Report. 1905.
p. 40. January, 1906.

89. Barsali, Egidio. Aggiunte alla Flora Livornese.
Bulletino della Societa Botanico Italiano. Anno 1904,
p. 204. Maggiore, 1904.

90. Benson, W. M. Chestnut Blight and Its Possible Remedy.
Pennsylvania Chestnut Blight Conference Report.
p. 229-233. 1912.

91. Berlese, A. N. and Peglion, V. Micromiceti Toscani.
Nuovo Giornale Botanico Italiano. Vol. 24, fasc. 3,
p. 122. Luglio, 1892.

91a. Berlese, A. N., Saccardo, P. A., and Roumebuere, C.
Contributions ad Floram Mycologicam Lusitaniae.
Revue Mycologique. Vol. 11. p. 117-124. July, 1889.

92. Besley, F. W. Mutual Forest Interests of Pennsylvania
and Maryland. Forest Leaves. Vol. 13, p. 39-41.
June, 1912.

93. Bessey, Charles E. Fighting the Chestnut Blight.
Science. N. S. Vol. 37, p. 417. 14 March, 1913.

94. B[irkinbine], J. Editorial. Forest Leaves. Vol. 13,
p. 33. June, 1911.

95. B[irkinbine], J. Editorial. Forest Leaves. Vol. 13,
p. 49. August, 1911.

96. B[irkinbine], J. Editorial. Forest Leaves. Vol. 13,
p. 113. April, 1912.

97. B[irkinbine], J. Editorial. Forest Leaves. Vol. 13,
p. 130. June, 1912.

98. B[irkinbine], J. Editorial. Forest Leaves. Vol. 13,
p. 145. August, 1912.

99. B[itler], F. L. The Chestnut Blight. Forest Leaves.
Vol. 12, p. 148-150. August, 1910.

100. B[itler], F. L. Narrative of the State College Meeting
of the Pennsylvania Forestry Association. Forest Leaves.
Vol. 13, p. 34-37. June, 1911.

101. Bizzozero, Giacomo. Flora Veneta Crittogamica. Part 1.
I Funghi. p. 220-221. 1885.

102. Briosi, Farneti. A Proposito di una nota dell Dott.
Lionello Petri sulla Moria dei castagni (Mal dell’
Inchiostro). Atti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei.
Series V. Rendiconti Classe de scienzi fisiche,
matematiche e naturali. Vol. 22, ser. 5, 1 sem. fasc. 6,
p. 361-366. 16 marzo, 1913.

103. Britton, W. E. Twelfth Report of the State Entomologist
of Connecticut. Connecticut Agricultural Experiment
Station. Report 12, p. 220. 1913.

104. Brooks, A. B. Fungi That Injure Bark. West Virginia
Geological Survey. Vol. 5, p. 78-79. 1911.

105. Brown, Nelson C. Municipal Forestry. American Forestry.
Vol. 18, p. 781. December, 1912.

106. Brown, Nelson C. Making the Most of a Bad Situation.
The Country Gentleman. Vol. 78, p. 289-290.
22 February, 1913.

106a. Brunaud, Paul. Contributions a la Flore Mycologique de
l’Ouest. Annales des Sciences naturelles, La Rochelle.
p. 108. 1884.

107. Carleton, M. A. Fighting the Chestnut Tree Blight
Disease in Pennsylvania. American Fruit and Nut Journal.
Vol. 6, p. 78-79. September-October, 1912.

108. Carleton, Mark Alfred. Report of the General Manager
for the latter half of the year, 1912. Report
Pennsylvania Chestnut Tree Blight Commission, July 1 to
December 31, 1912. p. 11-18. 1913.

108a. Cesati and De Notaris. Schema Sferiaceae Italianae.
p. 207, 240. 1863.

109. Clinton, G. P. Chestnut Bark Disease, _Diaporthe
parasitica_ Murrill. Connecticut Agricultural
Experiment Station Report 1907. p. 345-346. May, 1908.

110. Clinton, G. P. The Chestnut Bark Disease, _Diaporthe
parasitica_ Murrill. Connecticut Agricultural
Experiment Station Report 1908. p. 879-890. July, 1909.

111. Clinton, G. P. Chestnut Bark Disease. Connecticut
Agricultural Experiment Station Report 1909-1910.
p. 716-717, 725. 1910.

112. Clinton, G. P. Some Facts and Theories Concerning
Chestnut Blight. Pennsylvania Chestnut Blight
Conference Report. p. 75-83. 1912.

113. Clinton, G. P. Chestnut Blight Fungus and Its Allies.
Phytopathology. Vol. 2, p. 265-269. December, 1912.

114. Clinton, G. P. The Relationships of the Chestnut
Blight Fungus. Science. N. S. Vol. 36, p. 907-914.
27 December, 1912.

115. Clinton, G. P. Chestnut Bark Disease. Connecticut
Agricultural Experiment Station Report 1912.
p. 359-453. May, 1913.

116. Clinton, G. P. and Spring, S. N. Chestnut Blight
Situation in Connecticut. Pennsylvania Chestnut Blight
Conference Report. p. 154-157. 1912.

117. Collins, J. Franklin. The Chestnut Bark Disease.
Proceedings Second Annual Meeting Northern Nut Growers’
Association, December 14 and 15, 1911. p. 37-49. 1912.

118. Collins, J. Franklin. Treatment of Orchard and
Ornamental Trees. American Lumberman. No. 1920. p. 34.
2 March, 1912.

119. Collins, J. Franklin. Some Observations on Experiments
with the Chestnut Bark Disease. Phytopathology. Vol. 2,
p. 97. April, 1912.

120. Collins, J. Franklin. Address [on the Chestnut Bark
Disease]. Pennsylvania Chestnut Blight Conference
Report. p. 28-39. 1912.

121. Collins, J. Franklin. Treatment of Orchard and
Ornamental Trees. Pennsylvania Chestnut Blight
Conference Report. p. 59-69. 1912.

122. Collins, J. Franklin. The Chestnut Bark Disease on
Chestnut Fruits. Science. N. S. Vol. 38, p. 857-858.
12 December, 1913.

123. Conklin, Robert S. The Chestnut Blight. Report
Pennsylvania Department of Forestry 1908-1909.
p. 59-61. 1910.

124. Cook, A. J. The Chestnut Tree Blight. Monthly Bulletin
State Commissioner of Horticulture, California. Vol. 1,
p. 314. June, 1912.

125. Cook, Melville Thurston and Taubenhaus, J. J. The
Relation of Parasitic Fungi to the Contents of the
Cells of the Host Plants (I. The Toxicity of Tannin).
Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station.
Bulletin 91, p. 21. 1 February, 1911.

126. Cook, Mel. T. Diseases of Shade and Forest Trees.
The Planting and Care of Shade Trees. Forest Park
Reservation Commission of New Jersey. p. 101-103. 1912.

127. Copp, G. G. A Disease Which Threatens the American
Chestnut Tree. Scientific American. Vol. 95, p. 451.
15 December, 1906.

128. Craig, John. Nut Culture from the Northern Standpoint.
The Western New York Horticultural Society. Proceedings
of the fifty-seventh annual meeting. p. 100.
24-26 January, 1912.

129. Craighead, F. C. Insects Contributing to the Control of
the Chestnut Blight Disease. Science. Vol. 36, p. 825.
13 December, 1912.

130. Currey, Frederick. _Sphaeria (Diatrype) radicalis_
Fr. in Synopsis of the Fructification of the Compound
Sphaeriae of the Hookerian Herbarium. The Transactions
of the Linnaean Society of London. Vol. 22, p. 272. 1859.

130a. Curtis, M. A. Geological and Natural History Survey of
North Carolina. Botany. p. 143. 1867.

131. Davis, Nelson F. Chestnut Culture. Pennsylvania
Chestnut Blight Conference Report. p. 83-99. 1912.

132. Davis, William T. Note on the Chestnut Fungus.
Proceedings Staten Island Association of Arts and
Sciences. Vol. 2, B. p. 128-129. July, 1908—February,
1909.

133. Deam, Charles C. Trees of Indiana. State Board of
Forestry, Indiana, eleventh annual report. 1911.
p. 171. 1912.

134. Deming, W. C. Beginning with Nuts. The Northern Nut
Growers’ Association. Circular No. 4. April, 1913.

135. Deming, W. C. and Huson, Calvin J. (Correspondence on
the Chestnut Tree Bark Disease). Report Second annual
meeting, Northern Nut Growers’ Association,
December 14 and 15, 1911. p. 119-121. 1912.

135a. De Notaris. Sferiaceae Italianae. Vol. 1, p. 9. 1863.

136. Detwiler, S. B. The Chestnut Blight. Third Annual
Meeting Montgomery County Horticultural Association,
Norristown, Pa. September, 1911.

137. Detwiler, S. B. The Progress of the Fight Against the
Chestnut Blight. Forest Leaves. Vol. 13, p. 88-89.
December, 1911.

138. Detwiler, S. B. The Pennsylvania Programme.
Pennsylvania Chestnut Blight Conference Report.
p. 129-136. 1912.

139. Detwiler, S. B. The Spread of the Chestnut Blight.
The Country Gentleman. Vol. 77, p. 6. 9 March, 1912.

140. Detwiler, S. B. The War on the Chestnut Blight.
The Country Gentleman. Vol. 77, p. 8, 27. 30 March, 1912.

140a. Detwiler, S. B. The Control of the Chestnut Tree
Bark Disease. Proceedings of the Society of American
Foresters. Vol. 7, p. 131. 4 April, 1912.

140b. Detwiler, S. B. The Farmer and the Chestnut Blight.
Annual Report Bradford County Farmers’ Annual
Institute, Towanda, Pa. 22 May, 1912.

141. Detwiler, S. B. Some Benefits of the Chestnut Blight.
Forest Leaves. Vol. 13, p. 162-165. October, 1912.

142. Detwiler, Samuel B. Report of the General
Superintendent. Report Pennsylvania Chestnut Tree
Blight Commission, July 1 to December 31, 1912.
p. 19-34. 1913.

143. Detwiler, S. B. The Problem of the Chestnut Blight. The
New York Lumber Trade Journal. Vol. 54, No. 643, p. 34.
1 April, 1913.

144. Detwiler, S. B. The Chestnut Blight and its Remedy.
Pennsylvania Arbor Day Manual, 1913. p. 170-179. 1913.

144a. Detwiler, S. B. Fighting the Chestnut Blight.
Pennsylvania Chestnut Tree Blight Commission.
Unnumbered circular. No date.

145. Detwiler, S. B. and Besley, F. W. The Pennsylvania
Chestnut Blight Conference. 1912.

146. Ducomet, M. V. Contribution a l’ étude des maladies du
chataignier. Association Francaise pour l’Avancement
des Sciences. Comptes Rendus 40 Session, 1911.
p. 502-506. 1912.

147. Duggar, B. M. Fungous Diseases of Plants. p. 281-282.
1909.

148. Editors, Country Life in America. Wanted: A Remedy.
Country Life in America. Vol. 15, p. 45. November, 1908.

149. Elliott, Simon B. The Important Timber Trees of the
United States. p. 290. 1912.

150. Ellis, J. B. and Everhart, B. M. _Endothia gyrosa_
(Schw.) The North American Pyrenomycetes.
p. 552. pl. 36. 1892.

150a. Elwes, Henry John and Henry, Augustine. The Trees
of Great Britain and Ireland. Vol. 4, p. 858. 1909.

151. Fairchild, David. The Discovery of the Chestnut Bark
Disease in China. Science. N. S. Vol. 38,
p. 297-299. 29 August, 1913.

152. Farlow, W. G. [No title].
Pennsylvania Chestnut Blight Conference Report.
p. 70-75. 1912.

153. Farlow, W. G. The Fungus of the Chestnut Tree Blight.
Science. N. S. Vol. 35, p. 717-722. 10 May, 1912.

154. Fisher, A. K. [No title.] Pennsylvania Chestnut Blight
Conference Report. p. 103-104. 1912.

155. Francis, Thomas E. Field Work of the Chestnut Tree
Blight Commission. Pennsylvania Chestnut Blight
Conference Report. p. 233-235. 1912.

156. Fries, Elia. Eclogae Fungorum. Linnaea. Bd. 5,
p. 541 1830.

157. Fries, Elia. Elenchus Fungorum. Vol. 2, p. 73. 1828.

157a. Fries, Elia. Endothia. Summa Vegetabilium
Scandinaviae. Vol. 2, p. 385. 1849.

158. Frothingham, Earl H. Second Growth Hardwoods in
Connecticut. United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service. Bulletin 96. p. 44, 56. 1912.

158a. Fuckel. Endothia gyrosum (Tul.) Symbolae Mycologicae.
p. 226. 1869.

159. Fullerton, Hal B. and Fullerton, Edith Loring. Fatal
Chestnut Disease. Long Island Agronomist. Vol. 1,
No. 24, p. 1-2. 17 June, 1908.

160. Fullerton, Hal B. and Fullerton, Edith Loring. Doomed
Chestnut Trees. Long Island Agronomist. Vol. 2, No. 1,
p. 7-8. 29 July, 1908.

161. Fullerton, Hal B. and Fullerton, Edith Loring.
Japanese, Spanish and native Chestnuts. Long Island
Agronomist. Vol. 2, No. 9, p. 2. 18 November, 1908.

162. Fullerton, Hal B. and Fullerton, Edith Loring. Chestnut
Blight. Long Island Agronomist. Vol. 3, No. 3, p. 2.
25 August, 1909.

163. Fulton, H. R. Recent Notes on the Chestnut Bark
Disease. Pennsylvania Chestnut Blight Conference
Report. p. 48-56. 1912.

164. Fulton, H. R. Chestnut Bark Disease. Penn State Farmer.
Vol. 5, p. 151-155. May, 1912.

165. Fulton, H. R. The Chestnut Tree Bark Disease.
North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station.
Press Bulletin No. 26. 10 July, 1913.