Peer-review: Yes - Open Access: Yes|http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&ISSN=0031-949X

Comparative investigations have been carried out on Kulkarni's Sclerospora graminicola var. andropogonis on sorghum from Poona, India, on S. graminicola from Pennisetum typhoideurn collected in the same locality, and on S. etaria in the United States [R.A.M., x, p. 517]. In the former the conidiophores bear a branch system of usually three primary branches of approximately equal size, spreading out from the main axis in close succession so that the conidia borne on the tips of the branchlets lie in a hemispherical plane, whereas in the type species short branches grow out at irregular intervals and the conidia lie in irregularly disposed bunches. The sterigmata tend to be somewhat longer in the sorghum fungus, a further distinguishing feature of which is the presence of a transverse septum about half-way between the conidio-phore base and the beginning of the branch system. In the sorghum Sclerospora the conidia are generally broadly rotund and the ends equally bluntly rounded, with the greatest diameter at the middle, while in S. graminicola a point somewhat above the middle shows the greatest breadth, the apex being bluntly rounded and the base somewhat tapering. The most important difference between the two fungi, however, is that, while in the fungus on sorghum the conidial wall continues unaltered across the apex, in S. graminicola it is thickened at maturity into an apical papilla. Moreover, the conidia of S. graminicola germinate by zoospores, whereas in the sorghum fungus germination is by one or two germ-tubes. The oospore stages are very similar in both organisms. A further difference between the two fungi was shown by cross- inoculation experiments [the results of which are tabulated] with oospore material germinated by Hiura's method [ibid., ix, p. 774]. The sorghum fungus failed to infect Setaria italica and P. typhoideum, while S. graminicola from these hosts cannot attack sorghum. Both the sorghum fungus and S. graminicola from Setaria gave positive results on teosinte (Euchlaena mexicana). On the basis of these morphological and physiological distinctions the sorghum fungus is raised from varietal to specific rank as S. sorghi (Kulk.) Weston & Uppal with an emended diagnosis in English.

Text in English

Reprints Collection