000			03326nab a22003257a 4500
001			G70647
003			MX-TxCIM
005			20230609165907.0
008			121211b |||p||p||||||| |z||| |
022			_a0031-949X
022			_a1943-7684 (Online)
040			_aMX-TxCIM
041			_aeng
090			_aREP-402
100	1		_aWeston, W.H. _930968
245	1	4	_aThe basis for Sclerospora sorghi as a species
260			_c1932. _aSt. Paul, MN (USA) : _bAmerican Phytopathological Society,
340			_aPrinted
500			_aPeer-review: Yes - Open Access: Yes|http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&ISSN=0031-949X
520			_aComparative 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.
546			_aText in English
595			_aRPC
650		7	_2AGROVOC _930969 _aSclerospora
650		7	_2AGROVOC _92002 _aSorghum
650		7	_2AGROVOC _95669 _aDisease control
650		7	_2AGROVOC _94432 _aExperimentation
700	1		_930973 _aUppal, B.N.
773	0		_tPhytopathology _gv. 22, no. 6, p. 573-586 _dSt. Paul, MN (USA) : American Phytopathological Society, 1932. _w444676 _x0031-949X
942			_cJA _2ddc
999			_c20620 _d20620