Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Physiologic specialization and genetics of the smut fungi

  • Published:
The Botanical Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literature Cited

  1. Aamodt, O. S. Varietal trials, physiologic specialization, and breeding spring wheats for resistance toTilletia tritici andT. levis. Canad. Jour. Res.5: 501–528. 1931.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Allison, C. C. Studies on the genetics of smuts of barley and oats in relation to pathogenicity. Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 119. 1937.

  3. Bauch, R. Kopulationsbedingungen und sekundäre Geschlechtsmerkmale beiUstilago violacea. Biol. Centralbl.42: 9–38. 1922.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. — ÜberUstilago longissima und ihre Varietätmacrospora. Zeits. Bot.15: 241–279. 1923.

    Google Scholar 

  5. — Untersuchungen über die Entwicklungsgeschichte und Sexualphysiologie derUstilago brominora undUstilago grandis. Zeits. Bot.17: 129–177. 1925.

    Google Scholar 

  6. — Rassenunterschiede und sekundäre Geschlechtsmerkmale beim Antherenbrand. Biol. Centralbl.47: 370–383. 1927.

    Google Scholar 

  7. — Multipolare Sexualität bei Brandpilzten. Zeits. Induk. Abst. Vererb.54: 258–259. 1930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. — Geographische Verteilung und funktionelle Differenzierung der Faktoren bei der multipolaren Sexualität vonUstilago longissima. Arch. Protistenk.75: 101–132. 1931.

    Google Scholar 

  9. — Die Sexualität vonUstilago scorzonerae undUstilago zeae. Phytopath. Zeits.3: 315–321. 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Becker, T. Untersuchungen über Sexualität beiTilletia tritici (Bjerk.) Wint. im Rahmen der Immunitätszuchtung. Phytopath. Zeits.9: 187–228. 1936.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bever, W. M. Reinoculation of resistant varieties of wheat with purified physiologic races ofTilletia tritici andT. levis. Phytopath.29: 863–871. 1939.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Blizzard, A. W. The nuclear phenomena and life history ofUrocystis cepulae. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club53: 77–117. 1926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Boss, G. Beiträge zur Zytologie der Ustilagineen. Planta3: 597–627. 1927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brandwein, P. F. Experiments on latent infection of resistant varieties by the loose and covered smut of oats. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club64: 433–444. 1937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brefeld, O. Untersuchungen aus dem Gesammtgebiete der Mykologie. Heft 11, Branndpilze II. Die Brandkrankheiten des Getreides. 97 pp. 1895.

  16. Bressman, E. N. Varietal resistance, physiologic specialization, and inheritance studies in bunt of wheat. Ore. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 281. 1931.

  17. Chilton, St. John P.. The occurrence of lysis in certain crosses ofUstilago zeae. (Abst) Phytopath.28: 5. 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Christensen Clyde. Haploide Linien vonUstilago tritici. Der Züchter7: 37–39. 1935.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Christensen, J. J. Mutation and hybridization inUstilago seae. Part II. Hybridization. Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 65. 1929.

  20. —. Studies on the genetics ofUstilago zeae. Phytopath. Zeits.4: 129–188. 1931.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Churchward, J. G. Studies on physiologic specialization of the organism causing bunt of wheat, and the genetics of resistance to this and certain other wheat diseases. Jour. & Proc. Roy. Soc. N. S. Wales71: 362–384. 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Coffman, F. A., Murphy, H. C., Stanton, T. R., Burnett, L. C., andHumphrey, H. B. New smut resistant oats from Markton crosses. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron.30: 798–815. 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dangeard, P. A. Recherches sur la reproduction sexuelle des champignons. Le Botaniste3: 221–281. 1893.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Davis, W. H. Summary of investigations withUstilago striaeformis parasitizing some common grasses. Phytopath.25: 810–817. 1935.

    Google Scholar 

  25. De La Camp, Maria Lange. Gewinnung und Kultur der Haplonten vonUstilago tritici. Phytopath. Zeits.9: 455–477. 1936.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Dickinson, S. Experiments on the physiology and genetics of the smut fungi. Hyphal fusions. Proc. Roy. Soc. London B.101: 126–136. 1927.

    Google Scholar 

  27. — Experiments on the physiology and genetics of the smut fungi. Cultural characters. Part I. Their permanence and segregation. Proc. Roy. Soc. London B.103: 547–555. 1928.

    Google Scholar 

  28. —. Experiments on the physiology and genetics of the smut fungi. Cultural characters. Part II. The effect of certain external conditions on their segregation. Proc. Roy. Soc. London B.108: 395–423. 1931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Dillon Weston, W. A. R. Resistance of wheat to bunt (Tilletia caries). Nature123: 243. 1929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Eddins, A. H. Pathogenicity and cultural behavior ofUstilago zeae (Bekm). Ung. from different localities. Phytopath.19: 885–916. 1929.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Eriksson, J. Uber die Spezialisierung der Parasitismus bei den Getreiderostpilzen. Ber. Deut. Bot. Ges.12: 292–331. 1894.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Faris, J. A. Physiologic specialization ofUstilago hordei. Phytopath.14: 537–557. 1924.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Federly, H. Die Copulation der Conidien beiUstilago Tragopogi pratensis. Pers. Ofv. Finska Vet. Soc. Förhandlingar46: 1–23. 1904.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Fleroff, B. K. Sur la formation des chlamydospores et la nutrition azotée d'Ustilago hordei Kel. and Sw. Jour. Soc. Bot. Russ.4: 41–51. 1919.

    Google Scholar 

  35. — Contribution to the cytology ofUstilago avenae Pers. based on cultures in vitro. (In Russian.) Trans. Myc. & Phytopath. Sec. Russian Bot. Soc.1. Trans. Moscow Branch, 23–26. 1923. (Abst. in Rev. Appl. Myc. 2: 587–588. 1923)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Flor, H. H. Heterothallism and hybridization inTilletia tritici andT. levis. Jour. Agr. Res.44: 49–58. 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  37. — Studies on physiologic specialization inTilletia tritici andT. levis in the Pacific Northwest. Jour. Agr. Res.47: 193–213. 1933.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Goldschmidt, V. Vererbungsversuche mit den biologischen Arten des Antherenbrandes (Ustilago violacea (Pers.). Ein Beitrag zur Frage der parasitären Spezialisierung. Zeits. Bot.21: 1–90. 1928.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Grevel, F. K. Untersuchungen über das Verhandensein biologischer Rassen des Flugbrandes des Weizens (Ustilago tritici). Phytopath. Zeits.2: 209–234. 1930.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Grüss, J. Biologische Erscheinungen bei der Cultirung vonUstilago maydis. Ber. Deut. Bot. Ges.20: 212–220. 1902.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hanna, W. F. Studies in the physiology and cytology ofUstilago zeae andSorosporium reilianum. Phytopath.19: 415–442. 1929.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hana, W. F. The physiology of the fungi causing bunt of wheat. Proc. Fifth Pacific Sci. Congr. 3195–3204. 1934.

  43. —, andPopp, W.. Relationship of the oat smuts. Nature126: 843–844. 1930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Hanson, E. W., andAtkinson, R. E. Preliminary studies in the cytology ofUrocystis waldsteiniae. (Abst.) Phytopath.28: 8. 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Harper R. S. Nuclear phenomena in certain stages in the development of the smuts. Trans. Wisc. Acad. Sci.12: 475–498. 1898.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Heald, F. D. Bunt or stinking smut of wheat. [In Manual of Plant Diseases. 891 pp.] 1926.

  47. Holton, C. S. A probable explanation of recent epidemics of bunt in durum wheats. Phytopath.20: 253–257. 1930.

    Google Scholar 

  48. — Hybridization and segregation in the oat smuts. Phytopath.21: 835–842. 1931.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Holton C. S. Studies in the genetics and the cytology ofUstilago avenae andUstilago levis. Minn. Agr. Exp. Eta. Tech. Bull. 87. 1932.

  50. — Studies on seven differentiating characteristics, of two physiologic forms ofTilletia tritici. Phytopath.25: 1091–1098. 1935.

    Google Scholar 

  51. — Origin and production of morphologic and pathogenic strains of the oat smut fungi by mutation and hybridization. Jour. Agr. Res.52: 311–317. 1936.

    Google Scholar 

  52. — Inheritance of chlamydospore characteristics in oat-smut fungi. Jour. Agr. Res.52: 535–540. 1936.

    Google Scholar 

  53. — A new pathogenically distinct race derived from a cross betweenTilletia tritici andT. levis. Phytopath.28: 371–372. 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Holton, C. S., and Heald, F. D. Studies on the control and other aspects of bunt of wheat. Wash. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 339. 1936.

  55. Hüttig, W. Über den Einfluss der Temperatur auf die Keimung und Geschlechtverteilung bei Brandpilzen. Zeits. Bot.24: 529–557. 1931.

    Google Scholar 

  56. — Über physikalische und chemsche Beeinflüssungen des Zeitpunktes der Chromosomenreduktion bei Brandpilzen. Zeits. Bot.26: 1–26. 1933.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Isbenbeck, K. Untersuchungen über die Physiologie vonSphacelotheca sorghi, den gedeckten Körnerbrand von Sorghum. Phytopath Zeits.8: 165–182. 1935.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Itzerott, Dorothea. Über Keimung und Wachstum vonUstilago zeae (Beckm.) Ung. mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Infektion. Phytopath. Zeits.11: 155–180. 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Kamat, M. N. Observations onTolyposporium filiferum, cause of “long smut” of sorghum. Phytopath.23: 985–992. 1933.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Kämmerling, H. Über Geschlechterverteilung und Bastardierung vonUstilago longissima und ihrer varietätmacrospora Zeits. Bot.22: 113–142. 1929.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kernkamp, M. F. Genetic and environmental factors affecting growth types ofUstilago zeae. Phytopath.29: 473–484. 1939.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Kharbush, S. S. Contribution à l'étude des phénomènes sexuels chez les Ustilaginées. Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. X,9: 285–297. 1927.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Kienhoiz, J. R., andHeald, F. D. Culture and strains of the stinking smut of wheat. Phytopath.20: 495–512. 1930.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Kitunen, E. Untersuchungen über die Lebensweise des HaferbrandesUstilago avenae (Persoon) Jensen, Suom. Maataloust. Seur. Julk25: 89–144. 1937.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Kniep, H. Untersuchungen über den AntherenbrandUstilago violacea (Pers.) Zeits. Bot.11: 257–284. 1919.

    Google Scholar 

  66. — ÜberUrocytis anemones (Pers.) Winter. Zeits. Bot.13: 289–311. 1921.

    Google Scholar 

  67. — Über Artkreuzungen bei Brandpilzen. Zeits Pilzkunde5: 217–247. 1926.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Kniep, H. Die Sexualität der niederen Pflanzen. 544 pp. 1928.

  69. — Vererbungserscheinungen bei Pilzen. Bibl. Genet.5: 371–478. 1929.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Kolk, Laura, A. Relation of host and pathogen in the oat smut,Ustilago avenae. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club57: 443–507. 1930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Koudelka, H. Neue Probleme in der Brandpilzfrage. Nachr. ü. Schädlingsbekampf9: 100–104. 1934. (Abst. in Rev. Appl. Myc.13: 749. 1934)

    Google Scholar 

  72. Laskaris, T. The occurrence of lysis in certain crosses ofSphacelotheca sorghi. (Abst.) Phytopath.29: 14. 1939.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Lutman, B. F. Some contributions to the life history and cytology of the smuts. Trans. Wisc. Acad. Sci.16: 1191–1244. 1910.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Maire, R. Note sur le développement saprophytique et sur la structure cytologique des sporidies—levures chez l'Ustilago maydis. Bull. Soc. Myc. France14: 161–173. 1898.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Melchers, L. E. Investigations on physiologic specialization ofTilletia laevis in Kansas. Phytopath.24: 1203–1226. 1934.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Mitra, M. Stinking smut (bunt) of wheat with special reference toTilletia indica Mitra. Indian Jour. Agr. Sci.5: 1–24. 1935.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Moore, M. B. The genetics ofUstilago zeae (Abst.) Phytopath.22: 20. 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  78. — andAllison, C. C. An albino strain of barley smut. (Abst.) Phytopath.25: 27–28. 1935.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Nebel, Mabel L. Ruttle. Studies on barley smuts and on loose smut of wheat. N. Y. Agr. Exp. Sta. (Geneva) Tech. Bull.221. 1934.

  80. Nicolaisen, W. Beitrag zur Immunitätszüchtung des Hafers gegenUstilago avenae (Pers.) Jens. Zeits. Zücht.16: 255–278. 1931.

    Google Scholar 

  81. — Die Grundlagen der Immunitätszüchtung gegenUstilago avenae (Pers.) Jens. Zeits. Zücht.19: 1–152. 1934.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Pavavicini, E. Untersuchungen über das Verhalten der Zellkerne bei der Fortpflanzung der Brandpilze. Ann. Myc.15: 57–96. 1917.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Popp, W., andHanna, W. F. Studies on the physiology of the oat smuts. Sci. Agr.15: 425–434. 1935.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Rawitscher, F. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Ustilagineen. I. Zeits. Bot.4: 673–706. 1912.

    Google Scholar 

  85. — Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Ustilagineen. II. Zeits. Bot.14: 273–296. 1922.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Reed, G. M. Further, evidence of physiologic races of oat smuts. Mycologia19: 21–28. 1927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. — Physiologic specialization of the parasitic fungi. Bot. Rev.1: 119–137. 1935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. —, andStanton, T. R. Physiologic races ofUstilago levis andU. avenae on red oats. Jour. Agr Res.44: 147–153. 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Rodenhiser, H. A Physiologic specialization in some cereal smuts. Phytopath.18: 955–1003. 1928.

    Google Scholar 

  90. — Stunting of wheat caused byTilletia levis andT. tritici. Jour. Agr. Res.43: 465–468. 1931.

    Google Scholar 

  91. — Heterothallism and hybridization inSphacelotheca sorghi andS. cruenta. Jour. Agr. Res.45: 287–296. 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  92. — Studies on the possible origin of physiologic forms ofSphacelotheca sorghi andS. cruenta. Jour. Agr. Res.49: 1069–1086. 1934.

    Google Scholar 

  93. — Echinulation of chlamydospores and the pathogenicity of a previously undescribed race ofSphacelotheca cruenta. Phytopath.27: 643–645. 1937.

    Google Scholar 

  94. — andHolton, C. S. Physiologic races ofTilletia trictici andT. levis. Jour. Agr. Res.55: 483–496. 1937.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Roemer, T., andKamlah, H. Gibt es eine Wirkung der Wirtspflanze (Weizen) auf den Pilz (Ustilago?). Phytopath. Zeits.5: 41–53. 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Roemer, T., Fuchs, W. H., and Isenbeck, K. Die Zuchtung resistenter Rassen der Kulturpflanzen. 427 pp. 1938.

  97. Sampson, Kathleen. The biology of oat smuts. III. The development of two biological species ofUstilago kolleri (Wille) in a selection ofAvena strigosa orcadensis (Marquand). Ann. Appl. Biol.20: 258–271. 1933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. —. Presidential address. Life cycles of smut fungi. Trans. British Myc. Soc.33: 1–23. 1939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. —, andWestern, J. H. The biology of oat smuts. V. A ten years' survey of six spore collections. Propagation, screening, and monospore isolation experiments. Ann. Appl. Biol.25: 490–505. 1938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Sartoris, G. B. Studies in the life history and physiology of certain smuts. Amer. Jour. Bot.11: 617–647. 1924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Schafer, E. G., Gaines, E. F., and Barbee, O. E. Wheat varieties in Washington. Wash. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 207. 1926.

  102. Seyfert, R. Über Schnallenbildung im Paarkernmyzel der Brandpilze. Zeits. Bot.19: 577–601. 1927.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Shih, Lei Über den Heterothallismus des Staubbrandes,Sphacelotheca cruenta (Kühn) Potter, der Mohrenhirse,Andropogon sorghum Brot. Arch. Microb.9: 167–192. 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Sleumer, H. O. Über Sexualität und Zytologie vonUstilago zeae (Beckm.) Unger. Zeits. Bot.25: 209–263. 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Stadler, L. J., and Kirkpatrick, R. T. Columbia oats, a new variety for Missouri. Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 278. 1930.

  106. Stakman, E. C. Spore germinations of cereal smuts. Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 133. 1913.

  107. — The problem of specialization and variation in phytopathogenic fungi. Genetica18: 372–389. 1936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. — Variation inUstilago zeae. Science85: 58–59. 1937.

    Google Scholar 

  109. —, andChristensen, J. J. Heterothallism inUstilago zeae. Phytopath.17: 827–834. 1927.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Stakman, E. C., and Christensen, J. J., Eide, C. J., and Peturson, Bjorn. Mutation and hybridization inUstilago zeae. Part I. Mutation. Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 65. 1929.

  111. —,Cassell, R. C., andMoore, M. B. The cytology ofUrocystis occulta. Phytopath.24: 874–889. 1934.

    Google Scholar 

  112. —,Tyler, L. J., andHafstad, G. E. The constancy of cultural characters and pathogenicity in variant lines ofUstilago zeae. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club60: 565–572. 1933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Stempell, K. L. Studien über die Entwicklungsgeschichte einiger Entyloma Arten und über die systematische Stellung der Familie der Sporobolomycetes. Zeits. Bot.28: 225–259. 1935.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Stephens, D. E., and Woolman, H. M. The wheat bunt problem in Oregon. Ore. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 188. 1922.

  115. Tapke, V. F. Physiologic races ofUstilago hordei. Jour. Agr. Res.55: 683–692. 1937.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Teng, S. C. Observations on the germination of the chlamydospores ofTilletia horrida Tak. Contr. Biol. Lab. Sci. Soc. China. Bot. Ser.6: 111–114. 1931.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Thren, R. Gewinnung und Kultur von monokaryotischen und dikaryotischen Myzel. Ein Beitrag zur Physiologie und Genetik des Gerstenflugbrandes (Ustilago nuda (Jens.) Kellerm. et Sw.) Zeits. Bot.31: 337–391. 1937.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Tyler, L. J. Variation inSphacelotheca sorghi (Link) Clinton. Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 133. 1938.

  119. —,and Shumway, C. P. Hybridization betweenSphacelotheca sorghi andSorosporium reilianum. (Abst.) Phytopath.25: 375–376. 1935.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Utter, L. G. Culture and inoculation studies of races of the loose and covered smuts of oats. Amer. Jour. Bot.25: 198–210. 1938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Vaheeduddin, S. Observations and experiments on diseases of plants in Hyderabad State, India. Proc. Minn. Acad. Sci.4: 47–50. 1937.

    Google Scholar 

  122. — The production of a new physiologic race ofSphacelotheca sorghi. Phytopath.28: 656–659. 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Vaughan, E. K. A race ofUstilago avenae capable of infecting Black Mesdag oats. Phytopath.28: 660–661. 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Vogel, O. A., andHolton, C. S. Reaction of F3 progenies of an Oro x Turkey Florence cross to two physiologic races ofTilletia tritici and one ofT. levis. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron.30: 55–59. 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Walter, J. M. The mode of entrance ofUstilago zeae into corn. Phytopath.24: 1012–1020. 1934.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Wang, D. T. Contribution à l'étude des Ustilaginées (Cytologie du parasite et pathologie de la cellule hôte.) Le Botaniste26: 539–670. 1934.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Wang, C. S. The formation of chlamydospores ofUstilago crameri Kcke. on artifical media. Phytopath.28: 860–861. 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Wernham, C. C. Chlamydospore production on artificial media byUrocystis gladioli. Phytopath.28: 598–600. 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Western, J. H. The biology of oat smuts. IV. The invasion of some susceptible and resistant oat varieties, including Markton, by selected biological species of smut (Ustilago avenae (Pers.) Jens. andUstilago kolleri (Wille). Ann. Appl. Biol.23: 245–263. 1936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. — Sexual fusion inUstilago avenae under natural conditions. Phytopath.27: 547–553. 1937.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Yu, T. F., Hwang, L., andTsiang, C. T. Varietal resistance and susceptibility of wheats to flag smut (Urocystis tritici Koern.). III. Physiologic specialization inUrocystis tritici Koern. Bull. China Bot. Soc.2: 111–113. 1936.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Zillig, H. Über spezialisierte Formen beim AntherenbrandUstilago violacea (Pers.) Fuck. Centralbl. Bakt. Abt. 2.53: 33–74. 1921.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Minnesota, Minnesota, USA

    J. J. Christensen & H. A. Rodenhiser

Authors
  1. J. J. Christensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. A. Rodenhiser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Bureau of Plant Industry

Paper No. 1764 of the Scientific Jour Series, Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station.

The writers are indebted to Dr. E. C. Stakman, Mr. Ian W. Tervet, Dr. C. S. Holton and Dr. M. M. Rhoades for criticisms and suggestions pertaining to the preparation of the manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Christensen, J.J., Rodenhiser, H.A. Physiologic specialization and genetics of the smut fungi. Bot. Rev 6, 389–425 (1940). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02881122

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02881122

Keywords

Search

Navigation