From BIOSCI-REQUEST Tue Oct 3 16:30:27 1995 Return-Path: BIOSCI-REQUEST Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id QAA06598 for rust-mil-list; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 16:30:27 -0700 Received: from KAI.lincoln.cri.nz (kai.lincoln.cri.nz [161.65.2.4]) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id QAA06593 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 16:30:14 -0700 Received: from LAN.Lincoln.cri.nz by KAI.lincoln.cri.nz (MX V4.1 AXP) with SMTP; Wed, 04 Oct 1995 12:30:05 +1200 To: rust-mil@net.bio.net From: "Matthew Cromey" Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 12:27:32 NZST Subject: Viability of stripe rust spores X-Gateway: iGate, (WP Office) vers 2.01 - 1000 Message-ID: <9510041229.4071d548.LN1@Lincoln.cri.nz> Dear colleagues The Australian Quarantine Service have asked me to provide evidence that uredospores of Puccinia striiformis would lose their viability following treatment of kibbled wheat grain using infra-red treatment with a microniser at approximately 65C. Currently New Zealand mills treat kibbled wheat with methyl bromide to meet Australian quarantine requirements. They wish to move to use of a microniser, which would be more environmentally friendly. AQIS are concerned that this may lead to the spread of New Zealand pathotypes of P. striiformis to Australia. What I need is any references available on the longevity of P. striiformis spores, and effects of temperature on their viability. The kibbling process will involve supply of grain to a mill following a period of storage in a farm silo, forced-air cleaning of the grain in the mill, kibbling, treatment with the microniser, and then bagging up of kibbled grain to be supplied directly to bakers in Australia. I consider the chances of a viable rust spore finding its way to a susceptible wheat plant rather small to say the least, but need some data to back this up. I would appreciate any comments or references. Matthew Cromey EMAIL: cromeym@crop.cri.nz From BIOSCI-REQUEST Thu Oct 5 13:44:13 1995 Return-Path: BIOSCI-REQUEST Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id NAA14759 for rust-mil-list; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 13:44:13 -0700 Received: from skycat.usask.ca (skycat.usask.ca [128.233.1.12]) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id NAA14755 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 13:44:07 -0700 Received: from SKYCAT.USask.CA by SKYCAT.USask.CA (PMDF V4.3-11 #5952) id <01HW2TOLJAAO8WW06I@SKYCAT.USask.CA>; Thu, 05 Oct 1995 10:36:00 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 10:35:58 -0600 (CST) From: Geoff Hughes Subject: Soltrol mineral oil To: rust-mil@net.bio.net Message-id: X-Envelope-to: rust-mil@net.bio.net MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I am seeking a North American supplier of Soltrol, a light mineral oil used in rust inoculation. I believe Phillips Petroleum was our last supplier, but we are having difficulty locating the actual plant where was produced. Any information would be appreciated. Geoff Hughes Crop Science University of Saskatchewan From BIOSCI-REQUEST Fri Oct 6 07:32:06 1995 Return-Path: BIOSCI-REQUEST Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id HAA14012 for rust-mil-list; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 07:32:06 -0700 Received: from mail.unet.umn.edu (mail.unet.umn.edu [128.101.101.103]) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id HAA14008 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 07:31:57 -0700 Received: from puccini.crl.umn.edu by mail.unet.umn.edu (5.65c) id AA27463; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 09:31:03 -0500 Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 09:31:40 -0500 Message-Id: <199510061431.JAA00867@puccini.crl.umn.edu> Received: from [134.84.228.15] by puccini.crl.umn.edu; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 09:31:40 -0500 From: "davidl" Reply-To: "davidl" To: geoff.hughes@usask.ca, rust-mil@net.bio.net Subject: Re: Soltrol mineral oil Geoff, In 1994 we ordered a 54 gal drum of Soltrol 170 from: Phillips Petroleum Co. Borger, TX 79007 (800) 858-4327 This is the oil we use at our lab for spore inoculation work. I believe you can order smaller quantities if needed. I hope this information is what you wanted. David Long USDA Cereal Rust Lab 1551 Lindig St. St. Paul, MN 55108 **************************************************************************** David L. Long (612) 625-1284 Cereal Rust Laboratory fax (612) 649-5054 1551 Lindig St Internet: davidl@puccini.crl.umn.edu University of Minnesota St. Paul, MN 55108 **************************************************************************** From BIOSCI-REQUEST Mon Oct 9 18:55:15 1995 Return-Path: BIOSCI-REQUEST Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id SAA16173 for rust-mil-list; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 18:55:15 -0700 Received: from mips.agric.wa.gov.au (mips.agric.wa.gov.au [159.207.200.70]) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id SAA16154 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 18:54:51 -0700 Received: from mmgate.agric.wa.gov.au by mips.agric.wa.gov.au (5.61/1.34) id AA05879; Tue, 10 Oct 95 09:55:00 +0800 Received: by mmgate.agric.wa.gov.au with Microsoft Mail id <3079547D@mmgate.agric.wa.gov.au>; Mon, 09 Oct 95 09:57:33 PDT From: Loughman Rob To: rust-mildew Subject: seed dressing usage in the USA Date: Tue, 10 Oct 95 09:54:00 PDT Message-Id: <3079547D@mmgate.agric.wa.gov.au> Encoding: 16 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 I am chasing any information (published or anecdotal) on the extent to which fungicide seed dressings are used in wheat farming systems in the USA and which fungicides are commonly used and perhaps the purpose for their use. I would be interested in any comments from those familiar with this area. Many thanks, Robert Loughman 10 October 1995 ____________________________________________ Robert Loughman Plant Pathologist Department of Agriculture, Western Australia Baron-Hay Crt, South Perth, 6151 Australia tel:619 368 3691 fax:619 367 2625 email: roblo@agpo1.agric.wa.gov.au ____________________________________________ From BIOSCI-REQUEST Thu Oct 12 03:49:15 1995 Return-Path: BIOSCI-REQUEST Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id DAA12994 for rust-mil-list; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 03:49:15 -0700 Received: from sun2.mhs-relay.ac.uk (sun2.mhs-relay.ac.uk [128.86.8.35]) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id DAA12989 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 03:48:57 -0700 X400-Received: by mta sun2.mhs-relay.ac.uk in /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD= /C=gb/; Relayed; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 11:47:39 +0100 X400-Received: by mta JII.MUAS in /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; Relayed; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 12:44:28 +0100 X400-Received: by mta JII in /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; Relayed; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 12:44:29 +0100 X400-Received: by mta arcs.bbsrc.ac.uk in /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; Relayed; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 12:49:31 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; converted (ia5 text (2)); Relayed; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 12:46:28 +0100 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 12:46:28 +0100 X400-Originator: james.brown@bbsrc.ac.uk X400-Recipients: rust-mil@net.bio.net X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/;9428441112101995/A23577/JII] X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Content-Identifier: 119A62EC1B00 From: James Brown Message-ID: <9428441112101995/A23577/JII/119A62EC1B00*@MHS> To: Rust-mildew (Non Receipt Notification Requested) Subject: Blumeria? Sensitivity: Private Can anyone explain why North American mildew researchers have taken to calling Erysiphe graminis, Blumeria graminis? And is this a taxonomically valid name? I've heard two things which have some relevance to the change of name. One is that the Blumeria name was conjured up in the 1950's by taxonomists working in Leningrad. E.graminis was assigned to a new genus on the basis of its asexual morphology, i.e. the primary germ tube. However, fungal taxonomists (I believe) are meant to use the sexual stage, where it exists, for assigning things to genera. The other thing I heard (more or less a rumour) that some gathering of mycologists had decided to suspend the Blumeria genus name until the nomenclature of Erysiphales as a whole had been thoroughly revised. Any opinions? If there's no good reason for using Blumeria, shouldn't stick to Erysiphe, to avoid confusion in the literature? James Brown JBrown@bbsrc.ac.uk From BIOSCI-REQUEST Thu Oct 12 09:56:06 1995 Return-Path: BIOSCI-REQUEST Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id JAA02113 for rust-mil-list; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 09:56:06 -0700 Received: from mailhost.ksu.ksu.edu (root@grunt.ksu.ksu.edu [129.130.12.17]) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id JAA02110 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 09:56:02 -0700 Received: from plantpath.pp.ksu.edu ([129.130.90.39]) by mailhost.ksu.ksu.edu (8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA22418 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 11:55:03 -0500 Received: from PLANTPATH/MERCQUEUE by plantpath.pp.ksu.edu (Mercury 1.21); 12 Oct 95 11:54:49 +600 Received: from MERCQUEUE by PLANTPATH (Mercury 1.21); 12 Oct 95 11:54:41 +600 From: "Kurt Zeller" Organization: Plant Pathology To: rust-mil@net.bio.net Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 11:54:36 CST6CDT Subject: Re: Blumeria? Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Message-ID: <4B128F066BF@plantpath.pp.ksu.edu> James Brown wrote: > Can anyone explain why North American mildew researchers have > taken to calling Erysiphe graminis, Blumeria graminis? And is > this a taxonomically valid name? I think a lot of it has to do with the acceptance or non-acceptnace of the species as described in Bruan's Monograph (1987). I have been told (by one of my former graduate committee members) that Erysiphe graminis has been more acceptable, but that Blumeria was probably more biologically correct. It is generally accepted that Erysiphe is a polyphytic and biologically artificial taxonomic grouping, but it is hard to fight the convention. > I've heard two things which have some relevance to the change of > name. One is that the Blumeria name was conjured up in the 1950's > by taxonomists working in Leningrad. E.graminis was assigned to a > new genus on the basis of its asexual morphology, i.e. the > primary germ tube. However, fungal taxonomists (I believe) are > meant to use the sexual stage, where it exists, for assigning > things to genera. > > The other thing I heard (more or less a rumour) that some > gathering of mycologists had decided to suspend the Blumeria > genus name until the nomenclature of Erysiphales as a whole had > been thoroughly revised. I had heard a varition on this scenario myself. > Any opinions? If there's no good reason for using Blumeria, > shouldn't stick to Erysiphe, to avoid confusion in the > literature? > > James Brown > JBrown@bbsrc.ac.uk > My personal opinion is that was should seriously revise (at least) the genus Erysiphe to reflect what morphology, and host-range data, as well as more recent molecular data, have been telling us about phylogenetic relationships in Erysiphe all along (as well as among other powdery mildew taxonomic groups). Biological speices concepts, or generic concepts, suggest that E. graminis may be differentiated enough to be considered a separate group (=Blumeria?). There is also considerable evidence suggesting that groups like E. cichoracearum / E. galeopsidis & E. polygoni have some considerable differentiation amongst themselves. Perhaps these should also be reconsidered taxonomically? E. cichoracearum at the least shows some considerable rDNA differentiation among samples taken from different host families or genera (some published, but mostly in prep data, personal observations). Usig biological species concepts might make us have to pretty seriously revise powdery mildew taxonomy and nomenclature. Just my two cents worth. I would be interested in further discussion. Cheers, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Kurt Zeller Throckmorton Hall Dept. of Plant Pathology Kansas State University Manhattan, KS 66506 "Mock not the procrastinators,... for they will be the last to die!" From BIOSCI-REQUEST Thu Oct 12 11:14:50 1995 Return-Path: BIOSCI-REQUEST Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id LAA06208 for rust-mil-list; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 11:14:50 -0700 Received: from Rosebud.Stanford.EDU (Rosebud.Stanford.EDU [36.25.0.100]) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA06202 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 11:14:44 -0700 Received: from ANDREW (Andrew.Stanford.EDU [36.25.0.175]) by Rosebud.Stanford.EDU (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA29960; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 11:13:47 -0700 Received: from ANDREW/MAILQUEUE by ANDREW (Mercury 1.21); 12 Oct 95 11:19:51 GMT-8 Received: from MAILQUEUE by ANDREW (Mercury 1.21); 12 Oct 95 11:19:26 GMT-8 From: "Shauna Somerville" Organization: carnegie institution To: rust-mil@net.bio.net Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 11:19:18 GMT-8 Subject: Re: Blumeria? CC: James Brown Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail/Windows (v1.11a) Message-ID: <15C432A47D3@ANDREW> Hi James, Hanlin has published a reference book with the Blumeria designation for E. graminis. Hanlin RT (1990) Blumeria Golovin ex. E.O. Speer. Pages 24-25 in: Illustrated Genera of Ascomycetes. The American Phytopathological Society Press, St. Paul, MN I would agree with you that it is unwise to change the name of E. graminis at this point in time. Bet regards, Shauna Somerville Department of Plant Biology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 290 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 Phone:415-325-1521x257; Fax:415-325-6857 From BIOSCI-REQUEST Fri Oct 13 06:36:41 1995 Return-Path: BIOSCI-REQUEST Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id GAA14106 for rust-mil-list; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 06:36:41 -0700 Received: from hearnvax.nic.surfnet.nl (hearnvax.nic.surfnet.nl [192.87.5.131]) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id GAA14102 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 06:36:36 -0700 From: R.A.DAAMEN@ipo.agro.nl Received: from AGRO02 by HEARNVAX.nic.SURFnet.nl (PMDF V4.2-12 #3330) id <01HWE4QIDS8G0016WV@HEARNVAX.nic.SURFnet.nl>; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 12:50:51 +0200 (MET-DST) Received: from IPOALP by AGRO.NL (PMDF V4.2-12 #4885) id <01HWE6QDEGQ8006R6S@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 13:47:59 MET Received: from IPO.AGRO.NL by IPO.AGRO.NL (PMDF V4.3-7 #7552) id <01HWE4N5ZA340004D2@IPO.AGRO.NL>; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 12:48:08 GMT Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 12:48:08 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: Blumeria? To: rust-mil@net.bio.NET Message-id: <01HWE4N62H020004D2@IPO.AGRO.NL> X-Envelope-to: rust-mil@net.bio.NET X-VMS-To: IN%"rust-mil@net.bio.net" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT From BIOSCI-REQUEST Fri Oct 13 06:36:12 1995 Return-Path: BIOSCI-REQUEST Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id CAA29975 for rust-mil-list; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 02:05:23 -0700 Received: from hearnvax.nic.surfnet.nl (hearnvax.nic.surfnet.nl [192.87.5.131]) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id CAA29958 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 02:04:14 -0700 From: G.H.J.KEMA@ipo.agro.nl Received: from AGRO02 by HEARNVAX.nic.SURFnet.nl (PMDF V4.2-12 #3330) id <01HWDYXZ55TC0016WV@HEARNVAX.nic.SURFnet.nl>; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 10:05:04 +0200 (MET-DST) Received: from IPOALP by AGRO.NL (PMDF V4.2-12 #4885) id <01HWE0XXFZS000CHSO@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 11:02:16 MET Received: from IPO.AGRO.NL by IPO.AGRO.NL (PMDF V4.3-7 #7552) id <01HWDYUWPTT200036D@IPO.AGRO.NL>; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 10:02:34 GMT Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 10:02:34 +0000 (GMT) Subject: changed connections To: rust-mil@net.bio.NET Message-id: <01HWDYUWPUQW00036D@IPO.AGRO.NL> X-Envelope-to: rust-mil@net.bio.NET X-VMS-To: rust MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Dear colleagues, Please note that the telephone/fax numbers in the Netherlands changed on october 10th. The area code for Wageningen is (0)317, the extension numbers are preceeded by a "4". The E-mail addresses of DLO institutes will change on october 20th. "AGRO" in the old address will be replaced by "DLO". Mine will be KEMA@IPO.DLO.NL Best wishes, Gert Kema From BIOSCI-REQUEST Mon Oct 16 06:45:02 1995 Return-Path: BIOSCI-REQUEST Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id GAA05353 for rust-mil-list; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 06:45:02 -0700 Received: from postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (POSTOFFICE.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.56.7]) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id GAA05349 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 06:44:59 -0700 From: gcb3@cornell.edu Received: from [132.236.30.62] ([132.236.30.62]) by postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA13330; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 09:43:43 -0400 Message-Id: <199510161343.JAA13330@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu> X-Sender: gcb3@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 09:46:20 -0400 To: rust-mil@net.bio.net Subject: Blumeria Cc: RPK1@cornell.edu (Dick Korf) I shared recent comments from the rust-mil network with mycologist colleague Richard Korf [RPK1@cornell.edu (Dick Korf)], and he writes: "NONE of the recent treatments of Erysiphales that I have seen-including the USDA Fungi on Plants and Plant Products in the United States -(and there have been two great new treatments of the whole order, and probably some I haven't seen!) uses anything but Blumeria for the E. graminis fungus! It is true the generic name wasn't validly published till 1974, but that was over 20 years ago. The conidial state is unlike any other "Oidium" (and probably should be placed in a genus of its own) and the haustoria are unlike any other Erysiphe! My guess is that the biology is also quite different." __________________________________________________ Richard P. Korf: tel: Cornell Univ., voice 607/255-3292, fax 607/255-4471 Mycotaxon: voice 607/273-4357, fax (WAIT for message) 607/273-4357 ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Gary C. Bergstrom, Department of Plant Pathology, Cornell University, 334 Plant Science Building, Ithaca, NY 14853.USA. Phone:(607)255-7849; Fax:(607)255-4471; E-mail:gcb3@cornell.edu //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// From BIOSCI-REQUEST Wed Oct 18 01:50:42 1995 Return-Path: BIOSCI-REQUEST Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id BAA27311 for rust-mil-list; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 01:50:42 -0700 Received: from rishp1.risoe.dk (rishp1.risoe.dk [130.226.48.13]) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id BAA27294 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 01:50:33 -0700 Received: from risrms1.risoe.dk by rishp1.risoe.dk with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA125306131; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 09:48:51 +0100 Received: from RISRMS1/SpoolDir by risrms1.risoe.dk (Mercury 1.21); 18 Oct 95 09:48:49 +0100 Received: from SpoolDir by RISRMS1 (Mercury 1.21); 18 Oct 95 09:48:20 +0100 From: "Michael Foged Lyngkjaer 4133" Organization: Risoe National Laboratory, Denmark To: rust-mil@net.bio.net Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 09:48:19 MET Subject: Blumeria vs. Erysiphe Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Message-Id: <31EE036791@risrms1.risoe.dk> Subject: Blumeria vs. Erysiphe. The powdery mildew fungus has been known as Erysiphe graminis DC. for many decades. The russian P.N. Golovin established Blumeria in 1958 and Speer in 1973 provided a full description of Blumeria Golov. ex Speer. We thus have two principally equal descriptions and two equally legal names on the same fungus. Yarwood (1975) noted E. graminis as nomen conservandum implying that this name be retained in preference to names proposed later. This has, however, not been accepted at an international botanical congress and not been included on the list of accepted names. This is required. Thus B. graminis is an obligate synonym for E. graminis (Kapor 1967) and vice versa meaning that the two names are equally good, and each author may use any one of the two names. ( - from J.P. Skou,Nomenclature committee of the Danish Plant Pathology Society, 1991). This is the information that I have, and I consider it valid. Best regards. Sincerely yours J. Helms Joergensen From BIOSCI-REQUEST Tue Oct 24 08:30:53 1995 Return-Path: BIOSCI-REQUEST Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id IAA20910 for rust-mil-list; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 08:30:53 -0700 Received: from trex.oscs.montana.edu (trex.oscs.montana.edu [153.90.250.82]) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id IAA20905 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 08:30:44 -0700 Received: by msu.oscs.montana.edu (MX V4.1 VAX) id 19; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 09:29:34 MDT Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 09:29:32 MDT From: Bill Grey To: rust-mil@net.bio.net Message-ID: <0099857B.B09A3C60.19@msu.oscs.montana.edu> Subject: Mint rust&mildew We are starting work on mint pathogens, rust and mildew. We need information on how to handle the rust pathogen, i.e. Puccinia menthae and the biotypes that infect peppermint and spearmint. For example, the inoculation procedures, inoculum storage, etc. Is anyone working on mildew and mint? Which formae specialis of mildew attacks mint? Bill Grey & Mareike Johnston Dept Plant Pathology Montana State University Bozeman, MT 59717 406-994-5156 From BIOSCI-REQUEST Thu Oct 26 04:25:10 1995 Return-Path: BIOSCI-REQUEST Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id MAA02300 for rust-mil-list; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 12:46:01 -0700 Received: from net2.wau.nl (NET2.WAU.NL [137.224.10.18]) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id MAA02129 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 12:45:03 -0700 Received: from vines2.wau.nl by NET2.WAU.NL (PMDF V4.3-10 #6821) id <01HWUOVA4T0G00JJUJ@NET2.WAU.NL>; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 09:20:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: by vines2.wau.nl; Wed, 25 Oct 95 9:17:01 +0100 Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 09:11:38 +0100 (CET) From: Rients.Niks@users.pv.wau.nl (rients niks) Subject: yellow barley leaf rust To: rust-mil@net.bio.net Message-id: X-Envelope-to: rust-mil@net.bio.net Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Dear Colleagues, For our research on partial resistance of barley to leaf rust, we would like to use a yellow colour mutant of the pathogen (Puccinia hordei) . A few years back, we found such a spontaneous mutant in our trials, but lost it at a later stage due to a mishap. Is there anybody who has such a mutant available for us? Thank you in advance. Rients Niks From BIOSCI-REQUEST Thu Oct 26 12:22:02 1995 Return-Path: BIOSCI-REQUEST Received: (from daemon@localhost) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) id MAA21598 for rust-mil-list; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 12:22:02 -0700 Received: from mail.unet.umn.edu (mail.unet.umn.edu [128.101.101.103]) by net.bio.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id MAA21594 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 12:21:56 -0700 Received: from puccini.crl.umn.edu by mail.unet.umn.edu (5.65c) id AA20663; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 14:20:51 -0500 Message-Id: <199510261921.OAA06650@puccini.crl.umn.edu> Received: from [199.3.240.126] by puccini.crl.umn.edu; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 14:21:27 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 14:25:45 -0500 To: rust-mil@net.bio.net From: paulz@puccini.crl.umn.edu (Paul Zambino) Subject: Re: Mint rust&mildew Cc: paulz@puccini.crl.umn.edu >We are starting work on mint pathogens, rust and mildew. We need information >on how to handle the rust pathogen, i.e. Puccinia menthae and the biotypes >that infect peppermint and spearmint. For example, the inoculation procedures, >inoculum storage, etc. ... >Bill Grey & Mareike Johnston >Dept Plant Pathology >Montana State University >Bozeman, MT 59717 >406-994-5156 Bill and Mareike, >From your post, I assume that you will be needing to work with pure strains. For about the past year, I have been adapting cereal rust methods as used at the USDA Cereal Rust Lab in St. Paul, MN, for use with white pine blister rust, but I have also had some experience with other non-cereal primary and alternate hosts, including a few inoculations of mint. I think that the methods that I have hit upon will probably work well for you. They include conditions for dessication and low temperature storage of aeciospores, urediniospores, and teliospores, reviving stored spores, inoculation protocols, use of cuttings with single leaves and individual chambers that can serve as dew chambers and containers for obtaining and handling pure genotype strains. I am in the process of compiling the methods for publication as a research note. I think the document may be too long to justify posting to the whole mycology group, but I will forward it to you and to anyone else who expresses an interest. Good luck! Paul Paul Zambino, Ph.D. Paul Zambino, Ph.D. USDA Forest Service Forestry Sciences Lab 5985 Highway K Rhinelander, WI 54501 PH:(715)362-1178 FAX: (715)362-1166 EMAIL: paulz@puccini.crl.umn.edu DG:p.zambino:R09F06A