Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T21:45:54.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Description of a Necrotic Virus Disease affecting Tobacco and Other Plants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Kenneth M. Smith  and
J. G. Bald
Kenneth M. Smith
Affiliation:
Potato Virus Research Station, School of Agriculture, and Molteno Institute, Cambridge
J. G. Bald
Affiliation:
Botany School, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

An account is given of an apparently undescribed virus disease. The virus appears spontaneously in the glasshouse affecting tobacco seedlings in the seed boxes. The symptoms on a number of hosts are described. The chief characteristic of the virus is its failure to become systemic in any host plant so far tested. It is, however, occasionally found in the roots of young tobacco plants, usually in the case of those naturally infected. Certain physical properties of the virus have been investigated. Its dilution end-point appears to be about 1:10,000; its longevity in extracted sap is about 20 days, the thermal death-point is 72° C. The virus shows a strong resistance to alcohol, remaining viable in 99 per cent, alcohol for 71 hours so far as tested.

It is not known how the virus is transmitted in nature, and no insect vector has as yet been identified.

The virus has been transmitted to healthy cowpeas by spraying them with a suspension of the virus by means of an atomiser.

By the Elford method of ultra-filtration the particle size is found to be 20–30μμ.

The virus is compared with that of the American tobacco ringspot, and methods of differentiating the two are indicated.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , May 1935 , pp. 231 - 245
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1935

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barnard, J. E. and Elford, W. J. (1931). Proc. roy. Soc. B, 109, 360–80.Google Scholar
Böhme, R. W. (1933). Phytopath. Z. 6, 5, 507–15.Google Scholar
Duggar, R. M. and Johnson, B. (1933). Phytopathology, 23, 934–48.Google Scholar
Elford, W. J. (1931). J. Path. Bact. 34, 505–21.Google Scholar
Elford, W. J. (1933). Proc. roy. Soc. B, 112, 384–406.Google Scholar
Elford, W. J. and Andrewes, C. H. (1932). Brit. J. exp. Path. 13, 36–42 and 446–56.Google Scholar
Elford, W. J., Perdrau, J. H. and Smith, W. (1933). J. Path. Bact. 36 49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, F. O. (1929). Bot. Gaz. 86, 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunkel, L. O. (1934). Phytopathology, 24, 437.Google Scholar
Salaman, R. N. (1933). Nature, Lond., 131, 468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuel, G. and Bald, J. G. (1933). Ann. appl. Biol. 20, 70–99.Google Scholar
Smith, Kenneth M. (1931). Proc. roy. Soc. B, 109, 251–67.Google Scholar
Thung, T. H. (1931). Hand. 6de ned.-Ind. naturw. Congr. pp. 450–63.Google Scholar
Wingard, S. A. (1928). J. agric. Res. 37, 127.Google Scholar