Anthracnose of Digitalis was recorded in different parts of Europe and in Nippon, and a confusion took place as to the causal organism. The disease occurs on the leaf as small purplish brown, round or unsharply angular spots, dispersed over the leaf. The spots do not enlarge markedly and remain usually about 1 mm in diameter (Fig. 1, left and center), but sometimes spots of irregular shape, 3-4mm in diameter, are produced (Fig. 1, right). On the large veins and petiole, small, spindle-shaped, sunken, blackish brown lesions are formed. The central part of the old spots discolors to light brown, and is provided with minute black dots (Fig. 2). On diseased leaves a dead portion appears first over severely infected parts, finally extending to their whole area. Acervuli amphigenous, pulvinate or disciform, 24-120μ in diameter, often confluent. Conidiophores on pseudoparenchyma, hyaline, rod shape tapering towards the tip, with about an equal length to conidia. Conidia continuous, hyaline, granulous, long elliptic to cylindric, blunt at both ends or unsharply pointed at an end, straight or slightly curved, 13-21×3.5-4.5μ. Setae dark brown, long (75-120μ), broaden at the base (4.5-7μ in width), often nodular, about 4μ in width at the middle, taper and become hyaline towards the tip, straight or flexuose, 3-5 septate, produced numerously, for instance 2-24 to a section of a single acervulus. (v. Fig. 3) The fungus grows well on agar media. A certain strain produces acervuli with setae and conidia in culture, while other olivaceous mycelia only. On inoculation, they can infect unwounded leaf blades and petioles and semetimes causing damping-off of seedlings (Fig. 4). Four species of anthracnose fungi have hitherto been reported on Digitalis (Gloeosporium Digitalis E. ROSTR., Colletotrichum fuscum LAUBERT, C. digitalis (E. ROSTR.) MOESZ, and C. digitalis UNAMUNO). Of these, C. Digitalis differs from the fungus in question, as the former associates with large, dark brown maculae, lacks setae which are so prevalent in the latter, and produces much smaller conidia (8-10×3-4μ)., While the remaining three, in despite of a certain discrepancy, are alike one another, C. fuscum and the fungus in question agree almost completely in essential characters (v. Table). The name C. digitalis by UNAMUNO is illegitimate since it was previously used by MOESZ. The morphological characters of MOESZ's C. digitalis approach more closely to C. fuscum than G. Digitalis, though he mentioned it as being a form of the latter which has well-developed and provided with setae. In Nippon, FUKUI (1933) studied this disease, identifying the causal fungus tentatively with C. Antirrhini. However, TAKIMOTO in Kyûsyû Imperial niversity ascertained that our fungus cannot infect snapdragon. At present it may be concluded that the anthracnose fungus of Digitalis in question is identical to C. fuscum LAUBERT, that C. digitalis by UNAMUNO is a synonym of it, and that the fungus named C. digitalis by MOESZ is probably a form of the same.