CAUSES OTHER THAN BACILLUS COLI. 151 



mittecl, however, in other paragraphs that evidently the bacterial 

 infection can take place independently of the fungi, for ho has found 

 what appeared to be that condition. Since he admits the possi- 

 bility of bacterial infection without fungi, it is diilicult to understand 

 why he considers fungi when they do ha])pen to be present as the 

 forerunners of the bacteria. It would appear as though Dr. Fred- 

 holm had called the accompaniment of the disease (fungi in this case) 

 the cause of the disease, assigning the real cause of the trouble, 

 bacteria, to a secondary position. The fact that bacteria both alone 

 and with fungi can cause the trouble, while fungi only in connection 

 with bacteria can produce a similar effect, seems to the writer to 

 demonstrate the primary importance of bacteria. That other organ- 

 isms may subsequently infect trees diseased with bacteria is of com- 

 paratively little importance, while it is of the utmost importance 

 to determine the sole and primary cause of the soft, putrid condition 

 in the crown. 



The factors rendering trees specially susceptible to this bacterial 

 rot can not be described now. Only enough has been ascertained 

 to indicate that the bacterial disease is induced by certain condi- 

 tions; whether they be insect injuries or unhealth}" conditions of the 

 tree has not yet been determined. 



From the nature of the disease itself, in that it is a soft rot, strong 

 arguments may also be advanced against the probability of its being 

 due to unsuitable soil, chmate, insects, or fungi. In no case, so far 

 as the writer knows, has a soft rot of tissues been demonstrated to 

 be due to any condition whatever other than to a few fungi and to 

 bacteria. In the case of fungi it seems to the writer that the only 

 claims to their being the cause of tliis rot in question have been suffi- 

 ciently disproved. 



Others have maintained that certain bacteria are the cause. Only 

 two of these investigators have indicated at all the organism thought 

 to produce the rot. Dr. Davalos (p. 39) isolated in 1886 what he 

 claimed to be Bacillus amylobacter , which he believed to be the cause 

 of the soft rot. He, however, has published no series of experiments 

 to prove this belief. Dr. Plaxton (p. 39) showed to the Institute of 

 Jamaica in 1891, under the microscope, slides of a micrococcus. He 

 believed this micrococcus to be the cause of the rot of the crown, 

 without, however, publishing any experiments to demonstrate the 

 truth of his idea. 



It seems to the writer that the symptoms of bud-rot are sufficiently 

 characteristic to distinguish it at once from any other known malady 

 of the coconut palm. If such indications as a falling of the immature 

 nuts, a blackening of the flower spikes, a wilting of the central un- 

 folded leaves, and a soft, putrid condition in the heart are mentioned 



228 



