184 CROWN-GALL OF PLANTS. 



In reply to an inquiry, F. H. Simmons writes as follows (1910) con- 

 cerning crown gall in Arizona : 



There were 40 acres in the tract [probably Glendale orchard described by Professor 

 Toumey]. I think they were set in the fall of 1889, and I took charge in 1899. The 

 crown-gall was very bad on them, and in spring of 1897 there were cut and gathered 

 three wagonloads of the gall. The trees were treated with bluestone on all cut sur- 

 faces. This treatment was followed up each year with less galls until spring of 1902 

 there was less than a bushel basket of galls cut. The drought by this time having 

 made inroads on the trees the treatment was abandoned and part of the orchard pulled 

 out, scarcely a gall being found. * * * 



Trees badly affected seemed to have lost power of growth. There were practically 

 on the mesa 125 acres in all. With the exception of 10 acres, all the orchards were 

 badly affected, and about the year 1900 were practically out of business as a paying 

 proposition, and have been nearly all pulled out. 



Selb}'', of Ohio, reported to Toumey as follows: 



From observations made in Ohio there seems no reason to believe that peach trees 



affected with crown gall at transplanting age will ever come to successful fruiting. 

 * * * 



One orchard in Lawrence Coimty, containing 200 trees purchased in New Jersey, 

 was grubbed out at seven years of age without having borne a single profitable crop, 

 although other trees of like age situated near them had yielded fruit. These trees 

 were badly affected when delivered, and were nearly all of them diseased at the 

 time of removal. * * * Another parallel case occurred in Ottawa County. 



In 1908 Selby made the following statement: 



I do not recall a single instance out of many observed and recorded in which, the 

 tree surviving transplanting, the removal of the galls by excision served to prevent 

 the formation of new galls upon the same tree. Excision appeared to exert no influ- 

 ence whatever in the way of suppressing the trouble, and this irrespective of the loca- 

 tion of the excised galls; whether but a single gall upon a small root or more than one 

 gall on stem or root or both were removed and the wounds rubbed with sulphur, the 

 new galls constantly appeared later. This may be taken as showing a diseased 

 tendency of the plant tissues and this condition, this diathesis as it may be called, 

 can scarcely contribute to the longevity of the tree independent of cutting off the 

 water supply. 



Earle reported to Toumey as follows: 



Crown -gall is very abundant in Alabama on the peach and is sometimes found on 

 the plum. I consider it a very serious peach disease in Mississippi and Georgia, as 

 well as in this State. 



In 1892 Wickson, of California, wrote as follows: 



For some time many nurserymen followed the practice of removing the knots from 

 the trees as dug from the row, but this was abandoned when it was found that the 

 knot commonly reappeared after planting in the orchard. At present no reputable 

 nurseryman sells such trees; they are burned at the nursery. 



Probably during the last twenty years hundreds of thousands of such trees have 

 spindled and died in the best soil and with the best treatment. 



Wood worth, of California, reported to Toumey as follows: 



The crown gall occurs in California on all our deciduous fruit trees and on grapes. 

 It has been abundant and serious. 

 213 



