Tomato Notes fob 1892. 293 



There are no constant variations in these figures, and apparently 

 Dotidng to show that the cultivation exerted any influence upon 

 rot. If these Various treatments determine tO" any extent the 

 prevalence of rot, the results were prohably obscured this year 

 because rot was everywhere very slight in our plantations. 



Following is a record of the amount of fruit-rot in different varie- 

 ties grown this year. 



Table XXIII.— Fruit-Rot in Varieties. 



Per cent 

 rot. 



Ignotum 7.0 



Long Keeper 7.1 



Niohol No. 5 5.2 



Trophy 7.0 



Plentiful 8.1 



Telegraph 16.0 



Belmont 10.0 



Koyal Eed 5.5 



Picture Rock ' 3.2 



Yellow Plum 1-2 



The amount of rot is not great except perhaps in Telegraph 

 and Belmont, and it is probably not chargeable to the pecularities 

 of the given varieties, except in the instance of the Yellow Plum. 

 In Table XXII, above, all the entries are Ignotum, and it will be 

 seen that the figures run from 3.7 to 16.6 per cent. 



Altogether, therefore, we are able to di*aw no definite conclu- 

 sions from this year's studies of fruit-rot, largely, perhaps, because 

 the disease was not sufliciently severe to emphasize itself in par- 

 ticular treatments. 



17. Southei'n or Field Blight. — The accompanying illustration 

 sihows a trouble which was serious upon some of our tomatoes this 

 year. The leaves become dull or slightly yellowish and curled 

 as if suffering from drouth, and the ends or individual leaflets 

 sihiivel and di-oop and finally become dry and black. The upper- 

 most leaf in the engraving shows the shiivelled, dead and spindling 

 extremity in a characteristic manner; and the lowest leaf shows 



