PROCEEDINGS OF THE ANNUAL MEETING 133 



Prof. Waito: Well, I spend a great deal of time in the orchards, you 

 know, and out among the trees. 



Mr. Morrill: Your specialty is studying diseases? 



Prof. Waite: Yes. Well. \\c have to study health and disease as well. 

 We study both the physiology and the pathology. It is one great ques- 

 tion-mark in my mind whether we know positively of cases of bud 

 variation. Those cases in which the theory is best proved are in case 

 of variegated plants. There are variegated sports, variegated branches, 

 which of course originated from buds on certain plants that have ap- 

 peared on a normal green specimen and have been cajjable of propaga- 

 tion. Bud variation means a permanent variation, not a mere variation 

 according to the conditions of the year, iiud variation, as ordinarily 

 used, means a permanent, inherent dillerence in the individual branch 

 or the buds upon it, but even in case of the bud variation of variegated 

 plants, that a-lone would not settle the question definitely, because we 

 have not yet fully mastered the subject of variegated plants. We 

 do not know precisely the nature of those variegated leaves, and it is 

 not altogether certain but they represent a case of disease. There are 

 several things which can produce a rusty surface to apples the out- 

 side skin of which is normally smooth. Frost, when the apple is very 

 young, is supposed to do it, but one thing that often produces it is the 

 action of a small mite, an exceedingly minute insect, that produces rust. 

 I had a rusty pear sent to me last week, with the explanation that it 

 grew on the side of a tree next to a russet apple tree. I think it was 

 simply a case of this mite. There are sometimes whole trees covered 

 with such rusty pears, caused by the mite. I simply mention this to 

 show you how these outside things cause jjeople to be misled; and the 

 possibility of these things that sometimes we can explain and some- 

 times we can not, is all the time throwing cold water on the bud variation 

 theory. Now, I have been propagating a few apples, pears, and peaches 

 lately; and the question came to me directly, what shall I do in my own 

 case for trees that I want to grow myself? Well, I answered it for 

 myself in this way: I am going to get my buds and my scions from the very 

 best trees that I can find, from which I can get horticulturists to send 

 me scions. I wrote to my horticultural friends, and got them in that 

 way so far as possible, from the very best trees, for this reason: that 

 if there is any possibility of inherent variation in these scions, I wanted 

 to be on the safe side, and I think ]U'obably that is about the best a 

 practical man can do at present, if there is anything in bud variation, 

 to be sure he is on the safe side and get his scions and buds from the 

 very best bearing trees. If there is anything in it, I believe it will be 

 in this way. that it will be those minor differences, in regard to smooth- 

 ness perhaps of the fruit, slight differences in the shape of the fruit. 

 As was said in the paper, no two specimens of Baldwin apple. Bart- 

 lett pear, or Giffard pear are exactly alike, but the differences are only 

 slight ones of that sort, differences in fruitfulness, etc. There is no ques- 

 tion but there is a great deal of variation in the plants as we find them, 

 but the difficulty of cornering that down to bud variation is so great that 

 I have not any specific illustration to give you ujion it. 



Mr. Kellogg: This is mentioned very largely in Darwin's "Plants. 

 Animals, and Trees under Domestication.'" Prof. Bailey has mentioned 

 it. I think this whole thing shows lack of observation. I know that von 



