338 ANNUAL, REPORT OF THE Off. Doc. 



The CHAIRMAN: Next in order is the appointment of the Com- 

 mittee on Credentials. I will name on that committee, Messrs. Herr, 

 of Clinton; Bly holder, of Armstrong; Schwarz, of Monroe; Glover, 

 of Union, and McCreary, of Lawrence. They will please examine 

 the credentials of the members, and report to us later in the day. 



The CHAIRMAN: We are now ready to receive the reports 

 of Specialists and Standing Committees. The first in order, is 

 the report of Prof. Buckhout, Botanist; is he in the room? 



The SECRETARY: Prof. Buckhout is not present in person; but 

 I wish to say that I have his report. It is for you to say what shall 

 be done with it — whether it shall bo received, and read, or placed 

 on file to be published with the proceedings of this meeting. 



A Member: I move that this report be received and placed on 

 file. 



The motion being seconded, it was agreed to. 



The report is as follows: 



REPORT OF THE BOTANIST. 



By Prof. W. a. Buckhout, state College, Pa. 



My intercourse with the farmers of the State and with the State 

 Board of Agriculture has become scarcely more than that of a cor- 

 respondent in answer to inquiries upon matters of practice more 

 or less closely related to Botany. It is thus but little, if at all, 

 separated from Horticulture. Moreover, the subjects of inquiry 

 are for the most part simple and quite similar from year to year. 



But, in accordance with custom, I may say that the chief inquiries 

 have been plants sent-in for identification. None of these have been 

 out of the ordinary, and none presented any marked peculiarities. 

 They were mostly weeds, and sent as such, Vvith the request that 

 some efficient method of eradication was desired. 



It is unnecessary, and would be improfitable, to take your time 

 and mine in repeating the few simple points respecting weed de- 

 struction; the more so, since so many persons would still be uncon- 

 vinced as to their practicability, and unsatisfieJ to find that there 

 are no short and cheap methods which will help them out of a dilfi- 

 culty, generally of their own making, or their ov>m sufferance. 



Popular interest has been excited by accounts of the destruction 

 of the minor water-growths by copper sulpliat(% with the conse(]uent 

 purification of the water; and some have raised the query wlicthcr 

 the same treatment will not remove the more evident and bulky 

 water weeds, such as eel-grass, water cress, etc. In reply it should 

 be said that different kinds of plants are differently affected by 

 copper sulphate treatment, and hence no general direction can be 

 given which will fit every case. Rather must each case be specially 



