PEACH YELLOWS. 285 



If it did, it would, as Mr. La Fleur states, be good proof of the contagious 

 nature of yellows. 



I have presented as strong an array of testimony in favor of this belief as 

 I could find, yet, in a scientific sense, it must be confessed to be stronger by 

 virtue of the names cited than by the circumstantial nature of the state- 

 ments. In studying these statements critically it seemed to me there were 

 broken links in the chain of evidence, and chances for error. Most of the 

 statements left much to be desired in the matter of detail, as to when, 

 where, and under just what circumstances these results were obtained. I 

 was the more inclined to doubt some of these statements from the well known 

 fact that errors often pass current from writer to writer, unchallenged for 

 decades, especially when first expressed dogmatically by some strong man. 



My own experiments were begun with a view to throwing light on some of 

 the uncertain points, especially on the question of ^vhether the disease could 

 be transmitted from inserted buds to healthy stocks. I had no well estab- 

 lished belief that the inoculations would succeed, but had a strong desire to 

 confirm or invalidate the statements already made. Every precaution was 

 taken to avoid sources of error. I collected the buds myself from the trees 

 which bore premature red spotted peaches and the characteristic diseased 

 shoots ; carried them to the nurseries ; watched the qperation of budding ; 

 and staked off and recorded the location of the trees. The nurserymen on 

 whose grounds these trees were budded also made proper entries in their 

 books so that when the trees were removed there could be no possible mis- 

 take. The examinations in 1888 were made by myself unless otherwise 

 stated. 



The inoculations were made in August and Septenber, 1887, in Maryland 

 and Delaware. Nearly one thousand healthy trees, five or six months old, 

 were inoculated with the diseased buds as in ordinary budding, and five 

 hundred similar trees were reserved unbudded for comparison. Iq the spring 

 of 1888 part of these trees were sent to experiment stations or private indi- 

 viduals, and the rest were left in the nurserv rows. 



When examined in June, 1888, lot III gave evidence of disease, but owing 

 to the fact that all of the trees were badly dried in transit and had made but 

 a feeble growth, I did not feel like using this lot as the basis for argument, 

 unless further developments should fully warrant me in doing so. Not hav- 

 ing seen these trees since June, I am unable to report exactly their presept 

 condition. The same remark applies to lots IV and VI, which I have not 

 seen since they were budded. 



Neglecting, therefore, all trees which were unfortunately dried in transit, 

 or were not personally examined, or in which the disease may have been 

 derived from the stock, we have left for special consideration in this connec- 

 tion lots I and II. These give unequivocal results. 



Lot I, inoculated with buds from characteristic shoots of robust young trees 

 in the first year of the disease, was left in the nursery where budded. The 

 trees were budded in August, 1887, and were examined in August and Novem- 

 ber, 1888. Most of the inserted buds "took," but only about one-fourth of 

 them grew. Some of these buds developed into shoots which appear to be 

 healthy, and some into diseased shoots. In a few cases the inserted bud 

 developed in a normal way, but the stock became diseased. This was also 

 the case with some stocks on which the inserted bud " took " but did not 

 grow. The infection, whatever it may be, was transmitted from the bud to 



