486 



DOMESTIC NOTICES. 



countable for the blioht in iiij' trees. I think I am 

 pretty well acquainted with the habits and customs 

 of the Scolytus pyri, and I know pretty well, too, 

 how much of the disease to give them credit for ; 

 and I am certainly not a little surprised that you 

 should have given me that reference, with my four 

 cases before you. To combat Mr. Ernst's position, 

 that " the idea is mostly abandoned that any form 

 of blight is caused by insects," I did not choose to 

 refer him to the ravages of the Scolytus p)'ri) for 

 you had done that in the December number ; but I 

 undertook to inform him, and others, that there was 

 another insect at work , destroying our trees, and I 

 referred to the lour cases to prove it. That I dis- 

 covered the insects on the Jiartlett limb only, is 

 true ! but from evidence satisfactory to my mind, — 

 as the peculiar appearance which the disease indu- 

 ces being apparent on the small end of the hmb 

 on which the vermin were — the presence of the nau- 

 seous odor which the blight affected limbs always 

 have — when the end of the stem was cut off, and the 

 same odor being very strong when the vermin were 

 crushed between the fingers — I am convinced that 

 that species of vermin stung, and injected a poison 

 into the tender young wood of all the cases noted. 

 Those cases, in my opinion, could no more have 

 been caused by Scolytus pyri, (which lays its eggs 

 one year, and the effects of which — after its trans- 

 formation into grubs and beetles — is not seen until 

 the next,) than by either frozen or scalded sap ; for 

 you must remember, that it was on the extreme end 

 of the new shoots that the disease was tirst seen. 

 It may be asked — if the species of insect, noticed on 

 the Bartlett branch, poisoned the three first trees 

 noted, why were the vermin not seen on those trees ? 

 To this I would reply, — the small size and the shy 

 habit of the animal is probably one reason ; and ano- 

 ther, — being unsuspicious of such cause, the trees 

 were not examined very early, in the cool of the 

 morning, when they migl'.t have been found chilled, 

 as they were on the Bartlett tree. 



To my mind. you do not satisfactorily answer the 

 question, of — "why is it that trees of a bearing age, 

 as a general rule, are the only ones affected by the 

 disease, which tirst shows itself on the body of a 

 large branch, or the trunk of a tree ?" You say, 

 that " a mild winter, with sudden changes, is more 

 fatal to a tender-barked tree than one of uniform low 

 temperature." That, I will not dispute ; but to my 

 mind, it does not account for the peculiar effect of 

 this disease on the older, in preference to the young- 

 er trees ; for adjoining, and indiscriminately mixed 

 among the large diseased trees, were small ones — 

 ten to one — not at all affected by any other disease 

 than that caused by the insect alluded to above. 

 The fact, too, that you have seen hundreds of young 

 two year old trees killed down to the ground by 

 what you denominate frozen sap-blight, does not, to 

 me, any more satisfactorily account for it. I am 

 quite well aware, as I informed you in my last, — 

 for I have had numerous cases, — that the young 

 trees are frequently, as it were, burned black by the 

 effect of a hot sun on the frozen bark, — but this is 

 not the blight alluded to ; this effect is noticed at 

 the time ; that peculiar disease never, until the tree 

 is in leaf, as far as my observation goes. Again, 

 the bark of the young tree, when injured, never puts 



on the peculiar appearance that the diseased bark 

 of the older tree does ; the bark of the young tree 

 appears black and shrunken immediately ; but that 

 of the older one goes through regular stages of dis- 

 ease. 



You say that your observation leads you to coin- 

 cide with Mr. Ernst in excepting the Seckel, usu- 

 ally, from its attacks. I certainly hope that the 

 public generally may be able, from experience, to 

 arrive at the same conclusion ! You account for the 

 appearance of the disease in my Seckels, by saying 

 that — " When a disease occurs in a neighborhood, 

 in a more than usually malignant form, individuals 

 usually exempt often fail victims to it." Unless 

 you wish us to consider that you intend to be under- 

 stood as referring this disease to a malignant cause, 

 that axiom will not apply ; for if the cause, without 

 being malignant, was so severe as to injure and kill 

 trees not usually liable to its attacks, would it not, 

 in all probability, have attacked all that were usu- 

 ally liable to it also ? But such was not the fact. 

 Blood goods, Easter Beurres. Duchesse d'Angou- 

 lemes, and many other varieties, were killed or ma- 

 terially injured, while trees of the same varieties, 

 under similar circumstances, in the same rows, only 

 fifteen feet apart, were not at all injured. Secktls 

 were no more exempt with me than any other va- 

 rieties ; and I perceive, by a late Genesee Farmer, 

 that Mr. Barry, its horticultural editor, has had 

 like experience. I am certainly sorry that we can- 

 not except Seckels here from the disease ! And I 

 only mention the fact to guard growers of the pear ; 

 for should they, without abundant proof, take it for 

 granted that this variety is exempt from the disease, 

 and go to planting extensively, they might by-and- 

 by suffer loss therefrom. 



The fact is, that this particular form of blight — 

 that which first appears on the trunk or body of a 

 large branch — is of a character so peculiar that I do 

 not intend, without further observation, to commit 

 myself to any particular theory for its cause. None 

 of those heretofore advanced are satisfactory to my 

 mind. We can, as yet, only treat the disease as 

 we do epidemics when they come upon us " unseen 

 and unheard ;" but we may, by experimenting with 

 limewash or other innocent articles, sooner or later, 

 learn what will prevent its recurrence, (if it is not 

 a malignant epidemic disease,) and consequently 

 infer the cause of it. Yours very truly. Herman 

 Wendell. Albany, February 4, 1848. 



P. S. March 6th, 1848.— The only reply which I 

 consider necessary to make to that part of Mr. 

 Ernst's letter, in the last Horticulturist, alluding 

 to my cases, is to refer him to the above article, in 

 which he will perceive, that I attribute the cause of 

 the injury to the two trees mentioned by him, viz., 

 the Bergamot d'Espereu and the Colmar d'Arem- 

 berg, to the sting of the vermin there described, 

 and the injection by them of poisonous matter into 

 the tender extremities of the new branches, and 

 not to attacks of the Scolytus pyri. H. W. 



Remarks. — Dr. Wendell's observations and opi- 

 nions, on this subject, are so totally different from 

 our own, that we are unwilling to comment any fur- 

 ther upon them. We print his letter above verba- 

 tim ; and since we have lately stated repeatedly 

 our own views on this disease, we leave the matter 



