E. S. Salmon 



159 



Ref. no. OC 6. 1917, 1918: No mildew present, while OC 5 (?) and 

 OC 7 (?) were both mildewed S^ and S^ in those years respectively. 

 1919: OC 6 showed a trace of mildew; while OC 5 showed no mildew, 

 and OC 7 a trace of mildew. 1920 : No mildew present on OC 6, but a few 

 leaves showed signs of having repelled mildew attacks ; OC 5 was mil- 

 dewed S^ (OC 7 had been grubbed up). 



Ref. no. BB 5. 1918: A mere trace of mildew, while BB 4 {^) and 

 BB 6 (c?) were both mildewed S^. 1919: No mildew present on BBS 

 (BB 4 and BB 5 had been grubbed up). 1920: A trace of mildew. 



Ref. no. OA33. 1917, 1918: No mildew present, while OA 32 (?) 

 was mildewed S^ in both seasons. 1919: Both OA 33 and OA 32 were 

 mildewed S^. 1920 : A minute trace of mildew on OA 33 (OA 32 had been 

 grubbed up). 



Ref. no. OD 17. 1917, 1919: This seedhng showed considerable re- 

 sistance to mildew, producing a good crop of healthy cones, while its 

 two neighbours OD 16 and OD 18, growing on either side and so close 

 that lateral shoots intertwined, were so severely infected that practically 

 every cone was diseased. 1918: A mere trace of mildew in the cones, 

 while the crop of OD 16 and OD 18 was destroyed by mildew. 



Summarising the histories of the above seedlings, we find that two 

 seedhngs, OC 6 {^) and BB 5 (?) have varied in susceptibility in the hop- 

 Table V. 



