June, '09] journal of economic entomology 243 



from the insoluble compounds used in spraying." One would infer 

 from this statement, in fact in the original article he states, that ' ' the 

 entire district investigated by Doctor Headden is watered by irrigation 

 canals taken from this stream . . . " This is not correct. A 

 large part of the district investigated is not irrigated by Grand River 

 water. I have made several complete analyses of the Grand River 

 water and have never detected the presence of arsenic in it. As a 

 fact there is no smelter, very little milling, if any,- and only a very 

 little mining carried on, either on the Grand River or its tributaries, 

 above Grand Junction. But if the facts were in favor of his assump- 

 tion this would not apply to those cases where the water comes from 

 other sources, for instance from mountains where there are no known 

 ore bodies and where the melting snows furnish the water, which tlows 

 but a short distance through a section where there are no mines, no 

 mills of any kind, but simply volcanic and sedimentary rocks covered 

 with forests of aspens and cedars. This suggestion is wholly gratui- 

 tous and without a shadow of foundation. 



Doctor Ball diagnoses the affection of our trees and concludes that 

 thej^ are dying from a disease which he designates as "collar rot." 

 Doctor Ball states that I am not a horticulturist nor a plant patholo- 

 gist, but he evidently assumes to be both and to express an expert 

 and final judgment without knowing very much, if anything, about 

 the facts in the case. 



There is no resemblance between our corroded crowns and the King 

 disease, known as collar rot. Neither Mr. "Wliipple nor Professor 

 Paddock, who are by profession horticulturists and plant pathologists, 

 have been able to recognize this trouble as similar to any known 

 disease, though they have had it under observation for five or six years, 

 but Doctor Ball, who, so far as I know, has never seen a case of this 

 affection except in the collection of samples which I gathered and 

 used as the basis of Bulletin 131, passes judgment with a eonfidenee 

 which is refreshing. That he intends to assert the identity of the 

 Utah and Colorado conditions is evident from his conclusion an- 

 nounced in the following words: "The only conclusion that it seems 

 possible to draw from the facts cited is that arsenical poisoning can- 

 not be the primary cause of either one of the above described condi- 

 tions, and that therefore the main conclusion of Colorado Bulletin No. 

 131 is unwarranted." 



Doctor Ball in describing the conditions on which the above con- 

 clusion is based cites three orchards with which he is familiar, espe- 

 cially one belonging to Lars Nording of Hyrum. Utah. If this case 

 shows anything, it shows that the Jonathan is immune from the attack 



