244 JOURNAL OP ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY [Vol. 2 



of the disease which caused the death of the Ben Davis, his collar rot. 

 He says: "As fast as a tree (Ben Davis) died, Mr. Nording replaced 

 it with a Jonathan in the same hole and so far has not lost a single 

 Jonathan." The same statement is made on page 146 of the Journal, 

 but the language is not so explicit. I state on page 6, Bulletin 131 : 

 "The varieties affected in this way are by no means confined to the 

 Ben Davis and Gano. The following varieties are also affected: 

 Spitzenberg, Early Harvest, Wolf River, Lawyer. Blacktwig, Bald- 

 win, Jonathan, Grimes Golden and Pewaukee, and without doubt other 

 varieties might be added if search w-ere made to find every variety af- 

 fected in this w^ay. The trouble also extends to pear trees, but I have 

 studied apple trees mostly." It is plain that I do not confine the 

 trouble to the Ben Davis, and the fact is that we have more sick Jona- 

 thans than of any other single variety, and the most pronounced in- 

 stances of corroded crowns, dead roots and darkened tissue are found 

 in this variety. 



To point out the effects of the admissions which Doctor Ball is 

 kind enough to make in recognition of some points of value in the bul- 

 letin or to point out further how he has failed to see the force of the 

 facts adduced (for instance, the relation between the presence of 

 soluble arsenical compounds in the soil and the effect of the soluble 

 sodic arsenite emptied into the ditch twelve feet from the tree) would 

 make this answer too long, but there are still some things which I am 

 justified in pointing out and that without the least personal feeling 

 in the matter. The whole tenor of the article lacks frankness and in 

 some respects is misleading, — for instance, that I spent too little time 

 in the field to justify me in entertaining an opinion. This is a point 

 on which he has no information. 



The fact is that this difficulty with the trees had been under observa- 

 tion for four or five years by Mr. Whipple and Professor Paddock, 

 the latter of whom, in particular, had repeatedly taUved with me re- 

 garding the matter, as he knew my views in regard to the probability 

 of danger from arsenical poisoning, and it was more than a year be- 

 fore the publication of Bulletin 131 that I began the actual field work. 



Doctor Ball in the original article refers to a careful investigation 

 that he made since the publication of Bulletin 131. This bulletin ap- 

 peared in July, was distributed not earlier than August, and Doctor 

 Ball had scarcely had the time to make a careful investigation. I 

 have his own statement for it that this article was written in advance 

 of careful experimental work. I am sure that it was not his inten- 

 tion to mislead anyone but that his zeal for the cause of arsenical 

 spraying led him into making this unfortunate statement, unfortunate 



