June, '09] journal of economic entomology 245 



not only because it is misleading, but because it is in strong contrast 

 with his own statement, intended to apply to others as well as to my- 

 self, when he says : ' ' The entire matter is one that calls for careful 

 and exhaustive investigation and for cautious and guarded statements 

 of any kind until the results of these investigations are known. Hasty 

 and ill-advised statements with reference to the purity of arsenicals 

 have already done a great injury to the fruit industry in the inter- 

 mountain region." 



The conclusions which he draws are not justified by any facts ad- 

 duced. The fact that trees are killed by alkali water in Utah is no 

 proof that trees planted in well-drained ground in Colorado should not 

 die of arsenical poisoning. 



In his second conclusion he fails to recognize my statement regard- 

 ing the solubility of the arsenic in the soil. 



His third conclusion, relating to careful and exhaustive investiga- 

 tions, hasty and ill-advised statements, etc., is a reiteration of a re- 

 mark which I have already quoted several times and is one which any 

 one with an ordinary accpiaintance with the civilities of life will in- 

 terpret as being very severe and as indicating that Doctor Ball ex- 

 ercised himself to say something real authoritative. 



In conclusion I repeat : "I regret that I can see no other con- 

 clusion than that the corroding of the crowns, the killing of the bark, 

 the staining and final destruction of the woody fiber, the early ripen- 

 ing of the leaves, presaging the early death of the tree and its final 

 death a few months later, are caused by arsenical poisoning. ' ' 



I sha'll in the course of a few months present another bulletin on this 

 subject, which will show that Bulletin 131 is over-conservative on 

 every point touching the action of arsenic, especially in regard to the 

 systemic poisoning of our orchards. I can scarcely hope to be able 

 to distinguish clearly between the action of lime and arsenic and the 

 part that each may play. This statement is based on results already 

 obtained, which I sincerely wish were other than they are, but they 

 are so positive and serious that I venture to state that we must either 

 find some other still more insoluble arsenical compound than any 

 which has heretofore been iLsed or find some other substance with 

 which to combat the codling moth, or eventually render our trees so 

 short-lived as to curtail the profits of orcharding. 



