476 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY [Vol. 3 



side and end and side wormy, or, in other words, there was a reduc- 

 tion in the number of side or end and side wormy of nearly 6.3% 

 from that in plot 1, resulting in the almost total elimination of end 

 wormy fruit. 



Comparisons with similar plots in series 2 show that the yield per 

 tree in plot 1 ranged from 884 to 1,928, the percentage of sound 

 fruit varying from 77.96 to 85.52, while the number of wormy apples 

 ran from 163 to 365, or an average of 243 wormy apples per tree. 

 Fifteen and nine-tenths per cent of the total were side wormy or end 

 and side wormy, the latter being practically a negligible quantity. 

 In plot 2 the yield per tree was from 134 to 2,258. The percentage 

 of sound fruit ranged from 79.09 to 86.94, while the number of wormy 

 apples varied from 28 to 302, or an average of nearly 202 per tree. 

 Fourteen and eight-tenths per cent were side wormy or end and side 

 wormy. It will be seen at once that these two series present a marked 

 contrast to each other. 



The data obtained from plot 3 of series 2 are of interest largely 

 because they give a definite basis for estimating the value of delayed 

 spraying or one spraying given at the time the codling moth larvae 

 are entering the apples, namely about three weeks after the dropping 

 of the blossoms. The number of apples per tree in this plot varied 

 from 315 to 1,708. The percentage of sound fruit ranged from 36.19 

 to 78.39, while the number of wormy fruit per tree ran from 201 to 

 811, an average of nearly 540 per tree, or practically twice as many 

 as were found on either plots 1 or 2. Taking the check trees as a 

 standard, this one apphcation reduced the wormy apples by 27.70%, 

 which should be compared with the reduction made by one early 

 application, namely 52.43%. Using either the actual number of 

 wormy apples or the percentage, it will be seen that this late spraying 

 was only about one half as effective as one earlier. 



The results in series 3 emphasize the difficulty of securing even a 

 moderate percentage of sound fruit when there is a very small crop. 

 Furthermore, we find a markedly higher percentage of wormy apples 

 on the Mackintosh trees, though the Wealthy were interspersed. 



We alluded earlier to the very satisfactory percentages of sound 

 fruit obtained last year, yet the individual trees on two plots sprayed 

 but once produced from 41 to 111 and 36 to 80 wormy fruit respec- 

 tively, an average for each of 60 and 50, whereas plots 1 and 2 in 

 series 1 of 1910, while producing a markedly smaller percentage of 

 sound fruit, bore from 9 to 44 and 5 to 28 wormy apples, an average 

 for these plots respectively, of 29 and 15 per tree. Percentage com- 

 parisons, while in the main accurate, by no means tell the whole story. 

 For example, in plot 1, series 1, one tree produced 9 wormy fruit, 



