1853. 



NEW KNGLAND PARMER. 



263 



say, then, that they are altogether pernicious, 

 when we see our peach branches sure to break 

 down without props, or unless much relieved of 

 their burden by our own hands, and when we may 

 be sure a superabundant and imperfect fruitage 

 would load our orchatds, if no worm-eaten apple 

 were dislodged from their branches. 



As to plum tree warts, my conjecture is, that as 

 they have not, so far as I know, been proved to be 

 produced by insects, they arise from the want of 

 the healthy deposition of the woody fibre, and that 

 this may result from obstructed circulation of the 

 sap, this being caused by deficiency of one or more 

 ingredients in the soil. Impeded circulation of sap 

 may cause an accumulation of it in particular 

 places, there forming the warts. If the conjecture 

 should be well founded, the desideratum would be 

 to ascertain what to apply to the soil around the 

 tree, to promote free circulation of the sap. I de- 

 sire vegetable physiologists to cast light upon the 

 subject if they can ; if such is the disease, what is 

 the cure 1 W e v/ould refrain from constant am- 

 putation of the trees, if a better course can be pre- 

 scribed. 



A young seedling peach tree began last spring 

 to send out long, curly, misshapen leaves, on cer- 

 tain branches, and where these grew, the branch- 

 es were distended, grew crooked, and stopped ex- 

 tending themselves. Free application of urine to 

 the root was followed by their recovery and healthy 

 growth. Hence I surmise that as the disease of 

 the peach tree yielded to this application, the same, 

 or phosphate of ammonia, or phosphate of lime, 

 might have the like effect upon the plum tree. 

 But fair experiments are better than conjectures or 

 surmises. J. Lee. 



'Salisbuiy, Conn., Feb. 8ik, 1853. 



P. S. Feb. 9th. Since writing the foregoing re- 

 marks, my conjecture as to the cause is much 

 strengthened, by examining two warty twigs from 

 a neighbor's plum tree. I have wanted a lens 

 however, to enable me positively to decide whether 

 there are any traces of a minute insect's work. 

 Two holes through the black coating of the largest 

 wart I traced with my knife carefully, and some 

 evidence of the dusty gnawings of a worm was in- 

 dicated for some distance, and a minute trace of 

 his course seemed discernible. Yet if a worm had 

 been at work, he might have sprung from an egg 

 deposited in the wart while young and growing, 

 and not be the original cause of it. The other 

 twig presented no discoverable symptom of this 

 kind. The diseased growth encompassed the twig 

 half round, the distance of about two inches in 

 length. It is evidently a fungus formation, shoot- 

 ing in layers from the wood of the twig, and ex- 

 tending sometimes nearly to its pith. A iittle be- 

 low the wart, the early stage of the disease is seen, 

 indicating that the bark had first cracked open 

 along the /twig, and then exudation of sap had 

 formed an incipient wart firmly attached to the 

 wood beneath. The healthy deposit of woody 

 fibre beneath the bark gives place to this curious 

 exhausting malformation, whatever may be the 

 peculiar predisposing cause. The knobs and wens 

 on oaks possibly are of a similar character, espe- 

 cially those found at times, upon their smaller 

 branches. The exuding gum of peach trees seems 

 incapable of producing a like effect, yet it extends 

 disease beneath the bark, by being forced out of 



its appropriate course. So, also, I find the inner 

 bark of the plum twig diseased some distance be- 

 low the wart. What I have thus stated, even if 

 I have formed a wrong opinion, may awaken in- 

 vestigation, and perhaps result in a clear explana- 

 tion of the subject, by some pen more competent 

 to the task. j. l. 

 • 



For the New England Farmer. 

 MONTHLY FARMER FOR APRIL. 



Did you ever write an article for the Farmer, 

 several pages of fiiir, legible manuscript — (of 

 course you would send no other to the printers, as 

 an honest man you would not, for they earn a liv- 

 ing by their profession, and when obliged to "take" 

 bad copy they lose time, patience, and money, too, 

 almost as directly as though it were "picked" 

 from their pocket by the careless writer ; and not 

 only do they receive all such excuses as "in haste," 

 "no time to re-write," "excuse my scribbling," 

 &c., most ungraciously, but they do sometimes say 

 hard words, very hard, about the writing and the 

 writer ; no, you never sent any such !) — but as I 

 was about to inquire, did you not experience some- 

 thing like disappointment when you saw how 

 small a space your article of several sheets of let- 

 ter-paper occupied, when printed? I have felt so 

 myself ; and this has set me a-thinking of the mass 

 of manuscript required to fill up a single number 

 of the monthly Farmer, whieh consists mainly of 

 original matter. 



But the amount is not all ; look a moment at 

 the variety of the "pile" of brain-dust that is 

 monthly coined into a circulating medium, at this 

 one mint. 



Besides all that is written by the editor, inclu- 

 ding reports of over fifty speeches or remarks at 

 agricultural meetings, and replies to some ten or 

 fifteen correspondents, by initials, in various parts 

 of the country, and a few choice selections, we 

 find, in the April number, in the order of its pages, 

 articles on various topics, from gentlemen who 

 have "subscribed themselves" as follows : — 



, (no signRture.) Silas Brown, Wilmington, 



F. Kyle, Chester Village. B. F. Conant, Lyme, N. II. 



Henry F.French, Exeter, N.H. S. F>, Winchester. 



G B. Clarke, Leonardsviile. H. D. W. 



E. C. L., Lebanon, Ct. Geo. B. Green, Windsor, Vt. 



Solon Uykc, Columbia, S. C. J. W. Proctor, Danvers. 



Bachelor. John Brooks, Princeton. 



Bow€n Barker, Hanson. J. Reynolds, Concord. 



.1. F. C. IL, Newton Centre. A. G. Comings, Mason, N. H. 



Benjamin Willard, Lancaster. John Merrill, Bristol, N. H. 



W. D. B., Concord. 



E Scott, Ludtow, Vt. 



W. Clift, Stouiiigton, Ct. 



W. B., Elmwood. 



B. 



L. S. IL, Norttiamptcn. 



J. W. Proctor, Danvers. 

 Young Farmer. 

 S. Tenny, Lewiston Fals. 

 3. W. Proctor, Danvers. 

 J. Reynolds, Concord. 

 J. A. S., Colebrook, Ct. 



One or two thoughts are suggested by the fore- 

 going list. 



First, that mere initials deprive an article of 

 much of that force and reliableness of character, 

 which the name in full, and place of residence, of 

 the writer, confer upon his production. 



Secondly, that the names enumerated show the 

 impropriety of holding the editor responsible for 

 all opinions that may be advanced in the columns 

 of the Farmer. One would suppose that the print- 

 er sufficiently distinguished the editorials from the 

 communications, and both from the selections, to 

 prevent doubt or confusion. The editorial is al- 

 ways "leaded," by which the lines are so separa- 

 ted as to give it an open appearance, while the 



