36 



THE LANCASTER FARMER. 



t March , 



First, we will mention the "Maryland mar- 

 mot " (Arctomy''s mcrnaz). This is oicr local 

 species, called the "ground-hog," also called 

 locally, elsewhere, the "wood-chuck;'" but it 

 has various other names. In Canada it is 

 called the "marmot," or ground-hog, by the 

 English and Scotch, but the French Cana- 

 dians call it the "siffleur." At Hudson's 

 Bay it is called the "thick-wood badger; in 

 Eussian America, the "Tarbagan. " The 

 Creek Indians call it the "weenusk," and the 

 Chippewas, " kalh-hilla-kovang;" it is the 

 Quebee marmot of Pennant, and the marmot 

 de Canada of Butlon. Linnteus described it 

 under the scicntitic name of Mus monax, the 

 same genus to which the common rat belongs. 

 Gmelin placed it in the genus ^rctom's, which 

 is, Uterally interpreted, "bear-rat." It had 

 also other names. 



At least seven species of Arctomys, or 

 "ground-hogs," were known to the territory 

 of the United States forty years ago, and by 

 this date many otliers may have been added. 

 Most of them, however, have been referred 

 to other, or new genera. One species in Lan- 

 caster county, as previously stated, is usually 

 referred to in books as the "Maryland mar- 

 mot," probably because the specimen from 

 which the original description was made was 

 captured in Maryland and supposed to exist 

 nowhere else. Then there is the Quebec mar- 

 mot (A empretie) which was somehow once 

 confounded with ours, but now supposed to 

 be a distinct species, Franklin's marmot (A. 

 jPranKnui), Tawny marmot (A. Richardsonii), 

 prairie marmot {A.ludovicianits), Parry's mar- 

 mot {A. Faryii), and Hood's marmot (A. tra- 

 decmiUneata). These specimens vary in size 

 from that of our common red squarrel up that 

 of our common "possum." About ten years 

 ago we had a specimen of "Hood's marmot " 

 sent to us from Missouri by mail, enclosed in 

 a tin mustard box. It was late in Autumn 

 and it was eight days on the way, but within 

 half an hour after the box was opened in a 

 warm room, tlie animal revived, and became 

 as active as if nothing unusual had happened 

 to it. It was very pugnacious, and would re- 

 sent promptly any disturbance of its repose. 

 It ate very sparingly of chestnuts, and as 

 soon as the temperature lowered towards 30^ 

 or4CP it would relapse into its torpid state. 

 This species has been removed to the genus 

 sperrnophihis. It finally escaped and was never 



recaptured. 



^ . — 



PENNSYLVANIA FRUIT GROWERS. 

 A special meeting of the Executive Com- 

 mittee of the Pennsylvania Fruit Grower's So- 

 ciety was held at the Stevens House, Monday 

 morning, March 1st. The president, Judge 

 Greorge D. Slitzel, of Reading; vice president, 

 Henry M. Englc, of Marietta, and recording 

 secretary, E. 15. Engle, of Marietta, were 

 present, the former presiding. The only bus- 

 iness transacted was the appointing of com- 

 mittees for the ensuing year, which are as 

 follows. 



General Fruit Committee — E. Satterthwait, 

 Montgomery county, chairman; A. R. Sprout, 

 Lycoming county; Joseph Lewis, Jr., Dela- 

 ware county; Dr. James Calder, Centre 

 county; J. O. Martin, Franklin county; W. 

 M. Paunebacker, Mittlin county;.!. V. Gar- 

 retson, Adams county; S. Stevenson, Lacka- 

 wanna county; Bassler Boyer, Lebanon 

 county; T. A. Woods, Dauphin county; J. W. 

 Pyle, Chester county; A. S. Shreiner, North- 

 ampton county; Casper Hiller, Lancaster 

 county; Peter Lint, York county; A. S. 

 Sheller, Union county; W. L. Schaeffer, Phil- 

 adelphia; J. Murdoch, Allegheny county; H. 

 S. Rupp, Cumberland county; Cyrus T. Fox, 

 Berks county; U. Leh, Lehigh county; F. F. 

 Merceron, Columbia county. 



Committee on Nomenclature-Josiah Hoopes, 

 Chester county, chairman; L. S. Reist, Lan- 

 caster county; J. Hibbert Bartram, Chester 

 county; S. VV. Noble, Montgomery county; 

 Ezra High, Berks county. 



Committee on Floriculture and Arboricul- 

 ture — Charles H. Miller, Philadelphia, chair- 

 man; P. C. HUler, Lancaster county; John C. 



Hepler, Berks county; George Achelis, 

 Chester county; R. B. Haines, Montgomery 

 county. 



Committee on Orcharding — Thomas M. 

 Harvey, Chester county; Dr. .1. II. Funk, 

 Berks county; J. G. Engle, Lancaster county; 

 II. F. Clark, Columbia county; Jacob Hey- 

 ser, Franklin county. 



Committee on Entomology — S. S. Rathvon, 

 Lancaster, chairman; Jacob Stauffer, Lancas- 

 ter; Herman Strecker, Berks. 



Committee on Arrangement and Reception 

 — E. G. Fahnestock, Adams county, chair- 

 man; Raphael Sherfly, Adams; Messrs. Stable, 

 of Adams; Hereter, of Adams and E. B. 

 Engle, of Marietta, Lancaster county. 



^ 



THE STATE FAIR. 



The State Agricultural Society. 

 President W. S. Bissel, John McDowell, of 

 Washington county; J. L. Norris, of Susque- 

 hanna county; Dr. A. L. Kennedy, of Phila- 

 delphia; Elbridge McConkey and D. W. 

 Seller, of Harris burg, members of the Penn- 

 sylvania State Agricultural Society, met at the 

 Girard House, Philadelphia, to arrange the 

 details for the State Fair and International 

 Sheep Show, to be held next fall at the Per- 

 manent Exhibition Building. The State Fair 

 will continue from the 6th to the 18th of 

 September, and will be followed by the Sheep 

 Show, which will close on September 2.5th. 

 The State Agricultural Society will offer pre- 

 miums aggregating 840,000, which will be 

 divided into classes as follows : Sheep, $8,000; 

 horses, S7,000; cattle, $8,500; swine, $3,000; 

 poultry, $1,000; dairy products, $1,500, and 

 the balance to machinery, fruits, seeds, etc. 



Contributions. 



t'OR The Lancasteb Fakmeb. 

 ABOUT GRAHAM BREAD. 

 An article on this subject appeared in the 

 New Era some time since from L. D. Z. and 

 was copied into the Lancaster Farmer, 

 of February, and commented upon to some 

 extent by the editor of the latter. As 

 there are generally two sides to questions, 

 it will be readily conceded to this, but the 

 broad and sweeping denunciation of the use of 

 Graham Bread by L. D. Z. is of too much 

 importance to pass without a reply. It is too 

 late to condemn an article of diet of so much 

 importance which most of the ablest physi- 

 cians and pysiologists of the present and for- 

 mer ages have pronounced superior to white 

 flour. Graham flour bread is especially rec- 

 ommended by physicians to invalids in many 

 and various cases, and if the thousands would 

 speak who have been greatly benefited or 

 cured by its use, such articles as the one refer- 

 red to would appear very insignificant. Such 

 articles are oft times written for buncomb 

 only, but may deter many a suffering invalid 

 from taking advantage of an article of 

 healthful diet by which he or she might be 

 greatly benefited, if not cured. I do not 

 claim that Graham bread would be a cure for 

 all the ills that "flesh is heir to," but bread 

 being considered the "stailof life" the gener- 

 al use of the article best adapted to the wants 

 of the human system would accomplish very 

 much in that direction; but so long as mankind 

 prefer to gulp down all the contents of 

 the drug shop instead of seeking relief in 

 hygienic living, invalids will be the rule, 

 instead the exception, as unperverted nature 

 intended it should be. L. D. Z. says young 

 children and feeble or irritable stomachs will 

 be injured by its use. Now if he could see all 

 the children that are fed on Graham instead 

 of white flour diet he might become an advo- 

 cate of the former, unless he is very obstinate 

 in his ideas. He also advises never to use 

 soda, saleratus or baking powder in the man- 

 ufacture of it, which is sound doctrine, but it 

 applies no more to Graham than to any other 

 flour. I shall not repeat the slang in the 

 close of his article, as such language is only 

 used in the absence of sound argument. 



Now, Mr. Editor, I know it is a little risky 

 to invade the editorial sanctum, as such have 

 the inside track so far as their paper is con- 

 cerned, but I know the editor of the Farmer 

 too well to suspect him of unfairness towards 

 his contributors. The editor of the Farmer 

 seems disposed not to condemn Graham 

 bread, but at the same time gives it several 

 pretty hard licks. I suppose he knew that 

 there are still a few Graham eaters about 

 that are not quite dead yet; he may have ex- 

 pected a review. He thinks he would never 

 learn to like it, having tasted it on several 

 occasions and felt as if it would make him 

 sick. This will not be disputed here, but 

 such cases are very common, and will apply 

 to a great many articles of food that are staples 

 of diet generally. That such is the case, it is 

 not at all strange, amid the abnormal condi- 

 tion of mankind generally; but let us get 

 upon a platform upon which we can all 

 stand. We must believe that man by nature 

 is in a natural or normal condition, and that 

 Deity has provided food in variety adapted to 

 such condition. Now if man cats food that 

 does not agree with him, where is the fault ? 

 Not in the food, if it is such as is by nature 

 intended for him, because it has not become 

 abnormal, then it follows that if proper food 

 does not agree with him he must be in an ab- 

 normal condition, and in such a case is not 

 capable of judging what is best for him. I 

 shall prove that a person may change his 

 habits and tastes to such an extent that he 

 can no longer relish simple and proper food, 

 and will feel uncomfortable unless it is doc- 

 tored up with articles that are not food, such 

 as salt, pepper, mustard, grease and a host of 

 other ingredients, neither of which he would 

 eat separately, while a person of simple habits 

 and unused to such diet could neither relish 

 such a mixture nor feel comfortable after 

 eating it. Now two such persons judging by 

 their tastes and feelings who is right. Both, 

 you may answer. But let us look up this mat- 

 ter of taste and feeling a little further and we 

 will find that habits will make such changes 

 as to bring about "a second nature," (if there 

 is such a thing, ) so that what was eaten with 

 a keen relish at one time can no longer be en- 

 joyed without increasing the condiments and 

 stimulants, and what was at one time nause- 

 ous is now taken with gratification. The use 

 of tobacco will furnish evidence of my asser- 

 tions. How few habitual tobacco users admit 

 that it does them injury, and are all out of 

 sorts when deprived of it for some time. 

 They judge by their tastes and feelings; are 

 these a sure criterion V Let us see. How 

 was it when they took their first quid or 

 smoked their first cigar? I need not tell 

 them now, their recollection of it is not for- 

 gotten. Now, Mr. Editor, please answer can- 

 didly, when was the system in the most 

 proper condition to judge what was proper to 

 be taken by it, then or now ? When was the 

 system most nearly normal, then or now ? I 

 have came to conclusion that a person who 

 could overcome his early disgust of tobacco, 

 go as now so greatly to enjoy it, might cer- 

 tainly, and with less perseverance, have 

 learned to enjoy simple Graham bread, and if 

 not the better, certainly not the worse for it. 

 He would certainly be less obnoxious when 

 coming in contact with persons who abhor 

 tlie fumes and fragrance of the weed. Once 

 more of Graham. Is it not an established 

 fact that the most eminent chemists and 

 physiologists say that the whole kernel of 

 wheat ground and eaten supplies the wants 

 of the human system better than white flour? 

 That the bran supplies material for the 

 healthful building of the body which flour 

 does not contain. The scare-crow that bran 

 is indigestible is no argument. If our food 

 were so concentrated as to be all digested the 

 system could not be sustained in a healthy 

 condition. The reason that bran is so objec- 

 tionable to some is owing to the method of 

 grinding, for to make best white flour the 

 bran must not be cut, but left as near whole 

 as possible, while to make best Graham meal 

 wheat should be ground on sharp burrs so as 



