LEGISLATION AND DISEASE 225 



tion of the bulb in such instances showed the presence of 

 living mycelium. 



Special stress is laid on the fact that tubers or bulbs 

 proved to contain the germs of a disease do not necessarily 

 ahvays develop that disease in their offspring, because 

 potato growers often discredit the statement that the 

 potato disease can be transmitted through the tubers. 

 Their argument is that on occasions healthy plants have 

 grown from obviously diseased tubers that have been 

 thrown on one side, and grown spontaneously. Un- 

 doubtedly so ; a fungus, like every other plant, has its 

 limitations, and under certain climatic conditions, favour- 

 able to the potato, and consequently unfavourable for the 

 fungus, the latter would be unable to assert itself. Not- 

 withstanding, it is not wise to plant potatoes or bulbs 

 known to be diseased ; the risk is great. 



It is not necessary to remind those who have paid atten- 

 tion to the cultivation of bulbous plants, of the danger 

 arising from the use of lily or snowdrop bulbs that have 

 been previously attacked by the fungus called Botrytis. 



Legislation has not dealt in any way with the source of 

 danger indicated above, neither is it conceivable how it 

 could do so. If attempted, to secure any prospect of 

 success, potatoes would have to* be cut into slices in search 

 for specks of browning, and the cushion of each bulb 

 would require to be examined microscopically. This 

 statement, of course, does not apply to potatoes and bulbs 

 only. 



A third source of danger of introducing new diseases 

 into distant countries is through the medium of living 

 plants and ripe fruit. 



In the case of fruit-trees, among the most destructive 

 p 



