THE 
DECEMBER 26, 1874 ] 
GARDENERS’ 
— 
frmly was no s small achievement. So acute a botanist 
Lindley quite rejected the fungus hypothesis, and it 
er- 
will be seen from following extract Mr, 
keley’s paper that it had not the support of Montagne: 
‘ f phen = described above is a 
ery i e connection between” 
o show intim 
Eie anit the disease, go dingly the notion at 
iin ni io 
INAVIANTt NV AO LNAWTTILLAS—'IQI ‘ÐI 
€ 
í 
GAIN VYJAACVW AHL NO YOLOATION wad 
the disease is the effect of the parasite has met ee 
3elgium. Monsi 
ccords with 
becoming 
hare of philosophic doubt 
authorities are ranged upon 
the opposite side, 
be y 4. nunica- 
um upon the su vje” he expressly 
eater his dai as to the true cause of the disea 
STN eal 
though at the pres Jya he admitted its intimate con- 
nection po parasitic fungi.” (P. 18. 
What tl ee pacs 
the ene ay be I am unable to say, should 
infer from his papers anblished at = y> of 1845 in 
the Bull, Aca i rae, t. Xil, t had only 
ascertain ie y of the sake produced from 
he tubers laterthan Mr. Berkeley a a no doubt 
he was acquainted with that upon the leaves earlier. 
With regard to the two kinds of pth I never stated 
on of pie in the history of 
CATR Beed CUES: 
Mdi Ta gia 
r 
that Mr. Berkeley ‘ said ” ing about 
only pee eae that his ae Ż ponte established “2 
their existence, And so it does, in the light of our 
poi wledge. With respect to Mr. Carruthers’ 
statement, that in a letter in A ure, on November 26, 
I held up the ‘‘ botanic referee” of the Agricultural 
Society to ridicule, I can only express my regret that 
he should have viewed my remarks in that light. I 
confess that I a dee A ne so able a botanist as the 
keeper of the Botanical Department in ‘the British 
M 
intended that the biba should in Wy way be held 
to cast ridicule on Mr. Carruthers himself. W. 7. 
Thiselton Dyer, 
