l8 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM 



A study of the above tables discloses several very interesting facts. 

 In plot I there is not a very wide variation in the fruitage, the num- 

 ber of apples ranging from 114 in tree B to 627 in tree D. The 

 percentage of sound fruit varies from 85.38 per cent in tree E, with 

 its 171 apples, to 92.98 per cent in tree D, having a maximum yield 

 of 627 apples. Note that tree B had only 9 wormy fruit, nearly 

 8 per cent of the 114 ])roduced, while the most wormy apples were 

 found on trees C and D, each with 44 and forming, respectively, 

 9.93 and 7.02 per cent of the total product. Here, at least, the 

 percentage comparison is obviously unfair, since the two trees had, 

 as nearly as we can determine, a practically uniform infestation, 

 yet the percentage varies considerably, due simply to the larger 

 crop on one tree. There were no end wormy only on tree A, while 

 the maximum in this classification was 5 on tree C. The side wormy 

 range from 40 in tree D to 8 in tree B. It is perhaps significant that 

 8.6 per cent of the total fruit in this plot was side wormy, 7.5 per 

 cent of this being side wormy only. 



Plot 2 with its second poisoned application produced approxi- 

 mately 6 per cent additional sound fruit. This is nearly half a 

 barrel, or 171 apples. It is probable that the somewhat greater 

 yield of this plot, namely 2846 as compared with the 1839 of plot i, 

 iiad its influence in the production of a somewhat larger percentage 

 of sound fruit. It is interesting to note certain details. The mini- 

 mum tree C, wiih only 229 apples, produced 97.81 per cent of sound 

 fruit, while the maximum tree D, with 980 apples, yielded 97.95 

 per cent of sound fruit, a difference of only .06 per cent. Here 

 again we see the obvious injustice of a strictly percentage com- 

 parison, since C yielded only 5 wormy apples while D had 20, or, 

 in other words, supported four times as many codling moth larvae, 

 yet, owing to the disparity in fruiting, the percentage was prac- 

 tically identical. The minimum percentage of sound fruit was 

 93-93 pi'oduced by tree A yielding 462 apples, 28 of which were 

 wormy. The minimum number of wormy apples, five, was pro- 

 duced by tree C mentioned above. The number of end wormy 

 only ranges, among the individual trees, from nothing to 4, a total 

 of 6 for the plot, with only i end and side wormy. It will be seen 

 at once that only a little over 3.3 ])er cent of the apples in this p\ot 

 were either side or end and side wormy, or a reduction in the 



