ENnbDoTHIA CANKER OF CHESTNUT 609 
who considered they had a specific for the control of the canker. One of 
the writers of this bulletin served as a member of the Board of Review 
(Penn. Chestnut Tree Blight Com., 1914) which passed on the records 
of these tests as well as on those of the fertilizer tests. The report of 
the board stated that not one of the treatments had affected in the least 
the rate of growth of the cankers. In a large number of cases, only single 
very small cankers were present on the trees at the time of treatment, 
so that the tests were fair. 
Many methods of tree medication have been brought forth by quacks 
since the chestnut canker began its ravages. The Pennsylvania Com- 
mission furnished trees for testing these methods to all who applied 
for a test to be made of their specific. As mentioned above, these all 
failed to produce the desired effect. 
Dr. C. Rumbold (Penn. Chestnut Tree Blight Com., 1913:45-47) has 
been working on the effect of different substances injected into the chest- 
nut, but as yet has reported no successful results. 
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TIMBER OWNERS IN NEW YORK STATE 
The warning may well be repeated against planting chestnut anywhere 
for orchard or ornamental purposes. The speedy utilization of all diseased 
trees may serve as a local temporary control measure if carefully carried 
out. However, as it is now apparent that little can be done to control 
the disease, the consideration of the best means of utilizing the: present 
stand is important to the timber owner (Nellis, 1914). 
Three separate conditions exist in New York State at present: (1) in 
the Hudson River valley, conditions exist varying from total destruction 
to more or less numerous spot infections; (2) in the Roundout and 
Delaware River valleys, spot infections are numerous and probably but 
little damage has been done to the trees as a crop; (3) west of the 
Delaware River valley, spot infections are few and of small extent. It is 
important, then, to consider what can be done in these different sections 
_in order to minimize the damage. 
In the Hudson River valley it is a question of speedy utilization of 
dead and dying trees for the most part. This is a necessity for two 
reasons: (1) in order to obtain profit for the owner which will otherwise 
be decreased, and (2) in order to rid the section of this disease- and insect- 
breeding material. The owner will undoubtedly find some more or less 
profitable market for the greater part of the accessible timber now going 
to waste, if he makes a study of his local conditions. He may also obtain 
information from the federal and state departments. The importance of 
ridding the country of the dead material, which will é6therwise become 
a breeding-place for other fungi and insects, cannot be overestimated. 
