THE ENEMIES OF COFFEE: -—WHITE GRUB. 229 
in it, it has consolation for those already afflicted ; and 
conveys & warning message to those yet more fortunate, 
not to stand idly by, but to have their eyes open, lest 
the enemy come upon thew unawares. 
WILLIAM JARDINE, 
Secretary of Committee. 
——— 
GRUB AND THE COFFEE TREE. 
Mr. Dixon does not hold that the white grub con- 
fines itself to feeding on a fungus growing on the 
roots of the coffee tree, or that it abstains from 
attacking the rootlets themselves; but he does hold 
that they only attack weakly diseased trees, roots, or 
rootlets, which have already begun to suffer from other 
causes such as fungoid growths, sour soil, or bad 
tillage. Our correspondent ‘‘ Planter” and other writers 
will be interested to learn that Mr. Dixon disposes 
of the difficulty about the ‘‘mandibles” very readily 
by pointing out as a scientific naturalist that the 
mandibles have very little to do with the feeding 
qualifications of the grub: they are fingers for hold- 
ing, rather than teeth and jaws for grinding and masti: 
cating. A provision for the latteris made quite inde- 
pendently of the mandibles in the grub. We are, of 
course, bound to listen with respect to the results 
of Mr. Dixon’s observations so far as they extend, 
chiefly in the Kotagaloya valley and along the sides 
of Great Western in Dimbula, and to conclude that, 
where he found grub in this quarter on or near to the 
coffee, there existed evidence to his mind of the trees 
suffering from other causes. We understand that he 
found the same grub luxuriating in old decaying forest 
trees and stump;, or in banks in which no coffee grow, 
results which he will no doubt adduce in support of 
his theory. But at the same time he has unquestion- 
ably a great deal of experience and observation to 
combat and overcome before he convinces the Ceylon 
planting community that the white grub does no harm 
to healthy well cultivated coffee trees. We have al- 
ready quoted Mr. Nietner’s description and remarks, 
and he was a planter of exceptional experience and 
fairly good powers of observation as well as:an entomo- 
logist. We may repeat the note which he added in 
1872 to the second eddition of his pamphlet on “ The | 
Enemies of Coffee Tree” to shew what he had to say 
from personal observation :— 
*‘Note in 1872—Since writing my first note, I have 
seen a good deal of the ravages of the White Grub. 
On an estate in my neighbourhood a gang of coolies 
T 
