288 



The Supplement to the Tropical Agriculturist 



to mo samples of manure— special rubber mix- 

 ture — with fungi growing on them. True., they 

 were harmless fungi, but they serve to prove 

 the point. The fungus of the bleeding disease 

 is not likely to live on such a mixture : it re- 

 quires sugar. 



Some of those who witnessed the demonstra- 

 tions given recently were astonished at the 

 amount of excision required in the case of 

 young trees. There is no doubt that, as in the 

 case of cocoa canker, the lirst treatment will 

 entail a considerable amount of work : after- 

 wards it will become part of the ordinary 

 estate routine. The bleeding has been known 

 to occur for years but it has not been recog- 

 nised as a disease and has been allowed to 

 proceed unchecked. Even in last July the ex- 

 istence of a real disease was denied by the 

 majority of coconut planters. And even now 

 many appear to be waitiug for some one else to 

 do their work. Many people have rushed into 

 print over this disease without taking any 

 trouble to ascertain what has previously been 

 said or done. One cannot be always correcting 

 their mis-statements, but I think it is time that 

 some of them were pointed out. For example, 

 " we have today to regret that the Peradeniya 

 Department, although aware of the stem disease 

 for two or more years ago, took no steps to 

 study it or to warn the country against its pro- 

 pagation." Well, I knew of the bleeding in 

 May, 1906, and a full account of the disease as 

 far as practical details go, was written in Octo- 

 ber and appeared in December, 1906. It was 

 open to coconut planters to begin treating the 

 disease in the year in which it was first reported. 

 "Now it transpires that the industry is menaced 

 by a nut disease, and . . . Bud Rot, yet we 

 have not heard that the Botanic Department 

 has either studied or taken any steps to combat 

 them." The writer will find that a circular 

 calling attention to Bud Rot was issued in April, 

 1906, and every case reported to the depart- 

 ment has been visited immediately. I have 

 known of the nut disease for a month : it will be 

 investigated as soon as certain operations in con- 

 nection with the stem disease have been got into 

 Working order. "It is not difficult for the Perade- 

 Jiiya staff in their sseal for literary and scientific 

 studies to postpone their practical application." 

 This, as applied to the present case, 



Is the Exact Reverse of the Vavin i 



the practical part was known in 1906; what is being 

 arided now is more of the nature of a Scientific 

 study, "The treatment, suggested to combat the 



disease is not that of Mr. Petch. He endorsed 

 what was being done in the Maha-oya Valley." 

 The treatment was recommended by me to the 

 Katana Society in May, 1906. I knew nothing 

 then of what had been done in the Maha-oya 

 Valley. 



" For all that this scientific staff has so 

 far done it may be non-existent (1908). . . 

 The Katana Agricultural Society drew attention 

 to this disease. Nothing was done. It enlisted 

 the sympathy of the late Mr. Jardine, at whose 

 representation Mr. Petch went to Katukenda 

 and examined the affected trees. He reported 

 that he could not say what the disease was. He 

 saw a certain treatment carried out and sug- 

 gested its continuance." It is not true that 

 nothing was done in the first case and the re- 

 mainder of the paragraph is a misrepresenta- 

 tion. In fact, we have to deal here with a cam- 

 paign of misrepresentation. 



The disease was reported to me in May, 1906. 

 The locality was visited and the present treat- 

 ment was recommended. It was not possible to 

 work out the cause of the disease from the trees 

 seen there, and I could not get any further 

 information of other localities. Meanwhile, 

 I worked out the Hevea root diseaee. It 

 was reported again from Galle in October, 

 1906. This locality was visited in October, and 

 an account of the disease, attributing it to a 

 fungus and stating that it was a stem disease, 

 was written in the same month. This was 

 published in the Tropical Agriculturist for 

 Decemher, 1906, six months after my attention 

 had been called to the bleeding, and within a 

 month after it had been decided that it was 

 likely to be a serious disease. Here it may be 

 remarked that, as regards the prevalence of a 

 disease, we have to rely on the information 

 supplied by planters. Many cases of what might 

 be serious diseases are dealt with without the 

 knowledge of the general public because they 

 are unique. 



Practical instructions for the treatment of 

 the disease were given in 1906. Letters were 

 witten on the subject in 1907, a lecture Was 

 given in August when it was evident that the 

 majority of coconut planters did not believe 

 there was any disease, and a circular was writ* 

 ten in September. Inoculations from pure cul- 

 tures of the fungus were made in Ootober ami 

 proved successful in January, 1908. I give this 

 last fact for comparison only : it does not affect 

 the treatment recommended in 1906. In view 

 of these facts, 1 maintain that the delay in, 

 treatment is not due to the mycologist, 



