140 
ROYAL nORTTCULTURAL SOCIETY. 
From the preceding Table it is evident that mineral manures were 
of little or no advantage to this plant, its development being, for the 
most part, better without any manure at all than with mineral 
manure ; indeed the plants so treated were unhealthy throughout. 
The ammonia salts produced a low medium development, ex- 
ceeded throughout by that resulting from the use of nitrate of soda 
(box 4). The latter salt, indeed, in the autumn of 1870, after the 
cutting, seems to have been productive of the most vigorous 
development. 
The mixed mineral and ammonia (5) and mineral and nitrate (6) 
were about equal in their results, growth in the one predomina- 
ting over that in the other at one time, while at another period 
the conditions were reversed. It is noteworthy that after the 
cutting in the autumn the plants in these two boxes made com- 
paratively but little growth, as if exhausted by their previous 
efforts. The flowers were produced at about the same time in all 
six boxes ; but it was noted that the flowers in boxes 1 and 2 were 
comparatively very few, while those in box 6 were very numerous, 
and, moreover, that the seeds were earlier ripe in boxes 5 and 6 
than in the others. 
The eff*ect of the summer's drought was most manifest in boxes 
4-6, and least in the three others. 
The root-development, as examined in April 1871, was most 
advanced in the unmanured box, next in that where a mixture of 
mineral and nitrate was employed, the nitrate seeming to favour 
the root-development, as shown by the greater vigour of the root 
in box 4 than in boxes 2, 3, or 5. The mineral manure in box 2 
seemed to have been the least favourable of all to root-growth, 
and, indeed, to the general growth of the plant. 
When the general results are contrasted with those noted the 
previous season, a pretty close correspondence may be observed, 
except in the case of box 2, the plants in which were throughout 
unhealthy and injured by drought. The characteristic effect of 
mineral manures in favouring growth was therefore in this case not 
obvious. On the whole there was less fluctuation in the periodical 
amount of growth than in the preceding year ; and it seems reason- 
able to infer that a considerable amount of the fluctuation that 
was witnessed was attributable to the drought of the summer. 
Grreat contrast is observable in the root-development of the 
