THE CUEEANT BUD-MITE, OE CUEEANT GALL-MITE. 295 
number of affected buds on them in January of 1898, of 1899, and of 
1900 respectively, the affected buds having been removed before growth 
in each year named." The data were as follows : — - 
1898 
1 
1899 
1900 
Bush No. 1 
1 
26 
369 
„ No. 2 
134 
236 
1,550 
„ No. 3 
68 
267 
1,298 
„ No. 4 
286 
620 
1,796 
„ No. 5 
432 
648 
1,862 
Total 
933 
1,797 
6,875 
Thus, in spite of the affected buds having been removed each year, the 
number of buds affected at the end of the season has been doubled in one 
case and increased fourfold in the other. There appears, therefore, to be 
no prospect of checking an attack in this manner. Personally I have 
twice inspected the bushes upon which the above observations were made, 
and can only add that they were as badly infested as those which had not 
been so treated. 
With regard to the results obtained by Mr. C. D. Wise (manager of 
the Toddington Fruit Grounds, Winchcombe, Gloucestershire), I quote 
Miss Ormerod (p. 150 I.e.) who says : " Where we have picked the gall 
mites off last autumn the attack seems to be quite as bad this spring." 
Having such practical, and at the same time indisputable, evidence before 
us, there can be no doubt that hand-picking on large plantations is 
practically of little or no effect. 
Hand-picking small isolated plots of Currants has, so far as my 
experience goes, met with a fair amount of success, and in support of this 
I may mention one instance where this treatment has succeeded in keep- 
ing the pest in check. In 1893, when much was said and done in this 
county in reference to this pest, I made an inspection of about two dozen 
bushes which were planted in a single row, and found that they were 
partially infested with the mite. My advice was to have the buds hand- 
picked, which was carried out, the treatment being adopted each succes- 
sive year. My last inspection of these bushes was in 1900, when I found 
them practically in the same condition as when I first visited them, the 
diseased buds being present in about the same numbers. Apart from the 
gall-buds the bushes were otherwise in a healthy condition, and had borne 
fair crops of fruit. I now think, in the light of what has been observed 
at AVoburn, that it is probable that the isolated condition of the bushes 
may also have helped to check the increase of the pest. I should not, 
however, be surprised to hear that quite the contrary has happened in 
other places, as the mites appear most erratic in their behaviour. I have 
more than once observed them in certain localities where they have only 
attacked, here and there, an isolated bush among a number of others, and 
for some unaccountable reason they did not appear to increase in numbers to 
any marked degree. The same retarded progress I have also witnessed where 
the bushes were overshadowed by larger trees, and had consequently been 
