DOSACK SClIKlUl.r.s of MORE [MPORTANT WRITERS. 
21 
crease in dimensions much more rapidly than in cubic contents la seldom taken 
into consideration. The result is that the larger trees receive a relatively Bmaller 
dosage than they Bhould. 
Morse's schedule was prepared especially for the cottony cushion Bcaleand probably 
bar the red scale. The schedules of Coquilletl and Pease, and doubtless thai of i raw, 
were prepared for the red scale. Those of Johnson, Woodworth, i In • Riverside Com- 
mission, and the Rural Californian were intended especially for use against the black 
scale. The red scale was generally known to l>e harder to destro) than the black scale. 
In Morse's schedule all trees receive practically three-fourths ounce per LOO cubic 
feel of inclosed tent space; in Coquillett's, practically one-half ounce to LOO cubic 
feet; in Woodworth's schedule they receive one-third ounce for the same space. 
In 'raw's table, the smallest tree receives approximately 9 times as great .1 do age 
rate as tin' largest; in Johnson's table, the smallest receives about \\ times the rate 
iA the largest; in that of the Riverside Commission, the smallest ie allowed about 
L3 times that of the largest: in that of the Rural Californian, the smallest receives 
about 8 times thai of the Largest ; while in thai of Pease, I he smallest receives a dosage 
rate about li' times as great as the Largesl tree. 
This short analysis seems sufficient to call attention to the irregularities of these 
schedules. A study of the following table will reveal many other interesting points. 
Doaag< schedules recommended by several recognized authorities, with computed dosage 
rates per 100 cubic feet of spaa inclosed by tent. 
AMOUNT OF CYANID (OUNCES) PER TREE RECOMMENDED. 
Height 
of tree. 
Width 
of tree. 
Cubic 
con- 
tents 
of tree. 
Morse .a 
Coquil- 
lett> 
Craw.c 
T. B. 
Johnson. d 
Wood- 
worth.* 
River- 
side Hor- 
ticultural 
Commis- 
sion./ 
Rural 
( aii- 
fornian.0 
Pease.A 
Feet. 
4 
Feet. 
4 
5 
5 
4 
5 
6 
Cubic ft. 
40 
60 
80 
70 
100 
140 
225 
Ounces. 
0.3 
Ounces. 
Ounces. 
Ounces. 
Ouncis. 
Ounces. 
Ounces. 
On lies. 
4 
4 
.6 
6 
1 
1 
l 
i 
6 
4 
6 
1 
1.0 
; 
.....'.'.'.'.. 
5 
s 
5J 
I 
8 
6 
8 
9 
200 
335 
47.') 
2 
2 
n 
1J 
5 
8 
2.4 
3.4 
1 
7 
9 
10 
6§ sin 
1 
10 
8 
10 
11 
8 
10 
12 
14 
13 
10 
12 
14 
10 
15 
14 
16 
17 
14 
16 
18 
19 
435 
645 
37 
535 
800 
1,130 
1,490 
1,440 
960 
1,355 
1,790 
1,036 
2,210 
2,105 
2,680 
3,215 
2,400 
3,080 
3,815 
4.470 
"Te" 
6.2 
21 
3 
4* 
21 
2 
7 
10 
2 
8 
11 
12 
2 
12 
......... 
'"io.2 
"""12.4" 
H 
5 
5 
^ 
8 
12 
4 
10 
12 
83 
7 
7 

4J 
13 
14 
14 
7 
8 
10 
14 
s 
5 
12 
15 
4 
8 
15 
15. 7 
........ 
23 
16 
12 
9 
10i 
12 
16 
9 
8 
5J 
14 
17 
.... 
18 
15 
18 
10 
6 
14 
18 
27.1 
28.3 
19 
16 
8 
20 
13j 2. 175 
20 
16 
18 
20 
:: 
18 
3, (85 
5,235 
4,835 
11 
L3 
15 
10 
14 
10 
11 
6j 
20 
20 
20 
22 
12 
aRul. 71, Univ. ofCal. Agr. Exp. Sta. (1887). 
6 Insect Life (1889). 
e Destructive Insects (1891 . 
H A. S1 '■••■ Bd. of Horticulture 
i Bui. 115, Univ. ..Mai. A.CT. Exp. Sta. I I89i 
■ ' Bui. 127, U. 3. Dept. Agric. 
.'/ From ■• Fumigation Methods," by W. <;. Johnson. 
f> California Cultivator | I9i 
