Anbury , Club-root , or Finger and Toe in Turnips. 319 
I give here instances which will illustrate the result of my investi- 
gation. 
1. On a farm in the occupation of Mr. W. H. Glossop, of Bab- 
worth, near Retford, was a field, the whole of it having been treated 
alike, but on one part of which the turnips were perfectly sound, 
while on another part they were badly attacked by “ finger and toe.” 
I selected this as a typical example, believing that analysis would 
possibly bring out a decided difference in the composition of the 
soil from the respective parts. The analyses, however, came out as 
follows : — T n 
Soil not Soil 
affected affected 
1 Organic matter and water of combination 3 35 3T0 
Oxide of iron and alumina . . . 2 - 46 2'84 
Lime TO '28 
Alkalies, &c ‘47 ‘36 
Insoluble silicates and sand . . . 93 62 9342 
100-00 10000 
1 containing nitrogen .... T08 T16 
It will be noted that the two soils were very similar in composi- 
tion, and that both of them contained very little lime ; indeed, there 
was a marked deficiency. But, while this was so, the soil affected 
by disease had even more lime than that which was not subject, 
and it could therefore not be concluded that the larger proportion of 
lime (this itself being small) had anything to do with the presence 
or absence of disease. 
2. In a second instance, from the farm of Mr. James Thomas, 
North Otterington, Northallerton, it was reported that there were 
five fields liable to the disease, and four others not liable. At my 
request Mr. Thomas kindly sent me samples taken from fields 
typical of the two different appearances. These I analysed, and ob- 
tained the following results : — 
Soil not liable 
to disease 
Organic matter and water of combination 3-21 
Soil liable 
to disease 
3-49 
Oxide of iron and alumina 
. 3-63 
3-84 
Lime ..... 
. -32 
•29 
Alkalies, magnesia, &c. . 
. 1-17 
1-46 
Insoluble silicates and sand 
. 91-67 
90-92 
1 containing nitrogen 
10000 
■095 
100-00 
•114 
2 equal to carbonate of lime . 
•58 
•52 
Both the above soils are decidedly deficient in lime, but though 
it is true that the one “ liable ” contains less lime than the 
“ affected ” soil, yet the difference between the amounts contained 
is not sufficient to constitute any practical difference between the 
two. Nor yet are there any other points brought out by the ana- 
lyses which would justify the conclusion being drawn that the pre- 
sence of a certain constituent of the soil in a greater or less degree 
determined its proneness to or immunity from disease. I was forced 
to conclude that the liability of the one land as compared with the 
x~2 
