February 3,1337. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
83 
heim Orange being omitted because it is the reverse of 
precocious; but it could not be excluded from a dozen. 
Early Apples are as a rule more profitable than mid¬ 
season if not than late sorts, and the first four named are 
ready for market before the “ Americans ” can arrive, 
though two of them are fairly good keepers, and these 
with those making up the half dozen can hold their own 
against competitors come from whence they may. 
If the best varieties are plentifully grown in their best 
condition in this country, American fruit will only be 
wanted when our home crops fail. 
The discussion above referred to was summed up in 
the following words :— 
“ Our general conclusion from the inquiry is that a certain want 
of adaptability to new conditions, which is rapidly becoming a 
national trait, is at the root of the whole mischief. Fruit is devr 
because, in the first place, it is foolishly grown ; because, in the 
next, it is foolishly brought to market; and, in the third, because, 
when it is at market, it is foolishly sold. We want technical 
education, in fact, in the orchard, in the commission shed, and in 
the preserving room. These are the conclusions of those who ought 
to know, and we think that, among them, they contain the solution 
of the problem with which we set out. That there is something 
wrong is unquestionable when so few eat fruit, so many would like 
to eat it, and when there is so much fruit to eat.” 
From those deductions not many persons will dissent, 
and an important step in improving our home fruit supply 
is in the uprooting of practically worthless orchards, and 
planting young trees of better varieties.—J. Wright. 
THE EUCHARIS MITE. 
(EHIZOGLYPHUS ECHINOPUS.) 
For some time I regarded the Eucharis disease as the result of 
defective cultivation, for of late years a system has been adopted that 
deprived this plant of its season of rest, which alone was sufficient to 
bring about a degenerate state of the bulbs. But when plants were 
attacked that had been subjected to periods of rest after the comple¬ 
tion of growth, other sources of the disease had to be looked for, and 
upon a close examination of the plants the “mite” was discovered. 
In spite of the overwhelming evidence that the “ mite ” is the cause, 
there are many who still cling to the theory that the method of 
culture is faulty, and that they could restore diseased plants to their 
former health and vigour. It is a pity that such knowledge, if it 
really exists, should be hidden from the majority of cultivators whose 
plants are suffering from this terrible pest. 
Disease and death may result from the varied conditions to which 
these or any plants are subjected, but I do not believe that the 
Eucharis mite is the result of a defective system of culture. Those 
who still believe that disease is due to the plant being deprived of a 
season of repose or the admission of too much light may at once 
dispel such theories from their minds; for plants that have been 
rested and given dense shade have fallen victims. Anyone can prove 
to their own satisfaction that insects are the the cause of the disease, 
and their thorough eradication is the only method by which the plants 
can be restored to their former healthy condition. Any such informa¬ 
tion will be generally welcomed. 'I believe that the appearance of 
these insects in gardens in such vast numbers during the past few 
years is entirely due to the importation of bulbous plants to our stoves 
and greenhouses. For not only does it commit its ravages on the 
Eucharis, but on Pancratiums, Vallotae, Amaryllises, Hyacinths, Nar¬ 
cissi, and other similar plants. The insect that attacks these plants 
may be of the same species, but a slightly different variety, yet 
to the practical eye with only a moderate magnifying glass they 
appear to be exactly the same in each case. What is the Hyacinth 
disease if it is not the ravages of this mite ? I have said that this 
mite was imported into gardens with other bulbs, and many to whom 
I have talked about this matter coincide with this view. The im¬ 
ported bulbs of Eucharis Candida and E. Sanderiana are in a large 
measure responsible for the production of this disease in many a 
garden. It would be interesting as well as instructive if we only 
knew how many of these imported plants when they began to grow 
displayed symptoms of this disease, and, through it, failed to do 
satisfactorily. A very small number are to be found in private 
gardens in comparison with the numbers that were purchased. Many 
of those who secured these varieties were also rewarded with the 
Eucharis mite ; while those, and several are known to me, who did 
not buy them, now have their Eucharises free from the disease and 
in perfect heahh. I have also imported the same insect on Amaryllis 
Johnsoni, which carried ruin to the whole stock of these plants. 
Repeated experiments convince me that those who have announced 
methods of cleaning their plants—freeing them from the disease— 
have been premature in their conclusions. Those who have followed 
this course are credited with thorough honesty, the desire to assist 
those in the same unfortunate position to overcome difficulties and 
failure having led them astray. 1 have no doubt whatever that the 
plants, after being washed and dipped in insecticides or treated to 
some of the various receipts that have been given, have grown with 
renewed vigour and were to all appearance perfectly clean for a time. 
Such has been my own experience, as well as that of others who have 
refrained from unfolding their methods of procedure until it could 
he said with certainty that such a course would free the plants from 
disease, and finally death, which if left alone is inevitable. For a 
time the bulbs can be cleaned by washing away every particle of 
soil, the removal of the roots and decaying scales of the bulb, and then 
steeping them in some strong insecticide yet not to injure the bulbs. 
This clears away a great number of the insects, in fact all that it 
comes in contact with : the plants grow vigorously and flower freely 
after a good growth has been made, until the insects have increased 
in sufficient numbers again. It may be for six, twelve, or even 
eighteen months before the full effects of the disease are visible, 
the length of time depending upon the manner in which the cleaning 
was done and the strength of the insecticide used. Up to the present 
time I believe that this is the full extent of eradication that has been 
effected or can be promised. 
I may be wrong, and sincerely hope that I am, but my experience 
points to the conclusion that the only certain method of stamping 
out the disease from our gardens is the destruction of all infested 
plants, and a fresh start with clean stock from some reliable source. 
This is an extreme measure, but as far as I can see there is no chance 
of getting at the whole of the insects without destroying the bulbs. 
The insects are easily enough destroyed when they can be found, but 
they penetrate so far into the bulbs that they cannot be reached by 
insecticides. In many instances they follow the roots to the base- 
where they spring from, and often further, even into the heart of the 
bulb. The last experiment that we are trying is to cut off the base 
of the bulb, so that two or three scales can be removed—in some 
cases more, in others less—and then cut them out if they extend 
towards the interior. This reduces the bulbs very much in size, and 
we doubt whether they will again emit roots from the base. If they 
will, the bulbs can be cleaned by this method, but they must be first 
dried and ripened somewhat, and after the operation thoroughly 
washed in a strong insecticide. 
In our case they are scarcely worth this trouble, for while we are 
experimenting we are losing time, and a clean stock would with good 
treatment quickly make a return that would more than cover the first 
cost. But I am anxious to find out a method of cleaning the plants 
for the benefit of those who cannot afford to destroy their 3tock, in 
fact all who are in less fortunate positions ; if this can be done we 
shall be abundantly repaid for our loss.—W m. Bardney. 
PEAS-OLD AND NEW. 
To grow these well requires more attention and care than are usually 
bestowed upon them, or we should not hear so many complaints about 
their not turning out as we see them portrayed in the seed catalogues. 
Being in the habit of trying a few new ones each year, I am more than 
satisfied with the results, and think it quite possible to produce them as 
■ they are represented. 
The treatment I find to answer the best is either to sow the seed on 
an old Celery ridge or to prepare a trench the same as for Celery—that 
is, a"good depth of soil and manure, and sow the seed the first week in 
April rather above the ground line than below it. I know mfi'ny 
gaxdeners recommend the seed to be sown below. I never have found 
them to do so well below a6 when sown above the level of the ground. 
They do not grow so tall and are not so liable to mildew. What they 
appear to want is a good depth of moist soil to grow in, but not 
stagnant. I always coat the Peas before sowing with red lead to prevent 
mice taking them. I have tried petroleum, tar, &c., but I find after all 
red led is the safest and best. If the Peas are good I only use from six 
to nine Peas to a foot, mostly in a broad drill and planted in three rows, 
either 3, 4, or 6 inches apart, and of some strong-growing ones two and 
three are quite enough to a foot. 
I have sown seed before April, but find it a risk, as they often decay 
in the ground ; but if sown about the first week in April they appear to 
come at once, and have always done the best. One thing I find, they 
nearly always grow taller than is stated in the catalogues, but if the 
sticks are a little over the height stated so much the better. I find 
stopping them a good plan—that is, after the first three or four or five or 
six pairs of blooms are set nip out the centre. They fill up and also 
ripen the pods much better and quicker than when not stopped. This is 
an old-fashioned way of treating early Peas, but I am surprised it is 
not more practised than it is at the present time. I remember seeing it 
. nearly forty years ago in Kent for the first time. When the Peas are 
