206 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
March 12 
we can expect its products to come up or nearly so 
to the parent tree from which we took our grafts, 
buds or cuttings. This has not been borne out by 
actual experience, and unless we can provide the 
same conditions for the offspring as the parent had 
we cannot expect the same results. That a tree or 
plant develops extra qualities is no guarantee that it 
will retain these qualities under other conditions, un¬ 
less we can reproduce the same conditions from the 
offspring as the parent had. I do not wish to be mis¬ 
understood in this matter, and supposed to advocate 
carelessness in propagation of trees and plants, but I 
know it is very important to select from healthy, vig¬ 
orous stock, and to use care to avoid any that show3 
disease or lack of vigor. When we do this we do all 
we can to pedigree our stock. Sometimes the fact 
that a young tree is heavily loaded with fine large 
fruit is a sure sign of early decay. This is especially 
the case with the peach. If we propagate from this 
class for early fruiting conditions we are running 
great risk in perpetuating a weakness, if not disease. 
I once heard a prominent horticulturist who advo¬ 
cates this theory give an illustration of a peach tree 
planted only 18 months, and producing two or three 
dozen fine fruit. My answer to him was that it had 
always been my purpose first to grow the tree, and 
not retard its growth and vigor by overfruiting be¬ 
fore it had top or root power. The same man said 
it would pay the orchardist to pay $1 per tree (for 
apples) to get what is termed pedigreed stock. Such 
theories open the 'way for the man who would like 
the extra price, and it is an easy task to give his trees 
a pedigree. I advocate all progress and improvement, 
but am ever ready to decry any theory that has not 
been sustained by practical experience, and that gives 
the unprincipled grower or dealer an opportunity 
to impose on the innocent. This pedigree business 
is far more theoretical than practical, chas. bi.ack. 
New Jersey. 
A CORN-BREEDING EXPERIENCE. 
Story of a New Variety. 
P. B. Crosby, of Maryland, writes the following spirited 
account of his efforts to produce a desirable variety of 
corn: 
“In 1898 an account of a variety of corn called 
Mexican June appeared in The R. N.-Y. Some seed 
was obtained and planted the year following; the 
tallest stalk growing to a height of 18 feet, shown at 
Fig. 89. The corn was planted with a view of hybri¬ 
dizing it with American varieties, and different plant¬ 
ings of American varieties were made from time to 
time as late as I thought they would mature, so that 
I would have at least one planting that could be pol- 
lenized with pollen from the Mexican June, but when 
my last planting of American corn had sent out its 
silk ready to be fertilized the Mexican June had just 
done growing its 18 feet, and the tassel was only just 
appearing. There happened to be on one of the 
American stalks a dormant ear that might have made 
a nubbin, so I pulled off the good ear in hopes that 
the nubbin would grow. It did, but 
when it had sent out the silk the Mexi¬ 
can June was still not ready for the 
pollen. There was nothing to do but 
wait, and while I waited that nubbin 
began to send forth new silk, and it 
continued to do so until it was fertilized 
with pollen from the Mexican June. 
Then came a race with Jack Frost, but 
this time it was the Hon. John Frost, 
and J. Pierpont Morgan felt no more 
satisfaction over his biggest merger 
than did I when I saw my first hybrid. 
The Mexican June had such a wonder¬ 
ful vitality, was seemingly so indiffer¬ 
ent to either lack of moisture or lack of 
fertility, and made such an abundance 
of excellent fodder that I thought that 
if I could only graft half of its good 
qualities on our American varieties the 
result might be of far-reaching conse¬ 
quence. A few weeks later I went to 
the building where my hybrid ear was 
suspended from a rafter by a wire, and 
found that a rat had got in and eaten 
every grain. Well, the next year the 
same process was gone through, and three hybrid 
ears were the result, which were placed in a rat trap 
for safe keeping, and planted the following Spring. 
The result was distinctly disappointing save that the 
time of ripening was about three weeks earlier. How¬ 
ever, the crop, which consisted of about a peck of 
nubbins, was carefully harvested and planted the fol¬ 
lowing year. This time the result was distinctly en¬ 
couraging. The whole cross so far obtained will be 
called (if the owner of the name will permit) Col- 
lingwood. 
“If you will turn to the photograph disfigured with 
the likeness of the writer, Fig. 89, you will see the 
original stalk of Mexican June and on the right a 
single hill of Collingwood, the weight of whose four 
ears and a nubbin is a trifle over three pounds; then 
if you will figure the possible yield planted 3 y 2 feet 
each way and take into consideration that the land 
three years ago received a dressing of homemade fer¬ 
tilizer costing $2 per acre, and none since, you will, 
I think, see one reason why I am enthusiastic about 
this corn. The other two stalks are out of the same 
field, and if anyone wants a variety of corn with little 
fodder I think the one to the left ought to suit. In 
A STALK OF MEXICAN JUNE CORN. Fig. 89. 
Fig. 90 the second broken ear, and the second 
whole ear from the left, are two of the best speci¬ 
mens of Collingwood. I have been taking lessons in 
judging corn from Prof. Taliaferro, of the Maryland 
Agricultural Experiment Station, and attention is 
called to the depth of grain and the closeness of the 
rows. In the same photograph is shown a butt of 
Mexican June, together with an ear of the same. Now, 
will some one please tell me how an ear of corn with 
such shallow grains and such wide open rows, cross¬ 
ed with common corn chosen with no thought of such 
points, could produce an ear with such depth of grain 
and closeness of rows as shown? 
“When I had planted the patch of Collingwood in 
1902 I had a couple of quarts left over, and this I 
planted in one end of a field of seven acres planted 
with a variety called Wallace’s Wonderful. This va¬ 
riety is shown in Fig. 90, being the third broken ear 
and the third upright ear from the left. As will be 
seen, it is a pretty big variety, but is open to the two 
serious objections of being shallow-grained and hav¬ 
ing a liberal amount of space between the rows. I 
sold that part of the field where my corn was planted 
to a neighbor, who cut it green for his cattle, and I 
forgot about its being planted there. I saved my seed 
for my main crop from the other end of the field 
which was planted this year. It was planted in a 
field that is naturally good corn land, but was more 
or less run down. It had been seeded to wheat in 
1899 with 200 pounds per acre of dissolved South 
Carolina rock, and has had no further fertilizing of 
any kind. The yield of wheat was 18 bushels per 
acre, no record of the grass next year, and the year 
following it was so poor that it was not cut. The 
corn was put in by a tenant, and an idea of the con¬ 
dition of the field may be gained from the fact that a 
neighbor wagered my tenant that he would make half 
again as much corn as would be made on my farm. 
That corn just started in to grow, and it grew until 
it surprised the whole neighborhood, myself included. 
The first thing that anyone said after seeing the corn 
was: ‘What did you put on it?’ And when I said 
‘Nothing,’ I felt my veracity had a pretty big strain 
on it. But when the corn began to get ripe we found 
the reason for it. It had been mixed with the Col¬ 
lingwood. My tenant said to me one day that he did 
not understand that field; he planted yellow corn and 
it came up mixed with white, and if you will again 
turn to Fig. 90 you will see on the extreme left two 
ears of this corn, and I again think you will agree 
with me that it did a wonderful thing when with such 
a half show for crossing it produced from Wallace’s 
Wonderful such a variety as is here shown. The 
broken ear is perhaps one of the best, taking the 
depth of grain into consideration. Two other ears of 
this cross are shown in the picture, one with the rule 
on it, and the short one at the right. 
“As to yield, a measured acre gave 120 bushels of 
ears, besides the nubbins, of which there were only a 
very few. With any other variety I should have been 
satisfied with 80 bushels of ears, and would have 
bragged if there had been 90 or 100. There are two 
other points of value about this corn; strength of 
stalk, thus enabling it to withstand storms (this 
point will be readily conceded after looking at the 
butt of its grandparent), and excellence of the fodder. 
Just why the fodder should cure better than any 
other variety that I have ever seen I do not know, 
but it apparently does.” _ 
A SELF-BOILED MIXTURE. 
A simple method of preparing the lime and sulphur 
wash without boiling or adding caustic potash is de¬ 
scribed by A. N. Brown, of Delaware. Mr. Brown 
claims to control the scale with two applications of 
this wash. Mr. Brown says: 
“Three years ago I began the use of the lime, sul¬ 
phur and salt wash. I boiled and prepared every gal¬ 
lon of this wash that I have ever used myself. I 
used the California method, boiling lty hour, but 1 
was not satisfied with the combination; besides, it 
was very tedious. With all the boiling I gave it, it 
would not stand over a few hours without separating, 
and the residue with all this boiling was much more 
than I should have had. I therefore made some ex¬ 
periments of my own and finally hit upon a method 
that is very satisfactory, and leaves me less than a 
pint of dregs after spraying out a barrel of 60 gal¬ 
lons. The old method would always leave several 
quarts. 
“My method of preparation is as follows: First, I 
take 20 pounds sulphur (flour of sulphur) and two 
gallons of boiling water and make a sulphur paste 
by adding a little of the water at a time to the sul¬ 
phur, stirring it well during the pro¬ 
cess. By the time all the water is 
stirred into the mixture, the sulphur is 
not all dissolved, because this cannot 
be done, but I have broken up the glob¬ 
ules of sulphur into most minute parts 
so that it can be taken up and perfectly 
distributed in the lime. This fact is 
indicated by the bursting of these glob¬ 
ules of sulphur, showing that I am 
making them smaller. 
“I take a common sugar barrel, put 
two wire hoops around it, put into it 40 
pounds of the best stone lime obtain¬ 
able, pour on it 12 gallons of boiling 
water, immediately add the sulphur 
previously prepared, cover the barrel 
with a burlap sack and let boil for 20 
minutes. It is essential that one work 
rapidly, as any interruption of the slak¬ 
ing process may destroy the effective¬ 
ness of the wash. I do not stir during 
the boiling process, only with an ordi¬ 
nary garden hoe occasionally raise the 
lime from the bottom so it will not set¬ 
tle and burn before thoroughly slaked. 
After boiling ceases I add 46 gallons of water (warm 
preferred), and finally the 15 pounds of coarse salt, 
stir well, strain into the spray tank with strainer 30 
to the inch mesh, and apply while fresh and warm. 
This wash is more effectual if applied when made than 
if left to stand. This wash is adhesive. I have no 
trouble in that direction, as the wash applied last 
February is now plainly visible. It is stated the salt 
adds no value to the wash, but I shall be very loath 
to leave it out. I may add some blue stone hereafter, 
about one pound to every 20 gallons, as I believe it 
will add to the adhesiveness of the wash and will 
strengthen its value as a fungicide. I do not believe 
that caustic soda added is any improvement. 
MEXICAN CORN ROOT ; CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN. Fig. 90. 
