é 
206 REPoRT OF THE BOTANICAL DEPARTMENT OF THE 
Although there was no error of any kind in connection with 
Rows 12, 13, 14 and 15 it is not entirely fair to use them in mak- 
ing up the average yields of the different series because the rejec- 
tion of Row 16 leaves them without a proper check. Accordingly, 
Rows 8 to 16 inclusive have been omitted in preparing the 
following table: 
Taste II.—Y1IEup By SERIES IN THE Paris GREEN EXPERIMENT, 
bh Se cr 
[SERIES. Rows. Treatment. va pha ue 
acre. 
Bu. lbs. 
VASE A eS ecer La Grand? 213s Check; not sprayed; bugs hand picked...... 175 _ 
bb aie ee ee 2, 7,17 and 22..| Paris green in water, four times............ PPA 9 
ED Rete crete oe 3, 18 and 23.....| Paris green in lime water, four times....... 208 53 
BViAS. Sota in 4,19 and 24.....| Paris green in bordeaux four times and bor- 
deauxalone once =. ene fees tien aoe - 
Vee cote yasare ove sale | 5, 20 and 25.....| Bordeaux alone, five times; bugs hand picked] 317 30 


Paris green in water increased the yield 46 bu. 9 lbs. per acre. 
Paris green in lime water increased the yield 33 bu. 53 Ibs. per 
acre. 
Paris green with bordeaux imcreased the yield 150 bu. per acre. 
Bordeausz alone increased the yield 142 bu. 30 lbs. per acre. 
Discussion of results——The results of this experiment do not 
support the belief that paris green is injurious to the potato plant. 
On the contrary, it appears that paris green, properly applied, 
may be decidedly beneficial in preventing the ravages of late 
blight. At no time in the course of the experiment was there 
any indication that paris green had injured the foliage. From 
August 2 until the end of the season the rows receiving paris 
green were conspicuously more perfect in foliage than were the 
rows without paris green. Likewise, the yield was in favor of 
the rows receiving paris green. The rows treated with paris 
green in bordeaux (Series IV) yielded slightly more on the aver- 
age than the rows treated with bordeaux only (Series V), al- 
though the bordeaux in both cases was exactly the same. The 
only difference in the treatment of the two series was the use of 
paris green in the first four sprayings on Series IV. It is not 
certain that the paris green was responsible for the increased 
yield on Series IV, but in view of the fact that paris green has 
considerable fungicidal value it is not an unreasonable conclusion 
that such was the case. At least, the paris green did no harm. 
