




: 

183 
The foliage assumed a peculiar rolled or shrivelled appearance, 
and early commenced to blight. The fruit was diminutive in size, 
and asthe season advanced alarge part of it decayed with asoft rot, 
without showing any of the symptoms of the black rot that so often 
effects our tomatoes. 
It is an interesting coincidence that the peculiar shrivelled foli- 
age, the dwarfed plant and the inclination to blight in the leaves, 
and decay in the fruit just noted, isa characteristic in a greater or 
less degree of several of our earlier tomatoes, notably the Hubbard’s 
Curled Leat, Early York, and Hundred Day, and_in less degree in 
the Extra Early Red, Early Conqueror, Alpha, Early Richmond, 
Keyes’ Early Prolific and General Grant. The query is suggested 
whether these varieties may not have originated from the use of 
immature seed. As these varieties are among the very earliest of 
the large fruited tomatoes, the coincidence is striking. We find in 
endeavoring to secure earliness from the results of cross-fertilization, 
that selecting the earliest fruit for three generations does not result 
in feeble growth or shrivelled foliage, but in sinall few-celled, round- 
ish or oblong fruit. We have been told by the growers of tomato 
seed that thisis the tendency. If these varieties have been produced 
by the use of immature seed, it would seem that the efforts, whether 
intentional or otherwise, were made in a direction that proves very 
detrimental to the health of the plants, and to the size and keeping 
quality of the fruits. 
Observations on the Tomato Rot. 
An unusually large proportion of our tomatoes rotted the past sea- 
son. The first appearance of the affection was noted Aug. 6, and it 
apparently continued to increase until frost. The nature of this dis- 
ease, if it be a disease, is perplexing, as the symptoms vary much in 
different seasons. It is possible that two or more diseases are con- 
founded under the common name, ‘‘ tomato rot.” The symptoms 
of the disease the past season did not seem to be the same as those 
described in our report of 1882, and Prof. Arthur thinks that they 
were not the same as those of the disease described by him in the 
Station report of 1884. Whatever the disease may be, 1t is probably 
of fungus origin. 
So far as our observation extended, it seemed to flourish most on 
the more vigorous plants. On Sept. 23, a vigorous plant of Cook’s 
Fayorite tomato, grown from mature seed had eighteen per cent. of 
its fruits affected with the black rot, while the feeble one, grown 
from immature seed, had but five per cent. of its fruits affected. 
Two plants of the Acme, grown from seed from a fruit destroyed by 
the rot in 1884,had Sept. 24th, twenty-seven per cent. of their fruits 
affected; while two plants from the seed of apparently healthy fruits 
had twenty-two per cent. of affected fruits. Did we know that the 
disease of 1884 and 1885 were the same, this would indicate that 1t 
does not depend upon the infection of the seed, but as we do not 
know this fact, we are none the wiser. 
Synonyms. 
We have studied our varietieg of tomato the past season with unu- 
sual care for the purpose of discovering the synonyms among them. 
