234 ReEporRT OF THE HorTICULTURAL DEPARTMENT OF THE 
injured that it is seldom profitable to spray them with this com- 
pound; a strength of the spray which will control fungi will 
usually injure the foliage of the trees. Bain’s!’ splendid work 
in laboratory and field shows not only that there are injurious 
effects from the use of copper compounds on the foliage of the 
peach, but the manner in which such injury is produced. In 
spraying practice it is found that the apricot and the Japanese 
plum behave much as does the peach when sprayed with bordeaux 
mixture and that the Domestica plum, while not so easily injured, 
yet not infrequently shows harmful effects on both fruit and foliage. 
Duggar™ was one of the first to call attention to the injury of 
the apricot and plums. The quince and pear suffer in about the 
same degree as the apple. According to Sturgis’? bordeaux mix- 
ture injured peaches, Japanese plums and apricots, while apples, 
pears, quinces and European plums were uninjured at the Connecti- 
cut Agricultural Experiment Station in 1899. Beach’** has given 
a fairly full account of bordeaux injury on the pear, including a 
description of the trouble and a list of pears injured by spraying. 
Since Beach’s writing at this Station the list of pears given by 
him as showing susceptibility to injury has been revised and is 
here given: : 
Injured badly—Angouleme, Anjou, Ansault, Clairgeau, Con- 
gress, Doctor Reeder, Easter Beurre, Flemish Beauty, Frederic 
Clapp, Jones, Lawrence, Tyson and White Doyenne. 
‘ Injured but little— Bartlett, Bosc, Boussock, Garber, Kieffer, 
Le Conte, Seckel, Sheldon and Winter Nelis. 
A number of writers have noted with greater or less detail 
bordeaux injury of the grape, and Dr. Franz Muth’ of Oppen- 
heim, Germany, has described such injury in full. In reading 
his treatise on the subject one is struck with the similarity of the 
injury to that of the peach as recorded by Bain,!* and of the apple 
as set forth here. The conditions favoring the production of the 
injury of the three widely separated fruits are much the same. 
The writer has not concerned himself with the reason for the 
varying susceptibility of different plants, that phase of the subject 

™ Bain (4). 
* Duggar (18). 
* Sturgis (59). 
* Beach (9, pp. 24-29). 
* Muth (46). 
7° Bain (4). 
