148 Reporv or tHE BoraNnist OF THE 
DISTRIBUTION. 
Undoubtedly the disease was more common in western New 
York in 1902 than in any of the other great applegrowing 
regions of the country. However, it was not confined entirely 
to the western part of the State. On October 4th the writer 
found it doing damage to pears while still on the tree, at 
Cutchogue, Long Island. 
In November letters giving a description of the disease and a 
photograph of an affected apple were sent to some of the mem- 
bers of the “ National Apple Shippers’ Association,” asking if 
they had observed the trouble in their sections. Replies from 
Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Ne- 
braska and Wisconsin were received, and all reported that there 
was no trouble from that disease in their regions during the fall. 
Specimens of diseased apples were received with a number of 
these replies, but in only one case, from Nebraska, was this 
disease found, and then only slight traces. 
An apple buyer at Middleport, N. Y., informed the writer that 
he had observed the same disease in the Shenandoah Valley in 
1901. 
The trouble seems to be not unknown in Michigan. Prof. 
©. F. Wheeler, now of the Department of Agriculture, but for- 
merly botanist at the Michigan Experiment Station, under date 
of November 10, 1902, informed the writer that there was consid- 
erable damage done by the disease in Michigan in 1901. Ina 
letter to the writer, November 17, 1902, Dr. W. J. Beal, professor 
of botany at the Michigan Agricultural College, referring to this 
disease, says: 
“We have been troubled with the same thing here to some 
extent for some time, but apparently worse than common this 
year, perhaps owing to the moist weather.” 
It has also been reported to us as occurring at several places 
in Ohio during the fall of 1902. 
