BULLETIN OF THE BUSSEY INSTITUTION, 85 
it taken together. It is known, indeed, that this conception is true of 
some of the analyses which will be cited directly, and there can be 
little doubt that it is true of all of them. But since the constituents 
of the rind are in all probability much less easily digestible than those 
of the flesh, it follows that analyses of mixed flesh and rind are ill 
suited to convey a just conception of the fodder value of the vegetable. 
The following table comprises some results of foreign analyses of 
pumpkins which appear to be trustworthy. See further the analyses 
cited on pages 90 and 91. 
Name of the Analyst. 
including Fat. 
3 
—s 
: 
oa 
° 
— 
= 
® 
Ss) 
te 
o 
Ay 
Albuminoids. 
Carbohydrates, 
Cellulose. 
Crude Ash. 
Braconnot* , 
Braconnot*. . 
Zenneck* ., 
Mosert ante *. (ae 
ORME Nit fos v's «| 92.98 
Girardin § reports, 94.18 — 85.80 — 92.94 — and 93.40% of water 
in four varieties of pumpkins examined by him. It has, in fact, been 
pretty thoroughly proved that the amounts of water contained in pump- 
kins, squashes, melons, and the like, are subject to rather wide variations. 
Dr. Veelcker has already remarked, when reporting his analyses || of 
the “ American Cattle-Melon ” [quere, Citron Water-Melon ?] that “ the 
proportion of water in the cattle-melon, as in other succulent vegetable 
* Liebig and Kopp’s “ Jahresbericht der Chemie,” 1847-48, 1. 830. 
t Cited in Werner’s “ Handbuch des Futterbaues,” Berlin, 1875, p. 725; and 
not quite correctly by Wolff. A misprint in Wolff's original tables, whereby 
the item carbohydrates is stated as 2.8, instead of 2.2, has been widely copied. 
Dietrick and Keenig, for their part (p. 78 of their tables), have fallen into a much 
worse error by writing 7.5% of dry substance, instead of 5.5%, whereby all their 
figures relating to the pumpkin were perverted. I regret having copied these 
erroneous figures upon p. 367 of the Bussey Bulletin, Vol. IL. 
¢ Cited in Werner’s “ Futterbau,” p. 725. 
§ Liebig & Kopp’s “ Jahresbericht der Chemie,” 1849, 2. 485. 
| “Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England,” 1865, 1. 147. 
Compare Hoffmann’s “ Jahresbericht der Agrikultur-Chemie,” 1864, 7. 281, 
1865, 8. 315; and Henneberg’s “ Jahresbericht fiir 1865-’66,” p. 112. 
