304 QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. [1 Aprit, 1898. 
Formerly it was not the custom to manure coffee ; it did quite well without 
it. But for years the crop, a highly special one, was being taken off the land, 
and no equivalent returned. Wherever this practice is adopted, the end will 
inevitably be failure of the land to produce that crop, and a condition of the 
plant favourable to the reception of the first wandering fungus spore of a 
suitable species which floats that way. Manuring is now largely practised in 
Ceylon, and the custom is increasing. , 
The planter should, therefore, keep his plants in good heart by judicious 
pruning, manuring, and cultivating; should allow no decaying prunings to lie 
about his plantation; should suffer no weeds, to become intermediate hosts for 
the fungoid enemies of his trees. He should endeavour to distinguish between ; 
grossness of growth and genuine health. 
When a pestilence invades a city or a State, do the authorities merely cut 
off any immediate chance of fresh infection from without, and cure those who 
are stricken within? No! they do these things, it is true; but they take good 
care, if they are wise, to improve the sanitary conditions of their cities and 
surroundings—to improve the general health of the people, so that when the 
seeds of pestilence come they may have no suitable soil to grow in. And it is 
so with plants. 
The planter should very frequently examine his coffee-trees, particularly the 
undersides of the leaves. If he gets a good lens or a small pocket microscope, 
he will find that he has almost discovered a new world. If he have boys or girls, 
he will encourage them to bring in for examination any leaves having suspi- 
cious colourations. By studying the illustration given of the peculiar disposi-. 
tion of the orange-red fungus spore-cases on the back of the leaf, he will be 
able to make a good guess at the coffee-leaf disease. Should he find any 
such colouration, he should at once send the leaf to the Under Secretary for 
Agriculture, when it will be subjected to scientific examination. 
Other fungi have been mistaken by experienced planters for Hemileia. 
One such, writing from Chiapas, in Mexico, says :— 
“The coffee-trees seemed to have lost their great and exuberant vigour. 
’ Their luxuriant foliage was decidedly lessened, and in their stead an unhealthy 
sickly appearance had taken its place. The leaves were more scattered on the 
ground than on their proper places on the trees, &c. It is needless to say I 
soon found out what the canse was. I noticed what to me was. an old and 
familiar face. The under part of the leaf I noticed was semi-perforated. 
They were spotted all over with the same marks. No wonder that I was 
frightened. [ thought I had discovered Hemileia vastatrix beyond all 
doubt.” 
He sent the leaves very carefully to the Smithsonian Institution of 
Sciences, one of the greatest scientific institutions in the world, and received 
the following most important and interesting reply :— 
“Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum, Washington. 
22nd May, 1894. To Mr, W. J. Forsyth, Chiapas, Mexico. Dear Sir,—The 
coffee leaves recently transmitted by you for examination have been referred 
to the Curator of Botany in the National Museum. He hassubmitted them to 
Mr. Ellis, of Newfield, New Jersey, who states that the disease which has 
affected the trees is not caused by the fungus Hemileia vastatriz, but by the 
growth to which the name Stzlbwm flavidum (Cooke) has been given. ‘This, 
I am told, is quite widespread. Mr. Hllis has in his collection specimens 
of the same fungoid growth from Costa Rica, Jamaica, and Venezuela. 
Inasmuch as no experiments have been made in this direction, no remedies can 
be suggested. Yours respectfully, G. Browne Goopr, Assistant Secretary. _ 
(2683.)’ a 
Here we have another coffee-leaf disease, said, on good authority, to be 
doing much damage in South America, and which even an experienced planter, 
who knew Hemileia, mistook for that fungus. It has well been said that in 
