[1 May, 1898. QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAD. 3 417 
more trouble, but increase each year. Cattle will not hurt them when once the 
plumes are cut, and the best way to prune them at the proper time is to burn 
the foliage ; they will start growing immediately. The ashes feed the plants, 
and a difference can be seen inthe next year’s growth in those burnt and those 
pruned with the shears. In burning, we simply return to the soil what the 
plants had taken from it. 
Preserved plumes of the Pampas-grass are advertised in the adjoining 
colonies at 3s. each; here is an opening for someone. Hundreds are dis- 
posed of on the Downs every year, but these, not being preserved, are very 
unsatisfactory to those obtaining them, for, if they get the least shake, the 
bloom comes off, and, after carrying the stems some distance, they are cast 
away in disgust, with disappointment.—R. R. Harprne, Botanic Gardens, 
Toowoomba. 
A. PATENT CASE. 
EXTERMINATING THE CODLIN MOTH, 
A. soMEWHAYT interesting case lately occupied the attention of Mr. Acting 
Commissioner Stuartin the Patent Office. On 26th October, last year, Messrs. 
Wertheimer and and Hinrichsen filed an application for a patent in respect of 
an improved codlin moth trap. The grant of patent was opposed by Mr. 
Quinn, Government Inspector of Fruit. Mr. G. H. Castle, of the Crown Law 
Department, appeared for Mr. Quinn; and Mr. J. Herbert Cooke, patent 
agent, for the applicants. The evidence showed that the idea of an appliance 
baited with fruit-jelly had been communicated to an officer of the bureau, and 
in consequence Mr. Quinn had experimentally used an extemporised trap with 
successful results in a private orchard just prior to the filing of the applicant’s 
specification. Mr. Cooke quoted, inter alia, the case of Hill v. London 
Gaslight Company to show that experimental use as above and under some 
what analogous circumstances was not such a disclosure as to constitute a-gift. 
of the invention to the public, and that certain characteristic features of his 
client’s traps were not present in the traps which were teuiporarily used by 
the inspector. The commissioner accepted Mr. Cooke’s arguments in support 
of the case, and decided in favour of granting the patent to the applicants. 
The Government Inspector of Fruit, Mr. Quinn, alluding to the above 
case, says the orchardists and gardeners must not imagine that the decision of 
the Acting Commissioner of Patents in any way precludes them from the free 
use of appliances baited with fruit-jelly for snaring the moths. The Acting 
Commssioner, Mr. J. M. Stuart, made it clear that the patent secured by 
Messrs. Wertheimer and Hinrichsen applied only to the addition of a flange 
on a vessel shaped like atumbler. ‘The presence of that flange renders it easier 
to suspend that form of receptacle, and the idea, Mr. Quinn says, is an old 
one. In the inspector’s opinion a tumbler-shaped vessel is not the best kind 
of trap ; he prefers a globular article, with a smaller opening, which gives the 
moth less chance of escape, and keeps the evaporation from the syrup ata 
minimum, thus causing the bait to retain its moisture much longer than it 
would do in a tumbler. ‘The decision of the court, however, would not 
prevent the free use of ordinary tumblers, which could be suspended by wire 
or twine. As the codlin moth is such an inveterate foe of the fruit industry, 
it is highly important that horticulturists should combat it by all the means in 
their power.— Adelaide Observer. 
Tur German codlin moth trap is simple, and said to be efficacious. Itis merely 
«glass jar (several of which may be placed in a tree) suspended by wires to the 
branches. They are inclined at an angle, and partly filled with a thick syrup 
of sugar and water in which a teaspoonful of apple-jelly has been mixed. The 
scent of the jelly attracts the moths; and, among other varieties of insects, as 
zany as twenty and thirty codlin moths have been caught in a jar in one 
night. 
