vy? | seh ‘ i ue ate WG Oa Me), Mi Wa Hs CUTAN) : fh stn, iN) Ti a if hyn Nan NY ey i c We i cry (tin) ie nt } at \ t 1 ‘ ity i" Wi tlh i Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2010 with funding from University of Toronto http://www.archive.org/details/bulletin190113110unit aye , { MT - ah a Wr i} ret Bry ui ae yap SIMO Sek ' : 4 a “)— $0/'L auel Abr crbliviatk tng 1 CEFF] | LLY B. P. I.—1. V. P. P.—S86. BULLETINSNo. 1. — /O 1 Us DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY. B. T. GALLOWAY, Chief. VEGETABLE PATHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS. ALBERT F. WOODS, Pathologist and Physiologist. THE RELATION OF LIME AND MAGNESIA TO PLANT GROWTH. I. LIMING OF SOILS FROM A PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT. By Oscar Lorw, Expert in Physiological Chemistry. Il. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE RELATION OF LIME AND MAG: NESIA TO PLANT GROWTH. By D. W. May, Of the Office of Experiment Stations. IssuEpD OcroBeR 4, 1901. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. NO Bee Fe LEITER OF TRANSMITTAL. Bureau or PLAnt INDUSTRY, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF, Washington, D. C., July 16, 1901. Str: I transmit herewith the manuscript submitted from the office of the Pathologist and Physiologist of a paper entitled The Relation of Lime and Magnesia to Plant Growth, by Dr. Oscar Loew and Mr. D. W. May, and respectfully recommend that it be published as Bulletin No. 1 of this Bureau. Respectfully, B. T.-GaLtoway, Chief of Bureau. Hon. James WILson, Secretary of Agriculture. gavin ese Gl oe Although liming of soils has been practiced for ages and is fairly well understood from the chemical and physical standpoints, compara- tively little has been done toward determining the exact physiologica explanation of some of the beneficial and injurious effects of liming on the growth of crops. The physiological réle of calcium and magne- sium salts was briefly discussed in Bulletin No. 18 of this office on the Physiological Role of Mineral Nutrients. In the present bulletin are brought together many valuable observations on the general subject of liming, especially from the standpoint of the plant. The work, though preliminary, shows quite clearly that magnesium salts are poisonous to our ordinary crops unless accompanied by readily avail- able lime compounds. Under the direction of Dr. Loew, Mr. May, of the Office of Experiment Stations, endeavored to determine experi- mentally the proper ratio of lime and magnesia for certain crops and soils. The results of these investigations warrant the statement that the amount of available lime and magnesia should be about equal in order to insure maximum growth for most crops. The subject is presented at this time with the hope that it may stimulate investiga- tions along these lines, so important to agriculture. We are under obligations to the Bureau of Chemistry for the chemical analysis of some of the soils and other material used, and to the Bureau of Soils for physical analyses. The manuscript of this bulletin was submitted for publication nearly a year ago, but it has not been practicable to print it until the present time. ALBERT F. Woops. OFFICE OF THE PATHOLOGIST AND PHYSIOLOGIST, Washington, D. C., June 17, 1901. COUN NCS: I. Tue Liine or Sorts FROM A PHYSIOLOGICAL Sranppornt. By Oscar Loew- cece Te Sao tte i cel eS eal a aaa Injurious action of magnesium salts ----.-----------------700 00777077" Theoretical discussion of the functions of lime and magnesia - ----------- The ratio between lime and magnesia in soils of different countries - - --- - Renin ieaeneried: Gogee aa soe a ee ET Goiadrom Muropeam cOUBtMES! --- .- <== = sab Se =F 2-2 e Soils irom Asiatic countries =. ---=2----- 2-4 <-4'-=-2- nin rar ngsc reo Gaile trom African countries. © 2------24-=---~ <9 -----" scenes n nnn Shain beam Australia “22 ete gee en ee RT = Sy 70s eae toe el Correction of lime and magnesia content in ROL See ee a ae ae os m= TI. ExpeRIMENTAL STUDY or THE RELATION OF Lime AND MAGNESIA TO PLANT Gees Eyal Wit Way 228 222 omni = amin Te BE ON Nees ee an aeae a sos rme gs ea fence cibmnbeun the S0tlen oe. 2-.5 bese =a The réle of magnesia in the soil -..-.---------=--------77 00777007" The object of the experiments od Rg Fe Oe A ee eae Lime and magnesia as nitrates and sulphates in water cultures ---------- Results of experiments with cowpeas: --------------) -*--77 5577777" Results of experiments with privet --------------------7707 007777" Lime and magnesia as carbonates in sand cultures ---------------------- Experiments with tobacco -...----------------770tttrrrr sae Hixperiments with barley --:-------~2-------=-------077 000 Experiments with oats, pleat, ad beaMb ss oasc 225 <--'-\2-*92557° Lime and magnesia as carbonates im soil cultures ..--------------------- Experiments with oats an (CaM Petia = see oa ea ano Lime and magnesia as nitrates im sand. cultures-.----- ---------=-------- ‘Experiments with wheat FYROM IS E Gu Doc ec BE SS aeRO SOE diate Experiments with had ER ia) oblate saga ei OE la ela Lime as sulphate and magnesia as carbonate in soil cultures. ------------ Experiments with cowpeas ------------------rr0rrrr | chet cls Sa ee oe eS oe ILLUSTRATIONS. Piate I. Tobacco from sand cultures (upper plants, excess of magnesia; lower plants, excess'of lime)/=: 2 aocece setae: ee eee ee ee II. Oats in sterile magnesium soils rendered fertile ee the addition of WI -GASOa <- -<. 2220 es eee ee Ill. Fig. 1.—Wheat in sand cultures (pots from left to right ranging in MgO 0.8 to 0.1, CaO 0.1 to 0.8 per cent as nitrates). Fig. 2.—Cow- peas in soils showing effect ef variable applications of lime and POASUOSIA 2): Is eee eth EE Sind wikia = 2 ie ee ee Page. THE RELATION OF LIME AND MAGNESIA TO PLANT GROWTH. |. LIMING OF SOILS FROM A PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT. By Oscar Loew, Expert in Physiological Chemistry. INTRODUCTION. The beneficial effect of slaked lime and gypsum in crop production has been known since the early ages. The old Romans as well as the Japanese and Chinese were well acquainted with the practice of liming. The effects, however, were not uniform either on different soils or for different crops. and damage was sometimes incurred by overliming. It is a question of great importance to the farmer to be able to ascer- tain when his soil needs liming, and how much of the lime or lime compounds to apply; also whether slaked lime, carbonate of lime, or sulphate of lime is the most suitable form, and whether magnesian limestone must be excluded. The quantities of lime required vary, according to circumstances and the nature of the crop, from 500 to 6,000 pounds per acre. Boggy and clay lands require more lime than other soils. It is preferable to add moderate quantities at compara- tively short intervals (every three to six years) rather than a very large quantity at once. Heavy soils may be made more porous by the use of slaked lime, and fine sandy soils may gain in firmness, while soils with an acid reaction may become profitably neutralized. The decomposition of humus in soils is hastened by lime, its nitro- gen being liberated as ammonia and becoming available to the plant either as ammonia or as nitrates after nitrification. The process of nitrification is also promoted by the presence of lime. On sour, boggy lands marsh plants can easily be replaced by forage plants after an application of lime. Liming also has great importance in connection with the raising of live stock, since the formation of bone is imperfect where their food is too poor in lime. Again, certain parasitic fungi and insects in the soil are easily killed by the alkaline properties of burnt lime. Lime and gypsum can also in certain cases release such potash in the soil as is still unavailable. This, as well as the enhanced root hair production under the influence of the increased amount of lime, accounts for the greater absorption of potash by the plant on soils rich in lime. +9] 10 RELATION OF LIME AND MAGNESIA TO PLANT GROWTH. Although for several reasons the burnt lime is superior to carbonate of lime, and even in some cases mentioned can not be replaced by the latter, still there are instances where finely pulverized carbonate of lime can be applied directly with great success, especially on sandy soil. In many other cases the sulphate of lime (gypsum) is the most favorable form, especially when the amount of sulphates in the soil is very small, it often sinking far below 0.1 per cent. Gypsum furthermore acts very beneficially i in preventing the evapo- ration of ammonia as ammonium carbonate from stable manure by preserving the ammonia as sulphate. Its very beneficial action for many leguminous crops may be especially mentioned.” Slaked lime is the remedy for correcting an acid reaction, while gypsum is the remedy for correcting an alkaline reaction of soils. To soils of certain arid regions of the far West which contain sodium carbonate, rendering them unfit for raising any crops, Hilgard has proposed an addition of gypsum. The gypsum acts upon the sodium carbonate, transforming this into the less injurious sodium sulphate, while the gypsum itself is transformed into calcium carbonate. While all these applications of lime and lime compounds* are well known, a special case, the correction of the injurious effects of a high magnesia content, will be discussed and experiments described in the second part of this report by Mr. D. W. May, a subject which hitherto has not been taken practically into consideration. INJURIOUS ACTION OF MAGNESIUM SALTS. An excess of magnesia acts injuriously on plants, an observation made frequently and even long ago. The increase of lime is the only decisive remedy. The plants thrive best when the ratio of lime to magnesia does not pass certain limits. Too little magnesia in relation to lime may retard development, while too much magnesia in relation to lime may injure the crop still more. ' Various bau place the minimum limit of lime in a soil for auaa returns at 1 per cent, although satisfactory crops have been raised on clay soils with 0.3 per cent, and on sandy soils with 0.1 per cent lime. A case may be mentioned where liming proved of immense benefit on soil that contained 0.55 per cent lime. ‘‘A percentage of gain of 10,000 in beets’? was pro- duced as compared with the unlimed soil. Here it was certainly not the physiolog- ical role of the lime, but an essential improvement of the soil (neutralization, ete. ), which led to this result. This case was observed in Rhode Island and described by Wheeler, Hartwell, and Sargent. (Journ. of Amer. Chem. Soc., 1900, p. 153). A too heavy application of burnt lime on certain soils might destroy not only noxious parasites but also the useful root bacteria of the Leguminosee. Reports refer- ring, however, to different soils are still contradictory on this point. ? The annual amount of gypsum consumed for fertilizing purposes in the United State sis estimated by Dr. H. W. Wiley as 75,000 tons. *The question of liming and of fertilizing in general is fully treated in F. H. Storer’s ‘Aoriculture in Some of its Relations to Chemistry,’’ New York, 1897, se »venth edition. LIMING OF SOILS FROM A PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT. 11 In drawing inferences from agricultural experiments much atten- tion should be paid to all conditions that might possibly have an influence. For example, while one author reports that a deficiency of lime will cause yellow spots to develop on the leaves of the sugar beet, and consequently decrease the yield of sugar. another asserts that beets richest in lime are poorest in sugar.’ In such cases it is neces- sary to ascertain also the amount of the other nutrients, since too much magnesia may influence the results just as certainly as a reduced amount of potash. In another instance it is reported that calcium nitrate is a less favor- able source of nitrogen than sodium nitrate, an observation which may have been made on soils rich in lime and too poor in magnesia, otherwise it would be difficult to understand, since experiments with water cultures have shown calcium nitrate to be an excellent nutrient. As early as 1814 Davy discussed the question why magnesia some- times acts injuriously on crops. He wrote: ‘* It has long been known to farmers in the neighborhood of Duncaster that lime made from cer- tain limestone applied to the land often injures the crop considerably. This lime contained magnesia. On mixing some calcined magnesia with soil in which different seeds are sown, it is found that they either die or vegetate in a very imperfect manner.” He also states that ** lime from magnesian limestone may be applied in large quantities to peats, and where lands have been injured by the application of too large a quantity of magnesian lime peat will be a proper and efficient remedy.” * An injurious action was observed with the limestone from quarries near Belvidere, N.J.. while other limestones from near Oxford, some distance off, showed very beneficial effects on the same field. The difference between the effects was so striking that it was considered of some importance to investigate the cause. Samples of the two lime- stones were therefore sent to the U. 8. Department of Agriculture, where they were analyzed, with the result that the ¢njur/ous limestones were found to contain 38 to 42 per cent of magnesium carbonate, while the beneficial limestone contained not quite 1 per cent of this substance. * The explanation, however, that the injurious effects of burnt magnesian limestone are due mainly to the fact that the caustic magnesia turns much more slowly into carbonate than the caustic lime can not be the correct one, neither can the hypothesis be accepted that the injurious effect is due to the formation of hydraulic cement in the soil, since the effect.is less noxious on clay soil than on sandy soil, while just the reverse should be expected if that hypothesis were correct. Very injurious effects have been reported from manuring with pre- cipitated magnisium carbonate, these being ascribed. however, to the 'Hollrung, Die Zuckerindustrie, 1898. * Elements of Agricultural Chemistry, 2d ed., p. 322. * Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., 1876, p. 142. 12 RELATION OF LIME AND MAGNESIA TO PLANT GROWTH. change in the mechanical conditions of the soil." Ad. Mayer’ mentions sterility in a soil rich in magnesia. On the other hand Heiden’ states some instances where magnesite and even magnesium sulphate exerted a beneficial effect. Kellner‘ reports a beneficial effect from magnesian limestone,’ and Larbaletrier and Malpeaux® describe a case in which magnesium sulphate proved very efficient. . Just as contradictory are the reports on the effects of the applica- tion of kainit and carnallit, both of which contain salts of potassium and magnesium. The former, however, contains more potassium sul- phate than the latter. The effects were frequently found to be inju- rious when these salts were applied in the spring, while the application in the autumn proved beneficial. Thus Fleischer’ observed that kainit yielded a 5 per cent larger crop of potatoes when applied in the autumn than when applied in the spring. Other observers‘ reported a decrease in the percentage of starch in potatoes when kainit was applied in the late spring and also claimed that the quality was impaired. Liebenberg’ finally reports a decrease in the yield of meadows when kainit was applied even in the autumn. In the latter ‘ase the perennial roots of the grasses came directly in contact with the fresh fertilizer, while in the previous cases the rains of winter had a chance to wash out or modify the injurious magnesium salt before the crops were planted or seeds were sown. Other authors’ also report an injurious effect from kainit on meadows, no matter whether applied alone or in conjunction with other fertilizers. However, very many favorable results from the use of kainit on other soils and other crops have been published. Schultz-Lupitz has observed that the injurious effects of the crude potassium salts of Stassfurt (kainit, car- nallit, etc.) can be counteracted by liming the soils, but he gave no explanation for this interesting fact. That the application of lime would be in such cases the proper remedy was inferred by the writer ™ from his theory before he knew of the successful experiments of the author justmentioned. It was claimed at that time that the occasional injury caused by the Stassfurt salts was due to their chlorid content, 'Centralbl. f. Agriculturchemie, 1870. * Vorlesungen, 3d ed., Vol. I, p.111. Dejardin reports that an increase of the mag- nesia content in the soil favors the resistance of the vine to Phylloxera, but this remedy applied to a soil poor in lime may prove dangerous to the plants. On the other hand Wheeler reports that liming the soil promotes the scab of the potato. See also Bul. No. 18, U.S. Dept. Agr., Div. Veg. Phys. and Path. *Landw. Vers. Stat., 1869; also Pincus, ibid. , 1868, p. 402. 'Stichsische Landw. Zeitsch., 1895, No. 24. * Similar results were reported by Vélker in England (Griffiths, Treatise on Manure, 1889, p. 235),,and Muntz and Girard in France (Les Engrais, 1891, p. 333), and finally by Patterson in Maryland (Bul. No. 66, of the Md. Agr. Ex. Sta., p. 150). *Centralbl. f. Agriculturehemie, 1896, p. 484. ‘Bot. Jahresber. f. 1886. ‘Jahresber. f. Agriculturchemie, 1896, p. 222. *Tbid., p. 219. MTpbid., p. 216. "Landw. Vers. Stat., 1892. LIMING OF SOILS FROM A PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT. lees but this is certainly only a subordinate cause. The evil effects are mainly due to their high magnesia content, which will do little harm on soils rich in lime and poor in magnesia, but produces much injury on soils poor in lime rather than in magnesia. The more magnesia in relation to lime present in a soil the more injurious a certain additional quantity of magnesium compounds will prove. With the Stassfurt salts containing magnesium sulphate and chlorid this must be much more evident when they are applied in spring than when applied in autumn, since during the winter a part of the magnesium salts can he washed out as already stated or else turned into the less noxious car- bonate. To foretell whether magnesium limestone or the crude salts of Stassfurt would prove to be injurious manures the analysis of the soil would give the proper answer. The total amount of lime contained in the earth’s crust is larger than that of magnesia. The calculation of F. W. Clarke gives as approxi- mate numbers: Lime, 5.29 per cent; magnesia, 4.49 per cent: or, calcium, 3.77 per cent; magnesium, 2.68 per cent. But since the com- pounds of these elements are not uniformly distributed through the earth’s crust, regions exist in which magnesia predominates over lime and others in which lime predominates over magnesia. Manifold variations have indeed been observed. Frequent manuring has, of course, changed these proportions from olden times in the uppermost stratum of the cultivated parts. The dung of animals fed with seeds, such as, for example, maize, oats, and barley, will of course be rela- tively richer in magnesia than that of animals fed mainly on grass, straw. and various other foliage. The latter manure will contain rela- tively more lime than the former. Thus, even without having recourse to direct liming, the lime content of cultivated land is often uninten- tionally increased. In the average fresh barnyard manure there ts contained, according to Ville, 80 per cent of water, and among the mineral constituents 0.56 per cent lime and 0.24 per cent magnesia, forming a ratio of 1: 0.48. But while in the crust of the earth as a whole, as well as in most of the spring waters, lime predominates over magnesia, the reverse is observed in the oceans. Sea water contains about 34 per cent of soluble salts in the following proportions: Sodium chlorid, 7S: mag- nesium chlorid, 11; magnesium sulphate, 5; calcium sulphate, 4: potassium sulphate, 2; traces of iodides, bromides, phosphates, ete.’ 1 Marret calculates the following amounts for 1,000 parts of sea water (quoted by Liebig, Agriculturchemie. ) Stet @llllordtsl ee’ Geese Ua ee Bee ee eee ee 26. 660 Sarimmscniplnte s244 352) oe eae ae). fs <- 2 y= 2-32 4. 660 Potassuimech | Onidiece seen oe eee a in eee - = woz Magnesium chlorid -.....-.---2:-----------+2+-+--+----++-- 5. 152 Calm aulphates.-.. 54-08-42... 2----52-55--252---+-s 1. 500 14 RELATION OF LIME AND MAGNESIA TO PLANT GROWTH. In the sea water, therefore, we find a proportion of lime to magnesia of approximately 1:3.8, a ratio which would prove injurious for many land plants in water culture. The marine plants, such as diatoms and fucoids, which in all probability require lime for building up certain of their organized structures, must then have means of accumulating lime compounds in order to counteract an injurious influence of the magnesium compounds entering their cells. Indeed, the ashes of marine algz show more lime than magnesia, as seen from the following:' Percentage of lime and magnesia in marine plants. | Percent- | Marine plants. Feeuees age of mag- | q nesia. | — — = = — —_ PUCUS: - VESICUIOSIIS's<..<5 hacs5 ibs gue ee ee ee eee Cina us setae Ee SH | 7.1 UW CUS OM OSUS ts Sos oe aoe ee eae Se eee 12.8 | 10.9 HUGCUS SELDEUUS eset ose eres ce ee A ce ee ee Ae 16.3 | 11.6 Laminaria digutatal ..).022.0c..esactaccts ee isl eee ope eees Sums TIS Hh 7.4 5 | It is well known that a high lime content of the soil favors some plant species more than others, and may even injure certain plants, as the yellow lupin. According to Heinrich,’ a soil containing 0.46 per cent carbonate of lime will injure the lupin, while 0.5 per cent car- bonate of magnesia will prevent its development entirely. Hilgard mentions for the southern part of the United States the linden tree, wild plum tree, and the tulip tree (Liriodendron) as indicative of a soil rich in lime.* On the other hand, the southern pines and certain kinds of oak and Vaccinium are indicative of a lack of lime in the soil.* With certain other plants some variations in growth depend on the abundance or deficiency of lime in the soil, as Hilgard has pointed out for Quercus ferruginea and Q. obtusiloba. ‘This author has also called attention to the lower growth but richer yield in seeds and fruits on soils with a high lime content. But, on the other hand, a deficiency of lime may also reduce the size of certain organs. Thus the leaves of young pine trees reach only half the normal length when lime salts are deficient, as Honda and the writer have observed.’ It is a natural and logical conclusion that an analysis of soil properly made with regard to the absorbing capacities of the plant roots must 1Godechens, Ann. Chim. Pharm., 1854, Vol. LLV. Some marine algze, such as certain members of the Floridez, exert a powerful attraction upon the lime salts (by probably containing certain organic acids yielding insoluble lime salts), depositing much calcium carbonate in the cell walls. *Jahresber., f. Agr. Chem., 1896, p. 239. *In Europe Gentiana ciliata is one of the characteristic lime-soil plants. ‘The coast pine (Strand Kiefer) can grow in Europe only on soil poor in lime (Grandeau and Fliche, 1878). ° Bull. College of Agr., Tokyo, Vol. II, No. 8. LIMING OF SOILS FROM A PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT. 15 yield the means to properly estimate the quality of the soil. Such an analysis must not only regard the absolute quantities of phosphoric acid, sulphuric acid, potassa, lime, magnesia, iron, and nitrogen com- pounds, but must also consider the fineness or coarseness of the divi- sion of the nutritive materials and their solubility in dilute organic acids. But the writer must add that there is another important factor in the valuation of soils, and that is the ratio of the easily assimilable amounts of lime and magnesia in the finer particles. Many attacks have been made upon the use of analyses of soil for purposes of valua- tion, but this opposition can only relate to certain analyses, such as made in the old method of treating the soil with concentrated hydro- chloric acid.!| Such analyses will not show exactly the amount of nutrients available for the next crop, but mainly indicate the whole amount of nutrients available within a longer period. Every farmer ought to know the ratio of the easily assimilable por- tion of lime to magnesia in his soil, as with such knowledge he can tell when liming is needed and if magnesian limestone will prove injurious. Soils with much magnesia are more to be feared than those with too little. There may be soils with but little available magnesium car- bonate which still produce excellent crops, for in this connection it must be remembered that water containing carbonic acid can dissolve more magnesium carbonate than calcium carbonate. Treadwell and Reuter? found that 1 liter of water will hold 0.385 gram calcium bicarbouate in solution, while it will contain 1.954 grams of mag- nesium bicarbonate, besides 0.715 gram neutral magnesium carbonate. When it is further remembered that magnesia is more movable in plants than lime, and that therefore one and the same molecule of mag- nesia can serve repeatedly as a carrier of phosphoric acid for the formation of nucleo-proteids and lecithin, it will not appear strange that a soil can still produce certain crops when the content of mag- nesia is very much smaller than that of the lime. This is especially true when such plants are grown as are capable of excluding any absorbed excess of lime from further physiological influence by trans- forming it into the nearly insoluble calcium oxalate. The situation is far different, however, on a soil that contains a considerable excess of magnesia over lime, and here a proper correction 1s an absolute necessity. 1\Compare also the interesting results of Thoms. Agric. Centralbl., 1898, p. 155, whose theoretical inferences from soil analyses were in full accord with the practical observation on the fertility of various domains. 2 Zeitschr. f. Anorg. Chem., 1898, Vol. XVII, p. 170. 16 RELATION OF LIME AND MAGNESIA TOC PLANT GROWTH. THEORETICAL DISCUSSION OF THE FUNCTIONS OF LIME AND MAGNESIA. The physiological réle of lime and magnesia was fully discussed in a previous bulletin,’ hence a few lines touching the chief points will suflice here. The lime is, according to the theory of the writer, neces- sary for the formation of certain calcium compounds of nucleo-proteids required in the organized structures of nuclei and chlorophyll bodies, while the magnesia serves for the assimilation of phosphoric acid, since magnesium phosphate can give up its phosphoric acid more easily than any other phosphate that occurs in plant juices. While calcium is fixed in the organized structure, magnesium is movable, since it serves mainly in the form of secondary phosphate as carrier of assimilable phosphoric acid, which role can be repeated various times. It follows from this theory that, in the case of an excess of lime being taken up, the assimilation of phosphoric acid will be rendered more difficult, since this acid will chiefly combine with the lime, and the chances for the formation of magnesium phosphate will thus be diminished. The effect will be the same as if the amount of available pkosphoric acid in the soil were lessened—that is, the growth of the plant will be retarded and even starvation phenomena may set in. Many plants avoid this evil effect of an excess of lime in the juices by the precipitation of a part of the lime as’ oxalate, as mentioned above, while others” secrete it as carbonate, contained also in cystoliths. If, on the other hand, magnesia is taken up in considerable excess over lime a poisonous action is observed. Plants succumb soon when placed in diluted solution of magnesium salts and no other, but calcium salts can prevent this effect. In fact, magnesium salts can exercise their nutritive functions only in presence of a sufficient amount of calcium salts. The plants can not, as with lime, turn an excess of mag- nesia into an insoluble form and thus render it innocuous. Only in certain cases may the formation of globoids or of insoluble magnesium protein compounds come into consideration. The injurious action of magnesium salts has been previously explained by the writer,’ as follows: The calcium nucleo-proteids of the organ- ized structures are transformed by the presence of soluble magnesium salts into magnesium compounds, while the calcium of the former enters into combination with the acid of the magnesium salt. By the transformation of the organized calcium nucleo-proteids into magnesium nucleo-proteids the capacity for imbibition will change, which must lead to a disturbance in the structure which will prove fatal. Only the simultaneous presence of dissolved lime salts can prevent this 'Bul. No. 18, the physiological rdle of mineral nutrients, U. 8. Dept. Agr., Div. Veg. Phys. and Path., pp. 28, 37, 42, 47, and 60. *Saxifraginee, Plumbaginese, and some ferns secrete calcium: carbonate on their epidermis. 5 Bul. No. 18., U.S. Dept. Agr., Div. Vez. Phy-. and Path. LIMING OF SOILS FROM A. PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT. 17 effect, according to the law of mass. The writer noted, for example, among other observations, that certain alge, such as Spirogyra, died in five days in a solution of 1 per 1,000 magnesium nitrate, while they remained alive fora number of weeks in this solution when 0.3 per 1,000 calcium nitrate was added. Of course, magnesium in form of ‘arbonate or phosphate in the soil would act injuriously in much less degree than the soluble magnesium nitrate, or sulphate; but nevertheless injury will show in time. How much, however, the result is influenced by the degree of fine- ness of these compounds may be judged from the observation of Ulbricht’ that a large amount of the commercial precipitated basic magnesium carbonate acts much more injuriously than finely powdered magnesite, and that slaked lime in excess diminished the yield in lupin more than an excess of powdered marl. This author also described cases in which a rich manuring with lime depressed the yield, and further observed that a proper liming will remedy the evil effeet of magnesium chlorid. Also Atterberg (1892) observed injurious effects of large applica- tions of magnesia upon oats on marsh soil and the prevention of this injury by liming. But previous to these authors E. Wolff* had observed on the one hand an injurious effect of burnt magnesia, and on the other the depression of the yield by a too excessive liming. Heinrich observed a decrease of the crop of the yellow lupin of 36 per cent after adding as much as 0.5 per cent gypsum to the soil (quoted by Ulbricht, lL. ¢.) and Uibricht observed by adding only 0.011 per cent gypsum, a gain of 10.6 per cent of the lupin crop, and 21.5 per cent of the buckwheat crop, while with red clover and with timothy a gain of only 1.5 per cent was noted. The crop of the yellow lupin was further considerably decreased in the experiments of Ulbricht by the application of 500 and 1,000 kilo- grams of lime to the morgen (1.6 acres). Also burnt magnesian lime- stone with 40 per cent magnesia had an injurious effect not only for lupin but for barley and vetch when applied in the amount of 500 kilograms to the morgen. .t0 Deed: Soils of Texas.—The analyses of twenty-two soils from Texas’ show generally a considerable preponderance of lime over inagnesia. This is also the case in Michigan.’ Of twenty-nine different soils analyzed, not one contained more magnesia than lime, but the percentage of each of these oxides amounts in many cases to less than 1 per cent. Soils of Minnesota and North Dakota.—In Minnesota and North Dakota lime predominates in the majority of cases over magnesia, to judge from the analyses made thus far. Only in the southeastern part of Minnesota magnesia predominates in most cases over lime. Snyder® mentions as an average of two hundred Minnesota soils a lime content of 2.16 per cent and an average magnesia content of 0.55 per cent; hence the amount of lime is about four times as large as that of mag- nesia. In certain cases, however, the magnesia content exceeded the lime content by one-half. The minimum lime observed was 0.16 per cent, that of magnesia 0.10 per cent. As to North Dakota, there exist soils exceedingly rich in lime in the valleys of the Cheyenne, of the Red River, and of the Mouse River. In these cases the magnesia content remains below 2 per cent, while the lime content amounts from 18 to 23 per cent.*. A case with a rela- tively large excess of magnesia over lime was ebeere ed in the James River Valley, namely, 0.14 per cent of lime for 1.38 per cent of mag- nesia; hence the amount of magnesia exceeded that of lime nearly ten- fold. Of thirty cases in all, the magnesia exceeded the lime only in 109t mont. ' Oregon Noe: Exp. Station Bul. No. 20. * Nevada Agr. Exp. Station Bul. ae 19. * Wyoming Agr. Exp. Station Bul. No. 6. ‘Experimental Farms Report, 1895, p. 200. These soils were never manured except incidentally by the droppings of animals when in pasture. ° Texas Agr. Exp. Station Bul. No. 25. * Michigan Agr. Exp. Station Bul. et 99, "Minnesota Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. No. 41, p. 32. “Analyses of A. F. Ladd, North ae Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. No. 22. LIMING OF SOILS FROM A PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT. 21 = Soils of Tennessee.—The Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, Vol. X, No. 3, Knoxville, Tenn., 1897, contains the mechanical and chemical analyses of fifteen soils and eleven subsoils. In fully twenty- one of these twenty-six soil analyses, the magnesia content is larger than that of lime. This excess is in some cases but small, but in some unduly large. Thus, the sandstone soil of Grundy County shows 0.073 per cent of lime and 0.291 per cent of magnesia, or nearly four times as much magnesia as lime. Very correctly the reporting chem- ist, Charles F. Vanderford, remarks, on page 38, that ** it is certain that dolomite (magnesian limestone) soils are much more easily injured by working when too wet than the soils in which magnesia is less promi- nently a constituent; and it is also a fact that dolomite soils readily and happily respond to an application of lime from a high-grade calcium carbonate.” The soiis of Arkansas show partially the same characteristics as those of Tennessee, but further information regard- ing them is desirable. Soils of Rhode Island.—The Agricultural Experiment Station Bul- letin No. 72, Kingston, R. L., contains seven analyses of the soils of that State, but only one of these soils shows an excess (a moderate one) of magnesia over lime: Per cent. IV Eep-ationiseiny toits lin E eee ees ee el eee ee ne, ee eer 1. 295 Mancino aene sla ss 5+ set! awe le seria: safe c= 1. 141 Ghat aniGian), Gye Iinieayet es eel eRe eee ee = Se I se eee ey eee 0. 252 NiO Rotem Calaveras ae eee ee oe 0. 209 Bulletin No. 68 and the Seventh Annual Report of the Rhode Island ‘Experiment Station contain two analyses showing a preponderance of lime over magnesia.’ Soils from South America.—The writer’s search for a number ot soil analyses of South America was not crowned with much success. It may, however, be mentioned that two samples of very fertile soils of Paraguay” showed an excess of lime over magnesia: Lime, 0.138 and 0.355 per cent; magnesia, 0.036 and 0.065 per cent. SOILS FROM EUROPEAN COUNTRIES. Soils from Russia.—The analyses of ten samples of the “Black earth,”* celebrated for its high degree of fertility, show from 0.66 to 2.16 per cent of lime and from 0.23 to 1.39 per cent of magnesia, and in not a single instance more magnesia than lime. The amount of phosphoric acid runs from 0.09 to 1.66 per cent, that of potassa from 1Soils of Bermuda are generally rich in lime, one sample of which contains as much as 51.4 per cent lime for only 0.756 per cent magnesia. * Jahresber. f. Agr. Chem., 1873. *Tbid., 1873. ; 22 RELATION OF LIME AND MAGNESIA TO PLANT GROWTH. 0.13 to 1.44 percent. Very probably the mechanical condition of these soils is also very favorable. Soils froin Italy.—The analyses of soils from Italy, in the literature available to the writer, show a general preponderance of lime over magnesia.| Some of these are limestone soils, containing from 11 to 19 per cent of lime. One of them shows only 0.09 per cent of mag- nesia for 11.04 per cent of lime, ora proportion of lime to magnesia of 1:0.008. In most of the soils analyzed the amount of magnesia is less than one-half of that of lime. Soils from Germany.—The analyses made of German soils relate in the majority of cases to lands manured for centuries. Liming is also an operation extensively practiced there. Nevertheless, there occur large districts that require liming, as in the northern part of the Oden- wald.* Of thirty-seven samples of soils of this district, however, only two were found to contain more magnesia than lime, and this excess was moderate. The alluvium of the Rhine frequently contains more magnesia than lime. Thus Wohltman® has analyzed, for purposes of valuation, soils belonging to seven different degrees of fertility. Of these, only the first-class soil showed, besides a larger proportion of potassa and phosphoric acid, more lime than magnesia, while the soils from the second to the seventh class contained from one and one-fourth to eight times more magnesia than lime. On the other hand the Rhine deposit at Langenau (Hessia) contains eight times more lime than magnesia, as seen from the analysis of E. Schulze, 1873. Many soils of the province of Brandenburg are very poor in lime (Ulbricht). An excess of magnesia over lime exists in the Berleburg district in Westfalen,* while in other parts of that province lime pre- dominates over magnesia. On the other hand, in thirty samples of humus soils of Hanover and neighboring districts lime predominates over magnesia.” Per cent. Marsimiumof. lime: 22.0 2.2 eae ee eee cee nel Se Maximum’ of magnesia’ 7) ey ee aaet yt eu Manimrum of lime:.%.4. 2. eee eee sone ee OL Minimum of macnesia..222 222s ee ee ne OL The limestone soils of the best wine-producing districts are often very rich in lime, not only in western Germany but also at the mouth 'These soils serve to a great extent for the culture of tobacco. Cf. work of N. Spar- ano; Guida Agrario-Merceologica, Rome, 1899. *Lidecke, Jahresbericht f. Agriculturchemie, 1898. *Oentralbl. f. Agriculturchemie, 1897. ‘Jahresber. f. Agricultarchemie, 1873. Also in certain Bohemian districts mag- nesia predominates over lime. Ibid., 1875 and 1876. * Analysis by Alberti, ibid., 1873 and 1874. LIMING OF SOILS FROM A PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT. 23 of the Rhone.’ In the eleven vineyard soils analyzed by A. Hilger? calcium carbonate was found from 3.1 to 69.6 per cent, and magnesium carbonate from 0.9 to 5.1 per cent. In nota single instance did the amount of magnesia exceed that of lime. A great number of soils have been analyzed in Germany, but many of the publications are not available to the writer. It may, however, be mentioned that in even some recent German publications on the composition of certain soils and their need of manure, so little atten- tion was paid to the amount of magnesia that this was not even quan- titatively determined, while potassa, lime, and phosphoric acid were. Soils from Hungary.—Bela von Bitt6* determined the lime and magnesia in soil and subsoil from forty-three localities in Hungary, and of the eighty-four analyses mentioned, there are only seventeen showing an excess of magnesia over lime. Comparing all those anal- yses there is found: Per cent AV Ape ONIEO laa ete Se OR ee! AY a Se atk J 25, 44 MASSINGUITINOrSM ACM Slaw ea se een oe eee 8 Me Jee eee gee Se 3. 81 sna CaM ey, CORES LUNAS ee 9 Sk ea ee ee ee ee a .14 inition Olen AON Cae. ganna eer as 52 A PR Se SS. 08 The range of proportion between the amounts of lime and magnesia is 1:0.02 to 1:3. In most cases of the excess of magnesia over lime, however, this excess is but small and does not amount to more than one-half. These soils have been manured for years, either with animal dung or with commercial fertilizers; hence, often considerable differences of composition occur in the same formation between sur- _face soil and subsoil, especially in the relation of the lime and mag- nesia content. From the observations of the above author it follows that the great- est yield was obtained on those soils in which the amount of magnesia either was smaller than that of lime or exceeded the latter only very moderately. It is to be regretted, however, that the mechanical con- dition and the amount of the other nutrients were not investigated, thereby permitting more reliable inferences. From the analyses of Hungarian soils by Tolles* it is seen that either the lime predominates over magnesia or if magnesia is in excess, it is but moderate, not reaching one and one-half times that of lime. SOILS FROM ASIATIC COUNTRIES. Soils from Japan.—A great number of soils have been analyzed in the laboratory of the geological survey of Japan, and very valuable 'Analysis by Alberti, Jahresber. f. 3 Landw. Vers.-Stat., Vol. L, p. 245. Agriculturchemie, 1873 and 1874. *Ibid., Vol. XLII, p. 409, 1893. *Ibid., 1879 and 1886. 24 RELATION OF LIME AND MAGNESIA TO PLANT GROWTH. Government. Some typical soils show the following percentages of ‘ime and magnesia: Percentages of lime and magnesia in some typical soils of Japan. Soils Per cent of | Per cent of re lime. | magnesia. Glan SOU all se cee ec ae) one tee eae Bare yore oterascaes 0.96 OS 4 CO TT fasta ll Et ee eee eye eee A Sar IR A Bs ci ee 0.99 | 2012 GMeIsstlosimny Sees Sethe ST Pee eee RR eee tnt. tats 0.39 | 0.04 | Minsvehyte logis ss: S260 sore kt seen oe SE et tee Ra teetnys USve, “ons 0.1-1.6 0.1-1.3 AMG esiteulsivers vere ce seen eae = el ucinia ee ee my pert os ane Bicterve) ote 1.74.0 1, 3-3. 0 Abas eos ty Lge k eee, a eee re a | 0.90 1.87 BASAL bial! s 1 Soe S USS.tads.c a oo ese meee ee a ee see DeZL 1.38 The last-mentioned soil is described as an excellent one. While in this case the ratio of lime to magnesia is as 1:0.6, there occur soils which contain more than double as much magnesia as lime. Soils from India.—The soils from the Indo-Gangetic alluvium * are almost without any pebbles. One of the most fertile soils shows the proportion of 0.47 per cent lime to 0.32 per cent magnesia, or 1:0.67. The highest percentage of lime (limestone soils excluded) was found to be 2.07 per cent, and of magnesia 1.97 per cent. The ratio of lime to magnesia varies from 1:0.56 to 1:2.35 among the eleven samples analyzed. In the brown alluvial soils from Madras lime occurs partly as carbon- ate and partly as hydrous silicate. The amount of lime varied in ten samples from 0.05 to 1.23 per cent, and that of magnesia from 0.20 to 1.87 per cent, and the ratio of lime to magnesia from 1:1.52 to 1:1.42. It was not stated whether these loams and sandy soils contained the magnesia only as carbonate or partially as silicate; neither is mention made about fertility and the principal crops raised. Of seven samples of red soils from Madras, only one contained more lime than magnesia, and in one of them the amount of magnesia (1.1 per cent) exceeded that of lime (0.1 per cent) eleven times. In eighteen samples of the.black cotton soils of Regur the amount of lime varied from 1.16 to 5.35 per cent, that of magnesia from 1.79 to 3.09 per cent, and the proportion of lime to magnesia from 1:005 to 1:2. In the twelve samples of laterite soils analyzed the amount of lime varied from 0.14 to 1.5 per cent, that of magnesia from 0.2 to 0.81 per cent, and the ratio of lime to magnesia from 1:0.4 to 1:2. In five samples of manured coffee soils the amount of lime varied from 0.3 to 0.44 per cent, that of magnesia from 0.38 to 0.66 per cent, and the ratio of lime to magnesia from 1:1.2 to 1:1.5. In eleven samples of tea soils the amount of lime varied from 0.03 to 0.25 per cent, that of magnesia from 0.08 to 1.08 per cent. ‘Analyses from T. W. Leather, in the Calcutta Agricultural Ledger, 1898, No. 2. " LIMING OF SOILS FROM A PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT. 25 Recently four analyses of soils of southern India were published by (C. Massey,’ which show a considerable preponderance of lime over magnesia in that part of the country: Lime, 0.836, 0.993, 0.825, and 0.999 per cent; magnesia, 0.210, 0.300, 0.255, and 0.352 per cent. It may be mentioned further that tobacco soils of Sumatra and Java, when extracted with acetic acid (diluted 1:5), yield more than twice as much lime as magnesia, according to Van Bemmelen’s analysis (1890). Again, soils of Asia Minor used near Smyrna and Erbeiti for the culture of fies contains more lime than magnesia.* SOILS FROM AFRICAN COUNTRIES. Analyses were recently published of soils of Cameroon, Senegambia, and German East Africa.’ In the five samples of Cameroon soils, as well as in the three samples of Senegambian soils, there is noticed a great deficiency of lime. The amount present ranges from 0.026 to to 0.174 per cent. Further, there is a considerable excess of magnesia over lime, amounting even to eleven fold and more. These soils would doubtless be much benefited by liming. Among the seventeen samples of soils from German East Africa there are not less than thirteen in which lime predominates over mag- nesia. Maximum of lime, 0.893 per cent; of magnesia, 0.530 per cent. Also eight samples of soils from different parts of the Congo State were analyzed,* four of these showing an excess of magnesia over lime. ‘ SOILS FROM AUSTRALIA. Of analyses of Australian soils, two only, made by Mr. F. B. Guth- vie,’ are available. These soils were taken from the same field and were of a light sandy loam. While the crop (barley) was of good growth on one, it showed bare and stunted spots on the other. The mechanical analyses and the amounts of potash, phosphoric acid, and nitrogen in the two soils were very similar. The only difference of any moment shown by the analyses was in the content of lime. In the good soil it was 0.065 per cent; in the inferior, 0.015 per cent. The analyst recommends liming the inferior soil. Unfortunately, the magnesia was not determined, as it would probably throw more light on the causes of the inequalities in the two soils. RIVER DEPOSITS. It may, in addition, be mentioned that such river deposits as are highly esteemed for their fertilizing properties contain more lime than magnesia. The quantities of potassa and phosphoric acid present in 1 Chemical News, 1895, Vol. LX XI, p. 261. * Cal. Agr. Exp. Stat. Bul. No. 101. 3Jahresber. f. Agriculturchemie, p. 49, 1897. ‘Thid., 1896. > Agr. Gaz. New South Wales, 10, 1899, No. 2, p. 166. 26 RELATION OF LIME AND MAGNESIA TO PLANT GROWTH. these sediments is by no means large, that of the former varying from 0.10 per cent (Colorado) to 0.28 per cent (Rio Grande), that of the latter from 0.092 per cent (Rio Grande) to 0.27 per cent (Colorado, near Fort Yuma, Ariz.). The amount of lime and magnesia in some of these sediments was found as follows: Amount of lime and magnesia in some river sediments. — — — —_—— = = — — Per cent See Per cent | . Rivers. Orilinics of magne- | sla. | IND Vek B29 hp eee eee eRe ane Seeo oan ty aoa ee sor Soe p pee ar eEnoeane 1. 725 0. 046 Rio Grande, New Mexico? ........+.-------- eee eetesen nes ude ers 4, 384 0. 080 Colorado River, Nevada, near Cottonwood Island2....-..-- PaUCE 7.000 0. 690 1Knop (1873) mentions, in his analyses from two different localities on the Nile, calcium carbonate, 3.30 and 4 per cent, and magnesium carbonate, 0.78 and 0.28 per cent. The analysis in the table relates to another locality. 2Annual report of the U. 8. Geographical Surveys west of the 100th Meridian, Capt. George M. Wheeler in charge, Washington, 1875. The sediment of the Colorado River from the vicinity of Fort Yuma, Ariz., was analyzed in the Agr. Exp. Sta. of Arizona, Bul. No. 6. Sediments in western Switzerland claimed to be very fertile, depos- ited by the Morges, the Sionne, and the Borgne, show lime, 2.34, 21.70, and 22.82 per cent; magnesia, 1.16, 1.25, and 1.12 per cent. It will be seen from the above review— (1) That the ratio of lime to magnesia ranges between wide limits. (2) That in the majority of cases lime predominates over magnesia. (3) That in all the instances of great fertility the soil never shows any marked excess of magnesia over lime, but, on the contrary, generally more lime than magnesia. In many of the above-cited instances, however, safe agricultural conclusions can not be drawn, since the mode of analysis (treatment with hydrochloric acid) does not admit of distinguishing between easily and difficultly available mineral nutrients. SOME SPECIAL PHYSIOLOGICAL CASES RELATING TO THE RATIO BETWEEN LIME AND MAGNESIA. Some physiological instances may now be considered which relate to the ratio between lime and magnesia. Knop' infers from his investigations with barley that two molecules of calcium nitrate should be present in the culture solution for one molecule of magnesium sulphate, which would correspond nearly to the proportion of 1 part of lime to 0.5 of magnesia. E. Wolff caleu- lates, however, for the minima of lime and magnesia required for the production of the dry matter of the oat plant 0.25 per cent lime and 0.20 per cent magnesia, or a ratio 1:0.8. 'Centralbl. f. Agriculturchemie, 1861, pp. 465, 564, and 945. LIMING OF SOILS FROM A PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT. 27 In experiments with maize, Knop found that the lime requirement of this plant is relatively larger than that of barlev. From the data given the suitable proportion of lime to magnesia would be 1:0.25. Stohmann differs, however, on this point, and applies the ratio of lime to magnesia as 1:0.6. As to the tobacco plant, cultivated for its abundant foliage and topped to prevent seed production, it is natural to suppose that it requires more lime in proportion to magnesia than the cereals generally do. The percentage amounts of lime and magnesia from a number of ash analyses of tobacco leaf may here be mentioned. In 100 parts of ash are contained: e Percentage of lime and magnesia in ash of tobacco leaf. Per cent of | Per cent of Leal lime. | magnesia. ineuniatiaced See eee seen = acer enn aS 31.12 8.58 Wirpunial (OACEO=a <=2-- 2-228 a= e= =~ sees carn emer 47.27 | 10.16 yar MARPO BECO = =-/2 = mee ra eee nT 32.56 | 14. 69 Si Abeee int 170) 2s LCC ere arta aa a | 37. 36 | 6.37 RCemtniGlayatODACCOne eee soca moots tea 35. 35 | 9.35 Hunrarian) tObAGCO*s mentions that plants culti- vated for some time without any supply of nitrogen compounds lose the normal green of the leaves, and that a supply of ammonium nitrate will remedy the evil. Knop* observed that an excess of cal- cium nitrate, as well as of magnesium nitrate, in culture solutions, can ause yellowing of the leaves, and that in such cases an addition of ammonium sulphate had a curative effect. Stohman, however, does not fully agree, since he was unable to cure such cases by ammonium nitrate. The writer showed years ago that a kind of ‘‘ yellows” is produced by a lack of phosphate.’ Alge turned gradually yellow in culture solutions in which phosphoric acid was absent, and the addition of a trace of secondary sodium phosphate sufficed to restore the normal ereen color. In regard to the dependence of full development upon the ratio of lime and magnesia, an interesting observation on the chestnut tree may be mentioned. Grandeau and Fliche* analyzed leaves and »ranches of a tree in. normal healthy development and of another of 1 Wolft’s Tables, I, p. 63. 2Jahrbuch der Deutschen Landw. Gesellschaft, Vol. VIII, p. 437. ’The French grape vines are much more susceptible to the * yellows”’ alter being grafted with the American vine than they are before, as Liidecke mentions. The varieties Jaques and Riparia appear to be unable to thrive on soil with more than 18 per cent of lime, but Rupestric is capable of it. 4Le Progrés Agricole et Viticole, 1899, No. 31. 5Chem. Centralbl., 1861, p. 597. 6Tbid., p. 476. 7 Botan. Centralbl., 1891, p. 371. 8 Wolff’s Tables, II, p. 102. 30 poor and meager development. RELATION OF LIME AND MAGNESIA TO PLANT GROWTH. From the figures given a considerable difference in the content of potash, lime, and magnesia will be noticed. Lime is increased in the latter case, while magnesia and potash are diminished. In 100 parts of ash. Parts of tree. Total ash. rz aula 75 =m . | Potash. | Lime. | Magnesia. | Phosphoric | } } | acid. | bese a 4 i= Z & | | | } | | Percent. | Percent. | Percent. | Percent. | Per cent. NonmailliGavessc = 22-45-66 ica 4.8 21.67 | 45, 37 6.63 12. 32 | Poorly developed leaves ....-. Tots 5.76 | 74. 55 3.70 12.50 Normal branches.............- 4.74 11. 65 | 73. 26 3.99 4.53 Poorly developed branches --.- 5.71 2.69 87.30 | 2.07 4,27 Percentage of potash, lime, magnesia, etc., in leaves and branches of chestnut tree. The amount of magnesia relative to lime is considerably smaller in the poorly developed leaves and branches than in the normal ones of the chestnut, as seen from the following figures: A plant of special agricultural importance is the sugar beet. Magnesia to 100 parts lime. iHealthysleavese® 2... 2. ae oe Se 14.8 Poorly developed leaves’s-2 = eee ete ac 5 oon eS eee ed Healthy: branchés/2 2.3.3 3022 te aoe oac soc eee 5.4 Poorlyedevelopedtibranchesi sees == =e a ee 2.3 In comparing the lime and magnesia of this plant with that of others some data of interest are observed.' In 1,000 parts dry matter are contained: Percentage of lime and magnesia to 1,000 parts dry matter in sugar beets and other plants. I. GRASSES. Content. Per cent. | Plants, ete. | Minimum of magnesia .......... aaa 1.41 |. Young winter wheat (2). Maximum of magnesia.............. 6.50 | Maize in flowering stage (7). Mimi oli es 22.2 = 2-5-2 cea 2.71 | Winter wheat in flowering stage (7). Mamimumnot lime i222 2 a see 16.46 |-Rye grass (7). | Il. CLOVER AND OTHER FODDER HERBs. | Seradella in the flowering stage (8). Buckwheat, flowering (17). Red clover, flowering (13). Leaves of turnips (10). Leaves of sugar beet (25). Leaves of the common beet (18). Minimum of magnesia .............. 3. od Maximum of magnesia.............. 10. 90 Minimum ot dime 2220... 22sec ches 10.52 | Lupin hay (38). Maximum Of Me teces. -cecnes ec. 38. 61 III. LEAVES OF THE ROOT CROPS. Minimum of magnesia.............. 4.61 Maximum of magnesia.............. 16. 86 WiGhoobaequboawes lb bred) eves pepe ee ae 16,34 INTE OT es ae a cersiete seis sock c 44.52 | Carrot (8). *Wolff’s Tables, II. LIMING OF SOILS FROM A PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT. 31 Percentage of lime and magnesia to 1,000 parts dry matter in sugar beets, etc. —Continued. IV. ROOT CROPS. | | Minimum of magnesia:....-.2...... 1.43 | Topinambur (2). | | Maximum of magnesia.-.........-.--- 8.26 | Common beet (19). MIMO lM eyes meee yee a 1.00 | Potato (59). | Miaxaimum) ot limme22 222 2=22eee=------ 8.49 | Turnips (13). | Notre.—The ne in parentheses indicate the numbers of analyses that Ses for cplemanen of the average. A few plants of subordinate interest were excluded from comparison. It is seen from these data that among the leaves of the plants of the three groups here considered (comprising in Wolff’s Tables seventy species from various families), the sugar beet leaves contain the high- est amount of magnesia, and, further, that among the leaves of root crops the common beet contains the maximum of magnesia in the roots and the minimum of lime in the leaves. From Wolff’s Tables, I (page 170), it can further be learned that of all the leaves there con- sidered those of the common beet and the sugar beet show, in relation to the amount of lime present, the largest amount of magnesia. Average lime and magnesia content to 1,000 parts dry matter in sugar and common beet leaves. Parts of Parts of Plant. lime. magnesia. SuUSarseehilenves teens oc crsccce, AOE ese Poacecng eee cite s.ee nee cen 25.76 26.34 Common beemlenvest ae. sacecte coe een e eee Se GS ie eee 16.84 14.44 Suicaribeewleaviessieseens a2 rem eccee eek, (ech set ee oe te Sle 30. 06 16. 86 WomMIONNDeCUMeN Ves sone anes See mete ents eo aSeeitie ee sciences 16. 34 14. 62 2 Wolff’s Tables, II, p. 145. 1 Wolff's Tables, I, p. 170. It may be of some interest also to compare the ratio between lime and magnesia in leaves of various other plants. The following ratios were calculated from the average data given in Wolff’s Tables: Comparison of ratio of lime and magnesia in various plants. Total an | Ratio of Plant, ete. ous any lime to mag- | | matter. nesia. | Per cent. | Mi eaitatt Oueniia gan = ee aod Seen es Oe . ce mnie Aa sncicie 69.6 1.0.68 Clover MOW erie. 5-2 seers eeaa- le ne eee ee, Selgin Re 68.6 1:0.31 ATia Owen py aon see eer ty ise eerie =. - ocelee erercis ee 73.8 1eORI Ys} Tb{OY ON, 34 Sea eG eee ees a. 85 2 te Siar SACS a ree ee oe oe eee 41.0 UO S/ OCRLOMO Diese oan Nee ee eee nite aie cesses ciecinwccemec ~enee 85.8 1.0.50 | STREET peer te eet ee eee eit ee eee Sikes Wich s wleRimainis pamysios ste 116.4 10.12 | (CHRO! a Oe oF Rio IS, rel A RA ee eS I ea 55.8 1:0.10 LQitEie 4 SoM aes a ye ae Set ee 180.3 10.44 | SU aC TC eee eee EN re eet an)> cicitteik chatsieiaytepeyate atalaiticyera 23.6 | 1.0.95 | SHURE OSCE Se Se Seem qgneS6 55S SA OPES SEES Sbnoceo de bonce san 148.8 | 1.0.56 | SUP NEG eenad coace soac GEIR SRL Sees EE eao Se eee eae 175.8 | 1st 0263 Conmnn bert. seek see. SuS7 Fea ree eet Ih Se ye 153. 4 10.90 | 1 Wolff’s Tables, I. 2 Wolff's Tables, II. oF RELATION OF LIME AND MAGNESIA TO PLANT GROWTH. The roots of the sugar beet contain only about one-fourth as much ash as the leaves, but relative to the lime more magnesia than the leaves.’ Lime and magnesia content to 1,000 parts of dry matter of root of sugar and common beet. | Ratio of Plant. | Fotal ash. Lime. Magnesia. | lime to magnesia. Per cent. | Per cent. Per cent. Suear beet? oe. sina cke = oo ea ee eee 38.3 | 2.33 3.01 gy es : / . Common" beet +: sis. Soe ee eee 75.8 | 2.83 8. 26 15229 | 1 Recent publications mention a smaller amount of magnesia. The transformation of the common beet into the sugar beet seems to be connected with a small decrease of the magnesia content in the root and an increase of lime in the leaf. (See table above.) It is further of considerable interest that the seeds of the common beet and SUGULr beet are ANtLOnG$ those richest in MAGNESi. From Wolff's Tables, II, p. 142, containing the averages of sixty-seven different seeds and fruits, it will be seen that for 1,000 parts of dry matter of seed the magnesia content was from 0.12 parts (horse chestnut) to 10.02 parts, which maximum belongs to the seed of the common beet. For 1,000 parts of the seeds of the sugar beet the magnesia content amounts to 8.55 parts, which number is only surpassed by that for the almond (8.65 parts). The lime content of those seeds is a moderate one, 8.83 and 11.89 parts, respectively, for 1,000 parts of dry matter, while the extremes are 0.15 (winter barley) and 33.05 (carrot). The sugar beet belongs to those crops that are rich in mineral matter, since the ash varies from 14 to 20 per cent and over. It can, therefore, not create surprise to see beets still grow on soils which by a certain content of soluble salts interfere seriously with other crops, as grasses and legumes. Hilgard and Loughridge* made experiments on lands considerably impregnated with alkali salts in southern California, and inferred that sugar beets may even be raised on soils containing as much as 12,000 pounds of alkali salts per acre to the depth of 3 feet. These salts consisted of sulphates, nitrates, chlorides, and carbonates, but the chlorid content did not exceed 500 pounds per acre. Champion and Pellet found that for the formation of 100 pounds of sugar in beets the whole plant must consume: Pounds. Pounds. EOS DORICWACIN secre. te 2 oe | 1.) tod Zapebime:s se. tate) 2 See 1.5 to 1.6 ELOLAR ME east asie telat ec nls 5: torGxOwieMisonGsia. oo. o.oe ee eee 1.2 to 1.4 oto (Ot 2 Soper. 6 Nee i a 1. 5 to, 230 Rye Nitrapen os S802. 58s)... eee ee 2. LOvaue ' Wolff's Tables, IT. * Report of the Cal. Expt. Sta., 1894 and 1895. LIMING OF SOILS FROM A PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT. 33 From all these considerations we can infer that for the culture of the sugar beet one of the many conditions of success is a magnesia content nearly equaling the lime content of the soil. Numerous manuring experiments have been made, with more or less success, to ascertain the best development of the sugar beet to insure the maximum production of saccharose. Some attention should also be paid to the regulation of the ratio between lime and magnesia in the soil, as this may prove of great importance. CORRECTION OF LIME AND MAGNESIA CONTENT IN SOILS. Although there are crops which require a relatively large amount of magnesia when roots, tubers, and seeds are richer in magnesia than in lime, yet the entire plants of any crop require more lime than mag- nesia, since the stalks and leaves show a preponderance of lime; hence such soils would, other things being equal, be best adapted for agri- cultural purposes which show a preponderance of lime over magnesia, at least in the finer particles available to the plant roots. The amounts of lime and magnesia, in kilograms, extracted from one hectar (nearly 9.5 acres) of ground by various plants in one year’ are in average as follows: Lime and magnesia extracted from soil by various plants. Plants, ete. Lime. Magnesia. kilograms. | Kilograms. | LON eS7 il Shae a Se eS OOS > sae eee Hee BAILS COSC Se eet ae Ee ea 16 10 | HUGE) 3 aso gaees SoSaco denne 54 gr dee Jo5 aoe con poe Se eee EE saooee 30 15 HEE G bebo eee eet ee ese ee sete say hive owes webinceee | 40 20 | | (SOUIMONIDE Case epee eee See see = eee Saale ss cee saci Seceeccal 40 ZN PON ARNG 42 ae PALA Swe 2 AL lee ee | 46 | 17 | | ROP UNINC SO aera eee ee eee ie etoe ewe ka ce nace een eee ewe cee | 50 | 12 | ee PingestOreste ee ee eer SE oe eco e coe ee cmateecuecs 70 | 9 | Since, however, the roots come into direct contact with only a rela- tively small portion of the soil, the absolute amount of available lime and magnesia must be very much greater than would follow from the data in the table. — The review of soils above given leaves no doubt that lime prepon- derates over magnesia in most soils, and that the very best soils show, among other advantages, this peculiarity. But, nevertheless, cases are not infrequent in which the amount of magnesia is larger than that of lime. As long as this excess is only moderate no evil effects may be noticed, but they become evident when this relative excess is consider- able. A correction of the soil by liming for the physiological needs of the crops will then be in order. The nature of the crops and the depth to which the roots penetrate will serve as a basis for the extent of 1 Ebermayer, Chemie der Pflanzen, Vol. I. 4784—No. 1—01——-3 B4 RELATION OF LIME AND MAGNESIA TO PLANT GROWTH. liming. An undesirable increase of magnesia is often caused by the manuring with crude potassium salts of Stassfurt, as above pointed out. In this case also liming furnishes the remedy.* This correction grows in importance with the absolute amount of magnesia contained in the soils,” since the poisonous effect of magnesia grows with the concentration. It is therefore clear that the determi- nation and balancing of the available amount of magnesia and lime in the soils is necessary for successful farming on apparently infertile soils. The amount, however, available for the next crop is not obtained by treating the entire soil with concentrated hydrochloric acid, since compounds are thereby dissolved which the roots can not utilize before their further disintegration or final distribution. The system of Dyer, consisting in the treatment of the soil with 1 per cent citric acid for seven days after ‘‘neutralization” of the carbon- ates, is apparently more in accord with the dissolving power of the roots, but Lemmermann® has shown for potassa that even 5 per cent hydrochloric acid does not extract all that is available for certain plants. This may hold good also for lime and magnesia whenever they are present, not as carbonates, but wholly or partially as hydrous silicates. Since Daikuhara* has observed for phosphoric acid that soils treated with acetic, citric, or oxalic acids in 1 per cent solution are only partially deprived of the phosphoric acid available for barley, it will be best to follow the system of Thoms—that is, to treat the soil with a hydrochloric acid of 10 per cent. However, with that modifi- cation only that portion of a soil that passes through a 0.5 cm. sieve is thus treated,’ and the percentage in this fine sand, silt, and clay only is determined. It will be best to mix 200 grams of this fine portion in a 1-liter flask with 400 c.c. of the 10 per cént hydrochloric acid, and let the mixture stand, with frequent shaking, for one day at the ordinary temperature. Water is then added to fill up to 1 liter, and, after well mixing and filtering, certain portions of the filtrate 'P. Wagner very correctly remarks (Jahresbericht fiir Agrikultur Chemie, 1897, p. 254): “The successful application of the crude Stassfurt salts containing chlorid and sulphate of magnesium presumes a soil rich in carbonate of calcium. More attention has to be paid to the magnesia content of the Stassfurt salts than has hitherto been the case. Under certain circumstances the magnesia content can act very favorably, while a too rich manuring with magnesia salts may prove injurious.” This is exactly what follows from the writer’s theory published five years previous to Wagner’s utterances. * The excess of magnesia over lime in soils never reaches such proportions as, on the other hand, the excess of lime over magnesia may dp. Thus, there frequently exist soils with 20 per cent to 40 per cent of carbonate of lime, while soils with over 5 per cent of carbonate of magnesia are rarely found. ®Landw. Vers. Stat., Vol. XLIX, p. 33. ‘Private communication. Still more correct results might be obtained by using a 0.2 cm. sieve, but this must be determined by further tests. LIMING OF SOILS FROM A PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT. 35 serve for the determination of the available nutrients. The results are calculated for the whole soil. Thus, the easily available amounts of lime and magnesia will be at least approximately obtained. It will be impossible to obtain numbers that are constants of availability, since the roots of different species have also different powers of absorp- tion. Nilsen and Eggertz* found that a very fertile soil became, after extraction with 2 per cent hydrochloric acid, sterile for barley. but not yet sterile for oats. A treatment of the soil with acid of double the strength was necessary to render it sterile for oats. As regards the separation of the soil into a finer and coarser portion, it must be mentioned that experiments have proved that the finer particles come principally into consideration in regard to fertility. Larger particles may be attacked along their surface only, but will not be dissolved by one year’s growth of vegetation. Should the analyses not show, as above assumed, an excess of magnesia, hut, on the contrary, an amount of available magnesia far below that of lime in the fine particles of the soil, an addition of finely ground unburned magnesite or unburned pulverized magnesian lime- stone should be made. The application of artificially precipitated basic magnesium carbonate or burned magnesia can not be recommended, since they are not only too expensive for the purposes of agriculture, but also very injurious, being easily absorbed, owing to their very fine pulverulent condition. The above-mentioned experiments of Ulbricht furnish abundant proof of the considerable differences in the action of powdered magnesite and precipitated magnesium carbonate. Finally, the analysis may show a lack of lime as well as of magnesia. Soils occur, indeed, with less than 0.1 per cent of these nutrients. Manuring with a mixture of marl and magnesite or with pulverized magnesian limestone containing less than 40 per cent magnesia is then in order. If the ratio of lime and magnesia in the soils is judicially regulated, great benefit to agriculture will result and an essential step forward be made. }Landw. Vers. Stat., 1891, Vol. XX XVIII, p. 344. IeeeAPERIMENTAR-SEUDY OF THE RELATION OF LIME: AND MAGNESIA TO PLANT GROWTH. By D. W. May, Of the Office of Experiment Stations. INTRODUCTION. The wide distribution of lime and magnesia in soils is very evident from the tables of analyses presented in the first part of this bulletin. The fact that these elements are in some degree present in all soils and able to supply the direct needs of plants has probably been the reason for the neglect of the extended study of their relations to each other. THE ROLE OF LIME IN THE SOIL. The necessity of lime and magnesia in plant production is a fact that has long been recognized. The favorable influence of lime on certain soils has led to the very common agricultural practice of liming. The presence of lime may serve several purposes. It supplies this neces- sary element in the construction of plant tissue, hastens the decompo- sition of organic matter, facilitates the assimilation of other elements, and produces favorable physical conditions in the soil. It also causes an increased bacteriological and fungous growth in the soil, in some cases favorable to plants,as in reducing the club-root of the turnip and cabbage,’ and sometimes unfavorable, as increasing the scab of potatoes.» Deherain mentions that agriculture in some sections of France has by the use of lime undergone an entire revolution. Lime may then serve in plant production in several réles, which may be denominated physical, chemical, and physiological. Physically, it may be of benefit when added to stiff, retentive clays, rendering them mellow, better drained, and more easily cultivated. Chemically, it will render available and within the ability of the plant to absorb certain necessary elements locked up in an insoluble combination. Physiologically, it has a necessary rdle to play in carrying on the functions of plant growth and the building up of cells. It is the latter réle of the element in connection with magnesia that this paper deals. THE ROLE OF MAGNESIA IN THE SOIL. Certain experiments as well as the percentage of magnesia found in plants, especially in the seeds, prove the necessity of this element in plant production. Besides being a necessary constituent of plants, it plays a physiological réle, serving especially in aiding the assimilation 1Campbell, Board Agr. Rpt., Great Britain, 1894-95. 2Wheeler, Rhode Island Rpt., 1896. 38 RELATION OF LIME AND MAGNESIA TO PLANT GROWTH. of phosphoric. acid, as already pointed out. It is not the province of- this report to discuss at any length the physiological action of lime and magnesia. That subject is presented in detail in the first part of this bulletin, in which Dr. Loew, from the results of investigations, draws the conclusion that where magnesia is in excess, the lime, as the stronger base, will combine with the acid of the magnesium salt, while the magnesia will enter into the place which the lime had occupied in the organized structure. Again, if lime salts are in great excess the formation of magnesium phosphate, and consequently the assimilation of phosphoric acid will be retarded. An excess of magnesia in soils may exert a poisonous action upon plants. This has been noticed in applying limestone containing a large percentage of magnesia. Again, the continued application of potassic fertilizers as kainit and carnallit containing magnesia has in some instances rendered the soil unfit for agricultural purposes. This is probably due to the raising of the magnesia content of the soil, as may be done'by continued application of certain crude potash salts. A sample examined by the writer contained 9.37 per cent of magnesia. The difference in the lime and magnesia content may also be influ- enced in another way. Goessman reports! an increased loss of lime from soils to which muriate of potash was applied. The analysis of drainage water from such plats showed a large percentage of calcium chlorid. Magnesia is found naturally in alkali soils of the arid districts and possibly in soils of the humid regions to such an extent as to render them barren of any vegetation. It is also highly probable that the magnesia content of a great many soils is excessive to such an extent as to hinder them in producing maximum crops. THE OBJECT OF THE EXPERIMENTS. The object of the work herein reported was to study the effect of varying amounts of calcium and magnesium salts on the growth of economic plants, and especially the ameliorating effects of lime salts in overcoming the noxious results of an excess of magnesia. It was also sought to determine the ratio between the two bases which best promote the early germination and quick development of plants. This might throw some light on the question of liming, as giving some indication of the amount of lime to be supplied, and in other cases pointing out the danger of adding an excessive amount of magnesia through applying certain limestone and potassic fertilizers containing that base. Another point sought to be brought out is the form in which lime best acts in counteracting the noxious effects of an excess of magnesia and also the testing of chemical nutrients other than lime in ameliorating such evil results. The experiments described were begun in 1899, and cultures of the ‘Mass. Hatch. Exp. Sta. Bulletin No. 38. _ EXPERIMENTAL STUDY. 39 different plants in the various media were continued up to June, 1901. Not only does it take some time to get assured results in culture experi- ments, but owing to the various elements involved in many soils employed it is necessary to have accumulative evidence to warrant safe deductions. In making the experiments, water, sand, and soil cultures were employed and comparisons made of many trials in the different media used. In the sand and soil cultures the calcium and magnesium were incorporated as carbonates, sulphates, and nitrates. In water cultures the more soluble salts of nitrates and sulphates were employed. In comparing the two bases the molecular weights have been used for reasons readily apparent. If there is a ratio of effect between the two elements the molecular weight is the better basis of estimating it, but in agricultural practice the actual weight, as a matter of course, would be found the more practicable. However, as may be readily seen, one ratio may be quickly estimated from the other. LIME AND MAGNESIA AS NITRATES AND SULPHATES IN WATER CULTURES. The following series of water cultures were made in bottles holding 250 ¢.c., the stem of the plant being supported by a cotton plug in the mouth of the bottle. The bottles were placed in a box covered with sand to exclude light from the roots. The plant used was a variety of cowpea which had been sprouted in clean sawdust. These experiments were preliminary and made not alone for the evi- dence shown by the results attained, but as a basis to guide in more extended trials. It was not attempted to bring the plants to maturity in the small amounts of culture media used, but to carry them beyond the point where a direct physiological result would appear from the addition of the various percentages of the lime and magnesia salts employed. The following solutions of magnesium and calcium salts were made up with distilled water, and plants 5 cm. high were set July 17. The results are shown in the following table: Results of experiments with cowpeas set July 17. July 17. July 20. July 23. | No. of es eee Solution. Per cent. Condition. Condition. | ea 21 GY ol Se eS Fee aa] ee Blea thivess = 2~ Sotn.cn ete sen Drooping. | 2) MgO/as MgSO,. ......222.--.1- hate) Mejerted! 4». ..22 2.2: | Dead. | 3 | MgO as Mg(NOg)s...---------- 0.1 | Leaves shriveled ......... | Dying. 4 | Ga@ras Ga (NOs\s.25--=5-25.4-- 0.1 TE RSENS Tig Sete eae eee es Healthy. MgO’ as Mg(NOg)o ...--.----.- ).05 } 5]| Bees Ig (NOs)s : if \pealthy pee eras See ferry ie Healthy. | MRCaOrasiGau(NOs\s22.-0-22..-2- 0.05 | | S v Dew ene ene eeee 0. 5 | 6! MEO “ Mg(NOs)s | ree \Healthy Mis oR Scicidd Salect aise Healthy. | PGEXO ESIGN GS (0) Fae ee eee | O:1 |i | o =) /) | TI DRORN GG Aaa rear | Ai ss 5 ee Dead. RROIASUKGS On ep eee ects. Se 0.1 || | | | 40 RELATION OF LIME AND MAGNESIA TO PLANT GROWTH. On July 23 there were added to the bottles containing plants still living, viz, No. 4, No. 5, and No. 6, 2 ¢. c. of a 14 per cent nutrient solution, made up as follows: ; Per cent. | Per cent. REM O sr cen eis Tape ee oe Se 5 | Nal genc5..:. 5.5. 1. 25 URGING): tee ate Aoi ele nk gee eeae a hea” B |. FeSOfes 2. 0. 25 (INTEL Omen nee, 2 52 AS oe B75 | On August 18, twenty-seven days from the time the plants had been set in the culture solutions, they had attained a growth as follows: aaee Solution. | Per cent. | Height. | Roots. | i | | | | | Cm. cm. A OO Manes reste ens ai seis aidaccs ae cen aatte sem ke mic 0.1 | 19 7 Al NVI Oe See sera ie ete ee sisiac eek: = aise aerocle cise a amierae swale 0.05 |) DA 3 NRACENO Ta Sc 8 Ne i te ee IN ere ee 5 ee ee 0.05 || all DVL OO gre etree ey tee atc Se era noo vrei ae SE sic 0.05 | 17 = d+ | ‘ HNP OURO NIES se eae ee Se eee 0.1 | The plants in the solutions containing both lime and magnesia were of normal appearance and growth. The plant in No. 4, with 0.1 per cent of lime and no magnesia, exhibited red spots on the leaves, and appeared as though the physiological processes had been interfered with. On July 30 another series was started, using the cowpea, sprouted as before, and 9 cm. high. To each bottle was added 1 ¢. c. of a nutri- ent solution of the composition used in the previous experiment. The following table shows the additional nutrients added and the results: Results of experiments with cowpeas set July 30. | July 30. August 4. | August 7. | August 13. No. of | | bottle. Solution. Per cent. | Condition. | Condition. Condition. | |(Dead. AChceicwwee shee. rt is .----, Growing... | Dying at top... J Height, 20 em. Roots, 8 em. | ifeeeeee 9 | MgO as Mg(NOx)o ..-. 0.1 | Growing....| Dying at top....) Height, 24cm. eae 7 em. : | |(Healthy. 10 a eO'Rs Mg(NOs)2 Ppa ot }Growing.... Healthy ......... , Height, 18 em. || CaO as Ca(NOs)o.-.--- 0.05 | Root ude MgO as Mg(NOsz)o .... Oil ‘i | aa 3 0] ioscan ONE = ay ie parc ywing....| Healthy ........ Height, 35 em. Ca alae eesre | | |[Roots, 10 em. MgO as Mg(NOs)o A 0.1 i) : | Healy | 12. 5 3/2 eee |/Growing....| Healthy ........ Height, 28 em. || Ca0.as Ca(NOg)s...--- 0.2 J | teas Roots, 10 em, 13 MgO as Mg(NOg)o -... 0.1 \prooping...| Dying .......... [Dead || FeO as FeSO,......... 0.02 J aie |Height, 25 em. 14: MgO as Mg(NOg)s ....| 0.1 lGrowing.... Healthy ..... 2. [Peas || NasO as NaNO,....... 0.1 | 7 |Height, 28 em, '{Dead. |Height, 28 em. p : | : 15 | MgO as MgSOy,........ 0.1 | Growing....] Dejected | | EXPERIMENTAL STUDY. 41 In this series the cotyledons were attached to the plants when reset, and they, together with the nutrients in the solutions, enabled all the plants to make same growth. However, without exception, they were soon overcome by the noxious influence of magnesia in the absence of lime, while those in solutions containing lime preserved a normal appearance. On August 13a series of cultures were started, using cowpeas 30 em. high. The plants had been sprouted in clean sawdust, and had exhausted the substance stored in the cotyledons. One cubic centi- meter of the nutrient solution was added to each bottle, the additional nutrients added, and the results are shown in the following table: Results of experiments with cowpeas set August 13. August 13. | August 20. | August 27. September 6, t No. of + — == bottle. Solution. Jo Condition. | Condition. Condition. te) Ghrowkeest eae ese ee ees, Dejected ..| Dying ..... Dead. 17 | MgO as Mg(NOs3)2---:| 0.1 | Growing...| Dying ..... Dead. 18 | CaO as Ca(NO3)o.----- 0.1 | Growing...| Healthy .... Growth ceased, leaves curling. xT y\= | | 19 | MgO as Mg(NOs)2 0.05 Growing. ..| Healthy ...| Healthy. CaO as Ca(NOs)o------ 0.05 | 20| MgO as me ay aa 0.05 } Growing. - | Healthy ...| Healthy. CaO as Ca(NOQs3)o.-.----} On) | | ee 5 et oil NazO as NaaCO, ---.-- ghee Sees ..| Healthy ...| Healthy. || CaO as Ca(NOs)s------ eg i aa F 0 | 22 MgO as Mg(NOg)a --.-| 0.1 \erowing. =a yaInes Sai =. | Dead. | K,0 as KNO3.-.--=2-4- OF) | Hees. cae | 231 en us ony peo | 0.1 erowane: 2 i] Healthy ...| Healthy. 120 as Ca(NO3)o------ | 0.05 | } oal| MgO as Mg(NOsg)s ---- 0.1 i eaeerainte 3 i Healthy ...| Healthy. || CaO as Ca(NOsg)o------ 0.1 | | | | oe | | | 251 WOMEN Oy Se Nerewdane Healthy ...| Healthy. | CaO as Ca(NOs)o- ----- OFZ) || | ‘i ( Droppin og|| M&O .as Mg(NOs)o----, 0.1 Neicoeriae o) en OnPBe lead. || FeO as FeSQ,......... 0.02 | leaves. |] MgO as Mg(NOsg)o----) 0.1 | a7! ‘Growing...| Dying vad. aN NAOCRI ke ee | 0.1 Growing. iD yimpy = ==. - | Deat 28 | MgO as MgSOy....---- | 0.1 | Growing...) Dying -...- | Dead. In these experiments, with lime and magnesia in solutions, the results under like conditions were very uniform throughout. When the death of the plant ensued there was first noted a shrinkage of the leaf, followed by a browning of the root system and a stoppage in the development. The growth of root hairs, especially, was hindered. As plants sprouted in solid media and transferred to water cultures throw out a different kind of root hair in order to adapt themselves to the new media, it is probable that the first injury in the magnesia solution lies in the deterrent action of that element upon this process. While the action of magnesia in the absence of lime proved poison- ous, the absence of magnesia with lime present when a certain point 492 RELATION OF LIME AND MAGNESIA TO PLANT GROWTH. was reached resulted in the arrested development of the plant. The action of both elements were not in such excess as to vroduce a physical effect, but rather a physiological one. The experiments also show that potassium, sodium, and iron salts do not serve in the place of calcium salts in overcoming noxious effects of an excess of magnesia. In general, the potassium and sodium, both as nitrate and sulphate, seemed to reduce to some extent the toxicity of the magnesia, but not to such an extent as to justify their employment in actual practice. The iron sulphate, on the contrary, appeared to increase the toxicity of the excess of magnesia. Loew has already pointed out! that magnesia as nitrate and sulphate is alone more noxious to plants than sodium or potassium alone. In order to test the influence of an excess of magnesia upon the stem and foliage, a series of water cultures were made, using herbaceous branches, about 30 cm. in length, of the privet (Ligustrum vulgare). The solutions were made up and the results were as reported in the following table: Results of experiments with privet set August 23. | August 23. September 15. October 4. No. of | | bettle. | = : Per 7A =e sie | Solution. eat Condition, Condition. | 29 | Distilled water ..... asa Normale. Fee ease tocar | Normal. | | | 30 | MgO as MgSO,......| 0.2 | Few upper leaves left ...... 31 | MgO as Mg(NOs) 9 =| 0.2 | Stem blackened; leaves | fallen. 32 | CaO as Ca(NOg)o-..- 0.2 | Leaves curled and mostly | | fallen. | | | és zs R f MgO as Mg(NOsz)o -- 0.4 ‘ oe rae, {Leaves mostly fallen; 33 e ueaves slightly curled...... : | \| CaO as Ca(NOs)o---.| 0.1 (color normal, 34 | MgO as MgSQy....-..| 0.2 | Stem blackened; leaves | | | | fallen. | {| MgO as MgSO,...-.-- | 0.1 |). Ore pele: f Norm lees. <2 cee eee | No if | 35)) CaO as Ca(NOs)o--..| 0.1 || orma | ormal From the foregoing tables it will be noticed that an excess of mag- nesium salts in the absence of calcium salts proved noxious to the extent of killing the plant. Where calcium salts were used without magne- sium the plant made a slow growth for a while, but later ceased grow- ing and exhibited phenomena of starvation—the development being arrested and the leaves assuming a light shade of green. Where the magnesium and calcium were used in conjunction, the plants in every instance made a healthy growth. In such combination the best final growth was made in a solution where the lime was in moderate excess of the magnesia, and the total amount of soluble salts, including nutrient, did not exceed 0.3 per cent. ‘Bul. No. 18, U. 8S. Dept. Agr., Veg., Phys., and Path.: ‘‘Physiological réle of chemical nutrients.’’ EXPERIMENTAL STUDY. 43 The uniformity in the favorable results with the different lime salts in overcoming the poisonous effects of an excess of magnesia indicate that the action was due to the basic and not to the acid radical. Should there be a favorable action of the acid radical in this relation it would appear in cases where a magnesium salt was employed with such an acid radical. The uniform toxic effect of the magnesia in excess without lime, and the elimination of that effect in the presence of lime. indicate that the acid radical of the salt has none or at least very little influence in the matter aside from favoring solubility, as further experiments prove. Lime appears to be the only antidote, as far as the elements were tested, for combating an excessive amount of magnesia. LIME AND MAGNESIA AS CARBONATES IN SAND CULTURE. In order to further study the relation of lime and magnesia to each other in their effect upon plant growth other experiments were planned. To 60 kilograms of clean, white quartz sand there were added the following compounds: Per cent. Reales AOR OO eee ene hancement es 5 4-255+- Ov Ons Ca, (POD) ge 2 ona a = a ee inne ES = 8- + == 3- 0.2 iS S Org i OS 0 hie: 86 2c Oe ee ee ee ee 0.1 ESO Piece Bet 48 Re eels ane ate ney eS 0.1 To 30 kilograms of the sand there were added MgO as MgCO,, 0.1 per cent; and to the remaining 30 kilograms, MgO as MgCO,, 1 per cent. The chemicals were rubbed up in a mortar, added to a small portion of the sand, and then to the whole amount. The sand was put into twelve pots, holding 5 kilograms each. Those with the minimum amount of magnesia were marked 7 to 6A, inclusive: those with the maximum amount, 72 to 2B, inclusive. EXPERIMENTS WITH TOBACCO. In the first series, marked 4, the portion of CaO to MgO was 15 to1. In the second series, marked 2B, the porportion of CaO to MgO was 3 to 5. On January 6, tobacco plants 5 em. high were taken from rich soil, the roots carefully washed, and were set in the sand. » _ Pa . ; i _ 7 Tt © i at _ a 1 : + = ’ l= seu ' — pad | ““ 7 7 7 ve SA a.) > me ' : - - = _ . a [ts - ss ry — : EXPERIMENTAL STUDY. 49 It will be observed that the amounts of soluble salts in this experi- ment were very largely in excess of the needs of the plants. They were made so in order to thoroughly test the capacity of the lime in counteracting the noxious influence of the magnesia, and the bases were not added with the view of conserving the best conditions of plant growth or with the idea of bringing them to their full develop- ment. The experiments tend to show that the most favorable condition for the growth of wheat is in the soil where the amount of available lime is in moderate excess over the amount of available magnesia. If the amount of magnesia is too small in the presence of a larger percentage of lime the plant shows phenomena, apparently, of starvation. If the amount of magnesia is excessive, with a deficiency of lime, the mag- nesia exerts a poisonous influence upon the plant. The Deutsche Landwirtschaftliche Presse states that calcium car- bonate in the soil to the amount of 0.46 per cent had an injurious effect upon lupins, and that this was overcome by an application of kainit. The action of kainit in this case was probably due to its magnesia content. In a trial with oats in these series of pots the results were as with wheat—the germination was quickest and growth best in the pots with MgO 0.4 and CaO 0.5 per cent. EXPERIMENTS WITH COWPEAS. After the removal of the wheat one series of pots was planted to cowpeas and one to tobacco. With the cowpeas the results of the most favorable ratio of lime to magnesia was the same as with wheat. The seed germinated in the same order, the ratio of CaO 0.5 and MeO 0.4 being the more favorable, and the growth of plants decreasing from that pot to the two extremes. The cowpeas, however, appeared to be more tolerant of the excess of the two salts in the extreme pots, and after germination the plants grew better than the wheat plants. Since the cowpea contains more of the mineral nutrients stored up in its seeds than wheat grains, the evil effects of an excess of magnesia or lack of lime in the soil can be better counteracted up to a certain stage in the development of the plant. EXPERIMENTS WITH TOBACCO. To. the second series of eight pots tobacco plants about 5 cm. high were transplanted from soil. Beginning with the pot containing CaO 0.8 and MgO 0.1 per cent, the plant started into quickest growth, showing the greediness of this plant for lime. Later, however, this plant became spindling and of light color, while the plants in the pots 1Vol. 23, Nos. 91 and 92. 4784—No. 1—01——-4 50 RELATION OF LIME AND MAGNESIA TO PLANT GROWTH. with MgO 0.2 per cent, CaO 0.7 per cent, MgO 0.3 per cent, and JaO 0.6 per cent made a better growth and were of normal propor- tions and of good color. The figures for the best proportions of lime to magnesia in soils for the early germination and quick development of plants refer, of course, to the soluble amounts—that is, to that portion directly available to the immediate needs of the plant. These figures are therefore arbi- trary in agricultural practice, owing to the variation of the solubility of these elements in the soil. It will also be noticed that soluble mag- nesia in excess of soluble lime in small amounts may have a deterrent action upon plant growth while not becoming noxious to the extent of killing the plant. Also, lime may be in a great excess over magnesia, and yet there may be enough of the latter element available to respond to all the requirements of the plant. LIME AS SULPHATE AND MAGNESIA AS CARBONATE IN SOIL CULTURES. From the preceding experiments the favorable action of gypsum in counteracting the toxic action of magnesia is apparent. From an agricultural standpoint it is, besides, the most available form for liming because of its cheapness as compared with other of the more soluble forms of lime. To further test the action of gypsum in combination with an excess of magnesia, cultures were made up in iron pots holding 30 kilograms each. The soil had the following composition: Per cent, Per cent. nine y oravie ligee= seemeeyee er ate oct oe 0:65. | Silt... 2. +. sacs eee (Woarse Sand sie ee ee ae ee 4.20 .| Clay... .. 2:23.30 seeee 9. 80 Nien sir Glenna s so eae eer 9.40. | Loss-on ignition = 22 294-2 eee 3. 67 Hime sand. a Sse pe eee ey ook 30. 55 | Verysiine sand ze ceeaeso tcl csee 20N4 Total .2: 32. ee 100. 20 Soluble in 1.115 per cent hydrochloric acid: CaO, 0.14 per cent; MgO, 0.144 per cent. Four pots were made up as follows, using magnesia where applied as carbonate and lime as sulphate: — INo. pot. Solution, Per cent. dy) CHECK ree emer at sneer leminaacten 25 | EO Res. weary a ie ater aan oye eh | MEO Sranectece teen ee ee. 3 {Mg ( Ca Olseteee se aot ae 0.8 ‘ [IMS Osea acta teen cede 1, 0:58 ICs; Ses toe bees 0.2 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY. yl EXPERIMENTS WITH COWPEAS. The four pots were planted to cowpeas April 12. On April 22 plants were up in Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and on the 25th in No. 4. On May 15 the plants were all thrifty, and the following shows the growths on that date and on June 14: GROWTH ON MAY 15. | GROWTH ON JuN® 14. Centimeters. | Centimeters. INO Ss (Comn(> renee ee oe ees fA. 210) 11 SING) Ue See ay i eed ae eee ree a 34 DS Desa cae a na ok VI ie’ beh ok inet Tesh aA Steel ee: CR oe es el Ane 5 ING ete. Deane ae ec ane eee os OWING Wee ered eck Aa ae 34 INOS ook ates et ee es ree ee od ee 19 Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were very much alike in general thriftiness and were of a uniform dark-green color. No. + was spindling and of a light-green color. On June 26, one and one-half months from planting, a photograph was taken of the four pots. (See Pl. III, fig. 2.) No. 1 is the check; No. 2, CaO, as sulphate, 0.8 per cent; No. 3, CaO, as sulphate. 0.8 per cent; MgO, as carbonate, 0.2 per cent; No. 4, CaO, as sulphate, 0.2 per cent; MgO, as carbonate, 0.68 per cent. It will be noticed that the addition of an excess of calcium sulphate did not cause a deterrent effect in the presence of 0.144 of soluble magnesia, nor did the addition of more magnesia in No. 3 produce ¢ favorable effect over the check, showing that the magnesia already present was sufficient for the plants grown. As shown by the check, No. 1, 0.14 per cent of soluble lime was also sufficient for the direct needs of the plant. In No. 4, with the addition of 0.68 per cent of magnesium carbonate and 0.2 per cent of calcium sulphate, the noxious influence of the former is apparent. While not suflicient to cause the death of the plants, it hindered their growth to such an extent as to preclude the possibility of the production of a profitable crop. While liming may be profitably carried on for bettering the physical condition of soil, the correction of acidity, and other reasons, it may also in certain cases be beneficial from a physiological standpoint. The need for it may be surmised from an analysis of the soil. Though only the soluble lime and magnesia affect the immediate growth of plants in a given soil, it is apparent that where one element is in great excess of the other it will naturally be present in larger proportion in the soil solution. When the magnesia content of the soil is large and the application of calcium sulphate is expensive, the determination of the soluble salts would be advisable before liming. However, in that case the applica- tion of lime, though lessened, would be of only temporary advantage, as successive applications would be needed. In this connection, it would be of value to construct a table showing the curve of solubility of lime and magnesium salts in the same culture medium or solution. 52 RELATION OF LIME AND MAGNESIA TO PLANT GROWTH. The experiments herein reported show that where the lime and mag- nesia are in a wholly soluble condition, the plants germinated quickest and made the more rapid growth where the lime was in slight excess over the magnesia. In actual practice the case can not be governed so closely, for then we are dealing with a very complex combination— the soil. Moreover, it is hard to determine at each stage the form in which the lime and magnesia exists in the soil. Again, different plants - are variously affected by an excess of magnesia in soils. In practice, therefore, it is difficult to lay down hard and fast rules for liming the soils for physiological results. As borne out by experiments, gypsum appears to be, all things con- sidered, the most available form of lime to apply in overcoming the noxious influence of an excess of magnesia. An excess of gypsum is little to be feared, as the plant seems to be able to use magnesia if present in sufficient amount for its direct needs, whether gypsum be present in large amount or small. On the other hand, a lack of lime in a soluble form is more to be guarded against, for in this case the magnesia, if in a certain excess, will be assimilated to the detriment of the plant. Magnesium carbonate we found might be ina slight excess over calcium sulphate, and normal healthy growth of the plant be made. However, this excess should be small, not greater, with cereals, than 2 to 1. With cowpeas, as shown, a ratio of MgO as carbonate 0.68 to CaO as sulphate 0.2 per cent, while not toxic to the extent of killing the plant, was so injurious as to prevent profitable growth. In these cases the solubility of the salts in the soil were not determined. In liming, therefore, for any purpose, it is advisable to know the lime and magnesia content of the soil, both the soluble and total, as well as the content in the fertilizer applied. Underliming is more to be guarded against than overliming, care being taken that magnesian limestone is not applied where an excess of magnesia ir already present. SUMMARY. Soil analyses show that lime and magnesia are widely distributed in soils and generally in sufficient quantities for the direct needs of plants. They are not always in the best proportions to each other, from a physiological standpoint, for favoring plant growth. Magnesia ina soil in great excess over lime in a finely divided or soluble condition is noxious to the growth of plants. With a great excess of lime over magnesia the physiological action of the plant is hindered and it exhibits phenomena of starvation. An excess of lime counteracts the poisonous effects of magnesia, while the more fayor- able proportion of the two bases obviates the poor nutrition of the plant. The best proportion of soluble lime to soluble magnesia for the germination and growth of plants is about molecular weight 5 to 4, or actual weight 7 to 4. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY. 53 The more soluble forms of magnesia, as nitrate and sulphate, are in excess more injurious to plants. than the less soluble as carbonate, while the more soluble forms of lime as sulphate and nitrate are more efficient in overcoming the noxious effects of magnesia than less soluble forms as carbonate. In applying fertilizers containing magnesia, as in the crude potash salts, liming should be carried on in conjunction unless the soil is known to contain an excess of lime. Where the lime content of the soil is about equal to or less than the magnesia content, lime in a finely divided form, as sulphate, should be supplied with the fertilizer in an amount in excess of the magnesia present in the latter. In liming soils the amount of lime and magnesia should be first determined in both the soil and the material applied. In this way only can the process be intelligently carried out and the best ratio between the two bases for the promotion of the growth of crops be maintained. O ‘ . ‘ s . ‘ . i) ) ‘ ‘ . “ 1 a U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY—BULLETIN No. 2. BR. T. GALLOWAY, Chief of Bureau. SPERMLYTOGENESIS AND FECENDATION OF ZAMEL BY HERBERT J. WEBBER, PHYSIOLOGIST, VEGETABLE PATHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS, PLANT-BREEDING LABORATORY. IssuED DECEMBER 28, 1901. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1901. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Bureau oF Puant Inpustry, ; OFFICE OF THE CHIEF, Washington, D. C., August 1, 1901. Sir: [have the honor to transmit herewith the manuscript of a paper entitled Spermatogenesis and Fecundation of Zamia, by Dr. Herbert J. Webber, Physiologist, in Charge of the Plant Breeding Laboratory, Vegetable Pathological and Physiological Investigations, this Bureau. I respectfully recommend its publication as Bulletin No. 2 of the Bureau series. Respectfully, B. T. Gartoway, Chief of Bureau. Hon. JAMES WILson, Secretary of Agriculture. ‘ida ese h eae The following technical paper on the Spermatogenesis and Fecunda- tion of Zamia, by Dr. Herbert J. Webber, embodies the results of investigations started by him several years ago at our tropical labora- tory in Florida. The time at his disposal for this work was very limited, so that it has extended over a much longer period than was at first expected. As an aid to the practical work of plant breeding it is highly important that a more thorough knowledge of the reproduction of plants be gained. Such investigations throw light on the phenomena of heredity, which are at the foundation of plant breeding work. The present paper is of especial interest because the large size of the sexual nuclei in Zamia has enabled Dr. Webber to work out some of the phe- nomena of fecundation with greater exactness than has ever been done before. ALBERT F. Woops. OFFICE OF THE PATHOLOGIST AND PHYSIOLOGIST, Washington, D. C., July 20, 1901. o COND ENTES: [ON EIS .0) SONAR ge ihe Ste gy Si Se a en nr RURAL Y OL POCOMnMeerauane 1: Se. oe ls. Pe aecne web adlecne so ccucececoccc WAG SIN OSA TI Ter: |: ae: EA ee fee ee, Se Methods nisterighennetiats nh. 5.200802) tas Se ee cee lee LITE SUC CTPENTT QE SETI) S'S] 01 072s Oe ie ilar ee Reng AE a oe Pere lLipmentvOnmintll lamrcobes tee ooh A a Ns ook eek est uel enc es Development of the pollen tube and prothallus.............2.222--2---2.---- Germination of pollen and growth of prothallus -........22...22...0.-2- Division eb second pronhallial celle. = 82. ek ee ee oe etc nes Appearance und srowth, of blepharoplasis..... 252.2 s<2.-..5-c<--2-cese Sow hiohpasthentemh pollen foe 22t2s Sete a eel toot eee ecen 1 ISD SECOCAIN OS eS 17 211621 HSS BS Se ate eee ce pk Metamonphosisrat the apermatids: 2 i. o-0c°% So. esha b die eee Le ecru secs Structure and form of the mature spermatozoid.................-.-.-------- PMEMIGH Ol SPCRMANOAMIOG.. 5 Sa 2 es eUs Lon asek adcectas Gabemcet cca sctceee LPS SS AOA SEG COU ae ee OE eh ee el a eats agrees eee eet ee Cee See ounce SC RS ccc occue ec ce Beplananion Ob Mlustramond sees neste en Soke secs See nkccceeteceslsee — ONAN NS — ILLUSTRATIONS. 7 Spermatogenesis of Zamia floridana and Zamia pumila......-------- V. Spermatogenesis and fecundation of Zamia floridana and Lamia PUN. 23.505 522na86 Meee oe fon.) pes het' 26.1: = VI. Spermatogenesis of Zamia floridana and Zamia pumila......---.---- VII. Spermatogenesis and fecundation of Zamia floridana and Zamia 4 PUMA S oe as S05 F es sseaeankes eee s 100 diam.) Fig. 6. Cone at time of fecundation, having reached maximum size. (4 nat. size.) Fig. 7. Scale and attached seeds at time of fecundation. (3 nat. size.) Fig. 8. Two seeds at time of fecundation, having reached maximum size. (4 nat. size. ) Fig. 9. Median section through seed just before fecundation, showing relative size and location of parts (diagrammatic); c, coat of ovule; m, micropyle; 7, nucellus, showing pollen tubes hanging down into the archegonal chamber ac; e, egg cell; p, prothallus. (x 3 diam.) Fig. 10. Median section through young archegonium, showing central cell and nucleus before the cutting off of the canal cell. (x 100 diam.) 94 PLATE I. Bul. 2, Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. (\ \ \\ oS) F : 0\\ As H. J. Webber & L. H. Webber Del. SPERMATOGENESIS OF ZAMIA FLORIDANA. oe HJ. Webber & L.H. Webber De! JULIUS BIEN 8 CO.LITH N.Y ae fer si a ee z ae is pine “ep ty a? PLATE II. Zamia floridana and Zamia pumila. Fig. 11. Mature pollen grain in water. At the point of attachment of the two pro- thallial cells, on the left,a dark crescent-shaped line represents a dark layer in the cell wall of pollen grain, which may be the remains of a third resorbed prothallial cell. (X 1,200 diam.) Fig. 12. Germinating pollen grain, early stage. The two prothallial cells have not yet begun to increase in size. (> 600 diam. ) Fig. 15. Germinating pollen grain, later stage. The tube nucleus has increased in size and has passed out of the old grain into the tube, the prothallial cells still remain unchanged. A dark line at base of attachment of prothallus in this tube may be the remains of a third prothallial cell. (> 600 diam.) Fig. 14. Germinating pollen grain, later stage. Here the first prothallial cell has just started to push out into the second prothallial cell. (x 600 diam.) Fig. 15. Germinating pollen grain, later stage. The first prothallial cell has crowded out into the second prothallial cell in a marked degree. (x 600 diam.) Fig. 16. Transverse section of second prothallial cell in early prophase of division, showing one of the bodies which may occasionally be found, that resemble the early stages of a blepharoplast. (X 1,200 diam. ) Fig. 17. Pollen tube penetrating nucellar tissue, and showing the nucleus of the second prothallial cell i division, the lower end of the spindle being crowded to one side by the intruding first prothallial cell. (> 600 diam.) Fig. 18. Prothallus of pollen tube immediately after the completion of the division of the second prothallial cell into a stalk cell and central cell. Two starch grains are shown here in the second prothallial cell. (> 600 diam. ) Fig. 19. Prothallus of pollen tube in a later stage of development after the appear- ance of the blepharoplasts. The double plasma membrane separating the first pro- thallial cell and stalk cell, which is here visible, shows that there are two distinct and independent cells of separate origin. (>< 600 diam. ) Fig. 20. Prothallus of pollen tube in a later stage of development after central cell has become elongated and the blepharoplasts have taken position on opposite sides of the nucleus, corresponding to the longitudinal axis of the pollen tube. Starch grains haye begun to appear in the stalk cell, ete. (> 600 diam.) Fig. 21. Prothallus of pollen tube very much later after the division of the central cell; the blepharoplasts have separated into granules which are starting to organize the ciliferous band. The first prothallial cell and stalk cell have become gorged with starch. The original size of the attachment of the first prothallial cell is clearly shown at base of that cell. (> 300 diam.) This tube is magnified only one-half as much as that shown in fig. 20. Fig. 22. Prothallus showing the interior first prothallial cell crowding into the central cell. (> 300 diam. ) : Fig. 23. Cross section of pollen tube extending through stalk cell and interior first prothallial cell: , wall of pollen tube; cp, cytoplasm of pollen tube; sc, stalk cell; PI, first prothallial cell. (> 300 diam. ) Fig. 24. Central cell with blepharoplasts shortly after origin. (X 1,200 diam.) Fig. 25. Central cell with blepharoplasts near together and somewhat older, when outer membrane has been differentiated. (> 1,200 diam. ) Fig. 26. Central cell with blepharoplasts in median stage of development, showing relation of kinoplasmic radiations to reticulum of cytoplasm. (XX 1,200 diam. ) Fig. 27. Nucleus of central cell in early prophase of division, the chromatin matter beginning to collect in granular masses. (X 350 diam.) Fig. 28. Nucleus of central celi in later prophase of division, the chromatin having collected ina skein. (X 350 diam.) Fig. 29. Blepharoplasts, showing vacuolated contents and refractive bodies resem- bling crystalloids. ( 1,200 diam. ) 95 } PLATE III. Zamia floridana and Zamia pumila. Fig. 30. Division of central cell, synapsis stage, showing the collection of the chromatin matter around the nucleolus, and reticular ground plasm filling the remaining portion of the nucleus. (> 350 diam. ) Fig. 31. Division of central cell, equatorial plate stage, showing the blunt-poled intranuclear spindle, the outer membrane of the blepharoplasts breaking up, and the contracting of the contents of the blepharoplast. (> 350 diam. ) Fig. 32. One of the blepharoplasts from the above cell more highly magnified, showing the breaking up of the exterior membrane and the disappearance of the contents. ( 1,200 diam.) Fig. 33. Division of central cell, early anaphase, showing hyaline cytoplasmic areas around the poles and disconnection of the blepharoplasts with the spindle. ( 350 diam. ) Fig. 34. One of the blepharoplasts and the pole of the spindle from the above cell more highly magnified, to show the relation of the kinoplasmic rays surrounding the blepharoplasts to the spindle fibers, the granular structure of the outer membrane of the blepharoplast, and its separation and contents at this time. (> 1,200 diam.) Fig. 35. Division of central cell, early telophase, showing the reorganization of the daughter nuclei. The blepharoplasts have separated into groups of granules, which, in this stage, are nearly as large as the daughter nuclei. ( 350 diam.) (Compare this with a photomicrograph of the same cell, Pl. V, fig. 63.) Fig. 36. Two attached spermatids formed by the completion of the division of the central cell. The blepharoplast is in the process of organizing the ciliferous band by the fusion of the granules. (> 350 diam.) Fig. 37. Organization of the ciliferous band by a fusion of the granules of the blepharoplast. (x 1,200 diam.) Fig. 38. Fusion of the granules of the blepharoplast in the formation of the cilifer- ous band. (X 1,200 diam. ) Fig. 39. Spermatid showing irregular projections from the nucleus, and with cilifer- ous band in process of construction. (> 350 diam.) 96 et) FE ene Ls i “3 Gi Gj HJ. Webber & LH. Webber Del, SPERMATOGENESI: , > Ar PLATE TI JULIUS BIEN BCO.LITH NY. D ZAMIA PUMILA A AN won , jn -—_ ae f a 3 1 Jets sea Le en add el, J Webber & LH. Webber D J, Webber & LH. Le 4 25) SPERMATOGENE a +, oe ee ahve PLATE IV JULIUS BIEN 8 CO.LITH NY. PLATE IV. Zamia floridana and Zamia pumila, Fig. 40. Spermatid with section of ciliferous band in cytoplasm, showing protuber- ances on outer side. (X 600 diam.) Fig. 41. Spermatid with section of ciliferous band in cytoplasm, showing radiations from outer surface. (> 350 diam.) Fig. 42. Median section of two spermatids where ciliferous band has made asingle turn around the cell, showing band in section appressed against the plasma membrane on opposite sides of the nucleus. ( 350 diam.) Fig. 43. Tangential surface section of a spermatid, showing surface of band when it had madea single turn. ( 350 diam.) Fig. 44. Formation of double plasma membrane in the division of the central cell. (x 1,800 diam.) Fig. 45. Mature spermatozoids in median section, showing nuclei, ciliferous band, etc. (> 200 diam.) Fig. 46. Cross-section of apex of spermatozoid, showing attachment of cilia to band which lies immediately below the plasma membrane. (> 600 diam.) Fig. 47. Separation of spermatozoids under the influence of sugar solution: a, mature pollen tube just before motion began; }, ¢, and d, after the motion of the cilia had begun, showing stages in the gradual pulling apart of the spermatozoids. Fig. 48. Pollen tube in a median stage of growth, showing the tube nucleus near the distal end of the tube. (X 75 diam.) Figs. 49 and 50. Pollen tubes, showing different shapes assumed by the tubes in the course of the growth of the proximal end, just preceding fecundation. (> 75 diam. ) Fig. 51. Apex of nucellus, showing the proximal ends of the pollen tubes hanging down in the archegonial chamber shortly before fecundation. The tube nuclei have returned and taken position near the prothallus. (> 75 diam.) 5596—Nen ol ——-7 97 oo PLATE V. Zamia floridana and Zamia pumila. Fig. 52. Mature spermatozoid while swimming free. (XX 200 diam.) Fig. 53. Spermatozoid showing apex of spiral. Fig. 54. Fecundated egg cell immediately before nuclear fusion, the nucleus of the spermatozoid having separated from the ciliferous band and cytoplasm, lies free in the protoplasm at the apex of the egg cell ready to travel on alone and fuse with the egg nucleus. (> 25 diam.) Fig. 55. Egg cell immediately after the fusion of the male and female nuclei, show- ing male nucleus in the upper portion of the oosphere, and the isolated ciliferous band of the spermatozoid which produced the fecundation lying free in the cytoplasm at the apex of the egg cell. A second spermatozoid trying to gain entrance is shown at apex of cell. (> 25 diam.) ‘ Fig. 56. Egg cell immediately after fusion of male and female nuclei as in fig. 55, showing longitudinal section of ciliferous spiral band and a portion of the cytoplasm of the spermatozoid. (X 25 diam.) Fig. 57. Section through the apex of a fecundated egg cell showing the remains of the cytoplasm and ciliferous band of the spermatozoid surrounded by the cytoplasm of the egg cell. (X 350 diam.) 98 Bulletin No.2, Bureau of Plant Industry, US. Dept. Agr Se. a”, OPUATE ¥ ; v JULIUS BIEN 8 CO.LITH NY HJ.Webber & L.H.Webber Del, _—sS SPERMATOGENESIS AND FECUNDATION OF ZAMIA FLORIDANA AND ZAMIA PUMILA PLATE VI. Zamia floridana and Zamia pumila. Photomicrographs of various stages. Fig. 58. Central cell in pollen tube showing blepharoplasts, nucleus, nucleolus, and tube nucleus below to the left. (> 200 diam.) Fig. 59. Central cell in early prophase of division, showing blepharoplasts, con- traction of nuclear membrane between blepharoplasts, nucleolus, and granular col- lections of chromatin matter. _( 300 diam.) Fig. 60. Polar view of mature blepharoplast, showing radiations. (x 400 diam.) Fig. 61. Blepharoplast, showing contraction of contents and breaking of outer membrane into segments. (> 400 diam.) Fig. 62. Central cell in early anaphase of division, showing the relation of the blepharoplast (one only being visible) to the spindle. The clear, specialized cyto- plasmic areas between the blepharoplast and the poles of the spindle are well shown. (x 400 diam. ) Fig. 63. Central cell in telophase of division, showing the blepharoplast in granules, the small daughter nuclei, and the formation of the cell plate by the contraction of the spindle fibers. (X 500 diam.) Fig. 64. Polar view of the blepharoplast in slightly later stage, showing the fusion of the granules to form the ciliferous band. ( 400 diam.) Fig. 65. Two spermatids where the ciliferous band has made one turn around the cell. (X 200 diam.) 99 TRAE ee Waa naa ‘ita Sag tik PLATE VII. Photomicrographs of Zamia floridana. >» Fig. 66. Central cell in late telophase with the blepharoplast in granules snd the : delimiting plasma membrane well formed. (> 550 diam.) rat Fig. 67. Mature spermatozoids in median section, showing nucleus, ete. (% diam.) p Fig. 68. Mature spermatozoid swimming free in pollen tube. ( x 200 diam. ae “Tt Fig. 69. Median section of helicoid ciliferous band in cytoplasm at apex of egg c after escape of the nucleus, showing cilia still attached. Numerous little com : figures of kinoplasm formed here and there in the cytoplasm of the egg cell at time are also shown. (X 450 diam.) 5 Fig. 70. Egg cell after fecundation, showing a spermatozoid which did not ga entrance and an empty ciliferous band in apex of egg cell. The egg nucleus is visi in the lower part of the section, but the male nucleus which has fused with it not visible. (> 50 diam.) 100 O Bul. No. 2, Bureau of Plant Industry, U. a“ Plate VII SPERMATOGENESIS AND FECUNDATION Ul seer EON T OF AGRICULTURE: BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY—BULLETIN No. 3. B. T. GALLOWAY, Chief of Bureau, Wer maN I WELEATS. BY MARK ALFRED CARLETON, CEREALIST, VEGETABLE PATHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS. IssuED DECEMBER 23, 1901. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1901. \y LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Bureau oF Puant InvustRY, OFFICE OF THE .CHIEF, Washington, D. C., July 31, 1901. Str: I have the honor to transmit herewith the manuscript of a paper on Macaroni Wheats, by Mark Alfred Carleton, Cerealist, Vegetable Pathological and Physiological Investigations, this Bureau, and recommend its publication as Bulletin No. 3 of the Bureau series. Respectfully, B. T. GaLLoway, Chief of Bureau. Hon. JAMES WILSON, Secretary of Agriculture. ~ U Pk Pa OE. The following bulletin by M. A. Carleton, Cerealist of this Office, treats of the macaroni wheats, with special reference to their growth without irrigation in the semiarid regions of the United States. Some of the best varieties of macaroni wheats have been imported by the Department of Agriculture, and have been tested in these regions with extremely gratifying results. It is believed that with a little care a large industry can be built up in regions of the United States where the ordinary wheats do not succeed. Mr. Carleton has had special advantages for the study of these wheats in Russia and else- where, and his bulletin is commended as the latest word on a very interesting and practical subject. ALBERT F’. Woops. OFFICE OF THE PATHOLOGIST AND PHYSIOLOGIST, — Washington, D. C., August 1, 1901. 5 EON TENTS: Distribution. of macaroni wheats ..........---..---2-.--2---2-----------20e Adaptability of durum wheats to the conditions of our semiarid districts. -.... (Clinnsihic ieorsrpeteti ss 8 os ne hasan ts o-oo a= nes Comipairinamye nous fa) = 2 2. oe nee oo ess. sos st ewe Rixperimental progese = cere. 6225-25 ee fob. seas oe eyes se cio eo ee Poghmhieuy Glopelwabe PATies!: —. ~~ 2-2-1. sobs Sei - se ens 2+ -5- Testimony of experiment stations --....-..-.------------- Wseencas The market for macaroni: wheat. -_.--.----------------------------+-------- Poreien)demamie ee ee. - -- 3 Sen ot = 5 2 eee ee Qualitwor-erum@emanded .-. ..--...--.-.----.---=--+-+-----<----- Possibility of a home demand. <...-.....------.5-s-=--2+------+------- Kinds of wheat now used by our factories .........---------------- Comparison of foreign and domestic macaroni ....-.-..----------------- Preparatiani@iepemimitiag. 2: 9-02. . of..2 252 -- <2 be sees--.2-----+------ Bread: from: suaarisig mean 2° 22. 5262 oe sah await ac bic cases ese ee +--+ ee eliehginoutiwr: ue | Preparatimmemstae meter ser 6 e282 loos nae ce toes s-ses-- ee Wifadion (sy 0) Seo) 2 2 ee (Genecbre nN 2) 8 ae SE eee eee eee Effects of local yariations’in soil and climate ......-....-./-.........--.5--- Varieties = aoa ee ee ree fo See ce ciscckeccomeeeee see sete sess Gharnoy knee ee ee ee oe a one cabeisoe clos cw sawn se sces ATA Kee eee aa ees coe canta Sele welawale cee sceecscesce Ie ac ke) ree ene er ae Ea amccedeasscecee ETE TEG GUL oS SSS AG od See Oe Lesatae Wie 2208 Uses aga ae ee eee ee Reishi c rae mnenPe so ie SE cake cacsesscie ccc (Ghinghenll 2 oe oe oa eee OE eS AAS Ign Oe 6 oe ee See oe er Wiileli@yeore 2s: 2 fe ee Bee ee ee WHS 6 DS) go Salo Soe 32, SA ee eee IO ieee ae eet ee on aSoiccbccecteccseess MP VINLCrAVAIGLCS eee Re Ne. ance cbedoscuece Experimental comparison of varieties. .....-..-.-.---.----.-------+------e> Russo-Mediterranean traffic in macaroni wheat.........-.-.-.-------------- SIDE TA Ae te es gd, ee sue OU or OT C1 Hw He CO OO LO Ut o> Ol or > Or St Ot St Cr ie) for i=) Puate I. late TH. XI. ILLUSTRATIONS. PLATES. ) Drought-resistant macaroni wheats: 1, Kubanka; 2, Nicaragua; 3 Velvet Don: 4, Black Don; 5, Wild Goose ..2s2<2o225 ise eeeee Drought-resistant macaroni wheats: 1, Polish; 2, Medeah; 3, Misso- OMAN a USUI GE SE ih i emp ss ee Sk Thrashing Gharnovka wheat by steam on the estate of Mr. Mikhal- koy at, Ambrociey ka in Don territory .......c.ceceseeeeseeepeeee . Sarui-bugda in comparison with other varieties in cooperative field experiments at the Maryland Experiment Station: 1, Sandomir; 2, WA PEIANIE ses, ATI UCI Soo. s sons. as Uo oe ee 7s VOlgaaaiver recion Mean Sarepta..... i... <.0ccemeee ee ue eee ne meeee . Fig. 1, Macaroni wheat fields near Berdiansk, in the aay Sea region. Fig. 2, Macaroni wheat farm of Mr. Mikhalkov, at Ambrocievka LACT TAU OYE oe oi eas 2 kui wc =o on'eld see eee eee ee eee . Camp of Kirghiz harvesters near Uralsk, on the Siberian border. A two-horse Russian vehicle from the city stands also in view .-..--- . Gharnovka wheat at the New Mexico Experiment Station ........- . Fig. 1, Stacks of Kubanka wheat near Uralsk on the Siberian border. Fig. 2, Method of shocking macaroni wheat near Sarepta, in the Warlee wien: eCIOW. 02 occ laces od ooo Se Shee See ee eee . Fig. 1, Port of Taganrog, Russia, the pom of the largest export of macaroni wheat in the world. Fig. 2, Loading Gharnovka (maca- roni) wheat onto the steamer in bulk at Taganrog, to be shipped to Mediterranean. Dorts. -. os... 2.00 scncd oc Gees eee eens a eemee Fig. 1, Kubanka wheat brought to market by the Kirghiz farmers, at Uralsk, on the Siberian border. Fig. 2, Carting macaroni wheat to the wharves at Taganrog, to be shipped to Mediter- PANCATBPON ete pesemeee css’ cc ccic o.c nos ates cee eee eee Cee eeee TEXT FIGURES. Fig. 1. Map of the United States, showing where macaroni wheat can be PRONE SE eaves Sehic Seate ab aide oS > ob e's oa'nc sc eee eee ee re 2. Cleaning Velvet Don wheat on the estate of Mr. Mikhalkov in Don 8 COPNLOny peg Sateen ad eee tg eo 6 inns als a- occ. 54h one e eee Page. 10 12 14 16 18 50 58 20 51 Bape. Vi PSP 8e: A MACARONI WHEATS. By Mark ALFRED CARLETON, erealist. INTRODUCTION. For more than thirty-five years there have been occasional introduc- tions into this country of the hardy, glassy wheats of the durum group, chiefly from Russia, but also from Algeriaand Chile. In Europe they are called simply hard wheats, and correctly so, since the hardest bread wheats of the world are really soft compared with them. In this country they have not until recently been sufficiently well known to receive a special name. Now, however, through the recent introduc- tions and publications of this Department the term macaroni wheat is becoming rapidly adopted, and its application is already pretty well understood. Heretofore these wheats have been received with but little favor. in spite of their excellent yields and hardiness the lack of a market made their establishment a practical impossibility for the time. Our own macaroni factories were using ordinary bread wheats and the attention of foreign factories had not been called to the possibility of securing excellent durum wheat from this country. Our millers refused to receive such wheat, not being able to utilize it with their present methods of milling for bread flour only. Elevator men also refused to handle it, as it would spoil the sale of other standard wheats if mixed with them inthe elevators. Also the different varieties intro- duced had not been tested sufficiently long to obtain a just idea of their value, and were often grown in localities to which they were entirely unadapted. Thus a combination of unfortunate circumstances gave to these wheats a reputation not at all deserved. Only two years ago a writer severely criticised the Department for introducing a consign- ment of Kubanka wheat, saying that the variety was already consid- ered to be a failure in this country. Now, however, as a result of the efforts of the Department begun two years ago to establish these durum wheats, there is being mani- fested a great change of opinion as to their merits, in view of their probable complete utilization in the future for the manufacture of maca- roni. The following are some of the reasons for this change in opin- ion: (1) Certain European manufacturers are ready at any time to con- tract for large amounts of American grown wheats of this kind so long 9 10 MACARONI WHEATS. as they stand the proper test. (2) Samples already sent to European experts for examination have given very favorable results in compari- son with foreign samples, though it is almost certain that the samples sent were in quality below the average of what can be produced and is being produced in this country. (3) Quite a number of Ameri- can factories are showing a disposition to use semolina' made from these wheats just as soon as they can obtain a sufficient amount of it. (4) Several American flour mills are now grinding macaroni wheat. (5) From a rough calculation, probably 75,000 to 100,000 bushels of macaroni wheat will be harvested in the Great Plains States in the season of 1901. (6) From the standpoint of results as a cultivated crop numerous careful experiments have absolutely proved the success of these wheats in the Great Plains. (7) Excellent bread as well as macaroni can be made and is being made in large quantities (e. @., in the Volga River region of Russia) from these wheats. In the light of such facts one is forced to believe that there is before us the possi- bility of establishing practically a new wheat industry of great mag- nitude. CHARACTERISTICS OF MACARONI WHEATS. Macaroni wheats proper belong in the durum group, known by the botanical name of Zréticum durum. In France they are called Blé dur; in Germany, Hartweizen; and in Spain, Zrigo duro. They are also sometimes called barley wheats, or Gerstenweizen, because of their resemblance to barley. The wheats of this group grow rather tall and have stems that are either pithy within or hollow, with an inner wall of pith, or, in a few varieties, simply hollow, as in the ordinary bread wheats. The leaves are usually broad and smooth, but have a peculiar whitish green color and possess an extremely harsh cuticle. The heads are comparatively slender in most varieties, compactly formed, ocea- sionally very short, and are always bearded with the longest beards known among wheats. The spikelets (meshes) are two to four grained. The outer chaff is prominently and sharply keeled, and the inner chaff somewhat compressed and narrowly arched in the back. The grains are usually very hard and glassy, often translucent, yellowish-white in color, occasionally inclining to reddish, and usually rather large. In certain varieties the grains are almost or fully as large as those of Polish wheat, and are sometimes mistaken for it. In the field these wheats resemble barley yery much, and one seeing them there for the first time and not familiar with their appearance is apt to think of them as being actually barleys. There are many varie- ties differing in shape and size of head, color, and amount of hairiness of chaff, color of beards, etc. (See Plates Land II.) Besides their excep- tional fitness for the manufacture of macaroni and other edible pastes, these wheats possess for the grower two other admirable qualities to a 'The special name of the milled product as used by the macaroni manufacturer. PLATE Bul. No. 3, Bureau Plant Industry, U. S. Dept. Agr. Proctor. DROUGHT-RESISTANT MACARONI WHEATS: KUBANKA; 2, NICARAGUA; 3, VELVET Don; 4, , WILD GOOSE. BLACK DON; 5 1, e GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. 172 greater degree than ordinary wheats. They are extremely resistant to drought and to attacks of most fungous pests. Black stem rust, however, sometimes affects them badly. They do not stool exten- sively. Durum wheats are particularly sensitive to changes of envi- ronment and quickly deteriorate when grown in a soil or climate to which they are not adapted. A sufficient change of conditions to effect such a result may be found even within the distance of a few miles For example, it is well understood in south Russia that the excellent variety Arnautka gives the best results only when grown within a limited area bordering the Azov Sea. So also the best Kubanka is found east of the Volga on the Siberian border. In the Caucasus this variety apparently has actually developed into a red winter wheat, though the original is a yellowish-white spring wheat. Macaroni wheats are adapted to soils rich in nitrogenous matter but considerably alkaline, and they invariably give the best results in a hot, dry climate. Almost all the varieties are best adapted for spring sowing. The young plants are always light green in color, and even when sown in the autumn grow at once erect and very rapidly, thus being poorly pre- pared to survive ® severe winter. Where the winters are mild, how- ever, as they are south of the thirty-fifth parallel in this country, they may be grown as winter wheats,’ and in such cases the large amount of autumn growth made allows them to furnish excellent fall pasturage. Polish wheats produce a grain very similar in nature to that of the durum wheats, and are also often used for making various pastes. These are varieties of Triticum polonicum. (See Pl. 11, 7.) The plants are tall, with smooth stems that are more or less pithy within. They stool very sparingly. The heads are extremely large and loosely formed, and berore ripening are bluish green in color. A special peculiarity of Polish wheats is the rather long, narrow outer chaff, papery in structure, and standing out slightly from the head instead of being rigid and closely applied to the spikelets, as‘in other wheats. The grains are of great size when normal, especially quite long, yel- lowish white in color, and yery hard. These wheats also withstand drought and are somewhat resistant to leaf rust. Varieties of the Poulard group of wheats (Zriticum turgidum) are also occasionally used for macaroni, but are comparatively of minor importance in this regard. The use of common bread wheats for making macaroni will be referred to in other places. DISTRIBUTION OF MACARONI WHEATS. Macaroni wheats stand foremost among all wheat groups in their excellent adaptation to regions of intense heat and drought. In addi- tion, however, they require for their most successful cultivation a soil * Results of recent experiments show that they will succeed as winter wheats even in parts of Kansas. Pr MACARONI WHEATS. rich in humus and containing a good proportion of potash, phosphates, and lime. Where these wheats succeed best the soil is always found to be considerably alkaline. Naturally, therefore, they are grown to the greatest extent in east and south Russia, Turkestan, North Africa, and the drier portions of Argentina, Chile, India, and Asia Minor. They are also grown in Spain, Italy, Greece, Roumania, Mexico, and the Central American States. By far the largest production of macaroni wheats is in east and south Russia, a large part of which finds a ready market for macaroni making in the cities of southern France and Italy. Ten or more rather distinct varieties are grown in Russia. These are much mixed in shipping, and are often exported under the one name of Taganrog wheat simply because they are so commonly shipped from the port of that name. There is no special variety correctly called Taganrog, but that name is usually applied to any variety whatever of Russian durum wheat after it leaves Russia. Unfortunately in making up statistics of wheat production no dis- tinction is made of macaroni wheats, so that it is impossible to give accurately the distribution of these wheats in Russia. In a general way, however, the governments in which these wheats are chiefly grown are as follows: Orenburg, Samara, Turghai Territory, Uralsk Territory, Saratoy, Don Territory, Astrakhan, and portions of Kuban Territory, Daghestan, Stavropol, and Taurida. In the Turghai and Uralsk Territories and Astrakhan certainly the larger proportion of the entire wheat production is of these wheats, it being practically impossible to grow ordinary wheats in certain districts because of the extremely low rainfall. The farmers are, many of them, Kirghiz, who have given up nomadic habits and have adopted a settled mode of life. The chief varieties grown are Kubanka and Beloturka. The greater part of the macaroni wheat of south Russia is grown in the region bordering the Azov Sea. Here there are several varieties grown, the principal one being Gharnovka (Pl. III). In portions of Turkestan the climate is very favorable for durum’ wheats, because of its great aridity. One variety especially, Sarui-bugda (PI. IV, 3), apparently the principal durum wheat grown in Turkestan, has attained an excellent reputation in southeast Russia. Algeria pro- duces macaroni wheats almost exclusively. As the average annual wheat production of that country during the years 1895-1900 was 23,785,167 bushels,’ the comparative amount of these wheats grown there is therefore rather large. There are many varieties. Some macaroni wheat is also produced in Egypt and Tunis, but a large por- tion of Egyptian wheat is of the Poulard group (Zritieum turgidum). Almost all Spanish varieties are of the durum group, but the entire ' Statistics furnished by the Statistician of the Department of Agriculture. PLATE J] Bul. No. 3, Bureau Plant Industry, U. S. Dept. Agr. Proctor. DROUGHT-RESISTANT MACARON! WHEATS: ; 2, MEDEAH; 3, MISSOGEN; 4, No. 1174S. P. |. 1, POLISH r . ‘ . , f- . ca ‘ A Sabb « - ; i ' é he ue ADAPTABILITY TO UNITED STATES SEMIARID PLAINS. 13 wheat production of Spain is comparatively small. In Greece, Mexico, and Central America—particularly in Nicaragua—these durum yarie- ties are also almost exclusively grown. ADAPTABILITY OF DURUM WHEATS TO OUR SEMIARID DISTRICTS. The nature of the climate and soil of the regions where macaroni wheats are already grown in quantity and most successfully, would indicate that these wheats are admirably adapted to the conditions of our own semiarid districts. That this is true is pretty well proved both in theory and by experiment. Conditions of heat and drought, richness of soil, alkalinity, etc., exactly similar to those that prevail in east Russia and North Africa, exist in the more arid portions of our Great Plains, except that in the former regions these conditions are a little more extreme asarule. As the best macaroni wheats are grown most successfully in east Russia, it will be desirable to compare the climatic conditions of that region with corresponding portions of the Great Plains, that we may note more closely the degree of similarity in this regard. CLIMATIC COMPARISONS. The macaroni wheat district of east Russia comprises in a general way the Volga River region from about the latitude of Kazan to the Caspian Sea, but extending eastward to the Siberian boundary and even beyond into the Kirghiz Steppes. The entire district is at least semiarid, and some portions of it seem to be, more properly, arid. The degree of aridity increases to the east and south, the reverse of the conditions in this respect in our Great Plains, where the degree of aridity increases to the west. Near the Siberian border begins the Kirghiz Steppes of western Siberia, a monotonous, unbroken expanse of treeless arid plains, with a rainfall reaching less than 10 inches, but nearly all of which falls in the growing season. Sages, feather grasses (Stipa), salt bushes, etc, make up a large part of the native vegetation. The dry heat of midsummer is so intense that mirages are frequent. The rich black earth is dry, strongly alkaline, and powdery, but absorbs greedily the rain that does fall. Evaporation goes on rapidly, and well-adapted plants are provided with means of resisting evapora- tion. (See Pl. V.) The particular climatic features which characterize a region of this sort, and which distinguish it from ordinary agricultural districts so far as macaroni wheats are concerned, are as follows: (1) The very low average annual rainfall; (2) the very large proportion of this rainfall which occurs during the growing season; (3) the character of this pre- cipitation, occurring in the form of quick thunder storms, with very little fog or mist; (4) the prevailing clearness and dryness of the 14 MACARONI WHEATS. atmosphere, and (5) the great extremes of temperature, especially intense summer heat. The following table will illustrate some of these features. In this table are given the normal mean temperatures for January, July, and the year, and the normal rainfall for the year and for the growing season (May to September, inclusive) as taken at ten meteorological stations representing as fairly as possible the durum wheat districts of east and south Russia, and also similar data for nine stations correspond- ing to these in our Great Plains. For contrast with humid areas similar data are also given for three stations—Eastport, Oswego, and Lynch- burg—in the eastern United States. Taste I.—Temperature and rainfall in several localities in Russia and in the United States.+ vines, | Soiel mess | Nemasl mean | Normal mean | So ae perature. ture. ture. ing season. 3 °C. | Si ae; Ce, SG! Me Mm. In. Mm. In. Kazan 2. oscee cece 2 —13.7 Zeal 19.5 67.1 2) 37.2 |) 26329 10.3 | 387.6 15.2 LONE Rae ee tacnonene —13.5 7.6 20.8 69.4 | 3.0 37.5 | 278.0 10.9| 421.8 16.6 Simbirsk.<. 252-0. | —12.9 8.7 20.6 | 69.0 | 3.3 37.9 | 256.6 10.1; 408.4 16.0 Samarase. sees | —12.7 9.0 21.3 70.3 | 4.1 39.3 | 251.1 9.8 | 396.4 15.6 Orenburpoesa=eee= = | —15.2 4.5 21.6 70.9 3.2 37.8 | 201.9 7.9 | 395.3 15.5 Ors ee ee cmeeeeicta | cn seecte|loomhoodelteseenoo) baceetos beeceeae apoecca- 146.6 SP fel WZ bd 9 10.6 Saretoviensa-ceere== —10.1 13.7 21.7} 71.0 5.4 41.7} 191.9 | 7.5 | 423.1 16.6 Sareptlsss-seo-niet —10.5 12.9 23.9 75.0 7.4 45.4.) 2 csme ESE) eee) Sorc oc Rereh esc sasemerere 8 33.4 23.9 75.1 11.5 52.7 | 206.0 | 8.1} 383.8 15.1 Taetanrorcacsssser | — 6.6 20.0 21.5 70.8 7.6 45.7 | 265.3] 10.4| 565.6 22.2 Eastport....-<-...- — 6.4 20.4 15.7 60.4 5.2 41.5 | 451.6 17.7 | 1147.5 45.1 OSWEZOs.3scccene=- — 4,2 24.3 20.5 69.0 8.0 46.4 | 375.6 14.7 | 889.5 35.0 Lynchburg -..-.-.. 2.6 36.8 25.2 77.5 13.8 56.9 | 492.7 19.4 | 1094.7 43.1 Moorhead .........| —18.2|— .9 19.7 67.6 3.1 37.6 | 394.7 15.5 | 603.7 23.7 Bismarek-2<-5. sos —15. 2 4.5 20.8 69.5 4.2] 39.6) 29208 11.5 | 469.9 18.5 MuroOnieesss saeco e —13.8 7.0 21.5 70.9 5.8| 42.51 346.7 18.6 | 534.1 21.0 Voanktonmires secs =19)8 ipl etal 73.6 7.6 | 45.8 | 436.8 17.2 | 655.3 25.8 North Platte ...... — 6.6} 20.0) 23.0] 73.5 8.8 | 47.9} 825.1 12,8 | 459.7 18.1 Valentine ......... — 8.3 16.9 22.9 73.3 7.9 | 46.3 | 299.7 11.8 | 486.4 19.1 @oveordia <..-- a5 — 4.8 23.2 25.0 Liga! J1,.2) 52.2) 438.3 17.0 | 647.4 25.4 Dodge City .......- — 3.0 26.6 25.3 77.6 10.7 | 53:2°| Sao eee eee 19.8 Abilene (Tex).....| 6.0 42.8 28.1 82.7 17.4 63.4 | 348.4] 18.7] 629.6 24.7 | I | 1The figures in this table are averages of many years’ observations and are given by the following authorities: Wild, Die Temperaturyerhiiltnisse des Russischen Reiches, Tabellen, 8. LXXII-CCXL, and Die Regenverhiltnisse des Russischen Reiches, S. 12-28; Kaiserl. Akad. der Wissensch. St. Peters- burg, 1881 and 1887. Klossoyski, Klimat Odessui (Russian); Meteorological Observatory of the Imperial New Russian University, Odessa, 1893. Moore, Report of the Chief of the Weather Bureau, U. S. Department of Agriculture, for 1896-97, Washington, D. C., 1897. A study of the figures in the different columns for the stations in east Russia is very interesting. Great extremes of heat in one are offset by just as great extremes of cold in another. Moreover, at the northern stations the July extremes are still very high, though the yearly mean is normally very low. The small amount of yearly rain- fall is offset by a proportionately heavy rainfall for the growing season. The latter will partially account for the fact that a crop can be grown at all in a district of such low annual rainfall. The contrast between PLATE III. Bul. 3, Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, COMPARISON OF CLIMATES. 15) the figures for this district and those for the three places in the humid area of the eastern United States is very striking. While the January and mean yearly temperatures at Samara and Orenburg, Russia, are much lower than those at Oswego and Eastport, on the other hand the July temperatures at the former places are higher than those at the latter. The January and July extremes at Orenburg and Sarepta are remarkable. Orenburg, with a January normal extremely low and an annual mean normally nearly 5- lower than Oswego, yet possesses a July normal over 14° higher. The January normal at Lynchburg is above freezing and the normal yearly mean over 6° higher than at Sarepta (see Pl. V), Russia, yet the latter point with a January normal 104° below freezing lacks but a little over 1° of being as hot in July as Lynch- burg. The anomalies of rainfall are fully as striking. At no point in the Russian region does the mean yearly rainfall reach 17 inches, while at Oswego it is over twice that amount and at Eastport and Lynch- burg over two and one-half times that amount. But one-half to five- eighths of the total yearly rainfall in the Russian region occurs during the growing months (May to September, inclusive), while in the humid area ot the United States considerably less than one-half falls in the growing season. The conditions at Kazan, Ufa, and Simbirsk are particularly interesting. At these points, although the yearly mean is only 16 or 17 inches, the amount falling in the growing season is about five-eighths of that amount. As the nature of the soil in prairie regions enables it to retain an unusually large proportion of the rain- fall, it results that the actual amount of water available for plant growth in this semiarid area during the growing season is more than in humid areas where the yearly rainfall is two to three times as great. The lowest rainfall of this region occurs on the borders of the Kirghiz Steppes and near the Caspian Sea. At Orsk, for example, the yearly rainfall is but 10.6 inches and the mean for the growing season is 5.7 inches. But even there the actual amount of water directly available to the plants from May to September is probably nearly as large as at Oswego. In the Orsk district a considerable quantity of excellent macaroni wheat is grown. The climatic conditions of our northern and central Great Plains region are remarkably similar to those of the region just described, except only that conditions in the former region are in general con- siderably less severe than in the latter. At no point as far west as the one hundredth meridian is the mean annual rainfall less than 18 inches in the Great Plains region, while, as above stated, the amount falling in the similar Russian region is nowhere more than 17 inches. At three points in the Great Plains region, viz, Bismarck, North Platte, and Dodge City, all near the one hundredth meridian, the yearly mean is normally over 18 inches, the average for the three points being 18.8 inches. The average of the normal means of the points in the Russian region, even excluding the very low figures for Orsk, is 15.9. In other 16 MACARONI WHEATS. words, the normal yearly rainfall of the Great Plains at the one hun- dredth meridian, where wheat growing is at present practically non- existent on account of the lack of drought-resistant varieties, 1s nearly three inches greater than that for the entire semiarid Volga region, which ts one of the principal wheat regions of Russia, and which pro- duces the finest macaroni wheat in the world. A comparison of the normal temperatures of the two regions shows the same sort of similarity, with extremes a little more severe in the Russian region. Points in the Volga region having correspondingly low winter and annual mean temperatur es, always show a July tem- perature a little higher than those of the Great Plains region. At Or enburg, Samara, and Ufa the July temperatures are especially sur- prising, podedeatue the very low winter temperatures. At Huron, Bismarck, and Moorhead are the best examples, probably, of tempera- ture extremes in the Great Plains, but the extremes are not quite so great as at the three Russian stations. The humidity of the air is a feature of climate often entirely over- looked, but it nevertheless has a remarkable influence upon plant growth. In the relations of climate to the development and maturity of the wheat grain there are many things not yet thoroughly under- stood, but the degree of humidity is known to be of the utmost importance. The exact manner in which the influence of humidity is effective—the actual changes in the plant which take place by virtue of its presence or absence—is yet to be investigated in detail, but that there is such an influence seems positive. Its effect upon he: wheat plant is in general unfavorable if long continued, and particularly if it occurs near the time of ripening. Great humidity retards maturity, inter- feres with the production of proteids in the grain, and thereby indi- rectly softens it and through an overproduction of starch gives it a whiter color, weakens the straw, and presents conditions favorable for the attacks of various fungous pests. It is not so much the great pre- cipitation that causes an inferior quality of grain in the humid areas, but the prevailing humidity of the air and lack of sunshine. Indeed, as already stated, the actual rainfall during the growing season may be nearly or quite as much in the semiarid areas as in the humid areas. Edmond Gain has stated the law in regard to this matter, viz, that “ripening is promoted ina dry air and a humid soil, but is retarded in a humid air and a dry soil.”! It is pretty generally admitted in regard to many crops that the quality of the fruits or grains is, in some respects at least, injured by excessive humidity. It is especially true, however, of those crops which are characterized by a large pro- portion of protein or sugar in the fruits or grains, and in the case of durum wheats humidity is so injurious that semiarid conditions are absolutely necessary for the best results in growing them. So long 1Influence de l’humidite sur la végétation. Compt. Rend, 115: 890. 1892. PLATE IV. Bul. 3, Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. 3. SARUI-BUGDA. 2. ARMAVIR. SANDOMIR. it SARUI BUGDA IN COMPARISON WITH OTHER VARIETIES IN COOPERATIVE FIELD EXPERIMENTS AT THE MARYLAND EXPERIMENT STATION. ov) COMPARISON OF CLIMATES. 17 as the soil is of the right kind, therefore, the conditions in our semi- arid plains, even near the one hundredth meridian, are not only none too arid for such wheats, but are the conditions that are actually neces- sary for their successful cultivation. In Table II are given the absolute and relative humidity for six localities in east Russia and two localities in the Crimea, in compari- son with similar data for the localities of the Great Plains, already discussed, and, in contrast with the two series, similar data for the same three places in the humid area already mentioned. The abso- lute humidity is given not as actual moisture content, but in the form of vapor pressure, being reckoned like barometric pressure, and is stated in both millimeters and inches. The average total number of clear days in June, July, and August is also given for as many of the localities as possible. TaBiEe I].—Absolute and relative humidity for the growing season and for the year, and the average total number of clear days in June, July, and August. May. June | July. August. September. Year, | 5 Sei eee ets | 1) OS TY ee So Place. 5 5 = 5 = An =| 5 S| 5 B\oa S q a a a ee a 4 4 q a Slag = 2 = a 78 2} 3 2} 3 | 2 o|2 2 i 5 e = iz 3 P = = = Fs Mm.| In. Mm.| In. Mm.\ In. Mm. In. Min.| In Mm.| In. Kazan’. .....- 7.1/0. 279) 64) 9.6)0.377' 66) 11.7|0.460' 67, 10. 5)0. 413) 72' 7.3/0.287| 76) 5.6/0.220! 77|.... Orenburg....| .7.3) .287) 58} 9.5) .374) 57) 11.6) .456] 64 10.5] .413] 64) 7.3) .287] 68] 5.6) .220] 75).... Simbirsk ....| 7.6) .299] 64) 9.9) .389) 66] 11.6) .456) 66, 10.2} .401) 70| 7.2) .283 75) 626]. 220fi\coce Samara...... 7.0) .275) 54) 11.1) .437) 66] 13.0) .511) 61) 11.4) .448) 65) 8.1) .318) 73} (2) | (2) |) ].--- Saratov...... 7.8) .307| 59) 9.8) .885 56 11.8) 464) 61 10.7] .421) 61) 8.1) .318) 65) 6.1) .241| 74).. Uralsikose. =. 7.0] .275| 50] 9.8, .385! 54 11.4 448) 53) 9.9) .389) 53) 7.5) .295) 59) 5.7) .224! 70).... Simferopol ..| 9.5) .374] 70) 10.9; .429) 67) 12.0) .472] 61) 11.7] .460] 61! 9.5; .374] 69) 7.4] .29i1 73! 38 Genichisk ...| 10.4} .409| 75] 12.8) .503, 70| 14.9) .586| 70| 13.6] .535| 70| 10.9] .429| 75| 8.4] .330| 59! 28 Eastport..... 6.1) .241 a 8.3) .330) 81 10.4! 410} 81) 10.6) .420 sai 8.9] .353 s1 4.9} .194) 76] 24 Oswego. ..... 7.3) .289) 73, 11.1 438) 74, 12.6) .497) 72, 12.2) .482) 73) 9.5) .375) 74) 5.6] .223) 75! 28 Lynchburg ..| 10.2) .404 69) 14.4 569) 71) 15.9) - 627| 72) 15.5) .611} 75) 12.6] .499| 78) 7.6) .302) 71) 29 Moorhead ...} 5.9) .236 66, 11.1) .437| 71) 12.8) .504| 73) 10.8) .427| 71] 7.8] .311| 72) 4.0] .159| 76) 29 Bismarck....} 6.2) .247 66 10.6 ses 70) 12.1, .480) 66, 10.3) .408 ee 7.3] .290) 65) 4.2; .166) 71) 30 Huron. .../-'.. 6.0 .240 61 el - 434) 66) 12.3) .485) 64) 10.7| .425] 64) 7.3) .289] 62) 4.2) .168) 69) 33 Yankton...) 7.0) .278) 67) 11.8] .468) 71] 14.0) .555) 71| 12.4] .492| 72) 9.1] .359] 69] 5.1) .201] 69] 33 Valentine ... 6.4| . 253 6 10.1) .399) 66) 11.6) .459) 64) 10.8) .426) 64 7.5) 998] 62) 4.8) .189| 67] 30 North Platte.| 6.7) .266) 62) 10.7] .421) 66] 12.8) .506! 67| 11.7] .463 67, 8.0) .317 63) 4.9 - 197} 66; 32 Concordia ...} 8.3) .327] 65) 12.8] .506) 66] 14.7| .581] 66] 13.7] .540| 68! 10.1] .400| 67, 6.1) .242] 68| 32 Dodge City ..} 8.1) .321] 61) 11.8] .467| 61] 13.1] /519| 61| 12.5] .496| 63| 9.2 .364] 62, 5.7] .228] 63, 38 Abilene, Tex a) - 458) 64) 14.6] .575) 63) 15.0) .593) 58} 15.0) .593 se 12.8) .504 oH 8.6] .339} 65) 42 1The data for Russia are obtained from the excellent work of A. Kaminski, ‘ Vertheilung der Feuchtigkeit der Luft Russland,” pp. 34-351, St. Petersburg, 1894, and from A. Klossoyski’s ‘‘ Contri- butions to the climatology of Southwest Russia, Odessa, 1899.” The data for the United States is taken partly from the Annual Report of the U. S. Weather Bureau, 1896-97, and partly from unpub- lished reports kindly furnished by that Bureau. 2No figures given. All other data for Samara are meager and cover but a few years’ time. ’ Relative humidity calculated from three daily observations instead of two, as in ease of the other stations, 6659—No. 8—01——2 18 MACARONI WHEATS. From the table it is seen that the humidity for the summer months in the east Russian region is quite low compared with our humid area in the east, but that at the same time it corresponds very well with that of the semiarid plains region. The figures for relative humidity for a number of points in our Great Plains are very low, being all under 70. On account of the close proximity of the Russian point Genichisk to the Azov Sea its summer humidity is considerably greater than it would be otherwise. The district near to Genichisk is really quite dry and produces a good quality of Gharnovka wheat. The most interesting feature concerning humidity is that while the actual rainfall of the growing season in the semiarid districts is greater than in the humid area—a fact in itself interesting and most significant, as already pointed out—the Awmidity is as a rule less; that is, the rain of the semiarid districts falls in quick storms, alter- nating with many hot, clear days, ideal conditions for durum wheats. The climatic features of these two regions have thus been compared somewhat in detail, since the east Russian region is at present the most important in the production of macaroni wheat and is likely to have as its strongest future rival the very similar northern Great Plains region of this country. But, as before stated, there is also a large production of these wheats in southern Russia, particularly in the region bordering the Azoy Sea (see Pl. VI, figs. 1 and 2) in Kherson district and in the extreme North Caucasus. The corresponding, dis- tricts of this country for which varieties from south Russia should be well adapted are the western portions of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, and eastern Colorado, and perhaps portions of New Mexico, Arizona, and California. In all the south Russian region there are constant droughts and great extremes of temperature, but especially intense summer heat. On the west shore of the Caspian Sea and in the Azoy Sea region the heat and drought are particularly severe, these regions being very similar in these respects to western Kansas, western Oklahoma, and the Texas Panhandle. The average rainfall from Dodge City, Kans. to Abilene, Tex., is about the same as from Kerch to Taganrog, as may be seen in the table; but the average tem- perature of the Azov Sea region is a little lower. In Texas, New Mex- ico, and Arizona the Algerian varieties will probably be best adapted for trial. In New Mexico and Arizona especially the conditions seem to be particularly suited for Algerian wheats. COMPARISON OF SOILS. The macaroni wheat. districts of Russia lie in the well-known Chernozem or ‘* black earth” belt, which is almost a perfect counter- part of our Great Plains in depth and richness of soil. The most thorough investigations have been given to the Chernozem soils by Russian geo-botanists, chemists, and agronomists, and many analyses PLATE V. Bul. 3, Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S, Dept. of Agriculture. VOLGA RIVER REGION NEAR SAREPTA. Mat fi \ AY Die tcliaseen aac aga eal Doe : ihe it if te ee} F get : A Th oat 4 f i ‘ A ro te P ys ' ee . ta ie. R . ’ A Aun ey ttl a : » tiV'As, ” ay, e ” i! : EXPERIMENTAL PROOF OF ADAPTABILITY. iGe) have been made, both chemical and mechanical. Mechanical analyses of a number of soil samples obtained by the writer from that country have also been made by the Bureau of Soils of this Department. All such analyses, in comparison with similiar ones made of the soils of the Great Plains, show a most remarkable similarity. From a chemical standpoint the soils of the two regions are similarly characterized: (1) By an exceptionally large amount of thoroughly humified organic matter; (2) by the presence of an unusual proportion of phosphates, and (3) by a great amount, comparatively, of lime, pot- ash, and other alkalies. These soils are therefore rich in base-forming metals. and are not acid, while forest soils are distinctly acid. It is well known that the substances thus more abundant in these soils than in others are just those usually needed by the wheat plant. But the indirect influence of the great proportion of lime and humus in so changing the condition of other substances as to cause them to be more easily made use of by the plant is of equal importance. Of course, the amount of soluble mineral salts present may become so great some- times as to be really injurious to plant growth, forming actual alkaline wastes. But these are found only in certain restricted areas near the borders of salt lakes, and even in the vicinity of these wastes the very best quality of macaroni wheat is sometimes grown. The mechanical structure of the soils is of the very nature best adapted for giving the plant the benefit of the substances contained, even under adverse conditions of climate. Humus is a great absorb- ent of water, and the extreme fineness of the soil particles makes it very retentive of moisture. This quality is still further increased by the presence of so much alkali. Such soils therefore retain for the erowing plants a much larger proportion of the rain that falls than is possible in humid areas. A map (fig. 1) shows the portion of the United States in which macaroni wheat may be grown. The district in which these wheats will be most successful is a comparatively narrow belt extending northward and southward through the Great Plains. Of course, the boundaries must be understood to be arbitrary and only approx- imately correct. One hundred to two hundred miles east of this belt macaroni wheat may give good yields and prove hardy, but the quality of grain will not be what it should. In all wheat area west of this belt the gluten content of the grain will not be so good, because of the lack of nitrogen in the soil. EXPERIMENTAL PROOF. After all, the most convincing evidence that a new crop is or is not adapted to the region to which it is introduced must be found in the results of actual trials of the crop in that region. Such evidence, if there is sufficient of it, must be received as final and conclusive. If 20 MACARONI WHEATS. these results substantiate the conclusions arrived at by a comparison of the features of soil and climate, such as we have given above, it is a gratifying confirmation of the idea that introductions of new crops HORTHICAROE® 80° Se =< souTH| CAROLIN 4 iMISSOuR! 95° e grown, but the quality of the grain will not be so good. ch macaroni wheat will sueceed best, and without irrigation, so long as the summer rainfall is at least Fic. 1.—Map of the United States showing where macaroni wheat can be grown. Territory in which macaroni wheat may b Territory in whi 10 inches should proceed upon the basis of a previous scientific investigation of environment.’ See Russian Cereals Adapted for Cultivation in the United States. Bull. No. 23, Division of Botany, U. 8. Dept. of Agriculture, pp. 7-11, paragraph (1). Also the Basis for the Improvement of American Wheats. Bull. No. 24, Division of Vegetable Physiology and Pathology, pp. 7-9, 42 (top of page and note), and 81, paragraph 17. TESTIMONY AS TO ADAPTABILITY. 21 As already stated, macaroni wheats have been introduced now and then and grown in a very few places for many years, but the growers becoming discouraged by the absence of any demand for De wheat, usually abanlowed its culture soon. Nevertheless, the AER Sine qualities of these varieties—their great yielding power, earliness, drought resistance, and resistance to diseases—have always been noticed and remarked upon. So far as the writer can determine, Russian macaroni wheat was first introduced into this country in 1864 by this Department. It was of the variety Arnautka and was purchased at Odessa, Russia. It was afterwards distributed annually by the Department for several years and attracted much attention because of its hardiness, early maturity, and yield. In Lincoln County, lll., it ripened two weeks earlier than other spring wheats. In Dixon County, Nebr., it yielded 30 bushels per acre and ripened four to six days es than other varieties. In Minnesota it ripened a week earlier than Scotch Fife and yielded remarkably.*| At that time, however, the possible use of these wheats for making macaroni was Se pcecely not thought of, and their cultivation did not continue extensively. During the last three years the Department has again taken hold of the matter in a thorough and comprehensive way and with the aim to stimulate as far as possible a market, both domestic and for eign, when they are grown. A number of the very best Russian varieties have been introduced and tested systematically in comparison with standard varieties in cooperation with State Experiment Stations and certain private parties. That the results of these experiments, both at the stations and by private parties, abundantly prove the adaptability of durum wheats to our semiarid districts is shown by the evidence which follows. TESTIMONY OF PRIVATE PARTIES. ‘ In Texas i great deal of attention has been given to Nicaragua wheat (PI. I, 2), a variety of the macaroni wheat group. One of the Ponce! in experience with this wheat, formerly a millwright, and afterwards statistical correspondent of this Department, is Mr. James J. M. Smith, of Turnersville, Tex., who has often urged the importance of giving more attention to it. The following extracts from his correspondence with this Department give his testimony con- cerning this wheat: There were thousands of bushels raised here (Burnett, Tex.) as late as seventeen years ago, and agentleman who hailed from New Orleans bought in this section about 100,000 bushels for shipment to Europe for use in making graham flour and macaroni. This wheat was hardy, and was not attacked by smut or rust, and was a sure crop, aver- aging from 20 to 100 per cent more in yield per acre than any other wheat. Its hard qualities make it secure from weevil or bec ‘oming musty and spoiling in vessels or elevators in transit. (Letter of October 9, 1897.) 'See Annual Report U. 8. Dept. of Agriculture, 1868, pp. 249, 250. 29 MACARONI WHEATS. Again, in a letter dated April 15, 1898: Our farmers out here (Turnersville, Tex.) are well acquainted with the culture of this wheat, and the cause of their abandoning its culture was mainly twofold: (1) The indisposition of millers to handle it properly, and (2) the want of a market. The yield is certain. It tufts in winter (when sown in fall), pastures well, has a heavy straw, is easily threshed, and the best keeper of all cereals. The bread is nutritious, and for bakers’ loaves it will not, after being baked, become dry and hard as bread from the softer varieties. The wheat grows sometimes as high as 6 feet and » yields 60 bushels per acre. It grows well as far as Velasco, Tex., and flourishes where the tropical climate is no longer good for other wheats. : Mr. A. W. Parrott, proprietor of a stock farm at Holland, Tex., writes under date of May 24, 1898, concerning the Nicaragua alee as follows: We used to plant it here some eight or ten yearsago. Wemade at that time from 25 to 30 bushels per acre. It would grow from breast height to the height of a man’s head. It could be planted either in fall or spring. I planted 4 bushels last fall about November 15. It was very dry and the wheat did not get a very good start. I cut it last week and it will make double the yield that Mediterranean planted at the same time will make. Planted 6 bushels in February of this year. It was in full head, good stand and breast high, and will, with a good rain in a few days, make a great deal more than seed sown last fall, as there is a better stand. It is a surer crop than corn even, making on an average more to the acre than corn, besides requiring less labor to make and gather. It stands the cold better than our native wheats, thereby making a good and lasting winter pasture, and still producing a full crop of grain if not pastured too late. The testimony of the Texas Seed and Floral Company, of Dallas, Tex. (in letter of May 24, 1898), is as follows: Nicaragua hard wheat was grown here several years ago, but the farmers stopped raising it on account of the millers not wanting to grind it, as it was so hard. It is very productive, and will produce one-third more than Mediterranean here, and makes splendid feed for hogs and other stock. We think it a good thing for the Texas farmer. In 1899 this seed company kindly gave the writer the addresses of certain parties in Texas who were growing Nicaragua wheat. On ~ request, reports were received from three of these parties giving their experience with the wheat as follows: G. M. Givens, Lisbon, Tex.: I have been raising it for three years now. The first year (1896) I sowed it in December on account of getting the seed late. I gotabout 18 bushels per acre. The fall of 1897 I sowed 15th to 20th of October; had the finest winter pasture I ever saw; and harvested 30 bushels per acre, thresher measure, which weighed out a good deal more. My other wheat by the side of it, sown at the same time, made only 20 bush- els per acre. The Nicaragua yields one-third more than Mediterranean with the same show. In the fall of 1898 I sowed Christmas week and got about 15 bushels per acre. We had no rain to amount to anything until spring. My other wheat made 10 to 12 bushels per acre. This fall (1899) I sowed Nicaragua November 10. It is a fine stand and doing well. It is a very hardy wheat, and when sown early will ripen about the same time as Mediterranean! or other bearded varieties. 1 think the PIDD ER time to sow is in October or November. 1-A standard red bearded wheat of Texas, and hence often ‘referred to for compar- ason by Texas farmers. Bul. 3, Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. PLATE VI. Y FiG. 2.—MACARONI| WHEAT FARM OF MR. MIKHALKOV, AT AMBROCIEVKA IN DON TERRITORY. a} é i, Ki ‘ily a,' uf, i , : \ r he ; t 7 i , , | ve ‘ rae ; es . ts > 2 ; A | 5, , r y | i j = Py ond) \ ; 4 “a | ‘ ut { ~j . - rs Tt fl ot ¢ ] 4 Pie, dar Sy ° ee | ; | aw ; ' vi | a ‘ row | " i 5, 3% CNM Sia oes te es Werak'f\ , a ah TESTIMONY AS TO ADAPTABILITY. 23 N. B. Harrell, Celeste, Tex., November 20, 1899: It has been sown here in this section and yielded a good crop, some of it making from 40 to 50 bushels per acre. L. L. Ayers, Gatesville, Tex., November 18, 1899: The wheat (Nicaragua) I sowed last year did not do well on account of late sowing and the almost unprecedented winter drought. It is avery hardy cereal, and should be sown about the time for other wheat and ripens about the same time. It is very productive in the black lands of Texas, yielding from 25 to 75 bushels per acre accord- ing to soil and season. Two years ago a farmer near Belton, Tex., raised 75 bushels per acre. It used to be raised here for hogs, but of late has fallen into disuse. Mr. Edward K. Carr, of Kerrville, Kerr County, Tex., writes: The remarkable success of Nicaragua wheat, which I have sown for about twenty- four years in succession on my farm, leads me to believe that we must look to Southern latitudes for our wheat. Concerning Nicaragua, as tried in the North, Mr. J. F. O'Grady, of Eola, Roberts County, S. Dak., writes February 14, 1901: I do not think the wheat had a fair trial last season, as it was a poor one for small grain in this locality. The sample was planted on April 20, the day thas we finished seeding the common Blue Stem, which is the main variety used here, and Nicaragua came ripe a week ahead. Wheat averaged about 8 bushels per acre here, and the Nicaragua would have gone at least 50 per cent better. Dr. F. W. D’Albini, of Waring, Tex., writing February 12, 1901, of results with No. 579 (variety Kubanka) of the Section of Seed and Plant Introduction, a macaroni wheat obtained by Prof. N. K. Hansen, Sys: The plants were very robust and healthy and not inclined to lodge at all. There was little rust on them, though our common wheat showed it badly. The yield was yery good. I think it would have made 22 bushels to the acre. Mr. T. N. Oium, of Lisbon, N. Dak., who has been growing an excellent quality of macaroni wheat on a considerable scale, is one of the first to secure a market for his wheat ata good price. He is grow- ing the variety Arnautka, originally from the Azov Sea region, and has this testimony to give from his own experience (letter of May G, 1901): In regard to the Arnautka wheat, will say that I have grown it for several years, and last year I had 1,000 bushels. * * * I find this wheat is admirably adapted to this country. It will yield about double what other wheat will and seems to be smut and rust proof. * * * I have succeeded in distributing enough seed so that with a normal crop I expect we will raise from 50,000 to 100,000 bushels next year. * * * Our local mill grinds flour from this wheat, and we like it much better than other flour. It makes better bread. All who use it here will use no other." The Hougen Milling Company, of Northwood, N. Dak., has not only grown macaroni wheat (of Russian origin), but has ground some 1The Arnautka wheat from North Dakota, given in Table IV, isa sample of the wheat grown by Mr. Oium. It compares very favorably with the others direct from Russia. 24 MACARONI WHEATS. of it for bread flour. The company writes as follows in a letter dated March 23, 1901: We have made flour from about 200 bushels of this wheat. It takes considerable more power to grind the same quantity of this wheat than our spring wheat usually grown here. There will not be a great deal of this wheat sown here this year, as there has been no market for it. A few farmers will sow some, intending it for feed, as the yield is usually very good. We expect to put in about 100 acres of it, and in case we can find demand for the product there is no doubt a large amount of it will be raised here. The ‘‘grits’”’ or breakfast food made from this wheat, a sample of which we send you, we think superior to that made from our native wheat. ) Mr. Paul Landemann, of Scotland, S. Dak., and a former resident of Russia, has this to say in a letter of March 26, 1901, of the Arnautka wheat grown by German-Russian farmers in his section of South Dakota: I find that most of them have fed the last kernel of their seed to hogs on account of no market for this wheat, but everyone is happy that a market is in view, and it will take but a few years and there will be plenty. This wheat is not only good for macaroni, but it gives us a fine bread. Often in the city of Odessa I went to a well- known bakery to buy this bread, which was baked only twice a week, and found it all sold, to oursorrow. As soon as our American people will taste this bread it will find a sure market. Concerning Kubanka y neat No. 2953 8. P. I. (PI. I, 1), obtained by the writer in 1898, the testimony of Mr. A. Meyerle, of Arapahoe, Nebr., is as follows: The wheat was planted April 26, 1899. It had one rain June 16, 1 inch, and no more rain till harvested. Harvested just seventy-six days after planting. It is so early, and that is what we want in this country. Wheat No. 1174 8. P. I. (PI. I, 4), a macaroni variety obtained by Prof. N. E. Hansen from Turkestan, was tried by Mr. James Curtis at St. Thomas, N. Dak. He states results as follows: I planted it on the 10th of April, 1900, and harvested it on the 15th of August. Intend to give it another trial this spring (1901). It is a large plump berry and seems to be quite flinty. Grain men say that it will grade No. 1 northern. Mr. James H. Campbell, writing from Skelton, Nev., says concern- ing the same variety, No. 1174: No. 1174 did well, better than our Nevada wheat. Planted April 1, ripened Sep- tember 4. I gave the neighbors some to try. This variety was also tried by Mr. A. B. Stanley at Echo, Umatilla County, Oreg. His testimony, given in a letter of February 12, 1901, is as follows: Wheat No. 1174 was sown broadcast March 26, 1900, and harvested June 29. Yield per acre (estimated), 23 bushels. The grain was large, plump, and far superior to the seed sown. I consider this variety worthy of further trial, which I shall give it the coming season. The fine stand of volunteer now on the ground, after the hard freezing weather of the last month, is evidence of its hardiness. TESTIMONY AS TO ADAPTABILITY. 25 Mr. H. C. Warner, of Forestburg, S. Dak., superintendent of State fair, Department of the South Dakota State Board of Agriculture, bas taken much interest in the trials of macaroni wheats. He experi- mented with Arnautka (S. P. I. Nos. 1153 and 1156) and No. 1174, and has this to say concerning results with it: A summary of results would be about as follows: 1153 and 1156 Arnautka were fine, withstood drought well, berry plump, color good, yield fine, ripe July 24. No. 1174 will be a good early wheat if it does not rust. Ripe July 7 Three other ST ais report results with No. 1174, as follows: Alois Wallman, Crandon, 8. Dak.: For durability it will prove to be the wheat best suited for the dry prairie States. H. J. Wilson, Husted, Colo.: No. 1174 was quite hardy; can not say what the yield would be, but consider it a good variety. C. A. Snodgrass, Salmon City, Idaho: It is the finest wheat I ever saw; I sowed it on the 10th of May and it was ripe on the 25th of August. It think if it were sown on fall plowing it would make a crop without irrigation, and, as to yield, I think it will yield fine. It seems to be hardy. In Canada the Wild Goose wheat (Pl. I, 5), a macaroni variety, which probably came originally from South Russia, has been grown considerably for several years. Mr. William Beacham, of Cambray, Ontario, writes April 8, 1901, as follows, concerning this wheat as grown in that locality: The straw is strong, not liable to lodge, and is not affected by rust at all. It does not shell in cutting as much as others if left till overripe. It will grow on wet or dry land and is not affected by extreme dry or wet weather. TESTIMONY OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS. Without any disparagement to the reports of private parties who, no doubt, state honestly the results of their experiences, it is never- theless to the experiment stations that we must look for conclusions that are to be considered final concerning the behavior of varieties in their particular districts, as their variety tests are not only carried out scientifically and systematically, but in a highly comparative way, dozens, or even hundreds of varieties of different wheat groups being tested side by side, under the same conditions. No complete series of experiments with macaroni wheats has yet been published by any sta- tion, but several of the stations have kindly given the Department, by letter, brief reports of two-year results with the three varieties obtained in Russia by the writer in 1899, through the Section of Seed and Plant Introduction. In one instance the variety Nicaragua is also included. Fortunately, two of these stations are in the very districts to which these wheats are naturally best adapted. The two States in which macaroni wheats have so far proved to be the most successful are North and South Dakota. The wheats not only give excellent yields in these States, but the grain produced is 26 MACARONI WHEATS. often apparently of better quality than the original imported seed. Prof. J. H. Shepperd, agriculturist of the North Dakota Station, reports briefly as follows the results with Kubanka and Pererodka at that sta- tion during 1899 and 1900: . I am planning to do considerable work with macaroni wheat in this district. The two best Russian sorts outranked evervthing else. In 1899 Pererodka 8. P. I. No. 2954 gave ayield of 39.9 bushels per acre and Kubanka 8. P. I. No. 2953 yielded 30.1 bushels per acre. Both were very hardy and thrifty and were early enough to be entirely safe in this district. The Pererodka made a performance of about 8 bushels per acre better than our best-bred Fife and Blue Stem sorts. I am very favorably impressed with their performance indeed. The unusual conditions of last season (1900) vitiated the results of our work with wheat to such an extent that I have no confidence in the comparative yields which we obtained from the different sorts. Pererodka was subject to very adverse conditions from drought and conditions of soil, but made a yield of 17.13 bushels per acre even with so severe a handicap. The Pererodka is a very promising sort for this section. In South Dakota comparative results indicate very strongly the hardiness of these Russian varieties. Concerning results at the sta- tion in 1900, a very discouraging season for the entire Bee Prot D. A. Saunders writes: With reference to the macaroni wheats, Nos. 2954 and 2953 are very promising indeed. They both stood our drought wonderfully well, and yielded, in this very unfavorable season, somewhere about 30 bushels by the side of wheat that yielded 2 to 8 bushels to the acre. No. 2954 did not discolor quite as badly as No. 29538. Otherwise there is no difference between the two numbers. Aside from their value for making macaroni and as a means of largely increasing the yield in the semiarid Great Plains, the use of these wheats will be one of the greatest factors also in the establish- ment of what is known as ‘‘dry farming” in the irrigated districts; that is, farming without irrigation. Prof. John A. Widtsoe, director of the Utah Station, is very favorably impressed with the behavior of Russian cereals in this respect. He has kindly furnished results of two years’ experiments with these cereals in Utah, and writes as follows in regard to the matter: In accordance with your request for a brief report on the behavior of the Russian cereals sent us by the Department of Agriculture I am pleased to inclose a copy of the report on this subject made to me by the station agriculturist. As you will observe, some of the varieties sent us have done exceptionally well. I consider that this work is of very great importance to us here in Utah, especially as regards the discovery of wheats and other grains with great drought-resisting powers. Dry farming or farming without irrigation is becoming very important in Utah. The Utah Station is in constant receipt of requests for information and recommendations concerning varieties of wheat especially adapted for dry farming. In the report mentioned from the station agriculturist, Lewis A. Merrill, is the following paragraph: It may be of interest to know that an exhibit was made, at our recent State fair, of these wheats, and they excited considerable favorable comment on account of the plump kernel, the color, the smoothness of bran, hardness, and general appearance. TESTIMONY AS TO ADAPTABILITY. 27 In the following table are given the dates of seeding and harvesting, yields, ete., of the wheats only. Three of the varieties, Kubanka, Polish, and Pererodka, are Russian macaroni wheats. Romanoy is also Russian, but not a macaroni wheat. The macaroni variety Nicaragua is included in the experiments of 1900. Taste I1I.—Comparative results with wheat varieties at the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station. , | | ; Number! Yield S ; : he AS el Pa | Date Date har-| —.:_- | Average Name of variety. ie Pee hal fe Pade ate of irriga-| per acre, eave | No. seeded. | vested. Petes bushels. | yield. | 4 1898 | Apr. 11] July 25 2 34.18 |) ROMANO VE So esse Soe ee eee secre J : . 32.09 se 11900 | Mar. i9 | Aug. 13 2 30.00 |f * AM ONG J = ehse eee ere eaeee 4276 | 1900 |.... do...| July 19 2 34. 3 34.34 ly 1899 | Apr. 13] July 28 2 36.00) Bererod/ Kays ensue -fepateloie nists. | 2954 IJ 5 4 34. 68 Gree: | * lL 1900 | Mar. 19| Aug. 13 Bela sstariien poe ibnnkn. SO ee | soggy |f 1899 | Apr. 18 | July 28 DY BB ON oar | 11900 | Mar. 19 | Aug. 13 2 28.76 |J Olan |. «2h tae 2957 y 1899 | Apr. 19} Aug. 7 2 29.50) 25,95 | L1900 | Mar. 19 | Ang. 13 2| 21.00 J Wrelliman’s Hite: aaa eee 4404 | 1900 |.... do...| July 23 2 32.50 32.50 | ) It is seen that the highest yield of one year, 38.42 bushels, was made by Kubanka. The yields for Lamona and Wellman’s Fife are given for only one year. These are known, however, to be fairly drought- resistant varieties. Of the four varieties that were grown two years Pererodka and Kubanka made the highest average yields, these being the same varieties, too, that were so successful in North and South Dakota. Pererodka seems again to be the better of the two varieties in this case, as was found to be true in the trials of the North Dakota Station. The writer saw these varieties in the shock just after harvest at the Utah Station in 1899, and observed then that the straw was long and the heads bright and well filled, though that was the first year of their trial. The wheats were given two irrigations, but it is probable that in the most favorable localities in Utah they will produce a good average crop without irrigation. Polish wheat (PI. II, 7), a macaroni variety, has been grown along with other varieties at experiment stations and elsewhere in this coun try at various times, and almost always with good results as regards yield, drought resistance, and rust resistance. The experiments have always been short-lived, however, either from sheer neglect or because there was .no particular incentive for growing the variety. In 1891 10 acres of this wheat was planted by the Division of Botany of this Department at its grass and forage experiment station at Garden City, Kans." Two hundred and forty bushels were harvested, mak- ing a yield of 24 bushels per acre, or about twice the ordinary yield ™See Report of Grass and Forage Expt. Sta. at Garden City, Kans., for 1891, by Dr. J. A. Sewall, pp. 3-5. Reprint from An. Rept. See. of Agr. 1891. 28 MACARONI WHEATS. of spring wheats in that State. Dr. J. A. Sewall in his report of the experiments at that station for 1891 says: With reference to the experiments as a whole, I know that with fair culture in this region, without irrigation, any person can raise ordinarily a fair crop of Polish wheat, and with a reasonable amount of rainfall, a large crop. Reports on the Polish wheat distributed last winter state a yield of from 20 to 60 bushels per acre, without irrigation. The rainfall from January 1, 189i, to May 21, 1891, was only 1.41 inches. From May 21 to October 3, 1891, the rainfall was 23.20 inches, nearly 3 inches more than the average annual rainfall. Garden City is at a considerable distance west of the one hundredth meridian. This wheat also produced a good comparative yield at the Arkansas Valley Experiment Station in Colorado, but was apparently soon afterwards discarded. It has also given good results in Washing- ton, Utah, Iowa, and other States. The strong resistance to leaf rust exhibited by macaroni wheats has been discussed in detail in previous publications of this Department,? so that no special treatment of that subject is necessary here. In closing this topic, the results of field trials with macaroni wheats in the semiarid districts of this country may be summarized as follows: (1) Macaroni wheats are far more resistant to leaf rust than common wheats; (2) they are more resistant to attacks of smut and other dis- eases than common wheats; (3) in the South, when sown in good time, they furnish a good supply of winter pasturage and that without diminishing the after harvest of grain, if not pastured too late; (4) in the middle Great Plains eastern Russian varieties ripen earlier, as a rule, than the ordinary spring wheats; (5) in many places west of the 100th meridian, where wheat growing with other varieties is practically im- possible on account of drought, these varieties by virtue of their extreme drought-resistance will produce ordinarily a crop of from 12 to 20 bushels per acre; by the use of these wheats, therefore, these localities may become actual additions to the wheat area; (6) in the larger part of the Great Plains where drought is less intense, but suf- ficiently severe to make the average yield per acre of common wheats quite low, these varieties increase the yield on an average one third or more. THE MARKET FOR MACARONI WHEAT. From a purely cultural standpoint—that is, the standpoint of yield, hardiness, ete., there 1s no question that the success of macaroni wheat growing in the Great Plains of this country is even now an estab- lished certainty. There is only the question of a market that concerns ‘See Cereal Rusts of the United States, Bul. No. 16, Div. Veg. Phys. and Path., Dept. of Agr., pp. 28-40, especially pp. 33 and 40, Sept. 27, 1899 (illus.); also, The Basis for the Improvement of American Wheats, Bul. No. 24, Div. Veg. Phys. and Path., Dept of Agr., in column ‘‘ Resistance to leaf rust,’’ of table, pp. 44-58, Dee. 10, 1900. FOREIGN DEMAND. 29 the farmer at present. It is a question, however, that ought to be capable of early solution. A market is likely to be realized in one or more of three ways: (1) By stimulating a foreign demand for the wheat for macaroni making; (2) by the development of a home demand from our own macaroni factories; and (3) by the use of macaroni wheat flour in bread making.* FOREIGN DEMAND. It is already known that certain French manufacturers of semolina desire to use macaroni wheat from this country, and indeed a consid- erable amount of the variety Wild Goose has been shipped to France. But at present there are apparently two chief obstacles in the way of extensive foreign shipments. First, the foreign factories have not been brought through proper middlemen to see what the grower has to offer. Second, there has been no systematic effort, as there should be, to send to these factories for inspection well-authenticated samples of our best grades of these wheats, with accompanying information as to the amount that can be furnished of each. French factories are quite ready at any time to use these wheats if they can get always a good grade. The demand for such wheat is shown by the following statements of United States Consul, John C. Covert, at Lyons, France:” It is estimated that the French output of these pastes is from 120,000,000 to 170,000,000 pounds per annum, and the product is unquestionably destined to increase greatly. To Americans it may seem strange that the power to purchase wheat foods is only now becoming general in most of the civilized countries. Thirty years ago black rye bread was universally consumed by the working classes and the peasantry in France. Bakers tell me that they all sold rye bread up to about 1870; now it is rarely found in any bakery and is eaten only in the country. * * * As the use of wheat has become more general and the power to pay for it has grown correspondingly, it is but natural that a strong tendency to seek variety in its prepa- ration for food should exist. * * * The new and better methods for the manu- facture of the edible pastes, the knowledge of just the kind of pastes certain classes of wheat will produce, and the improvements in the heating and drying processes are coincident with the sudden and widespread increase in the use of wheat foods. The continued growth of this industry will depend upon the supply of special kinds of wheat, for a decline in consumption would immediately follow any attempt. to manufacture pastes of ordinary wheat. Paste makers are unanimous in the opinion that American wheats [i. e., common bread wheats] will not answer their purposes, but when one considers the almost endless variety of our soil and climate it seems that some locality must be found where a suitable wheat can be grown. What is wanted is a hard wheat [durum, or macaroni wheat, not ordinary ‘‘hard wheat’’] containing a large percentage of gluten and a relatively small percentage of starch. Our wheat is lacking in both Since the above was written facts have developed upon which a market for at least 5,000,000 bushels can be safely guaranteed for the season of 1902. * Wheat for Alimentary Pastes in France. Consular Reports, 60: 468-470, No. 226, July, 1899. 30 MACARONI WHEATS. these desiderata. * * * An American chemist, Mr. Edwin W. Serrell, now living near Lyons [France], has carefully investigated this subject and informs me that the wheat which is now considered the best is that grown in the neighborhood of Taganrog,’ Russia; the next is from Algeria. That produced in southern Italy, where the manufacture of pastes originated, has lost the high place it formerly held. The best wheat grown in France—considered better than the American product—is from the neighborhood of Clermont-Ferrand. Rapidity of growth and ripening is considered of prime importance in the produc- tion of the desired qualities in the wheat. These are the chief factors in the Taganrog product. If our farmers could produce such a wheat it would find more uses than in the pdtes alimentaires above referred to. There would be an excellent market in years of drought in Russia. Millers and bakers in France have found that bread is improved by putting into it a larger amount of gluten than is found in French or American wheats, and as a consequence very hard wheats—the Taganrog generally—are mixed with the others. These wheats can not be raised in France, but must be imported, and they are the only kinds which are always sure to find a market in this country [France], as the French farming community will always demand and are politically strong enough to secure a high protective tariff on wheat and other grain. Tf it be remembered that the French people eat more bread than any people in the world; that, generally, France needs very little ordinary wheat, but that she always will need a very considerable percentage of hard wheat? (hard is not under- stood in the American sense in France), it will at once be seen that there is a possi- bility of finding a large opening for American agricultural products in this country, not to speak of the great consumption of hard wheat in such macaroni and spaghetti- eating countries as Italy and Spain. Moreover, as the experience of the French has proved that an admixture of hard wheat, in small quantities, improves the’quality of the bread, it is reasonable to infer that this practice will extend to other countries,* further enlarging the market for hard wheats. The following words appear also in Consular Reports, 62: 300-301, March, 1900: Consul Skinner sends from Marseilles, December 1, 1899, the following copy of a letter from Messrs. Bendit Leinburger & Co., 21 rue Sylvabelle, Marseilles: ‘‘We are desirous of establishing connections with some first-class American grain exporters for the importation of American hard wheat into this market; and, as our efforts in this direction have thus far met with no satisfactory results, we make free to address you the present, in order to inquire if it is in your power to place our request before the proper party in the United States. ‘*This description of wheat, commonly known as Goose * wheat, is in considerable demand in our market. It is employed by the millers in this district for the manu- facture of semolina, which is used in the production of macaroni, ete. It is better adapted for this purpose than any other quality of wheat. Russia, India, Africa, and to some extent Chile have been furnishing our market with this commodity ‘Nearly all Russian macaroni wheat is known in France as Taganrog, simply because Taganrog is the chief point of export. Asa matter of fact some of the very best of this wheat is grown in the Volga River region. ? Nearly all French wheat is very soft, much softer than our wheats, but imported wheats of the durum group are mixed with them for making bread. *In Eastern Russia macaroni wheats have been used in bread making on a large scale for many years, a fact not generally known. *Grown rarely in North and South Dakota, but in larger quantities in Canada. See Pl. I, fig. 5. FOREIGN DEMAND. aa hitherto. A clear, yellow-colored, and well-cleaned wheat will always command full prices.’’ Mr. Skinner adds: ‘‘I have already communicated to Messrs. Bendit Lein- burger & Co. the facts set forth on page 400 of Consular Reports No. 230. There is no doubt that wheat of the quality described would meet with a steady demand in this market. I might add in this connection, however, that a local firm other than the one named above complains to me that certain transactions with American exporters proved unfortunate, because of the arrival of the grain in bad condition and not as represented by sample.”’ In 1899 Mr. James B. Simpson, of Dallas, Tex., being much inter- ested in.the statements of Consul John C. Covert above quoted, since it indicated a possible outlet for Texas-grown Nicaragua wheat, wrote this Department requesting its assistance in forwarding 2 bushels of this wheat to the United States consul at Lyons to be tested as to its fitness for use by French manufacturers of edible pastes. The letter was referred to the Department of State. It was accompanied by another letter, which was also printed in the Galveston News, and from which the following words are here quoted:! Believing that the wheat exactly adapted to the making of macaroni and similar edible pastes is that hard, flinty, glutinous wheat called in north Texas the Nicara- gua wheat, and seemingly almost indigenous to our black lands and warm climate, and knowing that there never was a failure in the growth of this grain in north Texas, and that such is its wonderful productiveness that an average of 50 bushels to the acre is made, I took occasion to write these facts to Mr. Covert. Mr. Covert became deeply interested in my letter, realizing at once the great possibilities to north Texas, and referred it to M. Edwin W. Serrell, a distinguished chemist of Chabeuil, France. That gentleman wrote in reply a letter of some six pages (too long to insert here), but substantially stating that if we could grow this character of wheat a practically limitless demand existed for it in Europe, and that it could readily be shipped through Galveston. Mr. Serrell further suggested that he be sent 2 bushels of this Texas-grown wheat for chemical analysis, which he would gladly make; and if it was as antici- pated, not only could France take all produced in north Texas, but that capital would quickly come from France to Texas, putting up here establishments with a yearly output of $18,000,000. Since I have taken up this grain matter, I have spoken with several farmers of Dallas County, who are unanimous in their opinion that we can grow to perfection in north Texas just the wheat required by this great European industry, and so satistactory would be found the profits that our black lands would advance quickly from 25 to 50 per cent in value. Letters of recent date have been received through the Department of State from the consuls at both Marseilles and Lyons, responding courteously to requests for certain information by this Department. In these letters reference is made again to the foreign demand for macaroni wheats. Consul Robert P. Skinner, at Marseilles, in a letter ot February 6, 1901, says: As to whether or not it would pay American farmers to export their wheats to France, I think there is no question. Buyers here are constantly looking for hard "See ‘American wheat for the manufacture of macaroni,’ Consular Reports 61: 400, 401, No. 230, Noy., 1899. oy MACARONI WHEATS. wheats comparable to those exported from Russia to this market. It has been found impossible to grow these wheats in France, and the supply produced in Algeria is quite insufficient to meet local requirements. Consul Covert, at Lyons, also makes the following statement regarding the same matter in a letter of March 8, 1901: As to the European market for hard wheats, I am told by dealers that it will be able to absorb all that our country can produce. I know merchants in this city who would like to contract for handling large quantities of these wheats. The foregoing statements refer to France, only. Equal demands exist, no doubt, in Italy. Consul Joseph E. Hayden, at Castellamare di Stabia, Italy, also states in a letter of April 25, 1901, with refer- ence to Italian macaroni— In the manufacture of macaroni of the best quality a special kind of wheat is used called “hard wheat,”’ and for the making of cheap macaroni a mixed wheat is used. This mixed wheat is neither hard nor soft. Nearly all the hard wheat comes from Russia, but some comes from India, the Orient, Tunis, and Turkey. Italy would be a very important market for American wheat, either soft or hard. Again, in another place and more recently he gives a more extensive >) J 2S report on the subject,’ as follows: Aiter efforts covering a period of over two years, I have succeeded in demonstrating the fact that the very finest quality of macaroni can be made of American wheat. This has been declared an impossibility by those engaged in its manufacture here, and there are hundreds of establishments in this district. Up to the present time Russian wheat and wheat from the Orient have been used, together with Italian’ wheat, for the production of this article of food, the American wheat being consid- ered too soft. Through the cooperation of one of the largest establishments in this district it has been found that this conclusion was based upon the proverbial con- servatism of the people. When it is remembered that macaroni consists of wheat to the extent of 60 per cent, it will be readily seen that here is an opening for American wheat of no inconsiderable importance. It should be understood that while there is a tax on American wheat there is also a tax on all foreign wheat—7.50 franes ($1.44) for 100 kilograms (220.46 pounds). It should also be borne in inind that interna- tional freights covering transportation of grain from Russia, the Orient, and the United States are practically the same. I inclose extracts from a letter from one of the largest manufacturers in Italy and send also a sample of crude American wheat, with a sample of the wheat ground and a sample of macaroni made from the same.? It has been suggested to me that if the United States Government would admit free of duty, or at least at a lower tax than the present tariff, macaroni made from American wheat, a market for our wheat would be opened in competition with that of Russia and the East. The present tariff on 1,000 pounds of macaroni is $15, or 14 cents per pound; under the plan proposed 60 per cent of the said 1,000 pounds would enter free, leaving 40 per cent to be taxed at the present rate of 13 cents per pound, making on the 1,000 ‘American wheat for Italian macaroni,’? Advance Sheets of Consular Reports, No. 1071, pp. 1, 2, June 25, 1901. *The samples were transmitted to this Department together with a copy of the report. A portion of the wheat sample is true macaroni wheat, but a large portion is ordinary bread wheat, and the whole of it has been very poorly cleaned. If this makes good macaroni, as stated by the Italian manufacturer, our best well-cleaned grain will find abundant demand. FOREIGN DEMAND. 33 pounds a tax of $6 instead of $15. It should be remembered in this connection that the Italian manufacturer of macaroni under the scheme proposed would haye to pay freight from the United States to Italy, and also pay freight on the same wheat manufactured into macaroni and transported to the United States. EXTRACTS FROM LETTER OF DOMENICO ORSINI. Isend you herewith the result of my experiments in producing macaroni from American wheat. Up to this time, I am sure no Italian manufacturer of macaroni thought it was possible, believing it necessary to use a mixture of either Italian and Russian wheat, or of wheat from the Orient and Tunis. I now put in your posses- sion the accomplished fact, which will serve to open up in Italy a wide market for American wheat. America imports macaroni from Italy, mostly from this district. The wheat used, samples of which are here inclosed, is known as ‘‘ unfaleated wheat,”’ and was purchased by me in New York City. You will notice the rich golden color of the macaroni, and as to its consistency, I would note that it can be cooked in one- half the time consumed in the preparation of the macaroni now in use. Not only is there a great demand for such wheats in southern Europe, but American macaroni wheat las already found its way to that market in small quantities. It is chiefly the Wild Goose wheat, exported mainly from Canada. Concerning this matter the following statements are made in the report for 1900 of the Ontario Agricultural College and Experimental Farm:' There has been a considerable demand in Italy and France for the Wild Goose wheat within the past four years. One firm alone in Toronto exported in all about 600,000 bushels of the Wild Goose spring wheat in 1899. About one-half of this went to Italy and the other half to France. It is estimated that nearly 90 per cent of the Wild Goose spring wheat which is shipped from Canada is used for the manu- facture of macaroni. The price of the Wild Goose for export purposes will likely vary somewhat from year to year, as our keenest competitors are Russia, India, and Turkey. If the crops of these countries are good, the quantity which is shipped from Canada is correspondingly reduced. It is thought, however, that there will be a good demand from the Mediterranean and from other continental ports for Ontario grown Goose wheat for a long time, providing the quality is good.” But if such sales have been made and are being made of this Canada grown Wild Goose wheat, the prospects should be very hopeful for a constant foreign demand sufficient for the disposal of all the Kubanka and Gharnovka (or Arnautka) wheat that can be grown for several years in North and South Dakota, Nebraska, and Colorado, where the quality of the grain produced is already known to be superior, the product being much more uniform and usually free of soft grains. This leads naturally to a discussion of the necessary character of the grain required. QUALITY OF GRAIN DEMANDED. As already stated in another place, a clear, almost translucent, very hard, yellowish grain is, in a general way, what is required in the for- ‘Twenty-sixth An. Rept. Ontario Agr. Coll. & Expt. Farm, p. 102. 1900. *Tn a letter of very recent date Consul Skinner reports that 100,000 tons (34 million bushels) of this wheat has arrived at Marseilles from Canada since March 1, 1901. 6659—No. 3—01——3 34 MACARONI WHEATS. eign market, just such a grain as can unquestionably be produced, too, and is being produced in the greatest perfection in the northern States of the Great Plains. It is also especially important that there shall be no admixture of soft or otherwise inferior grains, but that the entire crop shall be uniform in the quality of grain. It is because of lack of attention to these requirements and occasional careless inspection of grain in this country that there has not been even greater demand than now exists for our wheats. Consul Skinner offers some suggestions of warning in this connection which are of special value, as he is situated at Marseilles, the chief port of entry for macaroni wheat imported into France. His statements are as follows: (1) In letter of February 6, 1901: One of the manufacturers in this city has very recently been called upon to test a shipment of Goose wheat from Manitoba, and mentioned to me the other day that the result was extremely unsatisfactory, as the quality of the grain was not even, a large percentage of the kernels being suffi- ciently hard, and the remainder not harder than ordinary winter wheat. (2) Con- cerning grain inspection:' Three protests have been formerly lodged with me in regard to the condition of a cargo of wheat arriving from New Orleans; a like com- plaint has been made against wheat from Galveston, and an English trade paper noting a communication from its Marseilles correspondent, says, ‘‘We may add that London importers have been making similar complaints.’’ These facts suggest that whatever accuracy the criticism may possess, they are not confined to an isolated case or to a single city. As my correspondents explain, wheat from New Orleans is purchased in Marseilles on the faith of the certificates of inspection issued by the board of trade of that city. The exporter appears to have no responsibility for quality of the grain beyond the production of an ‘‘ official”’ certificate of inspection, which being in proper form binds the buyer to accept the consignment. It necessa- rily follows that unless the trade organizations issuing certificates exercise proper care in making the statements conform to the facts, they must lose credit and drive business into other channels. Mr. Skinner also emphasizes the desirability of submitting standard samples of each year’s crop at Marseilles in the following words: Many American cereals are unknown here. I have conversed with several brokers who say that if they had samples of the new American crop they could make sales. This difficulty could be overcome and a step in advance of every other grain export- ing nation would be taken if our produce exchanges, notably at Chicago and New York, would send to this market annually, after the new crop is in, a complete set of standard samples. To reach the trade of Marseilles, two sets should be sent—one to the Chambre Syndicale des Minotiers et des Fabricants de Semoules de Marseille, 4 rue des Templiers, and the other to the Chambre Arbitrale des Cereales de Mar- seille, sitting at the bourse. The utility of the suggestion is shown by the fact that the French consul at New Orleans has forwarded some few samples to the Syndicate des Minotiers by request. Samples should be selected with scrupulous care, indorsed by the exchange sending them and sealed by the French consul, in order to be fully accepted here. The idea is applicable not only to cereals, but to cotton, oils, ete. 1 am extremely desirous of having this matter considered and acted upon, and will be happy to see that samples are properly placed. 1Tnaccuracy in American Grain Inspection. Consular Reports, 62: 303-305, No. 234. March, 1900. é FOREIGN DEMAND. 35 In regard to the same matter of a guaranteed product being neces- sary to insure an extension of our wheat trade, the situation as con- cerns our export to Malta (where bard wheat is mainly used at present, coming chiefly from Russia) is stated by Consul John H. Grout, jr.! With special reference to a cargo of wheat and flour shipped direct from New York to Malta in 1899, he says: Uniortunately the wheat sent was not up to the standard required for military use. I have received a fair sample of it, and find it full of tares and unclean. The grains also are too small. This makes tue second time that wheat from the United States has been received and each time it was below the standard. I wish to state asa result of my recent investigations on the subject, that although there is every chance for our wheat to gain this market, no headway will be made with such qualities as have thus far been received. It is utterly useless for our shippers to send wheat that will not come up to the requirements. I know that we have the required article, and it only rests with those desirous to secure a market here to send large samples first and then, if accepted, to send wheat equal to the samples. * *.* Mr. Turnbull, of Turnbulls jr., & Somerville, Valleta, recently said to me: ‘‘We have large dealings with the Government here and desire to secure an American brand of wheat that will be acceptable. We desire to do business with some responsible American firm that will send us samples of wheat up to the standard, and that will, if we order from them, send us wheat up to the sample.” * * * In sending samples one thing must be strictly remembered, and that is not to send poor wheat. At Malta the question is not cost, but quality. There are several good firms here that are ready to deal with our exporters. Among them are the firms above mentioned—C. Breed Eynaud & Co. and S§. Scicluna & Son. The latter firm has for some time been trying to get some samples of American wheat of good quality, but thus far has not succeeded in securing what is most desired.2 Whatever we may think of the justness of the above criticisms, the Suggestion of Consul Skinner that certified samples of each year’s crop be placed with chambers of commerce at Marseilles and other ports is manifestly of the greatest importance. Sucha course will be particu- larly effective in securing a quick market for our macaroni wheat, and the writer would urge upon our produce exchanges and boards of trade the desirability of carrying out such a plan at once after each harvest. Let the samples be in duplicate or triplicate for each foreign market, and be large enough and of sufficiently average character to represent the crop as accurately as possible. Duplicate samples with corresponding numbers should be kept by the home association, of course. Then, what is still more important, let no consignment be permitted that is not ‘‘up to” sample sent. It is absurd to think that anything is gained in making a shipment inférior to the sample on the basis of which the purchase price is paid; but, on the other hand, the entire market may be lost because of a few shipments of that * American wheat at Malta, Consular Reports, 60: 479, 480, No. 226, July, 1899. * For further discussion of this subject see testimony of Frank H. Hitchcock, Chief, Section Foreign Markets, before the Industrial Commission; Foreign Markets for American Agriculfural Products, Rept. No. 67, U.S. Dept. Agr., Washington, 1901, pp. 32-42. 36 MACARONI WHEATS. kind. The importer should be able to buy by sample with positive assurance of getting just what he has ordered. The slight changes that are undergone in storage or long transportation are soon under- stood by the experienced dealer. In the purchase of these macaroni wheats especially no dependence can be placed upon a mere state- ment of grades without accompanying samples, for three reasons: (1) Because these wheats are in this country a new factor to the grain inspector, who can not yet grade them understandingly; (2) there is at present a grievous lack of uniformity in grading even our ordinary wheats; and (3) the manufacture of semolina for macaroni requires certain qualities in the grain that are not usually considered in ordi- nary @rain inspection. In all tests that have so far been made of American macaroni wheats by the semolina manufacturers of France the results have been fairly satisfactory, it being stated in several instances that the semolina is fully equal to that of the Taganrog wheats. But these tests have been made almost wholly with Texas and Canadian wheats, which are apparently inferior to those grown in the northern and middle Great Plains. The writer firmly believes that when the North and South Dakota macaroni wheats shall be thoroughly tested in foreign factories they will be acknowledged to equal in quality any other wheat of that kind in the world. In an article entitled ‘‘ Wheat for edible pastes in France,” Consul Covert reports to the State Department’ the results of tests made of the 2 bushels of Nicaragua wheat sent to him by Mr. James B. Simp- son, as already noted.” Messrs. Gilibert & Teziers, Valence, France, reported upon a package sent them as follows: Macaroni can be made out of this wheat, but of an ordinary quality, because it can not contain a great deal of gluten. It contains considerable soft wheat, and some of it is mouchetés; that is to say, black about ends. It seems to us that wheat more evenly hard and not mouchelés ought to be grown in Texas. The wheat which we want would bring at Marseilles about 18 franes ($3.47) per 100 kilograms (220.46 pounds). : Another package sent to Mr. Edwin W. Serrell, at Paris, was given to an expert for examination, who reported as follows: . ITS FORM. Long grains, indicating a high average of gluten. A horny or corneous form; the best variety of hard wheat. It is, in fact, very hard. Grains regular in size. But very little impurity; a few grains of tender white wheat. Unfortunately there are a few spotted grains. This defect, which ought not to be inherent in the quality, diminishes the value somewhat, for it will necessitate more time for sifting to eliminate the black spots from the semolina. 1 Wheat for Edible Pastes in France. Consular Reports. 62: 301,302. No. 234. March, 1900. * Page 31. ’ FOREIGN DEMAND. Ave ANALYSIS OF THE GLUTEN. “ Paste very rapidly obtained.” Gluten very easily separated; very homogeneous and elastic. The analysis shows damp gluten 30 per cent; dry gluten 10 per cent. These proportions oecur only in the superior grades of hard Russian wheat. With well sifted semolina there could be made from this wheat edible pastes carry- 9 99 ing 13.33 per cent of gluten. This wheat would therefore make the best quali- ties of edible pastes. Mr. Covert adds: The above report coming with Mr. Serrel’s indorsement should leave no doubt as to the value of pastes, for no man in Europe is more competent than he to pronounce an opinion on this subject. The gentleman to whom I sent specimens of this wheat in Marseilles reported ver- bally that it would find a ready market in that city at 16 francs ($3.08) per 100 kilo- grams. Dealers have been one week investigating this subject in Marseilles. Their first report was favorable. This morning they confirm the first opinion. While the above reports are in the main favorable, the considerable number of grains with black ends is a detriment. These grains were noted by the writer in samples from the same source sent to this Department for the Paris Exposition of 1900, and were at once con- sidered to be the result of being grown in a locality a little too damp. In Russia macaroni varieties when grown in a locality too damp like- wise deteriorate in the same manner. The use of Taganrog wheat for seed in Texas, as suggested by the French manufacturer,’ would there- fore probably make little difference. The defect will no doubt best be overcome, as the writer has before suggested, by growing the wheat farther westward, in the region between Wichita Falls and Abilene. The present Nicaragua wheat area in Texas, if extended over one-half its width westward, would furnish a quality of grain much superior to what it now produces. At the same time it would add to the gen- eral wheat area of the State thousands of acres of semiarid lands at present supposed to be unsuited to wheat culture, but which would yield a good average crop of this wheat because of its drought resist- ance. ‘The writer has observed that this wheat, when grown in eastern Colorado or extreme western Kansas, produces a grain as clear, hard, and yellow as the east and south Russian wheats. As the traffic in macaroni wheats increases it will be necessary to construct special elevators for handling them. It is plainly impossible to handle these wheats and the common wheats together, as each would ruin the other by the mixture. There ought to be, and probably will be, a sufficient amount of these wheats grown in the next five years to justify the construction of several large terminal elevators at such points as Galveston, Chicago, and Minneapolis, in addition to various smaller local elevators, all of which will handle only macaroni wheats. ‘See ‘‘Wheat for edible pastes,’’ by John C. Covert, Advance Sheets of Consular Reports, No. 668, pp. 5, 6, March 3, 1900. 38 MACARONI WHEATS. POSSIBILITY OF A HOME DEMAND. While the prospects are very good for a foreign market for these wheats sufficient to utilize probably all that we can produce for several years, an excellent market is also likely to he developed sooner or later in our own macaroni factories. At present all these factories, with rare exceptions, use the flour of common bread wheats in their opera- tions. Of course this is chiefly due to the fact that heretofore it has been impossible to obtain true macaroni wheats in this country, and it is considered impracticable to import them. Most of the factories realize the importance of using the semolina of such wheats as soon as they can obtain it in sufficient amount and of good quality. It will certainly be of the greatest advantage to the factories as well as to the growers to establish trade between them in the use of these wheats. The factories will thus be able to obtain either the wheats or semolina made from them at much less cost than the imported material, and the farmers will have the benefit of a quick home market. Another strong advantage in using these wheats in our”own factories, and which aapeeilly affects the consumer, lies in the fact that the homemade product, other conditions being sie is always much better from the standpoint of simple freshness. We all know how much better fresh bread is than old, and what a nutty flavor newly-made flour gives to the bread. These facts apply with even greater force in macaroni making. All imported macaronis must of necessity have lost a large per cent of their flavor, and as the homemade product is made almost entirely from common wheats, it follows that the majority of American people really have never tasted the very best macaroni. More than all else the use of macaroni as a food is far from general in this country, and should become more popular. It isa comparatively rare fooa with us. As already quoted in another place, in France alone the annual output of edible pastes is estimated at from 120,000,000 to 170,000,000 pounds. USTMOTION } “MOT sse"""190'77T |. -[oA IOqULYy OL6GS [FP FIL “uMorq | F619 J YStMoTToX Matees teens 6¢°SG |69°LT |"* USTAOTION SLCC OOO Te ieee cae a cana “MOT 09 (OO°IT | -TaA 4usryT Te"S@ |88°TL |----" MOTIOX “MOL tora: EOE OT, Al=TOAS SaULo TT sense’ press ss 'e1l 88127)" * USIMOTION wees prttrs|[rreeeceeeceeee SOD aaa ears evra AN SEO Yo) oh oer sha | “suo0p Aro A o7°°"9O31B'T -- UMTpoyW Madea 0) Op ere Toiali(gyaj29 = e228 prc: USIPPOw eos | ersionee \ Ov y * OFLU AA ‘rnoddv “stp ‘OUUM i ae AN “7 OUTTA “*7> YsIppor "7707" OFT eetegms rig ava} stew we "75" OFT “88 HORI 779°" OFAN meee” OFT MA SESS 0 fi Nop bsp “ysip | -port JOATOAS pie eras 0) 0 Vad chi “77559 OUTTA "779°" OUTTA rest aUO RL Bes ONCE "775°" OUTTA USIMOT[[O A “5** ONAL peer OEMS “eto OVAL wees Qprtttc [recesses cs ee sees seer eeeeeees 7 “""1§9°9T 2. CO'LOY |1LBSLYy 5 Roe SI BeGG fl rag at 29 *9S1B] 99°6¢8 \6L PIA y s pepE [trtttt opts: |: mamrpoyy 69"IT |" UsfMOTIAX |°""" Op" =" ea *MOT Vez ein GLcTaf| -joA 4ysryT 6L PL |-" YSTMOT[OA 1°°~* Opre="” Ra ahetia| {1 icy ON rc ae er caer al Vena © | Ua er ‘a1D MOT[OA IBOTO “Proll... Seis seeeeeclor oe YSIMOTOR |" 7° *oS1B'T *Splou Yourrys| -1ur *LOTOD ‘OZI9 1q lV ‘UIRIS DY} JO ojoOvARYH- "7" USTPpo *plBog. “7 YSIppoy. “yey Rscae Geaeee Ilk eee a| Pee O Die tae ae 2 (oases SOCOM aces ancien BISSNYY SOG fn ety (ea (/2)) POR OT 0y yO ORE ay oa RI SY IGT toga co FS Olea ct fof 7404219) ‘IoyUTM | FIO og) OIA SOCLC| CS oj OPER OCR RIGO (oy oa 222) aay es dujagobst | ioe ao0015 ---- wort | 96 0 [ccc opretet terete oper t |r oper ftre opt “'9SBIOAY: | 99> >" piace O Din tales ote nO eee Sete Oe names ee ins (0) eis ecrep sre || (po) |-==op--=-"|""-ueers4ysry |e 0p" == )99—== (0) 9Jetaoe “yLOYS 10 ‘ud018 Sd BL Anne mec cer PO. chess | ATVI TOT eA TIN Aual |e meeey CTL | een BISSNY *OsIB[ IO GEA CIR en lI OCI 0) oF RAIS it ORI al OCs eNO oOo Ie ea hah jie ***MOIIBNE [9°75 > 9/2" Ops*""sl"** wees WUBI] | 7° TOVULAA |" - "°° > sBxoy 10] UTM. TTT ie Oye ilcae ae ODre ae ala eee ee eee ao Suradg |--*"* 00005 ‘SOTBM “" OSBIOAY |7-"°°*"|-"°* Opt" ***|""-UeaTs}YSrT |--* TOUTAA | WINOS MON =--s=q70q 6) (2) Gp "*~*} eee Ts a op “OSciekw | 6S. |t-goorgn | esses Operas sess SS) eae BISSETT *SOABO MOLIBU 10] UTM “*"MOIIBN | (9) |AIOA‘QOOIG |°-°°**** Ops ****} IO Butadg |--~ BITBaIsNy “- WInIpoy |--"-** ee alee “7 TOJUIM |" BUTUOSIV ‘ : Dare Pe eee ‘udo13 Sear anne SO ete “"OSBIOAV | G8 op eer ree op BISSNY “""MODIBN [°° 77° */7 7777 oor |" -UdeIZ4YysTT |--*"sulmdg |----~ BIMEqIS : ‘SOABOL “1OVUTA Po-2ee Eel (D) | MOLLON |--- sUSiaing |) tO) SUTAS |p> sy oDents) “RIO seteteereree|eeeeee lores Qpreereerseesss opr e|ss ope] -Rq@ YON “""MOIIBN | (D) |--7°* 4Q00aqT |*"-UOOTs AYSTT |-"--Surmdg |------BIssny aay “YU MOI8 cer ue Ramat bell Jo BOTOD “gurads UMOIS o0uB |} IOUURI, = PIS(S0d | =e eee ee 10 LOJUTM, oto M SUT | ued Suno¥ Jo rojovreyO *proy oy} JO rojoRIRYO BYAOUIVYY MOT[OR soeees* 98008) DITA ty erage aes otto) (0)),\; serrss* U0d JAPA Se Bpsnuq-Mieg CCRC vere’ YSt[Od “-"e"="* BHpDOIOIOd woeeeees’ POTsst[Od sereess* BNEBIBOIN soreess* "119 30SSIAL SSOGEOSOSIE of(:13) 01 )N0 POOSCEOOON brio: (0114159 s75"-* BY AOUIBYY --"TUNIN( §$dodIRy PERRIS) (sf) o10:J@) os TOC Oe La sss2+5**-pyINjO[Og Snr chy: 1 hf terteeeeeess og Co. Sey, “AJOLIBA JO OUIBN quasaad jo unouY sv sypayn wWoLnonUL podrauisd ay) fo soysidajponuDyo farya ayy fo pUNsSIL Y— A ATAV I, 58 MACARONI WHEATS. As will be seen by the table, macaroni wheats almost always are light green in color in the first stage of their growth, while ordinary wheats are a darker green. There is also rapid growth at this stage; the leaves are usually large and the plants grow erect, thus affording the abundant pasturage for which fall-sown varieties are noted. -As to chemical composition, nearly all varieties here presented are uniformly high in gluten content and the percentage of albuminoids. Ordinary bread wheats are considered to have an unusual gluten content if it reaches 11 or 12 per cent dry gluten, but it is not especially unusual for these wheats to have 13 and 14 per cent. On the whole, Russian varieties have invariably a higher per cent of gluten and protein than those of other countries. In confirmation of the expectation of the writer, it is seen that the Arnautka from North Dakota compares well with the best varieties direct from Russia in protein and gluten content. It is, however, a Russian variety originally, and when grown in North Dakota, simply finds very similar conditions to what it has previously been used to. The superiority of Russian varieties, already shown by their greater demand as well as their higher protein content, and also the excellent quality of durum wheat, when grown on our Great Plains, is almost certainly due to the unusual humus content of the soils of the Russian and American regions, respectively, which has already been discussed. The proper climate is a feature probably of greater importance, but a considerable amount of soil humus is absolutely essential. In harmony with this thought it is to be expected that Algerian or Argentine varieties will improve on being grown on our Great Plains, while Russian varieties will probably deteriorate when grown in Arizona or New Mexico. But Russian sorts grown in the region from North Dakota to west Kansas, or possibly to the Texas Panhandle, will be the very best. . There seems to be something more than the simple amount of gluten that gives macaroni wheats a superiority over bread wheats for mak- ing macaroni, since often bread wheats having the same gluten content do not apparently make as good macaroni. Nevertheless, gluten con- tent is evidently important, and, besides, the unusual protein content of such wheats is of great importance from the standpoint of nutrition. RUSSO-MEDITERRANEAN TRAFFIC IN MACARONI WHEAT. In making up statistics of wheat production and export separate figures are never given for durum wheats, even in Russia, where such wheats are so important. It is therefore only possible to obtain an approximate idea of the export of these wheats from Russia to the western Mediterranean region. It is known to be quite extensive, however, in proportion to the amount of other wheats exported from that country. The Section of Foreign Markets of this Department has kindly furnished data giving the entire wheat export of Russia Bul. 3, Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. PLATE X. Fic. 1.—PORT OF TAGANROG, RUSSIA, THE LARGEST PORT FOR THE EXPORT OF MACARONI WHEAT IN THE WORLD. Fig. 2.—LOADING GHARNOVKA (MACARONI) WHEAT ONTO THE STEAMER IN BULK AT TAGANROG, TO BE SHIPPED TO MEDITERRANEAN Ports. RUSSO-MEDITERRANEAN TRAFFIC. 59 for the years 1894-1898, inclusive, and her export to France and Italy for the same period. ‘The entire export averages 126,677,079 bushels. The average export to France is 19,892,517 Gushels (including spelt and maslin'), and the export to Italy averages 21,204,469 bushels. It is known that a considerable quantity of the export to Italy is soft wheat. In other data giving imports into France and Italy from Russia, also furnished by this section, it is definitely stated that in 1899 6,274,129 bushels of the import into Italy was soft wheat; that is, considerably more than one-third of the entire amount for that year, which was 15,400,153 bushels. It is pretty certain that the propor- tion of soft wheat shipped to France from Russia is much less, prob- ably not more than one-fifth. The entire wheat export to both France and Italy is 41,096,986 bushels. It is probable that the soft wheat, spelt, maslin, etc., would altogether make up no more than one-third of this amount. To be safe in statements, however, the proportion of macaroni wheat shipped from Russia to these two countries may best be given, not as two-thirds of the entire amount, but as about 20,000,000 bushels. But certainly not more than four-fifths of the Russian Medi- terranean export of this wheat goes to France and Italy. Adding, therefore, 5,000,000 more for the other countries on the Mediterranean we have what is sur ely a conservative estimate of 25,000,000 bushels as representing Russian export of this class of wheat into the Mediter ranean region. The Russian trade in these wheats is far greater than Americans realize. In fact, many do not realize that there is such a trade at all. The writer is rather confident that the entire annual Russian export of durum wheat to all countries does not fall far short of 40,000,000 bushels. It must be remembered, too, that in the mar- kets where this wheat goes no other wheat can be substituted. To compete with Russia in these markets we must therefore raise maca- roni wheats. If we should succeed in securing only half the market it would mean an addition of 20,000,000 bushels to our export trade. It should be noted that international freight rates on grain exported from this country appear to be about the same as for Russia and the oriental countries. The steamers engaged in the Russian export trade with this wheat belong to several different lines, the best known of which is probably the Russian Society of Commerce and Navigation. This is the most important steamship line in south Russia, has excellent harbors, and touches at all points on the Black and Azov seas. The principal points from which durum wheats are shipped are Rae anrog (PI. X, figs. 1 and 2) and Berdiansk, but large quantities are shipped : also from Rostov-on- Don, Novorossisk, Theodosia, Kerch, Mariopol, and Nikolaev. Four or five trunk hnge of railway (at least t two of which are doubled tracked) Maslin is a mixture “of sev aS) grains, as rye, barley, and w eee, 60 MACARONI WHEATS. bring most of the wheat that is grown at a distance to these points. Much the larger part of this wheat from a distance comes from the region about Uralsk and Orenburg. (PI. XI, fig. 1.) At Taganrog and Berdiansk a large portion of the wheat shipped is macaroni wheat. A great deal of it is grown in the surrounding region. The wheat begins to arrive in greatest quantities in September. (Pl. XI, fig. 2.) SUMMARY. (1) Macaroni or durum wheats have been occasionally grown in this country for many years, but the absence of a known market has heretofore prevented their extensive cultivation. (2) In connection with its seed and plant introduction work the Department has been making special effort during the past three years to stimulate an interest in American-grown wheat of this class. Asa result of this movement, and with the aid of private parties interested, the following progress has already been made: (a) All macaroni wheat of good quality that will be produced this present season (which will probably amount to over 75,000 bushels) is now practically contracted for at a good price. (6) A majority of our own macaroni factories desire to use semolina of durum wheats grown in the United States, and from some of them there is now an urgent demand for it, but it can not be obtained. (c) Samples of our macaroni wheats sent to French manufacturers of semolina have been tested and reported to be as good as wheat from Taganrog, Russia, though it is known that a much better wheat is now grown in North and South Dakota than the samples that were sent. (d) Semolina manufacturers in France and Italy have only recently discovered the excellent quality of our macaroni wheat, and now they are demanding large quantities just as soon as it can be furnished. Six or eight million bushels, if we could furnish it, would no doubt now find immediate sale at Marseilles and in Italy. (3) In connection with these facts it may be noted that since March 1, 1901, three and one-third million bushels of Wild Goose wheat were shipped from Canada to Marseilles, and yet the Canadian wheat is somewhat inferior, as a rule, to wheat of the same class grown in North and South Dakota. (4) A careful investigation of the conditions of soil and climate in east and south Russia in comparison with those of our Great Plains shows an interesting and remarkable similarity between the two regions. As the very best macaroni wheat is produced in large quan- tities in this Russian region one naturally infers that the cultivation of such wheat in the Great Plains would be attended with good results. Bul. 3, Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture PLATE XI. FiG. 1.—KUBANKA WHEAT BROUGHT TO MARKET BY THE KIRGHIZ FARMERS, AT URALSK, ON THE SIBERIAN BORDER. FiG. 2.—CARTING MACARONI WHEAT TO THE WHARVES AT TAGANROG, TO BE SHIPPED TO MEDITERRANEAN Ports. SUMMARY. 61 (5) The results of adaptation experiments made by this Department in cooperation with State experiment stations, as well as trials made by private parties, have strongly confirmed the conclusion drawn from a study of the soil and climatic conditions. The principal facts shown by these experiments are as follows: (2) Macaroni wheats are extremely resistant to heat and drought. (2) They are also very resistant to the attacks of leaf rust, smuts, and other parasites. (c) They give the best results in the Great Plains near the one hundredth meridian. (d) In many places west of the one hundredth meridian where wheat growing is now practically impossible because of drought macaroni wheats will yield ordinarily 12 to 20 bushels per acre. (ce) In semiarid districts macaroni wheats will yield an average of about one-third more per acre than the standard wheats usually grown there. (6) Macaroni manufacturers do not, as a rule, grind their own wheat, but must be furnished with semolina by millers of that product. (7) There is now a distinct demand for one or more enterprising millers in this country to arrange for specializing in the manufacture of semolina from durum wheats for our macaroni factories. (8) Macaroni wheats can be readily ground at our ordinary flour mills by a slight rearrangement of machinery, using more moisture, and with a proper understanding on the part of the miller of the nature of the product to be furnished to the factories. The miller or manufac- turer of semolina should stand in the same relation to the macaroni manufacturer that the miller of bread flour does to the baker. (9) Nearly all our own macaroni factories are at present using flour made either from Kansas hard winter wheat or from the hard spring wheats. (10) The superior value of durum wheats for making macaroni lies chiefly in the quantity and quality of their gluten, but possibly also in the amount and nature of certain other constituents. (11) Macaroni when well made from our hardest bread wheats is sometimes difficult to distinguish from macaroni made from durum wheats. Almost always a difference exists, however, in favor of the product from durum wheat. The latter is usually (a) more yellowish in color, (b) more vitreous in fracture, (c) preserves its form longer in boiling, and (d) is more elastic and not sticky when served. (12) Though macaroni wheats are usually considered to be adapted only for making macaroni, it is an idea entirely erroneous that they do not make good bread. But in grinding for bread 10 to 20 per cent of red wheat might, often with advantage, be mixed with them. (13) In all instances in this country within the writer’s knowledge 62 MACARONI WHEATS. where these wheats have been used for bread the parties so using them have preferred the bread above all other kinds. (14) The most popular bread flour in the Volga River region of Rus- sia is made from Kubanka, a macaroni wheat. - (15) The French people, who are the greatest bread eaters in the world, prefer always a mixture of durum wheat in making their bread flour. (16) Bread made from macaroni wheats is richer to the taste and remains fresh much longer than bread.made from other wheat. (17) Macaroni wheats furnish an excellent quality of grits for break- fast foods. (18) In the cultivation of macaroni wheats all means possible should be employed for the conservation of moisture if they are to be grown where the rainfall is very small. They are drought resistant, but they must have the aid of proper cultivation. | (19) In all places north of the thirty-eighth parallel they should be sown in the spring, and the plowing may be done the previous sum- mer. South of this parallel they should be sown in late autumn. (20) In the South when sown in the autumn these wheats furnish excellent winter pasturage, usually, too, without greatly diminishing the following crop of grain. (21) The best macaroni wheats in all respects are of Russian origin. The results of chemical analyses show that Russian varieties contain nearly 50 per cent more gluten than varieties from other foreign coun- tries. Moreover, they are, as a rule, best adapted to the conditions of our semiarid districts. (22) The best of the Russian varieties, and those which are best adapted to our middle and northern Great Plains, are the following: Kubanka (or Pererodka), Yellow Gharnovka, Gharnovka, Black Don, Beloturka, Sarui-bugda, Velvet Don. (23) Some of the best varieties from other countries and adapted to the region of this country south of the thirty-fifth parallei are as follows: Nicaragua, Missogen, Medeah, Volo, Pellissier, Atalanti, Candeal, El Safra. (24) The Russian export of macaroni. wheats to the Mediterranean region is probably at least 25,000,000 bushels annually, and is an indication of the export trade with these wheats that we might secure (in part, at least) if we would grow them; for international freight rates are about the same for us to the Mediterranean region as for Russia. O Uys DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY—BULLETIN No. 4. B. T. GALLOWAY, Chief of Bureau. RANGE IMPROVEMENT IN ARIZONA, (COOPERATIVE EXPERIMENTS WITH THE ARIZONA EXPERIMENT STATION.) BY DAVID GRIFFITHS, EXPERT, IN CHARGE OF FIELD MANAGEMENT, GRASS AND FORAGE PLANT INVESTIGATIONS. SSS WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1901. Fi LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. U. 8: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF, Washington, D. C., September 6, 1901. Str: I have the honor to transmit herewith the manuscript of a paper on ‘‘ Range Improvement in Arizona,” by Dr. David Griffiths, expert in charge of field management in the Office of the Agrostolo- gist, and respectfully recommend its publication as Bulletin No. 4 of this Bureau. Respectfully, B. T. GALLowAyY, Chief. Hon. JAMES WILSON, Secretary of Agriculture. re Bebe PA Oke This paper of Dr. Griffiths is the first report on experiments with grasses and forage plants conducted by the Department of Agriculture through this office in cooperation with the Agricultural Experiment Station of Arizona, located at Tucson. The report contains an outline of the experiments undertaken on the tract of public land set aside by the President of the United States for the use of the Secretary of Agriculture in this work. The existing conditions and the present character of the forage supply on the ranges is fully described. The urgent needs of the stockmen for better range conditions are clearly set forth. The publication of this report now will be most timely, as it brings before the public questions of the greatest importance to one of the largest interests of this country—the raising of live stock. While there are many forage problems of great importance which are now being worked out through this Office, there is none, we believe, of greater importance or more general interest than that of range improvement. The free-range system has led to the ruthless destruc- tion of the native grasses which once covered the magnificent pasture lands of the West, and the time has now come when active measures must be adopted to remedy the evils that have resulted from overstock- ing and mismanagement. It is evident that laws for the proper control and preservation of the ranges are not only essential to the stock inter- ests, but also to the general welfare of thecountry. The matter is of as much importance to the irrigation farmer as to the cattle man, for the gullying of river channels during recent years, and the cutting of deep gorges in every slight depression, destroying the tillable lands, are directly traceable to the influence of close grazing. Prof. R. H. Forbes, director of the Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station, in an exceedingly valuable and interesting paper on the subject of ‘‘The open range and the irrigation farmer,” read at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science held in Denver the present season, and which was published in The Forester, made the following most suggestive notes in relation to range improvement, which we venture to quote here: The objects of range study are, in the first place, to demonstrate economic methods for the improvement and reclamation of the great areas of devastated, worn-out grazing lands of the semiarid regions, and, finally, to suggest such administration of the country thus reclaimed, or the yearly decreasing areas of 5 6 PREFACE. yet unruined ranges, that the interests of all concerned—the stockman, the irriga- tion farmer, and the possible investor in the storage propositions of the future— may be brought into harmony with each other as well as be individually bettered. In view of the difficulties and failure which have been encountered in this direc- tion [range improvement] and in view of the successful operations of the forest- reserve system, it seems to me that we can turn with some hope of success to the idea of range reservation in Arizona and New Mexico. The Government is there yet in control of great unbroken tracts of its public lands, and those Territories afford a most favorable opportunity for the institution of the experiment on a large and convincing scale. The carrying out of such a plan by impartial and authoritative means, including provisions for a proper economic and scientific study of the problems involved, ought in time to vastly improve the range for the benefit of the stockman, and a!so to render the operations of the irrigation farmer and of the storage-reservoir promoter much more certain of returns. F. LAMSON-SCRIBNER, Agrostologist. OFFICE OF THE AGROSTOLOGIST, Washington, D. C., September 6, 1901. CONTENTS: BIGEU- On Ge Tare coe a semen ke Re Ns ey Pine pratense ee ke ee mal OusheH ANG, tibemeniEBE 2 ee oe PS BY sa frame shia ttre Geena eae ee BE pS a os AE AC teers ame ee eee EP es ee a et oe; JNO OM ages Ee rr Pe TeCipItatiON TECOnGs aa meee sf Se ee ee Beminary and sugeeanone seen! chr ek ce Pe el hist RATIONS. PLATES. Page. PuaTe I. Fig. 1. Railroad right of way near Benson, Ariz., showing the condition of the range under protection... ___..----.--------- 10 Fig.2. Wright's Saccaton (Sporobolus wrightii) .....--.------- Il. Fig.1. A cattle range in the Santa Catalina Mountains, April, ODI EEE ee Bodh ok ae! eed oe ee eee 12 Fig.2. A foothill range near Tucson, Ariz., April, 1901......_-- III. Fig.1. Tufted plantain (Plantago fastigiata) on the left, blue grama (Bouteloua oligostachya) on the right...----..-- ----- 14 Fig.2. Alfilaria (Erodium cicutarium) grown on university campus a6 Tucson, Ariz., April, 1901..._.2..2_22e2eeeee eee IV. Fig.1. Shad scale (Atriplex canescens) in fenced field near Tuc- SOMA 7A be ee ce bod secs Uae ee ee eee 16 Fig. 2. Cattle fed on tufted plantain (Plantago fastigiata) and Seer (Erodium cicutarium) on way to market, May, 1901- VY. Fig.1. Operations in range improvement near Tucson, Ariz., JannaryedO0t ss be eactede cos .2 dnc 20 Fig.2. Range reserve tract near Tucson, Ariz.,, showing a typ- ical creosote-bush (Larrea mexicana) locality ----.------------ VI. Fig.1. Cactus (Opuntia arbuscula) from range reserve tract Nearehucsony Arig. o.oo) .2k2 22. ee 20 Higa Cactus (Opuntia fulgida)...-2.. 202 tensa eee TExt FIGURES: Fig. 1. Diagram of fenced portion of range reserve tract -_...---1-.-------- 22 2. Digoram\or Areai©---_2-.--- si22ekes pcos ee eee 25 Sen ia pio MeAT CAME] 8. Ann: oGee ase ase k Joi. ee 26 Ap Waniain GreArea wh 2.005.202... 200 oe 27 BPP Pan OrAEeMA 2 222065 S22 eot- s+ > -- os 35 gee 28 8 B. P. I.—6. Agros.—3839. RANGE IMPROVEMENT IN ARIZONA. By DAVID GRIFFITHS, Expert, in charge of Field Management. INTRODUCTION. On all the Western stock ranges which the writer has visited there have existed many small areas in cultivated fields, unused pastures, feneed railroad rights of way, and similar situations which are in their virgin state or have so far recovered from overstocking as to bear testimony to the original productivity of the soil. Things are far different in large areas of southern Arizona. Here unused pas- tures are very rare, cultivated fields are fewer in number, and the destruction is so complete that in many localities even the railroad right of way has recovered but little in three or four years’ time. On the river bottoms a few indications of luxuriant growths of grass are found, but in nearly every case, even in such favored localities, there is little aside from this evidence, the actual original conditions being very much modified. It would be but fair to state, however, that the season in which the region was first visited was an unfavorable one, being at the close of an exceedingly long dry period, when even evi- dence of forage was scanty. Many ranchers, farmers, and prospectors who have lived in the country a long time have given much information relative to former conditions, some certainly reliable and some doubtless extravagant, as is apt to be the case in such matters. From the evidence given by every old settler no conelusion could be reached other than that of misuse of the range country and that the destruction was greater than in the more favored ranges of the Northwest. How the destruction of the range could be so nearly complete is somewhat beyond the con- ception of those not familiar with the character of the precipitation, configuration of the land, composition of the soils, and the habits of the forage plants of the region. With the exception of the annuals the grasses are nearly all known as ‘‘ bunch grasses,” a designation which indicates that they are not turf formers. Even the blue grama (Boutelowa oligostachya), which forms such handsome and persistent sod over vast areas on the ranges of the Northwest, grows here in bunehes. This prevailing characteristic, together with the suscepti- bility of the surface soil to injury by the trampling of cattle, probably accounts in a large measure for the extent of the denudation of the range. During a season of rain the surface of the ground is badly cut by the cattle that tramp over it. After the February rains the 9 10 RANGE IMPROVEMENT IN ARIZONA. depth of footprints in an average mesa region is one-half an inch to 4 inches, the deeper ones being in the lower moister regions, which are best suited to the growth of vegetation. It will be readily seen that a herd of cattle do immense injury to the surface of the ground by traveling over it during a season of rain. Regions which have survived close pasturage are very liable to be destroyed or greatly injured in this way. During the dry seasons the injury from tram- pling is nearly if not quite as great. Having no turf of leaves and no protection of shallow roots, the surface soil is easily cut and reduced to dust by animals moving over it in search of food and water. FORMER CONDITIONS. As an accurate knowledge of the conditions which once prevailed throughout these valleys and foothills was very essential to a proper and intelligent inauguration of range-improvement experiments, it was thought that the best plan would be an effort to restore the condition which once prevailed, for any extended attempts at cultural operations appeared entirely useless. It was thought that the greatest benefit to the range would be derived from rest, accompanied by reseeding with native forage plants. Accurate knowledge of previous conditions was therefore very essential. In order to obtain this information a cireu- lar letter, accompanied by a series of questions, was prepared by the writer, who was at that time botanist of the Arizona Experiment Sta- tion, and distributed to a selected list of correspondents. The letter and questions, reproduced below, are self-explanatory and indicate clearly the purposes of the inquiry. The answers returned agree almost perfectly and point to but one conclusion, namely, that the public ranges of the region were at one time comparatively produe- tive and that their present condition has been brought about by overstocking. CIRCULAR LETTER AND QUESTIONS. My Dear Sir: The Arizona Experiment Station, in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture, is undertaking some experiments with a view of ascertaining the best methods of improving the native ranges of Arizona, Already the Department of the Interior, at the request of the Hon. James Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture, has reserved from entry for our use a tract of land in the vicinity of Tucson, and a suitable portion of this has been fenced. We are, therefore, practically ready to begin operations along lines suggested by the best experience of the officers of this station, as well as ‘of the field agents and officers of the Division of Agrostology, United States Department of Agriculture. It is hoped and expected that this work will result in profit to the ranchers and stock- men of the Territory, and what results in profit to them results in profit to every citizen. In order to undertake this work intelligently it is necessary to ascertain as accurately as porsible the original condition of the range prior to its depletion by overstocking and prior to the excessive droughts of a few years ago, for it is by restoriug the range to its original condition that we may hope to receive benefit Bul. 4, Bureau of Plant industry, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture PLATE I. Fig. 1.—RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY NEAR BENSON, ARIZ., SHOWING THE CONDITION OF THE RANGE UNDER PROTECTION. FiG. 2.—WRIGHT’S SACCATON (SPOROBOLUS WRIGHTI). The Santa Cruz bottoms near Tucson, Ariz., are said to have been covered with this grass. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS. 11 and attain success in our range-improvement investigations. This information can only be furnished by reliable and experienced men who are conversant with the condition of the grazing lands of the Territory at the time when they yielded profit to the rancher. You have been recommended to us as a person who, on account of your wide experience and abundant opportunity of observation, will be able to give us the information desired. We hope that you will be willing to assist us in this matter, in which we are all so deeply interested, by answering as many of the inclosed questions as you can at your earliest possible convenience. sending your answers to us in the inclosed addressed free envelope. Very truly yours, Davip GRIFFITHS, Special Agent in Charge of Cooperative Work. 1, With what portions of the Territory are you especially familiar? 2. How long have you been acquainted with the regions spoken of in question 1? 3. What was the relative abundance of the feed on the native range at the time you first became acquainted with it, compared with the present time? 4, Will you please compare the grazing conditions in two or more regions with which you are familiar; for instance, the Santa Cruz, San Pedro, and Sulphur Spring valleys? 5, Can you describe any specific instances of the destructive action of water in gullying out the river valleys? Can you state how and at what time such gully- ing started in any particular instance, and the extent to which the washing pro- gressed in a given time? 6. What influence has this gullying had on the productiveness of the river bot- toms? 7. What grasses or other native forage plants furnish the greatest amount of feed at the present time in your vicinity? (If you do not knowthe names of these plants and are willing to send us samples, so state in answer to this question, and we will send you franks so that you can forward the sainc to us free of charge. ) 8. Do you attribute the present unproductive condition of the range to over- stocking, drought, or to both combined? Please explain why. , 9. Will you please state the largest number of cattle which, in your opinion, have at any time grazed on any particular range with which you are acquainted, and at what time? What do you estimate is the present carrying capacity of the same range? 10, Provided we should be able to furnish seed, would you be willing to put it in the ground in proper shape in some favorable situation on your place where cattle will not graze it for at least one year after planting? A very small patch would be required, say 50 feet Square. Such an experiment would enable us to determine what forage plants are best adapted to your iocality. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS. The answers returned have been very suggestive and indicate an intelligent, active interest in the questions which are of such vital importance to the stock growers located on the public domain. Two of these, however, appear of such general excellence and indicate such a keen insight into the forage problems that they are reproduced in full. Col. H. C. Hooker, one of the earliest and most successful stock 12 RANGE IMPROVEMENT IN ARIZONA. raisers in the Territory, under date of December 11, 1900, writes as follows: 1. The southeastern. 2. Thirty-five years. 3. Fully double. 4, These regions have been diminished in grazing facilities fully 50 per cent in twenty-five years. 5. The San Pedro Valley in 1870 had an abundance of willow, cottonwood, syc- amore, and mesquite timber, also large beds of saccaton and grama grasses, sage- brush, and underbrush of many kinds. Theriver bed was shallow and grassy and its banks were beautiful with a luxuriant growth of vegetation. Now the river isdeep and its banks are washed out, the trees and underbrush are gone, the sac- caton has been cut out by the plow and grub hoe, the mesa has been grazed by thousands of horses and cattle, and the valley has been farmed. Cattle and horses going to and from feed and water have made many trails or paths to the moun- tains. Browse on the hillsides has been eaten off. Fire has destroyed much of the shrubbery as well as the grass, giving the winds and rains full sweep to carry away the earth loosened by the feet of the animals. In this way many waterways have been cut from the hills to the river bed. There is now little or nothing to stop the great currents of water reaching the river bed with such force as to cut large channels and destroy much of the land under cultivation, leaving the river from 10 to 40 feet below its former banks. Thus it has caused much expense in bringing the water to the cultivated lands, and necessitated much labor to dam up the channel and keep the irrigating ditches in repair. 7. Gramas, saccatons, bunch, and six-weeks grasses. 8. Principally to overstocking. In times of drought even the roots are eaten and destroyed by cattle, while if not fed down or eaten out the roots would grow again with winter moisture. 9. There were fully 50,000 head of stock at the head of Sulphur Spring Valley and the valley of the Aravipa in 1890. In 1900 there were not more than one-half that number and they were doing poorly. 10. I will place 1 acre or more under fence on my land in any situation you may select for your experiments, providing you will superintend the planting and direct the cultivation, taking from my ranch such teams, farming tools, employees, etc., as you may require. Iam, respectfully yours, H. C. HooKER, Proprietor Sierra Bonita Ranch. Mr. C. H. Bayless, of Oracle, Ariz., in addition to answering ques- tions, submitted a statement containing a forcible expression of the futility of attempting to control the range without the help. of the Government orthe ranchers. It appears to the writer that the ranch- ers and those interested in stock growing are beginning to realize more and more the importance of placing the range management in the hands of some one having authority and an interest in its preser- vation. The objection to the control of the range is gradually wear- ing away. At least a dozen ranchers have expressed themselves to ine within the past year in fully as emphatic terms as Mr. Bayless in his letter quoted below. With reference to range management Mr. Bayless writes as follows: > DeEaAR Sir: Within find answers to quest’ons sent me. Permit me to add that no practical plan can well be advanced for increasing plant growth on any open Bul. 4, Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. PEAT ESI: Fig. 1.—A CATTLE RANGE IN THE SANTA CATALINA MOUNTAINS, APRIL, 1901. Fig. 2.—A FOOTHILL RANGE NEAR TUCSON, ARIZ., APRIL, 1901. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS. 13 range while free for the use of everybody. Hence I must respectfully urge upon you the importance of impressing the Government officials with the fact that no general improvement of range country can be expected until the land is placed under individual control by lease or otherwise. In a few favored spots where such an arrangement is now secured through local conditions good results might be accomplished, but the greater part of our range country is at present a desert and will steadily become less and less productive, while the present range manage- ment, or rather lack of it, prevails. Very respectfully yours, C. H. BAYLESS. 1. The San Pedro Valley and southern part of Pinal County. 2. Fifteen years. 3. At that time ten animals were kept in good condition where one can now barely exist. However, those ten animals were then rapidly destroying the vege- tation, not making proper use of it. 5. About twelve years ago the San Pedro Valley consisted of a narrow strip of subirrigated and very fertile lands. Beaver dams checked the flow of water and prevented the cutting of achannel. Trappers exterminated the beavers, and less grass on the hillsides permitted greater erosion, so that within four or five years a channel varying in depth from 3 to 20 feet was cut almost the whole length of the river. Every year freshets are carrying away new portions of the bottom lands. At present this valley is asandy waste from bluff to bluff, while the few fie ds remaining are protected from the river at large and continuous expense. Thus, in addition to curtailing the area of good land, the deep channel has drained the bottoms, leaving the native grass no chance to recover from the effects of close pasturing. It also makes it more difficult to get irrigating water onto the surface of the land. 7. Of the rich grama grasses that originally covered the country so little now remains that no account can be taken of them. In some parts of the foothills alfilaria furnishes limited but excellent pasture during the spring and early sum- mer. Where stock water is far removed some remnants of perennial grasses can be found. Grasses that grow only from seed sprouted by summer rains are of small and transitory value. The foliage of the mesquite and catsclaw bushes is eaten by most animals, and even the various cacti are attempted by starving cat- tle. However, the thorns and spines of the cacti more than offset the value of the pulp. No better pasture was ever found in any country than that furnished by our native grama grasses, now almost extinct. 8. The present unproductive conditions are due entirely to overstocking. The laws of nature have not changed. Under similar conditions vegetation would flourish on our ranges to-day as it did fifteen years ago. We are still receiving our average amount of rainfall and sunshine necessary to plant growth. Droughts are not more frequent now than in the past, but mother earth has been stripped of all grass covering. The very roots have been trampled out by the hungry herds constantly wandering to and fro in search of enough food. The bare surface of the ground affords no resistance to the rain that falls upon it and the precious water rushes away in destructive volumes, bearing with it all the lighter and richer particles of the soil. That the sand and rocks left behind are able to sup- port even the scantiest growth of plant life is a remarkable tribute to our marvel- ous climate. Vegetation does not thrive as it once did, not because of drought, but because the seed is gone, the roots are gone, the soil is gone. This is all the direct result of overstocking and can not be prevented on our open range where the land is not subject to private control. 9, Twelve years ago 40,000 cattle grew fat dlong a certain portion of the San 14 RANGE IMPROVEMENT IN ARIZONA. Pedro Valley where now 3,000 can not find sufficient forage for proper growth and development. If instead of 40,000 head 10,000 had been kept on this range, it would in all probability be furnishing good pasture for the same number to-day. Very few of these cattle were sold or removed from the range. They were sim- ply left there until the pasture was destroyed and the stock then perished by starvation. 10. Yes, I will do so gladly. Object lessons of this kind will prove conclusively that overstocking, not drought, has made our country a desert. C. H. BayYLEss, Oracle, Ariz. FEED ON THE RANGE. While each valley in the Territory has some characteristics dis- tinctly its own, and while there is a great difference in the extent to which overpasturing has been carried on, there is still a certain simi- larity which is characteristic of the entire southern portion, namely, the preponderance during certain seasons of the year of weedy plants that would not ordinarily be considered fit food for cattle. During the year five typical valleys have been visited, namely, the Gila, Salt River, Santa Cruz, San.Pedro, and Sulphur Spring. The oppor- tunities for observation in the first two named were very meager, but still sufficient to bear out the testimony of several ranchers, that the only pasturage of any account in these two valleys during a large portion of the year consists of ‘“‘ browse.” The main stock food on the open range appears to be derived from the mesquit and sage brushes (Atriplex spp.). These are supplemented in the winter and spring by weedy growths, and in the fall by annual grasses of transi- tory value. In the Santa Cruz Valley conditions are much the same on the open range, but in the Sulphur Spring Valley, which has a greater altitude, as well as a more copious precipitation, the peren- nial grasses still thrive. In some portions of this valley the natural conditions are such that the ranchers are able to control the range in such a manner as to protect it. No finer object lesson could be desired than the one furnished on the Sierra Bonita ranch, owned by Col. H. C. Hooker. This is located at the head of the valley, and the range is so situated between the Graham Mountains on the east and the Galiuro Mountains on the west that the entrance of cattle from neighboring ranches is easily prevented. Under such conditions, accompanied by good management, the range has been kept in a very good condition, compared with all the other portions of the region which the writer has visited. On this range large quantities of native grass are cut for hay. In one stack the following were recognized: Everlasting grass (Hriochloa punctata), E. aristata, Chloris elegans, Eragrostis neomexicana, vine mesquite (Panicum obtusum), Aristida spp. (in small quantities), Arizona millet (Chaetochloa composita), blue grama (Boutelowa oligostachya), low grama (B. polystachya), and Andropogon torreyanus. These, together with two or three species of Sporobolus (saccaton grasses) and the cultivated Johnson Bul. 4, Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S. Dept. of Agticulture. PLATE III. Fig. 1.—TUFTED PLANTAIN (PLANTAGO FASTIGIATA) ON THE LEFT; BLUE GRAMA (BOUTELOUA OLIGOSSTACHYA) ON THE RIGHT. Both figures from plants grewing near Tucson, Ariz. FIG. 2.—ALFILARIA (ERODIUM CICUTARIUM) TUCSON, Ariz. » GROWN ON THE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS AT w FEED ON THE RANGE. 15 grass, form the main hay grasses on the range. In some localities the galleta grasses (Hilaria mutica and Hilaria jamesii) furnish large quantities of coarse hay, which, as one liveryman expressed it, is used to ‘‘chink” in with. The condition of the vegetation in the San Pedro Valley, while much superior to that of the Santa Cruz, is much inferior to the Sulphur Spring. THE PLANTAINS. These plants, of which the Indian wheat (Plantago fastigiata Mor- ris) is the most important and which formed the greater part of the feed on the range in the vicinity of Tueson in the spring of 1901, are popularly known as Indian wheat and are very abundant after winter rains all through southern Arizona, especially in the lower altitudes. They are also found commonly at considerable elevations in the mountains, but are not sufficiently abundant there to be of any economic importance. On the lower moister areas of the general mesa region, however, the crop is often quite large. The fenced por- tion of our range reserve afforded an excellent opportunity for study- ing these plants during the past season. It is usually impossible to appreciate their entire forage value upon the open range on account of the present short pasturage. During the past season there was considerable difference in the quantity of these plants found inside and outside of our fenced area, although the feed is reported to have been more abundant than usual and the stock on the range to have been much reduced in recent years. At the suggestion of Director R. H. Forbes an attempt was made to ascertain the precise amount of feed which these plants furnished on our range reserve tract during the past season. The estimate is believed to be approximately accurate and to give a very fair idea of the amount which grows in similar localities in rather favorable years. The estimate was made from actual measurements of repre- sentative areas selected by myself after a careful survey of the entire fenced area. 85 gap IIr | a Ee 2 Sy 2 cal xi ah oH a 95 EB o Pees 15 | Qo ot” 100 ig ROS RE ce | EBES 105 Ras oer es io | 2S eek | “eerie | Bele 120 pptf See ies | BESS 30 | ced aos us| 150 | 155 { height, with a dozen or more branches, to a single culm three-fourths of an inch long, maturing but one or two spikelets. Corresponding \ariations in size are especially noticeable in all of the annual species. The mountain range presents a very characteristic appearance. THE RANGE RESERVE TRACT. 23 Receiving as it does a more liberal supply of moisture, the develop- ment is more uniform during the growing season. Even here no sod is formed, indeed no sod could usually be formed if the moisture con- ditions were ever so favorable, for the presence of loose jagged rocks, with the exceedingly rugged conditions, would almost compel the growth of grasses in small bunches. The grasses which form the main feed in such localities, and therefore the most conspicuous of this portion of the vegetation, are Andropogon contortus, A. lewcopo- gon, Trachypogon secundus, Elionurus barbiculmis, Hilaria sp., Bouteloua bromoides, B. oligostachya, B. curtipendula, Trioda mutica, Hragrostis lugens, Muhlenbergia gracillima, M. porteri, Epicampes rigens,and Aristida sp. These regions are often so inaccessible that stock can not reach them. They are therefore more nearly primi- tive than the mesas, and one is able to get a better idea of their productivity. THE RANGE RESERVE TRACT. The range improvement work in Arizona being of a different char- acter from that usually contemplated, and being in a region more com- pletely divested of range grasses than any other in the entire country, required considerable careful study in advance to discover the proper locality for experimentation. Accordingly, the greater part of a week was spent in a survey of the surrounding country in the vicinity of Tue- son for the purpose of determining which of the three typical areas (mesa, foothill, or river bottom) would be the most favorable and give the most conservative and valuable data upon which to base judg- ment of the results obtained by experimentation. Finally a rather favorable mesa area was selected at an altitude of about 2,600 feet above sea level and about 400 feet higher than the city of Tucson. This tract, which was subsequently reserved from entry at the request of the Hon. James Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture, is described in the Government surveys as secs. 26, 27, 34, and 35, T. 14'S., R. 14 k., Gila and Salt River meridian. Somewhat diagonally through the center of this area runs the South- ern Pacific Railway, and a short distance to the east of it is located Wilmot Siding. The soilis a clay loam, mixed with considerable sand, and subtended at a depth of 2 to 2} feet by a calcareous hardpan, known among the Mexicans by the significant name ‘‘caliche.” The slope, which is rather gentle, has a general northwesterly direction, and is traversed by three more or less distinct, broad, shallow depres- sions, which receive the drainage of a considerable area of land to the southeast. Such a region, with broad, shallow washes, was purposely selected. Itwas the intention to attempt to conserve water flow on the mesa, and to discover what can be done toward preventing ‘‘ run-off” of water during the rainy season of July and August. Such washes, although the most favorable for the growth of vegetation of all kinds, 24 RANGE IMPROVEMENT IN ARIZONA. are nevertheless typical of large tracts of desert, not only in the Santa Cruz, but in the San Pedro, Gila, and Salt River valleys as well. A triangular portion of this reservation, consisting of 336 acres adjoining the Southern Pacific right of way, has been placed under a substantial four-wire fence supported on singed mesquite posts 133 feet apart. The area encompasses nearly all the varieties of exposure, drainage, and soils, and is, in short, a typical mesa region in every respect. The advantage taken of the railway fence enabled us to inclose the tract ata minimum cost. ,Two miles of fence, at an approx- imate cost of $150 a mile, covers practically the entire expense of the inclosure. When selected, this tract of land, like the surrounding region, fur- nished practically no feed; the ground was bare, except for cacti and shrubby growths of little or no forage value. On the higher and poorer soils are found characteristic growths of the creosote bush (Larrea mexicana), around the base of which is almost invariably found Perezia nana, which, unlike the vast majority of desert plants, possesses a very pleasant odor. Scattered over the entire area are to be found luxuriant growths of cacti, mainly of the genus Opuntia. The main species of this family are O. fulgida, O. spinosior, O. arbuscula, O. engelmanni, Cereus fendleri, C. greggit, Echinocactus wislhizent. All of the lower areas have scattering growths of mesquite (Prosopis velutina), palo verde (Parkinsonia torreyana), Zizyphus lycoides, Lycuim sp., Riddellia cooperi, Bigelovia sp., and Ephdera trifurca. A few specimens of Yucca elata are also to be found. These plants formed the conspicuous portion of the vegetation in September, when the land was selected, and there was no grass except an occasional tuft of six-weeks’ grass (Bouteloua aristidoides) and low grama (Bou- teloua polystachya). Soon after this date the tract assumed a more promising aspect, antl weedy growths of various kinds began to spring up after the very light summer rains. It was not until January, however, that the vegetation became marked. From this time on until the 1st of March there was an abundant development of short- lived annuals. The most conspicuous of these was the California poppy (Eschscholtzia mexicana), which was so abundant in localities here and in other portions of the valley as to give its characteristic golden hue to the entire landscape, sometimes for many acres in extent. The next in abundance was Indian wheat (Plantago fasti- giata), of which a description will be found elsewhere (p. 14). Besides these, there were a great many borages, which were often the characteristic vegetation over large areas. The principal genera of this family represented were Pectocarya, Echidiocarya, Amsinkia, Echinospermumn, and Hretrichium. Among other conspicuous plants may be mentioned Malacothix glabrata, Chenactis lanosa, Daucus pusillus, Bowlesia septentriolis, Hrodium cicutarium, EH. texanum, Salvia columbarie, and the peculiar Ginothera scapoidea, In a few THE RANGE RESERVE TRACT. o5 localities conspicuous growths of the prickly poppy (Argemone platy- ceras) were tobeseen. The latter was quite persistent and continued to bloom until June. In this description no attempt is made to give a list of the plants growing on the fenced area. A sufficient number is given to show the character of the vegetation in the different seasons. By the 1st of April the majority of the winter annuals were dried up, and a month later they were all quite dead and their seed had been scattered, so that all that was necessary to make the region look as it did the previous fall was to have the cattle eat off the dead herbage, which they were rapidly doing on the outside of the fence. NORTH EAST SOUTH Fic. 2.—Diagram of Area C. The figures indicate the position of the stakes in each plot; broken line, separation between disked and harrowed portions. The following detailed account of the forage plants planted is pre- sented for comparison with figures 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. AREA C. Operations were begun on this plat on the 10th of January, imme- diately after a rainfall of 0.42 inch. After seeding the north half was disked and the south half harrowed directly east and west. The ground was conspicuously ridged by the disk harrow, and the seed was consequently covered to varying depths. Subsequent showers showed beyond a doubt that this ridging was an advantage in pre- venting a run off of water. The area is 400 feet in width by 2,200 feet in its greatest length. It measures 173 acres and contains plats 1 to 12, on which were planted seed, as follows. Number of plat. Name of forage plant sown. | aes oe ieee | Feet. ie ee ee | Chloris elegansges = 425-5. 2k WAtizonac: 22225 -_- 400 by 60 De be. id ON Cees a =| JN othing: stawmeee-sa esses se | ee 400 by 140 eee een. ieee | Chloris eleqanseameee me ott Arizona secesseese 400 by 40 (eee ee ee 20 Oe eee es SLE Bel Se does eS 400 by 40 9-=--=----..---.-...--| Andropogon saccharoides ..... -..-.|_.... (oa) Aes a eet ae 400 by 400 OF eee == =--2-| Agronynon SpVICatUmM _ =... =... -<.--|" Northwest....... 400 by 200 (eco a-==--s=<=.52- || Agropyron occidentale...) 2 |, (3 ops See 400 by 200 Sener ee SACS Eilaniaanupicamees 14.2 kee fF ATT ZOND.c22 oso: 400 by 100 ee Nee sy EY Bromus unioloides......._.... .-..--- (?) 350 by 100 MO Oe eee canna 2 An|| BNOMUSManGINGius 0. ----.-- aan Oveseo- fees 200 by 100 ZOD Ce jap 2 Sd Se NS Pappophorum vaginatum ___.......- Arizona_:...-..-. 150 by 100 LIZAG Ts Sear ee tan Oe IERUTOUL OIL OS pee oe eS WL Wor. a ae 100 by 100 a The areas given for plats 9 to 12 are only approximate, for they, taken together, form a tri- angle, and the exact length of each plat has not been determined. RANGE IMPROVEMENT IN ARIZONA. SCALE OF FEET. Fig. 3.—Diagram of Area E. The figures indicate the position of the numbered stakes in each plat; broken line, separation between harrowed and disked portion of west half; double line, west edge of portion disked before seeding. AREA E. This area, like C, extends directly east and west. The west half, consisting of plats 13 to 32, was sown without previous preparation of the ground. The south half of this por- tion was then disked and harrowed east and west, and the north half harrowed twice in the same direction. The east half, consisting of plats 60 to 75, was disked in an east and west direction before being planted and after- wards harrowed north and south. The entire area measures 400 feet in width by 2,400 feet in its greatest length, and contains 194 acres. The seed planted here were as follows: haat Name of forage plant Seed, native | Area of plat. sown. or foreign. plat. Feet. 18a....| Aristida bromoides--..---- Arizona.- ..-- 100 by 75 l4a..-.| Aristida humboldtiana -..|_.--- te fo ees 110 by 623 15a-.-.-| Muhlenbergia gracilis -..--|_---- Gows.--—2 110 by 62} UG @/s=—r| Stunt) SDP 'sa-c-- oe eee New Mexico-| 100 by 60 lia... | Chetochloa composita ....| Arizona-.----- 100 by 110 18 a_....| Melinus minutiflora_.....- Brazil 3 100 by 110 19 a....| Bromus unioloides ---.---- Australia ..-.| 100 by 200 20a.---| Eriocoma cuspidata. ..-... (?) 400 by 200 Blsessee Sporobolus wrightii -.....-| Arizona.-...- 400 by 100 Pama ae Sporobolus (near) wrightii |----- (ite ae 400 by 100 eee Sporobolus cryptandrus-.--| Coloradc-.---- 200 by 100 ha sesas|. soe (6 Fo ae aM eg Es ARIZONA ohare 200 by 100 Poweess Sporobolus airoides _.-...-. Wyoming..-.-_| 200 by 200 2025.-=- Bouteloua polystachya ---.| Arizona.....- 200 by 100 Uae Bouteloua curtipendula---|-.---- do ....----} 200 by 100 see , Bouteloua humboldtiana-..| New Mexico_! 200 by 100 Pascoe Bouteloua eriopoda -.....- Arizona.--.-- | 200 by 100 alae ae Boutelowua aristidoides....|.--.- doe | 200 by 100 pee {Bouteloua polystachya ---- |...-do watt as 400 by 100 | Chloris GlCUANS so meateceete ore Bouteloua oligostachya -..|....- doe 200 by 100 60S Elymus simplex... .----- Wyoming....| 200 by 100 G1 arts. Elymus canadensis var.--- (?) 400 by 100 * |Poa fendleriana.....-..--- } : ~ a a | Bouteloua eriopoda . aa... jNew Mexico -| 200 by 50 Se Elymus ambiguus ....----- . F 63.....- Pen idatia eee |,fontana’ ----| 200 by 50 re Elymus condensatus.......|..---@0-....-..- 200 by 100 ne Elymus virginicus submu- | Washington -| 200 by 100 ticus. aa Agropyron tenerum ......- (2) 400 by 100 Ly (eee Agropyron spicatum ...... Washington -| 200 by 100 ee Agropyron occidentale .... (?) | 200 by 100 (12 eRe Bouteloua oligostachya ...) Arizona .-..-. | 400 by 100 a The measurements of plats 13 to 20 are only approximate. THE RANGE RESERVE TRACT. Seed, native or Number of plat. Name of forage plant sown. foreign. (( Ree ea ee tS eee eee Bouteloua polystachya -.-----------. ATIZONAG = os (Ue ee Se ee Bouteloua bromoides._....---.~----- New Mexico --.-- y(n Pe tes ae ee ee EAU EL COTLCHROULCS = a onan eee Washington,D.C. TD = SE Re Rn ce Eragrostis neomexicana _-...----- Sa AIZOnNs soos oe y (es re se i eee Bromus polyanthus paniculatus =| New Mexico---.- Ps IPRNASCOUUS TETUSUS) Saneeaeno ses e222 | beck a GOneee eee SS Rae TA Ee mann wee) ea ASPCTUM A 252 < saccaseessc cose | Washington ----- Area of plat. Feet. 400 by 100 400 by 100 200 by 100 200 by 100 200 by 100 200 by 100 SCALE OF FEET 100 200 300 50 57 [53 [59 Fic. 4.—Diagram of Area F. The figures indicate the position of the numbered stakes in each plat. AREA F. This was devoted entirely to saltbushes, except that in a few plats seeds of native grasses were also sown. The area is located on the edge of one of the broad, shallow washes and is laid out roughly tri- angular, so that the measurements given for some of the individual EAS? 28 RANGE IMPROVEMENT IN ARIZONA. plats are only approximate. It consists of plats 33 to 43 and con- tains nearly 4 acres. The cultivation here was more thorough than in either Cor E. The saltbush seed was sown on the uncultivated soil. The ground was then disked north and south and east and west. The grass seed was then sown, after which the entire area was harrowed diagonally. Seed of saltbushes was planted in plats as follows: : Number of plat. | Name of forage plant sown. | aes saat Or aaa | Feet 8 3 BR ee ae a Atriplex canescens....-------| Tucson, Ariz_---- 200 by 300 Ste ocuin sacra eee ae Ge eee eer net inne Scasce Tempe, Ariz ----- 200 by 1 BO ao eese ae ee ee ee PAE LELISD ates oh Seca wees |e 6 Co See 100 by 100 S62. 2.052 Seo eaees Atriplex canescens .--...-.-- Wyoming.2-2..4 100 by 25 Sis cere ee eae Eee ET ENICOM: eee wos. | cose OO Jokccoe see 100 by 25 SOL eo Ae oneeee ‘Atripler nuttallit...-...5-.2..|----- fo eee 100 by 25 BO SSNS sevens Atriplex volutans__.-.--.---- 5:3 SOO sen ete 100 by 25 4h Soe eee PATTEDICr HAITROLAES —. 22 222-)) oacc'seneee eee eee 100 by 125 t e Elymus canadensis ---...---- (?) = weieciscus Cae aneete 175 a ee halimoides .....-.-- Australia __.. ...- Poby Erocoma cuspidata ...-.----- New Mexico-.--- a ee ae 3 200 by 200 a eee SD ace ee ee weet Tempe, Ariz -.--- a Bouteloua oligostachya--..-- ATIZONB peso S25, 25 : 2 200 by 1 a eee semibaccata _....-.- California ..--.--- OO bye | AREA A. This area, consisting of two triangular plats, Nos. 76 and 77, contains nearly 3 acres. The north half was twice disked parallel to the north line, the remainder being disked but once. The seed was then sown and covered with a _ harrow drawn parallel to the railway fence. The seed sown was a mixture of various remnants from other plats, as follows: SCALE OF FEET 100 200 Plat 76.—Agropyron tenerum, Fic. 5.—Diagram of Area A. The figures indi- eye ° cate positions of numbered stakes; broken arc, Chloris elegans, Bouteloua olt limit of area twice disked before seeding; con- gostachya, Sporobolus airoides, tinuous ares, ridges approximately 50 feet apart Elym us canadensis Eriocoma to prevent run off of water. f G cuspidata, Sporobolus cryptan- drus, Agropyron occidentale, and Phaseolus rutusus. Plut 77.—Andropogon saccharoides, Chloris elegans, and Bouteloua oligostachya. THE RANGE RESERVE TRACT. 29 AREA B. This area extends directly east and west, contiguous to the south side of Area C. No seed whatever was sown here, it being intended to determine what effect scarifying the surface would have on the development of native vegetation. > j - »# « tay AL & Ceo Oe Pek EMENT OF AGRICULTURE. BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY—BULLETIN No. 5. B. T. GALLOWAY, Chief of Bureau, SEEDS AND PLANTS IMPORTED THROUGH THE SECTION OF SEED AND PLANT INTRO- DUCTION FOR DISTRIBUTION IN COOPERATION WITH THE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. IN VEINTORY No. 9. NUMBERS 4351-5500. Issuep JANUARY 18, 1902. WASHINGTON. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1902. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Bureau oF Piant INpusTRY, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF, Washington, D. C., September 10, 1901. Str: I have the honor to transmit herewith the manuscript of an inventory of seeds and plants imported for distribution in cooperation with the agricultural experiment stations. Many of these importa- tions have proved to be of great value to the agricultural industries of the United States. Attention is called to the introductory state- ment (p. 5) for information regarding the distribution of the seeds and plants listed. I recommend the publication of this manuscript as Bulletin No. 5 of the Bureau series. Respectfully, B. T. GatLoway, Chief of Bureau. Hon. JaMEs WILSON, Secretary of Agriculture. \ ~ B. P. I—7. Ss. P. I—23. INVENTORY OF FOREIGN SEEDS AND PLANTS. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. This inyentory or catalogue of seeds and plants received during the spring and summer of 1900 represents the collections of the agricul- tural explorers of the Department of Agriculture in foreign countries, and also the receipts from various other sources. Included in the list are the seeds of a large number of native plants obtained for exchange with botanists and horticulturists abroad, it being possible to secure in this manner many valuable seeds and plants not for sale by dealers. An effort has been made to verify every name, but in many cases the only sources of information have been the persons from whom the seeds or plants were obtained, while in some cases only colloquial names were obtainable. It is probable, therefore, that some of the names will be found to-be incorrect. The publication of this list has been so long delayed that many of the numbers are already entirely exhausted, as indicated by the word **Distributed.” and many others will probably be distributed before this inventory reaches the experimenters. The supply of seeds and plants at the disposal of this office is in most cases quite limited, inasmuch as the importations are made for experi- mental purposes and not for general distribution, it being unwise to make the latter until the value of the plants distributed is known. Distribution of the plants here catalogued will be confined almost entirely to the agricultural experiment stations and to persons known to be careful and reliable experimenters. It must not be expected that all or even the greater part of the importations will prove valuable. However, it is important that records not only of successes but of fail- ures be obtained in order that future work may be more successful. It is especially desirable that all persons receiving seeds or plants should retain the original numbers marked on the packages, as all the reports or other information will be filed under these numbers, and in this way be easy of access. Ernst A. BEsseEy, Assistant in Charge of Seed and Plant Introduction. 5 71% ae } 7, vO Vere PVH INE OugAy: 4351. Vicia FABA. Broad bean. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. Aguadulce, improved. A fine bean with pods 2 inches wide and 14 to 16 inches long, but few-seeded and with only three or four well-grown pods on each plant. 4352. VICIA FABA. Broad bean. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. Sevilla Long Pod. ‘‘Stem quadrangular, erect, 2 to 23 feet high, not very stout, green or slightly tinged with red; foliage light green; flowers one or two to four in each cluster. The standard is greenish white, longer than broad, and remains folded in the center even when the flower is in full bloom. The first cluster of flowers usually appears in the axil of the seventh leaf from the base of the stem. The pods are about one-half inch wide and 8 to 12 inches long. solitary or in pairs, Vi soon Siac pendent by their weight. An early variety, but not very hardy.”’ 7ulmorin. 4353. VICIA FABA. Broad bean. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. Sicilian. A purple-seeded variety, smaller and less productive than the field bean. 4354. VIcCIA FABA. Broad bean. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. Neapolitan. 4355. BRASSICA OLERACEA BOTRYTIS. Broccoli. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. Purple Navidad. Early, dark purple. 4356. BRAssiICA OLERACEA BOTRYTIS. Broccoli. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. Santa Teresa. ‘‘ Early, purple, changing to green when cooked.”’ (Dammann.) 4357. BRASSICA OLERACEA BOTRYTIS. Broccoli. From Naples Italy. Received February 5, 1900. White San Isidor. 4358. BrassiCA OLERACEA BOTRYTIS. Broccoli. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. San Martinari. A purplish variety, which ripens in Italy in November. 4359. BRASSICA OLERACEA BOTRYTIS. Broccoli. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. Gennarese. A purplish variety, maturing in Italy in January. ~ 8 SEEDS AND PLANTS IMPORTED. 4360. CICHORIUM INTYBUS. Chicory. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. Asparagus. A variety which produces rosettes of much-thickened leaves. These are cooked and served cold, and are said to be delicious in salads. 4361. BETA VULGARIS. Chard. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. Swiss Silver-ribbed. ‘‘A fine sort, with large, wide leaves, which are very wavy, half-erect, and remarkable for the size of their stalks and midribs, which are often 4 inches or more in width. Quite productive and of very good quality, with a delicate, slightly acidulous flavor. Theleaves may also be used for greens, the lighter- colored ones being the best for this purpose. Chards sown in early spring commence to mature their stalks in July and continue well into the winter.”’ (Vilmorin.) Dis- tributed. 4362. Berra VULGARIS. Chard. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. Curled Silver-ribbed. Almost as prolific as No. 4361, with leaves equally white but remarkably crimped and curled. The leafstalks are narrower, but of quite as good quality. 4363. BETA VULGARIS. Chard. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. Chilian Scarlet. A very large kind, with long, stiff, almost erect leafstalks 2 or 3 inches wide. Leaves rather large, 2 to 25 feet long, wavy, almost curled, dark green, with a metallic luster. The leafstalks are bright red. Often grown as an ornamental plant. 4364. Brra VULGARIS. Chard. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1901. Chilian Yellow. A very large kind, with long, stiff, almost erect leafstalks 2 or 3 inches wide. Leaves rather large, 2 to 23 feet long, wavy, almost curled, dark green, with a metallic luster. The leafstalks are a deep yellow. Often used as an ornamental plant. 4365. CUCURBITA PEPO. Vegetable marrow. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. 4366. CUCURBITA PEPO. Vegetable marrow. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. White Cocozella of Tripoli. 4367. FaNnICULUM DULCE. Sweet fennel. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. Largest of Sicily. A new Italian variety. 4368. KaNICULUM DULCE. Sweet fennel. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. Prince Bismarck. Remarkable for the very much thickened leafstalks. 4369. FaNnICULUM DULCE. Sweet fennel. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. ? Morosini. A variety originated by Dammann in 1896. The sweetest, best, and most tender variety known. In three months from the seed it forms very large, golden yellow stalks and bright green, finely divided leaves. An excellent market- gardener’s variety. INVENTORY. 9 4370. FanNIcULUM DULCE. Sweet fennel. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. Bolognese. / 4371. BoEHMERIA NIVEA. Ramie. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. A perennial, native of eastern Asia, long grown in China and India. A fiber known as China grass is manufacturedfrom the stems. Ramie requires a hot, moist climate, without extremes of temperature, and a rich, moist soil, so that growth shall be rapid and continuous during the season. The plant is propagated by seeds, cuttings, layers, and division of the roots. The seeds, when used, should be started in hot- beds and the beds shaded until the plants are 2 to 6 inches high, when they may be transplanted to the fields. The best method of propagation is by dividing the roots. The plant is ready for harvest when the seeds commence to ripen. 4372. CERATONIA SILIQUA. Carob. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. St. John’s Bread, or Algaroba. (See No. 3112, Inventory No. 7.) 4373. HovENIA DULCIS. Raisin tree. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. (See Nos. 3028 and 3310, Inventory No. 7.) 4374. NICOTIANA TABACUM. Tobacco. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. Hungarian Debroe. 4375. NICOTIANA TABACUM. Tobacco. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. Hungarian Czetneck. 4376. NICOTIANA TABACUM. Tobacco. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. Hungarian Szegedin. 4377. VIGNA CATJANG. Cowpea. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900, under the name of Dolichos sphorospermus. 4378. PACHYRHIZOS TUBEROSUS. Yam-bean. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. ‘‘The yam-bean or ahipa isa native of Venezuela and other parts of South America up to elevated country. It climbs to a height of 20 feet and bears pods much larger than those of P. angulatus, which in a young state are used like French beans. When boiled they are tender and sweetish, but deleterious when raw. They are free from fibrous strings at the edge. Seeds variable in color. The tubers of three plants may fill a bushel basket. They mature in afew months. These edible tubers may attain a weight of 60 pounds.”’ (Von Mueller.) 4379. VIGNA CATJANG. Cowpea. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900, under the name of Dolichos lubia. 4380. Doricnos LABLARB. Madagascar bean. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. 10 SEEDS AND PLANTS IMPORTED. 4381. VIGNA CATJANG. Cowpea. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900, under the name of Dolichos bahiensis. 4382. VIGNA CATJANG. Cowpea. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900, under the name of Dolichos bicontortus. 4383. DoLIcHOS ATROPURPUREUS. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. 4384. DoLICcHOS SEMPERVIRENS. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. 4385. PHASEOLUS CARACALLA. From Naples, Italy. Received February 5, 1900. 4386. PANICUM TEXANUM. Colorado grass. From Fort Werth, Tex. Received February 5, 1900. (This seed was destroyed because of its low germination. ) 4387. ZRFA. MAYS. Corn. From Texas. Received February 7, 1900. Mexican June. This variety is much used in Mexico and southern Texas for late planting. In the southern half of the Gulf States it can be successfully grown after a crop of oats, millet, or wheat has been harvested. It is a white corn and the ears are of a good size, each stalk producing from one to three ears. The stalks attain a height of from 10 to 15 feet. The blades are more numerous than on most other varieties, making this valuable for forage or ensilage purposes. It is often planted between rows of Irish potatoes and other truck, and is suitable for rich bottom lands that become dry enough to plant early in June. 4388. MIMUSOPS BALATA. Balata. From Georgetown, British Guiana. Received February 7, 1900, from John Guillat. This tree is the source of the balata gum of commerce, a substance closely resem- bling guttapercha, and substituted for it in many manufactures. It is a native of tropical South America. Distributed. 4389. CUCUMIS MELO. Winter muskmelon. From California. Received February 8, 1900. Presented by Ira W. Adams, of Calistoga, Cal. “The seed of this valuable melon was procured by Dr. J. D. B. Stillman, at Smyrna, in 1879. It came from the city of Cassaba, in Asia Minor, a city celebrated for the fine quality of its melons. IL found them to be the sweetest, spiciest, and most delicious melons I ever ate. I could compare them to nothing else I ever ate in the fruit line, unless it was to a ripe, luscious pineapple. I kept one of these mel- ons through the winter of 1885, until April 3; it was then fully ripe and very deli- cious. They should be planted the same as other muskmelons and picked after the frost has killed the vines or nipped them pretty badly. Light frosts do not harm them in the least. Cut off the stem quite close to the melon and handle carefully, putting them in the coolest and dryest place you haye. If stored in a warm room they ripen very rapidly, and will be gone before the winter fairly setsin. This melon, unlike any other I have ever seen, when cut from the vine is very hard, especially two-thirds of it from the stem end, and quite rough and deeply corrugated, deflect- ing, however, very much from a straight line. The rind is of a grayish-green color, and can scarcely be indented with the thumb nail. The flesh is a creamy green and INVENTORY. ol very thick and firm. When fully ripe most of them turn a little yellow, some quite yellow, and a spot on the blossom end about the size of a half dollar will be found quite mellow on pressing it. This is an infallible test, and you may be sure the melon is fit to eat, notwithstanding it may still look green, and most of the rind may yet remain very hard. They are excellent feed for milch cows, calves, horses, and poultry. The average weight for salable melons is from 6 to 10 pounds, although I have raised a great many that weighed 12 to 15 pounds each, and one that weighed 193 pounds. I have had these melons in my yard entirely exposed to the weather when the temperature was down to 32° and 30° above zero, without being harmed in the least. I plant the seeds of this melon here from the Ist to the 10th of May, in hills 6 feet apart each way, leaving finally two plants ina hill. I cultivate them doreneply once a week both ways,-until the vines interfere.’’ (Adams.) Dis- tributed. 4390. ZEA MAYS. Corn. From Tennessee. Received February 8, 1900. Wellborn’s Conscience. Seed destroyed. 4391. AVENA SATIVA. Oat. From North Dakota. Received February 1, 1900. White Russian. This is a very hardy oat, prolific and of excellent quality. It is admirably adapted for cultivation in the coldest latitudes of this country, having originated in a similar climate. It is about the most resistant to crown rust of all northern-grown varieties. Should be sown very early—as soon as the opening of spring will permit. 4392. TRITICUM COMPACTUM. Wheat. From Idaho. Received February, 1900. Little Club. This variety is one of the club group of wheats, and is commonly grown in Washington, Idaho, and Oregon. It may be sown in autumn or spring. The plant is short, with short but very compact, beardless heads, well filled. The grain is white, soft and starchy, rounded, and pointed, somewhat similar in shape to barley grains. It is adapted admirably to all Northwestern mountain States, but might also be tried in the more southern States if sown in October. 4393. ZA MAYS. Corn. From South Carolina. Received February, 1900. Garick’s Prolific. A white field corn with medium ears. Stalks stout, leafy, bear- ing two to five ears, which finally become pendent. An excellent variety for the South. 4394. MEDICAGO SATIVA. Alfalfa. From northern Utah. Received February 8, 1900. Distributed. 4395. MEDICAGO SATIVA. Alfalfa. From southern Utah. Received February 8, 1900. Distributed. 4396. PHLEUM PRATENSE. Timothy. From Utah. Received February 8, 1900. 4397. LANDOLPHIA HENDELOTII. From France. Received February 10, 1900. The Landolphias are African rubber plants. They are lianes or vines. Recent experiments indicate that all of the caoutchouc in the plant may be extracted by mechanical means, the stems being first dried and then macerated in warm water. Distributed. 19 SEEDS AND PLANTS IMPORTED. 4398. LANDOLPHIA KLEINII. From France. Received February 10, 1900. (See No. 4897.) Distributed. 4399. Ficus ELASTICA. Assam rubber. From France. Received February 14, 1900. ‘‘Assam rubber comes mostly from Ficus elastica. A little of it is derived from Uro- stigma laccifera. Ficus elastica grows in the hot mountain valleys of the Himalayas, between 70° and 80° east longitude, where the’air remains warm and damp and the mercury stands at 38° C. in the shade.’’ (Semmler.) Distributed. 4400. Ficus RELIGIOSA. Fig of Scripture. From France. Received February 14, 1900. Somewhat similar to No. 4399 in that it is the source of a commercial rubber in the East Indies. Distributed. 4401. PITHECOLOBIUM SAMAN. Rain tree. From France. Received February 14, 1900. Inga Saman. The pods of this West Indian tree are useful for forage, resembling those of the mesquite bean. The tree has been recommended as a nurse tree in banana or coffee plantations. (See No. 2724, Inventory No. 7.) 4402. Berra VULGARIS. Sugar beet. From Germany. Presented by Mr. Ad. Strandes, of Rittergut, Zehringen bei Cothen. Received February 15, 1900. Zehringen Elite, from polarized mother beets. Distributed. 4403. ZEA MAYS. Sugar corn. From New York. Received February 14, 1900. Stowell’s Evergreen. 4404. TRITICUM VULGARE. Wheat. From Minnesota. Received February 16, 1900. Wellman’s Fife. An improved strain of the ‘‘Saskatchewan’’ and further im- proved through rigid seed selection by Mr. D. L. Wellman, of Frazee City, Minn. Claimed to be particularly hardy, productive, and rust-resistant. A bald variety with medium-sized hard, red grains. Should be sownas early in the spring as the weather will permit. Adapted to all Northern spring-wheat districts. 4405. ANDROPOGON SORGHUM. Sorghum. From Missouri. Received February 15, 1900. Presented by Mr. W. P. Griffin, of Altamont. An improved variety, originated by Mr. Griffin. It is better adapted for sirup than the Amber cane, because the juice does not granulate so readily. The cane is stout, erect, firmly rooted. It matures in 12 to 14 weeks, and isa heavy yielder both of juice and seed. 4406. AVENA SATIVA. Oat. From Texas. Received February 13, 1900. Texas Rust-proof. This prolific variety of red oat is very popular in Texas and other portions of the Southern States, particularly because of its rust-resisting qual- ities, as the oat crop in that region is often ruined by rust if ordinary varieties are sown. It should be sown in the fall or early in the spring. It is one of the best varieties for the South. INVENTORY. 13 4407. AVENA SATIVA. Oat. From Rock West, Ala. Received February 15, 1900. Ninety Day. An early-maturing oat. Presented by Mr. W. P. Murphy. 4408. TRIFOLIUM ALPINUM. Clover. From Grenoble, France. Received F ebruary 15, 1900. This clover was one of the most promising sorts grown in the Alpine grass garden at Grenoble. 4409-4413. LAGENARIA VULGARIS. Gourd. From Naples, Italy. Received February 19, 1900. A collection of ornamental gourds useful for trellis work: 4409. LAGENARIA VULGARIS DEPRESSA. 4410. LaAGENARIA VULGARIS MAXIMA. 4411. LaAGENARIA VULGARIS LONGISSIMA. 4412. LAGENARIA VULGARIS. 4413. LaGeNnaria vuLearis, Pulverhorn. 4414. CapRIOLA DACTYLON. Bermuda grass. From Australia. Received February 18, 1900. 4415. Pinus. Pine. From Syria. Presented by Mr. W. Michael, of Congo, Ky. Received February 24, 1900. A pine from the slopes of Mount Lebanon. 4416. BrTa VULGARIS. Sugar beet. From Proskurow, Russia. Received through Dr. Mrozinski, February 27, 1900. Kleinwanzlebener (Mrozinski, No. 2, Russia). Seed from beets grown on clayey black prairie soil. (See No. 3941, Inventory No. 8.) Distributed. 4417. BROMUS INERMIS. Smooth brome grass. From Portland, Oreg. Received March, 1900. Oregon-grown seed. (See No. 2964, Inventory No.7.) Distributed. 4418. Bromus INERMIS. Smooth brome grass. From Portland, Oreg. Received February 28, 1900. Seed grown in the vicinity of Spokane, Wash. (See No. 2964, Inventory No. 7.) Distributed. 4419. BROMUS INERMIS. Smooth brome grass. From Toronto, Canada. Received February 28, 1900. Seed grown in Assiniboia, Northwest Territory, Canada. (See No. 2964, Inventory No. 7.) Distributed. 4420. Bromus INERMIs. Smooth brome grass. From Manitoba. Received March, 1900. Seed grown in Manitoba, Canada. (See No. 2964, Inventory No. 7.) Distributed. 14 SEEDS AND PLANTS IMPORTED. 4421. NICOTIANA TABACUM. Tobacco. From Naples, Italy. Received February 26, 1900. Sumatra. 4422. NICOTIANA TABACUM. Tobacco From Naples, Italy. Received February 26, 1900. Brazilian. 4423. CoOVILLEA DIVARICATA. Greasewood. From Tucson, Ariz. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. 4424. PROSOPIS VELUTINA Mesquite. From Tueson, Ariz. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, November, 1899. 4425. PROSOPIS VELUTINA / Mesquite. From Tuscon, Ariz. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, November, 1899. 4426. VITIS ARIZONICA. From Tueson, Ariz. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. 4427. ZIzYPHUS LYCIOIDES. From Arizona. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Dis- tributed. 4428. + From Benson, Ariz. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, November, 1899. Distributed. 4429. lLyctIuM ERICOIDES. From Benson, Ariz. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. 4430. EcHINOCACTUS WISLIZENI. Visnaga. From Benson, Ariz. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. 4431. SESBANIA MACROCARPA. From Yuma, Ariz. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, November, 1899. 4432. ATRIPLEX CANESCENS. From Yuma, Ariz. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Dis- tributed. 4433. PARKINSONIA TORREYANA. Palo verde. From Yuma, Ariz. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, November, 1899. Distributed. 4434. HoLAcANTHA EMORYI. From Maricopa, Ariz. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. 4435. PROSOPIS JULIFLORA ‘4 Mesquite. From Tempe, Ariz. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, November, 1899. Distributed. INVENTORY. LS 4436. PRosOPIS PUBESCENS/ Mesquite. From California, near Yuma, Ariz. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, November, 1899. 4437. ATRIPLEX LENTIFORMIS. From California, near Yuma, Ariz. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, November, 1899. 4438. ASCLEPIAS SUBULATA. From California. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, November, 1899. 4439. ATRIPLEX LENTIFORMIS. From California, near Yuma, Ariz. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, November, 1899. Distributed. 4440. CUCUMIS MELO. Muskmelon. From Applegate, Cal. Presented by Col. John P. Irish, through Mr. W. T. Swingle, October, 1899. 4441. MerpiIcaGo LUPULINA. From Applegate, Cal. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, October, 1899. 4442. TRICHOSTEMA LANCEOLATUM. From Applegate, Cal. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, October, 1899. Distributed. 4443. LOorus SERICEUS. From Applegate, Cal. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, October, 1899. Distributed. 4444. LUPINUS ARBOREUS. From San Francisco, Cal. Received through Mr. W.T. Swingle, November, 1899. 4445. LINUM GRANDIFLORUM. From Berkeley, Cal. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, October, 1899. 4446. LUPINUS DENSIFLORUS. From Hornbrook, Cal. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, October, 1899. 4447. YUCCA WHIPPLEI. From Los Angeles, Cal. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, November, 1899. 4448. ScHINUS MOLLE. Pepper tree. From California. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, October, 1899. 4449. VITIS CALIFORNICA. From Sacramento, Cal. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, October, 1899. Distributed. 4450. RoprniA NEO-MEXICANA. From California. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, October, 1899. 16 SEEDS AND PLANTS IMPORTED. 4451. FouQUIERIA SPLENDENS. Ocatillo. From California, opposite Yuma, Ariz. Received through Mr. W. T: Swingle, November, 1899. Distributed. 4452. PLATANUS RACEMOSA. From Santa Barbara, Cal. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, November, 1899. 4453. PHASEOLUS VULGARIS. Bean. From Applegate, Cal. Presented by Col. John P. Irish, through Mr. W. T. Swingle, October, 1899. Distributed. Frijole Romana. 4454. GILIA AGGREGATA. From Spokane Falls, Wash. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, September, 1899. Distributed. 4455. BROMUS PORTERI. From Pullman, Wash. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, September, 1899. Distributed. 4456. RuMEX HYMENOSEPALUS. Canaigre. From Tempe, Ariz. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, November, 1899. Distributed. 4457. (AULTHERIA SHALLON. From Seattle, Wash. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, October, 1899. 4458. MAMMILLARIA GRAHAMI. From Hermosillo, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. 4459. CRATZGUS. From Hermosillo, Mexico. Received through } 1899 al am . W. T. Swingle, December, 4460. VALLESIA GLABRA. From Hermosillo, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1889. 4461. PERITYLE LEPTOGLOSSA. ; From Hermosillo, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. 4462. MArTYNIA FRAGRANS. From Hermosillo, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. ; “463. STEGNOSPERMA HALIMIFOLIA. From Hermosillo, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. ., 4464. ASCLEPIAS SUBULATA. From Hermosillo, Mexico. Received through ) 1899. _ r. W. T. Swingle, December, INVENTORY. 17 4465. PARKINSONIA ACULEATA. Vagote. From Hermosillo, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. Swingle, December, 1899. 4466. NISSOLIA SCHOTTII. From Moreno, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Distributed. 4467. COUTAREA LATIFOLIA. From Moreno, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. 4468. ACACIA FILICULOIDES. From Moreno, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899 Distributed. Palo verde. Swingle, December, 1899. 4469. PARKINSONIA. Mr. W. T. From Moreno, Mexico. Received through Distributed. 4470. FouqQurierRia. Ocatillo. From Moreno, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899 4471. CA#SALPINIA GRACILIS. From Moreno, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. Pitahaya. 4472. CEREUS THURBERI. Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. From Moreno, Mexico. Received through 4473. CEREUS PECTEN-ABORIGINUM. Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. From Moreno, Mexico. Received through Distributed. Sea-island cotton. 4474. (JOSSYPIUM BARBADENSR. From James Island, South Carolina. Received February 28, 1900, through the Division of Vegetable Physiology and Pathology. Presented by Mr. F. P. Seabrook. This is one of the best varieties of sea-island cotton. Dahlia. 4475. DAHLIA VARIABILIS. Received through Wulle & Co., February 28, 1900. From Naples, Italy. Dahlia excelsior fantasia. Distributed. Dahlia. 28, 1900. 4476. DAHLIA VARIABILIS. Received through Wulle & Co., February From Naples, Italy. Dahlia variabilis Imperialis. 4477. HgeLIOTROPIUM INCANUM. Heliotrope. Received through Wulle & Co., February 28, 1900. From Naples, Italy. Non plus ultra. Distributed. T785—No. 5—02 2 18 SEEDS AND PLANTS IMPORTED. 4478. ‘TORENIA FOURNIERI. Torenia. From Naples, Italy. Received through Wulle & Co., February 28, 1900. Princess Helena of Montenegro. Torenia with giant flowers. Distributed. 4479. ‘TORENIA FOURNIERI. Torenia. From Naples, Italy. Presented by Wulle & Co., February 28, 1900. The Bride. "Distributed. 4480. [poma@a COLLATA. From Naples, Italy. Received February 28, 1900. Ipomoe collata cinerea. A very delicately colored new hybrid with corolla irregular like the Japanese sorts. 448Y. IeoM@a LEARI. From Naples, Italy. Received February 28, 1900. Ipomea leari perenne splendida. A remarkably rapid grower; very showy. 4482. BRASSICA OLERACEA BOTRYTIS. Broccoli. From Naples, Italy. Received through Wulle & Co., February 28, 1900. Early Violet. RipensinJanuary. A spring and summer vegetable, like cauliflower, but with green heads. 4483. BRaAssICA OLERACEA BOTRYTIS. Broccoli. From Naples, Italy. Received February 28, 1900. Febralino. Ripensin February. A spring and summer vegetable, like cauliflower, but with green heads. 4484. FanIcULUM DULCE. Sweet fennel. From Naples, Italy. Received February 28, 1900. Doux de Boulogne. An excellent vegetable, which deserves trial by American gardeners. 4485. FaNICULUM DULCE. Sweet fennel. From Naples, Italy. Received February 28, 1900. Dousx de Messina. (See No. 4484. ) 4486. LAcTUCA SATIVA. Lettuce. From Naples, Italy. Received February 28, 1900. Scarlet Genezzano. ‘‘A black-seeded variety; head very hard, brown, but yellow inside. It lasts a long time and withstands the highest temperatures and drought. Worthy of trial in all arid and semiarid regions.’’ (Fairchild. ) 4487. ALLIUM CEPA. Onion. From Naples, Italy. Received February 28, 1900. Tripoli Barletta Wonder. A small, very early white variety. 4488. ALLIUM CEPA. Onion. From Naples, Italy. Received February 28, 1900. Silver-white Nocera. INVENTORY. 19 4489. ALLIUM CEPA. Onion. From Naples, Italy. Received February 28, 1900. Giant Rocca. Blood red. 4490. ALLIUM CEPA. Onion. From Naples, Italy. Received February 28, 1900. Bassano. Dark red. 4491. LyYCOPERSICUM ESCULENTUM. Tomato. From Naples, Italy. Received February 28, 1900. Prince Bismarck. ‘‘A larger fruit than the Peach tomato, with yellow skin. A seedling from the Peach, but differing from it in color.’’? (Fairchild. ) 4492-4498. LAGENARIA VULGARIS. Gourd. From Naples, Italy. Received February 28, 1900. A collection of the so-called Zuccini. The immature fruits are cooked like vege- table marrow or summer squash. These are worthy atrial. They are as follows: 4492. Cravara. A club-shaped gourd. 4493. DeEpPRESSA. 4494. CANTEEN. 4495. Borrte. 4496. Minima. Dwar. 4497. PowDpERHORN. 4498. MIxep. 4499. LUPINUS ARBOREUS. From Berkeléy, Cal. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, January, 1900. Distributed. 4500. FouQUIERIA SPINOSA / Ocatillo. From Moreno, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December 16, 1899. 4501. RaANDIA THURBERI. From Moreno, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. 4502. Acacia? From Moreno, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. 4503. ANTIGONON LEPTOPUS. From Moreno, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. 4504. BurRSERA MICROPHYLLA. Torrote blanco. From Moreno, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. 4505. CEREUS PECTEN-ABORIGINUM / From Moreno, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. 20 SEEDS AND PLANTS IMPORTED. 4506. PARKINSONIA. Palo verde. From Moreno, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. ; 4507. HIR#A SEPTENTRIONALIS. Gallinito. From Hermosillo, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. 4508. CALOPHANES PENINSULARIS. From Guaymas, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. 4509. Ha#®MATOXYLON BOREALE. From Guaymas, Mexico. Received through Mr. W Distributed. y . T. Swingle, December, 1899. 4510. PITHECOLOBIUM SONORS. From Guaymas, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899) 4511. PoINCIANA REGIA. Arbol de fuego. From Guaymas, Mexico. Presented by Sefior Bustamante, through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. 4512. Ficus FASCICULATA. From Guaymas, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. 4513. LORANTHUS. From Guaymas, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. 4514. EcHINOCACTUS. From Guaymas, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899 4515. BEBBIA JUNCEA. From Guaymas, Mexico. Received through W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. 4516. DrospyRos. Guayparin. From Hermosillo, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. 4517. PARKINSONIA ACULEATA. Vagote. From Hermosillo, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. 4518. NICOTIANA GLAUCA.: From San Juan, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. 4519. BuRSERA MICROPHYLLA. From Guaymas, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, L899. 4520. CRESCENTIA ALATA. Ayal. From Hermosillo, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. INVENTORY. 4521. PITHECOLOBIUM DULCE. From Hermosillo, Mexico. 1899. 4522. CARTHAMUS TINCTORIUS. From Hermosillo, Mexico. 1899. 4523. ABRUS PRECATORIUS. From Hermosillo, Mexico. Received through 1899. 4524. QUERCUS EMORYI. From Hermosillo, Mexico. 1899. Distributed. Received through 4525. MARTYNIA PROBOSCIDEA. From Hermosillo, Mexico. 1899. 4526. CapsicUM ANNUUM. From Hermosillo, Mexico. 1899. Distributed. Chipotle. Received through 4527. CapsIcUM ANNUUM. From Hermosillo, Mexico. 1899. Received through Chile ancho. 4528. Capsicum. From Hermosillo, Mexico. 1899. Chile pasilla or C. piasia? Received through 4529. CAPSICUM FRUTESCENS BACCATUM. From Hermosillo, Mexico. Received through 1899. Chiltipines. 4530. CaAPpsicUM ANNUUM. From Hermosillo, Mexico. 1899. Chile colorado. Received through 4531. CapsicUM ANNUUM. From Hermosillo, Mexico. 1899. Distributed. Received through Chile costeno. SIMMONDSIA CALIFORNICA. Received through 4532. From Hermosillo, Mexico. 1899. Received through Mr. W. Received through Mr. W. Mr. Mr. Received through Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. a Mr. Mr. ts. WE Mr. AN W. IW: Wis. W. Wi W: Weel: 21 Guaymochil. . Swingle, December, Safflower. Swingle, December, . Swingle, December, . Swingle, December, Swingle, December, Red pepper. . Swingle, December, Red pepper. . Swingle, December, Red pepper. . Swingle, December, Bird pepper. . Swingle, December, Red pepper. . Swingle, December, Red pepper. . Swingle, December, Jojoba. Swingle, December, Ay SEEDS AND PLANTS IMPORTED. 4533. PITHECOLOBIUM DULCE. Guaymochil. From Hermosillo, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. 4534. SALVIA COLUMBARI®. Chia. From Hermosillo, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle. 4535. From Hermosillo, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. 4536. PINUS EDULIS? Pifion. From Hermosillo, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. 4537. OLNEYA TESOTA. From Hermosillo, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. 4538. ‘TAMARINDUS INDICA. Tamarind. From Hermosillo, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. 4539. CEREUS SCHOTTII. From Tucson, Ariz. Presented by Prof. J. W. Toumey, through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. 4540. ACACIA LONGIFOLIA. From Oakland, Cal. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. 4541. Zizyruus? Chinese date. From San Francisco, Cal. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, October, 1899. 4542. SyYMPHORICARPOS RACEMOSUS. Snowberry. From Pullman, Wash. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, September, 1899. Distributed. 4543. RIBES DIVARICATUM / From Seattle, Wash. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, October, 1899. 4544. HuMmMuULUs LUPULUS. Hop. From Puyallup, Wash. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, October, 1899. Distributed. Cluster Hop. 4545. BROMUS VULGARIS EXIMIUS. From Seattle, |Wash. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, October, 1899. Distributed. 4546. CHAMZNERION ANGUSTIFOLIUM. Fireweed. From Madrofia Park, Seattle, Wash. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, October, 1899. Distributed. INVENTORY. 20 4547. ANAPHALIS MARGARITACEA. Everlasting. From Seattle, Wash. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, October, 1899. Distributed. 4548. “Lo han qua.” From San Francisco, Cal. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. 4549. CEPHALANTHUS OCCIDENTALIS. Button-bush. From Manhattan, Kans. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. 4550. PANICUM VIRGATUM. From Manhattan, Kans. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. 4551. PoLYGONUM DUMETORUM SCANDENS. From Manhattan, Kans. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. 4552. AMORPHA FRUTICOSA. False indigo. From Manhattan, Kans. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. 4553. HuMULUS LUPULUS. Wild hop. From Manhattan, Kans. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. 4554. LIATRIS PUNCTATA. Blazing-star. From Manhattan, Kans. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. 4555. CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS. Hackberry. From Manhattan, Kans. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. 4556. CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS. Hackberry. From Manhattan, Kans. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. 4557. PLATANUS OCCIDENTAL. Plane tree. From Manhattan, Kans. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. 4558. RHUS GLABRA. Sumac. From Manhattan, Kans. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. 4559. CERCIS CANADENSIS. Red bud. From Manhattan, Kans. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. 4560. CERCIS CANADENSIS. Red bud. From Manhattan, Kans. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. 4561. RuHUs GLABRA. _ Sumac. From Manhattan, Kans. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. 24 SEEDS AND PLANTS IMPORTED. 4562. (GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS. Honey locust. From Manhattan, Kans. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. From a nearly thornless tree. Distributed. = 4563. (GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS. Honey locust. From Manhattan, Kans. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899, From an entirely thornless tree. Distributed. 4564. (GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS. Honey locust. From Manhattan, Kans. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. From a thorny tree. Distributed. 4565. CUCURBITA PEPO. Vegetable marrow. From Westfield, Mass. Received through Mr. H. L. Loomis, March 1, 1900. ~ Originally from Honolulu. Distributed. 4566. ERIOBOTRYA JAPONICA. Loquat. From Sicily. Received through Messrs. Lathrop and Fairchild, March 5, 1900. Palermo. A new variety originated by Dr. C. Sprenger, Vomero, Naples, Italy. Distributed. 4567. ERIOBOTRYA JAPONICA. Loquat. From Sicily. Received through Messrs. Lathrop and Fairchild, March 5, 1900. Limoncella. A new strain originated by Dr. C. Sprenger, Vomero, Naples, Italy. Distributed. e 4568. ZrA MAYS. Corn. From Kansas. Received March 6, 1900. A yellow dent. 4569. ZEA MAYS. _ Corn. From Kansas. Received March 6, 1900. Roseland White. 4570. OPUNTIA FICUS-INDICA INERMIS. Spineless cactus. From France. Received March 6, 1900. This spineless pear cactus is extensively grown in Algeria for forage. 4571. PANICUM MILIACEUM. Broom-corn millet. From Smrzicich, Moravia. Received trom Frant. Vodicka, March 6, 1900. This millet is one of the most important crops in many parts of Moravia. 4572. HorprUM DISTICHUM NUTANS. Barley. From Smrzicich, Moravia. Received from Frant. Vodicka, March 6, 1900.. Hanna. ‘‘A famous variety of barley for malting purposes. It is grown in the valley of the river Hanna, the richest part of Moravia.” (Dongres.) 4573. PLATANUS OCCIDENTALIS. Plane tree. From Manhattan, Kans. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. INVENTORY 25 4574. (GYMNOCLADUS CANADENSIS. Kentucky coffee tree. From Manhattan, Kans. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. 4575. (GYMNOCLADUS CANADENSIS. Kentucky coffee tree. From Manhattan, Kans. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. 4576. SCHRANKIA UNCINATA. Sensitive briar. From Barton County, Kans. Presented by Mr. Albert Dickens, Kansas Agri- cultural Experiment Station. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, Febru- ary, 1900. 4577. SPOROBOLUS AIROIDES. Sacaton grass. From Benson, Ariz. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. 4578. SAPINDUS ACUMINATUS. From Columbia, Tex. Received through Mr. B. F. Bush, February, 1900 Very handsome in cultivation. 4579. DobpECATHEON MEADII. From Swan, Mo. Received through Mr. B. F. Bush, February, 1900. Distributed. 4580. EcHINACEA ANGUSTIFOLIA. From Lees Summit, Mo. Received through Mr. B. F. Bush, February, 1900. 4581. RHAMNUS LANCEOLATUS. From Independence, Mo. Received through Mr. B. F. Bush, February, 1900. Distributed. 4582. RHUS AROMATICA. From Swan, Mo. Received through Mr. B. F. Bush, February, 1900. 4583. EcHINACEA PURPUREA. From Monteer, Mo. Received through Mr. B. F. Bush, February, 1900. Dis- tributed. 4584. AGAVE VIRGINICA. From Swan, Mo. Received through Mr. B. F. Bush, February, 1900. Distributed. 4585. CRATHGUS VIRIDIS. From Columbia, Tex. Received through Mr. B. F. Bush, February, 1900. 4586. SMILAX ROTUNDIFOLIA. From Columbia, Tex. Received through Mr. B. F. Bush, February, 1900. Distributed. 4587. BUMELIA LYCIOIDES. From Columbia, Tex. Received through Mr. B. F. Bush, February, 1900. 4588. CISSUS STANS. From Columbia, Tex. Received through Mr. B. F. Bush, February, 1900. Distriouted. 26 SEEDS 4589. BERCHEMIA SCANDENS. From Swan, Mo. Received through Mr. B. F. 4590. CRATEHGUS POPULIFOLIA. From Swan, Mo. Received through Mr. B. ROTUNDIFOLIA. Received through Mr. B. 4591. CRATEHGUS From Swan, Mo. COLLINA. Received through Mr. B. 4592. CRATEHGUS From Swan, Mo. 4593. CRATAGUS SACCHARINA. From Swan, Mo. Received through Mr. B. F. 4594. IJLEX DECIDUA. From Pleasant Grove, Mo. Distributed. 4595. ViIBURNUM RUFOTOMENTOSUM. From Chadwick, Mo. tributed. 4596. GLEDITSIA. From Brazoria, Tex. tributed. 4597. CRAT#GUS MOLLIS. From Courtney, Mo. 4598. SMILAX HISPIDA. From Courtney, Mo. 4599. SyMPHORICARPOS VULGARIS. From Kansas. February, 1900. 4600. LOTUS SERICEUS. From South Dakota. Collected by Mr. L. P. Reinoehl. Received through Mr. Received through Mr. Received through Mr. Received through Mr. Received through Mr. Presented by Mr. Leon Sw Received through Mr. AND PLANTS IMPORTED. Bush, February, 1900. Distributed. F. Bush, February, 1900. F. Bush, February, 1900. F. Bush, February, 1900. Bush, February, 1900. Distributed. Deciduous holly. B. F. Bush, February, 1900. B. F. Bush, February, 1900. Dis- B. F. Bush, February, 1900. Dis- B. F. Bush, February, 1900. B. F. Bush, February, 1900. ingle, through Mr. W. T. Swingle, Dakota vetch. A. J. Pieters, February, 1900. 4601. EcHinops SPH #ROCEPHALUS. Chapman’s honey plant From Berkeley, Cal. Presented by Prof. J. Burtt Davy, December, 1899. Distributed. 4602. MAMMILLARIA GRAHAMI. From Washington, D. ©. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, February, 1900. Distributed. 4603. MAMMILLARIA GRAHAMI. From Washington, ID. ©. 1900. Distributed. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, February, INVENTORY. bo = 4604. LopnopHora. From Washington, D. C. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, February, 1900. Distributed. 4605. LorHoPpnHorRa. From Washington, D. C. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, February, 1900. Distributed. 4606. LopHOPHORA WILLIAMSIIL. From Washington, D. C. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, March, 1900. Distributed. 4607. BRACHYCHITON ACERIFOLIA. Flame tree. From Santa Ana, Cal. Presented by Dr. John M. Lacy through Mr. Newton B. Pierce. 4608. CELASTRUS SCANDENS. From Manhattan, Kans. Presented by Mr. J. F. Swingle, through Mr. W. T. Swingle, March 8, 1899. 4609. BRAHEA GUADALUPENSIS / From La Paz, Lower California, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, February, 1900. 4610. PHa@NIX DACTYLIFERA. Date. From Washington, D.C. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, March, 1900. Deglet Noor. Bought at a Washington fruit market. Distributed. 4611. PHG@NIX DACTYLIFERA. Date. Probably from M’Zab oasis, Sahara. Presented by Yahia ben Kassem, through Mr. W. T. Swingle, March, 1900. Deglet Noor. 4612. PHaNIX DACTYLIFERA. Date. Probably from M’ Zab oasis, Sahara. Presented by Yahia ben Kassem, through Mr. W. T. Swingle, March, 1900. Degla Beida. 4613. PHG@NIX DACTYLIFERA. Date. Probably from M’ Zab oasis, Sahara. Presented by Yahia ben Kassem, through Mr. W. T. Swingle, March, 1900. Todala techeleff. Distributed. 4614. PHG@NIX DACTYLIFERA. Date. Probably from M’ Zab oasis, Sahara. Presented by Yahia ben Kassem, through Mr. W. T. Swingle, March, 1900. Horra. Distributed. 4615. PHGNIX DACTYLIFERA. Date. Probably from M’ Zab oasis, Sahara. Presented by Yahia ben Kassem, through Mr. W. T. Swingle, March, 1900. Possibly Medjhoul. A large, unnamed date. 28 SEEDS AND PLANTS IMPORTED. 4616. PrHca@nrix DACTYLIFERA. Date. Probably from M’ Zab oasis, Sahara. Presented by Yahia ben Kassem, through Mr. W. T. Swingle, March, 1900. Deglet Noor. 4617. PHaNIX DACTYLIFERA. - Daze. Probably from M’ Zab oasis, Sahara. Presented by Yahia ben Kassem, through Mr. W. T. Swingle, March, 1900. Tedalla (2). 4618. PHaNIX DACTYLIFERA. Date. Probably from M’Zab oasis, Sahara. Presented by Yahia ben Kassem, through Mr. W. T. Swingle, March, 1900. Ghero. Distributed. 4619. PHG@NIX DACTYLIFERA. Date. Probably from M’ Zab oasis, Sahara. Presented by Yahia ben Kassem, through Mr. W. T. Swingle, March, 1900. Bent Kabala (?). Distributed. 4620. PHaNIX DACTYLIFERA. Date. Probably from M’ Zab oasis, Sahara. Presented by Yahia ben Kassem, through Mr. W. T. Swingle, March, 1900: Possibly Medjhou/. An unnamed, medium-sized fruit. Distributed. 4621. ANDROPOGON SORGHUM. Kafir corn. From Berryton, Kans. Presented by Mr. M. Mathewson, March 6, 1900. Mammoth black-hulled white. Distributed. 4622. DiIosPpyYROS VIRGINIANA. Persimmon. From Lodema, Mo. Presented by Mr. R. A. W. Argenbright, March 10, 1900. 4623. NICOTIANA TABACUM. Tobacco. From Sagua la Grande, Cuba. Presented by Feodoro Miranda, March 12, 1900. 4624. CRATAHGUS MEXICANA. Haw. From Coahuila, Mexico. Presented by Prof. Felix Foéx, of Torreon. Re- ceived March 12, 1900. 4625. CRAT#HGUS MEXICANA. Haw. From Coahuila, Mexico. Presented by Prof. Felix Foéx, of Torreon. Received March 12, 1900. Seeds from fruits of largest size and finest flavor. 4626. (ossYPIUM BARBADENSE. Cotton. From Egypt. Received March 13, 1900. Gordon Pasha. An improved strain of Egyptian cotton, introduced for the first time. - Seed purchased in Italy. 4627. PHASEOLUS VULGARIS. Bean. From San Antonio, N. Mex. Received from Mr. C. B. Allaire, March 13, 1900. A variety commonly grown by the Mexicans. It forms the staple food of the laboring classes of New Mexico. bo NVENTORY. 9 4628. GLYCINE HISPIDA. Soy bean. From Massachusetts. Received March 13, 1900. Medium green. Distributed. 4629. MEDICAGO SATIVA. Alfalfa. From Colorado. Received March 16, 1900. Colorado-grown seed. Distributed. 4630. Ficus ELASTICA. India rubber. From Italy. Received March 13, 1900. Distributed. 4631. TRITICUM VULGARE. Wheat. From Idaho. Received March 14, 1900. Canadian Hybrid. One of the standard wheats grown in Idaho. Wyoming, and Washington. 4632. CENTAUREA ODORATA. Dusty miller. From Italy. Received May 19, 1900. Presented by Dammann & Co., of San Giovanni a Teduccio, near Naples, Italy, through Hon. A. H. Byington, United States consul at Naples. Centennial Chameleon. “*A new hybrid annual which changes color several times during theseason. Plant in potsand transplant to sunny spotin rich soil. ? (Dammann. ) 4633. TRITICUM VULGARE. Wheat. From Idaho. Received March 14, 1900. Red Chaff. -One of the standard wheats of Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. 4634. Pyrus BACCATA GENUINA. Siberian crab-apple. From Russia. Received March 18, 1900. Presented by Dr. A. Fischer von Wald- heim, director of the Imperial St. Petersburg Botanic Garden. Distributed. 4635. NIcOTIANA TABACUM. Tobacco. From Sumatra. Received March 21, 1900. Deli. 4636. ErRyYTHRINA. Coral tree. From Mexico. Received March 21, 1900. Presented by Mr. Herman Meenen, of Harsenville, Fla. Zumpantle, or Coralines. 4637. CoB#A SCANDENS. Cobea. From Mexico. Received March 21, 1900. Presented by Mr. Herman Meenen, of Harsenville, Fla. A vigorous climbing plant with beautiful blue flowers. 4638. ANONA CHERIMOLIA. Cherimoya. From Mexico. Received March 21, 1900. Presented by Mr. Herman Meenen, of Harsenville, Fla. ‘“Considered by many one of the finest fruits in existence. Being very tender, it canonly be grownsuccessfully in the extreme southern portion of F lorida.”” ( Meenen.) 4639. CANNABIS SATIVA. Hemp. From Kentucky. Received March 22, 1900. Distributed. 30 / SEEDS AND PLANTS IMPORTED. 4640-4748. VITIS VINIFERA. Grape. A collection of European grapes from Alexandre Tacussel, of Vaucluse, France, imported in cooperation with the Division of Pomology. No cuttings are now available for distribution. (See Nos. 2381-2541, Inventory No. 5.) Distributed. 4640. ApDMIRABLE DE CoUuRTILLER. 4641. ApDMIRABLE DE CouRTILLER. 4642. Bicane. 4643. BurGrRave pr HonaRrir. 4644. CHAssELAS NAPOLEON. 4645. CoRNICHON BLANC. 4646. CoRNICHON NoIR. 4647. Darrier pe Beyroutn. 4648. Diamant TRAvBeE. 4649. FintTInpo. 4650. Foster’s SEEDLING. 4651. FRANKENTHAL HATIF. 4652. GerneRAL LAMARMORA. 4653. GerneraL LAMARMORA. 4654. GoLpENn CHAMPION. 4655. GRADISKA. 4656. Henas Turk. 4657. JOANNENC. 4658. JOANNENC. 4659. ZABALKANSKOI. 4660. MaAtvorsie DE Sires. 4661. MAtvolsi& DE Srrzs. 4662. Mameton. 4663. Mameton. 4664. Muscat pe Mapmre Rose. 4665. Muscar HAtTIF pu Puy pp Dower. 4666. Muscat Sr. Laurent. 4667. OLIVETTE DE CADENET. 4668. OLIVETTE DE CADENET. 4669. Pis pE CHEVRE DES ALPEs. 4670. Rosakt. 4671. SuLrantna. 4672. TRENTHAM BLACK. 4673. TRENTHAM BLACK. 4674. VERDELHO DE MapeEre. 4675. VERDELHO DE MADERR. 4676. Acront Mackron. 4677. AiBaTHy Issum. 4678. ANGELINA. 4679. ANGULATA. 4680. Baupr. 4640-4748. Viris VINIFERA—Continued. 4681. 4682. 4683. 4684. 4685. 4686. 4687. 4688. 4689. 4690. 4691. 4692. 4693. 4694. 4695. 4696. 4697. 4698. 4699. 4700. 4701. 4702. 4703. 4704. 4705. 4706. 4707. 4708. 4709. 4710. 4711. 4712. 4713. 4714. 4715. 47716. 4717. 4718. 4719. 4720. 4721. 4722. 4723. INVENTORY. BELLINO. BERMESTIA BIANCA. BoHERAAVE. CHASSELAS St. BERNARD. CITRONELLE. CITRONELLE. Duc pE MAGENTA. FRANKENTHAL BLANC. HAMBOURG BLANC. IMPERIAL. JC AROAD. MERVEILLE DE VAUCLUSE. Muscat NOIR PRECOCE. Muscat DE SAUMUR. Muscat VIOLET. OLIVETTE ROSE. RAISAINE DE PULLIAT. West Sr. PETERS. CHASSELAS DE JERICO. GAMAY DE BouRGOGNE. GRUNER MUSCATELLER. LonG Noir bD’ ESPAGNE. OLIVETTE NOIR. RAZAKI ZOLO. AGOSTENGA. AGOSTENGA. Muscat Bowoop. BucKLAND SWEETWATER. CALABRESE. CALABRESE. CHASSELAS DE FLORENCE. CHASSELAS DE MONTAUBAN. CHASSELAS DE NEGREPONT. CHASSELAS DE NEGREPONT. CHASSELAS MUSQUE VRATI. CHASSELAS MUSQUE VRAI. CHASSELAS VIOLET. CHASSELAS NAPOLEON. CHASSELAS ROSE ROYAL. ToKAY BLANC. CLAIRETTE POINTUE. CoRNICHON NOIR DriaMantT TRAUBE. dl Bie SEEDS AND PLANTS IMPORTED. 4640-4748. Vitis vintrFERA—Continued. 4724. Fo.LLE BLANCHE. 4725. JOANNENC CHARNU. 4726. LUGLIENGA NERA. 4727. MADELEINE ANGEVINE. 4728. MADELEINE ANGEVINE. 4729. Bricouor. 4730. Muscat pr ALEXANDRIE. 4731. Muvuscat pr ALEXANDRIE. 4732. Muscat pr Hampoura. 4733. Muscat pE HaAampoura. 4734. MuscaT ROUGE DE MADERE. 4735. ZABALKANSKOI. 4736. Parc DE VERSAILLES. 4737. Parc DE VERSAILLES. 4738. PINoT NoIR DE BouRGOGNE. 4739. Prnor BLANC. 4740. PrINoT BLANC DE CHARDONNAY. 4741. Pis DE CHEVRE NOIR. 4742. PRECOCE DE COURTILLER. 4743. Rosakl. 4744. RovussE.er. 4745. SERVAN. 4746. SmRVAN. 4747. SIRAH DE L’ERMITAGE. 4748. ULLIADE Noir. 4749. (Blank.) 4750. PISTACIA TEREBINTHUS. Terebinth. Presented by Mr. G. P. Rixford, of the California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, Cal., January, 1900. To be used for stocks on which to graft the pistache. Distributed. 4751. TUBER MELANOSPERMA. Truffle. From Paris, France. Received March 30, 1900. (See No. 2230, Inventory No. 5.) Distributed. 4752. FIcus CARICA. Smyrna fig. From California. Presented by Mr. George C. Roeding, March, 1900. 4753. PERSEA PUMILA. From Eustis, Fla. Presented by Mr. Frank W. Savage, March, 1899.. 4754-4808. A collection of seeds of native American plants growing near Washington, D. ©. Presented by the Seed Laboratory, March, 1900. 4754. CLEMATIS OCHROLEUCA. 4755. EvoNyMUS ATROPURPUREUS. INVENTORY. 4754-4808—Continued. 4756. A757. 4758. 4759. 4760. 4761. 4762. 4763. 4764. 4765. 4766. 4767. 4768. 4769. 4770. AT TAG 4772. 4778. 4774. 4775. 4776. 4777. 4778. 4779. 4780. 4781. 4782. 4783. 4784. 4785. 4786. 4787. 4788. 4789. 4790. 4791. 4792. 4793. 4794. 4795. 4796. 4797. 4798. 4799. AGRIMONIA PARVIFLORA. VIBURNUM DENTATUM. SAPONARIA OFFICINALIS. ARCTIUM LAPPA. CRAT&GUS CRUS-GALLI. MAGNOLIA ACUMINATA. PANICUM ELONGATUM. LEONURUS CARDIACA. SMILAX HERBACEA. VAGNERA RACEMOSA. POLYMNIA UVEDALIA. SMILAX ROTUNDIFOLIA, PoOLYGONUM SAGITTATUM. LOBELIA INFLATA. ALNUS RUGOSA. MAGNOLIA TRIPETALA, SAURURUS CERNUUS. AGROPYRON TENERUM. EUONYMUS AMERICANUS. ELEPHANTOPUS. POLYGONUM DUMETORUM. SILPHIUM TRIFOLIATUM. ANDROPOGON NUTANS. ONOSMODIUM CAROLINIANA. MoNARDA PUNCTATA. ERECHTITES HIERACIFOLIA. Nyssa AQUATICA. BENZOIN BENZOIN. Distributed. BaprtisiA AUSTRALIS. XOLISMA LIGUSTRINA. PRUNELLA VULGARIS. V ACCINIUM STAMINEUM. VERBESINA OCCIDENTALE. STAPHYLEA TRIFOLIA. APOCYNUM ALBUM. CASSIA NICTITANS. LECHEA RACEMULOSA. CYPERUS OVULARIS. PoLYGONUM PUNCTATUM. Rosa HUMILIS. PENTSTEMON LEVIGATUS. HELENIUM AUTUMNALE. Distributed. TECOMA STANS. GEMMINGA CHINENSIS. T785—No. 5—02——3 30 34 SEEDS AND PLANTS IMPORTED. 4754-4808—Continued. 4800. SoLIDAGO SEROTINA. 4801. ANpRopOGON pRovINcIALIs. Distributed. 4802. Poa COMPRESSA. 4803. EvpatTorium PERFOLIATUM. Distributed. 4804. PHyYTOLACCA DECANDRA. 4805. DrIpsacus SYLVESTRIS. 4806. VP§RBESINA ALTERNIFOLIA. 4807. GAURA BIENNIS. ) 4808. Vernonra. Distributed. 4809. ANDROPOGON SORGHUM. Kafir corn. From Manhattan, Kans. Presented by Prof. H. M. Cottrell, through Mr. W. T. Swingle, April, 1900. Black-hulled White. 4810. ANDROPOGON SORGHUM. Kafir corn. From Manhattan, Kans. Presented by Prof. H. M. Cottrell, through Mr. W. T. Swingle, April, 1900. Red. Distributed. 4811. PH@NIX.DACTYLIFERA. Date. From Washington, D. C. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, March, 1900. Distributed. 4812. PHGNIX DACTYLIFERA. Date. From Washington, D. C. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, March, 1900. Distributed. 4813. PHG@NIX DACTYLIFERA. Date. From Guaymas, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. 4814. FRAXINUS VELUTINA. Ash. From Hermosillo, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Distributed. 4815. PHORADENDRON JUNIPERINUM. From Mescalero, N. M. Presented by Miss Minnie Pincumb, through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Parasite on fir. Distributed. 4816. KARWINSKIA PARVIFLORA. From Hermosillo, Mexico. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, December, 1899. Shrub 2 to 3 feet high. Leaves like Psidiwm guava. 4817. CEREUS PRINGLEI. From Guaymas, Mexico. Presented by the U. 8. National Museum, March, 1900, 4818. CEREUS PECTEN-ABORIGINUM. From Mazatlan, Mexico. Presented by the U.S. National Museum, March, 1900. INVENTORY. 35 4819. Rusus. From Puyallup, Wash. Received through Mr. W. T. Swingle, October, 1899. A perennial evergreen blackberry. Distributed. 4820. CELASTRUS SCANDENS. Bittersweet. From Manhattan, Kans. Presented by Mr. J. F. Swingle, March, 1900.’ Dis- tributed. 4821. LorpHoPHORA LEWINII. From Washington, D.C. From plants growing in S. P. I. greenhouse. Received March, 1900. Distributed. 4822. PANICUM BULBOSUM. From Washington, D.C. From plants growing in 8. P. I. greenhouse. Received March, 1900. A panicled grass, resembling a small Sorghum halapense. Distrijuted. 4823 QUERCUS MACROCARPA. Bur oak. From Manhattan, Kans. Presented by Prof. A. 8. Hitchcock, April 20, 1900. 4824. BouTELOUA CURTIPENDULA. From Manhattan, Kans. Presented by Prof. A. 8. Hitchcock, April 20, 1900. Distributed. 4825. BULBILIS DACTYLOIDES. Buffalo grass. From Manhattan, Kans. Presented by Prof. A. 8. Hitchcock, April 20, 1900. 4826-4840. From Avalon, Santa Catalina Island, California. Received through Mrs. Blanche Trask, May 1, 1900. ‘ 64 re ae 7 mG a y ud he f 4 i + fi Ve - { &e ’ i A 5 wa i! teks Soe ’ + ¥ *, Jae i ay act Pe eee 4 a ha > ie Bye { ar ad t . , if i. f fd) ‘ +t ‘= AAs G ¢ * at me eee Nahe at 4 ore e Pate a . \ Vie. m at : Sah Uae we ~, ‘ i r! : 4. a. ‘ i. cm | », at oti ed x ‘ : ‘ . U.S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY—BULLETIN No. 6. B. T. GALLOWAY, Chief of Bureau. as les eee OF AMERICAN VARIETIES OF PEPPERS. BY W. W. TRACY, Jr., AssisTant, BOTANICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND EXPERIMENTS. IssuED FEBRUARY 1, 1902. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1902. Sa 7 ‘ ‘ vii’ ' Lore A) ] ’ ili ee wt 4 hy ¢ ' ’ * al as * Jie a te Y i : . { y { | by \\ Wy “4h AY 4 é ' Prat y) i= ‘ i. i hog \ - ‘ 1 ‘ » n ' ‘ f | ‘ s wn et P ah ir Ma ‘ ' H 7 “ ’ ' ~, x 1 vi aT, o ; 7" LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. U. S. Deparrmenr or AGRICULTURE. BurkEau oF PLANT INpustTRY, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF, Washington, D. C., November 6, 1901. Str: I transmit herewith a manuscript submitted from the Office of the Botanist of a paper entitled A List of American Varieties of Peppers, by W. W. Tracy, jr., and respectfully recommend that it be published as Bulletin No. 6 of this Bureau. Respectfully, B. T. GatLoway, Chief of Burean. Hon. James Wrirson, Secretary of Agriculture. PREP A CE. In the Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture for 1901 it is stated that American seedsmen catalogued the preceding year *‘* 685 real or nominal varieties of cabbage, 320 of table beets, 340 of sweet corn, 560 of bush beans, 255 of pole beans, 320 of cucumber, 530 of lettuce, and an equally large number of varieties of other vegetables.” * In such a maze of names, a large proportion of which are accom- panied by the most meager descriptions, the progressive cultivator, endeavoring to ascertain what varieties are best adapted to his partic- ular location, soil, climate, and uses, has little to guide him. Among seedsmen, also, similar difficulties exist. A small number of the larger houses maintain extensive trial grounds, but the information secured in this way is usually not made public. There remains astrong demand, both from the seed trade and from the public, for more precise infor- mation about the qualities of the various advertised varieties—infor- mation which can be furnished only after years of careful study and experimentation. There is one necessary preliminary to such work, namely, a catalogue of the names of the varieties. There is no published work which gives all the varieties of vegeta- bles sold by American seedsmen, and the Department of Agriculture has therefore prepared such a list, which is now in manuscript. It has seemed desirable to publish experimentally a minor portion of this list, and for that purpose the peppers have been selected. The list has been prepared by Mr. W. W. Tracy, jr., who has charge of the Department’s variety testing, with the aid of Mr. J. E. W. Tracy, his assistant. FREDERICK V. CovVILLE, Botanist. OFFICE OF THE BOTANIST, Washington, D. C., November 6, 1901. *TIn counting the number of these varieties, names were included which differed from others simply by the addition of a descriptive word, such as ‘‘improyed,”’ ‘large,”’ ‘‘early,’’ or the names of persons, while other varieties, having attached to them unimportant descriptive words, such as ‘‘select,’’ ‘‘new,’’ and ‘‘choice,’’ were not included. 5 6 ’ OMe ENT os B. P. I.—8. A LIST OF AMERICAN VARIETIES OF PEPPERS. INTRODUCTION. One great source of the confusion in variety names which this list is designed to help in overcoming is the use of descriptive words and phrases in multiplying names which frequently mark no real varietal differences. Among peppers this is not carried so far as elsewhere, and the examples which can be cited are not as striking as in case of some of the more generally grown vegetables. The most notable examples are found in Ruby King, which different seedsmen catalogue as follows: Burpee’s Ruby King, Maule’s Ruby King, Maule’s Improved Ruby King, Bolgiano’s Mammoth Ruby King, Mammoth Ruby King; and in Bell, which is listed under the following names: Large Bell, Improved Large Bell, Sweet Bell, Large Sweet Bell, Large Red Bell, Mammoth Bell. In case of some other vegetables there is such an indis- criminate use of epithets as to make the distinctions in varieties very bewildering. Of Jersey Wakefield cabbage, for example, the follow- ing names are used by different seedsmen merely to distinguish their stocks: Hawkin’s Jersey Wakefield, Tait’s Early Jersey Wakefield, Rice’s Early Jersey Wakefield, Wood’s Selected Early Jersey Wake- field, Maule’s Prize Wakefield, Our Own Jersey Wakefield, Extra Choice Early Jersey Wakefield, Pedigree Jersey Wakefield, Extra Select Jersey Wakefield, Improved Early Jersey Wakefield, ete. Occasionally these descriptives mark real superiority of stock, especially in point of purity; but it would be much better if such superiority were left to be known from the reputation of the seed house rather than advertised by the addition of the seedsman’s name or of adjectives to the simple variety name, both of which usages have been so much abused as to have little or no significance. Sometimes, however, words attached to the simple variety name, or other slight differences in names, do indicate real differences in type. Examples are: Philadelphia Dutch Butter, Philadelphia Butter, and Maule’s Philadelphia Butter, names applied to varieties of lettuce of types quite different from each other, as are also the names Favor- ite, Rudolph’s Favorite, Sutton’s Favorite, Florida Favorite, and the Gardener’s Favorite. 4 i 8 LIST OF AMERICAN VARIETIES OF PEPPERS. In preparing this list of varieties the following words have been omitted from the variety names: Improved, extra, perfected, pedigree, select, selected, extra select, choice, extra choice, superior, celebrated, fine, famous, our, our own, true, new, the, and the names of persons. Exceptions have been made and some of the above words retained, where a personal name or a descriptive word is known to indicate a real difference in type, or where the dropping of such a word would be confusing and misleading because the variety is so universally known and recognized only by the full name, as in Procopp’s Giant pepper. The words giant, mammoth, large, early, and extra early have in every case been retained because, though not usually indicat- ing a difference in type, there are many cases where they do indicate such a difference. There is, perhaps, more reason for retaining the words ‘timproved” and ‘‘ perfected” and the names of persons than the other words mentioned above as omitted, and for this reason these words have been allowed to stand in the groups of similar names given. in the list, though, as already stated, they have been omitted from the alphabetical arrangement. The present list of peppers includes all the varieties catalogued by seedsmen in the United States and Canada for the year 1901. After each variety name are given abbreviations of the name of the seedsmen who catalogue the variety. Whenever similar names exist these are also given. By ‘‘similar names” are meant resembling names given by different seedsmen, whether to like or unlike varieties. In some cases such varieties are dissimilar in type or essential characters. Most of them, however, are similar or identical in this regard, and some- times they are so in the matter of purity of stock also. The synonyms cited are those given by seedsmen in their own catalogues for the vear 1901. Some of the names given as synonyms are undoubtedly incor- rect, but this is due usually to a local misunderstanding of the gener- ally recognized type or to a misapplication of names rather than to a lack of knowledge of the characteristics of the varieties themselves. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS OF NAMES OF SEEDSMEN. e The following are the abbreviations, alphabetically arranged, which have been adopted to designate the seedsmen referred to in this bulle- tin. The list includes, so far as is known, all the seedsmen of the United States and Canada who issued catalogues or price lists for the year 1901: Agn H. ©. & J. B. Agnew, Agnew, Cal. AGT A. G. Tillinghast, Laconner, Wash. All John H. Allan Seed Co., Three Mile Bay, N. Y. Alr Alneer Bros., Rockford, Ill. A\x Alexander Seed Co., Augusta, Ga. Anb E. Annabil, McPherson, Kans. Ans A. H. Ansley & Sons, Milo Center, N. Y. Ar Bai Bak Bdg Bel Ber Beg Bgs Bkt Blg Bng Bou Bow Brb Brd Bri Brk Brn Brr Brt Bru Brw Btl Bue Bui Bur CA Cam C&B CCo CE CF Chl Chm C&I Cle Cok Col Cox Crg Crs CSC Cur D&C DD Del D&H Diw Drm Drr Drw Dun LIST OF AMERICAN VARIETIES OF PEPPERS. L. E. Archias Seed Co., Carthage, Mo. Bailey & Sons, Salt Lake City, Utah. Baker Bros., Fort Worth, Tex. Alfred Bridgeman, New York, N. Y. J. J. Bell, Deposit, N. Y. A. A. Berry Seed Co., Clarinda, Iowa. B. L. Bragg Co., Springfield Mass. Briggs Brothers & Co., Rochester, N. Y. W. C. Beckert, Allegheny, Pa. F. W. Bolgiano, Washington, D. C. William H. Brunning, Rahway, N. J. William A. Bours & Co., Jacksonville, Fla. E. J. Bowen, San Francisco, Cal. E. W. Burbank Seed Co., Fryeburg, Me. Luther Burbank, Santa Rosa, Cal. = LBk W. W. Barnard & Co., Chicago, Ill. Wm. Brinker, Cleveland, Ohio. Joseph Breck & Sons, Boston, Mass. Alfred J. Brown Seed Co., Grand Rapids, Mich. Fred P. Burr & Co., Middletown, Conn. The W. E.- Bartlett Co., Providence, R. I. John A. Bruce & Co., Hamilton, Canada. E. E. Burwell, New Haven, Conn. F. Barteldes & Co., Lawrence, Kans. H. W. Buckbee, Rockford, Il}. Robert Buist Co., Philadelphia, Pa. W. Atlee Burpee & Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Jurry-Arrington Co., Rome, Ga. L. Cameron, Jacksonville, Fla. Clucas & Boddington Co., New York, N. Y. Cole Seed Co., Buckner, Mo. Chesmore-Eastlake Mercantile Co., St. Joseph, Mo. Comstock, Ferre & Co., Wethersfield, Conn. John Lewis Childs, Floral Park, N. Y. M. Cushman & Co., Rochester, N. Y. Cadwell & Jones, Hartford, Conn. Cleveland Seed Co., Cape Vincent, N. Y. A. T. Cook, Hyde Park, N.Y. Cole’s Seed Store, Pella, Iowa. Cox Seed Co., San Francisco, Cal. Craig Seed Co., Memphis, Tenn. Crosman Bros., Rochester, N. Y. C. 8. Clark, Wakeman, Ohio. The Everett B. Clark Co., Milford, Conn.= EBC Currie Bros., Milwaukee, Wis. The Dingee & Conard Co., West Grove, Pa. Dickmann-Dusard Seed Co., St. Louis, Mo. Delano Seed Co., Lee Park, Nebr. Darch & Hunter, London, Ontario, Canada. W. E. Dallwig, Milwaukee, Wis. Drumm Seed & Floral Co., Fort Worth, Tex. Henry A. Dreer, Philadelphia, Pa. Oliver H. Drew, Hibernia, N. Y. R. B. Dunning & Co., Bangor,- Me. 10 Eas EBC Ebe Ebr Eic Elt Emr Evr Ewg Fax Fer Fld Fle Fmr Fqr Frd Fst Gdn Ger Gig Ggy GH Gls GN Gng Gra Grn Grw Gry G&T Ham Haw Hbt H&C Hde Hen Him Hy Hme Hns Hnt Hop H&P Jal Hrm Hrn Hrs Hrvy Hse Hest, Iml low LIST OF AMERICAN VARIETIES OF PEPPERS. Eastman Seed Co., East Sumner, Me. The Everett B. Clark Co., Milford, Conn. F. H. Ebeling, Syracuse, N. Y. W. M. Eber & Son, Quincy, III. Eichling Seed & Nursery Co., New Orleans, La. Wm. Elliott & Sons, New York, N. Y. Thos. W. Emerson Co., Boston, Mass. J. A. Everitt, Indianapolis, Ind. Wm. Ewing & Co., Montreal, Canada. Robert Evans Seed Co., Hamilton, Canada. = RE M. B. Faxon, Boston, Mass. D. M. Ferry & Co., Detroit, Mich. Henry Field, Shenandoah, Iowa. Fleming & Sons, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada. Farmer Seed Co., Faribault, Minn. R. & J. Farquhar & Co., Boston, Mass. Ford Seed Co., Ravenna, Ohio. H. G. Faust & Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Amzi Godden Co., Birmingham, Ala. Germain Fruit Co., Los Angeles, Cal. The Griffing Bros. Co., Jacksonville, Fla. James J. H. Gregory & Son, Marblehead, Mass. The Goodwin-Harries Co., Chicago, Ill. Heman Glass, Barnard’s Rural Delivery, near Rochester, N. Y. The Great Northern Seed Co., Rockford, Ill. Grainger Bros., Toronto, Canada. Graham Bros., Ottawa, Canada. W. H. Grenell, Pierrepont Manor, N. Y. Griswold Seed Co., Lincoln, Nebr. Thomas Griswold & Co., S. Wethersfield, Conn. = TG Thomas J. Grey & Co., Boston, Mass. Griffith & Turner Co., Baltimore, Md. Harry N. Hammond Seed Co., Bay City, Mich. Budd D. Hawkins, Reading, Vt. Thos. W. Hobart, South Sioux Falls, S. Dak. Hoermann & Cleary Seed Co., Terre Haute, Ind. David Hardie Seed Co., Dallas, Tex. Peter Henderson & Co., New York, N. Y. H. L. Holmes, Harrisburg, Pa. The Holloway Seed & Grain Co., Dallas, Tex. John Hume, Port Hope, Ontario, Canada. Haines Seed Co., Denver, Colo. Hunt Seed Co., Lewistown, Pa. Carl 8. Hopkins, Brattleboro, Vt. Huntington & Page, Indianapolis, Ind. The Henry Philipps Seed & Implement Co., Toledo, Ohio. H. T. Harmon & Co., Portland, Me. The Harnden Seed Co., Kansas City, Mo. Joseph Harris Co., Coldwater, N. Y. Harvey Seed Co., Buffalo, N. Y. H. F. House & Co., Hiram, Ohio. H. G. Hastings & Co., Atlanta, Ga. Jno. D. Imlay, Zanesville, Ohio. Iowa Seed Co., Des Moines, Iowa. Jac JCM Jer Jes J J&M JMM JMP Jns Joo J&S Kei Kel Ken K&F Kg Koe Kos Kra K&W Lam Lan LB LBk Lea Lnr Livy Loh Lon Man Mas Mau May McK McM Mel Med Mhl Mic Min Mis ~ Mnd Mns Mrs M&s MV MWJ Mzy LIST OF AMERICAN VARIETIES OF PEPPERS. Jacobs Pharmacy, Atlanta, Ga. J. Charles McCullough, Cincinnati, Ohio. The George W. P. Jerrard Co., Caribou, Me. Jessamine Gardens, Jessamine, Fla. Livingston’s Seed Store, Des Moines, Iowa. Johnson & Musser Seed Co., Los Angeles, Cal. J. M. McCullough’s Sons, Cincinnati, Ohio. J. M. Philips’ Sons, Mercersburg, Pa. L. F. Jones Seed Co., Grand Rapids, Mich. C. H. Joosten, New York, N. Y. Johnson & Stokes, Philadelphia, Pa. Mark W. Johnson Seed Co., Atlanta, Ga. = MWJ R. H. Johnston, Victoria, B. C., Canada. = RHJ Keith & Co., Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. The Kelly Co., Cleveland, Ohio. A. C. Kendel, Cleveland, Ohio. Kennedy & Farnham, Carrollton, Mo. T. J. King Co., Richmond, Va. W. H. Koerner, Milwaukee, Wis. Theo. Koss, Milwaukee, Wis. I. N. Kramer & Son, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Kendall & Whitney, Portland, Me. Buell Lamberson’s Sons, Portland, Oreg. D. Landreth & Sons, Philadelphia, Pa. Lilly, Bogardus & Co., Seattle, Wash. Luther Burbank, Santa Rosa, Cal. Leavings Bros. Seed Co., Paris, III. 8. F. Leonard, Chicago, Il. The Livingston Seed Co., Columbus, Ohio. Livingston’s Seed Store, Des Moines, Iowa. =JL. The Lohrman Seed Co., Detroit, Mich. W. B. Longstreth, Gratiot, Ohio. Mann & Co., Cape Vincent, N. Y. P. Mann & Co., Washington, D. C.=PM. Geo. H. Mass, Woodstock, Vt. Wm. Henry Maule, Philadelphia, Pa. L. L. May & Co., St. Paul, Minn. A. E. McKenzie & Co., Brandon, Manitoba, Canada. MeMillan’s Seed Store, Atlanta, Ga. J. Charles McCullough, Cincinnati, Ohio. =JCM. J. M. McCullough’s Sons, Cincinnati, Ohio. =JMM. The Geo. H. Mellen Co., Springfield, Ohio. Mangelesdorf Bros. Co., Atchison, Kans. Henry F. Michell, Philadelphia, Pa. Michael’s Seed Store, Sioux City, lowa. P. B. Mingle & Co., Philadelphia, Pa. F. B. Mills, Rose Hill, N. Y. W. A. Manda, South Orange, N. J. J. Manns Co., Baltimore, Md. C. C. Morse & Co., Santa Clara, Cal. Moore & Simon, Philadelphia, Pa. Missouri Valley Seed Co., St. Joseph, Mo. Mark W. Johnson Seed Co., Atlanta, Ga. Muzzy Bros., Paterson, N. J. 11 12 Sal SB S&B SC S&F S&H Shm Shw Sie Sim S&O Sox Spf Sqr S&R LIST OF AMERICAN VARIETIES OF PEPPERS. The Nebraska Seed Co., Omaha, Nebr. Lincoln I. Neff, Pittsburg, Pa. Northern Indiana Seed Co., Valparaiso, Ind. Northrup, King & Co., Minneapolis, Minn. J. F. Noll & Co., Newark, N. J. L. L. Olds, Clinton, Wis. Ohio Valley Seed Co., Evansville, Ind. Pacific Seed Co., Sacramento, Cal. The Page Seed Co., Greene, N. Y. The Henry Philipps Seed & Implement Co., Toledo, Ohio. =HP. J. M. Philips’ Sons, Mercersburg, Pa.=JMP. The Pierce Seed Co., Pueblo, Colo. J. M. Perkins, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. P. Mann & Co., Washington, D. C. Pine Tree State Seed Co., Bath, Me. Plant Seed Co., St. Louis, Mo. Poole’s Seed Store, Tacoma, Wash. Portland Seed Co., Portland, Oreg. Walter A. Potter & Co., Providence, R. I. George H. Price, Albany, N. Y. F. R. Pierson Co., Tarrytown-on-Hudson, N. Y. Frank 8. Platt, New Haven, Conn. Puget Sound Nursery & Seed Co., Seattle, Wash. Quaker City Seed Co., Philadelphia, Pa. W. W. Rawson & Co., Boston, Mass. Jerome B. Rice, Cambridge, N. Y. Robert Evans Seed Co., Hamilton, Canada. C. A. Reeser Co., Urbana, Ohio. Wm. Rennie, Toronto, Canada. R. H. Johnston, Victoria, B. C., Canada. Horace Rimby, Collegeville, Pa. J. C. Robinson, Waterloo, Nebr. Rockford Seed Co., Rockford, Ill. Rogers Bros,, Chaumont, N. Y. Waldo Rohnert, Sargent, Cal. Rush Park Seed Co., Independence, Iowa. Ross Bros., Worcester, Mass. The A. I. Root Co., Medina, Ohio. J. R. Ratekin & Sons, Shenandoah, Iowa. John A. Salzer, La Crosse, Wis.’ Steele, Briggs Seed Co., Toronto, Canada. Schmidt & Botley, Springfield, Ohio. Schisler-Corneli Seed Co., St. Louis, Mo. Schlegel & Fottler, Boston, Mass. The Storrs & Harrison Co., Painesville, Ohio. R. H. Shumway, Rockford, Ill. Otto Schwill & Co., Memphis, Tenn. Geo. L. Siegel, Erie, Pa. J. A. Simmers, Toronto, Canada. Shugart & Ouren Seed Co., Council Bluffs, Towa. Sioux City Seed & Nursery Co., Sioux City, Iowa. Springfield Seed Co., Springfield, Mo. Jas. M. Squier & Son, Lindsay, Ontario, Canada. Savage & Reid, Salem, Oreg. LIST OF AMERICAN VARIETIES OF PEPPERS. 13 Stk J. Steckler Seed Co., New Orleans, La. Stw Stewart’s Seed Store, Omaha, Nebr. S&W Stumpp & Walter Co., New York, N. Y. Tat George Tait & Sons, Norfolk, Va. TB Thompson Bros., Muscatine, Iowa. T&B Trumbull & Beebe, San Francisco, Cal. Tem L. Templin & Sons, Calla, Ohio. Tex Texas Seed & Floral Co., Dallas, Tex. TG Thomas Griswold & Co., 8S. Wethersfield, Conn. Thb William R. Thurber, Brooklyn, Conn. Thm T. H. Thompson Seed & Rice Milling Co., Houston, Tex. Thr J. M. Thorburn & Co., New York, N. Y. Til A. Tilton & Son, Cleveland, Ohio. Tlh Tillmghast Seed Co., La Plume, Pa. A. G. Tillinghast, Laconner, Wash. = AGT. Tpk Topeka Seed House, Topeka, Kans. Trm Trumbull & Co., Kansas City, Mo. Vau Vaughan’s Seed Store, Chicago, Ill. Vin Sevin Vincent & Co., San Francisco, Cal. Vi James Vick’s Sons, Rochester, N. Y. Vl The Vail Seed Co., Indianapolis, Ind. Wat George C. Watson, Philadelphia, Pa. Wd T. W. Wood & Sons, Richmond, Va. W&D Weeber & Don, New York, N. Y. Wdr_ SS. D. Woodruff & Sons, Orange, Conn. Wea Geo. A. Weaver Co., Newport, R. I. Web Mel L. Webster, Independence, Iowa. Wer Wernich Seed Co., Milwaukee, Wis. Wil Oscar H. Will & Co., Bismarck, N. Dak. Wit N. L. Willet Drug Co., Augusta, Ga. WS Wood, Stubbs & Co., Louisville, Ky. Wyg Adolphus Wysong, Lebanon, Ind. Y&H Young & Halstead, Troy, N. Y. Yng OC. Young & Sons Co., St. Louis, Mo. LIST OF VARIETIES. Bell. Bax Blg Bgg Brb Brr Cle CF Ebe Emr Fqr Gra Gng G&T Grw TG Ham H&C J&S Kg Lnr Mgd Man PM Mns Mls NI Pac Pg Ptt Qkr S&F Sim Stk TB Web Wd WS. SIMILAR NAMES. Large Bell, Improved Large Bell, Sweet Bell, Large Sweet Bell, Large Red Bell, Mammoth Bell, Golden Bell. SEEDSMEN’S syNonyMs. Bull Nose, Emr Fqr G&T J&S Lnr S&F, etc. Sweet Mountain, Ptt. Improved Bull Nose, Sim. Large Squash, Sim. Large Bull Nose, CF. Bird’s Eye. Bur Drr Eic Ger J&M Lan M&S Shw Stk S&W Thm. SEEDSMEN’S syNoNymMs. Creole, Bur Drr J&M S&W Thm Vin, ete. Small Chili, Ger. Black Mexican. Gra. For similar names see Mexican. Black Nubian. Bgs Bue Cle Ewg Ren Ree Roe Shm Sim. Bolgiano’s Mammoth Ruby King. Entered as Mammoth Ruby King. Bonnet. Lan. SEEDSMEN’S syNonyMs. Squash, Lan. Tomato, Lan. Boston Squash. TG. For similar names see Squash. SEEDSMEN’s syNoNyM. Tomato, TG. 14 LIST OF AMERICAN VARIETIES OF PEPPERS. Bull Nose. Alx Alr Bai Bak Brd Brt Bkt Bel Ber Blg Bow Begg Brk Bdg Bgs Bri Brn Bru Bng Bue Bui Brb Bur C&J Cam CE Cle C&B Col Cox Crs Cur CA D&H DD Drr Drm Ebe Ebr Elt Emr RE Evr Fmr Far Fst Fax Fer Fle Frd Ger Gls Gdn 'GH. Gra Gng Gn Gry G&T Grw TG Ham Hde Hrm Hrn Hrs Hry Hst Hen Hbt H&C Hlm Hop Hse Hnt H&P Iml low Jac J&M J&S Jns K&F Kg Koe Kos Lam Lan Lea Lnr LB Livy JL Loh Mns Mgd Man PM Mns Mas Mau May JCM JMM McM Mel Mic Mhl Mls Min M&S Mzy Neb Nef Nol NI NK OV Pac Pg Pks HP Prn Pnt Ptt Poo Por Pot Pri Pug Qkr Raw Ree Roe Rt RP S&R SC S&F Shw S&O Shm Sie Sim Sox Spf Stk SB Stw S&H S&W Tat TB ‘Thm Thb Til Tpk Trm T&B V1 Vau Vk Wea Web W&D W1l WIt Wd WS Wyg Yng Y&H. SIMILAR NAMES. Improved Bull Nose, Large Bull Nose, Sweet Bull Nose. SEEDSMEN’s synonyms. Bell, Ble Emr Fqr G&T J&S Lur, ete. Large Bell, Bui Bur Drr Fer Hen Iow, ete. Large Red Bell, SB. Large Squash, Sim. Large Sweet Bell, Gls Mhl. Mammoth Bell, Cam Gdn Jae. Spanish Monstrous, Wit. Sweet Mountain, Bru Hrn. Burpee’s Golden King, Burpee’s Golden Upright, Burpee’s Ruby King. Entered as Golden. King, Golden Upright, and Ruby King. Cardinal. Bgs Cle Crs RE Ewg Frd Gra Ggy Hen Ken Livy May M&S Mzy NK WD. Cayenne. Anb Ar Brd Btl Ber Bru Crg Crs CA Dlw Drm Ebr Ewg Fld Ger Gra Ggy G&T Hrs Hrv H&C Hnt H&P J&M Kei Lam Lan Lea Liv JL PM MeK NI JMP Pir Prn Raw Ren Rt Rs Sal S&B Stw Thm W&D. SmmMILAR NAMES. Cayenne Pickling, Long Cayenne, Red Cayenne, Long Red Cayenne, Long Yellow Cayenne, Hammond’s Long Red Cayenne, Small Cay- enne, Small Red Cayenne, Little Red Cayenne, Large Red Cayenne. SEEDSMEN’S syNoNyMs. Long Red Cayenne, Bur. Chili, JL. Cayenne Pickling. Vau. For similar names see Cayenne. Celestial. Alx Alr Ar Brt Btl Brk Bdg Bgs Bue Bui Bur Chl Cle Crs Cur CA D&H DD Drr Eas Ebe Ebr Elt RE Ewg Fqr Fst Frd Ger GH Gra Ggy Grw Ham Hrs Hly MWJ J&M J&S Kra Lan Lnr Liv Man May JCM JMM MeM Mhl Mis MV M&S Nef Nol NK Ptt Pot Qkr Ren Ree Roc Sal S&O Shm Sim Spf Stk SB Stw Tem Thr Trm Vk Vin W&D. ; SrmrLAr NAMES. Childs’ Celestial, Improved Celestial, Chinese Celestial. Cheese. Min. Cherry. Ar Brn RE Ewg Ger Gra Ggy Kei Ren Vau. SrmiLAR NAMES. Yellow Cherry, Red Cherry. Childs’ Celestial, Childs’ Improved Celestial, Childs’ Kaleidoscope. Entered as Celestial and Kaleidoscope. Chili. Alx Bow Bru C&J Cam Cle C&B Cox DD Eas Ebe Elt RE Fqr Gdn Ggy Hde Hen Ken Lnr Man Mas McM Mzy Neb Pir Pnt Poo Por Pot S&R SC Stk SB SW T&B WD. SimiLAR NAMES. Small Chili, Red Chili, Small Red Chili, Yellow Chili, Mammoth Chili, Large Mexican Chili, Mexican Chili. SEEDSMEN’S SYNONYMS. Cayenne, JL. Mexican, DD. ™ nese Celestial. Anb Evr V1. For similar names see Celestial. inese Giant. Bur D&H Drr Mau Thr. For similar names see Procopp’s Ciant. ‘ter. Pac. SIMILAR NAMES. Japanese Cluster, Red Cluster, Japan Red Cluster. imbus. Hic. val Gem. Drr Ebr RE Mhl Ree Sal S&F. SIMILAR NAMB. Coral Gem Bouquet. LIST OF AMERICAN VARIETIES OF PEPPERS. 15 Coral Gem Bouquet. Buc Bur Col Cok D&H Eyr Fqr Fst Frd Hbt Hse Iml Iow J&M Livy JL Mau M&S Pnt Raw Ree Roc Rs Vau Vk Wd WS. SmMILAR NAME. Coral Gem. SEEDSMEN’S syNoNYM. Red Cluster, M&S. County Fair. Hen Liy. SrMILAR NAME. Henderson’s County Fair. Cranberry. GH Mzy. SIMILAR NAME. Red Cranberry. Creole. Bur Drr J&M M&S Shw S&W Thm. SEEDSMEN’S syNoNYM. Bird’s Eye, Bur Drr M&S Shw Thm Vin. Dwarf Red Squash. Hlm. For similar names see Squash. Early Dwarf Red Squash. Bur Frd GH Hbt Ree. For similar names see Squash. Early Dwarf Squash. Raw. For similar names see Squash. Elephant’s Trunk. Bui Eic RE Hde J&S Koe Mau Pac Thr Vau. Flat. Ggy. SEEDSMEN’S syNonymM. Squash, Ggy. French Cayenne. Lan. Giant Emperor. Ebr Mzy. Giant of Valencia. Thr. Giant Sweet Spanish. Kg. For similar names see Sweet Spanish. Giant Yellow King Mango. Liv. For similar names see Golden King. Golden Bell. Bui Hnt Lan HP Qkr Stw Wit. For similar names see Bell. SEEDSMEN’S syNoNyM. Golden Dawn, Bui HP Qkr Roc Wit. Golden Dawn. Alx Anb Ar Bai Brd Btl Ber Brk Bdg Bgs Brn Bru Bue Bui Bur Brr Cam CE Cle C&B Cok Crs Cur Del DD Drr Drw Ebe Ebr Eic Elt Emr ER Evr Ewg Fqr Fst Fer GH Gra Ggy Gry Grw TG Hns Hrs Hrv Hen Hly Him Hop Iml J&M J&S Kra Lam Lnr LB Liv Man Mas Mau May JCM JMM McM Mel Mic Mhl Mzy Neb Nol NI NK OV Pac HP JMP Pnt Por Pot Pri Qkr Raw Ree Roc RP Sal S&R S&F S&O Shm Spf Stk SB S&W Tat Tem Tex TB AGT Trm V1 Vau Vk Wea Web W&D Wer Wyg. SIMILAR NAMES. Golden Dawn Mango, Sweet Golden Dawn, Mammoth Gol- den Dawn. SEEDSMEN’S sYNoNyMs. Golden Bell, Bui HP Ikr Wlt. Golden Queen, Buc Roc Vk. Golden Dawn Mango. Entered as Golden Dawn. Golden King. Bur D&C GH Rim. SIMILAR NAMES. Burpee’s Golden King, Giant Yellow King Mango. Golden Prize. Hest. Golden Queen. Brt Bkt Buc Bur CE Cle Del Drm Ebe Fld G&T Ham Him Livy Lon Mnd Mau May OV Ptt Roc Vk. SIMILAR NAMES. Mammoth Golden Queen, Improved Golden Queen. SEEDSMEN’s syNonyM. Golden Dawn, Buc Roe Vk. Golden Upright. Alr Bel Bue Bur DD Fst Frd GH Lnr Mls Ree Roe. SrMILAR NAME. Large Golden Upright. Grossum. Bru Crs Hry Sim Vk Vin. SEEDSMEN’S SYNONYM. Monstrous, Bru Crs Hry Sim Vk Vin. Guthrey’s Giant. SB. For similar names see Procopp’s Giant. Hammond’s King of Reds, Hammond’s Long Red Cayenne. Entered as King of Reds and Long Red Cayenne. Henderson's County Fair. Entered as County Fair. Hot Bull Nose. M&S. For similar names see Bull Nose. Improved Bull Nose, Improved Celestial, Improved Golden Queen, Improved Large Bell, Improved Long Red, Improved Sweet Mountain, Improved Thick Long Red. Entered as Bull Nose, Celestial, ete. 16 LIST OF AMERICAN VARIETIES OF PEPPERS. Japanese Cluster. Ewg Gra W&D. For similar names see Cluster. Japan Red Cluster. Drr Frd. For similar names see Cluster. SEEDSMEN’S syNonyM. Red Cluster, Frd. Kaleidoscope. Buc Bur Chl Drw CE Gra Hst Hse Iow Liv JL NK Ree Roc. SmiLarR NAME. Childs’ Kaleidoscope. King of Reds. Ham. SimILAR NAME. Hammond’s King of Reds. Large Bell. Aix Alr Anb Bai Brd Brt Bkt Bel Ber Bou Bow Brk Bdg Bgs Brn Bng Buc Bui Bur C&J CE Chl C&B Col Cox Crg Crs Cur CA D&H Del DD Drr Drm Dun Eas Ebr Elt RE Evr Ewg Fmr Fst Fax Fer Fle Frd Ger GH GN Ggy Gry Hde Hrm Hrs Hrv Hst Haw Hen Hbt Hlm Hop Hse H&P Iml Iow J&M Jns Kei KKW K&F Kos Kra Lam Lea LB Liv JL Loh Mas Mau May JCM JMM Mic MV Mzy Neb Nef Nol NK OV Pks HP JMP Prn Pne Pnt Ptt Poo Por Pot Pri Pug Raw Ree Ren Ree Roc Rs RP Sal S&R SC Shw S&O Shm Sie Sox Spf S&H S&W Tat Thm Thr Thb Til Tpk Trm T&B V1 Vau Vk Vin Wat Wea W&D WI1l Wyg Yng Y&H. For similar names see Bell. SEEDSMEN’s syNoNyM. Bull Nose, Bui Drr Fer Hen Liv Raw, ete. Large Bull Nose. Brr CF Drw MWJ. For similar names see Bull Nose. SEEDSMEN’s syNoNYM. Bell, CF. Large Golden Upright. NK. For similar names see Golden Upright. Large Mexiean Chili. J&M. For similar names see Chili. Large Red. Ewg Gra Kei. Tor similar names see Long Red. Large Red Bell. SB. For similar names see Bell. SEEDSMEN’S SyNoNYM. Bull Nose, SB. Large Red Cayenne. Hrm Iml. For similar names see Cayenne. Large Sweet. Bui G&T. For similar names see Sweet. SEEDSMEN’s syNonyM. Sweet Mountain, Bui. Large Sweet Bell. Gls Hrv Mhl Min M&S Tex. For similar names see Bell. SEEDSMEN’s syNonyMs. Bull Nose, Mhl Gls. Mountain, Tex. Large Sweet Mountain. Alx CF Drm Evr Ger Ggy Hrv Liv JL Old Pac Roe AGT VI. For similar names see Sweet Mountain. Large Sweet Spanish. Bak Btl Bou Cam CA Dlw Drr Fst Gdn Gig MWJ Lan Mel Mhl Pac Stw TB. For similar names see Sweet Spanish. Large Squash. Bow CF Crs RE Fer Hrm K&W LB MY NK Pri Ree Rs Sim Thr Til vee: For similar names see Squash. SEEDSMEN’s syNonyMs. Bell, Sim. Bull Nose, Sim. Tomato, Bow Bdg CF Crs Ree. Large Yellow. Kei. For similar names see Long Yellow. Little Red Cayenne. Wd. For similar names see Cayenne. Long Cayenne. Cox RE Gig Hst RHJ Kos Lan Lnr Sim Vin Web Wyg Y&H. For similar names see Cayenne. Long Red. Btl Bkt Bel Bow Bgs Bri Bru D&H RE Ggy Lan Liv Ren Sal Sim. Sim1LaAR NAMES. Improved Long Red, Thick Long Red, Improved Thick Long Red, Long Red Pointed, Large Red. SEEDSMEN’s synonyM. Santa Ire, Ggy. Long Red Cayenne. Alx Alr Anb Bai Bak Brt Bkt Blg Bow Brk Bdg Bgs Bri Brn Bng Bue Bui Bur Brr C&J Cam CE Cle C&B Col CF Crs Cur D&H DD Drr Ebe Eic Elt Emr Evr Fmr Fqr Fst Fax Fer Frd Gls Gdn GH Gng GN Gry Grw TG Hns Ham Hde Hrn Haw Hen Hly Hlm Hop Hse Jac M“WJ J&S K&W Ken K&F Kra LB JL Loh Lon Mnd Mgd Man Mns LIST! OF AMERICAN VARIETIES OF PEPPERS. 17 Mas Mau May JCM JMM McM Mhl Mis Min MV M&S Mzy Neb Nol NK OV Old Pac Pks HP Prn Pnt Ptt Pot Pri Ree Ree Roc RP SC S&F Shw S&O Sie Sox Spf Stk SB S&W Tat Tex TB Thr Thb Tpk Til Trm T&B V1 Vau Vk Wea W&D Wd Wdr WS Yng. For similar names see Cayenne. SEEDSMEN’S SYNONYM. Cayenne, Bur. Long Red Pointed. Cox. For similar names see Long Red. Long Yellow. Bgs Bru RE Gra H&P Iml Ree Sal S&O. SmmiLaAR NAME. Large Yellow. Long Yellow Cayenne. Buc Crs GH Mzy Roc. For similar names see Cayenne. Mammoth. Brk Bgs Brb Bur C&B Crs Cur Elt Emr RE Eyr Fqr Frd Gls Hen low K&W Kra Mzy Nol HP Rce S&O Sox Tem Thb Trm V1 Vk W&D Yng Y&H. SrmmLar NAMES. Monstrous, Monstrous Mammoth, Sweet Mammoth, Sweet Orange Mammoth, Rose Mammoth. SEEDSMEN’s syNoNyMs. Sweet Mountain, Bur Cur Elt Emr Hen Vk, ete. Monstrous, Evr V1. Sweet Spanish, Trm. Mammoth Bell. Cam Gdn Jac. For similar names see Bell. SEEDSMEN’s syNoNyM. Bull Nose, Gdn Jac Cam. Mammoth Chili. S&O. For similar names see Chili. Mammoth Golden Dawn. McK Ren. For similar names see Golden Dawn. Mammoth Golden Queen. Alr Bel Bru Col Frd Hse Iow J&S JL Mls M&S Pir Ree Shm Sim S&H Thr Wd WS. For similar names see Golden Queen. SEEDSMEN’S syNoNyM. Mango, Sim. Mammoth Ruby King. Alr Bel Blg Drm J&M Livy JL Mns HP S&B Shm Thm. For similar names see Ruby King. Mammoth Ruby King Mango. Entered as Mammoth Ruby King. Mammoth Sweet Mountain. Hse. For similar names see Sweet Mountain. Mammoth Sweet Spanish. Wd WS. Forsimilar names see Sweet Spanish. Mango. Shm Sim. SEEDSMEN’s syNonyMs. Mammoth Golden Queen, Sim. Sweet Mountain, Shm. Martinique. Eic. Maule’s Ruby King, Maule’s Improved Ruby King. Entered as Ruby King. Metealf’s Squash. Fqr. For similar name see Squash. Mexican. DD Lan. SIMILAR NAMES. Black Mexican, Mexican Chili, Large Mexican Chili. SREDSMEN’S SYNONYM. Chili, DD. Mexican Chili. Ger Thm. For similar names see Chili and Mexican. Mikado. Bur. Monstrous. Bru Crs Evr Hry NK Sim Stk SB Til V1 Vk Vin. For similar names see Mammoth. SEEDSMEN’S SYNONYMS. Grossum, Crs Hry Vk Vin. Mammoth, Evr Sim V1. Sweet Spanish, Stk. Monstrous Mammoth. Anb Btl Hns. For similar names see Mammoth. Monstrous Sweet Spanish. Ar Eic Ree Sie. For similar names see Sweet Spanish. Moore & Simon’s Searlet Maddalon. Entered as Scarlet Maddalon. Mountain. Tex. For similar names see Sweet Mountain. SEEDSMEN’s synonyM. Large Sweet Bell, Tex. Orange Wrinkled. Bur. For similar names see Wrinkled. Oxheart. Hnt May Mzy NK Thr. Pickling. Fqr S&F. SEEDSMEN’s syNonyM. Squash, Fqr S&F. 11244—No. 6—02——_-9 18 LIST OF AMERICAN VARIETIES OF PEPPERS. Procopp’s Giant. Ar Btl Bel Ber Brk Bri Bru Bng Bui Brr Cle D&H Drr Elt RE Eyr Ewg Fqr Fst Frd GH Gra Gng Ggy Gry Hde Hrs Hst J&M Liv Mau May McM Mis MV NK Pir Pnt Raw Ren Rce Sal SC S&F Shm Sim Sox Spf SB Thm Thr V1 Wer Wd WS. SIMILAR NAMES. Guthrey’s Giant, Chinese Giant, Salzer’s Giant. Red Cayenne. Del low Mh! Por S&R Stw S&H Tem AGT WIL. For similar names see Cayenne. Red Cherry. Alx Bai. Brd Brt Blg Bow Brk Bdg Bri Bru Bui C&J CE Cle C&B Col Cox Crs DD Drr Ebe Eic Elt Emr Fqr Fer Gdn GH Gry G&T Hen Hly Hop H&P RHJ J&S K&W Lan Lnr LB Liv Mnd Mns Mh] MV Mzy Neb NK Pac HP Pnt Ptt Pot Pri Raw Rce SC S&F S&O Sox Stk Stw S&W Tat Tem Thr V1 Vk Wat W&D War. For similar names see Cherry. SEEDSMEN’s syNonyM. Red Cluster, Pac. Red Chili. Bai Brt Btl Bkt Blg Brk Bdg Bri Brn Bng Buc Bur CE Col Crs Cur D&H Del Eic Emr Fst Fer Fie Gls GH Gng G&T Hns Hrm Hst H&C Hly H&P low Jac J&S Lam LB Livy Loh Mnd JCM M&S NK Pri Ree Rs Sal Shw Sie Thr Trm Vin Wer Wyg. For similar names see Chili. Red Cluster. Bdg Begs Bur Chl Crs Ebe Eic RE Fst Frd Ger Gls Hde Hst Hen Hbt Him Iow Liv Mau May MV M&S NK Pac Pg Ptt Qkr Raw Rce Sal Sox Spf Stk S&W Thr Vau Vk WIl Wd WS Y&«H. For similar names see Cluster. SEEDMEN’S SYNONYMS. Japan Red Cluster, Frd. Coral Gem Bouquet, M&S. Red Cherry, Pac. Red Cranberry. Sal. For similar names see Cranberry. Red Etna. Bur Ham Mls Ree. Rose Mammoth. Ebe. For similar names see Mammoth. Ruby King. Alx Anb Ar Bai Bak Brd Brt Btl Bkt Blg Bow Brk Bdg Begs Br Brn Bru Bng Buc Bui Bur Brr Brw C&J Cam CE Chl Cle C&B Col CF Cok Cox Crs Cur CA Diw D&H Del DD D&C Drr Drw Eas Ebe Ebr Eic Elt RE Evr Fmr Fqr Fst Fer Fld Frd Ger Gls Gdn GH Gra Gng GN Ggy Gry Gig G&T Grw TG Hns Ham Hde Hrn Hrs Hrvy Hst Haw Hen H&C Hly Him Hop Hse H&P Iml low Jac Jer MWJ RHJ J&S Jns Kg Koe Kos Lam Lan Lea Lnr LB Livy Loh Mnd Mgd Man PM Mas Mau May JCM JMM McK McM Mel Mic Mhl Mls MV M&S Mzy Neb Nef Nol NI NK OV Pac Pg JMP Pir Prn Pnt Ptt Poo Por Pot Pri Qkr Raw Ree Ren Ree Rim Roc Rs RP Sal S&R SC S&F Shw S&O Sie Sox Spf Stk SB Stw S&H S&W Tat Tem Tex TB Thr Thb Til Trm T&B V1 Vau Vk Vin Wea Web W&D Wer WIL Wd Wdr WS Wyg Yng Y&H. SIMILAR NAMES. Burpee’s Ruby King, Maule’s Ruby King, Maule’s Improved Ruby King, Mammoth Ruby King Mango, Mammoth Ruby King, Bolgiano’s Mammoth Ruby King, Salzer’s Giant. Sal. Santa Fe. Ggy. SEEDSMEN’S SyNonyM. Long Red, Ggy. Scarlet Maddalon. M&s. Searlet Wrinkled. Bur. For similar names see Wrinkled. Small Cayenne. Lan HP Spf Stw. For similar names see Cayenne. Small Chili. Drr Ger Grw Iml Mns May Mhl Ptt Tat Tex V1 Wea War. For similar names see Chili. SEEDSMEN’s SyNoNYM. Bird’s Eye, Ger. Small Red Cayenne. MWJ. For similar names see Cayenne. Small Red Chili. Bak Bui MWJ Lan Roc Shm Sim Stw Til Vk. For similar names see Chili. LIST OF AMERICAN VARIETIES OF PEPPERS. 19 Spanish Mammoth. Bru Fer Ken Ree. For similar names see Sweet Spanish. SEEDSMEN’S SYNONYM. Sweet Mountain, Fer. Spanish Monstrous. Bui Bur Fst Gng Ggy Hrn Lnr Mau JMM M&S Ree T&B Vau Wit. For similar names see Sweet Spanish. SEEDSMEN’S SYNONYM. Bull Nose, Wt. Squash. Bai Brt Bgg Brk Bdg Bru Bui Brb C&J Cle Cox Emr Fqr Fax Ggy Gry Grw Lan Lnr Liv Min Mzy Pnt Ptt Pot Qkr S&F Thm T&B Vin. SrmILaR NAMEs. Large Squash, Boston Squash, Dwarf Red Squash, Early Dwarf Red Squash, Early Dwarf Squash. SEEDSMEN’S SYNONYMS. Tomato, Bui Cle Cox Lan Lnur Liv, etec.. Pickling, Fqr S&F. Flat, Ggy. Bonnet, Lan. Sweet. Hly. SIMILAR NAME. Large Sweet. Sweet Bell. Mhl. For similar names see Bell. Sweet Bull Nose. Hly. For similar names see Bull Nose. Sweet Columbus. Eic. Sweet Golden Dawn. MV Rce Sox Tat Thr Wit. For similar names see Golden Dawn. Sweet Mammoth. Shw. For similar names see Mammoth. Sweet Mountain. Alr Bai Brd Brt Bkt Ber Blg Bow Bgg Brk Bdg Bgs Bri Brn Bru Bng Bue Bui Brb Bur Brr Brw C&J Cle C&B Col Cox Crs Cur D&H Del DD Eas Ebe Ebr Elt Emr Fqr Fer Frd Gls GH Gra Gry Grw TG Hde Hrm Hrn Haw Hen H&C Hly Him Hop Hnt H&P Im! low Jns K&W Ken Kg Kra Lam Lea Lnr LB Loh Lon Mnd Mgd Mns Mau May JCM JMM Min MV Mzy Neb Nol NI NK OV Pg Pks HP JMP Pont Ptt Pot Pri Raw Ree Ree Rs Sal SC S&F Shw S&O Shm Sox SB S&W Tem Thm Thr Thb AGT Til Vau Vk Vin Wea W&D Wdr Wyg Yng Y&H. SIMILAR NAMEs. Mountain, Mammoth Sweet Mountain, Large Sweet Moun- tain, Improved Sweet Mountain. SEEDSMEN’S syNoNyMs. Large Sweet, Bui. Bull Nose, Bru Hrn. Mammoth, Bur Cur Elt Hen Iow Vk, ete. Spanish Mammoth, Fer. Bell, Ptt. Sweet Spanish, Bow H&P SB. Mango, Shm. Sweet Orange Mammoth. Liv S&B. For similar names see Mammoth and Sweet. Sweet Spanish. Bow Bdg Bng Cle C&B Cur CA Drm Eic Elt RE Evr Ewg GH Gra Hns H&P J&M Kei Lan Liv Mnd Mau Mzy NK Ren Rt Sal S&O Sim Stk SB S&W Tat Thm Thr Til Trm T&B W&D Wer. SmmILAR NAMES. Spanish Monstrous, Spanish Mammoth, Large Sweet Spanish, Giant Sweet Spanish, Mammoth Sweet Spanish, Monstrous Sweet Spanish. SEEDSMEN’S syNoNyMs. Sweet Mountain, Bow H&P SB. Mammoth, Trm. Monstrous, Stk. Tabaseo. Bur Col Drr Eic Jer Lan Mau Pnt Sal Stk Thr Wd. Thick Long Red. Livy. For similar names see Long Red. Tomato. Bai Bow Beg Brk Bdg Bui Brb Cle CF Cox Crs TG Lan Lnr Liv Min Mzy Pnt Ptt Qkr Ree Thm T&B Vin. SEEDSMEN’s syNonyMs. Squash, Bui Cox Liv Ptt T&B Vin. Bonnet, Lan. Large Squash, Bdg Bow CF Crs Ree. Boston Squash, TG Tom Thumb. Mau. Wrinkled. Bgs Bur Liy Ren Vau. SimiLar NAMEs. Yellow Wrinkled, Scarlet Wrinkled, Orange Wrinkled. Yellow Cherry. Crs GH Pnt SC Thr. For similar names see Cherry. Yellow Chili. Fer Hly NK Pg. For similar names see Chili. Yellow Wrinkled. Bur.. For similar names see Wrinkled. O US OE EART MENT: OF AGRICULTURE. BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY—BULLETIN NO. 7. B. T..GALLOWAY, Chief of Bureau. THE ALGERIAN DURUM WHEATS: A CLASSIFIED LIST, WITH DESCRIPTIONS. CARL 8S. SCOFIELD, EXPERT, BOTANICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND EXPERIMENTS. pocone : wae Y ee Ze we faa cr NZ So ans Dah OS” WES WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. LOO? LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BuREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF, Washington, D. C., November 8, 1901. Str: I have the honor to transmit herewith a paper by Mr. C. S. Scotield, entitled The Algerian Durum Wheats, and respectfully rec- ommend that it be published as Bulletin No. 7 of this Bureau. The paper was prepared in connection with the Botanical Investigations and Experiments and was submitted by the Botanist. Respectfully, B. T. GaLLoway, Chief of Bureau. Hon. James WILson, Secretary of Agriculture. Ita) ial 6 eal In the act making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year 1902, under the head of ** Botanical investigations and experiments,” authority is given— To investigate the varieties of wheat and other cereals grown in the United States or suitable for introduction, in order to standardize the naming of varieties as a basis for the experimental work of the State experiment stations and as an assistance in commercial grading, and to investigate, in cooperation with the Bureau of Chemistry, the causes of deterioration of export grain, particularly in oceanic transit, and devise means of preventing losses from those causes. The work thus authorized falls under two heads, a purely botanical investigation of the varieties of cereals and a general investigation of the methods of grading and shipping export grain. Both lines of inquiry have been placed in charge of Mr. Carl 8. Scofield. From October, 1900, to July, 1901, Mr. Scofield was in Algeria and western Europe, engaged in work on cereals, and devoted about three months to the study and introduction of the Algerian durum wheats, a work suggested and supervised by Mr. W. T. Swingle of the Depart- ment of Agriculture. These wheats form an important export from Algeria to Europe for use in the manufacture of macaroni, and their recent introduction into American agriculture by this Department makes it important that the agricultural experiment stations as well as private experimenters and investigators, including progressive manu- facturers and farmers, should have a precise understanding of the characteristics of the important varieties. If it shall later be found that a particular variety of Algerian durum wheat—for example, Pelis- sier—is notably successful in this country because of its productiveness or the superior adaptation of its gluten to macaroni making, that variety will then be known everywhere by that one name and experi- menters and farmers will not be subjected to the great waste of time and money that follows when the same name is loosely applied to two or three or half a dozen varieties that have very different qualities. For the general plan of this publication Mr. Scofield desires to acknowledge his indebtedness to the ‘‘ Catalogue Méthodique et Syn- onymique des Froments,” by M. Henry L. de Vilmorin, with additional thanks to.M. Philippe de Vilmorin for many kind suggestions and the opportunity of visiting the large collection of wheats at Verriéres. 3 4 The work for the publication was done chiefly in the laboratories of Dr. L. Trabut, ‘t Chef des Services Botaniques de l Algérie,” who very kindly not only gave Mr. Scofield the free use of his laboratories, pho- tographic apparatus, and herbarium, including one of the best existing collections of durum wheats with his notes thereon, but also gave much attention and personal interest to the work, for which the author feels the deepest gratitude, and without which the work could scarcely have been accomplished. FREDERICK V. COVILLE, Botanist. OFFICE OF THE BOoTANIST, Washington, D. C., Noveniber 6, 1901 UN SO Nae! S., Jum ROS ERON, oo sano SOS ROSS SSSR See Be BSS eee ne eee Ti Object of a descriptive classification of wheat varieties .....-..---------- fi Basis of present descriptions and classification ..........--.------------- 8 SMmuGhireomunleawiinedti Meads. 4066 oe eke k os eco e ce hcectoese 9 (Genin Clee Bas OS ae ee Be a Be a ee 10 RelaiimenvelinerOmGnanaClenscesc seen. 2 ae as state ca oe wah eme Be ececee 10 (GUIGESRIAG Ol HATING WRC os Bee ee eres rae Soro es te) eee ete ee 11 General character of the durum wheats..........---- fe SB TA? hehe e Shae 1 Descripionsiotavanietieswithikeyis = 5252s as25. sos ot hns bel 8 hc Soe eee 18 walivolnesn, cell Tene. 5S a es SEE ee ne eee ta ee ee 20 (Cracmmnred lkevnayermir, So S22 5 See a a gE ries er ee 20 TRS OTARD, 2 ce coten: CE aS Soke eee ets Aan AE a Bi Ae ga ss ge a Ee 22 2NGIRERY Sie sc.aa cidtvc BA SERS eee es Po aan 8 eS a 22 FE eee ea th feed ei ee ed no da 24 Ao eee i ye a ee epee a ee ee ok ek nk 24 JESU GIIM 3 ds 2S oS a)5 2 ese ee eR 2 26 MIGCESIG go. 45b5eusn 2. pe ee aR BAN e RS OC ee ee tn eee 26 (CH! ke Woh 26 345 ea eS RS SN eR eee Se ae 28 INO, « 335552 Skee st eee eens Aye Ag age pee Vo Pee SS es ee 28 TUPIRCNTINSS 3 2 5 Gs oes Sve yey ee eg 2 RO Pe 30 lpleveovatl 2 oe 54 aeS eae cc Sob Be ee ok ee 2 BO cn ne 2h, ee 30 IBOLT SA ewe eee 2 pe Re ea eg ee Ce eee ee Ca 39 12} hol. 22 Se8 Sone A SSAA eee aon A = Sa By ISSO 35S ee Oe ee eat Ey Oe Se a ae 34 IMCS RTS ws ts Se pe il es ae en Te hee, i i ds a 34 IMECWEIORNS se oa 5 fee Ee ee aS ree ak eee ee 36 MIGSIRINCG) Ss ee Se Sate ee oe Sea RS Eel le fe ey 36 OnIA TEN EAR 5 om 5 Sk i De Sine oS ee eS 38 IPSS? eckson Se SNR cpl pe a ea ae 38 iNlOlovamaveal loreray. BVO 2 ek eee ee ee ae ee 38 IQ IS SIT os lee obs a ie A Re Se ee ee eee a 40 INTAWAL 33 oo oa nee SoS eS EL Ee a eg a ee ee 40 MIS MAOKE i = est eset Se a a ae a 42 (QUANG oS SoSb a ceR oe too Gee Se eee ee en ee de 42 PNUAG RULES ee ee eee ly RE he eS Be tate. Cott ern ee 44 PACT naa Bk Ne ee ee ee ee 44 INDUERS oe - SE SES GES SS sb oe Sak oI eee ee ee eee 46 ukorreyxceuity . he Sse SRS 58 CoS ho eee See ee ie ee a 46 nee Tal oe BF oo See ee ee See a eee eer 48 JOUOS ERT, 6 OSB BSS SCA Ra SHS S SER A ES Sn eee aro 48 Puate I. int. JO0f TV; We Wi. Vi. Vin: IX. X. INGIE XII. DG 005 ELV: XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. 6 ILLUSTRATIONS. Three spikes of durum wheat, variety Pelissier, in different positions Spikelets of durum wheats: Fig. 1, Beliouni; fig. 2, Mohamed. ben IBaGhireeemererisaas sceeccct os cst. o snes eeeee eee Durum wheats: Fig. 1, part of spikelet of Moroceain; fig. 2 2, grains of INajprelaBelvand (Meskiana: )+)......c60-.oeb eaten one ee eee Durum wheats. Durum wheats. Durum wheats. Durum wheats. Durum wheats. Durum wheats. Durum wheats. Durum wheats. Durum wheats. Durum wheats. Durum wheats. Durum wheats. Durum wheats. Durum wheats. Durum wheats. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. 5 Fig. 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, it 1, 1, 1, 1, Ip 1, 1, 18 Aicha el Beida; fig. 2, Courtellement. ----- Beloturka; fig. 2; MeresS22552= ee eeeeeee Roulots fic: 2) Parosse=se=-= ee eee Beliouni; fig. 2, Medeah=-: 2 ---2--- -eee= Caid de Siouf; fig. 2,. Kahlagec. == sseeee Mrmenia: fig. (2; Tlached== 252s Boghar; fig..2, El) Aoudyjaese=s222 22 eee eee Pecdount:, fig. 2,, M’Sakente. aeeoae= sees Medeha:;; fir. 2;. Meskianas-2-2 22225522" Caid Eleuze; fig. 2, Pelissier.............- Bl Hanora; fig. 2, Azial-2ees sos 22 eee Maroc; fig, 2; Ouchdasssseess50 eee Adjini; fig. 2, Zedount. 2. 245-4520 eee Aures; fic. 2) Moroccain==ses252e-- eee Nab el Bel; fig: 2, Eh Satrarc-- o-ceaeeeseee Page. for) bywnw bye He bo © for) a THE ALGERIAN DURUM WHEATS: A CLASSIFIED LIST WITH DESCRIPTIONS. INTRODUCTION. Owing to the great variability of the wheat plant, due in part to its high development and the artificial conditions of its culture, its varie- ties are extremely difficult to classify. In fact, any attempt to list and describe all existing types of wheat would be an endless task; for almost all imaginable types can now be found or are liable to be pro- duced. Of all the existing forms, comparatively few are of sufficient economic value to find a place in general culture, so that a practical systematic account of varieties for the use of the plant breeder and variety tester can be made by describing as accurately as possible the forms now prominent, leaving place for new ones that may appear, and claiming to be fina] only in the insistence that one name shall be connected solely with one variety, thus avoiding confusion and mis- understanding in the literature of the subject and in commercial dealings. OBJECT OF A DESCRIPTIVE CLASSIFICATION OF WHEAT VARIETIES. An accurate and detailed description of wheat varieties, with a classification based thereon, may be so used as to havea harmful as well as a beneficial result. The important point in a variety is that it yield the largest possible amount of grain of the best quality for the purpose desired under given conditions. The ability to do this is not always indicated by the morphological characteristics of the plant. Plants growing together under the same conditions do not all vary alike. Certain ones find peculiar conditions more congenial and develop more vigorously, so that after a few generations the plants which succeed best naturally replace the others, unless artificial selec- tion interferes. A variety produced in one locality might be made up of plants having certain well-marked similar points. Under different conditions some of these plants might change in a certain respect, and others remain nearly constant with regard to this particular point. Some of the plants which change might find the new conditions better adapted to their growth and gradually replace the others which might be considered to be of the true type. Were artificial selection to be used here in such a way as to discriminate against the better-yielding ‘ 8 plants, for example, it would be used with harmful effect. In other words, a minute botanical description unless used wisely is quite as likely to be harmful as useful. The possibility of this is, however, small in comparison with the possibility of usefulness in an accurate description and classification of varieties of wheat. The confusion and misunderstanding resulting from a lack of accurate knowledge of the varieties for which names are used are very great. There can be but little object in giving a variety a name, unless a definite record or description is available that will make the name mean something. It is at present not an uncommon thing to find two or more names applied to a single variety of wheat, or to find a single name applied to several distinct varieties. A simple and accurate description would do much toward preventing such a condition of affairs. In many cases where large numbers of closely allied varieties are on trial under similar conditions, there are few clean-cut morphological distinctions that can, with our present limited knowledge of the plants, be stated. The only difference noticeable often is in yielding capacity. This, of course, must be observed and put on record. It is not to be expected that a method of description, however accurate, can ever replace the pedigree method of recording varieties; but it is hoped that such a description may supplement the records and help to sim- plify them and to avoid errors. Since a change in conditions of soil and climate causes variation in botanical characteristics, as well as in the yield and quality of the grain of the wheat plant, it is impossible to correctly describe varieties gathered from widely different sources after they have been grown for several generations in one place under nearly the same conditions. The aim should rather be to describe a variety as growing under the conditions where it reaches the best development, when it may also be possible to add to the description of its botanical form certain sharply detined chemical characteristics of the grain. It now seems possible to outline methods of description that will meet this purpose, and this will render unnecessary the collection of varieties from various localities for comparison side. by side and the study of the variations induced by the incident change of conditions. The laws of variation in wheat due to climate, food supply, and hybridization are not yet well enough known to permit the use of a sys- tem of classification which is not more or less arbitrary. Natural rela- tions and affinities are often hard to trace, and it seems better to start with some practical system, however arbitrary, and then rearrange the classification as rapidly as the data for doing so are obtained. BASIS OF PRESENT DESCRIPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATION. The varieties of wheat belonging to the botanical species 7r/tieum durwn make up the class known in the United States as ‘t goose” or “rice” wheats. These names are applied on account of the horny 9 texture of the kernel, which shows little or none of the starchy, white appearance in cross section that is found in the grain of varieties of Triticum aestivum, a species more commonly known as 7?/t/eum vulgare, to which most of our commonly cultivated wheats belong. The durum varieties as a class differ further from the vulgare varieties in that they are, so far as known, all bearded, and the beards are par- ticularly strong and stiff. Also, the midrib or keel of the outer glumes is always prominent in the durum varieties and extends the entire length of the glume. The present classification is based on differences observable in the head and grain. There are doubtless valuable characters to be made out from a study of the leaf and stem: and the time of ripening and general color of the plant are also points of great importance. As these grounds of distinction, however, were not available in case of some of the varieties here considered. they are not used at all in the present work. STRUCTURE OF THE WHEAT HEAD. The flowering and fruiting cluster at the summit of the stem ofa wheat plant is called indifferently the “head” or “spike.” The por- tion of stem running through the spike, on which the flowers or kernels are borne, is called the ‘‘ rachis.” The rachis js divided hy a number of joints or ‘‘nodes,” and at these nodes on alternate sides of the rachis are attached the “spikelets,” i. e., the several small secondary spikes which, together with the rachis, make up the spike proper. The short branch running through each spikelet is known as the ‘*rachilla.” Inserted upon the rachilla are several concave scales which are called the “glumes.” The two lowest and outermost of these contain no flowers or kernels, and are designated as the ‘* flower- less glumes.” Above these, ar ‘ranged alternately, are borne the flowers—rarely less than two or more than five. Each flower, and as it matures, each grain, is subtended by a single glume, known as the “flowering glume.” Each fiowering glume has a longitudinal nerve, which at the summit extends into a prominent *‘awn” or ‘* beard.” On the inner or creased side of the grain or * berry,” filling it very closely and more or less hidden from view by the flowering glume, is borne the ‘‘palea” or ‘‘palet,” a thin scale with two nerves. The flowerless and flowering glumes and the palets are spoken of collec- tively as the ** chaff.” The outer or flowerless glumes in all varieties of Triticum durum have a prominent midrib or “keel” extending from the base to the tip, terminating in a “beak” of varying length and thickness. The rachis often bears rather long, stiff hairs about the base of the ‘achilla, but these should not be confused with the short, soft hairs often borne on the surface of the outer glumes. It is the latter that are referred to when the term * hairy chaff” is used. 10 The spike in varieties of Zr/ticum durum is often symmetrical to one longitudinal plane only, i. e., to a plane separating the rows of | spikelets. This single longitudinal symmetry is shown in Plate I, where three spikes of the same variety (Pelissier) are shown in” different positions. It is readily seen that in @ the bases of the spike- lets overlap much more than in c, which is the opposite side of a similar spike. For convenience, the view shown in ¢ is called the front view, that in a the back view, and that in } the side view. When the condition shown in Plate I, ¢ is slightly more pronounced, the rachis is readily visible in the front view, as, for instance, in Plate XVII, figure 1. This monosymmetry, which is due to the bases of the spikelets overlapping more on one side than on the other, is often attended by a curvature of the spike, the side seen in the front view being the concave one. GRAIN CHARACTERS. The grain of wheat by its differences in shape, size, and color offers points of distinction that are very clear, and these used in connection with the characters furnished by the spike and spikelet afford ample means for definite description and reasonably extended classification. The grain of durum wheat varies in color from whitish amber to dark red. It may be clear, i. e., almost translucent, or dull, 1. e., quite opaque. It also varies widely in its general size and shape. (See Plate III, fig. 2.) There are decided differences in both the quality and the quantity of the nitrogenous material contained in the grain, and these differ- ences are reasonably constant within the variety under given condi- tions. They are approximately stated when the color and the quality, as determined by the general appearance, are given. It is probable that in time chemical methods will be devised by which it will be possible to express quality of wheat in accurate figures, ‘‘ quality” meaning quantity of nitrogenous material and relative amount of its important constituents. The quality of a variety stated in these terms would determine for what use it is best fitted and its approximate value for that use. RELATIVE VALUE OF CHARACTERS. The general appearance of the spike or of the grain of a wheat variety is one of the things that fixes it in mind. Accurate deserip- tion is only the analysis of the general appearance to its simplest details and a statement of these details. Varieties may then be separated into groups on the basis of this description, these groups again split, and so on until the limit, which is the single variety, is reached. This separation is made arbitrarily, using what appear to be the most important and constant details first. There is often some uncertainty or difference of opinion as to which are the most important and con- ' \ " y : ri ay ae, a i } oe a y, Ty) i, 1g “i “ty was r 7 3 : , i Qn | R ‘ : i iS “% ue . i a a ; , * \ , ‘ - aa, r,s} “3 vi f ; . ’ ( ‘ ‘Ag ‘ / e t 4 ‘ i ns i » A i es) ‘ ep . is ; 4 —_ , : P ? ] ‘ ’ * i ” - as OF yt M0 ila stant characteristics. For instance, it is generally assumed that the distinction between a smooth and a hairy chaff is reasonably important and constant, but in the case of the variety ‘‘ Pelissier” it is difficult to say to which class it really belongs. It is possible that this is a case of two varieties approaching similarity in all points but that of pubescence. It is more probable, however, that it is a case of extreme variability in this particular. Other equally ambiguous cases arise, but it is believed that sufficient accuracy of description and reproduc- tion have been secured to be of substantial assistance to those who deal with these varieties in variety testing or improvement, or in a commercial way. GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED. (For illustrations see Pls. II and III.) AURICULATE.—Eared. Applied to the summit of the flowerless glumes when the wings are extended upwardly in earlike form. See Shoulder. Break.—The projecting tip of the keel of the flowerless glumes, which, though sometimes prominent, never becomes long enough to be called a beard. BrarD, BEARDED.—The beard consists of the long, stiff awns borne at the tips of the flowering glumes. Breaptu.—As applied to the head or spike, the approximate meas- urement of the width of the head, exclusive of beards, taken across both rows of spikelets in the view in which the heads are shown in the cuts. Brusu.—The hair found on the upper end of the grain. Cuarr.—Collective term for the flowerless and flowering glumes and the palets. : Durum.—Used to indicate the varieties of wheat belonging to the species Zriticum durum. The same term may be used in commerce to distinguish these wheats, which are best for the manufacture of macaroni, from the ‘*vulgare” wheats, which are best for bread- making purposes. Frat.—A spike is said to be flat when its breadth is considerably greater than the width of a single spikelet, i. e., when the breadth of the spike conspicuously exceeds its depth. GLumE.—One of the concave scales of the spikelet. The empty pair at the base of the spikelet are the ‘‘flowerless glumes.” The remainder, containing flowers or grains, are called the ‘‘ flowering glumes.” Harr, Harry.—Used with reference to the pubescence which is sometimes present on the glumes, chiefly on the outer or flowerless ones. Terms not to be confused with beard and bearded, and as here used not applied to the hairy growth often found on the rachis at the base of the spikelet. Hrap.—Same as spike. Kre..—The prominent rib extending from the base to the tip of the flowering glumes on the back. LrenetH.—As applied to the head or spike, the measurement from the lowest node to the tip of the glume of the terminal spikelet. PALEA, PALET.—The thin, two-nerved scale on the inner or creased side of the berry. Seldom referred to in the descriptions. SHOULDER.—As applied to the outer glume, denoting the wing on each side of the beak, which often forms an earlike (auriculate) pro- jection. (See Plate I], fig. 2.) Descriptions using this term can be only relative or comparative, because of the variation in the same head, the shoulder being narrower and the auriculation less pronounced in the spikelets near the base than in those toward the apex of the spike; but this difference is reasonably constant within the variety. SmoorH.—As applied to the glumes, this means simply not hairy. SprkeE.—The flowering or fruiting cluster at the summit of the stem. SPIKELET.—One of the short branches of the spike with its glumes and palets and flowers or kernels. VuLcarE.—Used to designate all varieties of wheat belonging to the species best known as Z7riticum vulgare, but according to the revised nomenclature properly called Zrit/cewm aestivum. GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE DURUM WHEATS. The present work deals with some of the more important varieties of Triticum durum now grown in a general or experimental way in Algeria, North Africa. The soil and climate of the tillable portion of Africa north of the Sahara Desert are favorable to the production of durum wheats, which, though not containing as large a quantity of nitrogenous material as the similar wheats of Southern Russia, still furnish a quality of this material so well adapted to the manufacture of maca- roni and similar paste foods that the product in quality rather excels that derived from the Russian varieties. It may be well to say here that commercially the chief use of the durum wheats is for the manu- facture of paste foods. For this purpose it is necessary to have a gluten decidedly different in character from that desired for bread- making purposes. Bread is, however, made extensively from flour of durum wheat in countries where this is almost the only wheat grown. The bread thus made is usually darker in color and heavier and tougher in texture than that made from flour of vulgare wheats, but has a very pleasant flavor and is considered highly nutritious, since durum wheats as a rule contain more proteid matter than vulgare wheats. 13 Certain peculiar variational tendencies are found in common among the varieties of North African durums. In case of varieties having colored chaff and beards the color becomes more pronounced as they are grown where the sunlight is more intense and the relative humidity of the atmosphere is less, and in general the quality of the grain improves as the intensity of the sunlight increases and the relative humidity of the atmosphere decreases. There is considerable varia- tion as to rust resistance among the varieties of durum wheat, but they will probably average more rust-resistant than the varieties of 7réticwim aestivum. This is due in part to their vigorous growth and to the fact that they find their highest development in climatic conditions unfay- orable to the growth of rust. They are, however, somewhat subject to attacks of smut ( Ustilago tritici); not more so probably than the vulgare wheats, but enough so that a fungicide treatment is usually given to the seed wheat in Alge- ria, particularly in the province of Constantine. The varieties of durums so far grown in the United States have proved better yielders under semiarid conditions than the vulgare wheats. Algerian varieties of durum wheats are always grown with autumn planting, but it is probable that most of these varieties will succeed with spring sowing in the northern portion of the Mississippi Valley. The yield and rust resistance will be determined largely by the time of ripening of the different varieties. It is to be hoped, since durum wheat is likely to be more generally distributed and more widely grown in the near future in the United States, that the men who grade and handle grain may learn to know it readily and that they will give it a distinct place in the general system of grades, so that there will be no necessity for the grower to mix it with vulgare wheat in order to sell it, thus greatly lowering the value of both sorts, since they are difficult to separate and are of much less value when mixed. The places in the United States where durum wheats are likely to grow best are the somewhat dry yet tillable portion of the Great Plains west of the Mississippi River and the Red River of the North and the irrigated region of the Southwest. The chief use of this wheat will be for the manufacture of macaroni and similar paste foods, for it is the only wheat with which a first- grade article of this class can be made. For the manufacture of breakfast foods its high proteid content and its pleasant flavor are likely to recommend it, and it will find a limited use in affording a cheap but nutritious bread in localities where its increased yield will make it cheaper than vulgare wheat. EXPLANATION OF PLATE II. Figure 1 represents a spikelet of the variety Beliouni magnified six times. This shows the smooth chaff with the cluster of hairs on the portion of the rachis just below the spikelet. The long, slender beak is shown extending well beyond the tip of the flowering glume. The shoulder of the outer glume is fairly prominent in this view and is sharply auriculate. The prominent keel of the outer glume can be seen only near the base and tip, the middle being out of view. Figure 2 shows a spikelet of Mohamed ben Bachir with hairy chaff, magnified as above. This spikelet is much narrower than the preceding one, containing but three grains. The beak is very short, not reaching the tip of the flowering glume. The shoulder of the outer glume is very broadly auriculate, and the deep indentation separating the beak and auricle is shown in the glume at the extreme left. 14 PLATE Il. Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S. Dept. Agr No. 7 Bul, FIG. 1. SPIKELETS OF DURUM WHEATS: FIG 1, BELIOUNI; HELIOTYPE CO., BOSTON. FIG. 2. FIG. 2, MOHAMED BEN BACHIR. Das NA Hi wee EXPLANATION OF PLATE III. Figure 1 shows the two flowering glumes with the mature grain, subtended by the outer flowerless glume, as seen in the variety Moroccain, magnified six times. The chaff is smooth; the beak of the keel is of medium length, but does not pass the tip of the flowering glume. The shoulder of the outer glume is narrow and shortly but sharply auriculate. Of the chaff the inner scale (palea) fits closely about the grain, and with it is held snugly within the flowering glume when in normal position. Only the flowering glumes ever bear a long awn or beard, and this in the cut is broken off. Figure 2 shows two varieties of grain magnified six times. The longer grains are those of Nab el Bel, which are described as being long and slender, and the others are from Meskiana and are short and broad. The side view of the longer grain shows a curvature in the outline. This is sometimes very pronounced, and from this shape of the grain the variety gets some of its names. The hair visible on the upper end of the grain is ‘‘the brush.’’ It is usually less abundant in the durum than in the vulgare wheats. 16 PLATE III. Bul. No. 7, Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S. Dept. Agr. \ 0 \ FIG. 1. DURUM WHEATS: FIG. 2. FIG. 1, PART OF SPIKELET OF MOROCCAIN; FIG. 2, GRAINS OF NAB EL BEL AND MESKIANA. HELIOTYPE CO., BOSTON. 13004—No. 7—02——2 18 DESCRIPTION OF VARIETIES WITH KEY. This key is intended to serve as a guide in placing a variety near where it belongs. It is constructed on a dichotomous system, which separates the subject matter into classes on the basis of sharp differ- ences in the particular aspect chosen as the ground of comparison. The figure on the right in each case refers to the same figure on the left of the page where the next division is made. Spikes straight, or nearly so; rachis concealed by the overlapping bases of the spikelets; chaff either smooth or hairy; grain either red or amber. -..------ 2 Spike more or less curved; rachis nearly or quite exposed on the concave side; erain ini ber ciel Ww alte, OL Mealy SO'.. 2222... tats eeep eee eee eee 27 Chathamogiimdnes Mot pupeSscent a.5 41.2... 6. . oss. eee eee tee ree 3 \Chat TMOMEMOT MESS AAT Yn Fa le 3 aie ec cou So's 5 wines ee ee eee a 16 ee EIEN OCT ee a se ee ok oe he acid oe ee ee ee 4 Gralnened epee teeta ee se ec le Me lode de oh ees Soe ene eta ener 15 Chathwmbitewanmmeatlycs@s e625 cco. shan Jes ws oon nye eee eee eee 5 Chatiistromelyeemared <8 2-2 oes cce oo ss vn oe Seer e eee eee ere at (Beards white.or siraw-colored.0. 2... 2...+..-.2--2-. apnatat te : er ° ts BOGHAR. Synonym: Maroc Rebat. PuaTeE X, Fie. 1. Spike straight or nearly so; chaff more or less hairy; grain red, short and broad; spike gradually tapering toward the tip, but not perceptibly flattened. This variety is probably of Spanish origin. 1t has not been cultivated in Algeria except in an experimental way, though the quality of the grain is very good indeed. It is said to be cultivated to some extent in Morocco under the name of ‘‘ Rebat.’’ EL AOUDJA. Synonym: Sbaa el Roumia. Puate X, Fie. 2. Spike straight or nearly so; chaff more or less hairy, white; grain red, long, slen- der, and pointed; spike slightly tapering toward the tip, distinctly flattened. This variety is extensively cultivated under various names in the mountains of ° Kabylia, where it does fairly well, even under the adverse conditions of very sloy- enly culture which often prevail in this locality. The name ‘‘Sbaa el Roumia,’’ by which it is often known, means ‘‘the finger of a Christian,’’ in reference to the general shape and color of the spike. The form of spike and habit of growth some- what resemble the ‘‘ Nab el Bel’’ or ‘‘ Richi’? wheat. The latter, however, has the grain of a clear amber color, so that no confusion should arise between the two. 32 PLATE X. HELIOTYPE CO., BOSTON. TESDOUNI. Prare XI, Fie. 1. Spike straight or nearly so; chaff hairy, nearly white; grain red; spike somewhat club-shaped. This is one of the many kinds of wheat cultivated by the Arabs in the Aures Moun- tains of the province of Constantine, Algeria. The spike is sometimes slightly curved, but the arrangement of the spikelets is not such as to class this variety with those having curved spike and exposed rachis. In general form, however, the spike often closely resembles that of the variety described later under the name ‘‘ Zedouni;”’ in fact, the present variety may be considered as a variation from that. It is very vigorous and maintains itself well, even on the thin, poorly cultivated soils of the region where it grows. The grain is large and of excellent quality, but it seldom finds its way into commerce under its true variety name. A wheat closely resembling this and probably of the same variety has been found in Morocco. M’SAKEN. GATE skcle Hire. 2: Spike straight or nearly so; chaff more or less hairy, nearly or quite white; beards white or straw-colored; spike barely if at all flattened; beak of keel blunt, about as broad as long; grain small, clear amber. This variety is probably of Tunisian origin and is adapted to very dry conditions. It is, so far as is known, not widely cultivated in Algeria. Its name would indicate that it is considered by the Arabs to be one of the original types of wheat. 34 MEDEBA. Verve NG) MOE Nace Ihe Spike straight or nearly so; chaff hairy, white; grain clear amber, large, blunt; spike barely if at all flattened; beak of keel sharp, two or three times as long as broad; beards white or straw-colored. This variety is one of the many found in the Aures Mountains of the province of Constantine. The name signifies ‘‘humpbacked,’’ in reference to the peculiar shape of the berry. The wheat is not widely known either in culture or commerce, but is a vigorous sort and produces grain of very good quality. MESKIANA. Synonyms: Djenah au Necar; Abd el Kader. PrArh excl rire. 2s Spike straight or nearly so; chaff more or less hairy, white; grain clear amber, large, short, and broad; beards white or straw-colored; spike distinctly flattened, about 1.1 cm. broad; shoulder of outer glume slightly or not at all auriculate. (See also Pl. ITI, fig. 2.) This variety of wheat takes its name from a town in the province of Constantine, Algeria. It is commonly grown by the Arabs in the Aures Mountains, but under various names, which suggest good qualities for it, although it has not, so far as is known, attracted special attention in either culture or commerce. 36 —————— = SSS =—=— = st Se. Ze ee CAID ELEUZE. Pian Md Ere. 1. Spike more or less curved; rachis nearly or quite exposed on the curved side; chaff more or less hairy, white; beards very strong, nearly or quite black; grain clear amber, very large. (See also Pl. I.) This variety, which takes its name from an Arab officer, is noticeable chiefly for the large size of its grain. It is grown on the high plateau of the province of Con- stantine, but has not a wide distribution. It is not known in commerce. PELISSIER. Synonym: Hebda. Prare XIII, Fre. 2. Spike straight or nearly so; chaff white, hairy, though in some strains nearly or quite smooth; grain dull amber, inclining to white; beards black. This variety, presumably of Spanish origin, is widely distributed throughout North Africa, where it is grown under many different names. The chief name is taken from a man living near ‘‘ Ponts des Issers,’’ in the western part of the province of Oran, who did some valuable work in selection to improve the yield of the variety. There is in this variety considerable variation, or else there are several distinct varie- ties that closely resemble this one in general appearance. The predominant type isas described above, but it is not uncommon to find wheat identical with this except for a smooth chaff. It is difficult to decide whether or not this characteristic is sufficient to make a variety distinction. Pelissier wheat is now attracting attention on account of its superior yielding qualities. It is gaining a considerable place in general culture in the western part of the province of Algiers, and has shown itself to be one of the best yielding and most rust-resisting varieties that have been tried at the botanical _ experimental station at Rouiba, Algeria. MOHAMED BEN BACHIR. Synonym: Makouwi. PuaTE XIII, Fie. 2. This variety so closely resembles the preceding one, except in the color of the chaff, that the same cut may illustrate both. (See also Pl. II, fig. 2.) It is said that the original seed of this plant was brought from Mecca (hence the name ‘‘Makouwi’’) by an Arab, from whom it is named ‘‘Mohamed ben Bachir.’? The latter is much the more common name. The variety is a favorite in the province of Constantine, near Setif, which is one of the largest primary wheat markets in Algeria. The wheat is extensively known both in culture and in commerce. 38 Ti * tal Ee ee ee en, eee > ‘2 11> eh ee a . ar. - —) 4 ‘ Pe ‘ » =y * 4 afl iy ov 7 ’ = [ pan, : P ; — 4 a ‘ 5 ’ s~ 4 5 = if - oe } iene 4 | .' oe oe J 4 i ig r ‘ z i ‘J Ali A = ’ x é a ' _— i) ng a ’ is » a» as - ry pe - Lut a @ a2 tog 3 shee a: Be y i 3 ate ; ik rp iy) * Pp. aed - " 7 1 “a « Ld > a , ne a - a = fs y me 7 -— we a = an ~ ioe ew wy ig oe ey Le a- ' ul - 4 re « Party < 7 al 4 = 7 oy ’ > - = -P am ¢ a \ @ipxe ¢ “fd “a bs a " es, 7 a es s - ‘ ’ ve “at F _ x ft ae . a: Pe : 4 = ; th as | a Pipi .“—=5, c aie : y, at ‘ << at a > '®@ 1 = - ? ’ . c — be ss EL HAMRA. Synonym: Russian. PLATE XIV, Fie. 1. Spike straight or nearly so; chaff more or less hairy, red or slightly brown; grain clear amber, slender and pointed; beards straw-colored or red; beak of keel passing tip of flowering glume; shoulder of outer glume narrow, slightly auriculate. The name of this variety refers to the general color of the spike, signifying ‘‘the red.’’ It is probable that some seed of Russian origin has produced a similar variety, which accounts for the synonym. This wheat is widely distributed in Algeria, but is by no means as extensively grown as some of the other sorts. It is easily possible to confuse this variety with ‘‘Paros,’’ previously mentioned, which differs from it only in having a smooth chaff. The similarity between the two sorts extends to the shape and color of the grain. AZIZI. Pratm XIV, Fie. 2: Spike straight or nearly so; chaff more or less hairy, red or slightly brown; beards straw-colored or red; grain large, clear amber; beak of keel hardly reaching tip of flowering glume; shoulder of outer glume broad, sharply auriculate. This variety is said to have been brought into Algeria from Tunis. So far as is known, it has not gained a prominent place in general culture. 40 ER — ——————— . eT MAROC. PLATE -XV, Fie. 1. Spike straight or nearly so; chaff more or less hairy, red or slightly brown; grain long, pointed, amber inclining to red; beards black; shoulder of outer glume reduced to a slender tooth; chaff often streaked with black. This variety has been brought into Algeria from Morocco and tried in an experi- mental way. It has not so far found a place in general culture. It is, however, a distinct type and for that reason retains a place in this list. OUCHDA. PrArE XV. Fre. 2. Spike more or less curved; chaff hairy; beards straw-colored, very strong; glumes often long but never reaching 2 cm. in length; spike tapering decidedly in the upper half, 8 to 10 em. long; grain very light, clear amber; beards inclining to black. This is one of the types commonly found in mountainous regions. It is very vig- orous and is popular where wheat culture is carried on under adverse conditions. It is supposed to have originated in Morocco, but has been tried to some extent in Algeria. 42 FT —_ > i ~ ¥ ¥ J 160) ty 7 ox B kod .. ~ j ; : = : . * > y efv\? f . t= = | ‘ hs ‘ a] - = ~ , ) i ‘ hg me 4 jee : ah, \ 4 7 x6 ‘ hy - : en =f y - 7 Tats oy 7 , s 2 = - havi 4 “ ” « ie i “a " - i fa AURES. Prare XOVIlL, Fre: 1. Spike more or less curved; chaff hairy; beards strong, straw-colored, glumes often very long, but never reaching 2 cm. in length; spikelets set almost at right angles to the rachis, making the spike about 2.2 cm. broad, nearly the same breadth through- out its length; grain very large, clear amber. This variety is grown extensively on the lower lands of Algeria from seed obtained from the Aures Mountains, from which it takes its name. It is a very vigorous sort, producing grain of unusual size and very good quality. In the Aures Mountains it is grown under a yariety of local names. MOROCCAIN. Prare xeViil. Kies 2: Spike straight or nearly so; chaff smooth, nearly or quite white; beards white or straw-colored, sometimes rather weak; beak of keel five to six times as long as broad; shoulder of outer glume narrow, sharply auriculate; grain clear amber, long and pointed. (See also Pl. III, fig. 1.) This wheat, which comes from Morocco, is so far not widely cultivated in Algeria. It is interesting chiefly as showing one of the connecting links between the species T. durum and T. polonicum. Plants of this variety readily vary toward the type of either species. In both yield and quality of the grain it is considered to be inferior to the regular durum sorts. 46 __— a ig > Ss — ee all “of NAB EL BEL. Synonyms: Richi; Mahmoudi; Gemgoun; Montenotte; El Beliouni; Sbaa el Roumia; El] Aoudja. Puate XVIII, Fie. 1. Spike straight, or nearly so; chaff hairy, white; glumes rather long, but never reaching 2 cm. in length; spike distinctly flattened, about 1.5 em. broad; shoulder of outer glume sharply auriculate; grain clear amber, long and slender, very large, often curved. (See also Pl. ITI, fig. 2.) This is probably the most common variety of wheat in eastern Algeria, as its numerous names show. These names for the most part refer to the long, curved shape of the grain, ‘‘ Nab el Bel’’ meaning ‘‘ the eye tooth of a male camel;”’ ‘“‘Gem- goun,’’ the ‘‘beak of a vulture;’’ but ‘‘ Richi,’’ meaning “‘like a plume,”’ applies to the general shape of the spike. Wheats closely similar to this are widely cultivated in Tunis, Greece, and Egypt. The glumes of this variety are soft and parchment- like, and under a change of conditions the variety may readily sport toward the type of T. polonicum. When the variety is kept up, however, by careful selection it stands as one of the most important and best known of the Algerian durums. It is hardy and vigorous, will do well under a wide variety of conditions, and produces grain of extra large size and good quality. EL SAFRA. PEATE) NOVEL “Kre. 2 Spike more or less curved; chaff smooth, soft and parchment-like; glumes usually more than 2 ecm. long; palea about one-half as long as flowering glumes; beards white or straw-colored, sparse and weak; grain amber, very long, slender and pointed. This variety is, so far as is known, of no great cultural or commercial value. The plants do not seem vigorous and the quality of the grain is not of the highest. The type is used here chiefly to show one of the extremes of variation found in the species T. durum. Hybrids between this and other species of wheat have given both interesting and valuable results. This is one of the radical types of wheat and the variation induced by crossing it with other varieties is very great. 48 PLATE XVIII. of Plant Industry, U. S. Dept. Agr. Bul. No. 7, Bureau FIG, 2. BIGouts FIG. 1, NAB EL BEL; FIG. 2, EL SAFRA. DURUM WHEATS: | fi | iRian OAS aa y f%, ¥ ¥, nar : ‘ ' \ “4 Ce * { é i J i ‘ v USS. DEPAR IMENT OF AGRICULTURE. BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY—BULLETIN No. 8. B. T. GALLOWAY, Chief of Bureau. A COLLECTION OF RCONOMIC AND OTHER FUME PREPARED FOR DISTRIBUTION. BY FLORA W. PATTERSON, Mycovoerst, VEGETABLE PATHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS. Issu—eD Fesruary 3, 1902. beatans i al S Ea a a ¢ Sis = a 4h i 4 WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1902. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Bureau OF PLant INDUSTRY, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF, Washington, D. C., November 7, 1901. Str: I have the honor to transmit herewith a paper entitled A Col- lection of Economie and other Fungi, prepared by Mrs. Flora W. Patterson, of Vegetable Pathological and Physiological Investigations, and submitted by the Pathologist and Physiologist. It is respect- fully recommended that the paper be published as Bulletin No. 8 of this Bureau. Respectfully, B. T. GaLLoway, Chief of Bureau. Hon. James WILson, Secretary of Agriculture. Take Oks. This Office nas tor some time had in contemplation a distribution of its duplicate material to the various State agricultural experiment stations, and now offers to them and other interested workers such specimens as they may select from the list which follows. It is greatly to be regretted that all species represented in this list are notin sufficient quantity to permit the distribution to be made to the experiment stations at least in uniform sets. Each State agricultural experiment station is invited to compile its own set and to select from this list fifty specimens, which we will for- ward on request, but if preferred the selection will be made here. All specimens desired over fifty may be consideredasinexchange. Accounts will be opened with any station so that it may avail itself at once of this material, even if it is not yet in position to send the exchanges for specimens selected in excess of the fifty furnished free. Experiment station workers will be enabled by this means to add to their reference collections with but slight expense and trouble. There are, of course, many things common in certain parts of the country which are either rare or do not occur in other parts. We would like to get all kinds of material, whether common or not. Aid is solicited toward making this exchange a success. In establishing this exchange it is desired to extend its benefits not only to experiment station workers, but to specialists and all who are interested in the study of fungi from the economic standpoint. The arrangement proposed is to exchange specimen for specimen when those offered are well preserved, of good quality, in abundant quantity, and authentically determined, labeled, and already placed in mycological envelopes. In regard to exchanges for undetermined specimens and material in bulk requiring preparation for herbarium use, arrangements will be made by correspondence. The attention of specialists is called to the desirability of having type specimens of at least all American spécies deposited in the herba- rium of this Office, where they will always be accessible to those inter- ested. Address all correspondence to Mycological Exchange, Bureau of Plant Industry, Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. ) ALBERT F. Woops, Pathologist and Physiologist. OFFICE OF THE PATHOLOGIST AND PHYSIOLOGIST, Washington, D. C., October 24, 1901. 5 B Pp. 1.—10 V. PLP. T.—oi A COLLECTION OF ECONOMIC AND OTHER FUNGI PREPARED FOR DISTRIBUTION. By Fuora W. Partrerson, Mycologist. INTRODUCTION. An examination of this list will show the collection to be geograph- ically very limited. It is hoped by the method now proposed to interest a large number of botanists whose collections may help ours to become more general in its nature and enable others to materially enhance the value of their herbaria at small expense. Advanced students in agricultural colleges may, under the directions of their instructors, be able to collect and contribute valuable material that will thus be made available to other workers and at the same time acquire a choice nucleus for their own herbaria. This plan will also accomplish the purpose of an exchange bureau for fungi which will be free from the awkward limitations of the usual exchange bureau. It will be easily adapted to the individual needs and circumstances of all classes interested. Much unidentified material is at hand to be worked up which, together with what is expected to be received in response to this issue, will warrant the publication of an additional catalogue as soon as the work can be accomplished. The attempt will be made in the future, as has been with this distribution, to verify all determinations, and no effort will be spared to make the collections as authentic as pub- lished sets of exsiccati. Species have been carefully compared with their types when such were available. Duplicates of all these speci- mens may be examined in our herbarium. The general arrangement and the nomenclature of the fungi are in the main that of Saccardo’s Sylloge Fungorum, and the nomenclature of the hosts is from Farlow and Seymour’s Host Index and Hooker and Jackson’s Index Kewensis. Names marked with an asterisk (*) are from the Index Kewensis. The above works are the ones used for general reference and the arrangement of our herbarium. No attempt has been made to keep strictly up to date with the rearrange- ment of groups by recent monographers, as an exchange like the present may much more appropriately adhere to standard works which are probably accessible to all. 7 th 12. ECONOMIC AND UREDINEZ. ZEcidium abundans Pk. Symphoricarpus occidentalis. braska. ZEcidium apocyni Schw. Apocynum cannabinum. Virginia. ZEcidium clematidis DC. a. Clamatis ligusticifolia. braska. Ne- Ne- b. Clematis virginiana. Missouri. 4Ecidium compositarum Mart. a. Artemisia ludoviciana. Mon- tana. b. Helianthus sp. Missouri. Minnesota. d. Solidago sp. ‘District of Co- lumbia, Missouri. c. Prenanthes alba. e. Solidago bicolor.* District of Columbia. ZEcidium cressze DC. Cressa truwillensis.* California. ZEcidium euphorbie Schw. Euphorbia preslii. Nebraska. ZEcidium fraxini Schw. a. Fraxinus sp. Massachusetts. b. Fraxinus americana. District of Columbia. ZEcidium gerardize Pk. Gerardia quercifolia. Michigan. ZEcidium houstoniatum Schw. Foustonia minima.* Texas. ZEcidium hydnoideum B. & C. Dirca palustris. Indiana. ZEcidium hypericatum Schw. Ascyrum crux-andrex. Missis- sippi. ZEcidium impatientis Schw. Impatiens pallida. Missouri; Virginia. ZEcidium ludwigie Ell. & Ever. LIudwigia hirtella.* Mississippi. ZEcidium lycopi Gerard. Lycopus virginicus. Maryland. 4Ecidium peckii De Toni. (2nothera biennis. Towa. ZEcidium ptelez B. & OC. Ptelea trifoliata. Missouri. OTHER FUNGI. 17. ZBcidium ranunculacearum DC. a a. Anemone cylindrica. Ne- ‘braska. b. Ranunculus abortivus. —Ma- ryland. 29. . ZEcidium reestelioides Ell. & Ever. Sidalcea malvaeflora. Colorado. ZEcidium sambuci Schw. Sambucus canadensis. Virginia. ZEcidium smilacis Schw. Smilax herbacea. Nebraska. ZEcidium thalictri flavi (DC.) Wint. Thalictrum fendleri. ZEcidium verbene Speg. Verbena stricta. Nebraska. ZEcidium xanthoxyli Pk. Xanthoxylum americanum. Mis- _ Colorado. souri. Calyptospora gcppertiana Kuhn. a. Vaccinium ovatum. Wash- ‘a ington. b. Vaccinium parvifolium,.* Washington. Chrysomyxa albida Kuhn. a. Rubus cuneifolius.* Indiana. b. Rubus villosus. Illinois, In- diana, Kansas. Chrysomyxa pirole (DC.) Ros- trup. Pirola rotundifolia. District of Columbia, Massachusetts. Coleosporium ipomeee (8.) Bur- rill. a. Ipomea sp. Texas. b. Ipomea pandurata. nois. Illi- Coleosporium pini Galloway. Pinus inops. Maryland. Coleosporium sonchi-arvensis (>) bey a, Aster sp. Ohio, Vermont. b. Aster cordifolius. Indiana. c. Aster foliaceus var. eatoni. Montana. d. Aster macrophyllus. Michi- gan. e. Aster novx-anglix. Indiana. J. Aster paniculatus. Indiana. 29. Coleosporium 30. UREDINE. 9 sonchi-arvensis (P.) Lév.—Continued. g. Aster puniceus. Indiana. h. Aster sagittifolius. Tllinois, Indiana, Nebraska. i. Aster shortii. Indiana. . Aster tradescanti. Indiana. J k. Solidago sp. District of Co- lumbia, Illinois, Mary- land. l. Solidago arguta. Indiana. m. Solidago cesia. Indiana. n. Solidago canadensis. Indi- ana. 0. Solidago latifolia. Indiana. p. Solidago patula.* Illinois, Indiana. q. Solidago pauciflosculosa.* Mississippi. r. Solidago rugosa. Indiana. s. Solidago serotina. Indiana. t. Vernonia fasciculata. — IIli- nois, Missouri. u. Vernonia noveboracensis. In- diana. Cronartium asclepiadeum (Willd.) Fr. var. quercuum Cke. Quercus sp. Maryland. Cronartium asclepiadeum ( Willd.) Fr. var. thesii Berk. a. Comandra pallida. Montana, “Nebraska. b. Comandra nois. umbellata. Ili- Gymnosporangium bermudia- num (Farl.) Earle. I. Juniperus virginiana. Missis- sippl. Gymnosporangium clavarie- forme (Jacq.) Rees. I. a. Crategus apiifolia. Indiana. b. Crategus coccinea. Indiana, Michigan. c. Crategus crus-galli. Indi- ana. d. Crategus spathulata. Indi- ana. €. Crategus tomentosa. Illinois, Michigan. f. Pirus coronaria. Illinois. g- Pirus malus. District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina. 34. 35. 36. 38. Gymnosporangium clavipes C. & Pal, a. Crategus sp. (cult.). Dis- trict of Columbia. b. Crategus coccinea. Missis- sippi. Gymnosporangium ellisii (B.) Farl. III. Chamecyparis spheroidea. Mas- sachusetts. Gymnosporangium globosum Far]. III. Juniperus virginiana. chusetts. Massa- Gymnosporangium macropus ket: a. Pirus coronaria. Indiana. b. Pirus malus. New Jersey. Gymnosporangium macropus ik, Jt: Juniperus virginiana. of Columbia. District Gymnosporangium nidus-avis Thaxter. I. Pirus malus. Indiana. Melampsora betulina (P.) Tul. Betula populifolia. Massachu- setts. Melampsora farinosa(P.) Schrot. a. Salix sp. Arizona, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Vir- ginia. b. Salix cordata. Montana. c. Salix flavescens. Washington. d. Salix longifolia. Montana. e. Salix rostrata. Montana. Melampsora hydrangee (B. & C.) Farl. Hydrangea arborescens. Dis- trict of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, West Virginia. Melampsora lini (P.) Desm. a. Linum perenne. Colorado, Montana. _b. Linum rigidum. Montana. Melampsora populina (Jacq.) Léy. a. Populus angustifolia. Mon- tana. b. Populus balsamifera var. can- dicuns. Indiana. 10 44. 45. 46. 48. 49. 51. 52. ECONOMIC AND Melampsora populina (Jacq.) Lév.—Continued. c. Populus grandidentata. In- ~ diana. d. Populusmonilifera. Illinois, Indiana. e. Populus tremuloides. Mon- tana. Melampsorella cerastii (P.) Schrot. Cerastium arvense. Montana. Peridermium pini Léy. a. Pinus sp. Georgia, Mis- souri. —~b. Pinus mitis. Maryland. Phragmidium potentille (P.) Karst. a. Potentilla dissecta. Montana. 'b. Potentilla gracilis. Nebraska. c. Potentilla pennsylvanica, Montana. Phragmidium rubi-idei (P.) Wint. a. Rubus strigosus. Massachu- setts. b. Rubus villosus. West Vir- ginia. Phragmidium speciosum Fr. a. Rosasp. West Virginia. b. Rosa lucida. Mississippi. Phragmidium subcorticium (Schrk.) Wint. a. Rosa sp. Illinois. bh Rosa arkansana. Montana. c. Rosa hemispherica. Nebras- ka. d> Rosa lucida. Llinois, Indi- ana. e. Rosa nutkana.* Washing- ton. f. Rosa setigera.* Indiana. Puccinia aletridis B. & C. Aletris farinosa. Massachu- setts. Puccinia amphigena Dietel. Ammophila longifolia.* tana. Puccinia andropogonis Schw. Mon- a, Andropogon furcatus. Ili- nois. b. Andropogon hallii. Nebras- ka. OTHER FUNGI. 53. 54. 55. 57. 58. 60. 61. 62. Puccinia andropogonis Schw.— Continued. ce. Andropogon scoparius. — Ili- nois, Iowa, Mississippi. Puccinia angustata Pk. a. Eriophorum cyperinum. Il- linois. b. Eriophorum virginicum. Massachusetts. c. Scirpus sp. d. Scirpus atrovirens. West Virginia. Indiana. Puccinia apocrypta Ell. & Tracy. Asprella hystrix. Indiana. Puccinia argentata (Schultz) Wint. a. Impatiens fulva. Virginia. b. Impatiens pallida. West Vir- ginia. Indiana, Puccinia asparagi DC. Asparagus officinalis. Jersey. Puccinia asteris Duby. a. Aster sp. District of Co- lumbia, Missouri. New b. Aster cordifolius. Indiana. c. Aster paniculatus. Indiana. d. Aster shortti. Illinois. Puccinia balsamorrhize Pk. Balsamorrhiza sagittata. Mon- tana. Puccinia caricis (Schum.) Reb. a. Carex sp. Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, West Virginia. b. Carex bullata.* Indiana. c. Carex fenea.* Indiana. d. Carex lupulina.* Indiana. e. Carex pennsylvanica. Mon- tana. f. Carex stipata.* Montana. g. Carex straminea var. sperta. Montana. h. Carex straminea var. bilis. Indiana. i Carex virescens.* Indiana. Michi- mira- j Carex vulpinoidea.* gan. Puccinia caulicola Tracy & Gall. Unknown labiate. New Mexico. Puccinia circeeee Pers. Circea lutetiana. Illinois, Indi- ana, Michigan. 63. 64. “ik. 72. 75. UREDINE. Puccinia conoclinii Seymour. Eupatorium sp. Mlinois. Eupatorium celestinum. Virginia. West Puccinia coronata Cda. Avena sativa. Kansas. Holeus lanatus.* Mississippi. Puccinia convolvuli (P.) Cast. Convolvulus sepium. Mlinois, Michigan. Convolvulus spithameus.* Min- nesota. Puccinia cyperi Arthur. Cyperus sp. Illinois, Michigan, ~ Texas. Cyperus erythrorhizos.* Michi- ~ gan, Puccinia dayi Clinton. Steironema ciliatum. Indiana. Puccinia distichlydis Ell. & Ever. Distichhs maritima. Montana. Puccinia eleocharidis Arthur. Eleocharis ovata.* West Vir- ginia. Puccinia emaculata Schw. a. Panicum capillare. Illinois. b. Panicum virgatum. West Virginia. c. Triodia cuprea. Illinois, Missouri, West Virginia. Puccinia epilobii DC. Gnothera biennis. New Hampshire. Maryland, Puccinia flaccida B. & Br. Panicum crus-galli. Ulinois. Puccinia fusca (Relh.) Wint. a, Anemone nemorosa. Massa- chusetts, Wisconsin. b. Anemone patens var. nuttal- liana. Colorado. Puccinia galii (P.) Wint. a. Galium aparine. Missouri. b. Galium asprellum. Indiana, West Virginia. _¢. Galium concinnum. Illinois, Indiana. d. Galiumtriflorum. Nebraska. Puccinia gayophyti Pk. Gayophytum ramosissimum. Arizona. 76. —— 85. 86. 87. 89. | Puccinia gentianz (Str.) Lk. Gentiana andrewsti. Michigan. Puccinia glechomatis DC. Lophanthusnepetoides. Wlinois. Puccinia gonolobi Ray. a. Gonolobus hirsutus.* Missis- sippi. b. Vincetoxicum palustre.* Mis- _ . . . sissippi. Puccinia graminis Pers. I. Berberisvulgaris.* New Jersey. Puccinia graminis Pers. II & III. a. Agropyrum dasystachyum.* Michigan. b. Agrostis alba var. vulgaris. Illinois, West Virginia. c. Avena sativa. Kansas. d. Hordeum jubatum. Illinois. e. Poa compressa. Indiana. f. Poa pratensis. Indiana. Puccinia grindeliz Pk. Grindelia sp. Colorado. Puccinia heliopsidis Schw. a. Heliopsis levis. Minnesota. b. Heliopsis scabra.* Indiana. Puccinia heterogenea Lagh. Malva sp. Ecuador. Puccinia heterospora B. &C. Sida spinosa. Mississippi, Mis- souri. Puccinia hieracii (Schum.) Mart. a. Bidens bipinnata, Califor- nia. b. Cnicus undulatus. Montana. c. Crepis sp. Colorado. d. Taraxacum officinale. . Ili- nois, Massachusetts, New Jersey. Puccinia hyptidis (Curt.) Tracy & Earle. Hyptis radiata. Mississippi. Puccinia hysteriiformis Pk. aArenaria congesta, var. subcon- gesta. Montana. Puccinia intermixta Pk. Iva axillaris. Montana. Puccinia Jonesii Pk. Musenium tenuifolium. ka. Nebras- 93. 94. 95. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. ECONOMIC AND Puccinia kansensis Ell. & Bar- thol. Buchle dactyloides. Kan- sas. Puccinia kuhnie Schw. Kuhua eupatorioides. rado, [linois. Colo- Puccinia lateripes B. & Ray. a. Ruellia ciliosa. Illinois. — b. Ruellia strepens. Illinois, Indiana. Puccinia malvacearum Mont. Althea rosea. California. Puccinia malvastri (Farl.) Pk. Malvastrum coccineum. New Mexico. Puccinia mariz-wilsoni Clint. Claytonia virginica. District of Columbia. Puccinia menthe Pers. a. Blephilia ciliata.* of Columbia. _b. Blephilia hirsuta. Towa. c. Cunila mariana. Columbia. d. Mentha canadensis. Illinois, Indiana, Washington. . Mentha canadensis var. glau- ca. Montana. . Monarda sp. Illinois. . Monarda fistulosa. Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska. District Indiana, District of \o SS h. Monarda punctata. Min- nesota. a, Pycnanthemum _ linifolium. T)linois. Puccinia mesomegala B. & C. Clintonia uniflora.* Idaho. Puccinia miconiz Lagh. Miconia sp. Ecuador. Puccinia microsperma B. & C. Lobelia syphilitica. Indiana. Puccinia nardosmii Ell. & Ever. Petasites palmata. Canada. Puccinia ornata Arth. & Holw. Rumex britannica. New Hamp- shire. Puccinia peckiana Howe. a. Rubus sp. Delaware, Mis- sourl, New Jersey. b. Rubus strigosus. Kansas. OTHER FUNGI. 102. Puccinia peckiana Howe— Continued. c. Rubus villosus. District of Columbia, Kansas. ~ 108. Puccinia phragmitis (Schum. ) 104. 105. 106. 107. @ 109. UO: Korn. Spartina cynosuroides. nois, Montana. Puccinia pimpinelle (Str.) Lk. a. Cherophyllum procumbens. District of Columbia, Vir- Tili- ginia. b. Osmorrhiza sp. Ohio, Vir. ginia. c. Osmorrhiza brevistylis. Wis- consin. Puccinia poarum Niels. Poa pratensis. Indiana. Puccinia podophylli Schw. Podophyllum peltatum. Dis- trict of Columbia, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Penn- sylvania. Puccinia polygoni- amphibii Pers. a. Polygonum sp. Montana. b. Polygonum amphibium. Mli- nois, Virginia. c. Polygonum hartwrightii. I- linois. d. Polygonum — virginianum. District of Columbia, Tli- nois, Michigan. Puccinia pruni-spinose Pers. a. Prunus sp. Kansas. b. Prunus americana. Illinois, Kansas, West Virginia, Texas. c. Prunus armeniaca. Cali- fornia. d. Prunus hortulana. Texas. e. Prunus persica. California, Georgia. Ff. Prunus serotina. District of Columbia, Iowa. Puccinia purpurea Cke. Sorghum saccharatum. Texas. Puccinia rubigo-vera (DC.) Wint. a. Agropyrum divergens. Mon- tana. b. Agropyrum repens. New Jersey. 110. a = i 120. UREDINEA. Puccinia rubigo-vera (DC.) Wint.—Continued. c. Agropyrum tenerum.* Mon- tana. d. Avena sativa. e. Elymus virginicus. f. Poa sp. Montana. g. Secale cereale. New Jersey. h. Triticum vulgare. Missouri. Indiana. Illinois. i. Triticum vulgare var. Zim- merman. Kansas. Puccinia saxifrage Schl. a. Heuchera cylindrica. Mon- tana. _b, Saxifraga virginiensis. Dis- trict of Columbia. Puccinia scheleriana Plow. & Magnus. Carex stenolepis.* Indiana. Puccinia seymerie Burrill. a. Gerardia tenuifolia.* — Ili- nois. b. Seymeria macrophylla. Tli- nois. Puccinia silphii Schw. Silphium perfoliatum. Illinois, Towa. Puccinia smilacis Schw. Smilax sp. District of Colum- bia, Mississippi. Puccinia sorghi Schw. a. Zea mays. Illinois, Michi- gan. b. Tripsacum dactyloides. Kan- sas. Puccinia sporoboli. Arthur. Sporobolus asper. Mississippi. Puccinia stipe Arthur. Stipa comata. Montana. Puccinia suaveolens (P.) Ros- trup. a. Cnicus arvensis. sey. _b. Cnicus lanceolatus. ana. New Jer- Indi- Puccinia subnitens Dietel. Distichlis — maritima. New Mexico, South Dakota. Puccinia tanaceti DC. a. Artemisia cana. Nebraska. Montana, 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. Fp 128. 13 Puccinia tanaceti DC.—Con- tinued. b. Artemisia Montana. c. Artemisia tridentata. tana. d. Helianthus sp. District of Solumbia, Illinois. e. Helianthus annuus. Idaho, dracunculoides. Mon- Illinois, Indiana, Mon- tana. f. Helianthus divaricatus. In- diana. g. Helianthus Illinois, Nebraska. h. Helianthus letiflorus. braska. i. Helianthus petiolaris. Mon- tana, Nebraska. j. Helianthus strumosus. diana, Virginia. k. Helianthus tracheliifolius. Indiana. grosse-serratus. Ne- In- Puccinia tanaceti DC., vernonie (S.) Burrill. Vernonia fasciculata. braska. var. Ne- Puccinia variolans Hark. Aplopappus spinulosus. tana. Mon- Puccinia veratri Duby. Veratrum californicum. rado. Colo- Puccinia verbesine Schw. a. Verbesinasp. West Virginia. b. Verbesina occidentalis. West Virginia. Puccinia viole (Schum.) DC. a. Violasp. Maryland. b. Viola cucullata. Indiana. c. Viola striata. Indiana. Puccinia windsoriz Schw. a. Muhlenbergia sp. Illinois. ~b, Muhlenbergia mexicana. Kansas. Puccinia xanthii Schw. a. Ambrosia trifida. Illinois, Minnesota. b. Xanthium canadense. In- diana. ec. Xanthiumstrumarium.* In- diana, Maryland. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137 140. 141. 143. ECONOMIC AND OTHER FUNGI. Pucciniastrum crotonis (Burr. ) De Toni. Croton capitatus. Missouri. Pucciniastrum epilobii(Chaill. ) Otth. a,-Epilobium sp. Montana. b. Epilobiumcoloratum. Mon- tana, Nebraska. 2 Ravenelia cassizecola Atk. Cassia nictitans.* Mississippi. Ravenelia glanduleformis B. & C. Tephrosiavirginiana. Illinois, West Virginia. Ravenelia opaca (Sey. & Earle) Dietel. Gleditschia triacanthos. nois. Illi- Triphragmium clavellosum Berk. Aralia nudicaulis. Maine. Triphragmium echinatum Lévy. Oenanthe californica. Califor- nia. Uredinopsis scolopendrii (Fckl.) Dietel. Onoclea sensibilis. setts. Massachu- . Uredo agrimoniz (DC.) Schrot. a. Agrimonia eupatoria. Thi- nois, Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska. b. Agrimonia parviflora. West Virginia. Uredo cassandree Pk. & Clint. Cassandra calyculata. Michi- gan. Uredo cherimoliz Lagh. Anona cherimolia. Ecuador. Uredo fici Cast. Ficus carica. Mississippi. Uredo oxalidis Léy. Oxalis violacea. Texas. Uredo oxytropidis (Pk.) De Toni. Oxytropislamberti. Montana. Uromyces andropogonis Tracy. Andropogon virginicus. Mis- sissippi. 144. Uromyces appendiculatus (P.) Lk. a. Phaseolus sp. Mississippi, New Jersey. b. Phaseolus diversifolius. In- diana. c. Phaseolus pauciflorus. THi- nois, Missouri. d. Phaseolus perennis. Indi- ana. e. Phaseolus vulgaris. Illi- nois. 145. Uromyces argophylle Sey- pa mour. Psoralea argophylla. North Dakota. 146. Uromyces aristide Ell. & Ever. Aristida oligantha.* Illinois. 147. Uromyces caladii (S.) Farl. i a. Arisema dracontium. Maryland, Missouri. b. Arisema triphyllum. Dis- trict of Columbia, Indi- ana, Maryland, Michi- gan. c. Peltandra undulata. Mich- igan, Virginia. d. Pontederia cordata. souri. Mis- Uromyces caryophyllinus (Schrk.) Schrot. Dianthus caryophyllus.* Dis- trict of Columbia. Uromyces eriogoni Ell. & Hark. Eriogonum microthecum?* Montana. 148. 149. 150. Uromyces euphorbie C. & P. a. Euphorbia hypericifolia.* Illinois. b. Euphorbia serpyllifolia. Montana. Uromyces fabee (P.) De By. a. Lathyrus sp. Michigan, Minnesota, West Vir- ginia. b. Lathyrus polymorphus. Ne- braska. 151. 152. Uromyces geneste-tinctorize i. (P.) Fekl. Colutea arborescens. Kansas. UREDINE. 158. Uromyces glycyrrhize (Rabh. ) Magnus. Glycyrrhiza lepidota. ' nia, Montana. Califor- 154. Uromyces graminicola Burrill. a. Glyceria fluitans. Illinois. b. Panicumvirgatum. Illinois. 155. Uromyces hedysari-paniculati (S.) Farl. a. Desmodium sp. District of Columbia, Illinois, Mis- sissippi. b. Desmodium canescens. Mis- sourl. c. Desmodium — paniculatum. Illinois, Indiana. 156. Uromyces howei Pk. a. Asclepias cornuti. Illinois, Indiana, West Virginia. b. Asclepiasincarnata. Lowa, West Virginia. c. Asclepias purpurascens.* Indiana. 157. Uromyces hyperici (S.) Curt. 7 a. Hypericum canadense.* In- 7 diana. b. Hypericum mutilum. Virginia. c. Hypericum paludosum.* Il- linois. West Uromyces jonesii Pk. Ranunculus alismefolius var. alis- mellus. California. Uromyces junci (Desm.) Tul. a. Juncus effusus. West Vir- ginia. b. Juncus tana. c. Juncus tenuis. longistylis. Mon- Illinois. Uromyces lespedezez (S.) Pk. a. Lespedeza capitata. Illi- nois, Michigan. b. Lespedeza polystachya.* Missouri, West Vir- ginia. c, Lespedeza repens. District of Columbia, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana. d. Lespedeza reticulata.* diana. Lespedeza stuvei.* Missouri. In- as 160. 161. Z_ 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. Gi“ 168. 15 Uromyces lespedeze (S.) Pk.— Continued. Ff. Lespedeza violacea. Mis- sissippi, Missouri, Vir- ginia. Uromyces limonii (DC.) Lévy. Statice limonium. Mississippi. Uromyces piriformis Cke. Acorus calamus. Michigan. Uromyces polygoni (P.) Fckl. a. Polygonum sp. Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri. b. Polygonum acre. 1llinois. c. Polygonum aviculare. Illi- nois. d. Polygonum hydropipe- Tlinois. Uromyces rudbeckize Arth. & Holw. roides.* Rudbeckia laciniata. Illinois. Nebraska. Uromyces sophore Pk. Sophora sericea. Colorado. Uromyces spermacoces (S.) Curt. Diodia teres. Illinois, Mis- souri, Virginia. Uromyces terebinthi (DC.) Wint. Rhus toxicodendron. Indiana, Nebraska. Uromyces trifolii (Hedw.) Wint. a. Trifolium carolinianum. Texas. b. Trifolium inedium.* Indi- ana. ce. Trifolium pratense. Indi- ana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York. d. Trifolium repens. Michi- gan. 169. Uromyces wernerie Lagh. 179. Uropyxis Werneria nubigena.* Ecuador. amorphe (Curt.) Schrot. a. Amorpha canescens. Illi- nois. _-b. Amorpha fruticosa. — Ili- nois, Mississippi. 16 U/l 172. 173. 174. eis « 178. 179. - @ ery ! = ~ ECONOMIC AND Uropyxis petalostemonis (Farl.) De Toni. Petalostemon candidus. braska. Ne- USTILAGINEZ. Cerebella paspaliCke. & Massee. Panicum virgatum. Missis- sippi. Cintractia junci (S.) Trel. Juncus tenuis. Massachusetts. Entyloma compositarum Farl. a. Ambrosia trifida. District of Columbia, Missouri. b. Lepachys pinnata. Lowa. Entyloma menispermi Farl. & Trel. Menispermum canadense. I)li- nois. Entyloma physalidis (Kalch. & Cke.) Wint. a. Physalis philadelphica. In- diana. b. Physalis virginiana. Mich- igan. Entyloma ranunculi_ (Bon.) Schrét, forma thalictri Farl. Thalictrum purpurascens. I1li- nois. Entyloma sanicule Pk. Sanicula marylandica. Towa. Entyloma serotinum Schrot. Mertensia pumonarioides ?* Maryland. Graphiola phoenicis (Moug.) Poit. Phenix canariensis.* — Cali- fornia. Sorosporium syntherismee (8. ) Farl. a. Cenchrus tribuloides. Illi- | mois, b. Panicum proliferum. — Ihi- nois. c. Panicum sanguinale. Mis- sissippi, Missouri. Sphacelotheca hydropiperis (Schum. ) De By. Polygonum sagittatum. West Virginia. OTHER FUNGI. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. — ® Urocystis agropyri (Preuss.) Schrot. f Agropyrum chusetts. repens. Massa- Urocystis (P.) Schrot. Anemone acutiloba. anemones Towa. Urocystis waldsteiniz Pk. Waldsteinia fragarioides. New York. Ustilago Speg. a. Polygonum sp. District of Columbia, Illinois, Mis- sourl. b. Polygonum hydropiper. Dis- trict of Columbia. ce. Polygonum pennsylvanicum. Missouri. austro - americana Ustilago avene (P.) Jensen. Avena sativa. Tennessee. Ustilago caricis (P.) Fckl. a. Carex filifolia. Montana. b. Carex pennsylvanica. Mon- tana. Ustilago diplospora Ell. and Ever. Panicum sanguinale. Missis- sippl. Ustilago lineata Cke. Zizania aquatica. Nebraska. Ustilago maydis (DC.) Cda. Zea Mays. Indiana. Ustilago minima Arthur. Stipa comata. Montana. Ustilago montaniensis Ell. & Ever. Muhlenbergia glomerata setiformis. Montana. var. Ustilago neglecta Niessl. a. Setaria. sp. Lowa. b. Setaria glauca. Massachusetts. Tllinois, Ustilago ornata Tracy & Earle. Leptochloa mucronata.* —Mis- sissippi. Ustilago pustulata Tracy & Karle. Panicum proliferum. sippi. Missis- 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. USTILAGINEA—PHYCOMYCETE#. Ustilagorabenhorstiana Kiihn. Panicum sanguinale. Mary- land. Ustilago sorghi (Lk.) Pass. Sorghum vulgare. (Kansas. Ustilago spermophora B. « C. a. Eragrostis major. Lowa. b. Eragrostis minor. * Tlli- nois. Ustilago tritici (P.) Jensen. Triticum vulgare. Michigan. Ustilago uniole Ell. & Ever. Uniola gracilis. Mississippi. Ustilago utriculosa (Nees) Tul. a. Polygonum sp. Mississippi. b. Polygonum pennsylvanicum. Illinois, Missouri, West Illinois, Virginia. Tilletia corona Scribner. a. Leersia oryzoides. District of Columbia. b. Leersia virginica. Illinois. c. Panicum virgatum. Illi- nois. Tilletia horrida Tak. Oryza sativa. Japan. PHYCOMYCETES. Albugo amaranthi (S.) Kuntze. a. Amarantus albus. Mon- tana. b. Amarantuschlorostachysvar. hybridus. Indiana. c. Amarantus retroflexus. diana, Michigan. Albugo candida (P.) Kuntze. - a. Brassica alba.* Indiana. b. Capsellabursa-pastoris. Dis- trict of Columbia. In- Albugo ipomces-pandurans (S.) Swingle. a. Ipomea batatas. sey. b. Ipomea pandurata Indi- ana, Missouri. Albugo platensis (Speg.) Swin- New Jer- gle. a. Boerhaavia erecta.* Flor- ee Gas 13005—No. 8—02——2 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 0 rary [o>} 217. 17 Albugo platensis (Speg.) Swin- gle—Continued. b. Boerhaavia hirsuta? * Flor- ida. Albugo portulacee (DC.) Kuntze. Portulaca oleracea. Dis- trict of Columbia. Albugo tragopogonis (P.) §. F. Gray: Ambrosia —artemisizfolia. New York. Bremia lactuce Regel. a. Lactucasp. Illinois, Mary- land, West Virginia. b. Lactucaintegrifolia.* Mary- land. ce. Lactuca leucophea. land. d. Lactuca sativa. Maryland. Mary- Peronospora alta Fckl. Plantago sp. Indiana. Peronospora arthuri Farl. Oenothera biennis. Maryland, Massachusetts. Peronospora calotheca De By. Galium triflorum. Wisconsin. Peronospora corydalis De By. Corydalis glauca.* Massachu- setts. Peronospora effusa (Grey.) Rabh. a. Chenopodium album. Indi- ana. b. Spinacea oleracea. Island. Rhode Peronospora ficarie Tul. Ranunculus acris. Massachu- setts. Peronospora lamii A. Braun. Lamium amplexicaule.* Vir- ginia. Peronospora myosotidis De By. Myosotis verna. Michigan. Peronospora obovata Bon. Spergula arvensis. Maine Peronospora parasitica (P.) Tul. a. Dentarialaciniata. District of Columbia, Maryland. 5b. Lepidium virginicum. New Jersey. 224. 229. 280, 231. 232. 233. ECONOMIC AND Peronospora potentille De By. Potentilla norvegica. Mary- land. Peronospora rubi Rabh. a. Rubus sp. Maryland. b. Rubus canadensis. Mary- of Hand. Peronospora rumicis Cda. Polygonum dumetorum scandems. Indiana. var. Peronospora sordida Berk. Scrophularia nodosa. Ilinois. Peronospora vicize (B.) De By. Vicia sativa. Virginia. Peronospora viol De By. Viola tricolor var. arvensis. Illinois. Phytopthora infestans (Mont. ) De By. Solanum tuberosum. New Jer- sey, New York, Vermont. Plasmopara australis (Speg.) Swingle. Sicyos angulatus. Indiana. Plasmopara cubensis (B. & C.) Humph. a. Cucumis sp. Texas. b. Cucumis sativus. | Mary- land. Plasmopara entospora (R. & C.) Schrot. Aster nove-angliz. Mary- land. Plasmopara geranii (Pk. ) Berl. & De Toni. a. Geranium — carolinianum. Indiana, Missouri, New Jersey. b. Geranium maculatum. Dis- trict of Columbia. Plasmopara halstedii (Farl.) Berl. & De Toni. a. Bidens connata. b. Bidens frondosa. Plasmopara obducens Schrot. Impatiens sp. Michigan. Indiana. Indiana. Plasmopara pygmea (Ung.) Schrot. Anemone gan. Michi- dichotoma. OTHER FUNGI. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 248. 244. 245. 246. 247. 248. Plasmopara ribicola Schrot. Ribes divaricatum. Washing- ton. Plasmopara viburni Pk. © Viburnum opulus. Maryland. Plasmopara viticola (B. & C.) Berl. & De Toni. a. Vitis sp. Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Ohio. b. Vitis sp., cult. var. Mench. Mississippi. c. Vitis xstivalis. d. Vitis cordifolia. Sclerospora graminicola(Sacc. ) Schrot. a. Setaria italica. b. Setaria viridis. Tlinois. Indiana. Michigan. Towa. Synchytrium decipiens Farl. a. Amphicarpea sp. Minne- sota. b. Amphicarpxa monoica. In- diana. c. Apios tuberosa. Missouri. Synchytrium papillatum Farl. ; Erodium cicutarium. nia. Califor- Synchytrium pluriannulatum (Hark. ) Farl. Sanicula marylandica. Michi- gan. PYRENOMYCETEZ. Asterina inquinans Ell. & Ever. Sabal adansonii. Mississippi. Asterina pelliculosa Berk. Ilex lucida. Florida. Claviceps purpurea (Fr.) Tul. a. Agropyrum sp. South Da- kota. b. Elymusvirginicus. Illinois. c. Phalaris arundinacea. New York. d. Spartina stricta. California. Didymella culmigena Sacc. Muhlenbergia sp. Mississippi. Epichloe typhina (P.) Tul. Glyceria nervata. Missouri. Erysiphe cichoracearum DC. a. Achillea millefolium. Mon- tana. PYRENOMYCETEZ. 248. Erysiphe cichoracearum DC.— Continued. b. Actinomeris squarrosa. Il- linois, Indiana, Mary- land. ec. Ambrosia —artemisixfolia. Indiana. d. Ambrosia trifida. Indiana. e. Artemisia ludoviciana. Montana. jf. Aster sp. District of Co- lumbia, Ohio. g. Aster communis. Montana. h. Aster cordifolius. Indiana. i. Aster longifolius. Montana. j. Aster paniculatus. Indiana. k. Aster puniceus. Indiana. l. Bigelovia graveolens var. al- bicaulis, Montana. m. Cnicus altissimus. Indiana. n. Eupatorium purpureum. Indiana. 0. Helianthus decapetalus. In- diana. p. Helianthus tuberosus. In- diana. q. Helianthus tuberosus var. subcanescens. Indiana. r. Parietaria pennsylvanica. Indiana. s. Phlox sp. District of Co- lumbia. t. Phlox paniculata. Indiana. u. Solidago canadensis. Indi- ana. v. Verbena hastata. Illinois. w. Verbena stricta. Illinois, Indiana. ‘ x. Vernonia fasciculata. Ili- nois. y. Vernonianoveboracensis. In- diana. z Xanthium — strumarium.* District of Columbia, Indiana, Maryland, Mis- sourl. 249. Erysiphe communis (Wallr.) Fr. a. Amphicarpxa monoica. Il- linois, Indiana. b. Apios tuberosa. Indiana. ce. Clematis virginiana. In- diana. 19 249. Erysiphe communis (Wallr.) Fr.—Continued. d. Cuphea viscoscissima. Maryland. e. Geranium maculatum. diana. f. Lupinus perennis. Michigan. g. Ranunculus abortivus. diana. hh. Thermopsis montana. Col- orado. In- Tllinois, In- 250. Erysiphe galeopsidis DC. a. Stachys aspera. Indiana. b., Stachys ciliata var. pubens. Washington. 251. Erysiphe graminis DC. a. Agropyrum sp. Montana. b. Agropyrum glaucum. Mon- tana. c. Poa tenuifolia. Erysiphe trina Hark. Quercus agrifolia. Montana. 252: California. 253. Gnomonia ulmea Thiim. Ulmus americana. Canada. 254. Gnomoniella coryli (Batsch.) Sace. Corylus rostrata. Washington. Gnomoniella fimbriata (P.) Sace. Carpinus caroliniana. Virginia. 255. West 256. Hypomyces lactifluorum (Schw.) Tul. Lactarius sp. New Jersey. Lestadia bidwellii (Ell.) Viala & Ravyaz. a. Ampelopsis quinquefolia. District of Columbia, Illinois. b. Vitis sp. District of Co- lumbia, Illinois, Mary- land, North Carolina, 257. Ohio. c. Vitis cordifolia. Illinois, Indiana. d. Vitis vinifera var. Mission. Texas. 258. Lestadia Earle. Illicium floridanum.* Missis- sippi. illicicola Tracy & 264. 265. ECONOMIC AND Lembosia angustiformis Tracy «& Earle. Ilex coriacea. Mississippi. Leptospheria obtusispora Speg. Yucca sp. Mississippi. Meliola cameliz (Catt.) Sacc. Citrus aurantium. Florida. Meliola palmicola Wint. Sabal serrulata. Florida. Microsphera alni (DC.) Wint. a. Alnus serrulata. Mary- land. b. Carya sulcata. c. Castanea sativa. ginia. d. Ceanothus americanus, Illi- nois, New York. e. Corylus americana. nois. f. Fagus ferruginea. Indiana, New York. Juglans nigra. Indiana. Lonicera oblongifolia. Ohio. Lonicera perfoliata. Iowa. Platanus occidentalis. Dis- trict of Columbia, In- diana. k. Virbunum diana. 1. Virbunum lentago. Lowa. m. Virburnum — prunifolium. Indiana. Microsphera diffusa ©. & P. a. Desmodium sp. District of Columbia, Illinois. b. Desmodium canadense. Ll- linois, Iowa. c. Desmodium Maryland. d. Lespedeza capitata Ilinois. Indiana. West Vir- Ihi- SSE eo In- dentatum. canescens. Microsphera elevata Burrill. Catalpa sp. District of Co- lumbia. Microspheera erineophila Pk. a. Hagus sp. District of Columbia. b. Fagus ferruginea. District of Columbia, Illinois. Microsphera euphorbie B. &C. Euphorbia corollata., Illinois, Maryland. OTHER FUNGI. 268. 269. 0k. (©) ~J (v*) : 274. 275. 276. Microsphera grossularie Lév. a. Sambucus sp. Ohio. b. Sambucus canadensis. New York. Microsphera (S.) Burrill. a. Quercus sp. Iowa, Michi- gan, West Virginia. b. Quercus bicolor. quercina c. Quercus bicolor > macro- carpa. Indiana. d. Quercus bicolor x michauxii. Indiana. e. Quercus coccinea. District of Columbia, Virginia. f. Quercus lyrata. Indiana. g. Quercus macrocarpa. In- diana. h. Quercus palustris. Illinois. i. Quercus prinoides. Kansas. j. Quercus prinus. Indiana. k. Quercus rubra. Illinois, Indiana. Microspheera ravenelii Berk. a. Gleditschia triacanthos. In- diana, Mississippi. b, Vicia americana, var. line- aris. Montana. Microsphera russellii Clint. Oxalis corniculata var. stricta. Illinois. Microsphera semitosta B. & C. Cephalanthus occidentalis. In- diana. Microsphera symphoricarpi Howe. ‘a. Symphoricarpus sp. Mis- souri. b. Symphoricarpus vulgaris. Missouri. Microsphera syringe (S.) Magnus. Syringa vulgaris. District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana. Microspheera vaccinii C. & P. a. Vaccinium sp. District of Columbia. b. Vaccinium canadense. nois. Montagnella heliopisdis (S.) Sace. Fieliopsis ? hirsuta. sippi. Tlli- Missis- 277. 279. 280. 281. PYRENOMYCETE A. Ophiobolus anguillides (Cke. ) Sace. Ambrosia artemisizxfolia. sissippi. Mis- Parodiella perisporioides (B. & C.) Speg. Rhynchosia tomentosa var. erecta, Mississippi. Phyllachoraflabella (8. ) Thtim. Pteris aquilina. West Vir- ginia. Phyllachora graminis (P.) Fcekl. a. Andropogon furcatus. Illi- nois. b. Distichlis maritima. New Mexico. c. Elymus sp. Illinois. d. Elymus canadensis. Indi- ana, West- Virginia. e. Elymus virginicus. Vir- ginia. f. Muhlenbergiamexicana. In- diana, Michigan. g. Sporobolus cuspidatus. Min- nesota. h. Sporobolus Montana. Phyllactinia suffulta (Reb.) Sace. a. Alnus rubra. Washington. depauperatus. b. Carpinus caroliniana. In- diana. c. Celastrus scandens. Indi- ana. d. Cephalanthus occidentalis. Indiana. e. Cornus nuttallii.* . Wash- ington. Jf. Cornus stolonifera. Mon- tana, New York. g. Corylus americana. Tlli- nois, Indiana. h. Crategus coccinea. New York. i. Crategus tomentosa. Illi- nois. j. Fraxinus sp. Illinois. k. Fraxinus americana. In- diana. 1. Fravinus pubescens. Indi- ana, Michigan. 281. 282. 283. 284. 285. 286. 288. 289. 21 Phyllactinia suffulta Sacc.—Continued.. m. Fraxinus quadrangulata.* Indiana. n. Fraxinus sambucifolia. In- ~ diana, Michigan. 0. Liriodendron tulipifera. In- diana. p. Ostrya virginica. Illinois. Yq. Quercus coccinea. Indiana. r. Quercus palustris. Indiana. s. Vaccinium stamineum. West Virginia. (Reb. ) Indiana, Physalospora arthuriana Sacc. Baccharis sp. Mississippi. Physalospora aurantia Ell. & Ever. Astragalus pectinatus. tana. Mon- Plowrightia morbosa (S.) Sace. a. Prunussp. Maryland, West Virginia. b. Prunus americana. land. Mary- Plowrightia symphoricarpi Ell. & Ever. Symphoricarpus Montana. occidentalis. Podosphera biuncinata C. & P. Hamamelis virginiana. Illi- nois. Podospheraoxyacaunthe (DC. ) De By. a. Crategus coccinea. Michi- gan. b. Crategus crus-galli, Indi- ana. c. Crategus spathulata.* In- diana. d. Cydonia vulgaris. Indiana. e. Prunus americana. Indi- ana. f. Prunus cerasus. Indiana, New York. Scorias spongiosa (S.) Fr. Alnus sp. Maryland. Spherella andromede Tracy & Earle. Andromeda sippi. nitida. Missis- 22 290. 291. 292. 293. 294. 295. 299. ae ECONOMIC AND OTHER FUNGI. Spherella annulata Cke. Magnolia glauca. Mississippi. Spherellafragarie (Tul.) Sacc. a. Fragaria sp. District of Columbia, Indiana. b. Fragariaelatior.* Indiana. Spheerella fraxinicola (8. ) Cke. Fraxinusamericana. Indiana. Spherella quadrangulata Ell. & Ever. Fraxinus Missouri. quadrangulata.* Spherotheca castagnei Lév. a. Bidens chrysanthemoides. Indiana. b., Bidens connata. c. Bidens frondosa. Indiana. d. Brunellavulgaris. Indiana. é. Erechtites hieracifolia. In- Indiana. Illinois, diana. f. Gerardia sp. District of Columbia. ge Pedicularis canadensis. Michigan. h, Pedicularis lanceolata.* In- diana. i. Veronica virginica. Illi- nois. Spherotheca humuli (DC.) Burrill. a. Ayrimonia eupatoria. Indi- ana. b. Geum album. Indiana. Gilia linearis. Montana, North Dakota. Libs Spherotheca lanestris Hark. Quercus prinus. Mississippi. Spherotheca mors-uve (S.) B. & C. a. Ribes sp. New York. b. Ribes floridum. Nebraska. Spheerotheca pannosa (Wallr. ) Lév. a. Rosa lucida. Indiana. b. Rubus spectabilis.* Wash- ba ington. Spherotheca phytoptophila Kell. & Swingle. a. Celtis occidentalis. Missouri. Kansas, 300. 305. 308. 309. 310. Uncinula circinata C. & P. a. Acer rubrum. Indiana. b. Acer saccharinum. Indi- Be - ana. c. Acer saccharinum var. ni- grum. Indiana. Uncinula clintonii Pk. Tilia americana. Illinois, In- diana, Michigan. Uncinula flexuosa Pk. Esculus glabra. Indiana. Uncinula geniculata Gerard. Morus rubra. Indiana, Kan- sas. Uncinula macrospora Pk. a. Ulmus americana. Lowa, Mississippi. b, Ulmus fulva. Indiana. Uncinula necator (S.) Burrill. a. Ampelopsis — quinquefolia. District of Columbia, Indiana. b. Vitis sp. (cult.). District of Columhia, Illinois, Indiana, Maine. c. Vitis vinifera. California. Uncinula parvula C. & P. Celtis occidentalis. Illinois, Indiana. Uncinula polycheta (B. & C.) Tracy & Gall. Celtis mississippiensis.* Missis- sippl. Uncinula salicis (DC.) Wint. a. Populustremuloides. Iowa, Montana. 6. Salix sp. Illinois, Massa- chusetts, Michigan, Min- nesota. Salix caprea var. pendula. New York. d. Salix flavescens. ton. e. Salix flavescens var. scouleri- ana. Montana. f. Salix nigra. Indiana. g. Salix sericea. Indiana. Thielavia basicola Zopf. Viola sp. Maryland. Trabutia quercina (Fr. & Rud.) Sace. & Roum. (Quercus virens. c Washing- Mississippi. 311. 312. 3138. 314. 315. 316. 317. 825. DISCOMY CETE#—SPH #ROPSIDEX. Valsa nivea (Hoffm.) Fr. Populus tremuloides. tana. Winteria lobata Tracy & Earle. Tlex lucida. Mississippi. Mon- DISCOMYCETEZ. Dermatea carnea (Cke. «& Ell.) Unrecognized bark. Mary- land. Exoascus deformans (Berk.) Fckl. Prunus persica, New Jersey. Niptera ellisii Rehm. Ammophila longifolia.* Mon- tana. Georgia, Pseudopeziza trifolii Fckl. Trifolium pratense. Washing- ton. Rhytisma acerinum (P.) Fr. a. Acer dasycarpum. Illinois, New Jersey, Virginia, West Virginia. b. Acer rubrum. West Vir- ginia. Rhytisma andromede (P.) Fr. Andromeda polifolia. Michi- gan. Rhytisma punctatum (P.) Fr. a. Acer sp. West Virginia. b. Acer macrophyllum. Wash- ington. Rhytisma solidaginis Schw. Solidago lanceolata. Vermont. Rhytisma vaccinii Fr. Vaccinium sp. West Virginia. Stictis arundinacea Pers. Andropogon sp. Mississippi. Taphrina aurea (P.) Fr. Populus balsamifera. Towa. Taphrina czrulescens (Mont. & Desm.) Tul. a. Quercus sp. Florida, Georgia. b. Quercus nigra. Georgia. _¢. Quercus tinctoria. Massa- chusetts. Taphrina ulmi (Fckl.) Johans. Ulmus campestris.* Texas. 326. 827. 329. 330. 331. 332. 333. 334. 23 Taphrina virginica Sadeb. & Seymour. Ostrya virginica, Massachu- setts. SPHZEROPSIDEZ. Actinonema rose (Lib.) Fr. Rosa sp. District of Colum- bia, Missouri, New Jersey. Ascochyta paulowniz Sacc. & Brun. Paulownia imperialis. trict of Columbia. Dis- Asteroma liriodendri Cke. Liriodendron tulipifera. Dis- trict of Columbia. Cicinnobolus cesatii De By. a. Aster shortii. Indiana. b. Hydrophylium virginicum. 2. b Indiana. c. Rudbeckia triloba. Indi- ~~ ana. d. Solidago arguta. Indiana. e. Solidago canadensis var. procera. Indiana. f. Solidago latifolia. Indiana. g. Taraxacum officinale. In- diana. Coniothyrium concentricum (Desm. ) Sace. a. Yucca sp. lina. b. Yueca angustifolia. Dis- trict of Columbia, Mis- souri. North Caro- Coniothyrium diplodiella (Speg. ) Sace. Vitis sp. var. nigra. Carolina. Darluca filum (Biy.) Cast. a. Calamintha clinopodium. West Virginia. b. Carex sp. Indiana. c. Potentilla canadensis. South Ohio. d. Salix sp. Maryland, West Virginia. Diplodia hesperidica Speg. Citrus aurantium. Missis- sippi. 94 ECONOMIC AND 335. Discosia rugulosa B. & C. Carya alba, Illinois. Entomosporium maculatum Léy. a. Cydonia sp. New York. b. Cydonia vulgaris. Michi- gan, New Jersey. 2 c, Pirus communis. Georgia, New York, Texas. d. Pirus malus. New York. e. Pirus sinensis.* New Jer- sey. Delaware, 8337. Hendersonia mali Thiim. Pirus malus. Tllinois. 338. Kellermania yuccegena Ell. & Ever. Yucca sp. Melasmia gleditschie Ell. & Ever. Gleditschia triacanthos. sas. Mississippi. Kan- Phleospora aceris (Lib.) Sacc. a. Acer dasycarpum. Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Min- nesota, Missouri. b. Acer rubrum. Indiana. 341. Phleospora anemones Ell. & Kell. Anemone virginiana. chusetts. Massa- Phleospora mori (Léy.) Sace. Morus rubra. District of Co- lumbia. 1) ns iv) Phleospora ulmi (Fr.) Wallr. a. Ulmus sp. Michigan. b. Ulmus americana. District of Columbia, Illinois. c. Ulmus fulva. District of Columbia, Illinois, Indi- ana, Kansas. ) 844. Phoma maculans (B. & C.)Sacc. Bumelia sp. Mississippi. Phoma uvicola B. & C. Lestadia bidwellii (Ell.) Viala & Ravaz. See 845. Phoma virginiana Ell. & Hal- sted. Prunus virginiana. Illinois. OTHER FUNGI. 346. 347. 349. 350. 351. 356. Phyllosticta acericola C. & E. a. Acer dasycarpum. Mis- souri, New Jersey. b. Acer platanoides* New Jer- sey. c. Acer rubrum. ginia. Phyllosticta zsculi Ell. & Mart. a. Asculus sp. District of Columbia. Maine, Vir- b. ABsculus glabra. Missouri. c. Aisculus ~ hippocastanwn. District of Columbia, Maryland. Phyllosticta ampelopsidis Ell. & Mart. See Lestadia bidwellii (Ell.) Viala & Ravaz. Phyllosticta asimine Ell. & Kell. Asimina triloba. District of Columbia, Indiana, Mary- land, Missouri. Phyllosticta catalpe Ell. & Mart. ; Catalpa bignonioides. District of Columbia. Phyllosticta celtidis Ell. «& Kell. %eltis occidentalis. Indiana. Phyllosticta cireumscissa Cke. a. Prunus americana. Illi- nois. b. Prunus persica. Washing- ton. Phyllosticta cornicola (DC.) Rabh. Cornus florida. Columbia. District of Phyllosticta destruens Desm. Prunus americana. Kansas. Phyllosticta eriobotryz Thim. Photinia japonica. Louisiana. Phyllosticta eupatorina Thum, Eupatorium purpureum. — Iili- nois. Phyllosticta gossypina Ell. & Mart. Gossypium herbaceum. Carolina. North 357. 358. 359. 367. SPH ZROPSIDE 4. Phyllosticta liriodendrica Sacec. Liriodendron tulipifera. West Virginia. Phyllosticta minutissima Ell. & Ever. Acer glabrum. Nebraska. Phyllosticta paulowniz Sacc. Paulownia imperialis. Dis- trict of Columbia. Phyllosticta pirina Sacc. Pirus malus. District of Columbia, Maryland, Mis- souri, New Jersey, West Virginia. Phyllosticta sassafras Cke. Sassafras officinale. Illinois, Missouri. Phyllosticta spnzropsoidea Ell. & Ever. ABsculus hippocastanum. New Jersey. Piggotia fraxini B. & C. a, Fraxinus sp. Missouri. b. Fraxinus americana. Mis- sissippi. Septoria acicola (Thiim.) Sacc. Pinus sp. Missouri. Septoria sesculi (Lib.) West. Esculus glabra. Indiana. Septoria agrimoniz-eupato- riz Bomm. & Rouss. Agrimonia eupatoria. souri. Mis- Septoria ampelina B. &C. a. Vitissp.var. Duchess. Kan- sas. b. Vitis sp.var. Herbert. Kan- sas. Septoria asclepiadicola Ell. & Ever. Asclepias incarnata. Indiana. Septoria atropurpurea Pk. Aster cordifolius. District of Columbia. Septoria aurea Ell. & Ever. Kansas. Septoria calcaliz Hil. & Kell. Cacalia atriplicifolia. Mis- souri. Ribes aureum. 372. 373. 25 Septoria campanule (Léyv.) Sace. Campanula americana. Lowa. Septoria cannabina West. Cannabis sativa. Illinois. 374. Septoria conspicua Ell. & Mart. Steironema ciliatum. Indiana. 375. Septoria cornicola Desm. 376. 377. 378. 379. 380. 381. 382. 383. 389. Cornus florida. District of Columbia. Septoria erigerontia Pk. Erigeron annuus. Illinois. Septoria graminum Desm. a Triticum vulgare. Mary- land. b. Triticum vulgare var. Zim- merman. Kansas. ~eptoria kalmizcola(S.)B.&C. Kalmia latifolia. District of Columbia. Septoria lactucze Pass. Lactuca sativa. Indiana. Septoria lobelize Pk. Lobelia syphilitica. Tllinois. Septoria mimuli Ell. & Kell. Mimulus alatus. Tlinois. Septoria nolitangeris Gerard. TImpatienssp. Massachusetts. Septoria cnothere West. a. Oenothera biennis. District of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Mis- sour. b. Oenothera sinuata. Missis- sippi. Septoria phlogis Sacc. & Speg. Phlox perennis. Canada. Septoria physostegie Ell. & Ever. Physostegia virginica. Illinois. Septoria pileze Thiim. Pilea pumila. Iowa. Septoria polygonorum Desm. Polygonum —pennsylvanicum. Illinois. Septoria psilostega Ell. & Mart. Galium circezans. Indiana. Septoria rhoina B. & C. Rhus typhina. Lowa. 391. 392. 398. 394. 395. 396. 397. 398. 399. 400. 401. 402. 403. 404. 405. ECONOMIC AND OTHER FUNGI. Septoria rubi West. a. Rubus sp. New Jersey. b. Rubus canadensis. Mary- land, New Jersey. c. Rubus villosus. Texas. Septoria saccharina Ell. & Ever. Acer saccharinum. Vermont. Septoria sambucina Pk. Sambucus canadensis. gan. Michi- Septoria scrophularie Pk. Scrophularia nodosa. Minne- sota, Missouri. Septoria smilacina Ell. & Mart. Smilacina racemosa.* Minne- sota. Septoria specularie B. & C. Specularia leptocarpa. Mon- tana. Septoria trillii Pk. Trillium sessile.* Missouri. Septoria verbenze Rob. Verbena hastata. Illinois. Septoria viole West. a. Violasp. New Jersey. b. Viola blanda. New Jersey. Septoria wilsoni Clinton. Chelone glabra. Ohio. Vermicularia albomaculata Schw. Liriodendron tulipifera. trict of Columbia. Dis- Vermicularia stachydis Tracy & Earle. Stachys affinis.* Missouri. MELANCONIEZ. Colletotrichum gloeosporioides Penzig var. hederx Passer. Hedera helix. District of Co- lumbia. Colletotrichum lagenarum EFll. & Halsted. Cucumis sativus. New Jersey. Colletotrichum lineola Cda. Sorghum vulgare. Missouri. Colletotrichum pisi Pat. Pisum sativum. Ecuador. 406. 407. 408. 409. 410. 411. 412. 413. 414. Cylindrosporium clematidis, Ell. & Ever. var. jackmanni Ell. & Ever. Clematis York. Cylindrosporium fraxini (Ell. & Kell.) Ell. & Ever. a. Fraxinusamericana. Mary- land. b. Fraxinus land. jackmanni.* New viridis. Mary- Cylindrosporium humuli Ell. & Ever. Humulus lupulus. Michigan. Cylindrosporium padi Karst. a. Prunus sp. Maryland. b. Prunus. cerasus. Nebraska. c. Prunus domestica. Mich- igan. d. Prunus domestica var. Far- leigh damson. New York. e. Prunus domestica var. Fel- lenberg. New York. Ff. Prunus domestica var. Field plum. New York. g. Prunus serotina. West Vir- ginia. h. Prunus virginiana. igan. Mich- Cylindrosporium rubi Ell. & Morg. Rubus sp. Missouri. Gleosporium ampelophagum (Pass. ) Sace. Vitis sp. Maryland, New York, Virginia. Gleeosporium apocyni (Pk.) Ell. & Ever. Apocynum cannabinum. diana. In- Gloeosporium betularum Ell. & Mart. Betula nigra. lumbia. District of Co- Glceosporium canadense Ell. & Ever. Quercus alba. necticut. Canada, Con- Gleeosporium celtidis Ell. & Ever. Celtis occidentalis. Canada. 416. 417. 418. 420. 421. 422. 424. 427. HYPHOMYCETE. Gleosporium equiseti Ell. & Ever. Equisetum sp. Illinois. Glceosporium nervisequum (Fekl.) Sace. Platanus occidentalis. District of Columbia, Missouri. Glceosporium ochroleucum Ell. & Ever. Castanea sativa var. americana. Virginia. Gleosporium phegopteridis Frank. Aspidium thelypteris. Massa- chusetts. Gleosporium septorioides Sace. Quercus sp. Indiana. Glceosporium venetum Speg. a. Rubus sp. Missouri. 6. Rubus ideus* var. Gregg. Ohio. c. Rubus ideus var Shaffer. New York. d. Rubus idxus var. Souhegan. Ohio. Marsonia juglandis Sace. a. Juglans cinerea. Ohio. b. Juglans nigra. (Lib. ) Illinois, Michigan. Marsonia martini Sace. & Ell. a. Quercus sp. Illinois. b. Quercus alba. District of Columbia, Indiana. c. Quercus bicolor. Indiana. d. Quercus prinus. Indiana. e. Quercus rubra. Indiana. Marsonia potentille (Desm.) Fisch. Fragaria sp. Montana. Marsonia quercus Pk. . Quercus alba. Missouri. b. Quercus prinus. Missouri. Pestalozzia funerea Desm. Smilax laurifolia. Mississippi. HYPHOMYCETEZ. Alternaria solani (E. & M.) Sor. Solanum tuberosum. Missouri, Vermont. 428. 429. 430. 432. 433. 434. 435. 439. 440. 27 Arthrobotrys rosea Massee. Avena sativa. District of Co- lumbia. Botrytis hypophylla Ell. & Kell. Polygonum hydropiper. Mis- souri. Botrytis vulgaris Fr. Lactuca sativa. District of Columbia. Ceratophorum uncinatum (C. & P.) Sace. a. Caryaamara. Kansas. b. Quercus macrocarpa. In- diana. Cercospora acalyphe Pk. Acalypha virginica. North Carolina. Cercospora ampelopsidis Pk. Ampelopsis quinquefolia. In- diana, Minnesota, West Vir- ginia. Cercospora apii Fres. a. Apium graveolens. Mary- land, Michigan, Missouri. b. Daucus carota. Maryland, New Jersey. Cercospora apii Fres. var. pasti- nace Farl. Pastinaca sativa. New Jersey. Cercospora atromaculans Ell. & Ever. Aralia spinosa. West Virginia. Cercospora beticola Sacc. Betavulgaris. Illinois, Michi- gan. Cercospora brunkii Ell. & Gal. a. Geranium sp. Texas. b. Pelargonium peltatum.* Texas. Cercospora canescens Ell. & Mart. a. Phaseolus sp. Illinois. b. Phaseolus lunatus var. Dreer’s Improved. Wan- sas. c. Phaseolus lunatus var. New Challenge. Kansas. Cercospora caulicola Wint. Asparagus officinalis, Mary- land. 445. 446. 447. 448. ECONOMIC AND Cercospora caulophylli Pk. Anemonella thalictroides. Mis- souri. i Cercospora cercidicola Ell. Cercis canadensis. District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana. Cercospora circumscissa Sacc. a. Prunussp. District of Co- lumbia, Illinois, Texas. b. Prunus cerasus. Ohio, New Jersey. c. ‘Prunus serotina. Illinois, West Virginia. Cercospora clavata ( Ger.) Pk. a. Asclepias cornuti. Michi- gan. b. Asclepias incarnata., Tli- nois, Indiana, West Vir- ginia. Cercospora coffeicola B. & C. Coffea arabica.* Hawaii. Cercosporadesmodii Ell. & Kell. a. Desmodium Illinois. b. Desmodium rotundifolium. District of Columbia. Cercospora diodiz Cke. Diodia teres. District of Co- lumbia. Cercospora dubia (Riess) Wint. a. Chenopodium album. Dis- trict of Columbia, Illi- nois, Indiana. b. Spinacea oleracea. souri. Mis- Cercospora effusa (B. & C.) Ell. & Ever. Lobelia syphilitica. ginia. West Vir- Cercospora erythrogena Atk. Rhexia mariana. Mississippi. Cercospora evonymi [ll. Evonymus atropurpureus. Ili- nois. Cercospora ferruginea Fckl. Ambrosia trifida. Illinois. Cercospora flagellaris Ell. & Mart. Phytolacea decandra. Illinois. acuminatum. | OTHER FUNGI. 454. 455. 456. 457. 462. 463. 464. 465. 466. | 467. 468. Cercospora fiexuosa Tracy & Earle. Diospyros virginiana. Missis- sippl. Cercospora fusco-virens Sacc. Passiflora sp. Missouri. Cercospora granuliformis Ell. & Hol. Viola var. cucullata. Indiana. Cercospora hydropiperis (Thtim.) Speg. Polygonum hydropiper. nois, Indiana. Illi- Cercospora ilicis Ellis. Tlex glabra. Mississippi. Cercospora ipomeeze Wint. Ipomea pandurata. Tllinois. Cercospora lippie Ell. & Ever. Lippia lanceolata.* Illinois. Cercospora liriodendri Ell. & Hark. Liriodendron tulipifera. Mis- sissippl. Cercospora maritima Tracy & Earle. \ Croton maritimus.* Missis- sippl. Cercospora microsora Sacc. Tilia americana. Tllinois, Michigan. Cercospora mississippiensis Tracy & Earle. a. Smilax sp. Mississippi. b. Smilax bona-nox. Missis- sippi. Cercospora moricola Cke. Morus rubra. Mississippi. Cercospora nigricans Cke. Cassia marylandica, Missouri. Cercospora nympheacea C. & E. a. Nymphea sp. Ohio. " b. Nymphea odorata? Iili- nois. Cercospora oculata Ell. & Kell. Vernonia noveboracensis. In- diana. Cercospora olivacea (B. & Ray.) Wint. Gleditschia triacanthos. nois, Lowa. Illi- 470. 472. 473. 474. 475. 476. 477. 478. 481. 482 HY PHOMYCETE. Cercospora oxybaphi Ell. & Halsted. Oxybaphus nyctagineus. nois. Tli- Cercospora personata (B. & C.) Ell. & Ever. Arachis hypogea. Mississippi. Cercospora ptelesze Wint. Pielea trifoliata. Indiana. Cercospora pustula Cke. Ampelopsis quinquefolia. Vir- ginia. Cercospora racemosa Ell. & Mart. a. Ambrosia trifida. of Columbia. b. Teucrium canadense. ~ diana, Michigan. District In- Cercospora resedee Fckl. Reseda odorata. Illinois. Cercospora rhoina C. & E. a. Rhus sp. Mississippi. b. Rhus aromatica. Missouri. c. Rhus copallina. Mississippi. d. Rhus glabra. District of Columbia, Indiana, Mis- souri. e. Rhus typhina. District of Columbia. Cercospora rosicola Pass. a. Rosa sp. District of Co- lumbia, Missouri. b. Rosa setigera.* Indiana. Cercospora rubi Sace. a. Rubus sp. Missouri. b. Rubus canadensis. Mary- land. c. Rubus villosus. Tlinois. Cercospora sagittarie Ell. & Kell. Sagittaria variabilis. Texas. Illinois, Cercospora sanguinarie Pk. Sanguinaria canadensis. Mis- souri. Cercospora saururi Ell. & Ever. Saururus cernuus. Illinois, Indiana. Cercospora sedoides Ell. & Ever. Penthorum sedoides. 483. 485. 486. 488. 489. 490. 491. 492. 497. 498. 29 Cercospora simulata Ell. & Ever. Cassia marylandica. Missouri. Indiana, Cercospora smilacis Thiim. a. Smilax sp. Missouri. b. Smilax glauca. West Vir- ginia. Cercospora sordida Sacc. Tecoma Illinois, Missouri. radicans. Cercospora squalidula Pk. a. Clematis sp. North Da- iy kota. b. Clematis ligusticifolia. Ne- braska. Cercospora teucrii Ell. & Kell. Teucriumcanadense. Indiana. Cercospora umbrata Ell. & Hol. Bidens frondosa. Michigan. Cercospora viticola (Ces. ) Sace. a. Vitis sp. District of Co- lumbia, North Carolina, Virginia. b. Vitis cordifolia. Illinois. Cercosporella cana (Pass. ) Sace. Erigeron annuus. District of Columbia, Indiana. Cercosporella persica Sacc. Prunus persica. Maryland. Cladosporium carpophilum Thim. Prunus persica. Illinois. Cladosporium fulvum Cke. Lycopersicum — esculentum. Maryland, New Jersey. Cladosporium pzonie Pass. Pxonia officinalis. District of Columbia. Cladosporium typharum Desm. Typha latifolia. Montana. Didymaria clematidis Cke. & Hark. Clematis ligusticifolia. tana. Mon- Didymaria ungeri Cda. Ranunculus — septentrionalis.* Indiana. Epicoccum neglectum Desm. Tripsacum dactyloides. Mis- sissippi. 30 499. 500. 504. on (9 ee) 509. 510. 513. ECONOMIC AND OTHER FUNGI. Fusarium rubi Wint. Rubus villosus. Ilinois. Fusicladium dendriticum (Wallr.) Fekl. Pirus malus. Indiana, Kan- sas, Michigan, New York. Fusicladium pirinum Fckl. Pirus communis. Michigan. Glenospora curtisii Berk. «& Desm. Nyssa sp. Helminthosporium fragile Sor- okin. See Thielavia basicola Zopi. Helminthosporium gramin- eum Rabh. Hordeum vulgare. Canada. Helminthosporium incon- spicuum ©. & E. Zea mays. Illinois, New Jer- sey. Helminthosporium ravenelii M. A. Curtis. Sporobolus indicus. Mexico. Helminthosporium turcicum Pass. Sorghum vulgare. Kansas. Isariopsis lindere (Ell. «& Ever.) Sace. Diospyros virginiana? Virginia. West Macrosporium brassice Berk. Brassica sp. Alabama. Macrosporium cookei Sacc. Datura sp. Maryland. Macrosporium parasiticum Thim. Allium cepa. New York. Macrosporium sarcineeforme Cay. Trifolium pratense. Kansas. Microstroma juglandis (Bér.) Sace. a. Juglans cinerea. New Jer- "ee b. Juglans nigra. District of x Columbia, Missouri. Monilia fructigena Pers. a. Prunus sp. Maryland. b. Prunus persica. Missouri, 514. 515. 516. 517. 528. 524. 525. 526. 527. 528. 529. —_——_— Napicladium arundinaceum (Cda. ) Sace. Phragmites communis. Ne- braska. s Oidium obductum Ell. & Lang. a. Quercus alba. Illinois. b. Quercus imbricaria. Cali- fornia. Ovularia obliqua (Cke.) Oud. Rumex crispus. Maryland, New Jersey. Periconia pycnospora Fres. Yucca sp. Florida. Piricularia grisea (Cke.) Sacc. Setaria sp. Nebraska. Polythrincium trifolii Kunze. Trifolium repens. Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey. Ramularia areola Atk. Gossypium sp. Mississippi. Ramularia celastri Ell. & Mart. Celastrus scandens. Canada. Ramularia desmodii Cke. Desmodium sp. Illinois, Mis- sourl. Ramularia dierville Pk. Diervilla trifida. New Hamp- shire. Ramularia gibba Fckl. Ranunculus repens. Tllinois. Ramularia hamamelidis Pk. a. Hamamelis sp. West Vir- ginia. b. Hamamelis virginica. Tlli- nois. Ramularia macrospora Fres. Erigeron annuus. New Jer- sey. Ramularia parietariz Pass. Parietaria pennsylvanica. Mis- souri. Ramularia plantaginis Ell. & Mart. Plantago major. New Jersey. Indiana, Ramularia rudbeckie Pk. Rudbeckia laciniata. Michi- gan, West Virginia. 535. HY PHOMYCETEA., Ramularia rufo-maculans Pk. Polygonum acre. Indiana. Ramularia tulasnei Sacc. See Spherella fragariz (Tul.) Sace. Ramularia urtice Ces. Urtica gracilis. Illinois. Ramularia vaccinii Pk. Vaccinium — pennsylvanicum. District of Columbia. Ramularia variabilis Fckl. Verbascum thapsus. Michi- gan. Scolecotrichum graminis Fckl. a. Festuca elatior.* Kansas. b. Phleum pratense. Indiana. ce. Poasp. Maryland. d. Poa nemoralis.* Indiana. e. Poa pratensis. Indiana. Scolecotrichum punctulatum Tracy & Harle. Iris pabularia. Mississippi. O 536. 537. 538. _— 539. 540. — 541. 542. 5438. d1 Septosporium heterosporum Ell. & Gal. Vitis californica. California. Steirochzte graminicola (Ces. ) Sace. Bromus unioloides. Texas. Stigmina platani (Fckl.) Sace. Platanus occidentalis. Mlinois. Stilbum flavidum Cke. Coffea arabica.* Guatemala. Tetraploa divergens Tracy & Earle. Panicum agrostidiforme. Mis- sissippi. Tubercularia vulgaris Tode. Ficus sp. California. Ustilaginoidea virens (Cke.) Tak. Oryza sativa. Japan. Volutella dianthi (Hal.) Atk. Dianthus caryophyllus.* Dis- trict of Columbia. Deseo beak DENT OF “AGRICULTURE. BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY—BULLETIN No. 9. B. T. GALLOWAY, Chief of Bureau. THE NORTH AMERICAN SPECIES OF SPARTINA. BY ELMER D. MERRILL, Asststanr AcrostToxocisr, GRASS AND FORAGE PLANT INVESTIGATIONS. IssuED Frsruary 4, 1902. Were EIN G TON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1902. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Bureau OF PLANT INDUSTRY, _ OFFICE OF THE CHIEF, Washington, D. C., November 25, 1901. Str: I have the honor to transmit herewith the manuscript of a paper entitled The North American Species of Spartina and to recommend that it be published as Bulletin No. 9 of the Bureau series. The paper was prepared by Mr. Elmer D. Merrill, Assistant Agrostologist, Grass and Forage Plant Investigations, and was submitted by the Agrostologist. Respectfully, B. T. GatLoway, Chief of Bureau. Hon. JAMES WILSON, Secretary of Agriculture. PREFACE. The accompanying technical paper on the genus Spartina is based entirely on material from North America, and the recent great increase in the available amount of herbarium material has shown the pressing need for a thorough inquiry into the bibliography, synonymy, and relationships of the several species which comprise the genus. The various species of Spartina are found in saline soils along the coast throughout the tropical and temperate regions of the world, two species are found in alkaline soils of the interior, and one species only is known to thrive in soils free from alkaline or saline properties. At different times various authors have proposed at least 6 dif- ferent generic names for the grasses now comprised in Spartina, and under the name Spartina alone about 36 specitic names have been pro- posed for the dozen or fifteen valid species now known in the world. Of these species, 9 are recognized as growing in North America, and are described in the present paper, one of which and one variety are proposed as new. F., Lamson-Scrisner. Agrostologist. OFFICE OF THE AGROSTOLOGIST, Washington, D. C., November 16, 1901. ? aA , RE AY pte : hey i) , Py ( in et pede Wr A Y ft ‘ q es ‘ Nes iee i : Cur J - B. P. I.—11. Agros.—90. THE NORTH AMERICAN SPECIES OF SPARTINA. SPARTINA Schreb. Gen. 1: 43. 1789. (Trachynotia Michx. Fl. Bor. Am. 1: 63. 1803; Limnetis Pers. Syn. 1: 72. 1805; Ponceletia Thou. FI. Trist. d’ Acugn. 36. 1811; Tristania Poir. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 4: 526. 1816; Solenachne Steud. Syn. Pl. Gram. 12. 1854; Chauvinia Steud. 1. c. 362.) Spikelets 1-flowered, strongly flattened laterally, sessile, and closely imbricated in two rows along one side of a continuous rachis, forming unilateral spikes which are scattered along a common axis; rachilla articulated below the empty glumes and not produced beyond the floret. Glumes three, the first two empty, keeled, acute, or bristle pointed, unequal, the second usually exceeding the flowering glume. Stamens 3. Styles elongated, filiform. Grain narrow, free within the glume and palea. Coarse perennials, with strong, creeping rootstocks, rigid culms, and long, tough leaves. Spartina comprises a small but distinct genus of the tribe Chlorideae of almost strictly halophytic grasses ranging along the coasts of Europe, Africa, North and South America, and in saline or alkaline soils of the interior, Spartina cynosuroides being somewhat exceptional to this rule, as it reaches its greatest development along streams and lakes of fresh water. There are about 12 recognized species in this genus in the world, 9 of which are found in North America, one of which is here proposed as a new species. Bentham * removed Spartina from the Chloridex and placed it in the Chamaeraphis group of the Paniceae for the reasons that the spikelets contain but a single per- fect flower, and that the pedicels are articulated below the empty glumes. Scrib- ner” discusses this transfer with the conclusion that Spartina should properly be referred to the Chlorideae, as its affinities are with this tribe rather than with the Paniceae, with the query that as the articulation of the pedicel below the empty glumes forms an exception in certain genera in the Poaceae and other tribes, why should not Spartina be considered a like exception in the Chlorideae. Hackel retains the genus in the Chlorideae. : As a genus Spartina does not take high rank from an economic standpoint, but as the several species grow in situations where other or better grasses will not thrive it must be considered as possessing a distinct economic value. Several of the species, on account of their strong, creeping rootstocks, are valuable for binding river banks and sea shores subject to wash. Spartina cynosuroides annually supplies many thousands of tons of native hay in the middle West, and it has been utilized for making a coarse paper. Spartina patens with ‘black grass’’ (Juncus gerardi) furnishes the bulk of the “ salt hay’’ of the Atlantic coast, and on account of its tough, wiry culms and leayes it is especially adapted for use as packing material for crockery, glassware, ete. “Notes on the Gramineae, Journ. Linn. Soc. 19: 50. 1881. "Bull. Torr. Bot. Club, 10: 85. 1883. 6 THE NORTH AMERICAN SPECIES OF SPARTINA. Among the points of particular interest brought out in the present paper are that Spartina glabra Muhl., has been wrongly referred to the European S. stricta, a species not found in North America, while on the other hand Spartina versicolor Fabre, from southern Europe, is doubtless identical with Spartina juncea of our Atlantic coast. Spartina foliosa Trin., is a valid species, while Vilfa spartinae Trin., is identical with Spartina junciformis Engelm. & Gray. On account of many intergrading forms it has been found rather difficult to properly characterize some species in this genus, but we trust that the present paper may serve to clear up some difficult points, at least in synonymy. This article is based entirely on material in the United States National Herbarium, and examina- tion of other herbaria would doubtless extend the range of some of the species here considered. ANALYTICAL KEY TO THE SPECIES. i, Leal-blades plane ormearly £0. ....sccne-<.. 9.5. eee 6,10, 11 } Ue DERAR ELEMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY—BULLETIN NO. 10. B. T, GALLOWAY, Chief of Bureau. RECORDS OF SEED DISTRIBUTION AND CQUPERATIVE EXPERIMENTS WITH GRASSES AND FORAGE PLANTS, BY F. LAMSON-SCRIBNER, Aarosro.oacist, GRASS AND FORAGE PLANT INVESTIGATIONS. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. OD, LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. U..S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Bureau oF Puant Inpustry, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF, Washington, D. C., December 26, 1901. Str: [have the honor to transmit herewith the manuscript of a paper entitled Records of Seed Distribution and Cooperative Experiments with Grasses and Forage Plants, by F. Lamson-Scribner, Agrostolo- gist, and recommend its publication as Bulletin No. 10 of the Bureau series. Respectfully, B. T. GatLoway, Chief of Bureau. Hon. JAMES WILson, Secretary of Agriculture. 2 PRE AC-E. This bulletin relates to the collection and distribution of seeds of grasses and forage plants by the Department of Agriculture through the Office of the Agrostologist, formerly Division of Agrostology, and to cooperative work in grass and forage plant investigations with a number of State experiment stations to whom these seeds were sent. The manner of keeping the records of this seed distribution is explained in detail, and the plan of conducting the cooperative experi- ments and the line of work or forage problem taken up with each sta- tion are fully given. This work was put into operation last year in compliance with an act of Congress, and has proven so satisfactory to all concerned that it has been continued the present year, although there are now no statutory regulations requiring that it should be. F. Lamson-ScorIspneEr, Agrostologist. OFFICE OF THE AGROSTOLOGIST, Washington, D. C., November 29, 1901. CONTENTS. Purchase and collection of seeds, roots, and specimens........-......------- (eoperanon: with the stations authorized -__.-.-=.--.----s...--2s.--------- Jiines of investigations of forage problems ..-..-....--.-----------=-------- JATHIERESON aa Oene Os 6 ee eS a Gk oe ee ae a ee CPD]. DUSLET SUNOS ble. Se ae Se a -lableishowing distribution by packasess ---.....2...--<--.-2--2.--.---2 Table showing distribution by pounds in 1900-1901. .-__.--------------- Table showing amounts of the several varieties distributed ._---.--.----- A list of experiment stations with which articles of cooperation have been Hitini@ol 2 jee west gee. bie) eA a re een eR eet uy TIVES 5 Sys SEES ee ee B. P. I.—12. Agros.—91. RECORDS OF SEED DISTRIBUTION AND COOPERATIVE EXPERI- MENTS WITH GRASSES AND FORAGE PLANTS. PURCHASE AND COLLECTION OF SEEDS, ROOTS, AND SPECIMENS. House bill No. 121, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, making appropriations for the United States Department of Agriculture, con- tained the following clause: Provided, That six thousand dollars of the amount hereby appropriated [for grass and forage plant investigations] be used to purchase and collect seeds, roots, and specimens of valuable and economic grasses and forage plants to be distributed to the various experiment stations in the several States and Territories, to be by them used, under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture, to ascertain their adapt- ability to the various soils and climates of the United States. In carrying out the plans necessary to meet this provision in the bill making appropriations for the Agricultural Department, Mr. C. L. Shear, an assistant in the Division of Agrostology, was put in charge of the seed and field work July 1, 1900, when the law making the appropriations went into effect. Mr. Shear was instructed to make collections of seeds of the valuable native grasses and forage plants and was directed to secure in quantity seeds of wild range grasses, also those species of probable value in the South for winter pasturage, those likely to prove good meadow grasses for high altitudes, and of those adapted to binding drifting sands. In carrying out this work it not infrequently happened that long, tedious journeys had to be made to regions inaccessible to stock before grasses in seed could be found and collections made. Asa result of this work in the field during the season 4 tons of seed of about 130 varieties of grasses and forage plants were gathered, the quantities varying from 1 pound to 500 pounds. A list of the varieties of seeds gathered, with notes upon some of the more important species, was presented in Circular No. 9, issued from the office of the Secretary in December, 1900. In conducting the cooperative work with the stations, which will be referred to later, it was necessary to supplement this amount of seeds of native varieties by purchasing from dealers seeds of the more important tame grasses and forage plants which the experiments called for. 6 ‘ 8 COOPERATIVE EXPERIMENTS. COOPERATION WITH THE STATIONS AUTHORIZED. In the House bill referred to above, making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for 1900-1901, there was this clause: And the agricultural experimental stations are hereby authorized and directed to cooperate with the Secretary of Agriculture in establishing and maintaining experi- mental grass stations for determining the best methods of caring for and improving meadows and grazing lands, the use of different grasses and forage plants, their adaptability to various soils and climates, the best native and foreign species for reclaiming the overstocked ranges and pastures, for renovating worn-out lands, for binding drifting sands and washed lands, for turfing lawns and pleasure grounds, and for solving the various forage problems presented in the several sections of our country. ‘ In order to carry out this feature of the law, the Secretary of Agri- culture, through the recommendation of the Agrostologist, directed Mr. Thomas A. Williams, then assistant chief of the Division of Agrostology, to visit the several experiment stations, especially those in the Western States, to study the forage problems of most im- portance to each, and by consulting with the directors of the stations to arrange plans for carrying on cooperative work with them with the view of solving the problems determined upon. LINES OF INVESTIGATIONS OF FORAGE PROBLEMS. Mr. Williams says in his report, published as Circular No. 8 (revised), of the office of the Secretary: In brief, this series of visits to the stations demonstrates clearly not only that there are many problems which can be studied much better through station and Depart- mental cooperation, but that the station authorities themselves appreciate the desira- bility of such cooperative work and are eager to enter into it. It is recognized that in these general problems, while the stations are able to work out the details of experi- ments and matters of relatively local bearing, there is a most important phase of the investigations that can be much more satisfactorily handled by the Department, and, in order to secure the best results to the country at large, it is highly desirable that there should be the closest cooperation between stations and Departmental investi- gations. Inaddition to the assistance which the Department can render the stations in solving these special problems through the detailing of its.experts for field investi- gations and supplying seed for experiments, this cooperation will have a most impor- tant bearing on the work of the stations in encouraging greater concentration on lines of greatest importance to the people and in rendering more readily available to the station workers the experience and training of the Departmental experts. Consultation with the station authorities has emphasized the desirability of coop- eration along a number of lines of investigation, the following being perhaps the most important at the present time and including every section of the country. (1) The formation, care, and management of pastures, including the selection of the best varieties, methods of preparing the soil and of planting the seed, and after treatment of grass lands, including grazing, rest, fertilizing, and cultivation. (2) Range improvement, or the best methods of bringing up the natural grass ands of the great range regions of the country and maintaining them in the condi- tion of greatest productivity, including the improvement of the native grass cover by reseeding, alternation of rest and grazing periods, scarifying, ete. ARTICLES OF COOPERATION. 9 (3) Alkali-resistant crops, particularly those best adapted to furnishing forage that can be used to supplement the native ranges. (4) Cover crops for soils liable to wash, which will at the same time afford a sup- ply of forage or can be turned under for green manure. (5) A continuous soiling series for use in sections where the dairying industry is paramount. (6) Winter pasturage for the South and Southwest. (7) Sand-binding grasses for the coast regions and along the Great Lakes. (8) Meadow crops for higher altitudes, particularly in the Rocky Mountain States, where, although pasturage is abundant, crops that will produce profitable amounts of hay are greatly needed. (9) Supplementary forage crops, particularly those with a short season of growth, that can be grown in rotation with wheat, cotton, and other primary crops, either for forage or for the improvement of the soil fertility. (10) Drought-resistant crops for arid sections. (11) The selection and development of improved varieties of grasses and forage crops adapted to special conditions and uses. Asa result of visiting the State stations, and through correspondence, it has been ascertained that cooperative work can be arranged for the investigation of each of these problems with one or more stations most advantageously situated, and there is no question as to urgent need of such investigations. ARTICLES OF COOPERATION. A plan was devised to carry on this work under articles of coopera- tion signed by the station officials and officials of this Department, of which the following are presented as examples: Articles of cooperation in investigations on improvement of the Northwestern ranges between the ———————————- Agricultural Experiment Station and the Division of Agrostology, United States Department of Agriculture. The object of these investigations shall be to find the best and most practical way of improving the forage conditions in the dry sections of the Northwest, and specially of renewing the worn-out ranges and devising methods of managing them whereby the highest degree of productivity may be maintained. The following plan of cooperation is agreed upon: 1. The ———————_———- Experiment Station to procure a suitable tract of range land; to undertake immediate supervision of the work through a member of its official staff; and to furnish all implements, fencing, etc., required by the investiga- tions, the same to be the sole property of the station when this cooperative arrangement is dissolved. 2. The U. S. Department of Agriculture, through the Division of Agrostology, to assist in selecting the land and in planning and conducting these investigations; to furnish seed of native and introduced grasses and forage plants for experiments on said tracts, and pay other expenses connected with the investigations, not to exceed in any one fiscal year, it being understood that under the appropriation act the Department can not assume responsibility for the continuance of its contri- bution beyond June 30, 1901. 3. The investigations conducted under this cooperative agreement shall be planned conjointly by the representatives of the oxperiment Station and the Division of Agrostology, officially charged with the work, subject to the approval oi the proper authorities in each case. 10 COOPERATIVE EXPERIMENTS. 4. Both parties to this agreement shall be free at any time to use the results obtained in these investigations in their official correspondence and publications, giving proper credit to the fact that such results have been secured by cooperative work. ) Director Experiment Station. ’} Chief Division of Agrostology. Approved: ? Secretary of Agriculture. Articles of cooperation in grass and forage plant investigations between the Agricultural Experiment Station and the Divison of Agrostology, United States Depart- ment of Agriculture. The object of these investigations shall be to find the best crops for supplying for- age to supplement the natural ranges and for the improvement of cultivated lands. The following plan of cooperation is agreed npon: 1. The ————————— Experiment Station to provide land at the home station, or at outlying representative points in that territory, upon which to make said exper- iments, and to undertake the immediate care and supervision of the work. 2. The U. 8. Department of Agriculture, through the Division of Agrostology, to furnish all seeds necessary in making these experiments, and to otherwise assist in planning and conducting said investigations. 3. The investigations conducted under this cooperative agreement shall be planned conjointly by the representatives of the Experiment Station and the Division of Agrostology officially charged with the work, subject to the approval of the proper authorities in each case. 4. Both parties to this agreement shall be free at any time to use the results obtained in these investigations, giving proper credit to the fact that such results have been secured by cooperative work. ’ Director —————————— Experiment Station. ? Chief Division of Agrostology. Approved: ? Secretary of Agriculture. The following is the form in use since the organization of the Bureau of Plant Industry: Articles of cooperation in grass and forage plant investigations between the Wyoming State Experiment Station and the Bureau of Plant Industry, United States Department of Agriculture. The subject of these investigations shall be grasses and forage plants for alkali soils and arid lands. 1. The Wyoming Experiment Station to furnish the land necessary for the said experiments, to undertake the immediate supervision and care of the work, and to assist in planning the investigations. 2. The United States Department of Agriculture, through the Bureau of Plant Industry, Office of Grass and Forage Plant Investigations, to assist in planning and conducting the said investigations, and to furnish all seeds necessary for making the experiments. SEED DISTRIBUTION. id 3. The investigations conducted under this cooperative agreement shall be planned conjointly by the representatives of the Wyoming Experiment Station and the Bureau of Plant Industry, officially charged with the work, subject to the approval of the proper authorities in each case. 4. Both parties to this agreement shall be free, at any time, to use the results obtained in these investigations in their official correspondence and publications, giving proper credit to the fact that such results have been secured by cooperative work. Emer E. SMILEY, Director Wyoming Experiment Station. B. T. GALLOWAY, Chief Bureau of Plant Industry, United States Department of Agriculture. At the present time fifteen of the experiment stations are working in cooperation with the Department on one or more of the lines con- nected with grass and forage plant investigations. SEED DISTRIBUTION. Since the organization of the Division of Agrostology seeds of grasses and forage plants have each year been distributed to the agri- cultural experiment stations and to many individual experimenters. The following table shows the number of packages of seed so distrib- uted during the fiscal years 1896-1901, inclusive; the total number of packages sent to the experiment stations during this time being 4,166, and to individuals 9,377, or a total of 13,543 packages (see Table I). These for the most part were seeds which were obtained through the direct efforts of the employees of the Division by collections in the field. During the fiscal year 1900-1901 there were distributed to the experiment stations 16,1014 pounds of seed, embracing 171 varieties, as shown in Tables I and HI. Taste I.—Number of packages of seed distributed to the experiment stations and to indi- viduals during the fiscal years 1896 to 1901, inclusive, or for five years, through the Division of Agrostology.* 1896 | 1897 | 1898 | 1999 | 1900 |Total for| Distribution. Leneto, to to to to | the five 1397. | 1898. | 1899. | 1900. | 1901. | years. Total number of packages sent to experi- | ment stations....-.------------+-+-222200e: 2, 281 | 184 462 292 947 | 4,166 Total number of packages sent to indi- | AGUS onic eae aciata nimi ooo == === nnn 632 | 2,749 1,739 | 2,709 1, 548 9,377 Total numberof packages distributed | 2,913 | 2,933 | 2,201 3,001 | 2,495 | 13, 543 | a This does not include the packages distributed to foreign countries. 12 COOPERATIVE EXPERIMENTS. Tasie Il.—Amount (in pounds) of seeds of grasses and forage plants distributed to the experiment stations and to individuals in the several States and Territories in coopera- tion with the stations during the fiscal year 1900-1901. Seeds 2 SPT 7 Seeds ale Sciaie Rep sent to uals in saeueaies States and Territories. experl- | Coopera- | + ipnuted ment | tion with TONeaCn stations. | the ex- | “Giite periment E ag stations. Pounds. | Pounds. | Pounds. JAN] SU INAS SA Saas Aen ee Meee MRE 228) 2, eS tee cie -iall|s aeteisie syiaie 30 380 ATIZONG Te eee ee a eek ene ey ra en naa yey NYE SSP CL us (AW) Weeeebos a 710 AT ICaTE Gn Sie Sere oe te ee ae om eemeteee e Eo os Sail clcee mci 2574 2574 CaO meee ete eee Ree ee nee ete ee ee tee iho aisiaidisial|wieis © mn,< erate 46} 46} COlOTER O01 See eee Se eee a ene eee Rey ee eae Sock as 444 2425 6865 Connecti cut 2a saa ses neeae eeeinasseesee eho ee ke ae oe) | Sele ES 128 108 DELAY WHICL eae aes ee eer ae ae acer neat ee Sarat cece one oad LL, 1\5ssseeeeen 171 SEU) t1 GL ier ee rere Pes Se AEN ern Ta ccs onnrbters ail ns ee ae efone 514 514 StGROLSIREe see ce ae mene cee ise eins otieie e eiee PEERS = cnc soo ehins| is eewie esicfee 142 142 Ta SO Re a ee ee eee pare abe meee Sans Siax god ciclo sibs oc 130 233 153} INDICT ES Bae ee Ae cee a gent A el ee ee 133 283% 4163 In Gi sin ayssse hee see ee eee ee See cere sicee de weeds oo acile cise sacut 20 20 WRalON tives 3.5 ne ae ORAS Gb Soa Gba Shino c See SSSe eae Cee eae eee te eae ee a 63 62 ERI) 6 225-332 Soc oee sooo oe cogiict ode Sen Cee Ee eee ene | 1,145 4562 1, 6014 |i Reenifiekeys ja" .es 015 iene as ee eS Vi SES ee 30 262} 2923 VTC Ud S1 ST ee eye ren a Arse Se Seiwa a 135 14 149 IMSING et eet etree peanen emetic Sees cisions bcs ckisedeae cmcdesce 65 128 193 IWIChAWET Vel eee ake cure a cE Ste BOOOOD AR OSn EEE» RGt Peer eee ae ee ae 360 518} 8783 MISES CIAUISE USES feria cer rayne iat ata eeyatarata)s SsfAmra Scieisiatc atsisie,ui Imdianvmillets-<25..-.2---.- Erodium cicutarium’ 2-2. 5-—--<---- WANT AMI a ees cee eure acim ere Ervumlens 222 scc-ciesac ccmem aeeee Wentils 25st conte tac ves sh ieee Euchlena mexicana .........-.--- PEORINTEMS sae oto t cae cone Burotialanatavesse sess eeeeeesee = WAMLerstaiteekis et cnc <-ecne ce Festuca arundinacea..........-..- Reed fescue ss: ies cencccwe Festuca duriuscula...............- Hardviescte a. -te-l-02<24- <1 Festucaelatior. = to) ~ ro BE} S mate Baia B Se °° : S £ zi 1 oO 2-248 = ean | SQ iS ® aes) eh = < = ° iy abe ieer Sais = — eo oO * ek ee TE © C Eee PN a _ Bs igi (SS ES = a > | co} CO A soa ef wal | 4 © ) . n ‘se Bs 6 4 5 > 5 = =e ita Sh sahil < = eggs G 28 @ay > e Sara 4 3". wos = z seca me pa Fic’ Sa Car = So sas s nS a > = = layers te? 3 ates 2s z = a2 S Sy See “ a) 1S) Ce 4 s 4 = eX We eyaise Une 2 =| Q Ce easy RS Pe ye reat | DS > =| Z dc 5 2 oF So 2a tS os +e = wR =m 3 = ~ = = fe) ah Mest | a = ° 5 s BY ep > sep) yy a F = io Aaa = > Fd 2 2 ES Opes S 43 g ee pe nik ies ter Load > 5 3 + ie} ct = (o) Q i) Cc) oO re) Soe Ss Zz 2 : x ° o> S fora = © JQ 1 . 1 The final record of distribution is kept upon a card, the face and reverse side of which is herewith shown. Only one species is entered on this card, and the cards are filed in alphabetical order. The amount we have on hand is shown at any time, together with the amount dis- tributed, and to whom. RECEIVED FROM— Amr. LBS. Agropyron tenerum 12 Griffiths & Lange..-..........----2+2.-== 63. 314 (Slender wheat grass) . Fiscal year 1900-1901. July. | Aug. | Sept. Oct. Novy. Dee. Jan. | Feb. Mar. Apr. May. | June. | BD. | B.D.) Bs | Do Be Da ee ances B.| D.| B.| D.| B.| D.| B.¥ D. SYSTEM OF KEEPING RECORDS. 21 [Reverse.] Date. | Amount. Name. Post-office. State. Feb. 25 DVN LLET dey OV ONG coats oiacis oic\c.< cements oe nine Hort Prernene oe... S. Dak. Feb. 27 TOP lone Re Osteen semeinaseece =l cna ies -ieiels = Laramie 0.852 4. eee Wyo. Feb. 28 LOS isles iWiLD VCOMIDE A) os ce ws wos cleo Convalllistse.. s2-5425see— coer | Oreg. It may interest some to note the form of our accession cards, which is shown herewith: DATA. Seeds of— Agropyron tenerum. Collector’s No. (Slender wheat grass). Distribution No. 21. From Griffiths & Lange. Locality, Billings, Mont. Date, July 14, 1900. Alti- tude Amount, pounds, 314. Habit of growth, Character of soil, Use , By this system of records the Office of the Agrostologist has full data in regard toall seeds received or sent out, and it is possible to show at any time the variety or amount sent to any experiment station or to any individual in cooperation with the station. The totals of these amounts for the fiscal year 1900-1901 are shown in Tables II and III. Table IV contains a list of those experiment stations with which the Department of Agriculture, through the Office of the Agrostologist, is carrying on cooperative experiments in grass and forage plant investi- gations. This is a list of the stations with which the Department is working during the current fiscal year, for, although the law cited specifically directing the stations to cooperate with the Secretary of Agriculture along these lines is no longer in force, it having been omitted from the bill making appropriations for the Department dur- ing the present year, it has been deemed best to continue the work, apparently so well begun under the bill of last year. 22 COOPERATIVE EXPERIMENTS. Taste IV.—List of experiment stations with which articles of cooperation have been signed. e Department al- State. Object of investigations. lowance, ATIZONG Liceeeraeteoe For improving the forage conditions and renovating | Seeds and funds. the ranges. California/-2. sence. The planting and testing of sand-binders........-.-.--- Do. @oloradofeess ee eeer= Grass and forage plants for alkali and arid soils -...--- Do. KANSAS asac2esee ees The best method of pasture and range improvement... Do. Mamyland! oer To find the best crops for use in securing acontinuous | Seeds only. soiling. Michigan....-.. ...--| To find the best grasses for fixing the drifting sands Do. along the Great Lakes and to determine the possi- bility of converting these into lands productive of forage and other crops. MASSOURMSpece-t acces To find the best method for the formation and manage- Do. ment of meadows and pastures in the Middle West- ern States. Nebraska,.....-....-- Growing and testing of native and cultivated grasses Do. “ New Hampsbire..... New Mexico.......-.- Oregon South Dakota for the Great Plains region. Improvement and renovation of worn-out hay and pasture land. Forage crops to supplement ranges and the improve- ment of cultivated lands. To find the best sand-binding grasses and to determine the possibility of rendering sandy lands productive of both grasses and forage plants. For testing drought-resisting forage plants with a view to finding varieties suitable for use in the range region. Seeds and funds. Seeds only. Seeds and funds. Do. Tennessee ....------- Formation and management of pastures and meadows | Seeds only. in Middle Southern States. TOXAS anes ce eee Formation of meadows and pastures in the Middle | Seeds and funds. Southern States. Washing tomeece