^{page 473 note 1} Salmon, E. S., in Journ. South-Eastern Agric. Coll. XXII. 403 (1913) [1914].Google Scholar

^{page 473 note 2} Idem, loc. cit. p. 423.

^{page 474 note 1} Idem, loc. cit. p. 410.

^{page 474 note 2} Chittenden, F. J., in Journ. R. Hort. Soc. XXXIX. 373 (1914).Google Scholar

^{page 474 note 3} Massee, G., Diseases of Cultivated Plants and Trees, p. 56 (1910)Google Scholar; Strawson, G. F., Standard Fungicides, p. 35 (1903).Google Scholar

^{page 474 note 4} Sorauer, P., Handbuch d. Pflanzenkrankheiten, II. p. 525 (1908).Google Scholar

^{page 474 note 5} Duggar, B. M., Fungous Diseases of Plants, p. 90 (1909)Google Scholar; Stevens, F. L. and Hall, J. G.Diseases of Economic Plants, p. 34 (1910).Google Scholar

^{page 474 note 6} It is probable that English copyists have repeated the American formulae, oblivious of the fact that the American gallon of water weighs only 8–34 lbs., and is therefore smaller than the English gallon which weighs 10 lbs.

^{page 474 note 7} Lodeman, E. G.The Spraying of Plants, p. 163 (1903).Google Scholar

^{page 474 note 8} Bourcart, E., Insecticides, Fungicides,, and Weedkillers, p. 115 (1913) (English translation).Google Scholar

^{page 475 note 1} Hollrung, M., Handbuch d. chemischen Mittel gegen Pflanzenkrankh. p. 44 (1898).Google Scholar

^{page 475 note 2} Goff, E. S., in Journ. of Mycology, V. p. 33 (1889).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 475 note 3} Close, C. P., in New York Agric: Exper. Stat., Bull. 161, p. 153 (1899)Google Scholar

^{page 475 note 4} Beach, S. A.; in New York Agric. Exper. Station Bull. p. 114 (1897).Google Scholar

^{page 475 note 5} Driggar, B. M., Fungous Diseases of Plants, p. 223 (1909).Google Scholar

^{page 475 note 6} Galloway, B. T., in Journ. of Mycology, VI. p. 13 (1891)Google Scholar

^{page 475 note 7} Humphrey, J. E., in Rep. Mass. State Agric. Exper. Stat. IX. 222 (1892), and.X 225 (1893)Google Scholar

^{page 475 note 8} Vide Journ. of Board Agric. XXI. p. 236 (1914)Google Scholar

^{page 476 note 1} Foreman, F. W., “The Fungioidal Properties of Liver of Sulphur” (Journ. Agric. Science, III. 401 (1910)).Google Scholar

^{page 476 note 2} Hollrung, M., Bandb. d. chem. Mitt. pp. 49, 50.Google Scholar

^{page 476 note 3} Wallace, E., Blodgett, F. M., and Hesler, L. R., “Studies of the Fungicidal Value of Lime-Sulfur Preparations” (Cornell Unit. Agric. Exper. Station, Bull. 290 (1911)).Google Scholar

^{page 476 note 4} Foreman, F. W., loc. cit.

^{page 476 note 5} Leaflet, Rogue River Valley, Medford, Oregon (1911).

^{page 476 note 6} Salmon, E. S., “Report on Economic Mycology” (Journ. S.-E. Agric. College, XXI. p. 346 (1912)).Google Scholar

^{page 477 note 1} The spray used is described by the author as being “a mixture of iron sulphide, gypsum and precipitated sulphur.” Arsenate of lead was added to it. The percentage of iron sulphide in the various spray-fluids used was, apparently, from 0·2 % to 0·6 %.

^{page 477 note 2} Volck, W. H., in Better Fruit, p. 39 (1911).Google Scholar

^{page 477 note 3} Waite, M B., U.S. Dept. Agric. Bureau of Plant Industry Circular, 58 (1910).Google Scholar

^{page 477 note 4} This stage is denoted by the term “powdery” in the details of the experiments given below at p. 480 and sqq.

^{page 478 note 1} MrPickering, S. U. has already called attention to this fact (11th Report Woburn Exper. Fruit Farm, p. 119 (1910)).Google Scholar

^{page 478 note 2} In some spraying experiments with certain washes carried out under practical conditions in the open, Messrs Barker and Lees (Report Agric. and Hort. Research Station, Long Ashton, for 1914, p. 73) found that 2% soft soap solution did not thoroughly wet the mildew, while a 2% paraffin emulsion did so.

^{page 478 note 3} Mr Pickering (loc. cit. p. 159) has pointed out that the action oi saponin resembles that of soap in increasing the wetting properties of spray-fluids.

^{page 478 note 4} Vide 11th Report Woburn Exper. Fruit Farm, p. 159 (1910).Google Scholar

^{page 479 note 1} The estimation of sulphide-sulphur was effected by the volumetrio method in which a standard ammoniacal solution of zinc is employed and a solution of nickel sulphate used as an outside indicator.

^{page 479 note 2} The method followed in preparing the spray-fluids from the stock solution may be illustrated in the case of that used in Expers. 9 and 10, p. 494, which was prepared by diluting 25 c.c. of stock solution to 200 c.c. with distilled water and then adding 200 c.c. of a 2% solution of soft soap in distilled water.

^{page 481 note 1} See above, p. 478.

^{page 481 note 2} G. Dorogin has stated (Zeitschr. f. Pflanzenkrankh. XXIII. p. 335 (1913)) that a solution of 0·25% or 0·5% of carbonate of soda or carbonate of potash is efficacious against the American Gooseberry-mildew. Hector, J. M. and Auld, S. J. M. (Gardeners' Chronicle, Aug. 7, 1915, pp. 79–80) believe that they obtained some evidence in field experiments that a 0·3% solution of carbonate of soda was detrimental to the Amerioan Gooseberry-mildew.

^{page 481 note 3} Hollrung, loc. cit. p. 50, mentions that Hitchcock and Carleton (Kansas Exper. Station, Bull. 38) state that the germinating capacity of uredospores is weakened by prolonged treatment with a 1% solution of sodium thiosulphate.

^{page 486 note 1} Vide Materials used, p. 478.

^{page 490 note 1} See p. 474.

^{page 491 note 1} Salmon, E. S., “Beport on Economic Myoology” (Journ. S.-E. Agric. Coll. XXII. p. 410 (1913) [1914]).Google Scholar

^{page 495 note 1} This variety has proved to be extremely susceptible to injury from the effeots of sulphur (see Salmon, , “Report on Economic Mycology” (Journ. S.-E. Agric. College, XXII. p. 405 (1913) [1914]).Google Scholar

^{page 496 note 1} Bourcart, E., loc. cit. p. 99.Google Scholar

^{page 501 note 1} Salmon, E. S., “Report on Economic Mycology“ (Journ. S.-E. Agric. College, XIX, p. 345 (1910)).Google Scholar

^{page 503 note 1} If used on Gooseberries it would be inferior to the yellow ammonium sulphide solution because it would disfigure the berries; it wonld have the advantage, however, over lime-sulphur in that the markings on the sprayed berries would not be liable to be mistaken for spots of mildew by incompetent inspectors at the market.

^{page 505 note 1} In an article in the Journ. Board of Agric. 1914, vol. XXI. p. 236, giving the analyses of various commercial samples of “liver-of-sulphur,” the assumption has been made that the fungicidal value of any sample is determined by its sulphide-sulphur content.Google Scholar