[84] See ‘Journ. of Hort. Tour, by Deputation of the Caledonian Hort. Soc.,’ 1823, p. 459.
[85] H. C. Watson, ‘Cybele Britannica,’ vol. i. p. 334.
[86] Loudon’s ‘Gardener’s Mag.,’ vol. vi., 1830, p. 83.
[87] See ‘Catalogue of Fruit in Garden of Hort. Soc.,’ 1842, and Downing’s ‘American Fruit Trees.’
[88] Loudon’s ‘Gardener’s Magazine,’ vol. iv., 1828, p. 112.
[89] ‘The Culture of the Apple,’ p. 43. Van Mons makes the same remark on the pear, ‘Arbres Fruitiers,’ tom. ii., 1836, p. 414.
[90] Lindley’s ‘Horticulture,’ p. 116. See also Knight on the Apple-Tree, in ‘Transact. of Hort. Soc.,’ vol. vi., p. 229.
[91] Transact. Hort. Soc.’ vol. i. 1812, p. 120.
[92] ‘Journal of Horticulture,’ March 13th, 1866, p. 194.
[93] ‘Transact. Hort. Soc.,’ vol. iv. p. 68. For Knight’s case see vol. vi. p. 547. When the coccus first appeared in this country it is said (vol. ii. p. 163) that it was more injurious to crab-stocks than to the apples grafted on them. The Majetin apple has been found equally free of the coccus at Melbourne in Australia (‘Gard. Chron.,’ 1871, p. 1065). The wood of this tree has been there analysed, and it is said (but the fact seems a strange one) that its ash contained over 50 per cent of lime, while that of the crab exhibited not quite 23 per cent. In Tasmania Mr. Wade (‘Transact. New Zealand Institute,’ vol. iv. 1871, p. 431) raised seedlings of the Siberian Bitter Sweet for stocks, and he found barely one per cent of them attacked by the coccus. Riley shows (‘Fifth Report on Insects of Missouri,’ 1873, p. 87) that in the United States some varieties of apples are highly attractive to the coccus and others very little so. Turning to a very different pest, namely, the caterpillar of a moth (Carpocapsa pomonella), Walsh affirms (‘The American Entomologist,’ April, 1869, p. 160) that the maiden-blush “is entirely exempt from apple-worms.” So, it is said, are some few other varieties; whereas others are “peculiarly subject to the attacks of this little pest.”