Butternuts are generally too scarce to justify much attention. They could probably be hulled by vegetable paring machines quite as efficiently as are walnuts but, so far as known to the writer, this has not been tried.

Beechnuts make excellent food for poultry and certain kinds of livestock. To convert the crop into cash is largely a matter of using the land under the trees for the right sort of grazing. In European countries beechnuts are highly valued as a source of salad oil. Mr. Bixby of this association is taking steps to procure trees bearing as large sized nuts as possible with a view to subsequent breeding. So far as known to the writer beechnuts in this country are not gathered in quantity.



BEECHNUTS

By Willard G. Bixby, Baldwin, N. Y.

Although the association has now been in existence 20 years there has so far been little progress, we might almost say no progress, made in getting an improved beechnut.

All have agreed that the flavor of the beechnut was excellent, that it had a shell so thin that it could be opened with a pocket knife, that it was an oily nut and would keep, like the thin shelled hickories, walnuts, etc., and not a starchy one, which would dry out like chestnuts and acorns, that it would grow and bear well in northern sections where the best nuts we have do not grow well, but also that it was so small as to practically nullify the above mentioned excellent qualities. If we ever get a beechnut the size of a chestnut we shall have a most needed addition to our nut bearing trees, but there has been so little hope of finding such that no one has paid much attention to the beech. As a matter of fact not within the last ten years have there been any prizes offered for beechnuts except those provided by the writer at his own expense, neither have there been at any time during the writer's recollection any varieties suggested excepting one or two by Omer R. Abraham, Martinsville, Ind., which nobody has growing, so far as known to the writer.

It was thought that there might be a large fruited species of beech growing in some part of the world as is the case with the chestnut, walnut, hickory and hazel, and that it would only be necessary to import it to get what was needed, or at least to make a good start in getting what was needed. Rehder in his wonderfully helpful "Manual of Cultivated Trees and Shrubs" gives seven species of beech, one in America, Fagus grandiflora, one in Europe, F. sylvatica, two in Japan, F. sieboldii and F. japonica, two in China, F. longipetiolata and F. engleriana and one in Asia Minor, F. orientalis. These are growing in the Arnold Arboretum and leaves, buds and fruits are to be seen in the herbarium there. A day spent there, however, half in the arboretum and half in the herbarium, convinced the writer that there is at present no large fruited species of beech known to botanists. There is an incompletely known species of Chinese beech, F. lucida, whose fruit is not in the Arnold Arboretum. While it is of course possible that there may yet be a large fruited species somewhere in the world, still the relatively slight differences in the leaf, bud and fruit of the seven species already known makes this seem improbable and leads us to conclude that the genus "Fagus" is the most uniform in the species that make it up of any genus of nut bearing trees. This seemingly reduces us to the necessity of seeking variation in species already known.

Fagus sylvatica has been by all odds longest in cultivation and many varieties are known. Rehder lists 17 principal varieties with many other sub varieties. These have leaves varying in color, purple, copper color, pinkish, yellow and whitish spotted with green, beside the usual green, also in shapes of leaves, some very narrow almost linear, some very small and deeply toothed, others large and roundish up to 3 in. broad and 5 in. long. The varieties vary in bark from the smooth bark typical of the beech to bark like that of the oak. They also vary in habit of growth, being mostly erect but some pendulous and some dwarf with twisted contorted branches. But no one seems to have ever heard of a large fruited beech.

It is inconceivable however, that a tree can vary in every particular except in the fruit and it is believed that it only requires sufficient searching to find large fruited varieties. There are difficulties, however, in the way of finding unusual beeches which do not occur with walnuts, chestnuts and hickories, which are trees where the nuts have such merit that they are usually spared even if in the middle of a cultivated field, while the beech is usually a forest tree. A nut contest brings hundreds and thousands of walnuts and hickories but only very few beechnuts. Correspondence with the forestry departments of every state having such departments generally evinced interest in the search for a large fruited beech, but those replying universally disclaimed any knowledge of such.

While it is believed that there are such in America, perhaps as many or more than in Europe, and efforts should be made here to find such, there are many reasons for believing that a search in Europe will be more immediately productive of results than will the search here. The beech is much more esteemed in Europe than here and has been extensively planted in forests that for centuries have been operated for constant production of timber. It is believed that the contents of those forests are as a class better known to their keepers, at least the beeches there are better known than in the forests in the United States. The number of propagated ornamental varieties noted in the second paragraph gives evidence of this. The history of one or two of these varieties will make this clearer.

Three beeches with red or copper colored leaves as far back as 1680 were recorded as growing in a wood near Zurich, Switzerland. Most of the purple beeches now growing are believed to have been derived from a single tree discovered in the last century in a forest in Thuringia in Germany. There may be or may have been many such in America but they would not have appeared valuable to the woodmen who probably would be the only ones who would see them and then the leaves would not have been visible in the winter when trees are most frequently cut. That the Deming purple black walnut is in existence is due solely to the observation and action of Dr. Deming who gathered scions and got them growing before the original tree had been cut for the purpose of getting space for improving a road. That this tree could be seen from the road was how it came to the attention of Dr. Deming. Had it been in the midst of a large forest it might have been cut in winter for timber without the cutter knowing it was unusual.

That we have such a wealth of varieties of the beech valuable as ornamental trees and none valuable for the large nuts they bear, certainly suggests that the tree varies in every way except in the size of the nuts it bears, but this is not believed to be so. The growing of ornamental trees is an old industry. There are hundreds of nurserymen today growing ornamentals and only few in comparison growing nut trees. It is not so many years ago that there were none growing nut trees. A beech with purple leaves appeared valuable 100 years ago and was disseminated by nurserymen while one with nuts 10 times normal size would probably not have been propagated for there would not have been sale for it. It would have only been known locally as unusual and probably the tree would have been cut for timber when it reached the proper size.

The search for a large fruited beech is not going to be easy but it is believed that persistent work will eventually triumph, much as the 1929 contest brought more shellbark hickories of value to the attention of the association than all previous contests put together. The shellbark is a tree the best varieties of which it is difficult to learn about. Unlike the shagbark hickory it is not generally found growing near buildings or in fields or pastures. Its natural habitat is the bottom lands of the Mississippi River and its tributaries, lands that are overflowed part of the year. There will have to be a campaign, perhaps for several years, till people begin to look for large fruited beeches; then will come a harvest of them.

The relatively few beeches that have come in to the contests suggests that methods used heretofore should be somewhat modified in beechnut search. Probably a campaign of education among foresters might be more productive of results than among farmers, at least it should supplement it. The search for improved beechnuts evidently has more different kinds of difficulties than the search for any other nut and considerable thought on the matter leads me to suggest that a committee be appointed to study the nut and to seek large fruited specimens especially to look into methods for getting them and report to the association a year hence, said committee to finance itself.

This suggestion is made because it is believed that efforts made in Europe to find a large fruited beech will be more immediately productive of results than in America for the reasons noted above. Even if the committee consists of but one man correspondence abroad would be better carried on in the name of a committee of the association than in the name of an individual and it is believed would be more productive of results.



THE 1929 CONTEST

By Willard G. Bixby, Baldwin, New York

This has at last been finished. It is a memorable achievement in many ways. It has taken much longer to award the prizes than at any previous contest, which is a matter of deep regret to me. But, if we except the shagbark hickories and the beechnuts, the value of the nuts is so far ahead of those received in any other contest as to make the results of all previous contests commonplace in comparison.

The highest award for black walnuts in the 1926 contest was for the Stambaugh 63 points, which recalculated using the present constants would be 62 points, while all the 10 prize winners in the 1929 contest were awarded more points than 62, the nut taking the tenth prize being awarded two points more or 64 and the nut taking first prize being awarded 19 points more or 81, the difference being largely in generally superior cracking quality of the 1929 nuts.

The highest awards for butternuts, in print and readily referred to, are in the 1919 report where the butternut taking first prize was awarded 67 points, which after recalculation with present constants would be 65 points, and there were nine prizes awarded this year where the score was higher than 65.

The shagbark hickories were disappointing, none equalling several of the best ones reported in the 1919 contest. This is laid to the general poor quality of the shagbark hickory nuts in 1929. One observing contestant sent in nuts from the 1928 crop, as well as nuts of the 1929 crop, to show us how much better they were normally than were those of the 1929 crop, and as a matter of fact the 1928 nuts sent in by him tested out several points higher than those of the 1929 crop. On the other hand, other hickories, Carya laciniosa and Carya ovalis, which never before were awarded prizes in a nut contest, this year came up into the winning class and we had some large laciniosas of real merit this year, a matter which is likely to be of great importance, as it is noted in considerable detail later on.

The chestnuts were few in number, yet some very good nuts were received, and as most were from trees which had been growing in sections where the blight has been present for many years, it is believed that they will be of value in getting a blight resistant chestnut of horticultural merit. This work now is really under way.

The beechnuts received were but 4 in number and were pretty good although too small to be of horticultural value. Considerable is noted later on the likelihood of getting larger beechnuts and a way is suggested to get them.

Under the headings black walnuts, hickories, chestnuts, butternuts and beechnuts will be found an abstract of the awards of prizes awarded each. It is believed that this will be all that there will be time to present to the convention. The results of each test in detail will be typed out for printing in the report for it is believed these are of permanent value. Results of tests on many of the well known nut varieties will also be given. Some of these appeared in the 1919 report but owing to the change in the constants necessitated by the discovery of new and better nuts these figures are somewhat out of date. Some of these also appeared in the 1927 report but there are serious typographical errors there and it is believed that it will be of value to have results of the tests on nuts of the 1929 contest appear in the 1930 report, in connection with tests on well known varieties.

The prizes to be awarded are as follows:

Black Walnuts—10 Prizes—Amount $100.00 Hickories—25 Prizes—Amount $120.00 Butternuts—12 Prizes—Amount $106.00 Chestnuts—11 Prizes—Amount $103.00 Beechnuts—4 Prizes—Amount $ 21.00

Total $451.00

That there are more than ten prizes, when there were prizes offered but for ten, is due to our custom, when two or more nuts receive the same score and win a prize, to provide an additional prize of equal amount for each one.

There have yet to be awarded prizes for those chestnuts of the 1929 contest which show high resistance after being inoculated with blight spores. This cannot be done for two years at least for scions must be gotten growing and have reached a diameter of 3/8" to 1/2" before this can be properly done.

The writer intended, when the contest reached the stage just now reached to endeavor to get a meeting of those members best qualified to pass on characteristic "quality and flavor of kernel" of those nuts put down by him as prize winners. This is the only characteristic where personal opinion has not been replaced by the precise methods, but time did not permit.

The delay in completing the 1929 contest has been very unsatisfactory. It has been caused by a combination of circumstances which it is not believed will occur again. Instead of a contest limited to one nut, as the 1926 contest was, we had here, as well, butternuts and hickories in large numbers, the hickories in particular being more numerous than the black walnuts, and the nuts came in very late, all of which largely increased the nuts to be gone over and delayed Dr. Deming in the preliminary examination. The nuts did not reach me till the last of April, a time when spring work outside was pressing. It takes a person of some experience before even the weighing methods in force for measuring quantitatively nut characteristics can be properly done and while some work was done on the contest practically every day from April 24th on, only about an hour a day could be put on it, and it went so slowly that after about a month, I set about hiring someone who should devote his or her time to it. It took about six weeks before someone was obtained and properly trained, which brought us into July, since which time the work went on well but the number of nuts was large and I had to personally pass on the final award, which must be carefully done and necessarily a good deal of time was taken, far more than anticipated.

The experience of this year's contest has shown me how to better handle another if it falls to my lot to do so. I would get Dr. Deming to send in the nuts, which after the preliminary examination, he thought worthy of carefully testing, instead of waiting till the preliminary examination of all received had been completed. This would get them here in the winter when work is light for the man I have here, who is thoroughly trained for making these tests. Those rejected at first by Dr. Deming he could go over again later, as is his custom, and possibly pick out some good ones which did not show up well when first received.



BLACK WALNUTS

The black walnuts sent into the 1926 contest were the best that had been seen up to that time, yet those received in the 1929 contest are so far ahead of those as to make us wonder if we shall again find a contest where the black walnuts received equal those received in 1929.

Most remarkable was the case of Mrs. E. W. Freel of Pleasantville, Iowa, who sent in black walnuts from four different trees, each one of which took a prize, No. 1 the first, No. 2 the second, No. 3 the eighth, and No. 4 the tenth, the first time in the history of the nut contests that anything approaching this record has occurred. This is also the first contest where a nut of any other black walnut species than Juglans nigra has come anywhere near the prize winners.

The score card used in the 1929 contest was the same as that used in the 1926 contest but with the constants recalculated as required because of nuts received in the meantime which made this necessary.

The prizes awarded are noted below:

Name and Address Species Score Prize Amount Mrs. E. W. Freel, Pleasantville, Ia., Nut. No. 1 nigra 81 1 $ 50.00 Mrs. E. W. Freel, Pleasantville, Ia., Nut No. 2 nigra 74 2 15.00 Mrs. J. A. Stillman, Mackeys, N. C. nigra 73 3 10.00 Annie M. Wetzel, New Berlin, Pa. nigra 72 4 5.00 John Rohwer, Grundy Center, Ia., The Iowa nigra 71 5 5.00 Mrs. Irwin Haag, New Castle, Ind. nigra 70 6 3.00 Dane Learn, % Harley Learn, Aylmer, Ont., R. R. No. 6 nigra 69 7 3.00 Mrs. E. W. Freel, Pleasantville, Ia., Nut No. 3 nigra 68 8 3.00 A. F. Weltner, Point Marion, Pa., R. F. D. 1 nigra 67 9 3.00 Mrs. E. W. Freel, Pleasantville, Ia., Nut No. 4 nigra 64 10 3.00 $100.00

There are some 32 other black walnuts worthy of honorable mention which were awarded from 55 points to 63 and which it is believed are worthy of experimental propagation. One of these is from A. E. Grobe, Chico, Cal., species, hindsii, total award 61 points, which is the only California black walnut of value sent in to the contests up to this time.

Nut notable for size were received from:

Mrs. R. F. Frye, Carthage, N. C., R. No. 1, Box 22, Wt, 38.0g, nigra, score 57.

C. T. Baker, Grandview, Ind., Wt. 31.8g, nigra, score 57.

A. P. Stockman, Lecompte, La., Wt. 36.7g, nigra, score 56.

Nuts notable for cracking quality were received from:

Mrs. E. W. Freel, Pleasantville, Ia., CQC 100%, CQA 67.3%, total 38 points, nigra, 81 points total.

Mrs. J. A. Stillman, Mackeys, N. C., CQC 100%, CQA 65.3%, total 38 points, nigra, 81 points total.

J. U. Gellatly, Gellatly, B. C., Cold Stream No. 14, CQC 100%, CQA 40.0%, total 33 points, nigra, 55 points total.

Annie W. Wetzel, New Berlin, Pa., CQC 100%, CQA 37.8%, total 32 points, nigra, 72 points total.

A. F. Weltner, Point Marion, Pa., R. F. No. 1, CQC 100%, CQA 38.0%, total 32 points, nigra, 67 points total.

Mrs. A. Sim, Rodney, Ont., CQC 100%, CQA 39.3%, total 32 points, nigra, 55 points total.

Nut notable for high percentage of kernel:

Ferdinand Huber, Cochrane, Wis., 32.8% 12 points, species nigra, total award 49 points.

Mrs. E. W. Freel, Pleasantville, Ia., Nut. No. 1, 31.6% 11 points, species nigra, total award 81 points.

Attractive color of kernel:

While a number were awarded four points out of a possible 5, none of the black walnuts sent in were especially notable in this respect.



HICKORIES

This is the first lot of hickories that has come in for a contest conducted by the Association in a number of years. The last contest, that of 1926, was for black walnuts only. It is true that at the meeting of the judges who passed on the black walnuts entered in the 1926 contest there were a number of fine hickories shown which had been received in the contest conducted by the Philadelphia Society for the Promotion of Agriculture, but so far as the writer is aware we have to go back to 1919 to reach the last contest at which prizes were awarded for hickories.

The 1926 contest marked a notable change in the method of awarding prizes. As noted at some length under black walnuts, that score card was made simpler, by the judges who passed on the nuts received in the 1926 contest, by awarding points previously given for characteristics that seemed of less importance to others, so the hickory score card was carefully gone over to see if a similar change could not be made to advantage.

As it is believed that hickory nuts will be sold in the shell, as are pecans, it was not possible to do this to the same extent as with black walnuts. However, the characteristic "form," which is difficult if not almost impossible to estimate with any kind of precision, it was thought for the present at least might be disregarded. Husking quality is important but it was impossible to properly award points for this characteristic in a nut contest, because the nuts are husked before being sent in. The points allowed for excellence in these qualities were added to others, which gave 10 points to Cracking Quality Absolute instead of 5, and 25 points to Quality and Flavor of Kernel instead of 20.

It has been generally considered that a nut which is awarded 55 points, even though it took no prize, was worthy of experimental propagation. There were 40 hickories in the 1929 contest which were awarded 55 points or more. Of those actually awarded prizes for a combination of good qualities, twenty-one in number, thirteen were thought to be shagbarks, or it might be more exact to state that we had not sufficient evidence to think them to be otherwise, although some are suspected not to be pure Carya ovata, four were thought to be Carya Dunbarii (Carya ovata x laciniosa), two were thought to be Carya ovalis, and two Carya laciniosa. In this contest the shagbarks showed up poorly, 68 being the highest score awarded, when from the number of entries one would have expected the highest to have been awarded 71 points or over. On the other hand this is the first contest where a prize has been awarded to a shellbark, Carya laciniosa. Among hickories awarded 54 points or over were five shellbarks, two of them large ones, one weighing 24.3g, 20 per lb. and one weighing 27.6g, 17 per lb.

The importance of this will be realized when we consider that, in the 1929 contest, out of 21 prize winning nuts four prizes were awarded to nuts believed to be Carya Dunbarii (Carya ovata x laciniosa) and there were two or three others that may prove to be. While natural hickory hybrids are not particularly rare yet they are far from common. At one time, while on the levees north of Burlington, Iowa, the number of pecan x shellbark hybrids seen impressed the writer, yet a careful count showed these hybrids to be only about 1 hybrid in 100 pure pecans. Considerable experience in making or attempting to make hickory hybrids leads the writer to believe that the proportion of hickory hybrids will be much less than this. If, however, we assume it to be 1 in 100 and the fact that among this years meritorious nuts hybrids are 4 out of 21 or 1 out of 5, we would calculate that the chances of getting meritorious nuts out of hybrids is about 20 times as great as out of pure species. We really have not sufficient data at present to attempt to make such calculations yet the glimpse they give us of the promise of wonderful results from the systematic production of hybrid varieties between selected parents is most alluring.

The number of prizes awarded to Carya Dunbarii (Carya ovata x laciniosa) shows a line of work of particular promise. We have plenty of good shagbarks, Carya ovata, and now that he have really good shellbarks, Carya laciniosa, of large size, fair cracking quality and good flavor which we never had before, we have selected material for the production of shagbark x shellbark hybrids, a class which has produced the Weiker hickory, four of the 1929 contest prize hickories and some other hickories of merit which have come to the attention of the writer during the past two or three years. As we have a number of good northern pecans we have also selected material for the production of pecan x shellbark hybrids, a class which has produced the McAllister pecan. If the 1929 contest does nothing more than to bring to light these fine shellbarks it is worth all it cost.

The contest also has shown some mockernuts of large size and better quality than ordinary but still not good enough to be in a class with the shellbarks noted above. The number of years that we have been testing hickories without getting good shellbarks leads us to hope that we will eventually get good mockernuts.

The prize winning hickories are noted below:

Name and Address Species Points Prize Amount

Mrs. C. Lake, New Haven, Ind. ovata 68 1 $25.00 Ferdinand Huber, Cochrane, Wis. ovata 67 2 15.00 John D. Bontrager, Middlebury, Ind. ovata 65 3 10.00 John Roddy, Napoleon, Ohio Dunbarii ? 64 4 5.00 Steve Green, Battle Creek, Mich. ovalis ? 63 5 5.00 [A]Mrs. Hamill Goheen, Pennsylvania Furnace, Pa. Dunbarii ? 62 6 3.00 Menno Zurcher Nut No. 1, Apple Creek, Ohio ovata 62 6 3.00 Edgar Fluhr, Kiel, Wis. ovata 61 7 3.00 [A]Elmer T. Sande, Story City, Ia. Dunbarii ? 61 7 3.00 N. E. Comings, Amherst, Mass. ovata 60 8 3.00 Edward Renggenberg, Madison, Wis. ovata 60 8 3.00 C. D. Wright, Nut No. 1, Sumner, Mo. laciniosa 60 8 3.00 Mrs. John Brooks, Ottumwa, Ia. ovata 59 9 3.00 Arlie W. Froman, Bacon, Ind. ovata 59 9 3.00 [A]Mrs. C. E. Hagen, GuttenBerg, Clay Co., Ia. Dunbarii ? 59 9 3.00 L. S. Huff, White Pigeon, Mich. ovalis ? 59 9 3.00 J. K. Seaver, Harvard, Ill. ovata 59 9 3.00 Joseph Sobelewski, Norwich, Conn. ovata 59 9 3.00 Caleb Sprunger, Berne, Ind. laciniosa 59 9 3.00 Grace Peschke, Ripon, Wis. ovata 58 10 3.00 John Muriel Thomas, Henryville, Ind. ovata 58 10 3.00

[A] Means that these varieties were known to the Association before the 1929 contest.

There are nearly as many others which came within two or three points of being prize winners and which it is believed should be propagated experimentally. These will be noted on the complete report. There are also the following which are notable for unusual excellence in one characteristic and which it is believed should be propagated experimentally and are here given honorable mention.

George S. Homan, Easton, Mo., laciniosa large, Wt. 24.3g, 56 H. M. 3.00 Mrs. E. W. Freel, Pleasantville, Ia., Shellbark, No. 1, laciniosa large, Wt. 27.6g, 54 H. M. 3.00 W. P. Ritchey, Marietta, Tex., alba large, Wt. 25.7g, 44 H. M. 3.00 J. Droska, Pierce City, Mo., alba large, Wt. 23.7g, 39 H. M. 3.00

$120.00



BUTTERNUTS

The last contest where prizes were offered for butternuts was that of 1919 and no nuts of value were entered. The 1929 contest has a number of unusually good ones.

The score card for butternuts was revised for this contest on the basis of the one adopted for the black walnut in the 1926 contest and the constants recalculated.

The prizes awarded are noted below:

L. K. Irvine, Menominee, Wis. cinerea 83 1 $ 50.00 H. J. Thill, Bloomer, Wis., Box 109 cinerea 78 2 15.00 C. F. Hostetter, Bird-In-Hand, Pa. cinerea 75 3 10.00 John F. Kenworthy, Rockton, Wis. cinerea 74 4 5.00 F. E. Devan, Rock Creek, Ohio cinerea 73 5 5.00 E. J. Lingle, Pittsfield, Pa. cinerea 70 6 3.00 John Hergert, St. Peter, Minn., Nut No. 1 cinerea 69 7 3.00 Evert E. Van Der Poppen, Hamilton, Mich. cinerea 66 8 3.00 Mrs. A. B. Simonson, Mondove, Wis. cinerea 66 8 3.00 Mrs. E. Sherman, Montague City, Mass. cinerea 64 9 3.00 W. A. Creitz, Cambridge City, Ind. Bixbyi ? 64 9 3.00 Mrs. Abbie C. Bliss, Bradford, Vt. Nut No. 1 cinerea 61 10 3.00

At first it might be thought that but one species of nuts would be sent in as butternuts, and this was true up to 15 or 20 years ago. The chance hybrids of the Japan walnut and the butternut, named Juglans Bixbyi by Prof. C. S. Sargent of the Arnold Arboretum, resemble the butternut so much that as time grows on it is increasingly probable that these will be sent in as butternuts. One came in to the 1919 contest and it is thought that the Creitz of this contest may possibly be such.



CHESTNUTS

The chestnuts received were relatively few in number but most of them were from sections where the blight had been present many years. Those that were from sections where this condition did not prevail were not allowed to enter. There were a few American chestnuts, some very good ones, from sections where the blight had not destroyed the native chestnut but these were not entered. As it happened all entered were of Japanese or Chinese species, which was somewhat of a disappointment to those who hope that a blight resistant American chestnut will yet be found. It certainly looks so far as if varieties of chestnuts for the blight area, of horticultural value, would be Japanese, Castanea crenata, or Chinese, Castanea mollissima.

The chestnuts were judged early and scions sent for in order to get a start on the second part of the chestnut problem, that of testing the resistance of these seemingly resistant varieties to the chestnut blight. The scions received were disappointing in quality and disappointing in the extent to which they were gotten started this year. The writer set scions on Chinese (mollissima) stock, Mr. Hershey set them on American (dentata) stock and the U. S. Dept. of Agriculture set them on Japanese (crenata) stock, but owing to the poor scions only part of them are growing. The writer got eight varieties out of twelve to start but it is questionable how they will do, for mollissima stock is thought to be good only for mollissima varieties and the varieties were all crenata, and so, while a start has been made on the problem of getting blight resistant chestnuts of horticultural value it is only a start and much work remains to be done.

The prizes awarded were as follows:

Name and Address Species Points Prize Amount

Frank B. Austin, Milford, Del. crenata 70 1 $50.00 C. Warren Swayne, West Grove, Pa. crenata 66 2 15.00 Charles V. Stein, Manheim, Pa., R. F. D. No. 1, Nut No. 1 crenata 61 3 10.00 Dr. W. C. Deming, Hartford, Conn. Mollissima 61 [A] ——- Charles V. Stein, Manheim, Pa., R. F. D. No. 1, Nut No. 2 crenata 59 4 5.00 Helen W. Smith, Linden Lodge, Stamford, Conn. crenata 54 5 5.00 May Cline, Route 2, Belvidere Rd., Phillipsburg, N. J., Nut No. 2 crenata 53 6 3.00 May Cline, Route 2, Belvidere Rd., Phillipsburg, N. J., Nut No. 1 crenata 51 7 3.00 Howard A. Folk, Brielle, N. J. crenata 51 7 3.00 W. Russell Parker, Box No. 2, Little Silver, N. J. crenata 47 8 3.00 Ralph P. Atkinson, Setauket, N. Y. crenata 46 9 3.00 Victor Page, Elmsford, N. Y. crenata 41 10 3.00 Frank Atler, Edison, Pa. crenata 40 11 3.00

[A] Not entered in contest.



BEECHNUTS

Never before, so far as the writer is aware, has there been a score card proposed for beechnuts, but the need of one is apparent and the following is suggested till a better one is found. It is not doubted that one will appear, for our present score cards for hickories, walnuts, etc., are the result of changes made as nuts received in the contests have shown such to be advisable, and work on the beechnut is 10 years or so behind that on other nuts.

Size is the most important characteristic in the beechnut, for all are thin shelled and practically all are well flavored. If we had a beechnut the size of a chestnut we should have a most valuable addition to our nuts. The points awarded for size have therefore been on the basis that eventually we would get a beechnut the size of a chestnut, although we are very far from that now. Forty points are allowed for size and it is figured that eventually we will get a beechnut 4 grams in weight which is the weight of a medium size chestnut. The constants used in figuring the number to be awarded for other characteristics require little comment for they are figured on the basis of existing nuts as constants have hitherto been calculated. The suggested score card is as follows:

Weight 40 points Color of shell 5 points Percent of kernel 15 points Ease of removing pellicle 15 points Quality and flavor of kernel 25 points Total 100 points

The details and methods used in judging beechnuts this year, also the calculations of the constants and the details of the awards, will be typed for the report.

The prizes awarded were as follows:

Mrs. John M. Pepaw, Johnson, Vt. grandiflora 40 1 $10.00 Mrs. George Marshey, Johnson Vt. grandiflora 39 2 5.00 James Radle, Harbor Springs, Mich. grandiflora 38 3 3.00 Anthony Andreson, Burke, N. Y. grandiflora 35 4 3.00 Fagus sylvatica sylvatica 44 [A] ——- Fagus sylvatica purpurea sylvatica 41 [A] ——- _ $21.00 [A] Not entered in the contest

It is not believed that nuts of Fagus sylvatica (European beech) will test out better, generally, than nuts of Fagus grandiflora (American beech) but the beechnuts were not tested till late, and the European beechnuts had been kept in a refrigerator, while the American beechnuts had not, which very likely may have been the cause for better retaining both the flavor and pellicle-removing quality, which made these nuts receive more points for these characteristics and so be awarded more points than the first four.

The meager results in getting beechnuts large enough to be of horticultural value in this contest, as well as in previous contests, and the failures of considerable effort on the part of the writer independently to locate large beechnuts, have caused him to put much thought on the matter and to have come to the conclusion that the search should be conducted in Europe as well as here, for the following reasons:

The beech in Europe is much more esteemed as a valuable tree than here, largely because of its value for fuel.

It has for many years, if not for centuries, been a tree that has been largely planted in those forests, state and private, which have been managed on the basis of sustained production, and it is not doubted that the men in charge are more familiar with the beech trees in the forests under their jurisdiction than is the case in America.

The European beech has shown the most amazing variation in color, size and shape of leaves, color of bark, and habits of growth, which have been perpetuated by grafting as ornamental varieties, and it seems likely that there are equal variations in the nuts which only remain to be discovered.

In short, while there may be no more large fruited beeches in Europe than here, it is believed that the chances of finding them are better.



ATTENDANCE RECORD

James A. Neilson, East Lansing, Michigan. C. F. Walker, Cleveland Heights, Ohio. Mr. and Mrs. John W. Hershey, Downingtown, Pennsylvania. Mr. and Mrs. Harry R. Weber, Cincinnati, Ohio. Dr. and Mrs. G. A. Zimmerman, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Mr. and Mrs. M. A. Yant, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Mr. and Mrs. Newton H. Russell, Hadley Center, Massachusetts. Mr. and Mrs. E. W. Freel, Pleasantville, Iowa. Mr. and Mrs. W. L. Crissman, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Mr. and Mrs. C. W. Bingham, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Mr. and Mrs. F. O. Harrington, Williamsburg, Iowa. Frank H. Frey, Chicago, Illinois. R. S. Herrick, Des Moines, Iowa. Arthur Huston, Cropsey, Illinois. Dr. W. C. Deming, Hartford, Connecticut. J. K. Hershey, Ronk, Pennsylvania. Hugh E. Williams, Ladora, Iowa. C. W. Bricker, Ladora, Iowa. Millard Harrington, Williamsburg, Iowa. Dr. J. Russell Smith, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania. Daniel Boyce, Winterset, Iowa. T. J. Maney, Ames, Iowa. J. F. Wilkinson, Rockport, Indiana. Snyder Brothers, Center Point, Iowa. Dr. R. J. Meyers, Moline, Illinois. Rev. L. D. Stubbs, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Vance McCray, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Ray Anderson, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. A. B. Anthony, Sterling, Illinois. George F. Stoltenberg, Moline, Illinois. John H. Witte, Murlington, Iowa. W. L. Van Meter, Adel, Iowa. Miss Elva Becker, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. N. F. Drake, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Prof. A. S. Colby, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.

THE END