In addition to what D. W. says (page 227), in relation to flavor in "sweet" corn, let us add that climate and soil so affect it, that in some sections it is far sweeter than in others. As an example, take an ear of the best Evergreen; plant a portion on the south side of Long Island, in light sandy soil; another portion in New England; a third on the western prairies, and we will have three distinct varieties, so far as flavor goes. The writer's first experience with sweet corn was on the eastern shore of Cayuga lake, where the conditions are favorable for richness and sweetness. On coming to the city to live and depend upon the grocer for vegetables, our appetite for something from the garden was keen. When the season for corn came we were disgusted with the quality offered. Our friends said it was because it had been too long from the stalks, which could not be helped because of the distance be-tween grower and consumer.

A few years later we moved to a farm fifteen miles out on Long Island. There we expected corn equal to that we had in our Cayuga home. When the corn came it did not bring with it that rich sweetness we had expected. Here was a surprise, mingled with regret. For lack of a better reason we charged it to the cooking. This charge was met with a hint that the fault was with my appetite. But not so, because I found that the same corn grown a mile to the north of us was much richer; and that corn grown on the borders of the Hudson river had the old time richness. Later, when on a visit to the corn growing districts of Connecticut, I found there the corn vastly superior in quality to any that I had ever tasted, and that the western sweet corn could not be eaten with a relish by any one who had eaten it in New England. Hence our conclusion that the sweetness comes from some natural condition of growth from elements that cannot be furnished artificially, and the quality of the corn is proportionate to the existing elements. - C. L. A.