Notices of judgment under the insecticide act

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Notices of judgment under the insecticide act
Physical Description:
v. : ; 23 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
United States -- Insecticide and Fungicide Board
United States -- Food, Drug, and Insecticide Administration
United States -- Food and Drug Administration
United States -- Agricultural Marketing Service
United States -- Agricultural Marketing Administration
United States -- War Food Administration. -- Office of Distribution
United States -- Office of Marketing and Services
United States -- Dept. of Agriculture. -- Production and Marketing Administration
Publisher:
U.S. G.P.O.
Place of Publication:
Washington, D.C
Publication Date:
Frequency:
irregular
completely irregular

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Insecticides -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Genre:
serial   ( sobekcm )
federal government publication   ( marcgt )

Notes

Dates or Sequential Designation:
Began with no. 73.
Dates or Sequential Designation:
-2041/2066 (Jan. 1951).
Numbering Peculiarities:
Some nos. issued together.
Issuing Body:
Issued by: no. 73-1100, U.S. Insecticide and Fungicide Board; no. 1101/1125-1166/1175, Food, Drug and Insecticide Administration; 1176/1190-1731/1745, Food and Drug Administration; 1746/1762-1790/1800, Agricultural Marketing Service; 1801/1811-1812/1825, Agricultural Marketing Administration; 1826/1840-1885, Food Distribution Administration; 1886/1895-1896/1910, War Food Administration, Office of Distribution; 1911/1925, War Food Administration, Office of Marketing Services; 1926/1949-2041/2066, Production and Marketing Administration.
General Note:
Description based on: 1101/1125 (Dec. 1928); title from caption.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 004700296
oclc - 13957905
lccn - sn 86034178
Classification:
ddc - 632.951 U61
System ID:
AA00008549:00043

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text
. *


I
-'I,,.


- ~~!!


.. :. 9.....
j.g ". .
1^ 'i~a~ h


.5. .h*'i non ions
lea. C .~.,Mr.nnin.

*
I
'I.
1~1J
:1.
I
i It
I...).'
C I.
-
H .tt~
H. .:.
.lhI* .. .m*:. .4.
.1. ci
r
1 H
*:it[ jlT1


FOOD


ADMINISTRATION


OFFICE OF DISTRIBUTION


H..
H.
I....
N.Y..
S's.!.]!.


;OF


*I.," E" *F "

* ... i- :....
~" I hv^ .

eO ijudg e
r .and are


|A:,ct of 1910"


r"ayi*M


JUDGMENT


UNDER


THE


INSECTICIDE ACT


ISSO-iSOB


nt herewith relate ta cases instituted in the United States
approved for publication as provided in section 4 of the
(36 Stat. 331).


mit.,.:
* *1'


.. *(
... .


, f'., Januarv 25, 1944.


Assistant War Food Administrator.


nation and misbranding of "Sodium Pluoride."
i, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine $300. (I. & F. No.
!s89.)


U. S. v. Cole Labora-


2269.


I. D. Nos. 2388


4i of "Sodium Fluoride" showed that this product consisted of
? Iti.s '(60 percent) and inert ingredients (sodium carbonate, calcium
a nd other substances), and the label did not bear an ingredient
rgeluired by the Insecticide Act of 1910.
..7 1942, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New
... Upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
-..nmation against the Cole Laboratories, Inc., alleging shipment in
omrmmerce, on or about November 12 and 13, 1941, from Long Island
Steto the State of Pennsylvania, of a quantity of "Sodium Fluoride,"
Vma :adulterated and misbranded insecticide within the meaning of
t.ldideb. Act of 1910.
.at was alleged to be adulterated in that (1) its strength and purity
I.,;thb professed standard and quality under which it was sold, and
.wid g bstances had been substituted in part for the product, that is to say,
.tovtde. ,
gi)oduct :was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, "Sodium
S)obor."'on.the label, was false and misleading and tended to deceive
tS^&KfisSi^^a

States


Issued March 1944


Department


Agriculture


i





582


INSECTICIDE


ACT


IN. J., I. F.


188. Adulteration and amsbranding of*PowderedaTrojad
dered Trojan Cube Root," and "Powdered Cube Root." U. S. v. B. B.
Penick & Company. Plea of guilty. Fine $603. (I. & F. No. 2325. L. D.
Nos. 4972, 6631, and 6652.)
ays of samples of "Powdered Trojan Derris Root" showed that the product
conin d: 10 percent less than the quantity of derris extractives other than
rotenone that was stated on the label; and analyses of samples taken from one
shipment of "Powdered Cube Root" showed a 28-percent shortage in the content
of cube extractives other than rotenone, and from the other shipment a shortage
of 16 percent in the rotenone content.
On September 20,948, the U fi t attorney for the District of New Jersey,
ating upon a report by the Secretatljof Agriculture, filed in the district co -an
information against S B. Penity alegingsbpme i
merce, on or about January- 15, Agt and October 1, 1942, from Lyndtrist
aM Kingsland, N. J., into the States f Connecticut and South Carolina, of
quantities of "Powdered Trojan Derris Root," "Powdered Trojan Cube Root, and
"Powdered CuNbe Root," which were adulterated and misbranded insectiides
within the ineafling of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
Each of the products was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity
fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, as shown
by the following statements: ............
The "Powdered Trojan Derris Root" was labeled, in part, "Active Ingredients
otenone 5% Other Denis Extratives 11% Inert Ingredients 84%," whereas
it contained less than 11 percent of derris extractives other than rotenone and
more than 84 percent of inert ingredients.
The "Powdered Trojan Cube Root" was labeled, in part, "Active Ingredients:
Rotenone 4% Other Cube Extractives (minimum) 11% Inert Ingredients
(maxnumn) 85%," whereas it contained less than 11 percent of other cube ex-
tractives and more than 85 percent of inert ingredients.
The "Powdered Cube Root" was labeled, in part, "Actveea
Rotenone ... 5.9% Other Cube Extractives (minimum) 6% Inert In-
gredients (maximum) 88.1%," whereas it contained less than 5.9 percent of
rotenone.
It was alleged that each product was misbranded in that the statements Atin-
gredients, as quoted in the preceding paragraphs, borne on the labels, were false
and misleading, and by reason thereof each product was labeled and branded so
as to deceive and mislead the purchaser.
On October 5, 1948, a plea of guilty was entered and the court imposed a fine
of $200 each on counts, one, three, and five, and $1 each on counts two, four, and


1888. Adulteration ana mnibranding of 4Chloro-San." U. v. 75 eases of "Chloro-
San." Default decree of condemnation and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2817.
I. D. No. 6239.)
An analysis of "Chloro-San" showed that the product contained 3.65 percent of
sodium hypochlorite.
On May 22, 1943, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Arkan-
sas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 75 cases, each cotai l...na
bottles, more or less, of "Chloro-San," at Blytheville, Ark., alleging that the product
had been shipped in interstate commerce, on or about Nmm
C W. bhtlock Company, from Springfield, Ill., and charging that the product
was a misbranded and adulterated fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide
Act of 1910.
The produet was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and uriy fell
below the professed standard and quality under whi T aso
*uh .. "^ i ^ 3-' 3-- ^ ^ .. w hic ****wl,,:^~ as *..^


C




p:|^| '**.O:.IiE: OF JUG
I ii:.ii.* i f :'.. *. .
p:.:::il... 1** pa t pe:ilo fa albec lrn
,,^^ ,9 ,93 ,ocamn aigapaeadce
=EI:.'. .:.. "
l'". "E E..:". "
:*:.n** *i. a49 NOTIlQES OF JUDGMENrT
..:* ** : .
.ii :'Id."...." oil ,itlae o eh r w t re oo ig m
I'. ....S..s a disinfectant when diluted 1 ounce to 4 gallons of water
%Nh tion "containing 100 parts per million of available chlorine
|, E November 29, 1943, no claimant having appeared, a decree
.n. entered and it was ordered that the product be destroyed.
* ": **",, ..
.& Adulteation and udubranding of "Pjrethrum Extract 20."
,:, :,::

.f*...-:,.yrethdrn Extract 2O." Default decree of condemn
and.destruction. (I. & F. No. 2283. I. D. No. 5853.)
1. .Anal ysiof "Pyrethrum Extract 20" showed that the pro
i d..: ,*::: mineral oil distillate, together with green coloring ma
A.. o:. i 0f,. chlorinated compounds.
....... i~..ber 18, 1942, the United States attorney for the Wi
.. acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricull
.e conSt a'libel praying seizure and condemnation of five
.r extract 20," at Middleton, Wis., alleging that the


ippcl.in interstate commerce,
i".mfst, Int., from Chicago, Ill
lterated insecticide within the
die product was alleged to be
Zi4 ow the professed standard
iCt 'wap labeled "Pyrethrum


583


, and did not give
when so diluted.
of condemnation


IT. S. v. five eanu
action, forfeiture,

duct consisted of
tter and a small

western District of
ture, filed in the
5-gallon cans of
product had been


on or about June 10, 1942, by the Associated
., and charging that it was a misbranded and
meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
adulterated in that (1) its strength and purity
and quality under which it was sold, since the
Extract 20," and was not an extract of pyreth-


nn .... p"hd n (2) other substances had been substituted
.. ,,pyethrum powers.
I'...-. ..roduct was alleged to be misbranded for the re
.. .V.. 'rum Extract 20," borne on the label was false an
..irflv ^e and mislead the purchaser, since the produi
H1e1 hS
..."4'-... but consisted chiefly of mineral oil, together w
,..'.In5n 1 amount of chlorinated compounds.
".. .."".tembe 14, 1943, no claimant having appeared,
.. ... : :..
.. *........ ,:,.forfeiture was entered and the United States
,iS theproduct- so condemned and forfeited.
i* ?.: l: S_ ... ". ... ..
::***:.:...... *.. *........
*, An n **: ,
::.~ h **


for extracted


material


ason that the statement,
d misleading and tended
ct was not a pyrethrum
ith coloring matter and

judgment of condemna-
marshal was ordered to


::..rI. '.Witeration and misbranding of "do-do." U. S. v. 63 eases, each contain-
.I.L.H:, 12 one-quart bottles, of "do-do." Default decree of condemnation,
t ji.:..'/ 'trfeliture, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 2318. I. D. No. 7054.)
S.: ial.seS of samples of "do-do" showed that the product contained 3.29 percent
lbf.:BB ypochlorite.
..*..:M 12, 1913, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Wis-
.,.*g ating upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
: I :a.. bel, praying seizure and condemnation of 63 cases, each containing 12
:: :*I I .i *: t *
. o w!3."ar bottles, of "do-do," at Milwaukee, Wis., alleging that the product had
" .feeusllipped in interstate commerce, on or about October 28, 1942, by the Beacon
'Cb mical Corporation, from Chicago, Ill., and charging that the product was a
tt, afanded and adulterated fungicide within the meaning of the Insecticide
* ,,ofW1O.
,... '"fie product was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity fell
,..,.:' w the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, since it was
.1" : J* ,led,-."Sodium Hypochlorite-5.25% By Wgt. Inert Ingredients-94.75% By
H:,.."
~- *. -. :. Whereas it contained less than 5.25 percent of sodium hypochlorite and
S... ..i .ai94.75 percent of inert ingredients.
!fli.e product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Sodium
:A..orite 5.25% By Wgt. Inert Ingredients 94.75% By Wgt." and
.. ... disinfects. For washing dishes, glassware, etc.-Put two table-
awynes do-do in dish water. Use only 2 normal soap requirement. For
..mops..And dishceloths Put a cup of do-do in a pail of warm water and wash.




9wn A


ACT


INSECTICIDE

On September 24, 1943 no la mant having
tion and ofefitee was entered d it w
stroyed by ih United States marshal.


[N.J., I.F.

judgment of condemna-
that .the product be de-


1891. Adulteration and misbranding of '"Hughes Sure-Kill." U.
Brownstein, trading as the Hysan Products Company.
Fine $100. I. & No. 2279...l; D. Nos. 3398 and 3879.)
An analysis of "Hughes Sute-Kil' d6 osed that the product (
percent of inert ingredients instead of |t over 16 percent, as in
label, and the weight of the contents of cans was found to be
than 1 pound.
On November 30, 1942, the United Staw attorney for the North
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Sec tary of Agriculture, filed
court an information against Henry .. rownstein, trading as ti
ucts Company, alleging shipment In inl state commerce, on or
8, 1941, from Chicago, Ill., into the Stqt of Texas, of a quanti
Sure-Kill," which was an adulterated nd misbranded insectici
meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910. .
The product was alleged to be adulterted in that its strength
below the professed standard and quality under which it was sol
gained inert ingredients in a proportion greater than the percent
the label.
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement,
Pound," and the following statements:


"INERT


S. v. Henry J.
Plea of guilty.
.ontaine" .1

2.6 percent less


'I


ern District of
in the district
e Hysan Prod-
about October
ty of "Hughes
de within the


and purity fell
d, since it con-
tage stated on
"Net Weight 1


INGREDIENTS


Not over


Sodium Sulphate ... 2.00%
Sodium Carbonate -. 1.00%
Sodium Chloride.. 0.45%
Pyrethrum Powder other than Pyrethrins


Sodium B
Siliceous
Nile Blue


bicarbonate -
Matter__
Color----
-,- not over


Not over
_- 1.00%
-- 0.40%
-- 0.15%
11%,"


borne on the label, were false and misleading, and by reason thereof the product
was labeled so as to deceive and mislead purchasers, since the cans contained
less than 1 pound and more than 16 percent of inert ingredients.
On February 10, 1943, a plea of guilty was entered and the court imposed a
fine of $100.
1892. Adulteration and misbranding of "Fluorex V" and misbrandlng of "White
Fluorex V." IU. S. v. Amnerican Fluoride Corporation. Plea of guilty.
Fine $50 each on counts one and two relative to "Fluorex V" and $100
on count trewe relative to "Wdite Fluorex V." (I. & F. No. 2300. LI D.
Nos. 2455 and 24064.)
An analysis of the product called "Fluorex V" showed that it contained
59.1 percent of sodium fluosilicate instead of 75 percent, as stated on the label.
The product called "White Fluorex V" did not bear an ingredient statement as
required by the Insecticide Act of 1910.
On May 27, 1948, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New
York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
court an information against the Amerfran Fluoride Corporation, all ..' sh -
ment in interstate commerce, on or abotit July 10, 1942, from e .Y
into the States of West Virgniz and Connecticut, of quantities of "Fluorex V"
and "White Fluorex V." The shipment to West Virginia was an adulterated
and misbranded insecticide and the shipment to Connecticut was a misbranded
Insecticide witn thhe meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
Tho narml narelli "Wnarniwr V" wrua flhaloardi to hafldiultfrnfto in t'hdt ita


g appeared,
is ordered




NH, :. ..i*.
Va WBV I
iS 3 .
.,y"I. .... ..
'" f-18Y5]585
.,...., ,NOTICES OF JUDGMEI 58
4! .
I!'..'* ..-
-r:f~f^


it, I;

.jk.


"898. Misbranding of "Sterilan." U. S. v. American Fluoride Corporation. Plea
;:. of guilty. Fine $100. (I. & F. No. 2306. I, D. No. 6483.)
; .- -On May 27, 1943, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New
; t York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district
. court an information against the American Fluoride Corporation, alleging ship-
2 ent in interstate commerce, on or about July 21, 1942, from New York, N. Y., into
the State of California, of a quantity of "Sterilan," which was a misbranded in-
seeticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
i.It was alleged that the product was misbranded for the reason that it con-
sisted partially of inert substances (substances other than sodium silicofluoride)
-, and the names and percentage amounts of the inert substances were not stated
plainly and correctly on the drums containing the product, nor, in lieu thereof,
were the name and percentage amount of each and every substance or ingre-
dient of the product having insecticidal properties and the total percentage of
S.the inert substances present therein stated plainly and correctly on the drums.
On Tifly 12, 1943, a plea of guilty was entered and the court imposed a fine
of 1Oft


1894. A.klteration and misbranding of "Magitex." U. S. v. Magi
c. Ie Plea of nolo contender. Fine $100. (I. & F. No. 2S
$i179 and 4619.)
0 4OM December 16, 1942, the United States attorney for the Distf
.lathupon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the dis
It ia nation against the Magitex Company, Inc., alleging shipment
.oiemvee, on or about November 12 and 13, 1941, from Biddefc
: Maine, into the District of Columbia and the State of Florida, of
.. "Magitex," which was an adulterated and misbranded insecticide
paring of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
.Ahe product was alleged to be adulterated in that the statement
S/g ,edients: Alkyl Aryl Sulfonate, 6%. Glycerine, 1%. Pine Oil, 3%
Extract, 8%. Propyl Para Hydroxybenzoate, 1%. Alcohol, 10%.
S.bpne on the label affixed to each bottle containing the product, purp
.. esented that the standard and quality of the product were such th
71. percent of inert ingredients, whereas the strength and purity
-enl below the professed standard and quality under which it was
contained more than 71.9 percent of inert ingredients.
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements


prepqding paragraph were false and
*. the purchaser in that the produce
' -ingredients: "alkvl arvl sulfonate" is


Itex Company,
285. I. D. NoB.


ric
str
ii
rd
a
le


t of Maine,
ict court an
a interstate
Sand Saco,
quantity of
within the


:s, "Active In-
. Pyrethrum
Inert, 71.9%,"
orted and rep-
tt it contained
of the product
sold, since it


quoted


misleading and tended to deceive s
t contained more than 71.9 percent
not the name of an ingredient; and


n the


mnd mis-
of inert
pyreth-


.; Ghreof the product was labeled so as to deceive and mislead purchasers, since
t- contained less than 75 percent of active ingredient and more than 25 percent
1of..ert ingredients, and, when used as directed, would not control all household
,bee les or protect chickens from further invasions of ice.
: The product called "White Fluorex V" was alleged to be misbranded in that
teonsisted partially of inert substances (substances other than sodium silico-
' uioride) ana the names and percentage amounts thereof were not stated plainly
atd:'correctly on the drum; nor, in lieu thereof, were the name and percentage
drOuint of each and every substance or ingredient of the product having insecti-
.6MSl1properties and the total percentage of the inert substances present therein
Stated plainly and correctly on the drum.
'O iOn JUly :12, 1943, a plea of guilty was entered and the court imposed a fine
otf'i50 on tach of counts one and two in regard to "Fluorex V," and $100 on
. rcot three in regard to "White Pluorex V."




586


rNXS~ICTICIDE


ACT


[N. J., I. f..


at this time, to prevent reiufectiosln, rne on the label, were false and misleading,
and by reason thereof the product was labeled so as to deceive and mislead pur-
chasers, since, when used as directed, it would not kill all parasites, all skin para-
sites of cattle and horses ,al insects represented by the abbreviation etc' it
would not kill ticks, all raieties ofitites infesting dogs, cats, cattle, and horses;
and the statement under "Note implied a greater effectiveness for the product
than it possessed. -
The product was alleged to be misbr ied further in that the statements,
"Magite Kills Parasites Use Magitex To kill
* mites and ticks f sleeping quarters, mattresses, etc.,
Magitex lather effectively kee them free from parasites. To keep
your dog or cat free from par sites, use Magitex regularly
S* 4. Magitex combines in one rmula ingredients that kill parasites
* 5. Magitex is applied as million of tiny bubbles which instantly find
the lowest skin level, quickly destroying parasites 6. Add 2 table-
spoonfuls of Magitex to one cup of water, whip to a lather, apply to your pet with
hand or sponge. Wipe off. Do not rinse. Presto!-You have a clean, sweet
smelling animal, free of mites and ticks. Read what Mr.
H: V. Howland of the Spur Magazine says about Magitex Magitex
secondly it kills parasites *" appearing in a circular which
accompanied the shipment to the District of Columbia, were false and mislead-
ing, and by reason thereof the product was labeled so as to deceive and mislead
purchasers, since it would not kill all parasites or all mites and ticks, and would
not keep sleeping quarters, mattresses, and dogs and cats free from parasites.
On September 28, 1943, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contender and
the court imposed a fine of $100.


1895. Adulteration and misbranding of "Sure-Klean." U. S. v. 148 eartona, more
or less, of "Sure-Klean. Decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and. de-
struction. (I. & F. No. 2288., I. D. Nos. 5148, 5163, and 5164.)
An analysis of "Sure-Klean" showed that this product was a solution of sodium
hypochlorite. The pint bottles were found to contain 4.18 percent, and the quart
and one-half-gallon bottles 2.78 percent, of sodium hypochlorite.
On October 8, 1942, the United States attorney for the Southern District of
Mississippi; acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 100 cartons containing
24 one-pint bottles each, 25 cartons containing 12 one-quart bottles each, and
23 cartons containing 6 one-half-gallon bottles each, of "Sure-Klean," at Gulfport,
Miss., alleging that the product had been shipped in interstate commerce, on or
about July 7 and August 4, 1942, by F. Uddo & Sons, from New Orleans, La.,
and charging that the product was a misbranded and adulterated fungicide
within the meaning of the Insecticide tKct of 1910.
It was alleged that the product was adulterated in that its strength and purity
fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, namely,
"Active Ingredient Sodium Hypochlorite 5% by Wt. when packed. Inert Ingre-
dients--95% by Wt."
The product was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Active
Ingredient Sodium Hypoeblorite 5% by Wt. when packed Inert Ingredients
- 95% by Wt.," borne on the label, were ialse and misleading and tended to de-
ceive and mislead the purchaser, since the product contained less than 5 percent
by weight of sodium hypochlorite and more than 95 percent by weight of inern
ingredients.
On November 11, 1948, F. Uddo & Sons having appeared as claimant and ad-
mitted the allegations of the libel, a decree of forfeiture and condemnation w
entered and the court ordered that the product under seiziure be de Troye an
e and







- 18S6z~1S95]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


.1
..... I
EV *ihA
I* A
1 .1


h .&tF
P
.=.f. si
I 'K H
'N.H.
A..


INDEX TO NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT 1886-1895


N. J.No.


SChloro-San: .
C, G. Whitlock Company---..
"do-do:
Beacon Chemical Corporation-
Fliorex V and White Fluorex V:


American


Fluorine


uorpora-


:. ,tion .------.......... ----


flughes Sure-Kill:
.:Henry J. B


Hyhan


rownstein._


Products


Company--


S... Magitex Company, Inc ...---
Powdered Trojan Derris Root, Po
dered, Trojan Cube Root, and
SPowdered Cube Root:
S. B, Penick & Company-....


w-


1887


N. J. No.


Pyrethrum Extract 20:


Associated Chemists,


Sodium Flouride:
Cole Laboratories,


Sterilan:
American


Fluoride


tion ---
Sure-Klean :
F. Uddo & Sons--


White Fluorex V and Fluore


American


Flouride


Inc----

nc_ --

Corpora-

Coror- -
'xV:
Corpora-


tion -. --





V
4
4






At>



~*
.
.1 *:~
* *~ I
* ~.:. .. *1I
* .1.1
i.


*isii^ iii^. 4


--... vs
* .1 hJbL'a. *71
~1
.1::. ,.1.
.

** *.. .*
.
*~ A**.' -
,
i:* :.4.
~.:~' ~ .1
Ti.., **


.

C iT ~ S j!:~ .;*







3:ih


H















"'4'
I4k*


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


SMlUllvc-rxo11 1 -i1 11ilHttI
3 1262 08582 5098