To the editor:

From your editorial titled “For a tree?” that was printed March 20: “Some elms have survived, of course, but they remain allergic to infection.” You seem to be aware that Dutch elm disease is caused by a fungus transmitted by bark beetles. But I urge you to consult your dictionary or other authority about allergies.

My Random House Unabridged Dictionary, second edition, 1993, offers the following definitions of the word “allergy”: “1. An abnormal reaction of the body to a previously encountered allergen introduced by inhalation, ingestion, injections or skin contact… 2. hypersensitivity to the reintroduction of an allergen… 3. Informal. “A strong dislike or aversion, as toward a person or activity.” Plants are not capable such reactions. A better choice of word would be “vulnerable” or “susceptible.” We readers rely on you to care about words and to use them with precision.

If this tree was, indeed, infected, it should have been removed and its trunk and limbs disposed of in such a way (incineration, for instance) as to prevent any resident bark beetles from moving on to another elm. Why the delay? As you pointed out, there are not many healthy native elm trees left. Those remaining should be protected. If this tree was not infected, its removal is deplorable. Has the city division of forestry any comment?

Ellen Wyttenbach,

Lawrence