198 MR. D. MORRIS ON THE PRODUCTION OF SEED IN 
parts of the world, says “ we have no authentic record of any 
really wild station for the common sugar-cane " *. 
Another point connected with the life-history of the sugar- 
cane which has occupied attention is,—whether the sugar-cane, 
owing to the fact that it has been propagated for so many 
centuries by cuttings, or slips, has not, in common with otber 
plants, such as the banana, plantain, and bread-fruit, lost the 
power of producing mature seed. A very general opinion exists 
at the present time, and indeed has existed for nearly a hundred 
years, that the sugar-eane does not produce seed. Hughes f, in 
1750, speaking of the sugar-canes at Barbados states, * the 
glumes of their pannicles contains a whitish dust or seed, yet 
these being sowed, never vegetate." 
Rumphius f does not expressly state that the sugar does not 
flower and seed, but remarks, “ Flores semenque nunquam profert 
nisi per aliquot annos steterit in loco quodam saxoso." 
Macfadyen $, in regard to Jamaiea, says that “ it is a peculiarity 
of the (sugar) cane in this climate, that it refuses to perfect its 
seed. Ever since its cultivation in this island it has been raised 
from cuitings of the joints.” 
Sir William Hooker ||, citing Roxburgh, states that “ notwith- 
standing his long residence in the country of the Ganges (he) 
never saw the seed of the sugar-cane." And, lastly, we have 
Hackel, the recent Monographer of the Andropogoneæ in de 
Candolle's ‘ Monographiæ Phanerogamarum,’ under Saccharum 
officinarum, L., p. 112, adding * Caryopsis nemo adhue videsse 
videtur.” 
De Candolle is therefore no doubt correct in the statement 
that ro one has hitherto described or drawn the seed of the 
sugar-cane €. 
The flower of the sugar-cane, on the contrary, has often been 
figured and described. One of the earliest figures is given by 
Tussac (‘Flora Antillarum, 1808-1827), copied by Hayne 
(‘Arzueykunde,’ ix. tt. 30,31). These exhibit the character of the 
stems and general habit, but the analysis of the flower is poor. 
* Flora Hong-Kong, p. 420. 
I Hughes, Barbados (1750), p. 244. 
t Rumphius, Amboin. vol. v. p. 186. 
$ Hooker's Bot. Mise. vol. i. p. 99. | Ibid. 
€ Origin of Cultivated Plants (1882), p. 157. 
