PLANTATION RUBBER INDUSTRY OF THE EAST. 441 



one-third was sent to Assam, and sixteen to Burma {1877).i 

 The survivors of the latter, eight in all, were planted in the 

 Forest Office compound at Mergui.^ 



In a recent official publication on rubber in Brazil ^ it is 

 stated that Wiekham obtained his seeds, " grace a la bien veil- 

 lance du Gouvernement du Bresil qui fit recolter ces graines 

 par des Indiens sur les seringals de terre ferme, situes dans le 

 Bas-Tapajoz." It would seem probable that these authors 

 arc confusing the events of 1876 with the previous attempts 

 (1873) to obtain seeds through British Consuls in Brazil. 



The Third Introduction of Hevea. 

 (See Addendum, p. 520.) 



As has already been stated, Cross was sent to Panama in 

 1875 to obtain seeds or plants of Castilloa. In the following 

 year he proceeded to Brazil to procure Hevea brasiliensis, 

 saihng from Liverpool on June 19, 1876. It is curious to note 

 that he left England within a week after Wickham's arrival. 

 On July 15 he arrived at the port of Para, which he made his 

 headquarters during his stay in Brazil. After exploring the 

 surrounding districts by short excursions from Para, he began, 

 on August 2, to collect seedlings, and by August 10 had 

 accumulated about 2,000. Some of these were rejected, and 

 the remainder, over 1,000, were planted in decaj^^ed leaves 

 mixed A\ith wood ashes in special cases. He returned to 

 England in November, 1876.* 



When Cross arrived at Kew the work of distribution of 

 Hevea had been completed. Of the 1 ,080 seedlings which he 

 brought, 680 were handed over to Bull, of Chelsea, and the 

 remainder were kept at Kew. In each case, about 3 per 

 cent, were saved.^ From these, plants were propagated by 

 cuttings,^ about 100 being subsequently sent to Ceylon 



1 Kew Report, 1877. 



2 Kew Bulletin, 1898, p. 264. 



'^ O. Labroy and V. Cayla, " Culture et Exploitation du Caoutchouc 

 au Bresil." 



* Cross, Report. 



5 Trimen, MSS. 



^ The Kew Report does not say so. Trimen made the statement, and 

 it was adopted by Thiselton Dyer in Kew Bulletin, 1898. It is now 

 thought by Kew that these plants were Wickham's, not Cross's. 



6(4)14 (57) 



