1919.] SUGAR-CANE VAEIETIES d- FBOGHOPFEB BLIGHT. 81 



5%/;!'.— Damaged Orange Grove 1917 and 1918 (C.U.W.) Badly 

 damaged Caroni 1918 (C.B.W.) Alongside "Uba" and not so good 

 Union Hall 1918 (C.B.W.) Badly damaged (J.B.), (.J.K.), (A.B.), (J.W.A.), 

 (C.A.F.), (W.A.B.), (G. H. Hill.) Suffers less than B. 156 and B. 347 but 

 still far from immune (P. de V.) Does faii'ly well at Caroni but when 

 attacked is slow in recovery (.J.G.) Badly damaged, least resistant 

 variety (D.F.) 



B. H. 10 (12). 



A dark rusty brown cane with much wax, leaf normal or rather dark. 

 Stem distinctly zig-zag. Internodes convex, no channel. Bud rather 

 small round and flat. 



Cultivation at present small but spreading. 



No records of damage. 



Ba. 6032. 



A yellow or slightly reddish yellow cane, of upright growth. Leaves 

 long and erect. Stem distinctly zig-zag. Internodes bulging, no channel. 

 Buds rather large flat and pointed. 



Pit'centl}' introduced and spreading rapidly. 



Blight. — No damage at Hermitage (H.T.O.) No damage at Brechin 

 Castle (J.W.A.) No damage at Oaroai (J.G.) No damage at St. 

 Augustine 1917 and 1918 (C'.B.Y,".) 



The following additional varieties are at present in cultivation at 

 St. Augustine, but are either not found in estates or farmers cultivation, 

 or have been so recently distributed that no records are available of 

 damage : — 



CONCLUSIONS. 



The conclusions that can be drawn from a study of the above evidence 

 are not encouraging to any planter seeking a variety of sugar-cane that 

 is immune from disease. 



In fact ifc will be found that every variety that has been in cultivation 

 for any length of time has been severely damaged by the '• Froghopper 

 Blight" in some year and in some soils. 



(1.) H ? A Hawaiian cane of which tlie nunibor on the label was not decipherable 

 ■when the original introduction was made. — (W.G.F.) 



