May I, 1884.] 



THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 



795 



as to the extent. In Ooorg also there are more than a thou- 

 sand acresunder cultivation, containing another million plants. 

 The local manufacture ot alkaloid, referred to above, 

 appears to be affecting seriously the import of quinine 

 from Europe into India, as last year it fell to 7,58-5 lb. 

 from 10,Gl-5 lb. in the previous year. As m.atters now stand, 

 it is officially stated in this report that imports of quinine on 

 account of the Government have already practically ceased, 

 and an opinion is expressed that in course of time quinine 

 will be no longer imported into India, since that country will 

 be able to supply all her own wants from the plantations of 

 Darjeeling and the Nilgiris. We learn from this same report 

 that lac dye, once an important item in Indian trade, is dis- 

 .appcaring from the exports, under the influence of the com- 

 petition of other dyes. Lac is exported chiefly as shellac, 

 and to a smaller extent as button-lack. Stick-lack, which is 

 the unmanufactured form of lac, is now hardly exported. 

 Another dyeing material, safHower, the cultivation of which 

 once constituted an industry of some importance in Bengal, 

 has also been almost driven out of the field by the competitors 

 that have been pitted against it by modem science. It would 

 appear, however, that the chemical dyes are not everywhere 

 to have all their own way, since the Government of Persia 

 has issued a decree prohibiting the importation of aniline dyes 

 into that country, on the ground that they have been found 

 to exercise an injurious effect upon the textile industries. It 

 is believed that if this prohibition be strictly enforced, Persian 

 carpets will recover their former reputation in the European 

 markets for durability of colour. — Plumnacmtical Jouriucl. 



GLAZED POTS FOR PLANTS. 



The question whether glazed or unglazed pots are to be 

 preferred for plants has lately been the subject of renewed 

 discus.sion in the Loudon Gimhn. On the whole, the 

 weight of evidence and argument seems to be in favor 

 of the glazed pots. One writer says: — 



Thirty years ago, or more, Lindley wrote, that "experi- 

 ment has settled the question, by showing that plants 

 will grow in glass, in slate, in glazed earthenware, just as 

 well as in soft-bni-ned pots ; and it is now admitted on 

 :ill hands, that, if plants are ill grown, it is the fault of 

 the gardener, and not that of the pot." The cottager was, 

 however, the real original discoverer ; for he grew his 

 plants in j^ots glazed within and without, long before 

 even Lindley wrote. One of the earliest examples I was 

 familiar with was a fine fuchsia that grew in a black 

 teapot for many a year. About forty years ago, Charles 

 Mcintosh put the whole of his camellias into slate tubs, 

 which are as imper\dous to moisture as glazed earthen- 

 ware ; and I was familiar with these plants and tubs 

 many years afterwards. The fact of the matter is, common 

 flower-pots were not originally made of porous earthen- 

 ware on account of the plants, but because they were 

 cheaper made in that way when the labor of manufacture 

 was greater than it is now. Cultivators only jumped to 

 the conclusion that the porous pot was best, but for no 

 good reason I have ever yet seen stated. The common 

 flower-pot is, except when plunged in the ground up to 

 the rim, the worst receptacle for a plant that could be 

 devised, because it constantly exposes an active evaporating 

 surface to the air ; and an evaporating surface is alw.ays 

 a ehilly surface. How the roots of a plant are affected 

 inside such a pot, any person may learn for himself by 

 wearing a wet coat next his skin in the open air. In 

 short, a plant in a porous pot upon any airy greenhouse 

 stage may be said to be placed mider about as adverse 

 conditions as it well could be. A glazed pot is no better 

 than a porous one while it rem^ins moist on the outside; 

 but then it soon dri<-s, whereas the porous pot is always 

 moist, and giving off moisture. 



Another gardener of large experience writes as follows : — 



All are familiar with the method of m.aking water almost 

 ice-cold in summer by )»lacing it in a porous vessel, and 

 exposing it to a draught. The roots of a plant in a 

 porous pot arc, when recently watered, under the same 

 conditions as the above-mentioned water, and are made 

 equally cold. It follows that plants are subjected to a 

 serious check each time they are watered ; this effect is 

 sometimes avoided by plunging the pots. It is well known 

 how much more freely plants grow when plunged. It is 

 probable that the mischievous effects .attributed to draughts 



do not result from their direct action on plants, but 

 indirectly from the cold at the roots, produced by the 

 rapid evaporation caused by such pots. Glazed po^s would 

 not only prevent surface evaporation, but render watering 

 less frequently necessary, thereby saving labor, aijjl pre- 

 serving the fertilizing properties of the soil for a .longer 

 time. 



In the moist .air of greenhouses the evaporation from 

 the surface of porous pots, and the consequent refriger- 

 ation of the roots, would be much less rapid than in the 

 dry atmosphere of our furnace-heated houses. The porous 

 pots might, therefore, do for the former when they would 

 be decidely objection.able for the latter. For house-plants 

 requiring a permanently moist soil, the glazed pots are 

 clearly to bo preferred, if not tor all plants. — Popular 

 Science News. 



WEIGHT OF GRAIK AS A TEST OF JIERIT. 



The weight of a given measure (by capacity) of grain is 

 almost universally accepted as a reliable test of quality and 

 an infallible indication of the intrinsic value of the gi*ain. 

 Of course it is admitted as perfectly patent that a measured 

 bushel of wheat that weighs 6.5 lb. is worth more for bread 

 purposes than the same mea.sure that weighs only 60 lb. 

 This is to say simply that 6.5 lb. of wheat are worth more 

 than 60 lb. of wheat. But the generally received notion 

 is that 60 lb. of the heavier wheat are worth more than 60 lb. 

 of the lighter wheat, either for bread or for seed. If the 

 difference in weight is clearly attributed alone to the difference 

 in the merchantable condition of the two samples, or the 

 plumpness and soundness of the grain, we do not join issue. 

 Sixty pounds of clear, plump, pure wheat are worth more 

 than 60 lb. of a mixture of chaff, straw, and good, bad and 

 indifferent grains of wheat. But it is insisted that of two 

 samples of wheat, each of which presents the same plumpness 

 and soundness of grain and the same freedom from all 

 impurities, each being perfectly sound, clear and dry, the 

 hea\ner sam))le is worth more than the lighter, and the 

 conclusive test is the relative weights of a measured bushel 

 of each. Now, upon what is this notion based ? An intelligent 

 upholder claims that the difference in weight is due to the 

 more perfect development of the heavier wheat, or that its 

 greater weightis due to a preponderance or greater proportion 

 of the more valuable constituents of the grain. ■ But this 

 is a mere assertion — not sustained by any proof whatever. 

 The expert miller when he buys wheat cares little w]iat 

 it weighs to the measureil bushel so long as it is clean, plump 

 gr.ained, and of the desired color and brightness. He buys 

 up the 60 lb. and finds no advantage in getting a smaller bulk 

 of wheat for his money rather than a larger. But is it 

 true th.at the difference in weight of two samples of ^\4ieat 

 that are equally good in appearance is due to any real 

 superiority of the sample that weighs the more to the 

 measm*ed bushel ? "We say not, but suggest that the difference 

 in weight is generally, if not invariably, due to the difference 

 in the sizes and shapes of the grains of wheat. A measured 

 bu.'ihel of small grained wheat will outweigh a similar bulk 

 of large grained wheat. This fact may not be very generally 

 known, but it is certainly as true as the truth of mechanical 

 principles. Take any materi.al matter consisting of particles 

 of uniform density and shape, and it is found the sm.aUer 

 the indiWdual particles the hea\'ier will be a given mea.sured 

 quantity of them. For instance, it has been remarked by 

 close observers that 25 lb. of leaden buckshot require a 

 larger bag to contain them than does the same weight of 

 birdshot. The same principle holds good in the case of 

 apples, oranges,Irish potatoes aud other articles and substances 

 that approximate uniformity in shape and size of separate 

 sjiccimens. The weight of a bu.shel of wheat of corn, as 

 other similar products, is affected not only by the size of 

 the grains or separate pieces, but also by the greater or 

 less roundness of .shape of these grains. A bushel of short, 

 roundish grains of wheat will be heaner than a bushel of 

 a long grained variety, although the average weight of 

 individual grains may be equal. It is because a bushel 

 measm-e will contain a greater number of the small, roundi.sh 

 grains. These two causes act together iu the case of Indian 

 corn as compared with wheat. This grain is rated at 56 lb. 

 to the measured bushel, against 60 lb. of wheat, aud the 

 difference, wo think, is owing entirely to the circumstance 

 that the grains of com are larger and of more irregular 



