November i, 1882.] THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 



435 



leaf is thenceforward subject to a new cycle 

 of change, wholly irrespective and independent 

 of its former life and connexion. Whatever may 

 thereafter happen to the leaf, whether it shrivel 

 and dissipate under the sliw procees of eremaoausis, 

 or become food for insects, or be assimilated into 

 fungi, matters not to the plant it once served as 

 lung and stomach. A dissolution of partnership 

 took place the moment the leaf ceased its growth 

 and active functions, and no further vital con- 

 nexion subsists between them. The useless leaf 

 goes like the old horse to the knackers ! What 

 matters it to the brave old oak that 200 under- 

 takers are ever attent to dispose of his used up 

 limbs ? or to the pine that 100 fungi will wake over 

 the fallen or falling members of his communion ? or to the 

 lime that some 70 claimnnts will scramble for his old 

 clothes ? Then, why should King Coffee give up the ghost 

 atthesight of <too poor body-snatchers? By the bye, why 

 has one of these been raised to the highest pinnacle of 

 fame, wliilst the other has been relegated to share the 

 faleof the handbook ? Why has poor sphcerid been 

 denied the honour or shame of its share in the 

 fatal transaction, and dropped as completely as though 

 it had never been heard of ? It derives its nour- 

 ishment, however much or little that may be, from 

 our coffee leaves, and seems by Mr. Morris's account 

 to be always present. At any rate he always found 

 it when required. 



Mr. Ward has proved that whatever mischief 

 Hemileia is in its nature capable of doing is done 

 to the leaves, and even to them only whilst they are 

 growing, and fulfilling their proper functions. It 

 matters not to the coffee trees what becomes of its leaves 

 after they had jassed the growing stage. That is certain. 

 Surely it cannot then be a very difficult matter to 

 estimate the extent of "possible harm our enemy 

 can do us, wheu we know so exactly how to meas- 

 ure its opera'.ion ! The leaves themselves are our 

 witnesses, and will furnish full and conclusive evidence. 

 How then do they appear ? Are they punj, stunted, 

 half-grown cripples, testifying to a desperate, life-long 

 struggle against some superior foe ? Look at our coffee 

 trees ! Were they ever more handsomely clothed than 

 they now are? Or was their foliage ever brighter in 

 colour, larger in size, or more luxuriant? liven the 

 corpses of the leaves, as they lie scattered on the 

 ground, are not like victims of weakness and starva- 

 tion, but resemble well-nourished veterans who have 

 borne the heat and burden of the day, having attained 

 a full maturity of growth, and therefore having done 

 their duty and fulfilled their appointed functions. 

 Contrast the victims of Hemileia with those of wind or 

 insects : cockled, stunted, discoloured, and mis- 

 shapen. Censider the quantity of foliage thus an- 

 nually lost during the prevalence of severe winds, 

 and bear in mind that the foliage so destroyed is 

 cut off or injarcd in its youth, when its active 

 functions are not merely interrupted, or abridged, 

 but destroyed. Yut our trees have always been 

 subject to this serious loss of leaf by wind, ac- 

 cording as they were more or less exposed, and, 

 though they have no doubt suffered thereby to 

 some extent, it has never inflicted any such fatal 

 infertility as is now attributed to the loss of leaf 

 by Hemileia. 



The fact that tlie vast majority of all infected leaves 

 attain their full size proves bejoud question that any 

 abridgment of their life, or lessening ot their functional 

 work they may suffer by leaf-disease must necessarily 

 be brief and limited, and quite incapable of producing 

 such ruinous consequences as we now de|'lore. 



Full of knj is of course an important factor in 

 weighing the effects of Iliinilr a, and it is one re- 

 garding which much misconc ption exists. Some 

 pUutera regard almost all fall of leaf aa attributable 



to the fungus, and overlook the fact that all leaves 

 have a natural period of growth, and an inevitable 

 time of fall. Coffee trees have two periods of fall 

 in the course of the year ; and are liable, besides, 

 to loss of leaf from weeds, wind, or crop. In days of 

 old, when weeds predominated, loss of leaf often 

 occurred to an extent which even the worst attack of 

 Hemileia. eould not surpass. The familiar sign of leaf 

 distress, the fading colour of the foliage, tirst yellow, 

 and then, if prolonged, a sickly white, betokened a 

 heavy dose ot weeds, or else a bumper crop, or both 

 combined ; and was always followed, if relief were 

 not speedily administered, by a tremendous fall 

 of leaf, leaving tlie trees as bare and sticky as the 

 worst attack of modern leaf-disease ! Yet, although 

 the Inss of leaf in such eases involved a total inter- 

 ruption of active leaf-work, there was no such resulting 

 infertility as is now attributed to the loss of leaf inflicted 

 by the fungus. The combined strain of a heavy crop 

 on trees so divested of their growing leaves, and robbed 

 at the same time of their proper nourishment by 

 weells, never produced iiifertility. The trees so tried 

 no d. ubt siiffered at the time, but they speedily re- 

 covered iind yielded fresh and abundant crop. 

 Many of these very trees are now, in their old age, 

 equal in vigour to their youngest neighbours ! 



In whatever light regarded, and by whatever test 

 tried, the fungus theory of tlie present infertility of 

 our coffee tiees is utterly untenable. This convic- 

 tion forced itsflf on my minel long ago, and has 

 been coutirnied and strengthened by all subsequent 

 observation and experience. For some time I ab- 

 stained from any public discu.'sion of the sub- 

 ject, as it did not appear to tend to any import- 

 ant advantage. Latterly, however, it seemed 

 worthy of notice as a barrier to the discovery of 

 the real ailment of our trees, and also as possibly saving 

 us from scares in regard lo other and newer enter- 

 prizes which are, or may be, affected by similar 

 fungal attacks. IScares are unmitigated evils, and the 

 liability to them is a perpetual source of danger and 

 anxiety. The fatal fungus scare has lived too long, 

 and should be reduced to its proper value by thought- 

 ful research and the light of science. 



The dcstuiotion of leaf tissue by insects, antl some 

 other cognate matters, which should have found a 

 place in this letter, are necessarily precluded 

 for the present at least by the unreasonable 

 length it has ah'eady attained. I must conclude 

 by reminding my fellow-planters of the great 

 difference there is between the power of producing 

 leaf and that of bearing fruit. Whatever the mystery 

 of I'erlility may be, the fact that it is not co-equal 

 with vigour of growth or production of leaf is one 

 of every day's experience. We see plants and trees 

 of most luxuriant growth refusing to flower, and 

 others flowering profusely w'itliout a sign of fruit. 

 Kven amongst our coffee plantations are fields of most 

 vigorous growth, which we have never been able to 

 coax into crop liearing, and such fields existed and 

 exercised our patience and ingenuity long before we had 

 the scape-goat Hemileia, on which to lay- the blame. 



We want more light, but those need not expect it 

 who keep their shutters up. W. 



-♦ 



CUPEEA E.IEKS EECENTLY IMrOETED FKOJI 



THE EjUSTEEN PjVET OF THE UNITED 



STATRS OF COLUMBIA.* 



EY M. ARNAUD. 



Until recently, only the northern " cuprea " barks, coming 

 from Buccamaranga, in the province of Santander, were 

 known. Having received several specimens of the.se barks 

 from another part of Columbia, I propose to give some 

 detiiils of the examination I have made, both of the " cupreas'' 



* Paper read before the Union Scieutifique des Ph j i ni 

 cicns de France(>/oar«. Pltarm. et de Chimie, [6], v., 560. 



