. 124 



as for example, these of Acgoleta and of Cundearaor furnish the best 

 cocoa and that the smooth fruits of " Cojon de Toro" yield the worst. 

 Every planter knows the character of the last ; nevertheless trees of 

 this bad variety are found in all the plantations of Criollo. 



The Criollo tree is readily recognised by its feeble growth, its sparse- 

 foliage, and its small leaves. The fruits are of medium size, somewhat 

 strongly furrowed and rough, somewhat massive and very rarely sym- 

 metrical. The typical fruit of Criollo has an oblique point of moderate 

 length, which is always directed downwards. In general the fruits- 

 have a deformed appearance. They have no constriction at the base. 

 The shell is relatively thin, and of a consistence less strong than that 

 of the variety Carupano. According to the tint of the fruit, they dis- 

 tinguish Criollo proper with deep red shell, Criollo amarillo with 

 yellow shell and Criollo mestizo with yellow and red shell. The Criollo' 

 proper constitutes the Criollo jD«r excellence. It represents 99 per cent 

 of the Criollo of Venezuela. The interior of the fresh bean is bright 

 violet. The Criollo amarillo has beans which are quite white. In 

 spite of the striking characteristic the planters do not distinguish it 

 from Criollo proper ; and most of them did not even know that they 

 had cocoa with white beans in their plantations. They have never 

 cultivated the two varieties separately. Dr. Preuss was not able to find 

 out how the cured beans of the white variety differ from those of the 

 violet variety, if, indeed, there is any difference. The form of the 

 beans in the fresh state was the same in the two varieties; the taste 

 of the white beans appeared to be sweeter and less bitter than i hose of 

 the bright violet beans. 



{To he continued.) 



THE QUESTION OF SHADE FOR COFFEE 



AND COCOA. 



Prof. 0. F. Cook, Special Agent for Tropical Agriculture in the 

 United States Department of Agriculture, wrote a very interesting 

 Bulletin a short time ago on " Shade in Coffee Culture."* 



The subject is discussed under the following headings: — I. The 

 direct effects of shade, (a) Natural habitat of coffee, (b) Effect of shade 

 on yield, (c) Effect of shade on quality. II. The indirect effects of 

 shade, (a) Protection against drought, (b) Protection against erosion, 

 (c) Shelter from winds, (d) Fallen leaves as fertilizer, (e) Nitrification 

 through shade, (f) Shade and fungus diseases. III. The effects of un- 

 wonted exposure, (a) The use of volunteer seedlings, (b) Overshadinw-, 

 (c) Removal of shade, (d) Shade and the coffee leaf miner. IV. 

 Methods of applying shade. V. Lit*t of coffee shade trees. 



The natural habitat of species of coffee is the somewhat open, par- 

 tially weeded country which borders the many disconnected forest areas 

 of Africa where partial shade is a very general natural condition of 

 fiuch species. But most of the plants growing under such conditions 

 are not assisted by deficiency of light, but will thrive much better and 



♦Bulletin, No. 25, Division of Botany, 1901. 



