— 219 — 



in texture than those in Assam. Afterwards, several important facts hâve 

 coine to light, confirming the above opinion. 



Firstly, Satow ') found the Lao tea-plant near Pong-yeng in the 

 Doi-Sutep mounlains (N. W. Siam, to the West of Chiengmai -= Kiangmai = 

 Zimme). The Lao's, says he, assert that the „niieng" tea grows in com- 

 mixture with other trees which are eut down so that only the tea trees 

 remain where they stood ; Satow, however, thintcs that mère accident 

 could not hâve arranged the tea plants so regularly. There were trees of 

 12 — 15 feet (4 — 5 meters) high nnd 6 — 8 centimeters in diameter: „the 

 „leaf is longer and more pointed than that of the Japanese tea-plant and 

 „the foliage is less dense''. The British Government, realizing the import- 

 ance of this discovery, directed Stringer, in 1892, to inquire into the 

 matter; this officiai coUected leaves and flowers near Kong Hë (25 miles 

 from Chiengmai, 5 from Pong-yeng), and sent them to Kew, where they 

 were determined as Camellia Thea.^} Again, in 1913, A. F. 0, Kerr sent 

 samples of this plant from the same Ban Pong Yêng (Ban = village) to 

 Kew (Fig. 9), with the annotation: „Said to hâve been originally raised 

 „from seed brought from elsewhere; trees now sow themselves; leaves 

 „used to make Lao tea (miang)." (Italics are mine.) The same form was 

 coliected in 1892 by the „Consul of forests" in Katha, on the Irawaddy, 

 under the dénomination of „leppett tea". And once more it was this plant, 

 as Sir David Prain has informed me, that was found by Pottinger in 

 the Kachin mountains (Upper Burma) „occasionally found wild throughout 

 the route" near the Nmai-kha, an affluent of the Irawaddy. 3) 



Ail thèse specimina, with the exception of the last-mentioned, which 

 are to be seen in Calcutta, were examined by me at Kew. We will once 

 more refer to them in the 5'*^ chapter, where their botanical characteristics 

 will be dealt with. ^) 



In anticipation, we may, however, draw the inference that this interesting 

 transition province, situated between the Chinese tea districts with pre- 

 dominantly small-leaved forms, and the Assamese with chiefly large-leaved 

 varieties, — the territory, traversed by the Me-khong, the Salwin and the 

 Irawaddy, — is not nearly sufficiently known as to the tea varieties that 

 occur there either in a wild or in a cultivated state; but it is a matter of 

 fact that intermediate types do occur in thèse countries. 



It is particularly the French colonies in Further 

 India that afford every évidence of occupying an 



') E. Satow 1892, p. 194.- Compare „Lao tea" 1892, p. 220. 



2) See Stringer 's report in „Lao tea" 1892, p. 222. 



3) E. Pottinger, D. Prain, 1898, p. 231. Wild near „Shigu Ferry, etc.", but spécimens 

 taken only from cultivated plants near Lammuk. 



From POTTiNQERS sketch-map it appears that both places are but 1/20^', viz., 5 

 kilometers, distant from each other. We may infer it is hardly sure that the first 

 locality should présent truly wild plants. — See Prains commentary in ch. V. 

 •*) See the next chapter, and ch. VI on Camellia confusa in connexion with the „Lai 

 tea" of Hai~nan. 



