C, A. BARBER 



U9 



in the lutrochiction of the ()bservatioi\s on which these comparisons have been 

 based. Although man.v of the varieties have been studied for several years, 

 the preseu'. details are afforded by examinatioi\ of the 1916 and 1917 crops 

 grown on the Can.e-breeding Station.. It nuist be repeated that these crops 

 differed in several important respects. The 1916 crop was studied when 

 about 13 months old. it was well grown but rather over-mature. The 1917 

 crop was examined chiefly for leaf characters. It was about 9 months old 

 and therefore immature, and the number of joints and leaves developed were 

 a'jcordingly fewer : but this latter difference was unfortunately emphasized 

 by the fact that the crop as a whole was poorly grown., although apparently 

 perfectly healthy, and this has led to a diminution in. certain differences. The 

 Sunnabile group forms a remarkably homogeneous class of canes, in spite of the 

 fact that, in its range, it passes from some of the most primitive of cane 

 varieties to thick, almost tropical, forms. The range is :;omewhat narrower in 

 the Saretha series, but the variations met with in the group are considerably 

 greater, so much so that it has been found possible to subdivide it into two 

 sections. These are termed the Katha and Mesangan sections, distinguish- 

 able, in. the first instance, by the presence or absence of a red brown coloration 

 of the cane as it matures. It is interesting to note that, in many characters, 

 there is a tendency for the Mesan.gan section to occupy a position intermediate 

 between the Katha section and the Sunnabile group. But, in. spite of this, 

 the Saretha series, as a whole, is sufficiently uniform to separate it from the 

 Sunnabile in the characters enumerated below. 



Cliaracter 



.Saretha Group 



Sunnabile Group 



