C. A. BAKBER 63 



relative thickness of the canes is given, the order is seen to be exactly reversed. 

 Too much weight must not of course be attached to this interesting result, for 

 bbe relative differences are by no means proportional, and a comparison of 

 the averages of the two groups is instructive as showing that the class 

 of cane has influence ; but a similar result, with many exceptions, 

 is to be found in the longer tables appended, of thickness and tillering 

 power of the varieties of the different groups in the 1917-18 crop on 

 the Cane-breeding .Station. Tillering and thickness of cane are inherent 

 characters in each variety and group, but we must limit their correlation to 

 the members of the same group. Thus, the Mungo class are among the thickest 

 of the indigenous canes, being short and bush -like, and their tillering power 

 is very great ; on the other hand, the Nargori group contain, on the average, the 

 thinnest Indian canes, and their tillering power is practically the same in 

 the table as that in the Mungo class. Mere thickness cannot therefore be taken 

 as a character from which tillering power can be deduced, but the group 

 character must also be taken into account. In these and other comparisons 

 the thick canes, tropical, are generally taken as one class, because there is at 

 present no classification prepared for them, as for the Indian canes. It is cer- 

 tain that great differences exist, which shoukl be worked out in order to introduce 

 a proper classification in them also. (See, however, Jeswiet's recent papers 

 on this subject, where a series of descriptions of thick canes has been 

 commenced. The inaugural paper has been referred to on page 56 above.) 



Two tables are appended containing observations on the tillering of different 

 Indian cane varieties during the 1917-18 crop season. The first of these 

 contains observations and measurements made at my request by Mr. T. S. 

 Venkataraman, during a tour in December and January last, when he visited a 

 number of North Indian agricultural stations, where certain varieties were 

 being grown, of which a series of measurements were desired for another piece 

 of work. The chance of obtaining some idea of their tillering capacity was 

 too good to be lost, but the observations were confined to the varieties being 

 studied. These varieties were those also being grown on the Taliparamba 

 and Samalkota farms in Madras, namely Saretha, Chin and Kfiari of the Saretha, 

 Pansahi and Chijnia of the Pansahi, BarauJcha of the Nargori groups, and 

 Mungo as representative of its own group. To these were added, where 

 possible, one of the Sunnabile group, and, on account of the great similarity 

 among themselves of the members of the Pansahi and Nargori groups, a certain 

 amount of substitution was allowed in them where necessary. The observations 

 were thus limited bo certain varieties representing the different groups of 

 indigenous canes, and are chiefly interesting as showing how greatly the same 



