C. A. BARBER YO 



was dug up and the labels examined, the parent stalks were marked and their 

 relation to their branches ; each cane was separately weighed and analysed. 

 It is impossible to conceive of a more strictly scientific method, and the results 

 are well worth study, especially as the conclusions arrived at are at variance 

 in some respects with those of others to be referred to below. More shoots 

 started with the wider spacing, but the ultimate number at harvest was practi- 

 cally the same. In the chemical analysis of the canes, the main stem bad the 

 richer juice and the author claims a gradual decrease in weight and sucrose 

 in successively developed branches. He admits, however, that three canes 

 behaved in a contrary manner, and we shall refer to these below. It is especially 

 with regard to the decreasing richness of juice that other workers disagree with 

 Stubbs and, from the following considerations, it seems to us that the author 

 was scarcely justified in drawing the conclusions that he did. We have not 

 been able to study his original paper, but there are sufficient details given in 

 bis book on the sugarcane for our purpose. At the same time attention may 

 be drawn to the extraordinary inaccuracies in the general averages of all the 

 canes, especially in the first table on page 132. There were 139 canes instead 

 of 132 as quoted, and the general averages of Brix and sucrose are obviously 

 wrong, suggesting a whole series of printer's errors more than anything else. 



From a careful analysis of the tables, we gather that the crops grown in 

 the two years differed widely. In 1894, 20 parent plants produced 139 canes 

 at harvest, whereas, in 1895, there were only 131 from 29 plants. The sucrose 

 was higher in 1894, and the glucose was much lower. From this it appears 

 that the twenty 1894 plants had more space for development and that they 

 were better matured than the 29 in 1895. A reference to the temperature and 

 rainfall during these two years, fortunately given in chapter V of the book, 

 indicates that this difference was due to the character of the growing seasons. 

 That of 1894 was favourable to the production of good, well matured crops, 

 while that of 1895 was altogether unfavourable, especially because of the 

 excessive rains of May 22-24, when over six inches fell, which checked 

 growth and rendered the important late cultivation of the ground 

 impossible, this being followed by a drought which was equally disastrous. 

 In 1894, with the better growing weather, only one cane was reaped which 

 commenced its growt-h after July 2 ; in the 1895 crop 7 out of the 11 classes of 

 canes commenced their growth after July 6, and some arose as late as Septem- 

 ber. When we remember the author's dictum that " in normal weather, only 

 shoots developed up to July may produce a good .stand," we can without 

 difficulty conclude that the 1895 croj), being immature, was not a suitable one 

 on which to found generalizations regarding the relative sucrose contents 



