rifi i>U>KliV.\riO.Ns ON .\>I.\TK COllDNS. 



former of wlioiu it is accuniluly illustmted.* It is i)rol);ibly oiio 

 of the earliest Uiiowii in cultivation aiul is the form found in 

 certain of the countries bordering the Northern Mediterranean 

 coast, including the Crimea, South Italy, Sicily and Spain. Its 

 home appears to be in Mesopotamia whence it most [)robably 

 spread to these countries, t 



In India a plant which is in many respects closely similar. 

 and is described by Gammie* under the same name, though 

 placed by \Vatt§ under (r. ohtusifulinm, Ro.\b., is t'ound in the 

 Bombay Presidency and yields the so-called long-stapled cottons 

 of India, such as Broach. From tiiis, however, the Persian 

 types differ in one important point, namely, the character of the 

 secondary branches. In more than one earlier iiablication[| 

 attention has been drawn to the ditterence between the vege- 

 tative and reproductive branches of the cotton plant, and to the 

 relation which exists between the length of the vegetative period 

 and the type of the secondary' branches. The vegetative 

 branches are nionopoilial and, Oonsequentl}', if the .secondarj* 

 branches are sym[)odial, the plant will commence to flower as 

 soon as these are formed. If, on the other hand, these branches 

 are monopodial, flowering will be delayed until the appearance 

 of the tertiary branches. Kouglily, this difference in the length 

 of the vegetative peiiod may be placed at below fOO days for 

 types with .sympodial secondary branches, and at 2U0 days or 

 over for those with monopodial secondary branches. 



A difference of like nature is found to occur between the 

 Indian and Persian types of the .series now under consideration. 

 In the Indian t^-pes the secondary- branches are monoijodial ami 

 the tyiJes consequently late Howei-ing : while, in the Persian 

 types, these are, with the exception of a few basal branches, all 

 sympodial, and these types are, therefore, relatively early flower- 

 ing. In this difference lies the explanation of the cultivation, 



♦ Iltl. full, .lei Coluiii. Tiiv. I. 



t Walt : Tlio wild nml cMiliivatd culloti^ nf ilic ivurM. 



: The Imlimi Colluiis ; Mciiiuirv, |)i;|.l. of .AL-r. in In.lia. [Jot, Sclius. Vol. 1 1 V.i. 2. 



* i". . rit, 



;| Jtllll. At. .S>.-., /Ifini.il^ NtH SeliC! IV ^L'II(*|. I ; .l„l,,mil „f i;,,i,hr>. I (Mill). H. 



