50 CHAPTER IV 



already been discussed. Amongst the Brazilian canes was the Uba, which 

 since then has travelled to, and become a standard cane in, Natal, Mozam- 

 bique and Madeira. 



In 1827 an introduction of Mauritius canes was made to British India by 

 Captain Dick, acting on behalf of Captain Sleeman.^^ These canes constitute 

 the Paunda canes of India, and are also known as Mauritius canes. 



About 1880, Mr. W. G. Irwin introduced to the Hawaiian Islands canes 

 from New Caledonia. Amongst these was that since known as Yellow 

 Caledonia, and which is the same as that extensively grown in Mauritius as 

 White Tanna. 



The Australian sugar industry is based on canes introduced in 1817 by 

 Scott from the South Pacific. One of these which received the name of 

 Yellow Tahiti is stated by Melmoth Hall not to be the Otaheite of the West 

 Indies.^"* Since then there have been numerous introductions from Java 

 and Mauritius, and much confusion in nomenclature has arisen. A late 

 introduction early in the twentieth century under the direction of Maxwell'^^ 

 brought in New Guinea canes, of which the Badilla and Goru varieties are of 

 merit. 



In addition there have been numerous unrecorded introductions and 

 exchanges between botanical stations and private individuals. 



Amongst all these introductions, with their multiplicity of names, there 

 are only a few that have ever been extensively cultivated. These are dis- 

 cussed below, and, in reading this discussion, what the writer means by an 

 identity must be explained. In any extended area of pure cultivation, 

 that is to say of canes asexually descended from one definite parent, canes 

 can be found differing morphologically from each other, although outwardly 

 similar in appearance, habit and general behaviour. These differences, 

 which may or may not be permanent, are often sufificient to persuade a sys- 

 tematic botanist to separate the pure cultivation into a number of varieties. 

 With these differences, which ma\' arise from climatic and cultural conditions, 

 this section is not concerned, and identity is broadly considered, implying 

 rather the possession of similar outward appearance, habit, and mode of 

 growth, with the absence of any readily distinctive and permanent feature 

 not shared equally by all specimens. 



The Otaheite Cane. — Under this title the writer refers to the Bourbon 

 (British West Indies), Lahaina (Hawaii) and Louzier (Mauritius). The 

 origin of these has been given and the writer regards them as identical, or 

 so nearly allied as to be not readily distinguishable ; he has seen the Bourbon 

 in Demerara, the Louzier in Mauritius and the Lahaina in Hawaii. In 

 addition, he has compared in Mauritius Lahaina imported direct from 

 Hawaii with local Louzier and Cafia Blanca imported direct from Cuba 

 with Lahaina in Hawaii. Nevertheless, these identifications were made 

 without knowledge of the morphological characteristics studied of later years 

 by Barber^^, Jeswiet*" and Fawcett*^ ; and in addition in this connection 

 the questions of sporting in regard to not easily recognizable characters 

 and the presence of self-sown, inbred adventitious seedlings are to be con- 

 sidered. A study of the literature also affords some reason for thinking 

 that two almost identical varieties are included. Thus Stubbs^'* equates 

 Yellow Otaheite, Louzier, but separates them from Portii, Lahaina, Keni- 

 Keni, which he considers identical ; Harrison and Jenman identify as the 

 same, Bourbon, Cuban, Lahaina, Otaheite, but separate Keni-Keni. The 



