1018 REPORT—1896. 
unarmed tree or shrub, extremities, young leaves, and inflorescence puberulous. 
Pinne 3-6-jugate, occasionally a sessile gland between the lowest pair; leaflets 
linear, glaucous beneath, often sub-falcate, acute, 3-3 inch long. Heads globose, 
white, 2 inch in diameter, on peduncles of #1} inch from the upperaxils, Legume 
flat, thinly coriaceous 4-6 inches long, 3-{ inch broad, narrowed at the base into 
the stipes 3-3 inch. Acacia glauca, Willd., A. leucocephala, Link. 
Distribution :—West Indies, Bahamas, Demerara; Brazil, Peru; gardens of 
S. Europe and North Africa ; widely found in tropical Africa, East Indies, Ceylon, 
Mauritius, Java, and China. Probably introduced into Africa and Asia. 
Thirteen years ago I drew attention to the properties of this plant in a few 
words that appeared in the ‘ Report of the Botanical Department, Jamaica, 1883, 
p- 19, as follows: Wild Tamarind. Mr. Robert Russell, of St. Ann’s, informs 
me that horses feeding on the leaves of this plant completely lose the hair from 
their manes and tails. He adds, “ Horses from Llandovery, Richmond, and that 
side of the parish where the Wild Tamarind abounds, are frequently to be seen 
tail-less and mane-less.”’ This statement was supported by the testimony of so 
many people acquainted with the facts that there was no reason to doubt it. 
Many years afterwards (in December 1895) I renewed my acquaintance with the 
plant in the Bahamas. The plant was much more plentiful there than in 
Jamaica; it was, in fact, distinctly encouraged in the former islands as a fodder 
plant. The people were fully aware of the singular effect it produced on horses, 
and added that it also affected mules and donkeys. Its effect on pigs was still 
more marked. These animals assumed a completely naked condition, and appeared 
without a single hair on their body. Horses badly affected by Jumbai were 
occasionally seen in the streets of Nassau, where they were known as ‘ cigar-tails.’ 
Such depilated animals, although apparently healthy, were considerably depreciated 
in value. They were said to recover when fed exclusively on corn and grass. 
The new hair was, however, of a different colour and texture, ‘so the animals were 
neyer quite the same.’ One animal was cited as having lost its hoofs as well, and 
in consequence it had to be kept in slings until they grew again and hardened. The 
effects of the Jumbai on horses, mules, donkeys, and pigs were regarded as accidental— 
due to neglect or ignorance. The plant was really encouraged to supply food for 
cattle, sheep, and goats. The latter greedily devoured it and were not perceptibly 
affected byit. It will be noticed that the animals affected were non-ruminants, while 
those not affected were ruminants. The probable explanation is that the ruminants, 
by thoroughly mixing the food with saliva and slowly digesting it, were enabled 
to neutralise the action of the poison and escape injury. The seeds probably 
contain the deleterious principle in a greater degree than any other part of the 
plant. It was a common experience that animals introduced from other localities 
suffered more than the native animals. The latter were either immune or had 
learnt to avoid the plant as noxious to them. The active principle in Leucena 
glauca has not yet been investigated. There is abundant material at hand for this 
purpose in almost every part of the world. It is probable that the active principle 
may consist of a volatile alkaloid somewhat similar to that found in Lathyrus 
sativus. A certain amount of parallelism is to be noticed in the effects produced 
by these two plants. In ‘lathyrismus’ (ignoring the effect on man) the chief 
sufferer is undoubtedly the horse. The effect on mules and donkeys is not given, 
but is probably the same. Although pigs fatten on Lathyrus, they lose the use of 
their hinder extremities, as in the horse. Hence the non-ruminating animals as a 
class suffer from Lathyrus as they do from Leucena. The similarity in ruminants 
is also very close. For instance, cattle are reported to grow lean if fed exclusively 
on Lathyrus, but are not otherwise affected. Sheep are not affected at all. 
I am not disposed to attach much importance to the parallelism here noticed. 
It is possible that ruminants generally are less susceptible to the action of certain 
poisons than non-ruminants. It is evident, however, that in Leucena glauca we 
possess a plant with singular properties. It is a vegetable depilatory of a very 
decided character. No other plant appears to produce exactly identical results. 
