104 TIMEHRI. 
proving what is claimed for them, appear merely to show 
that cuttings from canes of one kind, whether taken from 
either abnormally rich or abnormally poor individuals, 
tend to produce in their offspring, canes approximating 
to the normal richness of the variety. For we may 
notice that the standard of richness of the poor canes 
has increased more rapidly than that of the rich ones and 
an argument might easily be drawn from this that as if 
you seleét abnormally poor canes their offspring will be 
richer, you should plant a poor cane to.get a richer. 
The differences are not sufficiently marked to enable it 
to be stated that a rich cane will tend to produce richer 
offspring than a poor one will. In faét they are not so 
great as would be occasioned by slight differences in the 
degree of maturity of the rows occasioned by minute soil 
differences such as the one mentioned by Mr. EDSON that 
the row from the poor seed “was nearer to the ditch 
than the other” Do praétical planters require further 
proof of the unreliability of these results? especially 
when we read that the “poor” canes produced 6'5 per 
cent. more canes by weight. In his latest communication 
to the Sugar Cane last year Mr, EDSON maintained, with- 
out giving figures, the accuracy and importance of his 
results, and therefore we must assume that in the imma- 
ture canes grown in sub-tropical climates the richness of 
the parent cane may possibly slightly affect that of its 
immediate offspring. 
But does this hold good for the tropics? I have found 
some valuable experiments which, although not inten- 
tionally, bear upon this matter, in the reports of the Bar- 
bados Botanic Station. Several varieties of canes were 
planted in 1887, in some instances with plants received 
