FOUNDATION OF THE SPECIES.—Among the grasses thus dis 
tributed was the Kamatéi pillu (No. 17000). It was named by 
Nees ‘ Andropogon caesius, B. Unfortunately, Nos. 1700, 1700c, 
and 1700d were also distributed under that name. No. 1700 was 
Andropogon pumilus, Roxb., No. 1700c Cymbopogon coloratus, 
and No. 1700d a diseased state of C. coloratus. The distribution 
of Andropogon pumilus as Andropogon caesius was obviously a 
mere accident, as it is evident from the original specimen in 
Wight’s own herbarium that Nees really meant to apply the 
name Andropogon caestus to No. 1700a, which is the same as 
No. 1700, but is a very weak, (shade ?) form. The description 
of Andropogon CHESTUS appeared in Hooker & Arnott’s ‘ Botany 
of Beechey’s Voyage ’* a few years later. Nos. 1700 (recte 1700a), 
17006, and 1700c of Nees’ distribution are quoted, and it is 
obvious that the description was drawn up from all three 
indiscriminately. To make matters worse, Nees referred to 
this composite species specimens collected by Millett and Vachell 
near Macao, which are neither identical with Nos. 1700a and 
17006, nor with 1700c, but represent what is generally accepted 
as Andropogon hamatulus or Andropogon Nardus var. hamatulus. 
Nor was this all. In 1843, Nees revised his determinations of 
those grasses in Meyen’s ‘ Beitrage zur Botanik’ (p. 190), and re- 
duced Andropogon caesius to Andropogon Martini, quoting Wight, 
No. 1700 and No. 1806 (the latter = Kamatci), under Andropogon 
Martini; Nos. 1700a and 17000 (both = Kamatti) under Andro- 
pogon Martini, a and B respectively ; and No. 1700e (C. coloratus) 
under Andropogon Martini, y- He further referred Millett’s and 
Vachell’s Chinesespecimensto the latter,of which at least Vachell’s— 
I have not seen the other—is Andropogon hamatulus, and he cited. 
also Roxburgh’s unpublished drawing, No. 1095, which evidently 
represents C. coloratus. The Kamatti grass therefore remains 
connected with Andropogon caesius, or rather Cymbopogon caesius, 
in so far as the vars. a and 3, and Wight’s specimens Nos. 1700a 
and 17000, are concerned. As the name ‘caesius’ was no doubt 
originally chosen with regard to the glaucous appearance of the 
Kamatci grass, and in so far is quite appropriate, it may, with the 
necessary restrictions, be retained for that particular grass. 
AREA; PREPARATION OF OIL.—C. caesius seems to inhabit 
the greater part of the Carnatic, from the extreme south to the 
Chingalpat district. It is evidently common, on the whole, in 
that region, but little use seems to have been made of it so far, 
except as an occasional domestic remedy. There is, however, 
among the specimens communicated by Mr. Barber, one with a 
note to the effect that it is the “ grass from which Mr. Proudlock 
has been distilling oil.” A short account referring to it is con- 
tained in the ‘Administration Report of the Government Botanic 
Gardens and Parks, the Nilgiris,’ for 1901, p. 5. According to this 
report the grass was obtained from Arni, in the North Arcot district, 
where it is stated to grow in great abundance. The yield of oil 
from a freshly-cut sample, received at the end of December, was 
0-431 per cent. Another and larger quantity which was received 
* Nees in Hooker & Arnott, Bot. Beechey’s Voy. p. 244, 
