115 



Saps and Exudations, 



The pollarding was done accidentally and not with an experimental view, 

 and hence their previous measurements are not stated. No. 1,213 was 'partially 

 uprooted and No. 1,337 got brqken below the head leaving a trunk of about 9 feet, ' 

 by the heavy gale during the S. W. monsoon in 1903. To lift the former and keep 

 it in its position, with a wooden support, was impossible, as it had a very heavy 

 head with two primary branches at about 12 feet from the base and their rami- 

 fications and a lot of foliage ; consequently the heavier primary branch was pol- 

 larded at about 13 feet from the base, and the other untouched. The latter was 

 sawn off at 8 feet in height and trimmed with a pruning knife to make the cut 

 clean and sloping. No. 1,213 was not tapped till March, 1905, and No. 1,337 till May, 

 1905. Both trees when tapped did not yield latex as they ought to. 



Tree No. 627. This, too, had its terminal bud nipped off when two yeais 

 old, in 1899, by an accident. This is standing close to a rock at about a chain's 

 distance from my bungalow, and its terminal bud was nipped off, eaten away by 

 a goat of mine, which operation cost the goat his life and gave me the benefit 

 of knowing its results. This has been under my observation since, with the result 

 that it was tapped in 1904, a year earlier than its neighbours, Nos. 625 and 6?C. 

 It yields latex freely and has a graceful appearance with ten primary branches at 

 about 7 feet from the base and a lot of foliage. 



Trusting that the above may be of some interest at this juncture, and 

 leaving you to draw your own conclusions therefrom. — I remain, yours faithfully, 



T. L. SRINIVASAGAM. 



Eagi.es Land, Nbboda, January 26th, 1906. 



VII. 



Dear Sir,— " Pollard Rubber" seems to be an enthusiast and a hero- wor- 

 shipper, and (if his letters show anything) not much of a practical planter. Mr. 

 Golledge's letters deserve careful attention on the part of those who are working 

 planters. Experts and scientists have their use, but the ideas they lay require 

 careful hatching. We will leave aside the question of pollarding grown up trees, 

 but confine ourselves to thumb-nail pruning young trees of twelve feet and over 

 in height. The main object of thumb-nail pruning is alleged to be the device for 

 inducing the growth of lateral branches, and the growth of lateral branches 

 is said to result in an increased girth of stems. Pruning, it should be admitted 

 does not always tend to the production of lateral branches. When a plant is 

 topped, it usually puts on branches that grow vertically, this throws the tree 

 back, though the deterioration may not be much marked. If you top two 

 rubber plants of the same age, one or both may throw lateral branches, but 

 they will always throw what we may call vertical shoots, for want of a better 

 term. The increase in girth of a tree with lateral branches may be always 

 marked, but it is not safe to deduce from this that lateral branches are the 

 cause of the increase. 



I am inclined to believe from observations I have made that both the 

 production of lateral branches and the increase in girth can be attributed to the 

 same cause, e.g., to the vigorous growth of the plant. Where plants grow well, 

 a fairly good number throw out lateral branches when over twelve feet in height, 

 without any artificial aid of pruning or ' thumb-nailing.' So let us not be in a 

 hurry to make deductions and advise new methods that may, instead of proving 

 beneficial, give us disappointing results. Mr. Wright in his book has thrown out 

 a suggestion from what he has observed, but he surely will not claim that his 

 deduction may not be faulty? There are other similar suggestions in the book 



16 



