244 
of Ulpiani and Sarcoli in 1902 have shown that not only would 
the manufacture of alcohol from prickly pear juice be un- 
profitable, but also that it is scarcely practicable.” (The rea- 
sons for this are quoted in the article.) 
Xext is taken up the assertion that the plant yields an 
excellent sugar, two tons of prickly pear yielding as much 
sugar as three tons of sugar cane, and of equal quality. This 
is briefly replied to in these words : “With regard to the 
manufacture of sugar from the prickly pear, it is obvious 
that if the contention of Ulpiani and Sarcoli, that the juice 
contains only glucose and fructose, is correct, no cane-sugar 
could possibly be obtainable.” 
Third and last comes the claim* that the fibrous nature of 
the material renders it suitable for the manufacture of paper, 
strawboard and other articles, and that these could be pro- 
duced more cheaply from prickly pear than from any product 
now used for the purpose. Remorselessly the critic gives 
the results of examinations of samples of a South American 
species, occurring also in India, which were shown at the 
Colonial and Indian Exhibition held in London in 1886. 
Paper makers who examined them “regarded them as worth- 
less in comparison with other cheap and plentiful materials.” 
Further, it is shown as probable that the collection of the 
raw material would be a costly operation. “^Moreover,” the 
critic says, with proof from official analyses in the United 
States, “a little consideration will show that an imm-ense 
quantity of the plant would have to be dealt with in order 
to produce a comparatively small amount of paper pulp.” 
It is concluded as seeming “evident that the project could 
not possibly be remunerative, especially as the product is 
of low quality and would not in any case be worth more than 
a few pounds per ton.” 
As if all this were not enough to make the plant in ques- 
tion economically despised, the critic says: “It appears that 
the only purpose for which the prickly pear could be used 
successfully is as a cattle food. Opinions with regard to the 
value of the material for this purpose, are, however, very 
conflicting, and at best it would constitute a product of some- 
what low nutritive value, and could only be used in con- 
junction with richer feeding stuffs, such as wheat bran or 
cotton seed meal.” Even with regard to the spineless va- 
riety of prickly pear, to which allusion had been made in a 
previous article on the subject as having been produced in 
California, it is declared as not appearing safe “to encourage 
the cultivation of such forms until they have been subjected 
to prolonged trials, especially as there is always a danger 
that they may revert to the spiny condition.” 
There is not much left to the cactus as an economic plant 
after such a formidable array of its deficiencies. 
