THE TEOPICAL AGRiCULTUEIS'T. [March 1, 1900. 
PEABERRIES AND MALE COFFEE 
PLANTS. 
Dr. D. Tomatis, commenting on a para^vaph in 
the May number of this Journal (1899) on the sub- 
ject of male coffee plants writes : — 
" As our Government Botanist, Mr. F. M. Bailey, 
states, th» coffee plant is neiih r direcious nor 
nwncecious, but beyond doubt /ierrtia/</?rodi7o as clearly 
shown by the examination of its liiwer. Why 
should the abundance of pea-berria fruit on a tree 
indicate that it is &male7 Is not penberry fruit all 
the same ? And still more a penberry seed ger- 
minates as readily as a bi-lobed berry. The para- 
graph says that the cause of neaberry fr lit is 
not definitely known. I am surpu-ed at this state- 
ment, as it is very eisy to find ttit cause, which 
is in the poverty of the soil and the dryness of 
the weather after the blossoming time, as through 
these two causes the young fruit could not be fully 
formed, developed, and nourished ; hence only one lobe 
grew, and the germ of the other became abortive 
and atrophied, and consequently the single lobe or 
grain grew in a roundish form, and the fruit, 
being a aingle-graine.i berry, is richer in the essen- 
tial aroma. If the ground he rich, season favour- 
able, tree well trimmed and pruned, and blossoms 
thinned, very few peaberries will be produced." 
Beportiug on the question raised in the paragraph 
and in the above letter, Mr. Howard Newport, In- 
structor in Coffee Culture, says : — 
PEABERRIES AND MALE COFFEE PLANTS. 
In the accompanying letter on this subject, sent on 
to me for an expression of opinion, I fail to see 
where the question arises as to why the abundance 
of peaberries on a tree should indicate that it is a 
male. 
On referring to the article in the May issue of the 
departmental Jounitd quoted by the correspondent, 
it would seem that the first mention of the idea 
was in the form of a contradiction. It is later con- 
tradicted by the Colonial Botanist, and is in itself 
a contradiction. The amount of peaberry on a tree 
has nothing wnatever to do with the sex of coffee. 
Peaberry is the result of the failure, for some 
reason or orther, of its fcllow-germ to fructify. There 
are naturally in the embryo berry two cells and it 
would appear that under certain circumstances one 
of the cells, on coming in contact with the 
pollen, will fructify while the other will not. 
That it is so is clear on examination of the pea- 
berry where the atrophied germ is discernable, and 
its envelope of parchment skin, folded together, still 
in its place within the " pulp." The reason why 
the pistils should convey the pollen to one oTule 
and fail to fructify the other, is the point that is 
not thoroughly understood yet, and not the state 
of the tree in which it is most liable to this 
condition, as your correspondent seems to think. 
The peaberry is a mal-formation, and generally 
takes place when the tree is weak or in a state of 
low vitality, and this condition may be brought 
abont by unfavourable conditions of soil, climate or 
cultivation. A tree overbearing will produce a larger 
percentage of peaberry than one with a more moderate 
crop, even though conditions of soil and climate 
are as favourable as could be desired. 
The shape of the malformed growth is somewhat as 
your correspondent states. It was thought at one time 
that it was the production of a special variety of 
coffee-bush — at any rate, by those who had to do 
only with the cured article ; and there are many 
yet that still adhere to this fallacy, due chiefly to the 
fact of its being graded separately. 
Pea-berry obtains its higher value in the market 
chiefly on account of the advantage of its shape 
in roasting. Being easier to roast uniformly, it is 
Bupposed to contain a greater percentage of caffeine 
or aromatic properties, but this is exceedingly 
doubtful. Its presence on the tree is of doubtful 
advantage also. A large percentage of "P.B." grade 
—iadicatiogi aa it doos, impaired vitality— althongh 
its price is enhanced, is yet a long way short of the 
value of the double bean in the normal growth. 
As a seed for propagation, " P. B." germinates 
readi'y, bat repeated experiments have been able to 
show no advantage in the growth, stamina, or bear- 
ing capabilities of its production over that of the 
bi-lobe ; nor does the pl^ut raised from a peaberry 
show any special tendency to produce peaberries. 
•'JIale '' Treks. — The coffee tree is, is well 
known, hermaphiodice ; it is also well known that in 
such cases generally the contact of pollen from 
another tree or lilossora obtains better results than 
its own pollen. It may be, therefore, that the pea- 
berry is aue, to a certnin extent, to continued 
self-fertilising of the plant or " in-breeding." 
It is i^upp ised that the plant commonly called the 
'' male " coffee-tree is due to this cause. However 
this may be among seedlings in a nnrsery, there 
is always found a small percentage of plants that 
appear with long narrow leaves, eyes closer together 
than ordinary, and a smaller and more stunted growth 
altogether. 
In cultivating these in the field, it is found they bear 
very little, although they blossom freely. (I have never 
yet met with one that did not bear at all). 
The flower is somewhat smaller than that of the 
ordinary tree, but would structurally appear to be 
identical. It is supposed that the want of fertility 
is due to some malformation of ',he stigma or ovules, 
since the pollen is p-jtfectly fertile when applied to 
other bloss ms. 
This tendency to produce blossom that will not ferti- 
lise, yot will fertilse others, has earned for this long- 
leaved tree be sobriquet of " male " coffee. Whether 
the presence of such trees in an estate is Nature's own 
remedy for a too long continued course of " in- 
breeding," and is, theiefore, of advantage, is a moot 
point. Generally the plant is cousidered useless and 
unnecessary (since the other trees, being hermaphro- 
dite, can do without it), and since it bears ao little, 
is not considered " worth its keep." It is, there- 
fore, usually picked out and thrown away as early 
as it shows the tell-tale narrow long leaf in the 
germinating bed or nursery. — Queensland Agricultural 
Journal, 
ENGLISH QUININE. 
(To Editor " Gliemist and Druggist,") 
Sir,— On page 231 of your issue of February 8rd 
you quote from an interview alleged to have 
been held by a correspondent of the Commercial 
Intelligences with Mr. Elliot, of Toronto, in the 
course of which he is reported to have said, 
" We sell more German than English quinine 
because it is cheaper and purer." Whether Mr. 
Elliot is accurately reported or not we do 
not know, but we do know, that our quinine 
always passes the Codex Frangais test easily, 
whereas a reference to a German list will 
show that this quality is charged 2m. per kilo 
more than Ph. Ger. II, which is the ordinary 
German quinine of commerce — We remain, dear 
sir, yours' truly, Howards & SONS. 
Stratford, near London, E. Feb. 8. 
— Chemist and Druggist, Feb. 10. 
Nothing Like Rubber.— It has been suggested 
that the .soldiers in South Africa should be sup- 
plied with india-rubber sleeping dresses for out-, 
door sleeping in the web and cold nights of South 
African climate. A trooper, who procured a 
piece of very thin india-rubber sheeting and put 
a drawing string through the top of it, found 
the advantage of such an article as a night cover- 
insr. It kept him as warm and dry as possible, 
and when folded up he wore it during the day 
time round his waist, where it looked like a belt. 
—ln^ia'Rt!.hbtrJownali Feb. 5. 
