450 
THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. [Jan. 1, 190-?. 
J. Guerin, who directs the Central Chemioal La- 
boratory at Gnatemala, sends more complete materials 
po as to determine the point. It follows from these 
facts that it is prudent to maintain a reserve 
when treating of a subject such as the botanic 
determination of economic plants ; otherwise one 
runs the risk of spreading errors and often even 
leading colonists into ruinous enterprises. 
I am &c. 
(Signed) Eug. Poisbon. 
CASTILLOA TUNU HEMSL.; DOES IT CON- 
TAIN CAOUTCHOUC ? 
(Appeared in the "Journal d' Asjriculture Tropi- 
cals " of 31st October, 1901,) 
We have already given upon this question, in 
"or July issue, a note entitled " Good and Bad 
Castilloa" extracted from a recent German monograph 
by Mr. Th. F. Koschny, also a reply by Mr. Gode- 
froy Lebeuf ; in our No. 2 (August), a Note by 
Mr. Eugene Poisaon. Today we are in receipt, on 
the same subject, of an article by Mr. H. Pittier, 
and a letter from Mr. Th. F. Koschny which we will 
publish as soon as possible hereafter. We add to this 
an extract by Mr. Pearson, completing the indications 
of Mr. Koschny. 
We are very fortunate to have elicited this series of 
communications. 
It is impossible to draw any immediate conclusion 
from it, the contradiction of the two opinions being 
absolute, and one of the parties to the debate being 
absent ; for Mr. Eugene Poisson baa just resumed 
in Dahomey the sequel to his economic and agri- 
cultural exploration of last year, and from now to 
his return to Europe, we must not count upon him. 
Be that as it may, it is already something to 
have fixed the point at issue; the " Journal d' Agri- 
culture " can take this much credit to itself. 
As for giving the final solution of the question set, 
that is not within our competence ; it is not to be 
reached by any retrospective discussion ; we must 
have new materials and fresh researches on the 
spot. For this reason we propose to close the 
discussion at this point, and not to go back again 
upon Castilloa Tunu ; at least not until the botanists 
of the Botanic Garden at Berlin have pronounced 
apon the specimens of Mr. Koschny. As soon as 
their specific determination has been made, wa 
shall hasten to let our readers know of it. 
The best way to disentangle these vexed questions 
■would be to send to America a professional botanist, 
whose mission would be to study on the living 
subject, in their several countries, the different 
species, forms and varieties of the genus Castilloa. 
He must have in view this sole object, and be in 
a position to devote a sufficiently long time to it. 
If people were willing to assign to the botanical 
study of the Castilloa one-hundredth part of the 
money invested np to now, more or less blindly, 
in its culture, there would be the wherewithal to 
organise a very complete mission of research. 
What we are asking to be done for the Castilloa 
ia what the Germans are this moment doing for the 
Hevea ; the initiative being due to Dr. K, Schumann, 
Conservator of the Botanic Museum at Berlin ; the 
money having been furnished by Mr. Witt, a mer- 
chant at Manaos, and Dr. H. Traun, a manufacturer 
at Hamburg. 
The botanist appointed in the first place by these 
gentlemen, Dr. Knhla, having succumbed to yellow 
fever before he could enter upon his campaign, he 
was replaced by Dr. Ule, assistant-director of the 
Botanic Gardens of Rio de Janeiro. The Notizhlatt 
of the Berlin Botanic Garden (issue for July) gives a 
first report from this savant ; at the present moment 
it can be affirmed that the practical results, as regards 
(be culture of the Uevea, will be most importatit. 
The genus Castilloa deservea to be taken op a f resh 
on its own account in its own environment, both 
in the botanic and the economic sense ; at the stage 
now reached, this work can only be carried out to 
advantage on the spot. 
This is the only conclusion we would draw from 
the debate on the Castilloa Tunu.— The Editor. 
THE CASTILLOAS OF COSTA RIGA. 
(By Mr. H. Pittier ; Director of the Physico- 
Geographic Institute of San Jose de 
Costa Rica.) 
Under the title " Good auu Bad Castilloas " the 
first number of the "Journal d' Agriculture Tropicale," 
publishes a short article which, we regret to say, 
will hardly contribute to clear up a qoestion in 
itself quite entaogled enough. 
Castilloa plantations existing in Costa Rica. — There is 
no plantation of Castilloa in Costa Rica over twenty 
hectares in extent or three years of age. The oniy 
old experiment, dating some fifteen years back, has 
been a regular failure as such. The plantation 
referred to ia "LaPepilla," in the plains of Santa 
Clara, a plantation exploited by me in 1899 on 
behalf of the United Fruit Co. ; ia spite of its age, 
it has never produced more than the absurd quan- 
tity of eight grammes of dry caoutchouc (burrucha) 
per tree (average of 1,500 trees tit for tapping.) 
Our friend Mr. Eugene Poisson visited " Li Pepilla ' 
along with us, and can cocfirm what we sa.v of it. 
Moreover, the example of "La Pepilla " is not con- 
clusive; the land chosen (ab'iut 20 hectares) was 
detestable for the most part, marshy in some places 
and too clayey in others. After some years the 
plantation was iuvaded by a grass formiug a 
carpet, a very bad thing for the Castilloa; then 
later on they turned cattle loose to pa,sture on it, 
a much worse thing, for the trampling of the soil 
is fatal to trees whose roots are so duperficial. In 
spite of this by no means encouraging experiment, 
other enterprises have been inaugurated during these 
latter years, one at Las Lomas, in the valley of 
Reventazon, another near Jimenez in the plains of 
Santa Clara, a third near Las Canas, on ttie Pacific 
slope. There are perhaps some others, . but all are 
certainly recent and the total of conclusive experi- 
ments they can bring towards the solution of the 
problem of Castilloa culture is consequently very low, 
A thoroughly trustworthy person, a landowner at 
San Carlos and familiar with that region, assures 
me that he does not know of any plantation or Ilule, 
old or new, except a few recent attempts the ex- 
tent of which does not exceed half a hectare. By 
what has preceded this, I do not at all mean to 
dispute the very re-il advantages the valley of San 
Carlos possesses for the cultivation of Castilloa. On 
this point I am quite in accord with Mr. Kob;;huy, 
and 1 believe th.it in no part of Central America 
can the cultivation be undertaken with better pro- 
spects of success. Castilloa abounds there in its 
natural atate, and developes in a manner truly mar- 
vellous, but as to all that concerns its cultivation 
past experience remains nil or next to it. 
The question of Species. — Turniug to the question 
of species of Castilloa, as far as 1 know, the 
four following have been described up to now :— 
(1) Castilloa elastica, Cerv.— Found throughout Cen- 
tral America. It is undoubtedly the predominant 
species in Chiapas, Soconusco iind a part of Guatemala. 
(2) Castilloa Uostaricana, Liebmann. — Gathered for 
the first time at Turrialba Coata Kica, bv Oersted. 
(3) Castilloa Markhamiana, Markham. — The species 
of the isthmus of Panama, oi Darien, and prob- 
ably of the whole area of dispersion of the geuas 
tliroughout South America. JUay it not havo been 
to this speciea th 4 the C. australis cited by Mr. 
Godefroy Lebeuf belj:,gs ? A hpev;»ea cited withoas 
name of the author (p. 20 of the Ist No, of ttaa 
Journal d' Agriculture Tropicale.) 4) Caitill«n 
