March 1, 1902.] THE TEOPICAL ACtPJCFLTURIST. 691 
Number of Suckers.— The question of how many 
trees we can allow to the root depends in the first 
place on the distance apart at which the field was 
planted. I have seen the following distances tried ; 
15 X 15, 14 X 1-f, 12 X 1-2, 8 X 8, 7' 6" s 7' 6," 15 x 7' 6," 
10 X 6, and 12 x 8. 
Close Planting.—" Close Piantiug " x 8 and 7' 6') 
was the result of the demand for fruit being confined 
to five months in the spring. This method has 
given good results under proper management. Prun- 
ing should be strictly carried out. Attempts have 
been made, where the crop was coming in too soon, 
to retard it by leaving yonng suckers round the 
single trees. This can only result in stunting of the 
bunches. In good land, the best plan for ratooning 
is to take out every row, leaving the field 16 r 8 ; 
permitting two or three suckers to grow in each root. 
It may be necessary for the third ratoons to bring 
the field to 16 x 16. Ratooning 8 x 8 in rich land can 
hardly be recommended. In hot land, 8 x 8 gives very 
good results, covering the ground quickly ; and can 
be ratooned with success. 7" -6" x 7' -6" I consider 
too close. 
Close by Wide.— This method, (e. g. 15 x 7' -6,") 
brings in the crop very evenly, but can hardly be 
recommended for ratooning. Plants may.have two 
Buckera in each root ; but the ratoons are apt to be 
crowded. In planting close by wide, it is a good 
plan to plant the wide rows north and south, so as 
,0 allow as much sun as possible to penetrate, 
t 
Wide Planting. — This is the old method, and one 
that has proved successful. It is not possible to re- 
gulate the crop so well ; but where fruit can be sold 
all the year round this is hardly a disadvantage. 
Cultivation with implements cau be better earned 
on, 15 X 15 is the usual distance. Three or four 
suckers to each root may be left, according to the 
richness of the soil. The advantages and disadvantages 
of the different methods of planting may be sum- 
marised as follows : 
Close Planting. -Evenness Extra cost of planting- 
of crop. Less weeding. Less Extra pruning. Trou- 
water. Quick returns. ble in reducing to wide 
or close by cvide. 
Close bt "Wide. — Evenness Can only be cultivated 
of crop. Quicker growth. Econ- oneway. Extra prun- 
omy of water. Less weeding- ing. Crowding of ra- 
toons. Trouble of re- 
ducing 10 wide. Extra 
cost of planting. 
WiDB Plantimg. — Can be Crop more spread, 
cultivated both ways. Less Slower returns. Extra 
pruning. No trouble in redac- weeding, 
ing. 
Geneeal.— The time in which suckers fruit varies 
considerably. Plants take from 10 to 16 months, (the 
latter being the second suckers,) Ratoons take from 
14 to 18 months. The causes governing these are the 
nature of the soils, weather conditions, distance of 
planting, mode of cultivation. It is impossibla to lay 
down any hard and fast rule on the subject. The 
penalties for leaving too many suckers are two— small 
bunches, and blow downs. In one piece of bananas' 
which had in my opinion too m^-ny suckers 
and too much trash, a. heavy wind played havoc. 
It was very noticeable that three out of four 
suckers Vfere broken over, not uprooted. The 
land was rich ; and the suckers would in the eircum- 
Btances throw out many roots. They were, too, fiisk 
ratoons, which are usually strong rooted. In adjacent 
fields, properly pruned, the loss was comparatively 
trifling ; and, most of the trees weie uprooted. It i« 
advisable when pruning to clean the root out thoroughly 
removing all trash, etc. 
" H. J, Oharlbs." 
Journal of the Jamaica Agricultural Society, 
THE IDENTIFICATION OF WOOD, 
I have read with much interest Mr. Herbert Stone's 
paper on the above subject, and would like to be per- 
mitted to make a few remarks as au addition to a dis- 
cussion at which I was unable to bo present. 
First of a^l, a small personal matter. My "Manual 
of Indian Timbers '" was several times referred to in 
very kind language, but both in Mr. Stone's paper, 
and in the remarks upon it by Dr. Si;hlioh, there is 
some misapprehension regarding the responsibility of 
the descriptions of woods given in it, I feel sure that 
Dr. Schlich was not properly reported, and as, 
possibly, Mr. Stooe had not read my iutrodactioo, I 
propose to give the full extract from page ix., written 
in ISovember, 1881, The "writer" was, of course, 
myself. 
''It is now necessary to explain how the descrip- 
tions of the woods were made. During the progress 
of the work of preparation of specimens in Calcutta, 
and .afterwards at more leisure in Simla, the examina- 
tion of the different woods and their description was 
made by a committee which consisted of — 
"1. Dr. D. Brandis, F.R.S., C.I.E., Inspector- 
General of Forests. 
'• 2. Mr. I. S. Gamble, M.A., Assistant to the 
Inspector-General of Forests, 
" 3, Mr. A. Smythies, B.A., Assistant Conservator 
of Forests, Central Proviaoes- 
" The descriptions v/ere usually dictated by Dr. 
Brandis, and written down by one of the others, 
generally Mr. Smythies, but the wood structure was 
examined by all tbi'ee ofiioers, and discussed before 
the description v/as fiuaily passed. The wiiole wa« 
gone over three or four times, snd in the later 
examinations, when the Committee was ni^^re accus- 
tomed to the differences of structure, the generic and 
family c'naracters were discussed and drawn up. 
Some of the later received specimens, as well as 'hose 
given in Addenda,' were described by the writer, 
but on the same plan and principal as was originally 
adopted by the Committee." 
In referring to the chief works on the subject of the 
description of wood, and giving keys to enable them 
to be identified by their more easily-seen chs.raoterf, 
Mr. Stone omitted to mention what is, in all pro- 
bability, the most important, if not the earliest, 
book on the subject relating to European wocds — the 
" Flore Forestiero " of Mons. A. Mathieu, late Pro- 
fessor of Forestry at the Forest School at Nancy, 
France. The first edition of Professor Mathien'a 
work was published in 1858; it was followed by a 
second and third, the latter in 1877 ; the fourth 
edition, issued since Professor Mathieu's death, with 
complete reTision, by his successor, Professor FJiche, 
appeared in 1897. In the "Flore Forestiere " the 
wood descriptions are given witli the genera, supple- 
mented, where necessary, for the species ; and at the 
end of the book is a detailed aaaiytical key, which 
in my opinion, is much better than the keys given by 
Professor Nordliuger and Professor Hurtig.' I can 
also recommend to Mr, Stone the excellent key to 
English (and some Indian) woods given in ''Timber, 
and some of its Diseases," the very useful Jittle work 
by Professor Marshall Ward, F.E-S., of Cambridge, 
published in the " Nature Series.." 
I cannot agree, and I do not think that Indian 
botanists of any branch will agree, with Mr. Stone's 
complaint that " botanical explorers" omit from their 
descriptions, t'ne useful products of the plants. Of 
course, in large general floras like the "Flora of 
British India,'' it would be impossible to insert such 
things, but, with such exceptions, nearly every 
Indian botanist has given, perforce briefly, oconomio 
information. Roxburgh's '' Flora Indica " is an ei- 
cellettt casein point. If, Mr. Stone will study the 
" Diotionr.ry of "ths Economic Products of India," by 
Dr. G. Watts, C.I.E., probably -the most complete 
work of the kind prepared in any country in the world, 
he will see what Indian botanical explorers have ^on« 
for the eeonomio products of th« country. In th« 
