ABNORMALITIES OF THE COCONUT PALM. 
27 
Bracts Nos. five to twenty -six were similar to No. three, but 
were progressively shorter, with smaller and less branched 
flowering branches in their axils. Bracts Nos. twenty -seven to 
thirty-two had no flowering shoot in their axils, but aborted 
spathes, similar to that of bract No. two, but only about half 
an inch long. 
Flowering branches re-appeared with bract No. thirty -three. 
In that instance the branch bore three tertiary branches, but 
the flowering branches which accompanied bracts thirty-four 
to thirty-six were simple. Bract thirty-seven bore a flowering 
shoot with two branches in its axil, but that of bract thirty- 
eight was again simple. In the latter case the bract was 
5 inches long and the flowering shoot 4 inches. Subsequent 
bracts did not exceed in length the flowering branches they 
subtended. The remaining flowering branches, which were 
all simple, numbered sixteen, and their bracts diminished 
progressively upwards, until those of the last eight did 
not exceed one-eighth of an inch in length, {.e., were 
normal. 
As the length of the main axis from the point of insertion 
of the first bract to the tip was only 15 inches, it will be 
seen that the degree of condensation was extreme. All the 
bracts and secondary inflorescences were wedged together, and 
formed a moderately conical head, from which the long tips 
of the bracts of the main axis projected. 
The bracts are thin, but rigid ; in texture they resemble the 
sheath at the base of the leafstalk in Euterpe, Oreodoxa, &c. 
In the case of the coconut leaf, this tissue forms the interwoven 
fibrous sheath known as the strainer. 
All the flowers on this inflorescence were male, and as it is 
stated that the tree has never borne any fruit, it is probable 
that no female flowers are produced. 
Abnormal inflorescences, in some respects similar to the 
foregoing, were obtained from Chilaw in 1914. The tree in 
this case is about seventeen years old, and, as in the previous 
instance, it is said that it has never borne other than these 
abnormal inflorescences. 
One of the examples forwarded was still unexpanded. 
Apparently the spathe had been removed ; at least there was 
