96 
Indian Forest Records. 
[ VOL. 11 
[Hi) Development of the shoot. — The next point to claim our atten- 
tion is the size and development of the second year’s shoot. The 
most marked thing about it is its extremely small size, both as 
regards stem and leaves, when compared with the first year’s shoot. 
It would appear that the plant was determined tc concentrate all its 
energies towards the development of the root system. Figs. V and VI 
give some idea of the small size of the second year’s shoot, as compared 
with Figs. II-IV. 
(iv) Development of the root. — As regards the tap-root, development 
would appear to be more in the direction of circumference than in 
length. Fig. V may be compared with Figs. II-IV in this respect. 
The actual recorded length of two two-year-old seedlings was 20 inches 
and 27 inches, respectively. This, considering that seedlings in the first 
year attain a length of 20 inches, shows that comparatively little advance 
in the length of the tap-root is made during the second year. 
In judging of these lengths, and comparing them with the measure- 
ments recorded of the 8 seedlings dug up in Khandwa on August 1st, 1908, 
it is necessary to take into consideration the soil in which the seedlings 
were growing in each instance. In the case of the first year seedlings we 
found hard moorum at a depth varying from 8 to 16 inches. The two- 
year-old seedlings, however, were growing in soil consisting of 6 inches of 
deep loam, 6 inches of a mixture of loam and moorum, and 18 inches of 
loose disintegrating moorum, with harder portions in between. Thus 
there were 24 inches of easily penetrated soil for the tap-roots to grow 
down into. 
A marked diminution in the number of lateral rootlets was also 
observed to have taken place, indicating that the seedhng depends upon 
the lower layers of the soil for its moisture, which it then takes up 
through the tap-root. 
(c) Development during Third Year. 
(i) Shoot development. — Passing on to the third year we find 
exactly the same conditions as we found in the two-year- old seed- 
lings. The shoot has again died back, and been replaced by a fresh 
one from the root colum.n, and although the seedling is now three years 
old, this shoot is neither larger nor m.ore vigorous than that of the second 
year. It is almost ircipossible to distinguish with any degree of accuracy 
