Part in. ] Witt: Sylviculture of Hardwickia hinata. 123 
; It must be stated at once that this experiment has not been alto- 
gether satisfactory, and is not entirely convincing. The figures show 
several discrepancies, which lead one to suppose that the countings were 
not always very accurate, though every care was taken to make them so. 
, The experunent was further interfered with by the removal of the 
grass on Plot IV in January 1908. In spite of these drawbacks, it is 
possible we think to draw certain inferences from the above figures, which 
we will now consider in detail. 
In Plot III we must first notice that when these seedlings came under 
observation they had already successfully survived one hot weather, in 
spite of the long grass over them. After the second hot weather we find 
the number has increased to 180, and by the following March to 209. 
While admitting this to be an objection, the increase can be explained by 
one of two causes. Either the first counting on 21st December 1906 was 
inaccurate, or two shoots of one seedling have been counted as two separ- 
ate seedling in the second and third countings, an error which might 
very easily occur. The subsequent countings do not show very much 
variation. Taking the figures as a whole we may say the cutting of the 
grass has not affected the seedlings one way or the other. 
The figures of Plot IV on the other hand give a very different result. 
Supposing the dense growth of grass to be the main cause of mortality 
in the seedlings, we should have expected a very large drop in the num- 
ber between the countings in July 1907 and March 1908, but such is not 
the case. On the other hand, we do get a very large difference after the 
second dry season has-been gone through, viz., between the countings in 
March 1908 and August 1908. 
, But tlirough an accident the grass was cut from this plot early in 
January 1908, so that the plot was fully exposed throughout the dry sea- 
son of that year. Obviously the death of such a large proportion of the 
seedhngs, more than 50 per cent., could not be due to a growth of grass. 
On the contrary it would appear that the removal of the grass was to a 
great extent the cause, in that the seedlings were thereby suddenly ex- 
posed to the full effect of the sun and scorching hot winds of the dry sea- 
son. If we note also that the rainfall of 1907-08 was extremely short, 
only 17 inches, we can more fully appreciate what effec‘ this exposure 
would have on the seedlings, already fighting for existence against an 
exceptionally dry season. 
It will probably be asked, why did the seedlings in Plot III not show 
I he same mortality, since here also the grass was cut ? to which the 
E 2 
