May 2, 1892.] 
THE TROPICAL AQRiCULTUmST. 
829 
MANGROVE PLANTS FROM CEYLON 
FOR THE ROYAL BOTANIC SOCIETY 
OF LONDON. 
The iSfta?«/arci of I'lth March has the following: — 
At a moeiiug of the Royal Bo^nnio Society, held 
on Saturday, Mr. J. Bell Sedgwick in the chair, the 
Sooietary aonounced the pnfo arrival at the gardous 
of a number of young pianU of the mangrove, from 
Colombo, rrmarkiug that, though common enough in 
the mangrove swampM of the Tropics, tins p’ant bad 
never yet hern grown in Bugland, though mmy 
attempts had been naade by tl^e Society and others. 
In the conservatory, howaver, the white mangrove, a 
somewhat allied plant, hid boen growing for the last 
eight years, but the rate of growth was very alow, 
and the plant appeared very dt lioat'', 
INDIAN TEA SALES. 
(From Watson, Sibthorp Co.*s Report,) 
Galoutta, March 16ih, 1892. 
There was a good demand at about ;>rerioutt rates in 
the sales held on the 10th ioetstit. The h>mtay bu)er8 
were very keen and suitnblo teas realiACd from one to 
two anoas over (irobent London prices. 4,713 packages 
changed bands 
The season is now practically closed. Since it opened 
cu the 14th May lest ttO series of aales have been held 
Al which 433,(578 packages chongod hands at an average 
of A . 6'S or about 9d p*r lb. as compared with 35‘1.990 
packages sold in 31 sales in season 189('-91 at As. 7 or 
about iOfd per lb. and 4Ci^,78S packegea sold in l*3 sales 
in season 1^9*9o at As. 7*7 or about lOfd per lb. 
The increased dematd from various new ootleta during 
the past season was one ol the prominent feature of the 
market, and prices realised for suitable teas were through* 
out very oooeiderably above current London rates. There 
is no doubt, in this regard, that if this market hud been 
more Uberaily supplud the growth of the trade with 
those now eonsumors of Indian teas would have spread 
even mor« rapidly than it hai done. In future a much 
larger proportion of the crop should dud a market 
here as ihe^e receoly found cu-itomers ought to be en- 
couraged and ethers from still future afield induced to 
complete. The figures puMithol b> the Indian Tea AsBO- 
ciation on the 13th liisUnt, lend alditional weight to the 
above remarks, they show that from the let Way to the 
39th February in the season under review the exports 
from here to all other places than the United Kingdom 
were 8,62u,000lb. as compared with 5,76t.0UO lb. in 1890-91 
and 4,939.00u ib. in 1889 9u. 
The average price of the 4,713 Ipackages sold is As. 4**6 
or about tifd por lb. as compared with 7,fi38 packages 
sold on the 2dth Feb. 1891 at As. 7*11 or about lOfd por lb. 
and 7,637 packages sold on the 37tb Feb. 1690 at As. Ti-A 
or about 7J.1 per lb. 
The exports from 1st May to Uth March from here to Great 
Britain are 109.611, 07l lb., as ooraparod with 96,179,163 lb. at 
the corresponding period last season. 
NoTfi.— Last sale's average was As. 4-11 or about 6M 
per lb. 
Expobt4, Stock?, Ac., of Indian Tea, 
1892. 
1891. 
1H90. 
Exports from Calcutta to 
Great Britain from let 
lb. 
lb. 
lb, 
January to :^9th Feb. 
Exports ircm Calcutta to 
13,240,361 
12,077,536 
13,952,816 
Great Britain iu Feb. 
Stock in Jjondon on 29th 
5,600,354 
4,168,352 
5,149,538 
February ^ , ••• 
Beliverie*? i** London 
from 1st January to 
47,562,410 
40,131,498 
43.081,176 
a9th February ... 
deliveries in London in 
19.867,647 
19,602,900 
17,016,516 
February 
Laudinits in London from 
let January to 29tb 
9,900,000 
9,031,606 
8,187,293 
February 
Landings in London in 
31,934,409 
23,366,905 
22.279,800 
February ... 
Exports from Calcutta 
to Australia and New 
Zealand from Ist May to 
8,3000,000 
10,088,^86 
8.913,076 
20th February ... 
Exports from Calcutta to 
Australia and New 
4,815,849 
4,361,393 
3,521,900 
Zealand in February ... 
Exports from Ca'cutta 
direct to America from 
463,133 
152,067 
172,767 
l8t,Jlay 2yth February 
*'*poru» from Calcutta 
direct to America in 
183,728 
131,662 
164,697 
February 
1,430 
13,162 
312 
The following a^etbe total quantities from each distriot 
with the averages realised 
5 .6 
3 
a 
3 
a<*> 
« 
Sc 
•35 
g,s 
a 
O 
«i e9 
2P- 
Is 
s .*■ 
“■"-g 
d© 
la 
b Ok <ci t-* 
OO'^'OOOOOOO 
sasi8sass?5 
gsss’as"'''®*'*" 
_ c m * <w W ill * 
oooo<sooooe 
ttrsttstts 
OkQoOtoaoww^oiCR 
(0«eco(Oto«o««owr« 
oooooooooo 
31*3^^38*35*3^* S 
ooooooeooo 
::sssrc2ss 
OOOOOOOOOO 
« 
o. 
fi 
a « 
f-s 
III 
QO ^ 
■S "q 0 
^ £.*r 
«s4 
a-o 
■sss 
€ ^ fl 
sis 
•|2® 
2 ® 9 
si 
8|s 
s'*' 
151 
» gl If 
•2 I, 0*^(3 
Stl-sSfli-S 
ItsSlafij-s 
C 
The following figures show the difference in the range of 
prices that have ruled during the past season and those of the 
two previous years. 
s s 
& ' 
r .s s .||s| 
4^=2 
IS 
4 s Ss 45 s2^4s si>|42 sifa’gll | 
§• p. 2 - s a" 2^ o 
ST s 
a S' s 
o 
S ^ 
Pi 
§■ S S S »■ O 0'S §1 
4S ss43 s;§4s 82:48 8;aav I 
P g ~ 
9 P 
« A 
