THE AUSTRALIAN NATURALIST. 
Wo 
7 
against “Tlluk Grass” (or Blady-grass as it is known in Australia) 
Imperata arundinacea. 
Some few years ago it was introduced into the northern 
parts of this State by a certain.seedsman under the name of 
“Mauritius Fodder Shrub,” and quite recently it was distributed 
quite freely erroneously labelled as the “Algaroba Bean” (Proso- 
pis juliflora). The latter produces an abundance of pods of a 
sweet taste, which are relished by all kinds of stock, but whilst 
it is stated by some authorities that cattle are fond of the leaves 
of the West Indian Lead tree (Leucaena glauca), it is stated by 
other authorities to be very harmful to horses, ete., as will be 
seen by the following account published in the Gardener's 
Chronicle, October 3, 1896, p. 397. 
“Mr. D. Morris, assistant-director of the Royal Gardens, 
Kew, contributed a paper, which, in his absence, was read by 
Mr. Seward, on “The Singular Effect produced on certain Ani- 
mals in the West Indies by feeding on the young shoots, leaves, 
peds, and seeds of the Wild Tamarind or Jumbai Plant (Leuc- 
aena glauca, Benth.).’ The properties of this plant had re- 
ceived little or no attention in this country. It is commonly 
found along roadsides and in waste places in Tropical America. 
The plant was much more plentiful in the Bahamas than in 
Jamaica; it was, in fact, distinctly encouraged in the former 
islands as a fodder plant. The people were fully aware of the 
singular effect it produced on horses, causing them to loose the 
hair from their manes and tails. It also affeeted “mules and 
donkeys. Its effeet on pigs was still more marked. These ani- 
mals assumed a completely naked condition, and appeared with- 
out a single hair on their body. Horses badly affected by Jum- 
bai were occasionally seen in the streets of Nassau, where they 
were known as “Cigar-tails.”” Such dilapidated animals, although 
apparently healthy, were considerably depreciated in value. They 
were said to recover when fed exclusively on corn and grass. 
The new hair was, however, of a different colour and texture, 
‘so the animals were never quite the same.’ 
“One animal was cited as having lost its hoofs as well, and 
in’ consequence it had to be kept in slings until they grew again 
and hardened. ‘The effects of the Jumbai on horses, mules, don- 
keys, and pigs were regarded as accidental—due to neglect or 
ignorance. The plant was really encouraged to supply food for 
cattle, sheep, and goats. The latter greedily devoured it, and 
were not perceptibly affected by it. It would be noticed that 
the animals affected were non-ruminants, while those not at- 
fected were ruminants. 
