880 QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. [1 May, 1899. 
MALE COFFEE PLANTS. 
A very interesting discussion is going on amongst Indian coffee-planterg on 
the subject of male coffee plants, Some writers assert that there is no gsych 
thing, that the coffee plant is not diecious. In answer to a letter on the 
subject by Mr. G. R. Oliver in the Indian Press, the South Sylhet correspon- 
dent of an Indian paper is quoted as follows by Planting Opinion :—“ 1 noted 
Mr. G. RB. Oliver’s letter on male coffee plants, as also the extract from 
Planting Opinion in recent issues of the 7. P. G. The subject is, as stated in 
the article, a most fascinating one, and will well repay study. It is rather 
extraordinary that any one living during the latter years of the last decade of 
the nineteenth century should have a lingering doubt of what was well known 
to the Arabians from time immemorial. The sexual system of Linngus is 
founded on the soundest principles, and our own Dr. Roxburgh never found a 
single plant in India which did not corroborate this fact. Space will not allow 
my going further into the subject now, but I will return to 1t ina future letter, 
However, I may say that the coffee plant is not diecious; and the fact of the 
bush, to which Mr. Oliver alluded, having an abnormal number of peaberries 
on it is no sign of it being a male plant. If there ever will be such a thing as 
a male coffee bush,* it will have no seed. The very fact of a bush producing 
seed, and, moreover, that seed germinating, is ample evidence of its not bein 
an absolute male. It would be interesting to know if the seedlings of the 
coffee bush inherited the peculiarity of the parent plant by also giving pea- 
berries. The cause of peaberry is not definitely know, although reasons haye 
been surmised. A grade of coffee goes under the name of peaberry on the 
market, and brings a somewhat higher price than the ordinary, but I think that 
the name is only given to a grade which has a large proportion of peaberry, 
Perhaps some other of your correspondents can give a full explanation.” 
Mr. F. M. Bailey, Government Botanist in Queensland, says that no such 
a thing as a male coffee plant has ever come under his notice, nor has it, to 
his knowledge, been mentioned by any other botanist. The coffee plant is 
neither diwcious nor monecious ; but is hermaphrodite, the flowers containing 
both male and female organs. As to a tree which bears peaberry being 
_ considered a male, the idea is absurd. If the tree were male it would not bear 
at all any more than would a male date tree. It is possible for the flowers to 
lose the female organs, and for the tree thus to be barren; but still this could 
not be considered a male tree unless such a condition were ever afterwards its 
characteristic.—Hd. Q.4.J. 
RHEA (B@HMERIA NIVEA). 
RAMIE OR CHINA GRASS. 
By W. SOUTTER. 
A. Grea deal has been written upon the subject of Rhea (Behneria nivea), 
also known as China grass. As far back as 1869 the Indian Government 
offered a reward of £5,000 to anyone who could successfully separate the 
refractory fibres from the bark. Numerous methods, both mechanical and 
chemical, were tried, but without avail until quite within recent date. To 
Mr. Gomess, an English chemist, is due the discovery of perfecting the system 
of separating the resins from the fibre. The ‘‘Gomess”’ process has been 
proved to be a perfect success, and the cost of the operations is not prohibitive. 
The “‘ Rhea” is not by any means a new plant, nor is the knowledge of its 
use as a fibre of recent origin, although it only became known to Europeans 
about the beginning of the present century. 
India, China, and Egypt, on the other hand, have known its value as a 
textile plant since the daybreak of history, and fragments of Rhea cloth have 
* In course of time there very likely will be. 
a 
