Skip to main content

Full text of "Origin of cultivated plants"

See other formats 


22102055707 


THE 


INTERNATIONAL  SCIENTIFIC  SERIES. 

Each  Book  Complete  in  One  Volume.  Crown  8vo.  cloth. 


I.  FORMS  of  WATER:  a Familiar  Exposition  of  the  Origin 
and  Phenomena  of  GLACIERS.  By  J.  Tyndall,  LL.D.,  F.R.S. 
With  25  Illustrations.  Eighth  Edition.  5s. 

II.  PHYSICS  and  POLITICS ; or.  Thoughts  on  the  Application 
of  the  Principles  of  ‘Natural  Selection’  and  'Inheritance’  to  Political 
Society.  By  Walter  Baoehot.  Sixth  Edition,  is. 

III.  FOODS.  By  Edward  Smith,  M.D.,  LL.B.,  F.R.S.  With  numerous 

Illustrations.  Eighth  Edition.  5>. 

IV.  MIND  and  BODY : the  Theories  of  their  Relation.  By 

Alexander  Bain,  LL.D.  With  Four  Illustrations.  Seventh  Edition,  is. 

V.  The  STUDY  of  SOCIOLOGY.  By  Herbert  Spencer.  Eleventh 

Edition.  5 s. 

VI.  On  the  CONSERVATION  of  ENERGY.  By  Balfour 

Stewart,  M.A.,  LL.D.,  F.R.S.  With  14  Illustrations.  Sixth  Edition.  5 s. 

VII.  ANIMAL  LOCOMOTION ; or,  Walking,  Swimming,  and 
Flying.  By  J.  B.  Pettigrew,  M.D.,  F.R.S.,  &c.  With  130  Illustrations. 
Third  Edition.  6s. 

VIII.  RESPONSIBILITY  in  MENTAL  DISEASE.  By  Henry 
JIaudsley,  M.D.  Fourth  Edition.  5j. 

IX.  The  NEW  CHEMISTRY.  By  Professor  J.  P.  Cooke,  of  the 
Harvard  University.  With  31  Illustrations.  Seventh  Edition.  5s. 


London:  KEGAN  PAUL,  TRENCH,  & CO.,  1 Paternoster  Square. 


The  International  Scientific  Series — continued. 


X.  The  SCIENCE  of  LAW.  By  Professor  Sheldon  Amos.  Fifth 
Edition.  6*. 

XI.  ANIMAL  MECHANISM : a Treatise  on  Terrestrial  and  Aerial 
Locomotion.  By  Professor  E.  J.  Marry.  With  117 Illustrations.  Third 
Edition.  6s. 

XII.  The  DOCTRINE  of  DESCENT  and  DARWINISM.  By 

Professor  Osca.ii  Schmidt  (Strasburg  University).  With  26  Illustrations. 
Fifth  Edition . 5s. 

XIII.  The  HISTORY  of  the  CONFLICT  between  RELIGION 
and  SCIENCE.  By  J.  W.  Draper,  M.D.,  LL.D.  Seventeenth 
Edition.  6s. 

XIV.  FIJNGI:  their  Nature,  Influences,  Uses,  &c.  By  M.  C.  Cookk, 
M.A.,  LL.D.  Edited  by  the  Rev.  M.  J.  Berkeley,  M.A.,  F.L.S.  With 
numerous  Illustrations.  Third  Edition.  5s. 

XV.  The  CHEMICAL  EFFECTS  of  LIGHT  and  PHOTO- 
GRAPHY. By  Dr.  Hermann  Vogki.  (Polytechnic  Academy  of 
Berlin).  Translation  thoroughly  revised.  With  100  Illustrations.  Fourth 
Edition.  5s. 


XVI.  The  LIFE  and  GROWTH  of  LANGUAGE.  By  William 

Dwight  Whitney.  Fourth  Edition.  5s. 


XVII.  MONEY  and  the  MECHANISM  of  EXCHANGE.  By 

W.  Stanley  Jevons,  M.A.,  F.R.S.  Sixth  Edition.  5s. 

XVIII.  The  NATURE  of  LIGHT,  with  a General  Account  of 
PHYSICAL  OPTICS.  By  Dr.  Bourne  Lommel.  With  188  Illus- 
trations and  a Table  of  Spectra  in  Chromo-lithography.  Third  Edition.  5s. 

XIX.  ANIMAL  PARASITES  and  MESSMATES.  By  Monsieur 

Van  Buneden.  With  83  Illustrations.  Third  Edition.  5s. 


London:  KEG  AN  PAUL,  TRENCH,  & CO.,  1 Paternoster  Square. 


The  International  Scientific  Series — continued 


XX.  FERMENTATION.  By  Professor  Schutzenbergeb.  With 

28  Illustrations.  Third  Edition.  5s. 

XXI.  The  FIVE  SENSES  of  MAN.  By  Professor  Bernstein. 

With  91  Illustrations.  Fourth  Edition.  5s. 

XXII.  The  THEORY  of  SOUND  in  its  RELATION  to  MUSIC. 

By  Professor  Pietro  Blaskrna.  With  numerous  Illustrations.  Third 
Edition.  5s. 

XXIII.  STUDIES  in  SPECTRUM  ANALYSIS.  By  J.  Norman 
Lockyer,  F.R.S.  With  Six  Photographic  Illustrations  of  Spectra,  and 
numerous  Engravings  on  Wood.  Third  Edition.  6s.  6 d. 

XXIV.  A HISTORY  of  the  GROWTH  of  the  STEAM  ENGINE. 

By  Professor  R.  H.  Thurston.  With  numerous  Illustrations.  Third 
Edition.  6s.  6 d. 

XXV.  EDUCATION  as  a SCIENCE.  By  Alexander  Bain,  LL.D. 

Fourth  Edition.  5s. 

XXVI.  The  HUMAN  SPECIES.  By  Professor  A.  de  Qvatrkfages, 
Membre  de  I’lnstitut.  Third  Edition.  5s. 

XXVII.  MODERN  CHROMATICS.  With  Application  to  Art  and 
Industry.  By  Ogden  N.  Rood.  Second  Edition.  With  130  original  Illus- 
trations. 5s. 

XXVIII.  The  CRAYFISH : an  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Zoology. 

By  T.  H.  Huxley,  F.R.S.  Third  Edition.  With  82  Illustrations.  5s. 

XXIX.  The  BRAIN  ns  an  ORGAN  of  MIND.  By  H.  Charlton 

Bastlan,  M.D.  Third  Edition.  With  184  Illustrations.  5s. 

XXX.  The  ATOMIC  THEORY.  By  Professor  A.  Wuim.  Trans- 

lated by  E.  Clemixshaw,  F.C.S.  Third  Edition.  5s. 

XXXI.  The  NATURAL  CONDITIONS  of  EXISTENCE  as 
they  affect  Animal  Life.  By  Karl  Semper.  Third  Edition. 
With  2 Slaps  and  106  Woodcuts.  6s. 

XXXII.  GENERAL  PHYSIOLOGY  of  MUSCLES  and.  NERVES. 

By  Prof.  J.  Rosenthal.  Third  Edition.  With  Illustrations.  5s. 


London:  KEGAN  PAUL,  TRENCH,  & CO. , 1 Paternoster  Square. 


The  International  Scientific  Series — continued. 


XXXIII.  SIGHT:  an  Exposition  of  the  Principles  of  Monocular  and 
Binocular  Vision.  By  Joseph  Lit  Conte,  LL.D.  Second  Edition.  With 
132  Illustrations.  5s. 

XXXIV.  ILLUSIONS:  a Psychological  Study.  By  James  Sully. 
Second  Edition.  5s. 

XXXV.  VOLCANOES  : what  they  are  and  what  they  teach.  By 

John'  W.  Judd,  F.R.3.  Second  Edition.  With  92  Illustrations.  5s. 

XXXVI.  SUICIDE  : an  Essay  in  Comparative  Moral  Statistics. 

By  Professor  E.  Morsrlli.  Second  Edition.  5s. 

XXXVII.  THE  BHAIN  AND  ITS  FUNCTIONS.  By  J.  Lcys, 
Physician  to  the  Hospice  de  la  Saipetriire.  With  numerous  Illus- 
trations. Second  Edition.  Os. 

XXXVIII.  MYTH  AND  SCIENCE:  an  Essay.  By  Tito 
Vigxoli.  Second  Edition.  5s. 

XXXIX.  THE  SUN.  By  C.  A.  Young,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.  Second  Edition. 
With  numerous  Illustrations.  5s. 

XL.  ANTS,  BEES,  and  WASPS.  A Record  of  Observations 
on  the  Habits  of  the  Social  Hymeuoptera.  By  Sir  John  Lubbock, 
Bart.,  1I.P.  Sixth  Edition.  With  6 Chromo-lithographic  Plates,  5s. 

XLI.  ANIMAL  INTELLIGENCE.  By  George  J.  Romanes, 
LL.D.,JF.R.S.  Third  Edition.  5s. 

XLII.  The  CONCEPTS  and  THEORIES  of  MODERN 
PHYSICS.  By  J.  B.  Stadia  Second  Edition.  5s. 

XLIII.  DISEASES  of  MEMORY.  An  Essay  in  the  Positive 
Psychology.  By  Th.  Ribot.  Second  Edition.  5s. 

XLIV.  MAN  BEFORE  METALS.  By  N.  Jolt,  Correspondent 
dc  l’lnstitnt  dc  France.  Third  Edition.  5s. 

XLV.  THE  SCIENCE  of  POLITICS.  By  Prof.  Sheldon 

Amos.  Second  Edition.  5s. 

XL VI.  ELEMENTARY  METEOROLOGY.  By  Robert  H. 

Scott.  Second  Edition.  5s. 

XL VII.  THE  ORGANS  of  SPEECH.  By  Georg  Hermann 

vox  Mkyer.  or. 

XLVIII.  FALLACIES.  A View  of  Logic  from  the  Practical  Side. 
By  Alfred  Siijgwick.  as. 


London:  KEG  AN  PAUL,  TRENCH,  &CO.,  1 Paternoster  Square. 


Tiie 

International  Scientific  Series. 


VOL.  XLIX. 


5 99  fi 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS 


BY 

ALPHONSE  DE  CANDOLLE 


FOREIGN  ASSOCIATE  OP  THE  ACADEMY  OF  SCIENCES  OP  THE  INSTITUTE  OF  FRANCE  ; 
FOREIGN  MEMBER  OP  THE  ROYAL  SOCIETIES  OF  LONDON,  EDINBURGH, 

AND  DUBLIN;  OF  THE  ACADEMIES  OF  ST.  PETERSBURG, 

STOCKHOLM,  BERLIN,  MUNICH,  BRUSSELS,  COPENHAGEN,  AMSTERDAM, 

ROME,  TURIN,  MADRID,  BOSTON,  ETC. 


LONDON 

KEGAN  PAUL,  TRENCH  & CO.,  1,  PATERNOSTER  SQUARE 


1884 


I 

U btUs\ 


A 


/'  ' 


w 


WELLCOME  INSTITUTE 

LIBRARY 

Coll 

welMOmec 

Call 

No. 

_ 

{ne  rights  , (/  translation  and  '<f  reproduction  arc  reserv'd.) 


AUTHOR’S  PREFACE. 


The  knowledge  of  the  origin  of  cultivated  plants  is 
interesting  to  agriculturists,  to  botanists,  and  even  to 
historians  and  philosophers  concerned  with  the  dawnings 
of  civilization. 

I went  into  this  question  of  origin  in  a chapter  in  my 
work  on  geographical  botany ; but  the  book  has  become 
scarce,  and,  moreover,  since  1855  important  facts  have 
been  discovered  by  travellers,  botanists,  and  archae- 
ologists. Instead  of  publishing  a second  edition,  I have 
drawn  up  an  entirely  new  and  more  extended  work, 
which  treats  of  the  origin  of  almost  double  the  number  of 
species  belonging  to  the  tropics  and  the  temperate  zones. 
It  includes  almost  all  plants  which  are  cultivated,  either 
on  a large  scale  for  economic  purposes,  or  in  orchards  and 
kitchen  gardens. 

I have  always  aimed  at  discovering  the  condition  and 
the  habitat  of  each  species  before  it  was  cultivated.  It 
was  needful  to  this  end  to  distinguish  from  among 
innumerable  varieties  that  which  should  be  regarded  as 
the  most  ancient,  and  to  find  out  from  wliat  quarter  of 


VI 


author’s  preface. 


the  globe  it  came.  The  problem  is  more  difficult  than  it 
appears  at  first  sight.  In  the  last  century  and  up  to 
the  middle  of  the  present  authors  made  little  account 
of  it,  and  the  most  able  have  contributed  to  the  pro- 
pagation of  erroneous  ideas.  I believe  that  three  out 
of  four  of  Linmeus’  indications  of  the  original  home  of 
cultivated  plants  are  incomplete  or  incorrect.  Ilis  state- 
ments have  since  been  repeated,  and  in  spite  of  what 
modern  writers  have  proved  touching  several  species, 
they  are  still  repeated  in  periodicals  and  popular  works. 
It  is  time  that  mistakes,  which  date  in  some  cases  from 
the  Greeks  and  Romans,  should  be  corrected.  The  actual 
condition  of  science  allows  of  such  correction,  provided 
we  rely  upon  evidence  of  varied  character,  of  which 
some  portion  is  quite  recent,  and  even  unpublished;  and 
this  evidence  should  be  sifted  as  we  sift  evidence  in  his- 
torical research.  It  is  one  of  the  rare  cases  in  which 
a science  founded  on  observation  should  make  use  of 
testimonial  proof.  It  will  be  seen  that  this  method 
leads  to  satisfactory  results,  since  I have  been  able  to 
determine  the  origin  of  almost  all  the  species,  sometimes 
with  absolute  certainty,  and  sometimes  with  a high 
degree  of  probability. 

1 have  also  endeavoured  to  establish  the  number  of 
centuries  or  thousands  of  years  during  which  each 
species  has  been  in  cultivation,  and  how  its  culture 
spread  in  different  directions  at  successive  epochs. 

A few  plants  cultivated  for  more  than  two  thousand 
years,  anti  even  some  others,  are  not  now  known  in  a 


AUTHORS  PREFACE. 


Yll 


spontaneous,  that  is,  wild  condition,  or  at  any  rate  this 
condition  is  not  proved.  Questions  of  this  nature  are 
subtle.  They,  like  the  distinction  of  species,  require 
much  research  in  books  and  in  herbaria.  I have  even 
been  obliged  to  appeal  to  the  courtesy  of  travellers  or 
botanists  in  all  parts  of  the  woi*ld  to  obtain  recent 
information.  I shall  mention  these  in  each  case  with 
the  expression  of  my  grateful  thanks. 

In  spite  of  these  records,  and  of  all  my  researches, 
there  still  remain  several  species  which  are  unknown 
wild.  In  the  cases  where  these  come  from  regions 
not  completely  explored  by  botanists,  or  where  they 
belong  to  genera  as  yet  insufficiently  studied,  there  is 
hope  that  the  wild  plant  may  be  one  day  discovered. 
But  this  hope  is  fallacious  in  the  case  of  well-known 
species  and  countries.  We  are  here  led  to  form  one  of  two 
hypotheses ; either  these  plants  have  since  history  began 
so  changed  in  form  in  their  wild  as  well  as  in  their 
cultivated  condition  that  they  are  no  longer  recognized 
as  belonging  to  the  same  species,  or  they  are  extinct 
species.  The  lentil,  the  chick-pea,  probably  no  longer 
exist  in  nature;  and  other  species,  as  wheat,  maize,  the 
broad  bean,  carthamine,  very  rarely  found  wild,  appear 
to  be  in  course  of  extinction.  The  number  of  cultivated 
plants  with  which  I am  here  concerned  being  two  hun- 
dred and  forty-nine,  the  three,  four,  or  five  species,  extinct 
or  nearly  extinct,  is  a large  proportion,  representing  a 
thousand  species,  out  of  the  whole  number  of  phane- 
rogams. This  destruction  of  forms  must  have  taken 


VIII 


author’s  preface. 


place  during  the  short  period  of  a few  hundred  centuries, 
on  continents  where  they  might  have  spread,  and  under 
circumstances  which  are  commonly  considered  unvarying. 
This  shows  how  the  history  of  cultivated  plants  is  allied 
to  the  most  important  problems  of  the  general  history  of 
organized  beings. 


Geneva,  1882. 


CONTENTS 


FART  I. 

GENERAL  REMARKS. 

CHAPTER 

I.  In  what  Manner  and  at  what  Epochs  Cultivation  began 
in  Different  Countries  ... 

If.  Methods  for  discovering  or  proving  the  Origin  of  Species 


PART  II. 

ON  THE  STUDY  OF  SPECIES,  CONSIDERED  AS  TO  THEIR 
ORIGIN,  THEIR  EARLY  CULTIVATION,  AND  THE 
PRINCIPAL  FACTS  OF  THEIR  DIFFUSION. 

I.  Plants  cultivated  for  their  Subterranean  Parts,  such 

as  Roots,  Tubercles,  or  Bulbs 

II.  Plants  cultivated  for  their  Stems  or  Leaves... 

III.  Plants  cultivated  for  their  Flowers,  or  for  the  Organs 

WHICH  ENVELOP  THEM 

IV.  Plants  cultivated  for  their  Fruits  ... 

V.  Plants  cultivated  for  tiieir  Seeds 

PART  III. 

SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSION. 

I.  General  Table  of  Species,  with  their  Origin  and  the 
Epoch  of  their  Earliest  Cultivation 
II.  General  Observations  and  Conclusions 


PAGE 

1 

8 


29 

83 

161 

168 

313 


•136 

•117 

463 


Index  ... 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


PAET  I. 

General  Remarks. 

CHAPTER  I. 

IN  WHAT  MANNER  AND  AT  WHAT  EPOCHS  CULTIVATION 
BEGAN  IN  DIFFERENT  COUNTRIES. 

The  traditions  of  ancient  peoples,  embellished  by  poets, 
have  commonly  attributed  the  first  steps  in  agriculture 
and  the  introduction  of  useful  plants,  to  some  divinity,  or 
at  least  to  some  great  emperor  or  Inca.  Reflection  shows 
that  this  is  hardly  probable,  and  observation  of  the 
attempts  at  agriculture  among  the  savage  tribes  of  our 
own  day  proves  that  the  facts  are  quite  otherwise. 

In  the  progress  of  civilization  the  beginnings  are 
usually  feeble,  obscure,  and  limited.  There  are  reasons 
why  this  should  be  the  case  with  the  first  attempts  at 
agriculture  or  horticulture.  Between  the  custom  of 
gathering  Avild  fruits,  grain,  and  roots,  and  that  of  the 
regular  cultivation  of  the  plants  which  produce  them, 
there  are  several  steps.  A family  may  scatter  seeds 
around  its  dwelling,  and  provide  itself  the  next  year 
Avith  the  same  product  in  the  forest.  Certain  fruit  trees 
may  exist  near  a dwelling  Avithout  our  knoAving  whether 
they  Avere  planted,  or  whether  the  hut  Avas  built  beside 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


9 

them  in  order  to  profit  by  them.  War  and  the  chase 
often  interrupt  attempts  at  cultivation.  Rivalry  and 
mistrust  cause  the  imitation  of  one  tribe  by  another  to 
make  but  slow  progress.  If  some  great  personage  com- 
mand the  cultivation  of  a plant,  and  institute  some  cere- 
monial to  show  its  utility,  it  is  probably  because  obscure 
and  unknown  men  have  previously  spoken  of  it,  and 
that  successful  experiments  have  been  already  made. 
A longer  or  shorter  succession  of  local  and  short-lived 
experiments  must  have  occurred  before  such  a display, 
which  is  calculated  to  impress  an  already  numerous  public. 
It  is  easy  to  understand  that  there  must  have  been  de- 
termining causes  to  excite  these  attempts,  to  reiiew  them, 
to  make  them  successful. 

The  first  cause  is  that  such  or  such  a plant,  offering 
some  of  those  advantages  which  all  men  seek,  must  be 
within  reach.  The  lowest  savages  know  the  plants  of  their 
country ; but  the  example  of  the  Australians  and  Patago- 
nians shows  that  if  they  do  not  consider  them  productive 
and  easy  to  rear,  they  do  not  entertain  the  idea  of  culti- 
vating them.  Other  conditions  are  sufficiently  evident : a 
not  too  rigorous  climate ; in  hot  countries,  the  moderate 
duration  of  drought ; some  degree  of  security  and  settle- 
ment; lastly,  a pressing  necessity,  due  to  insufficient 
resources  in  fishing,  hunting,  or  in  the  production  of 
indigenous  and  nutritious  plants,  such  as  the  chestnut, 
the  date-palm,  the  banana,  or  the  breadfruit  tree.  When 
men  can  live  without  work  it  is  what  they  like  best. 
Besides,  the  element  of  hazard  in  hunting  and  fishing 
attracts  primitive,  and  sometimes  civilized  man,  more 
than  the  rude  and  regular  labour  of  cultivation. 

I return  to  the  species  which  savages  are  disposed  to 
cultivate.  They  sometimes  find  them  in  their  own 
country,  but  often  receive  them  from  neighbouring 
peoples,  more  favoured  than  themselves  by  natural  con- 
ditions, or  already  possessed  of  some  sort  of  civilization. 
When  a people  is  not  established  on  an  island,  or  in 
some  place  difficult  of  access,  they  soon  adopt  certain 
plants,  discovered  elsewhere,  of  which  the  advantage  is 
evident,  and  are  thereby  diverted  from  the  cultivation  of 


PRIMITIVE  AGRICULTURE. 


3 


the  poorer  species  of  their  own  country.  History  shows 
us  that  wheat,  maize,  the  sweet  potato,  several  species  of 
the  genus  Panicum,  tobacco,  anti  other  plants,  especially 
annuals,  were  widely  diffused  before  the  historical  period. 
These  useful  species  opposed  and  arrested  the  timid 
attempts  made  here  and  there  on  less  productive  or 
less  agreeable  plants.  And  we  see  in  our  own  day,  in 
various  countries,  barley  replaced  by  wheat,  maize  pre- 
ferred to  buckwheat  and  many  kinds  of  millet,  while  some 
vegetables  and  other  cultivated  plants  fall  into  disrepute 
because  other  species,  sometimes  brought  from  a distance, 
are  more  profitable.  The  difference  in  value,  however 
great,  which  is  found  among  plants  already  improved  by 
culture,  is  less  than  that  which  exists  between  cultivated 
plants  and  others  completely  wild.  Selection,  that  great 
factor  which  Darwin  has  had  the  merit  of  inti'oducing 
so  happily  into  science,  plays  an  important  part  when 
once  agriculture  is  established ; but  in  eveiy  epoch,  and 
especially  in  its  earliest  stage,  the  choice  of  species  is 
more  important  than  the  selection  of  varieties. 

The  various  causes  which  favour  or  obstruct  the 
beginnings  of  agriculture,  explain  why  certain  regions 
have  been  for  thousands  of  years  peopled  by  husbandmen, 
while  others  are  still  inhabited  by  nomadic  tribes.  It  is 
clear  that,  owing  to  their  well-known  qualities  and  to  the 
favourable  conditions  of  climate,  it  was  at  an  early  period 
found  easy  to  cultivate  rice  and  several  leguminous  plants 
in  Southern  Asia,  barley  and  wheat  in  Mesopotamia  and 
in  Egypt,  several  species  of  Panicum  in  Africa,  maize, 
the  potato,  the  sweet  potato,  and  manioc  in  America. 
Centres  were  thus  formed  whence  the  most  useful  species 
were  diffused.  In  the  north  of  Asia,  of  Europe,  and  of 
America,  the  climate  is  unfavourable,  and  the  indigenous 
plants  are  unproductive ; but  as  hunting  and  fishing 
offered  their  resources,  agriculture  must  have  been  intro- 
duced there  late,  and  it  was  possible  to  dispense  with  the 
good  species  of  the  south  without  great  suffering.  It 
was  different  in  Australia,  Patagonia,  and  even  in  the 
south  of  Africa.  The  plants  of  the  temperate  region  in 
our  hemisphere  could  not  reach  these  countries  by 


4 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


reason  of  the  distance,  and  those  of  the  intertropical 
zone  were  excluded  by  great  drought  or  by  the  absence  of 
a high  temperature.  At  the  same  time,  the  indigenous 
species  are  very  poor.  It  is  not  merely  the  want  of 
intelligence  or  of  security  which  has  prevented  the  in- 
habitants from  cultivating  them.  The  nature  of  the 
indigenous  flora  has  so  much  to  do  with  it,  that  the 
Europeans,  established  in  these  countries  for  a hundred 
years,  have  only  cultivated  a single  species,  the  Tetra- 
gonia,  an  insignificant  green  vegetable.  I am  aware 
that  Sir  Joseph  Hooker1  has  enumerated  more  than  a 
hundred  Australian  species  which  may  be  used  in  some 
way ; but  as  a matter  of  fact  they  were  not  cultivated 
by  the  natives,  and,  in  spite  of  the  improved  methods  of 
the  English  colonists,  no  one  does  cultivate  them.  This 
clearly  demonstrates  the  principle  of  which  I spoke  just 
now,  that  the  choice  of  species  is  more  important  than 
the  selection  of  varieties,  and  that  there  must  be  valuable 
qualities  in  a wild  plant  in  order  to  lead  to  its  cultivation. 

In  spite  of  the  obscurity  of  the  beginnings  of  culti- 
vation in  each  region,  it  is  certain  that  they  occurred  at 
very  different  periods.  One  of  the  most  ancient  examples 
of  cultivated  plants  is  in  a drawing  representing  figs, 
found  in  Egypt  in  the  pyramid  of  Gizeh.  The  epoch  of 
the  construction  of  this  monument  is  uncertain.  Authors 
have  assigned  a date  varying  between  fifteen  hundred  and 
four  thousand  two  hundred  years  before  the  Christian  era. 
Supposing  it  to  be  two  thousand  years,  its  actual  age 
would  be  four  thousand  years.  Now,  the  construction 
of  the  pyramids  could  only  have  been  the  work  of  a 
numerous,  organized  people,  possessing  a certain  degree  of 
civilization,  and  consequently  an  established  agriculture, 
dating  from  some  centuries  back  at  least.  In  China,  two 
thousand  seven  hundred  years  before  Christ,  the  Emperor 
Chenming  instituted  the  ceremony  at  which  every  year 
five  species  of  useful  plants  are  sown — rice,  sweet  potato, 
wheat,  and  two  kinds  of  millet.2  These  plants  must 


1 Hooker,  Flora  Tasmania!,  i.  p.  cx. 

Bretschncider,  On  the  Study  and  Value  of  Chinese  Botanical  Works, 


p.  /. 


PRIMITIVE  AGRICULTURE. 


have  been  cultivated  for  some  time  in  certain  localities 
before  they  attracted  the  emperor’s  attention  to  such  a 
degree.  Agriculture  appears,  then,  to  be  as  ancient  in 
China  as  in  Egypt.  The  constant  relations  between 
Egypt  and  Mesopotamia  lead  us  to  suppose  that  an 
almost  contemporaneous  cultivation  existed  in  the  valleys 
of  the  Euphrates  and  the  Nile.  And  it  may  have  been 
equally  early  in  India  and  in  the  Mala}'-  Archipelago. 
The  history  of  the  Dravidian  and  Malay  peoples  does 
not  reach  far  back,  and  is  sufficiently  obscure,  but  there 
is  no  reason  to  believe  that  cultivation  has  not  been 
known  among  them  for  a veiy  long  time,  particularly 
along  the  banks  of  the  rivers. 

The  ancient  Egyptians  and  the  Phoenicians  propa- 
gated many  plants  in  the  region  of  the  Mediterranean, 
and  the  Aryan  nations,  whose  migrations  towards  Europe 
began  about  2500,  or  at  latest  2000  years  B.C.,  carried 
with  them  several  species  already  cultivated  in  Western 
Asia.  We  shall  see,  in  studying  the  history  of  several 
species,  that  some  plants  were  probably  cultivated  in 
Europe  and  in  the  north  of  Africa  prior  to  the  Aryan 
migration.  This  is  shown  by  names  in  languages  more 
ancient  than  the  Aryan  tongues;  for  instance,  Finn, 
.Basque,  Berber,  and  the  speech  of  the  Guanchos  of  the 
Canary  Isles.  However,  the  remains,  called  kitchen- 
middens,  of  ancient  Danish  dwellings,  have  hitherto 
furnished  no  proof  of  cultivation  or  any  indication  of  the 
possession  of  metal.1  The  Scandinavians  of  that  period 
lived  principally  by  fishing  and  hunting,  and  perhaps 
eked  out  their  subsistence  by  indigenous  plants,  such  as 
the  cabbage,  the  nature  of  which  does  not  admit  any 
remnant  of  traces  in  the  dung-heaps  and  rubbish,  and 
which,  moreover,  did  not  require  cultivation.  The  absence 
ot  metals  does  not  in  these  northern  countries  argue  a 
greater  antiquity  than  the  age  of  Pericles,  or  even  the 
palmy  days  of  the  Roman  republic.  Later,  when  bronze 

1 Lea  Premiers  Homines  cl  les  Temps  Prdhis tori ques, 

i.  pp.  2G6,  208.  The  absence  of  traces  of  agriculture  among  these 
remains  is,  moreover,  corroborated  by  Ileer  and  Oartailhac,  both  well 
versed  in  tho  discoveries  of  archaeology. 


G 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


was  known  in  Sweden — a region  far  removed  from  the 
then  civilized  countries — agriculture  had  at  length  been 
introduced.  Among  the  remains  of  that  epoch  was 
found  a carving  of  a cart  drawn  by  two  oxen  and  driven 
by  a man.1 

The  ancient  inhabitants  of  Eastern  Switzerland,  at  a 
time  when  they  possessed  instruments  of  polished  stone 
and  no  metals,  cultivated  several  plants,  of  which  some 
were  of  Asiatic  origin.  Heer2  has  shown,  in  his  admirable 
work  on  the  lake-dwellings,  that  the  inhabitants  had 
intercourse  with  the  countries  south  of  the  Alps.  They 
may  also  have  received  plants  cultivated  by  the  Iberians, 
who  occupied  Gaul  before  the  Kelts.  At  the  period 
when  the  lake-dwellers  of  Switzerland  and  Savoy  pos- 
sessed bronze,  their  agriculture  Avas  more  varied.  It 
seems  that  the  lake-dwellers  of  Italy,  when  in  possession 
of  this  metal,  cultivated  fewer  species  than  those  of 
Savoy,3  and  this  may  be  due  either  to  a greater  antiquity 
or  to  local  circumstances.  The  remains  of  the  lake- 
dwellers  of  Laybach  and  of  the  Mondsee  in  Austria 
prove  likewise  a completely  primitive  agriculture ; no 
cereals  have  been  found  at  Laybach,  and  but  a single 
grain  of  wheat  at  the  Mondsee.4  The  backward  condition 
of  agriculture  in  this  eastern  part  of  Europe  is  contrary 
to  the  hypothesis,  based  on  a few  words  used  by  ancient 
historians,  that  the  Aryans  sojourned  first  in  the  region 
of  the  Danube,  and  that  Thrace  was  civilized  before 
Greece.  In  spite  of  this  example,  agriculture  appears 
in  general  to-  have  been  more  ancient  in  the  temperate 
parts  of  Europe  than  we  should  be  inclined  to  believe 
from  the  Greeks,  who  were  disposed,  like  certain  modern 


1 M.  Montelius,  from  Cartailhac,  Revue,  1875,  p.  237. 

2 Heer,  Die  Pjlanzen  tier  Pfahlbavten,  in  4to,  Zurich,  18G5.  Sec  the 
article  on  “ Flax.” 

* Perrin,  Etude  Prtfhistoriq ue  de  la  Savoie,  in  4to,  1870  ; Castelfranco, 
Notizio  in  tamo  alia  Stazione  lacustre  di  Lagozza  ; and  Sordelli,  Sulla 
piante  della  torbiera  della  Lagozza,  in  the  Actes  de  la  Soc.  Ital.  des  Scien. 
Nat.,  1880. 

4 Much,  Mittheil  d.  Anthropol,  Ges.  in  Wien,  vol.  vi. ; Sacken,  Sitzber. 
Akad.  Wien.,  vol.  vi.  Letter  of  Heer  on  these  works  and  analysis  of 
them  in  Naidaillac,  i.  p.  247. 


PRIMITIVE  AGRICULTURE. 


/ 

writers,  to  attribute  the  origin  of  all  progress  to  their 
own  nation. 

In  America,  agriculture  is  perhaps  not  quite  so 
ancient  as  in  Asia  and  Egypt,  if  we  are  to  judge  from 
the  civilization  of  Mexico  and  Peru,  which  does  not  date 
even  from  the  first  centuries  of  the  Christian  era.  How- 
ever, the  widespread  cultivation  of  certain  plants,  such 
as  maize,  tobacco,  and  the  sweet  potato,  argues  a con- 
siderable antiquity,  perhaps  two  thousand  years  or  there- 
abouts. History  is  at  fault  in  this  matter,  and  we  can 
only  hope  to  be  enlightened  by  the  discoveries  of  archaeo- 
logy and  geology. 


CHAPTER  II. 

METHODS  FOR  DISCOVERING  OR  PROVING  THE  ORIGIN  OF 

SPECIES. 

1.  General  reflections.  As  most  cultivated  plants  have 
been  under  culture  from  an  early  period,  and  the  manner 
of  their  introduction  into  cultivation  is  often  little  known, 
different  means  are  necessary  in  order  to  ascertain  their 
origin.  For  each  species  we  need  a research  similar  .to 
those  made  by  historians  and  archaeologists — a varied 
research,  in  which  sometimes  one  process  is  employed, 
sometimes  another ; and  these  are  afterwards  combined 
and  estimated  according  to  their  relative  value.  The 
naturalist  is  here  no  longer  in  his  ordinary  domain  of 
observation  and  description ; he  must  support  himself 
by  historical  proof,  which  is  never  demanded  in  the 
laboratory;  and  botanical  facts  are  required,  not  with 
respect  to  the  physiology  of  plants — a favourite  study  of 
the  present  day — but  with  regard  to  the  distinction  of 
species  and  their  geographical  distribution. 

I shall,  therefore,  have  to  make  use  of  methods  of 
which  some  are  foreign  to  naturalists,  others  to  persons 
versed  in  historical  learning.  I shall  say  a few  words 
of  each,  to  explain  how  they  should  be  employed  and 
what  is  their  value. 

2.  Botany.  One  of  the  most  direct  means  of  dis- 
covering the  geographical  origin  of  a cultivated  species, 
is  to  seek  in  what  country  it  grows  spontaneously,  and 
without  the  help  of  man.  The  question  appears  at  the 
first  glance  to  be  a simple  one.  It  seems,  indeed,  that 


METHODS  FOR  PROVING  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES. 


9 


by  consulting  floras,  works  upon  species  in  general, 
or  herbaria,  we  ought  to  be  able  to  solve  it  easily  in 
each  particular  case.  Unfortunately  it  is,  on  the  contrary, 
a question  which  demands  a special  knowledge  of  botany, 
especially  of  geographical  botany,  and  an  estimate  of 
botanists  and  of  collectors,  founded  on  a long  experience. 
Learned  men,  occupied  with  history  or  with  the  inter- 
pretation of  ancient  authors,  are  liable  to  grave  mistakes 
when  they  content  themselves  with  the  first  testimony 
they  may  happen  to  light  upon  in  a botanical  work. 
On  the  other  hand,  travellers  who  collect  plants  for  a 
herbarium  are  not  always  sufficiently  observant  of  the 
places  and  circumstances  in  which  they  find  them. 
They  often  neglect  to  note  down  what  they  have 
remarked  on  the  subject.  We  know,  however,  that  a 
plant  may  have  sprung  from  others  cultivated  in  the 
neighbourhood ; that  birds,  winds,  etc.,  may  have  borne 
the  seeds  to  great  distances;  that  they  are  sometimes 
brought  in  the  ballast  of  vessels  or  mixed  with  their 
cargoes.  Such  cases  present  themselves  with  respect 
to  common  species,  much  more  so  with  respect  to  culti- 
vated plants  which  abound  near  human  dwellings.  A 
collector  or  traveller  had  need  be  a keen  observer  to 
judge  if  a plant  has  sprung  from  a wild  stock  belonging 
to  the  flora  of  the  country,  or  if  it  is  of  foreign  origin. 
When  the  plant  is  growing  near  dwellings,  on  walls, 
among  rubbish-heaps,  by  the  wayside,  etc.,  we  should  be 
cautious  in  forming  an  opinion. 

It  may  also  happen  that  a plant  strays  from  cultiva- 
tion, even  to  a distance  from  suspicious  localities,  and 
has  nevertheless  but  a short  duration,  because  it  cannot 
in  the  long  run  support  the  conditions  of  the  climate  or 
the  struggle  with  the  indigenous  species.  This  is  what 
is  called  in  botany  an  advent ive  species.  It  appears 
and  disappears,  a proof  that  it  is  not  a native  of  the 
country.  Every  flora  offers  numerous  examples  of  this 
kind.  When  these  are  more  abundant  than  usual,  the 
public  is  struck  by  the  circumstance.  Thus,  the  troops 
hastily  summoned  from  Algeria  into  France  in  1870, 
disseminated  by  fodder  and  otherwise  a number  of 


10 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


African  and  southern  species  which  excited  wonder,  but 
of  which  no  trace  remained  after  two  or  three  winters. 

Some  collectors  and  authors  of  floras  are  very  careful 
in  noting  these  facts.  Thanks  to  personal  relations 
with  some  of  them,  and  to  frequent  references  to  their 
herbaria  and  botanical  works,  I flatter  myself  I am 
acquainted  with  them.  I shall,  therefore,  willingly 
cite  their  testimony  in  doubtful  cases.  For  certain 
countries  and  certain  species  I have  addressed  myself 
directly  to  these  eminent  naturalists.  I have  appealed 
to  their  memory,  to  their  notes,  to  their  herbaria,  and  from 
the  answers  they  have  been  so  kind  as  to  return,  I have 
been  enabled  to  add  unpublished  documents  to  those 
found  in  works  already  made  public.  My  sincere  thanks 
are  due  for  information  of  this  nature  received  from 
Mr.  C.  B.  Clarke  on  the  plants  of  India,  from  M.  Boissier 
on  those  of  the  East,  from  M.  Sagot  on  the  species  of 
French  Guiana,  from  M.  Cosson  on  those  of  Algeria,  from 
MM.  Decaisne  and  Bretschneider  on  the  plants  of  China, 
from  M.  Pancic  on  the  cereals  of  Servia,  from  Messrs. 
Bentham  and  Baker  on  the  specimens  of  the  herbarium 
at  Kew,  lastly  from  M.  Edouard  Andrd  on  the  plants  of 
America.  This  zealous  traveller  was  kind  enough  to 
lend  me  some  most  interesting  specimens  of  species 
cultivated  in  South  America,  which  he  found  presenting 
every  appearance  of  indigenous  plants. 

A more  difficult  question,  and  one  which  cannot  be 
solved  at  once,  is  whether  a plant  growing  wild,  with 
all  the  appearance  of  the  indigenous  species,  has  existed 
in  the  country  from  a very  early  period,  or  has  been 
introduced  at  a more  or  less  ancient  date. 

For  there  are  naturalized  species,  that  is,  those  that 
are  introduced  among  the  plants  of  the  ancient  flora,  and 
which,  although  of  foreign  origin,  persist  there  in  such  a 
manner  that  observation  alone  cannot  distinguish  them,  so 
that  historical  records  or  botanical  considerations,  whether 
simple  or  geographical,  are  needed  for  their  detection. 
In  a very  general  sense,  taking  into  consideration  the 
lengthened  periods  with  which  science  is  concerned,  nearly 
all  species,  especially  in  the  regions  lying  outside  the 


METHODS  FOR  PROVING  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES. 


11 


tropics,  have  been  once  naturalized ; that  is  to  say,  they 
have,  from  geographical  and  physical  circumstances, 
passed  from  one  region  to  another.  When,  in  1855,  I 
put  forward  the  idea  that  conditions  anterior  to  our 
epoch  determined  the  greater  number  of  the  facts  of  the 
actual  distribution  of  plants — this  was  the  sense  of 
several  of  the  articles,  and  of  the  conclusion  of  my  two 
volumes  of  geographical  botany  1 — it  was  received  with 
considerable  surprise.  It  is  true  that  general  considera- 
tions of  palaeontology  had  just  led  Dr.  Unger,2  a German 
savant,  to  adopt  similar  ideas,  and  before  him  Edward 
Forbes  had,  with  regard  to  some  species  of  the  southern 
counties  of  the  British  Isles,  suggested  the  hypothesis 
of  an  ancient  connection  with  Spain.3  But  the  proof 
that  it  is  impossible  to  explain  the  habitations  of  the 
whole  number  of  present  species  by  means  of  the  con- 
ditions existing  for  some  thousands  of  years,  made  a 
greater  impression,  because  it  belonged  more  especially 
to  the  department  of  botanists,  and  did  not  relate  to 
only  a few  plants  of  a single  country.  The  hypothesis 
suggested  by  Forbes  became  an  assured  fact  and  capable 
of  general  application,  and  is  now  a truism  of  science.  All 
that  is  written  on  geographical  or  zoological  botany  rests 
upon  this  basis,  which  is  no  longer  contested. 

This  principle,  in  its  application  to  each  country  and 
each  species,  presents  a number  of  difficulties ; for  when 
a cause  is  once  recognized,  it  is  not  always  easy  to  dis- 
cover how  it  has  affected  each  particular  case.  Luckily, 
so  far  as  cultivated  plants  are  concerned,  the  questions 
which  occur  do  not  make  it  necessary  to  go  back  to 
very  ancient  times,  nor  to  dates  which  cannot  be  defined 
by  a given  number  of  years  or  centuries.  No  doubt  the 
modem  specific  forms  date  from  a period  earlier  than 
the  great  extension  of  glaciers  in  the  northern  hemi- 

' Alph.  do  Candolle,  Qdographie  Botanique  Raisonnde,  clmp.  x.  p. 
10d5  ; chap,  xi.,  xix.,  xxvii. 

* ^'ger,  Versuch  einer  Qeschichto  der  Pjlanzenwelt,  1852. 

I oi'bes,  On  the  Connection  between  the  Distribution  of  the  Existing 
Fauna  and  Flora  of  the  British  Isles,  with  the  Geological  Changes  which 
have  affected  their  Area,  in  8vo,  Memoirs  of  the  Geological  Survey,  vol.  i. 


12 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


sphere — a phenomenon  of  several  thousand  years’  duration, 
if  we  are  to  judge  from  the  size  of  the  deposits  transported 
by  the  ice  ; but  cultivation  began  after  this  epoch,  and 
even  in  many  instances  within  historic  time.  We  have 
little  to  do  with  previous  events.  Cultivated  species 
may  have  changed  their  abode  before  cultivation,  or  in 
the  course  of  a longer  time  they  may  have  changed  their 
form ; this  belongs  to  the  general  study  of  all  organized 
life,  and  we  are  concerned  only  with  the  examination 
of  each  species  since  its  cultivation  or  in  the  time 
immediately  before  it.  This  is  a great  simplification. 

The  question  of  age,  thus  limited,  may  be  approached 
by  means  of  historical  or  other  records,  of  -which  I shall 
presently  speak,  and  by  the  principles  of  geographical 
botany. 

I shall  briefly  enumerate  these,  in  order  to  show 
in  what  manner  they  can  aid  in  the  discovery  of  the 
geographical  origin  of  a given  plant. 

As  a rule,  the  abode  of  each  species  is  constant,  er 
nearly  constant.  It  is,  however,  sometimes  disconnected ; 
that  is  to  say,  that  the  individuals  of  which  it  is  com- 
posed are  found  in  widely  separated  regions.  These  cases, 
which  are  extremely  interesting  in  the  study  of  the 
vegetable  kingdom  and  of  the  surface  of  the  globe,  are 
far  from  forming  the  majority.  Therefore,  when  a culti- 
vated species  is  found  wild,  frequently  in  Europe,  more 
rarely  in  the  United  States,  it  is  probable  that,  in  spite, 
of  its  indigenous  appearance  in  America,  it  has  become 
naturalized  after  being  accidentally  transported  thither. 

The  genera  of  the  vegetable  kingdom,  although 
usually  composed  of  several  species,  are  often  confined 
to  a single  region.  It  follows,  that  the  more  species 
included  in  a genus  all  belonging  to  the  same  quarter 
of  the  globe,  the  more  probable  it  is  that  one  of  the 
species,  apparently  indigenous  in  another  part  of  the 
world,  has  been  transported  thither  and  lias  become 
naturalized  there,  by  escaping  from  cultivation.  This 
is  especially  the  case  with  tropical  genera,  because  they 
are  more  often  restricted  cither  to  the  old  or  to  the  new 
world. 


METHODS  FOR  PROVING  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.  13 

Geographical  botany  teaches  us  what  countries  have 
genera  and  even  species  in  common,  in  spite  of  a certain 
distance,  and  what,  on  the  contrary,  are  very  different, 
in  spite  of  similarity  of  climate  or  inconsiderable  dis- 
tance. It  also  teaches  us  what  species,  genera,  and 
families  are  scattered  over  a wide  area,  and  the  more 
limited  extent  of  others.  These  data  are  of  great  assist- 
ance in  determining  the  probable  origin  of  a given 
species.  Naturalized  plants  spread  rapidly.  I have 
quoted  examples  elsewhere 1 of  instances  within  the  last 
two  centuries,  and  similar  facts  have  been  noted  from 
year  to  year.  The  rapidity  of  the  recent  invasion  of 
Anacharis  Alsinastrum  into  the  rivers  of  Europe  is  well 
known,  and  that  of  many  European  plants  in  New' 
Zealand,  Australia,  California,  etc.,  mentioned  in  several 
floras  or  modern  travels. 

The  great  abundance  of  a species  is  no  proof  of  its 
antiquity.  Agave  Americana,  so  common  on  the  shores 
of  the  Mediterranean,  although  introduced  from  America, 
and  our  cardoon,  which  now  covers  a great  part  of  the 
Pampas  of  La  Plata,  are  remarkable  instances  in  point. 
As  a rule,  an  invading  species  makes  rapid  way,  while 
extinction  is,  on  the  contrary,  the  result  of  the  strife  of 
several  centuries  against  unfavourable  circumstances.2 

The  designation  which  should  be  adopted  for  allied 
species,  or,  to  speak  scientifically,  allied  forms,  is  a 
problem  often  presented  in  natural  history,  and  more 
often  in  the  category  of  cultivated  species  than  in  others. 
These  plants  are  changed  by  cultivation.  Man  adopts 
new  and  convenient  forms,  and  propagates  them  by 
artificial  means,  such  as  budding,  grafting,  the  choice  of 
seeds,  etc.  It  is  clear  that,  in  order  to  discover  the  origin 
ot  one  of  these  species,  we  must  eliminate  as  far  as  possible 
the  forms  which  appear  to  be  artificial,  and  concentrate  our 
attention  on  the  others.  A simple  reflection  may  guide 
this  choice,  namely,  that  a cultivated  species  varies 
chiefly  in  those  parts  for  which  it  is  cultivated.  The 
others  remain  unmodified,  or  present  trifling  alterations, 

1 A.  do  Canclollo,  Q6og raphie  Botanique  llaisonnde,  chap,  vii.and  x. 

2 Ibid.,  cliap.  viii.  p.  80-1. 


It 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


of  which  the  cultivator  takes  no  note,  because  they  arc 
useless  to  him.  We  may  expect,  therefore,  to  find  the 
fruit  of  a wild  fruit  tree  small  and  of  a doubtfully 
agreeable  flavour,  the  grain  of  a cereal  in  its  wild  state 
small,  the  tubercles  of  a wild  potato  small,  the  leaves  of 
indigenous  tobacco  narrow,  etc.,  without,  however,  going 
so  far  as  to  imagine  that  the  species  developed  rapidly 
under  cultivation,  for  man  would  not  have  begun  to 
cultivate  it  if  it  had  not  from  the  beginning  presented 
some  useful  or  agreeable  qualities. 

When  once  a cultivated  plant  has  been  reduced  to 
such  a condition  as  permits  of  its  being  reasonably 
compared  with  analogous  spontaneous  forms,  we  have 
still  to  decide  what  group  of  nearly  similar  plants  it  is 
proper  to  designate  as  constituting  a species.  Botanists 
alone  are  competent  to  pronounce  an  opinion  on  this 
question,  since  they  are  accustomed  to  appreciate  differ- 
ences and  resemblances,  and  know  the  confusion  of 
certain  works  in  the  matter  of  nomenclature.  Thig  is 
not  the  place  to  discuss  what  may  reasonably  be  termed 
a species.  I have  stated  in  some  of  my  articles  the 
principles  which  seem  to  me  the  best.  As  their  applica- 
tion would  often  require  a study  which  has  not  been 
made,  I have  thought  it  well  occasionally  to  treat  quasi- 
specific forms  as  a group  which  appears  to  me  to  corre- 
spond to  a species,  and  I have  sought  the  geographical 
origin  of  these  forms  as  though  they  were  really  specific. 

To  sum  up : botany  furnishes  valuable  means  of 
guessing  or  proving  the  origin  of  cultivated,  plants  and 
for  avoiding  mistakes.  We  must,  however,  by  no  means 
forget  that  practical  observation  must  be  supplemented 
by  research  in  the  study.  After  gaining  information 
from  the  collector  who  sees  the  plants  in  a given  spot 
or  district,  and  who  draws  up  a flora  or  a catalogue  of 
species,  it  is  indispensable  to  study  the  known  or  probable 
geographical  distribution  in  books  and  in  herbaria,  and 
to  reflect  upon  the  principles  of  geographical  botany 
and  on  the  questions  of  classification,  which  cannot  be 
done  by  travelling  or  collecting.  Other  researches,  of 
which  I shall  speak  presently,  must  be  combined  with 


METHODS  FOR  PROVING  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES. 


15 


those  of  botany  if  we  would  arrive  at  satisfactory  con- 
clusions. 

3.  Archaeology  and  Palaeontology.  The  most  direct 
proof  which  can  be  conceived  of  the  ancient  existence 
-of  a species  in  a given  country  is  to  see  its  recognizable 
fragments  in- old  buildings  or  deposits,  of  a more  or  less 
certain  date. 

The  fruits,  seeds,  and  different  portions  of  plants 
taken  from  ancient  Egyptian  tombs,  and  the  drawings 
which  surround  them  in  the  pyramids,  have  given  rise 
to  most  important  researches,  which  I shall  often  have  to 
mention.  Nevertheless,  there  is  a possible  source  of  error ; 
the  fraudulent  introduction  of  modern  plants  into  the 
sarcophagi  of  the  mummies.  This  was  easily  discovered 
in  the  case  of  some  grains  of  maize,  for  instance,  a plant 
of  American  origin,  which  were  introduced  by  the  Arabs  ; 
but  species  cultivated  in  Egypt  within  the  last  two  or 
three  thousand  years  may  have  been  added,  which  would 
thus  appear  to  have  belonged  to  an  earlier  period.  The 
tumuli  or  mounds  of  North  America,  and  the  monuments 
of  the  ancient  Mexicans  and  Peruvians,  have  furnished 
records  about  the  plants  cultivated  in  that  part  of  the 
world.  Here  we  are  concerned  with  an  epoch  subsequent 
to  the  pyramids  of  Egypt. 

The  deposits  of  the  Swiss  lake-dwellings  have  been 
the  subject  of  important  treatises,  among  which  that  of 
Heer,  quoted  just  now,  holds  the  first  place.  Similar 
works  have  been  published  on  the  vegetable  remains 
found  in  other  lakes  or  peat  mosses  of  Switzerland,  Savoy, 
Germany,  and  Italy.  I shall  quote  them  with  reference 
to  several  species.  Dr.  Gross  has  been  kind  enough  to 
send  me  seeds  and  fruits  taken  from  the  lake-dwellings 
of  Neuchatel;  and  my  colleague,  Professor  Heer,  has 
favoured  me  with  sevei’al  facts  collected  at  Zurich  since 
the  publication  of  his  work.  I have  already  said  that 
the  rubbish-heaps  of  the  Scandinavian  countries,  called 
kitchen-middens,  have  furnished  no  trace  of  cultivated 
vegetables. 

The  tufa  of  the  south  of  France  contains  leaves  and 
other  remains  of  plants,  which  have  been  discovered  by 


1G 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


MM.  Martins,  Planckon,  do  Saporta,  and  other  savants. 
Their  date  is  not,  perhaps,  always  earlier  than  that  of  the 
first  lacustrine  deposits,  and  it  is  possible  that  it  agrees 
with  that  of  ancient  Egyptian  monuments,  and  of  ancient 
Chinese  books.  Lastly,  the  mineralogic  strata,  with 
which  geologists  are  specially  concerned,  tell  us  much 
about  the  succession  of  vegetable  forms  in  different 
countries;  but  here  we  are  dealing  with  epochs  far 
anterior  to  agriculture,  and  it  would  be  a strange  and 
certainly  a most  valuable  chance  if  a modem  cultivated 
species  were  discovered  in  the  European  tertiary  epoch. 
No  such  discovery  has  hitherto  been  made  with  any 
certainty,  though  uncultivated  species  have  been  recog- 
nized in  strata  prior  to  the  glacial  epoch  of  the  northern 
hemisphere.  For  the  rest,  if  we  do  not  succeed  in 
finding  them,  the  consequences  will  not  be  clear,  since 
it  may  be  said,  either  that  such  a plant  came  at  a later 
date  from  a different  region,  or  that  it  had  formerly 
another  form  which  renders  its  recognition  impossible 
in  a fossil  state.  • 

4.  History.  Historical  records  are  important  in  order 
to  determine  the  date  of  certain  cultures  in  each  country. 
They  also  give  indications  as  to  the  geographical  origin 
of  plants  when  they  have  been  propagated  by  the  migra- 
tions of  ancient  peoples,  by  travellers,  or  by  militarv 
expeditions. 

The  assertions  of  authors  must  not,  however,  be 
accepted  without  examination. 

The  greater  number  of  ancient  historians  have  con- 
fused the  fact  of  the  cultivation  of  a species  in  a country 
with  that  of  its  previous  existence  there  in  a wild  state. 
It  has  been  commonly  asserted,  even  in  our  own  day, 
that  a species  cultivated  in  America  or  China  is  a native 
of  America  or  China.  A no  less  common  error  is  the 
belief  that  a species  comes  originally  from  a given 
country  because  it  has  come  to  us  from  thence,  and  not 
direct  from  the  place  in  which  it  is  really  indigenous. 
Thus  the  Greeks  and  Romans  called  the  peach  the 
Persian  apple,  because  they  had  seen  it  cultivated  in 
Persia,  where  it  probably  did  not  grow  wild.  It  was  a 


METHODS  FOR  PROVING  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.  17 


native  of  China,  as  I have  elsewhere  shown.  They  called 
the  pomegranate,  which  had  spread  gradually  from 
garden  to  garden  from  Persia  to  Mauritania,  the  apple  of 
Carthage  {Malum  Punicum).  , Very  ancient  authors, 
such  as  Herodotus  and  Berosius,  are  yet  more  liable  to 
error,  in  spite  of  their  desire  to  be  accurate. 

We  shall  see,  when  we  speak  of  maize,  that  historical 
documents  which  are  complete  forgeries  may  deceive  us 
about  the  origin  of  a species.  It  is  curious,  for  it  seems 
to  be  no  one’s  interest  to  lie  about  such  agricultural  facts. 
Fortunately,  facts  of  botany  and  archaeology  enable  us  to 
detect  errors  of  this  nature. 

The  principal  difficulty,  which  commonly  occurs  in 
the  case  of  ancient  historians,  is  to  find  the  exact  trans- 
lation of  the  names  of  plants,  which  in  their  books 
always  bear  the  common  names.  I shall  speak  presently 
of  the  value  of  these  names  and  how  the  science  of 
language  may  be  brought  to  bear  on  the  questions  with 
which  we  are  occupied,  but  I must  first  indicate  those 
; historical  notions  which  are  most  useful  in  the  study  of 
cultivated  plants. 

Agriculture  came  originally,  at  least  so  far  as  the 
■ principal  species  are  concerned,  from  three  great  regions, 
in  which  certain  plants  grew,  regions  which  had  no  com- 
munication with  each  other.  These  are — China,  the  south- 
west of  Asia  (with  Egypt),  and  intertropical  America. 
I do  not  mean  to  say  that  in  Europe,  in  Africa,  and 
else  where  savage  tribes  may  not  have  cultivated  a few 
species  locally,  at  an  early  epoch,  as  an  addition  to  the 
resources  of  hunting  and  fishing;  but  the  great  civiliza- 
tions based  upon  agriculture  began  in  the  three  regions 
I have  indicated.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  in  the 
old  world  agricultural  communities  established  them- 
selves along  the  banks  of  the  rivers,  whereas  in  America 
they  dwelt  on  the  high  lands  of  Mexico  and  Peru.  This 
may  perhaps  have  been  due  to  the  original  situation  of 
the  plants  suitable  for  cultivation,  for  the  banks  of  the 
'Mississippi,  of  the  Amazon,  of  the  Orinoco,  are  not  more 
unhealthy  than  those  of  the  rivers  of  the  old  world. 

A few  words  about  each  of  the  three  regions. 


I 


18 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


China  had  already  possessed  for  some  thousands  of 
years  a flourishing  agriculture  and  even  horticulture, 
when  she  entered  for  the  first  time  into  relations  with 
Western  Asia,  bv  the  mission  of  Chang-Kien,  during  the 
reign  of  the  Emperor  Wu-ti,  in  the  second  century  before 
the  Christian  era.  The  records,  known  as  Pent-sao, 
written  in  our  Middle  Ages,  state  that  he  brought  back 
the  bean,  the  cucumber,  the  lucern,  the  saffron,  the 
sesame,  the  walnut,  the  pea,  spinach,  the  water-melon, 
and  other  western  plants,1  then  unknown  to  the  Chinese. 
Chang-Kien,  it  will  be  observed,  was  no  ordinary  ambas- 
sador. He  considerably  enlarged  the  geographical  know- 
ledge, and  improved  the  economic  condition  of  his 
countrymen.  It  is  true  that  he  was  constrained  to  dwell 
ten  years  in  the  West,  and  that  he  belonged  to  an  already 
civilized  people,  one  of  whose  emperors  had,  2700  B.C., 
consecrated  with-  imposing  ceremonies  the  cultivation  of 
certain  plants.  The  Mongolians  were  too  barbarous,  and 
came  from  too  cold  a country,  to  have  been  able  to  intro- 
duce many  useful  species  into  China;  but  when  we 
consider  the  origin  of  the  peach  and  the  apricot,  we  shall 
see  that  these  plants  were  brought  into  China  from 
Western  Asia,  probably  by  isolated  travellers,  merchants 
or  others,  who  passed  north  of  the  Himalayas.  A few 
species  spread  in  the  same  way  into  China  from  the 
West  before  the  embassy  of  Chang-Kien. 

Regular  communication  between  China  and  India 
only  began  in  the  time  of  Chang-Kien,  and  by  the  cir- 
cuitous way  of  Bactriana;2  but  gradual  transmissions 
from  place  to  place  may  have  been  effected  through,  the 
Malay  Peninsula  and  Cochin-China.  The  writers  of 
Northern  China  may  have  been  ignorant  of  them,  and 
especially  since  the  southern  provinces  were  only  united 
to  the  empire  in  the  second  century  before  Christ.3 

Regular  communications  between  China  and  Japan 
only  took  place  about  the  year  57  of  our  era,  when 
an  ambassador  was  sent;  and  the  Chinese  had  no  real 
knowledge  of  their  eastern  neighbours  until  the  third 

“ Bretschneider,  On  the  Study  and  Value,  etc.,  p.  15. 
a Ibid.  3 Ibid.,  p.  23. 


METHODS  FOR  PROVING  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES. 


19 


century,  when  the  Chinese  character  was  introduced 
into  Japan.1 

The  vast  region  which  stretches  from  the  Ganges  to 
Armenia  and  the  Nile  was  not  in  ancient  times  so 
isolated  as  China.  Its  inhabitants  exchanged  cultivated 
plants  with  great  facility,  and  even  transported  them 
to  a distance.  It  is  enough  to  remember  that  ancient 
migrations  and  conquests  continually  intermixed  the 
Turanian,  Aryan,  and  Semitic  peoples  between  the 
Caspian  Sea,  Mesopotamia,  and  the  Nile.  Great  states 
were  formed  nearly  at  the  same  time  on  the  banks  of 
the  Euphrates  and  in  Egypt,  but  they  succeeded  to 
tribes  which  had  already  cultivated  certain  plants.  Agri- 
culture is  older  in  that  region  than  Babylon  and  the  first 
Egyptian  dynasties,  which  date  from  more  than  four 
thousand  years  ago.  The  Assyrian  and  Egyptian  em- 
pires afterwards  fought  for  supremacy,  and  in  their 
struggles  they  transported  whole  nations,  which  could 
not  fail  to  spread  cultivated  species.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Aryan  tribes  who  dwelt  originally  to  the  north  of 
Mesopotamia,  in  a land  less  favourable  to  agriculture, 
spread  westward  and  southward,  driving  out  or  subju- 
gating the  Turanian  and  Dravidian  nations.  Their  speech, 
and  those  which  are  derived  from  it  in  Europe  and  Hin- 
dustan, show  that  they  knew  and  transported  several 
useful  species.2  After  these  ancient  events,  of  which  the 
dates  are  for  the  most  part  uncertain,  the  voyages  of  the 
Phoenicians,  the  wars  between  the  Greeks  and  Persians, 
Alexander’s  expedition  into  India,  and  finally  the  Roman 
rale,  completed  the  spread  of  cultivation  in  the  interior 
of  Western  Asia,  and  even  introduced  it  into  Europe  and 
the  north  of  Africa,  wherever  the  climate  permitted. 

Later,  at  the  time  of  the  crusades,  very  few  useful 
plants  yet  remained  to  be  brought  from  the  East.  A 

Atgumo-gusa.  Eecueil  pour  servir  A la  connaissancc  do  l’ extreme 
Orient,  Turretini,  vol.  vi.,  pp.  200,  293. 

Uicre  are  in  the  French  language  two  excellent  works,  which  give 
the  sum  of  modern  knowledge  with  regard  to  the  East  and  Egypt.  The 
one  is  the  3 fanuet  do  VHistoirc  Ancienne  do  VOrient,  by  Francois  Lonor. 
mand,  3 vols.  in  12mo,  Paris,  1869;  the  other,  L’ Histoire  Ancienne  deg 
I'ei'ples  de  VOrient , by  Muspero,  1 vol.  in  8vo,  Paris,  1878. 


20 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


few  varieties  of  fruit  trees  which  the  Romans  did  not 
possess,  and  some  ornamental  plants,  were,  however,  then 
brought  to  Europe. 

The  discovery  of  America  in  1492  was  the  last  great 
event  which  caused  the  diffusion  of  cultivated  plants 
into  all  countries.  The  American  species,  such  as  the 
potato,  maize,  the  prickly  pear,  tobacco,  etc.,  were  first 
imported  into  Europe  and  Asia.  Then  a number  of 
species  from  the  old  Avorld  were  introduced  into  America. 
The  voyage  of  Magellan  (1520-152  L)  was  the  first  direct 
communication  between  South  America  and  Asia.  In  the 
same  century  the  slave  trade  multiplied  communications 
between  Africa  and  America.  Lastly,  the  discovery  of 
the  Pacific  Islands  in  the  eighteenth  century,  and  the 
growing  facility  of  the  means  of  communication,  combined 
with  a general  idea  of  improvement,  produced  that  more 
general  dispersion  of  useful  plants  of  which  we  are 
witnesses  at  the  present  day. 

5.  Philology.  The  common  names  of  cultivated  plants 
are  usually  well  known,  and  may  afford  indications  touch- 
ing the  history  of  a species,  but  there  are  examples 
in  which  they  are  absurd,  based  upon  errors,  or  vague 
and  doubtful,  and  this  involves  a certain  caution  in 
their  use. 

I could  quote  a number  of  such  names  in  all  languages; 
it  is  enough  to  mention,  in  French,  bl4  dc  Turquie,  maize, 
a plant  which  is  not  a wheat,  and  which  comes  from 
America;  in  English,  Jerusalem  artichoke  ( Helianthus 
fuberosus),  which  does  not  come  from  Jerusalem,  but 
from  North  America,  and  is  no  artichoke. 

A number  of  names  given  to  foreign  plants  by 
Europeans  when  they  are  settled  in  the  colonies,  ex- 
press false  or  insignificant  analogies.  For  instance,  the 
New  Zealand  flax  resembles  the  true  flax  as  little  as 
possible ; it  is  merely  that  a textile  substance  is  obtained 
from  its  leaves.  The  mahogany  apple  (cashew)  of  the 
French  West  India  Isles  is  not  an  apple,  nor  even  the 
fruit  of  a pomaceous  tree,  and  has  nothing  to  do  with 
mahogany. 

Sometimes  the  common  names  have  changed,  in 


METHODS  FOR  PROVING  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES. 


passing  from  one  language  to  another,  in  such  a manner 
as  to  give  a false  or  absurd  meaning.  Thus  the  tree  of 
Judea  of  the  French  ( Cercis  Siliquastrum ) has  become 
the  Judas  tree  in  English.  The  fruit  called  by  the 
Mexicans  ahuaca,  is  become  the  ctvocat  (lawyer)  of  the 
French  colonists. 

Not  unfrequently  names  of  plants  have  been  taken 
by  the  same  people  at  successive  epochs  or  in  different 
provinces,  sometimes  as  generic,  sometimes  as  specific 
names.  The  French  word  hie,  for  instance,  may  mean 
several  species  of  the  genus  Triticum,  and  even  of  very 
different  nutritious  plants  (maize  and  wheat),  or  a given 
species  of  wheat. 

Several  common  names  have  been  transferred  from 
one  plant  to  another  through  error  or  ignorance.  Thus 
the  confusion  made  by  early  travellers  between  the 
sweet  potato  ( Convolvulus  Batatas ) and  the  potato 
(>S 'ola/rmm  tuberosum ) has  caused  the  latter  to  be  called 
potato  in  English  and  patatas  in  Spanish. 

If  modem,  civilized  peoples,  who  have  great  facilities 
for  comparing  species,  learning  their  origin  and  verifying 
their  names  in  books,  have  made,  such  mistakes,  it  is 
probable  that  ancient  nations  have  made  many  and 
more  grave  errors.  Scholars  display  vast  learning  in 
1 explaining  the  philological  origin  of  a name,  or  its 
: modifications  in  derived  languages,  but  they  cannot 
discover  popular  errors  or  absurdities.  It  is  left  for 
botanists  to  discover  and  point  them  out.  We  may  note, 
in  passing,  that  the  double  or  compound  names  are  the 
most  doubtful.  They  may  consist  of  two  mistakes  ; one 
in  the  root  or  principal  name,  the  other  in  the  addition 
or  accessory  name,  destined  almost  always  to  indicate 
the  geographical  origin,  some  visible  quality,  or  some 
comparison  with  other  species.  The  shorter  a name 
is,,  the  better  it  merits  consideration  in  questions  of 
origin  or  antiquity ; for  it  is  by  the  succession  of  years, 
of  the  migrations  of  peoples,  and  of  the  transport  of 
plants,  that  the  addition  of  often  erroneous  epithets  takes 
place.  Similarly,  in  symbolic  writing,  like  that  of  the 
Chinese  and  the  Egyptians,  unique  and  simple  signs 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


-22 

indicate  long-known  species,  not  imported  from  foreign 
countries,  while  complicated  signs  are  doubtful  or  indi- 
cate a foreign  origin.  We  must  not  forget,  however,  that 
the  signs  have  often  been  rebuses,  based  on  chance 
resemblances  in  the  words,  or  on  superstitious  and  fanciful 
ideas. 

The  identity  of  a common  name  for  a given  species 
in  several  languages  may  have  two  very  different  ex- 
planations. It  may  be  because  a plant  has  been  spread 
by  a people  which  has  been  dispersed  and  scattered.  It 
may  also  result  from  the  transmission  of  a plant  from 
one  people  to  another  with  the  name  it  bore  in  its  original 
home.  The  first  case  is  that  of  the  hemp,  of  which  the 
name  is  similar,  at  least  as  to  the  root,  in  all  the  tongues 
derived  from  the  primitive  Aryan  stock.  The  second  is 
seen  in  the  American  name  of  tobacco,  the  Chinese  of 
tea,  which  have  spread  into  a number  of  countries, 
without  any  philological  or  ethnographic  filiation.  This 
case  has  occurred  oftener  in  modern  than  in  aficient 
times,  because  the  rapidity  of  communications  allows  of 
the  simultaneous  introduction  of  a plant  and  of  its  name, 
even  where  the  distance  is  great. 

The  diversity  of  names  for  the  same  species  may  also 
spring  from  various  causes.  As  a rule,  it  indicates  an 
early  existence  in  different  countries,  but  it  may  also 
arise  from  the  mixture  of  races,  or  from  names  of  varieties 
which  take  the  place  of  the  original  name.  Thus  in 
England  we  find,  according  to  the  county,  a Keltic, 
Saxon,  Danish,  or  Latin  name ; and  flax  bears  in  Germany 
the  names  oifiachs  and  kin,  words  which  are  evidently  of 
different  origin. 

When  we  desire  to  make  use  of  the  common  names 
to  gather  from  them  certain  probabilities  regarding  the 
origin  of  species,  it  is  necessary  to  consult  dictionaries 
and  the  dissertations  of  philologists ; but  we  must  take 
into  account  the  chances  of  error  in  these  learned  men, 
who,  since  they  are  neither  cultivators  nor  botanists,  may 
have  made  mistakes  in  the  application  of  a name  to  a 
species. 

The  most  considerable  collection  of  common  names  is 


METHODS  FOR  PROVING  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES. 


23 


that  of  Nemnich,  published  in  1703.1 *  I have  anothei’  in 
manuscript  which  is  yet  more  complete,  drawn  up  in 
our  library  by  an  old  pupil  of  mine,  Moritzi,  by  means  of 
floras  and  of  several  books  of  travel  written  by  botanists. 
There  are,  besides,  dictionaries  of  the  names  of  the  species 
in  given  countries  or  in  some  special  language.  This  kind 
of  glossary  does  not  often  contain  explanations  of  etymo- 
logy 5 but  in  spite  of  what  Helm 3 may  say,  a naturalist 
possessed  of  an  ordinary  general  education  can  recognize 
the  connection  or  the  fundamental  differences  between 
certain  names  in  different  languages,  and  need  not  con- 
found modern  with  ancient  languages.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  be  initiated  into  the  mysteries  of  suffixes  or  affixes, 
of  dentals  and  labials.  No  doubt  the  researches  of  a 
philologist  into  etymologies  are  more  profound  and  valu- 
able, but  this  is  rarely  necessary  -when  our  researches 
have  to  do  with  cultivated  plants.  Other  sciences  arc 
more  useful,  especially  that  of  botany ; and  philologists 
are  more  often  deficient  in  these  than  naturalists  are 
deficient  in  philology,  for  the  very  evident  reason  that 
more  place  is  given  to  languages  than  to  natural  history 
in  general  education.  It  appears  to  me,  moreover,  that 
philologists,  notably  those  who  are  occupied  with  San- 
skrit, are  always  too  eager  to  find  the  etymology  of 
every  name.  They  do  not  allow  sufficiently  for  human 
stupidity,  which  has  in  all  time  given  rise  to  absurd 
words,  without  any  real  basis,  and  derived  only  from 
error  or  superstition. 

The  filiation  of  modern  European  tongues  is  known 
to  every  one.  That  of  ancient  languages  has,  for  more 
than  half  a century,  been  the  object  of  important  labours. 
Of  these  I cannot  here  give  even  a brief  notice.  It  is 
sufficient  to  recall  that  all  modern  European  languages 
are  derived  from  the  speech  of  the  Western  Aryans,  who 
came  from  Asia,  with  the  exception  of  Basque  (derived 
from  the  Iberian  language),  Finnish,  Turkish,  and  Hun- 

1 Nemnich,  AUgemeines  polyglotten-Lexicon  der  Naturgescliichte,  2 vols. 
in  4to. 

Hehn,  hulturpflanzen  und  Suusthiere  in  ilircn  Uebcrgang  uus  Asien , 

in  8vo,  3rd  edit.  1877. 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


24- 


garian,  into  which,  moreover,  words  of  Aryan  origin 
have  been  introduced.  On  the  other  hand,  several  modern 
languages  of  India,  Ceylon,  and  Java,  are  derived  from 
the  Sanskrit  of  the  Eastern  Aryans,  who  left  Central 
Asia  after  the  Western  Aryans.  It  is  supposed,  with 
sufficient  probability,  that  the  first  Western  Aryans 
came  into  Europe  2.500  B.C.,  and  the  Eastern  Aryans 
into  India  a thousand  years  later. 

Basque  (or  Iberian),  the  speech  of  the  Guanclios  of 
the  Canary  Isles,  of  which  a few  plant  names  are  known, 
and  Berber,  are  probably  connected  with  the  ancient 
tongues  of  the  north  of  Africa. 

Botanists  are  in  many  cases  forced  to  doubt  the 
common  names  attributed  to  plants  by  travellers,  his- 
torians, and  philologists.  This  is  a consequence  of  their 
own  doubts  respecting  the  distinction  of  species  and  of 
the  well-known  difficulty  of  ascertaining  the  common 
name  of  a plant.  The  uncertainty  becomes  yet  greater 
in  the  case  of  species  which  are  more  easily  confounded 
or  less  generally  known,  or  in  the  case  of  the  languages 
of  little-civilized  nations.  There  are,  so  to  speak,  degrees 
of  languages  in  this  respect,  and  the  names  should  be 
accepted  more  or  less  readily  according  to  these  degrees. 

In  the  first  rank,  for  certainty,  are  placed  those 
languages  which  possess  botanical  works.  For  instance, 
it  is  possible  to  recognize  a species  by  means  of  a Greek 
description  by  Dioscorides  or  Theophrastus,  and  by  the 
less  complete  Latin  texts  of  Cato,  Columella,  or  Pliny. 
Chinese  books  also  give  descriptions.  Dr.  Bretschneider, 
of  the  Russian  legation  at  Pekin,  has  written  some 
excellent  papers  upon  these  books,  from  which  I shall 
often  quote.1 

The  second  degree  is  that  of  languages  possessing 
a literature  composed  only  of  theological  and  poetical 
works,  or  of  chronicles  of  kings  and  battles.  Such  works 

1 Brotschncider,  On  the  Study  and  Value  of  Chinese  Botanical  It  orks, 
with  Notes  on  the.  History  of  Plants  and  Geographical  Botany  from  Chinese 
Sources,  in  Hvo,  51  pp.,  witti  illustrations,  Foochoo,  without  date,  but  the 
I we  face  bears  the  date  Dec.  1870.  botes  on  Some  Botanical  Questions, 
in  8vo,  14  pp.,  1880. 


METHODS  FOR  PROVING  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES. 


25 


make  mention  here  and  there  of  plants,  with  epithets  or 
reflections  on  their  mode  of  flowering,  their  ripening, 
their  use,  etc.,  which  allow  their  names  to  he  divined, 
and  to  be  referred  to  modern  botanical  nomenclature. 
With  the  added  help  of  a knowledge  of  the  flora  of  the 
country,  and  of  the  common  names  in  the  languages 
derived  from  the  dead  language,  it  is  possible  to  discover 
i approximately  the  sense  of  some  words.  This  is  the  case 
with  Sanskrit,1  Hebrew,2  and  Armenian.8 

Lastly,  a third  category  of  dead  languages  offers  no 
: certainty,  but  merely  presumptions  or  hypothetical  and 
rare  indications.  It  comprehends  those  tongues  in  which 
there  is  no  written  work,  such  as  Keltic,  with  its  dialects, 
the  ancient  Sclavonic,  Pelasgic,  Iberian,  the  speech  of 
the  primitive  Aryans,  Turanians,  etc.  It  is  possible  to 
. guess  certain  names  or  their  approximate  form  in  these 
dead  languages  by  two  methods,  both  of  which  should 
be  employed  with  caution. 

The  first  and  best  is  to  consult  the  languages  derived, 
or  which  we  believe  to  be  derived,  directly  from  the 
ancient  tongues,  as  Basque  for  the  Iberian  language, 
Albanian  for  the  Pelasgic,  Breton,  Erse,  and  Gaelic  for 
i Keltic.  The  danger  lies  in  the  possibility  of  mistake  in 
' the  filiation  of  the  languages,  and  especially  in  a mistaken 
belief  in  the  antiquity  of  a plant-name  which  may  have 

1 Wilson’s  dictionary  contains  names  of  plants,  but  botanists  have 
more  confidence  in  the  names  indicated  by  Roxburgh  in  his  Flora 
Indica  (edit,  of  1832,  3 vols.  in  8vo),  and  in  Piddington’s  English  Index 
to  the  Plants  of  India,  Calcutta,  1832.  Scholars  find  a greater  number 
of  words  in  the  texts,  but  they  do  not  givo  sufficient  proof  of  the  sense 
of  these  words.  As  a rule,  we  have  not  in  Sanskrit  what  wo  have  in 
Hebrew,  Greek,  and  Chinese — a quotation  of  phrases  concerning  each 
word  translated  into  a modern  language. 

The  best  work  on  the  plant-names  in  the  Old  Testament  is  that  of 
Rosenmuller,  llandbuch  der  biblischen  Allerlcunde,  in  8vo,  vol.  iv.,  Leipzig, 
1830.  A good  short  work,  in  French,  is  La  Botanique  de  la  Bible,  by 
Fred.  Hamilton,  in  8vo,  Nice,  1871. 

Rcynicr,  a Swiss  botanist,  who  had  been  in  Egypt,  has  given  tho 
sense  of  many  plant -names  in  the  Talmud.  See  his  volumes  entitled 
hconomie  J'vblique  et  Hurdle  des  Arabes  et  des  Juifs,  in  8vo,  1820 ; 
and  hconomie  I’ublique  et  Rurule  des  Egyptians  et  des  Carthagmoie , 
in  8vo,  Lausanne,  1823.  Tho  more  recent  works  of  Duschak  and  Low 
are  not  based  upon  a knowledge  of  Eastern  plants,  and  are  unintelligible 
to  botanists  because  of  names  in  Syriac  and  Hebrew  characters. 


2G  ' ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 

been  introduced  by  another  people.  Thus  the  Basque 
language  contains  many  words  which  seem  to  have  been 
taken  from  the  Latin  at  the  time  of  the  Roman  rule 
Berber  is  full  of  Arab  words,  and  Persian  of  words  of 
every  origin,  which  probably  did  not  exist  in  Zend. 

The  other  method  consists  in  reconstructing  a dead 
language  which  had  no  literature,  by  means  of  those 
which  are  derived  from  it;  for  instance,  the  speech  of 
the  Western  Aryans,  by  means  of  the  words  common  to 
several  European  languages  which  have  sprung  from  it. 
Fick’s  dictionary  will  hardly  serve  for  the  words  of 
ancient  Aryan  languages,  for  he  gives  but  few  plant- 
names,  and  his  arrangement  renders  it  unintelligible  to 
those  who  have  no  knowledge  of  Sanskrit.  Adolphe 
Pictet’s  work  1 is  far  more  important  to  naturalists,  and 
a second  edition,  augmented  and  improved,  has  been 
published  since  the  author’s  death.  Plant-names  and 
agricultural  terms  are  explained  and  discussed  in  this 
work,  in  a manner  all  the  more  satisfactory'  that  an 
accurate  knowledge  of  botany  is  combined  with  philology. 
If  the  author  attributes  perhaps  too  much  importance 
to  doubtful  etymologies,  he  makes  up  for  it  by  other 
knowledge,  and  by  his  excellent  method  and  lucidity. 

The  plant-names  of  the  Euskarian  or  Basque  language 
have  been  considered  from  the  point  of  view  of  their 
probable  etymology  by  the  Comte  de  Charencey,  in  Les 
Actes  de  la  Societe  Pnilologi que  (voL  i.  No.  1,  1869).  I 
shall  have  occasion  to  quote  this  work,  ol  which  the 
difficulties  were  great,  in  the  absence  of  all  literature 
and  of  all  derived  languages. 

6.  The  necessity  for  combining  the  different  methods. 
The  various  methods  of  which  I have  spoken  are  of 
unequal  value.  It  is  clear  that  when  we  have  archaeo- 
logical records  about  a given  species,  like  those  of  the 
Egyptian  monuments,  or  of  the  Swiss  lake-dwellings, 
these  are  facts  of  remarkable  accuracy.  Then  come 
the  data  furnished  bv  botany,  especially  those  on  the 
spontaneous  existence  of  a species  in  a given  country. 

• Adolphe  Pictet,  Les  Origines  de*  Peuples  I ndo-Europdens,  3 vols.  in, 
8vo,  Paris,  1878. 


METHODS  FOR  PROVING  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.  27 

These,  if  examined  with  care,  may  be  very  important. 
The  assertions  contained  in  the  works  of  historians  or 
even  of  naturalists  respecting  an  epoch  at  which  science 
was  only  beginning,  have  not  the  same  value.  Lastly, 
the  common  names  are  only  an  accessory  means,  especially 
in  modern  languages,  and  a means  which,  as  we  have 
seen,  is  not  entirely  trustworthy.  So  much  may  be 
said  in  a general  way,  but  in  each  particular  case  one 
method  or  the  other  may  be  more  or  less  important. 

Each  can  only  lead  to  probabilities,  since  we  are 
dealing  with  facts  of  ancient  dato  which  are  beyond 
the  reach  of  direct  and  actual  observation.  Fortunately, 
if  the  same  probability  is  attained  in  three  or  four 
different  ways,  we  approach  very  near  to  certainty.  The 
same  rule  .holds  good  for  researches  into  the  history  of 
plants  as  for  researches  into  the  history  of  nations.  A 
good  author  consults  historians  who  have  spoken  of 
events,  the  archives  in  which  unpublished  documents  are 
found,  the  inscriptions  on  ancient  monuments,  the  news- 
papers, private  letters,  finally  memoirs  and  even  tradition. 
He  gathers  probabilities  from  every  source,  and  then 
compares  these  probabilities,  weighs  and  discusses  them 
before  deciding.  It  is  a labour  of  the  mind  which  requires 
intelligence  and  judgment.  This  labour  differs  widely 
from  observation  employed  in  natural  history,  and  from 
pure  reason  which  is  proper  to  the  exact  sciences. 
Nevertheless,  when,  by  several  methods,  we  reach  the 
same  probability,  I repeat  that  the  latter  is  very  nearly 
a certainty.  We  may  even  say  that  it  is  as  much  a 
certainty  as  historical  science  can  pretend  to  attain. 

I have  the  proof  of  this  when  I compare  my  present 
work  with  that  which  I composed  by  the  same  methods 
in  1855.  For  the  species  which  I then  studied,  I have 
now  more  authorities  and  better  authenticated  facts, 
but  my  conclusions  on  the  origin  of  each  species  have 
scarcely  altered.  As  they  were  already  based  on  a 
combination  of  methods,  probabilities  have  usually 
become  certainties,  and  I have  not  been  led  to  conclusions 
absolutely  contrary  to  those  previously  formed. 

Archaeological,  philological,  and  botanical  data  become 


is 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


more  and  more  numerous.  By  their  means  the  history 
of  cultivated  plants  is  perfected,  while  the  assertions  of 
ancient  authors  lose  instead  of  gaining  in  importance. 
From  the  discoveries  of  antiquaries  and  philologists, 
moderns  are  better  acquainted  than  the  Greeks  with 
Chaldea  and  ancient  Egypt.  They  can  prove  mistakes 
in  Herodotus.  Botanists  on  their  side  correct  Theo- 
phrastus, Dioscorides,  and  Pliny  from  their  knowledge  of 
the  flora  of  Greece  and  Italy,  while  the  study  of  classical 
authors  to  which  learned  men  have  applied  themselves 
for  three  centuries  has  already  furnished  all  that  it  has  to 
give.  I cannot  help  smiling  when,  at  the  present  day, 
savants  repeat  well-known  Greek  and  Latin  phrases,  and 
draw  from  them  what  they  call  conclusions.  It  is  trying 
to  extract  juice  from  a lemon  which  has  already  been 
repeatedly  squeezed.  We  must  say  it  frankly,  the  works 
which  repeat  and  commentate  on  the  ancient  authors 
of  Greece  and  Rome  without  giving  the  first  place  to 
botanical  and  archaeological  facts,  are  no  longer  x>n  a 
level  with  the  science  of  the  day.  Nevertheless,  I could 
name  several  German  works  which  have  attained  to  the 
honour  of  a third  edition.  It  would  have  been  better  to 
reprint  the  earlier  publications  of  Fraas  and  Lenz,  of 
Targioni  and  Heldreich,  which  have  always  given  more 
weight  to  the  modern  data  of  botany,  than  to  the  vague 
descriptions  of  classic  authors;  that  is  to  say,  to  facts 
than  to  words  and  phrases. 


PART  II. 

On  the  Study  of  Species,  considered  as  to  their  Origin, 
their  early  Cultivation,  and  the  Principal  Facts  of  their 
Diffusion.1 


CHAPTER  I. 

PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  PARTS, 
SUCH  AS  ROOTS,  TUBERCLES,  OR  BULBS.2 

1 Radish. — Raplumius  sativus,  Linnaeus. 

The  radish  is  cultivated  for  what  is  called  the  root, 
which  is,  properly  speaking,  the  lower  part  of  the  stem 
with  the  tap  root.8  Everyone  knows  how  the  size,  shape, 
and  colour  of  those  organs  which  become  fleshy  vary 
according  to  the  soil  or  the  variety. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  species  is  indigenous  in 
the  temperate  regions  of  the  old  world ; but,  as  it  has 
been  cultivated  in  gardens  from  the  earliest  historic 
times,  from  China  and  Japan  to  Europe,  and  as  it  sows 

1 A certain  number  of  species  whose  origin  is  well  known,  such  as 
the  carrot,  sorrel,  etc.,  aro  mentioned  only  in  the  summary  at  the  bogin- 
t herri  t'1C  ^ar^’  an  indication  of  the  principal  facts  concerning 

Some  species  are  cultivated  sometimes  for  their  roots  and  some- 
nmes  tor  their  leaves  or  seeds.  In  other  chaptors  will  bo  found  species 
cultivated  sometimes  for  their  leaves  (as  fodder)  or  for  their  seeds,  etc. 
I have  classed  them  according  to  their  commonest  use.  Tho  alpha, 
betical  index  refers  to  tho  place  assigned  to  each  species. 

boc  the  young  state  of  the  plant  when  tho  part  of  the  stem  below 
1 he  cotyledons  is  not  yet  swelled.  Turpin  gives  a drawing  of  it  in  the 
Anriales  dcs  bctenccs  Naturelles,  series  1,  vol.  xxi.  pi.  5. 


30 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


itself  frequently  round  cultivated  plots,  it  is  difficult  to 
fix  upon  its  starting-point. 

Formerly  Raphanua  sativus  was  confounded  with 
kindred  species  of  the  Mediterranean  region,  to  which 
certain  Greek  names  were  attributed;  but  Gay,  the 
botanist,  who  has  done  a good  deal  towards  eliminat- 
ing these  analogous  forms,1 2  considered  R.  sativus  as  a 
native  of  the  East,  perhaps  of  China.  Linnaeus  also  sup- 
posed this  plant  to  be  of  Chinese  origin,  or  at  least  that 
variety  which  is  cultivated  in  China  for  the  sake  of  ex- 
tracting oil  from  the  seeds.3  Several  floras  of  the  south 
of  Europe  mention  the  species  as  subspontaneous  or 
escaped  from  cultivation,  never  as  spontaneous.  Lede- 
bour  had  seen  a specimen  found  near  Mount  Ararat,  had 
sown  the  seeds  of  it  and  verified  the  species.3  However, 
Boissier,4 *  in  1SG7,  in  his  Eastern  Flora,  says  that  it  is 
only  subspontaneous  in  the  cultivated  parts  of  Anatolia, 
near  Mersivan  (according  to  Wied),  in  Palestine  (on  his 
own  authority),  in  Armenia  (according  to  Ledebour),  and 
probably  elsewhere,  which  agrees  with  the  assertions 
found  in  European  floras.6  Buhse  names  a locality,  the 
Ssahend  mountains,  to  the  south  of  the  Caucasus,  tvhich 
appears  to  be  far  enough  from  cultivation.  The  recent 
Flora  of  British  India ,6  and  the  earlier  Flora  of  Cochin- 
China  by  Loureiro,  mention  the  radish  only  as  a culti- 
vated species.  Maximo wicz  saw  it  in  a garden  in  the 
north-east  of  China.7 8  Thunberg  speaks  of  it  as  a plant 
of  general  cultivation  in  Japan,  and  growing  also  by 
the  side  of  the  roads,3  but  the  latter  fact  is  not  repeated 
by  modern  authors,  who  are  probably  better  informed.9 

Herodotus  (Hist.,  1.  2,  c.  125)  speaks  of  a radish  which 
he  calls  surmaia,  used  by  the  builders  of  the  pyramid  of 

1 In  A.  de  Candolle,  (Idogr.  Hot.  RaieonnAe,  p.  820. 

2 Linnaeus,  Spec.  Plant,  p.  935. 

1 Ledebour,  FI.  Rose.,  i.  p.  225. 

4 Boissier,  FI.  Orient,  i.  p.  400. 

4 Buhse,  Aufzahlung  Transcaucasian,  p.  30. 

6 Hooker,  Flora  of  British  India,  i.  p.  166. 

' Maximowicz,  Primitio:  Florae  Amurensis,  p.  47. 

8 Thunberg,  FI.  Jap.,  p.  263. 

9 Franchet  and  Sava  tier,  Enurn.  Plant.  Jap.,  i.  p.  39. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  PARTS.  31 


Clieops,  according  to  an  inscription  upon  the  monument. 
Unger1  copied  from  Lepsius  work  two  drawings  from 
the° temple  of  Karnak,  of  which  the  first,  at  any  rate, 
appears  to  represent  the  radish. 

From  all  this  we  gather,  first,  that  the  species 
spreads  easily  from  cultivation  in  the  west  of  Asia  and 
the  south  of  "Europe,  while  it  does  not  appear  with  cer- 
tainty in  the  flora  of  Eastern  Asia ; and  secondly,  that 
in  the  regions  south  of  the  Caucasus  it  is  found  without 
any  sign  of  culture,  so  that  we  are  led  to  suppose  that 
: the  plant  is  wild  there.  From  these  two  reasons  it 
appears  to  have  come  originally  from  Western  Asia 
; between  Palestine,  Anatolia,  and  the  Caucasus,  perhaps 
also  from  Greece ; its  cultivation  spreading  east  and  west 
from  a very  early  period. 

The  common  names  support  these  hypotheses.  In 
: Europe  they  offer  little  interest  when  they  refer  to  the 
quality  of  the  root  ( radis ),  or  to  some  comparison  with 
i the  turnip  {ravaneilo  in  Italian,  rabica  in  Spanish,  etc.), 
but  the  ancient  Greeks  coined  the  special  name  raphanos 
! (easily  reared).  The  Italian  word  ramoraccio  is  derived 
from  the  Greek  armoracia,  which  was  used  for  11  sativus 
or  some  allied  species.  Modern  interpreters  have  erro- 
neously referred  this  name  to  Cochlearia  Armoracia  or 
horse-radish,  which  I shall  come  to  presently.  Semitic2 
languages  have  quite  different  names  ( fugla  in  Hebrew, 
fuu,  fidget,  Jigl,  etc.,  in  Arab.).  In  India,  according  to 
Roxburgh,8  the  common  name  of  a variety  with  an 
enormous  root,  as  large  sometimes  as  a man’s  leg,  is 
raoola  or  moolce,  in  Sanskrit  moolulca.  Lastly,  for 
Cochin-China,  China,  and  Japan,  authors  give  various 
names  which  differ  very  much  one  from  the  other.  From 
this  diversity  a cultivation  which  ranged  from  Greece  to 
Japan  must  be  very  ancient,  but  nothing  can  thence  be 
concluded  as  to  its  original  home  as  a spontaneous  plant. 

A totally  different  opinion  exists  on  the  latter  point, 

* Unger,  I’flansen  do*  Alton  JEgyptens,  p.  51,  figs.  24  and  20. 

2 In  my  manuscript  dictionary  of  common  names,  drawn  from  the 
floras  of  thirty  years  ago. 

J Roxburgh,  FI.  huh,  iii.  p.  12G. 


32  ORIGIN'  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 

which  we  must  also  examine.  Several  botanists 1 suspect 
that  Raphanus  sativus  is  simply  a particular  condition, 
with  enlarged  root  and  non-articulated  fruit,  of  Rapha- 
nus raphanistrum,  a very  common  plant  in  the  tem- 
perate cultivated  districts  of  Europe  and  Asia,  and 
which  is  also  found  in  a wild  state  in  sand  and  light 
soil  near  the  sea — for  instance,  at  St.  Sebastian,  in  lfal- 
matia,  and  at  Trebizond.2  Its  usual  haunts  are  in  deserted 
fields;  and  many  common  names  which  signify  wild 
radish,  show  the  affinity  of  the  two  plants.  I should  not 
insist  upon  this  point  if  their  supposed  identity  were  a 
mere  presumption,  but  it  rests  upon  experiments  and 
observations  which  it  is  important  to  know. 

In  R.  raphanistrum  the  siliqua  is  articulated,  that 
is  to  say,  contracted  at  intervals,  and  the  seeds  placed 
each  in  a division.  In  R.  sativus  the  siliqua  is  con- 
tinuous, and  forms  a single  cavity.  Some  botanists  had 
made  this  difference  the  basis  of  two  distinct  genera, 
Raphanistrum  and  Raphanus.  But  three  accurate  ob- 
servers, Webb,  Gay,  and  Spach,  have  noticed  among 
plants  of  Raphanus  sativus,  raised  from  the  same  seed, 
both  unilocular  and  articulated  pods,  some  of  them 
bilocular,  others  plurilocular.  Webb3  arrived  at  the 
same  results  when  he  afterwards  repeated  these  experi- 
ments, and  he  observed  yet  another  fact  of  some  import- 
ance : the  radish  which  sows  itself  by  chance,  and  is 
not  cultivated,  produced  the  siliqwc  of  Raphanistrum .4 
Another  difference  between  the  two  plants  is  in  the 
root,  fleshy  in  R.  sativus,  slender  in  R.  raphanis- 
trum; but  this  changes  with  cultivation,  as  appears 
from  the  experiments  of  Carriere,  the  head  gardener  of 
the  nurseries  of  the  Natural  History  Museum  in  Paris.5 
It  occurred  to  him  to  sow  the  seeds  of  the  slender- 

1 Webb,  Phytogr.  Canny.,  p.  83 ; Iter.  Hisp.,  p.  71 ; Boutham,  FI. 
Ilong  Kcmg,  p.  17  Hooker,  FI.  Frit.  Ind.,  i.  p.  106. 

2 Willkomm  and  Lange,  Prod.  FI.  Hisp.,  iii.  p.  748;  Viviani,  Flor. 
Dalmat.,  iii.  p.  104;  Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  i.  p.  401. 

J Webb,  Phytographia  Canariensis,  i.  p.  83. 

4 Webb,  Iter.  Hispaniense,  1838,  p.  72. 

5 Carrifcre,  Origine  des  Plantes  Domestigncs  dimmtrie  par  la  Culture 
dn  Radis  Sauvage,  in  8vo,  24  pp.,  I860. 


"LANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  PARTS.  33 

L-ooted  Raphanistncm  in  both  stiff  and  light  soil,  and  in 
bhe  fourth  generation  he  obtained  fleshy  radishes,  of 
varied  colour  aud  form  like  those  of  our  gardens.  He 
even  gives  the  figures,  which  are  really  curious  and  con- 
clusive. The  pungent  taste  of  the  radish  was  not 
wanting.  To  obtain  these  changes,  Carriere  sowed  in 
September,  so  as  to  make  the  plant  almost  biennial 
instead  of  annual.  The  thickening  of  the  root  was  the 
natural  result,  since  many  biennial  plants  have  fleshy 
:oots. 

The  inverse  experiment  remains  to  be  tried — to  sow 
cultivated  radishes  in  a poor  soil.  Probably  the  roots 
would  become  poorer  and  poorer,  while  the  siliquae  would 
become  more  and  more  articulated. 

From  all  the  experiments  I have  mentioned,  Ra- 
ohanus  sativus  might  well  be  a variety  of  R.  ra- 
nhanistrum,  an  unstable  variety  determined  by  the 
existence  of  several  generations  in  a fertile  soil.  We 
cannot  suppose  that  ancient  uncivilized  peoples  made 
•essays  like  those  of  Carriere,  but  they  may  have  noticed 
ilants  of  Raphanistrum  grown  in  richly  manured  soil, 
with  more  or  less  fleshy  roots ; and  this  soon  suggested 
he  idea  of  cultivating  them. 

I have,  however,  one  objection  to  make,  founded  on 
geographical  botany.  Raphanus  raphanistrum  is  a 
^European  plant  which  does  not  exist  in  Asia.1  It  ean- 
| lot,  therefore,  be  this  species  that  has  furnished  the  in- 
uabitants  of  India,  China,  and  Japan  with  the  radishes 
I which  they  have  cultivated  for  centuries.  On  the  other 
band,  how  could  R.  raphanistrum , which  is  supposed 
to  have  been  modified  in  Europe,  have  been  transmitted 
in  ancient  times  across  the  whole  of  Asia  ? The  transport 
of  cultivated  plants  has  commonly  proceeded  from  Asia 
into  Europe.  Chang-Kien  certainly  brought  vegetables 
(rom  Bactriana  into  China  in  the  second  century  B.C., 
out  the  radish  is  not  named  among  the  number. 

Horse-radish — Cocldcaria  A rrnoracia,  Linnaous. 

This  Crucifer,  whose  rather  hard  root  has  the  taste  of 

1 Ledebour,  FI.  Ross. ; Boissier,  Ft.  Orient.  Works  on  the  flora  of  the 
t-allcy  of  the  Amur. 

D 


Si 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


mustard,  was  sometimes  called  in  French  cran,  or  cranson 
de  Bretagne.  This  was  an  error  caused  by  the  old 
botanical  name  Armoracia,  which  was  taken  for  a cor- 
ruption of  Armorica  (Brittany).  Armoracia  occurs  in 
Pliny,  and  was  applied  to  a crucifer  of  the  Pontine 
province,  which  was  perhaps  Raphanus  sativue.  After  I 
had  formerly 1 pointed  out  this  confusion,  I expressed 
myself  as  follows  on  the  mistaken  origin  of  the  species  : — 
Cochlearia  Armoracia  is  not  wild  in  Brittany,  a fact 
now  established  by  the  researches  of  botanists  in  the 
west  of  France.  The  Abbe  Delalande  mentions  it  in 
his  little  work,  entitled  Iiteclic  et  Houat ,2  in  which  he 
gives  so  interesting  an  account  of  the  customs  and  pro- 
ductions of  these  two  little  islands  of  Brittany.  He 
quotes  the  opinion  of  M.  le  Gall,  who,  in  an  unpublished 
flora  of  Morbihan,  declares  the  plant  foreign  to  Brittany. 
This  proof,  however,  is  less  strong  than  others,  since  the 
south  coast  of  the  peninsula  of  Brittany  is  not  yet 
sufficiently  known  to  botanists,  and  the  ancient  Armorica 
extended  over  a portion  of  Normandy  where  the'  wild 
horse-radish  is  now  found.3  This  leads  me  to  speak  of 
the  original  home  of  the  species.  English  botanists 
mention  it  as  wild  in  Great  Britain,  but  are  doubtful 
about  its  origin.  Watson  4 considers  it  as  introduced  by 
cultivation.  The  difficulty  of  extirpating  it,  he  says, 
from  places  where  it  is  cultivated,  is  well  known  to 
gardeners.  It  is  therefore  not  surprising  that  this  plant 
should  take  possession  of  waste  ground,  and  persist  there 
so  as  to  appear  indigenous.  Babington  5 mentions  only 
one  spot  where  the  species  appears  to  be  really  wild, 
namely,  Swansea.  We  will  try  to  solve  the  problem  by 
further  arguments. 

Cochlearia  Ai-moracia  is  a plant  belonging  to  the 
temperate,  and  especially  to  the  eastern  regions  of  Europe. 
It  is  diffused  from  Finland  to  Astrakhan,  and  to  the 

1 A.  do  Candolle,  Qdographie  Bot  unique  Raixonnde,  p.  G54. 

2 Delalande,  Hacdic  et  Houat,  8vo  pamphlet,  Nantes,  1S50,  p.  109. 

3 Hardouin,  Renon,  and  Leclerc,  Catalogue  da  Cal  radon,  p.  85;  De 
Brebisson,  FI.  de  Normandie,  p.  25. 

4 Watson,  Cybele,  i.  p.  159. 

3 Babington,  Manual  of  Brit.  Bot.,  2nd  edit.,  p.  28. 


PPLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  PARTS.  35 

ddesert  of  Cuman.1  Grisebach  mentions  also  several 
llocalities  in  Turkey  in  Europe,  near  Enos,  for  instance, 
vwhere  it  abounds  on  the  sea-shore.2 

The  further  we  advance  towards  the  west  of  Europe, 
tihe  less  the  authors  of  floras  appear  sure  that  the  plant 
ds  indigenous,  and  the  localities  assigned  to  it  are  more 
scattered  and  doubtful.  The  species  is  rarer  in  Norway 
tthan  in  Sweden,8  in  the  British  Isles  than  in  Holland, 
.where  a foreign  origin  is  not  attributed  to  it.4 

The  specific  names  confirm  the  impression  of  its  origin 
:in  the  east  rather  than  in  the  west  of  Europe ; thus  the 
name  chren 6 in  Russia  recurs  in  all  the  Sclavonic 
languages,  krenai  in  Lithuanian,  chren  in  Illyrian,6  etc. 
: It  has  introduced  itself  into  a few  German  dialects,  round 
Vienna,7  for  instance,  where  it  persists,  in  spite  of  the 
-spread  of  the  German  tongue.  We  owe  to  it  also  the 
French  names  cran  or  cranson.  The  word  used  in 
Germany,  Meerretig,  and  in  Holland,  meer-radys,  whence 
■ the  Italian  Swiss  dialect  has  taken  the  name  meridi,  or 
nneredi,  means  sea-radish,  and  is  not  primitive  like  the 
■word  chren.  It  comes  probably  from  the  fact  that  the 
.plant  grows  well  near  the  sea,  a circumstance  common  to 
imany  of  the  Cruciferce,  and  which  should  be  the  case 
with  this  species,  for  it  is  wild  in  the  east  of  Russia 
where  there  is  a good  deal  of  salt  soil.  The  Swedish 
maine  peppar-rot8  suggests  the  idea  that  the  species  came 
into  Sweden  later  than  the  introduction  of  pepper  by 
commerce  into  the  north  of  Europe.  However,  the  name 
may  have  taken  the  place  of  an  older  one,  which  has 
remained  unknown  to  us.  The  English  name  of  horse- 
radish is  not  of  such  an  original  nature  as  to  lead  to 
a belief  in  the  existence  of  the  species  in  the  country 
before  the  Saxon  conquest.  It  means  a very  strong 

‘ Ledebour,  FI.  Rons.,  i.  p.  159. 

' Grisebach,  Spicilegium  FI.  Rumel.,  i.  p.  2G5. 

J Fries,  Bumma,  p.  30. 

Miquel,  Disquisitio  pi.  regn.  Batuv. 

Moritzi,  Did.  Inid.  den  Nc/mx  Vulgaires. 

" Moritzi,  ibid. ; Viviani,  FI.  Dalmat.,  iii.  p.  322. 

7 Neilreich,  FI.  Wien,  p.  502. 

* Linnaeus,  FI.  Suecica,  No.  510. 


36 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


radish.  The  Welsh  name  rliuddygl  mauvth 1 is  only  the 
translation  of  the  English  word,  whence  we  may  infer 
that  the  Kelts  of  Great  Britain  had  no  special  name,  and 
were  not  acquainted  with  the  species.  In  the  west  of 
France,  the  name  raifort,  which  is  the  commonest,  merely 
means  strong  root.  Formerly  it  bore  in  France  the 
names  of  German,  or  Capuchin  mustard,  which  shows 
a foreign  and  recent  origin.  On  the  contrary,  the  word 
chren  is  in  all  the  Sclavonic  languages,  a word  which  has 
penetrated  into  some  German  and  French  dialects  under 
the  forms  of  kreen,  cran,  and  cranson,  and  which  is 
certainly  of  a primitive  nature,  and  shows  the  antiquity 
of  the  species  in  temperate  Eastern  Europe.  It  is 
therefore  most  probable  that  cultivation  has  propagated 
and  naturalized  the  plant  westward  from  the  east  for 
about  a thousand  years. 

Turnips — Brcissica  species  et  varietates  raclice  in- 
crassata. 

The  innumerable  varieties  and  subvarieties  of  the 
turnip  known  as  swedes,  Kohl-rabi,  etc.,  may  be  all-attri- 
buted to  one  of  the  four  species  of  Linnseus — Brcissica 
napus,  Br.  oleracea,  Br.  rapa,  Br.  carnpestris — of  which 
the  two  last  should,  according  to  modern  authors,  be  fused 
into  one.  Other  varieties  of  the  species  are  cultivated  for 
the  leaves  (cabbages),  for  the  inflorescence  (cauliflowers), 
or  for  the  oil  which  is  extracted  from  the  seed  (colza, 
rape,  etc.).  When  the  root  or  the  lower  part  of  the  stem  3 
is  fleshy,  the  seed  is  not  abundant,  nor  worth  the  trouble 
of  extracting  the  oil ; when  those  organs  are  slender,  the 
production  of  the  seed,  on  the  contrary,  becomes  more 
important,  and  decides  the  economic  use  of  the  plant. 
In  other  words,  the  store  of  nutritious  matter  is  placed 
sometimes  in  the  lower,  sometimes  in  the  upper  part  of 
the  plant,  although  the  organization  of  the  flower  and 
fruit  is  similar,  or  nearly  so. 

* H.  Davies,  Welsh  Botanology,  p.  63. 

2 In  turnips  and  swedes  the  swelled  part  is,  as  in  the  radish,  the 
lower  part  of  the  stem,  below  the  cotyledons,  with  a more  or  less  per- 
sistent part  of  the  root.  (Sec  Tnrpin,  Ann.  Sc.  Nabur.,  ser.  1,  vol.  xxi.^ 
In  tho  Kolil-rabi  ( Brassica  oleracea  caulo-rapa)  it  is  the  stem. 


’PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  PARTS.  37 

Touching  the  question  of  origin,  we  need  not  occupy 
ourselves  with  the  botanical  limits  of  the  species,  and 
with  the  classification  of  the  races,  varieties,  and  sub- 
varieties,1  since  all  the  Brassicce  are  of  European  and 
Siberian  origin,  and  are  still  to  be  seen  in  these  regions 
wild,  or  half  wild,  in  some  form  or  other. 

Plants  so  commonly  cultivated  and  whose  germina- 
tion is  so  easy  often  spread  round  cultivated  places  ; 
nence  some  uncertainty  regarding  the  really  wild  nature 
of  the  plants  found  in  the  open  country.  Nevertheless, 
Linnmus  mentions  that  Brassica  napus  grows  in  the  sand 
on  the  sea-coast  in  Sweden  (Gothland),  Holland,  and  Eng- 
land, which  is  confirmed,  as  far  as  Sweden  is  concerned, 
by  Fries,2  who,  with  his  usual  attention  to  questions  of 
’this  nature,  mentions  Br.  Gampestris,  L.  (type  of  the 
Rapa  with  -slender  roots),  as  really  wild  in  the  whole 
~ Scandinavian  peninsula,  in  Finland  and  Denmark. 
•Ledebour3  indicates  it  in  the  whole  of  Russia,  Siberia, 
ind  the  Caspian  Sea. 

The  floras  of  temperate  and  southern  Asia  mention 
-■apes  and  turnips  as  cultivated  plants,  never  as  escaped 
from  cultivation.4  This  is  already  an  indication  of  foreign 
origin.  The  evidence  of  philology  is  Ho  less  significant. 

There  is  no  Sanskrit  name  for  these  plants,  but  only 
modem  Hindu  and  Bengalee  names,  and  those  only  for 
1 Brassica  rapa  and  B.  oleracea ,6  Kaempfer6  gives  Japanese 
names  for  the  turnip — busei,  or  more  commonly  aona — 
but  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  these  names  are  ancient. 
Bretschneider,  who  has  made  a careful  study  of  Chinese 
authors,  mentions  no  Brassica.  Apparently  they  do  not 
occur  in  any  of  the  ancient  works  on  botany  and  agricul- 
ture, although  several  varieties  are  nowcultivated  in  China. 

It  is  just  the  reverse  in  Europe.  The  old  languages 

This  classification  has  boon  the  snbject  of  a paper  by  Augustin 
Pyramus  de  Candolle,  Transactions  of  the  Horticultural  Society,  vol.  v. 

i rics,  Summa  Veyet.  Scand.,  i.  p.  29. 

3 Ledebour,  FI.  Ross.,  i.  p.  216. 

' Boissier,  Flora  Orientalist ; Sir  J.  Hooker,  Flora  of  British  India ; 
Thunberg,  Flora  Japonica ; Franchet  and  Savatior,  Enumeratio  Plan- 
tarum  Japonicarum. 

* Fiddiugton,  Index.  ® Ksompfer,  Amcen.,  p.  822. 


o8 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


have  a number  of  names  which  seem  to  be  original. 
Bra8sica  rapa  is  called  meipen  or  erfinen 1 in  Wales; 
repa  and  rippa  in  several  Slav  tongues,1 2  which  answers  to 
the  Latin  rapa,  and  is  allied  to  the  neipu  of  the  Anglo- 
Saxons.  The  B vomica  napus  is  in  Welsh bresych  yr  yd; 
in  Erse  braisscagh  buigh,  according  to  Threlkeld,3  who  sees 
in  braisscagh  the  root  of  the  Latin  Brassica.  A Polish 
name,  karpiele,  a Lithuanian,  jellazoji ,4 *  are  also  given, 
without  speaking  of  a host  of  other  names,  transferred 
sometimes  in  popular  speech  from  one  species  to  another. 
I shall  speak  of  the  names  of  Brassica  oleracea  when  I 
come  to  vegetables. 

The  Hebrews  had  no  names  for  cabbages,  rapes,  and 
turnips,6  but  there  are  Arab  names : selgam  for  the  Br. 
napus,  and  subjum  or  subjumi  for  Br.  rapa;  words 
which  recur  in  Persian  and  even  in  Bengali,  transferred 
perhaps  from  one  species  to  another.  The  cultivation  of 
these  plants  has  therefore  been  diffused  in  the  south-west 
of  Asia  since  Hebrew  antiquity. 

Finally,  every  method,  whether  botanical,  historical, 
or  philological,  leads  us  to  the  following  conclusions : — 

Firstly,  the  Brassica}  with  fleshy  roots  were  originally 
natives  of  temperate  Europe. 

Secondly,  their  cultivation  was  diffused  in  Europe 
before,  and  in  Asia  after,  the  Aryan  invasion. 

Thirdly,  the  primitive  slender-rooted  form  of  Bras- 
sica napus,  called  Br.  campestris,  had  probably  from 
the  beginning  a more  extended  range,  from  the  Scan- 
dinavian peninsula  towards  Siberia  and  the  Caucasus. 
Its  cultivation  was  perhaps  introduced  into  China  and 
Japan,  through  Siberia,  at  an  epoch  which  appears  not 
to  be  much  earlier  than  Greco-Roman  civilization. 

Fourthly,  the  cultivation  of  the  various  forms  or  species 
of  Brassica  was  diffused  throughout  the  south-west  of 
Asia  at  an  epoch  later  than  that  of  the  ancient  Hebrews. 


1 Davies,  Welsh  Botanology,  p.  65. 

- Moritzi,  Diet.  MS.,  cotupilod  from  published  floras. 

3 Threlkeld,  Synopsis  Stirpium  Hibernicarum,  1 vol.  in  8vo,  1727. 

4 Moritzi,  Diet.  MS. 

3 Rosenmiiller,  Diblische  Naturgeschichte,  vol.  i.,  gives  none. 


°LANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  TARTS.  39 

Skirret — Sium  Sisarum,  Linnaeus. 

This  vivacious  Umbellifer,  furnished  with  several 
diverging  roots  in  the  form  of  a carrot,  is  believed  to  come 
[from  Eastern  Asia.  Linnaeus  indicates  China,  doubtfully  ; 
nnd  Loureiro,1  China  and  Cochin-China,  where  he  says  it 
its  cultivated.  Others  have  mentioned  Japan  and  the 
CCorea,  but  in  these  countries  there  are  species  which  it 
Lis  easy  to  confound  with  the  one  in  question,  particularly 
>Slum  Ninsi  and  Panax  Ginseng.  Maximowicz,2  who 
has  seen  these  plants  in  China  and  in  Japan,  and  who 
has  studied  the  herbariums  of  St.  Petersburgh,  recognizes 
only  the  Altaic  region  of  Siberia  and  the  North  of  Persia 
ias  the  home  of  the  wild  Sium  Sisarum.  I am  very 
doubtful  whether  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  Himalayas  or 
tin  China,  since  modern  works  on  the  region  of  the  river 
'Amoor  and  on  British  India  make  no  mention  of  it. 

It  is  doubtful  whether  the  ancient  Greeks  and  llomans 
-knew  this  plant.  The  names  Sisaron  of  Dioscorides,  Siser 
of  Columella  and  of  Pliny,3  are  attributed  to  it.  Certainly 
ithe  modern  Italian  name  sisaro  or  sisero  seems  to  confirm 
•this  idea;  but  how  could  these  authors  have  failed  to 
i notice  that  several  roots  descend  from  the  base  of  the  stem, 
whereas  all  the  other  umbels  cultivated  in  Europe  have 
but  a single  tap-root?  It  is  just  possible  that  the  siser 
• of  Columella,  a cultivated  plant,  may  have  been  the 
parsnip  ; but  what  Pliny  says  of  the  siser  does  not  apply 
to  it.  According  to  him  it  was  a medicinal  plant,  inter 
'raedica  dicendum .4  He  says  that  Tiberius  caused  a 
quantity  to  be  brought  every  year  from  Germany,  which 
proves,  he  adds,  that  it  thrives  in  cold  countries. 

If  the  Greeks  had  received  the  plant  direct  from 
Persia,  Theophrastus  would  probably  have  known  it.  It 
came  perhaps  from  Siberia  into  Russia,  and  thence  into 
Germany,  in  which  case  the  anecdote  about  Tiberius 
might  well  apply  to  the  skirret.  I cannot  find  any 

* Linnaeus,  Species,  p.  361;  Loureiro,  FI.  Oochinchinensis,  p.  225. 

Maximowicz,  Diagnoses  Plantarum  Japonicce  et  Manshuriw,  in 
Melanges  Biologiqu.es  du.  Bulletin  de  VAcad.,  St.  Petersburg,  decad  15,  p.  18. 

3 Dioscorides,  Mat.  Med.,  1.  2,  c.  139;  Columella,  1.  11,  c.  5,  18,  35; 
Lenz,  Bot.  der  Alten,  p.  560. 

4 Bliny,  Hist.  Plant.,  1.  19,  c.  5. 


40 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Russian  name,  certainly,  but  the  Germans  have  original 
names,  Krizel  or  Grizel,  Gorlein  or  Gierlein,  which 
indicate  an  ancient  cultivation,  more  than  the  ordinary 
name  Zuekerwurzel,  or  sugar-root.1  The  Danish  name  has 
the  same  meaning' — sokerot,  whence  the  English  skirret. 
The  name  sisaron  is  not  known  in  modern  Greece ; nor 
was  it  known  there  even  in  the  Middle  Ages,  and  the  plant 
is  not  now  cultivated  in  that  country.2  There  are  reasons 
for  doubt  as  to  the  true  sense  of  the  words  sisaron  and 
siser.  Some  botanists  of  the  sixteenth  century  thought 
that  sisaron  was  perhaps  the  parsnip  proper,  and 
Sprengel 8 supports  this  idea. 

The  French  names  chervis  and  girole  4 would  perhaps 
teach  us  something  if  we  knew  their  origin.  Littre 
derives  chervis  from  the  Spanish  chirivia,  but  the  latter  is 
more  likely  derived  from  the  French.  Bauhin  5 mentions 
the  low  Latin  names  sermLlum,  chervittvm,  or  servillam, 
words  which  are  not  in  Ducange’s  dictionary.  This  may 
well  be  the  origin  of  chervis,  but  whence  came  servillam 
or  chervi  Hum  ? 

Arracacha  or  Arracacia — Arracacha  esculenta , de  Can- 
dolle. 

An  umbel  generally  cultivated  in  Venezuela,  New 
Granada,  and  Ecuador  as  a nutritious  plant.  In  the  tem- 
perate regions  of  those  countries  it  bears  comparison  with 
the  potato,  and  even  yields,  we  are  assured,  a lighter  and 
more  agreeable  fecula.  The  lower  part  of  the  stem  is 
swelled  into  a bulb,  on  which,  when  the  plant  thrives  well, 
tubercles,  or  lateral  bulbs,  form  themselves,  and  persist 
for  several  months,  which  are  more  prized  than  the  central 
bulb,  and  serve  for  future  planting. 

The  species  is  probably  indigenous  in  the  region  where 

1 Nernnich,  Polyijl.  Lexicon,  ii.  p.  1313. 

2 Lonz,  Bot.  der  Alien,  p.  560;  Heldreicb,  Nutzpflanzen  Oriechenlands ; 
Langkavel,  Bot.  der  Spdteren  Griech&n. 

3 Sprengel,  Dioscoridis,  etc.,  ii.  p.  463. 

4 Olivier  do  Serres,  Thddtre  de  l’ Agriculture,  p.  471. 

3 Bauhin,  Hist.  PL,  iii.  p.  154. 

6 The  best  information  about  the  cultivation  of  this  plant  was  given  by 
Bancroft  to  Sir  W.  Hooker,  and  may  be  found  in  the  Botanical  Magazine, 
pi.  3092.  A.  P.  de  Candolle  published,  in  La  5'  Notice  sur  les  Plantes  Races 
des  Jardin  Bot.  de  Geneve,  an  illustration  showing  the  principal  bulb. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  PARTS.  41 

it  is  cultivated,  but  I do  not  find  in  any  author  a positive 
assertion  of  the  fact.  The  existing  descriptions  are  drawn 
from  cultivated  stocks.  Grisebach  indeed  says  that  he 
has  seen  (presumably  in  the  herbarium  at  Kew)  specimens 
gathered  in  New  Granada,  in  Peru,  and  in  Trinidad,1  but 
he  does  not  say  whether  they  were  wild.  The  other 
species  of  the  same  genus,  to  the  number  of  a dozen,  grow 
in  the  same  districts  of  America,  which  renders  the  above- 
mentioned  origin  more  probable. 

The  introduction  of  the  arracacha  into  Europe  has 
been  attempted  several  times  without  success.  The  damp 
climate  of  England  accounts  for  the  failure  of  Sir  William 
Hooker’s  attempts  ; but  ours,  made  at  two  different  times, 
under  very  different  conditions,  have  met  with  no  better 
success.  The  lateral  bulbs  did  not  form,  and  the  central 
bulb  died  in  the  house  where  it  was  placed  for  the  winter. 
The  bulbs  presented  to  different  botanical  gardens  in 
France  and  Italy  and  elsewhere  shared  the  same  fate.  It 
is  clear  that  if  the  plant  is  in  America  really  equal  to  the 
potato  in  productiveness  and  taste,  this  will  never  be  the 
case  in  Europe.  Its  cultivation  does  not  in  America 
spread  as  far  as  Chili  and  Mexico,  like  that  of  the  potato 
and  sweet  potato,  which  confirms  the  difficulty  of  pro- 
pagation observed  elsewhere. 

Madder — Rubia  tinctorum,  Linnaeus. 

The  madder  is  certainly  wild  in  Italy,  Greece,  the 
Crimea,  Asia  Minor,  Syria,  Persia,  Armenia,  and  near 
Lenkoran.2  As  we  advance  westward  in  the  south  of 
Europe,  the  wild,  indigenous  nature  of  the  plant  becomes 
more  and  more  doubtful.  There  is  uncertainty  even  in 
France.  In  the  north  and  east  the  plant  appears  to  be 
“naturalized  in  hedges  and  on  walls,”3  or  “subspon- 
taneous,”  escaped  from  former  cultivation.4  In  Provence 
and  Languedoc  it  is  more  spontaneous  or  wild,  but  here 
also  it  may  have  spread  from  a somewhat  extensive 

1 Grisobach,  Flora  of  British  West. India  Maud*. 

Bertoloni,  Flora  Italica,  ii.  p.  146;  Decaisne,  Rccherches  stir  la 
durance,  p.  68;  Boissier,  Flora  Oriental  it,  iii.  p.  17 ; Ledebour,  Flora 
Rossica,  ii.  p.  405. 

3 Cossou  and  Germain,  Flore  des  Environs  do  Paris,  ii.  p.  305. 

4 Kirschleger,  Flore  d’ Alsace,  i.  p.  359. 


42 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


cultivation.  In  the  Iberian  peninsula  it  is  mentioned  as 
“subspontaneous.”1  It  is  the  same  in  the  north  of  Africa.2 
Evidently  the  natural,  ancient,  and  undoubted  habitation 
is  western  temperate  Asia  and  the  south-east  of  Europe. 
It  does  not  appear  that  the  plant  has  been  found  beyond 
the  Caspian  Sea  in  the  land  formerly  occupied  by  the 
Indo-Europeans,  but  this  region  is  still  little  known. 
The  species  only  exists  in  India  as  a cultivated  plant, 
and  has  no  Sanskrit  name.8 

Neither  is  there  any  known  Hebrew  name,  while  the 
Greeks,  Romans,  Slavs,  Germans,  and  Kelts  had  various 
names,  which  a philologist  could  perhaps  trace  to  one 
or  two  roots,  but  which  nevertheless  indicate  by  their 
numerous  modifications  an  ancient  date.  Probably  the 
wild  roots  were  gathered  in  the  fields  before  the  idea  of 
cultivating  the  species  was  suggested.  Pliny,  however, 
says  4 that  it  was  cultivated  in  Italy  in  his  time,  and  it 
is  possible  that  the  custom  was  of  older  date  in  Greece 
and  Asia  Minor. 

The  cultivation  of  madder  is  often  mentioned  in 
French  records  of  the  Middle  Ages.5  It  was  afterwards 
neglected  or  abandoned,  until  Althen  reintroduced  it 
into  the  neighbourhood  of  Avignon  in  the  middle  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  It  flourished  formerly  in  Alsace, 
Germany,  Holland,  and  especially  in  Greece,  Asia  Minor, 
and  Syria,  whence  the  exportation  was  considerable ; but 
the  discovery  of  dyes  extracted  from  inorganic  substances 
has  suppressed  this  cultivation,  to  the  great  detriment  of 
the  provinces  which  drew  large  profits  from  it. 

Jerusalem  Artichoke — Hehanthus  tuberosus,  Linmeus. 

It  was  in  the  year  1G1G  that  European  botanists  first 
mentioned  this  Composite,  with  a large  root  better 
adapted  for  the  food  of  animals  than  of  man.  Columna  8 
had  seen  it  in  the  garden  of  Cardinal  Farnese,  and  called 
it  Aster  peruanm  tuberosus.  Other  authors  of  the  same 

1 Willkomm  and  Lange,  Prodrom/us  Flores  ffispaniciB,  ii.  p.  307* 

’ Ball,  Spicilegium  Floras  Maroccance,  p.  483;  Munby,  Catal.  Plant. 
Alger.,  edit.  2,  p.  17. 

' 3 Piddington,  Index.  * Flinius,  lib.  19,  cap.  3. 

‘ Do  Gasparin,  Traite  d’ Agriculture,  iv.  p.  253. 

8 Columna,  Eophrasis,  ii.  p.  11. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  PARTS.  43 

century  gave  it  epithets  showing  that  it  was  believed  to 
come  from  Brazil,  or  from  Canada,  or  from  the  Indies, 
that  is  to  say,  America.  Linnmus1  adopted,  on  Parkinson’s 
authority,  the  opinion  of  a Canadian  origin,  of  which, 
however,  he  had  no  proof.  I pointed  out  formerly  2 * that 
there  are  no  species  of  the  genus  Helianthus  in  Brazil, 
and  that  they  are,  on  the  contrary,  numerous  in  North 
America. 

Schlechtendal,8  after  having  proved  that  the  Jeru- 
salem artichoke  can  resist  the  sevex-e  winters  of  the 
centre  of  Europe,  observes  that  this  fact  is  in  favour  of 
the  idea  of  a Canadian  origin,  and  contrary  to  the  belief 
of  its  coming  from  some  southern  region.  Decaisne4 
has  eliminated  from  the  synonymy  of  H.  tuberosus 
several  quotations  which  had  occasioned  the  belief 
in  a South  American  or  Mexican  origin.  Like  the 
American  botanists,  he  recalls  what  ancient  travellers 
had  narrated  of  certain  customs  of  the  aborigines  of  the 
Northern  States  and  of  Canada.  Thus  Champlain,  in 
1603,  had  seen,  “ in  their  hands,  roots  which  they  cul- 
tivate, and  which  taste  like  an  artichoke.”  Lescarbot 5 * * 
speaks  of  these  l’oots  with  the  artichoke  flavour, 
which  multiply  fi’cely,  and  which  he  had  brought  back 
to  France,  where  they  began  to  be  sold  under  the 
name  of  topinambaux.  The  savages,  he  says,  call  them 
chiquebi.  Decaisne  also  quotes  two  French  horticulturists 
of  the  seventeenth  century,  Colin  and  Sagard,  who 
evidently  speak  of  the  Jerusalem  artichoke,  and  say  it 
came  from  Canada.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  name 
Canada  had  at  that  time  a vague  meaning,  and  compre- 
hended some  parts  of  the  modern  United  States.  Gookin, 
an  American  writer  on  the  customs  of  the  aborigines, 
says  that  they  put  pieces  of  the  Jerusalem  artichoke  into 
their  soups.0 

1 Linnaeus,  Borins  Clijfortiunus,  p.  420. 

A.  de  Candolle,  Q4ogr.  But.  Raisonnde,  p.  824. 

’ Schlechtendal,  Bot.  Zeit.  1858,  p.  113. 

Decaisne,  Recherches  sur  VOrigine  de  quelques-unes  de  nos  Plantes 

Aliment  air es,  in  Flore  des  Serves  et  jardins,  vol.  23,  1881,  p.  112. 

‘ Lescarbot,  Histoire  de  la  Nouvelle  France,  edit.  3,  1018,  t.  vi.  p.  931. 

8 Pickering,  Chron.  Arrang.,  pp.  749,  972. 


44  ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 

Botanical  analogies  and  the  testimony  of  con- 
temporaries agree,  as  we  have  seen,  in  considering  this 
plant  to  be  a native  of  the  north-east  of  America.  Dr. 
Asa  Gray,  seeing  that  it  is  not  found  wild,  had  formerly 
supposed  it  to  be  a variety  of  H.  doronicoicles  of  Lamarck, 
but  he  has  since  abandoned  this  idea  ( American  Journal 
of  Science,  1883,  p.  224).  An  author  gives  it  as  wild  in 
the  State  of  Indiana.1  The  French  name  topinambour 
comes  apparently  from  some  real  or  supposed  Indian 
name.  The  English  name  Jerusalem  artichoke  is  a cor- 
ruption of  the  Italian  girasole,  sunflower,  combined  with 
an  allusion  to  the  artichoke  flavour  of  the  root. 

Salsify — Tragopogon  porri folium,  Linnaeus. 

The  salsify  was  more  cultivated  a century  or  two  ago 
than  it  is  now.  It  is  a biennial  composite,  found  wild 
in  Greece,  Dalmatia,  Italy,  and  even  in  Algeria.2 3  It 
frequently  escapes  from  gardens  in  the  west  of  Europe, 
and  becomes  half-naturalized.8 

Commentators 4 give  the  name  Tragopogon  (goat’s 
beard)  of  Theophrastus  sometimes  to  the  modem  species, 
sometimes  to  Tragopogon  crocifolium,  which  also  grows 
in  Greece.  It  is  difficult  to  know  if  the  ancients  culti- 
vated the  salsify  or  gathered  it  wild  in  the  country.  In 
the  sixteenth  century  Olivier  de  Serres  says  it  was  a 
new  culture  in  his  country,  the  south  of  France.  Our 
word  Salsijis  comes  from  the  Italian  Sassefrica,  that 
which  rubs  stones,  a senseless  term. 

Scorzonera — Scorzonera  hispanica,  Linnaeus. 

This  plant  is  sometimes  called  the  Spanish  salsify, 
from  its  resemblance  to  Tragopogon  porrifoliuvi ; but 
its  root  has  a brown  skin,  whence  its  botanical  name, 
and  the  popular  name  ecorce  noire  in  some  French 
provinces. 

It  is  wild  in  Europe,  from  Spain,  where  it  abounds,  the 


1 Catalogue  of  Indiana  Plants,  1881,  p.  15. 

2 Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  iii.  p.  7-15;  Viviani,  FI.  Dahnat.,  ii.  p.  108; 
Bertoloni,  FI.  Ital.,  viii.  p.  348;  Gussone,  Synopsis  FI.  Sicuhv,  ii.  p.  384; 
Mnnby,  Catal.  Alger.,  edit.  2,  p.  22. 

3 A.  de  Candolle,  Qdogr.  Bot.  Raisonnie,  p.  071. 

* I-'raas,  Synopsis  VI.  Class.,  p.  190 ; Lenz,  Bot.  dvr  Alten,  p.  485. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  PARTS.  45 

south  of  France,  and  Germany,  to  the  region  of  Cau- 
casus, and  perhaps  even  as  far  as  Siberia,  but  it  is  wanting 
in  Sicily  and  Greece.1  In  several  parts  of  Germany  the 
species  is  probably  naturalized  from  cultivation. 

It  seems  that  this  plant  has  only  been  cultivated 
within  the  last  hundred  or  hundred  and  fifty  years. 
The  botanists  of  the  sixteenth  century  speak  of  it  as 
a wild  species  introduced  occasionally  into  botanical 
gardens.  Olivier  de  Serres  does  not  mention  it. 

It  was  formerly  supposed  to  be  an  antidote  against 
the  bite  of  adders,  and  was  sometimes  called  the  viper’s 
plant.  As  to  the  etymology  of  the  name  Scorzonera,  it  is 
so  evident,  that  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  early 
writers,  even  Tournefort,2  have  declared  the  origin  of  the 
word  to  be  escorso,  viper  in  Spanish  or  Catalan.  Viper 
is  in  Spanish  more  commonly  vibora. 

There  exists  in  Sicily  a Scorzonera  deliciosa,  Gussone, 
whose  veiy  sugary  root  is  used  in  the  confection  of 
bonbons  and  sherbets,  at  Palermo.3  How  is  it  that  its 
cultivation  has  not  been  tried  ? It  is  true  that  I tasted 
at  Naples  Scorzonera  ices,  and  found  them  detestable,  but 
they  were  perhaps  made  of  the  common  species  (Scorzo- 
nera hispanica). 

Potato — Solanum  tuberosum,  Linnaeus. 

In  1855  I stated  and  discussed  what  was  then  known 
about  the  origin  of  the  potato,  and  about  its  introduction 
into  Europe.4  I will  now  add  the  result  of  the  researches 
of  the  last  quarter  of  a century.  It  will  be  seen  that  the 
data  formerly  acquired  have  become  more  certain,  and  that 
several  somewhat  doubtful  accessory  questions  have 
remained  uncertain,  though  the  probabilities  in  favour 
of  what  formerly  seemed  the  truth  have  grown  stronger. 

It  is  proved  beyond  a doubt  that  at  the  time  of  the 
discovery  of  America  the  cultivation  of  the  potato  was 

1 WiUkomm  and  Lango,  Prodromus  Flora'-  Hispanic w,  ii.  p.  223; 
De  Candolle,  Flore  Franchise,  iv.  p.  59 ; Koch,  Synopsis  FI.  Germ.,  edit. 
2,  p.  488;  Ledebour,  FI.  Ross.,  ii.  p.  794;  Boissior,  FI.  Orientalis,  iii.  p. 
767^;  Bertoloni,  Fl.Jtal.,  viii.  p.  365. 

2 Tournefort,  Elements  de  Botaniquc,  p.  379. 

3 Gussone,  Synopsis  Floroe  Simla. 

■*  A.  de  Candolle,  Gdogr.  Hot.  Raisonnde,  pp.  810,  816. 


4G 


OKIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


practised,  with  every  appearance  of  ancient  usage,  in 
the  temperate  regions  extending  from  Chili  to  New 
Granada,  at  altitudes  varying  with  the  latitude.  This 
appears  from  the  testimony  of  all  the  early  travellers, 
among  whom  I shall  name  Acosta  for  Peru,1  and  Pedro 
Cieca,  quoted  by  de  l’Ecluse,2 3  for  Quito. 

In  the  eastern  temperate  region  of  South  America, 
on  the  heights  of  Guiana  and  Brazil,  for  instance,  the 
potato  vras  not  knowrn  to  the  aborigines,  or  if  they 
were  acquainted  with  a similar  plant,  it  was  Solanum 
Commersonii,  which  has  also  a tuberous  root,  and  is 
found  Avild  in  Montevideo  and  in  the  south  of  Brazil. 
The  true  potato  is  certainly  now  cultivated  in  the  latter 
country,  but  it  is  of  such  recent  introduction  that  it  has 
received  the  name  of  the  English  Batata.8  According  to 
Humboldt  it  was  unknoAvn  in  Mexico,4 *  a fact  confirmed 
by  the  silence  of  subsequent  authors,  but  to  a certain 
degree  contradicted  by  another  historical  fact.  It  is  said 
that  Sir  Walter  Raleigh,  or  rather  Thomas  Herriott,  his 
companion  in  se\Teral  voyages,  brought  back  to  Ireland, 
in  1585  or  1586,  some  tubers  of  the  Virginian  potato.6 
Its  name  in  its  own  country  Avas  openaivk.  From 
Herriott’s  description  of  the  plant,  quoted  by  Sir  J oseph 
Banks,6  there  is  no  doubt  that  it  A\Tas  the  potato,  and  not 
the  batata,  which  at  that  period  Avas  sometimes  con- 
founded Avith  it.  Besides,  Gerard7  tells  us  that  he 
received  from  Virginia  the  potato  which  he  cultivated 
in  his  garden,  and  of  which  he  gives  an  illustration 
which  agrees  in  all  points  with  Solanum  tuberosum. 
He  Avas  so  proud  of  it  that  he  is  represented,  in  his 
portrait  at  the  beginning  of  the  work,  holding  in  his 
hand  a flowering  branch  of  this  plant. 


1 Acosta,  p.  168,  verso. 

- Do  l’Ecluse  (or  Clusius),  Rariarum  Plantarum  Historic e,  1601,  lib. 
4,  p.  lxxix.,  with  illnstration. 

3 De  Martius,  Flora  Brasil.,  vol.  x.  p.  12. 

4 Von  Humboldt,  Nouvelle  Espagne,  edit.  2,  vol.  ii.  p.  451 ; Essai  sur  la 
Gdographie  des  Plantes,  p.  29. 

® At  that  epoch  Virginia  was  not  distinguished  from  Carolina. 

6 Banks,  Trans.  Hort.  Soc.,  1805,  vol.  i.  p.  8. 

7 Gerard,  Herbal,  1597,  p.  781,  with  illustration. 


J PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  BARTS.  47 

The  species  could  scarcely  have  "been  introduced  into 
Virginia  or  Carolina  in  Raleigh’s  time  (1585),  unless  the 
i ancient  Mexicans  had  possessed  it,  and  its  cultivation 
had  been  diffused  among  the  aborigines  to  the  north  of 
Mexico.  Dr.  Roulin,  who  has  carefully  studied  the  works 

• on  North  America,  has  assured  me  that  he  has  found 
no  signs  of  the  potato  in  the  United  States  before  the 

; arrival  of  the  Europeans.  Dr.  Asa  Gray  also  told  me  so, 
; adding  that  Mr.  Harris,  one  of  the  men  most  intimately 
. acquainted  with  the  language  and  customs  of  North 
American  tribes,  was  of  the  same  opinion.  I have  read 
nothing  to  the  contrary  in  recent  publications,  and  we 
must  not  forget  that  a plant  so  easy  of  cultivation 
would  have  spread  itself  even  among  nomadic  tribes,  had 

• they  possessed  it.  It  seems  to  me  most  likely  that  some 
inhabitants  of  Virginia — perhaps  English  colonists — 
received  tubers  from  Spanish  or  other  travellers,  traders 
or  adventurers,  during  the  ninety  years  which  had  elapsed 

• since  the  discovery  of  America.  Evidently,  dating  from 
iihe  conquest  of  Peru  and  Chili,  in  1535  to  1585,  many 
’vessels  could  have  carried  tubers  of  the  potato  as  pro- 
' visions,  and  Sir  Walter  Raleigh,  making  war  on  the 
' Spaniards  as  a privateer,  may  have  pillaged  some  vessel 
I which  contained  them.  This  is  the  less  improbable,  since 
ithe  Spaniards  had  introduced  the  plant  into  Europe 

before  1585. 

Sir  Joseph  Banks 1 and  Dunal 2 were  right  to  insist 
j upon  the  fact  that  the  potato  was  first  introduced  by  the 
'Spaniard,  since  for  a long  time  the  credit  was  generally 
! given  to  Sir  Walter  Raleigh,  who  was  the  second  intro- 
: ducer,  and  even  to  other  Englishmen,  who  had  introduced, 
| Dot  the  potato  but  the  batata  (sweet  potato),  which  is 
j more  or  less  confounded  with  it.8  A celebrated  botanist, 
i de  1’EcluseJ  had  nevertheless  defined  the  facts  in  a 

1 Banks,  Trans.  Hort.  Soc.,  1805,  vol.  i.  p.  8. 

- Dunal,  Hist.  Nat.  des  Solanum,  in  4to. 

The  plant  imported  by  Sir  John  Hawkins  and  Sir  Francis  Drako 
< was  clearly  the  sweet  potato,  Sir  J.  Banks  says;  whence  it  results  that 
j the  questions  discussed  by  Humboldt  touching  the  localities  visited  by 
j these  travellers  do  not  apply  to  the  potato. 

* Do  l’Ecluse,  Hariariun  Plantarum  llistoria,  1601,  lib.  4,  p.  lxxviii. 


48 


ORIGIN'  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


remarkable  manner.  It  is  he  who  published  the  first 
good  description  and  illustration  of  the  potato,  under  the 
significant  name  of  Papas  Pernanomm.  From  what  he 
says,  the  species  has  little  changed  under  the  culture 
of  nearly  three  centuries,  for  it  yielded  in  the  beginning 
as  many  as  fifty  tubers  of  unequal  size,  from  one  to 
two  inches  long,  irregularly  ovoid,  reddish,  ripening  in 
November  (at  Vienna).  The  flower  was  more  or  less 
pink  externally,  and  reddish  within,  with  five  longi- 
tudinal stripes  of  green,  as  is  often  seen  now.  No  doubt 
numerous  varieties  have  been  obtained,  but  the  original 
form  has  not  been  lost.  De  l’Ecluse  compares  the  scent 
of  the  flower  with  that  of  the  lime,  the  only  difference 
from  our  modern  plant.  He  sowed  seeds  which  produced 
a white-flowered  variety,  such  as  we  sometimes  see  now. 

The  plants  described  by  de  l’Ecluse  were  sent  to  him 
in  1-388,  by  Philippe  de  Sivry,  Seigneur  of  Waldheim  and 
Governor  of  Mons,  who  had  received  them  from  some  i 
one  in  attendance  on  the  papal  legate  in  Belgium.  I)e  j 
l’Ecluse  adds  that  the  species  had  been  introduced-into 
Italy  from  Spain  or  America  (certain  est  vel  ex  Hispania, 
vel  ex  America  habuisse),  and  he  wonders  that,  although 
the  plant  had  become  so  common  in  Italy  that  it  was 
eaten  like  a turnip  and  given  to  the  pigs,  the  learned 
men  of  the  University  of  Padua  only  became  acquainted 
with  it  by  means  of  the  tuber  which  he  sent  them  from 
Germany.  Targioni 1 has  not  been  able  to  discover  any  ! 
proof  that  the  potato  was  as  widely  cultivated  in  Italy  . 
at  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century  as  de  l’Ecluse  ' 
asserts,  but  he  quotes  Father  Magazzini  of  Vallombrosa,  : 
whose  posthumous  work,  published  in  1(523,  mentions  the  1 
species  as  one  previously  brought,  without  naming  tho  j 
date,  from  Spain  or  Portugal  by  barefooted  friars.  It 
was,  therefore,  towards  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  or  at  the  ' 
beginning  of  the  seventeenth  centuiy  that  the  cultivation 
of  the  potato  became  known  in  Tuscany.  Independently 
of  what  de  l’Ecluse  and  the  agriculturist  of  Vallombrosa  ; 

1 Targioni-Tozzetti,  Lezzioni,  ii.  p.  10;  Cenni  Storici  suit’  Introdmianc  I 
di  Varie  Piante  n ell’  Agricoltura  di  Toscana,  1 vol.  in  8v-o,  Florence,  1853,.  | 
p.  37. 


(PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  PARTS.  4D 

ssay  of  its  introduction  from  the  Iberian  peninsula,  it  is 
■not  at  all  likely  that  the  Italians  had  any  dealings  with 
{Raleigh’s  companions. 

No  one  can  doubt  that  the  potato  is  of  American 
(origin ; but  in  order  to  know  from  what  part  of  that 
wast  continent  it  was  brought,  it  is  necessary  to  know 
[if  the  plant  is  found  wild  there,  and  in  what  localities. 

To  answer  this  question  clearly,  we  must  first  remove 
two  causes  of  error : the  confusion  of  allied  species  of  the 
rgenus  Solanum  with  the  potato ; and  the  other,  the 
mistakes  made  by  travellers  as  to  the  wild  character 
of  the  plant. 

The  allied  species  are  Solanum  Commersonii  of 
Dunal,  of  which  I have  already  spoken;  S.  maqlia 
of  Molina,  a Chili  species;  S.  immite  of  Dunal,  a 
native  of  Peru ; and  S.  verrucosum 1 of  Schlechtendal, 

I which  grows  in  Mexico.  These  three  kinds  of  Solanum 
have  smaller  tubers  than  S.  tuberosum,  and  differ  also 
tn  other  characteristics  indicated  in  special  works  on 
ootany.  Theoretically,  it  may  be  believed  that  all  these, 
and  other  forms  growing  in  America,  arc  derived  from  a 
■single  earlier  species,  but  in  our  geological  epoch  they 
present  themselves  with  differences  which  seem  to  me  to 
Justify  specific  distinctions,  and  no  experiments  have 
proved  that  by  crossing  one  with  another  a product 
would  be  obtained  of  which  the  seed  (not  the  tubers) 
would  propagate  the  race.  Leaving  these  more  or  less 
loubtful  questions  of  species,  let  us  try  to  ascertain 
whether  the  common  form  of  Solanum  tuberosum  has  been 
found  wild,  and  merely  remark  that  the  abundance  of 
tuberous  solanums  growing  in  the  temperate  regions  of 
' America,  from  Chili  or  Buenos  Ayres  as  far  as  Mexico,  con- 
ifirms  the  fact  of  an  American  origin.  If  we  knew  nothing 
; more,  this  would  be  a strong  presumption  in  favour  of 
| this  country  being  the  original  home  of  the  potato. 

The  second  cause  of  error  is  very  clearly  explained 

■ 1 Solanum  verrucosum,  whose  introduction  into  the  neighbourhood 

I )f  Gex,  near  Geneva,  I mentioned  in  1855,  has  since  been  abandoned 
pecan  so  its  tubers  nro  too  small,  and  because  it  docs  not,  ns  it  was  hoped, 
[ withstand  the  potato-fungus. 


E 


50 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


by  the  botanist  Weddell,1  who  has  carefully  explored 
Bolivia  and  the  neighbouring  countries.  “ When  we 
reflect,”  he  says,  “ that  on  the  arid  Cordillera  the  Indians 
often  establish  their  little  plots  of  cultivation  on  points  j 
which  would  appear  almost  inaccessible  to  the  great 
majority  of  our  European  farmers,  we  understand  that  ! 
when  a traveller  chances  to  visit  one  of  these  cultivated  i 
plots,  long  since  abandoned,  and  finds  there  a plant  of  • 
Solanum  tuberosum  which  has  accidentally  persisted,  he  \ 
gathers  it  in  the  belief  that  it  is  really  wild ; but  of  this  j 
there  is  no  proof.” 

We  come  now  to  facts.  These  abound  concerning  the  . 
wild  character  of  the  plant  in  Chili. 

In  1822,  Alexander  Caldcleugh,2 3  English  consul, 
sent  to  the  London  Horticultural  Society  some  tubers  of 
the  potato  which  he  had  found  in  the  ravines  round 
Valparaiso.  He  says  that  these  tubers  are  small,  some-  ! 
times  red,  sometimes  yellowish,  and  rather  bitter  in  taste.8 
“ I believe,”  he  adds,  “ that  this  plant  exists  over  a great 
extent  of  the  littoral,  for  it  is  found  in  the  south  of 
Chili,  where  the  aborigines  call  it  maglia.”  This  is 
probably  a confusion  with  S.  'maglia  of  botanists ; but 
the  tubers  of  Valparaiso,  planted  in  London,  produced  j 
the  true  potato,  as  we  see  from  a glance  at  Sabine’s 
coloured  figure  in  the  Transactions  of  the  Horticultural 
Society.  The  cultivation  of  this  plant  was  continued  \ 
for  some  time,  and  Lindley  certified  anew,  in  1817,  its 
identity  with  the  common  potato.4 *  Here  is  the  account 
of  the  Valparaiso  plant,  given  by  a traveller  to  Sir  : 
William  Hooker.6  “I  noticed  the  potato  on  the  shore 
as  far  as  fifteen  leagues  to  the  north  of  this  town,  and  to 
the  south,  but  I do  not  know  how  far  it  extends.  It 

1 Chloris  Andina,  in  4to,  p.  103. 

• Sabine,  Trans.  Hort.  Soc.,  vol.  v.  p.  249. 

3 No  importance  should  bo  attached  to  this  flavour,  nor  to  tho  watery 
quality  of  some  of  the  tubors,  since  in  hot  countries,  even  in  the  south 
of  Europe,  tho  potato  is  often  poor.  The  tubers,  which  are  subter- 
ranean ramifications  of  tho  stem,  are  turned  green  by  exposure  to  the 
light,  and  are  rendered  bitter. 

4 Journal  Hort.  Soc.,  vol.  iii.  p.  66. 

3 Hooker,  Botanical  Miscellanies,  1S31,  vol.  ii.  p.  203. 


?LANTS  CULTIVATED  FOll  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  PARTS.  51 

grows  on  cliffs  and  hills  near  the  sea,  and  I do  not 
remember  to  have  seen  it  more  than  two  or  three  leagues 
from  the  coast.  Although  it  is  found  in  mountainous 
olaces,  far  from  cultivation,  it  does  not  exist  in  the 
immediate  neighbourhood  of  the  fields  and  gardens  where 
tt  is  planted,  excepting  when  a stream  crosses  these  en- 
closures and  carries  the  tubers  into  uncultivated  places.” 
The  potato  described  by  these  two  travellers  had  white 
lowers,  as  is  seen  in  some  cultivated  European  varieties, 
tnd  like  the  plant  formerly  reared  by  de  l’Ecluse.  We 
may  assume  that  this  is  the  natural  colour  of  the  species, 
or  at  least  one  of  the  most  common  in  its  wild  state. 

Darwin,  in  his  voyage  in  the  Beagle , found  the  potato 
growing  wild  in  great  abundance  on  the  sand  of  the 
■sea-shore,  in  the  archipelago  of  Southern  Chili,  and 
growing  with  a remarkable  vigour,  which  may  be  attri- 
buted to  the  damp  climate.  The  tallest  plants  attained 
? .0  the  height  of  four  feet.  The  tubers  were  small  as  a 
rule,  though  one  of  them  was  two  inches  in  diameter. 
{They  were  watery,  insipid,  but  with  no  bad  taste  when 
}' moked.  “The  plant  is  undoubtedly  wild,”  says  the 
yuthor,1  “and  its  specific  identity  has  been  confirmed 
iirst  by  Henslow,  and  afterwards  by  Sir  Joseph  Hooker 
n his  Flora  Antarctica? 

A specimen  in  the  herbarium  collected  by  Claude 
pay,  considered  by  Dunal  to  be  Sclanum  tuberosum, 
bears  this  inscription  : “ From  the  centre  of  the  Cordilleras 
>f  Talcagouay,  and  of  Cauquenes,  in  places  visited  only 
py  botanists  and  geologists.”  The  same  author.  Gay,  in 
iis  Flora  Chilena, 3 insists  upon  the  abundance  of  the 
vvild  potato  in  Chili,  even  among  the  Araucanians  in  the 
!■  mountains  of  Malvarco,  where,  he  says,  the  soldiers  of 
' Pincheira.used  to  go  and  seek  it  for  food.  This  evidence 
sufficiently  proves  its  wild  state  in  Chili,  so  that  I may 
omit  other  less  convincing  testimony — for  instance,  that 
of  Molina  and  Meyen,  whose  specimens  from  Chili  have 
lot  been  examined. 

The  climate  of  the  coast  of  Chili  is  continued  upon 

1 Journal  of  thr.  Voyatje,  etc.,  edit.  1852,  p.  285. 

- Vol.  l.  part  2,  p.  329.  Vol.  v.  p.  74. 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 

the  heights  as  we  follow  the  chain  of  the  Andes,  and  the 
cultivation  of  the  potato  is  of  ancient  date  in  the  tem- 
perate regions  of  Peru,  but  the  wild  character  of  the  j 
species  thei’e  is  not  so  entirely  proved  as  in  the  case  of 
Chili.1  Pavon  declared  he  found  it  on  the  coast  at 
Chancay,  and  near  Lima.  The  heat  of  these  districts  ■ 
seems  very  great  for  a species  which  requires  a temperate  j 
or  even  a rather  cold  climate.  Moreover,  the  specimen  ; 
in  Boissier’s  herbarium,  gathered  by  Pavon,  belongs,  ac- 
cording to  Dunal,2  to  another  species,  to  which  he  has 
given  the  name  of  8.  immite.  I have  seen  the  authentic 
specimen,  and  have  no  doubt  that  it  belongs  to  a species  i 
distinct  from  the  S.  tuberosum.  Sir  W.  Hooker3  speaks 
of  McLean’s  specimen,  gathered  in  the  hills  round  Lima, 
without  any  information  as  to  whether  it  was  foimd  wild. 
The  specimens  (more  or  less  wild)  which  Matthews  sent 
from  Peru  to  Sir  W.  Hooker  belong,  according  to  Sir 
Joseph,4  to  varieties  which  differ  a little  from  the  true 
potato.  Mr.  Hemsley,6  who  has  seen  them  recently  in 
the  herbarium  at  Kew,  believes  them  to  be  “distinct 
forms,  not  more  distinct,  however,  than  certain  varieties ; 
of  the  species.” 

Weddell,6  whose  caution  in  this  matter  we  already 
know,  expresses  himself  as  follows : — “I  have  never 
found  Solanum  tuberosum  in  Peru  under  such  circum-  ' 
stances  as  left  no  doubt  that  it  was  indigenous;  and  I 
even  declare  that  I do  not  attach  more  belief  to  the  wild 
nature  of  other  plants  found  scattered  on  the  Andes 
outside  Chili,  hitherto  considered  as  indigenous.” 

On  the  other  hand,  M.  Ed.  Andrd1  collected  with 
great  care,  in  two  elevated  and  wild  districts  of  Columbia, 
and  in  another  near  Lima,  specimens  which  he  believed  : 
he  might  attribute  to  S.  tuberosum.  M.  Andre  has  been 
kind  enough  to  lend  them  to  me.  I have  compared 
them  attentively  with  the  types  of  Dunal ’s  species  in 

1 Ruiz  and  Pavon,  Flora  Peruviana,  ii.  p.  38. 

2 Dunal,  Prodromus,  xiii.,  sect.  i.  p.  22. 

3 Hooker,  Bot.  Miscell.,  ii.  4 Hooker,  FI.  Antarctica. 

3 Journal  Hort.  Soc.,  now  series,  vol.  v. 

* Weddell,  Chloris  Andina,  p.  103. 

7 Andre,  in  Illustration  Horticole,  1877,  p.  114- 


(PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  PARTS.  .Jo 

imy  herbarium  and  in  that  of  M.  Boissier.  None  of 
tthe.se  Solanaceae  belong,  in  my  opinion,  to  S.  tuberosum, 
although  that  of  La  Union,  near  the  river  Cauca,  comes 
nearer  than  the  rest.  None — and  this  is  yet  more  certain 
— answers  to  8.  immite  of  Dunal.  They  are  nearer  to 
S.  columbianum  of  the  same  author  than  to  8.  tuberosum 
or  8.  immite.  The  specimen  from  Mount  Quindio  presents 
ib  singular  characteristic — it  has  pointed  ovoid  berries.1 

In  Mexico  the  tuberous  Solanums  attributed  to 
"S',  tuberosum,  or,  according  to  Hemsley,2  to  allied  forms, 
lo  not  appear  to  be  identical  with  the  cultivated  plant. 
They  belong  to  S.  Fendleri,  which  Dr.  Asa  Gray  con- 
sidered at  first  as  a separate  species,  and  afterwards3 
las  a variety  of  S.  tuberosum  or  of  S.  verrucosum. 

We  may  sum  up  as  follows  : — 

1.  The  potato  is  wild  in  Chili,  in  a form  which  is 
itill  seen  in  our  cultivated  plants. 

2.  It  is  very  doubtful  whether  its  natural  home 
Extends  to  Peru  and  New  Granada. 

3.  Its  cultivation  was  diffused  before  the  discovery 

Iff  America  from  Chili  to  New  Granada. 

4.  It  was  introduced,  probably  in  the  latter  half  of 
he  sixteenth  century,  into  that  part  of  the  United 
’ Hates  now  known  as  Virginia  and  North  Carolina. 

5.  It  was  imported  into  Europe  between  1580  and 
1585,  first  by  the  Spaniards,  and  afterwards  by  the 
’English,  at  the  time  of  Raleigh’s  voyages  to  Virginia.4 

Batata,  or  Sweet  Potato — Convolvulus  batatas,  Lin- 
ueus ; Batatas  edulis,  Choisy. 

The  roots  of  this  plant,  swelled  into  tubers,  resemble 
jotatoes,  whence  it  arose  that  sixteenth-century  navi- 
gators applied  the  same  name  to  these  two  very  different 
tpecies.  The  sweet  potato  belongs  to  the  Convolvulus 
amily,  the  potato  to  the  Solanum  family  ; the  fleshy 

The  form  of  the  berries  iu  8.  columbianum  and  S.  immite  is  not  yet 
mown. 

2  Hemsley,  Journal  Hort.  Soc.,  new  series,  vol.  v. 

3  Asa  Gray,  Synoptical  Flora  of  North  America,  ii.  p.  227. 

4  See,  ior  the  successive  introduction  into  the  different  parts  of 
iiurope,  Clos,  Quelques  Documents  stir  VHistoire  (la  la  Pomme  de 
Carre,  in  8vo,  1871,  in  Journal  d’Ayric.  Pratiq.  du  Midi  de  la  France. 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


54) 

parts  of  the  former  are  roots,  those  of  the  latter  subter- 
ranean branches.1  The  sweet  potato  is  sugary  as  well 
as  farinaceous.  It  is  cultivated  in  all  countries  within 
or  near  the  tropics,  and  perhaps  more  in  the  new  than 
in  the  old  world.2 

Its  origin  is,  according  to  a great  number  of  authorsj 
doubtful.  Humboldt,3  Meyen,4 *  and  Boissier6  hold  to  its! 
American,  Boyer,6  Choisy,7  etc.,  to  its  Asiatic  origin.  The 
same  diversity  is  observed  in  earlier  works.  The  question 
is  the  more  difficult  since  the  Convolvulaeete  is  one  of  the 
most  widely  diffused  families,  either  from  a very  early 
epoch  or  in  consequence  of  modern  transportation. 

There  are  powerful  arguments  in  favour  of  an 
American  origin.  The  fifteen  known  species  of  the 
genus  Batatas  are  all  found  in  America;  eleven  in  that 
continent  alone,  four  both  in  America  and  the  old 
world,  with  possibility  or  probability  of  transportation. 
The  cultivation  of  the  common  sweet  potato  is  widely] 
diffused  in  America.  It  dates  from  a very  early  epoch. 
Marcgraff8  ‘mentions  it  in  Brazil  under  the  name  of 
jetica.  Humboldt  says  that  the  name  camote  cornea 
from  a Mexican  word.  The  word  Batatas  (whence  cornea 
by  a mistaken  transfer  the  word  potato)  is  given  as 
American.  Sloane  and  Hughes9  speak  of  the  sweet 
potato  as  of  a plant  much  cultivated,  and  having  several 
varieties  in  the  West  Indies.  They  do  not  appear  to 
suspect  that  it  had  a foreign  origin.  Clusius,  who  was 
one  of  the  first  to  mention  the  sweet  potato,  says  he  bad 
eaten  some  in  the  south  of  Spain,  where  it  was  suppose® 
to  have  come  from  the  new  world.10  He  quotes  thej 

1 Turpin  gives  figures  which  clearly  show  these  facts.  M cm.  d 
Ah winm,  vol.  xix.  plates  1,  2,  5. 

- Dr.  Sagot  gives  interesting  details  on  the  method  of  cultivation,, 
tho  product,  etc.,  in  the  Journal  Soc.  d'Hortic.  dc  France , second  series] 
vol.  v.  pp.  450  -158. 

3 Humboldt,  Kouvelle  Espagne,  edit.  2,  vol.  ii.  p.  470. 

4 Meyen,  Qrwnd/risxe  PJtanz.  Oeogr.,  p.  3/3. 

s Boissier,  Voyage  Botaniqae  en  Espagne. 

e Boyer,  llort.  Maurit. , p.  225.  1 Choisy,  in  Prodromes,  p.  33SJ 

H Marcgraff,  Brea.,  p.  16,  with  illustration. 

9 Sloane,  Hist.  Jam.,  i.  p.  150;  Hughes,  Barb.,  p.  228. 

10  Clusius,  Hist.,  ii.  p.  77. 


’LA NTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  PARTS.  55 

names  Batatas,  camotes,  amotes,  ajes,1 2  which  were  foreign 
tbo  the  lauguages  of  the  old  world.  The  date  of  his 
oook  is  1001.  Humboldt3  says  that,  according  to 
jcomara,  Christopher  Columbus,  when  he  appeared  for 
bhe  first  time  before  Queen  Isabella,  offered  her  various 
productions  from  the  new  world,  sweet  potatoes  among 
others.  Thus,  he  adds,  the  cultivation  of  this  plant  was 
^already  common  in  Spain  from  the  beginning  of  the  six- 
teenth century.  Oviedo,3  writing  in  1526,  had  seen  the 
-sweet  potato  freely  cultivated  by  the  natives  of  St. 
^Domingo,  and  had  introduced  it  himself  at  Avila,  in  Spain. 
bTiumphius 4 says  positively  that,  according  to  the  general 
opinion,  sweet  potatoes  were  brought  by  the  Spanish 
'Americans  to  Manilla  and  the  Moluccas,  whence  the 
j?  Portuguese  diffused  it  throughout  the  Malay  Archipelago. 
He  quotes  the  popular  names,  which  are  not  Malay,  and 
vwhich  indicate  an  introduction  by  the  Castillians. 

; Lastly,  it  is  certain  that  the  sweet  potato  was  unknowm 
t to  the  Greeks,  Romans,  and  Arabs ; that  it  was  not 
.■cultivated  in  Egypt  even  eighty  years  ago,5  a fact  which 
:it  would  be  hard  to  explain  if  we  supposed  its  origin  to 
fbe  in  the  old  world. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  arguments  in  favour  of  an 
Asiatic  origin.  The  Chinese  Encyclopedia  of  Agricul- 
ture speaks  of  the  sweet  potato,  and  mentions  different 
'Varieties;6  but  Brctschneider 7 has  proved  that  the 
species  is  described  for  the  first  time  in  a book  of  the 
• second  or  third  century  of  our  era.  According  to 
Thunberg,8  the  sweet  potato  was  brought  to  Japan  by 
the  Portuguese.  Lastly,  the  plant  cultivated  at  Tahiti, 
in  the  neighbouring  islands,  and  in  New  Zealand,  under 
the  names  umara,  gumarra,  and  gumalla,  described  hy 
Forster0  under  the  name  of  Convolvulus  chrysorhizus,  is, 

1 Ajes  was  a name  for  tlie  yam  (Hnmboldt,  Nomelle  Espagne). 

2 Humboldt,  ibid. 

3 Oviedo,  UauiuBio’s  translation,  vol.  iii.  pt.  3. 

* Rumphius,  Amboin.,  v.  p.  368. 

5 Forskal,  p.  54;  Delile,  III. 

* D’Hervey  Saint-Denys,  Reck,  sur  VAgric.  d$s  Chin.,  1850,  p.  100. 

7 Study  and  Value  of  Chinese  Botanical  Works,  p.  13. 

8 Thunberg,  Flora  Japon.,  p.  84.  0 Forster,  Plantes  Escul.,  p.  56. 


50 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


according  to  Sir  Joseph  Hooker,  the  sweet  potato.1 
Seemann 2 remarks  that  these  names  resemble  the 
Quichuen  name  of  the  sweet  potato  in  America,  which  is, 
ho  says,  cumar.  The  cultivation  of  the  sweet  potato  be- 
came general  in  Hindustan  in  the  eighteenth  century.8 
Several  popular  names  are  attributed  to  it,  and  even, 
according  to  Piddington,4  a Sanskrit  name,  ruktalu, 
which  has  no  analogy  with  any  name  known  to  me,  and 
is  not  in  Wilson’s  Sanskrit  Dictionary.  According  to  a 
note  given  me  by  Adolphe  Pictet,  ruktalu  seems  a 
Bengalee  name  composed  from  the  Sanskrit  alu  ( Rukta 
plus  dlu,  the  name  of  Arum  campanulatum ).  This 
name  in  modern  dialects  designates  the  yam  and  the 
potato.  However,  Wallich5  gives  several  names  omitted 
by  Piddington.  Roxburgh  6 mentions  no  Sanskrit  name. 
Rheede 7 says  the  plant  was  cultivated  in  Malabar,  and 
mentions  common  Indian  names. 

The  arguments  in  favour  of  an  American  origin  seem 
to  me  much  stronger.  If  the  sweet  potato  had  been 
known  in  Hindustan  at  the  epoch  of  the  Sanskrit 
language  it  would  have  become  diffused  in  the  old  world, 
since  its  propagation  is  easy  and  its  utility  evident.  It 
seems,  .on  the  contrary,  that  this  cultivation  remained 
long  unknown  in  the  Sunda  Isles,  Egypt,  etc.  Perhaps 
an  attentive  examination  might  lead  us  to  share  the 
opinion  of  Meyer,8  who  distinguished  the  Asiatic  plant 
from  the  American  species.  However,  this  author  has 
not  been  generally  followed,  and  I suspect  that  if  there  is 
a different  Asiatic  species  it  is  not,  as  Meyer  believed, 
the  sweet  potato  described  by  Rumphius,  which  the 
latter  says  was  brought  from  America,  but  the  Indian 
plant  of  Roxburgh. 

Sweet  potatoes  are  grown  in  Africa ; but  either  the 
cultivation  is  rare,  or  the  species  are  different.  Robert 
Brown9  says  that  the  traveller  Lockhardt  had  not  seen 

1 Hooker,  Handbook  of  New  'Zealand  Flora,  p.  194. 

2 Seemann,  Journal  of  Bot.,  1866,  p.  328. 

3 Roxburgh,  edit.  Wall.,  ii.  p.  69.  4 Piddington,  Index. 

5 Wallich,  Flora  Ind.  6 Roxburgh,  edit.  1832,  vol.  i.  p.  183. 

’ Rheede,  Mai.,  vii.  p.  95.  8 Meyer,  Prirni tine  FI.  Esseq.,  p.  103. 

8 R.  Brown,  Bot.  Congo,  p.  55. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  PARTS.  57 


jtihe  sweet  potato  of  whose  cultivation  the  Portuguese 
^missionaries  make  mention.  Thonning 1 does  not  name  it. 
iWogel  brought  back  a species  cultivated  on  the  western 
icoast,  which  is  certainly,  according  to  the  authors  of 
jEbhe  Flora  Nigritiana,  Batatas  paniculata  of  Choisy.  It 
jvwas,  therefore,  a plant  cultivated  for  ornament  or  for 
hnedicinal  purposes,  for  its  root  is  purgative.2  It  might 
jibe  supposed  that  in  certain  countries  in  the  nld  or  new 
jvworld  Ipomcea  tuberosa,  L.,  had  been  confounded  with 
(the  sweet  potato ; but  Sloane8  tells  us  that  its  enormous 

C)ots  are  not  eatable.4 

Ipomcea  mammosa,  Choisy  ( Convolvulus  mammosus, 
oureiro ; Batata  mammosa,  Rumphius),  is  a Convol- 
1 vulaceous  plant  with  an  edible  root,  which  may  well  be 
confounded  with  the  sweet  potato,  but  whose  botanical 
character  is  nevertheless  distinct.  This  species  grows 
wild  near  Amboyna  (Rumphius),  where  it  is  also  culti- 
vated. It  is  prized  in  Cochin-China. 

As  for  the  sweet  potato  ( Batatas  edulis),  no  botanist, 
?.as  far  as  I know,  has  asserted  that  he  found  it  wild  him- 
self, either  in  India  or  America.5  Clusius5  affirms  upon 

! hearsay  that  it  grows  wild  in  the  new  world  and  in  the 
neighbouring  islands. 

In  spite  of  the  probability  of  an  American  origin, 
there  remains,  as  we  have  seen,  much  that  is  unknown 
>r  uncertain  touching  the  original  home  and  the  trans- 
port of  this  species,  which  is  a valuable  one  in  hot  coun- 
tries. Whether  it  was  a native  of  the  new  or  of  the 
old  world,  it  is  difficult  to  explain  its  transportation 
from  America  to  China  at  the  beginning  of  our  era,  and 

1 Schumacher  and  Thonning,  Basic . Quin. 

" Wallich,  in  Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.,  ii.  p.  03. 

3 Sloane,  Jam.,  i.  p.  152. 

4 Several  Convolvnlaceao  have  largo  roots,  or  more  properly  root- 
stocks, but  in  this  case  it  is  the  base  of  the  stem  with  a part  of  the  root 
which  is  swelled,  and  this  root-stock  is  always  purgative,  as  in  the  Jalap 
and  Turbith,  while  in  the  sweet  potato  it  is  the  lateral  roots,  a different 
organ,  which  swell. 


5 No.  701  of  Schomburgh,  coll.  1,  is  wild  in  Guiana.  According 
to  Choisy,  it  is  a variety  of  tho  Batatas  edulis ; according  to  Bontham 
(Hook,  Jour.  Bot.,  v.  p.  352),  of  tho  Batatas  paniculata.  My  specimen, 
which  is  rather  imperfoct,  seems  to  mo  to  be  different  from  both. 

3 Clusius,  Hist.,  ii.  p.  77. 


58  ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 

to  the  South  Sea  Islands  at  an  early  epoch,  or  from  Asia 
and  from  Australia  to  America  at  a time  sufficiently  • 
remote  for  its  cultivation  to  have  been  early  diffused  I 
from  the  Southern  States  to  Brazil  and  Chili.  We  must  j 
assume  a prehistoric  communication  between  Asia  and 
America,  or  adopt  another  hypothesis,  which  is  not  in-  : 
applicable  to  the  present  case.  The  order  Convolvulaceas  is 
one  of  those  rare  families  of  dicotyledons  in  which  certain 
species  have  a widely  extended  area,  extending  even  to  j 
distant  continents.1  A species  which  can  at  the  present 
day  endure  the  different  climates  of  Virginia  and  Japan  : 
may  well  have  existed  further  north  before  the  epoch  of  ' 
the  great  extension  of  glaciers  in  our  hemisphere,  and 
prehistoric  men  may  have  transported  it  southward  ; 
when  the  climatic  conditions  altered.  According  to 
this  hypothesis,  cultivation  alone  preserved  the  species,  j 
unless  it  is  at  last  discovered  in  some  spot  in  its  ancient 
habitation — in  Mexico  or  Columbia,  for  instance.2 * * * * * 

Beetroot — Beta  vulgaris  and  B.  maritima,  Linnreus ; j 
Beta  vulgaris,  Moquin. 

This  plant  is  cultivated  sometimes  for  its  fleshy  root  j 
(red  beet),  sometimes  for  its  leaves,  which  are  used  as  a 
vegetable  (white  beet),  but  botanists  are  generally  agreed  j 
in  not  dividing  the  species.  It  is  known  from  other  j 
examples  that  plants  slender  rooted  by  nature  easily  1 
become  fleshy  rooted  from  the  effects  of  soil  or  cultivation.  I 

The  slender-rooted  variety  grows  wild  in  sandy  soil, > 
and  especially  near  the  sea  in  the  Canary  Isles,  and  all ; 
along  the  coasts  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  and  as  far  as  ! 
the  Caspian  Sea,  Persia,  and  Babylon,8  perhaps  even  as  | 

1 A.  de  Candolle,  Q&ogr.  Bot.  Rciisonru1,  pp.  1041-1043,  and  pp.J 
516-518. 

2 Dr.  Bretschneider,  after  having  read  the  above,  wrote  to  me  from  q 

Pekin  that  the  cultivated  sweet  potato  is  of  origin  foreign  to  China,  . j 

according  to  Chinese  authors.  The  handbook-  of  agriculture  of  Nung. 
chang-tsuan-shu,  whose  author  died  in  1633,  asserts  this  fact.  Bo 

speaks  of  a sweet  potato  wild  in  China,  called  chu,  the  cultivated  species 
being  kan-chu.  The  Min-shu,  published  in  the  sixteenth  century,  saya 

that  the  introduction  took  place  between  1573  and  1620.  1 he  American 

origin  thus  receives  a further  proof.  . . 

2 Moquin-Tandon,  in  Prodromus,  vol.  xiii.  pt.  2,  p.  55;  Boissier, 
Flora  Oriental w,  iv.  p.  898 ; Ledebour,  FI.  LWtVa,  iii.  p.  692. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  PARTS.  5& 

far  as  the  west  of  India,  whence  a specimen  was  brought 
by  Jaquemont,  although  it  is  not  certain  that  it  was 
: growing  wild.  Roxburgh’s' Indian  flora,  and  Aitchison’s 
more  recent  flora  of  the  Punjab  and  of  the  Sindh,  only 
mention  the  plant  as  a cultivated  species. 

It  has  no  Sanskrit  name,1  whence  it  may  be  inferred 
: that  the  Aryans  had  not  brought  it  from  western  tem- 
! perate  Asia,  where  it  exists.  The  nations  of  Aryan  race 

■ who  had  previously  migrated  into  Europe  probably  did 
: not  cultivate  it,  for  I find  no  name  common  to  the  Indo- 

European  languages.  The  ancient  Greeks,  who  used  the 
leaves  and  roots,  called  the  species  teutlion ;2  the  Romans, 
beta.  Heldreich8  gives  also  the  ancient  Greek  name 
• sevkle,  or  sfekelie,  which  resembles  the  Arab  name  selg, 

■ silq*  among  the  Nabatheans.  The  Arab  name  has  passed 
i into  the  Portuguese  selga.  No  Hebreiv  name  is  known. 

Everything  shows  that  its  cultivation  does  not  date  from 
more  than  three  or  four  centuries  before  the  Christian  era. 

The  red  and  white  roots  were  known  to  the  ancients, 
but  the  number  of  varieties  has  greatly  increased  in 
modern  times,  especially  since  the  beetroot  has  been 
' cultivated  on  a large  scale  for  the  food  of  cattle  and  for 
the  production  of  sugar.  It  is  one  of  the  plants  most 
i easily  improved  by  selection,  as  the  experiments  of 
Vilmorin  have  proved.5 

Manioc — Manihot  utMssima,  Pohl ; Jatropha  raa- 
nihot,  Linnaeus. 

The  manioc  is  a shrub  belonging  to  the  Euphorbia 
: family,  of  which  several  roots  swell  in  their  first  year ; 
they  take  the  form  of  an  irregular  ellipse,  and  contain 
a fecula  (tapioca)  with  a more  or  less  poisonous  juice. 

It  is  commonly  cultivated  in  the  equatorial  or  tropical 
regions,  especially  in  America  from  Brazil  to  the  West 
Indies.  In  Africa  the  cultivation  is  less  general,  and  seems 
to  be  more  recent.  In  certain  Asiatic  colonies  it  is 

' Roxburgh,  piora  jW(j»ca,  ii.  p.  59  ; Piddington,  Index. 

Theophrastus  and  Dioscorides,  quoted  by  Len z,  Botanik  dev  Grie . 
chen  und  Homer,  p.  44(5 ; Fraas,  Synopsis  FI.  Class.,  p.  233. 

3 Heldreich,  Die  Nutzpflanzen  Qriecli enlands,  p.  22. 

4 Alaw&m,  Agriculture  nabathtienne,  from  E.  Moyer,  Geschichto  der 
Botanik,  iii.  p.  75. 

1 Notice  »ur  l’ Amelioration  des  Plantes  par  le  Semis,  p.  15. 


C>0 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


decidedly  of  modem  introduction.  It  is  propagated  by 
budding. 

Botanists  are  divided  in  opinion  whether  the  innu- 
merable varieties  of  manioc  should  be  regarded  as  form- 
ing  one,  two,  or  several  different  species.  Pohl 1 admitted 
several  besides  his  Manihot  utilissima,  and  Dr.  Miiller, a 
in  his  monograph  on  the  Euphorbiacea?,  places  the  variety 
aipi  in  an  allied  species,  M.  palmata,  a plant  cultivated 
with  the  others  in  Brazil,  and  of  which  the  root  is  not 
poisonous.  This  last  character  is  not  so  distinct  as  might 
be  believed  from  certain  books  and  even  from  the  asser- 
tions of  the  natives.  Dr.  Sagot,3  who  has  compared  a 
dozen  varieties  of  manioc  cultivated  at  Cayenne,  says 
expressly,  “ There  are  maniocs  more  poisonous  than 
others,  but  I doubt  whether  any  are  entirely  free  from 
noxious  principles.” 

It  is  possible  to  account  for  these  singular  differences 
of  properties  in  very  similar  plants  by  the  example  of 
the  potato.  The  Manihot  and  Solanum  tuberosum 
both  belong  to  suspected  families  (. Euphorbiacea}  and 
Solanacece).  Several  of  their  species  are  poisonous  in 
some  of  their  organs;  but  the  fecula,  wherever  it  is 
found,  is  never  harmful,  and  the  same  holds  good  of 
the  cellular  tissue,  freed  from  all  deposit ; that  is  to  say,  ' 
reduced  to  cellulose.  In  the  preparation  of  cassava,  or 
manioc  flour,  great  care  is  taken  to  scrape  the  outer  skin 
of  the  root,  then  to  pound  or  crush  the  fleshy  part  so  as 
to  express  the  more  or  less  poisonous  juice,  and  finally 
the  paste  is  submitted  to  a baking  which  expels  the 
volatile  parts.4  Tapioca  is  the  pure  fecula  without  the 
mixture  of  the  tissues  which  still  exist  in  the  cassava. 
In  the  potato  the  outer  pellicle  contracts  noxious  quali-  j 
ties  when  it  is  allowed  to  become  green  by  exposure  to 
the  light,  and  it  is  well  known  that  unripe  or  diseased 
tubers,  containing  too  small  a propertion  of  fecula  with 

1 Pohl,  Plantamm  Brasilice  If  ones  et  Descripiioves,  in  fol.,  vol.  i. 

2 J.  Muller,  in  Prodromua , xv.,  sect.  2,  pp.  1062-1004. 

3 Sagot,  Bull,  de  la  Soc.  Bot.  de  France,  Dec.  8,  1871. 

4 I give  the  essentials  of  the  preparation  ; the  details  vary  according 
to  tho  country.  See  on  this  head:  Anblot,  Gv.yane,  ii.  p.  67;  De-  ' 
courtilz,  Flora  dee  Antilles,  iii.  p.  113;  Sagot,  etc. 


•PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  PARTS.  G1 

nnuch  sap,  are  not  good  to  eat,  and  would  cause  positive 
1 harm  to  persons  who  consumed  any  quantity  ot  them. 
.'All  potatoes,  and  probably  all  maniocs,  contain  something 
lharmful,  which  is  observed  even  in  the  products  of  dis- 
tillation, and  which  varies  with  several  causes  ; but  only 
unatter  foreign  to  the  fecula  should  be  mistrusted. 

The  doubts  about  the  number  of  species  into  which 
ithe  cultivated  manihots  should  be  divided  are  no  source 
■of  difficulty  regarding  the  question  of  geographic  origin. 
tOn  the  contrary,  we  shall  see  that  they  are  an  important 
means  of  proving  an  American  origin. 

The  Abbd  Raynal  had  formerly  spread  the  erroneous 
[ opinion  that  the  manioc  was  imported  into  America  from 
I Africa.  Robert  Brown 1 denied  this  in  1818,  but  without 
L giving  reasons  in  support  of  his  opinion ; and  Humboldt,2 

■ Moreau  de  Jonnes,3  and  Saint  Hilaire4  insisted  upon  its 
’American  origin.  It  can  hardly  be  doubted  for  the 
? following  reasons : — 

1.  Maniocs  were  cultivated  by  the  natives  of  Brazil, 

• Guiana,  and  the  warm  region  of  Mexico  before  the  arrival 

■ of  the  Europeans,  as  all  early  travellers  testify.  In  the 
'West  Indies  this  cultivation  was,  according  to  Acosta,5 
vcommon  enough  in  the  sixteenth  century  to  inspire  the 

belief  that  it  was  also  there  of  a certain  antiquity. 

2.  It  is  less  widely  diffused  in  Africa,  especially  in 
.[regions  at  a distance  from  the  west  coast.  It  is  known 

that  manioc  was  introduced  into  the  Isle  of  Bourbon  by 
•the  Governour  Labourdonnais.6  In  Asiatic  countries, 
where  a plant  so  easy  to  cultivate  would  probably  have 

• spread  had  it  been  long  known  on  the  African  continent, 
it  is  mentioned  here  and  there  as  an  object  of  curiosity 
of  foreign  origin.7 

' R.  Brown,  Botany  of  the  Congo,  p.  50. 

* Humboldt,  Nouvelle  Espagne,  edit.  2,  vol.  ii.  p.  398. 

Hist,  de  l’ Acad,  des  Sciences,  1824. 

* Uuillemin,  Archives  de  Botanique,  i.  p.  239. 

Acosta,  Hist.  Nat.  des  Indes,  French  trans.,  1598,  p.  163. 

* Thomas,  Statistique  de  Bourbon,  ii.  p.  18. 

1 The  catalogue  of  the  botanical  gardens  of  Buitonzorg,  1866,  p.  222, 
’ says  expressly  that  tbo  Maniliot  utilissima  comes  from  Bourbon  and 
i America. 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


62 


3.  The  natives  of  America  had  several  ancient  names 
for  the  varieties  of  manioc,  especially  in  Brazil,1  which 
does  not  appear  to  have  been  the  case  in  Africa,  even  on 
the  coast  of  Guinea.2 3 

4.  The  varieties  cultivated  in  Brazil,  in  Guiana,  and 
in  the  West  Indies  are  very  numerous,  whence  we  may 
presume  a very  ancient  cultivation.  This  is  not  the  case 
in  Africa. 

5.  The  forty -two  known  species  of  the  genus  Manihot, 
without  counting  M.  utilissima,  are  all  wild  in  America ; 
most  of  them  in  Brazil,  some  in  Guiana,  Peru,  and 
Mexico;  not  one  in  the  old  world.8  It  is  very  unlikely  that 
a single  species,  and  that  the  cultivated  one,  was  a native 
both  of  the  old  and  of  the  new  world,  and  all  the  more  so 
since  in  the  family  Euphorbiacece  the  area  of  the  woody 
species  is  usually  restricted,  and  since  phanerogamous 
plants  are  very  rarely  common  to  Africa  and  America. 

The  American  origin  of  the  manioc  being  thus 
established,  it  may  be  asked  how  the  species  has  been 
introduced  into  Guinea  and  Congo.  It  was  probably 
the  result  of  the  frequent  communications  established  in 
the  sixteenth  century  by  Portuguese  merchants  and 
slave-traders. 

The  Manihot  utilissima  and  the  allied  species  or 
variety  called  aipi,  which  is  also  cultivated,  have  not 
been  found  in  an  undoubtedly  wild  state.  Humboldt 
and  Bonpland,  indeed,  found  upon  the  banks  of  the 
Magdalena  a plant  of  Manihot  utilissima  which  they 
called  almost  wild,4  but  Dr.  Sagot  assures  me  that  it  has 
not  been  found  in  Guiana,  and  that  botanists  who  have 
explored  the  hot  region  in  Brazil  have  not  been  more 
fortunate.  We  gather  as  much  from  the  expressions 
of  Pohl,  who  has  carefully  studied  these  plants,  and  who 
was  acquainted  with  the  collections  of  Martius,  and  had 

1 Ay  pi,  tna/ndioca,  manihot,  mamoch,  yuca,  etc.,  in  Pohl,  leones  and 
1) esc.,  i.  pp.  30,  33.  Martius,  Beitmge  z.  Ethnographie,  etc.,  Brazilians, 
ii.  p.  122,  gives  a number  of  names. 

2 Thonning  (in  Schumacher,  Besk.  Guini),  who  is  accustomed  to 
quote  the  common  names,  gives  none  for  the  manioc. 

3 J.  Muller,  in  Prodromus,  xv.,  sect.  1.  p.  1057. 

4 Kunth,  in  Humboldt  and  B.,  Nova  Genera,  ii.  p.  108. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  PARTS.  (33 

:uo  doubt  of  their  American  origin.  If  he  had  observed 
u wild  variety  identical  with  those  which  are  cultivated, 
iue  would  not  have  suggested  the  hypothesis  that  the 
manioc  is  obtained  from  his  Manikot  pusilla 1 of  the 
province  of  Goyaz,  a plant  of  small  size,  and  considered 
ais  a true  species  or  as  a variety  of  Manihot  palmata .2 
Martius  declared  in  1S67,  that  is  after  having  received  a 
quantity  of  information  of  a later  date  than  his  journey, 
that  the  plant  was  not  known  in  a wild  state.3  An  early 
traveller,  usually  accurate,  Piso,4 *  speaks  of  a wild  mandi- 
koca,  of  which  the  Tapuyeris,  the  natives  of  the  coast 
.to  the  north  of  Rio  Janeiro,  ate  the  roots.  “It  is,”  he 
.says,  “ veiy  like  the  cultivated  plant ; ” but  the  illustra- 
tion he  gives  of  it  appears  unsatisfactory  to  authors  who 
[ hq,ve  studied  the  maniocs.  Pohl  attributes  it  to  his 
M.  aipi,  and  Dr.  Muller  passes  it  over  in  silence.  For 
my  part,  I am  disposed  to  believe  what  Piso  says,  and 
[his  figure  does  not  seem  to  me  entirely  unsatisfactory. 

1 ft  is  better  than  that  by  Vellozo,  of  a wild  manioc  which 
•is  doubtfully  attributed  to  M.  aipi.6  If  we  do  not 
accept  the  origin  in  eastern  tropical  Brazil,  we  must 
have  recourse  to  two  hypotheses : either  the  cultivated 
maniocs  are  obtained  from  one  of  the  wild  species 
modified  by  cultivation,  or  they  are  varieties  which 
.exist  only  by  the  agency  of  man  after  the  disappearance 
I'Of  their  fellows  from  modern  wild  vegetation. 

Garlic — Allium  sativum,  Linn  reus. 

Linnaeus,  in  his  Species  Plantavum,  indicates  Sicily 
as  the  home  of  the  common  garlic ; but  in  his  Ilortus 
| Cliff ortlanus,  where  he  is  usually  more  accurate,  he  does 
not  give  its  origin.  The  fact  is  that,  according  to  all  the 
I most  recent  and  complete  floras  of  Sicily,  Italy,  Greece, 
I ranee,  Spain,  and  Algeria,  garlic  is  not  considered  to  be 
indigenous,  although  specimens  have  been  gathered  here 
and  there  which  had  more  or  less  the  appearance  of 

1 IroneH  ct  Descr;  i.  p.  36,  pi.  26.  2 Muller,  in  Prodromm . 

« 5°  Ml^tln8,  Beitr&ge  zu r Ethnogrwphie,  etc.,  i.  pp.  19,  136. 

1 iso,  Hist  or  ia  Natwalis  Brazilian,  in  folio,  1658,  p.  55,  cum  icone. 

| Jutropia  Sylvestris  Veil.  FI,  Flwm.,  16,  t.  83.  Seo  Muller,  in 

j D.  C.  Prodromm,  xv.  p.  1063. 


64 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


being  so.  r A plant  so  constantly  cultivated  and  so  easily 
propagated  inay  spread  from  gardens  and  persist  for  a 
considerable  time  without  being  Avild  ' by  nature.  I do 
not  know  on  what  authority  Kunth 1 mentions  that  the  ' 
species  is  found  in  Egypt.  According  to  authors  who  are 
more  accurate2  in  their  accounts  of  the  plants  of  that 
country,  it  is  only  found  there  under  cultivation.  Boissier, 
whose  herbarium  is  so  rich  in  Eastern  plants,  possesses  ! 
no  wild  specimens  of  it.  The  only  country  where  garlic 
has  been  found  in  a wild  state,  with  the  certainty  of  its 
really  being  so,  is  the  desert  of  the  Kirghis  of  Sungari ; 
bulbs  were  brought  thence  and  cultivated  at  Dorpat 3 . 
and  specimens  were  afterwards  seen  by  Regel.4  The 
latter  author  also  says  that  he  saw  a specimen  which 
Wallich  had  gathered  as  wild  in  British  India ; but 
Baker,5  who  had  access  to  the  rich  herbarium  at  Kew, ; 
does  not  speak  of  it  in  his  review  of  the  “ Alliums  of 
India,  China,  and  Japan.” 

Let  us  see  whether  historical  and  philological  records 
confirm  the  fact  of  an  origin  in  the  south-west  of  Siberia 
alone. 

Garlic  has  been  long  cultivated  in  China  under  the 
name  of  man.  It  is  written  in  Chinese  by  a single  sign, 
which  usually  indicates  a long  known  and  even  a wild 
species.6  The  floras  of  Japan7  do  not  mention  it,  whence  i 
I gather  that  the  species  was  not  wild  in  Eastern  Siberia 
and  Dahuria,  but  that  the  Mongols  brought  it  into  l 
China. 

According  to  Herodotus,  the  ancient  Egyptians  made 
great  use  of  it.  Archaeologists  have  not  found  the  proof 
of  this  in  the  monuments,  but  this  may  be  because  the 
plant  was  considered  unclean  by  the  priests.8 

1 Kunth,  Enunu,  iv.  p.  381. 

2 Schweinfurtli  and  Ascherson,  Aufzahlv/ng,  p.  294. 

* Ledebour,  Flora  Altaica,  ii.  p.  4;  Flora  Rossica,  iv.  p.  162. 

4 Regel,  Allior.  Monogr.,  p.  44. 

s Baker,  in  Journal  of  Bot.,  1874,  p.  295. 

8 Bretechneider,  Study  and  Value,  etc.,  pp.  15,  4,  and  7. 

7 Thunberg,  FI.  Jap. ; Franchet  and  Savatier,  Enumeratio,  1876,  i 
vol.  ii. 

8 Unger,  Pflanzen  dee  Alien  /Egyptem,  p.  42. 


’PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  PARTS.  G5 

There  is  a Sanskrit  name,  mahoushouda,1  become 
loshoun  in  Bengali,  and  to  which  appears  to  be  related 
the  Hebrew  name  schoum  or  schumin ,2  which  has  pro- 
duced the  Arab  thoum  or  town.  The  Basque  name  bara- 
xhouria  is  thought  by  de  Charencey 3 to  be  allied  with 
Aryan  names.  In  support  of  his  hypothesis  I may 
add  that  the  Berber  name,  tiskert,  is  quite  different,  and 
bat  consequently  the  Iberians  seem  to  have  received  the 
olant  and  its  name  rather  from  the  Aryans  than  from 
heir  probable  ancestors  of  Northern  Africa.  The  Lettons 
[sail  it  hiplohks,  the  Esthonians  krunslauk,  whence  probably 
idle  German  Knoblauch.  The  ancient  Greek  name  appears 
too  have  been  scorodon,  in  modern  Greek  scordon.  The 
names  given  by  the  Slavs  of  Illyria  are  bill  and  cesan. 
The  Bretons  say  quinen ,4  the  Welsh  craf,  cenhinnen,  or 
\ /artteg,  whence  the  English  garlic.  The  Latin  allium 
a as  passed  into  the  languages  of  Latin  origin.5  This 
:p'eat  diversity  of  names  intimates  a long  acquaintance 
with  the  plant,  and  even  an  ancient  cultivation  in 
W estem  Asia  and  in  Europe.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the 

Ipecies  has  existed  only  in  the  land  of  the  Kirghis,  where 
t is  now  found,  the  Aryans  might  have  cultivated  it  and 
:arried  it  into  India  and  Europe ; but  this  does  not 
■xplain  the  existence  of  so  many  Keltic,  Slav,  Greek, 
nd  Latin  names  which  differ  from  the  Sanskrit.  To 
-xplain  this  diversity,  we  must  suppose  that  its  original 
bode  extended  farther  to  the  west  than  that  known  at 
be  present  day,  an  extension  anterior  to  the  migrations 
->f  the  Aryans. 

' _ If  the  genus  Allium  were  once  made,  as  a whole,  the 
>bject  of  such  a serious  study  as  that  of  Gay  on  some 

' Piddington,  Index. 

‘ filler,  Ri^phjton;  Hosenmiiller,  Bill.  Allerthum,  vol.  iv. 

De  Charencey,  Actes  de  la  Soc.  Phil.,  1st  March,  1869. 

Davies,  Welsh  Botanology. 

5.  All  these  common  names  aro  found  in  my  dictionary  compiled  by 
lontzi  from  floras.  I could  have  quotod  a larger  number,  and  men- 
ioned  tho  probable  etymologies,  as  given  by  philologists — Helm,  for 
istance,  in  his  Kulturpflanzen  aus  Asien,  p.  171  and  following;  but 
his  is  not  necessary  to  show  its  origin  and  earlv  cultivation  in  several 
ifferent  countries. 


F 


0(3 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


of  its  species,1  perhaps  it  might  be  found  that  certain 
wild  European  forms,  included  by  authors  under  A. 
arenarium,  L.,  A.  arenarium,  Sm.,  or  A.  scorodojrrasum, 
L.,  are  only  varieties  of  A.  sativum.  In  that  case  every- 
thing would  agree  to  show  that  the  earliest  peoples  of 
Europe  and  Western  Asia  cultivated  such  form  of  the 
species  just  as  they  found  it  from  Tartary  to  Spain, 
giving  it  names  more  or  less  different. 

Onion — Allium  Cepa,  Linnaeus. 

I will  state  first  what  was  known  in  1855  ;2  I will 
then  add  the  recent  botanical  observations  which  confirm 
the  inferences  from  philological  data. 

The  onion  is  one  of  the  earliest  of  cultivated  species. 
Its  original  country  is,  according  to  Kunth,  unknown.3 4 
Let  us  see  if  it  is  possible  to  discover  it.  The  modem 
Greeks  call  Allium  Cepa,  which  they  cultivate  in 
abundance,  krommunda  * This  is  a good  reason  for  be- 
lieving that  the  krommuon  of  Theophrastus 5 is  the  same 
species,  as  sixteenth-century  writers  already  supposed.6 
Pliny7  translated  the  word  by  cmpa.  The  ancient  Greeks 
and  Romans  knew  several  varieties,  which  they  distin- 
guished by  the  names  of  countries : Cyprium,  Cretense, 
Samothraciae,  etc.  One  variety  cultivated  in  Egypt 8 was 
held  to  be  so  excellent  that  it  received  divine  honours, 
to  the  great  amusement  of  the  Romans.9  Modern 
Egyptians  designate  A.  Cepa  by  the  name  of  basal10  or 
hussul,11  whence  it  is  probable  that  the  bezidhn  of  the 
Hebrews  is  the  same  species,  as  commentators  have  said.12 
There  are  several  distinct  names — palandu,kdarka,  sa- 
Icandaka ,w  and  a number  of  modern  Indian  names.  The 
species  is  commonly  cultivated  in  India,  Cochin-China, 

1 Annul es  des  Sc.  Nat.,  3rd  series,  vol.  viii. 

2 A.  de  Candolle,  GAogr.  Hot.  Raisonnde,  ii.  p.  828. 

3 Kunth,  Enumer.,  iv.  p.  394. 

4 Fraas,  Sun.  FI.  Clans.,  p.  291. 

s Theophrastus,  Hist.,  1.  7,  c.  4.  A 

6 J.  Bauhin,  Hist.,  ii.  p.  548.  T Pliny,  Hist.,  1.  19,  c.  6.  * Ibid. 

0 Juvenalis,  Sat.  16.  10  Forskal,  p.  65. 

“ Ainslie’s  Mat.  Med.  Ind.,  i.  p.  269.  * 

12  Hiller,  Hieroph.,  ii.  p.  36;  Kosenmuller,  Handbh.  Bill.  Alterk.-,  ir. 

p.  96. 

13  Piddington,  Index;  Ainslie’s  Mat.  Med.  Ind ^ 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  PARTS.  (37 

[China,1  and  even  in  Japan.2  It  was  largely  consumed 
ioy  the  ancient  Egyptians.  Tlie  drawings  on  their 
monuments  often  represent  this  species.8  Thus  its 
Cultivation  in  Southern  Asia  and  the  eastern  region  of 
i 'he  Mediterranean  dates  from  a very  early  epoch.  More- 
over, the  Chinese,  Sanskrit,  Hebrew,  Greek,  and  Latin 
i.aames  have  no  apparent  connection.  From  this  last  fact 
(we  may  deduce  the  hypothesis  that  its  cultivation  was 
loegun  after  the  separation  of  the  Indo-European  nations, 
he  species  being  found  ready  to  hand  in  different 
1 :ountries  at’once.  This,  however,  is  not  the  present  state 
bf  things,  for  we  hardly  find  even  vague  indications  of 
be  wild  state  of  A.  Gepa.  I have  not  discovered  it 
n European  or  Caucasian  floras;  but  Hasselcpiist 4 says, 
i It  grows  in  the  plains  near  the  sea  in  the  environs  of 
Jericho.”  Dr.  Wallich  mentioned  in  his  list  of  Indian 
fblants,  No.  5072,  specimens  which  he  saw  in  districts  of 
Bengal,  without  mentioning  whether  they  were  cultivated. 
I’Chis  indication,  however  insufficient,  together  with  the 
antiquity  of  the  Sanskrit  and  Hebrew  names,  and  the 
Communication  which  is  known  to  have  existed  between 
he  peoples  of  India  and  of  Egypt,  lead  me  to  suppose 
hat  this  plant  occupied  a vast  area  in  Western  Asia, 
extending  perhaps  from  Palestine  to  India.  Allied  species, 
(sometimes  mistaken  for  A.  Gepa,  exist  in  Siberia.5 

The  specimens  collected  by  Anglo-Indian  botanists,  of 
which  Wallich  gave  the  first  idea,  are  now  better  known. 
“Stokes  discovered  Allium  Gepa  wild  in  Beluchistan. 
He  says,  “wild  on  the  Chehil  Tun.”  Griffith  brought 
: it  from  Afghanistan  and  Thomson  from  Lahore,  to  say 
nothing  of  other  collectors,  who  are  not  explicit  as  to  the 
wild  or  cultivated  nature  of  their  specimens.6  Boissier 
possesses  a wildspecimen  found  inthe  mountainous  regions 
of  the  Khorassan.  The  umbels  are  smaller  than  in  the 

' Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.,  ii. ; Loureiro,  FI.  Cochin.,  p.  249. 

- Thunberg,  FI.  Jap.,  p.  132. 

Unger,  Pflanzen  d.  Alt . JEgypt.,  p.  42,  figs.  22,  23,  24. 

Hasselquist,  Foy.  and  Trav .,  p.  279. 

Ledebour,  FI.  Roxxica,  iv.  p.  109. 

■ J'  Catalogue  of  the  Plants  of  the  Punjab  and  the  Sindh, 

an  8vo,  1869,  p.  19;  Baker,  in  Journal  ofBot.,  1874,  p.  295. 


C!S  . ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 

cultivated  plant,  but  there  is  no  other  difference.  Dr. 
Regel,  jun.,  found  it  to  the  south  of  Kuldscha,  in  Western 
Siberia.1  Thus  my  former  conjectures  are  completely 
justified  ; and  it  is  not  unlikely  that  its  habitation  extends 
even  as  far  as  Palestine,  as  Hasselquist  said. 

The  onion  is  designated  in  China  by  a single  sign 
(pronounced  tsung),  -which  may  suggest  a long  existence 
there  as  an  indigenous  plant.2  I very  much  doubt,  how- 
ever, that  the  area  extends  so  far  to  the  east. 

Humboldt 3 says  that  the  Americans  have  always  been 
accpiainted  with  onions,  in  Mexican  xonacatl.  “ Cortes,  ” 
he  says,  “ speaking  of  the  comestibles  sold  at  the  market 
of  the  ancient  Tenochtillan,  mentions  onions,  leeks,  and 
garlic.”  I cannot  believe,  however,  that  these  names 
applied  to  the  species  cultivated  in  Europe.  Sloane,  in 
the  seventeenth  century,  had  only  seen  one  Allium 
cultivated  in  Jamaica  (A.  Cepa),  and  that  was  in  a garden 
with  other  European  vegetables.4  The  word  xonacatl  is 
not  in  Hernandez,  and  Acosta 5 says  distinctly  that  the 
onions  and  garlics  of  Peru  are  of  European  origin.  ' The 
species  of  the  genus  Allium  arc  rare  in  America. 

Spring,  or  Welsh  Onion — Allium  fistvloemn,  Linnaeus. 

This  species  was  for  a long  time  mentioned  in  floras 
and  works  on  horticulture  as  of  unknown  origin ; but 
Russian  botanists  have  found  it  wild  in  Siberia  towards 
the  Altai  mountains,  on  the  Lake  Baikal  in  the  land  of 
the  Kirghis.6  The  ancients  did  not  know  the  plant.7  It 
must  have  come  into  Europe  through  Russia  in  the 
Middle  Ages,  or  a little  later.  Dodoens,8  an  author  of 
the  sixteenth  century,  has  given  a figure  of  it,  hardly 
recognizable,  under  the  name  of  Cepa  oblonga. 

Shallot — Allium  ascalonicum,  Linnaeus. 

It  was  believed,  according  to  Pliny,9  that  this  plant 

1 III.  Hortie.,  1877,  p.  167. 

2 Bretschneider,  Study  and  Value,  etc.,  pp.  47  and  7. 

3 Nourelle  Espagne,  2nd  edit.,  ii.  p.  476. 

4 Sloane,  Jam..,  i.  p.  75. 

5 Acosta,  Hist.  Nat.  des  bules,  French  trans.,  p.  165. 

8 Ledebour,  Flora  Rossica,  iv.  p.  169. 

7 Lenz,  Botanik.  der  Alten  Griechen  und  Bonier,  p.  295. 

8 Dodoens,  Pemptades,  p.  687.  9 Pliny,  Hist.,  1.  19,  c.  6. 


FPLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  PARTS.  GO 


(took  its  name  from  Ascalon,  in  Judaea ; but  Dr.  Fournier1 
(thinks  that  the  Latin  author  mistook  the  meaning  of  the 
word  Askalonion  of  Theophrastus.  However  this  may 
Ibe,  the  word  has  been  x-etained  in  modern  languages  under 
;the  form  of  echalote  in  French,  chalote  in  Spanish,  scalogno 
■in  Italian,  Aschaluch  or  Eschlcmch  in  German. 

In  1855  I had  spoken  of  the  species  as  follows : 2 — 

“According  to  Boxburgh,8  Allium  ascalonicum  is 
'much  cultivated  in  India.  The  Sanskrit  name  pulandu 

■ is  attributed  to  it,  a word  nearly  identical  with  palandu, 
.attributed  to  A.  Cepa*  Evidently  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  two  species  is  not  clear  in  Indian  or  Anglo- 
Indian  works. 

“ Loureiro  says  he  saw  Allium  ascalonicum  cul- 
tivated in  Cochin-China,5  but  he  does  not  mention 
.China,  and  Thunberg  does  not  indicate  this  species  in 
Japan.  Its  cultivation,  therefore,  is  not  universal  in  the 
least  of  Asia.  This  fact,  and  the  doubt  about  the  Sanski’it 
iiname,  lead  me  to  think  that  it  is  not  ancient  in  Southern 
.'Asia.  Neithei*,  in  spite  of  the  name  of  the  species,  am  I 
convinced  that  it  existed  in  Western  Asia.  Eauwolf, 
HTorskal,  and  Delile  do  not  mention  it  in  Siberia,  in  Arabia, 
tar  in  Egypt.  Linmeus  0 mentions  Hasselquist  as  having 
ifound  the  species  in  Palestine.  Unfortunately,  he  gives 

■ no  details  about  the  locality,  nor  about  its  wild  condition. 
!In  the  Travels  of  Hasselquist7  I find  a Cepa  montana 
mentioned  as  growing  on  Mount  Tabor  and  ona  neighbour- 
ing mountain,  but  there  is  nothing  to  prove  that  it  was 
this  species.  In  his  ai-ticle  on  the  onions  and  garlics  of 
the  Hebrews  he  mentions  only  Allium  Cepa,  then  A. 
poi'rvm  and  A . sativum.  Sibthorp  did  not  find  it  in 
Greece,8  and  Fraas 0 does  not  mention  it  as  now  cultivated 


' Uc  -will  treat  of  this  in  a publication  entitled  Cibaria,  which  will 
shortly  appear. 

* @dog.  Bot.  Itaisonnde,  p.  829. 

* ^°^^lrgh’  FL  Ind->  edit.  1832,  vol.  ii.  p.  142. 

4 Pidchngton,  Index. 

0 Loureiro,  FI.  Cochin.,  p.  251. 

6 Linnaeus,  Species,  p.  439. 

’ Hasselquist,  Voy.  and  True.,  1766,  pp.  281,  282. 

Sibthorp,  Prodr.  » Fraas,  Syn.  FI.  Class.,  p.  291 


70 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


in  that  country.  According  to  Koch,1 2  it  is  naturalized  i 
among  the  vines  near  Fiume.  However,  Viviani 3 only 
speaks  of  it  as  a cultivated  plant  in  Dalmatia. 

“From  all  these  facts  I am  led  to  believe  that 
Allium  ascalonicum  is  not  a species.  It  is  enough  to 
render  its  primitive  existence  doubtful,  to  remark : (1)  s 
that  Theophrastus  and  ancient  writers  in  general  have  j 
spoken  of  it  as  a form  of  the  Allium  Gepa,  having  the  ; 
same  importance  as  the  varieties  cultivated  in  Greece,  1 
Thrace,  and  elsewhere ; (2)  that  its  existence  in  a wild  ; 
state  cannot  be  proved ; (3)  that  it  is  little  cultivated, 
or  not  all,  in  the  countries  where  it  is  supposed  to  have 
had  its  origin,  as  in  Syria,  Egypt,  and  Greece ; (4)  that 
it  is  commonly  without  flowers,  whence  the  name  of  Gepa 
stcrilis  given  by  Bauhin,  and  the  number  of  its  bulbs  is  ; 
an  allied  fact;  (5)  when  it  does  flower,  the  oigans  of  the 
flower  are  similar  to  those  of  A.  Gepa,  or  at  least  no 
difference  has  been  hitherto  discovered,  and  according  to  j 
Koch  3 the  only  difference  in  the  whole  plant  is  that  the  1 
stalk  and  leaves  are  less  swelled,  although  fistulous.” 

Such  was  formerly  my  opinion.4  The  facts  published 
since  1855  do  not  destroy  my  doubts,  but,  on  the  contrary,  \ 
justify  them.  Regel,  in  1875,  in  his  monograph  of  the . 
genus  Allium,  declares  he  has  only  seen  the  shallot  as  a 
cultivated  species.  Auchor  Eloy  has  distributed  a plant, 
from  Asia  Minor  under  the  name  of  A.  ascalonicum,  but 
judging  from  my  specimen  this  is  certainly  not  the; 
species.  Boissier  tells  me  that  he  has  never  seen  A. 
ascalonicum  in  the  East,  and  it  is  not  in  his  herbarium.  1 
The  plant  from  the  Morea  which  bears  this  name  in  the  | 
flora  of  Bory  and  Chaubard  is  quite  a different  species,  J 
which  he  has  named  A.  rjomphrenoides.  Baker,6  in  his-  J 
review  of  the  Alliums  of  India,  China,  and  Japan,  >1 
mentions  A.  ascalonicum  in  districts  of  Bengal  and  of  . 
the  Punjab,  from  specimens  of  Griffith  and  Aitchison ; , 
but  he  adds,  “They  are  probably  cultivated  plants.’*! 

1 Koch,  Syn.  FI.  Germ.,  2nd  edit:,  p.  833. 

2 Viviani,  Fl.Dulmat.,  p.  138.  * Koch,  Syn.  FI.  Germ. 

4 A.  do  Candolle,  Qiogr.  Bot.  Raisitnnde,  p.  829. 

8 Baker,  in  Journ.  of  Bot.,  1874,  p.  295. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  PARTS.  71 


iHe  attributes  to  A.  ascalonicum  Allium  sulvia,  Ham., 

■ of  Nepal,  a plant  little  known,  and  whose  wild  character 
iis  uncertain.  The  shallot  produces  many  bulbs,  which 
imay  be  propagated  or  preserved  in  the  neighbourhood 
iot‘  cultivation,  and  thus  cause  mistakes  as  to  its  origin. 

Finally,  in  spite  of  the  progress  of  botanical  investiga- 
tions in  the  East  and  in  India,  this  form  of  Allium  has 
| mot  been  found  wild  with  certainty.  It  appears  tome, 

• therefore,  more  probable  than  ever  that  it  is  a modifica- 
tion of  A.  Cepa,  dating  from  about  the  beginning  of  the 
|i  Christian  era — a modification  less  considerable  than  many 
of  those  observed  in  other  cultivated  plants,  as,  for 
instance,  in  the  cabbage. 

Rocambole— A Il  ium  scorodoprasum,  Linmeus. 

If  we  cast  a glance  at  the  descriptions  and  names 
of  A.  scorodoprasum  in  works  on  botany  since  the 
: time  of  Linnaeus,  we  shall  see  that  the  only  point  on 
which  authors  are  agreed  is  the  common  name  of  rocam- 
i bole.  As  to  the  distinctive  characters,  they  sometimes 
. approximate  the  plant  to  Allium  sativum,  sometimes 
regard  it  as  altogether  distinct.  With  such  different 
definitions,  it  is  difficult  to  know  in  what  country  the 
plant,  well  known  in  its  cultivated  state  as  the  rocambole, 
is  found  wild.  According  to  Cosson  and  Germain,1 *  it 
grows  in  the  environs  of  Paris.  According  to  Grenier 
and  Godron,3  the  same  form  grows  in  the  east  of  France. 
Bumat  says  he  found  the  species  undoubtedly  wild  in 
the  Alpes-Maritimes,  and  he  gave  specimens  of  it  to 
Boissier.  Willkomm  and  Lange  do  not  consider  it  to  be 
wild  in  Spain,8  though  one  of  the  French  names  of  the 
cultivated  plant  is  ail  or  eschalote  d’Espagne.  Many 
other  European  localities  seem  to  me  doubtful,  since  the 
specific  characters  are  so  uncertain.  I mention,  however, 
that,  according  to  Ledebour,4  the  plant  which  he  calls 
A.  scorodoprasum  is  very  common  in  Russia  from  Fin- 
land to  the  Crimea.  Boissier  received  a specimen  of  it 

1 Cosson  and  Germain,  Flore,  ii.  p.  553. 

■ Grenier  and  Godron,  Flore  du  France,  iii.  p.  197. 

Willkomm  and  Lange,  Prodr.  FI.  Hisp.,  i.  p.  885. 

4 Ledebour,  Flora  Rosaica,  iv.  p.  103. 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


i 


2 


from  Dobrutscha,  sent  by  the  botanist  Sintenis.  The 
natural  habitat  of  the  species  borders,  therefore,  on  that 
of  Allium  sativum,  or  else  an  attentive  study  of  all 
these  forms  will  show  that  a single  species,  comprising 
several  varieties,  extends  over  a great  part  of  Europe  and 
the  bordering  countries  of  Asia. 

The  cultivation  of  this  species  of  onion  does  not 
appear  to  be  of  ancient  date.  It  is  not  mentioned  by 
Greek  and  Roman  authors,  nor  in  the  list  of  plants 
recommended  by  Charlemagne  to  the  intendants  of  his 
gardens.1  Neither  does  Olivier  de  Serres  speak  of  it. 
We  can  only  give  a small  number  of  original  common 
names  among  ancient  peoples.  The  most  distinctive 
are  in  the  North.  Skovlog  in  Denmark,  keipe  and 
rackenboll  in  Sweden.2  Rockenbolle,  whence  comes  the 
French  name,  is  Gei'man.  It  has  not  the  meaning  given 
by  Littrd.  Its  etymology  is  Bolle,  onion,  growing  among 
the  rocks,  Rocken3 

Chives — Allium  schamoprasum,  Linnaeus. 

This  species  occupies  an  extensive  area  in  the 
northern  hemisphere.  It  is  found  all  over  Europe,  from 
Corsica  and  Greece  to  the  south  of  Sweden,  in  Siberia 
as  far  as  Kamtschatka,  and  also  in  North  America,  but 
only  near  the  Lakes  Huron  and  Superior  and  further 
north  4 — a remarkable  circumstance,  considering  its  Euro- 
pean habitat.  The  variety  found  in  the  Alps  is  the 
nearest  to  the  cultivated  form.6 

The  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans  must  certainly  have 
known  the  species,  since  it  is  wild  in  Italy  and  Greece. 
Targioni  believes  it  to  be  the  Scoroclon  schiston  of 
Theophrastus ; but  we  are  dealing  with  words  without 
descriptions,  and  authors  whose  specialty  is  the  inter- 
pretation of  Greek  text,  like  Fraas  and  Lenz,  are  prudent 
enough  to  affirm  nothing.  If  the  ancient  names  are 
doubtful,  the  fact  of  the  cultivation  of  the  plant  at  this 
epoch  is  yet  more  so.  It  is  possible  that  the  custom  ol 
• fathering  it  in  the  fields  existed. 


1 Le  Grand  d’Anssy,  Histoire  de  la  Vie  dee  Franrais,  vol.  i.  p.  122. 

2 Nemnich,  Polyglott.  Lexicon,  p.  187.  __  __3  Ibid. 

4 Asa  Gray,  Botany  of  the  Northern  State,*,  edit.  5,  p.  534. 

* De  Candolle,  Flore  Fravgaxse,  iv.  p.  227. 


i  PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  TARTS.  73 


Colocasia — Arum  esculentum,  Linnaeus;  Colocctsia 
« antiquorwm , Schott.1 

This  species  is  cultivated  in  the  damp  districts  of  the 
ttropics,  for  the  swelled  lower  portion  of  the  stem,  which 
iforms  an  edible  rhizome  similar  to  the  subterraneous 
jpart  of  the  iris.  The  petioles  and  the  young  leaves  are 
aalso  utilized  as  a vegetable.  Since  the  different  forms  of 
■ithe  species  have  been  properly  classed,  and  since  we  have 
possessed  more  certain  information  about  the  floras  of 
tthe  south  of  Asia,  we  cannot  doubt  that  this  plant  is 
wild  in  India,  as  Koxburgh  2 formerly,  and  Wight 8 and 
■others  have  more  recently  asserted ; likewise  in  Ceylon,4 
'Sumatra,5  and  several  islands  of  the  Malay  Archipelago.6 

Chinese  books  make  no  mention  of  it  before  a work 
of  the  year  100  B.C.7  The  first  European  navigators  saw 
■fit  cultivated  in  Japan  and  as  far  as  the  north  of  New 
/Zealand,8  in  consequence  probably  of  an  early  introduc- 
tion, and  without  the  certain  co-existence  of  wild  stocks. 
When  portions  of  the  stem  or  of  the  tuber  are  thrown 
aaway  by  the  side  of  streams,  they  naturalize  themselves 
(easily.  This  was  perhaps  the  case  in  Japan  and  the 
{■Fiji  Islands,9  judging  from  the  localities  indicated.  The 
/colocasia  is  cultivated  here  and  there  in  the  West  Indies, 
und  elsewhere  in  tropical  America,  but  much  less  than 
in  Asia  or  Africa,  and  without  the  least  indication  of  an 
American  origin. 

In  the  countries  where  the  species  is  wild  there  are 
• common  names,  sometimes  very  ancient,  totally  different 
from  each  other,  which  confirms  their  local  origin.  Thus 
the  Sanskrit  name  is  kuohoo,  which  persists  in  modern 

1 Arum  Egyptium,  Columma,  Ecphrasis,  ii.  p.  1,  tab.  1;  Rum- 
: shins,  Amboin,  vol.  v.  tab.  109.  Arum  colocasia  and  A.  esculentum, 

Linnaras ; Colocasia  antiquorum,  Schott,  Melet.,  i.  18 ; Engler,  in  D.  C. 

\ Uonog.  Phaner.,  ii.  p.  491. 

2 Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.,  iii.  p.  495.  3 Wight,  leones,  t.  780. 

3 Thwaites,  Enum.  Plant.  Zeylan.,  p.  335. 

3 Miquel,  Sumatra,  p.  258. 

1°  Rumphius,  Amboin,  vol.  v.  p.  318. 

7 Bretschncider,  On  the  Study  and  Vcdue,  etc.,  p.  12. 

" Forster,  De  Plantis  Escul.,  p.  58. 

9 Franchet  and  Savatier,  Enum.,  p.  8;  Seemann,  Flora  Vitiensis, 

] >.  284. 


74 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Hindu  languages — in  Bengali,  for  instance.1  In  Ceylon 
the  wild  plant  is  styled  gaJtala,  the  cultivated  plant 
kandalla .2  The  Malay  names  are  kdady,3  tallies,  tallcis,  \ 
tales,  or  taloes ,4  from  which  perhaps  comes  the  well- 
known  name  of  the  Otahitans  and  New  Zealanders — tallo  i 
or  tarro,5  dalo6  in  the  Fiji  Islands.  The  Japanese  have 
a totally  distinct  name,  imo ,7  which  shows  an  existence 
of  long  duration  either  indigenous  or  cultivated. 

European  botanists  first  knew  the  colocasia  in  Egypt, 
where  it  has  perhaps  not  been  very  long  cultivated.  The  . 
monuments  of  ancient  Egypt  furnish  no  indication  of 
it,  but  Pliny8  spoke  of  it  as  the  Arum  Mgyptium. 
Prosper  Alpin  saw  it  in  the  sixteenth  century,  and 
speaks  of  it  at  length.9  He  says  that  its  name  in  its 
country  is  culcas,  which  Delile10  writes  qolkas,  and 
JcoidJcas.  It  is  clear  that  this  Arab  name  of  the 
Egyptian  arum  has  some  analogy  with  the  Sanskrit 
Jcuchoo,  which  is  a confirmation  of  the  hypothesis, 
sufficiently  probable,  of  an  introduction  from  India  or 
Ceylon.  Do  1’Ecluso 11  had  seen  the  plant  cultivated  in 
Portugal,  as  introduced  from  Africa,  under  the  name 
alcoleaz,  evidently  of  Arab  origin.  In  some  parts  of  the 
south  of  Italy,  where  the  plant  has  become  naturalized, 
it  is,  according  to  Parlatore,  called  aro  di  Egitto.u 

The  name  colocasia,  given  by  the  Greeks  to  a plant 
of  which  the  root  was  used  by  the  Egyptians,  may 
evidently  come  from  colcas,  but  it  has  been  transferred 
to  a plant  differing  from  the  true  colcas.  Indeed, 
Dioscorides  applies  it  to  the  Egyptian  bean,  or  nelumbo ,18 
which  has  a large  root,  or  rather  rhizome,  rather  stringy 

1 Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind. 

2 Thwaites,  Enum.  Plant.  Zeylan.  3 Rumphius,  Amboin. 

4 Miquel,  Sumatra,  p.  258;  Haaskarl,  Cat.  Harti.  Bogor.  Alter.,  p.  55. 

5 Forster,  Do  Plant  in  Escul.,  p.  58.  • Seemann,  Flora  Viticnsis. 

7 Franohet  and  Savatier,  Enum.  8 Pliny,  Hist.,  1.  19,  c.  5. 

9  Alpinns,  Hint.  /Egypt.  Naturalis,  edit.  2,  vol.  i.  p.  106;  ii.  p.  192. 

10  Delile,  FI.  /Egypt.  III.,  p.  28 ; Be  la  Colocase  des  Anciens,  in  8vo, 

1840. 

11  Clusius,  Historia,  ii.  p.  75.  12  Parlatore,  FI.  Ital.,  ii.  p.  255. 

13  Prosper  Alpinns,  Hint.  /Egypt.  Naturalis;  Columna;  Delile,  Ana. 

duMus.,  i.  p.  375;  Be  la  Colocase  des  Anciens;  Reynier,  Economic  deal 

Egyptians,  p.  321. 


■PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  PARTS.  75 

;»n<l  not  good  to  eat.  The  two  plants  are  very  different, 
.especially  in  the  flower.  The  one  belongs  to  the  A racece, 
;the  other  to  the  JVymphceacece ; the  one  belongs  to  the 
idass  of  Monocotyledons,  the  other  to  that  of  the  Dico- 
tyledons. The  nelumbo  of  Indian  origin  has  ceased  to 
.grow  in  Egypt,  while  the  colocasia  of  modern  botanists 
has  persisted  there.  If  there  is  any  confusion,  as  seems 
probable  in  the  Greek  authors,  it  must  be  explained  by 
■the  fact  that  the  colcas  rarely  flowers,  at  least  in  Egypt. 
tFrom  the  point  of  view  of  botanical  nomenclature,  it 
: matters  little  that  mistakes  were  formerly  xuade  about 
•the  plants  to  which  the  name  colocasia  should  be  applied. 

■ Fortunately,  modern  scientific  names  are  not  based  upon 
■the  doubtful  definitions  of  the  ancient  Greeks  and 
: Romans,  and  it  is  sufficient  to  say  now,  if  the  etymology 
vis  insisted  upon,  that  colocasia  comes  from  colcas  in 
| consequence  of  an  error. 

Ape,  or  Large-rooted  Alocasia — Alocasia  macrorrhiza, 
r-Schott ; Arum  macrorrhizum,  Linnreus. 

This  araceous  plant,  which  Schott  places  now  in  the 
..genus  Colocasia,  now  in  the  Alocasia,  and  wrhose  names 
are  far  more  complicated  than  might  be  supposed  from 
those  indicated  above,1  is  less  frequently  cultivated  than 
'the  common  colocasia,  but  in  the  same  manner  and  nearly 
in  the  same  countries.  Its  rhizomes  attain  the  length 
> of  a man’s  arm.  They  have  a distinctly  bitter  taste, 
which  it  is  indispensable  to  remove  by  cooking. 

The  aborigines  of  Otahiti  call  it  ape,  and  those  of 
the  Friendly  Isles  lcappc .2  In  Ceylon,  the  common  name 
; is  habara,  according  to  Thwaites.3  It  has  other  names 
: in  the  Malay  Archipelago,  which  argues  an  existence 
| prior  to  that  of  the  more  recent  peoples  of  these 
I regions. 

| The  plant  appears  to  be  wild,  especially  in  Otahiti.'1 
I It  is  also  wild  in  Ceylon,  according  to  Thwaites,  who  has 
| studied  botany  for  a long  time  in  that  island.  It  is 

2 E°°  Engler’  ‘u  Q *-'•  Monographic  Phanerogarum,  ii.  p.  502. 

Forster,  De  Plantis  EsctUentis  Insularum  Oceani  Australis , p.  58. 

Thwaites,  Enum.  PI.  Zey}.,  p.  336. 

Nadeaud,  Enum.  des  Plantes  Indigenes,  p.  40. 


7G 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


mentioned  also  in  India1  and  in  Australia,2  but  its  wild 
condition  is  not  affirmed — a fact  always  difficult  to 
establish  in  the  case  of  a species  cultivated  on  the  banks 
of  streams,  and  which  is  propagated  by  bulbs.  More- 
over, it  is  sometimes  confounded  with  the  Colocasia 
indica  of  Kunth,  which  grows  in  the  same  maimer,  and 
is  found  here  and  there  in  cultivated  ground ; and  this 
species  glows  wild,  or  is  naturalized  in  the  ditches  and 
streams  of  Southern  Asia,  although  its  history  is  not  yet 
well  known. 

Konjak — AmorphophciUiis  Konjak,  Koch  ; Araor- 
phophallus  Rivieri,  du  Itieu,  var.  Konjak,  Engler.3 

The  konjak  is  a tuberous  plant  of  the  family 
Araceae,  extensively  cultivated  by  the  Japanese,  a culture 
of  which  Vidal  has  given  full  details  in  the  Bulletin  de 
la  Societe  d’ Acclimatation  of  July,  1877.  It  is  consi- 
dered by  Engler  as  a variety  of  A morphophaUus  Rivieri, 
of  Cochin-China,  of  which  horticultural  periodicals 
have  given  several  illustrations  in  the  last  few  years.4 
It  can  be  cultivated  in  the  south  of  Europe,  like  the 
dahlia,  as  a curiosity ; but  to  estimate  the  value  of  the 
bulbs  as  food,  they  should  be  prepared  with  lime-water, 
in  Japanese  fashion,  so  as  to  ascertain  the  amount  of 
fecula  which  a given  area  will  produce. 

Dr.  Vidal  gives  no  proof  that  the  Japanese  plant  is 
wild  in  that  country.  He  supposes  it  to  be  so  from  the 
meaning  of  the  common  name,  which  is,  he  says,  konni- 
yakou,  or  yamayonniyakou,  yama  meaning  “ mountain.” 
Franchet  and  Savatier 5 have  only  seen  the  plant  in 
gardens.  The  Cochin-China  variety,  believed  to  belong 
to  the  same  species,  grows  in  gardens,  and  there  is  no 
proof  of  its  being  wild  in  the  country. 

Y ams — Dioscorea  sativa,  D.  batatas,  D.  japonica,  | 
and  D.  alata. 

The  yams,  monocotylodonous  plants,  belonging  to 


1 Engler,  in  D.  C.  Mo-nog.  Phaner. 

- Bentham,  Flora  Austr.,  viii.  p.  155. 

3 Engler,  in  D.  C.  Monogr.  Phaner.,  vol.  ii.  p.  313. 

* Gardener's  Chronicle,  1873,  p.  CIO ; Flore  des  Scrres  et  Jardins, 
t.  1958,  1959 ; Hooker,  Pot.  Mag.,  t.  6195. 

8 Franchet  and  Savatier,  Envoi.  PI.  Japonic,  ii.  p.  7. 


’PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  PARTS.  77 

the  family  Dioscoridecv,  constitute  the  genus  Dioscorca, 
of  which  botanists  have  described  about  two  hundred 
species,  scattered  over  all  tropical  and  sub-tropical 
countries.  They  usually  have  rhizomes,  that  is,  under- 
ground stems  or  branches  of  stems,  more  or  less  flesh}', 
which  become  larger  when  the  annual,  exposed  part  of 
:;he  plant  is  near  its  decay.1  Several  species  are  culti- 
vated in  different  countries  for  these  farinaceous  rhizomes, 
which  are  cooked  and  eaten  like  potatoes. 

The  botanical  distinction  of  the  species  has  always 
presented  difficulties,  because  the  male  and  female  flowers 
■are  on  different  individuals,  and  because  the  characters 
■of  the  rhizomes  and  the  lower  part  of  the  exposed  stems 
cannot  be  studied  in  the  herbarium.  The  last  complete 
work  is  that  of  Kunth  2 * published  in  1850.  It  requires 
revision  on  account  of  the  number  of  specimens  brought 
home  by  travellers  in  these  last  few  years.  Fortunately, 

• with  regard  to  the  origin  of  cultivated  species,  certain 
[historical  and  philological  considerations  will  serve  as 
a.  guide,  without  the  absolute  necessity  of  knowing  and 
I estimating  the  botanical  characters  of  each. 

Koxburgh  enumerates  several  Dioscorece 3 cultivated 
dn  India,  but  he  found  none  of  them  wild,  and  neither 
the  nor  Piddington 4 mentions  Sanskrit  names.  This  last 
I point  argues  a recent  cultivation,  or  one  of  originally 
►small  extent,  in  India,  ai'ising  either  from  indigenous 
■species  as  yet  undefined,  or  from  foreign  species  culti- 
vated elsewhere.  The  Bengali  and  Hindu  generic  name 
is  alu,  preceded  by  a special  name  for  each  species  or 
» variety ; /cam  alu,  for  instance,  is  Dioscorca  alata.  The 
j absence  of  distinct  names  in  each  province  also  argues 
a recent  cultivation.  In  Ceylon,  Thwaites 5 indicates 
[ six  wild  species,  and  he  adds  that  D.  sativa,  L.,  D.  alata, 

1 M.  Sagot,  Bull,  de  la  Soc.  Bot.  do  France,  1871,  p.  306,  lias  well 
described  the  growth  and  cultivation  of  yams,  as  ho  hnB  studied  them  in 
1 Cayenne. 

! Kunth,  Enumeratin,  vol.  v. 

5 These  are  D.  globoxa,  alata,  ruhella,  fasciculate,  purpurea,  of  which 
two  or  threo  appear  to  be  merely  varieties. 

4 Piddington,  Index. 

5 Thwaites,  Enum.  Plant.  Zeyl.,  p.  326. 


78 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


L.,  and  D.  ■purpurea,  Roxb.,  are  cultivated  in  gardens, 
but  are  not  found  wild. 

The  Chinese  yam,  Dloscorea  batatas  of  Decaisne,1 
extensively  cultivated  by  the  Chinese  under  the  name 
of  Sain-in,  and  introduced  by  M.  de  Montigny  into 
European  gardens,  where  it  remains  as  a luxury,  has 
not  hitherto  been  found  wild  in  China.  Other  less- 
known  species  are  also  cultivated  by  the  Chinese, 
especially  the  chou-yu,  tou-tchon,  chan-yu,  mentioned 
in  their  ancient  works  on  agriculture,  and  which  has 
spherical  rhizomes  (instead  of  the  pyriform  spindles  of 
the  D.  batatas).  The  names  mean,  according  to  Stanis- 
las Julien,  mountain  arum,  whence  we  may  conclude 
the  plant  is  really  a native  of  the  country.  Dr. 
Bretschneider 2 gives  three  Dioscorece  as  cultivated  in 
China  (7).  batatas,  •alata,  saliva),  adding,  “The  Dloscorea 
is  indigenous  in  China,  for  it  is  mentioned  in  the  oldest 
Avork  on  medicine,  that  of  the  Emperor  Schen-nung.” 

Dloscorea  japonica,  Thunberg,  cultivated  in  Japan, 
has  also  been  found  in  clearings  in  various  localities,  j 
but  Franchet  and  Savatier8  say  that  it  is  not  posi- 
tively known  to  Avhat  degree  it  is  wild  or  has  strayed 
from  cultivation.  Another  species,  more  often  cultivated 
in  Japan,  grows  here  and  there  in  the  country  according 
to  the  same  authors.  They  assign  it  to  Dloscorea 
sativa  of  Linnseus;  but  it  is  known  that  the  famous 
Swede  had  confounded  several  Asiatic  and  American 
species  under  that  name,  Avhich  must  either  be  aban- 
doned or  restricted  to  one  of  the  species  of  the  Indian 
Archipelago.  If  Ave  choose  the  latter  course,  the  true 
D.  sativa  would  be  the  plant  cultivated  in  Ceylon  Avith 
Avhich  Linnaeus  was  acquainted,  and  which  ThAvaites 
calls  the  D.  sativa  of  Linnaeus.  Various  authors  admitted 
the  identity  of  the  Ceylon  plant  with  others  cultivated  ; 
on  the  Malabar  coast,  in  Sumatra,  Java,  the  Philippine 
Isles,  etc.  Blume  1 asserts  that  D.  sativa,  L.,  to  Avhich 

1 Decaisne,  Histoire  et  Culture  de  VIgname  de  Chine,  in  the  Feme  \ 
Jlorticole,  1st  July  and  Dec.  1853  ; Flore  des  Serree  et  Jardins,  s.  pi.  1)71. 

■ On  the  Study  and  Value,  etc.,  p.  12. 

3 Franchet  and  Savatier,  Emm.  Plant.  Japonice,  ii.  p.  47. 

4 Blumo,  Enum.  Plant.  Java:,  p.  22. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  TARTS.  79 

Lie  attributes  pi.  51  in  Rheede’s  Hortus  Malabaricus,  vol. 
rriii.,  grows  in  damp  places  in  the  mountains  of  Java  and 
of  Malabar.  In  order  to  put  faith  in  these  assertions,  it 
would  be  necessary  to  have  carefully  studied  the  question 
of  species  from  authentic  specimens. 

The  yam,  which  is  most  commonly  cultivated  in 
the  Pacific  Isles  under  the  name  ubi,  is  the  Dioscorea 
■ data  of  Linnaeus.  The  authors  of  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries  speak  of  it  as  widely  spread  in 
[Tahiti,  in  New  Guinea,  in  the  Moluccas,  etc.1  It  is 
ilivided  into  several  varieties,  according  to  the  shape  of 
the  rhizome.  No  one  pretends  to  have  found  this  species 
in  a wild  state,  but  the  flora  of  the  islands  whence  it 
i probably  came,  in  particular  that  of  Celebes  and  of  New 
} Guinea,  is  as  yet  little  known. 

Passing  to  America,  we  find  there  also  several  species 
[•of  this  genus  growing  wild,  in  Brazil  and  Guiana,  for 
•instance,  but  it  seems  more  probable  that  the  cultivated 
•■varieties  were  introduced.  Authors  indicate  but  few  culti- 
vated species  or  varieties  (Plunder  one,  Sloane  two)  and 
[few  common  names.  The  most  widely  spread  is  yam, 
igname,  or  inhame,  which  is  of  African  origin,  according 
•'to  Hughes,  and  so  also  is  the  plant  cultivated  in  his  time 
• in  Barbados.2 

He  says  that  the  word  yam  means  “ to  eat,”  in  several 
negro  dialects  on  the  coast  of  Guinea.  It  is  true  that 
two  travellers  nearer  to  the  date  of  the  discovery  of 
America,  whom  Humboldt  quotes,8  heard  the  word 
igname  pronounced  on  the  American  continent : Ves- 
pucci in  1497,  on  the  coast  of  Paria ; Cabral  in  1500,  in 
Brazil.  According  to  the  latter,  the  name  was  given  to 
a root  of  which  bread  was  made,  which  would  better 
apply  1°  the  manioc,  and  leads  me  to  think  there  must 
i l)e  some  mistake,  more  especially  since  a passage  from 
Vespucci,  quoted  elsewhere  by  Humboldt,4  shows  the 

, * Forster,  Plant.  Esculent.,  p.  56;  Rumplrius,  Amboin,  vol.  v.,  pi, 

| : ImI)  etc. 

2 Hughes,  Hist.  Nat.  Barb.,  1750,  p.  226. 

3 Humboldt,  Nouvelle  Espagne,  2nd  edit.,  vol.  ii.  p.  468. 

* Ibid.,  p.  403. 


80 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


confusion  he  made  between  the  manioc  and  the  yam. 
D.  Cliffortiana,  Lam.,  grows  wild  in  Peru 1 and  in 
Brazil,2  but  it  is  not  proved  to  be  cultivated.  Presl  says 
verosimiliter  colitur,  and  the  Flora  Brasiliensis  does 
not  mention  cultivation. 

The  species  chiefly  cultivated  in  French  Guiana, 
according  to  Sagot,3  is  Dioscorea  triloba,  Lam.,  called 
Indian  yam,  which  is  also  common  in  Brazil  and 
the  West  India  Islands.  The  common  name  argues  a 
native  origin,  whereas  another  species,  D.  cayennensis, 
Kunth,  also  cultivated  in  Guiana,  but  under  the  name  of 
negro-country  yam,  was  most  likely  brought  from  Africa, 
an  opinion  the  more  probable  that  Sir  W.  Hooker  likens 
a yam  cultivated  in  Africa  on  the  banks  of  the  Nun  and 
the  Quorra,4  to  D.  cayennensis.  Lastly,  the  free  yam 
of  Guiana  is,  according  to  Dr.  Sagot,  D.  alata  introduced 
from  the  Malay  Archipelago  and  Polynesia. 

In  Africa  there  are  fewer  indigenous  Dioscorea  than 
in  Asia  and  America,  and  the  culture  of  yams  is  less 
widely  spread.  On  the  west  coast,  according  to  Thon- 
ning,B  only  one  or  two  species  are  cultivated ; Lockhardt 6 
only  saw  one  in  Congo,  and  that  only  in  one  locality. 
Bojer7  mentions  four  cultivated  species  in  Mauritius, 
which  are,  he  says,  of  Asiatic  origin,  and  one,  D.  bul- 
bifera,  Lam.,  from  India,  if  the  name  be  correct.  He 
asserts  that  it  came  from  Madagascar,  and  has  spread 
into  the  woods  beyond  the  plantations.  In  Mauritius 
it  bears  the  name  Cambare  niarron.  Now,  cambare 
is  something  like  the  Hindu  name  lcam,  and  marron 
(marroon)  indicates  a plant  escaped  from  cultivation. 
The  ancient  Egyptians  cultivated  no  yams,  which  argues 
a cultivation  less  ancient  in  India  than  that  of  the  colo- 
casia.  Forskal  and  Delile  mention  no  yams  cultivated 
in  Egypt  at  the  present  day. 

To  sum  up  : several  Dioscorece  wild  in  Asia  (especially 


1 Hsenke,  In  Presl,  Rel,  p.  133.  5 Martins,  FI.  Bras.,  v.  p.  43. 

3 Sagot,  Bull.  Soc.  Bot.  France,  1871,  p-  305. 

* Hooker,  FI.  Nigrit,  p.  53. 

5 Schumacher  and  Thonning,  Be  si.  Quin,  p.  447. 

« Brown,  Congo,  p.  49.  7 Bojer,  Hortm  Mauritianus. 


! PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SUBTERRANEAN  PARTS.  81 

iin  the  Asiatic  Archipelago),  and  others  less  numerous 
‘growing  in  America  and  in  Africa,  have  been  introduced, 
iinto  cultivation  as  alimentary  plants,  probably  more 
i recently  than  many  other  species.  This  last  conjecture  is 
! based  on  the  absence  of  a Sanskrit  name,  on  the  limited 
igeographical  range  of  cultivation,  and  on  the  date,  which 
i appears  to  be  not  very  ancient,  of  the  inhabitants  of  the 
Pacific  Isles. 

Arrowroot — Mar  ant  a arundinacea,  Linnaeus.  A 
j plant  of  the  family  of  the  ScitaminecL’,  allied  to  the  genus 
( Canna,  of  which  the  underground  suckers 1 produce  the 
■ excellent  fecula  called  arrowroot.  It  is  cultivated  in  the 
West  India  Islands  and  in  several  tropical  countries  of 
i continental  America.  It  has  also  been  introduced  into 
the  old  world — on  the  coast  of  Guinea,  for  instance.2 

Maranta  amndinacm  is  certainly  American.  Ac- 
cording to  Sloane,3  it  was  brought  from  Dominica  to 
1 Barbados,  and  thence  to  Jamaica,  which  leads  us  to 
'.suppose  that  it  was  not  indigenous  in  the  West  Indies. 
IKornicke,  the  last  author  who  studied  the  genus  Ma- 
: ranta,4  saw  several  specimens  which  were  gathered  in 
(Guadaloupe,  in  St.  Thomas,  in  Mexico,  in  Central 
America,  in  Guiana,  and  in  Brazil ; but  he  did  not  con- 
i cem  himself  to  discover  whether  they  were  taken  from 
’wild,  cultivated,  or  naturalized  plants.  Collectors  hardly 
r ever  indicate  this ; and  for  the  study  of  the  American 
< continent  (excepting  the  United  States)  we  are  .unpro- 
vided-with  local  floras,  and  especially  with  floras  made 
by  botanists  residing  in  the  country.  In  published 
works  I find  the  species  mentioned  as  cultivated c or 
growing  in  plantations,6  or  without  any  explanation.  A 
1 locality  in  Brazil,  in  the  thinly  peopled  province  of 
Matto  Grosso,  mentioned  by  Kornicke,  supposes  an 
absence  of  cultivation.  Seemann 7 mentions  that  the 
species  is  found  in  sunny  spots  near  Panama. 

See  Tussac’s  description,  Flore  des  Antilles,  i.  p.  183. 

* Hooker,  Niger  Flora,  p.  531. 

3 Sloane,  Jamaica,  1707,  vol.  i.  p.  254. 

* In  Bul1-  8oc.  des  Natur.  de  Moscou,  1822,  vol.  i.  p.  34. 

Aublet,  Guyane,  i.  p.  3.  0 Mover,  Flora  Fsseguibo,  p.  11. 

7 Seemann,  Bot.  of  Herald.,  p.  213.  * 


82 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


A species  is  also  cultivated  in  the  West  Indies,  i)/a- 
ranta  mdica,  which,  Tussac  says,  was  brought  from  the 
East  Indies.  Kornicke  believes  that  M.  ramosissima  of 
Wallich  found  at  Sillet,  in  India,  is  the  same  species, 
and  thinks  it  is  a variety  of  M.  arundinacea.  Out  of 
thirty-six  more  or  less  known  species  of  the  genus 
Maranta,  thirty  at  least  are  of  American  origin.  It  is 
therefore  unlikely  that  two  or  three  others  should  be 
Asiatic.  Until  Sir  Joseph  Hooker’s  Flora  of  British 
I ndia  is  completed,  these  questions  on  the  species  of  the 
Scitaminece  and  their  origin  will  be  very  obscure. 

Anglo-Indians  obtain  arrowroot  from  another  plant 
of  the  same  family,  Curcuma  augusti folia,  Roxburgh, 
which  grows  in  the  forests  of  the  Deccan  and  in  Mala- 
bar.1 I do  not  know  whether  it  is  cultivated. 

1 Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.,  i.  p.  31 ; Porter,  The  Tropical  Agriculturalist, 
p.  241 ; Ainslie,  Materia  Medica,  i.  p.  19. 


CHAPTER  II. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES. 


Article  I. — Vegetables. 

Common  Cabbage — Brcissica  oleraceci,  Linmeus. 

The  cabbage  in  its  wild  state,  as  it  is  represented  in 
Eng.  Bot.,  t.  637,  the  Flora  Danica,  t.  2056,  and  elsewhere, 
Ms  found  on  the  rocks  by  the  sea-shore  : (1)  in  the  Isle  of 
A Laland,  in  Denmark,  the  island  of  Heligoland,  the  south 
■x»f  England  and  Ireland,  the  Channel  Isles,  and  the  islands 
toff  the  coast  of  Charente  Inferieure; 1 (2)  on  the  north 
t'coast  of  the  Mediterranean,  near  Nice,  Genoa,  and  Lucca.1 2 3 
A traveller  of  the  last  century,  Sibthorp,  said  that  he 
Hound  it  at  Mount  Athos,  but  this  has  not  been  confirmed 
i by  any  modem  botanist,  and  the  species  appears  to  be 
foreign  in  Greece,  on  the  shores  of  the  Caspian,  as  also  in 
''Siberia,  where  Pallas  formerly  said  he  had  seen  it,  and  in 
Persia.2  Not  only  the  numerous  travellers  who  have 
’ explored  these  countries  have  not  found  the  cabbage,  but 
the  winters  of  the  east  of  Europe  and  of  Siberia  appear 
to  be  too  severe  for  it.  Its  distribution  into  somewliat 
isolated  places,  and  in  two  different  regions  of  Europe, 

' «uggests  .the  suspicion  either  that  plants  apparently  indi- 

1 Fries,  Summa,  p.  29  ; Nylander,  Conspectus,  p.  4-6 ; Bontham,  Handb. 

} Brit-  I'  G edit.  4,  p.  40 ; Mackay,  FI.  Hibern.,  p.  28 ; Brebisson,  FI.  do 

Normandie,  edit.  2,  p.  18;  Babbington,  PrimiticB  FI.  Sarniccc,  p.  8; 

; Clavaud,  Flore,  dr,  la  Gironde,  i.  p.  08. 

2 Bertoloni,  FI.  Ital.,  vii.  p.  140;  Nylander,  Conspectus. 

3 Ledebcrar,  FI:  Ross. ; Griesbacb,  Spicilirjinm  Fl.Rumel.;  Boissier, 
Flora  Orientalis,  etc. 


84 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


genous  may  in  several  cases  be  the  result  of  self-sowing 
from  cultivation,1  or  that  the  species  was  formerly  com- 
mon, and  is  tending  to  disappear.  Its  presence  in  the 
western  islands  of  Europe  favours  the  latter  hypothesis, 
but  its  absence  in  the  islands  of  the  Mediterranean  is 
opposed  to  it.2 

Let  us  see  whether  historical  and  philological  data 
add  anything  to  the  facts  of  geographical  botany. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  in  Europe  that  the  countless 
varieties  of  cabbage  have  been  formed,8  principally  since 
the  days  of  the  ancient  Greeks.  Theophrastus  dis- 
tinguished three,  Pliny  double  that  number,  Tournefort 
twenty,  De  Candolle  more  than  thirty.  These  modifica- 
tions did  not  come  from  the  East — another  sign  of  an 
ancient  cultivation  in  Europe  and  of  a European  origin. 

The  common  names  are  also  numerous  in  European 
languages,  and  rare  or  modern  in  those  of  Asia.  Without 
repeating  a number  of  names  I have  given  elsewhere,4  I 
shall  mention  the  five  or  six  distinct  and  ancient  roots 
from  which  the  European  names  are  derived. 

Kap  or  kab  in  several  Keltic  and  Slav  names.  The 
French  name  cabus  comes  from  it.  Its  origin  is  clearly 
the  same  as  that  of  caput,  because  of  the  head-shaped 
form  of  the  cabbage. 

Caul,  kohl,  in  several  Latin  ( caulis , stem  or  cabbage), 
German  ( Choli  in  Old  German,  Kohl  in  modern  German, 
haul  in  Danish),  and  Keltic  languages  (Ico.ol  and  kol  in 
Breton,  cal  in  Irish).5 

Bresic,  bresych , brassic,  of  the  Keltic  and  Latin 
( brassica ) languages,  whence,  probably,  berza  and  verza  of 
the  Spaniards  and  Portuguese,  varza  of  the  Roumanians.6 

1 Watson,  who  is  careful  on  these  points,  doubts  whether  the  cabbage 
is  indigenous  in  England  ( Compendium  of  the  Cybele,  p.  103),  but  most 
authors  of  British  floras  admit  it  to  be  so.  . 

2 Br.  balearica  and  Br.  cretica  are  perennial,  almost  woody,  not 
biennial;  and  botanists  aro  agreed  in  separating  them  from  Br.  oleracea. 

3 Aug.  Pyr.  de  Candolle  has  published  a paper  on  the  divisions  and 
subdivisions  of  Br.  oleracea  (Transactions  of  the  Hort.  Soc.,  vol.  v.,  trans- 
lated into  German  and  in  French  in  the  Bibl.  Univ.  Agric.,  vol.  viii.), 
which  is  often  quoted. 

* Alp  In  de  Candolle,  Giiogr.  Bot.  Raisonnte,  p.  839. 

5 Ad.  Pictet,  Les  Origines  Indo-Europdennes,  edit.  2,  vol.  i.  p.  380. 

8 Brandza,  Prodr.  FI.  Romane,  p.  122. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  85 

Aza  of  the  Basques  (Iberians),  considered  by  de 
(Charencey1 *  as  proper  to  the  Euskarian  tongue,  but  which 
■ differs  little  from  the  preceding. 

Krambai,  crambe,  of  the  Greeks  and  Latins. 

The  variety  of  names  in  Keltic  languages  tends  to 
sshow  the  existence  of  the  species  on  the  west  coast  of 
iEurope.  If  the  Aryan  Kelts  had  brought  the  plant  from 
.Asia,  they  would  probably  not  have  invented  names 
ttaken  from  three  different  sources.  It  is  easy  to  admit, 
on  the  contrary,  that  the  Aryan  nations,  seeing  the 
- cabbage  wild,  and  perhaps  already  used  in  Europe  by 
s the  Iberians  or  the  Ligurians,  either  invented  names  or 
.adopted  those  of  the  earlier  inhabitants. 

Philologists  have  connected  the  krambai  of  the 
' Greeks  with  the  Persian  name  karamb,  karam,  kalam, 
ft.  the  Kurdish  kalam,  the  Armenian  gaghamb ; 2 others 
Avith  a root  of  the  supposed  mother- tongue  of  the  Aryans  ; 
but  they  do  not  agree  in  matters  of  detail.  According  to 
iFick,3  karambha,  in  the  primitive  Indo-Germanic  tongue, 
-signifies  “ Gemmepflanze  (vegetable),  Kohl  (cabbage), 
karambha  meaning  stalk,  like  caulis.”  He  adds  that 
karambha,  in  Sanskrit,  is  the  name  of  two  vegetables. 
Anglo-Indian  writers  do  not  mention  this  supposed 
’ Sanskrit  name,  but  only  a name  from  a modern  Hindu 
dialect,  kopee.4  Pictet,  on  his  side,  speaks  of  the  Sanskrit 
word  kalamba,  “ vegetable  stalk,  applied  to  the  cabbage.” 

I have  considerable  difficulty,  I must  own,  in  ad- 
mitting these  Eastern  etymologies  for  the  Greco-Latin 
word  crambe.  The  meaning  of  the  Sanskrit  word  (if  it 
exists)  is  very  doubtful,  and  as  to  the  Persian  word, 
we  ought  to  know  if  it  is  ancient.  I doubt  it,  for  if  the 
cabbage  had  existed  in  ancient  Persia,  the  Hebrews 
would  have  known  it.5 

For  all  these  reasons,  the  species  appears  to  me  of 

1 Da  Charencey,  Recherches  sur  les  Noras  Basques,  in  Actes  .do  la 
Bocidti  Philologique,  1st  March,  1869. 

Ad.  Pictet,  Les  Originex  In  A o-Europden  n es,  edit.  2,  vol.  i.  p.  380. 

3 Pick,  Vbrterb.  d.  Indo-Qerm.  Sprachen,  p.  34. 

4 Piddington,  Index;  Ainslie,  Mat.  Med.  Ind. 

Rosenmiiller,  Bill.  Alterth.,  mentions  no  naino. 


80 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


European  origin.  The  date  of  its  cultivation  is  probably 
very  ancient,  earlier  than  the  Aryan  invasions,  but  no 
doubt  the  wild  plant  was  gathered  before  it  was  cultivated. 

Garden-Cress — Lepidium  sativum,  Linnaeus. 

This  little  Crucifer,  now  used  as  a salad,  was  valued  i 
in  ancient  times  for  certain  properties  of  the  seeds.  Some 
authors  believe  that  it  answers  to  a certain  cardamon  of 
Dioscorides ; while  others  apply  that  name  to  Erucaria  I 
aleppica}  In  the  absence  of  sufficient  description,  as  the 
modern  common  name  is  cardamon,1  2 3 the  first  of  these 
two  suppositions  is  probably  correct. 

The  cultivation  of  the  species  must  date  from  ancient 
times  and  be  widely  diffused,  for  very  different  names  - 
exist:  reschad  in  Arab,  tureldezuk 8 in  Persian,  dirges 4 * in 
Albanian,  a language  derived  from  the  Pelasgic ; without 
mentioning  names  drawn  from  the  similarity  of  taste 
with  that  of  the  water-cress  ( Nasturtium  officinale),  i 
There  are  very  distinct  names  in  Hindustani  and 
Bengali,  but  none  are  known  in  Sanskrit.6 

At  the  present  day  the  plant  is  cultivated  in  Europe,  : 
in  the  north  of  Africa,  in  Eastern  Asia,  India,  and  else-  ; 
where,  but  its  origin  is  somewhat  obscure.  I possess 
several  specimens  gathered  in  India,  where  Sir  Joseph 
Hooker 8 does  not  consider  the  species  indigenous. 
Kotschy  brought  it  back  from  Karrak,  or  Karek  Island, 
in  the  Persian  Gulf.  The  label  does  not  say  that  it  was  , 
a cultivated  plant.  Boissier 7 mentions  it  without  com- 
ment, and  he  afterwards  speaks  of  specimens  from  Ispahan 
and  Egypt  gathered  in  cultivated  ground.  Olivier  is  I 
quoted  as  having  found  the  cress  in  Persia,  but  it  is  not  i 
said  whether  it  was  growing  wild.8  It  has  been  asserted  j 
that  Sibthorp  found  it  in  Cyprus,  but  reference  to  his  * 
work  shows  it  was  in  the  fields.9  Poech  does  not  mention  ; 

1 See  Fraas,  Syn.  FI.  Class.,  pp.  120, 124 ; Lenz,  Hot.  derAlten,  p.  017. 

2 Sibthorp,  Prodr.  FI.  Grwc.,  ii.  p.  0 ; Heldroicb,  Nutzpfl.  GriechenL,  I 

p.  47. 

3 Ainslie,  Mat.  Med.  Ind.,  i.  p.  95.  4 Heldreich,  Nutz.  Gr. 

3 Piddington,  Index ; Ainslie,  Mat.  Med.  Ind.,  i.  p.  95. 

6 Hooker,  FI.  Brit.  Ind.,  i.  p.  160.  7 Boissier,  FI.  Orient .,  vol.  i.  j 

* De  Candolle,  Syat.,  ii.  p.  533. 

9 Sibthorp  and  Smith,  I'rodr.  FI.  Groccce,  ii.  p.  6. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOE,  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  87 


iit  in  Cyprus.1  Unger  and  Kotschy2 *  do  not  consider  it 
tto  be  wild  in  that  island.  According  to  Ledebour,8  Koch 
i found  it  round  the  convent  on  Mount  Ararat;  Pallas 
inear  Sarepta;  Falk  on  the  banks  of  the  Oka,  a tributary 
* of  the  Volga  ; lastly,  H.  Martius  mentions  it  in  his  flora  of 
Moscow  ; but  there  is  no  proof  that  it  was  wild  in  these 
•various  localities.  Lindemann,4 *  in  1860,  did  not  reckon 
i the  species  among  those  of  Russia,  and  he  only  indicates  it 
: as  cultivated  in  the  Crimea.6  According  to  Nyman,8  the 
1 botanist  Schur  found  it  wild  in  Tx-ansylvania,  while  the 
. Austro-Hungarian  floras  either  do  not  mention  the  species, 
or  give  it  as  cultivated,  or  growing  in  cultivated  ground. 

I am  led  to  believe,  by  this  assemblage  of  more  or 
less  doubtful  facts,  that  the  plaut  is  of  Persian  origin, 
whence  it  may  have  spread,  after  the  Sanskrit  epoch, 
into  the  gardens  of  India,  Syria,  Greece,  and  Egypt,  and 
: even  as  far  as  Abyssinia.7 

Purslane — Portulaca  olcracea,  Linnaeus. 

Purslane  is  one  of  the  kitchen  garden  plants  most 
widely  diffused  throughout  the  old  world  from  the  earliest 
times.  It  has  been  transported  into  America,8  where  it 
spreads  itself,  as  in  Europe,  in  gardens,  among  rubbish, 
by  the  wayside,  etc.  It  is  more  or  less  used  as  a vege- 
table, a medicinal  plant,  and  is  excellent  food  for  pigs. 

A Sanskrit  name  for  it  is  known,  lonica  or  lounia, 
which  recurs  in  the  modern  languages  of  India.9  The 

o D 

1 Poech,  Enum.  PI.  Cypri,  1842. 

2 Unger  and  Kotschy,  Inseln  Cypern.,  p.  331. 

1 Ledebour,  FI.  Posh.,  i.  p.  203. 

4 Lindemann,  Index  Plant,  in  Ross.,  Bull.  Soc.  Nat.  Mosc.l8GO,\o\.  xxxiii. 

* Lindemann,  Prodr.  FI.  Cherson,  p.  21. 

® Nyman,  Conspectus  FI.  Europ.,  1878,  p.  G5. 

' Schweinfurtb,  Beitr.  FI.  JEth.,  p.  270. 

In  the  United  States  purslane  was  believed  to  be  of  foreign  origin 
(Asa  Gray,  FI.  of  Northern  States,  ed.  5;  Bnt.  of  California , i.  p.  70),  but 
in  a recent  publication,  Asa  Gray  and  Trumbull  give  reasons  for  believing 
that  it  is  indigenous  in  America  as  in  tho  old  world.  Columbus  had 
noticed  it  at  San  Salvador  and  at  Cuba;  Oviodo  montions  it  in  St. 
Domingo  and  Do  Lory  in  Brazil.  This  is  not  tho  testimony  of  botanists, 
but  Nuttall  and  others  found  it  wild  in  the  upper  valley  of  the  Missouri, 
in  Colorado,  and  Texas,  where,  however,  from  the  date,  it  might  have 
been  introduced.— Author’s  Note,  1884. 

0 Piddington,  Index  to  Indian  Plants. 


ss 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Greek  name  andrachne  and  the  Latin  portulaca  are 
very  different,  as  also  the  group  of  names,  ckolza  in  Per- 
sian,  kJmrsa  or  koarsa  in  Hindustani,  lcourfa  kara-or  in 
Arab  and  Tartar,  which  seem  to  be  the  origin  of  kurza  j 
noka  in  Polish,  kurj-noha  in  Bohemian,  Kremel  in  Ger- 
man, without  speaking  of  the  Russian  name  schruchci,  \ 
and  some  others  of  Eastern  Asia,1  One  need  not  be  a 
philologist  to  see  certain  derivations  in  these  names  show- 
ing that  the  Asiatic  peoples  in  their  migrations  trans-  : 
ported  with  them  their  names  for  the  plant,  but  this  does  j 
not  prove  that  they  transported  the  plant  itself.  They 
may  have  found  it  in  the  countries  to  which  they  came. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  existence  of  three  or  four  different  i 
roots  shows  that  European  peoples  anterior  to  the  Asiatic  j 
migrations  had  already  names  for  the  species,  which  is  j 
consequently  very  ancient  in  Europe  as  well  as  in  Asia. 

It  is  very  difficult  to  discover  in  the  case  of  a plant  ' 
so  widely  diffused,  and  which  propagates  itself  so  easily 
by  means  of  its  enormous  number  of  little  seeds,  whether  ] 
a specimen  is  cultivated,  naturalized  by  spreading  from 
cultivation,  or  really  wild. 

It  does  not  appear  to  be  so  ancient  in  the  east  as  in 
the  west  of  the  Asiatic  continent,  and  authors  never  say 
that  it  is  a wild  plant.2  In  India  the  case  is  very  ; 
different.  Sir  Joseph  Hooker  says8  that  it  grows  in 
India  to  the  height  of  five  thousand  feet  in  the  Himalayas.  ; 
He  also  mentions  having  found  in  the  north-west  of  | 
India  the  variety  with  upright  stem,  which  is  cultivated 
together  with  the  common  species  in  Europe.  I find 
nothing  positive  about  the  localities  in  Persia,  but  so 
many  arc  mentioned,  and  in  countries  so  little  cultivated, 
on  the  shores  of  the  Caspian  Sea,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  j 
the  Caucasus,  and  even  in  the  south  of  Russia,'1  that  it 
is  difficult  not  to  admit  that  the  plant  is  indigenous  in 
that  central  region  whence  the  Asiatic  peoples  overran 

1 Nemnich,  Polyglot.  Lex.  Naturgesch.,  ii.  p.  1047. 

2 Loureiro,  FI.  Cochin.,  i.  p.  359  ; Franchetjnid  Savatier,  Enum.  n.  • 
Japnn.,  i.  p.  53  ; Bentham,  FI.  Hongkong,  p.  127. 

3 Hooker,  FI.  Brit.  Ind.,  i.  p.  240. 

* Ledebour,  FI.  Ross.,  ii.  p.  145 ; Lindemann,  in  Prodr.  FI.  L hers.,  p.  74,  . 
says,  “ In  desertis  et  arenosis  inter  Clierson  et  Berislaw,  circa  Odessam. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  89 

Europe.  In  Greece  tlie  plant  is  wild  as  well  as  culti- 
vated.1 Further  to  the  west,  in  Italy,  etc.,  we  begin  to 
iind  it  indicated  in  floras,  but  only  growing  in  fields, 
gardens,  rubbish-heaps,  and  other  suspicious  localities.2 

Thus  the  evidence  of  philology  and  botany  alike  show 
that  the  species  is  indigenous  in  the  whole  of  the  region 
which  extends  from  the  western  Himalayas  to  the  south 
)f  Russia  and  Greece. 

New  Zealand  Spinach — Tetragonia  expansa,  Murray. 

This  plant  was  brought  from  New  Zealand  at  the  time 
£>f  Cook’s  famous  voyage,  and  cultivated  by  Sir  Joseph 
■Banks,  and  hence  its  name.  It  is  a singular  plant  from  a 
double  point  of  view.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  the  only 
cultivated  species  -which  comes  from  New  Zealand ; and 
secondly,  it  belongs  to  an  order  of  usually  fleshy  plants, 
the  Ficoidece,  of  which  no  other  species  is  used.  Hor- 
ticulturists 3 recommend  it  as  an  annual  vegetable,  of 
which  the  taste  resembles  that  of  spinach,  but  which 
wears  drought  better,  and  is  therefore  a resource  in 
seasons  when  spinach  fails. 

Since  Cook’s  voyage  it  has  been  found  wild  chiefly  on 
she  sea  coast,  not  only  in  New  Zealand  but  also  in  Tas- 
mania, in  the  south  and  Avest  of  Australia,  in  Japan,  and 
n South  America.4  It  remains  to  be  discovered  Avliether 
n the  latter  places  it  is  not  naturalized,  for  it  is  found 
n the  neighbourhood  of  towns  in  Japan  and  Chili.5 

Garden  Celery — Apium  gmveolens,  Linmeus. 

Like  many  TJmbellifcrs  which  grow  in  damp  places, 
wild  celery  has  a wide  range.  It  extends  from  Sweden  to 
Algeria,  Egypt,  Abyssinia,  and  in  Asia  from  the  Caucasus 
| :o  Reluehistan,  and  the  mountains  of  British  India.6 

* Lenz,  Hot.  der  Alten,  p.  G32  ; Heklreich,  FI.  Attisch.  Ebene p.  483. 

* Bcrtoloni,  FI.  It.,  vol.  v. ; Gnssone,  FI.  Sic.,  vol.  i. ; Moris,  FI.  Sard., 
vol.  ii. ; Willkomin  and  Lange,  Prodr.  FI.  Wap.,  vol.  iii. 

3 Botanical  Magazine,  t.  2302 ; Bon  Jardinier,  1880,  p.  567- 

4 Sir  J.  Hooker,  Handbook  of  New  Zealand  Flora,  p.  84;  Bentham, 
j 1 1 or  a Austral  tennis,  iii.  p.  327;  Francliet  and  Snvatier,  JEmcni.  Plant. 

faponiai,  i.  p.  177. 

5 Cl.  Gay,  Flora  Cliilena,  ii.  p.  468. 

j ^ 6 Fries,  Summa  Veget.  Scand. ; Munby,  Catal.  Alger.,  p.  11;  Boissier, 
H1!.  Orient.,  vol.  ii.  p.  85G ; Scliweinfurth  and  Ascherson,  Avfzdhlung, 
1 >.  272 ; Hooker,  FI.  Brit.  Ind.,  ii.  p.  G79. 


90 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


It  is  spoken  of  in  the  Odyssey  under  the  name  of 
selvnon,  and  in  Theophrastus  ; but  later,  Dioscorides  and 
Pliny 1 distinguish  between  the  wild  and  cultivatep 
celery.  In  the  latter  the  leaves  are  blanched,  which 
greatly  diminishes  their  bitterness.  The  long  course  of 
cultivation  explains  the  numerous  garden  varieties.  The 
one  which  differs  more  widely  from  the  wild  plant  is  that 
of  which  the  fleshy  root  is  eaten  cooked. 

Chervil — Sccmdix  cerefolium,  Linnaeus ; Anthriscus 
cerefolium,  Hoffmann. 

Not  long  ago  the  origin  of  this  little  Umbellifer,  so  com- 
mon in  our  gardens,  was  unknown.  Like  many  annuals, 
it  sprang  up  on  rubbish-heaps,  in  hedges,  in  waste 
places,  and  it  was  doubted  whether  it  should  be  con- 
sidered wild.  In  the  west  and  south  of  Europe  it  seems 
to  have  been  introduced,  and  more  or  less  naturalized ; 
but  in  the  south-east  of  Russia  and  in  western  temperate ] 
Asia  it  appears  to  be  indigenous.  Steven2  tells  us  that’ 
it  is  found  “ here  and  there  in  the  woods  of  the  Crimea.” 
Boissier 8 received  several  specimens  from  the  provinces] 
to  the  south  of  the  Caucasus,  from  Turcomania  and  the] 
mountains  of  the  north  of  Persia,  localities  of  which  the] 
species  is  probably  a native.  It  is  wanting  in  the  floras 
of  India  and  the  east  of  Asia. 

Greek  authors  do  not  mention  it.  The  first  mention] 
of  the  plant  by  ancient  writers  occurs  in  Columella  and 
Pliny,4  that  is,  at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era.: 
It  was  then  cultivated.  Pliny  calls  it  cerefolium.  The] 
species  was  probably  introduced  into  the  Greco-Roman] 
world  after  the  time  of  Theophrastus,  that  is  in  the, 
course  of  the  three  centuries  which  preceded  our  era. 

Parsley — Petroselinum  sativum,  Mcench. 

This  biennial Umbellifer  is  wild  in  the  south  of  Europe, 
from  Spain  to  Turkey.  It  has  also  been  found  at 
Tlemcen  in  Algeria,  and  in  Lebanon.5 

1 Dioscorides,  Mat.  Med.,  1.  3,  c.  67,  68 Pliny,  Hist.,  1.  19,  c.  7,  8jj 
Lenz,  Bot.  der  Alten  Qriechen  xind  limner,  p.  557. 

3 Steven,  Verzeichniss  Taurischen  Halbinseln,  p.  183. 

s Boissier,  FI.  Orient,  ii.  p.  913. 

4 Lenz,  Bot.  d.  Alt.  Or.  und  R.,  p.  572.  I 

5 Munby,  Catal.  Alger.,  edit,  2,  p.  22 ; Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  ii.  p.  857.  fl 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  01 


Dioscorides  and  Pliny  speak  of  it  under  the  names 
>f  Petroselinon  and  Petroselimim,1  but  only  as  a wild 
medicinal  plant.  Nothing  proves  that  it  was  cultivated  in 
bheir  time.  In  the  Middle  Ages  Charlemagne  counted  it 
among  the  plants  which  he  ordered  to  be  cultivated  in 
nis  gardens.2  Olivier  de  Serres  in  the  sixteenth  century 
cultivated  parsley.  English  gardeners  received  it  in 
1548.3  Although  this  cultivation  is  neither  ancient  nor 
important,  it  has  already  developed  two  varieties,  which 
would  be  called  species  if  they  were  found  wild ; the 
oarsley  with  crinkled  leaves,  and  that  of  which  the  fleshy 
oot  is  edible. 

Smyrnium,  or  Alexanders  — Smyrnium  olus-atrum, 
j .Linnaeus. 

Of  all  the  Umbellifers  used  as  vegetables,  this  was  one 
ibf  the  commonest  in  gardens  for  nearly  fifteen  centuries, 
sand  it  is  now  abandoned.  We  can  trace  its  beginning 
.and  end.  Theophrastus  spoke  of  it  as  a medicinal  plant 
under  the  name  of  Ipposeiinon,  but  three  centuries  later 
i Dioscorides 1 says  that  either  the  root  or  the  leaves 
might  be  eaten,  which  implies  cultivation.  The  Latins 
called  it  olus-atrum,  Charlemagne  olisatum,  and  com- 
nanded  it  to  be  sown  in  his  farms.5  The  Italians  made 
.great  use  of  it  under  the  name  macerone ,6  At  the  end 
of  the  eighteenth  century  the  tradition  existed  in  Eng- 
land that  this  plant  had  been  formerly  cultivated;  later 
English  and  French  horticulturists  do  not  mention  it.7 

The  Smyrnium  olus-atrum  is  wild  throughout 
Southern  Europe,  in  Algeria,  Syria,  and  Asia  Minor.8 

Corn  Salad,  or  Lamb’s  Lettuce — Valencmella  olitona, 
Linnaeus. 


‘ Dioscorides,  Mat.  Med.,  I.  3,  c.  70  ; Pliny,  Hist.,  1.  20,  oh.  12. 
i . ’The  list  of  theso  plants  may  bo  found  in  Meyer,  Qesch.  der  Hot., 
; ii.  p.  401. 

3 Phillips,  Companion  to  the  Kitchen  Carden,  ii.  p.  35. 

1 Theophrastus,  Hist.,  1.  1,  9 ; 1.  2,  2 : 1.  7,  6 ; Dioscorides,  Mat.  Med., 
. 3,  c.  71. 

4 E.  Meyer,  Gesch.  der  Bot.,  iii.  p.  401. 

* Targioni,  Cenni  fitorici,  p.  58. 

English  Botany,  t.  230;  Phillips,  Companion  to  the  Kitchen  Garden: 
Le  Bon  Jardinicr. 

* Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  ii.  p.  927. 


92 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Frequently  cultivated  as  a salad,  this  annual,  of  the 
Valerian  family,  is  found  wild  throughout  temperate 
Europe  to  about  the  sixtieth  degree  of  latitude,  in 
Southern  Europe,  in  the  Canary  Isles,  Madeira,  and  the 
Azores,  in  the  north  of  Africa,  Asia  Minor,  and  the 
Caucasus.1  It  often  grows  in  cultivated  ground,  near 
villages,  etc.,  which  renders  it  somewhat  difficult  to 
know  where  it  grew  before  cultivation.  It  is  mentioned, 
however,  in  Sardinia  and  Sicily,  in  the  meadows  and 
mountain  pastures.2  I suspect  that  it  is  indigenous  only 
in  these  islands,  and  that  everywhere  else  it  is  introduced 
or  naturalized.  The  grounds  for  this  opinion  are  the  fact 
that  no  name  which  it  seems  possible  to  assign  to  this 
plant  has  been  found  in  Greek  or  Latin  authors.  We 
cannot  even  name  any  botanist  of  the  Middle  Ages  or 
of  the  sixteenth  century  who  has  spoken  of  it.  Neither 
is  it  mentioned  among  the  vegetables  used  in  France  in 
the  seventeenth  century,  either  by  the  Jardinier  Franpais 
of  1651,  or  by  Laurenberg’s  work,  Horticultura  (Frankfurt, 
1032).  The  cultivation  and  even  the  use  of  this  salad 
appear  to  be  modern,  a fact  which  has  not  been  noticed. 

Cardoon — Cynara  carclunculus,  Linnaeus. 

Artichoke — Cynara  scolymus,  Linnaeus;  C.  cardun- 
cuhus,  var.  sativa,  Moris. 

For  a long  time  botanists  have  held  the  opinion  that 
the  artichoke  is  probably  a form  obtained  by  cultivation 
from  the  wild  cardoon.3  Careful  observations  have  lately 
proved  this  hypothesis.  Moris,4 *  for  instance,  having  cul- 
tivated, in  the  garden  at  Turin,  the  wild  Sardinian  plant 
side  by  side  with  the  artichoke,  affirmed  that  true 
characteristic  distinctions  no  longer  existed. 

Willkomm  and  Lange,6  who  have  carefully  observed 
the  plant  in  Spain,  both  wild  and  cultivated,  share  the 

1 Krok,  Monographic  des  Valertanolla,  Stockholm,  1864,  p.  88; 
Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  iii.  p.  104. 

2 Bertoloni,  FI.  Ital.,  i.  p.  185;  Moris,  FI.  Sard.,ii.  p.  314;  Gussone, 
Synopsis  FI.  Siculce,  edit.  2,  vol.  i.  p.  30. 

3 Dodoens,  Hist.  Plant.,  p.  724;  Linnaeus,  Species,  p.  1159;  De  Can- 

dolle, Prodr.,  vi.  p.  620. 

* Moris,  Flora  Sardoa,  ii.  p.  61. 

3 Willkomm  and  Lange,  Prodr.  FI.  Hisp.,  ii.  p.  180. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  93 


fame  opinion.  Moreover,  the  artichoke  has  not  been 
'ound  out  of  gardens  ; and  since  the  Mediterranean 
region,  the  home  of  all  the  Gynarce,  has  been  thoroughly 
explored,  it  may  safely  be  asserted  that  it  exists  nowhere 
wild. 

The  cardoon,  in  which  we  must  also  include  G. 
corrida  of  Sibthorp,  is  indigenous  in  Madeira  and  in  the 
Canary  Isles,  in  the  mountains  of  Marocco  near  Mogador, 
m the  south  and  east  of  the  Iberian  peninsula,  the 
Louth  of  France,  of  Italy,  of  Greece,  and  in  the  islands 
of  the  Mediterranean  Sea  as  far  as  Cyprus.1  Munby  2 * does 
lot  allow  G.  cardunculus  to  be  wild  in  Algeria,  but 
| le  does  admit  Cynara  humilis  of  Linnaeus,  which  is 
i -onsidered  by  a few  authors  as  a variety. 

The  cultivated  cardoon  varies  a good  deal  with  regard 
• ;o  the  division  of  the  leaves,  the  number  of  spines,  and 
the  size — diversities  which  indicate  long  cultivation. 
The  Romans  eat  the  receptacle  which  bears  the  flowers, 
uid  the  Italians  also  eat  it,  under  the  name  of  girello. 
'Modern  nations  cultivate  the  cardoon  for  the  fleshy  part 
if  the  leaves,  a custom  which  is  not  yet  introduced  into 
jf-Jreece.8 

The  artichoke  offers  fewer  varieties,  which  bears  out 
he  opinion  that  it  is  a form  derived  from  the  cardoon. 
ifargioni,4 5  in  an  excellent  article  upon  this  plant, 
•elates  that  the  artichoke  was  brought  from  Naples  to 
•Florence  in  1466,  and  he  proves  that  ancient  writers, 
wen  Athemeus,  were  not  accpiainted  with  the  artichoke, 
out  only  with  the  wild  and  cultivated  cardoons.  I must 
mention,  however,  as  a sign  of  its  antiquity  in  the  north 
A Africa,  that  the  Berbers  have  two  entirely  distinct 
names  for  the  two  plants  : addad  for  the  cardoon,  taga 
} for  the  artichoke.6 

1 Webb,  l‘hyt.  Canar.,  iii.  sect.  2,  p.  384  ; Ball,  Spicilegium  FI.  Maroc., 
} ?•  624 ; Willkomm  and  Lange,  Pr.  FI.  Hisp. : Bertoloni,  FI.  Ital.,  ix.  p. 
J'36  ; ^Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  iii.  p.357  ; Unger  and  Kotscby,  Inseln  Cy peril, 

2 Mnnby,  Catal.,  edit.  2. 

1 Heldreieh,  Nutzpjlanzcn  Ortechenlands,  p.  27. 

* Targioni,  Cenni  Storici,  p.  52. 

5 Dictionnaire  Franrais-Berbere,  published  by  tho  Government,  1 vol. 

n 8vo. 


!)-A  ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 

It  is  believed  that  the  kactos , klnara,  and  scolimos  of 
the  Greeks,  and  the  car  dims  of  Roman  horticulturists, 
were  Cynara  cardwnculus,1  although  the  most  detailed 
description,  that  of  Theophrastus,  is  sufficiently  confused.  ' 
“The  plant,”  he  said,  “grows  in  Sicily  ” — as  it  does  to  this  ■ 
day — “and,”  he  added,  “ not  in  Greece.”  It  is,  therefore,  ; 
possible  that  the  plants  observed  in  our  day  in  that 
country  may  have  been  naturalized  from  cultivation,  j 
According  to  Athenaeus,2  the  Egyptian  king  Ptolemy  I 
Energetes,  of  the  second  century  before  Christ,  had  found  , 
in  Libya  a great  quantity  of  wild  Jcinara,  by  which  his  j 
soldiers  had  profited. 

Although  the  indigenous  species  was  to  be  found  at 
such  a little  distance,  I am  very  doubtful  whether  the 
ancient  Egyptians  cultivated  the  cardoon  or  the  artichoke. 
Pickering  and  Unger  3 believed  they  recognized  it  in  some  ; 
of  the  drawings  on  the  monuments ; but  the  two  figures 
which  Umrer  considers  the  most  admissible  seem  to  me 
extremely  doubtful.  Moreover,  no  Hebrew  name  is  known, 
and  the  Jews  would  probably  have'spoken  of  this.vege-  j 
table  had  they  seen  it  in  Egypt.  The  diffusion  of  the 
species  in  Asia  must  have  taken  place  somewhat  late. 
There  is  an  Arab  name,  hirschit  f or  kerschouff,  and  a 
Persian  name,  Jcunghir*  but  no  Sanskrit  name,  and  the 
Hindus  have  taken  the  Persian  woi'd  kunjir ,6  which 
shows  that  it  was  introduced  at  a late  epoch.  Chinese 
authors  do  not  mention  any  Cynara .G  The  cultivation 
of  the  artichoke  was  only  introduced  into  England  in 
1548.7  One  of  the  most  curious  facts  in  the  history  of 
Cynara  cardwncuZns  is  its  naturalization  in  the  present 
century  over  a vast  extent  of  the  Pampas  of  Buenos  | 
Ayres,  where  its  abundance  is  a hindrance  to  travellers.8  j 

1 Theophrastus,  Hist.,  1.  6,  c.  4 ; Pliny,  Hist.,  1.  19,  o.  8;  Lenz,  j 
But.  der  Alten  Griechen  and  Rumer,  p.  480. 

2 Athenoons,  Deipn.,  ii.  84. 

3 Pickering,  Citron.  Arrangement,  p.  71;  Unger,  Pfiamen  der  Alten 
.Egyptens,  p.  46,  figs.  27  and  28. 

* Ainslie,  Mat.  Med.  Ind.,  i.  p.  22.  5 Piddington,  Index. 

8 Bretschneider,  Study,  etc.,  and  Letters  of  1881. 

7 Phillips,  Companion  to  the  Kitchen  Garden,  p.  22. 

* Ang.  de  Saint  Hilary,  Plantes  Remarkahles  du  Bresxl,  Introd.,  p.  58;  ^ 
Darwin,  Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication,  ii.  p.  34. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  95 


ii  is  becoming  equally  troublesome  in  Chili.1  It  is  not 
asserted  that  the  artichoke  has  anywhere  been  naturalized 
n this  manner,  and  this  is  another  sign  of  its  artificial 
rrigin. 

Lettuce — Lcttuca  Scariola,  var.  sativa. 

Botanists  are  agreed  in  considering  the  cultivated 
fttuce  as  a modification  of  the  wild  species  called  Latuca 
-variola ,2  The  latter  grows  in  temperate  and  southern 
lurope,  in  the  Canary  Isles,  Madeira,3  Algeria;1  Abys- 
:nia,6  and  in  the  temperate  regions  of  Eastern  Asia, 
•oissier  speaks  of  specimens  from  Arabia  Petrea  to 
lesopotamia  and  the  Caucasus.0  He  mentions  a variety 
•ith  crinkled  leaves,  similar  therefore  to  some  of  our 
■arden  lettuces,  which  the  traveller  Hausknecht  brought 
'ith  him  from  the  mountains  of  Kurdistan.  I have  a 
oecimen  from  Siberia,  found  near  the  river  Irtysch,  and 
; is  now  known  with  certainty  that  the  species  grows  in 
iae  north  of  India,  in  Kashmir,  and  in  Nepal.7  In  all  these 
oun  tries  it  is  often  near  cultivated  ground  or  among 
lbbish,  but  often  also  in  rocky  ground,  clearings,  or 
i-ieadows,  as  a really  wild  plant. 

The  cultivated  lettuce  often  spreads  from  gardens, 
rod  sows  itself  in  the  open  country.  No  one,  as  far  as  I 
mow,  has  observed  it  in  such  a case  for  several  genera- 
■ ons,  or  has  tried  to  cultivate  the  wild  L.  Scariola,  to 
;e  whether  the  transition  is  easy  from  the  one  form  to 
ie  other.  It  is  possible  that  the  original  habitat  of  the 
>ecies  has  been  enlarged  by  the  diffusion  of  cultivated 
‘ttuces  reverting  to  the  wild  form.  It  is  known  that 
lere  has  been  a great  increase  in  the  number  of  culti- 
ated  varieties  in  the  course  of  the  last  two  thousand 

* Cl-  Gay,  Flora  Chilena,  iv.  p.  317. 

2 The  author  who  has  gone  into  this  question  most  carefully  is  Bischoff, 
' ' ,,  Feitrage  zur  Flora  Deutschlands  wid  der  tichwcitz,  p.  184.  Seo 

I so  Moris,  Flora  Sardoa,  ii.  p.  530. 

Webb,  Phytoyr.  Canariensis,  iii.  p.  422 ; Lowe,  Flora  of  Madeira, 

544. 

4 Munby,  Catal.,  edit.  2,  p.  22,  under  tho  namo  of  L.  sylvestris. 

Schweinfurth  and  Ascherson,  Avfsdhlwng,  p.  285. 

“ Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  iii.  p.  809. 

' Clarke,  Compos.  Indices,  p.  2G3. 


9G 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


years.  Theophrastus  indicated  three;1  le  Bon  Jardinier 
of  1880  gives  forty  varieties  existing  in  France. 

The  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans  cultivated  the  lettuce, 
especially  as  a salad.  In  the  East  its  cultivation  possibly 
dates  from  an  earlier  epoch.  Nevertheless  it  does  not 
appear,  from  the  original  common  names  both  in  Asia  and 
Europe,  that  this  plant  was  generally  or  very  anciently 
cultivated.  There  is  no  Sanskrit  nor  Hebrew  name ; 
known,  nor  any  in  the  reconstructed  Aryan  tongue.  A 
Greek  name  exists,  tridax;  Latin,  latuca ; Persian  and 
H indu ,1cahn;  and  the  analogous  Arabic  form  chuss  or  chans.  \ 
The  Latin  form  exists  also,  slightly  modified,  in  the  Slav 
and  Germanic  languages,2  which  may  indicate  either  that 
the  Western  Aryans  diffused  the  plant,  or  that  its  culti- 
vation spread  with  its  name  at  a later  date  from  the 
south  to  the  north  of  Europe. 

Dr.  Bretschneider  has  confirmed  my  supposition 3 
that  the  lettuce  is  not  very  ancient  in  China,  and  that  it 
was  introduced  there  from  the  West.  He  says  that  the 
first  work  in  which  it  is  mentioned  dates  from  A.D.  GOO 
to  A.D.  900.4 * * 

Wild  Chicory — Cichorium  Intybus,  Linmeus. 

The  wild  perennial  chicory,  which  is  cultivated  as  a 
salad,  as  a vegetable,  as  fodder,  and  for  its  roots,  which 
are  used  to  mix  with  coffee,  grows  throughout  Europe, 
except  in  Lapland,  in  Marocco,  and  Algeria,  from  Eastern 
Europe  to  Afghanistan  and  Beluchistan,3  in  the  Punjab 
and  Kashmir,7  and  from  Russia  to  Lake  Baikal  in  Siberia.8 
The  plant  is  certainly  wild  in  most  of  these  countries ; 
but  as  it  often  grows  by  the  side  of  roads  and  fields,  it  is 
probable  that  it  has  been  transported  by  man  from  its 
original  home.  This  must  be  the  case  in  India,  for  there 
is  no  known  Sanskrit  name. 

The  Greeks  and  Romans  employed  this  species  wild 

1 Theophrastus,  1.  7,  c.  4.  3 Nemnich,  Polyol.  Lexicon, 

3 A.  do  Candolle,  Qdogr.  Bot.  Baisonnfe,  p.  843.  i 

< Bretschneider,  Study  and  Value  of  Chinese  Botanical  Works,  p.  17.  j 

® Ball,  Spicilegium  FI.  Marocc.,  p.  534;  Munby,  Catal.,  edit.  2,  p.  21 

6 Boissier,  FI.  Orient,  iii.  p.  715. 

7 Clarke,  Compos.  Ind.,  p.  250. 

8 Ledebour,  FI.  Ross.,  ii.  p.  774. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  97 


find  cultivated,1  but  their  notices  of  it  are  too  brief  to  be 
eclear.  According  to  Heldreich,  the  modern  Greeks  apply 
tthe  general  name  of  lachana,  a vegetable  or  salad,  to 
-seventeen  different  chicories,  of  which  he  gives  a list.2 
IHe  says  that  the  species  commonly  cultivated  is  Cicho- 
rium  divariccitum,  Schousboe  (C.  pumilum,  Jacquin) ; 
ibut  it  is  an  annual,  and  the  chicory  of  which  Theophrastus 
Fspeaks  was  perennial. 

Endive — Cichorvum  Endima,  Linnreus. 

The  white  chicories  or  endives  of  our  gardens  are 
.distinguished  from  Gichorium  Intybus,  in  that  they  are 
annuals,  and  less  bitter  to  the  taste.  Moreover,  the  hairs 
of  the  pappus  which  crowns  the  seed  are  four  times  longer, 
and  unequal  instead  of  being  equal.  As  long  as  this 
| plant  was  compared  with  C.  Intybus,  it  was  difficult 
not  to  admit  two  species.  The  origin  of  C.  Endivia 
is  uncertain.  When  we  received,  forty  years  ago,  speci- 
mens of  an  Indian  Cichorium,  which  Hamilton  named 
! C.  cosmia,  they  seemed  to  us  so  like  the  endive  that  we 
-supposed  the  latter  to  have  an  Indian  origin,  as  has  been 
-sometimes  suggested ; 3 but  Anglo-Indian  botanists  said, 
■.and  continue  to  assert,  that  in  India  the  plant  only  grows 
binder  cultivation.1  The  uncertainty  persisted  as  to  the 
geographical  origin.  After  this,  several  botanists5  con- 
ceived the  idea  of  comparing  the  endive  with  an  annual 
•species,  wild  in  the  region  of  the  Mediterranean,  Cicho- 
rium pvmilum,  Jacquin  (C.  divaricatum,  Schousboe), 
and  the  differences  were  found  to  be  so  slight  that  some 
have  suspected,  and  others  have  affirmed,  their  specific 
identity.  For  my  part,  after  having  seen  wild  specimens 
from  Sicily,  and  compared  the  good  illustrations  published 
by  Eeichenbacli  ( leones , vol.  xix.,  pis.  1357,  1358),  1 
am  disposed  to  take  the  cultivated  endives  for  varieties 

Dioseoridcs,  ii.  c.  160;  Pliny,  xix.  c.  8;  Palladius,  xi.  c.  11.  Sen 
ather  authors  quoted  by  Lenz,  Bot.  d.  Alten,  p.  483. 

- Hc'ldroich,  Die  Nutzpfla/nzen  Qriechenlands,  pp.  28,  76. 

Aug*  ryi\  de  Candolle,  Prodr. , vii,  p.  84;  Alpli.  de  Candolle,  Gdogr • 
Bot.,  p.  845. 

1 Clarke,  Compos.  Ind.,  p.  250. 

5 De  Viviani,  Flora  Dalmat.,  ii.  p.  97  ; Schultz  in  Webb,  Phyt.  Canar., 
iect.  ii.  p.  391;  Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  iii.  p.  716. 

H 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


98 

of  the  same  species  as  C.  pumilum.  In  this  case  the 
oldest  name  being  C.  Enclivia , it  is  the  one  which  ought 
to  be  retained,  as  has  been  done  by  Schultz.  It  resembles, 
moreover,  a popular  name  common  to  several  languages. 

The  wild  plant  exists  in  the  whole  region,  of  which 
the  Mediterranean  is  the  centre,  from  Madeira,1  Marocco,3 
and  Algeria,3  as  far  as  Palestine,4  the  Caucasus,  and 
Turkestan.5 *  It  is  very  common  in  the  islands  of  the 
Mediterranean  and  in  Greece.  Towards  the  west,  in 
Spain  and  Madeira,  for  instance,  it  is  probable  that  it  has 
become  naturalized  from  cultivation,  judging  from  the 
positions  it  occupies  in  the  fields  and  by  the  wayside. 

No  positive  proof  is  found  in  ancient  authors  of  the 
use  of  this  plant  by  the  Greeks  and  Romans ; 8 but  it 
is  probable  that  they  made  use  of  it  and  several  other 
Cichoria.  The  common  names  tell  us  nothing,  since  they 
may  have  been  applied  to  two  different  species.  These 
names  vary  little,7  and  suggest  a cultivation  of  Gneco- 
Roman  origin.  A Hindu  name,  Jcasni,  and  a Tamul'one, 
koschi ,8  are  mentioned,  but  no  Sanskrit  name,  and  this 
indicates  that  the  cultivation  of  this  plant  was  of  late 
oi'igin  in  the  east. 

Spinach — Spinacia  oleracea,  Linnaeus. 

This  vegetable  was  unknown  to  the  Greeks  and 
Romans.9  It  was  new  to  Europe  in  the  sixteenth  century,10 
and  it  has  been  a matter  of  dispute  whether  it  should  bo 
called  spanacha,  as  coming  from  Spain,  or  spinacia,  from 
its  prickly  fruit.11 *  It  was  afterwards  shown  that  the 
name  comes  from  the  Arabic  isfdnddsch,  esbanach,  or 
sepanach,  according  to  different  authors.13  The  Persian 

1 Lowe,  Flora  of  Madeira,  p.  521.  2 Ball,  Spicilegium,  p.  531. 

3 Muubv,  Catal.,  edit.  2,  p.  21.  4 Boissier,  Ft.  Orient.,  iii.  p.  716.  j 

5 Bunge,  Beit  rage  eur  Flora  Russlands  und  Central  Asiens,  p.  197. 

4 Lenz,  Bot.  der  Alten,  p.  483  ; Heldroich,  Die  Xutzpflanzen  GriechenM 

lands,. p.  74. 

7 Nemnich,  Polygl.  Lex.,  at  the  word  Cichorivm  Endivia. 

8 Royle,  III.  llirnal.,  p.  247  ; Piddington,  Index. 

9 J.  Bauhiu,  Hist.,  ii.  p.  904;  Fraas,  Syn.  FI.  Class. ; Lenz,  Bot.  ikrj 

Alten. 

19  Brassavola,  p.  176.  11  Mathioli,  ed  Valgr.,  p.  343. 

12  Ebn  Baithar,  ueberitz  vou  Sondtheimer,  i.  p.  hi ; Forskal,  EgypU 

p.  77;  Delile,  III.  JEgypt.,  p.  29. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  99 

inftine  is  ispany,  or  ispanaj,1  and  the  Hindu  isfany , or 
ipalak,  according  to  Piddington,  and  also  pinnis,  accord- 
iing  to  the  same  and  to  Roxburgh.  The  absence  of  any 
Sanskrit  name  shows  a cultivation  of  no  great  antiquity 
iin  these  regions.  Loureiro  saw  the  spinach  cultivated 
:>at  Canton,  and  Maximowicz  in  Mantschuria ; 2 but 
IBretschneider  tells  us  that  the  Chinese  name  signifies 
rherb  of  Persia,  and  that  Western  vegetables  were  com- 
monly introduced  into  China  a century  before  the  Chris- 
tian era.8  It  is  therefore  probable  that  the  cultivation 
of  this  plant  began  in  Persia  from  the  time  of  the  Graeco- 
: Roman  civilization,  or  that  it  did  not  quickly  spread 
either  to  the  east  or  to  the  west  of  its  Persian  origin. 
''No  Hebrew  name  is  known,  so  that  the  Arabs  must  have 
( received  both  plant  and  name  from  the  Persians.  No- 
rthing leads  us  to  suppose  that  they  carried  this  vegetable 
into  Spain.  Ebn  Baithar,  who  was  living  in  1235,  was  of 
'Malaga ; but  the  Arabic  works  he  quotes  do  not  say  where 
ithe  plant  was  cultivated,  except  one  of  them,  which  says 
(that  its  cultivation  was  common  at  Nineveh  and  Babylon. 
tHerrera’s  work  on  Spanish  agriculture  does  not  mention 
ithe  species,  although  it  is  inserted  in  a supplement  of 
(recent  date,  whence  it  is  probable  that  the  edition  of 
11513  did  not  speak  of  it ; so  that  the  European  cultiva- 
tion must  have  come  from  the  East  about  the  fifteenth 
century. 

Some  popular  works  repeat  that  spinach  is  a native 
of  Northern  Asia,  but  there  is  nothing  to  confirm  this 
supposition.  It  evidently  comes  from  the  empire  of  the 
ancient  Medes  and  Persians.  According  to  Bose,4  the 
traveller,  Olivier  brought  back  some  seeds  of  it,  found  in 
the  East  in  the  open  country.  This  would  be  a positive 
proot,  if  the  produce  of  these  seeds  had  been  examined 
by  a botanist  in  order  to  ascertain  the  species  and  the 
i variety.  In  the  present  state  of  our  knowledge  it  must 

Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.,  ed.  1832,  v.  iii.  p.  771,  applied  to  Spinacia 
telandra , which  seems  to  be  the  same  species. 

■ Maximowicz,  Primitice  FI.  Amur.,  p.  222. 

3 Brotschnoider,  Study  and  Value  of  Chin.  Lot.  Works,  pp.  17, 15. 

1 Diet.  cl’Agric.,  v.  p.  90G. 


100  ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 

be  owned  that  spinach  has  not  yet  been  found  in  a 
wild  state,  unless  it  be  a cultivated  modification  of 
Spinacia  tetandra,  Steven,  which  is  wild  to  the  south  of 
the  Caucasus,  in  Turkestan,  in  Persia,  and  in  Afghanis- 
tan, and  which  is  used  as  a vegetable  under  the  name  of 
schamum.1 

Without  entering  here  into  a purely  botanical  dis- 
cussion, I may  say  that,  after  reading  the  descriptions 
quoted  by  Boissier,  and  looking  at  Wight’s2  plate  of 
Spinacia  tetandra,  Roxb.,  cultivated  in  India,  and  the  ; 
specimens  of  several  herbaria,  I see  no  decided  differ- 
ence between  this  plant  and  the  cultivated  spinach  with 
prickly  fruit.  The  term  tetandra  implies  that  one  of 
the  plants  has  five  and  the  other  four  stamens,  but  the 
number  varies  in  our  cultivated  spinaches.3 

If,  as  seems  probable,  the  two  plants  are  two  varieties,  ! 
the  one  cultivated,  the  other  sometimes  wild  and  some- 
times cultivated,  the  oldest  name,  S.  oleracea,  ought  to 
persist,  especially  as  the  two  plants  are  found  in'  the  j 
cultivated  grounds  of  their  original  country. 

The  Dutch  or  great  spinach,  of  which  the  fruit  has  no 
spines,  is  evidently  a garden  product.  Tragus,  or  Bock 
was  the  first  to  mention  it  in  the  sixteenth  century.4 

Amaranth — Amarantus  gangetlcus,  Linnaeus. 

Several  annual  amaranths  are  cultivated  as  a green 
vegetable  in  Mauritius,  Bourbon,  and  the  Seychelles  Isles, 
under  the  name  of  brMe  de  Malabar .5  This  appears 
to  be  the  principal  species.  It  is  much  cultivated  in 
India.  Anglo-Indian  botanists  mistook  it  for  a time 
for  Amarantus  oleraceus  of  Linnaeus,  and  Wight  gives ! 
an  illustration  of  it  under  this  name,0  but  it  is  now 
acknowledged  to  be  a different  species,  and  belongs  to 
A.  gangetlcus.  Its  numerous  varieties,  differing  in  sizeFj 
colour,  etc.,  are  called  in  the  Telinga  dialect  tota  kwraM 
with  the  occasional  addition  of  an  adjective  for  each. 

1 Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  vi.  p.  234.  * Wight,  leones,  t.  818. 

3 Nees,  Gen.  Plant.  FI.  Germ.,  1.  7,  pL  15. 

4 Bauhin,  Hist.,  ii.  p.  965. 

5 A.  gangeticus,  A.  tristis,  and  A.  hybridis  of  Linnaeus,  according  to- 
Baker,  Flora  of  Mauritius,  p.  266. 

‘ Wight,  leones,  p.  715. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  101 


[There  are  other  names  in  Bengali  and  Hindustani.  The 
Young  shoots  sometimes  take  the  place  of  asparagus 
lit  the  table  of  the  English.1  A.  vnelancholicus,  often 
grown  as  an  ornamental  plant  in  European  gardens,  is 
considered  one  of  the  forms  of  this  species. 

Its  original  home  is  perhaps  India,  but  I cannot  dis- 
cover that  the  plant  has  ever  been  found  there  in  a wild 
r,tate ; at  least,  this  is  not  asserted  by  any  author.  All 
i he  species  of  the  genus  Amarantus  spread  themselves  in 
cultivated  ground,  on  rubbish-heaps  by  the  wayside,  and 
bhus  become  half-naturalized  in  hot  countries  as  well  as 
in  Europe.  Hence  the  extreme  difficulty  in  distinguish- 
ing the  species,  and  above  all  in  guessing  or  proving  their 
origin.  The  species  most  nearly  akin  to  A.  gangeticus 
appear  to  be  Asiatic. 

A.  gangeticus  is  said  by  trustworthy  authorities  to 
.oe  wild  in  Egypt  and  Abyssinia;2  but  this  is  perhaps 
‘ inly  the  result  of  such  naturalization  as  I spoke  of 
bust  now.  The  existence  of  numerous  varieties  and 
of  different  names  in  India,  render  its  Indian  origin  most 
Probable. 

The  Japanese  cultivate  as  vegetables  A.  caudatus, 
;!i.  mangostanus,  and  A.  mclancholicus  (or  gangeticus ) of 
.jinnieus,3  but  there  is  no  proof  that  any  of  them  are 
ndigenous.  In  Java  A.  polystachyus,  Blume,  is  cul- 
.ivated ; it  is  very  common  among  rubbish,  by  the 
' .vayside,  etc.4 

I shall  speak  presently  of  the  species  grown  for  the 
; seed. 

Leek — Allium  anipeloprasum,  var.  Porru/m. 

According  to  the  careful  monograph  by  J.  Gay,5  the 
I eek,  as  early  writers5  suspected,  is  only  a cultivated 
I variety  of  Allium  anipeloprasum  of  Linnaeus,  so  com- 
non  in  the  East,  and  in  the  Mediterranean  region, 

1 Roxburgh,  Flora  Tndica,  edit.  2,  vol.  iii.  p.  606. 
lloissier,  Flora  Orientalis,  iv.  p.  990;  Schweinfurth  and  Aschcrson, 
iufziihlwng,  etc.,  p.  289. 

3 I*  ranchet  and  Savatior,  Enum.  Plant.  Japoniw,  i.  p.  390. 

* Hasskarl,  Plant.  Javan.  Rariores,  p.  431. 

3 Gay,  Ann.  des  Sc.  Nat.,  3rd  series,  vol.  viii. 

6 Linnaius,  Species  PI. ; De  Candolle,  FI.  Franc,.,  iii.  p.  219. 


102 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


especially  in  Algeria,  which  in  Central  Europe  sometimes 
becomes  naturalized  in  vineyards  and  round  ancient 
cultivations.1  Gay  seems  to  have  mistrusted  the  indica- 
tions of  the  floras  of  the  south  of  Europe,  for,  contrary 
to  his  method  with  other  species  of  which  he  gives  the 
localities  out  of  Algeria,  he  only  quotes  in  the  present 
case  the  Algerian  localities;  admitting,  however,  the 
identity  of  name  in  the  authors  for  other  countries. 

The  cidtivated  variety  of  Porrum  has  not  been  found 
wild.  It  is  only  mentioned  in  doubtful  localities,  such 
as  vineyards,  gardens,  etc.  Ledebour2  indicates  for  A. 
ampeloprasum  the  borders  of  the  Crimea,  and  the  provinces 
to  the  south  of  the  Caucasus.  Wallich  brought  a specimen 
from  Kamaon,  in  India,3  but  we  cannot  be  sure  that  it 
was  wild.  The  works  on  Cochin-China  (Loureiro), 
China  (Bretschneider),  and  Japan  (Franchet  and  Savatier) 
make  no  mention  of  it. 


Article  II. — Fodder. 

Lucern — Medicago  saliva,  Linnmus. 

The  lucern  was  known  to  the  Greeks  and  Romans. 
They  called  it  in  Greek  medical,  in  Latin  raedica,  or  herba 
medica, because  it  had  been  brought  from  Media  at  the  time 
of  the  Persian  war,  about  470  years  before  the  Christian 
era.4  The  Romans  often  cultivated  it,  at  any  rate  from  the 
beginning  of  the  first  or  second  century.  Cato  does  not 
speak  of  it,5  but  it  is  mentioned  by  Varro,  Columella,  and 
Virgil.  De  Gasparin5  notices  that  Creseenz,  in  1478,  does 
not  mention  it  in  Italy,  and  that  in  1711  Tull  had  not 
seen  it  beyond  the  Alps.  Targioni,  however,  who  could 
not  be  mistaken  on  this  head,  says  that  the  cultivation 
of  lucern  was  maintained  in  Italy,  especial!}'  in  Tuscany, 


1 Kocli,  Synopsis  FI.  Germ.;  Bnbingtou,  Man.  of  Brit.  Bot. ; English, 
Hot.,  etc. 

2 Ledebour,  Flora  Ross.,  ir.  p.  163. 

5 Baker,'  Journal  of  Bot,  1874,  p-  295. 

4 Strabo,  xii.  p.  560  ; Pliny,  bk.  xviii.  c.  16. 

5 Hehn,  CulturpflanzOn,  etc.,  p.  355. 

8 Gasparin,  Cours  d'Agric.,  iv.  p.  424. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIll  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  103 

from  ancient  times.1  It  is  rare  in  modern  Greece.2 
[French  cultivators  have  often  given  to  the  lucern  the 
name  of  sainfoin,  which  belongs  properly  to  Ono- 
brycliis  saliva;  and  this  transposition  still  exists,  for 
instance  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Geneva.  The  name 
"ucern  has  been  supposed 'to  come  from  the  valley  of 
[Luzerne,  in  Piedmont ; hut  there  is  another  and  more 
.probable  origin.  The  Spaniards  had  an  old  name,  eruye, 
[mentioned  by  J.  Bauhin,3  and  the  Catalans  call  it  user  das, i 
> whence,  perhaps  the  patois  name  in  the  south  of  France, 
laouzerdo,  nearly  akin  to  luzerne.  It  was  so  commonly 
cultivated  in  Spain  that  the  Italians  have  sometimea 
called  it  herba  spagna.5  The  Spaniards  have,  besides  the 
names  already  given,  mielga,  or  raelga,  which  appears  to 
i come  from  Medica,  but  they  principally  used  names 
derived  from  the  Arabic — alfafa,  alfasafat,  alfalfa.  In 
t the  thirteenth  century,  the  famous  physician  Ebn  Baithar, 

■ who  wrote  at  Malaga,  uses  the  Arab  word  fisjisat,  which 
he  derives  from  the  Persian  isfist .6  It  will  be  seen  that, 
if  we  are  to  trust  to  the  common  names,  the  origin  of 
ithe  plant  would  be  either  in  Spain,  Piedmont,  or  Persia. 
IFortunately  botanists  can  furnish  direct  and  possible 
i proofs  of  the  original  home  of  the  species. 

It  has  been  found  wild,  with  every  appearance  of  an 
indigenous  plant,  in  several  provinces  of  Anatolia,  to  the 
-south  of  the  Caucasus,  in  several  parts  of  Persia,  in 
Afghanistan,  in  Beluchistan,7  and  in  Kashmir.8  In  the 
south  of  Russia,  a locality  mentioned  by  some  authors, 
it  is  perhaps  the  result  of  cultivation  as  well  as  in 
the  south  of  Europe.  The  Greeks  may,  therefore,  have 
introduced  the  plant  from  Asia  Minor  as  well  as  from 
India,  which  extended  from  the  north  of  Persia. 

This  origin  of  the  lucern,  which  is  well  established, 

' Targioni-T ozzetti,  Cenni  Storici,  p.  34. 

Fraas,  Synopsis  FI.  Class.,  p.  63;  Holdreich,  Dio  Nutzpflanzen 
Griechcnlands,  p.  70. 

3 Bauhin,  Hist.  Plant.,  ii.  p.  381.  4 Colmciro,  Catal. 

5 Tozzetti,  Dizion.  Hot. 

a Ebn  Baithar,  Heil  und  Ndhrungsmittel,  translated  from  Arabic  by 
Sontheimer,  vol.  ii.  p.  257. 

7 Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  ii.  p.  94.  s Royle,  III.  Himal.,  p.  197. 


104  ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 

makes  me  note  as  a singular  fact  that  no  Sanskrit  name 
is  known.1  Clover  and  sainfoin  have  none  either,  which 
leads  us  to  suppose  that  the  Aryans  had  no  artificial 
meadows. 

Sainfoin — Hed/ysarum  Onobrychis , Linnajus ; Onobry- 
chis  sativa,  Lamarck. 

This  leguminous  plant,  of  which  the  usefulness  in  the 
dry  and  chalky  soils  of  temperate  regions  is  incontestable, 
has  not  been  long  in  cultivation.  The  Greeks  did  not 
grow  it,  and  their  descendants  have  not  introduced  it 
into  their  agriculture  to  this  day.2  The  plant  called 
Onobrychis  by  Dioscorides  and  Pliny,  is  Onobrychis 
Caput-Galli  of  modern  botanists,3  a species  wild  in  Greece 
and  elsewhere,  which  is  not  cultivated.  The  sainfoin,  or 
lupineUa  of  the  Italians,  was  highly  esteemed  as  fodder 
in  the  south  of  France  in  the  time  of  Olivier  de  Serres,4 
that  is  to  say,  in  the  sixteenth  century ; but  in  Italy  it 
was  only  in  the  eighteenth  century  that  this  cultivation 
spread,  particularly  in  Tuscany.5 

Sainfoin  is  a herbaceous  plant,  which  grows  wild  in 
the  temperate  parts  of  Europe,  to  the  south  of  the 
Caucasus,  round  the  Caspian  Sea,6  and  even  beyond  Lake 
Baikal.7  In  the  south  of  Europe  it  grows  only  on  the 
hills.  Gussone  does  not  reckon  it  among  the  wild  species 
of  Sicily,  nor  Moris  among  those  of  Sardinia,  nor  Munby 
among  those  of  Algeria. 

No  Sanskrit,  Persian,  or  Arabic  names  are  known. 
Everything  tends  to  show  that  the  cultivation  of  this 
plant  originated  in  the  south  of  France  as  late  perhaps 
as  the  fifteenth  century. 

French  Honeysuckle,  or  Spanish  Sainfoin — Iledysarum 
coronarium,  Linnaeus. 

The  cultivation  of  this  leguminous  plant,  akin  to  the 

1 Piddington,  Index. 

" lleldreich,  Nutzpflansen  Qriechenlands,  p.  72. 

3 Fraas,  Synopsis  FI.  Class.,  p.  58;  Lenz,  Bot.  der  Altcn  Qr.  und 
Thun.,  p.  731. 

* O.  de  Serres,  Theatre  de  I’Agric,,  p.  242. 

5 Targioni-Tozzetti,  Cenni  Storici,  p*  34. 

0 Ledebour,  FI.  Ross.,  i.  p.  708;  Boissier,  FI.  Or.,  p.  532. 

r Turczaninow,  Flora  Baical.  JJahur.,  i.  p.  310. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  105 

iinfoin,  and  of  which  a good  illustration  may  be  found 
i.  the  Flora  des  Sevres  et  des  Jardins,  vol.  xiii.  pi. 
082,  has  been  diffused  in  modem  times  through  Italy, 
icily,  Malta,  and  the  Balearic  Isles.1  Marquis  Grimaldi, 
:ho  first  pointed  it  out  to  cultivators  in  17G6,  had  seen 
at  Seminara,  in  Lower  Calabria ; De  Gasparin  2 recom- 
mends it  for  Algeria,  and  it  is  probable  that  cultiva- 
tors under  similar  conditions  in  Australia,  at  the  Cape, 
i l South  America  or  Mexico,  would  do  well  to  try  it. 
1 1 the  neighbourhood  of  Orange,  in  Algeria,  the  plant 
id  not  survive  the  cold  of  6°  centigrade. 

Hedysarum  coronarium  grows  in  Italy  from  Genoa 
) Sicily  and  Sardinia,8  in  the  south  of  Spain 4 and 
i Algeria,5  where  it  is  rare.  It  is,  therefore,  a species 
' limited  geographical  area. 

Purple  Clover — Trifolium  pratense,  Linmeus. 

Clover  was  not  cultivated  in  ancient  times,  although 
ae  plant  was  doubtless  known  to  nearly  all  the  peoples 
* Europe  and  of  temperate  Western  Asia.  Its  use  was 
vst  introduced  into  Flanders  in  the  sixteenth  century, 
erhaps  even  earlier,  and,  according  to  Schwerz,  the 
rotestants  expelled  by  the  Spaniards  carried  it  into 
eermany,  where  they  established  themselves  under  the 
■••otection  of  the  Elector  Palatine.  It  was  also  from 
ilanders  that  the  English  received  it  in  1633,  through 
ie  influence  of  Weston,  Earl  of  Portland,  then  Lord 
Chancellor. 5 

Trifolium  pratense  is  wild  throughout  Europe,  in 
Jgeria,7  on  the  mountains  of  Anatolia,  in  Armenia, 
1 1(1  hi  Turkestan,8  in  Siberia  towards  the  Altai  Moun- 
; ins,9  and  in  Kashmir  and  Garwliall.10 

1 Targioni-Tozzetti,  Cenni  St  or  id,  p.  35  ; Marts  and  Virginoix,  Catal 

j a Buldares,  p.  100. 

i 2 Be  Gasparin,  Cours  d’Agric.,  iv.  p.  472. 
j 3 Bertoloni,  Flora  Hal.,  viii.  p.  6. 

| 4 Willkomm  and  Lange,  Prodr.  FI.  Hisp.,  iii.  p.  262. 

5 Munby,  Catal.,  edit.  2,  p.  12. 

] 6 Bo  Gasparin,  Cours  d’Agric.,  iv.  p.  445,  according  to  Schwerz  and 

i Young. 

; 7 Munby,  Catal.,  edit.  2,  p,  11.  s Boissier,  FI.  Orient,  i.  p.  115. 

i 3 Ledebour,  FI.  Ross.,  i.  p.  548. 

] 10  Baker,  in  Hooker’s  Ft.  of  Brit,  hid.,  ii.  p.  86. 


10G 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


The  species  existed,  therefore,  in  Asia,  in  the  land 
of  the  Aryan  nations;  but  no  Sanskrit  name  is  known, 
whence  it  may  be  inferred  that  it  was  not  cultivated. 

Crimson  or  Italian  Clover — Trifolmm  inccmicitum, 
Linmeus. 

An  annual  plant  grown  for  fodder,  whose  cultivation, 
says  Vihnorin,  long  confined  to  a few  of  the  southern 
departments,  becomes  every  day  more  common  in  France.1 
De  Candolle,  at  the  beginning  of  the  present  century, 
had  only  seen  it  in  the  department  of  Ariege.2 *  It  has 
existed  for  about  sixty  years  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Geneva.  Targioni  does  not  think  that  it  is  of  ancient 
date  in  Italy,8  and  the  trivial  name  trafoglio  strengthens 
his  opinion. 

The  Catalan  fe,  fenclt ,4  and,  in  the  patois  of  the  south 
of  France,5  farradje  (Roussillon),  farratage  (Languedoc),. 
feroutgd  (Gascony),  whence  the  French  name  f avouch , 
have,  on  the  other  hand,  an  original  character,  which 
indicates  an  ancient  cultivation  round  the  Pyrenees. 
The  term  which  is  sometimes  used,  “ clover  of  Roussillon,’’ 
also  shows  this. 

The  wild  plant  exists  in  Galicia,  in  Biscaya,  and 
Catalonia,6  but  not  in  the  Balearic  Isles ; 7 it  is  found- 
in  Sardinia  8 and  in  the  province  of  Algiers.9  It  appears- 
in  several  localities  in  France,  Italy,  and  Dalmatia,  in 
the  valley  of  the  Danube  and  Macedonia,  but  in  many 
cases  it  is  not  known  whether  it  may  not  have  strayed! 
from  neighbouring  cultivation.  A singular  locality  inj 
which  it  appears  to  be  indigenous,  according  to  English' 
authors,  is  on  the  coast  of  Cornwall,  near  the  Lizard. 
In  this  place,  according  to  Bentham,  it  is  the  pale  yellowj 
variety,  which  is  truly  wild  on  the  Continent,  while  the! 

1 Bon  Jardinier,  1880,  pt.<  i.  p.  G18. 

2 Do  Candolle,  FI.  Prang.,  iv.  p.  528. 

* Targioni,  Cenni  Storici,  p.  35. 

4 Costa,  Intro.  FI.  di  Catal.,  p.  CO.  1 

5 Moritzi,  Diet.  MS.,  compiled  from  floras  published  before  tl.al 
middle  of  the  present  century. 

6 Willkomm  and  Lange,  Prodr.  FI.  Hisp.,  iii.  p.  3G6. 

7 Mar&s  and  Virgineix,  CataL,  1880. 

8 Moris,  FI.  Sard.,  i.  p.  467.  9 Mnnby,  Catal,  edit.  2. 


PPLAXTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STExMS  OR  LEAVES.  107 

rrimson  variety  is  only  naturalized  in  England  from 
ultivation.1  I do  not  know  to  what  degree  this  remark 
ff  Bentham’s  as  to  the  wild  nature  of  the  sole  variety 
ff  a yellow  colour  (var.  Molimerii,  Seringe)  is  confirmed 
n all  the  countries  where  the  species  grows.  It  is 
ne  only  one  indicated  by  Moris  in  Sardinia,  and  in 
Dalmatia  by  Viviani,2 *  in  the  localities  which  appear 
atural  (in  pascuis  collinis,  in  montanis,  in  herbidis). 
’’he  authors  of  the  Bon  Jardinier 3 affirm  with  Bentham 
hat  Trifolium  Molinerii  is  wild  in  the  north  of 

E ’ranee,  that  with  crimson  flowers  being  introduced  from 
he  south  ; and  while  they  admit  the  absence  of  a good 
pecific  distinction,  they  note  that  in  cultivation  the 
ariety  Molinerii  is  of  slower  growth,  often  biennial 
■instead  of  annual. 

Alexandrine  or  Egyptian  Clover — Trifolium  Alexan- 
Irimt/m,  Linnaeus. 

This  species  is  extensively  cultivated  in  Egypt  as 
todder.  Its  Arab  name  is  bersym  or  berzun .4  There  is 
othing  to  show  that  it  has  been  long  in  use ; the  name 
oes  not  occur  in  Hebrew  and  Armenian  botanical  works. 
The  species  is  not  wild  in  Egypt,  but  it  is  certainly 
■wild  in  Syria  and  Asia  Minor.5 

Ervilia — Ervum  Ervilia,  Linnaeus;  Vida  Emilia, 
Villdenow. 

Bertoloni0  gives  no  less  than  ten  common  Italian 
tames — ervo,  lero,  zirlo,  etc.  This  is  an  indication  of  an 
indent  and  general  culture.  Heldreich  7 says  that  the 
nodem  Greeks  cultivate  the  plant  in  abundance  as  fodder. 
They  call  it  robai,  from  the  ancient  Greek  orobos,  as  ervos 
tomes  from  the  Latin  ervum.  The  cultivation  of  the 
ipecies  is  mentioned  by  ancient  Greek  and  Latin  authors.8 
Che  Greeks  made  use  of  the  seed ; for  some  has  been 

1 Bentham,  Itandboolc  Brit.  FI.,  edit.  4,  p.  117. 

* Moris>  FL  Sard.,  i.  p.  467  ; Viviani,  FI.  Dalmat.,  iii.  p.  290- 

Bon  Jardinier,  1880,  p.  G19. 

* Forskal,  FI.  Egypt.,  p.  71 . Delile,  Plant.  Cult,  en  Egypt.,  p.  10  ; 

V ilkinson,  Manners  and  Custom#  of  Ancient  Egyptians,  ii.  p.  398. 

* Boissicr,  FI.  Orient.,  ii.  p.  127.  6 Bertoloni,  FI.  It.,  vii.  p.  500. 

7 Nutzpflamcn  Qriechenlanda,  p.  71. 

8 See  L<?nz,  Bot.  d.  Alien,  p.  727 ; Ftaas,  Ft.  Class.,  p.  54. 


108 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


discovered  in  the  excavations  on  the  site  of  Troy.1  There 
are  a number  of  common  names  in  Spain,  some  of  them 
Ai-abic,2 3  but  the  species  has  not  been  so  widely  cultivated 
there  for  several  centuries.8  In  France  it  is  so  little 
grown  that  many  modern  works  on  agriculture  do  not 
mention  it.  It  is  unknown  in  British  India.4 

General  botanical  works  indicate  Ervuvi  Ervilia  as 
growing  in  Southern  Europe,  but  if  we  take  severally  the 
best  floras,  it  will  be  seen  that  it  is  in  such  localities  as 
fields,  vineyards,  or  cultivated  ground.  It  is  the  same  in 
Western  Asia,  where  Boissier5 *  speaks  of  specimens  from 
Syria,  Persia,  and  Afghanistan.  Sometimes,  in  abridged 
catalogues,0  the  locality  is  not  given,  but  nowhere  do  I 
find  it  asserted  that  the  plant  has  been  seen  wild  in  places 
far  from  cultivation.  The  specimens  in  my  own  herbarium 
furnish  no  further  proof  on  this  head. 

In  all  likelihood  the  species  was  formerly  wild  in 
Greece,  Italy,  and  perhaps  Spain  and  Algeria,  but  the 
frequency  of  its  cultivation  in  the  very  regions  where  it 
existed  prevent  us  from  now  finding  the  wild  stocks. 

Tare,  or  Common  Vetch — Vida  sativa,  Linnaeus. 

Vida  sativa  is  an  annual  leguminous  plant  wild 
throughout  Europe,  except  in  Lapland.  It  is  also  common 
in  Algeria,7  and  to  the  south  of  the  Caucasus  as  far  as  the 
province  of  Talysch.8  Koxburgh  pronounces  it  to  be 
wild  in  the  north-west  provinces  and  in  Bengal,  but  Sir 
Joseph  Hooker  admits  this  only  as  far  as  the  variety  called 
august  if  alia  9 is  concerned.  No  Sanskrit  name  is  known, 
and  in  the  modern  languages  of  India  only  Hindu  names.10 
Targioni  believes  it  to  be  the  Jcetsach  of  the  Hebrews.11 

1 Wittmack,  Sitzungsber  Hot.  Vereins  Brandenburg,  Dec.  19, 1S79. 

Willkomin  and  Lange,  Prodr.  FI.  Hisp.,  iii.  p.  308. 

3 Baker,  in  Hooker’s  FI.  Brit.  lnd. 

4 Herrera,  Agrieultura,  edit.  1819,  iv.  p.  72. 

5 Baker,  in  Hooker’s  FI.  Brit.  Ind. 

s For  instance,  Munby,  Catat.  Plant  Algeria;,  edit.  2,  p.  12. 

7 Munby,  Catal. , edit.  2. 

8 Ledebonr,  FI.  Boss.,  i.  p.  6G6;  Hokenacker,  Enum.  Plant.  Tahgsch, 
p.  113 ; C.  A.  Meyer,  Verzeichniss,  p.  147. 

0 Roxburgh,  FI.  bid.,  edit.  1832,  iii.  p.  323 ; Hooker,  FI.  Brit,  lnd., 
ii.  p.  178. 

10  Piddington’s  Index  gives  fonr.  11  Targioni,  Cennx  Stonci,  p.  30. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  109 


II  have  received  specimens  from  the  Cape  and  from 
•California.  The  species  is  certainly  not  indigenous  in 
tthe  two  last-named  regions,  hut  has  escaped  from  cul- 
tivation. 

The  Romans  sowed  this  plant  both  for  the  sake  of  the 
-■seed  and  as  fodder  as  early  as  the  time  of  Cato.1  I have 

■ discovered  no  proof  of  a more  ancient  cultivation.  The 
mame  vik,  whence  vicia,  dates  from  a very  remote  epoch 
in  Europe,  for  it  exists  in  Albanian,2  which  is  believed  to 
Ibe  the  language  of  the  Pelasgians,  and  among  the  Slav, 
^Swedish,  and  Germanic  nations,  with  slight  modifications. 
This  does  not  prove  that  the  species  was  cultivated.  It 
is  distinct  enough  and  useful  enough  to  herbivorous 
animals  to  have  received  common  names  from  the  earliest 
times. 

Flat-podded  Pea — Lathyrus  Cicera,  Linmeus. 

An  annual  leguminous  plant,  esteemed  as  fodder,  but 
■whose  seed,  if  used  as  food  in  any  quantity,  becomes 
dangerous.8 

It  is  grown  in  Italy  under  the  name  of  mochi d Some 
tauthors  suspect  that  it  is  the  cicera  of  Columella  and  the 
ervilia  of  Varro,6  but  the  common  Italian  name  is  very 
•.different  to  these.  The  species  is  not  cultivated  in  Greece.0 
It  is  more  or  less  grown  in  France  and  Spain,  without 

■ anything  to  show  that  its  use  dates  from  ancient  times. 
? However,  Wittmack7  attributes  to  it,  but  doubtfully, 
Nome  seeds  brought  by  Virchow  from  the  Trojan  exca- 
vations. 

According  to  the  floras,  it  is  evidently  wild  in  dis- 
places, beyond  the  limits  of  cultivation  in  Spain  and 
Italy8  It  is  also  wild  in  Lower  Egypt,  according  to 

^ Cato,  Be.  re  Rustica,  edit.  1535,  p.  34;  Pliny,  bk.  xviii.  c.  15. 

Ileidreich,  Nutzpflanzcn  Griechenlands,  p.  71.  In  the  earlier  lan- 
guage than  the  Indo-Europeans,  vik  bears  another  meaning,  that  of 
‘ hamlet  ” (Fick,  Vorterb.  Indo-Germ.,  p.  189). 

3 Vilmorin,  Hon  Jardinier,  1880,  p.  603. 

4 largioni,  Omni  Storici,  p.  31 ; Bertoloni,  FI.  ItaL,  vii.  pp.  444,  447* 

2 Lenz,  Botanik.  d.  Alten,  p.  730. 

0 Fraas,  FI.  Class.;  Heldreich,  Nutzjlanze.n  Griechenlands. 

Wittmack,  Sitz.  Ber , Bot.  Vereins  Brandenburg,  Dec.  19,  1879. 

8 Willkomm  and  Lange,  l’rodr.  FI.  Hisp.,  iii.  p.  313  ; Bortoloni,  Fli 
rtai. 


110  ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 

Schweinfurth  and  Ascherson  ; 1 but  there  is  no  trace  of  ' 
ancient  cultivation  in  this  country  or  among  the  Hebrews.  ? 
Towards  the  East  its  wild  character  becomes  less  certain.  1 
Boissier  indicates  the  plant  “ in  cultivated  ground  from  > 
Turkey  in  Europe,  and  Egypt  as  far  as  the  south  of  the  1 
Caucasus  and  Babylon.” 2 3 It  is  not  mentioned  in  India  | 
either  as  wild  or  cultivated,  and  has  no  Sanskrit  name.8 

The  species  is  probably  a native  of  the  region  com-  -i 
prised  between  Spain  and  Greece,  perhaps  also  of  Algeria,4  ■ 
and  diffused  by  a cultivation,  not  of  very  ancient  date,  1 
over  Western  Asia. 

Chickling  Vetch — Lathyrus  sativns,  Linnaeus. 

An  annual  leguminous  plant,  cultivated  in  the  South 
of  Europe,  from  a very  early  age,  as  fodder,  and  also  for 
the  seeds.  The  Greeks  called  it  lathyros 5 and  the  Latins  ; 
cicercula .6  It  is  also  cultivated  in  the  temperate  regions 
of  Western  Asia,  and  even  in  the  north  of  India ; 7 but  it 
has  no  Hebrew8  nor  Sanskrit  name,9  which  argues  a 
not  very  ancient  cultivation  in  these  regions. 

Nearly  all  the  floras  of  the  south  of  Europe  and  of 
Algeria  give  the  plant  as  cultivated  and  half-wild,  rarely 
and  only  in  a few  localities  as  truly  wild.  It  is  easy  to 
understand  the  difficulty  of  recognizing  the  wild  character 
of  a species  often  mixed  with  cereals,  and  which  persists] 
and  spreads  itself  after  cultivation.  Heldreich  does  not 
allow  that  it  is  indigenous  in  Greece.10  This  is  a strong 
presumption  that  in  the  rest  of  Europe  and  in  Algeria  the] 
plant  has  escaped  from  cultivation. 

It  is  probable  that  this  was  not  the  case  in  Western; 
Asia;  for  authors  cite  sufficiently  wild  localities,  where] 
agriculture  plays  a less  considerable  part  than  in  Europe. 

1 Schweinfurth  and  Ascherson,  Aufzuhhing,  etc.,  p.  257. 

2 Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  ii.  p.  605. 

3 J.  Baker,  in  Hooker’s  FI.  of  Brit.  Ind. 

4 Munby,  Catal. 

, 5 Theophrastus,  Hist,  riant.,  viii.,  c.  2,  10. 

* Columella,  De  rei  ruetica,  ii.  c.  10;  Pliny,  xviii.  c.  13,  32. 

7 Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind. ; Hooker,  FI.  Brit.  Ind.,  ii.  p.  178. 

8 Rosenmiiller,  Handb.  Bibl.  Alterth.,  vol.  i. 

9 Piddington,  Index. 

19  Heldreich,  Fflanz.  d.  Attisch.  Ebene,  p.  476 ; Nutzpf.  Or.,  p.  72. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  Ill 

^edebour,1  for  instance,  mentions  specimens  gathered  in 
:iie  desert,  near  the  Caspian  Sea,  and  in  the  province  of 
Lenkoran.  Meyer 2 confirms  the  assertion  with  respect  to 
^enkoran.  Baker,  in  his  flora  of  British  India,  after 
indicating  the  species  as  scattered  here  and  there  in  the 
northern  provinces,  adds,  “ often  cultivated,”  whence  it 
inay  be  inferred  that  he  considers  it  as  indigenous,  at 

tast  in  the  north.  Boissier  asserts  nothing  with  regard 
i the  localities  in  Persia  which  he  mentions  in  his 
riental  flora.3 

To  sum  up,  I think  it  probable  that  the  species  was 
tdigenous  before  cultivation  in  the  region  extending 
om  the  south  of  the  Caucasus,  or  of  the  Caspian  Sea, 
) the  north  of  India,  and  that  it  spread  towards  Europe 
1 the  track  of  ancient  cultivation,  mixed  perhaps  with 
sreals. 

Ochrus — Pisum  ochrus,  Linnaeus ; Lathyrus  ochrus,  de 

'Candolle. 

Cultivated  as  an  annual  fodder  in  Catalonia,  under 
'he  name  of  tapisots ,4 *  and  in  Greece,  particularly  in 
he  island  of  Crete,  under  that  of  ochros ,6  mentioned 
Wy  Theophrastus,6  but  without  a word  of  description, 
.jatin  authors  do  not  speak  of  it,  which  argues  a rare 
and  local  cultivation  in  ancient  times. 

The  species  is  certainly  wild  in  Tuscany.7  It  appears 
o be  wild  also  in  Greece  and  Sardinia,  where  it  is  found 
n hedges,8  and  in  Spain,  where  it  grows  in  uncultivated 
ground;9  but  as  for  the  south  of  France,  Algeria,  and 
Sicily,  authors  arc  either  silent  as  to  the  locality,  or 
nention  only  fields  and  cultivated  ground.  The  plant 
■ s unknown  further  east  than  Syria,16  where  probably  it 
s not  wild. 

1 Ledcbour,  FI.  Ross.,  i.  p.  681. 

C.  A.  Meyer,  Verzeichniss,  p,  148. 

! 3 Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  ii.  p.  606. 

I4  Willkomm  and  Lange,  I'rndr.  FI.  Hi.sp.,  iii.  p.  312. 

• Lcnz,  Bo t.  d.  Alton,  p.  730;  Heldrcioh,  Nutzpfl.  Gr.,  p.  72. 

6 Leuz. 

, 7 Caruel,  FI.  Tosc.,  p.  193  ; Gussono,  By n.  FI.  Sic.,  edit.  2. 

* Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  ii.  p.  602 ; Moris,  FI.  Sard.,  i.  p.  582. 

* Willkomm  and  Lange,  Prodr.  FI.  Hixp.  10  Boissier,  FI.  Orient. 


112 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


The  fine  plate  published  by  Sibthorp,  Flora  Grceca, 
589,  suggests  that  the  species  is  worthy  of  more  general 
cultivation. 

Trigonel,  or  Fenugreek — Trigonella  famum-grcecuvi, 
Linnams. 

The  cultivation  of  this  annual  leguminous  plant  was 
common  in  ancient  Greece  and  Italy,1 2  either  for  spring 
forage,  or  for  the  medicinal  properties  of  its  seeds. 
Abandoned  almost  everywhere  in  Europe,  and  notably 
in  Greece,3  it  is  maintained  in  the  East  and  in  India,3 
where  it  is  probably  of  very  ancient  date,  and  throughout 
the  Nile  Valley.4 *  The  species  is  wild  in  the  Punjab 
and  in  Kashmir,6  in  the  deserts  of  Mesopotamia  and  of 
Persia,6  and  in  Asia  Minor,7  where,  however,  the  localities 
cited  do  not  appear  sufficiently  distinct  from  the  culti- 
vated ground.  It  is  also  indicated  8 in  several  places  in 
Southern  Europe,  such  as  Mount  Hymettus  and  other 
localities  in  Greece,  the  hills  above  Bologna  and  Genoa, 
and  a few  waste  places  in  Spain ; but  the  further  west 
we  go  the  more  we  find  mentioned  such  localities  as 
fields,  cultivated  ground,  etc. ; and  careful  authors  do  not 
fail  to  note  that  the  species  has  probably  escaped  from 
cultivation.9  I do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  if  a plant 
of  this  nature  were  indigenous  in  Southern  Europe,  it 
would  be  far  more  common,  and  would  not  be  wanting  to 
the  insular  floras,  such  as  those  of  Sicily,  Ischia,  and  the 
Balearic  Isles.10 

The  antiquity  of  the  species  and  of  its  use  in  India  is 
confirmed  by  the  existence  of  several  different  names  in 


1 Theophrastus,  Hist.  Plant.,  viii.  c.  8;  Columella,  De  rei  rustica,  ii. 
c.  10 ; Pliny,  Hist.,  xviii.  c.  16. 

2 Fraas,  Syn.  FI.  Class.,  p.  63;  Lenz,  Bot.  der  Alien,  p.  719. 

3 Baker,  in  Hooker’s  FI,  Brit.  Ind.,  ii.  p.  57. 

4 Schweinfurth,  Bcitr.  z.  FI.  JEthiop.,  p.  258. 

s Baker,  in  Hooker’s  FI.  Brit,  Ind. 

6 Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  ii.  p.  70.  ’ Boissior,  ibid . 

11  Sibthorp,  FI.  Grceca,  t.  766;  Lenz,  Bot.  der  Alten,  Bertoloni,  FLj| 

Ital.,  viii.  p-  250  ; Willkomm  and  Lango,  Prodr.  FI.  Hisp.,  iii.  p.  390. 

,J  Caruel,  FI.  Tosc.,  p.  256 ; Willkomm  and  Lange. 

10  The  plants  which  spread  from  one  country  to  another  introduce  ® 
themselves  into  islands  with  more  difficulty,  as  will  bo  seen  from  the  re-  ¥ 
marks  I formerly  published  Qiogr.  Bot.  Raisonnte,  p.  706). 


1 PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  11*5 

iifferent  dialects,  ancl  above  all  of  a Sanskrit  and  modern 
Hindu  name,  methi,1 * *  There  is  a Persian  name,  schemlit, 
md  an  Arab  name,  helbeh ; 2 but  none  is  known  in 
Hebrew.8  One  of  the  names  of  the  plant  in  ancient 
dreek,  tailis  (rriXig),  may,  perhaps,  be  considered  by 
philologists  as  akin  to  the  Sanskrit  name,4  but  of  this 
am  no  judge.  The  species  may  have  been  introduced 
ty  the  Aryans,  and  the  primitive  name  have  left  no  trace 
n northern  languages,  since  it  can  only  live  in  the  south 
f Europe. 

Bird’s  Foot — Omithopus  sativus,  Brotero ; 0.  isth- 
nocarpus,  Cosson. 

The  true  bird’s  foot,  wild  and  cultivated  in  Portugal, 
vas  described  for  the  first  time  in  1S04  by  Brotero,5  and 
losson  has  distinguished  it  more  clearly  from  allied 
. pecies.6  Some  authors  had  confounded  it  with  Orni- 
JtopvbS  roseus  of  Dufour,  and  agriculturists  have  some- 
imes  given  it  the  name  of  a very  different  species, 

>.  perpusillus,  which  by  reason  of  its  small  size  is 
jrnsuited  for  cultivation.  It  is  only  necessary  to  see 
jiie  pod  of  Ornithopus  sativus  to  make  certain  of  the 
oecies,  for  it  is  when  ripe  contracted  at  intervals  and 
Considerably  bent.  If  there  are  in  the  fields  plants  of  a 
jrmilar  appearance,  but  whose  pods  are  straight  and  not 
mtracted,  they  are  the  result  of  a cross  with  0.  roseus,  or, 
r‘  the  pod  is  curved  but  not  contracted,  with  0.  com- 
■ressus.  From  the  appearance  of  these  plants,  it  seems 
hat  they  might  be  grown  in  the  same  manner,  and 
fould  present,  I suppose,  the  same  advantages. 

The  bird’s  foot  is  only  suited  to  a dry  and  sandy  soil, 
t is  an  annual  which  furnishes  in  Portugal  a very  early 
pring  fodder.  Its  cultivation  has  been  successfully  in- 
roduced  into  Cam  pine.7 

1 Piddington,  Index.  2 Ainslie,  Mat.  Med.  Ind.,  I.  p.  130. 

3 Rosemniiller,  liibl.  Alterth. 

As  usual,  Fick’B  dictionary  of  Tndo-Europonn  languages  does  not 

icntion  the  name  of  this  plant,  which  the  English  say  is  Sanskrit. 

5 Brotero,  Flora  Lunitanica,  ii.  p.  160. 

* Cosson,  Notes  sur  Quclqv.es  lJlantes  Nouvelles  ou  Critiques  du  Midi 
? VEspagne,  p.  36. 

7 Bon  Jardinier,  1880,  p.  512. 


114 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


0.  sativus  appears  to  be  wild  in  several  districts  of 
Portugal  and  the  south  of  Spain.  I have  a specimen 
from  Tangier;  and  Cosson  found  it  in  Algeria.  It  is 
often  found  in  abandoned  fields,  and  even  elsewhere.  It 
is  difficult  to  say  whether  the  specimens  are  not  from 
plants  escaped  from  cultivation,  but  localities  are  cited 
where  this  seems  improbable  ; for  instance,  a pine  wood 
near  Chiclana,  in  the  south  of  Spain  (Willkomm). 

Spergula,  or  Corn  Spurry — Spergida  arvemis,  Lin- 
naeus. 

This  annual,  belonging  to  the  family  of  the  Caryo- 
phylaceae,  grows  in  sandy  fields  and  similar  places  in 
Europe,  in  North  Africa  and  Abyssinia,1  in  Western  Asia 
as  far  as  Hindustan,2  and  even  in  Java.3  It  is  difficult  to 
know  over  what  extent  of  the  old  world  it  was  originally 
indigenous.  In  many  localities  we  do  not  know  if  It  is 
really  wild  or  naturalized  from  cultivation.  Sometimes 
a recent  introduction  may  be  suspected.  In  India,  for 
instance,  numerous  specimens  have  been  gathered  in  the 
last  few  years ; but  Roxburgh,  who  was  so  diligent  a 
collector  at  the  end  of  the  last  and  the  beginning  of  the 
present  century,  does  not  mention  the  species.  No 
Sanskrit  or  modern  Hindu  name  is  known,1  and  it  has 
not  been  found  in  the  countries  between  India  and 
Turkey. 

The  common  names  may  tell  us  something  with 
regard  to  the  origin  of  the  species  and  to  its  culti- 
vation. 

No  Greek  or  Latin  name  is  known.  Spergula,  in 
Italian  spergola,  seems  to  be  a common  name  long  in  use 
in  Italy.  Another  Italian  name,  erba  renaiola,  indicate® 
only  its  growth  in  the  sand  (rend).  The  French  ( spar - 
goule),  Spanish  ( esparcillas ),  Portuguese  ( espargata ),  and 
German  (Spark),  have  all  the  same  root.  It  seems  that] 
throughout  the  south  of  Europe  the  species  was  taken 
from  country  to  country  by  the  Romans,  before  th® 

1 Boissior,  FI.  Orient.,  i.  p.  731. 

* Hooker,  FI.  Brit.  Iml.,  i.  p.  243,  and  several  specimens  from  the 
Nilgherries  and  Ceylon  in  my  herbarium. 

3 Zollinger,  No.  2556  in  my  herbarium.  * Piddington,  Index. 


'PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  115 

ti  vision  of  the  Latin  languages.  In  the  north  the  case 

very  different.  There  is  a Russian  name,  toritsa ; 1 
raveral  Danish  names,  humb  or  hum,  girr  or  Jcirr  ; 2 and 
Swedish,  knuttjryle,  ndgde,  skorff.3  This  great  diversity 
hows  that  attention  had  long  been  drawn  to  this  plant 
n this  part  of  Europe,  and  argues  an  ancient  cultivation, 
tt  was  cultivated  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Montbelliard 
;i  the  sixteenth  century,4  and  it  is  not  stated  that  it  was 
nen  of  recent  introduction.  Probably  it  arose  in  the 
pith  of  Europe  during  the  Roman  occupation,  and  per- 
haps earlier  in  the  north.  In  any  case,  its  original  home 
uust  have  been  Europe. 

Agriculturists  distinguish  a taller  variety  of  spergula,5 
ut  botanists  are  not  agreed  with  them  in  finding  in  it 
uflicient  characteristics  of  a distinct  species,  and  some 

0 not  even  make  it  a variety. 

Guinea  Grass — Panicuvi  maximum,  Jacquin.0 

This  perennial  grass  has  a great  reputation  in  countries 
zing  between  the  tropics  as  a nutritious  fodder,  easy  of 
■ iltivation.  With  a little  care  a meadow  of  guinea 
trass  will  last  for  twenty  years.7 

Its  cultivation  appears  to  have  begun  in  the  West 
ndies.  P.  Browne  speaks  of  it  in  his  work  on  Jamaica, 
nblished  in  the  middle  of  the  last  century,  and  it  is 
ibsequently  mentioned  by  Swartz. 

The  former  mentions  the  name  guinea  grass,  without 
ay  remarks  on  the  original  home  of  the  species.  The 
itter  says,  “ formerly  brought  from  the  coast  of  Africa  to 
ie  Antilles.”  He  probably  trusted  to  the  indication 
iven  by  the  common  name  ; but  we  know  how  fallacious 

' Sobolewski,  FI.  Petrop.,  p.  109. 

2 Rafn,  Danmark*  Flora,  ii.  p.  799. 

* Wahlenberg,  quoted  by  Moritzi,  Did.  MS.;  Srensk  Botanik,  t.  308. 

Baunin,  Hist.  Plant.,  iii.  p.  722. 

3 Spvryuta  Maxima,  Bbninghausen,  an  illustration  published  in  ltci- 
] lenbach  s Plant  a;  Frit.,  vi.  p.  613. 

1 ‘ Panicum  mauvmwm,  Jucq.,  Coll.  1,  p.  71  (1786) ; Jacq.,  leones  1, 
13  ; Swartz,  FI.  Indue  Oce.,  vii.  p.  170  ; P.  poh/rjamwm,  Swartz,  Prodr., 

21;  (l/“8);  P.  jumentorwm,  Fcrsoon  Ench.,  i.  p.  83  (1805);  P. 
tissimum  of  some  gardens  and  modern  authors.  According  to  tho 
lie,  tho  oldest  name  should  be  adopted. 

In  Dominica  according  to  Imray,  in  the  Kcw  Report  for  1879,  p.  1G. 


no 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


such  indications  of  origin  sometimes  are.  Witness  the- 
so-called  Turkey  wheat,  which  comes  from  America. 

Swartz,  who  is  an  excellent  botanist,  says  that  the 
plant  grows  in  the  dry  cultivated  pastures  of  the  West 
Indies,  where  it  is  also  wild,  which  may  imply  that  it 
has  become  naturalized  in  places  where  it  was  formerly 
cultivated.  I cannot  find  it  anywhere  asserted  that  it  is 
really  wild  in  the  West  Indies.  It  is  otherwise  in  Brazil. 
From  data  collected  by  de  Martius  and  studied  by  Nees,1 * 
data  afterwards  increased  and  more  carefully  studied  by 
Dcell,a  Panicum  maximum  grows  in  the  clearings  of 
the  forests  of  the  Amazon  valley,  near  Santarem,  in  the 
provinces  of  Balria,  Ceara,  Rio  de  Janeiro,  and  Saint  Paul. 
Although  the  plant  is  often  cultivated  in  these  countries, 
the  localities  given,  by  their  number  and  nature,  prove 
that  it  is  indigenous.  Doell  has  also  seen  specimens'from 
French  Guiana  and  New  Granada. 

With  respect  to  Africa,  Sir  William  Hooker3  men- 
tioned specimens  brought  from  Sierra  Leone,  from 
Aguapim,  from  the  banks  of  the  Quorra,  and  from  the 
Island  of  St.  Thomas,  in  Western  Africa.  Nees  4 indicates 
the  species  in  several  districts  of  Cape  Colony,  even  in 
the  bush  and  in  mountainous  country.  Richard 5 men- 
tions places  in  Abyssinia,  which  also  seem  to  be  beyond 
the  limits  of  cultivation,  but  he  owns  to  being  not  verj 
sure  of  the  species.  Anderson,  on  the  contrary,  posi- 
tively asserts  that  Panicum  maximum  was  brough® 
from  the  banks  of  the  Mozambique  and  of  the  Zambe® 
rivers  by  the  traveller  Peter’s.6 

The  species  is  known  to  have  been  introduced  into 
Mauritius  by  the  Governour  Labourdonnais,7  and  to  have 
become  naturalized  from  cultivation  as  in  Rodriguez 
and  the  Seychelles  Isles.  Its  introduction  into  Asif 

1 Nees,  In  Martins,  FI.  Braxil.,  in  Svo,  vol.  ii.  p.  166. 

5 Dooll,  in  FI.  Brasil.,  in  fol.,  vol.  ii.  part  2. 

1 Sir  W.  Hooker,  Niger  Ft,  p.  560. 

4 Nees,  Flora)  Africa)  Austr.  Oraminea:,  p.  36. 

5 A.  Richard,  Abyssinie,  ii.  p.  373. 

* Peters,  Boise  Botanik,  p.  546. 

1 Bojer,  Hart  us  Maurit.,  p.  565. 


: PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  117 

■Hist  be  recent,  for  Roxburgh  and  Miquel  do  not  men- 
tion the  species.  In  Ceylon  it  is  only  cultivated.1 

On  the  whole,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  probabilities 
re  in  favour  of  an  African  origin,  as  its  name  indicates, 
:nd  this  is  confirmed  by  the  general,  but  insufficiently 
rrounded  opinion  of  authors.2  However,  as  the  plant 
oreads  so  rapidly,  it  is  strange  that  it  has  not  reached 
dgypt-  from  the  Mozambique  or  Abyssinia,  and  that  it 
vas  introduced  so  late  into  the  islands  to  the  east  of 
Africa.  11  the  co-existence  of  phanerogamous  species 
i Africa  and  America  previous  to  cultivation  were  not 
extremely  rare,  it  might  be  inferred  in  this  case ; but 
his  is  unlikely  in  the  case  of  a cultivated  plant  of 
/hieh  the  diffusion  is  evidently  very  easv. 


Article  III. — Various  Uses  of  the  Stein  and  Leaves. 

Tea — Then  sinensis,  Linnmus. 

In  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  when  the 
hrub  which  produces  tea  was  still  very  little  known, 
.innseus  gave  it  the  name  of  Then  sinensis.  Soon  after- 
wards, in  the  second  edition  of  the  Species  Tlantatum, 
fe  judged  it  better  to  distinguish  two  species,  Then  bohea 
■ rid  Then  viridis,  which  he  believed  to  correspond  to  the 
■■  ommercial  distinction  between  black  and  green  teas.  It 
Aas  since  been  proved  that  there  is  but  one  sj}ecies,  com- 
•rehending  several  varieties,  from  all  of  which  either 
•lack  or  green  tea  may  be. obtained  according  to  the  pro- 
ess  ot  manufacture.  This  question  was  settled,  when 
mother  was  raised,  as . to  whether  Then  really  forms 
. genus  by  itself  distinct  from  the  genus  Camellia. 
■some  authors  make  Then  a section  of  the  old  genus 
ameUm;  but  from  the  characters  indicated  with  <n-eat 
. necismn  y Seemann,8  it  seems  to  me  that  we  are 
ustiliea  m retaining  the  genus  Then,  together  with  the 
Id  nomenclature  of  the  principal  species. 

A Japanese  legend,  related  by  Kmmpfer,4  is  often 

2 wk°'r’Fl-  Mauritius  and  Seychelles,  p.  436. 

, Thwaites,  Enum.  PI.  Zeylanicc. 

Seomann,  JV.  „/  the  Liancean  Society,  xxii.  p.  337,  pi.  61. 

K®mpfer,  Amwn.  Japan. 


118 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


quoted.  A priest  who  came  from  India  into  China 
in  a.d.  519,  having  succumbed  to  sleep  when  he  had 
wished  to  watch  and  pray,  in  a movement  of  anger  cut 
off  his  two  eyelids,  which  were  changed  into  a shrub, 
the  tea  tree,  whose  leaves  are  eminently  calculated  to 
prevent  sleep.  Unfortunately  for  those  people  who 
readily  admit  legends  in  whole  or  in  part,  the  Chinese  | 
have  never  heard  of  this  story,  although  the  event  is 
said  to  have  taken  place  in  their  country.  Tea  was 
known  to  them  long  before  519,  and  probably  it  was 
not  brought  from  India.  This  is  what  Bretschneider 
tells  us  in  his  little  work,  rich  in  botanical  and  philologi- 
cal facts.1  The  Pentsao,  he  says,  mentions  tea  2700  B.C., 
the  Rye  300  or  600  B.c. ; and  the  commentator  of  the 
latter  work,  in  the  fourth  century  of  our  era,  gave 
details  about  the  plant  and  about  the  infusion  of  the 
leaves.  Its  use  is,  therefore,  of  very  ancient  date  in 
China.  It  is  perhaps  more  recent  in  Japan,  and  if  it  has 
been  long  known  in  Cochin-China,  it  is  possible,  but 
not  proved,  that  it  formerly  spread  thither  from  India ; 
authors  cite  no  Sanskrit  name,  nor  even  any  name  in 
modern  Indian  languages.  This  fact  will  appear  strange 
when  contrasted  with  what  we  have  to  say  on  the 
natural  habitat  of  the  species. 

The  seeds  of  the  tea-plant  often  sow  themselves  beyond 
the  limits  of  cultivation,  thereby  inspiring  doubt  among 
botanists  as  to  the  wild  nature  of  plants  encountered] 
hero  and  there.  Thunberg  believed  the  species  to  be: 
wild  in  Japan,  but  Franchet  and  Savatier2 3  absolutely 
deny  this.  Fortune,8  who  has  so  carefully  examined, 
the  cultivation  of  tea  in  China,  does  not  speak  of  the 
wild  plant.  Fontanier4  says  that  the  tea-plant  grows 
wild  abundantly  in  Mantschuria.  It  is  probable  that 
it  exists  in  the  mountainous  districts  of  South-eastern 
China,  where  naturalists  have  not  yet  penetrated. 

1 Bretschneider,  On  the  Study  and  Value  of  Chin.  Bot.  Works,  pp. 
and  45. 

• Franchet  and  Savatier,  Enum.  PI.  Jap.,  i.  p.  61. 

3 Fortune,  Three  Years’  Wanderin']  in  China,  1 rol.  in  8vo. 

4 Fontanier,  Bulletin  Soc.  d’Acclim.,  1870,  p.  88. 


i PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  119 


.joureiro  says  that  it  is  found  both  “ cultivated  and  un- 
cultivated ” in  Cochin-China.1  What  is  more  certain 
<i,  that  English  travellers  gathered  specimens  in  Upper 
Assam2  and  in  the  province  of  Cachar.3  So  that  the 
eea-plant  must  he  wild  in  the  mountainous  region 
.'Inch  separates  the  plains  of  India  from  those  of  China, 
nut  the  use  of  the  leaves  was  not  formerly  known  in 
;udia. 

The  cultivation  of  tea,  now  introduced  into  several 
olonies,  has  produced  admirable  results  in  Assam.  Not 
only  is  the  product  of  a superior  quality  to  that  of 
.verage  Chinese  teas,  but  the  quantity  obtained  increases 
vapidly.  In  1870,  three  million  pounds  of  tea  were  pro- 
luced  in  British  India ; in  1878,  thirty -seven  million 
oounds;  and  in  1880,  a harvest  of  seventy  million  pounds 
vas  looked  for.4  Tea  will  not  bear  frost,  and  suffers  from 
{drought.  As  I have  elsewhere  stated,5 6  the  conditions 
Which  favour  it  are  the  opposite  to  those  which  suit  the 
fHne.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been  observed  that  tea 
flourishes  in  Azores,  where  good  wine  is  made ; 0 but  it 
'S  possible  to  cultivate  in  gardens,  or  on  a small  scale, 
many  plants  which  will  not  be  profitable  on  a large  scale. 
The  vine  grows  in  China,  yet  the  manufacture  of  wine 
N unimportant.  Conversely,  no  wine-growing  country 
throws  tea  for  exportation.  After  China,  Japan,  and 
Assam,  it  is  in  Java,  Ceylon,  and  Brazil  that  tea  is  most 
aargely  grown,  where,  certainly,  the  vine  is  little  culti- 
vated, or  not  at  all ; while  the  wines  of  dry  regions,  such 
is  Australia  and  the  Cape,  arc  already  known  in  the 
market. 

Flax — Linvm  usitatissimum,  Linnseus. 

fhe  question,  as  to  the  origin  of  flax,  or  rather  of  the 
cultivated  flax,  is  one  of  those  which  give  rise  to  most 
nteresting  researches. 

! I,j0ureiro>  ,n-  Cochin.,  p.  414. 

- Griffith,  Reports ,•  Wallieh,  quoted  by  Hooker,  FI.  Brit.  India,  i. 

3 Anderson,  quoted  by  Hooker. 

The  Colonies  and  India,  Gardener’s  Chronicle,  1880,  i.  p.  650. 

Speech  at  tho  Rot.  Cong,  of  London  in  1866.'' 

6 Flora,  1-868,  p.  64. 


120 


ORIGIN  OK  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


In  order  to  understand  the  difficulties  which  it 
presents,  we  must  first  ascertain  what  nearly  allied  forms 
authors  designate — sometimes  as  distinct  species  of  the 
genus  Linum,  and  sometimes  as  varieties  of  a single 
species. 

The  first  important  work  on  this  subject  was  by 
Planchon,  in  ISIS.1  He  clearly  showed  the  differences 
between  Linum  usitatissimum,  L.  humile,  and  L.  angus- 
tifolium,  which  were  little  known.  Afterwards  Heer,2 
when  making  profound  researches  into  ancient  cultivation, 
went  again  into  the  characters  indicated,  and  by  adding 
the  study  of  two  intermediate  forms,  as  well  as  the  com- 
parison of  a great  number  of  specimens,  he  arrived  at  the 
conclusion  that  there  was  a single  species,  composed  of 
several  slightly  different  forms.  I give  a translation  of 
his  Latin  summary  of  the  characters,  only  adding  a name 
for  each  distinct  form,  in  accordance  with  the  custom  of 
botanical  works. 

Linum  usitatissimum. 

1.  Annuum  (annual).  Root  annual ; stem  single, 
upright ; capsules  7 to  8 mm.  long ; seeds  4 to  G mm., 
terminating  in  a point,  a.  Vulgare  (common).  Capsules 
7 mm.,  not  opening  when  ripe,  and  displaying  glabrous 
partitions.  German  names,  Schliesslein,  Dreschlcin. 
/3.  Humile  (low).  Capsules  8 mm.,  opening  suddenly  when 
ripe ; the  partitions  hairy.  Linum  humile,  Miller ; L. 
crepitans,  Boninghausen.  German  names,  Klanglein, 
Apringlein. 

2.  Hyemale  (winter).  Root  annual  or  biennial ; stems 
numerous,  spreading  at  the  base,  and  bent;  capsules 
7 min.,  terminating  in  a point.  Linum  hyemale  roma- 
num.  In  German,  Winterlein. 

3.  Ambiguum  (doubtful).  Root  annual  or  perennial ; 
stems  numerous,  leaves  acuminate  ; capsules  7 mm.,  with 
partitions  nearly  free  from  hairs ; seeds  4 mm.,  ending  in 
a short  point.  Linum  ambiguum,  J ordan. 

4.  Angusti '.folium  (narrow -leaved).  Root  annual  or 

1 Planchon,  in  Hooker,  Journal  of  Botany,  vol.  vii.  p.  165. 

2 Heer,  Die  Pflansen  der  Pfahlbauten,  in  4to,  Zurich,  1865,  p.  35;  Ueber 
tlcn  Flachs  und  dir  FlachekuXtur,  in  -lto,  Zurich,  IS,  J . 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOE  THEIK  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  121 


iperennial ; stems  numerous,  spreading  at  the  base,  and 
ibent ; capsules  6 mm.,  with  hairy  partitions  ; seeds  3 mm., 
>slightly  hooked  at  the  top.  Linum  angustifolium. 

It  may  be  seen  how  easily  one  form  passes  into 
another.  The  quality  of  annual,  biennial,  or  perennial, 
vwhich  Heer  suspected  to  be  uncertain,  is  vague,  especially 
If  or  the  angustifolium;  for  Loret,  who  has  observed  this 
tflax  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Montpellier,  says,1  “In 
-■very  hot  countries  it  is  nearly  always  an  annual,  and  this 
:is  the  case  in  Sicily  according  to  Gussone ; with  us  it  is 
annual,  biennial,  or  perennial,  according  to  the  nature  of 
:the  soil  in  which  it  grows  ; and  this  may  be  ascertained 
by  observing  it  on  the  shore,  notably  at  Maguelone. 
There  it  may  be  seen  that  along  the  borders  of  trodden 
paths  it  lasts  longer  than  on  the  sand,  where  the  sun 
'.soon  dries  up  the  roots  and  the  acidity  of  the  soil 
prevents  the  plant  from  enduring  more  than  a year.  ’ 

When  forms  and  physiological  conditions  pass  from 
one  into  another,  and  are  distinguished  by  characters 
which  vary  according  to  circumstances,  we  are  led  to 
'■consider  the  individuals  as  constituting  a single  species, 
aal though  these  forms  and  conditions  possess  a certain 
degree  of  heredity,  and  date  perhaps  from  very  early 
.’times.  We  are,  however,  forced  to  consider  them 
■'.separately  in  our  researches  into  their  origin.  I shall 
first  indicate  in  what  country  each  variety  has  been  dis- 
covered in  a wild  or  half-wild  state.  I shall  then  speak  of 
I cultivation,  and  we  shall  see  how  far  geographical  and 
| historical  facts  confirm  the  opinion  of  the  unity  of  species. 

The  common  annual  fax  has  not  yet  been  discovered, 
| with  absolute  certainty,  in  a wild  state.  I possess 
I several  specimens  of  it  from  India,  and  Plan  chon  saw 
i others  in  the  herbarium  at  Kew ; but  Anglo-Indian 
| botanists  do  not  admit  that  the  plant  is  indigenous  in 
j British  India  The  recent  flora  of  Sir  Joseph  Hooker 
speaks  of  it  as  a species  cultivated  principally  for  the  oil 
extracted  from  the  seeds ; and  Mr.  C.  B.  Clarke,  formerly 
director  of  the  botanical  gardens  in  Calcutta,  writes  to 

1 Loret,  Observations  Critiques  sur  Plnsieurs  Plantes  Mon tpeUUraines. 


122 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


me  that  the  specimens  must  have  been  cultivated,  its- 
cultivation  being  very  common  in  winter  in  the  north  of 
India.  Boissier  1 mentions  L.  hv/niile,  with  narrow  leaves, 
which  Kotschy  gathered  “ near  Schiraz  in  Persia,  at  the 
foot  of  the  mountain  called  Sabst  Buchom.”  This  is, 
perhaps,  a spot  far  removed  from  cultivation ; but  I 
cannot  give  satisfactory  information  on  this  head.  Ho- 
henacker  found  L.  usitatissimum  “ half  wild  ” in  the  pro- 
vince of  Talysch,  to  the  south  of  the  Caucasus,  towards  the 
Caspian  Sea.2 *  Steven  is  more  positive  with  regard  to 
Southern  Russia.8  According  to  him,  it  “ is  found  pretty 
often  on  the  barren  hills  to  the  south  of  the  Crimea, 
between  Jalta  and  Nikita;  and  Nordmann  found  it  on 
the  eastern  coast  of  the  Black  Sea.”  Advancing  west  ward 
in  Southern  Russia,  or  in  the  region  of  the  Mediterranean, 
the  species  is  but  rarely  mentioned,  and  only  as  escaped 
from  cultivation,  or  half  wild.  In  spite  of  doubts  and  of  : 
the  scanty  data  which  we  possess,  I think  it  very  pos- 
sible that  the  annual  flax,  in  one  or  other  of  these  two 
forms,  may  be  wild  in  the  district  between  the  south  of 
Persia  and  the  Crimea,  at  least  in  a few  localities. 

The  winter  flax  is  only  known  under  cultivation  in  a 
few  provinces  of  Italy.4 

The  Linum  ambiyuum  of  Jordan  grows  on  the  coast 
of  Provence  and  of  Languedoc  in  dry  places.5 

Lastly,  Linum  august  i folium,  which  hardly  differs  < 
from  the  preceding,  has  a well-defined  and  rather  large 
area.  It  grows  wild,  especially  on  hills  throughout  the 
region  of  which  the  Mediterranean  forms  the  centre  ; that  , 
is,  in  the  Canaries  and  Madeira,  in  Marocco,6  Algeria,7 
and  as  far  as  the  Cyrenaic  ;8  from  the  south  of  Europe,. 

1 Boissier,  Flora  Orient.,  i.  p.  851.  It  is  L.  iwitatissimum  of  Kotschy,  - 
No.  164. 

2 Boissier,  ibid. ; Hohenb.,  Enum.  Talysch.,  p.  168. 

1 Steven,  Verteichniss  der  auf  der  tauriachcn  Halbinseln  vnld%ca.cn-  j 
sendc.n  Vflanzen,  Moscow,  1857,  p.  91. 

4 Heer,  Ueb.  d.  Flachs,  pp.  17  and  22. 

4 Jordan,  quoted  by  Walpers,  Anna?..,  vol.  ii.,  and  by  Heer,  p.  22. 

6 Ball,  Spicilegium  FI.  Maroec.,  p.  380. 

7 Htinbv,  Catal.,  edit.  2,  p.  7. 

8 Rohlf,  according  to  Cosson,  0 idle.  Hoc.  Bnt.de  Fr.,  18/5,  p. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  123 


ras  far  as  England,1 *  the  Alps,  and  the  Balkan  Mountains ; 

■ and  lastly,  in  Asia  from  the  south  of  the  Caucasus"  to 
Lebanon  and  Palestine.3 4  I do  not  find  it  mentioned  in 
ithe  Crimea,  nor  beyond  the  Caspian  Sea. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  the  cultivation  of  flax,  destined  in 

■ most  instances  to  furnish  a textile  substance,  often  also 
ito  yield  oil,  and  cultivated  among  certain  peoples  for  the 
: nutritious  properties  of  the  seed.  I first  studied  the 
(question  of  its  origin  in  1855, 4 and -with  the  following 
i result : — 

It  was  abundantly  shown  that  the  ancient  Egyptians 
and  the  Hebrews  made  use  of  linen  stuffs.  Herodotus 
affirms  this.  Moreover,  the  plant  may  be  seen  figured  in 

■ the  ancient  Egyptian  drawings,  and  the  microscope 
indubitably  shows  that  the  bandages  which  bind  the 
mummies  are  of  linen.5  The  culture  of  flax  is  of  ancient 
date  in  Europe  ; it  was  known  to  the  Kelts,  and  in  India 
according  to  history.  Lastly,  the  widely  different  com- 
mon names  indicate  likewise  an  ancient  cultivation  or 
long  use  in  different  countries.  The  Keltic  name  liv, 
and  Greco-Latin  linon  or  linvm,  has  no  analogy  with  the 
Hebrew  pischtu,6  nor  with  the  Sanskrit  names  oo'iua, 
atasi,  utasi. 7 A few  botanists  mention  the  flax  as 
“ nearly  wild  ” in  the  south-east  of  Russia,  to  the  south 
of  the  Caucasus  and  to  the  east  of  Siberia,  but  it  was 

; not  known  to  be  truly  wild.  I then  summed  up  the 
probabilities,  saying,  “The  •varying  etymology  of  the 
names,  the  antiquity  of  cultivation  in  Egypt,  in  Europe, 
and  in  the  north  of  India,  the  circumstance  that  in  the 
latter  district  flax  is  cultivated  for  the  yield  of  oil  alone, 

1 Planchon,  in  Hooker’s  Journal  of  Botany,  vol.  7;  Bentham,  Handbk. 

of  Brit.  Flora,  edit.  4,  p.  89. 

s Planchon,  ibid.  3 Boissier,  FI.  Or.,  i.  p.  861. 

4 A.  do  Candolle,  Giogr.  Bot.  Jlais.,  p.833. 

‘ Thomson,  Annals  of  Philosophy,  June,  1834;  Dntrochet,  Larrey, 
and  Costaz,  Comptes  rendu s de  VAcad.  due.  Sc.,  Paris,  1837,  seui.i.  p.  739; 
Unger,  Bot.  StreifzUge,  iv.p.  02. 

u Other  Hebrew  words  are  interpreted  “ flax,”  hut  this  is  tho  most 
certain.  See  Hamilton,  La  Botanique  de  la  Bible,  Nice,  1871,  p.  58. 

■ Piddington,  Inde.v  Ind.  Plants ; Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.,  edit.  1832,  ii. 
p.  110.  The  name  mat  us  i indicated  by  Piddington  belongs  to  other 
plants,  according  to  Ad.  Pictet,  Origines  lndo-Eu.ro.,  edit.  2,  vol.  i.  p.  396. 


12-i 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


lead  me  to  believe  that  two  or  three  species  of  different 
origin,  confounded  by  most  authors  under  the  name  of 
Linum usitatismnvm,  were  formerly  cultivated  in  different 
countries,  without  imitation  or  communication  the  one 
with  the  other.  ...  I am  very  doubtful  whether  the 
species  cultivated  by  the  ancient  Egyptians  was  the 
species  indigenous  in  Russia  and  in  Siberia.” 

My  conjectures  were  confirmed  ten  years  later  by  a 
very  curious  discovery  made  by  Oswald  Heer.  The  lake- 
dwellers  of  Eastern  Switzerland,  at  a time  when  they  only 
used  stone  implements,  and  did  not  know  the  use  of  hemp, 
cultivated  and  wove  a flax  which  is  not  our  common 
annual  flax,  but  the  perennial  flax  called  Linum,  angusti- 
folium,  which  is  wild  south  of  the  Alps.  This  is  shown 
by  the  examination  of  the  capsules,  seeds,  and  especially 
of  the  lower  part  of  a plant  carefully  extracted  from  the 
sediment  at  Robenhauscn.1  The  illustration  published 
by  Heer  shows  distinctly  a root  surmounted  by  from  two 
to  four  stems  after  the  manner  of  perennial  plants.  The 
stems  had  been  cut,  whereas  our  common  flax  is  plucked 
up  by  the  roots,  another  proof  of  the  persistent  nature 
of  the  plant.  With  the  remains  of  the  Robenhausen  flax 
some  grains  of  Selene  cretica  were  found,  a species 
which  is  also  foreign  to  Switzerland,  and  abundant  in 
Italy  in  the  fields  of  flax.2  Hence  Heer  concluded  that 
the  Swiss  lake-dwellers  imported  the  seeds  of  the  Italian 
flax.  This  was  apparently  the  case,  unless  we  suppose 
that  the  climate  of  Switzerland  at  that  time  differed 
from  that  of  our  own  epoch,  for  the  perennial  flax  would 
not  at  the  present  day  survive  the  winters  of  Eastern 
Switzerland. 3 Heer’s  opinion  is  supported  by  the 
surprising  fact  that  flax  has  not  been  found  among  the 
remains  of  the  lake-dwellings  of  Laybach  and  Mondsee 

1 Heer,  Die  PJlanzen  der  Pfdhlbauten,  8vo  pamphlet,  Zurich,  1805, 
p.  35  ; Ueber  den  Flacks  und  die  Flachshultur  in  Alterthum,  pamphlet  in 
8vo,  Zurich,  1872. 

2 Bertoloni,  FI.  Ital.,  iv.  p.  612. 

3 We  have  seen  that  flax  is  found  towards  the  north-west  of  Europe, 
hut  not  immediately  north  of  the  Alps.  Perhaps  the  climate  of  Switzer- 
land was  formerly  more  equable  than  it  is  now,  with  more  snow  to 
shelter  perennial  plants. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  125 


.of  the  Austrian  States,  where  bronze  has  been  discovered.1 
The  late  epoch  of  the  introduction  of  flax  into  this  region 
..excludes  the  hypothesis  that  the  inhabitants  of  Switzer- 
dand  received  it  from  Eastern  Europe,  from  which,  more- 
.over,  they  were  separated  by  immense  forests. 

Since  the  ingenious  observations  of  the  Zurich  savant, 
,a  flax  has  been  discovered  which  was  employed  by  the 
i prehistoric  inhabitants  of  the  peat-mosses  of  Lagozza, 

I in  Lombardy;  and  Sordelli  has  shown  that  it  was  the 
same  as  that  of  Robenhausen,  L.  angustifolium .2  This 
ancient  people  was  ignorant  of  the  use  of  hemp  and  of 
metals,  but  they  possessed  the  same  cereals  as  the  Swiss 
lake-dwellers  of  the  stone  age,  and  ate  like  them  the 
acorns  of  Qucrcns  robur,  var.  sessilijtora.  There  was, 
therefore,  a civilization  which  had  reached  a certain 
development  on  both  sides  of  the  Alps,  before  metals, 
j even  bronze,  were  in  common  use,  and  before  hemp  and 
the  domestic  fowl  were  known.3  It  was  probably  before 
the  arrival  of  the  Aryans  in  Europe,  or  soon  after  that 
> event.4 

The  common  names  of  the  flax  in  ancient  European 
; languages  may  throw  some  light  on  this  question. 

The  name  lin,  llin,  linn,  linon,  linum,  lein,  lan, 

! exists  in  all  the  European  languages  of  Aryan  origin  of 
I the  centre  and  south  of  Europe,  Keltic,  Slavonic,  Greek, 
; or  Latin.  This  name  is,  however,  not  common  to  the 
Aryan  languages  of  India;  consequently,  as  Pictet5 
justly  says,  the  cultivation  must  have  been  begun  by  the 

1 Mittheil.  Anthropol.  Qesellachaft,  Wien,  vol.  vi.  pp.  122, 161:  Abhcmdl., 
II  ten  Ahtd.,  84,  p.  488. 

Sordelli,  Suite  pxante  della  tox'bieya  e della  stazionc  prcistovieii 
della  Lagozza,  pp.  37,  51,  printed  at  tho  conclusion  of  Castclfrnnco’s 
j NoUzie  alia  Mazione  laemtre  della  Lagozza,  in  Svo,  Atti  della  Soc.  Hal. 
] Sc.  Nat.,  1880. 

WIIS  introduced  into  Greece  from  Asia  in  the  sixth 
century  before  Christ,  according  to  Heer,  Ueb.  d.  Flacks,  p.  25. 

t hese  discoveries  in  the  peat-mosses  of  Lagozza  and  elsewhere  in 
1 roil  *ar  was  niistaken  in  supposing  that  ( Kulturpjl .,  edit. 

3,  18//,  p.  *>24)  the  Swiss  lake-dwellers  were  near  tho  time  of  Caesar. 
rlhc  men  of  tho  same  civilization  as  they  to  the  south  of  tho  Alps  wore 
| evidently  more  ancient  than  tho  Roman  republic,  perhaps  than  the 
I Ligurians. 

4 Ad.  Pictet,  Ongines  Indo-Europ.,  edit.  2,  vol.  i.  p.  39C. 


120 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


western  Aryans,  and  before  their  arrival  in  Europe. 
Another  idea  occurred  to  me  which  led  me  into  further 
researches,  but  they  were  unproductive.  I thought  that, 
since  this  flax  was  cultivated  by  the  lake-dwellers  of 
Switzerland  and  Italy  before  the  arrival  of  the  Aryan 
peoples,  it  was  probably  also  grown  by  the  Iberians,  who 
then  occupied  Spain  and  Gaul;  and  perhaps  some  special 
name  for  it  has  remained  among  the  Basques,  the  sup- 
posed descendants  of  the  Iberians.  Now,  according  to 
several  dictionaries  of  their  language,1  liho,  lino,  or  li, 
according  to  the  dialects,  signifies  flax,  which  agrees  with 
the  name  diffused  throughout  Southern  Europe.  The 
Basques  seem,  therefore,  to  have  received  flax  from 
peoples  of  Aryan  origin,  or  perhaps  they  have  lost  the 
ancient  name  and  substituted  that  of  the  Kelts  and 
Romans.  The  name  flachs  or  flax  of  the  Teutonic  lan- 
guages comes  from  the  Old  German  flahs.  There  are  also 
special  names  in  the  north-west  of  Europe — pellawa, 
aiwina,  in  Finnish;2  hor,  hcirr,  hor,  in  Danish;3  lior 
and  tone  in  ancient  Gothic.4  Hoar  exists  in  the  German 
of  Salzburg.5  This  word  may  be  in  the  ordinary  sense 
of  the  German  for  thread  or  hair,  as  the  name  li  may 
be  connected  with  the  same  root  as  ligare,  to  bind,  and  as 
hor,  in  the  plural  horvar,  is  connected  by  philologists  6 
with  harva,  the  German  root  for  Flachs  ; but  it  is,  never- 
theless, a fact  that  in  Scandinavian  countries  and  in 
Finland  terms  have  been  used  which  differ  from  those 
employed  throughout  the  south  of  Europe.  This  variety 
shows  the  antiquity  of  the  cultivation,  and  agrees  with 
the  fact  that  the  lake-dwellers  of  Switzerland  and  Italy 
cultivated  a species  of  flax  before  the  first  invasion  of  the 
Aryans.  It  is  possible,  I might  even  say  probable,  that 


1 Van  Eys,  Diet.  Da squc-Fra ncais,  1876;  Goze,  j Elements  de  Gram- 
maire  Basque  suivis  O' un  vocabulaire,  Bayonne,  1873;  Salaberry,  Mots 
Basques  Navarraix,  Bayonne,  1856 ; l’Eoluse,  Vocal.  F rang . -Basque,  1826. 

2 Nemnich,  Poly.  Lex.  d.  Naturgesch.,  ii.  p.  420 ; Rafn,  Danmark 
Flora,  ii.  p.  390. 

3 Nemnich,  ibid.  4 Ibid.  * Ibid. 

6 Fick,  Vergl.  Worterbuch.  Ind.  Germ.,  2nd  edit.,  i.  p.  722.  He  also 

derives  the  name  Lina  from  the  Latin  linum  ; but  this  namo  is  of  earlier 

date,  being  common  to  several  European  Aryan  languages. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  127 


i the  latter  imported  the  name  U rather  than  the  plant  or 
iits  cultivation ; hut  as  there  is  no  wild  flax  in  the  north 
oof  Europe,  an  ancient  people,  the  Finns,  of  Turanian 

• origin,  introduced  the  flax  into  the  north  before  the 
Aryans.  In  this  case  they  must  have  cultivated  the 
aannual  flax,  for  the  perennial  variety  will  not  bear  the 
■severity  of  the  northern  winters;  while  we  know  how 
{favourable  the  climate  of  Riga  is  in  summer  to  the  culti- 
wation  of  the  annual  flax.  Its  first  introduction  into 
'Gaul,  Switzerland,  and  Italy  may  have  been  from  the 
'.south,  by  the  Iberians,  and  in  Finland  by  the  Finns ; and 
:the  Aryans  may  have  afterwards  diffused  those  names 

which  were  commonest  among  themselves — that  of  linum 
in  the  south,  and  of  jiahs  in  the  north.  Perhaps  the 
Aryans  and  Finns  had  brought  the  annual  flax  from 
Asia,  which  would  soon  have  been  substituted  for  the 
; perennial  variety,  which  is  less  productive  and  less 
adapted  to  cold  countries.  It  is  not  known  precisely  at 
what  epoch  the  cultivation  of  the  annual  flax  in  Italy 

• took  the  place  of  that  of  the  perennial  linum  angusti- 
■ folium,  but  it  must  have  been  before  the  Christian  era ; 
for  Latin  authors  speak  of  a well-established  cultivation, 
and  Pliny  says  that  the  flax  was  sown  in  spring  and 
rooted  up  in  the  summer.1  Metal  implements  were  not 
then  wanting,  and  therefore  the  flax  would  have  been 
cut  if  it  had  been  perennial.  Moreover,  the  latter,  if 
sown  in  spring,  would  not  have  ripened  till  autumn. 

For  the  same  reasons  the  flax  cultivated  by  the 
ancient  Egyptians  must  have  been  an  annual.  Hitherto 
neither  entire  plants  nor  a great  number  of  capsules  have 
been  found  in  the  catacombs  of  a nature  to  furnish  direct 
and  incontestable  proof.  Unger  2 alone  was  able  to  ex- 
amine a capsule  taken  from  the  bricks  of  a monument, 
which  Leipsius  attributes  to  the  thirteenth  or  fourteenth 
century  before  Christ,  and  he  found  it  more  like  those 
of  L.  usitatissimum  than  of  L.  angustifolium.  Out  of 
j i three  seeds  which  Braun8  saw  in  the  Berlin  Museum, 

1 Pliny,  bk.  xix.  c.  1 : Vere  satum  (Estate  vellitur. 
j 2 Unger,  Botanieche  Streifzilge,  1866,  No.  7,  ]).  15. 

* A.  Brann,  Die  Fflanzenreste  dcs  sEayptischcn  Museums  in  Berlin,  in 
j : 870, 1877,  j).  4. 


128 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


mixed  with  those  of  other  cultivated  plants,  one  appeared 
to  him  to  belong  to  L.  angustifolium,  and  the  other  to 
L.  humile ; but  it  must  be  owned  that  a single  seed 
without  plant  or  capsule  is  not  sufficient  proof.  Ancient 
Egyptian  paintings  show  that  flax  was  not  reaped  with 
a sickle  like  cereals,  but  uprooted.1  In  Egypt  flax  is 
cultivated  in  the  winter,  for  the  summer  drought  would 
no  more  allow  of  a perennial  variety,  than  the  cold  of 
northern  countries,  where  it  is  sown  in  spring,  to  be 
gathered  in  in  summer.  It  may  be  added  that  the 
annual  flax  of  the  variety  called  humile  is  the  only  one 
now  grown  in  Abyssinia,  and  also  the  only  one  that 
modern  collectors  have  seen  in  Egypt.2 3 

Heer  suggests  that  the  ancient  Egyptians  may  have 
cultivated  L.  angustifolium  of  the  Mediterranean  region, 
sowing  it  as  an  annual  plant.8  I am  more  inclined 
to  believe  that  they  had  previously  imported  or  re- 
ceived their  flax  from  Egypt,  already  in  the  form  of  the 
species  L.  humile.  Their  modes  of  cultivation,  and  the 
figures  on  the  monuments,  show  that  their  knowledge 
of  the  plant  dated  from  a remote  antiquity.  Now  it  is 
known  that  the  Egyptians  of  the  first  dynasties  before 
Cheops  belonged  to  a proto-semitic  race,  which  came 
into  Egypt  by  the  isthmus  of  Suez.4  Flax  has  been 
found  in  a tomb  of  ancient  Chaldea  prior  to  the  existence 
of  Babylon,5  and  its  use  in  this  region  is  lost  in  the 
remotest  antiquity.  Thus  the  first  Egyptians  of  white 
race  may  have  imported  the  cultivated  flax,  or  their  im- 
mediate successors  may  have  received  it  from  Asia  before 
the  epoch  of  the  Phoenician  colonies  in  Greece,  and  before 
direct  communication  was  established  between  Greece 
and  Egypt  under  the  fourteenth  dynasty.6 * 

1 Rosellini,  pis.  35  and  36,  quoted  by  Unger,  Bot.  Streifztige,  No.  4, 

p.  62. 

s Sehimper,  Aseberson,  Boissier,  Scliweinfurth,  quoted  by  Braun. 

3 Heer,  Ueb.  d.  Flacks,  p.  26. 

4 Maspero,  Eistoirc  Ancienne  des  Peuples  de  V Orient.,  edit.  3,  Paris, 

18/f’journ'al  0f  t]u,  Royal  Asiat.  8oc.,x ol.  xv.  p.  271,  quoted  by  Heor,  Ueb. 

den  FI. 

8 Maspero,  p.  213. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  129 

A very  early  introduction  of  the  plant  into  Egypt 
from  Asia  does  not  prevent  us  from  admitting  that  it  was 
,it  different  times  taken  from  the  East  to  the  West  at 
iu  later  epoch  than  that  of  the  first  Egyptian  dynasties. 
Thus  the  western  Aryans  and  the  Phoenicians  may  have 
introduced  into  Europe  a flax  more  advantageous  than 
,rj.  angustifolium  during  the  period  from  2500  to  1200 
'ears  before  our  era. 

The  cultivation  of  the  plant  by  the  Aryans  must  have 
extended  further  north  than  that  by  the  Phoenicians.  In 
Ireece,  at  the  time  of  the  Trojan  war,  fine  linen  stuffs 
were  still  imported  from  Colchis;  that  is  to  say,  from 
I .hat  region  at  the  foot  of  the  Caucasus  where  the  com- 
i non  annual  flax  has  been  found  wild  in  modem  times. 
! t does  not  appear  that  the  Greeks  cultivated  the  plant 
lit  that  epoch.1  The  Aryans  had  perhaps  already  intro- 
| luced  its  cultivation  into  the  valley  of  the  Danube.  How- 
ever, I noticed  just  now  that  the  lacustrine  remains  of 
ffondsee  and  Laybach  show  no  trace  of  any  flax.  In  the 
hast  centuries  before  the  Christian  era  the  Romans  pro- 
cured very  fine  linen  from  Spain,  although  the  names 
of  the  plant  in  that  country  do  not  tend  to  show  that  the 
Phoenicians  introduced  it.  There  is  not  any  Oriental 
lame  existing  in  Europe  belonging  either  to  antiquity 
or  to  the  Middle  Ages.  The  Arabic  name  Jcattan,  kettane, 
>r  kiltane,  of  Persian  origin,2 3  has  spread  westward  only 
imong  the  Kabyles  of  Algeria.8 

The  sum  of  facts  and  probabilities  appear  to  me  to 
: ead  to  the  following  statements,  which  may  be  accepted 
: intil  they  are  modified  by  further  discoveries. 

| . 1.  Linum  angustif olium,  usually  perennial,  rarely 
• oiennial  or  annual,  which  is  found  wild  from  the  Canary 
jfsles  to  Palestine  and  the  Caucasus,  was  cultivated  in 
i Switzerland  and  the  north  of  Italy  by  peoples  more 
Uncient  than  the  conquerors  of  Aryan  race.  Its  cultiva- 
i ;ion  was  replaced  by  that  of  the  annual  flax. 

1 fho  Greek  testa  aro  quoted  in  Lenz,  Hot.  der  Alt.  Or.  und  Rom., 
I ’•  672;  and  in  Helm,  Culturpfl.  und  Bausthiere,  edit,  3,  p.  144. 

■ Ad.  Pictet,  Origines  Indo-Europ. 

3 Didionnaire  Franf.-Bcrbcre,  1 vol.  in  8vo,  1844. 


K 


130 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


2.  The  annual  flax  (L.  usitatissimum),  cultivated  for 
at  least  four  thousand  or  five  thousand  years  in  Mesopo- 
tamia, Assyria,  and  Egypt,  was  and  still  is  wild  in  the 
districts  included  between  the  Persian  Gulf,  the  Caspian 
Sea,  and  the  Black  Sea. 

3.  This  annual  flax  appears  to  have  been  introduced 
into  the  north  of  Europe  by  the  Finns  (of  Turanian  race),  \ 
afterwards  into  the  rest  of  Europe  by  the  western  Aryans, 
and  perhaps  here  and  there  by  the  Phcenicians;  lastly 
into  Hindustan  by  the  eastern  Aryans,  after  their  sepa- 
ration from  the  European  Aryans. 

4.  These  two  principal  forms  or  conditions  of  flax 
exist  in  cultivation,  and  have  probably  been  wild  in  their  : 
modern  areas  for  the  last  five  thousand  years  at  least.  ; 
It  is  not  possible  to  guess  at  their  previous  condition,  i 
Their  transitions  and  varieties  are  so  numerous  that  they  j 
maybe  considered  as  one  species  comprising  two  or  three  j 
hereditary  varieties,  which  are  each  again  divided  into  j 
subvarieties. 

Jute — Corchorus  capsidaris  and  Corchorus  olitorius,  ] 
Limneus. 

The  fibres  of  the  jute,  imported  in  great  quantities  in 
the  last  few  years,  especially  into  England,  are  taken  : 
from  the  stem  of  these  two  species  of  Corchorus,  annuals  ’ 
of  the  family  of  the  Tiliacese.  The  leaves  are  also  used  j 
as  a vegetable. 

C.  capsidaris  has  a nearly  spherical  fruit,  flattened 
at  the  top,  and  surrounded  by  longitudinal  ridges,  j 
There  is  a good  coloured  illustration  of  it  in  the  work  of  ] 
the  younger  Jacquin,  Eclogiv,  pi.  119.  C.  olitorius,  on  j 
the  contrary,  has  a long  fruit,  like  the  pod  of  a Crucifer.  I 
It  is  figured  in  the  Botanical  Magazine,  fig.  2810,  and  in  \ 
Lamarck,  fig.  478. 

The  species  of  the  genus  arc  distributed  nearly  equally  I 
in  the  warm  regions  of  Asia,  Africa,  and  America ; con-  1 
sequently  the  origin  of  each  cannot  be  guessed.  It  must  j 
be  sought  in  floras  and  herbaria,  with  the  help  of  his-  < 
torical  and  other  data. 

Corchorus  capsular  is  is  commonly  cultivated  in  : 
the  Sunda  Islands,  in  Ceylon,  in  the  peninsula  of  Hin- 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  131 

ilustan,  in  Bengal,  in  Southern  China,  in  the  Philippine 
islands,1  generally  in  Southern  Asia.  Forster  does  not 
mention  it  in  his  work  on  the  plants  in  use  among  the 
inhabitants  of  the  Pacific,  whence  it  may  be  inferred 
hat  at  the  time  of  Cook’s  voyages,  a century  ago,  its  cul- 
tivation had  not  spread  in  that  direction.  It  may  even 
oe  suspected  from  this  fact  that  it  does  not  date  from  a 
very  remote  epoch  in  the  isles  of  the  Indian  Archipelago. 

Blume  says  that  Corchorus  capsidaris  grows  in  the 
marshes  of  Java  near  Parang,2  and  I have  two  speci- 
mens from  Java  which  are  not  given  as  cultivated.2 
ETh waites  mentions  it  as  “ very  common  ” in  Ceylon.4 

On  the  continent  of  Asia,  authors  speak  more  of  it 
iis  a plant  cultivated  in  Bengal  and  China.  Wight,  who 
gives  a good  illustration  of  the  plant,  does  not  mention 
ts  native  place.  Edgeworth,5  who  has  studied  on  the 
spot  the  flora  of  the  district  of  Banda,  says  that  it  is 
found  in  “ the  fields.”  In  the  Flora  of  British  India, 
'Masters,  who  drew  up  the  article  on  the  Tiliacem  from 
:he  herbarium  at  Kew,  says  “ in  the  hottest  regions  of 
tndia,  cultivated  in  most  tropical  countries.”  6 I have 
i specimen  from  Bengal  which  is  not  given  as  cul- 
tivated. Loureiro  says  “wild,  and  cultivated  in  the 
] province  of  Canton  in  China,7  which  probably  means 
i wild  in  Cochin-China,  and  cultivated  in  Canton.  In  J apan 
the  plant  grows  in  cultivated  soil.8  In  conclusion,  I am 
not  convinced  that  the  species  exists  in  a truly  wild  state 
: north  of  Calcutta,  although  it  may  perhaps  have  spread 
from  cultivation  and  have  sown  itself  here  and  there. 

C.  capsidaris  has  been  introduced  into  various  parts 
j of  tropical  Africa  and  even  of  America,  but  it  is  only 
! cultivated  on  a large  scale  for  the  production  of  jute 
| thread  in  Southern  Asia,  and  especially  in  Bengal. 

1 Rumphius,  Amboin,  vol.  v.  p.  212 ; Roxburgh,  FI.  hid.,  ii.  p.  581 ; 

j Loureiro,  FI.  Cochinchine,  vi.  p.  408. 

3 Blume,  Bijdragen,  i.  p.  110.  3 Zollinger,  Nos.  1698  and  2761. 

4 Thwaites,  Enum.  PL  Zeylan.,  p.  31. 

:j  3 Edgeworth,  Linncean  Soc.  Journ.,  ix. 

" Masters,  in  Hooker’s  FI.  Brit.  Ind.,  i.  p.  397. 

7 Loureiro,  FI.  Cochin.,  i.  p.  408. 

* Franchet  and  Savatier,  Enum.,  i.  p.  66. 


132 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


C.  alitor  ins  is  more  used  as  a vegetable  than  for 
its  fibres.  Out  of  Asia  it  is  employed  exclusively  for 
the  leaves.  It  is  one  of  the  commonest  of  culinary 
plants  among  the  modern  Egyptians  and  Syrians,  who 
call  it  in  Arabic  melokych,  but  it  is  not  likely  that  they 
had  any  knowledge  of  it  in  ancient  times,  as  we  know 
of  no  Hebrew  name.1  The  present  inhabitants  of  Crete 
cultivate  it  under  the  name  of  mouchlia?  evidently 
derived  from  the  Arabic,  and  the  ancient  Greeks  were 
not  acquainted  with  it. 

According  to  several  authors8  this  species  of  Corcliorus 
is  wild  in  several  provinces  of  British  India.  Thwaites 
says  it  is  common  in  the  hot  districts  of  Ceylon ; but  in 
Java,  Blume  only  mentions  it  as  growing  among  rubbish 
(in  ruderatis).  I cannot  find  it  mentioned  in  Cochin-China 
or  Japan.  Boissier  saw’  specimens  from  Mesopotamia, 
Afghanistan,  Syria,  and  Anatolia,  but  gives  as  a general 
indication,  “culta,  et  in  ruderatis  subspontanea.”  No 
Sanskrit  name  for  the  two  cultivated  species  of  Corchorus 
is  known.4 

Touching  the  indigenous  character  of  the  plant  in 
Africa,  Masters,  in  Oliver’s  Flora  of  Tropical  Africa,  (i. 
p.  262),  says,  “ wild,  or  cultivated  as  a vegetable  through- 
out tropical  Africa.”  He  attributes  to  the  same  species 
two  plants  from  Guinea  which  G.  Don  had  described  as 
different,  and  as  to  whose  wrild  nature  he  probably  knew 
nothing.  I have  a specimen  from  Kordofan  gathered  by 
Kotschy,  No.  45,  “on  the  borders  of  the  fields  of  sorghum.” 
Peters,  as  far  as  I know’,  is  the  only  author  who  asserts 
that  the  plant  is  w'ild.  He  found  C.  olitorius  “ in 
dry  places,  and  also  in  the  meadows  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  Sena  and  Tette.”  Sclnveinfurth  onfy  gives  it  as 
a cultivated  plant  in  the  whole  Nile  Valley.8  This  is 
also  the  case  in  the  flora  of  Senegambia  by  Guillemin. 
Perrottet,  and  Richard. 

1 Rosenmiiller,  Bill.  Naturgeach. 

- Von  lleldreich,  Die  Niitzpfl.  Oriechenl.,  p.  53. 

1 Masters,  in  Hooker’s  FI,  Brit.  Ind.,  i.  p.  397 ; Aitchison,  Octal. 
Punjab,  p.  23  ; Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.,  ii.  p.  581. 

4 Piddington,  Index. 

1 Schweinfurth,  Bcitr.  z.  FI.  zEthiop.,  p.  2GL 


I PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  133 

To  sura  up,  C.  olitorius  seems  to  be  wild  in  the  mode- 
rately warm  regions  of  Western  India,  of  Kordofan,  and 
orobably  of  some  intermediate  countries.  It  must  have 
rpread  from  the  coast  of  Timor,  and  as  far  as  Northern 
Australia,  into  Africa  and  towards  Anatolia,  in  the  wake 
»f  a cultivation  not  perhaps  of  earlier  date  than  the 
Christian  era,  even  at  its  origin. 

In  spite  of  the  assertions  made  in  various  works,  the 
jultivation  of  this  plant  is  rarely  indicated  in  America. 

. note,  however,  on  Grisebach’s  authority,1  that  it  lias 
oecome  naturalized  in  Jamaica  from  gardens,  as  often 
lappens  in  the  case  of  cultivated  annuals. 

Sumach. — Rhus  coriaria. 

This  tree  is  cultivated  in  Spain  and  Italy 2 * for  the 
young  shoots  and  leaves,  which  are  dried  and  made  into 
i powder  for  tanning.  I recently  saw  a plantation  in 
'Sicily,  of  which  the  product  was  exported  to  America. 
As  oak-bark  becomes  more  rare  and  substances  for  tan- 
king are  more  in  demand,  it  is  probable  that  this  cultiva- 
tion will  spread ; all  the  more  that  it  is  suitable  to  sand)*, 
sterile  regions.  In  Algeria,  Australia,  at  the  Cape,  and 
n the  Argentine  Republic,  it  might  be  introduced  with 
advantage.8  Ancient  peoples  used  the  slightly  acid  fruits 
: is  a seasoning,  and  the  custom  has  lingered  here  and 
•there ; but  I find  no  proof  that  they  cultivated  the 
ifspecies. 

It  grows  wild  in  the  Canaries  and  in  Madeira,  in 
the  Mediterranean  region  and  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
the  Black  Sea,  preferring  dry  and  stony  ground.  In 
Asia  its  area  extends  as  far  as  the  south  of  the  Cau- 
casus, the  Caspian  Sea,  and  Persia.4 * * *  The  species  is 
so  common  that  it  may  have  been  in  use  before  it  was 
cultivated. 

I Grisobach,  FI.  of  Brit.  West  Ind.,  p.  97. 

j 5,°SC’  D'rt\d’A9ric.,  at  the  word  “ Sumac.” 

. . 10  conditions  and  methods  of  the  culture  of  the  sumach  aro  the 

subject  of  an  important  paper  by  Inzenga,  translated  in  the  Bull. 

8oc.  d .-lecture.,  1'  eb.  18/7.  In  tho  Trims.  Bot.  Snc.  of  Edinburgh,  ix.  p.  341, 

may  bo  seen  an  extract  from  an  earlier  paper  bv  the  author  on  the  same 

subject.  J 

Ledebour,  FI.  Ross.,  i.  p.  509  ; Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  ii.  p.  4. 


134 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Sumach  is  the  Persian  and  Tartar  name ; 1 rous,  rltm,  j 
the  ancient  name  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans.2 
A proof  of  the  persistence  of  certain  common  names  is  . 
found  in  the  French  “ Currier’s  roux  or  roure.” 

Khat,  or  Arab  Tea — Gatha  edidis,  Forskal;  Cdastrm  | 
edidis,  Vahl. 

This  shrub,  belonging  to  the  family  of  the  Celastraceai,  l 
is  largely  cultivated  in  Abyssinia,  under  the  name  of  , 
tchut  or  tchat,  and  in  Arabia  under  that  of  cat  or  gat.  Its 
leaves  are  chewed,  when  green,  like  those  of  the  coca  in 
America,  and  they  have  the  same  exciting  and  strength- 
ening properties.  Those  of  uncultivated  plants  have  a 
stronger  taste,  and  are  even  intoxicating.  Botta  saw 
that  in  Yemen  as  much  importance  is  attributed  to  the  j 
cultivation  of  the  Gatha  as  to  that  of  colfee,  and  he  ] 
mentions  that  a sheik,  who  is  obliged  to  receive  ma'ny 
visits  of  ceremony,  bought  as  much  as  a hundred  francs’  j 
worth  of  leaves  a day.3  In  Abyssinia  an  infusion  is  j 
also  made  from  the  leaves.4  In  spite  of  the  eagerness  | 
with  which  stimulants  are  sought,  this  species  has  not  1 
spread  into  the  adjoining  countries,  such  as  Beluchistan,  j 
Southern  India,  etc.,  where  it  might  succeed. 

The  Gatha.  is  wild  in  Abyssinia,5  but  has  not  yet  been  1 
found  wild  in  Arabia.  It  is  true  that  the  interior  of  I 
the  country  is  nearly  unknown  to  botanists.  It  cannot  j 
be  ascertained  from  Botta’s  account  whether  the  wild  | 
plants  he  mentions  are  wild  and  indigenous,  or  escaped  1 
from  cultivation  and  more  or  less  naturalized.  Perhaps  j 
the  Gatha  was  introduced  from  Abyssinia  with  the  coffee 
plant,  which  likewise  has  not  been  discovered  wild  in  ; 
Arabia. 

Mate — Ilex  paraguariensis,  Saint-Hilaire. 

The  inhabitants  of  Brazil  and  of  Paraguay  have  cm-  j 


1 Nenmich,  Polygl.  Lexicon,  ii.  p.  1156 ; Ainslie,  Mat.  Med.  Ind.,  i. 


p.  414. 

2 Fraaa,  Syn.  FI.  Class.,  p.  85. 

1 Forskal,  Flora  Mgy  pto-Arabica,  p.  65  ; Richard,  Tent  amen  FI.  Abyss.,  1 
i.  p.  134,  pi.  30;  Botta,  Archives  du  Miisdum,  ii.  p.  73. 

4 Uochstetter,  Flora,  1841,  p.  063. 

s Schweinfurth  and  Ascherson,  Avfsdhlung,  p.  263;  Oliver,  FI.  1 
Trap.  Air.,  i.  p.  364. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  135 


ployed  from  time  immemorial  the  leaves  of  this  shrub,  as 
•the  Chinese  have  those  of  the  tea  plant.  They  gather  them 
-especially  in  the  damp  forests  of  the  interior,  between  the 
-degrees  of  20  and  30  south  latitude,  and  commerce  trans- 
iports  them  dried  to  great  distances  throughout  the  greater 
’.part  of  South  America.  These  leaves  contain,  with  aroma 
aond  tannin,  a principle  analogous  to  that  of  tea  and  coffee  ; 
•they  are  not,  however,  much  liked  in  the  countries  where 
(Chinese  tea  is  known.  The  plantations  of  matd  are  not 
.yet  as  important  as  the  product  of  the  wild  shrub,  but 
they  may  increase  as  the  population  increases.  More- 
over, the  preparation  is  simpler  than  that  of  tea,  as  the 
leaves  are  not  rolled. 

Illustrations  and  descriptions  of  the  species,  with  a 
number  of  details  about  its  use  and  properties,  may  be 
found  in  the  works  of  Saint-Hilaire,  of  Sir  William 
Hooker,  and  of  Martius.1 

Coca. — Erythroxylon  Coca,  Lamarck. 

The  natives  of  Peru  and  of  the  neighbouring  pro- 
vinces, at  least  in  the  hot  moist  regions,  cultivate  this 
! shrub,  of  which  they  chew  the  leaves,  as  the  natives  of 
India  chew  the  leaves  of  the  betel.  It  is  a very  ancient 
■ custom,  which  has  spread  even  into  elevated  regions, 

| where  the  species  cannot  live.  Now  that  it  is  known  how 
to  extract  the  essential  part  of  the  coca,  and  its  virtues 
are  recognized  as  a tonic,  which  gives  strength  to  endure 
fatigue  without  having  the  drawbacks  of  alcoholic  liquors, 
it  is  probable  that  an  attempt  will  be  made  to  extend 
its  cultivation  in  America  and  elsewhere.  In  Guiana,  for 
instance,  the  Malay  Archipelago,  or  the  valleys  of  Sikkim 
and  Assam,  or  in  Hindustan,  since  both  moisture  and  heat 
are  requisite.  Frost  is  very  injurious  to  the  species.  The 
best  sites  are  the  slopes  of  hills  where  water  cannot  lie. 
An  attempt  made  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Lima  failed, 
because  of  the  infrequency  of  rain  and  perhaps  because 
of  insufficient  heat.2 

1 Aug.  do  Saint-Hilaire,  Mem.  du  Mnstvm,  ix.  p.  351  ; Ann.  Sr. 
Nat.,  3rd  series,  xiv.  p.  52 ; Hooker,  London  Journal  of  Botany,  i.  p.  3-1 ; 
Martius,  Flora  Brasilieneis,  vol.  ii.  part  1,  p.  119. 

* Martinet,  Bull.  Soc.  d’Acclim.,  1871,  p.  419. 


13G 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


I shall  not  repeat  here  what  may  be  found  in  several 
excellent  treatises  on  the  coca ; 1 I need  only  say  that  the 
original  home  of  the  species  in  America  is  not  yet  clearly 
ascertained.  Gosse  has  shown  that  early  authors,  such  as 
J oseph  de  J ussieu,  Lamarck,  and  Cavanifles,  had  only  seen 
cultivated  specimens.  Mathews  gathered  it  in  Peru,  in 
the  ravine  (quebrada)  of  Chinchao,2  which  appears  to  be  a 
place  beyond  the  limits  of  cultivation.  Some  specimens 
from  Cuchero,  collected  by  Poeppig,8  are  said  to  be  wild ; 
but  the  traveller  himself  was  not  convinced  of  their  -wild 
nature.4  D’Orbigny  thinks  he  saw  the  wild  coca  on 
a hill  in  the  eastern  part  of  Bolivia.5  Lastly,  M.  Andre 
has  had  the  courtesy  to  send  me  the  specimens  of  Evy- 
tkroxylon  in  his  herbarium,  and  I recognized  the  coca  in 
several  specimens  from  the  valley  of  the  river  Cauca  in 
New  Granada,  with  the  note  “ in  abundance,  wild  or  half- 
wild.” Triana,  however,  does  not  admit  that  the  species 
is  wild  in  his  country,  New  Granada.0  Its  extreme  im- 
portance in  Peru  at  the  time  of  the  Incas,  compared  to 
the  rarity  of  its  use  in  New  Granada,  seems  to  show 
that  it  has  escaped  from  cultivation  in  places  where  it 
occurs  in  the  latter  country,  and  that  the  species  is  in- 
digenous only  in  the  east  of  Peru  and  Bolivia,  according 
to  the  indications  of  the  travellers  mentioned  above. 

Dyer’s  Indigo. — Incligofera  tinctoria,  Linnaeus. 

The  Sanskrit  name  is  nili. 7 The  Latin  name, 
indicum,  shows  that  the  Romans  knew  that  the  indigo 
was  a substance  brought  from  India.  As  to  the  wild 
nature  of  the  plant,  Roxburgh  says,  “Native  place  un- 
known, for,  though  it  is  now  common  in  a wild  state  in 
most  of  the  provinces  of  India,  it  is  seldom  found  far  from 
the  districts  where  it  is  now  cultivated,  or  has  been  culti- 
vated formerly.”  Wight  and  Royle,  who  have  published 
illustrations  of  the  species,  tell  us  nothing  on  this  head, 

1 Particularly  in  Gosso’s  Monographic  de  V Eng  thro  xylon  Coca,  in 
8vo,  1861. 

2 Hooker,  Comp,  to  the  Bot.  Mag.,  ii.  p.  25. 

3 Peyrifcsch,  in  the  Flora  Brasil.,  fase.  81,  p.  156. 

1 Hooker,  Comp,  to  the  Bot,  Mag.  3 Gosse,  Monogr.,  p.  12. 

6 Triana  and  Planchou,  Ann.  Sciences  Nat.,  4th  series,  vol.  18,  p.  338. 

7 Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.,  iii.  p.  379. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  137 


und  more  recent  Indian  floras  mention  the  plant  as 
cultivated.1  Several  other  indigoes  are  wild  in  India. 

This  species  has  been  found  in  the  sands  of  Senegal,3 
out  it  is  not  mentioned  in  other  African  localities,  and 
.ts  it  is  often  cultivated  in  Senegal,  it  seems  probable 
that  it  is  naturalized.  The  existence  of  a Sanskrit  name 
renders  its  Asiatic  origin  most  probable. 

Silver  Indigo — Indigofera  argentea . 

This  species  is  certainly  wild  in  Abyssinia,  Nubia, 
•Xordofan,  and  Senaar.8  It  is  cultivated  in  Egypt  and 
Arabia.  Hence  we  might  suppose  that  it  was  from  this 
species  that  the  ancient  Egyptians  extracted  a blue  dye ; 4 
out  perhaps  they  imported  their  indigo  from  India,  for 
■ ts  cultivation  in  Egypt  is  probably  not  of  earlier  date 
ban  the  Middle  Ages.5 

A slightly  different  form,  which  Roxburgh  gives  as 
i separate  species  ( Indigofera  ccerulea),  and  which 
appears  rather  to  be  a variety,  is  wild  in  the  plains  of 
;he  peninsula  of  Hindustan  and  of  Beluchistan. 

American  Indigoes. 

There  are  probably  one  or  two  indigoes  indigenous  in 
America,  but  ill  defined,  and  often  intermixed  in  cultiva- 
tion with  the  species  of  the  old  world,  and  naturalized 
j oeyond  the  limits  of  cultivation.  This  interchange  makes 
be  matter  too  uncertain  for  me  to  venture  upon  any 
researches  into  their  original  habitat.  Some  authors 
'lave  thought  that  I.  Anil,  Linnaeus,  was  one  of  these 
species.  Linnaeus,  however,  says  that  his  plant  came 
from  India  ( Mantissa , p.  273).  The  blue  dye  of  the 
indent  Mexicans  was  extracted  from  a plant  which, 
iccording  to  Hernandez’  account,0  differs  widely  from  the 
ndigoes. 


* Wight,  leones,  t.  365  ; Royle,  III.  Himal.,  t.  195  ; Baker,  iu  Flora 
J Brit.  Ind.,  11.  p.  98 ; Brandis,  Forest  Flora,  p.  136. 

Guillcmin,  Perrottct,  and  Richard,  Flora;  Seneg.  Tentamen,  p.  178. 

3 Richard,  Tentamen  FI.  Abyss.,  i.  184  ; Oliver,  FI.  of  Trap.  Afr., 
| *•  P*  9" » Schweinfurth  and  Ascherson,  Anfzdhlung,  p.  256. 

1 Unger,  Pjlanzen  d.  Alt.  AEgyptens,  p.  66;  Pickering,  Chronol. 
| Irrang.,  p.  413. 

Reynier,  Economie  des  . Tuifs , p.  439  ; dcs  Egyptians,  p.  354. 

6 Hernandez,  Tiles.,  p.  108. 


138 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Henna — Lawsonia  alba,  Lamarck  {Lawsonia  inermis 
and  L.  spinosa  of  different  authors). 

The  custom  among  Eastern  women  of  staining  their 
nails  red  with  the  juice  of  henna-leaves  dates  from  a 
remote  antiquity,  as  ancient  Egyptian  paintings  and 
mummies  show. 

It  is  difficult  to  know  when  and  in  what  country  this 
species  was  first  cultivated  to  fulfil  the  requirements  of  a 
fashion  as  absurd  as  it  is  persistent,  but  it  may  be  from 
a veiy  early  epoch,  since  the  inhabitants  of  Babylon, 
Nineveh,  and  the  towns  of  Egypt  had  gardens.  It  may 
be  left  to  scholars  to  show  whether  the  practice  of  stain- 
ing the  nails  began  in  Egypt  under  this  or  that  dynasty, 
before  or  after  certain  relations  were  established  with 
Eastern  nations.  It  is  enough  for  our  purpose  to  know 
that  Lawsonia,  a shrub  belonging  to  the  order  of  the  I 
Lythraceae,  is  more  or  less  wild  in  the  warm  regions  of 
Western  Asia  and  of  Africa  to  the  north  of  the  equator. 

I have  in  my  possession  specimens  from  India,  Java,  j 
Timor,  even  from  China1  and  Nubia,  which  are  not  said  ; 
to  be  taken  from  cultivated  plants,  and  others  from  \ 
Guiana  and  the  West  Indies,  which  are  doubtless  fur-  i 
nished  by  the  imported  species.  Stocks  found  it  indige- 
nous in  Beluchistan.2  Roxburgh  also  considered  it  to  bo  : 
wild  on  the  Coromandel  3 coast,  and  Thwaites  4 mentions  1 
it  in  Ceylon  in  a manner  which  seems  to  show  that  it  is 
wild  there.  Clarke  5 6 says,  “ very  common,  and  cultivated  j 
in  Lidia,  perhaps  wild  in  the  eastern  part.”  It  is  pos- 
sible that  it  spread  into  India  from  its  original  home,  as 
into  Amboyna0  in  the  seventeenth  century,  and  perhaps  ! 
more  recently  into  the  West  Indies,7  in  the  wake  of  culti-  ' 
vation ; for  the  plant  is  valued  for  the  scent  of  its  flowers,  I 
as  well  as  for  the  dye,  and  is  easily  propagated  by  seed,  j 

1 Fortune,  No.  32. 

* Aitchison,  Catal.  of  PI.  of  Punjab  and  Sindh,  p.  60;  Boissier,  FL  ! 
Orient.,  ii.  p.  744. 

s Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.,  ii.  p.  258. 

* Thwaites,  Enum.  PI.  ZeyL,  p.  122. 

s Clarke,  in  Hooker’s  FI.  Brit.  Ind.,  ii.  p.  273. 

6 Rumphins,  Amb.,  iv,  p.  42. 

7 Grisebach,  FI.  Brit.  ii.  Ind.,  i.  p.  271. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOB  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  1.39 

TThere  is  the  same  doubt  as  to  whether  it  is  indigenous 
iin  Persia,  Arabia,  and  Egypt  (an  essentially  cultivated 
ecountry),rin  Nubia,  and  even  in  Guinea,  where  specimens 
'have  been  gathered.1  It  is  even  possible  that  the  area  of 
tthis  shrub  extends  from  India  to  Nubia.  Such  a wide 
geographical  distribution  is,  however,  always  somewhat 
rrare.  The  common  names  may  furnish  some  indication. 

A Sanskrit  name,  sakachera ,2  is  attributed  to  the 
■species,  but  as  it  has  left  no  trace  in  the  different  modern 
languages  of  India,  I am  inclined  to  doubt  its  reality. 
:The  Persian  name  hanna  is  more  widely  diffused  and 
retained  than  any  other  ( kina  of  the  Hindus,  henneh  and 
alhenna  of  the  Arabs,  kinna  of  the  modem  Greeks). 
That  of  cypros,  used  by  the  Syrians  of  the  time  of 
Dioscorides,3  has  not  found  so  much  favour.  This  fact 
■ supports  the  opinion  that  the  species  grew  originally 
on  the  borders  of  Persia,  and  that  its  use  as  well  as 
: its  cultivation  spread  from  the  East  to  the  West,  from 
Asia  into  Africa. 

Tobacco — Nicotiana  Tabcicwn,  Linnaeus  ; and  other 
■species  of  Nicotiana. 

At  the  time  of  the  discovery  of  America,  the  custom 
] of  smoking,  of  snuff-taking,  or  of  chewing  tobacco  was 
f diffused  over  the  greater  part  of  this  vast  continent. 
The  accounts  of  the  earliest  travellers,  of  which  the 
famous  anatomist  Tiedemann  1 has  made  a very  complete 
collection,  show  that  the  inhabitants  of  South  America 
did  not  smoke,  but  chewed  tobacco  or  took  snuff,  except 
in  the  district  of  La  Plata,  Uruguay,  and  Paraguay, 
| where  no  form  of  tobacco  was  used.  In  North  America, 
! from  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  and  the  West  Indies  as  far 
: as  Canada  and  California,  the  custom  of  smoking  was 
universal,  and  circumstances  show  that  it  was  also  very 
I ancient.  Pipes,  in  great  numbers  and  of  wonderful  work- 
| manship,  have  been  discovered  in  the  tombs  of  the  Aztecs 

1 Oliver,  FI.  of  Trap.  Afr.,  ii.  p.  483. 

1 Piddington,  Index. 

* Dioscorides,  1,  o.  124  ; Lenz,  Bot.  d.  Alton,  p.  177. 

4 Tiedemann,  Geschichte  dee  Tabaka,  in  8vo,  1854.  For  Brazil,  sec 
I Martius,  Beit  rage  zur  Ethnographie  und  Sprachkwnde  Amerikas,  i.  p.  719. 

} 


14:0 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


in  Mexico1  and  in  the  mounds  of  the  United  States; 
some  of  them  represent  animals  foreign  to  North  America.2 3 

As  the  tobacco  plant  is  an  annual  which  gives  a great 
quantity  of  seeds,  it  was  easy  to  sow  and  to  cultivate  or 
naturalize  them  more  or  less  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
dwellings,  but  it  must  be  noted  that  different  species  of 
the  genus  Nicotiana  were  employed  in  different  parts 
of  America,  which  shows  that  they  had  not  all  the 
same  origin.  Nicotiana  Tabacum,  commonly  cultivated, 
was  the  most  widely  diffused,  and  sometimes  the  only 
one  in  use  in  South  America  and  the  West  Indies.  The 
use  of  tobacco  was  introduced  into  La  Plata,  Paraguay,8 
and  Uruguay  by  the  Spaniards,  consequently  we  must 
look  further  to  the  north  for  the  origin  of  the  plant. 
De  Martius  does  not  think  it  was  indigenous  in  Brazil,4 5 * 
and  he  adds  that  the  ancient  Brazilians  smoked  the 
leaves  of  a species  belonging  to  their  country  known 
to  botanists  as  Nicotiana  Langsdorjii.  When  I went 
into  the  question  in  1855, B I had  not  been  able  to  dis- 
cover any  wild  specimens  of  Nicotiana  Tabacum  except 
those  sent  by  Blanchet  from  the  province  of  Bahia, 
numbered  3223,  a.  No  author,  either  before  or  since  that 
time,  has  been  more  fortunate,  and  I see  that  Messrs. 
Fliickiger  and  Hanbury,  in  their  excellent  work  on 
vegetable  drugs,8  say  positively,  “ The  common  tobacco 
is  a native  of  the  new  world,  though  not  now  known 
in  a wild  state.”  I venture  to  gainsay  this  assertion, 
although  the  wild  nature  of  a plant  may  always  be 
disputed  in  the  case  of  a plant  which  spreads  so  easily 
from  cultivation. 

We  find  in  herbaria  a number  of  specimens  gathered  in 
Peru  without  indication  that  they  were  cultivated  or  that 
they  grew  near  plantations.  Boissier’s  herbarium  contains 

1 Tiedemann,  p.  17,  pi.  1. 

2 The  drawings  on  these  pipes  are  reproduced  in  Naidaillac’s  recent 
work,  Les  Premiers  Homines  et  les  Temps  Prdhistoriques , voL  ii.  pp. 
45,  48. 

3 Tiedemann,  pp.  38,  39. 

4 Martius,  Syst.  Mat.  Med.  Bras.,  p.  120;  FI.  Bras.,  vol.  x.  p.  191. 

5 A.  do  Candolle,  Gdogr.  Bot.  Raisonnde,  p.  849. 

* Fliickiger  and  Hanbury,  Pharmacoyraphia,  p.  418. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  141 


two  specimens  collected  by  Pavon,  from  different  locali- 
ties.1 Pa  von  says  in  his  flora  that  the  species  grows  in 
the  moist  warm  forests  of  the  Peruvian  Andes,  and  that  it 
is  cultivated.  But — and  this  is  more  significant — Edouard 
Andre  gathered  specimens  in  the  republic  of  Ecquador 
at  Saint  Nicholas,  on  the  western  slope  of  the  volcano  of 
Corazon  in  a virgin  forest.  These  he  was  kind  enough 
to  send  me.  They  are  evidently  the  tall  variety  (four 'to 
six  feet)  of  A.  Tabacum,  with  the  upper  leaves  narrow 
and  acuminate,  as  they  are  represented  in  the  plates  of 
Hayne  and  Miller.3  The  lower  leaves  are  wanting.  The 
flower,  which  gives  the  true  characters  of  the  species,  is 
certainly  that  of  lY.  Tabacum,  and  it  is  well  known  that 
t the  height  of  this  plant  and  the  breadth  of  the  leaves 
vary  in  cultivation.11  It  is  very  possible  that  its  original 
country  extended  north  as  far  as  Mexico,  as  far  south  as 
Bolivia,  and  eastward  to  Venezuela. 

| Mcotiana  rustica,  Linnaeus,  a species  with  yellow 
i flowers,  very  different  from  Tabacum  * and  which  yields 
i a coarse  kind  of  tobacco,  was  more  often  cultivated  by 
the  Mexicans  and  the  native  tribes  north  of  Mexico  I 
I Shave  a specimen  brought  from  California  by  Douglas  in 
^ 183 / , a time  when  colonists  were  still  few;  but  American 
authorities  do  not  admit  that  the  plant  is  wild,  and  Dr. 

■ Asa  Gray  says  that  it  sows  itself  in  waste  places.6  This 
was  perhaps  the  case  with  the  specimens  in  Boissier’s 
herbarium,  gathered  in  Peru  by  Pavon,  and  which  he 
does  not  mention  in  the  Peruvian  flora.  The  species 
grows  in  abundance  about  Cordova  in  the  Argentine 
Lcpublic,  but  from  what  epoch  is  unknown.  From  the 


,my  oSonfi8tthe0si«0la8Se^  namo  Nicot  fmtwosa,  which  in 

lead  ono  to  bel  ol  v 8pe°,eS,’  tal1’ but  not  WOf)dy>  » the  namo  would 

Bcrio”> ia  ui»  **»«.  »ccordinff 

PlmiU,  pl!l85? 7.  f/etwwftae»  vo1'  *''■  l-  41 ! Miller,  Figures  of 

ion*"  th“ tho 

* Sa,"rmc‘ 
■ “i* 


14-2  ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 

ancient  use  of  the  plant  and  the  home  of  the  most  analo- 
gous species,  the  probabilities  are  in  favour  of  a Mexican, 
Texan,  or  Californian  origin. 

Several  botanists,  even  Americans,  have  believed  that 
the  species  came  from  the  old  world.  This  is  certainly 
a mistake,  although  the  plant  has  spread  here  and  there 
even  into  our  forests,  and  sometimes  in  abundance,1 
having  escaped  from  cultivation.  Authors  of  the  six- 
teenth century  spoke  of  it  as  a foreign  plant  introduced 
into  gardens  and  sometimes  spreading  from  them.3  It 
occurs  in  some  herbaria  under  the  names  of  N.  tar- 
tarica,  turcica,  or  sibirica ; but  these  are  garden-grown 
specimens,  and  no  botanist  has  found  the  species  in  Asia, 
or  on  the  borders  of  Asia,  with  any  appearance  of  wildness. 

This  leads  me  to  refute  a widespread  and  more  per- 
sistent error,  in  spite  of  what  I proved  in  1855,  namely, 
that  of  regarding  some  species  ill  described  from  culti- 
vated specimens  as  natives  of  the  old  world,  of  Asia  in 
particular.  The  proofs  of  an  American  origin  are  so 
numerous  and  consistent  that,  without  entering  much 
into  detail,  I may  sum  them  up  as  follows : — 

A.  Out  of  fifty  species  of  the  genus  Nicotiana  found 
in  a wild  state,  two  only  are  foreign  to  America ; namely,  ' 
N.  suavolen s of  New  Holland,  with  which  is  joined  1 
iV.  rotundifolia  of  the  same  country,  and  that  which 
Ventinat  had  wrongly  styled  iV.  umlulata ; and  X.  fra-  j 
r/ams,  Hooker,  of  the  Isle  of  Pines,  near  New  Caledonia,  ; 
which  differs  very  little  from  the  preceding. 

R Though  the  Asiatic  people  are  great  lovers  of 
tobacco,  and  have  from  a very  early  epoch  sought  the  ; 
smoke  of  certain  narcotic  plants,  none  of  them  made  use  , 
of  tobacco  before  the  discovery  of  America.  Tiedemann  . 
has  distinctly  proved  this  fact  by  thorough  researches  ' 
into  the  writings  of  travellers  in  the  Middle  Ages.3  He 
even  quotes  for  a later  epoch,  not  long  after  the  dis- 
covery of  America,  between  1540  and  1603,  the  fact  that 

1 Bulliard,  Herbier  de  France. 

2 Csesalpinus,  lib.  viii.  cap.  44;  Banliin,  Hist.,  iii.  p.  630. 

5 Tiedemann,  Qegchichte  des  Tabaks  (1854),  p.  208.  Two  years 
earlier,  Volz,  Beit  rage  zur  Culturgeschichte,  had  collected  a number 
of  facts  relative  to  the  introduction  of  tobacco  into  different  countries. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  143 


several  travellers,  some  of  whom  were  botanists,  such  as 
Belon  and  Rau wolf,  who  travelled  through  the  Turkish 
and  Persian  empires,  observing  their  customs  with  much 
attention,  have  not  once  mentioned  tobacco.  It  was 
evidently  introduced  into  Turkey  at  the  beginning  of  the 
seventeenth  century,  and  the  Persians  soon  received  it 
from  the  Turks.  The  first  European  who  mentions  the 
•smoking  of  tobacco  in  Persia  is  Thomas  Herbert,  in  1626. 
iNo  later  travellers  have  omitted  to  notice  the  use  of  the 
hookah  as  well  established.  Olearius  describes  this  ap- 
paratus, which  he  saw  in  1633.  The  first  mention  of 
tobacco  in  India  is  in  1605,1  and  it  is  probable  that  it 
was  of  European  introduction.  It  was  first  introduced 
at  Arracan  and  Pegu,  in  1619,  according  to  the  traveller 
Methold.2  There  are  doubts  about  Java,  because  Rum- 
phius,  a very  accurate  observer,  who  wrote  in  the  second 
half  of  the  seventeenth  century,  says3  that,  according 
to  the  tradition  of  some  old  people,  tobacco  had  been 
| employed  as  a medicine  before  the  arrival  of  the  Portu- 

Puese  in  1496,  and  that  only  the  practice  of  smoking  it 
ad  been  communicated  by  the  Europeans.  Rumphius 
pdds,  it  is  true,  that  the  name  tabaco  or  tambuco,  which 
’.is  in  use  in  all  these  places,  is  of  foreign  origin.  Sir 
'•Stamford  Raffles,'1  in  his  numerous  historical  researches 
on  Java,  gives,  on  the  other  hand,  the  year  1601  as  the 
late  of  the  introduction  of  tobacco  into  Java.  The 
Portuguese  had  certainly  discovered  the  coasts  of  Brazil 
between  1500  and  1504,  but  Vasco  di  Gama  and  his 
successors  went  to  Asia  round  the  Cape,  or  through  the 
■ Red  Sea,  so  that  they  could  hardly  have  established 
frequent  or  direct  communications  between  America  and 
Java.  Nieot  had  seen  the  plant  in  Portugal  in  1560,  so 
| that  the  Portuguese  probably  introduced  it  into  Asia 
j 111 , tl10  Htter  half  of  the  sixteenth  century.  Thunberg 
affirms''  that  the  use  of  tobacco  was  introduced  into 

^According  to  an  anonymous  Indian  author  qnoted  by  Tiedemnnn, 

I iodemann,  p.  234.  3 liumpliitiH,  Herb.  Atnboin,  v.  p.  225. 

4 Raffles,  Descr.  of  Java,  p.  85. 

5 Thunberg,  Flora  Japon tea,  p.  91. 


144 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Japan  by  the  Portuguese,  and  according  to  early  travellers 
quoted  by  Tiedemann,  this  was  at  the  beginning  of  the 
seventeenth  century.  Lastly,  the  Chinese  have  no  original 
and  ancient  sign  for  tobacco ; their  paintings  on  china 
in  the  Dresden  collection  often  present,  from  the  year  1700 
and  never  before  that  date,  details  relating  to  tobacco,1 
and  Chinese  students  are  agreed  that  Chinese  works  do 
not  mention  the  plant  before  the  end  of  the  sixteenth 
century.2  If  it  be  remembered  with  what  rapidity  the 
use  of  tobacco  has  spread  wherever  it  has  been  intro- 
duced, these  data  about  Asia  have  an  incontestable  force. 

C.  The  common  names  of  tobacco  confirm  its 
American  origin.  If  there  had  been  any  indigenous 
species  in  the  old  world  there  would  be  a great  number 
of  different  names;  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  Chinese, 
Japanese,  Javanese,  Indian,  Persian,  etc.,  names  are 
derived  from  the  American  names,  petum,  or  tabak, 
tabok,  tamboc,  slightly  modified.  It  is  true  that  Pid- 
dington  gives  Sanskrit  names,  dhumrapatra  and  tain-  i 
rakouta ,8  but  Adolphe  Pictet  informs  me  that  the  first  of  i 
these  names,  which  is  not  in  Wilson’s  dictionary,  means  1 
only  leaf  for  smoking,  and  appears  to  be  of  modern  com- 
position ; while  the  second  is  probably  no  older,  and  j 
seems  to  be  a modern  modification  of  the  American  ; 
names.  The  Arabic  word  docchan  simply  means  smoke.4  j 

Lastly,  we  must  inquire  into  the  two  so-called  Asiatic  : 
Nicotiance.  The  one,  called  by  Lehmann  Nicotiana 
chinensis,  came  from  the  Russian  botanist  Fischer,  who  j 
said  it  was  Chinese.  Lehmann  said  he  had  seen  it  in  a 
garden.  Now,  it  is  well  known  how  often  an  erroneous 
origin  is  attributed  to  plants  grown  by  horticulturists 
and  besides,  from  the  description,  it  seems  that  it  was  • 
simply  Ar.  Tabacum,  of  which  the  seeds  had  perhaps 
come  from  China.5  The  second  species  is  X.  persica,  ] 

1 Klemtn,  quoted  by  Tiedemann,  p.  256. 

2 Stanislas  Julien,  in  de  Candolle,  Oiogr.  Bot.  Rais.,  p.  851; 
Bretsehneider,  Study  and  Value,  etc.,  p.  17. 

3 Piddington,  Index.  4 Forskal,  p.  63. 

1 Lehmann,  Historia  Nicotinarum,  p.  18.  The  epithet  suffniticosa  j 
is  an  exaggeration  applied  to  the  tobaccos,  which  are  always  annual.  I 
have  said  already  that  N.  svffruticosa  of  different  authors  is  N.  Tabacum.  j 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  145 

Lindley,  figured  in  the  Botanical  Register  (pi.  1592), 
of  which  the  seeds  had  been  sent  from  Ispahan  to  the 
Horticultural  Society  of  London,  as  those  of  the  best 
tobacco  cultivated  in  Persia,  that  of  Schiraz.  Lindley 
did  not  observe  that  it  corresponded  exactly  to  Ar.  alata, 
drawn  three  years  before  by  Link  and  Otto 1 from  a 
olant  in  the  gardens  at  Berlin.  The  latter  was  grown 
'from  seed  sent  by  Sello  from  Southern  Brazil.  It  is 
•certainly  a Brazilian  species,  with  a white  elongated 
corolla,  allied  to  N.  suaveolens  of  New  Holland.  Thus 
.he  tobacco  cultivated  sometimes  in  Persia  along  with 
: he  common  species,  is  of  American  origin,  as  I declared 
m my  Geographical  Botany  of  1855.  I do  not  under- 
tand  how  this  species  was  introduced  into  Persia.  It 
oust  have  been  from  seed  taken  from  a garden,  or 
wrought  by  chance  from  America,  and  it  is  not  likely 
hat  its  cultivation  is  common  in  Persia,  for  Olivier  and 
druguibre,  and  other  naturalists  who  have  observed  the 
obacco  plantations  in  that  country,  make  no  mention 
:f  it. 

From  all  these  reasons  I conclude  that  no  species  of 
obacco  is  a native  of  Asia.  They  are  all  American, 
xcept  iV.  suaveolens  of  New  Holland,  and  N.  fragrans 
f the  Isle  of  Pines  to  the  south  of  New  Caledonia. 

Several  Nicotiancc,  besides  N.  Tabacum  and  iV.  rus- 
-'ica,  have  been  cultivated  here  and  there  by  savages, 
rr  as  a curiosity  by  Europeans.  It  is  strange  that  so 
ittle  notice  is  taken  of  these  attempts,  by  means  of 
vhich  very  choice  tobacco  might  be  obtained.  The 
j pecies  with  white  flowers  would  yield  probably  a light 
.nd  perfumed  tobacco,  and  as  some  smokers  seek  the 
j trongest  tobaccos  and  the  most  disagreeable  to  non- 
; mokers,  I would  recommend  to  their  notice  N.  angusti- 
\ alia  of  Chili,  which  the  natives  call  tabaco  del  diablo  * 

1 Link  and  Otto,  lames  Plant.  Rar.  Hort.  Ber.,  in  4to,  p.  63,  t.  32. 
j endtner,  in  Mora  Brasil,  vol.  x.  p.  167,  describes  the  same  plnnt  ns 
ns  '*•  6eetns  Ir°rrv  the  specimens  collected  by  this  traveller;  and 
'r  risebach,  Symbola1,  FI.  Argent.,  p.  213,  mentions  N.  alata  in  the  pro- 
ince  of  Entrerios  of  the  Argentine  republic. 

* Bertero,.in  De  Cnnd.,  Prodr.,  xii.,  sect.  1,  p.  GG8. 


L 


146 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Cinnamon — Cinnamonum  zeylanicum,  Breyn. 

This  little  tree,  belonging  to  the  laurel  tribe,  of  which 
the  bark  of  the  young  branches  forms  the  cinnamon  of 
commerce,  grows  in  great  quantities  in  the  forests  of  ' 
Ceylon.  Certain  varieties  which  grow  wild  on  the  con- 
tinent of  India  were  formerly  considered  to  be  so  many 
distinct  species,  but  Anglo-Indian  botanists  are  agreed  : 
in  connecting  them  with  that  of  Ceylon.1 2 3 

The  bark  of  C.  zeylanicum,  and  that  of  several  uncul- 
tivated species  of  Cinnamonum,  which  produce  the 
cassia,  or  Chinese  cassia,  have  been  an  important  article 
of  commerce  from  a very  early  period.  Fliickiger  and 
Hanbury  a have  treated  of  this  historical  question  with  . 
so  much  learning  and  thoroughness,  that  we  need  only 
refer  to  their  work,  entitled  Pharmacograpkia,  or  His-  j 
tory  of  the  Principal  Drugs  of  Vegetable  Origin.  It  is 
important  from  our  point  of  view  to  note  how  modem 
the  culture  is  of  the  cinnamon  tree  in  comparison  with 
the  trade  in  its  product.  It  was  only  between  1765  and 
1770  that  a Ceylon  colonist,  named  de  Koke,  aided  by 
Falck,  the  governor  of  the  island,  made  some  planta- 
tions which  were  wonderfully  successful.  They  have 
diminished  in  Ceylon  in  the  last  few  years,  but  others 
have  been  established  in  the  tropical  regions  of  the  old 
and  new  worlds.  The  species  becomes  easily  naturalized  ; 
beyond  the  limits  of  cultivation,8  as  birds  are  fond  of  the 
fruit,  and  drop  the  seeds  in  the  forests. 

China  Grass — Boehmeria  nivea,  Hooker  and  Amott. 

The  cultivation  of  this  valuable  Urticacea  has  been 
introduced  into  the  south  of  France  and  of  the  United ; 
States  for  about  thirty  years,  but  commerce  had  pre- 
viously  acquainted  us  with  the  great  value  of  its  fibres,! 
more  tenacious  than  hemp  and  in  some  cases  flexible  as 
silk.  Interesting  details  on  the  manner  of  cultivating ; 

1 Thwaites,  Enum.  El.  ZelanicB,  p.  252  ; Brandis,  Forest  Flora  of  India,  j 

p.  375.  I 

2 Fluckiger  and  Hanbury,  Pharmacograpkia,  p.  467 ; Porter,  The I 

Tropical  Agriculturist,  p.  268.  1 

3 Brandis,  Forest  Flora;  Grisebach,  Flora  of  Brit.  W.  India  Is-,  « 


i PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  TIIEIU  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  147 

?he  plant  and  of  extracting  its  fibres  1 may  be  found  in 
several  books ; I shall  confine  myself  here  to  defining  as 
ilearly  as  I can  its  geographical  origin. 

To  attain  this  end  we  must  not  trust  to  the  vague 
expressions  of  most  authors,  nor  to  the  labels  attached 
uo  the  specimens  in  herbaria,  since  frequently  no  dis- 
;inction  has  been  made  between  cultivated,  naturalized, 
:r  truly  wild  plants,  and  the  two  varieties  of  Boehmeria 
tivea  ( Urtica  nivea,  Linmeus),  and  Boehmeria  tenacis- 
>ima,  Gaudichaud,  or  B.  candicans,  Hasskarl,  have  been 
unfounded  together ; forms  which  appear  to  be  varieties 
if  the  same  species,  because  transitions  between  them 
tave  been  observed  by  botanists.  There  is  also  a sub- 
variety,  with  leaves  green  on  both  sides,  cultivated  by 
Americans  and  by  M.  de  Malar  tic  in  the  south  of  France. 

The  variety  earliest  known  ( Urtica  nivea,  L.),  with 
eaves  white  on  the  under  side,  is  said  to  grow  in  China 
nd  some  neighbouring  countries.  Linmeus  says  it  is 
ound  on  walls  in  China,  which  would  imply  a plant 
naturalized  on  rubbish-heaps  from  cultivation.  But 
.ioureiro 2 says,  “ habitat  et  abundanter  colitur  in  Cochin- 
■■hina  et  China,"  and  according  to  Bentham,8  the  collector 
Champion  found  it  in  abundance  in  the  ravines  of  the 
aland  of  Hongkong.  According  to  Franchet  and  Sava- 
ier,1  it  exists  in  Japan  in  clearings  and  hedges  ( infruti - 
'■  etis  umbrosvi  et  sepibus).  Blanco  6 says  it  is  common  in 
he  Philippine  Isles.  I find  no  proof  that  it  is  wild  in 
ava,  Sumatra,  and  other  islands  of  the  Malay  Archi- 
pelago. Rumphius8  knew  it  only  as  a cultivated  plant. 
•Roxburgh'  believed  it  to  be  a native  of  Sumatra,  but 
diquel H does  not  confirm  this  belief.  The  other  varieties 

‘ De  Malartic,  Journ,  d'Agric.  Pratique,  1871,  1872,  vol.  ii.  No.  31; 
e la  Roque,  ibid.,  No.  29,  Bull.  Soc.  d’Acclim.,  1872,  p.  483;  Vilmorin, 
ton  Jardinier,  1880,  pt.  1,  p.  700;  Vetillart,  £tudes  sur  les  Fibres 
ege tales  Textiles,  p.  99,  pi.  2. 

2 Loureiro,  FI.  Cochin,,  ii.  p.  683. 

3 Bentham,  FI.  Hongkong,  p.  331. 

I ranchet  atirl  Savatior,  Fnum.  Plant.  Jap.,  i.  p 4-39. 

s Blanco,  Flora  de  Filip.,  0dic.  2,  p.  484. 

* Rnmphins,  Arnboin,  v.  p.  214. 

7 Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.,  iii.  p.  590. 

• Miquol,  Sumatra,  Germ,  edit.,  p.  170. 


148 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


have  nowhere  been  found  wild,  which  supports  the 
theory  that  they  are  only  the  result  of  cultivation. 

Hemp — Cannabis  sativa,  Linnaeus. 

Hemp  is  mentioned,  in  its  two  forms,  male  and  female, 
in  the  most  ancient  Chinese  works,  particularly  in  the 
Ska-King,  written  500  b.c.1 

It  has  Sanskrit  names,  bhanga  and  gangika ,2  The 
root  of  these  words,  ang  or  an,  recurs  in  all  the  Indo- 
European  and  modern  Semitic  languages  : bang  in  Hindu 
and  Persian,  ganga  in  Bengali,8  haiif  in  German,  hemp 
in  English,  chanwe  in  French,  Icanas  in  Keltic  and 
modern  Breton,4  cannabis  in  Greek  and  Latin,  cannab 
in  Arabic.5 

According  to  Herodotus  (born  484  b.c.),  the  Scythians 
used  hemp,  but  in  his  time  the  Greeks  were  scarcely 
acquainted  with  it.6  Hiero  II.,  King  of  Syracuse,  bought 
the  hemp  used  for  the  cordage  of  his  vessels  in  Gaul,  and 
Lucilius  is  the  earliest  Roman  writer  who  speaks  of  the 
plant  (100  B.c.).  Hebrew  books  do  not  mention  hemp.7 
It  was  not  used  in  the  fabi'ics  which  enveloped  the 
mummies  of  ancient  Egypt.  Even  at  the  end  of  the 
eighteenth  century  it  was  only  cultivated  in  Egypt  for  the 
sake  of  an  intoxicating  liquid  extracted  from  the  plant.8 
The  compilation  of  Jewish  laws  known  as  the  Talmud, 
made  under  the  Roman  dominion,  speaks  of  its  textile 
properties  as  of  a little-known  fact.9  It  seems  probable 
that  the  Scythians  transported  this  plant  from  Central 
Asia  and  from  Russia  when  they  migrated  westward 
about  1500  b.c.,  a little  before  the  Trojan  war.  It  may 
also  have  been  introduced  by  the  earlier  incursions  of  the 
Aryans  into  Thrace  and  Western  Europe ; yet  in  that  case 
it  would  have  been  earlier  known  in  Italy.  Hemp  has 

1 Bretschneider,  On  the  Study  and  Value,  etc.,  pp.  5,  10,  18. 

2 Piddington,  Index ; Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.,  edit.  2,  vol.  iii.  p.  772. 

3 Roxburgh,  ibid. 

* Itoynier,  £ commie  des  Celtes,  p.  418  ; Legnnidec,  Diet.  Ban- Breton. 

3 J.  Humbert.,  formerly  professor  of  Arabic  at  Geneva,  says  tho  name 

is  kannab,  kon-nab,  h on- nab.  hen-nob,  kanedir,  according  to  tho  locality. 

* Athenians,  quoted  by  Ilehn,  Cult urpfianzen,  p.  108. 

7 Rosen n i ii! lor,  Hand.  Bibl.  Alterth. 

* Forskal,  Flora;  Delilo,  Flore  d’  Egypt  e. 

9 Reynier,  itconomie  des  Arabes,  p.  434. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  149 


uot  been  found  in  the  lake-dwellings  of  Switzerland 1 and 
Northern  Italy.2 

The  observations  on  the  habitat  of  Cannabis  sativa 


agree  perfectly  with  the  data  furnished  by  history  and 
ohilology.  I have  treated  specially  of  this  subject  in  a 
monograph  in  Prodromus,  1869.8 

The  species  has  been  found  wild,  beyond  a doubt,  to 
bhe  south  of  the  Caspian  Sea,4  in  Siberia,  near  the  Irtysch, 
:n  the  desert  of  the  Kirghiz,  beyond  Lake  Baikal,  in 
Dahuria  (government  of  Irkutsh).  Authors  mention  it 
also  throughout  Southern  and  Central  Russia,  and  to  the 
south  of  the  Caucasus,5  but  its  wild  nature  is  here  less 
certain,  seeing  that  these  ai’e  populous  countries,  and  that 

Ehe  seeds  of  the  hemp  are  easily  diffused  from  gardens, 
he  antiquity  of  the  cultivation  of  hemp  in  China  leads 
ie  to  believe  that  its  area  extends  further  to  the  east, 
ialthough  this  has  not  yet  been  proved  by  botanists.6 
: Boissier  mentions  the  species  as  “ almost  wild  in  Persia.” 
T doubt  whether  it  is  indigenous  there,  since  in  that  case 
;he  Greeks  and  Hebrews  would  have  known  of  it  at  an 
earlier  period. 

White  Mulberry — Morns  alba , Linnaeus. 

Ihe  mulberry  tree,  which  is  most  commonly  used 
m Europe  for  rearing  silkworms,  is  Moms  alba.  Its 
• very  numerous  varieties  have  been  carefully  described  by 
k Scringe, 7 and  more  recently  by  Bureau.6  That  most 
widely  cultivated  in  India,  Moras  indica,  Linnaeus 
\M<>vas  alba,  var.  Indica,  Bureau),  is  wild  in  the  Punjab 
and  in  Sikkim,  according  to  Brandis,  inspector-general  of 
i orests  in  British  India.8  Two  other  varieties,  serrata 
and  cuspidata,  are  also  said  to  be  wild  in  different  pro- 


1 Heer,  Veber  d.  Flachs,  p.  25. 

, SordeUi,  Notizie  mil.  Sl.az.  di  Lagozza,  1880. 

Vol.  xvi.  sect.  1,  p.  30 

‘ Do  Bung e,Bull.  So c.  Uot.  dc  Fr.,  1860,  p.  30. 

Lcdebour,  Flora  Romm,  iii.  p.  634. 

No  33S)  'kU  found  hemp  in  the  north  of  China,  but  among  rubbish  ( Enum . 

7 Syringe,  Description  et.  Culture  den  M driers. 

Bureau,  m De  Candolle,  Prodromus,  xvii.  p.  238. 

forest  Flora  of  North-West  and  Central  India,  1874, 
j.  408.  This  variety  has  black  fruit,  liko  that  of  Moras  nigra. 


150 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


vinces  of  Northern  India.1  The  Abbd  David  found  a 
perfectly  wild  variety  in  Mongolia,  described  under  the 
name  of  mongolica  by  Bureau;  and  Dr.  Bretschneider 2 * 
quotes  a name  yen,  from  ancient  Chinese  authors,  for  the 
wild  mulberry. 

It  is  true  he  does  not  say  whether  this  name  applies 
to  the  white  mulberry,  pe-sang,  of  the  Chinese  planta- 
tions.8 The  antiquity  of  its  culture  in  China,4  and  in 
Japan,  and  the  number  of  different  varieties  grown  there, 
lead  us  to  believe  that  its  original  area  extended  east- 
ward as  far  as  Japan;  but  the  indigenous  flora  of  Southern 
China  is  little  known,  and  the  most  trustworthy  authors 
do  not  affirm  that  the  plant  is  indigenous  in  Japan. 
Franchet  and  Savatier5  say  that  it  is  “cultivated  from 
time  immemorial,  and  become  wild  here  and  there.”  * It 
is  worthy  of  note  also  that  the  white  mulberry  appears 
to  thrive  especially  in  mountainous  and  temperate  coun- 
tries, whence  it  may  be  argued  that  it  was  formerly 
introduced  from  the  north  of  China  into  the  plains  of 
the  south.  It  is  known  that  birds  are  fond  of  the  fruit, 
and  bear  the  seeds  to  great  distances  and  into  unculti- 
vated ground,  and  this  makes  it  difficult  to  discover  its 
really  original  habitat. 

This  facility  of  naturalization  doubtless  explains  the 
presence  in  successive  epochs  of  the  white  mulberry  in 
Western  Asia  and  the  south  of  Europe.  This  must  have 
occurred  especially  after  the  monks  brought  the  silk- 
worm to  Constantinople  under  Justinian  in  the  sixth 
century,  and  as  the  culture  of  silkworms  was  gradually 
propagated  westwards.  However,  Targioni  has  proved 
that  only  the  black  mulberry,  M.  nigra,  was  known  in 
Sicily  and  Italy  when  the  manufacture  of  silk  was  intro- 
duced into  Sicily  in  1148,  and  two  centuries  later  into 

1 Bureau,  Hid.,  from  tho  specimens  of  several  travellers.  • 

• Bretschneider,  Study  and  Value,  etc.,  p.  12. 

1 This  namo  occurs  in  the  Pent-sao,  according  to  Ritter,  Erdkund *,  j 
xvii.  p.  489. 

4 Platt  says  ( Zeitschrift  d.  Gexellach.  Erdkunde,  1871,  p.  102)  that 
its  cultivation  dates  from  4000  years  b.c. 

5 Franchet  and  Savatier,  Enum.  Plant.  Jap.,  i.  p.  133. 


[PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  151 

Tuscany.1  According  to  the  same  author,  the  introduction 
if  the  white  mulberry  into  Tuscany  dates  at  the  earliest 
xom  the  year  1340.  In  like  manner  the  manufacture  of 
:ilk  may  have  begun  in  China,  because  the  silkworm  is 
natural  to  that  country ; but  it  is  very  probable  that  the 
rree  grew  also  in  the  north  of  India,  where  so  many 
travellers  have  found  it  wild.  In  Persia,  Armenia,  and 
lisia  Minor,  I am  inclined  to  believe  that  it  was  natura- 
lized at  a very  early  epoch,  rather  than  to  share  Grise- 
oach’s  opinion  that  it  is  indigenous  in  the  basin  of  the 
Caspian  Sea.  Boissier  does  not  give  it  as  wild  in  that 
pegion.2  Buhse3  found  it  in  Persia,  near  Erivan  and 
Bashnaruschin,  and  he  adds,  “ naturalized  in  abundance 
n Ghilan  and  Masenderan.”  Ledebour,4  in  his  Russian 
lora,  mentions  numerous  localities  round  the  Caucasus, 
out  he  does  not  specify  whether  the  species  is  wild  or 
naturalized.  In  the  Crimea,  Greece,  and  Italy,  it  exists 
'only  in  a cultivated  state.6  A variety,  tatarica,  often 
cultivated  in  the  south  of  Russia,  has  become  naturalized 
near  the  Volga.6 

If  the  white  mulberry  did  not  originally  exist  in 
{Persia  and  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  Caspian  Sea,  it 
must  have  penetrated  there  a long  while  ago.  I may 
; piote  in  proof  of  this  the  name  tut,  tutti,  tuta,  which  is 
Persian,  Arabic,  Turkish,  and  Tartar.  There  is  a Sanskrit 
' name,  tula,1  which  must  be  connected  with  the  same  root 
as  the  Persian  name;  but  no  Hebrew  name  is  known, 
which  is  a confirmation  of  the  theory  of  a successive 
} extension  towards  the  west  of  Asia. 

I refer  those  of  my  readers  who  may  desire  more  de- 
i tailed  information  about  the  introduction  of  the  mulberry 
and  of  silkworms  to  the  able  works  of  Targioni  and 

1 Ant.  largioni,  Cenni  Storici  sull’  Introdueione  di  Varie  Piante  nell’ 
1 Agricollura  Toscana,  p.  188. 

2 Boissier,  Ft.  Orient.,  iv.  p.  1153. 

3 Buhse,  Aufzdldung  der  Transcaucasian  und  Persian  Pflanze n,  p.  203. 

* Ledebour,  FI.  Ross.,  iii.  p.  0-13. 

6 Steven,  Verseichniss  d.  Taurisch.  Halbins,  p.  313;  Ucldreich,  Pflan- 
zen  des  Att.isch.en  Kbene,  p.  508;  Bertoloni,  FI.  It  at.,  x.  p.  177;  Caruel, 
; FI.  Toscana,  p.  171. 

6 Bureau,  de  Cand.,  Prodr.,  xvii.  p.  238. 

1 Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.  ; Piddington,  Index. 


152 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Hitter,  to  which  I have  already  referred.  Recent  dis- 
coveries made  by  various  botanists  have  permitted  me 
to  add  more  precise  data  than  those  of  Ritter  on  the 
question  of  origin,  and  if  there  are  some  apparent  contra- 
dictions in  our  opinions  on  other  points,  it  is  because  the 
famous  geographer  has  considered  a number  of  varieties 
as  so  many  different  species,  whereas  botanists,  after  a 
careful  examination,  have  classed  them  together. 

Black  Mulberry — Moms  nigra,  Linnmus. 

This  tree  is  more  valued  for  its  fruit  than  for  its 
leaves,  and  on  that  account  I should  have  included  it 
in  the  list  of  fruit  trees ; but  its  history  can  hardly  be 
separated  from  that  of  the  white  mulberry.  Moreover, 
its  leaves  are  employed  in  many  countries  for  the  feeding 
of  silkworms,  although  the  silk  produced  is  of  inferior 
quality. 

The  black  mulberry  is  distinguished  from  the  white 
by  several  characters  independently  of  the  black  colour 
of  the  fruit,  which  occurs  also  in  a few  varieties  of  the 
M.  alba.1  It  has  not  a great  number  of  varieties  like 
the  latter,  which  argues  a less  ancient  and  a less  general 
cultivation  and  a narrower  primitive  area. 

Greek  and  Latin  authors,  even  the  poets,  have  men- 
tioned Moms  nigra,  which  they  compare  to  Ficus  syco- 
morus,  and  which  they  even  confounded  originally  with 
this  Egyptian  tree. 

Commentators  for  the  last  two  centuries  have  .quoted 
a number  of  passages  which  leave  no  doubt  on  this  head, 
but  which  are  devoid  of  interest  in  themselves.2  They 
furnish  no  proof  touching  the  origin  of  the  species,  which 
is  presumably  Persian,  unless  we  are  to  take  seriously 
the  fable  of  Pyramus  and  Thisbe,  of  which  the  scene  was 
in  Babylonia,  according  to  Ovid. 

Botanists  have  not  yet  furnished  any  certain  proof 
that  this  species  is  indigenous  in  Persia.  Boissier,  who 
is  the  most  learned  in  the  floras  of  the  East,  contents 

1 Beichenbach  gives  good  figures  of  both  species  in  his  leones  FI. 
Germ.,  657,  658. 

2 Fraas,  Syn.  FI.  Class.,  p-  236;  Lenz,  Bot.  der  Alton  Gr.  und  Hum., 
p.  419;  Ritter,  Erdkunde,  xvii.  p.  482;  Uehn,  Cullurpjlanzen,  edit.  3, 
p.  336. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  153 

! himself  with  quoting  Hohenacker  as  the  discoverer  of 
n^9ra  4n  the  forests  of  Lenkoran,  on  the  south  coast 
• of  the  Caspian  Sea,  and  he  adds,  “probably  wild  in  the 
north  of  Persia  near  the  Caspian  Sea.”  1 Ledebour,  in  his 
-Russian  flora,  had  previously  indicated,  on  the  authority 
°r  travellers,  the  Crimea  and  the  provinces  south 

ot  the  Caucasus ; 2 but  Steven  denies  the  existence  of  the 
species  in  the  Crimea  except  in  a cultivated  state.3  Tchi- 
i hatched-  and  Koch  found  the  black  mulberry  in  hmh 
^wdd  districts  of  Armenia.  It  is  very  probable  that  In 
the  region  to  the  south  of  the  Caucasus  and  of  the 
Caspian  Sea  Morns  nigra  is  wild  and  indigenous  rather 
? than  naturalized.  What  leads  me  to  this  belief  is  (1) 
that  xt  is  not  known,  even  in  a cultivated  state,  in  India 
China,  or  Japan;  (2)  that  it  has  no  Sanskrit  name;  (3) 
that  it  was  so  early  introduced  into  Greece,  a country 
which  had  intercourse  with  Armenia  at  an  early  period  4 
Moms  nigra  spread  so  little  to  the  south  of  Persia 
tthat  no  certain  Hebrew  name  is  known  for  it,  nor  even 
aa  Persian  name  distinct  from  that  of  Morns  alba  It 
was  wulely  cultivated  in  Italy  until  the  superiority 
f of  the  white  mulberry  for  the  rearing  of  silkworms  was 
f recognized.  In  Greece  the  black  mulberry  is  still  the 
most  cultivated.5  It  has  become  naturalized  here  and 
there  in  these  countries  and  in  Spain.8 

American  Aloe— Agave  Americana,  Linnaeus. 

hasl  P^  TeT  /jant’  of  the  order  of  Amaryllidacece, 

Z n!  CuItlvated  from  tllne  immemorial  in  Mexico  under 

\ the  Zetl’ in  order  t0  extract  from  it,  at 

‘ known  as  iThCU  th«  dower  stem  is  developed,  the  wine 
| tion  of  this  p!  ifMC  _ Humboldt  has  given  a full  descrip- 
| ulture,  and  he  tells  us  elsewhere  8 that  the 

| ; (pwWtahod  1879). 

I TfctT'l  Xer™'chni**  d.  Taur.  llalb.  Pjlan.,  p 313 

DahnM-‘  '■  ” 

, PUm!J0|ia-  Eapayne,  ed.  2,  p.  487. 

i|  Humboldt,  in  kunth,  Nova  Genera,  i.  p.  237. 


220; 


154 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


species  grows  in  the  whole  of  South  America  as  far  as 
five  thousand  feet  of  altitude.  It  is  mentioned1  in 
Jamaica,  Antigua,  Dominica,  and  Cuba,  but  it  must 
be  observed  that  it  multiplies  easily  by  suckers,  and 
that  it  is  often  planted  far  from  dwellings  to  form 
fences  or  to  extract  from  it  the  fibre  known  as  pite,  and 
this  makes  it  difficult  to  ascertain  its  original  habitat. 
Transported  long  since  into  the  countries  which  border 
the  Mediterranean,  it  occurs  there  with  every  appearance 
of  an  indigenous  species,  although  there  is  no  doubt  as 
to  its  origin.2  Probably,  to  judge  from  the  various  uses  ; 
made  of  it  in  Mexico  before  the  arrival  of  the  Euro- 
peans, it  came  originally  from  thence. 

Sugar-Cane — Saccharum  officinarum,  Linnaeus. 

The  origin  of  the  sugar-cane,  of  its  cultivation,  &nd  • 
of  the  manufacture  of  sugar,  are  the  subject  of  a very  j 
remarkable  work  by  the  geographer,  Karl  Ritter.8  I need  j 
not  follow  his  purely  agricultural  and  economical  details;  j 
but  for  that  which  interests  us  particularly,  the  primitive  ] 
habitat  of  the  species,  he  is  the  best  guide,  and  the  facts  j 
observed  during  the  last  forty  years  for  the  most  part 
support  or  confirm  his  opinions. 

The  sugar-cane  is  cultivated  at  the  present  day  in  all  i 
the  warm  regions  of  the  globe,  but  a number  of  historical  j 
facts  testify  that  it  was  first  grown  in  Southern  Asia, 
whence  it  spread  into  Africa,  and  later  into  America. 
The  question  is,  therefore,  to  discover  in  what  districts  j 
of  the  continent,  or  in  which  of  the  southern  islands  of 
Asia,  the  plant  exists,  or  existed  at  the  time  it  was  first  ; 
employed. 

Ritter  has  followed  the  best  methods  of  arriving  at  a 
solution.  He  notes  first  that  all  the  species  known  in  a ; 

1 Grisebach,  FI.  of  Brit.  IF.  Inti.  Ik.,  p.  582. 

2 Alph.  de  Caudolle,  Gdogr.  Bot.  Baisonm'e,  p.  739 ; II.  Hoffmann,  in  j 
Regel’s  Gartevflora,  1875,  p.  70. 

3 K.  Ritter,  Veber  die  Geographinche  Verbreitnng  des  Zuckerrohru,  a 
in  4to,  108  pages  (according  to  I’ritzel,  Thes.  Lit  Bot.);  Die  CulturM 
de«  Zuckerrohrs,  Saccharum,  in  Asien,  Geogr.  Verbreitnng,  etc.,  etc.,  in  ^ 
8vo,  (54  pagos,  without  date.  This  monograph  is  full  of  learning  and  j 
judgment,  worthy  of  the  best  epoch  of  Gorman  science,  when  English 
or  French  authors  were  quoted  by  all  authors  with  as  much  care  as  , 
Germans. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  155 


’.wild  state,  and  undoubtedly  belonging  to  the  genus  Sac- 
ccharu/m , grow  in  India,  except  one  in  Egypt.1  Five 
sspecies  have  since  been  described,  growing  in  Java,  New 
tGuinea,  Timor,  and  the  Philippine  Isles.2  The  proba- 
Ibilities  are  all  in  favour  of  an  Asiatic  origin,  to  judge 
ffrom  the  data  furnished  by  geographical  botany. 

Unfortunately  no  botanist  had  discovered  at  the  time 
.when  Ritter  wrote,  or  has  since  discovered,  Saccharum 
ofjicinarum  wild  in  India,  in  the  adjacent  countries  or 
in  the  archipelago  to  the  south  of  Asia.  All  Anglo- 
i Indian  authors,  Roxburgh,  Wallich,  Royle,  etc.,  and  more 
recently  Aitchison,3  only  mention  the  plant  as  a culti- 
vated one.  Roxburgh,  who  was  so  long  a collector  in 
i India,  says  expressly,  “ where  wild  I do  not  know.”  The 
family  of  the  Grauiinece  has  not  yet  appeared  in 
SSir  Joseph  Hooker’s  flora.  For  the  island  of  Ceylon, 
IThwaites  does  not  even  mention  the  cultivated  plant.4 
Rum  phi  us,  who  has  carefully  described  its  cultivation 
in  the  Dutch  colonies,  says  nothing  about  the  home 
of  the  species.  Miquel,  Hasskarl,  and  Blanco  mention  no 
■wild  specimen  in  Sumatra,  Java,  or  the  Philippine  Isles. 
Crawfurd  tried  to  discover  it,  but  failed  to  do  so.6  At  the 
time  of  Cook’s  voyage  Forster  found  the  sugar-cane  only 
as  a cultivated  plant  in  the  small  islands  of  the  Pacific.0 
The  natives  of  New  Caledonia  cultivate  a number  of 
varieties  of  the  sugar-cane,  and  use  it  constantly,  sucking 
the  syrup  from  the  cane ; but  Vieillard 7 takes  care  to  say, 
j “ From  the  fact  that  isolated  plants  of  Saccharum  offi.ci- 
narum  are  often  found  in  the  middle  of  the  bush  and 
even  on  the  mountains,  it  would  be  wrong  to  conclude 
| ^iat  the  plant  is  indigenous ; for  these  specimens,  poor 
ami  weak,  only  mark  the  site  of  old  plantations,  or 

Kuntli,  Enum.  Plant.  (1838),  vol.  i.  p.  474.  Tliero  is  no  more 
; recent  descriptive  work  on  tko  fumily  of  the  Clraminece,  nor  the  genus 
f Saccharum. 

* “W®1-  Florm  Indite  Batavce,  1855,  vol.  iii.  p.  511. 

Aitchison,  Catalogue  of  Punjab  and  Sindh  Plante,  1869,  p.  173. 

Ihwmtes,  Enum.  PL  Zey  Ionia. 

4 Crawfurd,  Indian  Archip.,  i.  p.  475. 

6 ForsterJ  l)e  Plant  is  Esculent  is. 

Vieillard,  Annales  des  8c.  Eat.,  4tli  series,  vol.  xvi.  p.  32. 


156 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


are  sprung  from  fragments  of  cane  left  by  the  natives, 
who  seldom  travel  without  a piece  of  cane  in  the  hand.” 
In  1861,  Bentham,  who  had  access  to  the  rich  herbarium 
of  Kew,  says,  in  his  Flora  of  Hongkong,  “ We  have  no 
authentic  and  certain  proof  of  a locality  where  the 
common  sugar-cane  is  wild.” 

I do  not  know,  however,  why  Ritter  and  every  one 
else  has  neglected  an  assertion  of  Loureiro,  in  his  Flora 
of  Cochin-China ,x  “ Habitat,  et  colitur  abundantissime 
in  omnibus  provinces  regni  Cochin-Chinensis : simul  in 
aliquibus  imperii  sinensis,  sed  minori  copia.”  The  word 
habitat,  separated  by  a comma  from  the  rest,  is  a distinct 
assertion.  Loureiro  could  not  have  been  mistaken  about 
the  Saccharam  officinarum,  which  he  saw  cultivated  all 
about  him,  and  of  which  he  enumerates  the  principal 
varieties.  He  must  have  seen  plants  wild,  at  least  in 
appearance.  They  may  have  spread  from  some  neigh- 
bouring plantation,  but  I know  nothing  which  makes  it 
unlikely  that  the  plant  should  be  indigenous  in  this  Avarm 
moist  district  of  the  continent  of  Asia. 

Forskal 3 mentions  the  species  as  wild  in  the  moun- 
tains of  Arabia,  under  a name  which  he  believes  to  be 
Indian.  If  it  came  from  Arabia,  it  would  have  spread 
into  Egypt  long  ago,  and  the  Hebrews  would  have 
known  it. 

Roxburgh  had  received  in  the  botanical  gardens  of 
Calcutta  in  1796,  and  had  introduced  into  the  planta- 
tions in  Bengal,  a Saccharum  to  which  he  gave  the  name 
of  S.  sinensc,  and  of  which  he  published  an  illustration 
in  his  great  work  Plantce  CoromandeFianac,  vol.  iii. 
pi.  232.  It  is  perhaps  only  a form  of  S.  officinaruni, 
and  moreover,  as  it  is  only  known  in  a cultivated  state, 
it  tells  nothing  about  the  primitive  country  either  of 
this  or  of  any  other  variety. 

A few  botanists  have  asserted  that  the  sugar-cane 
flowers  more  often  in  Asia  than  in  America  or  Africa, 
and  even  that  it  produces  seed 3 on  the  banks  of  the 

1 Loureiro,  Cochin-Ch.,  edit.  2,  vol.  i.  p.  G6. 

8 Forskal,  FI.  Aigypto-Ardbica,  p.  103. 

» Macfudyen,  On  the  Botanical  Characters  of  the  Sugar-Cane, 
Hooker’s  But.  Miecell.,  i.  p.  101 ; Maycock,  FI.  Barbad.,  p.  50. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  157 


(Ganges,  which  they  regard  as  a proof  that  it  is  indigenous. 
Macfadyen  says  so  without  giving  any  proof.  It  was  an 
aassertion  made  to  him  in  Jamaica  by  some  traveller ; but 
'Sir  W.  Hooker  adds  in  a note,  “ Dr.  Roxburgh,  in  spite 
of  his  long  residence  on  the  banks  of  the  Ganges,  has 
uiever  seen  the  seeds  of  the  sugar-cane.”  It  rarely  Mowers, 
;iand  still  more  rarely  bears  fruit,  as  is  commonly  the  case* 
>with  plants  propagated  by  buds  or  suckers,  and  if  any 
wariety  of  sugar-cane  were  disposed  to  seed,  it  would 
rprobably  be  less  productive  of  sugar  and  would  soon  be 
iabandoned.  Rumphius,  a better  observer  than  many 
modern  botanists,  has  given  a good  description  of  the 
'cultivated  cane  in  the  Dutch  colonies,  and  makes  an 
interesting  remark.1  “ It  never  produces  Mowers  or  fruit 
unless  it  has  remained  several  years  in  a stony  place.” 
''Neither  he,  nor  any  one  else  to  my  knowledge,  has  de- 
scribed or  drawn  the  seed.  The  Mower,  on  the  contrary, 
.has  often  been  Mgured,  and  I have  a Mne  specimen  from 
^Martinique.2  Sciiacht  is  the  only  person  who  has  given 
11  good  analysis  of  the  Mower,  including  the  pistil;  he 
had  not  seen  the  seed  ripe.8  De  Tussac,4  who  gives  a 
poor  analysis,  speaks  of  the  seed,  but  he  only  saw  it 
;<  young  in  the  ovary. 

In  default  of  precise  information  as  to  the  native 
country  of  the  species,  accessory  means,  linguistic  and 
historical,  of  proving  an  Asiatic  origin,  are  of  some 
interest.  _ Ritter  gives  them  carefully ; I will  content 
myself  with  an  epitome.  The  Sanskrit  name  of  the  sugar- 
cane  was  ilcahu,  ikskwra,  or  ileshava,  but  the  sugar  was 
called  Barbara,  or  saklcara,  and  all  its  names  in  ourEuro- 
! lK!an  languages  of  Aryan  origin,  beginning  with  the 
an ci e n ones— -Greek,  for  example — are  clearly  derived 
Lv.°m  fn*s  is  an  indication  of  Asiatic  origin,  and  that 
. the  produce  of  the  cane  was  of  ancient  use  in  the  southern 
j regions  .o  Asia  with  which  the  ancient  Sanskrit-speak- 
hng  nation  may  have  had  commercial  dealings.  The 
.two  banskrit  words  have  remained  in  Bengali  under  the 


1 Rumphius,  Amboin,  vol.  v.  p.  186.  2 

] Soh^cht,  Madeira  und  Teneriffe,  tab.  i. 

I ussac,  Flore  dee  Antilles,  i.  p.  163,  pi.  23 


llohn,  No.  ‘ISO. 


158 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


forms  ik  and  akh.1  But  in  other  languages  beyond  the 
Indus,  we  find  a singular  variety  of  names,  at  least  when 
they  are  not  akin  to  that  of  the  Aryans ; for  instance : 
panchadara  in  Telinga,  kyam  in  Burmese,  mia  in  the 
dialect  of  Cochin-China,  demand  tche,  or  tsche,  in  Chinese  ; 
and  further  south,  among  the  Malays,  tabu  or  tabu  for 
the  plant,  and  gala  for  the  product.  This  diversity 
proves  the  great  antiquity  of  its  cultivation  in  those 
regions  of  Asia  in  which  botanical  indications  point  out 
the  origin  of  the  species. 

The  epoch  of  its  introduction  into  different  countries 
agrees  with  the  idea  that  its  origin  was  in  India,  Cochin- 
China,  or  the  Malay  Archipelago. 

The  Chinese  were  not  acquainted  with  the  sugar-cane 
at  a very  remote  period,  and  they  received  it  from  the 
West.  Ritter  contradicts  those  authors  who  speak  of  a 
very  ancient  cultivation,  and  I find  most  positive  con- 
firmation of  his  opinion  in  Dr.  Br«tschneider’s  pamphlet, 
drawn  up  at  Pekin  with  the  aid  of  all  the  resources  of 
Chinese  literature.3  “ I have  not  been  able  to  discover,” 
he  says,  “any  allusion  to  the  sugar-cane  in  the  most 
ancient  Chinese  books  (the  five  classics).”  It  appears  to 
have  been  mentioned  for  the  first  time  by  the  authors  of 
the  second  century  before  Christ.  The  first  description 
of  it  appears  in  the  Nan-fang -tsao-mu-chuang,  in  the 
fourth  century  : “ The  cite  chi,  kan-che  ( kan , sweet,  che, 
bamboo)  grows,”  it  says,  “ in  Cochin-China.  It  is  several 
inches  in  circumference,  and  resembles  the  bamboo.  The 
stem,  broken  into  pieces,  is  eatable  and  very  sweet.  The 
sap  which  is  drawn  from  it  is  dried  in  the  sun.  After  a 
few  days  it  becomes  sugar  (here  a compound  Chinese 
character),  which  melts  in  the  mouth.  ...  In  the  year 
28G  (of  our  era)  the  kingdom  of  Funan  (in  India,  beyond 
the  Ganges)  sent  sugar  as  a tribute.”  According  to  the 
Pent-Sao,  an  emperor  who  reigned  from  027  to  050  A.D., 
sent  a man  into  the  Indian  province  of  Behar  to  learn 
how  to  manufacture  sugar. 

There  is  nothing  said  in  these  works  of  the  plant 

1 PiddinRton,  Indent. 

1 Bretschneidor,  On  the  Study  and  Value,  etc.,  pp.  45-4-7. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  STEMS  OR  LEAVES.  159 


growing  wild  in  China ; on  the  contrary,  the  origin  in 
(.Cochin-China,  indicated  by  Loureiro,  finds  an  unexpected 
(.•confirmation.  It  seems  to  me  most  probable  that  its 
primitive  range  extended  from  Bengal  to  Cochin-China, 
lit  may  have  included  the  Sunda  Isles  and  the  Moluccas, 
■whose  climate  is  very  similar;  but  there  are  quite  as 
imany  reasons  for  believing  that  it  was  early  introduced 
:into  these  from  Cochin-China  or  the  Malay  peninsula. 

The  propagation  of  the  sugar-cane  from  India  west- 
ward is  well  known.  The  Greco-Roman  world  had  a 
'vague  idea  of  the  reed  ( calamus ) which  the  Indians 
delighted  to  chew,  and  from  which  they  obtained  sugar.1 
• On  the  other  hand,  the  Hebrew  writings  do  not  mention 
•sugar  ;2  whence  we  may  infer  that  the  cultivation  of  the 
•sugar-cane  did  not  exist  west  of  the  Indus  at  the  time 
of  the  Jewish  captivity  at  Babylon.  The  Arabs  in  the 
^Middle  Ages  introduced  it  into  Egypt,  Sicily,  and  the 
■south  of  Spain,3  where  it  flourished  until  the  abundance 
of  sugar  in  the  colonies  caused  it  to  be  abandoned.  Don 
IHenriquez  transported  the  sugar-cane  from  Sicily  to 
■Madeira,  whence  it  was  taken  to  the  Canaries  in  1503.4 * 
jlHence  it  was  introduced  into  Brazil  in  the  beginning  of 
(the  sixteenth  century.6  It  was  taken  to  St°  Domingo 
f about  1520,  and  shortly  afterwards  to  Mexico;6  to 
1 Guadeloupe  in  1044,  to  Martinique  about  1650,  to  Bour- 
bon when  the  colony  was  founded.7  The  variety  known 
as  Otahiti,  which  is  not,  however,  wild  in  that  island, 
and  which  is  also  called  Bourbon,  was  introduced  into 
the  French  and  English  colonies  at  the  end  of  the  last 
and  the  beginning  of  the  present  century.8 


, ' See  the  quotations  from  Strabo,  Dioscorides,  Pliny,  oto.,  in  Lonz, 

• ST*  Ater  <drivchen  und  Mmer,  1859,  p.  267  ; Fingerhut,  in  Flora, 
i 183J’,To1-  “■  P-  629 ; and  many  other  authors. 

3 Itosenmuller,  Handbuch  dcr  Bill.  Alterth. 

, l.  t 'T  ,r*er  ^wral  de  Harib,  written  in  the  tenth  century  for  Spain, 
VArulaloueie^p  ,J|roau  'a  Malle  in  his  Olimatologie  de  Vltalie  et  de 

l X°u  }*U10,^  Canar.  Ins.  » pj80>  Brdxil,  p.  49. 

7 N,"nK  F‘*ParJne,  ed.  2,  vol.  iii.  p.  34. 

Not.  BM.  sur  let,  Col.  Franc.,  i.  pp.  207,  29,  83. 

Macfudyen,  in  Hooker,  Bet.  Miscell.,  i.  p.  101  ; Mayeoek,  FI.  Barbad., 

> p.  oU. 


1G0 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


The  processes  of  cultivation  and  preparation  of  the 
sugar  are  described  in  a number  of  works,  among  which 
the  following  may  be  recommended  : de  Tussac,  Flore 
des  Antilles,  3 vols.,  Paris;  voh  i.  pp.  151-182;  and 
Macfadyen,  in  Hooker’s  Botanical  Miscellany,  1830, 
vol.  i.  pp.  103-110. 


CHAPTER  HI. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FLOWERS,  OR  FOR  THE 
ORGANS  WHICH  ENVELOP  THEM. 


Clove — Caryophyllus  aromaticus,  Linnaeus. 

The  clove  used  for  domestic  purposes  is  the  calix  and 
i lower- bud  of  a plant  belonging  to  the  order  of  Myr- 
-aceae.  Although  the  plant  has  been  often  described  and 
very  well  drawn  from  cultivated  specimens,  some  doubt 
remains  as  to  its  nature  when  wild.  I spoke  of  it  in  mv 
geographical  Botany  in  1855,  but  it  does  not  appear 
i|.hat  the  question  has  made  any  further  progress  since 
jthen,  which  induces  me  to  repeat  here  what  I said  then. 

“ The  clove  must  have  come  originally  from  the  Moluc- 
f88’  as  Rurnphius  asserts,1  for  its  cultivation  was  limited 
-wo  centuries  ago  to  a few  little  islands  in  this  archipelago. 
1 ynot.  however,  find  any  proof  that  the  true  clove  tree, 
-Vi  i peduncles  and  aromatic  buds,  has  been  found  in  a 
viia  state.  Rurnphius2  considers  that  a plant  of  which 
le  gives  a description,  and  a drawing  under  the  name 
at  joy  o)  am  aylvestre,  belongs  to  the  same  species,  and 
lus  Plant  js  wild  throughout  the  Moluccas.  A native 
? . ,.nm  lat  the  cultivated  clove  trees  degenerate  into 
his  form,  and  Rurnphius  himself  found  a plant  of  C. 

7 iin  a ('csei'ted  plantation  of  cultivated  cloves. 
Revolt  > el  ess  plate  3 differs  from  plate  1 of  the  cultivated 
love  m the  shape  of  the  leaves  and  of  the  teeth  of  the 
a ix.  do  not  speak  of  plate  2,  which  appears  to  be  an 


* ii.  p.  8. 


2 ii.  tab.  3. 


M 


162 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


abnormal  form  of  the  cultivated  clove.  Rumphius  says 
that  C.  sylvestre  has  no  aromatic  properties ; now,  as 
a rule,  the  aromatic  properties  are  more  developed  in  the 
wild  plants  of  a species  than  in  the  cultivated  plants. 
Sonnerat1  also  publishes  figures  of  the  true  clove  and  of 
a spurious  clove  found  in  a small  island  near  the  country 
of  the  Papuans.  It  is  easy  to  see  that  his  false  clove 
differs  completely  by  its  blunt  leaves  from  the  true  clove, 
and  also  from  the  two  species  of  Rumphius.  I cannot 
make  up  my  mind  to  class  all  these  different  plants,  wild 
and  cultivated,  together,  as  all  authors  have  done.2  It 
is  especially  necessary  to  exclude  plate  120  of  Sonnerat, 
which  is  admitted  in  the  Botanical  Magazine.  An 
historical  account  of  the  cultivation  of  the  clove,  and  of 
its  introduction  into  different  countries,  will  be  found  .in 
the  last-named  work,  in  the  Dictionnaire  d’A  griculture,  i 
and  in  the  dictionaries  of  natural  history. 

If  it  be  true,  as  Roxburgh  says,8  that  the  Sanskrit  ■ 
language  had  a name,  luvunga,  for  the  clove,  the  trade 
in  this  spice  must  date  from  a very  early  epoch,  even 
supposing  the  name  to  be  more  modern  than  the  true 
Sanskrit.  But  I doubt  its  genuine  character,  for  the  ! 
Romans  would  have  known  of  a substance  so  easily  trans-  i 
ported,  and  it  does  not  appear  that  it  was  introduced  j 
into  Europe  before  the  discovery  of  the  Moluccas  by  the  j 
Portuguese. 

Hop  — Hamulus  Lupulus,  Linnreus. 

The  hop  is  wild  in  Europe  from  England  and  Sweden 
as  far  south  as  the  mountains  of  the  Mediterranean  basin, 
and  in  Asia  as  far  as  Damascus,  as  the  south  of  the  * 
Caspian  Sea,  and  of  Eastern  Siberia,4  but  it  is  not  found  in  j 
India,  the  north  of  China,  or  the  basin  of  the  river  Amur.6 

1 Sounerat,  Voy.  Now).  Gv.in.,  tab.  119,  120. 

2 Thnnberg,  Dias.,  ii.  p.  326  ; l)e  Candolle,  Prodr.,  iii.  p.  262  ; Hooker,  j 
But.  Mag.,  tab.  2719;  Hasskarl,  Cat.  Hurt.  Bngtir.  Alt.,  p.  261. 

1 Roxburgh,  Flora  Indica,  edit.  1832,  vol.  ii.  p.  194. 

4 Alph.  do  Candolle,  in  Prodrnmus,  vol.  x\i.,  sect.  1,  p.  29  ; Boiseier,  1 
FI.  Orient.,  iv.  p.  1152;  Hohenacker,  Enum.  Plant.  Talysch,  p.  30;  Buhse  1 
Aufzahlung  Transcauca*ier>,  p.  202. 

4 An  erroneous  transcription  of  what  Asa  Gray  ( Botany  of  North.  9 
United  States,  edit.  5)  says  of  the  hemp,  wrongly  attributed  to  the  hop  j 
in  Prodromus,  and  repoatod  in  the  French  edition  of  this  work,  should 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FLOWERS,  ETC.  103 

In  spite  of  the  entirely  wild  appearance  of  the  hop  in 
EEurope  in  districts  far  from  cultivation,  it  has  been  some- 
dimes  asked  if  it  is  not  of  Asiatic  origin.1  I do  not  think 
•this  can  be  proved,  nor  even  that  it  is  likely.  The  fact 
tthat  the  Greeks  and  Latins  have  not  spoken  of  the  use 
oof  the  hop  in  making  beer  is  easily  explained,  as  they 
were  almost  entirely  unacquainted  with  this  drink.  If 
-the  Greeks  have  not  mentioned  the  plant,  it  is  simply 
^perhaps  because  it  is  rare  in  their  country.  From  the 
.Italian  name  lupulo  it  seems  likely  that  Piiny  speaks  of 
it  with  other  vegetables  under  the  name  lupus  salictarius.2 
That  the  custom  of  brewing  with  hops  only  became 
.general  in  the  Middle  Ages  proves  nothing,  except  that 
other  plants  were  formerly  employed,  as  is  still  the  case 
in  some  districts.  The  Kelts,  the  Germans,  other  peoples 
; of  the  north  and  even  of  the  south  who  had  the  vine, 
made  beer3  either  of  barley  or  of  other  fermented  grain, 
adding  in  certain  cases  different  vegetable  substances — the 
bark  of  the  oak  or  of  the  tamarisk,  for  instance,  or  the 
ifruits  of  Myrica  ya le.i  It  is  very  possible  that  they 
did  not  soon  discover  the  advantages  of  the  hop,  and  that 
seven  after  these  were  recognized,  they  employed  wild 
'hops  before  beginning  to  cultivate  them.  The  first  men- 
ition  of  hop-gardens  occurs  in  an  act  of  donation  made  by 
fPepin,  father  of  Charlemagne,  in  708. 6 In  the  f ourteenth 
century  it  was  an  important  object  of  culture  in  Germany, 
but  it  began  in  England  only  under  Henry  VIII.6 

The  common  names  of  the  hop  only  furnish  negative 
indications  as  to  its  origin.  There  is  no  Sanskrit  name,7 

be  corrected.  Humulvs  Lupulus  in  indigenous  in  tho  eaU  of  tlio  United 
States,  and  also  in  tho  island  of  Yoso,  according  to  a letter  from 
Maxnnowiez. — Author’s  Note,  1884. 

3difc  u^z^fiari2en  und  Hausthiere  in  ihren  Uebergang  aus  Asian , 

Pliny,  Hist.,  bk.  21,  c.  15.  He  mentions  asparagus  in  this  con- 

nee  ion,  an  the  young  shoots  of  tho  hop  are  sometimes  oaten  in  this 
manner.  1 

* Tacitus,  Germania,  cap.  25;  Pliny,  bk.  18,  c.  7;  Holm,  Kultur- 
pflanzen,  edit.  3,  pp.  125-157. 

‘ Y"1?’  licitra,J,!  zur  Cultv.rgeschich.tc,  p.  149.  8 Ibid. 

Tjfj  i 'narmi  ^rfindungen,  quoted  by  Volz. 

J iddington,  Index;  Pick,  Wbrterb.  Indo-Germ.  Svrachcn,  i. ; Ur- 
Kjprache. 


164 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


and  this  agrees  with  the  absence  of  the  species  in  the  region 
of  the  Himalayas,  and  shows  that  the  early  Aryan  peoples 
had  not  noticed  and  employed  it.  I have  quoted  before 1 
some  of  the  European  names,  showing  their  diversity, 
although  some  few  of  them  may  be  derived  from  a com- 
mon stock.  Hehn,  the  philologist,  has  treated  of  their 
etymology,  and  shown  how  obscure  it  is,  but  he  has  not 
mentioned  the  names  totally  distinct  from  humle,  hopf  or 
hop,  and  chmeli  of  the  Scandinavian,  Gothic,  and  Slav 
races;  for  example,  Apini  in  Lette,  Apwynis  in  Lithua- 
nian, tap  in  Estlionian,  blast  in  Illyrian,2  which  have 
evidentl}’’  other  roots.  This  variety  tends  to  confirm  the 
theory  that  the  species  existed  in  Europe  before  the 
arrival  of  the  Aryan  nations.  Several  different  peoples 
must  have  distinguished,  known,  and  used  this  plant  suc- 
cessively, which  confirms  its  extension  in  Europe  and  in 
Asia  before  it  was  used  in  brewing. 

Carthamine — Carthamus  tindorius,  Linmeus. 

The  composite  annual  which  produces  the  dye  called 
carthamine  is  one  of  the  most  ancient  cultivated  species. 
Its  flowers  are  used  for  dyeing  in  red  or  yellow,  and  the 
seeds  yield  oil. 

The  grave-cloths  which  wrap  the  ancient  Egyptian 
mummies  are  dyed  with  carthamine,8  and  quite  recently 
fragments  of  the  plant  have  been  found  in  the  tombs 
discovered  at  Deir  el  Bahari.4  Its  cultivation  must  also 
be  ancient  in  India,  since  there  are  two  Sanskrit  names 
for  it,  cusumbha  and  kamalottara,  of  which  the  first  has 
several  derivatives  in  the  modern  languages  of  the 
peninsula.6  The  Chinese  only  received  carthamine  in 
the  second  century  lie.,  when  Chang-kien  brought  it 
back  from  Bactriana.6  The  Greeks  and  Latins  were 
probably  not  acquainted  with  it,  for  it  is  very  doubtful 
whether  this  is  the  plant  which  they  knew  as  cnikos  or 
< micas ? At  a later  period  the  Arabs  contributed  largely 

1 A.  de  Candolle,  G'Sogr.  Dot.  Rais.,  p.  857. 

2 Diet.  MS-,  compiled  from  floras,  Moritzi. 

* Unger,  Die  Pfianzen  des  Alten  Algyptens,  p.  47. 

4 Sohweinfurth,  in  a letter  to  M.  Boiasier,  1882.  * Piddington,  Indeo. 

• Brel schneider,  Study  and  Value,  etc.,  p.  15. 

» Soe  Targioni,  Cenni  Storici,  p.  108. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FLOWERS,  ETC.  165 


tto  diffuse  the  cultivation  of  carthamine,  which  they 
■named  qorton,  kurtum,  whence  carthamine,  or  usfur, 
or  ihridh,  or  morahu } a diversity  indicating  an  ancient 
(■existence  in  several  countries  of  Western  Asia  or  of 
'Africa.  The  progress  of  chemistry  threatens  to  do  away 
with  the  cultivation  of  this  plant  as  of  many  others,  hut 
it  still  subsists  in  the  south  of  Europe,  in  the  East,  and 
Throughout  the  valley  of  the  Nile.2 

No  botanist  has  found  the  carthamine  in  a really 
pwild  state.  Authors  doubtfully  assign  to  it  an  origin  in 
1 India  or  Africa,  in  Abyssinia  in  particular,  but  they" have 
■ never  seen  it  except  in  a cultivated  state,  or  with  every 
3 appearance  of  having  escaped  from  cultivation.3 
; _ Mr.  Clarke,4 formerly  director  of  the  Botanical  Gardens 
in  Calcutta,  who  has  lately  studied  the  Composite  of 
India,  includes  the  species  only  as  a cultivated  one. 
fThe  summary  of  our  modern  knowledge  of  the  plants 
(of  the  Nile  region,  including  Abyssinia,  by  Schweinfurth 
and  Ascherson,5  only  indicates  it  as  a cultivated  species, 
■ior  does  the  list  of  the  plants  observed  by  Rohlfs  on  his 
r’ecent  journey  mention  a wild  carthamine.6 
| As  the  species  has  not  been  found  wild  either  in 
Tndia  or  in  Africa,  and  as  it  has  been  cultivated  for 
(thousands  of  years  in  both  countries,  the  idea  occurred 
:o  me  of  seeking  its  origin  in  the  intermediate  region  ; a 
method  which  had  been  successful  in  other  cases. 

Unfortunately,  the  interior  of  Arabia  is  almost  un- 
known. lorskal,  who  has  visited  the  coasts  of  Yemen, 
;has  learnt  nothing  about  the  carthamine ; nor  is  it 
mentioned  among  the  plants  of  Botta  and  of  Bovd  But 
m Arab,  Abu  Anifa,  quoted  by  Ebn  Baithar,  a thirteenth- 
| century  writer,  expressed  himself  as  follows  : 7 — “ Usfur, 
this  plant  furnishes  a substance  used  as  a dye  ; there  are 
!„wo  kinds,  one  cultivated  and  one  wild,  which  both  grow 


*93 


ForsLal,  FI.  JZgypt.,  p.  73;  Ebn  Baithar,  Germ,  trans.,  ii.  pp.  196, 

l.  p.  18. 

\ Sce  Gasparin,  CWs  d'Ayric.,  iv.  p.  217. 

, Bpwmeri ,Fl.  Orient.,  iii.  p.  7io  ; Oliver,  Flora  of  Trap.  Afr.,  iii.  p.  439. 
4 Clarke,  Composite  Indices , 187f>,  p.  2^1. 

« Schweinfurth  and  Ascherson,  Aufzahluvg,  p.  283. 

Rohlfs,  hufra,  in  8vo,  1881.  1 Ebn  Baithar,  ii.  p,  196. 


16G 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


in  Arabia,  of  which  the  seeds  are  called  elkurthum." 
Abu  Anifa  was  very  likely  right. 

Saffron — Crocus  sativus,  Linnaeus. 

The  saffron  was  cultivated  in  very  early  times  in  the 
west  of  Asia.  The  Romans  praised  the  saffron  of  Cilicia, 
which  they  preferred  to  that  grown  in  Italy.1  Asia  Minor,  j 
Persia,  and  Kashmir  have  been  for  a long  time  the 
countries  which  export  the  most.  India  gets  it  from 
Kashmir2  at  the  present  day.  Roxburgh  and  Wall ich  i 
do  not  mention  it  in  their  works.  The  two  Sanskrit 
names  mentioned  by  Piddington3  probably  applied  to  the  ; 
substance  saffron  brought  from  the  West,  for  the  name 
kasmirajamrua  appears  to  indicate  its  origin  in  Kashmir. 
The  other  name  is  kunkuma.  The  Hebrew  word  karkom  \ 
is  commonly  translated  saffron,  but  it  more  probably 
applies  to  carthamine,  to  judge  from  the  name  of  the 
latter  in  Arabic.4 *  Besides,  the  saffron  is  not  cultivated 
in  Egypt  or  in  Arabia.  The  Greek  name  is  krokos.6 *  j 
Saffron,  which  recurs  in  all  modern  European  languages, 
‘comes  from  the  Arabic  mhafaran ,6  zafran ? The 

Spaniards,  nearer  to  the  Arabs,  call  it  azafran.  The 

Arabic  name  itself  comes  from  assfar,  yellow. 

Trustworthy  authors  say  that  C.  sativus  is  wild 
in  Greece 8 and  in  the  Abruzzi  mountains  in  Italy.® j 
Maw,  who  is  preparing  a monograph  of  the  genus  Crocus.; 
based  on  a long  series  of  observations  in  gardens  and 
in  herbaria,  connects  with  C.  sativus  six  forms  which 
are  found  wild  in  mountainous  districts  from  Italy  to! 
Kurdistan.  None  of  these,  he  says,10  are  identical  with 
the  cultivated  variety;  but  certain  forms  described 
under  other  names  (6*.  Orisnii,  C.  Cartivrightianus,  C.\ 
Thomasii),  hardly  differ  from  it.  These  are  from  Italy < 
and  Greece. 

1 Pliny,  bk.  xxi.  c.  6.  1 Royle,  III.  UimaL,  p.  372. 

* Index,  p.  25.  a 

4 According  to  Forskal,  Delile,  Reynier,  Schweinfnrth,  and  Ascberson.  ■ 

* Theophrastus,  Hist.,  1.  G,  o.  6. 

« J.  Bauhin,  Hist.,  ii.  p.  G37.  T Royle,  III.  Himal. 

9 Sibthorp,  Prodr. ; Fraaa,  Syn.  FI.  Class.,  p.  292. 

9 J.  Gay,  quoted  by  Babington,  Man.  Brit.  FI. 

10  Maw,  in  the  Gardener’s  Chron.,  1881,  vol.  xvi. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FLOWERS,  ETC.  107 

The  cultivation  of  saffron,  of  which  the  conditions 
.are  given  in  the  Cours  d’ Agriculture  by  Gasparin,  and 
iin  the  Bulletin  de  la  Societe  d’ Acclimatation  for  1870,  is 
ibecoming  more  and  more  rare  in  Europe  and  Asia.1  It 
Ihas  sometimes  had  the  effect  of  naturalizing  the  species 
ffor  a few  years  at  least  in  localities  where  it  appears  to 
ibe  wild. 


1 Jacquemont,  Voyage,  vol.  iii.  p.  238. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOK  THEIR  FRUITS.1 

Sweet  Sop,  Sugar  Apple3 — Anona  squamosa,  Linnaeus. 
(In  British  India,  Custard  Apple ; but  this  is  the  name 
of  Anona  muricata  in  America.) 

The  original  home  of  this  and  other  cultivated 
Anonacese  has  been  the  subject  of  doubts,  which  make 
it  an  interesting  problem.  I attempted  to  resolve  them 
in  1855.  The  opinion  at  which  I then  arrived  has  been 
confirmed  by  the  subsequent  observations  of  travellers,  , 
and  as  it  is  useful  to  show  how  far  probabilities  based 
upon  sound  methods  lead  to  true  assertions,  I will  trails-  5 
cribe  what  I then  said,8  mentioning  afterwards  the  more  . 
recent  discoveries. 

“ Robert  Brown  proved  in  1818  that  all  the  species  i 
of  the  genus  Anona,  excepting  Anona  senegaleusis, 
belong  to  America,  and  none  to  Asia.  Aug.  de  Saint- 
Hilaire  says  that,  according  to  Vellozo,  A squamosa  was 
introduced  into  Brazil,  that  it  is  known  there  under 
the  name  of  pinha,  from  its  resemblance  to  a fir-cone,  i 
and  of  ata,  evidently  borrowed  from  the  names  attoa  and 
atis,  which  are  those  of  the  same  plant  in  Asia,  and 
which  belong  to  Eastern  languages.  Therefore,  adds  de 

1 The  word  fruit  is  hero  employed  in  the  vulgar  sense,  for  any  fleshy 
part  which  enlarges  after  the  flowering.  In  the  strictly  botanical  senso, 
the  Anonace®,  strawberries,  cashews,  pine-apples,  and  breadfruit  are  not 
fruits. 

* A.  squamosa  is  flgnrod  in  Descourtilz,  Flore  des  Antilles,  ii.  pi.  83 ; 
Hooker’s  Hot.  Mag.,  3095  ; and  Tussac,  Flore  des  Antilles,  iii.  pi.  4. 

* A.  de  Candolle,  Qdogr.  But.  Rais.,  p.  859. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


169 


■aint-Hilaire,1  the  Portuguese  transported  A.  squamosa 
'"oni  their  Indian  to  their  American  possessions,  etc.” 

Having  made  in  1832  a review  of  the  family  of  the 
monaceae,2  I noticed  how  Mr.  Brown’s  botanical  argument 
ras  ever  growing  stronger;  for  in  spite  of  the  considerable 
lcrease  in  the  number  of  described  Anonacem,  no  Anona, 
or  even  any  species  of  Anonaceae  with  united  ovaries, 
iiad  been  found  to  be  a native  of  Asia.  I admitted3 
le  probability  that  the  species  came  from  the  West 
adies  or  from  the  neighbouring  part  of  the  American 
ontinent;  but  I inadvertently  attributed  this  opinion  to 
lr.  Brown,  who  had  merely  indicated  an  American  origin 
i general.4  ° 

hacts  of  different  kinds  have  since  confirmed  this 
dew. 

‘ Auona  squamosa  has  been  found  wild  in  Asia, 
Apparently  as  a naturalized  plant ; in  Africa,  and  espe- 

fally  in  America,  with  all  the  conditions  of  an  indigenous 
ant.  In  fact,  according  to  Dr.  Royle,5  the  species  has 
sen  naturalized  in  several  parts  of  India ; but  he  only 
• w it  apparently  growing  wild  on  the  side  of  the  moun- 
1-111  near  the  fort  of  Adjeegurh  in  Bundlecund,  among 
pak  trees.  W hen  so  remarkable  a tree,  in  a country  so 
f roughly  explored  by  botanists,  has  only  been  discovered 
a single  locality  beyond  the  limits  of  cultivation,  it  is 
ost  probable  that  it  is  not  indigenous  in  the  country. 
r Jo«eph  Hooker  found  it  in  the  isle  of  St.  Iago,  of  the 
ipe  Verde  group,  forming  woods  on  the  hills  which  over- 
ok.  the  valley  of  St.  Domingo.0  Since  A.  squamosa 
only  known  as  a cultivated  plant  on  the  neighbouring 
ntment ; as  it  is  not  even  indicated  in  Guinea  by 
lonmng,  nor  in  Congo,9  nor  in  Senegambia,10  nor  in 


1 A Inli  Plantes  umelles  des  Brixiliens,  bk.  vi.  p.  5. 

. ilt  ' '1°1C„anfdo'  e’  Soc.  PhAjs.  et  d'Hist.  Nat,  de  Oenive. 

« iiZ  ’rJ]'  r ?!em-  Printed  separately. 

ich  baa  alpCbftiSu^blTa11  G°nUan  trans,ation  of  I3rown’H  works- 
5 Royle,  III.  Himal.,  p.  60 

1 ^.obb-  ,in  FlvlmJr:<  P-  W.  » Ibid.,  p.  204. 

, Thonning,.PL  Onin,  . Brown  Covqo  p.  q 

Guillcmm,  Porrottot,  and  Richard,  Tentamen  FI.  Seneg. 


170 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Abyssinia  and  Egypt,  which  proves  a recent  introduction 
into  Africa ; lastly,  as  the  Cape  Verde  Isles  have  lost  a 
great  part  of  their  primitive  forests,  I believe  that  this 
is  a case  of  naturalization  from  seed  escaped  from  gardens.  : 
Authors  are  agreed  in  considering  the  species  wild  in 
Jamaica.  Formerly  the  assertions  of  Sloane1  and  Brown2 
might  have  been  disregarded,  but  they  are  confirmed  by 
Macfadyen.8  Martius  found  the  species  wild  in  the 
virgin  forests  of  Para.4  He  even  says,  1 Sylvescentem  in 
nemoribus  paraensibus  inveni,’  whence  it  may  be  in- 
ferred that  these  trees  alone  formed  a forest.  Splitgerber5 
found  it  in  the  forests  of  Surinam,  but  he  says,  ‘ An 
spontanea?’  The  number  of  localities  in  this  part  of 
America  is  significant.  I need  not  remind  my  readers  j 
that  no  tree  growing  elsewhere  than  on  the  coast -has 
been  found  truly  indigenous  at  once  in  tropical  Asia, 
Africa,  and  America/’  The  result  of  my  researches  renders  I 
such  a fact  almost  impossible,  and  if  a tree  were  robust 
enough  to  extend  over  such  an  area,  it  would  be  extremely 
common  in  all  tropical  countries. 

“Moreover,  historical  and  philological  facts  tend  also 
to  confirm  the  theory  of  an  American  origin.  The  details 
given  by  Rumphius  7 show  that  Anona  squamosa  was 
a plant  newly  cultivated  in  most  of  the  islands  of  the 
Malay  Archipelago.  Forster  does  not  mention  the  culti-' 
vation  of  any  Anonacoa  in  the  small  islands  of  the 
Pacific.8  Rheede 9 says  that  A.  squamosa  is  an  exotic 
in  Malabar,  but  was  brought  to  India,  first  by  the  Chines* 
and  the  Arabs,  afterwards  by  the  Portuguese.  It  is  cer-l 
tainly  cultivated  in  China  and  in  Cochin-China,10  and  in 
the  Philippine  Isles,11  but  we  do  not  know  from  what 
epoch.  It  is  doubtful  whether  the  Arabs  cultivate  it. “a 

I Sloane,  Jam.,  ii.  p.  168.  2 P.  Brown,  Jam.,  p.  257. 

* Macfadyen,  FI.  Jam.,  p.  9.  4 Martius,  FI.  Bras.,  fasc.  ii.  p.  15.  1 

6 Splitgerber,  Nederl.  liruidk.  Arch.,  ii.  p.  230. 

* A.  de  Candolle,  Qiogr.  Bot.  Rais.,  chap.  x. 

i Rumphius,  i.  p.  139.  8 Forster,  Plants  AVii/enf* 

* Rheede,  Malabar,  iii.  p.  22.  “ Loureiro,  FI.  Cochin.,  p.  427. 

II  Blanco,  FI.  Filip. 

13  This  depends  upon  the  opinion  formed  with  respect  to  A.  glabrtt- 
Forskal  {A.  Asiatica,  B.  Dun.  Anon.,  p.  71  ; A.  Forskalii,  D.  C. 
i.  p.  472),  which  was  sometimes  cultivated  in  gardens  in  Egypt  wn*B| 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


171 


tt  was  cultivated  in  India  in  Roxburgh’s  day ; 1 lie  had 
iot  seen  the  wild  plant,  and  only  mentions  one  common 
;iame  in  a modern  language,  the  Bengali  ata,  which  is 
ilreadv  in  Rheede.  Later  the  name  gunda-gatra  2 was 
relieved  to  be  Sanskrit,  hut  Dr.  Royle  8 having  consulted 
Wilson,  the  famous  author  of  the  Sanskrit  dictionary, 
couching  the  antiquity  of  this  name,  he  replied  that  it 
was  taken  from  the  Sabcla  Ghanrika,  a comparatively 
modern  compilation.  The  names  of  ata,  ati,  are  found 
m Rheede  and  Rumphius.4  This  is  doubtless  the  founda- 
■ion  of  Saint-Kilaire’s  argument ; but  a nearly  similar 
mine  is  given  to  Anona  squamosa  in  Mexico.  This 
lame  is  ate,  abate  di  Panucho,  found  in  Hernandez5 
with  two  similar  and  rather  poor  figures  which  may  be 
attributed  either  to  A.  squamosa,  as  Dunal  0 thinks,  or 
-o  A.  cherimolia,  according  to  Martius.7  Oviedo  uses 
-he  name  anon.8  It  is  very  possible  that  the  name  ata 
was  introduced  into  Brazil  from  Mexico  and  the  neigh- 
bouring countries.  It  may  also,  I confess,  have  come 
"rom  the  Portuguese  colonies  in  the  East  Indies.  Mar- 
ius says,  however,  that  the  species  was  imported  from 
' he  West  India  Islands.9  I do  not  know  whether  he  had 
any  proof  of  this,  or  whether  he  speaks  on  the  authority 
:>f  Oviedo’s  work,  which  he  quotes  and  which  I cannot 
Consult.  Oviedo’s  article,  translated  by  Marcgraf,10 
describes  A.  squamosa  without  speaking  of  its  origin. 


Forskal^  visited  that  country  ; it  was  called  keschta,  that  is,  coagulated 
j aiilk.  I he  rarity  of  its  cultivation  and  the  silence  of  ancient  authors 
shows  that  it  was  of  modern  introduction  into  Egypt.  Ebn  Baithar 
1.Sondtheimor,8  German  translation,  in  2 vols.,  1840),  an  Arabian  physician 
) >o  thirteenth  century,  mentions  no  Anonacea,  nor  the  natno  keschta. 
t do  not  see  that  Forskal’s  description  and  illustration  (Descr.,  p.  102.  ic. 
.a  . u)  (brier  from  A.  squa>nosa.  Coquebert’s  specimen,  mentioned  in 
, e , ys  ema,  agrees  with  Forskal’s  plate;  but  as  it  is  in  llower  while 
Jio  p ate  shows  the  fruit,  its  identity  cannot  bo  proved. 

‘ “°x  >urKh«  Fl-  Ind.,  edit.  1832,  v.  ii.  p.  657. 

. * !dd,?Ston<  Index,  p.  6.  * ltoyle,  III.  Him.,  p.  60. 

Rheede  and  Ruinphins,  i.  p.  139 

• Hernandez  pp.  348,  454.  ' • Dunal,  Mem.  Anon.,  p.  70. 

’ Martius,  Fl.  Bras.,  fasc.  ii.  p.  15. 

! , Hence  the  generic  name  A nona,  which  Linnaeus  changed  to  Ann  on  a 
Lprovisiou),  because  he  did  not  wish  to  have  any  savage  name,  and  did 
f aot  mind  a pun. 

* Martius,  Fl.  Bras.,  fasc.  ii.  p.  15. 


10  Marcgraf,  Braxil,  p.  94. 


172 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


“ The  sum  total  of  the  facts  is  altogether  in  favour  of 
an  American  origin.  The  locality  where  the  species 
usually  appears  wild  is  in  the  forests  of  Para.  Its  culti- 
vation is  ancient  in  America,  since  Oviedo  is  one  of  the 
first  authors  (1535)  who  has  written  about  this  country. 
No  doubt  its  cultivation  is  of  ancient  date  in  Asia  like- 
wise, and  this  renders  the  problem  curious.  It  is  not 
proved,  however,  that  it  was  anterior  to  the  discovery 
of  America,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  a tree  of  which  the 
fruit  is  so  agreeable  would  have  been  more  widely  diffused 
in  the  old  world  if  it  had  always  existed  there.  More- 
over, it  would  be  difficult  to  explain  its  cultivation  in 
America  in  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century,  on  the 
hypothesis  of  an  origin  in  the  old  world.” 

Since  I wrote  the  above,  I find  the  following  facts 
published  by  different  authors  : — 

1.  The  argument  drawn  from  the  fact  that  there  is  no 
Asiatic  species  of  the  genus  Anona  is  stronger  than  ever.  , 
A.  Asiatica,  Linnaeus,  was  based  upon  errors  (see  my 
note  in  the  Geogr.  Bot.,  p.  8G2).  A.  obtusifolia  (Tussac, , 
FI.  des  Antilles,  i.  p.  191,  pi.  28),  cultivated  formerly 
in  St.  Domingo  as  of  Asiatic  origin,  is  also  perhaps 
founded  upon  a mistake.  I suspect  that  the  drawing  • 
represents  the  flower  of  one  species  (A.  muricata)  and 
the  fruit  of  another  ( A . squamosa).  No  Anona  has  been  : 
discovered  in  Asia,  but  four  or  five  are  how  known  in 
Africa  instead  of  only  one  or  two,1 *  ami  a larger  number 
than  formerly  in  America. 

2.  The  authors  of  recent  Asiatic  floras  do  not  hesi-j 
tate  to  consider  the  Anonse,  particularly  A.  squamosa ,j 
which  is  here  and  there  found  apparently  wild,  as 
naturalized  in  the  neighbourhood  of  cultivated  ground 
and  of  European  settlements.3 

1 See  Baker,  Flora  of  Mauritius,  p.  3.  The  identity  admitted  by 
Oliver,  FI.  Trap.  Afr.,  i.  p.  1(5,  of  the  Anona  pa lustris  of  America  with  j 
that  of  Senegambia,  appears  to  me  very  extraordinary,  altln  ugh  it  is  a 
species  which  grows  in  marshes ; that  is,  having  perhaps  a very  wide 

area.  , „ j 

J Hooker,  FI.  of  Brit.  Tnd.,  i.  p.  78  ; Miqnel,  FI.  Tndo-Batava,  1.  party.  | 
p.  33 ; Kurz,  Forest  Flora  of  Brit.  Bunn.,  i.  p.  4(5 ; Stewart  and  Brandis,  | 
Forests  of  hidia,  p.  6. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


173 


3.  In  the  new  African  floras  already  quoted,  A. 
mamosa  and  the  others  of  which  I shall  speak  presently 
ve  always  mentioned  as  cultivated  species. 

4.  McNab,  the  horticulturist,  found  A.  squamosa  in 
te  dry  plains  of  Jamaica,1  which  confirms  the  asser- 
ons  ot  previous  authors.  Eggers  says  2 that  the  species 

common  in  the  thickets  of  Santa  Cruz  and  Virgin 
'lands.  I do  not  find  that  it  has  been  discovered  wild 
. Cuba. 

5.  On  the  American  continent  it  is  given  as  culti- 
ited.3  However,  M.  Andrd  sent  me  a specimen  from  a 
ony  district  in  the  Magdalena  valley,  which  appears  to 
-long  to  this  species  and  to  be  wild.  The  fruit  is  Avant- 
og,  which  renders  the  matter  doubtful.  From  the  note  on 
le  ticket,  it  is  a delicious  fruit  like  that  of  A.  squa- 
ma. Warming4  mentions  the  species  as  cultivated  at 
agoa  Santa  in  Brazil.  It  appears,  therefore,  to  be 

; dtivated  or  naturalized  from  cultivation  in  Para, 
;uiana,  and  NeAv  Granada. 

In  fine,  it  can  hardly  be  doubted,  in  my  opinion, 
at  its  original  country  is  America,  and  in  especial  the 
est  India  Islands. 

Sour  Sop — Anona  muricata,  Linnaeus. 

This  fruit-tree,5  introduced  into  all  the  colonies  in 
apical  countries  is  wild  in  the  West  Indies;  at  least, 
■s  existence  has  been  proved  in  the  islands  of  Cuba, 
I*  l>omingo,  Jamaica,  and  several  of  the  smaller 
lands.0  It  is  sometimes  naturalized  on  the  continent 

toouth  America  near  dwellings.7  Andrd  brought 
pecimens  from  the  district  of  Cauca  in  Hew  Granada, 


1 Grisebach,  FI.  of  Brit.  W.  I.  Isles,  p.  5. 

, rpfKers*  °f  St.  Croix  and  Virgin  Isles,  p.  23. 

sirn.^d^EorH^ $7“’  P'°dr‘  M’  p.  29;  Sagofc, 

* Warming,  Symbol*  ad.  FI.  Bras.,  xvi.  p.  434. 

H > "i  ^^courtilz,  FI.  Med.  des.  Antilles,  ii.  pi.  87,  and  in 
fussac,  FI.  des  Antilles , ii.  p.  24.  ^ 

> ‘ Kiohanl,  Plantes  Vasculaires  de  Cuba,  p.  29;  Swartz,  Ohs.,  p.  221; 

l «TJl  r3“! 15?  t’’ i Muofodyon,  «.  o,  Am„  p.  7,  liggL, 

I TJl  , ’ f - ' Gr,Robaoh>  t'l-  Brit.  W.  I.,  p.  4. 

, . blKC-  P-  4;  Splitgorbcr,  PI.  de  Surinam,  in 

derl.  Kruidk,  Arch.,  1.  p.  220. 


174 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


but  he  does  not  say  they  were  wild,  and  I see  that 
Triana  {Prodr.  FI.  Granat.)  only  mentions  it  as  culti- 
vated. 

Custard  Apple  in  the  West  Indies,  Bullock's  Heart 

in  the  East  Indies — Anona  reticulata,  Linnaeus. 

This  Anona,  figured  in  Descourtilz,  Flore  Me'd/icale 
des  Antilles,  ii.  pi.  82,  and  in  the  Botanical  Magazine, 
pi.  2912,  is  wild  in  Cuba,  Jamaica,  St.  Vincent,  Guade- 
loupe, Santa  Cruz,  and  Barbados,1  and  also  in  the  island 
of  Tobago  in  the  Bay  of  Panama,2 *  and  in  the  province 
of  Antioquia  in  New  Granada.8  If  it  is  wild  in  the  last- 
named  localities  as  well  as  in  the  West  Indies,  its  area 
probably  extends  into  several  states  of  Central  America 
and  of  New  Granada. 

Although  the  bullock’s  heart  is  not  much  esteemed 
as  a fruit,  the  species  has  been  introduced  into  most 
tropical  colonies.  Rheede  and  Rumphius  found  it  in 
plantations  in  Southern  Asia.  According  to  Welwitsch, 
it  has  naturalized  itself  from  cultivation  in  Angola,  in 
Western  Africa,4 *  and  this  has  also  taken  place  in  British 
India.6 

Chirimoya — Anona  Cherimolia,  Lamarck. 

The  chirimoya  is  not  so  generally  cultivated  in  the] 
colonics  as  the  preceding  species,  although  the  fruit  is 
excellent.  This  is  probably  the  reason  that  there  is  no 
illustration  of  the  fruit  better  than  that  of  Feuillee 
(Oks.,  iii.  pi.  17),  while  the  flower  is  well  represented  in 
pi.  2011  of  the  Botanical  Magazine,  under  the  name  of 
A.  tripet  ala. 

In  1855,  I wrote  as  follows,  touching  the  origin  of 
the  species:6  “ The  chirimoya  is  mentioned  by  Lamarck 
and  Dunal  as  growing  in  Peru;  but  Feuillde,  who  was 
the  first  to  speak  of  it,7  says  that  it  is  cultivated.  Mac- 

1 Richard,  Macfudyeu,  Grisebaeh,  Eggers,  Swartz,  Maycock,  FLa 
Barbad.,  p.  233. 

2 Seemann,  Bot.  of  the  Herald,  p.  75. 

a Triana  and  Plauchon.  Prodr.  FI.  Novo-Oranat-,  p.  29. 

* Oliver,  FI.  Trap.  Afr.,  i.  p.  15. 

* Sir  .T.  Hooker,  FI.  Brit.  Ind.,  i.  p.  78. 

* Do  Candolle,  Qiogr.  Bot.  Rais.,  p.  8G3. 

7 Feuillee,  Obs.,  iii.  p.  23,  t.  17. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


175 


iadyen 1 says  it  abounds  in  the  Port  Royal  Mountains 
(Jamaica  ; but  ho  adds  that  it  came  originally  from  Peru' 
and  must  have  been  introduced  long  ago,  whence  it 
appears  that  the  species  is  cultivated  in  the  higher 
.Plantations,  rather  than  wild.  Sloane  does  not  mention 
tt.  Humboldt  and  Bonpland  saw  it  cultivated  in 
i/enezuela  and  New  Granada;  Martius  in  Brazil 3 where 
;he  seeds  had  been  introduced  from  Peru.  The  suedes 
;s  cultivated  in  the  Cape  Verde  Islands,  and  on  the 
oast  ol  Guinea,3  but  it  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
ntroduced  into  Asia.  Its  American  origin  is  evident. 
^ might  even  go  further,  and  assert  that  it  is  a native  of 

^fc,r  * lan,  °f  .??<rw  Granada  or  Mexico.  It  will 
b ty  he  found  wild  in  one  of  these  countries.  Meyen 
pas  not  brought  it  from  Peru.”4  y i 

My  doubts  are  now  lessened,  thanks  to  a kind  coin- 

ZTTZ  h'°m  M'  E,L  And/d  1 mention  fiTt, 

Wfpr;  ?pseen  SPecimePs  from  Mexico  gathered  by 
rotten  and  Bourgeau,  and  that  authors  often  speak  of 
nding  the  species  in  this  region,  in  the  West  Indies  in 
central  America,  and  New  Granada.  It  is  true  they  do 
-ot  saj  that  it  is  wild.  On  the  contrary,  they  remark 
■at  it  is  cultivated,  or  that  it  has  escaped  from  ™Sens 
riid  become  naturalized.3  Grisebach  asserts  that  it  k 
1 from  I eru  to  Mexico,  but  he  gives  no  proof  Andrd 
athered>  ln  a valley  in  the  south-west*  of Ecilr 
ecimens  which  certainly  belong  to  the  species  as  far 

iS  i;vt 

i emorial3  Howevor  Alni;,  v U . "0|n  time  lm- 

! , ci,  Molina,  who  mentions  several  fruit- 

3 Hookerf  Fl'.  Nigr^'.’ 20^°'  * Mirtiua,  Ft  Bras.,  fasc.  iii.  p.  15. 

‘ Kiclmni.  Plant.  vVt  c„h  Cvr->  xi*'  fluPpl.  1. 

I imsley,  Hiologia  Centr.  Am  C“6“ ' Qn^b^h,  Ft  Brit.  IF.  Ind.  h. , 

! wl,  Nova  Gen.,  v.  p 57  . tv;’  118 ; V','!1''  In  Humboldt  and  Bon- 
bunat.,  p.  28.  P ’ lnana  aud  Planohon,  Prodr.  FI.  Novo. 

* Gay,  Flora  Chil.,  i.  p.  fJG. 


176 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


trees  in  the  ancient  plantations  of  the  country,  does  not 
speak  of  it.1 

In  conclusion,  I consider  it  most  probable  that  the 
species  is  indigenous  in  Ecuador,  and  perhaps  in  the 
neighbouring  part  of  Peru. 

Oranges  and  Lemons — Citrus,  Linnaeus. 

The  different  varieties  of  citrons,  lemons,  oranges,  j 
shaddocks,  etc.,  cultivated  in  gardens  have  been  the 
subject  of  remarkable  works  by  several  horticulturists, 
among  which  Gallesio  and  Risso2  hold  the  first  rank. 
The  difficulty  of  observing  and  classifying  so  many 
varieties  was  very  great.  Fair  results  have  been 
obtained,  but  it  must  be  owned  that  the  method  was 
wrong  from  the  beginning,  since  the  plants  from  which 
the  observations  were  taken  were  all  cultivated,  that  is 
to  say,  more  or  less  artificial,  and  perhaps  in  some  cases  i 
hybrids.  Botanists  are  now  more  fortunate.  Thanks  to 
the  discoveries  of  travellers  in  British  India,  they  are 
able  to  distinguish  the  wild  and  therefore  the  true  and 
natural  species.  According  to  Sir  Joseph  Hooker,3  who 
was  himself  a collector  in  India,  the  work  of  Brandis 4 is 
the  best  on  the  Citrus  of  this  region,  and  he  follows  it 
in  his  flora.  I shall  do  likewise  in  default  of  a mono- 
graph of  the  genus,  remarking  also  that  the  multitude 
of  garden  varieties  which  have  been  described  and; 
figured  for  centuries,  ought  to  be  identified  as  far  as 
possible  with  the  wild  species.5 

The  same  species,  and  perhaps  others  also,  probably 
grow  wild  in  Cochin-China  and  in  China;  but  this  has1 
not  been  proved  in  the  country  itself,  nor  by  means  of' 
specimens  examined  by  botanists.  Perhaps  the  im- 
portant works  of  Pierre,  now  in  course  of  publication,  will 

1 Molina,  French  trans. 

1 Gallesio,  Traitd  du  Citrus,  in  8vo,  Paris,  1811;  Risso  and  Poiteau,  ® 
Bistoire  Naturelle  des  Grangers,  1818,  in  folio,  109  plates. 

* Hooker,  FI.  of  Brit.  Ind.,  i.  p.  515. 

* Brandis,  Forest  Flora,  p.  50. 

4 For  a work  of  this  nature,  the  first  step  would  be  to  publish  good 
figures  of  wild  species,  showing  particularly  the  fruit,  which  is  not  seen  £ 
in  herbaria.  It  would  then  be  seen  which  forms  represented  in  the 

plates  of  Risso,  Duhamel,  and  others,  are  nearest  to  the  wild  types. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


:'ive  information  on  this  head  for  Cochin-China.  With 
tflgard  to  China,  I will  quote  the  following  passage  from 
Or.  Bretschneider,1  which  is  interesting  from  the°special 
knowledge  of  the  writer : — “ Oranges,  of  which  there  are 
. great  variety  in  China,  are  counted  by  the  Chinese 
' tnong  their  wild  fruits.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  most 
f them  are  indigenous,  and  have  been  cultivated  from 
■cry  early  times.  The  proof  of  this  is  that  each  species 
1 \ ariety  bears  a distinct  name,  besides  being  in  most 
sases  represented  by  a particular  character,  and  is 


Men  and  birds  disperse  the  seeds  of  Aurantiacea?, 
> hence  results  the  extension  of  its  area,  and  its  naturali- 
sation in  all  the  warm  regions  of  the  two  worlds.  It 
r-as  observed  2 in  America  from  the  first  century  after 
me  conquest^  and  now  groves  of  orange  trees  have  sprung 


mentioned  in  the  S/no-king,  lih-ya,  and  other  ancient 


178 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Neither  he  nor  modern  botanists  saw  it  wild  in  the  j 
Malay  Archipelago.1  In  China  the  species  has  a simple 
name,  yu ; but  its  written  character  2 appears  too  com- 
plicated for  a truly  indigenous  plant.  According  to  ; 
Loureiro,  the  tree  is  common  in  China  and  Cochin-China, 
but  this  does  not  imply  that  it  is  wild.3  It  is  in  the  I 
islands  to  the  east  of  the  Malay  Archipelago  that  the 
clearest  indications  of  a wild  existence  are  found. 
Forster4 5  formerly  said  of  this  species,  “very  common' 
in  the  Friendly  Isles.”  Seemann  6 is  yet  more  positive 
about  the  Fiji  Isles.  “Extremely  common,”  he  says, 

“ and  covering  the  banks  of  the  rivers.” 

It  would  be  strange  if  a tree,  so  much  cultivated  in 
the  south  of  Asia,  should  have  become  naturalized  to 
such  a degree  in  certain  islands  of  the  Pacific,  whHe  it 
has  scarcely  been  seen  elsewhere.  It  is  probably  indi- : 
genous  to  them,  and  may  perhaps  yet  be  discovered 
wild  in  some  islands  nearer  to  Java. 

The  French  name,  pompelmouse,  is  from  the  Dutch 
pompelmoes.  Shaddock  was  the  name  of  a captain  who 
first  introduced  the  species  into  the  West  Indies.6 

Citron,  Lemon — Citrus  medica,  Linnaeus. 

This  tree,  like  the  common  orange,  is  glabrous  in  all 
its  parts.  Its  fruit,  longer  than  it  is  wide,  is  surmounted 
in  most  of  its  varieties  by  a sort  of  nipple.  The  juice 
is  more  or  less  acid.  The  young  shoots  and  the  petals 
are  frequently  tinted  red.  The  rind  of  the  fruit  is  often 
rough,  and  very  thick  in  some  subvarieties.7 

Brandis  and  Sir  Joseph  Hooker  distinguish  four 
cultivated  varieties : — 

1.  Citrus  medica  proper  ( citron  in  English,  cedra- 
tier  in  French,  cedro  in  Italian),  with  large,  not 

1 Miquel,  Flora  Indo-Batava,  i.  pt.  2,  p.  526. 

2 Bretschneider,  Study  and  Value,  eto. 

1 Loureiro,  FI.  Cochin.,  ii.  p.  572.  For  another  species  of  the  genus, 
he  says  that  it  is  cultivated  and  non-cultivated,  p.  569. 

4 Forster,  De  Plant, is  Hsculentis  Oceani  Australis,  p.  35. 

5 Seemann,  Flora  Vitiensis,  p.  33. 

6 Plukenet,  Almagestes,  p.  239;  Sloane,  Jamaica,  i.  p.  41. 

7 Cedrat  d gros  fruit  of  Duhauiol,  Traili  des  Arbres,  edit.  2,  vii.  p.  6?i 
pi.  22. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


179 


ipherical  fruit,  whose  highly  aromatic  rind  is  covered 
with  lumps,  and  of  which  the  juice  is  neither  abundant 
nor  very  acid.  According  to  Brandis,  it  was  called 
tnjapura  in  Sanskrit. 

2.  Ci tries  medico,  Limonum  ( citronnier  in  French, 
mion  in  English).  Fruit  of  average  size,  not  spherical, 
i.nd  abundant  acid  juice. 

3.  Citrus  medico  acida  (G.  acidci,  Roxburgh).  Lime  in 
.Lnglish.  Small  flowers,  fruit  small  and  variable  in  shape, 
mice  very  acid.  According  to  Brandis,  the  Sanskrit  name 
vas  jambira. 

4.  Citrus  medico  Limetta  (C.  Limetta  and  C.  Lumia 
f Risso),  with  flowers  like  those  of  the  preceding  variety, 
>ut  with  spherical  fruit  and  sweet,  non-aromatic  juice, 
n India  it  is  called  the  sweet  lime. 

The  botanist  Wight  affirms  that  this  last  variety  is 
' nld  in  the  Nilglierry  Hills.  Other  forms,  which  answer 
pore  01  loss  exactly  to  the  three  other  varieties,  have 
j een  found  wild  by  several  Anglo-Indian  botanists  1 in 
sae  waim  districts  at  the  foot  of  the  Himalayas,  from 
arwal  to  Sikkim,  in  the  south-east  at  Chittagong  and 
i Bur mah,  and  in  the  south-west  in  the  western  Ghauts 
od  the  Satpura  Mountains.  From  this  it  cannot  be 
! 0 , ted  tjiaf  the  species  is  indigenous  in  India,  and  even 
jindci  different  forms  of  prehistoric  antiquity. 

I doubt  whether  its  area  includes  China  or  the  Malay 
rchipelago.  Loureiro  mentions  Citrus  medico  in  Coehin- 
inna  only  as  a cultivated  plant,  and  Bretschneider  tells 
s that  the  lemon  has  Chinese  names  which  do  not 
M-st  in  the  ancient  writings,  and  for  which  the  written 
paraeters  are  complicated,  indications  of  a foreign 
iccies.  it  may,  he  says,  have  been  introduced.  In 
Pf  , the  species  is  only  a cultivated  one.2  Lastly, 
Atia  0 umphius  illustrations  show  varieties  culti- 
u'1  n Sun<Ja  Islands,  but  none  of  these  are  con- 

'l  '.  J^fP10  au^10r  Rs  really  wild  and  indigenous  to  the 
mn  iy.  o indicate  the  locality,  he  sometimes  used 

I .o^HLlnd.X  p.'til!'  129  ! Bran<!iB’  Forest  n°ra>  P-  52  5 Hooker, 

2 I rauchet  and  Savatier,  Enum.  Plant.  Jap.,  p.  129. 


180 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


the  expression  “in  liortis  sylvestribus ,”  which  might  he  1 
translated  shrubberies.  Speaking  of  his  Lemon  sussu 
(vol.  ii.  pi.  25),  which  is  a Cittnis  medica  with  ellipsoidal  j 
acid  fruit,  he  says  it  has  been  introduced  into  Amboyna,  ] 
but  that  it  is  commoner  in  Java,  “ usually  in  forests.”  ] 
This  may  be  the  result  of  an  accidental  naturalization  j 
from  cultivation.  Miquel,  in  his  modern  flora  of  the  j 
Hutch  Indies,1  does  not  hesitate  to  say  that  Citrus  medica  1 
and  C.  Limonum  are  only  cultivated  in  the  archipelago. 

The  cultivation  of  more  or  less  acid  varieties  spread  i 
into  Western  Asia  at  an  early  date,  at  least  into  Mesopo- 
tamia and  Media.  This  can  hardly  be  doubted,  for  two 
varieties  had  Sanskrit  names ; and,  moreover,  the  Greeks 
knew  the  fruit  through  the  Modes,  whence  the  name 
Citrus  medica.  Theophrastus  2 3 was  the  first  to  speak  of 
it  under  the  name  of  apple  of  Media  and  of  Persia,  in  a 
phrase  often  repeated  and  commented  on  in  the  last  two 
centuries.8  It  evidently  applies  to  Citrus  7nedica ; but 
while  he  explains  how  the  seed  is  first  sown  in  vases,  i 
to  be  afterwards  transplanted,  the  author  does  not  say  ! 
whether  this  was  the  Greek  custom,  or  whether  he  was : 
describing  the  practice  of  the  Modes.  Probably  the  citron 
was  not  then  cultivated  in  Greece,  for  the  Romans  did 
not  grow  it  in  their  gardens  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Christian  era. 

Dioscorides,4  born  in  Cilicia,  and  who  wrote  in  the 
first  century,  speaks  of  it  in  almost  the  same  terms  as 
Theophrastus.  It  is  supposed  that  the  species  was,  after, 
many  attempts,5  cultivated  in  Italy  in  the  third  or  fourth  , 
century.  Palladium  in  the  fifth  century,  speaks  of  it  as 
well  established. 

The  ignorance  of  the  Romans  of  the  classic  period  j 
touching  foreign  plants  has  caused  them  to  confound,] 
under  the  name  of  lignum  citreum,  the  wood  of  Citrus,  j 
with  that  of  Cedrus,  of  which  fine  tables  were  made,  and 

1 Miquel,  Flora  Indn-Batava,  i.  pt.  2,  p.  528. 

1 Theophrastus,  1.  4,  c.  4. 

3 Bo<la:iis,  in  Theophrastus,  edit.  1044,  pp.  322,  343;  Risso,  Traite  du 

Citrus,  p.  198 ; Targioni,  Cenni  Storici,  p.  190. 

‘ Dioscorides,  i.  p.  100.  4 Targioni,  Cenni  Storici. 


tie-'* 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


1S1 


which  was  a cedar,  or  a Thuya,  of  the  totally  different 
samily  of  Conifene. 

The  Hebrews  must  have  known  the  citron  before  the 
Homans,  because  of  their  frequent  relations  with  Persia, 
•Media  and  the  adjacent  countries.  The  custom  of  the 
modern  Jews  of  presenting  themselves  at  the  synagogue 
;m  the  day  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  with  a citron 
m their  hand,  gave  rise  to  the  belief  that  the  word  hadar 
n Leviticus  signified  lemon  or  citron;  but  Risso  has 
[shown,  by  comparing  the  ancient  texts,  that  it  signifies  a 
jine  fruit,  or  the  fruit  of  a fine  tree.  He  even  thinks 
I -hat  the  Hebrews  did  not  know  the  citron  or  lemon  at 
| he  beginning  of  our  era,  because  the  Scptuagint  Version 
translates  hadar  by  fruit  of  a fine  tree.  Nevertheless, 
j is  the  Greeks  had  seen  the  citron  in  Media  and  in  Persia 
i n the  time  of  Theophrastus,  three  centuries  before  Christ, 
| f would  be . strange  if  the  Hebrews  had  not  become 
V-cquainted  with  it  at  the  time  of  the  Babylonish  Captivity. 
►Besides,  the  historian  Josephus  says  that  in  his  time  the 
f ews  bore  Persian  apples,  malum  persicum,  at  their  feasts, 

! ne  of  the  Greek  names  for  the  citron. 

The  varieties  with  very  acid  fruit,  like  Limonum 
pud  acida,  did  not  perhaps  attract  attention  so  early 
Ns  the  citron,  however  the  strongly  aromatic  odour 
i motioned  by  Dioscorides  and  Theophrastus  appears  to 
ndicate  them.  The  Arabs  extended  the  cultivation  of 
i he  lemon  in  Africa  and  Europe.  According  to  Gallesio, 

| ey  transported  it,  in  the  tenth  century  of  our  era,  from 
ne  gardens  of  Oman  into  Palestine  and  Egypt.  Jacques 
e itry  m the  thirteenth  century,  well  described  the 
emon  winch  he  had  seen  in  Palestine.  An  author 
lamer  yilcando  mentions  in  1260  some  very  acid 
^ urrua. s winch  were  cultivated  near  Palermo,  and 
uscany  had  them  also  towards  the  same  period.1 

ranfe  drus  Aurantium,  Linmeus  (excl.  var.  7); 
r htrus  Aurantium,  Risso. 

j Oranges  are  distinguished  from  shaddocks  (C.  decu- 
| >iana)  iy  the  complete  absence  of  down  on  the  young 
I loots  an  . eaves,  by  their  smaller  fruit,  always  spherical, 

1 Targioni,  p.  217. 


182 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


and  by  a thinner  rind.  They  differ  from  lemons  and  citrons ' 
in  their  pure  white  flowers;  in  the  fruit,  which  is  never 
elongated,  and  without  a nipple  on  the  summit ; in  the  rind, 
smooth  or  nearly  so,  and  adhering  but  lightly  to  the  pulp. 

Neither  Risso,  in  his  excellent  monograph  of  Citrus, 
nor  modern  authors,  as  Brandis  and  Sir  Joseph  Hooker, 
have  been  able  to  discover  any  other  character  than  the 
taste  to  distinguish  the  sweet  orange  from  more  or  less 
bitter  fruits.  This  difference  appeared  to  me  of  such 
slight  importance  from  the  botanical  point  of  view,  when 
I studied  the  question  of  origin  in  1855,  that  I was 
inclined,  with  Risso,  to  consider  these  two  sorts  of  orange 
as  simple  varieties.  Modern  Anglo-Indian  authors  do 
the  same.  They  add  a third  variety,  which  they  call 
Bargamia,  for  the  bergamot  orange,  of  which  the  flower  is 
smaller,  and  the  fruit  spherical  or  pyriform,  and  smaller 
than  the  common  orange,  aromatic  and  slightly  acid. 
This  last  form  has  not  been  found  wild,  and  appears  to 
me  to  be  rather  a product  of  cultivation. 

It  is  often  asked  whether  the  seeds  of  sweet  oranges 
yield  sweet  oranges,  and  of  bitter,  bitter  oranges.  It 
matters  little  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  distinction 
into  species  or  varieties,  for  we  know  that  both  in  the 
animal  and  vegetable  kingdoms  all  characters  are  more 
or  less  hereditary,  that  certain  varieties  are  habitually 
so,  to  such  a degree  that  they  should  be  called  races,  and 
that  the  distinction  into  species  must  consequently  be 
founded  upon  other  considerations,  such  as  the  absence  of 
intermediate  forms,  or  the  failure  of  crossed  fertilization 
to  produce  fertile  hybrids.  However,  the  question  is  not 
devoid  of  interest  in  the  present  case,  and  I must  answer 
that  experiments  have  given  results  which  are  at  times 
contradictory. 

Gallesio,  an  excellent  observer,  expresses  himself  as 
follows : — “ I have  during  a long  series  of  years  sown  pips 
of  sweet  oranges,  taken  sometimes  from  the  natural  tree*, 
sometimes  from  oranges  grafted  on  bitter  orange  trees 
or  lemon  trees.  The  result  has  always  been  trees  bearing 
sweet  fruit;  and  the  same  has  been  observed  tor  more 
than  sixty  years  by  all  the  gardeners  of  Finale.  1 here 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


183 


no  instance  of  a bitter  orange  tree  from  seed  of  sweet 
oranges,  nor  of  a sweet  orange  tree  from  the  seed  of 
oitter  oranges.  ...  In  1709,  the  orange  trees  of  Finale 
oaving  been  killed  by  frost,  the  practice  of  raising  sweet 
orange  trees  from  seed  was  introduced,  and  every  one 
of  these  plants  produced  the  sweet-juiced  fruit.”  1 

Macfadyen,2 *  on  the  contrary,  in  his  Flora  of  Jamaica, 
says,  “ It  is  a well-established  fact,  familiar  to  every  one 
who  has  been  any  length  of  time  in  this  island,  that  the 
seed  ol  the  sweet  orange  very  frequently  grows  up  into 
i tree  bearing  the  bitter  fruit,  numerous  well-attested 
^instances  of  which  have  come  to  my  own  knowledge.  I 
am  not  aware,  however,  that  the  seed  of  the  bitter  orange 
has  ever  grown  up  into  the  sweet-fruited  variety.  . . . 
■'We  may  therefore  conclude,”  the  author  judiciously  goes 
on  to  say,  “ that  the  bitter  orange  was  the  original  stock.” 

■ He  asserts  that  in  calcareous  soil  the  sweet  orange  may 
be  raised  from  seed,  but  that  in  other  soils  it  produces 
ruits  more  or  less  sour  or  bitter.  Duchassaing  says  that 
n Guadeloupe  the  seeds  of  sweet  oranges  often  yield 
oitter  fruit,8  while,  according  to  Dr.  Ernst,  at  Caracas 
'hey  sometimes  yield  sour  but  not  bitter  fruit.4 *  Brandis 
elates  that  at  Khasia,  in  India,  as  far  as  he  can  verify 
die  fact,  the  extensive  plantations  of  sweet  oranges  are 
rom  seed.  These  differences  show  the  variable  degree  of 
leredity,  and  confirm  the  opinion  that  these  two  kinds 

pf  °yange  should  be  considered  as  two  varieties,  not  two 

[species. 

I am,  however,  obliged  to  take  them  in  succession, 

x evE.in  their  origin  and  the  extent  of  their  cultivation 
at  dinerent  epochs. 

Bitter  Orange  —Arancio  forte  in  Italian,  bigaradier  in 
trench,  pomeranze  in  German.  Citrus  vulgaris,  Risso  ; 

, r . awrantmm  (var.  bigaradia),  Brandis  and  Hooker. 

. was  unknown  to  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  as  well 
is  ic  sweet  orange.  As  they  had  had  communication 


2 ?.a  c8\°’  Traltd  du  Cilrus<  pp.  32,  f>7,  355,  357. 

Macfttdyen,  Flora  of  Jamaica,  p.  1 29. 

4 -Vn°tod  i“  Grisobacli’s  Veyet.  Karaiben,  p.  34. 

Ernst,  in  Seetuann,  Jtncrn.  of  Bot.,  1867,  p.  272. 


184 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


with  India  and  Ceylon,  Gallesio  supposed  that  these 
trees  were  not  cultivated  in  their  time  in  the  west  of 
India.  He  had  studied  from  this  point  of  view,  ancient 
travellers  and  geographers,  such  as  Diodorus  Siculus, 
Nearchus,  Arianus,  and  he  finds  no  mention  of  the  orange 
in  them.  However,  there  was  a Sanskrit  name  for  the 
orange — nagarunga,  nagrunga.1  It  is  from  this  that  the 
word  orange  came,  for  the  Hindus  turned  it  into  narun- 
gee  (pron.  naroudji),  according  to  Royle,  nerunga  accord- 
ing to  Piddington ; the  Arabs  into  naruv j,  according  to 
Gallesio,  the  Italians  into  naranzi,  arangi,  and  in  the 
mediaeval  Latin  it  was  arancium,  arang'mm,  afterwards 
aurantium .a  But  did  the  Sanskrit  name  apply  to  the 
bitter  or  to  the  sweet  orange  ? The  philologist  Adolphe 
Pictet  formerly  gave  me  some  curious  information  on 
this  head.  He  had  sought  in  Sanskrit  works  the  de- 
scriptive names  given  to  the  orange  or  to  the  tree,  and 
had  found  seventeen,  which  all  allude  to  the  colour,  the 
odour,  its  acid  nature  ( clanta  catha,  harmful  to  the 
teeth),  the  place  of  growth,  etc.,  never  to  a sweet  or 
agreeable  taste.  This  multitude  of  names  similar  to 
epithets  show  that  the  fruit  had  long  been  known,  but 
that  its  taste  was  very  different  to  that  of  the  sweet 
orange.  Besides,  the  Arabs,  who  carried  the  orange  tree 
with  them  towards  the  West,  were  first  acquainted  with 
the  bitter  orange,  and  gave  it  the  name  narunj ,8  and 
their  physicians  from  the  tenth  century  prescribed  the 
bitter  juice  of  this  fruit.4  The  exhaustive  researches  of 
Gallesio  show  that  after  the  fall  of  the  Empire  the  species  j 
advanced  from  the  coast  of  the  Persian  Gulf,  and  by  the  j 
end  of  the  ninth  century  had  reached  Arabia,  through 
Oman,  Bassora,  Irak,  and  Syria,  according  to  the  Arabian 
author  Massoudi.  The  Crusaders  saw  the  bitter  orange  ; 
tree  in  Palestine.  It  was  cultivated  in  Sicily  from  the  j 
year  1002,  probably  a result  of  the  incursions  of  the  , 

1 Roxburgh,  FI.  Tndica,  edit.  1832,  vol.  ii.  p.  392;  Piddiugton,  Index,  j 

3 Gallesio,  p.  122. 

3 In  tho  modern  languages  of  India  the  Sanskrit  name  lma  been 
applied  to  the  sweet  orange,  so  says  Brandis,  by  one  of  those  transposi-  ^ 
tions  which  are  so  common  in  popular  language. 

* Gallesio,  pp.  122,  217,  218. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


185 


crabs..  It  was  they  who  introduced  it  into  Spain,  and 
aost  likely  also  into  the  east  of  Africa.  The  Portuguese 
ound  it  on  that  coast  when  they  doubled  the  Cape  in 
■IDs.1  There  is  no  ground  for  supposing  that  either  the 
atter  or  the  sweet  orange  existed  in  Africa  before  the 
Riddle  Ages,  lor  the  myth  of  the  garden  of  Hesperides 
nay  refer  to  any  species  of  the  order  Aurantiacece,  and 
•jS  site  .is  altogether  arbitrary,  since  the  imagination  of 
he  ancients  was  wonderfully  fertile. 
t Anglo-Indian  botanists,  such  as  Roxburgh, 

t°}le,  Griffith,  Wight,  had  not  come  across  the  bitter 
■range  wild;  but  there  is  every  probability  that  the 
astern  region  of  India  was  its  original  country.  Wallich 
mentions  bilhet,2  but  without  asserting  that  the  species 
-as  wild  in  this  locality.  Later,  Sir  Joseph  Hooker 3 
raw  the  bitter  orange  certainly  wild  in  several  districts 
p the  south  of  the  Himalayas,  from  Garwal  and  Sikkim' 
|s  far  as  Khasia.  The  fruit  was  spherical  or  slightly 
flattened,  two  inches  in  diameter,  bright  in  0010111”  and 
tnea table,  of  mawkish  and  bitter  taste  (“if  I remember 
-gi  , says  the  author).  Citrus  fusca,  Loureiro,' 4 similar, 
P W'*0  PL  23  of  Rumphius,  and  wild  in  Cochin-China 
, Kl  Anna,  may  very  likely  be  the  bitter  orange  whose 
I -ea  extends  to  the  east. 

: Sweet  Orange  — Italian,  Arancio  dolce ; German, 

pJelHine.^  Citrus  Aurantium  sinense,  Gallesio. 

^ « ST,t!‘at  sweet  ranges  grow  wild  at  Silhet 

"comnin10!  N^he,irHillsf  but  his  assertion  is  not 
ccordin  1 W1Ah  Sufflcient  d^ail  to  give  it  importance. 
■XnJS««  i°r' tlL*  ?,amo  author'  Turner’s  expedition 
cllitv  to/  1C1°^  oranges  at  Buxedwar,  a 

• Bengal  n,  ^rtb-east  ‘,f  Rungpoor,  in  the  province 
ooker  <lr  1 16  °^ler  Pand,  Brandis  and  bir  Joseph 
0 mention  the  sweet  orange  as  wild  in 

1 Gallesio,  p.  210  n •, 

74,  p.  13  ouotos  covi  t>  •>  Bextrag  eur  Kenntniss  der  Orangongewackse, 

■ travo,ler-s  0,1  this  h°ad 


* Pooker>  FL  °f  Brit  mi,  P:  5X5. 
Loureiro,  FI,  Cochin.,  p.  gyx 
Roy le,  Tlluntr.  of  llimal.,  p l‘>o 

ibet,  pp.  20,  387.  P‘ 


Ho  quotos  Tumor,  Journey  to 


186 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


British  India ; they  only  give  it  as  cultivated.  Kurz 
does  not  mention  it  in  his  forest  flora  of  British  Burmah. 
Further  east,  in  Cochin-China,  Loureiro  1 describes  a C. 
Aurantiunm,  with  bitter-sweet  ( acido-dulcis ) pulp,  which 
appears  to  be  the  sweet  orange,  and  which  is  found  both 
wild  and  cultivated  in  China  and  Cochin-China.  Chinese 
authors  consider  orange  trees  in  general  as  natives  of 
their  country,  but  precise  information  about  each  species  .. 
and  variety  is  wanting  on  this  head. 

From  the  collected  facts,  it  seems  that  the  sweet  i 
orange  is  a native  of  Southern  China  and  of  Cochin-! 
China,  with  a doubtful  and  accidental  extension  of  area ' 
by  seed  into  India. 

By  seeking  in  what  country  it  was  first  cultivated, 
and  how  it  was  propagated,  some  light  may  be  thrown 
upon  the  origin,  and  upon  the  distinction  between  the! 
'bitter  and  sweet  orange.  So  large  a fruit,  and  one  so 
agreeable  to  the  palate  as  the  sweet  orange,  can  hardly 
have  existed  in  any  district,  without  some  attempts 
having  been  made  to  cultivate  it.  It  is  easily  raised; 
from  seed,  and  nearly  always  produces  the  wished-for 
quality.  Neither  can  ancient  travellers  and  historians 
have  neglected  to  notice  the  introduction  of  so  remark- 
able a fruit  tree.  On  this  historical  point  Gallesio's 
study  of  ancient  authors  has  produced  extremely  in-; 
tercsting  results. 

He  first  proves  that  the  orange  trees  brought  from, 
India  by  the  Arabs  into  Palestine,  Egypt,  the  south  of 
Europe,  and  the  east  coast  of  Africa,  were  not  the  sweet- 
fruited  tree.  Up  to  the  fifteenth  century,  Arab  books 
and  chronicles  only  mention  bitter,  or  sour  oranges! 
However,  when  the  Portuguese  arrived  in  the  islands  of* 
Southern  Asia,  they  found  the  sweet  orange,  and  ap-# 
parently  it  had  not  previously  been  unknown  to  them.| 
The  Florentine  who  accompanied  Vasco  de  Gama,  and! 
who  published  an  account  of  the  voyage,  says,  “ Son  d I. 
melarcincie  assai,  ma  tutte  dolci”  (there  are  plenty  offl 
oranges,  but  all  sweet.)  Neither  this  writer  nor  subsequent 
travellers  expressed  surprise  at  the  pleasant  taste  of  tha 

1 Loureiro,  FI.  Cochin.,  p.  5G9. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


187 


.Tiut.  Hence  Gallesio  infers  that  the  Portuguese  were 
iot  the  first  to  bring  the  sweet  orange  from  India,  which 
ihey  reached  in  1498,  nor  from  China,  which  they 
eachecl  in  1518.  Besides,  a number  of  writers  in  the 
beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century  speak  of  the  sweet 
♦range  as  a fruit  already  cultivated  in  Spain  and  Italy. 
?hcre  are  several  testimonies  for  the  years  1523,  and 
525.  Gallesio  goes  no  further  than  the  idea  that  the 
weet  orange  was  introduced  into  Europe  towards  the 
• leginning  of  the  fifteenth  century  ; 1 but  Targioni  quotes 
| rom  Yaleriam  a statute  of  Fermo,  of  the  fourteenth 
} entury,  referring  to  citrons,  sweet  oranges,  etc. ; 2 * and 
I he  information  recently  collected  from  early  authors  by 
floeze,8  about  the  introduction  into  Spain  and  Portugal, 
Lgiees  with  this  date.  It  therefore  appears  to  me  prob- 
able that  the  oranges  imported  later  from  China  by  the 
t ortuguese  were  only  of  better  quality  than  those 
hi  ready  known  in  Europe,  and  that  the  common  expres- 
sions, Portugal  and  Lisbon  oranges,  are  due  to  this  cir- 
cumstance. 


If  the  sweet  orange  had  been  cultivated  at  a very 
frJy  date  in  India,  it  would  have  had  a special  name 
ii  Sanskrit ; the  Greeks  would'  have  known  it  after 
Llexanders  expedition,  and  the  Hebrews  would  have 
Py. received  it  through  Mesopotamia.  This  fruit  would 
prtamly  have  been  valued,  cultivated,  and  propagated 
1 i ®.  “°raan  empire,  in  preference  to  the  lemon,  citron, 

n ,J1  ,ei  orange.  Its  existence  in  India  must,  there- 
)re>  he  lass  ancient. 

f‘e  Maky  Archipelago  the  sweet  orange  was 

? iho°P  t°i:0T^  from  Chiua-1  Tt  was  but  little  diffused 
nr  *lCI  c ^es  a^  the  time  of  Cook’s  voyages.6 

+RC°me  ^Uls  by  sorts  of  ways  to  the  idea 
1 C ,svveet’  variety  of  the  orange  came  from  China 


1 Gallesio,  p.  321. 

lJ,bA%fId8onanU,a^  P;  205  °f  Oenni 


The  errata  do  not  notice  this 


I oncl>  as  J 379,  and  on  p.  213  as  1309 

1 jerepancy. 

| - | j,  «,g  ’ ^‘‘.n  ^e^ra0  Z!(r  Kcnntniss  der  Orarujengew'Achee.  Hamburg, 

| 4 ii.  c.  42.  > Forster,  rlanti8  EscMS)  35. 


1S8 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


and  Cochin-China,  and  that  it  spread  into  India  perhaps 
towards  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era.  It  may  have 
become  naturalized  from  cultivation  in  many  parts  of 
India  and  in  all  tropical  countries,  but  we  have  seen  that 
the  seed  does  not  always  yield  trees  bearing  sweet  fruit. 
This  defect  in  heredity  in  certain  cases  is  in  support  of 
the  theory  that  the  sweet  orange  was  derived  from  the 
bitter,  at  some  remote  epoch,  in  China  or  Cochin-China, 
and  has  since  been  carefully  propagated  on  account  of 
its  horticultural  value. 

Mandarin — Citrus  nobilis,  Loureiro. 

This  species,  characterized  by  its  smaller  fruit,  uneven 
on  the  surface,  spherical,  but  flattened  at  the  top,  and  of 
a peculiar  flavour,  is  now  prized  in  Europe  as  it  has  been 
from  the  earliest  times  in  China  and  Cochin-China.] 
The  Chinese  call  it  lean}  Rumphius  had  seen  it  culti-I 
vated  in  all  the  Sunda  Islands,1 2 3  and  says  that  it  was; 
introduced  thither  from  China,  but  it  had  not  spread  into! 
India.  Roxburgh  and  Sir  Joseph  Hooker  do  not  mention 
it,  but  Clarke  informs  me  that  its  culture  has  been 
greatly  extended  in  the  district  of  Khasia.  It  was  new: 
to  European  gardens  at  the  beginning  of  the  present: 
century,  when  Andrews  published  a good  illustration  of, 
it  in  the  Botanist's  Repository  (pi.  G08). 

According  to  Loureiro,8  this  tree,  of  average  size, 
grows  in  Cochin-China,  and  also,  he  adds,  in  China,] 
although  he  had  not  seen  it  in  Canton.  This  is  not  very 
precise  information  as  to  its  wild  character,  but  no  other, 
origin  can  be  supposed.  According  to  Kurz,4  the  species 
is  only  cultivated  in  British  Burmali.  If  this  is  confirmed,] 
its  area  would  be  restricted  to  Cochin-China  and  a few 
provinces  in  China. 

Mangosteen — Garcinia  mangostana , Linnaeus. 

There  is  a good  illustration  in  the  Botanical  Magazine , 
pi.  4847,  of  this  tree,  belonging  to  the  order  Guttifera?,  of 
which  the  fruit  is  considered  one  of  the  best  in  existence.  : 

1 Bretschneider,  On  the  Study  and  Value,  etc.,  p.  11. 

2 Rumphius,  Amboin.,  ii.  pis.  34,  35,  whore,  however,  the  form  of  thrl 
fruit  is  not  that  of  our  mandarin. 

3 Loureiro,  FI.  Cochin.,  p.  570.  4 Kurz,  Forest  FI.  of  Brit.  Bur.  | 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOE  THEIR  FRUITS. 


189 


it  demands  a very  hot  climate,  for  Roxburgh  could  not 
lake  it  grow  north  of  twenty-three  and  a half  degrees 
ff  latitude  in  India,1  and,  transported  to  Jamaica,  it  bears 
ut  poor  fruit.2  It  is  cultivated  in  the  Sunda  Islands,  in 
ae  Malay  Peninsula,  and  in  Cejdon. 

The  species  is  certainly  wild  in  the  forests  of  the  Sunda 
islands  * and  of  the  Malay  Peninsula.4  Among  cultivated 
Hants  it  is  one  of  the  most  local,  both  in  its  origin, 
habitation,  and  in  cultivation.  It  belongs,  it  is  true,  tci 
ne  of  those  families  in  which  the  mean  area  of  the 
oecies  is  most  restricted. 


Mamey,  or  Mammee  Apple  — Mammea  Americana, 
lacquin. 

Ihis  tree,  of  the  order  Guttiferm,  requires,  like  the 
jaangosteen,  great  heat.  Although  much  cultivated  in 
: ae  West  Indies  and  in  the  hottest  parts  of  Venezuela,5 
ns  culture  has  seldom  been  attempted,  or  has  met  with 
ut  little  success,  in  Asia  and  Africa,  if  we  are  to  jud»e 
fy  the  silence  of  most  authors. 


It  is  certainly  indigenous  in  the  forests  of  most  of  the 
Zest  Indies.0  Jacquin  mentions  it  also  for  the  neigh- 
boring continent,  but  I do  not  find  this  confirmed  by 
I modern  authors.  The  best  illustration  is  that  in  Tussac’s 
\lo‘ e des  Antilles,  iii.  pi.  7,  and  this  author  gives  a 
umber  of  details  respecting  the  use  of  the  fruit. 

Ochro,  or  Gombo — Hibiscus  esculentus,  Linnteus. 

L .The  y°u»g  fruits  of  this  annual,  of  the  order  of 
talvacem,  form  one  of  the  most  delicate  of  tropical 
egetables.  Tussac’s  Flore  des  Antilles  contains  a fine 
late  of  the  species,  and  gives  all  the  details  a gourmet 
mid  desire  on  the  manner  of  preparing  the  caloulou,  so 
uich  esteemed  by  the  creoles  of  the  French  colonies. 


' Roylo,  III.  Himal.,  p.  l33)  anrl  Roxburgh,  FI. 
Marfw«.yen,  Flora  of  Jamaica,  p.  134. 


hid.,  ii.  p.  G18. 


l *!ookel>  Flora  of  Brit.  Lid.,  i.  p.  200. 

i8w>  - 273 ! Tri“* 

.o/M.'VJ?,“lVpril83‘  A"“r ” P'  2°8i  Gr'“b“h' 


190 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


When  I formerly 1 * 3 tried  to  discover  -whence  this  plant, 
cultivated  in  the  old  and  new  worlds,  came  originally,  the 
absence  of  a Sanskrit  name,  and  the  fact  that  the  first 
writers  on  the  Indian  flora  had  not  seen  it  wild,  led  me 
to  put  aside  the  hypothesis  of  an  Asiatic  origin.  How- 
ever, as  the  modern  flora  of  British  India  * mentions  it  as 
“ probably  of  native  origin,”  I was  constrained  to  make 
further  researches. 

Although  Southern  Asia  has  been  thoroughly  explored  ; 
during  the  last  thirty  years,  no  locality  is  mentioned 
where  the  Gombo  is  wild  or  half  wild.  There  is  no 
indication,  even,  of  an  ancient  cultivation  in  Asia.  The ] 
doubt,  therefore,  lies  between  Africa  and  America.  The 
plant  has  been  seen  wild  in  the  West  Indies  by  a good] 
observer,8  but  I can  discover  no  similar  assertion  orr  the : 
part  of  any  other  botanist,  either  with  respect  to  the] 
islands  or  to  the  American  continent.  The  earliest  writer] 
on  Jamaica,  Sloane,  had  only  seen  the  species  in  a state  of 
cultivation.  Marcgraf 4 5 had  observed  it  in  Brazilian  plan-; 
tations,  and  as  he  mentions  a name  from  the  Congo  and, 
Angola  country,  quillobo,  which  the  Portuguese  corrupted 
into  quingombo,  the  African  origin  is  hereby  indicated. 

Schweinfurth  and  Ascherson 6 * saw  the  plant  wild  in 
the  Nile  Valley  in  Nubia,  Kordofan,  Senaar,  Abyssinia, 
and  in  the  Baar-el-Abiad,  where,  indeed,  it  is  cultivated.] 
Other  travellers  are  mentioned  as  having  gathered  speci- 
mens in  Africa,  but  it  is  not  specified  whether  these* 
plants  were  cultivated  or  wild  at  a distance  from  habita- 
tions. We  should  still  be  in  doubt  if  Fluckiger  and 
Hanbury 6 had  not  made  a bibliographical  discovery 
which  settles  the  question.  The  Arabs  call  the  fruit 
bamyah,  or  bdmiat,  and  Abul-Abas-Elnabati,  who  visited 
Egypt  long  before  the  discovery  of  America,  in  121G,  has 

1 A.  de  Candolle,  Gkogr.  Bot.  Rais.,  p.  70S. 

* Flora  of  Brit.  Ind.,  i.  p.  343. 

3 Jacquin,  Observations,  iii.  p.  11. 

* Marcgraf,  Hist.  Plant.,  p.  32,  with  illustrations. 

5 Schweinfurth  and  Ascherson,  Aufzahlung,  p.  265,  under  the  namsjl 

abelmoschxu i.  . 1 

8 FlUokiger  and  Hanbury,  Pharmacographia,  p.  86.  The  descrip-  ® 

tion  is  in  Ebn  Baithar,  Sondtheimer’s  trans.,  i.  p.  118. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


191 


sstinctly  described  the  gombo  [then  cultivated  by  the 
gyptians. 

In  spite  of  its  undoubtedly  African  origin,  it  does  not 
ippear  that  the  species  was  cultivated  in  Lower  Egypt 
ifore  the  Arab  rule.  No  proof  has  been  found  in  ancient 
monuments,  although  Rosellini  thought  he  recognized 
,e  plant  in  a drawing,  which  differs  widely  from  it 


ccording  to  Unger.1  The  existence  of  one  name  in 


’ O **  ^ vy  iix 

odern  Indian  languages,  according  to  Piddington,  con- 
pas  the  idea  of  its  propagation  towards  the  East  after 
] te  beginning  of  the  Christian  era. 

Vine — Vitis  vinifera,  Linnmus. 

| The  vine  grows  wild  in  the  temperate  regions  of 
j/estem  Asia,  Southern  Europe,  Algeria,  and  Marocco.2  It 
j especially  in  the  Pontus,  in  Armenia,  to  the  south  of 
! ie  Caucasus  and  of  the  Caspian  Sea,  that  it  grows  with 
ne  luxuriant  wildness  of  a tropical  creeper,  clinging  to 
11  trees  and  producing  abundant  fruit  without  pruning 
cultivation.  Its  vigorous  growth  is  mentioned  in 
iicient  Bactriana,  Cabul,  Kashmir,  and  even  in  Badak- 
! rnn  to  the  north  of  the  Hindu  Ivoosh.8  Of  course,  it  is 
i question  whether  the  plants  found  there,  as  elsewhere, 

. e u°t  sprung  from  seeds  carried  from  vineyards  by 
ri'ds.  I notice,  however,  that  the  most  trustworthy 
ptanists,  those  who  have  most  thoroughly  explored  the 
•anscaucasian  provinces  of  Russia,  do  not  hesitate  to 
y that  the  plant  is  wild  and  indigenous  in  this  region, 
is  as  we  advance  towards  India  and  Arabia,  Europe 
iu  the  north  of  Africa,  that  we  frequently  find  in  floras 
| ie  expression  that  the  vine  is  “ subspontaneous,”  per- 

ips  wild,  or  become  wild  ( yerwildert  is  the  expressive 
erman  term).  1 

Ihe  dissemination  by  birds  must  have  begun  very 
-ry,  as  soon  as  the  fruit  existed,  before  cultivation, 
ore  ie  migration  of  the  most  ancient  Asiatic  peoples, 

! t r,"?C f’  ^ de*  -Alten  sEgyptens,  p.  50. 

. . ' e )uc  > du  Globe,  French  trans.  by  TohihatohefT,  i.  pp. 


9 iaq  no  \r  i ^ -'wuc,  A1L.I1CU  iniu 

"*  ASnlrll’  v' a?b?’??taL  Alger;  Ball,  FI.  Maroc.  Spicel,  p.  002. 

Origines  Indo.Europ.  edit..  2,  vol.  1,  p.  205,  quotes 


II  v , UUlt.  VOi.  1,  p.  6UU,  quotes 

ur«!  o/^10*u«f.°r  he8°  regionS)  amuu8  othera  Wood'B  J™r™V  to  the 


192 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


perhaps  before  the  existence  of  man  in  Europe  or  even 
in  Asia.  Nevertheless,  the  frequency  of  cultivation,  and 
the  multitude  of  forms  of  the  cultivated  grape,  may  have 
extended  naturalization  and  introduced  among  wild  vines 
varieties  which  originated  in  cultivation.  In  fact,  natural 
agents,  such  as  birds,  winds,  and  currents,  have  always 
widened  the  area  of  species,  independently  of  man,  as  far  . 
as  the  limits  imposed  in  each  age  by  geographical  and 
physical  conditions,  together  with  the  liostile  action  of 
other  plants  and  animals,  allow.  An  absolutely  primitive 
habitation  is  more  or  less  mythical,  but  habitations 
successively  extended  or  restricted  are  in  accordance 
with  the  nature  of  things.  They  constitute  areas  more 
or  less  ancient  and  real,  provided  that  the  species  has 
maintained  itself  wild  without  the  constant  addition  of 
fresh  seed. 

Concerning  the  vine,  we  have  proofs  of  its  great 
antiquity  in  Europe  as  in  Asia.  Seeds  of  the  grape  have 
been  found  in  the  lake-dwellings  of  Castione,  near  Parma, 
which  date  from  the  age  of  bronze,1  in  a prehistoric  settle- 
ment of  Lake  Varese,2  and  in  the  lake-dwellings  of 
Wangen,  Switzerland,  but  in  the  latter  instance  at  an  un- 
certain depth.8  And,  what  is  more,  vine-leaves  have  been 
found  in  the  tufa  round  Montpellier,  where  they  were 
probably  deposited  before  the  historical  epoch,  and  in  the 
tufa  of  Meyrargue  in  Provence,  which  is  certainly  prehis- 
toric,1 though  later  than  the  tertiary  epoch  of  geologists.5  ■; 

A Russian  botanist,  Kolenati,6  has  made  some  very  ' 
interesting  observations  on  the  different  varieties  of  the  j 
vine,  both  wild  and  cultivated,  in  the  country  which  may 
be  called  the  central,  and  perhaps  the  most  ancient  home  4 
of  the  species,  the  south  of  the  Caucasus.  I consider  his 
opinion  the  more  important  that  the  author  has  based  I 

1 These  are  figured  in  Herr’s  PJlanzen  der  Pfahlbaxiten,  p.  24,  fig.  11.  j 

2 Ragazzcini,  ltivista  Arch,  della  Prov.  di  Como,  1880,  fiuc.  17,  p.  30.  1 

3 Heer,  ibid. 

* Flanchon,  Etude  sur  les  Tufa  de  Montpellier , 18G4,  p.  63. 

5 Dc  Saporta,  La  Flore  dee  Tufa  Qaaternaires  de  Provence,  18G7,  PP-  5! 
15  27. 

6 Kolonnti,  Bulletin  de  la  Socidtd  Impdriale  dee  Naturalistee  de  j 
Moscou,  18-1G,  p.  270. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOE  THEIR  FRUITS.  193 

his  classification  of  varieties'  with  reference  to  the  downy 
c laracter  and  veming  of  the  leaves,  points  absolutely 
indifferent  to  cultivators,  and  which  consequently  must 
iar  better  represent  the  natural  conditions  of  the  plant, 
•tie  says  that  the  wild  vines,  of  which  he  had  seen  an 
immense  quantity  between  the  Black  and  Caspian  Seas 
may  be  grouped  into  two  subspecies  which  he  describes’ 
and  declares  are  recognizable  at  a distance,  and  which 
are  the  point  of  departure  of  cultivated  vines,  at  least  in 
Armenia  and  the  neighbourhood.  He  recognized  them 
near  Mount  Ararat,  at  an  altitude  where  the  vine  is 
not  cultivated,  where,  indeed,  it  could  not  be  cultivated, 
dthei  characters— for  instance,  the  shape  and  colour  of 
the  grapes— vary  in  each  of  the  subspecies.  We  cannot 
enter  here  into  the  purely  botanical  details  of  Kolenati’s 
paper,  any  moie  than  into  those  of  Regel’s  more  recent 
work  on  the  genua  Vitis ; 1 but  it  is  well  to  note  that  a 
bn  Tculfclvftcd  from  a veiy  remote  epoch,  and  which 
in  +bP  *wo  thousand  described  varieties,  presents 
n the  district  where  it  is  most  ancient,  and  probably 

vini'rf  p °.ther®  °t  m,inor  importance.  If  the  wild 
were  of  T ^ ?asW’  of  Lebanon  and  Greece, 
TeeL  f i W!th.  the  same  ca*e>  Perhaps  other  sub- 
id.Tnf  pr/rbist°nc  .antiquity  might  bo  found.  The 
dca  of  collecting  the  juice  of  the  grape  and  of  allowing 

nrW.,inXe?ltwa^  hav®  .occurred  to  different  peoples, 
tl  dvef  JA  AT>  where  the  vine  abounds  and 

numerous  ni +iP  G vPl?^  "who  has,  in  common  with 
•sidered  +L' i • ,!0raj  ’ut  m a more  scientific  manner,  con- 
uuestions  1Isoncal,  philological,  and  even  mythological 
questions  relating  to  the  vine  among  ancient  peoples, 

i?enns  Jf.  React  Itll*  Lnp.  Petrop.,  1873.  In  this  short  review  of  the 

between  two  wild  species  “v  ^,0Pinion  V?ti8  vinifera  is  a h-vbrid 
t ration  • bnf  hn  s»  *•  ®wljpt»a  and  V.  Za&rwsca,  modified  by  culti- 

Edes’are ”°  proof-  ««>d  his  character  of  the  two  wild 

Ad.  1 ictot,  Ongxnee  Indo-Eur.,  2nd  edit.,  vol.  i.  pp.  298-321. 

O 


194 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


admits  that  both  Semitic  and  Aryan  nations  knew  the 
use  of  wine,  so  that  they  may  have  introduced  it  into  all 
the  countries  into  which  they  migrated,  into  India  and 
Egypt  and  Europe.  This  they  were  the  better  able  to 
do,  since  they  found  the  vine  wild  in  several  of  these 
regions. 

The  records  of  the  cultivation  of  the  grape  and  of  the 
making  of  wine  in  Egypt  go  back  five  or  six  thousand 
years.1  In  the  West  the  propagation  of  its  culture  by 
the  Phenicians,  Greeks,  and  Romans  is  pretty  well 
known,  but  to  the  east  of  Asia  it  took  place  at  a late 
period.  The  Chinese  who  now  cultivate  the  vine  in 
their  northern  provinces  did  not  possess  it  earlier  than 
the  year  122  B.c.2 

It  is  known  that  several  wild  vines  exist  in  the  north 
of  China,  but  I cannot  agree  with  M.  Regel  in  consider- 
ing Vitis  Amurensis,  Ruprecht,  the  one  most  analogous 
to  our  vine,  as  identical  in  species.  The  seeds  drawn  in 
the  Gartenfiora,  1861,  pi.  33,  differ  too  widely.  If  the 
fruit  of  these  vines  of  Eastern  Asia  had  any  value,  the 
Chinese  would  certainly  have  turned  them  to  account. 

Common  Jujube — Zizyphus  vulgaris,  Lamarck. 

According  to  Pliny,3  the  jujube  tree  was  brought  from 
Syria  to  Rome  by  the  consul  Sextus  Papinius,  towards  ‘ 
the  end  of  the  reign  of  Augustus.  Botanists,  however,  j 
have  observed  that  the  species  is  common  in  rocky  ■ 
places  in  Italy,4  and  that,  moreover,  it  has  not  yet  been  j 
found  wild  in  Syria,  although  it  is  cultivated  there,  as  ; 
in  the  whole  region  extending  from  the  Mediterranean 
to  China  and  Japan.6 

The  result  of  the  search  for  the  origin  of  the  jujube  J 
tree  as  a wild  plant  bears  out  Pliny’s  assertion,  in  spite  j 

1 M.  Delchovalorio,  in  l’ Illustration  Horticolc,  1881,  p.  28.  He  jj 
mentions  in  particular  the  tomb  of  l’htah-llotep,  who  lived  at  Memphis  3 
'1000  B.c. 

1 Bretschneider,  Study  and  Value,  etc.,  p.  16. 

* Pliny,  Hist.,  lib.  15,  o.  14. 

< Bertoloni,  FI.  Ital.,  ii.  p.  665  ; Gussone,  Syn.  FI.  Sirul.,  ii.  p.  276.  1 

4 Willkomm  and  Lange,  Prod.  FI.  Hisp.,  iii.  p.  480;  Desfontaincs,  FI.  J 
Atlant.,  i.  p.  200;  Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  ii.  p.  12;  J.  Hooker,  FI.  Brit.  Ind.,  I 
i.  p.  633  ; Bunge,  Enum.  PI.  Chin.,  p.  14;  Franchet  and  Savatior,  Enum.  -S 
PI.  Jap.,  i.  p.  81. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


195 


of  the  objections  I have  just  mentioned.  According  to 
plant  collectors  and  authors  of  floras,  the  species  appears 
to  be  more  wild  and  more  anciently  cultivated  in  the 
east  than  in  the  west  of  its  present  wide  area.  Thus,  in 
the  north  of  China,  de  Bunge  says  it  is  “ very  common 
and  very  troublesome  (on  accoimt  of  its  thorns)  in  moun- 
tainous places.”  He  had  seen  the  thornless  variety  in 
gardens.  Bretsehneider 1 mentions  the  jujube  as  one  of 
the  fruits  most  prized  by  the  Chinese,  who  give  it  the 
simple  name  tsao.  He  also  mentions  the  two  varieties 
with  and  without  thorns,  the  former  wild.2 * *  The  species 
does  not  grow  in  the  south  of  China  and  in  India  proper 
because  of  the  heat  and  moisture  of  the  climate  It  is 
found  again  wild  in  the  Punjab,  in  Persia,  and  Armenia. 

Brandis  gives  seven  different  names  for  the  jujube 
tree  (or  for  its  varieties)  in  modern  Indian  languages, 
but  no  Sanskrit  name  is  known.  The  species  was  there- 
fore probably  introduced  into  India  from  China,  at  no 
very  distant  epoch,  and  it  must  have  escaped  from  culti- 
vation and  have  become  wild  in  the  dry  provinces  of  the 
west.  The  Persian  name  is  anob,  the  Arabic  unab.  No 
Hebrew  name  is  known,  a further  sign  that  the  species 
is  not  very  ancient  in  the  west  of  Asia. 

The  ancient  Greeks  do  not  mention  the  common 
J uj u be,  bu  t only  another  species,  Zizyphua  lotus.  At  least 
such  is  the  opinion  of  the  critic  and  modern  botanist^ 
7Jt  m”st  be  confessed  that  the  modern  Greek  name 
pntz^kum  has  no  connection  with  the  names  formerly 
attributed  in  Theophrastus  and  Dioscorides  to  some 
^izyp  his  but  isalhed  to  the  Latin  name  zizyphus  (fruit 
zizyphum ) of  Plmy,  which  does  not  occur  in  earlier 

Urin^wir61118  w IT  r??®r  of  an  Oriental  than  of  a 
inb  b,.  ( Cter- .,  HOdreieh 5 does  not  admit  that  the 

j t T°  TiTl  d 'n  Greece,  and  others  say  “ natural- 
ed,  halt-wild,  which  confirms  the  hypothesis  of  a 

1 Bretsehneider,  Study  and  Value,  etc.,  p.  11. 

3 Brani/T  f\rl7t*vn  S<>Tr!e  a,lt*lora  18  the  samo  species. 

4 Jran<1,«.  * "rest  Flora  of  British  India,  p.  84. 

6 Lena,  Botamk  dor  Allen,  p.  651.  1 

6 Hejdrcich,  Nutzpflanzen  Griech  'enlands,  p.  57 


106 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


recent  introduction.  The  same  arguments  apply  to 
Italy.  The  species  may  have  become  naturalized  there 
after  the  introduction  into  gardens  mentioned  by 

Pliny. 

In  Algeria  the  jujube  is  only  cultivated  or  half-wild.1 
So  also  in  Spain.  It  is  not  mentioned  in  Marocco,  nor  in 
the  Canary  Isles,  which  argues  no  very  ancient  existence 
in  the  Mediterranean  basin. 

It  appears  to  me  probable,  therefore,  that  the  species 
is  a native  of  the  north  of  China ; that  it  was  intro- 
duced and  became  naturalized  in  the  west  of  Asia  after 
the  epoch  of  the  Sanskrit  language,  perhaps  two  thousand 
five  hundred  or  three  thousand  years  ago;  that  the 
Greeks  and  Romans  became  acquainted  with  it  at  the 
beginning  of  our  era,  and  that  the  latter  carried  it  into 
Barbary  and  Spain,  where  it  became  partially  naturalized 
by  the  effect  of  cultivation. 

Lotus  Jujube — Zizyphus  lotus,  Desfontaines. 

The  fruit  of  this  jujube  is  not  worthy  of  attention 
except  from  an  historical  point  of  view.  It  is  said  to  have 
been  the  food  of  the  lotus-eater,  a people  of  the  Lybian 
coast,  of  whom  Herod  and  Herodotos  2 have  given  a more 
or  less  accurate  account.  The  inhabitants  of  this  country 
must  have  been  very  poor  or  very  temperate,  for  a berry 
the  size  of  a small  cherry,  tasteless,  or  slightly  sweet, 
would  not  satisfy  ordinary  men.  There  is  no  proof  that 
the  lotus-eaters  cultivated  this  little  tree  or  shrub.  They 
doubtless  gathered  the  fruit  in  the  open  country,  for  the 
species  is  common  in  the  north  of  Africa.  One  edition 
of  Theophrastus  8 asserts,  however,  that  there  were  some 
species  of  lotus  without  stones,  which  would  imply  culti- 
vation. They  were  planted  in  gardens,  as  is  still  done 
in  modern  Egypt,4  but  it  does  not  seem  to  have  been  a 
common  custom  even  among  the  ancients. 

For  the  rest,  widely  different  opinions  have  been  held 

1 Munby,  Catal.,  edit.  2,  p.  9. 

2 Odyssey,  bk.  1,  v.  84;  Herodotos,  1.  4,  p.  177,  trans.  in  Lonz,  Bot. 
der  Alt.,  p.  653. 

3 Theophrastus,  Hist.,  1.  4,  c.  4,  edit.  1644.  The  edition  of  1613  does 
not  contain  the  words  which  refer  to  this  detail. 

4 SchweinfurtU.  and  Ascherson,  Beitr.  zur  FI.  JEthiop.,  p.  263. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


107 


touching  the  lotus  of  the  lotus-eaters,1  and  it  is  needless 
to  insist  upon  a point  so  obscure,  in  which  so  much  must 
be  allowed  for  the  imagination  of  a poet  and  for  popular 
ignorance. 

The  jujube  tree  is  now  wild  in  dry  places  from  Egypt 
to  Marocco,  in  the  south  of  Spain,  Terracina,  and  the 
neighbourhood  of  Palermo.2  In  isolated  Italian  localities 
it  has  probably  escaped  from  cultivation. 

. ^dian  Jujubej — Zizyphus  jujube,  Lamarck ; her  among 
t ie  ,7,/.  ,us.  and  Anglo-Indians,  masson  in  the  Mauritius. 

i • jujube  is  cultivated  further  south  than  the  com- 
mon kind,  but  its  area  is  equally  extensive.  The  fruit  is 
sometimes  like  an  unripe  cherry,  sometimes  like  an  olive 
as  is  shown  in  the  plate  published  by  Bouton  in  Hooker’s 
Journal  of  Botany,  i.  pi.  140.  The  great  number  of 
known  varieties  indicates  an  ancient  cultivation.  It 
extends  at  the  present  day  from  Southern  China,  the  Malay 
Archipelago,  and  Queensland,  through  Arabia  and  Egypt 
as  far  as  Marocco,  and  even  to  Senegal,  Guinea,  and  Angola  1 
It  grows  also  in  Mauritius,  but  it  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  introduced  into  America  as  yet,  unless  perhaps  into 
-brazil,  as  it  seems  from  a specimen  in  my  herbarium.5 
lhe  limit  is  preferable  to  the  common  jujube,  according 
to  some  writers.  a 


It  is  not  easy  to  know  what  was  the  habitation  of 
the  species  before  all  cultivation,  because  the  stones  sow 
themselves  readily  and  the  plant  becomes  naturalized  out- 
side  gardens.6  If  we  arc  guided  by  its  abundance  in  a 
te-’  ^ You'd/eem  tllat  Burmah  and  British  India 
lH  i °'  1;L;lna1  a ^de-  / *iave  ln  my  herbarium  several 
. pecimens  gathered  by  Wallich  in  the  kingdom  of  Burrnah, 

‘ See  the  article  on  the  carob  tree. 

9-  n,l|e8s°nta/'neH’  FI-fU!a,>t->  '•  P-  200;  Mnnbv,  Catal.Alqer.  edit.  o n 
aV  ili.'  p™ “d  Laus°: 

4 Sir  J.  Hook'-rUI7*H/!'^°/US7G^’  occ"rs  'n  Banhin,  as  Jujuba  Indian. 

Benth«a.,  f7  V P-  G32„ ; Brandis,  FW  FI.,  i.  87; 

FI.  of  Trop.  Afr.,  i.  p.  379.  P‘  412 1 13olssier>  Fl-  Orient.,  ii.  p.  13;  Oliver, 

I ;Ma"UDr8’  No-  107°-  from  the  Cabo  frio. 

Brandia  Hooker  h Jo  urn.  of  Bot.;  Baker,  FI.  of  Mauritius,  p.  G1 ; 


108 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


and  Kurz  has  often  seen  it  in  the  dry  forests  of  that 
country,  near  Ava  and  Prome.1  Beddone  admits  the 
species  to  be  wild  in  the  forests  of  British  India,  but 
Brandis  had  only  found  it  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
native  settlements.3  In  the  seventeenth  century  Rheede  8 
described  this  tree  as  wild  on  the  Malabar  coast,  and 
botanists  of  the  sixteenth  century  had  received  it  from 
Bengal.  In  support  of  an  Indian  origin,  I may  mention 
the  existence  of  three  Sanskrit  names,  and  of  eleven  other 
names  in  modern  Indian  lano-uages.4 

It  had  been  recently  introduced  into  the  eastern 
islands  of  the  Amboyna  group  when  Ilumphius  was 
living  there,5  and  he  says  himself  that  it  is  an  Indian 
species.  It  was  perhaps  originally  in  Sumatra  and  in 
other  islands  near  to  the  Malay  Peninsula.  Ancient 
Chinese  authors  do  not  mention  it ; at  least  Bretschrieider  1 
did  not  know  of  it.  Its  extension  and  naturalization  to  j 
the  east  of  the  continent  of  India  appear,  therefore,  to  1 
have  been  recent. 

Its  introduction  into  Arabia  and  Egypt  appears  to  j 
be  of  yet  later  date.  Not  only  no  ancient  name  is  j 
known,  but  Forskal,  a hundred  years  ago,  and  Delile  at 
the  beginning  of  the  present  century,  had  not  seen  the  j 
species,  of  which  Schweinfurth  has  recently  spoken  as  ; 
cultivated.  It  must  have  spread  to  Zanzibar  from  Asia,  ; 
and  by  degrees  across  Africa  or  in  European  vessels  as  ; 
far  as  the  west  coast.  This  must  have  been  quite 
recently,  as  Robert  Brown  (Bot.  of  Congo ) and  Thonning  . 
did  not  see  the  species  in  Guinea.8 

Cashew — Am  oca  nU  urn  occidentals,  Linnseus. 

The  most  erroneous  assertions  about  the  origin  of 
this  species  were  formerly  made,7  and  in  spite  of  what 

1 Kurz,  Forest  Flora  of  Burmah,  i.  p.  2G6. 

* Beddone,  Forest  Flora  of  India,  i.  pi.  149  (representing  the  wild 
fruit,  which  is  smaller  than  that  of  the  cultivated  plant)  ; Brandis. 

s Rheede,  iv.  pi.  141. 

* l’iddington,  Index. 

5 Rumphius,  Amboyna,  ii.  pi.  36. 

6 Zizyphm  abyssinicus,  Hochst,  seems  to  bo  a different  species. 

? Tnssac,  Flore  des  Antilles,  iii.  p.  55  (where  there  is  an  excellent 
figure,  pi.  13).  lie  says  that  it  is  an  East  Indian  species,  thus  aggra-  jjj 
rating  Linnmus’  mistake,  who  believed  it  to  bo  Asiatic  and  American. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


199 


I said  on  the  subject  in  1855,1  I find  them  occasionally 
reproduced.  J 

The  French  name  Pommier  d’acajou  (mahogany 
apple  tree)  is  as  absurd  as  it  is  possible  to  be.  It°  is  "a 
tree  belonging  to  the  order  of  Terebintacew  or  Anacar- 
diacece , very  different  from  the  Rosacea;  and  the  Meliacese, 
to  which  the  apple  and  the  mahogany  belong.  The 
edible  part  is  more  like  a pear  than  an  apple,  and  botani- 
speaking  is  not  a fruit,  but  the  receptacle  or  sup- 
port of  the  fruit,  which  resembles  a large  bean.  The  two 
names,  1 rench  and  English,  are  both  derived  from  a name 
given  to  it  by  the  natives  of  Brazil,  acaju,  acajaiba, 
quoted  by  early  travellers.3  The  species  is  certainly  wild 
in  the  forests  of  tropical  America,  and  indeed  occupies  a 
wide  area  in  that  region ; it  is  found,  for  example,  in 
Biazil,  Guiana,  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  and  the  West 
Indies.  Dr.  Ernst1  believes  it  is  only  indigenous  in  the 
basin  of  the  Amazon  River,  although  he  had  seen  it  also 
in  Luba,  Panama,  Ecuador,  and  New  Granada.  His 
opinion  is  founded  upon  the  absence  of  all  mention  of  the 
plant  m Spanish  authors  of  the  time  of  the  Conquest— a 
negative  proof,  which  establishes  a mere  probability. 

Kheede  and  Rumphius  had  also  indicated  this  plant 
m the  south  of  Asia.  The  former  says  it  is  common  on 
the  Malabar  coast.6  The  existence  of  the  same  tropical 
arborescent  species  in  Asia  and  America  was  so  little 
piobable,  that  it  was  at  first  suspected  that  there  was  a 
difference  of  species,  or  at  least  of  variety;  but  this  was 
not  confirmed.  Different  historical  and  philological 
hav£  C0I™ced  me  that  its  origin  is  not  Asiatic.0 
•mow e-)  i , P 'U1S'  7ho  is  always  accurate,  spoke  of  an 
A rehR  /ntr0„ductl0f  by  the  Portuguese  into  the  Malay 
1 l a°°  irom  America.  The  Malay  name  he  gives, 

1 Gdogr.  Bot.  Rais.,  p.  873. 

3 v^apliIal'C,gI?''’  HUt-  rer-  Natur.  Brasil,  1648,  p.  57. 

of  the  Herald  n^Ofi  • ! ,A;nblot>  Ovyane,  p.  392  ; Seomann,  Bat. 

li  119-  Oioisinr  h vi  ’ AnuSr-  P-  124*  Maofadyon , PI.  Jamaic., 

1 (L:  ,.18b^ch-  of  Brit.  W.  Ind.,  p.  176. 

3 ;rn  ,m  ®?®m,ann,  lour*,  of  Bat.,  1897,  p.  273. 

Kheede,  Malabar , iii.  pi,  54  ^ 

6 Rumphius,  Herb.  Amboin.,  j.  pp.  177,  178. 


200  ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 

cadjii,  is  American ; that  used  at  Amboyna  means  Portugal 
fruit,  that  of  Macassar  was  taken  from  the  resemblance  of  j 
the  fruit  to  that  of  the  jambosa.  Rumphius  says  that  the  j 
species  was  not  widely  diffused  in  the  islands.  Garcia  ab 
Orto  did  not  find  it  at  Goa  in  1550,  but  Acosta  after-  j 
wards  saw  it  at  Couchin,  and  the  Portuguese  propagated  : 
it  in  India  and  the  Malay  Archipelago.  According  to  ' 
Blume  and  Miquel,  the  species  is  only  cultivated  in  Java.  . 
Rheede,  it  is  true,  says  it  is  abundant  ( provenit  ubique ) j 
on  the  coast  of  Malabar,  but  he  only  quotes  one  name  < 
which  seems  to  be  Indian,  kapa  mava ; all  the  others  I 
are  derived  from  the  American  name.  Piddington  gives  j 
no  Sanskrit  name.  Lastly,  Anglo-Indian  colonists,  after  j 
some  hesitation  as  to  its  origin,  now  admit  the  importation  i 
of  the  species  from  America  at  an  early  period.  They  j 
add  that  it  has  become  naturalized  in  the  forests  of  j 
British  India.1 

It  is  yet  more  doubtful  that  the  tree  is  indigenous  •• 
in  Afi’ica,  indeed  it  is  easy  to  disprove  the  assertion.  ] 
Loureiro  2 had  seen  the  species  on  the  east  coast  of  this  j 
continent,  but  he  supposed  it  to  have  been  of  American 
origin.  Thonning  had  not  seen  it  in  Guinea,  nor  Brown  ] 
in  Congo.8  It  is  true  that  specimens  from  the  last-named 
country  and  from  the  islands  in  the  Gulf  of  Guinea  were  1 
sent  to  the  herbarium  at  Ivew,  but  Oliver  says  it  is  cul-  j 
tivated  there.4  A tree  which  occupies  such  a large  area  j 
in  America,  and  which  has  become  naturalized  in  several  : 
districts  of  India  within  the  last  two  centuries,  would  j 
exist  over  a great  extent  of  tropical  Africa  if  it  were  indi-  i 
genous  in  that  quarter  of  the  globe. 

Mango — Mangifera  indica,  Linnaeus. 

Belonging  to  the  same  order  as  the  Cashew , this  tree  J 
nevertheless  produces  a true  fruit,  something  the  colour  1 
of  the  apricot.5 

It  is  impossible  to  doubt  that  it  is  a native  of  the  \ 
south  of  Asia  or  of  the  Malay  Archipelago,  when  we  see  J 

1 Beddono,  Flora  Sylvatica,  t.  103 ; Hooker,  FI.  Brit.  Ind.,  ii.  p.  20. 

3 Loureiro,  FI.  Cochin.,  p.  304.  3 Brown,  Congo,  pp.  12,  49. 

4 Oliver,  FI.  of  Trop.  Afr . , i.  p.  443. 

1 Seo  plate  4510  of  the  Botanical  Magazine. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS.  201 

the  multitude  of  varieties  cultivated  in  these  countries 
the  number  o f ancient  common  names,  in  particular  a 
Sanskrit  name,  its  abundance  in  the  gardens  of  Bengal 
! tj)  Dekkan  Peninsula,  and  of  Ceylon,  even  ° in 
Kheedes  tune  Its  cultivation  was  less  diffused  in  the 
direction  of  China,  for  Loureiro  only  mentions  its 
I existence  in  Cochin-China.  According  to  Rumphius2 3 4 
I " .hf.d  Abee1n  introduced  into  certain  islands  of  the 
' • Asiatic  Archipelago  within  the  memory  of  living  men 
! Forster  does  not  mention  it  in  his  work  on  the  fruits  of 
the  1 acific  Islands  at  the  time  of  Cook’s  expedition 
| nam,e  n°mmon  in  the  Philippine  Isles,  manga* 

: *'ora«n  ongm»  for  it  is  the  Malay  and  Spanish 

: I 1 Common  ,“amo  m Cey|on  is  ambe,  akin  to 

’ the  Sanskrit  amra,  whence  the  Persian  and  Arab  amb  ‘ 

i niodem  Indian  names,  and  perhaps  the  Malay 
mangka,  manga,  manpelaan,  indicated  by  Rumphius 

ite,*?'  Ti  0thCr  r «*-•  “•  «»  SunTa 
Islands,  in  the  Moluccas,  and  m Cochin-China.  The 

into  the  fr&TS  an  ancient  introduction 

oof Rumpto*.  Archipelago,  in  spite  of  the  opinion 

Tjhe,nJf“T/mrhich*hi?  author  had  seen  wild  in 
ta\a,  and  Mangifera  sylvahca  which  Roxburgh  had 

iliscovered  at  Silhet,  are  other  species;  but  the  true 

westootV^n^L  1jy  m°dern  authors  as  wild  in  the 

;snect]lvCt  3 loD\the™8lons  at  the  base  of  the  Himalayas, 
especially  towards  the  east,  in  Arracan  Pciru  and  ‘the 

WtTol't-  1 Mr'^r  ,n0t  " 

f •,  . the  islands  of  the  Malay  Archipelago  Tn 

i >ositive  %'<>”.  »nd  the  indication^  lL 

“wT  /n/ril  SlrJos“Pl>  Hooker  in  the  Flora,,/ 
.atarelized ito!hVS?cleVs  ProbaUy  rare  or  only 
Em  is 1 ™fte.  dnan  Pe“"»“I«;  The  size  of  tho 
| b 0 a i°w  of  its  being  transported  by 

2 Rumphius'  Hi™.  .4n!lT/)!°diltp2’.,r01'  P-  435  ; Piddington,  Index. 

3 Blauco,  FI.  Filip  D ihi  ’ P‘  « 

4 Thwaites,  Enum! Plant  Vv.  7 . ynmphina;  Forskal,  p.  evii. 

l ooker,  FI. Brit.  Ind  ii  » la  v ’’  P',/G;  Brandl8>  Forest  Flora,  p.  12fi  ; 

’ ma.,  u.  p.  13 ; KurZ)  Forest  Flom  Brit  Uurmahi  j ‘p_  ao4; 


202 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


birds,  but  the  frequency  of  its  cultivation  causes  a 
dispersion  by  man’s  agency.  If  the  mango  is  only 
naturalized  in  the  west  of  British  India,  this  must  have 
occurred  at  a remote  epoch,  as  the  existence  of  a San- 
skrit name  shows.  On  the  other  hand,  the  peoples  of  , 
Western  Asia  must  have  known  it  late,  since  they  did 
not  transport  the  species  into  Egypt  or  elsewhere  towards 
the  west. 

It  is  cultivated  at  the  pi'esent  day  in  tropical  Africa, 
and  even  in  Mauritius  and  the  Seychelles,  where  it  has  < 
become  to  some  extent  naturalized  in  the  woods.1 

In  the  new  world  it  was  first  introduced  into  Brazil,  ; 
for  the  seeds  were  brought  thence  to  Barbados  in  the  j 
middle  of  the  last  century.2  A French  vessel  was  | 
carrying  some  young  trees  from  Bourbon  to  Saint  | 
Domingo  in  1782,  when  it  was  taken  by  the  English, 
who  took  them  to  Jamaica,  where  they  succeeded  won- 
derfully. When  the  coffee  plantations  were  abandoned,  i 
at  the  time  of  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves,  the  mango,  ' 
whose  stones  the  negroes  scattered  everywhere,  formed  ; 
forests  in  every  part  of  the  islands,  and  these  are  now 
valued  both  for  their  shade  and  as  a form  of  food.3  It 
was  not  cultivated  in  Cayenne  in  the  time  of  Aublet,  ■ 
at  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  but  now  there  are  j 
mangoes  of  the  finest  kind  in  this  colony.  They  are' 
grafted,  and  it  is  observed  that  their  stones  produce  better  ! 
fruit  than  that  of  the  original  stock.4 5 

Tahiti  Apple — Spend  i as  dulcis,  Forster. 

This  tree  belongs  to  the  family  of  the  A nacardiacexvA 
and  is  indigenous  in  the  Society,  Friendly,  and  Fiji 
Islands.6  The  natives  consumed  quantities  of  the  fruits 
at  the  time  of  Cook’s  voyage.  It  is  like  a large  plum,  of 


1 Oliver,  Flora  of  Trop.Afr.,  i.  p.  442 ; Baker,  FI.  of  Maur.  and  SeychA 
p.  G3. 

1 Hnghes,  Barbados,  p.  177.  3 

3 Macfadyen,  FI.  of  Jam.,  p.  221 ; Sir  J.  Hooker,  Speech  at  the  Rot/fl*3 
Institute. 

4 Sagot,  Jour,  de  la  Soc.  Centr.  d'Agric.  de  France,  1872. 

5 Forster,  De  Plantis  Esculentis  Insularum  Oceani  Australis,  p.  33  ; 

Seemaun,  Flora  Vitiensis,  p.  51 ; Nadaud,  Enum.  des  Plantes  de  Taiti, 
p.  75. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


203 


the  colour  of  an  apple,  and  contains  a stone  covered  with 
long  hooked  bristles.1  The  flavour,  according  to  travel- 
lers, is  excellent.  It  is  not  among  the  fruits  most  widely- 
diffused  in  tropical  colonies.  It  is,  however,  cultivated 
in  Mauritius  and  Bourbon,  under  the  primitive  Polynesian 
name  evi  or  hevi?  and  in  the  West  Indies.  It  was  in- 
troduced into  Jamaica  in  1782,  and  thence  into  Saint 
Domingo.  Its  absence  in  many  of  the  hot  countries  of 
Asia  and  Africa  is  probably  owing  to  the  fact  that  the 
species  was  discovered,  only  a century  ago,  in  small 
islands  which  have  no  communications  "with  other 
countries. 


Strawberry — Fragai'ia  vesca,  Linnaeus. 

. 0ur  common  strawberry  is  one  of  the  most  widely 
diffused  plants,  partly  owing  to  the  small  size  of  its  seeds, 
which  birds,  attracted  by  the  fleshy  part  on  which  they 
are  found,  carry  to  great  distances. 

It  grows  wild  in  Europe,  from  Lapland  and  the 
Shetland  Isles 3 to  the  mountain  ranges  in  the  south  • 
m Madeira,  Spain,  Sicily,  and  in  Greece.4  It  is  also 
found  in  Asia,  from  Armenia  and  the  north  of  Syria 5 to 
Dahuria.  The  strawberries  of  the  Himalayas  and  of 
Japan,  which  several  authors  have  attributed  to  this 
species  do  not  perhaps  belong  to  it,7  and  this  makes  me 
dnubt  the  assertion  of  a missionary 8 that  it  is  found  in 
Unna  It  is  wild  in  Iceland,3  in  the  north-east  of  the 
United  States,10  round  Fort  Cumberland,  and  on  the 
north-west  coast,11  perhaps  even  in  the  Sierra-Nevada  of 


iii.  ^28™  58  a g°°d  colourcd  hliistration  in  Tuseac’s  FI.  des  Antilles, 
3 Soy,?r:  Hortus  Mcmritiam.ua,  p.  81. 

Veg.  Scandal™’  Oompendium  CVbele  i.  p.  ICO  ; Fries,  Srnnma 

FI  Ilian  iii  1r  ^.adej?a>  P*  ^46 ; Willkomm  and  Lange,  Prodr. 

; P;„224i  Mens,  FI.  Sardoa,  ii.  p.  17. 

7 (/av-'Tr’r,,  • 8 Lodebonr,  FI.  Ross.,  ii.  p.  64. 

Env.rn.  PI.’ Japan.,  i!p.  129^’  ^ “*  P'  344  5 Franchofc  aud  Saratier, 

3lJ.,Ppei27.’  PGTy^dotnof^VrCtii!n  DeCaiSne’8  Jardin  FnriUar  ** 

10  *,ablӣton>  Jwm.  of  Linn  own  Society,  ii.  p.  303  j J.  Gay. 

n sir\vr!U  ’ f°  anl  °fDthe  N°rthem  States,  edit.  1868,  p.  156. 
bir  W.  Hooker,  FI.  Bor.  Amer.,  i.  p.  184. 


204 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


California.1  Thus  its  ai’ea  extends  round  the  north  pole, 
except  in  Eastern  Siberia  and  the  basin  of  the  river 
Amur,  since  the  species  is  not  mentioned  by  Maximo  wicz 
in  his  Primitive  Fiona  Amurenstis.  In  America  its  area 
is  extended  along  the  highlands  of  Mexico  ; for  Fragaria 
mexicana,  cultivated  in  the  Jardin  des  Plantes,  and 
examined  by  Gay,  is  F.  vesca.  It  also  grows  round 
Quito,  according  to  the  same  botanist,  who  is  an  authority 
on  this  question.2 

The  Greeks  and  Romans  did  not  cultivate  the  straw- 
berry. Its  cultivation  was  probably  introduced  in  the 
fifteenth  or  sixteenth  century.  Cliampier,  in  the  six- 
teenth century,  speaks  of  it  as  a novelty  in  the  north 
of  France,8  but  it  already  existed  in  the  south,  and  in 
England.4 

Transported  into  gardens  in  the  colonies,  the  straw- 
berry has  become  naturalized  in  a few  cool  localities  far 
from  dwellings.  This  is  the  case  in  Jamaica,5  in  Mauritius,6 
and  in  Bourbon,  where  some  plants  had  been  placed  by  \ 
Commerson  on  the  table-land  known  as  the  Kaffirs’  j 
Plain.  Boiy  Saint-Yincent  relates  that  in  1801  he 
found  districts  quite  red  with  strawberries,  and  that  it  j 
was  impossible  to  cross  them  without  staining  the  feet 
red  with  the  juice,  mixed  with  volcanic  dust.7  It  is  j 
probable  that  similar  cases  of  naturalization  may  be  seen  I 
in  Tasmania  and  New  Zealand. 

The  genus  Fragaria  has  been  studied  with  more  care  1 
than  many  others,  by  Duchesne  (fils),  the  Comte  de  j 
Lambertye,  Jacques  Gay,  and  especially  by  Madame  Eliza  1 
Vilmorin,  whose  faculty  of  observation  was  worthy  of  I 
the  name  she  bore.  A summary  of  their  works,  with  j 
excellent  coloured  plates,  is  published  in  the  Jardin  \ 


1 A.  Gray,  Bot.  Calif.,  i.  p.  176. 

1 J.  Gay,  in  Decaisne,  Jardin  Fruitier  du  Museum,  Fraisier,  p.  30. 

3 Le  Grand  d’Aussy,  Hist,  de  la  Vie  PrivJe  des  Fran  fa  is,  i.  pp.  233 
and  3. 

4 Olivier  de  Serres,  Thddtre  d’Agric.,<p.  51 1 ; Gerard,  from  Phillips. 
Pomarium  llritannicum,  p.  331. 

5 Purdie,  in  Hooker’s  London  Journal  of  Botany,  1844,  p.  515. 

4 Bojer,  Hortus  Mauritianus,  p.  121. 

7 Bory  Raint-Vincent,  Comptes  Eendus  del’ Acad.  des.  Sc.  Kat.,  1830, 
sem.  ii.  p.  109. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS.  205 

Fruitier  clu  Museum  by  Decaisne.  These  authors  have 
' overcome  great  difficulties  in  distinguishing  the  varieties 
and  hybrids  which  are  multiplied  in  gardens  from  the 
tine  species,  and  in  defining  these  by  well-marked  charac- 
ters. Some  strawberries  whose  fruit  is  poor  have  been 
abandoned,  and  the  finest  are  the  result  of  the  crossing 
< of  the  species  of  Virginia  and  Chili,  of  which  I am  about 
) to  speak. 

Virginian  Strawberry — Fragaria  virginiana,  Ehrarht. 
the  scarlet  strawberry  of  French  gardens.  This 
^species,  m digenousin  Canada  and  in  the  eastern  States 
<d  America,  and  of  which  one  variety  extends  west  as 
tar  as  the  ttocky  Mountains,  perhaps  even  to  Oregon  1 
was  introduced  into  English  gardens  in  1629 2 It  was 
much  cultivated  in  France  in  the  last  century,  but  its 
Hybrids  with  other  species  are  now  more  esteemed 
Chili  Strawberry — Fragaria  Chiloensis,  Duchesne 
A species  common  in  Southern  Chili,  at  Conception, 
A aldivia,  and  Ghiloe,3  and  often  cultivated  in  that  country, 
it  was  brought  to  France  by  Frezier  in  the  year  1715. 
Cultivated  m the  Museum  of  Natural  History  "in  France 
ut  spread  to  England  and  elsewhere.  The  large  size  of 
uhe  berry  and  its  excellent  flavour  have  produced  by 
different  crossings,  especially  with  F virginiana,  the 

I HubiIete1Zed  VanetieS  Ammas>  Victoria,  Trollope, 

aViUm‘  Ummmi  SMirsch- 
the  w?rd  chcnT  because  it  is  customary,  and 

ms  no  inconvenience  when  speaking  of  cultivated  species 
® b„fTth0  8tudy  of  allied  wild  species  coE 

s LE  * Ll/‘nfeU"-  that  fche  cherries  do  not  form 

, - separate  genus  from  the  plums. 

All  the  varieties  of  the  cultivated  cherry  belong  to 

wo  species  which  are  found  wild:  1.  Prunus  avium 

ijinmeus,  tall,  with  no  suckers  from  the  roots,  leaves 

- ld;&Bo(lZ’  **  Northern  State8>  cdiL  1808> 

2 Phillips,  Pomar.  Brit.,  p.  335. 

Cl.  Gay,  Hint.  Chili,  Botanica,  ii.  p.  305. 


206 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


downy  on  the  under  side,  the  fruit  sweet;  2.  Prunus  j 
cerasus,  Linnreus,  shorter,  with  suckers  from  the  roots,  ] 
leaves  glabrous,  and  fruit  more  or  less  sour  or  hitter. 

The  first  of  these  species,  from  which  the  white  j 
and  black  cherries  are  developed,  is  wild  in  Asia;  in  t 
the  forest  of  Ghilan  (north  of  Persia),  in  the  Russian  ; 
provinces  to  the  south  of  the  Caucasus  and  in  Armenia ; 1 
in  Europe  in  the  south  of  Russia  proper,  and  generally 
from  the  south  of  Sweden  to  the  mountainous  parts  of 
Greece,  Italy,  and  Spain.2  It  even  exists  in  Algeria.8 

As  we  leave  the  district  to  the  south  of  the  Caspian 
and  Black  Seas,  the  bird-cherry  becomes  less  common, 
less  natural,  and  determined  more  perhaps  by  the  birds  ! 
which  seek  its  fruit  and  carry  the  seeds  from  place  to 
place.4  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  it  was  thus  naturalized, 
from  cultivation,  in  the  north  of  India,6  in  many  of  the 
plains  of  the  south  of  Europe,  in  Madeira,6  and  berg  and 
there  in  the  United  States;7  but  it  is  probable  that  in 
the  greater  part  of  Europe  this  took  place  in  prehistoric 
times,  seeing  that  the  agency  of  birds  was  employed 
before  the  first  migrations  of  nations,  perhaps  before 
there  were  men  in  Europe.  Its  area  must  have  extended  - 
in  this  region  as  the  glaciers  diminished. 

The  common  names  in  ancient  languages  have  been  \ 
the  subject  of  a learned  article  b}r  Adolphe  Pictet,8  but 
nothing  relative  to  the  origin  of  the  species  can  be 
deduced  from  them  ; and  besides,  the  different  species  and 
varieties  have  often  been  confused  in  popular  nomencla- 
ture. It  is  far  more  important  to  know  whether  archie  ■i 
ology  can  tell  us  anything  about  the  presence  of  the 
bird-cherry  in  Europe  in  prehistoric  times. 

1 Ledebonr,  FI.  Rons.,  ii.  p.  6 ; Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  ii.  p.  0t9. 

2 Ledebour,  ibid. ; Fries,  Sum  via  Scand.,  p.  46  ; Nyman,  Con  spec.  FI' 
Fur.,  p.  213  ; Boissier,  ibid. ; Willkomm  and  Lange,  Prodr.  FI.  Hisp-, 
iii.  p.  245. 

3 Munby,  Catal.  Alger.,  edit.  2,  p.  8. 

4 As  tiie  cherries  ripen  after  the  season  when  birds  migrate,  they  : 
disperse  the  stones  chiefly  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  plantations. 

4 Sir  J.  Hooker,  FI.  of  Brit.  India. 

6 Lowe,  Manual  of  Madeira,  p.  235. 

7 Darlington,  FI.  Cestrica,  edit.  3,  p.  73. 

8 Ad.  Pictet,  Origines  Indo-Europ.,  edit.  2,  vol.  i.  p.  281. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS.  207 


Heer  gives  an  illustration  of  the  stones  of  Prunus 
* avium,  in  his  paper  on  the  lake-dwellings  of  Western 
: Switzerland.1  From  what  he  was  kind  enough  to  write 
: to  me,  April  14,  1881,  these  stones  were  found  in  the 
jpeat  formed  above  the  ancient  deposits  of  the  age  of 
■ stone.  De  Mortillet  3 found  similar  cherry-stones  in  the 
1 lake-dwellings  of  Bourget  belonging  to  an  epoch  not 
'very  remote,  more  recent  than  the  stone  age.  Dr.  Gross 
•sent  me  some  from  the  locality,  also  comparatively  recent, 
of  Corcelette  on  Lake  N euchatel,  and  Strobol  and  Pmorini 
discovered  some  in  the  “ terrain  are  ” of  Parma.8  Alfthese 
^are  settlements  posterior  to  the  stone  age,  and  perhaps 
belonging  to  historic  time.  If  no  more  ancient  stones  of 
this  species  are  found  in  Europe,  it  will  seem  probable 
that  naturalization  took  place  after  the  Aryan  migrations. 

Sour  Cherry — Prunus  cerasus,  Linnaeus  ; Cerasus  vul- 
garis, Miller;  Baumweischel,  Sauerkirschen,  in  German. 

The  Montmorency  and  gviotte  cherries,  and  several 
‘ Other  kinds  known  to  horticulturists,  are  derived  from 
'this  species.4 


Hohenacker5  saw  Prunus  cerasus  at  Lenkoran,  near 
the  Caspian  Sea,  and  Koch6  in  the  forests  of  Asia 
-Minor,  that  is  to  say,  in  the  north-east  of  that  country 
:as  that  was  the  region  in  which  he  travelled.  Ancient 
Authors  found  it  at  Elisabethpol  and  Erivan,  according 
rj ^edebour. ' Gnsebach8  indicates  it  on  Mount  Olympus 
> Jithyma,  and  adds  that  it  is  nearly  wild  on  the  plains 
Mac«doma.  The  true  and  really  ancient  habitation 
rsecms  to  extend  from  the  Caspian  Sea  to  the  environs 
it  Constantinople ; but  in  this  very  region  Prunus  avium 
mo[e  comraon.  Indeed,  Boissier  and  Tchihatcheff 
- o no  appear  to  have  seen  P.  cerasus  even  in  the 


1 Jn  Perri!?^ T,"  fcr^ffIba^h  p.  24,  figs.  17,  18,  and  p.  2 6. 
a ah \ q i i68  Prdhlst  sur  to  Savoie , p.  22. 

^ Atte  Soc.  Ital.  Sc.  Nat.,  vol.  yi. 

•:irvin’rwRhtl!L7irr8  ?rieti0S  wilieh  common  names  in  France, 
^ml  v » L “ provinces,  sec  Duhamel,  TraM  dcs  Arbres,  edit. 
, voly  m which  are  good  coloured  illustrations. 

5 Hohenacker,  Plante  Talysch.,  p.  128 
Koch,  Dendroloijio,i.  p.  no.  » Ledobour,  FI.  Ross.,  ii.  p.  6. 
Gnsebach,  SpiciL  FI.  Rumel.,  p.  86.  1 


208 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Pontus,  though  they  received  or  brought  back  several 
specimens  of  P.  avium } 

In  the  north  of  India,  P.  cerasus  exists  only  as  a 
cultivated  plant.1 * 3  The  Chinese  do  not  appear  to  have 
been  acquainted  with  our  two  kinds  of  cherry.  Hence 
it  may  be  assumed  that  it  was  not  very  early  introduced 
into  India,  and  the  . absence  of  a Sanskrit  name  confirms 
this.  We  have  seen  that,  according  to  Grisebach,  P. 
cerasus  is  nearly  wild  in  Macedonia.  It  was  said  to 
be  wild  in  the  Crimea,  but  Steven  8 only  saw  it  cultivated; 
and  Rehmann 4 5 gives  only  the  allied  species,  P.  chavice- 
eerasus , Jacquin,  as  wild  in  the  south  of  Russia.  I very 
much  doubt  its  wild  character  in  any  locality  north  of 
the  Caucasus.  Even  in  Greece,  where  Fraas  said  he  saw 
this  tree  wild,  Heldreich  011I3'  knows  it  as  a cultivated 
species.6  In  Dalmatia,6  a particular  variety  or  allied 
species,  P.  Marasca,  is  found  really  wild;  it  is  used 
in  making  Maraschino  wine.  P.  cerasus  is  wild  in 
mountainous  parts  of  Italy 7 and  in  the  centre  of  France,8 
but  farther  to  the  west  and  north,  and  in  Spain,  the 
species  is  only  found  cultivated,  and  naturalized  here 
and  there  as  a bush.  P.  cerasus,  more  than  the  bird- 
cherry,  evidently  presents  itself  in  Europe,  as  a foreign 
tree  not  completely  naturalized. 

None  of  the  often-quoted  passages9 10  in  Theophrastus, 
Pliny,  and  other  ancient  authors  appear  to  apply  to 
P.  cerasus}0  The  most  important,  that  of  Theophrastus, 
belongs  to  Prunus  avium,  because  of  the  height  of 
the  tree,  a character  which  distinguishes  it  from  P. 
cerasus.  Kerasos  being  the  name  for  the  bird-cherry 

1 Boissier,  FI.  Orient,  ii.  p.  049;  Tchihateheff,  Asie  Mineure,  Bot,  p. 
198. 

s Sir  J.  Hooker,  FI.  of  Brit.  India,  ii.  p.  313. 

3 Steven,  Verzeichniss  Halbinselm,  etc.,  p.  147. 

4 Rehmann,  Verhandl.  Nat.  Ver.  Brunn,  x.  1871. 

5 Heldreich,  A utzpfl.  Oriech.,  p.  09  ; Pjlanzen  d’ At  fitch.  Ehene.,  p.  477. 

« Viviani,  FI.  Dalmat.,  iii.  p.  258.  7 Bertoloni,  FI.  Ital.,  v.  p.  131. 

8 Lecoc  and  Lamotte,  Catal.  du  Flat.  Centr.  de  la  France,  p.  148. 

» Thoophrastes,  Hist.  PL,  lib.  3,  c.  13  ; Pliny,  lib.  15,  c.  25,  and  others 

quoted  in  Lenz,  Bot.  der  Alien  Or.  and  Rom.,  p.  710. 

10  Part  of  the  description  of  Theophrastus  shows  a confusion  with 
other  troes.  He  says,  for  instance,  that  the  nut  is  soft. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOE  THEIR  FRUITS.  209 

iii  Theophrastus,  as  now  kcrasaia  among  the  modern 
Greeks,  I notice  a linguistic  proof  of  the  antiquity  of 
. cem®w«.  The  Albanians,  descendants  of  the  Pelas- 
gians,  ea I i ^ the  latter  vyssme,  an  ancient  name  which 
reappears  in  the  German  Wechsel,  and  the  Italian  visciolo} 
As  the  Albanians  have  also  the  name  kerasie  for  P 
■avium,  it  is  probable  that  their  ancestors  very  clearly 
distinguished  the  two  species  by  different  names,  perhaps 
before  the  arrival  of  the  Hellenes  in  Greece  1 1 

(Ge^iM7)— diCati°n  °f  antiquity  maV  be  seen  in  Virgil 

Pnllnlat  ab  radice  aliis  densissima  silva 
Ut  cerasis  nlmisque  ” — 

which  applies  to  P.  cerastes,  not  to  P.  avium. 

PJ>.  Paintings  of  the  cheny  tree  were  found  at 

vwSnf  fL  4 Seems  that  lt  cannot  be  discovered  to 

S Comfs  cflk+b  tWp  'SpeCleS  they  sbould  be  attributed.2 
Gomes  calls  them  P menus  cerasus. 

, 4ny  archaeological  discovery  would  be  more  con- 

TneeTrf  tb  St°nCS  of  tbe  two  8Pccies  present  a differ- 
■ -nee  in  the  furrow  or  groove,  which  has  not  escaped  the 

bservatmn  of  Heer  and  Sordelli.  Unfortunately,  only 
; me  stone  of  P.  cerasus  has  been  found  in  the  pre- 
historic settlements  of  Italy  and  Switzerland,  and  what 

Tt  qmte+r^n  from  what  Saturn  it 
Saturn?  appearS  thafc  lfc  was  a non-archmological 

•uffirWl  aU  theSr  data>  somewhat  contradictory  and 
am  t0  adlnit  that 
kn  nv?  and  already  becoming  naturalized 
n Italy61 bd^tf  Greek -civilization,  and  a little  later 
w the  epoch  when  Lucullus  brought  a 

i 3 from  ^hnlSm  PagGS  miSht  b<  tran- 

fter  Plinv  lb  ' oven  niodem  ones,  who  attribute, 
tu  I liny,  the  introduction  of  the  cherry  into  Italy  to 

f InsBiaif,'  ^d^dLnves^om^he^aine  ^ “T®  in  Persian'  Tcirki8h>  and 
|sed  for  certain  varieties  of  tho  cher^T*06  ^ French  word  ^ne>  uow 

j * Sem;  t etc-’ in  4to>  p- 5G- 


P 


210 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


this  rich  Roman,  in  the  year  65  B.c.  Since  this  error  is  \ 
perpetuated  by  its  incessant  repetition  in  classical  schools,  j 
it  must  once  more  be  said  that  cherry  trees  (at  least  the  j 
bird-cherry)  existed  in  Italy  before  Lucullus,  and  that  j 
the  famous  gourmet  did  not  need  to  go  far  to  seek  the  | 
species  with  sour  or  bitter  fruit.  I have  no  doubt  that  j 
he  pleased  the  Romans  with  a good  variety  cultivated  ] 
in  the  Pontus,  and  that  cultivators  hastened  to  propagate  j 
it  by  grafting,  but  Lucullus’  share  in  the  matter  was  J 
confined  to  this. 

From  what  is  now  known  of  Iverasunt  and  the  j 
ancient  names  of  the  cherry  tree,  I venture  to  maintain,  | 
contrary  to  the  received  opinion,  that  it  was  a variety  1 
of  the  bird-cherry  of  which  the  fleshy  fruit  is  of  a sweet  i 
flavour.  I am  inclined  to  think  so  because  Kerasos  in  ) 
Theophrastus  is  the  name  of  Prunus  avium,  which  is  ] 
far  the  commoner  of  the  two  in  Asia  Minor.  The  town  ] 
of  Kerasunt  took  its  name  from  the  tree,  and  it  is  j 
probable  that  the  abundance  of  Prunus  avium  in  the  j 
neighbouring  woods  had  induced  the  inhabitants  to  seek  . 
the  trees  which  yielded  the  best  fruits  in  order  to  plant  ] 
them  in  their  gardens.  Certainly,  if  Lucullus  brought 
fine  white-heart  cherries  to  Rome,  his  countrymen  who  i 
only  knew  the  little  wild  cherry  may  well  have  said,  j 
“ It  is  a fruit  which  we  have  not.”  Pliny  affirms  nothing' 
more. 

I must  not  conclude  without  suggesting  a hypothesis 
about  the  two  kinds  of  cherry.  They  differ  but  little  in 
character,  and,  what  is  very  rare,  their  two  ancient 
habitations,  which  are  most  clearly  proved,  are  similar 
(from  the  Caspian  Sea  to  Western  Anatolia).  The  two! 
species  have  spread  towards  the  West,  but  unequallyi 
That  which  is  commonest  in  its  original  home  and  the< 
stronger  of  the  two  ( P.  avium)  has  extended  further  and 
at  an  earlier  epoch,  and  has  become  better  naturalized.! 
P.  cerasus  is,  therefore,  perhaps  derived  from  the 
other  in  prehistoric  times.  I come  thus,  by  a different 
road,  to  an  idea  suggested  by  Camel;1  only,  instead! 
of  saying  that  it  would  perhaps  be  better  to  unite  them  i 
1 Camel,  Flora  Toscana,  p.  48. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  TIIEIR  FRUITS. 


211 


now  in  one  species,  I consider  them  actually  distinct  and 
c content  myself  with  supposing  a descent,  which  for  the 
rest  it  would  not  be  easy  to  prove. 

Cultivated  Plums. 

L Plmyx  speaks  of  the  immense  quantity  of  plums 
: I known  in  his  time:  ingens  turba  prunorum.  Horti- 
culturists now  number  more  than  three  hundred.  Some 
1 botanists  have  tried  to  attribute  these  to  distinct  wild 
-species,  but  they  have  not  always  agreed,  and  judging  from 
it  he  specific  names  especially  they  seem  to  have  had  very 
xhflerent  ideas.  This  diversity  is  on  two  heads;  first  as 

as  t ^ glV<?  c;ultlvated  variety,  and  secondly 

' varietS  tmCtl°n  °*  the  Wild  forms  species  or 

I do  not  pretend  to  classify  the  innumerable  culti- 

udf  lf  f lJnnS,ai!-  1 think  that  labour  useless  when  dealing 
enc  -s  t J^on  of  geographical  origin,  for  the  differ® 

of  he  fi'nD  lnClpai  y th®  ihape>  size>  Colour>  and  taste 
o*  the  truit,  m characters,  that  is  to  say,  which  it  has 

•jeen  the  interest  of  horticulturists  to  cultivate  when 

diey  occur  and  even  to  create  as  far  as  it  was  in  their 

if  the  d°  S0'i  U 18  ^etter  t0  insist  upon  the  distinction 
the  forms  observed  in  a wild  state,  especially  upon 
idmse  from  which  man  derives  no  advantage,  and  winch 
I bly  remained  as  they  were  before  the  existence 

H is  probably  only  for  about  thirty  years  that 
glven  really  comparative  characters  for 
species  or  varieties  which  exist  in  nature3 
hey  may  be  summed  up  as  follows.— 

runue  domestica,  Linnaeus.  Tree  or  tall  shrub  with 

glabrous ; flowers  appearing 

Kitihoms8  Lmnseus.  Tree  or  tall  shrub,  with- 

i ’ y . ng  shoots  covered  with  a velvet  down  • 

lowers  appearing  with  the  leaves,  with  peduncles  covered 

1 Hist.,  lib.  15,  c.  13. 


Koch,  Syn.  FI.  Germ.,  edit  2 n 99a  n , 

Mv irons  de  Paris,  i.  p.  pjg  ' ’ » Cosson  and  Germain,  Flore 


s Envi 


212 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


with  a fine  down,  or  glabrous  ; fruit  pendulous,  round  or 
slightly  elliptical,  of  a sweet  flavour. 

Primus  spinosa,  Linnaeus.  A thorny  shrub,  with 
branches  spreading  out  at  right  angles ; young  shoots  ] 
downy ; flowers  appearing  before  the  leaves ; pedicles  j 
glabrous;  fruit  upright,  round,  and  very  sour. 

This  third  form,  so  common  in  our  hedges  (sloe  or 
blackthorn),  is  very  different  from  the  other  two.  There-  ‘ 
fore,  unless  we  interpret  by  hypothesis  what  may  have  1 
happened  before  all  observation,  it  seems  to  me  im-  j 
possible  to  consider  the  three  forms  as  constituting  one  J 
and  the  same  species,  unless  we  can  show  transitions  ] 
from  one  to  the  other  in  those  organs  which  have  not  j 
been  modified  by  cultivation,  and  hitherto  this  has  not  | 
been  done.  At  most  the  fusion  of  the  two  first  categories  ] 
can  be  admitted.  The  two  forms  with  naturally  sweet  i 
fruit  occur  in  few  countries.  These  must  have  tempted  j 
cultivators  more  than  Prunus  spinosa,  whose  fruit 
is  so  sour.  It  is*,  therefore,  in  these  that  we  must  seek] 
to  find  the  originals  of  cultivated  plums.  For  greater  , 
clearness  I shall  speak  of  them  as  two  species.1 

Common  Plum — Prunus  domestica,  Linnaeus ; Zwet- 
chen  in  German. 

Several  botanists2  have  found  this  variety  wild 
throughout  Anatolia,  the  region  to  the  south  of  the 
Caucasus  and  Northern  Persia,  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Mount  Elbruz,  for  example. 

I know  of  no  proof  for  the  localities  of  Kashmir,  the 
country  of  the  Kirghis  and  of  China,  which  are  men- 
tioned in  some  floras.  The  species  is  often  doubtful,  and 
it  is  probably  rather  Prunus  insititia ; in  other  case** 
it  is  its  true  and  ancient  wild  character  which  is  un-fl 
certain,  for  the  stones  have  evidently  been  dispersed  fronjjM 
cultivation.  Its  area  does  not  appear  to  extend  as  far  as 
Lebanon,  although  the  plums  cultivated  at  Damascus:^; 
(damascenes,  or  damsons)  have  a reputation  which  dateOT 

1 Hudson,  FI.  Anglic.,  1778,  p.  212,  unites  them  nnder  the  nan»«® 

Prunus  communis.  . 

2 Ledebour,  VI.  Foss.,  ii.  p.  5 ; Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  ii.  p.  C52  ; K.  Knelt, 
Dendroloyie,  i.  p.  04;  Boissier  and  Buhse,  Au/zdhl  Transcaucasien,  p. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS.  213 

j : from  the  clays  of  Pliny.  It  is  supposed  that  this  was  the 
I : species  referred  to  by  Dioscorides1  under  the  name  of 
\ Syrian  coccvmdea,  growing  at  Damascus.  Karl  Koch 
! relates  that  the  merchants  trading  on  the  borders  of 

• China  told  him  that  the  species  was  common  in  the 
1 forests  of  the  western  part  of  the  empire.  It  is  true  that 
! the  Chinese  have  cultivated  different  kinds  of  plums 
1 from  time  immemorial,  but  we  do  not  know  them  well 

■ enough  to  judge  of  them,  and  we  cannot  be  sure  that 

• they  are  indigenous.  As  none  of  our  kinds  of  plum  has 
been  found  wild  in  Japan  or  in  the  basin  of  the  river 

' Amui,  it  is  very  probable  that  the  species  seen  in  China 

■ are  different  to  ours.  This  appears  also  to  be  the  result 
of  -Bretschneider  s statements.2 

It  is  very  doubtful  if  Prunus  domestica  is  in- 
digenous m Europe.  In  the  south,  where  it  is  o-iven  it 
.grows  chiefly  in  hedges,  near  dwellings,  with  all  the 

■ appearance  of  a tree  scarcely  naturalized,  and  maintained 
there  and  there  by  the  constant  bringing  of  stones  from 
; plantations.  Authors  who  have  seen  the  species  in  the 
j£jt  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  it  is  “ subspontaneous.” 

affirms  that  it  is  not  wild  in  Greece,  and  this  is 
^confirmed  as  far  as  Attica  is  concerned  by  Heldreich  4 
'Steven 5 says  the  same  for  the  Crimea.  If  this  is  the 

1Se.  A^a  Mmor>  it  must  be  the  more  readily 
admitted  for  the  rest  of  Europe. 

w SpSC  of  tlie  abundance  of  plums  cultivated  formerly 
J the  Homans,  no  kind  is  found  represented  in  the 

oTenfound  Neither  has  ^unus  domestica 

talv1  SwbiTngi  the1re“ams  of  the  lake-dwellings  of 
el’  Switzerland,  and  Savoy,  where,  however  stones 

i^om^eseWr^m  have  been  discovered. 

i Xtab  e tn  ^ and-the.  8ma11  nu“ber  of  words  at- 
\ nbutable  to  thls  species  in  Greek  authors,  it  may  be 

1 DioRcorides,  p.  174 

l Bretschneider,  On  the  Study,  etc.,  p.  10 
| Syn.  FI.  Class.,  p.  69  ’P 

4 Heldreieh,  Pfiamen  Attischen  Ehene. 

n Halbinseln,  i.  p.  172. 

Comos,  111.  Piunte  Pompeiane. 


214 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


inferred  that  its  half-wild  or  half-naturalized  state  dates  \ 
in  Europe  from  two  thousand  years  at  most. 

Prunes  and  damsons  are  ranked  with  this  species. 

Bullace — Primus  insititia,  Linnaeus;1  Pjiauenbaum 
and  Raferschlehen  in  German. 

This  kind  of  plum  grows  wild  in  the  south  of  Europe.2 
It  has  also  been  found  in  Cilicia,  Armenia,  to  the  south 
of  the  Caucasus,  and  in  the  province  of  Talysch  near  the  j 
Caspian  Sea.3  It  is  especially  in  Turkey  in  Europe  and 
to  the  south  of  the  Caucasus  that  it  appears  to  be  truly 
wild.  In  Italy  and  in  Spain  it  is  perhaps  less  so,  ; 
although  trustworthy  authors  who  have  seen  the  plant  ; 
growing  have  no  doubt  about  it.  In  the  localities  j 
named  north  of  the  Alps,  even  as  far  as  Denmark,  it  is  l 
probably  naturalized  from  cultivation.  The  species  is 
commonly  found  in  hedges  not  far  from  dwellings,  and 
apparently  not  truly  wild. 

All  this  agrees  with  archaeological  and  historical  data. 
The  ancient  Greeks  distinguished  the  Coccumeha  of  their 
country  from  those  of  Syria,4  whence  it  is  inferred  that 
the  former  were  Prunus  insititia.  This  seems  the  more  ; 
likely  that  the  modern  Greeks  call  it  coromeleia.5  The 
Albanians  say  corombile ,G  which  has  led  some  people  to 
suppose  an  ancient  PelaSgian  origin.  For  the  rest,  we 
must  not  insist  upon  the  common  names  of  the  plum 
which  each  nation  may  have  given  to  one  or  another 
species,  perhaps  also  to  some  cultivated  variety,  without 
any  rule.  The  names  which  have  been  much  commented 
upon  in  learned  works  generally,  appear  to  me  to  apply 
to  any  plum  or  plum  tree  without  having  any  very 
defined  meaning. 

No  .stones  of  P.  insititia  have  yet  been  found  in  ; 

1 Insititia  ~ foreign.  A curious  name,  since  every  plant  is  foreign  to  ; 
all  countries  but  its  own. 

- Willkomm  and  Lange,  Prodr.  FI.  Ilisp.,  iii.  p.  244  ; Bcrtoloni,  FI.  Itat.,  ] 
v'.  p.  135;  Grisebach,  Spicel.  FI.  Rumel.,p.  85;  Heldrcich,  Nutzpfl.  Griech., | 

p.  68. 

3 Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  ii.  p.  651 ; Lcdebour,  FI.  Ross.,  ii.  p.  5 ; Hohen*  J 
acker,  Ft.  Talysch,  p.  128. 

4 Dioscorides,  p.  173  ; Fraas,  FI.  Class.,  p.  61). 

5 Ileldreich,  Nutzpjlanzen  Qriechenlands,p.  68.  * Ihid. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


215 


the  terra-mare  of  Italy,  but  Heer  has  described  and 
given  illustrations  of  some  which  were  found  in  the  lake- 
dwellings  of  Robenhausen.1  The  species  does  not  seem 
to  be  now  indigenous  in  this  part  of  Switzerland,  but  we 
must  not  forget  that,  as  we  saw  in  the  history  of  flax,  the 
| lake-dwellers  of  the  canton  of  Zurich,  in  the  age  of  stone, 
[ had  communications  with  Italy.  These  ancient  Swiss 
were  not  hard  to  please  in  the  matter  of  food,  for  they 
; also  gathered  the  berries  of  the  blackthorn,  which  are,  as 
we  think,  uneatable.  It  is  probable  that  they  ate  them 
|f  cooked. 

Apricot — Prunus  armeniaca,  Linneeus  ; Armenica 
vulgaris,  Lamarck. 

The  Greeks  and  Romans  received  the  apricot  about 
the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era.  Unknown  in  the 
time  of  Theophrastus,  Dioscorides 2 mentions  it  under 
the . name  of  mailon  armeniacon.  He  says  that  the 
Latins  called  it  praikokion.  It  is,  in  fact,  one  of  the 
fruits  mentioned  briefly  by  Pliny,3  under  the  name  of 
. p racocmm,  so  called  from  the  precocity  of  the  species.4 5 
'Its  Armenian  origin  is  indicated  by  the  Greek  name, 
but  this  name  might  mean  only  that  the  species  was 
cultivated  in  Armenia.  Modern  botanists  have  long  had 
.good  reason  to  believe  that  the  species  is  wild  irT  that 
country.  Pallas,  Giildenstadt,  and  Hohenacker  say  they 
found  it  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  Caucasus  Mountains, 
on  the  north,  on  the  banks  of  the  Terek,  and  to  the  south 
jetv  een  the  Caspian  and  Black  Seas.6  Boissier®  admits 
all  these  localities,  but  without  saying  anything  about 
ie  wild  character  of  the  species.  He  saw  a specimen 
gathered  by  Hohenacker,  near  Elisabethpol.  On  the 

1 Hecr,  Pflanzen  der  Pfahlbauten,  p.  27,  fit?.  16,  c. 

! D>«8«onde8,  lib.  1,  c.  165.  » Pliny,  lib.  2,  cap.  12. 

1 -Snmiisb  Jul  ■ iv,naT°  haS  Pa88ed  into  modern  Greek  (prikokkia).  The 
from  firhf  r ' naDle8>  otc.  (albaricoque,  abricot),  seem  to  be  derived 

i Tr«i/n  ' C°C*  or.I?r<PC0CMm»  while  the  old  French  word  armegne , 
dot'dln  nhniitnfvT"),>m  *’  etc'’  C0Ule  from  mailon  armmiacm.  Soo  further 

- “*  I"*-  -.v  OiogmrM,  Mani„„ 

5 Lodebour,  FI.  How.,  ii.  p,  3. 

6 Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  ii.  p.  052. 


21G 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


other  hand,  Tchihatcheff 1 2 who  has  crossed  Anatolia  and 
Armenia  several  times,  does  not  seem  to  have  seen  the 
wild  apricot;  and  what  is  still  more  significant,  Karl 
Koch,  who  travelled  through  -the  region  to  the  south  of 
the  Caucasus,  in  order  to  observe  facts  of  this  nature, 
expresses  himself  as  follows  : 3 “ Native  country  unknown. 
At  least,  during  my  long  sojourn  in  Armenia,  I nowhere 
found  the  apricot  wild,  ami  I have  rarely  seen  it  even 
cultivated.” 

A traveller,  W.  J.  Hamilton,3  said  he  found  it  wild  ■ 
near  Orgou  and  Outch  Hisar  in  Anatolia : but  this  asser-  j 
tion  has  not  been  verified  by  a botanist.  The  supposed 
wild  apricot  of  the  ruins  of  Baalbek,  described  by  Eusebe 
de  Salle  4 is,  from  what  he  says  of  the  leaf  and  fruit,  i 
totally  different  to  the  common  apricot.  Boissier,  and 
the  different  collectors  who  sent  him  plants  from  Syria  . 
and  Lebanon,  do  not  appear  to  have  seen  the  species. 
Spach 5 asserts  that  it  is  indigenous  in  Persia,  but  he  gives  ] 
no  proof.  Boissier  and  Buhse 6 do  not  mention  it  in  their  , 
list  of  the  plants  of  Transcaucasia  and  Persia.  It  is  use-  ] 
less  to  seek  its  origin  in  Africa.  The  apricots  which  > 
Reynier 7 says  he  saw,  “almost  wild,”  in  Upper  Egypt 
must  have  sprung  from  stones  grown  in  cultivated 
ground,  as  is  seen  in  Algeria.8  Schweinfurth  and 
Ascherson9  in  their  catalogue  of  the  plants  of  Egypt  and 
Abyssinia,  only  mention  the  species  as  cultivated.  Besides, 
if  it  had  existed  formerly  in  the  north  of  Africa  it  would  \ 
have  been  early  known  to  the  Hebrews  and  the  Romans,  j 
Now  there  is  no  Hebrew  name,  and  Pliny  says  its  intro-  | 
duction  at  Rome  took  place  thirty  years  before  he  wrote.  I 

Carrying  our  researches  eastward,  we  find  that  Anglo- 


1 Tchihatcheff,  Asie  Mineure,  Botamique,  vol.  i. 

2 K.  Kooh,  Dendivlogie,  i.  p.  87. 

3 Nouv.  Ann.  des  Voyages,  Feb.,  1839,  p.  176. 

4 E.  de  Salle,  Voyage,  i.  p.  140. 

4 Spach,  Hist,  des  V6git.  PhanAr.,  i.  p.  389. 

« Boissier  and  Buhse,  Aufzahlung , etc.,  in  4to,  1860. 

T Reynier,  Aamomie  des  £gyptiens , p.  371. 

8 Munby,  Catal.  FI.  d'Algdr.,  edit.  2,  p.  49. 

* Schweinfurth  and  Ascherson,  Beitrage  z.  FI.  <Ethiop.,  in  4to.,  1867, 
p.  259. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS.  217 

Indian  botanists1  are  agreed  in  considering  that  the 
; apricot,  which  is  generally  cultivated  in  the  north  of 
India  and  in  Thibet,  is  not  wild  in  those  regions ; but 
l they  add  that  it  has  a tendency  to  become  naturalized, 

■ and  that  it  is  found  upon  the  site  of  ruined  villages! 
.Messrs.  Schlagintweit  brought  specimens  from  the  north- 
west provinces  of  India,  and  from  Thibet,  which  West- 
imael  verified,2  but  he  was  kind  enough  to  write  to  me 
: that  he  cannot  affirm  that  it  was  wild,  since  the  collector’s 
label  gives  no  information  on  that  head. 

Roxburgh,3  who  did  not  neglect  the  question  of  origin 
•says  speaking  of  the  apricot,  “native  of  China  as  well 
■a8  ,the  .Wf*  of  Asia.”  I read  in  Dr.  Bretschneider’s 
cunous  little  work,4  drawn  up  at  Pekin,  the  following 
passage,  which  seems  to  me  to  decide  the  question  in 
davour  of  a Chinese  origin “ Sing,  as  is  well  known, 

■ s the  apricot  (Primus  armeniaca).  The  character  (a 
Chinese  sign  printed  on  p.  10)  does  not  exist  as  indicat- 

r?7  a r S eiuh®r  th®  Making,  or  in  the  Shi- Jehu  t, 
a louli,  etc.,  but  the  Shan-hai-Jchng  says  that  several 

ty*  uP°n  the  (here  a Chinese  character). 

Besides,  the  name  of  the  apricot  is  represented  by  a 
particular  sign  which  may  show  that  it  is  indigenous  in 
\y  - ax- } |he  Shan-hai-Jcing  is  attributed  to  the  Emperor 
Au,  who  iived  m 2205-2198  b.c.  Decaisne,6  who  was 
dm  first  to  suspect  the  Chinese  origin  of  the  apricot  has 
•ecently  received  from  Dr.  Bretschneider  some  specimens 
kceompamed  by  the  following  note.— “No  2?  apricot 
V*d  }ln  the  mountains  of  Pekin,  where  it  tows  Tn 
lkmeSe;th^e  [r.uit  is  ,sma11  (an  mch  and  a quarter  in 
olouf  sour  ®f8kl?  i?d  \nTd  •yclIow’  the  flesh  salmon 

mltivated  round  Peten  The  frub  ‘ °f  th1  aPricot 

n‘  1116  fruit  is  twice  as  large  as 

i indh,  p.  56  • 8 i rA one ?nh ^ T r ^ t/*  ’ Catal.  of  Punjab  and. 

■ £S£  p-  **• 

t g^chneider  On  the  Study  andVaUe,  etc.,  pp.  10,  49. 
j Decax.no,  Jard>n  Fruitier  da  vol.  viiEJ  art  Afiricot ier. 


218 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


that  of  the  wild  tree.”  1 Decaisne  adds,  in  the  letter 
he  was  good  enough  to  write  to  me,  “In  shape  and 
surface  the  stones  are  exactly  like  those  of  our  small 
apricots ; they  are  smooth  and  not  pitted.”  The  leaves 
he  sent  me  are  certainly  those  of  the  apricot. 

The  apricot  is  not  mentioned  in  Japan,  or  in  the  basin 
of  the  river  Arnoor.2  Perhaps  the  cold  of  the  winter  is 
too  great.  If  we  recollect  the  absence  of  communication 
in  ancient  times  between  China  and  India,  and  the 
assertions  that  the  plant  is  indigenous  in  both  countries,  I 
we  are  at  first  tempted  to  believe  that  the  ancient  area 
extended  from  the  north-west  of  India  to  China.  How- 
ever, if  we  wish  to  adopt  this  hypothesis,  we  must  also 
admit  that  the  culture  of  the  apricot  spread  very  late 
towards  the  West.8  For  no  Sanskrit  or  Hebrew  name  is 
known,  but  only  a Hindu  name,  zard  alu,  and  a Persian 
name,  mischmisch,  which  has  passed  into  Arabic.4  How 
is  it  to  be  supposed  that  so  excellent  a fruit,  and  one 
which  grows  in  abundance  in  Western  Asia,  spread  so; 
slowly  from  the  north-west  of  India  towards  the  Gneco- 
Roman  world  ? The  Chinese  knew  it  two  or  three: 
thousand  years  before  the  Christian  era.  Changkien 
went  as  far  as  Bactriana,  a century  before  our  era,  and 
he  was  the  first  to  make  the  West  known  to  his  fellow-, 
countrymen.5  It  was  then,  perhaps,  that  the  apricot  was 
introduced  in  Western  Asia,  and  that  it  was  cultivated 
and  became  naturalized  here  and  there  in  the  north-west 
of  India,  and  at  the  foot  of  the  Caucasus,  by  the  scatter- 
ing of  the  stones  beyond  the  limits  of  the  plantations. 

Almond — Amygdcdus  communis,  Linnreus  ; Pruni 
species,  Baillon ; Primus  Am/ygdalus,  Hooker. 

1 Dr.  Bretsclineider  confirms  this  in  n recent  work,  Notes  on  Botanical. 
Questions,  p.  3. 

2 Prunns  a rmeniaca  of  Thunberg  is  P.  wume  of  Siebold  and  Zncchaw 

rini.  The  apricot  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Enuineratio,  etc.,  of  Franchet, 
and  Savatier.  , j 

J Capns  (Ann.  Sc.  Nat.,  sixth  series,  yol.  xv.  p.  206)  found  it  wild  in 
Turkestan  at  the  height  of  four  thousand  to  seven  thousand  feet,  which 
weakens  the  hypothesis  of  a solely  Chinese  origin.  ! 

4 Piddington,  Index  ; Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind. ; Forekal,  FI.  JEgyp. ; Deli  la,  | 
111.  Egypt. 

5 Bretschneider,  On  the  Study  and  Value,  etc. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS.  219 


The  almond  grows  apparently  wild  or  half  wild  in 
the  warm,  dry  regions  of  the  Mediterranean  basin  and 
of  western  temperate  Asia.  As  the  nuts  from  cultivated 
trees  naturalize  the  species  very  easily,  we  must  have 
recourse  to  various  indications  to  discern  its  ancient 
home. 


| We  may  first  discard  the  notion  of  its  origin  in 
! Eastern  Asia.  Japanese  floras  make  no  mention  of  the 
; almond.  That  which  M.  de  Bonge  saw  cultivated  in 
;ithe  north  of  China  was  the  Persica  Davidianct.1  Dr 
] Bretschneider,2  in  his  classical  work,  tells  us  that  he  has 
never  seen  the  almond  cultivated  in  China,  and  that  the 
compilation  entitled  Pent-sao,  published  in  the  tenth  or 
eleventh  century  of  our  era,  describes  it  as  a tree  of  the 
|° country  of  the  Mahometans,  which  signifies  the  north- 
west of  India,  or  Persia. 

Anglo-Indian  botanists  3 say  that  the  almond  is  culti- 
vated m the  cool  parts  of  India,  but  some  add  that  it 
does  not  thrive,  and  that  many  almonds  are  brought 
ffrom  Persia.4 *  No  Sanskrit  name  is  known,  nor  even 
■any  m the  languages  derived  from  Sanskrit.  Evidently 
fthe  north-west  of  India  is  not  the  original  home  of  the 
Species. 


On  the  other  hand,  there  are  many  localities  in  the 
region  extending  from  Mesopotamia  and  Turkestan  to 
Algeria,  where  excellent  botanists  have  found  the  almond 
tree  quite  wild.  Boissier  6 has  seen  specimens  gathered 
27  ground  in  Mesopotamia,  Aderbijan,  Turkestan, 
SS'.f  “ ‘he  forests  of  the  Anti-Lebanon! 
I Koch  no*  found  lfc  wild  to  the  south  of  the 

mtuTsT  w nT  Tchl)iatcheff  ^ Asia  Minor.  Cosson  7 found 
ratuial  woods  of  almond  trees  near  Saida  in  Algeria  It 


2 Eaarly  European  Researches,  p.  149. 

^a?,p  l49  ’ Udy  and  Value>  etc-  P-10,  and  Early  Europ. 

I R™bnml Hookor>  fl-  °f  Brit.  Inch,  iii.  p.  313. 

* BoissiJ?  k n'P'  600 ' E0yk’ llLIIimaL’  P-  mi- 

p°^  DeQclrolo?ie'  '•  P-  80;  Tchihatoheff,  Axle  Mineure  Beta. 

Ann.  des  Sc,  Nat.,  3rd  series,  rol.  six.  p.  108. 


220 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


is  also  regarded  as  wild  on  the  coasts  of  Sicily  and  of 
Greece ; 1 but  there,  and  still  more  in  the  localities  in 
which  it  occurs  in  Italy,  Spain,  and  France,  it  is  probable, 
and  almost  certain,  that  it  springs  from  the  casual  dis- 
persal of  the  nuts  from  cultivation. 

The  antiquity  of  its  existence  in  Western  Asia  is 
proved  by  Hebrew  names  for  the  almond  tree — schaked, 
luz  or  lus  (which  recurs  in  the  Arabic  louz),  and  sche- 
hedim  for  the  nut.2  The  Persians  have  another  name, 
badam,  but  I do  not  know  how  old  this  is.  Theophras- 
tus and  Dioscorides  3 mention  the  almond  by  an  entirely 
different  name,  amugdalai,  translated  by  the  Latins  into 
amygdalus.  It  may  be  inferred  from  this  that  the  Greeks 
did  not  receive  the  species  from  the  interior  of  Asia,  but 
found  it  in  their  own  country,  or  at  least  in  Asia  Minor. 
The  almond  tree  is  represented  in  several  frescoes  found 
at  Pompeii.4  Pliny 5 doubts  whether  the  species,  was 
known  in  Italy  in  Cato’s  time,  because  it  was  called  the 
Greek  nut.  It  is  very  possible  that  the  almond  was  in- 
troduced into  Italy  from  the  Greek  islands.  Almonds 
have  not  been  found  in  the  terra-mare  of  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Parma,  even  in  the  upper  layers. 

The  late  introduction  of  the  species  into  Italy,  and  the 
absence  of  naturalization  in  Sardinia  and  Spain,3  incline 
me  to  doubt  whether  it  is  really  indigenous  in  the  north 
of  Africa  and  Sicily.  In  the  latter  countries  it  was  more 
probably  naturalized  some  centuries  ago.  In  confirma- 
tion of  this  hypothesis,  I note  that  the  Berber  name  of 
the  almond,  talouzet ,7  is  evidently  connected  with  the 
Arabic  louz,  that  is  to  say  with  the  language  of  the 
conquerors  who  came  after  the  Romans.  In  Western 
Asia,  on  the  contrary,  and  even  in  some  parts  of  Greece, 

1 GuHSono,  Synopsis  Floras  Sieuloe,  i.  p.  652;  Ileldreich,  Nutzpftanzen 

Oriechenlands,  p.  67.  ] 

2 Hiller,  Hierophyton,  i.  p.  215;  lloeonmuller,  Handb.  Bill.  Alterth., 
iv.  p.  263. 

3 Theophrastus,  Hist.,  lib.  l,c.  11, 18,  etc.;  Dioscorides,  lib.  1,  c.  176. 

« Schouw,  Die  Erde,  etc. ; Comos,  III.  Piante  nei  dipinti  Pomp.,  p.  13. 

5 Pliny,  Hist.,  lib.  16,  c.  22. 

8 Moris,  Flora  Sardoa,  ii.  p.  5 ; Willkomm  and  Lange,  Prodr.  FI.  llisp., 
ii.  p.  243. 

7 Dictionnaire  Franfais  Berbere,  184-1. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS.  221 

it  may  be  regarded  as  indigenous  from  prehistoric  time. 
I do  not  say  primitive,  for  everything  was  preceded  by 
something  else.  I remark  finally  that  the  difference  be- 
1 tween  bitter  and  sweet  almonds  was  known  to  the  Greeks 
and  even  to  the  Hebrews. 

Peach  A mggdalus  persica,  Linnaeus ; Persiea  vul- 
• gar  is,  Miller ; Primus  persica,  Bentham  and  Hooker. 

I will  quote  the  article  in  which  I formerly1  attributed 
; a Chinese  origin  to  the  peach,  a contrary  opinion  to  that 

I which  prevailed  at  the  time,  and  which  people  who  are 
not  on  a par  with  modem  science  continue  to  reproduce 

I I , J »fteywards  give  the  facts  discovered  since  1855. 

" LVe  9reeks  and  Romans  received  the  peach  shortly 
after  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era.  The  names 
persica,  malum  persicum,  indicate  whence  they  had  it 
; 1 ne,ed  llot  dwed  upon  those  well-known  facts.2 *  Several 
kinds  of  peach  are  now  cultivated  in  the  north  of  India  8 
but,  what  is  remarkable,  no  Sanskrit  name  is  known  -’4 
whence  we  may  infer  that  its  existence  and  its  cultivation 
are  of  no  great  antiquity  in  these  regions.  Roxburgh 
who  is  usually  careful  to  give  the  modern  Indian  names’ 

’ on  y mentions  Arab  and  Chinese  names.  Piddington 
-gives  no  Indian  name,  and  Royle  only  Persian  names 
ilie  peach  does  not  succeed,  or  requires  the  greatest 
‘■care  to  ensure  success,  in  the  north-east  of  India5 *  In 
Unna,  on  the  contrary,  its  cultivation  dates  from 

idL‘3  e?i  T^iT  , A n>™t>er  of  superstitious 
ideas  and  of  legends  about  the  properties  of  its  different 

varieties  exist  m that  country.®  These  varieties  are  very 

2 T,lph-  de  CandoHe,  Qiogr.  Hot.  Rais.,  p.  881. 

Genevft‘"X!.Tk.U15,7c.'fm  *V'  4;  DioBcoridos'  lib-  b o.  164 , Pliny, 

* Boyle,  III.  Him’.,  p.  204. 

ibid.  KOXbargh’  FL  Ind ■’  2nd‘  edit-  “•  P-  500;  Piddington,  Index;  Royle, 

I W°ZV,!7kf’/0U--  ofBot’  1850,  p.  54. 

Chinese  mannscripts^antlNoiBette  “p  Cant?"’  collected  these  from 
i part  of  his  article.  The  flats Vu'  P ' 76)  h:ls  transcribed 
oeliovo  the  oval  peaches  wh.Vl  f 4 10  fo)lowing  natnre.  The  Chinese 
-f  a long  life.  t ^ °n  °n°  flidc’  to  b<'  !l  8y*b°l 

n all  ornaments  peachoS  aro  llti(  d 

1 o aud  sculpture,  and  in  congratulatory  pro. 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


222 

numerous ; 1 and  in  particular  the  singular  variety  with 
compressed  or  flattened  fruit,2  which  appears  to  be  further 
removed  than  any  other  from  the  natural  state  of  the 
peach ; lastly,  a simple  name,  to,  is  given  to  the  common 
peach.8 

“ From  all  these  facts,  I am  inclined  to  believe  that  the 
peach  is  of  Chinese  rather  than  of  western  Asiatic  origin. 
If  it  had  existed  in  Persia  or  Armenia  from  all  time,  the 
knowledge  and  cultivation  of  so  pleasant  a fruit  would 
have  spread  earlier  into  Asia  Minor  and  Greece.  The 
expedition  of  Alexander  probably  was  the  means  of 
making  it  known  to  Theophrastus  (332  B.C.),  who  speaks 
of  it  as  a Persian  fruit.  Perhaps  this  vague  idea  of 
the  Greeks  dates  from  the  retreat  of  the  ten  thousand 
(401  B.c.) ; but  Xenophon  does  not  mention  the  peach. 
Nor  do  the  Hebrew  writings  speak  of  it.  The  peach 
has  no  Sanskrit  name,  yet  the  peoples  who  spoke  this 
language  came  into  India  from  the  north-west ; that  is 
to  say,  from  the  generally  received  home  of  the  species. 
On  this  hypothesis,  how  are  we  to  account  for  the  fact 
that  neither  the  Greeks  of  the  early  times  of  Greece,  nor 
the  Hebrews,  nor  the  Sanskrit-speaking  peoples,  who  all 
radiated  from  the  upper  part  of  the  Euphrates  valley  or 
communicated  with  it,  did  not  cultivate  the  peach  ? On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  very  possible  that  the  stones  of  a 
fruit  tree  cultivated  in  China  from  the  remotest  times, 
should  have  been  carried  over  the  mountains  from  the 
centre  of  Asia  into  Kashmir,  Bokhara,  and  Persia.  The 
Chinese  had  very  early  discovered  this  route.  The  im- 
portation would  have  taken  place  between  the  epoch  of 
the  Sanskrit  emigrations  and  the  relations  of  the  Persians 
with  the  Greeks.  The  cultivation  of  the  peach,  once 

eenta,  etc.  According  to  the  work  of  Chin-noug-king,  the  poach  Vu 
prevents  death.  If  it  is  not  oaten  in  time,  it  at  least  preserves  the  body  1 
from  decay  until  the  end  of  the  world.  The  peach  is  always  mentioned  j 
among  the  fruits  of  immortality,  with  which  were  entertained  the  hopes  ^ 
of  Tsinchi-Hoang,  Vouty,  of  tho  Hans  and  other  emperors  who  pretended 
to  immortality,  etc. 

1 Lindley,  Trans.  Hart.  Soc.,  v.  p.  121. 

2 Trans.  Hort.  Soc.  Lond.,  iv.  p.  512,  tab.  19. 

8 Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  TIIEIR  FRUITS. 


223 


established  in  Persia,  would  have  easily  spread  on  the 
one  side  towards  the  west ; on  the  other,  through  Cabul 
towards  the  north  of  India,  where  it  is  not  so  very  ancient. 

In  confirmation  of  the  hypothesis  of  a Chinese  origin, 
it  may  be  added  that  the  peach  was  introduced  into 
Cochin-China  from  China,1  and  that  the  Japanese  give 
the  Chinese  name  Tao 2 to  the  peach.  M.  Stanislas 
, Julien  was  kind  enough  to  read  to  me  in  French  seme 
I passages  of  the  Japanese  encyclopaedia  (bk.  lxxxvi  p 7) 
un  which  the  peach  tree  tao  is  said  to  be  a tree  of 
Western  countries,  which  should  be  understood  to  mean 
the  interior  of  China  as  compared  to  the  eastern  coast 
-since  the  passage  is  taken  from  a Chinese  author.  The 
tao  occurs  in  the  writings  of  Confucius  in  the  fifth 
•.  century  before  the  Christian  era,  and  even  in  the  Ritual 
m the  tenth  century  before  Christ.  Its  wild  nature  is 
not  specified  in  the  encyclopaedia  of  which  I have  just 
s spoken;  but  Chinese  authors  pay  little  attention  to  this 


point. 


j'.ttributcs  a somewhat  similar 


P-  798;  Thunberg,  FI.  Jap.,  p.  199.  Kmmpfor 
the  name  momu,  but  Siobold  (FI.  Jap.,  i.  p.  29) 
similar  name,  mume,  to  a plum  tree,  Primus 


3 Noisette,  Jard.  Fr., 

* Pallas,  FI.  Rossica,  p. 


224- 


origin  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


it  a name  which  he  calls  Persian,  scheptata.1  It  fruit  is  i 
velvety,  sour,  not  very  fleshy,  and  hardly  larger  than  ] 
a walnut ; the  tree  small.  Pallas  suspects  that  this  tree  ] 
has  degenerated  from  cultivated  peaches.  He  adds  that  ] 
it  is  found  in  the  Crimea,  to  the  south  of  the  Caucasus,  1 
and  in  Persia;  but  Marshall,  Bicberstein,  Meyer,  and  j 
Hohenacker  do  not  give  the  wild  pdach  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  the  Caucasus.  Early  travellers,  Gmelin,  j 
Guldenstadt,  and  Georgi,  quoted  by  Ledebour,  mentioned  j 
it.  C.  Koch  2 is  the  only  modern  botanist  who  said  he  I 
found  the  peach  tree  in  abundance  in  the  Caucasian  ] 
provinces.  Ledebour,  however,  prudently  adds,  Is  it  wild  ? | 
The  stones  which  Brugniere  and  Olivier  brought  from  j 
Ispahan,  which  were  sown  in  Paris  and  yielded  a good  I 
velvety  peach,  were  not,  as  Bose  8 asserted,  taken  from  j 
a peach  tree  wild  in  Persia,  but  from  one  growing  in 
a garden  at  Ispahan.4  I do  not  know  of  any  proof.  of  a ; 
peach  tree  found  wild  in  Persia,  and  if  travellers  mention 
any  it  is  always  to  be  feared  that  these  are  only  sown 
trees.  Dr.  Royle 5 says  that  the  peach  grows  wild  in  i 
several  places  south  of  the  Himalayas,  notably  near] 
Mussouri,  but  we  have  seen  that  its  culture  is  not  ancient ; 
in  these  regions,  and  neither  Roxburgh  nor  Don’s  Flora  j 
Nepalensi a mention  the  peach.  Bunge  6 only  found  cul-  j 
tivated  trees  in  the  north  of  China.  This  country  has  I 
hardly  been  explored,  and  Chinese  legends  seem  some-] 
times  to  indicate  wild  peaches.  Thus  the  Chou-g-ki,  ] 
according  to  the  author  previously  quoted,  says,  ‘ Who-] 
soever  eats  of  the  peaches  of  Mount  Kouoliou  shall  j 
obtain  eternal  life.’  For  Japan,  Thunberg  7 says,  Creseim 
ubique  vulgaris,  preedpue  juxta  Nagasaki.  In  ornnim 
horto  colitur  ob  elegantiam  fiorum.  It  seems  from  this* 
passage  that  the  species  grows  both  in  and  out  of  gardens,® 
but  perhaps  in  the  first  case  he  only  alludes  to  peaches?! 
growing  in  the  open  air  and  without  shelter. 

1 Shuft  dloo  is,  according  to  Royle  (III.  Him.  p.  20-1),  the  Persian  V 

name  for  the  nectarine.  3 

2 Ledebour,  FI.  Ross.,i.p.  3.  See  p.  22S,  the  subsequent  opinion  of  Koch. 

3 Bose,  Diet.  d’Agric.,  ix.  p.  481.  4 Thouin,  Ann.  Muj.,  viii.  p.  433.  # 

4 Royle,  III.  Him.,  p.  204.  6 Bunge,  Emun.  PL  Chin.,  p.  23. 

7 Thunberg,  FI.  Jap.  199. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


225 


I “I  h&ve  said  nothing  hitherto  of  the  distinction  to 
| ! be  established  between  the  different  varieties  or  species 
: of  the  peach,  since  most  of  them  are  cultivated  in  all 
h countries — at  least  the  clearly  defined  kinds,  which  may 
'ye  considered  as  botanical  species.  Thus  the  great  dis- 
tinction between  the  downy  and  smooth-skinned  fruits 
(peaches  proper  and  nectarines),  on  which  it  is  proposed 
E*?  ^nd  *wo  .sPecics  ( Persica  vulgaris,  Mill,  andP.  levis, 
L . ■ e'x.ls*-'s  Japan  1 and  in  Europe,  as  in  most  of  the 
r intermediate  countries.2  Less  importance  is  attached 
,to  distinctions  founded  on  the  adherence  or  non-adherence 
; of  the  skin,  on  the  white,  yellow,  or  red  colour  of  the 
f:iiesh,.  and  on  the  general  form  of  the  fruit.  The  great 
; division  into  peaches  and  nectarines  presents  most  of 
! these  modifications  in  Europe,  in  Western  Asia,  and 
, probably  in  China.  It  is  certain  that  in  the  latter 
. country  the  form  of  the  fruit  varies  more  than  else- 
where; for  there  are  as  in  Europe  oval  peaches,  and  also 
the  peaches  of  which  I spoke  just  now,  which  are  quite 
flattened,  in  which  the  top  of  the  stone  is  not  even  covered 
with  flesh.  Ihe  colour  also  varies  greatly.4  In  Europe 
. 0 ,most  dl^tin,ct  varieties,  nectarines  * and  peaches, 
freestones  and  clingstones,  existed  three  centuries  ago, 

| or  J.Bauhm  enumerates  them  very  clearly  ;6  and  before 
i;  m Dalcchamp,  in  1587,  also  gave  the  principal  ones.6 
At  that  time  nectarines  were  called  Nuczperdca,  because 
rd  their  resemblance  in  shape,  size,  and  colour  to  the 

. ainut.  It  is  in  the  same  sense  that  the  Italians  call 
; nem  pescanoce. 

! .xietod  i.VeTfrght  Vain  for  a Proof  that  the  nectarine 
! . ttd  ? Italy  .in  the  time  of  ancient  Rome.  Pliny 7 

[ rMurv£X S «m  comPdation  peaches,  plums,  the 
i " 6 a,  and  perhaps  other  trees,  says  nothing 


| Thunberg,  FI.  Jap.,  199. 

he  nectttrineTbut  consultcd  do  not  mention 

oes  also  in  China.  ’ JuPan’  it  is  extremely  probable  thut  it 

* Lindley 'Trail  Hor?*'7  * 3Van8-  Hort  Soc->  iv'  P-  512,  tab.  19. 

Pliny,  He  I>iv.  Gen.  lib.  ii.  clpli  **  ^ ™ 13* 

Q 


220 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


which  can  apply  to  such  a fruit.  Sometimes  people  have 
thought  they  recognized  it  in  the  tuberes  of  which  he 
speaks.  It  was  a tree  imported  from  Syria  in  the  time 
of  Augustus.  There  were  both  red  and  white  tuberes. 
Others  ( tuberes  ? or  mala  ?)  of  the  neighbourhood  of 
Verona  were  downy.  Some  graceful  verses  of  Petronus, 
quoted  by  Dalechamp,1  clearly  prove  that  the  tuberes 
of  the  Romans  in  Nero’s  time  were  a smooth-skinned 
fruit;  but  this  might  be  the  jujube  (Zizyphus), 
Diospyros,  or  some  Cratcegus,  just  as  well  as  the  smooth- 
skinned peach.  Each  author  in  the  time  of  the  Renais- 
sance had  his  opinion  on  this  point,  or  criticized  that 
of  the  others.2  Perhaps  there  were  two  or  three  species 
of  tuberes,  as  Pliny  says,  and  one  of  them  which  was 
grafted  on  plum  trees  was  the  nectarine  (?)  3 but  1 doubt 
whether  this  question  can  ever  be  cleared  up.4 

“ Even  admitting  that  the  Nucipersica  was  only  intro- 
duced into  Europe  in  the  Middle  Ages,  we  cannot' help 
remarking  that  in  European  gardens  for  centuries,  and 
in  Japan  from  time  unknown,  there  was  an  intermix- 
ture of  all  the  principal  kinds  of  peach.  It  seems  that 
its  different  qualities  were  produced  everywhere  from 
a primitive  species,  which  was  probably  the  downy 
peach.  If  the  two  kinds  had  existed  from  the  beginning, 
either  they  would  have  been  in  different  countries,  and 
their  cultivation  would  have  been  established  separately^ 
or  they  would  have  been  in  the  same  country,  and  in 
this  case  it  is  probable  that  one  kind  would  have  been 
anciently  introduced  into  this  country  and  the  other 
into  that.” 

I laid  stress,  in  1855,  on  other  considerations  in  support 
of  the  theory  that  the  nectarine  is  derived  from  the 
common  peach;  but  Darwin  has  given  such  a large 
number  of  cases  in  which  a branch  of  nectarine  has 


1 Dalechainp,  Hist.,  i.  p.  858. 

2 Dalocbamp,  ibid.j  Matthioli,  p.  122;  Crosalpinus,  p.  107;  J.  Bauhin, 
p.  163,  etc. 

* Pliny,  lib.  xvii.  cap.  10. 

4 l have  not  been  able  to  discover  on  Italian  name  for  a glabrous  or 
other  fruit  derived  from  tuber,  or  tuberes,  which  is  singular,  as  th*. 
ancient  names  of  frnits  are  usually  preserved  under  some  form  or  other. 


PLANTS  • CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


227 


unexpectedly  appeared  upon  a peach  tree,  that  it  is 
1 useless  to  insist  longer  upon  this  point,  and  I will  only 
add  that  the  nectarine  has  every  appearance  of  an  arti- 
jfficial  tree.  Not  only  is  it  not  found  wild,  hut  it  never 
;!  becomes  naturalized,  and  each  tree  lives  for  a shorter 
'time  than  the  common  peach.  It  is,  in  fact,  a weakened 
Ii  form. 


“ The  facility,”  I said,  “ with  which  our  peach  trees  are 
multiplied  from  seed  in  America,  and  have  produced 
idfleshy  fruits,  sometimes  very  fine  ones,  without  the  resource 
[ of  grafting,  inclines  ine  to  think  that  the  species  is  in  a 
. natural  state,  little  changed  by  a long  cultivation  or  by 
i hybrid  fertilization.  In  Virginia  and  the  neighbouring 
(.states  there  are  peaches  grown  on  trees  raised  from  seed 
| n°t  grafted,  and  their  abundance  is  so  great  that 
I brandy  is  made  from  them.1  On  .some  trees  the  fruit  is 
magnificent.2  At  Juan  Fernandez,  says  Bertero,8  the 
Peach  tree  is  so  abundant  that  it  is  impossible  to  form 
an  idea  of  the  quantity  of  fruit  which  is  gathered ; it  is 
usually  very  good,  although  the  trees  have  reverted  to  a 
>wild  condition.  From  these  instances  it  would  not  be 
(surprising  if  thcAvild  peaches  with  indifferent  fruit  found 
in  Western  Asia  were  simply  naturalized  trees  in  a climate 
lot  wholly  favourable,  and  that  the  species  was  of  Chinese 
origin,  where  its  cultivation  seems  most  ancient.” 

Or.  Bretschneider,4  who  at  Pekin  lias  access  to  all  the 
resources  of  Chinese  literature,  merely  says,  after  reading 
| he  above  passages,  “ Too  is  the  peach  tree.  De  Candol le 
links  that  China  is  the  native  country  of  the  peach 
He  may  be  right.”  1 

[ .,  * ,le  antiquity  of  the  existence  of  the  species  and  its 
j • n,a^e  in  Western  Asia  have  become  more  doubtful 
| nice  l8oo.  Anglo-Indian  botanists  speak  of  the  poach 
°f  “V  t-5  a cultivated  tree,5  or  as  cultivated  and  becoming 
ia  uia  izt  and  apparently  wild  in  the  north-west  of 
naia.  rJoissier  mentions  specimens  gathered  in  Ghilan 

' Braddiok,  Trans.  ITort.  Soc.  Lond.,  ii.  p.  205  2 Ibid,  pi  13 

’ BeUoro,  Annales  Sc.  Nat.,  xxi.  p.350  ’ P 

s o' ' r tt,riu‘!  or’  2,”  the  StlulV  and  otc.,  p.  10. 

« u JVH  »ker’  liora  V nHt-  lnd->  ii-  P.  313.  1 

rau  is,  or  eat  Iloi  a,  etc.,  p.  101.  ’ Boissier, FI,  Orient.,  ii.  p.  640, 


228 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


and  to  the  south  of  the  Caucasus,  but  he  says  nothin"  as 
to  their  wild  nature  ; and  Karl  Koch,1  after  travelling 
through  this  district,  says,  speaking  of  the  peach, 
“ Country  unknown,  perhaps  Persia.  Boissier  saw  trees 
growing  in  the  gorges  on  Mount  Hymettus,  near  Athens.” 

The  peach  spreads  easily  in  the  countries  in  which  it 
is  cultivated,  so  that  it  is  hard  to  say  whether  a given 
tree  is  of  natural  origin  and  anterior  to  cultivation,  or 
whether  it  is  naturalized.  But  it  certainly  was  first  culti- 
vated in  Chipa ; it  was  spoken  of  there  two  thousand 
years  before  its  introduction  into  the  Greco-Roman  world, 
a thousand  years  perhaps  before  its  introduction  into  the 
lands  of  the  Sanskrit-speaking  race. 

The  group  of  peaches  (genus  or  subgenus)  is  composed 
of  five  forms,  which  Decaisne2 3 4  regards  as  species,  but 
which  other  botanists  are  inclined  to  call  varieties.  The 
one  is  the  common  peach  ; the  second  the  nectarine,  which 
we  know  to  be  derived  ; the  third  is  the  flattened  'peach 
(P.  platycarpa,  Decaisne)  cultivated  in  China ; and  the 
two  last  are  indigenous  in  China  (P.  simonii,  Decaisne, 


and  P.  Davidii,  Carriers).  It  is,  therefore,  essentially  a 
Chinese  group. 

It  is  difficult,  from  all  these  facts,  not  to  admit  the 
Chinese  origin  of  the  common  peach,  as  I had  formerly 
inferred  from  more  scanty  data.  Its  arrival  in  Italy  at 
the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era  is  now  confirmed  by 
the  absence  of  peach  stones  in  the  terra-mare  or  lake 
dwellings  of  Parma  and  Lombardy,  aud  by  the  represen 
tations  of  the  peach  tree  in  the  paintings  on  the  walls  of 
the  richer  houses  in  Pompeii.8 

I have  yet  to  deal  with  an  opinion  formerly  expressed 
by  Knight,  and  supported  by  several  horticulturists,  that 
the  peach  is  a modification  of  the  almond.  Darwin 
collected  facts  in  support  of  this  idea,  not  omitting  to 
mention  one  which  seems  opposed  to  it.  They  may  l>e 
concisely  put  as  follows  : — (1)  Crossed  fertilization,  whichsj 

1 K.  Koch,  Dendrologie,  i.  p.  83. 

* Decaisne,  Jard.  Fr.  du  Mux.,  Pickers,  p.  42. 

3 Comes,  Iilm.  Piante  nei  Dipinti  Pompeiani,  p.  14. 

4 Darwin,  Variation  of  Plants  and  Animals,  etc.,  i.  p 


338. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


229 


; presented  Knight  with  somewhat  doubtful  results  ; (2) 
intermediate  forms,  as  to  the  fleshiness  of  the  fruit  and 
:the  size  of  the  nut  or  stone,  obtained  by  sowing  peach 
sstones,  or  by  chance  in  plantations,  forms  of  which  the 
salmond-peach  is  an  example  which  has  long  been  known. 
IDecaisne  1 pointed  out  differences  between  the  almond 
aand  peach  in  the  size  and  length  of  the  leaves  indepen- 
dently of  the  fruit.  He  calls  Knight’s  theory  a “ strange 
^hypothesis.”  J 

Geographical  botany  opposes  his  hypothesis,  for  the 
fialmond  tree  has  its  origin  in  Western  Asia ; it  was  not 
[indigenous  in  the  centre  of  the  Asiatic  continent,  and  its 
^introduction  into  China  as  a cultivated  species  was  not 
: anterior  to  the  Christian  era.  The  Chinese,  however,  had 
|.ah  eady  possessed  for  thousands  of  years  different  varieties 
! of  the  common  peach  besides  the  two  wild  forms  I have 
! just  mentioned.  The  almond  and  the  peach,  starting 
[.from  two  such  widely  separated  regions,  can  hardly  be 
considered  as  the  same  species.  The  one  was  established 
:m  China,  the  other  in  Syria  and  in  Anatolia.  The  peach 
;dter  being  transported  from  China  into  Central  Asia! 
and  a little  before  the  Christian  era  into  Western  Asia, 
cannot,  therefore,  have  produced  the  almond,  since  the 
-atter  existed  already  in  Syria.  And  if  the  almond  of 
^Western  Asia  had  produced  the  peach,  how  could  the 
: atter  have  existed  in  China  at  a very  remote  period 
: while  it  was  not  known  to  the  Greeks  and  Latins  ? 

rezLi—Pyrii#  communis,  Linnaeus. 

iFm-nn!  PTi/r?WS  Yild  the  whole  of  temperate 
LnnthPnf?L  ^estem  Asia>  Particularly  in  Anatolia,  to  the 
Mouth  Of  the  Caucasus  and  in  the  north  of  Persia2  pcr- 

■ShorsT  n + wh.mir’8  but  this  is  very  doubtful.  ’ Some 
: mint  n ld  that/ts  area  extends  as  far  as  China.  This 
opinion  is  due  to  the  fact  that  they  regard  Purus 

^m^atio'n  of  tli T 1 beIonS^g  to  the  same  species.  An 
! “ ic  leaves  alone,  of  which  the  teeth  are 

‘ Decaisne,  ubi  mipra,  p.  2. 

.as  verified°8Ueveral  fpecimena.'  94  J Boi8aier-  FL  0ricnL>  P-  653‘  n° 

* Sir  J.  Hooker,  Fl.  Brit.  Ind.,ii.  p.  374. 


230 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


covered  with  a fine  silky  down,  convinced  me  of  the  ! 
specific  difference  of  the  two  trees.1 

Our  wild  pear  does  not  differ  much  from  some  of 
the  cultivated  varieties.  Its  fruit  is  sour,  spotted,  and  j 
narrowing  towards  the  stalk,  or  nearly  spherical  on  the 
same  tree.2  With  many  other  cultivated  species,  it  is 
hard  to  distinguish  the  individuals  of  wild  origin  from 
those  which  the  chance  transport  of  seeds  has  produced j 
at  a distance  from  dwellings.  In  the  present  case  it  isj 
not  difficult.  Pear  trees  are  often  found  in  woods,  and 
they  attain  to  a considerable  height,  with  all  the  con- 
ditions of  fertility  of  an  indigenous  plant.3  Let  us ' 
examine,  however,  whether  in  the  wide  area  they  occupy 
a less  ancient  existence  may  be  suspected  in  some  coun- 
tries than  in  others. 

No  Sanskrit  name  for  the  pear  is  known,  whence  it 
may  be  concluded  that  its  cultivation  is  of  no  long  stand- 
ing in  the  north-west  of  India,  and  that  the  indication, 
which  is  moreover  very  vague,  of  wild  trees  in  Kashmir' 
is  of  no  importance.  Neither  are  there  any  Hebrew  or 
Aramaic  names,4  but  this  is  explained  by  the  fact  that; 
the  pear  does  not  flourish  in  the  hot  countries  in  which 
these  tongues  were  spoken. 

Homer,  Theophrastus,  and  Dioscorides  mention  the 
pear  tree  under  the  names  ochnai,  apios,  or  achras.  The 
Latins  called  it  pyrm  or  pirus ,5  and  cultivated  a greati 

1 P.  sinensis  described  by  Lindley  is  badly  drawn  with  regard  to 
the  indentation  of  the  leaves  in  the  plate  in  the  Botanical  Register,  and; 
very  well  in  that  of  Decaisne’s  Jardin  Fruitier  dti,  MusFum.  It  is  the; 
same  species  as  P.  ussn  riensis,  Maximowicz,  of  Eastern  Asia. 

- Well  drawn  in  Duhamel,  Trait6  des  Arbres,  edit.  2,  vi.  pi.  59  ; and  in 
Decaisne,  Jard.  Frui.  du  M us.,  pi.  1,  figs.  B and  C.  P.  bat  ansa’,  pi.  6 of 
the  same  work,  appears  to  be  identical,  as  Boissier  observes. 

3 This  is  the  case  in  the  forests  of  Lorraine,  for  instance,  according 
to  the  observations  of  Godron,  De  V Origins  Probable  des  Poiriers  C ul ! ivesd 
8vo  pamphlet,  1873,  p.  6. 

1 Rosenmiiller,  Bibl.  Alterth. ; L5w,  Aramaeische  Pftamennarnen,  1881. 

3 The  spelling  Pgr  ns,  adopted  by  Linnseus,  occurs  in  Pliny,  Historia,i 
edit.  1631,  p.  301.  Some  botanists,  purists  in  spelling,  write  pirus,  so 
that  in  referring  to  a modern  work  it  is  necessary  to  look  in  the  index  j 
for  both  forms,  or  run  the  risk  of  believing  that  the  pears  are  not  in  thel 
work.  In  any  case  the  ancient  name  was  a common  name;  but  the  true  * 
botanical  name  is  that  of  Linnams,  founder  of  the  received  noiuen. 
clature,  and  Linmwus  wrote  Pyrus. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


231 


number  of  varieties,  at  least  in  Pliny’s  time.  The  mural 
[paintings  at  Pompeii  frequently  represent  the  tree  with 
fits  fruit.1 

The  lake-dwellers  of  Switzerland  and  Italy  gathered 
wild  apples  in  great  quantities,  and  among  their  stores 
ipears  are  sometimes,  but  rarely,  found.  Heer  has  given 
:;tan  illustration  of  one  which  cannot  be  mistaken,  found 
jaa-t  Wangen  or  Robenhausen.  It  is  a fruit  narrowing 
'towards  the  stalk,  28  mm.  (about  an  inch  and  a half) 
dong  by  19  mm.  (an  inch)  wide,  cut  longitudinally  so  as 
tto  show  the  small  quantity  of  pulp  as  compared  to  the 
i cai  tilaginous  central  part.3  None  have  been  found  in 
■the  lake-dwellings  of  Bourget  in  Savoy.  In  those  of 
(Lombardy,  Professor  Raggazzoni  3 found  a pear  cut  length- 

I ways,  25  mm.  by  10.  This  was  at  Bardello,  Lago  di  Varese. 

I I Le  Avild  pears  figured  in  Duhamel,  Tmitedes  Arbres,e dit.  2, 

11  e ^0  *L3  by  30  to  32  mm. ; and  those  of  Laristan,  figured 

n the  Jardin  Fruitier  du  Muslim  under  the  name  P. 
mlo.nsce,  which  seem  to  me  to  be  of  the  same  species,  and 
undoubtedly  wild,  are  2G  to  27  mm.  by  24  to  25.  In 
modern  wild  pears  the  fleshy  part  is  a little  thicker,  but 
he  ancient  lake-dwellers  dried  their  fruits  after  cutting 

[them  lengthways,  which  must  have  caused  them  to  shrink 
lj  little.  No  knowledge  of  metals  or  of  hemp  is  shown 
n the  settlements  where  these  were  found;  but,  con- 
ldering  their  distance  from  the  more  civilized  centres  of 
antiquity,  especially  in  the  case  of  Switzerland,  it  is 
foossibie  that  these  remains  are  not  more  ancient  than 
ne  trojan  war,  or  than  the  foundation  of  Rome. 

1 |11ave  mentioned  three  Greek  and  one  Roman  name 
:.ut  there  are  many  others;  for  instance,  pauta  in 
Armenian  and  Georgian;  vatzkor  in  Hungarian;  in  Slav 
languages  gruecka  (Russian),  hrmslm  (Bohemian),  krmka 
l W i ames  similar  to  the  Latin  pyrus  recur  in 
I 10  f.  1C  4anguage8 ; pair  in  Erse,  per  in  Kymric  and 
rmoncan.  I leave  philologists  to  conjecture  the  Aryan 

2 nei  Divinti  Pompeiani,  p.  69. 

Heor,  Pfahlbauten,  pp.  24,  26,  fiir.  7 
1 Sprdelli,  Natizie  Slat.  Lacustre  di  Lagozza. 

• * LeX'  Natur'Jeitch: ! Ad.  Pictot,  Origin?*  Indo- 

1 •)  • P*  '7,  dm}  manuscript  dictionary  of  corninon  names. 


232 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


origin  of  some  of  these  names,  and  of  the  German  Birn  ; 1 
I merely  note  their  number  and  diversity  as  an  indica-  I 
tion  of  the  very  ancient  existence  of  the  species  from  the  j 
Caspian  Sea  to  the  Atlantic.  The  Aryans  certainly  did 
not  carry  pears  nor  pear  pips  with  them  in  their  wander-  j 
ings  westward ; but  if  they  found  in  Europe  a fruit  they  ; 
knew,  they  would  have  given  it  the  name  or  names  they 
were  accustomed  to  use,  while  other  earlier  names  mav 
have  survived  in  some  countries.  As  an  example  of  the  ! 
latter  case,  I may  mention  two  Basque  names,  iidarea  and 
madaria,1  which  have  no  analogy  with  any  known  , 
European  or  Asiatic  name.  The  Basques  being  probably  i 
the  descendants  of  the  conquered  Iberians  who  were  , 
driven  back  to  the  Pyrenees  by  the  Kelts,  the  antiquity  ; 
of  their  language  is  very  great,  and  it  is  clear  that  their 
names  for  the  species  in  question  were  not  derived  from  : 
Keltic  or  Latin. 

The  modern  area  of  the  pear  extending  from  the 
north  of  Persia  to  the  western  coast  of  temperate  Europe,; 
principally  in  mountainous  regions,  may  therefore  be  con- : 
sidered  as  prehistoric,  and  anterior  to  all  cultivation.  It 
must  be  added,  however,  that  in  the  north  of  Europe  and 
in  the  British  Isles  an  extensive  cultivation  must  have 
extended  and  multiplied  naturalizations  in  comparatively] 
modern  times  which  can  scarcely  be  now  distinguished.  ; 

I cannot  accept  Godron’s  hypothesis  that  the 
numerous  cultivated  varieties  come  from  an  unknown 
Asiatic  species.2  It  seems  that  they  may  be  ranked,  as 
Decaisne  says,  either  with  P.  communis  or  P.  nivalis  ol 
which  I am  about  to  speak,  taking  into  account  the 
effect  of  accidental  crossing,  of  cultivation,  and  of  long-] 
continued  selection.  Besides,  Western  Asia  has  been 
explored  so  thoroughly  that  it  is  probable  it  contains' 
no  other  species  than  those  already  described. 

Snow  Pear — Pyrus  nivalis,  Jacquin. 

This  variety  of  pear  is  cultivated  in  Austria,  in  the 
north  of  Italy,  and  in  several  departments  of  the  east  and  ' 

1 From  a list  of  plant-naruos  sent  by  M.  d’Abadio  to  Professor  Cl«s,  J 
of  Toulouse. 

2 Godron,  ubi  supra,  p.  28. 


PLAXTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


233 


(Centre  of  France.  It  was  named  Pyrus  nivalis  by 
« Jacquin 1 from  the  German  name  Schneebirn,  given  to  it 
{because  the  Austrian  peasants  eat  the  fruit  when  the 
;-snow  is  on  the  ground.  It  is  called  in  France  Poirier 
sauger , because  the  under  side  of  the  leaves  is  covered 
'with  a white  down  which  makes  them  like  the  sage  (Fr. 
■gauge).  Decaisne2  considered  all  the  varieties  °of  P. 
nivalis  to  be  derived  from  P.  kotschyana , Boissier3 
which  grows  wild  in  Asia  Minor.  The  latter  in  this 
case  should  take  the  name  of  nivalis,  which  is  the  older. 

The  snowy  pears  cultivated  in  France  to  make  the 
idrink  called  perry  have  become  wild  in  the  woods  here 
and  there.  They  constitute  the  greater  number  of  the 
sso-called  cider  pears,”  which  are  distinguished  by  the 
;?°ur  taste  of  the  fruit  independent  of  the  character  of  the 
( ea  . 1 he  descriptions  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans  are  too 
'imperfect  for  us  to  be  certain  if  they  possessed  this 
species  It  may  be  presumed  that  they  did,  however 
? since  they  made  cider.5 


Sandy  Pear,  Chinese  Pear  —Pyrus  sinensis,  Bindley.8 

I have  already  mentioned  this  species,  which  is  nearlv 
Allied  to  the  common  pear.  It  is  wild  in  Mongolia  and 
I antchuna,  and  cultivated  in  China  and  Japan.  Its  fruit, 
^arge  rather  than  good,  is  used  for  preserving  It  has  also 
,oeen  recently  introduced  into  European^  gardens  for 
experiments  in  crossing  it  with  our  species.  This  will 
very  likely  take  place  naturally. 

Apple  Pyrus  Mains,  Linnaeus. 

-The  apple  tree  grows  wild  throughout  Europe 


‘ -lac quin,  Flora  Austriaca,  ii.  pp.  4,  107 

3 n“*'  J?r'!in  fitter  du  Museum,  Poirier*,  pi.  21. 

f this  aped es ' of  whiul  18f  Introduction>  P-  30.  Several  varieties 

/ork.  1 ’ wblch  a few  hear  a large  fruit,  are  figured  in  the  same 

• e‘]ir-  8>vo1-  jj:  P-  230. 

ylvestria  vel  aeperi  geviri*"  werelii’d  25*  *°r  thls  lJUrl,oao  ‘>ira 

dndley  hM^fortimateTy  riven  the  Call°d  T1’0™'1  Pyr“®  sinensie- 
altivated  in  Japan.  ' lra,lchet  uud  Savatier  give  it  as  only 


234 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


(excepting  in  the  extreme  north),  in  Anatolia,  the  south 
of  the  Caucasus,  and  the  Persian  province  of  Ghilan.1 
Near  Trebizond,  the  botanist  Bourgeau  saw  quite  a small 
forest  of  them.2  In  the  mountains  of  the  north-west 
of  India  it  is  “ apparently  wild,”  as  Sir  Joseph  Hooker 
writes  in  his  Flora  of  British  India.  No  author  men- 
tions it  as  growing  in  Siberia,  in  Mongolia,  or  in  Japan.3 

There  are  two  varieties  wild  in  Germany,  the  one 
with  glabrous  leaves  and  ovaries,  the  other  with  leaves 
downy  on  the  under  side,  and  Koch  adds  that  this  down 
varies  considerably.4  In  France  accurate  au thorn  also 
give  two  wild  varieties,  but  with  characters  which  do 
not  tally  exactly  with  those  of  the  German  flora.5  It 
would  be  easy  to  account  for  this  difference  if  the  wild 
trees  in  certain  districts  spring  from  cultivated  varieties 
whose  seeds  have  been  accidentally  dispersed.  The 
question  is,  therefore,  to  discover  to  what  degree  the 
species  is  probably  ancient  and  indigenous  in  different 
countries,  and,  if  it  is  not  more  ancient  in  one  country 
than  another,  how  it  was  gradually  extended  by  the 
accidental  sowing  of  forms  changed  by  the  crossing  of 
varieties  and  by  cultivation. 

The  country  in  which  the  apple  appears  to  be  most 
indigenous  is  the  region  lying  between  Trebizond  and 
Ghilan.  The  variety  which  there  grows  wild  has  leaves 
downy  on  the  under  side,  short  peduncles,  and  sweet 
fruit,0  like  Main s communis  of  France,  described  by 
Boreau.  This  indicates  that  its  prehistoric  area  extended 
from  the  Caspian  Sea  nearly  to  Europe. 

Piddington  gives  in  his  Index  a Sanskrit  name  for 
the  apple,  but  Adolphe  Pictet7  informs  us  that  this 

1 Nyman,  Conspectus  Flora:  Enropea,  p.  2-10;  Ledebour,  Flora  RossicOf 
ii.  p.  96;  Boissier,  Flora  Orientalis,  ii.  p.  656;  Decaisne,  Nouv.  Arch « 
Mus.,  x.  p.  153. 

2 Boissier,  ibid. 

3 Maximo  wicz,  Prim.  Ussvr. ; Regel,  Opit.  Flori,  etc.,  on  the  plants  of 
the  Ussuri  collected  by  Maak ; Schmidt,  Re  Lien  Amur.  Franchet  and 
Savatier  do  not  mention  it  in  their  Enurn.  Jap.  Bretschneider  quotes  / 
a Chinese  name  which,  he  says,  applies  also  to  other  species. 

4 Koch,  Syn.  FI.  Germ.,  i.  p.  261. 

5 Boreau,  FI.  du  Centre  de  la  France,  edit.  3,  vol.  ii.  p.  236. 

6 Boissier,  ubi  supra.  7 Orig.  Indo-Eur.,  i.  p.  276. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS.  235 

' name  seba  is  Hindustani,  and  comes  from  the  Persian 
• seb,  sef  The  absence  of  an  earlier  name  in  India  argues 
; that  the  now  common  cultivation  of  the  apjile  in  Kashmir 
i and  Thibet,  and  especially  that  in  the  north-west  and 
j<  central  provinces  of  India,  is  not  very  ancient.  The  tree 
was  probably  known  only  to  the  western  Aryans. 

| This  people  had  in  all  probability  a name  of  which 
‘ the  root  was  ab,  of,  av,  oh,  as  this  root  recurs  in  several 
I European  names  of  Aryan  origin.  Pictet  gives  ahull, 
ubhall,  in  Erse;  afal  in  Kyrnric;  aval  in  Armorican; 
\ aphal  in  old  High  German  ; appel  in  old  English  ; apli  in 
^Scandinavian ; obolys  in  Lithuanian ; iablvJco  in  ancient 
'Slav ; iabloko  in  Russian.  It  would  appear  from  this  that 
‘ the  western  Aryans,  finding  the  apple  wild  or  already 
: naturalized  in  the  north  of  Europe,  kept  the  name  under 
which  they  had  known  it.  The  Greeks  had  mailed  or 
maila,  the  Latins  mains,  malum;  words  whose  orio-in, 
according  to  Pictet,  is  very  uncertain.  The  Albanians^ 
descendants  of  the  Pelasgians,  have  mole}  Theophrastus  2 * * 
(mentions  wild  and  cultivated  maila.  Lastly,  the  Basques 
ancient  Iberians)  have  an  entirely  different  name,  sagara, 
'which  implies  an  existence  in  Europe  prior  to  the  Aryan 
li  nvasions. 

I The  inhabitants  of  the  terra-mave  of  Parma,  and  of 
me  palafittes  of  the  lakes  of  Lombardy,  Savoy,  and  Swit- 
zerland, made  great  use  of  apples.  They  always  cut 
! '.  ("11'  lengthways,  and  preserved  them  dried  as  a provision 
Por  the  winter.  The  specimens  are  often  carbonized  by 
ire,  but  the  internal  structure  of  the  fruit  is  only  the 
I n01-<;  clearly  t?  be  distinguished.  Heer,8  who  has  shown 
| ffeat  penetration  m observing  these  details,  distinguishes 
, wo  varieties  of  the  apple  known  to  the  inhabitants  of 
[ he  lake-dwellings  before  they  possessed  metals.  The 
ma  er  uk  are  15  to  24  mm.  in  their  longitudinal 
diameter,  and  about  3 mm.  more  across  (in  their  dried 
Pnd  carbonized  state) ; the  larger,  29  to  32  mm.  length- 
prays  by  ob  wide  (dried,  but  not  carbonized).  The  latter 

2 11 e 1 d re  i ch , N« tzpjl anzen  Griechenlands,  i.  p.  (54. 

Ihoophras  us,  Be  Causi *,  lib.  6,  cap.  24. 

Heer,  Pfnhlbauten,  p.  24,  figs.  1-7. 


23G 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


corresponds  to  an  apple  of  German-Swiss  orchards,  now 
called  campaner.  The  English  wild  apple,  figured  in 
English  Botany,  pi.  179,  is  17  mm.  long  by  22  wide.  It  ! 
is  possible  that  the  little  apples  of  the  lake-dwellings  i 
were  wild  ; however,  their  abundance  in  the  stores  makes  I 
it  doubtful.  Dr.  Gross  sent  me  two  apples  from  the  more  \ 
recent  palafittes  of  Lake  Neuchatel;  the  one  is  17  the  1 
other  22  mm.  in  longitudinal  diameter.  At  Lagozza,  in  ; 
Lombardy,  Sordelli 1 mentions  two  apples,  the  one  17  i 
mm.  by  19,  the  other  19  mm.  by  27.  In  a prehistoric  ] 
deposit  of  Lago  Varese,  at  Bardello,  Ragazzoni  found  an  j 
apple  in  the  stores  a little  larger  than  the  others. 

From  all  these  facts,  I consider  the  apple  to 'have] 
existed  in  Europe,  both  wild,  and  cultivated,  from  pre-  | 
historic  times.  The  lack  of  communication  with  Asia  j 
before  the  Aryan  invasion  makes  it  probable  that  the  ] 
tree  was  indigenous  in  Europe  as  in  Anatolia,  the  south  j 
of  the  Caucasus,  and  Northern  Russia,  and  that  its  culti- 
vation began  early  everywhere. 

Qtiince — Cydonia  vulgaris,  Persoon. 

The  quince  grows  wild  in  the  Avoods  in  the  north  of 
Persia,  near  the  Caspian  Sea,  in  the  region  to  the  south  j 
of  the  Caucasus,  and  in  Anatolia.2  A few  botanists  have  j 
also  found  it  apparently  wild  in  the  Crimea,  and  in  the] 
north  of  Greece;8  but  naturalization  may  be  suspected 
even  in  the  east  of  Europe,  and  the  further  we  advance] 
towards  Italy,  especially  towards  the  south-west  of 
Europe  and  Algeria,  the  more  it  becomes  probable  that' 
the  species  was  naturalized  at  an  early  period  round' 
villages,  in  hedges,  etc. 

No  Sanskrit  name  is  knoAvn  for  the  quince,  whencaj 
it  may  be  inferred  that  its  area  did  not  extend  toward* 
the  centre  of  Asia.  Neither  is  there  any  Hebrew  namej 
though  the  species  is  wild  upon  Mount  Taurus.4  The|jj 
Persian  name  is  halvah?  but  I do  not  know  whether  j. 

1 Sordelli,  Sulle  Piante  della  Stations  di  Lagozza,  p.  35. 

2 Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  ii.  p.  656 ; Ledebour,  FI.  Hoss.,  ii.  p.  55. 

3 Steven,  Verzeichniss  Taurien,  p.  150;  Sibthorp,  Prodr.  FI.  Grceca,  q 
i.  p.  344. 

4 Boissier,  ibid. 

5 Nemnicb,  Polyglott  Lexicon. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


237 


i;it  is  as  old  as  Zend.  The  same  name,  aim,  exists  in 
I Russian  for  the  cultivated  quince,  while  the  name  of 
jr the  wild  plant  is  armud,  from  the  Armenian  armuda.1 
j/The  Greeks  grafted  upon  a common  variety,  strution,  a 
[-superior  kind,  which  came  from  Cydon,  in  Crete,  whence 
Kvcioviov,  translated  by  the  Latin  malum  cotoneum,  by 
■cydonia,  and  all  the  European  names,  such  as  codugno  in 
I Italian,  coudougner,  and  later  coing  in  French,  quitte  in 
ji  Geirnan,  etc.  1 here  are  Polish,  pigwa,  Slav,  tunja ,2  and 
'Albanian  (Pelasgian  T),  ftua ,8  names  which  differ  entirely 
from  the  others.  Phis  variety  of  names  points  to  an 
[i ancient  knowledge  of  the  species  to  the  west  of  its 
j original  country,  and  the  Albanian  name  may  even 
.indicate  an  existence  prior  to  the  Hellenes. 

Its  antiquity  in  Greece  may  also  be  gathered  from 
l the  superstition,  mentioned  by  Pliny  and  Plutarch,  that 
l . ® fruit  of  the  quince  was  a preservation  from  evil 
^influences,  and  from  its  entrance  into  the  marriage  rites 
^prescribed  by  Solon.  Some  authors  go  so  far  as  to  main- 
ttain  that  the  apple  disputed  by  Hera,  Aphrodite,  and 
.Athene  was  a quince.  Those  who  are  interested  in 
such  questions  will  find  details  in  Comes’s  paper  on  the 
plants  represented  in  the  frescoes  at  Pompeii.4  The 
i quince  tree  is  figured  twice  in  these,  which  is  not  sur- 
prising, as  the  tree  was  known  in  Cato’s  time.6 
L,  Ifc  seems  to  me  probable  that  it  was  naturalized  in 
[the  east  of  Europe  before  the  epoch  of  the  Troian  war. 
j ibe  quince  is  a,  fruit  which  has  been  little  modified  by 

| ’ lfc  !s  a,s  harsh  and  acid  when  fresh  as  in  the 

[lime  ot  the  ancient  Greeks. 

nil  ^ Punica  granatum,  Linnaeus. 

i PorG,  £0meoranate  F0W8  wild  in  stony  ground  in 
Bnrni  Kurdlstan>  Afghanistan,  and  Beluchistan.” 

theX2n  Jt  in  Mazanderail»  to  the  south  of 

I L P an  kta.  It  appears  equally  wild  to  the  south 


1 Nemnich,  Poly.  Lex. 
* In  4to,  Napoli,  1879. 


! Ibid. 


3 Heldreich,  Nutz.  Oriech.,  p.  64. 
3 Be  re  Rustica,  lib.  7,  cap.  2. 


* Rniudinr  l iv  n.;  , ' _ IJe  re  Rustica,  lib.  7,  cap.  2. 

3.  ML  ■’  6nt •’  “•  P-  737  * Sir  J-  Hooker,  FI.  of  Brit!  Ind.,  ii 

7 Quoted  from  Boyle,  Ulus.  Himal.,  p.  208. 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


of  the  Caucasus.1  Westwards,  that  is  to  say,  in  Asia 
Minor,  in  Greece,  and  in  the  Mediterranean  basin  gene- 
rally, in  the  north  of  Africa  and  in  Madeira,  the  species  j 
appears  rather  to  have  become  naturalized  from  cultiva- 
tion,  and  by  the  dispersal  of  the  seeds  by  birds.  Many 
floras  of  the  south  of  Europe  speak  of  it  as  a “ subspon- 
taneous”  or  naturalized  species.  Desfontaines,  in  his 
Atlantic  Flora,  gives  it  as  wild  in  Algeria,  but  subsequent 
authors  think  2 rather  it  is  naturalized.3  I doubt  its  being 
wild  in  Beluchistan,  where  the  traveller  Stocks  found  it, 
for  Anglo-Indian  botanists  do  not  allow  it  to  be  indi- 
genous east  of  the  Indus,  and  I note  the  absence  of  the  ; 
species  in  the  collections  from  Lebanon  and  Syria  which 
Jioissier  is  always  careful  to  quote. 

In  China  the  pomegranate  exists  only  as  a cultivated  : 
plant.  It  was  introduced  from  Samarkhand  by  Chang- 1 
Kien,  a century  and  a half  before  the  Christian  era.4 

The  naturalization  in  the  Mediterranean  basin' is  so' 
general  that  it  may  be  termed  an  extension  of  the  original 
area.  It  probably  dates  from  a very  remote  period,  for 
the  cultivation  of  the  species  dates  from  a very  early 
epoch  in  Western  Asia. 

Let  us  see  whether  historical  and  philological  data 
can  give  us  any  information  on  this  head. 

I note  the  existence  of  a Sanskrit  name,  darimba, 
whence  several  modern  Indian  names  are  derived.5| 
Hence  we  may  conclude  that  the  species  had  long  been 
known  in  the  regions  traversed  by  the  Aryans  in  their 
route  towards  India.  The  pomegranate  is  mentioned, 
several  times  in  the  Old  Testament,  under  the  name  of 
rimmon,6  whence  the  Arabic  rumman  or  rdman.  It 
was  one  of  the  fruit  trees  of  the  promised  land,  and  the 
Hebrews  had  learnt  to  appreciate  it  in  Egyptian  gardens. 
Many  localities  in  Palestine  took  their  name  from  this 

1 Ledebour,  FI.  Ross.,  il.  p.  104. 

3 Munby,  FI.  Alger.,  p.  49 ; Spicilegium  Flora  Maroccam r,  p.  458. 

* Boissier,  ibid. 

< Bretschneider,  On  Study  and  Value,  etc.,  p.  16. 

8 Piddington,  Index.  j 

0 Rosonmullor,  Bibl.  Naturge.,  i.  p.  273  ; Hamilton,  La  Bot.  de  la  Bible, 

Nice,  1871,  p.  48. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


239 


shrub,  but  the  Scriptures  only  mention  it  as  a cultivated 
jsspecies.  The  flower  and  the  fruit  figured  in  the  religious 
-rites  of  the  Phoenicians,  and  the  goddess  Aphrodite°  had 
jl  herself  planted  it  in  the  isle  of  Cyprus,1  which  implies 
:that  it  was  not  indigenous  there.  The  Greeks  were 
^acquainted  with  the  species  in  the  time  of  Homer.  It  is 
f f 'yice  mentioned  in  the  Odyssey  as  a tree  in  the  gardens 
KJ  haeacia  and  Phrygia.  They  called  it  voice  or  voa, 
h which  philologists  believe  to  be  derived  from  the  Syrian 
^.and  Hebrew  name,2  and  also  sided,3  which  seems  to  be 
f Pelasgic,  for  the  modern  Albanian  name  is  siyed  There 
•is  nothing  to  show  that  the  species  was  wild  in  Greece 
•where  Fraas  and  Heldreich  affirm  that  it  is  now  only 
^naturalized.  J 


Ihe  pomegranate  enters  into  the  myths  and  religious 
\ ceremonies  of  the  ancient  Romans.6  Cato  speaks  of  its 
f properties  as  a vermifuge.  According  to  Pliny,7  the  best 
; pomegranates  came  from  Carthage,  hence  the  name 
Micm  pimteum ; but  it  should  not  be  supposed,  as  it 
.‘ah  ,een  assumed,  that  the  species  came  originally  from 
Northern  Africa.  Very  probably  the  Phoenicians  had 
introduced  it  at  Carthage  long  before  the  Romans  had 
anything  to  do  with  this  town,  and  it  was  doubtless 
cultivated  as  in  Egypt. 

L theA  pomegranate  had  formerly  been  wild  in 

Sou  iT  n?  an<l  thG  8?uth  °f  EuroPe>  the  Latim 

: would  have  had  more  original  names  for  it  than  qranatum 

I ?)  and  Malum  jmnicum.  We  should  have 

I e haps  found  local  names  derived  from  ancient  Western 

n Greek  ^ ;S.emiti<: name  rimmon  has  prevailed 

; 1 Ureek  ami  m Arabic,  and  even  occurs,  through  Arab 

i he  African10^  -the-  Berber%8  lt  musfc  admitted  that 
i African  origin  is  one  of  the  errors  caused  by  the 

; rroneous  popular  nomenclature  of  the  Romans.  } 

Leaves  and  flowers  of  a pomegranate,  described  by 

• Set"’  Und  HaYriere  T Asien’  0dit-  3-.P-  10«- 

* Heldreicti  w > a &ot.  '^er  Alien  (}rie.  und  Rom.,  p.  681. 

4 r.  Nulzpflanzcn  Qriechenlands,  p.  64. 

I'  raiis,  FI.  Class.,  p.  79  ; HeWroioh,  ibid. 

Hehn,  xhid.  , 

8 Dictwtvnaire Franfais-Berbire,  publisliod  by  tbe’Frenoh  Government. 


240 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Sapor ta1  as  a variety  of  the  modem  Punica  gmnatum, 
have  been  discovered  in  the  pliocene  strata  of  the  environs 
of  Meximieux.  The  species,  therefore,  existed  under  this 
form,  before  our  epoch,  along  with  several  species,  some  ! 
extinct,  others  still  existing  in  the  south  of  Europe,  and 
others  in  the  Canaries,  but  the  continuity  of  existence  j 
down  to  our  own  day  is  not  thereby  proved. 

To  conclude,  botanical,  historical,  and  philological 
data  agree  in  showing  that  the  modern  species  is  a native  ; 
of  Persia  and  some  adjacent  countries.  Its  cultivation 
began  in  prehistoric  time,  and  its  early  extension,  first 
towards  the  west  and  afterwards  into  China,  has  caused] 
its  naturalization  in  cases  which  may  give  rise  to  errors] 
as  to  its  true  origin,  for  they  are  frequent,  ancient,  and] 
enduring.  I arrived  at  these  conclusions  in  1809, 2 which] 
has  not  prevented  the  repetition  of  the  erroneous  African] 
origin  in  several  works. 

Rose  Apple — Eugenia  Jambos,  Linmeus ; Jambosa\ 
vulgaris,  de  Candolle. 

Th is  small  tree  belongs  to  the  family  of  Myrtaceae.  It  is  1 
cultivated  in  tropical  regions  of  the  old  and  uew  worlds,! 
as  much  perhaps  for  the  beauty  of  its  foliage  as  for  its! 
fruit,  of  which  the  rose-scented  pulp  is  too  scanty.  Therej 
is  an  excellent  illustration  and  a good  description  of  it  in* 
the  Botanical  Magazine,  pi.  3356.  The  seed  is  poisonous.*! 

As  the  cultivation  of  this  species  is  of  ancient  date! 
in  Asia,  there  was  no  doubt  of  its  Asiatic  origin  J 
but  the  locality  in  which  it  grew  wild  was  formerly! 
unknown.  Loureiro’s  assertion  that  it  grew  in  Cochin-1 
China  and  some  parts  of  India  required  confirmation, ; 
which  has  been  afforded  by  some  modern  writers.4  Thej 
jambos  is  wild  in  Sumatra,  and  elsewhere  in  the  islands! 
of  the  Malay  Archipelago.  Kurz  did  not  meet  with  it  in 
the  forests  of  British  Burmah,  but  when  llheede  saw 
this  tree  in  gardens  in  Malabar  he  noticed  that  it  was 
called  Malacca-schambu,  which  shows  that  it  came  origi- 

1 De  Saporta,  Bull.  Soc.  Geol.  de  France,  April  5,  18G9,  pp.  7G7-7G9.  fl 

2 Q6ogr.  Bot.  Rais.,  p.  191. 

3 Descourtilz,  Flore  Medicate  des  Antilles,  v.  pi.  315. 

* Miquel,  Sumatra,  p.  118;  Flora  Indice-Batacce,  i.  p.  125;  Blume, 
Museum  Lugd.-Bat.,  i.  p.  93. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS.  241 


nally  from  the  Malay  Peninsula,  Lastly,  Brandis  says 
it  is  wild  in  Sikkim,  to  the  north  of  Bengal.  Its  natural 
rarea  probably  extends  from  the  islands  of  the  Malay 
.Archipelago  to  Cochin-China,  and  even  to  the  north-east 
where>  however,,  it  is  probably  naturalized  from 
cultivation  and  by  the  agency  of  birds.  Naturalization 
•bas  also  taken  place  elsewhere— at  Hong-kong,  for  in- 
stance, m the  Seychelles,  Mauritius,  and  Rodriguez  and 
m several  of  the  West  India  Islands.1 

, Malaf  Apple— Eugenia  malaccensis,  Linmeus ; Jam- 
oosa  malaccensis,  de  Candolle. 

A species  allied  to  Eugenia  jambos,  but  differing 
'rom  it  m the  arrangement  of  its  flowers,  and  in  its 
mit,  of  an  obovoid  instead  of  ovoid  form  ; that  is  to  say 
i snialJer  end  is  attached  to  the  stalk.  The  fruit  is 
n°rwi  8 i and  is  also  rose-scented,  but  it  is  much2 
thtth  esteemed  according  to  the  country  and  varieties 
. hese  are  numerous  differing  in  the  red  or  pink  colour  of 
him  flowers,  and  in  the  size,  shape,  and  colour  of  the  fruit 

Lthe^rTT^^^w  an  ancient  cultivation 
^the  Malay  Arch ipekgo  where  the  species  is  indigenous. 

confirmation  it  must  be  noted  that  Forster  found  it 
Htablished  in  the  Pacific  Islands,  from  Otahiti  to  the 
andwich  Isles,  at  the  time  of  Cook’s  voyages  “ The 
Iday  apple  grows  wild  in  the  forests  of  the  Malay 
-rchipelago,  and  in  the  peninsula  of  Malacca.5  3 

tahitiTn  Si  ^ WaS  b1r0UShfc  t0  Jamaica  from 
I Severs  f i L w T and  become  naturalized 

J a Wands- also  “ 

Guava  Psidium  guayava,  Raddi. 

Ancient  authors,  Linnmus,  and  some  later  botanists, 


of  XawiL, etc,  p.  115; 

Humplnus,  Amboin.  i.  p.  121  f *17 

I ^a8®ac>  n°re  ,h‘*  Antilles , iii!  p 89  pi  05 
; Forster,  Plantis  Esculent is,  p.  36.  ’ P 
Jilumo,  Museum  Lund,.Uat  i 

111;  Hooker,  UruU't'jl  a n ■ '• 

'{,!?****•  m- BHt-  "■  P-  m.  ofH 


It 


242 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


-admitted  two  species  of  this  fruit  tree  of  the  family 
of  Myrtaceae,  the  one  with  elliptical  or  spherical  fruit, 
with  red  flesh,  Psidium  pomiferum ; the  other  with  a 
pyriform  fruit  and  white  or  pink  flesh,  more  agreeable 
to  the  taste.  Such  diversity  is  also  observed  in  pears,  - 
apples,  or  peaches;  so  it  was  decided  to  consider  all  the j 
Psidii  as  forming  a single  species.  Raddi  saw  a proof , 
that  there  was  no  essential  difference,  for  he  observed 
pyriform  and  round  fruits  growing  on  the  same  tree  nqi 
Brazil.1  The  majority  of  botanists,  especially  those  who] 
have  observed  the  guava  in  the  colonies,  follow  the| 
opinion  of  Raddi,2  to  which  I was  inclined,  even  in  1855J 
from  .reasons  drawn  from  the  geographical  distribution.8! 

Lowe,1  in  his  Flora  of  Madeira,  maintains  with  sornfl 
hesitation  the  distinction  into  two  species,  and  asserts! 
that  each  can  be  raised  from  seed.  They  are,  therefore! 
races,  like  those  of  our  domestic  animals,  and  of  mand 
cultivated  plants.  Each  of  these  races  comprehends 
several  varieties.5 

The  study  of  the  origin  of  the  guava  presents  in  th«a 
highest  degree  the  difficulty  which  exists  in  the  case  of. 
many  fruit  trees  of  this  nature : their  fleshy  and  some-* 
what  aromatic  fruits  attract  omnivorous  animals  which 
cast  their  seeds  in  places  far  from  cultivation.  Those  <>m 
the  guava  germinate  rapidly,  and  fructify  in  the  third 
or  fourth  year.  Its  area  has  thus  spread,  and  is  still 
spreading  by  naturalization,  principally  in  those  tropical 
countries  which  are  neither  very  hot  nor  very  damp. 

In  order  to  simplify  the  search  after  the  origin  of  tht 
species,  I may  begin  by  eliminating  the  old  world,  for  it 
is  sufficiently  evident  that  the  guava  came  from  America. 


1 Raddi,  Di  Alcune  Specie  di  Pero  Indiano,  in  4to,  Bologna,  1821,  pdp 
5 Martins,  Syst.  Nat.  Medico;  liras.,  p.  32 ; Blume,  Museum  Luyd.- 
Bat.,  i.  p.  71  ; Hasskarl,  in  Flora,  1844,  p.  589;  Sir  J.  Hooker,  FI.  of  Brqi 


lnd„  ii.  p.  468. 

3 Q6ogr.  Bot.  Rais.,  p.  893. 

* Lowe,  Flora  of  Madeira,  p.  266. 

6 See  Illume,  ibid. ; Descourtilz,  Flore  M^dicale  des  Antilles,  ii.  p. 
in  which  there  is  a good  illustration  of  the  pyriform  guava.  Tussac, 
Flore  des  Antilles,  gives  a good  plate  of  the  round  form.  These  *'»» 
latter  works  furnish  interesting  details  on  the  use  of  the  guava,  on  th* 
vegetation  of  the  species,  etc. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS.  243 

Out  of  sixty  species  of  the  genus  Psidium,  all  those 
which  have  been  carefully  studied  are  American.  It  is 
.•  rue  that  botanists  from  the  sixteenth  century  have  found 
dants  of  Psidium  guayava  (varieties  pomifervm  and 
>y  rife rum)  more  or  less  wild  in  the  Malay  Archipelago 
:ind  the  south  of  Asia,1  but  everything  tends  to  show 
pat  these  were  the  result  of  recent  naturalization.  In 
faacli  locality  a foreign  origin  was  admitted;  the  only 
doubt  was  whether  this  origin  was  Asiatic  or  American 
.Other  considerations  justify  this  idea.  The  common 
(.lames  in  Malay  are  derived  from  the  American  word 
' a lava.  Ancient  Chinese  authors  do  not  mention  the 

[ipiava  though  Loureiro  said  a century  and  a half  a«'o 
[ hat  they  were  growing  wild  in  Cochin-China.  Forster 
oes  not  mention  them  among  the  cultivated  plants  of 
‘ ie  Pacific  Isles  at  the  time  of  Cook’s  voyage,  which 
f3  significant  when  we  consider  how  easy  this  plant  is 
l?  c 11 1 Ovate  and  its  ready  dispersion.  In  Mauritius  and 
ilie  beychelles  there  is  no  doubt  of  their  recent  intro- 
uction  and  naturalization.2 

It.  is  more  difficult  to  discover  from  what  part  of 
America  the  guava  originally  came.  In  the  present 
wntury  it  is  undoubtedly  wild  in  the  West  Indies,  in 
„,X‘CO’  ??,  Central  America,  Venezuela,  Peru,  Guiana, 
"d  Brazil  But  whether  this  is  only  since  Europeans 
^tended  its  cultivation,  or  whether  it  was  previously 
i inused  by  the  agency  of  the  natives  and  of  birds,  seems 
I cer,tam  than  when  I spoke  on  the  subject 

mw-  N°,WAhowever,  wifch  a little  more  experience 
questions  of  this  nature,  and  since  the  specific  unity 

ideavm.r?  vJnetie?  of  g^va  is  recognized,  I shall 
ideavour  to  show  what  seems  most  probable. 

istoi-v  of  fl’  °ne  ^ earliest  authors  on  the  natural 

Tout  the  neW,  WOr-Id’  exPresses  himself  as  follows, 

• p iencal  variety  of  the  guava:  “There  are 

* BoWh P- 141 ; Eheede-  SortusMaldbwrieneis,  iii.  t.  34. 

* QSogr.  Hot.  Rais.,  (jy4  M BranUenm,  vol.  xiv.  p.  190. 
ins.flSl’p^i"/^'-  ^ MUVale  dBS  IndeS  0rient-  et  OccuL,  French 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


244 

mountains  in  San  Domingo  and  the  other  islands  j 
entirely  covered  with  guavas,  and  the  natives  say  that 
there  were  no  such  trees  in  the  islands  before  the  I 
arrival  of  the  Spaniards,  who  brought  them,  I know  not  j 
whence.”  The  mainland  seems,  therefore,  to  have  been 
the  original  home  of  the  species.  Acosta  says  that  it  • 
grows  in  South  America,  adding  that  the  Peruvian 
guavas  have  a white  flesh  superior  to  that  of  the  red  : 
fruit.  This  argues  an  ancient  cultivation  on  the  main- 
land. Hernandez  1 saw  both  varieties  wild  in  Mexico  in  . 
the  warm  regions  of  the  plains  and  mountains  near  , 
Quauhnaci.  He  gives  a description  and  a fair  draw-  l 
ing  of  P.  pomiferum.  Piso  and  Marcgraf2  also  found 
the  two  guavas  wild  in  the  plains  of  Brazil ; but  they  i 
remark  that  it  spreads  readily.  Marcgraf  says  that  ] 
they  were  believed  to  be  natives  of  Peru  or  of  North  < 
America,  by  which  he  may  mean  the  West  Indies  or  j 
Mexico.  Evidently  the  species  was  wild  in  a great  part  j 
of  the  continent  at  the  time  of  the  discovery  of  America. ; 
If  the  area  was  at  one  time  more  restricted,  it  must  have  ; 
been  at  a far  more  remote  epoch. 

Different  common  names  were  given  by  the  different 
native  races.  In  Mexico  it  was  xalxocotl ; in  Brazil  the  \ 
tree  was  called  araca-iba,  the  fruit  araca  guacu ; lastly, ; 
the  name  guajavos,  or  guajava,  is  quoted  by  Acosta  and 
Hernandez  for  the  guavas  of  Peru  and  San  Domingo] 
without  any  precise  indication  of  origin.  This  diversity  ^ 
of  names  confirms  the  hypothesis  of  a very  ancient  and 
extended  area. 

From  what  ancient  travellers  say  of  an  origin  foreign  J 
to  San  Domingo  and  Brazil  (an  assertion,  however,  which  § 
we  may  be  permitted  to  doubt),  I suspect  that  the  most  a 
ancient  habitation  extended  from  Mexico  to  Columbia 
and  Peru,  possibly  including  Brazil  before  the  discovery  i 
of  America,  and  the  West  Indies  after  that  event.  In  its 
earliest  state,  the  species  bore  spherical,  highly  coloured  » 
fruit,  harsh  to  the  taste.  The  other  form  is  perhaps  the 
result  of  cultivation. 

1 Hernandez,  Novce  Hispania>  Thesaurus,  p.  85. 

* Piso,  Uist.  Brasil,  p.  74  j Marcgraf,  ibid.,  p.  105. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


245 


Gourd,1  or  Calabash — Lagenaria  vulgaris,  Scringe  ; 
1 Cucurbit  a lagenaria,  Linmeus. 

The  fruit  of  this  Curcubitacea  has  taken  different 
; forms  in  cultivation,  but  from  a general  observation  of 
’the  other  parts  of  the  plant,  botanists  have  ranked  them 
in  one  species  which  comprises  several  varieties.2  The 
imost  remarkable  are  the  pilgrim's  gourd,  in  the  form  of 
a bottle,  the  long-necked  gourd,  the  trumpet  gourd,  and 
i the  calabash,  generally  large  and  without  a neck.  Other 
less  common  varieties  have  a flattened,  very  small  fruit, 
like  the  snuff-box  gourd.  The  species  may  always  be 
recognized  by  its  white  flower,  and  by  the  hardness  of 
’the  outer  rind  of  the  fruit,  which  allows  of  its  use  as  a 
vessel  for  liquids,  or  a reservoir  of  air  suitable  as  a buoy 
for  novices  in  swimming.  The  flesh  is  sometimes  sweet 
and  eatable,  sometimes  bitter  and  even  purgative. 

Linnaeus 8 pronounced  the  species  to  be  American. 
IDe  Candolle4  thought  it  was  probably  of  Indian  origin, 
and  this  opinion  has  since  been  confirmed. 

Lagenaria  vulgaris  has  been  found  wild  on  the 
(coast  of  Malabar  and  in  the  humid  forests  of  Deyra  Doom5 
’Roxburgh 0 considered  it  to  be  wild  in  India,  although 
'.subsequent  floras  ^give  it  only  as  a cultivated  species. 
ILastly,  Rumphius  7 mentions  wild  plants  of  it  on  the  sea- 
shore in  one  of  the  Moluccas.  Authors  generally  note 
’that  the  pulp  is  bitter  in  these  wild  plants,  but  this  is 
sometimes  the  case  in  cultivated  forms.  The  Sanskrit 
language  already  distinguished  the  common  gourd, vlavou 
and  another,  bitter , kutou-toumbi,  to  which  Pictet  also 
: attributes  the  name  tiktaka  or  tiktika.9  Seemann  ,J  saw 


This  J«ZJT}u(,riUrd  !ll3°,  n,scd  in  for  Cucurhita  maxima. 

exaniples  of  the  confusion  in  common  names  and  tho 
• greater  accuracy  of  scientific  terms. 

• 2 N“ndin>  de*  Sc.  Nat.,  4th  scries,  vol.  xii.  p.  91 ; Cotmiaux, 

in  our  Monog.  Phan&rog.,  iii.  p.  417  1 ’ ^ ® * ' 

’ AinpT8’pSP!iCin  Pl™tanlm’  P-  1434,  under  Cucurhita. 

<■  ni  1 'a  Candolle,  f/ora  iran^aine  (1805),  vol.  iii.  p.  692. 

. i^eede,  Malabar,  m.  pls.  1,  6;  Royle,  III.  Himal.,  p.  218. 

. Iff  ff'd-,  edit.  1832,  vol.  iii.  p.  719. 

- Kumphius,  Ambotn,  vol.  v.  p 397  t 14.4. 

[ _ ’ .Tiddington,  Index  at  the  word  ’ Cucurhita  lagenaria;  Ad.  Pictet, 
[ Onijmes  Indo-Europ.,  edit.  3,  vol.  i.  p.  386. 

" Seemann,  Flora  Vitiensia,  p.  106. 


246 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


the  species  cultivated  and  naturalized  in  the  Fiji  Isles.  \ 
Thozet  gathered  it  on  the  coast  of  Queensland/  but  it 
had  perhaps  spread  from  neighbouring  cultivation.  The 
localities  in  continental  India  seem  more  certain  and 
more  numerous  than  those  of  the  islands  to  the  south  of 
Asia. 

The  species  has  also  been  found  wild  in  Abyssinia,  in 
the  valley  of  Hieha  by  Dillon,  and  in  the  bush  and  stony 
ground  of  another  district  by  Schimper.2 

From  these  two  regions  of  the  old  world  it  has  been 
introduced  into  the  gardens  of  all  tropical  countries  and 
of  those  temperate  ones  where  there  is  a sufficiently  high 
temperature  in  summer.  It  has  occasionally  become 
naturalized  from  cultivation,  as  is  seen  in  America.8 

The  earliest  Chinese  work  which  mentioned  the  gourd 
is  that  of  Tchong-tchi-chou,  of  the  first  century  before 
Christ,  quoted  in  a work  of  the  fifth  or  sixth  century  ( 
according  to  Bretschneider.4  He  is  speaking  here  of 
cultivated  plants.  The  modern  vai'ieties  of  the  gardens 
at  Pekin  are  the  trumpet  gourd,  which  is  eatable,  and 
the  bottle  gourd. 

Greek  authors  do  not  mention  the  plant,  but  Romans  ; 
speak  of  it  from  the  beginning  of  the  empire.  It  is 
clearly  alluded  to  in  the  often-quoted  lines6  of  the  tenth : 
book  of  Columella.  After  describing  the  different  forms , 
of  the  fruit,  he  says — 

“ Dabit  ilia  eapacem, 

Naricias  picis,  ant  Aetroi  mellis  Ilymetti, 

Ant  habilem  l vtnphis  hatnnlam,  Bacchove  lagenam, 

Turn  pneros  eadem  fluviis  innare  docebit.” 

Pliny 6 speaks  of  a Cucurbitacea,  of  which  vessels  and  ; 

1 Bentham,  Flora  Australiensis,  iii.  p.  316. 

1 Described  first  under  the  name  Lagenaria  idolalrica.  A.  Richard,  ■’j 
Tent  amen  FI.  Abyss.,  i.  p.  293,  and  later,  Naudin  and  Cogniaux,  recognized  jj 
its  identity  with  L.  vulgaris. 

3 Torrey  and  Gray,  FI.  of  N.  Amer.,  i.  p.  543 ; Grisebach,  Flora  of  1 
Brit.  IF.  Ind.  Is.,  p.  288. 

4 Bretschneider,  letter  of  the  23rd  of  August,  1881. 

4 Tragus,  Stirp.,  p.  285;  Ruellins,  De  Natura  Slirpium,  p.  498;  Nan-  J 
din,  ibid. 

* Pliny,  Hist.  Plant.,  1.  19,  c.  5. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


247 


flasks  for  wine  were  made,  which  can  only  apply  to  this 
I species. 

It  does  not  appear  that  the  Arabs  were  early  ac- 
cjuainted  with  it,  for  Ibn  Alawam  and  Ibn  Baithar  say 
nothing  of  it.1  Commentators  of  Hebrew  works  attri- 
bute no  name  to  this  species  with  certainty,  and  yet  the 
climate  of  Palestine  is  such  as  to  popularize  the  use  of 
gourds  had  they  been  known.  From  this  it  seems  to  me 
doubtful  that  the  ancient  Egyptians  possessed  this  plant, 
in  spite  of  a single  figure  of  leaves  observed  on  a tomb 
which  has  been  sometimes  identified  with  it.2  Alexander 
Braun,  Ascherson,  and  Magnus,  in  their  learned  paper  on 
the  Egyptian  remains  of  plants  in  the  Berlin  Museum,8 
indicate  several  Cucurbitacese  without  mentioning  this 
one.  The  earliest  modern  travellers,  such  as  Rauwolf,4 
in  1574,  saw  it  in  the  gardens  of  Syria,  and  the  so-called 
pilgrim's  gourd,  figured  in  1539  by  Brunfels,  was  probably 
known  in  the  Holy  Land  from  the  Middle  Ages. 

All  the  botanists  of  the  sixteenth  century  give  illus- 
trations of  this  species,  which  was  more  generally  culti- 
vated in  Europe  at  that  time  than  it  is  now.  The  common 
name  in  these  older  writings  is  Camerarici,  and  three- 
kinds  of  fruit  are  distinguished.  From  the  white  colour 
of  the  flower,  which  is  always  mentioned,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  of  the  species.  I also  note  an  illustration,  certainly 
a very  indifferent  one,  in  which  the  flower  is  wanting, 
but  with  an  exact  representation  of  the  fruit  of  the 
pilgrim’s  gourd,  which  has  the  great  interest  of  having 
appeared  before  the  discovery  of  America.  It  is  pi.  216 
of  Ilcrharius  Pataviw  Impressus,  in  4to,  1485 — a rare 
work. 

In  spite  of  the  use  of  similar  names  by  some  authors, 
I do  not  believe  that  the  gourd  existed  in  America  be- 
fore the  arrival  of  the  Europeans.  The  Taqucva  of  Piso  5 

Ibu  Alavvilm,  in  E.  Meyer,  Geschichte  der  Botanik,  iii.  p.  60;  Ibn 
Baithar,  Sondtheimer’s  translation. 

Unger,  PJlantten  des  Alten  JKgxjptenn,  p.  59 ; Pickering,  Chronol. 
Arrang.,  p.  137. 

3 ln  8vo.  1877,  p.  17.  < Rauwolf,  FI.  Orient.,  p.  125. 

5 Piso,  India  Utriusque.,  etc.,  edit.  1658,  p.  26-1. 


248 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


and  Cucurbita  lagenccforma  of  Marcgraf1 2  are  per- 
haps Lagenaria  vulgaris  as  monographs  say,3  and  the 
specimens  from  Brazil  which  they  mention  should  be 
certain,  hut  that  does  not  prove  that  the  species  was  in 
the  country  before  the  voyage  of  Amerigo  Vespucci  in 
1504.  From  that  time  until  the  voyages  of  these  two 
botanists  in  1087  and  1038,  a much  longer  time 
than  is  needed  to  account  for  the  introduction 
fusion  of  an  annual  species  of  a curious  form,  easy  of 
cultivation,  and  of  which  the  seeds  long  retain  the  faculty 
of  germination.  It  may  have  become  naturalized  from 
cultivation,  as  has  taken  place  elsewhere.  It  is  still 
more  likely  that  Cucurbita  siceratia,  Molina,  attributed 
sometimes  to  the  species  under  consideration,  sometimes  , 
to  Cucurbita  maxima,3  may  have  been  introduced  into 
Chili  between  1538,  the  date  of  the  discovery  of  that 
country,  and  1787,  the  date  of  the  Italian  edition  of 
Molina.  Acosta4  also  speaks  of  calabashes  which  the 
Peruvians  used  as  cups  and  vases,  but  the  Spanish 
edition  of  his  book  appeared  in  1591,  more  than  a 
hundred  years  after  the  Conquest.  Among  the  first 
naturalists  to  mention  the  species  after  the  discovery  of 
America  (1492)  is  Oviedo,5  who  had  visited  the  main- 
land, and,  after  dwelling  at  Vera  Paz,  came  back  to 
Europe  in  1515,  but  returned  to  Nicaragua  in  1539.'’ 
According  to  Ramusio’s  compilation 7 he  spoke  of  zuechc, 
freely  cultivated  in  the  West  India  Islands  and  Nicaragua 
at  the  time  of  the  discovery  of  America,  and  used  as 
bottles.  The  authors  of  the  floras  of  Jamaica  in  the 
seventeenth  century  say  that  the  species  was  cultivated 
in  that  island.  P.  Brown,8  however,  mentions  a large 
cultivated  gourd,  and  a smaller  one  with  a bitter  and 
purgative  pulp,  which  was  found  wild. 


elapsed 
and  dif- 


1 Marcgraf,  Hist.  Nat.  Brasil  ice,  1648,  p.  44. 

2 Nandin,  ibid. ; Cogniaux,  Flora  Brasil.,  fasc.  78,  p.  7 ; and  de  Candolle, 
Monogr.  Phaner.,  iii.  p.  418. 

* Cl.  Gay,  Flora  Chilena,  ii.  p.  '403. 

* Jos.  Acosta,  French  trans.,  p.  167. 

4 Pickering,  Chronol.  Arrang.,  p.  861.  6 Pickering,  ibid. 

7 Ramusio,  vol.  iii.  p.  112. 

* P.  Brown,  Jamaica,  edit.  ii.  p.  354. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


249 


Lastly,  Elliott 1 writes  as  follows,  in  1824,  in  a work 
•on  the  Southern  States  of  America:  “ L.  vulgaris  is 
; rarely  found  in  the  woods,  and  is  certainly  not  indigenous. 

• It  seems  to  have  been  brought  by  the  early  inhabitants 
of  oui  country  from  a warmer  climate.  The  species  has 
mow  become  wild  near  dwellings,  especially  in  islands.” 
The  expression,  “inhabitants  of  our  country,”  seems  to 

nefer  rather  to  the  colonists  than  to  the  natives.  Between 
1 the  discovery  of  Virginia  by  Cabot  in  1497,  or  the  travels 
i of  Raleigh  in  1584,  and  the  floras  of  modern  botanists, 

• more  than  two  centuries  elapsed,  and  the  natives  would 
; have  had  time  to  extend  the  cultivation  of  the  species  if 
:they  had  received  it  from  Europeans.  But  the  fact  of 
its  cultivation  by  Indians  at  the  time  of  the  earliest  deal- 
ings  w ith  them  is  doubtful.  Torrey  and  Gray2  mentioned 
it  as  certain  in  their  flora  published  in  i830-40,  and 
later  the  second  of  these  able  botanists,8  in  an  article  on 

;the  Luvurbitace.ee  known  to  the  natives,  does  not  mention 
[the  calabash,  or  Lagenaria,  I remark  the  same  omission 
in  another  special  article  on  the  same  subject,  published 
i more  recently.4 

[In  the  learned  articles  by  Messrs.  Asa  Gray  and 
Hruin  bull  on  the  present  volume  ( American  Journal  of 
Science,  1888,  p.  370),  they  give  reasons  for  supposing 
xhe  species  known  and  indigenous  in  America  previous 
° ^ arrival  of  the  Europeans.  Early  travellers  are 
luoted  more  in  detail  than. I had  done.  From  their 
1 ' ,lfc  appears  that  the  inhabitants  of  Peru,  Brazil 

i ! ParifT Possessed  gourds,  in  Spanish  calabazas,  but  I 
i n thll  •proJveS  that  tbis  was  the  species  called 

i LenS  ?U™rbtta  Icwwria.  The  only  character  in- 
hs  b t°  t ,e  exceedingly  variable  form  of  the  fruit 

6 c,olouAr  of  th«  flowers,  and  this  character  is 
lot  mentioned. — Author  s Note,  1884.1 

Gourd— Cucurbi ta  maxima,  Duchesne. 

In  enumerating  the  species  of  the  genus  Cticurbita,  I 

; “• p- “*• 

• Z StfSSTir >«•  - - “• 


250 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


should  explain  that  their  distinction,  formerly  exceedingly 
difficult,  has  been  established  by  M.  Naudin 1 in  a very 
scientific  manner,  by  means  of  an  assiduous  cultivation  of 
varieties  and  of  experiments  upon  their  crossed  fertiliza-  ^ 
tion.  Those  groups  of  forms  which  cannot  fertilize  each 
other,  or  of  which  the  product  is  not  fertile  and  stable,  j 
are  regarded  by  him  as  species,  and  the  forms  which  can 
be  crossed  and  yield  a fertile  and  varied  product,  as  races,  > 
breeds,  or  varieties.  Later  experiments 2 3 showed  him 
that  the  establishment  of  species  on  this  basis  is  not 
without  exceptions,  but  in  the  genus  GucurbUa  physio-  ■ 
logical  facts  agree  with  exterior  differences.  M.  Naudin 
has  established  the  true  distinctive  characters  of  C.  i 
maxima  and  C.  Pepo.  Theleaves  of  the  first  have  rounded 
lobes,  the  peduncles  are  smooth  and  the  lobes  of  the 
corolla  are  curved  outwards ; the  second  has  leaves  with 
pointed  lobes,  the  peduncles  marked  with  ridges  and  j 
furrows,  the  corolla  narrowed  towards  the  base  and  with 
lobes  nearly  always  upright. 

The  principal  varieties  of  Cucurbit  a maxima  are 
the  great  yellow  gourd,  which  sometimes  attains  to  an 
enormous  size,8  the  Spanish  gourd,  the  turban  gourd,  etc.  ' 
Since  common  names  and  those  in  ancient  authors  do 
not  agree  with  botanical  definitions,  we  must  mistrust 
the  assertions  formerly  put  forth  on  the  origin  and  early 
cultivation  of  such  and  such  a gourd  at  a given  epoch  in 
a given  country.  For  this  reason,  when  I considered  the 
subject  in  1855,  the  home  of  these  plants  seemed  to  me 
either  unknown  or  very  doubtful.  At  the  present  day 
it  is  more  easy  to  investigate  the  question. 

According  to  Sir  Joseph  Hooker,4  Cucurbita  maxima, 
was  found  by  Barter  on  the  banks  of  the  Niger  ini 
Guinea,  apparently  indigenous,  and  by  Welwitsch  in 
Angola  without  any  assertion  of  its  wild  character.  In 
works  on  Abyssinia,  Egypt,  or  other  African  countries 
in  which  the  species  is  commonly  cultivated,  I find  no 

1 Naudin,  Ann.  Sc.  Nat.,  4th  series,  vol.  vi.  p.  5 ; vol.  xii.  p.  84. 

2 Ibid.,  4th  series,  vol.  xviii.  p.  160  ; vol.  xix.  p.  180. 

3 As  much  as  200  lbs.,  according  to  the  Bon  Jardinier,  1850,  p.  180.  ; 

4 Hooker,  FI.  of  Trap.  Afr.,  ii.  p.  555. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


251 


indication  that  it  is  found  wild.  The  Abyssinians  used 
the  word  dubba,  which  is  applied  in  Arabic  to  gourds 
in  general. 

The  plant  was  long  supposed  to  be  of  Indian  origin, 
because  of  such  names  as  Indian  gourd,  given  by  sixteenth- 
century  botanists,  and  in  particular  the  Pepo  maximm 
i adieus,  figured  by  Lobel,1  which  answers  to  the  modern 
I species ; but  this  is  a very  insufficient  proof,  since  popu- 
lar indications  of  origin  are  very  often  erroneous.  The 
fact  is  that  though  pumpkins  are  cultivated  in  Southern 
Asia,  as  in  other  parts  of  the  tropics,  the  plant  has  not 
been  found  wild.2  No  similar  species  is  indicated  by 
ancient  Chinese  authors,  and  the  modem  names  of  gourds 
and  pumpkins  now  grown  in  China  are  of  foreign  and 
southern  origin.8  It  is  impossible  to  know  to  what 
species  the  Sanskrit  name  kurkarou  belonged,  although 
Roxburgh  attributes  it  to  Cucurbita  Pepo ; and  there  is 
no  less  uncertainty  with  respect  to  the  gourds,  pump- 
kins, and  melons  cultivated  by  the  Greeks  and  Romans. 
It  is  not  certain  if  the  species  was  known  to  the  ancient 
Egyptians,  but  perhaps  it  was  cultivated  in  that  country 
and  in  the  Graeco-Roman  world.  The  Pepones,  of  which 
Charlemagne  commanded  the  cultivation  in  his  farms,4 
! were  perhaps  some  kind  of  pumpkin  or  marrow,  but  no 
figure  or  description  of  these  plants  which  may  be  clearly 
recognized  exists  earlier  than  the  sixteenth  century. 

. 1 his  tends  to  show  its  American  origin.  Its  existence 

m Africa  in  a wild  state  is  certainly  an  argument  to  the 
| contl'ary,  lor  the  species  of  the  family  of  Cucurbitacece  are 
very  local;  but  there  are  arguments  in  favour  of  America, 
am  J must  examine  them  with  the  more  care  since  I have 
been  reproached  in  the  United  States  for  not  having 
given  them  sufficient  weight. 

In  the  first  place,  out  of  the  ten  known  species  of 
i the  genus  Cucurbita,  six  are  certainly  wild  in  America 


The  illustration  is  reproduced  in  Dalechainp’s 


1 Lobel,  leones,  t.  641. 

Hist.,  i.  p.  626. 

3 Clarke,  Hooker’s  FI.  Brit.  Ind.,  ii.  p.  622 
J llretechneider,  letter  of  Aug.  23,  1881. 

m.  * Ilie  1.ls,t  18 „glT?n  E-  Meyer,  Oeschichte.  du  Botanik,  iii.  p.  401. 
The  Cucurbita  of  which  he  speaks  must  have  been  the  gourd,  Lagenaria. 


252  ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 

(Mexico  and  California);  but  these  are  perennial  species,  ] 
while  the  cultivated  pumpkins  are  annuals. 

The  plant  called  jurumu  by  the  Brazilians,  figured  ! 
by  Piso  and  Marcgraf 1 is  attributed  by  modern  writers  ' 
to  Cucurbit  a maxima.  The  drawing  and  the  short 
account  by  the  two  authors  agree  pretty  well  with  this 
theory,  but  it  seems  to  have  been  a cultivated  plant.  It 
may  have  been  brought  from  Europe  or  from  Africa  by  j 
Europeans,  between  the  discovery  of  Brazil  in  1504,  and 
the  travels  of  the  above-named  authors  in  1637  and  1638. 
No  one  has  found  the  species  wild  in  North  or  South  , 
America.  I cannot  find  in  woi’ks  on  Brazil,  Guiana,  or 
the  West  Indies  any  sign  of  an  ancient  cultivation  or  of  j 
wild  growth,  either  from  names,  or  from  traditions  or  ’ 
more  or  less  distinct  belief.  In  the  United  States  those 
men  of  science  who  best  know  the  languages  and  customs  : 
of  the  natives,  Dr.  Harris  for  instance,  and  more  recently  ! 
Trumbull,2 3  maintain  that  the  Cucurbitacece  called  squash  j 
by  the  Anglo-Americans,  and  macock,  or  cashaiv,  cushaw,  j 
by  early  travellers  in  Virginia,  are  pumpkins.  Trumbull 
says  that  squash  is  an  Indian  word.  I have  no  reason  to  ; 
doubt  the  assertion,  but  neither  the  ablest  linguists,  nor 
the  travellers  of  the  seventeenth  century,  who  saw  the  ! 
natives  provided  with  fruits  which  they  called  gourds  j 
and  pumpkins,  have  been  able  to  prove  that  they  were  \ 
such  and  such  species  recognized  as  distinct  by  modern  ; 
botanists.  All  that  we  learn  from  this  is  that  the  natives  j 
a century  after  the  discovery  of  Virginia,  and  twenty  to  j 
forty  years  after  its  colonization  by  Sir  Walter  Raleigh,  : 
made  use  of  some  fruits  of  the  Cucurbitacexe.  The  com-  j 
mon  names  are  still  so  confused  in  the  United  States, 
that  Dr.  Asa  Gray,  in  1868,  gives  pumpkin  and  squash  ] 
as  answering  to  different  species  of  Oucurbita,9  while  < 
Darlington 4 attributes  the  name  pumpkin  to  the  common 
Cucurbita  Pepo,  and  that  of  squash  to  the  varieties  of  the  l 

1 Piso,  Brazil,  edit.  1658,  p.  264;  Marcgraf,  edit.  1648,  p.  44. 

J Harris,  American  Journal,  1857,  rol.  xxiv.  p.  441 ; Trumbull,  Bull.  1 
of  Torrey  Bot.  Club,  1876,  vol.  vi.  p.  69. 

3 Asa  Gray,  Botany  of  the  Northern  States,  edit.  1868,  p.  186. 

4 Darlington,  Flora  Centrica,  1853,  p.  94. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


253 


latter  which  correspond  to  the  forms  of  Melopepo  of  early 
botanists.  They  attribute  no  distinct  common  name  to 
Cucurbita  maxima. 

Finally,  without  placing  implicit  faith  in  the  indi- 
genous character  of  the  plant  on  the  banks  of  the  Niger, 
based  upon  the  assertion  of  a single  traveller,  I still 
believe  that  the  species  is  a native  of  the  old  world,  and 
introduced  into  America  by  Europeans. 

[The  testimony  of  early  travellers  touching  the  ex- 
istence of  Cucy.rbita  maxima  in  America  before  the 
arrival  of  Europeans  has  been  collected  and  supplemented 
by  Messrs.  Asa  Gray  and  Trumbull  ( American  Journal 
of  Science,  1883,  p.  372).  They  confirm  the  fact  already 
known,  that  the  natives  cultivated  species  of  Cucurbita 
under  American  names,  of  which  some  remain  in  the 
modern  idiom  of  the  United  States.  None  of  these  early 
travellers  has  noted  the  botanical  characters  by  which 
Naudin  established  the  distinction  between  C.  maxima 
and  C.  Pcpo,  and  consequently  it  is  still  doubtful  to 
which  species  they  referred.  For  various  reasons  I had 
<already  admitted  that  C.  Pcpo  was  of  American  origin, 
but  I retain  my  doubts  about  C.  maxima.  After  a more 
attentive  perusal  of  Tragus  and  Matihiolo  than  I had 
1 bestowed  upon  them,  Asa  Gray  and  Trumbull  notice  that 
'they  call  Indian  whatever  came  from  America.  But  if 
'these  two  botanists  did  not  confound  the  East  and  West 
Indies,  several  others,  and  the  public  in  general,  did  make 
this  confusion,  which  occasioned  errors  touching  the 
ongm  of  species  which  botanists  were  liable  to  repeat. 
A further  indication  in  favour  of  the  American  origin  of 
C.  maxima  is  communicated  by  M.  Wittmack,  who  in- 
forms me  that  seeds,  certified  by  M.  Naudin  to  belong  to 
tins  species  have  been  found  in  the  tombs  of  Ancon. 

1 ns  would  be  conclusive  if  the  date  of  the  latest  burials 
nt  i neon  were  certain.  See  on  this  head  the  article  on 
l haseotus  vulgarxe. — Author’s  Note,  1884.1 

Pumpkin— U ucurbita  Pcpo  and  C.  Melopepo,  Linnaeus. 
Modern  authors  include  under  the  head  of  Cucurbita 
Pf'V0  most  of  the  varieties  which  Linnaeus  designated  by 
this  name,  and  also  those  which  he  called  C.  Melopepo. 


2.54 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


These  varieties  are  very  different  as  to  the  shape  of  the 
fruit,  which  shows  a very  ancient  cultivation.  There  is 
the  Patagonian  pumpkin,  with  enormous  cylindrical  fruit;  • 
the  sugared  pumpkin,  called  Brazilian;  the  vegetable  ] 
marrow,  with  smaller  long-shaped  fruit;  the  Barberine,  ■ 
with  knobby  fruit;  the  Electors  hat,  with  a curiously 
shaped  conical  fruit,  etc.  No  value  should  be  attached  ' 
to  the  local  names  in  this  designation  of  varieties,  for  we 
have  often  seen  that  they  express  as  many  errors  as  i 
varieties.  The  botanical  names  attributed  to  the  species  j 
by  Naudin  and  Cogniaux  are  numerous,  on  account  of  the  1 
bad  habit  which  existed  not  long  ago  of  describing  as 
species  purely  garden  varieties,  without  taking  into  ] 
account  the  wonderful  effects  of  cultivation  and  selection 
upon  the  organ  for  the  sake  of  which  the  plant  is 
cultivated. 

Most  of  these  varieties  exist  in  the  gardens  of  the  ; 
warm  and  temperate  regions  of  both  hemispheres.  * The 
origin  of  the  species  is  considered  to  be  doubtful.  I 
hesitated  in  1855  1 between  Southern  Asia  and  the 
Mediterranean  basin.  Naudin  and  Cogniaux2  admit  . 
Southern  Asia  as  probable,  and  the  botanists  of  the  ■ 
United  States  on  their  side  have  given  reasons  for  their 
belief  in  an  American  origin.  The  question  requires  j 
careful  investigation. 

I shall  first  seek  for  those  forms  now  attributed  to 
the  species  which  have  been  found  growing  anywhere  in 
a wild  state. 

The  variety  Cucurhita  ovifera,  Linnaeus,  was  j 

formerly  gathered  by  Lerche,  near  Astrakhan,  but  no 
modern  botanist  has  confirmed  this  fact,  and  it  is  j 
probable  it  was  a cultivated  plant.  Moreover,  Linnaeus 
does  not  assert  it  was  wild.  I have  consulted  all  the  j 
Asiatic  and  African  floras  without  finding  the  slightest  j 
mention  of  a wild  variety.  From  Arabia,  or  even  from 
the  coast  of  Guinea  to  Japan,  the  species,  or  the  varieties  j 
attributed  to  it,  are  always  said  to  be  cultivated.  In 

1 Gdogr.  Bot.  Raisonnde,  p.  902.  j 

2 Naudin,  Ann.  Sc.  Nat.,  3rd  series,  vol.  vi.  p.  9;  Cogniaux,  in  de  i 
Candolle,  Monogr.  Fhandr.,  iii.  p.  546. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


255 


India,  Roxburgh  remarked  this,  and  certainly  Clarke,  in 
his  recent  flora  of  British  India,  has  good  reasons  for 
indicating  no  locality  for  it  outside  cultivation. 

It  is  otherwise  in  America.  A variety,  G.  texana,1 
very  near  to  the  variety  ovata,  according  to  Asa  Gray, 
: and  which  is  now  unhesitatingly  attributed  to  G.  Pepo, 
was  found  by  Lindheimer  “ on  the  edges  of  thickets,  in 
1 damp  woods,  on  the  banks  of  the  upper  Guadaloupe, 
. apparently  an  indigenous  plant.”  Asa  Gray  adds,  how- 
ever, that  it  is  perhaps  the  result  of  naturalization. 
However,  as  several  species  of  the  genus  Cucurbita  grow 
wild  in  Mexico  and  in  the  south-west  of  the  United 
States,  we  are  naturally  led  to  consider  the  collector’s 
opinion  sound.  It  does  not  appear  that  other  botanists 
i found  this  plant  in  Mexico,  or  in  the  United  States.  It 
i is  not  mentioned  in  Hemsley’s  Biologia  Centrali- 
Americana,  nor  in  Asa  Gray’s  recent  flora  of  Cali- 
fornia. 

Some  synonyms  or  specimens  from  South  America, 
attributed  to  C.  Pepo,  appear  to  me  very  doubtful.  It 
is  impossible  to  say  what  Molina 2 meant  by  the 
names  C.  Siccratia ■ and  G.  TnciTwmeata , which  appear, 

. moreover,  to  have  been  cultivated  plants.  Two  species 
briefly  described  in  the  account  of  the  journey  of  Spix 
and  Martins  (ii.  p.  536),  and  also  attributed  to  C. 
Iepo,J’  are  mentioned  among  cultivated  plants  on  the 
banks  of  Jhe  Rio  Francisco.  Lastly,  the  specimen  of 
Spruce,  2716,  from  the  river  Uaupes,  a tributary  of 
the  ltio  Negro,  which  Cogniaux4  does  not  mention 
having  seen,  and  which  he  first  attributed  to  the 
C.  1 epo,  and  afterwards  to  the  G.  moschata,  was  per- 
haps cultivated  or  naturalized  from  cultivation,  or  by 

transport,  in  spite  of  the  paucity  of  inhabitants  in  this 
country. 

Botanical  indications  are,  therefore,  in  favour  of  a 
iexicau  oi  Texan  origin.  It  remains  to  be  seen  if 


' Asia  Gray,  Plants  Lindheimerianat,  part  ii.  p.  193. 

Molina,  Hist.  Hat.  du,  Chili,  p.  377.  1 

« Cogniaux,  in  Mo»ogr.  PhanSr.  and  Flora  Prosit,  fnsc.  78,  p.  21. 
Cogniaux,  FI.  Bras,  and  Monoyr.  Phantr.,  iii.,  p.  017. 


256  ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 

historical  records  are  in  agreement  with  or  contrary  to  ] 
this  idea. 

It  is  impossible  to  discover  whether  a given  Sanskrit,  j 
Greek,  or  Latin  name  for  the  pumpkin  belongs  to  one  1 
species  rather  than  to  another.  The  form  of  the  fruit  is  \ 
often  the  same,  and  the  distinctive  characters  are  never  ' 
mentioned  by  authors. 

There  is  no  figure  of  the  pumpkin  in  the  Herbarius 
Patavice  Impressus  of  1485,  before  the  discovery  of 
America,  but  sixteenth-century  authors  have  published 
plates  which  may  be  attributed  to  it.  There  are  three  \ 
forms  of  Pepones  figured  on  page  406  of  Dodoens,  : 
edition  1557.  A fourth,  Pepo  rotundas  major,  added  j 
in  the  edition  of  1616,  appears  to  me  to  be  C.  maxima.  3 
In  the  drawing  of  Pepo  oblonrjus  of  Lobel,  leones,  641,  ; 
the  character  of  the  peduncle  is  clearly  defined.  The  I 
names  given  to  these  plants  imply  a foreign  origin  ; but  ! 
the  authors  could  make  no  assertions  on  this  head,  all  ; 
the  more  that  the  name  of  “ the  Indies  ” applied  both  to  - 
Southern  Asia  and  America. 

Thus  historical  data  do  not  gainsay  the  opinion  of  an  l 
American  origin,  but  neither  do  they  adduce  anything 
in  support  of  it. 

If  the  belief  that  it  grows  wild  in  America  is  con-  1 
firmed,  it  may  be  confidently  asserted  that  the  pumpkins  ; 
cultivated  by  the  Romans  and  in  the  Middle  Ages  were 
Cucurbita  maxima,  and  those  of  the  natives  of  North 
America,  seen  by  different  travellers  in  the  seventeenth 
century,  were  Cucurbita  Pepo. 

Musk,  or  Melon  Pumpkin  — Cucurbita  moschata,  ij 
Duchesne. 

The  Bon  Jardinier  quotes  as  the  principal  varieties  i 
of  this  species  pumpkin  muscade  de  Provence,  pleine  | 
de  Naples,  and  de  Barbarie.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  j 
these  names  show  nothing  as  to  origin.  The  species  is  | 
easily  recognized  by  its  fine  soft  down,  the  pentagonal  * 
peduncle  which  supports  the  fruit  broadening  at  the 
summit ; the  fruit  is  more  or  less  covered  with  a glaucous  * 
efflorescence,  and  the  flesh  is  somewhat  musk-scented.  ; 
The  lobes  of  the  calyx  are  often  terminated  by  a leafy 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


257 


i border.1  Cultivated  in  all  tropical  countries,  it  is  less 
-successful  than  other  pumpkins  in  temperate  regions. 

I Cogniaux2  suspects  that  it  comes  from  the  °south  of 
. Asia,  but  he  gives  no  proof  of  this.  I have  searched 
*th rough  the  floras  of  the  old  and  new  worlds,  and  I 
have  nowhere  been  able  to  discover  the  mention  of  the 
'species  in  a truly  wild  state.  The  indications  which 
approach  most  nearly  to  it  are : (1)  In  Asia,  in  the  island 
ol  Bangka,  a specimen  verified  by  Cogniaux,  and  which 
XMiquel 8 says  is  not  cultivated ; (2)  in  Africa,  in  Angola, 
^specimens  which  Welwitsch  says  are  quite  wild,  but 

probably  due  to  an  introduction;  ” (3)  in  America,  five 
specimens  from  Brazil,  Guiana, or  Nicaragua, mentioned  by 
1 Cogniaux,  without  knowing  whether  they  were  cultivated, 
i naturalized,  or  indigenous.  These  indications  are  very 
■shght  Rumphius,  Blume,  Clarke  {Flora  of  British 
't  India)  in  Asia,  Schweinfurth  (Oliver’s  Flora  of  Trop 
^Africa)  in  Africa,  only  know  it  as  a cultivated  plant.  Its 
^cultivation  is  recent  in  China/  and  American  floras  rarely 
[mention  the  species.  J 

No  Sanskrit  name  is  known,  and  the  Indian,  Malay 
und  Chinese  names  are  neither  very  numerous  nor  very 
anginal,  although  the  cultivation'  of  the  plant  seems 
o be  more  diffused  in  Southern  Asia  than  in  other 
;,arts  of  the  tropics.  It  was  already  grown  in  the 
s eventeenth  century  according  to  the  Hortue  Mala- 
xancus,  m which  there  is  a good  plate  (vol.  viii  pi  2) 
t does  not  appear  that  this  species  was  known  in’ the 
ixteenth  century,  for  Dalechamp’s  illustration  (Hist.,  i.  p 
>lb)  which  Scringe  attributed  to  it  has  not  its  true  cha- 
acters  and  [ can  find  no  other  figure  which  resembles  it. 

» Fl?-^aved  Pumpkin  — Cucurbita  ficifolia,  Bouche ; 
jucurtntu,  tnclanosperma,  Braun. 

About  thirty  years  ago  this  pumpkin  with  black  or 
lovn  seeds  was  introduced  into  gardens.  It  differs 

! Toneons  *'  5°7,  Und<3r  th° 

I 2*”***; in  Mcmogr.  Phwnir.,  iii.  p.  547 

• *“*■»*“*»•  p-  ** 


258 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


from  other  cultivated  species  in  being  perennial.  It  is 
sometimes  called  the  Siamese  melon.  The  Bon  Jardinier 
says  that  it  comes  from  China.  Dr.  Bretschneider  does 
not  mention  it  in  his  letter  of  1881,  in  which  he  enu- 
merates the  pumpkins  grown  by  the  Chinese. 

Hitherto  no  botanist  has  found  it  wild.  I very  much 
doubt  its  Asiatic  origin  as  all  the  known  perennial  species  \ 
of  Cucurbita  are  from  Mexico  or  California. 

Melon — Cucumis  Melo,  Linnaeus. 

The  aspect  of  the  question  as  to  the  origin  of  the 
melon  has  completely  changed  since  the  experiments  of 
Naudin.  The  paper  which  he  published  in  1859,  in  the  ] 
Annates  des  Sciences  Naturelles,  4th  series,  vol.  ii.,  on 
the  genus  Cucumis,  is  as  remarkable  as  that  on  the  genus  ' 
Cucurbita.  He  gives  an  account  of  the  observations  and 
experiments  of  several  years  on  the  variability  of  forms 
and  the  crossed  fecundation  of  a multitude  of  species, 
breeds,  or  varieties  coming  from  all  parts  of  the  world.  I 
have  already  spoken  (p.  250)  of  the  physiological  principle 
on  which  he  believes  it  possible  to  distinguish  those  groups 
of  forms  which  he  terms  species,  although  certain  excep- 
tions  have  occurred  which  render  the  criterion  of  fertili- 
zation less  absolute.  In  spite  of  these  exceptional  cases* 
it  is  evident  that  if  nearly  allied  forms  can  be  easily 
crossed  and  produce  fertile  individuals,  as  we  see,  for; 
example,  in  the  human  species,  they  must  be  considered 
as  constituting  a single  species. 

In  this  sense  Cucumis  Melo,  according  to  the  ex- 
periments and  observations  made  by  Naudin  upon  about 
two  thousand  living  plants,  constitutes  a species  which 
comprehends  an  extraordinary  number  of  varieties  and 
even  of  breeds ; that  is  to  say,  forms  which  are  pre- 
served by  heredity.  These  varieties  or  races  can  be  ferti- 
lized by  each  other,  and  yield  varied  and  variable  products. ; 
They  are  classed  by  the  author  into  ten  groups,  which  he 
calls  canteloups,  melons  brodes,  sucrins,  melons  d' hirer, 
serpents,  forme  de  concombrc,  Onto,  Dudaim,  rouges  de 
Perse,  and  sauvages,  each  containing  varieties  or  nearly 
allied  races.  These  have  been  named  in  twenty-five  or 
thirty  different  ways  by  botanists,  who,  without  noticing 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


250 


(transitions  of  form,  the  faculty  of  crossing  or  of  change 
|i under  cultivation,  have  distinguished  as  species  all  the 
'varieties  which  occur  in  a given  time  or  place. 

Hence  it  results  that  several  forms  found  wild,  and 
'which  have  been  described  as  species,  must  be  the  types 
; and  sources  of  the  cultivated  forms;  and  Naudin  makes 
(the  very  just  observation  that  these  wild  forms,  which 
differ  more  or  less  the  one  from  the  other,  may  have  pro- 
duced different  cultivated  varieties.  This  is  the  more 
probable  that  they  sometimes  inhabit  countries  remote 
ffrom  each  other  as  Southern  Asia  and  tropical  Africa, 
s®o  that  differences  in  climate  and  isolation  may  have 
(created  and  consolidated  varieties. 

Hie  following  are  the  forms  which  Naudin  enunie- 
• rates  as  wild:  1.  Those  of  India,  which  are  named  by 
\\  lldenow  Gucvmis  pubescms,  and  by  Roxburgh  C.  tur- 
bvnatus  or  C.  maderas-patanus.  The  whole  of  British 
[India  and  Beluchistan  is  their  natural  area.  Its  natural 
■wildness  is  evident  even  to  non-botanical  travellers.1 

he  fruit  varies  from  the  size  of  a plum  to  that  of  a 
demon.  It  is  either  striped  or  barred,  or  all  one  colour, 
sacented  or  odourless.  The  flesh  is  sweet,  insipid,  or 
slightly  acid,  differences  which  it  has  in  common  with 
the  cultivated  Cantelopes.  According  to  Roxburgh  the 
1 Indians  gather  and  have  a taste  for  the  fruits  of  G.  tur- 

mnatm  and  of  C.  maderas-patarws,  though  thev  do  not 
[cultivate  it.  J 


• I\efe!'nil7  *°  the  most  recent  flora  of  British  India, 
in  which  Clarke  has  described  the  Cucwrbitacew  (ii.  p. 
blJJ  it  seems  that  this  author  does  not  agree  with  M 
. Naudin  about  the  Indian  wild  forms,  although  both  have 
[ hlnumeroUB  specimens  in  the  herbarium  at 

lie  d ifference  of  opinion,  more  apparent  than  real, 
. ‘ r .m  th®  fact  that  the  English  author  attributes 
i p oo'iiy  and  certainly  wild  allied  species,  C.  trigowas, 

In0*/'/1'’  o G-  vari0f'ies  which  Naudin  classes  under 
[ ' t AK  uomaux>“  who  afterwards  saw  the  same  speci- 


Gardener’s  Chronicle,  articles  signed  “ I.  H.  H 1857,  p.  153  ; 1858, 
s Cogniaux,  Munogr.  Phuntr.,  iii.  p.  485. 


260 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


mens,  attributes  only  C.  turbinatus  to  tngonus.  The 
specific  difference  between  C.  Melo  and  C.  trigonus  is 
unfortunately  obscure,  from  the  characters  given  by 
these  three  authors.  The  principal  difference  is  that 
C.  Melo  is  an  annual,  the  other  perennial,  but  this  dura- 
tion does  not  appear  to  be  very  constant.  Mr.  Clarke 
says  himself  that  C.  Melo  is  perhaps  derived  by  cultiva- 
tion from  C.  trigonus  ; that  is  to  say,  according  to  him, 
from  the  forms  which  Naudin  attributes  to  G.  Melo. 

The  experiments  made  during  three  consecutive  years 
by  Naudin 1 upon  the  products  of  Cucumis  trigonus , 
fertilized  by  C.  Melo,  seem  in  favour  of  the  opinion  which 
admits  a specific  diversity  ; for  if  fertilization  took  place  : 
the  products  were  of  different  forms,  and  often  reverted 1 
to  one  or  other  of  the  original  parents. 

2.  The  African  forms.  Naudin  had  no  specimens  in 
sufficiently  good  conditioner  of  which  the  wild,  state 
was  sufficiently  certain  to  assert  positive^  the  habitation 
of  the  species  in  Africa.  He  admits  it  with  hesitation. 
He  includes  in  the  species  cultivated  forms,  or  other  wild 
ones,  of  which  he  had  not  seen  the  fruit.  Sir  Joseph 
Hooker 2 subsequently  obtained  specimens  which  prove 
more.  I am  not  speaking  of  those  from  the  Nile  Valley,3 
which  are  probably  cultivated,  but  of  plants  gathered  by 
Barter  in  Guinea  in  the  sands  on  the  banks  of  the  Niger. 
Thonning 4 had  previously  found,  in  sandy  soil  in  Guinea, 
a Cucumis  to  which  he  had  given  the  name  arenarius ; 
and  Cogniaux,5  after  having  seen  a specimen  brought 
home  by  this  traveller,  had  classed  it  with  C.  Melo,  as 
Sir  J.  Hooker  thought.  The  negroes  eat  the  fruit  of  the 
plant  found  by  Barter.  The  smell  is  that  of  a fresh  green1 
melon.  In  Thonning’s  plant  the  fruit  is  ovoid,  the  size, 
of  a plum.  Thus  in  Africa  as  in  India  the  species  beard 
.small  fruit  in  a wild  state,  as  we  might  expect.  The 
Dudaim  among  cultivated  varieties  is  allied  to  it. 

1 Naudin,  Ann.  Sc.  Nat.,  4th  series,  vol.  xviii.  p.  171. 

2 Hooker,  in  Oliver,  FI.  of  Trop.  Afr.,  ii.  p.  546. 

3 Schweinfurth  and  Ascherson,  Aufzahlung,  p.  267- 

4 Schumacher  and  Thonning,  Gnineiske  Planten.,  p.  426. 

s Cogniaux,  in  de  Candolle,  Monogr.  Phemdr.,  p.  483. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


201 


j The  majority  of  the  species  of  the  genus  Cucumis  are 
ffound  in  Africa;  a small  minority  in  Asia  or  in  America. 
[(Other  species  of  Cucurbitacece  are  divided  between 
‘Asia  and  America,  although  as  a rule,  in  this  family, 
'the  areas  of  species  are  continuous  and  restricted.  Gu- 
ccvmis  Melo  was  once  perhaps,  like  Citrullus  Colocynthis 
of  the  same  family,  wild  from  the  west  coast  of  Africa 
sas  far  as  India  without  any  break. 

I formerly  hesitated  to  admit  that  the  melon  was 
■indigenous  in  the  north  of  the  Caucasus,  as  it  is  asserted 
•by  ancient  authors— an  assertion  which  has  not  been 
confirmed  by  subsequent  botanists.  Hohenacker,  who 
■was  said  to  have  found  the  species  near  Elisabethpolis, 
.•makes  no  mention  of  it  in  his  paper  upon  the  province  of 
"Talysch.  M.  JBoissier  does  not  include  Cucumis  Melo 
■ in  his  Oriental  flora.  He  merely  says  that  it  is  easily 
[naturalized  on  rubbish-heaps  and  waste  ground.  The 
'same  thing  has  been  observed  elsewhere,  for  instance  in 
tfhe  sands  of  Ussuri,  in  Eastern  Asia.  This  would  bo  a 
rreason  for  mistrusting  the  locality  of  the  sands  of  the 
>Niger,  if  the  small  size  of  the  fruit  in  this  case  did  not 
[recall  the  wild  forms  of  India. 

-^ke  culture  of  the  melon,  or  of  different  varieties  of 
]:he  melon,  may  have  begun  separately  in  India  and 
sAfnca. 


Its  introduction  into  China  appears  to  date  only  from 
-he  eighth  century  of  our  era,  judging  from  the  epoch  of 
-he  first  work  winch  mentions  it.1  As  the  relations  of 
-he  Unnese  with  Bactriana,  and  the  north-west  of  India 
-»y  the  embassy  of  Chang-kien,  date  from  the  second 
.on  ury,  it  is  possible  that  the  culture  of  the  species  was 
iot  then  wi.leiy  diffused  in  Asia.  The  small  size  of  the 
wild  fruit  ottered  little  inducement.  No  Sanskrit  name 
s known,  but  there  is  a Tamul  name,  probably  less 
ancient,  rnolam?  which  is  like  the  Latin  Melo. 
i 1f  not  }'1.ove‘l  that  the  ancient  Egyptians  cultivated 
he  melon.  I he  fruit  figured  by  Lepsius  3 is  not  recog- 
aizaj  e.  II  the  cultivation  had  been  customary  and 

l Bretschneider,  letter  of  Ang.  2fi,  1881.  * Piddington,  Index. 

See  the  copy  m Lnger’a  Pjlanzen  dee  Alton  JEgyptcm,  fig.  25. 


262 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


ancient  in  that  country,  the  Greeks  and  Romans  would  jj 
have  early  known  it.  Now,  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  1 
Sikioa  of  Hippocrates  and  Theophrastus,  or  the  Pepon  of  , 
Dioscorides,  or  the  Melopepo  of  Pliny,  was  the  melon.  - 
The  passages  referring  to  it  are  brief  and  insignificant ; ; 
Galen 1 is  less  obscure,  when  he  says  that  the  inside  of 
the  Melopepones  is  eaten,  but  not  of  the  Pepcmes.  There  , 
has  been  much  discussion  about  those  names,2  but  we 
want  facts  more  than  words.  The  best  proof  which  I 
have  been  able  to  discover  of  the  existence  of  the  melon 
among  the  Romans  is  a very  accurate  representation  of  \ 
a fruit  in  the  beautiful  mosaic  of  fruits  in  the  Vatican.  \ 
Moreover,  I)r.  Comes  certifies  that  the  half  of  a melon  ; 
is  represented  in  a painting  at  Herculaneum.8  The  ! 
species  was  probably  introduced  into  the  Graeco-Roman  I 
world  at  the  time  of  the  Empire,  in  the  beginning  of  the  | 
Christian  era.  It  was  probably  of  indifferent  quality,  to  J 
judge  from  the  silence  or  the  faint  praise  of  writers  in 
a country  where  gourmets  were  not  wanting.  Since 
the  Renaissance,  an  improved  cultivation  and  relations 
with  the  East  have  introduced  better  varieties  into  our 
gardens.  We  know,  however,  that  they  often  degenerate 
either  from  cold  or  bad  conditions  of  soil,  or  by  crossing 
with  inferior  varieties  of  the  species. 

Water-Melon — Gitrullus  vulgaris,  Schrader;  Curur-\ 
bita  Citrullus,  Linnreus. 

The  origin  of  the  water-melon  was  long  mistaken ^ 
or  unknown.  According  to  Linnaeus,  it  was  a native 
of  Southern  Italy.4  This  assertion  was  taken  from 
Matthiole,  without  observing  that  this  author  says  it  was 
a cultivated  species.  Scringe,6  in  1828,  supposed  it 
came  from  India  and  Africa,  but  he  gives  no  proof. 

I believed  it  came  from  Southern  Asia,  because  of  its 


1 Galen,  De  Alimentis,  1.  2,  o.  5. 

i See  all  the  Vergilian  floras,  and  Nanclin,  Ann.  Sc.  Nat.,  4th  eerios, 


vol.  xii.  p.  Ill-  . 

3 Comes,  III.  Piante  nei  Dipinti  Pompeiani,  in  4to,  p.  20,  in  the  Museo 

Nation.,  vol.  iii.  pi-  4.  _ , ... 

< Habitat  in  Apulia,  Calabria,  Sicilia  (Linnams,  Species,  edit.  17w, 


p.  1435). 

5 Seringe,  in  Prodromus,  iii.  p.  301. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS.  2 Go 

'•very  general  cultivation  in  this  region.  It  was  not 
-known  in  a wild  state.  At  length  it  was  found  indi- 
genous in  tropical  Africa,  on  both  sides  of  the  equator, 
'.which  settles  the  question.1  Livingstone2  saw  districts 
literally  covered  with  it,  and  the  savages  and  several 
-kinds  of  wild  animals  eagerly  devoured  the  wild  fruit. 
They  are  sometimes,  but  not  always,  bitter,  and  this 
ccannot  be  detected  from  the  appearance  of  the  fruit.  The 
negroes  strike  it  with  an  axe,  and  taste  the  juice  to  see 
.whether  it  is  good  or  bad.  This  diversity  in  the  wild 
plant,  growing  in  the  same  climate  and  in  the  same  soil, 
is  calculated  to  show  the  small  value  of  such  a character 
in  cultivated  Cucurbitacece.  For  the  rest,  the  frequent 
bitterness  of  the  water-melon  is  not  at  all  extraordinary, 

. as  the  most  nearly  allied  species  is  Citnillus  Colocynthis. 
Naudin  obtained  fertile  hybrids  from  crossing  the 
bitter  water-melon,  wild  at  the  Cape,  with  a cultivated 
•species  which  confirms  the  specific  unity  suggested  by 
the  outward  appearance. 

The  species  has  not  been  found  wild  in  Asia. 

The  ancient  Egyptians  cultivated  the  'water-melon, 
which  is  represented  in  their  paintings.3 4  This  is  one 
treason  lor  believing  that  the  Israelites  knew  the  species, 
and  called  it  abbatitchim,  as  is  said ; but  besides  the 
•Arabic  name,  battioh,  batteca,  evidently  derived  from  the 
1 Hebrew,  is  the  modem  name  for  the  watei’-melon.  The 
French  name, pa&t&que,  comes  through  the  Arabic  from  the 
1 Hebrew.  A proof  of  the  antiquity  of  the  plant  in  the 
north  of  Africa  is  found  in  the  Berber  name,  tadeladt* 
which  differs  too  widely  from  the  Arabic  name  not  to  have 
existed,  before  the  Conquest.  The  Spanish  names  zan- 
< ria,  cindria,  and  the  Sardinian  sindna,''  which  I cannot 
connect  with  any  others,  show  also  an  ancient  culture 
in  the  eastern  part  of  the  Mediterranean  basin.  Its 

1 -Sa,Jl'^ni  Ajm.  sc.  Nat.,  4th  series,  vol.  xii.  p.  101 : Sir  J.  Hooker,  in 
Oliver,  Flora  of  Trap.  Afr.,  ii.  p.  549. 

2 French  trans.,  p.  5(5. 

3 l has  copied  the  fignres  from  Lepsins’  work  in  his  memoir, 

Die  ifatizea  des  Alton  JEgyptent,  figs.  30,  81,  32. 

Dirttonnaire  Francais-  Berber,  at  the  word  pastCque. 

4 Moris,  Flora  tiardoa. 


2G4 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


cultivation  early  spread  into  Asia,  for  there  is  a Sanskrit 
name,  chayapula}  but  the  Chinese  only  received  the  ! 
plant  in  the  tenth  century  of  the  Christian  era.  They 
call  it  si-kua,  that  is  melon  of  the  West.2 

As  the  water-melon  is  an  annual,  it  ripens  out  of  the  f 
tropics  wherever  the  summer  is  sufficiently  hot.  The  I 
modern  Greeks  cultivate  it  largely,  and  call  it  caipousia  j 
or  carpousea ,8  but  this  name  does  not  occur  in  ancient  ' 
authors,  nor  even  in  the  Greek  of  the  decadence  and  of 
the  Middle  Ages.4  It  is  the  same  as  the  karpus  of  the  ] 
Turks  of  Constantinople,5  which  we  find  again  in  the  j 
Russian  arbus ,6  and  in  Bengali  and  Hindustani  as  tarbvj,  3 
turboaz?  Another  Constantinople  name,  mentioned  by  j 
Forskal,  chimonico,  recurs  in  Albanian  chimico .8  The  i 
absence  of  an  ancient  Greek  name  which  can  with  ] 
certainty  be  attributed  to  this  species,  seems  to  show  i 
that  it  was  introduced  into  the  Graeco-Roman  world  I 
about  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era.  The  poem  j 
Capa,  attributed  to  Virgil  and  Pliny,  perhaps  mentions  j 
it  (lib.  19,  cap.  5),  as  Naudin  thinks,  but  it  is  doubtful. 

Europeans  have  introduced  the  water-melon  into  1 
America,  where  it  is  now  cultivated  from  Chili  to  the  j 
United  States.  The  jace  of  the  Brazilians,  of  which  3 
Piso  and  Marcgraf  have  a drawing,  is  evidently  in-  1 
troduced,  for  the  first-named  author  says  it  is  cultivated  j 
and  partly  naturalized.9 

Cucumber — Cucumis  sativus,  Linnaeus. 

In  spite  of  the  very  evident  difference  between  the  j 
melon  and  cucumber,  which  both  belong  to  the  genus  1 
Cucumis,  cultivators  suppose  that  the  species  may  be  i 
crossed,  and  that  the  quality  of  the  melon  is  thus  some-  1 

1 Piddington,  Index. 

2 Bretscbneider,  Study  and  Value,  etc.,  p.  17. 

3 Heldreicb,  Pflanz.  d.  Attisch.  Ebene.,  p.  591;  Nutzpfl.  Griechenl.,  1 
p.  50. 

4 Langkavel,  Hot.  der  Spat.  Griechen. 

5 Forskal,  Flora  JEgypto-Arabica.,  part  i.  p.  34. 

6 Nemnich,  Polyg.  Lexic.,  i.  p.  1309. 

7 Piddington,  Index  ; Pickering,  Chronol.  Arrang.,  p.  72. 

* Heldreich,  Nutzpfl.,  etc.,  p.  50. 

9 “ Sativa  planta  et  tractu  temporis  quasi  nativa  facta  ” (Piso,  'j 
edit.  1G58,  p.  233). 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


265 


times  spoilt.  Naudin 1 ascertained  by  experiments  that 
I this  fertilization  is  not  possible,  and  has  also  shown  that 
| the  distinction  of  the  two  species  is  well  founded. 

[|  dhe  original  country  of  Cucumis  sativus  was  un- 
known to  Linnaeus  and  Lamarck.  In  1805,  Wildenow2 
I indigenous  in  Tartary  and  India,  but 

■ without  furnishing  any  proof.  Later  botanists  have  not 
(©on firmed  the  assertion.  When  I went  into  the  question 
.'in  1855,  the  species  had  not  been  anywhere  found  wild. 
iFoi  various  reasons  deduced  from  its  ancient  culture  in 
.Asia  and  in  Europe,  and  especially  from  the  existence  of 
a Sanskrit  name,  soukasa,3  I said,  “ Its  original  habitat  is 
[ probably  the  north-west  of  India,  for  instance  Cabul  or 
-some  adjacent  country.  Everything  seems  to  show  that 
it  will  one  day  be  discovered  in  these  regions  which  are 
uas  yet  but  little  known.” 


This  conjecture  has  been  realized  if  we  admit,  with 
: the  best-informed  modern  authors,  that  Cucumis  Ilard- 
'.tmckn,  Royle,  possesses  the  characteristics  of  Cucumis 
mitivus.  A coloured  illustration  of  this  cucumber  found 
at  the  foot  of  the  Himalayas  may  be  seen  in  Royle’s 
UUustrations  of  Himalayan  Plants,  p.  220,  pi.  47.  The 
kaves’  and  flowers  are  exactly  those’ of  C.  sativus. 
ILfie  fruit,  smooth  and  elliptical,  has  a bitter  taste ; but 
ttnere  are  similar  forms  of  the  cultivated  cucumber,  and 
-we  know  that  in  other  species  of  the  same  family,  the 
water-melon,  for  instance,  the  pulp  is  sweet  or  bitter, 
sir  Joseph  Hooker,  after  describing  the  remarkable 
vaiie  y which  he  calls  the  Sikkim  cucumber,4  adds 
That  the  variety  HardwicUi,  wild  from  Kuinaon  to 
^iwim,  and  of  which  he  has  gathered  specimens,  does 
. o i oi  moi e from  the  cultivated  plant  than  , certain 
varieties  of  the  hitter  differ  from  others;  and  Cogniaux, 

i m seeing  ie  plants  in  the  herbarium  at  Kew,  adopts 
puis  opinion.5  1 

The  cucumber,  cultivated  in  India  for  at  least  three 


‘ inn-  SC-iVat-’  4th  ^8,  vol.  Xi.  p.  .31. 

Wildenow,  .Species,  iv.  n gig  , D.j,.  , r , 

4 But.  Mag.,  pi.  6206.  P ' 1 lddlI,Kton.  Indej-'- 

Cogniaux,  in  do  Caudollo,  Monogr.  Phandr.,  iii.  p.  499. 


2CG 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


thousand  years,  was  only  inti-oduced  into  China  in  the 
second  century  before  Christ,  when  the  ambassador 
Chang-kien  returned  from  Bactriana.1  The  species 
spread  more  rapidly  towards  the  West.  The  ancient 
Greeks  cultivated  the  cucumber  under  the  name  of  sikuos ,2 
which  remains  as  sikua  in  the  modern  language.  The 
modern  Greeks  have  also  the  name  aggou/ria,  from  an 
ancient  Aryan  root  which  is  sometimes  applied  to  the 
water-melon,  and  which  recurs  for  the  cucumber  in 
the  Bohemian  agurlca,  the  German  Gurke,  etc.  The 
Albanians  (Pelasgians  ?)  have  quite  a different  name, 
kratscivets ,8  which  we  recognize  in  the  Slav  Krastavak. 
The  Latins  called  the  cucumber  cucivmis.  These  different 
names  show  the  antiquity  of  the  species  in  Europe. 
There  is  even  an  Esthonian  name,  uggurits,  ukku/nts, 
urits .4  It  does  not  seem  to  be  Finnish,  but  to  belong  to 
the  same  Aryan  root  as  ctggouria.  If  the  cucumber  came 
into  Europe  before  the  Aryans,  there  would  perhaps  be 
some  name  peculiar  to  the.  Basque  language,  or  seeds 
would  have  been  found  in  the  lake-dwellings  of  Switzer- 
land and  Savoy ; but  this  is  not  the  case.  The  peoples 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  Caucasus  have  names  quite 
different  to  the  Greek ; in  Tartar  kiar,  in  Kalmuck  thuja, 
in  Armenian  karan.5  The  name  chiar  exists  also  in 
Arabic  for  a variety  of  the  cucumber.6  This  is,  therefore, 
a Turanian  name  anterior  to  the  Sanskrit,  whereby  its 
culture  in  Western  Asia  would  be  more  than  three 
thousand  years  old. 

It  is  often  said  that  the  cucumber  is  the  kischschuim, 
one  of  the  fruits  of  Egypt  regretted  by  the  Israelites  in 
the  desert,7  However,  I do  not  find  any  Arabic  name 
among  the  three  given  by  Forskal  which  can  be  con- 
nected with  this,  and  hitherto  no  trace  has  been  found 
of  the  presence  of  the  cucumber  in  ancient  Egypt. 

1 Bretsclmeider,  letters  of  Aug.  23  and  26,  1881. 

1 Theophrastus,  Hist.,  lib.  7,  cap.  4;  Lenz,  But.  der  Alten,  p.  492. 

3 Heldreich,  Nutzpjl.  Oriechen.,  p.  50. 

4 Nemnich,  Polygl.  Lex.,  i.  p.  1306. 

5 Nemnich,  ibid.  * Forskal,  FI.  .Fgypt.,  p.  <6. 

7 Rosenmiillor,  Biblische  Alterth.,  i.  p.  97  ; Hamilton,  But.  de  la  Bit'le, 
p.  34. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS.  267 


West  Indian  Gherkin — Cucumis  A nguria,  Linnaeus. 
This  small  species  of  cucumber  is  designated  in  the 
Bon  Jardinier  under  the  name  of  the  cucumber  Arada. 
The  fruit,  of  the  size  of  an  egg,  is  very  prickly.  It  is 

■ eaten  cooked  or  pickled.  As  the  plant  is  very  produc- 
tive, it  is  largely  cultivated  in  the  American  colonies. 
Descourtilz  and  Sir  Joseph  Hooker  have  published  good 
coloured  illustrations  of  it,  and  M.  Cogniaux  a plate  with 

. a detailed  analysis  of  the  flower.1 

Several  botanists  affirm  that  it  is  wild  in  the  West 
Indies.  P.  Browne,2  in  the  last  century,  spoke  of  the 
plant  as  the  “ little  wild  cucumber  ” (in  Jamaica). 
L>escourtilz  said,  “ The  cucumber  grows  wild  everywhere, 
; and  principally  in  the  dry  savannahs  and  near  rivers, 
whose  banks  afford  a rich  vegetation.”  The  inhabitants 

■ call  it  the  “maroon  cucumber.”  Grisebach8  saw  speci- 

■ mens  in  several  other  West  India  Isles,  and  appears 
! to  admit  their  wild  character.  M.  E.  Andrd  found  the 
• species  growing  in  the  sand  of  the  sea-shore  at  Porto- 

■ Gabel lo,  and  Burchell  in  a similar  locality  in  Brazil,  and 
: Riedel  near  Rio  di  Janeiro.1  In  the  case  of  a number  of 
other  specimens  gathered  in  the  east  of  America  from 
j Brazil  to  Ilorida,  it  is  unknown  whether  they  were  wild 
ov  cultivated.  A wild  Brazilian  plant,  badly  drawn  by 
iPiso,u  is  mentioned  as  belonging  to  the  species,  but  I am 
'very  doubtful  of  this. 

Botanists  from  Tournefort  down  to  our  own  day  have 
considered  the  Anguria  to  be  of  American  origin,  a native 
of  Jamaica  in  particular.  M.  Naudin8  was  the  first  to 
point  out  that  all  the  other  species  of  Cucumis  are  of  the 
old  world,  and  principally  African.  He  wondered  whether 
this  one  had  not  been  introduced  into  America  by  the 
negroes,  like  many  other  planks  which  have  become 


, r rt-  ’ Mj,d-  des  AntlUes,  v.  pi.  329;  Hooker,  Bot.  Mag., 

t.  5817 ; Cogniaux,  in  FI.  Brasil,  fuse.  78,  pi  2 

2 Browne,  Jamaica,  edit.  2,  p.  353 

3 GriBebach,  FI.  of  Brit.  W.  India  Is.,  p.  288 

4 Cogniaux,  ubi  supra. 

“ ?^fJ'erVa'oba’.ln  Piso>  Brasil,  edit.  1958,  p.  264;  Marcgraf, 
e 1 7 * » P*  ‘ ’ wl"*lon^  illustration,  calls  it  Cucumis  sylvestris  Brasilia i. 

Xsauuin,  Ann.  Sc.  Aat.,  4tli  series,  vol.  ii.  p.  12. 


268 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


naturalized.  However,  unable  to  find  any  similar 
African  plant,  he  adopted  the  general  opinion.  Sir 
Joseph  Hooker,  on  the  contrary,  is  inclined  to  believe  j 
that  C.  Angaria  is  a cultivated  and  modified  form  of 
some  African  species  nearly  allied  to  G.  prophetarum  and 
G.  Figarei,  although  these  are  perennial.  In  favour  of 
this  hypothesis,  I may  add:  (1)  The  name  maroon  cu- 
cumber, given  in  the  French  West  India  Islands,  indicates  1 
a plant  which  lias  become  wild,  for  this  is  the  meaning 
of  the  word  maroon  as  applied  to  the  negroes;  (2)  its  j 
extended  area  in  America  from  Brazil  to  the  West  Indies,  ] 
always  along  the  coast  where  the  slave  trade  was  most  I 
brisk,  seems  to  be  a proof  of  foreign  origin.  If  the  ’ 
species  grew  in  America  previous  to  its  discovery,  it 
would,  with  such  an  extensive  habitat,  have  been  also  \ 
found  upon  the  west  coast  of  America,  and  inland,  which  I 
is  not  the  case. 

The  question  can  only  be  solved  by  a more  complete  . 
knowledge  of  the  African  species  of  Cucumis,  and  by  ] 
experiments  upon  fertilization,  if  any  have  the  patience  j 
and  abilit}'  necessary  to  do  for  the  genus  Cucumis  what  j 
Naudin  has  done  for  the  genus  Cucurbita. 

Lastly,  I would  point  out  the  absurdity  of  a common  j 
name  for  the  Anguria  in  the  United  States — Jerusalem  j 
Cucumber } After  this,  is  it  possible  to  take  popular  'j 
names  as  a guide  in  our  search  for  origins  ? 

White  Gourd-melon,  or  Benincasa — Benincasa  hispida,  'j 
Thunberg ; Benincasa  cerifera,  Savi. 

This  species,  which  is  the  only  one  of  the  genus 
Benincasa,  is  so  like  the  pumpkins  that  early  botanists  ] 
took  it  for  one,2  in  spite  of  the  waxy  efflorescence  on  the  j 
surface  of  the  fruit.  It  is  very  generally  cultivated  in 
tropical  countries.  It  was,  perhaps,  a mistake  to  aban-  j 
don  its  cultivation  in  Europe  after  having  tried  it,  for  | 
Naudin  and  the  Bon  Jardinier  both  recommend  it. 

It  is  the  cumbalam  of  Rheede,  the  camolenga  of  ;3 
Rumphius,  who  had  seen  it  cultivated  in  Malabar  and  , 
the  Sunda  Islands,  and  give  illustrations  of  it. 

1 Darlington,  Agric.  Bot.,  p.  58. 

2 Cucurbita  Pepo  of  Loureiro  and  Roxburgh. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


2G9 


From  several  works,  even  recent  ones,1  it  might  be 
: supposed  that  it  had  never  been  found  in  a wild  state, 
hut  if  we  notice  the  different  names  under  which  it 
has  been  described  we  shall  find  that  this  is  not  the 
case.  Thus  Cucurbit  a hispida,  Thunberg,  and  Lagenaria 
dasystemon,  Miquel,  from  authentic  specimens  seen 
by  Cogniaux,2  are  synonyms  of  the  species,  and  these 
plants  are  wild  in  Japan.8  Cucurbita  littoralis,  Hass- 
karl,4  found  among  shrubs  on  the  sea-shore  in  Java, 
; and  Gymnopetalum  septemlobwm,  Miquel,  also  in  Java' 

; are  the  Benincasa  according  to  Cogniaux.  As  are 
; also  Cucurbita  vacua,  Mueller,5  and  Cucurbita  pmriena, 
i Forster,  of  which  he  has  seen  authentic  specimens  found 
at  Rockingham,  in  Australia,  and  in  the  Society  Islands. 

. Nadeau d 8 does  not  mention  the  latter.  Temporary 
naturalization  may  be  suspected  in  the  Pacific  Isles  and 
in  Queensland,  but  the  localities  of  Java  and  Japan  seem 
quite  certain.  I am  the  more  inclined  to  believe  in  the 
latter,  that  the  cultivation  of  the  Bonincasa  in  China  dates 
f from  the  remotest  antiquity.7 

Towel  Gourd — Momordica  cylindrica,  Linmeus : Luffa 
(cylindrica,  Roemer. 

Naudin  8 says,  “ Luffa  cylindrica,  which  in  some  of 
our  colonies  has  retained  the  Indian  name  petole  is 
probably  a native  of  Southern  Asia,  and  perhaps  also 
of  Africa,  Australia,  and  Polynesia.  It  is  cultivated  by 
the  peoples  of  most  hot  countries,  and  it  appears  to  be 
naturalized  in  many  places  where  it  doubtless  did  not 
exist  originally.”  Cogniaux9  is  more  positive.  “An 
indigenous  species,”  he  says,  “ in  all  the  tropical  regions 


' Clarke,  in  FI.  of  lirit.  Ind.,  ii.  p.  G16. 
a 'n  Candolle,  J tonogr.  Ph.uv.6r.,  lii.  p.  513. 

i p i 7-j’,nb<  rg’  FL  Jap’’  P'  322  ; Francbet  and  Savatier,  Enum.  PL  Jap., 


,Batavla8*karl’  CataL  Horti-  B°V°r • Alter.,  p.  190  ; Miquel,  Flora  Indo- 

Mueller,  Fragm.,  yi,  p.  186 ; Forster,  Prodr.  (no  description) ; 
•seemann,  Jowr.  of  hot.,  ii.  p.  50.  ' 

! Nadeand,  Plan.  Usu.  des  Taitiens,  Enum.  des  PI.  Indig.  d Taiti. 

■ Rretschneider,  letter  of  Ang.  26,  1881, 

Naudin,  Ann.  Sc.  Nat.,  4th  series,  vol.  xii.  p.  121. 

Cogniaux,  Monogr.  Phandr.,  iii.  p.  458. 


270 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


of  the  old  world;  often  cultivated  and  half  wild  in  ! 
America  between  the  tropics.”  In  consulting  the  works  j 
quoted  in  these  two  monographs,  and  herbaria,  its  ] 
character  as  a wild  plant  will  be  found  sometimes 
conclusively  certified. 

With  regard  to  Asia,1 2  Rheede  saw  it  in  sandy  places,  3 
in  woods  and  other  localities  in  Malabar ; Roxburgh  says 
it  is  wild  in  Hindustan  ; Ivurz,  in  the  forests  of  Burmah ; 
Thwaites,  in  Ceylon.  I have  specimens  from  Ceylon  and  j 
Khasia.  There  is  no  Sanskrit  name  known,  and  Dr.  j 
Bretschneider,  in  his  work  On  the  Study  and  Value  of  1 
Chinese  Botanical  Works,  and  in  his  letters  mentions  no  j 
luffa  either  wild  or  cultivated  in  China.  I suppose,  1 
therefore,  that  its  cultivation  is  not  ancient  even  in  j 
India. 

The  species  is  wild  in  Australia,  on  the  banks  of 
rivers  in  Queensland,3  and  hence  it  is  probable  it.  will  j 
be  found  wild  in  the  Asiatic  Archipelago,  where  Rum-  j 
phius,  Miquel,  etc.,  only  mention  it  as  a cultivated  plant,  j 

Herbaria  contain  a great  number  of  specimens  from  1 
tropical  Africa,  from  Mozambique  to  the  coast  of  Guinea,  j 
and  even  as  far  as  Angola,  but  collectors  do  not  appear  i 
to  have  indicated  whether  they  were  cultivated  or  wild , 
plants.  In  the  Delessert  herbarium,  Heudelot  indicates  it 
as  growing  in  fertile  ground  in  the  environs  of  Galam.  Sir  ! 
Joseph  Hooker8  quotes  this  without  affirming  anything.] 
Schweinfurth  and  Ascheron,4  who  are  always  careful  in 
this  matter,  say  the  species  is  only  a cultivated  one  in 
the  Nile  Valley.  This  is  curious,  because  the  plant  j 
was  seen  in  the  seventeenth  century  in  Egyptian  gar-1 
dens  under  the  Arabian  name  of  luff,5  whence  the  genus 
was  called  Luffa,  and  the  species  Luffa  cvgyptica.  The! 
ancient  Egyptian  monuments  show  no  trace  of  it.  Thel 

1 Rheede,  Hort.  Malab.,  viii.  p.  15,  t.  8 ; Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.,  iii.  p.  714, ^ 
as  L.  clavata ; Kurz,  Contrib.,  ii.  p.  100 ; Thwaites,  Enum. 

2 Mueller,  Fragmenta,  iii.  p.  107 ; Bentham,  FI.  Austr.,  iii.  p.  317.1 
under  names  which  Naudin  and  Coguiaux  regard  as  synonyms  of 
L.  cylindrica. 

* Hooker,  in  Oliver,  FI.  of  Trop.  Afr.,  ii.  p.  530. 

4 Schweinfurth  and  Ascheron,  Aufzdhlung,  p.  268. 

5 Forskal,  FI.  JEijypt.,  p.  75. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


271 


absence  of  a Hebrew  name  is  another  reason  for  believiim 
that  its  cultivation  was  introduced  into  Egypt  in  the 
Middle  Ages.  It  is  now  grown  in  the  Delta,  not  only 
1 for  the  fruit  but  also  for  the  export  of  the  seed,  from 
which  a preparation  is  made  for  softening  the  skin.' 

The  species  is  cultivated  in  Brazil,  Guiana,  Mexico, 
• etc.,  but  I find  no  indication  that  it  is  indigenous  in 
America.  It  appears  to  have  been  here  and  there 
i naturalized,  in  Nicaragua  for  instance,  from  a specimen 
i of  Levy’s. 

In  brief,  the  Asiatic  origin  is  certain,  the  African  very 
doubtful,  that  of  America  imaginary,  or  rather  the  effect 
of  naturalization. 


Angular  LufFa— Luff  a cicuta/ngula,  Roxburgh. 

The  origin  of  this  species,  cultivated  like  the  pre- 
ceding one  in  all  tropical  countries,  is  not  very  clear 
= according  to  Naudin  and  Cogniaux.1  The  first  gives 
Senegal,  the  second  Asia,  and,  doubtfully,  Africa.  It  is 
1 hardly  necessary  to  say  that  Linnaeus2  was  mistaken  in 
indicating  Tartary  and  China.  Clarke,  in  Sir  Joseph 
Hookers  flora,  says  without  hesitation  that  it  is  in- 
digenous in  British  India.  Rheede  3 formerly  saw  the 
iplant  in  sandy  soil  in  Malabar.  Its  natural  area  seems 
;L>  be  limited  for  Thwaites  in  Ceylon,  Kurz  in  British 
Burmah,  and  Loureiro  in  China  and  Cochin-China 4 only 
.give  the  species  as  cultivated,  or  growing  on  rubbish- 
. heaps  near  gaiRens  Rumpliius  6 calls  it  a Bengal  plant. 

n w has  b®en  long  cultivated  in  China,  according 
known  An  Bretschneid^  No  Sanskrit  name  is 
recent  cultareSriT  mdic“tions  of  a comparatively 

b'tter  fruit  is  common  in  British 
■ India  in  a wild  state,  since  there  is  no  inducement  to 


Gan voL  xii‘  P-  122  > Cogniaux,  in  de 

* Rl~  ifc  «•**••**•«• 

tLo  ^^Co^:TpC727^  P-  i2®5'  Karz> 
s llumpliiuH,  Amboin,  v.  p.  408,  t 149 
6 Clarke,  in  FI.  Brit.  Ind.,  ii.  p.’  614. 


Contrib.,  ii.  p.  101 ; 


272 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


cultivate  it.  It  exists  also  in  the  Sunda  Islands.  It 
is  Luff  a amava,  Roxburgh,  and  L.  sylvcstris,  Miquel. 
L.  subanguluta,  Miquel,  is  another  variety  which  grows 
in  Java,  which  M.  Cogniaux  also  unites  with  the  others 
from  authentic  specimens  which  he  saw. 

M.  Naudin  does  not  say  what  traveller  gives  the 
plant  as  wild  in  Senegambia ; but  he  says  the  negroes 
call  it  papengaye,  arid  as  this  is  the  name  of  the 
Mauritius  planters,1  it  is  probable  that  the  plant  is 
cultivated  in  Senegal,  and  perhaps  naturalized  near 
dwellings.  Sir  Joseph  Hooker,  in  the  Flora  of  Tropical 
Africa,  gives  the  species,  but  without  proof  that  it 
is  wild  in  Africa,  and  Cogniaux  is  still  more  brief. 
Schweinfurth  and  Ascheron 2 do  not  mention  it  either 
as  wild  or  cultivated  in  Egypt,  Nubia,  and  Abyssinia. 
There  is  no  trace  of  its  ancient  cultivation  in  Egypt. 

The  species  has  often  been  sent  from  the  West  Indies, 
New  Granada,  Brazil,  and  other  parts  of  America, 'but 
there  is  no  indication  that  it  has  been  long  in  these  places, 
nor  even  that  it  occurs  at  a distance  from  gardens  in  a 
really  wild  state. 

The  conditions  or  probabilities  of  origin,  and  of  date 
of  culture,  are,  it  will  be  seen,  identical  for  the  two 
cultivated  species  of  luffa.  In  support  of  the  hypothesis 
that  the  latter  is  not  of  African  origin,  I may  say  that 
the  four  other  species  of  the  genus  are  Asiatic  or 
American ; and  as  a sign  that  the  cultivation  of  the  luffa 
is  not  very  ancient,  I will  add  that  the  form  of  the  fruit 
varies  much  less  than  in  the  other  cultivated  cucur- 
bitacea. 

Snake  Gourd — Trichosa/n thcs  anguina,  Linmeus. 

An  annual  creeping  Gacurbitacea,  remarkable  for  its 
fringed  corolla.  It  is  called  petole  in  Mauritius,  from  a 
Java  name.  The  fruit,  which  is  something  like  a long 
Heshy  pod  of  some  leguminous  plants,  is  eaten  cooked 
like  a cucumber  in  tropical  Asia. 

As  the  botanists  of  the  seventeenth  century  received 
the  plant  from  China,  they  imagined  that  the  plant  was 

1 Bojer,  IJnrt.  Maurit. 

2 Schweinfurth  and  Ascherson,  Aufzdhl ujhj,  p.  268. 


PLANTS'  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


273 


indigenous  there,  but  it  was  probably  cultivated.  Dr. 
IBretschneider  1 tells  us  that  the  Chinese  name,  mankwa , 
nneans  " cucumber  of  the  southern  barbarians.”  Its  home 
■must  be  India,  or  the  Indian  Archipelago.  No  author, 
Ihowever,  asserts  that  it  has  been  found  in  a distinctly 
wild  state.  Thus  Clarke,  in  Hooker’s  Flora  of  British 
Undid,  ii.  p.  610,  says  only,  “ India,  cultivated.”  Naudin,2 
5 before  him,  said,  “ Inhabits  the  East  Indies,,  where  it  is 
finuch  cultivated  for  its  fruits.  It  is  rarely  found  wild.” 
IRumphius  3 is  not  more  positive  for  Amboy na.  Loureiro 
knd  Kurz  in  Cochin-China  and  Burmah,  Blume  and 
5Miquel  in  the  islands  to  the  south  of  Asia,  have  only  seen 
the  plant  cultivated.  The  thirty-nine  other  species  of 
the  genus  are  all  of  the  old  world,  found  between  China 
or  Japan,  the  west  of  India  and  Australia.  They  belong 
especially  to  India  and  the  Malay  Archipelago.  1 
‘consider  the  Indian  origin  as  the  most  probable  one. 

The  species  has  been  introduced  into  Mauritius,  where 
-t  sows  itself  round  cultivated  places.  Elsewhere  it  is 
ittle  diffused.  No  Sanskrit  name  is  known. 

Chayote,  or  Clioco — Sechium  edule , Swartz. 

This  plant,  of  the  order  Cucurhitacece,  is  cultivated 
n tiopical  America  for  its  fruits,  shaped  like  a pear,  and 
•asting  like  a cucumber.  They  contain  only  one  seed,  so 
hat  the  flesh  is  abundant. 

The  species  alone  constitutes  the  genus  Sechium. 
There  are  specimens  in  every  herbarium,  but  generally 
collectors  do  not  indicate  whether  they  are  naturalized, 
or  ready  wild,  and  apparently  indigenous  in  the  country.’ 
Without  speaking  of  works  in  which  this  plant  is  said  to 
omc  fiom  the  East  Indies,  which  is  entirely  a mistake, 
eveia  of  the  best  give  Jamaica4  as  the  original  home. 
Howevei,  P.  Browne,-’  in  the  middle  of  the  last  century, 
aaid  positively,  that  it  was  cultivated  there,  and  Sloane 
iocs  not  mention  it.  Jacquin6  says  that  it  “inhabits 


■ Bretsclmeider,  Study  end  Value,  etc.,  p.  17. 
Naudin,  Ann.  8c.  Nat.,  4th  series,  vol.  xviii.  p.  190. 
Kumphius,  Ambom,  v.  pi.  148. 

* Grisebach,  Flora  . of  Brit,  W.  India  Id.,  p.  286. 

5 Browne,  Jamaica,  p.  355. 

8 Jacqain,  Stirp.  Arner.  Hist.,  p.  259. 


T 


274 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Cuba,  and  is  cultivated  there,”  and  Richard  copies  this 
phrase  in  the  flora  of  R.  de  La  Sagra  without  adding 
any  proof.  Naudin  says,1  “a  Mexican  plant,”  but  lie 
does  not  give  his  reasons  for  asserting  this.  Cogniaux2 3 
in  his  recent  monograph,  mentions  a great  number  of 
specimens  gathered  from  Brazil  to  the  West  Indies  with- 
if  he  had  seen  any  one  of  these  given  as  wild, 
saw  the  plant  cultivated  at  Panama,  and  he 
adds  a remark,  important  if  correct,  namely,  that  the 
name  chayote,  common  in  the  isthmus,  is  the  corruption 
of  an  Aztec  word,  chayotl.  This  is  an  indication  of  an 
ancient  existence  in  Mexico,  but  I do  not  find  the  word 
in  Hernandez,  the  classic  author  on  the  Mexican  plants 
anterior  to  the  Spanish  conquest.  The  chayote  was  not 
cultivated  in  Cayenne  ten  years  ago.4  Nothing  indicates; 
an  ancient  cultivation  in  Brazil.  The  species  is  not 
mentioned  by  early  writers,  such  as  Piso  and  Marcgraf, 
and  the  name  chuchu,  given  as  Brazilian,5  seems  toTne  to 
come  from  chocho,  the  Jamaica  name,  which  is  perhaps 
a corruption  of  the  Mexican  word. 

The  plant  is  probably  a native  of  the  south  of  Mexico 
and  of  Central  America,  and  was  transported  into  the 
West  India  Islands  and  to  Brazil  in  the  eighteenth 
century.  The  species  was  afterwards  introduced  into 
Mauritius  and  Algeria,  where  it  is  very  successful.5 

Indian  Fig,  or  Prickly  Pear — Opuntia  ficus  indica, 
Miller. 

This  fleshy  plant  of  the  Cactus  family,  which  produces 
the  fruit  known  in  the  south  of  Europe  as  the  Indian  fin, 
has  no  connection  with  the  fig  tree,  nor  has  the  fruit 
with  the  fig.  Its  origin  is  not  Indian  but  American^ 
Everything  is  erroneous  and  absurd  in  this  common 
name.  However,  since  Linnseus  took  his  botanical  name 
from  it,  Cactus  ficus  indica,  afterwards  connected  with 
the  genus  Opuntia,  it  was  necessary  to  retain  the  specific 

1 Naudin,  Ann.  Sc.  Nat,  4th  series,  vol.  xviii.  p.  205. 

2 In  Monogr.  Phandr.,  iii.  p.  902. 

3 Seemann,  Bot.  of  Herald,  p.  128. 

* Sagot,  Journal  de  la  Soc.  d'Hortic.  de  France,  1872. 

3 Cogniaux,  FI.  Brasil,  fasc.  78.  * Sagot,  ibid. 


out  saying 
Seemann s 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS.  275 

mame  to  avoid  changes  which  are  a source  of  confusion, 
band  to  recall  the  popular  denomination.  The  prickly 
‘forms,  and  those  more  or  less  free  from  spines,  have  been 
(.•considered  by  some  authors  as  distinct  species,  but  an 
.attentive  examination  leads  us  to  regard  them  as  one.1 

The  species  existed  both  wild  and  cultivated  in 
''Mexico  before  the  arrival  of  the  Spaniards.  Hernandez 2 
'describes  nine  varieties  of  it,  which  shows  the  antiquity  of 
[its  cultivation.  The  cochineal  insect  appears  to  feed  on  one 
(of  these,  almost  without  thorns,  more  than  on  the  others, 
(and  it  has  been  transported  with  the  plant  to  the  Canary 
Isles  and  elsewhere.  It  is  not  known  how  far  its  habitat 
[extended  in  America  before  man  transported  pieces  of 
[the  plant,  shaped  like  a racket,  and  the  fruits,  which  are 
[two  easy  ways  of  propagating  it.  Perhaps  the  wild 
[plants  in  Jamaica,  and  the  other  West  India  Islands 
[mentioned  by  Sloane,3  in  1725,  were  the  result  of  its 
[ introduction  by  the  Spaniards.  Certainly  the  species 
[has  become  naturalized  in  this  direction  as  far  as  the 
[•blimate  permits ; for  instance,  as  far  as  Southern  Florida.4 

It  wms  one  of  the  first  plants  which  the  Spaniards  in- 
troduced to  the  old  world,  both  in  Europe  and  Asia.  Its 
[singular  appearance  was  the  more  striking  that  no  other 
(species  belonging  to  the  family  had  before  been  seen.5 
('All  sixteenth-century  botanists  mention  it,  and  the  plant 
became  naturalized  in  the  south  of  Europe  and  in  Africa 
its  cultivation  was  introduced.  It  was  in  Spain  that 
he  prickly  pear  was  first  known  under  the  American 
lame  tuna,  and  it  was  probably  the  Moors  who  took  it 
nto  Barbary  when  they  were  expelled  from  the  peninsula. 
They  called  it  fig  of  the  Christians.6  The  custom  of 
jsing  the  plant  for  fences,  and  the  nourishing  property 
&f  the  fruits,  which  contain  a large  proportion  of  sugar, 
aave.  determined  its  extension  round  the  Mediterranean, 
and  in  general  in  all  countries  near  the  tropics. 


Webb  and  Berthelot,  Phy tog.  Canar.,  sect.  1,  p.  208. 
Hernandez,  Theo.  Novm  Hisp.,  p.  78.  3 Sloane,  Jamaica,  ii.  p. 

Chapman,  Flora  of  Southern  States,  p.  144. 

The  cactos  of  the  Greeks  was  quite  a different  plant, 
bteinlieil,  in  Boissier,  Voyage  Pot.  en  Espagne,  i.  p.  25. 


150. 


276 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


The  cultivation  of  the  cochineal,  which  was  unfavour- 
able to  the  production  of  the  fruit,1  is  dying  out  since  the  ; 
manufacture  of  colouring  matters  by  chemical  processes.  i 

Gooseberry  — Ribes  grossularia  and  R.  Vacrispa,  ] 
Linnaeus. 

The  fruit  of  the  cultivated  varieties  is  generally 
smooth,  or  provided  with  a few  stiff  hairs,  while  that  of 
the  wild  varieties  has  soft  and  shorter  hairs ; but  inter- 
mediate forms  exist,  and  it  has  been  shown  by  experi- 
ment that  by  sowing  the  seeds  of  the  cultivated  fruit, 
plants  with  either  smooth  or  hairy  fruit  are  obtained.'2 
There  is,  therefore,  but  one  species,  which  has  produced  j 
under  cultivation  one  principal  variety  and  several  sub-  ; 
varieties  as  to  the  size,  colour,  or  taste  of  the  fruit. 

The  gooseberry  grows  wild  throughout  tempei-ate 
Europe,  from  Southern  Sweden  to  the  mountainous ; 
regions  of  Central  Spain,  of  Italy,  and  of  Greece.3  It  is 
also  mentioned  in  Northern  Africa,  but  the  last  published- 
catalogue  of  Algerian  plants4  indicates  it  only  in  the] 
mountains  of  Aures,  and  Ball  has  foimd  a variety  in 
the  Atlas  of  Marocco.5  It  grows  in  the  Caucasus,6  and 
under  more  or  less  different  forms  in  the  western 
Himalayas.7 

The  Greeks  and  Homans  do  not  mention  the  species, 
which  is  rare  in  the  South,  and  which  is  hardly  worth 
planting  where  grapes  will  ripen.  It  is  especially  in 
Germany,  Holland,  and  England  that  it  has  been  culti- 
vated from  the  sixteenth  century,8  principally  as  a 
seasoning,  whence  the  English  name,  and  the  French; 
groseille  d maquercaux  (mackerel  currant).  A wine 
is  also  made  from  it. 

The  frequency  of  its  cultivation  in  the  British  Isles' 
and  in  other  places  where  it  is  found  wild,  which  are! 

1 Webb  and  Berthelot,  Phytog.  Canar.,  vol.  iii.  Beet.  1,  p.  208. 

2 Robson,  quoted  in  English  Botany,  pi.  2057. 

3 Nyman,  Conspectus  FI.  Evropeas,  p.  266  ; Boissier,  FI.  Or.,  ii.  p.  815. 

* Munby,  Catal.,  edit.  2,  p.  15. 

5 Ball,  Spicilegium  FI.  Maroc.,  p.  449. 

6 Ledebour,  FI.  Ross.,  ii.  p.  194;  Boissier,  uhi  supra. 

7 Clarke,  in  Hooker’s  FI.  Brit.  Ind.,  ii.  p.  410. 

8 Phillips,  Account  of  Fruits,  p.  174. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


277 


!)ften  near  gardens,  has  suggested  to  some  English 
botanists  the  idea  of  an  accidental  naturalization.  This 
Tjj  likely  enough  in  Ireland ; 1 but  as  it  is  an  essentially 
European  species,  I do  not  see  why  it  should  not  have 
existed  in  England,  where  the  wild  plant  is  more  common, 
:ince  the  establishment  of  most  of  the  species  of  the 
.British  flora;  that  is  to  say,  since  the  end  of  the  glacial 
period,  before  the  separation  of  the  island  from  the 
continent.  Phillips  quotes  an  old  English  name,  feabervy 
■t  feabes,  which  supports  the  theory  of  an  ancient  exist- 
ence, and  two  Welsh  names,"  ol  which  I cannot,  however, 
ertify  the  originality. 

Red  Currant — liibes  rubrv/m,  Linnmus. 

I he  common  red  currant  is  wild  throughout  Northern 
! nd  Temperate  Europe,  and  in  Siberia8  as  far  as  Kamc- 
hatka, and  in  America,  from  Canada  and  Vermont  to 
! he  mouth  of  the  river  Mackenzie.2 * 4 
L Llke  the  preceding  species,  it  was  unknown  to  the 
weeks  and  Romans,  and  its  cultivation  was  only  intro- 
! n}  the  Middle  Ages.  The  cultivated  plant  hardly 
line  is  fiom  the  wild  one.  That  the  plant  was  foreign 

0 the  south  of  Europe  is  shown  by  the  name  of  groneiUier 
!* e>1}er  (currant  from  beyond  the  sea),  given  in  France5 
a the  sixteenth  century.  In  Geneva  the  currant  is  still 
am n mnly  called  raisin  de  mare,  and  in  the  canton  of 
' o euie  "wcrtr'dhli,  1 do  not  know  why  the  species  was 
apposed,  three  centuries  ago,  to  have  come  from  be- 
am. seas.  1 ei haps  this  should  be  understood  to  mean 

; i It  wv.  brouoht  by  the  Danes  and  the  Northmen, 
iki  that  these  peoples  from  beyond  the  northern  seas 
atroduced  its  cultivation.  I doubt  it,  however,  for  the 

WU<1  in  almosfc  the  whole  of  Great 
L . , tU1<  m . ormandy ; 7 the  English,  who  were  in 

| J „„  VV  1' -Rtion  with  the  Danes,  did  not  cultivate 

■at  as  oo 7,  liom  a list  ot  the  fruits  of  that  epoch 

2 Davies ^Weh^Bo^nohJy,  n.  2*  Cvhd<>  HVhernica'  P-  llS- 

1 * Ledobour,  FI.  Boss.,  ii.  ji.’lgg. 

6 wSrOy&^Brif!'  N'  Amer"  1 P>  1B0*  * Dodonoua,  p.  748. 

? Brobisson,  Flore  de  Normandie,  p.  99, 


278 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


drawn  up  by  Th.  Tusser,  and  published  by  Phillips;1 
and  even  in  the  time  of  Gerard,  in  1597, 2 its  cultivation 
was  rare,  and  the  plant  had  no  particular  name.3  Lastly,  J 
there  are  French  and  Breton  names  which  indicate  a 
cultivation  anterior  to  the  Normans  in  the  west  of 
France. 

The  old  names  in  France  are  given  in  the  dictionary 
by  Menage.  According  to  him,  red  currants  are  called  at 
Rouen  gardes,  at  Caen  grades,  in  Lower  Normandy  g ra- 
ddles, and  in  Anjou  castilles.  Mdnage  derives  all  these 
names  from  rvhius,  rubicus,  etc.,  by  a series  of  imaginary 
transformations,  from  the  word  ruber,  red.  Legonidec 4 
tells  us  that  red  currants  are  also  called  Kastilez  (1.  liquid) 
in  Brittany,  and  he  derives  this  name  from  Castille,  as  if 
a fruit  scarcely  known  in  Spain  and  abundant  in  the* 
north  could  come  from  Spain.  These  words,  found 
both  in  Brittany  and  beyond  its  limits,  appear  -to  me 
to  be  of  Celtic  origin ; and  I may  mention,  in  support 
of  this  theory,  that  in  Legonidec’s  dictionary  gardis 
means  rough,  harsh,  'pungent,  sour,  etc.,  which  gives  a 
hint  as  to  the  etymology.  The  generic  name  Ribes  haa| 
caused  other  errors.  It  was  thought  the  plant  might  be 
one  which  was  so  called  by  the  Arabs ; but  the  word 
comes  rather  from  a name  for  the  currant  very  common 
in  the  north,  ribs  in  Danish,5  risp  and  resp  in  Swedish.! 
The  Slav  names  are  quite  different  and  in  considerable 
number. 

Black  Currant — Cassis ; Ribes  nigrum,  Linnreus. 

The  black  currant  grows  wild  in  the  north  of  Europe 
from  Scotland  and  Lapland  as  far  as  the  north  of  France 
and  Italy ; in  Bosnia,'  Armenia,8  throughout  Siberia,  in 
the  basin  of  the  river  Amur,  and  in  the  western  Himi 

1 Phillips,  Account  of  Fruits,  p.  136. 

2 Gerard,  Herbal,  p.  1143. 

3 That  of  currant  is  a later  introduction,  given  from  the  resemblance 
to  the  grapos  of  Corinth  (Phillips,  ibid,.). 

4 Legonideo,  Diction.  Celto-Breton. 

5 Moritzi,  Diet.  Inidit  des  Noms  Vulgaires. 

6 Linnaeus,  Flora  Suecica,  n.  197. 

1 Watson,  Compend.  Cybele,  i.  p.  177 ; Fries,  Summa  Yeg.  Scand.,  p- 
39 ; Nyman,  Conspect.  FI.  Europ.,  p.  266. 

8 Boissier,  FI.  Or.,  ii.  p.  815. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


279 


;.ayas  ; 1 it  often  becomes  naturalized,  as  for  instance,  in 
:the  centre  of  France.2 

This  shrub  was  unknown  in  Greece  and  Italy,  for  it 
Sis  proper  to  colder  countries.  From  the  variety  of  the 
blames  in  all  the  languages,  even  in  those  anterior  to  the 
^Aryans,  of  the  north  of  Europe,  it  is  clear  that  this  fruit 
•■was  very  early  sought  after,  and  its  cultivation  was  pro- 
ioably  begun  before  the  Middle  Ages.  J.  Bauhin8  says  it 
■was  planted  in  gardens  in  France  and  Italy,  but  most 
sixteenth-century  authors  do  not  mention  it.  In  the 
Histoire  de  la  Vie  Privee  des  Frangais,  by  Le  Grand 
l’Aussy,  published  in  1872,  vol.  i.  p.  232,  the  following 
burious  passage  occurs : “ The  black  currant  has  been 
[•cultivated  hardly  forty  years,  and  it  owes  its  reputa- 
tion to  a pamphlet  entitled  Culture  du  Cassis,  in  which 
[the  author  attributed  to  this  shrub  all  the  virtues  it  is 
[possible  to  imagine.”  Further  on  (voL  iii.  p.  80),  the 
[.author  mentions  the  frequent  use,  since  the  publication  of 
E the  pamphlet  in  question,  of  a liqueur  made  from  the 
Mjlack  currant.  Bose,  who  is  always  accurate  in  his  articles 
n the  Dictionnaire  d’ Agriculture,  mentions  this  fashion 
[under  the  head  Currant , but  he  is  careful  to  add,  “ It 
has  been  very  long  in  cultivation  for  its  fruit,  which  has 
a peculiar  odour  agreeable  to  some,  disagreeable  to  others, 

; and  which  is  held  to  be  stomachic  and  diuretic.”  It  is 
[also  used  in  the  manufacture  of  the  liqueurs  known  as 
[ratafia  de  Cassis.4 

Olive — Olea  Euro'pea , Linnaeus. 

The  wild  olive,  called  in  botanical  books  the  variety 

Ledebour,  FI.  Ross.,  p.  200;  Maximowicz,  Primitias  FI.  Amur.,  p. 

Hooker,  FI.  Brit.  Ind .,  ii.  p.  411. 

Boreau,  Flore  du  Centre  de  la  France , edit.  3,  p.  262. 

3 Bauhin,  Hist.  Plant.,  ii.  p.  99. 

This  name  Cassis  is  curious.  Littrtf  says  that  it  seems  to  have  been 
introduced  late  into  the  language,  and  that  he  does  not  know  its  origin. 
[ 1 have  not  met  with  it  in  botanical  works  earlier  than  the  middle  of  the 
'seventeenth  century.  My  manuscript  collection  of  common  names,  among 
more  t an  forty  names  for  this  species  in  different  languages  or  dialects 
O11ocf ?1C  , i rc^eml)^es  it.  Buchoz,  in  his  Dictionnaire  des  Plantes, 
/ / , i.  p.  -oJ,  calls  the  plant  the  Cassis  or  Cassetier  des  Poitevins.  The 
[ ° ‘ French,  name  was  Poivrxer  or  groseillier  nair.  Laroussc’s  dictionary 
t*uj8  that  good  liquenrs  were  made  at  Cassis  in  Provence.  Can  this  bo 
the  origin  of  the  name  ? 


280 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


sylvestris  or  oleaster,  is  distinguished  from  the  cultivated 
olive  tree  by  a smaller  fruit,  of  which  the  flesh  is  not  so 
abundant.  The  best  fruits  are  obtained  by  selecting  the 
seeds,  buds,  or  grafts  from  good  varieties. 

The  oleaster  now  exists  over  a wide  area  east  and 
west  of  Syria,  from  the  Punjab  and  Beluchistan 1 as  far 
as  Portugal  and  even  Madeira,  the  Canaries  and  even 
Marocco,2  and  from  the  Atlas  northwards  as  far  as  the  south 
of  France,  the  ancient  Macedonia,  the  Crimea,  and  the 
Caucasus.8  If  we  compare  the  accounts  of  travellers  and 
of  the  authors  of  floras,  it  will  be  seen  that  towards  the' 
limits  of  this  area  there  is  often  a doubt  as  to  the  wild  I 
and  indigenous  (that  is  to  say  ancient  in  the  country) 
nature  of  the  species.  Sometimes  it  offers  itself  as  a 
shrub  which  fruits  little  or  not  at  all ; and  sometimes,  as 
in  the  Crimea,  the  plants  are  rare  as  though  they  had 
escaped,  as  an  exception,  the  destructive  effects  of  wiptersl 
too  severe  to  allow  of  a definite  establishment.  As; 
regards  Algeria  and  the  south  of  France,  these  doubts 
have  been  the  subject  of  a discussion  among  competent 
men  in  the  Botanical  Society.4  They  repose  upon  the] 
uncontes table  fact  that  birds  often  transport  the  seed  of! 
the  olive  into  uncultivated  and  sterile  places,  where  the  I 
wild  form,  the  oleaster,  is  produced  and  naturalized. 

The  question  is  not  clearly  stated  when  we  ask  if 
such  and  such  olive  trees  of  a given  locality  are  really  \ 
wild.  In  a woody  species  which  lives  so  long  and  shoots’ 
again  from  the  same  stock  when  cut  off  by  accident,  it  is] 
impossible  to  know  the  origin  of  the  individuals  observedJ 
They  may  have  been  sown  by  man  or  birds  at  a very  ] 
early  epoch,  for  olive  trees  of  more  than  a thousand  years  ] 
old  are  known.  The  effect  of  such  sowing  is  anaturaliza-j 
tion,  which  is  equivalent  to  an  extension  of  area.  The  a 
point  in  question  is,  therefore,  to  discover  what  was  the  j 

1 Aitchison,  Catalogue,  p.  86. 

* Lowe,  Man.  Ft.  of  Madeira,  ii.  p.  20;  Webb  and  Berthelot,  Hist. 9 
Nat.  des  Canaries,  Geog.  Bot.,  p.  48 ; Ball,  Spicil.  FI.  Maroc.,  p.  f>G5.  <1 

3 Cosson,  Ball.  Soc.  Bot.  France , iv.  p.  107,  and  vii.  p.  31 ; Grisebach,  « 
Spicil.  FI.  Rumelica,  ii.  p.  71 ; Steven,  Verseich.  der  Taurisch.  H<ilbins., 
p.  218 ; Ledebour,  FI.  Ross.,  p.  38. 

4 Bulletin,  iv.  p.  107. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


281 


’home  of  the  species  in  very  early  prehistoric  times,  and 
•how  this  area  has  grown  larger  by  different  modes  of 
(transport. 

It  is  not  by  the  study  of  living  olive  trees  that  this 
■question  can  be  answered.  We  must  seek  in  what  coun- 
tries the  cultivation  began,  and  how  it  was  propagated. 
The  more  ancient  it  is  in  any  region,  the  more  probable 
;it  is  that  the  species  has  existed  wild  there  from  the  time 
■ of  those  geological  events  which  took  place  before  the 
K coming  of  prehistoric  man. 

The  earliest  Hebrew  books  mention  the  olive  sciit,  or 
:zeit ,x  both  wild  and  cultivated.  It  was  one  of  the  trees 
i promised  in  the  land  of  Canaan.  It  is  first  mentioned  in 
'Genesis,  where  it  is  said  that  the  dove  sent  out  by  Noah 
should  bring  back  a branch  of  olive.  If  we  take  into 
^account  this  tradition,  which  is  accompanied  b}r  miracu- 
lous details,  it  may  be  added  that  the  discoveries  of 
modern  erudition  show  that  the  Mount  Ararat  of  the 
1 Bible  must  be  to  the  east  of  the  mountain  in  Armenia 
•which  now  bears  that  name,  and  which  was  anciently 
'Called  Masis.  From  a study  of  the  text  of  the  Book  of 
(•-Genesis,  I ran^ois  Lenormand 2 places  the  mountain  in 
'question  in  the  Hindu  Kush,  and  even  near  the  sources 
■of  the  Indus.  This  theory  supposes  it  near  to  the  land  of 
ptne  Aryans,  yet  the  olive  has  no  Sanskrit  name,  not  even 
fin  that  Sanskrit  from  which  the  Indian  languages 8 are 
(derived.  It  the  olive  had  then,  as  now,  existed  in  the 
! unjab  the  eastern  Aryans  in  their  migrations  towards 
(the  south  would  probably  have  given  it  a name,  and  if  it 
; had  existed  in  the  Mazanderan,  to  the  south  of  the  Cas- 
pian bea,  as  at  the  present  day,  the  western  Aryans 
I w<?.  P.e/haPs  ]iave  known  it.  To  these  negative  indi- 
, cations,  it  can  only  be  objected  that  the  wild  olive  attracts 
>uo  considerable  attention,  and  that  the  idea  of  extracting 
3il  from  it  perhaps  arose  late  in  this  part  of  Asia. 


f r,  . R.e'n!'lIlfir’  Handbuch  der  Bibl.  Alterth.,  vol.  iv.  p.  258  ; Hamilton, 
, Dot  da  la  Bible,  p.  80,  where  the  passages  are  indicated. 

) 81  * Lonormand>  Maimel  de  l' Hist.  Auc.  de  I’Orient.,  1869,  vol.  i. 

l ick,  11  urterbuch,  Pidclington,  Index,  only  mentions  one  Hindu 
> iame,  julpai . 


282 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Herodotus  1 * tells  us  that  Babylonia  grew  no  olive  trees,  1 
and  that  its  inhabitants  made  use  of  oil  of  sesame.  It  ■ 
is  certain  that  a country  so  subject  to  inundation  was  * 
not  at  all  favourable  to  the  olive.  The  cold  excludes  the  i 
higher  plateaux  and  the  mountains  of  the  north  of 
Persia. 

I do  not  know  if  there  is  a name  in  Zend,  but  the  ] 
Semitic  word  salt  must  date  from  a remote  antiquity,  for  ! 
it  is  found  in  modern  Persian,  seitun ,a  and  in  Arabic, 
zeitun,  sjetun.3 4 *  It  even  exists  in  Turkish  and  among  j 
the  Tartars  of  the  Crimea,  seitun,11  which  may  signify  ] 
that  it  is  of  Turanian  origin,  or  from  the  remote  epoch! 
when  the  Turanian  and  Semitic  peoples  intermixed. 

The  ancient  Egyptians  cultivated  the  olive  tree,  which 
they  called  tat.6  Several  botanists  have  ascertained  the  j 
presence  of  branches  or  leaves  of  the  olive  in  the  sarco-  j 
phagi.8  Nothing  is  more  certain,  though  Helm7,  has, 
recently  asserted  the  contrary,  without  giving  any  proof 
in  support  of  his  opinion.  It  would  be  interesting  to 
know  to  what  dynasty  belong  the  most  ancient  mummy- 
cases  in  which  olive  branches  have  been  found.  The] 
Egyptian  name,  quite  different  to  the  Semitic,  shows  an 
existence  more  ancient  than  the  earliest  dynasties.  I 
shall  mention  presently  another  fact  in  support  of  this 
great  antiquity. 

Theophrastus  says 8 that  the  olive  was  much  grown, 
and  the  harvest  of  oil  considerable  in  Cyrenaica,  but 
he  does  not  say  that  the  species  was  wild  there,  and  the 
quantity  of  oil  mentioned  seems  to  point  to  a cultivated: 
variety.  The  low-lying,  very  hot  country  between  Egypt, 
and  the  Atlas  is  little  favourable  to  a naturalization, 
of  the  olive  outside  the  plantations.  Kralik,  a very; 
accurate  botanist,  did  not  anywhere  see  on  his  journey  ^ 

1 Herodotus,  Hist.,  bk.  i.  c.  193.  * Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  iv.  p.  36.  , 

* Ebn  Baithar,  Germ,  trails.,  p.  669 ; Forsknl,  Want.  Egypt.,  p.  49.  ] 

* Boissier,  ibid. ; Steven,  ibid. 

4 Unger,  Die  Pflanz.  der  Alien.  JEgypt,  p.  45. 

4 De  Candolle,  Physiol.  Vigit.,  p.  696;  Pleyte,  quoted  by  Braun  and 

Ascherson,  Sitzber.  Naturfor.  Ges.,  May  15,  1877. 

7 Hehn,  Kulturpflanzen,  edit.  3,  p.  88,  line  9. 

8 Theophrastus,  Hist.  Plant.,  lib.  iv.  c.  3. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


283 


' t to  Tunis  and  into  Egypt  the  olive  growing  wild,1  although 
i : it  is  cultivated  in  the  oases.  In  Egypt  it  is  only  culti- 

■ vated,  according  to  Schweinfurth  and  Ascherson,3  in  their 
■resume  of  the  Flora  of  the  Nile  Valley. 

Its  prehistoric  area  probably  extended  from  Syria 
s towards  Greece,  for  the  wild  olive  is  very  common  along  the 
•southern  coast  of  Asia  Minor,  where  it  forms  regular 
woods.8  It  is  doubtless  here  and  in  the  archipelago  that 
i the  Greeks  early  knew  the  tree.  If  they  had  not  known 
i it  on  their  own  territory,  had  received  it  from  the 

• Semites,  they  would  not  have  given  it  a special  name, 
elaia,  whence  the  Latin  olea.  The  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey 

• mention  the  hardness  of  the  olive  wood  and  the  practice 
of  anointing  the  body  with  olive  oil.  The  latter  was  in 
constant  use  for  food  and  lighting.  Mythology  attributed 

■ to  Minerva  the  planting  of  the  olive  in  Attica,  which 
; probably  signifies  the  introduction  of  cultivated  varieties 

and  suitable  processes  for  extracting  the  oil.  Aristaius 
i introduced  or  perfected  the  manner  of  pressing  the  fruit. 

The  same  mythical  personage  carried,  it  was  said,  the 
olive  tree  from  the  north  of  Greece  into  Sicily  and  Sar- 
dinia. It  seems  that  this  may  have  been  early  done  by 
the  Phoenicians,  but  in  support  of  the  idea  that  the 
species,  or  a perfected  variety  of  it,  was  introduced  by 
’the  Greeks,  I may  mention  that  the  Semitic  name  seit 
has  left  no  trace  in  the  islands  of  the  Mediterranean. 
We  find  the  Gra?co-Latin  name  here  as  in  Italy,4  while 
upon  the  neighbouring  coast  of  Africa,  and  in  Spain, 
the  names  are  Egyptian  or  Arabic,  as  I shall  explain 
directly. 

The  Romans  knew  the  olive  later  than  the  Greeks. 
According  to  Pliny,0  it  was  only  at  the  time  of  Tarquin 
the  Ancient,  627  b.c.,  but  the  species  probably  existed 
already  in  Great  Greece,  as  in  Greece  and  Sicily.  Besides, 
Pliny  was  speaking  of  the  cultivated  olive. 

A remarkable  fact,  and  one  which  has  not  been  noted 

1 Kralik,  Bull.  Soc.  Bot.  Fr.,  iv.  p.  108. 

3 Beitrage  tur  FI.  jEthiopiens,  p.  281. 

* Balansa,  Bull.  Soc.  Bot.  de  Fr.,  iv.  p.  107. 

4 Moris>  Fl-  Sard.,  iii.  p.  9 ; Bertoloni,  FI.  Ital.,  i.  p.  46. 

4 Pliny,  Hist.,  lib.  xv.  cap.  1. 


284 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


or  discussed  by  philologists,  is  that  the  Berber  name  for 
the  olive,  both  tree  and  fruit,  has  the  root  taz  or  tas, 
similar  to  the  tat  of  the  ancient  Egyptians.  The  Kabyles 
of  the  district  of  Algiers,  according  to  the  French- 
Berber  dictionary,  published  by  the  French  Government,  ' 
calls  the  wild  olive  tazebboujt,  tesettha,  oil  zebbouj,  and 
the  grafted  olive  tazemmourt,  tasettha,  ou’  zemmour.  The 
Touaregs,  another  Berber  nation,  call  it  tamahi net.1  These  ’ 
are  strong  indications  of  the  antiquity  of  the  olive  in 
Africa.  The  Arabs  having  conquered  this  country  and 
driven  back  the  Berbers  into  the  mountains . and  the 
desert,  having  likewise  subjected  Spain  excepting  the 
Basque  country,  the  names  derived  from  the  Semitic  zeit 
have  prevailed  even  in  Spanish.  The  Arabs  of  Algiers  say  * 
zenboiulje  for  the  wild,  zitoun  for  the  cultivated  olive,2 *  zit  ] 
for  olive  oil.  The  Andalusians  call  the  wild  olive  aze-  1 
buche,  and  the  cultivated  aceytuno 6 In  other  provinces  j 
Ave  find  the  name  of  Latin  origin,  olivio,  side  by  side  with  j 
the  Arabic  words.4 *  The  oil  is  in  Spanish  aceyte,  which  * 
is  almost  the  Hebrew  name ; but  the  holy  oils  are  called 
oleos  santos,  because  they  belong  to  Rome.  The  Basques  1 
use  the  Latin  name  for  the  olive  tree. 

Early  voyagers  to  the  Canaries,  Bontier  for  instance, 
in  1403,  mention  the  oli\re  tree  in  these  islands,  Avhere  j 
modern  botanists  regard  it  as  indigenous.6  It  may  have  j 
been  introduced  by  the  Phoenicians,  if  it  did  not  pre-  j 
viously  exist  there.  We  do  not  know  if  the  Guanchos  ? 
had  names  for  the  olive  and  its  oil.  Webb  and  Berthelot  } 
do  not  give  any  in  their  learned  chapter  on  the  language  j 
of  the  aborigines,6  so  the  question  is  open  to  conjecture.  1 
It  seems  to  me  that  the  oil  would  ha\-e  played  an  impor-  j 
tant  part  among  the  Guanchos  if  they  had  possessed  the  ] 
olive,  and  that  some  traces  of  it  would  have  remained  in  ) 
the  actual  speech  of  the  people.  From  this  point  of  view  3 

1 Duvoyrier,  Leg  Touaregs  du  Nord  (1864),  p.  179. 

2 Munby,  Flore  de  VAlgerie,  p.  2 ; Debeaux,  Catal.  Boghar,  p.  68. 

* Boissier,  Voyage  Bot.  en  Espagne,  edit.  1,  vol.  ii.  p.  407. 

< Willkomm  and  Lange,  Prod.  FI.  Hispan.,  ii.  p.  672. 

4 Webb  and  Berthelot,  Hist.  Nat.  des  Canaries,  (Hog.  Bot.,  pp.  47,  48. 

6 Webb  and  Berthelot,  ibid.,  Ethnographie,  p.  188. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


285 


tthe  naturalization  in  the  Canaries  is  perhaps  not  more 
I f ancient  than  the  Phoenician  voyages. 

No  leaf  of  the  olive  has  hitherto  been  found  in  the 
i t tufa  of  the  south  of  France,  of  Tuscany,  and  Sicily,  where 
(the  laurel,  the  myrtle,  and  other  shrubs  now  existing 
have  been  discovered.  This  is  an  indication,  until  the 
•contrary  is  proved,  of  a subsequent  naturalization. 

The  olive  thrives  in  dry  climates  like  that  of  Syria 
and  Assyria.  It  succeeds  at  the  Cape,  in  parts  of  America 
on  Australia,  and  doubtless  it  will  become  wild  in  these 
places  when  it  has  been  more  generally  planted.  Its 
.slow  growth,  the  necessity  of  grafting  or  of  choosing  the 
hshoots  of  good  varieties,  and  especially  the  concurrence 
i ot  other  oil-producing  species,  have  hitherto  impeded  its 
t extension ; but  a tree  which  produces  in  an  ungrateful 
j*®?  sho?Jd  "ot  be  indefinitely  neglected.  Even  in  the 
°i  "01  d’  "diere  it  lias  existed  for  so  many  thousands 
rot  years  its  productiveness  might  be  doubled  by  taking 
tthe  trouble  to  graft  on  wild  trees,  as  the  French  have 
lone  in  Algeria. 

Star  Apple  Chrysophyll/um  Calnito,  Limueus. 

I he  star  apple  belongs  to  the  family  of  the  Sapotacese, 
tit  yields  a fruit  valued  in  tropical  America,  though 
[Europeans  do  not  care  much  for  it.  I do  not  find  that 
uny  pains  have  been  taken  to  introduce  it  into  the  colonies 

n A^'1Cai  JnSSaC  %lvcs  a g°od  illustration  of  it 

n his  r lore  den  Antilles,  vol.  ii.  pi.  <j. 

n ' m'e  Tt.he  sta1'  a?|,le  "-ild  in  several  places 

rfonUt  1 a“m.a-  JJc  Tussae,  a San  Domingo 

.olonist,  considered  it  wild  in  the  forests  of  the  West 

Gris?aclr  u « 1-th  will 
I ; wi  Jamaica,  San  Domingo,  Antigua,  and  Tri- 

n Jamaicaaand°Tfllder^d  ^ had  escaPed  from  cultivation 

^ “ Inhabits  Mar- 

Tl^p0ernv  Ahi~Ll^rrM  Cainito,  Alph.  de  Candolle. 

1 ns  Peruvian  Canmto  must  not  be  confounded  with 

\ Seemann  Bot.  of  the  Herald.,  p.  1G6 

, ®r,sebacrh>  FU>r°  <>f  Bril.  W.  Ind.  Id.,  p.  398. 

Sloane,  Jamaica,  ii.  p.  170;  Jacquin,  Amcr.,  p.  62. 


28G  ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 

the  Chrysophyllum  Cainito  of  the  West  Indies.  Both  1 
belong  to  the  family  Sapotacese,  but  the  flowers  and  ] 
seeds  are  different.  There  is  a figure  of  this  one  in  Ruiz  ] 
and  Pavon,  Flora  Peruviana,  vol.  iii.  pi.  210.  It  has  1 
been  transported  from  Peru,  where  it  is  cultivated,  to  Ega  j 
on  the  Amazon  River,  and  to  Para,  where  it  is  commonly  1 
called  abi  or  abiu.1 * 3  Ruiz  and  Pavon  say  it  is  wild  in  1 
the  warm  regions  of  Peru,  and  at  the  foot  of  the  Andes. 

Marmalade  Plum,  or  Mammee  Sapota — Lucuma  mam-  1 
niosa,  Gsertner. 

This  fruit  tree,  of  the  order  Sapotacem  and  a native  1 
of  tropical  America,  has  been  the  subject  of  several 
mistakes  in  works  on  botany.9  There  exists  no  satis- 
factory and  complete  illustration  of  it  as  yet,  because 
colonists  and  travellers  think  it  is  too  well  known  to 
send  selected  specimens  of  it,  such  as  may  be  described 
in  herbaria.  This  neglect  is  common  enough  in  the 
case  of  cultivated  plants.  The  mammee  is  cultivated  in 
the  West  Indies  and  in  some  warm  regions  of  America. 
Sagot  tells  us  it  is  grown  in  Venezuela,  but  not  in 
Cayenne.8  I do  not  find  that  it  has  been  transported 
into  Africa  and  Asia,  the  Philippines 4 * excepted.  This 
is  probably  due  to  the  insipid  taste  of  the  fruit.  Hum- 
boldt and  Bonpland  found  it  wild  in  the  forests  on  the 
banks  of  the  Orinoco.6  All  authors  mention  it  in  thel 
West  Indies,  but  as  cultivated  or  without  asserting  that  I 
it  is  wild.  In  Brazil  it  is  only  a garden  species. 

Sapodilla — Sapota  achras,  Miller. 

The  sapodilla  is  the  most  esteemed  of  the  order! 
Sapotacem,  and  one  of  the  best  of  tropical  fruits.  “ An  I 
over-ripe  sapodilla,”  says  Descourtilz,  in  his  Flore  des% 
Antilles,  “ is  melting,  and  has  the  sweet  perfumes  of  j 
honey,  jasmin,  and  lily  of  the  valley.”  There  is  a very  I 
good  illustration  in  the  Botanical  Magazine,  pis.  3111 
and  3112,  and  in  Tussac,  Flore  ties  Antilles,  i.  pL  5.  It  1 

1 Flora  Brasil.,  vol.  vii.  p.  88. 

5 See  the  synonyms  in  the  Flora  Brasil  ienms,  vol.  vii.  p.  66. 

3 Sagot,  Journ.  8oc.  d’Hortic.  de  France,  1872,  p.  347. 

4 Blanco,  FI.  de  Filipinos,  under  the  name  Achras  lucuma. 

6 Nova  Genera , iii.  p.  240. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


287 


Mias  been  introduced  into  gardens  in  Mauritius,  the  Malay 
.-‘Archipelago,  and  India,  from  the  time  of  Rheede  and 
IRumphius,  but  no  one  disputes  its  American  origin. 
^Several  botanists  have  seen  it  wild  in  the  forests  of  Ihe 
Isthmus  of  Panama,  of  Campeachy,1  of  Venezuela,2 3  and 
perhaps  of  Trinidad.8  In  Jamaica,  in  the  time  of  Sloane, 
lit  existed  only  in  gardens.4 *  It  is  very  doubtful  that 
it  is  wild  in  the  other  West  India  Islands,  although 
[perhaps  the.  seeds,  scattered  here  and  there,  may  have 
[naturalized  it  to  a certain  degree.  Tussac  says  that  the 
[young  plants  are  not  easy  to  rear  in  the  plantations. 

Aubergine — Solatium  melongena,  Linnaeus ; Solatium 
ssculentura,  Dunal. 

The  aubergine  has  a Sanskrit  name,  vartta,  and  several 
names,  which  Piddington  in  his  Index  considers  as  both 
[Sanskrit  and  Bengali,  such  as  hong,  bartakon , mahoti, 
hingoli.  Wallich,  in  his  edition  of  Roxburgh’s  Indian 
Flora, g\\  es  vavtta , vcivttakou,  vavttuka  bungutia,  whence 
the  Hindustani  bungan.  Hence  it  cannot  be  doubted 
that  the  species  has  been  known  in  India  from  a very 
remote  epoch.  Rumphius  had  seen  it  in  gardens  in  the 
"Sunda  Islands,  and  Loureiro  in  those  of  Cochin-China. 
Thun  berg  does  not  mention  it  in  Japan,  though  several 
varieties  are  now  cultivated  in  that  country.  The  Greeks 
iind  Romans  did  not  know  the  species,  and  no  botanist 
mentions  it  in  Europe  before  the  beginning  of  the  seven- 
teenth century,6  hut  its  cultivation  must  have  spread 
•owards  Africa  before  the  Middle  Ages.  The  Arab  phy- 
■lcian,  Ebn  Baithar,6  who  wrote  in  the  thirteenth  century, 
speaks  ot  it,  and  he  quotes  Rhasis,  who  lived  in  the 
until  century.  Rauwolf7  had  seen  the  plant  in  the 
gardens  of  Aleppo  at  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
t was  called  melamana  and  bedengiam.  This  Arabic 


1 Dampier  and  Lnsean,  in  Sloane’s  Jamaica,  ii.  p.  172;  Soemann, 
•Many  of  the  Herald.,  p.  16G. 

239  aCqUiD’  AmeT'’  P'  59  5 Humboldt  and  Bcmpland,  Nova  Genera,  iii. 


3 Grisebach,  Flora,  of  Brit.  IF.  I rid.,  p.  399.  * 

5 Dunal,  Hint,  dee  Solarium,  p.  209. 

6 Ebn  Baithar,  Germ,  trails.,  i.  p.  116. 

liauwoli,  flora  Orient.,  ed.  Groningue,  p.  26. 


Sloano,  u hi  supra. 


288 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


name,  which  Forskal  writes  badinjan,  is  the  same  as 
the  Hindustani  badanjan,  which  Piddington  gives.  A 
sign  of  antiquity  in  Northern  Africa  is  the  existence  of 
a name,  tabencljalts,  among  the  Berbers  or  Kabyles  of  the 
province  of  Algiers,1  which  differs  considerably  from 
the  Arab  word.  Modern  travellers  have  found  the 
aubergine  cultivated  in  the  whole  of  the  Nile  Valley  and 
on  the  coast  of  Guinea.2  It  has  been  transported  into 
America. 

The  cultivated  form  of  Solanvm  melongena  has  not 
hitherto  been  found  wild,  but  most  botanists  are  agreed 
in  regarding  Solanum  insanwm,  Roxburgh,  and  S. 
incanum,  Linnaeus,  as  belonging  to  the  same  species. 
Other  synonyms  are  sometimes  added,  the  result  of  a 
study  made  by  Nees  von  Esenbeck  from  numerous  speci- 
mens.3 S.  insanwm  appears  to  have  been  lately  found 
wild  in  the  Madras  presidency  and  at  Tong-dong  in 
Burmah.  The  publication  of  the  article  on  the  Sola- 
naceae  in  the  Flora  of  British  India  will  probably  give 
more  precise  information  on  this  head. 

Red  Pepper — Capsicum.  In  the  best  botanical  works 
the  genus  Capsicum  is  encumbered  with  a number  of 
cultivated  forms,  which  have  never  been  found  wild,  and 
which  differ  especially  in  their  duration  (which  is  often 
variable),  or  in  the  form  of  the  fruit,  a character  which 
is  of  little  value  in  plants  cultivated  for  that  special 
organ.  I shall  speak  of  the  two  species  most  often  culti- 
vated, but  I cannot  refrain  from  stating  my  opinion  that 
no  capsicum  is  indigenous  to  the  old  world.  I believe 
them  to  be  all  of  American  origin,  though  I cannot 
absolutely  prove  it.  These  are  my  reasons. 

Fruits  so  conspicuous,  so  easily  grown  in  gardens, 
and  so  agreeable  to  the  palate  of  the  inhabitants  of  hot 
countries,  would  have  been  very  quickly  diffused  through- 
out the  old  world,  if  they  had  existed  in  the  south  of 
Asia,  as  it  has  sometimes  been  supposed.  They  would 
have  had  names  in  several  ancient  languages.  Yet 


1 Diet.  Fr.-Berbere,  published  by  the  French  Government. 

* Thonning,  under  the  name  S.  edule;  Hooker,  Niger  Flora,  p.  473. 

3 Trans,  of  Linn.  Soc.,  xvii.  p.  48;  Baker,  FI.  of  Maurit.,  p.  215. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


289 


neither  Romans,  Greeks,  nor  even  Hebrews  were  ac- 
quainted with  them.  They  are  not  mentioned  in  ancient 
Chinese  books.1  The  islanders  of  the  Pacific  did  not 
cultivate  them  at  the  time  of  Cook’s  voyages,2  in  spite 
of  their  proximity  to  the  Sunda  Isles,  where  Rumphius 
mentions  their  very  general  use.  The  Arabian  physician, 
Ebn  Baithar,  who  collected  in  the  thirteenth  century  all 
that  Eastern  nations  knew  about  medicinal  plants, 
says  nothing  about  it.  Roxburgh  knew  no  Sanskrit 
name  for  the  capsicums.  Later,  Piddington  mentions  a 
name  for  C.  frutescens,  bran-maricha ,8  which  he  says  is 
Sanskrit;  but  this  name,  which  may  be  compared  to 
that  of  black  pepper  ( muricha , mwrichvmg ),  is  probably 
not  really  ancient,  for  it  has  left  no  trace  in  the  Indian 
languages  which  are  derived  from  Sanskrit.4  The  wild 
nature  and  ancient  existence  of  the  capsicum  is  always 
uncertain,  owing  to  its  very  general  cultivation ; but 
it  seems  to  me  to  be  more  often  doubtful  in  Asia  than  in 
South  America.  The  Indian  specimens  described  by  the 
most  trustworthy  authors  nearly  all  come  from  the  her- 
baria of  the  East  India  Company,  in  which  we  never 
know  whether  a plant  appeared  really  wild,  if  it  was 
found  far  from  dwellings,  in  forests,  etc.  For  the 
localities  in  the  Malay  Archipelago  authors  often  give 
rubbish -heaps,  hedges,  etc.  We  pass  to  a more  particular 
examination  of  the  two  cultivated  species. 

Annual  Capsicum — Capsicum  annuum,  Linnaaus. 

This  species  has  a number  of  different  names  in 
European  languages,6  which  all  indicate  a foreign  origin 
and  the  resemblance  of  the  taste  to  that  of  pepper.  In 
French  it  is  often  called  po ivre  dc,  Guinee  (Guinea 
pepper),  but  also  poivre  du  lirezil,  cVInde  (Indian,  Brazi- 
lian pepper),  etc.,  denominations  to  which  no  importance 
can  be  attributed.  Its  cultivation  was  introduced  into 
Europe  in  the  sixteenth  century.  It  was  one  of  the 
peppers  that  Piso  and  Marcgraf6  saw  grown  in  Brazil 

1 Bretschnoider,  On  the  Study  and  Value,  etc.,  p.  17. 

5 Forster,  De  Plantis  Escul.  In  ml.,  eto.  3 Piddington,  Index. 

* Piddington,  at  tho  word  Capsicum. 

5 Nemnieli,  Lexicon,  gives  twelve  French  and  eight  German  nuines. 

c Piso,  p.  107  ; Marograf,  p.  39. 

U 


290 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


under  the  name  quija  or  quiya.  They  say  nothing  as  to 
its  origin.  The  species  appears  to  have  been  early  culti- 
vated in  the  West  Indies,  where  it  has  several  Carib  names.1 

Botanists  who  have  most  thoroughly  studied  the 
genus  Capsicum  2 do  not  appear  to  have  found  in  herbaria 
a single  specimen  which  can  be  considered  wild.  I have 
not  been  more  fortunate.  The  original  home  is  probably 
Brazil. 

C.  grossum,  Willdenow,  seems  to  be  a variety  of  the 
same  species.  It  is  cultivated  in  India  under  the  name 
kafree  munch,  and  kafree  chilly,  but  Roxburgh  did  not 
consider  it  to  be  of  Indian  origin.3 

Shrubby  Capsicum — Capsicum  fmtescens,  Willdenow. 

This  species,  taller  and  with  a more  woody  stock  than 
C.  annuum,  is  generally  cultivated  in  the  warm  regions 
of  both  hemispheres.  The  great  part  of  our  so-called 
Cayenne  pepper  is  made  from  it,  but  this  name  is  given 
also  to  the  product  of  other  peppers.  Roxburgh,  the 
author  who  is  most  attentive  to  the  origin  of  Indian 
plants,  does  not  consider  it  to  be  wild  in  India.  Blume 
says  it  is  naturalized  in  the  Malay  Archipelago  in  hedges.4 
In  America,  on  the  contrary,  where  its  culture  is  ancient, 
it  has  been  several  times  found  wild  in  forests,  apparently 
indigenous.  De  Martius  brought  it  from  the  banks  of 
the  Amazon,  Poeppig  from  the  province  of  Maynas  in 
Peru,  and  Blanchet  from  the  province  of  Bahia.5  So  that 
its  area  extends  from  Bahia  to  Eastern  Peru,  which  ex- 
plains its  diffusion  over  South  America  generally. 

Tomato — Lycopersicum  esculcntum,  Miller. 

The  tomato,  or  love  apple,  belongs  to  a genus  of  the 
Solanese,  of  which  all  the  species  are  American.6  It 
has  no  name  in  the  ancient  languages  of  Asia,  nor  even 
in  modern  Indian  languages.7  It  was  not  cultivated  in 
Japan  in  the  time  of  Thunberg,  that  is  to  say  a century 

1 Desconrtilz,  Flore  Mtdicale  des  Antilles,  vi.  pi.  423. 

* Fingerhuth,  Monographia  Gen.  Capsid,  p.  12 ; Sondtnor,  in  Flora 

Brasil...  vol.  x.  p.  147. 

> Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.,  edit.  Wall,  ii.  p.  2G0 ; edit.  1832,  ii.  p.  574. 

* Blume,  Bijdr.,  ii.  p.  704.  s Sendtner,  in  FI.  Bras.,  x.  p.  143. 

6 Alph.  de  Candolle,  Prodr.,  xiii.  part  1,  p.  26. 

1 Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.,  edit.  1832,  vol.  i.  p.  665 ; Piddington,  Index. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


291 


ago,  and  the  silence  of  ancient  writers  on  China  on  this 
head  shows  that  it  is  of  recent  introduction  there.  Rum- 
phius  1 had  seen  it  in  gardens  in  the  Malay  Archipelago. 
The  Malays  called  it  tomatte,  but  this  is  an  American 
name,  for  C.  Bauhin  calls  the  species  twmatle  America- 
norum.  Nothing  leads  us  to  suppose  it  was  known  in 
Europe  before  the  discovery  of  America. 

The  first  names  given  to  it  by  botanists  in  the  six- 
teenth century  indicate  that  they  received  the  plant  from 
Peru.2  It  was  cultivated  on  the  continent  of  America 
before  it  was  grown  in  the  West  India  Islands,  for  Sloane 
does  not  mention  it  in  Jamaica,  and  Hughes 3 says  it 
was  brought  to  Barbados  from  Portugal  hardly  more 
than  a centui’y  ago.  Humboldt  considered  that  the  cul- 
tivation of  the  tomato  was  of  ancient  date  in  Mexico.4 
I notice,  however,  that  the  earliest  work  on  the  plants  of 
this  country  (Hernandez,  Historia ) makes  no  mention 
of  it.  Neither  do  the  early  writers  on  Brazil,  Piso  and 
Marcgraf,  speak  of  it,  although  the  species  is  now  culti- 
vated throughout  tropical  America.  Thus  by  the  process 
of  exhaustion  we  return  to  the  idea  of  a Peruvian  origin, 
at  least  for  its  cultivation. 

He  Martius5  found  the  plant  wild  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Rio  de  Janeiro  and  Para,  but  it  had  per- 
haps escaped  from  gardens.  I do  not  know  of  any 
botanist  who  has  found  it  really  wild  in  the  state  in 
which  it  is  familiar  to  us,  with  the  fruit  more  or  less 
large,  lumpy,  and  with  swelled  sides ; but  this  is  not  the 
case  with  the  variety  with  small  spherical  fruit,  called 
L.  cei'asiforme  in  some  botanical  works,  and  considered 
in  others  (and  rightly  so,  I think 6)  as  belonging  to  the 
same  species.  This  variety  is  wild  on  the  sea-shore  of 

1 Rumphiu8,  Amboin,  v.  p.  416. 

* Mala  Peruviana,  Pomi  del  Peru,  in  Bauliin’s  Hist.,  iii.  p.  621. 

5 Hughes,  Barbados,  p.  148. 

* Humboldt,  Espagne,  edit.  2,  vol.  ii.  p.  472. 

3 FI.  Brasil.,  vol.  x.  p.  126. 

* The  proportions  of  the  calyx  and  the  corolla  aro  the  same  as  those 
of  the  cultivated  tomato,  but  they  are  different  in  the  allied  species  3. 

Humboldlii,  of  which  the  fruit  is  uiso  eaten,  according  to  Humboldt,  who 

found  it  wild  in  Venezuela. 


292 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Peru,1  at  Tarapoto,  in  Eastern  Peru,2  and  on  the  frontiers 
of  Mexico  and  of  the  United  States  towards  California.3 
It  is  sometimes  naturalized  in  clearings  near  gardens.4  It 
is  probably  in  this  manner  that  its  area  has  extended 
north  and  south  from  Peru. 

Avocado,  or  Alligator  Pear  — Persea  gratissima, 
Gsertner. 

The  avocado  pear  is  one  of  the  most  highly  prized 
of  tropical  fruits.  It  belongs  to  the  order  Laurineae. 
It  is  like  a pear  containing  one  large  stone,  as  is  well 
shown  in  Tussac’s  illustrations,  Flore  des  Antilles,  iii.  pi. 
3,  and  in  the  Botanical  Magazine,  pL  4580.  The  com- 
mon names  are  absurd.  The  origin  of  that  of  alligator 
is  unknown;  avocado  is  a corruption  of  the  Mexican 
ahuaca,  or  aguacate.  The  botanical  name  Persea  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  persea  of  the  Greeks,  which  was 
a Cordia.  Clusius,5  writing  in  1601,  says  that  the  avo- 
cado pear  is  an  American  fruit  tree  introduced  into  a 
garden  in  Spain  ; but  as  it  is  widely  spread  in  the  colo- 
nies of  the  old  world,  and  has  here  and  there  become 
almost  wild,6  it  is  possible  to  make  mistakes  as  -to  its 
origin.  This  tree  did  not  exist  in  the  gardens  of  British 
India  at  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century.  It 
had  been  introduced  into  the  Sunda  Isles  7 in  the  middle 
of  the  eighteenth  centuiy,  and  in  1750  into  Mauritius  and 
Bourbon.8 

In  America  its  actual  area  in  a wild  state  is  of  un- 
common extent.  The  species  has  been  found  in  forests, 
on  the  banks  of  rivers,  and  on  the  sea-shore  from  Mexico 
and  the  West  Indies  as  far  as  the  Amazon.9  It  has  not 

1 Ruiz  and  Pavon,  Flor.  Peruv.,  ii.  p.  37. 

’ Spruce,  n.  4143,  in  Boissier’s  herbarium. 

3 Asa  Gray,  Hot.  of  Califor.,  i.  p.  538. 

4 Baker,  FI.  of  Mawrit.,  p.  216.  5 Clusius,  Historia,  p.  2. 

8 For  instance  in  Madeira,  according  to  Grisebach,  FI.  of  Brit.  IF.  Ind., 

p.  280;  in  Mauritius,  the  Seychelles  and  Rodriguez,  according  to  Baker, 
Flora  of  Mauritius,  p.  290. 

1 It  is  not  in  Rumphins.  8 Aublet,  tjhiyane,  i.  p.  364. 

8 Meissner,  in  de  Candolle,  Prodromus,  vol.  xv.  part  1,  p.  52  ; and  Flora 

Brasil.,  vol.  v.  p.  158.  For  Mexico,  Hernandez,  p.  89;  for  Venezuela 
and  Para,  Nees,  Laurinew,  p.  129 ; for  Eastern  Peru,  Fcoppig,  Ex-sicc., 
seen  by  Meissner. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


293 


always  occupied  this  vast  region.  P.  Browne  saj^s  dis- 
tinctly that  the  avocado  pear  was  introduced  from  the 
Continent  into  Jamaica,  and  Jacquin  held  the  same  opinion 
as  regards  the  West  India  Islands  generally.1  Piso  and 
Marcgraf  do  not  mention  it  for  Brazil,  and  Mar tius  gives 
no  Brazilian  name. 

At  the  time  of  the  discovery  of  America,  the  species 
was  certainly  wild  and  cultivated  in  Mexico,  according 
to  Hernandez.  Acosta 2 says  it  was  cultivated  in  Peru 
under  the  name  of  palto,  which  was  that  of  a people  of 
the  eastern  part  of  Peru,  among  whom  it  was  abundant.8 
I find  no  proof  that  it  was  wild  upon  the  Peruvian 
littoral. 

Papaw — Garica  Papaya,  Linmeus  ; Papaya  vulgaris , 
de  Candolle. 

The  papaw  is  a large  herbaceous  plant  rather  than  a 
tree.  It  has  a sort  of  juicy  trunk  terminated  by  a tuft 
of  leaves,  and  the  fruit,  which  is  like  a melon,  hangs  down 
under  the  leaves.4  It  is  now  grown  in  all  tropical  coun- 
tries, even  as  far  as  thirty  to  thirty-two  degrees  of 
latitude.  It  is  easily  naturalized  outside  plantations. 
This  is  one  reason  why  it  has  been  said,  and  people  still 
say  that  it  is  a native  of  Asia  or  of  Africa,  whereas  Robert 
Brown  and  I proved  in  1848  and  1855  its  American 
origin.5  I repeat  the  arguments  against  its  supposed 
origin  in  the  eastern  hemisphere. 

The  species  has  no  Sanskrit  name.  . In  modern  Indian 
languages  it  bears  names  derived  from  the  American 
word  papaya,  itself  a corruption  of  the  Carib  ababai .6 
Rumphius7  says  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  Malay  Archi- 
pelago considered  it  as  an  exotic  plant  introduced  by  the 
Portuguese,  and  gave  it  names  expressing  its  likeness  to 

1 P.  Browne,  Jamaica , p.  214;  Jacquin,  06s.,  i.  p.  38. 

1 Acosta,  Hist.  Nat.  des  Indes.,  edit.  1508,  p.  176. 

J Laet,  Hist.  Nouv.  Monde,  i.  pp.  325,  341. 

4 See  the  fine  plates  in  Tussac’s  Flore  des  Antilles,  iii.  p.  45,  pis.  10 
and  11.  The  papaw  bolongsto  the  small  family  of  the  Papayaeea;,  fused 
by  some  botanists  into  the  Passiflorce,  and  by  others  into  the  Viracew. 

5 R.  Brown,  Hot.  of  Congo,  p.  52;  A.  de  Candollo,  Qdogr.  Hot.  liais., 

P-  917. 

* Sagot,  Joum.  de  la  Soc.  Centr.  d’llortic.  de  France,  1872. 

7 Rumphius,  Amboin,  i.  p.  147. 


294 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


other  species  or  its  foreign  extraction.  Sloane,1  in  the 
beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century,  quotes  several  of  his 
contemporaries,  who  uiention  that  it  was  taken  from  the 
West  Indies  into  Asia  and  Africa.  Forster  had  not  seen 
it  in  the  plantations  of  the  Pacific  Isles  at  the  time  of 
Cook’s  voyages.  Loureiro2  in  the  middle  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  had  seen  it  in  cultivation  in  China, 
Cochin-China,  and  Zanzibar.  So  useful  and  so  striking 
a plant  would  have  been  spread  throughout  the  old 
world  for  thousands  of  years  if  it  had  existed  there. 
Everything  leads  to  the  belief  that  it  was  introduced 
on  the  coasts  of  Africa  and  Asia  after  the  discovery  of 
America. 

All  the  species  of  the  family  are  American.  This  one 
seems  to  have  been  cultivated  from  Brazil  to  the  West 
Indies,  and  in  Mexico  before  the  arrival  of  the  Europeans, 
since  the  earliest  writers  on  the  productions  of  the  new 
world  mention  it.8 

Marcgraf  had  often  seen  the  male  plant  (always  com- 
moner than  the  female)  in  the  forests  of  Brazil,  while  the 
female  plants  were  in  gardens.  Clusius,  who  was  the 
first  to  give  an  illustration  of  the  plant,  says4  that  his 
drawing  was  made  in  1007,  in  the  bay  of  Todos  Santos 
(province  of  Bahia).  I know  of  no  modern  author  who 
has  confirmed  the  habitation  in  Brazil.  Martius  does 
not  mention  the  species  in  his  dictionary  of  the  names  of 
fruits  in  the  language  of  the  Tupis.6  It  is  not  given  as 
wild  in  Guiana  and  Columbia  P.  Browne 6 asserts,  on 
the  other  hand,  that  it  is  wild  in  Jamaica,  and  before  his 
time  Ximenes  and  Hernandez  said  the  same  for  St. 
Domingo  and  Mexico.  Oviedo7  seems  to  have  seen  the 
papaw  in  Central  America,  and  he  gives  the  common 

1 Sloane,  Jamaica,  p.  165.  2 Loureiro,  FI.  Coch.,  p.  772. 

3 Marcgraf,  Brasil.,  p.  103,  and  Piso,  p.  159,  for  Brazil ; Ximenes  in 
Marcgraf  and  Hernandez,  Thesaurus,  p.  99,  for  Mexico ; and  the  last  for 
St.  Domingo  and  Mexico. 

4 Clusius,  Cures  Posteriores,  pp.  79,  80. 

4 Martius,  Beitr.  z.  Ethnogr.,  ii.  p.  418. 

* P.  Browne,  Jamaica,  edit.  2,  p.  360.  The  first  edition  is  of  1756. 

1 The  passage  of  Oviedo  is  translated  into  English  by  Correa  de 
Mello  and  Spruce,  in  their  paper  on  the  Proceedings  of  the  Linncean 
Society,  x.  p.  1. 


rLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


295 


name  olocoton  for  Nicaragua.  Yet  Correa  de  Mello  and 
Spruce,  in  their  important  article  on  the  Papayucea \ after 
having  botanized  extensively  in  the  Amazon  region,  in 
Peru  and  elsewhere,  consider  the  papaw  as  a native  of 
the  West  Indies,  and  do  not  think  it  is  anywhere  wild 
upon  the  Continent.  I have  seen  1 specimens  from  the 
mouth  of  the  river  Manatee  in  Florida,  from  Puebla  in 
Mexico,  and  from  Columbia,  but  the  labels  had  no  remark 
as  to  their  wild  character.  The  indications,  it  will  be 
noticed,  are  numerous  for  the  shores  ol  the  Gulf  of  Mexico 
aud  for  the  West  Indies.  The  habitation  in  Brazil  which 
lies  apart  is  very  doubtful. 

Fig — Ficus  carica,  Linnaeus. 

The  history  of  the  fig  presents  a close  analogy  with 
that  of  the  olive  in  point  of  origin  and  geographical 
limits.  Its  area  as  a wild  species  may  have  been  extended 
by  the  dispersal  of  the  seeds  as  cultivation  spread.  This 
seems  probable,  as  the  seeds  pass  intact  through  the 
digestive  organs  of  men  and  animals.  However,  countries 
may  be  cited  where  the  fig  has  been  cultivated  for  a 
century  at  least,  and  where  no  such  naturalization  has 
taken  place.  I am  not  speaking  of  Europe  north  of  the 
Alps,  where  the  tree  demands  particular  care  and  the 
fruit  ripens  with  difficulty,  even  the  first  crop,  but  of 
India  for  instance,  the  Southern  States  of  America, 
Mauritius,  and  Chili,  where,  to  judge  from  the  silence  of 
compilers  of  floras,  the  instances  of  quasi- wildness  are 
rare.  In  our  own  day  the  fig  tree  grows  wild,  or  nearly 
wild,  over  a vast  region  of  which  Syria  is  about  the 
centre;  that  is  to  say,  from  the  east  of  Persia,  or  e\cn 
from  Afghanistan,  across  the  whole  of  the  Mediterranean 
region  as  far  as  the  Canaries.2  From  north  to  south  this 
zone  varies  in  width  from  the  25tli  to  the  40th  or  42nd 
parallel,  according  to  local  circumstances.  As  a rule,  the 
fig  stops  like  the  olive  at  the  foot  of  the  Caucasus  and 
the  mountains  of  Europe  which  limit  the  Mediterranean 


1 De  Candolle,  Prodr.,  xv.  part  1,  p.  414.  . 

* Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  iv.  p.  1154;  Brandis,  Forest  Flora  of  India, 
p.  418;  Webb  and  Berthelot,  Hist.  Nat.  des  Canaries,  Botanique,  m. 
p.  257. 


206 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


basin,  but  it  grows  nearly  wild  on  the  south-west  coast 
of  France,  where  the  winter  is  very  mild.1 2 3 

We  turn  to  historical  and  philological  records  to  see 
whether  the  area  was  more  limited  in  antiquity.  The 
ancient  Egyptians  called  the  fig  teb ,a  and  the  earliest 
Hebrew  books  speak  of  the  fig,  whether  wild  or  culti- 
vated, under  the  name  teenah ,8  which  leaves  its  trace  in 
the  Arabic  tin .4  The  Persian  name  is  quite  different, 
unjir;  but  I do  not  know  if  it  dates  from  the  Zend. 
Piddington’s  Index  has  a Sanskrit  name,  udumvara , 
which  Roxburgh,  who  is  very  careful  in  such  matters, 
does  not  give,  and  which  has  left  no  trace  in  modern 
Indian  languages,  to  judge  from  four  names  quoted  by 
authors.  The  antiquity  of  its  existence  east  of  Persia 
appears  to  me  doubtful,  until  the  Sanskrit  name  is 
verified.  The  Chinese  received  the  fig  tree  from  Persia, 
but  only  in  the  eighth  century  of  our  era.5  Herodotus  0 
says  the  Persians  did  not  lack  figs,  and  Reynier,  who  has 
made  careful  researches  into  the  customs  of  this  ancient 
people,  does  not  mention  the  fig  tree.  This  only  proves 
that  the  species  was  not  utilized  and  cultivated,  but  it 
perhaps  existed  in  a wild  state. 

The  Greeks  called  the  wild  fig  erincos,  and  the  Latins 
caprificu8.  Homer  mentions  a fig  tree  in  the  Iliad  which 
grew  near  Troy.7  Helm  asserts  8 that  the  cultivated  fig 
cannot  have  been  developed  from  the  wild  fig,  but  all 

1 Count  Solms  Laubach,  in  a learned  discussion  (Herkwnft,  Domestica- 
tion, etc.,  des  Feigenbaums,  in  4to,  1882),  has  himself  observed  facts  of  this 
nature  already  indicated  by  various  authors.  He  did  not  find  the  seed 
provided  with  embryos  (p.  64),  which  he  attributes  to  the  absence  of  the 
insect  ( Blastophaga ),  which  generally  lives  in  the  wild  fig,  and  facilitates 
the  fertilization  of  one  flower  by  another  in  the  interior  of  the  fruit.  It 
is  asserted,  however,  that  fertilization  occasionally  takes  place  without 
the  intervention  of  the  insect. 

2 Chabas,  Melanges  Egyptol.,  3rd  series  (1873),  vol.  ii.  p.  92. 

3 Rosenmuller,  Bibl.  Alterth.,  i.  p.  285 ; Reynier,  Aeon.  Publ.  des 
Arabes  et  des  Juifs,  p.  470. 

* Forskal,  FI.  A'.gypto-Arab.,  p.  125.  Lagarde  ( Revue  Critique  d’Eis- 
toire  Feb.  27, 1882)  says  that  this  Semitic  name  is  very  ancient. 

5 Bretschneider,  in  Solms,  ubi  supra,  p.  51.  6 Herodotus,  i.  71. 

r Lenz,  Botanik  der  Oriechen,  p.  421,  quotes  four  lines  of  Homer. 

See  also  Hehn,  Culturpflanzen,  edit.  3,  p.  84. 

8 Hehn,  Culturpflanzen,  edit.  3,  p.  513. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS.  097 

botanists  hold  a contrary  opinion;1  and,  without  speaking 
of  floral  details  on  which  they  rely,  I may  say  that 
Gussone  obtained  from  the  same  seeds  plants  of  the  form 
: capnjkus,  and  other  varieties.2  The  remark  made  by 
several  scholars  as  to  the  absence  of  all  mention  of  the  cul- 
tivated fig  sukai  in  the  Iliad,  does  not  therefore  prove  the 
absence  ot  the  fig  tree  in  Greece  at  the  time  of  the  Troian 

u IJ0mC1'  TntiT  the  sweet  in  the  Odyssey,  and 
that  but  vaguely  Hesiod,  says  Hehn,  does  not  mention 

;r  /^h,K;?US.(7()0  RC-)  is  the  first  to  mention 
distinctly  its  cultivation  by  the  Greeks  of  Paros.  Accord- 

tL?  a m i sPecies  ^vv  wild  in  Greece,  at  least  in 
e_  Aichipelago  before  the  introduction  of  cultivated 
; var leties  of  Asiatic  origin.  Theophrastus  and  Dioscorides 
mention  wild  and  cultivated  figs.:! 

T,lmR5miJ®  a“d  Remus,  according  to  tradition,  were 
nuised  at  the  foot  of  a fig  tree  called  ruminalis,  from 
JS  breast  or  udder.4  The  Latin  name,  Jims,  which 
I an  effort  of  erudition,  from  the  Greek 

.?•  . 0 argues  an  ancient  existence  in  Italy,  and  Plinv’s 

opinion  is  positive  on  this  head.  The  good  cultivated 
varieties  were  of  later  introduction.  They  came  from 
| Greece,  Syria,  and  Asia  Minor.  In  the  time  of  Tiberius 
as  now  the  best  figs  came  from  the  East. 

We learnt  at  school  how  Cato  exhibited  to  the  as- 
. em  decl  senators  Carthaginian  figs,  still  fresh,  as  a proof 

nn.st  harvpXTUty  ° ??  hated  countlT.  Th ^Phoenicians 
AfriL  and  r8P°^ed  g<?0d  varieties  t0  the  coast  of 
fven  l f \T  nher  .eolomes  on  the  Mediterranean, 

. , fai  t]?e  Canaries,  where,  however,  the  wild  fig 

may  have  already  existed.  ° 

For  the  Canaries  we  have  a proof  in  the  Guanchos 

made  "by  GuTimrinl  . b<3  t0  the  exaggerated  divisions 

studied  the  tip-  t™,.  „•  PtcIf  cortca,  Linneeus.  Botanists  who  have 

Several  varieties  nf  n ^1H  tune  retain  a singlo  species,  nnd  name 

2 Gassone  Fnumi^Pl1  ^ cultivated  forms  arc  numberless, 
a PlanU  In a-rimensium , p.  301. 

doubt fuT  °*i tree  un<1  an  account  of  tho  operation  (of 

SngtheSnit  h Cri8t8  in  ',lautin^  insect-bearing  Caprifici 
” Plinv  rr  ^I;d  troes  (caprification),  see  Seims’  work.  J 

hny,  Must.,  lib.  xv.  cap.  18.  « Hehn,  Cidturpjlanzen,  edit.  3,  p.  513. 


298 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


words,  arahormaze  and  achormaze,  green  figs;  tahare- 
menen  and  teh'ihunemen,  dried  figs.  Webb  and  Ber- 
thelot,1  who  quote  these  names,  and  who  admit  the 
common  origin  of  the  Guanchos  and  Berbers,  would  have 
noted  with  pleasure  the  existence  among  the  Touaregs, 
a Berber  people,  of  the  word  tahart,  fig  tree,2  and  in  the 
French-Berber  dictionary,  published  since  their  time, 
the  names  tabeksist,  green  fig,  and  tagrourt,  fig  tree. 
These  old  names,  of  more  ancient  and  local  origin  than 
Arabic,  bear  witness  to  a very  ancient  habitation  in  the 
north  of  Africa  as  far  as  the  Canaries. 

The  result  of  our  inquiry  shows,  then,  that  the 
prehistoric  area  of  the  fig  tree  covered  the  middle  and 
southern  part  of  the  Mediterranean  basin  from  Syria  to 
the  Canaries. 

We  may  doubt  the  antiquity  of  the  fig  in  the  south 
of  France,  but  a curious  fact  deserves  mention.  Plan- 
chon  found  in  the  quaternary  tufa  of  Montpellier,  and 
de  Saporta3  in  those  of  Aygalades  near  Marseilles, 
and  in  the  quaternary  strata  of  La  Celle  near  Paris, 
leaves  and  even  fruit  of  the  wild  Ficics  caricaf  with 
teeth  of  Elephas  primigenius,  and  leaves  of  plants  of 
which  some  no  longer  exist,  and  others,  like  Laurus 
canariensia,  have  survived  in  the  Canaries.  So  that 
the  fig  tree  perhaps  existed  in  its  modem  form  in  this 
remote  epoch.  It  is  possible  that  it  perished  in  the 
south  of  France,  as  it  certainly  did  at  Paris,  and  re- 
appeared later  in  a wild  state  in  the  southern  region. 
Perhaps  the  fig  trees  which  Webb  and  Berthelot  had  seen 
as  old  plants  in  the  wildest  part  of  the  Canaries  were 
descended  from  those  which  existed  in  the  fourth  epoch. 

Bread-Fruit — Artocarpus  incisa,  Linmeus. 

The  bread-fruit  tree  was  cultivated  in  all  the  islands 
of  the  Asiatic  Archipelago,  and  of  the  great  oceans  near 

1 Webb  and  Berthelot,  Hist.  Nat.  des  Canaries  Ethnogr.,  p.  186 ; 
Phytogr.,  iii.  p.  257. 

1 Duveyrier,  Les  Ttmaregs  dm  Nord.,  p.  193. 

3 Planchon,  Atude  sur  les  tufa  de  Montpellier,  p.  63 ; de  Saporta, 
La  flore  des  tufs  quaternaires  en  Provence,  in  Comptes  rendus  de  la  32# 
Session  du  Congr&s  Scientifique  de  France ; Bull.  Soc.  Geolog.,  1873-74, 
p.  412. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


299 


the  equator,  from  Sumatra  to  the  Marquesas  Isles,  when 
first  Europeans  began  to  visit  them.  Its  fruit  is  con- 
stituted, like  the  pine-apple,  of  an  assemblage  of  bracts 
and  fruits  welded  into  a fleshy  mass,  more  or  less 
spherical ; and  as  in  the  pine-apple,  the  seeds  come  to 
nothing  in  the  most  productive  cultivated  varieties.1 

Sonnerat 3 carried  the  bread-fruit  tree  to  Mauritius, 
where  the  Intendant  Poivre  took  care  to  spread  it. 
Captain  Bligh  was  commissioned  to  introduce  it  into 

1*  the  English  West  Indian  Isles.  The  mutiny  of  his 
crew  prevented  his  succeeding  the  first  time,  but  a 
second  attempt  proved  more  fortunate.  In  January, 
1793,  he  landed  153  plants  at  St.  Vincent,  whence  the 
species  has  been  diffused  into  several  parts  of  tropical 
America.3 

Rumphius4  saw  the  species  wild  in  several  of  the 
Sunda  Isles.  Modem  authors,  less  careful,  or  acquainted 
only  with  cultivated  species,  say  nothing  on  this  head. 
Seemann5  says  for  the  Fiji  Isles,  “cultivated,  and  to  all 
appearance  wild  in  some  places.”  On  the  continent  of 
Asia  it  is  not  even  cultivated,  as  the  climate  is  not  hot 

{V  enough. 

The  bread-fruit  is  evidently  a native  of  Java,  Am- 
boyna,  and  the  neighbouring  islands;  but  the  antiquity 
of  its  cultivation  in  the  whole  of  the  archipelago,  proved 
by  the  number  of  varieties,  and  the  facility  of  propa- 
gating it  by  buds  and  suckers,  prevent  us  from  knowing 
its  history  accurately.  In  the  islands  to  the  extreme 
east,  like  Otahiti,  certain  fables  and  traditions  point  to 
an  introduction  which  is  not  very  ancient,  and  the 
absence  of  seeds  confirms  this.6 

Jack-Fruit — Artocarpv 'a  integrifolia,  Linnfeus. 

The  jack-fruit,  larger  than  the  bread-fruit,  for  it 
sometimes  weighs  as  much  as  eighty  pounds,  hangs  from 

1 See  tho  fine  plates  published  in  Tussac’a  Flore  ties  Antilles,  vol.  ii. 
pis.  2 and  3 ; and  Hooker,  Bot.  Mag.,  t.  2809-2871. 

1 Voyages  d la  Nouvelle  Ouinde,  p.  100.  3 Hooker,  ubi  supra. 

1 Rumphius,  Herb.  Amboin,  i.  p.  112,  pi.  33. 

5 Flora  Vitiensis,  p.  255. 

* Seemann,  FI.  Vit..,  p.  255  ; Nadeuud,  Enum.  des  PI.  Indig.  de  Tuiti, 
p.  44;  Idem,  PI.  usuelles  des  Taitiens,  p.  24. 


300  ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 

the  branches  of  a tree  thirty  to  fifty  feet  high.1  The 
common  name  is  derived  from  the  Indian  names  jaca,  or 
tsjaka. 

The  species  has  long  been  cultivated  in  southern 
Asia,  from  the  Punjab  to  China,  from  the  Himalayas  to 
the  Moluccas.  It  has  not  spread  into  the  small  islands 
more  to  the  east,  such  as  Otahiti,  which  leads  us  to  sup- 
pose it  has  not  been  so  long  in  the  archipelago  as  upon 
the  continent.  In  the  north-west  of  India,  also,  its 
cultivation  does  not  perhaps  date  from  a very  remote 
epoch,  for  the  existence  of  a Sanskrit  name  is  not  abso- 
lutely certain.  Roxburgh  mentions  one,  punusa,  but 
Piddington  does  not  admit  it  into  his  Index.  The  Per- 
sians and  the  Arabs  do  not  seem  to  have  known  the 
species.  Its  enormous  fruit  must,  however,  have  struck 
them  if  the  species  had  been  cultivated  near  their  fron- 
tiers. Dr.  Bretschneider  does  not  speak  of  any  Arto- 
carpus  in  his  work  on  the  plants  known  to  the  ancient 
Chinese,  whence  it  may  be  inferred  that  towards  China, 
as  in  other  directions,  the  jack -fruit  was  not  diffused  at 
a very  early  epoch.  The  first  statement  as  to  its  exist- 
ence in  a wild  state  i3  given  by  Rheede  in  ambiguous 
terms  : “ This  tree  grows  everywhere  in  Malabar  and 
throughout  India.”  He  perhaps  confounded  the  planted 
tree  with  the  wild  one.  After  him,  however,  Wight 
found  the  species  several  times  in  the  Indian  Peninsula, 
notably  in  the  Western  Ghauts,  with  every  appearance 
of  a wild  and  indigenous  tree.  It  has  been  extensively 
planted  in  Ceylon  ; but  Thwaites,  the  best  authority  for 
the  flora  of  this  island,  does  not  recognize  it  as  wild. 
Neither  is  it  wild  in  the  archipelago  to  the  south  of 
India,  according  to  the  general  opinion.  Lastly,  Brandis 
found  it  growing  in  the  forests  of  the  district  of  Attaran, 
in  Burmah,  but,  he  adds,  always  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
abandoned  settlements.  Kurz  did  not  find  it  wild  in 
British  Burmah.2 

1 See  Tussac’s  plates,  Flore  des  Antilles,  pi.  4;  and  Hooker,  Hot.  Mag., 
t.  2833,  2834. 

2 Rheede,  Malabar , iii.  p.  18 ; Wight,  leones,  ii.  No.  678 ; Brandis, 
Forest  Flora  of  India,  p.  426  j Kurz,  Forest  Flora  of  Brit.  Burmah,  p.  432. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS.  301 

The  species  is,  therefore,  a native  of  the  region  lyin<»-  at 
the  foot  of  the  western  mountains  of  the  Indian  Penin- 
sula, and  its  cultivation  in  the  neighbourhood  is  probably 
not  earlier  than  the  Christian  era.  It  was  introduced 
into  Jamaica  by  Admiral  Rodney  in  1782,  and  thence 
into  San  Domingo.1  It  has  also  been  introduced  into 
Brazil,  Mauritius,  the  Seychelles,  and  Rodriguez  Island.2 

Date-Palm — Phoenix  dactylifera,  Linnaeus. 

The  date-palm  has  existed  from  prehistoric  times  in 
the  warm  dry  zone,  which  extends  from  Senegal  to  the 
basin  of  the  Indus,  principally  between  parallels  15  and 
30.  It  is  seen  here  and  there  further  to  the  north,  by 
reason  of  exceptional  circumstances  and  of  the  aim  which 
is  proposed  in  its  cultivation.  For  beyond  the  limit 
within  which  the  fruit  ripens  every  year,  there  is  a zone 
l in  which  they  ripen  ill  or  seldom,  and  a further  region 
- within  which  the  tree  can  live,  but  without  fruiting  or 
' even  flowering.  These  limits  have  been  traced  by  de 
Martins,  Carl  Ritter,  and  myself.3  It  is  needless  to  repro- 
l duce  them  here,  the  aim  of  the  present  work  being  to 
I study  questions  of  origin. 

As  regards  the  date-palm,  we  can  hardly  rely  on  the 
more  or  less  proved  existence  of  really  wild  indigenous 
individuals.  Dates  are  easily  transported  • the  stones 
* germinate  when  sown  in  damp  soil  near  the  source  of  a 
: river,  and  even  in  the  fissures  of  rocks.  The  inhabitants 
;•!  of  oases  have  planted  or  sown  date-palms  in  favourable 
localities  where  the  species  perhaps  existed  before  man, 
and  when  the  traveller  comes  across  isolated  trees,  at  a 
distance  from  dwellings,  he  cannot  know  that  they  did 
I 5®^  spring  from  stones  thrown  away  by  caravans. 

| Botanists  admit  a variety,  sylvestns,  that  is  to  say  wild, 
E ^"ith  small  and  sour  fruit ; but  it  is  perhaps  the  result 
I of  recent  naturalization  in  an  unfavourable  soil.  His- 
: I°rical  and  philological  data  are  of  more  value  here, 
t though  doubtless  from  the  antiquity  of  cultivation  they 
can  only  establish  probabilities. 

* Tussac,  Flore  des  Antilles,  pi.  4.  * Baber,  FI.  of  Mawrit.,  p.  282. 

Martins,  Gen.  et  Spec.  Palmarum,  in  folio,  vol.  iii.  p.  257  ; C.  Ritter, 
Frdkunde,  xiii.  p.  700 ; Alph.  de  Candolle,  Cleog.  Bot.  Ilais.,  p.  343. 


302 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


From  Egyptian  and  Assyrian  remains,  as  well  as  from 
tradition  and  the  most  ancient  writings,  we  find  that  the 
date-palm  grew  in  abundance  in  the  region  lying  between 
the  Euphrates  and  the  Nile.  Egyptian  monuments  con- 
tain fruits  and  drawings  of  the  tree.1  Herodotus,  in  a 
more  recent  age  (fifth  century  before  Christ),  mentions 
the  wood  of  the  date-palms  of  Babylonia,  and  still  later 
Strabo  used  similar  expressions  about  those  of  Arabia, 
whence  it  seems  that  the  species  was  commoner  than  it 
is  now,  and  more  in  the  condition  of  a natural  forest 
tree.  On  the  other  hand,  Carl  Ritter  makes  the  ingenious 
observation  that  the  earliest  Hebrew  books  do  not  speak 
of  the  date-palm  as  producing  a fruit  valued  as  a food 
for  man.  David,  about  one  thousand  years  before  Christ, 
and  about  seven  centuries  alter  Moses,  does  not  mention 
the  date  palm  in  his  list  of  trees  to  be  planted  in  his 
gardens.  It  is  true  that  except  at  Jericho  dates  seldom 
ripen  in  Palestine.  Later,  Herodotus  says  of  the  Baby- 
lonian date-palms  that  only  the  greater  part  produced 
good  fruit  which  was  used  for  food.  This  seems  to  indi- 
cate the  beginning  of  a cultivation  perfected  by  the 
selection  of  varieties  and  of  the  transport  of  male  flowers 
into  the  middle  of  the  branches  of  female  trees,  hut  it 
perhaps  signifies  also  that  Herodotus  was  ignorant  of  the 
existence  of  the  male  plant. 

To  the  w'est  of  Egypt  the  date-palm  had  probably" 
existed  for  centuries  or  for  thousands  of  years  when 
Herodotus  mentioned  them.  He  speaks  of  Libya. 
There  is  no  historical  record  with  respect  to  the  oases  in 
the  Sahara,  but  Pliny2  mentions  the  date-palm  in  the 
Canaries. 

The  names  of  the  species  bear  witness  to  its  great 
antiquity  both  in  Asia  and  in  Africa,  seeing  they  are  nume- 
rous and  very  different.  The  Hebrews  called  the  date- 
palm  tamcir,  and  the  ancient  Egyptians  beq.3  The  com- 
plete difference  between  these  words,  both  very"  ancient, 
shows  that  these  peoples  found  the  species  indigenous 
and  perhaps  already  named  in  Western  Asia  and  in 

1 Unger,  Pflanzen  d.  Alt.  JEgypt.,  p.  38. 

1 Pliny,  Hid.,  lib.  vi.  cap.  37.  * Unger,  ubi  supra. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS.  303 

Egypt.  The  number  of  Persian,  Arabic,  and  Berber 
names  is  incredible.1  Some  are  derived  from  the  Hebrew 
word,  others  from  unknown  sources.  They  often  apply 
to  different  states  of  the  fruit,  or  to  different  cultivated 
varieties,  which  again  shows  ancient  cultivation  in 
different  countries.  Webb  and  Berthelot  have  not  dis- 
covered a name  for  the  date-palm  in  the  language  of  the 
Guanchos,  and  this  is  much  to  be  regretted.  The  Greek 
name,  phcenix,  refers  simply  to  Phoenicia  and  the 
Phoenicians,  possessors  of  the  date-palm.2  The  names 
dactylus  and  dale  are  derivations  of  dachel  in  a Hebrew 
dialect.3  No  Sanskrit  name  is  known,  whence  it  may  be 
inferred  that  the  plantations  of  the  date-palm  in  Western 
India  are  not  very  ancient.  The  Indian  climate  does 
not  suit  the  species.4  The  Hindustani  name  lchurma  is 
borrowed  from  the  Persian. 

I urther  to  the  East  the  date-palm  remained  long 
unknown.  The  Chinese  received  it  from  Persia,  in  the 
third  century  of  our  era,  and  its  cultivation  was  resumed 
at  different  times,  but  they  have  now  abandoned  it.6  As 
a lule,  beyond  the  arid  region  which  lies  between  the 
Euphrates  and  the  south  of  the  Atlas  and  the  Canaries, 
the  date-palm  has  not  succeeded  in  similar  latitudes,  or 
at  least  it  has  not  become  an  important  culture.  It  might 
be  grown  with  success  in  Australia  and  at  the  Cape,  but 
the  Europeans  who  have  colonized  these  regions  are  not 
satisfied,  like  the  Arabs,  with  figs  and  dates  for  their 
staple  food.  I think,  in  fine,  that  in  times  anterior  to 
the  earliest  Egyptian  dynasties  the  date-palm  already 
existed,  wild  or  sown  here  and  there  by  wandering  tribes, 
in  a narrow  zone  extending  from  the  Euphrates  to  the 
Canaries,  and  that  its  cultivation  began  later  as  far  as 
the  north-west  of  India  on  the  one  hand  and  the  Cape 
de  Verde  Islands  0 on  the  other,  so  that  the  natural  area 

See  C.  Ritter,  uhi  supra.  1 Hehn,  CulturpJlanzcn,  edit.  3,  p.  234. 

* C.  Ritter,  ibid.,  p.  828.  4 According  to  Roxburgh,  Roylo,  etc. 

1 Bretschneider,  Study  and  Value,  etc.,  p.  31. 

6 According  to  Schmidt,  FI.  d.  Gap.-Verd.  Isl.,  p.  108,  the  date- 
palm  is  rare  in  these  islands,  and  is  certainly  not  wild.  Webb  ntid 
Berthelot,  on  the  contrary,  assert  that  in  some  of  the  Canaries  it  is 
apparently  indigenous  (Hist.  Nat.  des  Canaries,  Botanique,  iii.  p.  289). 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


304* 


has  remained  very  nearly  the  same  for  about  five  thou- 
sand years.  What  it  was  previously,  palaeontological 
discoveries  may  one  day  reveal. 

Banana — Musa  sapient uni  and  M.  paradisiaca, 
Linnaeus ; M.  sapientum,  Brown. 

The  banana  or  bananas  were  generally  considered 
to  be  natives  of  Southern  Asia,  and  to  have  been  carried 
into  America  by  Europeans,  till  Humboldt  threw 
doubts  upon  their  purely  Asiatic  origin.  In  his  work 
on  New  Spain1  he  quoted  early  authors  who  assert 
that  the  banana  was  cultivated  in  America  before  the 
conquest. 

He  admits,  on  Oviedo’s  authority,2 *  its  introduction 
by  Father  Thomas  of  Berlangas  from  the  Canaries  into 
San  Domingo  in  151G,  whence  it  was  introduced  into 
other  islands  and  the  mainland.8  He  recognizes  the 
absence  of  any  mention  of  the  banana  in  the  accounts  of 
Columbus,  Alonzo  Negro,  Pinzon,  Yespuzzi,  and  Cortez. 
The  silence  of  Hernandez,  who  lived  half  a century  after 
Oviedo,  astonishes  him  and  appears  to  him  a remarkable 
carelessness ; “ for,”  he  says,4 5  “ it  is  a constant  tradition 
in  Mexico  and  on  the  whole  of  the  mainland  tha't  the 
platano  avion,  and  the  dominico  were  cultivated  long 
before  the  Spanish  conquest.”  The  author  who  has 
most  carefully  noted  the  different  epochs  at  which 
American  agriculture  has  been  enriched  by  foreign  pro- 
ducts, the  Peruvian  Garcilasso  de  la  Vega,6 *  says  dis- 
tinctly that  at  the  time  of  the  Incas,  maize,  quinoa,  the 
potato,  and,  in  the  warm  and  temperate  regions,  bananas 
formed  the  staple  food  of  the  natives.  He  describes  the 
Musa  of  the  valleys  in  the  Andes ; he  even  distinguishes 
the  rarer  species,  with  a small  fruit  and  a sweet  aromatic 
flavour,  the  dominico,  from  the  common  banana  or  arton. 

1 Humboldt,  Nouvelle  Espagne,  1st  edit.,  ii.  p.  360. 

2 Oviedo,  Hist.  Nat.,  1556,  p.  112.  Oviedo’s  first  work  is  of  1526. 

He  is  the  earliest  naturalist  quoted  by  Dryander  ( Bibl . Banks ) for 

America. 

5 I have  also  seen  this  passage  in  the  translation  of  Oviedo  by 

Ramusio,  vol.  iii.  p.  115. 

* Humboldt,  Nouvelle  Espagne,  2nd  .edit.,  p.  385. 

5 Garcilasso  do  la  Vega,  Commentarios  Reales,  i.  p.  282. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS.  305 

Father  Acosta1  asserts  also,  although  less  positively, 
that  the  Musa  was  cultivated  by  the  Americans  before' 
the  arrival  of  the  Spaniards.  Lastly,  Humboldt  adds 
from  his  own  observation,  “ On  the  banks  of  the  Orinoco, 
ot  the  Cassiquaire  or  of  the  Beni,  between  the  mountains' 
of  Esmeralda  and  the  banks  of  the  river  Carony,  in  the 
midst  of  the  thickest  forests,  almost  everywhere  that 
Indian  tribes  are  found  who  have  had  no  relations  with 
European  settlements,  we  meet  with  plantations  of 
Mamoc  and  bananas.”  Humboldt  suggests  the  hypothesis 
that  several  species  or  constant  varieties  of  the  Banana 
have  been  confounded,  some  of  which  are  indigenous  to 
the  new  world. 

Desvaux  studied  the  specific  question,  and  in  a really 
remarkable  work,  published  in  1814, 2 he  gives  it  as  hi.s 
opinion  that  all  the  bananas  cultivated  for  their  fruits 
are  of  the  same  species.  In  this  species  he  distinguishes 
forty-four  varieties,  which  he  arranges  in  two  groups; 
the  large-fruited  bananas  (seven  to  fifteen  inches  long)! 
and  the  small-fruited  bananas  (one  to  six  inches) 
commonly  called  fig  bananas.  R.  Brown,  in  1818,  in  his 
v ork  on  the  Plants  of  the  Congo,  p.  51,  maintains  also 
that  no  structural  difference  in  the  bananas  cultivated  in 
Asia  and  those  in  America  prevents  us  from  considering 
them  as  belonging  to  the  same  species.  He  adopts  the 
name  Musa  sapientum,  which  appears  to  me  preferable 
to  that  of  M.  paradisiaca  adopted  by  Desvaux,  because 
the  varieties  with  small  fertile  fruit  appear  to  be  nearer 
the  condition  of  the  wild  Muscv  found  in  Asia. 

Brown  remarks  on  the  question  of  origin  that  all  the 
other  species  of  the  genus  Musa  belong  to  the  old  world  ; 
that  no  one  pretends  to  have  found  in  America,  in  a 
wild  state,  varieties  with  fertile  fruit,  as  has  happened 
in  Asia;  lastly,  that  Piso  and  Marcgraf  considered  that 
the  banana  was  introduced  into  Brazil  from  Congo.  In 
spite  of  the  force  of  these  three  arguments,  Humboldt, 
in  his  second  edition  of  his  essay  upon  New  Spain 
(n.  p.  3!J7),  does  not  entirely  renounce  his  opinion.  He 

1 Acosta,  Hist.  Nat.  Be  India s,  1608,  p.  250. 

3 Desvaiuc,  Journ.  Dot.,  iv.  p.  5. 


X 


306 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


says  that  the  traveller  Caldcleugh 1 found  among  the 
Puris  the  tradition  that  a small  species  of  banana  was 
cultivated  on  the  borders  of  the  Prato  long  before  they 
had  any  communications  with  the  Portuguese.  He  adds 
that  words  which  are  not  borrowed  ones  are  found  in 
American  languages  to  distinguish  the  fruit  of  the  Morn; 
for  instance,  pamru  in  Tamanac,  etc.,  arata  in  Maypur. 
I have  also  read  in  Stevenson’s  travels2  that  beds  of 
the  leaves  of  the  two  bananas  commonly  cultivated  in 
America  have  been  found  in  the  hucicas  or  Peruvian 
tombs  anterior  to  the  conquest ; but  as  this  traveller 
also  says  that  he  saw  beans3  in  these  huacas,  a plant 
which  undoubtedly  belongs  to  the  old  world,  his  asser- 
tions are  not  very  trustworthy. 

Boussingault 4 thought  that  the  platano  arton  at 
least  was  of  American  origin,  but  he  gives  no  proof. 
Meyen,  who  had  also  been  in  America,  adds  no  argument 
to  those  which  were  already  known;6  nor  does  the 
geographer  Ritter,6  who  simply  reproduces  the  facts 
about  America,  given  by  Humboldt. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  botanists  who  have  more 
recently  visited  America  have  no  hesitation  as  to  the 
Asiatic  origin.  I may  name  Seemann  for  the  Isthmus  of 
Panama,  Ernst  for  Venezuela,  and  Sagot  for  Guiana.7 
The  two  first  insist  upon  the  absence  of  names  for  the 
banana  in  the  languages  of  Peru  and  Mexico.  Piso 
knew  no  Brazilian  name.  Martius8  has  since  indicated, 
in  the  Tupi  language  of  Brazil,  the  names  pacoba  or 
bcicoba.  This  same  word  bacove  is  used,  according  to 
Sagot,  by  the  French  in  Guiana.  It  is  perhaps  derived 
from  the  name  bala,  or  palan,  of  Malabar,  from  an  intro- 
duction by  the  Portuguese,  subsequent  to  Piso’s  voyage. 

The  antiquity  and  wild  character  of  the  banana  in 
Asia  are  incontestable  facts.  There  are  several  Sanskrit 

1 Caldcleugh,  Trav.  in  S.  Amer.,  1825,  i.  p.  23. 

1 Stevenson,  Trav.  in  S.  Amer.,  i.  p.  328. 

5 Ibid.,  p.  363.  4 Boussingault,  C.  r.  Acad.  Sc.  Paris,  May  9,  1836. 

5 Moyen,  Pjlrnzen  Geog.,  1836,  p.  383.  • Ritter,  Erdk.,  iv.  p.  870. 

1 Seemann , But.  of  the  Herald,  p.  213;  Ernst,  in  Seemann’s  Joum. 
of  Bot.,  1867,  p.  289;  Sagot,  Journ.  de  la  Soc.  d'Hort.  de  Fr.,  1872,  p.  226. 

* Martius,  Eth.  Sprachenkunde  Amer.,  p.  123. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS.  307 


names.1  The  Greeks,  Latins,  and  Arabs  have  mentioned 
it  as  a remarkable  Indian  fruit  tree.  Pliny 2 speaks  of 
it  distinctly.  He  says  that  the  Greeks  of  the  expedi- 
tion of  Alexander  saw  it  in  India,  and  he  quotes  the 
name  pala  which  still  persists  in  Malabar.  Sages  re- 
posed beneath  its  shade  and  ate  of  its  fruit.  Hence 
the  botanical  name  Musa  sapientnm.  Musa  is  from  the 
Arabic  mouz  or  mauwz,  which  we  find  as  early  as  the 
thirteenth  century  in  Ebn  Baithar.  The  specific  name 
paradisiaca  comes  from  the  ridiculous  hypothesis  which 
made  the  banana  figure  in  the  story  of  Eve  and  of 
Paradise. 

It  is  a curious  fact  that  the  Hebrews  and  the  ancient 
Egyptians3  did  not  know  this  Indian  plant.  It  is  a 
sign  that  it  did  not  exist  in  India  from  a very  remote 
epoch,  but  was  first  a native  of  the  Malay  Archipelago. 

There  is  an  immense  number  of  varieties  of  the 
banana  in  the  south  of  Asia,  both  on  the  islands  and  on 
the  continent;  the  cultivation  of  these  varieties  dates 
in  India,  in  China,  and  in  the  archipelago,  from  an  epoch 
impossible  to  realize ; it  even  spread  formerly  into  the 
islands  of  the  Pacific4 *  and  to  the  west  coast  of  Africa;6 
lastly,  the  varieties  bore  distinct  names  in  the  most 
separate  Asiatic  languages,  such  as  Chinese,  Sanskrit, 
and  Malay.  All  this  indicates  great  antiquity  of  culture, 
consequently  a primitive  existence  in  Asia,  and  a diffu- 
sion contemporary  with  or  even  anterior  to  that  of  the 
human  races. 

ihe  banana  is  said  to  have  been  found  wild  in  several 
places.  This  is  the  more  worthy  of  attention  since  the 
cultivated  varieties  seldom  produce  seed,  and  are 
multiplied  by  division,  so  that  the  species  can  hardly 
have  become  naturalized  from  cultivation  by  sowing  itself, 
lloxburgh  had  seen  it  in  the  forests  of  Chittagong,6  in 


1 Roxburgh  and  Wallich,  FI.  Ind.,  ii.  p.  485;  Piddington,  Index. 

2 Pliny,  Hist.,  lib.  xii.  cap.  6. 

8 Unger,  ubi  supra,  and  Wilkinson,  ii.  p.403,  do  not  mcution  it.  The 
banana  is  now  cultivated  in  Egypt. 

4 Forster,  Plant.  Esc.,  p.  28. 

4 Clusius,  Exot.,  p.  229;  Brown,  Hot.  Congo,  p.  51. 

* Roxburgh,  Corom.,  tab.  275 ; FI.  Ind. 


308 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


the  form  of  Musa  sapientum.  Rumphius 1 describes  a 
wild  variety  with  small  fruits  in  the  Philippine  Isles. 
Loureiro 2 * probably  speaks  of  the  same  form  by  the 
name  M.  seminifera  agrestis,  which  he  contrasts  with  M. 
seminifera  domestica,  which  is  wild  in  Cochin-China. 
Blanco  also  mentions  a wild  banana  in  the  Philippines,4 
but  his  description  is  vague.  Finlayson5  found  the 
banana  wild  in  abundance  in  the  little  island  of  Pulo 
Ubi  at  the  southern  extremity  of  Siam.  Thwaites  6 saw 
the  variety  M.  sapientum  in  the  rocky  forests  of  the 
centre  of  Ceylon,  and  does  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  it 
the  original  stock  of  the  cultivated  bananas.  Sir  Joseph 
Hooker  and  Thomson 7 found  it  wild  at  Khasia. 

The  facts  are  cpiite  different  in  America.  The  wild 
banana  has  been  seen  nowhere  except  in  Barbados,8  but 
here  it  is  a tree  of  which  the  fruit  does  not  ripen,  and 
which  is,  consequently,  in  all  probability  the  result  of 
cultivated  varieties  of  which  the  seed  is  not  abundant. 
Sloanc’s  wild  plantain 9 appears  to  be  a plant  very 
different  to  the  mum.  The  varieties  which  are  supposed 
to  be  possibly  indigenous  in  America  are  only  two,  and 
as  a rule  far  fewer  varieties  are  grown  than  in  Asia. ' The 
culture  of  the  banana  may  be  said  to  be  recent  in  the 
greater  part  of  America,  for  it  dates  from  but  little  more 
than  three  centuries.  Piso  10  says  positively  that  it  was 
imported  into  Brazil,  and  has  no  Brazilian  name.  He 
does  not  say  whence  it  came.  We  have  seen  that, 
according  to  Oviedo,  the  species  was  brought  to  San 
Domingo  from  the  Canaries.  This  fact  and  the  silence  of 
Hernandez,  generally  so  accurate  about  the  useful  plants, 
wild  or  cultivated,  in  Mexico,  convince  me  that  at  the 
time  of  the  discovery  of  America  the  banana  did  not 
exist  in  the  whole  of  the  eastern  part  of  the  continent. 

1 Rumphius,  Amb.,  v.  p.  139.  2 Loureiro,  FI.  Cock.,  p.  791. 

3 Loureiro,  FI.  Coch.,  p.  791.  4 Blanco,  Flora,  1st  edit.,  p.  247. 

s Finlayson,  Journey  to  Siam,  1826,  p.  86,  according  to  liittcr,  Erdk., 
iv.  p.  878. 

0 Thwaites,  18wum.  PL  Cey.,  p.  321. 

1 Aitchison,  Catal.  of  Punjab,  p.  147. 

6 Hughes,  Barb.,  p.  182  ; Maycock,  FI.  Barb.,  p.  396. 

9 Sloane,  Jamaica,  ii.  p.  148.  19  Piso,  edit.  1648,  Uist.  Nat.,  p.  75. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS. 


309 


Did  it  exist,  then,  in  the  western  part  on  the  shores 
of  the  Pacific  ? This  seems  very  unlikely  when  we 
reflect  that  communication  was  easy  between  the  two 
coasts  towards  the  isthmus  of  Panama,  and  that  before 
the  arrival  of  the  Europeans  the  natives  had  been  active 
in  diffusing  throughout  America  useful  plants  like  the 
manioc,  maize,  and  the  potato.  The  banana,  which  they 
have  prized  so  highly  for  three  centuries,  which  is  so 
easily  multiplied  by  suckers,  and  whose  appearance  must 
strike  the  least  observant,  would  not  have  been  forgotten 
in  a few  villages  in  the  depths  of  the  forest  or  upon  the 
littoral. 

I admit  that  the  opinion  of  Garcilasso,  descendant 
of  the  Incas,  an  author  who  lived  from  1530  to  1568,  has 
a certain  importance  when  he  says  that  the  natives  knew 
the  banana  before  the  conquest.  However,  the  expressions 
of  another  writer,  extremely  worthy  of  attention,  Joseph 
Acosta,  who  had  been  in  Peru,  and  whom  Humboldt 
quotes  in  support  of  Garcilasso,  incline  me  to  adopt  the 
contrary  opinion.1  He  says,2  “ The  reason  the  Spaniards 
called  it  'plane  (for  the  natives  had  no  such  name)  was 
that,  as  in  the  case  of  their  trees,  they  found  some 
resemblance  between  them.”  He  goes  on  to  show  how 
different  was  the  plane  ( Platanus ) of  the  ancients.  He 
describes  the  banana  very  well,  and  adds  that  the  tree 
is  very  common  in  the  Indies  (i.e.  America),  “ although 
they  (the  Indians)  say  that  its  origin  is  Ethiopia.  . . . There 
is  a small  white  species  of  plantain  (banana),  very  delicate, 
which  is  called  in  Espagnolle  8 dominico.  There  are  others 
coarser  and  larger,  and  of  a red  colour.  There  are  none  in 
Peru,  but  they  are  imported  thither  from  the  Indies,4  as 

•^Humboldt  quotes  the  Spanish  edition  of  1608.  The  first  edition  is 
of  1591.  I have  only  been  able  to  consult  the  French  translation  of 
llegnanlt,  published  in  1598,  and  which  is  apparently  accurate. 

2 Acosta,  trans.,  lib.  iv.  cap.  21. 

3 That  is  probably  Hispaniola  or  San  Domingo  ; for  if  ho  had  meant 
the  Spanish  language,  it  would  have  been  translated  by  castillan  and 
without  the  capital  letter. 

* This  is  probably  a misprint  for  Andes,  for  the  word  Index  has  no 
sense.  The  work  says  (p.  166)  that  pine-apples  do  not  grow  in  Peru,  but 
that  they  are  brought  thither  from  the  Andes,  and  (p.  173)  that  the  cacao 
comes  from  the  Andes.  It  seems  to  have  meant  hot  regions.  The  wrod 


310 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


into  Mexico  from  Cuernavaca  and  the  other  valleys.  On 
the  continent  and  in  some  of  the  islands  there  are  great 
plantations  of  them  which  form  dense  thickets.”  Surely  it 
is  not  thus  that  the  author  would  express  himself  were 
he  writing  of  a fruit  tree  of  American  origin.  He  would 
quote  American  names  and  customs ; above  all,  he  would 
not  say  that  the  natives  regarded  it  as  a plant  of  foreign 
origin.  Its  diffusion  in  the  warm  regions  of  Mexico  may 
well  have  taken  place  between  the  epoch  of  the  conquest 
and  the  time  when  Acosta  wrote,  since  Hernandez,  whose 
conscientious  researches  go  back  to  the  earliest  times  of 
the  Spanish  dominion  in  Mexico  (though  published  later 
in  Rome),  says  not  a word  of  the  banana.1  Prescott  the 
historian  saw  ancient  books  and  manuscripts  which  assert 
that  the  inhabitants  of  Tumbez  brought  bananas  to 
Pizarro  when  he  disembarked  upon  the  Peruvian  coast, 
and  he  believes  that  its  leaves  were  found  in  the  huacas, 
but  he  does  not  give  his  proofs.2 

As  regards  the  argument  of  the  modern  native 
plantations  in  regions  of  America,  remote  from  European 
settlements,  I find  it  hard  to  believe  that  tribes. have 
remained  absolutely  isolated,  and  have  not  received  so 
useful  a tree  from  colonized  districts. 

Briefly,  then,  it  appears  to  me  most  probable  that  the 
species  was  early  introduced  by  the  Spanish  and  Portu- 
guese into  San  Domingo  and  Brazil,  and  I confess  that 
this  implies  that  Garcilasso  was  in  error  with  regard  to 
Peruvian  traditions.  If,  however,  later  research  should 
prove  that  the  banana  existed  in  some  parts  of  America 
before  the  advent  of  the  Europeans,  I should  be  inclined 
to  attribute  it  to  a chance  introduction,  not  very  ancient, 
the  effect  of  some  unknown  communication  with  the 
islands  of  the  Pacific,  or  with  the  coast  of  Guinea,  rather 
than  to  believe  in  the  primitive  and  simultaneous  existence 

Andes  has  since  been  applied  to  the  chain  of  mountains  by  a strange 
and  unfortunate  transfer. 

1 I have  read  through  the  entire  work,  to  mako  sure  of  this  fact. 

3 I’rescott,  Conquest  of  Pern.  The  author  has  consulted  valunble 
records,  among  others  a manuscript  of  Montesinos  of  1527 ; but  he 
does  not  quote  his  authorities  for  each  fact,  and  contents  himself  with 
vague  and  general  indications,  which  are  very  insuflicient. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  FRUITS.  311 


of  the  species  in  both  hemispheres.  The  whole  of  geo- 
graphical botany  renders  the  latter  hypothesis  improbable, 

I might  almost  say  impossible,  to  admit,  especially  in  a 
genus  which  is  not  divided  between  the  two  worlds. 

In  conclusion,  I would  call  attention  to  the  remarkable 
way  in  which  the  distribution  of  varieties  favours  the 
opinion  of  a single  species — an  opinion  adopted,  purely 
from  the  botanical  point  of  view,  by  Roxburgh,  Desvaux, 
and  R.  Brown.  If  there  were  two  or  three  species,  one 
would  probably  be  represented  by  the  varieties  suspected 
to  be  of  American  origin,  the  other  would  belong,  for 
instance,  to  the  Malay  Archipelago  or  to  China,  and  the 
third  to  India.  On  the  contrary  all  the  varieties  are 
geographically  intermixed,  and  the  two  which  are  most 
widely  diffused  in  America  differ  sensibly  the  one  from 
the  other,  and  each  is  confounded  with  or  approaches 
very  nearly  to  Asiatic  varieties. 

Pine-Apple  — Arumassa  sativa,  Lindley;  Bromelia 
Ananas,  Linnaeus. 

In  spite  of  the  doubts  of  a few  writers,  the  pine- 
apple must  be  an  American  plant,  early  introduced  by 
Europeans  into  Asia  and  Africa. 

Nana  was  the  Brazilian  name,1  which  the  Portuguese 
turned  into  ananas.  The  Spanish  called  it  pinas,  because 
the  shape  resembles  the  fruit  of  a species  of  pine.2  All 
early  writers  on  America  mention  it.8  Hernandez  says 
that  the  pine-apple  grows  in  the  warm  regions  of  Haiti 
and  Mexico.  He  mentions  a Mexican  name,  matzatli.  A 
pine-apple  was  brought  to  Charles  V.,  who  mistrusted  it, 
and  would  not  taste  it. 

The  works  of  the  Greeks,  Romans,  and  Arabs  make  no 
allusion  to  this  species,  which  was  evidently  introduced 
into  the  old  world  after  the  discovery  of  America. 
Rheede  4 in  the  seventeenth  century  was  persuaded  of 
this ; but  Rumphius  6 disputed  it  later,  because  he  said 

1 Marcpraf,  Brasil,.,  p.  33. 

1 Oviedo,  Itamusio’s  trails.,  iii.  p.  113  ; Jos.  Acosta,  Hist.  hat.  dcs. 
Index,  French  trans.,  p.  166. 

3 Thevet,  Piso,  etc. ; Hernandez,  Thes.,  p.  341. 

3 Rheede,  Hort.  Malab.,  xi.  p.  6.  3 Rumphius,  Amboin,  v.  p.  228. 


312 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


the  pine-apple  was  cultivated  in  his  time  in  every  part  of 
India,  and  was  found  wild  in  Celebes  and  elsewhere.  He 
notices,  however,  the  absence  of  an  Asiatic  name.  That 
given  by  Rheedo  for  Malabar  is  evidently  taken  from  a 
comparison  with  the  jack-fruit,  and  is  in  no  sense 
original.  It  is  doubtless  a mistake  on  the  part  of 
Piddington  to  attribute  a Sanskrit  name  to  the  pine-apple, 
as  the  name  anarush  seems  to  be  a corruption  of  ananas. 
Roxburgh  knew  of  none,  and  Wilson’s  dictionary  does 
not  mention  the  word  anarush.  Royle  1 says  that  the 
pine-apple  was  introduced  into  Bengal  in  1594.  Kircher  2 
says  that  the  Chinese  cultivated  it  in  the  seventeenth 
century,  but  it  was  believed  to  have  been  brought  to 
them  from  Peru. 

Clusius8  in  1599  had  seen  leaves  of  the  pine-apple 
brought  from  the  coast  of  Guinea.  This  may  be  explained 
by  an  introduction  there  subsequent  to  the  discovery  of 
America.  Robert  Brown  speaks  of  the  pine-apple  among 
the  plants  cultivated  in  Congo;  but  he  considers  the 
species  to  be  an  American  one. 

Although  the  cultivated  pine-apple  bears  few  seeds 
or  none  at  all,  it  occasionally  becomes  naturalized  in 
hot  countries.  Examples  are  quoted  in  Mauritius,  the 
Seychelles,  and  Rodriguez  Island,4  in  India,5  in  the 
Malay  Archipelago,  and  in  some  parts  of  America,  where 
it  was  probably  not  indigenous — the  West  Indies,  for 
instance. 

It  has  been  found  wild  in  the  warm  regions  of  Mexico 
(if  we  may  trust  the  phrase  used  by  Hernandez),  in  the 
province  of  Veraguas 6 near  Panama,  in  the  upper 
Orinoco  valley,7  in  Guiana 8 and  the  province  of  Bahia.9 

1 Royle,  III.,  p.  376. 

2 Kircher,  Chine  Illustrde , trans.  of  1670,  p.  253. 

3 Clusius,  Exotic.,  cap.  44.  4 Iiaker,  FI.  of  Maurit. 

5 Royle,  uhi  supra.  * Seemann,  Bot.  of  the  Herald,  p.  215. 

2 Humboldt,  Nouv.  Esp.,  2nd  edit.,  ii.  p.  478. 

* Gardeners’  Chronicle,  1881,  vol.  i.  p.  657. 

Marti  us,  letter  to  A.  do  Candolle,  Gdogr.  Bot.  Rais.,  p.  927. 


CHAPTER  V. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 

Article  I. — Seeds  used  for  Food. 

Cacao — Theobroma  Cacao,  Linngeus. 

The  genus  Theobroma,  of  the  order  Byttneriacece, 
allied  to  the  Malvaceae,  consists  of  fifteen  to  eighteen 
species,  all  belonging  to  tropical  America,  principally  in 
the  hotter  parts  of  Brazil,  Guiana,  and  Central  America. 

The  common  cacao,  Theobroma  Cacao,  is  a small  tree 
wild  in  the  forests  of  the  Amazon  and  Orinoco  basins 1 
and  of  their  tributaries  up  to  four  hundred  feet  of  alti- 
tude. It  is  also  said  to  grow  wild  in  Trinidad,  which 
lies  near  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco.2  I find  no  proof  that 
it  is  indigenous  in  Guiana,  although  it  seems  probable. 
Many  early  writers  indicate  that  it  was  both  wild  and 
cultivated  at  the  time  of  the  discovery  of  America  from 
Panama  to  Guatemala  and  Campeaehy ; but  from  the 
numerous  quotations  collected  by  Sloane,3  it  is  to  be 
feared  that  its  wild  character  was  not  sufficiently  verified. 
Modem  botanists  are  not  very  explicit  on  this  head,  and 
in  general  they  only  mention  the  cacao  as  cultivated  in 
these  regions  and  in  the  West  India  Islands.  G.  Ber- 
noulli,4 who  had  resided  in  Guatemala,  only  says,  “ wild 

1 Humboldt,  Voy.,  ii.  p.  611;  Kunth,  in  Humboldt  and  Bonpland, 
Nova  Genera,  v.  p.  31G  ; Martius,  Ueber  den  Cacao,  in  Buchner,  Report. 
Pharm. 

3 Schacli,  in  Grisebach,  Flora  of  Brit.  IV.  Ind.  Is.,  p.  91. 

3 Sloane,  Jamaica,  ii.  p.  15. 

4 G.  Bernoulli,  Uebersiclit  der  Arten  von  Theobroma,  p.  5. 


314 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


and  cultivated  throughouttropical  America;”  and Hemsley,1 
in  his  review  of  the  plants  of  Mexico  and  Central  America, 
made  in  1879  from  the  rich  materials  of  the  Kewherbarium, 
gives  no  locality  where  the  species  is  indigenous.  It  was 
perhaps  introduced  into  Central  America  and  into  the 
warm  regions  of  Mexico  by  the  Indians  before  the  dis- 
covery of  America.  Cultivation  may  have  naturalized  it 
here  and  there,  as  is  said  to  be  the  case  in  Jamaica.2 3  In 
support  of  this  hypothesis,  it  must  be  observed  that 
Triana8  indicates  the  cacao  as  only  cultivated  in  [the 
warm  regions  of  New  Granada,  a country  situated  be- 
tween Panama  and  the  Orinoco  valley. 

However  this  may  be,  the  species  was  grown  in 
Central  America  and  Yucatan  at  the  time  of  the  dis- 
covery of  America.  The  seeds  were  sent  into  the  high- 
lands of  Mexico,  and  were  even  used  as  money,  so  highly 
were  they  valued.  The  custom  of  drinking  chocolate 
was  general.  The  name  of  this  excellent  drink  is  Mexi- 
can. The  Spaniards  carried  the  cacao  from  Acapulco  to 
the  Philippine  Isles  in  1674  and  1680, 4 * where  it  succeeded 
wonderfully.  It  is  also  cultivated  in  the  Sunda  Isles.  I 
imagine  it  would  succeed  on  the  Guinea  and  Zanzibar 
coasts,  but  it  is  of  no  use  to  attempt  to  grow  it  in 
countries  which  are  not  very  hot  and  very  damp. 

Another  species,  Theobroma  bicolor,  Humboldt  and 
Bonpland,  is  found  growing  with  the  common  cacao  in 
American  plantations.  It  is  not  so  much  prized.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  does  not  require  so  high  a temperature, 
and  can  live  at  an  altitude  of  nearly  three  thousand  feet 
in  the  valley  of  the  Magdalena.  It  abounds  in  a wild 
state  in  New  Granada.6  Bernoulli  asserts  that  it  is  only 
cultivated  in  Guatemala,  though  the  inhabitants  call  it 
mountain  cacao. 

Litchi — Nephdium  Litchi,  Cambessides. 

The  seed  of  this  species  and  of  the  two  following  is 

1 TTomsley,  Biologia  Centrali  Americana,  part  ii.  p.  133. 

2 Grisebaeh,  vbi  supra. 

3 Triana  and  Planchon,  Prodr.  PI.  Novo  Oranatensis,  p.  208. 

4 Blanco,  FI.  de  Filipinos,  edit.  2,  p.  420. 

* Kunth,  in  Humboldt  and  Bonpland,  ubi  supra ; Triana,  vbi  supra. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


315 


covered  with  a fleshy  excrescence,  very  sweet  and  scented, 
which  is  eaten  with  tea. 

Like  most  of  the  Sapindaccce,  the  nepheliums  are 
trees.  This  one  has  been  cultivated  in  the  soutli  of  China, 
India,  and  the  Malay  Archipelago  from  a date  of  which 
we  cannot  be  certain.  Chinese  authors  living  at  Pekin 
only  knew  the  Litchi  late  in  the  third  century  of  our 
era.1  Its  introduction  into  Bengal  took  place  at  the  end 
of  the  eighteenth  century.2  Every  one  admits  that  the 
species  is  a native  of  the  south  of  China,  and,  Blume3 
adds,  of  Cochin-China  and  the  Philippine  Isles,  but  it  does 
not  seem  that  any  botanist  has  found  it  in  a truly  wild 
state.  This  is  probably  because  the  southern  part  of 
China  towards  Siam  has  been  little  visited.  In  Cochin- 
China  and  in  Burmali  and  at  Chittagong  the  Litchi  is 
only  cultivated.4 

Longan — Nephelium  longana,  Cambessides. 

This  second  species,  very  often  cultivated  in  Southern 
Asia,  like  the  Litchi,  is  wild  in  British  India,  from  Ceylon 
and  Concan  as  far  as  the  mountains  to  the  east  of 
Bengal,  and  in  Pegu.6  The  Chinese  introduced  it  into 
the  Malay  Archipelago  some  centuries  ago. 

Rambutan — Nephdivm  lappaceum,  Linnaeus. 

It  is  said  to  be  wild  in  the  Indian  Archipelago,  where 
it  must  have  been  long  cultivated,  to  judge  from  the 
number  of  its  varieties.  A Malay  name,  given  by  Blume, 
signifies  wild  tree.  Loureiro  says  it  is  wild  in  Cochin- 
China  and  Java.  Yet  I find  no  confirmation  for  Cochin- 
China  in  modern  works,  nor  even  for  the  islands.  The 
new  flora  of  British  India  6 indicates  it  at  Singapore  and 
Malacca  without  affirming  that  it  is  indigenous,  on  which 
head  the  labels  in  herbaria  commonly  tell  us  nothing. 
Certainly  the  species  is  not  wild  on  the  continent  of 
Asia,  in  spite  of  the  vague  expressions  of  Blume  and 

1 Bretschneider,  letter  of  Aug.  23,  1881. 

2 Roxburgh,  FI.  Indica,  ii.  p.  269.  3 Rlume,  Rumphia,  iii.  p.  106. 

* Loureiro,  Flora  Coch.,  p.  233  : Kurz,  Furext  FI.  of  Brit.  Burmah, 
p.  293. 

3 Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.,  ii.  p.  271 ; Thwaitos,  Enum.  Zeyl.,  p.  68  ; Iliorn, 
in  FI.  of  Brit.  Ind.,  i.  p.  688. 

' Hiern,  in  FI.  of  Brit.  Ind.,  i.  p.  687. 


316 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Miquel,1  but  it  is  more  probably  a native  of  the  Malay 
Archipelago. 

In  spite  of  the  reputation  of  the  nepheliums,  of  which 
the  fruit  can  be  exported,  it  does  not  appear  that  these 
trees  have  been  introduced  into  the  tropical  colonies 
of  Africa  and  America  except  into  a few  gardens  as 
curiosities. 

Pistachio  Nut — Pistacia  vera,  Linnaeus. 

The  pistachio,  a shrub  belonging  to  the  order  Ana- 
cardiacece,  grows  naturally  in  Syria.  Boissier 3 found  it 
to  the  north  of  Damascus  in  Anti-Lebanon,  and  he  saw 
specimens  of  it  brought  from  Mesopotamia,  but  he  could 
not  be  sure  that  they  were  found  wild.  There  is  the 
same  doubt  about  branches  gathered  in  Arabia,  which 
have  been  mentioned  by  some  writers.  Pliny  and  Galen8 
knew  that  the  species  was  a Syrian  one.  The  former 
tells  us  that  the  plant  was  introduced  into  Italy  by 
Vitellius  at  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Tiberius,  and  thence 
into  Spain  by  Flavius  Pompeius. 

There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  cultivation  of 
the  pistachio  was  ancient  even  in  its  primitive  country, 
but  it  is  practised  in  our  own  day  in  the  East,  as  well 
as  in  Sicily  and  Tunis.  In  the  south  of  France  and 
Spain  it  is  of  little  importance. 

Broad  Bean — Faba  vulgaris , Moench ; Vicia  faba, 
Linmeus. 

Linnams,  in  his  best  descriptive  work,  Hortm  cliff or- 
tianus,  admits  that  the  origin  of  this  species  is  obscure, 
like  that  of  most  plants  of  ancient  cultivation.  Later, 
in  his  Species , which  is  more  often  quoted,  he  says,  with- 
out giving  any  proof,  that  the  bean  “inhabits  Egypt.” 
Lerche,  a Russian  traveller  at  the  end  of  the  last 
century,  found  it  wild  in  the  Mungan  desert  of  the 
Mazanderan,  to  the  south  of  the  Caspian  Sea.4  Travellers 

1 Blntne,  Rumphia,  iii.  p.  103  ; Miquel,  FI.  Indo-Batava,  i.  p.  554. 

2 Bossier,  FI.  Orient.,  ii.  p.  5. 

3 Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.,  lib.  xiii.  cap.  15 ; lib.  xv.  cap.  22 ; Galen,  De  Ali- 

mentis,  lib.  ii.  cap.  30.  _ i 

1 Lerche,  Nava  Acta  Acad.  Cesareo-Leopold,  vol.  v.,  appendix,  p.  203, 
published  in  1773.  Maxiniowicz,  in  a letter  of  Feb.  24,  1882,  tells  me 
that  Lerche’s  specimen  exists  in  the  herbarium  of  the  Imperial  Garden 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


317 


who  have  collected  in  this  region  have  sometimes  come 
across  it,1  hut  they  do  not  mention  it  in  their  writings,2 
excepting  Ledebour,3  and  the  quotation  on  which  he 
relies  is  not  correct.  Bose 4 says  that  Olivier  found  the 
bean  wild  in  Persia;  I do  not  find  this  confirmed  in 
Olivier’s  Voyage,  and  as  a rule  Bose  seems  to  have 
been  too  ready  to  believe  that  Olivier  found  a good 
many  of  our  cultivated  plants  in  the  interior  of  Persia. 
He  says  it  of  buckwheat  and  of  oats,  which  Olivier  does 
not  mention. 

The  only  indication  besides  that  of  Lerche  which  I 
find  in  floras  is  a very  different  locality.  Munby 
mentions  the  bean  as  wild  in  Algeria,  at  Oran.  He 
adds  that  it  is  rare.  No  other  author,  to  my  knowledge, 
has  spoken  of  it  in  northern  Africa.  Cosson,  who  knows 
the  flora  of  Algeria  better  than  any  one,  assures  me  he 
has  not  seen  or  received  any  specimen  of  the  wild  bean 
from  the  north  of  Africa.  I have  ascertained  that  there 
is  no  specimen  in  Munby’s 6 herbarium,  now  at  Kew. 
As  the  Arabs  grow  the  bean  on  a large  scale,  it  may 
perhaps  be  met  with  accidentally  outside  cultivated  plots. 
It  must  not  be  forgotten,  however,  that  Pliny  (lib.  xviii. 
c.  12)  speaks  of  a wild  bean  in  Mauritania,  but  he  adds 
that  it  is  hard  and  cannot  be  cooked,  which  throws 
doubt  upon  the  species.  Botanists  who  have  written 
upon  Egypt  and  Gyrenaica,  especially  the  more  recent,3 
give  the  bean  as  cultivated. 

This  plant  alone  constitutes  the  genus  Faba.  We 
cannot,  therefore,  call  in  the  aid  of  any  botanical  analogy 

at  St.  Petersburgh.  It  is  in  flower,  and  resembles  the  cultivated  bean 
in  all  points  excepting  height,  which  is  about  half  a foot.  The  labol 
mentions  the  locality  and  its  wild  character  without  other  remarks. 

1 There  are  Transcaucasian  specimens  in  the  same  herbarium,  but 
taller,  and  they  aro  not  said  to  be  wild. 

2 Marschall  Bieberstein,  Flora  Caucaso-Taurica ; C.  A.  Meyer,  Yer- 
zeichniss ; Hohenacker,  Enum.  Plant.  Talysch ; Boissior,  FI.  Orient., 
p.  578,  Buhse  and  Boissior,  Plant.  Transcaucasia. 

3 Ledebour,  FI.  Roue.,  i.  p.  004,  quotes  de  Candolle,  Prodromus,  ii.  p. 
354;  now  Seringe  wrote  the  article  Faba  in  Prodromus,  in  which  the 
south  of  the  Caspian  is  indicated,  probably  on  Lerche’s  authority. 

4 Diet.  d’Agric.,  v.  p.  512. 

5 Munby,  Catal.  Plant,  in  Alger,  sponte  nascent.,  edit.  2,  p.  12. 

0 Schweinfurth  and  Ascherson,  Aufzdhlung,  p.  256  ; Rohlfs,  Kufra. 


318  ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 

to  discover  its  origin.  We  must  have  recourse  to  the 
history  of  its  cultivation  and  to  the  names  of  the  species  ' 
to  find  out  the  country  in  which  it  was  originally 
indigenous. 

We  must  first  eliminate  an  error  which  came  from  a 
wrong  interpretation  of  Chinese  works.  Stanislas  Julien 
believed  that  the  bean  was  one  of  the  five  plants  which 
the  Emperor  Chin-nong  commanded,  4600  years  ago,  to 
be  sown  every  year  with  great  solemnity.1  Now,  accord- 
ing to  Dr.  Bretschneider,2  who  is  surrounded  at  Pekin 
with  every  possible  resource  for  arriving  at  the  truth,  the 
seed  similar  to  a bean  which  the  emperors  sow  in  the 
enjoined  ceremony  is  that  of  Dolichos  soja,  and  the  bean 
was  only  introduced  into  China  from  Western  Asia  a 
century  before  the  Christian  era,  at  the  time  of  Chang- 
kien’s  embassy.  Thus  falls  an  assertion  which  it  is  hard 
to  reconcile  with  other  facts,  for  instance  with  the 
absence  of  an  ancient  cultivation  of  the  bean  in  India, 
and  of  a Sanskrit  name,  or  even  of  any  modern  Indian 
name. 

The  ancient  Greeks  were  acquainted  with  the  bean, 
which  they  called  kuamos,  and  sometimes  knamos 
eUenikoa,  to  distinguish  it  from  that  of  Egypt,  which  was 
the  seed  of  a totally  different  aquatic  species,  JSelum- 
bium.  The  Iliad  3 already  mentions  the  bean  as  a culti- 
vated plant,  and  Virchow  found  some  beans  in  the 
excavations  at  Troy.4  The  Latins  called  it  faba.  We 
find  nothing  in  the  works  of  Theophrastus,  Dioscorides, 
Pliny,  etc.,  which  leads  us  to  believe  the  plant  indigenous 
in  Greece  or  Italy.  It  was  early  known,  because  it  was 
an  ancient  Roman  rite  to  put  beans  in  the  sacrifices  to 
the  goddess  Carna,  whence  the  name  FabaricB  Calender? 
The  Fabii  perhaps  took  their  name  from  faba,  and  the 
twelfth  chapter  of  the  eighteenth  book  of  Pliny  shows, 
without  the  possibility  of  a doubt,  the  antiquity  and 
importance  of  the  bean  in  Italy. 

1 Loiscleur  Deslongchamps,  Conxid.  sur  lex  CMales,  part  i.  p.  29. 

s Bretschneider,  Study  and  Value.,  etc.,  pp.  7,  15. 

s Iliad,  13,  v.  589. 

4 Wittmack,  Sit  a.  bericht  Vereins,  Brandenburg,  1879. 

5 Novitius  Dictionnarium,  at  the  word  Faba. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS.  319 

The  word  faba  recurs  in  several  of  the  Aryan  lan- 
guages of  Europe,  but  with  modifications  which  philolo- 
gists alone  can  recognize.  We  must  not  forget,  however, 
Adolphe  Pictet’s  very  just  remark,1  that  in  the  cases  of 
the  seeds  of  cereals  and  leguminous  plants  the  names  of 
one  species  are  often  transferred  to  another,  or  that  cer- 
tain names  were  sometimes  specific  and  sometimes  generic. 
Several  seeds  of  like  form  were  called  Jcuainos  by  the 
Greeks;  several  different  kinds  of  haricot  bean  ( Pha - 
seolus,Dolickos ) bear  the  same  name  in  Sanskrit,  and  faba 
in  ancient  Slav,  holm  in  ancient  Prussian,  babo  in  Armo- 
rican,  fav,  etc.,  may  very  well  have  been  used  for  peas, 
haricot  beans,  etc.  In  our  own  day  the  phrase  coffee-bean 
is  used  in  the  trade.  It  has  been  rightly  supposed  that 
when  Pliny  speaks  of  fabarice  islands,  where  beans  were 
found  in  abundance,  he  alludes  to  a species  of  wild  pea 
called  botanically  Pisum  maritimum. 

The  ancient  inhabitants  of  Switzerland  and  of  Italy 
in  the  age  of  bronze  cultivated  a small-fruited  variety  of 
Faba  vulgaris .2  Heer  calls  it  Celtica  nana,  because  it 
is  only  six  to  nine  millimetres  long,  whereas  our  modern 
field  bean  is  ten  to  twelve  millimetres.  He  has  compared 
the  specimens  from  Montelier  on  Lake  Morat,  and  St. 
Peter’s  Islands  on  Lake  Bienne,  with  others  of  the  same 
epoch  from  Parma.  Mortellet  found,  in  the  contem- 
porary lake-dwellings  on  the  Lake  Bourget,  the  same 
small  bean,  which  is,  he  says,  very  like  a variety  culti- 
vated in  Spain  at  the  present  day.3 

I he  bean  was  cultivated  by  the  ancient  Egyptians.4 * 
It  is  true  that  hitherto  no  beans  have  been  found  in  the 
sarcophagi,  or  drawings  of  the  plant  seen  on  the  monu- 
ments. The  reason  is  said  to  be  that  the  plant  was 
reckoned  unclean.0  Herodotus6  says,  “The  Egyptians 

1 Originex  Indo-Europ(e.nnes,  edit.  2,  vol.  i.  p.  353. 

2 Ueor,  Pjlanzen  cler  Pfaldbauten,  p.  22,  figs.  44-47. 

* Perrin,  /Ztude  Prihistoriqite  eur  la  Savoie,  p.  2. 

4 Delile,  Plant.  Cult,  en  ityypte,  p.  12;  Reynior,  iZconotnio  dcx  Itgyp. 
tienx  et  Carthaginois,  p.  340;  Unger,  Pjlan.  d.  Alt.  JEgyp.,  p.  64;  Wilkin- 
son, Man.  and  Cus.  of  Anc.  Egyptians,  p.  402. 

s Roynier,  ubi  supra,  tries  to  discover  the  reason  of  this. 

* Herodotus,  Histoire,  Lurcher’s  trans.,  vol.  ii.  p.  32. 


320 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


never  sow  the  bean  in  their  land,  and  if  it  grows  they  do 
not  eat  it  either  cooked  or  raw.  The  priests  cannot  even 
endure  the  sight  of  it;  they  imagine  that  this  vegetable  is 
unclean.”  The  bean  existed  then  in  Egypt,  and  probably 
in  cultivated  places,  for  the  soil  which  would  suit  it  was 
as  a rule  under  cultivation.  Perhaps  the  poor  population 
and  that  of  certain  districts  did  not  share  the  prejudices 
of  the  priests ; we  know  that  the  superstitions  varied 
with  the  nomes.  Plutarch  and  Diodorus  Siculus  mention 
the  cultivation  of  the  bean  in  Egypt,  but  they  wrote 
five  hundred  years  later  than  Herodotus. 

The  word  pol  occurs  twice  in  the  Old  Testament ; 1 it 
has  been  translated  bean  because  of  the  traditions  pre- 
served by  the  Talmud,  and  of  the  Arabic  name  fold,  fol, 
or  ful,  which  is  that  of  the  bean.  The  first  of  the  two 
verses  shows  that  the  Hebrews  were  acquainted  with  the 
bean  one  thousand  years  before  Christ. 

Lastly,  I shall  mention  a sign  of  the  ancient  existence 
of  the  bean  in  the  north  of  Africa.  This  is  the  Berber 
name  ilnou,  in  the  plural  iabouen,  used  by  the  Kabyles  of 
the  province  of  Algiers.2  It  has  no  l-esemblance  to  the 
Semitic  name,  and  dates  perhaps  from  a remote  antiquity. 
The  Berbers  formerly  inhabited  Mauritania,  where  Pliny 
asserts  that  the  species  was  wild.  It  is  not  known 
whether  the  Guanchos  (the  Berber  people  of  the  Canaries) 
knew  the  bean.  I doubt  whether  the  Iberians  had  it,  for 
their  supposed  descendants,  the  Basques,  use  the  name 
baba,3  answering  to  the  Roman  faba. 

We  judge  from  these  facts  that  the  bean  was  culti- 
vated in  Europe  in  prehistoric  terms.  It  was  introduced 
into  Europe  probably  by  the  western  Aryans  at  the  time 
of  their  earliest  migrations  (Pelasgians,  Kelts,  Slavs).  It 
was  taken  to  China  later,  a century  before  the  Christian 
era,  and  still  later  into  Japan,  and  quite  recently  into 
India. 

Its  wild  habitat  was  probably  twofold  some  thousands 
of  years  ago,  one  of  the  centres  being  to  the  south  of  the 

1 2 Sam.  xvii.  28 ; Ezek.  iv.  9. 

• Diet.  Franqais-Berbere,  published  by  the  French  government. 

* Note  communicated  to  M.  Clos  by  M.  d’Abadie, 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS.  321 

Caspian,  the  other  in  the  north  of  Africa.  This  kind  of 
area,  which  I have  called  disjunctive,  and  to  which  I 
formerly  paid  a good  deal  of  attention,1  is  rare  in  dicoty- 
ledons, but  there  are  examples  in  those  very  countries 
of  which  I have  just  spoken.2  It  is  probable  that  the 
area  of  the  bean  has  long  been  in  process  of  diminution 
and  of  extinction.  The  nature  of  the  plant  is  in  favour 
ol  this  hypothesis,  for  its  seed  has  no  means  of  dispersing 
itself,  and  rodents  or  other  animals  can  easily  make  prey 
of  it.  Its  area  in  Western  Asia  was  probably  less  limited 
at  one  time,  and  that  in  Africa  in  Pliny’s  day  was  more 
or  less  extensive.  The  struggle  for  existence  which  was 
going  against  this  plant,  as  against  maize,  would  have 
gradually  isolated  it  and  caused  it  to  disappear,  if  man 
had  not  saved  it  by  cultivation. 

The  plant  which  most  nearly  resembles  the  bean  is 
Vida  narbonensis.  Authors  who  do  not  admit  the  genus 
Faba,  of  which  the  characters  are  not  very  distinct  from 
those  of  Vida,  place  these  two  species  in  the  same  section. 
Now,  Vida  narbonensis  is  wild  in  the  Mediterranean 
basin  and  in  the  East  as  far  as  the  Caucasus,  in  the 
noith  of  Persia,  and  in  Mesopotamia.3  Its  area  is  con- 
tinuous, but  this  renders  the  hypothesis  I mentioned 
above  probable  by  analogy. 

Lentil  Ervum  lens,  Linnaeus ; Lens  esculenta,  Mcench. 

Ihe  plants  which  most  nearly  resemble  the  lentil  are 
classed  by  authors  now  in  the  genus  Ervum,  now  in  a 
distinct  genus  Lens,  and  sometimes  in  the  genus  Cider; 
but  the  species  of  these  ill-defined  groups  all  belong 
to  the  Mediterranean  basin  or  to  Western  Asia.  This 
throws  some  light  on  the  origin  of  the  cultivated  plant. 
Unfortunately,  the  lentil  is  no  longer  to  be  found  in  a 
" lid  state,  at  least  with  certainty.  The  floras  of  the 
south  of  Europe,  of  Northern  Africa,  of  the  East,  and  of 
India  always  mention  it  as  cultivated,  or  as  growing  in 
Inelds  after  or  with  other  cultivated  species.  A botanist4 

i pi  Candolle,  Q6ogr.  Bat.  Rais.,  chap.  x. 

, ! fdodendron  ponticum  now  exists  only  in  Asia  Minor  and  in  the 

■south  of  tho  Spanish  peninsula. 

3 Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  ii.  p.  577. 

4 C.  A.  Meyer,  Yerzeichniss  FI.  Caucus.,  p.  147. 


T 


322 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


saw  it  in  the  provinces  to  the  south  of  the  Caucasus, 
“cultivated  and  nearly  wild  here  and  there  round  vil- 
lages.” Another1  indicates  it  vaguely  in  the  south  of 
Russia,  but  more  recent  floras  fail  to  confirm  this. 

The  history  and  names  of  this  plant  may  give  clearer 
indications  of  its  origin.  It  has  been  cultivated  in  the 
East,  in  the  Mediterranean  basin  and  even  in  Switzerland, 
from  prehistoric  time.  According  to  Herodotos,  Theo- 
phrastus, etc.,  the  ancient  Egyptians  used  it  largely.  If 
their  monuments  give  no  proof  of  this,  it  was  probably 
because  the  lentil  was,  like  the  bean,  considered  common 
and  coarse.  The  Old  Testament  mentions  it  three  times, 
by  the  name  adaschum  or  adaschim,  which  must  cer- 
tainly mean  lentil,  for  the  Arabic  name  is  ads?  or  adas? 
The  red  colour  of  Esau’s  famous  mess  of  pottage  has  not 
been  understood  by  most  authors.  Reynier,4  who  had 
lived  in  Egypt,  confirms  the  explanation  given  formerly 
by  Josephus;  the  lentils  were  red  because  they  were 
hulled.  It  is  still  the  practice  in  Egypt,  says  Reynier,  to 
remove  the  husk  or  outer  skin  from  the  lentil,  and  in 
this  case  they  are  a pale  red.  The  Berbers  have  the 
Semitic  name  ad'es  for  the  lentil.5 

The  Greeks  cultivated  the  species — -fakos  or  fakai. 
Aristophanes  mentions  it  as  an  article  of  food  of  the 
poor.6  The  Latins  called  it  lens,  a name  whose  origin  is 
unknown,  which  is  evidently  allied  to  the  ancient  Slav 
lesha,  Illyrian  lechja,  Lithuanian  lenszic?  The  differ- 
ence between  the  Greek  and  Latin  names  shows  that  the 
species  perhaps  existed  in  Greece  and  Italy  befoi'e  it  was 
cultivated.  Another  proof  of  ancient  existence  in  Europe 
is  the  discovery  of  lentils  in  the  lake-dwellings  of  St. 
Peter’s  Island,  Lake  of  Bienne,8  which  arc  of  the  age  of 

1 Georgi,  in  Ledebonr,  FI.  Ross. 

* Forskal,  FI.  JEgypt. ; Delile,  Plant.  Cult,  en  £gypte,  p.  13. 

5 Ebn  Baithar,  ii.  p.  134. 

* lloynier,  Jiconomie publique  et  rurale  des  Arabes  et  desJuifs,  Gonfcve, 
1820,  p.  429. 

5 Diet.  Fravf.-Berbire,  in  8vo,  1814. 

• Hehn,  Culturpflanzen,  etc.,  edit.  3,  vol.  ii.  p.  188. 

7 Ad.  l’ictet,  Grig  i ties  lnd.o-Europee.nnes,  edit.  2,  vol.  i.  p.  3G4j 
Hehn,  ubi  supra. 

• Heer,  Pjlanzen  der  Pfahlbauten,  p.  23,  fig.  49. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


323 


bronze.  The  species  may  have  been  introduced  from 
Italy. 

According  to  Theophrastus,1  the  inhabitants  of  Bac- 
triana  (the  modern  Bokhara)  did  not  know  the  fakos  of 
the  Greeks.  Adolphe  Pictet  quotes  a Persian  name, 
mangw  or  margu,  but  he  does  not  say  whether  it  is  an 
ancient  name,  existing,  for  instance,  in  the  Zend  Avesta. 
He  admits  several  Sanskrit  names  for  the  lentil,  mas  Lira, 
renuka,  mangalya,  etc.,  while  Anglo-Indian  botanists, 
Roxburgh  and  Piddington,  knew  none.2  As  these 
authors  mention  an  analogous  name  in  Hindustani  and 
Bengali,  mussouv,  we  may  suppose  that  masura  signifies 
lentil,  while  manga  in  Persian  recalls  the  other  name 
mangalya.  As  Roxburgh  and  Piddington  give  no  name 
in  other  Indian  languages,  it  may  be  supposed  that  the 
lentil  was  not  known  in  this  country  before  the  invasion 
of  the  Sanskrit-speaking  race.  Ancient  Chinese  works 
do  not  mention  the  species;  at  least,  Dr.  Bretschneider 
says  nothing  of  them  in  his  work  published  in  1870,  nor 
in  the  more  detailed  letters  which  he  has  since  written 
to  me. 

The  lentil  appears  to  have  existed  in  western  tem- 
perate Asia,  in  Greece,  and  in  Italy,  where  its  cultivation 
was  first  undertaken  in  very  early  prehistoric  time,  when 
it  was  introduced  into  Egypt.  Its  cultivation  appears 
to  have  been  extended  at  a less  remote  epoch,  but  still 
hardly  in  historic  time,  both  east  and  west,  that  is  into 
Europe  and  India. 

Chick-Pea— Cicer  arietinum,  Linnaeus. 

Fifteen  species  of  the  genus  Cicer  are  known,  all  of 
Western  Asia  or  Greece,  except  one,  which  is  Abyssinian. 
It  seems,  therefore,  most  probable  that  the  cultivated 
species  comes  from  the  tract  of  land  lying  between 
Greece  and  the  Himalayas,  vaguely  termed  the  East. 
The  species  has  not  been  found  undoubtedly  wild.  All 
the  floras  of  the  south  of  Europe,  of  Egypt,  and  of 
Western  Asia  as  far  as  the  Caucasus  and  India,  give  it  as 
a cultivated  species,  or  growing  in  fields  and  cultivated 

1 Theophrastus,  Hist.,  lib.  iv.  cap.  5. 

1 Roxburgh,  FI.  lnd.,  edit.  1832,  vol.  iii.  p.  324;  Piddington,  Index. 


324 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


grounds.  It  has  sometimes1  been  indicated  in  the 
Crimea,  and  to  the  north,  and  especially  to  the  south  of 
the  Caucasus,  as  nearly  wild  ; but  well-informed  modem 
authors  do  not  think  so.2  This  quasi-wildness  can  only 
point  to  its  origin  in  Armenia  and  the  neighbouring 
countries.  The  cultivation  and  the  names  of  the  species 
may  perhaps  throw  some  light  on  the  question. 

The  Greeks  cultivated  this  species  of  pea  as  early  as 
Homer’s  time,  under  the  name  of  erehinthos ,8  and  also  of 
krios ,4  from  the  resemblance  of  the  pea  to  the  head  of  a 
ram.  The  Latins  called  it  cicer,  which  is  the  origin  of 
all  the  modern  names  in  the  south  of  Europe.  The 
name  exists  also  among  the  Albanians,  descendants  of  the 
Pelasgians,  under  the  form  Jdkere.6  The  existence  of 
such  widely  different  names  shows  that  the  plant  was 
very  early  known,  and  perhaps  indigenous,  in  the  south- 
east of  Europe. 

The  chick-pea  has  not  been  found  in  the  lake-dwell- 
ings of  Switzerland,  Savoy,  and  Italy.  In  the  first- 
named  locality  its  absence  is  not  singular ; the  climate  is 
not  hot  enough.  A common  name  among  the  peoples  of 
the  south  of  the  Caucasus  and  of  the  Caspian  Sea'  is,  in 
Georgian,  nachuda ; in  Turkish  and  Armenian,  nachius, 
nachnnt ; in  Persian,  nochot.6  Philologists  can  tell  if  this 
is  a very  ancient  name,  and  if  it  has  any  connection  with 
the  Sanskrit  chennuka. 

The  chick-pea  is  so  frequently  cultivated  in  Egypt 
from  the  earliest  times  of  the  Christian  era,7  that  it  is 
supposed  to  have  been  also  known  to  the  ancient 
Egyptians.  There  is  no  proof  to  be  found  in  the  draw- 
ings or  stores  of  grain  in  their  monuments,  but  it  may  be 
supposed  that  this  pea,  like  the  bean  and  the  lentil,  was 

1 Ledebour,  FI.  Ross.,  i.  p.  GOO,  according  to  Pallas,  Falk,  and  Koch. 

z Boisaier,  FI.  Orient.,  ii.  p.  560;  Steven,  Verzeichniss  des  Taurischen 
Hablinseln,  p.  134. 

3 Iliad,  bk.  13,  verso  589  ; Theophrastus,  Hist.,  lib.  viii.  c.  3. 

4 Dioscorides,  lib.  ii.  c.  126. 

3 Heldreich,  Nutzpflanzen  Griecherdands,  p.  71. 

« Nemnich,  Polyglott.  Let.,  i.  p.  1037 ; Range,  in  Goebels  Reise,  ii.  p. 
328 

7 Clement  d’AIexnndrie,  Strom-,  lib.  i.,  quoted  from  Reynicr,  £con.  des 
£gyjp.  et  Carthag.,  p.  343. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


325 


considered  common  or  unclean.  Reynier1  thought  that 
the  ketsech,  mentioned  by  Isaiah  in  the  Old  Testament, 
was  perhaps  the  chick-pea;  but  this  name  is  generally 
attributed,  though  without  certainty,  to  Nigella  sativa 
or  Vieia  sativa .3  As  the  Arabs  have  a totally  different 
name  for  the  chick-pea,  omnos,  homos,  which  recurs  in 
the  Kabyl  language  as  havimez ,8  it  is  not  likely  that 
the  ketsech  of  the  Jews  was  the  same  plant.  These  de- 
tails lead  me  to  suspect  that  the  species  was  unknown 
to  the  ancient  Egyptians  and  to  the  Hebrews.  It  was 
perhaps  introduced  among  them  from  Greece  or  Italy 
towards  the  beginning  of  our  era. 

It  is  of  more  ancient  introduction  into  India,  for 
there  is  a Sanskrit  name,  and  several  others,  analogous  or 
different,  in  modern  Indian  languages.1  Bretschneider 
does  not  mention  the  species  in  China. 

I do  not  know  of  any  proof  of  antiquity  of  culture  in 
Spain,  yet  the  Castilian  name  garbanzo,  used  also  by 
the  Basques  under  the  form  gavbantzua,  and  by  the 
French  as  garvance,  being  neither  Latin  nor  Arabic,  may 
date  from  an  epoch  anterior  to  the  Roman  conquest. 

Botanical,  historical,  and  philological  data  agree  in 
indicating  a habitation  anterior  to  cultivation  in  the 
' countries  to  the  south  of  the  Caucasus  and  to  the  north 
of  Persia.  The  western  Aryans  (Pelasgians,  Hellenes) 
1 perhaps  introduced  the  plant  into  Southern  Europe, 
* where,  however,  there  is  some  probability  that  it  was  also 
indigenous.  The  western  Aryans  carried  it  into  India. 
Its  area  perhaps  extended  from  Persia  to  Greece,  and  the 
species  now  exists  only  in  cultivated  ground,  where  we 
do  not  know  whether  it  springs  from  a stock  originally 
wild  or  from  cultivated  plants. 

Lupin — Lwpvnus  albas,  Linnaeus. 

The  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans  cultivated  this 
leguminous  plant  to  bury  it  as  a green  manure,  and  also 

1 Reynier,  Aeon,  ties  Arabea  et  Juift,  p.  430. 

2 Rosemniillcr,  Bill.  Alterth.,  i.  p.  100 ; Hamilton,  Bot.  de  la  Bible,  p. 
180. 

1 Ranwolf,  FI.  Orient.,  No.  220;  Forskal,  FI.  JEgypt.,  p.  81;  Diet. 
Franf.-Berbere. 

* Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.,  iii.  p.  324 ; Piddington,  Index. 


326 


OKIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


for  the  sake  of  the  seeds,  which  are  a good  fodder  for 
cattle,  and  which  are  also  used  by  man.  The  expressions 
of  Theophrastus,  Dioscorides,  Cato,  Varro,  Pliny,  etc., 
quoted  by  modern  writers,  refer  to  the  culture  or  to  the  ' 
medical  properties  of  the  seeds,  and  do  not  show  whether 
the  species  was  the  white  lupin,  L.  albus,  or  the  blue- 
flowered  lupin,  L.  hirmtus,  which  grows  wild  in  the 
south  of  Europe.  Fraas  says 1 that  the  latter  is  grown  in 
the  Morea  at  the  present  day  ; but  Heldreich  says 2 that 
L.  albus  grows  in  Attica.  As  this  is  the  species  which 
has  been  long  cultivated  in  Italy,  it  is  probable  that  it  is 
the  lupin  of  the  ancients.  It  was  much  grown  in  the 
eighteenth  century,  especially  in  Italy,8  and  de  l’Ecluse 
settles  the  question  of  the  species,  as  he  calls  it  Lwpinvs 
sativus  albo  jiore ,4  The  antiquity  of  its  cultivation  in 
Spain  is  shown  by  the  existence  of  four  different  common 
names,  according  to  the  province ; but  the  plant  is  only 
found  cultivated  or  nearly  wild  in  fields  and  sandy 
places.5  The  species  is  indicated  by  Bertoloni  in  Italy, 
on  the  hills  of  Sarzana.  Yet  Caruel  does  not  believe 
it  to  be  wild  here,  any  more  than  in  other  parts  of  the 
peninsula.0  Gussone 7 is  very  positive  for  Sicily — “ on 
barren  and  sandy  hills,  and  in  meadows  (in  herbidis).” 
Lastly,  Grisebach8  found  it  in  Turkey  in  Europe,  near 
Ruskoi,  and  d’Urville 9 saw  it  in  abundance,  in  a wood 
near  Constantinople.  Castagne  confirms  this  in  a manu- 
script catalogue  in  my  possession.  Boissier  does  not  men- 
tion any  locality  in  the  East ; the  species  does  not  exist 
in  India,  but  Russian  botanists  have  found  it  to  the 
south  of  the  Caucasus,  though  we  do  not  know  with 
certainty  if  it  was  really  wild.10  Other  localities  will 
perhaps  be  found  between  Sicily,  Macedonia,  and  the 
Caucasus. 

1 See  Fraas,  FI.  Class.,  p.  51 ; Lenz.,  Bot.  der  Alten,  p.  73. 

1 JTeldreich,  Nutzpflanzen  Griechenlands,  p.  69. 

s Olivier  de  Serres,  Thedtre  de  VAgric.,  edit.  1529,  p.  88. 

« Clnsius,  Hist.  Plant.,  ii.  p.  228. 

8 Willkonim  and  Lange,  FI.  Uisp.,  iii.  p.  466. 

6 Camel,  Ft.  Toscana,  p.  136. 

1 Gussone,  FI.  Simla;  Syn.,  edit.  2,  vol.  ii.  p.  466. 

» Grisebach,  Spicil.  FI.  Rumel.,  p.  11.  9 D’Urville,  Enum.,  p.  86. 

10  Ledebour,  FI.  Ross.,  i.  p.  510. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


327 


Egyptian  Lupin — Lupinus  termis,  Forskal. 

This  species  of  lupin,  so  nearly  allied  to  L.  albus  that 
it  has  sometimes  been  proposed  to  unite  them,1  is  largely 
cultivated  in  Egypt  and  even  in  Crete.  The  most 
obvious  difference  is  that  the  upper  part  of  the  flowers 
of  L.  termis  is  blue.  The  stem  is  taller  than  that  of 
L.  albus.  The  seeds  are  used  like  those  of  the  common 
lupin,  after  they  have  been  steeped  to  get  rid  of  their 
bitterness. 

L.  tevmis  is  wild  in  sandy  soil  and  mountainous  dis- 
tricts, in  Sicily,  Sardinia,  and  Corsica ; 2 in  Syria  and 
Egypt,  according  to  Boissier ; 3 but  Schweinfurth  and  As- 
cherson  4 say  that  it  is  only  cultivated  in  Egypt.  Hart- 
mann saw  it  wild  in  Upper  Egypt.5  Unger  0 mentions 
it  among  the  cultivated  specimens  of  the  ancient  Egyp- 
tians, but  he  gives  neither  specimen  nor  drawing.  Wil- 
kinson 7 says  only  that  it  has  been  found  in  the  tombs. 

No  lupin  is  grown  in  India,  nor  is  there  any  Sanskrit 
name;  its  seeds  are  sold  in  bazaars  under  the  name 
tourmus  (Royle,  III.,  p.  194). 

The  Arabic  name,  t&rrnis  or  termus,  is  also  that  of  the 
Greek  lupin,  teimios.  It  may  be  inferred  that  the  Greeks 
had  it  from  the  Egyptians.  As  the  species  was  known 
to  the  ancient  Egyptians,  it  seems  strange  that  it  has  no 
Hebrew  name ; 8 but  it  may  have  been  introduced  into 
Egypt  after  the  departure  of  the  Israelites. 

Field-Pea — Pisum  arvense,  Linnaeus. 

This  pea  is  grown  on  a large  scale  for  the  seed,  and 
also  sometimes  for  fodder.  Although  its  appearance  and 
botanical  characters  allow  of  its  being  easily  distinguished 
from  the  garden-pea,  Greek  and  Roman  authors  con- 
founded them,  or  are  not  explicit  about  them.  Their 
writings  do  not  prove  that  it  was  cultivated  in  their 
time.  It  has  not  been  found  in  the  lake-dwellings  of 

1 Caruel,  FI.  Tosc.,  p.  136. 

1 Gussone,  FI.  Sic.  Syn.,  ii.  p.  267;  Moris,  FI.  Sardoa,  i.  p.  i>9<’- 

» Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  ii.  p.  29.  4 Avjz&hlung,  etc.,  p.  257. 

5 Schweinfurth,  Plantce  Nilot.  a Hartman  Coll.,  p.  6. 

* Unger,  Pflanzen  d.  Alt.  Aigyp.,  p.  65.  . .. 

r j 7 Wilkinson,  Mannere  and  Customs  of  the  Ancient  Egyptians,  ii.  p.  10o. 

* Rosenmuller,  Bibl.  Alterth.,  vol.  i. 


328 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Switzerland,  France,  and  Italy.  Bobbio  has  a legend  ■ 
(a.d.  930),  in  which  it  is  said  that  the  Italian  peasants 
called  a certain  seed  herb  ilia,  whence  it  has  been  sup- 
posed to  be  the  modern  rubiglia  or  the  Pisum  sativum  of 
botanists.1  The  species  is  cultivated,  in  the  East,  and  as 
far  as  the  north  of  India.'2  It  is  of  recent  cultivation  in 
the  latter  country,  for  there  is  no  Sanskrit  name,  and 
Piddington  gives  only  one  name  in  one  of  the  modern 
languages. 

Whatever  may  be  the  date  of  the  introduction  of  its 
culture,  the  species  is  undoubtedly  wild  in  Italy,  not  only 
in  hedges  and  near  cultivated  ground,  but  also  in  forests 
and  wild  mountainous  districts.8  I find  no  positive 
indication  in  the  floras  that  it  grows  in  like  manner 
in  Spain,  Algeria,  Greece,  and  the  East.  The  plant  is 
said  to  be  indigenous  in  the  south  of  Russia,  but  some- 
times its  wild  character  is  doubtful,  and  sometimes  the 
species  itself  is  not  certain,  from  a confusion  with  Pisum 
sativum  and  P.  elatius.  Of  all  Anglo-Indian  botanists, 
only  Royle  admits  it  to  be  indigenous  in  the  north  of 
India. 

Garden-Pea — Pisum  sativum,  Linnaeus. 

The  pea  of  our  kitchen  gardens  is  more  delicate  than 
the  field-pea,  and  sutlers  from  frost  and  drought.  Its 
natural  area,  previous  to  cultivation,  was  probably  more 
to  the  south  and  more  restricted.  It  has  not  hitherto 
been  found  wild,  either  in  Europe  or  in  the  west  of  Asia, 
whence  it  is  supposed  to  have  come.  Bieberstein’s  indica- 
tion of  the  species  in  the  Crimea  is  not  correct,  according 
to  Steven,  who  was  a resident  in  the  country.4  Perhaps 
botanists  have  overlooked  its  habitation ; perhaps  the 
plant  has  disappeared  from  its  original  dwelling ; perhaps 
also  it  is  a mere  modification,  effected  by  culture,  of 
Pisum  arvense.  Alefeld  held  the  latter  opinion,5  but  he 

1 Muratori,  Antich.  Ital.,  I.  p.  317 ; Diss.,  24,  quoted  by  Targioni, 
Genni  Storici,  p.  31. 

1 Boissior,  FI.  Orient.,  ii.  p.  623 ; Royle,  III.  Himal.,  p.  200. 

* Bertoloni,  FI.  Ital.,  vii.  p.  419;  Caruel,  FI.  Tosc.,  p.  184;  Gussone, 
FI.  Sic.  Synopsis,  ii.  p.  279 ; Moris,  FI.  Sardoa,  i.  p.  577. 

* Steven,  Verzeichniss,  p.  134. 

5 Alefeld,  Bot.  Zeituwj.,  1860,  p.  204 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  TUEIR  SEEDS. 


329 


has  published  too  little  on  the  subject  for  us  to  be  able 
to  conclude  anything  from  it.  He  only  says  that,  having 
cultivated  a great  number  of  varieties  both  of  the  field 
and  garden  pea,  he  concludes  that  they  belong  to  the 
same  species.  Darwin  1 learnt  through  a third  person 
that  Andrew  Knight  had  crossed  the  field-pea  with  a 
garden  variety  known  as  the  Prussian  pea,  and  that  the 
product  was  fertile.  This  would  certainly  be  a proof 
of  specific  unity,  but  further  observation  and  experi- 
ment is  required.  In  the  mean  time,  in  the  search  for 
geographic  origin,  etc.,  I am  obliged  to  consider  the  two 
forms  separately. 

Botanists  who  distinguish  many  species  in  the  genus 
Pisum,  admit  eight,  all  European  or  Asiatic.  Pisuvi 
sativum  was  cultivated  by  the  Greeks  in  the  time  of 
Theophrastus.2  They  called  it  pisos,  or  pison.  The 
Albanians,  descendants  of  the  Pelasgians,  call  it  pizelle ,3 
The  Latins  had  pisum  * This  uniformity  of  nomencla- 
ture seems  to  show  that  the  Aryans  knew  the  plant 
when  they  arrived  in  Greece  and  Italy,  and  perhaps 
brought  it  with  them.  Other  Aryan  languages  have 
several  names  for  the  generic  sense  of  pea ; but  it  is 
evident,  from  Adolphe  Pictet’s  learned  discussion  on  the 
subject,5  that  none  of  these  names  can  be  applied  to 
Pisum  sativum  in  particular.  Even  when  one  of  the 
modern  languages,  Slav  or  Breton,  limits  the  sense  to  the 
garden-pea,  it  is  very  probable  that  formerly  the  word 
signified  field-pea,  lentil,  or  any  other  leguminous  plant. 

The  garden-pea  6 has  been  found  among  the  remains 
in  the  lake-dwellings  of  the  age  of  bronze,  in  Switzerland 
and  Savoy.  The  seed  is  spherical,  wherein  it  differs  from 
Pisum  arvense.  It  is  smaller  than  our  modern  pea. 
Heer  says  he  found  it  also  among  relics  of  the  stone  age, 

Darwin,  Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication,  p.  326. 

Theophrastus,  Hist.,  lib.  viii.  c.  3 and  5. 

3 Heldreich,  Nntzpflanzcn  Oriechenlands,  p.  71. 

Pliny,  Hist.,  lib.  xviii.  c.  7 and  12.  This  is  cortainly  P.  sativum, 
for  the  author  says  it  cannot  bear  the  cold. 

* Pictet,  Origines  Indo-Europdenncs,  edit.  2,  vol.  i.  p.  359. 

Heer,  Pjlanzen  der  PfaMbaiiten,  xxiii.  fig.  48  j Perrin,  /it odes  Prd. 
historiques  sur  la  Savoie,  p.  22. 


330 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


at  Moosseedorf;  but  he  is  less  positive,  and  only  gives 
figures  of  the  less  ancient  pea  of  St.  Peter’s  Island.  If 
the  species  dates  from  the  stone  age  in  Switzerland,  it 
would  be  anterior  to  the  immigration  of  the  Aiyans. 

There  is  no  indication  of  the  culture  of  Pimm  sativum 
in  ancient  Egypt  or  in  India.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has 
long  been  cultivated  in  the  north  of  India,  if  it  had,  as 
Piddington  says,  a Sanskrit  name,  harenso,  and  if  it  has 
several  names  very  different  to  this  in  modern  Indian 
languages.1 *  It  has  been  introduced  into  China  from 
Western  Asia.  The  Pent-sao,  drawn  up  at  the  end  of 
the  sixteenth  century,  calls  it  the  Mahometan  pea.3  In 
conclusion  : the  species  seems  to  have  existed  in  Western 
Asia,  perhaps  from  the  south  of  the  Caucasus  to  Persia, 
before  it  was  cultivated.  The  Aryans  introduced  it  into 
Europe,  but  it  perhaps  existed  in  Northern  India  before 
the  arrival  of  the  eastern  Aryans.  It  no  longer  exists  in 
a wild  state,  and  when  it  occurs  in  fields,  half- wild,  it  is 
not  said  to  have  a modified  form  so  as  to  approach  some 
other  species. 

Soy — JJolichos  soja,  Linmeus  ; Glycine  soja,  Bentham. 

This  leguminous  annual  has  been  cultivated  in  China 
and  Japan  from  remote  antiquity.  This  might  be 
gathered  from  the  many  uses  of  the  soy  bean  and  from 
the  immense  number  of  varieties.  But  it  is  also  supposed 
to  be  one  of  the  farinaceous  substances  called  mu  in 
Chinese  writings  of  Confucius’  time,  though  the  modem 
name  of  the  plant  is  ta-tou.a  The  bean  is  nourishing, 
and  contains  a large  proportion  of  oil,  and  preparations 
similar  to  butter,  oil,  and  cheese  are  extracted  from  it  and 
used  in  Chinese  and  Japanese  cooking.4 5  Soy  is  also 
grown  in  the  Malay  Archipelago,  but  at  the  end  of  the 
eighteenth  century  it  was  still  rare  in  Amboyna,6  and 
Forster  did  not  see  it  in  the  Pacific  Isles  at  the  time  of 
Cook’s  voyages.  It  is  of  modern  introduction  in  India, 

1 Piddington,  Index.  Roxburgh  does  not  give  a Sanskrit  name. 

! Bretschneider,  Study  and  Value,  etc.,  p.  16. 

3 Ibid.,  p.  9. 

4 See  Pailleux,  in  Bull,  de  la  Soc.  d'Acclim.,  Sept,  and  Oct.,  1880. 

5 Rumphius,  Amb.,  vol.  v.  p.  388. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


331 


for  Roxburgh  had  only  seen  the  plant  in  the  botanical 
gardens  at  Calcutta,  where  it  was  brought  from  the  Mo- 
luccas.1 There  are  no  common  Indian  names.2  Besides, 
if  its  cultivation  had  been  ancient  in  India,  it  would 
have  spread  westward  into  Syria  and  Egypt,  which  is 
not  the  case. 

Keempfer  8 formerly  published  an  excellent  illustration 
of  the  soy  bean,  and  it  had  existed  for  a century  in 
European  botanical  gardens,  when  more  extensive  infor- 
mation about  China  and  Japan  excited  about  ten  years 
ago  a lively  desire  to  introduce  it  into  our  countries.  In 
Austria,  Hungary,  and  France  especially,  attempts  have 
been  made  on  a large  scale,  of  which  the  results  have 
been  summed  up  in  works  worthy  of  consultation.4  It 
is  to  be  hoped  these  efforts  may  be  successful ; but  we 
must  not  digress  from  the  aim  of  our  researches,  the 
probable  origin  of  the  species. 

Linnaeus  says,  in  his  Species,  “ habitat  in  India,”  and 
refers  to  Kaempfer,  who  speaks  of  the  plant  in  Japan,  and 
to  his  own  flora  of  Ceylon,  where  he  gives  the  plant  as 
cultivated.  Thwaites’s  modern  flora  of  Ceylon  makes  no 
mention  of  it.  We  must  evidently  go  further  east  to  find 
the  origin  both  of  the  species  and  of  its  cultivation.  Lou- 
reiro  says  that  it  grows  in  Cochin-China  and  that  it  is 
often  cultivated  in  China.6  I find  no  proof  that  it  is  wild 
in  the  latter  country,  but  it  may  perhaps  be  discovered,  as 
its  culture  is  so  ancient.  Russian  botanists  6 have  only 
found  it  cultivated  in  the  north  of  China  and  in  the 
basin  of  the  river  Amur.  It  is  certainly  wild  in  Japan.7 
Junghuhn8  found  it  in  Java  on  Mount  Gunung-Gamping, 
and  a plant  sent  also  from  Java  by  Zollinger  is  supposed 
to  belong  to  this  species,  but  it  is  not  certain  that  the 

1 Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.,  iii.  p.  314.  2 Piddington,  Index. 

* Kaempfer,  Amer.  Exot.,  p.  837,  pi.  838. 

4 Haberlandt,  Die  Sojabohne,  in  8vo,  Vienna,  1878,  quoted  by  Pailleux, 
ubi  supra . 

5 Loureiro,  FI.  Cochin.,  ii.  p.  538. 

6 Bunge,  Enum.  Plant.  Chin.,  118;  Maximowioz,  Primit.  FI.  Amur., 
p.  87. 

' Miquel,  Prolusio,  in  Ann.  Mus.  Lugd.  Bat.,  iii.  p.  52;  Franohct  and 
Savatier,  Enum.  Plant.  Jap.,  i.  p.  108. 

8 Junghuhn,  Plantce  Jwngh.,  p.  255. 


332 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


specimen  was  wild.1  A Malay  name,  lcadelee ,2 3  quite 
different  to  the  Japanese  and  Chinese  common  names,  is 
in  favour  of  its  indigenous  character  in  Java. 

Known  facts  and  historical  and  philological  probabilities 
tend  to  show  that  the  species  was  wild  from  Cochin-China 
to  the  south  of  Japan  and  to  Java  when  the  ancient 
inhabitants  of  this  region  began  to  cultivate  it  at  a very 
remote  period,  to  use  it  for  food  in  various  ways,  and  to 
obtain  from  it  varieties  of  which  the  number  is  remark- 
able, especially  in  Japan. 

Pigeon-Pea  — Cajanas  indicus,  Sprengel;  Cytisus 
Cajan,  Linmeus. 

This  leguminous  plant,  often  grown  in  tropical  coun- 
tries, is  a shrub,  but  it  fruits  in  the  first  year,  and  in 
some  countries  it  is  grown  as  an  annual.  Its  seed  is  an 
important  article  of  the  food  of  the  negroes  and  natives, 
but  the  European  colonists  do  not  care  for  it  unless 
cooked  green  like  our  garden-pea.  The  plant  is  easily 
naturalized  in  poor  soil  round  cultivated  plots,  even  in 
the  West  India  Islands,  where  it  is  not  indigenous.8 

In  Mauritius  it  is  called  ambrevade ; in  the  English 
colonies,  doll,  pigeon-pea;  and  in  the  French  Antilles, 
2>ois  d’ Angola,  pois  de  Congo,  pois  pigeon. 

It  is  remarkable  that,  though  the  species  is  diffused  in 
three  continents,  the  varieties  are  not  numerous.  Two 
are  cited,  based  only  upon  the  yellow  or  reddish  colour 
of  the  flower,  which  wei-e  formerly  regarded  as  distinct 
species;  but  a more  attentive  examination  has  resulted  in 
their  being  classed  as  one,  in  accordance  with  Linnaeus’ 
opinion.4 * *  The  small  number  of  variations  obtained  even 
in  the  organ  for  which  the  species  is  cultivated  is  a sign 
of  no  very  ancient  culture.  Its  habitation  previous  to 
culture  is  uncertain.  The  best  botanists  have  sometimes 
supposed  it  to  be  a native  of  India,  sometimes  of  tropical 

1 Soja  angustifolia,  Miquel ; see  Hooker,  FI.  Brit.  Ind.,  ii.  p.  184. 

2 Rumphiua,  Amb.,  vol.  v.  p.  388. 

3 Tusaao,  Flore  des  Antilles,  vol.  iv.  p.  94,  pi.  32;  Grisebach , FI.  of 
Brit.  W.  Indies,  i.  p.  191. 

4 See  Wight  and  Arnott,  Prod.  Ft.  Penins.  Ind.,  p.  256  ; Klotzsch,  in 

Peters,  Reise  nach  Mozambique,  i.  p.  30.  The  yellow  variety  is  figured 

in  Tussac,  that  with  the  red  flowers  in  the  Bota  nical  Register,  1845,  pi.  31. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


333 


Africa.  Bentham,  who  has  made  a careful  study  of  the 
leguminous  plants,  believed  in  1861  in  the  African  origin  ; 
in  1865  he  inclined  rather  to  Asia.1  The  problem  is, 
therefore,  an  interesting  one.  There  is  no  question  of  an 
American  origin.  The  cajan  was  introduced  into  the 
West  Indies  from  the  coast  of  Africa  by  the  slave  trade, 
as  the  common  names  quoted  above  show,2  and  the 
unanimous  opinion  of  authors  or  American  floras.  It 
has  also  been  taken  to  Brazil,  Guiana,  and  into  all  the 
warm  parts  of  the  American  continent. 

The  facility  with  which  the  species  is  naturalized 
would  alone  prevent  attaching  great  importance  to  the 
statements  of  collectors,  who  have  found  it  more  or  less 
wild  in  Asia  or  in  Africa;  and  besides,  these  assertions  are 
not  precise,  but  are  usually  doubtful.  Most  writers  on 
the  flora  of  continental  India  have  only  seen  the  plant 
cultivated,3  and  none,  to  my  knowledge,  aflirms  that  it 
exists  wild.  For  the  island  of  Ceylon  Th waites  says,4 * 
“ It  is  said  not  to  be  really  wild,  and  the  country  names 
seem  to  confirm  this.”  Sir  Joseph  Hooker,  in  his  Flora 
of  British  India,  says,  “Wild  (?)  and  cultivated  to  the 
height  of  six  thousand  feet  in  the  Himalayas.”  Loureiro  6 
gives  it  as  cultivated  and  non-cultivated  in  China  and 
Cochin-China.  Chinese  authors  do  not  appear  to  have 
spoken  of  it,  for  the  species  is  not  named  by  Bretschneider 
in  his  work  On  the  Study,  etc.  In  the  Sunda  Isles  it 
is  mentioned  as  cultivated,  and  that  rarely,  at  Amboyna 
at  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  according  to  Rum- 
phius.0  Forster  had  not  seen  it  in  the  Pacific  Isles  at  the 
time  of  Cook’s  voyages,  but  Seemann  says  that  it  has 
been  recently  introduced  by  missionaries  into  the  Fiji 
Isles.7  All  this  argues  no  very  ancient  extension  of  cul- 
tivation to  the  east  and  south  of  the  continent  of  Asia. 
Besides  the  quotation  from  Loureiro,  I find  the  species 

1 Bentham,  Flora  Hongkongensu,  p.  89  ; Flora  Brasil.,  vol.  xv.  p.  199; 

Bentham  and  Hooker,  i.  p.  511. 

1 Tussac,  Flore  des  Antilles  ; Jacquin,  Ohs.,  p.  1. 

1 Rheede,  Roxburgh,  Kurz,  Harm.  FI.,  etc. 

* Thwaites,  Enum.  PI.  Ceylan.  i Loureiro,  FI.  Cochin.,  p.  5G5. 

8 Rntnphius,  Amb.,  vol.  v.  t.  135. 

1 Seemann,  FI.  Vitiensis,  p.  74. 


331 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


indicated  on  the  mountain  of  Magelang,  Java  j1  hut,  sup- 
posing this  to  be  a true  and  ancient  wild  growth  in  both 
cases,  it  would  be  very  extraordinary  not  to  find  the 
species  in  many  other  Asiatic  localities. 

The  abundance  of  Indian  and  Malay  names  2 * shows 
a somewhat  ancient  cultivation.  Piddington  even  gives 
a Sanskrit  name,  arhuku,  which  was  not  known  to  Rox- 
burgh, but  he  gives  no  proof  in  support  of  his  assertion. 
The  name  may  have  been  merely  supposed  from  the 
Hindu  and  Bengali  names  urur  and  orol.  No  Semitic 
name  is  known. 

In  Africa  the  cajan  is  often  found  from  Zanzibar  to 
the  coast  of  Guinea.8  Authors  say  it  is  cultivated,  or 
else  make  no  statement  on  this  head,  which  would  seem 
to  show  that  the  specimens  are  sometimes  wild.  In 
Egypt  this  cultivation  is  quite  modern,  of  the  nineteenth 
century.4 

Briefly,  then,  I doubt  that  the  species  is  really  wild 
in  Asia,  and  that  it  has  been  grown  there  for  more  than 
three  thousand  years.  If  more  ancient  peoples  had  known 
it,  it  would  have  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Arabs  and 
Egyptians  before  our  time.  In  tropical  Africa,  on  the 
contrary,  it  is  possible  that  it  has  existed  wild  or  culti- 
vated for  a very  long  time,  and  that  it  was  introduced 
into  Asia  by  ancient  travellers  trading  between  Zanzibar 
and  India  or  Ceylon. 

The  genus  Cajanus  has  only  one  species,  so  that  no 
analogy  of  geographical  distribution  leads  us  to  believe  it 
to  be  rather  of  Asiatic  than  African  origin,  or  vice  versa. 

Carob  Tree  5 — Ceratonia  siliqua,  Linnaeus. 

The  seeds  and  pods  of  the  carob  are  highly  prized  in 
the  hotter  parts  of  the  Mediterranean  basin,  as  food  for 
animals  and  even  for  man.  He  Gasparin  6 * has  given  in- 

1 Junghuhn,  Planted  Jungh.,  fasc.  i.  p.  241. 

2 Piddington,  Index ; Rheede,  Malab.,  vi.  p.  23,  etc. 

2 Pickering,  Chron.  Arrang.  of  Plants,  p.  442 ; Peters,  Reise,  p.  36 ; 
R.  Brown,  Bot.  of  Congo,  p.  53 ; Oliver,  FI.  of  Trop.  Afr.,  ii.  p.  216. 

* Bulletin  de  la  Socitte  d' Acclimation,  1871,  p.  663. 

5 The  species  is  given  here  in  order  not  to  separate  it  from  the  other 

leguminous  plants  cultivated  for  the  seeds  alone. 

° 8 De  Gasparin,  Cours.  d’Agric.,  iv.  p.  328. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


335 


teresting  details  about  tlie  raising,  uses,  and  habitation  of 
the  species  as  a cultivated  tree.  He  notes  that  it  does 
not  pass  the  northern  limit  beyond  which  the  orange 
cannot  be  grown  without  shelter.  This  fine  evergreen 
tree  does  not  thrive  either  in  very  hot  countries,  especially 
where  there  is  much  humidity.  It  likes  the  neighbour- 
hood of  the  sea  and  rocky  places.  Its  original  country, 
according  to  Gasparin,  is  “ probably  the  centre  of  Africa. 
Denham  and  Clapperton  found  it  in  Burnou.”  This 
proof  seems  to  me  insufficient,  for  in  all  the  Nile  Valley 
and  in  Abyssinia  the  carob  is  not  wild  nor  even  culti- 
vated.1 R.  Brown  does  not  mention  it  in  his  account  of 
Denham  and  Clapperton’s  journey.  Travellers  have  seen 
it  in  the  forests  of  Cyrenaica  between  the  high-lands 
and  the  littoral ; but  the  able  botanists  who  have  drawn 
up  the  catalogue  of  the  plants  of  this  country  are  careful 
to  say,2  “perhaps  indigenous.”  Most  botanists  merely 
mention  the  species  in  the  centre  and  south  of  the  Medi- 
terranean basin,  from  Spain  and  Marocco  to  Syria  and 
Anatolia,  without  inquiring  closely  whether  it  is  indi- 
genous or  cultivated,  and  without  entering  upon  the 
question  of  its  true  country  previous  to  cultivation. 
Usually  they  indicate  the  carob  tree,  as  “ cultivated  and 
subspontaneous,  or  nearly  wild.”  However,  it  is  stated  to 
be  wild  in  Greece  by  Heldreich,  in  Sicily  by  Gussone  and 
Bianca,  in  Algeria  by  Munby ; 8 and  these  authors  have 
each  lived  long  enough  in  the  country  for  which  each  is 
quoted  to  form  an  enlightened  opinion. 

Bianca  remarks,  however,  that  the  carob  tree  is  not 
always  healthy  and  productive  in  those  restricted  localities 
where  it  exists  in  Sicily,  in  the  small  adjacent  islands, 
and  on  the  coast  of  Italy.  He  puts  forward  the  opinion, 
moreover,  based  upon  the  similarity  of  the  Italian  name 
carruho  with  the  Arabic  word,  that  the  species  was 

1 Schweinfurth  and  Ascherson,  Aufzahlung,  p.  255  ; Richard,  Tentamen 
FI.  Abyxs. 

2 Ascherson,  etc.,  in  Rohls,  Kufra,  1 vol.  in  8vo,  1881,  p.  519. 

5 Heldreich,  Nutzpflanzen  Griechenlands,  p.  79 ; Die  PAanzen  dcr 
Attischen  Ebene,  p.  477 ; Gussono,  8yn.  FI.  Sic.,  p.  646  ; Bianca,  II  Camibo, 
in  the  Giornale  d’ Ayricoltura  Italiana,  1881 ; Munby,  Catal.  PI.  in  Aly. 
Spont.,  p.  13. 


33G 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


anciently  introduced  into  the  south  of  Europe,  the  species  1 
being  of  Syrian  or  north  African  origin.  He  maintains  ] 
as  probable  the  theory  of  Hoefer  and  Bonn^,1  that  the  ' 
lotus  of  the  lotophagi  was  the  carob  tree,  of  which  the 
flower  is  sweet  and  the  fruit  has  a taste  of  honey,  which 
agrees  with  the  expressions  of  Homer.  The  lotus-eaters 
dwelt  in  Cyrenaica,  so  that  the  carob  must  have  been 
abundant  in  their  country.  If  we  admit  this  hypothesis 
we  must  suppose  that  Pliny  and  Herodotus  did  not  know 
Homer’s  plant,  for  the  one  describes  the  lotos  as  bearing 
a fruit  like  a mastic  berry  ( Pistacia  lentiscus ),  the  other 
as  a deciduous  tree.2 

An  hypothesis  regarding  a doubtful  plant  formerly 
mentioned  by  a poet  can  hardly  serve  as  the  basis  of 
an  argument  upon  facts  of  natural  history.  After  all, 
Homer’s  lotus  plant  perhaps  existed  only  in  the  fabled 
garden  of  Hesperides.  I return  to  more  serious  argu- 
ments, on  which  Bianca  has  said  a few  words. 

The  carob  has  two  names  in  ancient  languages — the 
one  Greek,  keraunia  or  kerateia ; 8 the  other  Arabic, 
chirnub  or  charub.  The  first  alludes  to  the  form  of  the 
pod,  which  is  like  a slightly  curved  horn  ; the  other  means 
merely  pod,  for  we  find  in  Ebn  Baithar’s  4 work  that  four 
other  leguminous  plants  bear  the  same  name,  with  a quali- 
fying epithet.  The  Latins  had  no  special  name ; they 
used  the  Greek  word,  or  the  expression  siliqiui,  siliqua 
grceca  (Greek  pod).6  This  dearth  of  names  is  the  sign  of  a 
once  restricted  area,  and  of  a culture  which  probably  does 
not  date  from  prehistoric  time.  The  Greek  name  is  still 
retained  in  Greece.  The  Arab  name  persists  among  the 
Kabyles,  who  call  the  fruit  kharroub,  the  tree  takhar- 
rout ,6  and  the  Spaniards  algarrobo.  Curiously  enough, 


1 Hoefer,  Hint.  Bot.  Mindr.  et  G£oL,  1 vol.  in  12mo,  p.  20  ; Bonud,  Le 
Caroubier,  ou  I’Arbre  des  Lotophages,  Algiers,  1809  (quoted  by  Hcefer). 
See  above,  the  article  on  the  jujube  tree. 

2 Pliny,  Hint.,  lib.  i.  cap.  30. 

3 Theophrastus,  Hist.  Plant.,  lib.  i.  cap.  11 ; Dioscorides,  lib.  i. 
cap.  155;  Fraas,  Syn.  FI.  Class.,  p.  65. 

« Ebn  Baithar,  German  trans.,  i.  p.  354;  Forskal,  FI.  JEgypt.,  p.  71. 

5 Columna,  quoted  by  Lenz,  Bot.  der  Alien,  p.  73 ; Pliny,  Hist., 
lib.  xiii.  cap.  8. 

6 Diet.  FranQ.-Berbere,  at  the  word  Caroube. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS.  337 

the  Italians  also  took  the  Arab  name  currabo,  cai'ubio, 
whence  the  French  caroubier.  It  seems  that  it  must 
have  been  introduced  after  the  Roman  epoch  by  the 
Arabs  of  the  Middle  Ages,  when  there  was  another  name 
for  it.  These  details  are  all  in  favour  of  Bianca’s 
theory  of  a more  southern  origin  than  Sicily.  Pluyy 
says  the  species  belonged  to  Syria,  Ionia,  Cnidos,  and 
Rhodes,  but  he  does  not  say  whether  it  was  wild  or 
cultivated  in  these  places.  Pliny  also  says  that  the 
carob  tree  did  not  exist  in  Egypt.  Yet  it  has  been 
recognized  in  monuments  belonging  to  a much  earlier 
epoch  than  that  of  Pliny,  and  Egyptologists  even 
attribute  two  Egyptian  names  to  it,  kontrates  or  jiri.1 
Lepsius  gives  a drawing  of  a pod  which  appears  to 
him  to  be  certainly  a carob,  and  the  botanist  Kotschy 
made  certain  by  microscopic  investigation  that  a stick 
taken  from  a sarcophagus  was  made  from  the  wood  of 
the  carob  tree.2  There  is  no  known  Hebrew  name  for 
the  species,  which  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament. 
The  New  Testament  speaks  of  it  by  the  Greek  name  in 
the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son.  It  is  a tradition  of  the 
Christians  in  the  East  that  St.  John  Baptist  fed  upon 
the  fruit  of  the  carob  in  the  desert,  and  hence  came 
the  names  given  to  it  in  the  Middle  Ages — bread  of 
St.  John,  and  Johannis  brodbaum. 

Evidently  this  tree  became  important  at  the  beginning 
of  the  Christian  era,  and  it  spread,  especially  through 
the  agency  of  the  Arabs,  towards  the  West.  If  it  had 
previously  existed  in  Algeria,  among  the  Berbers,  and  in 
i Spain,  older  names  would  have  persisted,  and  the  species 
would  probably  have  been  introduced  into  the  Canaries 
by  the  Phoenicians. 

The  information  gained  on  the  subject  may  be 
summed  up  as  follows : — 

I he  carob  grew  wild  in  the  Levant,  probably  on  the 
southern  coast  of  Anatolia  and  in  Syria,  perhaps  also  in 

1 Lexicon  Oxon.,  quoted  by  Pickering,  Ohron.  Hint,  of  Plants,  p.  141. 

* The  drawing  is  reproduced  in  Unger’ 8 l'Jlanzen.  ties  Alien  Aigyptcns, 
!fig.  22.  The  observation  which  ho  quotes  from  Kotschy  needs  confirma- 
i tion  by  a special  anatomist. 


Z 


338 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Cyrenaica.  Its  cultivation  began  within  historic  time. 
The  Greeks  diffused  it  in  Greece  and  Italy ; but  it  was 
afterwards  more  highly  esteemed  by  the  Arabs,  who 
propagated  it  as  far  as  Marocco  and  Spain.  In  all  these 
countries  the  tree  has  become  naturalized  here  and  there 
in  a less  productive  form,  which  it  is  needful  to  graft  to 
obtain  good  fruit. 

The  carob  has  not  been  found  in  the  tufa  and  quater- 
nary deposits  of  Southern  Europe.  It  is  the  only  one  of 
its  kind  in  the  genus  Geratonia,  which  is  somewhat 
exceptional  among  the  Leguminosos,  especially  in  Europe. 
Nothing  shows  that  it  existed  in  the  ancient  tertiary  or 
quaternary  flora  of  the  south-west  of  Europe. 

Common  Haricot  Kidney  Bean — Phaseolus  vulgaris, 
Savi. 

When,  in  1855,  I wished  to  investigate  the  origin  of 
the  genera  Phaseolus  and  Dolickos,1  the  distinction  of 
species  was  so  little  defined,  and  the  floras  of  tropical 
countries  so  rare,  that  I was  obliged  to  leave  several 
questions  on  one  side.  Now,  thanks  to  the  works  of 
Bentham  and  Georg  von  Martens,2 3  completing  the  previous 
labours  of  Savi,8  the  Leguminai  of  hot  countries  are 
better  known  ; lastly,  the  seeds  discovered  quite  recently 
in  the  Peruvian  tombs  of  Ancon,  examined  by  Wittmack, 
have  completely  modified  the  question  of  origin. 

I will  speak  first  of  the  common  haricot  bean,  after- 
wards of  some  other  species,  without,  however,  enume- 
rating all  those  which  are  cultivated,  for  several  of  these 
are  still  ill  defined. 

Botanists  held  for  a long  time  that  the  common 
haricot  was  of  Indian  origin.  No  one  had  found  it  wild, 
nor  has  it  yet  been  found,  but  it  was  supposed  to  be  of 
Indian  origin,  although  the  species  was  also  cultivated  in 
Africa  and  America,  in  temperate  and  hot  regions,  at 
least  in  those  where  the  heat  and  humidity  are  not 
excessive.  I called  attention  to  the  fact  that  there  is 

1 A.  tie  Candolle,  Giogr.  Bot.  Rais.,  p.  961. 

3 Hentliam,  in  Ann.  Wiener  Museum,  vol.  ii. ; Martens,  Die  Garten - 
bohnen,  in  Ito,  Stuttgart,  1860,  edit.  2,  1869. 

3 Savi,  Osserv.  sopra  Phaseolus  e Dolichos,  1,  2,  3. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


339 


no  Sanskrit  name,  and  that  sixteenth-century  gardeners 
often  called  the  species  Turkish  bean.  Convinced,  more- 
over, that  the  Greeks  cultivated  this  plant  under  the 
names  fasiolos  and  dolichos,  I suggested  that  it  came 
originally  from  Western  Asia,  and  not  from  India.  Georg 
von  Martens  adopted  this  hypothesis. 

However,  the  meaning  of  the  words  dolichos  of 
Theophrastus,  fasiolos  of  Dioscorides,  faseolus  and 
phaseolus  of  the  Romans,1  is  far  from  being  sufficiently 
defined  to  allow  them  to  be  attributed  with  certainty  to 
Phaseolus  vulgaris.  Several  cultivated  Leguminosce  are 
supported  by  the  trellises  mentioned  by  authors,  and 
have  pods  and  seeds  of  a similar  kind.  The  best  argu- 
ment for  translating  these  names  by  Phaseolus  vulgaris 
is  that  the  modern  Greeks  and  Italians  have  names 
derived  from  fasiolus  for  the  common  haricot.  In 
modem  Greek  it  is  fasoulia,  in  Albanian  (Pelasgic  ?), 
fasule,  in  Italian  fagiolo.  It  is  possible,  however,  that 
the  name  has  been  transferred  from  a species  of  pea 
or  vetch,  or  from  a haricot  formerly  cultivated,  to  our 
modem  haricot.  It  is  rather  bold  to  determine  a species 
of  Phaseolus  from  one  or  two  epithets  in  an  ancient 
author,  when  we  see  how  difficult  is  the  distinction  of 
species  to  modern  botanists  with  the  plants  under  their 
eyes.  Nevertheless,  the  dolichos  of  Theophrastus  has 
been  definitely  referred  to  the  scarlet  runner,  and  the 
fasiolos  to  the  dwarf  haricot  of  our  gardens,  which  are 
the  two  principal  modem  varieties  of  the  common 
haricot,  with  an  immense  number  of  sub-varieties  in  the 
form  of  the  pods  and  seed.  I can  only  say  it  may  be  so. 

If  the  common  haricot  was  formerly  known  in  Greece, 
it  was  not  one  of  the  earliest  introductions,  for  the 
faseolos  did  not  exist  at  Rome  in  Cato’s  time,  and  it  is 
only  at  the  beginning  of  the  empire  that  Latin  authors 
speak  of  it.  Virchow  brought  from  the  excavations  at 
Troy  the  seeds  of  several  legumina.*,  which  Wittmack2 

1 Theophrastus,  Hist.,  lib.  yiii.  cap.  3;  Dioscorides,  lib.  ii.  cap.  130; 
Pliny,  Hint.,  lib.  xviii.  cap.  7,  12,  interpreted  by  Fraas,  Syn.  FI.  Class., 
p.  52 ; Lenz,  Dot.  der  Altm,  p.  731 ; Martens,  Die  Gartenbohnen,  p.  1. 

2 Wittmack,  Bot.  Vereins  Brandenburg,  Dec.  19,  1879. 


340 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


has  ascertained  to  belong  to  the  following  species : broad 
bean  ( Faba  vulgaris),  garden-pea  (Pisum  sativum),  ervilla 
(Ervam  ervilm),  and  perhaps  the  flat-podded  vetchling 
(Lathy  tuts  Cicero),  but  no  haricot.  Nor  has  the  species 
been  found  in  the  lake-dwellings  of  Switzerland,  Savoy, 
Austria,  and  Italy. 

There  are  no  proofs  or  signs  of  its  existence  in 
ancient  Egypt.  No  Hebrew  name  is  known  answering 
to  the  Phaseolvs  or  Dolichos  of  botanists.  A less  ancient 
name,  for  it  is  Arabic,  louhia,  exists  in  Egypt  for  Dolichos 
lubia,  and  in  Hindustani  as  loba  for  Phaseolus  vulgaris } 
As  regards  the  latter  species,  Piddington  only  gives  two 
names  in  modern  languages,  and  those  both  Hindustani, 
loba  and  bakla.  This,  together  with  the  absence  of  a 
Sanskrit  name,  points  to  a recent  introduction  into 
Southern  Asia.  Chinese  authors  do  not  mention  P. 
vulgaris ,1 2 *  which  is  a further  indication  of  a recent 
introduction  into  India,  and  also  into  Bactriana,  whence 
the  Chinese  have  imported  plants  from  the  second 
century  of  our  era. 

All  these  circumstances  incline  me  to  doubt  whether 
the  species  was  known  in  Asia  before  the  Christian  era. 
The  argument  based  upon  the  modern  Greek  and  Italian 
names  for  the  haricot,  derived  from  fasiolos,  needs  some 
support.  It  may  be  said  in  its  favour  that  it  was  used 
in  the  Middle  Ages,  probably  for  the  common  haricot. 
In  the  list  of  vegetables  which  Charlemagne  commanded 
to  be  sown  in  his  farms,  we  find  fasiolum ,8  without  ex- 
planation. Albertus  Magnus  describes  under  the  name 
faseolus  a leguminous  plant  which  appears  to  be  our 
dwarf  haricot.4 * * *  I notice,  on  the  other  hand,  that  writers 


1 Delile,  Plantes  Cultivees  en  1 tgypte , p.  14;  Piddington,  Index. 

* Brotschneider  does  not  mention  any,  either  in  his  pamphlet  On  the 
Study  and  Value  of  Chinese  Botanical  Works,  or  in  his  private  letters 
to  mo. 

* E.  Meyer,  QescMchtc  der  Botanique,  iii.  p.  404. 

4 “ Faseolus  est  species  leguminis  et  grant,  quod  est  in  quantitate  parum 

minus  quam  Faba,  et  in  figura  est  columnare  sicut  faba,  herbaque  ejus 

minor  est  aliquantulum  quam  herba  Fabce.  Et  sunt  faseoli  multorum 

colorum,sed  quodlibet  granorum  hnbet  maculam  nigram  in  loco  cotyledonis’’ 

(Jessen,  Alberti  Magui,  Be  Vegetabihbus,  edit,  critics,  p.  615). 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOIl  THEIR  SEEDS. 


341 


in  the  fifteenth  century,  such  as  Pierre  Crescenzio 1 and 
Macer  Floridus,2  mention  no  faseolus  or  similar  name. 
On  the  other  hand,  after  the  discovery  of  America,  from 
the  sixteenth  century  all  authors  publish  descriptions 
and  drawings  of  Phaseolus  vulgaris,  with  a number  of 
varieties. 

It  is  doubtful  that  its  cultivation  is  ancient  in  tropical 
Africa  It  is  indicated  there  less  often  than  that  of  other 
species  of  the  Dolichos  and  Phaseolus  genera. 

It  had  not  occurred  to  any  one  to  seek  the  origin  of 
the  haricot  in  America  till,  quite  recently,  some  remark- 
able discoveries  of  fruits  and  seeds  were  made  in  Peru- 
vian tombs  at  Ancon,  near  Lima.  Rochebrune 3 published 
a list  of  the  species  of  different  families  from  the  collection 
made  by  Cossac  and  Savatier.  Among  the  number  are 
three  kinds  of  haricot,  none  of  which,  says  the  author,  is 
Phaseolus  vulgaris-,  but  Wittmack,4  who  studied  the 
legumime  brought  from  these  same  tombs  by  Reiss 
and  Stubel,  says  he  made  out  several  varieties  of  the 
common  haricot  among  other  seeds  belonging  to  Phaseolus 
hmatus,  Linnaeus.  He  had  identified  them  with  the 
varieties  of  P.  vulgaris  called  by  botanists  Ohlongus 
purpureus  (Martens),  Ellipticus  prcecox  (Alefeld),  and 
Ellipticus  atrofuscus  (Alefeld),  which  belong  to  the  cate- 
gory of  dwarf  or  branchless  haricots. 

It  is  not  certain  that  the  tombs  in  question  are  all 
anterior  to  the  advent  of  the  Spaniards.  The  work  of 
Reiss  and  Stubel,  now  in  the  press,  will  perhaps  give 
some  information  on  this  head  ; but  Wittmack  admits,  on 
their  authority,  that  some  of  the  tombs  are  not  ancient. 
I notice  a fact,  however,  which  has  passed  without 
observation.  1.  he  fifty  species  of  Rochebrune  are  all 
American.  There  is  not  one  which  can  be  suspected  to 
be  of  European  origin.  Evidently  these  plants  and  seeds 

1 P.  Crescens,  French  trans.,  1539. 

* Macer  Floridus,  edit.  1485,  and  Choulant’s  commentary,  1832. 

; Bochebrune,  Actes  de  la  Soc.  Linn.de  Bordeaux,  vol.  xxxiii.  Jan., 

1880,  of  which  I saw  an  analysis  in  Botounisches  Centralblatt , 1880, 
p.  1633. 

Wittmack,  Sitzungnbericht  dcs  Bot . Vereins  Brandenburg , Deo.  19; 
18/9,  and  a private  letter. 


3*2 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


were  either  deposited  before  the  conquest,  or,  in  certain 
tombs  which  perhaps  belong  to  a subsequent  epoch,  the 
inhabitants  took  care  not  to  put  species  of  foreign  origin. 
This  was  natural  enough  according  to  their  ideas,  for  the 
custom  of  depositing  plants  in  the  tombs  was  not  a result 
of  the  Catholic  religion,  but  was  an  inheritance  from  the 
customs  and  opinions  of  the  natives.  The  presence  of 
the  common  haricot  among  exclusively  American  plants 
seems  to  me  important,  whatever  the  date  of  the  tombs. 

It  may  be  objected  that  the  seeds  are  insufficient 
ground  for  determining  the  species  of  a pJtaseolus,  and 
that  several  species  of  this  genus  which  are  not  yet 
well  known  were  cultivated  in  South  America  before 
the  arrival  of  the  Spaniards.  Molina 1 speaks  of  thirteen 
or  fourteen  species  (or  varieties  ?)  cultivated  formerly  in 
Chili  alone. 

Wittmack  insists  upon  the  general  and  ancient  use 
of  the  haricot  in  several  parts  of  South  America.  This 
proves  at  least  that  several  species  were  indigenous  and 
cultivated.  He  quotes  the  testimony  of  Joseph  Acosta, 
one  of  the  first  writers  after  the  conquest,  who  says 
that  “the  Peruvians  cultivated  vegetables  which'  they 
called  frisoles  and  palares,  and  which  they  used  as  the 
Spaniards  use  garbanzos  (chick-pea),  beans  and  lentils. 
I have  not  found,”  he  adds,  “ that  these  or  other  European 
vegetables  were  found  here  before  the  coming  of  the 
Europeans.”  Frisole,  fajol,  fasoler,  are  Spanish  names  for 
the  common  haricot,  corruptions  of  the  Latin  faselus, 
fasolus,  faseolus.  Poller  is  American. 

I may  take  this  opportunity  of  explaining  the  origin 
of  the  French  name  hai'icot.  I sought  for  it  formerly  in 
vain;2  but  I noticed  that  Tournefort3  ( Instit. , p.  415) 
was  the  first  to  use  it.  I called  attention  also  to  the 
existence  of  the  word  a radios  (apa\og)  iu  Theophrastus, 
probably  for  a kind  of  vetch,  and  of  the  Sanskrit  word 

> Molina  ( Essai  *ur  I’Hist.  Nat.  du  Chili,  French  trails.,  p.  101) 
mentions  Phaseoli,  which  he  calls  pallar  and  asettus,  and  Cl.  Gay’s 
FI.  du  Chili  adds,  without  much  explanation,  Ph.  Cumingii,  Bontham. 

a A.  do  Candolle,  Odog.  Bot.  Rais.,  p.  691. 

3 Tournefort,  Elements  (1694),  i.  p.  328;  Instit.,  p.  41o. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


343 


harenso  for  the  common  pea.  I rejected  as  improbable 
the  notion  that  the  name  of  a vegetable  could  come  from 
the  dish  called  haricot  or  laricot  of  mutton,  as  suggested 
by  an  English  author,  and  criticized  Beseherelle,  who 
derived  the  word  from  Keltic,  while  the  Breton  words  are 
totally  different,  and  signify  small  bean  ( fa-munno ) or 
kind  of  pea  ( pis-ram ).  Lettre,  in  his  dictionary,  also  seeks 
the  etymology  of  the  word.  Without  any  acquaintance 
with  my  article,  he  inclines  to  the  theory  that  haricot,  the 
plant,  comes  from  the  ragout,  seeing  that  the  latter  is 
older  in  the  language,  and  that  a certain  resemblance 
may  be  traced  between  the  haricot  bean  and  the  morsels 
of  meat  in  the  ragout,  or  else  that  this  bean  was  suitable 
to  the  making  of  the  dish.  It  is  certain  that  this 
vegetable  was  called  in  French  faseole  or  fazeole,  from  the 
Latin  name,  until  nearly  the  end  of  the  seventeenth 
century ; but  chance  has  led  me  to  discover  the  real 
origin  of  the  word  haricot.  An  Italian  name,  araco, 
found  in  Durante  and  Matthioli,  in  Latin  Aracus  niger,1 
was  given  to  a leguminous  plant  which  modern  botanists 
attribute  to  Lathyrus  ochrus.  It  is  not  surprising  that 
an  Italian  seventeenth-century  name  should  be  trans- 
ported by  French  cultivators  of  the  following  century  to 
another  leguminous  plant,  and  that  ara  should  have  been 
ari.  It  is  the  sort  of  mistake  which  is  common  now. 
Besides,  aracos  or  arachoa  has  been  attributed  by  com- 
mentators to  several  Legvminosce  of  the  genera  Lathyrus, 
Vicia,  etc.  Durante  gives  the  Greek  arachoa  as  the 
synonym  for  his  araco,  whereby  we  see  the  etymology. 
Pere  Feuillee  2 wrote  in  French  aricot;  before  him  Tourne- 
fort  spelt  it  haricot,  in  the  belief,  perhaps,  that  the 
Greek  word  was  written  with  an  aspirate,  which  is  not 
the  case,  at  least  in  the  best  authors. 

I may  sum  up  as  follows  : — (1)  Phaaeolus  vulgaris  has 
not  been  long  cultivated  in  India,  the  south-west  of  Asia, 
and  Egypt  ; (2)  it  is  not  certain  that  it  was  known  in 
Europe  before  the  discovery  of  America;  (3)  at  this  epoch 

1 Durante,  Herlario  Nuovo,  1585,  p.  39  ; Matthioli  e<l  Vnlgris,  p.322  ; 
Targioni,  Dizim.  Bot.  Ital.,  i.  p.  13. 

* Feuillee,  Hist,  des  Plan.  Medic,  du  Perou,  etc.,  in  4to,  1725,  p.  54. 


344 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


the  number  of  varieties  suddenly  increased  in  European 
gardens,  and  all  authors  commenced  to  mention  them  ; 
(4)  the  majority  of  the  species  of  the  genus  exist  in  South 
America ; (5)  seeds  apparently  belonging  to  the  species 
have  been  discovered  in  Peruvian  tombs  of  an  uncertain 
date,  intermixed  with  many  species,  all  American. 

I do  not  examine  whether  Phaseolus  vulgaris  existed 
in  both  hemispheres  previous  to  cultivation,  because 
examples  of  this  nature  are  exceedingly  rare  among 
non-aquatic  phanerogamous  plants  of  tropical  countries. 
Perhaps  there  is  not  one  in  a thousand,  and  even  then 
human  agency  may  be  suspected.1  To  open  this  question 
in  the  case  of  Ph.  vulgaris,  it  should  at  least  be  found 
wild  in  both  old  and  new  worlds,  which  has  not  happened. 
If  it  had  occupied  so  vast  an  area,  we  should  see  signs 
of  it  in  individuals  really  wild  in  widely  separate  regions 
on  the  same  continent,  as  is  the  case  with  the  following 
species,  Ph.  lunatus. 

Scimetar-podded  Kidney  Bean,  or  Sugar  Bean. — Pha- 
seolus lunatus,  Linnaeus;  Phaseolus  lunatus  macrocarpus ; 
Bentham,  Ph.  inamcenus,  Linnaeus. 

This  haricot,  as  well  as  that  called  Lima,  is  so  widely 
diffused  in  tropical  countries,  that  it  has  been  described 
under  different  names.2  All  these  forms  can  be  classed 
in  two  groups,  of  which  Linnaeus  made  different  species. 
The  commonest  in  our  gardens  is  that  which  has  been 
called  since  the  beginning  of  the  century  the  Lima 
haricot.  It  may  be  distinguished  by  its  height,  by  the 
size  of  its  pods  and  beans.  It  lasts  several  years  in 
countries  which  are  favourable  to  it. 

Linnaeus  believed  that  his  Ph.  lunatus  came  from 
Bengal  and  the  other  from  Africa,  but  he  gives  no 
proof.  For  a century  his  assertions  were  repeated. 
Now,  Bentham,8  who  is  careful  about  origins,  believes  the 
species  and  its  variety  to  be  certainly  American  ; he  only 
doubts  about  its  presence  as  a wild  plant  both  in  Africa 

> A.  do  Candolle,  Odogr.  Bot.  Rais.,  chapter  on  disjunctive  species. 

* Ph.  bipwnctatus,  Jacquin;  Ph.  inamctuus,  Linnaeus;  Ph.  puberulus, 
Kunth  ; Ph.  saccharatus,  MacFadyen ; etc.,  etc. 

* Bentham,  in  FI.  Brasil.,  vol.  xv.  p.  181. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


345 


and  Asia.  I see  no  indication  whatever  of  ancient  exist- 
ence in  Asia.  The  plant  has  never  been  found  wild,  and 
it  has  no  name  in  the  modern  languages  of  India  or 
in  Sanskrit.1  It  is  not  mentioned  in  Chinese  works. 
Anglo-Indians  call  it  French  bean,3  like  the  common 
haricot,  which  shows  how  modern  is  its  cultivation. 

It  is  cultivated  in  nearly  all  tropical  Africa.  How- 
ever, Schweinfurth  and  Ascherson 8 do  not  mention  it 
for  Abyssinia,  N ubia,  or  Egypt.  Oliver  4 quotes  a number 
of  specimens  found  in  Guinea  and  the  interior  of  Africa, 
without  saying  whether  they  were  wild  or  cultivated! 
If  we  suppose  the  species  of  African  origin  or  of  very  early 
introduction,  it  would  have  spread  to  Egypt  and  thence 
to  India. 

The  facts  are  quite  different  for  South  America. 
Bentham  mentions  wild  specimens  from  the  Amazon 
basin  and  Central  Brazil.  They  belong  especially  to  the 
large  variety  (macrocar pus),  which  abounds  also  in  the 
Peruvian  tombs  of  Ancon,  according  to  Wittmack.5  It  is 
evidently  a Brazilian  species,  diffused  by  cultivation,  and 
perhaps  long  since  naturalized  here  and  there  in  tropical 
America.  I am  inclined  to  believe  it  was  introduced  into 
Guinea  by  the  slave  trade,  and  that  it  spread  thence 
into  the  interior  and  the  coast  of  Mozambique. 

Moth,  or  Aconite-leaved  Kidney  Bean  — Phascolus 
aconitifolius,  Willdenow. 

An  annual  species  grown  in  India  as  fodder,  and  of 
which  the  seeds  are  eatable,  though  but  little  valued. 
Ihe  Hindustani  name  is  mout,  among  the  Sikhs  moth.  It 
is  somewhat  like  Pk.  trilobus,  which  is  cultivated  for  the 
seed.  Pk.  aconitifolius  is  wild  in  British  India  from 
Ceylon  to  the  Himalayas.0  The  absence  of  a Sanskrit 
name,  and  of  different  names  in  modern  Indian  languages, 
points  to  a recent  cultivation. 

Three-lobed  Kidney  Bean  — Phascolus  trilobus,  Will- 
denow. 


‘ ^«burgh,  Piddington,  etc.  2 Iloyle,  III.  Himalaya,  p.  190. 

Aufazhlung,  etc.,  p.  257.  4 Oliver,  FI.  of  Trap.  Afr.,  p.  192. 

Wittmack,  Sitz.  Hot.  Vereins  Branden.,  Dec.  19,  1879. 

Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.  edit.  1832,  vol.  iii.  p.  299 ; Aitchison,  Catal. 
Punjab,  p.  48;  Sir  J.  Hooker,  FI.  of  Brit.  Ind..,  ii.  p.  202. 


of 


346 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


One  of  the  most  commonly  cultivated  species  in  India;1 
at  least  in  the  last  few  years,  for  Roxburgh,2  at  the  end 
of  the  eighteenth  century,  had  only  seen  it  wild.  All 
authors  agree  in  considering  it  as  wild  from  the  foot  of 
the  Himalayas  to  Ceylon.  It  also  exists  in  Nubia, 
Abyssinia,  and  Zambesi ; 8 it  is  not  said  whether  wild  or 
cultivated.  Piddington  gives  a Sanskrit  name,  and 
several  names  in  modern  Indian  languages,  which  shows 
that  the  species  has  been  cultivated,  or  at  least  known 
for  three  thousand  years. 

Green  Gram,  or  Mung — Phaseolus  mungo,  Linnseus. 

A species  commonly  cultivated  in  India  and  in  the 
Nile  Valley.  The  considerable  number  of  varieties,  and 
the  existence  of  three  different  names  in  the  modern 
languages  of  India,  point  to  a cultivation  of  one  or  two 
thousand  years,  but  there  is  no  Sanskrit  name.4  In 
Africa  it  is  probably  recent.  Anglo-Indian  botanists 
agree  that  it  is  wild  in  India. 

Lablab,  or  Wall— Dolieh os  Lablab,  Linnreus. 

This  species  is  much  cultivated  in  India  and  tropical 
Africa.  Roxburgh  counts  as  many  as  seven  varieties 
with  Indian  names.  Piddington  quotes  in  his  Iiuiex  a 
Sanskrit  name,  schimbi,  which  recurs  in  modern  lan- 
guages. Its  culture  dates  perhaps  from  three  thousand 
years.  Yet  the  species  was  not  anciently  diffused  in 
China,  or  in  Western  Asia  and  Egypt;  at  least,  I can 
find  no  trace  of  it.  The  little  extension  of  these  edible 
Leguminosce  beyond  India  in  ancient  times  is  a singular 
fact.  It  is  possible  that  their  cultivation  is  not  of 
ancient  date. 

The  lablab  is  undoubtedly  wild  in  India,  and  also,  it 
is  said,  in  Java.5  It  has  become  naturalized  from  cultiva- 
tion in  the  Seychelles.8  The  indications  of  authors  are 
not  positive  enough  to  say  whether  it  is  wild  in  Africa.' 

1 Sir  J.  Hooker,  FI.  of  Brit.  Ind.,  ii.  p.  201.  2 Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.,  p.  299. 

3 Schweinfurth,  Beitr.  z.  FI.  Ethiop.,  p.  15 ; Aufziihlumj,  p.  257 ; 
Oliver,  FI.  Trop.  Afr.,  p.  19-1. 

4 See  authors  quoted  for  P.  tribolus. 

5 Sir  J.  Hooker,  FI.  Brit.  Ind.,  ii.  p.  209;  Junghuhu,  Plantes  Jvngh., 
fasc  ii.  p.  240. 

6 Baker,  FI.  of  Mauritius,  p.  83. 

7 Oliver,  FI.  of  Trop.  Africa,  ii.  p.  210. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


347 


Lubia — Dolichos  Lubia,  Forskal. 

This  species,  cultivated  in  Europe  under  the  name  of 
lubia,  loubya,  loubye,  according  to  Forskal  and  Delile,1 
is  little  known  to  botanists.  According  to  the  latter 
author  it  exists  also  in  Syria,  Persia,  and  India;  but  I 
do  not  find  this  in  any  way  confirmed  in  modern  works 
on  these  two  countries.  Schweinfurth  and  Ascherson2 3 
admit  it  as  a distinct  species,  cultivated  in  the  Nile 
Valley.  Hitherto  no  one  has  found  it  wild.  No  Doliclios 
or  Phaseolus  is  known  in  the  monuments  of  ancient 
Egypt.  We  shall  see  from  the  evidence  of  the  common 
names  that  these  plants  were  probably  introduced  into 
Egyptian  agriculture  after  the  time  of  the  Pharaohs. 

The  name  lubia  is  used  by  the  Berbers,  unchanged, 
and  by  the  Spaniards  as  alubia  for  the  common  haricot, 
Phaseolus  vulgaris.  Although  Phaseolus  and  Dolichos 
are  very  similar,  this  is  an  example  of  the  little  value  of 
common  names  as  a proof  of  species.  Loba  is,  as  we 
have  seen,  one  of  the  Hindustani  names  for  Phaseolus 
vulgaris ,8  and  lobia  that  of  Dolichos  sinensis  in  the  same 
language.4  Orientalists  should  tell  us  whether  lubia  is  an 
old  word  in  Semitic  languages.  I do  not  find  a similar 
name  in  Hebrew,  and  it  is  possible  that  the  Armenians  or 
the  Arabs  took  lubia  from  the  Greek  lobos  (Ao/3oe),  which 
means  any  projection,  like  the  lobe  of  the  ear,  a fruit  of 
the  nature  of  a pod,  and  more  particularly,  according  to 
Galen,  Ph.  vulgaris.  Lobion  (Ao/Stov)  in  Dioscorides  is 
the  fruit  of  Ph.  vulgaris,  at  least  in  the  opinion  of  com- 
mentators.5 It  remains  as  loubion  in  modern  Greek,  with 
the  same  meaning.6 * 

Bambarra  Ground  Nut — Glycine  subterranea,  Linnreus, 
junr. ; Voandzeia  subterranea,  Petit  Thouars. 

1 Forskal,  Descrvpt.,  p.  133 ; Delile,  Plant.  Cult,  e.n  jZijypte , p.  14. 

1 Schweinfurth  and  Ascherson,  Aufzdhlung,  p.  25f>. 

3 Diet.  Frung.-Berbdre,  at  the  word  haricot  ; Willkomm  and  Lange, 
Prod.  FI.  Hiep.,  iii.  p.  324.  The  common  haricot  has  no  less  than  five 
different  names  in  the  Iberian  peninsula. 

4 Piddington,  Index. 

‘ Lenz,  Bot.  der  Alt.  Or.  und  Rihn.,  p.  732. 

* Langkavel,  But.  der  Spdteren  Griechen,  p.  4 ; Heldreich,  Nutzpjl. 

Griechenl.,  p.  72. 


348 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


The  earliest  travellers  in  Madagascar  remarked  this 
leguminous  annual,  cultivated  by  the  natives  for  the  pod 
or  seed,  dressed  like  peas,  French  beans,  etc.  It  resembles 
the  earth,  particularly  in  that  the  flower-stem  curves 
downwards,  and  plunges  the  young  fruit  or  pod  into  the 
earth.  Its  cultivation  is  common  in  the  gardens  of 
tropical  Africa,  and  it  is  found,  but  less  frequently,  in 
those  of  Southern  Asia.1  It  seems  that  it  is  not  much 
grown  in  America,2  except  in  Brazil,  where  it  is  called 
mandubi  di  Angola ,3 

Early  writers  on  Asia  do  not  mention  it ; its  origin 
must,  therefore,  be  sought  in  Africa,  Loureiro4 *  had 
seen  it  on  the  eastern  coast  of  this  continent,  and  Petit 
Thouars  in  Madagascar,  but  they  do  not  say  that  it 
was  wild.  The  authors  of  the  flora  of  Senegambia6 
described  it  as  “ cultivated  and  probably  wild”  in  Galarn. 
Lastly,  Schweinfurth  and  Ascherson6  found  it  wild  on 
the  banks  of  the  Nile  from  Khartoum  to  Gondokoro.  In 
spite  of  the  possibility  of  naturalization  from  cultivation, 
it  is  extremely  probable  that  the  plant  is  wild  in  tropical 
Africa. 

Buckwheat — Polygonum  fagopyrum,  Linn  ecus ; Fago- 
pyrum  esculentum,  Moench. 

The  history  of  this  species  has  been  completely  cleared 
up  in  the  last  few  years.  It  grows  wild  in  Mantschuria, 
on  the  banks  of  the  river  Amur,7  in  Dahuria,  and  near 
Lake  Baikal.8  It  is  also  indicated  in  China  and  in  the 
mountains  of  the  north  of  India,9  but  1 do  not  find  that 
in  these  regions  its  wild  character  is  certain.  Roxburgh 

1 Sir  J.  Hooker,  Flora  of  Brit.  Ind.,  ii.  p.  205 ; Miquel,  FI.  Indo- 
Batava,  i.  p.  175. 

2 Linnaeus,  jnnr.,  Decud.,  ii.  pi.  19,  seems  to  have  confounded  this 
plant  with  Arachis,  and  he  gives,  perhaps  because  of  this  error, 
Voandzeia  as  cultivated  at  his  time  in  Surinam.  Modern  writers  on 
America  either  have  not  seeu  it  or  have  omitted  to  mention  it. 

8 Oardener’s  Chronicle,  Sept.  4,  1880. 

4 Loureiro,  FI.  Cochin.,  ii.  p.  523. 

8 Guillemin,  Perottet,  Richard,  FI.  Senegambia  Tentamcn,  p.  254. 

* Aufziihlung,  p.  259. 

1 Maxitnovvicz,  Primitice  FI.  Amur.,  p.  236. 

8 Ledebour,  FI.  Roes.,  iii.  617. 

8 Meissner,  in  Ilo  Candolle,  Prod/r.,  xiv.  p.  143. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS.  349 

has  only  seen  it  in  a cultivated  state  in  the  north  of 
India,  and  Bretschneider 1 thinks  it  doubtful  that  it  is 
indigenous  in  China.  Its  cultivation  is  not  ancient,  for 
the  first  Chinese  author  who  mentions  it  lived  in  the 
tenth  or  eleventh  century  of  the  Christian  era. 

Buckwheat  is  cultivated  in  the  Himalayas  under  the 
names  aged  or  ogla  and  kouton .2  As  there  is  no  Sanskrit 
name  for  this  species  nor  for  the  two  following,  I doubt 
the  antiquity  of  their  cultivation  in  the  mountains  of 
Central  Asia.  It  was  certainly  unknown  to  the  Greeks 
and  Romans.  The  name  fagopyrum  is  an  invention  of 
modern  botanists  from  the  similarity  in  the  shape  of  the 
seed  to  a beech-nut,  whence  also  the  German  buch- 
weitzen 8 (corrupted  in  English  into  buckwheat)  and  the 
Italian  faggina. 

The  names  of  this  plant  in  European  languages  of 
Aryan  origin  have  not  a common  root.  Thus  the  western 
Aryans  did  not  know  the  species  any  more  than  the 
Sanskrit-speaking  Orientals,  a further  sign  of  the  non- 
existence of  the  plant  in  the  mountains  of  Central  Asia. 
Even  at  the  present  day  it  is  probably  unknown  in  the 
north  of  Persia  and  in  Turkey,  since  floras  do  not  men- 
tion it.)  Bose  states,  in  the  Dictionnaire  d’ Agriculture, 
that  Olivier  had  seen  it  wild  in  Persia,  but  I do  not  find 
this  in  this  naturalists  published  account  of  his  travels. 

I he  species  came  into  Europe  in  the  Middle  Ages, 
through  Tartary  and  Russia.  The  first  mention  of  its 
cultivation  in  Germany  occurs  in  a Mecklenburg  register 
of  1430.  In  the  sixteenth  century  it  spread  towards  the 
centre  of  Europe,  and  in  poor  soil,  as  in  Brittany,  it  be- 
came important.  Reynier,  who,  as  a rule,  is  very  accurate, 
imagined  that  the  French  name  sarrasin  was  Keltic;0 
but  M.  le  Gall  wrote  to  mo  formerly  that  the  Breton 
names  simply  mean  black  wheat  or  black  corn,  ed-du 

' Bretschneider,  On  Study,  etc.,  p.  9. 

1 Madden,  Trans.  Edinburgh  Bot.  Soc.,  v.  p.  118. 

1 he  English  name  buckwheat  and  the  French  namo  of  some 
localities,  buscail,  come  from  the  German. 

5 Boissicr,  II.  Orient.-,  Bnhse  and  Boissier,  PJlanxen  Transcaucasian. 

Pritzel,  Sitzungsbericht  N atnrforsch.  freunde  zu  Berlin,  May  15, 1866 

Reynier,  Economie  des  Celtes,  p.  425. 


350 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


and  guiinis-du.  There  is  no  original  name  in  Keltic 
languages,  which  seems  natural  now  that  wre  know  the 
origin  of  the  species.1 

When  the  plant  was  introduced  into  Belgium  and 
into  France,  and  even  -when  it  became  known  in  Italy, 
that  is  to  say  in  the  sixteenth  century,  the  name  ble 
sarrasin  (Saracen  wheat)  or  sarrtisin  was  commonly 
adopted.  Common  names  are  often  so  absurd,  and  so 
unthinkingly  bestowed,  that  wTe  cannot  tell  in  this  par- 
ticular case  whether  the  name  refers  to  the  colour  of  the 
grain  which  wras  that  attributed  to  the  Saracens,  or  to 
the  supposed  introduction  from  the  country  of  the  Arabs 
or  Moors.  It  was  not  then  known  that  the  species  did 
not  exist  in  the  countries  south  of  the  Mediterranean, 
nor  even  in  Syria  and  Persia.  It  is  also  possible  that 
the  idea  of  a southern  origin  was  taken  from  the  name 
sarrasin,  which  -was  given  from  the  colour.  This  origin 
was  admitted  until  the  end  of  the  last  and  even  in  the 
present  century.2  Reynier  was,  fifty  years  ago,  the  first 
to  oppose  it. 

Buckwheat  sometimes  escapes  from  cultivation  and 
becomes  quasi- wild.  The  nearer  we  approach  its  original 
country  the  more  often  this  occurs,  whence  it  results  that 
it  is  hard  to  define  the  limit  of  the  wild  plant  on  the 
confines  of  Europe  and  Asia,  in  the  Himalayas,  and  in 
China.  In  Japan  these  semi-naturalizations  are  not 
rare.3 

Tartary  Buckwheat — Polygonum  tataricu/m,  Linnaeus ; 
Fagopyrum  tataricum,  Gaertner. 

Less  sensitive  to  cold  than  the  common  buckwheat, 
but  yielding  a poorer  kind  of  seed,  this  species  is  some- 
times cultivated  in  Europe  and  Asia — in  the  Himalayas,4 
for  instance  ; but  its  culture  is  recent.  Authors  of  the  six- 
teenth and  seventeenth  centuries  do  not  mention  it,  and 
Linnaeus  was  one  of  the  first  to  speak  of  it  as  of  Tartar 


1 I have  given  the  vernacular  names  at  greater  length  in  OJogr.  Bot. 

Rais.,  p.  953.  . . H 

2 Nemnicb,  Polyglott.  Lexicon, p.  1030;  Bose,  Diet,  d -li/rie.,  xi.  p.  3/.* 

3 Franchet  and  Savatier,  Enum.  PL  Japan.,  i.  p.  103. 

* Hoyle,  III.  Himal.,  p.  317. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


351 


origin.  Roxburgh  and  Hamilton  had  not  seen  it  in  • 
Northern  India  in  the  beginning  of  this  century,  and  I 
find  no  indication  of  it  in  China  and  Japan. 

It  is  undoubtedly  wild  in  Tartary  and  Siberia,  as  far 
as  Dauria;1  but  Russian  botanists  ■ have  not  found  it 
further  east,  in  the  basin  of  the  river  Amur.2 

As  this  plant  came  from  Tartary  into  Eastern  Europe 
later  than  the  common  buckwheat,  it  is  the  latter  which 
bears  in  several  Slav  languages  the  names  tatrika,  tatarka, 
or  tattar,  which  would  better  suit  the  Tartary  buck- 
wheat. 

It  seems  that  the  Aryan  peoples  must  have  known 
the  species,  and  yet  no  name  is  mentioned  in  the  ancient 
Indo-European  languages.  No  trace  of  it  has  hitherto 
been  found  in  the  lake-dwellings  of  Switzerland  or  of 
Savoy. 

Notch-seeded  Buckwheat — Polygonum  cmarginatum , 
Roth  ; Fagopyrum  emarginatvm,  Meissner. 

This  third  species  of  buckwheat  is  grown  in  the  hio-h- 
lands  of  the  north-east  of  India,  under  the  name  phapkra 
or  phaphar ,8  and  in  China.4  I find  no  positive  proof  that 
it  has  been  found  wild.  Roth  only  says  that  it  “ inhabits 
China,”  and  that  the  grain  is  used  for  food.  Don,5  who 
was  the  first  of  Anglo-Indian  botanists  to  mention  it 
says  that  it  is  hardly  considered  wild.  It  is  not  men- 
tioned in  floras  of  the  Amur  valley,  nor  of  Japan. 
Judging  from  the  countries  where  it  is  cultivated,  it  is 
probably  wild  in  the  Eastern  Himalayas  and  the  north- 
west of  China. 

The  genus  Fagopyimm  has  eight  species,  all  of  tem- 
perate Asia. 

Quinoa—  dh.enopodium  quinoa,  Willdenow. 

The  quinoa  was  a staple  food  of  the  natives  of  New 
Granada,  Peru,  and  Chili,  in  the  high  and  temperate 
parts  at  the  time  of  the  conquest.  Its  cultivation  has 


' Amelin,  Mora,  Sibirica,  iii.  p.  64;  Ledobour,  FI.  Iloeeica,  iii.  p.  676. 
Maximow.cz,  PrimUia,;  Kegol,  Opit.  Flori,  etc. ; Schmidt,  Reisen  in 
Amur , do  not  mention  it. 

, P‘  317 ; Madden>  Trans.  But.  Soc.  Edin .,  v.  p.  118 

4 Roth,  Catalecta  Botanica,  i.  p.  48.  1 

5 Don,  Prodr.  FI.  Nepal.,  p.  74. 


352 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


persisted  in  these  countries  from  custom,  and  on  account 
of  the  abundance  of  the  product. 

From  all  time  the  distinction  has  existed  between  the 
quinoa  with  coloured  leaves,  and  the  quinoa  with  green 
leaves  and  white  seed.1  The  latter  was  regarded  by 
Moquin2 *  as  a variety  of  a little  known  species,  believed 
to  be  Asiatic;  but  I believe  that  I showed  conclusively 
that  the  two  American  quinoas  are  two  varieties,  pro- 
bably very  ancient,  of  a single  species.8  The  less  coloured, 
which  is  also  the  most  farinaceous,  is  probably  derived 
from  the  other. 

The  white  quinoa  yields  a grain  which  is  much 
esteemed  at  Lima,  according  to  information  furnished  by 
the  Botanical  Magazine,  where  a good  drawing  may  be 
seen  (pi.  3G41).  The  leaves  may  be  dressed  in  the  same 
manner  as  spinach.4 

No  botanist  has  mentioned  the  quinoa  as  wild  or 
semi-wild.  The  most  recent  and  complete  work  on  one 
of  the  countries  where  the  species  is  cultivated,  the 
Flora  of  Chili,  by  Cl.  Gay,  speaks  of  it  only  as  a culti- 
vated plant.  Pere  Feuill^e  and  Humboldt  said  the  same 
for  Peru  and  New  Granada.  It  is  perhaps  due  to  the 
insignificance  of  the  plant  and  its  aspect  of  a garden 
weed  that  collectors  have  neglected  to  bring  back  wild 
specimens. 

Kiery — A mar  antics  frnmentaceus,  Roxburgh. 

This  annual  is  cultivated  in  the  Indian  peninsula  for 
its  small  farinaceous  grain,  which  is  in  some  localities  the 
principal  food  of  the  natives.5 6  Fields  of  this  species,  of  a 
red  or  golden  colour,  produce  a beautiful  effect.5  From 
Roxburgh’s  account,  Dr.  Buchanan  “ discovered  it  on  the 
hills  of  Mysore  and  Coimbatore,”  which  seems  to  indicate 
a wild  condition.  Amarantus  speciosus,  cultivated  in 
gardens  and  figured  on  pi.  2227  of  the  Botanical  Maga- 

1 Molina,  Hint.  Nat.  du  Chili,  p.  101. 

2 Moquin,  in  De  Candolle,  Prodromus,  xiii.  part  1,  p.  67. 

» A.  do  Candolle,  Qiogr.  Bot.  Rais.,  p.  952. 

* Bon  Jardinier,  1880,  p.  562. 

5 Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.,  edit.  2,  vol.  iii.  p.  609;  Wight,  leones,  pi.  720; 
Aitchison,  Catalogue  of  Punjab  Plants,  p.  130. 

6 Madden,  Trans.  Edin.  Bot.  Soc.,  v.  p.  118. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


353 


zine,  appears  to  be  the  same  species.  Hamilton  found 
it  in  Nepal.1  A variety  or  allied  species,  Amarantus 
anardana,  Wallich,3  is  grown  on  the  slopes  of  the  Hima- 
layas, but  has  been  hitherto  ill  defined  by  botanists. 
Other  species  are  used  as  vegetables  (see  p.  100,  Ama- 
rantus gangeticus). 

Chestnut — Castanea  vulgaris,  Lamarck. 

The  chestnut,  belonging  to  the  order  Cupvliferce, 
has  an  extended  but  disjunctive  natural  area.  It 
forms  forests  and  woods  in  mountainous  parts  of  the 
temperate  zone  from  the  Caspian  Sea  to  Portugal.  It 
has  also  been  found  in  the  mountains  of  Edough  in 
Algeria,  and  more  recently  towards  the  frontier  of  Tunis 
(Letourneux).  If  we  take  into  account  the  varieties 
japonica  and  amerieana,  it  exists  also  in  Japan  and  in 
the  temperate  region  of  North  America.8  It  has  been 
sown  or  planted  in  several  parts  of  the  south  and  west  of 
Europe,  and  it  is  now  difficult  to  know  if  it  is  wild  or 
cultivated.  However,  cultivation  consists  chiefly  in  the 
operation  of  grafting  good  varieties  on  the  trees  which 
yield  indifferent  fruit.  For  this  purpose  the  variety 
which  produces  but  one  large  kernel  is  preferred  to  those 
which  bear  two  or  three,  separated  by  a membrane,  which 
is  the  natural  state  of  the  species. 

The  Romans  in  Pliny’s  time4  already  distinguished 
eight  varieties,  but  we  cannot  discover  from  the  text  of 
this  author  whether  they  possessed  the  variety  with  a 
single,  kernel  (hr.  marvon).  rlhe  best  chestnuts  came 
from  Sardis  in  Asia  Minor,  and  from  the  neighbourhood 
of  Naples.  Olivier  de  Serres,5  in  the  sixteenth  century, 
praises  the  chestnuts  Sardonne  and  Tuscarte,  which  pro- 
duced the  single-kernelled  fruit  called  the  Lyons  marrun.6 

1 Don,  Prodr.  FI.  Nepal,  p.  70. 

Wallich,  List,  No.  6U03  ; Moquin,  in  D.  C.,  Prodr.,  xiii.  sect.  2, 
p.  256. 

I*  or  further  details,  see  my  article  in  Prodromus,  vol.  xvi.  part  2, 
p.  114;  and  Boissier,  Flora  Orientals,  iv.  p.  1175. 

* Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.,  lib.  xix.  c.  23. 

* Olivier  de  Serres,  Thddtre  de  t’Aijric.,  p.  114. 

Lyons  marrons  now  come  chiefly  from  Danphino  and  Vivarais. 
come  are  also  obtained  from  Luc  in  tho  department  of  Var  (Gubparin, 
Traxti  d'Agric.,  iv.  p.  744). 

2 A 


354 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


He  considered  that  these  varieties  came  from  Italy,  and 
Targioni 1 2 tells  us  that  the  name  marrone  or  marone  was 
employed  in  that  country  in  the  Middle  Ages  (1170). 

Wheat  and  Kindred  Species. — The  innumerable  varie- 
ties of  wheat,  properly  so  called,  of  which  the  ripened 
grain  detaches  itself  naturally  from  the  husk,  have  been 
classed  into  four  groups  by  Vilmorin,3  which  form  dis- 
tinct species,  or  modifications  of  the  common  wheat 
according  to  different  authors.  I am  obliged  to  distin- 
guish them  in  order  to  study  their  history,  but  this,  as 
will  be  seen,  supports  the  opinion  of  a single  species.8 

1.  Common  Wheat — Tnticum  vulgare,  Yillars  ; Triti- 
cum  hybernum  and  T.  cestivum,  Linnaeus. 

According  to  the  experiments  of  the  Abbe  Rozier,  and 
later  of  Tessier,  the  distinction  between  autumn  and 
spring  wheats  has  no  importance.  “ All  wheats,”  says  the 
latter,4  “ are  either  spring  or  autumn  sown,  according  to 
the  country.  They  all  pass  with  time  from  the  one  state 
to  the  other,  as  I have  ascertained.  They  only  need  to 
be  gradually  accustomed  to  the  change,  by  sowing  the 
autumn  wheat  a little  later,  spring  wheat  a little  earlier, 
year  by  year.”  The  fact  is  that  among  the  immense 
number  of  varieties  there  are  some  which  feel  the  cold  of 
the  winter  more  than  others,  and  it  has  become  the  cus- 
tom to  sow  them  in  the  spring.5 *  We  need  take  no  note 
of  this  distinction  in  studying  the  question  of  origin, 
especially  as  the  greater  number  of  the  varieties  thus 
obtained  date  from  a remote  period. 

The  cultivation  of  wheat  is  prehistoric  in  the  old 
world.  Very  ancient  Egyptian  monuments,  older  than 
the  invasion  of  the  shepherds,  and  the  Hebrew  Scriptures 
show  this  cultivation  already  established,  and  when  the 


1 Targioni,  Cenni  Storici,  p.  180. 

2 Vilmorin,  Essai  d’un  Catalogue  Mi'thodique  et  Synotiymique  des  Fro- 
mente,  Paris,  1850. 

3 The  best  drawings  of  the  different  kinds  of  wheat  may  be  found  in 
Metzger’s  Eiiropccixche  Cerealien,  in  folio,  Heidelberg,  1824,  and  in  Host, 
Qraminie,  in  folio,  vol.  iii. 

4 Tessier,  Diet.  d’Agrie.,  vi.  p.  198. 

4 Loiselenr  Deslongchntnps,  Corn-id.  sur  les  CMales,  1 vol.  in  8vo, 

p.  219. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


355 


Egyptians  or  Greeks  speak  of  its  origin,  they  attribute  it 
to  mythical  personages,  Isis,  Ceres,  Triptolemus.1  The 
earliest  lake-dwellings  of  Western  Switzerland  cultivated 
a small-grained  wheat,  which  Heer2  has  carefully 
described  and  figured  under  the  name  Triticum  vulgare 
antiquorum.  From  various  facts,  taken  collectively,  we 
gather  that  the  first  lake-dwellers  of  Robenkausen  were 
at  least  contemporary  with  the  Trojan  war,  and  perhaps 
earlier.  The  cultivation  of  their  wheat  persisted  in 
Switzerland  until  the  Roman  conquest,  as  wre  see  from 
specimens  found  at  Buchs.  Regazzoni  also  found  it  in 
the  rubbish-heaps  of  the  lake-dwellers  of  Varese,  and 
Sordelli  in  those  of  Lagozza  in  Lombardy.8  Unger  found 
the  same  form  in  a brick  of  the  pyramid  of  Dashur, 
Egypt,  to  which  he  assigns  a date,  3359  B.C.  (Unger,  Bot. 
St reifzuge,  vii. ; Ein  Ziegel,  etc.,  p.  9).  Another  variety 
( Triticum,  vulgare  compactum  mutiev/m,  Heer)  -was  less 
common  in  Switzerland  in  the  earliest  stone  age,  but  it 
has  been  more  often  found  among  the  less  ancient  lake- 
dwellers  of  Western  Switzerland  and  of  Italy.4  A third 
intermediate  variety  has  been  discovered  at  Aggtelek  in 
Hungary,  cultivated  in  the  stone  age.5  None  of  these  is 
identical  with  the  wheat  now  cultivated,  as  more  profitable 
varieties  have  taken  their  place. 

The  Chinese,  who  grew  wheat  2700  B.C.,  considered  it 
a gift  direct  from  heaven.6  In  the  annual  ceremony  of 
sowing  five  kinds  of  seed,  instituted  by  the  Emperor 
Shen-nung  or  Chin-nong,  wheat  is  one  species,  the  others 
being  rice,  sorghum,  Setaria  italica,  and  soy. 

I he  existence  of  different  names  for  wheat  in  the  most 
ancient  languages  confirms  the  belief  in  a great  antiquity 

1 hose  questions  have  been  discussed  with  learning  and  judgment  by 
four  authors:  Link,  Ueber  die  altere  Geschichte  der  Getreide  Arte n,  in 
Abhandl.  der  Berlin  Akad.,  1816,  vol.  xvii.  p.  122  ; 1826,  p.  67  ; and  in 
DiV  Urwelt  und  das  Alterthum,  2nd  edit.,  Berlin,  1834,  p.  3981  s Koynjer, 
Ecunomie  den  Celtes  et  dee  Germain*,  1818,  p.  417  ; Durean  do  la  Malle, 
Ann  den  Science*  Nat.,  vol.  ix.  182(5;  and  Loieeleur  Deslongchamps, 
Conttid . xur  lea  Cerdalen,  1812,  part  i.  p.  52. 

Heer,  f'Jlanzen  der  Pfablbauten,  p.  13,  pi.  1,  figs.  14-18. 

3 Sordelli,  S idle  pi  ante  della  torbiera  di  Lagozza,  p.  31. 

4 Heer,  ibid.;  Sordelli,  ibid.  4 Nyari,  quoted  by  Sordelli,  ibid. 

’ Bretschneider,  Study  arid  Value,  etc.,  pp.  7 and  8. 


356 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


of  cultivation.  The  Chinese  name  is  mai,  the  Sanskrit 
suviana  anil  gddhuma,  the  Hebrew  chittah,  Egyptian  hr, 
Guancho  yric/ien,  without  mentioning  several  names  in 
languages  derived  from  the  primitive  Sanskrit,  nor  a 
Basque  name,  ogaia  or  okhaya,  which  dates  perhaps 
from  the  Iberians,1  and  several  Finn,  Tartar,  and  Turkish 
names,  etc.,2  which  are  probably  Turanian.  This  great 
diversity  might  be  explained  by  a wide  natural  area  in 
the  case  of  a very  common  wild  plant,  but  this  is  far  from 
being  the  case  of  wheat.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  difficult 
to  prove  its  existence  in  a wild  state  in  a few  places  in 
Western  Asia,  as  we  shall  see.  If  it  had  been  widely 
diffused  before  cultivation,  descendants  would  have 
remained  here  and  there  in  remote  countries.  The 
manifold  names  of  ancient  languages  must,  therefore,  be 
attributed  to  the  extreme  antiquity  of  its  culture  in  the 
temperate  parts  of  Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa — an  antiquity 
greater  than  that  of  the  most  ancient  languages.  We 
have  two  methods  of  discovering  the  home  of  the  species 
previous  to  cultivation  in  the  immense  zone  stretching 
from  China  to  the  Canaries : first,  the  opinion  of  ancient 
authors ; second,  the  existence,  more  or  less  proved,  of 
wheat  in  a wild  state  in  a given  country. 

According  to  the  earliest  of  all  historians,  Berosus,  a 
Chaldean  priest,  fragments  of  whose  writings  have  been 
preserved  by  Herodotus,  wild  wheat  ( Frumentum  agreste 8) 
might  be  seen  growing  in  Mesopotamia.  The  texts  of  the 
Bible  alluding  to  the  abundance  of  wheat  in  Canaan 
prove  no  more  than  that  the  plant  was  cultivated  there, 
and  that  it  was  very  productive.  Strabo,4  born  50  li.e., 
says  that,  according  to  Aristobulus,  a grain  very  similar 
to  wheat  grew  wild  upon  the  banks  of  the  Indus  on  the 
25th  parallel  of  latitude.  He  also  says6  that  in  Hircania 

1 Bretschneider,  Study  and  Value,  etc. ; Ad.  Pictet,  Les  Origines  Indo- 
Euro.,  edit.  2,  vol.  i.  p.  328;  Rosenmiiller,  Bibl.  Naturgesch.,  i p.  77; 
Pickering,  Chronol.  Arrang.,  p.  78;  Webb  and  Bcrthelot,  Canaries, 
Ethnogr.,  p.  187;  D’Abadio,  Notes  MSS.  sur  les  Noms  Basques;  Do 
Charencey,  Recherches  sur  les  Noms  Basques,  in  Actes  Soc.  Philolog., 
March,  1869. 

* Nemnich,  Lexieon,  p.  1492. 

' G.  Syncelli,  Chronogr.,  fol.  1652,  p.  28. 

* Strabo,  edit.  1707,  vol.  ii.  p.  1017.  * Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  124 ; ii.  p.  776. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  TIIEIR  SEEDS. 


357 


(the  modern  Mazanderan)  the  grains  of  wheat  which  fell 
from  the  ear  sowed  themselves.  This  may  be  observed 
to  some  degree  at  the  present  day  in  all  countries,  and 
the  author  says  nothing  upon  the  important  question 
whether  this  accidental  sowing  reproduced  itself  in  the 
same  place  from  generation  to  generation.  According  to 
the  Odyssey,1  wheat  grew  in  Sicily  without  the  help  of 
man.  But  it  is  impossible  to  attach  great  importance  to 
the  words  of  a poet,  and  of  a poet  whose  very  existence 
is  contested.  Diodorus  Siculus  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Christian  era  says  the  same  thing,  and  deserves  greater 
confidence,  since  he  is  a Sicilian.  Yet  he  may  easily  have 
been  mistaken  as  to  the  wild  character,  as  wheat  was 
then  generally  cultivated  in  Sicily.  Another  passage  in 
Diodorus2  mentions  the  tradition  that  Osiris  found  wheat 
and  barley  growing  promiscuously  with  other  plants  at 
Nisa,  and  Dureau  de  la  Malle  has  proved  that  this  town 
was  in  Palestine.  Among  all  this  evidence,  that  of  Berosus 
and  that  of  Strabo  for  Mesopotamia  and  Western  India 
alone  appear  to  me  of  any  value. 

The  live  species  of  seed  of  the  ceremony  instituted 
by  Chin-nong  are  considered  by  Chinese  scholars  to  be 
natives  of  their  country,8  and  Bretschneider  adds  that  com- 
munication between  China  and  Western  Asia  dates  only 
from  the  embassy  of  Chang- kien  in  the  second  century 
before  Christ.  A more  positive  assertion  is  needed,  how- 
ever, before  we  can  believe  wheat  to  be  indigenous  in 
China  ; for  a plant  cultivated  in  western  Asia  two  or  three 
thousand  years  before  the  epoch  of  Chin-nong,  and  of 
which  the  seeds  are  so  easily  transported,  may  have  been 
introduced  into  the  north  of  China  by  isolated  and  un- 
known travellers,  as  the  stones  of  peaches  and  apricots 
were  probably  carried  from  China  into  Persia  in  pre- 
historic time. 

Botanists  have  ascertained  that  wheat  is  not  wild  in 
Sicily  at  the  present  day.4  It  sometimes  escapes  from 

1 Lib.  ix.  v.  109. 

s Diodorus,  Terasson’s  trims.,  ii.  pp.  186,  190. 

a Bretschneider,  ibid.,  p.  15. 

4 I ar.atore,  FI.  Hal.,  i.  pp.  46,  568.  His  assertion  is  the  more 
worthy  of  attention  that  he  was  a Sicilian. 


358 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


cultivation,  but  it  does  not  persist  indefinitely.1  The 
plant  which  the  inhabitants  call  wild  wheat,  Frumentu 
sarvaggiu,  which  covers  uncultivated  ground,  is  yEgilops 
ovata,  according  to  Inzenga.2 * 

A zealous  collector,  Balansa,  believed  that  he  had 
found  wheat  growing  on  Mount  Sipylus,  in  Asia  Minor, 
under  circumstances  in  which  it  was  impossible  not  to 
believe  it  wild;8  but  the  plant  he  brought  back  is  a 
spelt,  Triticum  monococcum,  according  to  a very  careful 
botanist,  to  whom  it  was  submitted  for  examination.4 
Olivier,5  before  him,  when  he  was  on  the  right  bank  of 
the  Euphrates,  to  the  north-west  of  Anah,  a country 
unfit  for  cultivation,  “found  in  a kind  of  ravine,  wheat, 
barley,  and  spelt,  which,”  he  adds,  “ we  have  already  seen 
several  times  in  Mesopotamia.” 

Linnaeus  says,6  that  Heintzelmann  found  wheat  in  the 
country  of  the  Baschkirs,  but  no  one  has  confirmed  this 
statement,  and  no  modern  botanist  has  seen  the  species 
really  wild  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  Caucasus  or 
the  north  of  Persia.  Bunge,7  whose  attention  was  drawn 
to  this  point,  declares  that  he  has  seen  no  indication 
which  leads  him  to  believe  that  cereals  are  indigenous  in 
that  country.  It  does  not  even  appear  that  wheat  has  a 
tendency  in  these  regions  to  spring  up  accidentally  outside 
cultivated  ground.  I have  not  discovered  any  mention  of 
it  as  a wild  plant  in  the  north  of  India,  in  China,  or 
Mongolia. 

It  is  remarkable  that  wheat  has  been  twice  asserted 
to  be  indigenous  in  Mesopotamia,  at  an  interval  of  twenty- 
three  centuries,  once  by  Berosus,  and  once  by  Olivier  in 
our  own  day.  The  Euphrates  valley  lying  nearly  in  the 
middle  of  the  belt  of  cultivation  which  formerly  extended 
from  China  to  the  Canaries,  it  is  infinitely  probable  that 
it  was  the  principal  habitation  of  the  species  in  very  early 

1 Strobl,  in  Flora,  1880,  p.  348.  2 Inzenga,  Annali  Agric.  Sicil. 

3 Bull,  de  la,  Soc.  Bot.  de  France,  1854,  p.  108. 

4 J.  Gay,  Bull.  Soc.  Bot.  de  France,  1860,  p.  30. 

5 Olivier,  Voy.  dane  I’Emp.  Othoman  (1807),  vol.  iii.  p.  460. 

* LinnaBU8,  Sp.  Plant.,  edit.  2,  vol.  i.  p.  127. 

' Bunge,  Bull.  Soc.  But.  France,  1860,  p.  29. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


359 


prehistoric  times.  The  area  may  have  extended  towards 
Syria,  as  the  climate  is  very  similar,  but  to  the  east  and 
west  of  Western  Asia  wheat  has  probably  never  existed 
but  as  a cultivated  plant;  anterior,  it  is  true,  to  all  known 
civilization. 

2.  Turgid,  and  Egyptian  Wheat — Triticum  turgidum 
and  T.  compofdtum,  Linnaeus. 

Among  the  numerous  common  names  of  the  varieties 
which  come  under  this  head,  we ‘find  that  ot  Egyptian 
wheat.  It  appears  that  it  is  now  much  cultivated  in  that 
country  and  in  the  whole  of  the  Nile  valley.  A.  P.  de 
Candolle  says1  that  he  recognized  this  wheat  amongst  seeds 
taken  from  the  sarcophagi  of  ancient  mummies,  but  he 
had  pot  seen  the  ears.  Unger2  thinks  it  was  cultivated 
by  the  ancient  Egyptians,  yet  he  gives  no  proof  founded 
on  drawings  or  specimens.  The  fact  that  no  Hebrew  or 
Armenian  name  8 can  be  attributed  to  the  species  seems  to 
me  important.  It  proves  at  least  that  the  remarkable  forms 
with  branching  ears,  commonly  called  wheat  of  miracle , 
wheat  of  abundance,  did  not  exist  in  antiquity,  for  they 
would  not  have  escaped  the  knowledge  of  the  Israelites. 
No  Sanskrit  name  is  known,  nor  even  any  modern  Indian 
names,  and  I cannot  discover  any  Persian  name.  The  Arab 
names  which  Delile4  attributes  to  the  species  belong 
perhaps  to  other  varieties  of  wheat.  There  is  no  Berber 
name.5  From  all  this  it  results,  I think,  that  the  plants 
united  under  the  name  of  Triticum  turgidum,  and 
especially  the  varieties  with  branching  ears,  are  not 
ancient  in  the  north  of  Africa  or  in  the  west  of  Asia. 

Oswald  Heer,6  in  his  curious  paper  upon  the  plants 
of  the  lake-dwellers  of  the  stone  age  in  Switzerland, 
attributes  to  T.  turgidum  two  non-branched  ears,  the 
one  bearded,  the  other  almost  without  beard,  of  which 
he  gives  drawings.  Later,  in  an  exploration  of  the  lake- 

' De  Candolle,  Phyxiulogie  Dotanique,  ii.  p.  690. 

5 Unger,  Die  Pflanzen  des  Alien  Mgyptens,  p.  31. 

3 See  Rosenmiiller,  Bibl.  Natwrgesch. ; and  Low,  Aramaische  Pflanzen 
Namen,  1881. 

4 Delile,  PL  Cult,  en  figypte,  p.  3 ; FI.  /Egypt.  Mux.,  p.  5. 

3 Diet.  Fr.-Berb.,  published  by  the  Government. 

6 Heer,  Pflanzen  her  Pfahlbauten.  p.  5,  lig.  4;  p.  52,  fig.  20. 


3G0 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


dwellings  of  Robenliausen,  Messicommer  did  not  find  it, 
although  there  was  abundant  store  of  grain.1  Stroebel 
and  Pigorini  said  they  found  wheat  with  grano  grosso 
duro  ( T . turgidum),  in  the  lake-dwellings  of  Parmesan.2 
For  the  rest,  Heer3 * *  considers  this  to  be  a variety  or  race 
of  the  common  wheat,  and  Sordelli  inclines  to  the  same 
opinion. 

Fraas  thinks. that  the  krithanias  of  Theophrastus  was 
T.  turgidum,  but  this  is  absolutely  uncertain.  Accord- 
ing to  Heldreich;1  the  great  wheat  is  of  modern  intro- 
duction into  Greece.  Pliny6  spoke  briefly  of  a wheat 
with  branching  ears,  yielding  one  hundred  grains,  which 
was  most  likely  our  miraculous  wheat. 

Thus  history  and  philology  alike  lead  us  to  consider 
the  varieties  of  Triticum  turgidum  as  modifications  of 
the  common  wheat  obtained  by  cultivation.  The  form 
with  branching  ears  is  not  perhaps  earlier  than  Pliny’s 
time. 

These  deductions  would  be  overthrown  by  the  dis- 
covery of  the  T.  turgidum  in  a wild  state,  which  has  not 
hitherto  been  made  with  certainty.  In  spite  of  C.  Koch,6 
no  one  admits  that  it  grows,  outside  cultivation,  at'Con- 
stantinople  and  in  Asia  Minor.  Boissier’s  herbarium,  so 
rich  in  Eastern  plants,  has  no  specimen  of  it.  It  is  given 
as  wild  in  Egypt  by  Schweinfurth  and  Ascherson,  but 
this  is  the  result  of  a misprint.7 

3.  Hard  Wheat—  Triticum  durum,  Desfontaines. 

Long  cultivated  in  Barbary,  in  the  south  of  Switzer- 
land and  elsewhere,  it  has  never  been  found  wild.  In 
the  different  provinces  of  Spain  it  has  no  less  than 
fifteen  names,8  and  none  are  derived  from  the  Arab 
name  quemah  used  in  Algeria9  and  Egypt.10  The 


1 Messiconuner,  in  Flora,  1869,  p.  320. 

* Quoted  from  Sordelli,  Notizie  sull.  Lagozza,  p.  32. 

’ lleor,  ubi  supra,  p.  50. 

< Heldreich,  Die  Nutzpflanzcn  Griechenlands,  p.  5. 

8 Pliuy,  Hist.,  lib.  xviii.  cap.  10.  0 Koch,  Linncea,  xxi.  p.  427. 

» Letter  from  Ascherson,  1881.  8 Diet.  MS.  of  Vernacular  Names. 

8 Debeaux,  Catal.  des  Plan,  de  Boghar,  p.  110. 

10  Delile  says  (ubi  supra ) that  wheat  is  called  qamh,  and  a red 

variety  qamh-ahmar. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


3G1 


absence  of  names  in  several  other  countries,  especially  of 
original  names,  is  very  striking.  This  is  a further  indi- 
cation of  a derivation  from  the  common  wheat  obtained 
in  Spain  and  the  north  of  Africa  at  an  unknown  epoch, 
perhaps  within  the  Christian  era. 

4.  Polish  Wheat — Triticum  polonicum,  Linnaeus. 

This  other  hard  wheat,  with  yet  longer  grain,  culti- 
vated chiefly  in  the  east  of  Europe,  has  not  been  found 
wild.  It  has  an  original  name  in  German,  Gdner,  Gommer, 
Gummer,1  and  in  other  languages  names  which  are 
connected  only  with  persons  or  with  countries  whence 
the  seed  was  obtained.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  it  is 
a form  obtained  by  cultivation,  probably  in  the  east  of 
Europe,  at  an  unknown,  perhaps  recent  epoch. 

Conclusion  as  to  the  Specific  Unity  of  the  PHncipal 
Races  of  Wheat. 

We  have  just  shown  that  the  history  and  the  ver- 
nacular names  of  the  great  races  of  wheat  are  in  favour 
of  a derivation  contemporary  with  man,  probably  not 
very  ancient,  from  the  common  kind  of  wheat,  perhaps 
from  the  small-grained  wheat  formerly  cultivated  by  the 
Egyptians,  and  by  the  lake-dwellers  of  Switzerland  and 
Italy.  Alefeld  2 arrived  at  the  specific  unity  of  T.  vul- 
gare,  T.  turgidum,  and  T.  durum,  by  means  of  an  atten- 
tive observation  of  the  three  cultivated  together,  under  the 
same  conditions.  The  experiments  of  Henri  Yilmorin8 
on  the  artificial  fertilization  of  these  wheats  lead  to  the 
same  result.  Although  the  author  has  not  yet  seen  the 
product  of  several  generations,  he  has  ascertained  that 
the  most  distinct  principal  forms  can  be  crossed  with 
ease  and  produce  fertile  hybrids.  If  fertilization  be 
taken  as  a measure  of  the  intimate  degree  of  affinity 
which  leads  to  the  grouping  of  individuals  into  the  same 
species,  we  cannot  hesitate  in  the  case  in  question, 
especially  with  the  support  of  the  historical  considera- 
tions which  I have  given. 

* Nemnich,  Lexicon,  p.  1488.  1 Alofcld,  Bot.  Zeitung,  1865,  p.  9. 

H.  Yilmorin,  Bull.  Hoc.  Bot.  de  France,  1881,  p.  356. 


362 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


On  the  supposed  Mummy  Wheat. 

Before  concluding  this  article,  I think  it  pertinent  to 
say  that  no  grain  taken  from  an  ancient  Egyptian 
sarcophagus  and  sown  by  horticulturists  has  ever  been 
known  to  germinate.  It  is  not  that  the  thing  is  impos- 
sible, for  grains  are  all  the  better  preserved  that  they  are 
protected  from  the  air  and  from  variations  of  temperature 
or  humidity,  and  certainly  these  conditions  are  fulfilled 
by  Egyptian  monuments ; but,  as  a matter  of  fact,  the 
attempts  at  raising  wheat  from  these  ancient  seeds  have 
not  been  successful.  The  experiment  which  lias  been 
most  talked  of  is  that  of  the  Count  of  Sternberg,  at 
Prague.1  He  had  received  the  grains  from  a trustworthy 
traveller,  who  assured  him  they  were  taken  from  a 
sarcophagus.  Two  of  these  seeds  germinated,  it  is  said  ; 
but  I have  ascertained  that  in  Germany  well-informed 
persons  believe  there  is  some  imposture,  either  on  the 
part  of  the  Arabs,  who  sometimes  slip  modern  seeds  into 
the  tombs  (even  maize,  an  American  plant),  or  on  that  of 
the  employes  of  the  Count  of  Sternberg.  The  grain 
known  in  commerce  as  mummy  wheat  has  nevef  had 
any  proof  of  antiquity  of  origin. 

Spelt  and  Allied  Varieties  or  Species.2 * 

Louis  Vilmorin,8  in  imitation  of  Seringe’s  excellent 
work  on  cereals,4  has  grouped  together  those  wheats 
whose  seeds  when  ripe  are  closely  contained  in  their 
envelope  or  husk,  necessitating  a special  operation  to 
free  them  from  it,  a character  rather  agricultural  than 
botanical.  He  then  enumerates  the  forms  of  these  wheats 
under  three  names,  which  correspond  to  as  many  species 
of  most  botanists. 

1.  Spelt — Triticum  spelta,  Linnaeus. 

Spelt  is  now  hardly  cultivated  out  of  south  Germany 
and  German-Switzerland.  This  was  not  the  case  formerly. 
The  descriptions  of  cereals  by  Greek  authors  are  so  brief 

1 Journal,  Flora,  1835,  p.  4. 

2 Soe  the  plates  of  Met  zger  and  Host,  in  the  works  previously  quoted. 

5 Essai  d’un  Catal.  Method,  des  Froments,  Paris,  1850. 

4 Scringe,  Monogr.  des  CM.  de  la  Suisse,  in  8vo,  Berne,  1818. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


3G3 


and  insignificant  that  there  is  always  room  for  hesitation 
as  to  the  sense  of  the  words  they  use.  Yet,  judging  from 
the  customs  of  which  they  speak,  scholars  think 1 2 that 
the  Greeks  first  called  spelt  olyra,  afterwards  zeia,  names 
which  we  find  in  Herodotus  and  Homer.  Dioscorides3 * 
distinguishes  two  sorts  of  zeia,  which  apparently  answer 
to  Tnticum  spelta  and  T.  monococcum.  It  is  believed 
that  spelt  was  the  semen  (corn,  par  excellence ) and  the 
far  of  Pliny,  which  he  said  was  used  as  food  by  the  Latins 
for  300  years  before  they  knew  how  to  make  bread.3  As 
spelt  has  not  been  found  among  the  lake-dwellers  of 
Switzerland  and  Italy,  and  as  the  former  cultivated  the 
allied  varieties  called  T.  dicoccum  and  T.  monococcum, * 
it  is  possible  that  the  far  of  the  Latins  was  rather  one 
of  these. 

The  existence  of  the  true  spelt  in  ancient  Egypt  and 
the  neighbouring  countries  seems  to  me  yet  more  doubtful. 
The  olyra  of  the  Egyptians,  of  which  Herodotus  speaks, 
was  not  the  olyra  of  the  Greeks ; some  authors  have 
supposed  it  to  be  rice,  oryza.5  As  to  spelt,  it  is  a plant 
which  is  not  grown  in  such  hot  countries.  Modern 
travellers  from  Rauwolf  onwards  have  not  seen  it  in 
Egyptian  cultivation,6  nor  has  it  been  found  in  the 
ancient  monuments.  This  is  what  led  me  to  suppose  7 
that  the  Hebrew  word  Jcusserneth,  which  occurs  three 
times  in  the  Bible,8  ought  not  to  be  attributed  to  spelt, 
as  it  is  by  Hebrew  scholars.9  I imagined  it  was  perhaps 
the  allied  form,  T.  monococcum,  but  neither  is  this  grown 
in  Egypt. 

1 Fraas,  8yn.  FI.  Clans.,  p.  307 ; Lenz,  Hot.  der  Alten,  p.  257. 

2 Dioscorides,  Mat.  Med.,  ii.,  111-115. 

3 Pliny,  Hist.,  lib.  xviii.  cap.  7 ; Targioni,  Cenni  Storici,  p.  6. 

* Heer,  Pjlanzen  der  PfaUbauten,  p.  6;  U rigor,  Pjlanzen  des  Alten 
JEgyptem,  p.  32. 

3 Delile,  PI.  Cult,  en  Iigyple,  p.  5. 

“ Reynier,  Econ.  des  jZgyptiens,  p.  337  ; Duroau  do  la  Malic,  Ann.  8c. 
Nat.,  ix.  p.  72;  Schweinfurth  and  Ascherson,  Aufzah.  Tr.  spelta  of 
Forakal  is  not  admitted  by  any  subsequent  author. 

7 Giloyr.  Bot.  Rais.,  p.  933. 

8 Exod.  ix.  32 ; Isa.  xxviii.  25  ; E/.ek.  iv.  9. 

9 iloseumuller,  Bibl.  Alterth.,  iv.  p.  83;  Second,  Trans,  of  Old  Test., 
1874. 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


364) 


Spelt  has  no  name  in  Sanskrit,  nor  in  any  modern 
Indian  languages,  nor  in  Persian,1  and  therefore,  of  course, 
none  in  Chinese.  European  names,  on  the  contrary,  are 
numerous,  and  bear  witness  to  an  ancient  cultivation, 
especially  in  the  east  of  Europe.  Spelta  in  Saxon,  whence 
the  English  name,  and  the  French,  epeautre ; Dinlcel  in 
modern  German,  orkiss  in  Polish,  pobla  in  Russian,2  are 
names  which  seem  to  come  from  very  different  roots. 
In  the  south  of  Europe  the  names  are  rarer.  There  is 
a Spanish  one.  however,  of  Asturia,  escandia ,s  but  1 know 
of  none  in  Basque. 

History,  and  especially  philology,  point  to  an  origin 
in  eastern  temperate  Europe  and  the  neighbouring 
countries  of  Asia.  We  have  to  discover  whether  the 
plant  has  been  found  wild. 

Olivier,4  in  a passage  already  quoted,  says  that  he 
several  times  found  it  in  Mesopotamia,  in  particular 
upon  the  right  bank  of  the  Euphrates,  north  of  Anah,  in 
places  unfit  for  cultivation.  Another  botanist,  Andre 
Michaux,  saw  it  in  1783,  near  Hamadan,  a town  in  the 
temperate  region  of  Persia.  Dureau  de  la  Malle  says 
that  he  sent  some  grains  of  it  to  Bose,  who  sowed  them 
at  Paris  and  obtained  the  common  spelt ; but  this  seems 
to  me  doubtful,  for  Lamarck,  in  178fi,r>  and  Bose  ^limself, 
in  the  Didionnaire  d’ Agriculture,  article  Epeautre 
(spelt),  published  in  1809,  says  not  a word  of  this.  The 
herbariums  of  the  Paris  Museum  contain  no  specimens 
of  the  cereals  mentioned  by  Olivier. 

There  is,  as  wre  have  seen,  much  uncertainty  as  to 
the  origin  of  the  species  as  a wild  plant.  This  leads  me 
to  attribute  more  importance  to  the  hypothesis  that 
spelt  is  derived  by  cultivation  from  the  common  wheat, 
or  from  an  intermediate  form  at  some  not  very  early 
prehistoric  time.  The  experiments  of  H.  Vilmorin6 
support  this  theory,  for  cross  fertilizations  of  the  spelt 

1 Ad.  Pictet,  Orij.  Indo-  Europ.,  edit.  2,  vol.  i.  p.  348. 

3 Ad.  Pictet,  ibid. ; Nemnicli,  Lexicon. 

3 Willkomm  and  Lange,  Prodr.  FI.  Hisp.,  i.  p.  107. 

4 Olivier,  Voyage,  1807,  vol.  iii.  p.  460. 

s Lamarck,  Diet.  Encycl.,  ii.  p.  560. 

* H.  Vilmorin,  Hull.  Soc.  Dot.  de  France,  1881,  p.  858. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


365 


by  the  downy  white  wheat,  and  vice  versd,  yield  “hybrids 
whose  fertility  is  complete,  with  a mixture  of  the 
characters  of  both  parents,  those  of  the  spelt  pre- 
ponderating.” 

2.  Starch  Wheat — Triticum  dicoccum,  Sclirank;  Triti- 
cum amyleum,  Seringe. 

This  form  ( Emmer , or  Aemer  in  German),  cultivated 
for  starch  chiefly  in  Switzerland,  resists  a hard  winter. 
It  contains  two  grains  in  each  little  ear,  like  the  true 
spelt. 

Heer 1 attributes  to  a variety  of  T.  dicoccum  an  ear 
found  in  a bad  state  of  preservation  in  the  lake-dwellings 
of  Wangen,  Switzerland.  Messicommer  has  since  found 
some  at  Robenhausen. 

It  has  never  been  found  wild ; and  the  rarity  of 
common  names  is  remarkable.  These  two  circumstances, 
and  the  slight  value  of  the  botanical  characters  which 
serve  to  distinguish  it  from  Tr.  spclta,  lead  to  the  con- 
clusion that  it  is  an  ancient  cultivated  variety  of  the 
latter. 

3.  One-grained  Wheat — Triticum  monococcum,  Linnaeus. 

The  one-grained  wheat,  or  little  spelt,  Einhom  in 

German,  is  distinguished  from  the  two  preceding  by  a 
single  seed  in  the  little  ear,  and  by  other  characters0 which 
lead  the  majority  of  botanists  to  consider  it  as  a really 
distinct  species.  The  experiments  of  H.  Vilmorin  con- 
firm this  opinion  so  far,  for  he  has  not  yet  succeeded  in 
crossing  T.  monococcum  with  other  spelts  or  wheats.  This 
may  be  due,  as  he  says  himself,  to  some  detail  in  the 
manner  of  operating.  He  intends  to  renew  his  attempts, 
and  may  perhaps  succeed.  [In  the  Bulletin  de  la  Societe 
BoUinique  da  b ranee,  1883,  p.  02,  Mr.  Vilmorin  says  that 
he  has  not  met  with  better  success  in  the  third  and 
fourth  years  in  his  attempts  at  crossing  T.  monococcum 
with  other  species.  He  intends  to  make  the  experiment 
with  1.  bceoticum,  Boissier,  wild  in  Servia,  of  which  I 
sent  him  some  seeds  gathered  by  Pancic.  As  this  species 
is  supposed  to  be  the  original  stock  of  T.  monococcum, 
the  experiment  is  an  interesting  one. — Author’s  Note, 

1 Heer,  Pjlanz.  der.  P/ahlb.,  p.  5,  fig.  23,  and  p.  15. 


366 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


1884.]  In  the  mean  time  let  us  see  whether  this  form 
of  spelt  has  been  long  in  cultivation,  and  if  it  has  any- 
where been  found  growing  wild. 

The  one-grained  wheat  thrives  in  the  poorest  and 
most  stony  soil.  It  is  not  very  productive,  but  yields 
excellent  meal.  It  is  sown  especially  in  mountainous 
districts,  in  Spain,  France,  and  the  east  of  Europe,  but 
I do  not  find  it  mentioned  in  Barbary,  Egypt,  the  East, 
or  in  India  or  China. 

From  some  expressions  it  has  been  believed  to  be 
the  tiphai  of  Theophrastus.1  It  is  easier  to  invoke 
Dioscorides,2  for  he  distinguishes  two  kinds  of  zeiu,  one 
with  two  seeds,  another  with  only  one.  The  latter  would 
be  the  one-grained  wheat.  Nothing  proves  that  it  was 
commonly  cultivated  by  the  Greeks  and  Romans.  Their 
modern  descendants  do  not  sow  it.8  There  are  no  Sans- 
krit, Persian,  or  Arabic  names.  I suggested  formerly 
that  the  Hebrew  word  leussemeth  might  apply  to  this 
species,  but  this  hypothesis  now  seems  to  me  difficult  to 
maintain. 

Marschall  Bieberstein4  mentions  Triticum  mono- 
coccum, or  a variety  of  it,  growing  wild  in  the  Crimea 
and  the  eastern  Caucasus,  but  no  botanist  has  confirmed 
this  assertion.  Steven,5  who  lived  in  the  Crimea, 
declares  that  he  never  saw  the  species  except  cultivated 
by  the  Tartars.  On  the  other  hand,  the  plant  which 
Balansa  gathered  in  a wild  state  near  Mount  Sipylus,  in 
Anatolia,  is  T.  monococcum,  according  to  J.  Gay,6  who 
takes  with  this  form  Triticum  boeoticum,  Boissier,  which 
grows  wild  in  the  plains  of  Boeotia 7 and  in  Servia.8 

1 Fraas,  Syn.  FI.  Class.,  p.  307- 

! Dioscorides,  Mat.  Med.,  2,  c.  iii.  155. 

3 Heldreich,  Nutz.  Oriech. 

* Bieberstein,  FI.  Tauro-Caucasaica,  vol.  i.  p.  85. 

5 Steven,  Verzeichniss  Taur.  Halbins.  Pflan.,  p.  351. 

8 Bull.  Soc.  But.  Fran.,  I860,  p.  30. 

7 Boissier,  Diagnoses,  1st  series,  vol.  ii.  fasc.  13,  p.  G9. 

8 Balansa,  1854,  No.  137  in  Boissicr’s  Herbarium,  in  which  there  is 
also  a specimen  fonnd  in  the  lields  in  Servia,  and  a variety  with  brown 
beards  sent  by  Pancio,  growing  in  Sorvian  meadows.  The  same 
botanist  (of  Belgrade)  has  just  sent  me  wild  specimens  from  Servia, 
which  I cannot  distinguish  from  T.  monococcum,  which  ho  assures  me 

is  not  cultivated  in  Servia.  Bentham  writes  to  me  that  T.  boeoticum,  , 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


367 


Admitting  these  facts,  T.  monococcum  is  a native  of 
Servia,  Greece,  and  Asia  Minor,  and  as  the  attempts  to 
cross  it  with  other  spelts  or  wheats  have  not  been 
successful,  it  is  rightly  termed  a species  in  the  Linnsean 
sense. 

The  separation  of  wheat  with  free  grains  from  spelt 
must  have  taken  place  before  all  history,  perhaps  before 
the  beginning  of  agriculture.  Wheat  must  have  appeared 
first  in  Asia,  and  then  spelt,  probably  in  Eastern  Europe 
and  Anatolia.  Lastly,  among  spelts  T.  monococcum 
seems  to  be  the  most  ancient  form,  from  which  the  others 
have  gradually  developed  in  several  thousand  years  of 
cultivation  and  selection. 

Two-rowed  Barley — Hordeum  distichon,  Linnseus. 

Barley  is  among  the  most  ancient  of  cultivated 
plants.  As  all  its  forms  resemble  each  other  in  nature 
and  uses,  we  must  not  expect  to  find  in  ancient  authors 
and  in  common  names  that  precision  which  would  enable 
us  to  recognize  the  species  admitted  by  botanists.  In 
many  cases  the  name  barley  has  been  taken  in  a vague 
or  generic  sense.  This  is  a difficulty  which  we  must 
take  into  account.  For  instance,  the  expression  of  the 
Old  Testament,  of  Berosus,  of  Moses  of  Chorene, 
Pausanias,  Marco  Polo,  and  more  recently  of  Olivier, 
indicating  “wild  and  cultivated  barley”  in  a given 
country,  prove  nothing,  because  we  do  not  know  to 
which  species  they  refer.  There  is  the  same  obscurity 
in  China.  Dr.  Bretschneider  says1  that,  according  to 
a work  published  in  the  year  a.d.  100,  the  Chinese 
cultivated  barley,  but  he  does  not  specify  the  kind.  At 
the  extreme  west  of  the  old  world  the  Guanehos  also 
cultivated  a barley,  of  which  we  know  the  name  but  not 
the  species. 

The  common  variety  of  the  two-rowed  barley,  in 
which  the  husk  remains  attached  to  the  ripened  grain, 
has  been  found  wild  in  Western  Asia,  in  Arabia  Petrea,2 

of  which  lie  Baw  several  specimens,  is,  he  thinks,  the  same  as  T. 

■ monococcum . 

1 Bretschneider,  On  the  Study,  etc.,  p.  8. 

2 A specimen  determined  by  Renter  in  Boissier’s  Herbarium. 


368 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


near  Mount  Sinai,1  in  the  ruins  of  Persepolis,2  near 
the  Caspian  Sea,3  between  Lenkoran  and  Baku,  in 
the  desert  of  Chirvan  and  Awhasia,  to  the  south  of  the 
Caucasus,4 *  and  in  Turcomania.6  No  author  mentions  it 
in  Greece,  Egypt,  or  to  the  east  of  Persia.  Willdenow6 
indicates  it  at  Samara,  in  the  south-east  of  Russia ; but 
more  recent  authors  do  not  confirm  this.  Its  modern 
area  is,  therefore,  from  the  Red  Sea  to  the  Caucasus  and 
the  Caspian  Sea. 

Hence  this  barley  should  be  one  of  the  forms 
cultivated  by  Semitic  and  Turanian  peoples.  Yet  it 
has  not  been  found  in  Egyptian  monuments.  It  seems 
that  the  Aryans  must  have  known  it,  but  I find  no  proof 
in  vernacular  names  or  in  history. 

Theophrastus7  speaks  of  the  two-rowed  barley.  The 
lake-dwellers  of  Eastern  Switzerland  cultivated  it  before 
they  possessed  metals,8  but  the  six-rowed  barley  was 
more  common  among  them. 

The  variety  in  which  the  grain  is  bare  at  maturity 
(II.  distichon  nudum,  Linnaeus),  which  in  France  has  all 
sorts  of  absurd  names,  orge  d cafe,  orge  du  Perou  (coffee 
barley,  Peruvian  barley),  has  never  been  found  wild. 

The  fan-shaped  barley  ( Hordeum  Zevcriton,  Linrneus) 
seems  to  me  to  be  a cultivated  form  of  the  two-rowed 
barley.  It  is  not  known  in  a wild  state,  nor  has  it  been 
found  in  Egyptian  monuments,  nor  the  lake-dwellings  of 
Switzerland,  Savoy,  and  Italy. 

Common  Barley — llordcv,m  vulgare,  Linnaeus. 

The  common  barley  with  four  rows  of  grain  is 
mentioned  by  Theophrastus,9  but  it  seems  to  have  been 

1 Figari  and  deNotaris,  Agrodolngiat  JEgypt.  Fragm.,  p.  18. 

2 A very  starved  plant  gathered  by  Kotschy,  No.  290,  of  which  I 
possess  a specimen.  Boissier  terms  it  if.  distichon,  varietus. 

J C.  A.  Meyer,  Verzeichniss,  p.  26,  from  specimens  seen  also  by 
Ledebour,  FI.  Ross.,  iv.  p.  327. 

4 Ledebour,  ibid. 

6 Regel,  Descr.  Plant.,  Nov.,  1881,  fasc.  8,  p.  37. 

0 Willdenow,  Sp.  Plant.,  i.  p.  473. 

7 Theophrastus,  Hist.  Plant.,  lib.  viii.  cap.  4. 

8 Iljer,  Pfianzen  der  Pfahlbauten,  p.  13;  Messicommer,  Flora  Bot. 
Zcilunj,  1869,  p.  320. 

" Theophrastus,  Hist.,  lib.  viii.  cap.  4. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


3C9 


less  cultivated  in  antiquity  than  that  with  two  rows,  and 
considerably  less  than  that  with  six  rows.  It  has  not 
been  found  in  Egyptian  monuments,  nor  in  the  lake- 
dwellings  of  Switzerland,  Savoy,  and  Italy. 

Willdenow 1 says  that  it  grows  in  Sicily  and  in  the 
south-east  of  Russia,  at  Samara,  but  the  modern  floras  of 
these  two  countries  do  not  confirm  this.  We  do  not 
know  what  species  of  barley  it  was  that  Olivier  saw 
growing  wild  in  Mesopotamia ; consequently  the  common 
barley  has  not  yet  been  found  certainly  wild. 

The  multitude  of  common  names  which  are  attributed 
to  it  prove  nothing  as  to  its  origin,  for  in  most  cases  it 
is  impossible  to  know  if  they  are  names  of  barley  in 
general,  or  of  a particular  kind  of  barley  cultivated  in  a 
given  country. 

Six-rowed  Barley — Hordeum  hexaxtichon,  Linnpeus. 

This  was  the  species  most  commonly  cultivated  in 
antiquity.  Not  only  is  it  mentioned  by  Greek  authors, 
but  it  has  also  been  found  in  the  earliest  Egyptian  monu- 
ments,2 and  in  the  remains  of  the  lake-dwellings  of 
Switzerland  (age  of  stone),  of  Italy,  and  of  Savoy”  (age 
of  bronze).8  Heer  has  even  distinguished  two  varieties 
of  the  species  formerly  cultivated  in  Switzerland.  One  of 
them  answers  to  the  six-rowed  barley  represented  on 
the  medals  of  Metapontis,  a town  in  the  south  of  Italy, 
six  centuries  before  Christ. 

According  to  Roxburgh,4  it  was  the  only  kind  of 
barley  grown  in  India  at  the  end  of  the  last  century. 
He  attributes  to  it  the  Sanskrit  name  yuva,  which 
has  become  juba  in  Bengali.  Adolphe  Pictet5  has  care- 
fully studied  the  names  in  Sanskrit  and  other  Indo- 
European  languages  which  answer  to  the  generic  name 

1 "Willdenow,  Species  Plant.,  i.  p.  472. 

Unger,  Pflanzen  des  Alten  Eyyptens,  p.  33 ; Ein  Ziegel  der  Dashur 
Pyramide,  p.  109. 

a Heer,  Pflamzen  der  Pfahlbauten,  p.  5,  figs.  2 and  3 ; p.  13,  fig.  9 , 
Flora  Bot.  Zeitung,  1869,  p.  320 : de  Mortillet,  according  to  Perrin, 
Etudes  prZhistoriqv.es  stir  la  Savoie,  p.  23 ; Sordelli,  Suite  piante  della 
torbiera  di  Lagozza,  p.  33. 

4 Roxburgh,  FI.  Ivd.,  edit.  1832,  vol.  i.  p.  358. 

4 Ad.  Pictet,  Oriyines  Indo-Ewrop.,  edit.  2,  vol.  i.  p.  333. 

2 B 


370  ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 

barley,  but  he  has  not  been  able  to  go  into  the  details  of 
each  species. 

The  six-rowed  barley  has  not  been  seen  in  the  con- 
ditions of  a wild  plant,  of  which  the  species  has  been 
determined  by  a botanist.  I have  not  found  it  in  Bois- 
sier’s  herbarium,  which  is  so  rich  in  Eastern  plants.  It 
is  possible  that  the  wild  barleys  mentioned  by  ancient 
authors  and  by  Olivier  were  Hordeum  hexastichon,  but 
there  is  no  proof  of  this. 

On  Barleys  in  general. 

We  have  seen  that  the  only  form  which  is  now  found 
wild  is  the  simplest,  the  least  productive,  Hordeum  dis- 
tichon,  which  was,  like  11.  hexastichon,  cultivated  in 
prehistoric  time.  Perhaps  H.  vulgare  has  not  been  so 
long  in  cultivation  as  the  two  others. 

Two  hypotheses  may  be  drawn  from  these  facts:  1. 
That  the  barleys  with  four  and  six  rows  were,  in  prehis- 
toric agriculture  anterior  to  that  of  the  ancient  Egyptians 
who  built  the  monuments,  derived  from  H.  distichon. 
2.  The  barleys  with  six  and  four  ranks  were  species 
formerly  wild,  extinct  since  the  historical  epoch.  It 
would  be  strange  in  this  case  that  no  trace  of  them  has 
remained  in  the  floras  of  the  vast  region  comprised  be- 
tween India,  the  Black  Sea,  and  Abyssinia,  where  we 
are  nearly  sure  of  their  cultivation,  at  least  of  that  of  the 
six-ranked  barley. 

Rye — Secale  cereale,  Linmeus. 

Bye  has  not  been  very  long  in  cultivation,  unless, 
perhaps,  in  Russia  and  Thrace.  It  has  not  been  found 
in  Egyptian  monuments,  and  has  no  name  in  Semitic 
languages,  even  in  the  modern  ones;  nor  in  Sanskrit 
and  the  modern  Indian  languages  derived  from  Sanskrit. 
These  facts  agree  with  the  circumstance  that  rye  thrives 
better  in  northern  than  in  southern  countries,  where  it 
is  not  usually  cultivated  in  modern  times.  Dr.  Bret- 
schneider1  thinks  it  is  unknown  to  Chinese  agriculture. 
He  doubts  the  contrary  assertion  of  a modern  writer, 

1 Brctschneider,  On  Study  and  Value,  etc.,  pp.  18,  44. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  TIIEIR  SEEDS. 


371 


and  remarks  that  the  name  of  a cereal  mentioned  in  the 
memoirs  of  the  Emperor  Kanghi,  which  may  he  sup- 
posed to  he  this  species,  signifies  Russian  wheat.  Now 
rye,  he  says,  is  much  cultivated  in  Siberia.  There  is  no 
mention  of  it  in  Japanese  floras. 

The  ancient  Greeks  did  not  know  it.  The  first 
author  who  mentions  it  in  the  Roman  empire  is  Pliny,1 
who  speaks  of  the  secale  cultivated  at  Turin  at  the 
foot  of  the  Alps,  under  the  name  of  Asia.  Galen,2 
horn  in  a.d.  131,  had  seen  it  cultivated  in  Thrace  and 
Macedonia  under  the  name  briza.  Its  cultivation  does 
not  seem  ancient,  at  least  in  Italy,  for  no  trace  of  rye 
has  been  found  in  the  remains  of  the  lake-dwellings  of 
the  north  of  that  country,  or  of  Switzerland  and  Savoy, 
even  of  the  age  of  bronze.  Jetteles  found  remains  of  rye 
near  Olmutz,  together  with  instruments  of  bronze,  and 
Heer,!i  who  saw  the  specimens,  mentions  others  of  the 
Roman  epoch  in  Switzerland. 

Failing  archaeological  proofs,  European  languages  show 
an  early  knowledge  of  rye  in  German,  Keltic,  and  Sla- 
vonic countries.  The  principal  names,  according  to 
Adolphe  Pictet,4  belong  to  the  peoples  of  the  north  of 
Europe:  Anglo-Saxon,  ryge,  rig;  Scandinavian,  ritgr ; 
Old  High  German,  roggo ; Ancient  Slav,  ruji,  roji; 
Polish,  rez ; Illyrian,  ras,  etc.  The  origin  of  this  name 
must  date,  he  says,  from  an  epoch  previous  to  the  sepa- 
ration of  the  Teutons  from  the  Lithuano-Slavs.  The 
word  secale  of  the  Latins  recurs  in  a similar  form  among 
the  Bretons,  seged,  and  the  Basques,  cekela,  zekhalea ; but 
it  is  not  known  whether  the  Latins  borrowed  it  from  the 
Gauls  and  Iberians,  or  whether,  conversely,  the  latter 
took  the  name  from  the  Romans.  This  second  hypo- 
thesis appears  to  be  the  more  probable  of  the  two,  since 
the  Cisalpine  Gauls  of  Pliny’s  time  had  quite  a different 
name.  I also  find  mentioned  a Tartar  name,  aresch ,c  and 
an  Ossete  name,  syl,  sil,°  which  points  to  an  ancient 
cultivation  to  the  east  of  Europe. 

1 Pliny,  Hist.,  lib.  xviii.  c.  16. 

2 Galen,  De  Alimentis,  lib.  xiii.,  quoted  by  Lenz,  Bot.  de  Alien,  p.  259. 

* Ileer,  Die  PJlanzen  der  Pfahlbauten,  p.  10. 

4 Ad.  Pictet,  Origines  Indo-Europ.,  edit.  2,  vol.  i.  p.  344. 

5 Nemnicb,  Lexicon  Nuturgesch.  0 Ad.  Pictet,  ubi  supra. 


372 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Thus  historical  and  philological  data  show  that  the 
species  probably  had  its  origin  in  the  countries  north  of 
the  Danube,  and  that  its  cultivation  is  hardly  earlier 
than  the  Christian  era  in  the  Roman  empire,  but  perhaps 
more  ancient  in  Russia  and  Tartary. 

The  indication  of  wild  rye  given  by  several  authors 
should  scarcely  ever  be  accepted,  for  it  has  often  hap- 
pened that  Secale  cereale  has  been  confounded  with 
perennial  species,  or  with  others  of  which  the  ear  is  easily 
broken,  which  modern  botanists  have  rightly  dis- 
tinguished.1 Many  mistakes  which  thus  arose  have  been 
cleared  up  by  an  examination  of  original  specimens. 
Others  may  be  suspected.  Thus  I do  not  know  what 
to  think  of  the  assertions  of  L.  Ross,  who  said  he  had 
found  rye  growing  wild  in  several  parts  of  Anatolia,2 3 
and  of  the  Russian  traveller  Ssaewerzoff,  who  said  he 
saw  it  in  Turkestan.8  The  latter  fact  is  probable  enough, 
but  it  is  not  said  that  any  botanist  verified  the  species. 
Kunth 4 had  previously  mentioned  it  in  “ the  desert 
between  the  Black  Sea  and  the  Caspian,”  but  he  does 
not  say  on  what  authority  of  traveller  or  of  specimens. 
Boissier’s  herbarium  has  shown  me  no  wild  Secale  cereale, 
but  it  has  persuaded  me  that  another  species  of  rye 
might  easily  be  mistaken  for  this  one,  and  that  asser- 
tions require  to  be  carefully  verified. 

Failing  satisfactory  proofs  of  wild  plants,  I formerly 
urged,  in  my  Geographie  Botanique  Baisonnee,  an  argu- 
ment of  some  value.  Secede  cereale  sows  itself  from 
cultivation,  and  becomes  almost  wild  in  parts  of  the 
Austrian  empire,5  which  is  seldom  seen  elsewhere.6 *  Thus 

1 Secale  fragile,  Bieberstein ; S.  anatolieum,  Boissier ; S.  montanum, 
Gussone ; S.  villosum,  Linnrous.  I explained  in  my  Geogr.  Botanique, 
p.  930,  the  errors  which  result  from  this  confusion,  when  rye  was  said  to 
be  wild  in  Sicily,  Crete,  aud  sometimes  in  Russia. 

2 Flora,  Bot.  Zeitung,  1850,  p.  520. 

3 Flora,  Bot.  Zeitung,  1869,  p.  93.  4 Kunth,  F.num.,  i.  p.  449. 

5 Sndler,  Ft.  Pesth.,  i.  p.  80 ; Host,  FI.  Austr.,  i.  p.  177 ; Banmgarten,  , 

FI.  Transylv.,  p.  225;  Noilreich,  FI.  Wien.,  p.  58;  Viviani,  FI.  Balm  at.,  i. 

p.  97 ; Farkas,  FI.  Croat.,  p.  1288.  4 

o Strobl  saw  it,  however,  in  the  woods  on  the  slopes  of  Etna,  a result 

of  its  introduction  into  cultivation  in  the  eighteenth  century  ((Ester.  Bot. 
Zeit.,  1881,  p.  159). 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


373 


in  the  east  of  Europe,  where  history  points  to  an  ancient 
cultivation,  rye  finds  at  the  present  day  tire  most  favour- 
able conditions  for  living  without  the  aid  of  man.  It 
can  hardly  he  doubted,  from  these  facts,  that  its  original 
area  was  in  the  region  comprised  between  the  Austrian 
Alps  and  the  north  of  the  Caspian  Sea.  This  seems 
the  more  probable  that  the  five  or  six  known  species  of 
the  genus  Secale  inhabit  western  temperate  Asia  or  the 
south-east  of  Europe. 

Admitting  this  origin,  the  Aryan  natives  would  not 
have  known  the  species,  as  philology  already  shows  us ; 
but  in  their  migrations  westward  they  must  have  met 
with  it  under  different  names,  which  they  transported 
here  and  there. 

Common  Oats  and  Eastern  Oats — A vena  sativa,  Lin- 
naeus; A vena  orien  t al  ls,  Schreber. 

The  ancient  Egyptians  and  the  Hebrews  did  not 
cultivate  oats,  but  they  are  now  grown  in  Egypt.1  There 
is  no  Sanskrit  name,  nor  any  in  modern  Indian  languages. 
They  are  only  now  and  then  planted  by  the  English  in 
India  for  their  horses.2  The  earliest  mention  of  oats 
in  China  is  in  an  historical  work  on  the  period  618  to  907 
A.D. ; it  refers  to  the  variety  known  to  botanists  as 
Arena  sativa  nuda .3  The  ancient  Greeks  knew  the 
genus  very  well ; they  called  it  bromos ,4  as  the  Latins 
called  it  arena ; but  these  names  were  commonly  applied 
to  species  which  are  not  cultivated,  and  which  are  weeds 
mixed  with  cereals.  There  is  no  proof  that  they  culti- 
vated the  common  oats.  Pliny’s  remark 5 that  the 
Germans  lived  on  oatmeal,  implies  that  the  species  was 
not  cultivated  by  the  Romans. 

The  cultivation  of  oats  was,  therefore,  practised  an- 
ciently to  the  north  of  Italy  and  of  Greece.  It  was 
diffused  later  and  partially  in  the  south  of  the  Roman 
empire.  It  is  possible  that  it  was  more  ancient  in  Asia 
Minor,  for  Galen1'  says  that  oats  were  abundant  in 

1 Schweinfurth  and  Ascherson,  Beitrage  zur  FI.  Mhiop.,  p.  298. 

2 Hoyle,  III.,  p.  419. 

3 Bretschneider,  On  Study  and  Value,  etc.,  pp.  18,  44. 

4 Fraaa,  Byn.  FI.  Claes.,  p.  803  ; Lenz,  But.  der  Alten,  p.  243. 

5 Fliny,  Hist.,  lib.  xviii.  cap.  17.  8 Galen,  Be  Alimentis,  lib.  i.  cap.  12. 


374 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Mysia,  above  Pergamus ; that  they  were  given  to  horses, 
and  that  men  used  them  for  food  in  years  of  scarcity. 
A colony  of  Gauls  had  formerly  penetrated  into  Asia 
Minor.  Oats  have  been  found  among  the  remains  of 
the  Swiss  lake-dwellings  of  the  age  of  bronze,1  and  in 
Germany,  near  Wittenburg,  in  several  tombs  of  the 
first  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  or  a little  earlier.2 
Hitherto  none  have  been  found  in  the  lake-dwellings 
of  the  north  of  Italy,  which  confirms  the  belief  that 
oats  were  not  cultivated  in  Italy  in  the  time  of  the  Roman 
republic. 

The  vernacular  names  also  prove  an  ancient  existence 
north  and  west  of  the  Alps,  and  on  the  borders  of  Europe 
towards  Tartary  and  the  Caucasus.  The  most  widely 
diffused  of  these  names  is  indicated  by  the  Latin  avena, 
Ancient  Slav  ovisu,  ovesu,  ovsa,  Russian  overn,  Lithuanian 
awiza,  Lettonian  aitscis,  Ostias  abis.s  The  English  word 
oats  comes,  according  to  A.  Pictet,  from  the  Anglo-Saxon 
ata  or  ate.  The  Basque  name,  olba  or  oloa ,4  argues  a 
very  ancient  Iberian  cultivation. 

The  Keltic  names  are  quite  different : 5 Irish  coirce, 
cuirce,  corca,  Armorican  herch.  Tartar  sulu,  Georgian 
kari,  Hungarian  zab,  Croat  zol,  Esthonian  Jcaer,  and 
others  are  mentioned  by  Nemnich6  as  applying  to  the 
generic  name  oats,  but  it  is  not  likely  that  names  so 
varied  do  not  belong  to  a cultivated  species.  It  is 
strange  that  there  should  be  an  independent  Berber  name 
zekkoum ,7  as  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  the  species 
was  anciently  cultivated  in  Africa. 

All  these  facts  show  how  erroneous  is  the  opinion 
which  reigned  in  the  last  century,8  that  oats  were 
brought  originally  from  the  island  of  Juan  Fernandez,  a 
belief  which  came  apparently  from  an  assei’tion  of  the 
navigator  Anson.9  It  is  evidently  not  in  the  Austral 

1 Heer,  Pflantsen  der  Pfahlbauten,  p.  6,  fig.  24. 

2 Lenz,  Bot.  der  Alten,  p.  245. 

3 Ad.  Pictet,  Grig.  Indo.-Europ.,  edit.  2,  vol.  i.  p.  350. 

« Notes  communicated  by  M.  Clos.  3 Ad.  Pictet,  tibi supra. 

8 Nemnich,  Polyglott.  Lexicon,  p.  548. 

7 Diet.  Fr.-Berbdre,  published  by  the  French  Government. 

8 Linnaeus,  Species,  p.  118;  Lamarck,  Diet.  Enc.,  i.  p.  431. 

« Phillips,  Cult.  Veget.,  ii.  p.  4. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS.  375 

hemisphere  that  we  must  seek  for  the  home  of  the  species, 
but  in  those  countries  of  the  northern  hemisphere  where 
it  was  anciently  cultivated. 

Oats  sow  themselves  on  rubbish-heaps,  by  the  way- 
side,  and  near  cultivated  ground  more  easily  than  other 
cereals,  and  sometimes  persist  in  such  a way  as  to 
appear  wild.  This  has  been  observed  in  widely  separate 
places,  as  Algeria  and  Japan,  Paris  and  the  north  of 
China.1  Instances  ot  this  nature  render  us  sceptical  as 
to  the  wild  nature  of  the  oats  which  Bovd  said  he  found 
in  the  desert  of  Sinai.  It  has  also  been  said  2 that  the 
traveller  Olivier  saw  oats  wild  in  Persia,  but  he  does  not 
mention  the  fact  in  his  work.  Besides,  several  annual 
species  nearly  resembling  oats  may  deceive  the  traveller.  I 
cannot  discover  either  in  books  or  herbaria  the  existence 
of  really  ivild  oats  either  in  Europe  or  Asia,  and  Bentham 
has  assured  me  that  there  are  no  such  specimens  in  the 
herbarium  at  Kew ; but  certainly  the  half- wild  or 
naturalized  condition  is  more  frequent  in  the  Austrian 
states  from  Dalmatia  to  Transylvania 3 than  elsewhere. 
This  is  an  indication  of  origin  which  may  be  added  to 
the  historical  and  philological  arguments  in  favour  of 
eastern  temperate  Europe. 

Avena  strigosa,  Schreber,  appears  to  be  a variety  of 
the  comraon  oats,  judging  from  the  experiments  in  culti- 
vation mentioned  by  Bentham,  who  adds,  it  is  true,  that 
these  need  confirmation.4  There  is  a good  drawing  of  the 
variety  in  Host,  leones  Graniinum  A'ltstnacorum,  ii.  pi. 
56,  which  may  be  compared  with  A.  saliva,  pi.  59.  For 
the  rest,  Avena  strigosa  has  not  been  found  wild.  It 
exists  in  Europe  in  deserted  fields,  which  confirms  the 
hypothesis  that  it  is  a form  derived  by  cultivation. 

Avena  orient alis,  Schreber,  of  which  the  spikelets 

Munby,  Catal.  Alger.,  edit.  2,  p.  36  ; Francbet  and  Savatier,  Enum. 
PL  Jap.,  ii.  p.  175;  Cosson,  FI.  Paris,  ii.  p.  637;  Bunge,  Enum.  Chin., 
p.  71,  for  the  variety  mtda. 

1 Lamarck,  Diet.  Encycl.,  i.  p.  331. 

3 Viviani,  FI.  Dalmat.,  i.  p.  69  ; Host,  FI.  Austr.,  i.  p.  138  ; Noilreioh, 
FI.  Wien.,  p.  85;  Baumgarton,  Enum.  Transylv.,  iii.  p.  259;  Farkas, 
FI.  Croatica,  p.  1277- 

* Bentham,  Handbook  of  British  Flora,  edit.  4,  p.  544. 


37G 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


lean  all  to  one  side,  has  also  been  grown  in  Europe  from 
the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century.  It  is  not  known  in  a 
wild  state.  Often  mixed  with  common  oats,  it  is  not  to 
be  distinguished  from  them  at  a glance.  The  names  it 
bears  in  Germany,  Turkish  or  Hungarian  oats,  points  to 
a modern  introduction  from  the  East.  Host  gives  a good 
drawing  of  it  (Gram.  Austr.,  i.  pi.  44). 

As  all  the  varieties  of  oats  are  cultivated,  and  none 
have  been  discovered  in  a truly  wild  state,  it  is  very 
probable  that  they  are  all  derived  from  a single  pre- 
historic form,  a native  of  eastern  temperate  Europe  and 
of  Tartary. 

Common  Millet — Panicum  miliaceum,  Linnmus. 

The  cultivation  of  this  plant  is  prehistoric  in  the 
south  of  Europe,  in  Egypt,  and  in  Asia.  The  Greeks 
knew  it  by  the  name  kegchros,  and  the  Latins  by  that  of 
milium.1  The  Swiss  lake-dwellers  of  the  age  of  stone 
made  great  use  of  millet,2  and  it  has  also  been  found  in 
the  remains  of  the  lake-dwellings  of  Varese  in  Italy.8 
As  we  do  not  elsewhere  find  specimens  of  these  early 
times,  it  is  impossible  to  know  what  was  the  panicum  or 
the  sorghum  mentioned  by  Latin  authors  which  -was 
used  as  food  by  the  inhabitants  of  Gaul,  Panonia,  and 
other  countries.  Unger4  counts  P.  miliaceum  among  the 
species  of  ancient  Egypt,  but  it  does  not  appear  that  he 
had  positive  proof  of  this,  for  he  has  mentioned  no  monu- 
ment. drawing,  or  seed  found  in  the  tombs.  Nor  is  there 
any  material  proof  of  ancient  cultivation  in  Mesopotamia, 
India,  and  -China.  For  the  last-named  country  it  is  a 
question  whether  the  situ,  one  of  the  five  cereals  sown  by 
the  emperors  in  the  great  yearly  ceremony,  is  Panicum 
miliaceum,  an  allied  species,  or  sorghum ; but  it  appears 
that  the  sense  of  the  word  shu  lias  changed,  and  that 
formerly  it  was  perhaps  sorghum  which  was  sown.5 

1 The  passages  from  Theophrastus,  Cato,  and  others,  are  translated  in 
Lenz,  Botanik  der  Alten,  p.  232. 

a Heer,  PJIanzen  der  Pfnhlba  uten,  p.  17. 

3 Regazzoni,  Riv.  Arch.  Prov.  di  Como,  1880,  fasc.  7. 

« Unger,  PJIanzen  des  Alten  JEgyptens,  p.  34. 

5 Bretschneider,  Study  and  Value  of  Chinese  Botanical  Works,  pp. 
7,  8,  45. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS.  377 

Anglo-Indian  botanists 1 attribute  two  Sanskrit 
names  to  the  modern  species,  'Ann  and  vreehib-heda, 
although  the  modern  Hindu  and  Bengali  name  cheena  and 
the  Telinga  name  worga  are  quite  different.  If  the 
Sanskrit  names  are  genuine,  they  indicate  an  ancient 
cultivation  in  India.  No  Hebrew  nor  Berber  name  is 
known;2 3 4  but  there  are  Arab  names,  dokhn,  used  in 
Egypt,  and  kosjcejb  in  Arabia.8  There  are  various 
European  names.  Besides  the  Greek  and  Latin  words, 
there  is  an  ancient  Slav  name,  proso?  retained  in  Russia 
and  Poland,  an  old  German  word  hirsi,  and  a Lithuanian 
name  sora.5  The  absence  of  Keltic  names  is  remarkable. 
It  appeara  that  the  species  was  cultivated  especially  in 
Eastern  Europe,  and  spread  westward  towards  the  end  of 
the  Gallic  dominion. 

With  regard  to  its  wild  existence,  Linnaeus  says6  that 
it  inhabits  India,  and  most  authors  repeat  this ; but 
Anglo-Indian  botanists 7 always  give  it  as  cultivated.  It 
is  not  found  in  Japanese  floras.  In  the  north  of  China 
de  Bunge  only  saw  it  cultivated,8  and  Maximowicz  near 
the  Ussuri,  on  the  borders  of  fields  and  in  places  near 
Chinese  dwellings.9 *  Ledebour  says  19  it  is  nearly  wild  in 
Altaic  Siberia  and  Central  Russia,  and  wild  south  of  the 
Caucasus  and  in  the  country  of  Talysch.  He  quotes 
Hohenaeker  for  the  last-named  locality,  who,  however, 
says,  only  “ nearly  wild.”  11  In  the  Crimea,  where  it 
furnishes  bread  for  the  Tartars,  it  is  found  here  and  there 
nearly  wild,12 *  which  is  also  the  case  in  the  south  of 
I ranee,  in  Italy,  and  in  Austria.18  It  is  not  wild  in 

1 Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.,  edit.  1832,  p.  310  ; Piddington,  Index. 

2 Rosenmiiller,  Iiibl.  Alterth.  ; Diet.  Frang.-BerUre. 

3 Delile,  FI.  JEyypt.,  p.  3 ; Forskal,  FI.  Arab.,  civ. 

4 Ad.  Pictet,  Oriijines  Indo-Eurtypiennes,  edit.  2,  vol.  i.  p.  351. 

5 lhid-  6 Linnaeus,  Spec.  Plant,  i.  p.  86. 

Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.,  edit.  1832,  p.  310 ; Aitchison,  Cat.  of  Punjab  PL, 

p.  159. 

8 Runge,  Enum.,  No.  400.  8 Maximowicz,  Primitim  Amur.,  p.  330. 

10  Ledebour,  FI.  Rons.,  iv.  p.  469. 

11  Hohenaeker,  Plant.  Talysch.,  p.  13. 

12  Steven,  Verzeich.  Halb.  Taur.,  p.  371. 

13  Mu  tel,  FI.  Franc;.,  iv.  p.  20  ; Parlatore,  FI.  Ital.,  i.  p.  122  ; Viviani, 

FI.  Dam  at.,  i.  p.  60 ; Neilreich,  FI.  Nied.  (Esterr .,  p.  32. 


378 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Greece,1  and  no  one  has  found  it  in  Persia  or  in  Syria. 
Forskal  and  Delile  indicated  it  in  Egypt,  but  Aseherson 
does  not  admit  tliis ; a and  Forskal  gives  it  in  Arabia.8 
The  species  may  have  become  naturalized  in  these  regions, 
as  the  result  of  frequent  cultivation  from  the  time  of  the 
ancient  Egyptians.  However,  its  wild  nature  is  so 
doubtful  elsewhere,  that  its  Egypto- Arabian  origin  is 
very  probable. 

Italian  Millet — Panicum  Italicwm , Linnaeus ; Setaria 
Italica,  Beauvois. 

The  cultivation  of  this  species  was  very  common  in 
the  temperate  parts  of  the  old  world  in  prehistoric 
times.  Its  seeds  served  as  food  for  man,  though  now 
they  are  chiefly  given  to  birds. 

In  China  it  is  one  of  the  five  plants  which  the 
emperor  sows  each  year  in  a public  ceremony,  according 
to  the  command  issued  by  Chin-nong  2700  B.c.4  The 
common  name  is  siao  mi  (little  seed),  the  more  ancient 
name  being  ku ; but  the  latter  seems  to  be  applied  also  to 
a very  different  species.6  Pickering  says  he  recognized  it 
in  two  ancient  Egyptian  drawings,  and  that  it  is  now 
cultivated  in  Egypt 0 under  the  name  dokhn ; but  tlnit  is 
the  name  of  Panicum  miliaceum.  It  is,  therefore,  very 
doubtful  that  the  ancient  Egyptians  cultivated  it.  It  has 
been  found  among  the  remains  of  the  Swiss  lake-dwell- 
ings of  the  stone  epoch,  and  therefore  d fortiori  among 
the  lake-dwellers  of  the  subsequent  epoch  in  Savoy.7 

The  ancient  Greeks  and  Latins  did  not  mention  it,  or 
at  least  it  has  not  been  possible  to  certify  it  from  what 
they  say  of  several  panicums  and  millets.  In  our  own 
day  the  species  is  rarely  cultivated  in  the  south  of 
Europe,  not  at  all  in  Greece,8  for  instance,  and  I do  not 

1 Heldreich,  Nutz.  Oriechenl p.  3 ; Pflanz.  Attisch.  Ebene.,  p.  51fi. 

2 M.  Aseherson  informs  me  in  a letter  that  in  his  Aufzahlung  the 
word  cult,  has  been  omitted  by  mistake  after  Panicum  miliaceum. 

3 Forskal,  FI.  Arab.,  p.  civ. 

4 Bretsclineider,  Study  and  Value,  etc.,  pp.  7,  8 

8 Bretschneider,  ibid. 

8 According  to  Unger,  Pflanz.  d.  Alt.  .Egypt.,  p.  34-. 

7 Heer,  Pflanzen  d.  Pfalilbaut.,  p.  5,  lig.  7 ; p-  17,  tigs.  28,  29 ; l’erriu, 
Atudes  Prjhistoriquca  sur  la  Savoie,  p.  22. 

8 Holdreich,  Nutzpfl.  Oriech. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS.  379 
find  it  indicated  in  Egypt,  but  it  is  common  in  Southern 

Slcli  ^ 

The  Sanskrit  names  kungrL  and  priyungd,  of  which 
the  first  is  retained  in  Bengali,1 2  are  attributed  to  this 
species.  Piddington  mentions  several  other  names  in 
Indian  languages  in  his  Index.  Ainslie ;!  gives  a Per- 
sian name,  arzun , and  an  Arabic  name  ; but  the  latter  is 
commonly  attributed  to  Panicum  miliaceum.  There  is 
no  Hebrew  name,  and  the  plant  is  not  mentioned  in 
botanical  works  upon  Egypt  and  Arabia.  The  European 
names  have  no  historical  value.  They  are  not  original, 
and  commonly  refer  to  the  transmission  of  the  species  or 
to  its  cultivation  in  a given  countiy.  The  specific  name, 
italicum,  is  an  absurd  example,  the  plant  being  rarely 
cultivated  and  never  wild  in  Italy. 

Rumphius  says  it  is  wild  in  the  Sunda  Isles,  but  not 
very  positively.4  Linnaeus  probably  started  from  this 
basis  to  exaggerate  and  even  promulgate  an  error,  saying, 
“ inhabits  the  Indies.”  5 * It  certainly  does  not  come  from 
the  West  Indies ; and  further,  Roxburgh  asserts  that  he 
never  saw  it  wild  in  India.  The  Graminse  have  not 
yet  appeared  in  Sir  Joseph  Hooker’s  flora;  but  Aitchi- 
son 0 gives  the  species  as  only  cultivated  in  the  north- 
west of  India.  The  Australian  plant  which  Robert 
Brown  said  belonged  to  this  species  belongs  to  another.7 
P.  italicum  appeal’s  to  be  wild  in  Japan,  at  least  in  the 
form  called  gcmaanica  by  different  authors,8  and  the 
Chinese  consider  the  five  cereals  of  the  annual  ceremony 
to  be  natives  of  their  country.  Yet  Bunge,  in  the 
north  of  China,  and  Maximowicz  in  the  basin  of  the 
river  Amur,  only  saw  the  species  cultivated  on  a large 
scale,  in  the  form  of  the  germanica  variety.9  In 

1 Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.,  edit.  1832,  vol.  i.  p.  302;  Rumphius,  Amboin.,v. 

p.  202,  t.  75. 

* Roxburgh,  ibid.  3 Ainslie,  Mat.  Med.  Ind.,  i.  p.  226 

4 “ Obcurrit  in  Baleya,”  etc.  ( Rumphius , v.  p.  202). 

4 “Habitat  in  Indiis”  (Linnmus,  Species,  i.  p.  83). 

0 Aitchison,  Catal.  of  Punjab  PI.,  p.  162. 

7 Bentham,  Flora  Austral.,  vii.  p.  493. 

* Frauchet  and  Savatior,  Enurn.  Japan.,  ii.  p.  262. 

* Bunge,  Enum.,  No.  399;  Maximowicz,  Primitive  Amur.,  p.  330. 


380 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Persia,1  the  Caucasus  Mountains,  and  Europe,  I only 
find  in  floras  the  plant  indicated  as  cultivated,  or  escaped 
sometimes  from  cultivation  on  rubbish-heaps,  waysides, 
waste  ground,  etc.2 

The  sum  of  the  historical,  philological,  and  botanical 
data  make  me  think  that  the  species  existed  before  all 
cultivation,  thousands  of  years  ago  in  China,  Japan,  and 
in  the  Indian  Archipelago.  Its  cultivation  must  have 
early  spread  towards  the  West,  since  we  know  of  Sanskrit 
names,  but  it  does  not  seem  to  have  been  known  in  Syria, 
Arabia,  and  Greece,  and  it  is  probably  through  Russia 
and  Austria  that  it  early  arrived  among  the  lake-dwellers 
of  the  stone  age  in  Switzerland. 

Common  Sorghum — Holms  sorghum , Linnaeus ; An- 
dropogon  sorghum,  Brotero ; Sorghum  vulgare,  Persoon. 

Botanists  are  not  agreed  as  to  the  distinction  of 
several  of  the  species  of  sorghum,  and  even  as  to  the 
genera,  into  which  this  group  of  the  Graminae  should  be 
divided.  A good  monograph  on  the  sorghums  is  needed, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  panicums.  In  the  mean  time  I will 
give  some  information  on  the  principal  species,  because 
of  their  immense  importance  as  food  for  man,  rearing 
of  poultry,  and  as  fodder  for  cattle. 

We  may  take  as  a typical  species  the  sorghum  culti- 
vated in  Europe,  as  it  is  figured  by  Host  in  his  GramincB 
Austriacce  (iv.  pi.  2).  It  is  one  of  the  plants  most  com- 
monly cultivated  by  the  modern  Egyptians,  under  the 
name  of  dourra,  and  also  in  equatorial  Africa,  India,  and 
China.8  It  is  so  productive  in  hot  countries  that  it  is  a 
staple  food  of  immense  populations  in  the  old  world. 

Linnaeus  and  all  authors,  even  our  contemporaries, 
say  that  it  is  of  Indian  origin ; but  in  the  first  edition  of 
Roxburgh’s  flora,  published  in  1820,  this  botanist,  who 
should  have  been  consulted,  asserts  that  he  had  only  seen 
it  cultivated.  He  makes  the  same  remark  for  the  allied 
forms  ( bicolor , saccharatus,  etc.),  which  are  often  regarded 

1 Buhse,  Aufzahlung , p.  232. 

2 See  Parlatoro,  FI.  Ital.,  i.  p.  113  ; Mutel,  FI.  Fran<;.,  iv.  p.  20,  etc. 

3 Delile,  Plantes  Cult,  en  Agypte,  p.  7 ; Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.,  edit.  1832, 
vol.  i.  p.  209;  Aitchisou,  Catal.  of  Punjab  FI.,  p-  175;  Bretschneider, 
Study  and  Value,  etc.,  p.  9. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


381 


as  mere  varieties.  Ait  chi  son  also  had  only  seen  the  sor- 
ghum cultivated.  The  absence  of  a Sanskrit  name  also 
renders  the  Indian  origin  very  doubtful.  Bretschneider, 
on  the  other  hand,  says  the  sorghum  is  indigenous  in 
China,  although  he  says  that  ancient  Chinese  authors 
have  not  spoken  of  it.  It  is  true  that  he  quotes  a name, 
common  at  Pekin,  kao-liang  (tall  millet),  which  also 
applies  to  Holcus  saccharatus,  and  to  which  it  is  better 
suited. 

The  sorghum  has  not  been  found  among  the  remains 
of  the  lake-dwellings  of  Switzerland  and  Italy.  The 
Greeks  never  spoke  of  it.  Pliny’s  phrase 1 about  a milium 
introduced  into  Italy  from  India  in  his  time  has  been 
supposed  to  refer  to  the  sorghum ; but  it  was  a taller  plant, 
perhaps  Holcus  saccharatus.  The  sorghum  has  not  been 
found  in  a natural  state  in  the  tombs  of  ancient  Egypt. 
Dr.  Hannerd  thought  he  recognized  it  in  some  crushed 
seeds  brought  by  Rosellini  from  Thebes  ; 2 but  Mr.  Birch, 
the  keeper  of  Egyptian  antiquities  in  the  British  Museum, 
has  more  recently  declared  that  the  species  has  not  been 
found  in  the  ancient  tombs.3  Pickering  says  he  recog- 
nized its  leaves  mixed  with  those  of  the  papyrus.  He 
says  he  also  saw  paintings  of  it ; and  Leipsius  has  copies 
of  drawings  which  he,  as  well  as  Unger  and  Wilkinson, 
takes  to  be  the  dourra  of  modern  cultivation.4  The  height 
and  the  form  of  the  ear  are  undoubtedly  those  of  the 
sorghum.  It  is  possible  that  this  species  is  the  dochan, 
once  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament 6 as  a cereal  from 
which  bread  was  made;  yet  the  modern  Arabic  word 
dokhn  refers  to  the  sweet  sorghum. 

( ommon  names  tell  us  nothing,  either  from  their  lack 
of  meaning,  or  because  in  many  cases  the  same  name 
has  been  applied  to  the  different  kinds  of  panicum  and 
sorghum.  I can  find  none  which  is  certain  in  the 
ancient  languages  of  India  or  Western  Asia,  which 

1 Pliny,  Hist.,  lib.  xviii.  c.  7. 

1 Quoted  by  Unger,  Die  Pflanzen  des  Alten  Egyptens.  p.  34. 

1 S.  Birch,  in  Wilkinson,  Man,  and  Oust.  ofAnc.  Egyptians,  1878,  vol.  ii. 
p.  427. 

* Lepsiua’  drawings  are  reproduced  by  Unger  and  by  Wilkinson. 

s Ezek.  iv.  9.  J 


382 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


argues  an  introduction  of  but  few  centuries  before  the 
Christian  era. 

No  botanist  mentions  the  clourra  as  wild  in  Egypt 
or  in  Arabia.  An  analogous  form  is  wild  in  equatorial 
Africa,  but  R.  Brown  has  not  been  able  to  identify  it,1 
and  the  flora  of  tropical  Africa  in  course  of  publication  at 
Kew  has  not  yet  reached  the  order  Graminse.  There 
remains,  therefore,  the  single  assertion  of  Dr.  Bretsch- 
neider,  that  the  tall  sorghum  is  indigenous  in  China. 
If  it  is  really  the  species  in  question,  it  spread  westward 
very  late.  But  it  was  known  to  the  ancient  Egyptians, 
and  how  could  they  have  received  it  from  China  while 
it  remained  unknown  to  the  intermediate  peoples  ? It 
is  easier  to  understand  that  it  is  indigenous  in  tropical 
Africa,  and  was  introduced  into  Egypt  in  prehistoric 
time,  afterwards  into  India,  and  finally  into  China,  where 
its  cultivation  does  not  seem  to  be  very  ancient,  for  the 
first  work  which  mentions  it  belongs  to  the  fourth  cen- 
tury of  our  era. 

In  support  of  the  theory  of  African  origin,  I may  quote 
the  observation  of  Schmidt,2 3  that  the  species  abounds  in 
the  island  of  San  Antonio,  in  the  Cape  Verde  group,  in 
rocky  places.  He  believes  it  to  be  “ completely  natural- 
ized,” which  perhaps  conceals  a true  origin. 

Sweet  Sorghum — 11  oleus  saccharatus,  Linnaeus  ; An- 
dropogon  saccharatus,  Roxburgh ; Sorghum  sacchara- 
tum,  Persoon. 

This  species,  taller  than  the  common  sorghum  and 
with  a loose  panicle,8  is  cultivated  in  tropical  countries 
for  the  seed — which,  however,  is  not  so  good  as  that  of 
the  common  sorghum — and  in  less  hot  countries  as  fodder, 
or  even  for  the  sugar  which  the  stem  contains  in  con- 
siderable quantities.  The  Chinese  extract  a spirit  from 
it,  but  not  sugar. 

The  opinion  of  botanists  and  of  the  public  in  general 
is  that  it  comes  from  India ; but  Roxburgh  says  that  it 
is  only  cultivated  in  that  country.  It  is  the  same  in 

1 Brown,  Bot.  of  Covgo , p.  544. 

* Schmidt,  Beitriige  zur  Flora  Capverdischcn  Inseln,  p.  158. 

3 See  Host,  Gramince  Amtriacw,  vol.  iv.  pi.  4. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


383 


the  Sunda  Isles,  where  the  battari  is  certainly  this 
species.  It  is  the  kao-liang,  or  great  millet  of  the  Chinese. 
It  is  not  said  to  he  indigenous  in  China,  nor  is  it  men- 
tioned by  Chinese  authors  who  lived  before  the  Christian 
era.1  From  these  facts,  and  the  absence  of  any  Sanskrit 
name,  the  Asiatic  origin  seems  to  me  a delusion. 

The  plant  is  now  cultivated  in  Egypt  less  than  the 
common  sorghum,  and  in  Arabia  under  the  name  dohhna 
or  dokhn2  No  botanist  has  seen  it  wild  in  these 
countries.  There  is  no  proof  that  the  ancient  Egyptians 
cultivated  it.  Herodotus 3 spoke  of  a “ tree-millet  ” in 
the  plains  of  Assyria.  It  might  be  the  species  in  cpiestion, 
but  it  is  not  possible  to  prove  it. 

The  Greeks  and  Homans  were  not  acquainted  with  it, 
not  at  least  before  the  Roman  empire,  but  it  is  possible 
that  this  was  the  millet,  seven  feet  high,  which  Pliny 
mentions 4 as  having  been  introduced  from  India  in  his 
lifetime. 

We  must  probably  seek  its  origin  in  tropical  Africa, 
where  the  species  is  generally  cultivated.  Sir  William 
Hooker6  mentions  specimens  from  the  banks  of  the  river 
Nun,  which  were  perhaps  wild.  The  approaching  pub- 
lication of  the  Gramime  in  the  flora  of  tropical  Africa 
will  probably  throw  some  light  on  this  question.  The 
spread  of  its  cultivation  from  the  interior  of  Africa  to 
-^trypt  after  the  Pharaohs,  to  Arabia,  the  Indian  Archi- 
pelago, and,  after  the  epoch  of  Sanskrit,  to  India,  lastly 
to  China,  towards  the  beginning  of  our  era,  tallies  with 
historical  data,  and  is  not  difficult  to  admit.  The  inverse 
hypothesis  ot  a transmission  from  east  to  west  presents 
a number  of  objections. 

Several  varieties  of  sorghum  are  cultivated  in  Asia 
anti  in  Africa;  for  instance,  cernuus  with  drooping 

^ ■ tod.,  edit.  2,  vol.  i.  p.  271;  Rumphins,  Amboin.,  v.  p. 
194,  pi.  75,  fig.  1;  Miquel,  FI.  Indo-Batava,  iii.  p.  503;  Bretschneider, 
Study  and  Value,  etc.,  pp.  9,  4G ; Loureiro,  FI.  Cochin.,  ii.  p.  792. 

lorskal,  Delile,  Schweinfurtb,  and  Ascherson,  ubi  supra. 

Herodotus,  lib.  i.  cap.  193. 

4 Pliny,  flint.,  lib.  xviii.  cap.  7-  This  may  also  bo  the  variety  or 
species  known  as  bicolor. 

5 W.  Hooker,  Niger  Flora. 


384- 


origin  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


panicles,  mentioned  by  Roxburgh,  and  which  Prosper 
Alpin  had  seen  in  Egypt;  bicolor,  which  in  height  re-  ' 
sembles  the  saccharatus ; and  niger  and  rubens,  which 
also  seem  to  be  varieties  of  cultivation.  None  of  these 
has  been  found  wild,  and  it  is  probable  that  a monograph 
would  connect  them  with  one  or  other  of  the  above- 
mentioned  species. 

Coracan — Eleusine  coracana,  Gsertner. 

This  annual  grass,  which  resembles  the  millets,  is  cul- 
tivated especially  in  India  and  the  Malay  Archipelago. 

It  is  also  grown  in  Egypt1  and  in  Abyssinia;2  but  the 
silence  of  many  botanists,  who  have  mentioned  the  plants 
of  the  interior  and  west  of  Africa,  shows  that  its  cultiva- 
tion is  not  widely  spread  on  that  continent.  In  Japan  3 
it  sometimes  escapes  from  cultivation.  The  seeds  will 
ripen  in  the  south  of  Europe,  but  the  plant  is  valueless 
there  except  as  fodder.4 

No  author  mentions  having  found  it  in  a wild  state 
in  Asia  or  in  Africa.  Roxburgh,6  who  is  attentive  to 
such  matters,  after  speaking  of  its  cultivation,  adds, 

“ I never  saw  it  wild.”  He  distinguishes  under  the 
name  Eleusine  stricta  a form  even  more  commonly 
cultivated  in  India,  which  appeal’s  to  be  simply  a variety 
of  E.  coracana,  and  which  also  he  has  not  found 
uncultivated. 

AVe  shall  discover  its  country  by  other  means. 

In  the  first  place,  the  species  of  the  genus  Eleusine  are 
more  numerous  in  the  south  of  Asia  than  in  other 
tropical  regions.  Besides  the  cultivated  plant,  Royle 6 
mentions  other  species,  of  which  the  poorer  natives  of 
India  gather  the  seeds  in  the  plains.  According  to 
Piddington’s  Index,  there  is  a Sanskrit  name,  rajika,  and 
several  other  names  in  the  modern  languages  of  India. 
That  of  coracana  comes  from  an  old  name  used  in  Ceylon, 
kourakhan ? In  the  Malay  Archipelago  the  names 
appear  less  numerous  and  less  original. 

1 Schweinfurth  aiul  Ascherson,  Avfzdhlung,  p.  299. 

2 Bon  Jnrdinier,  1880,  p.  585. 

3 Franchet  and  Savatier,  Enum.  Plant.  Japon.,  ii.  p.  172. 

4 Bon  Jardinier,  ibid.  5 Roxburgh,  FI.  Indica,  edit.  2,  vol.  i.  p.  HI-3,  i 

* Royle,  III.  Him.  Plants.  7 Thwaites,  Enum.  PI.  Zeylan.,  p.  371. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


385 


In  Egypt  the  cultivation  of  this  species  is  perhaps 
not  very  ancient.  The  monuments  of  antiquity  bear  no 
trace  of  it.  Graeco- Roman  authors  who  knew  the  country 
did  not  speak  of  it,  nor  later  Prosper  Alpin,  Forskal,  anil 
Delile.  We  must  refer  to  a modern  work,  that  of 
Schweinfurth  and  Ascherson,  to  find  mention  of  the 
species,  and  I cannot  even  discover  an  Arab  name.1 
Thus  botany,  history,  and  philology  point  to  an  Indian 
origin.  The  flora  of  British  India,  in  which  the  Graminae 
have  not  yet  appeared,  will  perhaps  tell  us  the  plant 
has  been  found  wild  in  recent  explorations. 

A nearly  allied  species  is  grown  in  Abyssinia,  Eleusi'tie 
Tocussa,  Fresenius,3  a plant  very  little  known,  which  is 
perhaps  a native  of  Africa. 

Rice — Oryza  scitiva,  Linnaeus. 

In  the  ceremony  instituted  by  the  Chinese  Emperor 
Chin-nong,  2800  years  B.C.,  rice  plays  the  principal  part. 
The  reigning  emperor  must  himself  sow  it,  whereas  the 
four  other  species  are  or  may  be  sown  by  the  princes  of 
his  family.3  The  five  species  are  considered  by  the 
Chinese  as  indigenous,  and  it  must  be  admitted  that  this 
is  probably  the  case  with  rice,  which  is  in  general  use, 
and  has  been  so  for  a long  time,  in  a country  intersected 
by  canals  and  rivers,  and  hence  peculiarly  favourable 
to  aquatic  plants.  Botanists  have  not  sufficiently  studied 
Chinese  plants  for  us  to  know  whether  rice  is  often  found 
outside  cultivated  ground ; but  Loureiro  4 had  seen  it  in 
marshes  in  Cochin-China. 

Rumphius  and  modern  writers  upon  the  Malay 
Archipelago  give  it  only  as  a cultivated  plant.  The 
multitude  of  names  and  varieties  points  to  a very  ancient 
cultivation.  In  British  India  it  dates  at  least  from  the 
Aryan  invasion,  for  rice  has  Sanskrit  names,  vrihi, 

1 Several  synonyms  and  the  Arabic  name  in  Linnaeus,  Delile,  etc., 
apply  V)  Dactyloctenium  agyptiacuni , Willdenow,  or  Fleusine  cegyptiaca 
of  some  authors,  which  is  not  cnltivated. 

2 Frescnius,  Catal.  Sent.  Horti.  Franco/.,  1831,  Beitr.  z.  FI.  Abyss., 

p.  141. 

3 Stanislas  Julien,  in  Loiseleur,  Consid.  sur  les  CMales,  part  i.  p.  29 ; 
Bretschneider,  Study  and  Value  of  Chinese  Botanical  Works,  pp.  8 and  9. 

4 Loureiro,  FI.  Cochin.,  i.  p.  267. 

2 c 


38G 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


ammya}  whence  come,  probably,  several  names  in  modem 
Indian  languages,  and  oruza  or  oruzon  of  the  ancient 
Greeks,  rouz  or  arous  of  the  Arabs.  Theophrastus1  2 3 
mentioned  rice  as  cultivated  in  India.  Tim  Greeks 
became  acquainted  with  it  through  Alexander’s  expedi- 
tion. “According  to  Aristobulus,”  says  Strabo,8  “rice 
grows  in  Bactriana,  Babylonia,  Susida;”  and  he  adds, 
“we  may  also  add  in  Lower  Syria.”  Further  on  he  notes 
that  the  Indians  use  it  for  food,  and  extract  a spirit  from 
it.  These  assertions,  doubtful  perhaps  for  Bactriana, 
show  that  this  cultivation  was  firmly  established,  at 
least,  from  the  time  of  Alexander  (400  B.C.),  in  the 
Euphrates  valley,  and  from  the  beginning  of  our  era 
in  the  hot  and  irrigated  districts  of  Syria.  The  Old 
Testament  does  not  mention  rice,  but  a careful  and 
judicious  writer,  Reynier,4  has  remarked  several  passages 
in  the  Talmud  which  relate  to  its  cultivation.  These 
facts  lead  us  to  suppose  that  the  Indians  employed 
rice  after  the  Chinese,  and  that  it  spread  still  later 
towards  the  Euphrates — earlier,  however,  than  the  Aryan 
invasion  into  India.  A thousand  years  elapsed  between 
the  existence  of  this  cultivation  in  Babylonia  and  its 
transportation  into  Syria,  whence  its  introduction  into 
Egypt  after  an  interval  of  probably  two  or  three  centuries. 
There  is  no  trace  of  rice  among  the  grains  or  paintings  of 
ancient  Egypt.5  Strabo,  who  had  visited  this  country 
as  well  as  Syria,  does  not  say  that  rice  was  cultivated  in 
Egypt  in  his  time,  but  that  the  Garam antes  6 * grew  it, 
and  this  people  is  believed  to  have  inhabited  an  oasis  to 
the  south  of  Carthage.  It  is  possible  that  they  received 
it  from  Syria.  At  all  events,  Egypt  could  not  long  fail 

1 Piddington,  Index  ; Hehn,  Culturpflanzcn , edit.  3,  p.  437. 

3  Theophrastus,  Hist,  lib.  iv.  cap.  4,  10. 

3 Strabo,  Qiographie,  Tardieu’s  translation,  lib.  xv.  cap.  1,  § 18; 
lib.  xv.  cap.  1,  § 53. 

4 Reynier,  Economie  des  Arabes  et  des  Juifs  (1820),  p.  450  ; Aeon  onus 
Publique  et  Rwrale  des  Agyptiens  et  des  Carthaginois  (1823),  p.  324. 

5 Unger  mentions  none  ; Birch,  in  1878,  furnishes  a note  to  Wilkin- 

son’s Manners  and  Customs  of  the  Ancient  Egyptians,  ii.  p.  402,  “ There 

is  no  proof  of  the  cultivation  of  rico,  of  which  no  grains  have  been  found.” 

* Reynier,  ibid. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


387 


to  possess  a crop  so  well  suited  to  its  peculiar  conditions 
of  irrigation.  The  Arabs  introduced  the  species  into 
Spain,  as  we  see  from  the  Spanish  name  a n'oz.  Rice  was 
first  cultivated  in  Italy  in  14G8,  near  Pisa.1  It  is  of 
recent  introduction  into  Louisiana. 

When  I said  that  the  cultivation  of  rice  in  India  was 
probably  more  recent  than  in  China,  I did  not  mean  that 
the  plant  was  not  wild  there.  It  belongs  to  a family  of 
which  the  species  cover  wide  areas,  and,  besides,  aquatic 
plants  have  commonly  more  extensive  habitations  than 
others.  Rice  existed,  perhaps,  before  all  cultivation  in 
Southern  Asia  from  China  to  Bengal,  as  is  shown  by  the 
variety  of  names  in  the  monosyllabic  languages  of  the 
races  between  India  and  China.'2  It  has  been  found 
outside  cultivation  in  several  Indian  localities,  according 
to  Roxburgh.3  He  says  that  wild  rice,  called  newaree  by 
the  Telingas,  grows  in  abundance  on  the  shores  of  lakes 
in  the  country  of  the  Circars.  Its  grain  is  prized  by  rich 
Hindus,  but  it  is  not  planted  because  it  is  not  very 
productive.  Roxburgh  has  no  doubt  that  this  is  the 
original  plant.  Thomson  4 * found  wild  rice  at  Moradabad, 
in  the  province  of  Delhi.  Historical  reasons  support  the 
idea  that  these  specimens  are  indigenous.  Otherwise 
they  might  be  supposed  to  be  the  result  of  the  habitual 
cultivation  of  the  species,  all  the  more  that  there  are 
examples  of  the  facility  with  which  rice  sows  itself  and 
becomes  naturalized  in  warm,  damp  climates.6  In  any 
case  historical  evidence  and  botanical  probability  tend  to 
the  belief  that  rice  existed  in  India  before  cultivation.6 

Maize — Zea  mays,  Linmeus. 

“ Maize  is  of  American  origin,  and  has  only  been  intro- 
duced into  the  old  world  since  the  discovery  of  the  new. 

1 Targioni,  Cenni  Starici. 

2 Crawfnrd,  in  Journal  of  Botany,  1866,  p.  324. 

’ Roxburgh,  FL  Lnd.,  edit.  1832,  vol.  ii.  p.  200. 

* Aitchinson,  Catal.  Punjab.,  p.  157. 

4 Nees,  in  Martius,  FI.  Brasil.,  in  8vo,  ii.  p.  518 ; Baker,  FI.  of 

Mauritius,  p.  458. 

8 ^ Mueller  writes  to  mo  that  rice  is  certainly  wild  in  tropical 
Australia.  It  may  havo  been  accidentally  sown,  and  have  become 
naturalized. — Author’s  note,  1884. 


388 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


I consider  these  two  assertions  as  positive,  in  spite  of  the 
contrary  opinion  of  some  authors,  and  the  doubts  of 
the  celebrated  agriculturist  Bonafous,  to  whom  we  are 
indebted  for  the  most  complete  treatise  upon  maize.” 1 * 
I used  these  words  in  1855,  after  having  already  contested 
the  opinion  of  Bonafous  at  the  time  of  the  publication  of 
his  work.3  The  proofs  of  an  American  origin  have  been 
since  reinforced.  Yet  attempts  have  been  made  to  prove 
the  contrary,  and  as  the  French  name,  bU  de  Turquie, 
gives  currency  to  an  error,  it  is  as  well  to  resume  the 
discussion  with  new  data. 

No  one  denies  that  maize  was  unknown  in  Europe  at 
the  time  of  the  Roman  empire,  but  it  has  been  said  that 
it  was  brought  from  the  East  in  the  Middle  Ages.  The 
principal  argument  is  based  upon  a charter  of  the  thir- 
teenth centuiy,  published  by  Molinari,8  according  to 
which  two  crusaders,  companions  in  arms  of  Boniface  III., 
Marquis  of  Monferrat,  gave  in  1201  to  the  town  of  Incisa 
a piece  of  the  true  cross  . . . and  a purse  containing  a 
kind  of  seed  of  a golden  colour  and  partly  white,  unknown 
in  the  country  and  brought  from  Anatolia,  where  it  was 
called  meliga,  etc.  The  historian  of  the  crusades,  Michaux, 
and  later  Daru  and  Sismondi,  said  a great  deal  about  this 
charter ; but  the  botanist  Delile,  as  well  as  Targioni- 
tozzetti  and  Bonafous  himself,  thought  that  the  seed  in 
question  might  belong  to  some  sorghum  and  not  to  maize.  ■ 
These  old  discussions  have  been  rendered  absurd  by  the 
Comte  de  Riant’s  discovery  4 * that  the  charter  of  Incisa 
is  the  fabrication  of  a modern  impostor.  I quote  this 
instance  to  show  how  scholars  who  are  not  naturalists 
may  make  mistakes  in  the  interpretation  of  the  names  of 
plants,  and  also  how  dangerous  it  is  to  rely  upon  an  isolated 
proof  in  historical  questions. 

The  names  ble  de  Turquie,  Turkish  wheat  (Indian 

1 Bonafous,  Hist.  Nat.  Agric.  et  £conomique  du  Mats,  1 vol.  in  folio,  $ 
Paris  and  Turin,  1836. 

1 A.  de  Candolle,  Bibliothcqun  Universelle  de  Qeneve,  Aug.  1836,  ; 
Gdogr.  Bot.  Rais.,  p.  942. 

3 Molinari,  Storia  d’Ineisa,  Asti,  1810. 

4 Riant,  La  Gharte  d’  Incisa,  8vo  pamphlet,  1877,  roprinted  from  the  ' 

Revue  des  Questions  Uistoriques. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOE  THEIR  SEEDS. 


389 


corn),  given  to  maize  in  almost  all  modern  European  lan- 
guages no  more  prove  an  Eastern  origin  than  the  charter 
of  Incisa.  These  names  are  as  erroneous  as  that  of  coq 
d’Inde,  in  English  turkey,  given  to  an  American  bird. 
Maize  is  called  in  Lorraine  and  in  the  Vosges  Roman  corn ; 
in  Tuscany,  Sicilian  com ; in  Sicily,  Indian  corn ; in  the 
Pyrenees,  Spanish  corn ; in  Provence,  Barbary  or  Guinea 
corn.  The  Turks  call  it  Egyptian  corn,  and  the  Egyp- 
tians, Syrian  dourra.  This  last  case  proves  at  least  that 
it  is  neither  Egyptian  nor  Syrian.  The  widespread 
name  of  Turkish  wheat  dates  from  the  sixteenth  century. 
It  sprang  from  an  error  as  to  the  origin  of  the  plant, 
which  was  fostered  perhaps  by  the  tufts  which  terminate 
the  ears  of  maize,  which  were  compared  to  the  beard  of 
the  Turks,  or  by  the  vigour  of  the  plant,  which  may  have 
given  rise  to  an  expression  similar  to  the  French  fort 
comme  un  turc.  The  first  botanist  who  uses  the  name, 
Turkish  wheat,  is  Ruellius,  in  1536.1  Bock  or  Tragus,2 3  in 
1552,  after  giving  a drawing  of  the  species  which  he  calls 
Frumentum  turcicum,  Welschlcoim,  in  Germany,  having 
learnt  by  merchants  that  it  came  from  India,  conceived 
the  unfox-tunate  idea  that  it  was  a cei-tain  typha  of  Bac- 
triana,  to  which  ancient  authors  alluded  in  vague  terms. 
Dodoens  in  1583,  Camerarius  in  1588,  and  Matthiole8  rec- 
tified these  erroi-s,  and  positively  asserted  the  American 
origin.  They  adopted  the  name  mays,  which  they  knew 
to  be  American.  We  have  seen  (p.  3G3)  that  the  zea  of 
the  Greeks  was  a spelt.  Certainly  the  ancients  did  not 
know  maize.  The  first  travellers4  who  described  the 
productions  of  the  new’  world  wei'e  surprised  at  it,  a clear 
prool  that  they  had  not  known  it  in  Eui’ope.  Hernandez,5 
who  left  Europe  in,  1571,  according  to  some  authorities, 
in  1593  according  to  others,5  did  not  know  that  from  the 

1 Ruellius,  De  datura  Stirpium,  p.  428,  “ITanc  quoniam  nostrormn 
setato  o Graocia  vel  Asia  venerit  Turcicum  frumentum  nominant.”  Fuch- 
sius,  p.  824,  repeats  this  phrase  in  1543. 

2 Tragus,  Stirpium,  etc.,  edit.  1552,  p.  650. 

3 Dodoens,  Femptades,  p.  509;  Camerarius,  Hart.,  p.  94;  Matthiole, 
edit.  1570,  p.  305. 

4 P.  Martyr,  Ercilla,  Jean  de  Lery,  etc.,  1516-1578. 

6 Hernandez,  Thes.  Mexic. , p.  242.'  8 Lasegue,  Mus6e  Delessert,  p.  467. 


390  ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 

year  1500  maize  had  been  sent  to  Seville  for  cultivation. 
This  fact,  attested  by  Fde,  who  has  seen  the  municipal 
records,1  clearly  shows  the  American  origin,  which  caused  ' 
Hernandez  to  think  the  name  of  Turkish  wheat  a very 
bad  one. 

It  may  perhaps  be  urged  that  maize,  new  to  Europe 
in  the  sixteenth  century,  existed  in  some  parts  of  Asia  or  - 
Africa  before  the  discovery  of  America.  Let  us  see  what 
truth  there  may  be  in  this. 

The  famous  orientalist  D’Herbelot2  had  accumulated 
several  errors  pointed  out  by  Bonafous  and  by  me,  on 
the  subject  of  a passage  in  the  Persian  historian  Mirkoud 
of  the  fifteenth  century,  about  a cereal  which  Rous,  son 
of  Japhet,  sowed  upon  the  shores  of  the  Caspian  Sea,  and 
which  he  takes  to  be  the  Indian  corn  of  our  day.  It  is 
hardly  worth  considering  these  assertions  of  a scholar  to 
whom  it  had  never  occurred  to  consult  the  works  of  the  ; 
botanists  of  his  own  day,  or  earlier.  What  is  more  im- 
portant is  the  total  silence  on  the  subject  of  maize  of  the 
travellers  who  visited  Asia  and  Africa  before  the  discovery 
of  America;  also  the  absence  of  Hebrew  and  Sanskrit 
names  for  this  plant ; and  lastly,  that  Egyptian  monu- 
ments present  no  specimen  or  drawing  of  it.1*  Rifaud,  it 
is  true,  found  an  ear  of  maize  in  a sarcophagus  at  Thebes,  1 
but  it  is  believed  to  have  been  the  trick  of  an  Arab  ; 
impostor.  If  maize  had  existed  in  ancient  Egypt,  it  would  1 
be  seen  in  all  monuments,  and  would  have  been  connected 
with  religious  ideas  like  all  other  remarkable  plants.  A 
species  so  easy  of  cultivation  would  have  spread  into  all 
neighbouring  countries.  Its  cultivation  would  not  have 
been  abandoned ; and  we  find,  on  the  contrary,  that  Prosper 
Alpin,  visiting  Egypt  in  1592,  does  not  speak  of  it,  and 
that  Forskal,4  at  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  men- 
tioned maize  as  still  but  little  grown  in  Egypt,  where  it 
had  no  name  distinct  from  the  sorghums.  Elm  Baithar,  f 

1 Fee,  Souvenirs  de  la  Guerre  d’Espagne,  p.  128. 

2 Bibliotheque  Orientate,  Paris,  1697,  at  the  word  Rous. 

» Kunth,  Ann.  Sc.  Nat.,  ser.  1,  vol.  viii.  p.  418 ; Raspail,  ibid. ; Unger,  ; 
PJlanzen  des  Alten  AZgyptens ; A.  Braun,  Pflanzenreste  JEpypt.  Mas.  in  1 
Berlin;  Wilkinson,  Manners  and  Customs  of  Ancient  Egyptians. 

4 Forskal,  p.  liii. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS.  391 

an  Arab  physician  of  the  thirteenth  century,  who  had 
travelled  through  the  countries  lying  between  Spain  and 
Persia,  indicates  no  plant  which  can  be  supposed  to  be 
maize. 

J.  Crawfurd,1  having  seen  maize  generally  cultivated 
in  the  Malay  Archipelago  under  a name  jar  ling,  which 
appears  to  be  indigenous,  believed  that  the  species  was  a 
native  of  these  islands.  But  then  how  is  it  Rumphius 
makes  no  mention  of  it.  The  silence  of  this  author  points 
to  an  introduction  later  than  the  seventeenth  century. 
Maize  was  so  little  diffused  on  the  continent  of  India  in  the 
last  century,  that  Roxburgh 2 3 4 wrote  in  his  flora,  which 
was  published  long  after  it  was  drawn  up,  “ Cultivated 
in  different  parts  of  India  in  gardens,  and  only  as  an 
ornament,  but  nowhere  on  the  continent  of  India  as  an 
object  of  cultivation  on  a large  scale.”  We  have  seen 
that  there  is  no  Sanskrit  name. 

Maize  is  frequently  cultivated  in  China  in  modern 
times,  and  particularly  round  Pekin  for  several  genera- 
tions,8 although  most  travellers  of  the  last  century  make 
no  mention  of  it.  Dr.  Bretsclineider,  in  his  work  pub- 
lished in  1870,  does  not  hesitate  to  say  that  maize  is  not 
indigenous  in  China;  but  some  words  in  his  letter  of 
1881  make  me  think  that  he  now  attributes  some  impor- 
tance to  an  ancient  Chinese  author,  of  whom  Bonafous 
and  afterwards  Hance  and  Mayers  have  said  a great  deal. 
This  is  a work  by  Li-chi-tchin,  entitled  Phen-thsao-kang- 
mou,  or  Pen-tsao-kung-mu,  a species  of  treatise  on  natural 
history,  which  Bretsclineider 1 says  was  written  at  the  end 
of  the  sixteenth  century.  Bonafous  says  it  was  concluded 
in  1578,  and  the  edition  which  he  had  seen  in  the  Huzard 
library  was  of  1637.  It  contains  a drawing  of  maize 
with  the  Chinese  character.  This  plate  is  copied  in 
Bonafous’  work,  at  the  beginning  of  the  chapter  on  the 
original  country  of  the  maize.  It  is  clear  that  it  repre- 

1 Crawfurd,  History  of  the  Indian  Archipelago,  Edinburgh,  1820,  vol.  i. ; 
Journal  of  Botany,  18G6,  p.  32G. 

s Roxburgh,  Flora  Indica,  edit.  1832,  vol.  iii.  p.  5G8. 

3 Bret schuoider,  Study  and  Value,  etc.,  pp.  7,  18. 

4 Ibid. 


392 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


sents  the  plant.  Dr.  Hance1  appears  to  have  based  his 
arguments  upon  the  researches  of  Mayers,  who  says  that 
early  Chinese  authors  assert  that  maize  was  imported 
from  Sifan  (Lower  Mongolia,  to  the  west  of  China)  long 
before  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century,  at  an  unknown 
date.  The  article  contains  a cop}'  of  the  drawing  in  the 
Pen-tsao-kung-mu,  to  which  he  assigns  the  date  1597. 

The  importation  through  Mongolia  is  improbable  to 
such  a degree  that  it  is  hardly  worth  speaking  of  it,  and 
as  for  the  principal  assertion  of  the  Chinese  author,  the 
dates  are  uncertain  and  late.  The  work  was  finished  in 
1578  according  to  Bonafous,  in  1597  according  to  Mayers. 
If  this  be  true,  and  especially  if  the  second  of  these  dates 
is  the  true  one,  it  may  be  admitted  that  maize  was  brought 
to  China  after  the  discovery  of  America.  The  Portuguese 
came  to  Java  in  1496, 2 that  is  to  say  four  years  after  the 
discovery  of  America,  and  to  China  in  1516.3  Magellan’s 
voyage  from  South  America  to  the  Philippine  Islands  took 
place  in  1520.  During  the  fifty-eight  or  seventy-seven 
years  between  1516  and  the  dates  assigned  to  the  Chinese 
work,  seeds  of  maize  may  have  been  taken  to  China  by 
navigators  from  America  or  from  Europe.  Dr.  Bret- 
schneider  wrote  to  me  recently  that  the  Chinese  did  not 
know  the  new  world  earlier  than  the  Europeans,  and  that 
the  lands  to  the  east  of  their  country,  to  which  there  are 
some  allusions  in  their  ancient  writings,  are  the  islands  of 
Japan.  He  had  already  quoted  the  opinion  of  a Chinese 
savant,  that  the  introduction  of  maize  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  Pekin  dates  from  the  last  years  of  the  Ming  dynasty, 
which  ended  in  1644.  This  date  agrees  with  the  other 
facts.  The  introduction  into  Japan  was  probably  of  later 
date,  since  Ksempfer  makes  no  mention  of  the  species.4 

From  all  these  facts,  we  conclude  that  maize  is  not  a 
native  of  the  old  world.  It  became  rapidly  diffused  in  it 

1 The  article  is  in  the  Pharmaceutical.  Journal  of  1870;  I only  know 
it  from  a short  extract  in  Seemann’s  Journal  of  Botany,  1871,  p.  62. 

5 Rumphius,  Amboin.,  vol.  v.  p.  525. 

3 Malte-Brun,  Giographie,  i.  p.  498. 

4 A plant  engraved  on  an  ancient  weapon  which  Siebold  had  taken 
for  maize  is  a sorghum,  according  to  Rein,  quoted  by  Wittmaek,  Uebsr 
Antiken  Male. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


303 


after  the  discovery  of  America,  and  this  very  rapidity 
completes  the  proof  that,  had  it  existed  anywhere  in  Asia 
or  Africa,  it  would  have  played  an  important  part  in 
agriculture  for  thousands  of  years. 

We  shall  see  that  the  facts  are  quite  contrary  to  these 
in  America. 

At  the  time  of  the  discovery  of  the  new  continent, 
maize  was  one  of  the  staples  of  its  agriculture,  from  the 
La  Plata  valley  to  the  United  States.  It  had  names  in 
all  the  languages.1  The  natives  planted  it  round  their 
temporary  dwellings  where  they  did  not  form  a fixed 
population.  The  burial-mounds  of  the  natives  of  North 
America  who  preceded  those  of  our  day,  the  tombs  of 
the  Incas,  the  catacombs  of  Peru,  contain  ears  or  grains  of 
maize,  just  as  the  monuments  of  ancient  Egypt  contain 
i grains  of  barley  and  wheat  and  millet-seed.  In  Mexico, 
a goddess  who  bore  a name  derived  from  that  of  maize 
(Cinteutl,  from  Cintli ) answered  to  the  Ceres  of  the 
Greeks,  for  the  first-fruits  of  the  maize  harvest  Avere 
‘offered  to  her,  as  the  first-fruits  of  our  cereals  to  the 
1 Greek  goddess.  At  Cusco  the  \drgins  of  the  sun  offered 
sacrifices  of  bread  made  from  Indian  corn.  Nothing  is 
better  calculated  to  show  the  antiquity  and  generality  of 
i the  cultivation  of  a plant  than  this  intimate  connection 
with  the  religious  rites  of  the  ancient  inhabitants.  We 
must  not,  however,  attribute  to  these  indications  the 
same  importance  in  America  as  in  the  old  world.  The 
civilization  of  the  Peruvians  under  the  Incas,  and  that  of 
!the  loltecs  and  Aztecs  in  Mexico,  has  not  the  extra- 
ordinary antiquity  of  the  civilizations  of  China,  Chaldea, 
and  Egypt,  ft  dates  at  earliest  from  the  beginning  of  the 
Christian  era ; but  the  cultivation  of  maize  is  more 
ancient  than  the  monuments,  to  judge  from  the  numerous 
varieties  of  the  species  found  in  them,  and  their  dispersal 
into  remote  regions. 

A yet  more  remarkable  proof  of  antiquity  has  been 
discovered  by  Darwin.  He  found  ears  of  Indian  corn, 
and  eighteen  species  of  shells  of  our  epoch,  buried  in  the 
■soil  of  the  shore  in  Peru,  now  at  least  eighty-five  feet 
See  Martius,  Beit r aye  zur  Ethnographic  Amerikas,  p.  127. 


394  ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 

above  the  level  of  the  sea.1 *  This  maize  was  perhaps  not 
cultivated,  but  in  this  case  it  would  be  yet  more 
interesting,  as  an  indication  of  the  origin  of  the  species. 

Although  America  has  been  explored  by  a great 
number  of  botanists,  none  have  found  maize  in  the 
conditions  of  a wild  plant. 

Auguste  de  Saint-Hilaire 3 thought  he  recognized  the 
wild  type  in  a singular  variety,  of  which  each  grain  is 
enclosed  within  its  sheath  or  bract.  It  is  known  at 
Buenos- Ay  res  under  the  name  pinsigallo.  It  is  Zea  Mays 
tunicata  of  Saint-Hilaire,  of  which  Bonafous  gives  an 
illustration,  pi.  5,  bis,  under  the  name  Zea  cryptospemna. 
Lindley3  also  gives  a description  and  a drawing  from 
seeds  brought,  it  is  said,  from  the  Rocky  Mountains,  but 
this  is  not  confirmed  by  recent  Californian  floras.  A 
young  Guarany,  bom  in  Paraguay  on  its  frontiers,  had 
recognized  this  maize,  and  told  Saint-Hilaire  that  it  grew 
in  the  damp  forests  of  his  country.  This  is  very  in- 
sufficient proof  that  it  is  indigenous.  No  traveller  to  my 
knowledge  has  seen  this  plant  wild  in  Paraguay  or 
Brazil.  But  it  is  an  interesting  fact  that  it  has  been 
cultivated  in  Europe,  and  that  it  often  passes  into  the 
ordinary  state  of  maize.  Lindley  observed  it  when  it 
had  been  only  two  or  three  years  in  cultivation,  and 
Professor  Radic  obtained  from  one  sowing  225  ears  of  the 
form  tunicata,  and  105  of  the  common  form  with  naked 
grains.4  Evidently  this  form,  which  might  be  believed  a 
true  species,  but  whose  country  is,  however,  doubtful,  is 
hardly  even  a race.  It  is  one  of  the  innumerable  varieties, 
more  or  less  hereditary,  of  which  botanists  who  are  con- 
sidered authorities  make  only  a single  species,  because  of 
their  want  of  stability  and  the  transitions  which  they 
frequently  present. 

On  tiie  condition  of  Zea  Mays,  and  its  habitation  in  J 
America  before  it  was  cultivated,  we  have  nothing  but  con-  ( 


1 Darwin,  Yar.  of  Plants  and  Anim.  under  Domest.,  i.  p.  320. 

3 A.  de  Saint-Hilaire,  Ann.  Sc.  Nat.,  xvi.  p.  143. 

3 Lindley,  Jawm . of  the  Hortic.  Soc.,  i.  p.  114. 

4 I quote  these  facts  from  Wittmack,  Uebcr  Antiken  ifa'is  aus  Nora  i 
und  Sud  Anierika,  p.  87,  in  Berlin  AnthropoL  Ges.,  Nov.  10,  1879. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


395 


jectural  knowledge.  I will  state  what  I take  to  be  the  sum 
of  this,  because  it  leads  to  certain  probable  indications. 

I remark  first  that  maize  is  a plant  singularly  un- 
provided with  means  of  dispersion  and  protection.  The 
grains  are  hard  to  detach  from  the  ear,  which  is  itself 
enveloped.  They  have  no  tuft  or  wing  to  catch  the  wind, 
and  when  the  ear  is  not  gathered  by  man  the  grains  fall 
still  fixed  in  the  receptacle,  and  then  rodents  and  other 
animals  must  destroy  them  in  quantities,  and  all  the 
more  that  they  are  not  sufficiently  hard  to  pass  intact 
through  the  digestive  organs.  Probably  so  unprotected 
a species  was  becoming  more  and  more  rare  in  some 
limited  region,  and  was  on  the  point  of  becoming  extinct, 
when  a wandering  tribe  of  savages,  having  perceived  its 
nutritious  qualities,  saved  it  from  destruction  by  culti- 
vating it.  I am  tire  more  disposed  to  believe  that  its 
natural  area  was  small  that  the  species  is  unique ; that  is 
to  say,  that  it  constitutes  what  is  called  a single-typed 
genus.  The  genera  which  contain  few  species,  and 
especially  the  monotypes,  have  as  a rule  more  restricted 
areas  than  others.  Palaeontology  will  perhaps  one  day 
show  whether  there  ever  existed  in  America  several  species 
of  Zea,  or  similar  Graminae,  of  which  maize  is  the  last 
survivor.  Now,  the  genus  Zea  is  not  only  a monotype, 
but  stands  almost  alone  in  its  family.  A single  genus, 
Euchlayna  of  Schrader,  maybe  compared  with  it,  of  which 
there  is  one  species  in  Mexico  and  another  in  Guatemala ; 
but  it  is  a quite  distinct  genus,  and  there  are  no  inter- 
mediate forms  between  it  and  Zea. 

Wittmack  has  made  some  curious  researches  in  order 
to  discover  which  variety  of  maize  probably  represents 
the  form  belonging  to  the  epoch  anterior  to  cultivation. 
For  this  purpose  he  has  compared  ears  and  grains  taken 
from  the  mounds  of  North  America  with  those  from  Peru. 
If  these  monuments  offered  only  one  form  of  maize,  the 
result  would  be  important,  but  several  different  varieties 
have  been  found  in  the  mounds  and  in  Peru.  This  is  not 
very  surprising ; these  monuments  are  not  very  ancient. 
The  cemetery  of  Ancon  in  Peru,  whence  Wittmack 
obtained  his  best  specimens,  is  nearly  contemporary  with 


39G 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


the  discovery  of  America.1  Now,  at  that  epoch  the 
number  of  varieties  was  already  considerable,  which 
proves  a much  more  ancient  cultivation. 

Experiments  in  sowing  varieties  of  maize  in  unculti- 
vated ground  several  years  in  succession  would  perhaps 
show  a reversion  to  some  common  form  which  might  then 
be  considered  as  the  original  stock,  but  nothing  of  this 
kind  lias  been  attempted.  The  varieties  have  only  been 
observed  to  lack  stability  in  spite  of  their  great 
diversity. 

As  to  the  habitation  of  the  unknown  primitive  form, 
the  following  considerations  may  enable  us  to  guess  it. 
Settled  populations  can  only  have  been  formed  where 
nutritious  species  existed  naturally  in  soil  easy  of 
cultivation.  The  potato,  the  sweet  potato,  and  maize 
doubtless  fulfilled  these  conditions  in  America,  and  as  the 
great  populations  of  this  part  of  the  world  existed  first  in 
the  high  grounds  of  Chili  and  Mexico,  it  is  there  probably 
that  wild  maize  existed.  We  must  not  look  for  it  in  the 
low-lying  regions  such  as  Paraguay  and  the  banks  of  the 
Amazon,  or  the  hot  districts  of  Guiana,  Panama,  and 
Mexico,  since  their  inhabitants  were  formerly  less  nuYne- 
rous.  Besides,  forests  are  unfavourable  to  annuals,  and 
maize  does  not  thrive  in  the  warm  damp  climates  where 
manioc  is  grown.2  On  the  other  hand,  its  transmission 
from  one  tribe  to  another  is  easier  to  comprehend  if  we 
suppose  the  point  of  departure  in  the  centre,  than  if  we 
place  it  at  one  of  the  limits  of  the  area  over  which  the 
species  was  cultivated  at  the  time  of  the  Incas  and  the 
Toltecs,  or  rather  of  the  Mayas,  Nahuas,  and  Chibchas, 
who  preceded  these.  The  migrations  of  peoples  have 
not  always  followed  a fixed  course  from  north  to  south, 
or  from  south  to  north.  They  have  taken  different 
directions  according  to  the  epoch  and  the  country.3  The 

1 Rochebmne,  Reeherches  Ethnographiqnes  snrles  Sepultures Pcntviennes 
d’ Ancon,  from  an  extract  by  Wittmack  in  Uhl  worm,  Bot.  Central-Blatt., 
18S0,  p.  IG33,  where  it  may  be  seen  that  the  burial-ground  was  used  before 
and  after  the  discovery  of  America. 

1 Sagot,  Cult,  des  Ciriales  de  la  Guyane  Franq.  (Journ.  de  la  Soc. 
Centr.  d’Hortic.  de  France,  1872,  p.  94). 

3 De  Naidaillac,  in  his  work  entitled  Leg  Premiers  Homines  el  les 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


397 


ancient  Peruvians  scarcely  knew  the  Mexicans,  and  vice, 
versd,  as  the  total  difference  of  their  beliefs  and  customs 
shows.  As  they  both  early  cultivated  maize,  we  must 
suppose  an  intermediate  point  of  departure.  New 
Granada  seems  to  me  to  fulfil  these  conditions.  The 
nation  called  Chibcha  which  occupied  the  table-land  of 
Bogota  at  the  time  of  the  Spanish  conquest,  and  con- 
sidered itself  aboriginal,  was  an  agricultural  people.  It 
enjoyed  a certain  degree  of  civilization,  as  the  monu- 
ments recently  investigated  show.  Perhaps  this  tribe 
first  possessed  and  cultivated  maize.  It  marched  with 
Peru,  then  but  little  civilized,  on  the  one  hand,  and  with 
the  Mayas  on  the  other,  who  occupied  Central  America 
and  Yucatan.  These  were  often  at  war  with  the  Nahuas, 
predecessors  of  the  Toltecs  and  the  Aztecs  in  Mexico. 
There  is  a tradition  that  Nahualt,  chief  of  the  Nahuas, 
taught  the  cultivation  of  maize.1 

I dare  not  hope  that  maize  will  be  found  wild,  although 
its  habitation  before  it  was  cultivated  was  probably  so 
small  that  botanists  have  perhaps  not  yet  come  across  it. 
The  species  is  so  distinct  from  all  others,  and  so  striking, 
that  natives  or  unscientific  colonists  would  have  noticed 
and  spoken  of  it.  The  certainty  as  to  its  origin  will 
probably  come  rather  from  archaeological  discoveries.  If 
a great  number  of  monuments  in  all  parts  of  America 
are  studied,  if  the  hieroglyph ical  inscriptions  of  some  of 
these  are  deciphered,  ancl  if  dates  of  migrations  and 
economical  events  are  discovered,  our  hypothesis  will  be 
justified,  modified,  or  rejected. 


Article  II. — Seeds  used  for  Different  Purposes. 

Poppy — Papaver  somniferum,  Linnaeus. 

The  poppy  is  usually  cultivated  for  the  oil  contained 
in  the  seed,  and  sometimes,  especially  in  Asia,  for  the  sap, 

Temps  Prdhistoriques,  gives  briefly  the  sum  of  our  knowledge  of  those 
migrations  of  the  ancient  peoples  of  America  in  general.  Sco  especially 
vol.  ii.  chap.  9. 

1 Do  Naidaillao,  ii.  p.  69,  who  quotes  Bancroft,  The  Native  Races  of  the 
Pacific  States. 


398 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


extracted  by  making  incisions  in  the  capsules,  and  from 
which  opium  is  obtained. 

The  variety  which  has  been  cultivated  for  centuries 
escapes  readily  from  cultivation,  or  becomes  almost 
naturalized  in  certain  localities  of  the  south  of  Europe.1 
It  cannot  be  said  to  exist  in  a really  wild  state,  but 
botanists  are  agreed  in  regarding  it  as  a modification  of 
the  poppy  called  Papaver  setigerum,  which  is  wild  on 
the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean,  notably  in  Spain,  Algeria, 
Corsica,  Sicily,  Greece,  and  the  island  of  Cyprus.  It  has 
not  been  met  with  in  Eastern  Asia,2 3  consequently  this  is 
really  the  original  of  the  cultivated  form.  Its  cultivation 
must  have  begun  in  Europe  or  in  the  north  of  Africa. 
In  support  of  this  theory  we  find  that  the  Swiss  lake- 
dwellers  of  the  stone  age  cultivated  a poppy  which  is 
nearer  to  P.  setigerum  than  to  P.  somniferum.  Heer 8 
has  not  been  able  to  find  any  of  the  leaves,  but  the  capsule 
is  surmounted  by  eight  stigmas,  as  in  P.  setigerum , and 
not  by  ten  or  twelve,  as  in  the  cultivated  poppy.  This 
latter  form,  unknown  in  nature,  seems  therefore  to  have 
been  developed  within  historic  times.  P.  setigerum  is 
still  cultivated  in  the  north  of  France,  together  with  P. 
somniferum,  for  the  sake  of  its  oil.4 

The  ancient  Greeks  were  well  acquainted  with  the 
cultivated  poppy.  Homer,  Theophrastus,  and  Dioscorides 
mention  it.  They  were  aware  of  the  somniferous  pro- 
perties of  the  sap,  and  Dioscorides5  mentions  the  variety 
with  white  seeds.  The  Romans  cultivated  the  poppy 
before  the  republic,  as  we  see  by  the  anecdote  of  Tarquin 
and  the  poppy-heads.  They  mixed  its  seeds  with  their 
flour  in  making  bread. 

The  Egyptians  of  Pliny’s  time  6 used  the  juice  of  the 
poppy  as  a medicament,  but  we  have  no  proof  that  this 

1 Willkomm  and  Lange,  Prodr.  FI.  Hisp.,  iii.  p.  872. 

2 Boissier,  FI.  Orient.;  Tchihatcheff,  Asie  Mineure ; Ledebour,  FI. 
Ross.,  and  others. 

3 Heer,  Pflanzen  der  PfaMbauten,  p.  32,  figs.  65,  66. 

4 Do  Lanessan,  in  his  translation  from  Fliickiger  and  Hanbury,  His- 
toire  des  Drogues  d’Origine  V4g6tale,  i.  p.  129. 

4 Dioscorides,  Hist.  Plant.,  lib.  iv.  c.  65. 

6 Pliny,  Hist.  Plant,  lib.  xx.  c.  18. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


399 


plant  was  cultivated  in  Egypt  in  more  ancient  times.1 
In  the  Middle  Ages2  and  in  our  own  day  it  is  one  of  the 
principal  objects  of  cultivation  in  that  country,  especially 
for  the  manufacture  of  opium.  Hebrew  writings  do  not 
mention  the  species.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  one 
or  two  Sanskrit  names.  Piddington  gives  chosa,  and 
Adolphe  Pictet  khaskhasa,  which  recurs,  he  says,  in  the 
Persian  chashchdsh,  the  Armenian  chashchash ,s  and  in 
Arabic.  Another  Persian  name  is  koukna/r .4  These 

names,  and  others  I could  quote,  very  different  from  the 
maikdn  (Mj/kwv)  of  the  Greeks,  are  an  indication  of  an 
ancient  cultivation  in  Europe  and  Western  Asia.  If  the 
species  was  first  cultivated  in  prehistoric  time  in  Greece, 
as  appeal's  probable,  it  may  have  spread  eastward  before 
the  Aryan  invasion  of  India,  but  it  is  strange  that  there 
should  be  no  proof  of  its  extension  into  Palestine  and 
Egypt  before  the  Roman  epoch.  It  is  also  possible  that 
in  Europe  the  variety  called  Pa/paver  setigerum,  employed 
by  the  Swiss  lake-dwellers,  was  first  cultivated,  and  that 
the  variety  now  grown  came  from  Asia  Minor,  where  the 
species  has  been  cultivated  for  at  least  three  thousand 
years.  This  theory  is  supported  by  the  existence  of  the 
Greek  name  maikdn,  in  Dorian  makon,  in  several  Slav 
languages,  and  in  those  of  the  peoples  to  the  south  of  the 
Caucasus,  under  the  form  mack.6 

The  cultivation  of  the  poppy  in  India  has  been 
recently  extended,  because  of  the  importation  of  opium 
into  China ; but  the  Chinese  will  soon  cease  to  vex  the 
English  by  buying  this  poison  of  them,  for  they  are  be- 
ginning eagerly  to  produce  it  themselves.  The  poppy  is 
now  grown  over  more  than  half  of  their  territory.6  The 
species  is  never  wild  in  the  east  of  Asia,  and  even  as 
regards  China  its  cultivation  is  recent.7 

Ungor,  Die  Pflanze  als  Errerungs  und  Betaubungsmittel,  p.  47 ; Die 
Pflanzen  deg  Alien  AH  gyp  tens,  i.  p.  50. 

2 Ebn  Baithar,  German  trans.,  i.  p.  64. 

3 Ad.  Pictet,  Origines  Indo-Europeennes,  edit.  3,  vol.  i.  p.  3GG. 

* Amalie,  Mat.  Med.  Indica,  i.  p.  326. 

5 Nemnich,  Polygl.  Lexicon,  p.  848. 

6 Martin,  in  Bull.  Soe.  d’Acclimatation,  1872,  p.  200. 

Sir  J.  Hooker,  Flora  of  Brit.  Ind.,  i.  p.  117;  Bretsclineider,  Study 
and  Value,  etc.,  47.  J 


400 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


The  name  opium  given  to  the  drug  extracted  from 
the  juice  of  the  capsule  is  derived  from  the  Greek.  Dios- 
corides  wrote  opos  (Ottoq).  The  Arabs  converted  it  into 
a jinn}  and  spread  it  eastwards  even  to  China. 

Fliickiger  and  Hanbury 1  2 give  a detailed  and  interest- 
ing account  of  the  extraction,  trade,  and  use  of  opium 
in  all  countries,  particularly  in  China.  Yet  I imagine 
my  readers  may  like  to  read  the  following  extracts  from 
Dr.  Bretschneider’s  letters,  dated  from  Pekin,  Aug.  23, 
1881,  Jan.  28,  and  June  18,  1882.  They  give  the 
most  certain  information  which  can  be  derived  from 
accurately  translated  Chinese  works. 

“The  author  of  the  Pent-sao-kang-mou,  who  wrote  in 
1552  and  1578,  gives  some  details  concerning  the  a-fou- 
yong  (that  is  afiown,  opiuri),  a foreign  drug  produced  by 
a species  of  ying-sou  with  red  flowers  in  the  country  of 
Tien-fang  (Arabia),  and  recently  used  as  a medicament 
in  China.  In  the  time  of  the  preceding  dynasty  there  had 
been  much  talk  of  the  a-fou-yong.  The  Chinese  author 
gives  some  details  relative  to  the  extraction  of  opium  in 
his  native  country,  but  he  does  not  say  that  it  is  also  pro- 
duced in  China,  nor  does  he  allude  to  the  practice  of 
smoking  it.  In  the  Descriptive  Dictionary  of  the  Indian 
Islands,  by  Crawfurd,  p.  312,  I find  the  following  pas- 
sage : ‘The  earliest  account  we  have  of  the  use  of  opium, 
not  only  from  the  Archipelago,  but  also  from  India  and 
China,  is  by  the  faithful,  intelligent  Barbosa.3  He  rates 
it  among  the  articles  brought  by  the  Moorish  and  Gentile 
merchants  of  Western  India,  to  exchange  for  the  cargoes 
of  Chinese  junks.’  ” 

“It  is  difficult  to  fix  the  exact  date  at  which  the 
Chinese  began  to  smoke  opium  and  to  cultivate  the 
poppy  which  produces  it.  As  I have  said,  there  is  much 
confusion  on  this  head,  and  not  only  European  authors, 
but  also  the  modern  Chinese,  apply  the  name  ying-sou 
to  P.  somniferum  as  well  as  to  P.  rhceas.  P.  somni- 
ferum is  now  extensively  cultivated  in  all  the  provinces 

1 Ebn  Baithar,  i.  p.  64. 

2 Fliickiger  and  Hanbury,  Pharmacographia,  p.  40. 

2 Barbosa’s  work  was  published  in  1516. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


401 


of  the  Chinese  empire,  and  also  in  Mantchnria  and  Mon- 
golia. Williamson  ( Journeys  in  North  China,  M ant- 
char  ta,  Mongolia,  1868,  ii.  p.  55)  saw  it  cultivated  every- 
where in  Mantchuria.  He  was  told  that  the  cultivation 
of  the  poppy  was  twice  as  profitable  as  that  of  cereals. 
Potanin,  a Russian  traveller,  who  visited  Northern  Mon- 
golia in  1876,  saw  immense  plantations  of  the  poppy  in 
the  valley  of  Kiran  (between  lat.  47°  and  48°).  This 
alarms  the  Chinese  government,  and  still  more  the  Eng- 
lish, who  dread  the  competition  of  native  opium.” 

“ You  are  probably  aware  that  opium  is  eaten,  not 
smoked,  in  India  and  Persia.  The  practice  of  smoking 
this  drug  appears  to  be  a Chinese  invention,  and  modern. 
Nothing  proves  that  the  Chinese  smoked  opium  before 
the  middle  of  the  last  century.  The  Jesuit  missionaries 
to  China  in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  do 
not  mention  it ; Father  d’lncarville  alone  says  in  1750 
that  the  sale  of  opium  is  forbidden  because  it  was  used 
by  suicides.  Two  edicts  forbidding  the  smoking  of  opium 
date  from  before  1730,  and  another  in  1796  speaks  of  the 
progress  made  by  the  vice  in  question.  Don  Sinibaldo 
di  Mas,  who  in  1858  published  a very  good  book  on 
China,  where  he  had  lived  many  years  as  Spanish 
ambassador,  says  that  the  Chinese  took  the  practice 
from  the  people  of  Assam,  where  the  custom  had  loner 
existed.” 

So  bad  a habit,  like  the  use  of  tobacco  or  absinth, 
is  sure  to  spread.  It  is  becoming  gradually  introduced 
into  the  countries  which  have  frequent  relations  with 
China.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  it  will  not  attack  so  large 
a proportion  of  the  peoples  of  other  countries  as  in  Amoy, 
where  the  proportion  of  opium-smokers  are  as  fifteen  to 
twenty  of  the  adult  population.1 

Arnotto,  or  Anatto — B isca  orellana,  Linnaeus. 

The  dye,  called  rocon  in  French,  amottQ  in  English, 
is  extracted  from  the  pulp  which  encases  the  seed.  The 
inhabitants  of  the  West  India  Islands,  of  the  Isthmus  of 
Darien,  and  of  Brazil,  used  it  at  the  time  of  the  discovery 
of  America  to  stain  their  bodies  red,  and  the  Mexicans 

Hughes,  Trade  Report,  quoted  by  Fluckiger  and  Hanbury. 

2 D 


402 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


in  painting.1  The  arnotto,  a small  tree  of  the  order 
Bixaceae,  grows  wild  in  the  West  Indies,2  and  over  a 
great  part  of  the  continent  of  America  between  the 
tropics.  Herbaria  and  floras  abound  in  indications  of 
locality,  but  do  not  generally  specify  whether  the  species 
is  cultivated,  wild,  or  naturalized.  I note,  however,  that 
it  is  said  to  be  indigenous  by  Seemann  on  the  north- 
west coast  of  Mexico  and  Panama,  by  Triana  in  New 
Granada,  by  Meyer  in  Dutch  Guiana,  and  by  Piso  and 
Claussen  in  Brazil.8  With  such  a vast  area,  it  is  not 
surprising  that  the  species  has  many  names  in  American 
languages ; that  of  the  Brazilians,  urucu,  is  the  origin  of 
rocou. 

It  was  not  very  necessary  to  plant  this  tree  in  order 
to  obtain  its  product ; nevertheless  Piso  relates  that  the 
Brazilians,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  were  not  content 
with  the  wild  plant,  and  in  Jamaica,  in  the  seventeenth 
century,  the  plantations  of  Bixa  were  common.  It  was 
one  of  the  first  species  transported  from  America  to  the 
south  of  Asia  and  to  Africa.  It  has  become  so  entirely 
naturalized,  that  Roxburgh 4 believed  it  to  be  indigenous 
in  India. 

Cotton — Go88ypium  herbaceum,  Linmeus. 

When,  in  1855,  I sought  the  origin  of  the  cultivated 
cottons,5  there  was  still  great  uncertainty  as  to  the  dis- 
tinction of  the  species.  Since  then  two  excellent  works 
have  appeared  in  Italy,  upon  which  we  can  rely  ; one  by 
Parlatore,0  formerly  director  of  the  botanical  gardens  at 
Florence,  the  other  by  Todaro,7  of  Palermo.  These  two 

1 Sloane,  Jamaica,  ii.  p.  53. 

2 Sloane,  ibid. ; Clos,  Arm.  Sc.  Nat.,  4th  series,  vol.  viii.  p.  260  ; 
Grisebach,  FI.  of  Brit.  IF.  Ind.  Is.,  p.  20. 

3 Seemann,  Bot.  of  Herald.,  pp.  79,  268 ; Triana  and  Planehon,  Prodr. 
FI.  Novo-Granat.,  p.  94;  Meyer,  Essequebo,  p.  202;  Piso,  Hist.  Nat. 
Brasil,  edit.  1648,  p.  65 ; Claassen,  in  Clos,  ubi  supra. 

* Roxburgh,  FI.  Ind.,  ii.  p.  581;  Oliver,  FI.  Trap.  Africa,  i.  p.  114. 

s Qeogr.  Bolt  Rais.,  p.  971. 

6 Parlatore,  Le  Specie  dei  Cotoni,  text  in  4to,  plates  in  folio,  Florence, 
1866. 

7 Todaro,  Relazione  della  Coltura  dei  Cotoni  in  Italia,  segrnta  da  una 
Monograpkia  del  Oenere  Gossypium,  text  large  8vo,  plates  in  folio,  Rome 
and  Palermo,  1877-78 ; a work  preceded  by  several  others  of  less  im- 
portance, which  were  known  to  Parlatore. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


403 


works  are  illustrated  with  magnificent  coloured  plates. 
Nothing  better  can  be  desired  for  the  cultivated  cottons. 
On  the  other  hand,  our  knowledge  ol  the  true  species, 
I mean  of  those  which  exist  natui'ally  in  a wild  state, 
has  not  increased  as  much  as  it  might.  However,  the 
definition  of  species  seems  fairly  accurate  in  the  works 
of  Dr.  Masters,1  whom  I shall  therefore  follow.  This 
author  agrees  with  Parlatore  in  admitting  seven  well- 
known  species  and  two  doubtful,  while  Todaro  counts 
fifty-four,  of  which  only  two  are  doubtful,  reckoning  as 
species  forms  with  some  distinguishing  character,  but 
which  originated  and  are  preserved  by  cultivation. 

The  common  names  of  the  cottons  give  no  assistance  ; 
they  are  even  calculated  to  lead  us  completely  astray  as 
to  the  origin  of  the  species.  A cotton  called  Siamese 
comes  from  America ; another  is  called  Brazilian  or  Ava 
cotton,  according  to  the  fancy  or  the  error  of  cultivators. 

We  will  first  consider  Gossypium  herbaceum,  an 
ancient  species  in  Asiatic  plantations,  and  now  the  com- 
monest in  Eux-ope  and  in  the  United  States.  In  the 
hot  countries  whence  it  came,  its  stem  lasts  several  years, 
but  out  of  the  tropics  it  becomes  annual  from  the  effect 
of  the  winter’s  cold.  The  flower  is  generally  yellow,  with 
a red  centre;  the  cotton  yellow  or  white,  according  to 
the  variety.  Paiiatore  examined  in  herbaria  several 
wild  specimens,  and  cultivated  others  derived  from  wild 
plants  of  the  Indian  Peninsula.  He  also  admits  it  to  be 
indigenous  in  Burmah  and  in  the  Indian  Archipelago, 
from  the  specimens  of  collector's,  who  have  not  perhaps 
been  sufficiently  careful  to  verify  its  wild  character. 

Masters  regards  as  undoubtedly  wild  in  Sindh  a form 
which  he  calls  Gossypium  Stocksii,  which  he  says  is 
probably  the  wild  condition  of  Gossypium  herbaceum, 
and  of  other  cottons  cultivated  in  India  for  a long  time. 
Todaro,  who  is  not  given  to  uniting  many  forms  in  a 
single  species,  nevertheless  admits  the  identity  of  this 
variety  with  the  common  G.  herbaceum.  The  yellow 
colour  of  the  cotton  is  then  the  natural  condition  of  the 


1 Masters,  in  Oliver,  FI.  Trop.  Afr., 


p.  210 ; and  in  Sir  J.  Hooker, 


404 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


species.  The  seed  has  not  the  short  down  which  exists 
between  the  longer  hairs  in  the  cultivated  G.  herbaceum. 

Cultivation  has  probably  extended  the  area  of  the 
species  beyond  the  limits  of  the  primitive  habitation. 
This  is,  I imagine,  the  case  in  the  Sunda  Islands  and  the 
Malay  Peninsula,  where  certain  individuals  appear  more 
or  less  wild.  Kurz,1  in  his  Burmese  flora,  mentions 
G.  herbaceum,  with  yellow  or  white  cotton,  as  cultivated 
and  also  as  wild  in  desert  places  and  waste  ground. 

The  herbaceous  cotton  is  called  kapase  in  Bengali, 
kctpas  in  Hindustani,  which  shows  that  the  Sanskrit 
word  Icarpassi  undoubtedly  refers  to  this  species.2  It 
was  early  cultivated  in  Bactriana,  where  the  Greeks  had 
noticed  it  at  the  time  of  the  expedition  of  Alexander. 
Theophrastus  speaks  of  it 8 in  such  a manner  as  to  leave 
no  doubt.  The  tree-cotton  of  the  Isle  of  Tylos,  in  the 
Persian  Gulf,  of  which  he  makes  mention  further  on,4 
was  probably  also  G.  herbaceum;  for  Tylos  is  not  far 
from  India,  and  in  such  a hot  climate  the  herbaceous 
cotton  becomes  a shrub.  The  introduction  of  a cotton 
plant  into  China  took  place  only  in  the  ninth  or  tenth 
century  of  our  era,  which  shows  that  probably  the  area 
of  G.  herbaceum  was  originally  limited  to  the  south  and 
east  of  India.  The  knowledge  and  perhaps  the  cultiva- 
tion of  the  Asiatic  cotton  was  propagated  in  the  Gneco- 
Koman  world  after  the  expedition  of  Alexander,  but 
before  the  first  centuries  of  the  Christian  era.5  If  the 
byssos  of  the  Greeks  was  the  cotton  plant,  as  most 
scholars  think,  it  was  cultivated  at  Elis,  according  to 
Pausanias  and  Pliny;6  but  Curtius  and  C.  Ritter7  con- 
sider the  word  byssos  as  a general  term  for  threads, 
and  that  it  was  probably  applied  in  this  case  to  fine 
linen.  It  is  evident  that  the  cotton  was  never,  or  very 
rarely,  cultivated  by  the  ancients.  It  is  so  useful  that 
it  would  have  become  common  if  it  had  been  introduced 

1 Kurz,  Forest  Flora  of  British  Bunnah,  i.  p.  129. 

2 Piddington,  Index.  * Theophrastus,  Hist.  Plant.,  lib.  iv.  cap.  5. 

4 Ibid.,  lib.  iv.  cap.  9.  4 Brotschneidcr,  Study  and  Value,  etc.,  p.  7- 

0 Pausanias,  lib.  v.,  cap.  5;  lib.  vi.  cap.  26;  Pliny,  lib.  xis.  cap.  1. 

See  Brandes,  Baurnu'olle,  p.  96. 

’ C.  Bitter,  Die  Geographische  Verbreitung  der  Baumwolle,  p.  25. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


405 


into  a single  locality — in  Greece,  for  instance.  It  was 
. afterwards  propagated  on  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean 
I by  the  Arabs,  as  we  see  from  the  name  qutn  or  kntn} 
which  has  passed  into  the  modem  languages  of  the  south 
of  Europe  as  cotone,  coton,  algodon.  Eben  el  Awan,  of 
: Seville,  who  lived  in  the  twelfth  century,  describes  its 
(cultivation  as  it  was  practised  in  his  time  in  Sicily, 

! Spain,  and  the  East.1 2 

Gossypivm  herbaceum  is  the  species  most  cultivated 
i in  the  United  States.3  It  was  probably  introduced 
i there  from  Europe.  It  was  a new  cultivation  a hundred 
■years  ago,  for  a bale  of  North  American  cotton  was 
confiscated  at  Liverpool  in  1774,  on  the  plea  that  the 
cotton-plant  did  not  grow  there.4  The  silky  cotton  ( sea 
' island ) is  another  species,  American,  of  which  I shall 
i presently  speak. 

Tree-Cotton — Gossypium  arboreum,  Linmeus. 

This  species  is  taller  and  of  longer  duration  than  the 
'herbaceous  cotton;  the  lobes  of  the  leaf  are  narrower, 
i the  bracts  less  divided  or  entire.  The  flower  is  usually 
: pink,  with  a red  centre.  The  cotton  is  always  white. 

According  to  Anglo-Indian  botanists,  this  is  not,  as 
lit  was  supposed,  an  Indian  species,  and  is  even  rarely 
cultivated  in  India.  It  is  a native  of  tropical  Africa. 
It  has  been  seen  wild  in  Upper  Guinea,  in  Abyssinia, 
Sennaar,  and  Upper  Egypt.5  So  great  a number  of 
collectors  have  brought  it  from  these  countries,  that 
: there  is  no  room  for  doubt;  but  cultivation  has  so  diffused 
and  mixed  this  species  with  others  that  it  has  been 
described  under  several  names  in  works  on  Southern 
. Asia. 

1 It  is  impossible  not  to  remark  the  resemblanco  between  this  name 
awl  that  of  flax  in  Arabic,  lcattan  or  kittan ; it  is  an  example  of  the  con- 
fusion which  takes  place  in  names  where  there  is  an  analogy  between 
the  products. 

2 Do  Lasteyrie,  Du  Cotonnier,  p.  290. 

3 Torre y and  Asa  Gray,  Flora  of  North  America,  i.  p.  230 ; Darling- 
ton, Agricultural  Botany,  p.  16. 

4 Schouw,  Naturschildcrungen,  p.  152. 

3 Masters,  in  Oliver,  FI.  Trap.  Afr.,  i.  p.  211 ; Hooker,  FI.  of  Brit.  Ind., 
'•p.  347;  Schweinfurth  and  ^Ascherson,  Aufzahlung,  p.265  (under  the 
name  Goneypium  nigrum ) ; Parlatore,  Specie  dei  Coioni,  p.  25. 


40G  ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 

Parlatore  attributed  to  G.  arboreum  some  Asiatic 
specimens  of  G.  herbaceum,  and  a plant  but  little  known 
which  Forskal  found  in  Arabia.  He  suspected  from  this 
that  the  ancients  had  known  G.  arboreum  as  well  as  G. 
herbaceum.  Now  that  the  two  species  are  better  distin- 
guished, and  that  the  origin  of  both  is  known,  this  does 
not  seem  probable.  They  knew  the  herbaceous  cotton 
through  India  and  Persia,  while  the  tree-cotton  can  only 
have  come  to  them  through  Egypt.  Parlatore  himself 
has  given  a most  interesting  proof  of  this.  Until  his 
work  appeared  in  18GG,  it  was  not  certain  to  what  species 
belonged  some  seeds  of  the  cotton  plant  which  Rosellini 
found  in  a vase  among  the  monuments  of  ancient  Thebes.1 
These  seeds  are  in  the  Florence  museum.  Parlatore 
examined  them  carefully,  and  declares  them  to  belong  to 
Gossypium  arboreum .2  Rosellini  is  certain  he  was  not 
imposed  upon,  as  he  was  the  first  to  open  both  the  tomb 
and  the  vase.  No  archaeologist  has  since  seen  or  read 
signs  of  the  cotton  plant  in  the  ancient  times  of  Egyptian 
civilization.  How  is  it  that  a plant  so  striking,  remark- 
able for  its  flowers  and  seed,  was  not  described  nor  pre- 
served habitually  in  the  tombs  if  it  were  cultivated  ? 
How  is  it  that  Herodotus,  Dioscorides,  and  Theophrastus 
made  no  mention  of  it  when  writing  of  Egypt  ? The 
cloths  in  which  all  the  mummies  are  wrapt,  and  which 
were  formerly  supposed  to  be  cotton,  are  always  linen 
according  to  Thompson  and  many  other  observers  who 
are  familiar  with  the  use  of  the  microscope.  Hence  I 
conclude  that  if  the  seeds  found  by  Rosellini  were  really 
ancient  they  •were  a rarity,  an  exception  to  the  common 
custom,  perhaps  the  product  of  a tree  cultivated  in  a 
garden,  or  perhaps  they  came  from  Upper  Egypt,  a 
country  where  we  know  the  tree-cotton  to  be  wild. 
Pliny3  does  not  say  that  cotton  was  cultivated  in  Lower 
Egypt ; but  here  is  a translation  of  his  very  remarkable 
passage,  which  is  often  quoted.  “The  upper  part  of 
Egypt,  towards  Arabia,  produces  a shrub  which  some 

1 Rosellini,  Monument i dell'  Egizia , p.  2 ; Mon.  Civ.,  i.  p.  60. 

2 Parlatore,  Specie  dei  Cotoni,  p.  16. 

3 Pliny,  Hist.  Plant.,  lib.  xix.  cap.  1. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


407 


call  gossip  ion  and  others  xylon,  whence  the  name 
xylvna  given  to  the  threads  obtained  from  it.  It  is  low- 
growing,  and  bears  a fruit  like  that  of  the  bearded 
nut,  and  from  the  interior  of  this  is  taken  a wool  for 
weaving.  None  is  comparable  to  this  in  softness  and 
whiteness.”  Pliny  adds,  “ The  cloth  made  from  it  is 
used  by  preference  for  the  dress  of  the  Egyptian  priests.” 
Perhaps  the  cotton  destined  to  this  purpose  was  sent 
from  Upper  Egypt,  or  perhaps  the  author,  who  had 
not  seen  the  fabrication,  and  did  not  possess  a micro- 
scope, was  mistaken  in  the  nature  of  the  sacerdotal 
raiment,  as  were  our  contemporaries  who  handled  the 
grave-cloths  of  hundreds  of  mummies  before  suspecting 
that  they  were  not  cotton.  Among  the  Jews,  the 
priestly  robes  were  commanded  to  be  of  linen,  and  it 
is  not  likely  that  their  custom  was  different  to  that 
of  the  Egyptians. 

Pollux,1  born  in  Egypt  a century  later  than  Pliny, 
expresses  himself  clearly  about  the  cotton  plant,  of  which 
the  thread  was  used  by  his  countrymen ; but  he  does  not 
say  whence  the  shrub  came,  and  we  cannot  tell  whether 
it  was  Gossypivm  arboreum  or  G.  herbaceum.  It  does 
not  even  appear  whether  the  plant  was  cultivated  in 
Lower  Egypt,  or  if  the  cotton  came  from  the  more 
southern  region.  In  spite  of  these  doubts,  it  may  be 
suspected  that  a cotton  plant,  probably  that  of  Upper 
Egypt,  had  recently  been  introduced  into  the  Delta.  The 
species  which  Prosper  Alpin  had  seen  cultivated  in 
Egypt  in  the  sixteenth  century  was  the  tree-cotton.  The 
Arabs,  and  afterwards  Europeans,  preferred  and  trans- 
ported into  different  countries  the  herbaceous  cotton 
rather  than  the  tree-cotton,  which  yields  a poorer  product 
and  requires  more  heat. 

Regarding  the  two  cottons  of  the  old  world,  I have 
made  as  little  use  as  possible  of  arguments  based  upon 
Greek  names,  such  as  fivaooe,  crtvSov,  £v\ov,  OOwv,  etc., 
or  Sanskrit  names,  and  their  derivatives,  as  carbasa, 
air  pas,  or  Hebrew  names,  schesch,  buz , which  are  doubt- 
fully attributed  to  the  cotton  tree.  This  has  been  a 

1 Pollux,  Onomasticon,  quoted  by  C.  Ritter,  ubi  supra,  p.  26. 


408 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


fruitful  subject  of  discussion,1  but  tlie  clearer  distinction 
of  species  and  the  discovery  of  their  origin  greatly 
diminishes  the  importance  of  these  questions — to  natu- 
ralists, at  least,  who  prefer  facts  to  words.  Moreover, 
Reynier,  and  after  him  C.  Ritter,  arrived  in  their  re- 
searches at  a conclusion  which  we  must  not  forget : that 
these  same  names  were  often  applied  by  ancient  peoples 
to  different  plants  and  tissues — to  linen  and  cotton,  for 
example.  In  this  case  as  in  others,  modern  botany 
explains  ancient  words  where  words  and  the  com- 
mentaries of  philologists  may  mislead. 

Barbados  Cotton — Gossypkim  barbaden.se,  Linnaeus. 

At  the  time  of  the  discovery  of  America,  the  Spaniards 
found  the  cultivation  and  use  of  cotton  established  from 
the  West  India  Islands  to  Peru,  and  from  Mexico  to 
Brazil.  The  fact  is  proved  by  all  the  historians  of  the 
epoch.  But  it  is  still  very  difficult  to  tell  what  were  the 
species  of  these  American  cottons  and  in  what  countries 
they  were  indigenous.  The  botanical  distinction  of  the 
American  species  or  varieties  is  in  the  last  degree  con- 
fused. Authors,  even  those  who  have  seen  large  collec- 
tions of  growing  cotton  plants,  are  not  agreed  as  to  the 
characters.  They  are  also  embarrassed  by  the  difficulty 
of  deciding  which  of  the  specific  names  of  Linnaeus  should 
be  retained,  for  the  original  definitions  are  insufficient. 
The  introduction  of  American  seed  into  African  and 
Asiatic  plantations  has  given  rise  to  further  complica- 
tions, as  botanists  in  Java,  Calcutta,  Bourbon,  etc.,  have 
often  described  American  forms  as  species  under  different 
names.  Todaro  admits  ten  American  species ; Parlatore 
reduced  them  to  three,  which  answer,  he  says,  to  Gossy- 
pivm  hirsutum,  G.  barbadense,  and  G.  reUgiosv.m  of 
Linnceus;  lastly,  Dr.  Masters  unites  all  the  American 
forms  into  a single  species  which  he  calls  G.  barbadense, 
giving  as  the  chief  character  that  the  seed  bears  only 

1 Roynier,  £conomie  des  Arabes  et  des  Juifs.,  p.  363  j Bertoloni,  Nov. 
Act.  Acad.  Bonon.,  ii.  p-  213,  and  Miscall . Bot.,  6;  Viviani,  in  Bibl.  Ital., 
vol.  lxxxi.  p.  94;  C.  Ritter,  Gdogr.  Verbreitung  der  Baumwolle,  in  4to. ; 
Targioni,  Cenni  Storici,  p.  93;  Brandis,  Der  Baumwolle  in  Alterthuw, 
in  8 vo,  1880. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


409 


long  hairs,  whereas  the  species  of  the  ohl  world  have  a 
short  down  underneath  the  longer  hairs.1  The  flower  is 
yellow,  with  a red  centre.  The  cotton  is  white  or  yellow. 
Parlatore  strove  to  include  fifty  or  sixty  of  the  cultivated 
forms  under  one  or  other  of  the  three  heads  he  admits, 
from  the  study  of  plants  in  gardens  or  herbaria.  Dr. 
Masters  mentions  but  few  synonyms,  and  it  is  possible 
that  certain  forms  with  which  he  is  not  acquainted  do 
not  come  under  the  definition  of  his  single  species. 

Where  there,  is  such  confusion  it  would  be  the  best 
course  for  botanists  to  seek  with  care  the  Gossypici , which 
are  wild  in  America,  to  constitute  the  one  or  more  species 
solely  upon  these,  leaving  to  the  cultivated  species  their 
strange  and  often  absurd  and  misleading  names.  I state 
this,  opinion  because  with  regard  to  no  other  genus  of 
cultivated  plants  have  I felt  so  strongly  that  natural 
history  should  be  based  upon  natural  facts,  and  not  upon 
the  artificial  products  of  cultivation.  If  we  start  from 
this  point  of  view,  which  has  the  merit  of  being  a truly 
scientific  method,  we  find  unfortunately  that  our  know- 
ledge of  the  cottons  indigenous  in  America  is  still  in  a 
very  elementary  state.  At  most  we  can  name  only  one 
01  two  collectors  who  have  found  Gossypici  really 
identical  with  or  very  similar  to  certain  cultivated  forms. 

U.e  can  seldom  trust  early  botanists  and  travellers 
on  this  head.  1 he  cotton  plant  grows  sometimes  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  plantations,  and  becomes  more  or  less 
naturalized,  as  the  down  on  the  seeds  facilitates  accidental 
transport  The  usual  expression  of  early  writers — such  a 
cotton  plant  grows  in  such  a country — often  means  a 
cultivated  plant.  Linnaeus  himself  in  the  eighteenth 
century  often  says  of  a cultivated  species,  “habitat,” 

, and  he  even  says  it  sometimes  without  good  ground,2 
. Hernandez,  one  of  the  most  accurate  among  sixteenth- 
century  authors  is  quoted  as  having  described  and 
figured  a wild  Gossypivm  in  Mexico,  but  the  text 


**  **+  '■ p-  “>  »a  in  H“k“. 

the  oldwmS'  f°r  instance,  of  Gossy  pi  um  herbaceum,  which  is  certainly  of 
the  old  world,  as  facts  known  before  his  time  show,  “ habitat  in  America.” 


410 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


suggests  some  doubts  as  to  tlie  wild  condition  of  this 
plant,1  which  Parlatore  believes  to  be  G.  hirmtum, 
Linnaeus.  Hemsley,2 3  in  his  catalogue  of  Mexican  plants, 
merely  says  of  a Gossypium  which  he  calls  barbadense, 
“ wild  and  cultivated.”  He  gives  no  proof  of  the  former 
condition.  Macfadyen8  mentions  three  forms  wild  and 
cultivated  in  Jamaica.  He  attributes  specific  names  to 
them,  and  adds  that  they  possibly  all  may  be  included 
in  Linnaeus’  G.  hirmtum.  Grisebacli4 5  admits  that  one 
species,  G.  barbadense , is  wild  in  the  West  Indies.  As 
to  the  specific  distinctions,  he  declares  himself  unable  to 
establish  them  with  certainty. 

With  regard  to  Hew  Grenada,  Triana6  describes  a 
Gossypium  which  he  calls  G.  barbadense,  Linnaeus,  and 
which  he  says  is  “ cultivated  and  half  wild  along  the 
Rio  Seco,  in  the  province  of  Bogota,  and  in  the  valley  of 
the  Cauca  near  Cali ; ” and  he  adds  a variety,  hi  rmtum, 
growing  (he  does  not  say  whether  spontaneously  or  no) 
along  the  Rio  Seco.  I cannot  discover  any  similar  asser- 
tion for  Peru,  Guiana,  and  Brazil ; 6 but  the  flora  of  Chili, 
published  by  Cl.  Gay,7  mentions  a Gossypium,  “almost 
wild  in  the  province  of  Copiapo,”  which  the  writer 
attributes  to  the  variety  G.  peruvianum,  Cavan  dies. 
Now,  this  author  does  not  say  the  plant  is  wild,  and 
Parlatore  classes  it  with  G.  religiosum,  Linnseus. 

An  important  variety  of  cultivation  is  that  of  the 
cotton  with  long  silky  down,  called  by  Anglo-Americans 
sea  island,  or  long  staple  cotton,  which  Parlatore  ranks 
with  G.  barbadense,  Linnaeus.  It  is  considered  to  be  of 
American  origin,  but  no  one  has  seen  it  wild. 

In  conclusion,  if  historical  records  are  positive  in  all 
that  concerns  the  use  of  cotton  in  America  from  a time 
far  earlier  than  the  arrival  of  Europeans,  the  natural 

1 Nascitvr  in  calidis  hvmidisque  cultis  prcecipue  loots  (Hernandez, 
Novae  Hispania}  Thesaurus,  p.  308). 

2 Hemsley,  Biologia  Centrali-Americana,  i.  p.  123. 

3 Macfadyen,  Flora  of  Jamaica,  p.  72. 

4 Grisebacli,  Flora  of  Brit.  IF.  India  Is.,  p.  86. 

5 Triana  and  Planchon,  Prodr.  FI.  Novo-Oranatensis,  p.  170. 

6 The  Malvacem  have  not  yet  appeared  in  the  Flora  Brasiliensis. 

7 Cl.  Gay,  Flora  Chilena,  i.  p.  312. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOE  THEIE  SEEDS. 


411 


wild  habitation  of  the  plant  or  plants  which  yield  this 
product  is  yet  but  little  known.  We  become  aware  on 
this  occasion  of  the  absence  of  floras  of  tropical  America, 
similar  to  those  of  the  Dutch  and  English  colonies  of 
Asia  and  Africa. 

Mandubi,  Pea-nut,  Monkey-nut — Arachis  kypogcva, 
Linnaeus. 

Nothing  is  more  curious  than  the  manner  in  which 
this  leguminous  plant  matures  its  fruits.  It  is  cultivated 
in  all  hot  countries,  either  for  the  seed,  or  for  the  oil 
contained  in  the  cotyledons.1  Bentham  has  given,  in 
his  Flora  of  Brazil,  in  folio,  vol.  xv.  pi.  23,  complete 
details  of  the  plant,  in  which  may  be  seen  how  the 
flower-stalk  bends  downwards  and  plunges  the  pod  into 
the  earth  to  ripen. 

The  origin  of  the  species  was  disputed  for  a century, 
even  by  those  botanists  who  employ  the  best  means  to 
discover  it.  It  is  worth  while  to  show  how  the  truth 
was  arrived  at,  as  it  may  serve  as  a guide  in  similar 
cases.  I will  quote,  therefore,  what  I wrote  in  1855, 2 
giving  in  conclusion  new  proofs  which  allow  no  possi- 
bility of  further  doubt. 

“ Linnaeus8  said  of  the  Arachis,  ‘it  inhabits  Surinam, 
Brazil,  and  Peru.’  As  usual  with  him,  he  does  not  specify 
whether  the  species  was  wild  or  cultivated  in  these 
countries.  In  1818,  R.  Brown4  writes:  ‘It  was  pro- 
bably introduced  from  China  into  the  continent  of  India, 
Ceylon,  and  into  the  Malay  Archipelago,  where,  in  spite 
of  its  now  general  cultivation,  it  is  thought  not  to  be 
indigenous,  particularly  from  the  names  given  to  it.  I 
consider  it  not  improbable  that  it  was  brought  from 
Africa  into  different  parts  of  equatorial  America,  although, 
however,  it  is  mentioned  in  some  of  the  earliest  writings 
on  this  continent,  particularly  on  Peru  and  Brazil.  Ac- 
cording to  Sprengel,  it  is  mentioned  by  Theophrastus  as 

Hie  Gardener’ h Chronicle  of  Sept.  4,  1880,  gives  details  about  the 
cultivation  of  this  plant,  the  use  of  its  seeds,  and  the  extensive  oxporta- 
turn  of  them  from  the-  west  coast  of  Africa,  Brazil,  and  India  to  Europe. 

2 A*  de  Candolle,  Geographic  Botanique  liauonnec , p.  962. 

Linnaeus,  Species  Plantarum , p.  1040. 

4 R.  Brown,  Botany  of  Congo , p.  53. 


412 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


cultivated  in  Egypt,  but  it  is  not  at  all  evident  that  the 
Arachis  is  the  plant  to  which  Theophrastus  alludes  in 
the  quoted  passage.  If  it  had  been  formerly  cultivated 
in  Egypt  it  would  probably  still  exist  in  that  country, 
whereas  it  does  not  occur  in  Forskal’s  catalogue  nor  in 
Delile’s  more  extended  flora.  There  is  nothing  very 
unlikely,’  continues  Brown,  ‘ in  the  hypothesis  that  the 
Arachis  is  indigenous  both  in  Africa  and  America;  but 
if  it  is  considered  as  existing  originally  in  one  of  these 
continents  only,  it  is  more  probable  that  it  was  brought 
from  China  through  India  to  Africa,  than  that  it  took 
the  contrary  direction.’  My  father  in  1825,  in  the  Pro- 
dromus  (ii.  p.  474),  returned  to  Linnaeus’  opinion,  and 
admitted  without  hesitation  the  American  origin.  Let 
us  reconsider  the  question  ” (I  said  in  1855)  “ with  the 
aid  of  the  discoveries  of  modern  science. 

“ Arachis  hypogcca  was  the  only  species  of  this  singular 
genus  known.  Six  other  species,  all  Brazilian,  have 
since  been  discovered.1  Thus,  applying  the  rule  of  pro- 
bability of  which  Brown  first  made  great  use,  we  incline 
d priori  to  the  idea  of  an  American  origin.  We  must 
remember  that  Marcgraf 2 and  Piso  8 describe  and  figure 
the  plant  as  used  in  Brazil,  under  the  name  mandubi, 
which  seems  to  be  indigenous.  They  quote  Monardes,  a 
writer  of  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century,  as  having 
indicated  it  in  Peru  under  a different  name,  anchic. 
Joseph  Acosta 4 merely  mentions  an  American  name, 
mani,  and  speaks  of  it  with  other  species  which  are  not 
of  foreign  origin  in  America.  The  Arachis  was  not 
ancient  in  Guiana,  in  the  West  Indies,  and  in  Mexico. 
Aublet 5 mentions  it  as  a cultivated  plant,  not  in  Guiana, 
but  in  the  Isle  of  France.  Hernandez  does  not  speak  of 
it.  Sloane6  had  seen  it  only  in  a garden,  grown  from 
seeds  brought  from  Guinea.  He  says  that  the  slave- 
dealers  feed  the  negroes  with  it  on  their  passage  from 

1 Bentham,  in  Trans.  Linn.  Soc.,  xviii.  p.  159;  Walpcrs,  Repertorium, 
i.  p.  727. 

2 Marcgraf  and  Piso,  Brasil.,  p.  37,  edit.  1648. 

1 Ibid.,  edit.  1658,  p.  256. 

4 Acosta,  Hist.  Nat.  Ind.,  French,  trans.,  1598,  p.  165. 

4 Aublet,  PI.  Qwjan,  p.  765.  6 Sloane,  Jamaica,  p.  184. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


413 


Africa,  which  indicates  a then  vexy  general  cultivation 
in  Africa.  Pison,  in  his  second  edition  (1658,  p.  256), 
not  in  that  of  1648,  gives  a figure  of  a similar  fruit  im- 
ported from  Africa  into  Brazil  under  the  name  mandobi, 
very  near  to  the  name  of  the  Arachis,  mundubi.  From 
the  three  leaflets  of  the  plant  it  would  seem  to  be  the 
I oandzeia,  so  often  cultivated ; but  the  fruit  seems  to 
me  to  be  longer  than  in  this  genus,  and  it  has  two  or 
three  seeds  instead  of  one  or  two.  However  this  may 
be,  the  distinction  drawn  by  Piso  between  these  two 
subterranean  seeds,  the  one  Brazilian,  the  other  African, 
tends  to  show  that  the  Arachis  is  Brazilian. 

The  antiquity  and  the  generality  of  its  cultivation 
in  Africa  is,  however,  an  argument  of  some  force,  which 
compensates  to  a certain  degree  its  antiquity  in  Brazil, 
and  the  presence  of  six  other  Arachis  in  the  same  country. 
I would  admit  its  great  value  if  the  Arachis  had  been 
known  to  the  ancient  Egyptians  and  to  the  Arabs ; but 
the  silence  of  Greek,  Latin,  and  Arab  authors,  and  the 
absence  of  the  species  in  Egypt  in  Forskal’s  time,  lead 
me  to  think  that  its  cultivation  in  Guinea,  Senegal,1  and 
the  east  coast  of  Africa2  is  not  of  very  ancient  date. 
-Neither  has  it  the  marks  of  a great  antiquity  in  Asia. 
.No  Sanskrit  name  for  it  is  known,3  but  only  a Hindu- 
stani one.  Rumphius 4 says  that  it  was  imported  from 
Japan  into  several  islands  of  the  Indian  Archipelago.  It 
would  m that  case  have  borne  only  foreign  names,  like 
the  Chinese  name,  for  instance,  which  signifies  onlv 
earth-bean  At  the  end  of  the  last  century  it  was 
generally  cultivated  in  China  and  Cochin-China  Yet  in 
spite  of  Rumphius’s  theory  of  an  introduction  into  the 
islands  from  China  or  Japan,  I see  that  Thunberg  does 
not  speak  of  it  in  his  Japanese  Flora.  Now,  Japan  has 
had  dealings  with  China  for  sixteen  centuries,  and  culti- 
\ ated  plants,  natives  of  one  of  the  two  counti  •ies,  were 
commonly  early  introduced  into  the  other.  It  is  not 
mentioned  by  Forster  among  the  plants  employed  in  the 

l aad  Fl.  Senegal.  * Lourciro,  FI.  Cochin. 

Roxburgh,  Fl  Ind  p.  280  j Piddington,  Index. 

4 Rumphius,  Herb.  Amb.,  v.  p.  426 


414  ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 

small  islands  of  the  Pacific.  All  these  facts  point  to  an 
American,  I might  even  say  a Brazilian,  origin.  None 
of  the  authors  I have  consulted  mentions  having  seen 
the  plant  wild,  either  in  the  old  or  the  new  world. 
Those  who  indicate  it  in  Africa  or  Asia  are  careful  to 
say  the  plant  is  cultivated.  Marcgraf  does  not  say 
so,  writing  of  Brazil,  hut  Piso  says  the  species  is 
planted.” 

Seeds  of  Arachis  have  been  found  in  the  Peruvian 
tombs  at  Ancon,1  which  shows  some  antiquity  of  existence 
in  America,  and  supports  the  opinion  I expressed  in 
1855.  Dr.  Bretschneider’s  study  of  Chinese  works  2 over- 
sets Brown’s  hypothesis.  The  Arachis  is  not  mentioned 
in  the  ancient  works  of  this  country,  nor  even  in  the 
Pent-sao,  published  in  the  sixteenth  century.  He  adds 
that  he  believes  the  plant  was  only  introduced  in  the 
last  century. 

All  the  recent  floras  of  Asia  and  Africa  mention  the 
species  as  a cultivated  one,  and  most  authors  believe  it 
to  be  of  American  origin.  Benthain,  after  satisfying 
himself  that  it  had  not  been  found  wild  in  America  or 
elsewhere,  adds  that  it  is  perhaps  a form  derived  'from 
one  of  the  six  other  species  wild  in  Brazil,  but  he  does 
not  say  which.  This  is  probable  enough,  for  a plant 
provided  with  an  efficacious  and  very  peculiar  manner 
of  germinating  does  not  seem  of  a nature  to  become 
extinct.  It  would  have  been  found  wild  in  Brazil  in 
the  same  condition  as  the  cultivated  plant,  if  the  latter 
were  not  a product  of  cultivation.  Works  on  Guiana 
and  other  parts  of  America  mention  the  species  as  a 
cultivated  one ; Grisebach 3 says,  moreover,  that  in 
several  of  the  West  India  islands  it  becomes  naturalized 
from  cultivation. 

A genus  of  which  all  the  well-known  species  are  thus 
placed  in  a single  region  of  America  can  scarcely  have 
a species  common  to  both  hemispheres ; it  would  be  too 

1 Rochobrune,  from  the  extract  in  tho  Botanisches  Centralblatt,  1880, 
p.  1634. 

2 Study  and  Value  of  Chinese  Botanical  Works,  p.  18. 

3 Grisebach,  FI.  Brit.  W.  Ind.  Is.,  p.  189. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS.  415 

great  an  exception  to  the  law  of  geographical  botany. 
But  then  how  did  the  species  (or  cultivated  variety)  pass 
from  the  American  continent  to  the  old  world  ? This 
is  hard  to  guess,  but  I am  inclined  to  believe  that  the 
first  slave-ships  carried  it  from  Brazil  to  Guinea,  and  the 
Portuguese  from  Brazil  into  the  islands  to  the  south  of 
Asia,  in  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century. 

Coffee — Coffea  arabica,  Linnaeus. 

This  shrub,  belonging  to  the  family  of  the  Rubiaceae, 
is  wild  in  Abyssinia/  in  the  Soudan/  and  on  the  coasts 
of  Guinea  and  Mozambique.1 * 3  Perhaps  in  these  latter 
localities,  so  far  removed  from  the  centre,  it  may  be 
naturalized  from  cultivation.  No  one  has  yet  found  it 
in  Arabia,  but  this  may  be  explained  by  the  difficulty 
of  penetrating  into  the  interior  of  the  country.  If  it 
is  discovered  there  it  will  be  hard  to  prove  it  wild,  for 
the  seeds,  which  soon  lose  their  faculty  of  germinating, 
often  spring  up  round  the  plantations  and  naturalize  the 
species.  This  has  occurred  in  Brazil  and  the  West  India 
Islands,  where  it  is  certain  that  the  coffee  plant  was 
never  indigenous. 

The  use  of  coffee  seems  to  be  very  ancient  in  Abys- 
sinia. Shehabeddin  Ben,  author  of  an  Arab  manuscript 
of  the  fifteenth  century  (No.  944  of  the  Paris  Library), 
quoted  in  John  Ellis’s  excellent  work,5  says  that  coffee 
had  been  used  in  Abyssinia  from  time  immemorial.  Its 
use,  even  as  a drug,  had  not  spread  into  the  neighbouring 
countries,  for  the  crusaders  did  not  know  it,  and  the 
celebrated  physician  Ebn  Baithar,  born  at  Malaga,  who 
had  travelled  over  the  north  of  Africa  and  Syria  at  the 
beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century  of  the  Christian 

not  n,ention  coffee.6  In  1596  Bellus  sent  to 
cel  Ecluse  some  seeds  from  which  the  Egyptians  ex- 

p 180R‘Chard’  Tentamen  FL  Aby8*-’ 1 p-  349  J Oliver,  FI.  Trap.  Afr.,  iii. 

2 Ritter,  quoted  in  Flora,  184G,  p.  704. 

wr  3r  ^Tn’  Bot>  EnSliah  trans.,  p.  381;  Griaobaoh,  FI.  of  Brit. 

W.  Ind.  Is.,  p.  338. 

1 Welter,  Easai  sur  VHistoire  du  Cafd,  1 vol.  in  8vo,  Paris,  18G8. 

JMlis,  An  Historical  Account  of  Coffee , 1774. 

6 -Baithar,  Sondtheimer’s  trans.,  2 vols.  8vo,  1812. 


416 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


tracted  the  drink  card}  Nearly  at  the  same  time  Prosper 
Alpin  became  acquainted  with  coffee  in  Egypt  itself.  He 
speaks  of  the  plant  as  the  “ arbor  bon,  cum  fructu  suo 
buna.”  The  name  bon  recurs  also  in  early  authors  under 
the  forms  bunnu,  buncho,  bunco,1 2  The  names  cakue, 
cahua,  chaube,3 * *  cave*  refer  rather  in  Egypt  and  Syria  to 
the  prepared  drink,  whence  the  French  word  cafe.  The 
name  bunnu,  or  something  similar,  is  certainly  the  primi- 
tive name  of  the  plant  which  the  Abyssinians  still  call 
boun .6 

If  the  use  of  coffee  is  more  ancient  in  Abyssinia  than 
elsewhere,  that  is  no  proof  that  its  cultivation  is  very 
ancient.  It  is  very  possible  that  for  centuries  the  berries 
were  sought  in  the  forests,  where  they  were  doubtless  very 
common.  According  to  the  Arabian  author  quoted  above, 
it  was  a mufti  of  Aden,  nearly  his  contemporary,  who, 
having  seen  coffee  drunk  in  Persia,  introduced  the  prac- 
tice at  Aden,  whence  it  spread  to  Mocha,  into  Egypt,  etc. 
He  says  that  the  coffee  plant  grew  in  Arabia.6  Other 
fables  or  traditions  exist,  according  to  which  it  was 
always  an  Arabian  priest  or  a monk  who  invented  the 
drink,7  but  they  all  leave  us  in  uncertainty  as  £o  the 
date  of  the  first  cultivation  of  the  plant.  However  this 
may  be,  the  use  of  coffee  having  been  spread  first  in 
the  east,  afterwards  in  the  west,  in  spite  of  a number 
of  prohibitions  and  absurd  conflicts,8  its  production 
became  important  to  the  colonies.  Boerhave  tells  us 
that  the  Burgermeister  of  Amsterdam,  Nicholas  Witsen, 
director  of  the  East  India  Company,  urged  the  Governor 
of  Batavia,  Van  Hoorn,  to  import  coffee  berries  from  Arabia 
to  Batavia.  This  was  done,  and  in  1690  Van  Hoorn  sent 
some  living  plants  to  Witsen.  These  were  placed  in  the 
Botanical  Gardens  of  Amsterdam,  founded  by  Witsen, 
where  they  bore  fruit.  In  1714,  the  magistrates  of  the 

1 Bellus,  Epist.  ad  Clus.,  p.  309.  2 Rauwolf,  Clusius. 

3 Rauwolf ; Bauhin,  Hist.,  i.  p.  422.  * Bellas,  vbi  supra. 

5 Richard,  Tentamen  FI.  Abyss.,  p.  350. 

« An  extract  from  the  same  author  in  Playfair,  Hist,  of  Arabia 

Felix  Bombay,  1859,  does  not  mention  this  assertion. 

7 Now.  Diet,  d’Hist.  Nat.,  iv.  p.  552. 

8 Ellis,  vbi  supra;  Nouv.  Diet.,  ibid. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


417 


town  sent  a flourishing  plant  covered  with  fruit  to  Louis 
js  XIV.,  who  placed  it  in  his  garden  at  Marly.  Coflee 
was  also  grown  in  the  hothouses  of  the  king’s  garden 
in  Paris.  One  of  the  professors  of  this  establishment, 
Antoine  de  Jussieu,  had  already  published  in  1713,  in 
the  Meriioires  de  V Academic  des  Sciences,  an  interesting 
description  of  the  plant  from  one  which  Pancras,  director 
of  the  Botanical  Garden  at  Amsterdam,  had  sent  to  him. 

T.lie  flist  coffee  plants  grown  in  America  were  intro- 
duced into  Surinam  by  the  Dutch  in  1718.  The  Governor 
of  Cayenne,  de  la  Motte-Aigron,  having  been  at  Suri- 
nam, obtained  some  plants  in  secret  and  multiplied  them 
m 1725.1  The  coffee  plant  was  introduced  into  Mar- 
tinique by  de  Clieu,2  a naval  officer,  in  1720,  according 
to  Deleuze  ;8  in  1723,  according  to  the  Notices  Statistiques 
mr  les  Colonies  Franchises ^ Thence  it  was  introduced 
into  the  other  French  islands,  into  Guadaloupe,  for  in- 
stance, in  1730.5  Sir  Nicholas  Lawes  first  grew  it  in 
Jamaica.6  From  1718  the  French  East  India  Company 
had  sent  plants  of  Mocha  coffee  to  Bourbon  ;7  others  say  8 
that  it  was  even  in  1717  that  a certain  Dufoimerais- 
Gremer  had  coffee  plants  brought  from  Mocha  into  this 
island.  It  is  known  how  the  cultivation  of  this  shrub 
has  been  extended  in  Java,  Ceylon,  the  West  Indies,  and 
Brazil.  . .Nothing  prevents  it  from  spreading  in  nearly 
all  tropical  countries,  especially  as  the  coffee  plant  thrives 


'This  detail  is  borrowed  from  Ellis,  Digs.  Caf.,  p.  16.  In  tho  Notice 

1721  fresh  ^ 7 Go!'°™s  Fran,;ai™s  (>>•  P-  46)  I find  : “ About  1716  or 
fles.h  Ke(;ds  °/  tho  coffee  having  been  brought  secretly  from 

this'cT’ '“l  8P1^  °?7h°  Precantions  of  the  Dutch,  tho  cultivation  of 
^s.“.linia  product  became  naturalized  at  Cayenne.” 

n , 0 "iun®.of  this  sailor  has  been  spelt  in  several  ways — Doclioux 

Duclienx,  Descheux  From  tho  information  supplied  mo  at  the  minis- 

I of  tlTnZ’  VeMn  that  de  iC;li0U  was  a and  a coTneo: 

the  on V de,  Maur°Pas-  ffe  was  born  in  Normandy,  went  into 

Sed TnT^S  7 Th  '"  J r ,n  aftCr  a di8ti"ffQi«hed  career.  He 

iimcn-tanl  f^i  H , reports  have  not  neglected  to  men.ion  the 
Wlon  es  U 6 intl0duced  the  coffee  plant  into  the  French 


Deleuze,  Hist,  du  Museum,  i.  p. 
Not.  Stat.  Col.  Franf.,  i.  p.  30. 
Martin,  Stat.  Col.  Brit.  Emp. 
Not.  Stat.  Col.  Franf.,  ii.  p.  84. 


20. 

4 Ibid.,  i.  p.  209. 

7 Nouv.  Diet.  Hist.  Nat.,  iv.  p.  135. 

2 E 


418 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


on  sloping  ground  and  in  poor  soils  where  other  crops 
cannot  flourish.  It  corresponds  in  tropical  agriculture  to 
the  vine  in  Europe  and  tea  in  China. 

Further  details  may  he  found  in  the  volume  published 
by  H.  Welter 1 on  the  economical  and  commercial  history 
of  coffee.  The  author  adds  an  interesting  chapter  on 
the  various  fair  or  very  bad  substitutes  used  for  a com- 
modity which  it  is  impossible  to  overrate  in  its  natural 
condition. 

Liberian  Coffee — Coffea  liberica,  Hiern.2 3 

Plants  of  this  species  have  for  some  years  been  sent 
from  the  Botanical  Gardens  at  Kew  into  the  English 
colonies.  It  grows  wild  in  Liberia,  Angola,  Golungo 
Alto,8  and  probably  in  several  other  parts  of  western 
tropical  Africa. 

It  is  of  stronger  growth  than  the  common  coffee,  and 
the  berries,  which  are  larger,  yield  an  excellent  product. 
The  official  reports  of  Kew  Gardens  by  the  learned 
director,  Sir  Joseph  Hooker,  show  the  progress  of  this 
introduction,  which  is  very  favourably  received,  especially 
in  Dominica. 

Madia — Madia  sativa,  Molina. 

The  inhabitants  of  Chili  before  the  discovery  of 
America  cultivated  this  annual  species  of  the  Composite 
family,  for  the  sake  of  the  oil  contained  in  the  seed. 
Since  the  olive  has  been  extensively  planted,  the  madia 
is  despised  by  the  Chilians,  who  only  complain  of  the 
plant  as  a weed  which  chokes  their  gardens.4 5  The 
Europeans  began  to  cultivate  it  with  indifferent  success, 
owing  to  its  bad  smell. 

The  madia  is  indigenous  in  Chili  and  also  in  Cali- 
fornia.8 There  are  other  examples  of  this  disjunction  of 
habitation  between  the  two  countries.6 

1 H.  Welter,  Essai  snr  VHistoire  du  Cafd,  1 vol.  8vo,  Paris,  1868. 

* In  Hiern,  Trans.  Linn.  Soc.,  2nd  series,  vol.  i.  p.  171,  pi.  21.  This 
plate  is  reproduced  in  the  Report  of  the  lloyal  Botanical  Gardens  at 
Kew  for  1876. 

3 Oliver,  FI.  Trop.  Afr.,  iii.  p.  181. 

* Cl.  Gay,  FI.  Chilena,  iv.  p.  268. 

5 Asa  Gray,  in  Watson,  But.  of  California,  i.  p.  359. 

6 A.  de  Candolle,  Odogr.  Bot.  Rats.,  p.  1017. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS.  419 

Nutmeg — Myristim  fragrans,  Houttuyn. 

The  nutmeg,  a little  tree  of  the  order  Myristi cece,  is 
wild  in  the  Moluccas,  principally  in  the  Banda  Islands.1 
It  has  long  been  cultivated  there,  to  judge  from  the 
considerable  number  of  its  varieties.  Europeans  have 
received  the  nutmeg  by  the  Asiatic  trade  since  the 
Middle  Ages,  but  the  Dutch  long  possessed  the  monopoly 
of  its  cultivation.  When  the  English  owned  the 
Moluccas  at  the  end  of  the  last  centuiy,  they  carried 
live  nutmeg  trees  to  Beneoolen  and  into  Prince  Edward’s 
Islands.2  It  afterwards  spread  to  Bourbon,  Mauritius, 
Madagascar,  and  into  some  of  the  colonies  of  tropical 
America,  but  with  indifferent  success  from  a commercial 
point  of  view. 

Sesame — Sesamum  indicum,  de  Candolle  ; S.  indicum 
and  S.  orientale,  Linnaeus. 

Sesame  has  long  been  cultivated  in  the  hot  regions 
of  the  old  world  for  the  sake  of  the  oil  extracted  from 
j the  seeds. 

The  order  Pedalinece  to  which  this  annual  belongs 
is  composed  of  several  genera  distributed  through  the 
tropical  parts  of  Asia,  Africa,  and  America.  Each  genus 
has  only  a small  number  of  species.  Sesamum,  in  the 
widest  sense  of  the  name,8  has  ten,  all  African  except 
perhaps  the  cultivated  species  whose  origin  we  are  about 
to  seek.  Ihe  latter  forms  alone  the  true  genus  Sesamum, 
which  is  a section  in  Bentliam  and  Hooker’s  work. 
Botanical  analogy  points  to  an  African  origin,  but  the 
area  of  a considerable  number  of  plants  is  known  to 
extend  from  the  south  of  Asia  into  Africa.  Sesame  has 
two  ' /decs , the  one  with  black,  the  other  with  white  seed, 
and  several  varieties  differing  in  the  shape  of  the  leaf. 
The  difference  in  the  colour  of  the  seeds  is  very  ancient, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  poppy. 

Tim  seeds  of  sesame  often  sow  themselves  outside 
plantations,  and  more  or  less  naturalize  the  species.  This 
has  been  observed  in  regions  very  remote  one  from  the 

‘ Rumphins,  Amboin.,  ii.  p.  17  ; Blmne,  Rnmphia,  i.  p.  180. 

Roxburgh,  FI.  Indica,  iii.  p.  845. 

3 Bentham  and  Hooker,  Genera  PI.,  ii.  p.  1059. 


420 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


other ; for  instance,  in  India,  the  Sunda  Isles,  Egypt,  and 
even  in  the  West  India  Islands,  where  its  cultivation  is 
certainly  of  modern  introduction.1  This  is  perhaps  the 
reason  that  no  author  asserts  he  has  found  it  in  a wild 
state  except  Blume,2  a trustworthy  observer,  who  men- 
tions a variety  with  redder  liowers  than  usual  growing 
in  the  mountains  of  Java.  This  is  doubtless  an  indica- 
tion of  origin,  but  we  need  others  to  establish  a proof.  I 
shall  seek  them  in  the  history  of  its  cultivation.  The 
country  where  this  began  should  be  the  ancient  habitation 
of  the  species,  or  have  had  dealings  with  this  ancient 
habitation. 

That  its  cultivation  dates  in  Asia  from  a very  early 
epoch  is  clear  from  the  diversity  of  names.  Sesame  is 
called  in  Sanskrit  tila,s  in  Malay  widjin,  in  Chinese  moa 
(Rumphius)  or  chi-ma  (Bretschneider),  in  Japanese 
koba.*  The  name  sesam  is  common  to  Greek,  Latin, 
and  xirabic,  with  trilling  variations  of  letter.  Hence  it 
might  be  inferred  that  its  area  was  very  extended,  and 
that  the  cultivation  of  the  plant  was  begun  independently 
in  several  different  countries.  But  we  must  not  attribute 
too  much  importance  to  such  an  argument.  Chinese 
works  seem  to  show  that  sesame  was  not  introduced  into 
China  before  the  Christian  era.  The  first  certain  mention 
of  it  occurs  in  a book  of  the  fifth  or  sixth  century, 
entitled  Tsi-min-yao-chou .5  Before  this  there  is  confu- 
sion between  the  name  of  this  plant  and  that  of  flax,  of 
which  the  seed  also  yields  an  oil,  and  which  is  not  very 
ancient  in  China.6 

Theophrastus  and  Dioscorides  say  that  the  Egyptians 
cultivated  a plant  called  sesame  for  the  oil  contained  in 
its  seed,  and  Pliny  adds  that  it  came  from  India.7  He 

1 Pickering,  Chroncl.  History  of  Plants , p.  223 ; Rumphius,  Herb. 
Amb.,  v.  p.  204  ; Miquol,  Flora  Indo-Batava,  ii.  p.  700 ; Schweinfurth  aud 
Ascheraon,  Aufziihlung,  p.  273  ; Grisebach,  FI.  Brit.  W.  Ind.  Is.,  p.  458. 

2 Blume,  Bijdrag&n,  p.  778. 

3 Roxburgh,  FI.  hid.,  edit.  1832,  vol.  iii.  p.  100;  Piddington,  Index. 

* Thunberg,  FI.  Jap.,  p.  254. 

5 Bretschneider,  letter  of  Aug.  23, 1801. 

• Ibid.,  On  Study,  etc.,  p.  16. 

7 Theophrastus,  lib.  viii.  cap.  1,  5 ; Dioscorides,  lib.  ii.  cap.  121 ; 
Pliny,  Hist.,  lib.  xviii.  cap.  10. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


121 


also  speaks  of  a sesame  wild  in  Egypt  from  which  oil 
was  extracted,  but  this  was  probably  the  castor-oil  plant.1 
It  is  not  proved  that  the  ancient  Egyptians  before  the 
time  of  Theophrastus  cultivated  sesame.  No  drawing  or 
seeds  have  been  found  in  the  monuments.  A drawing 
from  the  tomb  of  Raineses  III.  show  the  custom  of  mixing 
small  seeds  with  flour  in  making  pastry,  and  in  modern 
times  this  is  done  with  sesame  seeds,  but  others  are  also 
used,  and  it  is  not  possible  to  recognize  in  the  drawing 
those  of  the  sesame  in  particular.3  If  the  Egyptians  had 
known  the  species  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus,  eleven 
hundred  years  before  Theophrastus,  there  would  probably 
have  been  some  mention  of  it  in  the  Hebrew  books, 
because  of  the  various  uses  of  the  seed  and  especially  of 
the  oil.  Yet  commentators  have  found  no  trace  of  it  in 
the  Old  Testament.  The  name  semsem  or  simsim  is 
clearly  Semitic,  but  only  of  the  more  recent  epoch  of  the 
Talmud,3  and  of  the  agricultural  treatise  of  Alawwam,4 
compiled  after  the  Christian  era  began.  It  was  perhaps 
a Semitic  people  who  introduced  the  plant  and  the  name 
semsem  (whence  the  sesam  of  the  Greeks)  into  Egypt 
after  the  epoch  of  the  great  monuments  and  of  the 
Exodus.  _ They  may  have  received  it  with  the  name  from 
Babylonia,  where  Herodotus  says5  that  sesame  was 
cultivated. 

An  ancient  cultivation  in  the  Euphrates  valley  agrees 
with  the  existence  of  a Sanskrit  name,  tila,  the  tilu  of 
the  Brahmans  (Rheede,  Malabar,  i.,  ix.,  pp.  105-107),  a 
word  of  which  there  are  traces  in  several  modern 
languages  of  India,  particularly  in  Ceylon.5  Thus  we  are 
carried  back  to  India  in  accordance  with  the  origin  of 
which  Pliny  speaks,  but  it  is  possible  that  India  itself 
may  have  received  the  species  from  the  Sunda  Isles  before 
the  arrival  of  the  Aryan  conquerors.  Rumphius  gives 

1 Pliny,  Hint.,  lib.  xv.  cap.  7. 

V ilkinson,  Manner s and  Customs  of  Ancient  Egyptians,  vol.  ii. ; 
Unger,  PJlanzen  des  Alten  JEgyptens,  p.  45. 

Iioynier,  Aeon.  Pub.  des  Arabes  et  des  Juifs,  p.  431 ; Lt>w,  Aramaeische 
PJlanzennamen,  p.  376. 

4 E.  Meyer,  Geschichte  der  Botanik,  iii.  p.  75. 

5 Herodotus,  lib.  i.  cap.  193.  « Thwaitee,  Enum.,  p.  209. 


422 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


three  names  for  the  sesame  in  these  islands,  very  different 
one  from  the  other,  and  from  the  Sanskrit  word,  which 
supports  the  theory  of  a more  ancient  existence  in  the 
archipelago  than  on  the  continent. 

In  conclusion,  from  the  fact  that  the  sesame  is  wild  in 
Java,  and  from  historical  and  philological  arguments, 
the  plant  seems  to  have  had  its  origin  in  the  Sunda  Isles. 
It  was  introduced  into  India  and  the  Euphrates  valley 
two  or  three  thousand  years  ago,  and  into  Egypt  at  a less 
remote  epoch,  from  1000  to  500  B.C.  It  was  transported 
from  the  Guinea  coast  to  Brazil  by  the  Portuguese,1  but 
it  is  unknown  how  long  it  has  been  cultivated  in  the  rest 
of  Africa. 

Castor-oil  Plant — Ricinus  communis,  Linnaeus. 

The  most  modern  works  and  those  in  highest  repute 
consider  the  south  of  Asia  to  be  the  original  home  of  this 
Eupkorbiacea ; sometimes  they  indicate  certain  varieties 
in  Africa  or  America  without  distinguishing  the  wild 
from  the  cultivated  plant.  I have  reason  to  believe  that 
the  true  origin  is  to  be  found  in  tropical  Africa,  in 
accordance  with  the  opinion  of  Ball.2 * 

The  difficulties  with  which  the  question  is  attended 
arise  from  the  antiquity  of  cultivation  in  different 
countries,  from  the  facility  with  which  the  plant  sows 
itself  and  becomes  naturalized  on  rubbish-heaps  and  in 
waste  ground,  lastly  from  the  diversity  of  its  forms,  which 
have  often  been  described  as  species.  This  latter  point 
need  not  detain  us,  for  Dr.  J.  Muller’s  careful  monograph  8 
proves  the  existence  of  sixteen  varieties,  scarcely  heredi- 
tary, which  pass  one  into  the  other  by  many  transitions, 
and  constitute,  therefore,  but  one  species. 

The  number  of  varieties  is  the  sign  of  a very  ancient 
cultivation.  They  differ  more  or  less  as  to  capsules, 
seeds  inflorescence,  etc.  Moreover,  they  are  small  trees 
in  hot  countries,  but  they  do  not  endure  frost,  and 
become  annuals  north  of  the  Alps  and  in  similar  regions. 
They  are  in  such  cases  planted  in  gardens  for  ornament, 

1 Piso,  Brazil.,  edit.  1658,  p.  211. 

1 Ball.  Floroe  Maroccanc e Spicilegium,  p.  G64. 

s Muller,  Argov.,  in  D.C.,  Prodromus,  vol.  xv.  part  2,  p.  1017. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


423 


while  in  the  tropics,  and  even  in  Italy,  they  are  grown 
for  the  sake  of  the  oil  contained  in  the  seed.  This  oil, 
which  is  more  or  less  purgative,  is  used  for  lamps  in 
Bengal  and  elsewhere. 

In  no  country  has  the  species  been  found  wild  with 
such  certainty  as  in  Abyssinia,  Sennaar,  and  the  Kordofan. 
The  expressions  of  authors  and  collectors  are  distinct  on 
this  head.  The  castor-oil  plant  is  common  in  rocky 
places  in  the  valley  of  Chi  re,  near  Goumalo,  says  Quartin 
Dillon ; it  is  wild  in  those  parts  of  Upper  Sennaar  which 
are  flooded  during  the  rains,  says  Hartmann.1  I have 
a specimen  from  Kotschy,  No.  243,  gathered  on  the 
northern  slope  of  Mount  Kohn,  in  the  Kordofan.  The 
indications  of  travellers  in  Mozambique  and  on  the  coast 
of  Guinea  are  not  so  clear,  but  it  is  possible  that  the 
natural  area  of  the  species  covers  a great  part  of  tropical 
Africa.  As  it  is  a useful  species,  and  one  very  conspicuous 
and  easily  propagated,  the  negroes  must  have  early 
diffused  it.  However,  as  we  draw  near  the  Mediterranean, 
it  is  no  longer  said  to  be  indigenous.  In  Egypt,  Schwein- 
furth  and  Asclierson  2 say  the  species  is  only  cultivated 
and  naturalized.  Probably  in  Algeria,  Sardinia,  and 
Morocco,  and  even  in  the  Canaries,  where  it  is  principally 
found  in  the  sand  on  the  sea-shore,  it  has  been  naturalized 
for  centuries.  I believe  this  to  be  the  case  with  speci- 
mens brought  from  Djedda,  in  Arabia,  by  Schimpcr, 
which  were  gathered  near  a cistern.  Yet  Forskal3 
gathered  the  caster-oil  plant  in  the  mountains  of  Arabia 
Felix,  which  may  signify  a wild  station.  Boissier4 
indicates  it  in  Beluchistan  and  the  south  of  Persia, 
but  as  “ subspontaneous,”  as  in  Syria,  Anatolia,  and 
Greece. 

Itheede 5 speaks  of  the  plant  as  cultivated  in  Malabar 
and  growing  in  the  sand,  but  modern  Anglo-Indian 
authors  do  not  allow  that  it  is  wild.  Some  make  no 

1 Richard,  Tentamen  FI.  Abyss.,  ii.  p.  250;  Sclvweinfurth,  Plantes 
Niloticce  a Hartmann,  etc.,  p.  13. 

2 Schweinfurth  and  Aselierson,  Aufzalilung,  p.  2G2. 

3 Forskal,  FI.  Arabica,  p.  71.  ' Boissier,  FI.  Orient.,  iv.  p.  1143. 

8 Itheede,  Malabar,  ii.  p.  57,  t.  32. 


424 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


mention  of  the  species.  A few  speak  of  the  facility  with  . 
which  the  species  becomes  naturalized  from  cultiva- 
tion. Loureiro  had  seen  it  in  Cochin-China  and  in 
China  “ cultivated  and  uncultivated,”  which  perhaps 
means  escaped  from  cultivation.  Lastly,  for  the  Sunda 
Islands,  Rumphius 1 is  as  usual  one  of  the  most 
interesting  authorities.  The  castor-oil  plant,  he  says, 
grows  especially  in  Java,  where  it  forms  immense  fields 
and  produces  a great  quantity  of  oil.  At  Amboyna,  it  is 
planted  here  and  there,  near  dwellings  and  in  fields, 
rather  for  medicinal  purposes.  The  wild  species  grows 
in  deserted  gardens  (in  desertis  hortis ) ; it  is  doubtless 
sprung  from  the  cultivated  plant  (sine  dubio  degeneratio 
domestica).  In  Japan  the  castor-oil  plant  grows  among 
shrubs  and  on  the  slopes  of  Mount  Wuntzen,  but 
Franchet  and  Savatier  add,2 3  “ probably  introduced.” 
Lastly,  Dr.  Bretschneider  mentions  the  species  in  his 
work  of  1870,  p.  20;  but  what  he  says  here,  and  in 
a letter  of  1881,  does  not  argue  an  ancient  cultivation 
in  China. 

The  species  is  cultivated  in  tropical  America.  It 
becomes  easily  naturalized  in  clearings,  on  rubbish-heaps, 
etc. ; but  no  botanist  has  found  it  in  the  conditions  of 
a really  indigenous  plant.  Its  introduction  must  have 
taken  place  soon  after  the  discovery  of  America,  for  a 
common  name,  lamourou,  exists  in  the  West  India 
Islands;  and  Piso  gives  another  in  Brazil,  nhambu- 
gucicu,  jigue.ro  inferno  in  Portuguese.  I have  received 
the  largest  number  of  specimens  from  Bahia;  none  are 
accompanied  by  the  assertion  that  it  is  really  indigenous. 

In  Egypt  and  Western  Asia  the  culture  of  the  species 
dates  from  so  remote  an  epoch  that  it  has  given  rise  to 
mistakes  as  to  its  origin.  The  ancient  Egyptians  practised 
it  extensively,  according  to  Herodotus,  Pliny,  Diodorus, 
etc.  There  can  be  no  mistake  as  to  the  species,  as  its 
seeds  have  been  found  in  the  tombs.8  The  Egyptian 
name  was  kiki.  Theophrastus  and  Dioscorides  mention 

1 Rumphius,  Herb.  Amb.,  vol.  iv.  p.  93. 

2 Franchet  aud  Savatier,  Enum.  Japon.,  i.  p.  424. 

3 Unger,  IJlanzcn  deg  Alien  .Ejyptene,  p.  61. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


425 


it,  and  it  is  retained  in  modem  Greek,1  while  the  Arabs 
have  a totally  different  name,  Icerua,  kervoa,  charua .2 * * 

Roxburgh  and  Piddington  quote  a Sanskrit  name, 
eranda,  erunda,  which  has  left  descendants  in  the  modern 
languages  of  India.  Botanists  do  not  say  from  what 
epoch  of  Sanskrit  this  name  dates  ; as  the  species  belongs 
to  hot  climates,  the  Aryans  cannot  have  known  it  before 
their  arrival  in  India,  that  is  at  a less  ancient  epoch  than 
the  Egyptian  monuments. 

The  extreme  rapidity  of  the  growth  of  the  castor-oil 
plant  has  suggested  different  names  in  Asiatic  language, 
and  that  ot  W underbaum,  in  German.  The  same  circum- 
stance, and  the  analogy  with  the  Egyptian  name  JciJci, 
have  caused  it  to  be  supposed  that  the  kikajon  of  the 
Old  Testament,8  the  growth,  it  is  said,  of  a single  night 
was  this  plant. 

I pass  a number  of  common  names  more  or  less 
absurd,  as  palma  Christi,  girasole,  in  some  parts  of 
Italy,  etc.,  but  it  is  worth  while  to  note  the  origin  of  the 
name  castor  oil,  as  a proof  ol  the  English  habit  of  accept- 
ing names  without  examination,  and  sometimes  of  dis- 
torting them.  It  appears  that  in  the  last  century  this 
plant  was  largely  cultivated  in  Jamaica,  where  it  was 
once  called  agno  casto  by  the  Portuguese  and  the 
Spaniards,  being  confounded  with  Vitcx  agnus  castus , a 
totally  different  plant.  From  casto  the  English  planters 
and  London  traders  made  castor } 

Walnut — Juglans  regia,  Linnaeus. 

Some  years  ago  the  walnut  tree  was  known  to  be 
wild  m Armenia,  in  the  district  to  the  south  of  the 
Caucasus  and  of  the  Caspian  Sea,  in  the  mountains  of 
the  north  and  north-east  of  India,  and  in  Burrnah.5 


1 Theophrastus,  Hist,  lib.  i.  cap.  19;  Diosoorides,  lib.  iv.  cap.  171  ; 

trails,  Syn.  FL  Class.,  p.  92. 

I Nemnich,  Polyglott.  Lexicon  ; Forskal,  FI.  JEgypt..  p.  75. 

i 6 **  ?i?kePnS>  Mron.  Hist.  Plants,  p.  225,  writes  kykwyn. 

6 Fluckiger  and  Haubury,  Pharmacographia , p.  51]. 

A.  de  Candolle,  Prodr.,  xvi.  part  2,  p.  136;  Tchihatcheff,  Ante 

fftSTV  -P'  1/2 1, Le^obour>  FL  i-  p.  607  ; Roxburgh,  Fl.  [ml.,  iii. 

p.630;  UoiMier ■ n.  Orient.,  1Y.  p.  1160;  Brandis,  Forest  Flora  of  N.W. 
India,  p.  498;  Kurz,  f orest  Flora  of  Brit.  Burmah,  p.  390. 


426 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


C.  Koch 1 denied  that  it  was  indigenous  in  Armenia  and 
to  the  south  of  the  Caucasus,  but  this  has  been  proved 
by  several  travellers.  It  has  since  been  discovered  wild 
in  Japan,2  which  renders  it  probable  that  the  species 
exists  also  in  the  north  of  China,  as  Loureiro  and  Bunge 
said,3  but  without  particularizing  its  wild  character. 
Heldreich4  has  recently  placed  it  beyond  a doubt  that 
the  walnut  is  abundant  in  a wild  state  in  the  mountains 
of  Greece,  which  agrees  with  passages  in  Theophrastus 5 
which  had  been  overlooked.  Lastly,  Heuffel  saw  it,  also 
wild,  in  the  mountains  of  Banat.6  Its  modern  natural 
area  extends,  then,  from  eastern  temperate  Europe  to 
Japan.  It  once  existed  in  Europe  further  to  the  west, 
for  leaves  of  the  walnut  have  been  found  in  the  quater- 
nary tufa  in  Provence.7  Many  species  of  Juglans  existed 
in  our  hemisphere  in  the  tertiary  and  quaternary  epochs  ; 
there  are  now  ten,  at  most,  distributed  throughout  North 
America  and  temperate  Asia. 

The  use  of  the  walnut  and  the  planting  of  the  tree 
may  have  begun  in  several  of  the  countries  where  the 
species  was  found,  and  cultivation  extended  gradually  and 
slightly  its  artificial  area.  The  walnut  is  not  one  of 
those  trees  which  sows  itself  and  is  easily  naturalized. 
The  nature  of  its  fruit  is  perhaps  against  this ; and, 
moreover,  it  needs  a climate  where  the  frosts  are  not 
severe  and  the  heat  moderate.  It  scarcely  passes  the 
northern  limit  of  the  vine,  and  does  not  extend  nearly  so 
far  south. 

The  Greeks,  accustomed  to  olive  oil,  neglected  the 
walnut  until  they  received  from  Persia  a better  variety, 
called  karuon  basilikon. ,8  or  Persikon .9  The  Romans 

1 C.  Koch,  Dendrologie,  i.  p.  584. 

2 Franchet  and  Savatier,  Enum,  Plant.  Jap.,  i.  453. 

3 Loureiro,  FI.  Cochin.,  p.  702;  Bunge,  Enum.,  p.  62. 

4 Heldreich,  Verhandl.  Bot.  Vereins  Brandenb.,  1879,  p.  147. 

4 Theophrastus,  Hid.  Plant.,  lib.  iii.  cap.  3,  6.  These  passages,  and 
others  of  ancient  writers,  are  quoted  and  interpreted  by  Heldreich  better 
than  by  Helm  and  other  scholars. 

6 Heuffel,  Abhandl.  Zool.  Bot.  Gen.  in  Wien,  1853,  p.  194. 

7 De  Saporta,  33 rd  Sens,  du  Congress  Scient.  de  France. 

8 Dioscorides,  lib.  i.  cap.  176. 

9 Pliny,  Hist.  Plant.,  lib.  xv.  cap.  22. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS.  427 

cultivated  the  walnut  from  the  time  of  then-  kings  ; they 
considered  it  of  Persian  origin.1  They  had  an  old  custom 
of  throwing  nuts  in  the  celebration  of  weddings. 

Archaeology  confirms  these  details.  The  only  nuts 
which  have  hitherto  been  found  under  the  lake-dwellings 
of  Switzerland,  Savoy,  or  Italy  are  confined  to  a single 
locality  near  Parma,  called  Fontinellato,  in  a stratum  of 
the  iron  age.2  Now,  this  metal,  very  rare  at  the  time 
of  the  Trojan  war,  cannot  have  come  into  general  use 
among  the  agricultural  population  of  Italy  until  the  fifth 
or  sixth  century  before  Christ,  an  epoch  at  which  even 
bronze  was  perhaps  still  unknown  to  the  north  of  the 
Alps.  In  the  station  at  Lagozza,  walnuts  have  been 
found  in  a much  higher  stratum,  and  not  ancient.3 
Evidently  the  walnuts  of  Italy,  Switzerland,  and  France 
are  not  descended  from  the  fossil  plants  of  the  quater- 
nary tufa  of  which  I spoke  just  now. 

It  is  impossible  to  say  at  what  period  the  walnut  was 
first  planted  in  India.  It  must  have  been  early,  for 
there  is  a Sanskrit  name,  akschoda,  alehoda,  or  akhdta. 
Chinese  authors  say  that  the  walnut  was  introduced 
among  them  from  Thibet,  under  the  Han  dynasty,  by 
Chang-kien,  about  the  year  140-150  B.c.4  This  was  per- 
haps a perfected  variety.  Moreover,  it  seems  probable, 
from  the  actual  records  of  botanists,  that  the  wild  walnut 
is  rare  in  the  north  of  China,  and  is  perhaps  wanting  in 
the  east.  The  date  of  its  cultivation  in  Japan  is  un- 
known. 

I he  walnut  tree  and  walnuts  had  an  infinite  number 
of  names  among  ancient  peoples,  which  have  exercised  the 
science  and  imagination  of  philologists,6  but  the  origin  of 
the  species  is  so  clear  that  we  need  not  stav  to  consider 
them. 

Areca — Areca  Catechu,  Linn  a)  us. 

1 Pliny,  Mist.  Plant.,  lib.  xv.  cap.  22. 

2 Hoer,  Pjlanzen  der  Pfahlbauten,  p.  31. 

3 Sordelli,  Sulle.  piante  della  torbieru,  etc.,  p.  39. 

Bretsclmeider,  Study  and  Value,  etc.,  p.  16;  and  lofcter  of  Aug.  23, 

JLool. 

* 5 Ad-  Pictet,  Origines  Indo-Europ.,  edit.  2,  vol.  i.  p.  289 ; Helm,  Cul. 

. urpflujizen  und  Ilausthiere,  edit.  3,  p.  311. 


428 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


The  areca  palm  is  much  cultivated  in  the  countries  ; 
where  it  is  a custom  to  chew  betel,  that  is  to  say  through- 
out Southern  Asia.  The  nut.  or  rather  the  almond  which  I 
forms  the  principal  part  of  the  seed  contained  in  the  fruit,  * 
is  valued  for  its  aromatic  taste ; chopped,  mixed  with 
lime,  and  enveloped  in  a leaf  of  the  pepper-betel,  it  forms  1 
an  agreeable  stimulant,  which  produces  a flow  of  saliva 
and  blackens  the  teeth  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  natives. 

The  author  of  the  principal  work  on  the  order  Palm-  : 
acese,  de  Martius,1 2  says  of  the  origin  of  this  species,  | 
“ Its  country  is  uncertain  ( non  constat) ; probably  the 
Sunda  Isles.”  We  may  find  it  possible  to  affirm  some-  l 
thing  positive  by  referring  to  more  modem  authors. 

On  the  continent  of  India,  in  Ceylon  and  Cochin-China, 
the  species  is  always  indicated  as  cultivated.3  So  in 
the  Sunda  Isles,  the  Moluccas,  etc.,  to  the  south  of  Asia. 
Blume,8  in  his  work  entitled  Rumphia,  says  that  the 
“ habitat  ” of  the  species  is  the  Malay  Peninsula,  Siam, 
and  the  neighbouring  islands.  Yet  he  does  not  appear 
to  have  seen  the  indigenous  plants  of  which  he  speaks. 
Dr.  Bretschneider 4 believes  that  the  species  is  a native 
of  the  Malay  Archipelago,  principally  of  Sumatra,  for  he 
says  those  islands  and  the  Philippines  are  the  only  places  : 
where  it  is  found  wild.  The  first  of  these  facts  is  not  . 
confirmed  by  Miquel,  nor  the  second  by  Blanco,5  who 
lived  in  the  Philippines.  Blume’s  opinion  appears  the 
most  probable,  but  we  must  still  say  with  Martius, 

“ The  country  is  not  proved.”  The  existence  of  a num- 
ber of  Malay  names,  pinang,  jambe,  etc.,  and  of  a San- 
skrit name,  gouvaka,  as  well  as  very  numerous  varieties,  I 
show  .the  antiquity  of  cultivation.  The  Chinese  received 
it,  111  B.C.,  from  the  south,  with  the  Malay  name,  pin-lang.  . 

1 Martins,  Ilist.  Nat.  Palmarum,  in  folio,  vol.  iii.  p.  170  (published 
without  date,  but  before  1851). 

2 Roxburgh,  FI.  Ini.,  iii.  p.  (116;  Brandis,  Forest  FI.  of  India,  p.  551; 

Kurz,  Forest  FI.  of  Brit.  Burmah,  p.  537  ; Thwaites,  Enum.  Zeylan.,  p.  327 ; 
Loureiro,  FI.  Cochin-Ch.,  p.  695.  __  ! 

3 Blume,  Rumphia,  ii.  p.  67;  Miquel,  FI.  Indo-Batava.,  iii.  p.  9j 
Suppl.  de  Sumatra,  p.  253. 

4 Bretschneider,  Study  and  Value,  etc.,  p.  28. 

3 Blanco,  FI.  di  Filipinos,  edit.  2. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS.  420 

The  Telinga  name,  arelc,  is  the  origin  of  the  botanical 
name  Areca. 

Elaeis — Elctiis  guineensis,  Jacquin. 

Travellers  who  visited  the  coast  of  Guinea  in  the  first 
half  of  the  sixteenth  century1  already  noticed  this  palm, 
from  which  the  negroes  extracted  oil  by  pressing  the 
fleshy  part  of  the  fruit.  The  tree  is  indigenous  on  all 
that  coast.2  It  is  also  planted,  and  the  exportation  of 
palm-oil  is  the  object  of  an  extensive  trade.  As  it  is 
also  found  wild  in  Brazil  and  perhaps  in  Guiana,3  a doubt 
arose  as  to  the  true  origin.  It  seems  the  more  likely  to 
be  American  that  the  only  other  species  which  with  this 
one  constitutes  the  genus  Elceis  belongs  to  New  Granada.4 
Robert  Brown,  however,  and  the  authors  who  have 
studied  the  family  of  palms,  are  unanimous  in  their  belief 
that  Elceis  guineensis  was  introduced  into  America  by 
the  negroes  and  slave-traders  in  the  traffic  between  the 
Guinea  coast  and  the  coast  of  America.  Many  facts 
confirm  this  opinion.  The  first  botanists  who  visited 
Brazil,  Piso  and  Marcgraf  and  others,  do  not  mention  the 
Elceis.  It  is  only  found  on  the  littoral,  from  Rio  di 
Janeiro  to  the  mouth  of  the  Amazon,  never  in  the  interior. 
It  is  often  cultivated,  or  has  the  appearance  of  a species 
escaped  from  the  plantations.  Sloane,5  who  explored 
Jamaica  in  the  seventeenth  century,  relates  that  this 
tree  was  introduced  in  his  time  into  a plantation  which 
he  names,  from  the  coast  of  Guinea.  It  has  since  become 
naturalized  in  some  of  the  West  India  Islands.3 
Cocoa-nut  Palm — Cocos  mud fern,  Linmeus. 

Ihe  cocoa-nut  palm  is  perhaps,  of  all  tropical  trees,  the 
one  which  yields  the  greatest  variety  of  products.  Its 

1 Da  Mosto,  in  Ramnsio,  i.  p.  104,  quoted  by  R.  Brown. 

2 Brown,  Bot.  of  Congo,  p.  55. 

* Martins,  Hist.  Nat,  Palmarum,  ii.  p.  62;  Drode,  in  FI.  Brasil.,  fasc. 
8d,  p.  457.  1 find  no  author  who  asserts  that  this  palm  is  wild  in  Guiana 
as  Martins  affirms  it  to  bo  in  Brazil. 

4 Mats  melanocarpa,  Gaertnor.  The  fruit  also  contains  oil,  but  it 
oes  not  appear  that  the  species  is  cultivated,  as  the  number  of  oluauinous 

plants  is  considerable  in  all  countries. 

5 Sloane,  Nat.  Hist,  of  Jamaica,  ii.  p.  113. 

* Grisobach,  Flora  of  Brit.  W.  Ind.  Is.,  p.  522. 


430 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


wood  and  fibres  are  utilized  in  various  ways.  The  sap 
extracted  from  the  inner  part  of  the  inflorescence  yields  a 
much-prized  alcoholic  drink.  The  shell  of  the  nut  forms 
a vessel,  the  milk  of  the  half-ripe  fruit  is  a pleasant  drink, 
and  the  nut  itself  contains  a great  deal  of  oil.  It  is  not 
surprising  that  so  valuable  a tree  has  been  a good  deal 
planted  and  transported.  Besides,  its  dispersion  is  aided 
by  natural  causes.  The  woody  shell  and  fibrous  envelope 
of  the  nut  enable  it  to  float  in  salt  water  without  injury 
to  the  germ.  Hence  the  possibility  of  its  transportation 
to  great  distances  by  currents  and  its  naturalization  on 
coasts  where  the  temperature  is  favourable.  Unfortu- 
nately, this  tree  requires  a warm,  damp  climate,  such  as 
exists  only  in  the  tropics,  or  in  exceptional  localities  just 
without  them.  Nor  does  it  thrive  at  a distance  from 
the  sea. 

The  cocoa-nut  abounds  on  the  littoral  of  the  warm 
regions  of  Asia,  of  the  islands  to  the  south  of  this  con- 
tinent,  and  in  analogous  regions  of  Africa  and  America ; 
but  it  may  be  asserted  that  it  dates  in  Brazil,  the  West 
Indies,  and  the  west  coast  of  Africa  from  an  introduction 
which  took  place  about  three  centuries  ago.  Piso  and 
Marcgraf1 * *  seem  to  admit  that  the  species  is  foreign  to 
Brazil  without  saying  so  positively.  De  Martins,-  Avho 
has  published  a very  important  work  on  the  Palmaceae, 
and  has  travelled  through  the  provinces  of  Bahia,  Per- 
nambuco, and  others,  where  the  cocoa-nut  abounds,  does 
not  say  that  it  is  wild.  It  was  introduced  into  Guiana 
by  missionaries.8  Sloane 4 says  it  is  an  exotic  in  the 
West  Indies.  An  old  author  of  the  sixteenth  century. 
Martyr,  whom  he  quotes,  speaks  of  its  introduction.  This 
probably  took  place  a few  years  after  the  discovery  of 
America,  for  Joseph  Acosta5  saw  the  cocoa-nut  palm 
at  Porto  ltico  in  the  sixteenth  century.  De  Martins 
says  that  the  Portuguese  introduced  it  on  the  coast  of 
Guinea.  Many  travellers  do  not  even  mention  it  in  this 


1 Piso,  Brasil,.,  p.  65 ; Marcgraf,  p.  138. 

i Martins,  Hist.  Hat.  Palmarum,  3 vols.  in  folio;  see  vol.  ii.  p.  125. 

j Anblet,  Quyane,  suppl.,  p.  102.  4 Sloane,  Jamaica,  ii.  p.  9. 

» J.  Acosta,  llist.  Nat.  des  Indes,  French  trans.,  1598,  p.  178. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS.  431 

region,  where  it  is  apparently  of  no  great  importance. 
Move  common  in  Madagascar  and  on  the  east  coast,  it 
is  not,  however,  named  in  several  works  on  the  plants  of 
Zanzibar,  the  Seychelles,  Mauritius,  etc.,  perhaps  because 
it  is  considered  as  cultivated  in  these  parts. 

Evidently  the  species  is  not  of  African  origin,  nor  of 
the  eastern  part  of  tropical  America.  Eliminating  these 
countries,  there  remain  western  tropical  America,  the 
islands  of  the  Pacific,  the  Indian  Archipelago,  and  the 
south  of  Asia,  Avhere  the  tree  abounds  with  every  appear- 
ance of  being  more  or  less  wild  and  long  established. 

The  navigators  Dampier  and  Vancouver1  found  it 
at  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century,  forming 
woods  in  the  islands  near  Panama,  not  on  the  mainland, 
and  in  the  isle  of  Cocos,  situated  at  three  hundred  miles 
from  the  continent  in  the  Pacific.  At  that  time  these 
islands  were  uninhabited.  Later  the  cocoa-nut  palm  was 
found  on  the  western  coast  from  Mexico  to  Peru,  but 
usually  authors  do  not  say  that  it  was  wild,  excepting 
Seemann,2  however,  who  saw  this  palm  both  wild  and 
cultivated  on  the  Isthmus  of  Panama.  According  to 
Hernandez,8  in  the  sixteenth  century  the  Mexicans  called 
it  coyolli,  a word  which  does  not  seem  to  be  native. 

Oviedo,4  writing  in  1526,  in  the  first  years  of  the  con- 
quest of  Mexico,  says  that  the  cocoa-nut  palm  was  abun- 
dant on  the  coast  of  the  Pacific  in  the  province  of  the 
Cacique  Chiman,  and  he  clearly  describes  the  species. 
This  does  not  prove  the  tree  to  be  wild.  In  southern 
Asia,  especially  in  the  islands,  the  cocoa-nut  is  both  wild 
and  cultivated,  lhe  smaller  the  islands,  and  the  lower 
and  the  more  subject  to  the  influence  of  the  sea  air,  the 
more  the  cocoa-nut  predominates  and  attracts  the  atten- 
tion of  travellers.  . Some  take  their  name  from  the  tree, 
among  others  two  islands  close  to  the  Andamans  and  one 
near  Sumatra. 

' V a.f et  Voyage  de  Dampier,  edit.  1705,  p.  186;  Vancouver,  French 
edit.,  p.  325,  quoted  by  de  Martins,  Hist.  Nat.  Palmarwn,  i.  p.  188. 

- Seemann,  But.  of  Herald.,  p.  204. 

Hernandez,  Thesaurus  Mexic.,  p.  71.  He  attributes  the  samo  name 
p.  75,  to  the  cocoa-nut  palm  of  the  Philippine  Islands. 

4 Oviedo,  Ramusio’s  trans.,  iii.  p.  53. 


432 


OllIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


The  cocoa-nut  occurring  with,  every  appearance  of  an 
ancient  wild  condition  at  once  in  Asia  and  western 
America,  the  question  of  origin  is  obscure.  Excellent 
authors  have  solved  it  differently.  De  Martius  believes 
it  to  have  been  transported  by  currents  from  the  islands 
situated  to  the  west  of  Central  America,  into  those  of  the 
Asiatic  Archipelago.  I formerly  inclined  to  the  same 
hypothesis,1  since  admitted  without  question  by  Grise- 
bach  ; 2 but  the  botanists  of  the  seventeenth  century  often 
regarded  the  species  as  Asiatic,  and  Seemann,3  after  a 
careful  examination,  says  he  cannot  come  to  a decision. 
I will  give  the  reasons  for  and  against  each  hypothesis. 

In  favour  of  an  American  origin,  it  may  be  said — 

1.  The  eleven  other  species  of  the  genus  Cocos  are 
American,  and  all  those  which  de  Martius  knew  well 
are  Brazilian.4 *  Drude,6  who  has  studied  the  Palmacese, 
has  written  a paper  to  show  that  each  genus  of  this 
family  is  proper  to  the  ancient  or  to  the  new  world, 
excepting  the  genus  Elieis,  and  even  here  he  suspects  a 
transport  of  the  E.  guineensis  from  America  into  Africa, 
which  is  not  at  all  probable.  (See  above,  p.  429.)  The 
force  of  this  argument  is  somewhat  diminished  by  the 
circumstance  that  Cocos  nucifera  is  a tree  which  grows 
on  the  littoral  and  in  damp  places,  while  the  other  species 
live  under  different  conditions,  frequently  far  from  the 
sea  and  from  rivers.  Maritime  plants,  and  those  which 
grow  in  marshes  or  damp  places,  have  commonly  a more 
vast  habitation  than  others  of  the  same  genus. 

2.  The  trade  winds  of  the  Pacific,  to  the  south  and  yet 
more  to  the  north  of  the  equator,  drive  floating  bodies 
from  America  to  Asia,  a direction  contrary  to  that  of  the 
general  currents.6  It  is  known,  moreover,  from  the  un- 

1 A.  do  Candolle,  Q6ogr.  Bot.  Raisonnde,  p.  976. 

* Grisebach,  Vegetation  der  Erde,  pp.  11,  323. 

5 Seemann,  Flora  Vitiensis,  p.  275. 

4 The  cocoa-nut  called  Maidive  belongs  to  the  genus  Lodoicea. 
Coco  mamillaris,  Blanco,  of  the  Philippines  is  a variety  of  the  culti- 
vated  Cocos  nucifera. 

s Drudo,  in  Bot.  Zeitung,  1876,  p.  801 ; and  Flora  Brasiliensis,  fasc.  85, 
p.  405. 

6 Sticler,  Hand  Atlas,  edit.  1867,  map  3. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS. 


433 


expected  arrival  of  bottles  containing  papers  on  different 
coasts,  that  chance  has  much  to  do  with  these  transports. 

The  arguments  in  favour  of  an  Asiatic,  or  contrary  to 
an  American  origin,  are  the  following : — 

1.  A current  between  the  third  and  fifth  parallels, 
north  latitude,  flows  from  the  islands  of  the  Indian 
Archipelago  to  Panama.1  To  the  north  and  south  of  this 
are  currents  which  take  the  opposite  direction,  but  they 
start  from  regions  too  cold  for  the  cocoa-nut,  and  do  not 
touch  Central  America,  where  it  is  supposed  to  have  been 
long  indigenous. 

2.  The  inhabitants  of  the  islands  of  Asia  were  far 
bolder  navigators  than  the  American  Indians.  It  is  very 
possible  that  canoes  from  the  Asiatic  Islands,  containing 
a provision  of  cocoa-nuts,  were  thrown  by  tempests  or 
false  manoeuvres  on  to  the  islands  or  the  west  coast  of 
America,  The  converse  is  highly  improbable. 

3.  The  area  for  three  centuries  has  been  much  vaster 
in  Asia  than  in  America,  and  the  difference  was  yet  more 
considerable  before  that  epoch,  for  we  know  that  the 
cocoa-nut  has  not  long  existed  in  the  east  of  tropical 
America. 

4.  The  inhabitants  of  the  islands  of  Asia  possess  an 
immense  number  of  varieties  of  this  tree,  which  points  to 
a very  ancient  cultivation.  Blume,  in  his  Rumphia, 
enumerates  eighteen  varieties  in  Java  and  the  adjacent 
islands,  and  thirty-nine  in  the  Philippines.  Nothing 
similar  has  been  observed  in  America. 

5.  The  uses  of  the  cocoa-nut  are  more  varied  and  more 
habitual  in  Asia.  The  natives  of  America  hardly  utilize 
it  except  for  the  contents  of  the  nut,  from  which  they  do 
not  extract  the  oil. 

6.  The  common  names,  very  numerous  and  original  in 
Asia,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  are  rare,  and  often  of 
European  origin  in  America. 

7.  It  is  not  probable  that  the  ancient  Mexicans  and 
inhabitants  of  Central  America  would  have  neglected  to 
spread  the  cocoa-nut  in  several  directions,  had  it  existed 
among  them  from  a very  remote  epoch.  The  trifling 

1 Stieler,  ibid.,  map  9. 

2 F 


434 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


breadth  of  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  would  have  facilitated 
the  transport  from  one  coast  to  the  other,  and  the  species 
would  soon  have  been  established  in  the  West  Indies,  at 
Guiana,  etc.,  as  it  has  become  naturalized  in  Jamaica, 
Antigua,1  and  elsewhere,  since  the  discovery  of  America. 

8.  If  the  cocoa-nut  in  America  dated  from  a ueologdcal 
epoch  more  ancient  than  the  pleiocene  or  even  eocene 
deposits  in  Europe,  it  would  probably  have  been  found  on 
both  coasts,  and  the  islands  to  the  east  and  west  equally. 

9.  We  cannot  find  any  ancient  date  of  the  existence 
of  the  cocoa-nut  in  America,  but  its  presence  in  Asia  three 
or  four  thousand  years  ago  is  proved  by  several  Sanskrit 
names.  Piddington  in  his  index  only  quotes  one,  narikela. 
It  is  the  most  certain,  since  it  recurs  in  modem  Indian 
languages.  Scholars  count  ten  of  these,  which,  according 
to  their  meaning,  seem  to  apply  to  the  species  or  its 
fruit.2  Narikela  has  passed  with  modifications  into 
Arabic  and  Persian.3  It  is  even  found  at  Otahiti  in  the 
form  ari  or  haari ,4  together  with  a Malay  name. 

10.  The  Malays  have  a name  widely  diffused  in  the 
archipelago — kaldpa,  kldpa,  kldpo.  At  Sumatra  and 
Nicobar  we  find  the  name  njior,nieor ; in  the  Philippines, 
niog ; at  Bali,  niuh,  njo ; at  Tahiti,  niuh ; and  in  other 
islands,  nu,  nidju,  ni  ; even  at  Madagascar,  vma-niu .5  The 
Chinese  have  ye,  or  ye-tsu  (the  tree  is  ye).  With  the 
principal  Sanskrit  name  this  constitutes  four  different 
roots,  which  show  an  ancient  existence  in  Asia.  How- 
ever, the  uniformity  of  nomenclature  in  the  archipelago 
as  far  as  Tahiti  and  Madagascar  indicates  a transport  by 
human  agency  since  the  existence  of  known  languages. 

The  Chinese  name  means  head  of  the  king  of  Yue, 
referring  to  an  absurd  legend  of  which  Dr.  Bretschneider 
speaks.0  This  savant  tells  us  that  the  first  mention  of 
the  cocoa-nut  occurs  in  a poem  of  the  second  century  before 

1 Grisebaeh,  Flora  of  Brit.  W.  Indies,  p.  552. 

* Engine  Fournier  has  indicated  to  me,  for  instance,  drdapala  (with 

hard  fruit),  palakecara  (with  hairy  fruit),  jalakajka  (water-holder),  etc. 

4 Blume,  Rumphia,  iii.  p.  82. 

4 Forster,  De  Plantis  Esculentis,  p.  48  ; Nadeaud,  Enum.  des  Plantes  •, 
de  Taiti,  p.  41. 

4 Blume,  ubi  supra.0  Bretschneider,  Study  ami  Value,  etc.,  p.  24. 


PLANTS  CULTIVATED  FOR  THEIR  SEEDS.  435 

Christ,  but  the  most  unmistakable  descriptions  are  in 
works  later  than  the  ninth  century  of  our  era.  It  is  true 
that  the  ancient  writers  scarcely  knew  the  south  of 
-China,  the  only  part  of  the  empire  where  the  cocoa-nut 
palm  can  live. 

In  spite  of  the  Sanskrit  names,  the  existence  of  the 
cocoa-nut  in  Ceylon,  where  it  is  well  established  on  the 
coast,  dates  from  an  almost  historical  epoch.  Near  Point 
de  Galle,  Seemann  tells  us  may  be  seen  carved  upon  a 
rock  the  figure  of  a native  prince,  Kotah  Raya,  to  Avhom 
is  attributed  the  discovery  of  the  uses  of  the  cocoa-nut, 
unknown  before  him  ; and  the  earliest  chronicle  of  Ceylon, 
the  Marawansa,  does  not  mention  this  tree,  although  it 
carefully  reports  the  fruits  imported  by  different  princes. 
It  is  also  noteworthy  that  the  ancient  Greeks  and  Egyp- 
tians only  knew  the  cocoa-nut  at  a late  epoch  as  an  Indian 
curiosity.  Apollonius  of  Tyana  saw  this  palm  in  Hin- 
dustan, at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era.1 

From  these  facts  the  most  ancient  habitation  in  Asia 
would  be  in  the  archipelago,  rather  than  on  the  continent 
or  in  Ceylon ; and  in  America  in  the  islands  west  of 
Panama.  What  are  we  to  think  of  this  varied  and 
■ contradictory  evidence  ? I formerly  thought  that  the 
arguments  in  favour  of  Western  America  were  the 
strongest.  Now,  with  more  information  and  greater 

• experience  in  similar  questions,  I incline  to  the  idea  of  an 

• origin  in  the  Indian  Archipelago.  The  extension  towards 
' China,  Ceylon,  and  India  dates  from  not  more  than  three 
i thousand  or  four  thousand  years  ago,  but  the  transport 

by  sea  to  the  coasts  of  America  and  Africa  took  place 
i perhaps  in  a more  remote  epoch,  although  posterior  to 
: those  epochs  when  the  geographical  and  physical 
conditions  were  different  to  those  of  our  day. 

1 Seemann,  FI.  Vitiennis,  p.  276 ; Pickering,  Chronol.  Arrangement, 

t p.428.  


PART  III. 

Summary  and  Conclusion. 


CHAPTER  I. 

GENERAL  TABLE  OF  SPECIES,  WITH  THEIR  ORIGIN  AND 
THE  EPOCH  OF  THEIR  EARLIEST  CULTIVATION. 

The  following  table  includes  a few  species  of  which  a 
detailed  account  has  not  been  given,  because  their  origin 
is  well  known,  and  they  are  of  little  importance. 

Explanation  of  the  signs  used  in  the  table:  (1) 
annual,  (2)  biennial,  % perennial,  5 small  shrub,  5 shrub, 
5 small  tree,  5 tree.  The  lettei’s  indicate  the  certain 
or  probable  date  of  earliest  cultivation.  For  the  species 
of  the  old  world : A,  a species  cultivated  for  more  than 
four  thousand  years  (according  to  ancient  historians,  the 
monuments  of  ancient  Egypt,  Chinese  works,  and  botanical 
and  philological  indications) ; B,  cultivated  for  more  than 
two  thousand  years  (indicated  in  Theophrastus,  found 
among  lacustrine  remains,  or  presenting  various  signs,  such 
as  possessing  Hebrew  or  Sanskrit  names);  C,  cultivated  for 
less  than  two  thousand  years  (mentioned  by  Dioscorides 
and  not  by  Theophrastus,  seen  in  the  frescoes  at  Pompeii, 
introduced  at  a known  date,  etc.).  For  American  species: 
D,  cultivation  very  ancient  in  America  (from  its  wide 
area  and  number  of  varieties);  E,  species  cultivated 
before  the  discovery  of  America,  without  showing  signs 
of  a great  antiquity  of  culture ; F,  species  only  cultivated 
since  the  discovery  of  America. 


GENERAL  TABLE  OF  SPECIES. 


437 


SPECIES  NATIVE  TO  THE  OLD  WORLD. 

Cultivated  tor  the  Subterranean  Parts. 


Name  and  duration. 


1 Radish — Raphanus  sativus  (1). 

1 Horse-Radish — Cochlearia  Arrnora- 
cia,  If. 

1 Turnip — Brassica  Rapa  (2). 

IRape — Brassica  Napns  (2). 

(Carrot — Daucus  Carota  (2). 

! Parsnip— Pastinaca  sativa  (2). 

1 Tuberous  Chervil  — Chaorophyllum 
bulbosum  (2). 
iSkirret — Siuin  Sisarum,  if. 

'Madder — Rubia  tinctorum,  If 

SSalsify— Tragopogon  porrifolium  (2). 
; Scorzonera — Scorzonera  hispanica. 

IRampion  — Campanula  Rapunculus 

(2). 

(Vegetable. 

' 

Root. 

(Garlic — Allium  sativum,  if. 

(Onion — Allium  Cepa  (2). 

Welsh  Onion — Allium  fistulosum.  If. 

iShallot — Allium  ascalonicum,  If. 

1 Rocambole — Allium  Scorodoprasu m 
¥■ 

(Chives— Allium  Scheenoprasum,  If. 


• Taro — Colocasia  antiquorum,  If. 


Date. 

Origin. 

B. 

Temperate  Asia.1 

C. 

Eastern  temperate  Europe. 

A. 

Europe,  western  Siberia  (?). 

A. 

Europe,  western  Siberia  (P). 

B. 

Europe,  western  temperate 
Asia  (?). 

C. 

Central  and  southern  Europe. 

C. 

Central  Europe,  Caucasus. 

C. 

Altaic  Siberia,  northern 
Persia. 

B. 

Western  temperate  Asia, 
south-east  of  Europe. 

C-  (?) 

South-east  of  Europe,  Algeria. 

c. 

South-west  of  Europe,  south 
of  the  Caucasus. 

c. 

Temperate  and  southern 
Europe. 

B. 

Canaries,  Mediterranean 

basin,  western  temperate 
Asia. 

B. 

A result  of  cultivation. 

B. 

Desert  of  the  Kirghis,  in 
western  temperate  Asia. 

A. 

Persia,  Afghanistan,  Belu- 
chistan,  Palestine  (?). 

c. 

Siberia  (from  the  land  of 
the  Kirghis  to  Baikal). 

C. 

Modification  of  A.  cepa  (?), 
unknown  wild. 

C. 

Temperate  Europe. 

;.(?) 

Temperate  and  northern 
Europe,  Siberia,  Khams- 
chatka,  North  America 
(Lake  Huron). 

B. 

India,  Malay  Archipelago, 
Polynesia. 

1 Dr.  Bretschneider  writes  to  mo  from  Pekin,  Dec.  22,  1882,  that 
the  species  is  mentioned  in  the  R yd,  a work  of  the  year  1100  b.C.  ’ I do 
not  know  if  we  must  suppose  the  original  habitat  to  be  China  or 
western  Asia. 


438 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Name  and  duration. 

Date. 

Origin. 

Ape — Alocasia  macrorrhiza,  if. 

(?) 

Ceylon,  Malay  Archipelago, 
Polynesia. 

Konjak— 

-Amorphophallus  Konjak,  If. 
/Dioscorea  sativa,  if. 

(?) 

B.  (?) 

Japan  (?). 

Southern  Asia  [especially 
Malabar  (?),  Ceylon  (?), 
(Java  (?)]. 

Yams — - 

Dioscorea  Batatas,  if. 
Dioscorea  japonica,  If. 
Dioscorea  alata,  If. 

1 

B-  (?) 
(?) 
(?) 

China  (?). 

Japan  (?). 

East  of  the  Asiatic  Archipe- 
lago. 

Cultivated  foe  the  Stems  ok  Leaves. 


1.  Vegetables. 


Cabbage  — Brassica  oleracea  (1), 

(2),  5- 

Chinese  Cabbage — Brassica  chinensis 

(2). 

Water-Cress — Nasturtium  officinale, 
%■ 

Garden-Cress — Lepidium  sativum  (1). 
Sea  Kale— Crambe  maritima,  If. 
Purslane — Portulaea  oleracea  (1). 


A. 
(?) 
(?) 

B. 

C. 
A. 


New  Zealand  Spinach  — Tetragonia 
expansa  (1). 

Garden  Celery  — Apium  graveolens 

(2). 

Chervil — Anthriscus  cerefolium  (1). 

Parsley — Petroselinum  sativum  (2). 

Alexanders — Smymium  Olus-atrum 

(2). 

Corn  Salad — Valerianella  olitoria  (1). 

Artichoke — CynaraCardun- 1 ^',l.l<|oon' 
cuius  (2),  *.  j 

Lettuce — Latuca  Scariola  (1),  (2). 

Wild  Chicory — Cichorium  Intybus, 
T- 

Endive —Cichorium  Endivia  (1). 

Spinach — Spinacia  oleracea  (1). 

Orach— Atriplex  hortensis  (1). 


C. 

B. 

C. 

C. 

C. 

C. 

C. 

C. 

B. 

C. 

C. 

C. 

C. 


Europe. 

China  (?),  Japan  (?). 

Europe,  northern  Asia. 

Persia  (?). 

Western  temperate  Europe,  j 

From  the  western.  Hirna-  1 
lavas  to  southern  Russia 
and  Greece. 

New  Zealand  and  New  Hol- 
land. 

Temperate  and  southern 
Europe,  northern  Africa, 
western  Asia. 

South-east  of  Russia,  west- 
ern temperate  Asia. 

Southern  Europe,  Algeria, 
Lebanon. 

Southern  Europe,  Algeria, 
western  temperate  Asia. 

Sardinia,  Sicily. 

Southern  Europe,  northern 
Africa,  Canaries,  Madeira. 

Derived  from  the  cardoon. 

Southern  Europe,  northern  j 
Africa,  western  Asia. 

Europe,  northern  Africa, 
western  temperate  Asia. 

Mediterranean  basin,  Cau- 
casus, Tnrkestan. 

Persia  (?). 

Northern  Europe und Siberia 


GENERAL  TABLE  OF  SPECIES. 


439 


Name  and  duration. 

Date. 

Origin. 

Amaranth — Amarantus  gangeticus 

(?) 

Tropical  Africa,  India  (?). 

(1)- 

Sorrel — Rnmex  acetosa,  if  (1). 

(?) 

Europe,  northern  Asia, 
mountains  of  India. 

Patience  Dock — Rnmex  patientia,  if. 

(?) 

Turkey  in  Europe,  Persia. 

Asparagus — Asparagus  officinalis,  if. 

B. 

Europe,  western  temperate 
Asia. 

Leek — Allium  ampeloprasum,  if. 

B. 

Mediterranean  basin. 

2.  Fodder. 

Lucern — Medicago  sativa,  if. 

B. 

Western  temperate  Asia. 

Sainfoin — Onobrychis  sativa,  if. 

C. 

Temperate  Europe,  south  of 
the  Caucasus. 

French  Honeysuckle  — Hedysarum 

C. 

Centre  and  west  of  the  Modi- 

coronarium,  If. 

terranean  basin. 

Purple  Clover— Trifolium  pratense,  If. 

C. 

Europe,  Algeria,  western 

• 

temperate  Asia. 

Alsike  Clover — Trifolium  hvbridum 

C. 

Temperate  Europe. 

(!)• 

Italian  Clover — Trifolium  incarna- 

C. 

Southern  Europe. 

tnm  (1). 

Egyptian  Clover  — Trifolium  alex- 

C. 

Syria,  Anatolia. 

andrinnm  (1). 

Ervilla — Ervum  Ervilia  (1). 

B. 

Mediterranean  basin. 

Vetch — Vicia  sativa  (1). 

B. 

Europe,  Algeria,  south  of  the 
Caucasus. 

Flat-podded  Pea — Lathyrus  Cicera 

B. 

From  Spain  and  Algeria  to 

0)- 

Greece. 

Chickling  Vetch — Latbvrus  sativus 

B. 

South  of  the  Caucasus. 

(I)- 

Oohrus — Lathyrus  ochrus  (1). 

B. 

Italy,  Spain. 

Fenugreek  — Trigonella  fcenum- 

B. 

North-east  of  India  and 

graecum  (1). 

western  temperate  Asia. 

Bird's-Foot — Ornithopus  sativus  (1). 

B.(?) 

Portugal,  south  of  Spain, 
Algeria. 

Nonsuch — Medicago  lupulina  (1),  (2). 

C. 

Europe,  north  of  Africa  (?), 
temperate  Asia. 

Com  Spurry— Spergula  arvensis  (1). 

B.  (?) 

Europe. 

Guinea  Grass — Pauicum  maximum , if. 

C.(?) 

Tropical  Africa. 

3.  Various  Uses. 


Tea— Tliea  sinensis, 

Flax  anciently  cultivated— Linum 
angnstifolium,  if  (2),  (1). 

Flax  now  cultivated — Linum  nsita. 
tissimum  (1). 

Jute — Corchorus  capsularis  (1). 


A. 

A. 


A-  (?) 
C.(?) 


Assam,  China,  Mantscliuria. 
Mediterranean  basin. 

Western  Asia  (?),  derived 
from  the  preceding  (?). 
Java,  Ceylon. 


440 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Name  and  duration. 

Date. 

Origin. 

Jute — Corchorus  olitorius  (1). 

c.  (?) 

North-west  of  India,  Ceylon. 

Sumaoh — Rhus  coriaria,  5- 

c. 

Mediterranean  basin,  west- 

Khat — Celastrus  ednlis,  5- 

(?) 

ern  temperate  Asia. 
Abyssinia,  Arabia  (?). 

Indigo — Indigofera  tinctoria,  g. 

B. 

India  (?). 

Silver  Indigo — Indigofera  argentea,g. 

(?) 

Abyssinia,  Nubia,  Kordofan, 

Henna — Lawsonia  alba,  5- 

A. 

Senaar,  India  (?). 
Western  tropical  Asia, 

Blue  Gum — Eucalyptus  globulus,  §. 

C. 

Nubia  (?). 
New  Holland. 

Cinnamon  — Cinnamonum  zoylani- 

C. 

Ceylon,  India. 

cum,  5- 

China  Grass  — Bcehmeria  nivea,  if,  g. 

(?) 

China,  Japan. 

Hemp — Cannabis  sativa  (1). 

A. 

Dalinria,  Siberia. 

White  Mulberry — Morus  alba,  5. 

A.  (?) 

India,  Mongolia. 

Black  Mulberry — Morus  nigra,  5- 

B-  (?) 

Armenia,  northern  Persia. 

Sugar-Cane  — Saccharum  officina- 

B. 

Cochin-China  (P),  south- 

rum,  If. 

west  of  China. 

Cultivated  for  the  Flowers  or  their  Envelopes. 


Clove — Carophyllus  aromaticus,  5-  (?) 

Hop — Humulus  lupulus,  If.  C. 


Carthamine — Carthamus  tinctorius  A. 

(1). 

Saffron — Crocus  sativus,  if.  . A. 


Moluccas. 

Europe,  western  temperate 
Asia,  Siberia. 

Arabia  (?). 

Southern  Italy,  Greece,  Asia 
Minor. 


Cultivated  for  the  Fruits. 


Shaddock — Citrus  decumana,  g. 

Citron,  Lemon — Citrus  medica,  5- 
Bitter  Orange  • — Citrus  Aurantium 
Bigaradia,  5- 

Sweet  Orange  — Citrus  Aurantium 
sinense,  5- 

Mandarin— Citrus  nobilis,  5- 
Mangosteen  — Garcinia  rnango- 
stana,  5- 

Ochro — Hibiscus  esculcntus  (1). 
Vine — Vitis  vinifera,  g. 


B. 


B. 

B. 


C. 


(?) 

(?) 


C. 

A. 


Common  Jujube  - Zizyphus  vulgaris,  B. 

5- 

Lotus  Jujube — Zizyphus  lotus,  5-  (?) 


Pacific  Islands,  to  the  east  of 
Java. 

India. 

East  of  India. 

China  and  Cochin-China. 

China  and  Cochin-China. 
Sunda  Islands,  Malay  Penin- 
sula. 

Tropical  Africa. 

Western  temperate  Asia, 
Mediterranean  basin. 
China. 


Egypt  to  Morocco. 


GENERAL  TABLE  OF  SPECIES. 


441 


Name  and  duration. 


Date. 


Origin. 


Indian  Jujube — Zizyphus  Jujuba,  5- 
Mango — -Mangifera  indica,  5- 
Tahiti  Apple — Spondias  dulcis,  5- 

A.  (?) 
A.  (?) 
(?) 

Raspberry— Bubus  idacus,  §. 
Strawberry — Fragaria  vesca,  If. 

C. 

C. 

Bird-Cherry — Prunus  avium,  jj. 

B. 

Common  Cherry — Prunus  cerasus,  5- 

B. 

Plum — Prunus  domestica,  5- 

B. 

Plum — Prunus  insititia,  *j. 

(?) 

Apricot — Prunus  Armeniaca,  5- 
Almond — Amygdalus  communis,  5- 

A. 

A. 

Peach — Amygdalus  Persica,  5- 
Common  Pear — Pyrus  communis,  jj. 
Chinese  Pear — Pyrus  Rinensis,  5- 
Apple — Pyrus  Malus,  5- 

A. 

A. 

(?) 

A. 

Quince — Cydonia  vulgaris,  5- 

A. 

Loquat — Eriobotrya  japonica,  5- 
Pomegranate — Punica  granatum,  §. 

(?) 

A. 

Rose  Apple — Jambosa  vulgaris,  5- 

B. 

Malay  Apple — Jambosa  malaccensis. 

B. 

o • 

Bottle  Gourd — Cncurbita  lauenaria 
(!)• 

Spanish  Gourd— C.  maxima  (1). 

Melon— Cucumis  Melo  (1). 

Water-Melon— Citrullus  vulgaris  (1). 

Cucumber— Cucumis  sativus  (1). 

West  Indian  Gherkin— Cucumis  An- 
garia (1). 

White  Gourd-Melon — Benincasa  his- 
pida  (1). 

Towel  Gourd — Luffa  eylindrica  (1). 

Angular  Luffa — Luffa  acutangula  (1 ) . 

Snake  Gourd — -Trichosanthes  anguina 
(!)• 

C. 

c.  (?) 
c. 

A. 

A. 

C.  (?) 

(?) 

c. 

c. 

,l 

Burmah,  India. 

India. 

Society,  Friendly,  and  Fiji 
Isles. 

Temperate  Europe  and  Asia. 

Temperate  Europe  and  west- 
ern Asia,  east  of  North 
America. 

Western  temperate  Asia, 
temperate  Europe. 

From  the  Caspian  to  west- 
ern Anatolia. 

Anatolia,  south  of  the  Cau- 
casus, north  of  Persia. 

Southern  Europe,  Armenia, 
south  of  the  Caucasus, 
Talysch. 

China. 

Mediterranean  basin,  west- 
ern temperate  Asia. 

China. 

Temperate  Europe  and  Asia. 

Mongolia,  Mantschuria. 

Europe,  Anatolia,  south  of 
the  Caucasus. 

North  of  Persia,  south  of  the 
Caucasus,  Anatolia. 

Japan. 

Persia,  Afghanistan,  Belu- 
chistan. 

Malay  Archipelago,  Cochin- 
China,  Burmah,  north-east 
of  India. 

Malay  Archipelago,  Malacca. 

India,  Moluccas,  Abyssinia. 

Guinea. 

India,  Beluchistan,  Guinea. 

Tropical  Africa. 

India. 

Tropical  Africa  (?). 

Japan,  Java. 

India. 

India,  Malay  Archipelago. 

India  (?). 


442 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Name  and  duration. 

Date. 

Origin. 

Gooseberry — Ribes  grossularia, 

C. 

Temperate  Europe,  north  of 
Africa,  Caucasus,  western 
Himalayas. 

Red  Currant — Ribes  rubrum,  Jj . 

C. 

Northern  and  temperate 
Europe,  Siberia,  Caucasus, 
Himalayas,  north-east  of 
the  United  States. 

Black  Currant — Ribes  nigrum,  5- 

C. 

Northern  and  central 

Europe,  Armenia,  Siberia, 
Mantsehuria,  western 

Himalayas. 

Kaki — Diospyros  Kaki,  5- 

(?) 

Japan,  northern  China. 

Date  Plum — Diospyros  lotos,  5- 

(?) 

China,  India,  Afghanistan, 
Persia,  Armenia,  Anatolia. 

Olive— Olea  europea,  5- 

A. 

Syria,  southern  Anatolia  and 
neighbouring  islands. 

Aubergine — Solanum  melongona  (1). 

A. 

India. 

Fig — Ficus  Carica,  5- 

A. 

Centre  and  south  of  the 
Mediterranean  basin,  from 
Syria  to  the  Canaries. 

Bread-Fruit — Artocarpus  incisa,  5- 

(?) 

Sunda  Isles. 

Jack-Fruit — Artocarpus  mtegrifolia, 
§■ 

Date-Palm — Plicenix  dactylifera,  §. 

B-  (?) 

India. 

A. 

Western  Asia  and  Africa, 
from  the  Euphrates  to  the 
Canaries. 

Banana— Musa  sapientnm,  5- 

A. 

Southern  Asia. 

Oil  Palm — Elaeis  guineeusis,  §. 

(?) 

Guinea. 

Cultivated  foe  the  Seeds. 


1.  Nutritive. 


Litchi— Nephelium  Litchi,  5- 

Longan — Nephelium  longann,  5- 
Rambutan— Nephelium  lappaceum, 5- 
Pistachio — Pistacia  vera,  y . 

Bean — Faba  vulgaris  (l). 

Lentil — Ervuni  lens  (1). 


(?) 

(?) 

(?) 

C. 

A. 

A. 


Chick-Pea— Cicer  arietinnm  (1). 


A. 


Lupin — Lupinus  albus  (1). 


B. 


Egyptian  Lupin  — Lupinus  tennis 
(!)• 

Field-Pea — Pisum  arvense  (1/. 


A. 

C.(?) 


Southern  China,  Cochin- 
China. 

India,  Pegu. 

India,  Pegu. 

Syria. 

South  of  the  Caspian  (?). 

Western  temperate  Asia, 
Greece,  Italy. 

South  of  the  Caucasus  and 
of  the  Caspian. 

Sicily,  Macedonia,  south  of 
the  Caucasus. 

From  Corsica  to  Syria. 

Italy. 


GENERAL  TABLE  OF  SPECIES. 


443 


Name  and  duration. 


Date. 


Origin. 


Garden-Pea — Pisnni  sativum  (1). 


B. 


Soy — Dolichos  soja  (1). 
Pigeon-Pea — Cajanus  indicus,  J. 
Carob — Ceratonia  siliqua,  §■ 


A. 

C. 

A.(P) 


Moth — Phased  us  aeonitifolius  (1). 

Three-lobed  Kidney  Bean— Phaseolns 
trilobns,  7f  (1). 

Green  Gram — Phaseolns  Mungo  (1). 

Wall — Phaseolus  Lablab,  If  (1). 

Lnbia — Phaseolus  Lubia  (1). 

Bambarra  Ground  Nut — Voandzeia 
subterranea  (1). 

Buckwheat  — Fagopyrum  esculen- 
tum  (1). 

Tartary  Buckwheat  — Fagopyrum 
tartaricum  (1). 

Notch-seeded  Buckwheat— Fagopy- 
rum  emarginatum  (1). 

Kiery — Amarantus  frumentaceus 

(1). 

Chestnut — Castanea  vulgaris,  5- 


C. 

B. 

B-  (?) 

B. 

C. 

(?) 

C. 

c. 

(?) 

(?) 

(?) 


Wheat  — Triticum  vulgare  and  A. 
varieties  (?),  (1). 

Spelt — Triticum  spelta  (1).  A. 


One-grained  Wheat — Triticum  mono- 
coccum  (1). 


(?) 


Two-rowed  Barley  — Hordeum  dis. 
tichon  (1). 

Common  Barley — Hordeum  vulgare 

(I)- 

Six-rowed  Barley— Hordeum  hexas- 
tichon  (1). 

Rye — Secale  cereale  (1). 

Common  Oats — A vena  sativa  (1). 
Eastern  Oats — Arena  orientalis  (l). 
C ommon  Millet — Panicu  m mili  aceu  m 
(!)• 


A. 

(?) 

A. 

B. 
B. 

C-(?) 

A. 


From  the  south  of  the 
Caucasus  to  Persia  (?), 
northern  India  (?). 
Cochin-China,  Japan,  Java. 
Equatorial  Africa. 

Southern  coast  of  Anatolia, 
Syria,  Cyrenaica  (?). 
India. 

India,  tropical  Africa. 

India. 

India. 

Western  Asia  (?). 
Intertropical  Africa. 

Mantschuria,  central  Siberia. 

Tartary,  Siberia  to  Dahuria. 

Western  China,  eastern 
Himalayas. 

India. 


From  Portugal  to  the  Cas- 
pian Sea,  eastern  Algeria. 
Varieties : Japan,  North 
America. 

Region  of  the  Euphrates. 


Derived  from  the  preced- 
ing (?)• 

Servia,  Greece,  Anatolia 
(if  the  identity  with  the 
Triticum  bceoticum  be  ad- 
mitted) . 

Western  tompcrate  Asia. 


Derived  from  the  preceding 
(?)• 

Derived  from  the  preceding 


Eastern  to mperato  Europe(?). 
Eastern  temperate  Europe(P). 
Western  Asia  (?). 

Egypt,  Arabia. 


Italian  Millet— Pani cum  italicum  (1) . A. 
Sorghum — Holcus  sorghum  (1).  A. 


China,  Japan,  Indian  Archi- 
pelago (?) 

Tropical  Africa  (?). 


444 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Name  and  duration. 

Date. 

Origin. 

Sweet  Sorghum — Holcus  sacchara- 

(?) 

Tropical  Africa  (?). 

tus  (1). 

Coracan — Eleusine  coracana  (1). 

B. 

India. 

Rice — Oryza  sativa  (1). 

A. 

India,  southern  China  (?). 

2.  Various  Uses. 

Poppy — Papaver  somniferum  (1). 

B. 

Derived  from  P.  setiferum  of 
the  Mediterranean  basin. 

White  Mustard — Sinapis  alba  (1). 

B. 

Temperate  and  southern 

Black  Mustard — Sinapis  nigra  (1). 

B. 

Europe,  north  of  Africa, 
western  temperate  Asia. 

Gold  of  Pleasure — Camolina  sativa 
(1). 

B.  (?) 

Temperate  Europe,  Cau- 
casus, Siberia. 

Herbaceous  Cotton — Gossypium  her- 

B. 

India. 

bacoum,  5 (1). 

Tree  Cotton— Gossypium arboreum, 

B.  (?) 

Upper  Egypt. 

Arabian  Coffee — Coffea  arabica,  5- 

C. 

Tropical  Africa,  Mozam- 
bique, Abyssinia,  Guinea. 

Liberian  Coffee— Coffea  liberica,  §. 

C. 

Guinea  Angola. 

Sesame — Sesamum  indicum  (1). 

A. 

Sunda  Isles. 

Nutmeg — Mvristica  fragrans,  5- 

B. 

Moluccas. 

Castor-Oil  Plant  — Ricinus  com- 
munis, *>. 

A. 

Abyssinia,  Sennaar,  Kordo- 
fan. 

Walnut— Juglans  regia,  5- 

(?) 

Eastern  temperate  Europe, 
temperate  Asia. 

Black  Pepper  — Piper  nigrum,  J. 

B. 

India. 

Long  Pepper— Piper  longum,  $. 

B. 

India. 

Medicinal  Pepper  — Piper  otlicina- 

B. 

Malay  Archipelago. 

lis,  5- 

Betel  Pepper — Piper  Betle,  5- 

B. 

Malay  Archipelago. 

Areca  Nut — Areca  Catechu,  5- 

B. 

Malay  Archipelago. 

Cocoa  Nut— Cocos  uueifera,  §. 

(?) 

Malay  Archipelago  (?),  Poly- 
nesia (?). 

SPECIES  OF  AMERICAN  ORIGIN. 


Cultivated  for  the 
Arracacha— Arracacha  esculenta,  if 

(l). 

Jerusalem  Artichoke  — Ilelianthns 
tuberosus,  If. 

Potato — Solarium  tuberosum,  If. 
Sweet  Potato— Convolvulus  batatas, 
?■ 

Manioo  Manihot  utilissimn,  3- 
Arrowroot — Maranta  arundinacea,  If. 


Underground  Parts. 

E.  I New  Granada  (?). 

E.  (?)  North  America  (Indiana). 

E.  i Chili,  Peru  (?). 

D.  I Tropical  America  (where  ?). 

E.  East  of  tropical  Brazil. 

(?)  Tropical  (continental  ?) 
America. 


GENERAL  TABLE  OF  SPECIES. 


445 


Cultivated  for  the  Stems  or  Leaves. 


Name  and  duration. 

Date. 

Origin. 

Mate — Ilex  paraguariensis,  5- 

D. 

Paraguay  and  western 

Brazil. 

Coca  — Brythroxylon  Coca,  5- 

D. 

East  of  Peru  and  Bolivia. 

Quinine — Cinchona  Calisaya,  5- 

F. 

Bolivia,  southern  Peru. 

Crown  Bark — Cinchona  officinalis,  5- 

F. 

Ecuador  (province  of  Loxa) 

Red  Cinchona  Bark — Cinchona  suc- 
cirubra,  5- 

F. 

Ecuador  (province  of 

Cuenca) . 

| Nicotiana  Tabacum  (1). 

Tobacco — < 

D. 

Ecuador  and  neighbouring 
countries. 

( Nicotiana  rustica  (1). 

E. 

Mexico  (?),  Texas  (?),  Cali, 
forma  (?). 

American  Aloe — Agave  americana,  5- 

E. 

Mexico. 

Cultivated  for  the  Fruits. 


Sweet  Sop — Anona  squamosa,  5. 

Sour  Sop — Anona  muricata,  5. 

Custard  Apple — Anona  reticulata,  5- 

Chirimoya — Anona  Cherimolia,  5- 

Mammee  Apple  — Mammea  ameri- 
cana,  §. 

Cashew  Nut — Anacardium  occiden- 
tale,  5- 

Virginian  Strawberry — Fragaria  vir- 
giniana.  If. 

Chili  Strawberry— Fragaria  chiloen- 
sis,  if. 

Guava — Psidium  guavava,  5. 

Pumpkin  and  Squash  — Cucurbita 
Pepo  and  Melopepo  (1). 

Prickly  Pear  — Opuntia  iicus  in. 
dica,  5- 

Chocho — Sechium  edule  (I). 
Star-Apple— Chrj’Bophyllum  Ca’inito, 
5- 

Caimito — Lueuma  Caimito,  5. 

Marmalade  Plum  — Lueuma  mam- 
mosa,  5- 

Sapodilla — Sapota  achras,  5- 

Persimmon  — Diospvros  virginiana, 

5- 

Annual  Capsicum — -Capsicum  annuum 

(1). 

Shrubby  Capsicum— Capsicum  frutes- 
cens,  5. 


(?) 

(?) 

(?) 


E. 

(?) 

(?) 


West  India  Isles. 

West  India  Isles. 

West  India  Isles,  New 
Granada. 

Ecuador,  Peru  (?). 

West  India  Isles. 

Tropical  America. 


F. 


Temperate  North  America. 


F. 


Chili. 


E.  Continental  tropical  America. 
E.  Temperate  North  America. 


E. 


Mexico. 


E.  Mexico  (?),  Central  America. 

E.  W est  India  Isles,  Panama. 


E.  Peru. 

E.  \ alley  of  the  Orinoco. 


E. 

F. 


Campoachy,  Isthmus  of 
Panama,  Venezuela. 
Eastorn  States  of  America. 


E.  Brazil  (?). 

E.  From  tho  cast  of  Peru  to 

Bahia. 


44G 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


Name  and  duration. 


Tomato— Lycopcrsicum  escnlentum 

(1). 

Avocado  Pear — Persea  gratissima,  §. 
Papaw — Papaya  vulgaris,  5- 
Pine-Apple — Anauassa  sativa,  Tf. 


Pate. 

Origin . 

E. 

Peru. 

E. 

Mexico. 

E. 

West  Indies, Central  America. 

E. 

Mexico,  Central  America, 

Panama,  New  Granada, 
Guiana  (?),  Bahia  (?). 

Cultivated  for  the  Seeds. 


1.  Nutritious. 


Caoao — Theobroma  Cacao,  5- 

Sugar  Bean — Pliaseolus  lunatns,  if.. 
Quinoa — Chenopodium  qninoa  (1). 

Maize — Zea  mays  (1). 


D. 

E. 
E. 

D. 


Amazon  and  Orinoco  Valley, 
Panama  (P),  Yucatan  (?). 
Brazil. 

New  Granada,  Peru  (?), 
Chili  (?). 

New  Granada  (?). 


2.  Various  Uses. 


Amotto — Bixa  orellana. 

Barbados  Cotton — Gossypium  barba- 
dense,  §■ 

Earth  Nuts—  Arachis  hypogtea  (1). 
Madia — Madia  sativa  (1). 


D. 
(?) 

E. 
E. 


Tropical  America. 

New  Granada  (?),  Mexico  (?), 
West  Indies. 

Brazil  (?). 

Chili,  California. 


Cryptogam  cultivated  for  the  Whole  Plant. 
Mushroom— Agaricus  campestris,  If.  | C.  \ Northern  hemisphere. 

Species  of  Unknown  or  entirely  Uncertain  Origin. 

Common  Harioot — Phaseolus  vulgaris  (1). 

Musk  Gourd— Cncurbita  moschata  (1). 

Fig-leaved  Gourd — Cucurbita  ficifolia,  T. 


CHAPTER  II. 

GENERAL  OBSERVATIONS  AND  CONCLUSIONS. 

Article  I. — Regions  where  Cultivated  Plants  originated. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century,  the  origin 
of  most  of  our  cultivated  species  was  unknown.  Linnaeus 
made  no  efforts  to  discover  it,  and  subsequent  authors 
merely  copied  the  vague  or  erroneous  expressions  by 
which  he  indicated  their  habitations.  Alexander  von 
Humboldt  expressed  the  true  state  of  the  science  in  1807, 
when  he  said,  “ The  origin,  the  first  home  of  the  plants 
most  useful  to  man,  and  which  have  accompanied  him 
from  the  remotest  epochs,  is  a secret  as  impenetrable  as 
the  dwelling  of  all  our  domestic  animals.  . . . We  do 
not  know  what  region  produced  spontaneously  wheat, 
barley,  oats,  and  rye.  The  plants  which  constitute  the 
natural  riches  of  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  tropics,  the 
banana,  the  papaw,  the  manioc,  and  maize,  have  never 
been  found  in  a wild  state.  The  potato  presents  the 
same  phenomenon.”  1 

At  the  present  day,  if  a few  cultivated  species  have 
not  yet  been  seen  in  a wild  state,  this  is  not  the  case  with 
the  immense  majority.  We  know  at  least,  most  fre- 
quently, from  what  country  they  first  came.  This  was 
already  the  result  of  my  work  of  1855,  which  modern 
more  extensive  research  has  confirmed  in  almost  all 
points.  This  research  has  been  applied  to  247  species,2 

1 Eaaai  sur  la  G'iographie  des  Plantes,  p.  28. 

Counting  two  or  three  forms  which  aro  perhaps  l-athor  very  distinct 
r&C68. 


448 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


cultivated  on  a large  scale  by  agriculturists,  or  in 
kitchen  gardens  and  orchards.  I might  have  added  a 
few  rarely  cultivated  or  hut  little  known,  or  of  which 
the  cultivation  has  been  abandoned ; hut  the  statistical 
results  would  he  essentially  the  same. 

Out  of  the  247  species  which  I have  studied,  the  old 
world  has  furnished  199,  America  45,  and  three  are  still 
uncertain. 

No  species  was  common'  to  the  tropical  and  austral 
regions  of  the  two  hemispheres  before  cultivation. 
Allium  schcenoprasum,  the  hop  (Humulus  lupulus), 
the  strawberry  ( Fragaria  visca),  the  currant  (Riles 
rubrum),  the  chestnut  (Castanea  vulgaris),  and  the 
mushroom  (Agaricus  campestris),  were  common  to  the 
northern  regions  of  the  old  and  new  worlds.  I have 
reckoned  them  among  the  species  of  the  old  world,  since 
their  principal  habitation  is  there,  and  there  they  were 
first  cultivated. 

A great  number  of  species  originated  at  once  in 
Europe  and  Western  Asia,  in  Europe  and  Siberia,  in  the 
Mediterranean  basin  and  Western  Asia,  in  India  and 
the  Asiatic  archipelago,  in  the  West  Indies  and  Mexico, 
in  these  two  regions  and  Columbia,  in  Peru  and  Brazil, 
or  in  Peru  and  Columbia,  etc.,  etc.  They  may  be  counted 
in  the  table.  This  is  a proof  of  the  impossibility  of  sub- 
dividing the  continents  and  of  classing  the  islands  in 
well-defined  natural  regions.  Whatever  be  the  method 
of  division,  there  will  always  be  species  common  to  two, 
three,  four,  or  more  regions,  and  others  confined  to  a 
small  portion  of  a single  country.  The  same  facts  may 
be  observed  in  the  case  of  uncultivated  species. 

A noteworthy  fact  is  the  absence  in  some  countries 
of  indigenous  cultivated  plants.  For  instance,  we  have 
none  from  the  arctic  or  antarctic  regions,  where,  it  is 
true,  the  floras  consist  of  but  few  species.  The  United 
States,  in  spite  of  their  vast  territory,  which  will  soon 
support  hundreds  of  millions  of  inhabitants,  only  yields, 
as  nutritious  plants  worth  cultivating,  the  Jerusalem 
artichoke  and  the  gourds.  Zizana  cequatica,  which 
the  natives  gathered  wild,  is  a grass  too  inferior  to 


GENERAL  OBSERVATIONS  AND  CONCLUSIONS.  449 


our  cereals  and  to  rice  to  make  it  worth  the  trouble  of 
planting  it.  They  had  a few  bulbs  and  edible  berries, 
but  they  have  not  tried  to  cultivate  them,  having  early 
received  the  maize,  which  was  worth  far  more. 

Patagonia  and  the  Cape  have  not  furnished  a single 
species.^  Australia  and  New  Zealand  have  furnished  one 
tree,  -Eucalyptus  globulus,  and  a vegetable,  not-  very 
nutritious,  the  Tetragonia.  Their  floras  were  entirely 
wanting  in  graminse  similar  to  the  cereals,  in  leguminous 
plants  with  edible  seeds,  in  Cruciferre  with  fleshy  roots.1 
In  the  moist  tropical  region  of  Australia,  rice  and 
Aloccisia  uiacrorhiza  have  been  found  wild,  or  perhaps 
naturalized,  but  the  greater  part  of  the  country  suffers 
too  much  from  drought  to  allow  these  species  to  become 
widely  diffused. 

In  general,  the  austral  regions  had  very  few  annuals, 
and  among  their  restricted  number  none  offered  evident 
advantages.  Now  annual  species  are  the  easiest  to  cul- 
tivate. They  have  played  a great  part  in  the  ancient 
agriculture  of  other  countries. 

In  short,  the  original  distribution  of  cultivated  species 
was  very  unequal.  It  had  no  proportion  with  the  needs 
of  man  or  the  extent  of  territory. 


Article  //.—Number  and  Nature  of  Cultivated  Species  at 

Different  Epochs. 


The  species  marked  A in  the  table  on  pp.  437-446 
must  be  regarded  as  of  very  ancient  cultivation.  They 
are  forty-four  in  number.  Some  of  the  species  marked 
B are  probably  as  ancient,  though  it  is  impossible  to 
prove  it  The  five  American  species  marked  D are  prob- 
ably cultivated  as  early  as  those  in  the  category  C or 
tbe  most  ancient  in  the  category  B. 

As  might  be  supposed,  the  species  A are  especially 
plants  provided  with  roots,  seeds,  and  fruits  proper  for 
ie  ooi  of  man.  Afterwards  come  a few  species  having 


FI,  LSre  the  liBt  of  th°  n,Be*ul  plauts  of  Australia  by  Sir  J.  Hooker, 
Flora  Tasmania,  p.  cx.  ; and  Bent  hum,  Flora  Australians™,  vii.  p.  15(3 

2 G 


450 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


fruits  agreeable  to  the  taste,  or  textile,  tinctorial,  oil- 
producing  plants,  or  yielding  stimulating  drinks  by 
infusion  or  fermentation.  There  are  among  these  only 
two  green  vegetables,  and  no  fodder.  The  orders  which 
predominate  are  the  Cruciferae,  Leguminosae,  and  Gra- 
minacese. 

The  number  of  annuals  is  twenty-two  out  of  the 
forty-four,  or  fifty  per  cent.  Out  of  five  American  species 
marked  D,  two  are  annuals.  In  the  category  A,  there 
are  two  biennials,  and  D has  none.  Among  all  the 
Phanerogams  the  annuals  are  not  more  than  fifty  per 
cent.,  and  the  biennials  one  or  at  most  two  per  cent.  It 
is  clear  that  at  the  beginning  of  civilization  plants  which 
yield  an  immediate  return  are  most  prized.  They  offer, 
moreover,  this  advantage,  that  their  cultivation  is  easily 
diffused  or  increased,  either  because  of  the  abundance  of 
seed,  or  the  same  species  may  be  grown  in  summer  in  the 
north,  and  in  winter  or  all  the  year  round  in  the  tropics. 

Herbaceous  perennial  plants  are  rare  in  categories  A 
and  D.  They  are  only  from  two  to  four  per  cent., 
unless  we  include  Brassica  oleracea,  and  the  variety  of 
flax  which  is  usually  perennial  ( L . cmgusti folium),  culti- 
vated by  the  Swiss  lake-dwellers.  In  nature  herbaceous 
perennials  constitute  about  forty  per  cent,  of  the  Phane- 
rogams.1 

A and  D include  twenty  ligneous  species  out  of  forty- 
nine,  that  is  about  forty-one  per  cent.  They  are  in  the 
proportion  of  forty-three  per  cent,  of  the  Phanerogams. 

Thus  the  earliest  husbandmen  employed  chiefly 
annuals  or  biennials,  rather  fewer  woody  species,  and  far 
fewer  herbaceous  perennials.  These  differences  are  due 
to  the  relative  facility  of  cultivation,  and  the  proportion 
of  the  evidently  useful  species  in  each  division. 

The  species  of  the  old  world  marked  B have  been  in 
cultivation  for  more  than  two  thousand  years,  but  per- 
haps some  of  them  belong  to  category  A.  The  American 

1 The  proportions  which  I give  for  the  Phanerogams  collectively  are 
based  upon  an  approximative  calculation,  made  with  the  aid  of  the  first 
two  hundred  pages  of  Steudel’s  Nomenclator.  They  are  justified  by 
the  comparison  with  several  floras. 


GENERAL  OBSERVATIONS  AND  CONCLUSIONS.  451 

species  marked  E were  cultivated  before  the  discoveries 
of  Columbus,  perhaps  for  more  than  two  thousand  years. 
Many  other  species  marked  (?)  in  the  table  date  probably 
from  an  ancient  epoch,  but  as  they  chiefly  exist  in 
countries  without  a literature  and  without  archaeological 
records  we  do  not  know  their  history.  It  is  useless  to 
insist  upon  such  doubtful  categories ; on  the  other  hand, 
the  plants  which  we  know  to  have  been  first  cultivated 
in  the  old  world  less  than  two  thousand  years  ago,  and  in 
America  since  its  discovery,  may  be  compared  with  plants 
of  ancient  cultivation. 

These  species  of  modern  cultivation  number  sixty-one 
in  the  old  world,  marked  C,  and  six  in  America,  marked 
F ; sixty-seven  in  all. 

Classed  according  to  their  duration,  they  number 
thirty-seven  per  cent,  annuals,  seven  to  eight  per  cent, 
biennials,  thirty-three  per  cent,  herbaceous  perennials, 
and  twenty-two  to  twenty -three  per  cent,  woody  species. 

The  proportion  of  annuals  or  biennials  is  also  here 
larger  than  in  the  whole  number  of  plants,  but  it  is  not 
so  large  as  among  species  of  very  ancient  cultivation. 
The  proportions  of  perennials  and  woody  species  are  less 
than  in  the  whole  vegetable  kingdom,  but  they  are  higher 
than  among  the  species  A,  of  very  ancient  cultivation. 

The  plants  cultivated  for  less  than  two  thousand 
years  are  chiefly  artificial  fodders,  which  the  ancients 
scarcely  knew ; then  bulbs,  vegetables,  medicinal  plants 
(Cinchonas);  plants  with  edible  fruits,  or  nutritious  seeds 
(buckwheats)  or  aromatic  seeds  (coffee). 

Men  have  not  discovered  and  cultivated  within  the  last 
two  thousand  years  a single  species  which  can  rival  maize, 
rice,  the  sweet  potato,  the  potato,  the  bread-fruit,  the  date 
cereals,  millets,  sorghums,  the  banana,  soy.  These  date 
from  three,  four,  or  five  thousand  years,  perhaps  even  in 
some  cases  six  thousand  years.  The  species  first  culti- 
vated duiing  the  Grieco-Roman  civilization  and  later 
nearly  all  answer  to  more  varied  or  more  refined  needs. 
A great  dispersion  of  the  ancient  species  from  one  country 
to  another  took  place,  and  at  the  same  time  a selection  of 
the  best  varieties  developed  in  each  species.  The  introduc- 


452 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


tions  within  the  last  two  thousand  years  took  place  in  a 
very  irregular  and  intermittent  manner.  I cannot  quote 
a single  species  cultivated  for  the  first  time  after  that  date 
by  the  Chinese,  the  great  cultivators  of  ancient  times. 
The  peoples  of  Southern  and  Western  Asia  innovated  in 
a certain  degree  by  cultivating  the  buckwheats,  several 
cucurbitaceae,  a few  alliums,  etc.  In  Europe,  the  Romans 
and  several  peoples  in  the  Middle  Ages  introduced  the 
cultivation  of  a few  vegetables  and  fruits,  and  that  of 
several  fodders.  In  Africa  a few  species  were  then  first 
cultivated  separately.  After  the  voyages  of  Vasco  di 
Gama  and  of  Columbus  a rapid  diffusion  took  place  of 
the  species  already  cultivated  in  either  hemisphere. 
These  transports  continued  during  three  centuries  with- 
out any  introduction  of  new  species  into  cultivation 
In  the  two  or  three  hundred  years  which  preceded  the 
discovery  of  America,  and  the  two  hundred  which  fol- 
lowed, the  number  of  cultivated  species  remained  almost 
stationary.  The  American  strawberries,  Diospyros  vir- 
gvniana,  sea- kale,  and  Tetragonia  expansa  introduced  in 
the  eighteenth  century,  have  but  little  importance.  We 
must  come  to  the  middle  of  the  present  century  to  find 
new  cultures  of  any  value  from  the  utilitarian  point  of 
view,  such  as  Eucalyptus  globulus  of  Australia  and  the 
Cinchonas  of  South  America. 

The  mode  of  introduction  of  the  latter  species  shows 
the  great  change  which  has  taken  place  in  the  means  of 
transport.  Previously  the  cultivation  of  a plant  began 
in  the  country  where  it  existed,  whereas  the  Australian 
Eucalyptus  was  first  planted  and  sown  in  Algeria,  and 
the  Cinchonas  of  America  in  the  south  of  Asia.  Up  to 
our  own  day  botanical  or  private  gardens  had  only 
diffused  species  already  cultivated  somewhere ; now  they 
introduce  absolutely  new  cultures.  The  royal  garden  at 
Kew  is  distinguished  in  this  respect,  and  other  botanical 
gardens  and  acclimatization  societies  in  England  and  else- 
where are  making  similar  attempts.  It  is  probable  that 
tropical  countries  will  greatly  profit  by  this  in  the  course 
of  a century.  Others  will  also  find  their  advantage  from 
the  growing  facility  in  the  transport  of  commodities. 


GENERAL  OBSERVATIONS  AND  CONCLUSIONS. 


453 


Wlien  a species  has  been  once  cultivated,  it  is  rarely, 
perhaps  never  completely,  abandoned.  It  continues  to 
be  here  and  there  cultivated  in  backward  countries,  or 
those  whose  climate  is  especially  favourable.  I have 
passed  over  some  of  these  species  which  are  nearly 
abandoned,  such  as  dyer’s  woad  ( Isatis  tinctoria),  mallow 
(. Malva  sylvestris),  a vegetable  used  by  the  Romans,  and 
certain  medicinal  plants  formerly  much  used,  such  as 
fennel,  cummin,  etc.,  but  it  is  certain  that  they  are  still 
grown  in  some  places. 

The  competition  of  species  causes  the  cultivation  of 
some  to  diminish,  of  others  to  increase;  besides,  vegetable 
dyes  and  medicinal  plants  are  rivalled  by  the  discoveries 
of  chemists.  Woad,  madder,  indigo,  mint,  and  several 
simples  must  give  way  before  the  invasion  of  chemical 
products.  It  is  possible  that  men  may  succeed  in  making 
oil,  sugar,  and  flour,  as  honey,  butter,  and  jellies  are 
already  made,  without  employing  organic  substances. 
Nothing,  for  instance,  would  more  completely  change 
agricultural  conditions  than  the  manufacture'  of  flour 
from  its  known  inorganic  elements.  In  the  actual  state 
of  science,  there  are  still  products  which  will  be  more  and 
more  required  of  the  vegetable  kingdom  ; these  are  tex- 
tile substances,  tan,  indiarubber,  gutta-percha,  and  certain 
spices.  As  the  forests  where  these  are  found  are  gradu- 
ally destroyed,  and  these  substances  are  at  the  same  time 
more  in  demand,  there  will  be  the  greater  inducement  to 
cultivate  certain  species. 

These  usually  belong  to  tropical  countries.  It  is  in 
these  regions  also,  particularly  in  South  America,  that 
fruit  trees  will  be  more  cultivated— those  of  the  order 
Anonacese  for  instance,  ol  which  the  natives  and  botanists 
already  recognize  the  value.  Probably  the  number  of 
plants  suitable  for  fodder,  and  of  forest  trees  which  can 
live  in  hot  dry  countries,  will  be  increased.  The  addi- 
tions will  not  be  numerous  in  temperate  climates,  nor 
especially  in  cold  regions. 

from  these  data  and  reflections  it  is  probable  that  at 
the  end  of  the  nineteenth  century  men  will  cultivate  on 
a large  scale  and  for  use  about  three  hundred  species. 


454  ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 

Tli is  is  a small  proportion  of  the  one  hundred  and  twenty 
or  one  hundred  and  forty  thousand  in  the  vegetable 
kingdom ; but  in  the  animal  world  the  proportion  of 
creatures  subject  to  the  will  of  man  is  far  smaller. 
There  are  not  perhaps  more  than  two  hundred  species  of 
domestic  animals — that  is,  reared  for  our  use, — and  the 
animal  kingdom  reckons  millions  of  species.  In  the 
great  class  of  molluscs  the  oyster  alone  is  cultivated,  and 
in  that  of  the  Articulata,  -which  counts  ten  times  more 
species  than  the  vegetable  kingdom,  we  can  only  name 
the  bee  and  two  or  three  silk-producing  insects.  Doubt- 
less the  number  of  species  of  animals  and  vegetables 
which  may  be  reared  or  cultivated  for  pleasure  or 
curiosity  is  very  large : witness  menageries  and  zoolo- 
gical and  botanical  gardens,  but  I am  only  speaking  here 
of  useful  plants  and  animals,  in  general  and  customary 
employment. 


Article  III. — Cultivated  Plants  known  or  not  known  in  a 

Wild  State. 

Science  has  succeeded  in  discovering  the  geographical 
origin  of  nearly  all  cultivated  species ; but  there  is  less 
progress  in  the  knowledge  of  species  in  a natural  state — 
that  is  wild,  far  from  cultivation  and  dwellings.  There 
are  species  which  have  not  been  discovered  in  this 
condition,  and  others  whose  specific  identity  and  truly 
wild  condition  are  doubtful. 

In  the  following  enumeration  I have  classed  the 
species  according  to  the  degree  of  certainty  as  to  the 
wild  character,  and  the  nature  of  the  doubts  where  such 
exist.1 

1.  Spontaneous  species,  that  is  wild,  seen  by  several 
botanists  far  from  dwellings  and  cultivation,  writh  every 
appearance  of  indigenous  plants,  and  under  a form  identical 
with  one  of  the  cultivated  varieties.  These  are  the 

1 The  species  in  italics  are  of  very  ancient  cultivation  (A  or  D), 
those  marked  with  an  asterisk  have  been  less  than  two  thousand  years 
in  cultivation  (C  or  F). 


GENERAL  OBSERVATIONS  AND  CONCLUSIONS.  455 


species  whicli  are  not  enumerated  below;  they  are  169 
in  number. 

Among  these  169  species,  31  belong  to  the  categories 
A and  D,  of  very  ancient  cultivation,  56  have  been  in 
cultivation  less  than  two  thousand  years,  C,  and  the 
others  are  of  modern  or  unknown  date. 

2.  Seen  and  gathered  in  the  same  conditions,  but  by 
a single  botanist  in  a single  locality.  Three  species. 

Cucurbita  maxima,  Faba  vulgaris,  Nicotiana  Tabacum. 

3.  Seen  and  mentioned  but  not  gathered  in  the  same 
conditions  by  one  or  two  authors  and  botanists,  more  or 
less  ancient,  who  may  have  been  mistaken.  Two  species. 

CarthamiLS  tmctorius,  Triticum  vulgare. 

4.  Gathered  wild  by  botanists  in  several  localities 
under  a form  slightly  different  to  those  which  are  culti- 
vated, but  which  most  authors  have  no  hesitation  in 
classing  with  the  species.  Four  species. 

Olea  europcea,  Oryza  sativa,  Solanum  tuberosum, 
Vitis  vinifera. 

5.  Wild,  gathered  by  botanists  in  several  localities 
under  forms  considered  by  some  botanists  as  constituting 
different  species,  while  others  treat  them  as  varieties. 
Fifteen  species. 

Allium  ampeloprasum  porrum,  Cichorium  Endivia, 
var.,  Crocus  sativus,  var.,  *Cucumis  melo,  Cucurbita 
Pepo,  Helianthus  tuberosus,  Latuca  scariola  sativa, 
Linum  usitatissimivm  annuum,  Lycopersicum  esculen- 
tium,  Papaver  somniferum,  Pyrus  nivalis  var.,  *Ribes 
grossularia,  Solanum  Melongena,  *Spinacia  oleracea  var., 
Triticum  monococcum. 

6'.  Subspontaneous,  that  is  half- wild,  similiar  to  one 
or  other  of  the  cultivated  forms,  but  possibly  plants 
escaped  from  cultivation,  judging  from  the  locality. 
Twenty-four  species. 

Agava  americana,  Amarantus  gangeticus,  Amygdalus 
persica,  Areca  catechu,  *Avena  orientalis,  Avena  sativa, 
*Cajanus  indieus,  Cicer  arietinum,  Citrus  decumana, 
Cucurbita  mosehata,  Dioscorea  japonica,  Ervum  Ervilia, 
Ervum  lens,  Fagopyrum  emarginatum,  Gossypium  bar- 
badense,  Holcus  saccharatus,  Holcus  sorghum,  Indigofera 


456 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


tinctoria,  Lepidum  sativum,  Marauta  arundinacea,  Nico- 
tiana  rustica,  Panicum  miliaceum,  Raphanus  sativus, 
Spergula  arvensis. 

7.  Subspontaneous  like  the  preceding,  but  different 
enough  from  the  cultivated  varieties  to  lead  the  majority 
of  authors  to  regard  them  as  distinct  species.  Three 
species. 

•Allium  ascalonicum  (variety  of  A.  cepa  ?),  Allium 
scorodoprasum  (variety  of  A.  sativum  ?),  Secale  cereale 
(variety  of  one  of  the  perennial  species  of  Secale  ?). 

8.  Not  discovered  in  a wild  state  nor  even  half-wild, 
derived  perhaps  from  cultivated  species  at  the  beginning 
of  agriculture,  but  too  different  not  to  be  commonly 
regarded  as  distinct  species.  Three  species. 

Hordewrn  hexastickon  (derived  from  II.  distichon  ?), 
Ilovdewm  vvlgare  (derived  from  H.  distichon  ?),  Triticum 
spelta  (derived  from  T.  vvlgare  ?) 

9.  Not  discovered  in  a wild  state  nor  even  half-wild, 
but  originating  in  countries  which  are  not  completely 
explored,  and  belonging  perhaps  to  little-known  wild 
species  of  these  countries.  Six  species. 

Arachis  hypogea,  Carophyllus  aromaticus,  Convolvulus 
batatas,  *Dolichos  lubia,  Manihot  utilissima,  Phaseolus 
vulgaris. 

10.  Not  found  in  a wild  state,  nor  even  half-wild, 
but  originating  in  countries  which  are  not  sufficiently 
explored,  or  in  similar  countries  which  cannot  be  defined, 
more  different  than  the  latter  from  known  wild  species. 
Eighteen  species. 

Amorphophallus  konjak,  Arracacha  esculenta,  Bras- 
sica  chinensis,  Capsicum  annuum,  Chenopodium  quinoa,1 
Citrus  nobilis,  Cucurbita  ficifolia,  Dioscorea  alata,  Dios- 
corea  Batatas,  Dioscorea  sativa,  Eleusine  coracana,  Lucuma 
mammosa,  Ncphelium  Litchi,  *Pisum  sativum,  Saccliarum 
officinaruin,  Sechium  edule,  *Tricosanthes  anguina,  Zea 
mays. 

Total  247  species. 

1 Since  this  list  was  printed,  I have  been  informed  that  the  qninoa 
is  wild  in  Chili.  Some  of  the  figures  need  modification  in  consequence 
of  this  error, 


GENERAL  OBSERVATIONS  AND  CONCLUSIONS. 


457 


These  figures  show  that  there  are  193  species  known 
to  be  wild,  27  doubtful,  as  half-wild,  and  27  not  found 
wild. 

I believe  that  these  last  will  be  found  some  time  or 
other,  if  not  under  one  of  the  cultivated  forms,  at  least  in 
an  allied  form  called  species  or  variety  according  to  the 
author.  To  attain  this  result  tropical  countries  will 
have  to  be  more  thoroughly  explored,  collectors  must 
be  more  attentive  to  localities,  and  more  floras  must  be 
published  of  countries  now  little  known,  and  good  mono- 
graphs of  certain  genera  based  upon  the  characters  which 
vary  least  in  cultivation. 

A few  species  having  their  origin  in  countries  fairly 
well  explored,  and  which  it  is  impossible  to  confound 
with  others  because  each  is  unique  in  its  genus,  have  not 
been  found  wild,  or  only  once,  which  leads  us  to  suppose 
that  they  are  extinct  in  nature,  or  rapidly  becoming  so. 
I allude  to  maize  and  the  bean  (see  pp.  387  and  31 G).  I 
mention  also  in  Article  IV.  other  plants  which  appear 
to  be  becoming  extinct  in  the  last  few  thousand  years. 
These  last  belong  to  genera  which  contain  many  species, 
which  renders  the  hypothesis  less  probable  ; 1 but,  on  the 
other  hand,  they  are  rarely  seen  at  a distance  from  culti- 
vated ground,  and  they  hardly  ever  become  naturalized, 
that  is  wild,  which  shows  a certain  feebleness  or  a 
tendency  to  become  the  prey  of  animals  and  parasites. 

The  07  species  cultivated  for  less  than  two  thousand 
years  (C,  F)  are  all  found  wild,  except  the  species  marked 
with  an  asterisk,  which  have  not  been  found  or  which 
are  subject  to  doubts.  This  is  a proportion  of  eighty- 
three  per  cent.  ' 

V hat  is  more  remarkable  is  that  the  great  majority 
of  species  cultivated  for  more  than  four  thousand  years 
(A),  or  in  America  for  three  thousand  or  four  thousand 
years  (D),  still  exist  wild  in  a form  identical  with  some 
one  of  the  cultivated  varieties.  Their  number  is  thirty- 
one  out  of  forty-nine,  or  sixty -three  per  cent.  In  cate- 
gories 9 and  10  there  are  only  two  of  these  .species  of 

1 For  reasons  which  I cannot  here  express,  monotypicnl  genera  are 
for  the  moat  part  in  process  of  extinction. 


458 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


very  ancient  cultivation,  or  four  per  cent.,  and  these  are  | 
two  species  which  probably  exist  no  longer  as  wild  plants. 

I believed,  cl  priori,  that  a great  number  of  the 
species  cultivated  for  more  than  four  thousand  years 
would  have  altered  from  their  original  condition  to  such 
a degree  that  they  could  no  longer  be  recognized  among 
wild  plants.  It  appears,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  forms 
anterior  to  cultivation  have  commonly  remained  side  by 
side  with  those  which  cultivators  employed  and  propa- 
gated from  century  to  century.  This  may  be  explained 
in  two  ways : 1.  The  period  of  four  thousand  years 
is  short  compared  to  the  duration  of  most  of  the  specific 
forms  in  phanerogamous  plants.  2.  The  cultivated 
species  receive,  outside  of  cultivated  ground,  continual 
reinforcements  from  the  seeds  which  man,  birds,  and 
different  natural  agents  disperse  and  transport  in  a 
thousand  ways.  Naturalizations  pi’oduced  in  this  manner 
often  confound  the  wild  plants  with  the  cultivated  ones, 
and  the  more  easily  that  they  fertilize  each  other  since 
they  belong  to  the  same  species.  This  fact  is  clearly 
demonstrated  in  the  case  of  a plant  of  the  old  world 
cultivated  in  America,  in  gardens,  and  which,  later, 
becomes  naturalized  on  a large  scale  in  the  open  country 
or  the  woods,  like  the  cardoon  at  Buenos  Ayres,  and  the 
oranges  in  several  American  countries.  Cultivation 
widens  areas,  and  supplements  the  deficits  which  the 
natural  reproduction  of  the  species  may  present.  There 
are,  however,  a few  exceptions,  which  are  worth  men- 
tioning in  a separate  article. 

Article.  IV. — Cultivated  Plants  which  are  Extinct,  or 
becoming  Extinct  in  a Wild  State. 

These  species  to  which  I allude  present  three  remark- 
able characters : — 

1.  They  have  not  been  found  wild,  or  only  once  or 
twice,  and  often  doubtfully,  although  the  regions  whence 
they  come  have  been  visited  by  several  botanists. 

2.  They  have  not  the  faculty  of  sowing  themselves, 
and  propagating  indefinitely  outside  cultivated  ground. 


GENERAL  OBSERVATIONS  AND  CONCLUSIONS. 


459 


In  other  terms,  in  such  cases  they  do  not  pass  out  of  the 
condition  of  adventitious  plants. 

3.  It  cannot  be  supposed  that  they  are  derived  within 
historic  times  from  certain  allied  species. 

These  three  characters  are  found  united  in  the  follow- 
ing species: — Bean  ( Fata  vulgaris),  chick-pea  ( Cicer 
arietinum),  ervilla  ( Ervwm  Ervilia),  lentil  ( Ervum  lens), 
tobacco  (Nicotiana  tabacum),  wheat  ( Triticum  vul- 
gare),  maize  (Zea  mays).  The  sweet  potato  (Convol- 
vulus batatas)  should  be  added  if  the  kindred  species 
were  better  known  to  be  distinct,  and  the  carthamine 
( Carthamus  tinctorius)  if  the  interior  of  Arabia  had  been 
explored,  and  we  had  not  found  a mention  of  the  plant 
in  an  Arabian  author. 

All  these  species,  and  probably  others  of  little-known 
countries  or  genera,  appear  to  be  extinct  or  on  their  way 
to  become  so.  Supposing  they  ceased  to  be  cultivated, 
they  would  disappear,  whereas  the  majority  of  culti- 
vated plants  have  become  somewhere  naturalized,  and 
would  persist  in  a wild  state. 

The  seven  species  mentioned  just  now,  excepting 
tobacco,  have  seeds  full  of  fecula,  which  are  the  food  of 
birds,  rodents,  and  different  insects,  and  have  not  the 
power  of  passing  entire  through  their  alimentary  canal. 
This  is  probably  the  sole  or  principal  cause  of  their 
inferiority  in  the  struggle  for  existence. 

Thus  my  researches  into  cultivated  plants  show  that 
certain  species  are  extinct  or  becoming  extinct  since  the 
historical  epoch,  and  that  not  in  small  islands  but  on 
vast  continents  without  any  great  modifications  of 
climate.  This  is  an  important  result  for  the  history  of 
all  organic  beings  in  all  epochs. 


A rticle  V. — Concluding  Remarks. 

1.  Cultivated  plants  do  not  belong  to  any  particular 
category,  for  they  belong  to  fifty-one  different  families. 
They  are,  however,  all  phanerogamous  except  the  mush- 
room (Agaricus  campestris). 


4G0 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


2.  The  characters  which  have  most  varied  in  cultiva- 
tion are,  beginning  with  the  most  variable  : a.  The  size,  ) 
form,  and  colour  of  the  fleshy  parts,  whatever  organ  they 
belong  to  (root,  bulb,  tubercle,  fruit,  or  seed),  and  the 
abundance  of  fecula,  sugar,  and  other  substances  which 
are  contained  in  these  parts  ; b.  The  number  of  seeds, 
which  is  often  in  inverse  ratio  to  the  development  of  the 
fleshy  parts  of  the  plant ; c.  The  form,  size,  or  pubes- 
cence of  the  floral  organs  which  persist  round  the  fruits 
or  seeds ; d.  The  rapidity  of  the  phenomena  of  vegeta- 
tion— whence  often  results  the  quality  of  ligneous  or 
herbaceous  plants,  and  of  perennial,  biennial,  or  annual. 

The  stems,  leaves,  and  flowers  vary  little  in  plants 
cultivated  for  those  organs.  The  last  formations  of 
each  yearly  or  biennial  growth  vary  most ; in  other 
terms,  the  results  of  vegetation  vary  more  than  the 
organs  which  cause  vegetation. 

3.  I have  not  observed  the  slightest  indication  of  an 
adaptation  to  cold.  When  the  cultivation  of  a species 
advances  towards  the  north  (maize,  flax,  tobacco,  etc.),  it 
is  explained  by  the  production  of  early  varieties,  which 
can  ripen  before  the  cold  season,  or  by  the  custom  of 
cultivating  in  the  north,  in  summer,  the  species  which  in 
the  south  are  sown  in  winter.  The  study  of  the  northern 
limits  of  wild  species  had  formerly  led  me  to  the  same 
conclusion,  for  they  have  not  changed  within  historic 
times  although  the  seeds  are  carried  frequently  and 
continually  to  the  north  of  each  limit.  Periods  ot  more 
than  four  or  five  thousand  years,  or  changements  of  form 
and  duration,  are  needed  apparently  to  produce  a modifi- 
cation in  a plant  which  will  allow  it  to  support  a greater 
degree  of  cold. 

4.  The  classification  of  varieties  made  by  agricul- 
turists and  gardeners  are  generally  based  on  those, 
characters  which  vary  most  (form,  size,  colour,  taste  of 
the  fleshy  parts,  beard  in  the  ears  of  corn,  etc.).  Botanists 
are  mistaken  when  they  follow  this  example ; they 
should  consult  those  more  fixed  characters  of  the  organs 
for  the  sake  of  which  the  species  are  not  cultivated. 

5.  A non-cultivated  species  being  a group  ol  more  or 


GENERAL  OBSERVATIONS  AND  CONCLUSIONS.  4G1 

less  similar  forms,  among  which  subordinate  groups  may 
often  be  distinguished  (races,  varieties,  sub-varieties),  it 
may  have  happened  that  two  or  more  of  these  slightly 
differing  forms  may  have  been  introduced  into  cultiva- 
tion. This  must  have  been  the  case  especially  when  the 
habitation  of  a species  is  extensive,  and  yet  more  when 
it  is  disjunctive.  The  first  case  is  probably  that  of  the 
cabbage  ( Brassica ),  of  flax,  bird-cherry  ( Prunus  avium), 
the  common  pear,  etc.  The  second  is  probably  that  of 
the  gourd,  the  melon,  and  trefoil  haricot,  which  existed 
previous  to  cultivation  both  in  India  and  Africa. 

6.  No  distinctive  character  is  known  between  a 
naturalized  plant  which  arose  several  generations  back 
from  a cultivated  plant,  and  a wild  plant  sprung  from 
plants  which  have  always  been  wild.  In  any  case,  in  the 
transition  from  cultivated  plant  to  wild  plant,  the  par- 
ticular features  which  are  propagated  by  grafting  are  not 
preserved  by  seedlings.  For  instance,  the  olive  tree  which 
has  became  wild  is  the  oleaster,  the  pear  bears  smaller 
fruits,  the  Spanish  chestnut  yields  a common  fruit.  For 
the  rest,  the  forms  naturalized  from  cultivated  species 
have  not  yet  been  sufficiently  observed  from  generation 
to  generation.  M.  Sagot  has  done  this  for  the  vine. 
It  would  be  interesting  to  compare  in  the  same  manner 
with  their  cultivated  forms  Citrus,  Persica,  and  the 
cardoon,  naturalized  in  America,  far  from  their  original 
home,  as  also  the  Agave  and  the  prickly  pear,  wild  in 
America,  with  their  naturalized  varieties  in  the  old  world. 
We  should  know  exactly  what  persists  after  a temporary 
state  of  cultivation. 

7.  A species  may  have  had,  previous  to  cultivation,  a 
restricted  habitation,  and  subsequently  occupy  an  im- 
mense area  as  a cultivated  and  sometimes  a naturalized 

plant. 

8.  In  the  history  of  cultivated  plants,  I have  noticed 
no  trace  of  communication  between  the  peoples  of  the  old 
and  new  worlds  before  the  discovery  of  America  by 
Columbus.  The  Scandinavians,  who  ‘had  pushed  their 
excursions  as  far  as  the  north  of  the  United  States,  and 
the  Basques  of  the  Middle  Ages,  who  followed  Avhales 


462 


ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS. 


perhaps  as  far  as  America,  do  not  seem  to  have  trans-  I 
ported  a single  cultivated  species.  Neither  has  the  Gulf 
Stream  produced  any  effect.  Between  America  and 
Asia  two  transports  of  useful  plants  perhaps  took  place, 
the  one  by  man  (the  Batata,  or  sweet  potato)  the  other 
by  the  agency  of  man  or  of  the  sea  (the  cocoa-nut  palm). 


INDEX. 


A 

Abi,  285 

Agava  americana,  153 
Alexanders,  91 
Alexandrine  clover,  107 
Alligator  pear,  292 
Allium  Ampeloprasum,  101 

Ascalonicum,  68 

Cepa,  66 

fistnlosum,  68 

sativum,  63 

Schaenoprasum,  72 

Scorodoprasum,  71 

Almond,  218 
Alocasia  macrorbiza,  75 
Aloe,  American,  153 
Amarantns  frnmentaceus,  352 

gangeticus,  100 

American  Aloe,  153 

indigoes,  137 

Amorphophallus  Konjak,  76 

Rivieri,  76 

Amygdalus  communis,  218 

Persica,  221 

Anaeardium  occidentale,  198 
Ananassa  sativa,  311 
Andropogon  saccharatus,  382 

Sorghum,  380 

Angular  Luffa,  371 
Angurian  cucumber,  267 
Annual  capsicum,  289 
Anona  Cherimolia,  174 

muricata,  168,  173 

» reticulata,  174 

squamosa,  168 

Anthriscus  Cei-efolium,  90 


Ap6,  75 

Apiurn  graveolens,  90 
Apple,  233 

, custard,  168,  174 

, Malay,  241 

, maminee,  189 

, pine,  311 

, star,  285 

, sugar,  168 

, Tahiti,  202 

Apricot,  216 
Aab  tea,  134 
Arachis  hypogaea,  411 
Areca  catechu,  427 
Armeniaca  vulgaris,  215 
Arnotto,  401 
Arracacha  esculenta,  40 
Arrowroot,  81 
A-tichoke,  92 

, Jerusalem,  42 

Artocarpns  incisa,  298 

intogrifolia,  299 

Arum  esculentum,  73 

macrorhizon,  75 

Aubergine,  287 
Avena  orientalis,  373 

sativa,  373 

strigosa,  375 

Avocado  pear,  292 


B 

Batnbarra  ground-nut,  347 
Banana,  304 
Barbados  cotton,  408 
I Barleys,  367 


464? 

Batatas  edulis,  53 
Batata  mammosa,  57 
Bean,  broad,  316 

, kidney,  338 

Beetroot,  58 
Benincasa,  268 
Beta  vulgaris,  58 
Bird-cherry,  205 
Bird’s  foot,  113 
Bitter  orange,  183 
Bixa  Orellana,  401 
Black  currant,  278 
Brassica  eampestris,  36 

Napus,  36 

oleracea,  36,  83 

Rapa,  36 

Bread-fruit,  298 
Broad  bean,  316 
Bromelia  Ananas,  311 
Buckwheat,  common,  348 

, notch-seeded,  351 

, Tartary,  353 

Bullace,  214 
Bullock’s  heart,  174 


C 

Cabbage,  83 
Cacao,  313 
Ca'imito,  285 
Calabash,  245 
Cannabis  sativa,  148 
Capsicum  annuum,  289 

frutescens,  290 

Cardoon,  92 
Caricn  Papaya,  273 
Carob,  334 
Carthamine,  164 
Caryophyllns  aromaticus,  161 
Cashew,  198 
Cassis,  278 

Castanea  vulgaris,  353 
Castor-oil  plant,  422 
Catha  edulis,  134 
Celery,  89 

Cerasus  vulgaris,  207 
Ceratonia  Siliqua,  334 
Chayote,  273 

Chenopodium  Quinoa,  351 
Cherry,  bird,  205 
, sour,  207 


INDEX. 

It 

Chervil,  90 
Chestnut,  353 
Chickling  vetch,  110 
Chick-pea,  323 
Chicorium  Endivia,  97 

Intybus,  96 

Chicory,  96 
China  grass,  146 
Chinese  pear,  233 
Chirimoya,  174 
Chives,  72 
Chocho,  273 

Chrysophyllum  Caimito,  285 
Cinnamon,  146 

Cinnamonum  zeylanicum,  146 
Citron,  178 
Citrullus  vulgaris,  262 
Citrus  Aurantium,  188 

decumana,  177 

medica,  178 

nobilis,  188 

Clove,  161 

Clover,  crimson,  106 
, Egyptian,  107 

•  , purple,  105 

Coca,  135 

Cochlearia  Armoracia,  33 
Cocoa-nut  palm,  429 
Cocos  nucifera,  429 
Coffee,  415 
Coffea  arabica,  418 

liberica,  418 

Colocasia,  73 
Convolvolus  Batatas,  53 

•  maminosa,  57 

Corchorus  capsularis,  130 
olitorius,  130 

Corn  salad,  91 
Corn  spurry,  114 
Cotton,  Barbados,  408 

, herbaceous,  452 

, tree,  408 

Cress,  garden,  166 
Crocus  sativum,  86 
Cucumber,  264 
Cucumis  Anguria,  267 

Melo,  258 

salivas,  264 

Cucurbita  citrullus,  262 

ficifolia,  257 

Lagenaria,  245 

maxima,  249 


INDEX. 


4G 


Cacnrbita  Molopepo,  pope,  253 

Uioscliata,  257 

Currant,  black,  278 

, red,  277 

Custard  apple,  168 
Cydonia  vulgaris,  236 
Cvnara  Cardunculus,  92 

Cytisns  Cajan,  332 

Scolymus,  92 

D 

Date-palm,  301 
Dioscorea,  76 
Dolichos  Lablab,  346 

Lubia,  347 

Soja,  330 

Dyer’s  indigo,  136 

E 

Egyptian  clover,  107 

lupin,  327 

wheat,  259 

Elaeis  guineensis,  429 
Eleusine  Coracana,  384 
Endive,  97 
Ervilla,  107 
Ervum  Ervilia,  107 

lens,  321 

Erythroxylon  Coca,  135 
Eugenia  Jambos,  240 
malaccensis,  241 

F 

Faba  vulgaris,  316 
Fagopyrum  emarginatum,  351 

eseulentnm,  348 

tataricum,  350 

; Fenugreek,  112 
Ficus  Carica,  295 
Field-pea,  327 
Fig,  295 

Fig-leaved  pumpkin.  257 
Fig,  Indian,  274 
Flat-podded  pea,  109 
j Flax,  119 

Fragaria  chiloensis,  205 

vesca,  203 

virginiana,  205 

French  honeysnckle,  104 


Ir 

Garcinia  Mangostnna,  118 
Garden  cress,  86 

pea,  328 

Garlic,  63 
Glycine  soya,  330 

subterranea,  347 

Gombo,  189 
Gooseberry,  276 
Gossypium  arboreum,  408 

barbadeuse,  408 

herbaceum,  402 

Gourd,  245,  249 

, snake,  273 

, towel,  269 

Grass,  China,  1 4(1 
Grass,  guinea,  115 
Green  gram,  346 
Guava.  241 


H 

Haricot  bean,  338 
Hedysarium  coronarium,  104 
Helianthus  tuberosus,  42 
Hemp,  148 
nenna,  138 

Hibiscus  esculentus,  189 
Holcus  saccharatus,  382 

Sorghum,  380 

Hop,  162 

Hordeum  distichon,  367 

hcxastichon,  369 

vulgare,  368 

Horse-radish,  33 
Ilnmulus  Lupulus,  162 

I 

Hex  paraguariensis.  135 
Indian  fig,  274 
Indigo,  American,  137 

, dyer’s,  136 

, silver,  137 

Indigofera  argentea,  137 

cerulea,  137 

tinctoria,  136 

Ipomea  mammosa,  57 

2 


ii 


4GG 


INDEX. 


J 

Jack-fruit,  299 
Jambosa  Malaccensis,  241 
— — vulgaris,  240 
Jatropha  manihot,  59 
Jerusalem  artichoke,  42 
Juglans  regia,  425 
Jujube,  common,  194 

, Indian,  197 

, Lotus,  196 

Jute,  130 

K 

Kidney  bean,  338 

, moth,  344 

, three-lobed,  345 

Kiery,  352 
Khat,  134 
Konjak,  76 

L 

Lablab,  347 

Lagcnaria  vulgaris,  245 
Lamb’s  lettuce,  91 
Lathyrus  Cicera,  109 

Ocbrus,  110 

sativns,  111 

Lattuca  scariola,  95 
Lawson  ia  alba,  138 
Leek,  101 
Lemon,  178 
Lens  esculenta,  221 
Lentil,  321 
Lepidnm  sativum,  86 
Lettuce,  95 

, lamb’s,  91 

Linum  usitatissimum,  119 

Litcbi,  314 

Longan,  315 

Lotos  jnjnbe,  196 

Lubia,  347 

Lucern,  102 

Lucuma  Caimito,  285 

mammosa,  286 

Lupin,  325 
Lupin  ns  albus,  325 

termis,  327 

Lycopersicum  esculentum,  290 


M 

Madder,  41 
Madia  sativa,  418 
Maize,  387 
Malay  apple,  241 
Mammee,  199 

americana,  189 

Sapota,  286 

Mandarin,  188 
Mandnbi,  411 
Mangifera  indica,  200 
Mango,  200 
Mangosteen,  188 
Manioc,  59 

Manihot  utilissima,  59 
Maranta  arundinacea,  81 
Marmalade  plum,  286 
Mate,  135 

Medicago  sativa,  102 
Melon,  258 

, pumpkin,  256 

, water,  262 

, white  gourd,  268 

Millet,  common,  276 

, Italian,  278 

Momordica  cyiindrica,  269 
Monkey-nut,  411 
Morns  alba,  149 

nigra,  152 

Mulberry,  149 
Mung,  346 
Musk  pumpkin,  356 
Myristica  fragrans,  419 

N 

Nephelium  lappaceum.  315 

litcbi,  314 

! longana,  315 

New  Zealand  spinach,  89 
Nicotiana  tabacum,  139 
Nutmeg,  419 


Oats,  372 
Ochro,  189 
Ochrus,  111 
I Oil-palm,  429 
Olea  europoa,  279 


INDEX. 


Olive,  279 
Onion,  66 

, spring  or  Welsh,  68 

Onobrychis  sativa,  101 
( Ipuntia  ficus  Indica,  274 
Orange,  181 

, bitter,  185 

, sweet,  183 

Ornithopus  sativns,  113 
Oryza  sativa,  385 


P 

Palm,  cocoa-nut,  429 

oil,  429 

Panicum  italicuni,  378 

maximum,  115 

miliacenm,  376 

Papava  somniferum,  397 
Papaw,  293 
Papaya  vulgaris,  293 
Parsley,  90 
Pea.  327 

, field,  327 

, garden,  328 

nut,  411 

, pigeon,  382 

Peach,  221 
Pear,  229 

, avocado,  272 

, Chinese,  233 

, prickly,  274 

, sand,  233 

, snowy,  232 

Pepper,  red,  288 
Persea  gratissima,  292 
Persica  vulgaris,  221 
Petroselinum  sativum,  90 
Phaseolus  aconitifolius,  345 

lunatus,  344 

Mungo,  346 

vulgaris,  338 

Phcenix  dactylifera,  301 
Pigeon-pea,  332 
Pine-apple,  311 
Pistachio  nut,  316 
Pistacia  vera,  316 
Pisum  arvense,  327 

Oclirns,  111 

sativum,  328 

Plum,  211 


Polygonum  emarginatum,  351 

fagopyrum,  348 

tataricum,  353 

Pomegranate,  327 
Poppy,  397 

Portulaca  oleracea,  87 
Potato,  45 

, sweet,  83 

Prickly  pear,  274 
Prunus  Amygdalus,  218 

Armeniaca,  215 

avium,  205 

Cerasns,  207 

domestica,  212 

insititia,  214 

Persica,  221 

Psidium  guayava,  241 
Pumpkin,  fig-leaved,  257 

, musk  or  melon,  256 

Punica  Granatum,  237 
Purslane,  87 
PyruB  communis,  229 

mains,  233 

nivalis,  233 

sinensis,  233 


Q 

Quince,  236 
Qninoa,  351 


R 

Radish,  29 

, horse,  33 

Rambutan,  315 
Raphanus  sativus,  29 
Rhus  Coriaria,  133 
Ribes  Grossularis,  276 

nigrum,  278 

rnbrnm,  277 

U va-crispa,  276 

Rice,  385 

Ricinus  communis,  422 
Rocambole,  72 
Rose-apple,  240 
ltubia  tinctorum,  41 
Rye,  370 


468 


INDEX. 


S 

Saccharatum  officinale,  154 
Saffron,  166 
Sainfoin,  104 

, Spanish,  104 

Salsify,  44 
Sapodilla,  286 
Sapota  achras,  286 
Scandix  cerefoliam,  90 
Scorzonera  hispanica,  4-1 
Secale  ceroale,  370 
Sechinra  edule,  272 
Sesame,  419 
Sesamnm  indicam,  419 
Setaria  Italica,  380 
Shaddock,  177 
Shallot,  68 
Sium  Sisarnm,  39 
Skirret,  39 

Smyrninm  Olus-atrum,  91 
Snake  gourd,  272 
Solanum  Commersonii,  46 

immite,  49 

maglia,  49 

/ tuberosum,  45 

verrucosus,  49 

Sorghum  saccharatus,  382 

vulgaris,  380 

Sour  sop,  173 
Soy,  330 

Spanish  sainfoin,  104 
Spelt,  362 

Spergula  arvensis,  114 
Spinach,  98 

, New  Zealand,  87 

Spinacia  oleracea,  98 
Spondias  dnlcis,  202 
Sparry,  corn,  114 
Strawberry,  203 

, Chili,  205 

, Virginian,  205 

Sugar  apple,  168 

cane,  154 

Sumach,  133 
Sweet  potato,  83 
sop,  168 


T 

Tahiti  apple,  202 
Tare,  108 
Tea,  117 

Tetragonia  expansa,  89 
Thea  sinensis,  117 
Theobroma  Cacao,  313 
Tobacco,  139 
Towel  gourd,  269 
Trigonella  Fconum-grmcuin,  112 
Trifolium  Alexandrinum,  107 

incarnatum,  146 

pratense,  105 

Triticum  sestivum,  354 

compositum,  359 

dicoccum,  365 

durum,  360 

hybernum,  354 

moncoccum,  365 

polonicnm,  361 

spelta,  262 

vulgare,  354 

j Turnip,  36 

V 

j Valerianella  olitoria,  89 
Vetch,  chickling,  110 

, common,  108 

Vicia  ervilln,  107 

sativa,  108 

Vine,  191 

Vitis  vinifera,  191 

Voandzeia  subterranea,  3 17 

W 

Walnut,  245 
Wheats,  354 

Y 

Yams,  76 

Z 

Zea  Mays,  387 
Zizyphns  jujube,  197 

Lotus,  196 

vulgaris,  194 


PRINTED  BY  WILLIAM 


A LIST  OF 

KEG  AN  PAUL,  TRENCH  & CO.'S 
PUB  LIC A TIONS. 


!»  Paternoster  Square, 

London, 


A LIST  OF 

KEGAN  PAUL,  TRENCH  & CO.’S 
PUBLICATIONS. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

General  Literature.  . 2 

Parchment  Library  . . 19 

Pulpit  Commentary  . . 21 

International  Scientific 
Series  ....  28 


Military  Works.  . 
Poetry  .... 
Works  of  Fiction 
Books  for  the  Young 


PAGE 

• 31 
. 32 

. 39 
. 40 


GENERAL  LITERATURE. 


ADAMSON,  II.  T.,  B.D. — The  Truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus.  * Crown 
8vo,  8j.  6d. 


The  Three  Sevens.  Crown  Svo,  Sr.  6d. 

The  Millennium  ; or,  The  Mystery  of  God  Finished.  Crown 
8vo,  6s. 


A.  A'.  II.  B.  — From  a Quiet  Place.  A Volume  of  Sermons. 
Crown  8vo,  Sr. 

ALLEN,  Rev.  R.,  M.A. — Abraham : his  Life,  Times,  and 
Travels,  3800  years  ago.  With  Map.  Second  Edition. 
Post  8vo,  6s. 


ALLIES,  T.  W.,  M.A. — Per  Crucem  ad  Lucem. 
Life.  2 vols.  Demy  Svo,  25.?. 

A Life’s  Decision.  Crown  8vo,  Js.  6 d. 


The  Result  of  a 


AMOS,  Professor  Sheldon. — The  History  and  Principles  of  the 
Civil  Law  of  Rome.  An  aid  to  the  Study  of  Scientific  and 
Comparative  Jurisprudence.  Demy  8vo.  l6r. 

AATDERDON,  Rev.  IP.  II. — Fasti  Apostolici ; a Chronology  of  the 
Years  between  the  Ascension  of  our  Lord  and  the  Martyrdom 
of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul.  Second  Edition.  Enlarged.  Square 
Svo,  5*. 


Evenings  with  the  Saints.  Crown  Svo,  5 s. 


Kega n Paul , 1 reach  & Co.'s  Publications. 


j 


AxVDERSOjV,  David.—" Scenes”  in  the  Commons.  Crown  Svo,  Sr. 

ARMSTRONG,  Richard  A.,  B.A.— Latter-Day  Teachers.  Six 
Lectures.  Small  crown  8vo,  2s.  6 d. 

A UBERTIN,  J.  y.—A  Flight  to  Mexico.  With  Seven  full-page 
Illustrations  and  a Railway  Map  of  Mexico.  Crown  Svo,  yr.  67/. 

BADGER,  George  Percy,  D.C.L.— An  English-Arabic  Lexicon. 
In  which  the  equivalent  for  English  Words  and  Idiomatic 
Sentences  are  rendered  into  literary  and  colloquial  Arabic 
Royal  4to,  Sew. 


BA  GEMOT,  Walter.  — The  English  Constitution. 
Revised  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  7 s.  6 d. 


New  and 


Lombard  Street.  A Description  of  the  Money  Market.  Eighth 
Edition.  Crown  Svo,  "js.  6d. 

Essays  on  Parliamentary  Reform.  Crown  8vo,  5 r. 

Some  Articles  on  the  Depreciation  of  Silver,  and  Tonics 
connected  with  it.  Demy  8vo,  5 s. 

BAGENAL,  Philip  //.—The  American-Irish  and  their  In- 
fluence on  Irish  Politics.  Crown  Svo,  5s. 

BAGOT,  Alan,  C.E. — Accidents  in  Mines:  their  Causes  and 

Prevention.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

The  Principles  of  Colliery  Ventilation.  Second  Edition, 
greatly  enlarged.  Crown  8vo,  Sr. 

BAKER,  Sir  Sherston,  Bart. — The  Laws  relating  to  Quarantine. 
Crown  8vo,  12 s.  6d. 

BALDWIN,  Copt.  y.  II— The  Large  and  Small  Game  of 
Bengal  and  the  North-Western  Provinces  of  India. 
With  20  Illustrations.  New  and  Cheaper  Edition.  Small  4to, 
I Or.  6d. 


B ALLIN,  Ada  S.  and  F.  L. — A Hebrew  Grammar.  With 
Exercises  selected  from  the  Bible.  Crown  8vo,  7 r.  6,/. 

BARCLA  Y Edgar. — Mo u n t a i n Life  in  Algeria.  With  numerous 
Illustrations  by  Photogravure.  Crown  4to,  i6r. 

BARLOW,  yames  //—The  Ultimatum  of  Pessimism.  An 
Lthical  Study.  Demy  8vo,  6j*. 

BARNES,  William.— Outlines  of  Redecraft  (Logic).  With 
English  Wording.  Crown  8vo,  3 r. 

BA  DR,  Ferdinand,  Dr.  Ph.-A  Philological  Introduction  to 
?r®eo  aad  Latin.  fo£  Students.  Translated  and  adapted 

S R.9*.  Kegan  Paul,  M.A.,  and  E.  D. 
Stone,  M.A.  Third  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  6r. 

CELLARS  Rev.  W. -The  Testimony  of  Conscience  to  the 

n d °ri§in  of  the  Christian  Revela- 

tion. Burney  Prize  Essay.  Small  crown  Svo,  3s.  6d. 


4 


A List  of 


BELLINGHAM,  Henry,  M.P.—  Social  Aspects  of  Catholicism 
and  Protestantism  in  their  Civil  Bearing  upon 
Nations.  Translated  and  adapted  from  the  French  of  M.  le 
Baron  de  IIaullevili.e.  With  a preface  by  Ilis  Eminence 
Cardinal  Manning.  Second  and  Cheaper  Edition.  Crown 
8vo,  2s-  6 d. 

BELLINGHARI,  II.  Belsches  Graham. — Ups  and  Downs  of 
Spanish  Travel.  Second  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  Sr. 

BENN,  Alfred  IV. — The  Greek  Philosophers.  2 vols.  Demy 
8vo,  2Sr. 

BENT,  J.  Theodore. — Genoa  : How  the  Republic  Rose  and  Fell. 
With  18  Illustrations.  Demy  Svo,  18s. 

BLACKLEY,  Rev.  IV.  S. — Essays  on  Pauperism.  i6mo.  Cloth, 
is.  6 d.  ; sewed,  is. 

BLECKLEY,  Henry. — Socrates  and  the  Athenians:  An 
Apology.  Crown  8vo,  2s.  6 d. 

BLOOMFIELD,  The  Lady. — Reminiscences  of  Court  and  Dip- 
lomatic Life.  With  3 Portraits  and  6 Illustrations.  Sixth 
Edition.  2 vols.,  8vo,  cloth,  28 s. 

%*  New  and  Cheaper  Edition.  With  Frontispiece.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

BLUNT,  The  Fen.  Archdeacon. — The  Divine  Patriot,  and  other 
Sermons.  Preached  in  Scarborough  and  in  Cannes.  New 
and  Cheaper  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  4J.  6d. 

BLUNT,  Wilfred  S. — The  Future  of  Islam.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

BOOLE,  Mary. — Symbolical  Methods  of  Study.  Crown  8vo,  5/. 

BOUVERIE-PVSEY,  S.  E.  B.— Permanence  and  Evolution. 
An  Inquiry  into  the  Supposed  Mutability  of  Animal  Types. 
Crown  8vo,  Sr. 

BOWEN,  II.  C.,  M.A. — Studies  in  English.  For  the  use  of  Modem 
Schools.  Seventh  Thousand.  Small  crown  8vo,  is.  6 d. 

English  Grammar  for  Beginners.  Fcap.  8vo,  ir. 

BRADLEY,  F.  II.— The  Principles  of  Logic.  Demy  Svo,  16 s. 

BRIDGETT,  Rra.  T.  E. — History  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  in 
Great  Britain.  2 vols.  Demy  8vo,  i8r. 

BRODRICK,  the  Hon.  G.  C. — Political  Studies.  Demy  Svo,  i+r. 

BROOKE,  Rev.  S.  A. — Life  and  Letters  of  the  Late  Rev.  F.  W. 
Robertson,  M.A.  Edited  by. 

I.  Uniform  with  Robertson’s  Sermons.  2 vols.  With  Steel 
Portrait.  7 s.  6 d. 

II.  Library  Edition.  With  Portrait.  8vo,  12 s. 

III.  A Popular  Edition.  In  1 vol.,  Svo,  6s. 


Kegan  Paul,  Trench  & Co.’s  Publications. 


5 


BROOKE , Rev.  S.  A. — Continued. 

,of  Faith.  Sermons  preached  on  various  occasions. 
Fifth  Edition.  Crown  Svo,  7 s.  6d. 

The  Spirit  of  the  Christian  Life.  New  and  Cheaper  Edition. 
Crown  8vo,  5.?.  1 

Theology  in  the  English  Poets.- Cowper,  Coleridge,  Words- 
worth,  and  Burns.  Fifth  and  Cheaper  Edition.  Post  8vo,  $s. 

ChCrown  Svens'?1101'11  Sixteenth  and  Cheaper  Edition. 

Sermons.  First  Series.  Thirteenth  and  Cheaper  Edition.  Crown 
ovo,  5 s. 

Ser8^0°nsSJ.’  Second  Series<  Sixth  and  Cheaper  Edition.  Crown 

BROWN  Rev.  J.  Baldwin,  B.A.- The  Higher  Life.  Its  Reality, 
Experience,  and  Destiny.  Sixth  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  5,.  7 

Doctrine  of  Annihilation  in  the  Light  of  the  Gospel  of 
Love.  Five  Discourses.  Fourth  Edition.  Crown  Svo,  2 s.  6 d. 

The  Christian  Policy  of  Life.  A Book  for  Young  Men  of 
Business.  Hurd  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  31-.  6d. 

BROWN,  S.  Barton,  B.A.—Tho  Fire  Baptism  of  all  Flesh : 
8vo  6r  C°mmg  Spiritual  Crisis  of  the  Dispensation.  Crown 

BROWN  Horatio  A-Life  on  the  Lagoons.  With  two  Illustrations 
ana  Map.  Crown  Svo,  6s. 

BROWNBILL , John.— Principles  of  English  Canon  Law. 
Bart  I.  General  Introduction.  Crown  Svo,  6s. 

BROWNE  W R- The  Inspiration  of  the  New  Testament. 
M ith  a Preface  by  the  Rev.  J.  P.  Norris,  D.D.  Fcap.  Svo,  2s.  6d. 

BURDETT,  Henry  C.  Hints  in  Sickness— Where  to  Go  and 
What  to  Do.  Crown  8vo,  ir.  6d. 

BURTON  Mrs ■ Rictord.- The  Inner  Life  of  Syria,  Palestine, 

Large  post  8™ \ 6d  ^ MUl0n  in  0ne  volumc- 

BUSBECQ,  Ogier  Ghiselin  A— His  Life  and  Letters.  By  Charles 
Thornton  Forster,  M.  A. , and  F.  H.  BlackburneDaniell, 
M.A.  2 vols.  W ith  P rontispieces.  Demy  Svo,  241-. 

CARPENTER,  W.  B.,  LL.D.,  M.D.,  F.R.S , etc  -The  Princiules 
° Phystology.  Vkh  .if  X 

rnnHiHnn  d P{s“Pll.n®  ° 1)Ilnd'  and  the  Study  of  its  Morbid 
Conditions.  Illustrated.  Sixth  Edition,  8vo,  12s. 

Catholic  Dictionary.  Containing  some  account  of  the  Doctrine, 
Disciphne,  Rites,  Ceremonies,  Councils,  and  Religious  Orders  of 

Arnold  MCACh%Ch‘  E-  Addis6  and  Thomas 

Arnold,  M.A.  Second  Edition.  Demy  8vo,  2ir. 


6 


A List  of 


CERVANTES. — Journey  to  Parnassus.  Spanish  Text,  with'Trans- 
lation  into  English  Tercets,  Preface,  and  Illustrative  Notes,  by 
James  Y.  Gibson.  Crown  8vo,  i2r. 

C1IEYNE,  Rev.  T.  K. — The  Prophecies  of  Isaiah.  Translated 
with  Critical  Notes  and  Dissertations.  2 vols.  Third  Edition. 
Demy  8vo,  25^. 

CLAIRAUT. — Elements  of  Geometry.  Translated  by  Dr. 
Kaines.  With  145  Figures.  Crown  8vo,  4-'.  61 i. 

CLAVDEN,  P.  IV. — England  under  Lord  Beaconsfleld.  The 
Political  History  of  the  Last  Six  Years,  from  the  end  of  1873  to 
the  beginning  of  1880.  Second  Edition,  with  Index  and  con- 
tinuation to  March,  1880.  Demy  8vo,  16 s. 

Samuel  Sharpe.  Egyptologist  and  Translator  of  the  Bible. 
Crown  8 vo,  6s. 

CLIFFORD,  Samuel. — What  Think  Ye  of  the  Christ?  Crown 
8 vo,  6s. 

CLODD,  Edward,  F.R.A.S. — The  Childhood  of  the  World  : a 
Simple  Account  of  Man  in  Early  Times.  Seventh  Edition. 
Crown  8vo,  3s. 

A Special  Edition  for  Schools,  ir. 

The  Childhood  of  Religions.  Including  a Simple  Account  of 
the  Birth  and  Growth  of  Myths  and  Legends.  Eighth  Thousand. 
Crown  8vo,  5 s. 

A Special  Edition  for  Schools,  is.  6d. 

Jesus  of  Nazareth.  With  a brief  sketch  of  Jewish  History  to  the 
Time  of  His  Birth.  Small  crown  8vo,  6s. 

COGHLAN,  J.  Cole,  D.D. — The  Modern  Pharisee  and  other 
Sermons.  Edited  by  the  Very  Rev.  H.  H.  Dickinson,  D.D., 
Dean  of  Chapel  Royal,  Dublin.  New  and  Cheaper  Edition. 
Crown  8vo,  7 s.  6 d. 

COLERIDGE,  Sara. — Memoir  and  Letters  of  Sara  Coleridge. 
Edited  by  her  Daughter.  With  Index.  Cheap  Edition.  With 
Portrait,  "js . 6d. 

Collects  Exemplified.  Being  Illustrations  from  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  of  the  Collects  for  the  Sundays  after  Trinity.  By  the 
Author  of  “ A Commentary  on  the  Epistles  and  Gospels.”  Edited 
by  the  Rev.  Joseph  Jackson.  Crown  8vo,  5 s. 

COAWELL,  A.  K. — Discontent  and  Danger  in  India.  Small 
crown  8vo,  3r.  6 d. 

The  Economic  Revolution  of  India.  Crown  8vo,  4 s.  6d. 

CORY,  William. — A Guide  to  Modern  English  History.  Part  I. 
— MDCCCXV.-MDCCCXXX.  Demy  8vo,  9s.  Part  II.— 

MDCCCXXX.-MDCCCXXXV.,  15*. 

COTTERILL,  II  B.— An  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Poetry. 

Crown  8vo,  7 s.  6d. 


Kegctn  Paul ’ Trench  & Co.'s  Publications.  7 


COX,  Rev.  Sir  George  IV.,  M.A.,  Bart.— A History  of  Greece  from 
the  Earliest  Period  to  the  end  of  the  Persian  War. 
New  Edition.  2 vols.  Demy  Svo,  36*. 

The  Mythology  of  the  Aryan  Nations.  New  Edition. 
Demy  8vo,  i6r. 

Tales  of  Ancient  Greece.  New  Edition.  Small  crown  8vo,  6s. 

A Manual  of  Mythology  in  the  form  of  Question  and 
Answer.  New  Edition.  Fcap.  8vo,  3-f. 

An  Introduction  to  the  Science  of  Comparative  Myth- 
ology and  Folk-Lore.  Second  Edition.  Crown  Svo.  7 s.  6J. 

COX,  Rez<.  Sir  G.  IV.,  M.A.,  Bart.,  and  JONES,  Eustace  Hinton. — 
Popular  Romances  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Third 
Edition,  in  I vol.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

COX,  Rev.  Samuel,  D.D. — Salvator  Mundi ; or,  Is  Christ  the  Saviour 
of  all  Men  ? Eighth  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  $s. 

The  Genesis  of  Evil,  and  other  Sermons,  mainly  expository. 
Third  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

A Commentary  on  the  Book  of  Job.  With  a Translation. 
Demy  Svo,  15*. 

The  Larger  Hope.  A Sequel  to  “ Salvator  Mundi.”  i6mo,  ir. 
CRA  VEN,  Mrs. — A Year’s  Meditations.  Crown  Svo,  6s. 

CRAWFURD,  Ossuald. — Portugal,  Old  and  New.  With  Illustra- 
tions and  Maps.  New  and  Cheaper  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

CROZIER,  John  Beattie,  M.B.  —The  Religion  of  the  Future. 
Crown  8vo,  6s. 

DANIELL,  Clarmont. — The  Gold  Treasure  of  India.  An  Inquiry 
into  its  Amount,  the  Cause  of  its  Accumulation,  and  the  Proper 
Means  of  using  it  as  Money.  Crown  8vo,  5 s. 

Darkness  and  Dawn  : the  Peaceful  Birth  of  a New  Age.  Small 
crown  8vo,  2s.  6 d. 

DAVIDSON,  Rev.  Samuel,  D.D. , II.. D. — Canon  of  the  Bible; 

Its  Formation,  History,  and  Fluctuations.  Third  and  Revised 
Edition,  Small  crovra  Svo,  Sr. 

The  Doctrine  of  Last  Things  contained  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment compared  with  the  Notions  of  the  Jews  and  the  Statements 
of  Church  Creeds.  Small  crown  Svo,  35.  6 d. 

DA  VIDSON,  Thomas. — The  Parthenon  Frieze,  and  other  Essays. 
Crown  8vo,  6s. 

DAWSON,  Geo.,  M.A.  Prayers,  with  a Discourse  on  Prayer. 
Edited  by  his  Wife.  First  Series.  Eighth  Edition.  Crown 
Svo,  6s. 

Prayers,  with  a Discourse  on  Prayer.  Edited  by  Georgb 
St.  Clair.  Second  Series.  Crown  8vo,  6s, 


8 


A List  of 


DAWSON,  Geo.,  M.A. — continued. 

Sermons  on  Disputed  Points  and  Special  Occasions. 
Edited  by  his  Wife.  Fourth  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

Sermons  on  Daily  Life  and  Diity.  Edited  by  his  Wife. 
Fourth  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

The  Authentic  Gospel,  and  other  Sermons.  Edited  by 
George  St.  Clair.  Third  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

Three  Books  of  God  : Nature,  History,  and  Scripture. 
Sermons  edited  by  George  St.  Clair.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

DE  JONCOURT,  Madame  Marie. — Wholesome  Cookery.  Second 
Edition.  Crown  8vo,  3*.  6 d. 

DE  LONG,  Lieut.  Com.  G.  W. — The  Voyage  of  the  Jeannette. 
The  Ship  and  Ice  Journals  of.  Edited  by  his  Wife,  Emma 
De  Long.  With  Portraits,  Maps,  and  many  Illustrations  on 
wood  and  stone.  2 vols.  Demy  8vo,  36.1. 

DESPREZ,  Philip  S.,  B.D. — Daniel  and  John  ; or,  The  Apocalypse 
of  the  Old  and  that  of  the  New  Testament.  Demy  8vo,  12 s. 

DEVEREUX,  W.  Cope,  R.N.,  E.R.G.S. — Fair  Italy,  the  Riviera, 
and  Monte  Carlo.  Comprising  a Tour  through  North  and 
South  Italy  and  Sicily,  with  a short  account  of  Malta.  Crown 
8vo,  6s. 

DOWDEN,  Edward,  LL.D. — Shakspere  : a Critical  Study  of  his 
Mind  and  Art.  Seventh  Edition.  Post  8vo,  izr. 

Studies  in  Literature,  1789-1877.  Third  Edition.  Large 
post  8vo,  6s. 

DUFFIELD,  A.  J.— Don  Quixote  : his  Critics  and  Commen- 
tators. With  a brief  account  of  the  minor  works  of  Miguel  de 
Cervantes  Saavedra,  and  a statement  of  the  aim  and  end  of 
the  greatest  of  them  all.  A handy  book  for  general  readers. 
Crown  8vo,  3-r.  6 d. 

DU  MONCEL,  Count. — The  Telephone,  the  Microphone,  and 
the  Phonograph.  With  74  Illustrations.  Second  Edition. 
Small  crown  8vo,  $s. 

DURUY,  Victor. — History  of  Rome  and  the  Roman  People. 
Edited  by  Prof.  Maiiaffy.  With  nearly  3000  Illustrations.  4to. 
Vol.  I.  in  2 parts,  30A 

EDGEWORTH,  F.  Y.—  Mathematical  Psychics.  An  Essay  on 
the  Application  of  Mathematics  to  Social  Science.  Demy  8vo, 
7 s.  6 d. 

Educational  Code  of  the  Prussian  Nation,  in  its  Present 
Form.  In  accordance  with  the  Decisions  of  the  Common  Pro- 
vincial Law,  and  with  those  of  Recent  Legislation.  Crown  Svo, 
2 s.  6d. 


Kegan  Paul,  Trench  & Co.'s  Publications. 


9 


Education  Library.  Edited  by  Philip  Magnus  : — 

An  Introduction  to  the  History  of  Educational 
Theories.  By  Oscar  Browning,  M.A.  Second  Edition. 
3-r. 

Old  Greek  Education.  By  the  Rev.  Prof.  MahAffy,  M.A. 
Second  Edition.  3*.  6 d. 

School  Management.  Including  a general  view  of  the  work 
of  Education,  Organization  and  Discipline.  By  Toseph  Laxdon. 
Third  Edition.  6s. 

Eighteenth  Century  Essays.  Selected  and  Edited  by  Austin 
Dobson.  With  a Miniature  Frontispiece  by  R.  Caldecott. 
Parchment  Library  Edition,  6s. ; vellum,  7 s.  6 d. 

ELSDALE,  Henry. — Studies  in  Tennyson’s  Idylls.  Crown  8vo,  50, 

ELYOT,  Sir  Thomas. — The  Boke  named  the  Gouernour.  Edited 
from  the  First  Edition  of  1531  by  Henry  Herbert  Stephen 
Croft,  M.A.,  Barrister-at-Law.  With  Portraits  of  Sir  Thomas 
and  Lady  Elyot,  copied  by  permission  of  her  Majesty  from  Hol- 
bein’s Original  Drawings  at  Windsor  Castle.  2 vols.  Fcap.  4to, 

Enoch  the  Prophet.  The  Book  of.  Archbishop  Laurence’s  Trans- 
lation, with  an  Introduction  by  the  Author  of  “ The  Evolution  oi 
Christianity.”  Crown  8vo,  Sr. 

Eranus.  A Collection  of  Exercises  in  the  Alcaic  and  Sapphic  Metres 
Edited  by  F.  W.  Cornish,  Assistant  Master  at  Eton.  Second 
Edition.  Crown  8vo,  2 s. 

E VANS,  Mark.  The  Story  of  Our  Father’s  Love,  told  to 
Children.  Sixth  and  Cheaper  Edition.  With  Four  Illustrations. 
Fcap.  8vo,  ir.  6 d. 

A Book  of  Common  Prayer  and  Worship  for  House- 
hold Use,  compiled  exclusively  from  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
Second  Edition.  Fcap.  8vo,  ir. 

The  Gospel  of  Home  Life.  Crown  8vo,  4*.  6 d. 

The  King’s  Story-Book.  In  Three  Parts.  Fcap.  8vo,  is.  6,4 
each. 

*»*  Parts  and  with  Eight  Illustrations  and  Two  Picture  Maps, 

now  ready. 

‘‘Fan  Kwae”  at  Canton  before  Treaty  Days  1825-1844. 
By  an  old  Resident.  With  Frontispiece.  Crown  8vo,  51. 

FLECKER,  Rev.  Eliezer.— Scripture  Onomatology.  Being  Critical 
rsotes  on  the  Septuagint  and  other  Versions.  Second  Edition. 
Crown  8 vo,  3*.  6d. 

FL  ORE  DICE,  l V.  //.—A  Month  among  the  Mere  Irish.  Small 
crown  8vo,  51-. 


10 


A List  of 


FOTVLE,  Rev.  T.  IV. — The  Divine  Legation  of  Christ.  Crown 
8vo,  7 s. 

FULLER, Rev.  Morris. — The  Lord’s  Day ; or,  Christian  Sunday. 
Its  Unity,  History,  Philosophy,  and  Perpetual  Obligation. 
Sermons.  Demy  8vo,  10s.  6 d. 

GARDINER,  Samuel  R.,  and  J.  BASS  MULLINGER,  M.A.— 
Introduction  to  the  Study  of  English  History.  Second 
Edition.  Large  crown  8vo,  gs, 

GARDNER,  Dorsey.  — Quatre  Bras,  Ligny,  and  Waterloo.  A 
Narrative  of  the  Campaign  in  Belgium,  1815.  With  Maps  and 
Plans.  Demy  8vo,  16 s. 

Genesis  in  Advance  of  Present  Science.  A Critical  Investigation 
of  Chapters  I. -IX.  By  a Septuagenarian  Beneficed  Presbyter. 
Demy  8vo.  ioj.  6 d. 

GENNA,  E.  — Irresponsible  Philanthropists.  Being  some 
Chapters  on  the  Employment  of  Gentlewomen.  Small  crown 
8vo,  2 s.  6 d. 

GEORGE,  Henry. — Progress  and  Poverty  : An  Inquiry  into  the 
Causes  of  Industrial  Depressions,  and  of  Increase  of  Want  with 
Increase  of  Wealth.  The  Remedy.  Fifth  Library  Edition. 
Post  8vo,  7-r.  6 d.  Cabinet  Edition.  Crown  Svo,  2r.  6 d.  Also  a 
Cheap  Edition.  Limp  cloth,  ir.  6 d.  Paper  covers,  is. 

Social  Problems.  Fourth  Thousand.  Crown  Svo,  5 s.  Cheap 
Edition.  Sewed,  u. 

GIBSON,  James  V.—  Journey  to  Parnassus.  Composed  by  Miguel 
DE  Cervantes  Saavedra.  Spanish  Text,  with  Translation  into 
English  Tercets,  Preface,  and  Illustrative  Notes,  by.  Crown 
8 vo,  12s. 

Glossary  of  Terms  and  Phrases.  Edited  by  the  Rev.  H.  Perci 
Smith  and  others.  Medium  8vo,  12 s. 

GLOVER,  F.,  M.A. — Exempla  Latina.  A First  Construing  Book, 
with  Short  Notes,  Lexicon,  and  an  Introduction  to  the  Analysis 
of  Sentences.  Second  Edition.  Fcap.  Svo,  2 s. 

GOLDSMID,  Sir  Francis  Henry,  Bart.,  Q.C.,  M.P. — Memoir  of. 
With  Portrait.  Second  Edition,  Revised.  Crown  8vo,  6r. 

GOODENOUGH,  Commodore  J.  G. — Memoir  of,  with  Extracts  from 
his  Letters  and  Journals.  Edited  by  his  Widow.  With  Steel 
Engraved  Portrait.  Third  Edition.  Crown  Svo,  5r. 

GOSSE,  Edmund  TV. — Studies  in  the  Literature  of  Northern 
Europe.  With  a Frontispiece  designed  and  etched  by  Alma 
Tadema.  New  and  Cheaper  Edition.  Large  crown  Svo,  6s. 

Seventeenth  Century  Studies.  A Contribution  to  the  History 
of  English  Poetry.  Demy  Svo,  10s.  6d. 

GOULD,  Rea.  S.  Baring,  M.A.— Germany,  Present  and  Past. 
New  and  Cheaper  Edition.  Large  crown  Svo,  7 s.  6d. 


Kegan  Paul , Trench  & Co.’s  Publications.  1 1 


GOWAN \ Major  Walter  E. — A.  IvanofT’s  Russian  Grammar. 

(16th  Edition.)  Translated,  enlarged,  and  arranged  for  use  of 
Students  of  the  Russian  Language.  Demy  8vo,  6s. 

GOWER,  Lord  Ronald.  My  Reminiscences.  Second  Edition. 
2 vols.  With  Frontispieces.  Demy  8vo,  30A 

*,*  Also  a Cheap  Edition.  With  Portraits.  Large  crown  8vo,  "js.  6 d. 

GRAHAM,  William,  M.A. — The  Creed  of  Science,  Religious,  Moral, 
and  Social.  Second  Edition,  Revised.  Crown  Svo,  6r. 

GRIFFITH,  Thomas,  A.M. — The  Gospel  of  the  Divine  Life : a 
Study  of  the  Fourth  Evangelist.  Demy  Svo,  14J. 

GRIMLEY,  Rev.  II.  H.,  M.A. — Tremadoc  Sermons,  chiefly  on 
the  Spiritual  Body,  the  Unseen  World,  and  the 
Divine  Humanity.  Fourth  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

G.  S.  B. — A Study  of  the  Prologue  and  Epilogue  in  English 
Literature  from  Shakespeare  to  Dryden.  Crown 
Svo,  5s. 

GUSTAFSON,  A. — The  Foundation  of  Death.  Crown  8vo. 

HAECKEL,  Prof.  Ernst. — The  History  of  Creation.  Translation 
revised  by  Professor  E.  Ray  Lankester,  M.A.,  F.R.S.  With 
Coloured  Plates  and  Genealogical  Trees  of  the  various  groups 
of  both  Plants  and  Animals.  2 vols.  Third  Edition.  Post 
8vo,  32 s. 

The  History  of  the  Evolution  of  Man.  With  numerous 
Illustrations.  2 vols.  Post  8vo,  32 s. 

A Visit  to  Ceylon.  Post  8vo,  7s.  6 d. 

Freedom  in  Science  and  Teaching.  With  a Prefatory  Note 
by  T.  H.  Huxley,  F.R.S.  Crown  8vo,  5^. 

Half-Crown  Series  : — 

A Lost  Love.  By  Anna  C.  Ogle  [Ashford  Owen]. 

Sister  Dora  : a Biography.  By  Margaret  Lonsdale. 

True  Words  for  Brave  Men  : a Book  for  Soldiers  and  Sailors. 
By  the  late  Charles  Kingsley. 

Notes  of  Travel : being  Extracts  from  the  Journals  of  Count  Von 
Moltke. 

English  Sonnets.  Collected  and  Arranged  by  J.  Dennis. 
London  Lyrics.  By  F.  Locker. 

Home  Songs  for  Quiet  Hours.  By  the  Rev.  Canon  R.  II. 
Baynes. 

HARROP,  Robert. — Bolingbroke.  A Political  Study  and  Criticism. 
Demy8vo,  145. 

HART , Rev.  J.  JY.  T. — The  Autobiography  of  Judas  Iscariot. 
A Character  Study.  Crown  8vo,  3?.  6 d. 


12 


A List  of 


HA  WEIS,  Rev.  H.  R.,  M.A. — Current  Coin.  Materialism — The 
Devil — Crime — Drunkenness — Pauperism — Emotion — Recreation 
— The  Sabbath.  Fifth  and  Cheaper  Edition.  Crown  Svo,  5 s. 

Arrows  in  the  Air.  Fifth  and  Cheaper  Edition.  Crown  Svo,  5-r. 
Speech  in  Season.  Fifth  and  Cheaper  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  55. 
Thoughts  for  the  Times.  Thirteenth  and  Cheaper  Edition. 
Crown  8vo,  Sr. 

Unsectarian  Family  Prayers.  New  and  Cheaper  Edition. 
Fcap.  Svo,  Ir.  6 d. 

HAWKINS,  Edwards  Comerford. — Spirit  and  Form.  Sermons 
preached  in  the  Parish  Church  of  Leatherhead.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

HAWTHORNE,  Nathaniel. — Works.  Complete  in  Twelve  Volumes. 
Large  post  Svo,  7 s.  6 d.  each  volume. 

Vol.  I.  Twice-told  Tales. 

II.  Mosses  from  an  Old  Manse. 

III.  The  House  of  the  Seven  Gables,  and  The  Snow 

Image. 

IV.  The  Wondereook,  Tanglewood  Tales,  and  Grand- 

father’s Chair. 

V.  The  Scarlet  Letter,  and  The  Blithedale  Romance. 
VI.  The  Marble  Faun.  [Transformation.] 

VTII  } ®UR  ^LD  HoME’  AND  English  Note-Books. 

IX.  American  Note-Books. 

X.  French  and  Italian  Note-Books. 

XI.  Septimius  Felton,  The  Dolliver  Romance,  Fanshawe, 
and,  in  an  Appendix,  The  Ancestral  Footstep. 

XII.  Tales  and  Essays,  and  other  Papers,  with  a Bio- 
graphical Sketch  of  Hawthorne. 

HAYES,  A.  A.,  Jitnr.— New  Colorado,  and  the  Santa  Fe  Trail. 
With  Map  and  60  Illustrations.  Square  Svo,  gs. 

HEN  NESS  Y,  Sir  John  Pope.— Ralegh  in  Ireland.  With  his  Letters 
on  Irish  Affairs  and  some  Contemporary  Documents.  Large  crown 
Svo,  printed  on  hand-made  paper,  parchment,  10s.  bd. 

HENRY,  Philip. — Diaries  and  Letters  of.  Edited  by  Matthew 
Henry  Lee,  M.A.  Large  crown  8vo,  7 s.  6 d. 

HIDE , Albert. — The  Age  to  Come.  Small  crown  Svo,  is.  6d. 

HIME , Major  II.  W.  I.,  R.A.— Wagnerism  : A Protest.  Crown 
8vo,  is.  6 d. 

HINTON,  J.— Life  and  Letters.  Edited  by  Ellice  Hopkins,  with 
an  Introduction  by  Sir  W.  W.  Gui.l,  Bart.,  and  Portrait 
engraved  on  Steel  by  C.  II.  Jeens.  Fourth  Edition.  Crown 
Svo,  8s.  6 d. 

Philosophy  and  Religion.  Second  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  Sr. 
The  Law  Breaker.  Crown  Svo. 


Kegan  Paul \ Trench  & Co.’s  Publications. 


13 


HINTON, ; J.— continued. 

The  Mystery  of  Pain.  New  Edition.  Fcap.  8vo,  ix. 

Hodson  of  Hodson’s  Horse  ; or,  Twelve  Years  of  a Soldier’s  Life 
in  India.  Being  extracts  from  the  Letters  of  the  late  Major 
\V.  S.  R.  Hodson.  With  a Vindication  from  the  Attack  of  Mr. 
Bosworth  Smith.  Edited  by  his  brother,  G.  II.  Hodson,  M.A. 
Fourth  Edition.  Large  crown  8vo,  5x. 

HOLTHAM,  E.  G.— Eight  Years  in  Japan,  1873-1881.  Work, 
Travel,  and  Recreation.  With  three  Maps.  Large  crown  8vo,  9 s. 

HOOPER , Mary. — Little  Dinners  : How  to  Serve  them  with 
Elegance  and  Economy.  Eighteenth  Edition.  Crown 
8vo,  2s.  6 d. 

Cookery  for  Invalids,  Persons  of  Delicate  Digestion, 
and  Children.  Third  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  2s.  6 d. 

Every-Day  Meals.  Being  Economical  and  Wholesome  Recipes 
for  Breakfast,  Luncheon,  and  Supper.  Fifth  Edition.  Crown 
8vo,  2 x.  6 d. 

HOPKINS,  Ellice.—  Life  and  Letters  of  James  Hinton,  with  an 
Introduction  by  Sir  W.  W.  Gull,  Bart.,  and  Portrait  engraved 
on  Steel  by  C.  H.  Jeens.  Fourth  Edition.  Crown  Svo,  8x.  6 d. 

Work  amongst  Working  Men.  Fifth  Edition.  Crown 
8vo,  3-f.  6d. 

HOSPITALIER,  E. — The  Modern  Applications  of  Electricity. 
Translated  and  Enlarged  by  Julius  Maier,  Ph.D.  2 vols. 
Second  Edition,  Revised,  with  many  additions  and  numerous 
Illustrations.  Demy  Svo,  I2x.  6 d.  each  volume. 

Vol.  I. — Electric  Generators,  Electric  Light. 

Vol.  II. — Telephone  : Various  Applications  : Electrical 

Transmission  of  Energy. 

Household  Readings  on  Prophecy.  By  a Layman.  Small 
crown  8vo,  3X.  6 d. 

HUGHES,  Henry. — The  Redemption  of  the  World.  Crown  8vo, 
Jr.  6 d. 

IIUNTINGFORD,  Rev.  E.,  D.C.L. — The  Apocalypse.  With  a 
Commentary  and  Introductory  Essay.  Demy  8vo,  5x. 

HUTTON,  Arthur,  M.A.—  The  Anglican  Ministry : Its  Nature 
and  Value  in  relation  to  the  Catholic  Priesthood.  With  a Preface 
by  His  Eminence  Cardinal  Newman.  Demy  Svo,  14X. 

HUTTON,  Rev.  C.  F. — Unconscious  Testimony  ; or,  The  Silent 
Witness  of  the  Hebrew  to  the  Truth  of  the  Historical  Scriptures. 
Crown  8 vo,  2s.  6 d. 

TtYNDMAN,  II.  M. — The  Historical  Basis  of  Socialism  in 
England.  Large  crown  8vo,  8x.  6 d. 


H 


A List  of 


IM  THURN,  Everard  F—  Among  the  Indians  of  Guiana. 
Being  Sketches,  chiefly  anthropologic,  from  the  Interior  of  British 
Guiana.  With  53  Illustrations  and  a Map.  Demy  8vo,  i8r. 

Jaunt  in  a Junk  : A Ten  Days’ Cruise  in  Indian  Seas.  Large  crown 
8 vo,  7 s.  6d. 

JENKINS , E.,  and  RAYMOND,  J.—  The  Architect’s  Legal 
Handbook.  Third  Edition,  Revised.  Crown  Svo,  6s. 

JENNINGS,  Mrs.  Vaughan. — Rahel  : Her  Life  and  Letters.  Large 
post  8vo,  7 s.  6d. 

JERVIS,  Rev.  IV.  Henley.  — The  Gallican  Church  and  the 
Revolution.  A Sequel  to  the  History  of  the  Church  of 
France,  from  the  Concordat  of  Bologna  to  the  Revolution. 
Demy  8vo,  i8j. 

JOEL , L. — A Consul’s  Manual  and  Shipowner’s  and  Ship- 
master’s Practical  Guide  in  their  Transactions 
Abroad.  With  Definitions  of  Nautical,  Mercantile,  and  Legal 
Terms ; a Glossary  of  Mercantile  Terms  in  English,  French, 
German,  Italian,  and  Spanish  ; Tables  of  the  Money,  Weights, 
and  Measures  of  the  Principal  Commercial  Nations  and  their 
Equivalents  in  British  Standards ; and  Forms  of  Consular  and 
Notarial  Acts.  Demy  Svo,  12s. 

JOHNSTONE,  C.  F.,  M.A. — Historical  Abstracts:  being  Outlines 
of  the  History  of  some  of  the  less  known  States  of  Europe. 
Crown  8vo,  *]s.  6 d. 

JOLLY,  William,  F.R.S.E.,  etc.—' The  Life  of  John  Duncan, 
Scotch  Weaver  and  Botanist.  With  Sketches  of  his 
Friends  and  Notices  of  his  Times.  Second  Edition.  Large 
crown  Svo,  with  etched  portrait,  9 s. 

JONES,  C.  A.— The  Foreign  Freaks  of  Five  Friends.  With  30 
Illustrations.  Crown  Svo,  6s. 

JOYCE,  P.  W.,  LL.D.,  etc.— Old  Celtic  Romances.  Translated 
from  the  Gaelic.  Crown  Svo,  7s.  6 d. 

JOYNES,  J.  L. — The  Adventures  of  a Tourist  in  Ireland. 
Second  edition.  Small  crown  8vo,  2s.  6 d. 

KAUFMANN,  Rev.  M.,  B.A.—  Socialism  : its  Nature,  its  Dangers, 
and  its  Remedies  considered.  Crown  Svo,  7*.  6 d. 

Utopias  ; or,  Schemes  of  Social  Improvement,  from  Sir  Thomas 
More  to  Karl  Marx.  Crown  8vo,  5-c. 

KAY,  David,  F.R.G.S. — Education  and  Educators.  Crown  Svo, 
7 s.  6d. 

KAY,  Joseph. — Free  Trade  in  Land.  Edited  by  his  Widow.  With 
Preface  by  the  Right  Hon.  John  Bright,  M.P.  Seventh 
Edition.  Crown  8vo,  5s. 


Regan  Paul , Trench  & Co.'s  Publications. 


15 


KEMP1S,  Thomas  ct. — Of  the  Imitation  of  Christ.  Parchment 
Library  Edition. — Parchment  or  cloth,  6s.  ; vellum,  7 s.  6 d.  The 
Red  Line  Edition,  fcap.  8vo,  red  edges,  2 s.  6d.  The  Cabinet 
Edition,  small  8vo,  cloth  limp,  is.  ; cloth  boards,  red  edges,  is.  6 d. 
The  Miniature  Edition,  red  edges,  32mo,  is. 

***  All  the  above  Editions  may  be  had  in  various  extra  bindings, 

KENT , C. — Corona  Catholica  ad  Petri  successoris  Pedes 
Oblata;  De  Summi  Pontificis  Leonis  XIII.  As- 
sumptione  Epigramma.  In  Quinquaginta  Linguis.  Fcap. 
4to,  15*. 

KETTLE  WELL,  Rev.  S. — Thomas  a Kempis  and  the  Brothers 
of  Common  Life.  2 vols.  With  Frontispieces.  Demy  8vo, 
3 cw. 

KIDD,  Joseph,  M.D. — The  Laws  of  Therapeutics  ; or,  the  Science 
and  Art  of  Medicine.  Second  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

KINGSFORD,  Anita,  M.D. — The  Perfect  Way  in  Diet.  A 
Treatise  advocating  a Return  to  the  Natural  and  Ancient  Food  of 
our  Race.  Small  crown  8vo,  2s. 

KINGSLEY,  Charles,  M.A. — Letters  and  Memories  of  his  Life 
Edited  by  his  Wife.  With  two  Steel  Engraved  Portraits,  and 
Vignettes  on  Wood.  Fourteenth  Cabinet  Edition.  2 vols.  Crown 
8vo,  1 2s. 

%*  Also  a People’s  Edition,  in  one  volume.  With  Portrait.  Crown 

8vo,  6s. 

All  Saints’  Day,  and  other  Sermons.  Edited  by  the  Rev.  W. 
Harrison,  Third  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  7 s.  6 d. 

True  Words  for  Brave  Men.  A Book  for  Soldiers’  and 
Sailors’  Libraries.  Tenth  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  2s.  6d. 

KNOX,  Alexander  A. — The  New  Playground  ; or,  Wanderings  in 
Algeria.  New  and  cheaper  edition.  Large  crown  8vo,  6s. 

LANDON,  Joseph. — School  Management ; Including  a General  View 
of  the  Work  of  Education,  Organization,  and  Discipline.  Third 
Edition.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

LA  URIE,  S.  S.  The  Training  of  Teachers,  and  other  Educational 
Papers.  Crown  8vo,  7 s.  6 d. 

LEE , Rev.  F.  G.,  D.C.L. — The  Other  World;  or,  Glimpses  of  the 
Supernatural.  2 vols.  A New  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  15.?. 

Letters  from  a Young  Emigrant  in  Manitoba.  Second  Edition. 
Small  crown  8vo,  3J.  6 d. 

LEWIS,  Edward  Dillon. — A Draft  Code  of  Criminal  Law  and 
Procedure.  Demy  8vo,  2ir. 

LILLIE,  Arthur,  M.R.A.S. — The  Popular  Life  of  Buddha. 
Containing  an  Answer  to  the  Ilibbert  Lectures  of  1881.  With 
Illustrations.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 


1 6 


A List  of 


LLOYD,  Walter. — The  Hope  of  the  "World  : An  Essay  on  Universal 
Redemption.  Crown  8vo,  5-f. 

IsONSDALE,  Margaret. — Sister  Dora  : a Biography.  With  Portrait. 
Twenty-seventh  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  2 s.  6d. 

LOUNSBURY,  Thomas  R. — James  Fenimore  Cooper.  Crown 
8 vo,  Sr, 

LOWDER,  Charles. — A Biography.  By  the  Author  of  “ St.  Teresa.” 
New  and  Cheaper  Edition.  Crown  8vo.  With  Portrait.  3s.  6 d. 

I.YTTON,  Edward  Bulwer,  Ix>rd. — Life,  Letters  and  Literary 
Remains.  By  his  Son,  the  Earl  of  Lytton.  With  Portraits, 
Illustrations  and  Facsimiles.  Demy  Svo.  Vols.  I.  and  II.,  32.L 

MACAULAY,  G.  C. — Francis  Beaumont : A Critical  Study.  Crown 
8vo,  Sr. 

MAC  CALLUM,  M.  W. — Studies  in  Low  German  and  High 
German  Literature.  Crown  Svo,  6s. 

MACDONALD,  George. — Donal  Grant.  A New  Novel.  3 vols. 
Crown  8 vo,  3ir.  6 d. 

MACLIIAVELLI,  Niccolb.  — Life  and  Times.  By  Prof.  Villari. 
Translated  by  Linda  Villari.  4 vols.  Large  post,  8vo,  48r. 

MACHIAVELLI,  Niccolb. — Discourses  on  the  First  Decade  of 
Titus  Livius,  Translated  from  the  Italian  by  Ninian  Hill 
Thomson,  M.A.  Large  crown  Svo,  I2r. 

The  Prince.  Translated  from  the  Italian  by  N.  II.  T.  Small 
crown  Svo,  printed  on  hand-made  paper,  bevelled  boards,  6r. 

MACKENZIE,  Alexander. — How  India  is  Governed.  Being  an 
Account  of  England’s  Work  in  India.  Small  crown  Svo,  2 s. 

MACNAUGHT,  Rev.  John. — Coena  Domini  : An  Essay  on  the  Lord’s 
Supper,  its  Primitive  Institution,  Apostolic  Uses,  and  Subsequent 
History.  Demy  8vo,  14J. 

MACWALTER,  Rev.  G.  S.— Life  of  Antonio  Rosmini  Serbati 
(Founder  of  the  Institute  of  Charity).  2 vols.  Demy  8vo. 

[Vol.  I.  now  ready,  price  12 s. 

MAGNUS,  Mrs. — About  the  Jews  since  Bible  Times.  From  the 
Babylonian  Exile  till  the  English  Exodus.  Small  crown  8vo,  6s. 

MAIR,  R.  S.,  M.D.,  F.R.  C.S.E. — The  Medical  Guide  for  Anglo- 
Indians.  Being  a Compendium  of  Advice  to  Europeans  in 
India,  relating  to  the  Preservation  and  Regulation  of  Health. 
With  a Supplement  on  the  Management  of  Children  in  India, 
Second  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  limp  cloth,  3*.  6 d. 

MALDEN,  Henry  Elliot. — Vienna,  1683.  The  History  and  Conse- 
quences of  the  Defeat  of  the  Turks  before  Vienna,  September 
1 2th,  1683,  by  John  Sobieski,  King  of  Poland,  and  Charles 
Leopold,  Duke  of  Lorraine.  Crown  8vo,  4.?.  bd. 

Many  Voices.  A volume  of  Extracts  from  the  Religious  Writers  of 
Christendom  from  the  First  to  the  Sixteenth  Century.  With 
Biographical  Sketches.  Crown  Svo,  cloth  extra,  red  edges,  6s. 


Regan  Paul ’ Trench  & Co.'s  Publications. 


17 


MARKHAM \ Capt.  Albirt  Hastings,  R.N. — The  Great  Frozen  Sea  : 
A Personal  Narrative  of  the  Voyage  of  the  Alert  during  the  Arctic 
Expedition  of  1875-6.  With  6 Full-page  Illustrations,  2 Maps, 
and  27  Woodcuts.  Sixth  and  Cheaper  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

A Polar  Reconnaissance  : being  the  Voyage  of  the  Isbjom 
to  Novaya  Zemlya  in  1879.  With  10  Illustrations.  Demy  Svo,  i6x. 

Marriage  and  Maternity  ; or,  Scripture  Wives  and  Mothers.  Small 
crown  Svo,  4*.  6 d. 

MARTINEAU,  Gertrude. —Outline  Lessons  on  Morals.  Small 
crown  8vo,  $r.  6 d. 

MAUDSLEY , H.,  M.D. — Body  and  Will.  Being  an  Essay  con- 
cerning Will,  in  its  Metaphysical,  Physiological,  and  Pathological 
Aspects.  Svo,  12  s. 

McGRA TH,  Terence. — Pictures  from  Ireland.  New  and  Cheaper 
Edition.  Crown  8vo,  2j ■. 

MEREDITH,  ALA.—' Theotokos,  the  Example  for  Woman. 
Dedicated,  by  permission,  to  Lady  Agnes  Wood.  Revised  by 
the  Venerable  Archdeacon  Denison.  32010,  limp  cloth,  ix.  6 d. 

MILLER , Edward. — The  History  and  Doctrines  of  Irvingism  j 
or,  The  so-called  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church.  2 vols.  Large 
post  8vo,  25X. 

The  Church  in  Relation  to  the  State.  Large  crown  Svo, 
7 x.  6 d. 

MINCHIN,  J.  G. — Bulgaria  since  the  War  : Notes  of  a Tour  in 
the  Autumn  of  1879.  Small  crown  8vo,  3x.  6 d. 

MITCHELL,  Lucy  M. — A History  of  Ancient  Sculpture.  With 
numerous  Illustrations,  including  6 Plates  in  Phototype.  Super 
royal  8vo,  42x. 

Selections  from  Ancient  Sculpture.  Being  a Portfolio  con- 
taining Reproductions  in  Phototype  of  36  Masterpieces  of  Ancient 
Art  to  illustrate  Mrs.  Mitchell’s  “History  of  Ancient  Sculpture.” 

MITFORD,  Bertram.— ' Through  the  Zulu  Country.  Its  Battle- 
fields and  its  People.  With  five  Illustrations.  Demy  8vo,  14X. 

MOCKLER,  E.  A Grammar  of  the  Baloochee  Language,  as 
it  is  spoken  in  Makran  (Ancient  Gcdrosia),  in  the  Persia-Arabic 
and  Roman  characters.  Fcap.  8vo,  5 x. 

MOLES  V ORTH,  Rev.  IV.  Nassau,  M.A. — History  of  the  Church 
of  England  from  1660.  Large  crown  Svo,  7x.  6 d. 

MORELL,  y.  R. — Euclid  Simplified  in  Method  and  Language. 
Being  a Manual  of  Geometry.  Compiled  from  the  most  important 
French  Works,  approved  by  the  University  of  Paris  and  the 
Minister  of  Public  Instmction.  Fcap.  Svo,  2x.  6 d. 

C 


i8 


A List  of 


MORRIS , George. — The  Duality  of  all  Divine  Truth  in  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  For  God’s  Self-manifestation  in  the  Impor- 
tation of  the  Divine  Nature  to  Man.  Large  crown  Svo,  7 s.  6d. 

MORSE,  E.  S.,  Ph.D. — First  Book  of  Zoology.  With  numerous 
Illustrations.  New  and  Cheaper  Edition.  Crown  Svo,  2 s.  6 d. 

MURPHY,  John  Nicholas. — The  Chair  of  Peter ; or,  The  Papacy 
considered  in  its  Institution,  Development,  and  Organization,  and 
in  the  Benefits  which  for  over  Eighteen  Centuries  it  has  conferred 
on  Mankind.  Demy  8vo,  i8r. 

My  Ducats  and  My  Daughter.  A New  Novel.  3 vols.  Crown 
8vo,  31  s.  6 d. 

NELSON,  J.  H.,  M.A.—A  Prospectus  of  the  Scientific  Study 
of  the  Hindu  Law.  Demy  8vo,  9 s. 

NEWMAN,  Cardinal. — Characteristics  from  the  Writings  of. 

Being  Selections  from  his  various  Works.  Arranged  with  the 
Author’s  personal  Approval.  Sixth  Edition.  With  Portrait. 
Crown  8vo,  6s. 

*»*  A Portrait  of  Cardinal  Newman,  mounted  for  framing,  can 
be  had,  2 s.  6d. 

NEWMAN,  Francis  William. — Essays  on  Diet.  Small  crown  8vo, 
cloth  limp,  2s. 

New  Truth  and  the  Old  Faith:  Are  they  Incompatible?  By  a 
Scientific  Layman.  Demy  8vo,  ion  6d. 

New  Werther.  By  Loki.  Small  crown  8vo,  2 s.  6d. 

NICHOLSON ; Edward  Byron. — The  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews.  Its  Fragments  Translated  and  Annotated,  with  a 
Critical  Analysis  of  the  External  and  Internal  Evidence  relating 
to  it.  Demy  8vo,  9 s.  6 d. 

A New  Commentary  on  the  Gospel  according  to 
Matthew.  Demy  8vo,  12 s. 

AT  COLS,  Arthur,  F.G.S.,  F.R.G.S.— Chapters  from  the  Physical 
History  of  the  Earth  : an  Introduction  to  Geology  and 
Palaeontology.  With  numerous  Illustrations.  Crown  8vo,  Sr. 

ATOPS,  Marianne. — Class  Lessons  on  Euclid.  Part  I.  containing 
the  First  Two  Books  of  the  Elements.  Crown  Svo,  2s.  6 d. 

Notes  on  St.  Paul’s  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  For  Readers  of 
the  Authorized  Version  or  the  Original  Greek.  Demy  Svo,  2 s.  6d. 

Nuces : Exercises  on  the  Syntax  of  the  Public  School  Latin 
Primer.  New  Edition  in  Three  Parts.  Crown  Svo,  each  is. 
*m*  The  Three  Parts  can  also  be  had  bound  together,  jr. 

OATES,  Frank,  F.R.G.S.— Matabele  Land  and  the  Victoria 
Falls.  A Naturalist’s  Wanderings  in  the  Interior  of  South 
Africa.  Edited  by  C.  G.  Oates,  B.A.  With  numerous  Illustra- 
tions and  4 Maps.  Demy  Svo,  21s. 


Kegan  Paul,  Trench  & Co.'s  Publications . 


19 


OGLE , W.,M.D.,  F.R.C.P.— Aristotle  on  the  Parts  of  Animals. 
Translated,  with  Introduction  and  Notes.  Royal  Svo,  12 s.  6d. 

O'HAGAN,  Lord,  K.P.  — Occasional  Papers  and  Addresses. 
Large  crown  Svo,  js.  6 d. 

OKEN,  Lorenz,  Life  of.  By  Alexander  Ecker.  With  Explanatory 
Notes,  Selections  from  Oken’s  Correspondence,  and  Portrait  of  the 
Professor.  From  the  German  by  Alfred  Tulk.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

O'MEARA,  Kathleen. — Frederic  Ozanam,  Professor  of  the  Sorbonne  : 
His  Life  and  Work,  Second  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  71.  6d. 

Henri  Perreyve  and  his  Counsels  to  the  Sick.  Small 
crown  8vo,  5s. 

OSBORNE,  Rev.  IV.  A. — The  Revised  Version  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament. A Critical  Commentary,  with  Notes  upon  the  Text. 
Crown  8vo,  $s 

OTTLEY,  II.  Bickersteth. — The  Great  Dilemma.  Christ  Ilis  Own 
Witness  or  His  Own  Accuser.  Six  Lectures.  Second  Edition. 
Crown  Svo,  3-r.  6d. 


Our  Public  Schools — Eton,  Harrow,  Winchester,  Rugby, 
Westminster,  Marlborough,  The  Charterhouse. 
Crown  8vo,  6s. 

OWEN,  F.  M. — John  Keats  : a Study.  Crown  Svo,  6s. 

Across  the  Hills.  Small  crown  8vo,  is.  6 d. 

OWEN,  Rev.  Robert,  B.D. — Sanctorale  Catholicum ; or,  Book  of 
Saints.  With  Notes,  Critical,  Exegetical,  and  Historical.  Demv 
8 vo,  i8j. 


OXENHAM,  Rev.  F.  Nutcombe. — What  is  the  Truth  as  to  Ever- 
lasting Punishment.  Part  II.  Being  an  Historical  Inquiry 
into  the  Witness  and  Weight  of  certain  Anti-Origenist  Councils. 
Crown  8vo,  2s.  6d. 


OXONIENSIS.  — Romanism,  Protestantism,  Anglicanism. 
Being  a Layman’s  View  of  some  questions  of  the  Day.  Together 
with  Remarks  on  Dr.  Littledale’s  “Plain  Reasons  against  join- 
ing the  Church  of  Rome.”  Crown  Svo,  31-.  6d. 

PALMER,  the  late  William. — Notes  of  a Visit  to  Russia  in 
1840-1841.  Selected  and  arranged  by  John  H.  Cardinal 
Newman,  with  portrait.  Crown  8vo,  8r.  6 d. 

Early  Christian  Symbolism.  A Series  of  Compositions  from 
Fresco  Paintings,  Glasses,  and  Sculptured  Sarcophagi.  Edited 
by  the  Rev.  Provost  Nortiicote,  D.D.,  and  the  Rev.  Canon 
Brownlow,  M.A.  In  8 Parts,  each  with  4 Plates.  Folio,  5*. 
coloured  ; Jr.  plain. 


Parchment  Library.  Choicely  Printed  on  hand-made  paper,  limp 
parchment  antique  or  cloth,  6s.  ; vellum,  7 r.  6 J.  each  volume. 

The  Book  of  Psalms.  Translated  by  the  Rev.  T.  K.  Cheyne, 
M.A. 


20 


A List  of 


Parchment  Library — continued. 

The  Vicar  of  Wakefield.  With  Preface  and  Notes  by  Austin 
Dobson. 

English  Comic  Dramatists.  Edited  by  Oswald  Crawfurd. 

English  Lyrics. 

The  Sonnets  of  John  Milton.  Edited  by  Mark  Pattison. 
With  Portrait  after  Vertue. 

Poems  by  Alfred  Tennyson.  2 vols.  With  miniature  frontis- 
pieces by  W.  B.  Richmond. 

French  Lyrics.  Selected  and  Annotated  by  George  Saints- 
BURY.  With  a miniature  frontispiece  designed  and  etched  by 
H.  G.  Glindoni. 

Fables  by  Mr.  John  Gay.  With  Memoir  by  Austin  Dobson, 
and  an  etched  portrait  from  an  unfinished  Oil  Sketch  by  Sir 
Godfrey  Kneller. 

Select  Letters  of  Percy  Bysshe  Shelley.  Edited,  with  an 
Introduction,  by  Richard  Garnett. 

The  Christian  Year.  Thoughts  in  Verse  for  the  Sundays  and 
Ploly  Days  throughout  the  Year.  With  Miniature  Portrait  of  the 
Rev.  J.  Keble,  after  a Drawing  by  G.  Richmond,  R.A. 

Shakspere’s  Works.  Complete  in  Twelve  Volumes. 

Eighteenth  Century  Essays.  Selected  and  Edited  by  Austin 
Dobson.  With  a Miniature  Frontispiece  by  R.  Caldecott. 

Q.  Horati  Flacci  Opera.  Edited  by  F.  A.  Cornish,  Assistant 
Master  at  Eton.  With  a Frontispiece  after  a design  by  L.  Alma 
Tadema,  etched  by  Leopold  Lowenstam. 

Edgar  Allan  Poe’s  Poems.  With  an  Essay  on  his  Poetry  by 
Andrew  Lang,  and  a Frontispiece  by  Linley  Samboume. 

Shakspere’s  Sonnets.  Edited  by  Edward  Dowdf.n.  With  a 
Frontispiece  etched  by  Leopold  Lowenstam,  after  the  Death  Mask. 

English  Odes.  Selected  by  Edmund  W.  Gosse.  With  Frontis- 
piece on  India  paper  by  Hamo  Thornycroft,  A.R.A. 

Of  the  Imitation  of  Christ.  By  Thomas  A Kempis.  A 
revised  Translation.  With  Frontispiece  on  India  paper,  from  a 
Design  by  W.  B.  Richmond. 

Tennyson’s  The  Princess : a Medley.  With  a Miniature 
Frontispiece  by  II.  M.  Paget,  and  a Tailpiece  in  Outline  by 
Gordon  Browne. 

Poems : Selected  from  Percy  Bysshe  Shelley.  Dedicated  to 
Lady  Shelley.  With  a Preface  by  Richard  Garnett  and  a 
Miniature  Frontispiece. 

Tennyson’s  In  Memoriam.  With  a Miniature  Portrait 
in  cau-forte  by  Le  Rat,  after  a Photograph  by  the  late  Mrs. 
Cameron. 

%*  The  above  volumes  may  also  be  had  in  a variety  of  leather  bindings. 


Kegan  Paul \ Trench  & Co.'s  Publications. 


21 


PARSLOE,  Joseph.— Our  Railways.  Sketches,  Historical  and 
Descriptive.  With  Practical  Information  as  to  Fares  and  Rates, 
etc.,  and  a Chapter  on  Railway  Reform.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

PA  UL,  Alexander. — Short  Parliaments.  A History  of  the  National 
Demand  for  frequent  General  Elections.  Small  crown  8vo,  3s.  6 d. 

PAUL,  C.  Kegan. — Biographical  Sketches,  Printed  on  hand-made 
paper,  bound  in  buckram.  Second  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  7 s.  6d. 

PEARSON,  Rev,  S. — W eek-day  Living.  A Book  for  Young  Men 
and  Women.  Second  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  Sr. 

PESCHEL,  Dr.  Oscar.— The  Races  of  Man  and  their  Geo- 
graphical Distribution.  Second  Edition.  Large  crown 
8vo,  9 s. 

PETERS,  F.  II.— The  Nicomachean  Ethics  of  Aristotle.  Trans- 
lated by.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

PIIIPSON,  E. — The  Animal  Lore  of  Shakspeare’s  Time. 
Including  Quadrupeds,  Birds,  Reptiles,  Fish  and  Insects.  Large 
post  8vo,  9 s. 

PIDGEON,  D. — An  Engineer’s  Holiday ; or,  Notes  of  a Round 
Trip  from  Long.  o°  to  o°.  New  and  Cheaper  Edition.  Large 
crown  8vo,  -js.  6 d. 

POPE,  J.  Buckingham.  — Railway  Rates  and  Radical  Rule. 
Trade  Questions  as  Election  Tests.  Crown  8vo,  is.  6 d. 

PRICE,  Prof.  Bonamy.  — Chapters  on  Practical  Political 
Economy.  Being  the  Substance  of  Lectures  delivered  before 
the  University  of  Oxford.  New  and  Cheaper  Edition.  Larne 
post  8vo,  5r. 

Pulpit  Commentary,  The.  (Old  Testament  Series.)  Edited  by  the 
Rev.  J.  S.  Exell,  M.A.,  and  the  Rev.  Canon  H.  D.  M.  Spence. 

Genesis.  By  the  Rev.  T.  Whitelaw,  M.A.  With  Homilies  by 
the  Very  Rev.  J.  F.  Montgomery,  D.D.,  Rev.  Prof.  R.  A. 
Redford,  M.A.,  LL.B.,  Rev.  F.  Hastings,  Rev.  W. 
Roberts,  M.A.  An  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Old 
Testament  by  the  Venerable  Archdeacon  Farrar,  D.D.,  F.R.S. ; 
and  Introductions  to  the  Pentateuch  by  the  Right  Rev.  II.  Cot- 
terili.,  D.D.,  and  Rev.  T.  Whitelaw,  M.A.  Eighth  Edition. 
1 vol.,  1 5*.  b 


Exodus.  By  the  Rev.  Canon  Rawlinson.  With  Homilies  by 
Rev.  J.  Orr,  Rev.  D.  Young,  B.A.,  Rev.  C.  A.  Goodiiart, 
Rev.  J.  Urquiiart,  and  the  Rev.  H.  T.  Robjohns.  Fourth 
Edition.  2 vols.,  i8r. 


Leviticus.  By  the  Rev.  Prebendary  Meyrick,  M.A.  With 
Introductions  by  the  Rev.  R.  Collins,  Rev.  Professor  A.  Cave, 
and  Homilies  by  Rev.  Prof.  Redford,  LL.B.,  Rev.  T.  A 
Macdonald^  Rev  W.  Clarkson,  B.A.,  Rev.  S.  R.  Aldridge, 
LL.B.,  and  Rev.  McCiieyne  Edgar.  Fourth  Edition.  15* 


22 


A List  of 


Pulpit  Commentary,  The— continued. 

Numbers.  By  the  Rev.  R.  Winter  both  am,  LL.B.  With 
Homilies  by  the  Rev.  Professor  W.  Binnie,  D.D.,  Rev.  E.  S. 
Prout,  M.A.,  Rev.  D.  Young,  Rev.  J.  Waite,  and  an  Intro- 
duction by  the  Rev.  Thomas  Whitelaw,  M.A.  Fourth 
Edition.  15^. 

Deuteronomy.  By  the  Rev.  W.  L.  Alexander,  D.D.  With 
Homilies  by  Rev.  C.  Clemance,  D.D.,  Rev.  J.  Orr,  B.D., 
Rev.  R.  M.  Edgar,  M.A.,  Rev.  D.  Davies,  M.A.  Third 
edition.  15*. 

Joshua.  By  Rev.  J.  J.  Lias,  M.A.  With  Homilies  by  Rev. 
S.  R.  Aldridge,  LL.B.,  Rev.  R.  Glover,  Rev.  E.  de 
PressensS,  D.D.,  Rev.  J.  Waite,  B.A.,  Rev.  W.  F.  Adeney, 
M.A.  ; and  an  Introduction  by  the  Rev.  A.  Plummer,  M.A. 
Fifth  Edition.  12 s.  6d. 

Judges  and  Ruth.  By  the  Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  and 
Rev.  J.  Morrison,  D.D.  With  Homilies  by  Rev.  A.  F.  Muir, 
M.A.,  Rev.  W.  F.  Adeney,  M.A.,  Rev.  W.  M.  Statham,  and 
Rev.  Professor  J.  Thomson,  M.A.  Fourth  Edition.  10 s.  6 d. 

1 Samuel.  By  the  Very  Rev.  R.  P.  Smith,  D.D.  With  Homilies 
by  Rev.  Donald  Fraser,  D.D.,  Rev.  Prof.  Chapman,  and 
Rev.  B.  Dale.  Sixth  Edition.  1 tjr. 

1 Kings.  By  the  Rev.  Joseph  Hammond,  LL.B.  With  Homilies 
by  the  Rev.  E.  de  PressensS,  D.D.,  Rev.  J.  Waite,  B.A., 
Rev.  A.  Rowland,  LL.B.,  Rev.  J.  A.  Macdonald,  and  Rev. 
J.  Urquhart.  Fourth  Edition.  15*. 

Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Esther.  By  Rev.  Canon  G.  Rawlinson, 
M.A.  With  Homilies  by  Rev.  Prof.  J.  R.  Thomson,  M.A.,  Rev. 
Prof.  R.  A.  Redford,  LL.B.,  M.A.,  Rev.  W.  S.  Lewis,  M.A., 
Rev.  J.  A.  Macdonald,  Rev.  A.  Mackennal,  B.A.,  Rev.  W. 
Clarkson,  B.A.,  Rev.  F.  Hastings,  Rev.  W.  Dinwiddie, 
LL.B.,  Rev.  Prof.  Rowlands,  B.A.,  Rev.  G.  Wood,  B.A., 
Rev.  Prof.  P.  C.  Barker,  M.A.,  LL.B.,  and  the  Rev.  J.  S. 
Exell,  M.A.  Sixth  Edition.  1 vol.,  12s.  6 d. 

Jeremiah.  By  the  Rev.  T.  K.  Cheyne,  M.A.  With  Homilies 
by  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Adeney,  M.A.,  Rev.  A.  F.  Muir,  M.A., 
Rev.  S.  Conway,  B.A.,  Rev.  J.  Waite,  B.A.,  and  Rev.  D. 
Young,  B.A.  Vol.  I.,  15s. 

Pulpit  Commentary,  The.  (New  Testament  Series.) 

St.  Mark.  By  Very  Rev.  E.  Bickerstetii,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Lich- 
field. With  Homilies  by  Rev.  Prof.  Thomson,  M.A.,  Rev.  Prof. 
Given,  M.A.,  Rev.  Prof.  Johnson,  M.A.,  Rev.  A.  Rowland, 
B.A.,  LL.B.,  Rev.  A.  Muir,  and  Rev.  R.  Green.  2 vols. 
Fourth  Edition.  2ir. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  By  the  Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells. 
With  Homilies  by  Rev.  Prof.  P.  C.  Barker,  M.A.,  LL.B.,  Rev. 
Prof.  E.  Johnson,  M.A.,  Rev.  Prof.  R.  A.  Redford,  M.A., 
Rev.  R.  Tuck,  B.A.,  Rev-  W.  Clarkson,  B.A.  2 vols.,  21s. 


Kegati  Paul,  Trench  & Co.’s  Publications.  23 


Pulpit  Commentary,  The — continued. 

1 Corinthians.  By  the  Ven.  Archdeacon  Farrar,  D.D.  With 
Homilies  by  Rev.  Ex-Chancellor  Lipscomu,  LL.  D.,  Rev. 
David  Thomas,  D.D.,  Rev.  D.  Fraser,  D.D.,  Rev.  Prof. 
J.  R.  Thomson,  M.A.,  Rev.  J.  Waite,  B.A.,  Rev.  R.  Tuck, 
B.A.,  Rev.  E.  Hurndall,  M.A.,  and  Rev.  H.  Bremner,  B.D. 
Price  1 Sr. 

PUSEY,  Dr.— Sermons  for  the  Church’s  Seasons  from 
Advent  to  Trinity.  Selected  from  the  Published  Sermons 
of  the  late  Edward  Bouverie  Pusey,  D.D.  Crown  8vo,  5s. 

QUIETER,  Harry.— “ The  Academy,”  1872-1882.  ir. 
RADCLIFFE,  Frank  R.  Y. — The  New  Politicus.  Small  crown  8vo, 
2 s.  6 d. 

RANKE,  Leopold  von. — Universal  History.  The  oldest  Historical 
Group  of  Nations  and  the  Greeks.  Edited  by  G.  W.  Prothero. 
Demy  Svo,  i6r. 

Realities  of  the  Future  Life.  Small  crown  8vo,  is.  6 d. 

RENDELL,  J.  M.—  Concise  Handbook  of  the  Island  of 
Madeira.  With  Plan  of  Funchal  and  Map  of  the  Island.  Fcap. 
Svo,  is.  6d. 

REYNOLDS,  Rev.  J.  IV. — The  Supernatural  in  Nature.  A 
Verification  by  Free  Use  of  Science.  Third  Edition,  Revised 
and  Enlarged.  Demy  8vo,  14-r. 

The  Mystery  of  Miracles.  Third  and  Enlarged  Edition. 
Crown  8 vo,  6s. 

The  Mystery  of  the  Universe  *,  Our  Common  Faith.  Demy 
8vo,  14 s. 

RIBOT,  Prof.  Th. — Heredity : A Psychological  Study  on  its  Phenomena, 
its  Laws,  its  Causes,  and  its  Consequences.  Second  Edition. 
Large  crown  Svo,  9 s. 

ROBERTSON,  The  late  Rev.  F.  IV.,  M.A. — Life  and  Letters  of. 
Edited  by  the  Rev.  Stopford  Brooke,  M.A. 

I.  Two  vols.,  uniform  with  the  Sermons.  With  Steel  Portrait. 
Crown  Svo,  7 r.  6 d. 

II.  Library  Edition,  in  Demy  8vo,  with  Portrait.  12 s. 

III.  A Popular  Edition,  in  1 vol.  Crown  Svo,  6s. 

Sermons.  Four  Series.  Small  crown  Svo,  3 s.  6d.  each. 

The  Human  Race,  and  other  Sermons.  Preached  at  Chelten- 
ham, Oxford,  and  Brighton.  New  and  Cheaper  Edition.  Small 
crown  Svo,  3*.  6 d. 

Notes  on  Genesis.  New  and  Cheaper  Edition.  Small  crown  Svo, 
3s-  6d. 

Expository  Lectures  on  St.  Paul’s  Epistles  to  the 
Corinthians.  A New  Edition.  Small  crown  Svo,  5*. 

Lectures  and  Addresses,  with  other  Literary  Remains.  A New 
Edition,  Small  crown  8vo,  5-r. 


24 


A List  of 


ROBERTSON ; The  late  Rev.  F.  IV.,  M.A. — continued. 

An  Analysis  of  Mr.  Tennyson’s  “ In  Memoriam.” 
(Dedicated  by  Permission  to  the  Poet- Laureate.)  Fcap.  8vo,  2s. 
The  Education  of  the  Human  Race.  Translated  from  the 
German  of  Gotthold  Ephraim  Lessing.  Fcap.  Svo,  2 s.  6 d. 
The  above  Works  can  also  be  had,  bound  in  half  morocco. 

***  A Portrait  of  the  late  Rev.  F.  W.  Robertson,  mounted  for  framing, 
can  be  had,  2s.  6d. 

ROMANES,  G.  J.  — Mental  Evolution  in  Animals.  With  a 
Posthumous  Essay  on  Instinct  by  Charles  Darwin,  F.R.S. 
Demy  8vo,  I2r. 

ROSM1NI  SERBATI,  A.,  Founder  of  the  Institute  of  Charity.  Life. 
By  G.  Stuart  Mac  Walter.  2 vols.  8vo. 

[Vol.  I.  now  ready,  12 s. 

Rosmini’s  Origin  of  Ideas.  Translated  from  the  Fifth  Italian 
Edition  of  the  Nuovo  Saggio  SulP  origine  delle  idee.  3 vols. 
Demy  8vo,  cloth.  [Vols.  I.  and  II.  now  ready,  i6j.  each. 

Rosmini’s  Philosophical  System.  Translated,  with  a Sketch  of 
the  Author’s  Life,  Bibliography,  Introduction,  and  Notes  by 
Thomas  Davidson.  Demy  Svo,  16s. 

RULE , Martin,  M.A. — The  Life  and  Times  of  St.  Anselm, 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  Primate  of  the 
Britains.  2 vols.  Demy  Svo,  32*. 

SAL  VA  TOR,  Archduke  Ludwig. — Levkosia,  the  Capital  of  Cyprus. 
Crown  4to,  ior.  6d. 

SAMUEL,  Sydney  M. — Jewish  Life  in  the  East.  Small  crown 
8vo,  3X.  6 d. 

SA  YCE,  Rev.  Archibald  Henry. — Introduction  to  the  Science  of 
Language.  2 vols.  Second  Edition.  Large  post  8vo,  2 ir. 

Scientific  Layman.  The  New  Truth  and  the  Old  Faith  : are  they 
Incompatible  ? Demy  8vo,  10s.  6d. 

SCOONES,  IV.  Baptiste. — Four  Centuries  of  English  Letters : 
A Selection  of  350  Letters  by  150  Writers,  from  the  Period  of  the 
Paston  Letters  to  the  Present  Time.  Third  Edition.  Large 
crown  8vo,  6s. 

SH1LLITO,  Rev.  Joseph. — Womanhood  : its  Duties,  Temptations, 
and  Privileges.  A Book  for  Young  Women.  Third  Edition. 
Crown  8vo,  3.1.  6d. 

SHIPLEY,  Rev.  Orby,  M.A. — Principles  of  the  Faith  in  Rela- 
tion to  Sin.  Topics  for  Thought  in  Times  of  Retreat. 
Eleven  Addresses  delivered  during  a Retreat  of  Three  Days  to 
Persons  living  in  the  World.  Demy  Svo,  12 s. 

Sister  Augustine,  Superior  of  the  Sisters  of  Charity  at  the  St. 

Johannis  Hospital  at  Bonn.  Authorised  Translation  by  Hans 
Tiiarau,  from  the  German  “ Memorials  of  Amalie  von 
Lasaulx.”  Cheap  Edition.  Large  crown  Svo,  41.  6 d. 


Kegan  Paul,  Trench  & Cols  Publications.  25 


SKINNER , James. — A Memoir.  By  the  Author  of  ‘ ‘ Charles  Lowder.  ” 
With  a Preface  by  the  Rev.  Canon  Carter,  and  Portrait. 
Large  crown,  7s.  6d. 

SMITH,  Edward,  M.D.,  LL.B.,  E.R.S.— Tubercular  Consump- 
tion in  its  Early  and  Remediable  Stages.  Second 
Edition.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

SPEDDING,  James. — Reviews  and  Discussions,  Literary, 
Political,  and  Historical  not  relating  to  Bacon.  Demy 
8 vo,  12 s.  6 d. 

Evenings  with  a Reviewer ; or,  Bacon  and  Macaulay. 
With  a Prefatory  Notice  by  G.  S.  Venables,  Q.C.  2 vols. 
Demy  8vo,  i8r. 

STAFFER,  Paul.  — Shakspeare  and  Classical  Antiquity: 
Greek  and  Latin  Antiquity  as  presented  in  Shakspeare’s  Plays. 
Translated  by  Emily  J.  Carey.  Large  post  8vo,  12s. 

STEVENSON,  Rev.  W.  F. — Hymns  for  the  Church  and  Home. 
Selected  and  Edited  by  the  Rev.  W.  Fleming  Stevenson. 

The  Hymn  Book  consists  of  Three  Parts : — I.  For  Public 
Worship.— II.  For  Family  and  Private  Worship. — III. 
For  Children. 

***  Published  in  various  forms  and  prices,  the  latter  ranging  from  8 d. 
to  6s. 

Stray  Papers  on  Education,  and  Scenes  from  School  Life.  By  B.  H. 
Second  Edition.  Small  crown  8vo,  2s-  6 d. 

STREATFE1LD,  Rev.  G.  S., M.A.— Lincolnshire  and  the  Danes. 
Large  crown  8vo,  7 s.  6d. 

STRECKER-  WISLICENUS.— Organic  Chemistry.  Translated  and 
Edited,  with  Extensive  Additions,  by  W.  R.  IIodgkinson, 
Ph.D.,  and  A.  J.  Greenaway,  F.I.C.  Demy  8vo,  21s. 

Study  of  the  Prologue  and  Epilogue  in  English  Literature. 
From  Shakespeare  to  Dryden.  By  G.  S.  B.  Crown  8vo,  5s. 

SULLY,  James,  M.A. — Pessimism  : a History  and  a Criticism. 
Second  Edition.  Demy  8vo,  14*. 

SWEDENBORG,  Eman. — De  Cultu  et  Amore  Del  ubl  Agitur 
de  Telluris  ortu,  Paradiso  et  Vivario,  turn  de  Pri- 
mogeniti  Seu  Adami  Nativitate  Infantia,  et  Amore. 
Crown  8vo,  6s, 

SYME,  David. — Representative  Government  in  England.  Its 
Faults  and  Failures.  Second  Edition.  Large  crown  8vo,  6s. 

TA  YLOR,  Rev.  Isaac.— The  Alphabet.  An  Account  of  the  Origin 
and  Development  of  Letters.  With  numerous  Tables  and 
Facsimiles.  2 vols.  Demy  8vo,  36 s. 


26 


A List  of 


TA  YLOR,  Sedley.  — Profit  Sharing  between  Capital  and 
Labour.  To  which  is  added  a Memorandum  on  the  Industrial 
Partnership  at  the  Whitwood  Collieries,  by  Archibald  and 
Henry  Briggs,  with  remarks  by  Sedley  Taylor.  Crown  8vo, 
2s.  6 d. 

Thirty  Thousand  Thoughts.  Edited  by  the  Rev.  Canon  Spence, 
Rev.  J.  S.  Exell,  Rev.  Charles  Neil,  and  Rev.  Jacob 
Stephenson.  6 vols.  Super  royal  8vo. 

[Vols.  I.  and  II.  now  ready,  i6r.  each. 

THOM i 7-  Hamilton. — Laws  of  Life  after  the  Mind  of  Christ. 
Second  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  "js.  6d. 

THOMSON,  J.  Turnbull. — Social  Problems  ; or,  An  Inquiry  into 
the  Laws  of  Influence.  With  Diagrams.  Demy  8vo,  io s.  6 d. 

TIDMAN,  Paul  F. — Gold  and  Silver  Money.  Tart  I. — A Plain 
Statement.  Part  II. — Objections  Answered.  Third  Edition. 
Crown  8vo,  is. 

TIPPLE , Rev.  S.  A. — Sunday  Mornings  at  Norwood.  Prayers 
and  Sermons.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

TODHUNTER,  Dr.  J.—N  Study  of  Shelley.  Crown  8vo,  7s. 

TREMENIIEERE,  Hugh  Seymour,  C.B. — A Manual  of  the 
Principles  of  Government,  as  set  forth  by  the  Authorities 
of  Ancient  and  Modem  Times.  New  and  Enlarged  Edition. 
Crown  8vo,  3.?.  6d. 

TUKE,  Daniel  Hack,  M.D.,  F.R.C.P. — Chapters  in  the  History 
of  the  Insane  in  the  British  Isles.  With  4 Illustrations. 
Large  crown  8vo,  12s. 

TIVIAHNG,  Louisa. — Workhouse  Visiting  and  Management 
during  Twenty-Five  Years.  Small  crown  8vo,  2 s. 

TYLER , J.— The  Mystery  of  Being:  or,  What  Do  We 
Know  ? Small  crown  8vo,  31.  6d. 

UPTON,  Major  R.  D. — Gleanings  from  the  Desert  of  Arabia. 
Large  post  8vo,  10s.  6d. 

VACUUS  VIATOR. — Flying  South.  Recollections  of  France  and 
its  Littoral.  Small  crown  8vo,  3r.  6 d. 

VAUGHAN,  H.  Halford.— New  Readings  and  Renderings  of 
Shakespeare’s  Tragedies.  2 vols.  Demy  8vo,  25.1. 

VILLARI,  Professor. — Niccol6  Machiavelli  and  his  Times. 
Translated  by  Linda  Villari.  4 vols.  Large  post  8vo,  48.?. 

VILLIERS,  The  Right  Hon.  C.  P.—  Free  Trado  Speeches  of. 
With  Political  Memoir.  Edited  by  a Member  of  the  Cobden 
Club.  2 vols.  With  Portrait.  Demy  8vo,  25*. 

*„*  People’s  Edition.  1 vol.  Crown  8vo,  limp  cloth,  2 s.  6 d. 

VOGT,  Lieut. -Col.  Hermann.— The  Egyptian  War  of  1882. 
A translation.  With  Map  and  Plans.  Large  crown  8vo,  6s. 


Kegan  Paul,  Trench  & Co.’s  Publications. 


2 7 


VOLCKXSOM,  E.  IV.  v — Catechism  of  Elementary  Modern 
Chemistry.  Small  crown  8vo,  3 s. 

VYNER , Lady  Mary.— Every  Day  a Portion.  Adapted  from  the 
Bible  and  the  Prayer  Book,  for  the  Private  Devotion  of  those 
living  in  Widowhood.  Collected  and  Edited  by  Lady  Mary 
Vyner,  Square  crown  8vo,  5-r. 

WALDSTEIN,  Charles , Ph.D. — The  Balance  of  Emotion  and 
Intellect ; an  Introductory  Essay  to  the  Study  of  Philosophy. 
Crown  8vo,  6s. 


WALLER,  Rev.  C.  B.— The  Apocalypse,  reviewed  under  the  Light 
of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Unfolding  Ages,  and  the  Restitution  of  All 
Things.  Demy  8vo,  12s. 

WALPOLE,  Chas.  George—  History  of  Ireland  from  the  Earliest 
Times  to  the  Union  with  Great  Britain.  With  5 Maps 
and  Appendices.  Crown  8vo,  10s.  6 ti. 

WALSHE,  Walter  Hayle , M.D.—  Dramatic  Singing  Physiolo- 
gically Estimated.  Crown  8vo,  31.  6 d. 

WARE,  William  George,  Ph.D.—  Essays  on  the  Philosophy  of 
Theism.  Edited,  with  an  Introduction,  by  Wilfrid  Ward. 
2 vols.  Demy  8vo,  2ix. 

WEDDERBURN,  Sir  David,  Bart.,  M.P.— Life  of.  Compiled  from  his 
Journals  and  Writings  by  his  sister,  Mrs.  E.  II.  Percival.  With 
etched  Portrait,  and  facsimiles  of  Pencil  Sketches.  Demy  8vo,  141-. 


WEDMORE,  Frederick. — The  Masters  of  Genre  Painting.  With 
Sixteen  Illustrations.  Post  8vo,  Js.  6 d. 


WHEWELL,  William,  D.D.—  His  Life  and  Selections  from  his 
Correspondence.  By  Mrs.  Stair  Douglas.  With  a Portrait 
from  a Painting  by  Samuel  Laurence.  Demy  8vo,  21  s. 

WHITNEY,  Prof.  William  Dwight.  — Essentials  of  English 
Grammar,  for  the  Use  of  Schools.  Second  Edition.  Crown 
8vo,  3-f.  6d. 

WILLIAMS,  Rowland , D.D.— Psalms,  Litanies,  Counsels,  and 
Collects  for  Devout  Persons.  Edited  by  his  Widow.  New 
and  Popular  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  3*.  6 d. 

Stray  Thoughts  Collected  from  the  Writings  of  the 
late  Rowland  Williams,  D.D.  Edited  by  his  Widow. 
Crown  8vo,  3 s.  6 d. 

WILSON,  Sir  Erasmus.  — The  Recent  Archaic  Discovery  of 
Egyptian  Mummies  at  Thebes.  A Lecture.  Crown  8vo, 
IJ.  6 d. 


WILSON,  Lieut. -Col.  C.  T.  — The  Duke  of  Berwick,  Marshal 
of  France,  1702-1734.  Demy  8vo,  15*. 

WILSON,  Mrs.  R.  F. — The  Christian  Brothers.  Their  Origin  and 
Work.  With  a Sketch  of  the  Life  of  their  Founder,  the  Ven. 
Jean  Baptiste,  de  la  Salle.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 


28 


A List  of 


WOLTMANN,  Dr.  Alfred,  and  WOERMANN,  Dr.  Karl. — History 
of  Painting.  Edited  by  Sidney  Colvin.  Vol.  I.  Painting 
in  Antiquity  and  the  Middle  Ages.  With  numerous  Illustrations. 
Medium  8vo,  28r.  ; bevelled  boards,  gilt  leaves,  301. 

Word  was  Made  Flesh.  Short  Family  Readings  on  the  Epistles  for 
each  Sunday  of  the  Christian  Year.  Demy  8vo,  ior.  6 d. 

WREN,  Sir  Christopher. — His  Family  and  His  Times.  With 
Original  Letters,  and  a Discourse  on  Architecture  hitherto  un- 
published. By  Lucy  Piiillimore.  Demy  8vo,  ior.  6 d. 

YOUMANS,  Eliza  A. — First  Book  of  Botany.  Designed  to 
Cultivate  the  Observing  Powers  of  Children.  With  300 
Engravings.  New  and  Cheaper  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  2 s.  6d, 

YOUMANS,  Edward  L.,  M.D. — A Class  Book  of  Chemistry,  on 
the  Basis  of  the  New  System.  With  200  Illustrations.  Crown 
8vo,  5-r. 


THE  INTERNATIONAL  SCIENTIFIC  SERIES. 

I.  Forms  of  Water:  a Familiar  Exposition  of  the  Origin  and 

Phenomena  of  Glaciers.  By  J.  Tyndall,  LL.D.,  F.R.S.  With 
25  Illustrations.  Eighth  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  5r. 

II.  Physics  and  Politics  ; or,  Thoughts  on  the  Application  of  the 

Principles  of  “Natural  Selection  ” and  “ Inheritance  ” to  Political 
Society.  By  Walter  Bagehot.  Sixth  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  4 s. 

III.  Foods.  By  Edward  Smith,  M.D.,  LL.B.,  F.R.S.  With  numerous 

Illustrations.  Eighth  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  Sr. 

IV.  Mind  and  Body  : the  Theories  of  their  Relation.  By  Alexander 

Bain,  LL.D.  With  Four  Illustrations.  Seventh  Edition.  Crown 
8vo,  4r. 

V.  The  Study  of  Sociology.  By  Herbert  Spencer.  Eleventh 

Edition.  Crown  8vo,  Sr. 

VI.  On  the  Conservation  of  Energy.  By  Balfour  Stewart,  M.A., 

LL.D.,  F.R.S.  With  14  Illustrations.  Sixth  Edition.  Crown 
8vo,  Sr. 

VII.  Animal  Locomotion  ; or  Walking,  Swimming,  and  Flying.  By 

J.  B.  Pettigrew,  M.D.,  F.R.S.,  etc.  With  130  Illustrations. 
Third  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  5r. 

VIII.  Responsibility  in  Mental  Disease.  By  Henry  Maudsley, 

M.D.  Fourth  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  5r. 

IX.  The  New  Chemistry.  By  Professor  J.  P.  Cooke.  With  31 

Illustrations.  Seventh  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  Sr. 


Kegan  Paul,  Trench  & Co.'s  Publications. 


29 


X.  The  Science  of  Law.  By  Professor  Sheldon  Amos.  Fifth  Edition. 

Crown  Svo,  5r. 

XI.  Animal  Mechanism  : a Treatise  on  Terrestrial  and  Aerial  Loco- 

motion. By  Professor  E.  J.  Marey.  With  117  Illustrations. 
Third  Edition.  Crown  Svo,  Sr. 

XII.  The  Doctrine  of  Descent  and  Darwinism.  By  Professor 

Oscar  Schmidt.  With  26  Illustrations.  Fifth  Edition.  Crown 
8vo,  Sr. 

XIII.  The  History  of  the  Conflict  between  Religion  and 

Science.  By  J.  W.  Draper,  M.D.,  LL.D.  Eighteenth  Edition. 
Crown  8vo,  Sr. 

XIV.  Fungi  : their  Nature,  Influences,  Uses,  etc.  By  M.  C.  Cooke, 

M.D.,  LL.D.  Edited  by  the  Rev.  M.  J.  Berkeley,  M.A.,  F.L.S. 
With  numerous  Illustrations.  Third  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  Sr. 

XV.  The  Chemical  Effects  of  Light  and  Photography.  By 

Dr.  Hermann  Vogel.  Translation  thoroughly  Revised.  With 
100  Illustrations.  Fourth  Edition.  Crown  Svo,  5r. 

XVI.  The  Life  and  Growth  of  Language.  By  Professor  William 

Dwight  Whitney.  Fourth  Edition.  Crown  Svo,  Sr. 

XVII.  Money  and  the  Mechanism  of  Exchange.  By  W. 

Stanley  Jevons,  M.A.,  F.R.S.  Sixth  Edition.  Crown  Svo,  Sr. 

XVIII.  The  Nature  of  Light.  With  a General  Account  of  Physical 
Optics.  By  Dr.  Eugene  Lommel.  With  18S  Illustrations  and  a 
Table  of  Spectra  in  Chromo-lithography,  Third  Edition.  Crown 
8vo,  Sr. 

XIX.  Animal  Parasites  and  Messmates.  By  Monsieur  Van 

Beneden.  With  83  Illustrations.  Third  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  Sr. 

XX.  Fermentation.  By  Professor  Schiitzenberger.  With  28  Illus- 

trations. Fourth  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  5r. 

XXI.  The  Five  Senses  of  Man.  By  Professor  Bernstein.  With 

91  Illustrations.  Fourth  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  5r. 

XXII.  The  Theory  of  Sound  in  its  Relation  to  Music.  By  Pro- 

fessor Pietro  Blaserna.  With  numerous  Illustrations.  Third 
Edition.  Crown  8vo,  5r, 

XXIII.  Studies  in  Spectrum  Analysis.  By  J.  Norman  Lockycr, 
F.R.S.  With  six  photographic  Illustrations  of  Spectra,  and 
numerous  engravings  on  Wood.  Third  Edition.  Crown  Svo, 
6s.  6 d. 

XXIV.  A History  of  the  Growth  of  the  Steam  Engine.  By 
Professor  R.  II.  Thurston.  With  numerous  Illustrations,  Third 
Edition.  Crown  8vo,  6s.  6d. 

XXV,  Education  as  a Science.  By  Alexander  Bain,  LL.D.  Fourth 

Edition.  Crown  8vo,  ^r. 


30 


A List  of 


XXVI.  The  Human  Species.  By  Professor  A.  de  Quatrefages.  Third 
Edition.  Crown  8vo,  5r. 

XXVII.  Modern  Chromatics.  With  Applications  to  Art  and  In- 
dustry. By  Ogden  N.  Rood.  With  130  original  Illustrations. 
Second  Edition.  Crown  Svo,  5*. 

XXVIII.  The  Crayfish  : an  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Zoology.  By 
Professor  T.  H.  Huxley.  With  82  Illustrations.  Third  Edition. 
Crown  8vo,  5r. 

XXIX.  The  Brain  as  an  Organ  of  Mind.  By  H.  Charlton  Bastian, 
M.D.  With  numerous  Illustrations.  Third  Edition.  Crown 
8vo,  Sr. 

XXX.  The  Atomic  Theory.  By  Prof.  Wurtz.  Translated  by  G. 

Cleminshaw,  F.C.S.  Third  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  $r. 

XXXI.  The  Natural  Conditions  of  Existence  as  they  affect 
Animal  Life.  By  Karl  Semper.  With  2 Maps  and  106 
Woodcuts.  Third  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  Sr. 

XXXII.  General  Physiology  of  Muscles  and  Nerves.  By  Prof. 
J.  Rosenthal.  Third  Edition.  With  Illustrations.  Crown  8vo, 

5'- 

XXXIII.  Sight  : an  Exposition  of  the  Principles  of  Monocular  and 
Binocular  Vision.  By  Joseph  le  Conte,  LL.D.  Second  Edition. 
With  132  Illustrations.  Crown  8vo,  5r. 

XXXIV.  Illusions:  a Psychological  Study.  By  James  Sully.  Second 
Edition.  Crown  Svo,  Sr. 

XXXV.  Volcanoes  : what  they  are  and  what  they  teach. 
By  Professor  J.  W.  Judd,  F.R.S.  With  92  Illustrations  on 
Wood.  Second  Edition.  Crown  Svo,  Sr. 

XXXVI.  Suicide  : an  Essay  in  Comparative  Moral  Statistics.  By  Prof. 

E.  Morselli.  Second  Edition.  With  Diagrams.  Crown  8vo,  5r. 

XXXVII.  The  Brain  and  its  Functions.  By  J.  Luys.  With 
Illustrations.  Second  Edition.  Crown  Svo,  5r. 

XXXVIII.  Myth  and  Science  : an  Essay.  By  Tito  Vignoli.  Second 
Edition.  Crown  Svo,  5r. 

XXXIX.  The  Sun.  By  Professor  Young.  With  Illustrations.  Second 
Edition.  Crown  Svo,  5 r. 

XL.  Ants,  Bees,  and  Wasps : a Record  of  Observations  on  the 
Habits  of  the  Social  Ilymenoptera.  By  Sir  John  Lubbock,  Bart., 
M.P.  With  5 Chromo-lithographic  Illustrations.  Sixth  Edition. 
Crown  Svo,  Sr. 

XLI.  Animal  Intelligence.  By  G.  J.  Romanes,  LL.D.,  F.R.S. 

Third  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  5r. 


Kegan  Paul,  Trench  & Co.’s  Publications. 


3* 


XLII.  The  Concepts  and  Theories  of  Modern  Physics.  By 
J.  B.  Stallo.  Second  Edition.  Crown  Svo,  Sr. 

XLIII.  Diseases  of  the  Memory  ; An  Essay  in  the  Positive  Psycho- 
log)’. By  Prof.  Th.  Ribot.  Second  Edition.  Crown  Svo,  Sr. 

XLIV.  Man  before  Metals.  By  N.  Joly,  with  148  Illustrations. 
Third  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  $s. 

XLV.  The  Science  of  Politics.  By  Prof.  Sheldon  Amos.  Second 
Edition.  Crown  Svo,  Sr. 

XLVI.  Elementary  Meteorology.  By  Robert  H.  Scott.  Second 
Edition.  With  Numerous  Illustrations.  Crown  8vo,  Sr. 

XLVII.  The  Organs  of  Speech,  and  their  Application  in  the 
Formation  of  Articulate  Sounds.  By  Georg  Hermann 
Von  Meyer.  With  47  Woodcuts.  Crown  8vo,  Sr. 

XLVIII.  Fallacies.  A View  of  Logic  from  the  Practical  Side.  By 
Alfred  Sidgwick.  Crown  Svo,  Sr. 


MILITARY  WORKS. 

BARRINGTON,  Capt.  J.  T.— England  on  the  Defensive  ; or,  the 
Problem  of  Invasion  Critically  Examined.  Large  crown  8vo, 
with  Map,  7 r.  6d. 

BRACKENBURY,  Col.  C.  B.,  R.A.  — Military  Handbooks  for 
Regimental  Officers. 

I.  Military  Sketching  and  Reconnaissance.  By  Col. 

F.  J.  Hutchison  and  Major  H.  G.  MacGregor.  Fourth 
Edition.  With  15  Plates.  Small  crown  8vo,  4r. 

II.  The  Elements  of  Modern  Tactics  Practically 

applied  to  English  Formations.  By  Lieut.-Col. 
Wilkinson  Shaw.  Fourth  Edition.  With  25  Plates  and 
Maps.  Small  crown  8vo,  9r. 

III.  Field  Artillery.  Its  Equipment,  Organization  and  Tactics. 

By  Major  Sisson  C.  Pratt,  R.A.  With  12  Plates.  Second 
Edition.  Small  crown  8vo,  6r. 

IV.  The  Elements  of  Military  Administration.  First 

Part : Permanent  System  of  Administration.  By  Major 
J.  W.  Buxton.  Small  crown  8vo.  7 s.  6 d. 

V.  Military  Law : Its  Procedure  and  Practice.  By  Major 

Sisson  C.  Pratt,  R.A  Second  Edition.  Small  crown  8vo, 
41.  6</. 

BROOKE , Major , C.  K. — A System  of  Field  Training.  Small 
crown  8vo,  cloth  limp,  is. 


32 


A List  of 


CLERY,  C.,  Lieut. -Col.—  Minor  Tactics.  With  26  Maps  and  Plans. 
Sixth  and  Cheaper  Edition,  Revised.  Crown  8vo,  gs. 

COLVILE,  Lieut,- Col.  C.  F. — Military  Tribunals.  Sewed,  is.  6d. 

CRAUFURD,  Lieut.  IJ.J. — Suggestions  for  the  Military  Train- 
ing of  a Company  of  Infantry.  Crown  8vo,  is.  6d. 

HARRISON,  Lieut. -Col.  R. — The  Officer’s  Memorandum  Book 
for  Peace  and  War.  Third  Edition.  Oblong  32010,  roan, 
with  pencil,  3r.  6 d. 

Notes  on  Cavalry  Tactics,  Organisation,  etc.  By  a Cavalry 
Officer.  With  Diagrams.  Demy  8vo,  12 s. 

PARR , Capt.  IT.  Hallam,  C.M.G. — The  Dress,  Horses,  and 
Equipment  of  Infantry  and  Staff  Officers.  Crown 
8vo,  is. 

SCHAW,  Col.  II. — The  Defence  and  Attack  of  Positions  and 
Localities.  Second  Edition,  Revised  and  Corrected.  Crown 
8vo,  3-r.  6 d. 

SIIADWELL,  Maj.-Gen.,  C.B. — Mountain  Warfare.  Illustrated 
by  the  Campaign  of  1799  in  Switzerland.  Being  a Translation  of 
the  Swiss  Narrative  compiled  from  the  Works  of  the  Archduke 
Charles,  Jomini,  and  others.  Also  of  Notes  by  General  II. 
Dufour  on  the  Campaign  of  the  Valtelline  in  1635.  With  Appen- 
dix, Maps,  atid  Introductory  Remarks.  Demy  8vo,  16 s. 

WILKINSON , II.  Spenser,  Capt.  10th  Lancashire  R.  V.  — Citizen 
Soldiers.  Essays  towards  the  Improvement  of  the  Volunteer 
Force.  Crown  8vo,  is.  6 d. 


POETRY. 

ADAM  OF  ST.  VICTOR.—' The  Liturgical  Poetry  of  Adam  of 
St.  Victor.  From  the  text  of  Gautier.  With  Translations  into 
English  in  the  Original  Metres,  and  Short  Explanatory  Notes, 
by  Digby  S.  Wrangham,  M.A.  3 vols.  Crown  8vo,  printed 
on  hand-made  paper,  boards,  211. 

AUCHMUTY,  A.  C.— Poems  of  English  Heroism  : From  Brunan- 
burh  to  Lucknow ; from  Athelstan  to  Albert.  Small  crown  8vo, 
ir.  6 d. 

AVIA. — The  Odyssey  of  Homer.  Done  into  English  Verse  by. 
Fcap.  4to,  15J. 

BANKS,  Mrs.  G.  L.— Ripples  and  Breakers  : Toems.  Square 
8vo,  sr. 

BARING,  T.  C.,  M.A.,  M.P.  — The  Scheme  of  Epicurus.  A 
Rendering  into  English  Verse  of  the  Unfinished  Poem  of  Lucretius, 
entitled  “ De  Rerum  Natura ” (“The  Nature  of  Things”). 
Fcap.  4to. 


Kegan  Paul,  Trench  & Co.'s  Publications. 


33 


BARNES,  William. — Poems  of  Rural  Life,  in  the  Dorset 
Dialect.  New  Edition,  complete  in  one  vol.  Crown  8vo 

OS.  &/. 


BAYNES,  Rev.  Canon  LI.  R. — Home  Songs  for  Quiet  Hours. 
Fourth  and  Cheaper  Edition.  Fcap.  8vo,  cloth,  2s.  ud. 

***  This  may  also  be  had  handsomely  bound  in  morocco  with 

gilt  edges. 

BENDALL,  Gerard.— Musa  Silvestris.  i6mo,  is.  6 d. 

BEVINGTON,  L.  S. — Key  Notes.  Small  crown  8vo,  5_r. 

BILLSON,  C.  y.— The  Acharnians  of  Aristophanes.  Crown 
8vo,  3s.  6d. 

BLUNT,  Wilfrid  Seamen.  — The  Wind  and  the  Whirlwind 
Demy  8vo,  is.  6d. 


BOWEN,  H C.,  M.A.— Simple  English  Poems.  English  Literature 
for  Junior  Classes.  In  Four  Parts.  Parts  I.,  II.,  and  III  6 d 
each,  and  Part  IV.,  ir.  Complete,  3 s. 

BRASHER,  Alfred.—  Sophia  ; or,  the  Viceroy  of  Valencia.  A Comedy 
m Five  Acts,  founded  on  a Story  in  Scarron.  Small  crown  8vo 

Of  f\rf 


h RYANT,  W,  C. — Poems.  Cheap  Edition,  with  Frontispiece 
crown  8vo,  3r.  6d. 


Small 


BYRNNE,  E.  Fairfax.— Milicent : a Poem.  Small  crown  Svo,  6s. 

CAILLARD,  Emma  Marie.  Charlotte  Corday,  and  other  Poems. 
Small  crown  8vo,  3r.  6 d. 


Calderon’s  Dramas  : the  Wonder-Working 
Dream— the  Purgatory  of  St.  Patrick. 
Florence  MacCartiiy.  Post  8vo,  10 s. 


Magician — Life  is  a 
Translated  by  Denis 


Camoens  Lusiads.  — Portuguese  Text,  with  Translation  by  T.  T 
Aubertin.  Second  Edition.  2 vols.  Crown  Svo,  12s. 

CAMPBELL,  Lewis. — Sophocles.  The  Seven  Plays  in  English  Verse 
Crown  8 vo,  7 s.  6 d. 


Castilian  Brothers  (The),  Chateaubriand,  Waldemar 
Tragedies;  and  The  Rose  of  Sicily:  a Drama. 
Author  of  “ Ginevra,  etc.  Crown  Svo,  6s. 


Three 
By  the 


Chronicles  of  Christopher  Columbus.  A Poem  in  12  Cantos. 
J3y  M.  D.  C.  Crown  8vo,  Js . 6d. 

CLARKE,  Mary  Camden.  -Honey  from  the  Weed.  Verses 
Crown  8vo,  Js. 


Cosmo  de  Medici , The  False  One ; Agramont  and  Beau- 

- rAraguedies/  and  The  Deformed  : a Dramatic 

Sketch.  By  the  Author  of  “ Ginevra,”  etc.,  etc.  Crown  Svo,  5*. 


34 


A List  of 


COXHEAD,  Ethel. — Birds  and  3abies.  Imp.  i6mo.  With  33 
Illustrations.  Gilt,  2s.  6d. 

David  Rizzio,  Both  well,  and  the  Witch  Lady : Three 
Tragedies.  By  the  author  of  “ Ginevra,”  etc.  Crown  8vo,  6r. 

DAVIE,  G.S.,  M.D. — The  Garden  of  Fragrance.  Being  a com- 
plete translation  of  the  Bostan  of  Sadi  from  the  original  Persian 
into  English  Verse.  Crown  8vo,  "]s.  6 d. 

DAVIES,  T.  Hart. — Catullus.  Translated  into  English  Verse.  Crown 
8vo,  6s. 

DENNIS,  J. — English  Sonnets.  Collected  and  Arranged  by.  Small 
crown  8vo,  2 s.  6 d. 

DE  VERE,  Aubrey. — Poetical  Works. 

I.  The  Search  after  Proserpine,  etc.  6s. 

II.  The  Legends  of  St.  Patrick,  etc.  6s. 

III.  Alexander  the  Great,  etc.  6s. 

The  Foray  of  Queen  Meave,  and  other  Legends  of  Ireland’s 
Heroic  Age.  Small  crown  8vo,  51. 

Legends  of  the  Saxon  Saints.  Small  crown  8vo,  6s. 

DILLON,  Arthur. — River  Songs  and  other  Poems.  With  13 
autotype  Illustrations  from  designs  by  Margery  May.  Fcap.  4to, 
cloth  extra,  gilt  leaves,  10 s.  6 d. 

DOBELL,  Mrs.  Horace. — Ethelstone,  Eveline,  and  other  Poems. 
Crown  8vo,  6s. 

DOBSON,  Austin. — Old  World  Idylls  and  other  Poems.  Third 
Edition.  i8mo,  cloth  extra,  gilt  tops,  6s. 

DOMET,  Alfred. — Ranolf  and  Amohia.  A Dream  of  Two  Lives. 
New  Edition,  Revised.  2 vols.  Crown  8vo,  12 s. 

Dorothy  : a Country  Story  in  Elegiac  Verse.  With  Preface.  Demy 
8vo,  5-r. 

DOIVDEN,  Edward,  LL.D. — Shakspere’s  Sonnets.  With  Intro- 
duction and  Notes.  Large  post  8vo,  7 s.  6d. 

DUTT,  Toru. — A Sheaf  Gleaned  in  French  Fields.  New  Edition- 
Demy  8vo,  1 or.  6 d. 

EDMONDS,  E.  W. — Hesperas.  Rhythm  and  Rhyme.  Crown  8vo,  <p. 

ELDRYTH,  Maud. — Margaret,  and  other  Poems.  Small  crown  Svo, 
3r.  6d. 

All  Soul’s  Eve,  “No  God,”  and  other  Poems.  Fcap.  8vo,  31.  6d. 

ELLIOTT,  Ebenezer,  The  Corn  Law  Rhymer.—  Poems.  Edited  by  his 
son,  the  Rev.  Edwin  Elliott,  of  St.  John’s,  Antigua.  2 vols. 
Crown  8vo,  iSr. 

English  Odes.  Selected,  with  a Critical  Introduction  by  Edmund  W. 

Gosse,  and  a miniature  frontispiece  by  Hamo  Thornycroft, 
A.R.A.  Elzevir  Svo,  limp  parchment  antique,  or  cloth,  6s.  ; 
vellum,  7 s.  6d. 


Kegan  Paul , Trench  & Co.'s  Publications. 


35 


English  Verse.  Edited  by  W.  J.  Linton  and  R.  H.  Stoddard. 
5 vols.  Crown  8vo,  cloth,  51-.  each. 

I.  Chaucer  to  Burns. 

II.  Translations. 

III.  Lyrics  of  the  Nineteenth  Century. 

IV.  Dramatic  Scenes  and  Characters. 

V.  Ballads  and  Romances. 


EVANS,  Anne. — Poems  and  Music.  With  Memorial  Preface  by 
Ann  Thackeray  Ritchie.  Large  crown  Svo,  7s. 

GOSSE,  Edmund  IV. — New  Poems.  Crown  Svo,  7 s.  6 d. 

GRAHAM,  William.  Two  Fancies,  and  other  Poems.  Crown  Svo,  5?. 

GRINDROD,  Charles.  Plays  from  English  History.  Crown 
8vo,  7s.  6 d. 

The  Stranger’s  Story,  and  his  Poem,  The  Lament  of  Love  : An 
Episode  of  the  Malvern  Hills.  Small  crown  8vo,  2s.  6d. 

GURNEY,  Rev.  Alfred.— The  Vision  of  the  Eucharist,  and  other 
Poems.  Crown  8vo,  Sr. 

HELL  ON,  IT.  G. — Daphnis  \ a Pastoral  Poem.  Small  crown  Svo, 

3 <*/. 

HE  NR  1 , Daniel,  Juitr.  Under  a Fool’s  Cap.  Songs.  Crown  Svo, 
cloth,  bevelled  boards,  5r. 

Herman  Waldgrave  : a Life’s  Drama.  By  the  Author  of  “ Ginevra,” 
etc.  Crown  8vo,  6r. 


HICKEY,  E.  II.— A Sculptor,  and  other  Poems.  Small  crown 
Svo,  5r. 

IIONEYWOOD,  ratty.— Poems.  Dedicated  (by  permission)  to  Lord 
Wolseley,  G.C.B.,  etc.  Small  crown  8vo,  2s.  td. 

INGHAM,  Sarson,  C.  J. — Caedmon’s  Vision,  and  other  Poems. 
Small  crown  8vo,  Sr. 

JENKINS,  Rev.  Canon.— Alfonso  Petrucci,  Cardinal  and  Con- 
spirator: an  Historical  Tragedy  in  Five  Acts.  Small  crown  Svo, 
3r.  6 d. 

JOHNSON,  Ernie  S.  W.— Ilaria,  and  other  Poems.  Small  crown  Svo, 
jr.  6 d.  ’ 

KEA  TS,  John.—  Poetical  Works.  Edited  by  W.  T.  Arnold.  Lnree 
crown  Svo,  choicely  printed  on  hand-made  paper,  with  Portrait 
in  eau-forte.  Parchment,  12s.  ; vellum,  15*. 

KING,  Edward. -Echoes  from  the  Orient.  With  Miscellaneous 
Poems.  Small  crown  Svo,  31.  6d. 

KING,  Mrs  Hamilton.- The  Disciples.  Sixth  Edition,  with  Portrait 
and  Notes.  Crown  8vo,  5 s. 

A Book  of  Dreams.  Crown  Svo,  $s.  6d. 

A N0.\,  The  Hon.  Mrs.  O.  N. — Four  Pictures  from  a Life,  and 
other  Poems.  Small  crown  Svo,  3.?.  6d. 


A List  of 


36 


LANG , A.— XXXII  Ballades  in  Blue  China.  Elzevir  8vo, 
parchment,  5 r. 

LAWSON,  Right  Hon.  Mr.  Justice. — Hymni  Usitati  Latine 
Redditi  : with  other  Verses.  Small  Svo,  parchment,  5 r. 

Lessings  Nathan  the  Wise.  Translated  by  Eustace  K.  Corbett. 
Crown  8vo,  6s. 

Life  Thoughts.  Small  crown  Svo,  2 s.  6 d. 

Living  English  Poets  MDCCCLXXXII.  With  Frontispiece  by 
Walter  Crane.  Second  Edition.  Large  crown  Svo.  Printed  on 
hand-made  paper.  Parchment,  12 s. ; vellum,  15^. 

LOCKER , F. — London  Lyrics.  A New  and  Cheaper  Edition. 
Small  crown  8vo,  is.  6 d. 

Love  in  Idleness.  A Volume  of  Poems.  With  an  etching  by  W.  Ii. 
Scott.  Small  crown  8vo,  5r. 

Love  Sonnets  of  Proteus.  With  Frontispiece  by  the  Author.  Elzevir 
8vo,  Sr. 

LUMSDEN,  Lieut. -Col.  H.  W. — Beowulf  : an  Old  English  Poem. 

Translated  into  Modem  Rhymes.  Second  and  Revised  Edition. 
Small  crown  Svo,  5 s. 

Lyre  and  Star.  Poems  by  the  Author  of  “Ginevra,”  etc.  Crown 
Svo,  5r. 

MAGNUSSON,  Eirikr,  M.A.,  and  PALMER,  E.  II,  M.A.— Johan 
Ludvig  Runeberg’s  Lyrical  Songs,  Idylls,  and  Epi- 
grams. Fcap.  8vo,  Sr. 

M.D.C. — Chronicles  of  Christopher  Columbus.  A Poem  in 
Twelve  Cantos.  Crown  Svo,  7 r.  6d. 

MEREDITH,  Owen  [The  Earl  of  Lytlon].— Lucile.  New  Edition. 

With  32  Illustrations.  i6mo,  3r.  6 d.  Cloth  extra,  gilt  edges, 
4r.  6d. 

MORRIS,  Lewis. — Poetical  Works  of.  New  and  Cheaper  Editions, 
with  Portrait.  Complete  in  3 vols.,  5r.  each. 

Vol.  I.  contains  “ Songs  of  Two  Worlds.”  Ninth  Edition.  Vol.  II. 
contains  “The  Epic  of  Hades.”  Seventeenth  Edition.  Vol.  III. 
contains  “ Gwen  ” and  “ The  Ode  of  Life.”  Fifth  Edition. 

The  Epic  of  Hades.  With  16  Autotype  Illustrations,  after  the 
Drawings  of  the  late  George  R.  Chapman.  4to,  cloth  extra,  gilt 
leaves,  2 Jr. 

The  Epic  of  Hades.  Presentation  Edition.  4to,  cloth  extra, 
gilt  leaves,  ior.  6 d. 

Songs  Unsung.  Fourth  Edition.  Fcap.  8vo,  6r. 

MORSHEAD,  E.  D.  A.  — The  House  of  Atreus.  Being  the 
Agamemnon,  Libation-Bearers,  and  Furies  of  /Eschylus.  Trans- 
lated into  English  Verse.  Grown  8vo,  7 r. 

The  Suppliant  Maidens  of  ^Eschylus.  Crown  Svo,  3r.  6 d. 


Kegan  Paul Trench  & Co.'s  Publications.  37 


NADEN,  Constance  W. — Songs  and  Sonnets  of  Spring  Time. 
Small  crown  8vo,  5r. 

NEIVELL,  E.  J.— The  Sorrows  of  Simona  and  Lyrical 
Verses.  Small  crown  Svo,  3r.  6a. 

NOEL,  The  lion.  Roden. — A Little  Child’s  Monument.  Third 
Edition.  Small  crown  Svo,  3r.  6 d. 

The  Red  Flag,  and  other  Poems.  New  Edition.  Small  crown 
Svo,  6s. 

O'  HAGAN,  yo/in. — The  Song  of  Roland.  Translated  into  English 
Verse.  New  and  Cheaper  Edition.  Crown  Svo,  5 s. 

PFEIFFER,  Emily. — The  Rhyme  of  the  Lady  of  the  Lock, 
and  How  it  Grew.  Small  crown  8vo,  3r.  6d. 

Gerard’s  Monument,  and  other  Poems.  Second  Edition. 
Crown  8vo,  6r. 

Under  the  Aspens : Lyrical  and  Dramatic.  With  Portrait. 
Crown  Svo,  6s. 

PIATT,  J.  J. — Idyls  and  Lyrics  of  the  Ohio  Valley.  Crown 
8vo,  5-r. 

POE,  Edgar  Allan. — Poems.  With  an  Essay  on  his  Poetry  by  Andrew 
Lang,  and  a Frontispiece  by  Linley  Sambourne.  Parchment 
Library  Edition. — Parchment  or  cloth,  6s. ; vellum,  ys.  6d. 

RAFFALOVICH,  Mark  Andrt.  — Cyril  and  Lionel,  and  other 
Poems.  A volume  of  Sentimental  Studies.  Small  crown  Svo, 
3-r.  6 d. 

Rare  Poems  of  the  16th  and  17th  Centuries.  Edited  W.  J. 
Linton.  Crown  8vo,  51-. 

RHOADES,  James. — The  Georgies  of  Virgil.  Translated  into 
English  Verse.  Small  crown  Svo,  Sr. 

ROBINSON,  A.  Mary  F. — A Handful  of  Honeysuckle.  Fean. 
8vo,  3r.  6 d. 

The  Crowned  Hippolytus.  Translated  from  Euripides.  With 
New  Poems.  Small  crown  Svo,  Sr. 

Schiller’s  Mary  Stuart.  German  Text,  with  English  Translation  on 
opposite  page  by  Leedham  White.  Crown  Svo,  6s. 

SCOTT,  George  F.  E. — Theodora  and  other  Poems.  Small 
crown  Svo,  3r.  6d. 

.SEAL,  W.  H. — lone,  and  other  Poems.  Crown  Svo,  gilt  tops,  Sr. 

SELKIRK,  J.  B. — Poems.  Crown  8vo,  7 r.  6d. 

Shakspere’s  Sonnets.  Edited  by  Edward  Dowden.  With  a Fron- 
tispiece etched  by  Leopold  Lowenstam,  after  the  Death  Mask. 
Parchment  Library  Edition.'— Parchment  or  cloth,  6s.  ; vellum, 
7s.  6 d. 


A List  of 


33 


Shakspere’s  Works.  Complete  in  12  Volumes.  Parchment  Library- 
Edition.  — Parchment  or  cloth,  6s.  each  ; vellum,  7 s.  6d.  each. 

SHAW \ W.  F.,  M.A.—  Juvenal,  Persius,  Martial,  and  Catullus. 
An  Experiment  in  Translation.  Crown  8vo,  5-r. 

SHELLEY,  Percy  Bysshe. — Poems  Selected  from.  Dedicated  to 
Lady  Shelley.  With  Preface  by  Richard  Garnett.  Parchment 
Library  Edition. — Parchment  or  cloth,  6s.  ; vellum,  7 s.  6 d. 

Six  Ballads  about  King  Arthur.  Crown  8vo,  cloth  extra,  gilt 
edges,  3-f.  6 J. 

SKINNER , II.  J. — The  Lily  of  the  Lyn,  and  other  Poems.  Small 
crown  8vo,  3L  6d. 

SLADEN,  Douglas  B. — Frithjof  and  Ingebjorg,  and  other 
Poems.  Small  crown  8vo,  5r. 

SMITH,  J.  W.  Gilbart.—  The  Loves  of  Vandyck.  A Tale  of  Genoa. 
Small  crown  8vo,  is.  6 d. 

Sophocles ; The  Seven  Plays  in  English  Verse.  Translated  by  Lewis 
Campbell.  Crown  8vo,  7 s.  6 d. 

SPICER,  Henry. — Haska  : a Drama  in  Three  Acts  (as  represented 
at  the  Theatre  Royal,  Drury  Lane,  March  10th,  1877).  Third 
Edition.  Crown  8vo,  31.  6d. 

TAYLOR,  Sir  It. — Works.  Complete  in  Five  Volumes.  Crown 
8vo,  301. 

Philip  Van  Artevelde.  Fcap.  8vo,  3.1.  6 d. 

The  Virgin  Widow,  etc.  Fcap.  8vo,  3J.  6d. 

The  Statesman.  Fcap.  Svo,  3s.  6d. 

TAYLOR,  Augustus.— Voeras.  Fcap.  Svo,  Sr. 

Tennyson  Birthday  Book,  The.  Edited  by  Emily  Siiakespeak. 
32mo,  limp,  is.  ; cloth  extra,  3-f. 

*m*  A superior  Edition,  printed  in  red  and  black,  on  antique  paper, 
specially  prepared.  Small  crown  Svo,  extra,  gilt  leaves,  5.L  ; 
and  in  various  calf  and  morocco  bindings. 

THORNTON,  L.  M.  —The  Son  of  Shelomith.  Small  crown  8vo, 
3s-  M. 

TODHUNTER,  Dr.  J.— Laurella,  and  other  Poems.  Crown  Svo, 
6s.  6 d. 

Forest  Songs.  Small  crown  Svo,  3s.  6 d. 

The  True  Tragedy  of  Rienzi : a Drama.  3*.  6d. 

Alcestis  : a Dramatic  Poem.  Extra  fcap.  8vo,  S-f- 

WALTERS,  Sophia  Lydia. — A Dreamer’s  Sketch  Book.  With  21 
Illustrations  by  Percival  Skelton,  R.  P.  Leitch,  W.  H.  J.  Boot,  and 
T.  R.  Pritchett.  Engraved  byj.  D.  Cooper.  Fcap.  4to,  12 s.  6d. 

WA  TTS,  Alaric  Alfred  and  Anna  Mary  Horwitt.  —Aurora.  A Medley 
of  Verse.  Fcap.  8vo,  bevelled  boards,  5r. 


Kegan  Paul , Trench  & Co.’s  Publications. 


39 


WEBSTER , Augusta. — In  a Day  : a Drama.  Small  crown  8vo,  is.  6d. 

Disguises  : a Drama.  Small  crown  Svo,  $s. 

Wet  Days.  By  a Farmer.  Small  crown  8vo,  Or. 

WILLIAMS,  J. — A Story  of  Three  Years,  and  other  Poems.  Small 
crown  Svo,  3-f.  6 d. 

Wordsworth  Birthday  Book,  The.  Edited  by  Adelaide  and 
Violet  Wordsworth.  32mo,  limp  cloth,  ir.  6 d. ; cloth  extra,  is. 
YOUNGS,  Ella  Sharp. — Paphus,  and  other  Poems.  Small  crown  Svo, 
3-f.  6d. 


WORKS  OF  FICTION  IN  ONE  VOLUME. 

BANKS,  Mrs.  G.  L. — God’s  Providence  House.  New  Edition. 
Crown  Svo,  3-r.  6 d. 

INGELOW,  Jean. — Off  the  Skelligs  : a Novel.  With  Frontispiece. 
Second  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

MACDONALD,  G. — Castle  Warlock.  A Novel.  New  and  Cheaper 
Edition.  Crown  Svo,  6s. 

Malcolm.  With  Portrait  of  the  Author  engraved  on  Steel.  Sixth 
Edition.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

The  Marquis  of  Lossie.  Fifth  Edition.  With  Frontispiece. 
Crown  8 vo,  6s. 

St.  George  and  St.  Michael.  Fourth  Edition.  With  Frontis- 
piece. Crown  8vo,  6s. 

PALGRAVE,  W.  Gifford. — Hermann  Agha : an  Eastern  Narrative. 
Third  Edition.  Crown  Svo,  6s. 

SHAW,  Flora  L. — Castle  Blair  ; a Story  of  Youthful  Days.  New  and 
Cheaper  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  3 s.  6 d. 

STRETTON,  Hesba. — Through  a Needle’s  Eye  : a Story.  New 
and  Cheaper  Edition,  with  Frontispiece.  Crown  Svo,  bs. 

TAYLOR,  Col.  Meadows,  C.S.I.,  M.R.I.A. — Seeta  : a Novel.  New 
and  Cheaper  Edition.  With  Frontispiece.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

Tippoo  Sultaun  : a Tale  of  the  Mysore  War.  New  Edition,  with 
Frontispiece.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

Ralph  Darnell.  New  and  Cheaper  Edition.  With  Frontispiece. 
Crown  8vo,  6s. 

A Noble  Queen.  New  and  Cheaper  Edition.  With  Frontis- 
piece. Crown  8vo,  6s. 

The  Confessions  of  a Thug.  Crown  Svo,  6r. 

Tara  ; a Mahratta  Tale.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 

Within  Sound  of  the  Sea.  New  and  Cheaper  Edition,  with  Frontis- 
piece. Crown  8vo,  6s. 


40  A List  of  Kogan  Paul,  Trench  & Co.'s  Publications . 


BOOKS  FOR  THE  YOUNG. 

Brave  Men’s  Footsteps.  A Book  of  Example  and  Anecdote  for 
Young  People.  By  the  Editor  of  “ Men  who  have  Risen.”  With 
4 Illustrations  by  C.  Doyle.  Eighth  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  3.?.  Gd 

COXHEAD,  Ethel. — Birds  and  Babies.  Imp.  i6mo.  With  33 
Illustrations.  Cloth  gilt,  2s.  bd. 

DAVIES,  G.  Christopher. — Rambles  and  Adventures  of  our 
School  Field  Club.  With  4 Illustrations.  New  and  Cheaper 
Edition.  Crown  8vo,  3*.  Gd. 

EDMONDS,  Herbert. — Well  Spent  Lives:  a Series  of  Modern  Bio- 
graphies. New  and  Cheaper  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  3-r.  Gd. 

EVANS,  Mark. — The  Story  of  our  Father’s  Love,  told  to  Children. 

Sixth  and  Cheaper  Edition  of  Theology  for  Children.  With  4 
Illustrations.  Fcap.  8vo,  is.  Gd. 

JOHNSON,  Virginia  IV. — The  Catskill  Fairies.  Illustrated  by 
Alfred  Fredericks.  5 s. 

MAC  HENNA,  S.  J. — Plucky  Fellows.  A Book  for  Boys.  With 
6 Illustrations.  Fifth  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  3*.  Gd. 

REANE  V,  Mrs.  G.  S. — Waking  and  Working  ; or,  From  Girlhood 
to  Womanhood.  New  and  Cheaper  Edition.  With  a Frontis- 
piece. Crown  Svo,  3 s.  Gd. 

Blessing  and  Blessed : a Sketch  of  Girl  Life.  New  and 
Cheaper  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  3 s.  Gd. 

Rose  Gurney’s  Discovery.  A Book  for  Girls.  Dedicated  to 
their  Mothers.  Crown  8vo,  3.?.  Gd. 

English  Girls ".  Their  Place  and  Power.  With  Preface  by  the 
Rev.  R.  W.  Dale.  Fourth  Edition.  Fcap.  8vo,  2s.  Gd. 

Just  Anyone,  and  other  Stories.  Three  Illustrations.  Royal 
l6mo,  ir.  Gd. 

Sunbeam  Willie,  and  other  Stories.  Three  Illustrations.  Royal 
i6mo,  is.  Gd. 

Sunshine  Jenny,  and  other  Stories.  Three  Illustrations.  Royal 
i6mo,  is.  Gd. 

STOCKTON,  Frank  R. — A Jolly  Fellowship.  With  20  Illustra- 
tions. Crown  Svo,  5-f. 

STORR,  Francis,  and  TURNER,  Hawes. — Canterbury  Chimes ; 
or,  Chaucer  Tales  re-told  to  Children.  With  6 Illustrations  from 
the  Ellesmere  MS.  Third  Edition.  Fcap,  Svo,  3-r.  Gd. 

STRETTON,  Hcsba.— David  Lloyd’s  Last  Will.  With  4 Illustra- 
tions. New  Edition.  Royal  i6mo,  2 s.  Gd. 

Tales  from  Ariosto  Re-told  for  Children.  By  a Lady.  With  3 
Illustrations.  Crown  8vo,  4.?.  Gd. 

WHITAKER,  Florence. — Christy’s  Inheritance.  A London  Story. 
Illustrated.  Royal  if  mo,  \s.Gd. 


VR1NTED  BY  WILLIAM  CLOWES  AND  SONS,  LIMITED,  LONDON  AND  BECCI.BS. 


I 


T l <SvHT 


mJ 

r 

o 


UJ 

V- 

^5