A traveller, W. J. Hamilton,[1066] said he found it wild near Orgou and

Outch Hisar in Anatolia: but this assertion has not been verified by a

botanist. The supposed wild apricot of the ruins of Baalbek, described

by Eusèbe de Salle[1067] is, from what he says of the leaf and fruit,

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[1068] asserts that it is indigenous in

Persia, but he gives no proof. Boissier and Buhse[1069] do not mention

it in their list of the plants of Transcaucasia and Persia. It is

useless to seek its origin in Africa. The apricots which Reynier[1070]

says he saw, “almost wild,” in Upper Egypt must have sprung from stones

grown in cultivated ground, as is seen in Algeria.[1071] Schweinfurth

and Ascherson,[1072] 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. Now there is no Hebrew name, and Pliny

says its introduction at Rome took place thirty years before he wrote.

Carrying our researches eastward, we find that Anglo-Indian

botanists[1073] 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 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 Westmael verified,[1074] 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,[1075] who did not neglect the question of origin, says,

speaking of the apricot, “native of China as well as the west of Asia.”

I read in Dr. Bretschneider’s curious little work,[1076] drawn up at

Pekin, the following passage, which seems to me to decide the question

in favour of a Chinese origin:—“_Sing_, as is well known, is the

apricot (_Prunus armeniaca_). The character (a Chinese sign printed on

p. 10) does not exist as indicating a fruit, either in the _Shu-king_,

or in the _Shi-king_, _Cihouli_, etc., but the _Shan-hai-king_ says that

several _sings_ grow upon the hills (here a Chinese character). Besides,

the name of the apricot is represented by a particular sign which may

show that it is indigenous in China.” The _Shan-hai-king_ is attributed

to the Emperor Yü, who lived in 2205-2198 B.C. Decaisne,[1077] who was

the first to suspect the Chinese origin of the apricot, has recently

received from Dr. Bretschneider some specimens accompanied by the

following note:—“No. 24, apricot wild in the mountains of Pekin, where

it grows in abundance; the fruit is small (an inch and a quarter in

diameter), the skin red and yellow; the flesh salmon colour, sour, but

eatable. No. 25, the stone of the apricot cultivated round Pekin. The

fruit is twice as large as that of the wild tree.”[1078] 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

Amoor.[1079] 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, we are at first tempted to believe that the ancient area

extended from the north-west of India to China. However, if we wish to

adopt this hypothesis, we must also admit that the culture of the

apricot spread very late towards the West.[1080] 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.[1081] 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

Græco-Roman world? The Chinese knew it two or three thousand years

before the Christian era. Chang-kien went as far as Bactriana, a century

before our era, and he was the first to make the West known to his

fellow-countrymen.[1082] 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 scattering of the stones beyond the limits of

the plantations.

+Almond+—_Amygdalus communis_, Linnæus; _Pruni species_, Baillon;

_Prunus Amygdalus_, Hooker.

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 the north of China was the _Persica Davidiana_.[1083] Dr.

Bretschneider,[1084] 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[1085] say that the almond is cultivated in the

cool parts of India, but some add that it does not thrive, and that many

almonds are brought from Persia.[1086] No Sanskrit name is known, nor

even any in the languages derived from Sanskrit. Evidently the

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[1087] has seen specimens

gathered in rocky ground in Mesopotamia, Aderbijan, Turkestan,

Kurdistan, and in the forests of the Anti-Lebanon. Karl Koch[1088] has

not found it wild to the south of the Caucasus, nor Tchihatcheff in Asia

Minor. Cosson[1089] found natural woods of almond trees near Saida in

Algeria. It is also regarded as wild on the coasts of Sicily and of

Greece;[1090] 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 dispersal 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 _schekedim_ for the nut.[1091] The Persians have

another name, _badam_, but I do not know how old this is. Theophrastus

and Dioscorides[1092] 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.[1093] Pliny[1094] 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 introduced into Italy from the Greek islands.

Almonds have not been found in the _terra-mare_ of the neighbourhood of

Parma, even in the upper layers.

The late introduction of the species into Italy, and the absence of

naturalization in Sardinia and Spain,[1095] 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

confirmation of this hypothesis, I note that the Berber name of the

almond, _talouzet_,[1096] 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, 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 between bitter and sweet almonds was known

to the Greeks and even to the Hebrews.

+Peach+—_Amygdalus persica_, Linnæus; _Persica vulgaris_, Miller;

_Prunus persica_, Bentham and Hooker.

I will quote the article in which I formerly[1097] attributed a Chinese

origin to the peach, a contrary opinion to that which prevailed at the

time, and which people who are not on a par with modern science continue

to reproduce. I will afterwards give the facts discovered since 1855.

“The Greeks and Romans received the peach shortly after the beginning

of the Christian era. The names _persica_, _malum persicum_, indicate

whence they had it. I need not dwell upon those well-known facts.[1098]

Several kinds of peach are now cultivated in the north of India,[1099]

but, what is remarkable, no Sanskrit name is known;[1100] 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, only mentions Arab and Chinese names. Piddington gives no

Indian name, and Royle only Persian names. The peach does not succeed,

or requires the greatest care to ensure success, in the north-east of

India.[1101] In China, on the contrary, its cultivation dates from the

remotest antiquity. A number of superstitious ideas and of legends about

the properties of its different varieties exist in that country.[1102]

These varieties are very numerous;[1103] and in particular the singular

variety with compressed or flattened fruit,[1104] 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.[1105]

“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 importation 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

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,[1106] and

that the Japanese give the Chinese name _Tao_[1107] to the peach. M.

Stanislas Julien was kind enough to read to me in French some passages

of the Japanese encyclopædia (bk. lxxxvi. p. 7), in 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_ in the tenth century before

Christ. Its wild nature is not specified in the encyclopædia of which I

have just spoken; but Chinese authors pay little attention to this

point.”

After a few details about the common names of the peach in different

languages, I went on to say, “The absence of Sanskrit and Hebrew names

remains the most important fact, whence we may infer an introduction

into Western Asia from a more distant land, that is to say, from China.

“The peach has been found wild in different parts of Asia; but it is

always a question whether it is indigenous there, or whether it sprang

from the dispersion of stones produced by cultivated trees. The question

is the more necessary since the stones germinate easily, and several of

the modifications of the peach are hereditary.[1108] Apparently wild

peach trees have often been found in the neighbourhood of the Caucasus.

Pallas[1109] saw several on the banks of the Terek, where the

inhabitants give it a name which he calls Persian, _scheptata_.[1110]

Its fruit is 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, and in Persia; but Marshall, Bieberstein, Meyer,

and Hohenacker do not give the wild peach in the neighbourhood of the

Caucasus. Early travellers, Gmelin, Guldenstadt, and Georgi, quoted by

Ledebour, mentioned it. C. Koch[1111] is the only modern botanist who

said he found the peach tree in abundance in the Caucasian provinces.

Ledebour, however, prudently adds, Is it wild? The stones which

Brugnière and Olivier brought from Ispahan, which were sown in Paris and

yielded a good velvety peach, were not, as Bosc[1112] asserted, taken

from a peach tree wild in Persia, but from one growing in a garden at

Ispahan.[1113] 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[1114] says that the peach grows

wild in 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 Nepalensis_ mention the peach.

Bunge[1115] only found cultivated trees in the north of China. This

country has hardly been explored, and Chinese legends seem sometimes to

indicate wild peaches. Thus the _Chou-y-ki_, according to the author

previously quoted, says, ‘Whosoever eats of the peaches of Mount

Kouoliou shall obtain eternal life.’ For Japan, Thunberg[1116] says,

_Crescit ubique vulgaris, præcipue juxta Nagasaki. In omni horto colitur

ob elegantiam florum._ 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.

“I have 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 countries—at least the clearly defined kinds,

which may be considered as botanical species. Thus the great distinction

between the downy and smooth-skinned fruits (peaches proper and

nectarines), on which it is proposed to found two species (_Persica

vulgaris_, Mill, and _P. levis_, D. C.), exists in Japan[1117] and in

Europe, as in most of the intermediate countries.[1118] 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 flesh, 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 elsewhere; 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.[1119] The colour also varies greatly.[1120] In

Europe the most distinct varieties, nectarines and peaches, freestones

and clingstones, existed three centuries ago, for J. Bauhin enumerates

them very clearly;[1121] and before him Dalechamp, in 1587, also gave

the principal ones.[1122] At that time nectarines were called

_Nucipersica_, because of their resemblance in shape, size, and colour

to the walnut. It is in the same sense that the Italians call them

_pescanoce_.

“I have sought in vain for a proof that the nectarine existed in Italy

in the time of ancient Rome. Pliny,[1123] who confounds in his

compilation peaches, plums, the _Laurus Persea_,[1124] and perhaps other

trees, says nothing 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,[1125] 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 _Cratægus_, just as well as

the smooth-skinned peach. Each author in the time of the Renaissance had

his opinion on this point, or criticized that of the others.[1126]

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 (?)[1127]

but I doubt whether this question can ever be cleared up.[1128]

“Even admitting that the _Nucipersica_ was only introduced 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 intermixture

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

unexpectedly appeared upon a peach tree, that it is useless to insist

longer upon this point, and I will only add that the nectarine has every

appearance of an artificial tree. Not only is it not found wild, but it

never becomes naturalized, and each tree lives for a shorter time than

the common peach. It is, in fact, a weakened form.

“The facility,” I said, “with which our peach trees are multiplied from

seed in America, and have produced fleshy fruits, sometimes very fine

ones, without the resource of grafting, inclines me to think that the

species is in a natural state, little changed by a long cultivation or

by hybrid fertilization. In Virginia and the neighbouring states there

are peaches grown on trees raised from seed and not grafted, and their

abundance is so great that brandy is made from them.[1129] On some trees

the fruit is magnificent.[1130] At Juan Fernandez, says Bertero,[1131]

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 the wild peaches with

indifferent fruit found in Western Asia were simply naturalized trees in

a climate not wholly favourable, and that the species was of Chinese

origin, where its cultivation seems most ancient.”

Dr. Bretschneider,[1132] who at Pekin has access to all the resources of

Chinese literature, merely says, after reading the above passages,

“_Tao_ is the peach tree. De Candolle thinks that China is the native

country of the peach. He may be right.”

The antiquity of the existence of the species and its wild nature in

Western Asia have become more doubtful since 1855. Anglo-Indian

botanists speak of the peach solely as a cultivated tree,[1133] or as

cultivated and becoming naturalized and apparently wild in the

north-west of India.[1134] Boissier[1135] mentions specimens gathered in

Ghilan and to the south of the Caucasus, but he says nothing as to their

wild nature; and Karl Koch,[1136] 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 cultivated in China; 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 Decaisne[1137] 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_,

Carrière). 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, and by the representations of the

peach tree in the paintings on the walls of the richer houses in

Pompeii.[1138]

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[1139] collected facts in support of this idea, not

omitting to mention one which seems opposed to it. They may be concisely

put as follows:—(1) Crossed fertilization, which 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

stones, or by chance in plantations, forms of which the almond-peach is

an example which has long been known. Decaisne[1140] pointed out

differences between the almond and peach in the size and length of the

leaves independently of the fruit. He calls Knight’s theory a “strange

hypothesis.”

Geographical botany opposes his hypothesis, for the almond 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

already 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 in

China, the other in Syria and in Anatolia. The peach, after 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 latter existed already in Syria. And if the almond of

Western Asia had produced the peach, how could the latter have existed

in China at a very remote period while it was not known to the Greeks

and Latins?

+Pear+—_Pyrus communis_, Linnæus.

The pear grows wild over the whole of temperate Europe and Western Asia,

particularly in Anatolia, to the south of the Caucasus and in the north

of Persia,[1141] perhaps even in Kashmir,[1142] but this is very

doubtful. Some authors hold that its area extends as far as China. This

opinion is due to the fact that they regard _Pyrus sinensis_, Lindley,

as belonging to the same species. An examination of the leaves alone, of

which the teeth are covered with a fine silky down, convinced me of the

specific difference of the two trees.[1143]

Our wild pear does not differ much from some of the cultivated

varieties. Its fruit is sour, spotted, and narrowing towards the stalk,

or nearly spherical on the same tree.[1144] 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 at a distance

from dwellings. In the present case it is not difficult. Pear trees are

often found in woods, and they attain to a considerable height, with all

the conditions of fertility of an indigenous plant.[1145] Let us

examine, however, whether in the wide area they occupy a less ancient

existence may be suspected in some countries than in others.

No Sanskrit name for the pear is known, whence it may be concluded that

its cultivation is of no long standing 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,[1146] 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 _pyrus_ or

_pirus_,[1147] and cultivated a great number of varieties, at least in

Pliny’s time. The mural paintings at Pompeii frequently represent the

tree with its fruit.[1148]

The lake-dwellers of Switzerland and Italy gathered wild apples in great

quantities, and among their stores pears are sometimes, but rarely,

found. Heer has given an illustration of one which cannot be mistaken,

found at Wangen or Robenhausen. It is a fruit narrowing towards the

stalk, 28 mm. (about an inch and a half) long by 19 mm. (an inch) wide,

cut longitudinally so as to show the small quantity of pulp as compared

to the cartilaginous central part.[1149] None have been found in the

lake-dwellings of Bourget in Savoy. In those of Lombardy, Professor

Raggazzoni[1150] found a pear cut lengthways, 25 mm. by 16. This was at

Bardello, Lago di Varese. The wild pears figured in Duhamel, _Traité des

Arbres_, edit. 2, are 30 to 33 by 30 to 32 mm.; and those of Laristan,

figured in the _Jardin Fruitier du Muséum_ under the name _P. balansæ_,

which seem to me to be of the same species, and undoubtedly wild, are 26

to 27 mm. by 24 to 25. In modern wild pears the fleshy part is a little

thicker, but the ancient lake-dwellers dried their fruits after cutting

them lengthways, which must have caused them to shrink a little. No

knowledge of metals or of hemp is shown in the settlements where these

were found; but, considering their distance from the more civilized

centres of antiquity, especially in the case of Switzerland, it is

possible that these remains are not more ancient than the Trojan war, or

than the foundation of Rome.

I have mentioned three Greek and one Roman name, but there are many

others; for instance, _pauta_ in Armenian and Georgian; _vatzkor_ in

Hungarian; in Slav languages _gruscha_ (Russian), _hrusska_ (Bohemian),

_kruska_ (Illyrian). Names similar to the Latin _pyrus_ recur in the

Keltic languages; _peir_ in Erse, _per_ in Kymric and Armorican.[1151] I

leave philologists to conjecture the Aryan origin of some of these

names, and of the German _Birn_; I merely note their number and

diversity as an indication of the very ancient existence of the species

from the Caspian Sea to the Atlantic. The Aryans certainly did not carry

pears nor pear pips with them in their wanderings 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 may have

survived in some countries. As an example of the latter case, I may

mention two Basque names, _udarea_ and _madaria_,[1152] which have no

analogy with any known European or Asiatic name. The Basques being

probably 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 considered 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.[1153] It seems that they

may be ranked, as Decaisne says, either with _P. communis_ or _P.

nivalis_ of 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 centre of France. It was

named _Pyrus nivalis_ by Jacquin[1154] from the German name

_Schneebirne_, 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. _sauge_). Decaisne[1155] considered all

the varieties of _P. nivalis_ to be derived from _P. kotschyana_,

Boissier,[1156] 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 drink called perry have

become wild in the woods here and there.[1157] They constitute the

greater number of the so-called “cider pears,” which are distinguished

by the sour taste of the fruit independent of the character of the leaf.

The 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.[1158]

+Sandy Pear+, +Chinese Pear+—_Pyrus sinensis_, Lindley.[1159]

I have already mentioned this species, which is nearly allied to the

common pear. It is wild in Mongolia and Mantchuria,[1160] and cultivated

in China and Japan. Its fruit, large rather than good, is used for

preserving. It has also been recently introduced into European gardens

for experiments in crossing it with our species. This will very likely

take place naturally.

+Apple+—_Pyrus Malus_, Linnæus.

The apple tree grows wild throughout Europe (excepting in the extreme

north), in Anatolia, the south of the Caucasus, and the Persian province

of Ghilan.[1161] Near Trebizond, the botanist Bourgeau saw quite a small

forest of them.[1162] 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 mentions it as growing in Siberia, in Mongolia, or in

Japan.[1163]

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.[1164] In France accurate

authors also give two wild varieties, but with characters which do not

tally exactly with those of the German flora.[1165] 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,[1166] like _Malus 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 Pictet[1167] informs us that this name _seba_ is Hindustani, and

comes from the Persian _sêb_, _sêf_. The absence of an earlier name in

India argues that the now common cultivation of the apple in Kashmir and

Thibet, and especially that in the north-west and 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_,

_af_, _av_, _ob_, as this root recurs in several European names of Aryan

origin. Pictet gives _aball_, _ubhall_, in Erse; _afal_ in Kymric;

_aval_ in Armorican; _aphal_ in old High German; _appel_ in old English;

_apli_ in Scandinavian; _obolys_ in Lithuanian; _iabluko_ 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

_mailea_ or _maila_, the Latins _malus_, _malum_, words whose origin,

according to Pictet, is very uncertain. The Albanians, descendants of

the Pelasgians, have _molé_.[1168] Theophrastus[1169] 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 invasions.

The inhabitants of the _terra-mare_ of Parma, and of the palafittes of

the lakes of Lombardy, Savoy, and Switzerland, made great use of apples.

They always cut them lengthways, and preserved them dried as a provision

for the winter. The specimens are often carbonized by fire, but the

internal structure of the fruit is only the more clearly to be

distinguished. Heer,[1170] who has shown great penetration in observing

these details, distinguishes two varieties of the apple known to the

inhabitants of the lake-dwellings before they possessed metals. The

smaller kind are 15 to 24 mm. in their longitudinal diameter, and about

3 mm. more across (in their dried and carbonized state); the larger, 29

to 32 mm. lengthways by 36 wide (dried, but not carbonized). The latter

corresponds to an apple of German-Swiss orchards, now called _campaner_.

The English wild apple, figured in _English Botany_, pl. 179, is 17 mm.

long by 22 wide. It is possible that the little apples of the

lake-dwellings were wild; however, their abundance in the stores makes

it doubtful. Dr. Gross sent me two apples from the more recent

palafittes of Lake Neuchâtel; the one is 17 the other 22 mm. in

longitudinal diameter. At Lagozza, in Lombardy, Sordelli[1171] mentions

two apples, the one 17 mm. by 19, the other 19 mm. by 27. In a

prehistoric deposit of Lago Varese, at Bardello, Ragazzoni found an

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 prehistoric times. The lack of

communication with Asia before the Aryan invasion makes it probable that

the tree was indigenous in Europe as in Anatolia, the south of the

Caucasus, and Northern Russia, and that its cultivation began early

everywhere.

+Quince+—_Cydonia vulgaris_, Persoon.

The quince grows wild in the woods in the north of Persia, near the

Caspian Sea, in the region to the south of the Caucasus, and in

Anatolia.[1172] A few botanists have also found it apparently wild in

the Crimea, and in the north of Greece;[1173] 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 known for the quince, whence it may be inferred that

its area did not extend towards the centre of Asia. Neither is there any

Hebrew name, though the species is wild upon Mount Taurus.[1174] The

Persian name is _haivah_,[1175] but I do not know whether it is as old

as Zend. The same name, _aiva_, exists in Russian for the cultivated

quince, while the name of the wild plant is _armud_, from the Armenian

_armuda_.[1176] The Greeks grafted upon a common variety, _strution_, a

superior kind, which came from Cydon, in Crete, whence κυδωνιον,

translated by the Latin _malum cotoneum_, by _cydonia_, and all the

European names, such as _codogno_ in Italian, _coudougner_, and later

_coing_ in French, _quitte_ in German, etc. There are Polish, _pigwa_,

Slav, _tunja_,[1177] and Albanian (Pelasgian?), _ftua_,[1178] names

which differ entirely from the others. This variety of names points to

an ancient knowledge of the species to the west of its original

country, and the Albanian name may even indicate an existence prior to

the Hellenes.

Its antiquity in Greece may also be gathered from the superstition,

mentioned by Pliny and Plutarch, that the 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

maintain 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.[1179] The quince tree is figured twice in these, which is not

surprising, as the tree was known in Cato’s time.[1180]

It seems to me probable that it was naturalized in the east of Europe

before the epoch of the Trojan war. The quince is a fruit which has been

little modified by cultivation; it is as harsh and acid when fresh as in

the time of the ancient Greeks.

+Pomegranate+—_Punica granatum_, Linnæus.

The pomegranate grows wild in stony ground in Persia, Kurdistan,

Afghanistan, and Beluchistan.[1181] Burnes saw groves of it in

Mazanderan, to the south of the Caspian Sea.[1182] It appears equally

wild to the south of the Caucasus.[1183] Westwards, that is to say, in

Asia Minor, in Greece, and in the Mediterranean basin generally, in the

north of Africa and in Madeira, the species appears rather to have

become naturalized from cultivation, and by the dispersal of the seeds

by birds. Many floras of the south of Europe speak of it as a

“subspontaneous” or naturalized species. Desfontaines, in his _Atlantic

Flora_, gives it as wild in Algeria, but subsequent authors think[1184]

rather it is naturalized.[1185] I doubt its being wild in Beluchistan,

where the traveller Stocks found it, for Anglo-Indian botanists do not

allow it to be indigenous east of the Indus, and I note the absence of

the species in the collections from Lebanon and Syria which Boissier is

always careful to quote.

In China the pomegranate exists only as a cultivated plant. It was

introduced from Samarkhand by Chang-Kien, a century and a half before

the Christian era.[1186]

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.[1187] 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_,[1188] whence the Arabic

_rumman_ or _rûman_. 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 shrub, but the

Scriptures only mention it as a cultivated species. The flower and the

fruit figured in the religious rites of the Phœnicians, and the goddess

Aphrodite had herself planted it in the isle of Cyprus,[1189] which

implies that it was not indigenous there. The Greeks were acquainted

with the species in the time of Homer. It is twice mentioned in the

_Odyssey_ as a tree in the gardens of Phæacia and Phrygia. They called

it _roia_ or _roa_, which philologists believe to be derived from the

Syrian and Hebrew name,[1190] and also _sidai_,[1191] which seems to be

Pelasgic, for the modern Albanian name is _sige_.[1192] There is nothing

to show that the species was wild in Greece, where Fraas and Heldreich

affirm that it is now only naturalized.[1193]

The pomegranate enters into the myths and religious ceremonies of the

ancient Romans.[1194] Cato speaks of its properties as a vermifuge.

According to Pliny,[1195] the best pomegranates came from Carthage,

hence the name _Malum punicum_; but it should not be supposed, as it has

been assumed, that the species came originally from Northern Africa.

Very probably the Phœnicians had introduced it at Carthage long before

the Romans had anything to do with this town, and it was doubtless

cultivated as in Egypt.

If the pomegranate had formerly been wild in Northern Africa and the

south of Europe, the Latins would have had more original names for it

than _granatum_ (from _granum?_) and _Malum punicum_. We should have

perhaps found local names derived from ancient Western tongues; whereas

the Semitic name _rimmon_ has prevailed in Greek and in Arabic, and even

occurs, through Arab influence, among the Berbers.[1196] It must be

admitted that the African origin is one of the errors caused by the

erroneous popular nomenclature of the Romans.

Leaves and flowers of a pomegranate, described by Saporta[1197] as a

variety of the modern _Punica granatum_, 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 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 1869,[1198] which has not prevented the repetition of

the erroneous African origin in several works.

+Rose Apple+—_Eugenia Jambos_, Linnæus; _Jambosa vulgaris_, de Candolle.

This small tree belongs to the family of Myrtaceæ. It is cultivated in

tropical regions of the old and new worlds, as much perhaps for the

beauty of its foliage as for its fruit, of which the rose-scented pulp

is too scanty. There is an excellent illustration and a good description

of it in the _Botanical Magazine_, pl. 3356. The seed is

poisonous.[1199]

As the cultivation of this species is of ancient date in Asia, there was

no doubt of its Asiatic origin; but the locality in which it grew wild

was formerly unknown. Loureiro’s assertion that it grew in Cochin-China

and some parts of India required confirmation, which has been afforded

by some modern writers.[1200] The _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 Rheede saw this tree

in gardens in Malabar he noticed that it was called _Malacca-schambu_,

which shows that it came originally from the Malay Peninsula. Lastly,

Brandis says it is wild in Sikkim, to the north of Bengal. Its natural

area probably extends from the islands of the Malay Archipelago to

Cochin-China, and even to the north-east of India, where, however, it is

probably naturalized from cultivation and by the agency of birds.

Naturalization has also taken place elsewhere—at Hongkong, for

instance, in the Seychelles, Mauritius, and Rodriguez, and in several of

the West India Islands.[1201]

+Malay Apple+—_Eugenia malaccensis_, Linnæus; _Jambosa malaccensis_, de

Candolle.

A species allied to _Eugenia jambos_, but differing from it in the

arrangement of its flowers, and in its fruit, of an obovoid instead of

ovoid form; that is to say, the smaller end is attached to the stalk.

The fruit is more fleshy and is also rose-scented, but it is much[1202]

or little[1203] esteemed according to the country and varieties. These

are numerous, differing in the red or pink colour of the flowers, and in

the size, shape, and colour of the fruit.

The numerous varieties show an ancient cultivation in the Malay

Archipelago, where the species is indigenous. In confirmation, it must

be noted that Forster found it established in the Pacific Islands, from

Otahiti to the Sandwich Isles, at the time of Cook’s voyages.[1204] The

Malay apple grows wild in the forests of the Malay Archipelago, and in

the peninsula of Malacca.[1205]

Tussac says that it was brought to Jamaica from Otahiti in 1793. It has

spread and become naturalized in several of the West India Islands, also

in Mauritius and the Seychelles.[1206]

+Guava+—_Psidium guayava_, Raddi.

Ancient authors, Linnæus, and some later botanists, admitted two species

of this fruit tree of the family of Myrtaceæ, 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 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 in Brazil.[1207] The

majority of botanists, especially those who have observed the guava in

the colonies, follow the opinion of Raddi,[1208] to which I was

inclined, even in 1855, from reasons drawn from the geographical

distribution.[1209]

Lowe,[1210] in his _Flora of Madeira_, maintains with some 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 many cultivated plants. Each of these races comprehends

several varieties.[1211]

The study of the origin of the guava presents in the highest degree the

difficulty which exists in the case of many fruit trees of this nature:

their fleshy and somewhat aromatic fruits attract omnivorous animals

which cast their seeds in places far from cultivation. Those of 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 the species, I may

begin by eliminating the old world, for it is sufficiently evident that

the guava came from America. Out of sixty species of the genus Psidium,

all those which have been carefully studied are American. It is true

that botanists from the sixteenth century have found plants of _Psidium

guayava_ (varieties _pomiferum_ and _pyriferum_) more or less wild in

the Malay Archipelago and the south of Asia,[1212] but everything tends

to show that these were the result of recent naturalization. In each

locality a foreign origin was admitted; the only doubt was whether this

origin was Asiatic or American. Other considerations justify this idea.

The common names in Malay are derived from the American word _guiava_.

Ancient Chinese authors do not mention the guava, though Loureiro said a

century and a half ago that they were growing wild in Cochin-China.

Forster does not mention them among the cultivated plants of the Pacific

Isles at the time of Cook’s voyage, which is significant when we

consider how easy this plant is to cultivate and its ready dispersion.

In Mauritius and the Seychelles there is no doubt of their recent

introduction and naturalization.[1213]

It is more difficult to discover from what part of America the guava

originally came. In the present century it is undoubtedly wild in the

West Indies, in Mexico, in Central America, Venezuela, Peru, Guiana, and

Brazil.[1214] But whether this is only since Europeans extended its

cultivation, or whether it was previously diffused by the agency of the

natives and of birds, seems to be no more certain than when I spoke on

the subject in 1855.[1215] Now, however, with a little more experience

in questions of this nature, and since the specific unity of the two

varieties of guava is recognized, I shall endeavour to show what seems

most probable.

J. Acosta,[1216] one of the earliest authors on the natural history of

the new world, expresses himself as follows, about the spherical variety

of the guava: “There are mountains in San Domingo and the other islands

entirely covered with guavas, and the natives say that there were no

such trees in the islands before the arrival of the Spaniards, who

brought them, I know not 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 mainland. Hernandez[1217] saw both varieties wild in Mexico in the

warm regions of the plains and mountains near Quauhnaci. He gives a

description and a fair drawing of _P. pomiferum_. Piso and

Marcgraf[1218] also found the two guavas wild in the plains of Brazil;

but they 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 Mexico. Evidently the species was wild in a great

part 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 to San Domingo and

Brazil (an assertion, however, which we may be permitted to doubt), I

suspect that the most ancient habitation extended from Mexico to

Columbia and Peru, possibly including Brazil before the discovery 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.

+Gourd+,[1219] or +Calabash+—_Lagenaria vulgaris_, Seringe; _Cucurbita

lagenaria_, Linnæus.

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.[1220] The most remarkable are the _pilgrim’s gourd_, in the

form of a bottle, the _long-necked gourd_, the _trumpet gourd_, and 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.

Linnæus[1221] pronounced the species to be American. De Candolle[1222]

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 Doon.[1223] Roxburgh[1224] considered it to

be wild in India, although subsequent floras give it only as a

cultivated species. Lastly, Rumphius[1225] 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, _ulavou_, and another, bitter, _kutou-toumbi_, to which Pictet

also attributes the name _tiktaka_ or _tiktika_.[1226] Seemann[1227] saw

the species cultivated and naturalized in the Fiji Isles. Thozet

gathered it on the coast of Queensland,[1228] 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.[1229]

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.[1230]

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.[1231] He is

speaking here of cultivated plants. The modern varieties 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

lines[1232] of the tenth book of Columella. After describing the

different forms of the fruit, he says—

“Dabit illa capacem,

Nariciæ picis, aut Actæi mellis Hymetti,

Aut habilem lymphis hamulam, Bacchove lagenam,

Tum pueros eadem fluviis innare docebit.”

Pliny[1233] speaks of a _Cucurbitacea_, of which vessels and flasks for

wine were made, which can only apply to this species.

It does not appear that the Arabs were early acquainted with it, for Ibn

Alawâm and Ibn Baithar say nothing of it.[1234] Commentators of Hebrew

works attribute 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.[1235] Alexander

Braun, Ascherson, and Magnus, in their learned paper on the Egyptian

remains of plants in the Berlin Museum,[1236] indicate several

Cucurbitaceæ without mentioning this one. The earliest modern

travellers, such as Rauwolf,[1237] 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 illustrations of this

species, which was more generally cultivated in Europe at that time than

it is now. The common name in these older writings is _Cameraria_, 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 pl. 216 of _Herbarius Pataviæ

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 before the arrival of the Europeans.

The _Taquera_ of Piso[1238] and _Cucurbita lagenæforma_ of

Marcgraf[1239] are perhaps _Lagenaria vulgaris_ as monographs say,[1240]

and the specimens from Brazil which they mention should be certain, but

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 1637 and 1638, a much longer time elapsed than is

needed to account for the introduction and diffusion 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_,[1241] 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.

Acosta[1242] 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,[1243] who had visited the mainland, and, after dwelling at Vera

Paz, came back to Europe in 1515, but returned to Nicaragua in

1539.[1244] According to Ramusio’s compilation[1245] he spoke of

_zueche_, 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,[1246] however, mentions a large

cultivated gourd, and a smaller one with a bitter and purgative pulp,

which was found wild.

Lastly, Elliott[1247] 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 our country from a warmer climate. The species has

now become wild near dwellings, especially in islands.” The expression,

“inhabitants of our country,” seems to refer rather to the colonists

than to the natives. Between the discovery of Virginia by Cabot in 1497,

or the travels 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 dealings with them is doubtful. Torrey and Gray[1248] mentioned

it as certain in their flora published in 1830-40, and later the second

of these able botanists,[1249] in an article on the _Cucurbitaceæ_ 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 more recently.[1250]

[In the learned articles by Messrs. Asa Gray and Trumbull on the present

volume (_American Journal of Science_, 1883, p. 370), they give reasons

for supposing the species known and indigenous in America previous to

the arrival of the Europeans. Early travellers are quoted more in detail

than I had done. From their testimony it appears that the inhabitants of

Peru, Brazil, and of Paria possessed gourds, in Spanish _calabazas_, but

I do not see that this proves that this was the species called by

botanists _Cucurbita lagmaria_. The only character independent of the

exceedingly variable form of the fruit is the white colour of the

flowers, and this character is not mentioned.—AUTHOR’S NOTE, 1884.]

+Gourd+—_Cucurbita maxima_, Duchesne.

In enumerating the species of the genus _Cucurbita_, I should explain

that their distinction, formerly exceedingly difficult, has been

established by M. Naudin[1251] in a very scientific manner, by means of

an assiduous cultivation of varieties and of experiments upon their

crossed fertilization. Those groups of forms which cannot fertilize each

other, or of which the product is not fertile and stable, 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[1252] showed him that the establishment of species on this

basis is not without exceptions, but in the genus _Cucurbita_

physiological facts agree with exterior differences. M. Naudin has

established the true distinctive characters of _C. maxima_ and _C.

Pepo_. The leaves 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 furrows,

the corolla narrowed towards the base and with lobes nearly always

upright.

The principal varieties of _Cucurbita maxima_ are the great yellow

gourd, which sometimes attains to an enormous size,[1253] 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,[1254] _Cucurbita maxima_ was found by

Barter on the banks of the Niger in 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 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 maximus indicus_, figured by Lobel,[1255] which

answers to the modern species; but this is a very insufficient proof,

since popular 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.[1256] No

similar species is indicated by ancient Chinese authors, and the modern

names of gourds and pumpkins now grown in China are of foreign and

southern origin.[1257] 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, pumpkins, 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 Græco-Roman world.

The _Pepones_, of which Charlemagne commanded the cultivation in his

farms,[1258] 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.

This tends to show its American origin. Its existence in Africa in a

wild state is certainly an argument to the contrary, for the species of

the family of _Cucurbitaceæ_ are very local; but there are arguments in

favour of America, and I 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 the genus

_Cucurbita_, six are certainly wild in America (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[1259] is attributed by modern writers to _Cucurbita 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 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 works on Brazil, Guiana, or the West Indies

any sign of an ancient cultivation or of 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,[1260]

maintain that the _Cucurbitaceæ_ called _squash_ by the Anglo-Americans,

and _macock_, or _cashaw_, _cushaw_, 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 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 a

century after the discovery of Virginia, and twenty to forty years after

its colonization by Sir Walter Raleigh, made use of some fruits of the

_Cucurbitaceæ_. The common 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 _Cucurbita_,[1261] while

Darlington[1262] attributes the name _pumpkin_ to the common _Cucurbita

Pepo_, and that of _squash_ to the varieties of the 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 indigenous 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 existence of _Cucurbita

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. Pepo_, and

consequently it is still doubtful to which species they referred. For

various reasons I had already admitted that _C. Pepo_ was of American

origin, but I retain my doubts about _C. maxima_. After a more attentive

perusal of Tragus and Matthiolo than I had 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 origin 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 informs me

that seeds, certified by M. Naudin to belong to this species, have been

found in the tombs of Ancon. This would be conclusive if the date of the

latest burials at Ancon were certain. See on this head the article on

_Phaseolus vulgaris_.—AUTHOR’S NOTE, 1884.]

+Pumpkin+—_Cucurbita Pepo_ and _C. Melopepo_, Linnæus. Modern authors

include under the head of _Cucurbita Pepo_ most of the varieties which

Linnæus designated by this name, and also those which he called _C.

Melopepo_. 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 _Elector’s 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 varieties. The botanical names attributed to

the species by Naudin and Cogniaux are numerous, on account of the 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[1263] between Southern Asia and the

Mediterranean basin. Naudin and Cogniaux[1264] 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 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 _Cucurbita ovifera_, Linnæus, was formerly gathered by

Lerche, near Astrakhan, but no modern botanist has confirmed this fact,

and it is probable it was a cultivated plant. Moreover, Linnæus does not

assert it was wild. I have consulted all the Asiatic and African floras

without finding the slightest mention of a wild variety. From Arabia, or

even from the coast of Guinea to Japan, the species, or the varieties

attributed to it, are always said to be cultivated. In 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, _C. texana_,[1265] very near to

the variety _ovata_, according to Asa Gray, and which is now

unhesitatingly attributed to _C. Pepo_, was found by Lindheimer “on the

edges of thickets, in damp woods, on the banks of the upper Guadaloupe,

apparently an indigenous plant.” Asa Gray adds, however, 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 found this plant in

Mexico, or in the United States. It is not mentioned in Hemsley’s

_Biologia Centrali-Americana_, nor in Asa Gray’s recent flora of

California.

Some synonyms or specimens from South America, attributed to _C. Pepo_,

appear to me very doubtful. It is impossible to say what Molina[1266]

meant by the names _C. Siceratia_ and _C. mammeata_, which appear,

moreover, to have been cultivated plants. Two species briefly described

in the account of the journey of Spix and Martius (ii. p. 536), and also

attributed to _C. Pepo_,[1267] are mentioned among cultivated plants on

the banks of the Rio Francisco. Lastly, the specimen of Spruce, 2716,

from the river Uaupes, a tributary of the Rio Negro, which

Cogniaux[1268] does not mention having seen, and which he first

attributed to the _C. Pepo_, and afterwards to the _C. moschata_, was

perhaps 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 Mexican or Texan

origin. It remains to be seen if historical records are in agreement

with or contrary to this idea.

It is impossible to discover whether a given Sanskrit, Greek, or Latin

name for the pumpkin belongs to one 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 Pataviæ 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 rotundus major_, added in the edition of 1616, appears to

me to be _C. maxima_. In the drawing of _Pepo oblongus_ of Lobel,

_Icones_, 641, the character of the peduncle is clearly defined. The

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 American origin,

but neither do they adduce anything in support of it.

If the belief that it grows wild in America is confirmed, 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_, Duchesne.

The _Bon Jardinier_ quotes as the principal varieties of this species

pumpkin _muscade de Provence_, _pleine de Naples_, and _de Barbarie_. It

is needless to say that 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 border.[1269] Cultivated in all tropical countries, it is less

successful than other pumpkins in temperate regions.

Cogniaux[1270] suspects that it comes from the south of Asia, but he

gives no proof of this. I have searched through 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 of Bangka, a specimen

verified by Cogniaux, and which Miquel[1271] 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 Cogniaux, without knowing

whether they were cultivated, naturalized, or indigenous. These

indications are very slight. Rumphius, Blume, Clarke (_Flora of British

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,[1272] and American floras rarely mention the species.

No Sanskrit name is known, and the Indian, Malay, and Chinese names are

neither very numerous nor very original, although the cultivation of the

plant seems to be more diffused in Southern Asia than in other parts of

the tropics. It was already grown in the seventeenth century according

to the _Hortus Malabaricus_, in which there is a good plate (vol. viii.

pl. 2). It does not appear that this species was known in the sixteenth

century, for Dalechamp’s illustration (_Hist._, i. p. 616) which Seringe

attributed to it has not its true characters, and I can find no other

figure which resembles it.

+Fig-leaved Pumpkin+—_Cucurbita ficifolia_, Bouché; _Cucurbita

melanosperma_, Braun.

About thirty years ago this pumpkin with black or brown seeds was

introduced into gardens. It differs 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 enumerates 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_, Linnæus.

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 _Annales 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 exceptions have occurred which render the

criterion of fertilization 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 experiments 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 preserved

by heredity. These varieties or races can be fertilized by each other,

and yield varied and variable products. They are classed by the author

into ten groups, which he calls _canteloups_, _melons brodés_,

_sucrins_, _melons d’hiver_, _serpents_, _forme de concombre_, _Chito_,

_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 transitions of form,

the faculty of crossing or of change 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 produced

different cultivated varieties. This is the more probable that they

sometimes inhabit countries remote from each other as Southern Asia and

tropical Africa, so that differences in climate and isolation may have

created and consolidated varieties.

The following are the forms which Naudin enumerates as wild: 1. Those of

India, which are named by Wildenow _Cucumis pubescens_, and by Roxburgh

_C. turbinatus_ 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.[1273] The fruit varies from the size of a

plum to that of a lemon. It is either striped or barred, or all one

colour, scented or odourless. The flesh is sweet, insipid, or slightly

acid, differences which it has in common with the cultivated Cantelopes.

According to Roxburgh the Indians gather and have a taste for the fruits

of _C. turbinatus_ and of _C. maderas-patanus_, though they do not

cultivate it.

Referring to the most recent flora of British India, in which Clarke has

described the _Cucurbitaceæ_ (ii. p. 619), it seems that this author

does not agree with M. Naudin about the Indian wild forms, although both

have examined the numerous specimens in the herbarium at Kew. The

difference of opinion, more apparent than real, arises from the fact

that the English author attributes to a nearly and certainly wild allied

species, _C. trigonus_, Roxburgh, the varieties which Naudin classes

under _C. Melo_. Cogniaux,[1274] who afterwards saw the same specimens,

attributes only _C. turbinatus_ to _trigonus_. 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 duration does

not appear to be very constant. Mr. Clarke says himself that _C. Melo_

is perhaps derived by cultivation from _C. trigonus_; that is to say,

according to him, from the forms which Naudin attributes to _C. Melo_.

The experiments made during three consecutive years by Naudin[1275] 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 to one or other of the original parents.

2. The African forms. Naudin had no specimens in sufficiently good

condition, or of which the wild state was sufficiently certain to assert

positively 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[1276]

subsequently obtained specimens which prove more. I am not speaking of

those from the Nile Valley,[1277] which are probably cultivated, but of

plants gathered by Barter in Guinea in the sands on the banks of the

Niger. Thonning[1278] had previously found, in sandy soil in Guinea, a

_Cucumis_ to which he had given the name _arenarius_; and

Cogniaux,[1279] 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 green melon. In Thonning’s plant the fruit is ovoid, the size of

a plum. Thus in Africa as in India the species bears small fruit in a

wild state, as we might expect. The _Dudaim_ among cultivated varieties

is allied to it.

The majority of the species of the genus _Cucumis_ are found in Africa;

a small minority in Asia or in America. Other species of _Cucurbitaceæ_

are divided between Asia and America, although as a rule, in this

family, the areas of species are continuous and restricted. _Cucumis

Melo_ was once perhaps, like _Citrullus Colocynthis_ of the same family,

wild from the west coast of Africa as 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. Boissier 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 the sands of Ussuri, in Eastern

Asia. This would be a reason 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.

The culture of the melon, or of different varieties of the melon, may

have begun separately in India and Africa.

Its introduction into China appears to date only from the eighth century

of our era, judging from the epoch of the first work which mentions

it.[1280] As the relations of the Chinese with Bactriana, and the

north-west of India by the embassy of Chang-kien, date from the second

century, it is possible that the culture of the species was not then

widely diffused in Asia. The small size of the wild fruit offered little

inducement. No Sanskrit name is known, but there is a Tamul name,

probably less ancient, _molam_,[1281] which is like the Latin _Melo_.

It is not proved that the ancient Egyptians cultivated the melon. The

fruit figured by Lepsius[1282] is not recognizable. If the cultivation

had been customary and ancient in that country, the Greeks and Romans

would have early known it. Now, it is doubtful whether the _Sikua_ 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[1283] is less obscure, when he says that

the inside of the _Melopepones_ is eaten, but not of the _Pepones_.

There has been much discussion about those names,[1284] 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, Dr. Comes certifies that the half of a melon is

represented in a painting at Herculaneum.[1285] The species was probably

introduced into the Græco-Roman world at the time of the Empire, in the

beginning of the Christian era. It was probably of indifferent quality,

to 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+—_Citrullus vulgaris_, Schrader; _Cucurbita Citrullus_,

Linnæus.

The origin of the water-melon was long mistaken or unknown. According to

Linnæus, it was a native of Southern Italy.[1286] This assertion was

taken from Matthiole, without observing that this author says it was a

cultivated species. Seringe,[1287] in 1828, supposed it came from India

and Africa, but he gives no proof. I believed it came from Southern

Asia, because of its very general cultivation in this region. It was not

known in a wild state. At length it was found indigenous in tropical

Africa, on both sides of the equator, which settles the question.[1288]

Livingstone[1289] 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 cannot 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 _Cucurbitaceæ_. For the rest, the frequent bitterness of the

water-melon is not at all extraordinary, as the most nearly allied

species is _Citrullus 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.[1290] This is one reason for believing that the

Israelites knew the species, and called it _abbatitchim_, as is said;

but besides the Arabic name, _battich_, _batteca_, evidently derived

from the Hebrew, is the modern name for the water-melon. The French

name, _pastèque_, comes through the Arabic from the Hebrew. A proof of

the antiquity of the plant in the north of Africa is found in the Berber

name, _tadelaât_,[1291] which differs too widely from the Arabic name

not to have existed before the Conquest. The Spanish names _zandria_,

_cindria_, and the Sardinian _sindria_,[1292] which I cannot connect

with any others, show also an ancient culture in the eastern part of the

Mediterranean basin. Its cultivation early spread into Asia, for there

is a Sanskrit name, _chayapula_,[1293] 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.[1294]

As the water-melon is an annual, it ripens out of the tropics wherever

the summer is sufficiently hot. The modern Greeks cultivate it largely,

and call it _carpousia_ or _carpousea_,[1295] but this name does not

occur in ancient authors, nor even in the Greek of the decadence and of

the Middle Ages.[1296] It is the same as the _karpus_ of the Turks of

Constantinople,[1297] which we find again in the Russian _arbus_,[1298]

and in Bengali and Hindustani as _tarbuj_, _turbouz_.[1299] Another

Constantinople name, mentioned by Forskal, _chimonico_, recurs in

Albanian _chimico_.[1300] The absence of an ancient Greek name which can

with certainty be attributed to this species, seems to show that it was

introduced into the Græco-Roman world about the beginning of the

Christian era. The poem _Copa_, attributed to Virgil and Pliny, perhaps

mentions it (lib. 19, cap. 5), as Naudin thinks, but it is doubtful.

Europeans have introduced the water-melon into America, where it is now

cultivated from Chili to the United States. The _jacé_ of the

Brazilians, of which Piso and Marcgraf have a drawing, is evidently

introduced, for the first-named author says it is cultivated and partly

naturalized.[1301]

+Cucumber+—_Cucumis sativus_, Linnæus.