The herbaceous cotton is called _kapase_ in Bengali, _kapas_ in

Hindustani, which shows that the Sanskrit word _karpassi_ undoubtedly

refers to this species.[2027] It was early cultivated in Bactriana,

where the Greeks had noticed it at the time of the expedition of

Alexander. Theophrastus speaks of it[2028] 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,[2029] 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

cultivation of the Asiatic cotton was propagated in the Græco-Roman

world after the expedition of Alexander, but before the first centuries

of the Christian era.[2030] If the _byssos_ of the Greeks was the cotton

plant, as most scholars think, it was cultivated at Elis, according to

Pausanias and Pliny;[2031] but Curtius and C. Ritter[2032] consider 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 into a single

locality—in Greece, for instance. It was afterwards propagated on the

shores of the Mediterranean by the Arabs, as we see from the name _qutn_

or _kutn_,[2033] which has passed into the modern 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.[2034]

_Gossypium herbaceum_ is the species most cultivated in the United

States.[2035] It was probably introduced 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.[2036] The silky cotton (_sea island_) is another

species, American, of which I shall presently speak.

+Tree-Cotton+—_Gossypium arboreum_, Linnæus.

This species is taller and of longer duration than the herbaceous

cotton; the lobes of the leaf are narrower, 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 it 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.[2037] 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.

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 distinguished,

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

1866, 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.[2038] These seeds are in the Florence museum. Parlatore

examined them carefully, and declares them to belong to _Gossypium

arboreum_.[2039] Rosellini is certain he was not imposed upon, as he was

the first to open both the tomb and the vase. No archæologist 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, remarkable for its

flowers and seed, was not described nor preserved 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. Pliny[2040] 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 call _gossipion_

and others _xylon_, whence the name _xylina_ 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 microscope, 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,[2041] 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 _Gossypium 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

transported 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 βυσσος, σινδον,

ξυλον, Οθων etc., or Sanskrit names, and their derivatives, as

_carbasa_, _carpas_, or Hebrew names, _schesch_, _buz_, which are

doubtfully attributed to the cotton tree. This has been a fruitful

subject of discussion,[2042] but the clearer distinction of species and

the discovery of their origin greatly diminishes the importance of these

questions—to naturalists, at least, who prefer facts to words. Moreover,

Reynier, and after him C. Ritter, arrived in their researches 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 commentaries of philologists may

mislead.

+Barbados Cotton+—_Gossypium barbadense_, Linnæus.

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 confused. Authors, even those who have

seen large collections 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 Linnæus should be retained, for the

original definitions are insufficient. The introduction of American seed

into African and Asiatic plantations has given rise to further

complications, 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 _Gossypium hirsutum_, _G. barbadense_, and _G. religiosum_ of

Linnæus; 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 long hairs, whereas the species of the old

world have a short down underneath the longer hairs.[2043] 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 _Gossypia_, 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 knowledge of the

cottons indigenous in America is still in a very elementary state. At

most we can name only one or two collectors who have found _Gossypia_

really identical with or very similar to certain cultivated forms.

We can seldom trust early botanists and travellers on this head. The

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.

Linnæus himself in the eighteenth century often says of a cultivated

species, “_habitat_,” and he even says it sometimes without good

ground.[2044] Hernandez, one of the most accurate among

sixteenth-century authors, is quoted as having described and figured a

wild _Gossypium_ in Mexico, but the text suggests some doubts as to the

wild condition of this plant,[2045] which Parlatore believes to be _G.

hirsutum_, Linnæus. Hemsley,[2046] 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. Macfadyen[2047]

mentions three forms wild and cultivated in Jamaica. He attributes

specific names to them, and adds that they possibly all may be included

in Linnæus’ _G. hirsutum_. Grisebach[2048] 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 New Grenada, Triana[2049] describes a _Gossypium_ which

he calls _G. barbadense_, Linnæus, 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, _hirsutum_,

growing (he does not say whether spontaneously or no) along the Rio

Seco. I cannot discover any similar assertion for Peru, Guiana, and

Brazil;[2050] but the flora of Chili, published by Cl. Gay,[2051]

mentions a _Gossypium_, “almost wild in the province of Copiapo,” which

the writer attributes to the variety _G. peruvianum_, Cavanilles. Now,

this author does not say the plant is wild, and Parlatore classes it

with _G. religiosum_, Linnæus.

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_, Linnæus. 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 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 hypogæa_, Linnæus.

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.[2052] Bentham has

given, in his _Flora of Brazil_, in folio, vol. xv. pl. 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,[2053] giving in

conclusion new proofs which allow no possibility of further doubt.

“Linnæus[2054] 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. Brown[2055] writes:

‘It was probably 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. According to Sprengel,

it is mentioned by Theophrastus as 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

_Prodromus_ (ii. p. 474), returned to Linnæus’ 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 hypogœa_ was the only species of this singular genus known.

Six other species, all Brazilian, have since been discovered.[2056]

Thus, applying the rule of probability of which Brown first made great

use, we incline _à priori_ to the idea of an American origin. We must

remember that Maregraf[2057] and Piso[2058] 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[2059] 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[2060] mentions it as a cultivated plant, not in

Guiana, but in the Isle of France. Hernandez does not speak of it.

Sloane[2061] 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 Africa, which indicates a then very general cultivation in

Africa. Pison, in his second edition (1638, p. 256), not in that of

1648, gives a figure of a similar fruit imported from Africa into Brazil

under the name _mandobi_, very near to the name of the Arachis,

_mandubi_. From the three leaflets of the plant it would seem to be the

_Voandzeia_, 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,[2062] and the east coast of Africa[2063] is not of very ancient

date. Neither has it the marks of a great antiquity in Asia. No Sanskrit

name for it is known,[2064] but only a Hindustani one. Rumphius[2065]

says that it was imported from Japan into several islands of the Indian

Archipelago. It would in that case have borne only foreign names, like

the Chinese name, for instance, which signifies only ‘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 cultivated plants, natives of one of the two

countries, were commonly early introduced into the other. It is not

mentioned by Forster among the plants employed in the 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, but Piso says

the species is planted.”

Seeds of _Arachis_ have been found in the Peruvian tombs at Ancon,[2066]

which shows some antiquity of existence in America, and supports the

opinion I expressed in 1855. Dr. Bretschneider’s study of Chinese

works[2067] oversets 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.

Bentham, 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[2068] 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 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_, Linnæus.

This shrub, belonging to the family of the Rubiaceæ, is wild in

Abyssinia,[2069] in the Soudan,[2070] and on the coasts of Guinea and

Mozambique.[2071] 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,[2072] where it is certain that the coffee plant was never

indigenous.

The use of coffee seems to be very ancient in Abyssinia. Shehabeddin

Ben, author of an Arab manuscript of the fifteenth century (No. 944 of

the Paris Library), quoted in John Ellis’s excellent work,[2073] 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 era, does not

mention coffee.[2074] In 1596 Bellus sent to de l’Ecluse some seeds from

which the Egyptians extracted the drink _cavé_.[2075] 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_, _bunca_.[2076] The names _cahue_, _cahua_, _chaubé_,[2077]

_cavé_,[2078] refer rather in Egypt and Syria to the prepared drink,

whence the French word _café_. The name _bunnu_, or something similar,

is certainly the primitive name of the plant which the Abyssinians still

call _boun_.[2079]

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 practice at Aden, whence it

spread to Mocha, into Egypt, etc. He says that the coffee plant grew in

Arabia.[2080] Other fables or traditions exist, according to which it

was always an Arabian priest or a monk who invented the drink,[2081] but

they all leave us in uncertainty as to 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,[2082] 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 town sent

a flourishing plant covered with fruit to Louis XIV., who placed it in

his garden at Marly. Coffee 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 _Mémoires de

l’Académie des Sciences_, an interesting description of the plant from

one which Pancras, director of the Botanical Garden at Amsterdam, had

sent to him.

The first coffee plants grown in America were introduced into Surinam by

the Dutch in 1718. The Governor of Cayenne, de la Motte-Aigron, having

been at Surinam, obtained some plants in secret and multiplied them in

1725.[2083] The coffee plant was introduced into Martinique by de

Clieu,[2084] a naval officer, in 1720, according to Deleuze;[2085] in

1723, according to the _Notices Statistiques sur les Colonies

Françaises_.[2086] Thence it was introduced into the other French

islands, into Guadaloupe, for instance, in 1730.[2087] Sir Nicholas

Lawes first grew it in Jamaica.[2088] From 1718 the French East India

Company had sent plants of Mocha coffee to Bourbon;[2089] others

say[2090] that it was even in 1717 that a certain Dufougerais-Grenier

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 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 be found in the volume published by H. Welter[2091]

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 commodity which it is impossible to overrate in its natural condition.

+Liberian Coffee+—_Coffea liberica_, Hiern.[2092]

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,[2093] 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.[2094] The Europeans began to cultivate

it with indifferent success, owing to its bad smell.

The madia is indigenous in Chili and also in California.[2095] There

are other examples of this disjunction of habitation between the two

countries.[2096]

+Nutmeg+—_Myristica fragrans_, Houttuyn.

The nutmeg, a little tree of the order _Myristiceœ_, is wild in the

Moluccas, principally in the Banda Islands.[2097] 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

century, they carried live nutmeg trees to Bencoolen and into Prince

Edward’s Islands.[2098] 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_, Linnæus.

Sesame has long been cultivated in the hot regions of the old world for

the sake of the oil extracted from the seeds.

The order _Pedalineœ_ 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,[2099] has ten, all African except perhaps

the cultivated species whose origin we are about to seek. The latter

forms alone the true genus Sesamum, which is a section in Bentham 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 _races_, 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.

The 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 other; for instance, in India, the Sunda Isles,

Egypt, and even in the West India Islands, where its cultivation is

certainly of modern introduction.[2100] This is perhaps the reason that

no author asserts he has found it in a wild state except Blume,[2101] a

trustworthy observer, who mentions a variety with redder flowers than

usual growing in the mountains of Java. This is doubtless an indication

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_,[2102] in

Malay _widjin_, in Chinese _moa_ (Rumphius) or _chi-ma_ (Bretschneider),

in Japanese _koba_.[2103] The name _sesam_ is common to Greek, Latin,

and Arabic, with trifling 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_.[2104] Before this

there is confusion 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.[2105]

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.[2106] He also speaks of a sesame wild in Egypt from

which oil was extracted, but this was probably the castor-oil

plant.[2107] 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 Rameses 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.[2108] 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,[2109] and of the agricultural treatise of Alawwam,[2110]

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 says[2111] 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.[2112] 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 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,[2113] but it is unknown how

long it has been cultivated in the rest of Africa.

+Castor-oil Plant+—_Ricinus communis_, Linnæus.

The most modern works and those in highest repute consider the south of

Asia to be the original home of this _Euphorbiacea_; 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.[2114]

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. Müller’s careful monograph[2115] proves the existence of

sixteen varieties, scarcely hereditary, 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, 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 Chiré, near Goumalo, says Quartin Dillon;

it is wild in those parts of Upper Sennaar which are flooded during the

rains, says Hartmann.[2116] 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, Schweinfurth and Ascherson[2117] 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 specimens brought from

Djedda, in Arabia, by Schimper, which were gathered near a cistern. Yet

Forskal[2118] gathered the caster-oil plant in the mountains of Arabia

Felix, which may signify a wild station. Boissier[2119] indicates it in

Beluchistan and the south of Persia, but as “subspontaneous,” as in

Syria, Anatolia, and Greece.

Rheede[2120] 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 mention of the species. A few speak of the facility with

which the species becomes naturalized from cultivation. 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[2121] 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,[2122] “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, _nhambuguacu_, _figuero 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.[2123] The Egyptian name was _kiki_.

Theophrastus and Dioscorides mention it, and it is retained in modern

Greek,[2124] while the Arabs have a totally different name, _kerua_,

_kerroa_, _charua_.[2125]

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 of _Wunderbaum_ in German.

The same circumstance, and the analogy with the Egyptian name _kiki_,

have caused it to be supposed that the _kikajon_ of the Old

Testament,[2126] 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 of the English habit of

accepting names without examination, and sometimes of distorting 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 _Vitex agnus castus_, a totally

different plant. From _casto_ the English planters and London traders

made _castor_.[2127]

+Walnut+—_Juglans regia_, Linnæus.

Some years ago the walnut tree was known to be wild in 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 Burmah.[2128]

C. Koch[2129] 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,[2130] which renders it probable

that the species exists also in the north of China, as Loureiro and

Bunge said,[2131] but without particularizing its wild character.

Heldreich[2132] 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[2133] which had been overlooked. Lastly,

Heuffel saw it, also wild, in the mountains of Banat.[2134] 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 quaternary tufa in Provence.[2135] 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_,[2136]

or _Persikon_.[2137] The Romans cultivated the walnut from the time of

their kings; they considered it of Persian origin.[2138] They had an old

custom of throwing nuts in the celebration of weddings.

Archæology 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.[2139] 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.[2140] Evidently the walnuts of Italy,

Switzerland, and France are not descended from the fossil plants of the

quaternary 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,

_akschôda_, _akhoda_, or _akhôta_. 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.[2141] This was perhaps 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

unknown.

The walnut tree and walnuts had an infinite number of names among

ancient peoples, which have exercised the science and imagination of

philologists,[2142] but the origin of the species is so clear that we

need not stay to consider them.

+Areca+—_Areca Catechu_, Linnæus.

The areca palm is much cultivated in the countries where it is a custom

to chew betel, that is to say throughout Southern Asia. The nut, or

rather the almond which 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 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 Palmaceæ, de

Martius,[2143] says of the origin of this species, “Its country is

uncertain (_non constat_); probably the Sunda Isles.” We may find it

possible to affirm something positive by referring to more modern

authors.

On the continent of India, in Ceylon and Cochin-China, the species is

always indicated as cultivated.[2144] So in the Sunda Isles, the

Moluccas, etc., to the south of Asia. Blume,[2145] 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[2146] 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,[2147]

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 number of Malay names, _pinang_, _jambe_, etc., and of a

Sanskrit name, _gouvaka_, as well as very numerous varieties, show the

antiquity of cultivation. The Chinese received it, 111 B.C., from the

south, with the Malay name, _pin-lang_. The Telinga name, _arek_, is

the origin of the botanical name Areca.

+Elæis+—_Elæis guineensis_, Jacquin.

Travellers who visited the coast of Guinea in the first half of the

sixteenth century[2148] 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.[2149] 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,[2150] 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 _Elæis_

belongs to New Granada.[2151] Robert Brown, however, and the authors who

have studied the family of palms, are unanimous in their belief that

_Elæis 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 Elæis.

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,[2152] 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.[2153]

+Cocoa-nut Palm+—_Cocos nucifera_, Linnæus.

The cocoa-nut palm is perhaps, of all tropical trees, the one which

yields the greatest variety of products. Its 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. Unfortunately, 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 continent, 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 Marcgraf[2154] seem to

admit that the species is foreign to Brazil without saying so

positively. De Martius,[2155] who has published a very important work on

the Palmaceæ, and has travelled through the provinces of Bahia,

Pernambuco, and others, where the cocoa-nut abounds, does not say that

it is wild. It was introduced into Guiana by missionaries.[2156]

Sloane[2157] 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 Acosta[2158] saw the cocoa-nut palm at Porto Rico

in the sixteenth century. De Martius says that the Portuguese introduced

it on the coast of Guinea. Many travellers do not even mention it in

this region, where it is apparently of no great importance. More 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, where the tree abounds with every appearance of

being more or less wild and long established.

The navigators Dampier and Vancouver[2159] 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,[2160] however, who saw this palm both wild and

cultivated on the Isthmus of Panama. According to Hernandez,[2161] in

the sixteenth century the Mexicans called it _coyolli_, a word which

does not seem to be native.

Oviedo,[2162] writing in 1526, in the first years of the conquest of

Mexico, says that the cocoa-nut palm was abundant 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.

The 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 attention of travellers. Some take their name from the

tree, among others two islands close to the Andamans and one near

Sumatra.

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,[2163] since

admitted without question by Grisebach;[2164] but the botanists of the

seventeenth century often regarded the species as Asiatic, and

Seemann,[2165] 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.[2166] Drude,[2167] who

has studied the Palmaceæ, 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 Elæis, 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.[2168] It is known,

moreover, from the unexpected 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.[2169] 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 manœuvres 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 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,[2170] and elsewhere, since the

discovery of America.

8. If the cocoa-nut in America dated from a geological 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 modern

Indian languages. Scholars count ten of these, which, according to their

meaning, seem to apply to the species or its fruit.[2171] _Narikela_ has

passed with modifications into Arabic and Persian.[2172] It is even

found at Otahiti in the form _ari_ or _haari_,[2173] together with a

Malay name.

10. The Malays have a name widely diffused in the archipelago—_kalâpa_.

_klâpa_, _klôpo_. At Sumatra and Nicobar we find the name _njîor_,

_nicor_; in the Philippines, _niog_; at Bali, _niuh_, _njo_; at Tahiti,

_niuh_; and in other islands, _nu_, _nidju_, _ni_; even at Madagascar,

_wua-niu_.[2174] 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. However, 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 Yuë, referring to an absurd

legend of which Dr. Bretschneider speaks.[2175] This savant tells us

that the first mention of the cocoa-nut occurs in a poem of the second

century before 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 whom 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

Egyptians only knew the cocoa-nut at a late epoch as an Indian

curiosity. Apollonius of Tyana saw this palm in Hindustan, at the

beginning of the Christian era.[2176]

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 thousand or four thousand years

ago, but the transport by sea to the coasts of America and Africa took

place perhaps in a more remote epoch, although posterior to those epochs

when the geographical and physical conditions were different to those of

our day.

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,

[Z] perennial, ['5] small shrub, [/5] shrub, [5] small tree, [F5] tree.

The letters 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.

SPECIES NATIVE TO THE OLD WORLD.

CULTIVATED FOR THE SUBTERRANEAN PARTS.

──────────────────────────────────────┬──────┬───────────────────────────────────

Name and duration. │Date. │ Origin.

──────────────────────────────────────┼──────┼───────────────────────────────────

+Radish+—Raphanus sativus (1). │ B. │ Temperate Asia.[2177]

+Horse-Radish+—Cochlearia Armoracia, │ C. │ Eastern temperate Europe,

[Z]. │ │

+Turnip+—Brassica Rapa (2). │ A. │ Europe, western Siberia (?).

+Rape+—Brassica Napus (2). │ A. │ Europe, western Siberia (?).

+Carrot+—Daucus Carota (2). │ B. │ Europe, western temperate

│ │ Asia (?).

+Parsnip+—Pastinaca sativa (2). │ C. │ Central and southern Europe.

+Tuberous Chervil+—Chærophyllum │ C. │ Central Europe, Caucasus.

bulbosum (2). │ │

+Skirret+—Sium Sisarum, [Z]. │ C. │ Altaic Siberia, northern

│ │ Persia.

+Madder+—Rubia tinctorum, [Z] │ B. │ Western temperate Asia,

│ │ south-east of Europe.

+Salsify+—Tragopogon porrifolium (2). │C.(?) │ South-east of Europe,

│ │ Algeria.

+Scorzonera+—Scorzonera hispanica. │ C. │ South-west of Europe, south

│ │ of the Caucasus.

+Rampion+—Campanula Rapunculus (2). │ C. │ Temperate and southern

│ │ Europe.

{Vegetable.│ B. │ Canaries, Mediterranean

{ │ │ basin, western temperate

+Beet+—Beta vulg. (2), [Z].{ │ │ Asia.

{Root. │ B. │ A result of cultivation.

+Garlic+—Allium sativum, [Z]. │ B. │ Desert of the Kirghis, in

│ │ western temperate Asia.

+Onion+—Allium Cepa (2). │ A. │ Persia, Afghanistan,

│ │ Beluchistan, Palestine (?).

+Welsh Onion+—Allium fistulosum, [Z]. │ C. │ Siberia (from the land of

│ │ the Kirghis to Baikal).

+Shallot+—Allium ascalonicum, [Z]. │ C. │ Modification of A. cepa (?),

│ │ unknown wild.

+Rocambole+—Allium Scorodopra sum [Z].│ C. │ Temperate Europe.

+Chives+—Allium Schænoprasum, [Z]. │C. (?)│ Temperate and northern

│ │ Europe, Siberia,

│ │ Khamschatka, North America

│ │ (Lake Huron).

+Taro+—Colocasia antiquorum, │ B. │ India, Malay Archipelago,

[Z]. │ │ Polynesia.

+Apé+—Alocasia macrorrhiza, [Z]. │ (?) │Ceylon, Malay Archipelago,

│ │ Polynesia

+Konjak+—Amorphophallus Konjak, [Z]. │ (?) │Japan (?).

{Dioscorea sativa, [Z]. │B. (?)│Southern Asia [especially

{ │ │ Malabar (?), Ceylon (?),

{ │ │ [Java (?)].

+Ya+—{Dioscorea Batatas, [Z]. │B. (?)│ China (?).

{Dioscorea japonica, [Z]. │ (?)│ Japan (?).

{Dioscorea alata, [Z]. │ (?)│ East of the Asiatic

Archipelago.

CULTIVATED FOR THE STEMS OR LEAVES.

+1.+ _Vegetables._

──────────────────────────────────────┬──────┬───────────────────────────────────

Name and duration. │Date. │ Origin.

──────────────────────────────────────┼──────┼───────────────────────────────────

+Cabbage+—Brassica oleracea (1), │ A. │Europe.

(2), [5]. │ │

│ │

+Chinese Cabbage+—Brassica chinensis │ (?) │China (?), Japan (?).

(2). │ │

+Water-Cress+—Nasturtium officinale, │ (?) │Europe, northern Asia.

[Z]. │ │

+Garden-Cress+—Lepidium sativum (1). │ B. │Persia (?).

+Sea Kale+—Crambe maritima, [Z]. │ C. │Western temperate Europe.

+Purslane+—Portulaca oleracea (1). │ A. │From the western Himalayas

│ │ to southern Russia

│ │ and Greece.

+New Zealand Spinach+—Tetragonia │ C. │New Zealand and New Holland.

expansa (1). │ │

+Garden Celery+—Apium graveolens │ B. │Temperate and southern

(2). │ │ Europe, northern Africa,

│ │ western Asia.

+Chervil+—Anthriscus cerefolium (1). │ C. │South-east of Russia, western

│ │ temperate Asia.

+Parsley+—Petroselinum sativum (2). │ C. │Southern Europe, Algeria,

│ │ Lebanon.

+Alexanders+—Smyrnium Olus-atrum │ C. │Southern Europe, Algeria

(2). │ │ western temperate Asia.

+Corn Salad+—Valerianella olitoria │ C. │Sardinia, Sicily.

(1). │ │

+Artichoke+—Cynara {Cardoon. │ C. │Southern Europe, northern

Cardunculus(2), [Z]. { Artichoke. │ │ Africa, Canaries, Madeira.

│ C. │Derived from the cardoon.

+Lettuce+—Latuca Scariola (1), (2). │ B. │Southern Europe, northern

│ │ Africa, western Asia.

+Wild Chicory+—Cichorium Intybus, [Z].│ C. │Europe, northern Africa,

│ │ western temperate Asia.

+Endive+—Cichorium Endivia (1). │ C. │Mediterranean basin, Caucasus,

│ │ Turkestan.

+Spinach+—Spinacia oleracea (1). │ C. │Persia (?).

+Orach+—Atriplex hortensis (1). │ C. │Northern Europe and Siberia

+Amaranth+—Amarantus gangeticus (1). │ (?) │Tropical Africa, India (?).

+Sorrel+—Rumex acetosa, [Z]. (1). │ (?) │Europe, northern Asia,

│ │ mountains of India.

+Patience Dock+—Rumex patientia, [Z]. │ (?) │Turkey in Europe, Persia.

+Asparagus+—Asparagus officinalis, │ B. │Europe, western temperate

[Z]. │ │ Asia.

+Leek+—Allium ampeloprasum, [Z]. │ B. │Mediterranean basin.

+2.+ _Fodder._

──────────────────────────────────────┬──────┬───────────────────────────────────

Name and duration. │Date. │ Origin.

──────────────────────────────────────┼──────┼───────────────────────────────────

+Lucern+—Medicago sativa, [Z]. │ B. │Western temperate Asia.

+Sainfoin+—Onobrychis sativa, [Z]. │ C. │Temperate Europe, south of

│ │ the Caucasus.

+French Honeysuckle+—Hedysarum │ C. │Centre and west of the

+coronarium+, [Z]. │ │ Mediterranean basin.

+Purple Clover+—Trifolium pratense, │ C. │Europe, Algeria, western

[Z]. │ │ temperate Asia.

+Alsike Clover+—Trifolium hybridum │ C. │Temperate Europe.

(1). │ │

+Italian Clover+—Trifolium incarnatum │ C. │Southern Europe.

(1). │ │

+Egyptian Clover+—Trifolium alexandri-│ C. │Syria, Anatolia.

num (1). │ │

+Ervilla+—Ervum Ervilia (1). │ B. │Mediterranean basin.

+Vetch+—Vicia sativa (1). │ B. │Europe, Algeria, south of the

│ │ Caucasus.

+Flat-podded Pea+—Lathyrus Cicera (1).│ B. │From Spain and Algeria

| | to Greece.

+Chickling Vetch+—Lathyrus sativus │ B. │South of the Caucasus.

(1). │ │

+Ochrus+—Lathyrus ochrus (1). │ B. │Italy, Spain.

+Fenugreek+—Trigonella fœnum- │ B. │North-east of India and

græcum (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.

Corn Spurry+—Spergula arvensis (1). │B. (?)│Europe.

+Guinea Grass+—Panicum maximum, [Z]. │C. (?)│Tropical Africa.

+3.+ _Various Uses._

──────────────────────────────────────┬──────┬───────────────────────────────────

Name and duration. │Date. │ Origin.

──────────────────────────────────────┼──────┼───────────────────────────────────

+Tea+—Thea sinensis, [/5]. │ A. │Assam, China, Mantschuria.

+Flax anciently cultivated+—Linum │ A. │Mediterranean basin.

+angustifolium+, [Z] (2), (1). │ │

+Flax now cultivated+—Linum usitatis- │A. (?)│Western Asia (?), derived

simum (1). │ │ from the preceding (?).

+Jute+—Corchorus capsularis (1). │C. (?)│Java, Ceylon.

+Jute+—Corchorus olitorius (1). │C. (?)│North-west of India, Ceylon.

+Sumach+—Rhus coriaria, [5]. │ C. │Mediterranean basin, western

│ │ temperate Asia.

+Khât+—Celastrus edulis, [/5] │ (?) │Abyssinia, Arabia (?).

+Indigo+—Indigofera tinctoria, [/5] │ B. │India (?).

+Silver Indigo+—Indigofera argentea, │ (?) │Abyssinia, Nubia, Kordofan,

[/5]. │ │ Senaar, India (?).

+Henna+—Lawsonia alba, [/5] │ A. │Western tropical Asia,

│ │ Nubia (?).

+Blue Gum+—Eucalyptus globulus, [F5]. │ C. │New Holland.

+Cinnamon+—Cinnamonum zeylanicum, [5].│ C. │Ceylon, India,

+China Grass+—Bœhmeria nivea, [Z], │ (?) │China, Japan.

[/5]. │ │

+Hemp+—Cannabis sativa (1). │ A. │Dahuria, Siberia.

+White Mulberry+—Morus alba, [5]. │A. (?)│India, Mongolia.

+Black Mulberry+—Morus nigra, [5]. │B. (?)│Armenia, northern Persia.

+Sugar-Cane+—Saccharum officinaram, │ B. │Cochin-China (?), south-west

[Z]. │ │ of China.

CULTIVATED FOR THE FLOWERS OR THEIR ENVELOPES.

──────────────────────────────────────┬──────┬───────────────────────────────────

Name and duration. │Date. │ Origin.

──────────────────────────────────────┼──────┼───────────────────────────────────

+Clove+—Carophyllus aromaticus, [5]. │ (?) │Moluccas.

+Hop+—Humulus lupulus, [Z]. │ C. │Europe, western temperate

│ │ Asia, Siberia.

+Carthamine+—Carthamus tinctorius (1).│ A. │Arabia (?).

+Saffron+—Crocus sativus, [Z]. │ A. │Southern Italy, Greece, Asia

│ │ Minor.

CULTIVATED FOR THE FRUITS.

──────────────────────────────────────┬──────┬───────────────────────────────────

Name and duration. │Date. │ Origin.

──────────────────────────────────────┼──────┼───────────────────────────────────

+Shaddock+—Citrus decumana, [F5]. │ B. │Pacific Islands, to the east

│ │ of Java.

+Citron, Lemon+—Citrus medica, [5]. │ B. │India.

+Bitter Orange+—Citrus Aurantium Big- │ B. │East of India.

aradia, [5]. │ │

+Sweet Orange+—Citrus Aurantium sinen-│ C. │China and Cochin-China.

se, [5]. │ │

+Mandarin+—Citrus nobilis, [5]. │ (?) │China and Cochin-China.

+Mangosteen+—Garcinia mangostana, [5].│ (?) │Sunda Islands,

| | Malay Peninsula.

+Ochro+—Hibiscus esculentus (1). │ C. │Tropical Africa.

+Vine+—Vitis vinifera, [/5] │ A. │Western temperate Asia,

│ │ Mediterranean basin.

+Common Jujube+—Zizyphus vulgaris, [5]│ B. │China.

+Lotus Jujube+—Zizyphus lotus, [5] │ (?) │Egypt to Marocco.

+Indian Jujube+—Zizyphus Jujuba, [5]. │A. (?)│Burmah, India.

+Mango+—Mangifera indica, [5]. │A. (?)│India.

+Tahiti Apple+—Spondias dulcis, [5]. │ (?) │Society, Friendly, and Fiji

│ │ Isles.

+Raspberry+—Rubus idæus, [/5]. │ C. │Temperate Europe and Asia.

+Strawberry+—Fragaria vesca, [Z]. │ C. │Temperate Europe and western

│ │ Asia, east of North

│ │ America.

+Bird-Cherry+—Prunus avium, [F5]. │ B. │Western temperate Asia,

│ │ temperate Europe.

+Common Cherry+—Prunus cerasus, [5]. │ B. │From the Caspian to western

│ │ Anatolia.

+Plum+—Prunus domestica, [5]. │ B. │Anatolia, south of the

│ │ Caucasus, north of Persia.

+Plum+—Prunus insititia, [/5] │ (?) │Southern Europe, Armenia,

│ │ south of the Caucasus,

│ │ Talysch.

+Apricot+—Prunus Armeniaca, [5] │ A. │China.

+Almond+—Amygdalus communis, [5]. │ A. │Mediterranean basin, western

│ │ temperate Asia.

+Peach+—Amygdalus Persica, [5]. │ A. │China.

+Common Pear+—Pyrus communis, [F5]. │ A. │Temperate Europe and Asia.

+Chinese Pear+—Pyrus sinensis, [5]. │ (?) │Mongolia, Mantschuria.

+Apple+—Pyrus Malus, [5]. │ A. │Europe, Anatolia, south of

│ │ the Caucasus.

+Quince+—Cydonia vulgaris, [5]. │ A. │North of Persia, south of the

│ │ Caucasus, Anatolia.

+Loquat+—Eriobotrya japonica, [5]. │ (?) │Japan.

+Pomegranate+—Punica granatum, [F5]. │ A. │Persia, Afghanistan,

│ │ Beluchistan.

+Rose Apple+—Jambosa vulgaris, [5]. │ B. │Malay Archipelago,

│ │ Cochin-China, Burmah,

│ │ north-east of India.

+Malay Apple+—Jambosa malaccensis, │ B. │Malay Archipelago, Malacca.

[5]. │ │

+Bottle Gourd+—Cucurbita lagenaria │ C. │India, Moluccas, Abyssinia.

(1). │ │

+Spanish Gourd+—C. maxima (1). │C. (?)│Guinea.

+Melon+—Cucumis Melo (1). │ C. │India, Beluchistan, Guinea.

+Water-Melon+—Citrullus vulgaris (1). │ A. │Tropical Africa.

+Cucumber+—Cucumis sativus (1). │ A. │India.

+West Indian Gherkin+—Cucumis Anguria │C. (?)│Tropical Africa (?).

(1). │ │

+White Gourd-Melon+—Benincasa hispida │ (?) │Japan, Java.

(1). │ │

+Towel Gourd+—Luffa cylindrica (1). │ C. │India.

+Angular Luffa+—Luffa acutangula (1). │ C. │India, Malay Archipelago.

+Snake Gourd+—Trichosanthes anguina │ C. │India (?).

(1). │ │

+Gooseberry+—Ribes grossularia, ['5]. │ C. │Temperate Europe, north of

│ │ Africa, Caucasus, western

│ │ Himalayas.

+Red Currant+—Ribes rubrum, ['5] │ 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,

│ │ Mantschuria, 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 melongena (1). │ A. │India.

+Fig+—Ficus Carica, [5]. │ A. │Centre and south of the

│ │ Mediterranean basin, from

│ │ Syria to the Canaries.

+Bread-Fruit+—Artocarpus incisa, [F5].│ (?) │Sunda Isles.

+Jack-Fruit+—Artocarpus integrifolia, │B. (?)│India.

[F5]. │ │

+Date-Palm+—Phœnix dactylifera, │ A. │Western Asia and Africa,

[F5]. │ │ from the Euphrates to the

│ │ Canaries.

+Banana+—Musa sapientum, [5]. │ A. │Southern Asia.

+Oil Palm+—Elæis guineensis, [F5]. │ (?) │Guinea.

CULTIVATED FOR THE SEEDS.

1. _Nutritive._

──────────────────────────────────────┬──────┬───────────────────────────────────

Name and duration. │Date. │ Origin.

──────────────────────────────────────┼──────┼───────────────────────────────────

+Litchi+—Nephelium Litchi, [5]. │ (?) │Southern China, Cochin-China.

+Longan+—Nephelium longana, [5]. │ (?) │India, Pegu.

+Rambutan+—Nephelium lappaceum, [5] │ (?) │India, Pegu.

+Pistachio+—Pistacia vera, [/5] │ C. │Syria.

+Bean+—Faba vulgaris (1). │ A. │South of the Caspian (?).

+Lentil+—Ervum lens (1). │ A. │Western temperate Asia,

│ │ Greece, Italy.

+Chick-Pea+—Cicer arietinum (1). │ A. │South of the Caucasus and

│ │ of the Caspian.

+Lupin+—Lupinus albus (1). │ B. │Sicily, Macedonia, south of

│ │ the Caucasus.

+Egyptian Lupin+—Lupinus termis (1). │ A. │From Corsica to Syria.

+Field-Pea+—Pisum arvense (1). │C. (?)│Italy.

+Garden-Pea+—Pisum sativum (1). │ B. │From the south of the

│ │ Caucasus to Persia (?)

│ │ northern India (?).

+Soy+—Dolichos soja (1). │ A. │Cochin-China, Japan, Java.

+Pigeon-Pea+—Cajanus indicus, [/5]. │ C. │Equatorial Africa.

+Carob+—Ceratonia siliqua, [F5]. │A. (?)│Southern coast of Anatolia,

│ │ Syria, Cyrenaica (?).

+Moth+—Phaseolus aconitifolius (1). │ C. │India.

+Three-lobed Kidney Bean+—Phaseolus │ B. │India, tropical Africa.

trilobus, [Z] (1). │ │

+Green Gram+—Phaseolus Mungo (1). │B. (?)│India.

+Wall+—Phaseolus Lablab, [Z] (1). │ B. │India.

+Lubia+—Phaseolus Lubia (1). │ C. │Western Asia (?).

+Bambarra Ground Nut+—Voandzeia │ (?) │Intertropical Africa,

subterranea (1). │ │

+Buckwheat+—Fagopyrum esculentum (1). │ C. │Mantschuria, central Siberia.

+Tartary Buckwheat+—Fagopyrum │ C. │Tartary, Siberia to Dahuria.

tartaricum (1). │ │

+Notch-seeded Buckwheat+—Fagopyrum │ (?) │Western China, eastern

emarginatum (1). │ │ Himalayas.

+Kiery+—Amarantus frumentaceus (1). │ (?) │India.

+Chestnut+—Castanea vulgaris, [F5] │ (?) │From Portugal to the Caspian

│ │ Sea, eastern Algeria.

│ │ Varieties: Japan, North

│ │ America.

+Wheat+—Triticum vulgare and │ A. │Region of the Euphrates.

varieties (?), (1). │ │

+Spelt+—Triticum spelta (1). │ A. │Derived from the preceding

│ │ (?).

+One-grained Wheat+—Triticum │ (?) │Servia, Greece, Anatolia

monococcum (1). │ │ (if the identity with the

│ │ _Triticum bœoticum_

│ │ be admitted).

+Two-rowed Barley+—Hordeum distichon │ A. │Western temperate Asia.

(1). │ │

+Common Barley+—Hordeum vulgare (1). │ (?) │Derived from the preceding

│ │ (?).

+Six-rowed Barley+—Hordeum │ A. │Derived from the preceding

hexastichon (1). │ │ (?).

+Rye+—Secale cereale (1). │ B. │Eastern temperate Europe (?).

+Common Oats+—Avena sativa (1). │ B. │Eastern temperate Europe (?).

+Eastern Oats+—Avena orientalis (1). │C. (?)│Western Asia (?).

+Common Millet+—Panicum miliaceum (1).│ A. │Egypt, Arabia.

+Italian Millet+—Panicum italicum (1).│ A. │China, Japan, Indian

│ │ Archipelago (?).

+Sorghum+—Holcus sorghum (1). │ A. │Tropical Africa (?).

+Sweet Sorghum+—Holcus │ (?) │Tropical Africa (?).

saccharatus (1). │ │

+Coracan+—Eleusine coracana (1). │ B. │India.

+Rice+—Oryza sativa (1). │ A. │India, southern China (?).

2. _Various Uses._

──────────────────────────────────────┬──────┬───────────────────────────────────

Name and duration. │Date. │ Origin.

──────────────────────────────────────┼──────┼───────────────────────────────────

+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+—Camelina sativa │B. (?)│Temperate Europe, Caucasus,

(1). │ │ Siberia.

+Herbaceous Cotton+—Gossypium │ B. │India.

herbaceum, ['5] (1). │ │

+Tree Cotton+—Gossypium arboreum, │B. (?)│Upper Egypt.

[/5]. │ │

+Arabian Coffee+—Coffea arabica, [5]. │ C. │Tropical Africa, Mozambique,

│ │Abyssinia, Guinea.

+Liberian Coffee+—Coffea liberica, │ C. │Guinea Angola.

[F5]. │ │

+Sesame+—Sesamum indicum (1). │ A. │Sunda Isles.

+Nutmeg+—Myristica fragrans, [5]. │ B. │Moluccas.

+Castor-Oil Plant+—Ricinus communis, │ A. │Abyssinia, Sennaar, Kordofan.

[/5]. │ │

+Walnut+—Juglans regia, [F5]. │ (?) │Eastern temperate Europe,

│ │temperate Asia.

+Black Pepper+—Piper nigrum, [/5]. │ B. │India.

+Long Pepper+—Piper longum, ['5]. │ B. │India.

+Medicinal Pepper+—Piper officinalis, │ B. │Malay Archipelago.

['5]. │ │

+Betel Pepper+—Piper Betle, [/5]. │ B. │Malay Archipelago.

+Areca Nut+—Areca Catechu, [5]. │ B. │Malay Archipelago.

+Cocoa Nut+—Cocos nucifera, [F5]. │ (?) │Malay Archipelago (?),

│ │ Polynesia (?).

SPECIES OF AMERICAN ORIGIN.

CULTIVATED FOR THE UNDERGROUND PARTS.

──────────────────────────────────────┬──────┬───────────────────────────────────

Name and duration. │Date. │ Origin.

──────────────────────────────────────┼──────┼───────────────────────────────────

+Arracacha+—Arracacha esculenta, │ E. │New Granada (?).

[Z] (1). │ │

+Jerusalem Artichoke+—Helianthus │E. (?)│North America (Indiana).

tuberosus, [Z]. │ │

+Potato+—Solanum tuberosum, [Z]. │ E. │Chili, Peru (?).

+Sweet Potato+—Convolvulus batatas, │ D. │Tropical America (where ?).

[Z]. │ │

+Manioc+—Manihot utilissima, [/5]. │ E. │East of tropical Brazil.

+Arrowroot+—Maranta arundinacea, [Z]. │ (?) │Tropical (continental?)

│ │ America.

CULTIVATED FOR THE STEMS OR LEAVES.

──────────────────────────────────────┬──────┬───────────────────────────────────

Name and duration. │Date. │ Origin.

──────────────────────────────────────┼──────┼───────────────────────────────────

+Maté+—Ilex paraguariensis, [5]. │ D. │Paraguay and western

│ │ Brazil.

+Coca+—Erythroxylon Coca, [5]. │ D. │East of Peru and Bolivia.

+Quinine+—Cinchona Calisaya, [5]. │ F. │Bolivia, southern Peru.

+Crown Bark+—Cinchona officinalis, │ F. │Ecuador (province of Loxa).

[5]. │ │

+Red Cinchona Bark+—Cinchona │ F. │Ecuador (province of

succirubra, [5]. │ │ Cuenca).

{ Nicotiana Tabacum (1). │ D. │Ecuador and neighbouring

+Tobacco+—{ │ │ countries.

{ Nicotiana rustica (1). │ E. │Mexico(?), Texas(?),

│ │ California(?).

+American Aloe+—Agave americana, [5]. │ E. │Mexico.

CULTIVATED FOR THE FRUITS.

──────────────────────────────────────┬──────┬───────────────────────────────────

Name and duration. │Date. │ Origin.

──────────────────────────────────────┼──────┼───────────────────────────────────

+Sweet Sop+—Anona squamosa, [5]. │ (?) │West India Isles.

+Sour Sop+—Anona muricata, [5]. │ (?) │West India Isles.

+Custard Apple+—Anona reticulata, [5].│ (?) │West India Isles, New

│ │ Granada.

+Chirimoya+—Anona Cherimolia, [5]. │ E. │Ecuador, Peru (?).

+Mammee Apple+—Mammea americana, [F5].│ (?) │West India Isles.

+Cashew Nut+—Anacardium occidentale, │ (?) │Tropical America.

[F5]. │ │

+Virginian Strawberry+—Fragaria │ F. │Temperate North America.

virginiana, [Z]. │ │

+Chili Strawberry+—Fragaria │ F. │Chili.

chiloensis, [Z]. │ │

+Guava+—Psidium guayava, [5]. │ E. │Continental tropical America.

+Pumpkin and Squash+—Cucurbita │ E. │Temperate North America.

Pepo and Melopepo (1). │ │

+Prickly Pear+—Opuntia ficus indica, │ E. │Mexico.

[5]. │ │

+Chocho+—Sechium edule (1). │ E. │Mexico (?), Central America.

+Star-Apple+—Chrysophyllum Caïnito, │ E. │West India Isles, Panama.

[5]. │ │

+Caïmito+—Lucuma Caïmito, [5]. │ E. │Peru.

+Marmalade Plum+—Lucuma mammosa, [5]. │ E. │Valley of the Orinoco.

+Sapodilla+—Sapota achras, [5]. │ E. │Campeachy, Isthmus of

│ │ Panama, Venezuela.

+Persimmon+—Diospyros virginiana, [5].│ F. │Eastern States of America.

+Annual Capsicum+—Capsicum annuum │ E. │Brazil (?).

(1). │ │

+Shrubby Capsicum+—Capsicum │ E. │From the east of Peru to

frutescens, [/5]. │ │ Bahia.

+Tomato+—Lycopersicum esculentum │ E. │Peru.

(1). │ │

+Avocado Pear+—Persea gratissima, │ E. │Mexico.

[F5]. │ │

+Papaw+—Papaya vulgaris, [5]. │ E. │West Indies, Central America.

+Pine-Apple+—Ananassa sativa, [Z]. │ E. │Mexico, Central America,

│ │ Panama, New Granada,

│ │ Guiana (?), Bahia (?).

CULTIVATED FOR THE SEEDS.

1. _Nutritious._

──────────────────────────────────────┬──────┬───────────────────────────────────

Name and duration. │Date. │ Origin.

──────────────────────────────────────┼──────┼───────────────────────────────────

+Cacao+—Theobroma Cacao, [5]. │ D. │Amazon and Orinoco Valley,

│ │ Panama (?), Yucatan (?).

+Sugar Bean+—Phaseolus lunatus, [Z]. │ E. │Brazil.

+Quinoa+—Chenopodium quinoa (1). │ E. │New Granada, Peru (?),

│ │ Chili (?).

+Maize+—Zea mays (1). │ D. │New Granada (?).

2. _Various Uses._

──────────────────────────────────────┬──────┬───────────────────────────────────

Name and duration. │Date. │ Origin.

──────────────────────────────────────┼──────┼───────────────────────────────────

+Arnotto+—Bixa orellana. │ D. │Tropical America.

+Barbados Cotton+—Gossypium │ (?) │New Granada (?), Mexico (?),

barbadense, [F5]. │ │ West Indies.

+Earth Nuts+—Arachis hypogæa (1). │ E. │Brazil (?).

+Madia+—Madia sativa (1). │ E. │Chili, California.

CRYPTOGAM CULTIVATED FOR THE WHOLE PLANT.

──────────────────────────────────────┬──────┬───────────────────────────────────

Name and duration. │Date. │ Origin.

──────────────────────────────────────┼──────┼───────────────────────────────────

+Mushroom+—Agaricus campestris, [Z] │ C. │Northern hemisphere.

SPECIES OF UNKNOWN OR ENTIRELY UNCERTAIN ORIGIN.

+Common Haricot+—Phaseolus vulgaris (1).

+Musk Gourd+—Cucurbita moschata (1).

+Fig-leaved Gourd+—Cucurbita ficifolia, [Z].

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. Linnæus 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.”[2178]

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 frequently, 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,[2179] cultivated on a large scale by

agriculturists, or in kitchen gardens and orchards. I might have added a

few rarely cultivated or but little known, or of which the cultivation

has been abandoned; but the statistical results would be 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 schœnoprasum_, the hop (_Humulus

lupulus_), the strawberry (_Fragaria visca_), the currant (_Ribes

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 subdividing 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 aquatica_, which the natives gathered wild, is a grass

too inferior to 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 graminæ similar to the cereals, in leguminous plants

with edible seeds, in Cruciferæ with fleshy roots.[2180] In the moist

tropical region of Australia, rice and _Alocasia macrorhiza_ 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 cultivate. 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 II._—+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 probably cultivated as

early as those in the category C, or the most ancient in the category B.

As might be supposed, the species A are especially plants provided with

roots, seeds, and fruits proper for the food of man. Afterwards come a

few species having 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

Cruciferæ, Leguminosæ, and Graminaceæ.

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. angustifolium_),

cultivated by the Swiss lake-dwellers. In nature herbaceous perennials

constitute about forty per cent. of the Phanerogams.[2181]

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 perhaps some of them belong to category A.

The American 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

archæological 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

cultivated during the Græco-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

introductions 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

cucurbitaceæ, 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 without 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 followed, the number of

cultivated species remained almost stationary. The American

strawberries, _Diospyros virginiana_, 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 elsewhere 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.

When 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 textile substances, tan, indiarubber, gutta-percha, and

certain spices. As the forests where these are found are gradually

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 Anonaceæ for instance, of 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 additions 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. This 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. Doubtless the number of species

of animals and vegetables which may be reared or cultivated for pleasure

or curiosity is very large: witness menageries and zoological 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.[2182]

1. Spontaneous species, that is wild, seen by several botanists far from

dwellings and cultivation, with every appearance of indigenous plants,

and under a form identical with one of the cultivated varieties. These

are the species which 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.

_Carthamus tinctorius_, _Triticum vulgare_.

4. Gathered wild by botanists in several localities under a form

slightly different to those which are cultivated, but which most authors

have no hesitation in classing with the species. Four species.

_Olea europæa_, _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 usitatissimum annuum_, Lycopersicum esculentium,

Papaver somniferum, Pyrus nivalis var., *Ribes grossularia, Solanum

Melongena, *Spinacia oleracea var., Triticum monococcum.

6. Subspontaneous, that is half-wild, similar 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 indicus, _Cicer

arietinum_, Citrus decumana, Cucurbita moschata, Dioscorea japonica,

Ervum Ervilia, _Ervum lens_, Fagopyrum emarginatum, Gossypium

barbadense, Holcus saccharatus, _Holcus sorghum_, Indigofera tinctoria,

Lepidum sativum, Maranta arundinacea, Nicotiana 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.

_Hordeum hexastichon_ (derived from _H. distichon_?), _Hordeum vulgare_

(derived from _H. distichon_?), _Triticum spelta_ (derived from _T.

vulgare_?)

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, Brassica chinensis, Capsicum

annuum, Chenopodium quinoa,[2183] Citrus nobilis, Cucurbita ficifolia,

Dioscorea alata, Dioscorea Batatas, Dioscorea sativa, Eleusine coracana,

Lucuma mammosa, Nephelium Litchi, *Pisum sativum, Saccharum officinarum,

Sechium edule, *Tricosanthes anguina, _Zea mays_.

Total 247 species.

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 monographs 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 316). 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;[2184] but, on the

other hand, they are rarely seen at a distance from cultivated 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 67 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.

What 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 categories 9 and 10 there are

only two of these species of very ancient cultivation, or four per

cent., and these are two species which probably exist no longer as wild

plants.

I believed, _à 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 propagated 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 produced 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 mentioning 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 remarkable 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. 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 following species:—Bean

(_Faba vulgaris_), chick-pea (_Cicer arietinum_), ervilla (_Ervum

Ervilia_), lentil (_Ervum lens_), tobacco (_Nicotiana tabacum_), wheat

(_Triticum vulgare_), maize (_Zea mays_). The sweet potato (_Convolvulus

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 cultivated 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.

_Article 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 mushroom (_Agaricus campestris_).

2. The characters which have most varied in cultivation 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 pubescence of the floral organs which persist

round the fruits or seeds; _d._ The rapidity of the phenomena of

vegetation—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 of more than four or

five thousand years, or changements of form and duration, are needed

apparently to produce a modification in a plant which will allow it to

support a greater degree of cold.

4. The classification of varieties made by agriculturists 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 of more or 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

cultivation. 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 particular features

which are propagated by grafting are not preserved by seedlings. For

instance, the olive tree which has become 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 immense 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 whales perhaps as far as

America, do not seem to have transported 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).

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Hooker, _Flora Tasmaniæ_, i. p. cx.

[2] Bretschneider, _On the Study and Value of Chinese Botanical Works_,

p. 7.

[3] De Naidaillac, _Les Premiers Hommes et les Temps Préhistoriques_, i.

pp. 266, 268. The absence of traces of agriculture among these remains

is, moreover, corroborated by Heer and Cartailhac, both well versed in

the discoveries of archæology.

[4] M. Montelius, from Cartailhac, _Revue_, 1875, p. 237.

[5] Heer, _Die Pflanzen der Pfahlbauten_, in 4to, Zürich, 1865. See the

article on “Flax.”

[6] Perrin, _Étude Préhistorique de la Savoie_, in 4to, 1870;

Castelfranco, _Notizie intorno alla Stazione lacustre di Lagozza_; and

Sordelli, _Sulle piante della torbiera della Lagozza_, in the _Actes de

la Soc. Ital. des Scien. Nat._, 1880.

[7] 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.

[8] Alph. de Candolle, _Géographie Botanique Raisonnée_, chap. x. p.

1055; chap. xi., xix., xxvii.

[9] Unger, _Versuch einer Geschichte der Pflanzenwelt_, 1852.

[10] Forbes, _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. 1846.

[11] A. de Candolle, _Géographie Botanique Raisonnée_, chap. vii. and x.

[12] _Ibid._, chap. viii. p. 804.

[13] Bretscheider, _On the Study and Value_, etc., p. 15.

[14] _Ibid._

[15] _Ibid._, p. 23.

[16] _Atsuma-gusa._ _Recueil pour servir à la connaissance de l’extrême

Orient_, Turretini, vol. vi., pp. 200, 293.

[17] There 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 _Manuel de l’Histoire Ancienne de l’Orient_, by François

Lenormand, 3 vols. in 12mo, Paris, 1869; the other, _L’Histoire Ancienne

des Peuples de l’Orient_, by Maspero, 1 vol. in 8vo, Paris, 1878.

[18] Nemnich, _Allgemeines polyglotten-Lexicon der Naturgeschichte_, 2

vols. in 4to.

[19] Hehn, _Kulturpflanzen und Hausthiere in ihren Uebergang aus Asien_,

in 8vo, 3rd edit. 1877.

[20] Bretschneider, _On the Study and Value of Chinese Botanical Works,

with Notes on the History of Plants and Geographical Botany from Chinese

Sources_, in 8vo, 51 pp., with illustrations, Foochoo, without date, but

the preface bears the date Dec. 1870. _Notes on Some Botanical

Questions_, in 8vo, 14 pp., 1880.

[21] 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 give sufficient proof of the sense

of these words. As a rule, we have not in Sanskrit what we have in

Hebrew, Greek, and Chinese—a quotation of phrases concerning each word

translated into a modern language.

[22] The best work on the plant-names in the Old Testament is that of

Rosenmüller, _Handbuch der biblischen Alterkunde_, 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.

[23] Reynier, a Swiss botanist, who had been in Egypt, has given the

sense of many plant-names in the Talmud. See his volumes entitled

_Économie Publique et Rurale des Arabes et des Juifs_, in 8vo, 1820; and

_Économie Publique et Rurale des Égyptiens et des Carthaginois_, in 8vo,

Lausanne, 1823. The more recent works of Duschak and Löw are not based

upon a knowledge of Eastern plants, and are unintelligible to botanists

because of names in Syriac and Hebrew characters.

[24] Adolphe Pictet, _Les Origines des Peuples Indo-Européens_, 3 vols,

in 8vo, Paris, 1878.

[25] A certain number of species whose origin is well known, such as the

carrot, sorrel, etc., are mentioned only in the summary at the beginning

of the last part, with an indication of the principal facts concerning

them.

[26] Some species are cultivated sometimes for their roots and sometimes

for their leaves or seeds. In other chapters will be found species

cultivated sometimes for their leaves (as fodder) or for their seeds,

etc. I have classed them according to their commonest use. The

alphabetical index refers to the place assigned to each species.

[27] See the young state of the plant when the part of the stem below

the cotyledons is not yet swelled. Turpin gives a drawing of it in the

_Annales des Sciences Naturelles_, series 1, vol xxi. pl. 5.

[28] In A. de Candolle, _Géogr. Bot. Raisonnée_, p. 826.

[29] Linnæus, _Spec. Plant_, p. 935.

[30] Ledebour, _Fl. Ross._, i. p. 225.

[31] Boissier, _Fl. Orient_, i. p. 400.

[32] Buhse, _Aufzählung Transcaucasien_, p. 30.

[33] Hooker, _Flora of British India_, i. p. 166.

[34] Maximowicz, _Primitiæ Floræ Amurensis_, p. 47.

[35] Thunberg, _Fl. Jap._, p. 263.

[36] Franchet and Savatier, _Enum. Plant Jap._, i. p. 39.

[37] Unger, _Pflanzen des Alten Ægyptens_, p. 51, figs. 24 and 29.

[38] In my manuscript dictionary of common names, drawn from the floras

of thirty years ago.

[39] Roxburgh, _Fl. Ind._, iii. p. 126.

[40] Webb, _Phytogr. Canar._, p. 83; _Iter. Hisp._, p. 71; Bentham, _Fl.

Hong Kong_, p. 17; Hooker, _Fl. Brit. Ind._, i. p. 166.

[41] Willkomm and Lange, _Prod. Fl. Hisp._, iii. p. 748; Viviani, _Flor.

Dalmat._, iii. p. 104; Boissier, _Fl. Orient._, i. p. 401.

[42] Webb, _Phytographia Canariensis_, i. p. 83.

[43] Webb, _Iter. Hispaniense_, 1838, p. 72.

[44] Carrière, _Origine des Plantes Domestiques démontrée par la Culture

du Radis Sauvage_, in 8vo, 24 pp., 1869.

[45] Ledebour, _Fl. Ross._; Boissier, _Fl. Orient._ Works on the flora

of the valley of the Amur.

[46] A. de Candolle, _Géographie Botanique Raisonnée_, p. 654.

[47] Delalande, _Hœdic et Houat_, 8vo pamphlet, Nantes, 1850, p. 109.

[48] Hardouin, Renou, and Leclerc, _Catalogue du Calvados_, p. 85; De

Brebisson, _Fl. de Normandie_, p. 25.

[49] Watson, _Cybele_, i. p. 159.

[50] Babington, _Manual of Brit. Bot._, 2nd edit., p. 28.

[51] Ledebour, _Fl. Ross._, i. p. 159.

[52] Grisebach, _Spicilegium Fl. Rumel._, i. p. 265.

[53] Fries, _Summa_, p. 30.

[54] Miquel, _Disquisitio pl. regn. Batav._

[55] Moritzi, _Dict. Inéd. des Noms Vulgaires_.

[56] Moritzi, _ibid._; Viviani, _Fl. Dalmat._, iii. p. 322.

[57] Neilreich, _Fl. Wien_, p. 502.

[58] Linnæus, _Fl. Suecica_, No. 540.

[59] H. Davies, _Welsh Botanology_, p. 63.

[60] 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

persistent part of the root. (See Turpin. _Ann. Sc. Natur._, ser. 1,

vol. xxi.) In the Kohl-rabi (_Brassica oleracea caulo-rapa_) it is the

stem.

[61] This classification has been the subject of a paper by Augustin

Pyramus de Candolle, _Transactions of the Horticultural Society_, vol.

v.

[62] Fries, _Summa Veget. Scand._, i. p. 29.

[63] Ledebour, _Fl. Ross._, i. p. 216.

[64] Boissier, _Flora Orientalis_; Sir J. Hooker, _Flora of British

India_; Thunberg, _Flora Japonica_; Franchet and Savatier, _Enumeratio

Plantarum Japonicarum_.

[65] Piddington, _Index_.

[66] Kæmpfer, _Amœn._, p. 822.

[67] Davies, _Welsh Botanology_, p. 65.

[68] Moritzi, _Dict. MS._, compiled from published floras.

[69] Threlkeld, _Synopsis Stirpium Hibernicarum_, 1 vol. in 8vo, 1727.

[70] Moritzi, _Dict. MS._

[71] Rosenmüller, _Biblische Naturgeschichte_, vol. i., gives none.

[72] Linnæus, _Species_, p. 361; Loureiro, _Fl. Cochinchinensis_, p.

225.

[73] Maximowicz, _Diagnoses Plantarum Japonicæ et Manshuriæ_, in

_Mélanges Biologiques du Bulletin de l’Acad., St. Petersburg_, decad 13,

p. 18.

[74] Dioscorides, _Mat. Med._, 1. 2, c. 139; Columella, 1. 11, c. 3, 18,

35; Lenz, _Bot. der Alten_, p. 560.

[75] Pliny, _Hist. Plant._, 1. 19, c. 5.

[76] Nemnich, _Polygl. Lexicon_, ii. p. 1313.

[77] Lenz, _Bot. der Alten_, p. 560; Heldreich, _Nutzpflanzen

Griechenlands_; Langkavel, _Bot. der Späteren Griechen_.

[78] Sprengel, _Dioscoridis_, etc., ii. p. 462.

[79] Olivier de Serres, _Théâtre de l’Agriculture_, p. 471.

[80] Bauhin, _Hist. Pl._, iii. p. 154.

[81] 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_, pl. 3092. A. P. de Candolle published, in _La 5^e Notice sur

les Plantes Rares des Jardin Bot. de Genève_, an illustration showing

the principal bulb.

[82] Grisebach, _Flora of British West-India Islands_.

[83] Bertoloni, _Flora Italica_, ii. p. 146; Decaisne, _Recherches sur

la Garance_, p. 68; Boissier, _Flora Orientalis_, iii. p. 17; Ledebour,

_Flora Rossica_, ii. p. 405.

[84] Cosson and Germain, _Flore des Environs de Paris_, ii. p. 365.

[85] Kirschleger, _Flore d’Alsace_, i. p. 359.

[86] Willkomm and Lange, _Prodromus Floræ Hispanicæ_, ii. p. 307.

[87] Ball, _Spicilegium Floræ Maroccanæ_, p. 483; Munby, _Catal. Plant.

Alger._, edit. 2, p. 17.

[88] Piddington, _Index_.

[89] Plinius, lib. 19, cap. 3.

[90] De Gasparin, _Traité d’Agriculture_, iv. p. 253.

[91] Columna, _Ecphrasis_, ii. p. 11.

[92] Linnæus, _Hortus Cliffortianus_, p. 420.

[93] A. de Candolle, _Géogr. Bot. Raisonnée_, p. 824.

[94] Schlechtendal, _Bot. Zeit._ 1858, p. 113.

[95] Decaisne, _Recherches sur l’Origine de quelques-unes de nos Plantes

Alimentaires_, in _Flore des Serres et Jardins_, vol. 23, 1881, p. 112.

[96] Lescarbot, _Histoire de la Nouvelle France_, edit. 3, 1618, t. vi.

p. 931.

[97] Pickering, _Chron. Arrang._, pp. 749, 972.

[98] _Catalogue of Indiana Plants_, 1881, p. 15.

[99] Boissier, _Fl. Orient._, iii. p. 745; Viviani, _Fl. Dalmat._, ii.

p. 108; Bertoloni, _Fl. Ital._, viii. p. 348; Gussone, _Synopsis Fl.

Siculæ_, ii. p. 384; Munby, _Catal. Alger._, edit. 2, p. 22.

[100] A. de Candolle, _Géogr. Bot. Raisonnée_, p. 671.

[101] Fraas, _Synopsis Fl. Class._, p. 196; Lenz, _Bot. der Alten_, p.

485.

[102] Willkomm and Lange, _Prodromus Floræ Hispanicæ_, ii. p. 223; De

Candolle, _Flore Française_, iv. p. 59; Koch, _Synopsis Fl. Germ._,

edit. 2, p. 488; Ledebour, _Fl. Ross._, ii. p. 794; Boissier, _Fl.

Orientalis_, iii. p. 767; Bertoloni, _Fl. Ital._, viii. p. 365.

[103] Tournefort, _Éléments de Botanique_, p. 379.

[104] Gussone, _Synopsis Floræ Siculæ_.

[105] A. de Candolle, _Géogr. Bot. Raisonnée_, pp. 810, 816.

[106] Acosta, p. 163, _verso_.

[107] De l’Ecluse (or Clusius), _Rariarum Plantarum Historiæ_, 1601,

lib. 4, p. lxxix., with illustration.

[108] De Martius, _Flora Brasil._, vol. x. p. 12.

[109] Von Humboldt, _Nouvelle Espagne_, edit. 2, vol. ii. p. 451; _Essai

sur la Géographie des Plantes_, p. 29.

[110] At that epoch Virginia was not distinguished from Carolina.

[111] Banks, _Trans. Hort. Soc._, 1805, vol. i. p. 8.

[112] Gerard, _Herbal_, 1597, p. 781, with illustration.

[113] Banks, _Trans. Hort. Soc._, 1805, vol. i. p. 8.

[114] Dunal, _Hist. Nat. des Solanum_, in 4to.

[115] The plant imported by Sir John Hawkins and Sir Francis Drake was

clearly the sweet potato, Sir J. Banks says; whence it results that the

questions discussed by Humboldt touching the localities visited by these

travellers do not apply to the potato.

[116] De l’Ecluse, _Rariarum Plantarum Historiæ_, 1601, lib. 4. p.

lxxviii.

[117] Targioni-Tozzetti, _Lezzioni_, ii. p. 10; _Cenni Storici sull’

Introduzione di Varie Piante nell’ Agricoltura di Toscana_, 1 vol. in

8vo, Florence, 1853, p. 37.

[118] _Solanum verrucosum_, whose introduction into the neighbourhood of

Gex, near Geneva, I mentioned in 1855, has since been abandoned because

its tubers are too small, and because it does not, as it was hoped,

withstand the _potato-fungus_.

[119] _Chloris Andina_, in 4to. p. 103.

[120] Sabine, _Trans. Hort. Soc._, vol. v. p. 249.

[121] No importance should be attached to this flavour, nor to the

watery quality of some of the tubers, since in hot countries, even in

the south of Europe, the potato is often poor. The tubers, which are

subterranean ramifications of the stem, are turned green by exposure to

the light, and are rendered bitter.

[122] _Journal Hort. Soc._, vol. iii. p. 66.

[123] Hooker, _Botanical Miscellanies_, 1831. vol. ii. p. 203.

[124] _Journal of the Voyage_, etc., edit. 1852, p. 285.

[125] Vol. i. part 2, p. 329.

[126] Vol. v. p. 74.

[127] Ruiz and Pavon, _Flora Peruviana_, ii. p. 38.

[128] Dunal, _Prodromus_, xiii., sect. i. p. 22.

[129] Hooker, _Bot. Miscell._, ii.

[130] Hooker, _Fl. Antarctica_.

[131] _Journal Hort. Soc._, new series, vol. v.

[132] Weddell, _Chloris Andina_, p. 103.

[133] André, in _Illustration Horticole_, 1877, p. 114.

[134] The form of the berries in _S. columbianum_ and _S. immite_ is not

yet known.

[135] Hemsley, _Journal Hort. Soc._, new series, vol. v.

[136] Asa Gray, _Synoptical Flora of North America_, ii. p. 227.

[137] See, for the successive introduction into the different parts of

Europe, Clos, _Quelques Documents sur l’Histoire de la Pomme de Terre_,

in 8vo, 1874, in _Journal d’Agric. Pratiq. du Midi de la France_.

[138] Turpin gives figures which clearly show these facts. _Mém. du

Muséum_, vol. xix. plates 1, 2, 5.

[139] Dr. Sagot gives interesting details on the method of cultivation,

the product, etc., in the _Journal Soc. d’Hortic. de France_, second

series, vol. v. pp. 450-458.

[140] Humboldt, _Nouvelle Espagne_, edit. 2, vol. ii. p. 470.

[141] Meyen, _Grundrisse Pflanz. Geogr._, p. 373.

[142] Boissier, _Voyage Botanique en Espagne_.

[143] Boyer, _Hort. Maurit._, p. 225.

[144] Choisy, in _Prodromus_, p. 338.

[145] Marcgraff, _Bres._, p. 16, with illustration.

[146] Sloane, _Hist. Jam._, i. p. 150; Hughes, _Barb._, p. 228.

[147] Clusius, _Hist._, ii. p. 77.

[148] _Ajes_ was a name for the yam (Humboldt, _Nouvelle Espagne_).

[149] Humboldt, _ibid._

[150] Oviedo, Ramusio’s translation, vol. iii. pt. 3.

[151] Rumphius, _Amboin._, v. p. 368.

[152] Forskal, p. 54; Delile, _Ill._

[153] D’Hervey Saint-Denys, _Rech. sur l’Agric. des Chin._, 1850, p.

109.

[154] _Study and Value of Chinese Botanical Works_, p. 13.

[155] Thunberg, _Flora Japon._, p. 84.

[156] Forster, _Plantæ Escul._, p. 56.

[157] Hooker, _Handbook of New Zealand Flora_, p. 194.

[158] Seemann, _Journal of Bot._, 1866, p. 328.

[159] Roxburgh, edit. Wall., ii. p. 69.

[160] Piddington, _Index_.

[161] Wallich, _Flora Ind._

[162] Roxburgh, edit. 1832, vol. i. p. 483.

[163] Rheede, _Mal._, vii. p. 95.

[164] Meyer, _Primitiœ Fl. Esseq._, p. 103.

[165] R. Brown, _Bot. Congo_, p. 55.

[166] Schumacher and Thonning, _Besk. Guin._

[167] Wallich, in Roxburgh, _Fl. Ind._, ii. p. 63.

[168] Sloane, _Jam._, i. p. 152.

[169] Several Convolvulaceæ have large 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.

[170] No. 701 of Schomburgh, coll. 1, is wild in Guiana. According to

Choisy, it is a variety of the _Batatas edulis_; according to Bentham

(Hook, _Jour. Bot._, v. p. 352), of the _Batatas paniculata_. My

specimen, which is rather imperfect, seems to me to be different from

both.

[171] Clusius, _Hist._, ii. p. 77.

[172] A. de Candolle, _Géogr. Bot. Raisonné_, pp. 1041-1043, and pp.

516-518.

[173] Dr. Bretschneider, after having read the above, wrote to me from

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

according to Chinese authors. The handbook of agriculture of

Nung-chang-tsuan-shu, whose author died in 1633, asserts this fact. He

speaks of a sweet potato wild in China, called _chu_, the cultivated

species being _kan-chu_. The _Min-shu_, published in the sixteenth

century, says that the introduction took place between 1573 and 1620.

The American origin thus receives a further proof.

[174] Moquin-Tandon, in _Prodromus_, vol. xiii. pt. 2, p. 55; Boissier,

_Flora Orientalis_, iv. p. 898; Ledebour, _Fl. Rossica_, iii. p. 692.

[175] Roxburgh, _Flora Indica_, ii. p. 59; Piddington, _Index_.

[176] Theophrastus and Dioscorides, quoted by Lenz, _Botanik der

Griechen und Römer_, p. 446; Fraas, _Synopsis Fl. Class._, p. 233.

[177] Heldreich, _Die Nutzpflanzen Griechenlands_, p. 22.

[178] Alawâm, _Agriculture nabathéenne_, from E. Meyer, _Geschichte der

Botanik_, iii. p. 75.

[179] _Notice sur l’Amélioration des Plantes par le Semis_, p. 15.

[180] Pohl, _Plantarum Brasiliæ Icones et Descriptiones_, in fol., vol.

i.

[181] J. Müller, in _Prodromus_, xv., sect. 2, pp. 1062-1064.

[182] Sagot, _Bull. de la Soc. Bot. de France_, Dec. 8, 1871.

[183] I give the essentials of the preparation; the details vary

according to the country. See on this head: Aublet, _Guyane_, ii. p. 67;

Decourtilz, _Flora des Antilles_, iii. p. 113; Sagot, etc.

[184] R. Brown, _Botany of the Congo_, p. 50.

[185] Humboldt, _Nouvelle Espagne_, edit. 2, vol. ii. p. 398.

[186] _Hist. de l’Acad. des Sciences_, 1824.

[187] Guillemin, _Archives de Botanique_, i. p. 239.

[188] Acosta, _Hist. Nat. des Indes_, French trans., 1598, p. 163.

[189] Thomas, _Statistique de Bourbon_, ii. p. 18.

[190] The catalogue of the botanical gardens of Buitenzorg, 1866, p.

222, says expressly that the _Manihot utilissima_ comes from Bourbon and

America.

[191] _Aypi_, _mandioca_, _manihot_, _manioch_, _yuca_, etc., in Pohl,

_Icones and Desc._, i. pp. 30, 33. Martius, _Beiträge z. Ethnographie,

etc., Braziliens_, ii. p. 122, gives a number of names.

[192] Thonning (in Schumacher, _Besk. Guin._), who is accustomed to

quote the common names, gives none for the manioc.

[193] J. Müller, in _Prodromus_, xv., sect. 1, p. 1057.

[194] Kunth, in Humboldt and B., _Nova Genera_, ii. p. 108.

[195] Pohl, _Icones et Descr._, i. p. 36, pl. 26.

[196] Müller, in _Prodromus_.

[197] De Martius, _Beiträge zur Ethnographie_, etc., i. pp. 19, 136.

[198] Piso, _Historia Naturalis Braziliæ_, in folio, 1658, p. 55, _cum

icone_.

[199] _Jatropia Sylvestris Vell. Fl. Flum._, 16, t. 83. See Müller, in

_D. C. Prodromus_, xv. p. 1063.

[200] Kunth, _Enum._, iv. p. 381.

[201] Schweinfurth and Ascherson, _Aufzählung_, p. 294.

[202] Ledebour, _Flora Altaica_, ii. p. 4; _Flora Rossica_, iv. p. 162.

[203] Regel, _Allior. Monogr._, p. 44.

[204] Baker, in _Journal of Bot._, 1874, p. 295.

[205] Bretschneider, _Study and Value_, etc., pp. 15, 4, and 7.

[206] Thunberg, _Fl. Jap._; Franchet and Savatier, _Enumeratio_, 1876,

vol. ii.

[207] Unger, _Pflanzen des Alten Ægyptens_, p. 42.

[208] Piddington, _Index_.

[209] Hiller, _Hierophyton_; Rosenmüller, Bibl. _Alterthum_, vol. iv.

[210] De Charencey, _Actes de la Soc. Phil._, 1st March, 1869.

[211] Davies, _Welsh Botanology_.

[212] All these common names are found in my dictionary compiled by

Moritzi from floras. I could have quoted a larger number, and mentioned

the probable etymologies, as given by philologists—Hehn, for instance,

in his _Kulturpflanzen aus Asien_, p. 171 and following; but this is not

necessary to show its origin and early cultivation in several different

countries.

[213] _Annales des Sc. Nat._, 3rd series, vol. viii.

[214] A. de Candolle, _Géogr. Bot. Raisonnée_, ii. p. 828.

[215] Kunth, _Enumer._, iv. p. 394.

[216] Fraas, _Syn. Fl. Class._, p. 291.

[217] Theophrastus, _Hist._, l. 7, c. 4.

[218] J. Bauhin, _Hist._, ii. p. 548.

[219] Pliny, _Hist._, l. 19, c. 6.

[220] _Ibid._

[221] Juvenalis, _Sat._ 15.

[222] Forskal, p. 65.

[223] Ainslie’s _Mat. Med. Ind._, i. p. 269.

[224] Hiller, _Hieroph._, ii. p. 36; Rosenmüller, _Handbk. Bibl.

Alterk._; iv. p. 96.

[225] Piddington, _Index_; Ainslie’s _Mat. Med. Ind._

[226] Roxburgh, _Fl. Ind._, ii.; Loureiro, _Fl. Cochin._, p. 249.

[227] Thunberg, _Fl. Jap._, p. 132.

[228] Unger, _Pflanzen d. Alt. Ægypt._, p. 42, figs. 22, 23, 24.

[229] Hasselquist, _Voy. and Trav._, p. 279.

[230] Ledebour, _Fl. Rossica_, iv. p. 169.

[231] Aitchison, _A Catalogue of the Plants of the Punjab and the

Sindh_, in 8vo, 1869, p. 19; Baker, in _Journal of Bot._, 1874, p. 295.

[232] _Ill. Hortic._, 1877, p. 167.

[233] Bretschneider, _Study and Value_, etc., pp. 47 and 7.

[234] _Nouvelle Espagne_, 2nd edit., ii. p. 476.

[235] Sloane, _Jam._, i. p. 75.

[236] Acosta. _Hist. Nat. des Indes_, French trans., p. 165.

[237] Ledebour, _Flora Rossica_, iv. p. 169.

[238] Lenz, _Botanik. der Alten Griechen und Römer_, p. 295.

[239] Dodoens, _Pemptades_, p. 687.

[240] Pliny, _Hist._, l. 19, c. 6.

[241] He will treat of this in a publication entitled _Cibaria_, which

will shortly appear.

[242] _Géog. Bot. Raisonnée_, p. 829.

[243] Roxburgh, _Fl. Ind._; edit. 1832, vol. ii. p. 142.

[244] Piddington, _Index_.

[245] Loureiro, _Fl. Cochin._, p. 251.

[246] Linnæus, _Species_, p. 429.

[247] Hasselquist, _Voy. and Trav._, 1766, pp. 281, 282.

[248] Sibthorp, _Prodr._

[249] Fraas, _Syn. Fl. Class._, p. 291.

[250] Koch, _Syn. Fl. Germ._, 2nd edit., p. 833.

[251] Viviani, _Fl. Dalmat._, p. 138.

[252] Koch, _Syn. Fl. Germ._

[253] A. de Candolle, _Géogr. Bot. Raisonnée_, p. 829.

[254] Baker, in _Journ. of Bot._, 1874, p. 295.

[255] Cosson and Germain, _Flore_, ii. p. 553.

[256] Grenier and Godron, _Flore de France_, iii. p. 197.

[257] Willkomm and Lange, _Prodr. Fl. Hisp._, i. p. 885.

[258] Ledebour, _Flora Rossica_, iv. p. 163.

[259] Le Grand d’Aussy, _Histoire de la Vie des Français_, vol. i. p.

122.

[260] Nemnich, _Polyglott. Lexicon_, p. 187.

[261] _Ibid._

[262] Asa Gray, _Botany of the Northern States_, edit. 5, p. 534.

[263] De Candolle, _Flore Française_, iv. p. 227.

[264] _Arum Egyptium_, Columma, _Ecphrasis_, ii. p. 1, tab. 1; Rumphius,

_Amboin_, vol. v. tab. 109. _Arum colocasia_ and _A. esculentum_,

Linnæus; _Colocasia antiquorum_, Schott, _Melet._, i. 18; Engler, in _D.

C. Monog. Phaner._, ii. p. 491.

[265] Roxburgh, _Fl. Ind._, iii. p. 495.

[266] Wight, _Icones_, t. 786.

[267] Thwaites, _Enum. Plant. Zeylan._, p. 335.

[268] Miquel, _Sumatra_, p. 258.

[269] Rumphius, _Amboin_, vol. v. p. 318.

[270] Bretschneider, _On the Study and Value_, etc., p. 12.

[271] Forster, _De Plantis Escul._, p. 58.

[272] Franchet and Savatier, _Enum._, p. 8; Seemann, _Flora Vitiensis_,

p. 284.

[273] Roxburgh, _Fl. Ind._

[274] Thwaites, _Enum. Plant. Zeylan_.

[275] Rumphius, _Amboin_.

[276] Miquel, _Sumatra_, p. 258; Hasskarl, _Cat. Horti. Bogor. Alter._,

p. 55.

[277] Forster, _De Plantis Escul._, p. 58.

[278] Seemann, _Flora Vitiensis_.

[279] Franchet and Savatier, _Enum._

[280] Pliny, _Hist._, l. 19, c. 5.

[281] Alpinus, _Hist. Ægypt. Naturalis_, edit. 2, vol. i. p. 166; ii. p.

192.

[282] Delile, _Fl. Ægypt. Ill._, p. 28; _De la Colocase des Anciens_, in

8vo, 1846.

[283] Clusius, _Historia_, ii. p. 75.

[284] Parlatore, _Fl. Ital._, ii. p. 255.

[285] Prosper Alpinus, _Hist. Ægypt. Naturalis_; Columna; Delile, _Ann.

du Mus._, i. p. 375; _De la Colocase des Anciens_; Reynier, _Économie

des Égyptiens_, p. 321.

[286] See Engler, in _D. C. Monographiæ Phanerogarum_, ii. p. 502.

[287] Forster, _De Plantis Esculentis Insularum Oceani Australis_, p.

58.

[288] Thwaites, _Enum. Pl. Zeyl._, p. 336.

[289] Nadeaud, _Enum. des Plantes Indigènes_, p. 40.

[290] Engler, in _D. C. Monog. Phaner._

[291] Bentham, _Flora Austr._, viii. p. 155.

[292] Engler, in _D. C. Monogr. Phaner._, vol. ii. p. 313.

[293] _Gardener’s Chronicle_, 1873, p. 610; _Flore des Serres et

Jardins_, t. 1958, 1959; Hooker, _Bot. Mag._, t. 6195.

[294] Franchet and Savatier, _Enum. Pl. Japoniæ_, ii. p. 7.

[295] M. Sagot, _Bull. de la Soc. Bot. de France_, 1871, p. 306, has

well described the growth and cultivation of yams, as he has studied

them in Cayenne.

[296] Kunth, _Enumeratio_, vol. v.

[297] These are _D. globosa_, _alata_, _rubella_, _fasciculata_,

_purpurea_, of which two or three appear to be merely varieties.

[298] Piddington, _Index_.

[299] Thwaites, _Enum. Plant. Zeyl._, p. 326.

[300] Decaisne, _Histoire et Culture de l’Igname de Chine_, in the

_Revue Horticole_, 1st July and Dec. 1853; _Flore des Serres et

Jardins_, x. pl. 971.

[301] _On the Study and Value_, etc., p. 12.

[302] Franchet and Savatier, _Enum. Plant. Japoniæ_, ii. p. 47.

[303] Blume, _Enum. Plant. Javæ_, p. 22.

[304] Forster, _Plant. Esculent._, p. 56; Rumphius, _Amboin_, vol. v.,

pl. 120, 121, etc.

[305] Hughes, _Hist. Nat. Barb._, 1750, p. 226.

[306] Humboldt, _Nouvelle Espagne_, 2nd edit., vol. ii. p. 468.

[307] _Ibid._, p. 403.

[308] Hænke, in Presl, _Rel._, p. 133.

[309] Martius, _Fl. Bras._, v. p. 43.

[310] Sagot, _Bull. Soc. Bot. France_, 1871, p. 305.

[311] Hooker, _Fl. Nigrit_, p. 53.

[312] Schumacher and Thonning, _Besk. Guin_, p. 447.

[313] Brown, _Congo_, p. 49.

[314] Bojer, _Hortus Mauritianus_.

[315] See Tussac’s description, _Flore des Antilles_, i. p. 183.

[316] Hooker, _Niger Flora_, p. 531.

[317] Sloane, _Jamaica_, 1707, vol. i. p. 254.

[318] In _Bull. Soc. des Natur. de Moscou_, 1822, vol. i. p. 34.

[319] Aublet, _Guyane_, i. p. 3.

[320] Meyer, _Flora Essequibo_, p. 11.

[321] Seemann, _Bot. of Herald._, p. 213.