REVIEW OF ARGUMENTS. 291 
tion of inhabited islands in the Pacific, information probably obtained 
from some of the conquered races of the coast region. 
The third point is the greater area of distribution in Asia, which 
proves only that the cocoanut was more appreciated there than in 
America. The next three counts are on multiplication of varieties, 
uses, and names in Asia, which have already been touched upon. 
In the next objection it is considered improbable that *‘the ancient 
Mexicans and inhabitants of Central America would have neglected to 
spread the cocoanut in several directions had it existed among them 
from a very remote epoch.” It has been shown above that the species 
might have been American and still, like most other palms, not widely 
distributed. Moreover, there is no evidence of extended movements 
among the aboriginal peoples of tropical America. The more recent 
of the superior tribes were of temperate origin, and even the cacao of 
tropical Mexico and Central America had not been exchanged for the 
cocoa of tropical Peru, plants far more valued than the cocoanut. 
Under number eight it is alleged that if the cocoanut had been pres- 
ent in America before Pliocene or Eocene times it would have been 
found on both sides of the continent, a point which the evolution and 
distribution of other palms does not indicate to be well taken, or to 
have bearing upon the question, The ninth objection is that there is 
no record of ancient existence in America, while Sanskrit names indi- 
cate its presence in Asia three thousand or four thousand vears ago. 
This seems to be due to the literary backwardness of the American 
aborigines and is no fault of the palms. The tenth and final item is 
based on the wide diffusion of similar names among the Malays and 
others, but it has been shown that the names indicate a westerly and 
not an easterly direction for the trans-Pacific Journey. 
CONCLUSIONS. 
It thus appears that among De Candolle’s ten reasons for the Asiatic 
origin of the cocoa palm none is based on facts incompatible with the 
present view that the species originated in America. 
An introduction of the cocoa palm to America by the Spaniards in 
the fifteenth century is highly improbable by reason of the difficulties 
of securing and transporting living nuts from the Far East, with which 
the Spaniards were not in communication, and there are neither records 
nor traditions establishing or even suggesting such an introduction. 
The existence of the cocoanut in great abundance in Central Amer- 
ica in the early years of the sixteenth century is established by the 
extended and circumstantial record of Oviedo, supported by the testi- 
mony of Cieza de Leon, Acosta, and Hernandez, all of whom evidently 
considered it an indigenous American product. 
3508—Vol. 7, No. 2—v1——-4 
