190 



me whether the plants in their respective locahties fall exactly 

 under one or another of these suggested varieties, or are inter- 

 mediate in character. The requisite observations are very simple 

 and can be easily made, at least as to pistillate plants, at any time 

 durinsT the summer. E. E, STERNS, 



23 Union Square, N. Y. 



On Some Inaccuracies in De Candolle's ''Cultivated Plants." 



In his *' Origin of Cultivated Plants" (Second Edition, Paris, 

 1883), M. Alph. De Candolle says (page 177), that '^ the expedi- 

 tion of Alexander is probably the event that made the Peach 

 known to Theophrastus, who speaks of it as a Persian fruit ; 

 and a reference is given to Theophrastus, Hist., iv, c. iv. Now 

 an attentive study of this fourth chapter of the fourth book 

 of Theophrastus can find no mention of a Peach or of any 

 fruit or tree that may be supposed by any stretch of construction 

 to mean a Peach. A iirjXov iiTjdtKbv 7) nEpaiKbv there is, but the 

 description attached to it clearly applies to the citron. This is 

 recognized by M. De Candolle himself in his history of the Citron. 

 *' Theophrastus," he writes, **was the first to speak of it, and 

 under the name of the Median or Persian apple in a phrase often 

 repeated and commented on two centuries ago/' and the reference 



to Theophrastus, book iv, chapter iv, is the identical passage 

 given for the Peach. 



Again, M, DeCandolle writes of the Bigarade (page 146), "it, 

 as well as the sweet orange, was unknown to the Greeks and 

 Romans"; while on page 148 he says: '* If the sweet orange 

 had been cultivated in very ancient times in India ... it would 

 certainly have been found, cultivated and propagated in the 

 Roman Empire in preference to the Lemon, Citron and Biga- 

 rade'' This last sentence is not only inconsistent with the for- 

 mer so far as regards the Bigarade, but it Is inaccurate in the 

 case of the Lemon. The inference that the Lemon was cultivated 

 or known in the Roman world is nowhere supported by M. De 

 Candolle with proof; whereas Gallesio, whose ** profound re- 

 searches " he largely quotes, says that he could find no trace of 

 the fruit in Italy before it was taken there by the Crusaders. 



■ K. B. Claypole. 



