524 safford: chenopodium nuttalliae 



Range: Unknown in a wild state; said by Mrs. Nuttall to be widely 

 cultivated in the states of Michoacan, Oaxaca, Veracruz, and Tamau- 

 lipas, "a species that the Mexicans have been using from time 

 immemorial." 



The name Uauhtli, or Huauhtli, was applied by the Aztecs, 

 not only to their seeds but to the plants themselves. The latter, 

 when cooked for ''greens" (Aztec, quilitl) were called huauquilitl. 

 Uauhtzontli, which has been modified to Huausonde or Guau- 

 soncle, may be rendered "seed-heads," or "huautli-crests." It 

 has been given to several other plants beside the one here de- 

 scribed. The late Professor Alfredo Duges of Guanajuato 

 applied it to an ill-smelling Chenopodium called by the Mej^i- 

 cans "quelite hediondo" (stinking greens), of which he wrote: 

 "On en mange les inflorescences cuites, sous le nom de Guau- 

 soncle, ou Quauhzontli en mexicain. Triste legume!" By Fray 

 Agustin Vetancurt (1698) the name was given, in the form 

 Cuauzontli, to Amaranthus leucospernius S. Wats., which he 

 described as growing upright in the form of miniature trees, 

 \vith entire leaves like those of lengua de vaca (Rumex) and 

 with terminal purple or yellow plumes bearing minute white 

 sesame-like seeds, used for making certain "small tamales 

 called t2oales."^ 



Dr. Robelo of "Cuernavaca, following Alcocer and other Mex- 

 ican writers, referred the plant here discussed, to Chenopodium 

 bonus-henricus L., with the following note under the names 

 Guausoncle or Huausonde, the original Aztec form of which, 

 Huautzontli, he translates as "bledos como cabellos." "A 

 garden plant producing a terminal cluster of whitish flowerets, 

 beneath which are developed spikes of edible seeds. They may 

 be dried and kept for a year. When required for use they are 

 put into water and soaked for a day, and may be eaten the day 

 following."^ It is only necessary to look at the acompanying 

 illustration showing a leaf of the species here described compared 

 with one of Chenopodmm bonus-henricus L. (fig. 2) to see the 

 dissimilarity of the two plants, and the difference between the 



^ See Safford, W. E., A forgotleii cereal of ancient America published in the 

 Proceedings of the Nineteenth Congress of Americanists, pp. 286-297. 1917. 

 ' See Robelo, Cecilio A., Diccionario de Aztequismos, p{). 577, 579. 1904. 



