THE JACK BEAN AND THE SWOBD BEAN. 31 



Finally in 1767 Linnaeus J gives two separate descriptions of Doli- 

 chos ensiformis, in one of which the plant is said to be erect, in the 

 other twining. Whether this was an editorial blunder or whether 

 Linnaeus considered the two distinct and inadvertently used the same 

 specific name twice is open to question. Jacquin evidently thought 

 that the same name covered two species, as the twining one agreed 

 with a plant growing m his greenhouse at Vienna which he had 

 obtained from the West Indies. He redescrlbed and figured it as 

 Dolichos acinaciformis. 2 There can be scarcely a question, however, 

 that these two names include but a single species. It is true Sloane 

 records the plant as twining. Brown says it is suberect, while Mac- 

 fadyen writes "at first suberect, afterward twining." Two varieties 

 were grown at Biloxi, Miss., and Gainesville, Fla., in 1911 and 1912, 

 one early, the other later and larger. The former is suberect and 

 bushy, while the latter has longer, viny branches. Under favorable 

 conditions it would not be surprising for these plants to assume a 

 vining habit, as a similar phenomenon is well known in the case of 

 bush cowpeas and soy beans. 



The plant of Rheede is a distinct species, Canavali gladiata, and 

 that of Rumphius is probably the same, but with a faulty figure. 

 Later authors have also confused this East Indian plant with the 

 West Indian, so that it is often difficult to determine which species 

 is referred to. 



The genus Canavali founded by Adanson 3 has received general 

 recognition, and the jack bean is therefore properly known as Canavali 

 ensiformis (L.) DC. Later authors have usually modified the generic 

 name to Canavalia. 



ECONOMIC VALUE. 



In the last 20 years the jack bean has several times attracted atten- 

 tion on account of its vigorous growth and large yield of pods and 

 seeds. It was extensively tested at the Mississippi Agricultural 

 Experiment Station during the years 1890 to ,1895. Under field con- 

 ditions yields of 30 to 40 bushels of beans per acre were obtained, even 

 when grown on thin soil. Attempts were made to utilize these beans 

 as feed for both beef and dairy cattle, 4 but the beans were found to 

 be both unpalatable and indigestible. 



Three of the lots fed with bean meal made a smaller gain than did many of the lots 

 receiving cottonseed meal, and the best of the bean-meal lots, No. 4a, gained only 3.4 

 pounds more than did the poorest of the lots receiving cottonseed meal. It should be 

 noted that the lots receiving bean meal were also fed cottonseed meal amounting to 



1 Einna-us, Carolus. Systems Naturae, ed. 12, t. 2, p. im' 483, 1707. 



2 Jacquin, N. J. von. Collectanea, t. 1, p. 114, 1786. 



3 Adanson, Michel. Families des Plantes, pt. 2, p. 325, 1763. 



4 Lloyd, E. R. , and Moore, J. S. Feeding for beef. Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station, Bul- 

 letin 39, p. 162-163, 1896. 



[Cir. 110] 



