B. p. I.— 607. 



THE SOY BEAN; HISTORY, VARIETIES, AND 



FIELD STUDIES. 



BOTANICAL HISTORY AND IDENTITY OF THE SOY BEAN. 



The soy bean was first made known to Europeans by Kampfer, 

 who spent three years, 1690 to 1692, in Japan. Kampfer (Amoeni- 

 tatum Exoticarum, 1712, p. 837) gives the Japanese name ''Daidsii 

 Mame" and describes it as an erect bean, with the pod of a lupine 

 and the seeds like a large white pea. Linnaeus (Flora Zeylanica, 1747, 

 p. 534) describes the plant briefly under "Dolichos" and states that 

 it is cultivated in Ceylon. This last statement is probably an error. 

 He also cites the descriptions of Kampfer. In 1 753 Linnaeus repeats 

 the description of the Flora Zeylanica and forraally names the plant 

 Dolichos soja, giving its habitat, however, as India. What Linnseus's 

 Ceylon or India plant may be is not certain, as will appear. 



Moench in 1794 rechristened the Linnsean plant Soja hispida. 

 Savi in 1824 called the Japanese soy bean Soja japonica. Miquel in 

 1855 named a narrow-leafed form from Java Soja angustifolia, and 

 Maximowicz in 1873, using Moench's specific name, published the 

 soy bean as Glycine Mspida, which name has been generally adopted. 

 Siebold and Zuccarini had previously (1843) named a plant from 

 Japan Glycine soja, supposing it to be the Dolichos soja of Linnaeus. 

 This plant, however, was not the soy bean cultivated by the Japanese 

 but the wild plant later described as Glycine ussuriensis by Kegel 

 and Maack. Under existing botanical rules, the soy bean, which is 

 known only as cultivated, has been called Glycine Jiispida (Moench) 

 Maximowicz, and its nearest relative Glycine soja Siebold and Zuc- 

 carini {G. ussuriensis Kegel and Maack). Maximowicz considered 

 that the soy bean was probably derived from the latter by cultiva- 

 tion, but this idea has not generally been accepted. 



Glycine soja (Pis. I and II), as heretofore known, difl'ers from G. 

 Jiispida in its more slender and more vining stems, in being less hairy, 

 in bearing smaller pods and seeds, and especially in having smaller 

 flowers. The flower is 3 to 5 mm. long, while that of G. hispida is 

 6 to 7 mm. The structure of the flower is the same in both, but the 

 calyx lobes are usually longer in proportion to the tube in G. hispida 

 than in G. soja. It is apparent, therefore, that the fundamental 

 diflPerences between the species are slight. The smaller flower we 



107 9 



