44 MISCELLANEOUS PAPERS. 



The conclusions which have been drawn are, briefly, that it was 

 introduced into the West Indies during the latter half of the seven- 

 teenth century and probably reached the mainland during the first 

 half of the eighteenth century; that it is a native of India and the 

 region northwestward to the southern part of the trans-Caspian 

 district ; that its cultivation in that region is of ancient date ; that 

 its cultivation extended to China at a very early period ; that it was 

 known in Arabia and Asia Minor as early as the beginning of the 

 Christian era, and was cultivated in at least one of the countries of 

 southern Europe at about the same time, but that its introduction into 

 central Europe was of much later date and entirely independent of 

 its introduction into southern Europe. 



HISTORY. 



The nativity of several economic plants that have been in cultiva- 

 tion for a very long period is extremelj^ difficult of determination. 

 This difficulty is especially great in the case of the cowpea {Vigna 

 unguiculata) , because of its similarity to some other leguminous 

 plants likewise in cultivation for several centuries, and the vague 

 Avay in which these plants were described or alluded to by early 

 authors. 



It is evident from the statements of these authors that more than 

 one bean-like plant was in cultivation in southern Europe before the 

 discover}'- of America. It may be inferred also that at least one of 

 these plants bore a close resemblance to the common or kidney bean « 

 (Phaseolus vulgaris)^ since this species was introduced into Europe 

 Avithout apparently receiving the attention that a plant more unlike 

 any known to them would have attracted. The statements regard- 

 ing the origin of maize, for instance, are much more definite than 

 those concerning the species of beans. Many of the botanical authors 

 wM) wrote during the century following the discovery of America 

 and the introduction of American species into Europe, like their 

 predecessors, sought to identify the beans cultivated at the time they 

 wrote with the bean-like plants described by Theophrastus and Dios- 

 corides. This tendency is doubtless at least partly responsible for 

 their failure to distinguish clearly the species then cultivated. De 

 Candolle, in the " Origin of Cultivated Plants," while doubting the 

 identity of Phaseolus vulgcn^s with any of the plants known to the 

 ancients, after discussing the origin of the words applied to P. vul- 

 garis in several European languages, says (p. 339) : " Nevertheless, 



a In this paper the expression " the common bean " is not used to designate 

 any particular one of the many garden varieties of Phaseolus vuhjaris, but is 

 applied to all the forms of the species. The term "kidney bean" is used by 

 the English and " haricot bean " by the French in the same sease. 



102— VI 



