the fruit (André, 1879, 20. sem. XX XVIII, 322). Car- 
denas supports the opinion that lulo is a species on the 
way to domestication, of recent status as a cultigen; and, 
in some ways, still wild (Cardenas, 1950, 17-18). 
In his work on the Keshwa terms used in the Cauca 
Valley, Leonardo ‘Tascén offers the following references 
about lulo; they are included here because they establish 
definitively the presence in that Colombian area of two 
different, well known and clearly distinguished forms: 
‘*Lulo. (from llullu, soft, tender). Fruit round, flattened, 
orange-colored, of sour taste, employed for preparing 
very agreeable refreshing beverages. It is borne by a 
solanaceous plant with large, purple leaves, spinous the 
same as the stem, and with white flowers in a bunch; 
called in botany Solanum esculentum. The dog’s lulo, 
the rind of which serves to make sweets, is the fruit of 
another species that differs from the former in the green 
colour of its leaves’? (Tasc6n, 1984/, 101). The first of 
these two concepts of Solanum would appear to be S. 
quitoense var. septentrionale. 
The members of the Russian botanical expedition to 
Colombia in 1925 found lulos in Manizales (Bukasov, 
1980, 488). 
In the middle of the 19th Century, the physician- 
geographer Villavicencio remarked upon the excellence 
of naranjillos grown at Baeza in eastern Ecuador (Villa- 
vicencio, 1858, 403). 
Under the abbreviated name of naranji, there is a cul- 
tivated fruit in Ecuador amongst the Jivaro and Canelo 
Indians (Karsten, 1985, 123, 568; Sarmiento, 1958, 178). 
Any doubt that the last two references apply to Sola- 
num Topiro is dispelled below. 
Solanum Topiro Humboldt & Bonpland ex Dunal 
Sol. gen. aff. syn. (1816) 10. 
[ 222 ] 
