822 



July 21st, 1605 ; but it does not exist in a Avild state so far 



north, or so far east, and its country of origin remained unascer- 

 tained till the year 1883.* Indeed, in Torrey & Gray's Flora of 

 N. America, p. 332 (1843) it is spoken of as " an introduced 

 species, said to have been derived originally from Brazil," and 

 in the first edition of Grav's Manual of the Botany 

 of the Northern U.S., p. 228 (1848), it is mentioned 

 as "naturalized" with no hint of its origin. De Candolle, 

 Geographie Botanique, ii. p. 824 (1855) says, " la plante n'a 

 ete trouvee spontanee nulle part," and hesitates between the 

 claims of Canada, Brazil and Peru; but about that year, 1855, 

 Asa Gray received from Dr. Short, of Kentucky, some of the long r 

 narrow tubers of II. doronicoides, Lam. Theset produced, after 

 two or three years' cultivation, shorter and thicker tubers, which, 

 • when cooked, were found to resemble the Jerusalem Artichoke in 

 flavour, ;ilthough coarser. Consequently that species is w r rongly 

 assumed to be the parent of the " Jerusalem " in Grav's Manual 

 of the Botany of the Northern U.S., p. 219 (1856), and in subse- 

 quent editions up to that of 18T8, as well as in Trumbull & Gray's 

 Notes on the History of H . tuberosus in Amer. Journal of Science 

 and Arts, 3rd series, xiii. p. 347 (1877). However, in the same 

 Journal, xxv. p. 244 (1883), these authors remark. " It can now 

 be said that the w T ild species to which Helianthus tuberosus has 

 been traced is not H. doronicoides, Lam. The aborigines who 

 cultivated it must have obtained it from the valleys of the Ohio 

 and Mississippi and their tributaries where it abounds." Then 



in his Synoptical Flora of N. America, ii. p. 280, of the follow- 

 ing year, 1884, Asa Gray assigns to it " moist alluvial ground, 



mg j , c & 



Tpper Canada to Saskatchewan, and south to Arkansas and 

 middle parts of Georgia. "Was cultivated by the aborigines, and 

 the tubers developed; now widely dispersed under cultivation. "T 

 This conclusion is accepted and confirmed by later floras of North 

 America. H. tuberosus is figured in Bot. Mag. t. 7545, where 

 Hooker pointed out the difference from II. doronicoides figured 

 at t. 2778 under the erroneous name of //. pubescens, Vahl. 



Although Canada,' not in its modern but in its early and wider 

 sense, was well known to many botanical authors in the first half 

 of the seventeenth century, such as 11 avelin 0*011, Parkinson, 

 Lauremberg and others, to be the source from which the Jerusalem 

 artichoke was introduced, yet many confused notions of a 

 supposed origin from Brazil, the West Indies and Peru have 

 prevailed from time to time. For instance, Martyn, in his 

 edition of Miller's Gardener's Dictionary (1807) says, "mot that 

 Canada is their original country, for they are unquestionably the- 



produce of a hot climate, being Datives of Braadl/ 5 



When Linnaeus first speuks of the plant in TTortus Cliffortiaims 

 p. 419 (1737) as Helianthus radice tubero&a he very judiciously 



assigns "Panada" as the habitat, but in Sp. PI. p. 905 (1753), 

 where he cr^aies the name Helianthus twbero&u*, he unfortunately 



* Not 1884, as sometimes stated, 



t American Journal of Science and Arts, xiii. Lc. 



J This passage was snppis^d by Hooker, Lc. (and by Gibault) to be the 

 first "establishment of the indigenous species/' 



