414 ORIGIN OF CULTIVATED PLANTS. 



small islands of the Pacific. All these facts point to an 

 American, I might even say a Brazilian, origin. None 

 of the authors I have consulted mentions having seen 

 the plant wild, either in the old or the new world. 

 Those who indicate it in Africa or Asia are careful to 

 say the plant is cultivated. Marcgraf does not say 

 so, writing of Brazil, but Piso says the species is 

 planted." 



Seeds of Arachis have been found in the Peruvian 

 tombs at Ancon,^ which shows some antiquity of existence 

 in America, and supports the opinion I expressed in 

 1855. Dr. Bretschneider's study of Chinese works ^ over- 

 sets Brown's hypothesis. The Arachis is not mentioned 

 in the ancient works of this country, nor even in the 

 Fent-sao, published in the sixteenth century. He adds 

 that he believes the plant was only introduced in the 

 last century. 



All the recent floras of Asia and Africa mention the 

 species as a cultivated one, and most authors believe it 

 to be of American origin. Bentham, after satisfying 

 himself that it had not been found wild in America or 

 elsewhere, adds that it is perhaps a form derived from 

 one of the six other species wild in Brazil, but he does 

 not say which. This is probable enough, for a plant 

 provided with an efficacious and very peculiar manner 

 of germinating does not seem of a nature to become 

 extinct. It would have been found wild in Brazil in 

 the same condition as the cultivated plant, if the latter 

 were not a product of cultivation. Works on Guiana 

 and other parts of America mention the species as a 

 cultivated one ; Grisebach ^ says, moreover, that in 

 several of the West India islands it becomes naturalized 

 from cultivation. 



A genus of which all the well-known species are thus 

 placed in a single region of America can scarcely have 

 a species common to both hemispheres ; it would be too 



* Rochebrune, from the extract in the Botanisches Centralblatt, 1880, 

 p. 1634. 



^ Study and Value of Chinese Botanical Works, p. 18. 

 * Grisebach, Fl. Brit. W. Ind. Is., p. 189. 



