THE WHEAT PLANT 



TRITICUM 



VULGARE 



Wheat 



163 ; Buchanan-Hamilton, Stat. Ace. Dinaj., 1833, 188 ; Pharmacog. Ind., i., 

 401-4 ; Banerjei, Agri. Cuttack, 1893, 104 ; Gaz. Montgomery, Dist. Punjab, 

 1898-9), 147 ; Lakehman Dhargal Ker, Notes on Therap. of Indig. Veg. Drugs, 

 1899, 56-7 ; Dutt, Mat. Med. Hind., 1900, 144.] 



D.E.P., 



vi., pt. iv., 

 88-202. 



Indian Names. 



History. 



Ancient 

 Eecords. 



Summer 

 Wheat. 



TRITICUM VULGARE, TiUars, Hist. PI Dauph., 1787, ii., 

 153; T. cestivum, Linn., Sp. PL, 1753, 85; T. hybernum, Linn., Sp. PL, 

 86 ; T. sativum, Lamk., Encycl., 1786, ii., 554 ; T. monococcum and T. 

 spelta, Buchanan- Hamilton, Journ. Mysore, etc., 1807, i., 296-7, 373-4, 

 405 ; ii., 107, 160-1 ; Vilmorin-Andrieux & Cie., Les Meilleurs Bles, 

 1880, 28-158 and tt. ; Hackel, in Engler and Prantl, Pftanzenfam., 1887, 

 ii., pt. ii., 80-6; Duthie, Fodd. Grass. N. Ind., 1888, 68; Prain, Note 

 on Races of Bengal Wheat, Dept. Land Rec. and Agri. Bull., 1896, No. 3 ; 

 T. vulgare, Fl. Br. Ind., 1897, vii., 367 ; Moreland, Australian Methods of 

 Test, and Improv. Wheat, in Agri. Ledg., 1901, No. 2 ; T. hybernum and T. 

 (Bstivum, Gammie, Provis. Class, of Ind. Wheats, Cult, at Poona and Manjiri 

 Farms, 1903, 1-14, tt. i.-viii. 



WHEAT (froment, Fr. ; weizen, Germ.) has numerous Indian syno- 

 nyms. The grain would appear to be most widely known in Sanskrit 

 by the name godhuma, and according to Dutt (Mat. Med. Hind., 269), 

 " three varieties of wheat are mentioned in the BhdvapraMsa, namely 

 mohdgodhuma or large-grained, madhuli or small-grained, and nihsuki or 

 beardless." The first, we are told, came from the West, and the second 

 was indigenous to India. The most general vernacular names are often 

 closely connected (like the Persian gandum) with the Sanskrit godhuma, 

 thus : gehun or giun, gahu, ghum, gohum, gahung, ghavum, gaivn, gom, 

 gam, gih, kanak, kank, rozatt, dro, do, zud, gandum, godumai, godu-mulu, 

 godhi, kotanpam, giyonsaba, etc., etc. 



History. The cultivation of wheat, says Do Candolle, is prehistoric. It is 

 older than the most ancient languages, each of which have independent and 

 definite names for the grain, such as the Chinese mai and the Hebrew chittah, 

 etc., in addition to the Sanskrit names already mentioned. The Chinese grew 

 wheat 2700 B.C. Heer found a small-grained wheat in the deposits identified 

 with the earliest lake-dwellers of West Switzerland date about the time of the 

 Trojan war or earlier. linger detected the same grain in a brick of the pyramid 

 of Dashur in Egypt, to which he assigned the date of 3359 B.C. Another form of 

 wheat has been found in the lees ancient deposits of the lake-dwellers of Switzer- 

 land and Italy (Stone Age), and still a third or intermediate form at Aggtelek in 

 Hungary. According to Hackel, the wheat found in the most ancient of these 

 deposits is T. iii>-u,, t . This is a summer wheat grown occasionally in Southern 

 Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Servia and Italy, and used largely in the manu- 

 facture of starch. The more recent forms, that author identifies as belonging to 

 T. nininteofcniH. Hitherto it has been affirmed that the wheats found in as- 

 sociation with the lake dwellings were quite distinct from any known modern 

 wheats, but Hackel's determinations would seem to remove that impression, while 

 confirming the belief that the wheat named preceded the appearance of those 

 which constitute the bread wheats of to-day. 



On the authority of Berosus a Chaldean priest wild wheat is accepted as 

 having been seen in Mesopotamia. But similarly, the evidence of Strabo (who 

 lived 50 B.C.) is often given as supporting the belief that wild wheat had been 

 discovered in the Indus valley. In another place (p. 823) I have produced 

 evidence, however, in favour of the idea that the wild plant that looked like wheat 

 of which Strabo spoke may have been ftryxn cnnrctHtn and not wheat at 

 all. Other early references to wild wheats might still be given, but their value 

 may be questioned when it is added that no modern botanist has recorded the 

 discovery of wild wheat, nor, in fact, given any very satisfactory evidence of 

 feral wheats (that is to say, of wheats that had survived in a self-sown condition 

 from former cultivation). The authentic cases of wild wheat recorded by modern 

 travellers, BO far as can be ascertained, are unconnected with the true wheat 



1082 



