198 ORIGIN OF CULTIVATED PLANTS. 



and Kurz has often seen it in the dry forests of that 

 country, near Ava and Prome. 1 Beddone admits the 

 species to be wild in the forests of British India, but 

 Brandis had only found it in the neighbourhood of 

 native settlements. 2 In the seventeenth century Rheede 3 

 described this tree as wild on the Malabar coast, and 

 botanists of the sixteenth century had received it from 

 Bengal. In support of an Indian origin, I may mention 

 the existence of three Sanskrit names, and of eleven other 

 names in modern Indian languages. 4 



It had been recently introduced into the eastern 

 islands of the Amboyna group when Rumphius was 

 living there, 5 and he says himself that it is an Indian 

 species. It was perhaps originally in Sumatra and in 

 other islands near to the Malay Peninsula. Ancient 

 Chinese authors do not mention it ; at least Bretschneider 

 did not know of it. Its extension and naturalization to 

 the east of the continent of India appear, therefore, to 

 have been recent. 



Its introduction into Arabia and Egypt appears to 

 be of yet later date. Not only no ancient name is 

 known, but Forskal, a hundred years ago, and Delile at 

 the beginning of the present century, had not seen the 

 species, of which Schweinfurth has recently spoken as 

 cultivated. It must have spread to Zanzibar from Asia, 

 and by degrees across Africa or in European vessels as 

 far as the west coast. This must have been quite 

 recently, as Robert Brown (Bot. of Congo) and Thonning 

 did not see the species in Guinea. 6 



Cashew Anacardium occidentale, Linnaeus. 



The most erroneous assertions about the origin of 

 this species were formerly made, 7 and in spite of what 



Kurz, Forest Flora ofBurmah, i. p. 2G6. 



Beddone, Forest Flora of India, i. pi. 149 (representing the wild 

 fru t, which is smaller than that of the cultivated plant) ; Brandis. 



Rheede, iv. pi. 141. 



Piddington, Index. 



Rumphius, Amboyna, ii. pi. 36. 



Zizyphus abyssinicus, Hochst, seems to be a different species. 



Tussac, Flore des Antilles, iii. p. 55 (where there is an excellent 

 figure, pi. 13). He says that it is an East Indian species, thus aggra- 

 vating Linnaeus' mistake, who believed it to be Asiatic and American. 



