PLANTS CULTIVATED FOR THEIR SEEDS. 34?1 



in the fifteenth century, such as Pierre Crescenzio l and 

 Macer Floridus, 2 mention no faseolus or similar name. 

 On the other hand, after the discovery of America, from 

 the sixteenth century all authors publish descriptions 

 and drawings of Phaseolus vulgaris, with a number of 

 varieties 



It is doubtful that its cultivation is ancient in tropical 

 Africa. It is indicated there less often than that of other 

 species of the Dolichos and Phaseolus genera. 



It had not occurred to any one to seek the origin of 

 the haricot in America till, quite recently, some remark- 

 able discoveries of fruits and seeds were made in Peru- 

 vian tombs at Ancon, near Lima. Rochebrune 3 published 

 a list of the species of different families from the collection 

 made by Cossac and Savatier. Among the number are 

 three kinds of haricot, none of which, says the author, is 

 Phaseolus vulgaris ; but Wittmack, 4 who studied the 

 leguminse brought from these same tombs by Reiss 

 and Stubel, says he made out several varieties of the 

 common haricot among other seeds belonging to Phaseolus 

 lunatus } Linnaeus. He had identified them with the 

 varieties of P. vulgaris called by botanists Oblongus 

 purpureus (Martens), Ellipticus prcecox (Alefeld), and 

 Ellipticus atrofuscus (Alefeld), which belong to the cate- 

 gory of dwarf or branchless haricots. 



It is not certain that the tombs in question are all 

 anterior to the advent of the Spaniards. The work of 

 Reiss and Stubel, now in the press, will perhaps give 

 some information on this head ; but Wittmack admits, on 

 their authority, that some of the tombs are not ancient. 

 I notice a fact, however, which has passed without 

 observation. The fifty species of Rochebrune are all 

 American. There is not one which can be suspected to 

 be of European origin. Evidently these plants and seeds 



1 P. Crescens, French trans., 1539. 



2 Macer Floridus, edit. 1485, and Choulant's commentary, 1832. 



3 De Rochebrune, Actes de la Soc. Linn, de Bordeaux, vol. xxxiii. Jan., 

 1880, of which I saw an analysis in Botanisches Centralblatt, 1880, 

 p. 1633. 



4 Wittmack, Sitzungsbericht des Bot. Vereins Brandenburg, Dec. 19, 

 1879, and a private letter. 



