June 2, 192 1] 



NATURE 



431 



vated plants with those mentioned by classical 

 authors. In medieval "mysteries" a "maple" 

 replaced o-ii»co'/*opos. This tendency outlived the 

 finding of America. When the Peruvian "papas " 

 reached Artois from Rome, Clusius asked if here 

 were apaythva. Nor did scholars always agree. 

 When the "sunflower" was first described in 1568 

 it was compared by Dodoens with the " coronary " 

 Bellio, and by Cortuso with the " aromatic " 

 Laserpitium. 



The habit weakened as knowledge increased. 

 But the history of cultivated plants was left to 

 scholarship until R. Brown, in 1818, made it a 

 branch of botanical geography. His "compara- 

 tive view " of the esculent species reported by 

 C. Smith and Lockhart during an expedition to 

 the Zaire dealt with the Guinea coast as scholars 

 had treated the lands of the Mediterranean 

 littoral. Necessity guided this action ; Congo 

 crops lie outside "letters." Alphonse de 

 Candolle, whom Laufer calls " the father 

 of the science of historical botany," ex- 

 plained in 1855 that the chapter on culti- 

 vated plants in his "Geographic botanique 

 raisonnee " was partly inspired by Brown. In the 

 "Origine des plantes cultivees " of 1883 the path 

 Brown had opened up was again followed. 



The results secured in 1855 by a botanist with 

 historical instincts induced Hehn to ascertain in 

 1870 what scholarship guided by natural history 

 tastes can accomplish. The limitations of 

 "letters" were tacitly admitted in 1894, when 

 Schrader, in his revision of Hehn's " Kultur- 

 pflanzen und Hausthiere in ihrem Uebergang aus 

 Asien," sought aid from an eminent botanist. 

 Thiselton-Dyer has shown, when elucidating com- 

 plex subjects like o/iTreXo? r^s "iSi??, that the 

 successful student of cultivated plants should be 

 both an accomplished botanist and a polished 

 scholar. Collaboration occasionally yields mosaic 

 results; regarding Engler's notes on the "vine," 

 Laufer remarks that " it is not botany but his- 

 torical research that is able to solve the problems 

 connected with the history of our cultivated 

 plants." 



Hehn's " Kulturpflanzen " discusses the migra- 

 tion of Asiatic crops to Greece and Italy. Laufer 's 

 " Sino-iranica " presents Chinese evidence regard- 

 ing ancient Iranian rural economy. The two pur- 

 poses induce differences in outlook and treat- 

 ment. The method of Laufer deviates from that 

 of Schrader and Engler much as that of Brown 

 departs from the methods of Gesner and Clusius. 



Laufer employs history so effectively as almost 

 to condone the acerbity of his criticism of others. 

 He teaches us that sinologues enjoy advantages 

 denied to classical scholars, since Chinese notices 

 of useful plants lend themselves to historical treat- 

 ment more readily than Hebrew. Greek, or Latin 

 allusions. The Chinese, Laufer concedes, have 

 shown thought and common sense when trying 

 likely exotic crops. Their long series of encyclo- 

 paedias, sometimes in several editions, afford ap- 

 proximate dates for many plant-introductions. 

 The culture and influence of China increased 

 NO. 2692, VOL. 107] 



gradually. If, like Rome, China suffered many 

 invasions, she rarely succumbed to foes so de- 

 structive as the Vandal or so malignant as the 

 Turk. Her civilisation remained little affected ; 

 the introduction of new plants never induced in 

 China economic revolutions comparable with that 

 experienced in Britain through the arrival of our 

 staple root-crops. 



Problems connected with the history of Chinese 

 cultivated plants present familiar difficulties. 

 Chinese records of introductions from Iran began 

 two thousand years ago. The emperor Wu 

 (140-87 R.c.) instructed General Chang-kien to 

 fetch from Ferghana horses of the famed Iranian 

 breed. Finding that these steeds throve on 

 "lucerne" {Medicago sativa), Chang-kien carried 

 home seed of this crop. As the plant had been 

 established in Greece four hundred years earlier, 

 we have some assurance regarding the home of 

 MrjSiKT] TToa. With /xrjXta 11 cpcriKT/ and ftrlXov 

 'ApfieyiaKoi' matters are different ; " peach " and 

 " apricock " are Chinese plants, and the Iranian 

 gift of "alfalfa " was but a payment on account. 

 Later history affords instances equally instructive. 

 The "Langka mirich " ( = Ceylon pepper) of 

 Hindu husbandry is the American "chillie" {Cap- 

 sicum jrutescens) ; to English denizens in India 

 the .American Physalis peruviana is the " Cape 

 gooseberry." 



W^ith " medick " Chang-kien carried back the 

 "grape-vine" (Vitis vitiifera). Although Han 

 travellers noticed Iranian addiction to wine-drink- 

 ing, the art of wine-making was not acquired 

 until the later T'ang period. It was received from 

 the Turks, who in Han days lived in Mongolia, 

 where the vine does not grow ; when they invaded 

 Turkestan the Turks learned the use of grapes 

 and wine from their Iranian serfs. 



Between the arrival of grape-growing (120 B.C.) 

 and that of wine-making (640 a.d.) China ob- 

 tained many western crops. Later Chinese 

 naturalists, thinking backwards, state that, along 

 with "alfalfa" and the "vine," Chang-kien 

 brought from Iran chives, coriander, cucumber, 

 sesame, and other vegetables. Some appear to 

 credit to him the presence in China of any plant 

 the name of which includes the attribute "hu." 

 Historical research shows that while " hu " usually 

 implies western origin, it affords no absolute 

 criterion; even when a "hu" plant is really from 

 the west, it need not be from Iran. The English 

 misconception that our " potato " originated in 

 Virginia and was introduced by Raleigh shows 

 that the " process of retrospective thought " is 

 not peculiar to China. Western misapprehension 

 may exceed Oriental; our "potato" (Solantim 

 tuherosum) is not the " patata " (Ipomoea Batatas). 



The period 200—400 a.d. saw the establishment 

 of trade relations with Po-se in Nan Hai. In 

 A.D. 461 an embassy from Po-se in Iran reached 

 Wei. After this event products of the southern 

 Po-se were sometimes thought to be western ones, 

 while Persian plants were occasionally regarded 

 as Malayan. Europe has had the same experi- 

 ence. The navigators who first made American 



