342 ORIGIN OF CULTIVATED PLANTS. 



were eitlier deposited before the conquest, or, in certain 

 tombs vvliich perhaps belong to a subsequent epoch, tlie 

 inhabitants took care not to put species of foreign origin. 

 This was natural enough according to their ideas, for the 

 custom of depositing plants in the tombs was not a result 

 of the Catholic religion, but was an inheritance from the 

 customs and opinions of the natives. The presence of 

 the common haricot among exclusively American plants 

 seems to me important, whatever the date of the tombs. 



It may be objected that the seeds are insufficient 

 ground for determining the species of a phaseolus, and 

 that several species of this genus which are not yet 

 well known were cultivated in South America before 

 the arrival of the Spaniards. Molina ^ speaks of thirteen 

 or fourteen species (or varieties ?) cultivated formerly in 

 Chili alone. 



Wittmack insists upon the general and ancient use 

 of the haricot in several parts of South America. This 

 proves at least that several species were indigenous and 

 cultivated. He quotes the testimony of Joseph Acosta, 

 one of the first writers after the conquest, who says 

 that " the Peruvians cultivated vegetables which they 

 called fi'lsoles and ixdcires, and which they used as the 

 Spaniards use garbanzos (chick-pea), beans and lentils. 

 I have not found," he adds, " that these or other European 

 vecretables were found here before the cominfj of the 

 Europeans." Frisole, fajol, fasoler, are Spanish names for 

 the common haricot, cori'uptions of the Latin faselus, 

 fasolus, faseolus. Puller is American. 



I may take this opportunity of explaining the origin 

 (jf the French name haricot. I sought for it formerly in 

 vain;^ but I noticed that Tournefort^ (Iiistit, p. 41.5) 

 was the first to use it. I called attention also to the 

 existence of the word arachos (apaxog) in Theophrastus, 

 ])iobably for a kind of vetch, and of the Sanskrit word 



' Molina (Essai sur I'llist. Nat. du Chili, French trans., p. 101) 

 mentions Phaseoli, which he calls pallar and aselhis, and CI. Gay's 

 Fi. du Chili adds, without much explanation, Ph. Cumingii, Bentham. 



- A. de Candolle, Geoj. Bot. Rais., p. 691. 



Tournefort Elements (1694), i. p. 328; Instit., p. 415. 



