PLANTS CULTIVATED FOR THEIR FRUITS. 259 



transitions of form, the faculty of crossing or of change 

 under cultivation, have distinguished as species all the 

 varieties which occur in a given time or place. 



Hence it results that several forms found wild, and 

 which have been described as species, must be the types 

 and sources of the cultivated forms ; and Naudin makes 

 the very just observation that these wild forms, which 

 differ more or less the one from the other, may have pro- 

 duced different cultivated varieties. This is the more 

 probable that they sometimes inhabit countries remote 

 from each other as Southern Asia and tropical Africa, 

 so that differences in climate and isolation may have 

 created and consolidated varieties. 



The following are the forms which Naudin enume- 

 rates as wild : 1. Those of India, which are named by 

 Wildenow Cucumis puhescens, and by Roxburgh C. tur- 

 hinatus or C. Tiiaderas-patanus, The whole of British 

 India and Beluchistan is their natural area. Its natural 

 wildness is evident even to non-botanical travellers.^ 

 The fruit varies from the size of a plum to that of a 

 lemon. It is either striped or barred, or all one colour, 

 scented or odourless. The flesh is sweet, insipid, or 

 slightly acid, differences which it has in common w^ith 

 the cultivated Cantelopes. According to Roxburgh the 

 Indians gather and have a taste for the fruits of G. tur- 

 hinatus and of G. viaderas-patanus, though they do not 

 cultivate it. 



Referring to the most recent flora of British India, 

 in which Clarke has described the Gucurhitacece (ii. p. 

 619), it seems that this author does not agree with M. 

 Naudin about the Indian wild forms, although both have 

 examined the numerous specimens in the herbarium at 

 Kew. The difference of opinion, more apparent than real, 

 arises from the fact that the EnHish author attributes 

 to a nearly and certainly wild allied species, C. trigomis, 

 Roxburgh, the varieties which Naudin classes under 

 G. Melo. Cogniaux,^ who afterwards saw the same speci- 



' Gardener's Chronicle, articles signed *' I. II. II.," 1857, p. 153 j 1858, 

 p. 130. 



* Cogniaux, Monogr. Phane'r., iii. p. 485. 



