8 
MA T URE 
| Jay 6, 1886 
proceeding by such a method on fact, and untrammelled 
by tradition, the results will be sure. Hitherto we have 
relied over much upon traditions and mis-called history. 
It has been assumed that our species is a Virginian 
species, and beyond that the question, till recently, has 
not been pushed. 
It would be a fitting observance of the third centenary 
of the date that may be most reasonably fixed for the 
introduction from Virginia, if we could celebrate it, not by 
speeches and after-dinner toasts to the memory of Drake 
or of Ralegh, but by clearly laying down our lines of 
inquiry, for they have been very ill-defined. 
It may be one useful part of the work to reconsider 
the traditions and inferred history of our potato—for 
there is no doubt that botanists, if not perhaps actually 
led astray, have at least been hampered and puzzled by 
them, 
One of the commonest traditions repeated over and 
over again in histories, dictionaries, works of gardening 
and agriculture, is that Sir Walter Ralegh brought the 
potato from Virginia. The great error in this is that 
Ralegh never was in or near Virginia. 
His patent for founding an English colony in the New 
World was granted March 25, 1555, and he parted with it 
on March 7, 1589. We have records of the various ex- 
peditions sent out at his cost to endeavour to establish 
and maintain a colony, with the dates of sailing and re- 
turning, the names of the captains, and other details. 
Ralegh’s life all through the period is known, and his 
time is so fully accounted for that he could not have 
gone out even 7zcogvito. The traditions, therefore, that 
he brought both the potato and tobacco from Virginia, 
may be forever laid at rest. Whether some of his return- 
ing colonists, or one of the returning ships that had been 
sent out with supplies, brought it, is another question. 
There is not even tradition to that effect, far less any | 
statement in the contemporary history of any of the 
expeditions. 
Gerard, however, in his “‘ Herbal,” 1597, at p.781, describ- 
ing the “ Potatoes of Virginia,” says :—“ 1 have received 
rootes hereof from Virginia, otherwise called Novembeya, 
which grow and prosper in my garden, as in their owne 
native countrie.” The value of Gerard’s picture and 
letterpress will be presently discussed, but the point here 
to notice is that he makes the statement that he did re- 
ceive “ rootes” (by which, of course, he means tubers) 
from Virginia. One of the names he mentions for the 
potato is “papus.” The name “ papus” also occurs in 
the first catalogue of plants growing in his garden in 
1596, so that the “ rootes” he had he received not later 
than early in that year. 
important, as there is no record of any expedition to 
Virgizia after 1590 till 1606. The land named Virginia 
was first visited in 1584. 
limited to some time between 1584 and 1590. At a period 
when the study of plants was confined almost wholly to 
apothecaries, and when sea-captains thought more of 
fighting a Spanish or Portuguese ship than of observing 
the natural products of a newly-discovered land, it was 
not expected that the account of a voyage should refer to 
roots brought home. The sea-lion that roared its presage 
of Sir Humphry Gilbert’s death is of course carefully 
described as a marvel, but a root is too ordinary a thing 
for notice. Can we by any consistent inferences account 
for the introduction between 1584 and 1590? 
That learned mathematician, Thomas Heriot, who 
went out in the expedition of 1585 and returned in 1586, 
wrote a report on the “ commodities” of the then known 
area of Virginia. The Island of Roanoak contained the 
head-quarters, and we know from Lane’s report that ex- 
ploring expeditions had been sent to the south for 80 
miles, to the north for 130 miles, and also to the north-west 
for 130 miles. But that was all that was known of Vir- 
ginia till the time of James I. The second part of 
The exact date is perhaps un- | 
The introduction is therefore | 
Heriot’s report is “of such commodities as Virginia is 
knowen to yeeld for victuall and sustenance of man’s life 
usually fed upon by the naturall inhabitants as well also as 
by us during the time of our abode ; and first such as are 
sowed and husbanded.” Under the sub-heading “ of 
roots ” he says :—‘‘ Openauk are a kinde of root of round 
forme, some of the bignesse of walnuts, some farre bigger, 
which are found in szozs¢ and marshy grounds growing 
many together one by another in ropes as though fastened 
with a string. Being boiled or sodden, they are very 
good meat.” In the third edition is added, “‘ Monardes 
calleth these roots beads or paternostri of St. Helena” 
(“ Monardes,” parte 2, lib. 1, cap. 4). This report is 
dated February, 1587, seven months after his return to 
England. How far it was written from memory we have 
no means of knowing. But this should be noticed—that 
Lane says that when, after much discussion, the colonists 
decided on returning to England, their departure was so 
hurried that there were “eft or thrown over, cards, books, 
and writings.” Heriot nowhere speaks of writing or 
making notes on the spot. 
It has been generally supposed that the root here 
described under the name “openauk” is the potato. 
It should not escape notice, however, that Gerard does 
not in any way allude to the name “ openauk,” and it 
is nowhere said that openauk was brought to England. 
The only mentioned habitat, “moist and marshy 
grounds,” seems strange, but the usual answer (in con- 
versation at least) to the objection is, if the openauk is 
not the potato, what is it? and Gerard’s statement 
that he received potatoes from Virginia is taken to 
strengthen the supposition. The suggestion, however, 
has been made that it was the Jerusalem artichoke. All 
that can be said is, there stands Heriot’s description, 
and there stands Gerard’s statement. To link the two 
together may be a fair assumption, but it remains a mere 
assumption. The omission by Gerard of any reference 
to the name “openauk” is against the supposition he 
received roots from Heriot personally. Gerard’s use of 
the word “ papus” calls for notice, but there is one point 
that should be referred to before quitting the openauk. 
Heriot, who is said to have been Ralegh’s mathe- 
matical tutor, describes himself in his report as 
“servant to Sir Walter Ralegh, a member of the colony, 
and then employed in discovery a full twelvemonths.” 
If he brought potatoes with him, it would be by courtesy 
said Sir W. Ralegh intreduced them. All the expe- 
ditions were his. But there is another tradition that Sir 
Francis Drake brought them. Different writers give 
different dates for this, which are evidently wrong. He 
could not have brought them in 1580 from the west coast 
of South America, because he arrived in November, 
after coming round by India and the Cape, and they 
would have sprouted on the voyage. That was 
the return from his famous circumnavigation. It 
could not have been 1585, because he left England, 
after four years ashore, in that year, and did not return 
till July 1586. If Heriot had anything to do with the 
introduction of the openauk, it is almost certain Drake 
brought it in 1586, for the circumstances of his return 
then were these. His knighthood, conferred upon him 
after months of deliberation for his great voyage round 
the world, firmly established his position, and he was 
intrusted with the command of a fleet to the Gulf of 
Mexico to harass the Spaniards. His instructions were 
to visit Ralegh’s colony at Virginia on his way home. 
He called there on June 8, 1586, and found the colonists 
much distressed that the ship from England that it had 
been promised should be sent with supplies in the spring 
had not arrived. He stayed there many days, granted 
their request for a ship to be left with them, but, as many 
unexpected troubles arose, which are described by Lane, 
t Asa Gray and Trumbuli, Asner. Fourn. Sci. and Art, xiii., May, 1877, 
P. 35. 
