10 
NATORE 
[May 6, 1886 
logues, it is, on the contrary, a most perplexing puzzle. 
There are names introduced into the “ Herbal” which do 
not occur in the catalogues, and names in the catalogues 
which do not occur in the “ Herbal.” That the “Herbal” of 
1597 should not exactly agree with the catalogue of 1596, 
hardly excites surprise, but that the catalogue of 1599 
should so differ from the ‘“ Herbal” is more than sur- 
prising, it is perplexing. Ifthe explanation given by Mr. 
Daydon Jackson in his annotations to the catalogues is 
correct, then the Pupus hispanorum of Gerard’s garden 
was not the Papus hispanorum of Clusius and Bauhin ; 
but this requires very close attention. It involves not 
only the question whether the Papus hispanorum of 
Dr. Scholtz was Solanum or Batatas, but also whether 
Bauhin is to be trusted as a cautious incorporator of 
statements, However highly Bauhin is to be esteemed 
as a botanist, he may have had a Pliny-like weakness for 
accepting anything he was told. 
Mr. Daydon Jackson’s explanation is this :— 
“Herbal” of 1597 Catalogue of 1599 
virginiana and papfus—\ _ \ Papus orbiculatus— 
Bastard potatoes. 
Battata 
Potatoes of Virginia (p. 781) 
Sisarum peruvianorum, sive Batata | Papushispanorum— 
hispanorum—Potatus or Potatoes » = chee i 
(p. 780) ... ; \ | Spanish potatoes. 
Sisarum (p. 871) A AUN, PRN 5 Sete Stsarum—Skyrrits. 
Supposing this to be the correct explanation, what are 
we to think of Gerard allowing his second catalogue to 
appear so like his first and so unlike his “ Herbal ”? 
point is clear—he uses Papus, Batata, and Sisarum with 
such want of discrimination that no importance can be 
attached to his names. But it is strange he should, in 
both his catalogues, use Papus ‘twice and Batata not at 
all, while in his “ Herbal” he has both Batata virginiana 
and Batata hispanorum. According to accounts that have 
been handed down to us, the “‘ Herbal” was based on Dr. 
Priest’s translation of the Pemptades of Dodoneus, and 
the plates, with the exception of sixteen, were those that 
had been used to illustrate works by Jacobus Theodorus 
(‘“Tabernemontanus”) and L’Obel. [It is said that 
Gerard so little understood his work that he put cuts in 
the wrong places, and made so many mistakes that 
Norton, the publisher and proprietor of the work, en- 
gaged L’Obel, who was then living in England, to correct 
the errors. Gerard resented this, and a quarrel with 
L’Obel followed. To what extent L’Obel’s corrections 
went we have no record. He would at any rate, we may 
assume, prevent wrong names and cuts being printed 
with the letterpress. In the particular case of the three 
names under consideration, he was already well acquainted 
with the Sisarum or Batata (p. 780), as he had described 
it in his “ Stirpium adversaria nova,” written in conjunc- 
tion with Pena, and published in London in 1570. He 
there gives the name Battades, Ignames — Anglicé, 
Potades. The cut in illustration used in the “ Herbal” 
is that on p. 482 of Tabernzemontanus, where the 
name used is Sisarum. So that we can account for the 
names used in the “ Herbal” thus :—Sisarum because it 
occurs in Tabernzemontanus ; Peruvanorum is perhaps 
not to be accounted for. Batata because L’Obel had 
used it, and Hispanorum because it was first made known 
to Europe by the Spaniards, who brought it (most prob- 
ably) originally from the West Indian Islands. Potatus, 
or potatoes, because that was the Anglicised form of 
Batata. Itis possible that Gerard may have wished to 
introduce the word Papus, and that L’Obel cut it out. 
With regard to the “potatoes of Virginia,” Gerard 
would perhaps have his own way. He thought so much 
of his having grown some received from Virginia, that in 
his portrait he has a branch of them in his hand. With 
regard to the cut used in illustration, we know at present 
nothing. It isnot taken from any other source, and it 
does not occur anywhere but in this 1597 edition. Inthe 
One | 
1633 edition by Johnson the cut from Clusius is used» 
while Parkinson, in 1640, uses the cut copied from Bauhin- 
lt is one of the sixteen new cuts, but where it was made we 
do not know, still less do we know whether it was made 
from a plant growing in his garden. 
This last consideration, where the plant grew which is 
here figured, is closely connected with the question, How 
did he come by the name papus? In the text Gerard 
says, under “The Place” :—“ It groweth naturally in 
America, where it was first discovered, as reporteth C. 
Clusius, since which time I have received rootes hereof 
from Virginia.” And then, under “The Names,” he 
says:—“ The Indians do call this root papus (meaning 
the rootes), by which name also the common potatoes are 
called in those Indian countries.” 
Although there is no known publication of Clusius so 
early as this from which Gerard could be quoting, yet, as 
he had been thrice in England, there is the probability 
that Gerard and he were acquainted. It is easy to see then 
that he might easily have had, indeed most likely would 
have, the South American name papus direct from Clusius. 
But did he have anything else from him—a figure, a full 
description, a dried specimen, or even a tuber? Clusius 
had two as early as 1538, eight years before Gerard’s first 
catalogue. 
We have seen— 
(a) That Cieza, Acosta, and Garcilasso speak of papas 
as a common name in the north-west portions of South 
America. 
(8) That Clusius and Bauhin speak of the “ papas of 
the Spaniards” growing in Europe (which Bauhin recog- 
nised to be a Solanum) as the same plant the three 
mention. 
(y) That it was known in several botanic gardens in 
Europe before the time of Gerard’s first catalogue. 
(6) That Gerard in some way received information 
from or through Clusius that the plant was first discovered 
in America. America here evidently means South 
America. 
With Clusius’s information we can hardly doubt Gerard 
would also get the name papus. There is no trace of 
papus being a name used in North America. Fernandez 
de Soto, who travelled in Florida [Evora, 1557], mentions 
| Batata, but not papas Benzoni, 1572. 
It has been a puzzle to some botanists that papas 
should have such a wide geographical distribution as 
from Virginia to South America. The puzzle has partly 
arisen on the assumption that papus was a Virginian 
name. As there is not a fragment of evidence it ever was, 
and as we have seen a way in which Gerard might have 
had it, that part of the puzzle may perhaps be regarded 
as entirely withdrawn. There are a sufficient number 
left in connection with the potato to tax ingenuity. 
Can we as easily dispose of the cut in the “ Herbal”? ~ 
Are we on the strength of that cut to continue to believe 
that S. ¢wberosum was wild within the area known as 
Virginia? For, though we get rid of the name papas 
we do not get rid of the wide distribution of ¢uéerosum if 
the plant itself grew wild in Peru and in Virginia? 
Possibly experts in wood-cutting or collectors of old cuts 
may be able to say whether the cut is English or Dutch. 
Sequier says the cuts are brass [“ Bibl. Bot.,” 1740, 
pp. 72, 73]. Haller says: “In ‘Bib. Bodl.’ icones 
dicuntur znez esse; sed ligneee sunt undique” [1771, 
tome i. p. 389]. Such a point as this could probably be 
cleared up definitely. 
It seems anomalous that we should base our belief 
that S. éwberosum is a native of Virginia, on a single cut 
about which we know nothing more than this: that it 
appears in conjunction with the name potatoes of Vir- 
ginia ; that it was placed there by the direction of a man 
against whom the charge of deliberate misstatement in his 
so-called scientific work has never been cleared up; that 
for some reason it does not appear in the second edition 
