May 6, 1886 | 
NATURE It 
of the work. If it is charitably supposed that in this case 
Gerard did not intentionally mislead, still, if his reputation 
for being a muddler of other people’s work is as well 
founded as it appears to be, he may have made some 
blunder. It is by no means a far-fetched assumption that 
his figure was from a Continental source, but that he thought 
it near enough to represent his Virginian “ rootes.” Apart 
from all other considerations it is difficult in at least one 
particular to reconcile the figure and the text. He speaks 
of “the temperature and vertues” of the potatoes, and 
says they are the same as of the common potatoes (¢.e. 
his Sisarum), Unless this is a pure invention, many 
must have been eaten for this conclusion to have been 
arrived at. The size of the tubers is not greater than of 
fair-sized peas, and it would take the produce of half a 
hundred plants to furnish a single dish. 
It is perhaps worth consideration whether an explana- 
tion of the catalogues different from that given by Mr. 
Daydon Jackson is possible. Is there any insuperable 
objection to their being read thus ?—Papus hispanorum 
(the P./. of Clusius, &c.), received from the Continent. 
Papus orbiculatus (for orbiculatus is a name of his own) 
received from Virginia. Sisarum—the “Skyrrits of 
Peru” (p. 780 “ Herbal”), and that the common skyrrits | 
were not mentioned in the catalogue. When he men- 
tions papus in his “Herbal” he does not add either 
hispanorum or orbiculatus, and it might be he included 
both under papus there. 
The important point however is whether that cut truly 
represents what he received from Virginia. 
In close connection with this it cannot be overlooked 
that Bauhin gives openauk as a synonym. 
“Ex insula Verginea primum allata in Angliam, inde in 
Galliam aliasque regiones.’ He had probably seen De 
Bry’s edition of Heriot, and so obtained the name 
openauk. But his authority for the remainder of the 
sentence is not clear. Moreover it does not harmonise 
with his reference to Peru. 
The question of the introduction of the potato is a very 
complex one, involving many other considerations besides 
those here referred to. The foregoing notes may, however, 
clear up the traditions about Ralegh and Drake, remove 
the difficulty about Gerard’s use of the word papus, and 
perhaps lead to something more certain being known 
about that cut of Gerard’s on which so much hangs. 
The origin and change in the use of the word potato 
are subjects which, for their satisfactory elucidation, 
involve considerations that fall within the provinces of 
the philologist, the traveller, the bibliographer, the his- 
torian, the botanist, and, using the word in its wide sense, 
the geographer. 
Potato is but the English way of pronouncing Batata. 
But what is the word Batata? To what language does it 
belong? The first European knowledge of it appears to 
be traceable to Cuba, San Domingo, or some of the 
neighbouring isles at the time they were discovered by 
Columbus, 1492, &c. But then the sixteenth century 
writers on Peru also use it as if it were a common word 
there, and, if it were, it is at least interesting, if not 
strange, to find a word thus widely spread over and 
across districts where, it has been said, languages so 
vary with tribes that one cannot even understand another, 
though neighbouring, tribe. But first we have to con- 
sider is there any contemporary evidence that the West 
Indian natives did make use of a word which, when 
written by the Spaniards, appeared as datata? It would 
involve a special search among such materials as 
Navarette had at his disposal to decide that. Compilations 
are not to be trusted, and English versions are of no 
avail. What the actual word was, written by Columbus 
or his companions, is what is wanted. Then, if it were a 
true West Indian word, and introduced and known with 
some plant in Spain and Portugal in the early part of the 
sixteenth century, what is the probability that, at the 
He also says, | 
middle of it, writers on Peru used it as aname that would 
be understood at home, even though not used by the 
South American natives. With regard to papas, it is dis- 
tinctly stated by Acosta it was a native name in South 
America, but the writer does not know of any passage in 
which batata is said to be. It has been pointed out 
above how the mistake arose that papas has been con- 
sidered a Virginian name, and it is possible batata may 
prove to be nota South American name at all. ‘There is 
a Quichau word, Ascu, equivalent, apparently, to Papas, 
to which only Mr. Clements Markham among English 
writers seems to have drawn attention. At present, in 
English translations of travels in Peru, papas and batata 
appear often confounded. 
Then in regard to our own use of the word batata, did 
we have it with roots through the Spaniards, or direct 
from the West Indies? The earliest use of the word does 
not yet seem to have been fully searched for. It may, 
however, be found earlier than in the list of literary quo- 
tations usually given. For example, it occurs in the 
account of Sir J. Hawkins’s voyage, 1565: “ Hennes, 
potatoes, and pines.” The earliest description the writer 
has been able to trace of what the potato was is i the 
botanical work of 1570, published in London, Lobel’s 
“ Stirpium adversaria nova.” A figure is given of the root 
of the Batata, and at the heading is “‘Anglice Potades.” 
But we might have had the word half a century before 
that through Spain, and the fact that Lobel introduces 
such a curiously-spelled form as the usual English one 
would imply it had been for some time in use among the 
common people. The mention of potatoesin the Hawkins 
voyage without any reference to what they were like would 
also imply that they were then as familiarly known as 
pines or hens. 
The change of sounds from Batatas to Potades is 
curious. Why should the flat labial be changed to the 
sharp, and the sharp linguo-dental be ‘changed to the flat, 
in the same word? Again—the question is not so un- 
dignified as may at first appear—when was the form 
“taters” introduced? It has no doubt been a gradual 
change, but as a fact country people of the Victorian era 
no more think of using the form potatoes than those of 
the Elizabethan era did of using batata. In 1596 the 
form potaton is met with. In 1627 and 1676 potadoes, 
and in 1655 pottato. Batata itself, by the Spaniards, 
seems to have been spelled indifferently batata or battata. 
Then there is another curious point. How has it come 
to pass that for the same plant the Spaniards of to-day 
retain papas, while the Portuguese use batata, for the plant 
we zow call the potato. 
In speaking of questions in connection with our having 
changed the use of the word potato from one plant to 
another it is an advantage for preventing confusion to 
refer to the two plants by their present botanical names, 
the Batatas edulis, which belongs to the convolvulus 
“order,” and the Solanum tuberosum (perhaps including 
the supposed different species, J/ag/ia), our common 
potato, which belongs to the nightshade “ order.” Of the 
two it was Batatus edulis, called then, long before Lin- 
neus’s binomial system, simply Battata, that seems to 
have been first known in Europe. 
The first European knowledge of the plant Solanum 
tuberosum (or Maglia) was under the name papas, by 
which it was known till Caspar Bauhin recognised that it 
was a Solanum in 1596. The date 1596, if not exactly 
that of his knowledge, is the date of his first publishing 
it in his “ buromwa€.” 
Then as to dates of introduction. 
As already said, the first European knowledge of Bat- 
tata was in 1494 or 1495, that is, assuming that it was 
among the valuable products of the West Indies Colum- 
bus sent home to his patron sovereigns to demonstrate 
the value of his discoveries. It is mentioned he sent 
home vegetable products as well as gold. He sent spices, 
