THE POISONOUS PLANTS OF BOMBAY. 95 



equal reasou, be disposed to agree with A; DeCandoUe in calling it a 

 " fruit like a pear." In shape and botanical structure it is neither like 

 an apple, nor like a pear. But if I were one of those who in former 

 years were disposed to call it an apple, I would with equal vigour and 

 no less reason retort in the very words of Alphonse DeCandolle, that to 

 say that the succulent development of the peduncle " resembles a large 

 bean " is '' as absurd as it is possible to be." No tree of the order 

 Anacardiacem has any pretensions to be called " bean-like " any more 

 than " apple-like ^' or *' pear-like.'''' 



But to proceed to the grounds on which A. DeCandolle considers 

 that the Anacardium occidentale is an introduced plant in the Eastern 

 tropics, I may at starting say that his statement on this subject is con- 

 clusive, and may well be quoted in extenso. I shall, however, add my 

 own observations wherever necessary. 



" The species Anacardium occidentale,^'' says he, " is certainly wild in 

 the forests of tropical America, and indeed occupies a wide area in that 

 region ; it is found, for example, in Brazil, Guiana, the Isthmus of 

 Panama, and the West Indies. Dr. Ernest believes it is only indige- 

 nous in the basin of the Amazon Eiver, although he had also seen it in 

 Cuba, Panama, Eucador, and New Granada. His opinion is founded 

 upon the absence of all mention of the plant in Spanish authors of the 

 time of the Conquest— a negative proof which establishes a mere 

 probability." 



Whatever the question may be as regards the geographical distri- 

 bution of the Cashew-nut plant in the Western world, there is no 

 question as to its prevalence in the Eastern tropics, as a mere natura- 

 lized exotic. It is certainly not wild in the Konkan, although 

 A. DeCandolle says that both Rheede and Rumphius " indicate " this 

 plant in the south of Asia. According to Rheede (Malabar, iii, pi. 54) 

 the plant is common enough on the Malabar Coast. Rumphius has 

 " different historical and philological proofs,"* " which," says Alphonse 

 DeCandolle, " have convinced me that its origin is not Asiatic.^' I 

 think I can safely vouch for this statement, for so far as I am able to 

 ascertain, I find no Sanskrit writer of ancient date referrino' to this 

 plant. Let me add to this the testimony of Rumphius who as 

 A. DeCandolle says, is always accurate. Rumphius spoke of an 



* Eumphins " Herb Amboin." I, pp. 177.. 178. 



