EEVIEW OF AKGUMENTS. 291 



tion of inhabited islands in the Pacific, information probably obtained 

 from some of the conquered races of the coast region. 



The third point is the greater area of distribution in Asia, which 

 proves only that the cocoanut was more appreciated there than in 

 America. The next three counts are on multiplication of varieties, 

 uses, and names in Asia, which have already been touched upon. 



In the next objection it is considered improbable that "the ancient 

 Mexicans and inhabitants of Central America would have neglected to 

 spread the cocoanut in several directions had it existed among them 

 from a very remote epoch." It has been shown above that the species 

 might have been American and still, like most other palms, not widely 

 distributed. Moreover, there is no evidence of extended movements 

 among the aboriginal peoples of tropical America. The more recent 

 of the superior tribes were of temperate origin, and even the cacao of 

 tropical Mexico and Central America had not been exchanged for the 

 cocoa of tropical Peru, plants far more valued than the cocoanut. 

 Under number eight it is alleged that if the cocoanut had been pres- 

 ent in America before Pliocene or Eocene times it would have been 

 found on both sides of the continent, a point which the evolution and 

 distribution of other palms does not indicate to be well taken, or to 

 have bearing upon the question. The ninth objection is that there is 

 no record of ancient existence in America, while Sanskrit names indi- 

 cate its presence in Asia three thousand or four thousand }^ears ago. 

 This seems to be due to the literary backwardness of the American 

 aborigines and is no fault of the palms. The tenth and final item is 

 based on the wide diffusion of similar names among the Mala} T s and 

 others, but it has been shown that the names indicate a westerly and 

 not an easterly direction for the trans-Pacific journey. 



CONCLUSIONS. 



It thus appears that among De Candolle's ten reasons for the Asiatic 

 origin of the cocoa palm none is based on facts incompatible with the 

 present view that the species originated in America. 



An introduction of the cocoa palm to America by the Spaniards in 

 the fifteenth century is highly improbable by reason of the difficulties 

 of securing and transporting living nuts from the Far East, with which 

 the Spaniards were not in communication, and there are neither records 

 nor traditions establishing or even suggesting such an introduction. 



The existence of the cocoanut in great abundance in Central Amer- 

 ica in the early years of the sixteenth century is established by the 

 extended and circumstantial record of Oviedo, supported hj the testi- 

 mony of Cieza de Leon, Acosta, and Hernandez, all of whom evidently 

 considered it an indigenous American product. 



3508— Vol. 7, No. 2—01 4 



