CONCLUSIONS. 



143 



now to identify these, excepting where pedigreed or otherwise authen- 

 tic seed is available. In the main the names have been preserved 

 only in a traditional way by seedsmen. This method of identification 

 is often unreliable, as different varieties in many cases have very- 

 similar seeds. 



In some cases old varieties can be satisfactorily identified because 

 no other variety with similar seeds is common. Among such are 

 Whippoorwill, New Era, Iron, Taylor, and Blackej^ed Lady. On the 

 other hand, such names as Black, Clay, Unknown, Red Ripper, 

 Blackeye, Browneye, and Crowder are group names, being in each 

 case used primarily for a color or shape of seed. 



Foreign varieties of cowpeas are as a rule inferior. The earliest 

 varieties have been obtained from northern Italy ; those from tropical 

 regions are usually very late and vigorous; Chinese varieties are 

 much subject to rust; South African varieties are nearly all distinct, 

 some of them valuable; the catjangs of India are valuable on account 

 of their small, hard seeds, which are little attacked by weevils. 



Everything considered, the best varieties of cowpeas tested are 

 Whippoorwill, New Era, and Iron, and recent hybrids of these, in- 

 cluding Brabham and Groit. Other varieties which possess merit 

 and which are being used in breeding include the following: 8687, 

 a very vigorous catjang; 21292, 21602, and 22759, perfectly upright 

 late catjangs; 21508, an erect early cowpea from Japan; 22958, a 

 vigorous late cowpea from Rhodesia; 29282, from Italy, the earliest 

 cowpea yet found. 



The breeding work thus far conducted indicates that practically 

 every combination of seed, color, and shape with habit and life period 

 can be obtained. This matter is of some importance in growing 

 varieties that can be easily recognized. 



Note. — While this bulletin was in final page proof an opportunity was 

 afforded to examine the original specimen of Dolichos unguiculatus L., pre- 

 served in the herbarium of the Lhrmean Society in London. The specimen is 

 an excellent one, grown in the greenhouse at TJpsala, Sweden. It is not the 

 cowpea to which most recent botanists have referred it, but is the plant re- 

 cently described by Urban as Phaseolus antiUanus. The error in considering 

 the name Dolichos unguiculatus as applying to the cowpea was undoubtedly 

 due to Linnseus's very brief and insufficient description and to the further fact 

 that his original specimen was not examined by later botanists. The correct 

 botanical designation for the cowpea is therefore Vigna sinensis (Stickman) 

 Endlicher (1848).— C. V. Pipee, January 25, 1912. 

 229 



