HISTORY AND CULTURE OF THE TUBEROSE. 
167 
amulum , he guesses it may possibly belong- to the same genus with the bulbus 
eriophorus, or Peruvian Hyacinth, though not without some doubts raised by its 
stem being covered with leaves, and its tubular corolla. Two years afterwards, 
these doubts were corroborated by his receiving roots, both from Simon De Tovar 
and the Comte d’Aremberg, which by August were full of leaves ; and I think it 
worth noticing, that his figure of the plant appears evidently to have been made up 
from the original specimen sent by Bernard Paludanus, and one of these growing 
roots, which he expressly mentions did not flower : he concludes with observing, 
that if it is still to remain in the genus, it may be called hyacinthus Indicus tube - 
rosd radice . 
“ From this Latin phrase, no doubt, our silly appellation of tuberose, and the more 
accurate French name, tubereuse , originated ; but in the East Indies it is distin- 
guished by the poetical title of Sandal Malam, or Intriguer of the Night ; in Spain, 
where, at the period of the plant’s being discovered, it was the fashion to give both 
places and things religious names, it is called Vara de S. Josef. 
“ Soon after L’Ecluse’s figure, an excellent one by Vallet, the embroiderer, came 
out at Paris in 1603, and both these were copied and published as different species, 
by Swertius, in his Florilegium. An original figure, which has great merit for that 
day, though not equal to Vallet’s, next appeared in the Theatrum Flora, in 1622 ; it 
shows many roots flowering in one pot. From Ferrarius’s pompous book, On the 
Culture of Flowers, we learn it was still regarded as a rarity in the Barberini gardens, 
at Rome, in 1633, but that it increased abundantly, and was taken out of the ground 
every year in March, to separate the offsets. Our countryman, Parkinson, more 
than half a century after its being first described by L’Ecluse, is the next author 
who treats of this plant ; but valuable as many of his quaint observations still are to 
the horticulturist, his account of the tuberose does him little credit ; he makes 
two species of it, saying, he thinks L’Ecluse never saw the first, though he owns 
1 some do doubt that they are not two plants severed, as of greater and lesser, but 
that the greatness is caused by the fertility of the soil;’ his figures are wretchedly 
copied from Swertius, and by his calling it the Indian knobbed Jacinth , it appears 
not to have been known here then by its modern name. Gasper Bauhin, with his 
usual carelessness, also takes it up as two species from Swertius ; and even the 
learned Ray seems to have known as little about it, in 1693, adding, however, to his 
second species, the title of tuberose. 
“ I meet with nothing more of any consequence respecting it, till Philip Miller, 
the pride of every British gardener, published the first edition of his Dictionary in 
1731 . He makes it a distinct genus from the Hyacinthus , and describes the variety 
with double flowers, now so common, but then only to be seen in M. De La Court’s 
garden, near Leyden, whose memory is most justly consigned to infamy by our 
author, for destroying many hundreds of the roots, rather than parting with a single 
one to any other person ; ‘ an instance of narrowness of mind and ill-nature, ’ he 
adds, ‘ too common among the lovers of gardening.’ ’’—-Salisbury, in Horticultural 
Transactions , Vol. I. 
