Notes. 185 
this desirable condition, so far as coco-nut is concerned, by this note 
in the Annals. 
What is the etymological evidence ? In some botanical works and 
books of travel of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries ‘ coco ’ is 
derived from ‘coc’ or ‘ cocus,’ a local name for the ‘Indian nut,’ the 
fruit of Cocos nucifera , given to it on account of a fancied resem- 
blance of the base of the endocarp, with its three circular impressions, 
to the face of a monkey when it utters a cry having a sound like the 
words. To the Portuguese this became ‘ coquo/ ‘quoquo’ or ‘coco/ 
De Barros, on the other hand, traces it from the Portuguese ‘ coco, a 
word applied by women to anything with which they try to frighten 
children/ the reference here also being to the monkey-like face at the 
base of the endocarp. This latter derivation is quoted by Skeat, who 
connects ‘ coco ’ with Lat. ‘ concha/ a shell, as does also Colonel Yu!e, 
who further supposes that the word may be the old Spanish ‘ coca/ a 
shell, which we have also in French { coque.’ Rumphius and others 
dismiss the monkey-face derivation, and suggest as the origin of 
‘ coco ’ the Arabic ( gauzos-Indi ’ or c geuzos-Indi/ meaning Nux 
Indica/ the name by which the fruit was earliest known, and ‘ Cock- 
Indi ’ is given as a Turkish equivalent. An old Egyptian word ‘ kuku ’ 
has also been mentioned as a possible source. I do not discuss here 
which of these derivations is the most probable; but refer to the 
authorities cited, especially to Colonel Yule’s * Hobson- Jobson/ for 
further information. That the generic name, Cocos, was taken by 
Linnaeus from the popular one will be clear upon all the evidence to 
any one who will look up the references which Linnaeus gives. It had 
been in use long before his time. Caspar Bauhin in his Pinax gives 
‘ genera cocos seu Palmae indicae/ including under this term the date 
and areca-nut as well as the coco-nut palm, and other old writers also 
use the word with the occasional spelling ‘ coccos.’ The latter probably 
gave cause for the derivation from kokkos, adopted by Wittstein ; but 
this is quite an untenable one. 
There is nothing in any of these derivations of ‘ coco ’ to sanction 
the spelling ‘cocoa/ and the question arises how did the mistake 
occur ? I could not do better than apply to Dr. Murray for informa- 
tion on this point, and here is his reply to my question : — ‘ The spell- 
ing “cocoa” for the Cocos nucifera is certainly wrong, and due merely to 
ignorance or confusion last century. All the people who knew wrote 
“ coco,” and only those who thought that “coco” and “cacao” were the 
