Class. 
 Book. 
 
 hSj:^ 
 
 SsMl 
 
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 
 
 BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY— BULLETIN NO. 102, PART VI. 
 
 IB 266- 
 
 B. T. GALLOWAY, Cljirf of Bureau. 
 
 THE HISTORY OF THE COWPEA AND ITS 
 LNTRODUCTION INTO AMERICA. 
 
 W. F. WIGHT, 
 Assistant Botanist, Taxonomic Investigations. 
 
 Issued June 10, 1907. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 government printing office. 
 
 1907. 
 
 Hanogritph 
 

 SEP 19 tyo; 
 D.of'O. 
 
C N 1^ ]l NTS. 
 
 Introiluction 
 History 
 
 I'ago. 
 5 
 G 
 
 I I. L U S T R A T I g N S 
 
 Page. 
 
 I'LATK I. Plant of YUiiiit catjaii!/ (Kiu-m.) Walp 10 
 
 II. Plant of yiiiiia Kngiiirnhito (L.) Walp IG 
 
 III. Pods of cowpeas. A. — Vi(jiui iiiKjiticiddta. P.. — yiiiint ctifjaiuj. 
 
 (Natural size) 16 
 
 102— VI 
 
 3 
 
n. V. I.— 274. 
 
 THE HISTORY OF THE COWPEA AND ITS 
 INTRODUCTION INTO AMERICA." 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The purpose of this paper '' is to give a brief history of the intro- 
 duction of the phmt known as the cowpea {Vigna luujmculata) into 
 America, to establish as nearly as possible the time at which it was 
 introduced, and to ascertain the region to which it is native. 
 
 aAltbougb the cowpeii is the chief leguminous crop of tlie southern United 
 States, the most diverse and often erroneous ideas prevail in regard to its geo- 
 graphic origin and the time and means of its introduction into American agri- 
 culture. It has been maintained by some, for example, that it is a native of 
 tropical America ; by others, that it was brought from Africa by the negro 
 slaves, and by still others that it was introduced by the United States Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture. 
 
 Because of the bearing of the question on certain introduction and breeding 
 experiments with cowpeas, Mr. A. J. Pieters, then in charge of the seed intro- 
 duction and distribution worlc of the Department, started an inquiry into the 
 subject, intrusting the work to Mrs. K. S. Bort, who made extensive extracts 
 from tlie literature of cultivated plants. So many questions arose, however, 
 requiring the consideration of a botanist trained in the critical discrimination 
 of plants and with a wide knowledge of botanical literature, that Mr. W. F. 
 \Yight was assigned to the task. He has made a thorough investigation of the 
 history of the cowpea, and in the accompanying paper has brought forward 
 proofs of the principal points in that history, namely, that the cowpea is a 
 native of the Afghanistan region; that it was introduced into the West Indies 
 over two hundred years ago, and that it subsequently was brought to the Amer- 
 ican mainland, gradually extending nortliward until, aboiit 1707, it reached the 
 latitude of the Potomac and attracted the attention of such a keen agriculturist 
 as Washington himself. — Frederick V. Coville, Botanist in Clionjc of Ta-vonomic 
 Investigations. 
 
 ^ The author wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to Mr. Frederick V. 
 Coville for Latin and Greek translations and for many suggestions; to the 
 Chinese Legation for translation from the Chinese; to Mr. S. Stefansson, of 
 the Library of Congress, for translation of Arabic ; and to Mr. C. M. Mansfield, 
 of the Bureau of IMant Industry, for photographs. 
 
 102— VI 5 
 
6 HISTORY OF THE COWPEA. 
 
 Tlu' conclusions which have been (h'awn are. ln'iofly, tliat it was 
 inlrothiccd into the ^^'est Indies (hiring- the hitter half of the seven- 
 teenth cent my and ])i-ol)al)ly reached the niainhuul durin<>: the first 
 half of the ei«ihteenth century; that it is a native of India and the 
 region nort Invest wai'd to the southern part of the trans-Caspian 
 district; that its cultivation in that region is of ancient date; that 
 its cultivation extended to China at a very early jieriod ; that it was 
 known in Ai'ahia and Asia Minor as early as the hgginning of the 
 Christian era, and was cultivated in at least one of the countries of 
 southeiii Europe at about the same time, but that its introduction into 
 central Kiiro])e was of much later date and entirely independent of 
 its introduction into southern Europe. 
 
 HISTORY. 
 
 Tlie nativity of several ec(moniic plants that have been in cultiva- 
 tion for a very long period is extremely difficult of determination. 
 This difficulty is especially great in the case of the cowpea {Y'lgna 
 ■ungvirnhttd), because of its similarity to some other leguminous 
 jDlants likewise in cultivation for several centuries, and the vague 
 ■way in which these plants were described or alluded to by early 
 authors. 
 
 It is evident from the statements of these authors that more than 
 one bean-like plant was in cultivation in southern Europe before the 
 discovery of America. It may be inferred also that at least one of 
 these plants bore a close resemblance to the connnon or kidney bean " 
 {Phaseoh/s riilgaris), since this species was introduced into Europe 
 without apparently receiving the attention that a plant more unlike 
 any known to them would have attracted. The statements regard- 
 ing the oiigin of maize, for instance, are much more definite than 
 those concerning the species of beans. Many of the botanical authors 
 who wrote during the century following the discovery of America 
 and the introduction of American species into Europe, like their 
 predecessors, sought to identif}^ the beann cultivated at the time they 
 wrote with the bean-like plants described by Theophrastus and Dios- 
 corides. This tendency is doubtless at least partly responsible for 
 their failure to distinguish clearly the species then cultivated. De 
 Candolle, in the "Origin of Cultivated Plants," while doubting the 
 identity of Phaseolus vulgaris wath any of the plants known to the 
 ancients, after discussing the origin of the words applied to /*. nil- 
 garis in several European languages, says (p. 339) : '* Nevertheless, 
 
 a In this paper the expression " the common bean " is not used to designate 
 any i»iu-t'i(ul.ir one of tlie many garden varieties of Phofteoliift rith/aris, but is 
 applied to .ill tile forms of the species. The term "kidney bean" is used by 
 tlie Englisii and " haricot bean" by the French in the same sense. 
 
 102— VI 
 
HISTORY. 7 
 
 the dolkhos of Theophrastiis has been definitely referred [by other 
 authors] to the scarlet runner [Phaseolus coceineus {P. muUiforus 
 Lam.)], and the fasiolus to the dwarf haricot [Phaseolus vulgaris] 
 of our gardens * * * ^ I ^an only say it may be so." Again 
 (p. 3-17) : ^'■Lohion in Dioscorides is the fruit of Ph. vulgaris^ at least 
 in the opinion of commentators." 
 
 De Candolle, however, apparently did not examine very carefully 
 the evidence of the American origin of these plants. The early 
 accounts of discovery in America contain references to leguminous 
 plants which indicate that they were extensively used by the natives 
 of the New^ World. 
 
 Hariot, 1588, "A Brief and True Report of the New Found Land 
 of Virginia," mentions two kinds: One, " Okindgier, called by us 
 Beanes^ because in greatness and partly in shape they are like to 
 Beanes in England ; saving that they are flatter, of more divers 
 colours, and some pide. The leafe also of the stemme is nuich differ- 
 ent." The other plant, " Wickonzowa-, called by us Peaze, in respect 
 of the beanes for distinction sake, because they are nnich less; al- 
 though in form they little differ ; but in goodness of taste much, and 
 are far better than our English peaze." Captain John Smith, 1G12 
 (Workes, 62), writes: " They plant also pease they cal Assentamens, 
 wdiich are the same they cal in Italye, Fagioli. Their Beanes are the 
 same the Turkes cal Garnanses, but these they much esteeme for 
 dainties." « The same author, 161G (Works, 207), in a description of 
 New England, mentions " beans and pease " among the " hearbes and 
 fruits," but gives no descriptions. Josselyn, 1675 (Voyages, 73-71), 
 distinguished four kinds of beans or peas, " French beans ; or, rather 
 American beans. The herbalists call them kidney-beans, from their 
 shape and effects; for they strengthen the kidneys. They are varie- 
 gated much — some bigger, a great deal, than others; some white, 
 black, red, yellow, blue, spotted; besides your Bojiivis, and Cala- 
 'vances, and the kidney-bean that is proper to Eonoake. But these 
 are brought into the country ; the others are natural to the climate." 
 Lawson, 1714 (History of Carolina, 130, 131), mentions several kinds 
 of " pulse " as " bushel bean," " Indian rounceval, or miraculous peas," 
 " bonavis," " calavajicies," and " nanticokes." He also says " the 
 kidney beans w^ere here before the English came, being very plentiful 
 in the Indian corn fields." Brickell, 1737 (Natural History of North 
 
 o Gray and Trumbull. 188.3, American Journal of Science, 2<} : 1:^2. tbinlc tliese 
 names are confounded. " Garvancc was the Frencli name of the Chick Pea 
 {Cicer arietiniini), the Spanish garhaiizo; and it is not probable that the 
 ' Turks ' gave this name to any kind of beans ; while fafjiiioli was the Italian 
 equivalent of Latin phaseoli. Strachy's Vii-ginian vocabulary gives assentamens 
 (and otassentameus) for 'pease,' and peecatoas, pekctaiccs, for 'beans.'" 
 
 102— VI 
 
8 HISTORY OF THE COWPEA. 
 
 C'aroliiiii. HI. IT). (IcscimIk's the beans of the coiinliy in the following 
 language : 
 
 TluTi' are several sorts of I'ulse in this rrovince; and tirst, tlie liiiMhrl Bean, 
 so calli'd from prodncinf? a Busliel of lieans or more from one tliat is Planted; 
 they are a Simutanious pi'oduet in Curoliim. and arc Set in tlic Spring round 
 Arbours, or near U)ng Poles set in the Ground for tlial purpose, where they 
 uialce a good Shade to sit under iu the extremity of hot Weather ; they con- 
 tinue Budding'. Flowering:, and Ripening all the Sunnner. until the approach 
 of Frost, wliicli prevents their farther Growth, and so dye; They climb 
 prodigious high, and tlieir Stalk is about the thickness of a Man's Thund). 
 the Pod grows like the Kidini/ Bean. l)ut the l>ean is flat, white, or mottled, 
 with a purple Colour: They are extraordinary good, and well relished Pulse, 
 either by themselves or with Meat. 
 
 The Jiidiaii Roinitiidl. or M iidciildiis I'cn, so Called from their long Pods 
 and great Increase. These are a late Pea, and require a pretty long Summer 
 to ripen and bring them to Perfection, they are a good Pulse, and in great 
 plenty all over this Province with Christicins and Indians. 
 
 The Bona vis is another kind of Pulse, and yields a great Increase, it doth 
 not require so long a Summer to ripen as the former, they grow like Kidnvii- 
 Bcauft, and are very plenty in this Province. 
 
 The Calivaiices are another kind of Pu1sc\ reseml)ling the former, but are not 
 so flat, they are in great plenty in most of the Plantations amongst the Indian 
 Corn. These and the Boiiaris, afford two Crops in the Year, and are generally 
 ripe and iu full perfection in six Weeks time. 
 
 The Xaniicoacks are another kind of Pulse, and resemble the CaUvanees, and 
 are in great plenty all over this Province. 
 
 There are several otlier kinds of Pulse in tliis Province that we have no 
 Name for, whicli are well known amongst the hidiaiis. and are excellent Food. 
 
 The Kidueij-Bean, is likewise here in great plenty growing for the most part 
 in every Corn-Field. The Indians had these four Sorts of Pulse, viz. the 
 Bouavis, CaUvanees. Xanticoacks, and Kidney-Beans, and several other soi'ts, 
 long before the Arrival of the Europeans amongst them ; which Report I have 
 had atBrraed several times, not only from the Christians, l)ut likewise from the 
 Indians in these Pai'ts. 
 
 These references and many others given by Gray and Trumbull, 
 1883 (American Journal of Science, 20: 130-138), and by Sturtevant, 
 1887 (American Naturalist, 21: 327-331), certainly justify those 
 authors in the conclusion that Phaseolus vulgaris^ P. eoccineus, and 
 P. hniafits are natives of the New World. Koernicke, 1885 (Ver- 
 handl. Nat. Hist. Khein. & Westphal. Correspondenzblatt, 136), also 
 arrived at the same conclusion in regard to /'. riih/aris. The recent 
 discovery of seeds identihed as P. rvJyari^ in the remains of the 
 mound builders in Ohio and of the clitf chvellers in New IMexico" 
 affords evidence additional to that presented l)y the above authors 
 of the nativity of that species. But among all the references given 
 there is no ])()sitive evidence that any species of Dolichos or Vigna 
 was iu cult i\ at ion l)v the Indians for at least a hundred years after 
 
 I 
 
 o Wittmack, liM)5, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, 15 : 14. 
 102— VI 
 
HISTORY. 9 
 
 the first English settlement. The iiuthors of the eighteenth century 
 record a greater number of legumes than the authors of either the 
 sixteenth or seventeenth centuries, and there are frequent references 
 in the literature of that period to the introduction of seeds from the 
 Old World. Not a single species of Dolichos is known except in a 
 cultivated state in North America north of Mexico, and Hemsley does 
 not enumerate any in the Biologia Centrali -Americana. Only one 
 species of Vigna, T^. rcpens, now found spontaneous throughout the 
 Tropics, has the appearance of being indigenous to either North or 
 Central America, while about 10 species of Phaseolus are known in 
 a Avild state in North America, and Hemsley enumerates 41 in the 
 Biologia Centrali-Americana for Central America. 
 
 The time at which important American food plants Avere intro- 
 duced into England is also significant in regard to the origin of these 
 plants. The following dates are given on the authority of Aiton 
 (Hortus Kewensis, 1789) : Zea mays was cultivated in l.'iO^; Nicotkina 
 tahacuiU: before 1570, but the exact date is apparently not known; 
 Lycopersicon lycopersicuni was cultivated in 1596; Phaseolus culgaris 
 in 1597, and P. coccineus {P. ninUiforiis Lam.) in 1597. The date 
 given for P. lunatiis is 1779, but the figure and description of Gerard's 
 third kind (derard, 1597, Herbal, 1039), correspond very closely to 
 the so-called sleva type of /*. lunatus, and it is })ossible that it had 
 been introduced at an earlier date and, not meeting with favor, dis- 
 appeared, but there is no evidence that Vigna 'unguiealata and Doli- 
 chos sesquipedalis were introduced into England before 1776 and 
 1781, respectively. With one possible exception, therefore, plants of 
 undoubted American origin were cidtivated in England more than a 
 century and a half before Vigna iinguiculata or Dolichos sesquipedalis. 
 This would scarcely have been the case if the two last-named species 
 had been cultivated in America for a long period, as the first-named 
 were. 
 
 Of the two kinds distinguished by Hariot in 1588, the one called 
 " Peaze " is without doubt the kidney bean, as it is called "Peaze, 
 t. * ^ for distinction sake * * * though in form they little 
 differ " from the bean except in size. The latter is compared with 
 the English bean (Vicia faha) in size and partly in shape, and is 
 either a large form of kidney bean or the Lima bean. If the words 
 " Fagiole " and " Garnanses *" or garvanses are confounded b}^ Smith, 
 the " pease " wdiich he mentions probably refers to a species of Lathy- 
 rus or Vicia, and the "" Beanes '' to the common kidney bean. There 
 can be little doubt that " Garnanses " is a corruption of the Spanish 
 garhanzo^ French garimnce. It has also been written '" garavance." 
 " garvancos," and " gravances." The writer has been unable to find 
 29329— No. 102. pt. vi— 07 2 
 
10 ' HISTORY OF THE COWPEA. 
 
 this word usetl in Europe for any other phmt than the chick-pea 
 {Cicer ariethnim), and although the introduction of seeds into 
 America began as early as the second voyage of Columbus, it is im- 
 })robable that the cultivation of the chick-pea could have been intro- 
 duced among I lie Indians of the United States as early as 1612, and 
 it is doubtful whether it was ever cultivated by. them. 
 
 There is no evidence that it was cultivated to any extent by the 
 colonists, though it was introduced some time previous to 1700. The 
 name was probably applied by Smith to some plant Avith a super- 
 ficial resemblance to the chick-pea, perhaps a vetch. There is at 
 least no evidence that the plant called " garnanses "' was a species of 
 either \'igna or Dolichos. The name " caliA'ance " was applied by 
 Sloane, 1707 (Natural History of Jamaica, l:18;->), to the cowpea, 
 and this word is believed to be a corruption of "" garbanzo." The 
 forms given in Murray (P^nglish Dictionary, under Calavance) are, 
 " garvance,"' " caravance,"' " callavance," " callevance," '' callvanse," 
 " kalavansa," " callivancy," " callivance," "calavance."" The earliest 
 use of the word " calavance " that the writer has been able to find is 
 by William Hughes, 1672 (The American l^hysician, or a Treatise of 
 the Roots, Plants, Trees, Shrubs, Fruit, Herbs, etc., 17, 18), where he 
 writes concerning " Calavance, or Calavances : " 
 
 These Pease have long and small stalks, of a brownish green colonr, branched 
 and spread uikiu the ground (unless they be supinirted Ity Props) nuieh after 
 the same manner of our Field-pease ; the leaves shoot forth at several places, 
 set one against another, of a more yellowish green colour than ours in England 
 are: They have also towards the top. clasping Tendrils, as ours have: The 
 Cods are pretty long, wherein are small Pease of the bigness of our Vetches, 
 but long; or of the fashion of a Kidney-bean, and very smooth; outwardly, 
 of a dark red cohiur: neither are they uneven when they be dry. 
 
 They grow in many i»laces in Anicrira, as in Jaiuairu, at Colonel lUirUifitou'a 
 Plantations, at Ligance, at Portamorant. etc. 
 
 They ;ire planted at any time, and flourish all the year; of which the Hus- 
 bandmen or Planters there, have five crops in two years. 
 
 Some call them the lii<1i(ni Veichcs, some the fntliaii Pcanc ; but those that are 
 Inhabitants there, call them Cdlavances, or ('(ilicranrir. 
 
 The plant described by Hughes is certainly a plant with pinnate 
 leaves and tendrils, like the chick-pea. but Sloane, 1696 (Catalogus 
 Plantarum Jamaica, 71), cites ''Calavance or calavances of Hughes, 
 p. 17 (?),'"' under Phaseolus erect us i)uij<)i\ which is a cowpea. The 
 same author, 1707 (Natural History of Januiica, 1: 183). under 
 Phaseohf.s erertu.s major, says '' Callavance Jamaicensibus dictus," 
 without any indication of doubt*. It would appear from these facts 
 that the word was originally used in America to designate a vetch- 
 like plant and that its ajiplication to the cowpea by Sloane was an 
 error. Several authors subsequently adopted Sloane's usage of the 
 
HISTORY. 1 1 
 
 name, and it is preserved at the present day in the form " galavant " 
 as the name of one of the varieties of the cowpea. 
 
 The four lands mentioned by Josselyn, 1675 (Voyages, 73-74:), are 
 " kidney-beans," " bonivis," " calavances," and the " kidney-bean that 
 is proper to Ronoake/'' 
 
 Bonivis is clearly a corruption of Italian Buona vista^ and Hughes, 
 1750 (Natural History of Barbadoes, 216), writes '"'' Biiona Vista, 
 commonly called Bonny- vis^ Its earliest use in America appears to 
 be by Richard Ligon, 1657 (A True and Exact History of the Island 
 of Barbadoes, 22, 24), "Males, and Bonavists, planted between the 
 boughs, the Trees lying along upon the ground; so far short was the 
 ground then of being cleared/' No description is given by which 
 the name can be identified with a particular species, and its applica- 
 tion can only be inferred from its later use by other authors. Sloane, 
 1696 (Cat. PI. Jam., 67, 68), and 1707 (Nat. Hist. Jam., 1:177), 
 uses bonavist for Dolichos lablab. The " Buona vista " of Hughes, 
 1750 (Nat. Hist. Barbadoes), is also certainly Dolichos lahlah. 
 Wherever the word "bonavist " in its vari()us forms occurs with an 
 identifiable description it refers to Dolichos lahlah. Josselyn's '" ca- 
 lavances," like that of William Hughes, is probably a plant wdth 
 pinnate leaves. Certainly no variety of Vigna itngiiicrdat'a then 
 known w^ould mature seeds in New England. Tlie '' kidney-bean that 
 is proper to Ronoake " may be either the Lima bean, the scarlet run- 
 ner, or one of the numerous varieties of the kidney l)ean. 
 
 The " bushel bean " of Lawson is probably Phaseolus lunatus, 
 Sturtevant, 1885 (Amer. Nat., 19:454), has suggested that the 
 " Indian rounceval, or miraculous peas," may liaA'e been Dolichos 
 sesquipedalis, but it would have been more natural for an English- 
 man to have applied the term to a plant more nearly resembling 
 the English rounceval. Lawson's '' bonavis " is doubtless Dolichos 
 lahlah, but '' calavancies " and '' nanticokes " are scarcely identi- 
 fiable, though the latter is probably one of the various forms of the 
 kidney bean. Brickell gives nearly the same description of bushel 
 bean and Indian rounceval as fountl in LaAvson; in fact, the word- 
 ing is so familiar that it is without much doubt coi)ied from the 
 earlier author. There is less doubt, however, regarding the "' Cali- 
 vances '' of Brickell. They resembled the bonavis, except that they 
 were not so flat. This clearly refers to some other plant than a Vicia 
 or Lathyrus, and though it can not be identified from the descriptions, 
 it must be either a form of Phaseolus vulgaris or perhaps the red- 
 seeded form of Vigna vnguicalata, the " callavance " of Sloane. 
 
 Jamaica was captured by the British in 1655, and possession w^as 
 confirmed by treaty in 1670. William Hughes (The American Phy- 
 sician, etc., published in 1672)-, describes several plants cultivated in 
 
12 HISTORY OB' THE COWPEA. 
 
 Jamaica, but (loos not include Vigna vnguindatn^ his calavance, as 
 noted above, bein<!: '<^ (Hlb'ient plant. If Vigiia uitgmeuldta had been 
 cultivated in Jamaica at that time it would probably have been men- 
 tioned with the other cultivated legumes TTu^hes described. Sloane 
 visited the island in 1(hS7, reniainin_<2; lifteen months, and found l)oth 
 the red and white seeded forms, and it is therefore very probable 
 that they reached Jamaica some time between the years IGT'i and 
 1687. An}'^ plant that had been found valuable in Jamaica would no 
 doubt soon be tried in the southern colonies, for the early accounts of 
 the colonies indicate that tliey frequently obtained seeds of new plants 
 for trial. The (icor<>ia colony even sent a num to the Spanish West 
 Indies to secure new plants (Francis Moore, 1744, A Voyage to 
 (ie()r<>ia, (leorgia Historical Society, 1840, 1 :*.)!)). It is therefore 
 jjossible that even the calavance of Lawson, 1714, is F. iingidcvlata. 
 The statement of Brickell, 1737 (Natural History of North Carolina), 
 that these plants were in America before the arrival of the Europeans 
 can scarcely be taken seriously, for he makes it on the authority of 
 the settlers and Indians who would easily confuse jilants so similar in 
 appearance as Vigna ungviculata and Phaseohf-s vulgaris. The ex- 
 portations of peas mentioned by some of the early historians probably 
 refer to English peas, as Lawson, 1714 (Hist. Carolina, 130, 131), 
 says English peas " have been made trial of " and " yield very well." 
 The first unmistakable reference to the occurrence of Vigna im- 
 giiiculata on the mainland of America a[)pears in Romans (1775), 
 Natural History of East and West Florida, 122, Avhere the author 
 says : " Pease, a,s the}^ are here called but improjx'rly, because species 
 of the PJiaseohis and DoUehos are meant, follow the maize in utility. 
 It is well known that most people use them like European pease either 
 green or dry, and some kinds, such as the small white sort, the bona- 
 vist, cuckolds increase, the white black-eyed pea, the white crowder, 
 and many others, are undoubtedly at least as good." The '* small 
 white sort " is doubtless a white variety of the common bean ; bona- 
 vist probably refers to DoUchoH lahlah. " Cuckolds increase " is ap- 
 plied by Patrick Brown, 1756 (Natural Histoiy of Jamaica, 292), to 
 a species which he says resembles his seventh species, " Phaseolus 
 crectus major,"" Sloane, which is Vigna iingirinilata. Lunan, 1814 
 (Hortus Jamaicensis, 1:434), says the "cuckolds increase" "seems 
 to be a species of doliehos^ as does the bonavist." The white black- 
 eyed pea is un(U)ubtedly identical also with the blackrcyed pea of 
 Jamaica, another common form of Vigna ungincidata. The " white 
 crowder " does not ap]xnir to be described by either Sloane or Brown. 
 Witli the exception of the " small white sort '" and the " white crow- 
 der " the names given by Romans were also given by Brown nineteen 
 years earlier, and by Lunan thirty-nine j'ears later, and the fact that 
 
 102— VI 
 
 k 
 
HISTORY. 13 
 
 the names " calavance," " bonavist,'' " cuckolds increase," and " black- 
 eyed pea " all appear in the natural history literature of the West 
 Indies earlier than they occur in the accounts of the American colonies 
 indicates that they came from the West Indies to the mainland. 
 Lunan, 1814 (Hortus Jamaicensis, 1:167), under " Dolichos " says: 
 " Besides the above indigenous species, three exotic ones have been in- 
 troduced, the lablab, of which arbours are made in the East; the 
 sinensis, or Chinese dolichos; and the catjang, which is said to be 
 cultivated for food in the East Indies." 
 
 The discussion given by llomans indicates that " pease " had been 
 grown in the southern colonies for several years, long enough at 
 least for their use to become " well known." In Virginia, however, 
 there is evidence that Vigna vnguiculata was not cultivated, at least 
 to any extent, at so early a date. The correspondence of Washington 
 affords interesting evidence of this fact. A letter dated Hyde-Park, 
 Fairfax County, November 18, 1791, in reply to a circular letter sent 
 out by Washington (Letters on Agriculture to Arthur Young and 
 Sir John Sinclair, edited by Franklin Knight, 51, 1847), contains 
 the following statement : 
 
 As to pease, beans, potatoes, and turnips, our lands yield them very well, but 
 as they are not raised for market in general I ean not say what may be their 
 average product per ar-re. It has ever appeared to me that if the farmers in 
 Europe, who lay so nmcli stress upon these articles in their writings, had our 
 excellent substitute for them, Indian corn, they would only regai'd them as we 
 do, for culinary purposes. 
 
 W^ashington ^vas accustomed to growing seeds of new plants that 
 might prove of agricultural value, and there are frequent references 
 in his correspondence to seeds which had come from England or 
 other countries and of which he wished the gardener to take particu- 
 lar care. The following are mentioned in Washington's correspond- 
 ence, besides the staple crops of corn, wheat, etc. : Lucern, sainfoin, 
 India hemp, buckwheat, furze, flax, Avhite bent-grass, everlasting 
 peas, and English field peas. 
 
 It was Washington's practice, sometimes, at least, to plant potatoes 
 with corn, since in a rotation of crops recorded in " George Washing- 
 ton and Mount Vernon," edited by M. D. Conway, 287, 188D, " Indian 
 corn, with intermediate rows of potatoes, or any root more certain 
 or useful (if such there be) that will not impede the plough, hoe, or 
 harrow in the cultivation of the corn," is given for one crop of the 
 rotation. There is apparently no reference in any letter of Washing- 
 ton to the cultivation of peas or beans with corn. He used buck- 
 wdieat as a green manure. 
 
 The first referen<?e by Washington to the coAvpea is in a letter to 
 Landon Carter, of Cleve, elated Philadelphia, 27th February, 1797, 
 
14 HISTORY OF THK COW PEA. 
 
 in which he saj^s: " I h()])(', as the season is approacliing fast when the 
 ground shouhl he prepared for it, that you have informed Mr. James 
 Anderson (my manager) in a letter directed to the care of the post- 
 master in Alexanch'ia, at what time he may send for the ])eas you 
 were so obliging as to promise me;'' and the following from a letter 
 of James Anderson to Landon Carter, which accompanied the above 
 letter of AVashington. '' I have only to add to that wrote by the 
 President — that the sooner you have 40 bushels of the AMiite Indian 
 pease, witli bhick eyes — ready, you will the more oblige the Presi- 
 dent, I do not wish any of the small kind eithei- the i-ound kind called 
 the Gentlemen pease, nor of the other small kind which resemble the 
 
 Isirge." 
 
 Jefferson, 1801 (Notes on the State of Virginia), makes no mention 
 of ])eas or beans, although he enumerates the cultivated plants (p. 58), 
 saying— 
 
 Our fjinns pi-oduoe wheat, rye. barley, oats, huckwlieat, broom corn, and 
 Indian corn. The climate suits rice well enough, where the lands do. Tobacco, 
 hemp, flax, and cotton, are staple connnodities. Indigo yields two cuttings. 
 The silk-worm is a native, and the mulberry, proper for its food, grows kindly. 
 
 We cultivate also potatoes, both the long and the roimd, turnips, carrots, 
 parsnips. punii)kins, and ground nuts (Arachis). Our grasses are lucerne, St. 
 foin. burnet, timothy, ray and orchard grass; red, white, and yellow clover; 
 greenswerd, blue grass, and crab grass. 
 
 The gardens yield musk-melons. wat*>r-melons, tomatos, okra, pomegranates, 
 figs, and the esculent plants of Europe. 
 
 Beans and peas are not mentioned, and it may therefore be inferred 
 that neither was at that time of sufficient importance in northern 
 Virginia to be listed among the farm crops. A legume, probably 
 Yigna vnr/iiiciihitd. was, however, cultivated in the cornfields to some 
 extent in southern Virginia some years earlier than the publication of 
 Jefferson's Notes. 
 
 Dr. James (Ireenway, of Dinwiddle County, Va., in an article on 
 Cassia eJiamaecnsta as a soil renovator (Transactions of the American 
 Philosophical Society, 3:226, 1TJ)3), says the "common cornfield-pea 
 is far preferable to everything that I have seen tried for this purpose. 
 Every farmer who leaves his pea vines on the ground, and does not 
 in the accustomed manner, pull them up for fodder, must often have 
 observed that tlu\v quickly moulder and fall to pieces; furnishing a 
 covering to the ground, which readily unites and blends with it, in 
 the manner mentioned of the bean " fi. e.. Cassia chamaecrista]. 
 
 A catalogue of the plants found growing near Lancaster, Pa., 
 by Muhlenberg, 17<J3 (Transactions of the American Phil()soi)hical 
 Society, 3: 157), in which cultivated and introduced plants are given, 
 as well as wild |)lants. does not mention any Dolk'hos or Vigna. The 
 cowj^ea evidently had not then reached that locality. 
 
 102— VI 
 
HISTORY. 15 
 
 It may be seen from the facts presented that there is no evidence 
 that Vigna unguiculata was one of the native beans of America. 
 On the contrary, it appears to have been first introduced into 
 Jamaica at some time between 1GT2 and 1687 and to have reached 
 one or more of the southernmost colonies, probably from Jamaica, 
 sometime after the latter date, but before 1737, and its use to have 
 extended gradually northward until it reached the Potomac about 
 1790 or 1795. 
 
 Notwithstanding the confusion wrought by commentators seeking 
 to identify Phaseolus vulgaris with one of the climbing plants of 
 Theophrastus and Dioscorides, European botanical literature affords 
 very convincing evidence of the Old World origin of Vigna un- 
 guiculata. 
 
 Phaseolus vulga7ns appears to have reached central Europe about 
 1536, and many authors at once identified it Avith Dioscoricles's Smilax 
 kepaia, or, as translated into Latin, Smilax hortensis. The species 
 is discussed by Brunfels, 153(> (Herb. Viv. Ic, 3: 130), and identified 
 on the authority of Heironymus Tragus Avith Dioscorides's plant. 
 Brunfels in his Exegesis onniiuni simplicium Dioscorides (Brun- 
 fels," 1532, Herb. Viv. Ic, 2:114), does not identify Smilax more 
 than to say that, according to Barbarus, it is a kind of phaseolus, 
 and it is evident that Phaseolus vulgaris was not known to this author 
 when volume 2 of his work Avas Avritten. Bock, 1546 (Kreuterbuch, 
 236), has a good colored figure of the kidney bean, and says it has 
 lately come into Germany. 
 
 Matthiolus, 1588 (Opera, 341), says that jDhasioli are common in 
 Italy, but he apparently confuses the dAvarf form of Phaseolus vul- 
 garis Avith the " phasiolus " of the ancients. No stipules are shoAvn in 
 his figure, and it* is probably Phaseolus vulgaris. In the earlier 
 editions of Matthiolus's works, which appeared Avhile the author liA^ed 
 in Italy and southern Austria, no bean Avith *' black-ej^ed " seeds is 
 described among the various sorts of " phasiolus." In a later Avork, 
 Matthiolus, 1565, Commentarii, 429, the dedication of Avhich Avas 
 Avritten at Prague, and dated January, 1565, seeds Avith a black ring 
 about the eye are described, but the figure is the same as in the Avork 
 issued in 1558. In Camerarius's edition of Matthiolus, 1586 (De 
 pliintis epitome utilissima, 212), hoAvever, the figure of phaseo- 
 lus is Vigna unguiculata. It is certain that a loAv-growing legumi- 
 nous plant, resembling the dwarf form of Phaseolus vulgaris.^ Avas cul- 
 tivated in the Mediterranean region of southern Europe before the 
 discovery of America. Several of the ancient treatises on agriculture 
 give cultural directions for such a plant. Many, if not all, of the 
 
 a The edition of this work published in 1536 was the one consulted. 
 
 102— VI 
 
16 HISTORY OF THE COWVEA. 
 
 botanical authors after Dioscoridcs luciitioiu'cl pluiseohis, and Alber- 
 lus Ma^nius. who lived in the thirteenth century, used the word 
 •" fasehis " for a phuit which had seeds with " a bhick spot at the 
 hihun." Caesalpin, 158;? (I)e IMantis, 238), also described " phase- 
 his " as having seeds with a black pupil, 
 
 Koernicke, 188."), Verhandlun<ren des naturhistorisehen Vereins der 
 l)reussichen Kheinlande, Westfalens und des Keg.-liezirke Osna- 
 briick, Corresjiondenzblatt, ISG, maintains that the phaseolus of 
 Dioscorides and the i)haseolus cultivated in Italy before the dis- 
 covery of Auierica Avere the same species, '■'"Vlgna sinemis^''' and that 
 the " Sniilax kepaia " of Dioscorides was likewise that species, but a 
 climbing form. Koernicke states that a work of the year 1415, by 
 liinio, a Venetian physician, contains a colored illustration of " Faseo- 
 lus," and he identifies this as DoUchos melanoptlinlmus DC. He 
 says also that in both Codices of Diosyorides of the fifth century 
 after Christ, Avhich illustrate the plant named ])hascolus, the figures 
 are likewise the low form of Vigtia i/nf/itirvlata, while for Smilax 
 kepaia an illustration is wanting. Koernicke, however, believes 
 DolicJios melanopthah)ms DC, D. monachalis Brot., I), lubia Forsk., 
 I), fiesqnipedalis L. to be low forms, and D. catjany L., D. sinensis 
 Stickman, and D. tranqueharicus Jacq. to be climbing forms of the 
 same species. Baker, 1879 (in Hook. Fl. Brit. India, 2:200), gives 
 V. sinensis as the climbing and F. catjany as the low form. Koer- 
 nicke says that the variation in the seeds is not greater than in 
 Phaseolus vnh/aris, and that dried plants in the Berlin Herbarium 
 show no specific difi'erences. Vigna sinensis (Dolirhos sinensis Stick- 
 man) on the basis of priority is adopted by Koernicke as the correct 
 name of the species, but he apparently overlooks the fact that 
 Dolichos nngiiicidatus L. {Vigna vnguiculata (L'.) Walp.) is still 
 earlier. Koernicke gives central Africa as the original habitat of the 
 species. Dolichos sesf/i/ipedalis, the asparagus bean, is considered a 
 distinct species by most authors, and the writer can not agree with 
 Koei-nicke that all the other names apply to the same species or that 
 central Africa is the home of any of them. It is true that the habit 
 of growth, whether low or a climbing form, is of no specific value, for 
 Vigna vngiiiritlata at least seems to vary in this respect. 
 
 The color of the seeds likewise fails as a distinguishing specific 
 character. Dolichos vnguicalatvs L. Avas founded on specimens 
 giown in the garden at Upsala, but came to Linnieus from Bar- 
 bados. Dolichos sinensis was based on Dolichos silicosis or Katjang 
 Sina of Rmnphius, and the figure in Rumphius Ilerbarimn Am- 
 boinense shows a climbing i)l!iiit with two-flowered racemes and pen- 
 dulous j)()(ls. Dolichos catjaiig is likewise based on a species of 
 Kumphius, Phaseolus minor or katjang poeti. The figures of this 
 
 lirj— VI 
 
Bui. 102, Pt. VI, Bureau of Plant Indust-y, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. 
 
 Plate I. 
 
 Plant of Vigna catjang (Burm.i Walp. 
 
Bui. 102, Pt. VI, Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. 
 
 Plate II. 
 
 Plant of Vigna unguiculata ( L. i Walp. 
 
Bui. 102, Pt. VI, Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S. Dept, of Agriculture. 
 
 Plate 111. 
 
 A. — Vigna unguiculata. 
 
 Pods of Cowpeas. 
 
 (Natural size.) 
 
 B. — Vigna caljang. 
 
HISTORY. 17 
 
 si)ecies shows a plant with the racemes two or three flowered, but 
 with the pods at maturity smaller and erect, or nearly so, and with 
 smaller seeds. A species ^rown in the greenhouses of the United 
 States Department of Agriculture shows similar characters, the pods 
 remaining erect until full grown, although they become pendent at 
 maturity. The pods are also conspicuously torose at maturity. This 
 species is Vigna catjang (Burm.) Walp. (PI. I and PI. Ill, B). 
 Practically all of the varieties commonly cultivated in America belong 
 to Vigna ungaiculata (L.) Walp. (F. sinensis (Stickman) Endl.), 
 the species with larger seeds and larger pods which usually become 
 pendulous when half their mature size or sometimes even earlier, and 
 which are only slightly constricted between the seeds (PL II, and 
 PL III, A). Forskai, 1775 (Fl. Aegypt-Arab., 133), described 
 Dolichos lubia as having peduncles racemosely spicate at the apex and 
 the flowers crowded, and it may therefore be inferred that the racemes 
 were several-flowered. The pods were described as erect. The color 
 of the seeds is not mentioned by Forskai, but Delile, 1812 (Plant. Cult, 
 en Egypt, 14), says they were white, with a black point at the eye. 
 Koernicke says the " ring about the navel is pale red," and the seeds 
 labeled D. liibia^ recently received from the Museum d'Histoire 
 Naturelle, Paris, are quite small, red, with a black ring at the hilum. 
 The varieties of Vigna unguiculata commonly cultivated in iVmerica 
 seldom vary from the few-flowered character of the raceme and, at 
 jnaturity, pendulous pods. Delile says Dolichos luhia is known also 
 in Syria, Persia, and India, but there is but one other modern author 
 who has applied the name to any species in Asia. Basiner, 1848 
 (Beitr. Russ. Reich., 15:233), gives Dolichos lubia as one of the for- 
 age plants of Khiva, where it was known as " Lobia " or " Lobi." No 
 description is given, and therefore its identity with Forskal's plant 
 is not certain. 
 
 The fact that Delile says it was found also in India, but does not 
 mention any species of Vigna, suggests that his plant may have been 
 Vigna ungaiculata or Vigna catjang. Roxburgh, 1832 (Fl. Ind., 3: 
 302), described Dolichos sinensis as with peduncles '* many-flowered," 
 and D. catjang., few-flowered. Baker, 1879 (Hook. FL Brit. IncL, 
 2:20G), unites the Iayo as V. catjang and says peduncles 3 to (> flow- 
 ered. Baker, 1871 (Oliver, Fl. Trop. Afric, 2:204), describes the 
 racemes of Vigna sinensis as 6 to 12 flowered and the pods pendulous. 
 It appears, therefore that the few-flowered character of the raceme 
 usually observed in varieties cultivated in America is not constant 
 in either Vigna unguiculata or Vigna catjang. The descriptions 
 cited above indicate a variation of from 3 to 12 in the number of 
 flowers, and the plant described b}^ Forskai as Dolichos lubia, since' 
 it had erect pods, is doubtless identical with V. catjang. Yet, not- 
 
18 niSTOKY OF THE COWPEA. 
 
 withstanding the variation in habit and numbor of flowers in the 
 raceme, the small seeds and small, erect pods of Vigna catjdiKj ap- 
 pear to be constant characters, and two species, Vigna unguicidata 
 {V. sinensis) and V. mtja/ig, therefore are probably concerned in the 
 descriptions of these plants by the above authors. 
 
 It is (iiiite possible that Vigna imguicvlata and V. catjang may 
 have been grown by the Romans without being distinguished. The 
 cultivation and even knowledge of them, however, appears to have 
 been extremely limited in Euroi)e, and T'. nngninddta at least may 
 have first reached central Euro])e not from Italy, but by way of 
 Russia and Russian Turkestan. 
 
 In ir)S;5 Clusius (Atrebatis liar. Stirp., 725) described and figured 
 a plant as a kind of phaseolus which is undoubtedly Vigna unguicu- 
 lata, though pods are not shown in the figure. Seeds of this plant 
 were received by Clusius at Vienna in the year 1576, having been sent 
 by Dodoens from Prague, where it was grown in the garden of the 
 castle the previous year. The following year, 1577, seeds of the same 
 plant were also sent by the Spaniards to the Austrian Emperor. 
 These statements are repeated by Clusius, 1601 (Hist. Rar. PI., p. 
 ccxxii), where the same figure, as in the previous work, is reversed 
 and a figure of the pods in addition is given. It would appear 
 from these records that Vigna wiguiculata first became known to the 
 botanists of central and northern Europe by its being grown at 
 league. 
 
 If seeds had reached Prague from Italy, the j)lant would probably 
 have been known also at \^ienna, M'hich was in the route of trade 
 from Italy northward, and, since Prague is an inland city, the seeds 
 may have been brought overland directly from Persia or India. So 
 long as the Venetians were in control of the trade with India, Austria 
 and southern Germany carried on commerce with Venice. With the 
 acquisition of the Indian trade by the Portuguese, Venice could no 
 longer supply the markets of P^urope with the products of the East 
 and Euroi)ean nations apparently soon became jealous of the ad- 
 vantages held by Portugal, for it is stated by Robertson, 1802 (His- 
 torical I)is(|uisition Concerning India, 310), that an attemjit was 
 made, in order to diminish the advantages which the Portuguese de- 
 rived from the discovery of a sea passage around the Cape of Good 
 noj)e, to induce the Russians to convey Indian and Chinese com- 
 uiodities through their Empire to some port on the Baltic from which 
 they might be distributed through every j)art of Europe. This 
 author also gives a brief account of the trade thus established. 
 Yeats, 1872 (The Growth aiul Vicissitudes of Commerce, 155), 
 states that Kazan was the chief entrepot of the trade of northern 
 and central Asia. Russian trade with other European nations ap- 
 
 102— VI 
 
HISTOKY. 19 
 
 pears to have been confined largely to the countries of the north and 
 the cities belonging to the Hanseatic League. Very little seems to 
 have been written concerning the commerce of Prague, but the Bo- 
 hemians are a Slavic people and it is not improbable that they had 
 some trade with the other Slavic peoples of Europe. At least no 
 explanation of the occurrence of Vigna unguiculata at Prague before 
 it was known at Vienna seems so plausible as that it came by one of 
 the caravan routes to Russia and 'thence to Prague. De Candolle 
 (Origin of Cultivated Plants, 39) says Simn sisarum " came perhaps 
 from Siberia into Russia, and thence into Germany,*" and inclines to 
 the view that it was not known to the ancient Greeks and Romans. 
 This species is considered to be a native of the Altai region of Siberia 
 and northern Persia. The caravan route from India and China to 
 Russia passed through the latter region. 
 
 The figure in Rinio, 1415 (De Simplicibus), referred to by Koer- 
 nicke, the writer has not seen, but in the Vienna Dioscorides Codex, 
 dating from about the fifth century, the figure of the plant supposed 
 to be the phasiolus of Dioscorides shows a several-flowered raceme. 
 It also shows what appear to be mature pods and, while not strictly 
 erect, they are not pendulous like those of Yigna unguiculata. The 
 word " lubia " is written in Arabic on the parchment and the figure 
 corresponds very closely with the description of DoIicJios luhia. 
 Forskal says the latter species was known among the Arabs as '"''Luhia 
 haelecW'' (common lubia). Dioscorides was probably born at Ana- 
 zarba, a place in southeastern Asia Minor near the eastern extremity 
 of the Mediterranean, but he is supposed to have traveled and it is 
 not known where the plants he described may have been seen. 
 
 Koernicke believes the species to have come originally from central 
 Africa, as it grows wild there. This, however, is not necessarily con- 
 clusive. There are other instances, especially in the Tropics, of 
 plants appearing indigenous to countries in which they are known not 
 to be native. The facts given by Koernicke indicate rather that the 
 species has been introduced into central Africa, for he gives no name 
 in the native language, but says it is known to the natives by the Ara- 
 bian names '^ lubiah " and " ollaich." Seeds of this plant have never 
 been found in the monuments of ancient Egypt, and the origin of 
 the word '' lubia " indicates that the plant to Avhich it was applied 
 came into Arabia and Egypt from the east. Liibia, lubiya, or lobiya 
 probably was not derived from the Greek w^ord Ao;8os, which prima- 
 rily means any projection like the lobe of the ear, but appears to be 
 of Persian origin and came to India through the Persians. Sir 
 George Watt, 1890 (Diet. Econ. Prod. India, 3: 181), says: "No 
 name like lohiija is given to any pulse by the aboriginal races of 
 Indian or by those of Aryan origin. It occurs purely among the 
 
20 HISTORY OF THE COWPEA. 
 
 people of iii)i)er Iiidin, where Persian iiillueiice is most pronounced."* 
 The same aullior states that in all the ilistriets of the northwest 
 provinces, with but one possible e.\cej)tion, the word lobiya is applie<l 
 to Vigna catjaiif/. 
 
 Although none of the Indian works consulted that mention Inbiya 
 are of such ancient date as Dioscorides, they nevertheless indicate 
 the antiquity of its cultivation in India. Vigna catjang, the species 
 with erect pods, is described and fitrured in Rheede, 1088 (Hort. 
 Malabar, 8:7."). f. ^/), under the name paeni. It is interesting to 
 note that the root nodules were mentioned in this work, "The root 
 is slender, whitish, and fibrous, the Abel's clothed Avith round globules." 
 Rheede described nine ditl'erent ])re})arations of the seed which were 
 used in medicine. Other l)ean-like plants occur in the same work 
 under the names piits'id-pacru and r<(fn-p(iei'n, which indicates that 
 the jjaeru was better and probably longer known than the plants to 
 which c()mi)()und names were given. In a work, Ain-i-Akbari or 
 Awen Akbery (Institutes of the P^mperor Akbar). written in Persian 
 during the reign of the Emperor Akbar, L'i.^G-KK).'), desci'ibing the 
 crops grown in Delhi and Agra, translated by Francis (lladwin, 1783, 
 1:87, " lubya '' is given as one of the crops of the autunmal harvest. 
 Sir George AVatt states that at the i)resent time this would be Vigtui 
 catjang^ and in all probability would have been the same in Akbar's 
 time. Sir (leorge Watt gives nearly 50 vernacular names in differ- 
 ent Indian languages, of which only four are compound words and 
 only four others consist of more than one word. One of the Sanskrit 
 names given by Watt is vishpara. In the Vishnu Purana, lib. 1, cap. 
 (■», supposed to date from about 1045 A. D. (translation by Horace 
 AVilson, Complete Works, G: 95), " Nishpava, a sort of pulse," is men- 
 tioned in the list of important grains. This work is five hundred 
 years later than the illustration in the Vienna Dioscorides Codex. 
 Nevertheless, Sanskrit for two thousand years or more has led an 
 artificial existence, being the means of connnunication and literary 
 expression of the priestly and learned castes, and the writer finds no 
 indication that the name nishpava has ever been applied to any other 
 l)lant. 
 
 'J"he species aj)i)ear to l)e probably of less ancient cultivation in 
 China, for there is no indication of a Chinese introduction into India 
 or Persia, and it is impr()bal)le that the same species woidd be native 
 on both sides of such a natural barrier as the Himalayas. Neverthe- 
 less, Vigna nngiiiculdta at least appears to have been long cultivated 
 in (^hina. It is mentioned and illustrated in the second edition of the 
 Kiu Huang Pen Ts'ao, which api)eared in 155i). In this work it is 
 called the "connnon l)ean," and other beans are compared with it. It 
 has not been practical)le to consult the lirst edition of this work, pub- 
 
 102— VI 
 
HISTORY. 21 
 
 lished in the beginning of the fifteenth century, and whether it 
 appears there or not is uncertain. 
 
 It may be noted that no pkmt of American origin has been identi- 
 fied in any Chinese work previous to the Pen Ts'ao Kang Mu, which 
 was finished in 15Ty, though not published until after loJHj. 
 
 It may be concluded from the facts so far known regarding these 
 species that both Vigna unr/turvhita and T". eatjang originally came 
 from a region including and extending from India to Persia and the 
 southern part of the Trans-Caspian district, and that the Persians 
 called one or both of them by the name " lubia " and applied that 
 name to F. vnguiculata in northwest India after their conquest of 
 that region. The cultivation of F. unguiculata extended to China at 
 a very early date, but the distribution of at least one of the species 
 with the name " lubia " had extended from the region of its origin at 
 the beginning of the Christian era to Arabia and Asia Minor and 
 had reached some of the Mediterranean countries of Europe at about 
 the same time, but did not become known in central Europe until 
 the middle of the sixteenth century. 
 
 102-vi • 
 
 o 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 DDDmaObHTB 
 
 ^^u^