The Origin of the Cultivated Tomato

T h e ancestral f o r m of the c u l t i v a t e d tomato was orig-

i n a l l y confined to the P e r u - E c u a d o r area. A f t e r
spreading n o r t h p o s s i b l y as a w e e d in pre-Columbian
t i m e s it was not e x t e n s i v e l y d o m e s t i c a t e d until it
reached M e x i c o , and f r o m there the c u l t i v a t e d f o r m s
were disseminated.

J. A. JENKINS
Division of Genetics, University of California, Ber7celey

Introduction that may properly be considered as Mex-

THE first references to the tomato ap- ican. Both hypotheses have been fre-
pear in the writings of the sixteenth- quently quoted, but that of the Peruvian
century herbalists, but they are brief origin in particular has been repeated so
and only identify it as newly introduced often, sometimes with the addition of
into Europe. Although it was soon dubious or even fanciful supporting evi-
recognized as a native of America, the dence, that it has now become a dogma.
precise locality from which it came, who In his "Origin of Cultivated Plants",
took it to Europe and when it first arrived which was the first systematic study of
are still matters of speculation. Two the origin of crop plants, de Candolle
hypotheses have been advanced with re- (1884) first applied the method of eval-
gard to its place of origin. Most author- uating all available evidence bearing on
ities, notably Sabine (1819), de Candol]e each crop. He classified his evidence
(1884), Muller (1940a, 1940b) and under the following headings: botany
Luckwill (1943a, 1943b), have agreed (geographic distribution of species
that the tomato was transported to Eu- within the genus), archeology, paleontol-
rope from Peru some time shortly after ogy, history and philology. Whenever it
the conquest in 1535. The critical evi- was available, de Candolle placed greater
dence cited is that the early names, emphasis on the evidence from botany,
"Mala peruviana" and "Pomi del archeology and paleontology, since he
Peru", indicate a Peruvian origin, a sup- considered it more reliable than that
position which they believed is amply from history and philology. In his dis-
substantiated by the fact that the wild cussion of the tomato (p. 290) no arche-
relatives are confined to a narrow olbgical or paleontological evidence is
coastal area extending from Ecuador to cited, nor has any been discovered since.
northern Chile. On the other hand, In the first section of the present paper
some writers have mentioned the possi- the historical and philological evidence
bility of a Mexican origin, although the will be reviewed together, where it will
actual evidence cited in favor of this be pointed out that de Candolle and
view is very meager. Phillips (1821, p. others have not considered all of the ,;vi-
236) merely suggested Mexico along with denee critically. The second section will
South America as a probable center of deal with the geographic distribution o1:
pre-Columbian cultivation. Later yon the various species of the genus Lyco-
Humboldt (1811, vol. I I I p. 133) men- persicon in so far as it has a bearing o~:
tioned the tomato among a list of plants the origin of the cultivated tomato.
379
380 ECONOMIC BOTANY
Finally the third section will contain
some new observations on the tomatoes of
Mexico.
The observations on Mexican toma-
toes were made possible by a fellowship
from the Guggenheim Foundation. The
author is also greatly indebted to the
staff of the Rockefeller Foundation in
Mexico City; to Dr. J. G. Harrar, the
Director of Agriculture ; and Sr. Efriam
Hernandez X. in particular, who helped
in the collection of Mexican tomatoes.
Special thanks are due to Dr. Isabel
Kelly for her collection of tomatoes from
the State of Jalisco. Professors Michele
De Filippis, Luis Mungio, H. R. W.
Smith and Mr. S. Nussenbaum gener-
ously translated critical passages from
the historical references. Finally it is
a pleasure to acknowledge the helpful
suggestions and encouragement received
from Prof. Carl Sauer of the University
of California.
Historical Evidence
Matthiolus, in the first edition of his
commentary on Dioscorides (1544), de-
scribes both the eggplant and more
briefly the tomato (p. 326) as species of
the mandrake (Mandragora). The de-
scription of the tomato may be trans-
lated freely from the Italian as follows:
" A n o t h e r species [of Mandrake] has been
brought to Italy in our time, flattened
like the melerose [sort of apple] and seg-
mented, green at first and when ripe of
a golden color, which is eaten in the
same manner [as the eggplant--fried
in oil with salt and pepper, like mush-
rooms]". This description is consider-
ably amplified in the Latin edition of
1554 which is usually cited as the first
reference to the tomato. In this latter
edition he gives the common name,
" P o m i d'oro", with its Latin equiva-
lent, "Mala aurea", for the first time.
In the posthumous edition of 1586, which
was edited by Camerarius, there is a
wood-cut which leaves no doubt that the
plant referred to was the tomato. Fur-
thermore the name " P o m i d ' o r o " has
persisted to this day in Italy as the
common name of the tomato. It is not-
able that the 1544 edition mentions only
a yellow tomato, which suggests that
this color variant was the first tomato
known in Italy, hence the name " P o m i
d'oro". However, the more common
red-fruited form must have been intro-
duced some time before 1554, since it was
mentioned in the edition of that year.
Dodonaeus published the Flemish edi-
tion of his herbal in 1554, the same year
as Matthiolus' second edition. He de-
scribes the tomato in a separate chapter
entitled " o f Amorous apples or Golden
apples". The description together with
the wood-cut that appeared in later edi-
tions clearly identify the plant as our
tomato. He also includes the following
list of synonyms: in Latin, " P o m u m
Amoris", " P o m a Amoris", " P o m u m
aureum' "; in French, "Pommes dories",
"Pommes d'am ours" ; in high German,
" G a l t offel" ; in low German, "G ul den
A p p e l e n " ; in English, "Apples of
love", "Golden Apples". With the ex-
ception of the French "Pommes
d 'am ours" and its English variant,
"Apples of love", these names are
clearly derived from the Italian " P o m i
d 'oro. " It is quite possible that from
a single source the tomato spread to
both France and Italy where it was
named independently. A rapid migra-
tion to additional countries is quite un-
derstandable, since the internationally-
minded herbalists were constantly on
the look-out for new and exotic medicinal
plants.
Neither Matthiolus nor Dodonaeus
speculated on the origin of the plant,
though both definitely stated that it had
been introduced recently and was grown
only in the gardens of the herbalists.
The impression is given that the tomato
was not considered as a food plant, but
rather as a curiosity with probable