We come now to facts. These abound concerning the wild character of the plant in Chili.
In 1822, Alexander Caldcleugh,[120] English consul, sent to the London Horticultural Society some tubers of the potato which he had found in the ravines round Valparaiso. He says that these tubers are small, sometimes red, sometimes yellowish, and rather bitter in taste.[121] “I believe,” he adds, “that this plant exists over a great extent of the littoral, for it is found in the south of Chili, where the aborigines call it _maglia_.” This is probably a confusion with _S. maglia_ of botanists; but the tubers of Valparaiso, planted in London, produced the true potato, as we see from a glance at Sabine’s coloured figure in the _Transactions of the Horticultural Society_. The cultivation of this plant was continued for some time, and Lindley certified anew, in 1847, its identity with the common potato.[122] Here is the account of the Valparaiso plant, given by a traveller to Sir William Hooker.[123] “I noticed the potato on the shore as far as fifteen leagues to the north of this town, and to the south, but I do not know how far it extends. It grows on cliffs and hills near the sea, and I do not remember to have seen it more than two or three leagues from the coast. Although it is found in mountainous places, far from cultivation, it does not exist in the immediate neighbourhood of the fields and gardens where it is planted, excepting when a stream crosses these enclosures and carries the tubers into uncultivated places.” The potato described by these two travellers had white flowers, as is seen in some cultivated European varieties, and like the plant formerly reared by de l’Ecluse. We may assume that this is the natural colour of the species, or at least one of the most common in its wild state.
Darwin, in his voyage in the _Beagle_, found the potato growing wild in great abundance on the sand of the sea-shore, in the archipelago of Southern Chili, and growing with a remarkable vigour, which may be attributed to the damp climate. The tallest plants attained to the height of four feet. The tubers were small as a rule, though one of them was two inches in diameter. They were watery, insipid, but with no bad taste when cooked. “The plant is undoubtedly wild,” says the author,[124] “and its specific identity has been confirmed first by Henslow, and afterwards by Sir Joseph Hooker in his _Flora Antarctica_.[125]”