“Seeds” of wild grasses: A major food of Southwestern Indians

"Seeds" of Wild Grasses: A Major Food of Southwestern Indians 1

JOHN F. DOEBLEY 2

A search of the ethnobotanical literature revealed wild grasses to be a major food of Southwestern Indians�9 Oryzopsis, Sporobolus and Panicum were shown to be especially important throughout the Southwest, though a large number of other genera were of local importance. Reasons for the preference of some species over others are discussed. The proportion of annual and perennial species used as food is equivalent to the proportions of annuals and perennials in the grass flora of the region�9

� 9 But it is not for a moment to be supposed that the Indian is a superficial observer; he takes careful note of the forms and qualities of everything that grows on the face of the earth. True, he ascribes marvelous and impossible qualities to some plants--freuqently those which do not grow in his neighborhood--but that does not blind him to their real properties. And as his perceptions of individual differentiations is nice and minute, so his nomenclature is re- markably full. I assert without hesitation that the average intelligent Indian, even if not a medicine-man, knows a much greater catalogue of names than nine-tenths of Americans. Nothing escapes him--he has a name for everything. And, indeed, there is a reason. In times of great scarcity, they are driven by the sore pangs of hunger to test everything that the soil produces, if perchance they may find something that will appease the gnawings of appetite. They therefore know the properties of all herbs, shrubs, roots, leaves, whether they are poisonous or nutritive, whether purgative, astringent, sedative, or what not, or without any active principle (Powers, 1874: 373).

Before the b e g i n n i n g o f p l a n t cu l t i va t i on , the h u m a n species d e r i v e d m u c h o f

i ts su s t enance f r o m wi ld p lan ts . Even once the ea r l i es t ag r i cu l tu re h a d begun to a s s u m e the b u r d e n o f p r o v i d i n g food for m a n , w i ld p l an t s c o n t i n u e d to s u p p l y

m u c h n e e d e d n o u r i s h m e n t b o t h in yea r s o f c rop fa i lure a n d as a n o r m a l pa r t o f the diet . F o r the N a v a h o I n d i a n s o f the N o r t h A m e r i c a n Sou thwes t , Hi l l (1938: 17) te l ls us tha t w i ld p l a n t foods were f o r m e r l y qu i t e i m p o r t a n t du r ing the sp r ing when w i n t e r r e se rves were d e p l e t e d a n d c rops were no t r e a d y for harves t .

M u c h i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g wh ich wi ld p l an t s were used a n d h o w they were g a t h e r e d a n d p r o c e s s e d is sca t t e red t h r o u g h the e t h n o b o t a n i c a l l i t e ra ture . Th i s l i t e r a tu re test i f ies to the fact t ha t the wi ld p l a n t ga the re r s h a d an i n t i m a t e k n o w l - edge o f t he i r n a t i v e f lora a n d knew, o f necess i ty , the p r o p e r t i e s o f m o s t p lan ts .

In sp i te o f the a b u n d a n c e o f d a t a on wi ld p l a n t use, there exis ts a d e a r t h o f

c o m p a r a t i v e s tud ies a n d ana lys i s f r o m a b o t a n i c a l v i e w p o i n t o f wi ld p l a n t use in

the Sou thwes t . W h i t i n g ca l led a t t e n t i o n to the need for m o r e syn the t i c work: " W e urgen t ly need s u m m a r y repor t s , c o m p a r a t i v e h i s to r i ca l s tud ies a n d b r o a d b a s e d

rev iews o f c o m p a r a b l e d a t a t h r o u g h - o u t the a r e a " (Whi t ing , 1 9 6 6 : 3 1 8 ) .

t Received 17 May 1982; accepted 10 May 1983. Paper No. 8327 of the Journal Series of the North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, Raleigh.

This investigation was supported in part by NIH Research Grant No. GM 11546 from the U.S. National Institute of General Medical Sciences.

2 Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27650.

Economic Botany, 38(1), 1984, pp. 52-64 �9 1984, by the New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY 10458

1984] DOEBLEY: WILD GRASSES 53

Of prime importance among wild plants exploited by the Southwest Indians are the grasses. Whiting makes the following comment on the role wild grasses played in the Hopi diet: "Though the main food supply comes from agriculture, there are a few wild plants which provide an important means of sustenance. Chief among these are several wild grasses" (Whiting, 1939:18). Similarly, Cham- berlin reports for the Paiutes that while " . . . many kinds of plants furnished seeds that were used, by far the greater portion come from the grasses and members of the Chenopodiaceae" (Chamberlin, 1911: 31). Additional evidence for the critical role wild grasses played in the native economy comes from Castetter and Bell's Yuman Indian Agriculture. Of the 29 identified wild or weedy species whose seeds are important as food, 7 are grasses (Castetter and Bell, 1951: 187).

In addition to the statements of these authors concerning the importance of grasses, one can tabulate information from a wide variety ofethnobotanical reports in order to assess the importance of wild grasses in native economies (Table 1). Table 1 lists the species name (using synonyms based on Hitchcock, 1951), sea- sonal growth form, introduced species (again following Hitchcock, 1951), pertinent remarks made by authors concerning frequency of use, time of flowering, the Indian group and references.

The 27 genera and 52 species listed aptly demonstrate the importance of this family as a food resource. However, a closer examination reveals which species were widely used and, thus, important in the native economies. The reasons for the extensive use of some species over others may be inferred to some extent by their morphology and ecology. Unfortunately, complete nutritional information on these species, an important parameter of usefulness, is not available.

The study of the utilization of wild grasses as foods is one of considerable importance to the economic botanist and anthropologist. Such a study may yield significant information concerning the origin of cereal domestication, for the collection of wild grass seeds is the activity out of which cereal domestication arose.

DISCUSSION

In Table 1, I have listed grasses as important, staples or collected in great quantity as reported by the particular authors. I have also shown the number of references I found to each grass. Using these 2 types of information, it should be possible to determine which of these 5 3 grasses were most important. Those grasses that are used by several groups and recorded as staples, for instance, may be regarded as the most important resources. One would expect those grasses to be the ones offering the largest reward per energy output, while grasses that offer little reward or are difficult to collect and process would be the least used. This latter group perhaps would be used only in times of shortage.

There are 2 difficulties with this approach to determining relative importance. One danger is that various ethnobotanists may have used different criteria for listing a grass as important or failed to distinguish between those species that were important and those that were not. A second problem lies in one's definition of words such as important, major contributor to the diet and critical resource. Ide- ally, information on the nutritional value of each grass, energy expended in col- lecting and processing it, and amount consumed in comparison to other foods

54 E C O N O M I C B O T A N Y [VOL. 38

<

0

g

�9

M

M <

o ~ ~ t r ~ o o

- ~ - - ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ . . ~

o o LUL~

o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ .~ o~ ~ . ~ o ~

~o

v

1984] DOEBLEY: W I L D GRASSES 55

Z

Z �9

m

e~ <

..~ ~

,~ ~ . ~ ,

~ k a k a ~

o o, '~

~ ~.~ ~ - ~ ,

o

O

o

~ ' ,~ " ~ o

a, < <

"v. .R

[- ~ .'~

"r

"E " " " " " ": ~

.~ .~ =- ~ = a d -

a~ i a

< 4 4 4 4 : ~ 4

0

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ Z ~ ~ ~

56 ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL. 38

Z V-, Z �9

(..)

~4 . I

, < [.-,

- - dd

a. 8'

r~

,.:.-:,.:.i ..,..., ~ ',~" ~ , :~ r ~ . .

~ , - , . ~ p / ~ , - - , ~ ,,,~ =~ ~ , - _ - _ ~ . . - , , ' - - o g C ~

,= ~ e : ~ ~, " " ~ '~

q <, ., q q

0

-r.

NI

6

~ g g Z ~ ~

0 ~2

- ~ ~ ~

�9 f.

1984] DOEBLEY: W I L D G R A S S E S 57

I - Z 0 {D

l.q ,-I

~D

,?

~ ~ ~ ..: ~ ._: - - _ - ~ . _~- ~

-

0 0 ~q2

0

q)

' 0

~ < < <

E

.~ g ~ = ~ . ~ .

~ . .~ ~ ~ C~

~4

0

~ c 4


d la,.I

I....,

O L)

,-A

,..a

r

L9

~6

O e'~

>

2 e '~

,.a

e ~


should be taken into consideration. However, this information is not available, and because native lifestyles have been greatly altered by acculturation and ex- tinction, we may never know quantitatively the portion of the native diet that was filled by wild grasses. Thus, it becomes necessary to rely on information available in the ethnobotanical literature to assess the relative significance of these grasses.

Below I discuss the species that seem to represent the best resources based on the information in Table 1.

Oryzopsis hymenoides (Indian rice grass)

Upon inspecting Table l, one grass stands out from all others, both in the number of groups using it and the importance it is given in the ethnobotanical literature. This is O. hymenoides. I found 11 references to this grass in the literature representing 5 Indian groups, and in nearly all cases this grass was reported as an important resource.

Oryzopsis hymenoides is a perennial with densely-tufted culms, and is present on deserts and plains throughout the western United States. Its floret falls free from the papery glumes while the grain remains tightly invested in its indurate lemma. Heating was one method employed to separate the grain from the lemma (Castetter, 1935: 28). It is a cool-season grass ripening in the early summer. Availability for early harvest may be one factor making this an important resource (Bohrer, 1975). However, a more important factor may be that this is one of the largest-grained grasses in Table 1. Its ability to thrive in disturbed habitats (Jaynes and Harper, 1978) may have made it a common plant in areas of human occu- pation and thus readily available for harvest. Additionally, this species was abundant before the introduction of cattle and other domesticated grazing animals into the Southwest (Hover et al., 1948: 677; Bohrer, 1975; Whiting, 1939; Lesperance et al., 1978). Thus, being a large-grained, abundant, widely-distributed and early- ripening species, O. hymenoides was probably the most valuable wild cereal utilized by the Southwestern Indians.

Sporobolus spp. (dropseed)

The genus Sporobolus is another that stands out in Table 1. There are 6 species represented and these having been used by 4 Indian groups. Such phrases as "staples," "much used," and "gathered in great quantities" are attached to these grasses in the literature.

The 6 species represented here are all perennials. Sporobolus airoides and S. wrightii are large tufted types, while the others occur in smaller tufts. Their florets fall free of the glumes as in Oryzopsis; however, unlike Oryzopsis, the naked grain is also easily freed from its membranous bracts. This may make processing sim- pler, as heating to free the grain from its bracts is not required. These species occur in a variety of habitats throughout the Southwest, including open sandy areas, mesas, dry bluffs, meadows, and valleys. Whiting reports that S. airoides is " . . . very abundant on the desert" (Whiting, 1939: 66), and like Oryzopsis hymenoides, it does well in disturbed habitats (Aldon and Garcia, 1972). One factor that dilutes their usefulness as a food is small seed size. However, the prolific number of seeds on their panicles may compensate for this shortcoming.


Hover et al. (1948: 694) write that " . . . practically all dropseeds produce an abundance of viable, long-lived seed." Additionally, the panicle of several of these species is partially retained in the uppermost sheath, thus preventing the seeds from being lost prior to harvesting. From these facts, one may conclude that Sporobolus would seem to owe its importance as a resource to its abundance and to having naked seeds which it tends to retain after maturing. Small seed size may have been a limiting factor.

Panicum spp. (panic grass)

Another group that seems to have been extensively used is the panic grasses. I found references to 6 species of Panicum; however, these were not recorded as having as much importance as Sporobolus by the individual ethnobotanists. Panic grasses have firm, unequal glumes and indurate bracts that tightly invest the grain. Processing of panic grasses was often done by grinding the seeds on a metate, followed by winnowing (Castetter, 1935: 28). Heating may also be employed to facilitate the separation of the grain from its bracts (Castetter and Bell, 1951: 190). The grain size of these species is intermediate between that of Oryzopsis and Sporobolus. These panic grasses occupy a variety of habitats throughout the Southwest, including rocky and sandy soil along rivers and arroyos, open places, canyons, and valleys. Hitchcock (1951: 689-690) reports that P. sonorum, P. capillare and P. hirticaule have densely-flowered panicles. One problem with these species is that their spikelets disarticulate below the glumes, and, therefore, the glumes do not function to help retain the seed on the plant as they do in Sporobolus and Oryzopsis. Thus, the seeds are quickly dispersed. To compensate for this, some tribes may have harvested panic grass while still a little green (Kelley, 1977). From this information, one may conclude that although panic grasses were a valuable resource, certain features, such as their particularly efficient means of dispersing their seeds after maturity, may have limited their role in the native diet.

Eragrostis (lovegrass), Glyceria (mannagrass), and Poa (bluegrass)

These 3 morphologically similar, though unrelated, genera had considerable value among the Paiutes; however, the literature would suggest they were largely ignored by other groups. They are all small-seeded grasses with several florets per spikelet and whose grains separate easily from their bracts. Glyceria is found in marshes and other moist environments, while Eragrostis and Poa occur in drier localities. Possibly, these 3 genera were used by the Paiutes but generally ignored by other groups because the nomadic lifestyle and limited agriculture of the Paiutes made it necessary for them to exploit a wider range of wild grasses. The more sedentary agricultural groups would most likely collect only those wild grasses which represented the best resources.

Echinochloa crusgalli (barnyard grass)

This species, which is cultivated in the Old World and whose seed is used there for food, attained some importance in the diet of certain Southwestern Indians. It is similar to the panic grasses in having herbaceous glumes and indurate bracts.


Grain size is also similar to Panicum but perhaps a little larger. This grass and several others (Table 1) were semicultivated by Arizona Indians. As this species generally occurs in sparse stands (Hitchcock, 1951:711), it would seem that it would be best exploited as a cultivar rather than as a wild species. Thus, this otherwise valuable grass could best be utilized by artificially increasing its stand size (Flannery, 1973).

Other grasses

Many other grasses in Table 1 undoubtedly played important roles in the diets of the groups which used them. Distichlis palrneri, for instance, was collected in quantity along the Colorado River each spring by the Cocopa (Castetter and Bell, 1951). Similarly, grasses such as Elymus canadensis, Muhlenbergia asperifolia and Stipa speciosa are all listed as being important among the Paiute while not mentioned for other groups. Koeleria cristata and Festuca octoflora are 2 other species that were recorded as important among the groups that gathered them. These latter two produce mature seed by early summer, which may have con- tributed to their importance (Bohrer, 1975).

For the most part, the remainder of the grasses listed were probably not important dietary items. The reasons for their lack of importance vary. Trisetum spicatum is a high altitude species, placing it out of the reach of most native groups. Bouteloua gracilis has small seeds that are difficult to separate from its bracts, making it less favorable than other species.

Finally, it is noteworthy that many of the genera represented in Table 1 also have members utilized for food in other regions of the world. These include Panicum, Sporobolus, Poa, Glyceria, Elymus, Eragrostis, and Echinochloa, among others (Bohrer, 1972; Harlan, 1975). This fact suggests that these genera are in some sense preadapted to exploitation by man.

ANNUALS VS. PERENNIALS

It is a well-established fact that our most valuable food crops are annuals (Ames, 1939). The obvious reason is that the yearly seed set of annuals provides a quicker return on the investment, and that annuals tend to channel a greater portion of their nutrients into the seeds they produce. Realizing this, one might expect wild plant gatherers to select for annuals for the same reasons. Flannery (1968: 79) reports that the gathering of wild annual grasses was important in the early Meso- American economy. However, he does not provide a list of these annual grasses or alternatively utilized perennials nor any other evidence for the dominance of annual over perennial grasses in the native diet.

An examination of Table 1 reveals that 39 (74%) of these grasses are perennials and 14 (26%) annuals. This corresponds quite closely to the 79% perennials and 21% annuals for the grasses listed in Arizona Flora (Kearney and Peebles, 1951). Inspection of only those grasses recorded as being important parts of the diet also shows a dominance by perennials (14 perennials and 3 annuals, excluding those known only as semicultivars of the Cocopa). Thus, it would seem that neither annuals nor perennials represented a greater potential resource for the wild-plant gatherers as to impel them to collect one more than the other.


This apparent equivalence of the importance of perennial to annual grasses may reflect several advantages that perennials possess. First, they produce seed more reliably during years of drought. Second, as their roots and meristems are formed during the previous season, they are ready to grow when the first spring rains come and, thus, they can often mature seed prior to annuals. Third, in undisturbed habitats, perennials can be superior competitors, forming larger stands.

CULTIVATION OF WILD GRASSES

The cultivation of wild grasses in the Southwest also testifies to the importance of these species in the native economics. While the species involved were never fully domesticated, steps were certainly taken in that direction. This seems to be especially true for Panicum sonorum, for which cultivated strains may have grains twice the size of purely wild ones (de Wet, 1975).

Among the Paiutes of Owens Valley, several practices that converge on agriculture are known. They include the construction of canals to irrigate natural stands of wild grass or even fields planted by the Indians themselves (Steward, 1930; Lawton et al., 1976). Lawton et al. (1976) contend that this is an indigenous development rather than one borrowed from agriculturalists elsewhere in the Southwest.

Among the tribes of the Sonoran region (Yuma, Cocopa, Mojave), a similar situation is found. These tribes broadcast the seed of wild grasses on the muddy floodplains of the Colorado River and its tributaries (Castetter and Bell, 1951; Kelley, 1977). It is remarkable that these people continued to cultivate wild grasses, despite their possession of fully-domesticated crops such as corn, beans and squash. The fact that fields of wild grass required no care between sowing and harvest may have been a crucial advantage of this practice.

Finally, it seems noteworthy that two of the grasses (Oryzopsis hymenoides and Panicum obtusum), listed in Table 1 as semicultivated or sown, are perennials.

CONCLUSION

The ethnobotanical literature shows that grasses were a major dietary item of the Southwestern Indians. Several grasses, including Oryzopsis hymenoides, Spo- robolus ssp. and Panicum ssp., seem to have played more important roles than other grasses in the native diet throughout the Southwest. The apparent reasons for selecting these grasses over others include abundance, retention of seed after maturity, ease of processing, early ripening, and large grain size. Oryzopsis hymenoides appears to have been the single most valubale wild cereal. A variety of other grasses probably played important roles among those Indian groups which collected them, but were not exploited by the majority of Indian groups in the area. In contrast to cultivated cereals, wild annuals do not seem to have been gathered more frequently than perennials. Finally, the importance of wild grasses to the Southwestern Indians is revealed in the cultivation of these wild grasses. This practice involved sowing, harvesting and, in some regions, irrigation of natural or planted fields of wild grasses.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Edward Croom, Major M. Goodman, Hugh Iltis, and Jon Stucky provided helpful comments on a preliminary draft of the manuscript. Mrs. Juanita Adler is thanked for technical assistance.


LITERATURE CITED

Aldon, E. F., and G. Garcia. 1972. Vegetation changes as a result of soil ripping on the Rio Puerco in New Mexico. J. Range Management 25:381-383.

Ames, O. 1939. Economic Annuals and Human Cultures. Botanical Museum of Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA.

Bohrer, V.L. 1972. On relation of harvest methods to early agriculture in the Near East. Econ. Bot. 26: 145-155.

1975. The prehistoric and historic role of the cool-season grasses in the Southwest. Econ. Bot. 29: 199-207.

Bye, R .A . 1972. Ethnobotany of the Southern Paiute Indians in the 1870's: With a note on the early ethnobotanical contributions of Dr. Edward Palmer. In D. D. Fowler, ed. Great Basin Cultural Ecology: A Symposium. Desert Res. Inst. Publ. Social Sci. No. 8, Reno, NV.

Castetter, E.F. 1935. Uncultivated native plants used as sources of food. Univ. New Mexico Bull., Biol. Ser., Vol. 4, No. I. , and W. Bell. 1951. Yuman Indian Agriculture. Univ. New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM. , and M. Opler. 1936. The ethnobiology of the Chiricahua and Mescalero Apache. Univ. New Mexico Bull., Biol. Ser., Vol. 4, No. 5. , and R. Underhill. 1935. The ethnobiology of the Papago Indians. Univ. New Mexico Bull., Biol. Ser., Vol. 4, No. 3.

Chamberlin, R.V. 1911. The ethnobotany of the Gosiute Indians. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 63: 24-99.

de Wet, J. M.J . 1975. Evolutionary dynamcs of cereal domestication, Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 102: 307-312.

Elmore, F .H. 1944. The ethnobotany of the Navajo Indians. Univ. New Mexico Monogr. Set., Vol. 1, No. 7.

Fewkes, J .W. 1896. A contribution to ethnobotany. Amer. Anthropol. 9: 14-21. Flannery, K. V. 1968. Archaeological systems theory and early Meso-America. p. 67-87. In B. J.

Meggers, ed. Anthropological Archaeology in the Americas. Anthropol. Soc. Washington, Wash- ington, DC.

1973. The origins of agriculture. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 2: 271-310. Harlan, J .R . 1975. Crops and Man. Amer. Soc. Agronomy, Madison, WI. Hill, W.W. 1938. The Agricultural and Hunting Methods of the Navaho Indians. Yale Univ. Press,

New Haven, CT. Hitchcock, A.S. 1951. (Revised by A. Chase). Manual of Grasses of the United States. USDA Misc.

Publ. 200. Washington, DC. Hough, W. 1897. The Hopi in relation to their plant environment. Amer. Anthropol. 10: 33-44. Hover, M. M., M. A. Hein, W. A. Dayton, and C. O. Erlanson. 1948. The main grasses for farm

and home. In Grass, Yearbook of Agriculture, p. 639-700, U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Wash- ington, DC.

Jaynes, R. A., and K. T. Harper. 1978. Patterns of natural revegetation in arid Southeastern Utah. J. Range Management 31 : 407-411.

Kearney, T. H., and R. H. Peebles. 1951. Arizona Flora. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley, CA. Kelley, W.H. 1977. Cocopa Ethnography. Anthrop. Papers Univ. Ariz. No. 29, Tucson, AZ. Kelly, I .T . 1932. Ethnography of the Surprise Valley Paiutes. Univ. Calif. Publ. Amer. Archaeol.

Ethnol. 31: 67-210. - - . 1976. Southern Paiute ethnography. In D. A. Horr, ed. Paiute Indians II. Garland Publishing,

New York. Lawton, H. W., P. J. Wilke, M. deDecker, and W. M. Mason. 1976. Agriculture among the Paiute

of Owens Valley. J. Calif. Anthrop. 3: 13-50. Lesperance, A. L., J. A. Young, R. E. Eckert, and R. A. Evans. 1978. Great Basin wildrye. Rangeman's

J. 5: 125-127. Palmer, E. 1878. Plants used by the Indians of the United States. Amer. Naturalist 12: 593-606. Powers, S. 1874. Aboriginal botany. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 5: 373-379. Reagan, A.E. 1929. Plants used by the White Mountain Apache ofArizona. Wisconsin Archaeologist

8: 143-161. Stevenson, M . C . 1915. Ethnohotany of the Zuni Indians. p. 33-102. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Ann.

Rep. 30.


Steward, H. H. 1930. Irrigation without agriculture. Pap. Michigan Acad. Sci. 12: 149-156. 1933. Ethnography of the Owens Valley Paiute. Univ. Calif. Publ. Amer. Archaeol. Ethnol.

33: 233-350. Whiting, A. F. 1939. The ethnobotany of the Hopi. Mus. Northern Arizona Bull. No. 15, Flag-

staff, AZ. 1966. The present status of ethnobotany in the Southwest. Econ. Bot. 20:316-325.

Wilke, P. J., R. Bettinger, T. F. King, and J. F. O'Connell. 1972. Harvest selection and domestication in seed plants. Antiquity 46: 203-209.

Wyman, L. C., and S. K. Harris. 1951. The ethnobotany of the Kayenta Navaho. Univ. New Mex. Publ. Biol., No. 5.

Zigmond, M. L. 1981. Kawaiisu Ethnobotany. Univ. Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT.

Book Review

The Story of New England's Forests. Lloyd C. Irland. 217 pp. illus. University Press of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire, 1982. $17.50.

A volume in the series "Futures of New England," beautifully published by a consortium of eight New England universities, this contribution has much informat ion- -some not easily available elsewhere-- that can be of interest and value to forestry specialists in many parts of the United States and Canada.

The volume is introduced appropriately with a little known poem extolling New England's forest products and written in 1634 by Wil l iam Wood in New England's Project.

The book is divided into 12 chapters, on these topics: (1) forests in New England life, (2) forest geography, (3) industrial forest, (4) suburban forest, (5) rural forest, (6) recreational forest, (7) wild forest, (8) forest landownership, (9) New England's t imber budget, (10) wood products and New England's economy, (I I) forest policy, and (I 2) forest: past and future. There follow 18 pages of detailed notes for each chapter and five pages of an excellent index.

The great value of this study lies in its thoroughness, its coverage of the topics considered from the historical, contemporary, and future points of view, and its measured evaluations and criticisms of past use of the vast forest resources of the region. Another aspect of immense value is Irland's frequent and meticulous interpretation of the implications of past and present use and misuse of forest resources on agricultural, industrial, and other acitivities of the region: water utilities, the land boom and its consequences, winter and summer recreational facilities, milling and logging, the pulp economy, etc.

"This is a book about forests, by a forester, written for nonforesters," the author writes in his preface. Lloyd Irland is to be highly complimented in gathering together so much information and in presenting it in a readable manner, for serious studies and samplings of New England's forests were hardly ever carried out until the last 30 years. The forests of this northeasternmost part of the United States comprise a great potential source of wealth and health for the region, and it is t ime that the public be made aware of their value to life and living. This modestly priced book should go far in focussing attention on what should be the pride and joy of the New England states.

RICHARD EVANS SCHULTES, BOTANICAL MUSEUM, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138

Documents

“Seeds” of wild grasses: A major food of Southwestern Indians