Economic Botany

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 4–15 | Cite as

Origin(s), evolution, and systematics ofCucurbita pepo (Cucurbitaceae)

  • Deena S. Decker


Numerical studies of morphological data and starch gel electrophoresis have provided a new perspective on important issues pertinent to the origin(s) and subsequent evolution of domesticatedCucurbita pepo. Wild C.texana and/orC. fraterna appear to be the most likely candidates for progenitor(s) of the domesticate. Populations of texana-like plants from beyond Texas share various attributes with Texas populations, suggesting that C. texana once had a more widespread distribution to the northeast. The possibility exists thatC. pepo was domesticated independently in eastern U.S., as well as in Mexico, which is in line with recent archeological findings. Multiple domestications are also supported by allozyme data indicating a substantial divergence within the species. A new classification consisting of C.pepo ssp.pepo (origins in Mexico),C. pepo ssp.ovifera var. ovifera (origins in eastern U.S.), and C.pepo ssp.ovifera var. texana (spontaneous populations in eastern U.S.) is proposed.


Economic Botany Cucurbita Pepo Fruit Type Aurantia Leucine Amino Peptidase 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Alefeld, F. 1866. Landwirtschaftliche Flora. Wiegandt and Hempel, Berlin.Google Scholar
  2. Andres, T. C., M. Nee, N. F. Weeden, and J. Wyland. 1986. Rediscovery ofCucurbita fraterna Bailey, the alleged “brother” toC. texana. Paper presented at the 27th annual meeting of the Soc. Econ. Bot.Google Scholar
  3. Asch, D. L., and N. E. Asch. 1985. Prehistoric plant cultivation in west-central Illinois. Pages 149–204in R. I. Ford, ed., Prehistoric food production in North America. Pap. Mus. Anthropol., Univ. Michigan 75.Google Scholar
  4. Bailey, L. H. 1929. The domesticated cucurbitas. Gentes Herb. 2:62–115.Google Scholar
  5. — 1937. The garden of gourds. Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  6. — 1943. Species of Cucurbita. Gentes Herb. 6:267–322.Google Scholar
  7. Bemis, W. P., A. M. Rhodes, T. W. Whitaker, and S. G. Carmer. 1970. Numerical taxonomy applied toCucurbita relationships. Amer. J. Bot. 57:404–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burgess-Terrel, M. E. 1979. A study ofCucurbita material from Salmon Ruin, New Mexico. M.S. thesis, Eastern New Mexico Univ., Portales.Google Scholar
  9. Candolle, A. P. de. 1828. Prodromus 3:316–318.Google Scholar
  10. Carter, G. F. 1945. Plant geography and culture history in the American Southwest. Viking Fund Publ. in Anthropol. 5, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Castetter, E. F. 1925. Horticultural groups of cucurbits. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 22:338–340.Google Scholar
  12. Chomko, S. A., and G. W. Crawford. 1978. Plant husbandry in prehistoric eastern North America: new evidence for its development. Amer. Antiquity 43:405–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Conard, N., D. L. Asch, N. B. Asch, D. Elmore, H. Gove, M. Rubin, J. A. Brown, M. D. Wiant, K. B. Farnsworth, and T. G. Cook. 1984. Accelerator radiocarbon dating of evidence for prehistoric horticulture in Illinois. Nature 308:443–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Correll, D. S., and M. C. Johnston. 1979. Manual of the vascular plants of Texas. Univ. Texas, Dallas. (Reprint of a work first published in 1970.)Google Scholar
  15. Cowan, C. W. 1985. Understanding the evolution of plant husbandry in eastern North America: lessons from botany, ethnography and archaeology. Pages 205–244in R. I. Ford, ed., Prehistoric food production in North America. Pap. Mus. Anthropol., Univ. Michigan 75.Google Scholar
  16. Cutler, H. C., and T. W. Whitaker. 1961. History and distribution of the cultivated cucurbits in the Americas. Amer. Antiquity 26:469–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dane, F. 1983. Cucurbits. Pages 369–390in S. D. Tanksley and T. J. Orton, eds., Isozymes in plant genetics and breeding, Part B. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  18. Decker, D. S. 1985. Numerical analysis of allozyme variation inCucurbita pepo. Econ. Bot. 39:300–309.Google Scholar
  19. —. 1986. A biosystematic study ofCucurbita pepo. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M Univ., College Station.Google Scholar
  20. -, and L. A. Newsom. n.d. Numerical analysis of archaeologicalCucurbita seeds from Hontoon Island, Florida. (Submitted to J. Ethnobiol. in Mar. 1987.)Google Scholar
  21. —, and H. D. Wilson. 1986. Numerical analysis of seed morphology inCucurbita pepo. Syst. Bot. 11:595–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. —. 1987. Allozyme variation in theCucurbita pepo complex:C. pepo var.ovifera vs.C. texana. Syst. Bot. 12:263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Denna, D. W., and M. B. Alexander. 1975. The isoperoxidases ofCucurbita pepo L. Pages 851–864in C. L. Markert, ed., Isozymes II: Physiological function. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Erwin, A. T. 1938. An interesting Texas cucurbit. Iowa State Coll. J. Sci. 12:253–255.Google Scholar
  25. —, and E. W. Haber. 1929. Species and varietal crosses in cucurbits. Iowa Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 263:344–372.Google Scholar
  26. Ford, R. I. 1980. ‘Artifacts’ that grew: their roots in Mexico. Early Man 2:19–23.Google Scholar
  27. —. 1985. Patterns of prehistoric food production in North America. Pages 341–364in R. I. Ford, ed., Prehistoric food production in North America. Pap. Mus. Anthropol., Univ. Michigan 75.Google Scholar
  28. Golf, E. S. 1888. Report of the horticulturist. New York Agric. Exp. Sta. Annual Rep. 6:76–342.Google Scholar
  29. Gray, A. 1868. Field, forest and garden botany. American Book, New York.Google Scholar
  30. Harlan, J. R. 1951a. Anatomy of gene centers. Amer. Naturalist 85:97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. —. 1951b. New World crop plants in Asia Minor. Sci. Monthly 72:87–89.Google Scholar
  32. Harrison, S., L. R. Oliver, and O. Bell. 1977. Control on Texas gourd in soybeans. Abstract. Proc. Southern Weed Sci. 30:46.Google Scholar
  33. Heiser, C. B., Jr. 1979. The gourd book. Univ. Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar
  34. —. 1985a. Of plants and people. Univ. Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar
  35. —. 1985b. Some botanical considerations of the early domesticated plants north of Mexico. Pages 57–72in R. I. Ford, ed., Prehistoric food production in North America. Pap. Mus. Anthropol., Univ. Michigan 75.Google Scholar
  36. Hurd, P. D., Jr., E. G. Linsley, and T. W. Whitaker. 1971. Squash and gourd bees (Peponapis, Xenoglossa) and the origin of the cultivatedCucurbita. Evolution 25:218–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ignart, F., and N. F. Weeden. 1984. Allozyme variation in cultivars ofCucurbita pepo L. Euphytica 33:779–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. King, F. B. 1985. Early cultivated cucurbits in eastern North America. Pages 73–98in R. I. Ford, ed., Prehistoric food production in North America. Pap. Mus. Anthropol., Univ. Michigan 75.Google Scholar
  39. Kirkpatrick, K. J. 1983. Gene flow inCucurbita. Texas A&M Archives, College Station.Google Scholar
  40. —. 1984. The relationship between isozyme phenotype and morphological variation inCucurbita. M.S. thesis, Texas A&M Univ., College Station.Google Scholar
  41. —, D. S. Decker, and H. D. Wilson. 1985. Allozyme differentiation in theCucurbita pepo complex:C. pepo var.medullosa vs.C. texana. Econ. Bot. 39:289–299.Google Scholar
  42. Linnaeus, C. 1753. Species plantarum. Impensis Laurentii Salvii, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  43. -. 1767. Mantissa plantarum. Impensis Laurentii Salvii, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  44. Mohlenbrock, R. H., and D. M. Ladd. 1978. Distribution of Illinois vascular plants. Southern Illinois Univ. Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
  45. Naudin, C. 1856. Nouvelles recherches sur les caracteres specifiques et les varietes des plantes du genreCucurbita. Ann. Sci. Nat. IV. Bot. 6:5–73.Google Scholar
  46. Newsom, L. A. 1986. Plants, human subsistence, and environment: a case study from Hontoon Island (8-VO-202), Florida. M.S. thesis, Univ. Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
  47. Puchalski, J. T., and R. W. Robinson. 1978. Comparative electrophoretic analysis of isozymes inCucurbita species. Cucurbit Gen. Coop. Rep. 1:28.Google Scholar
  48. Rhodes, A. M., W. P. Bemis, T. W. Whitaker, and S. G. Carmer. 1968. A numerical taxonomic study ofCucurbita. Brittonia 20:251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith, E. B. 1978. An atlas and annotated checklist of the vascular plants of Arkansas. Univ. Arkansas Press, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
  50. Steyermark, J. A. 1963. Flora of Missouri. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames.Google Scholar
  51. Story, D. A. 1985. Adaptive strategies of Archaic cultures of the West Gulf Coastal Plain. Pages 19–56in R. I. Ford, ed., Prehistoric food production in North America. Pap. Mus. Anthropol., Univ. Michigan 75.Google Scholar
  52. Struever, S., and K. D. Vickery. 1973. The beginnings of cultivation in the Midwest-Riverine area of the United States. Amer. Anthropol. 75:1197–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sturtevant, E. L. 1890. The history of garden vegetables. Amer. Naturalist 24:719–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tapley, W. T., W. D. Enzie, and G. P. van Eseltine. 1937. The vegetables of New York, Vol. 1, Part IV, The cucurbits. N.Y. Agric. Exp. Sta., Geneva.Google Scholar
  55. Vavilov, N. I. 1949–1950. The origin, variation, immunity, and breeding of cultivated plants. Chron. Bot. 13.Google Scholar
  56. Wall, J. R. 1969. A partial survey of the genusCucurbita for electrophoretic variants of esterase and leucine aminopeptidase. Southw. Naturalist 14:141–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. —, and T. W. Whitaker. 1971. Genetic control of leucine aminopeptidase and esterase isozymes in the interspecific crossCucurbita equadorensis x C. maxima. Biochem. Genet. 5:223–229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Watson, P. J. 1985. The impact of early horticulture in the upland drainages of the Midwest and Midsouth. Pages 99–148in R. I. Ford, ed., Prehistoric food production in North America. Pap.n Mus. Anthropol., Univ. Michigan 75.Google Scholar
  59. Whitaker, T. W. 1947. American origin of the cultivated cucurbits. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 34:101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. —. 1968. Ecological aspects of the cultivatedCucurbita. HortScience 3:9–11.Google Scholar
  61. —. 1974.Cucurbita. Pages 135–144in R. C. King, ed., Handbook of genetics, Vol. 2. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  62. —, and W. P. Bemis. 1964. Evolution in the genusCucurbita. Evolution 18:553–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. —. 1975. Origin and evolution of the cultivatedCucurbita. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 102:362–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. —, and G. F. Carter. 1946. Critical notes on the origin and domestication of the cultivated speciesof Cucurbita. Amer. J. Bot. 33:10–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. —, and H. C. Cutler. 1965. Cucurbits and cultures in the Americas. Econ. Bot. 19:344–349.Google Scholar
  66. —. 1971. Prehistoric cucurbits from the Valley of Oaxaca. Econ. Bot. 25:123–127.Google Scholar
  67. —, and R. S. MacNeish. 1957. Cucurbit materials from three caves near Ocampo, Tamaulipas. Amer. Antiquity 22:352–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. —, and G. N. Davis. 1962. Cucurbits. Interscience Publ., New York.Google Scholar
  69. —, and I. C. Jagger. 1937. Breeding and improvement of cucurbits. Yearb. Agric. 1937:207–232.Google Scholar
  70. —, and R. J. Knight, Jr. 1980. Collecting cultivated and wild cucurbits in Mexico. Econ. Bot. 34:312–319.Google Scholar
  71. Willdenow, C. L. 1805. Species plantarum, 4th ed., vol. 4. Impensis G. C. Nauk, Berlin.Google Scholar
  72. Zhiteneva, N. E. 1930. The world’s assortment of pumpkins. Trudy Prikl. Bot. 23(3): 157–207. (In Russian with three-page summary in English.)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deena S. Decker
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station

Personalised recommendations