Finding the origin of domestication of cupuaçu requires more than genomics

Abstract

Colli-Silva et al.¹ recently proposed that cupuaçu (Theobroma grandiflorum) was domesticated in northwestern Amazonia as a selection from its sister species, cupuí (T. subincanum). This proposal ignores long-term research in taxonomy, botany, biogeography, and genetics about Theobroma, including cupuaçu. Our review of the research that was ignored and of Colli-Silva et al.’s results demonstrates that cupuaçu is a valid species, as they now agree², but cupuí may be paraphyletic, the distribution of wild cupuaçu was not included in their samples so the origin of domestication continues unknown, precolonial archaeology lacks remains that can be attributed to either species, historical linguistics indicates that the term cupuaçu references the species’ wild distribution and is a recent introduction in northwestern Amazonia, history suggests that cupuaçu started to be domesticated during the last 100-200 years, and the genomics results are not about the domestication of cupuaçu because it is a valid species and its wild distribution was not sampled.