Part 50

2. We are led, from these remarks, to consider, by itself, the imperfect scale of descriptions adopted by all our American pomological writers, upon which Mr. D. has not materially improved.

The description of the tree is very meagre or totally neglected. Nothing at all is said of it in cases out of the 174 apples numbered and described. The general shape of the tree is given in but thirty-eight instances in the same number.

The color of the wood is, usually, noticed in the account of pears; but in the account of apples in not one case, we should think, in ten.

The peculiar growth of the young wood, in a great majority of cases, is not noticed; but more frequently in the pear than in the apple list. The least practised observer knows how striking is this feature of the face of a tree. We do not remember an instance where the buds have been employed as a characteristic. Are distinctive marks so numerous that such a one as this can be spared? The shape, color, size, prominence, and shoulder of buds, together with their interstitial spaces, form too remarkable a portion of trees to be absolutely overlooked in a book describing the “fruits and fruit-trees of America.”

Equally noticeable is the almost entire neglect of the core and seed, as identifying marks. Once in a while, as in the case of the Belle Fleur, the Roman Stem, the Spitzenberg, and the Pomme Royale, we are told, that the cores are hollow. But neither among pears nor apples, is the core or seed made to be of any importance. This is the more remarkable as being a decided retrocession in the art of description. Prince, wisely following continental authors, is careful in his description of pears, to give, and with some minuteness, the peculiarities of the seed. But Downing injudiciously misled by, in this respect, the decidedly bad example of British authors, has, almost without exception, neglected this noble criterion. There is not another single feature, either of fruit or fruit-trees, which we could not spare better than the core and seed. Not only may varieties be marked by their seeds, but they form, in connection with the core, important elements of diagnosis of qualities. A long-keeper, usually has a very small, compact core, with few seeds. A highly improved and luscious pear, not unfrequently is wholly seedless; while fruits not far removed from the wild state abound in seeds. Whenever a system of description shall have been formed, we venture to predict that the core and seed will be ranked at a higher value in it than any one other element of discrimination and description.

The same neglect or casual notice is bestowed upon the leaf. If anything about it is remarkable it is mentioned, not otherwise: but is there a page of any book that was ever printed, that has more reading on it than is on a leaf, if one is only taught to read it? It, too, is not only a sign of difference but very often of quality. Mr. D. has availed himself of this criterion in describing peaches. Is it a legible sign only in the peach orchard? He that is ignorant of these marks, and only can tell one fruit from another, is yet in the a b c of pomology. Who but a tyro, on importing Coe’s Golden Drop, would not at once perceive the imposition, if there was one, the moment his eye saw a bud, or its shoulder? Van Mons learned to select stocks for his experiments, as well by the wood and bud in winter, as by the leaf and growth of summer. In a large bed of seedlings every experimenter ought to know by wood and leaf what to select as prognosticating good fruit, and what to reject, without waiting to see the fruit. Nurserymen of our acquaintance, without book, label, or stake, can tell every well-known variety on their grounds. One of our acquaintance never had a mark, label, stake, or register, of any kind upon his ground; a culpable reliance on his ability to read tree-faces; for, on his throwing up the business suddenly, his successor fell into innumerable mistakes. It is just as easy for a pomologist to know the face of every variety, as for a shepherd to know the face of every sheep in his flock, or a grazier every animal of his herd.

3. Although the “Fruit and Fruit-trees of America” professes to give the process of management only for the garden and the orchard, it ought to include, and we presume was designed to embrace the essential features of nursery culture. Every cultivator of fruit must be a private nurseryman; he needs the same information, the same directions as if were a commercial gardener. He that designs planting an orchard ought to know the disposition of each variety of fruit-tree, that he may suit the circumstances of his soil, or provide for the peculiarities of a tree, as a farmer needs to know the peculiarities of the different breeds of hogs and cattle. With a large number of persons it would be enough to say of fruits, “superb,” “extra-superb,” “superlatively grand,” “extra magnificent;” for such, a princely catalogue would answer every purpose. But such as have some knowledge, and every year, we are happy to believe, the number of such increases, ask, not the author’s bare eulogy, but a definite statement of all those special qualities on which such eulogy is founded. The exact taste of each variety of fruit should be studied in respect to soil; some, and but few, love strong clays; yet fewer thrive upon wet soils; but some will, as the Sweet or Carolina June, which does well on quite wet soils; some refuse their gifts except upon a warm and rich sand; some, and by far the greatest number, love a deep loam, with a subsoil moist without being wet. The buds of some varieties escape the vernal frosts by their hardiness; some by putting forth later than their orchard brethren. Some varieties thrive admirably by ground or root grafting, while very many, so worked, are killed off during the first winter; some varieties, if budded, grow off with alacrity, others are dull and unwilling; some form their tops with facility and beauty; others, like many men, are rambling, awkward, and averse to any head at all. Some sorts, put upon what stock you will, have singularly massive roots; others have fine and slender ones. Every variety of tree has traits of disposition peculiar to itself; and in respect to traits possessed in common, even these may be classified. In every description there should be, at least, an attempt at giving these various nursery peculiarities. It cannot be done, as yet, with any considerable accuracy. Fruit-trees have not yet been minutely studied. A florist can give you a thousand times more minute and special information in respect to the peculiar habits and wants of his flowers, than an orchardist can of his trees. Doubtless, it is easier to do it in plants which have a short period; whose whole life passes along before the eye every season, than in plants whose very youth outlasts ten generations of Dahlias, Pansies, Balsams, etc. But that only makes it the more important that we should be up and doing. Let no work be regarded as classic which does not take into its design the most thorough enunciation of all the peculiarities of fruits, and pomology will receive more advantage in ten years, than it could by a hundred years of rambling, unregulated, discursive descriptions.

The ability which Mr. D. has shown as a horticultural writer, his industry in collecting materials for this, his last work; the skill which he has shown himself to possess in describing fruits, give the public a right to expect that he will “go on unto perfection;” and if Mr. D. will adopt a higher standard and set out with a design of a more systematic description of fruits, every liberal cultivator in the land will be glad to put at his disposal whatever of minute observation he may possess.

* * * * *

Buckwheat is a corruption rather than a translation of the Saxon word Buckwaizen, the first syllable signifying beech, the tree of that name, whose nut the kernel of the grain so much resembles in shape. The grain, therefore, might be properly called beech-wheat.

LETTER FROM A. J. DOWNING.

We give below a letter from Mr. Downing, long known as an eminent pomologist and more recently yet more distinguished for his writings upon Horticultural matters. Although a private letter, it is of general interest, and he will, we hope, indulge the liberty taken.

“HIGHLAND GARDENS, NEWBURGH, NEW YORK, Feb. 29th, 1845.

“MY DEAR SIR: I thank you for the interesting article on horticulture in the West, which appears in the last No. of Hovey’s Magazine.

“My particular object in writing you at this moment is to call your attention to the remarks you make on the ‘Golden Russet,’ which you call ‘the prince of small apples.’ From your description of this fruit it is the ’sheep-nose,’ or ‘Bullock’s Pippin’ of Coxe, well known here, and one of the most melting and delicious of apples. I understand from Professor Kirtland of Cleveland, that this is the apple known by the name of Golden Russet in his region.

“Will you do me the favor, for the sake of settling the synonyms, to send me two or three cuttings of the young wood, by mail? I can then determine in a moment. The Sheep-nose has long shoots of a peculiar drab color. If your apple proves the same, I think I shall cancel the title ’sheep-nose’—(a vile name), known only in New Jersey, and substitute ‘American Golden Russet’—this being its common title in New England and the West. I speak now in relation to my work on fruits, now in press.

“What do you mean by the ‘White Bell-flower of Coxe?’ The Detroit I have carefully examined, and it is quite different from the Yellow Bellflower. The Monstrous Bellflower—the only other one Coxe describes—is a large autumn fruit, while the Detroit keeps till April?

“My work on Fruits has cost me a great deal of labor, but will still contain many imperfections. When it is out of press—in about six weeks—I promise myself the pleasure of sending it with the copy of each of my previous works for the acceptance of your Horticultural Society. And I then hope to be favored with your criticism. Hoping an early answer to my queries herein,

“I am sincerely yours, “A. J. DOWNING.

“H. W. BEECHER.”

We should have said “Monstrous Bellflower” instead of White.

The Bellflower here mentioned is the White or Green Bellflower of Indiana, the Ohio Favorite of western Ohio about Dayton, etc., the Hollow-cored Pippin of some; and it has been inquired for, at Mr. Alldredge’s nursery, as the Cumberland Spice. Mr. A—— considered, from the description given, that the white Bellflower only could have been meant. But from the following description of Cumberland Spice in Kenrick, from Coxe, I am inclined to think that the true Cumberland Spice may have been inquired for.

“The tree is very productive; a fine dessert fruit, large, rather oblong, contracted toward the summit; the stalk thick and short; of a pale yellow color, clouded near the base; the flesh white, tender, and fine. It ripens in autumn, and keeps till winter, and shrivels in its last stages.”

The fruit was brought to Wayne County, Indiana, by Mr. Brunson. He came from New York to Huron county, Ohio, and thence to Wayne County, Indiana. It is universally diffused through the eastern and central parts of Indiana, and is esteemed a first-rate apple. The tree strikingly resembles the Green Newtown Pippin, but its brush is not so small, and there is less of it, the top being rather more open. The wood is brittle, and, as the tree is a free and constant bearer, it tends to break, and is troublesome to keep in good order. Mr. Ernst and other gentlemen of Cincinnati suppose the variety to be the Detroit. We cannot say one thing or another, except that it is of the Bellflower family. The Detroit of New York is a widely different fruit, of a bright scarlet color, and we never heard of any other Detroit, until the name was applied to this apple.

There is not the least doubt that the Golden Russet of the West is the Bullock Pippin and Sheep-nose of New Jersey, and we hope that the proposed name “American Golden Russet” will deliver us, for ever after, from eating any more sheep-noses. Names are of importance in classifying fruits, and there is a pleasure also in having a decorous name to a good fruit. It is amusing to look through a catalogue of singular names.

The Hoss apple is popularly the Horse apple, and when, on a certain contingency a gentleman promised to eat a hoss it was not so hazardous a threat as some have imagined. The French, in naming their fruits, exercise a freedom with things human and divine, to which we occidentals are not accustomed (as, Ah Mon Dieu! Grosse Cuisse Madame, etc.), and an innocent person, recapitulating his pears, might, if overheard by neighbors understanding French, be thought very profane, or worse. There are other names which have a tendency to make the mouth water, as Onion Pear. One must have pleasing associations while eating the Toad Pear. (See Prince’s Pom. Man. p. 24 and 34.) The French Bon Chrétien (or Good Christian) is called in these parts the Bon Cheat-em. Then, there is the Demoiselle, the Lady’s Flesh, and Love’s Pear (Prince, 58, 34, and 117)—very proper for young lovers. Then, there is the Burnt Cat (Chat Bruslé of the French, Prince 89), which undoubtedly has a musk flavor. We have less objection to the Priest’s Pear (Poire de Prêtre, Prince, 108). Piscatory gentlemen would always angle in our nurseries for the Trout pear (Prince 130), and if they did not get a bite, the pear would, as it is a fine variety. How did those who named pears, Louise Bonne de Jersey, or Van Mons leon le clerc, expect common folks to hold fast to the true name? But he must have a short memory indeed, who forgets the emphatic name of Yat or Yut.

But to return from our digression. We give the description of the Golden Russet from three sources, and indorse their general accuracy:

GOLDEN RUSSET.—(DR. PLUMMER.)