The Peaches of New York

Chapter Vi.--Minor Varieties of Peaches 291

BIBLIOGRAPHY, REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS 499

INDEX 511

INDEX TO ILLUSTRATIONS

PORTRAIT OF ANDREW JACKSON DOWNING Frontispiece

FACING PAGE DESCRIPTION OF A PEACH 76

MAP SHOWING PEACH REGIONS IN NEW YORK 134

VARIETIES

ADMIRAL DEWEY 178

ALEXANDER 180

ALTON 180

ARP 182

BELLE 184

BEQUETTE FREE 184

BERENICE 186

BLOOD CLING 188

BLOOD LEAF 188

BRIGDON 190

CANADA 190

CAPTAIN EDE 192

CARMAN 194

CHAIRS 194

CHAMPION 196

CHILI 198

CHINESE CLING 198

CLIMAX 200

CROSBY 202

DAVIDSON 204

EARLY CRAWFORD 206

EARLY YORK 208

EDGEMONT 208

ELBERTA 210

ENGLE 212

EUREKA 212

FAMILY FAVORITE 214

FITZGERALD 214

FOSTER 216

GENERAL LEE 216

GEORGE IV 218

GOLD DROP 220

GOVERNOR HOGG 220

GREENSBORO 222

HALE EARLY 222

HEATH CLING 224

HEATH FREE 226

HILEY 226

HYNES 228

ILLINOIS 230

IMPERIAL 230

IRON MOUNTAIN 232

J. H. HALE 234

JENNIE WORTHEN 236

KALAMAZOO 236

KENTUCKY (NECTARINE) 84

LAMONT 238

LATE CRAWFORD 240

LATE RARERIPE 242

LEMON FREE 244

LOLA 246

MAMIE ROSS 246

MAY LEE 248

MORRIS WHITE 250

MOUNTAIN ROSE 250

MUIR 252

NEWTON (NECTARINE) 84

NIAGARA 254

OLDMIXON CLING 254

OLDMIXON FREE 256

PALLAS 258

PEARSON 260

PEENTO 260

PROLIFIC 262

PRUNUS DAVIDIANA 86

RAY 262

RED CHEEK MELOCOTON 264

REEVES 266

RIVERS 266

ROCHESTER 268

ST. JOHN 270

SALWEY 272

SCHUMAKER 274

SMOCK 274

STEVENS 276

STUMP 278

SUMMER SNOW 278

SURPASSE 280

THURBER 280

TRIANA 282

TRIUMPH 282

WADDELL 284

WAGER 286

WATERLOO 288

WHEATLAND 288

YELLOW RARERIPE 290

PEACH BLOSSOMS

ALTON (LARGE FLOWERED) 78

BLOOD LEAF 78

CHINESE FREE (MEDIUM FLOWERED) 80

CROSBY (SMALL FLOWERED) 80

KENTUCKY (NECTARINE) 82

SUMMER SNOW (WHITE FLOWERED) 82

THE PEACHES OF NEW YORK

CHAPTER I. History of the Peach

HISTORY OF THE PEACH

The history of the peach follows step by step the history of agriculture. The beginning of agriculture, as depicted in the traditions and embellished in the poetry of ancient peoples, was the creation of useful plants by some Divinity. But, counting unwritten history and poetic fancy as naught and coming to recorded facts--those of history as we now have it--the beginning of agriculture is marked by two recorded events. The first occurred 2700 years B. C. when Emperor Chenming, Ruler of China, instituted ceremonies for the sowing of various vegetables and grains. The second event was the building of the Great Pyramid of Gizeh by some ruler who lorded it over Egypt between 2500 to 2000 years B. C. and who ornamented his handiwork with drawings of figs.

Yet these early records in China and Egypt were not made at the beginnings of agriculture in those countries. Plants were undoubtedly cultivated centuries before it occurred to Emperor Chenming that rice, wheat and other crops deserved ceremonial sowings. The pyramids of Gizeh could only have been built by an organized, civilized people with cultivated fields on which to levy toll for the dormant season and lean years--pyramids could hardly be raised by a people forced to skim a day-to-day existence from wild plants. "Art is long and time is fleeting" in agriculture, and between the obscure beginnings of this ancient art, when naked men following the chase began to vary a meat diet with fruits, grains and roots plucked from the wild, and the regular cultivation of useful plants, as implied by these old records from China and Egypt, there are many steps and thousands and thousands of years.

If, then, the history of the peach begins with the history of agriculture, and the beginnings of agriculture are lost in the obscurity of antiquity, it is useless to speculate as to how long the peach has been cultivated. The statements of the early historians as to the age of the domesticated peach are so at variance that they serve only to confuse. Indeed, were we to attempt to bring into agreement the diverse assertions of historians we should never know even the place of origin of the peach; for it is upon data from botany that we must depend most in determining the habitat of our fruit. This subject we now come to discuss in detail.

THE ORIGIN OF THE PEACH

Names frequently breed misunderstandings and in the case of the peach a fine brood of mistakes as to the origin of the fruit has come from the name. As all know, "peach" and most of its equivalents in the countries of Europe are derived from "Persia" and this has given rise to the supposition that the original habitat of the fruit is Persia. The ancient authors who mention the peach, as Theophrastus, Columella and Pliny, agree that the home of the peach was Persia and, even until our own time, to be written in any of these worthies is proof conclusive. While negative evidence counts for but little, the notion is so firmly fixed that some, at least, of the races of peaches are Persian products that it seems best to clear the way for positive evidence by first proving that the first home of the peach was not Persia.

Persia is pictured as a land of fruits before agriculture had begun in Greece and Rome. The quince and the pomegranate probably originated here and, with the olive, grape, almond, and, to the north at least, the cherry and plum, have been cultivated from three to four thousand years.

At very early times the quince, pomegranate, olive and grape were introduced from Persia, according to De Candolle, still our best authority, into Greece and Rome and even the cherry and plum, from countries to the north if not from Persia, reached southern Europe long before the peach. It seems certain, as De Candolle suggests, that if the peach had been a native of Persia, had it existed there during all time, so beautiful and so delectable a fruit would have been taken earlier into Asia Minor and Greece. As gratifying to all the senses by which we judge fruits as any other product of the orchard, as easily transported and propagated as any--more so than most--it cannot be believed that the other fruits named would have been given preference over the peach by conquerors or travelers carrying Persian luxuries to westward countries.

Moreover, as De Candolle further points out, the several Hebrew and Sanskrit peoples did not speak in sacred or vulgar writings of the peach as they did many times of the olive, quince, grape and pomegranate. Yet these peoples radiated from the valleys of the Euphrates and were at all times in close communication with Persia. Since, according to the authoritative De Candolle, Xenophon, who retreated with the ten thousand 401 B. C., does not mention the peach, this fruit probably did not reach Greece until Alexander's expedition and was first mentioned by Theophrastus 332 B. C. (if the fruit mentioned by Theophrastus is the peach) and did not reach Rome until after the beginning of the Christian era.

The more one examines historical records the more evident it becomes that Greek and Roman writers assumed that the habitat of the peach, which they called the Persian apple, was Persia because it came thence to their countries. Ancient historians very commonly and very confusingly made the assumption that the region from which a plant product came to their country was its first habitat.

The best means of establishing the origin of a plant is to discover in what country it grows spontaneously. This would be a simple matter, indeed, if one could be sure that a given plant found growing wild is not an escape from cultivation. Here is the trouble in the case of the peach. According to the botanists the tree is now growing wild in Persia, as it is in nearby countries, and for that matter in other parts of the Old World and in many places in the New World. The painstaking De Candolle, who has carefully sifted the evidence of the leading botanists until his time of writing, 1882, concludes that the peach has never been truly wild in Persia. An examination of the works of botanists writing since De Candolle's study of the subject does not show that any offers proof that the peach was originally wild in Persia.

Without going into the matter further it seems safe to say that the Greek and Roman writers were at fault in naming Persia as the home of the peach. To summarize: its late distribution, as compared with that of other Persian fruits argues against such an origin; philology, which usually affords indications touching the habitat of a species, is against the Persian theory of origin since neither Hebrew nor Sanskrit names the peach; lastly, botany, the most direct means of discovering the geographic origin of a plant, offers no positive evidence that Persia is the home of the peach. The fallacy that the peach comes from Persia, written in nearly all horticultural and botanical works for 2000 years, now being disposed of, we may take up the claim of China that the peach is another of its great gifts to the world.

A survey of the subject is convincing that the peach comes from China. Necessarily, such a survey must be brief, yet it is important that no doubt be left as to the origin of the peach, thus freeing pomological literature from the train of misunderstandings following the current opinion that part of our peaches, at least, come from Persia. The terms "Persian peaches" and the "Persian race of peaches" are misleading and should be discarded. Data from botany and history furnish the chief proofs that the fruit of this discussion is of Chinese origin.

Continue reading The Peaches of New York free in the Wunder reader →