SEEDLINGS FROM BUDDED PEACHES.Mr. Nicholas Longworthinquires: “Will the pit of the budded peach produce the same fruit as the bud, or as the stock, or a mixture of the two?” And he also says, “I have never fairly tested the question, but my experience led me to believe that the budded pit produced the same fruit as the original stock.”So far as this question can be determined (independently of experiment) upon the known laws of the vegetable kingdom, we say that it willnotproduce fruit like that of the original stock; nor will it, on the other hand, with any certainty, reproduce the budded kind.If the pit of a budded variety takes after thestock, we must very much change our theory of the office of leaves, and perhaps of the bark. At present, the received and orthodox teaching is, that the sap from the root is crude and undigested until it has received in the leaf a chemical change. Until then, the sap does not materially influence the vegetable tissue, nor form new substance, or affect the fruit. Butafterits elaboration in the leaf, a returning current of prepared sap (similar in its functions to arterial blood), sets downward, distributing to every part of the vegetable economy the properties required by each. The sap arising from the root, does not touch the channel of fruit until it has been chemically changed; and the difference exhibited in the fruit of one tree compared with another, arises, primarily from the nature of the sap which it receives; the sap receives its qualities by a digestion in the leaf.[15]In all cases, then, we suppose theleafto determine the nature of the fruit (and the root in no case, and the trunk in no case), since the stem is, so far as sap is concerned, but a bundle of canals for its passage—a mere highwayfor transmission—and not like the leaf, a laboratory for its preparation![16]We may be reminded that astock, in point of fact,doesinfluence the fruit. It is indisputable that pears are changed on quince roots. TheWilkinson, grafted upon the quince, is smaller, more prolific, higher flavored, and of a brighter red cheek than if grafted on the pear. The Duchesse d’Angoulême is larger and better on the quince than on its own roots. But what istheinfluence in this case? When a free-grower is put upon a slow-grower, the point of junction becomes a point of comparativeobstructionto the return-sap. It is only a wholesome process ofringing, or decortication. Lindley says:“When pears are worked upon the wild species, apples upon crabs, and peaches upon peaches, the scion is, in regard to fertility, exactly in the same state as if it had not been grafted at all: while, on the other hand, a great increase of fertility, is the result of grafting pears upon quinces, peaches upon plums, apples upon the thorn, and the like. In these cases, the food absorbed from the earth by the root of the stock is communicated slowly.” AndManning adds: “No other influence have we ever noticed exercised by the scion upon the stock.”But if, after all, it can be shown by actual trial, that the pits of budded peachesDOgo back to the fruit of the stock, why we must receive it, in spite of all theory; for, (and some would do well to heed the maxim), facts must rule our theories, and not theories our fact. But we may properly put any facts seeming to contravene the received theory of the functions of plants in producing fruit,upon their oath, and refuse them, unless they are unquestionable and relevant.Suppose a budded peach not to yield a fruit at all like the bud, suppose it to resemble the fruit of the stock, it does not follow that thestockinfluenced the fruit to such a change. Mr. Longworth knows how freely some peaches “sport,” and that all peaches may be made to do it. If a Melacatune be budded upon a Red Rareripe, and the Melacatune pit shows a fruit resembling the Red Rareripe, it must be shown that the blossom had not been crossed by the busy offices of flies, bees, etc., with the pollen of contiguous Red Rareripe-trees.When a tree is evensolitary, it does not follow that a change in fruit which shall make it resemble the stock more than the graft, results from the forceof the stockon the grafted fruit, for seedlings of grafted fruit are, notoriously often, base and degenerate; and the resemblance might be accidental, for seedlings of different origin are often strikingly alike.While we are aware of no facts which justify Mr. Longworth’s suspicion, that the pits of budded varieties produce kinds like the stock on which the bud was put, we have facts enough showing that “budded pits” produce their own kind.It may be added thatthoroughlyripe peaches are less inclined to “sport” than those which are partially green.[15]The fruit itself still further elaborates the sap, else a peach would be as acrid as the juice of the peach leaf.[16]Loudon (Encyclopædia of Gardening,p.448), has the following remarks:“The bark is the medium in which the proper juices of the plant, in their descent from the leaves, are finally elaborated and brought to the state which is peculiar to the species. From the bark these juices are communicated to the medullary rays, to be by them deposited in the tissue of the wood. The character of timber, therefore, depends chiefly upon the influence of the bark: and hence, it is that the wood formed above a graft never partakes, in the slightest degree, of the nature of the wood below it. The bark, when young and green, like the leaves, is supposed, like them, to elaborate the sap, and hence may be considered as the universal leaf of a plant.”These views corroborate the reasoning above, although Loudon extends the functions of the leaf to thebark. We have not been able, in our limited range of books, to find any other authority for this statement, respecting the “young and green bark.”
Mr. Nicholas Longworthinquires: “Will the pit of the budded peach produce the same fruit as the bud, or as the stock, or a mixture of the two?” And he also says, “I have never fairly tested the question, but my experience led me to believe that the budded pit produced the same fruit as the original stock.”
So far as this question can be determined (independently of experiment) upon the known laws of the vegetable kingdom, we say that it willnotproduce fruit like that of the original stock; nor will it, on the other hand, with any certainty, reproduce the budded kind.
If the pit of a budded variety takes after thestock, we must very much change our theory of the office of leaves, and perhaps of the bark. At present, the received and orthodox teaching is, that the sap from the root is crude and undigested until it has received in the leaf a chemical change. Until then, the sap does not materially influence the vegetable tissue, nor form new substance, or affect the fruit. Butafterits elaboration in the leaf, a returning current of prepared sap (similar in its functions to arterial blood), sets downward, distributing to every part of the vegetable economy the properties required by each. The sap arising from the root, does not touch the channel of fruit until it has been chemically changed; and the difference exhibited in the fruit of one tree compared with another, arises, primarily from the nature of the sap which it receives; the sap receives its qualities by a digestion in the leaf.[15]In all cases, then, we suppose theleafto determine the nature of the fruit (and the root in no case, and the trunk in no case), since the stem is, so far as sap is concerned, but a bundle of canals for its passage—a mere highwayfor transmission—and not like the leaf, a laboratory for its preparation![16]
We may be reminded that astock, in point of fact,doesinfluence the fruit. It is indisputable that pears are changed on quince roots. TheWilkinson, grafted upon the quince, is smaller, more prolific, higher flavored, and of a brighter red cheek than if grafted on the pear. The Duchesse d’Angoulême is larger and better on the quince than on its own roots. But what istheinfluence in this case? When a free-grower is put upon a slow-grower, the point of junction becomes a point of comparativeobstructionto the return-sap. It is only a wholesome process ofringing, or decortication. Lindley says:
“When pears are worked upon the wild species, apples upon crabs, and peaches upon peaches, the scion is, in regard to fertility, exactly in the same state as if it had not been grafted at all: while, on the other hand, a great increase of fertility, is the result of grafting pears upon quinces, peaches upon plums, apples upon the thorn, and the like. In these cases, the food absorbed from the earth by the root of the stock is communicated slowly.” AndManning adds: “No other influence have we ever noticed exercised by the scion upon the stock.”
But if, after all, it can be shown by actual trial, that the pits of budded peachesDOgo back to the fruit of the stock, why we must receive it, in spite of all theory; for, (and some would do well to heed the maxim), facts must rule our theories, and not theories our fact. But we may properly put any facts seeming to contravene the received theory of the functions of plants in producing fruit,upon their oath, and refuse them, unless they are unquestionable and relevant.
Suppose a budded peach not to yield a fruit at all like the bud, suppose it to resemble the fruit of the stock, it does not follow that thestockinfluenced the fruit to such a change. Mr. Longworth knows how freely some peaches “sport,” and that all peaches may be made to do it. If a Melacatune be budded upon a Red Rareripe, and the Melacatune pit shows a fruit resembling the Red Rareripe, it must be shown that the blossom had not been crossed by the busy offices of flies, bees, etc., with the pollen of contiguous Red Rareripe-trees.
When a tree is evensolitary, it does not follow that a change in fruit which shall make it resemble the stock more than the graft, results from the forceof the stockon the grafted fruit, for seedlings of grafted fruit are, notoriously often, base and degenerate; and the resemblance might be accidental, for seedlings of different origin are often strikingly alike.
While we are aware of no facts which justify Mr. Longworth’s suspicion, that the pits of budded varieties produce kinds like the stock on which the bud was put, we have facts enough showing that “budded pits” produce their own kind.
It may be added thatthoroughlyripe peaches are less inclined to “sport” than those which are partially green.
[15]The fruit itself still further elaborates the sap, else a peach would be as acrid as the juice of the peach leaf.
[16]Loudon (Encyclopædia of Gardening,p.448), has the following remarks:
“The bark is the medium in which the proper juices of the plant, in their descent from the leaves, are finally elaborated and brought to the state which is peculiar to the species. From the bark these juices are communicated to the medullary rays, to be by them deposited in the tissue of the wood. The character of timber, therefore, depends chiefly upon the influence of the bark: and hence, it is that the wood formed above a graft never partakes, in the slightest degree, of the nature of the wood below it. The bark, when young and green, like the leaves, is supposed, like them, to elaborate the sap, and hence may be considered as the universal leaf of a plant.”
These views corroborate the reasoning above, although Loudon extends the functions of the leaf to thebark. We have not been able, in our limited range of books, to find any other authority for this statement, respecting the “young and green bark.”