SEEDLING FRUITS.Alreadythe varieties of hardy fruits have become so numerous, that not only can they not all be cultivated, but the mere list of names is too bulky to be printed. Downing’s book gives a list of 181 apples. The London Horticultural Society’s Catalogue, expurgated at that, gives 900 kinds of apples, and 1,500 have been tested in the Society’s gardens. Manning’s experimental grounds and nursery at the time of his death, contained 1,000 named varieties of the pear! Swollen as is the list, there are scores annually added; many under the advice of scientific bodies; many have popular approbation; many from the partialities of some parental nurseryman; and many come in, as evil came into this world, no one can tell how.It has become necessary, therefore, to exclude many from the catalogue, and especially necessary that none should enter without the very best passport. In the main, one set of tests will serve, both for receiving and expurgating; for no matter how long a fruit has been on the list, it should be ejected if, being out, its qualities would not gain it a fresh admission. There are no hereditary rights, or rights of occupancy, in pomological lists.Titles, rank, antiquity, pedigree and other merciful means of compensating a want of personal merit, may do formenbut not forapples. A very glorious pomological reformation broke out in the London Horticultural Society’s gardens at Chiswick, and that Luther of the orchard, Mr. Thompson, has abolished an astonishing number of sinecures, and reformed, if not worthless rotten boroughs, very worthless apples and pears. The Society’s first catalogue issued in 1826. Its third catalogue was published in December of 1842. The experience of the intervening sixteen years led to the total rejection from their list, on the ground of inferiority, or as synonyms, of 600 varieties of apples; 139 of cherries; 200 of gooseberries; 82 of grapes,80 of strawberries; 150 of peaches; 200 of pears; and 150 of plums. Onlytwenty-eightpeaches are allowed to stand; and onlytwenty-sixstrawberries out of the hundreds that were proved. We have no similar society in the United States whose authority would be generally acknowledged. Our only resource is the diffusion of the very best fruits that every neighborhood may have a standard of comparison by the reduction of experience to the form of rules. Although it is difficult to lay down general rules on this subject, there are three which may be mentioned.1.No fruit should be admitted to the list and none retained upon it, which is decidedly poor.—One would suppose this truism to be superfluous as a rule. But it is only necessary to go out into seedling orchards in any neighborhood to find small, tough, and flavorless apples, which hold their place alongside of orchards filled with choice grafted fruit.2.No seedling fruit should be added to the list, which is in no respect better than those of the same period of ripening already cultivated.—It is not enough that an apple is nearly or quite as good as another favorite apple. It must be as good in flavor, and better in some of its habits.3.In testing the merits of fruit, an estimate should be the result of a consideration of all the habits, jointly, of the tree and of the fruit.—It is in the application of this rule that great experience and judgment are required. This will be plain, if one considers how many essential particulars enter into a first-rate fruit beside mere flavor.Of two fruits equal in flavor, one may surpass the other in tenderness of flesh, in juiciness, in delicacy of skin, and in size. It is rare that any single fruit combines all these excellences, and therefore it is that we retain several varieties, among which such properties are distributed.There are many fruits which, having good substance and flavor, derive their value from some single peculiarity.Thus a fruit may be no better than many others, but the tree, blooming very late in spring, is seldom overtaken by prowling and irregular frosts. Some of our best fruits have stingy bearing-trees, or trees of very tender and delicate habit; and we are obliged to tolerate more hardy and prolific trees with fruit somewhat inferior.A few fruits are retained on the list because they have the singular property of being uninjured by frosts, and others because, though not remarkable for flavor, they are endless keepers, of both which properties the Rawle’s Jennetting is an example.In fruits designed for market, beauty and abundance must be allowed to supersede mere excellence of flavor. Some very rich fruits are borne in such a parsimonious way that none but amateurs can afford tree-room.Nor are we to overlook nursery qualifications; for, of two fruits equally good, preference should be given to that which will work the kindliest in the nursery. Some will bear grafting on the root, some will not; some take well by budding, and grow off promptly and with force; others are dull and slugglish, and often reluctant to form the new partnership. While then it will always be to the nurseryman’s interest to work such kinds as he can sell the most of—he has a right, in so far as he directs the public judgment of his neighborhood, to give a preference, among equal fruits, to such as work the surest and strongest. It is as much the interest of the purchaser and the public to have the freest growing sorts, as it is the nurseryman’s interest. Thus, if another Seckle pear could be found growing on the tree of Williams’Bon Chrétien, it ought to supplant the old Seckle tree, which, in spite of its incomparable fruit, is a vexatious thing to manage; and, as often in the case of other and fairer fruit, makes one wonder how such amiable and beautiful daughters ever had such a surly and crusty old father.A pomological censor must also have regard to varietiesof taste among men, and to commercial qualities of fruit, and to its adaptation to soil and climate.No one man has a right to make his tongue the monarch over other people’s tongues. Therefore, for instance, it is none of our business, if a rugged mouth chooses to roll a slice of the austere Vanderveer pippin, like sin, as a sweet morsel under his tongue. The mild delicacy of an apple, which fills our mouths with admiration, would be mere insipidity to all who are favored with leather mouths. So that there must be toleration even among apple-mongers.Nor are the humbler tests of cooking to be overlooked. Some fruits are good eaters and poor cookers; some cook well but are villainous to the taste when raw; some will stew to a fine flavor and sweetnesswithout sugar, and some have remarkable jelly properties. But after the largest allowance is made for taste, hardiness, keeping, prolific bearing, color, size, texture, season, adaptation to soils, etc., etc., there will be found, we think, a large number of tenants in our nurserymen’s catalogues, upon whom should be instantly served a writ of ejectment.
Alreadythe varieties of hardy fruits have become so numerous, that not only can they not all be cultivated, but the mere list of names is too bulky to be printed. Downing’s book gives a list of 181 apples. The London Horticultural Society’s Catalogue, expurgated at that, gives 900 kinds of apples, and 1,500 have been tested in the Society’s gardens. Manning’s experimental grounds and nursery at the time of his death, contained 1,000 named varieties of the pear! Swollen as is the list, there are scores annually added; many under the advice of scientific bodies; many have popular approbation; many from the partialities of some parental nurseryman; and many come in, as evil came into this world, no one can tell how.
It has become necessary, therefore, to exclude many from the catalogue, and especially necessary that none should enter without the very best passport. In the main, one set of tests will serve, both for receiving and expurgating; for no matter how long a fruit has been on the list, it should be ejected if, being out, its qualities would not gain it a fresh admission. There are no hereditary rights, or rights of occupancy, in pomological lists.
Titles, rank, antiquity, pedigree and other merciful means of compensating a want of personal merit, may do formenbut not forapples. A very glorious pomological reformation broke out in the London Horticultural Society’s gardens at Chiswick, and that Luther of the orchard, Mr. Thompson, has abolished an astonishing number of sinecures, and reformed, if not worthless rotten boroughs, very worthless apples and pears. The Society’s first catalogue issued in 1826. Its third catalogue was published in December of 1842. The experience of the intervening sixteen years led to the total rejection from their list, on the ground of inferiority, or as synonyms, of 600 varieties of apples; 139 of cherries; 200 of gooseberries; 82 of grapes,80 of strawberries; 150 of peaches; 200 of pears; and 150 of plums. Onlytwenty-eightpeaches are allowed to stand; and onlytwenty-sixstrawberries out of the hundreds that were proved. We have no similar society in the United States whose authority would be generally acknowledged. Our only resource is the diffusion of the very best fruits that every neighborhood may have a standard of comparison by the reduction of experience to the form of rules. Although it is difficult to lay down general rules on this subject, there are three which may be mentioned.
1.No fruit should be admitted to the list and none retained upon it, which is decidedly poor.—One would suppose this truism to be superfluous as a rule. But it is only necessary to go out into seedling orchards in any neighborhood to find small, tough, and flavorless apples, which hold their place alongside of orchards filled with choice grafted fruit.
2.No seedling fruit should be added to the list, which is in no respect better than those of the same period of ripening already cultivated.—It is not enough that an apple is nearly or quite as good as another favorite apple. It must be as good in flavor, and better in some of its habits.
3.In testing the merits of fruit, an estimate should be the result of a consideration of all the habits, jointly, of the tree and of the fruit.—It is in the application of this rule that great experience and judgment are required. This will be plain, if one considers how many essential particulars enter into a first-rate fruit beside mere flavor.
Of two fruits equal in flavor, one may surpass the other in tenderness of flesh, in juiciness, in delicacy of skin, and in size. It is rare that any single fruit combines all these excellences, and therefore it is that we retain several varieties, among which such properties are distributed.
There are many fruits which, having good substance and flavor, derive their value from some single peculiarity.Thus a fruit may be no better than many others, but the tree, blooming very late in spring, is seldom overtaken by prowling and irregular frosts. Some of our best fruits have stingy bearing-trees, or trees of very tender and delicate habit; and we are obliged to tolerate more hardy and prolific trees with fruit somewhat inferior.
A few fruits are retained on the list because they have the singular property of being uninjured by frosts, and others because, though not remarkable for flavor, they are endless keepers, of both which properties the Rawle’s Jennetting is an example.
In fruits designed for market, beauty and abundance must be allowed to supersede mere excellence of flavor. Some very rich fruits are borne in such a parsimonious way that none but amateurs can afford tree-room.
Nor are we to overlook nursery qualifications; for, of two fruits equally good, preference should be given to that which will work the kindliest in the nursery. Some will bear grafting on the root, some will not; some take well by budding, and grow off promptly and with force; others are dull and slugglish, and often reluctant to form the new partnership. While then it will always be to the nurseryman’s interest to work such kinds as he can sell the most of—he has a right, in so far as he directs the public judgment of his neighborhood, to give a preference, among equal fruits, to such as work the surest and strongest. It is as much the interest of the purchaser and the public to have the freest growing sorts, as it is the nurseryman’s interest. Thus, if another Seckle pear could be found growing on the tree of Williams’Bon Chrétien, it ought to supplant the old Seckle tree, which, in spite of its incomparable fruit, is a vexatious thing to manage; and, as often in the case of other and fairer fruit, makes one wonder how such amiable and beautiful daughters ever had such a surly and crusty old father.
A pomological censor must also have regard to varietiesof taste among men, and to commercial qualities of fruit, and to its adaptation to soil and climate.
No one man has a right to make his tongue the monarch over other people’s tongues. Therefore, for instance, it is none of our business, if a rugged mouth chooses to roll a slice of the austere Vanderveer pippin, like sin, as a sweet morsel under his tongue. The mild delicacy of an apple, which fills our mouths with admiration, would be mere insipidity to all who are favored with leather mouths. So that there must be toleration even among apple-mongers.
Nor are the humbler tests of cooking to be overlooked. Some fruits are good eaters and poor cookers; some cook well but are villainous to the taste when raw; some will stew to a fine flavor and sweetnesswithout sugar, and some have remarkable jelly properties. But after the largest allowance is made for taste, hardiness, keeping, prolific bearing, color, size, texture, season, adaptation to soils, etc., etc., there will be found, we think, a large number of tenants in our nurserymen’s catalogues, upon whom should be instantly served a writ of ejectment.