THE STRAWBERRY CONTROVERSY.Noman will deny that in their cultivated state, strawberries are found, in respect to their blossoms, in three conditions: first, blossoms with stamens alone, the pistillate organs being mere rudiments; second, blossoms with pistillate organs developed fully, but the stamens very imperfect, and inefficient; third, blossoms in which staminate and pistillate organs are both about equally developed.There are two questions arising on this state of facts; one, a question of mere vegetable physiology,viz., Is such a state of organization peculiar to this plant originally, or is it induced by cultivation? The other question is one of eminent practical importance,viz., What effect has this state of organization upon the success of cultivation?Passing by the first question, for the present, we would say of the second that, asubstantialagreement has at length, been obtained. It is on all hands conceded that staminate plants, or those possessing only stamens, and not pistillate organs, are unfruitful. Any other opinion would now be regarded as an absurdity. It is equally well understood that pistillate plants, or those in which the female organs are fully, and the male organs scarcely at all developed, are unfruitful. No one would attempt to breed a herd of cattle from malesexclusively, or fromfemales; and, for precisely the same reason, strawberries cannot be had from plants substantially male, or substantially female, where each are kept to themselves.But a difference yet exists among cultivators as to the facts respecting those blossoms which containbothmale and female organs, or, as they are called,perfectflowering plants.Mr. Longworth states, if we understand him, substantially, that perfect-flowering varieties will bear but moderate crops, and, usually, of small fruit.On the other hand, Dr. Brinkle, whose seedling strawberrieswe noticed in a former article, Mr. Downing, and several other eminent cultivators adopt the contrary opinion, that,with care, large crops of large fruit may be obtained from perfect-flowering plants. This question is yet, then, to be settled.It is ardently to be hoped that, hereafter, we shall have less premature and positive assertion, upon unripe observations, than has characterized the early stages of this controversy. We will take the liberty of following Mr. Hovey in his magazine, between the years 1842 and 1846, not for any pleasure that we have in the singular vicissitudes of opinion chronicled there, but because an eminent cultivator, writer, and editor of, hitherto, the only horticultural magazine in our country, has such influence and authority in forming the morals and customs of the kingdom of Horticulture, that every free subject of this beautiful realm is interested to have its chiefs men of such accuracy that it will not be dangerous to take their statements.In 1842, Mr. Longworth communicated an article on the fertile and sterile characters of several varieties of strawberries for Mr. Hovey’s magazine, which Mr. H. for subject-matter, indorsed. In the November number, Mr. Colt substantially advocated the sentiments of Mr. L.; and the editor, remarking upon Mr. Coit’s article, recognized distinctly the existence of male and female plants.He (Mr. H.) says that, of four kinds mentioned by Mr. C. as unfruitful, two were so “from the want of staminateormale plants;” and “the cause of the barrennessis thus easily explained.” And he goes on to explain divers cases upon this hypothesis; and still more resolutely he says, that all wild strawberries have not perfect flowers; “in a dozen or two plants which we examined last springsome were perfect(the italics are ours) having both stamens and pistils;others, only pistils, andothers, only stamens; thus showing that thedefect, mentioned by Mr. Longworth, exists in the original species.” He closes by urging cultivators to setrows of early Virginia among the beds for the sake of impregnating the rest.Mr. Hovey’s next formal notice was exactly one year from the foregoing, November, 1843, and it appears thus: “We believe it is now the generally received opinionof all intelligent cultivators(italics are ours again) that there isno necessity of making any distinction in regard to the sexual character of the plants When forming new beds. The idea of male and female flowers, first originated, we believe, by Mr. Longworth, of Ohio, is now consideredas exploded.” Such a sudden change as this was brought about, he says, by additional information received during that year by means of his correspondents, and by more experience on his own part. He says nothing of male blossoms and female blossoms,which he had himself seen in wild strawberries. Mr. Hovey then assumed the theory thatcultivation, good or bad, is the cause of fertile or unfertile beds of strawberries, and he says: “in conclusion, we think we may safely aver, that there is not the least necessity of cultivatingany one strawberry near another(our italics) to insure the fertility of the plants,providedthey are under a proper state of cultivation.”Mr. Hovey now instituted experiments, which he promised to publish, by which to bring the matter to the only true test; and he, from time to time, re-promised to give the result to the public, which, thus far, we believe, he has forgotten to do.His magazine for 1844 opens, as that of 1843 closed; and in the first number he says, “the oftener our attention is called to this subject, the more we feel confirmed in the opinon that the theory of Mr. Longworth is entirely unfounded; that there isno such thing as male and female plants, though certain causes may produce, as we know they have, fertile and sterile ones.”Nevertheless, in the next issue but one this peremptory language is again softened down, and a doubt even appears,when he says, “IfMr. Longworth’s theory should prove true,”etc.We, among others, waited anxiously for the promised experiments; but if published we never saw them. The subject rather died out of his magazine until August, 1845, when, in speaking of the Boston Pine, a second fine seedling of his own raising, he is seen bearing away on the other tack, if not withallsails set, yet with enough to give the ship headway in the right direction: “Let the causes be what they may, it is sufficient for all practical purposes, to know, thatthe most abundant crops(italics ours) can be produced by planting some sort abounding instaminateflowers, in the near vicinity of those which do not possess them.”P.293. And onp.444 he reiterates the advice to plant near the staminate varieties. In the August number for 1846,p.309, Mr. Hovey shows himself a thorough convert to Mr. Longworth’s views, by indorsing, in the main, the report of the committee of the Cincinnati Horticultural Society. We hope after so various a voyage, touching at so many points, that he will now abide steadfast in the truth.We look upon this as a very grave matter, not because the strawberry question is of such paramount, although it is of no inconsiderable importance; but it is of importance whether accredited scientific magazines should be trustworthy; whether writers or popular editors should be responsible for mistakes entirely unnecessary. We blame no man for vacillation, while yet in the process of investigation, nor for coming at the truth gradually, since this is the necessity of our condition to learn only by degrees, and by painful siftings. The very first requisite for a writer is, that he be worthy of trust in his statements. No man can be trusted who ventures opinions upon uninvestigated matters; who states facts with assurance which he has not really ascertained; who evinces rashness, haste, carelessness, credulity, or fickleness in his judgments. The question of perfect or imperfect blossoms depends upon the simplest exercise of eyesight. It requires no measurements,no process of the laboratory, no minute dissections or nice calculations; it requires only that a man shouldseewhat helooksat.When a boy, playing “how many fingers do I hold up,” by dint of peeping from under the bandage, we managed to make very clever guesses of how many lily-fingers some roguish lassie was holding in tempting show before our bandaged eyes; but some folks are not half so lucky with both eyes wide open, and the stamens and pistils standing before them.If such a latitude is permitted to those who conduct the investigations peculiar to horticulture, who can confide in the publication of facts, observations or experiments? Of what use will be journals and magazines? They become like chronometers that will not keep time; like a compass that has lost its magnetic sensibility; like a guide who has lost his own way, and leads his followers through brake, and morass, and thicket, into interminable wanderings. Sometimes, the consciousness of faults in ourselves, which should make us lenient toward others, only serves to produce irritable fault-finding. After a comparison of opinions and facts, through a space of five years, with the most distinguished cultivators, East and West, Mr. Longworth is now universally admitted to have sustained himself in all the essential points which he first promulgated—notdiscovered, for he made no claims of that sort. The gardeners and the magazines of the East have, at length, adopted his practical views, after having stoutly, many of them, contested them.It was, therefore, with unfeigned surprise, that we read Mr. Hovey’s latest remarks in the September number of his magazine, in which, with some asperity, he roundly charges Mr. Longworth with manifold errors, and treats him with a contempt which would lead one, ignorant of the controversy, to suppose that Mr. Hovey had never made a mistake, and that Mr. Longworth had been particularlyfertile of them. Thus: “Mr. Longworth’s remarks abound in so many errors and inconsistencies, that we shall expect scarcely to notice all.” “Anothergross assertion,” etc. Referring to another topic, he says, “This question we, therefore, consider as satisfactorily settled, without discussing Mr. Longworth’s conflicting views about male and female, Keen’s,” etc.This somewhat tragical comedy is now nearly played out, and we have spoken a word just before the fall of the curtain, because, as chroniclers of events, and critics of horticultural literature and learning, it seemed no less than our duty. We have highly appreciated Mr. Hovey’s various exertions for the promotion of the art and science of horticulture, nor will his manifest errors and short-comings in this particular instance, disincline us to receive from his pen whatsoever is good.We hope that our remarks will not be construed as a defence of western men or western theories, but as the defence of the truth, and of one who has truly expounded it, though, in this case, theory and its defender happen to be of western origin. Whatever errors have crept into Mr. Longworth’s remarks should be faithfully expurgated; and perhaps it may be Mr. Hovey’s duty to perform the lustration. If so, courtesy would seem to require that it should be done with some consciousness, that through this whole controversy Mr. Longworth is now admitted to have been right in all essential matters; and if in error at all, only in minor particulars, while Mr. Hovey, in all the controversy, in respect to the plainest facts, has been changing from wrong to right, from right to wrong, and from wrong back to right again. We do not think that the admirable benefits which Mr. Longworth has conferred upon the whole community by urging the improved method of cultivating the strawberry, has been adequately appreciated. We still less like to see gratitude expressed in the shape of snarling gibes and petty cavils.We will close these remarks by the correction of a matter which Mr. Downing states. While he assents to all thepracticalaspects of Mr. Longworth’s views, he dissents as to some matters of fact and philosophy, and among others, to the fact that Hovey’s seedling isalwaysandonlya pistillate plant. He thinks that originally it hadperfectflowers, but that after bearing twice or thrice on the same roots the plants degenerate and become either pistillate or staminate. He says, “Hovey’s seedling strawberry, at first, was a perfect sort in its flower, but at this moment more than half the plants in this country have become pistillate.”Mr. Hovey himself states the contrary onp.112 of his magazine for 1844. He denies that there are two kinds of blossoms to his seedling, and says, “the flowers are all of one kind, with both pistils and stamens,but the latter quite short and hidden under the receptacle.” This is the common form of allpistillateblossoms, and shows, in so far as Mr. Hovey’s observations are to be trusted, that, at its starting-point and home, Hovey’s seedling was, as with us it now invariably is, so far as we have ever seen it, a pistillate plant.
Noman will deny that in their cultivated state, strawberries are found, in respect to their blossoms, in three conditions: first, blossoms with stamens alone, the pistillate organs being mere rudiments; second, blossoms with pistillate organs developed fully, but the stamens very imperfect, and inefficient; third, blossoms in which staminate and pistillate organs are both about equally developed.
There are two questions arising on this state of facts; one, a question of mere vegetable physiology,viz., Is such a state of organization peculiar to this plant originally, or is it induced by cultivation? The other question is one of eminent practical importance,viz., What effect has this state of organization upon the success of cultivation?
Passing by the first question, for the present, we would say of the second that, asubstantialagreement has at length, been obtained. It is on all hands conceded that staminate plants, or those possessing only stamens, and not pistillate organs, are unfruitful. Any other opinion would now be regarded as an absurdity. It is equally well understood that pistillate plants, or those in which the female organs are fully, and the male organs scarcely at all developed, are unfruitful. No one would attempt to breed a herd of cattle from malesexclusively, or fromfemales; and, for precisely the same reason, strawberries cannot be had from plants substantially male, or substantially female, where each are kept to themselves.
But a difference yet exists among cultivators as to the facts respecting those blossoms which containbothmale and female organs, or, as they are called,perfectflowering plants.
Mr. Longworth states, if we understand him, substantially, that perfect-flowering varieties will bear but moderate crops, and, usually, of small fruit.
On the other hand, Dr. Brinkle, whose seedling strawberrieswe noticed in a former article, Mr. Downing, and several other eminent cultivators adopt the contrary opinion, that,with care, large crops of large fruit may be obtained from perfect-flowering plants. This question is yet, then, to be settled.
It is ardently to be hoped that, hereafter, we shall have less premature and positive assertion, upon unripe observations, than has characterized the early stages of this controversy. We will take the liberty of following Mr. Hovey in his magazine, between the years 1842 and 1846, not for any pleasure that we have in the singular vicissitudes of opinion chronicled there, but because an eminent cultivator, writer, and editor of, hitherto, the only horticultural magazine in our country, has such influence and authority in forming the morals and customs of the kingdom of Horticulture, that every free subject of this beautiful realm is interested to have its chiefs men of such accuracy that it will not be dangerous to take their statements.
In 1842, Mr. Longworth communicated an article on the fertile and sterile characters of several varieties of strawberries for Mr. Hovey’s magazine, which Mr. H. for subject-matter, indorsed. In the November number, Mr. Colt substantially advocated the sentiments of Mr. L.; and the editor, remarking upon Mr. Coit’s article, recognized distinctly the existence of male and female plants.
He (Mr. H.) says that, of four kinds mentioned by Mr. C. as unfruitful, two were so “from the want of staminateormale plants;” and “the cause of the barrennessis thus easily explained.” And he goes on to explain divers cases upon this hypothesis; and still more resolutely he says, that all wild strawberries have not perfect flowers; “in a dozen or two plants which we examined last springsome were perfect(the italics are ours) having both stamens and pistils;others, only pistils, andothers, only stamens; thus showing that thedefect, mentioned by Mr. Longworth, exists in the original species.” He closes by urging cultivators to setrows of early Virginia among the beds for the sake of impregnating the rest.
Mr. Hovey’s next formal notice was exactly one year from the foregoing, November, 1843, and it appears thus: “We believe it is now the generally received opinionof all intelligent cultivators(italics are ours again) that there isno necessity of making any distinction in regard to the sexual character of the plants When forming new beds. The idea of male and female flowers, first originated, we believe, by Mr. Longworth, of Ohio, is now consideredas exploded.” Such a sudden change as this was brought about, he says, by additional information received during that year by means of his correspondents, and by more experience on his own part. He says nothing of male blossoms and female blossoms,which he had himself seen in wild strawberries. Mr. Hovey then assumed the theory thatcultivation, good or bad, is the cause of fertile or unfertile beds of strawberries, and he says: “in conclusion, we think we may safely aver, that there is not the least necessity of cultivatingany one strawberry near another(our italics) to insure the fertility of the plants,providedthey are under a proper state of cultivation.”
Mr. Hovey now instituted experiments, which he promised to publish, by which to bring the matter to the only true test; and he, from time to time, re-promised to give the result to the public, which, thus far, we believe, he has forgotten to do.
His magazine for 1844 opens, as that of 1843 closed; and in the first number he says, “the oftener our attention is called to this subject, the more we feel confirmed in the opinon that the theory of Mr. Longworth is entirely unfounded; that there isno such thing as male and female plants, though certain causes may produce, as we know they have, fertile and sterile ones.”
Nevertheless, in the next issue but one this peremptory language is again softened down, and a doubt even appears,when he says, “IfMr. Longworth’s theory should prove true,”etc.We, among others, waited anxiously for the promised experiments; but if published we never saw them. The subject rather died out of his magazine until August, 1845, when, in speaking of the Boston Pine, a second fine seedling of his own raising, he is seen bearing away on the other tack, if not withallsails set, yet with enough to give the ship headway in the right direction: “Let the causes be what they may, it is sufficient for all practical purposes, to know, thatthe most abundant crops(italics ours) can be produced by planting some sort abounding instaminateflowers, in the near vicinity of those which do not possess them.”P.293. And onp.444 he reiterates the advice to plant near the staminate varieties. In the August number for 1846,p.309, Mr. Hovey shows himself a thorough convert to Mr. Longworth’s views, by indorsing, in the main, the report of the committee of the Cincinnati Horticultural Society. We hope after so various a voyage, touching at so many points, that he will now abide steadfast in the truth.
We look upon this as a very grave matter, not because the strawberry question is of such paramount, although it is of no inconsiderable importance; but it is of importance whether accredited scientific magazines should be trustworthy; whether writers or popular editors should be responsible for mistakes entirely unnecessary. We blame no man for vacillation, while yet in the process of investigation, nor for coming at the truth gradually, since this is the necessity of our condition to learn only by degrees, and by painful siftings. The very first requisite for a writer is, that he be worthy of trust in his statements. No man can be trusted who ventures opinions upon uninvestigated matters; who states facts with assurance which he has not really ascertained; who evinces rashness, haste, carelessness, credulity, or fickleness in his judgments. The question of perfect or imperfect blossoms depends upon the simplest exercise of eyesight. It requires no measurements,no process of the laboratory, no minute dissections or nice calculations; it requires only that a man shouldseewhat helooksat.
When a boy, playing “how many fingers do I hold up,” by dint of peeping from under the bandage, we managed to make very clever guesses of how many lily-fingers some roguish lassie was holding in tempting show before our bandaged eyes; but some folks are not half so lucky with both eyes wide open, and the stamens and pistils standing before them.
If such a latitude is permitted to those who conduct the investigations peculiar to horticulture, who can confide in the publication of facts, observations or experiments? Of what use will be journals and magazines? They become like chronometers that will not keep time; like a compass that has lost its magnetic sensibility; like a guide who has lost his own way, and leads his followers through brake, and morass, and thicket, into interminable wanderings. Sometimes, the consciousness of faults in ourselves, which should make us lenient toward others, only serves to produce irritable fault-finding. After a comparison of opinions and facts, through a space of five years, with the most distinguished cultivators, East and West, Mr. Longworth is now universally admitted to have sustained himself in all the essential points which he first promulgated—notdiscovered, for he made no claims of that sort. The gardeners and the magazines of the East have, at length, adopted his practical views, after having stoutly, many of them, contested them.
It was, therefore, with unfeigned surprise, that we read Mr. Hovey’s latest remarks in the September number of his magazine, in which, with some asperity, he roundly charges Mr. Longworth with manifold errors, and treats him with a contempt which would lead one, ignorant of the controversy, to suppose that Mr. Hovey had never made a mistake, and that Mr. Longworth had been particularlyfertile of them. Thus: “Mr. Longworth’s remarks abound in so many errors and inconsistencies, that we shall expect scarcely to notice all.” “Anothergross assertion,” etc. Referring to another topic, he says, “This question we, therefore, consider as satisfactorily settled, without discussing Mr. Longworth’s conflicting views about male and female, Keen’s,” etc.
This somewhat tragical comedy is now nearly played out, and we have spoken a word just before the fall of the curtain, because, as chroniclers of events, and critics of horticultural literature and learning, it seemed no less than our duty. We have highly appreciated Mr. Hovey’s various exertions for the promotion of the art and science of horticulture, nor will his manifest errors and short-comings in this particular instance, disincline us to receive from his pen whatsoever is good.
We hope that our remarks will not be construed as a defence of western men or western theories, but as the defence of the truth, and of one who has truly expounded it, though, in this case, theory and its defender happen to be of western origin. Whatever errors have crept into Mr. Longworth’s remarks should be faithfully expurgated; and perhaps it may be Mr. Hovey’s duty to perform the lustration. If so, courtesy would seem to require that it should be done with some consciousness, that through this whole controversy Mr. Longworth is now admitted to have been right in all essential matters; and if in error at all, only in minor particulars, while Mr. Hovey, in all the controversy, in respect to the plainest facts, has been changing from wrong to right, from right to wrong, and from wrong back to right again. We do not think that the admirable benefits which Mr. Longworth has conferred upon the whole community by urging the improved method of cultivating the strawberry, has been adequately appreciated. We still less like to see gratitude expressed in the shape of snarling gibes and petty cavils.
We will close these remarks by the correction of a matter which Mr. Downing states. While he assents to all thepracticalaspects of Mr. Longworth’s views, he dissents as to some matters of fact and philosophy, and among others, to the fact that Hovey’s seedling isalwaysandonlya pistillate plant. He thinks that originally it hadperfectflowers, but that after bearing twice or thrice on the same roots the plants degenerate and become either pistillate or staminate. He says, “Hovey’s seedling strawberry, at first, was a perfect sort in its flower, but at this moment more than half the plants in this country have become pistillate.”
Mr. Hovey himself states the contrary onp.112 of his magazine for 1844. He denies that there are two kinds of blossoms to his seedling, and says, “the flowers are all of one kind, with both pistils and stamens,but the latter quite short and hidden under the receptacle.” This is the common form of allpistillateblossoms, and shows, in so far as Mr. Hovey’s observations are to be trusted, that, at its starting-point and home, Hovey’s seedling was, as with us it now invariably is, so far as we have ever seen it, a pistillate plant.