23.VITIS LABRUSCA[150]Linn.[151]

1.Munson,Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt.,1887:59.Simpson’s grape.2.Ib.,Gar. and For.,3:474,475.1890.3.Ib.,U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul.,3:12. 1890.4.Ib.,Am. Gard.,12:586, 661. 1891.5.Ib.,Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,1893:116.Palmetto-leaved grape.6.Bailey,Gray’s Syn. Fl.,1:429. 1897.7.Munson,Tex. Sta. Bul.,56:232, 234, 240, 267. 1900.fig. Simpson’s grape.8.Viala and Ravaz,Am. Vines,1903:167.Vine very vigorous, climbing; shoots cylindrical with much brownish pubescence; diaphragms very thick; tendrils intermittent. Leaves with stipules short and broad; leaf-blade rather thin, large, broadly cordate, usually considerably lobed; petiolar sinus of medium width and depth; margin coarsely toothed; upper surface slightly rugose and of a dark-green; lower surface with rusty white pubescence sometimes becoming almost a blue green; the shape of leaf and amount of pubescence vary widely. Clusters large, loose; peduncle long; pedicel thick. Berries small to medium, more tender in pulp and less astringent thanVitis aestivalis, black with moderate amount of bloom. Leafing, blooming, and ripening fruit late.

Vine very vigorous, climbing; shoots cylindrical with much brownish pubescence; diaphragms very thick; tendrils intermittent. Leaves with stipules short and broad; leaf-blade rather thin, large, broadly cordate, usually considerably lobed; petiolar sinus of medium width and depth; margin coarsely toothed; upper surface slightly rugose and of a dark-green; lower surface with rusty white pubescence sometimes becoming almost a blue green; the shape of leaf and amount of pubescence vary widely. Clusters large, loose; peduncle long; pedicel thick. Berries small to medium, more tender in pulp and less astringent thanVitis aestivalis, black with moderate amount of bloom. Leafing, blooming, and ripening fruit late.

Vitis simpsoniwas named and briefly described by Munson in 1887. In 1891 he stated that the species is a hybrid ofVitis coriacea(here considered a variety ofVitis candicans) crossed withVitis cinerea. Bailey states that it is probably a hybrid of Aestivalis crossed with Coriacea. Some forms of Simpsoni are said to be very difficult to distinguish fromVitis labrusca.

Simpsoni prefers warm, sandy soils and is found in central and southern Florida. It roots from cuttings with great difficulty; it is tender and will not withstand cold winters. While it is very resistant to phylloxera and also to mildew and black-rot, its leaves are said to be much attacked by leaf-rollers. The blossoming period is just after Aestivalis. The berries are of good flavor and might be of some value for the country along the Gulf Coast but it is of no value for the North.

1.Linnaeus,Sp. Pl.,1:203. 1753.V. sylvestris Virginiana;V. vinifera sylvestris americana.2.Marshall,1785:165.V. vulpina;Fox grape vine.3.Walter,1788:242.V. taurina.4.Michaux,2:230. 1803.V. taurina.5.Bartram,Dom. Enc.,5:289. 1804.V. vulpina;Fox grape.6.Muhlenberg,1813:27.Fox grape.7.Pursh,1:169. 1814.V. taurina.8.Nuttall,1:143. 1818.9.Elliott,2:689. 1824.V. taurina.10.Torrey,Fl. of N. & M. Sta.,1826:120.11.Rafinesque,1830:10.V. latifolia;V. taurina;V. Labrusca;Fox grape.12.Ib.,1830:11.V. luteola;Variable grape.13.Prince,1830:180.V. Labrusca, var.NIGRA;Black Fox;Purple Fox;V. taurina;V. vulpina.14.Ib.,1830:181.V. Labrusca, var.ALBA;White Fox.15.Ib.,1830:182.V. Labrusca, var.ROSEA;Red Fox.16.Torrey,Fl. of N. Y.,1:146. 1843.Fox grape.17.Darlington,Fl. Cest.,1853:50.Fox grapeof the Northern States, not of Va.18.Le Conte,Proc. Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci.,1853:270.V. sylvestris;Fox grape;V. occidentalis;V. vulpina;V. latifolia;V. canina;V. luteola;V. rugosa;V. ferruginea;V. labruscoides;V. blanda;V. prolifera;V. obovata.19.Ib.,U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt.,1857:228.Fox grape;V. sylvestris;V. occidentalis;V. vulpina;V. latifolia;V. canina;V. luteola;V. rugosa;V. ferruginea;V. labruscoides;V. prolifica;V. obovata.20.Buckley,Ib.,1861:481.Frost grape.Fox grapeof the Northern States.21.Stayman,Gar. Mon.,11:37, 38, 39, 40. 1869.Northern Fox Grape.22.Engelmann,Mo. Ent. Rpt.,1872:61.Fox grape;Northern Fox grape.23.Ib.,Bush. Cat..,1883:9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19.Fox grape;Northern Fox grape.24.Munson,Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,1885:136.Fox grape.25.Ib.,Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt.,1885:97, 98, 101.26.Planchon,De Candolle’s Mon. Phan.,5:322, 324. 1887.Fox grape;Northern Fox grape;V. vinifera sylvestris americana;V. latifolia;V. canina;V. luteola.27.Munson,Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt.,1887:59.Fox grape.28.Pearson,Gar. and For.,2:584. 1889.29.Munson,U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul.,3:11. 1890.30.Ib.,Gar. and For.,3:474. 1890.31.Britton and Brown,2:408. 1897.Northern Fox grape;Plum grape.32.Bailey,Gray’s Syn. Fl.,1:429. 1897.Fox grape;Skunk grape;V. vulpina;V. blandi.33.Munson,Tex. Sta. Bul.,56:232, 240. 1899.Northern Fox grape.34.Viala and Ravaz,Am. Vines,1903:42, 45.Vine moderately vigorous, stocky, climbing; shoots cylindrical, densely pubescent; diaphragms medium to rather thick; tendrils continuous, strong, bifid or trifid. Leaves with long, cordate stipules, leaf-blade large, thick, broadly cordate or roundish; entire to three-lobed, frequently notched; sinuses rounded; petiolar sinus variable in depth and width, V-shaped; margin with rather shallow, acute pointed, scalloped teeth; upper surface more or less rugose, dark green, on young leaves pubescent, becoming glabrous when mature; lower surface covered with dense pubescence, more or less whitish on young leaves, becoming rusty or dun-colored when mature. Clusters small to medium, more or less compound, usually shouldered, compact; pedicels thick; peduncle short to medium. Berries medium to large; skin thick, covered with considerable bloom, strong musky or foxy aroma. Seeds two to four, large, distinctly notched, beak short; chalaza oval in shape, indistinct, showing merely as a depression; raphe, a groove. (See Plate.)

Vine moderately vigorous, stocky, climbing; shoots cylindrical, densely pubescent; diaphragms medium to rather thick; tendrils continuous, strong, bifid or trifid. Leaves with long, cordate stipules, leaf-blade large, thick, broadly cordate or roundish; entire to three-lobed, frequently notched; sinuses rounded; petiolar sinus variable in depth and width, V-shaped; margin with rather shallow, acute pointed, scalloped teeth; upper surface more or less rugose, dark green, on young leaves pubescent, becoming glabrous when mature; lower surface covered with dense pubescence, more or less whitish on young leaves, becoming rusty or dun-colored when mature. Clusters small to medium, more or less compound, usually shouldered, compact; pedicels thick; peduncle short to medium. Berries medium to large; skin thick, covered with considerable bloom, strong musky or foxy aroma. Seeds two to four, large, distinctly notched, beak short; chalaza oval in shape, indistinct, showing merely as a depression; raphe, a groove. (See Plate.)

SHOOT OF VITUS LABRUSCASHOOT OF VITUS LABRUSCA

Vitis labrusca, the northern Fox grape, is mentioned in many of the early writings of this country, particularly in those describing New England.It was probably described by other botanists before Linnaeus but if so their descriptions are so meager that it cannot be definitely recognized. Linnaeus in 1753, underVitis labrusca, says: “Leaves cordate, slightly tri-lobed, dentate, downy below.” Marshall in 1785 under the nameVitis vulpina, or Fox grape, says: “This in manner of growth hath much the appearance of the other kinds. The leaves are generally larger, and smooth, but whitish underneath. The fruit or grapes are about the size of a common cherry and have a strong scent, a little approaching to that of a Fox, whence the name of Fox-grape. There are also varieties of this, some with whitish or reddish fruit which is generally most esteemed, and others with black, of which are our largest grapes.” From the time of Marshall on all of the botanists give more or less complete descriptions of this species and except for the brief misunderstanding at first as to the name, its identity has never been questioned. At one time it was supposed to grow in the Mississippi Valley but Engelmann demonstrated that what were taken for Labrusca vines in Missouri were in reality strongly pubescent forms of Aestivalis.

Labrusca is indigenous to the eastern part of North America, including the region between the Atlantic Ocean and the Alleghany Mountains. It is sometimes found in the valleys and along the western slopes of the Alleghanies. Many botanists say it is never found in the Mississippi Valley; Munson reports specimens, however, from Indiana and Tennessee. In the first-named area it ranges from Maine to Georgia. It has the most restricted habitat of any American species of horticultural importance, being much exceeded in extent of territory byVitis rotundifolia,Vitis aestivalis, andVitis riparia.

Labrusca has furnished more cultivated varieties, either pure-breeds or hybrids, than all other American species together. The reason for this is partly, no doubt, due to the fact that it is native to the portion of the United States first settled and is the most common grape in the region where agriculture first advanced to the condition where fruits were desired. This does not wholly account for its prominence, however, which must be sought elsewhere. In its wild state Labrusca is probably the most attractive to the eye of any of our American grapes on account of the size of its fruit, and this undoubtedly turned the attention of those who wereearly interested in the possibilities of American grape-growing to this species rather than to any other.

The southern Labrusca is quite different from the northern form and probably demands different conditions for its successful growth; in the North at least two types of the species may be distinguished. Vines are found in the woods of New England, which resemble Concord very closely in both vine and fruit, excepting that the grapes are much smaller in size and more seedy. There is also the large-fruited, foxy Labrusca, usually with reddish berries, represented by such cultivated varieties as Northern Muscadine, Dracut Amber, Lutie and others. Labrusca is peculiar amongst American grapes in showing black-, white- and red-fruited forms of wild vines growing in the woods. Because of this variability it is impossible to give the exact climatic and soil conditions best adapted to the species. It is reasonable to suppose, however, that the ideal conditions for this or any other species are not widely different from those prevailing where the species is indigenous. In the case of Labrusca this means that it is best adapted to humid climates and that the temperature desired varies according to whether the variety comes from the southern or northern form of the species.

The root system of Labrusca does not penetrate the soil deeply,[152]but it is said to succeed better in deep and clayey soils than Aestivalis.[153]In the Southern and Middle States it does better on eastern and northeastern slopes. As would be suspected from its original marshy home, it endures an excess of water in the soil, and on the other hand requires more water for successful growing than Aestivalis or Riparia. In spite of its ability to withstand clayey soils, it seems to prefer loose, warm, well-drained sandy lands to all others. The French growers report that all varieties of this species show a marked antipathy to a limestone soil, the vines soon becoming affected with chlorosis when planted in soils of this nature. In corroboration of this Stayman reports that it is not found growing native in clayey, limestone soils. The Labruscas succeed very well in the North and fairly well in the middle West, as far south as Arkansas, where they are raised on account of their fruit qualities but here the vines are not nearlyso vigorous and healthy as are those of other species. In Alabama they are reported to be generally unsatisfactory, and in Texas the vines are short-lived, unhealthy, and generally unsatisfactory, particularly in the dry regions. There are some exceptions to this, as, for instance, in the Piedmont region of the Carolinas, where, owing to elevation or other causes, the climate of a southern region is semi-northern in its character.

SHOOT OF WYOMINGSHOOT OF WYOMING

The fruit of Labrusca is large and usually handsomely colored. The skin is thick, covering a layer of adhering flesh, which gives the impression of its being thicker than it actually is; it is variable in tenderness, sometimes tough, but in many of our cultivated varieties it is so tender as to be a detriment in that it is inclined to crack on the vines in case of rain at ripening time, and the berries to crush in transportation. The skin of this species usually has a peculiar aroma, generally spoken of asfoxy, and a slightly acid, astringent taste. Beneath the skin there is a layer of juicy pulp, quite sweet and never showing much acidity in ripe fruit. The center of the berry is occupied by rather dense pulp, more or less stringy, with considerable acid close to the seeds. Many people object to the foxy aroma of this species, but, nevertheless, the most popular American varieties are more or less foxy. Analyses have shown that Labrusca fruit is generally characterized by a low percentage of sugar and acid, the very sweet tasting fox grapes not showing as high a sugar content as some of the disagreeably tart Aestivalis and Riparia sorts. This, in addition to the foxiness which furnishes an excess of aroma in the wine, has prevented Labrusca varieties from becoming favorites with the wine-makers. Must from these varieties is adapted only for the making of dry wines, and when making wines of any other class it is necessary to add sugar and water, the quantities being governed by the final product desired.

In addition to the strong points already enumerated, it may be said that Labrusca submits well to vineyard culture, is fairly vigorous and generally quite productive. It grows readily from cuttings and in point of hardiness is intermediate between Riparia, the hardiest of our American species, and Aestivalis. The roots are soft and fleshy (for an American grape) and in some localities quite subject to attacks of phylloxera. None of the varieties of Labrusca have ever been popular in France on this account. In the wild vines the fruit is inclined to drop from the vine when ripe. Thisdefect is known as “shattering” or “shelling” among grape-growers and it is a serious weakness in certain varieties of Labrusca. It is said to be more sensitive in its wild state to mildew and rot than any other American species[154]but the evidence on this point does not seem to be wholly conclusive. In the South and in some parts of the middle West the leaves of all varieties of Labrusca sunburn and shrivel in the latter part of the summer. The vines do not endure drouth as well as Aestivalis or Riparia and not nearly so well as Rupestris. Pearson[155]reports that the Labruscas can be sprayed with copper sulphate mixtures with much less danger to the leaves than can Aestivalis.

1.Linnaeus,Sp. Pl.,1:202. 1753.2.Speechly,1791:1.3.Willdenow,Sp. Pl.,1:1180. 1797.4.Bartram,Dom. Enc.,5:289. 1804.5.Rafinesque,1830:7.Wine Grape.6.Darlington,Fl. Cest.,1853:49.Wine grape;Foreign grape.7.Buckley,U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt.,1861:480.European grape.8.Stayman,Gar. Mon.,11:38. 1869.European grape.9.Bush,Grape Cult.,1:140. 1869.European grape.10.Engelmann,Mo. Ent. Rpt.,1874:74.11.Moore,Mich. Pom. Soc. Rpt.,1875:36.12.Engelmann,Bush. Cat.,1883:11, 12, 13, 14, 19.13.Munson,Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,1885:137.14.De Candolle,Or. Cult. Pl.,1885:191.15.Onderdonk,U. S. D. A. Rpt.,1887:652.16.Planchon,De Candolle’s Mon. Phan.,5:324, 355. 1887.17.Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt.,1889:107, 109.18.Husmann,1895:29, 187.19.Munson,Rural N. Y.,56:610. 1897.20.Ib.,Tex. Sta. Bul.,56:231, 233, 240. 1900.Asiatic Wine grape.21.Bailey,Cyc. Am. Hort.,4:1956. 1902.fig. of leaves.Wine grape;European grape.22.Viala and Ravaz,Am. Vines,1903:42, 115.Quite variable in vigor, not so high climbing as most American species. Tendrils intermittent. Leaves rounded-cordate, rather thin, rather-smooth, and when young, shining, frequently more or less deeply three-, five-, or even seven-lobed; usually glabrous but in some varieties the leaves and young shoots are hairy and even downy when young; lobes rounded or pointed; teeth variable; petiolar sinus deep, narrow, usually overlapping. Fruit, of cultivated varieties at least, very variable in size and color. Berries of cultivated varieties usually oval though many varieties are globular fruited. Seeds variable in size and shape, usually notched at upper end and characterized always by bottle-necked, elongated beak; a rather broad, usually rough, slightly distinct chalaza situated rather high up on the seed; raphe indistinct. Flowers soon after Labrusca. The roots are large, soft and spongy. A very variable species.

Quite variable in vigor, not so high climbing as most American species. Tendrils intermittent. Leaves rounded-cordate, rather thin, rather-smooth, and when young, shining, frequently more or less deeply three-, five-, or even seven-lobed; usually glabrous but in some varieties the leaves and young shoots are hairy and even downy when young; lobes rounded or pointed; teeth variable; petiolar sinus deep, narrow, usually overlapping. Fruit, of cultivated varieties at least, very variable in size and color. Berries of cultivated varieties usually oval though many varieties are globular fruited. Seeds variable in size and shape, usually notched at upper end and characterized always by bottle-necked, elongated beak; a rather broad, usually rough, slightly distinct chalaza situated rather high up on the seed; raphe indistinct. Flowers soon after Labrusca. The roots are large, soft and spongy. A very variable species.

SHOOT OF VITIS VINIFERASHOOT OF VITIS VINIFERA

Botanists have never agreed as to whetherVitis viniferais a single species or a combination of two or more species which has been cultivated for so long that it is impossible to discover the original forms. The name,Vitis vinifera, is usually credited to Linnaeus though it was used for this grape before Linnaeus’ time by Bauhin and possibly by others. The description of Linnaeus accompanying the name is very short, as follows: Leaves sinuately lobed, glabrous. Many of the earlier botanists, Tournefort for one, described numerous varieties as though they were species. As a natural corollary of the uncertainty of the botanical status ofVitis viniferathe original habitat of the species is not positively known. De Candolle, as noted in the first part of this work, considered the region about the Caspian Sea as the probable habitat of the Old World grape. There is but little doubt that the original home ofVitis viniferais some place in western Asia. There is strong corroborative evidence of this in the fact that the climatic conditions under which the species flourishes are such as are there found.

The first chapter inThe Grapes of New Yorkhas been devoted to this, the Old World grape, and for a discussion of the horticultural characters of the species and of the efforts to cultivate it in America, the reader is referred to that chapter.

Neither American nor European writers agree as to the exact climate desired by Vinifera for the reason, probably, that all of the varieties in this variable species do not desire the same conditions. There are certain phases of climate, however, that are well agreed upon, as follows: The species requires a warm, dry climate, and is more sensitive to change of temperature than our American species. Stayman, who had had considerable experience in raising Vinifera grapes in different places, says: Vinifera “will not endure much rain or grow on wet land. It is only in a dry climate and on high rolling situations that it will succeed, where there is not more than 31 inches of an annual rainfall and for the growing and maturing season 15 inches.” So far as soil alone is concerned, the French growers tell us that it can be grown successfully in a wide variety of soils, being much less particular in this respect than our American species. They state that it will withstand and grow successfully in soils so strongly impregnated with lime that any of the American sorts would succumb to chlorosis.

There are certain characters connected with the fruit of this species which are peculiar to it and are not found in any of our American sorts. First, the skin, which is attached very closely to the flesh and which is never astringent or acid, is of good flavor and can be eaten with the fruit.Second, the flesh is firm, yet tender, and uniform throughout, differing in this respect from any of our American sorts, which frequently show a sweet, watery and tender pulp close to the skin with a tough and more or less acid core at the center. Third, the flavor is peculiarly sprightly, a quality known asvinous, because it characterizes this species. It may be said in this connection, however, that many Americans, accustomed to American grapes, prefer the flavor of our native sorts to the vinous flavor of the Old World grape. Europeans invariably, and Americans who live in Vinifera raising sections, usually, deem the Vinifera flavor greatly superior. Fourth, a strong adherence of the berry to the pedicel, the fruit never “shattering” or “shelling” from the cluster.

Varieties of Vinifera have been selected for the making of wine through so many centuries that this species has become the first and great wine-making grape. Whatever the future may hold in store for American grapes, there is no question but that at present the Viniferas are far superior to any native Americans for wine-making purposes, both as to quality in general and the number of kinds of wine which can be made.

The weak points of Vinifera are: First, an inability to withstand the cold of our winters. The different varieties of Vinifera undoubtedly vary considerably as to the exact amount of cold they will stand without injury. All of them tried at this Station freeze to the ground even in the mildest winters. Second, foliage particularly susceptible to the attack of mildew and fruit susceptible to the attack of black-rot. Third, they generally require a ripening season much longer than our climate affords. Fourth, the roots are soft and spongy and very liable to the attack of phylloxera, though they apparently penetrate more readily in dense clays and hard dry soils than any of our American species.

In the various hybrids that have been made between American and Vinifera varieties it is usually found that the desirable qualities of Vinifera are taken in about the same proportion as the undesirable ones. The fruit is improved in the hybrid but the vine is weakened. Quality is purchased at the expense of hardiness and disease-resisting power. Vinifera may be grown very readily from cuttings. This is of little cultural importance, however, as both in Europe and America varieties of the species are usually grafted on phylloxera-resistant stock.

1.Mag. Hort.,27:490. 1861.2.Horticulturist,17:94, 132, 518. 1862.fig.3.Mag. Hort.,28:447, 540. 1862.4.Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt.,1862:160.5.U. S. D. A. Rpt.,1863:127.6.Mag. Hort.,30:25, 62, 140, 150, 208. 1864.7.Mead,1867:164.8.Fuller,1867:216.9.Thomas,1867:399.10.Am. Pom. Soc. Cat.,1867:44.11.Grape Cult.,1:115. 1869.12.Gar. Mon.,16:249. 1874.13.Bush. Cat.,1883:67.14.Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt.,1883:56.15.Montreal Hort. Soc. Rpt.,1885:82.16.N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt.,10:493. 1891.

Adirondac is an old variety now nearly or quite obsolete. It is probably a seedling of Isabella which it greatly resembles in vine and fruit characters. It is of the Labrusca type, belonging to the southern group of this species, and like most of the southern Labruscas lacks in hardiness and vigor though it surpasses its parent in the first quality. The vine makes a slow, weak growth and is particularly susceptible to fungi. The quality of the fruit is very good, juicy and vinous, with the slight foxy flavor peculiar to Isabella. Its earliness, a week or ten days earlier than Concord, is one of its chief points of merit. The Adirondac did not attain favor because of the many faults of the vine and in the time of its cultivation was seldom found except in the vineyard of the amateur. The claim is often made for this variety that it is nearer the Black Hamburg in quality than any other American grape.

Adirondac was first exhibited by J. W. Bailey of Plattsburg, New York, at the Montreal Horticultural Society Exhibition in Montreal in 1861. The original vine was found in 1852 by J. G. Witherbee in his garden a short distance from the shore of Lake Champlain in the town of Port Henry, Essex County, New York. The variety was introduced by Bailey. On account of its resemblance in vine to Isabella it is supposed by many to be a seedling of that variety. Adirondac was placed on the grape list of the American Pomological Society in 1867 and was dropped from it in 1883.

Vine variable in vigor and productiveness, injured in severe winters, subject toattacks of mildew in unfavorable seasons. Foliage dark green, thick. Flowers semi-fertile, open in mid-season or earlier; stamens upright. Fruit variable in season of ripening, usually in edible condition about ten days before Delaware, does not always keep well. Clusters above medium to small, usually rather compact, seldom shouldered. Berries not uniform in size averaging below Concord, roundish to slightly oval on account of compactness of cluster, dark purplish-black, persistent. Skin intermediate in thickness. Flesh unusually tender and melting, sweet, mild, good to very good but with an after flavor which is not altogether agreeable. Seeds rather large, few in number. Must 82-1/2°-83°.

1.Mass. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,1872:94.2.U. S. D. A. Rpt.,1875:386.3.N. J. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,1881:11.4.Bush. Cat.,1883:67, 152.5.Va. Sta. Bul.,30:108. 1893.

Advance is an unimportant variety now to be found only in the vineyards of experimenters. At the time of its introduction (1872) it was of much interest as a hybrid between Riparia, Labrusca and Vinifera, Clinton being one parent and Duke of Magenta, a grape resembling Black Hamburg, the other. In quality of fruit it is an improvement over Clinton but unfortunately, as with so many primary hybrids of our native species withVitis vinifera, the vine is tender and susceptible to fungi.

This variety was produced by J. H. Ricketts of Newburgh, New York, and was first exhibited at the grape show in New York City in 1870.

Vine vigorous, productive, not very hardy, subject to attacks of mildew. Canes long, covered with considerable blue bloom. Leaves rather large, thin, dark green. Fruit ripens in mid-season, appears to keep well. Clusters above medium size, usually single-shouldered, the shoulder being connected to the cluster by a rather long stem, medium in compactness and with many abortive fruits. Berries medium to large, oval, dark purplish-black, covered with heavy blue bloom, persistent. Flesh somewhat tender, flavor sweet and spicy with considerable resemblance to that of Clinton, quality good.

1.Mag. Hort.,23:86. 1857. (Rogers’ hybrids.)2.Ib.,27:104, 489, 533. 1861.3.Horticulturist,17:26, 510. 1862.fig.4.U. S. D. A. Rpt.,1863:130, 549.fig.5.Horticulturist,20:81. 1865.6.Mag. Hort.,31:68, 106, 333. 1865.7.Husmann,1866:124.8.Fuller,1867:230.9.Am. Pom. Soc. Cat.,1867:44.10.Horticulturist,24:126. 1869.11.Grape Cult.,1:43, 153, 181, 262, 325. 1869.12.Am. Jour. Hort.,5:263. 1869.fig.13.Barry,1872:421.14.Mich. Pom. Soc. Rpt.,1875:387.fig.15.Bush. Cat.,1883:69.fig.16.Gar. and For.,3:490. 1890.17.Can. Hort.,17:191.1894.col. pl.18.N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt.,15:433. 1896.19.Ib.,17:526, 548, 552, 553. 1898.20.W. N. Y. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,1899:91.21.Mo. Sta. Bul.,46:37, 43, 44, 46, 47, 55. 1899.Randall(20).[156]Rogers’ No. 15(2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).Rogers’ No. 15(10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15).

Randall(20).[156]Rogers’ No. 15(2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).Rogers’ No. 15(10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15).

AGAWAMAGAWAM

Agawam is the most largely grown of Rogers’ hybrids both in the United States and in New York, the qualities commending it being large size of bunch and berry, rich, sweet, aromatic flavor, attractive appearance, excellent keeping qualities, vigor of vine, and capacity for self-fertilization. It has the distinction of being the only self-fertile variety among Rogers’ named hybrids. For a grape having its proportion of European parentage the vine is vigorous, hardy and productive, though not equal to many pure-bred American sorts in these respects. In severe winters it is precariously hardy in New York. Its chief defects in fruit are a somewhat thick and tough skin, coarse solid texture of pulp, and, for the European palate, its decidedly foxy flavor. The vine is susceptible to the mildews and in many localities does not yield well. In some markets Agawam is highly esteemed and in making certain wines it is much sought for in blending because of the flavor it imparts. Although it ripens soon after Concord it can be kept much longer and really improves in flavor the first few weeks after picking. It may be kept in good condition in common storage until January. Not uncommonly it shrivels on the stem making a raisin. It seems to prefer somewhat heavy soils, doing better on clay than on sand or gravel. The Agawam is often sold in the markets as Salem which it resembles and by which it is surpassed in quality.

For an account of the parentage and origin of Agawam see “Rogers’ Hybrids” of which this is No. 15. It was first mentioned as a variety about 1861. In 1869 Rogers gave the fruit the name Agawam from the Indian name of a town in Hampden County, Massachusetts. It has become one of the most, if not the most, popular of Rogers’ hybrids and is in some sections raised to a considerable extent as a market sort. It is propagated and sold to-day by practically all nurserymen. It was placed on the grape list of the American Pomological Society fruit catalog in 1867 and is still retained there.

Vine vigorous, usually hardy, medium to productive, subject to mildew. Canes of average length, medium in number, rather thick, moderately dark brown; nodesenlarged, somewhat flattened; internodes short to medium; diaphragm nearly thick; pith of average size; shoots tinged with green, glabrous; tendrils intermittent to continuous, bifid to trifid.Leaf-buds open in mid-season, of average size, long, somewhat thick, conical to nearly obtuse. Young leaves tinged with carmine on lower side and along margin of upper side, prevailing color pale green. Leaves of average size, thick; upper surface light green, dull, moderately smooth; lower surface pale green, slightly pubescent, flocculent; leaf not lobed, terminus somewhat acute; petiolar sinus deep, narrow, often overlapping; lateral sinus very shallow when present; teeth shallow, wide. Flowers occasionally on plan of six, nearly self-fertile, open medium late; stamens upright.Fruit ripens soon after Concord, keeps until mid-winter. Clusters variable averaging medium to large, short, rather broad, tapering to somewhat cylindrical, sometimes single-shouldered, somewhat loose; peduncle medium to short, nearly thick; pedicel of average length, usually thick, covered with few warts, much enlarged at point of attachment; brush very short, pale green. Berries nearly large, roundish to slightly oval, dark and dull purplish-red somewhat resembling Catawba, covered with lilac bloom, very persistent. Skin thick, tough, adheres slightly to the pulp, contains no pigment, somewhat astringent. Flesh pale green, translucent, tough, slightly stringy, rather solid, foxy, good in quality. Seeds somewhat adherent, two to five averaging four, large, rather narrow, long, often with slightly enlarged neck, blunt, brownish; raphe usually distinct, shows as a ridge in the bottom of a broad groove; chalaza rather large, distinctly above center, not obscure.

Leaf-buds open in mid-season, of average size, long, somewhat thick, conical to nearly obtuse. Young leaves tinged with carmine on lower side and along margin of upper side, prevailing color pale green. Leaves of average size, thick; upper surface light green, dull, moderately smooth; lower surface pale green, slightly pubescent, flocculent; leaf not lobed, terminus somewhat acute; petiolar sinus deep, narrow, often overlapping; lateral sinus very shallow when present; teeth shallow, wide. Flowers occasionally on plan of six, nearly self-fertile, open medium late; stamens upright.

Fruit ripens soon after Concord, keeps until mid-winter. Clusters variable averaging medium to large, short, rather broad, tapering to somewhat cylindrical, sometimes single-shouldered, somewhat loose; peduncle medium to short, nearly thick; pedicel of average length, usually thick, covered with few warts, much enlarged at point of attachment; brush very short, pale green. Berries nearly large, roundish to slightly oval, dark and dull purplish-red somewhat resembling Catawba, covered with lilac bloom, very persistent. Skin thick, tough, adheres slightly to the pulp, contains no pigment, somewhat astringent. Flesh pale green, translucent, tough, slightly stringy, rather solid, foxy, good in quality. Seeds somewhat adherent, two to five averaging four, large, rather narrow, long, often with slightly enlarged neck, blunt, brownish; raphe usually distinct, shows as a ridge in the bottom of a broad groove; chalaza rather large, distinctly above center, not obscure.

1.Dom. Enc.,1804:291.2.McMahon,1806:235.3.Johnson,1806:164.4.Adlum,1823:139.5.Ib.,1823:140.6.Dufour,1826:5, 9, 24, 55, 116, 207, 247, 255.7.Adlum,1828:173.8.Ib.,1828:174.9.Prince,1830:173, 216, 219.10.Ib.,1830:174.11.Ib.,1830:200.12.Downing,1845:253.13.U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt.,1847:462.14.Ib.,1847:468.15.Ib.,1856:434.16.Bush. Cat.,1883:68.Alexander’s(7, 15).Alexandria(15).Black Grape(16).Buck Grape(11).Cape(6, 15).Cape grape(12, 13, 16).Cape of Good Hope grape(9, 10).Clifton’s Constantia(4, 8, 10).Clifton’s Constantia(12, 16).Columbian(11).Constantia(6, 16).Madeira of York, Pa.(12).Rothrock of Prince(16).Schuylkill Muscadel(5, 7, 13).Schuylkill Muscadel(9, 12, 14, 15, 16).Schuylkill Muscadine(12).Spring Mill Constantia(9, 12, 16).Tasker’s grape(1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 12, 16).Vevay(13, 15, 16).Winne(11).Winne(12, 16).York Lisbon(16).

Alexander’s(7, 15).Alexandria(15).Black Grape(16).Buck Grape(11).Cape(6, 15).Cape grape(12, 13, 16).Cape of Good Hope grape(9, 10).Clifton’s Constantia(4, 8, 10).Clifton’s Constantia(12, 16).Columbian(11).Constantia(6, 16).Madeira of York, Pa.(12).Rothrock of Prince(16).Schuylkill Muscadel(5, 7, 13).Schuylkill Muscadel(9, 12, 14, 15, 16).Schuylkill Muscadine(12).Spring Mill Constantia(9, 12, 16).Tasker’s grape(1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 12, 16).Vevay(13, 15, 16).Winne(11).Winne(12, 16).York Lisbon(16).

Alexander is now a grape of the past but no other of our American varieties better deserves historical record. We have seen in the preceding chapters how important a part it had in the evolution of our native grapes, being one of the first wild grapes to be domesticated. The Alexander wasa coarse grape with so much foxiness of flavor that it did not please the early growers, who had been accustomed to European sorts, as a table-grape, but it made a very good wine of the claret type and was grown for this purpose until displaced by the Catawba. It was wine made from this variety that Thomas Jefferson[157]pronounced “worthy of the best vineyards of France.” The early writers differ so in their estimates of the good and bad qualities of this grape that it is hard to give its true characters at this late date.

The early history of Alexander is really the history of two varieties: the Schuylkill Muscadel and the Clifton Constantia. The first of these varieties was, according to Bartram, found growing in the vicinity of Philadelphia on the hills bordering the Schuylkill River in the neighborhood of an old vineyard of European grapes. The finder, John Alexander, was gardener to Governor Penn of Pennsylvania, into whose garden he introduced it a few years before the American Revolution. It was later known as Tasker’s grape from a Mr. Tasker of Maryland who cultivated it largely. The Clifton Constantia, according to Adlum, originated with William Clifton of Southwark, Philadelphia, who states that it was a chance seedling in his garden. Adlum says that the two varieties had been confused, that “they are much alike in the growth of the vine and the color of the grape but the Schuylkill has rather the largest berries and is sweeter, and generally has a small shoulder or branch with four or five grapes on it growing out from the top of the bunch.” Prince also describes the varieties as separate, but he says “they are generally cultivated and considered as synonymous.” Later writers consider the two grapes identical.

Peter Legaux, the promoter of a vineyard company at Spring Mill, about fourteen miles from Philadelphia, secured some vines of the Clifton Constantia from Clifton and later introduced it under the name of Cape grape stating that he had secured it from the Cape of Good Hope. Whether he did this purposely and with intent to defraud or whether he had accidentally mixed the cuttings secured from Clifton with some of a large number of cuttings which had come from abroad will never be known. Whenreproached for his deception he denied that this variety was a native and continued to assert that he had secured it from the Cape of Good Hope. In this he was strongly supported by Dufour who says: “I will also try to save the character of our Cape grapes from being merely wild grapes, because some are now found in the woods.” Legaux’s advertisement of this variety had the effect of making it known at least and it is the opinion of writers of that day that many were induced to try this grape under the supposition that it was from the Cape of Good Hope who would have scorned it had they supposed it to be a native. It came to be considerably planted in all parts of the United States; was early introduced into the West and preceded the Catawba as the popular grape around Cincinnati. It was found worthless in New England and New York, the season not being long enough to mature the fruit. With the introduction and dissemination of Catawba it was gradually dropped from cultivation, the Catawba being superior in quality, more resistant to rot and mildew and slightly earlier. It is now unknown and it is doubtful if there are any living vines in cultivation.

Alexander is generally considered a variety of Labrusca but there is much evidence to show that it is a hybrid of Labrusca and Vinifera. This was the opinion of some of the earlier writers but later it was discredited. Bartram gives as one of the distinguishing characters of Vinifera and American vines that the first show oval berries while the latter do not, but he makes an exception of Alexander. Why this should be an exception does not seem apparent unless it be credited to hybridity. Furthermore, the season of Alexander, which is very late, would also indicate foreign blood; a grape native of the vicinity of Philadelphia would supposedly be able to ripen itself in that locality, a thing that the Alexander seldom did perfectly, and it is spoken of in southern Indiana as being very late. Its place of origin (“in the vicinity of an old vineyard of European kinds”) would indicate that there was an opportunity for hybridization to take place. The descriptions strongly suggest some of the coarser-textured of Rogers’ hybrids.

This solution, if it be accepted, would account for the difference of opinion as to its origin. Bartram and Prince could see enough of the characters of the native in a hybrid so that they could be deceived into claiming it as a native, and Dufour on the other hand could see enough of the Viniferacharacters so that he felt there was no question as to its being of foreign origin.

Downing gives what is probably the most complete description of this variety we now have, although it was made from fruit raised some distance farther north than where the variety matures properly. He says: “It is quite sweet when ripe and makes a very fair wine but it is quite too pulpy and coarse for table use. The bunches are more compact and the leaves much moredownythan those of the Isabella. Bunches rather compact, not shouldered. Berries of medium size, oval. Skin thick, quite black. Flesh with a very firm pulp, but juicy, and quite sweet and musky, when fully ripe, which is not till the last of October.” Dufour speaks of the berries ripening unevenly, requiring the green ones to be picked out before sending to the wine press.

1.N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt.,11:613. 1892.2.Ib.,14:275. 1895.3.Ib.,17:526, 548, 553. 1898.

Alexander Winter is chiefly valuable because of the length of time it will keep. As its name implies it is awintergrape. The flavor is most excellent and when well grown the appearance of bunch and grape is attractive. Another desirable quality is that the average number of seeds to the berry is small, being only two. The great defect of the variety is that, even with cross-pollinization, perfect clusters do not form. There are many green berries, and when ripe there are always some small seedless berries indicating imperfect fertilization. Vine and foliage indicate Labrusca parentage but the fruit suggests an admixture of Vinifera. Although rarely found in the gardens and vineyards of New York, Alexander Winter is well worth a place in the garden of the amateur and of the grape-breeder because of its excellent keeping qualities.

Alexander Winter was originated by S. R. Alexander, Bellefontaine, Ohio, from a lot of mixed seed planted in 1884. It was received at this Station in 1892. It seems not to have been tested elsewhere and is not generally handled by nurserymen.

Vine vigorous, injured in severe winters, productive. Foliage irregularly roundish, dark green. Flowers open in mid-season or earlier; stamens reflexed. It cannot be relied upon to set perfect clusters when standing alone and even when growing in amixed vineyard fails to set fruit well. Fruit ripens about with Salem, keeps a long time in edible condition. Clusters above medium to small, very heavily shouldered, loose, contain many small seedless fruits. Berries variable in size, the fully developed fruits averaging medium to large, roundish, dull, light and dark red, covered with thin lilac bloom or at times with faint tinge of grayish-blue, persistent. Skin covered with scattering dark-colored dots, rather thick but tender. Flesh tender, vinous, with indications of Vinifera parentage, sweetish to agreeably tart, flavor pleasing, good to very good in quality. Seeds large, few in number; raphe sometimes shows as a raised cord.

1.Bush. Cat.,1894:84.

Alice is one of two New York seedlings of this name offered grape-growers, neither of which is worth a permanent place in viticulture. This grape is a white seedling of Martha, and much resembles that variety. It was originated by J. A. Putnam, Fredonia, New York, who writes that the vine was first fruited in 1890. On account of its close resemblance to Martha it was generally considered unworthy of perpetuation and is now practically obsolete.

1.Rural N. Y.,46:36. 1887.fig.2.Ib.,47:161. 1888.3.Amer. Gard.,9:7. 1888.fig.4.N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt.,11:613. 1892.5.Amer. Gard.,16:423. 1895.fig.6.Mass. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,1895:233.7.N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt.,14:275. 1895.8.Minn. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,1896:134.fig.9.Rural N. Y.,56:662, 679. 1897.10.N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt.,17:526, 548, 553. 1898.

A brief record of the origin, history and gross characters of Alice is herewith given. The grape is of little value in New York.

This variety was found growing near an old stone wall by Ward D. Gunn of Clintondale, Ulster County, New York, and was transplanted into his vineyard in the spring of 1884. It was introduced by F. E. Young of Rochester. This is a Labrusca, with a few characters that indicate Aestivalis and Vinifera blood.

Back to Index Next