NIAGARA.(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

Vine medium to vigorous, not always hardy, usually produces light crops, very susceptible to attacks of mildew. Canes long, of average number, thick, surface roughened,dark reddish-brown; nodes enlarged, flattened; internodes variable in length, of medium thickness; pith intermediate in size; shoots pubescent; tendrils intermittent to continuous, long, trifid.Leaf-buds medium to above in size, short and thick, open in mid-season. Young leaves faintly tinged on under side and along margin of upper side with rose-carmine. Leaves small to medium, thick; upper surface dark green, rugose, often heavily wrinkled; lower surface dull whitish or light gray, strongly pubescent; veins distinct; lobes three to five with terminus obtuse to acute; petiolar sinus medium in depth, wide; basal sinus shallow and open when present; lateral sinus medium to deep, often wide; teeth very shallow, medium to narrow. Flowers partly self-fertile, open moderately late; stamens upright.Fruit ripens about with Concord, does not keep long in good condition. Clusters intermediate in size, length, and thickness, irregularly cylindrical to tapering, often single-shouldered but sometimes double-shouldered, medium to compact; peduncle variable in length, slender to medium; pedicel medium to short, slender, smooth; brush yellowish-green. Berries intermediate in size, roundish, dark purplish-black, dull, covered with heavy blue bloom, not very persistent, soft. Skin of average thickness, medium to somewhat thin, adheres considerably to the pulp, with wine-colored pigment, slightly astringent. Flesh pale yellowish-green, translucent, juicy, tough, fine-grained, vinous, sweet next the skin but quite acid at the center, good to very good in quality. Seeds rather adherent, one to four, usually three, intermediate in size, medium to long, brownish; raphe obscure; chalaza of average size, much depressed, strongly above center, circular, obscure.

Leaf-buds medium to above in size, short and thick, open in mid-season. Young leaves faintly tinged on under side and along margin of upper side with rose-carmine. Leaves small to medium, thick; upper surface dark green, rugose, often heavily wrinkled; lower surface dull whitish or light gray, strongly pubescent; veins distinct; lobes three to five with terminus obtuse to acute; petiolar sinus medium in depth, wide; basal sinus shallow and open when present; lateral sinus medium to deep, often wide; teeth very shallow, medium to narrow. Flowers partly self-fertile, open moderately late; stamens upright.

Fruit ripens about with Concord, does not keep long in good condition. Clusters intermediate in size, length, and thickness, irregularly cylindrical to tapering, often single-shouldered but sometimes double-shouldered, medium to compact; peduncle variable in length, slender to medium; pedicel medium to short, slender, smooth; brush yellowish-green. Berries intermediate in size, roundish, dark purplish-black, dull, covered with heavy blue bloom, not very persistent, soft. Skin of average thickness, medium to somewhat thin, adheres considerably to the pulp, with wine-colored pigment, slightly astringent. Flesh pale yellowish-green, translucent, juicy, tough, fine-grained, vinous, sweet next the skin but quite acid at the center, good to very good in quality. Seeds rather adherent, one to four, usually three, intermediate in size, medium to long, brownish; raphe obscure; chalaza of average size, much depressed, strongly above center, circular, obscure.

1.Mass. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,1879:161.2.Mich. Pom. Soc. Rpt.,1879:194, 323.fig.3.Mass. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,1880:240, 254.4.N. J. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,1881:9.5.Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt.,1881:46.6.Bush. Cat.,1883:124.7.Am. Pom. Soc. Cat.,1885:26.8.Minn. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,1886:134, 136.9.Mo. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,1889:370.10.Rural N. Y.,48:18, 19. 1889.figs.11.Kan. Sta. Bul.,14:90. 1890.12.Minn. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,1891:220.13.Rural N. Y.,50:66, 230. 1891.14.Ill. Sta. Bul.,28:265. 1893.15.Bush. Cat.,1894:161.16.N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt.,15:430, 431, 432, 433. 1896.17.Ib.,17:533, 547, 552. 1898.18.Mo. Sta. Bul.,46:40, 44, 45. 1899.19.Mich. Sta. Bul.,169:173. 1899.20.Ala. Sta. Bul.,110:70, 87. 1900.21.N. C. Sta. Bul.,187:60. 1903.22.Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,1903:30.

Niagara is the leading American green grape, holding the rank among grapes of this color that Concord does among the black varieties. It is, however, a less valuable grape than Concord, and all in all, it is doubtful if it should be ranked much if any higher than several others of the green grapes with which it must compete. Much of the popularity of Niagarais due to the novel way in which the variety was sold to the public. For many years after its origin, the entire stock of this grape was owned by the Niagara Grape Company, who retained all of the propagating wood, and in many instances well guarded interests in the vineyards of this variety. The advantages gained by this method of distribution enabled the promoters of the variety to advertise it to an extent not equaled in the dissemination of any other grape. As is likely to be the case with new fruits, Niagara was overpraised by the company selling it and for a time by the horticultural press and viticulturists as well. When vineyards of the variety came into bearing, a reaction set in, and Niagara lost in popularity; many who had planted it condemned it and oftentimes unjustly. For years the reports for and against it were more or less colored by personalities and it has not been until a comparatively recent day that a just estimate of the variety could be obtained from grape-growers.

Since one of the parents of Niagara is Concord, and since the two grapes are largely grown in the same regions and for the same general markets, and chiefly as table grapes, we may best arrive at the status of Niagara by comparing it with Concord.

In vigor and productiveness, where the two grapes are upon equal footing as to adaptability, Niagara and Concord rank the same. In these respects both are standards scarcely surpassed among our cultivated native grapes. In hardiness of root and vine Niagara falls somewhat short of Concord; practically all grape-growers who have tested the two varieties in cold climates agree as to the greater hardiness of Concord. In some of the grape regions of New York Niagara is not grown profitably because of its susceptibility to cold. The variety cannot be relied upon without winter protection where the thermometer falls much below zero. Like Concord the Niagara has much of the foxiness of the wild Labrusca, distasteful to many palates. On the other hand there are many Americans who really like the foxy taste and aroma and count it an asset in these varieties. The foxiness of Niagara is most marked just after the fruit is picked, and it is usually better flavored after having stood for a few days. The flavor is not at its best unless the grapes be fully ripe. Both bunches and berries of Niagara are larger than those of Concord and are better formed, making a handsomer fruit if the colors are likedequally well. The skin of Niagara does not crack as easily as that of Concord. The fruit shells as badly and does not keep much, if any, longer. Both vines and fruits of Niagara are more susceptible to fungal diseases than are those of Concord and especially to black-rot, which proves a veritable scourge with this variety in unfavorable seasons and localities.

NIAGARANIAGARA

It is likely that Niagara will continue for some time to be the leading green grape for the market. As long as grape consumers demand a showy grape to be had at a low price, and without much regard as to quality, if the grape be passably good, Niagara will be popular. For those who rank quality first, with appearance and reasonable cost as secondary consideration, there are other green grapes superior.

Niagara was produced by C. L. Hoag and B. W. Clark of Lockport, Niagara County, New York. The originators state that the variety was grown from seed of Concord fertilized by Cassady, planted in 1868, and that it fruited for the first time in 1872. It was introduced about 1882 by the Niagara Grape Company. In 1885 it was placed on the grape list of the fruit catalog of the American Pomological Society. Niagara has attained its greatest popularity and is most grown in New York and in the North. In the grape regions of the South and Southwest, it is too susceptible to fungi especially the mildews and black-rot. It is said that the quality of the variety, however, is improved as grown to the southward and that where comparatively free from diseases, or when they are controlled by spraying, it becomes a profitable early market grape. In Ohio, Niagara is grown more or less for wine. This variety is a typical white seedling of Concord showing little trace of any other variety.

Vine vigorous to medium, less hardy than Concord, productive to very productive, somewhat subject to mildew and black-rot in unfavorable locations. Canes medium to long, of average number, thick, dark reddish-brown deepening in color at the nodes which are strongly enlarged and slightly flattened; internodes medium to long, thick; pith large to medium; shoots pubescent; tendrils continuous, long, bifid to trifid.Leaf-buds medium in size and thickness, short, slightly compressed, conical to pointed, open in mid-season. Young leaves lightly tinged on under side and along margin of upper side with rose-carmine. Leaves medium to large, thick; upper surface glossy, medium dark green, rather smooth; lower surface pale green, pubescent; veins distinct; lobes three to five with terminus acute to acuminate; petiolar sinus intermediate in depth and width; basal sinus shallow, wide, often toothed; lateral sinus of meandepth, wide, frequently toothed; teeth shallow, variable in width. Flowers fertile, open in mid-season; stamens upright.Fruit ripens about with Concord, keeps fairly well. Clusters large to medium, long to medium, somewhat broad, tapering to often cylindrical, frequently single-shouldered, moderately compact; peduncle short to medium, thick; pedicel intermediate in length, thick, covered with few, small, inconspicuous warts; brush pale green, medium to long. Berries above medium to large, slightly oval, light green changing to a pale yellowish-green tinge as the ripening season advances, covered with thin gray bloom, persistent, firm. Skin thin, tender, adheres somewhat to the pulp, contains no pigment, slightly astringent. Flesh light green, translucent, juicy, fine-grained, moderately tender, foxy, sweet next the skin to agreeably tart at center, as good or better than Concord in quality. Seeds separate rather easily from the pulp, one to six, average three, intermediate in size, length and breadth, deeply notched, brownish; raphe buried in a deep groove; chalaza of fair size, above center, circular to oval, moderately distinct.

Leaf-buds medium in size and thickness, short, slightly compressed, conical to pointed, open in mid-season. Young leaves lightly tinged on under side and along margin of upper side with rose-carmine. Leaves medium to large, thick; upper surface glossy, medium dark green, rather smooth; lower surface pale green, pubescent; veins distinct; lobes three to five with terminus acute to acuminate; petiolar sinus intermediate in depth and width; basal sinus shallow, wide, often toothed; lateral sinus of meandepth, wide, frequently toothed; teeth shallow, variable in width. Flowers fertile, open in mid-season; stamens upright.

Fruit ripens about with Concord, keeps fairly well. Clusters large to medium, long to medium, somewhat broad, tapering to often cylindrical, frequently single-shouldered, moderately compact; peduncle short to medium, thick; pedicel intermediate in length, thick, covered with few, small, inconspicuous warts; brush pale green, medium to long. Berries above medium to large, slightly oval, light green changing to a pale yellowish-green tinge as the ripening season advances, covered with thin gray bloom, persistent, firm. Skin thin, tender, adheres somewhat to the pulp, contains no pigment, slightly astringent. Flesh light green, translucent, juicy, fine-grained, moderately tender, foxy, sweet next the skin to agreeably tart at center, as good or better than Concord in quality. Seeds separate rather easily from the pulp, one to six, average three, intermediate in size, length and breadth, deeply notched, brownish; raphe buried in a deep groove; chalaza of fair size, above center, circular to oval, moderately distinct.

1.Gar. Mon.,22:176. 1880.2.Am. Pom. Soc. Cat.,1881:24.3.Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt.,1883:58.4.Mo. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,1883:40, 185.5.Ib.,1884:217.6.N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt.,11:631. 1892.7.Ill. Sta. Bul.,28:265. 1893.8.Bush. Cat.,1894:162.fig.9.N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt.,17:548, 556, 559. 1898.10.Tex. Sta. Bul.,48:1151, 1160. 1898.11.Mo. Sta. Bul.,46:40, 43, 44, 45. 1899.12.Traité gen. de vit.,5:171. 1903.

For some years after its introduction in 1876, Noah was quite popular on account of its vigor, supposed health, productiveness, and the high alcoholic content of its wine. It is now, however, but little grown outside of Missouri where it is still used somewhat in wine-making. In France Noah was largely grown for a time both as a stock for grafting and as a direct producer for the making of wine and brandy. Probably no other American grape has caused more general discussion, or received more praise and more condemnation in France, with the result that it is now but little grown. The name was given the variety on account of the alcoholic strength of its wine, the originator holding that the lamentable accident which befell the patriarch Noah could easily have happened had he partaken of the wine of this grape.

NOAHNOAH

Noah is so like Elvira that the two are often confused. There are, however, very marked differences in the vine characters; and the clusters of Elvira are smaller, the berries more foxy in taste and the skins more tender and crack much more than do those of Noah. The large, dark,glossy green leaves make the vines of this variety very handsome and a vineyard of them is a pleasing sight. As with Elvira, Othello, Rommel, and other varieties of this group of grapes, Noah is of little value in New York. These grapes are fit only for wine but the wine-makers in this State seem not to have found them desirable for their wants. Noah shatters badly and does not keep nor ship at all well, and buyers therefore do not care for it.

Noah was originated by Otto Wasserzieher of Nauvoo, Illinois, from seed of Taylor planted in 1869, and fruited for the first time in 1873. It was exhibited before the American Pomological Society in 1879. It was placed on the grape list of the American Pomological Society fruit catalog in 1881. Noah shows, like its parent, characters of both Riparia and Labrusca. The vine characters are markedly those of Riparia and, among others of these, the healthiness of the foliage is an asset of the variety; the Labrusca shows more plainly in the fruit of Noah than in that of Taylor, the berries being larger and having more of the foxiness than the last named variety.

Vine medium to sometimes vigorous, not hardy in severe winters, productive, susceptible to attacks of mildew. Canes long, of average number, thick to medium, dark brown, surface roughened; nodes enlarged, flattened; internodes intermediate in length; diaphragm of mean thickness; pith medium in size; shoots slightly pubescent; tendrils usually continuous, of average length, bifid to trifid.Leaf-buds medium to small, very short, thick to medium, somewhat compressed, obtuse, open very late. Young leaves faintly tinged on under side and along margin of upper side with rose-carmine. Leaves large to medium, of average thickness; upper surface dark green, glossy, smooth; lower surface pale green, thinly pubescent; veins distinct; leaf usually not lobed, with terminus acuminate; petiolar sinus deep to medium, rather wide; basal sinus lacking; lateral sinus very shallow when present; teeth somewhat shallow, moderately wide. Flowers sterile to semi-fertile, open early; stamens upright.Fruit ripens with Concord or later, does not ship nor keep well. Clusters variable in size and length, above average breadth, cylindrical to nearly tapering, usually single-shouldered, medium to compact; peduncle intermediate in length, thick; pedicel short to medium, covered with few, small warts; brush medium to short, brownish. Berries small, usually roundish, light green tinged with yellow, somewhat dull, covered with thin gray bloom, not persistent, nearly firm. Skin variable in thickness and tenderness, adheres to the pulp, contains no pigment, not astringent. Flesh yellowish-green, translucent,juicy, tough, fine-grained, vinous, tart at skin to acid at center, sprightly, good in quality. Seeds separate with difficulty from the pulp, one to four, average two or three, intermediate in size and breadth, rather dark brown; raphe buried in a shallow groove; chalaza of average size, slightly above center, oval, obscure. Must 100°.

Leaf-buds medium to small, very short, thick to medium, somewhat compressed, obtuse, open very late. Young leaves faintly tinged on under side and along margin of upper side with rose-carmine. Leaves large to medium, of average thickness; upper surface dark green, glossy, smooth; lower surface pale green, thinly pubescent; veins distinct; leaf usually not lobed, with terminus acuminate; petiolar sinus deep to medium, rather wide; basal sinus lacking; lateral sinus very shallow when present; teeth somewhat shallow, moderately wide. Flowers sterile to semi-fertile, open early; stamens upright.

Fruit ripens with Concord or later, does not ship nor keep well. Clusters variable in size and length, above average breadth, cylindrical to nearly tapering, usually single-shouldered, medium to compact; peduncle intermediate in length, thick; pedicel short to medium, covered with few, small warts; brush medium to short, brownish. Berries small, usually roundish, light green tinged with yellow, somewhat dull, covered with thin gray bloom, not persistent, nearly firm. Skin variable in thickness and tenderness, adheres to the pulp, contains no pigment, not astringent. Flesh yellowish-green, translucent,juicy, tough, fine-grained, vinous, tart at skin to acid at center, sprightly, good in quality. Seeds separate with difficulty from the pulp, one to four, average two or three, intermediate in size and breadth, rather dark brown; raphe buried in a shallow groove; chalaza of average size, slightly above center, oval, obscure. Must 100°.

1.Mass. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,1872:95.2.Ib., Pt.2:120. 1875.3.Kan. Sta. Bul.,28:164. 1891.4.Ill. Sta. Bul.,28:261. 1893.5.Bush. Cat.,1894:163, 186.6.Del. Sta. An. Rpt.,7:135, 139. 1895.7.N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt.,17:533, 548. 1898.8.Va. Sta. Bul.,94:138. 1898.9.Mo. Sta. Bul.,46:40, 42, 44, 46, 51. 1899.Norfolk Muscat(1, 2).

Norfolk Muscat(1, 2).

Norfolk was disseminated as an early Catawba and it resembles that variety very much in appearance and somewhat in flavor, but ripens much earlier. Unlike the Catawba too, the fruit does not keep well, nor is the flavor quite up to the high quality of the older variety, more nearly resembling, as it grows here, that of Agawam. It is not, however, the fruit characters so much as those of the vine that have kept Norfolk from becoming popular. It falls short in several vine characters, chiefly in productiveness, and after having been known for many years is now scarcely cultivated.

N. B. White[203]of Norwood, Massachusetts, originated this variety some time in the sixties from seed of a native Labrusca fertilized with Black Hamburg.

Vine medium to vigorous, usually hardy, variable in productiveness. Canes long, numerous, thick; tendrils usually intermittent, bifid to trifid. Leaves large to medium, moderately light green, thick; lower surface grayish-white with tinge of bronze, pubescent. Flowers nearly fertile, open early; stamens upright. Fruit ripens earlier than Concord, does not keep very well. Clusters medium to small, often broad, tapering, usually with a long single shoulder, loose. Berries large to medium, oval to roundish,dark purplish-red somewhat resembling Catawba, covered with a fair amount of dark lilac or faint blue bloom, shatter, rather soft. Skin thin, inclined to tender, astringent. Flesh somewhat tough, stringy, rather coarse, vinous, sweet at skin to acid at center, fair in quality. Seeds adhere to the pulp, numerous, quite large, long to medium, distinctly notched.

1.Horticulturist,9:518. 1854.2.U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt.,1854:315.3.Mag. Hort.,22:25. 1856.4.Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt.,1856:166.5.Ib.,1862:143.6.Am. Pom. Soc. Cat.,1862:90.7.Phin,1862:259.8.Minn. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,1877:59.9.Bush. Cat.,1883:126.10.N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt.,17:533, 548, 556. 1898.11.Tex. Sta. Bul.,48:1151, 1160. 1898.12.Mo. Sta. Bul.,46:40, 42, 44, 46. 1899.Early Northern Muscadine(2, 7).

Early Northern Muscadine(2, 7).

To those who profess to like a foxy grape, the Northern Muscadine should be the grapepar excellence. Many of the differences in opinion to be found in grape literature regarding the quality of grapes have hinged upon whether foxiness in taste and aroma is liked or not. Thus some horticulturists put Northern Muscadine, both for the table and for wine, well toward the head of the list of American grapes, while others condemn it as unfit to eat. The fact that this variety, with Lucile, Lutie, and others with the foxy taste strongly marked, has not become popular, in spite of particularly good vine characters, is presumptive evidence that the American public do not want such grapes. In appearance of fruit Northern Muscadine is much like Lutie, and much like it in quality, the two being distinguished from most other grapes by an unmistakable odor. A serious defect of the fruit is that the berries shatter badly as soon as the grape reaches maturity. Taken as a whole, the vine characters of this variety are very good and it offers possibilities for the grape-breeder because of them. It cannot be recommended for either the vineyard or the garden.

This variety originated at New Lebanon, Columbia County, New York. It was first brought to notice by D. J. Hawkins and Philemon Stewart of the United Society of Shakers at that place about 1852. It was placed on the grape list of the American Pomological Society fruit catalog in 1862 and dropped in 1871. It is a typical red Labrusca in all of its characters.

Vine variable in vigor and productiveness, healthy, not always hardy. Canes intermediate in length and number, medium to slender, dark brown, sometimes with a a slight red tinge, heavily pubescent; tendrils continuous, bifid, dehisce early. Leaves medium to very large and of distinct Labrusca type, inclined to roundish, thick; upper surface of medium greenness, dull, medium to rugose; lower surface dark bronze, heavily pubescent; veins well defined. Flowers fertile to sterile, open in mid-season or earlier; stamens upright.Fruit ripens about with Worden, does not keep well. Clusters medium to small, short, of average width, frequently oval but sometimes roundish, occasionally single-shouldered, medium to compact. Berries medium to large, roundish to oval, dark amber to dull brownish-red, covered with thin gray bloom, drop badly from pedicel. Skin variable in thickness, medium to tough, adheres considerably to the pulp, contains little or no pigment, slightly astringent. Flesh very pale green, juicy, fine-grained, tender and soft, unusually foxy, sweet, poor in quality. Seeds separate easily from the pulp, often numerous, large, broad, faintly notched, long, not blunt, brownish; raphe obscure; chalaza of average size, slightly above center, variable in shape, often showing as an obscure depression.

Fruit ripens about with Worden, does not keep well. Clusters medium to small, short, of average width, frequently oval but sometimes roundish, occasionally single-shouldered, medium to compact. Berries medium to large, roundish to oval, dark amber to dull brownish-red, covered with thin gray bloom, drop badly from pedicel. Skin variable in thickness, medium to tough, adheres considerably to the pulp, contains little or no pigment, slightly astringent. Flesh very pale green, juicy, fine-grained, tender and soft, unusually foxy, sweet, poor in quality. Seeds separate easily from the pulp, often numerous, large, broad, faintly notched, long, not blunt, brownish; raphe obscure; chalaza of average size, slightly above center, variable in shape, often showing as an obscure depression.

1.Prince,1830:186.2.U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt.,1845:939.3.Horticulturist,12:461. 1857.4.Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt.,1858:68.5.Ib.,1860:88.6.Horticulturist,16:16, 286. 1861.7.U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt.,1865:197.8.Horticulturist,20:39. 1865.9.Husmann,1866:19, 48, 85, 87,fig., 98.10.Horticulturist,22:355. 1867.11.Am. Pom. Soc. Cat.,1867:44.12.Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt.,1867:111.13.Grape Cult.,1:5, 74, 98, 122, 138, 150, 212, 296. 1869.14.Bush. Cat.,1883:126.15.Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt.,1885:100.16.Ib.,1889:109.17.Mo. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,1891:131.18.Am. Gard.,20:688. 1899.19.Mo. Sta. Bul.,46:40, 43, 45, 51, 54. 1899.20.N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt.,18:397. 1899.21.Mo. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,1905:59.Norton’s Seedling(9).Norton’s Virginia(3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 21).Norton’s Virginia(14, 18).Norton’s Virginia Seedling(1, 2, 4).Virginia Seedling(9, 13).

Norton’s Seedling(9).Norton’s Virginia(3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 21).Norton’s Virginia(14, 18).Norton’s Virginia Seedling(1, 2, 4).Virginia Seedling(9, 13).

Norton is the leading wine grape in eastern America, and, if we except Cynthiana, which can hardly be told from it, the wine made from it is the best of its class made in the regions in which the variety will grow. The fruit is of small value for any other purpose than wine. Norton is fairly hardy but requires a long warm season to reach maturity. While it is said that it may be grown wherever Catawba thrives, this has not proved to be the case in New York; Norton in this State is far more precarious than Catawba in maturity, so much so that it is now scarcely grown even in the most favored parts of New York. It has great adaptability to soils and thrives in rich alluvials or clays, gravels or sands, the only requisite seeminglybeing a fair amount of fertility and soil warmth. The vines are robust, very productive, especially on fertile soils, as free, or more so, from fungal diseases than any others of our native grapes, and very resistant to phylloxera.

NORTONNORTON

The bunches of Norton are of medium size, not averaging nearly as large as the one shown in the illustration, and the berries are small; the fruit is not at all attractive in appearance. The grapes are pleasant eating when fully ripe, rich and spicy, and pure-flavored but tart if not quite ripe; but still are in no sense table grapes. The fruit keeps well. The cluster usually ripens evenly and the berries neither shatter nor crack. The variety is difficult to propagate from cuttings and to transplant, and the vines do not bear grafts readily.

Norton has been used to quite an extent in breeding work and the blood may be found in a number of desirable grapes but it is not a prolific parent of worthy grapes as has been the case with so many of its contemporary varieties. Like Concord, Norton gives, in experimental work, many white seedlings.

The origin of Norton is rather uncertain. In 1830 Prince writes that he received the grape from Dr. D. N. Norton, one of the pioneer grape-growers of Richmond, Virginia, who had originated it from the seed of Bland with Miller’s Burgundy growing nearby. This parentage, it appeared later, was undoubtedly an error as the Norton shows none of the characters of either Bland or Miller’s Burgundy. Prince’s description leaves little doubt but that his Norton was the Norton of to-day. In 1861 there was an article published in theHorticulturist[204]by a Mr. Lemosy saying that the original Norton vine had been discovered in 1835 by his father, Dr. F. A. Lemosy of Richmond, Virginia, on an island in the James River and that Dr. Norton secured the variety from this source. Since Norton had sent this variety to Prince prior to 1830, this story is evidently wrong as to dates and is suspicious as to facts. It is probable that the true history of the variety will never be known. Many grapes of the Norton class have been found at the South, a fact which has led to much confusion as to the origin of varieties as well as in the varieties themselves. Grapes of the Nortontype were not looked upon with favor by the early viticulturists and it was not until some years after its introduction that the variety was widely planted—and then in Missouri and not in the region of its origin. The Norton was placed on the grape list of the American Pomological Society fruit catalog in 1867, and is yet retained.

This variety has been usually classed as Aestivalis, which is approximately correct although most viticulturists agree that there is a strain of Labrusca present as indicated by the occasional continuity of tendrils. Millardet, of France, believes that the variety may contain a strain of Cinerea as well. But in fruit at least, Norton is essentially a variety of Aestivalis.

Vine very vigorous, healthy, usually hardy but sometimes half-hardy, an uncertain bearer at this Station but producing heavy crops in more southern localities. Canes long, of average number, thick to medium, dark brown to reddish-brown, surface covered with considerable blue bloom; nodes much enlarged; internodes medium to long; diaphragm thick; pith large to medium; shoots pubescent; tendrils intermittent, occasionally continuous, long, bifid to sometimes trifid.Leaf-buds above average size and thickness, short to medium, often compressed, obtuse to conical, open late. Young leaves considerably tinged on upper and under sides with bright carmine. Leaves medium to large, irregularly roundish, of average thickness; upper surface green, dull, rugose on older leaves; lower surface pale green, slightly pubescent; veins indistinct; leaf usually not lobed with terminus acute to sometimes obtuse; petiolar sinus deep to medium, narrow, sometimes closed and overlapping; basal sinus usually absent; lateral sinus shallow to a mere notch when present; teeth variable in depth and width. Flowers self-fertile, open late; stamens upright.Fruit ripens too late for this locality, keeps well when properly matured. Clusters medium to small, inclined to short, moderately broad, tapering, usually single-shouldered, medium to compact; peduncle short to medium, thick, sometimes flattened; pedicel intermediate in length, slender, covered with few warts; brush dull, wine-colored. Berries medium to small, roundish to oblate, black, somewhat glossy, covered with heavy blue bloom, persistent, soft. Skin thin, of average toughness, does not adhere to the pulp, contains a large amount of dark red pigment, no astringency. Flesh greenish, translucent, juicy, tender, spicy, tart and somewhat astringent. Seeds separate fairly easily from the pulp, two to six, average three, numerous, medium to small, intermediate in breadth and length, not notched, brownish; raphe distinct; chalaza small, above center, circular, obscure. Must 105°-110°.

Leaf-buds above average size and thickness, short to medium, often compressed, obtuse to conical, open late. Young leaves considerably tinged on upper and under sides with bright carmine. Leaves medium to large, irregularly roundish, of average thickness; upper surface green, dull, rugose on older leaves; lower surface pale green, slightly pubescent; veins indistinct; leaf usually not lobed with terminus acute to sometimes obtuse; petiolar sinus deep to medium, narrow, sometimes closed and overlapping; basal sinus usually absent; lateral sinus shallow to a mere notch when present; teeth variable in depth and width. Flowers self-fertile, open late; stamens upright.

Fruit ripens too late for this locality, keeps well when properly matured. Clusters medium to small, inclined to short, moderately broad, tapering, usually single-shouldered, medium to compact; peduncle short to medium, thick, sometimes flattened; pedicel intermediate in length, slender, covered with few warts; brush dull, wine-colored. Berries medium to small, roundish to oblate, black, somewhat glossy, covered with heavy blue bloom, persistent, soft. Skin thin, of average toughness, does not adhere to the pulp, contains a large amount of dark red pigment, no astringency. Flesh greenish, translucent, juicy, tender, spicy, tart and somewhat astringent. Seeds separate fairly easily from the pulp, two to six, average three, numerous, medium to small, intermediate in breadth and length, not notched, brownish; raphe distinct; chalaza small, above center, circular, obscure. Must 105°-110°.

1.Mass. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,1880:231.2.Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt.,1881:43.3.Ill. Sta. Bul.,28:256. 1893.4.Bush. Cat.,1894:164.5.N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt.,13:605. 1894.6.Col. Sta. Bul.,29:19. 1894.7.N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt.,17:533, 545, 546, 548, 552. 1898.8.Kan. Sta. Bul.,110:242. 1902.

Norwood is a Labrusca-Vinifera cross-breed of the same specific parentage as Rogers’ hybrids which it greatly resembles. It is rather more hardy than most other grapes of its breeding and is preeminently a long keeper, surpassing most of the similar hybrids in this respect, though all of these are notable for their keeping quality. But the variety is incapable of self-fertilization and does not set its fruit well even in a mixed vineyard, which fault should debar it from either the commercial or the amateur list. The quality is from good to very good.

N. B. White originated Norwood from seed of Concord fertilized with Black Hamburg. It was introduced about 1880 and has been rather widely tested but has never been popular, and is now seldom seen in varietal vineyards.

Vine vigorous, subject to winter injury in unfavorable locations, variable in productiveness. Canes intermediate in length and number, slender; tendrils continuous to intermittent, bifid. Leaves large, not uniform in color, thin; lower surface grayish-green, thinly pubescent. Flowers sterile to imperfectly self-fertile, open late; stamens short. Fruit ripens a little earlier than Concord, keeps and ships well. Clusters large to medium, often long and broad, irregularly tapering, sometimes heavily single-shouldered, intermediate in compactness. Berries large, roundish to oval, purplish-black covered with heavy blue bloom, very persistent, firm. Skin thick, rather tough, adheres considerably to the pulp, decidedly astringent. Flesh greenish, tough, stringy, slightly foxy, sweet at skin to acid at center, good to very good in quality. Seeds adherent, rather large, long, sharp-pointed.

1.Mag. Hort.,8:168. 1842.2.Ib.,9:191, 430. 1843.3.Downing,1845:251, 257.4.U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt.,1845:937, 940.5.Ib.,1847:465.6.N. Y. Ag. Soc. Rpt.,1848:366.7.Thomas,1849:398.8.Mag. Hort.,16:546. 1850.9.Horticulturist,6:224. 1851.10.Bush. Cat.,1883:127.11.Tex. Farm and Ranch, Feb. 8,1896:11.12.Traité gen. de vit.,6:374. 1903.Alabama(12).Black Spanish(12).Black Spanish Alabama(12,?10).The Black(12).Blue French(12).Burgundy(12).Cigar Box(2, 8, 9, 11, 12).Devereaux(12).El Paso(12).Jack(9, 10, 12).Jacques(10, 12).Jacquez(12).Jac(12).Jacquet(12).Lenoir(12).Longworth’s Ohio(4, 8).Longworth’s Ohio(3, 7, 10, 11, 12).MacCandless(12).Ohio(12).Segar Box(3, 6, 7, 10, 12).

Alabama(12).Black Spanish(12).Black Spanish Alabama(12,?10).The Black(12).Blue French(12).Burgundy(12).Cigar Box(2, 8, 9, 11, 12).Devereaux(12).El Paso(12).Jack(9, 10, 12).Jacques(10, 12).Jacquez(12).Jac(12).Jacquet(12).Lenoir(12).Longworth’s Ohio(4, 8).Longworth’s Ohio(3, 7, 10, 11, 12).MacCandless(12).Ohio(12).Segar Box(3, 6, 7, 10, 12).

At one time Ohio attracted a great deal of attention in southern grape regions as a wine grape of the Lenoir group but was discarded as inferior to other similar grapes, lacking chiefly in hardiness and in health of vine. The grape is somewhat interesting from its singular history.

In 1834 some grape cuttings in a cigar-box were left at the home of Nicholas Longworth of Cincinnati, Ohio, during Mr. Longworth’s absence from home. The man who left them did not return and Longworth could not succeed in tracing the donor’s identity. From these came Ohio.

The Ohio has, at different times, been said to be the same, in turn, as Herbemont, Lenoir and Norton. In regard to the first, Longworth had Herbemont in cultivation before he received the Ohio and neither he nor his vineyardists failed to see distinct and constant differences between the two varieties. The last two are disposed of in theCincinnati Horticultural Society Reportgiven on the next page. Longworth and others corroborated these statements from their own comparisons of the varieties growing in the vineyards around Cincinnati. Many grape-growers, and Longworth of the number, have been of the opinion that Ohio might be the same as the variety cultivated in Mississippi under the name Jack or Jacques, both names being corruptions of Jacquez, an old Spaniard who had introduced the grape into the section around Natchez. The Ohio is probably now obsolete. It did not succeed north of Cincinnati and its culture was dropped in the place of its origin on account of its susceptibility to mildew and black-rot.

The following description of Ohio is taken from a report to the Cincinnati Horticultural Society:[205]“Very fine specimens of the grape cultivated under this name, were presented by N. Longworth and J. E. Mottier, some of the bunches measuring nine inches in length. As there has been some belief expressed by eastern cultivators, that this grape is the same as Norton’s Seedling, of Virginia, the committee took pains to examine them together, in Mr. Longworth’s garden, where both were pointed out to usby Mr. Sleath, the gardener. The difference between the two was at once apparent and striking. In the grape shown as the Norton’s Seedling, said by Mr. Sleath to have been obtained from Mr. Norton himself, the wood is not so bright a red as in the Ohio, and the leaf is large and entire, whereas that in the Ohio is three-lobed; the bud is also much less prominent and not so pointed as in the Ohio. The bunches of fruit in the Norton’s Seedling were shorter and more compact, with a thick pulp. In the Ohio, the bunches were long, very much shouldered, conical or sharp-pointed, and the fruit without pulp—sweeter, more juicy and vinous in flavor, and the seeds smaller, darker colored and less numerous than in the Norton’s Seedling.

“The Committee think the grape brought into notice here, by N. Longworth, Esq., under the names of the Ohio or Cigar box, a valuable and distinct variety, and well worthy of cultivation. This grape has a stronger resemblance to the Le Noir which was also growing near; but its bunches were more shouldered, more pointed, and less compact.”

1.U. S. D. A. Rpt.,1892:264.2.Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt.,1895:75.

Another Ohio originated with R. H. Hunt of Euclid, Ohio, about twenty years ago. Of this variety Van Deman says:

“Cluster large, tapering, slightly shouldered. Berry rather large, round, black with slight bloom; skin rather thick, tender; pulp moderately juicy, tender. Seeds small, three or four in number. Flavor mild, slightly subacid; quality medium. Season early.”

This variety is not in the collection of this Station and we have not been able to find either vines or fruit.

1.Bush. Cat.,1883:128.2.Mass. Hatch Sta. Bul.,2:21. 1888.3.Ill. Sta. Bul.,28:261. 1893.4.N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt.,17:533, 548, 556. 1898.5.Mich. Sta. Bul.,169:174. 1899.6.Ga. Sta. An. Rpt.,13:328. 1900.7.N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt.,21:396. 1902.

Oneida is a New York seedling, interesting as an offspring of the Vinifera-Labrusca hybrid Merrimac. It was sold by subscription in 1884 and thereby somewhat widely distributed but has not generally been reported upon with favor and is of doubtful value. There are many complaintsof its being unfruitful and some of its being unhealthy and in consequence a weak grower. In some sections, however, it is fairly satisfactory. While it keeps well it is said to lose flavor soon after picking. Oneida is one of the rare sorts with erect stamens and yet self-sterile.

H. Thacher of Oneida County, New York, originated Oneida from seed of Merrimac planted in 1871. It bore its first fruit in 1875 and was introduced by A. M. Purdy of Palmyra in 1884. The vine characters are largely those of Labrusca but the fruit shows very strongly the descent from Vinifera. Unlike the berries of Labrusca there is no disagreeable taste near either skin or seeds and the texture of skin and flesh is much like that of the European Malaga.

Vine medium in vigor, not hardy, variable in productiveness, somewhat subject to attacks of fungi. Canes medium to long, numerous, often rather slender, roughened; tendrils continuous, bifid. Leaves large to medium, moderately light green; lower surface pale green, pubescent. Flowers sterile, open medium late; stamens upright. Fruit ripens later than Concord, keeps well. Clusters small to medium, tapering, usually single-shouldered, loose. Berries variable in size, roundish, handsome red in color, almost equal to Delaware although in some seasons the berries have an unattractive greenish-red color. Skin thick, adheres considerably to the pulp. Flesh somewhat stringy, tender, vinous, sweet from skin to center, with some Vinifera sprightliness, fair to good in quality. Seeds separate easily from the pulp, not numerous, rather large, broad, short, plump, usually with a small enlarged neck; chalaza large, distinct, roughened.

1.Mag. Hort.,26:552. 1860.fig.2.U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt.,1861:477.3.Am. Pom. Soc. Cat.,1862:90.4.Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt.,1862:157.5.Strong,1866:352.6.Husmann,1866:124.7.Fuller,1867:247.8.Am. Jour. Hort.,4:275. 1868.9.Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt.,1871:108.10.Mich. Pom. Soc. Rpt.,1872:540.fig.11.Bush. Cat.,1883:128.Blue Tart(2).Blue Vine Grape(2).Oporto(2).

Blue Tart(2).Blue Vine Grape(2).Oporto(2).

Oporto was at one time somewhat sought for as a wine grape from the fact that its wine resembled in color and flavor that from Oporto. The name has given many the idea that the grape is a European variety—a misnomer in this respect, as its botanical characters show it to be a cross between Riparia and Labrusca. The variety is now scarcely known, being inferior in most of its horticultural characters to others of its species, but it might be valuable in breeding work for some of its characters. Oportois very hardy, unusually free from fungal diseases, and its must is very thick and dark, even staining the hands a deep purple, hence suitable for adding color to wines. The variety is very resistant to phylloxera and has been used in France as a phylloxera-resistant grafting stock.

The origin of this variety is unknown. It was introduced into cultivation about 1860 by E. W. Sylvester of Lyons, New York. The Oporto was placed on the American Pomological Society list in 1862 and removed in 1867. The botanical characters indicate that this variety is a Riparia-Labrusca cross-breed. It has much the same vine characters as Clinton, but is, if anything, more rampant in growth than that vigorous variety.

Vine vigorous to very vigorous, unusually hardy, healthy, variable in productiveness. Canes above medium to long, of medium thickness, dark brown to reddish-brown, surface covered with thin blue bloom; tendrils continuous, bifid. Stamens reflexed.Fruit ripens with Concord, ships and keeps well. Clusters medium to small, inferior in length, intermediate in width, cylindrical to oval, often single-shouldered, variable in compactness. Berries below medium in size, roundish to oblate, frequently compressed on account of compactness of cluster, black, glossy, covered with abundant blue bloom, persistent, firm. Skin very thin, tender, contains a large amount of dark wine-colored pigment. Flesh nearly white, or sometimes with purplish tinge, moderately juicy, fine-grained, inclined to solid, sweet to somewhat acid, decidedly spicy, of fair quality. Seeds separate somewhat easily from the pulp, often numerous, below medium to small, of average length, inclined to broad, faintly notched, often sharply pointed, plump, dark brown; raphe sometimes shows as a partly submerged cord in the shallow groove; chalaza of average size, above center, oval, nearly obscure.

Fruit ripens with Concord, ships and keeps well. Clusters medium to small, inferior in length, intermediate in width, cylindrical to oval, often single-shouldered, variable in compactness. Berries below medium in size, roundish to oblate, frequently compressed on account of compactness of cluster, black, glossy, covered with abundant blue bloom, persistent, firm. Skin very thin, tender, contains a large amount of dark wine-colored pigment. Flesh nearly white, or sometimes with purplish tinge, moderately juicy, fine-grained, inclined to solid, sweet to somewhat acid, decidedly spicy, of fair quality. Seeds separate somewhat easily from the pulp, often numerous, below medium to small, of average length, inclined to broad, faintly notched, often sharply pointed, plump, dark brown; raphe sometimes shows as a partly submerged cord in the shallow groove; chalaza of average size, above center, oval, nearly obscure.

1.Barry,1883:449.2.Kan. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,1889-90:95.3.Ill. Sta. Bul.,28:256. 1893.4.Col. Sta. Bul.,29:19. 1894.5.Bush. Cat.,1894:165.

Oriental is an excellent dark red Vinifera-Labrusca hybrid resembling Rogers’ red hybrids but not in any way surpassing them. While a good grape, it is doubtful if it can take the place of the better known varieties of Rogers. Like many grapes of this class its fruit is of high quality but the vine is of only moderate vigor and is susceptible to mildew and black-rot. Oriental is more satisfactory in the dry portions of the middle West than in New York.

This variety was produced by N. B. White of Norwood, Massachusetts, from seed of a wild Labrusca fertilized with Black Hamburg pollen.

Vine vigorous, not always hardy, averages with Concord in productiveness. Canes unusually long, above medium in number and thickness, surface slightly roughened; tendrils continuous, sometimes intermittent, bifid to trifid. Leaves large, green; lower surface grayish-green, pubescent. Fruit ripens about ten days before Concord, keeps well. Clusters intermediate in size and length, broad, vary from single-shouldered to double-shouldered, loose. Berries large to medium, oval to roundish, dull dark red, covered with lilac bloom, inclined to drop somewhat from pedicel, soft. Skin thick, tough, with but little astringency. Flesh somewhat tough, stringy, coarse, vinous, sweet from skin to center, good in quality. Seeds adherent to the pulp, often numerous, large, long, medium to broad, blunt; chalaza central to distinctly above center, frequently with shallow radiating furrows.

1.Gar. Mon.,9:22, 23. 1867.fig.2.Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt.,1867:173.3.Downing,1869:552.4.Grape Cult.,2:24, 25. 1870.fig.5.Bush. Cat.,1894:167.6.Tenn. Sta. Bul., Vol.9:185. 1896.7.Tex. Sta. Bul.,48:1151, 1161. 1898.8.Mo. Sta. Bul.,46:40, 43, 44, 45, 76. 1899.9.Ga. Sta. Bul.,53:47. 1901.10.Kan. Sta. Bul.,110:246. 1902.11.Traité gen. de vit.,5:160. 1903.Arnold’s Hybrid No. 1(4).Arnold’s No. 1(1).Arnold’s No. 1(3, 5, 6, 11).Arnold’s Hybrid(2).Arnold’s Hybrid(11).Canadian Hamburg(3, 11).Canadian Hybrid(3, 11).Challenge?(11).

Arnold’s Hybrid No. 1(4).Arnold’s No. 1(1).Arnold’s No. 1(3, 5, 6, 11).Arnold’s Hybrid(2).Arnold’s Hybrid(11).Canadian Hamburg(3, 11).Canadian Hybrid(3, 11).Challenge?(11).

Othello is interesting as being so far the most valuable hybrid between Vinifera and Riparia, having attracted much attention in Europe as well as in America. The significance of the name is not apparent unless, because of its dark color, it was christened after Shakespeare’s dusky Moor. In France, Othello does remarkably well as a direct producer and is used somewhat for a resistant stock. While most of its characters are spoken of in the superlative by the French, in America it is not so highly thought of chiefly because of its susceptibility to fungi, though it shows other weaknesses which seem inherent to hybrids of Vinifera and native species when grown in this country. The fruit of Othello matures so late that it could never become a valuable variety for any considerable portion of New York. It is in no sense a table grape nor does it make, according to the French,[206]a high grade of wine, but rather a well-colored, pleasant, ordinary wine of considerable alcoholic strength.

OTHELLOOTHELLO

Charles Arnold of Paris, Brant County, Ontario, produced Othello from seed of Clinton fertilized by Black Hamburg. The seed was planted in 1859 and the variety was sent out for testing about ten years later. There seems considerable doubt whether Arnold’s Clinton was the same as the variety known under that name in the United States, but if not, it was similar. Assuming that Arnold’s is the well known Clinton, Othello is descended from Labrusca, Riparia and Vinifera. The characters of the three species are shown in the variety. The foxy flavor, the tomentum of the leaf, the pulpy flesh, and the usually continuous tendrils are all from Labrusca. Riparia is revealed in the long, slender canes, the resistance to phylloxera and the shallow, spreading root system. There are but few of the characters of Black Hamburg, the Vinifera parent, to be found and yet the much lobed leaf, the cluster, the oval berry and the flavor indicate the Old World grape and make fairly certain the triple origin.

Back to Index Next