SPECIES OF AMERICAN GRAPES.
THE GENUS VITIS.
The genus Vitis was formed and named by Tournefort,[113] a French
botanist, more than two hundred years ago. In his work, _Institutiones
Rei Herbariae_, published in Paris in 1700, he gives the following
description of this genus:
"The Vitis is a genus of plant with a (A) flower shaped like a rose,
with many petals placed uniformly in a circle, out of the middle of
which arises the pistil (B), with stamens pressed together (C), the
flower (D,E,F) folds upward; the pistil develops into an edible berry
(E), fleshy, full of juice, and usually with four seeds (H,I), the seeds
are pear-shaped (K)."
The capital letters in the parentheses refer to illustrations. These
indicate that Tournefort had a very clear conception of the flowering
parts of a grape. He gives twenty-one species under this genus of which
nine are American, one, however, being our Virginia creeper.
Tournefort's work is all very indefinite; others of the species than
those credited to America may be American, and it is quite possible that
of the nine some would not be classed among the grapes to-day. Each
species is credited to some previous botanist and it is evident that
Tournefort was a compiler rather than an original worker with grapes.
The next botanist who contributed to our knowledge of this genus was
Linnaeus, the great Swedish systematist, who, in his _Genera Plantarum_,
1754, gives the following description of the flower (Like Tournefort's,
Linnaeus' book is written in Latin and the extracts here given are free
translations):
"Calyx. Five-toothed, small.
"Corolla. Petals five, rudimentary, small, caducous.
"Stamens. Filaments five, subulate, erect, spreading, caducous, anthers
simple.
"Pistil. Ovary egg-shaped, style none, stigma obtuse headed.
"Pericarp. Berry nearly round, large, one cell.
"Seeds. Five, plump, terminate cordate, base contracted, partially
divided into two cells."
Linnaeus in his _Species Plantarum_ of 1753, gives seven species as
belonging to this genus, three of which are credited to America. One,
however, _Vitis arborea_, is not classed among the grapes by present-day
botanists.
Marshall,[114] the first American botanist we have to consider, for
neither Tournefort nor Linnaeus had ever been on this continent, in his
_Arbustrum Americanum_, 1785, describes the genus Vitis in terms so
nearly identical with those of Linnaeus as to lead one to suspect that
it is merely a translation from the _Genera Plantarum_. Marshall gives
five species. One of these is certainly not a grape and one other is
indeterminate.
Thomas Walter,[115] in his _Flora Caroliniana_, 1788, gives a brief
description of the genus very similar to the foregoing but he also
speaks of the masculine and feminine forms of the flowers, a point that
does not seem to have been noticed by any botanist of an earlier date.
He speaks of the corolla adhering at the top and coming off as a cap,
one of the distinguishing characters of Vitis. This latter point had,
however, been noted by Tournefort, and his figures show that this is
what he means when he speaks of the flower as folding upward.
Tournefort, however, seems to have been under the mistaken impression
that Ampelopsis (_Ampelopsis quinquifolia_ Michx. is our common American
form) opens its flowers in the same way, as he includes this under
Vitis. Walter gives only three species and his descriptions of these are
very brief.
The first European botanist who made an extensive study of American
plants in their habitats was André Michaux, a French botanist who
traveled extensively in North America at about the close of the
eighteenth century. In his _Flora Boreali-Americana_, which was
published in 1803, he gives a brief generic description of Vitis which
includes all of the essential characters given by Walter. He also
questions the male and female characters mentioned by Walter.[116]
Michaux mentions five species of the American grapes. His descriptions
are clear and every species described can readily be recognized so that
there is no question among botanists as to what species was meant in any
instance.
An interesting contribution to our knowledge of the grapes of North
America is that of William Bartram.[117] Bartram's opportunities for
becoming familiar with these plants were probably greater than those of
any other person of his day, he being a resident of America, and his
father having been a botanist, so that he was trained from childhood to
observe plants. The following is an extract from an article of Bartram's
in the _Domestic Encyclopedia_, 1804:
"The most obvious characters which distinguish the grape vines of
America from those of the old continent are: 1. The berries of all the
American species and varieties that I have seen, approach the figure of
an oblate spheroid; that is, the poles are flattened, and the transverse
diameter is longer than the polar: however, I have observed that
Alexander's grape, and some of the _bul_ or bullet grapes, approach
nearer to an oval or ellipsis which is the figure of all foreign or
European grapes that I have seen; viz. a prolate spheroid. 2. Most of
the American species and varieties have a glaucous and yellowish
pubescence on the under surface of their leaves. 3. All that I have
observed in the northern and eastern districts of the United States are
_polygamous_; i. e. those vines which bear fruit (female) have
hermaphrodite flowers (pentandria monogynia); but the males have only
five stamina, without any female organ, and are always barren. One
should suppose, from WALTER so strongly marking this character as to
induce him to place the Vitis in the class _Dioecia_, when Linnaeus and
the other European botanists had placed it in Pentandria (he himself
being an European), that all the grape vines of the old continent are
hermaphroditous and Pentandrian. I know not from my own observation,
whether the bull-grape of Carolina is hermaphroditous or dioecious, and
therefore rest satisfied with WALTER'S assertion." Bartram gives four
species.
Nuttall,[118] in his _Genera of North American Plants and Catalogue of
the Species_, gives a rather stereotyped description of the genus but in
addition in fine type he gives the following:
"Leaf simple and cordate, angularly or sinuately lobed, rarely digitate
or pinnate (Cissus?), flowers numerous, in compound racemes, not
uncommonly producing 4, 6 and 7 petals, with a corresponding number of
stamens, calix mostly entire, or obsoletely crenate, a glandulous disk
surrounding the germ; tendril dichotomous, sometimes producing flowers,
therefore analogous to a sterile raceme."
It is evident that Nuttall was in doubt as to the distinguishing
characters between Vitis and the allied genus, Cissus. While he has the
species of the two genera in the same position they would now be placed,
his reference to pinnate-leaved species is somewhat misleading as no
pinnate-leaved species are known to-day in either Europe or America. He
uses, however, the distinguishing character between these two genera
that we now accept, that is, Vitis has petals that adhere at the tops
and come off in the form of a cap or calyptrum, while in Cissus the
corolla does not fall off as a cap. Nuttall mentions six species as
belonging to this genus: _Vitis labrusca_, _V. aestivalis_, _V.
cordifolia_, _V. riparia_, _V. rotundifolia_, and _V. palmata_, with a
question mark after the last species. None is described. His work is
apparently a discriminating compilation of the work of earlier
botanists.
Many other botanical workers wrote on this genus during the period
covered and some of them did very valuable work in describing the
various species but their work has not been referred to because it did
not add to the knowledge of the genus as a whole.
The first man to write a monograph on American grapes was
Rafinesque,[119] who published in 1830 a paper bound volume entitled
_American Manual of the Grape Vine_, etc. Rafinesque, who was long a
resident of the United States, had an opportunity to acquire knowledge
on the subject upon which he wrote second to none other. His description
of the genus is similar to that of his predecessors and very good; but
here all similarity ends and practically all value. After having made
forty-one species, the greater portion of which have names given by
himself, he says: "By the above enumeration of our Grapes I have done
for this genus what Michaux did for our Oaks. Owing to the great
confusion of former authors, and the difficulty of comparing the leaves
and fruits of all the species, it is hardly as perfect as I should wish.
Rigid botanists may perhaps wish to reduce this species to a minor
number or consider some as hybrids: if they can find good permanent
collective characters, let them reduce our Grapes and Oaks to a dozen
species. But the angular or striated branches, the long or short
petioles, the oval, cordate or reniform leaves, etc., must always be
deemed essential specific characters, and several of my new species,
such as V. bracteata, V. angulata, V. peltata, V. canina, V. blanda, V.
longifolia, V. acerifolia, V. amara, V. prolifera, etc., must be deemed
very distinct." None of those of which he says "must be deemed essential
specific characters" is now so considered and the species which must be
"deemed very distinct" are many of them unrecognized and none of them
known by the name which he gave.
Le Conte, about the middle of the last century, did much work in the
botany of grapes, publishing several papers in the _Proceedings of the
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia_. These were in the nature
of monographs although they were not, so far as known, published
separately. He gives twelve species generally taken from other authors.
A little later than Le Conte, Engelmann of St. Louis, gave his attention
to the genus Vitis, clearing up a number of disputed points. His work
was published in various reports and later in the _Bushberg Catalogue
and Grape Manual_. Engelmann's studies are particularly valuable in that
he was the first botanist working with grapes who lived in the middle
west and the territory over which he ranged in his botanical expeditions
was comparatively virgin. This was about the time of the reconstitution
of the French vineyards by the use of American roots as stocks on which
to graft their French vines to enable them to resist phylloxera. Many
thousand cuttings and rooted vines of American grapes were sent to
France annually for this purpose. The value of grafting on resistant
stocks had stimulated an interest among French scientists in grapes
generally and particularly in the American species. While their aid in
separating species was but slight, owing to their distance from the
field where the plants were growing, yet the investigations of Planchon,
Millardet, and others as to the comparative value of various characters
in separating species, were of great importance. These investigations
were utilized by Engelmann to a considerable extent. Owing to its
simplicity, and somewhat perhaps to the place of publication, his work
obtained favor among grape-growers to a greater extent than that of any
of his predecessors. In his earlier writings he gives six species but in
the last edition of the _Bushberg Catalogue_ thirteen are enumerated.
[Illustration:
1. V. bicolor
2. V. cordifolia
3. V. rotundifolia
4. V. doaniana
5. V. longii
6. V. labrusca
7. V. rupestris
8. V. riparia
9. V. vinifera
10. V. aestivalis
CANES OF SPECIES OF VITIS]
Shortly after and partly coincident with Engelmann, Munson, of Texas,
made valuable contributions to our knowledge of American grapes. Munson
is, what none of his predecessors had been, a cultivator of grapes and a
breeder of new varieties as well as a botanical student of the subject.
The region in which he lived was comparatively new to botanists, and it
was partly, perhaps, on this account that he raised the number of
species from the thirteen given by Engelmann to twenty-five. At the
present time it appears doubtful if all of these will ultimately be
given specific rank. Many of them undoubtedly will, and others of them
will be recognized at least as varieties. Munson is regarded to-day as
the chief authority on grapes of the semi-arid and mountainous districts
of the West and is one of the leading authorities on American
viticulture.
The last man who has paid special attention to the grapes of North
America is Bailey, of Cornell. In his latest classification he gives
twenty-three species of American grapes. Bailey is the only American
botanist of experience and recognized standing in general botany who has
paid special attention to the grape. His monograph of the genus Vitis
which, with some changes, has appeared successively in _Gray's
Synoptical Flora_, _The Evolution of Our Native Fruits_, and the
_Cyclopedia of American Horticulture_, is the most complete work we have
on this subject. With his permission we have followed his arrangement of
species in _The Grapes of New York_.
With this brief history of the formation of the genus Vitis as it now
stands we pass to a consideration of the botanical characters of Vitis.
From the time when botanists first commenced to work on the grape there
has been a constant search for taxonomic characters for separating the
various species clearly and distinctly. Many of the earlier
descriptions, while they are correct so far as they go, do not mention
enough characters to enable one to distinguish between similar species.
It has been found that dependence upon the shape of the leaf, size of
berry, size of plant, date of ripening, and similar characters, is very
uncertain and unsatisfactory and that, while these characters are always
mentioned in descriptions as indicating the intrinsic value of a
species, they are of little value from a systematic standpoint. There
are, however, several characters of Vitis which have great taxonomic
importance.
One of the fundamental characters which determine a species is
continuous or intermittent tendrils, first noticed by Professor A.
Braun[120] of Berlin. _Vitis labrusca_, the common Fox grape, is
peculiar in that there are tendrils, or an inflorescence, opposite
nearly every leaf; this arrangement is known as _continuous tendrils_.
All other species have two leaves with a tendril opposite each and a
third leaf without a tendril; such species are said to have
_intermittent tendrils_. Continuity of tendrils is a variable character
and to ascertain which of the two forms is present it is necessary to
have vigorous, healthy, typical canes. The lowest leaves of canes
usually have no opposite tendrils. This character is shown in the
color-plates of the several species.
A closely related character is that of the number of inflorescences
borne by a species. All species excepting _Vitis labrusca_ average two
inflorescences to the cane but the last named species, at least in some
of its subdivisions, may bear from three to six inflorescences, each of
course in the place of a tendril opposite a leaf.
Professor Millardet of Bordeaux first called attention to the value of
that part of the cane known as the diaphragm as a means of
distinguishing species. The cane of the grape vine contains a large
pith, and in most species this pith is interrupted by woody tissue at
the joints; this woody tissue is the _diaphragm_. The presence or
absence of the diaphragm and its thickness are of taxonomic value. In
Rotundifolia, the southern Fox grape, the diaphragm is absent; in
Riparia, the Riverbank grape, it is very thin; in Rupestris it is
slightly thicker; while Cordifolia, Aestivalis, and Labrusca have thick
diaphragms. This character is studied best in the year-old canes of
the grape. The color-plate of canes shows the range in thickness of
diaphragms as they occur in several species.
[Illustration: V. RUPESTRIS
V. RIPARIA
V. LONGII
V. CHAMPINI
V. LABRUSCA
V. VINIFERA
V. AESTIVALIS BOURQUINIANA
V. AESTIVALIS LINCECUMII
V. BICOLOR
V. AESTIVALIS
V. BERLANDIERI
V. ROTUNDIFOLIA
V. DOANIANA
V. LABR. × V. VIN.
V. LABR. X V. RIP.
SEEDS OF SPECIES OF VITIS
[NATURAL SIZE AND ENLARGED]]
The time of flowering is of considerable value in distinguishing
species. Unfortunately it requires live plants and a certain time of
year in order that this character be noted. The first American species
to flower is Riparia. Rupestris flowers shortly after; next, Labrusca;
Aestivalis a little later, although the Lincecumii variety of Aestivalis
blooms slightly before Labrusca; Cordifolia is very late in coming into
bloom, and Cinerea still later. Vinifera, the European grape, blooms
shortly after Labrusca. The cultivated offspring of all wild grapes
retain the blooming characters of the species from which they are
derived.
Other characters that have been found of great value are those connected
with the seed. The ability to use the seed characters, however, cannot
readily be acquired except by the use of an illustrated manual and some
experience in selecting the seeds, as they are quite variable on the
same plant. The weight of the seeds differs in different species, but
varies so much inside the species that it is not of much value from a
systematic standpoint. In general, it may be said that the Labruscas
have the largest and heaviest seed of our American grapes; Riparia has
the smallest seed, with Aestivalis occupying an intermediate position.
The size of the seeds in Aestivalis, however, is more noticeable on
account of the small size of the fruit. The color-plate illustrates the
different characters to be found in grape seeds and a study of this
plate with the technical descriptions of the several species will show
how important seeds become in classifying grapes.
Attention is called to the characters given by Bartram as distinguishing
the European from the American species. The first difference that he
mentions is in the shape of the fruit, that of the Vinifera being more
or less oval and that of American species roundish or oblate. Recent
technical descriptions of our American species give the fruit as
spherical where the shape is mentioned at all. On the other hand it is
known that most of the cultivated varieties of European grapes are oval.
Does this mean that all of our cultivated American varieties which show
oval berries, such as Isabella, Catawba, and others, contain Vinifera
blood? It could not be said without careful study that this is true but
it is certainly worthy of consideration. This point seems to have
escaped the attention of our later-day botanists.
The sexual status of the grape has always been a source of
misunderstanding. The earlier botanists spoke of American vines as
dioecious, that is, bearing staminate and pistillate flowers on separate
individuals. In this, as was noted on page 98, they were corrected by
Bartram, in so far as American species were concerned, he stating that
the vines of America were polygamous (showing staminate and
hermaphrodite plants). Bartram did not presume to speak as to the sex of
the flowers of the Old World grape. Later it was determined that the
cultivated varieties of Europe were always hermaphrodite and that
staminate forms were unknown. Engelmann[121] explains this so well and
with such apparent satisfaction that we cannot do better than quote him
here. "All the true Grape-vines bear fertile flowers on one stock and
sterile flowers on another separate stock, and are therefore called
_polygamous_, or, not quite correctly, _dioecious_. The sterile plants
do bear male flowers with abortive pistils, so that while they never
produce fruit themselves, they may assist in fertilizing the others; the
fertile flowers, however, are hermaphrodites containing both
organs--stamens and pistils--and are capable of ripening fruit without
the assistance of the male plants. Real female flowers without any
stamens do not seem ever to have been observed. Both forms, the male and
the hermaphrodite, or if preferred those with sterile and those with
complete flowers, are found mixed in their native localities of the wild
plants, but of course only the fertile plants have been selected for
cultivation, and thus it happens that to the cultivator only these are
known; and as the Grape-vine of the Old World has been in cultivation
for thousands of years, it has resulted that this hermaphrodite
character of its flowers has been mistaken for a botanical peculiarity,
by which it was to be distinguished, not only from our American
Grape-vines, but also from the wild grapes of the old world. But plants
raised from the seeds of this as well as any other true Grape-vine,
generally furnish as many sterile as fertile specimens, while those
propagated by layering or by cuttings, of course, only continue the
individual character of the mother-plant or stock." The accompanying
plate shows various forms of grape flowers.
[Illustration: FLOWERS OF VITIS]
He further says in a foot-note: "These fertile plants, however, are of
two kinds; some are _perfect hermaphrodites_, with long and straight
stamens around the pistil, the others bear smaller stamens, shorter than
the pistil which soon bend downward and curve under it; these may be
called _imperfect hermaphrodites_, approaching females, and they do not
seem to be as fruitful as the perfect hermaphrodites, unless otherwise
fertilized."
Beach[122] tested many of our cultivated varieties by sacking the
clusters at blooming time and thus determined their capacity to
fertilize themselves. From the data thus secured he divides them into
four classes: 1st. Those that are able to fertilize themselves so that
the clusters are perfect or varying from perfect to somewhat loose. 2d.
Those in which the clusters are marketable, varying from moderately
compact to loose. 3d. Clusters so loose as to be unmarketable. 4th.
Those which are self-sterile or showing no fruit on covered clusters. Of
169 varieties tested, he found 38 belonging to the first class, 66 to
the second class, 28 to the third, and 37 to the fourth.
Later it was found that the reason why certain varieties were
self-sterile was on account of impotent and abortive pollen, the
percentage of abortive pollen grains varying with different varieties
and this percentage determining the degree of self-sterility. The
upright or depressed stamen is not an invariable criterion of the
condition of the pollen although it is usually. There are a few
instances in which upright stamens bear impotent pollen but these are
very exceptional. Munson made similar tests of vines of twenty-two[123]
American species of vines secured from their habitats. In every case he
found that they showed only two forms, the staminate vines and the
self-sterile hermaphrodite, no perfect hermaphrodites being found. While
of some of the species the number of vines tested was a half dozen or
less, in most instances many vines were tested from different places.
This is particularly interesting in that it becomes a puzzle as to where
our perfectly hermaphrodite cultivated forms could have come from if
such forms are not present in the wild vines of our woods and prairies.
The structure of the bark is an important distinguishing character for
some species; in particular as to whether it peels off and whether in
large flakes or in narrow strips or shreds. So, too, the color of the
bark is often of taxonomic importance. The form and color of the leaves
are often considered, but these characters are variable and may be
misleading. The lobing of leaves is a fairly uniform character in most
species, some having lobed and others having entire leaves. As to color
and texture, the upper surface of the leaf in some species is smooth,
glossy and shining and in others rough and dull with varying shades of
green. The lower surfaces show similar variations with the addition of
varying conditions of pubescence and down or even of cobwebs. In young
seedlings the shape and surfaces of the leaves are apt to be quite
different from those on the old plants, a character of systematic
importance with some species. The flower, as compared with this organ in
other genera, is of little importance in distinguishing the species of
Vitis, there being an unusual similarity in the structure and appearance
of the flowers of the several species.
The number of species of Vitis is very uncertain; as, indeed, is their
habitat, except that they are generally confined to the temperate or
subtropical regions. Some writers give the number as less than fifty but
in all territories the number seems to depend on the thoroughness with
which the region has been worked over botanically, and also on the
judgment of the botanist doing the work. Gray recognized four species as
being indigenous to America. Engelmann in his latest publication
(_Bushberg Catalogue_, 1883), thirteen, while Munson gives twenty-five.
Bailey in _Gray's Synoptical Flora_, gives twenty-three species.
Planchon (in 1887) gives twenty-eight species for the world. Seventeen
of these are credited to America, ten to Asia, and one, the Vinifera, of
unknown nativity. All of these lists, however, are known to be
incomplete. Bessey[124] says that the grape is not native to the
southern hemisphere, and Planchon credits none to any section south of
the equator. Bailey credits two to Australia in a work not intended to
cover more than those of American interest. And a correspondent[125]
from that continent writes us giving a list of nineteen named and
botanically described species indigenous to Australia. The number of
species of grapes in the world depends upon the arbitrary limits set for
a species and our knowledge of the genus is yet too meager to set these
limits with certainty.
SPECIES OF AMERICAN GRAPES.
CONSPECTUS OF NORTH AMERICAN SPECIES OF VITIS.
A. Skin of mature berry separating freely from the pulp.
B. Nodes without diaphragms; tendrils simple =1. V. rotundifolia.=
=2. V. munsoniana.=
B.B. Nodes with diaphragms; tendrils forked.
C. Leaves and shoots glabrous at maturity and without bloom.
Tendrils intermittent (_V. cinerea_ and _V. arizonica_ are partial
exceptions and might be looked for under C.C.).
D. Leaves thin, light, bright green, generally glabrous
below at maturity except perhaps in the axils of the
veins (_V. champini_ an exception) with a long or at
least a prominent point and usually long and sharp
teeth or the edge even jagged. (_V. bicolor_ might be
looked for here.)
E. Leaves broader than long; petiolar sinus usually
wide and shallow. (_V. treleasei_ might be
sought here.) =3. V. rupestris.=
E.E. Leaves ovate in outline; petiolar sinus
usually medium to narrow.
F. Diaphragms thin; young shoots not red.=4. V. monticola.=
=5. V. riparia.=
=6. V. treleasei.=
=7. V. longii.=
=8. V. champini.=
F.F. Diaphragms thick; young shoots
bright red =9. V. rubra.=
D.D. Leaves thickish, dull colored or grayish green, often
holding some close dull pubescence below at maturity,
shoots and leaves nearly always more or less pubescent
when young; the teeth mostly short; the point mostly
rectangular and conspicuous.
E. Plants strong, climbing, with stout persistent
tendrils.
F. Young shoots cylindrical, glabrous or
very soon becoming so =10. V. cordifolia.=
F.F. Young shoots angled, covered the
first year with tomentum or wool =11. V. baileyana.=
=12. V. berlandieri.=
=13. V. cinerea.=
E.E. Plants scarcely climbing, tendrils perishing
when without support =14. V. arizonica.=
D.D.D. Leaves orbicular, scallop shaped; species of the
Pacific Coast =15. V. californica.=
C.C. Leaves rusty or white tomentose or glaucous blue below,
thick or at least firm. (_V. cinerea_, _V. arizonica_ and possibly
_V. californica_ might be sought here.)
D. Leaves flocculent or cobwebby or glaucous below
when fully grown (i. e. not covered with a thick dense
felt-like tomentum except sometimes in _V. doaniana_).
E. Shoots white tipped; ends of the growing
shoots and the under surface of the leaves
whitish or gray =16. V. girdiana.=
=17. V. doaniana.=
E.E. Shoots rusty tipped; the unfolding leaves
and (except in _V. bicolor_) the young shoots distinctly
ferrugineous; mature leaves either rusty
or bluish below or sometimes becoming green
in _V. bicolor_ =18. V. aestivalis.=
=19. V. bicolor.=
=20. V. caribæa.=
D.D. Leaves densely tomentose or felt-like beneath
throughout the season; covering white or rusty white.
E. Tendrils intermittent =21. V. candicans.=
=22. V. simpsoni.=
E.E. Tendrils mostly continuous =23. V. labrusca.=
A.A. Skin and pulp of mature berry cohering. (Old World)=24. V. vinifera.=
[Illustration: =SHOOT OF= _VITIS ROTUNDIFOLIA_]
1. =VITIS ROTUNDIFOLIA= Michx.[126]
=1.= _Trans. Am. Phil. Soc._, =1771=:339. =2.= Michaux, =2=:231.
1803. _Muscadine grape._ =3.= Bartram, _Dom. Enc._, =5=:289, 290.
1804. V. TAURINA; _V. vulpina_; _Bull grape_. =4.= Muhlenberg,
=1813=:27. V. VERRUCOSA; _V. rotundifolia_; _Fox grape_; _Bull
grape_. =5.= Pursh, =1=:169. 1814. _Bull grape; Bullet grape._ =6.=
Nuttall, =1=:143. 1818. =7.= Elliott, =2=:687. 1824. _V. vulpina;
Fox grape._ =8.= Rafinesque, =1830=:16. V. VULPINA; _V. muscadina_;
_V. rotundifolia_; _V. incisa_. =9.= (?) Ib., =1830=:17. V.
ANGULATA; _Arkansas_; _Bushy grape_; _Currant grape_; _False
Scuppernong_. =10.= Ib., =1830=:17. V. VERRUCOSA; _Warty grape_.
=11.= (?) Ib., =1830=:17. V. PELTATA; _V. Floridana_. =12.= Le
Conte, _Proc. Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci._, =6=:273. 1853. _V. vulpina;
V. acerifolia; V. angulata; V. verrucosa; Bullace grape; Bull
grape; Muscadine; Scuppernong._ =13.= Weller, _U. S. Pat. Off.
Rpt._, =1853=:306. SCUPPERNONG. =14.= Le Conte, _Ib._, =1857=:231.
_V. vulpina; V. acerifolia; V. angulata; V. verrucosa; Bullace
grape; Bull grape; Muscadine; Skuppernong._ =15.= White,
_Horticulturist_, =12=:457. 1857. _V. vulpina._ =16.= Ravenel, _U.
S. Pat. Off. Rpt._, =1859=:538. V. VULPINA; _V. rotundifolia_;
_Mustang_; _Bullace grape_; _Bullet grape_; _Bull grape_. =17.=
Buckley, _U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt._, =1861=:484. _Muscadine; Bullace._
=18.= Koch, _Ill. Hort. Soc. Rpt._, =1868=:81. V. VULPINA;
_Muscadine_; _Southern Fox grape_. =19.= Saunders, _U. S. D. A.
Rpt._, =1869=:83, 85. _fig._ V. VULPINA; _Bullace grape_. =20.=
Wylie, _Jour. of Hort._, =7=:164. 1870. SCUPPERNONG; _Bullace_.
=21.= Ib., _Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt._, =1871=:116. SCUPPERNONG. =22.=
Engelmann, _Mo. Ent. Rpt._, =1872=:62. V. VULPINA; _Southern Fox
grape_; _Bullace grape_; _Bullit grape_; _Muscadine_. =23.= Ib.,
_Bush. Cat._, =1883=:10, 11, 13, 14, 19. V. VULPINA; _V.
rotundifolia_; _Southern Fox grape_; _Bullace grape_; _Bullit
grape_; _Muscadine_. =24.= Bush, _Ib._, =1883=:26. _V. vulpina._
=25.= Munson, _Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt._, =1885=:138. _V. vulpina;
Scuppernong; Muscadine._ =26.= Ib., _Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt._,
=1885=:97. _Scuppernong; Muscadine._ =27.= Ib., _Gar. Mon._,
=28=:140. 1886. =28.= Planchon, _De Candolle's Mon. Phan._,
=5=:362. 1887. _Fox grape; Muscadine; Bullace; Bullet grape; V.
angulata; V. vulpina?._ =29.= Munson, _Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt._,
=1887=:59. _Muscadine._ =30.= Ib., _U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul._, =3=:14.
1890. =31.= Ib., _Gar. and For._, =3=:474, 475. 1890. _Muscadine._
=32.= Woodworth, _Ark. Sta. An. Rpt._, =3=:93. 1890. V. VULPINA.
=33.= Munson, _Am. Gard._, =12=:661. 1891. =34.= Bailey, _Ib._,
=14=:353. 1893. _Scuppernong._ =35.= Munson, _Bush. Cat._,
=1894=:20, 22, 29. _V. vulpina; Muscadine; Southern Fox grape._
=36.= Bailey, _Gray's Syn. Fl._, =1=:420. 1897. _Muscadine;
Southern Fox grape; Bullace; Bullit; Bull grape._ =37.= Britton and
Brown, =2=:411. 1897. _V. vulpina; Southern Fox grape; Bullace
grape._ =38.= Munson, _Am. Gard._, =20=:688. 1899. =39.= Ib., _Tex.
Sta. Bul._, =56=:219, 232, 234, 241, 272. 1900. _fig._ _Southern
Muscadine._ =40.= Earle, _Ala. Sta. Bul._, =110=:74. 1900. =41.=
Viala and Ravaz, _Am. Vines_, =1903=:42, 43, 45. =42.= Newman, _S.
C. Sta. Bul._, =132=:1. 1907. _Bullis._
Vine variable in vigor, usually very vigorous, climbing high,
sometimes, when without support, shrubby and only three or four
feet high; when growing in the shade often sending down aerial
roots. Wood hard, bark smooth, not scaling off except in old age,
with prominent warty lenticels; shoots short-jointed, angled, with
fine scurfy pubescence; diaphragms absent; tendrils intermittent,
simple. Leaves below medium in size, broadly cordate or roundish;
petiolar sinus rather wide, usually shallow; margin with obtuse,
wide teeth; not lobed; dense in texture, rather light green color,
glabrous above, glabrous or sometimes pubescent along veins below.
Cluster small (6-24 berries), loose; peduncle short; pedicels
short, rather thick. Berries large, globular or somewhat oblate,
black or greenish-yellow; skin usually thick, tough, and with a
musky odor; pulp rather tough; ripening unevenly and dropping as
soon as ripe. Seeds two to four, very large to medium, shaped
something like a coffee-berry, somewhat flattened, shallowly and
broadly notched; beak very short; chalaza rather narrow, slightly
depressed with radiating ridges and furrows; raphe a narrow groove.
Leafing, flowering and ripening fruit very late. (See Plate.)
Rotundifolia, or the southern Fox grape, seems to have attracted the
attention of travelers in America from an early period. The references
made in the journals of the explorers of colonial times can frequently
be recognized as pertaining to this species. Rotundifolia seems to have
escaped the attention of botanists, however, until the time of Michaux,
who named and described it. Possibly the reason for its being overlooked
was because of the supposition that this was the species Linnaeus had
described under the name Vulpina.[127] The uncertainty as to who first
described Rotundifolia created a confusion that was not definitely
cleared up for nearly a hundred years and was responsible for the fact
that half the botanists called it _Vitis rotundifolia_ and a nearly
equal number _Vitis vulpina_. Rafinesque, in 1830, described some three
or four species within the bounds of what is now known as _Vitis
rotundifolia_. None of these, however, has been accepted by later
botanists.
The habitat of this species is southern Delaware, west through
Tennessee, southern Illinois, southeastern Missouri, Arkansas (except
the northwestern portions), to Grayson County, Texas, as a northern and
western boundary, to the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf on the east and
south. It becomes rare as one approaches the western limit but is common
in many sections of the great region outlined above, being most abundant
on sandy, well-drained bottom lands and along river banks and in swamps,
thick woodlands and thickets.
_Vitis rotundifolia_ has for years been the favorite grape in many
sections of the South. This is largely due, no doubt, to the fact that
they have been usually compared with Labrusca or Labrusca-Vinifera
varieties of northern origin which are not well adapted to southern
conditions. With the introduction of native varieties of "bunch
grapes"[128] of merit, the southern species may lose in popularity. It
must be said, considering the fact that southern agricultural literature
has been filled with recommendations of Rotundifolia grapes for nearly a
century, that the cultivation of varieties of this species is
comparatively limited.
The climate most suitable for Rotundifolia is that in which cotton grows
and it thrives best in the lower portions of the cotton belt of the
United States. On account of the late ripening of the fruit it requires
a long season. Vines of Rotundifolia have been known to withstand a
winter temperature as low as 12 degrees below zero, but under ordinary
conditions this would undoubtedly be much too severe for most
Rotundifolias. They do not suffer from the effects of hot summers but
will not withstand drouth and are not well adapted to semi-arid
conditions. All growers of varieties of this species agree that it does
best on light sandy or alluvial soils; and while it may grow on rather
heavy clays, if all other conditions are favorable, its vigor will be
lessened.
The fruit of Rotundifolia is very characteristic. The skin is thick, has
a leathery appearance, adheres strongly to the underlying flesh, and is
marked with lenticel-like russet dots. The flesh is more or less tough
but the toughness is not localized around the seed as in the case of
Labrusca. The fruit and must of all the varieties of the species are
characterized by a strong, musky aroma and are lacking in sugar and
acid. Some varieties yield over four gallons of must per bushel.
Wine-makers are divided in opinion as to its value for wine-making, but
at present the most promising outlook for Rotundifolia varieties is as
wine grapes. Rotundifolia does not produce fruit suitable for the table
chiefly because the berries ripen unevenly and when ripe drop from the
cluster. The common method of gathering the fruit of this species is to
shake the vines at intervals so that the ripe berries will drop on
sheets spread below the vines. The juice which exudes from the point
where the stem is broken off causes the berries to become smeared and
gives them an unattractive appearance. Owing, however, to the tough
skin, the berries do not crack as badly as other grapes would under the
same conditions but still they are not adapted to long distance
shipments.
Under reasonably favorable conditions the vines attain great age and
great size, and when grown on arbors, as they usually are, and without
pruning, they cover a large area. The vines are planted from fifteen to
forty feet apart in the vineyard, and the first year or two are trained
to posts. Later the tops of these posts are connected by cross-bars and
an arbor is thus formed. Pruning usually consists of removing dead wood
but a few growers have always taken exception to the customary
non-pruning method of treating the Rotundifolia. Lately Newman, of
South Carolina, has published a bulletin[129] in which he recommends
that the vines be pruned and raised on a trellis as is customary with
other grapes. He gives figures to show that the damage to Rotundifolia
vines is due to the bleeding that follows pruning and that this bleeding
may be obviated by pruning in the fall or early winter. The success of
such a practice would undoubtedly place the culture of Rotundifolia
varieties on a better commercial footing.
Rotundifolia is remarkably resistant to the attacks of all insects and
to fungal diseases. The phylloxera do not attack its roots and it is
considered as resistant as any other, if not the most resistant of all
American species. It is grown from cuttings only with difficulty.
However, under favorable circumstances, and with skilful handling, this
is a successful method of propagation. Under unfavorable circumstances,
or where only a few vines are desired, it is better to depend on layers.
As a stock upon which to graft other vines this species has not been a
success. Wylie found great difficulty in crossing Rotundifolia with
other species, and the crosses did not thrive under cultivation. Lately
Munson has introduced several Rotundifolia hybrids.
2. =VITIS MUNSONIANA= Simpson.
=1.= (?) Rafinesque, =1830=:17. V. PELTATA; _V. Floridana_. =2.=
Munson, _Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt._, =1885=:97. V. FLORIDANA; _Florida
grape_. =3.= Ib., _Gar. Mon._, =28=:140. 1886. V. FLORIDANA; _V.
peltata_; _Florida grape_. =4.= Ib., _Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt._,
=1887=:59. _Everbearing grape._ =5.= Ib., _Gar. and For._, =3=:474,
475. 1890. =6.= Ib., _U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul._, =3=:14. 1890. =7.=
Ib., _Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt._, =1893=:116. _Bird grape; Everbearing
grape._ =8.= Ib., _Bush. Cat._, =1894=:20. _Bird grape; Mustang
grape_ of Chapman. =9.= Bailey, _Gray's Syn. Fl._, =1=:421. 1897.
_Mustang grape_ of Florida; _Bird grape_; _Everbearing grape_.
=10.= Munson, _Tex. Sta. Bul._, =56=:232, 241. 1900. _Florida Bird
grape._ =11.= Viala and Ravaz, _Am. Vines_, =1903=:42, 45.
Vine not very vigorous, a slender grower, usually running on the ground
or over low bushes. Canes slightly angular; internodes short; tendrils
intermittent, simple. Leaves smaller and thinner than Rotundifolia and
rather more circular in outline; not lobed; teeth rather open and
spreading; petiolar sinus V-shaped; both surfaces smooth, rather light
green. Cluster with more berries but about the same size as
Rotundifolia. Berry one-third to one-half the diameter, with thinner and
more tender skin; black, shining; pulp less solid, more acid and
without muskiness. Seeds about one-half the size of Rotundifolia,
similar in other respects. Leafing, flowering, and ripening fruit very
late.
In 1830 Rafinesque described, under the name _Vitis peltata_, or _Vitis
floridana_, "a very singular species, lately found in Florida." This
description is brief and includes many characters of no taxonomic value.
In 1885 or 1886, Mr. J.H. Simpson of Manatee, Florida, sent a specimen
of a grape growing in his locality to Munson which was taken to be
Rafinesque's _Vitis peltata_. He consequently described it under the
name _Vitis floridana_ but the species was not generally accepted. Later
Simpson gave it the name _Vitis munsoniana_.
Its habitat is central and southern Florida and the Florida Keys, and it
is said to be the only grape growing on these Keys. It extends south of
the habitat of Rotundifolia and blends into this species at their point
of meeting.
Munsoniana appears to be a variation of Rotundifolia, fitted to
subtropical conditions. It is tender, not enduring a lower temperature
than zero. In the matter of multiplication it differs from _Vitis
rotundifolia_ in that it can be propagated readily from cuttings. Like
Rotundifolia it is resistant to phylloxera. The species is of no value
horticulturally.
3. =VITIS RUPESTRIS= Scheele.
=1.= Scheele, _Linn._, =21=:591. 1848. =2.= Ravenel, _U. S. Pat.
Off. Rpt._, =1859=:539. _Mountain grape_ of Texas. =3.= Buckley,
_Ib._, =1861=:485. _Rock grape._ =4.= Prince, _Gar. Mon._, =5=:73.
1863. _Bush grape_ of Texas. =5.= Engelmann, _Mo. Ent. Rpt._,
=1872=:61. _Sand grape; Sugar grape._ =6.= Jaeger, _Mo. Hort. Soc.
Rpt._, =1883=:41. =7.= Engelmann, _Bush. Cat._, =1883=:10, 11, 12,
14, 18. _Rock grape; Sand grape; Sugar grape._ =8.= Bush, _Ib._,
=1883=:21, 26. =9.= Munson, _Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt._, =1885=:132.
_Sand-beach grape; Sugar grape._ =10.= Campbell, _Am. Pom. Soc.
Rpt._, =1885=:84. =11.= Munson, _Ib._, =1885=:97, 98. =12.= Ib.,
_Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt._, =1887=:59. _Sugar grape; Sand grape;
Beach grape._ =13.= Planchon, _De Candolle's Mon. Phan._, =5=:323,
346. 1887. _Sand grape; Sugar grape; Mountain grape._ =14.= Munson,
_Gar. and For._, =3=:474. 1890. =15.= Ib., _U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul._,
=3=:7, 9. 1890. =16.= Ib., _Am. Gard._, =12=:659. 1891. =17.= Ib.,
_Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt._, =1893=:116. _Rock grape; Sand grape._
=18.= Munson, _Bush. Cat._, =1894=:20, 22. =19.= Husmann,
=1895=:110, 188. =20.= Britton and Brown, =2=:411. 1897. _Sand
grape; Sugar grape._ =21.= Bailey, _Gray's Syn. Fl._, =1=:421.
1897. _Sand grape; Sugar grape; Rock grape; Bush grape; Mountain
grape._ =22.= Beach, _N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt._, =17=:537, 557. 1898.
=23.= Munson, _Tex. Sta. Bul._, =56=:234, 235, 239, 259. 1900.
_Rock grape._ =24.= Viala and Ravaz, _Am. Vines_, =1903=:42, 82.
Small, much branched shrub or sometimes, under favorable
circumstances, slightly climbing. Diaphragm thin but slightly
thicker than Riparia; tendrils few, or, if present, weak, usually
deciduous. Leaves rather small; young leaves frequently folded on
midrib; broadly cordate or reniform, wider than long, scarcely ever
slightly lobed, smooth, glabrous on both surfaces at maturity;
petiolar sinus wide, shallow; margin rather coarsely toothed,
frequently a sharp abrupt point at terminal. Cluster small. Berries
small, usually larger than Riparia, color black or purple-black.
Seeds small, not notched; beak short, rather blunt; raphe slightly
distinct to indistinct, usually showing as a narrow groove; chalaza
of medium size, pear-shaped, sometimes distinct, but usually a
depression only. Leafing, blossoming, and ripening early
(blossoming soon after Riparia).
Rupestris seems to have been first described and named by Scheele in
1848 in a contribution on the flora of Texas to the periodical
_Linnaea_. Ravenel, in 1859, states that this grape is found in Texas
and is there known as the Mountain grape. It was mentioned and described
by Buckley, Engelmann, and all of the later botanists. (See Plate.)
This species is an inhabitant of southwestern Texas, extending eastward
and northward into New Mexico, southern Missouri, Indiana and Tennessee
to southern Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. Its favorite
places are gravelly banks and bars of mountain streams or the rocky beds
of dry water-courses. Rupestris is usually considered drouth-resistant
but Munson states that it is short-lived in the upland sandy soils in
northern Texas, where, owing to long droughts, the land dries out
deeply. Here, he says, it is not so successfully resistant to drouth as
Lincecumii.[130]
This species is quite variable both in type and growth. It was
introduced into France at about the same time as Riparia, and the French
vineyardists selected the most vigorous and healthy forms for grafting
stock. These pass under the various names of Rupestris Mission,
Rupestris du Lot, Rupestris Ganzin, Rupestris Martin, Rupestris St.
George, and others. In France they are stated to have given particularly
good results on bare, rocky soils with hot, dry exposures. In
California, Husmann[131] states, "It does not flourish in dry locations
here, and as it suckers profusely and does not take the graft as readily
as the two former classes [Riparia and Aestivalis], it is not largely
propagated." It has not been sufficiently cultivated in this country
east of the Rocky Mountains so that it can be said what conditions of
soil and climate best suit this species other than the general
conclusions that may be drawn from the conditions present where the
species is indigenous.
[Illustration: RUPESTRIS DU LOT]
The clusters of fruit are small, with berries about the size of a
currant and varying from sweet to sour. The berry is characterized by
much pigment under the skin. The fruit has a sprightly taste wholly free
from any disagreeable foxiness. According to Munson, it is too
unproductive to be profitable. The sugar and acid content of the must is
not known. Jaeger states that Rupestris wine sent to France was there
judged as decidedly the best American claret yet tested.
Rupestris under cultivation is said to be very resistant to rot and
mildew of the foliage. It is considered hardy by those familiar with it
in the Southwest, and Campbell states that it withstood, without injury,
32 degrees below zero at Delaware, Ohio. The attention of hybridizers
was attracted to this species over thirty years ago and various hybrids
have been produced by Jaeger, Munson, Campbell and Millardet, all of
whom considered Rupestris of great promise for grape-breeding. The root
system of Rupestris is peculiar in that the roots penetrate at once
deeply into the ground instead of extending laterally as in other
species. Like those of Riparia, the roots are slender, hard, and
resistant to the phylloxera. The species is easily propagated by
cuttings. According to Husmann[132] the vines bench-graft readily but
are difficult to handle in field grafting.
=VITIS RUPESTRIS DISSECTA= Eggert.
=1.= Bailey, _Gray's Syn. Fl._, =1=:422. 1897. V. RUPESTRIS, var.
DISSECTA.
_Vitis rupestris dissecta_ was named by H. Eggert of St. Louis, the name
being placed on herbarium specimens but apparently not published by him.
According to Bailey it differs from the typical forms of the species in
having "more ovate leaves and very long teeth, and a strong tendency
towards irregular lobing." It is found in Missouri.
4. =VITIS MONTICOLA= Buckley.[133]
=1.= Buckley, _Proc. Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci._, =1861=:450. =2.= Ib.,
_U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt._, =1861=:485. _White grape; Mountain grape._
=3.= Engelmann, _Bush. Cat._, =1883=:10, 12, 14, 15, 16. _Mountain
grape_ of West Texas. =4.= Munson, _Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt._,
=1885=:134. _Mountain grape._ =5.= Ib., _Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt._,
=1887=:59. _Mountain grape._ =6.= Ib., _U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul._,
=3=:13. 1890. _V. Texana._ =7.= Ib., _Gar. and For._, =3=:474, 475.
1890. =8.= Ib., _Am. Gard._, =12=:586. 1891. _Sweet Mountain
grape._ =9.= Ib., _Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt._, =1893=:116. =10.=
Bailey, _Gray's Syn. Fl._, =1=:422. 1897. _Sweet Mountain grape._
=11.= Munson, _Tex. Sta. Bul._, =56=:230, 232, 234, 239, 260. 1900.
_Sweet Mountain grape._ =12.= Viala and Ravaz, _Am. Vines_,
=1903=:42, 96.
Vine of moderate vigor, climbing, or, in the absence of support,
frequently shrubby. Canes very slender; shoots angled, more or less
pubescent; diaphragms medium to rather thin; tendrils medium in
size, intermittent, usually bifid, deciduous. Leaves with stipules
short, broad; leaf-blade small and thin, cordate, entire, notched
or shortly three-lobed; petiolar sinus rather deep and medium to
narrow in width, sometimes overlapping, rounded; margin broadly and
obtusely toothed; apex usually acuminate; upper surface smooth,
glossy; lower surface grayish-green, more or less pubescent when
young; pubescence confined chiefly to ribs and veins. Clusters
short and broad, compact, with medium to short peduncle. Berries
medium to below in size, black or gray with thin bloom. Seeds
large, usually slightly notched; chalaza rather narrow; raphe a
groove. Leafing, flowering, and ripening fruit very late.
_Vitis monticola_ was named and described by Buckley in 1861. There
seems to have been some misunderstanding by later botanists as to
exactly what Buckley's species of this name is, and in spite of what has
been written on the subject, it seems as though some of the botanists
are still describing different species. The seed, in Engelmann's figure,
resembles that of the Rupestris very closely, while as figured by Viala
the seeds resemble those of Cinerea or Cordifolia.
Monticola inhabits the limestone hills of central and southwestern
Texas.
The fruit of this species has a very sweet and somewhat peculiar
flavor. The vines can be propagated from cuttings only with difficulty.
The species is adapted to a hot, dry climate and limestone land. It is
found to be very resistant to phylloxera and is sometimes recommended as
a stock for Vinifera but is not generally considered as valuable in this
respect as Berlandieri. It is without value for its fruit and is of no
horticultural importance to the eastern American grape-grower.
5. =VITIS RIPARIA=[134] Michx.
=1.= Tournefort, _Inst. Rei Herb._, =1=:613. 1700. V. CANADENSIS
ACERIS FOLIO. =2.= (?) Linnaeus, _Sp. Pl._, =1753=:203. V. VULPINA.
=3.= (?) Walter, =1788=:242. V. VULPINA. =4.= (?) Willdenow,
=1=:1181. 1797. V. VULPINA. =5.= Michaux, =2=:231. 1803. =6.= (?)
Bartram, _Dom. Enc._, =5=:291. 1804. V. SEROTINA; _Winter grape_.
=7.= Pursh, =1=:169. 1814. _V. odoratissima._ =8.= Nuttall,
=1818=:143. =9.= Elliott, =2=:688. 1824. _Winter grape?_ =10.=
Torrey, _Fl. of N. & M. Sta._, =1826=:121. =11.= Rafinesque,
=1830=:15. _River grape; Bermuda vine; Mignonette vine._ =12.= Ib.,
=1830=:16. V. ODORATISSIMA. =13.= Prince, =1830=:193. _V.
odoratissima; Sweet scented._ =14.= Torrey, _Fl. of N. Y._,
=1=:147. 1843. _Winter grape._ =15.= Le Conte, _Trans. Phil. Acad.
Nat. Sci._, =6=:273. 1853. _V. dimidiata._ =16.= Ib., =6=:272. V.
VULPINA; _V. aestivalis_ of some; _V. cordifolia_ of many; _V.
callosa_; _V. hyemalis_; _Winter grape_. =17.= Buckley, _U. S. Pat.
Off. Rpt._, =1861=:483. V. CORDIFOLIA, var. RIPARIA. =18.=
Saunders, _U. S. D. A. Rpt._, =1869=:82, 85, 87. V. CORDIFOLIA,
var. RIPARIA. =19.= Engelmann, _Mo. Ent. Rpt._, =1872=:61. =20.=
Ib., _Bush. Cat._, =1883=:10, 11, 12, 14, 18. _Riverside grape._
=21.= Bush, _Ib._, =1883=:23. =22.= Munson, _Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt._,
=1885=:97, =98.= _Riverside grape._ =23.= Ib., _Am. Hort. Soc.
Rpt._, =1885=:131. _Riverside grape._ =24.= Ib., _Soc. Prom. Ag.
Sci. Rpt._, =1887=:59. _Riverside grape._ =25.= Planchon, _De
Candolle's Mon. Phan._, =5=:323, 352. 1887. _V. vulpina; V. incisa;
V. intermedia; V. odoratissima; V. Virginiana; V. Canadensis aceris
folio._ =26.= Munson, _U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul._, =3=:9. 1890. =27.=
Ib., _Gar. and For._, =3=:474. 1890. =28.= Bailey, _Am. Gard._,
=14=:353. 1893. _fig._ V. VULPINA; _V. riparia_. =29.= Husmann,
=1895=:175. V. CORDIFOLIA. =30.= Ib., =1895=:188. =31.= Britton and
Brown, =2=:410. 1897. _fig._ V. VULPINA; _V. riparia_; _V.
cordifolia_, var. _riparia_; _Riverside grape_; _Sweet scented
grape_. =32.= Bailey, _Gray's Syn. Fl._, =1=:422. 1897. V. VULPINA;
_Riverbank_; _Frost_; _V. riparia_; _V. serotina_; _V.
odoratissima_; _V. Illinoensis?_; _V. Missouriensis?_; _V.
tenuifolia?_; _V. cordifolia_, var. _riparia_; _V. vulpina_, var.
_riparia_. =33.= Munson, _Tex. Sta. Bul._, =56=:218, 219, 230,
239, 260. 1900. V. VULPINA; _Riverside_; _V. riparia_. =34.= Viala
and Ravaz. _Am. Vines_, =1903=:42, 104.
Vine vigorous to very vigorous, climbing. Shoots cylindrical or
slightly angled, usually smooth, slender; diaphragms thin; tendrils
intermittent, slender, usually bifid. Leaves with large stipules;
leaf-blade medium to large, thin, entire, three, or lower ones
often five-lobed; sinuses shallow, angular; petiolar sinus broad,
usually rather shallow; margin with incised, sharply serrate teeth
of variable size; of a light green color, glabrous above, usually
glabrous but sometimes slightly pubescent on ribs and veins below.
Cluster medium to small, generally compact, shouldered; peduncle
short. Berries small to medium, black with a heavy blue bloom.
Seeds usually two to four, small, usually slightly notched, short,
plump, with very short beak; chalaza narrowly oval, depressed,
indistinct; raphe usually a groove, sometimes slightly distinct.
Very variable in flavor and time of ripening. (See Plate.)
The first mention we have of _Vitis riparia_ is by Tournefort in 1700,
who, without further description, calls it _Vitis canadensis aceris
folio_, or Maple-leaved Canadian grape.[135] Linnaeus in 1753 described
mixed specimens of Cordifolia and Riparia under the name of _Vitis
vulpina_. His description is as follows:[136] "Leaves cordate,
dentate-serrate, glabrous on both sides." Walter and Willdenow copy the
description of Linnaeus. The first description which is clear, and the
identity of which has never been questioned, is that of Michaux in 1803,
under the name Riparia. He says: "Leaves unequally and sharply dentate,
slightly 3-lobed. Petioles, veins and margins pubescent. Called by
French residents _Vigne des battures_. Habitat along the banks and on
the islands of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, etc." Bartram, in 1804,
under the name of _Vitis serotina_, or Winter grape, describes a vine
which may be Riparia or may be Cordifolia as it has some of the
characters of both.
[Illustration: SHOOT OF _VITIS RIPARIA_]
Linnaeus' description seems to have thoroughly confused all of the
earlier botanists. They were in doubt, first, as to what species was
intended for Vulpina; second, as to the distinguishing characters
between Riparia and Cordifolia. Gray classed Riparia as a variety of
Cordifolia. Engelmann was the first to draw attention to the specific
characters which separated these two sorts and these he gives as
follows: 1st. Riparia has thin diaphragms, Cordifolia thick. 2d. Riparia
blooms early, Cordifolia late. 3d. Riparia propagates readily from
cuttings, Cordifolia only with difficulty. 4th. Seeds of the Riparia
have indistinct or almost indistinct, depressed chalaza and raphe, while
the chalaza and raphe of the Cordifolia seeds are elevated and distinct.
To these Bush[137] added the further distinguishing character that on
the shoots the small terminal leaves of the Cordifolia open as soon as
formed, while those of Riparia remain folded for some days after they
are formed, become larger and then expand gradually.
Riparia is the most widely distributed of any American species of grape.
It has been found in parts of Canada north of Quebec and from thence
southward to the Gulf of Mexico. It is found from the Atlantic coast
westward, most botanists say to the Rocky Mountains, but Munson gives
the western limit as Salt Lake. Since Munson is more familiar with the
district lying west of the Rocky Mountains than any other botanist who
has paid attention to grapes, he is probably correct. Usually it is
found on river banks, on islands or in upland ravines.
Riparia has always been considered of great promise in the evolution of
American grapes. It can hardly be said that it has fulfilled
expectations, there probably being no pure variety of this species of
more than local importance, and the results of hybridizing it with other
species have not been wholly successful. The reason why attention was
early turned to Riparia was because of the qualities presented by the
vine rather than those of the fruit, particularly its hardiness and
vigor. However, both of these qualities are quite variable, and it is
only reasonable to suppose that in such a widely distributed species,
plants found in a certain region would have adapted themselves to the
conditions there present; thus it should be expected that the northern
plants would be more hardy than those from the South and the western
prairie forms more capable of resisting drouth than those from humid
regions; this is found to be the case. It is consequently impossible to
say what conditions best suit this species; it may be said, however,
that it is adapted to a great variety of soils and locations; Riparia
vines, or certain ones of them, have withstood a temperature of 40 to 60
degrees below zero and they show equal ability in withstanding the
injurious effects of high temperatures in the summer. On account of its
habit of early blooming, the blossoms sometimes suffer from late frosts
in the spring.
While Riparia is not a swamp grape and is not found growing under swampy
conditions, it is fond of water. In the semi-arid regions always, and in
humid regions usually, it is found growing along the banks of streams,
in ravines, on the islands of rivers, and in wet places. It is not
nearly so capable of withstanding drouth as Rupestris. Riparia likes a
rather rich soil but in France has been found to do poorly on limestone
land and calcareous marls. The French tell us, however, that this is a
characteristic of all our American grapes and that the Riparia is more
resistant to the injurious effects of an excess of lime than either
Rupestris or Aestivalis.
As was noted in the botanical description, the fruit of Riparia is
usually small, there being occasional varieties of medium size or
slightly above. The clusters are of medium size and, if judged from the
standpoint of number of berries, might frequently be called large. The
flavor is usually sharply acid but free from foxiness or any
disagreeable wild taste. If eaten in quantity, the acidity is apt to
affect the lips and end of the tongue. When the acidity is somewhat
ameliorated, as in the case of thoroughly ripe or even overripe and
shriveled fruit, the flavor is much liked by many people. The flesh is
neither pulpy nor solid and dissolves in the mouth and separates readily
from the seed. The must of Riparia is characterized by an average amount
of sugar, varying considerably in the fruit from different vines, and by
an excess of acid. There is no disagreeable aroma, or foxiness, in the
juice of this species, but the wines made from pure must of Riparia
grapes, unless kept for a long time, or otherwise treated, are too sour.
On this account many recommend adding sugar and water to the must to
reduce the percentage of acid.
Riparia is very resistant to phylloxera, the roots are small in size,
hard and numerous and branch freely. The roots feed close to the surface
and do not seem to be well adapted to forcing their way through heavy
clays or a hardpan formation; but as such soils are unfavorable for all
grapes, this character is of little economic importance. Riparia grows
readily from cuttings and makes a good stock for grafting, and its union
with other species is usually permanent. At the time when Riparias were
first sent to France to be used as a stock in reconstituting the French
vineyards, it was found that many of the vines secured from the woods
were of too weak growth to support the stronger-growing Viniferas. On
this account the French growers selected the more vigorous forms of the
Riparias sent them to which they gave varietal names, as Riparia Gloire,
Riparia Grand Glabre, Riparia Scribner, Riparia Martin and others. With
these selected Riparias the graft does not outgrow the stock. Riparia is
less resistant to rot than Aestivalis but somewhat more resistant than
Labrusca. The foliage is rarely attacked by mildew. One of the chief
failings of this species is the susceptibility of the leaves to the
attack of the leaf-hopper. This defect is quite serious in some
grape-growing regions. The Riparias are generally late in ripening and
it is found that the fruit is better in quality in long seasons and that
it should be left on the vines as late as possible. There are some early
ripening varieties of this species, however.
=VITIS RIPARIA PRÆCOX= Engelmann.
=1.= Price, =1830=:194. V. ODORATISSIMA; _June Grape._ =2.=
Engelmann, _Mo. Ent. Rpt._, =1872=:61. =3.= Ib., _Bush. Cat._,
=1883=:18. JUNE GRAPE. =4.= Bailey, _Am. Gard._, =14=:353. 1893. V.
VULPINA, var. PRÆCOX; _June Grape_; _V. riparia_, var. _præcox_.
=5.= Ib., _Gray's Syn. Fl._, =1=:422. 1897. V. VULPINA, var.
PRÆCOX; _June Grape_.
The first record of Riparia Præcox is a statement by Prince in 1830 that
Nuttall had told him that the June Grape growing on the Mississippi was
the true _Vitis odoratissima_ (a sweet scented Riparia which later
botanists have not recognized as a distinct species). In 1872 Engelmann
refers to it, saying that it grows on rocky river banks in the vicinity
of St. Louis and that it is brought to market in July. He says further
in the _Bushberg Catalogue_ that from the first of July on, ripe fruit
is to be found through August and September. Bailey states in the
_American Gardening_ that Engelmann in his herbarium had given this
variety the name _præcox_ but did not know whether it had been published
or not.
The variety differs from the typical form of Riparia only in the
ripening season and possibly in the berries averaging smaller. The early
ripening season might make it of horticultural importance as a breeding
stock although in other respects the fruit characters are not such as
would recommend it.
6. =VITIS TRELEASEI= Munson.[138]
=1.= Bailey, _Gray's Syn. Fl._, =1=:423. 1897. =2.= Munson, _Tex.
Sta. Bul._, =56=:230, 239. 1900. _Smooth Canyon Grape._
Plant shrubby and much branched, climbing little, the small and
mostly short (generally shorter than the leaves) tendrils deciduous
the first year unless finding support, internodes short, the
diaphragms twice thicker (about 1-16 inch) than in _V. riparia_ and
shallow-biconcave; stipules less than one quarter as large as in
_V. riparia_; leaves large and green, very broad-ovate or even
reniform-ovate (often wider than long, thin, glabrous and shining
on both surfaces, the basal sinus very broad and open making no
distinct angle with the petiole, the margin unequally notch-toothed
(not jagged as in _V. riparia_) and indistinctly three-lobed, the
apex much shorter than in _V. riparia_; * * * cluster small (2 to 3
inches long); the berries 1/3 inch or less thick, black with a thin
bloom, ripening three weeks later than _V. riparia_ when grown in
the same place, thin-skinned; pulp juicy and sweet; seeds small. *
* * Little known, and possibly a dry country form of _V. riparia_.
In habit it suggests _V. arizonica_ var. _glabra_, from which it is
distinguished, among other things, by its decidedly earlier
flowering and larger leaves with coarser teeth and less pointed
apex.
According to Munson _Vitis treleasei_ inhabits "ravines and gulches of
western New Mexico, Arizona and southern Utah." This species was named
by Munson but the only description we have been able to find is that of
Bailey given above in which we have changed his "_vulpina_" to
"_riparia_." The species is of no importance horticulturally.
7. =VITIS LONGII= Prince.[139]
=1.= Prince, =1830=:184. _Long's Arkansas._ =2.= Engelmann, _Bush.
Cat._, =1883=:18. LONG'S; _V. Solonis_. =3.= Munson, _Am. Hort.
Soc. Rpt._, =1885=:132. V. NUEVO MEXICANA; _Wooly Riparia_. =4.=
Ib., _Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt._, =1887=:59. V. NOVO MEXICANA;
_Munson's Riparia_. =5.= Ib., _Gar. and For._, =3=:474. 1890. V.
SOLONIS. =6.= Ib., _U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul._, =3=:9. 1890. V.
SOLONIS. =7.= Ib., _Am. Gard._, =12=:660. 1891. V. SOLONIS. =8.=
Ib., _Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt._, =1893=:116. V. SOLONIS; _Bush grape._
=9.= Ib., _Bush. Cat._, =1894=:20, 22, 24. V. SOLONIS; _Sand grape;
Beach grape; Bush grape_. =10.= Bailey, _Gray's Syn. Fl._, =1=:423.
1897. _V. Solonis; V. Nuevo Mexicana; Long's._ =11.= Beach, _N. Y.
Sta. An. Rpt._, =17=:537, 557. 1898. V. SOLONIS. =12.= Munson,
_Tex. Sta. Bul._, 56:218, 230. 1900. _V. Solonis; Gulch grape; Bush
grape._
_Vitis longii_ is a vigorous form of the Riparia type with pubescent
young growth, differing from the typical Riparia in having more
circular, less lobed leaves and more incised teeth. Its leaves are
frequently pubescent beneath. Another form with dentate margin of leaf
has been known under the name of Nuevo Mexicana or Novo Mexicana. The
references to these two forms are inextricably confused. Engelmann
refers to this grape which he says he found growing in the botanic
garden of Berlin under the name of _Vitis solonis_. After careful
investigation he decided that this name was a corruption of _Vitis
longii_, or Long's grape, which had been brought from the headwaters of
the Arkansas river by Major Long's expedition into that then unknown
country in the early part of the last century. Many botanists consider
this a hybrid of two or more other species, Riparia, Rupestris,
Candicans and Cordifolia being offered as probable parents.
Its habitat is northern Texas "westward into New Mexico, eastward into
Oklahoma and northward into Kansas and southeastern Colorado."
_Vitis longii_ was first described by Prince in 1830. The fruit is small
and sour and it appears to be of no horticultural promise.
=VITIS LONGII MICROSPERMA= Bailey.
=1.= Munson, _Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt._, =1887=:59. V. NOVO
MEXICANA VAR.; _Munson's Riparia_. =2.= Munson, _Rev. Vit._,
=3=:160.--. V. SOLONIS, var. MICROSPERMA (cited by 3). =3.= Bailey,
_Gray's Syn. Fl._, =1=:423. 1897. V. LONGII, var. MICROSPERMA; _V.
Solonis_, var. _microsperma_.
_Vitis longii microsperma_ is a small seeded, vigorous form of _Vitis
longii_ growing on the Red River in north Texas. It is said to be more
resistant to drought than the normal form.
8. =VITIS CHAMPINI= Planch.[140]
=1.= Planchon, _Journ. La Vigne amer._, =6=:22. 1882 (cited by 4).
=2.= Munson, _Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt._, =1885=:137. =3.= Ib., _Am. Pom.
Soc. Rpt._, =1885=:101. =4.= Planchon, _De Candolle's Mon. Phan._,
=5=:323, 327, 328. 1887. _Champin grape._ =5.= Munson, _Gar. and
For._, =3=:474, 475. 1890. =6.= Ib., _U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul._,
=3=:11. 1890. =7.= Ib., _Am. Gard._, =12=:661. 1891. _Champin
grape._ =8.= Ib., _Bush. Cat._, =1894=:20, 22, 25. =9.= Bailey,
_Gray's Syn. Fl._, =1=:423. 1897. =10.= Beach, _N. Y. Sta. An.
Rpt._, =17=:536, 557. 1898. =11.= Munson, _Tex. Sta. Bul._,
=56=:232, 234, 235, 240, 268. 1900. _fig. Adobe Land grape._ =12.=
Viala and Ravaz, _Am. Vines_, =1903=:145.
Vine rather vigorous, climbing (sometimes semi-erect). Shoots
thinly pubescent, somewhat angled, generally cylindrical when
mature; diaphragms thin; tendrils intermittent, strong, bifid or
trifid. Leaves small to rather large, slightly reniform or broadly
cordate, usually entire but frequently shortly three-lobed;
petiolar sinus wide to medium; dark green, glabrous above with thin
cobwebby tomentum below, becoming more or less glabrous when
mature. Clusters of small or medium size; peduncle medium in
length. Berries large, black, slight if any bloom, very persistent,
of sweet flavor and tender pulp. Seeds closely resembling
Candicans. Blooms just before Labrusca. Variable in ripening
season.
Champini was named and described in 1882 by Planchon. He states that it
is probably a hybrid between _Vitis candicans_ and _Vitis rupestris_ and
that it is not distinctly defined and of a uniform character, but shows
in its variable forms different combinations of the characters of these
two species. There seems to be some doubt among other botanists as to
the parentage of Champini and it is variously credited to Candicans,
Rupestris, Monticola and Berlandieri.
This species is found growing in the limestone hills of southwestern
Texas, covering about the same area as Berlandieri. According to Munson
it is less common in the bottoms and is not so plentiful as the latter
species. Associated with it in different parts of its habitat are the
four species mentioned above as possible parents.
Champini is particularly well adapted to hot dry regions and will
withstand considerable lime in the soil. The species is susceptible to
mildew and black-rot. It can be readily grown from cuttings and grafts
well in the vineyard, though the different forms are quite variable in
these respects. At one time this species was considered of great promise
as a stock for Vinifera for hot, dry regions but as it has proved
inferior to Berlandieri in its capacity to withstand limy soils and
phylloxera, and as it is not more vigorous, it has been generally
dropped. The berries are large and of pure flavor, and as the vine is
vigorous, it may prove of value as a source of cultivated varieties for
the Southwest but it is of little or no value to the eastern grower.
9. =VITIS RUBRA= Michx.
=1.= Vahl,[141] _Symb. Bot._, =3=:42. 1794. V. PALMATA. =2.=
Willdenow, =1=:1180. 1797. V. PALMATA. =3.= Muhlenberg, =1813=:27.
V. PALMATA. =4.= Pursh, =1=:170. 1814. V. PALMATA. =5.= Nuttall,
=1=:143. 1818. V. PALMATA. =6.= Rafinesque, =1830=:18. V. PALMATA;
_Palmate grape_. =7.= Ib., =1830=:18. V. VIRGINIANA; _Virginia
grape_. =8.= Floy-Lindley, =1833=:152. V. PALMATA; _Palmated
leaved_. =9.= (?) Le Conte, _Proc. Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci._, =6=:274.
1853. V. PALMATA; _V. Virginiana_; _Bland's grape_. =10.= (?) Ib.,
_U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt._, =1857=:231. V. PALMATA; _Palmate-leaved
vine_; _Bland's grape_; _V. Virginiana_. =11.= Engelmann, _Bush.
Cat._, =1883=:10, 11, 12, 14, 17. V. PALMATA; _V. rubra_; _Red
grape_ of the Mississippi Valley. =12.= Munson, _Am. Hort. Soc.
Rpt._, =1885=:133. V. PALMATA; _V. rubra_. =13.= Ib., _Am. Pom.
Soc. Rpt._, =1885=:97. V. PALMATA; _Palmate-leaved grape_; _V.
rubra_. =14.= Ib., _Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt._, =1887=:59. _V.
palmata_; _Eggert's grape_. =15.= Planchon, _De Candolle's Mon.
Phan._, =5=:352. 1887. V. RIPARIA, var. PALMATA; _V. Virginiensis_;
_V. Virginiana_. =16.= Ib., _Ib._, =5=:354. 1887. _V. palmata._
=17.= Sargent, _Gar. and For._, =2=:340. 1889. _fig._ V. PALMATA;
_V. rubra_. =18.= Munson, _Ib._, =3=:474, 475. 1890. V. PALMATA.
=19.= Munson, _U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul._, =3=:13. 1890. _V. palmata._
=20.= Ib., _Am. Gard._, =12=:586. 1891. =21.= Bailey, _Gray's Syn.
Fl._, =1=:423. 1897. V. PALMATA; _V. monosperma_; _V. rubra_; _V.
riparia_, var. _palmata_; _Red grape_; _Cat grape_. =22.= Britton
and Brown, =2=:410. 1897. _fig._ V. PALMATA; _Missouri grape_.
=23.= Bailey, _Ev. Nat. Fr._, =1898=:105. V. PALMATA; _Red grape_;
_Cat grape_. =24.= Munson, _Tex. Sta. Bul._, =56=:230, 239. 1900.
_V. palmata_; _Cat Bird grape_. =25.= Bailey, _Cyc. Am. Hort._,
=4=:1952. 1902. _V. monosperma_; _Red grape_. =26.= Viala and
Ravaz, _Am. Vines_, =1903=:42, 113.
Vine slender, of only moderate vigor, climbing very high. Shoots
smooth, angled, long-jointed, bright red; diaphragms thick to
medium; tendrils intermittent, long, usually bifid. Leaves with
short, broad stipules; leaf-blade broadly cordate in outline,
rarely entire, frequently very deeply three or even five-lobed,
lobes long, acuminate; margin with broad, shallow, serrate teeth;
petiolar sinus rather broad and shallow; upper surface dull dark
green, smooth; lower surface frequently somewhat pubescent on ribs
and veins; petioles red. Clusters medium to large, loose, seldom
compound; long peduncle. Berries small, black, without bloom, not
juicy. Seeds one or two, large, plump, rounded, with very short
beak, slightly notched; chalaza narrow, rather indistinct; raphe
indistinct.
_Vitis rubra_ and Vahl's _Vitis palmata_ are badly confused. The species
was first described by Vahl in 1794, from plants cultivated in the
Jardin des Plantes in Paris and supposed to have been sent by some
missionary from the Mississippi Valley. It was so named on account of
its tendency to five-lobed leaves. Vahl erroneously gives its habitat as
Virginia. About the same time, Michaux discovered, on the banks of the
Mississippi and adjacent streams, a grape which he called _Vitis rubra_,
on account of its characteristic bright red shoots. The descriptions of
these two varieties were copied from time to time by other botanists,
but with no additional details of any importance until Engelmann, in
1883, made the claim that they were identical. There is no question as
to the identity of Michaux's Rubra, but some botanists question whether
Palmata is a synonym. We have taken Michaux's name as the one to which
there is no question, although Engelmann was so careful a worker that it
is highly probable that he is correct in considering the two species
synonymous. Munson considers the species as probably a multiple "hybrid
of Cordifolia with Riparia, with possibly a trace of Cissus blood,
indicated in the fruit, seed and leaf." There seems to be but little
evidence to support this supposition. Planchon says it is principally on
the evidence of Millardet that he admits this as a separate species and
that perhaps it would be better to consider it a variety of Riparia
closely allied to Vahl's Palmata.
_Vitis rubra_ is an inhabitant of sandy, rich, moist, alluvial river
bottoms in Missouri and Illinois, to Louisiana and Texas, in which
region it is quite restricted and apparently not plentiful.
But little is known of the horticultural characters of _Vitis rubra_. In
spite of its having been classed with Riparia, it appears to resemble
more closely _Vitis cordifolia_, having the thick diaphragms and late
blooming characters of the latter species, but the seeds resemble those
of Riparia. Rubra grows readily from cuttings and the roots are said to
be very resistant to phylloxera. It is not sufficiently vigorous,
however, to be recommended as a stock. It is sometimes cultivated as an
ornamental but is of no horticultural importance beyond this.
10. =VITIS CORDIFOLIA= Michx.