early. Young leaves tinged on lower side and along margin of upper
side with rose-carmine. Leaves large to medium, thick; upper
surface medium dark green, dull, of average smoothness; lower
surface tinged with bronze, heavily pubescent; veins distinct; leaf
usually not lobed, with terminus acute; petiolar sinus of average
depth, wide to medium; basal sinus lacking; lateral sinus a notch
when present; teeth shallow, narrow to medium. Flowers fertile,
open in mid-season; stamens upright.
Fruit ripens from two to three weeks earlier than Concord, does not
keep well. Clusters intermediate in size, length, and breadth,
irregularly cylindrical to tapering, sometimes single-shouldered,
inclined to looseness; peduncle short to medium, thick; pedicel
short, thick, nearly smooth; brush short, pale green. Berries large
to above medium, roundish, dark purplish-black to black, covered
with abundant blue bloom, not very persistent, nearly firm. Skin
intermediate in thickness, tender, adherent to the pulp, contains
dark purplish-red pigment, not astringent. Flesh greenish,
translucent, juicy, fine-grained and tough, with slight foxiness,
sweet next the skin but somewhat acid at center, fair to good in
quality. Seeds adherent, one to four, average two and three, large,
often irregular in shape, broad and plump, blunt, brown with yellow
tinge at tips; raphe buried in a small and indistinct groove;
chalaza of average size, obscure, often showing as a faint,
irregular depression.
MOYER.
(Labrusca, Bourquiniana.)
=1.= _Columbus Hort. Soc. Rpt._, =1887=:218. =2.= _Ib._,
=1887=:218. =3.= _Can. Hort._, =11=:265. 1888. _col. pl._ =4.= _W.
N. Y. Hort. Soc. Rpt._, =35=:176. 1890. =5.= _Ib._, =36=:42. 1891.
=6.= _Ill. Sta. Bul._, =28=:261. 1893. =7.= _Bush. Cat._,
=1894=:159. =8.= _Can. Hort._, =22=:386. 1899. _fig._ =9.= _Mo.
Sta. Bul._, =46=:40, 42. 1899. =10.= _Ont. Fr. Exp. Stas. Rpt._,
=6=:20. 1899. _fig._ =11.= _Am. Pom. Soc. Cat._, =1899=:29.
JORDAN (2). _Jordan_ (5, 7). MOYER'S EARLY RED (1).
[Illustration: MOYER]
Moyer at its best is almost a counterpart of its parent Delaware. It has
all of the faults of Delaware and some added ones. Were it not for the
fact that the variety is from one to two weeks earlier than its parent,
and somewhat hardier, hence better adapted for colder regions, it could
not have received the recognition given it by viticulturists. As
compared with Delaware, it is hardly as vigorous and is less productive.
It is reputed to be more free from rot and mildew, the latter
especially. The bunches are much like those of Delaware but with the
fault of setting fruit imperfectly oftentimes even when
cross-pollination is insured. The berries are a little larger but of
much the same color and of like flavor, rich, sweet, and with pure
vinousness without a trace of foxiness but withal not of so high quality
as Delaware. The fruit keeps well, ships well, and does not crack nor
shell in New York. Moyer is well established in Canada, where it
originated, and is highly thought of, proving perfectly hardy wherever
the Concord is grown and possibly standing even more cold. Its place is
as an early Delaware for northern regions.
W. H. Read of Port Dalhousie, Lincoln County, Ontario, raised the
original vine of Moyer about 1880, from seed of Delaware fertilized by
Miller's Burgundy. It was named after Allan Moyer of St. Catharines,
Ontario, who introduced the variety in 1888. Moyer was placed on the
grape list of the American Pomological Society fruit catalog in 1899.
Vine vigorous to medium, hardy, healthy, not productive. Canes
intermediate in length, numerous, medium to slender, rather dull
dark reddish-brown; nodes slightly enlarged, flattened; internodes
short to medium; diaphragm thin; pith medium to below in size;
shoots pubescent; tendrils continuous, medium to rather long, bifid
to trifid.
Leaf-buds of about average size and thickness, short, conical to
rather obtuse, open very late. Young leaves tinged on under side
and along margin of upper side with rose-carmine. Leaves small to
medium, of average thickness; upper surface dark green, dull and
smooth; lower surface very pale green or with faint blue tinge,
heavily pubescent; lobes two to five with terminus acute; petiolar
sinus shallow to medium, not narrow; basal sinus usually lacking,
but shallow when present; lateral sinus shallow, narrow; teeth very
shallow, medium to narrow. Flowers sterile, open early; stamens
reflexed.
Fruit ripens from one to two weeks earlier than Delaware, keeps
well but loses its color if kept too long. Clusters medium to
small, short and slender, irregularly tapering, sometimes
single-shouldered, medium in compactness; peduncle intermediate in
length, somewhat slender; pedicel inclined to short, of average
thickness, covered with very small warts; brush yellowish-green.
Berries medium to small, oblate, dark red covered with dark lilac
to faint blue bloom, persistent, rather firm. Skin intermediate in
thickness, not tender, does not adhere to the pulp, astringent.
Flesh light green, translucent, juicy, rather tender, fine-grained,
somewhat vinous, good to very good. Seeds separate easily from the
pulp, one to four, average two or three, intermediate in size,
broad, short, very blunt, brown with yellow tinge at tips; raphe
obscure; chalaza of fair size, slightly above center, irregularly
circular, obscure.
MUSCAT HAMBURG.
(Vinifera.)
=1.= _Gar. Chron._, =1857=:645. =2.= _Horticulturist_, =13=:167.
1858. =3.= _Ib._, =14=:95. 1859. =4.= _Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt._,
=1862=:92. =5.= _Gar. Mon._, =9=:285. 1867.
As one of the parents of a number of valuable hybrids cultivated in
American vineyards, Muscat Hamburg is illustrated and described in _The
Grapes of New York_. It is described below in detail that grape-breeders
may detect any of its characters transmitted to its offspring. The
grapes and vines described here were grown under glass, as the variety
cannot be grown out of doors in eastern America.
Muscat Hamburg is a forcing grape only and is apparently unknown in the
grape-growing districts of Europe. It is said to grow better grafted on
Black Hamburg than on its own roots.
Seward Snow of Wrest Park, Bedfordshire, England, originated Muscat
Hamburg more than a half century ago from seed of Black Hamburg
fertilized by White Muscat of Alexandria. It was placed on the grape
list of the American Pomological Society fruit catalog for 1862 as an
exotic recommended for growing under glass.
Vine very vigorous, tender, productive. Canes long, numerous,
slender to medium, light brown, slightly darker at nodes which are
enlarged and somewhat flattened; internodes short to medium;
diaphragm thick; pith nearly large; shoots glabrous; tendrils
inclined to dehisce early, intermittent or frequently with only one
tendril present with vacancy on either side, long, bifid to trifid.
Leaf-buds large, long to medium, inclined to thick. Leaves medium
to large, intermediate in thickness; upper surface light green,
dull, somewhat smooth; lower surface slightly lighter green than
upper surface, faintly pubescent, densely hairy; lobes usually five
with terminus acute to acuminate; petiolar sinus of average depth,
medium to narrow, rarely closed or overlapping; basal sinus
intermediate in depth; lateral sinus deep; teeth very irregular in
depth and width, some teeth approaching a tendency to lobing.
[Illustration: MUSCAT HAMBURG (Reduced Size)]
Fruit ripens the latter part of October under glass, keeps
unusually well. Clusters very large to medium, long, broad,
tapering, frequently single-shouldered but sometimes
double-shouldered, rather loose; peduncle intermediate in length,
medium to rather thick; pedicel of average length and thickness,
very much enlarged at point of attachment to fruit. Berries large
to below medium, oval, dark red, rather dull, covered with lilac
bloom, very persistent, of average firmness. Skin medium to thick,
adheres strongly to the pulp, contains no pigment, not astringent.
Flesh pale green, translucent, very juicy, fine-grained, tender,
vinous, sweet, very good to best in quality. Seeds separate easily
from the pulp, one to four, average two, large to medium, long and
broad, sharply pointed, brownish; raphe hidden in a shallow, broad
groove; chalaza intermediate in size, decidedly above center,
pear-shaped, distinct.
NAOMI.
(Vinifera, Riparia, Labrusca.)
=1.= _Gar. Mon._, =22=:176. 1880. =2.= _Ohio Hort. Soc. Rpt._,
=1882-3=:46. =3.= _Bush. Cat._, =1883=:124. _fig._ =4.= _Can.
Hort._, =11=:287. 1888. =5.= _Kan. Sta. Bul._, =14=:90. 1890. =6.=
_Tex. Sta. Bul._, =48=:1151, 1160. 1898.
Naomi is one of Ricketts' seedlings and, according to the originator,
one of the finest of all his score or more of worthy grapes. But
viticulturists have never agreed with the producer of Naomi in his
estimate of it and the variety is now scarcely known. So far as New York
is concerned, Naomi has been discarded because it ripens too late for
this latitude and is very subject to mildew. Moreover, grapes of its
color are not as highly esteemed as red or black grapes and the demand
for green grapes does not sustain the varieties we have of this color.
This variety was originated by J. H. Ricketts of Newburgh, New York,
from seed of Clinton fertilized with Muscat Hamburg. It was first
exhibited before the American Pomological Society in 1879. It has not
been widely disseminated.
Vine vigorous, hardy, variable in productiveness. Canes very long
to medium, numerous, not uniform in size, medium dark brown
deepening in color at the nodes; tendrils intermittent, bifid.
Leaves large to below medium, thin, frequently inclined to be torn
by heavy winds, medium green; lower surface pale green, slightly
pubescent. Stamens upright. Fruit ripens late. Clusters large to
above medium, above average in length, broad to medium,
single-shouldered to sometimes double-shouldered, compact. Berries
intermediate in size, roundish to oval, light green, occasionally
with reddish-yellow tinge, glossy, covered with thin gray bloom,
persistent. Skin moderately thick, tough, not astringent. Flesh
greenish, juicy, slightly tough and solid, aromatic, sweet at skin
to tart at center, good in quality when fully ripened. Seeds medium
to below in size, elongated, sharp-pointed.
NECTAR.
(Labrusca, Bourquiniana, Vinifera?)
=1.= _Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt._, =1883=:92. =2.= _Ib._, =1885=:108. =3.= _Ohio
Hort. Soc. Rpt._, =1888-9=:107. =4.= _Ohio Hort. Soc. Adv. Rpt._,
=1890=:22. =5.= _Bush. Cat._, =1894=:160. =6.= _Ohio Hort. Soc. Rpt._,
=1894-5=:12. =7.= _Del. Sta. An. Rpt._, =7=:134, 136. 1895. =8.=
_Husmann_, =1895=:94. =9.= _Mass. Hatch Sta. Bul._, =37=:11, 14. 1896.
=10.= _N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt._, =17=:533, 548, 556, 559. 1898. =11.= _Am.
Pom. Soc. Cat._, =1899=:29. =12.= _Miss. Sta. Bul._, =56=:16. 1899.
=13.= _Kan. Sta. Bul._, =110=:242. 1902. =14.= _Rural N. Y._, =61=:685,
_fig._, 690. 1902.
BLACK DELAWARE (1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9).
There are either two varieties under the supposedly synonymous names,
Nectar and Black Delaware, or else this variety varies greatly in
different localities. Reports from different sources give the vigor as
from weak to vigorous, the hardiness from hardy to tender, the season
from earlier than Moore Early to later than Concord, the size of berry
from small to large, the productiveness from unproductive to productive
to a fault.
The Nectar vines at this Station were secured from Caywood, the
originator, in 1888, and from the T. S. Hubbard Company, in 1883. Vines
from both sources are vigorous, small-leaved, bearing medium-sized black
berries of good but not high quality. These vines are nearly worthless
on account of their susceptibility to mildew. The resemblance to
Delaware is not apparent.
We have received from Massachusetts, under the name Black Delaware, and
there is described in several publications, a grape which is strikingly
like Delaware except that the color is black. It is a grape of high
quality, and the vine is described as being resistant to mildew. This
variety may be worth something. The Nectar on the Station grounds is
not. Possibly Nectar and Rommel's Black Delaware have been confused.
The variety here described was originated by Caywood. It is said to be
from seed of Concord fertilized by Delaware. Nectar first became known
to the public about 1880 under the name Black Delaware, which was
afterward changed by Caywood to Nectar. It was placed on the grape list
of the American Pomological Society fruit catalog in 1899, as a
recommended variety.
[Illustration: NECTAR]
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.
NIAGARA.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)
=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 Niagara is 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 liked
equally 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.
[Illustration: NIAGARA]
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 mean depth, 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.
NOAH.
(Riparia, Labrusca.)
=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.
[Illustration: NOAH]
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°.
NORFOLK.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)
=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 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.
NORTHERN MUSCADINE.
(Labrusca.)
=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).
To those who profess to like a foxy grape, the Northern Muscadine should
be the grape _par 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.
NORTON.
(Aestivalis, Labrusca.)
=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 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 seemingly being 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.
[Illustration: NORTON]
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 the _Horticulturist_[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 Norton type 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°.
NORWOOD.
(Vinifera, Labrusca.)
=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.
(I) OHIO.
(Bourquiniana.)
=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).
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 the _Cincinnati
Horticultural Society Report_ given 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 us by 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."
(II) OHIO.
(Labrusca.)
=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.
ONEIDA.
(Vinifera, Labrusca.)
=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
complaints of 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.
OPORTO.
(Riparia, Labrusca.)
=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).
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. Oporto is 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.
ORIENTAL.
(Vinifera, Labrusca.)
=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.
OTHELLO.
(Vinifera, Riparia, Labrusca.)
=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).
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.
[Illustration: OTHELLO]
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.
Vines vigorous, hardy, usually productive, slightly susceptible to
attacks of mildew in some localities. Canes long, intermediate in
number and size, light to dark brown; nodes enlarged, frequently
strongly flattened; internodes medium to below in length; diaphragm
of average thickness; pith intermediate in size; shoots pubescent;
tendrils continuous, sometimes intermittent, of medium length,
bifid to trifid.
Leaf-buds intermediate in size, length and width, conical to nearly
obtuse. Leaves of average size and thickness; upper surface light
green, dull and smooth; lower surface pale green, pubescent; lobes
three to five with terminal lobe acute to obtuse; petiolar sinus
deep to medium, very narrow, frequently closed and overlapping;
basal sinus shallow, narrow; lateral sinus deep to medium, not
wide; teeth medium to very deep, rather wide; stamens upright.
Fruit ripens late, keeps fairly well. Clusters very large to above
medium, long, broad, tapering, frequently with a loose single
shoulder, two to three bunches per shoot, compact; peduncle medium
to long, intermediate in thickness; pedicel nearly long, medium to
slender, covered with numerous small warts, enlarged at point of
attachment to fruit; brush very short, wine-colored. Berries large
to medium, oval to roundish, black, glossy, covered with abundant
blue bloom, very persistent, intermediate in firmness. Skin thin,
tough, adheres strongly to the pulp, contains a moderate amount of
bright colored red pigment, without astringency. Flesh dark green,
very juicy, fine-grained, slightly tough, sprightly, low in quality
for table use. Seeds separate somewhat easily from the pulp, one to
three in number, medium to below in size, of average length and
breadth, with neck sometimes slightly swollen, brownish; raphe
usually distinct; chalaza small, above center, oval to circular,
not obscure.
OZARK.
(Aestivalis, Labrusca.)
=1.= _Mo. Hort. Soc. Rpt._, =1889=:374. =2.= _Ib._, =1890=:156.
=3.= _Ib._, =1891=:128. =4.= _Ib._, =1892=:267. =5.= _Bush. Cat._,
=1894=:167. =6.= _Va. Sta. Bul._, =94=:135. 1898. =7.= _Mo. Sta.
Bul._, =46=:40, 43, 44, 45, 52. 1899. =8.= _Mich. Sta. Bul._,
=169=:174. 1899. =9.= _Ky. Sta. Bul._, =92=:95. 1901. _fig._ =10.=
_Ga. Sta. Bul._, =53=:47. 1901. =11.= _Mo. Hort. Soc. Rpt._,
=1905=:213.
Ozark belongs to the South and to Missouri, and the Ozarks in
particular, and cannot be ripened in the average New York season. Its
merits and demerits have been threshed out by the Missouri grape-growers
with the result that its culture is somewhat increasing. It is a wine
and not a table grape, of low quality, partly, perhaps, from overbearing
which it habitually does unless the fruit is thinned. It is healthy and
a very strong grower; but is self-sterile, which is against it as a
market sort. In spite of self-sterility and low quality, however, it is
a promising sort for the country south of Pennsylvania.
Ozark was originated by Dr. J. Stayman of Leavenworth, Kansas, from seed
which he states was from an unknown source. The variety was introduced
by Stayman & Black about 1890. The variety apparently is of Aestivalis
descent with a slight admixture of Labrusca. There was another
Ozark[207] raised by Frederick Muench of Marthasville, Warren County,
Missouri, in 1851. It has probably long been obsolete.
Vine vigorous to very vigorous, usually hardy, medium to very
productive. Canes rather long, often somewhat thick, intermediate
in number, covered with thin blue bloom, surface slightly
roughened; tendrils intermittent, usually bifid. Leaves unusually
healthy and attractive, dense, medium to large, light green; lower
surface pale green, thinly pubescent and cobwebby. Flowers sterile
or nearly so, open late; stamens reflexed. Fruit ripens late, keeps
well. Clusters medium to large, long to medium, usually with a long
and loose single shoulder, very compact. Berries variable in size,
dull black, covered with abundant blue bloom, persistent. Skin
variable in thickness, tough, contains a large amount of
wine-colored pigment. Flesh not very juicy, tender when fully ripe,
mild, fair in quality. Seeds separate somewhat easily from the
pulp, medium to small, not notched; raphe shows as a distinct
cord-like ridge; chalaza plainly above center, very distinct.
PEABODY.
(Riparia, Labrusca, Vinifera.)
=1.= _Bush. Cat._, =1883=:129. =2.= _Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt._,
=1883=:92. =3.= _Mass. Hatch Sta. An. Rpt._, =6=:22. 1893. =4.=
_Va. Sta. Bul._, =30=:108. 1893. =5.= _Can. Cen. Exp. Farms Rpt._,
=1894=:139. =6.= _Mich. Sta. Bul._, =169=:174. 1899. =7.= _Ib._,
=194=:58. 1901.
Peabody is a comparatively unimportant offspring of Clinton produced by
Ricketts. The grapes are too small for dessert purposes and their value
for wine seems not to have been determined though from its parentage it
would be called a wine grape. In general appearance Peabody resembles
Ricketts' Advance but is later, not so strong a grower, nor so prolific
nor hardy. It appears to do better in the northern tier of states or in
Canada than farther south.
This variety is supposed to be a seedling of Clinton grown by J. H.
Ricketts about 1870 and introduced in 1882. The fruit is distinctly
different in several characters from Clinton or other seedlings of that
variety suggesting that Peabody is not a pure-bred seedling.
Vine vigorous, hardy, produces medium crops. Canes long, numerous,
often thick, light brown with ash-gray tinge, considerably darker
at nodes, covered with thin blue bloom; tendrils intermittent,
bifid to trifid. Leaves medium to above in size, dark green, thin,
lower surface pale green, nearly glabrous. Flowers semi-fertile,
open in mid-season; stamens upright. Fruit ripens rather early,
keeps well. Clusters large to medium, medium to long, usually with
a fair-sized shoulder connected to the bunch by a long stem,
compact to medium. Berries intermediate in size, distinctly oval to
roundish, black, glossy, covered with abundant blue bloom,
persistent. Skin thick, tough, not astringent. Flesh very juicy,
tender, vinous, spicy, agreeably sweet at skin to tart at center,
good in quality. Seeds usually separate from the pulp easily when
fully mature, intermediate in size, broad; raphe sometimes shows as
a partially submerged cord in the bottom of a rather wide, deep
groove; chalaza distinctly above center, often roughened.
PERFECTION.
(Labrusca, Bourquiniana, Vinifera.)
=1.= _Mo. Hort. Soc. Rpt._, =1889=:372. =2.= _Ib._, =1892=:268.
=3.= _Bush. Cat._, =1894=:168. =4.= _Va. Sta. Bul._, =94=:138.
1898. =5.= _Ga. Sta. Bul._, =53=:48. 1901.
Perfection is a seedling of Delaware, which it greatly resembles but
does not equal in New York, being hardly as high in quality, does not
keep as well, shrivels before ripening, and shells badly. In its vine
characters it is much more like a Labrusca than Delaware, suggesting
that it is a Delaware cross. In the Southwest it is considered a
valuable early red grape.
Dr. J. Stayman of Leavenworth, Kansas, originated Perfection from seed
of Delaware; sent out for testing about 1890.
Vine medium to vigorous, healthy, injured in severe winters,
productive. Canes intermediate in length and number, slender;
tendrils intermittent, trifid to bifid. Leaves healthy, medium in
size and color; lower surface grayish-white with tinge of bronze,
heavily pubescent. Flowers fertile or nearly so, open in
mid-season; stamens upright. Fruit ripens before Delaware, does not
keep well. Clusters intermediate in size, averaging slightly larger
than Delaware, of fair length, usually single-shouldered, compact.
Berries medium to small, nearly roundish when not misshapen by
compactness of cluster, attractive red but slightly less brilliant
than Delaware, covered with thin gray or faint lilac bloom,
inclined to drop from pedicel, soft. Skin thin, variable in
toughness, not astringent. Flesh medium in juiciness and
tenderness, vinous, mild, moderately sweet, good in quality but
inferior to Delaware. Seeds adherent to the pulp, quite numerous,
below medium to small, of average length, often with slightly
enlarged neck.
PERKINS.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)
=1.= _Horticulturist_, =14=:246. 1859. =2.= _Mag. Hort._, =27=:523,
532. 1861. =3.= _Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt._, =1862=:147. =4.= _Am. Pom.
Soc. Cat._, =1875=:24. =5.= _Ill. Hort. Soc. Rpt._, =1878=:8. =6.=
_Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt._, =1883=:58. =7.= _Mo. Hort. Soc. Rpt._,
=1883=:40. =8.= _Neb. Hort. Soc. Rpt._, =1890=:93. =9.= _Ill. Sta.
Bul._, =28=:261. 1893. =10.= _Bush. Cat._, =1894=:168, 169. _fig._
=11.= _N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt._, =17=:534, 548, 556. 1898. =12.= _Mich.
Sta. Bul._, =169=:174. 1899. =13.= _Ala. Sta. Bul._, =110=:69, 70,
88. 1900. =14.= _S. C. Sta. Bul._, =58=:7, 8. 1901. _fig._
Perkins was at one time grown largely as an early grape but has been
very generally discarded on account of its poor quality. Its pulp is
hard and its flavor is that of Wyoming, Northern Muscadine and their
like, all easily identified and best characterized by their disagreeable
foxiness. As with nearly all Labruscas it is a very poor keeper.
Notwithstanding the faults of its fruit, Perkins may have value in
regions where grape-growing is precarious; for it is one of the most
reliable grapes cultivated, being hardy, vigorous, productive, and very
free from fungal diseases. Added to the above qualities, it is early,
thus making a plant well worthy the attention of the grape-breeder.
This variety is said to be an accidental seedling found about 1830 in
the garden of Jacob Perkins of Bridgewater, Massachusetts. For many
years it had only a local reputation and became known to viticulturists
about 1860. It was placed on the grape list of the American Pomological
Society fruit catalog in 1875 and although several efforts have been
made to have it removed it still remains. It was suspected by some of
those familiar with its early history to be a seedling of Isabella or
Catawba but there is little or nothing in the vine or fruit to
substantiate such a supposition.
Vine vigorous, healthy, hardy, productive. Canes long to medium,
numerous, thick to medium, rather dark brown, deepening in color at
the nodes, surface heavily pubescent; tendrils continuous, bifid to
trifid. Leaves above medium to small, thick; upper surface medium
green, medium to slightly rugose; lower surface grayish-white,
heavily pubescent; veins distinct. Flowers nearly fertile, open
medium early; stamens upright.
Fruit ripens earlier than Delaware, ships well for an early grape.
Clusters intermediate in size and length, broad to medium,
cylindrical to slightly tapering, often with a short single
shoulder, compact. Berries large to medium, distinctly oval, dull
green changing to an attractive pale lilac or light red when fully
ripe, covered with rather abundant gray or lilac bloom, inclined to
drop considerably from the pedicel, somewhat soft. Skin thin,
tough, contains no pigment. Flesh nearly white, medium juicy,
stringy, fine-grained, firm and meaty, very foxy, sweet at skin to
nearly acid at center, poor to fair in quality. Seeds decidedly
adherent, numerous, medium to above in size, width and length,
somewhat blunt, light brown with yellow tips; raphe buried in a
narrow, nearly deep groove; chalaza small, distinctly above center,
oval to pear-shaped, rather distinct.
POCKLINGTON.
(Labrusca.)
=1.= _Gar. Mon._, =21=:207, 362. 1879. =2.= _Mass. Hort. Soc.
Rpt._, =1880=:238. =3.= _Gar. Mon._, =22=:176. 1880. =4.= _Am. Pom.
Soc. Rpt._, =1881=:32, 44. =5.= _Am. Pom. Soc. Cat._, =1881=:24.
=6.= _Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt._, =1883=:58. =7.= _Rural N. Y._, =45=:622,
653. 1886. =8.= _Ohio Hort. Soc. Rpt._, =1886-87=:171. =9.= _Ill.
Sta. Bul._, =28=:266. 1893. =10.= _Bush. Cat._, =1894=:169. =11.=
_N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt._, =13=:605. 1894. =12.= _Ib._, =15=:432, 433.
1896. =13.= _Ib._, =17=:534, 542, 544, 545, 547, 552, 556. 1898.
=14.= _Ga. Sta. Bul._, =53=:48, 52, 58. 1901. =15.= _Kan. Sta.
Bul._, =110=:237. 1902.
_Golden Pocklington_ (10).
Before the advent of Niagara, Pocklington was, all things considered,
the leading white grape, having very generally displaced Martha. The
variety had the fatal fault, however, of ripening late in the latitude
of New York which, with some minor defects, has caused it to fall below
Niagara in value for the grape districts of this region if not for the
whole country. It is now being grown less and less, and though still
commonly found, must soon become largely a grape for the amateur and the
collector.
Pocklington is a seedling of Concord and resembles its parent in most of
its vine characters, fully equaling or surpassing it in hardiness, but
of slower growth and not quite as healthy, vigorous or productive. In
quality it is as good if not better than either Concord or Niagara,
being sweet, rich and pleasant flavored, though as with the other two
grapes it has a little too much foxiness for critical consumers of
grapes. It is a handsome fruit, a delicate golden yellow in color, being
often called the Golden Pocklington, and with finely formed bunches and
berries making it one of the most attractive of all green grapes.
Pocklington keeps and ships better than Concord or than any of the
latter's seedlings, having a tough, though comparatively thin, skin.
Under some conditions, it ripens unevenly and in some localities it is
unfruitful. Pocklington is not equal to several other of the grapes of
its season in quality, as, for instance Iona, Jefferson, Diana, Dutchess
and Catawba, but it is far above the average as a table grape and for
this reason and because of its handsome appearance, one of the most
attractive of all green grapes, it should be retained in our list of
grapes for the garden.
John Pocklington of Sandy Hill, Washington County, New York, originated
Pocklington from seed of Concord about 1870. The variety was first
exhibited at the New York State fair in Rochester, in 1877, and was
exhibited before the American Pomological Society two years later. It
was introduced by John Charlton of Rochester, New York, about 1880. In
1881 it was placed on the grape list of the American Pomological Society
fruit catalog. In spite of its general failure as a commercial sort, it
is still offered for sale by many nurserymen.
Vine medium in vigor, hardy, variable in productiveness, somewhat
subject to mildew in the Hudson River and Central Lakes districts.
Canes intermediate in length, number, and size, very dark
reddish-brown; nodes enlarged, flattened; internodes medium to
below in length; diaphragm thin; pith slightly above average size;
shoots pubescent; tendrils continuous, of fair length, bifid to
trifid.
[Illustration: POCKLINGTON]
Leaf-buds small, very short, slender, pointed, open late. Young
leaves tinged on lower side only, prevailing color light
rose-carmine. Leaves variable in size, medium to rather thick;
upper surface light green, glossy, of average smoothness; lower
surface tinged with bronze, pubescent; veins distinct; lobes none
to three with terminus acuminate to acute; petiolar sinus medium to
deep, rather wide; teeth of average depth, medium to rather narrow.
Flowers fertile, open in mid-season; stamens upright.
Fruit not uniform in season of ripening but averaging later than
Concord, keeps and ships fairly well. Clusters medium to large,
intermediate in length and breadth, cylindrical to slightly
tapering, often single-shouldered, medium to compact; peduncle
medium to short, of average thickness; pedicel short to medium,
thick, covered with few small warts; brush short, greenish. Berries
large to above medium, slightly oblate, attractive yellowish-green
or with tinge of amber, covered with thin gray bloom, variable in
adhesion to pedicel, nearly firm. Skin covered with scattering
russet dots, thin and tender, adheres slightly to the pulp,
contains no pigment, faintly astringent. Flesh light green, often
with yellow tinge, translucent, juicy, tough, fine-grained,
slightly foxy, nearly sweet at skin to tart at center, good in
quality. Seeds do not separate easily from the pulp, one to six,
average three, intermediate in size, length and breadth, brownish;
raphe obscure; chalaza of medium size, slightly above center,
usually oval, obscure.
POUGHKEEPSIE.
(Bourquiniana, Labrusca, Vinifera.)
=1.= _Gar. Mon._, =22=:176. 1880. =2.= _Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt._,
=1881=:144. =3.= _N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt._, =9=:329. 1890. =4.= _Ib._,
=11=:632. 1892. =5.= _Bush. Cat._, =1894=:170. =6.= _N. Y. Sta. An.
Rpt._, =17=:534, 547. 1898. =7.= _Mo. Sta. Bul._, =46=:41, 43, 44,
45, 53. 1899. =8.= _Mich. Sta. Bul._, =169=:175. 1899. =9.= _Ga.
Sta. Bul._, =53=:48. 1901. =10.= _Kan. Sta. Bul._, =110=:239. 1902.
POUGHKEEPSIE RED (1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9).
Poughkeepsie has been known on the Hudson River for nearly a half
century yet it is now but little grown there and has not been widely
disseminated elsewhere. There is no doubt as to its quality, both as a
table grape and for wine; in this respect it is considered by many as
equal to the best of our American varieties and quite the equal of some
of the finer European sorts. But the vine characters are practically all
poor and the variety is thus effectually debarred from common
cultivation. Both vine and fruit greatly resemble Delaware but it is not
the equal of the latter variety in vine characters and does not surpass
it in fruit. In particular, it is more easily winter-killed and is less
productive than Delaware. It ripens with us a little earlier than the
last named sort and this with its beauty and fine quality is sufficient
to recommend it for the garden at least.
A. J. Caywood of Marlboro, New York, originated Poughkeepsie, it is
said, from seed of Iona fertilized by mixed pollen of Delaware and
Walter. The original seedling was raised in the sixties but the variety
was only known locally until about 1880 when it was brought before the
public. It has never been popular in any section and is now nearly
obsolete.
Vine intermediate in vigor, doubtfully hardy, variable in
productiveness, some seasons producing such heavy crops that the
vine is weakened, and on this account a somewhat uncertain bearer.
Canes medium to short, intermediate in number, thick to medium,
dark reddish-brown; tendrils intermittent, frequently three in
line, bifid to trifid. Leaves not healthy, medium to small, of
average thickness; upper surface medium green, glossy, somewhat
rugose on older leaves; lower surface pale green to grayish-green,
thinly pubescent. Flowers fertile, open medium late; stamens
upright.
Fruit ripens about with Delaware, keeps and ships fairly well.
Clusters medium to below in size, intermediate in length and width,
tapering to cylindrical, usually single-shouldered, very compact.
Berries small, roundish, pale red to attractive red when properly
ripened, covered with a medium amount of dark lilac bloom,
persistent, firm. Skin thin and tender but does not crack, contains
no pigment. Flesh pale green, very juicy, tender, nearly melting,
fine-grained, vinous, sweet or nearly so from skin to center,
refreshing, very good to best in quality. The flesh characters
closely resemble Delaware. Seeds separate easily from the pulp,
small, of medium length, medium to broad, usually plump with
slightly enlarged neck, brownish; raphe obscure; chalaza of average
size, distinctly above center, circular, obscure.
PRENTISS.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)
=1.= _Mich. Pom. Soc. Rpt._, =1878=:357. =2.= _Ib._, =1879=:191,
194, 320, _fig._, 321. =3.= _Am. Pom. Soc. Cat._, =1881=:24. =4.=
_Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt._, =1883=:59, 61. =5.= _Mo. Hort. Soc. Rpt._,
=1884=:343, 345. =6.= _Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt._, =1885=:103, 106, 144.
=7.= _N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt._, =9=:332. 1890. =8.= _Ill. Sta. Bul._,
=28=:266. 1893. =9.= _Bush. Cat._, =1894=:171. _fig._ =10.=
Husmann, =1895=:93. =11.= _N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt._, =17=:534, 542,
545, 547, 552. 1898. =12.= _Mich. Sta. Bul._, =169=:175. 1899.
Prentiss is a green grape of good quality, once well known and generally
recommended, but now going out of cultivation. If popular preference
turned upon quality, we should still grow this variety, but
consideration must be given to other characters and in these Prentiss
fails. Those who have grown it in the several grape districts of New
York accredit the vines with about all the faults a grape can have.
Thus, it is almost universally considered tender to cold, lacking in
vigor and being unproductive, while in some localities it is looked upon
as uncertain in bearing, and subject to rot and mildew. On the other
hand, there are vineyards in which it does very well and in such it is a
remarkably attractive green grape, especially in form of cluster and in
form and color of berry, in these respects resembling the one-time
favorite Rebecca though never so high in quality as that variety. Its
season is given as both before and after Concord. It must always remain
a variety for the amateur and for special localities.
This variety is said to have been originated by J. W. Prentiss of
Pulteney, Steuben County, New York, about forty years ago, from seed of
Isabella.[208] It was introduced about 1880 by T. S. Hubbard of
Fredonia, New York. In 1881 it was placed on the catalog of the American
Pomological Society and is still retained.
Vine medium to weak, with a tendency to winter injury, unfruitful,
capricious in bearing, somewhat subject to attacks of mildew. Canes
intermediate in length and number, thick, light to dark brown;
tendrils continuous, bifid.
Leaves above medium to small, thick; upper surface light green,
smooth to rugose in the older leaves; lower surface pale green,
pubescent; veins obscure. Flowers self-fertile, open in mid-season;
stamens upright.
Fruit variable in season of ripening averaging about with Concord,
keeps well. Clusters not large, medium to short, of average width,
tapering to cylindrical, sometimes with a slight single shoulder,
compact. Berries above medium to small, vary in shape from roundish
to oval, light green with strong yellowish tinge covered with thin
gray bloom, persistent, firm. Skin of medium thickness, somewhat
tough, contains no pigment. Flesh pale green, juicy, medium in
tenderness, slightly foxy, sweet next the skin to agreeably tart at
center, good in quality. Seeds adherent, sometimes numerous,
intermediate in size, variable in width, very slightly notched,
short to medium, sharp-pointed, dark brown; raphe buried in a
shallow, narrow groove; chalaza large, slightly above center,
irregularly circular to oval, surface often roughened, obscure.
REBECCA.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)
=1.= _Mag. Hort._, =22=:458, 484, 502. 1856. =2.= _Horticulturist_,
=11=:528. 1856. =3.= _Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt._, =1856=:39, 162, 201.
_fig._ =4.= _Am. Pom. Soc. Cat._, =1856=:214. =5.= _Am. Pom. Soc.
Rpt._, =1858=:67. =6.= _Gar. Mon._, =2=:200. 1860. =7.= _Am. Pom.
Soc. Cat._, =1862=:90. =8.= _Grant's Descrip. Cat._, =1864=:5. =9.=
_Mag. Hort._, =33=:70, 148. 1867. =10.= _Grape Cult._, =1=:43, 150,
327. 1869. =11.= _Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt._, =1883=:59. =12.= _Bush.
Cat._, =1883=:132. =13.= _Kan. Sta. Bul._, =110=:237. 1902.
During the middle and latter part of the last century, when
grape-growing was more in the hands of connoisseurs than now, Rebecca
was one of the sterling green varieties. It is wholly unsuited for
commercial vineyards and for years has gradually been disappearing from
cultivation. The fruit of Rebecca is exceptionally fine, consisting of
well-formed bunches and berries, the latter a handsome yellowish-white
and semitransparent. In quality it is of the best, with a rich, sweet
flavor and pleasing aroma. But the vine characters condemn it for any
but the amateur and even in the garden it must have exceptionally good
care to succeed. The vines lack in hardiness and vigor, are susceptible
to mildew and other fungi, and are productive only under the best
conditions. It is recommended as being especially desirable to plant on
south walls where it seems to succeed much better than in exposed
situations.
The original vine of this variety was an accidental seedling found in
the garden of E. M. Peake at Hudson, New York. It bore its first fruit
in 1852 when the vine was four years old and was brought to the notice
of the public four or five years later. The Massachusetts Horticultural
Society awarded the variety their silver medal in 1856 and it was
exhibited before the American Pomological Society the same year. Here it
made so favorable an impression that it was placed with Concord and
Delaware under "new varieties which promise well." In 1862 it was placed
on the regular list where it remained till 1891, when it was removed. It
was introduced by W. Brooksbank of Hudson.
Vine weak to vigorous, not always hardy, not productive, somewhat
susceptible to attacks of mildew. Canes long to below medium,
numerous, above medium to slender, inclined to dull brown,
deepening in color at the nodes; tendrils continuous to
intermittent, bifid to trifid. Leaves variable in size, of average
thickness; upper surface dark green, dull, medium to rugose; lower
surface grayish-green, pubescent; veins variable in distinctness.
Flowers fertile or nearly so; stamens upright.
Fruit ripens with Concord or later, ships and keeps well. Clusters
medium to small, medium to short, of average width, cylindrical to
roundish, rarely with a small single shoulder, compact. Berries
intermediate in size, oval, green with yellowish tinge sometimes
verging on amber, not glossy, covered with thin gray bloom,
persistent, firm. Skin intermediate in thickness and toughness,
contains no pigment. Flesh pale green, very juicy, tender, nearly
melting, vinous and a little foxy, sweet from skin to center, good
to very good in quality. Seeds separate easily from the pulp,
medium to below in size, medium to short, above medium to narrow,
blunt, medium brown; raphe obscure; chalaza of average size, above
center, circular to oval, not distinct. Must 69°.
[Illustration: RED EAGLE]
RED EAGLE.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)
=1.= _Kan. Sta. Bul._, =28=:162. 1891. =2.= _N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt._,
=10=:498. 1891. =3.= _Ib._, =11=:633. 1892. =4.= _Va. Sta. Bul._,
=30=:106. 1893. =5.= _N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt._, =17=:525, 534, 548,
556. 1898. =6.= _Va. Sta. Bul._, =94=:138. 1898. =7.= _Ga. Sta.
Bul._, =53=:48. 1901.
_Munson No. 47_ (4).
Red Eagle is a pure-bred seedling of Black Eagle which it resembles in
all characters except color of fruit. It is one of comparatively few
pure-bred offspring of Vinifera-Labrusca crosses of the second
generation and therefore of interest to grape-breeders. Munson, the
originator of the variety, does not include Red Eagle in his last
catalog but on the grounds of this Station it takes high rank as a grape
of quality and at least can be recommended to the amateur. In general it
shows the characters found in Rogers' first generation hybrids and ranks
with them in fruit and vine.
The variety was originated by T. V. Munson, from whom it was received at
this Station in 1888.
Vine medium in vigor, injured in severe winters, moderately
productive. Canes of average length, medium to few, slender, dark
brown, surface covered with a small amount of blue bloom; nodes
prominent, slightly flattened; internodes of fair length; diaphragm
intermediate in thickness; pith medium in size; shoots pubescent;
tendrils continuous to intermittent, long to medium, bifid.
Leaf-buds medium to below in size, short, of average thickness,
conical to obtuse, open late. Young leaves heavily tinged on under
side and lightly along margin of upper side with rose-carmine.
Leaves intermediate in size, thick; upper surface light green,
dull, medium to slightly rugose; lower surface grayish-green,
slightly pubescent; veins well defined; lobes three to five with
terminus obtuse to acute; petiolar sinus deep, medium to narrow,
sometimes closed and overlapping; basal sinus variable in depth,
wide; lateral sinus often very deep, somewhat wide; teeth medium to
deep, wide. Flowers sterile to fertile, open moderately late;
stamens reflexed.
Fruit ripens a little before Concord, keeps fairly well. Clusters
medium to small, variable in length, broad, slightly tapering,
usually single-shouldered but sometimes double-shouldered, loose to
medium with many abortive berries; peduncle nearly long to medium,
inclined to slender; pedicel very long, slender; brush pale green
with brown tinge, short to medium, rather slender. Berries variable
in size, roundish, light to very dark red, not glossy, covered with
heavy lilac or faint blue bloom, persistent, rather soft. Skin
medium to thick, tender, adheres slightly to the pulp, contains a
small amount of red pigment, without astringency. Flesh greenish,
transparent, juicy, very tender and melting, slightly foxy,
agreeably tart next the skin to slightly acid at center, very good
in quality. Seeds separate easily from the pulp, one to five,
average three or four, often rather large, of mean breadth, long,
somewhat blunt, light brown; raphe buried in a narrow, shallow
groove; chalaza large, above center, irregularly circular to oval,
distinct.
REGAL.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)
=1.= _Rural N. Y._, =62=:436. 1903. =2.= _Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt._,
=1903=:82. =3.= _N. Y. State Fr. Gr. Assoc. Rpt._, =1904=:41.
As was the case with the preceding grape, Regal is also a second
generation hybrid of Vinifera and Labrusca, the parent of this variety
being Lindley, which, as the technical description shows, it much
resembles. The fact is again demonstrated in this variety that the
characters of grape-hybrids, at least of these two species, are passed
to subsequent generations much as they were found in the first
generation. The fruit of Regal is attractive in appearance and in
quality, its characters being much the same as those of Lindley. A
seemingly insignificant fault might make it somewhat undesirable in a
commercial vineyard; it is that the clusters are borne so close to the
wood that it is difficult to harvest the fruit, and especially to avoid
injury to the berries next to the wood. The variety is worthy of
extensive trial in the vineyards and gardens of the State.
Regal was originated in Rockford, Illinois, in 1879 by A. W. Woodward.
It was introduced some years later by M. Crawford of Cuyahoga Falls,
Ohio. The original vine was one of a lot of Lindley seedlings. Some
vines of this variety were sent out by the introducer under the title
_Crawford No. 99_.
Vine vigorous, hardy, healthy, very productive. Canes intermediate
in length and size, rather numerous, medium dark reddish-brown.
Tendrils intermittent, bifid to trifid. Leaves healthy, medium to
nearly large, of average thickness; upper surface green, slightly
glossy and rugose; lower surface pale green with bronze tinge,
strongly pubescent. Flowers fully self-fertile, open in mid-season;
stamens upright.
Fruit ripens with Lindley or later; keeps well. Clusters small to
medium, shorter than Lindley, medium to broad, cylindrical to
tapering with sometimes an inclination to oval, usually with a
short single shoulder, sometimes double-shouldered, very compact.
Berries above medium to below, averaging larger than Brighton,
roundish but frequently compressed on account of compactness of
cluster, purplish-red to dark red, covered with lilac bloom,
persistent, of average firmness. Skin thin, medium to tough,
contains no pigment. Flesh pale green, very juicy, fine-grained,
slightly stringy and solid until fully ripe when it becomes rather
tender, sweet at skin to acid at center, slightly musky, good in
quality but not equal to Lindley. Seeds separate easily from the
pulp, rather numerous, intermediate in size, long to below medium,
above medium to narrow, slightly notched, inclined to blunt,
frequently with a short enlarged neck, brownish; raphe buried in a
medium-sized groove; chalaza small, above center, circular to oval,
distinct.
REQUA.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)
=1.= _U. S. D. A. Rpt._, =1864=:136. =2.= _Horticulturist_,
=24=:126. 1869. =3.= _Grape Cult._, =1=:181. 1869. =4.= _N. Y. Sta.
An. Rpt._, =11=:633. 1892. =5.= _Ib._, =17=:534, 548, 556. 1898.
=6.= _Mo. Sta. Bul._, =46=:41, 43, 44, 45. 1899. =7.= _Mich. Sta.
Bul._, =169=:175. 1899. =8.= _Ga. Sta. Bul._, =53=:48. 1901. =9.=
_Can. Hort._, =24=:261. 1901. _fig._ =10.= _Kan. Sta. Bul._,
=110=:243. 1902.
ROGERS' NO. 28 (1). _Rogers' No. 28_ (2, 3, 4, 9).
Requa is one of Rogers' hybrids hardly equaling others of its color and
season. It is an attractive grape in cluster and berry and of very good
quality but quite subject to rot and ripening too late for the grape
regions of this latitude, being as late as Catawba. In giving his grapes
names, Rogers used those of English or German horticultural or botanical
celebrities and of some of the Indian names of counties and towns of
Massachusetts. Requa was dedicated by Rogers to a Mr. Requa, a
horticulturist of local note, of Salem-on-Erie, Massachusetts.
For an account of the parentage and early history of this variety see
Rogers' Hybrids. In 1869 this variety was named Requa, it having been
previously known as _Rogers' No. 28_. There appear at present to be two
varieties passing under this name. Georgia, Texas and Missouri report
this variety as having erect stamens but in our vineyard it shows only
recurved stamens.
Vine medium to vigorous, hardy except in severe winters, medium in
productiveness, not always healthy. Canes medium to long,
intermediate in number and thickness; tendrils continuous to
intermittent, trifid to bifid. Leaves large to medium, dark green,
often thick and rugose; lower surface grayish-green, pubescent.
Flowers sterile to partly fertile, open late; stamens reflexed.
Fruit ripens about with Catawba or earlier, keeps a long time in
good condition. Clusters large to medium, intermediate in length
and width, nearly cylindrical, often with a long single shoulder,
compact. Berries medium to large, slightly oval to roundish, dark
dull red covered with thin gray or lilac bloom, strongly adherent,
not firm. Skin thin, nearly tough, adheres considerably to the
pulp. Flesh very pale green, somewhat tender, rather stringy,
vinous, slightly foxy, almost sweet from skin to center, good to
very good in quality. Seeds slightly adherent to the pulp, above
medium to medium in size and length, often rather broad, somewhat
blunt.
ROCHESTER.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)
=1.= _W. N. Y. Hort. Soc. Rpt._, =23=:60. 1878. =2.= _Ib._,
=27=:22. 1882. =3.= Barry, =1883=:442. =4.= _N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt._,
=9=:329. 1890. =5.= _Ib._, _11_:634. 1892. =6.= _Bush. Cat._,
=1894=:173. =7.= _Va. Sta. Bul._, =94=:138. 1898. =8.= _N. Y. Sta.
An. Rpt._, =17=:534, 546, 547, 552. 1898. =9.= _Mo. Sta. Bul._,
=46=:41, 43, 44, 45, 53. 1899. =10.= _Mich. Sta. Bul._, =169=:175.
1899. =11.= _Kan. Sta. Bul._, =110=:240. 1902.
_Barry's No. 19_ (1).
Rochester, as the color-plate shows, is a large-clustered, red grape,
very handsome in appearance. It is also very good in quality. The vine
is a particularly strong grower and very productive and in the locality
in and about Rochester at least, very free from diseases. It is so very
vigorous that it needs much room and long pruning. The variety is
difficult to propagate and therefore not in favor with nurserymen, and
is to be had, if at all, usually at extra expense. The grapes are sweet,
rich, and vinous, ranking from good to very good in quality. The fruit,
however, should be used as soon as ripe, as it does not keep well and
the berries quickly shatter from the bunch. As an attractive early red
grape Rochester is well worth a place in the garden and possibly in
favored locations for a special market.
Ellwanger & Barry of Rochester, Monroe County, New York, in 1867 fruited
over one hundred seedling grapes which they had raised from mixed seed
of Delaware, Diana, Concord, and Rebecca. Only two of these seedlings
were finally saved, the Rochester and the Monroe. The Rochester was
introduced by the originators about 1880.
Vine medium to vigorous, usually hardy, medium to productive. Canes
long, intermediate in number and size, dark reddish-brown; nodes
moderately enlarged, slightly flattened; internodes short;
diaphragm thick; pith small, shoots pubescent; tendrils
intermittent, long, bifid or trifid.
[Illustration: ROCHESTER]
Leaf-buds medium to below in size, short, of average thickness,
conical, open in mid-season. Young leaves tinged on upper and under
sides with dull rose-carmine. Leaves medium to large; upper surface
light green, slightly glossy, nearly smooth; lower surface
grayish-green, pubescent; veins distinct; lobes none to three with
terminus acute; petiolar sinus deep to medium, variable in width;
basal sinus absent; lateral sinus shallow to a mere notch when
present; teeth shallow, of average width. Flowers fertile, open
mid-season; stamens upright.
Fruit ripens earlier than Concord, does not always ripen evenly,
does not keep well. Clusters large to medium, about average length,
broad, tapering, usually single-shouldered but sometimes heavily
double-shouldered, very compact; peduncle short, intermediate in
thickness; pedicel short, slender, covered with few warts; brush of
medium length, slender, yellowish-brown. Berries above medium to
small, oval, dark red to purplish-red but the berries do not color
uniformly, dull, covered with thin, lilac bloom, inclined to drop
from pedicel, soft. Skin thick to medium, somewhat tough, inclined
to crack sometimes on account of compactness of cluster, does not
adhere to pulp, contains no pigment, astringent. Flesh pale green,
transparent, juicy, tender, fine-grained, somewhat vinous and foxy,
sweet, good to very good in quality. Seeds separate easily from the
pulp, one to three, average two, large, medium to short, rather
broad but often blunt, quite variable, however, in general
characters, medium to dark brown; raphe buried in a slight groove;
chalaza of average size, above center, circular to oval, obscure.
ROCKWOOD.
(Labrusca.)
=1.= _Mass. Hort. Soc. Rpt._, =1874=:154. =2.= _An. Hort._,
=1889=:101. =3.= _N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt._, =14=:279. 1895. =4.= _Bush.
Cat._, =1894=:107. =5.= _N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt._, =17=:534, 548, 556.
1898. =6.= _Mich. Sta. Bul._, =169=:175. 1899. =7.= _Ala. Sta.
Bul._, =110=:74, 88. 1900. =8.= _Ga. Sta. Bul._, =53=:49. 1901.
=9.= _Kan. Sta. Bul._, =110=:237. 1902. =10.= _Mich. Hort. Soc.
Rpt._, =1903=:30.
Rockwood is a comparatively unimportant black seedling of Concord and
from the originator of Concord. It is of higher quality than its parent
and since it is earlier, coming with Moore Early or just after, it is
worthy a place in garden collections as an early black grape. It has
been thoroughly tested and discarded as unprofitable by commercial
vineyardists probably on account of its vine characters which on our
grounds are not as good as those of Concord and would disqualify it for
a market variety. In appearance the fruit is much like Concord.
The variety was originated by E. W. Bull of Concord, Massachusetts, from
seed of Concord. It was introduced in 1889 by George S. Josselyn of
Fredonia, New York.
ROGERS' HYBRIDS.
=1.= _Mag. Hort._, =23=:86. 1857. =2.= _Horticulturist_, =13=:86,
119. 1858. =3.= _Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt._, =1860=:35, 85. =4.= _Ib._,
=1862=:148. =5.= _U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt._, =1864=:135, 136, 137.
_figs._ =6.= _N. Y. Ag. Soc. Rpt._, =1865=:338. _figs._ =7.=
_Horticulturist_, =20=:81. 1865. =8.= Strong, =1866=:31, 339. =9.=
Mead, =1867=:204. =10.= Fuller, =1867=:228, 246. =10.= _Rec. of
Hort._, =1868=:46. =11.= _Horticulturist_, =24=:126. 1869. =12.=
_Grape Cult._, =1=:153, 193, _fig._, 194, 262. 1869. =13.= _Am.
Jour. Hort._, =5=:261. 1869. =14.= _Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt._, =1875=:39.
=15.= _Bush. Cat._, =1894=:173. _fig._ =16.= _Meehan's Mon._,
=9=:94. 1899. =17.= _Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt._, =1901=:166.
The forty-five seedlings known as Rogers' Hybrids were originated by
Edward S. Rogers of Salem, Massachusetts.[209] Rogers states that the
suggestion which started him in this work was an article by Dr. Lindley
of the University of London, originally printed in the London
_Horticulturist_ and reprinted in Downing's _Horticulturist_ for
September, 1847. This article, which is entitled "Remarks on Hybridizing
Plants," is a general discussion of the results of this practice so far
as they were then known.
The female parent used by Rogers was a four or five year old,
large-fruited Labrusca known locally as Carter or Mammoth Globe, and
very similar to, but not identical with Sage. The pollen for fertilizing
the blossoms of this vine was secured from vines of Black Hamburg and
White Chasselas growing in a cold grapery near by. In the summer of
1851, clusters of the Carter were fertilized with pollen from the
Vinifera vines both at the time of emasculation and later, and small
cotton bags were tied on the blossoms to prevent the interference of
foreign pollen. In addition to the repeated applications of pollen to
the stigmas, Rogers placed clusters of blossoms of the Vinifera sorts in
the enclosing sacks. As a result of these pollinations, he secured about
one hundred and fifty seeds which were planted in the garden that fall.
In the spring of 1852 practically every seed germinated, but cut worms
and other accidents reduced the number to forty-five which finally
fruited. These were left to grow on poles where they were originally
planted for three years, when, because of crowding, twenty-five of them
were removed to another part of the garden. The untransplanted vines
began to bear fruit in 1856 and the transplanted ones a few years later.
The seedlings were numbered by Rogers from one to forty-five and for a
long time they were known under these numbers. Of these, one to five
inclusive were of the Carter-Black Hamburg cross; six to fourteen
inclusive were of the Carter-White Chasselas cross; and all of the
numbers from fifteen to forty-five were of Hamburg parentage. As will be
noted under Salem, this was later given a number higher than forty-five,
owing to the confusion of the sort with some other after being sent out.
With this exception, the original crosses were all included in these
numbers. In 1858 and 1859, Rogers sent many of these varieties, under
the original numbers, to various people for testing. He was compelled to
do this, owing to lack of room in the half acre which comprised the
Rogers' garden, to properly test the sorts himself. Of this garden
Marshall P. Wilder says: "It is 150 years old; a cold matted soil,
filled with old apple and pear trees, currant bushes, flax, and
everything mingled in together. It is in a close, hived up place in the
city of Salem, and it is a wonder that he ever had a bunch of grapes to
show."
Unfortunately, this dissemination led to the confusion of some of the
numbers, a confusion which has never been satisfactorily straightened
out.
In 1867, No. 22, or 53, was given the name Salem. Two years later at the
earnest request of a committee from the Lake Shore Grape Growers'
Association, Rogers gave names to several of his hybrids, as listed
below. He stated that the names selected were either those of persons
noted for scientific or literary attainments, or else of counties and
towns in Massachusetts. There was some criticism at the time from those
who thought there were other numbers as well deserving of names as
those which were so distinguished. And it must be admitted that the
vines of this collection are remarkably equal in their possession of
good and bad characters. About 1870, Bush of Bushberg, Missouri,
received three sorts as _Rogers' No. 39_. One of these which was
particularly promising, he, with Rogers' consent, named Aminia. None of
the others has ever been named, although several of them are still
cultivated to a minor extent. The named varieties, with the
corresponding numbers, are as follows: 1. Goethe. 3. Massasoit. 4.
Wilder. 9. Lindley. 14. Gaertner. 15. Agawam. 19. Merrimac. 28. Requa.
39. Aminia. 41. Essex. 43. Barry. 44. Herbert. 53 or 22. Salem (but not
the Salem now known).
For some years, many grape-growers believed that these hybrids were
nothing more than seedlings of the wild Labrusca mother but it was soon
generally accepted that they were genuine hybrids. To those who are
familiar with Rogers' work, this was evident from the first, as the
Carter or Mammoth Globe is a self-sterile sort, and the sacks enclosing
the blossoms would prevent the introduction of other pollen than that
intentionally placed on the stigmas by Rogers himself. A. D. Rogers, a
brother of E. S. Rogers, in a communication to the _Horticulturist_, in
1858, says that "many of these seedlings had upright stamens," but of
the ones which were later named, Agawam alone is thus characterized.
This is important in considering the value of these varieties, as no
variety has ever become popular as a market sort which is self-sterile.
Rogers' Hybrids are unique in that the standard of excellence was so
high in all of the forty-five seedlings produced. Some have credited
this to the manner in which he did his work and in particular to the
excess of pollen applied to the stigmas; others consider it more likely
due to his choice of parent vines. Unfortunately the evidence bearing on
this point is not sufficient to form definite conclusions.
After the production of the seedlings mentioned above Rogers continued
the work, recrossing the varieties already produced with various
Vinifera varieties. None of these ever showed sufficient promise to be
introduced.
[Illustration: ROMMEL]
ROMMEL.
(Labrusca, Riparia, Vinifera.)
=1.= _An. Hort._, =1889=:101. =2.= _Ia. Hort. Soc. Rpt._,
=1890=:117. =3.= _N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt._, =13=:606. 1894. =4.= _Bush.
Cat._, =1894=:174. _fig._ =5.= Husmann, =1895=:125. =6.= _Kan. Sta.
Bul._, =73=:182. 1897. =7.= _N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt._, =17=:535, 548,
556. 1898. =8.= _Tex. Sta. Bul._, =48=:1151, 1162. 1898. _fig._
=9.= _Mo. Sta. Bul._, =46=:41, 42, 44, 45, 53, 76. 1899. =10.= _Am.
Pom. Soc. Cat._, =1899=:31. =11.= _Tex. Sta. Bul._, =56=:271, 280.
1900.