[Illustration: _WILLIAM ROBERT PRINCE_]
STATE OF NEW YORK—DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Eighteenth Annual Report—Vol. 3—Part II
* * * * *
THE
PLUMS OF NEW YORK
BY
U. P. HEDRICK
ASSISTED BY
R. WELLINGTON
O. M. TAYLOR
W. H. ALDERMAN
M. J. DORSEY
Report of the New York Agricultural Experiment Station for the Year 1910
II
ALBANY
J. B. LYON COMPANY, STATE PRINTERS
1911
NEW YORK AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION,
GENEVA, N. Y., _December 31, 1910_.
_To the Honorable Board of Control of the New York Agricultural
Experiment Station_:
GENTLEMEN:—I have the honor to transmit herewith Part II of
the report of this institution for the year 1910, to be known
as _The Plums of New York_. This constitutes the third in the
series of fruit publications that is being prepared under your
authority.
The data embodied in the volume are the result of
long-continued studies and observations at this institution
as well as throughout the State, to which has been added a
large amount of information that commercial plum-growers have
very kindly furnished. The attempt has been made to produce a
monograph including all the cultivated plums, and it is hoped
that the result will be recognized as a worthy advance in the
literature of this class of fruits.
W. H. JORDAN,
_Director._
PREFACE
_The Plums of New York_ is the third monograph of the fruits of this
region published by the New York Agricultural Experiment Station. The
aims of these books have been stated in full in _The Grapes of New York_,
but it is considered best to re-state some of these briefly and to
indicate some features in which the book on plums differs from the one on
grapes.
Broadly speaking, the aim has been to make _The Plums of New York_ a
record of our present knowledge of cultivated plums. The book has been
written for New York but its contents are so general in character that
the work applies to the whole country and more or less to the world. The
first chapter is a historical account and a botanical classification of
plums; the second, a discussion of the present status of plum-growing
in America; while the third and fourth are devoted to varieties of
plums. The first and last two of these chapters contain the synonymy and
bibliography of the species and varieties of plums. In the foot-notes
running through the book biographical sketches are given of the persons
who have contributed most to plum culture in America; here may be found
also matters pertaining to plums not properly included in the text but
necessary for its best understanding. Important varieties, so considered
from various standpoints, with the bark and the flowers of several
species, are illustrated in colors.
_The Plums of New York_ is a horticultural and not a botanical work.
But in a study of the fruit from a horticultural standpoint one must of
necessity consider botanical relationships. It is hoped that in this
enforced systematic study of plums, however, something has been added
to the botanical knowledge of this fruit. In classifying the varieties
and species, to show their characters and relationships, the author
has chosen to dispose of the groups in accordance with his own views
though the arrangement adopted is, for most part, scarcely more than a
modification of existing classifications.
Attention must be called to the indefiniteness of species and varieties
of plums due chiefly to the extreme responsiveness of the plants to
environment. On each side of the specific or varietal types there are
wide ranges of variation. Since the relationships between types are often
very close it is impossible to avoid some confusion in characters,
for outliers of the types cannot but overlap. It might be well said
that these outliers are connecting links and that groups so connected
should be combined, but this would make specific division of the genus
and varietal division of the species almost impossible. The groups
must, therefore, be separated along more or less arbitrary lines. But
such arbitrary separation does not prevent natural groups, if nature be
broadly interpreted.
The chief value of the work in hand lies in its discussion of varieties.
In the descriptions the aim has been to give as tersely as possible an
idea of all of the characters of the plums described. With very few
exceptions the technical descriptions of varieties are original and were
made by those who have taken active part in the preparation of this book.
Nearly all of the varieties having full descriptions grow on the Station
grounds but whenever possible specimens of each variety from different
localities have been compared with those growing here.
A special effort has been made to give as exactly as possible the regions
in which the species and varieties of plums grow. Such an effort is made
under the belief that this knowledge is of great value in the study
of the factors which govern the distribution of wild and domesticated
plants. If the boundaries of the regions in which a few scores of
varieties of the several fruits grow can be accurately established
valuable generalizations can be drawn regarding life zones and plant
distribution.
The reader should know what considerations have governed the selection
of varieties for color-plates and full descriptions. These are: (1)
The known value of the variety for the commercial or amateur grower.
(2) The probable value of new varieties. (3) To furnish data for the
plum-breeder; to show combinations of species or varieties, or new
characters, or the range in variation. (4) Some sorts have been described
because of historical value—to better show what the trend of plum
evolution has been. (5) To indicate the relationships of species and
varieties. The varieties are divided into three groups according to their
importance as gauged from the standpoints given above.
In botanical nomenclature the code adopted by the American botanists
in Philadelphia in 1904 and modified by the International Botanical
Congress at Vienna in 1905, has been used. For horticultural names,
lacking a better code, the revised rules of the American Pomological
Society have been followed, though in a few cases we have not seen fit
to follow the rules of this society, as the changes required by their
strict observance would have brought much confusion. Only those who have
to work with a great number of varieties of fruit can know the chaotic
conditions of our pomological nomenclature. One of the aims of the work
in hand is to set straight in some degree the great confusion in plum
names.
All synonyms of varieties have been given so far as they could be
determined but it did not seem worth while to give all of the references
to be found even in standard plum literature. Fewer of these are listed
for the leading varieties than in the books on apples or grapes which
have preceded, only such being given as have been found of use by the
writers or thought of possible use to future plum students. On the other
hand some references have been given for all varieties, a task not
attempted in _The Grapes of New York_.
As in the preceding books the color-plates have been given much
attention. Work and expense have not been spared to make the plates the
best possible with the present knowledge of color-printing. Yet the
illustrations are not exact reproductions. The colors are, at best, only
approximations; for it is impossible by mechanical processes to reproduce
Nature’s delicate tints and shades. The camera does not take colors as
the human eye sees them; and the maker of the copper plate can not quite
reproduce all that the camera has taken. The colors then depend on the
judgment of the printer, who by selecting and mingling colored inks,
reproduces as nearly as his materials permit, the shades in his eye and
mind; but no two persons see exactly the same colors in any object; so
his conception may differ much from that of the horticulturist or artist
who saw the original plum, as do theirs from each other. Still it is
hoped that the color-plates will be of great service in illustrating
the text. All of the plums from which the plates were made came from
the Station grounds; the illustrations, with a few exceptions which are
noted, are of life size, as grown under the conditions existing at this
place, and as far as possible all are from specimens of average size and
color.
Acknowledgments are due in particular to the plum-growers of New York who
have furnished much information for _The Plums of New York_; to numerous
institutions in all parts of the United States who have loaned botanical
specimens; to Professor Charles Sprague Sargent for advice, information
and the use of the Arnold Arboretum library and herbarium; to W. F.
Wight of the United States Department of Agriculture, who has given most
valuable assistance in describing the species of plums and in giving
their range; to the Station Editor, F. H. Hall, who has had charge of
the proof-reading; to Zeese-Wilkinson and Company, New York City, for
their care and skill in making the color-plates; and to the J. B. Lyon
Company, Albany, New York, for their careful work in the mechanical
construction of the book.
U. P. HEDRICK,
_Horticulturist, New York Agricultural Experiment Station._
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE v
INDEX TO ILLUSTRATIONS ix
CHAPTER I.—EDIBLE PLUMS 1
CHAPTER II.—PLUM CULTURE 100
CHAPTER III.—LEADING VARIETIES OF PLUMS 136
CHAPTER IV.—MINOR VARIETIES OF PLUMS 391
BIBLIOGRAPHY, REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS 573
INDEX 581
INDEX TO ILLUSTRATIONS
PORTRAIT OF WILLIAM ROBERT PRINCE _Frontispiece_
FACING PAGE
ABUNDANCE 136
AGEN 138
AMERICA 142
AMES 144
APPLE 146
ARCH DUKE 148
ARCTIC 150
ARKANSAS 152
AUTUMN COMPOTE 154
BAVAY 156
BELLE 158
BLACK BULLACE 162
BRADSHAW 166
BURBANK 170
CHABOT 172
CHENEY 176
CLIMAX 178
DE CARADEUC 188
DE SOTO 190
DIAMOND 192
DOWNING 194
DRAP D’OR 194
DUANE 196
ENGLEBERT 204
FIELD 208
FOREST GARDEN 210
FOREST ROSE 210
FREESTONE 212
FRENCH 214
GEORGESON 218
GERMAN PRUNE 220
GIANT 222
GOLDEN 224
GOLDEN BEAUTY 226
GOLDEN DROP 228
GOLIATH 232
GRAND DUKE 234
GUEII 236
HALE 238
HAMMER 238
HAND 240
HAWKEYE 242
HUDSON 244
HUNGARIAN 246
ICKWORTH 248
IMPERIAL GAGE 252
ITALIAN PRUNE 254
JEFFERSON 256
JUICY 258
LATE ORLEANS 266
LOMBARD 268
MAQUOKETA 272
MARIANNA 274
MCLAUGHLIN 276
MIDDLEBURG 278
MONARCH 286
NEWMAN 292
NEW ULM 294
OCTOBER 298
OREN 300
OULLINS 304
PACIFIC 306
PEARL 310
PETERS 312
POND 314
POTTAWATTAMIE 316
_PRUNUS AMERICANA_, BLOSSOMS OF 56
_PRUNUS AMERICANA_, BARK OF 6
_PRUNUS CERASIFERA_, BLOSSOMS OF 46
_PRUNUS CERASIFERA_, BARK OF 6
_PRUNUS DOMESTICA_, BLOSSOMS OF 12
_PRUNUS DOMESTICA_, BARK OF 6
_PRUNUS HORTULANA_, BLOSSOMS OF 64
_PRUNUS HORTULANA_, BARK OF 6
_PRUNUS HORTULANA MINERI_, BLOSSOMS OF 68
_PRUNUS HORTULANA MINERI_, BARK OF 6
_PRUNUS INSITITIA_, BLOSSOMS OF 34
_PRUNUS INSITITIA_, BARK OF 6
_PRUNUS MUNSONIANA_, BLOSSOMS OF 88
_PRUNUS MUNSONIANA_, BARK OF 6
_PRUNUS NIGRA_, BLOSSOMS OF 70
_PRUNUS NIGRA_, BARK OF 6
_PRUNUS TRIFLORA_, BLOSSOMS OF 50
_PRUNUS TRIFLORA_, BARK OF 6
QUACKENBOSS 320
ROBINSON 330
SATSUMA 338
SHIPPER 342
SHIRO 344
SHROPSHIRE 344
SMITH ORLEANS 348
SPAULDING 350
SUGAR 354
SURPRISE 356
TENNANT 358
TRAGEDY 360
VICTORIA 364
VORONESH 366
WASHINGTON 368
WAYLAND 370
WHITE BULLACE 374
WICKSON 376
WILD GOOSE 378
WOLF 380
WOOD 382
WORLD BEATER 384
YELLOW EGG 386
THE PLUMS OF NEW YORK
CHAPTER I
EDIBLE PLUMS
THE GENUS PRUNUS
The great genus Prunus includes plums, cherries, almonds, apricots,
peaches, and the evergreen cherries or cherry laurels. Its widely
distributed species number a hundred or more for the world, nearly all of
which belong north of the equator. The species of the genus are widely
distributed in both the eastern and western hemispheres, the flora of
eastern America and of western Asia being especially rich in species and
individuals. For most part the species of Prunus belong to the Temperate
Zone, but several of the evergreen cherries, usually grouped in a section
under Laurocerasus, are found in the tropics and sub-tropics.
The species cultivated for their edible fruits are found only in the
Temperate Zone of the Northern Hemisphere. Of these the peach and the
almond are believed to have come from eastern and southeastern Asia;
the apricot is thought to be a native of northern China; the wild
forms of the cultivated cherries are Eurasian plants, very generally
distributed in the regions to the northward where the two continents
meet. The habitats of the cultivated plums are given in detail in the
text that follows, as Asia, Europe and America. Presumably the genus
had its origin in some of the above regions; but where the center is
from which the species radiated can never be known. Indeed, with present
knowledge it cannot be said in what region Prunus has most species, is
most productive of individuals, or shows highest development and greatest
variability,—facts which might give some evidence as to the origin of
the genus. It is probable that the greatest number of combinations of
the above evidences can be shown for Asia and more especially for the
Eurasian region, where Europe and Asia meet; yet North America has two
score or more indigenous species about half of which are arborescent.
The history of the genus Prunus is one of continual changes. Of the
botanists who have done most toward classifying plants, Ray, Tournefort,
Dillenius and Boerhaave, pre-Linnaean botanists, placed only the plum
in Prunus. Linnaeus adopted the name used by his predecessors for the
plum alone, for a genus in which he also placed plums and cherries.
Adanson and Jussieu returned to the pre-Linnaean classification but
Gaertner followed the grouping of Linnaeus. Necker, DeCandolle, Roemer
and Decaisne held that the plum alone belongs in Prunus. Bentham &
Hooker, Gray and his co-workers in the several revisions of his botany,
and Engler & Prantl, great authorities of the Nineteenth Century, extend
the genus to include all of the stone-fruits. On the other hand, Britton
and Brown, in their recent flora of northern United States and of Canada
restrict the group to plums and cherries. Horticulturists have been less
divided in their opinions than the botanists and have very generally
placed all of the stone-fruits in one genus. The diversity of views as
to what plants belong in Prunus, indicated above, suggests that the
differences separating the several stone-fruits may not be many nor
very distinct. This is true, and makes necessary a discussion of the
characters which distinguish these fruits.
The flowers of true plums are borne on stems in fascicled umbels and
appear either before the leaves or with or after them. Flowers of the
cultivated cherries are similarly borne, though the fascicles are
corymbose rather than umbelliferous. But apricot, peach and almond
flowers are stemless or nearly so and solitary or borne in pairs
appearing before the leaves.
The fruits of plums and cherries are globular or oblong, fleshy, very
juicy, with smooth or slightly hairy skins. Peaches, apricots and almonds
are more sulcate or grooved than plums and cherries and the first two
have juicy flesh, but that of the almond is dry and hard or skin-like,
splitting at maturity thereby liberating the stone; these last three
fruits are distinguished from plums and cherries by having very pubescent
or velvety skins though rarely, as in the nectarine, a botanical variety
of the peach, and in a few cultivated apricots, the skins are smooth.
The stone of the plum is usually compressed, longer than broad, smooth
or roughened, thickish and with an acute margin along the ventral suture
and thinnish or grooved on the dorsal suture. The stone of the cherry
is usually globular, always much thickened, smooth or a very little
roughened, ridged and grooved on the ventral suture, with a thin,
scarcely raised sharp margin on the dorsal suture. The stone of the
apricot is similar to that of the plum though thicker walled, with a more
conspicuous winged margin, and is sometimes pitted. The stone of the
peach is compressed, usually with very thick walls, much roughened and
deeply pitted. In the almond the stone resembles in general characters
the peach-stone, but all almond shells are more or less porous and often
fibrous on the inner surfaces. The stone is the part for which the almond
is cultivated and is most variable, the chief differences being that some
have thick hard shells and others thin soft shells.
The leaves of plums are convolute, or rolled up, in the bud. Cherry,
peach and almond leaves are conduplicate, that is are folded lengthwise
along the midrib in bud while the leaves of the apricot, like those of
the plum, are convolute. The manner in which the leaves are packed in the
bud is a fine mark of distinction in stone-fruits. In size and shape of
leaves, as well as in the finer marks of these organs, the botanist and
pomologist find much to aid in distinguishing species and varieties but
little that holds in separating the sub-genera. The last statement holds
true with the floral organs also.
The near affinity of the stone-fruits is further shown by the fact that
plums and apricots, plums and cherries, and the several species of each
of the distinct fruits inter-hybridize without much difficulty. It is
a fact well-known that hybrids often surpass their parents in vigor of
plant and in productiveness and this has proved true with most of the
hybrids in Prunus of which we have accounts, thereby giving promise of
improved forms of these plants through hybridizing. The great variation
in wild and cultivated native plums is possibly due to more or less
remote hybridity.
Prunus is a most variable genus. This is indicated by the several
sub-genera, the large number of species and the various arrangements
of these groups by different authors. At their extremes sub-genera and
species are very distinct, but outside of the normal types, and sometimes
in several directions, there are often outstanding forms which establish
well-graded connections with neighboring groups. For example, among the
American plums there are but few species between which and some other
there are not intermediate forms that make the two species difficult
to distinguish under some conditions. There is also a wide range of
variation within the species. The modifications within the species are
oftentimes such as to change greatly the aspect of the plant; the trees
may be dwarf or luxuriant, smooth or pubescent; may differ in branching
habit, in leaf-form, in size and color of the flowers, in the time of
opening of leaf and flower-buds, in color, shape, size, flesh, flavor and
time of ripening of fruit, in the stone and in all such characters as
climate and soil environment would be liable to modify.
This inherent variability is one of the strong assets of the genus as
a cultivated group of plants, for it allows not only a great number of
kinds of fruits and of species but a great number of varieties. Besides,
it gives to the genus great adaptiveness to cultural environment, in
accordance with climate, location, soil and the handling of the trees.
The cultivator is able to modify, too, the characters of members of the
genus to a high degree in the production of new forms, but few, if any,
groups of plants having produced as many cultivated varieties as Prunus.
The genus Prunus is preeminent in horticulture, furnishing all of the
so-called stone-fruits, fruits which for variety, delicious flavor and
beauty of appearance, probably surpass those of any other genus, and
which, fresh or dried, are most valuable human foods. The seeds of one of
the fruits belonging to Prunus, the almond, are commercially important,
both for direct consumption and for the oil which is pressed from
them; in India a similar oil is obtained from the seeds of peaches and
apricots, while in Europe an oil from the seeds of the Mahaleb cherry
is used in making perfumes. Various cordials are made from the fruits
of the several species, as kirschwasser and maraschino from cherries,
zwetschenwasser and raki from plums, and peach brandy from the peach;
while fruits and seeds of the several species are soaked in spirits for
food, drink and medicinal purposes. The bitter astringent bark and leaves
are more or less used in medicine as is also the gum secreted from the
trunks of nearly all the species and which, known as cerisin, is used in
various trades. The wood of all of the arborescent species is more or
less valuable for lumber, for cabinet-making and other domestic purposes.
Prunus is prolific also in ornamental plants, having in common to
recommend them, rapidity of growth, ease of culture, comparative freedom
from pests, and great adaptability to soils and climates. The plants of
this genus are valued as ornamentals both for their flowers and for their
foliage. Many cultivated forms of several of the species have single or
double flowers, or variegated, colored or otherwise abnormal leaves,
while the genus is enlivened by the evergreen foliage of the cherry
laurels. Nearly all of the plants of Prunus are spring-flowering but most
of them are attractive later on in the foliage and many of them are very
ornamental in fruit.
PLUMS.
Of all the stone-fruits plums furnish the greatest diversity of kinds.
Varieties to the number of two thousand, from fifteen species, are now
or have been under cultivation. These varieties give a greater range of
flavor, aroma, texture, color, form and size, the qualities which gratify
the senses and make fruits desirable, than any other of our orchard
fruits. The trees, too, are diverse in structure, some of the plums being
shrub-like plants with slender branches, while others are true trees with
stout trunks and sturdy branches; some species have thin, delicate leaves
and others coarse, heavy foliage. In geographical distribution both the
wild and the cultivated plum encircle the globe in the North Temperate
Zone, and the cultivated varieties are common inhabitants of the southern
temperate region, the various plums being adapted to great differences in
temperature, moisture and soil in the two zones.
The great variety of plums and the variability of the kinds, seemingly
plastic in all characters, the general distribution of the fruit
throughout the zone in which is carried on the greatest part of the
world’s agriculture, and the adaptation of the several species and the
many varieties, to topographical, soil and climatic changes, make this
fruit not only one of much present importance but also one of great
capacity for further development. Of the plums of the Old World the
Domesticas, Insititias and probably the Trifloras have been cultivated
for two thousand years or more, while the work of domesticating the wild
species of America was only begun in the middle of the last century.
There are about fifteen hundred varieties of the Old World plums listed
in this work, and since the New World plums are quite as variable, as
great a variety or greater, since there are more species, may be expected
in America.
An attempt is made in _The Plums of New York_ to review the plum flora
of this continent, but the species considered fall far short of being
all of the promising indigenous plums; not only are there more to be
described, but it is probable that species here described will in some
cases be sub-divided. The development of the pomological plum-wealth of
North America is but begun. Not nearly as much has been done to develop
the possibilities of the European plums in America as in the case of the
other tree-fruits. Probably a greater percentage of the varieties of Old
World plums commonly cultivated came from across the sea, than of the
varieties of any other of the orchard-fruits which have been introduced.
Much remains to be done in securing greater adaptability of foreign
plums to American conditions. Native and foreign plums are also being
hybridized with very great advantage to pomology.
_The Plums of New York_ is written largely with the aim of furthering
the development of plums in America, the possibilities of which are
indicated in the preceding paragraph. With this end in view the first
task is to name and discuss briefly the characters of plums whereby
species and varieties are distinguished, with a statement, so far
as present knowledge permits, of the variability of the different
characters. It is absolutely essential that the plum-grower have
knowledge, especially if he aspires to improve the fruit by breeding, of
the characters of the plants with which he is to work. These are in the
main as follows:
All species and some horticultural varieties have more or less
characteristic trees. Making due allowance for environment—food, moisture
and light—many plum groups can be readily distinguished by the general
aspect of the plant. Of the gross characters of trees, size is usually
most characteristic. A species, for example, is either shrubby or
tree-like. Yet under varying environment, size of plant and of the parts
of the plant, are probably the first to change. Habit of growth is nearly
as important as size and varies but little under changing conditions. A
species or variety may be upright, spreading, drooping or round-topped
in growth; head open or dense; the tree rapid or slow-growing. Hardiness
is a very important diagnostic character, plums being either hardy,
half-hardy or tender. Both species and varieties respond in high degree
to the test of hardiness, the range for varieties, of course, falling
within that of the species. Productiveness, regularity of bearing,
susceptibility to diseases and insects, and longevity of tree are all
characters having value for species and varieties and with the exception
of the first named, are little subject to variation.
The thickness, smoothness, color and manner of exfoliation of the
outer bark and the color of the inner bark have considerable value in
determining species but are little used in determining horticultural
groups. It is well recognized that all plums have lighter colored bark
in the South than in the North. The branches are very characteristic in
several species. The length, thickness and rigidity of the branch and
the length of its internodes should be considered, while the direction
of the branch, whether straight or zigzag, are very valuable determining
characters and relatively stable ones, seeming to change for most part
only through long ranges of climatic conditions. So, too, the arming
of a branch with spines or spurs and the structure of such organs are
important. The color, smoothness, amount of pubescence, direction,
length, thickness and the appearance of the lenticels, the presence of
excrescences on the branchlets of the first and second year’s growth and
the branching angle, are all worthy of consideration though quite too
much has been made of these characters, especially of pubescence, in
determining species, for they are all extremely variable.
[Illustration:
1. _P. HORTULANA MINERI_
2. _P. AMERICANA_
3. _P. CERASIFERA_
4. _P. DOMESTICA_
5. _P. INSITITIA_
6. _P. HORTULANA_
7. _P. MUNSONIANA_
8. _P. NIGRA_
9. _P. TRIFLORA_]
The size, shape and color of leaf-buds and of their outer and inner
scales and the margins of the scales differ in different species.
Possibly the most evident, and therefore readiest means of identifying
species, at least, is by the leaves. It is true that leaves are
very variable but always within limits, and either individually
or collectively in giving the general aspect to a tree they are
characteristic. Modifications of leaves most often occur in very young
plants, those growing in bright sunshine or deep shade and on sprouts
or suckers, but none of these are usually sufficient to mislead as to
species. Leaf-size and leaf-form are the first characters to be noted in
determining a plum but these are closely followed in value by leaf-color,
leaf-surface, leaf-thickness and leaf-margin. Leaf-size is variable,
depending much upon the conditions noted above but leaf-form varies but
little in the several species. So, too, the color of leaves is very
constant throughout a species, for both surfaces, though impossible
to describe accurately in words and very difficult to reproduce in
color-printing. There is a marked difference in autumnal tints not
only of species but of varieties but these are not very constant in
any one location and must vary greatly under different environments.
The thickness of the leaves of the several species is a distinctive
character. Species of plums have very different leaf-surfaces as regards
reticulation, rugoseness, pubescence and coriaceousness, all of these
characters being quite constant, though it is to be noted that roughness
of leaves and pubescence are increased by exposure to the sun and by the
influence of some soils. There is, indeed, considerable variation in
the pubescence of the leaves of all species of plums in different parts
of the country and probably too much has been made of pubescence as a
determining character.
The margins of leaves are very characteristic of species and scarcely
vary under normal conditions if the teeth at the middle of the sides be
taken rather than those toward the base or apex, these very often being
crowded, reduced or wanting. The presence of glands, their position,
size, shape and color, help to characterize several species and seem
to be fairly constant guides. Some species and a great number of
varieties have the distinguishing marks of gland-like prickles tipping
the serrations in the leaf-margins. Length, thickness, rigidity and
pubescence of petiole have some taxonomic value. Stipules usually offer
no distinguishing marks other than those mentioned under leaves.
The blossoms of plums are very characteristic, giving in flowering
time a distinctive aspect to all species and distinguishing some
horticultural varieties. The flowers of all the species are borne in
clusters, differing in number of individuals, according to the species;
so, too, the flowers in the different species vary in size, color, in
length of their peduncles, and in pubescence, especially of the calyx.
Flower-characters are constant, taking them as a whole, yet there are
some variations that must be noted. One of the most marked of these
is in the time of appearance of the flowers; in the South they appear
before the leaves but in the North with the leaves. On the grounds of
this Station there are notable exceptions to the latter statement, with
varieties of species showing considerable variation in this regard. There
are some remarkable variations within species as regards size and color
of the corolla and glands and pubescence of the calyx, depending upon
the environment of the plant; but on the whole these characters are very
constant. The fragrance of the flowers of plums varies from a delicate,
agreeable odor to one that is quite disagreeable in some species as in
Americana; the odor seems to be a constant character.
Of all structures of the plum the fruit is most variable, yet fruits are
sufficiently distinct and constant, especially within species, to make
their characters very valuable in classification. Species, whether wild
or cultivated, may be distinguished in greater or less degree by the
period of ripening of the fruits, though in this regard the cultivated
varieties of the several species vary greatly and in the wild state trees
of native plums in the same locality, even in the same clump, may vary in
ripening as much as from two to four weeks. Species are distinguished by
size, shape, color, flesh, flavor and pit among the grosser characters of
the structure and by amount of bloom, stem, cavity, apex, suture and skin
among the minor characters. The fruit is usually the first part of the
plant to respond to changed conditions.
Characters derived from seed structures are generally accounted of much
value by botanists in determining species. Such is the case with plums.
This Station has a collection of stones of over three hundred cultivated
varieties of plums and some specimens of nearly all the different
species. The stones illustrated in the color-plates in this book show
that this structure is quite variable in size, shape, in the ends,
surfaces, grooves and ridges, even within a species; nevertheless in
describing the several hundred forms of plums for _The Plums of New York_
the stone has been quite as satisfactory, if not the most satisfactory,
of any of the organs of this plant for distinguishing the various species
and varieties.
The reproductive organs of plums afford several characters and would
seem to offer means of distinguishing botanical and horticultural
groups, but they are so variable in both cultivated and wild plants as
to be very misleading. Not only do these organs differ very often in
structure but also in ability to perform their functions. Bailey[1] has
called attention to the remarkable self-sterility of some varieties
of the native species of plums, due to the impotency of the pollen
upon flowers of the same variety. C. W. H. Heideman[2] made some very
interesting observations on what he considers distinct forms of the
flowers of the Americana plums, describing for this species all of the
six possible variations of flowers enumerated by Darwin in his _Different
Forms of Flowers in Plants of the Same Species_. Heideman thinks that
other species of Prunus exhibit similar variations. Waugh[3] made the
pollination of plums a subject of careful and extended study and found
much variation in the pistils of plants of the same species, insufficient
pollen in some plants, pollen impotent on the stigma of the same flower,
and considerable difference in the time of maturity of pollen and stigma
in some plums, especially the Americana plums. These variations, most
important to the plum-grower, are of more or less use in identifying
plums.
After the discussion of the characters of plums we may pass to a detailed
description and discussion of the species of plums which now contribute
or may contribute cultivated forms to the pomology of the country either
for their fruits or as stocks upon which to grow other plums. The
following conspectus shows as well as may be the relations of the species
of plums to each other.
CONSPECTUS OF SPECIES OF PLUMS.
A. Flowers in clusters of 1 or 2. (Three in _P. triflora_.)
Old World plums.
B. Leaves drooping.
C. Shoots and pedicels pubescent.
D. Flowers mostly in twos.
E. Fruits large, more than 1 inch in
diameter, variable in shape, often
compressed; tree large; stamens
about 30. =1. P. domestica.=
E.E. Fruit small, less than 1 inch in
diameter, uniformly oval or ovoid;
stamens about 25; tree small,
compact. =2. P. insititia.=
D.D. Flowers mostly single.
E. Leaves small, less than 2 inches
in length; sometimes a tree; very
thorny =3. P. spinosa.=
E.E. Leaves large, more than 2½ inches
in length; a shrub; thorns few =4. P. curdica.=
C.C. Shoots glabrous or soon becoming so,
pedicels glabrous.
D. Pedicels shorter than the calyx-cup;
leaves glabrous or sparsely pubescent
on the under side along the rib;
flowers in pairs =5. P. cocomilia.=
D.D. Pedicels more than twice as long
as the calyx-cup.
E. Flowers mostly single; leaves hairy
along the midrib on the under side;
petiole ⅕ as long as the leaf-blade;
a tree =6. P. cerasifera.=
E.E. Flowers in threes; leaves glabrous,
petiole shining, leaf-margins finely
and closely serrate, teeth
glandular-pointed; stamens about 25 =7. P. monticola.=
E.E.E. Flowers in threes; leaves
glabrous, often shining,
leaf-margins finely and closely
serrate, teeth glandular-pointed;
stamens about 25 =8. P. triflora.=
B.B. Leaves upright, peach-like, glabrous,
veins very conspicuous, under side barbate
at axils of veins; separated from all other
plums by the leaf-characters and by the
large, flattened, brick-red fruits =9. P. simonii.=
A.A. Flowers in clusters of 3 or more, rarely 2.
American plums.
B. Plants trees. (_P. angustifolia_ rarely
a tree.)
C. Leaves broad, mostly ovate or obovate.
D. Leaves long-ovate or long-obovate.
E. Flowers white.
F. Leaf-serrations glandless, acute;
petiole usually glandless; calyx-lobes
entire, glabrous on the outer, pubescent
on the inner surface; stamens about 30;
stone turgid, large, pointed at the
apex =10. P. americana.=
F.F. Leaf-serrations glandular,
wavy-crenate; petioles glandular;
calyx-lobes glandular-serrate,
pubescent on the inner surface;
stamens about 20; stone turgid,
small, prolonged at the ends =11. P. hortulana.=
E.E. Flowers fading to pink.
F. Leaf-serrations coarse, rounded,
glandular only when young; petioles
biglandular; calyx-lobes
glandular-serrate, not pubescent
on the inner surface; stamens about
30; fruit red; bloom light; stone
flat =12. P. nigra.=
F.F. Leaf-serrations fine, acute,
glandular-pointed; petioles
biglandular; calyx-lobes entire,
pubescent on the outer, tomentose
on the inner surface; fruits dark
purple; bloom heavy; stone turgid,
acute at the ends =13. P. alleghaniensis.=
D.D. Leaves round-ovate, obtusely, sometimes
doubly serrate; petioles glandless;
calyx-lobes pubescent on both surfaces;
fruit dark red or purplish; stone turgid,
pointed at both ends =14. P. subcordata.=
C.C. Leaves narrow, lanceolate-ovate.
D. Leaves flat.
E. Leaves glabrous; fruits globular,
usually purple at maturity but sometimes
red or orange-red; bloom thin; stone
turgid, cherry-like =15. P. umbellata.=
E.E. Leaves pubescent.
F. Stone acute at both ends; fruit
purple. =16. P. mitis.=
F.F. Stone rounded at base; fruits
variously colored =17. P. tarda.=
D.D. Leaves more or less folded upward.
E. Fruits small, ½ inch in diameter,
cherry-like; leaves lanceolate,
upper surface glabrous, lustrous,
lower surface pubescent in axils
of veins, marginal teeth glandless;
petioles biglandular; stone small,
ovoid, turgid, cherry-like; rarely
a tree; tender in New York =18. P. angustifolia.=
E.E. Fruits large, an inch in diameter,
plum-like; leaves lanceolate,
peach-like, upper surface glabrous,
lower surface pubescent along the
midrib; petioles with from 1 to 6
glands; stone compressed and pointed
at both ends; usually a tree; hardy
in New York =19. P. munsoniana=
B.B. Plants shrubs.
C. Fruits dark purple.
D. Leaves ovate, acute, finely serrated;
shoots becoming glabrous; stones
pointed at both ends =20. P. maritima.=
D.D. Leaves oval-orbicular, crenate-serrate;
shoots usually pubescent; stone pointed
only at the base =21. P. gravesii.=
C.C. Fruits red or orange, sometimes yellow
but never deep purple.
D. Fruits large, 1 inch in diameter; leaves
oblong-ovate, long-pointed, margin serrate
with incurved sometimes glandular teeth,
upper surface glabrous, lower surface
pilose; petiole with 1 or 2 glands;
stone oval, flattened =22. P. orthosepela.=
D.D. Fruits small, ½ inch in diameter.
E. Leaves small, ovate-lanceolate or
oval, margins finely and evenly
serrate, upper surface glabrous,
lower surface soft pubescent;
petioles short and stout; fruits
variable in color, mostly red;
stone turgid, pointed at both ends =23. P. gracilis.=
E.E. Leaves oblong-ovate, margins
coarsely or doubly serrate, glabrous
above and sparingly pubescent below;
petiole glandular; fruits cherry-red =24. P. rivularis.=
=1.= =PRUNUS DOMESTICA= Linnaeus
[Illustration: _PRUNUS DOMESTICA_]
=1.= Linnaeus _Sp. Pl._ 475. 1753. =2.= Duhamel _Traite des
Arb._ =2=:93, 95, 96. 1768. =3.= Seringe _DC. Prodr._ =2=:533.
1825. =4.= Hooker _Brit. Fl._ 220. 1830. =5.= London _Arb. Fr.
Brit._ 1844. =6.= De Candolle _Or. Cult. Pl._ 212. 1885. =7.=
Schwarz _Forst. Bot._ 338. 1892. =8.= Koch, W. _Syn. Deut. und
Schw. Fl._ =1=:727. 1892. =9.= Dippel _Handb. Laubh._ =3=:636.
1893. =10.= Lucas _Handb. Obst._ 429. 1893. =11.= Waugh _Bot.
Gaz._ =26=:417-27. 1898. =12.= Bailey _Cyc. Am. Hort._ 1448.
1901. =13.= Waugh _Plum Cult._ 14. 1901. =14.= Schneider
_Handb. Laubh._ =1=:630. 1906.
_P. communis domestica._ =15.= Hudson _Fl. Anglic._ 212. 1778.
=16.= Bentham _Handb. Brit. Fl._ =1=:236. 1865.
_P. œconomica_ (in part) and _P. italica_ (in part). =17.=
Borkhausen _Handb. Forstb._ =2=:1401, 1409. 1803. =18.= Koch,
K. _Dend._ =1=:94, 96. 1869. =19.= Koehne _Deut. Dend._ 316.
1893.
Tree reaching a height of 30 or 40 feet, vigorous, open-headed,
round-topped; trunk attaining a foot or more in diameter;
bark thick, ashy-gray with a tinge of red, nearly smooth or
roughened with transverse lines; branches upright or spreading,
straight, stout and rigid, usually spineless; branchlets
usually pubescent, light red the first year, becoming much
darker or drab; lenticels small, raised, conspicuous, orange.
Winter-buds large, conical, pointed, pubescent, free or
appressed; leaves large, ovate or obovate, elliptical or
oblong-elliptical, thick and firm in texture; upper surface
dull green, rugose, glabrous or nearly so, the lower one
paler with little or much tomentum, much reticulated; margins
coarsely and irregularly crenate or serrate, often doubly
so, teeth usually glandular; petioles a half-inch or more
in length, stoutish, pubescent, tinged with red; glands
usually two, often lacking, sometimes several, globose,
greenish-yellow; stipules very small, less than a half-inch,
lanceolate, narrow, serrate, early caducous.
Flowers appearing after or sometimes with the leaves, showy,
an inch or more across, greenish-white to creamy-white;
borne on lateral spurs or sometimes from lateral buds on
one-year-old wood, 1 or 2 from a bud in a more or less
fascicled umbel; pedicels a half-inch or more in length, stout,
green; calyx-tube campanulate, glabrous or pubescent, green;
calyx-lobes broadly oblong, obtuse, pubescent on both surfaces,
glandular-serrate, usually reflexed; petals white or creamy
in the bud, oval to obovate, crenate, notched or entire, claw
short and broad; stamens about 30, equal to or shorter than
the petals; anthers yellow, sometimes tinged with red; pistils
about as long as the stamens, glabrous or pubescent.
Fruit of various shapes, mostly globular or sulcate, often
necked, blue, red or yellow; stem a half-inch or more long,
stout, pubescent; cavity shallow and narrow; apex variable,
usually rounded; suture prominent or sometimes but a line or
indistinct; skin variable; dots small, numerous, inconspicuous;
flesh yellowish, firm, meaty, sweet or acid and of many
flavors; stone free or clinging, large, oval, flattened, blunt,
pointed or necked, slightly roughened or pitted; walls thick;
one suture ridged—the other grooved.
Beside the comparatively well-known groups of Domestica varieties,
there are in Europe, with an occasional representative in America,
especially in herbaria, numerous other groups either a part of _Prunus
domestica_ or possibly, in a few cases at least, hybrids between it
and other species. European botanists place some of these in distinct
species or sub-species; but few, however, even of the recent writers on
the botany of the plum, agree at all closely as to the disposition of
these edible and ornamental plums which may be doubtfully referred to
_Prunus domestica_. With this disagreement between the best European
authorities where these plums have long been known, where some of them
have originated, and all may be found in orchards, botanic gardens and
herbaria, it does not seem wise at this distance to attempt a discussion
of such doubtful forms. It is certain, however, that Borkhausen’s _Prunus
italica_ and _Prunus œconomica_, as given in the synonymy, are but parts
of _Prunus domestica_, the first including the Reine Claude plums and
the latter the various prunes. So, too, a wild form named by Borkhausen,
_Prunus sylvestris_, is probably a part of _Prunus domestica_.
Bechstein[4] gave specific names to a number of plums which Schneider[5]
holds are all cultivated forms of _Prunus domestica_. These names are
not infrequently found in botanical and pomological literature, to the
great confusion of plum nomenclature. The following are Bechstein’s
species:—_Prunus exigua_, _Prunus rubella_, _Prunus lutea_, _Prunus
oxycarpa_, _Prunus subrotunda_ and _Prunus vinaria_.
The plum in which the world is chiefly interested is the Old World
_Prunus domestica_. The Domestica plums are not only the best known of
the cultivated plums, having been cultivated longest and being most
widely distributed, but they far surpass all other species, both in
the quality of the product and in the characters which make a tree a
desirable orchard plant. How much of this superiority is due to the
greater efforts of man in domesticating the species cannot be said, for
the natural history of this plum, whether wild or under cultivation, is
but poorly known. It is not even certain that these plums constitute a
distinct species, there being several hypotheses as to the origin of the
Domestica varieties. Three of these suppositions must be considered.
Many botanists hold that what American pomologists call the species
is an assemblage of several botanical divisions. The early botanists
distributed these plums in botanical varieties of one species. Thus
Linnaeus, in 1753, divided _Prunus domestica_ into fourteen sub-species,
and Seringe, in 1825, made eight divisions of the species. Both of
these men include in this species, among others, plums which we now
place in _Prunus cerasifera_, the Cherry plums, and _Prunus insititia_,
the Damsons and Bullaces. Nearly all subsequent botanists who have not
made two or more species of it have recognized from two to several
sub-divisions of _Prunus domestica_. It is possible that what are called
the Domestica plums should be distributed among several botanical
divisions. But it is difficult to find any differential character
sufficiently constant to distinguish more than one species for the
several hundred varieties of these plums now under cultivation. Nor are
there any cleavage lines sufficiently distinct to indicate that the
edible varieties of the one species should be sub-grouped.
In coming to these conclusions the writer has studied about three hundred
varieties of Domestica plums growing on the grounds of this Station and
about half as many more growing in other parts of the country, the whole
number representing all of the various species and sub-species which
other workers have made. The differences which have been most used to
classify the varieties of Domestica in several botanic divisions have to
do chiefly with the fruit, as size, shape, color and flavor, characters
so modified by cultivation and selection that they are artificial and
transitory and of little value in botanical classification. Moreover,
the botanical groups which have been founded on these characters are
much more indistinct than ordinarily in botany because of the merging at
many points of one group into another. This indistinctness is greatly
increasing year by year through the intercrossing of varieties. When
the characters of no value to man, and, therefore, little modified by
cultivation, are considered, it is scarcely possible logically to place
Domestica plums in more than one species or to further sub-divide the one
species.
The botanists who have divided the Domestica plums into either greater
or lesser botanical groups do not define their divisions with sufficient
accuracy to make them clearly recognizable. Neither do they give the
habitats of the wild progenitors with sufficient certainty to carry
conviction that the groups were brought under cultivation from separate
ancestors. Also, the several botanists who hold to the multiple species
theory for the Domestica plums do not agree as to the limits of the
different groups and give to them very different specific or variety
names, showing that they have widely different ideas as a basis for their
classification.
A second theory is that _Prunus domestica_ is derived from _Prunus
spinosa_ and that _Prunus insititia_ is an intermediate between the
two.[6] This hypothesis is based upon the supposition that when
Domestica plums run wild they revert to the Insititia or Spinosa form.
It is not difficult to test this theory. A study of the origin of the
several hundred Domestica and Insititia plums discussed in Chapters
III and IV of _The Plums of New York_ does not show for any one of
them a tendency to reversion or evolution to other species; nor do the
descriptions indicate that there are many, if any, transitional forms.
During the two thousand years they have been cultivated in Europe the Old
World plums have been constant to type. Domestica seedlings vary somewhat
but they do not depart greatly from a well marked type. Such very few
striking departures as there seem to be are more likely to have arisen
through crossing with other species than through reversion or evolution.
This Station has grown many pure seedlings or crosses of varieties of
Domestica within the species and has had opportunity of examining many
more from other parts of the State, and none of these show reversion to
the other two Old World species. Nor, as we shall see, is there much in
what is known of the history of these three species to lead to the belief
that the Domestica, Insititia and Spinosa plums constitute but one wild
species or have arisen from one.
It has been remarked that there are few, if any, transitional forms
between the Domestica and other European plums. It is a significant fact
that _Prunus domestica_ can be hybridized with other species of plums
only with comparative difficulty, species of plums as a rule hybridizing
very freely. This is as true with the Insititia and Spinosa as of other
plums, there being few recorded hybrids of either of these species with
the one under discussion. Quite to the contrary the varieties of the
several pomological groups of Domestica plums hybridize very freely.
If all were of one species we should expect many hybrids between the
Domestica, Insititia and Spinosa plums.
We are now left with the third hypothesis, which is, as we have indicated
in a preceding paragraph, that the varieties of Domestica plums belong
to one species; or if they have come from more than one species the wild
forms have not been distinguished and must have grown under much more
nearly similar conditions than is the case with _Prunus domestica_ and
any other species. Without knowledge of more than one wild form, and
in view of the intercrossing of the varieties of these plums it seems
best to consider all as parts of one species, leaving to the pomologist
the division of the species into horticultural groups founded on the
characters which make the fruit valuable for cultivation.
Assuming, then, that the plums known in pomology as Domestica plums
belong to one species, the original habitat of the species may be
sought. In spite of the great number of varieties of plums now grown in
Europe and western Asia, and the importance of the fruit both in the
green and dried state, the history of the plums cannot be traced with
much certainty beyond two thousand years. Though stones, without doubt
those of the Insititia or Damson and the Spinosa or Blackthorn plums,
are found in the remains of the lake dwellings in central Europe[7]
the pits of Domestica plums have not yet come to light. In the summer
of 1909 the writer, in visiting historic Pompeii, became interested in
the illustrations of fruits in the frescoes of the ancient buildings,
but neither in the houses of the ruined city nor in the frescoes in the
museums in Naples could he find plums, though several other fruits,
as apples, pears, figs and grapes were many times illustrated. An
examination of the remains of plants preserved in the museum at Naples
taken from under the ashes and pumice covering Pompeii gave the same
results. No stone-fruits were to be found, though if widely used these
should have been on sale in the markets of Pompeii at the time of the
destruction of the city, which occurred late in August,—the very time of
the year at which the examination was made and at which time plums were
everywhere for sale in Rome. This observation is but another indication
that plums were not well-known before the beginning of Christianity,
since Pompeii was destroyed in 79 A. D. In Greek literature the
references to plums are few before the Christian era and these are more
likely to some form of Insititia, as the Damsons, rather than to the
Domesticas.
Pliny gives the first clear account of Domestica plums and
speaks of them as if they had been but recently introduced.
His account is as follows:[8] “Next comes a vast number of
varieties of the plum, the particolored, the black, the white,
the barley plum, so-called because it is ripe at Barley
harvest, and another of the same color as the last, but which
ripens later, and is of a larger size, generally known as
the ‘Asinina,’ from the little esteem in which it is held.
There are the onychina, too, the cerina,—more esteemed, and
the purple plum; the Armenian, also an exotic from foreign
parts, the only one among the plums that recommends itself by
its smell. The plum tree grafted on the nut exhibits what we
may call a piece of impudence quite its own, for it produces
a fruit that has all the appearance of the parent stock,
together with the juice of the adopted fruit; in consequence
of its being thus compounded of both, it is known by the name
of ‘nuci-pruna.’ Nut-prunes, as well as the peach, the wild
plum and the cerina, are often put in casks and so kept till
the crop comes of the following year. All the other varieties
ripen with the greatest rapidity and pass off just as quickly.
More recently, in Baetica, they have begun to introduce what
they call ‘malina,’ or the fruit of the plum engrafted on the
apple tree, and ‘amygdalina,’ the fruit of the plum engrafted
on the almond tree, the kernel found in the stone of these
last being that of the almond. Indeed, there is no specimen in
which two fruits have been more ingeniously combined in one.
Among the foreign trees we have already spoken of the Damascene
plum, so-called from Damascus, in Syria, but introduced long
since into Italy, though the stone of this plum is larger than
usual, and the flesh small in quantity. This plum will never
dry so far as to wrinkle; to effect that, it needs the sun of
its own native country. The myxa, too, may be mentioned as
being the fellow countryman of the Damascene; it has of late
been introduced into Rome and has been grown engrafted upon the
sorb.”
While the records are somewhat vague it is probable that the Domestica
plums came from the region about the Caucasus Mountains and the Caspian
Sea and especially the section east of these mountains and the sea. What
seems to be the wild form of this species has been found by several
botanists in this great region.[9] Here the Huns, Turks, Mongols
and Tartars, flowing back and forth in tides of war-like migration,
maintained in times of peace a crude agriculture probably long before
the Greeks and Romans tilled the soil. The plum was one of their fruits
and the dried prune a staple product. Here, still, to the east, west and
north toward central Asia, plums are among the common fruits and prunes
are common articles of trade. Even in the fertile oases of the great
central Asian desert, plums are cultivated, but whether domesticated here
or brought from elsewhere cannot be told. Koch,[10] speaking of prunes
in particular, gives the following account (translated) of their Asiatic
origin:
“According to my investigation Turkestan and the southern Altai
Mountains are the place of origin. When in the year 1844 I
found myself in Baku on the west coast of the Caspian Sea, I
had plenty of opportunity to draw accounts of the fruits of
their native lands from the Turkestan and Bokharan merchants,
and was astonished over the high cultivation of stone fruits
in these places—at the same time I was able to taste dried the
most choice because best flavored, the Ali-Bokhara, that is
Bokhara prune. Some of these Bokharan prunes were transplanted
a long time ago to Trans-Caucasia and were especially
cultivated in the ancient city and residence of the Ruler of
the modern Elizabethpol. Unfortunately the cultivation is less
now than in earlier times. A further spread toward the west and
toward Europe, I have not been able to follow. In Greece, the
prunes are even to-day an unknown fruit.”
At about the time Pliny wrote, or somewhat before, communication had been
opened between the Romans and the countries about the Caspian Sea, and a
few centuries later the devastating hordes of Asiatics came westward and
for several centuries continued to pour into eastern Europe. What more
probable than that they should have carried dried prunes as an article
of food in the invasions, and eventually, as they made settlements here
and there, have introduced the trees in Europe. It is certain, at any
rate, as we shall see, that several of the groups of cultivated plums
trace back to the Balkan countries of Europe and the region eastward.
There, now as then, the plum is a standard fruit and prune-making a great
industry.
The plum when first known in Europe, as described by Pliny and other
early writers, seems to have been a large and well-flavored fruit,
indicating that it had been under cultivation for a long while. This,
and the fact that the fruit was not known by the earliest writers on
agriculture, indicate that the plum was not originally an inhabitant
of southern Europe, as some suppose. It is likely that the tree has
escaped from cultivation and become naturalized in the localities where
it is now supposed to grow wild. _Prunus domestica_ has not been found
wild nor under cultivation in eastern Asia, so far as can be learned by
the botanical and horticultural explorers of China and nearby regions,
_Prunus triflora_ being the domesticated plum of that part of the
continent, though it may well be surmised that some of the Domestica
plums are cultivated in western China, a region as yet but imperfectly
explored for its plants.
Having briefly sketched the origin of the Domestica plums in the
Old World we may now consider their history in the New World—a more
satisfactory task, as data are abundant and reliable.
The Domestica plums are valuable food-producing trees in America but
have not attained here the relative importance among fruits that they
hold in Europe. From the earliest records of fruit-growing in the New
World the plum has been grown less than the apple, pear, peach or cherry,
while in Europe it is a question if it does not rank first or second
among the tree-fruits. The comparatively restricted area which the
Domestica plums now occupy in America is due, perhaps, to the fact that
they do not possess in as high degree as the fruits named above the
power of adaptation to the trans-Atlantic environment. Without question
the feature of environment most uncongenial to plums in America is the
climate. The plum thrives best in an equable climate like that of eastern
and southern Europe and of western America, and cannot endure such
extremes of heat and cold, wet and dry, as are found in parts of eastern
America and in the Mississippi Valley. At best this fruit lacks in what
is called constitution, or ability to withstand adverse conditions of any
kind, whether of climate, culture, insects or fungi. Thus in America this
plum suffers severely not only from climate but from several parasites,
as curculio, black-knot, leaf-blight, plum-pockets and other pests.
We find, therefore, that in North America the Domestica plums are
confined to favored localities on the Atlantic seaboard, the Great
Lakes region and the Pacific coast. In the first named area they are
to be found thriving to a limited degree in Nova Scotia and parts of
Quebec, somewhat in central New England, and particularly well in the
fruit-growing sections of New York, especially in the parts of this State
where the climate is made equable by large bodies of water. South of New
York, excepting in a few localities in Pennsylvania, but few plums of
this species are grown. The Domestica plums are grown with indifferent
success in southern Ontario and in Michigan, and now and then an orchard
is found to the south almost to the Gulf. In the great Valley of the
Mississippi and in the states of the plains this plum is hardly known.
Westward in the irrigated valleys of the Rocky Mountains and the Great
Basin, the climate is favorable and the European plums are nearly as
well-known as in any other portion of the continent excepting the Pacific
Coast.
It is in the last named region that the foreign plum reaches its highest
development in the New World. The trees in California, Oregon and
Washington are very thrifty and the plums are of large size, handsome
appearance and of high quality. Both tree and fruit in this favored
region are free from most of the insect and fungus troubles with which
the eastern plum-growers must contend. Curculio and black-knot, scourges
of eastern orchards, are not troublesome on the western coast. In this
region the Domesticas, practically the only plums cultivated, succeed on
either irrigated or naturally watered lands.
It is probable that some of these plums were introduced into America
by the first colonists, but if so, the early records do not show that
the fruit was much grown in this country until toward the end of
the Eighteenth Century. Certainly during the first two centuries of
colonization in the New World there were no such plum plantations as
there were of the apple, pear and cherry. Among the first importations of
plums were those made by the French in Canada, more particularly in Nova
Scotia, Cape Breton, Prince Edward Island and in favored situations such
as the L’Islet County and the Island of Montreal bordering and in the St.
Lawrence River.
Peter Kalm in his _Travels into North America_ in 1771 records the
culture of plums as far north as Quebec with the statement that “Plum
trees of different sorts brought over from France succeed very well
here,” adding further, “The winters do not hurt them.”[11] There are
other records to show that the French, always distinguished for their
horticultural tastes, if not the first to grow this fruit in America, at
least began its culture at a very early date.
In the voyages undertaken for exploration and commerce soon after the
discovery of America by Columbus the peach was introduced in America by
the Spanish; for soon after permanent settlement had been made in the
South the settlers found this fruit in widespread cultivation by the
Indians and its origin could only be traced to the Spaniards who early
visited Florida and the Gulf region. William Penn wrote as early as
1683 that there were very good peaches in Pennsylvania; “not an Indian
plantation was without them.”[12] The abundance of this fruit was noted
by all the early travelers in the region from Pennsylvania southward
and westward but though the wild plums are often mentioned there are no
records of cultivated plums until the colonies had long been established.
In Massachusetts some plums were planted by the Pilgrims, for Francis
Higginson, writing in 1629, says: “Our Governor hath already planted
a vineyard with great hope of increase. Also mulberries, plums,
raspberries, corrance, chestnuts, filberts, walnuts, smalnuts,
hurtleberries.”[13] The plums were Damsons, as a statement is made a
little later that the “Red Kentish is the only cherry and the Damson the
only plum cultivated.” A further reference to this plum is made by John
Josselyn, when, writing of a voyage to New England in 1663, he says, “The
_Quinces_, _Cherries_, _Damsons_, set the dames a work, _marmalad_ and
preserved Damsons is to be met with in every house.”[14]
In 1797 there is the following concise account of the plums cultivated in
New England:[15]
“The better sorts which are cultivated are the horse plum, a
very pleasant tasted fruit, of large size; the peach plum, red
toward the sun, with an agreeable tartness; the pear plum,
so-called from its shape, which is sweet, and of an excellent
taste; the wheat plum, extremely sweet, oval, and furrowed in
the middle, not large; the green-gage plum, which is generally
preferred before all the rest.”
A search in the colonial records of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and
Delaware shows no records of cultivated plums in these states until the
establishment of the Bartram Botanic Garden near Philadelphia in 1728.
Here John Bartram grew fruits, trees and flowers of many kinds received
through exchanges of indigenous species with European correspondents.
Among the plants sent over from Europe to Bartram were several varieties
of plums which were propagated and distributed throughout Pennsylvania
and nearby provinces. It must not be supposed, however, that the
Domestica plums had not been grown in Pennsylvania previous to Bartram’s
time. The plum grows fairly well in localities of this region, and
without question it had been planted by the early colonists with seeds
brought from across the sea. But the absence of references to the plum,
where they abound to the apple, pear, peach, quince and cherry, shows
that this fruit was not much cultivated by the Quakers and Swedes who
settled in the three states watered by the Delaware.
In the southern colonies the Domestica plums grow but poorly, and as the
early settlers of these states were chiefly concerned with tobacco and
cotton, paying little attention to fruits, we should expect the plum to
have been neglected. Then, too, the peach, escaped from the early Spanish
settlements, grew spontaneously in many parts of the South, furnishing,
with the wild plums of the region, an abundant supply of stone-fruits.
Yet the plum was early introduced in several of the southern colonies.
Thus Beverly,[16] writing in 1722 of Virginia, says: “Peaches, Nectarines
and Apricocks, as well as plums and cherries, grow there upon standard
trees,” with the further statement that these fruits grew so exceedingly
well that there was no need of grafting or inoculating them. Lawson,[17]
in his history of North Carolina, written in 1714, says that the Damson,
Damazeen and a large, round, black plum were the only sorts of this fruit
grown in that state in 1714.
In South Carolina Henry Laurens, who should be accounted a benefactor
not only of that State but of the whole country as well, about the
middle of the Eighteenth Century grew in Laurens Square in the Town of
Amonborough all the plants suitable to that climate that widely extended
merchantile connections enabled him to procure. Thus among fruits he grew
olives, limes, Alpine strawberries, European raspberries and grapes,
apples, pears and plums. John Watson, one of Laurens’ gardeners, planted
the first nursery in South Carolina. His plantation was laid waste in
the Revolution, though it was afterwards revived by himself and his
descendants and was still further continued by Robert Squib. The plum in
several varieties was largely grown and distributed from this nursery.
Charleston, South Carolina, was at the beginning of the Nineteenth
Century the southern center of horticultural activities and the European
plum was widely distributed from here at this time. Of the several
botanic gardens, really nurseries, in Charleston, one was conducted by
André Michaux who was sent by the French Government in 1786 to collect
American plants. Another was owned by John Champneys at St. Pauls, near
Charleston, and was managed by a Mr. Williamson who grew all of the
species of trees, fruits and shrubs, native and foreign, which could be
procured.[18] The third of these gardens was owned by Charles Drayton at
St. Andrews in which not only exotic fruits were grown but those of the
region as well. The plum trees frequently mentioned in the records of the
time as growing in this region came from these nurseries.
In Florida, as has been stated, the peach was introduced by the Spanish
explorers, but if the plum were also planted by the Spaniards it
quickly passed out with the cessation of cultivation. But later there
are records[19] of this and nearly all of the fruits of temperate and
sub-tropic climates having been grown at St. Augustine and Pensacola. In
the remarkable colony[20] founded by Dr. Andrew Turnbull at New Smyrna,
Florida, in 1763, the plum was one of the fruits cultivated. It is not
probable, however, that the culture of this fruit was ever extensive in
Florida as it does not thrive there.
William Bartram, son of John Bartram the founder of the Bartram Botanic
Garden, set out on a botanical expedition through the Southern States
in 1773, which lasted five years. He records[21] numerous observations
on the horticulture of both the colonists and the Indians. At Savannah,
Georgia, he found gardens furnished with all the cultivated fruit trees
and flowers in variety. One of the earliest settlements made by the
English in Georgia was Frederica, and here he found the peach, fig,
pomegranate and other trees and shrubs growing about the ruins; though
not specifically mentioned, the plum had probably been planted here with
the other fruits. At the junction of the Coose and Tallapoosa rivers
in Alabama, there were thriving apple trees, which had been set by the
French at Pearl Island in the last named state. Between Mobile and New
Orleans, Bartram found peaches, figs, grapes, plums and other fruits
growing to a high degree of perfection and such also was the case on a
plantation on the Mississippi in Louisiana near Baton Rouge.
These several references to plums show that this fruit was at least tried
in early colonial times, but it was not until after the establishment
of fruit-growing as an industry that any extensive plantings were made.
Pomology really began in America, though it languished for the first
half-century, at Flushing, Long Island, about 1730 with the establishment
of a commercial nursery by Robert Prince, first of four proprietors. Just
when this nursery, afterwards the famous Linnaean Botanic Garden, began
to offer plums cannot be said, but in 1767 one of their advertisements
shows that they were selling plum trees. As a possible indication that
the fruit was not highly esteemed at this period, an advertisement of
trees for sale from this nursery in the _New York Mercury_ of March 14th,
1774, does not offer plums. But in 1794 the catalog of the nursery offers
plums in variety. Indeed, as we shall see, William Prince had at this
time taken hold of the propagation and improvement of the Domestica plums
with great earnestness.
William Prince, third proprietor of the nursery founded by his
grandfather says in his _Treatise of Horticulture_,[22] “that his father,
about the year 1790 planted the pits of twenty-five quarts of Green Gage
plums; these produced trees yielding fruit of every color; and the White
Gage [Prince’s Imperial Gage], Red Gage and Prince’s Gage, now so well
known, form part of the progeny of these plums, and there seems strong
presumptive evidence to suppose that the Washington Plum was one of the
same collection.” In 1828 the Prince nursery was offering for sale one
hundred and forty varieties of plums which William Prince states[23] “are
a selection only of the choicest kinds, in making which, the commoner
fruits have been altogether rejected.” Of the kinds grown, there were
over twenty thousand trees.[24] To this nursery, to William Prince and to
William Robert Prince,[25] the fourth proprietor in particular, belong
the credit of having given plum-growing its greatest impetus in America.
Other notable nurseries founded at the close of the Eighteenth Century,
which helped to establish plum culture in America, were those of the
Kenricks, of William Coxe, and of David Landreth and Son. The Kenrick
Nursery was founded in 1790 at Newton, Massachusetts, by John Kenrick,
under whom and his sons, William and John A., the business was continued
until 1870.[26] During a large part of this period the Kenrick Nursery
probably grew, imported and disposed of a greater quantity of fruit trees
than any other nursery in New England. Coxe’s nursery was established
in 1806, at Burlington, New Jersey, but he had been growing fruit for
many years previous and was thus a pioneer pomologist before becoming
a nurseryman. In his book, _A View of the Cultivation of Fruit Trees_,
published in 1817, the first American book on pomology, he says[27]
he had been “for many years actively engaged in the rearing, planting
and cultivating of fruit trees on a scale more extensive than has been
attempted by any other individual of this country.” The third of these
nurseries, that of David Landreth and Son, was conducted in connection
with the seed establishment of that family founded in Philadelphia in
1784. Their collection of fruits was among the most extensive of the time
and must have forwarded the cultivation of the plum in that region.[28]
A century ago the fruit-growing of the country was largely in the hands
of amateurs and patrons of horticulture. Many varieties of plums must
have been introduced by these lovers of plants. Among such growers of
fruit was William Hamilton of Philadelphia, who introduced the Lombardy
poplar in 1784, and who in 1800 was growing all the plants and fruits
procurable in Europe. Ezekiel Henry Derby of Salem, Massachusetts, one
of the founders of the Massachusetts Society for Promoting Agriculture,
grew many choice foreign plants in his garden, greenhouse, orchard and
arboretum, and attained well merited fame as a horticulturist.[29] Dr.
David Hosack, botanist and founder in 1801 of the Elgin Botanic Gardens
in what is now New York City, was one of the most distinguished patrons
of pomology of his time and grew many new fruits and plants from Europe,
afterwards placing them in the hands of the horticulturists of the
country.[30]
These are but a very few of the many men who, having wealth and leisure,
were engaged in growing fruits and plants as an avocation but were adding
greatly to the material and knowledge of those to whom fruit-growing was
a vocation. As a further example of how much these men contributed to
horticulture, a purchase made by a member of the New York Horticultural
Society may be cited. At a meeting of the Society held in July, 1822,
he mentioned a list of fruit trees which he had purchased in Europe,
comprising 784 varieties.[31]
The period during which American pomology may be said to have been in the
hands of wealthy amateurs began shortly after the close of the Revolution
and did not fully merge into that of commercial pomology until the close
of the Civil War. Soon after the beginning of the Nineteenth Century,
horticulture, in fact all agriculture, was greatly stimulated by the
publication of agricultural books[32] and magazines[33] and the formation
of agricultural and horticultural societies.[34] The frequency of the
names of these publications of a century ago in _The Plums of New York_
is an indication of the contributions they made to the culture of the
plum.
Having briefly outlined the history of the Domestica plums, we come now
to a discussion of what we have under cultivation in this fruit. The
Domestica plums, 950 or more mentioned in this text, may be divided
into several more or less distinct pomological groups. These groups are
of interest because in their history the evolution of the plum under
consideration is further developed; because such groups are serviceable
to plum-growers, as each division has adaptation for particular
conditions or particular purposes; and because of their value to the
breeder of plums since the largest and best differentiated groups, as a
rule, have their characters most strongly fixed and may be relied upon to
best transmit them to their offspring.
Groups of plums in pomology are founded for most part upon the characters
of the fruit since these are most readily recognized by fruit-growers.
Yet whenever possible, leaf, flower and tree-characters are considered.
The name given is usually that of the best known variety in the group
though in some of the divisions the name is that of the variety which
seems to be intermediate in character between the other members of the
group.
The groups of plums recognized by pomologists were far more distinct
as we go back in their history. For, in the past, each fruit-growing
region had a pomology of its own in which the varieties of any fruit
were few and similar, constituting but one, or at most a very few types.
The various groups of plums, therefore, largely represent distinct
plum-growing regions. With the increase in intercourse between the
countries of the world, cultivated plums have been taken from place to
place and as new varieties have originated, often from crosses between
varieties, the dividing lines between divisions have been more or less
broken down. The first of the groups to be considered is:—
_The Reine Claude or Green Gage Plums._—This group is so distinctive
in several characters that some botanists and pomologists separate it
from other Domestica plums as a sub-species or species[35] and in common
parlance its numerous varieties are very generally grouped together as
“green gages” as if it were quite a distinct fruit from other plums. It
comprises a considerable number of relatively small, round, mostly green
or golden plums of so high quality as to make them standards in this
respect for all plums. The Reine Claude is one of the oldest types of
which there are records. Its varieties reproduce themselves without much
variation from seed though there are a few sorts, possibly crosses with
some other group, which are doubtfully referred to the Reine Claudes. The
later history of these plums is most interesting and is reliable, for the
group is recognized and discussed by almost every European or American
pomologist who has written in three centuries.[36] The early history is
not so well known.
Where the Reine Claude plums originated no one knows. Koch[37] says
he has eaten wild plums in the Trans-Caucasian region, which must be
recorded with the Reine Claudes, but on the next page he advances
the theory that the group is a hybrid between _Prunus domestica_ and
_Prunus insititia_. Schneider[38] puts the Reine Claudes in _Prunus
insititia_. The group seems to be a connecting link between the two
species named above, having so many characters in common with each
that it is exceedingly difficult to choose between the two as possible
parent species. _Prunus domestica_ probably originated in the Caucasian
or Caspian region, and it is likely, as Koch suggests, that the Reine
Claudes were brought from there. This is substantiated by the early
pomologists, who say these plums came originally from Armenia and were
known as the Armenian plums, coming eventually by the way of Greece to
Italy. If this statement of its origin be true, Columella[39] knew the
fruit, for he says:
—“then are the wicker baskets cramm’d
With Damask and Armenian and Wax plums.”
And so, too, Pliny refers to them[40] in his enumeration of varieties in
which he says: “the Armenian, also an exotic from foreign parts, the only
one among the plums that recommends itself by its smell.”
Hogg[41] says the Reine Claudes were brought from Greece to Italy and
cultivated in the latter country under the name Verdochia. Hogg does not
give his authority and his statement cannot be verified in any other of
the modern European pomologies to which the authors of this work have had
access. The very complete history of the agricultural and horticultural
plants of Italy[42] by Dr. Antonio Targioni-Tozzetti does not give this
name. Be that as it may, some variety of this group was introduced
into England under the name Verdoch and at an early date, for in 1629
Parkinson[43] enumerates it in his sixty sorts describing it as “a great,
fine, green shining plum fit to preserve.” Rea[44] in 1676 also lists and
describes it as does Ray,[45] 1688.
It is doubtful if Parkinson, Ray and Rea had the true Reine Claude,
however, for the Verdacchio, according to Gallesio,[46] one of the best
Italian authorities, is an obovate-shaped fruit while the Claudia is a
round one. Gallesio says the Claudia was cultivated in many places about
Genoa under the name Verdacchio rotondo; about Rome and through Modenese,
for a long time, as the Mammola; in Piedmont as the Claudia; and in
Tuscany as the Susina Regina. Now (1839) he says, “it is known in all
Italy under the name Claudia, and has become so common as to be found in
abundance in the gardens and in the markets.”
The name Reine Claude, all writers agree, was given in honor of Queen
Claude, wife of Francis I, the fruit having been introduced into France
during the reign of that monarch which began in 1494 and ended 1547,
these dates fixing as accurately as possible the origin of the name.
Green Gage, the commonest synonym of either the Reine Claude group or
of the variety, comes from the fact that this fruit was introduced into
England by the Gage family. Phillips[47] gives the following account of
its introduction into England:
“The Gage family, in the last century, procured from the
monastery of the Chartreuse at Paris, a collection of fruit
trees. When these trees arrived at the Mansion of Hengrave
Hall, the tickets were safely affixed to all of them, excepting
only to the Reine Claude, which had either not been put on, or
had been rubbed off in the package. The gardener, therefore,
being ignorant of the name, called it, when it first bore
fruit, the Green Gage.”
Because of the high esteem in which the plums of this group have always
been held in England the early English colonists probably brought
seeds or plants of the Reine Claudes to America. This supposition is
strengthened by the fact that Prince, in his efforts in 1790 to improve
plums, chose the “Green Gage,” planting the pits of twenty-five quarts of
plums of this variety. McMahon, in his list of thirty varieties of plums,
published in 1806, gives the names of at least seven varieties belonging
to this group. The varieties of the group first came into America,
without doubt, under one of the Green Gage names, but afterwards,
probably in the early part of the Nineteenth Century, importations from
France brought several varieties under Reine Claude names though the
identity of the plums under the two names seems to have been recognized
in American pomology from the first.
In appearance the trees of this group are low and the heads well rounded.
The bark is dark in color and cracks rather deeply. The shoots are thick
and do not lose their pubescence. The leaves are large, broad, more
or less wrinkled, coarsely crenate and sometimes doubly serrated, a
character not usually found in Domestica plums, and bear from one to four
glands. The fruit is spherical or ovoid, green or yellow, sometimes with
a faint blush, stems short and pubescent, suture shallow, bloom thin,
texture firm, quality of the best, flesh sweet, tender, juicy, stone free
or clinging.
The leading varieties of the Reine Claude plums are: Reine Claude, Bavay,
Spaulding, Yellow Gage, Washington, McLaughlin, Hand, Peters, Imperial
Gage, Jefferson and Bryanston.
_The Prunes._—In western America plum-growers usually speak of any plum
that can be cured, without removing the pit, into a firm, long-keeping
product as a prune. Such a classification throws all plums with a large
percentage of solids, especially of sugar, into this group. But in Europe
the term is used to designate a distinct pomological group.[48] Since we
have a number of varieties of plums long known as prunes and to which no
other term can be nearly so well applied, it seems wise to follow the
established European custom of using the term as a group name as well as
for a commercial product which is made for most part from these plums.
The prune, as an article of commerce, all writers agree, originated in
Hungary in the Sixteenth Century and was at that time a very important
trading commodity with Germany, France and southern Europe. If, as Koch
surmises (see page 17), the prunes originated in Turkestan or farther
east—and the statements of other botanists and writers tend to show that
his view is correct—the spread of the varieties of this group westward
is readily explained. In the migrations of the Huns, from western Asia
to eastern Europe, in the first thousand years of the Christian era,
some Magyar or Hun intent on cultivating the soil brought with him the
prune-making plums which, finding a congenial home, became the foundation
of the prune industry of Hungary in the Sixteenth Century. In subsequent
commercial intercourse with western Europe the latter region was enriched
by these prune-making plums from Hungary.
In America this group is now by far the most important one commercially,
though prunes were not introduced into this country until comparatively
recent years. The early lists of plums do not include any of the prunes
and even as late as 1806 McMahon only mentions in the thirty varieties
given by him but one, “the Prune Plum.” William Prince in 1828 speaks
only of the “monstrous prune,”[49] but in such a way as to lead one to
believe that neither it, nor any other prune, was then cultivated in
America.[50] In 1831 William Robert Prince in his _Pomological Manual_
describes from this group only the German Prune and the “Agen Date,” or
Agen. Indeed, it was not until the beginning of the prune industry in
California, about 1870, that the varieties of this group began to be at
all popular though an attempt was made by the United States Patent Office
to start the prune industry on the Atlantic seaboard by the distribution
of cions of two prunes in 1854.[51]
The growth of the prune industry on the Pacific Coast is one of the most
remarkable industrial phenomena of American agriculture. About 1856,
Louis Pellier, a sailor, brought to San Jose, California, cions of the
Agen from Agen, France. Some time afterward a larger plum, the Pond, was
also imported from France, supposedly from Agen, and to distinguish the
two, the first was called Petite Prune, by which name it is now very
commonly known in the far west. The first cured prunes from this region
were exhibited at the California State Fair in 1863; commercial orchards
began to be planted about 1870, and the first shipments of cured prunes
were probably made in 1875.[52] In 1880 the output per annum was about
200,000 pounds; in 1900 the yearly capacity was estimated to be about
130,000,000 pounds, valued by the producers at $450,000.[53]
The typical varieties of this group are the Italian, German, Agen,
Tragedy, Tennant, Sugar, Giant, Pacific and the Ungarish.
The distinguishing characters of the group are to be found in the fruit,
which is usually large, oval, with one side straighter than the other,
usually much compressed with a shallow suture, blue or purple, with a
heavy bloom, flesh greenish-yellow or golden, firm, quality good, stone
free. The trees are various but are usually large, upright and spreading
with elliptical leaves having much pubescence on the under surface.
_The Perdrigon Plums._—The Perdrigons constitute an old but comparatively
unimportant group of plums.[54] The name comes from an old time
geographical division of Italy.[55] The Perdrigon plums, especially the
varieties having this name, have been grown extensively for two centuries
about Brignoles, France, where they are cured and sold as Brignoles
prunes. Since they are much grown in what was formerly the province of
Touraine, France, they are sometimes called Touraine plums. The early
pomological writers, as the Princes, Kenrick, Coxe, and even Downing,
described White, Red, Violet, Early and Norman Perdrigon plums, but
these are not now listed in either the pomologies or the nurserymen’s
catalogs of this country though the group is represented by Goliath, Late
Orleans and Royal Tours. These plums might almost be included with the
Imperatrice group, differing only in the smaller and rounder fruits.
_The Yellow Egg Plums._[56]—There are but few varieties belonging to this
group, but these are very distinct, and include some of the largest and
handsomest plums. The origin of varieties of this group can be traced
back over three centuries and it is somewhat remarkable that the size
and beauty of the Yellow Egg Plums have not tempted growers during this
time to produce a greater number of similar varieties. Rea,[57] in 1676,
described the Yellow Egg under “Magnum Bonum or the Dutch Plum” as “a
very great oval-formed yellowish plum, and, according to the name, is
good as well as great.” The Imperial, which afterward became the Red
Magnum Bonum, is mentioned by Parkinson[58] in 1629 as “Large, long,
reddish, waterish and late.” Earlier names in France, how early cannot be
said, were Prune d’Oeuf, yellow, white, red and violet, or the Mogul with
these several colors, and the Imperiale with the three or four colors.
Later the name d’Aubert was applied to the Yellow Egg. Though this fruit
was first known in England as the Imperiall, and later as the Magnum
Bonum, it has been grown for at least two centuries in that country as
the Yellow Egg, and under this name came to America in the latter part
of the Eighteenth Century. Koch[59] places these plums in the Date-plum
family. The varieties of this group now grown and more or less well-known
are Yellow Egg, Red Magnum Bonum, Golden Drop and Monroe.
The characters which readily distinguish the Yellow Egg group are,—the
large size of the fruit, possibly surpassing all other plums in size,
the long-oval shape, more or less necked, yellow or purple color and the
yellow flesh. The plums are produced on tall, upright-spreading trees.
_The Imperatrice Plums._—This is a poorly defined assemblage of
varieties, of which dark blue color, heavy bloom, medium size and oval
shape are the chief characters. It is impossible to trace the origin of
the group or to refer varieties to it with accuracy. The Imperatrice,
of which Ickworth is an offspring, seems to have been one of the first
of the blue plums to receive general recognition, and can as well as
any other variety give name to the type. This group contains by far the
greatest number of varieties of any of the divisions as here outlined,
chiefly because the color, the size, and the shape are all popular with
growers and consumers. This has not always been the case, for in the old
pomologies, blue plums are comparatively few in number, Parkinson, for
instance, giving in his list of sixty in 1629 not more than a half-dozen
Domesticas that are blue.
Among the varieties that fall into this group are:—Ickworth, Diamond,
Arch Duke, Monarch, Englebert, Shipper, Arctic, Smith Orleans and
Quackenboss.
About the only characters that will hold for this large and variable
group are those of the fruits as given above, though to these may be
added for most of the varieties included in the division, thick skin and
firm flesh, clinging stones and poor quality. The trees vary much but are
usually hardy, thrifty and productive, making the members of the group
prime favorites with commercial fruit-growers.
_The Lombard Plums._—Just as the blue plums have been thrown in the last
named group, so we may roughly classify a number of red or reddish or
mottled varieties in one group. If the oldest name applicable to this
group were given it should be called after the Diaper plums, well-known
and much cultivated French sorts of two and three centuries ago. Since
they are no longer cultivated, and as the Lombard seems to be a direct
offspring of them and is fairly typical of the division, the name chosen
is as applicable as any. These plums differ but little from those of the
preceding group, except in color and in having a more obovate shape, a
more marked suture, smaller size and possibly even greater hardiness and
productiveness, and if anything, even poorer quality, though to this last
statement there are several marked exceptions. In this group are no doubt
many varieties which are crosses between some of the old red plums and
varieties of the other groups given.
The following sorts may be named as belonging here:—Lombard, Bradshaw,
Victoria, Pond, Duane, Autumn Compote, Belle, Middleburg and Field.
=2.= =PRUNUS INSITITIA= Linnaeus
[Illustration: _PRUNUS INSITITIA_]
=1.= Linnaeus _Amoen. Acad._ =4=:273. 1755. =2.= Seringe _DC.
Prodr._ =2=:532. 1825. =3.= Hooker _Brit. Fl._ 220. 1830. =4.=
Loudon _Arb. Fr. Brit._ =2=:687. 1844. =5.= Koch, K. _Dend._
=1=:95. 1869. =6.= Ibid. _Deut. Obst._ 144. 1876. =7.= De
Candolle _Or. Cult. Pl._ 211. 1885. =8.= Emerson _Trees of
Mass._ Ed. =4=:512. 1887. =9.= Schwarz _Forst. Bot._ 339. 1892.
=10.= Koch, W. _Syn. Deut. und Schw. Fl._ =1=:726. 1892. =11.=
Koehne _Deut. Dend._ 316. 1893. =12.= Dippel _Handb. Laubh._
=3=:639. 1893. =13.= Lucas. _Handb. Obst._ 429. 1893. =14.=
Beck von Managetta _Nied. Oester._ 819. 1893.
_P. communis_ (in part). =15.= Hudson _Fl. Anglic._ 212. 1778.
=16.= Bentham _Handb. Brit. Fl._ =1=:236. 1865.
_P. domestica insititia._ =17.= Schneider _Handb. Laubh._
=1=:630. 1892. =18.= Waugh _Bot. Gaz._ =27=:478. 1899.
Tree dwarfish but thrifty, attaining a height of twenty to
twenty-five feet; trunk reaches eight inches in diameter and
bears its head rather low, three to five feet from the ground;
bark gray with a tinge of red, smooth, with transverse cracks;
branches upright-spreading, rigid, compact, short-jointed,
and more or less thorny; branchlets pubescent, slender,
reddish-brown or drab.
Winter-buds small, conical, pointed or obtuse, free or
appressed; leaves small, ovate or obovate; apex obtuse or
abruptly pointed, base cuneate or narrowed and rounded, margins
finely and closely, sometimes doubly serrate or crenate,
usually glandular; texture thin and firm; upper surface
slightly rugose, dark green, slightly hairy; lower surface
paler and soft, pubescent; petioles one-half inch long,
slender, pubescent, tinged with red; glands few or glandless.
Flowers expand with or after the leaves, one inch or less
in size; borne variously but usually in lateral, umbel-like
clusters, one, two or rarely three from a bud, on slender
pedicels, which are pubescent and one-half inch in length;
calyx-tube campanulate, glabrous or nearly so, green or
tinged with red; calyx-lobes narrow, obtuse or acute,
glandular-serrate, glabrous or pubescent, reflexed; petals
white or creamy in the bud, broadly oval, entire or dentate,
reflexed, claw short; stamens about twenty-five, as long as the
petals; anthers yellow, often tinged with red; pistil glabrous
and nearly as long as the stamens.
Fruit ripens from early to late; globular or oval, often
necked, less than an inch in diameter, variously colored but
usually bluish-black or amber-yellow, with a heavy bloom; skin
thin, tough; stem slender, one-half inch long, more or less
pubescent; cavity shallow, narrow; apex roundish or flattened;
suture indistinct or a line; flesh firm, yellow, juicy, sweet
or acid; stone clinging or free, somewhat turgid, ovoid, nearly
smooth, ridged on one edge and grooved on the other.
There is a great diversity of opinion among botanists as to what Linnaeus
meant to include in his _Prunus insititia_. His description of the
species is not definite and can be made to apply to any one of several
very distinct plums. But the botanists who recognize the species usually
include in it, among cultivated plums, the Bullaces and the Damsons,
plums which differ only in the shape of the fruit, the former being round
and the latter oval. Some of the texts noted in the references for this
species also place the St. Julien and the Mirabelle plums here. In _The
Plums of New York_ the authors consider the Bullaces, Damsons, the St.
Julien and the Mirabelles as belonging to this species.
It is true that Linnaeus established at an earlier date than the naming
of _Prunus insititia_ his _Prunus domestica damascena_, in which the
varietal name indicates that he meant the Damsons, but the description
of the variety taken by him from Bauhin’s Pinax[60] making the plum
large, sweet and dark purplish, cannot be made to apply to this fruit,
nor can it be connected definitely with any other plum; this being true,
and since Linnaeus refers to no type specimen, figure, or locality, his
_Prunus domestica damascena_ according to current botanical practices in
America, should be rejected.