This is a practice very much followed by fruit-raisers. Downing gives
his sanction to it. Mr. Pell (N. Y.), famous for his orchards,
includes it as a part of his system of orchard cultivation. Men talk
of trees being _bark-bound_, etc., and let out the bark on the same
principle, we suppose, as mothers do the pantaloons of growing boys.
We confess a prejudice against this letting out of the tucks in a
tree’s clothes. We do not say that there may not be cases of diseased
trees in which, as a remedial process, this may be wise; but we should
as soon think of slitting the skin on a boy’s legs, or on a calf’s or
colt’s, as a regular part of a plan of rearing them, as to slash the
bark of sound and healthy trees. _Bark-bound!_ what is that? Does the
inside of a tree grow faster than the outside? When bark is slit, is
it looser around the whole trunk than before? When granulations have
filled up this artificial channel, is not the bark just as tight as it
was before? Mark, we do not say that it is _not_ a good practice; but
only that we do not yet understand _what_ the benefit is.
“Why, the bark bursts sometimes.”
Yes, disease may thus affect it; and when it does, _cut if necessary_.
“Does it do any harm?” Perhaps not; neither would it to put a
weathercock on the top of every tree; or to bury a black cat under the
roots, or to mark each tree with talismanic signs. Is it worth while
to do a thing just because it does no harm?
“But when a tree is growing too fast, does it not need it?” Yes, if it
can be shown that the bark, alburnum, etc., do not increase alike.
That excitement which increases the growth of one part of a tree will,
as a general fact, increase the growth of every other. In respect to
the _fruit and seed_, doubtless, particular manures will develop
special properties. But is there evidence that such a thing takes
place in respect to the various tissues of the wood, bark, etc?
“But if a tree be sluggish, and bound, will it not help it?” Whatever
excites a more vigorous circulation will be of advantage. Whether any
supposed advantage from the knife arises in this way, we do not know.
But a good _scraping_, or a scouring off of the whole body with sand,
and then a pungent alkaline wash—(soft soap diluted with urine) would,
we think, be better for bark-bound trees than the whole tribe of
slits, vertical, horizontal, zig-zag, or waved.
* * * * *
HOVEY’S MAGAZINE OF HORTICULTURE.—We recommend all who can afford
three dollars a year for a sterling monthly, beautifully got up, in
the best style of Boston typography, to send to Boston for Hovey’s
Magazine. We give it an unqualified recommendation, and those who take
it one year will be loth to part with it.
DOWNING’s FRUIT AND FRUIT-TREES OF AMERICA.
When a book is hopelessly weak or incorrect, it should be the object
of criticism to exterminate it. But when a work is admitted to be,
upon the whole, well done, criticism ought to be an assistance to it,
and not a hindrance. Praise by the wholesale is better for the
publisher than for the reputation of the author; since, in a work like
Downing’s, every pomologist knows that perfection is not attainable,
and indiscriminate eulogy inclines the better-read critic to rebut the
praise by a full development of the faults. Thus on one side there as
general praise and faint blame; and on the other, faint praise and
general blame.
We shall, at present, confine our attention to the catalogue of apples
and pears, for all other fruits of our zone together are not of
importance equal to these; and if an author excels in respect to
these, his success will cover a multitude of sins in the treatment of
small fruits, and fruits of short duration. Mr. Downing has shown good
judgment in making out his list of varieties; his descriptions, for
the most part, seem to be from his own senses; he has added many
interesting particulars in respect to fruits not recorded before, or
else scattered in isolated sentences in magazines and journals.
But are his descriptions thorough and uniform? While he has added
_materials_ to pomology, has he advanced the _science_ by reducing
such materials to a consistent form? If we compare Mr. Downing’s
descriptions with those of Kenrick, or even of Manning, he excels them
in fullness. If he be compared with classic European pomologists, he
is decidedly inferior, both in the conception of what was to be done,
and in a neat, systematic method of execution. Indeed, Mr. Downing
does not seem to have settled, beforehand, in his mind, a _formula_ of
a description; sometimes only three or four characteristics are given.
Downing sins in excellent company. There is not an American
pomological writer who appears to have _conceived_, even, of a
systematic, scientific description of fruits. European authors,
decidedly more explicit and minute than we are, have never reduced the
descriptive part of the science to anything like regularity. We do not
suppose that there can be such exact and constant dissimilarities
detected between variety and variety of a species, as exists between
species and species of a genus. We do not think a description of
fruits to be imperfect, therefore, merely because it is less
distinctive than a description of plants. But the more variable and
obscure the points of difference between two varieties, the more
scrupulously careful must we be to seize them. Where differences are
broad and uniform, science can afford to be careless, but not where
they are vague and illusory. We can approximate a systematic accuracy.
But it must be by making up in the _number_ of determining
circumstances, that which is wanting in the invariable distinctiveness
of a few that are _specific_.
1. Downing’s descriptions are quite _irregular_ and _unequal_. Both
his pears and apples are imperfect, but not alike imperfect. The
descriptions of pears are decidedly in advance of those of the apple.
It would seem as if the improvement which he gained by practice was
very easily traced in its course on his pages.
Hardly two apples are described in reference to the same particulars.
With respect to color of skin, size and form, eye and stem, he
approaches the nearest to uniformity. But with respect to every other
feature there is an utter want of regularity, which indicates not so
much _carelessness_ as the want of any settled plan or conception of a
perfect scientific description.
We will, out of a multitude of similar cases, select a few as
specimens of what we mean. Of the _Pumpkin Russet_, he says, “flesh
exceedingly rich and sweet;” but he does not speak of its _texture_,
whether coarse or fine; whether brittle or leathery. _Pomme de
Neige_—“flesh remarkably white, very tender, juicy and good, with a
slight perfume;” but is it sweet or sour, or subacid, or astringent?
No one can tell by reading the joint descriptions of the _Red_ and the
_Yellow Ingestries_ what their flavor is, since it is only said that
they are “juicy and high flavored”—but whether the high flavored juice
is sweet or sour, does not appear. These are not picked instances.
They occur on almost every page of his list of apples. The _Summer
Sweet Paradise_ is, of course, sweet, since we are three times told of
it, once in the title and twice in the text. The SWEET _Pearmain_
also, is a “sweet apple” “of a very _saccharine_ flavor.” Of course it
is _sweet_. Nos. 67, 68, 69, 74, 75, and very many more, are described
without information as to their flavor except that, whatever it is, it
is “brisk,” or “high,” or “rich”—forlorn adjectives unaffianced to any
substantive which they may qualify. Sometimes the health of the tree
and its hardiness are given, and as often omitted. Some times its
habit of bearing is mentioned, but oftener neglected. The color of the
flesh is given in No. 82, but not in 83; in 84, but not in 85; from
86-92 inclusive, but not to the _second_ 92, for the Bedfordshire
Foundling and the Dutch Mignonne are both numbered 92. The color of
the flesh is not given in 93, 97, 100, 101, 103, 110, although the
intermediate numbers have it given. Why should one be minutely
described, and another not all? We should regard it an ungrateful
requital for all the pleasure and profit which this volume has
afforded us to hunt up and display what, to some, may seem to be mere
“jots and tittles,” were it not that these, in themselves, unimportant
things mark decisively the absence in the author’s _plan_, of a style
of description which pomology always needed, but now begins
imperiously to demand. And we are confident that a pomological manual
_on the right design_, is yet to be written. Our hearty wish is, that
Mr. Downing’s revised edition may be that manual.
2. We are led, from these remarks, to consider, by itself, the
_imperfect scale_ of descriptions adopted by all our American
pomological writers, upon which Mr. D. has not materially improved.
The description of the _tree_ is very meagre or totally neglected.
_Nothing at all_ is said of it in cases out of the 174 apples numbered
and described. The general shape of the tree is given in but
_thirty-eight_ instances in the same number.
The _color of the wood_ is, usually, noticed in the account of pears;
but in the account of apples in not one case, we should think, in ten.
The peculiar _growth of the young wood_, in a great majority of cases,
is not noticed; but more frequently in the pear than in the apple
list. The least practised observer knows how striking is this feature
of the face of a tree. We do not remember an instance where the _buds_
have been employed as a characteristic. Are distinctive marks so
numerous that such a one as this can be spared? The shape, color,
size, prominence, and shoulder of buds, together with their
interstitial spaces, form too remarkable a portion of trees to be
absolutely overlooked in a book describing the “fruits and
_fruit-trees_ of America.”
Equally noticeable is the almost entire neglect of the _core and
seed_, as identifying marks. Once in a while, as in the case of the
Belle Fleur, the Roman Stem, the Spitzenberg, and the Pomme Royale, we
are told, that the cores are hollow. But neither among pears nor
apples, is the core or seed made to be of any importance. This is the
more remarkable as being a decided _retrocession_ in the art of
description. Prince, wisely following continental authors, is careful
in his description of pears, to give, and with some minuteness, the
peculiarities of the seed. But Downing injudiciously misled by, in
this respect, the decidedly bad example of British authors, has,
almost without exception, neglected this noble criterion. There is not
another single feature, either of fruit or fruit-trees, which we could
not spare better than the _core and seed_. Not only may varieties be
marked by their seeds, but they form, in connection with the core,
important elements of diagnosis of _qualities_. A long-keeper, usually
has a very small, compact core, with few seeds. A highly improved and
luscious pear, not unfrequently is wholly seedless; while fruits not
far removed from the wild state abound in seeds. Whenever a _system of
description_ shall have been formed, we venture to predict that the
_core and seed_ will be ranked at a higher value in it than any one
other element of discrimination and description.
The same neglect or casual notice is bestowed upon the _leaf_. If
anything about it is remarkable it is mentioned, not otherwise: but is
there a page of any book that was ever printed, that has more reading
on it than is on a leaf, if one is only taught to read it? _It_, too,
is not only a sign of difference but very often of _quality_. Mr. D.
has availed himself of this criterion in describing peaches. Is it a
legible sign only in the peach orchard? He that is ignorant of these
marks, and only can tell one _fruit_ from another, is yet in the a b c
of pomology. Who but a tyro, on importing _Coe’s Golden Drop_, would
not at once perceive the imposition, if there was one, the moment his
eye saw a bud, or its shoulder? Van Mons learned to select stocks for
his experiments, as well by the wood and bud in winter, as by the leaf
and growth of summer. In a large bed of seedlings every experimenter
ought to know by wood and leaf what to select as prognosticating good
fruit, and what to reject, without waiting to see the fruit.
Nurserymen of our acquaintance, without book, label, or stake, can
tell every well-known variety on their grounds. One of our
acquaintance never had a mark, label, stake, or register, of any kind
upon his ground; a culpable reliance on his ability to read
tree-faces; for, on his throwing up the business suddenly, his
successor fell into innumerable mistakes. It is just as easy for a
pomologist to know the face of every variety, as for a shepherd to
know the face of every sheep in his flock, or a grazier every animal
of his herd.
3. Although the “Fruit and Fruit-trees of America” professes to give
the process of management only for the _garden and the orchard_, it
ought to include, and we presume was designed to embrace the essential
features of nursery culture. Every cultivator of fruit must be a
private nurseryman; he needs the same information, the same directions
as if were a commercial gardener. He that designs planting an orchard
ought to know the _disposition_ of each variety of fruit-tree, that he
may suit the circumstances of his soil, or provide for the
peculiarities of a tree, as a farmer needs to know the peculiarities
of the different breeds of hogs and cattle. With a large number of
persons it would be enough to say of fruits, “superb,” “extra-superb,”
“superlatively grand,” “extra magnificent;” for such, a _princely_
catalogue would answer every purpose. But such as have some knowledge,
and every year, we are happy to believe, the number of such increases,
ask, not the author’s bare eulogy, but a definite statement of all
those special qualities on which such eulogy is founded. The exact
_taste_ of each variety of fruit should be studied in respect to soil;
some, and but few, love strong clays; yet fewer thrive upon wet soils;
but some will, as the Sweet or Carolina June, which does well on quite
wet soils; some refuse their gifts except upon a warm and rich sand;
some, and by far the greatest number, love a deep loam, with a subsoil
moist without being wet. The buds of some varieties escape the vernal
frosts by their hardiness; some by putting forth later than their
orchard brethren. Some varieties thrive admirably by ground or root
grafting, while very many, so worked, are killed off during the first
winter; some varieties, if budded, grow off with alacrity, others are
dull and unwilling; some form their tops with facility and beauty;
others, like many men, are rambling, awkward, and averse to any head
at all. Some sorts, put upon what stock you will, have singularly
massive roots; others have fine and slender ones. Every variety of
tree has traits of disposition peculiar to itself; and in respect to
traits possessed in common, even these may be classified. In every
description there should be, at least, an attempt at giving these
various nursery peculiarities. It cannot be done, as yet, with any
considerable accuracy. _Fruit-trees have not yet been minutely
studied._ A florist can give you a thousand times more minute and
special information in respect to the peculiar habits and wants of his
flowers, than an orchardist can of his trees. Doubtless, it is easier
to do it in plants which have a short period; whose whole life passes
along before the eye every season, than in plants whose very youth
outlasts ten generations of Dahlias, Pansies, Balsams, etc. But that
only makes it the more important that we should be up and doing. Let
no work be regarded as classic which does not take into its _design_
the most thorough enunciation of all the peculiarities of fruits, and
pomology will receive more advantage in ten years, than it could by a
hundred years of rambling, unregulated, discursive descriptions.
The ability which Mr. D. has shown as a horticultural writer, his
industry in collecting materials for this, his last work; the skill
which he has shown himself to possess in describing fruits, give the
public a right to expect that he will “go on unto perfection;” and if
Mr. D. will adopt a higher standard and set out with a design of a
more systematic description of fruits, every liberal cultivator in the
land will be glad to put at his disposal whatever of minute
observation he may possess.
* * * * *
Buckwheat is a corruption rather than a translation of the Saxon word
_Buckwaizen_, the first syllable signifying beech, the tree of that
name, whose nut the kernel of the grain so much resembles in shape.
The grain, therefore, might be properly called beech-wheat.