No man will deny that in their cultivated state, strawberries are
found, in respect to their blossoms, in three conditions: first,
blossoms with stamens alone, the pistillate organs being mere
rudiments; second, blossoms with pistillate organs developed fully,
but the stamens very imperfect, and inefficient; third, blossoms in
which staminate and pistillate organs are both about equally
developed.
There are two questions arising on this state of facts; one, a
question of mere vegetable physiology, viz., Is such a state of
organization peculiar to this plant originally, or is it induced by
cultivation? The other question is one of eminent practical
importance, viz., What effect has this state of organization upon the
success of cultivation?
Passing by the first question, for the present, we would say of the
second that, a _substantial_ agreement has at length, been obtained.
It is on all hands conceded that staminate plants, or those possessing
only stamens, and not pistillate organs, are unfruitful. Any other
opinion would now be regarded as an absurdity. It is equally well
understood that pistillate plants, or those in which the female organs
are fully, and the male organs scarcely at all developed, are
unfruitful. No one would attempt to breed a herd of cattle from males
_exclusively_, or from _females_; and, for precisely the same reason,
strawberries cannot be had from plants substantially male, or
substantially female, where each are kept to themselves.
But a difference yet exists among cultivators as to the facts
respecting those blossoms which contain _both_ male and female organs,
or, as they are called, _perfect_ flowering plants.
Mr. Longworth states, if we understand him, substantially, that
perfect-flowering varieties will bear but moderate crops, and,
usually, of small fruit.
On the other hand, Dr. Brinkle, whose seedling strawberries we noticed
in a former article, Mr. Downing, and several other eminent
cultivators adopt the contrary opinion, that, _with care_, large crops
of large fruit may be obtained from perfect-flowering plants. This
question is yet, then, to be settled.
It is ardently to be hoped that, hereafter, we shall have less
premature and positive assertion, upon unripe observations, than has
characterized the early stages of this controversy. We will take the
liberty of following Mr. Hovey in his magazine, between the years 1842
and 1846, not for any pleasure that we have in the singular
vicissitudes of opinion chronicled there, but because an eminent
cultivator, writer, and editor of, hitherto, the only horticultural
magazine in our country, has such influence and authority in forming
the morals and customs of the kingdom of Horticulture, that every free
subject of this beautiful realm is interested to have its chiefs men
of such accuracy that it will not be dangerous to take their
statements.
In 1842, Mr. Longworth communicated an article on the fertile and
sterile characters of several varieties of strawberries for Mr.
Hovey’s magazine, which Mr. H. for subject-matter, indorsed. In the
November number, Mr. Colt substantially advocated the sentiments of
Mr. L.; and the editor, remarking upon Mr. Coit’s article, recognized
distinctly the existence of male and female plants.
He (Mr. H.) says that, of four kinds mentioned by Mr. C. as
unfruitful, two were so “_from the want of staminate_ or _male
plants_;” and “the cause of the barrenness _is thus easily
explained_.” And he goes on to explain divers cases upon this
hypothesis; and still more resolutely he says, that all wild
strawberries have not perfect flowers; “in a dozen or two plants which
we examined last spring _some were perfect_ (the italics are ours)
having both stamens and pistils; _others, only pistils_, and _others,
only stamens_; thus showing that the _defect, mentioned by Mr.
Longworth, exists in the original species_.” He closes by urging
cultivators to set rows of early Virginia among the beds for the sake
of impregnating the rest.
Mr. Hovey’s next formal notice was exactly one year from the
foregoing, November, 1843, and it appears thus: “We believe it is now
the generally received opinion _of all intelligent cultivators_
(italics are ours again) that there is _no necessity of making any
distinction in regard to the sexual character of the plants When
forming new beds. The idea of male and female flowers_, first
originated, we believe, by Mr. Longworth, of Ohio, is now considered
_as exploded_.” Such a sudden change as this was brought about, he
says, by additional information received during that year by means of
his correspondents, and by more experience on his own part. He says
nothing of male blossoms and female blossoms, _which he had himself
seen in wild strawberries_. Mr. Hovey then assumed the theory that
_cultivation_, good or bad, is the cause of fertile or unfertile beds
of strawberries, and he says: “in conclusion, we think we may safely
aver, that there is not the least necessity of cultivating _any one
strawberry near another_ (our italics) to insure the fertility of the
plants, _provided_ they are under a proper state of cultivation.”
Mr. Hovey now instituted experiments, which he promised to publish, by
which to bring the matter to the only true test; and he, from time to
time, re-promised to give the result to the public, which, thus far,
we believe, he has forgotten to do.
His magazine for 1844 opens, as that of 1843 closed; and in the first
number he says, “the oftener our attention is called to this subject,
the more we feel confirmed in the opinon that the theory of Mr.
Longworth is entirely unfounded; that there is _no such thing as male
and female plants_, though certain causes may produce, as we know they
have, fertile and sterile ones.”
Nevertheless, in the next issue but one this peremptory language is
again softened down, and a doubt even appears, when he says, “IF _Mr.
Longworth’s theory should prove true_,” _etc._ We, among others,
waited anxiously for the promised experiments; but if published we
never saw them. The subject rather died out of his magazine until
August, 1845, when, in speaking of the Boston Pine, a second fine
seedling of his own raising, he is seen bearing away on the other
tack, if not with _all_ sails set, yet with enough to give the ship
headway in the right direction: “Let the causes be what they may, it
is sufficient for all practical purposes, to know, that _the most
abundant crops_ (italics ours) can be produced by planting some sort
abounding in _staminate_ flowers, in the near vicinity of those which
do not possess them.” P. 293. And on p. 444 he reiterates the advice
to plant near the staminate varieties. In the August number for 1846,
p. 309, Mr. Hovey shows himself a thorough convert to Mr. Longworth’s
views, by indorsing, in the main, the report of the committee of the
Cincinnati Horticultural Society. We hope after so various a voyage,
touching at so many points, that he will now abide steadfast in the
truth.
We look upon this as a very grave matter, not because the strawberry
question is of such paramount, although it is of no inconsiderable
importance; but it is of importance whether accredited scientific
magazines should be trustworthy; whether writers or popular editors
should be responsible for mistakes entirely unnecessary. We blame no
man for vacillation, while yet in the process of investigation, nor
for coming at the truth gradually, since this is the necessity of our
condition to learn only by degrees, and by painful siftings. The very
first requisite for a writer is, that he be worthy of trust in his
statements. No man can be trusted who ventures opinions upon
uninvestigated matters; who states facts with assurance which he has
not really ascertained; who evinces rashness, haste, carelessness,
credulity, or fickleness in his judgments. The question of perfect or
imperfect blossoms depends upon the simplest exercise of eyesight. It
requires no measurements, no process of the laboratory, no minute
dissections or nice calculations; it requires only that a man should
_see_ what he _looks_ at.
When a boy, playing “how many fingers do I hold up,” by dint of
peeping from under the bandage, we managed to make very clever guesses
of how many lily-fingers some roguish lassie was holding in tempting
show before our bandaged eyes; but some folks are not half so lucky
with both eyes wide open, and the stamens and pistils standing before
them.
If such a latitude is permitted to those who conduct the
investigations peculiar to horticulture, who can confide in the
publication of facts, observations or experiments? Of what use will be
journals and magazines? They become like chronometers that will not
keep time; like a compass that has lost its magnetic sensibility; like
a guide who has lost his own way, and leads his followers through
brake, and morass, and thicket, into interminable wanderings.
Sometimes, the consciousness of faults in ourselves, which should make
us lenient toward others, only serves to produce irritable
fault-finding. After a comparison of opinions and facts, through a
space of five years, with the most distinguished cultivators, East and
West, Mr. Longworth is now universally admitted to have sustained
himself in all the essential points which he first promulgated—not
_discovered_, for he made no claims of that sort. The gardeners and
the magazines of the East have, at length, adopted his practical
views, after having stoutly, many of them, contested them.
It was, therefore, with unfeigned surprise, that we read Mr. Hovey’s
latest remarks in the September number of his magazine, in which, with
some asperity, he roundly charges Mr. Longworth with manifold errors,
and treats him with a contempt which would lead one, ignorant of the
controversy, to suppose that Mr. Hovey had never made a mistake, and
that Mr. Longworth had been particularly fertile of them. Thus: “Mr.
Longworth’s remarks abound in so many errors and inconsistencies, that
we shall expect scarcely to notice all.” “Another _gross assertion_,”
etc. Referring to another topic, he says, “This question we,
therefore, consider as satisfactorily settled, without discussing Mr.
Longworth’s conflicting views about male and female, Keen’s,” etc.
This somewhat tragical comedy is now nearly played out, and we have
spoken a word just before the fall of the curtain, because, as
chroniclers of events, and critics of horticultural literature and
learning, it seemed no less than our duty. We have highly appreciated
Mr. Hovey’s various exertions for the promotion of the art and science
of horticulture, nor will his manifest errors and short-comings in
this particular instance, disincline us to receive from his pen
whatsoever is good.
We hope that our remarks will not be construed as a defence of western
men or western theories, but as the defence of the truth, and of one
who has truly expounded it, though, in this case, theory and its
defender happen to be of western origin. Whatever errors have crept
into Mr. Longworth’s remarks should be faithfully expurgated; and
perhaps it may be Mr. Hovey’s duty to perform the lustration. If so,
courtesy would seem to require that it should be done with some
consciousness, that through this whole controversy Mr. Longworth is
now admitted to have been right in all essential matters; and if in
error at all, only in minor particulars, while Mr. Hovey, in all the
controversy, in respect to the plainest facts, has been changing from
wrong to right, from right to wrong, and from wrong back to right
again. We do not think that the admirable benefits which Mr. Longworth
has conferred upon the whole community by urging the improved method
of cultivating the strawberry, has been adequately appreciated. We
still less like to see gratitude expressed in the shape of snarling
gibes and petty cavils.
We will close these remarks by the correction of a matter which Mr.
Downing states. While he assents to all the _practical_ aspects of Mr.
Longworth’s views, he dissents as to some matters of fact and
philosophy, and among others, to the fact that Hovey’s seedling is
_always_ and _only_ a pistillate plant. He thinks that originally it
had _perfect_ flowers, but that after bearing twice or thrice on the
same roots the plants degenerate and become either pistillate or
staminate. He says, “Hovey’s seedling strawberry, at first, was a
perfect sort in its flower, but at this moment more than half the
plants in this country have become pistillate.”
Mr. Hovey himself states the contrary on p. 112 of his magazine for
1844. He denies that there are two kinds of blossoms to his seedling,
and says, “the flowers are all of one kind, with both pistils and
stamens, _but the latter quite short and hidden under the
receptacle_.” This is the common form of all _pistillate_ blossoms,
and shows, in so far as Mr. Hovey’s observations are to be trusted,
that, at its starting-point and home, Hovey’s seedling was, as with us
it now invariably is, so far as we have ever seen it, a pistillate plant.