Already the varieties of hardy fruits have become so numerous, that
not only can they not all be cultivated, but the mere list of names is
too bulky to be printed. Downing’s book gives a list of 181 apples.
The London Horticultural Society’s Catalogue, expurgated at that,
gives 900 kinds of apples, and 1,500 have been tested in the Society’s
gardens. Manning’s experimental grounds and nursery at the time of his
death, contained 1,000 named varieties of the pear! Swollen as is the
list, there are scores annually added; many under the advice of
scientific bodies; many have popular approbation; many from the
partialities of some parental nurseryman; and many come in, as evil
came into this world, no one can tell how.
It has become necessary, therefore, to exclude many from the
catalogue, and especially necessary that none should enter without the
very best passport. In the main, one set of tests will serve, both for
receiving and expurgating; for no matter how long a fruit has been on
the list, it should be ejected if, being out, its qualities would not
gain it a fresh admission. There are no hereditary rights, or rights
of occupancy, in pomological lists.
Titles, rank, antiquity, pedigree and other merciful means of
compensating a want of personal merit, may do for _men_ but not for
_apples_. A very glorious pomological reformation broke out in the
London Horticultural Society’s gardens at Chiswick, and that Luther of
the orchard, Mr. Thompson, has abolished an astonishing number of
sinecures, and reformed, if not worthless rotten boroughs, very
worthless apples and pears. The Society’s first catalogue issued in
1826. Its third catalogue was published in December of 1842. The
experience of the intervening sixteen years led to the total rejection
from their list, on the ground of inferiority, or as synonyms, of 600
varieties of apples; 139 of cherries; 200 of gooseberries; 82 of
grapes, 80 of strawberries; 150 of peaches; 200 of pears; and 150 of
plums. Only _twenty-eight_ peaches are allowed to stand; and only
_twenty-six_ strawberries out of the hundreds that were proved. We
have no similar society in the United States whose authority would be
generally acknowledged. Our only resource is the diffusion of the very
best fruits that every neighborhood may have a standard of comparison
by the reduction of experience to the form of rules. Although it is
difficult to lay down general rules on this subject, there are three
which may be mentioned.
1. _No fruit should be admitted to the list and none retained upon it,
which is decidedly poor._—One would suppose this truism to be
superfluous as a rule. But it is only necessary to go out into
seedling orchards in any neighborhood to find small, tough, and
flavorless apples, which hold their place alongside of orchards filled
with choice grafted fruit.
2. _No seedling fruit should be added to the list, which is in no
respect better than those of the same period of ripening already
cultivated._—It is not enough that an apple is nearly or quite as good
as another favorite apple. It must be as good in flavor, and better in
some of its habits.
3. _In testing the merits of fruit, an estimate should be the result
of a consideration of all the habits, jointly, of the tree and of the
fruit._—It is in the application of this rule that great experience
and judgment are required. This will be plain, if one considers how
many essential particulars enter into a first-rate fruit beside mere
flavor.
Of two fruits equal in flavor, one may surpass the other in tenderness
of flesh, in juiciness, in delicacy of skin, and in size. It is rare
that any single fruit combines all these excellences, and therefore it
is that we retain several varieties, among which such properties are
distributed.
There are many fruits which, having good substance and flavor, derive
their value from some single peculiarity. Thus a fruit may be no
better than many others, but the tree, blooming very late in spring,
is seldom overtaken by prowling and irregular frosts. Some of our best
fruits have stingy bearing-trees, or trees of very tender and delicate
habit; and we are obliged to tolerate more hardy and prolific trees
with fruit somewhat inferior.
A few fruits are retained on the list because they have the singular
property of being uninjured by frosts, and others because, though not
remarkable for flavor, they are endless keepers, of both which
properties the Rawle’s Jennetting is an example.
In fruits designed for market, beauty and abundance must be allowed to
supersede mere excellence of flavor. Some very rich fruits are borne
in such a parsimonious way that none but amateurs can afford
tree-room.
Nor are we to overlook nursery qualifications; for, of two fruits
equally good, preference should be given to that which will work the
kindliest in the nursery. Some will bear grafting on the root, some
will not; some take well by budding, and grow off promptly and with
force; others are dull and slugglish, and often reluctant to form the
new partnership. While then it will always be to the nurseryman’s
interest to work such kinds as he can sell the most of—he has a right,
in so far as he directs the public judgment of his neighborhood, to
give a preference, among equal fruits, to such as work the surest and
strongest. It is as much the interest of the purchaser and the public
to have the freest growing sorts, as it is the nurseryman’s interest.
Thus, if another Seckle pear could be found growing on the tree of
Williams’ _Bon Chrétien_, it ought to supplant the old Seckle tree,
which, in spite of its incomparable fruit, is a vexatious thing to
manage; and, as often in the case of other and fairer fruit, makes one
wonder how such amiable and beautiful daughters ever had such a surly
and crusty old father.
A pomological censor must also have regard to varieties of taste among
men, and to commercial qualities of fruit, and to its adaptation to
soil and climate.
No one man has a right to make his tongue the monarch over other
people’s tongues. Therefore, for instance, it is none of our business,
if a rugged mouth chooses to roll a slice of the austere Vanderveer
pippin, like sin, as a sweet morsel under his tongue. The mild
delicacy of an apple, which fills our mouths with admiration, would be
mere insipidity to all who are favored with leather mouths. So that
there must be toleration even among apple-mongers.
Nor are the humbler tests of cooking to be overlooked. Some fruits are
good eaters and poor cookers; some cook well but are villainous to the
taste when raw; some will stew to a fine flavor and sweetness _without
sugar_, and some have remarkable jelly properties. But after the
largest allowance is made for taste, hardiness, keeping, prolific
bearing, color, size, texture, season, adaptation to soils, etc.,
etc., there will be found, we think, a large number of tenants in our
nurserymen’s catalogues, upon whom should be instantly served a writ
of ejectment.