130 Amenccm Horticultural Society. 



The most natural method ol" classification would be to follow the develop- 

 ment in time, if possible. This would lead to the necessity of being a good 

 paleontologist and geologist, as well as an expert botanist. In its full amplifi- 

 cation it would add another most useful study to the university course, viz. : 

 the origin, development, perpetuation, hybridiz it on and d'^cay of species; 

 or, to coin a word for brevity's sake, Speciology. 



Looking at the classification of grapes in this light, Dr. Engelmann's oi'der 

 (the ablest and most accurate yet published, but which seems to have been 

 made entirely according to botanical analysis of specimens in the laboratory, 

 and without considering geographical distribution and development in local- 

 ity and time,) appears to me quite unnatural. 



Claiming and possessing no authority, only of fact, as acquired by careful 

 search and observation, to vary from so profound a student of nature as was 

 Dr. Engelmann, and knowing well how I exjiose myself to scathing criticism 

 and the charge of pedantry in suggesting a diflferent order, I do so because I 

 believe it to be the most natural and useful to the viticulturist. Further 

 investigation may modify it. The tendency is simplification. 



Rafinesque's forty-one Ajiierican species of fifty-five years ago, by 

 Engelmann were reduced to thirteen, well defined and in the following or- 

 der : 1. Labrusca; 2. Candicans; 3. Caribbea; 4. Californica; 5. Monticola; 

 G. Arizonica; 7. ^Estivalis; 8. Cinerea ; 9. Cordifolia; 10. Palmata : 11. Ri- 

 paria; 12. Rupestris; 13. Vinifera (placed here by Engelmann to show his 

 notion of its relationship); 14. Rotundifolia, or Vulpina. 



My reasons for dissenting from this order and suggesting another, are : 

 1st. The natural line of introduction and development (suggested by the 

 distribution conjointly with the structural analysis of the species, and which 

 pretty nearly agrees with the more recent geological changes in North 

 America) upon this continent is violated in several places. 2d. This leads 

 to one of the most vital of all subjects to the practical horticulturist, viz. : 

 adaptability to special localities and soils. 



To amplify my first reason: The geology of North America indicates 

 clearly that Canada was first permanently above the great universal ocean. 

 Next a backbone shot up along the Apalachian region, gradually growing 

 less, and curving in Eastern Kentucky and Tennessee to the westward, pass- 

 ing in a low range into the Ozarks of Southern Illinois and Missouri, North- 

 ern Arkansas; thence southwestwardly through the Indian Territory. West- 

 ern Texas, and joining in more recent geological time the Rocky Mountain 

 uplift; thus forming the great Mississippi basin-rim on the east, south and 

 west. Within this rim, occupying the entire basin, there once was an inland 

 sea, higher than the outer seas, which, finally cutting out on the east, formed 

 the St. Lawrence river, and on the south made the " Father of Waters," 

 passing through the rim not far above Cairo, Illinois. By the rains of time 

 this inland sea became fresh water lakes, of which we have yet a few rem- 

 nants in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Canada. 



On the rim of this basin the first lodgement of grapes was made, probably 



