CORNELL UNIVERSITY EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETINS. 233 



was not generally known. Some people thought that it came originally 

 from Constantinople, and others that it came from Gaul. Clusius leans 

 toward the latter view. He calls it the myrobalan plum, but does not 

 know the origin of the name. For nearly two hundred years after Clusius 

 wrote, the fruit is described by various authors in different parts of 

 Europe, under the names of myrobalan or cherry plum, during which 

 time doubts were cast upon its European origin. Thus Tournefort in 

 1700 said that it came from North America In 1789 Ehrhart described 

 it as a distinct species under the name Primus cerasifera, or " cherry- 

 bearing plum," and said distincty that it is a native of North America. 

 Some thirty years before this time, Linn^us had described it as Primus 

 domestica var. myrobalan, and gave it a European origin. In 1812, 

 LoiSELEUR Deslonchamps described it as Prunus myrobalana, saying 

 that it was supposed to be of American origin. From that time until 

 now the nativity of the myrobalan plum has been uncertain, but European 

 writers have usually avoided the difficulty by referring it to America; and 

 American botanists have, for the most part, ignored it because it is a cul- 

 tivated plant. So it happens that this pretty fruit has fallen between two 

 countries, and is homeless. Sereno Watson, in his Index to North 

 American Botany, published in 1878, refers Ehrhart's Prunus cerasifera 

 to the common beach plum {Prunus maritima) of the Atlantic coast. 

 But the myrobalan is wholly different in every character from the beach 

 plum, and it has been long cultivated upon walls in Europe, a treatment 

 which no one would be likely to give to the little beach plum. Torrey and 

 Gray, in 1838, in the Flora of North America, do not mention the myro- 

 balan plum. After all the exploration of the North American flora, no 

 plant has been found which could have been the original of this plum; 

 while its early cultivation in Europe, together with the testimony of 

 Clusius and other early herbalists, is strong presumption that it is a 

 native to the Old World. This presumption is increased by the doubt 

 which exists in the minds of the leading botanists, from LiNN^US down, 

 as to its systematic position, for if there is difficulty in separating it from 

 Prunus domestica, the original of the common plum, and which is itself 

 a native of the Old World and immensely variable, there is strong reason 

 for suspecti 'g that it is only an offshoot of that species; and this pre- 

 sumption finds strong support in other directions. But one need not 

 study far into the European plums until he convinces himself that the 

 essential features of the myrobalan plum are present in several of the 

 wild or half wild forms of southern and southeastern Europe, no matter 

 what the ultimate origin of the fruit may be. Plums from Turkestan 

 (presumably wild), now growing upon the grounds of Ellwanger & 

 Barry at Rochester, N. T., are certainly myrobalan; and it may be said 

 that the so-called Primus Pissardi, which has been recently introduced 

 from Persia, is but a purple-leaved myrobalan plum. I have no doubt, 

 therefore, but that the myrobalan plum is native to Europe or Asia; 

 and it is full time that an American origin be no longer ascribed to it. 



The myrobalan plum has long been used in this country as a stock for vari- 

 ous plums. Except upon the Pacific coast, it appears to be falling into dis- 

 use, however, as it dwarfs the scion and -is not suited to all varieties. The 

 endeavor to find some stock which can take the place of the myrobalan has 

 resulted in the popularizing of the JVIarianna, but which, if not pure 

 myrobalan, certainly partakes very largely of it. The myrobalan is gener- 

 ally distributed over the country as a stock, and bearing trees of it are 



30 



