THE GRAPES OF NEW YORK. 329 



The origin of Lenoir is unknown. It was in cultivation in the South 

 as long ago as the early part of the last century. Nicholas Herbemont' 

 states in 1829 that its name was given it from a man named Lenoir who 

 cultivated it near Stateburg, South Carolina, in the vicinity of the Santee 

 River. There are traditions of its being imported from Europe, of its being 

 found by Lenoir alongside a hedge, and so on, but none of them seem in any 

 way authoritative. All that can be said is that Lenoir originated probably 

 in one of the Carolinas or Georgia some time in the Eighteenth Century. 

 This variety was tried at an early day in the northern and middle states, 

 by Longworth at Cincinnati, by the Germans in Missouri, and in other 

 places. On account of its being only semi-hardy and somewhat susceptible 

 to rot, its cultivation was soon abandoned. It was early introduced into 

 Texas and cultivated in the vicinity of El Paso, from which it derived one 

 of its synonyms. It was placed on the grape list of the American Pomo- 

 logical Society fruit catalog in 1889 and it still retained. Lenoir differs 

 from Herbemont, with which it is often confused, in having wood of a 

 darker color, larger and darker leaves and slight differences in the fruit. 



The following description is taken from various accounts of the 



variety: 



Vine vigorous, thrifty, semi-hardy, usually quite productive. Canes rather numer- 

 ous with some bloom at the nodes; tendrils intermittent. Leaves from two to seven- 

 lobed, usually five, and of a characteristic bluish-green color above and a more pale 

 green below. Clusters quite variable, medium to very large, tapering, usually shouldered. 

 Berries small to medium, round, of a dark bluish-purple, nearly black, with lilac bloom. 

 Skin rather thick, tough. Flesh slightly juicy, tender, subacidly sweet, very rich in 

 coloring matter. 



LINDLEY. 



(Labrusca, Vinifera.) 



I. U. S. D. A. Rpt., 1862:215. 2. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1867:44. 3. Horticulturist, 24:126, 

 312. 1S69. 4. Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1881:221. 5. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1881:40. 6. Mo. Hort. 

 Soc. Rpt., 1882:75. 7. Bush. Cat., 1883:117. fig. 8. Gar. and For., 5:54"- 1892. 9. N. Y. Sta. 

 An. Rpt.. 9:329. i8go. 10. ///. Sta. Bid., 28:260. 1893. 11. Can. Hort., 17:254, 405. 1S94. 12. 

 Va. Sta. Bui, 94:i37- 1898. 13. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:532. 54i. 543. 545. 546. 548, 552, 558. 

 1898. 14. Miss. Sta. Bid., 56:15. 1899. 15. Mich. Sta. Bid., 169:172. 1899. 16. Tex. Sta. Bui., 

 56:223, 271. 1900. 17. Can. Hort., 26:51, 96, 298. fig., 299. 1903. 



Rogers' No. 9 (i, 2). Rogers' No. 9 (3, 7, 9, 11, 17). 



^Amcr. Farmer, 11:237,412. 1829-30. 



