4l6 THE GRAPES OF NEW YORK. 



culturists of a h.ilf century ago and it was then quite commonly grown 

 but has now been almost wholly discarded because of poor quality, sus- 

 ceptibility to disease, and lack of hardiness. It ripens somewhat late 

 and c[uite unevenly. It might prove of some value in breeding for the 

 characters for which, even among the largest and most vigorous grapes 

 of to-day, it is distinguished. 



This variety was originated by the Shakers at Union Village, Warren 

 County, Ohio. It was introduced by Nicholas Longworth of Cincinnati 

 about the middle of the last century. In 1858 it was placed on the Ameri- 

 can Pomological Society's list of grapes that promise well and in 1862 was 

 placed on the regular list of recommended sorts. Here it remained until 

 1883, when it was dropped. Ontario, another grape of this type, which 

 was originated by W. H. Read of Port Dalhousie, Ontario, was considered 

 bv many synonymous with Union Village but the evidence seems to show 

 that, though verv similar, it had a distinct origin. Union Village is said 

 to be a seedling of Isaljella. The characters generally indicate Labrtisca 

 although the lobing of the leaves and the susceptibility to fungi may indicate 

 a strain of Vinifera. 



The following description has been compiled from various sources: 



Vine vigorous to rank, usually productive, somewhat tender, subject to attacks 

 of fungi. Canes large, long; internodes short. Leaves coarse and large. Fruit ripens 

 about one week before Isabella, matures unevenly. Clusters large to very large, often 

 shouldered, compact. Berries large to very large, roundish, dark purplish-black cov- 

 ered with heavy bloom, shell badly. Skin moderately thin. Flesh tart, resembling 

 Isabella somewhat in flavor, quality fair to good. 



VERGENNES. 



(Labrusca.) 



I. Aiu. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1881:34. 117. 2. Barry, 1883:450. 3. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1883:26. 

 4. ir. .V. r. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 2g:u), 112. 1S84. 5. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt.. 1885:103, 105. 6. Ohio 

 Hort. Soc. Rpt.. 1886-7:172. 7. .V. Y. Sta. .An. Rpt., 9:330. iSgo. 8. III. Sta. Bui., 28:262. 

 1893. 9. Bush. Cat.. 1894:1.84. fig. 10. Gar. and For., 8:487. 1S95. 11. .V. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 

 17:536, 542, 543, 544, 548, 553. 189S. 12. lb., 18:383, 3S9, 396. 1899. 13. Mo. Sta. Bid., 46:41, 

 43,44,45,53,76. 1899. 14. Mich. Sia. Bid., i6g:iy(). 1899. 15. Kan. Sta. Bid., iio:2;^y. 1902. 

 16. (hit. Fr. Gr. .\ssoc. Rpt., 34:99. 1902. 



While not one of the leading commercial varieties in New York, Ver- 

 gennes has steadily increased in popularity during the thirty years since 



