CHARACTERISTICS OF FRUIT TREES. 



359 



of course be led to acquire such an acquaint- 

 ance with his trees through fear of mis- 

 takes ; and I should therefore expect that 

 if he were so careful to keep clear of them 

 in one department, he would be equally so 

 throughout. 



It may be that in this I am directed by 

 " zeal without knowledge," and that my 

 anxiety to have nurseries right, and these 

 means adopted to aid in accomplishing that 

 object, is overweening and useless ; but it is 

 not without much reflection and observation 

 that 1 have formed these opinions, and con- 

 cluded to write them out. If I can do no 

 more than to call the attention of nursery- 

 men to the importance of using this and 

 every other means to have their establish- 

 ments correct, and to the fact that there are 

 some who can discover the mistakes they 

 make before they are disseminated by the 

 sale of the trees, or proved by fruiting them, 

 I shall, I trust, do some good. But I am by 

 no means alone in this way of thinking; 

 all of the best works, both American and 

 European, so far as I am acquainted with 

 them, contain more or less in regard to the 

 characteristics of the trees, in describing 

 many varieties, especially the peach, plum, 

 and pear. 



If beneficial and proper jn regard to 

 these, why not the apple likewise, and to as 

 great an extent ? so that in relation to the 

 existence of these peculiarities, and the 

 propriety of sovietimes describing them, all 

 of the highest horticultural authorities 

 agree. The only question therefore to be 

 yet decided as to the truth of my position, 

 when compared with theirs, is, do these pe- 

 culiarities attach more or less to all varie- 

 ties, so that a description of all, and an 

 acquaintance with all in this respect, would 

 be as practicable and useful as of a part ? 

 I think that they do ; but some, as I before 

 remarked, seem to question altogether the 



importance of such descriptions, as for in- 

 stance Mr. J. J. Thomas, who in the May 

 number of the Cultivator, while comment- 

 ing on an article of Mr. H. W. Beecher's 

 in his tardy review of " The Fruits and 

 Fruit Trees of America," writes as follows ; 



" An experienced person can often know 

 a variety by the appearance of the young 

 wood and growth of the tree, and nursery- 

 men usually know at a glance, the differ- 

 ent varieties they cultivate without seeing 

 the labels," (it will be here noticed, that he 

 differs very much from me in his opinion of 

 nurserymen ;) " hence great stress is laid 

 on the importance of this distinctive trait in 

 describing fruits. But a serious difficulty 

 is not noticed. However well we may know 

 varieties after we are familiar with their 

 appearance by personal inspection, it is next 

 to impossible to convey a knowledge of these 

 appearances in words. We know a fami- 

 liar acquaintance at the first glance of his 

 face ; and hardly a man exists but knows a 

 thousand persons by looking in their faces, 

 even though their names are not written on 

 their cheeks ; but the most minute descrip- 

 tion of the features would fail to convey a 

 distinctive knowledge of the appearance of 

 an individual. The light hair, the gray eyes, 

 the bushy eyebrows, the hooked nose and 

 sharp chin might apply to fifty individuals, 

 while that peculiar, undefinable expression 

 which cannot be described, is more charac- 

 teristic than all. It is precisely so with the 

 appearance of varieties in trees ; when once 

 familiar we know them well ; but the points 

 of distinction are too untangible to describe 

 with precision. Hence this character though 

 useful, is not of the greatest importance." 

 This it seems to me is very queer doctrine 

 for Mr. Thomas to support ; but let us 

 see. 



In the comparison he has made, he has 

 taken as extreme ground as can be taken 



