12 THE PEACHES OF NEW YORK 



Darwin/ in 1868, considers Knight's supposition at length and while 

 he does not positively accept it, yet lends it his support by quoting several 

 authors who put forth proofs in favor -of it. His most positive statement 

 in discussing the theory referring to facts regarding the origin of the peach 

 is: " The supposition, however, that the peach is a modified almond 

 which acquired its present character at a comparatively late period, would, 

 I presume, account for these facts." 



Carriere,^ one of the most eminent French pomologists of the last 

 century, is the chief French champion of the theory that the peach came 

 from the almond and devotes several pages in his estimable work, Vnrictcs 

 De Peckers, in demonstrating that the one is a form of the other. His 

 arguments, however, are but amplifications of those of Knight and Lindley 

 though he cites more intermediate forms than either of the English writers 

 — so many that they go far toward convincing one of the correctness of 

 his views. There is the feeling, however, in the case of Carriere, in the 

 light of present knowledge, that his botanical evidence is pushed a little 

 too far for full credulity. 



Knight, Lindley, Rivers, Darwin and Carriere, the men holding the 

 theory whose opinions are most worthy consideration, fell into error, as 

 we think, through attaching too much importance to likenesses in the 

 fruits of the peach and almond and because they became confused in 

 following the behavior of the two fruits under hybridization. As we shall 

 show later in discussing the characters of the peach, this fruit differs from 

 the almond in other characters than those of the fruit — characters not at 

 all likely to be changed by cultivation and selection as would all those of 

 the fruits. Knight's proof from hybridization was purely speculative. 

 The fact that the peach and almond may be crossed, giving intermediate 

 forms, nowadays would not be looked upon as proof that the two neces- 

 sarily belong to one species. However, in the light of the knowledge in 

 existence at the beginning of the last century regarding the crossing of 

 plants, we need not apologize for the inference that Knight drew from his 

 simple experiment. 



Students of heredity would find almost conclusive proof that the 

 peach is not a modified almond — a descendant, say, in this geologic period 

 at least — in the fact that there is no recorded case of a peach fertilized 

 by a peach producing an almond, or vice versa. If the relationship were 



'Darwin Arts, and P!s. Domesl. 1:^57. 1868. 



- Carriere, E. A. Varietes De Peckers 25-33. 1867. 



