i;-^5^e): 



■-'^^^^ 



rUl'ITS RECOMMKNDED BY roMOLOOKAL SOCIETIEa. 



able to enter into prreator detail than tlie national society can. Thus we see the 

 Northwest an«l Ohio Societies discuss the comparative merits of different modes of 

 proi)n:fation, the iiifluonoe of certain soils or particular varieties, comparative success 

 of buiUlini^ at various seasons, &c. "We therefore desire to encourage the organization 

 of local and sectional societies of this kind. Eveiy State should Ijave one, and every 

 district of a State even, where a sufficient difference of climate and s<jils exists to give 

 it a peculiar character. Horticultural Societies are too general in their purposes to be 

 efficient in collecting pomological JTiformation. Such a Society as that of Massachu- 

 setts or Pennsylvania can accomplish much, because they have ample means; yet even 

 these seldom do more than offer premiums for particular objects, they do not induce 

 iuvestio-ations over the whole State. The influence of small, local lloi-ticultural Soci- 

 eties is frenerally limited to the towns or villages in whit.-h they are located. Socie- 

 ties formed for the sole purpose of advancing fruit culture can operate effectually with- 

 out great loss of time in exhibitions; they can have a common center to which speci- 

 mens, repoi-ts, &c., can at all times be transmitted, and the work can go on through 

 the members and committees at all seasons and ever}- day in the year. It is very plain 

 that these local Societies will be more thorough in their work than State Committees 

 of the National Society can be. 



All these societies will be so many aids to the National Society, and will enable it 

 to carry for\vard its great plans with much greater rapidity, and will render them infi- 

 nitely more reliable. So far we appreheu.l that our State reports have been too local 

 and have not conveyed an accurate idea of the whole territory represented. AVith the 

 cooperation of local societies, this evil would be obviated. 



The information which has already been collected within the space of seven years, 

 is of great value to all classes of cultivators. So far the investigations have been 

 chiefly directed to ascertain the best varieties, — the discussions of our Narional Society 

 have scarcely touched upon anything else. But this is one of the most important 

 points, and it is well to give it early attention. When the fiuestion is asked, What are 

 the most popular varieties of fruits under culture in the United States? are we able to 

 return a tolerably accurate reply ? In our last number we gave a list of the most 

 popular varieties in Illinois, Iowa, «fec., according to the reports of the Northwest Asso- 

 ciation, and also a list recommended for Ohio by the Ohio Society. Now we have 

 examined all the reports that have appeared, and have made out the following list. 

 To each variety we have affixed the States in which they have been recommended by 

 fruit committees, and we enumerate those only which have been recommended by at 

 least three States, our object being to make a list of such as have proved successful 

 over a wide area. We had this arrangement prepared for our own information and 

 convenience, and we believe that as a table of reference it will be found valuable to 

 all who are engaged in fruit culture, or who are collecting information on that subject: 



APPLES. 



iJaZJwm— New York, Del., N. J., Vermont, Neiv Ilampsliire, Maine, Olno, Missouri, HI 

 noxhury Ensset—J^ew York, N. J., Vermont, Maine, Micli., Ohio, Missouri, Ind., Ill 

 Korthem Spy — New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Maine. 



Rhode Island Greening—^. Y., Penn., N. J., Vt., Maine, Mich., Iowa, Ohio, Ind., 

 Swaar — New York, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois. 



