Origin of the Loganberry 
Mr. Lewis says, that the Loganberry 
is a dewberry type and a distinct species 
in itself. 
Mr. Lewis was particularly asked 
about his statement (in Bailey’s Stand- 
ard Cyclopedia of Horticulture) that 
Loganberry seedlings showed much vari- 
ation. ‘What I meant by that,” he 
replies,” ‘‘was that they vary more than 
the seedlings of the raspberry.” 
MUCH CROSSING PROBABLE 
“You go into almost any Loganberry 
patch of any size here in the North- 
west,’ he continues, ‘‘and you will find 
that there is some variation. Perhaps 
you will find a plant with the Logan- 
berry leaves, but the fruit will be more 
like the blackberry. ie AS not 
uncommon to go into a single half acre 
of ground and find the cultivated dew- 
berry, the wild native dewberry, the 
Himalaya, the Evergreen, and perhaps 
a standard blackberry, such as the 
Snyder, all growing side by side, and 
in addition to this, raspberries, perhaps 
Phenomenal, and others. Now you 
have there ideal opportunities for cross- 
ing, and with a form like the Logan- 
berry, which is perhaps not as entirely 
fixed as the older forms, I would look 
for considerable hybridizing to take 
place. ™ 
J. As Brixby, , a nurseryman at 
McMinnville, ‘‘has a very fine collection 
of Loganberries. He says his seedlings 
were simply gathered at random but 
were gathered in a patch where there 
was quite a wide planting of small 
Heredity in Pellagra 
The Eugenics Record Office announces 
the forthcoming publication of Bulletin 
No. 16 on Pellagra, by C. B. Davenport 
and Elizabeth B. Muncey. Dr. Muncey 
worked on the subject in Spartanburg 
County, S. C., and concludes that 
“the data collected show no evidence of 
direct heredity. There may, however, 
507 
fruits, so that probably there were ideal 
conditions for cross-pollination. His 
Loganberries show quite a variation 
in foliage and he tells me that there is 
a great range in time of ripening and 
also in acidity, and some change of 
form.” 
“Prof. Gardner at one time visited 
Vancouver Island and while there met 
a nurseryman in the north end of the 
island. This man said the Loganberry 
grew wild in certain portions of Van- 
couver Island and that he had been 
in the habit for many years of going 
to the woods and digging up plants to 
fill orders whenever his stock was 
depleted, and he could not see that 
there was any difference in the wild 
plants from those he propagated him- 
self. Here in Oregon wild plants of the 
Loganberry type are found. There 
are two such plants near Coryallis. . 
I have come across one plant, the owner 
of which tells me that one half is like 
the true Loganberry and the other half 
more like the fruit of the blackberry.”’ 
It is evident, then, that American 
students have been gradually accumu- 
lating data which tended to cast a 
doubt on the paternity of the Logan- 
berry; but the Argentine botanist ap- 
pears to be entitled to credit as the 
first man publicly to challenge it. Ina 
genus so confused as Rubus, it may 
prove difficult to establish the exact 
origin of the Loganberry, but the 
evidence now at hand seems to be 
enough to class as a myth the accepted 
story that its sole origin was as a 
spontaneous hybrid in Santa Cruz. 
3 
be an inherited predisposition to the 
disease in those families in which 
chronic gastro-intestinal symptoms have 
existed for several generations. With 
this predisposition to the disease direct 
contact or life in endemic sections 
might be the exciting factor necessary 
for its development.”’ 
‘Mr. Backhouse writes: ‘I have not defined the different species used in making hybrids 
with the Loganberry, in my own work, because I am not absolutely sure of the nomenclature; I 
have no means of verifying it here and do not want to lead people astray; and I cannot divulge 
those used by Laxton Bros. because they are in the nature of commercial secrets. 
This, how- 
ever, does not in any way affect the substance of the communication, the point being that whatever 
species was used, each gave its own uniform batch of hybrids, which is not at all in keeping with 
the Loganberry’s supposed origin.” 
2In a letter dated August 17, 1916. 
