290 THE APPLES OF NEW YORK. 



The name Romanite has been and is still applied to several different varie- 

 ties of apples. In the earlier history of orcharding in this country it was 

 applied very generally to the Rambo, but this synonymy has now become 

 practically obsolete. The Gilpin or Carthouse apple has also passed under the 

 name of Romanite and it is still so called in a great many districts. The 

 true Romanite of to-day, according to the accepted nomenclature of the Ameri- 

 can Pomological Society, is the old southern variety of this name. It is also 

 known in various parts of the South under the name of Little Red Romanite. 

 The fruit of this variety is small but has a good color, is of good quality 

 and keeps remarkably well, this last characteristic being one of its chief recom- 

 mendations in the South where it is usually quite difficult to get varieties that 

 are late enough for their long seasons. It is not recommended for planting 

 in this state being evidently not well adapted to regions as far north as this. 



Historical. The origin of this apple is unknown although it is probable 

 from the region in which it was being grown when it first became known to 

 pomologists that it originated in one of the Carolinas or in Georgia. So far 

 as we know it is not grown in New York. 



ROME. 



REFERENCES, i. Ohio Convention of Fr. Gr. Rpt., 1848. (cited by 2). 2. 

 Hodge, Horticulturist, 6:181. 1851. 3. Emmons, Nat. Hist. N. Y., 3:102. 1851. 

 fig. 4. Elliott, 1854:106. fig. 5. Horticulturist, g:iQ3. 1854. 6. Mag. Hort.,2o: 

 241. 1854. ? Ib., 22:130. 1856. 8. Wood, Horticulturist, 12:149. 1857. 9. 

 Downing, 1857:102. fig. 10. Gregg, 1857:57. u. Hooper, 1857:81. 12. Mag. 

 Hort., 26:101. 1860. 13. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1862. 14. Warder, 1867:458. 

 fig. 15. Fitz, 1872:172, 175. 16. Leroy, 1873:124. fig. 17. Thomas, 1875:221. 

 18. Barry, 1883:341. 19. Wickson, 1889:248. 20. Lyon, Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt, 

 1890:296. 21. Bailey, An. Hort., 1892:248. 22. Mathews, Ky. Sta. Bui., 50: 

 32. 1894. 23. Beach, N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 14:254. 1895. 24. Rural N. Y., 55:1. 

 1896. 25. Ib., 56:244. 1897. 26. Massey, N. C. Sta. Bui., 149:317. 1898. 27. 

 Beach, W. N. Y. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1900:36. 28. Lazenby, Columbus Hort. Soc. 

 Rpt., 1900:138. 29. Beach, W. N. Y. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1901:76. 30. Van 

 Deman. Rural N. Y., 60:209. 1901. 31. Coxe, Ib., 60:266. 1901. 32. Alwood, 

 Va. Sta. Bui., 130:136. 1901. 33. Black, Rural N. Y., 61:185. 1902. 34. Stin- 

 son, Mo. Fr. Sta. Bui., 3:27. 1902. 35. Dickens and Greene, Kan. Sta. Bui., 

 106:55. 1902. 36. Budd-Hansen, 1903:167. fig. 37. Powell and Fulton, U. S. 

 B. P. I. Bui., 48:54. 1903. 38. Bruner, AT. C. Sta. Bui., 182:22. 1903. fig. 39. 

 Beach and Clark, N. Y. Sta. Bui, 248:142. 1904. 



SYNONYMS. BELLE DE ROME (16). Faust's Rome Beauty (23). Gillett's 

 Seedling (4, 9, 14, 16). Phoenix, erroneously (29). Roman Beauty (4, 16). 

 ROME BEAUTY (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, n, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 

 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35). Rome Beauty (16, 27, 37, 39). ROME 

 Beauty (36, 38). 



When well grown this fruit is of good size, uniform, fair, 

 smooth and handsomely colored. It is thick-skinned, stands handling 

 remarkably well and is a good keeper. It is held in cold storage 

 till May or later. It goes down gradually in storage and if properly 



