14 Norton^ s Melon Apple. 



accounts of new fruits, when there are the legitimate chan- 

 nels — Horticultural periodicals — for the express purpose of 

 communicating such information ; and this instance only 

 shows the importance of describing fruits where they will 

 come immediately before cultivators. If the above apple had 

 been thus merely noticed, we should have at once referred to 

 the first published name : this would have prevented the 

 accumulation of synonymes : as it now is, this variety has 

 been described under three names, all of which would have 

 been avoided, had our correspondents sent their account of it 

 to us. The Massachusetts Horticultural Society have recent- 

 ly described it as the Water-melon, the fruit committee not 

 knowing any thing of the apple except what was communi- 

 cated in Mr. Smith's letter. 



We are aware that the Massachusetts Horticultural Soci- 

 ety, and some other Horticultural Societies, have recently 

 announced certain rules which they have established for 

 " American Pomology." We intend soon to notice them at 

 length, and give our objections to such a standard of rules. 

 To arrive at a correct nomenclature, pomologists have only 

 to be governed by one rule — priority of name. If this is done, 

 but few synonymes would find a place in our catalogues of 

 fruits. 



Since the above came to hand, we have taken the pains to 

 look up the article referred to in the Boston Cultivator, and, 

 after a careful reading of the account of the Melon apple, we 

 do not see any reason to alter our name. Our correspondents 

 say that it was known " as the Melon apple, and that they 

 have prefixed the name of Mr. Norton, from whom they re- 

 ceived the scions." Nothing is said about another apple 

 known as the Water-melon. This, however, does not make 

 a material difference. If it was well known as the " Melon," 

 and cultivated under that ^name, that must be considered the 

 legitimate title. The simple fact of receiving the scions from 

 Mr. Norton would not justify the addition of his name. On 

 such slight grounds, we might alter the name of every fruit 

 under cultivation. If we recollect rightly, Mr. Barry has 

 already conceded this in the Genessee Farmer, where he 

 properly repudiates the re-naming of fruits, and, in a notice of 

 the Oswego Beurre pear, adheres to the legitimate name of 



