102 Rules for '^ Amerlca?i'^ Pomology 



According to this rule, a fruit may be described in one horti- 

 cultural paper ; but, if the editor of another finds, after much 

 search, that his circulation is larger, he can rename it ; and, 

 if a third finds his is larger still, he can give it another title. 

 So, too, of some pomological work of " acknowledged stand- 

 ard character." What can this mean? Are there any treati- 

 ses upon fruit, which, describing a new variety for the first 

 time, any individual will undertake to say, do not possess suf- 

 ficient character to establish its name ? Why, then, the pe- 

 culiar and incomprehensible wording of this rule ? Nothing 

 more was required than to say that whatever name was 

 adopted should be immediately made public. 



VI. In giving names to newly originated varieties, all harsh, vulgar, or 

 inelegant names shall be avoided, such as " Sheepnose," " Hogpen," etc. 



VII. No new names shall be given, which consist of more than two words, 

 excepting only when the originator's name is added. 



[Thus all unnecessarily long titles, such as " New Large Black Bigar- 

 reau," " Beurr6 gris d'hiver nouveau," will be avoided.] 



VIII. Characteristic names, or those in some way descriptive of the qual- 

 ities, origin, or habit of fruit or tree, shall be preferred. They may be 

 either of intrinsic properties, as "Golden Sweeting," " Downer's Late," 

 etc.; or of local origin, as " Newtown Pippin," " Hudson Gage ;" of the 

 season of ripening, as " Early Scarlet," " Frost Gage ;" of the form of the 

 color, as "Golden Drop," " Blue Pearmain ;" or which commemorate a 

 particular era, place, or person, as " Tippecanoe," " La Grange," " Bald- 

 win," or any other titles which may be significantly applied. 



IX. All superfluous terms shall be avoided ; thus, instead of" Thompson's 

 Seedling Beurre," it is better to say "Thompson's Beurr6," or simply 

 "Thompson's Pear." 



All these are quite superfluous ; and they affect a pedantic 

 air, which would lead one to suppose that horticulturists were 

 so ignorant as to be unable to select euphonious or appropriate 

 names. The New York State Society, with more respect for 

 the intelligence of cultivators, has struck them all out. 



X. Before giving a name to a new fruit, its qualities should be decided 

 by at least two seasons' experience. 



This rule is all very well, because it is in the shape of ad- 

 vice. "No fruit should be, &c." If made imperatively, it 

 Avould be wholly objectionable. 



