1298 



FRUIT-GROWING 



FRUIT-GROWING 



in the West visited the northwestern states in 1855-6, 

 1872-3, 1885-6, and also in 1898-9. Thus it is that 

 Oldenburg (Duchess) has become a standard of hardi- 

 ness among apples in the colder parts of the United 

 States and Canada. Importations of cions were made 

 by nurserymen and fruit-growers between 1867 and 

 1875, but the main introduction was made by the 

 United States Department of Agriculture in 1870 at 

 the urgent request of the State Agricultural Society of 

 Minnesota, which began the agitation as early as 1867. 

 This importation consisted of young trees secured 

 through the cooperation of Edward Regel, director of 

 the Imperial Botanic Gardens at St. Petersburg. The 

 trees were planted on the grounds of the Agricultural 

 Department at Washington. The collection consisted 

 of about 300 varieties. They were taken charge of by 

 William Saunders, superintendent of gardens and 

 grounds. All available cions were cut and distributed 

 annually for five years. They attracted considerable 

 attention in the colder apple-growing regions. Subse- 

 quent importations of cions and trees were made by the 

 Iowa Agricultural College between 1875 and 1880. 

 In 1882 Charles Gibb, of Abbotsford, Canada, accom- 

 panied by J. L. Budd, of the Iowa Agricultural College, 

 went to Russia and spent the summer in investigating 

 these fruits. Large importations of apples, plums, 

 pears and cherries followed. In these later importa- 

 tions the east-European fruits were collected without 

 discrimination, and in most instances have been 

 erroneously regarded in this country as authentic 

 Russians. 



Russian apples: characteristics and nomenclature. 



It is now very difficult to say which are Russian 

 apples, which German, Polish or Swedish. If we 

 were to choose the Astrachan variety as a type of the 

 Russian apple, which in all probability would be a 

 correct basis, only a comparatively small number of 

 varieties could be grouped about it. But this is only 

 one of the several apparently authentic groups which 

 might be erected upon certain characteristics of tree. 

 In addition to Astrachan might be cited (1) Hibernal 

 type: trees vigorous growers, with open spreading tops, 

 and very large, leathery leaves. (2) Oldenburg type: 

 moderate growers, with compact, round-topped heads; 

 leaves of medium size. (3) Longfield type: slow growers; 

 branches horizontal or pendulous; leaves whitish and 

 woolly underneath. The Longfield apple, one of the 

 best known of the Russians, is shown in Fig. 1597. 

 (4) Transparent and Tetofsky type: trees pyram- 

 idal; bark yellow; spurs numerous; leaves large, light 

 green. (5) Anis type: trees upright, spreading or vase- 

 shaped; leaves medium, veins reddish. It would seem 

 reasonable to suppose that the Anis family was derived 

 from the Astrachan type. The flesh of the fruit of the 

 various types is very similar. 



These represent the principal types of Russian apples. 

 The fruit they bear in the prairie climate matures in 

 the summer, autumn or early winter. It does not 

 appear that any of the especially hardy varieties of 

 undoubted north or east Russia origin are winter kinds 

 when grown in the Mississippi Valley. Such late-keep- 

 ing kinds as give promise of commercial value appear 

 to have originated in the Baltic provinces or to have 

 been transported at an early date from .the countries to 

 the west. These types the Synaps for instance have 

 characteristically small leaves, slender twigs, and are 

 less hardy than members of the groups cited above. 



The "bloom," or glaucous covering, of the Russian 

 apple is characteristic. It does not persist to the same 

 extent, however under all climatic conditions. In east- 

 ern Quebec it fails to develop to the same extent that it 

 does under the drier atmospheric conditions of the east- 

 ern states. As additional proof that this pruinose bloom 

 is an immediate climatic effect, one has but to com- 

 pare the Colorado Spy with that grown in New York. 



The smooth, thin skin and abundant bloom of the Colo- 

 rado apple is characteristic in a greater or less degree 

 of all varieties produced in the dry regions adjacent 

 to the Rockies, as it is of the Russian apples in the 

 more arid portions of that country. 



The names of Russian apples are much confused. 

 There is no pomological society in Russia to assist the 



1598. Vladimir, one of the typical Russian cherries. The fruit is 

 somewhat tapering to the stem. ( X 2i) 



fruit-grower in eliminating synonyms; on the other 

 hand, the factors conducive to confusion are strongly 

 in evidence. These are illiteracy on the part of the 

 grower and the practice of propagating fruit trees from 

 the seed instead of by grafting. Gibb says "nomencla- 

 ture in Russia is hopelessly confused. Different names 

 are given to the same apples in different localities, the 

 same name to different apples growing in adjacent 

 districts." 



Fruit-growers of the West, realizing that Americans 

 should have a uniform system, at least in the nomen- 

 clature of these varieties, called a meeting made up of 

 interested representatives of the fruit-growers' asso- 

 ciations of South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa and Wis- 

 consin. These delegates, collectively styled the "Rus- 

 sian Apple Nomenclature Commission," met at La 

 Crosse, Wisconsin, August 30, 31, 1898. They decided 

 that it would be wise to attempt a grouping to be based 

 upon "family resemblance." In accordance with this 

 the following statement was adopted: "The varieties 

 here grouped as members of the same families, while in a 

 few cases differing somewhat in characteristics of tree, 

 are so nearly identical in fruit that for exhibition and 

 commercial purposes they are practically the same and 

 should be so considered." It is to be regretted that a 

 commission on nomenclature should take such a radical 

 stand as this, because the characteristics of a variety 

 cannot be changed by voting to call it by the same 

 name as the other member of the group which it most 

 resembles and almost, though not quite, duplicates. 

 The trend of modern pomology is to preserve small 

 differences, to differentiate rather than blend. The 

 work of the future will consist in large part in studying 

 small differences with a view of finding closer adapta- 

 tions. The propriety of ignoring Russian nomencla- 

 ture and the rule of priority is questionable, but in a 

 measure is defensible on the grounds of a confused 

 Russian nomenclature and the unpronounceableness of 

 Russian names. The findings of the committee have on 



