X.] DESSERT VS. MARKET FRUITS. 231 



gratuitous assumption. There are positively no facts 

 in support of it. 



If it is true, as the foregoing facts seem to show, 

 that increase in quality is not acquired at the expense 

 of other characters, you may ask me the common 

 question, why it is that most of the market fruits are 

 poor or indifferent in quality. This question is really 

 but a restatement of my original proposition as to 

 whether there is any correlation between qualitj^ and 

 other characters ; and, furthermore, it is not at all 

 certain that the facts will warrant the question. In 

 considering the question, it must be remembered that 

 many of the best dessert fruits are cultivated solely 

 for the sake of one character, — high quality, — while 

 the best market fruits are cultivated for a variety of 

 features, as size and color of fruit, and vigor, hardiness 

 and productiveness of tree, while quality is usually not 

 considered. Dessert fruits and market fruits are not, 

 therefore, strictly comparable. But if there are any 

 good market fruits which are at the same time good 

 dessert fruits, we shall be obliged to admit that market 

 qualities and table qualities are not incompatible. Of 

 the two hundred and nineteen varieties of apples cata- 

 logued by Mr. Lyon, nineteen are rated 9 and 10 for 

 market. Of these, six, or about one-third, also rate 

 9 and 10 for the dessert, as follows : Golden Russet, 

 Hubbardston, Jonathan, Northern Spy, Peck's Pleas- 

 ant, and Rhode Island Greening. Of these six, four 

 rate the same for both table and market, and two rank 

 one higher for market than for table. Moreover, 

 there are four other varieties of the nineteen which 

 rank as high as 8 in quality, which is two points 

 higher than the Baldwin. Of the ten best market 



