THE GRAPES OF NEW YORK. 29 1 



same ever}-\vhere. It was early introduced around Cincinnati, Ohio, and 

 Hermann. Missouri, and for a time the growers had high hopes of its value. 

 It winter-killed slightly but they overcame this by covering the vines; 

 then the variety* showed itself susceptible to rot and its culture was soon 

 dropped. In 1867 the Herbemont was placed on the grape list of the 

 American Pomological Society fruit catalog and it has never been removed. 

 We have no vines of Herbemont growing in the Station vineyard and 

 the following description has been collected from a variety of sources. 



Vine vigorous to verj- vigorous. Canes rather long and strong, bright green, with 

 more or less purple, wnth considerable bluish-white bloom; intemodes short; tendrils 

 intermittent, of medium size, bifid or trifid. Leaves large, roundish, sometimes entire, 

 or three- to seven-lobed, nearly glabrous above and below ; upper surface clear green ; 

 lower surface lighter green, slightly glaucous; veins prominent and covered with rather 

 abundant hair. Flowers self-fertile. Fruit ripens very late. Clusters large, long, 

 tapering to cylindrical, prominently shouldered, compact; peduncle long and strong; 

 pedicels somewhat short with few rather large warts; brush pinkish. Berries round, 

 below medium in size, uniform, reddish-black or brown with abundant blue bloom. 

 Skin thin, rather tough, with considerable pigment below. Flesh tender, ven,' juicy; 

 juice colorless or slightly pink; rather sweet, sprightly to slightly acid. Seeds two to 

 four, usually two, small, reddish-brown, slightly glossy; chalaza round, prominent; 

 raphe distinct. 



HERBERT, 



(Labrusca, Vinifera.) 



I. Mag. Hort., 31:106. 1865. 2. Horticulturist, 24:126. 1S69. 3. Crape Cult.. 1:180, 182. 

 1869. 4- ^4m. Pom. SocCai., 1869:42. 5. ..4m. Pom. Soc. /?/>/., 1881 :32, 43, 12:, 123, 136. 6. Bush. 

 Cat., 1883:109. 7. .V. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 11:623. 1892. 8. III. Sta. Bui., 28:260. 1893. 9. K. Y. 

 Sta. An. Rpt.. 17:531. 548, 549, 555. 1898. 



Rogers' Xo. 44 (i). Rogers' No. 44 (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). 



Although Rogers' hybrids have not made a great impression upon the 

 commercial grape culture of the country, all will agree that the}- are hardly 

 surpassed for the home vineyard and, among them, at least none of the 

 black varieties is superior for this purpose to Herbert. Barry equals it 

 and possibly surpasses it to the taste of most grape connoisseurs in delicac}' 

 of flavor but Herbert is the handsomer fruit, is a little earlier and if anything 

 its vine characters are somewhat better. When at its best, Herbert, and 

 Barry too, nearly equal Black Hamburg in the characters that constitute 

 high quality. They lack the richness of the Old World variety but they 



