IDENTIFICATION' OF APPLE VARIETIES 5!) 



their fuller descriptions of the fruits; hut not until cjuite recently has any 

 serious attempt been made to distinguish varieties in the absence of the 

 fruit itself. 



As early as 1877 Beal (2 and 3) described the flower characters of 

 some 88 varieties of apples and found the petals and styles of prime 

 importance. The same author (4) later made a study of the distinguish- 

 ing characters of pear flowers but found tlieni less distinct and less easily 

 classified than apples. More recently Buiiy.ird («) used the characters 

 of the flowers as a means of identifying apple varieties; while Blake (-5) 

 Uiade a similar study with peach flowers, using such characters as diam- 

 eter of flower, width of petal, length of pedicel, length and width of sepals. 

 form of calyx tube, and color of calyx cup. 



Several authors have mentioned differences in the seedling root system 

 of nursery apple trees. Swarbrick and Roberts (21) present cuts of 

 typical root systems of several varieties to substantiate their statement 

 that "root character is as typical of a variety as is the top growth," while 

 Roberts (li) says that the anatomical structure as well as the type of 

 development of the root is affected by the scion variety. Shaw (17) 

 reports that the main roots differ in number, size, length, place of origin 

 and angle formed with the main axis; also that there is a relation between 

 the form of top and that of the root system. 



While the dift'erences in the root system may be of importance after 

 the tree is dug, the more valuable characters for identification are in the 

 top of the nursery tree. Thomas (24) was one of the first to give serious 

 consideration to dift'erences in shoot, bud, and leaf characters. He specific- 

 ally mentions the "serratures" of the leaf as being "characteristics of 

 importance". Shaw (15 and 16) expands on this plan, describing the 

 tree and leaf characters of a number of common apple varieties. The 

 same author's later publication (18) is devoted entirely to leaf studies, 

 using such characters as size, shape, and folding of the blade, surface tex- 

 ture, pubescence, thickness, and serratures. 



On the peach Gregory (10) finds the tyjie of gland to be of value; but 

 in the case of plums, Dorsey and Weiss (8) consider them of little value, 

 being mostly globose in type and extremely variable in number and posi- 

 tion in dift'erent leaves of the same variety. Alderman and Shoemaker 

 (1) have studied the leaf characters of plum varieties in Minnesota and 

 find that serratures and size and shape of blade are most valuable char- 

 acters. Upshall (26 and 27), in his study of nursery trees other than 

 apple, attempts a classification of plums, based upon i)ubescence of shoot, 

 color of tip leaves, and position of glands; one of jieaches using gland 

 tji)e, amount of yellow pigment in the leaves, crinkling of leaves, and time 

 of leaf fall. He groups pears according to shoot color, and sweet cherries 

 according to the presence or absence of pubescence on the petiole of 

 young leaves. His findings have been augmented by Shoemaker's (1.0 and 

 20) studies of additional varieties and characters of these same four fruits. 

 French (9) has measured the differences in vigor of growth of apple 

 varieties which are evident even in one-year trees, while a detailed studv 

 of the dormant characters of fruit trees has been made by Bunyard (7). 

 He considers the various characters of shoot growth and buds, and form 

 of the mature tree, placing particular stress upon the differences in Hard- 

 ness of wood in the apple; form of wood bud in the pear, plum and cherry; 



