PfEW ENGIiAND FAMMER. 



iSvDmsawsntvSii^Si^srsa 



FOR THE NEV 



ESr.I.AND FARMER. 



Mr Fessk.vdex — I transmit yon some further 

 !scriptions of valuable nnd interesting varieties 

 ' pears, and I have to announce that I am i« 

 jssession of information which will solve all 

 jiibts and clearly elucidate the facts in relation 

 the .Imbrelte pear, which will be made the sub- 

 ct of afutupe coinnmiiication. 

 Very rcspectfuHv, 



WM. ROBERT PRINCE, 



Ltnnvan Botanic Gardtn,^ 

 SejJtember 16, 1830. ( 



Sieulle, Bon. Jard.—Pr. Cat. 



Thisjiew pear was raised at Praslin,at the seat 



the Duke of Clioiseul, by a person whose name 



bears. Its first introduction to notice was in 



;15. The fruit of medium size, si(nilar in form 



the Crassannc, but more swollen towards the 



e ; the stem is long and inserted in a cavity, 



rounded by several small lobes ; the eye is 



htly depressed, skin delicate, of a lemon color 



tially washed with red ne.xt the sun ; flesh hall 



I, the juice sweet, rich, profuse, and agree- 



pe. The fruit ripens in October and November 



|1 the tree is handsome, vigorous, and produc- 



fi;, and may be propagated on both the pear and 



I nee stocks. 



1 Black seeded Beurr^, Pr. Cat. 



Bcurre noire graint. Lend. Hort. Cat. 



Aoui grain, Bon. Jard. 



Black seeded, Vt. Cat. 25 Ed. 

 This valuable variety we imported some years 

 e, but its value being little known, it has bees 

 partially disseminated. European author? 

 s that the fruit is of medium size, and that i; 

 jry highly esteemed in Flanders ; the tree is 

 iedingly productive, and the fruit is at maturity 

 eptember. 



POLEON AND PASSE COLMAR PEARS. 



M.V9 G. Fesse.vden, Esq. — 



EAR Sir — I presume my last communication 



hing the Napoleon and Passe Colmar pears 



been amply satisfactory and conclusive in 



ing the strong grounds I had for my asser- 



in regard thereto; but Jlr Lowell hav ng 



ished three communications before he had leen 



cply to one, there are some remarks in the wo 



romhim dated the 2 Island 27th Aug. wlich 



to call upon me for a passing notice by iray 



jmment and explanation, as v/ell as f»r a 



ction of the errors therein contained. I'lie 



)usuess of my reply will render it necessary 



our convenience in the insertion, to divit'e it 



two parts, and I shall consequently adop, that 



,e. On this occasion therefore in pursuance 



at plan, I will commence by replying to:hal 



advanced by Mr Lowell, in which he so 



gly deprecates and condemns the cours'of 



to description and to the leaves and xooA 



liut seeing the fruit' and where he posiively 



a ' neither Duhamel, Miller, nor Knighl, nor 



her pomologist ever relied on the vood, 



I, flowers, or seeds, for any other purpo.^ but 



ds and assistances in discriniinating fruits 



»'''rJ|i are very similar.' It will be at ouce per- 



ceived that this is agitating a new qucalion, and it 

 is one on the relative importance of wliich pro or 

 con I am not aware of having ever written a line 

 in my life and one which was not originallv con- 

 templated in the present discussion, but I have 

 thought it as well, in consequence of Mr Lowell's 

 ^ veri] confident assertion,'' to show that even this 

 position of his is not fully tcnnble, and that his as- 

 sertions to prove that the fruit is always indispensa- 

 Lh in forming correct conclusions are greatly de- 

 ficient in the point of general application. 



1 shall first refer to the Pomological Magazine, 

 whose authority I presume Mr L. will be the last 

 to dispute. In No. 33, p. 1.31, of that work, when 

 speaking of the Beurr6 Diel pear, it is declared by 

 the authors, that ihcy ' thought it right to give a 

 Ifigurc from a standard in addition io that from a lonll, 

 for they are so extremely different in appearance as 

 \to render it impossible that the identity of the two 

 would be discovered unlhout being thus pointed out,' 

 and although two figures are given of the fruit, 

 they give but one description of the wood, leaves, 

 and flowers, which proves that these latter points 

 were relied on as certain and unchangeable. In 

 the same work it is stated that two varieties of the 

 Cliasselas grape, undistinguishable by the fruit, are 

 distinguishable by the foliage, and the variation de- 

 signated. And again, in speaking of Knight's 

 Early Black Cherrj', the undistinguishable similar- 

 ity of its fruit with that of the Black Tartarian, is 

 particularly dwelt on. But as a climax to the in- 

 stabilit^fc reliance on the fruit, I will refer to the 

 Brown^Beurre pear, which is declared by De la 

 Quintinye, Rozier, and Duhamel, followed by 

 Miller and the Pomological Magazine, to present 

 such variations in the fruit, that those guided 

 thereby had given it several distinct titles, and 

 Forsyth, relying on the fruits, has described it un- 

 der four distinct heads, and a correct decision could 

 therefore only be obtained by the unvariableness of 

 the wood, foliage, and flowers. I might also refer 

 to the Ambrctte and L'Echasserie pears, whose 

 fruits have been often confused, and in regard to 

 which authors agree that the main points of dis- 

 tinction are the indenture of the leaf and the 

 length of tlic thorns. I could further proceed to 

 quote the Doyenne gris, and Doyeimt; roux pears, 

 and the Alberge Jaime, and Rossanne peaches, 

 where even Duhamel himself was deceived by re- 

 lying on the fruit, and where the wood, foliage, and 

 flowers alone, caused the error to be corrected. Mil- 

 ler himself falls into similar errors and describes 

 the Little Musk pear under two heads, see bis 

 Gard. Die. No. 1, and 5, lie also describes the 

 Orange Musk pear as two distinct fruit.s, see No. 

 9 and 18 ; he confuses tlie Muscat Robert, and 

 Robine pears, see No. 14 and 20, and he also de- 

 scribes the Mouthwater pear, under separate heads 

 and titles, see No. 30 and 36. Forsyth and oth. 

 CIS, state that the Red Roman and Newington 

 Nectarines, are most essentially distinguished by 

 the smooth leaf of the one and the jagged leaf of 

 the other. He also states that the Peach Apricot, 

 and the Moorpark, are generally thought in Eng- 

 land to be the same, and (hat a minute examina- 

 tion of their leaves alone, proves their distinction. 

 The New Duhamel asserts that even the glands 

 which exist on the petioles of most peach trees 



are always constant in the same variety, and their 

 presence an<l form have been adopted by some 

 French writers ns precise guides in sectional divis-^ 

 ions,.and it is stated in the New Duhamel, that the 

 Transparent Roiidc Peach, and the Grosse Mig- 

 nonno, differ so littto in the fruit, that the glands 

 form the especial di.ilinclion. I mijht even turn to 

 tropical climates, and enumerate two species of 

 Passiflora, whose edible fruits are an article ct 

 daily consumption ; the plants of which can only 

 be distinguished by a plurality of glands on the 

 leaf, and so might go on almost ad infinitum. But,, 

 Sir, does even the untaught \vood cutter who winds 

 his way through our winter forests to select and 

 fell particular timber, await the return of spring 

 to discern its fruits or view its foliage, and is ho 

 not in the simpliirity of nature able to decide by 

 the ba7-k alone ? ^Vhy, Sir, I could refer to a late 

 intelligent Pomologist, remarkable fi)r his exacti- 

 tude, who selected a large proportion of the pear 

 and other trees from his nursery row.s, by the ap- 

 pearance of the bark and budf, althouirh he kept 

 a record in his pocket ; nnd who aflirmcd that he 

 could distinguish 70 varieties of pears by the win- 

 ter bark and buds alone. If then the bark and 

 buds so far suflice, how much more fully may we 

 rely on the wood, growth, foliage, and floweri. 

 Will Mr L., then, say that we are not to trust 

 our senses to distinguish the very peculiar Passe 

 Colmar, from the widely different Napoleon, a 

 yellow bark from green, broad leaves from narroAv, 

 and lar?e flowers froMi small, v\-hen these present 

 lour poiiits or checks to enable us to decide with 

 precision, and the fruit offers but one .' With 

 equal force might it be argued that we arc not to 

 know an apple tree from a pear tree, without first 

 viewing the fruit, as that wc should not distinguish 

 two varieties of either, possessing such strongly 

 uiarked distinctions as the Napoleon and Passe 

 Colmar, which Mr L. himself agrees are 'two 

 pears the mcst unlike possible.' 



Allowing, therefore, that I had adojited tiie 

 course of testing accuracies by the wood, growth, 

 foliage, and flowers, (which, however, I shall here- 

 after show is not the fact) it behoved Mr L. to 

 first point out some case of evident and acknow- 

 ledged error arising from my having pursued it, 

 before he conilemned its application ; for in my 

 view it matters not by w hat course we arrive at 

 correct conclusions, provided the means are ade- 

 quate to the ends. Some people do things by intu- 

 ition. But the facts of the case are, that it is 

 this confident reliance on the fruit, subject as it is 

 to such inconstancy and variation from the cir- 

 cumstances of culture, (which Mr L. not only ad-,- 

 vocates, but declares indispensable) and the gross 

 inattention evinced to the other points of distinc- 

 tion, that have caused the mass of confusion ex- 

 isting in Europe. 



The statements which I have quoted from the 

 Pomological Magazine, Duhamel, Forsyth, nnd 

 other authors, where it is asserted that the fruit 

 'formed no guide, prove conclufively that in these 

 cases they did rely on the loood, leaves, flowers, i;c, as 

 principals, and that the fruits did not always servo 

 even the humble purpose of aida in the discrimination. 

 Mr L.'s remarks, therefore, tliat no Pomologist 

 ever celled on these points but ' at aids ' being an 



