ORIGIN OF CULTIVATED FRUITS 273 



Danvin, however, presents some excellent arguments for 

 assuming that the peach is exceedingly new upon the earth, 

 and possibly has never been truly wild, but developed from 

 the almond {Antygdalus comnuims), which grows wild, or half 

 wild, in the warmer regions of the Mediterranean and in western 

 Asia. This argument is extremely fascinating, and even more 

 convincing now than in the days when it was first presented. 

 It is too long to be repeated here, and should be read in the 

 original.^ Briefly, he finds that the space between the almond 

 and its near relative, the peach, is not wide, and is often, more- 

 over, nearly bridged by inferior specimens of the seedling peach. 

 Not only is this true but occasionally the almond will bear un- 

 usually fleshy fruit approaching a poor peach. Evidently the 

 whole group — peaches, nectarines, and almonds — is an ex- 

 ceedingly miscellaneous lot, not yet having settled down into 

 distinctive lines, if, indeed, they ever do become fixed and 

 measurably inflexible. In any event, until then they will con- 

 tinue to bother the botanist. 



The apricot (Prunus armeniaca). The apricot is related to 

 the plum somewhat as the peach is to the nectarine, with two 

 important differences. The apricot is essentially a plum with a 

 downy covering, as the nectarine is a peach with the covering 

 off ; but the smooth form is the more common in the plum, as 

 the downy peach is more common than the smooth nectarine. 

 Again, the apricot is known in the wild state as a distinct self- 

 perpetuating species. No man has detected a mutation either 

 way between the apricot and the plum, and yet the consistent 

 evolutionist must recognize the same fundamental relations be- 

 tween the two, except that in the case of the apricot and the 

 plum the mutant is able to maintain itself indefinitely as a 

 distinct species, which clearly the nectarine is unable to do, 

 although nectarine seeds produce nectarines freely. The strain 

 is evidently an erratic one, not easily maintained in nature for 



* *' Animals and Plants under Domestication," Vol. I, pp. 358-360. 



