THE PLUMS OF NEW YORK. 251 



IMPERIAL GAGE 



Prunus domestica 



i. Am. Card. Cal. 588. 1806. 2. Prince Treat. Hort. 25, 26. 1828. 3. Land. Hort. Soc. Cat. 

 147, 148. 1831. 4. Prince Pom. Man. 2:56. 1832. 5. Kenrick Am. Orch. 209. 1835. 6. Mag. 

 Hort. 6:123. 1840. 7. Cultivator 10:167 fig. 1843. 8. Downing Fr. Trees Am. 278 fig. 107. 

 1845. 9- Floy-Lindley Guide Orch. Card. 302, 383. 1846. 10. N. Y. Agr. Soc. Rpt. 343 fig. 1847. 

 ii. Thomas Am. Fruit Cult. 325, 326 fig. 254. 1849. 12. Mag. Hort. 16:454. 1850. 13. Am. 

 Pom. Soc. Cat. 54. 1852. 14. Elliott Fr. Book 411. 1854. 15. U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt. 148, PI. 5 

 fig. i. 1864. 16. Barry Fr. Garden 413. 1883. 17. Mathieu Nam. Pom. 443. 1889. 18. Wick- 

 son Cal. Fruits 355. 1891. 19. Mich. Sta. Bui. 103:34. 1894. 20. Guide Prat. 154, 364. 1895. 

 21. Cornell Sta. Bui. 131:187. 1897. 22. Va. Sta. Bui. 134:42. 1902. 23. Ohio Sta. Bui. 162: 

 239. 2 54, 255. 1905. 



Flushing Gage 7, 8, n, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20. Flushing Gage 3, 9. Harper 22. Imperial Gage 

 17, 20. Imperial Green Gage 7. Jenkinson's Imperial 6, 14, 15. Prince's Gage 4, 12, 17. Prince's 

 Imperial Gage 4, 5, 6, 10. Prinzens Kaiser Reine Claude 20. Prince's Kaiser Reine-Claude 17. 

 Prince's Imperial Gage 8, n, 14, 15, 17, 20. Prince's White Gage 4, 12, 17. Reine-Claude de Flush- 

 ings 20. Reine-Claude Imperiale 20. Reine-Claude Imperiale 17. Reine-Claude Verte Imperials 

 17. Reine-Claude Imperiale de Prince 17, 20. Reine-Claude Blanche de Boston 17, 20. Reine- 

 Claude Verte Superieure 20. Superior Gage 9. Superior Green Gage 12, 14, 15, 17, 20. Superior 

 Green Gage ? 3. Superiour Green Gage 8. White Gage ? i, 2, 20. White Gage 14, 15. White Gage 

 of Boston 7, 8, n, 17. 



Probably there is more contradictory evidence as to the value of 

 Imperial Gage than of any other American grown plum. It is down in 

 some of the fruit books as being the largest of all the Reine Claude plums 

 and in others as being too small to be desirable ; in some, as being of highest 

 quality and in others as being quite too insipid to be called a dessert fruit. 

 These contradictions have arisen because the variety grows quite differ- 

 ently in different soils. The Imperial Gage is best adapted to light sandy 

 soils, growing largest and being best in quality on such soils and making 

 the poorest show of all on heavy clay. The illustration in The Plums of 

 New York shows it as it grows on an unsuitable soil small, poorly colored, 

 worthless for a money-crop and not very desirable for home use. The 

 technical description is also based on trees grown and fruit produced on 

 soil to which it is illy-dapted. The trees from which these fruits came are 

 nearly perfect in habits of growth, vigorous, hardy, healthy and bearing large 

 crops of plums such as they are. On suitable soils the variety possesses 

 all .the qualities that constitute a fine plum, the product being adapted 

 alike for dessert, canning, home and market. It has an especially agree- 

 able flavor in all the various culinary preparations in which it can be used. 

 Its capriciousness does not warrant its being largely planted but for selected 

 locations it will prove a most valuable fruit. 



