THE PLUMS OF NEW YORK. 363 



Am. 948. 1869. 9. Pom. France 7: No. 13. 1871. 10. Mas Le Verger 6:23, fig. 12. 1866-73. 

 ii. Oberdieck Deut. Obst. Sort. 419. 1881. 12. Hogg Fruit Man. 728. 1884. 13. Mathieu 

 Nom. Pom. 438. 1889. 14. Gaucher Pom. Prak. Obst. No. 98 fig. 1894. 15. Guide Prat. 159, 367. 

 1895. 16. Cornell Sta. Bui. 131:193. 1897. 17. Jour. Roy. Hort Soc. 21:222. 1897. 18. Mich. Sta. 

 Bui. 169:243, 248. 1899. 19. Garden 57:267. 1900. 20. Waugh Plum Cult. 122, 123 fig. 1901. 

 Alderton 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15. Dauphin 8, 13. Denyer's Victoria ?z, 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 

 15. Denyer's Victoria 4. Dolphin 8, 13. Imperial de Sharp 8, 13. Konigin Victoria n, 13, 15. 

 Konigin Victoria 9, 14, 15. La Victorine i. Prune Reine Victoria 3. Queen Victoria ?2, 3, 13, 

 14, 15. Queen Victoria 9. Reine Victoria 9, 10, 13, 14, of some 15. Royal Dauphine 8, 13. Sharp 

 jo. Sharp's Emperor 2, 8. Sharp's Emperor 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, by error 15, 20. Sharpe's Emperor 

 17 incor. Victoria-Pflaume 14. Sharp's Kaiserpftaume 13. Victoria 8, 9, 13, 14, 20. Victoria's 

 Kniserziuetsche 14, 15. 



For some reason Victoria, long known in America, has never attained 

 great popularity in this country. It is a large plum attaining nearly the 

 size of Pond, though the color-plate does not so show it, and has much 

 the same color as the plum with which we have just compared it. Here 

 resemblances cease for Victoria is not the same shape as Pond, is a little 

 better in quality, is earlier and quite different in tree-characters. It would 

 seem that this would make a good market plum as it is firm enough in 

 flesh to ship well, as grown here keeps remarkably well, is better in quality 

 than the average market plum and is handsome, though Americans seem 

 .to care little for red plums, preferring the yellow sorts and still more the 

 purple kinds. Unfortunately, Victoria does not always color well in our 

 climate. The trees of this variety at this Station, while productive, are 

 not large nor robust, and the foliage is a little too susceptible to fungi. 

 These defects of the tree may account for the lack of popularity of the 

 variety in New York though even if they are to be found in all localities, 

 which is probably not the case, this plum is still worth growing to some 

 extent for home or market. 



The origin of this plum and even its right to the name under which 

 it is discussed here are matters of controversy. The London Horticul- 

 tural Society in 1831 mentioned La Victorine in its catalog but since no 

 description was given it cannot be identified as Victoria. Sharp's Emperor 

 which has been confused with this variety, was described in the same 

 publication. These two varieties were considered as identical by Charles 

 Downing, Hogg, Mas and others ; while Royer ' who tested Sharp's 

 Emperor, obtained from Liegel, thought it to be distinct, as did Thomas, 

 the Guide Pratique and Pearson of England. Hogg in describing the 

 Victoria says, " This is a Sussex plum, and was discovered in a garden 



'Aug. Royer Annales De Pomologie Beige et Etrangere 63. 1859. 



