84 Retrospective Criticism. 



The Nectarine Plum. — In the number of your Magazine for October 

 last, I was glad to perceive thy notice of the Nectarine plum, which has 

 formerly been called the "Wheeler plum " in this vicinity, from the fact 

 of its having been introduced many years since by the late Henry Whee- 

 ler, who lost the label of the tree, and with it, its name. It has, how- 

 ever, been for some time past fully identified as the true Nectarine plum, 

 and cultivatad here under that name. I speak of this, because, at the 

 time of the recent annual exhibition at Boston, in a conversation with a 

 cultivator of considerable note, he informed me that he was growing trees 

 of the kind for sale, and somewhat pertinaciously insisted that the true 

 name was the " Damask Orleans." Where he found his name I did not 

 ascertain. — /. M. E., Worcester, Dec. 1843. 



Art. II. Retrospective Criticism. 



New Seedlnig Grape. — (Vol. ix. p. 381.) — Friend Hovey ; At the 

 time of the annual horticultural exhibition in Boston, in 1841, while mak- 

 ing a call on Dr. Shurtlefl", at Brookline, I ate some grapes from a seed- 

 ling vine growing in his yard, which bore for the first time that season. 

 They were some of the last that remained on the vine, and were very 

 ripe. The Isabella grape growing near by it, had only changed its color 

 in part, being of a light purple. This shows the early maturity of this 

 new kind. On my return home, I wrote a notice of it, which was pub- 

 lished in the Spi/, and was copied somewhat extensively into other papers. 



Having published what I did, I intended to say nothing more about it 

 till I had myself tested its value by cultivation. But I notice an article 

 in the October number of the Horticultural Magazine, in which it is stated 

 that the grape spoken of in the Spy is not a new variety, but one which 

 was described in Vol. 1 of the Horticultural Magazine. This statement 

 appears to be made on the authority of Dr. Munson, of New Haven, 

 who says he has cuttings of the vine. Now I do not know from what 

 vine his cuttings came, but of one thing I can assure him, that if they 

 are from that described in the magazine, they are not of the kind I 

 described. A few facts will prove this. The vine I described, came 

 from the seed in 1838, and bore for the first time in 1840. It is a rather 

 small grape, about the size of the sweetwater, somewhat of an oval form, 

 and a very dark purple, or what would generally be called Olack. The 

 grape referred to by Dr. Munson was described, if I reckon right, in 

 1835, (that being in the first volume of the magazine, eight years since,) 

 and of course must have been in bearing three years before the other came 

 from the seed. It was, moreover, of a lilac color, and the size of the 

 black Hamburg. 



I may add, that if the grape I described do not prove much better than 

 any other known variety of native grape, for open culture in this climate, 

 I shall be greatly disappointed. A person, whose opinion is entitled to 

 the most entire respect, informs me that he has eaten of the fruit this 

 season, and that it is so decidedly superior to the Isabella, Catawba, 

 Crehore, or any other native variety, that the best of them do not deserve 

 to be classed with it. When I saw the vine it was of slender growth, as 



