Sept. 



THE POMOLOGIST. 



lis 



We were present at these meetings and 

 reported for the Leavemo&rth Bulletin, and did 

 not hear a word said about the " muchdiscus- 

 sion " spoken of, and neither did the record- 

 ing Secretary r'jport it in tlic Fanner. Per- 

 haps he can tell when and where it took 



place. 



We find the following remarkable state- 

 ment in the report by the Secretary, which 

 sounds strangely in this connection: "It 

 will be observed that the proportion of Sum- 

 mer, jj'all and Winter apples recommended 

 to be planted, was not under discussion." 

 Again he says: "If these lists embrace a 

 recommendation for any orchard it is one of 

 thi'ee hundred trees and not for one hundred 

 as stated." If there was " no list for an or- 

 chard of any size recommended" as above 

 stated, pray how could these lists embrace a 

 recommendation for an orchard of three hun- 

 dred trees ? 



If an old reporter for an Agricultural and 



Horticultural paper could not find more in- 

 teligible inconsistencies than he has shown 

 in reading the Pomologist six months it is 

 a high compliment to us. 



If we iiiive pul-.Iishedsuch a redicxdous re- 

 port with mis-statements a.nd inconsi-iteneief,'we 

 find ourselves in company with an Editor 

 whose ability he cannot question. 



In Moore's Rural New Yorlcer, Feb. 26, he 

 will find tne following report: 



"For an orchard of one hundred trees in 

 Kansaif, for commercial purposes, the Leav- 

 enworth Horticultural Society recommended 

 by vote the following varieties." The vari- 

 eties given are precisely the same and num 

 ber each that we have given in the Pomolo- 

 gist. Now, when we take into considera- 

 tion the acknowledged ability of the Rural 

 New Yorker, its extensive circulation, the 

 fire-side companion of nearly every intelli- 

 gent^Kansas farmer, read by almost every hor- 

 ticulturist, taken by many members of our 

 own society, and neither of its editors nor 

 auy of its readers make the discovery that 

 the report as " sent out makes the society ap 

 pear rediculous before the public and alto- 

 gether unworthy of respect, to say nothing 

 of confidence," we must conclude the diffi- 

 culty is in the imagination of this critic, 

 which his concluding remarks fully prove. 

 He says : " I beg you ( Ed. of Farmer) to in- 

 form me how Kansas is to be benefitted by 

 an Editor of the Pomolugist who can pass 

 without rebuke such slanders as those of 

 Mr. Park, to which you called attention." 

 This contains the whole gist of the matter, 

 and in plain language signifies that he wants 

 us to rebuke Air. Park for slandering Kansas 

 as the Farmer has done, or else the Pomologist 

 is no benefit to Kansas. It is not our pur- 

 pose to discuss this matter now, suffice for 

 the present. 



We deny that Mr. Park has slandered 

 Kansas in his article published in the Po- 

 mologist,haA no correct interpretation by an 

 uujealous person will warrant such an idea 



We presented the paper to four Editors 

 of the dift'erent daily papers of Leavenworth, 

 who are at least as deeply' interested in Kan- 

 sas as the Farmer, and not one expressed or 

 published such an opinion. Now kind friend 

 if this is the best scare-crow you can get up 

 we pity your inventive genius. We should 

 not have replied to this anonymous writer 

 if we did not think we knew him and the 

 position he occupies. — [J. S., Ass. Ed. 



Hardy Offspring. 



We said in the July number of the Pomo- 

 logist, "that healthy and hardy offspring 

 must have healthy and hardy parentag ■ ; 

 but it does not necessarily follow that they 

 are aU henlthy and Imrdy but it follows as a law 

 of nature tliat nooflspri_ g can be more har- 

 dy and healthy than their parents. 



To these sentiments Mr. F. O. Harriugt(m 

 and Mr. Suel Foster cannot agree, but call 

 into question. 



As the truth of these principles is of 

 great importance we will answer their objec- 

 tions as given separately. Mr. Harrington 

 says : — " I have of xaj own raising some seed- 

 ling grapes grown from the seed of the 

 Delaware, that are no less hardy than the 

 wild grape indigenous to this part of the 

 country, and yet the Deleware is not perfect 

 (as) hardy." 



It appears somewhat strange that Mr. 

 Harrington should have succeeded so well 

 with his seedlings, when the Deleware has 

 been before the public more than twenty 

 years and its seedlings are almost universal- 

 ly admitted to be defective in health, hardi- 

 ness, vigor and constitution. 



Who has ever disseminated a pure seedling 

 from it that surpassed the parent in health 

 and hardiness ? But suppose Mr. Harrington 

 has produced one, unless he can show that 

 the Delaware is not a cross or hybrid he fails 

 in sustaining his position, because if a varie- 

 ty from different species it may have hardy 

 blood in its parentage, which may show in 

 some of its seedlings. 



The fact that its seedlings have many 

 peculiar characteristics show that it has not 

 the habit of a species and must be a variety, 

 and its quality shows it has far advanced 

 from any of our species. 



Once and a-while a seedling may fall back 

 as it were towards the original and partake 

 of its more hardy parent or ancestor, but 

 this is not the general rule even admitted by 

 Mr. Harrington, who says: — "Seed from 

 tender varieties of the apple will produce a 

 proportionally greater number of tender 

 trees than seed from more hardy trees." 



Exceptions cannot be taken to establish a 

 general rule. But suppose our reasoning in- 

 correct, is there still no difficulty in the 

 way? Has Mr. Harrington put it beyond 

 the possibility of a doubt that no seeds of 

 his indigenous grape was in the ground or 

 hadibcKMi dropped or deposited thrre ? Were 

 all pri.'cautions used to guard the purity of 



seed, etc? Finally, in what manner has he 

 tested the health and hardiness of his seed- 

 lings to be certain that they surpass the 

 Deleware ? What species of the grape is in- 

 digenous there that his seedlings equal in 

 health and hardiness ? 



Having replied to Mr. Harrington, we 

 now shall attend to Mr. Foster, he says : — 

 "It is my opinion that the Creator has fixed 

 bounds and limits to the advance of vegeta- 

 ble and animal life, but to say that we have 

 attained to the heightand limit of these im- 

 provements is not correct ; for it must follow 

 that if no offspring can be more hardy and 

 healthy than its parents, then that limit is 

 already reached in the parents." 



This appears to be a very strange method 

 of reasoning substituting one thing to prove 

 another. He has substituted vegetable 

 and animal life and improvement for 

 health and hardiness, which will read as fol- 

 lows when they are employed^ It is my 

 opinion that the Creator has fixed bounds 

 and limits to the advance of health and har- 

 diness, but to say that we have now attained 

 to the height and limit of health and hardi- 

 ness is not correct ; for it must follow that 

 if no offspring can be more healthy and har- 

 dy than its parents, then the limit of health 

 and hardiness is already reached in the pa- 

 rents. Now this is the correct logical deduc- 

 tion from his premises. That is as much as 

 to say, that if we do not find health and hardi- 

 ness in the productions of nature we can 

 produce, impart or improve them. 



_ This is a great mistake for health and har- 

 diness are positive states while desease and 

 debility are negative cojiditions. Remove 

 the cause or conditions of disease and health 

 and hardiness is the necessary result. 

 Health and hardiness being primary states 

 and not after conditions they existed co-equal 

 with the organization of matter, but with 

 increased vegetable and animal products 

 disease and debility come as destructive in- 

 sects f >llow the increased production of 

 fruit. For as we improve the quality of 

 fruit we weaken and debilitate the constitu- 

 tion, as strong, continued mental eftort weak- 

 ens and debilitates the body. All nature is 

 placed in equihbrium— an eflbrt of one part 

 is at the expense of another, and when not 

 kept in balance it becomes enfeebled and 

 and diseased and if not counteracted will 

 ultimatels' end in its own destruction. 



We can hardly thiiik Mr. Foster fully be- 

 lieves that health and hardiness are on the 

 increase and that debility and disease on the 

 decrease. 



Every fact we know goes to prove the 

 opposite. Why have the many extinct 

 species which Geology proves ceased to exist ? 

 Gradually but certainly all organizations are 

 tending towards the same end. Why has the 

 cultivation of improved varieties of fruit 

 become more difficult latterly. 



Do we not find more difficulty now in 

 cultivating the famous Newtown Pippin and 

 C:itawba? Has not the blight and numerous 

 other diseases been on the increase ? All our 

 cultivated varieties must sooner or later give 

 place to a new race? If the races have 

 almost ceased to exist what must we say of 

 their progeny ? 



If we cannot improve or impart health 

 and hardiness, and if nature fails to do it, 

 then the offspring is not even equal to their 

 parents or ancestors, and in each succeedi.g 

 generation they must become less .so. 



J. S. As't. Ed. 



