_g><(3)t(:o>o 



ct^tgKs 



Z^(^KS_ 



Vol. III. Des Moines; Leavenworth, June 15, 1872. No. 6 

 1 ~ 



MARK MILLER, Managing Editor and Publisher, Des Moines, Iowa, 

 Dr. J. Stayman, Dr. Wm. M. Howsley, Dr. S. H. Kridelbaugh, 



AtBoclats Editor, Leavenworth, Eftneas. CorrespoQdiog Editor, LeaTeawortb, Kanaafl. Entomologicat Editor, ClariDda, Iowa. 



PIPPIN. -- Whence Is tills Word Derived as Applied to tlie Apple ? 



Bt the Corresponding Editor. 



At the late meeting of the Kansas Slate Horticultural Society at Lawrence, the Presi- 

 dent enquired to know if any gentleman in the house could answer the above question. 

 No gentleman present, save Prof. S. T. Kelsey, made any response. He said he had 

 thought and enquired much upon this subject, and that the only conclusion at which be 

 able to arrive was, that it was derived from and meant Apple ; nothing more, had been 

 nothing less. We also have made a good deal of research and have thought much upon 

 word, this and have not been able to arrive at any other conclusion than that otlered by 

 our friend Kelsey, that is, that it simply means apple. If the conclusion reached as above 

 is correct the application of it as commonly used to designate a variety of the apple, is, 

 to say the least of it, a great blunder in pomological nomenclature. 



Pyrus Mulus is the botanical name of a species of the Pyrus family, and not a variety. 

 Hence the palpable absurdity of applying the name to any single variety, when it is 

 according to the above conclusion, the name of a species. But it may be said that the 

 conclusion above arrived at is wrong, and consequently the word is derived from some- 

 thing else than the word apple. If this is so, then it is hoped that the objector will favor 

 the public with a correct tracing of this word from its root to its present application. 

 Meanwhile we will state some of the difficulties tliat have presented themselves to our 

 mind in making any application of it to anything, other than that of the Apple. It is, we 

 believe, an admitted point, that all words, however dissimilar they seem, are legitimately 

 the otTspring of some root, and like the trunk, the branches, the buds, the leaves, the bark, 

 etc. of a tree, are all inseparably attached to and sustained by a common origin. If this 

 position, then, be true, and we presume few will deny it, we again ask, whence is the 

 word Pippin, as applied to the word Apple, derived ? Will some one who knows (if any 

 such can be found,) favor the public with the answer? 



It seems to be indiscriminately applied to apples of various sizes, forms, colors, and times 

 of ripening. Hence, if it is derived from none of these, it must be derived, if it means 

 anything at all, from something else. If, as we believe, no legitimate derivation can be 

 found for this word, it should, in our judgment, be expunged from our fruit books and 

 nursery catalogues as a word calculated to bewilder and mislead. We hope that some 

 one skilled in pomological lore will clear away the fog that surrounds this word, -and let 

 us see it in its true meaning. 



In connection with this subject there arc other names applied to designate varieties of 

 the apple, equally puzzling with the word Pippin. The word Bellflower is one of these. 

 When we come to trace this word and use the Yellow Bellflower as a type, the matter is 

 left in doubt whether the shape or the color of the fruit is the leading idea. The part of 

 the word. Bell, would lead one to suppose that the variety was bell-shaped. The shape 



