134- Tl^e. Western Fomologist and Gardener. 1872 



resembles almost anything else as much as a bell — being swollen in the middle and dimin- 

 ishing toward each end, but more toward the blossom than toward the stem, while a 

 bell is uniformly much larger at the lower end, answering to the' blossom, than at the 

 upper end, answering to the stem. 



The balance of the word. Flower, is equally misapplied with that of BeU, when the fruit 

 is left to explain. One would be led to suppose that the exterior of the fruit was both 

 bright and beautiful. In this expectation we would !ie doomed to disappointment to some 

 extent, at least, since the fruit is neither beautiful in shape, nor brilliant or beautiful in 

 color. Whence, then, is the name of this fruit derived ? If we will examine a tree in full 

 bloom in the Spring and survey its beautifully white bell-shaped flowers, we have a good 

 reason why we should call the fruit Bellflower, or (as the French would spell it), BMe- 

 fleiir, or beautiful flower. 



Coxe, who first describes the Yellow Bellflower, which originated in BurMngton, N. J., 

 no doubt gave it this name in consequence of the beautiful flowers of the tree which pro- 

 duced the fruit. There are many other varieties of the apple buaring the name of BM- 

 jlower. All of these have no doubt obtained this uanie because they have either been pro- 

 duced from seed of the Yellow Bellflower, or in some way resemble it in shape, flavor, or 

 some other peculiar characteristic, without any reference whatever to the blossoms, from 

 which the original Bellflower legitimately derives its name. Hence, all of these are arbi- 

 trary and unnatural, and should be re-named in such way as to lead the- mind back to the 

 origin of the variety in question. 



Another name which seems to form a class is that of Pearmain. This name would 

 seem to indicate that it was in some way derived from a resemblance of the apple thus 

 named to the Pear. But whether this resemblance is in the shape or the flavor of the 

 Pear, is not so clearly defined. If it is intended to resemble this class of apples to the 

 shape of the pear, then there is but very little to hold us to anyone particular point, since 

 this latter fruit is round, oblong, or conical, tapering in the latter case, from the blossom 

 to the stem ; while the apple, when conically-shaped, generally tapers from the stem to 

 the blossom. Hence, in this view of the case, there is nothing satisfactory in getting at 

 the derivation of the name. If in the second case it is intended to derive tlie name Pear- 

 main from the resemblance in flavor of the apple so named to that of the Pear, it is (if not 

 quite so unsatisfactory as when compared in shape) still left an unsettled point; for 

 althoug the pear has generally a flavor peculiar to itself, yet different varieties differ 

 widely in this respect. In this latter comparison, we may be said to approximate to a 

 conclusion ; yet it is one in which nothing is definitely concluded. 



This matter also wants overhauling, and of being placed upon a basis where we can 

 have some just conception when a fruit is presented under a certain name " of its origin." 

 Does the word Pearmain, when applied to the apple xsiQa,n pear-shaped or pear-flavored f 



Of the same category is the word Spitzenbero, when applied to a variety of the apple. 

 We have in this class the Esopus, the Newtown, the Pownal, the White Spitzenbers, etc. 

 In the above cited cases the words Esopus, Newtown, Pownal, and White are of easy 

 application ; but that of Spitzenberg remains yet to be solved. If this class ot apples 

 derives its name (as is said by some) from a European town called Spitzenberg, then the 

 names before mentioned, being attached to that of Spitzenberg, produces an utter confu- 

 sion of ideas. Almost every variety of fruit has both an adjective and substantive name, 

 as, for example, Newtown Pippin, Roxbury Russett, Rhode Island Greening, etc. Here 

 one part of the name is adjective, and the other substantive. But in the case of the Spitz- 

 enbergs, all save one are substantive — a palpable violation of the English language, in 

 making one substantive qualifj' another. 



There are many novices in pomology like ourselves, who would like to be intelligibly 

 informed upon the foregoing points. We mean upon the correct derivation of the word 

 Pippin, as applied to the Apple ; the word Bellflower ; the word Pearmain ; and the 

 word Spitzenberg, Who among the pomological savants will undertake to clear up these 

 points ? The one who shall succeed in making them clear, will lay the fruit-growing 

 public under lasting obligations. 



