1862. 



THE ILLINOIS FAKMER. 



43 



ing been rent him as the May cherry by us, and 

 which proved to be worthless, were not the May 

 cherry but the Kentish or pie cherry bo common 

 in New York. They were tilled to him as 12 

 Kentish cherry, April 26, 1853, two years before 

 we came into the po8sessi( n of the May cherry, 

 and before we had become satisfied of its value. 

 Mr. B. is Iherefore in error in regard to receiving 

 the May cherry of us, as he will at onee see by 

 the letter to him of that date. The Kentish, 

 though hardy and productive in New York, is of 

 no value here, as time has abundantly proved. 

 The May cherry of Elliott is not the one in ques- 

 tion, his is " a Morello, with small fruit, round, 

 slightly flattened, lively light red, flesh, tender, 

 juicy, acid — unworthy of cuUivotion." On the 

 other hand, the May cherry under consideration 

 is remarkably productive in Ohio and the West 

 generally, is of medium size, skin of a light red, 

 growing nearly black when fully ripe, and gener- 

 ally the Ftone adheres to the stem and can readily 

 be drawn out with it. Hooper in his Western 

 Fruit Book, says the Early May is so very like 

 the Early Richmond that the distinction ishardly 

 worth making. Both very productive and excel- 

 lent for Cincinnati. He also says that the Early 

 May hangs long on the trees. Until within a few 

 years Mr. Wakeman called this cherry the Early 

 May, after the name given him by Mr. Brunson, 

 and for what reason he changed it to Early Rich- 

 mond is best known to himself, for we do not be- 

 lieve that he has a tree ef he Early Richmond, 

 as known in New York, or from that source, in 

 his grounds, or has ever seen one in bearing other 

 than the ones produced under the name of Early 

 May from Mr. Brunson. 



It is a well known fact that most if not all the 

 trees procured in New York called Early Rich- 

 mond are dead, and have never attracted any at- 

 tention. It is true that the Mazzard stock upon 

 which they were grafted was too tender for this 

 climate, and hence the loss of trees; nor has the 

 much lauded Mahaleb been much more fortunate, 

 and what is stranger still, that the Early Rich- 

 mond trees to be considered genuine and produc- 

 tive must trace their paternity to the grounda of 

 Mr. Wakeman, and that Early Richmond trees 

 from New York are of no value, while the May 

 cherry of Kentucky. Ohio, Indiana and Illinois 

 are equally productive, valuable anu identical 

 with this Early Richmond of Wakeman. There 

 is nothing strange in this, when we know that his 

 trees came from the same source and not from 

 New York. Nurserymen in those States persist 

 in calling it the May cherry. Now, if the Early 



Richmond of Downing is equally as hardy, or as 

 Mr. Bragdon assumes, identical, why has the fact 

 of its value not become known years before this. 

 We have at different times purchased the Early 

 Richmond in New York, but the trees always win- 

 ter killed before they fruited, and we are free to 

 confess that in all our journeying through the 

 State, we have never seen an Eaily Richmond 

 tree in bearing. The May cherry almost always 

 produces fruit the second year after grafting, 

 which is not the case, as far as we know, with the 

 Early Richmond. We can point to two of the 

 latter, from the nursery of Messrs. Elwanger & 

 Barry, now three inches in diameter, that have 

 not fruited, and these dwarfs on Mahaleb stocks. 

 These are the points of difi"erence that we 

 make, that the May cherry is more drooping in 

 its habit, bears younger, and is more productive 

 and hardy for the prairies. That it is not the 

 Early May of either Downing or Elliott, but the 

 cherry well known throughioui the States, named 

 as the May Chekkt. As Mr. Bragdon says, it ia 

 time that the nomenclature of this fruit was set 

 at rest, but we confess that the way to do it at 

 the next meeting of the State Horticultural Soci- 

 ety, on the 3d December, is not so clear. With 

 such a close similarity of fruit, of habit, of ma- 

 turity and of foliage, without having been tested 

 side by side, we would ask who will take the re- 

 sponsibility of saying that they are, or are not, 

 identical, though as we have before stated, we 

 believe they are not the same. Yet we are not 

 prepared for a decided vote, for we want another 

 season to give us the opportanity of a more thor- 

 ough investigation. There is one great fact in 

 all this, let the cherry be called what it will. It 

 is the only one thus far that gives ample testi- 

 mony of hardiness and reliability of good crops 

 on the prairie. Rueal. 



— There is no fruit that has attracted so much 

 attention within the past two years as this cherry, 

 and at this time we republish the above for the 

 purpose of adding further to its history and to 

 place all the facts in the same connection. 



At the meeting of the State Horticultural So- 

 ciety the subject was discussed at consi ierable 

 length, a synopsis of which we give below. 



We made a proposition for the appointment of 

 a committee of three, whose duty it should be to 

 examine the subject the coming season and report 

 upon its nomenclature with a view more espe- 

 cially to decide upon its identity with the Early 

 Richmond. In the discussion various opinions 

 were advanced as to the identity of this Western 



