484 Appendix. 
characterizations, these attributes are omitted (having previously been 
given in a general sentence), and only those features are mentioned 
which distinguish any variety from the other nine. It follows that 
when varieties are arranged alphabetically, only descriptions are of 
value; but when they are arranged in some system of classification, 
only characterizations are admissible. Descriptions are easy to make: 
one writes down what he sees. Characterizations are difficult to 
draw: one must make comparisons of many specimens, and he must | 
clearly perceive an ideal type. 
In making either descriptions or characterizations, the student 
should consider the entire plant as well as the fruit itself. The habit 
of growth, the bark and foliage, the flowers, often have characteristic 
features in different varieties. Yet, since the fruit is the main con- 
sideration, and since the enquirer can seldom have flowers and fruits 
at the same time, and often has not even access to the plant, it must 
follow that characters drawn from the fruit itself must form the 
foundation of the characterization; and these should usually precede 
other characters in the paragraph. Similarly, a system of classifica- 
tion of the varieties of any fruit which gives great emphasis to char- 
acters not drawn from the fruit itself, is fundamentally weak. It is 
to be expected, therefore, for example, that the effort to classify 
varieties of apples and pears by characters of the stamens and styles 
will never come into popular use; but these characters are no doubt 
of great value if they can be used as secondary features of descrip- 
tions or characterizations. For studies of the characters of stamens 
and styles in pomaceous fruits, see Beal’s various writings. (Rep. 
Mich. Pom. Soc. 1876, 17. Am. Pom. Soc. 1877; 1879, 27; 1881, 73.) 
Of ideals of classification founded on the characters of the fruit, one 
of the best discussions is to be found in Hogg’s “Fruit Manual” 
(English). The student should also consult Warder on “The Apple,” 
and Thomas’ “American Fruit Culturist.” 
Since each fruit demands a separate and usually distinct mode of 
classification and characterization, the details of the subjects cannot 
be considered here; but the following extracts will show what consti- 
tutes a complete and good description in the mind of one careful stu- 
dent (Beal, Proc. 12th and 13th Ann. Meetings Soc. Prom. Agric. Sci., 
1892, pp. 25, 28): 
“Orescent Strawberry.—Plant rather large, not robust, soft pubes- 
cent, of a light green color, very hardy and vigorous and exceedingly 
productive; runners rather slender, bracts a little above the middle; 
leaflets slightly involute-conduplicate, oval, coarsely serrate or rarely 
