THE PEACHES OF NEW YORK 69 



cherry, apricot, or almond, who could mistake one for another? For 

 horticultural purposes we accept as best one of the oldest and yet one of 

 the most commonly used classifications which places in one genus all of 

 the stone-fruits. What are the lines of cleavage between the several stone- 

 fruits of common cultivation?. , 



Stone-fruits fall naturally into two distinct groups. In the first the 

 leaves are rolled in the buds — convolute. The plums and the apricots 

 belong to this section. In the buds of the other group the leaves are folded 

 lengthwise along the midrib — conduplicate. To this section belong 

 almonds, peaches and cherries. The two sections seem to be iinited in this 

 matter of disposition of leaves in the bud, it should be said in passing, by 

 a few species of American plums which are conduplicate in vernation. 

 The second section is further subdivided by very marked differences in the 

 fruits. The fruits of the peach and almond are larger than those of the 

 cherry, less juicy, — in the case of the almond almost dry, — hirsute (except 

 in the nectarine), and are borne without stems; and the blossoms usually 

 appear long before the opening of the leaves. Cherry-fruits are always 

 juicy, usually glabrous, and are borne on more or less distinct stems; 

 and the blossoms appear with the leaves. Botanists who put these fruits 

 in one genus usually redivide according to the characters given so that the 

 plum and apricot stand in one sub-genus (Euprunus), the almond and 

 peach in another (Amygdalus), and the cherry in a third (Cerasus). 



Differentiating more closely, we find that it is not so easy to dis- 

 tinguish between the peach and the alrnond. The likenesses are so many 

 and so apparent that it is not to be wondered that Knight, whose theory 

 we have discussed on a foregoing page, came to the conclusion that the 

 peach is a modified almond, or that Darwin, with his belief that plants 

 came sooner or later to express their environmental conditions, should be 

 inclined to believe that the peach is an evolution from the almond. It is 

 easy to imagine that countless ages ago — how long since is but an invitation 

 to argue — the two species merged into one. Offspring of the parent-species 

 once established in distinct soil and climatic conditions — the peach in 

 China, the almond in southwestern Asia — differentiation began and in 

 time each region was represented by a species of its own. Such an occur- 

 rence is but one of the commonplaces of evolution; but Knight, Lindley 

 and Darwin thought they saw evidence that the separation came after the 

 almond, the supposed parent-species, had been domesticated, the steps 

 being from fleshy almond to bad clingstone, to good clingstone, to free- 



