Plantlet: Seed-leaves medium, broad cordate, with short petiole, pale green; secondary 

 leaves first year, not lobed, plant first year erect or little declining. 



Viticultural Observations and Remarks 



The seeds germinate in about the same time with V. cordifolia and V. Arizonica, the buds 

 push with or later than V. vinifera, the flowers open a little earlier than V. cordifolia, the fruit 

 ripens about with Norton Virginia or generally with V. cEstivalis; leaves fall late, about with 

 V. Arizonica and V. Longii, later than V. vulpina. 



This species is found abundantly in all the valleys of South California, along streams in rich 

 alluvial sandy soils, where the roots can reach permanent moisture. 



Until 1889 when I visited California, investigating wild grapes, I had regarded this species 

 as a form of V. Arizonica, but after seeing many thousands of the vines, in the vicinity of San 

 Diego, National City at the extreme southern part of the state, along the San Luis Ray, the 

 San Marguerite, the Santa Ana, and the San Gabriel rivers south of the San Bernardino Moun- 

 tains, and the Ojai Valley, north of Ventura and eastward from Ventura, and finding it the only 

 wild grape of those regions quite uniform in characteristics, and certainly well separated from 

 both V. Californica of North California and V. Arizonica, I was compelled to give it due recogni- 

 tion, and named it in honor of Mr. H. H. Gird, of Fallbrook, California, who a number of years 

 previously sent me the first specimens of it I had seen. 



Unlike V. Californica (which is not found near the coast, never, so far as I could find or learn, 

 west of the crest of the Coast Range and rarely in the mountains at all, or the first valleys east 

 of them) , it often grows abundantly and luxuriantly within a very few miles of the coast, fully 

 exposed to the sea-breezes, as I found about National City and Ventura. Here, at Denison, 

 Texas, it is very sensitive to cold, a few degrees below freezing kills it to the ground, and also 

 very subject to mildew and rot, but less so than in V. Californica of North California. 



The following comparison will contrast the points of difference between this species and 

 V. Californica, with which it has heretofore been included by botanists. The long cordate woolly 

 leaf, blade with average length of mid-rib to width of blade as 5 to 5}4< while V. Californica 

 has a nearly smooth round-cordate or reniform blade with average length of midrib to width 

 of blade as 5 to 7. The large, forked, compound, loose cluster with. long slender, wartless, 

 or nearly so, pedicels, with very small berries without bloom, pungent skin and juicy acid pulp, 

 small seed with notched top and sunken chalaza, while V. Californica has small to medium 

 compact cluster with short, thick, very warty peduncle, larger berries with abundant bloom, 

 skin not pungent, pulp with little juice, very sweet and differently flavored and seedy, seeds 

 with prominent raphe and chalaza and convex top, clearly separate these forms. 



This species is frequently foun^ hybridized with V. vinifera, near the old vineyards. One 

 such growing in the grounds of Mr. A. Scott Chapman near San Gabriel was seen by the- writer 

 and from it Mr. Chapman sent me clusters of ripe fruit in 1886, that were a foot in length, berries 

 of medium size, and quite a good grape. When I saw the vine it was nearly dead, having been 

 attacked by the Anaheim Grape Disease. Other similar hybrids were seen on Mr. Chapman's 

 place, in 1889. 



The old "Mission Grape" of California clearly shows characteristics of V. Girdiana and I 

 am fully of the opinion that it is an accidental hybrid of V. Girdiana with V. vinifera. Here it 

 is far more subject to mildew, rot and cold than most of the vinifera varieties. Its long stringy 

 compound cluster with delicate yellowish- white rachis, and berries with pungent skin are some 

 of the points indicating V. Girdiana blood. 



Little or nothing, probably, of value, can be gained in any way from this species, as it is 

 no hardier or more vigorous in its native regions than V. vinifera, and nothing is gained in quality 

 of fruit from it. It was often attacked and destroyed in the forests by the Anaheim disease. 



—89— 



