APPLES 
other lines of work at the Western New 
York Horticultural Society meeting, and 
had the privilege of having Professor 
Hedrick and George T Powell climb all 
over me for taking such notions. Upon 
receiving the bulletin I wrote to Professor 
Hedrick and congratulated him upon his 
change of heart. I quote from his reply, 
‘Your letter in regard to Circular 18 is 
at hand. We live to learn. The theory 
that varieties of fruit could be improved 
py bud selection seemed so plausible 
to me that without stopping to analyze 
it very closely and without doing any 
experimental work, I accepted it and 
preached it. I remember very well dis- 
agreeing with you at the Rochester meet- 
ing. Your long and wide experience 
should have made me more careful. Al- 
most from that meeting [ became a 
doubter and for the last two years have 
given the subject of pedigreed trees a 
great deal of attention in the various 
aspects put forth in Circular 18.’ 
“T think much of the trouble lies in 
the attempt made by many to reason that 
seed and bud propagation should produce 
the same results. They are not the same. 
Many are not willing to take the time 
to test their propositions. I was just 10 
years working out the Greening matter. 
I believe there is something in the mu- 
tation theory. I think the Colamer apple 
belongs here, as I do not understand that 
any claim has been made that it is im- 
proved, but discovered.” 
Other Opinions 
Not a few reliable nurserymen believe 
that the “pedigreed tree” is a species of 
faking, misleading to say the least, the 
only claim that can be legitimately made 
being that care has been exercised in the 
selection of scions from healthy trees 
and in keeping them true to name. One 
noted specialist puts it: (6) “Selecting 
scions for type is rational, selection for 
variation is a dream as far as we now 
have any knowledge.” Perhaps this view 
is extreme, as there are other men ap- 
parently sincere and among them some 
thoroughgoing scientists who are sufi- 
ciently convinced that there is something 
(6) EB. J. Wickson, Correspondence, 1912. 
147 
in the idea that they are devoting time 
and expense to its further study. Bur- 
bank thinks that there is truth in the 
theory but that (7) “its value has been 
greatly overestimated. Ten valuable vari- 
ations are produced by seed to one bud 
variation.” 
In fairness to the advocates of the pedi- 
gree theory it must be said that one 
bit of positive evidence is worth a whole 
world of merely negative evidence. The 
work of A. D. Shamel, of the Bureau of 
Plant Industry, in California, on citrus 
bud variation promises to yield impor- 
tant results. The work here has been 
greatly simplified by the fact that prac- 
tically all of the navel oranges in Cali- 
fornia are the descendants of two trees. 
Following is a brief account of the re- 
sults thus far secured: 
“Our four years’ work here has given 
us a definite line on the frequency of 
citrus bud variations, their relation to 
the permanence of citrus types, and the 
comparative value of these types. 
“We have determined the standard types 
of the Washington and Thompson navel 
orange, Hureka lemon, Marsh’s seedless 
pomelo, and Valencia orange and the ‘off’ 
types of these varieties. We have devel- 
oped a practical tree performance record 
system now in use in over 5,000 acres of 
citrus fruits, for determining the trees 
which are to be rebudded, the ‘drones.’ ” 
A. D. Shamel, Correspondence, 1912. 
The Nature of the Budding Operation 
A brief statement of the nature of the 
process which is employed in budding 
and grafting might be helpful in clear- 
ing the whole problem of certain mis- 
conceptions which arise out of the neces- 
sity of employing terms which belong to 
another field. 
(8) “When youtakea bud or limb from 
a given variety of tree, and insert that 
bud on another stock to which it attaches 
itself and from which its life is obtained, 
for the bud to continue its growth sim- 
ply amounts to continuing or extending 
the length of the branch of the original 
tree, and it can no more change the na- 
7) L. Burbank, Correspondence, 1912. 
(8) KE. Wiggins, Correspondence. 
