THE RUSSIAN APRICOT. 



645 



seeker. In the past, the soil has been cultivated 

 only to such an extent as the necessities of the set- 

 tlers made compulsory. As game gradually became 

 scarcer, they were compelled to rely a little more 

 upon the soil for sustenance. A little land would 

 be cleared, or cultivated only with a preliminary 

 girdling of the trees, for there is very little under- 

 growth in these woods. Corn was almost the only 

 crop, and this was literally both meat and drink. 

 Such necessaries as must be procured by money, 

 or its equivalent, were bought at first with skins and 

 furs, and later by digging the medicinal roots with 

 which the mountain abounds. They cared nothing 

 for wealth or gain beyond the needs of the present, 

 and had they cared for gain, were too remote from 

 markets to make agriculture a productive industry. 

 Thus no land was cleared beyond that needed to 

 supply their simplest wants ; and, as land was 

 plenty, no effort was made to retain its fertility, 

 even had they possessed the requisite skill. The 

 little clearings were tilled until they would produce 

 no longer, then they were allowed to grow up to 

 brush or timber again, and another piece taken for 

 cultivation ; the natural result was that the land 

 obtained a worse reputation for fertility than it 

 naturally deserved. 



There was also another cause that operated to 

 destroy the fertility of this virgin soil of the forest. 



The hunters and the Indians before them had been 

 accustomed to burn the fallen leaves in the woods 

 each year, that the wild grass might be enabled to 

 start earlier, and thus afford good pasturage for the 

 deer. Later, settlers who acquired some stock and 

 pastured it upon the wild land, kept up the same 

 practice. So that year after year that which would 

 have added to the depth and richness of the soil 

 was wantonly destroyed, and with it annually some 

 portion of the acquired humus. 



When one comes upon these abandoned clearings 

 they are tempted to ask the old question, " Why do 

 pine forests grow up where oaks have been removed, 

 and why do oaks follow the pines ?" Here the pine 

 belts, the signs of the poorer land, have been re- 

 placed by thickets of young oaks ; and the land 

 which has been deemed best, because it was that 

 on which the oaks grew, is being covered with pines. 



But not for long now will the forests remain the 

 predominant feature of the plateau. Meadows and 

 fields of grain, flocks, vineyards and orchards all 

 mirror themselves upon my page. Upon these hill- 

 sides girls will sing the "song of the vine" as they 

 gather purple clusters for the wine-press ; and the 

 land shall be so " full of all blessed conditions," that 

 "flowing with milk and honey" shall be its syn- 

 onym. 



James K. Reeve. 



THE RUSSIAN APRICOT. 



OPINIONS AND EXPERIENCES OF A MUCH DEBATED FRUIT. 



iHE RUSSIAN apricot has 

 been the subject of much 

 diverse discussion during 

 the last decade. By many 

 it has been denounced in 

 unmeasured terms, and by 

 others it is considered one 

 of the most valuable of 

 recent acquisitions. We 

 have endeavored to arrive at definite knowledge of it 

 by securing the correspondence which follows. 



The Russian apricot was introduced into America 

 by the Russian Mennonites who settled in Kansas 

 many years ago. We have not seen any record of 

 the date of the first introduction, but it is earlier 

 than is commonly supposed. It was grown so long 

 ago as 1876, and probably much earlier. By the 

 Mennonites it is propagated by seeds, and many of 

 the trees now planted throughout the country are 

 unnamed and chance seedlings. It is not strange, 

 since the apricot varies from seed in the same man- 



ner as other fruits, that conflicting and diverse 

 experiences have resulted. In late years some of 

 the best varieties have been selected and propagated 

 under names. The chief of these are Alexis, 

 Nicholas, Alexander, Budd, Gibb, Catherine. Some 

 or all of these have been distributed under two 

 names. 



It is always said that the Russian apricot belongs 

 to the Frnnus Sihirica of botanists, and the state- 

 ment, so far as we know, has never been contro- 

 verted. But in fact it is nothing more than a hardy 

 I'ace of the common apricot, Pninus Armotiaca. 

 The foliage of the two species is very unlike. Fig. i 

 shows the leaves of the Alexander, a Russian 

 variety. The leaves are broadly ovate with a short 

 point, broad base, short and rounded teeth, and 

 they are smooth and shining above and thick in 

 texture. It will be noticed that the petioles or 

 leaf-stalks bear conspicuous glands. Fig. 2 is a 

 faithful illustration of the foliage of Pru?tns Sibirica 

 (or P. Armettiaca, var. Sibirica, as Maximowicz pre- 



