THE HISTORY OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF APPLES. 445 



THE HISTORY OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF APPLES. 



By Edward A. Bunyard, F.L.S. 



[Read October 12, 1915 ; Dr. F. W. Keeble, F.R.S., in the Chair.] 



A classification of Apples has to many minds an academic and 

 somewhat arid sound, and smacks rather of the study than the garden. 

 Others again who are interested only in commercially profitable 

 varieties would select these and consign others to limbo. Unfortu- 

 nately, however, the discarded fruits refuse to be so disposed of, 

 and when they turn up in old gardens it often happens that their 

 owners wish to identify them. There are, furthermore, those whose 

 interest in fruits resembles that of flower-lovers who like to recognize, 

 let us say, British wild plants, irrespective of their medicinal or 

 decorative value. To such some system of grouping the numerous 

 varieties into convenient families will have interest and utility. 



All students of Apples have their own system of recognition, 

 unconscious as it often may be, and the veriest beginner confronted 

 with a few score of different Apples will at once sort out the codlins 

 and the russets &c. 



It is quite evident that some sifting-out process is a great help, 

 and it might almost be said that any classification is better than none 

 in dividing the problem for the beginner into parts which can be 

 separately attacked. It is not a little remarkable that while Mosses 

 and Foraminifera have been accurately described and classified, the 

 more useful fruits still remain in a state of unscientific confusion. 



The student will find his Apples somewhat resembling the pre- 

 Linnean flora, all species and no genera. All attempts at classification 

 are but endeavours to provide genera and families and to group 

 together the related. 



A system based upon descent would of course be ideal, but ex- 

 ceedingly unlikely to be attained in a fruit like the Apple, whose 

 history is so long and whose parentage so speculative. On the other 

 hand, an artificial system, always so attractive on paper, fails when con- 

 fronted by the actual fruits. It is sometimes urged that the differences 

 in individual specimens make any attempt at an exact system im- 

 possible. It must, however, be urged, even at the cost of obviousness, 

 that a classification is not an end in itself, but only a means to a 

 better knowledge of fruits, and is the road rather than the goal. The 

 object of this paper is to show the many attempts which have been 

 made to devise systems, and the writer hopes that by showing the 

 blind alleys perhaps some may be stimulated to search for the main 

 road. 



