
| 


ALMOND VARIETIES IN THE UNITED STATES 7 
other factor. The immediate problem of the individual grower, that 
of a choice of varieties for his district, is more complicated than 
would at first appear. For example, in considering so apparently 
simple a factor as that of yield, the grower must take into account 
not only the natural bearing habit of the variety but its blooming 
season, its requirements for pollination, resistance to diseases, and its 
needs as regards moisture supply, soil, and cultivation, for yield 
depends upon each and all of these. To the inherent complexity of 
the problem are added difficulties arising from confusion in nomen- 
clature and from lack of authoritative data regarding varieties. 
The chaotic condition of the nomenclature has been a detriment 
to the industry, from both the growing and the marketing stand- 
points. The condition is due in part to the fact that the same 
varieties may vary somewhat in appearance, hardness of shell, and 
growth of tree in different districts, different seasons, and upon dif- 
ferent soils. Foreign varieties have been introduced under one name 
and propagated and passed along from section to section under 
other names. The same is true of many varieties originating as 
seedlings in California. In some instances the original name has 
been forgotten, with the result that the variety has been reintroduced 
under a new name. So it happens that the same variety may be 
known by different names in different localities, and the same name 
may be used in different localities to designate different varieties. 
When a buyer orders a certain variety from different sections he 
may actually receive several varieties, one of which may be the one 
desired, while the rest are inferior. A striking example of this con- 
fusion is seen in the case of the Eureka. Although the authenticity 
of this variety is well established, for there is no almond nut with 
more marked distinguishing characteristics, a large coarse seedling 
variety not resembling the Eureka in the least is known by that name 
in some localities. Even the best-established varieties are not free 
from this confusion. At least seven types of almond are known as 
Drake, five as Ne Plus Ultra, many as I. X. L., and several as Non- 
pareil. That such a confusion in varieties would exert a bad in- 
fluence on the marketing phase of the industry is to be expected. The 
presenting of an almond to the market and the establishing of a 
steady demand for it requires a great deal of expensive advertising 
and salesmanship and can be done successfully only with a superior 
variety produced in large quantities. When a mixture of types enters 
the market under an established name, there may seem to be little dis- 
advantage to the consumer if the “ off types” are equal or superior 
to the established variety and resemble it rather closely. But when 
these types are inferior to the established variety the results are loss 
of confidence on the part of retailer and consumer, lower prices, and 
finally unstable markets. 
It is from the grower’s standpoint, however, that the confusion is 
most disastrous. In many instances growers have set out or pur- 
chased orchards which they belicved to consist of the better varieties, 
only to find, after the expenditure of large sums in bringing them 
into bearing, that the varieties were very inferior. Steps “should be 
taken to insure the taking of budwood for propagation only from 
trees whose variety has been determined to a certainty. 
It would seem that much of the confusion now prevailing in the 
almond industry might have been avoided if complete and convinc- 
