11 
of the world put together, when the fact is that there are and have been hun- 
dreds of men who have done more for the improvement of economic plants than 
Burbank has ever done, or, in my opinion, ever will do. 
“Any man who has the backbone to stand up and fight this infernal non- 
sense deserves public thanks, and for my part I want to assure you that you have 
struck a chord that will find more than one response among the horticulturists of 
America.” 
The fairest test of a man's ability is a comparison with others in the same 
sphere of work. One of Mr. Burbank’s eulogists said: “Luther Burbank has 
done more for the human race than all other horticulturists.” We florists and 
nurserymen do not endorse that statement, it is derided by every horticultural 
publication which has spoken on the subject. I even venture to say, from the 
test of comparison of products, that he is not the superior even of hybridizers in 
California. The Logan berry, introduced by Judge Logan is better than any of 
his productions. The Phillips cling peach is of more value to California in my 
opinion than any fruit which he has produced, and sad to relate, the man who pro- 
duced it is in the Yuba Co. almshouse, so announced in the Pacific Rural Press 
of Jan. 6th last. 
The contributions to the fruits of the country by Mr. Burbank are not as 
valuable for instance as the Concord grape of Epraim W. Bull, the Wealthy apple 
by Peter M. Gideon, the hybrid grapes by Rogers, Jacob Moore and T. V. Mun- 
son, not to mention others. In the realm of flowers he is hopelessly outclassed in 
this country by John Cook, E. G. Hill, Dr. W. Van Fleet and others in roses; and 
by Alex. Dickson, Notting, Lambert, Levavasseur and others in Europe. In car- 
nations he is again outclassed, eclipsed I may say, by Fred Dorner, C. W. Ward, 
Peter Fisher and others. In Cannas Antoine Wintzer outclasses him here, and 
in this connection I must pay a passing tribute to Mons. Crozy who was the 
originator of the present race of Cannas. I also wish to mention the work of Mr. 
Groff in gladioli, superior to that of Mr. Burbank in its results. As a general 
improver of flowering plants he is again impressively behind Lemoine of France, 
whose work in shrubs and soft wooded plants actually borders on the marvelous. 
In sweet peas Henry Eckford of England stands supreme. But I will not give 
a catalogue of illustrious men in plant hybridization, sufficient has been said I 
trust to show the extravagant claims for the superiority of Mr. Burbank in 
his chosen field. It is further claimed for him as a great achievement in the cause 
of science that he produces and destroys acres of worthless plants. The really ex- 
pert plant hybridizer does not do it and would hardly file a claim for fame on 
that score. Rather by close study of prospective results he aims at improvement 
by the most direct and least expensive method. 
