1879.] 
AMERICAN AGLUCULTURIST. 
21 
A New Pear—Kieffer’s Hybrid, 
“ I have something new to show you,” said Mr. 
C. H. Miller, the most efficient Chief of the Horti¬ 
cultural Department of the Centennial Exhibition, 
on one of the bright September mornings of that 
wonderful autumn of our Centennial year. The 
remark was accompanied by the presentation of 
several pears from a basket at hand. It was “ some¬ 
thing new ; ” though tolerably familiar with pears, 
this was quite unlike any other that we had ever 
seen. There was something about its appearance, 
and its texture, as indicated by the feeling of the 
fruit when handled, that indicated a difference be¬ 
tween that and other pears—nor did this individ¬ 
uality disappear 
upon testing; the 
character of the 
flesh and its flavor 
were quite pecu¬ 
liar, and not to 
be compared with 
any other pearthat 
could be called to 
mind. We learn¬ 
ed from Mr. Miller 
that the fruit was 
from an acciden¬ 
tal seedling at 
Germantown, Pa., 
upon an old place 
where there were 
trees of the Chi¬ 
nese Sand Pear 
( Pyrus Sinensis ), 
more frequently 
cultivated 20 or 
30 years ago as an 
ornamental tree, 
than it is at pres¬ 
ent. As trees of 
the Bartlett grew 
near by, it was 
supposed—and the character of the 
fruit favors the supposition—that 
hybridization had taken place, with 
this fruit as the result. A few days 
ago, there came from Mr. William 
Parry, the well-known fruit-grower 
of Cinnaminson, N. J., a circular 
describing his novelties for 1S79, 
and there in engraving and colored 
plate, was our centennial pear. It 
appears that Mr. Parry secured the 
original tree, and has called the 
new variety “Kieffer’s Hybrid.” 
In his circular he gives an account 
of the origin of the fruit essentially 
as stated above, and presents it as a 
variety to be commended, especi¬ 
ally for its hardiness and produc¬ 
tiveness. The engraving shows the 
average size and shape, the fruit 
being very uniform in both these 
respects ; its skin, which is of a bright, peculiar¬ 
ly rich yellow, has a texture that, in handling, 
conveys the impression of hardiness. In his 
published description, Mr. Parry says: “ flesh 
white, buttery, and juicy ; quality good.” Iu a 
private letter he says that he ranks the pear as 
“ simply good, about equal to the Duchesse d’An- 
gouleme.” In this we think he does what is unu¬ 
sual with introducers of new fruits, i. e., under es¬ 
timates its quality. Our recollection is, that it has 
a refreshing briskness that the Duchesse has not. 
The fruit, while it may not come up to the high 
standard of “best,” is of sufiiciently good quality 
to be acceptable to those who esteem the Bartlett, 
which, while regarded as second or third rate by 
critical amateurs, meets the general taste, and 
every candidate for popular favor must stand a 
comparison with that best known of all our pears. 
We have not in a long time seen a fruit that ap¬ 
peared to unite so many elements of popularity as 
“ Kieffer’s Hybrid,” and shall he much disappoint¬ 
ed if it does not prove to be a valuable and profit¬ 
able market fruit. The tree is a strong and vigor¬ 
ous grower, bears early, is very productive, and ap¬ 
parently as free from disease as the Sand Pear, 
which is one of its parents. The fruit is of good 
size, of an attractive color, and keeps well, never 
decaying at the core. The original tree has been 
fruiting for about five years, and for the last two 
years has yielded four to five bushels each year. 
The Centennial Fruit Committee gave it a Prize 
Medal and Certificate as introducing “ a new race 
of great excellence,” and at the 50th Annual Exhi¬ 
bition of the Penna. Hortieulural Society held last 
Sept., it received “honorable mention.” Mr. Parry- 
shows his faith in its future as a market fruit by 
setting out an orchard' of 350 trees of this variety. 
Of course, like all new varieties, this has to endure 
the test of cultivation in a variety of soils and loca¬ 
A NEW PEAR—KIEFFER’S HYBRID. 
tions, and we are glad to know that Mr. Parry has 
already placed it on trial with various pomologists of 
experience in localities widely separate. We shall 
be disappointed if the result does not show that 
its popular qualities have not been over-estimated. 
The Bean Weevil. 
The Pea Weevil is now so common that the local¬ 
ities where sound seed peas can bo raised are yearly 
growing fewer. The Bean Weevil, scarcely known 
20 years ago, except iu the cabinets of entomolo¬ 
gists, has increased with great rapidity, and it will 
soon be difficult to find a locality where seed beans 
can be raised free from this insect, and what is 
of more importance, it threatens to make the bean 
crop a very uncertain one. The “American Ento¬ 
mologist” Feb., 1870, speaks of the insect as new, 
“within the last five years.” The first specimens 
were received by us in the autumn of 1862, these 
two data enable us to fix very nearly the time at 
which the insect began to be noticed. At first it 
was supposed to be the same as the Pea Weevil, and! 
it was asserted that it was an European insect im¬ 
ported and distributed by the Department of Agri¬ 
culture. But entomologists discovered that it was. 
not the same Bruehus that infests the pea, that it 
was not an imported insect at all, but a native spe¬ 
cies described many years ago by Say ,{Bruehus ob- 
soletus), who found it in the seeds of a species of 
Astragalus , or Milk-vetch, of the Western States. 
Here we have another example of the rapid increase 
of a native insect under favoring conditions, the too 
well known Colorado Potato Beetle, being another. 
So long as it waseonfined to the seeds of the Astra¬ 
galus, which is not very abundant any where, the 
insect was little known, even to entomologists, but 
when bean fields came to its native localities, it had 
at once food enough to favor rapid propagation, 
while it met with conditions for disseminating it 
far and wide. The Astragulus seeds spread only in 
the natural way; birds and other animals might 
cariy them for short distances, but so long as the 
insect fed only upon that, it occupied a restricted 
area. On the other hand, when once established 
upon the bean, it not only had abundant food, but, 
so to speak, it had at command every means of 
transportation, beans being an article of commerce ; 
wherever these were sent, whether for food or for 
seed, the insect was carried, and it appears in wide¬ 
ly separated parts of the country in a few years. 
The engraving, (see next page), from Riley’s 
“Insects of Mis¬ 
souri,” shows the 
insect of the nat¬ 
ural size, and 
magnified,and also 
an infested bean. 
As the characters 
which distinguish 
this from the Pea 
Weevil are of in¬ 
terest to entomolo¬ 
gists only, we need not give them. So far as known, 
the two insects confine themselves to their respec¬ 
tive seeds. In the pea we find but one insect to a 
seed, while in the bean there are usually several, as 
many as 12 having been noticed. It is supposed that, 
like the Pea Weevil, the mother insect deposits her 
eggs upon or in the pod while it is very young and 
tender; the young larvae find their way into the 
seeds, where they make their growth, feeding upon 
the contents of the bean, and before they pass into 
the pupa state, cut quite to the seed-coat or skin of 
the bean, thus forming those semi-transparent, per¬ 
fectly circular dots, noticeable in the infested seed. 
When the beetle is ready to come out, it lias only to 
break away this thin covering of skin. Some of 
the perfect insects appear in the fall, or during the 
winter, and of course perish, but enough remain 
until spring to carry on the work. The practical 
question—and it has become an important one—is, 
how to get rid of the insects. If all would agree 
to plant no imperfect seed, that would help, but 
would not be enough. Every bean containing a 
weevil should be destroyed, otherwise the insects 
will escape and find their way to the field or garden 
and continue the evil. Much damage has been 
done to the pea crop, and the insect infesting that 
is much more widely disseminated than it would 
have been, by the assertion that the presence of the 
weevil did not injure the value of the peas for seed, 
as it never destroyed the “ chit,” as the plumule or 
growing point is popularly called. This statement, 
repeated in journals and books, put people off 
their guard, and buggy peas have been sown until 
there are few localities where lovers of green peas 
do not eat their share of “ worms.” But the fact 
is, as the experiments of Mr. Peter Henderson 
plainly show, that while the Pea Weevil does not 
destroy its germinating power, it does injure the 
seed. The larva of the -weevil eats up a large 
share of the food intended for the young pea ; 
though the seeds do germinate, the young plants— 
robbed of half or more of the food provided for 
them—are puny and starved, and thus deprived 
of nourishment when they were young and most 
need it, are in all their after life less vigorous and 
less productive than similar plants from sound 
geed. In the bean a still greater share of the food 
