rnmm' Jxv ^Z^=i 
Yol XLL No. 1681. 
NEW YORK, APRIL 15, 1882. 
[Entered according to Act of Congress, In the year 1882, by the Rural New-Yorker, In the office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington.] 
PRICE FIVE CENTS, 
$2,00 PER YEAR, 
♦ 
STRAWBERRY NOTES. 
Retrospective and Prospective. 
E. WILLIAMS. 
The strawberry season of ’80 and ’81 pre¬ 
sented the extremes of wetness and drought, 
heat and cold in striking contrast. In ’80 the 
heat and drought told with great effect on 
the fruit; in ’81, with equal or more severe 
effect on the plants, destroying whole beds 
entirely, in some cases, preventing the growth 
of young plants in others, and deferring till 
the coming Spring the planting of many a 
proposed bed last Fall. In ’80 the crop suffered 
from the want of moisture; in ’81, from a 
superabundance of it. 
Notes on Varieties. 
Duncan gave me the first ripe berry on 
May 30th. 
Crescent Seedling followed on June 3d. 
The crop was abundant and held out of a fair 
average size to the end, much better than ever 
before. Where quantity rather than quality 
is the object sought, the Crescent seems to 
“fill the bill.” 
Boyden’s No. SO, which was a total failure 
in 1880, was very satisfactory in 1881, showing 
that moisture is essential for its success. 
Forest Rose also did well, but I think it 
would ha vn done better if it had had company 
r for, although it is of the 
bisexual, or perfect-flow¬ 
ering, class, many of the 
late berries were imper¬ 
fectly developed; proba¬ 
bly through a want of 
pollen at the time of in- 
Cumberland Triumph 
still continues to main 
tain its character as a 
good family berry; but, 
■v pm??*- as in the case of all the 
others, the quality was 
^ _ n °t as high as in 1880, 
-A- Few of the Newer 
Varieties. 
Glendale is a late, 
' productive, light-scar- 
Boyden No. 30.—Fig. 131. let, acid berry of medium 
size after the type of 
the old Scotch Runner, with a reflexed calyxi 
making it easy to hull. If there is a market 
demand for such fruit, it might be profitable 
once, and I never saw a worse case, and— 
what is more singular— a new bed made in 
the Fall on my home grounds where I have 
grown strawberries at intervals for 15 years 
past, the plants being 
taken from the above bed, 
did not show a particle 
of the disease. Some of 
our fungologists could A 
hardly do horticulture a 
better service than to fvS 
make a special study of v ,'j 
this fungus and learn, if 
possible, how to cure or ^ 
Miner’s Prolific failed / 
to fulfill its promise in 1SS0 (&?$$$&* 
on account of the drought; 
but last season it devolped V( ,.' 
and perfected an im- V * 
mense crop of magnificent 
fruit. It was somewhat 
affected with blight, but 
not badly. It probably 
has more resistive force 
than Downing. It is a 
very bright, attractive berry and quite satis¬ 
factory so far. 
Sharpless bore heavily, but the tendency 
the fingers to get hold of it with ease. I wish 
could say it was as desirable for the quality of 
its fruit as for its beauty—quality medium. 
Warren, like the above, is of Kentucky 
origin, and, like it, beautiful and attractive 
in appearance, but of indifferent quality. In 
size, shape, and appearance this reminds me 
very much of Ward’s Favorite, a popular 
variety in this vicinity 12 or 15 years ago, but 
in quality of fruit this bears no comparison to 
that. It is not as productive as Longfellow, 
there being only three to five berries on a stalk; 
generally erect, and the fruit seems to keep 
better than the Longfellow. 
Marvin was about as near a total failure as 
any strawberry I ever tried. Although 
alongside of the Warren, it made a sorry show 
as regards growth or fruiting. From a dozen 
plants, costing, I think, $4 in the Fall of ’79, 
I have so far failed to get a dozen decent 
berries. Does it continue to merit the high 
praise given it by the editor of the Rural on 
his grounds? [By mistake every plant of the 
Marvin was dug up and destroyed. Eds.] 
Finch’s Prolific, a berry of Ohio origin, a 
few plants of which were sent me for trial in 
the Spring of, ’79 by a member of the Cincin¬ 
nati Horticultural^Society, failed in 1880 to 
show any remarkable characteristics, which I 
attributed to the very unfavorable season. In 
fm&mm 
Voo° 
v'> 
msm 
’o)’ jn) h* 
SOME OF THE NEWER STRAWBERRIES —From Nature.—Fig. 123 
Charles Downing, one of our oldest and 
best standard sorts, promised, early in the 
season, to do as well as of yore; but the blight 
struck it before it began to ripen, and so 
severely that the crop was very unsatisfactory. 
This bed was put out in 1880, on ground that 
had never had strawberries on it before, on 
to deformity in the largest berries was much 
more prevalent than heretofore, the berries 
were hollow, spongy and insiped. On the 
whole, I was not as well pleased with the 
quality as previously. The old bed produced 
fruit of the best shape and quality,though less 
of it than in previous years, 
to grow for this purpose, as it seems to keep 
and carry well, but for family use people gen¬ 
erally want something better. 
Longfellow is a long-necked, beautiful 
berry moderatively productive. It is a nice 
berry to pick ou account of the long stems or 
branches of the foot-stalks affording room for 
1881 it did much better, producing a good 
crop of very uniform, medium-sized, hand¬ 
some, bright-scarlet berries of good quality; 
but, aside from these, I fail to discover wherein 
lie the merits to make it a great acquisition. 
The berries were not as large as those of 
Sharpless grown alongside of it on plants of 
