VOL. XLIX. NO. 2i i7. 
PRICE, FIVE CENTS 
$ 2.00 PER YEAR. 
NEW YORK, AUGUST 23 , i89o. 
“CHILDS’S GREAT JAPANESE WINE- 
BERRY ” 
Proves to be Rubus Phcenicolasius, a 
Japan Species which has been sold 
by other Nurserymen since 1 88 1. 
[notes from the rural grounds.] 
I N this year’s catalogue of John Lewis Childs, 
of Floral Park, Queens County, N. Y., is a 
beautiful colored illustration of what he 
calls on one page “ Childs’s Great Japanese Wine- 
berry,” and on another “ Childs’s New Japanese 
Wineberry.” The plants are not so productive 
as the picture represents. In other respects it is 
exceedingly true to nature. In his description 
on the preceding page Mr. Childs says: “We 
offer this eiitirely new, distinct and valuable 
berry with the feeling that it is only once in a 
lifetime that a florist can give to the world a 
plant of so much novelty, beauty and useful¬ 
ness. All things combined, it is the most novel 
and valuable article we ever introduced.” We 
have emphasized several words in the above para¬ 
graph for reasons which will appear further on. 
“History. —Prof. Georgeson of the Japanese 
Imperial Agricultural College, while traveling 
among the mountains of Japan for rest and rec¬ 
reation, came upon this berry growing in a wild 
state. Its exceeding lusciousness and beauty 
prompted him to dry some of the berries and 
send the seed of them to relatives in this country, 
with the information that if it succeeded, it 
would prove the most valuable berry novelty 
ever introduced. The seed produced a few plants 
to which our attention was called the first sum¬ 
mer. W e were so struck with its 'novelty and 
beauty that we at once opened negotiations for 
its purchase. The next season it fruited and we 
at once bought it on the terms offered, paying 
the enormous price of one thousand dollars per 
plant." 
Mr. Childs describes the quality as “ sweet 
and juicy.” In conclusion he offers the plants 
to his patrons at $1.00 each—six for $5.00—re 
marking that “ this price will probably stand 
“ for two or three years, and no reduction will be 
made to any one on any account, for this is 
really a wholesale rate. It is very low when 
“ you consider its great novelty and value, and 
“that we were glad to pay a thousand dollars 
"per plant." 
Again, the italics are ours. 
The R. N.-Y., as is its custom, ordered a plant 
from Mr. Childs, and two fruiting plants from 
Mr. J. T. Lovett, of Little Silver, N. J. (the 
propagator) which were forwarded here (Rural 
Grounds) with Mr. Childs’s consent early in the 
spring. They were planted in rich soil and 
mulched. Somewhat later we ascertained that 
this “ novelty ” was in fact Rubus phcenicolasius, 
which has been in private collections in this 
country for a dozen years and more, and offered 
in the catalogue of at least one nursery firm 
(Ellwanger & Barry, of Rochester, N. Y.) since 
1881, the price being 35 cents per plant at retail. 
The announcement of this discovery in the col¬ 
umns of The R. N.-Y. led to the following 
correspondence: 
A Law-Suit Hinted At. 
The Rural New-Yorker, 
34 Park Row, New York City. 
Gentlemen— We represent Mr. John Lewis 
Childs, of k loral Park, New York, to whom you 
have in recent numbers of The Rural New- 
\ orker made some damaging allusions in con¬ 
nection with the Japanese Wineberry and other 
novelties he is handling. Among other things 
you have said that his Wineberry could be pur¬ 
chased in quantity at 85 cents apiece, or words 
to that effect, alluding we presume to a variety 
of Rubious (sic) offered by parties in Rochester, 
N. Y. On investigation by Mr. Childs and on 
the authority of the United States Pomologist, 
the berry they offer is entirely distinct from Mr.’ 
Childs’s Japanese Wineberry. Before taking 
further action we give you opportunity to make 
“CHILDS’S GREAT JAPANESE WINEBERRY” IN BUD. 
From Nature. Fig. 2 16. 
THE “WINEBERRY” IN FRUIT. 
From Nature. Fig. 2 17. 
proper explanation and apologies through the 
columns of your paper. 
Very respectfully yours, 
Berdseye, Cloyd & Bayliss. 
[The italics in the above letter are the writer’s. 
The R. N.-Y.’s Reply. 
J. Lewis Childs, July 9,1890. 
Dear Sir —I am still of the opinion that your 
Wineberry is Rubus phcenicolasius. The pub¬ 
lisher tells me that you threaten the R. P. Co., 
with a law-suit. I would not do this. We do 
nothing in malice. If we are wrong we shall 
make ample repairs. If we are right, we shall 
place the whole matter before the public, as in 
duty bound. Respectfully, 
Editor R. N.-Y. 
Mr. Childs Replies. 
Editor R. N.-Y., 
River Edge, Bergen County, N. J. 
Dear Sir— Yours of the 9th at hand. If you 
“ do nothing in malice ” you have certainly mis¬ 
led the public by your constant hammering at 
me in connection with the Wineberry, and also 
some other things which were put out as novel¬ 
ties by other parties, and catalogued by myself. 
I bought the Wineberry about a year ago of J. 
T. Lovett. I had then never heard of Rubus 
phcenicolasius or anything like it. The seed of 
the Wineberry was collected by Prof. Georgeson 
among the mountains of Japan. I have seen the 
Rubus phcenicolasius this summer, and at first 
sight it bears some resemblance to my Wine¬ 
berry, but with established plants of both kinds 
the difference is readily perceptible. Rubus 
phcenicolasius is not claimed to have any value 
as a fruit, while that is the point of greatest 
value in the Wineberry. The Rubus phcenico¬ 
lasius bears only six or eight berries in a cluster, 
while my Wineberry on established plants gives 
great panicles of fruits containing 75 to 100 ber¬ 
ries in many cases. I understand that Mr. 
Lovett and Prof. Georgeson have positive proof 
from the Department of Agriculture that the 
two plants are not the same. [Italics ours.— Eds.] 
Yours, very truly, 
July io. John Lewis Childs. 
Further Correspondence. 
J. L. Childs. Times Building, N. Y. 
Dear Sir —Your favor of July 10th is received. 
The authorities you name (U. S. Pomologist and 
Mr. Lovett) are good ones and their say-so will 
go further than mine. We shall publish an 
illustrated article on the subject later on and 
give you and the berry (whatever it may be) full 
credit or discredit. Sincerely yours, 
July 15- Editor R. N.-Y. 
Office of the Pomologist,? 
U. S. Department of Agriculture, 
jWashington, D. C., July 5, 1890. 
Editor Rural New Yorker, 
River Edge, Bergen Co., New Jersey. 
Dear Sir —Your letter of recent date is re¬ 
ceived, and I am astonished that Mr. Childs 
should give me as authority f or the statement 
that the plant which he is selling under the 
name "Japanese Wineberry" is not Rubus 
phcenicolasius. I do not remember having 
given any such an opinion, although I think 
that in writing to Mr. Childs some months ago, 
requesting him to send me specimens of the 
fruit at the proper season, I stated it was a fruit 
new to me and I might possibly have said that it 
was an unknown species so far as I was con¬ 
cerned. However, in studying over the speci¬ 
mens of our herbarium, I find that we have a 
specimen of this species there from Japan, and 
it corresponds exactly with the plant as I saw it 
last month at the place of J. T. Lovett in New 
Jersey. I think that Mr. Childs got his stock 
from Mr. Lovett, and if so, it is my opinion that 
you are quite correct in stating that the above 
scientific name is the correct one. I hope to soon 
receive specimens from Mr. Childs, and also from 
Mr. Lovett. Yours truly, 
H. E. VanDeman, Pomologist. 
