H8 _ _THE CULTIVATOR. ^ April 
be careless, but not where they are vague and illusory. 
We can approximate a systematic accuracy. But it 
must be by making up in the number of determining 
circumstances, that which is wanting in the invariable 
distinctiveness of a few that are specific. 
I. Downing's descriptions are quite irregular and 
unequal . Both his pears and apples are imperfect, but 
not alike imperfect. The descriptions of pears are de¬ 
cidedly in advance of those of the apple. It would 
seem as if the improvement which he gained by prac¬ 
tice was very easily traced in its course on his pages. 
Hardly two apples are described in reference to the 
same particulars. With respect to color of skin, size 
and form, eye and stem, he approaches the nearest to 
uniformity. But with respect to every other feature 
there is an utter want of regularity, which indicates 
not so much carelessness as the want of any settled plan 
&r conception of a perfect scientific description. 
We will, out of a multitude of similar cases, select a 
few as specimens of what we mean. Of the Pumpkin 
Russet , he says, “ flesh exceedingly rich and sweet;” 
but he does not speak of its texture , whether coarse or 
fine; whether brittle or leathery. Pomme de Neige — 
“ flesh remarkably white, very tender, juicy and good, 
with a slight perfume;” but is it sweet or sour, or sub¬ 
acid, or astringent? No one can tell by reading the 
joint descriptions of the Red and the Yellow Ingestrie, 
what their flavor is, since it is only said that they are 
“juicy and high flavored”—but whether the high 
flavored juice is sweet or sour, does not appear. These 
are not picked instances. They occur on almost every 
page of his list of apples. The Summer Sweet Para¬ 
dise is, of course, sweet, since w r e are three times told 
of it, once in the title and twice in the text. The 
Sweet ~Ptunttain also, is a “sweet apple” “of a very 
saccharine flavor.” Of course it is sweet. Nos. 67, 
68, 69, 74, 75, and very many more, are described with¬ 
out information as to their flavor except that, whatever 
it is, it is ‘brisk,’ or ‘high,’ or ‘rich’—forlorn adjec¬ 
tives unafnanced to any substantive which they may 
qualify. Sometimes the health of the tree and its 
hardiness are given, and as often omitted. Sometimes 
its hardiness of bearing is mentioned, but oftener neg¬ 
lected. The color of the flesh is given in No. 82, but 
not in 83; in 84, but not in 85; from 86—92 inclusive, 
but not to the second 92, for the Bedfordshire Foundling 
and the Dutch Mignonne are both numbered 92. The 
color of the flesh is not given in 93, 97, 100, 101, 103, 
110, although the intermediate numbers have it given. 
Why should one be minutely described, and not all? 
We should regard it an ungrateful requital for all the 
pleasure and profit W'hich this volume has afforded us to 
hunt up and display what, to some, may seem to be 
mere “jots and tittles,” were it not that these, in them¬ 
selves, unimportant things mark decisively the absence 
in the author’s plan, of a style of description which 
pomology always needed, but now begins imperiously 
to demand. And we are confident that a pomological 
manual, on the right design , is yet to be written. Our 
hearty wish is, that Mr. Downing’s revised edition may 
be that manual. 
II. We are lead, from these remarks, to consider, by 
itself, the imperfect scale of descriptions adopted by all 
our American pomological writers, upon which Mr. D. 
has not materially improved. 
The description of the tree is very meagre or totally 
neglected. Nothing at all is said of it in cases out of 
the 174 apples numbered and described. The general 
shape of the tree is given in but thirty-eight instances 
in the same number. 
The color of the wood is, usually, noticed in the ac¬ 
counts of pears; but in the account of apples in not one 
case, we should think, in ten. 
The peculiar growth of the young wood, in a great 
majority of cases, is not noticed; but more frequently 
in the pear than in the apple list. The least practiced 
observer knows how striking is this feature of the face of 
a tree. We do not remember an instance where the 
buds have been employed as a characteristic. Are dis¬ 
tinctive marks so numerous that such an one as this can 
be spared? The shape, color, size, prominence, and 
shoulder of buds, together with their interstitial spaces, 
form too remarkable a portion of trees to be absolutely 
overlooked in a book describing the “ fruits and fruit 
trees of America.” 
Equally noticeable is the almost entire neglect of the 
core and seed, as identifying marks. Once in a while, 
as in the case of the Belle Fleur, the Roman Stem, the 
Spitzenberg, and the Pomme Royal, we are told, that the 
cores are hollow. But neither among pears or apples, 
is the core or seed made to be of any importance. This 
is the more remarkable as being a decided retrocession 
in the art of description. Prince, wisely following 
Continental authors, is careful in his description of pears, 
to give, and with some minuteness, the peculiarities of 
the seed. But Downing, injudiciously misled by, in 
this respect, the decidedly bad example of British au¬ 
thors, has, almost without exception, neglected this 
noble criterion. There is not another single feature, 
either of fruit or fruit trees, which we could not spare 
better than the core and seed. Not only may varieties 
be marked by their seeds, but they form, in connection 
with the core, important elements of diagnoses of quali¬ 
ties. A Long-Keeper, usually has a very small, com¬ 
pact core, with few seeds. A highly improved and 
luscious pear, not unfrequently is wholly seedless; 
while fruits not far removed from the wild state abound 
in seeds. Whenever a system of description shall have 
been formed, we venture to predict that the core and 
seed will be ranked at a higher value in it than any 
one other element of discrimination and description. 
The same neglect or casual notice is bestowed upon 
the leaf. If anything about it is remarkable it is men¬ 
tioned, not otherwise: But is there a page of any book 
that was ever printed, that has more reading on it than 
is on a leaf, if one is only taught to read it? It too, 
is not only a sign of difference but very often of qxtality. 
Mr. D. has availed himself of this criterion in describ¬ 
ing peaches. Is it a legible sign only in the peach or¬ 
chard? He that is ignorant of these marks, and only can 
tell one fruit from another, is yet in the a b c of pomo¬ 
logy. Who but a tyro, on importing Coe’s Golden 
Drop , would not at once perceive the imposition, if 
there was one, the moment his eye saw a bud, or its 
shoulder? Van Mons learned to select stocks for his 
experiments, as well by the wood and bud in winter, as 
by the leaf and growth of summer. In a large bed of 
seedlings every experimenter ought to know by wood 
and leaf what to select as prognosticating good fruit, 
and what to reject, without waiting to see the fruit. 
Nurserymen of our acquaintance, without book, label, 
or stake, can tell every well known variety on their 
grounds. One of our acquaintance never had a mark, 
label, stake, or register, of any kind upon his ground; 
a culpable reliance on his ability to read tree-faces; for, 
on his throwing up the business suddenly, his successor 
fell into innumerable mistakes. It is just as easy for a 
pomologist to know the face of every variety, as for a 
shepherd to know the face of every sheep in his flock, 
or a grazier every animal of his herd. 
III. Although the “ Fruits and Fruit Trees of Ameri¬ 
ca” professes to give the process of management only 
for the garden and the orchard, it ought to include, and 
we presume was designed to embrace the essential fea¬ 
tures of nursery culture. Every cultivator of fruit must 
be a private nurseryman; he needs the same informa¬ 
tion, the same directions as if he were a commercial 
gardener. He that designs planting an orchard ought 
to know the disposition of each variety of fruit tree, 
that he may suit the circumstance of his soil, or provide 
for the peculiarities of a tree, as a farmer needs to 
know the peculiarities of the different breeds of hogs 
and cattle. With a large number of persons it would be 
enough to say of fruits,—“ superb,” “ extra-superb,” 
“ superlatively gra sd,” “extra magnificent;” for such, a 
princely catalogue would answer every purpose. But 
such as have son knowledge, and every year, we 
are happy to belie }, the number of such increases, ask, 
not the author's b; e eulogy, but a definite statement of 
all those special qualities on which such eulogy is 
founded. The exact taste of each variety of fruit should 
be studied in respect to soil; some, and but few, love 
