The grapes of New York U. P. Hedrick 1327 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The grapes of New York
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The grapes of New York

Author: U. P. Hedrick

Contributor: N. O. Booth
Maxwell Jay Dorsey
O. M. Taylor
R. Wellington

Release date: June 15, 2014 [eBook #45978]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45978

Credits: Produced by Steven Giacomelli, Mark C. Orton, Chuck Greif
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
produced by Core Historical Literature in Agriculture
(CHLA), Cornell University)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GRAPES
OF NEW YORK ***

Every attempt has been made to
replicate the original as printed.
Some typographical errors have
been corrected; a list follows the
text.
Some illustrations have been
moved from mid-paragraph for
ease of reading.
In certain versions of this etext, in
certain browsers, clicking on this
symbol will bring up a larger
version of the image.
Table of Contents
Index to Illustrations
Bibliography and references with
abbreviations used
Index: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J,
K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V,
W, X, Y, Z
(etext transcriber's note)

EDWARD STANIFORD ROGERS

State of New York—Department of Agriculture
Fifteenth Annual Report—Vol. 3—Part II

THE

GRAPES OF NEW YORK
BY
U. P. HEDRICK
ASSISTED BY
N. O. BOOTH
O. M. TAYLOR
R. WELLINGTON
M. J. DORSEY
Report of the New York Agricultural Experiment Station for the Year 1907
II

ALBANY
J. B. LYON COMPANY, STATE PRINTERS
1908

NEW YORK AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION,
Geneva, N. Y., December 31, 1907.
To the Honorable Board of Control of the New York
Agricultural Experiment Station:
Gentlemen.—I have the honor to submit herewith Part II
of the report of this institution for the year 1907, to be
known as The Grapes of New York. It is the second in the
series of fruit publications which is now being prepared
under your authority.
This volume is the result of years of recorded
observations by members of the Station staff, to which has
been added the collection of a large amount of information
from practical growers of the grape. Every effort has been
made to insure completeness and accuracy of statement, and

to make the work a reliable guide as to all the varieties of
grapes that are likely to meet the attention of New York
grape-growers. It is believed that this volume will occupy a
useful place in grape literature and will be serviceable to an
important industry in this State.
W. H. JORDAN,

Director.

PREFACE
The purpose of The Grapes of New York is to record the state of
development of American grapes. The title implies that the work is being
done for a locality but in this matter New York is representative of the
whole country. The contents are: Brief historical narratives of Old World
and New World grapes; an account of the grape regions and of grape-
growing in New York, with statistics relating to the grape, wine and grape
juice industries in this State; a discussion of the species of American grapes;
and the synonymy, bibliography, economic status, and full descriptions of
all of the important varieties of American grapes. In the footnotes will be
found brief biographical sketches of those persons who have contributed
most to the evolution of the grape and to grape-growing in America and
some historical and descriptive notices of certain things pertaining to the
grape which do not belong in the text and yet serve to give a better
understanding of it or otherwise add to the completeness of the book. Color-
plates are shown of varieties which from various standpoints are considered
most important.
In the brief account of the Old World grape there is little that is new. Its
history is on record from the earliest times in the literature of nearly all
civilized peoples. A few facts, selected here and there, have been taken to
serve as an introduction to the accounts of the New World grapes. So, too,
the history of the American grape has been written by others and, here, only
the main facts have been set down as recorded in the score or more books
dealing with this fruit. A few excursions have been made in hitherto
unexplored fields. The purpose of these historical sketches is to give the
reader a proper perspective of the work in hand.
The grape is probably influenced to a greater degree by soil, climate, and
culture than any other fruit, and a discussion of its status cannot be
complete without due consideration of the environment in which it is
growing. Hence there is included as full an account of grape-growing and of
the grape regions in New York as space permits. This part of the work may
serve the prospective planter somewhat in selecting soils and locations but
as it is not written with this as a chief end, it falls far short of some of the
standard treatises on grape culture in this respect.

Comparatively few statistics are given, only those which are necessary to
show the volume of grape products and the extent of the vineyards in the
State and country at the present time. The figures for the whole country are
surpassed by those of no other native fruit, and only by corn and tobacco
among all the domesticated native plants.
The botany of the grape has been the most perplexing problem to deal
with in the preparation of this work. The variability of the grape is so great,
and the variations are so often toward closely related species, that it is
difficult to tell where one species ends and another begins. This, of course,
has led to differences in opinions. Then, too, the several monographers have
not had the same specimens to work with; men do not have the same
powers of discrimination; and the arrangement of botanical groups, based
upon the characters of the plants and the theory of descent with adaptive
modifications, is not governed by definite rules; hence botanical divisions
are arbitrary and differ with the judgments of the botanists who make them.
For these reasons we have as many different arrangements of species of
grapes as there are men who have worked them over.
Since this work is not written from the standpoint of the botanist but of
the horticulturist, no effort has been made to revise the botany of the grape.
But it has been necessary to select some arrangement of species in order to
make such disposition of the cultivated varieties that their characters and
relationships can best be shown. In making a choice of the several recent
classifications of American grapes, three main considerations have been in
mind: First, that the arrangement should separate the species in the genus
freely, thus decreasing the size of the groups so that they may be more
easily studied. Second, that it should show as clearly as possible the
relationships of the various groups and of their development—the evolution
of the grape. Third, that it be an arrangement in good standing with
botanists and horticulturists. After having examined all American
classifications of grapes and all recent European ones, Bailey’s
classification, as set forth in his monograph of the Vitaceae in Gray’s
Synoptical Flora, in the Evolution of our Native Fruits, and in the
Cyclopedia of American Horticulture, was adopted.
The Grapes of New York makes its chief contribution to the pomology of
the country in the description of varieties. The authors have tried to study
varieties from every point of view, not alone nor chiefly, it must be said,
with regard to their cultural value; for most of the varieties pass out of

cultivation and such information would be worthless within a few years at
most. But, rather, the effort has been to determine what elementary or unit
characters the grape possesses as shown in its botanical and horticultural
groups. The Twentieth Century begins with the unanimous judgment of
scientists that the characters of plants are independent entities which are
thrown into various relationships with each other in individuals and groups
of individuals. This conception of unit characters lies at the foundation of
plant improvement. We are but beginning the breeding of American grapes
and it has seemed to the writer that the most important part of this
undertaking is to discover and record as far as possible these unit characters
of grapes, thereby aiding to furnish a foundation for grape-breeding. The
great problem of plant-breeding in the future will be to correlate the
characters known to exist in the plant being improved; we must know what
these are before we begin to combine and rearrange them.
The varieties are arranged alphabetically throughout, though, were
present knowledge exact enough, it would be far better to arrange them in
natural groups. Such a classification is probably possible, but it remains for
future workers to search out the relationships which the structures and
qualities of plant and fruit indicate and to group the varieties naturally
rather than alphabetically. Wherever possible in this work, however, the
relationships of varieties have been indicated as fully as knowledge permits,
thus making a start toward natural classification.
In the lists of synonyms given, all known names for a variety used in the
American literature of the grape are brought together. These lists ought to
be useful in correcting and simplifying the nomenclature of the grape
which, like that of all of our fruits, is in more or less confusion. It is hoped
that the work may become a standard guide, for some time to come at least,
in the identification of varieties and in nomenclature, and that it will aid
originators of new grapes and nurserymen in avoiding the duplication of
names. In matters pertaining to nomenclature, the revised rules of the
American Pomological Society have been followed, though in a few cases it
has not seemed best to make changes which their strict observance would
have required. The necessity for rules is shown by an examination of the
synonymy of any considerable number of varieties as given in the body of
the work. In some cases varieties have from ten to twenty names and very
often different varieties are found to have the same name. This chaotic
condition is confusing and burdensome and it has been one of the aims in

the preparation of the work to set straight the horticultural nomenclature of
the grape, thus lessening the difficulty and uncertainty of identification and
making the comparative study of varieties easier.
It would be impossible, and not worth while, could it be done, to give all
of the references to be found in even the standard grape literature. Only
such have been given as have been found useful by the writers or as would
serve to give the future student of the literature of grape varieties a working
basis.
A brief history of each variety is given so far as it can be determined by
correspondence and from grape literature. In these historical sketches the
originator and his method of work justly receive most attention. The place,
date and circumstances of origin, the distributor, and the present distribution
of the variety, are given when known and are of about equal importance in
the plan of this work.
The technical descriptions of grapes are all first-hand and made by
members of the present horticultural department of the Station from living
plants. But rarely has it been necessary to go to books for any one character
of a vine or fruit though the leading authorities have been consulted in the
final writing of the descriptions and modifications made when the weight of
authority has been against the records of the Station. Some differences must
be expected between descriptions of varieties made in different years,
different localities and by different men. For most part the varieties
described are growing on the Station grounds but every opportunity has
been taken to study several specimens of each variety and especially of the
fruit. In many instances the descriptions have been submitted to the
originators, introducers, or to some recognized grape specialist.
A number of considerations have governed the selection of varieties for
full descriptions. These are: First, the value of a variety for the commercial
or amateur grower for any part of the State as determined by the records of
this Station, by reports collected from over 2000 grape-growers, and by
published information from whatever source. Second, the probable value of
new sorts as determined by their behavior elsewhere. Third, to show
combinations of species or varieties, or new characters hitherto unknown in
fruit or vine, or to portray the range in variation, or to suggest to the plant-
breeder a course of future development. Fourth, a few sorts have been
described because of their historical value—for the retrospection of the

grape-grower of the present and the future. It is needless to say that many of
the varieties described are worthless to the cultivator.
In all of the descriptions the effort has been to depict living plants and
not things existing only in books; to give a pen picture of them that will
show all of their characters. An attempt has been made, too, to show the
breeding of the plants, their relationships; to show what combination of
characters exist in the different groups of varieties; to designate, as far as
possible, the plastic types; in short to show grapes as variable, plastic plants
capable of further improvement and not as unchangeable organisms
restricted to definite forms.
It is hoped that the color-plates will be of great service in illustrating the
text. All possible means at the command of photography and color printing
have been used to make them exact reproductions. The specimens, too, have
been selected with the utmost care. In preparing these illustrations the
thought has been that technical descriptions, however simply written, are
not easily understood, and that the readiest means of comparison and
identification for the average reader would be found in the color-plates.
Through these and the accompanying descriptions it is hoped that all who
desire may acquire, with time and patience, a knowledge of the botanical
characters of grapes and thereby an understanding of the technical
descriptions. The plates have been made under the personal supervision of
the writer.
With all care possible, due allowance must yet be made for the failure to
reproduce nature exactly in the color-plates. The plates are several removes
from the fruit. Four negatives were taken of each subject with a color filter
between the lens and the fruit. A copper plate was made from each negative,
one for each of the four colors, red, yellow, black and blue. The color-plates
in the book are composed of these four colors, combined by the camera, the
artist, the horticulturist and the printer. With all of these agencies between
the fruit and the color-plate they could not be exact reproductions. It must
ever be in mind, too, that grapes grown in different localities vary more or
less in all characters and that the reproduction can represent the fruit from
but one locality. The specimens from which the plates were made came for
most part from the Station grounds. The illustrations are life size and as far
as possible from average specimens.

Acknowledgments are due to Professor Spencer A. Beach of Ames,
Iowa, who, while in charge of this Department previous to August, 1905,
had begun the collection and organization of information on grapes, much
of which has been used in this volume; to Mr. F. H. Hall, who as Station
Editor has read the manuscripts and proof sheets and given much valuable
assistance in organizing the information presented; to Zeese-Wilkinson &
Co., through whose zeal and painstaking skill the color-plates, which add so
much to the beauty and value of the book, have been made; and lastly to the
grape-growers of New York who have given information whenever called
upon and who have generously furnished grapes for descriptive and
photographic work.
U. P. HEDRICK,

Horticulturist, New York Agricultural Experiment Station.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE.

Preface v
Index to Illustrations xiii
Chapter I —The Old World Grape 1
Chapter II —American Grapes 26
Chapter III —The Viticulture of New York 68
Chapter IV —Species of American Grapes 95
Chapter V —The Leading Varieties of American Grapes 157
Chapter VI —The Minor Varieties of American Grapes 433
Bibliography and References with Abbreviations Used 531
Index: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z 537

INDEX TO ILLUSTRATIONS
Portrait of Edward Staniford Rogers Frontispiece
FACING PAGE

Agawam 158
America 168
Aminia 170
August Giant 172
Bacchus 174
Barry 178
Berckmans 182
Black Eagle 184
Black Hamburg (reduced size) 186
Brighton 192
Brilliant 194
Campbell Early 196
Canada 200
Carman 202
Catawba 204
Champion 210
Clinton 214
Colerain 218
Concord 220
Cottage 222
Creveling 224
Croton 226
Cynthiana 228
Delaware 232
Diamond 236
Diana 238
Downing 242
Dracut Amber 244
Dutchess 246

Early Ohio 248
Early Victor 250
Eaton 252
Eclipse 254
Elvira 260
Empire State 262
Eumelan 266
Goethe 276
Goff 278
Grein Golden 282
Hartford 284
Headlight 288
Herbert 292
Hercules 294
Hidalgo 296
Highland 298
Hybrid Franc 300
Iona 302
Ironclad 306
Isabella 308
Ives 312
James 314
Janesville 316
Jefferson 318
Jewel 320
Kensington 322
Lady 324
Lady Washington 326
Lindley 330
Lucile 332
Lutie 334
McPike 336
Manito 338
Marion 340

Massasoit 342
Merrimac 346
Mills 348
Missouri Riesling 350
Montefiore 352
Moore Early 352
Moyer 354
Muscat Hamburg (reduced size) 356
Nectar 358
Niagara 360
Noah 362
Norton 366
Othello 374
Pocklington 380
Red Eagle 384
Rochester 388
Rommel 392
Rupestris du Lot 114
Salem 398
Senasqua 402
Triumph 412
Ulster 414
Vergennes 416
Vitis Aestivalis, shoot of 138
Vitis, Canes of Species of 100
Vitis, Flowers of 104
Vitis Labrusca, Shoot of 150
Vitis riparia, Shoot of 118
Vitis rotundifolia, Shoot of 108
Vitis, Seeds of Species of 102
Vitis vinifera, Shoot of 154
Walter 420
Wilder 424
Winchell 426

Woodruff 428
Worden 430
Wyoming 432
Wyoming, Shoot of 152
THE GRAPES OF NEW YORK

CHAPTER I

THE OLD WORLD GRAPE
A single species of the grape is cultivated in the Old World. This is Vitis
vinifera, the grape of ancient and modern agriculture, the vine of the
allegories of sacred record and of the myths, fables and poetry of the Old
World countries. It is the vine which Adam and Eve cared for:—
“* * * they led the vine
To wed his elm; * * *.” Milton.

It is the vine which Noah planted after the deluge; the vine of Judah and
Israel, and of the promised land. Dionysus of the Greeks, Bacchus of the
Romans, found the grape and devoted his life to spreading it; for which he
was raised to the rank of a deity—god of vines and vintages. The history of
this grape is as old as that of mankind. It has followed civilized man from
place to place throughout the world and is one of the chief cultivated plants
of temperate climates. This fruit of sacred and profane literature has so
impressed itself upon the human mind that when we think or speak of the
grape, or vine, it is the Old World species, the vine of antiquity, that
presents itself.
The history of the Old World grape goes back to prehistoric times. Seeds
of the grape are found in the remains of the Swiss lake dwellings of the
Bronze Period and entombed with the mummies of Egypt. Its printed
history is as old as that of man and is interwritten with it. According to the
botanists, the probable habitat of Vitis vinifera is the region about the
Caspian Sea.[1] From here it was carried eastward into Asia and westward
into Europe and Africa. It is probable that the Phoenicians, the earliest
navigators, tradesmen and colonizers on the Mediterranean, carried it to the
countries bordering on this sea. Grape culture was developed in this region
a thousand years before Christ, for Hesiod, who wrote at this time, gave
directions for the care of the vine which need to be changed but little for
present practice in Europe. Pliny, writing a thousand years after, quotes
Hesiod as an authority on vine culture. Vergil and Pliny, during Christ’s
time, gave specific directions for the care of the vine. Vergil describes

fifteen varieties while Pliny gives even fuller descriptions of ninety-one
varieties and distinguishes fifty kinds of wine.
The authentic written history of the grape and of its culture really begins
with Vergil. Many other writers, Greeks and Romans, had discussed the
vine, but none so fully nor so well as Vergil in his Georgics, of which the
parts having to do with the vine may still be read with profit by the grape-
grower; as, for example, the following[2] in which he tells how to cultivate
and train:—
“Be mindful, when thou hast entomb’d the shoot,
With store of earth around to feed the root;
With iron teeth of rakes and prongs, to move
The crusted earth, and loosen it above.
Then exercise thy sturdy steers to plow
Between thy vines, and teach the feeble row
To mount on reeds, and wands, and, upward led,
On ashen poles to raise their forky head,
On these new crutches let them learn to walk,
’Till, swerving upwards with a stronger stalk,
They brave the winds, and, clinging to their guide,
On tops of elms at length triumphant ride.”[3]

His directions for pruning are equally fitting for present practice:—
“But in their tender nonage, while they spread
Their springing leaves, and lift their infant head,
And upward while they shoot in open air,
Indulge their childhood, and the nurslings spare;
Nor exercise thy rage on new-born life;
But let thy hand supply the pruning knife,
And crop luxuriant stragglers, nor be loth
To strip the branches of their leafy growth.
But when the rooted vines with steady hold
Can clasp their elms, then, husbandman, be bold
To lop the disobedient boughs, that strayed
Beyond their ranks; let crooked steel invade
The lawless troops, which discipline disclaim,
And their surperfluous growth with rigor tame.”

The history of the development of the vine from Vergil’s time through
the early centuries of the Christian Era and of the Middle Ages to our own
day, is largely the history of agriculture in the southern European countries;
for the vine during this period has been the chief cultivated plant of the

Greek and Latin nations. This history should furnish most instructive
lessons in grape-growing and in grape-breeding.
But interesting and profitable as a detailed account of the development
of the Old World grape would be, the brief outline in the few preceding
paragraphs must suffice for this work. The reader who desires further
information may find it in the agricultural literature in many languages and
dating back two thousand years.
What are the characters of the European grape and how does it differ
from the native grapes of America? The Old World grape is grown for wine;
the American grapes for the table. The differences in the fruit of the vines of
the two continents are largely the differences necessary for the two distinct
purposes for which they are grown. The varieties of Vitis vinifera have a
higher sugar and solid content than do those of the American species.
Because of this richness in sugar they not only make better wine but keep
much longer and can be made into raisins. The American grapes do not
keep well and do not make good raisins. Taken as a whole the European
varieties are better flavored, possessing a more delicate and a richer vinous
flavor, a more agreeable aroma, and they lack the acidity and somewhat
obnoxious foxy odor and taste of many American varieties. It is true that
there is a disagreeable astringency in some Vinifera grapes and that many
varieties are without character of flavor, yet, all and all, the species
produces by far the better flavored fruit. On the other hand, American table
grapes are more refreshing; one does not tire of them so quickly as they do
not cloy the appetite as do the richer grapes; and the unfermented juice
makes a much more pleasant drink. The characteristic flavor and aroma of
the varieties of Vitis labrusca, our most commonly cultivated native species,
are often described by the terms “foxy”[4] or “musky.” If not too
pronounced this foxiness is often very agreeable though, as with the flavor
in many exotic fruits, the liking for it must often be acquired, and of course
may never be acquired; yet the universal condemnation of this taste by the
French and some other Europeans is sheer prejudice. The bunches and
berries of the European grape are larger, more attractive in appearance, and
are borne in greater quantity, vine for vine or acre for acre. The pulp and
skin of the berries of Vitis vinifera are less objectionable than those of any
native species and the pulp separates more easily from the seeds. The
berries do not shell from the stem nearly so quickly, hence the bunches ship
better.

In comparing the vines, those of the Old World grape are more compact
in habit, make a shorter and stouter annual growth, therefore require less
pruning and training. The roots are fleshier, and more fibrous. The species,
taken as a whole, is adapted to far more kinds of soil, and to much greater
differences in environment, and is more easily propagated from cuttings,
than most of the species of American grapes. The cultivated forms of the
wild vines of this country have few points of superiority over their relative
from the eastern hemisphere, but these few are such as to make them now
and probably ever the only grapes possible to cultivate in America in the
commercial vineyards east of the Rocky Mountains. Indeed, but for the
fortunate discovery that the vine of Vitis vinifera could be grown on the
roots of any one of several species of the American grapes, the vineyards of
the Old World grape would have been almost wholly destroyed within the
last half century because of one of its weaknesses. This destructive agent is
the phylloxera,[5] a tiny plant louse working on the leaf and root of the
grape, which in a few years wholly destroys the European vine but does
comparatively little harm to most of the American vines. Three other pests
are much more harmful in the Old World vineyards than to the vines of the
New World; these are black-rot (Guignardia bidwellii (Ell.) V. & R.),
downy mildew (Plasmopara viticola (B. & C.) Berl. & De Toni), and
powdery mildew (Uncinula necator (Schw.) Burr.).
The susceptibility of the Old World grape to these parasites debars it
from cultivation in eastern America and so effectually that there is but little
hope of any pure-bred variety of it ever being grown in this region.
American viticulture must, therefore, depend upon the native species for its
varieties, though it may be hoped that by combining the good qualities of
the foreign grape with those of one or several of the species of this country,
or by combining and rearranging the best characters of the native species,
we may in time secure varieties equal in all respects to those of the Old
World. The comparative resistance of the American species to the
phylloxera, the mildews, and black-rot has been due to natural selection in
the contest that has been waged for untold ages between host and parasite.
The fact that the native species have been able to survive and thrive is a
guarantee of the permanence of the resistance thus acquired.
We have said that the Old World grape is debarred from cultivation in
eastern America. It is worth while considering how thorough the attempts to
grow it in this region have been and to give a more exact account of the

failures and their causes, for there are yet those who are attempting its
culture with the hope that we may sometime grow some offshoot of Vitis
vinifera in the region under consideration.
It is probable that the first European grapes planted in what is now
American soil, were grown by the Spanish padres at the old missions in
New Mexico, Arizona and California. Early accounts of some of these
missions speak of grapes which must have been planted before settlements
were made in eastern America. We need take no further account of these
vineyards except to say that in this region the European grape has always
been grown successfully, and that under the skilled hands of the mission
fathers, ever notable vineyardists and wine-makers, these early plantings
must have succeeded.
The English were the first to plant the Old World grape in the territory in
which this species fails because of the attacks of native parasites. Lord
Delaware seems to have been the original promoter of grape-growing in the
New World. In 1616 he wrote to the London Company urging the culture of
the grape as a possible source of revenue for the new colony.[6] His letter
seems to have been convincing, for it is on record that the Company in 1619
sent a number of French vine-dressers and a collection of the best varieties
of the grapes of France to Virginia. The Colonial Assembly showed quite as
much solicitude in encouraging the cultivation of the vine as did the
Company in London. The year of the importation of vines and vine-
dressers, 1619, the Assembly passed an act compelling every householder
to plant ten cuttings and to protect them from injury and stated that the
landowners were expected to acquire the art of dressing a vineyard, either
through instruction or by observation. The Company, to increase the interest
in vine-growing, showed marked favors to all who undertook it with
zealousness; promises of servants, the most valuable gifts that could be
made to the colonists, were frequent. Under the impulse thus given
vineyards were planted containing as many as ten thousand vines.[7]
In spite of a rich soil, congenial climate, and skilled vine-dressers,
nothing of importance came from the venture, some of the historians of the
time attributing the failure to the massacre of 1622; others to poor
management of the vines; and still others to disagreements between the
English and their French vine-dressers, who, it was claimed, concealed their
knowledge because they worked as slaves. It is probable that the latter
explanation was fanciful but the former must have been real for we are told

that the farms and outlying settlements were abandoned after the great
massacre. But the colony could hardly have recovered from the ravages of
the Indians before efforts to force the colonists to grow grapes were again
made; for in 1623 the Assembly passed a law that for every four men in the
colony a garden should be laid off a part of which was to be planted to
vines.[8]
In 1639 the Assembly again tried to encourage vine-growing by
legislative enactment, this time with an act giving a premium to successful
grape-growers.[9] Later, about 1660, a premium of ten thousand pounds of
tobacco was offered in Virginia for each “two tunne of wine” from grapes
raised in the colony. Shortly after, some wine was exported to England but
whether made from wild plants or cultivated ones does not appear. In spite
of the encouragement of legislative acts, grape-growing did not flourish in
Virginia.[10] The fact that tobacco was a paying crop and more easily grown
than the grape may have had something to do with the failure to grow the
latter. Or it may have been that the cheapness of Madeira, “a noble strong
drink,” as one of the Colonial historians puts it, had a depressing influence
on the industry. But still more likely, the foreign plants did not thrive.
Encouragement of the home production of wine did not cease in Virginia
for at least one hundred and fifty years; for in 1769 an enactment of the
Assembly was passed to encourage wine-making in favor of one Andrew
Estave, a Frenchman. As a result of the act of this time, land was purchased,
buildings erected, and slaves and workmen with a complete outfit for wine-
making were furnished Estave. The act provided that if he made within six
years ten hogsheads of merchantable wine—land, houses, slaves, the whole
plant was to be given to him. It is stated that this unusual subsidy is made
“as a reward for so useful an improvement.” Estave succeeded in making
the wine but it was poor stuff and he had difficulty in getting the authorities
to turn over the property which was to be his reward. This was finally done
by an act of the Assembly, however, the failure to make good wine being
attributed by all parties to the “unfitness of the land.”
An attempt was made to cultivate the European grape in Virginia early in
the eighteenth century on an extensive scale. Soon after taking office as
governor in 1710, Alexander Spotswood brought over a colony of Germans
from the Rhine and settled them in Spottsylvania County on the Rapidan
river. The site of their village on this river is now marked by a ford,
Germania Ford, a name which is a record of the settlement. That they grew

grapes and made wine is certain, for the Governor’s “red and white
Rapidan, made by his Spottsylvania Germans” is several times mentioned
in the published journals and letters of the time. But the venture did not
make a deep nor lasting impress on the agriculture of the colony.[11]
Several early attempts were made in the Carolinas and Georgia to grow
the Vinifera grape. It was thought, in particular, that the French Huguenots
who settled in these states in large numbers toward the close of the
seventeenth century would succeed in grape-growing but even these skilled
vine-growers failed. Their failures are recorded by Alexander Hewitt in
1779 as follows: “European grapes have been transplanted, and several
attempts made to raise wine; but so overshaded are the vines planted in the
woods, and so foggy is the season of the year when they ripen, that they
seldom come to maturity, but as excellent grapes have been raised in
gardens where they are exposed to the sun, we are apt to believe that proper
methods have not been taken for encouraging that branch of agriculture,
considering its great importance in a national view.” In Georgia, Abraham
De Lyon, encouraged by the authorities of the colony, imported vines from
Portugal and planted them at Savannah early in the eighteenth century but
his attempt, though carried out on a small scale in a garden, soon failed.
In Maryland, if the records are correct, a greater degree of success was
attained than in the states to the south. Lord Charles Baltimore, son of the
grantee of the territory, in 1662 planted three hundred acres of land in St.
Mary’s to vines. It is certain that he made and sold wine in considerable
quantities and the old chroniclers report that it was as good as the best
Burgundy. Efforts to grow the European grape in Maryland continued until
as late as 1828 when the Maryland Society for Promoting the Culture of the
Vine was incorporated by the State Legislature.[12] The object of the Society
was to “carry on experiments in the cultivation of both the European and
native grapes and to collect and disseminate all possible information upon
this interesting subject.” The organization was in existence for several years
and through its exertions practically all of the native sorts were tried in or
about Baltimore as well as many seedlings. Besides the achievements of the
Society as a body, their Secretary reports in 1831 that, through the
individual efforts of its members, there were then under cultivation near the
city of Baltimore several vineyards of from three to ten acres each and a
great number of smaller ones. This was several years after the introduction
of the Catawba and Isabella for which grape-growers in other parts of the

United States had largely given up the Vinifera sorts. Seemingly in every
part of the Union the grape of the Old World was tried, not once only, but
time and again before its culture could be given up.
The Swedes made some attempts at an early day to grow grapes on the
Delaware. Queen Christina instructed John Printz, governor of New
Sweden, to encourage the “culture of the vine” and to give the industry his
personal attention. Later when New Sweden had become a part of
Pennsylvania, William Penn encouraged vine-growing by importing
cuttings of French and Spanish vines; and several experimental vineyards
were set out in the neighborhood of Philadelphia, but all efforts to establish
bearing plantations came to naught. Penn’s interest in grape-growing seems
to have been greatly stimulated by wine made by a friend of his from native
grapes which grew about Germantown.
There are no detailed accounts of grape-growing by the Dutch of New
York but the following taken from the writings of Jasper Dankers and Peter
Sluyter, two Hollanders who visited New York in 1679, soon after the
English took possession of New Netherland, indicates that there had been
attempts to cultivate grapes.[13] “I went along the shore to Coney Island,
which is separated from Long Island only by a creek, and around the point,
and came inside not far from a village called Gravesant, and again home.
We discovered on the roads several kinds of grapes still on the vines, called
speck (pork) grapes, which are not always good, and these were not;
although they were sweet in the mouth at first, they made it disagreeable
and stinking. The small blue grapes are better, and their vines grow in good
form. Although they have several times attempted to plant vineyards, and
have not immediately succeeded, they, nevertheless, have not abandoned
the hope of doing so by and by, for there is always some encouragement,
although they have not, as yet, discovered the cause of the failure.” The
“speck” grape was without question Vitis labrusca and the small blue grape
was probably Vitis riparia.
Thirty years before the visit of Dankers and Sluyter the people of New
Netherland addressed a remonstrance to the home government regarding
certain abuses in the colony. This document[14] is headed with a chapter on
the productions of New Netherland in which the wild grapes are mentioned
and their cultivation is suggested. “Almost the whole country, as well the
forest as the maize lands and flats, is full of vines, but principally—as if
they had been planted there—around and along the banks of the brooks,

streams and rivers which course and flow in abundance very conveniently
and agreeably all through the land. The grapes are of many varieties; some
white, some blue, some very fleshy and fit only to make raisins of; some
again are juicy, some very large, others on the contrary small; their juice is
pleasant and some of it white, like French or Rhenish Wine; that of others,
again, a very deep red, like Tent; some even paler; the vines run far up the
trees and are shaded by their leaves, so that the grapes are slow in ripening
and a little sour, but were cultivation and knowledge applied here, doubtless
as fine Wines would then be made as in any other wine growing countries.”
Nicolls, the first English governor of New York, greatly desired to grow
the vine for wine-making. In 1664 he granted Paul Richards a monopoly of
the industry for the colony stipulating that he could make and sell wines
free of impost and gave him the right to tax any person planting vines in the
colony five shillings per acre.[15] Richards lived in the city of New York but
his vineyard, as indicated in the grant, was located on Long Island. It may
be assumed that this was the first attempt to grow grapes commercially in
the State of New York. It would seem that the governor by granting a
monopoly of the grape and wine industry took the surest means of killing
the infant industry. The Earl of Bellomont, a later governor of the Colony,
wrote to London with assurances of a great future of viticulture in the
Colony.[16] For over a century after, there were spasmodic efforts to grow
the Old World grape in and about New York City, and at the beginning of
the Revolutionary War there were a few small vineyards and some wine-
making on Manhattan Island.
There were many attempts to grow foreign grapes in New England. John
Winthrop, governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, had planted a vineyard
in one of the islands, known as “Governor’s Garden,” in Boston Harbor
before 1630. Vine-planters were sent to this colony in 1629.[17] There were
plantations at the mouth of the Piscataqua in Maine as early or before
Winthrop’s plantings were made. In granting a charter to Rhode Island in
1663, Charles II sought to encourage viticulture in that State by offering
liberal inducements to colonists who would grow grapes and make wine.[18]
But if grapes were grown, or wine made from the foreign grape, no great
degree of success was attained. Wine was made in plenty from the wild
grapes in all of the New England colonies so that it was not because of
Puritanical prejudices against wine that the grapes were not grown. The
glowing terms in which travelers returning to England spoke of the native

grapes and of the wine from them undoubtedly stimulated those founding
the colonies to make every effort to introduce the cultivated grape even
though the cold, bleak climate and thin soils of this northern region were
inhospitable to a plant which thrives best in the sunny southern portions of
Europe.
In only one of the states east of the Rockies is grape-growing recorded to
have gained even a foothold before the introduction of varieties of native
grapes. In this instance there is much doubt as to whether the varieties
grown were pure-bred Vitis vinifera. Louisiana, while owned by France,
grew grapes and made wine in such quantities, and the wine was of such
high quality, so several of the old chroniclers say, that the French
government forbade grape-growing in the colony. Since the wine-making
was in the hands of the Jesuits who had learned the art in Europe, and since
there were no cultivated varieties of native grapes at that time of which
there is record, the presumption among the early writers was that these
vineyards were of European grapes. Louisiana, however, was a vast and
undefined region and it is not known where these oft-mentioned vineyards
were located. It is probable in the light of what we now know that these
Louisiana Jesuits made wine from native grapes either wild or cultivated.
The time covered so far is the two hundred years in which America was
being colonized. We have seen that all of our European forefathers brought
with them a love of the vine, or more correctly, a love of wine, and that
throughout the period many experiments were made in all parts of the
eastern United States to grow varieties of Vitis vinifera. The experiments
were on a large scale and in the hands of expert vine-growers, as well
trained as their fellow colonists in South Africa, New Zealand, Australia
and South America, countries where the colonists grew the Old World
grapes as easily and as well as they are grown in the most favored parts of
Europe. It is certain that the failures recorded for these two hundred years
were not due to lack of effort on the part of the settlers. We now pass to
more recent efforts, even more thoroughly carried out, to grow the grape of
the Old World in this part of the New World. The discussion of these later
attempts cannot be full. The reader can readily turn to the horticultural
literature of the century just closed and find much fuller records of them
than space permits in this work.
One of the first and most notable of the vineyards in the eighteenth
century was that of Colonel Robert Bolling of Buckingham County,

Virginia. An account of his undertaking written by one of the Bolling family
some years later reads as follows: “It is now but little known that this
gentleman had early turned his attention to the cultivation of the vine, and
had actually succeeded in procuring and planting a small vineyard of four
acres, of European grapes, at Chellow, the seat of his residence: that he had
so far accomplished his object as to have the satisfaction of seeing his vines
in a most flourishing condition, and arrived at an age when they were just
beginning to bear; promising all the success that the most sanguine
imagination could desire, when, unfortunately for his family, and perhaps
for his country, he departed this life while in the Convention in Richmond,
in July, 1775. Thus all his fond anticipations of being enabled, in a short
time, to afford to his countrymen a practical demonstration of the facility
and certainty with which grapes might be raised, and wine made, in
Virginia, were suddenly frustrated; all his hopes and prospects blasted; and
owing to the general want of information, in the management of vines,
among us at that time; and the confusion produced by the war of the
revolution, which immediately followed, this promising and flourishing
little vineyard was totally neglected and finally perished.”[19]
At the time of Bolling’s death he was preparing to send to press a book
on grape-growing entitled A Sketch of Vine Culture. The book was never
printed but the manuscript was copied several times and parts of it were
printed contemporaneously in the Virginia Gazette, and subsequently in the
Bolling Memoirs and in the American Farmer.[20] Bolling’s book was
largely a compilation from European sources but it contained the
experiences and observations of the author in cultivating European grapes
in America and though not printed, was sufficiently distributed through
manuscript copies and through the papers and books mentioned above, to
give its author the honor of being the first American writer on grapes.
In an essay on the cultivation of the vine published in the first volume of
the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society[21] printed in
Philadelphia in 1771, a Mr. Edward Antill of Shrewsbury, New Jersey, gives
explicit directions for grape-growing and wine-making.[22] Antill describes
only foreign varieties and leads the reader to infer, though he does not say
so, that he has grown many varieties of these grapes successfully. But
neither his essay, nor his efforts at grape-growing, seemed to have
stimulated a grape industry worthy of note. This essay of Antill’s is the
second American treatise on the cultivation of the grape and was for many

years the chief authority on grape-growing in America. It is greatly to be
regretted that a treatise which was to be quoted for fifty years could not
have been more meritorious. The eighty quarto pages written by Antill give
little real or trustworthy information. It is a rambling discussion of
European grapes, wine-making, the temperance question, patriotism,
“wellfare of country,” and “good of mankind”. He quotes Columella, gives
methods of curing grapes for raisins, and winds up with a discussion of figs.
Yet a hundred years ago it was the chief work on grape-growing.
A Frenchman, Peter Legaux, founded a company in 1793 for the
cultivation of grapes at Spring Mill near Philadelphia. In 1800 he published
an account of his venture.[23] A vineyard of European grapes was set out
and the prospects seemed favorable for the success of the undertaking. But
the grapes began to fail, dissensions arose among the stock-holders, the
vineyards were neglected and the company failed. Legaux speaks of his
experience in grape-growing as follows:[24] “But if the native grapes of
America are not the most eligible for vineyards, others are now within the
reach of its inhabitants. Some years since I procured from France three
hundred plants from the three kinds of grapes in the highest estimation, of
which are made Burgundy, Champagne and Bordeaux wines. These three
hundred plants have in ten years produced 100,000 plants; which, were the
culture encouraged, would in ten years more, produce upwards of thirty
millions of plants; or enough to stock more than 8000 acres, at 3600 plants
to the acre, set about three feet and a half apart. I have also about 3000
plants raised from a single plant procured a few years since from the Cape
of Good Hope, of the kind which produces the excellent Constantia wines.
The gentlemen who at different times have done me the honour to taste
these wines can bear testimony to their good quality. Although made in the
hottest season, (about the middle of August) yet they were perfectly
preserved without the addition of a drop of brandy or any other spirit. And
in this will consist one excellency of the wines here recommended to the
notice of my fellow citizens; that being made wholly of the juice of grapes,
they will be light, wholesome, and excite an agreeable cheerfulness, without
inflaming the blood, or producing the other ill effects of the strong brandied
wines, imported from the southern parts of Europe. Since 1793, I have
confined my attention chiefly to the multiplication of my vines, to supply
the demand for plants, and to furnish an extended vineyard under my own

direction, whenever my fellow citizens possessing pecuniary means, should
be inclined to encourage and support the attempt.”
Out of this venture, however, came the Alexander grape, an offspring of
a native species, and not, as Legaux held, a foreign variety, which, as we
shall see later, was the first variety to be grown on a commercial scale in
eastern America. Johnson,[25] writing of Legaux’s work with the grape, says
that in 1801 cuttings were sent from the Spring Mill vineyards in quantities
of fifteen hundred to Kentucky and Pennsylvania and smaller quantities to
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia and Ohio, and
indicates that these cuttings in their turn were multiplied so that many
diverse experiments with foreign grapes arose from Legaux’s efforts.
Chief of the experiments which Legaux’s partial success in vine-growing
stimulated was carried on in Kentucky by The Kentucky Vineyard Society of
which John James Dufour, a Swiss, was leader.[26] It was to this Company
that Legaux had sent the fifteen hundred cuttings mentioned above as going
to Kentucky. Before founding his grape colony, Dufour had made a tour of
inspection of all the vineyards that he could hear of in what then constituted
the United States. His account of what he saw, given in his book The Vine
Dresser’s Guide, is the most accurate statement we have of grape-growing
in America at the beginning of the nineteenth century.
Dufour’s account, pages 18-24, runs as follows: “I went to see all the
vines growing that I could hear of, even as far as Kaskaskia, on the borders
of the Mississippi; because I was told, by an inhabitant of that town, whom
I met with at Philadelphia, that the Jesuits had there a very successful
vineyard, when that country belonged to the French, and were afterwards
ordered by the French government to destroy it, for fear the culture of the
grapes should spread in America and hurt the wine trade of France. As I had
seen but discouraging plantations of vines on that side of the Alleghany, and
as the object of my journey to America, was purposely to learn what could
be done in that line of business; I was desirous to see if the west would
afford more encouragement. I resolved therefore on a visit to see if any
remains of the Jesuits’ vines were still in being, and what sort of grapes they
were; supposing very naturally, that if they had succeeded as well as
tradition reported, some of them might possibly be found in some of the
gardens there. But I found only the spot where that vineyard had been
planted, in a well selected place, on the side of a hill to the north east of the
town, under a cliff. No good grapes, however were found either there, or in

any of the gardens of the country. * * * In my journeying down the Ohio, I
found at Marietta a Frenchman, who was making several barrels of wine
every year, out of grapes that were growing wild, and abundantly, on the
heads of the Islands of the Ohio River, known by the name of Sand grapes,
because they grow best on the gravels; a few plants of which are now
growing in one of our vineyards, given by the Harmonites under the name
of red juice. * * * The various attempts at vineyards that I heard of, which I
went to see, at Monticello, President Jefferson’s place; which, in 1799, I
perceived had been abandoned, or left without any care for three or four
years before, which proved evidently, that it had not been profitable: At
Spring Mill, on the Schuylkill, near Philadelphia, planted by Mr. Legaux, a
French gentleman, and afterwards supported by a wealthy Society formed
by subscription, at that City, for the express purpose of trying to extend the
culture of the grape. I saw that vineyard in 1796, 1799 and 1806. On the
estate of Mr. Caroll, of Carollton, below Baltimore, in Maryland; whither I
went on purpose from Philadelphia in 1796, there was a small vineyard kept
by a French vinedresser, and where they had tried a few sorts of the
indigenous grapes. At the Southern Liberties of Philadelphia, I saw in 1806,
a plantation of a large assortment of the best species of French grapes;
which a French vinedresser had brought over the Atlantic. They were at
their 2d or 3d years: they had not been attacked by the sickness: their nurse
was yet full of hope.—In 1796, I saw also, near the Susquehannah river, not
far from Middletown, a vineyard that had been planted by a German; but
who having died sometime before, the vineyard had been wholly neglected.
I was told, it had produced some wine; but it had suffered so much
delapidation, that I could not recognize the species of grapes.”
With full knowledge of the failures of the past in growing grapes, and
after his disheartening visits to a score or more of worthless vineyards
planted with the grapes of his native country, Dufour embarked in the
Kentucky Vineyard Society enterprise and gave the Old World grapes a
thorough trial on an extensive scale, with an abundance of capital, and, to
care for the vines, as skilled labor as could be obtained in the vineyards of
Europe. As was the case with all past undertakings of the kind so this one
proved a failure. In the words of Dufour “a sickness took hold of all our
vines except a few stocks of Cape and Madeira grapes.” The promoters
became disheartened and the vineyard after being cultivated for several
years was abandoned.

Members of the colony, thinking that a more favorable location might be
found elsewhere in the valley of the Ohio, settled at Vevay, Indiana, in
1802. Dufour and several of his relatives were granted the privilege of
purchasing lands with extended credit by an act of Congress May 1st, 1802.
They purchased 2500 acres at the location of the new colony in Indiana and
began anew the culture of the vine. For a time there was an element of
prosperity in the enterprise but the vines became diseased and died, only
one sort, the Cape or Alexander, gave returns for the care bestowed and by
1835 the Vevay vineyards ceased to exist. Could Dufour have foreseen the
value of the native grapes for cultivation and devoted the capital and energy
spent on European sorts to the best wild plants from the woods, grape
culture in America would have been put forward half a century.
Other experiments with Old World grapes were tried in 1803 by the
Harmonists, a religious-socialistic community founded in Germany, but
which finally settled in America. After temporary sojourns in other
settlements, the Harmonists founded a permanent colony in Pennsylvania
near Pittsburg. Here they planted ten acres of European grapes and grew
them with but temporary success, if any, for Dufour in 1826 visited the
colony and says: “None of the imported grapes do well there except the
Black Juice, of which I saw but one plant; it is too small a bearer to be
worth nursing.”[27] Again there was disaster to an extensive experiment in
the hands of skilled men. Besides having tried grape culture in
Pennsylvania, the Harmonists made plantations at New Harmony, Indiana,
where they settled for a time; but exact accounts of this experiment are
wanting.
One other of the many organized attempts to grow the foreign grapes
needs mention. When the Napoleonic wars were over a number of
Bonaparte’s exiled officers came to America. They were impoverished, and
in order to help them, as well as to insure their becoming permanent settlers
in the United States, the exiles were organized by American sympathizers
into a society for the cultivation of the vine and the olive. The society was
organized in the early fall of 1816 in Philadelphia and the remainder of the
year was spent in prospecting for a suitable location for the venture. The
colony finally decided to settle on the Tombigbee river in Alabama and
petitioned Congress for a grant of land in that region. In the end the
refugees obtained a grant from Congress of four contiguous townships, each
six miles square[28] for the culture of the vine and the olive.

In 1817, an installment of one hundred and fifty French settlers left
Philadelphia taking with them an assortment of grape and olive plants.
December 12, 1821, Charles Villars, one of the company, reported to the
American government[29] that there were then in the colony eighty-one
actual planters, 327 persons all told, with 1100 acres in full cultivation,
including 10,000 vines and that the company had spent about $160,000 in
the venture. Villars tells in full of the ups and downs of the Society. It was
apparent from the start that the olive could not be grown. The history of the
vineyards on the Tombigbee, as he tells it, is but a record of misfortune. All
efforts to cultivate the foreign vines resulted only in failure. The few vines
that the vintners made grow yielded a scant crop of miserable quality which
could not be made into wine because of ripening in the heat of summer. The
land was not adapted to growing grapes. The Society, meeting failure at
every turn, finally disbanded and the colonists were scattered. For a half
century after, there were records in the southern agricultural literature of the
attempts of stragglers or descendants of this colony to grow European
grapes in the South. Yet these grapes are not now cultivated in this region,
which seemingly has the climate and the soil of France.
The history of these French settlers on the Tombigbee is a most pathetic
one.[30] Many of the leaders had been officers of high rank in Napoleon’s
armies unaccustomed to field work and the hardships of a new country.
Here, in a rough and hardly explored country, part of which was overflowed
half of the year, visited by all the sicknesses inherent to such a location,
they passed several years in their attempts to grow European grapes. Failure
was predestined because of natural obstacles which by this time were
apparent, and was foreshadowed by so many previous unsuccessful
attempts that it would seem that this culminating tragedy in growing
European grapes could have been prevented. The certain failure of the
attempt makes all the more pathetic the story of the Vine and Olive Colony
on the Tombigbee.[31]
In closing the record of the Old World grape in America a few of the
later individual attempts to grow this grape must be recounted.
Three generations of Princes experimented with European grapes at the
famous Linnæan Botanic Garden, Flushing, Long Island. Wm. R. Prince[32]
author of A Treatise on the Vine, devoted his life to promoting the culture of
the grape in America. He tried all of the European sorts obtainable, “reared”
as he tells us, “from plants imported direct from the most celebrated

collections in France, Germany, Italy, the Crimea, Madeira, etc.; and above
two hundred varieties are the identical kinds which were cultivated at the
Royal Garden of the Luxembourg at Paris, an establishment formed by
royal patronage for the purpose of concentrating all the most valuable fruits
of France, and testing their respective merits.”[33] After nearly a half
century of experimentation he gave up the culture of foreign grapes and
largely devoted the last years of his life to growing and disseminating native
varieties, exercising, probably, a greater influence on the culture of
American grapes than any other of the many men who have helped improve
the grapes of this country.
Nicholas Longworth,[34] of Cincinnati, Ohio, experimented with the
European grapes for thirty years. His experience is best told in his own
words written in 1846: “I have tried the foreign grapes extensively for wine
at great expense for many years, and have abandoned them as unfit for our
climate. In the acclimation of plants I do not believe. The white,
Sweetwater grape is not more hardy with me than it was thirty years since,
and does not bear as well. I have tried them in all soils and with all
exposures.
“I obtained 5,000 plants from Madeira, 10,000 from France; and one-
half of them, consisting of twenty varieties of the most celebrated wine
grapes from the mountains of Jura, in the extreme northern[35] part of
France, where the vine region ends; I also obtained them from the vicinity
of Paris, Bordeaux, and from Germany. I went to the expense of trenching
one hundred feet square on a side hill, placing a layer of stone and gravel at
the bottom, with a drain to carry off the water, and to put in a compost of
rich soil and sand three feet deep, and planted on it a great variety of
foreign wine grapes. All failed; and not a single plant is left in my
vineyards. I would advise the cultivation of native grapes alone, and the
raising of new varieties from their seed.”[36]
The French Revolution drove a wealthy and educated Frenchman, M.
Parmentier, to New York at the beginning of the nineteenth century. He
planted about his place in Brooklyn a large garden in which there were
many grapes. This garden afterward became a commercial nursery from
which was distributed a considerable number of European grapes. Mr.
Robert Underhill at Croton Point on the Hudson was induced to plant a
vineyard of these but they soon went the way of all their kind, leaving Mr.
Underhill only a consuming desire to plant grapes. This desire bore fruit, as

we shall see. When the reign of terror had ceased, Parmentier returned to
France from whence he sent many grapes to friends in America. He left a
lasting impress on the horticulture and viticulture of America, through his
experimental efforts with plants and his contribution to American
horticultural literature. The Underhills (the father had been joined by his
sons R. T. and W. A. Underhill) planted a vineyard of Catawbas and
Isabellas in 1827. These vineyards grew until they covered seventy-five
acres, the product of which was marketed in the metropolis and nearby
cities. The grapes from this vineyard often sold for twenty-five cents a
pound and supplied the whole market of the region. The grape industry of
the Hudson River Valley began with Parmentier and the Underhills.
Another Frenchman, Alphonse Loubat, planted a vineyard of forty acres
at Utrecht, Long Island, containing about 150,000 plants of foreign
varieties. Here, we are told, “he strove against mildew and sun-scald for
several years, but had to yield at last, as the elements were too much for
human exertions to overcome.”[37] Loubat attempted to protect his grapes
from mildew by covering them with paper bags and was probably the
originator of the practice of bagging grapes.
Not infrequently one may still find some varieties of the Old World
grape grown out of doors with a fair degree of success in favored locations
but always by the amateur and never in a commercial vineyard. These few
pages rehearsing repeated failures without a single success, serve to show
the uselessness of attempting to grow foreign grapes in eastern America.
Their culture has been tried by thousands on a small scale and by many
individuals with experience, knowledge and capital on a large scale. With
all, the results have been the same; a year or two of promise, then disease,
dead vines and an abandoned vineyard.
The causes for these failures have been indicated. As Dufour says, “a
sickness takes hold of the vines.” Phylloxera, mildew, rot—native parasites
to which native grapes are comparatively immune—“take hold” of the
foreign sorts and they die.
It is probable, too, that our climate, at the North at least, is not well
suited to the production of the Old World grape. As a species, the Vinifera
grapes thrive best in climates equable in both temperature and humidity.
The climate of eastern America is not equable; it alternates between hot and
cold, wet and dry. The range in both temperature and humidity is far greater

than in the grape-growing regions of Europe, California, South Africa or
Australia. The fleshy roots of Vitis vinifera are more tender to cold than are
those of the species of northern United States and this would prevent its
culture becoming very general in many regions where native grapes can be
grown.
It is only in the regions west of the Rocky Mountains, and more
particularly in California, that the varieties of Vinifera are successfully
grown in America. The great viticultural interests of the far West are
founded upon the success of this one species. The native grapes can be
grown but they cannot compete in California with Vitis vinifera for any
purpose. Nevertheless American species are indispensable in this western
region for stocks upon which to graft the Vinifera varieties, and it is
probable that the time is not far distant when all California vines will be
upon American roots. Within the boundaries of latitude in which Vinifera
varieties are grown west of the Rocky Mountains the grape shows
wonderful adaptability; it is found at all elevations permitting fruit culture;
it grows on practically all soils; it thrives under irrigation or under dry
farming; it is given various kinds of treatment, including total neglect, and
still thrives; the number of varieties grown for wine, raisin and table grapes
runs into hundreds. The truly wonderful success met with in the cultivation
of this species west of the great continental divide makes all the more
remarkable the fact that in no place east of the divide will varieties of it
thrive.
We now pass to a consideration of the American grapes, their characters,
the early notices of them, their rise, their success, and their future—a more
pleasing task than to record disaster after disaster in growing the grape of
the Old World.

CHAPTER II

AMERICAN GRAPES
The grape is preeminently a North American plant. The genus Vitis is a
large one, from thirty to fifty species being distinguished for the world;
more than half of these are found on this continent. But few other plants in
America, or in the world, inhabit such varied and such extended areas. In
North America wild grapes abound on the warm, dry soils of New
Brunswick and New England, about the Great Lakes in Canada and in the
United States, and on the fertile river banks and in the valleys, rich
woodlands and thickets of the eastern and southern States. They thrive in
the dry woods, sandy sea-plains, and reef-keys of the Carolinas, Georgia
and Florida where the vines of the Scuppernong often run more than a
hundred feet over trees and shrubs, rioting in natural luxuriance. They
flourish in the mountains and limestone hills of the Virginias, Tennessee and
Kentucky. They are not so common in the West, yet found in almost all
parts of Missouri and Arkansas, and from North Dakota through Kansas to
southern Texas. Some wild grape is found in each of the Rocky Mountain
States on plain or mountain, or in river chasm or dry canon. Several species
are found in New Mexico, Arizona and California, where if they did not
furnish the Spanish padres of Santa Fe and San Diego with fruit for wine,
they suggested to them the planting of the first successful vineyards in the
United States.
How did the grape spread from the Carolinas to California and from
subtropical Mexico to the barren plains of Central Canada? Why divide into
its manifold forms in the distribution? These questions are of practical
import to the grape-grower and breeder who seeks to improve this fruit. The
knowledge of the distribution and evolution of plants obtained in the last
half century is so complete that these questions present few difficulties to
the naturalist of today. In answering them no one would now hold that the
numerous species and their sub-divisions were created separately for the
regions in which they grow. All would take the ground that the different
wild forms come from one ancestral species. We can waive the question as
to what the original species was and as to where it first grew.

It is certain that grapes have not been distributed over North America by
the hand of man. Probably they have been growing in the regions where
they are now found since before the migration of the first savages. The
agents of distribution have been natural ones, such as animals, birds, and
lake and river currents. These have widened the area of a species to limits
imposed by the hostile action of other plants and of animals and by
geographical and physical conditions. As a species has encroached upon a
new region, climate, soil, all of the conditions of environment, and the
contest with other living things, have gradually modified its characters until
in time it became so changed that it constituted a new species.
This descent from an original species with plants changed by
environment has given us, in America, types of the wild grape as widely
diverse as the regions they inhabit. The species found in the forests have
developed long slender trunks and branches in their struggle to attain
sunlight and air. At least two species are dwarf and shrubby, or infrequently
climbing, two to six feet high, growing in dry sands, on rocky hills and
mountains where roots must cling to rocks and penetrate into interstices.
Still another form runs on the ground and over low bushes and is nearly
evergreen, but in the herbarium can hardly be distinguished from a grape
whose habit of growth is strikingly different. Some are long-lived, growing
and bearing fruit for two or more centuries, while others reach no greater
age than the ordinary shrub. Some have enormous stems, a foot or more in
diameter, gnarled and picturesque and supporting a great canopy of branch
and foliage,[38] while others are slender in stem and graceful, almost
delicate, in character of vine. Not less remarkable than the differences in
structure is the adaptability of the genus and some of the species to varied
climatic conditions. Several of the wild grapes develop full size and display
natural luxuriance and fruit-bearing qualities only in the Middle States, but
may be found on dry, gravelly, wind-swept hills far to the north or in some
hot and humid atmosphere of the South, as if to show indifference to wet or
dry, heat or cold.
On the other hand there are many strong points of resemblance between
the score or more of species. The organs and characters that do not bear the
strain of changed environment, nor suffer in the perpetual warfare of nature,
are much the same in all of the species of Vitis. Thus the structure of
flowers, fruits and seeds is practically identical; all have naked-tipped
tendrils; leaves and leaf-buds are very similar; and the various species

usually hybridize freely. They are alike in the unlikeness of individual
plants in any of the species; that is, all of the individuals of the genus are
most variable and seeds taken from the same vine may produce plants quite
unlike one another and quite unlike the parent.
These few facts regarding the evolution and distribution of American
grapes lead to two important conclusions:
First, the species are so distributed throughout the United States, and
individuals of the species grow in such abundance and luxuriance, as to
suggest that we shall be able to improve and domesticate some one or more
of them for all of the agricultural regions of the country. For it is proved
that nearly all of the wild grapes have horticultural possibilities; and
experience with many plants teaches that the boundaries of areas inhabited
by the wild species of a given region coincide with those suited to the
production of the domesticated plant in that region. It is not possible to tell
where the grape-growing regions of the future are to be located; for species
and individuals of this fruit are so common that no one can say where the
grape is most at home in America.
Second, grapes are so variable and plastic in nature that, were it not
known from experience, it could be assumed that they would yield readily
to improvement. Besides being variable they hybridize freely and thus the
plant-breeder can obtain desirable starting points. There are indications that
some of the characters of grapes, at least, follow Mendel’s Law, and when
once these have been determined, and the more important unit characters
segregated and defined, it ought to be possible to combine and rearrange the
characters of this fruit with some system and surely with more certainty
than in the past.
This brief introduction leads us to the consideration of American grapes
as cultivated plants. We have seen that it is an absolute impossibility to
grow the Old World grape in eastern America. The fruit-growers in this
great region are forced to plant the native grapes if any. It required two
hundred years to establish this fact and it is less than a hundred years since
grape-growers have generally acknowledged it as a fact. What was known
of American grapes during the two hundred years wasted in attempting to
grow the foreign Vinifera? And what has been accomplished in a century in
ameliorating the native grapes?

The earliest European visitors to the Atlantic seaboard delighted in the
wild grapes which they found everywhere and which reminded them of the
Old World vineyards. Had they never seen such a fruit, the wild grapes
could not long have escaped their attention; for the Indians knew and used
them as they did potatoes, corn, and tobacco. In the narratives of the early
voyages the grape is often in the lists of the resources and treasures of the
new-found continent. Unfortunately it was not considered of great intrinsic
value but only suggested to the explorers that the grape of the old home
might be grown in the new home. Could a part of the exaggerated esteem
given by the early European travelers and home-seekers to sassafras,
ginseng and other such plants, have been bestowed upon the wild grapes
which over-run the country, viticulture would have taken rank with the
tobacco, lumber and the fish industries of the early settlers.
In the history of Vinland, or more properly Wineland, we find the first
record of American grapes.[39] Biarni Heriulfsson, a Norseman, while
making a voyage from Iceland to Greenland, 986 A. D., was driven by a
storm to the coast of New England but did not touch land. Leif the Lucky,
son of Eric the Red, about 1000 A. D., visited the country discovered by
Biarni. One of Leif’s men, Tyrker, a German who “was born where there is
no lack of either grapes or vines,” discovered grapes, whereupon Leif
named the country “Wineland.” Other Norsemen in at least two expeditions
visited Wineland, supposed to be a part of Rhode Island or Massachusetts,
and for centuries after, the land discovered by Leif the Lucky was known in
Icelandic literature as “Wineland the Good.” The first European to touch the
New World christened it after its grapes.
The next record we have of American grapes comes from an
Englishman, one Captain John Hawkins, who visited the Spanish
settlements in Florida in 1565.[40] In his account of the colony he speaks of
the wild grapes, comparing them, as did all the early explorers, with those
of Europe. He indicates further that the Spaniards had discovered the value
of the wild grape for domestic purposes and says that they had made twenty
hogsheads of wine in a single season. It is almost certain that this grape was
Vitis rotundifolia, best represented by the Scuppernong, which is commonly
found on the Atlantic sea-coast from Maryland to Florida.
The first English colonists, like the Norsemen, declared the new-found
world to be a natural vineyard. Amadas and Barlowe, sent out by Raleigh in
1584, described the land[41] “so full of grapes as the very beating and surge

of the sea overflowed them, of which we found such plenty, as well there as
in all places else, both on the sand and on the green soil, on the hills as on
the plains, as well as on every little shrub as also climbing towards the top
of high cedars, that I think in all the world the like abundance is not to be
found.”
Ralph Lane, in a subsequent expedition of Raleigh’s, in a letter to
Hakluyt, pronounced the grapes of Virginia to be larger than those of
France, Spain or Italy.[42]
The region described by Amadas and Barlowe is that of the two great
sounds, Albemarle and Pamlico, on the coast of North Carolina and more
specifically Roanoke Island. It was to this place that Raleigh sent his
expeditions, with one of which Amadas and Barlowe were connected, and
established the earliest colony of Englishmen in the New World. The first
home of Europeans in America was in Vinland, named for its grapes. The
first home of Englishmen was on Roanoke Island, “so full of grapes that the
very sea overflowed them.”
A few years later, Thomas Hariot, in a description of Virginia which
must have done much to decide the English as to the advisability of
establishing colonies in America, gave a detailed account of the
merchantable commodities the new countries afforded. Among these he
mentions grapes which he describes as being of two kinds that the soil
yields naturally and abundantly, of which one was small and sour and of the
bigness of the European grape while the other was of greater size and more
sweet and luscious. Hariot concludes his description with the statement that
“when they are planted and husbanded as they ought, a principal
commodity of wine may be raised.”[43]
Of the later accounts given of grapes in Virginia and the Carolinas by the
colonizers and adventurers of the seventeenth century there are so many
that it is impossible to present all and difficult to sort out those most apt. A
few more may be given:
Captain John Smith, soldier, colonizer and Virginian planter, writing in
1606 describes two sorts of wild grapes. He says:[44] “Of vines great
abundance in many parts that climbe the toppes of highest trees in some
places, but these beare but few grapes. Except by the rivers and savage
habitations, where they are not overshadowed from the sunne, they are
covered with fruit, though never pruined nor manured. Of those hedge

grapes we made neere twentie gallons of wine, which was like our French
Brittish wine, but certainely they would prove good were they well
manured. There is another sort of grape neere as great as a Cherry, this they
[Indians] call Messamins, they be fatte, and the juyce thicke. Neither doth
the taste so well please when they are made in wine.”
It is worthy of remark that the first English colonist in the New World
noticed that the vines in the vicinity of the Indian habitations and along the
edges of creeks, rivers and swamps, where not overshadowed from the sun,
were covered with fruit. The statement of this fact, coupled with the one
following, “but certainely they would prove good were they well manured,”
indicates that the possibility of successful cultivation of the wild grapes was
considered at this early time. In fact, as we have seen, Lord Delaware at
once sought to test the virtues of the native grapes by bringing over a
number of French vine-dressers, who not only planted cuttings imported
from Europe but proceeded at once to transplant the vine of the country.[45]
A few years later, according to Bruce, Sir Thomas Dale “established a
vineyard at Henrico not long after the foundation of that settlement,
covering an area of three acres, in which he planted the vines of the native
grape for the purpose of testing their adaptability to the production of wines
that could be substituted for those of France and Spain.”[46]
Francis Maguel, who visited Virginia in 1609, stated that the wine made
in the colony reminded him of the Alicante which he had drunk in Spain.[47]
The first Secretary of the Colony, William Strachey, was somewhat
fulsome in his praise of the new found fruit. Writing[48] in 1610, he says
that the vines burden every bush, climb to the top of the highest trees and
are always full of clusters of grapes though never pruned or manured. He
declares that the grapes are as good as those to be found between Paris and
Amiens and that the wine made by the settlers from the wild grapes was
equal to French or British wine, “being strong and headdy.” In closing his
description he states that by art and industry skillful vignerons could bring
viticulture unto such perfection as will enable the colony to export wine to
the mother country.
An anonymous writer in 1649, who sets out to give a “full and true
relation of the present state of the plantations, their health, peace and
plenty,” etc., etc., thought that the colony needed only some one to set an
example to the ordinary settlers to induce them to grow grapes. This writer

says: “Vines in abundance and variety, do grow naturally over all the land,
but by the birds and beasts, most devoured before they come to perfection
and ripenesse; but this testifies and declares, That the Ground, and the
Climate is most proper, and the Commodity of Wine is not a contemptible
Merchandize; but some men of worth and estate must give in these things
example to the inferior inhabitants and ordinary sort of men, to shew them
the gain and Commodity by it, which they will not believe but by
experience before their faces:”[49]
A hundred years later, according to Beverly, the grape was scarcely
cultivated, the masses of the people being content with the fruit of the wild
vines which grew everywhere in the forest. So far as is known there were in
Beverly’s time, 1722, no named varieties and there had been no efforts to
improve the wild grapes in any way. There are no indications from the early
writings to show that the Virginian settlers even knew how to propagate
grapes. The reason for this neglect is largely to be sought for in the last
sentence in the subjoined footnote from Beverly.[50] This neglect was in
spite of the fact that from the first the settlers had noted that when the vines
were open to the sun the crop was improved.
In the northern colonies, as in Virginia, about the first object to attract
the attention of the early settlers was the wild grape. The grape, possibly
more than any other natural product of the soil, is mentioned in the
preliminary surveys of the Atlantic Coast as offering reasonable ground for
the expectation that American soils would furnish all of the supplies
necessary for the sustenance and comfort of settlers. A few statements from
the early explorers and visitors in the Middle and New England States will
serve to show how plentiful wild grapes were in these regions and the
estimation in which they were held.
In Delaware, Beauchamp Plantagenet, describing a “Uvedale under
Websneck,” in his account of New Albion, says that it contains “four sorts
of excellent great vines running on mulberry and sassafras trees; there are
four sorts of grapes, the first is the Thoulouse Muscat, sweet scented, the
second the great fox and thick grape, after five months reaped being boiled
and salted, and well fined, it is a strong red Xeres; the third a light Claret,
the fourth a white grape creeps on the land, maketh a pure gold color white
wine; Tenis Pale, the Frenchman, of these four made eight sorts of excellent
wine, and of the Muscat acute boiled that the second draught will fox[51] a

reasonable pate four months old: and here may be gathered and made two
hundred ton in the vintage month, and replanted will mend.”
In New England the seventeenth century notices of the wild grape are
even more numerous than similar records to the south but they are briefer
and the northern observer did not recognize the possibilities of their
domestic use and of bringing them under cultivation. This seeming neglect
of the Puritans was not because the northern wild grapes are inferior to
those of Virginia and the Carolinas, but more likely because of the social
and industrial conditions of the colonists. The richer planters in the South
had time for wine-making, the only purpose for which grapes were then
grown, and for growing the grapes. The New Englanders had to struggle for
the necessities of life.
It is significant, too, that the Southerners were fond of wine, and
imported Madeira in large quantities. In New England, rum seems to have
been preferred to wine, and as its manufacture from molasses is very simple
and the latter was to be had from the West Indies at small cost, wine-making
and grape-growing received small attention.
Yet nearly all of the writers on the resources of the New England
Colonies mentioned grapes. Thus Governor Edward Winslow writing in
1621 of the country in which the Puritans had found a home says: “here are
grapes, white and red, and very sweet and strong also.” We have seen that
Winthrop was so impressed with the possibility of grape-growing in the
new colony that he secured a grant of Governor’s Island in Boston Harbor
upon which to plant a vineyard. In Thomas Morton’s New English Canaan
is found the best account of the wild grapes of New England as the Puritan
found them. He says:[52] “Vines, of this kinde of trees, there are that beare
grapes of three colours, that is to say: white, black, and red.
“The Country is so apt for vines, that (but for the fire at the spring of the
yeare) the vines would so over spreade the land, that one should not be able
to passe for them, the fruit is as bigg of some as a musket bullet, and is
excellent in taste.”
John Josselyn in New England’s Rarities, speaks of a grape having “a
taste of gunpowder,” a short but vivid description of Vitis labrusca.[53]
William Wood in New England’s Prospect gives still another account of the
grapes of New England.[54]

The references given are sufficient to show that the value of the native
grapes as a source of food and for wine was recognized by the first settlers
in practically all of the colonies and that their possibilities as cultivated
plants were considered by some of the colonizers. Yet for two hundred
years there were no zealous efforts made to cultivate American grapes.
Indeed, there are far fewer references to the wild grapes of the country in
the eighteenth century than in the seventeenth. The reasons for this neglect
of a plant which could so easily have been improved by cultivation, and this
must have been apparent, are several. During all of this period the European
grape was being tried and all hopes for viticulture were centered about it.
Again, fruit of any kind was not a common article of diet with Americans
until even so recently as a generation ago, and native grapes are dessert
fruits, not wine fruits, and wine was the purpose for which all grapes were
grown until the Catawba, the Concord and the Delaware whetted the
appetites of fruit eaters for a dessert grape.
In the history of the amelioration of the American grapes we can skip the
period from the early settlement of the country, a period represented by the
above quotations, to the first years of the United States as a lapse of time in
which there were no steps forward and in which even information
concerning grapes was scarcely increased. The evolution of American
grapes began with the opening of the nineteenth century, about the only
accounts of grapes during the eighteenth century worthy of note being those
of John Lawson, 1714; Robert Beverly, 1722; Col. Robert Bolling, 1765;
Edward Antill, 1769; and Peter Legaux, 1800. All of these writers excepting
Lawson were concerned with European grapes, and their relations to grape-
growing were therefore discussed in the chapter on the Old World grape. It
remains, however, to call attention to such statements as were made by
them of American grapes.
John Lawson, a Scotch engineer, spent eight years, beginning in 1700,
exploring and surveying North Carolina. A part of this time he was
Surveyor General for the State and through natural desire and vocation he
became familiar with the flora of North Carolina. In his history of that
State, written in 1714, he gives an account of its natural resources in which
the grapes of the region are several times described. He distinguishes six
kinds, three of which he mentions as having been removed to the gardens.
His fullest account runs as follows:[55]

“Among the natural fruits, the vine takes first place, of which I find six
sorts, very well known. The first is the black bunch grapes which yield a
crimson juice. These grow common and bear plentifully, they are of a good
relish, though not large, yet well knit in the clusters. They have a thickish
skin and large stone, which makes them not yield much juice. There is
another sort of black grapes like the former in all respects, save that their
juice is of a light flesh color, inclining to a white. I once saw a spontaneous
white bunch grape in Carolina; but the cattle browzing on the sprouts
thereof in the spring, it died. Of those which we call fox grapes, we have
four sorts; two whereof are called summer grapes, because ripe in July; the
other two winter fruits, because not ripe till September or October. The
summer fox grapes grow not in clusters or great bunches, but are about five
or six in a bunch, about the bigness of a damson or larger. The black sort are
frequent, the white not so commonly found. They always grow in swamps
and low, moist lands, running sometimes very high and being shady, and
therefore proper for arbours. They afford the largest leaf I ever saw to my
remembrance, the back of which is of a white horse flesh color. This fruit
always ripens in the shade. I have transplanted them into my orchard and
find they thrive well, if manured. A neighbor of mine has done the same;
mine were by slips, his from the roots, which thrive to admiration, and bear
fruit, though not so juicy as the European grape, but of a glutinous nature.
However it is pleasant enough to eat.
“The other winter fox grapes are much of the same bigness. These refuse
no ground, swampy or dry, but grow plentifully on the sand hills along the
sea coast and elsewhere, and are great bearers. I have seen near twelve
bushels upon one vine of the black sort. Some of these, when thoroughly
ripe, have a very pretty vinous taste and eat very well, yet are glutinous.
The white sort are clear and transparent, and indifferent small stones. Being
removed by the slip or root, they thrive well in our gardens, and make
pleasant shades.”
In another part of his history, Lawson says that in 1708 the French
Huguenots on Trent River, North Carolina, were cultivating European
grapes for wine-making.[56] Again he devotes several pages to the subject of
grape-growing in North Carolina.[57] He held that this “noble vegetable”
could be brought to the same perfection as in similar latitudes in Europe. He
states that Nathaniel Johnson had rejected all exotic vines and was
cultivating native sorts from which he was making excellent wine. Lawson

admonishes his readers that in a new country the settlers are under the
necessity of making use of the natural products of the soil of which, in
Carolina, the wild grape is most worthy of notice. He calls attention to the
fact that conditions are so different in America that European methods of
cultivation and care cannot be followed. Lastly he states that he had planted
seeds from the white grapes of Madeira from which he hoped to raise a
vineyard. Lawson is deserving of esteem as an energetic pioneer, an
accurate historian, as one of the first American naturalists, and as an early
vineyardist and horticulturist, for he experimented with other fruits than the
grape. Poor Lawson was burned to death by the Indians in the prime of his
career, cutting short experiments which might have materially hastened the
establishment of viticulture in America.
The best account of the grapes of Virginia given in the later colonial
times is that of the historian Robert Beverly who is very explicit in his
description of the sorts growing wild in that State. He describes them as
follows:[58] “Grapes grow there [Virginia] in an incredible plenty, and
variety; some of which are very sweet and pleasant to the taste, others
rough and harsh, and perhaps fitter for wine or brandy. I have seen great
trees covered with single vines, and those vines almost hid with the grapes.
Of these wild grapes, besides those large ones in the mountains, mentioned
by Batt in his discovery, I have observed four very different kinds, viz:
“One of the sorts grows among the sand banks, upon the edges of the
low grounds, and islands next the bay, and sea, and also in the swamps and
breaches of the uplands. They grow thin in small bunches, and upon very
low vines. These are noble grapes; and though they are wild in the woods,
are as large as the Dutch gooseberry. One species of them is white, others
purple, blue and black, but all much alike in flavor; and some long, some
round.
“A second kind is produced throughout the whole country, in the
swamps and sides of hills. These also grow upon small vines, and in small
bunches; but are themselves the largest grapes as big as the English bullace,
and of a rank taste when ripe, resembling the smell of a fox, from whence
they are called fox grapes. Both these sorts make admirable tarts, being of a
fleshly substance, and perhaps, if rightly managed, might make good
raisins.

“There are two species more, that are common to the whole country,
some of which are black, and some blue on the outside, and some white.
They grow upon vast, large vines, and bear very plentifully. The nice
observer might, perhaps, distinguish them into several kinds, because they
differ in color, size and relish; but I shall divide them only into two, viz: the
early, and the late ripe. The early ripe common grape is much larger,
sweeter, and better than the other. Of these some are quite black, and others
blue, and some white or yellow; some also ripen three weeks, or a month
before the other. The distance of their ripening, is from the latter end of
August, to the latter end of October. The late ripe common grapes are less
than any other, neither are they so pleasant to the taste. They hang
commonly to the latter end of November, or till Christmas; all that I have
seen of these are black. Of the former of these two sorts, the French
refugees at the Monacan Town made a sort of claret, though they were
gathered off of the wild vines in the woods. I was told by a very good judge
who tasted it, that it was a pleasant, strong, and full-bodied wine. From
which we may conclude, that if the wine was but tolerably good, when
made of the wild grape, which is shaded by the woods from the sun, it
would be much better, if produced of the same grape cultivated in a regular
vineyard.”
Beverly could write with some authority on grapes for he was at that
time much interested in the general question of grape-growing. Besides he
was of an inquiring mind and seems to have been an untiring experimenter
with the agricultural plants of his own and other lands. Charles Campbell in
his introduction to the reprint of Beverly’s Virginia in 1855, gives the
following account of a vineyard planted by the historian: “John Fontaine,
son of a Huguenot refugee, having come over from England to Virginia,
visited Robert Beverly, the author of this work, in the year 1715, at his
residence, near the head of the Mattapony. Here he cultivated several
varieties of the grape, native and French, in a vineyard of about three acres,
situated upon the side of a hill, from which he made in that year four
hundred gallons of wine. He went to very considerable expense in this
enterprise, having constructed vaults of a wine-cellar. But Fontaine
comparing his method with that used in Spain, deemed it erroneous, and
that his vineyard was not rightly managed. The home-made wine Fontaine
drank heartily of, and found it good, but he was satisfied by the flavor of it
that Beverly did not understand how to make it properly. * * * He had laid a

sort of wager with some of the neighboring planters, he giving them one
guinea in hand, and they promising to pay him each ten guineas, if in seven
years he should cultivate a vineyard that would yield at one vintage seven
hundred gallons of wine. Beverly thereupon paid them down one hundred
pounds, and Fontaine entertained no doubt but that in the next year he
would win the thousand guineas.” And Beverly won the guineas.
Bolling in his Sketch of Vine Culture, 1765, mentions native grapes only
as they indicate to him the adaptability of the country for the European
sorts. Yet he suggests, and was probably the first to do so, the possibility of
hybridization between American and the European species. He says:
“Would it not be well for us to attempt the raising of new varieties, by
marrying our native with foreign vines?” He then gives a plan whereby the
vines may be planted as to “so interlock their branches as that they shall be
completely blended together.” He says, “they will then feed from the
blossoms of each other, and when the fruit is ripe, and if seeds are saved
from it and sown in nurseries, * * * it is probable that we shall obtain other
varieties better adapted to our climates and better for wine and table, than
either of those kinds from which they sprung.” Beyond these brief mentions
Bolling does not discuss native grapes, though he tells of the origin of the
Bland grape, which we now know to be a native, and wrongly says that it
grew from the seed of a European raisin.
Antill, in his Essay on the Cultivation of the Vine, a treatise discussed in
the previous chapter, gives no varieties of native grapes, though he says that
he had just entered upon a trial of them. His brief discussion of American
vines is well worth quoting in full as showing the status of the species
known to Antill just previous to the Revolutionary War:[59]
“The reason for my being silent about vines that are natives of America,
is, that I know but little of them, having but just entered upon a trial of
them, when my very ill state of health forbade me to proceed: From what
little observation I have been able to make, I look upon them to be much
more untractable than those of Europe, they will undergo a hard struggle
indeed, before they will submit to a low and humble state, a state of abject
slavery. They are very hardy and will stand a frame, for they brave the
severest storms and winter blasts, they shrink not at snow, ice, hail or rain;
the wine they will make, I imagine from the austerity of their taste, will be
strong and masculine.

“The Fox-Grape, whose berries are large and round, is divided into three
sorts, the white, the dark red and the black; the berries grow but thin upon
the bunches, which are plain without shoulders. They delight most in a rich
sandy lome, here they grow very large and the berries are sweetest, but they
will grow in any grounds, wet or dry; those that grow on high dry grounds
generally become white, and the colour alters to a dark red or black,
according to the lowness and wetness of the ground; the situation I think
must greatly affect the Wine, in strength, goodness and colour; the berries
are generally ripe the beginning of September, and when fully ripe they
soon fall away; thus much I have observed as they grow wild. What
alteration they may undergo, or how much they may be improved by proper
soils and due cultivation I cannot say.
“There is a small black Grape, a size bigger than the winter Grape, that
is ripe in September; it is pleasant to eat, and makes a very pretty Wine,
which I have drank of, it was four years old, and seemed to be the better for
its age; the colour was amber, owing to the want of knowing how to extract
the tincture; this Grape is seldom to be found; there is a Vine of them near
John Taylor, Esq; at Middletown, Monmouth, and there are some of them in
Mr. Livingston’s Vineyard at Piscataqua in New-Jersey. I think they are
well worth propagating.
“The frost or winter Grape is known to every body, both the bunches and
berries are small, and yield but little juice, but the richness of the Wine may
make up for the smallness of the quantity; the taste of the Grape is austere
till pretty hard frosts come, and then it takes a favourable turn and becomes
very sweet and agreeable; this Vine shoots forth great numbers of slender
branches, and might do very well for the south and southeast sides of a
summer-house or close walk, if all the useless and barren branches were cut
away.
“The Vines of America are fit for strong high espaliers, but if I mistake
not, he must watch them narrowly, must take away every unnecessary and
unprofitable branch, and trim them sharp and close, that means to keep
them within bounds.”
Peter Legaux, in his patriotic address “To the People of the American
States,”[60] wherein he admonishes them the culture of the vine is a national
duty, was intent, as we have seen, on making the Old World grape grow in
America—even if it were necessary to palm off an American sort as an Old

World kind. He dismisses American grapes with even less attention than
Antill gave them, his sole notice of them being embodied in the remarks
that “with skillful management many of them would make good and
wholesome wines” and that “if the native grapes of America are not the
most eligible for vineyards, others are now within the reach of its
inhabitants.” Indirectly he was, however, of great service in distributing the
first native varieties, for as Rafinesque says, “by calling our Bland and
Alexander grapes Madeira and Cape, he was instrumental in diffusing them
among those who would not have noticed nor bought them if known as
native vines.”
Following Legaux’s address of 1800 several treatises were written within
a few years which give us a very clear idea of the status of the American
grapes at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Chief of these, and
probably in chronological order, is a paper in The Domestic Encyclopedia
on the vine, written by James Mease, M. D.[61] It appears that Dr. Mease
wrote in 1802 but the Encyclopedia did not appear until 1804.[62] Embodied
in the article is an “interesting paper on the vines of the United States drawn
up by William Bartram at the request of the editor.” Bartram’s paper was
written in the spring of 1802. Mease’s discussion of the vine merits especial
attention. While the best of Antill’s and Legaux’s observations are made use
of, yet much is added to them and the paper is far more reasonable in every
respect than those of either of the two previous writers, and is wholly
lacking in the ostentatious modesty and circumlocution of Antill and the
grandiloquence and self esteem of Legaux. It may justly be considered the
first rational discussion of the culture of the grape in America.
Mease’s paper deserves attention for another reason. It contains the first
public utterance condemning the culture of the Old World grape and
recommending the cultivation of native grapes. He says: “From the
experience, however, of the editor and his friends who have found much
difficulty in naturalizing foreign vines, he recommends the cultivation of
the native grapes of the United States, particularly the Vitis sylvestris, [Vitis
aestivalis] or small blue or bunch grape; Bland’s, Tasker’s or Alexander’s,
and the bull-grape of Carolina and Georgia.” It appears from the whole
discussion by Mease and Bartram in this treatise that the only varieties of
native grapes cultivated in 1804 were Alexander’s or Tasker’s grape,
Bland’s grape, the Bull grape[63] of Carolina and Georgia, and the Raccoon
grape.

Two years later, 1806, S. W. Johnson[64] and Bernard McMahon[65]
published accounts of the cultivation of the vine. Johnson mentions three
American varieties, the “Bull or Bullet grape, Bland’s grape and the
Alexander’s or Tasker’s grape.” Johnson has nothing to say of the
desirability of cultivating the above or other native sorts and confines his
discussion largely to Legaux’s work with European grapes. McMahon
advocates the introduction of foreign grapes and says almost nothing about
the native species. As American varieties he mentions those given by
Johnson, omitting the Bull grape.
One of the first, if not the first, extensive centers of native grape-
growing in America was about York, Pennsylvania. In 1818, Mr. Thomas
Eichelberger, an enterprising German vine-grower, set out four acres of
grapes at this place and demonstrated that grapes could be grown
successfully. The original vineyard was increased to about twenty acres and
other plantations were made until in 1826 there were in the immediate
neighborhood of the borough of York one hundred and fifty acres of
vineyards. The account of these vineyards states further:[66] “In Adam and
Westmoreland the culture of the vine is also attended to and one gentleman
in Chester has a vineyard of thirty acres.” The grape most commonly grown
in this region was known to the growers as “Black or York Madeira” and
was supposed to have been introduced from the Island of Madeira. Prince
pronounced the grape to be a native and the then commonly grown
Alexander. Other popular sorts in this region were the York Claret, a native
resembling Alexander; and York Lisbon, described as “having considerable
affinity to Alexander but having a larger and more acid fruit.” Beside these
there were several less well known sorts none of which is heard of now.
Before the industry began to wane about York the Catawba and Isabella had
taken the place of the first named sorts and these eventually succumbed for
most part to grape diseases. In looking up the history of varieties of grapes
for this work, a surprisingly large number have been traced back to this
early center of the industry, so many that York and Lancaster Counties,
Pennsylvania, must be counted among the starting places of American
viticulture.
We have seen that for some years previous to Johnson and McMahon
there had been efforts to grow Vitis vinifera in many widely separated
regions. The futility of attempting to grow the Old World grape became
apparent, so far as we may judge from written accounts, to but few men,

however. To Dr. James Mease must be accorded the honor of first
perceiving and setting forth in print the fact that American viticulture must
rise from native grapes. Possibly the second man to voice the same
sentiment was Thomas Jefferson, ever alert for the agricultural welfare of
the country, who wrote to John Adlum in 1809, speaking of the Alexander
grape:[67] “I think it will be well to push the culture of that grape without
losing time and efforts in search of foreign vines, which it will take
centuries to adapt to our soil and climate.” It is probable that Jefferson, who
it appears was a frequent correspondent of Adlum’s, stimulated the latter to
the publication of a book on grape culture. This appeared in 1823, “for the
purpose”, as the author says in his preface, “of diffusing some practical and
useful information throughout the country on the best method of cultivating
the native grape and of making Wine”.
Thus Adlum’s[68] Cultivation of the Vine was the first American book on
American grapes. The author’s intentions, as indicated in his preface,
quoted above, were good; but his book, as an exposition on native grape
culture, is a failure. The work is concerned for most part with wine-making
and his cultural directions are taken almost wholly, such as they are, from
European books. In the last four pages of the treatise he describes twenty-
two varieties of grapes of which perhaps a dozen are native sorts. In this
edition the Catawba is described as the Tokay but in a second edition,
published in 1828, the name is changed from Tokay to Catawba. Adlum was
one of the first to call attention to the Catawba and was at the time its chief
distributor. He advocated in his book, and in the papers of the time, the
establishment of an experimental farm[69] upon which could be grown
“cuttings of the different species of the native Vine to be found in the
United States, to ascertain their growth, soil, and produce, and to exhibit to
the Nation, a new source of wealth, which has been too long neglected.”
Adlum did not write from theory alone for he was the owner and
cultivator of vineyards near Georgetown, in the District of Columbia, where
he grew both native and foreign grapes. The latter he finally discarded with
the statement that the way to success in America “is to drop most kinds of
foreign vines at once (except a few for the table) and seek for the best kinds
of our largest native Grapes”. The best information from Adlum’s pen
regarding native grapes and their culture is to be found in the American
Farmer, published in Baltimore. He wrote mainly during the years 1824 to
1830. He was neither a clear nor an accurate writer and his imagination and

enthusiasm had full sway at all times; yet, notwithstanding these faults, he
must be counted as one of the geniuses of his day, as devoted to the welfare
of the country, as having almost a prophetic vision, and as actuated by the
best of motives. His struggle for a national experimental vineyard, the work
of his pen, his dissemination of the Catawba and other grapes, and his
vineyard experiments, give Adlum a high place among the improvers of
American grapes.
John James Dufour gives the next glimpse of the beginnings of
American viticulture in his Vine Dresser’s Guide published in Cincinnati in
1826. It is but a glimpse, however, for Dufour was a foreigner, and, as we
have seen, came to America to grow the Old World grape. His efforts at
grape-growing furnished the climax to the two centuries of failures in
growing Vitis vinifera in America but did not benefit the new viticulture of
the country greatly.[70] His only contribution of note was one made in spite
of himself, namely the introduction of the Alexander, which he incorrectly
called Cape, an American grape, as a commercial variety, Legaux having
first brought it prominently to notice. Dufour would never admit that this
variety, the only one to succeed in his vineyards in Kentucky and Indiana,
was a native grape and says of it in the preface of his book: “I will also try
to save the character of our Cape grapes from being made merely wild
grapes, because some are now found in the woods; and, to put any one in
the way to distinguish wild from tame grapes, I will give the description of
the botanical characters of the blossom of both sorts.” In his text he fulfills
the promise in the preface and devotes some pages to “save the character of
our Cape grapes.”
Dufour’s visit of inspection of the vineyards of the country in 1799 has
been noted in discussing the Old World grape. In this trip only foreign
grapes interested him and he mentioned the wild species but to condemn
them for cultivation. In his book published twenty-seven years later he
shows no change of opinion and though at this time there were a number of
meritorious native sorts he describes only European varieties. Dufour was a
true foreigner and could find little of value in the New World that did not
come from the Old World.
Rafinesque, writing in 1830, in his American Manual of the Grape Vines,
gives an account of forty-one species of native grapes. Unfortunately his
“species” are founded upon the slightest differences in vine or fruit and his
observations were so poorly made that his botanical studies of the grape are

now wholly discredited by botanists. He gives an account of the acreage in
vineyards existing in the United States in 1825 and 1830. This is the earliest
estimate of the vineyard acreage of the country and is therefore a landmark
in American viticulture. It is as follows:[71] “In 1825 I collected an account
of our principal vineyards and nurseries of vines. They were then only 60 of
1 to 20 acres each, altogether 600 acres. While now, in 1830, they amount
to 200 of 3 to 40 acres, or nearly 5000 acres of vineyards. Thus having
increased tenfold within 5 years, at which rate they promise to become a
permanent and increasing cultivation.”
Viticulture took its place in the literature of American pomology with the
advent of William Robert Prince’s A Treatise on the Vine. This work,
magnificent compared with similar books of the time, introduces native
grapes to the fruit-growers of America. Prince was the fourth proprietor of
the same name of the Prince nurseries at Flushing, Long Island, and he with
his predecessors had assiduously cultivated European varieties of grapes
hoping to acclimatize them to American conditions. It is not a matter of
wonder therefore, that much of his book is devoted to foreign grapes. His
collection at Flushing consisted of over four hundred and fifty sorts and
many of these he describes. In spite of his attraction to the foreign varieties,
some of which had been tested in his nursery for two or three generations,
Prince admitted the impossibility of growing them successfully and
recommends to his readers and patrons the cultivation of native varieties. In
the latter regard he says: “* * * after all my own experiments I have come
to this conclusion, that to establish vineyards of the most profitable
description, with a certainty of regular crops in localities north of the
highlands in this state, native varieties alone should be selected; and the
whole of the eastern states will of course be comprised in this remark.”
In his treatise, Prince described about seventy varieties of native grapes
and several of the native species. Prince’s descriptions of these grapes are
comprehensive and judging from the sorts described by him which we now
have they are accurate. He grew seedlings from many of them. He showed a
knowledge of the possibilities of hybridization of American species with
Vitis vinifera. He solicited and obtained seeds and vines from all the settled
portions of the Union. His grape correspondents in different parts of
America and of the world must have numbered hundreds. Prince’s
enthusiasm and perseverance in grape culture attached to him votaries in all
fruit regions and to him more than to any other man was due that friendly

interchange of knowledge and sentiment regarding grapes which
characterized the half century after the appearance of his book. Such co-
operation as was manifested in grape-growing in the second and third
quarters of the nineteenth century has never been known in the culture of
any other species of plant in this country and to it is largely due the progress
of viticulture in leaps and bounds dating from Prince’s time.
With the close of the year 1830, we may consider viticulture a firmly
established industry in America with the native grapes as a basis.
Rafinesque’s estimate of the acreage at this time is given on a preceding
page (47). It is worth while considering, very briefly, the types of grapes
under cultivation at this stage of the industry, with some discussion of the
origin of the leading varieties.
The first grape to become generally distributed as a commercial variety,
was, as has been remarked before, the Alexander, or Cape. It came into
prominence, through the deception of Legaux and the credulity of Dufour,
as one of the Viniferas commonly grown at the Cape of Good Hope. It
proved, however, to be an offshoot of the fox grape of the woods, Vitis
labrusca, and had been grown, long before Legaux palmed it off as the
Cape, under the names Alexander and Tasker’s, Alexander because of its
having been grown by a gardener of this name and Tasker’s through its
cultivation on a somewhat extensive scale by a Mr. Tasker in Maryland. Its
history dates back to the years before the Revolutionary War and its origin
was probably on the banks of the Schuylkill in Pennsylvania, hence another
of its many synonyms, Schuylkill Muscadell.
Of the several other native varieties of the Labrusca type cultivated in
1830, two deserve attention for their intrinsic and historical value. The
Catawba, of uncertain origin, as we shall see in its history, and the Isabella,
a native of South Carolina, are both classed by most viticulturists as of the
fox or Labrusca type. The two varieties were distributed among vine-
growers at about the same time but the Catawba, because of its superior
merits, soon took the lead and at the time of which we write was by far the
most popular native grape. These, with the Alexander, may certainly be
considered the forerunners of the cultivated grapes of the species to which
they belong. The Catawba is still in several great grape regions of the
country the standard commercial variety.

While varieties of Vitis labrusca were first cultivated in the North, it is
probable that Vitis rotundifolia furnished the first domesticated varieties for
the South, and likely, too, before the northern kinds were cultivated. Among
these are the white and black Scuppernongs, or bullet grapes. Vitis
rotundifolia, while it refuses to grow out of its habitat, runs riot from
Maryland to Florida from seashore to mountains and in many diverse soils.
The Scuppernongs[72] are natural offshoots of this species and are known in
the South in legend, tradition and history. Undoubtedly they were cultivated
for their fruit or as ornamentals in garden or vineyards from the earliest
colonial times. It is certain that wine was made from the different wild types
of Vitis rotundifolia from the settlement of Jamestown and if not brought
under cultivation at an early day it was because the bountifulness of the
wild vines obviated the necessity of domesticating them. It was of this
grape that Amadas and Barlowe wrote in 1584 “in all the world the like
abundance is not to be found.”
The word Scuppernong[73] is often used to designate a group of grapes
rather than as a varietal name; for, there are the black Scuppernong, the
white or green Scuppernong and the red Scuppernong, all much alike
except in color of fruit and in a few minor characters of vine. Indeed, where
Vitis rotundifolia grows wild, all of the forms are often included in the term
Scuppernong. The species is often known, too, as the Muscadine or
Southern Muscadine.
While the Labruscas were becoming established in the North and the
Scuppernongs in the South, two other species, one northern and one
southern, came into prominence with varieties which for wine-making at
least were far superior to any other native sorts. The southern species is
Vitis aestivalis, best represented then and now by Norton while the northern
species is Vitis riparia and its variety under cultivation was the Clinton,
which still remains one of the best representatives of the species.[74] It is
strange that these four species were brought under cultivation only when
wild forms of them, so striking in value that they still remain a hundred
years later standard cultivated varieties, had been found. Vitis labrusca
represented by Catawba, Vitis rotundifolia, by Scuppernong, Vitis aestivalis,
by Norton, and Vitis riparia, by Clinton, are, after a century of
improvement, with several hundred varieties, scarcely excelled by others of
their species. Yet it is not so much the wonder that grape-breeders have so
little improved upon these first varieties, as that our forefathers could allow

them to grow comparatively neglected at their doors for two centuries while
they wasted time in the attempt to grow a foreign grape that had been a
failure from the very start.
Other species had also been tried at this time. Those indefatigable
botanists and horticulturists, the Princes, had grown plants of what we now
know as Vitis aestivalis lincecumii Munson, Vitis longii Prince, and Vitis
cordifolia Michx., but without finding them of value. It is interesting to note
that the first named species, the Post-oak grape, now promises to furnish
valuable varieties for the South and that it has some characters desirable for
the North if they can be combined with those of our northern species.
We have followed the grape through the settlement, colonization and
first statehood days of the United States. We have seen that it had its part,
and no mean one, in these dramatic periods. We have found that the wild
grapes of the country, valued but uncultivated for two hundred years,
became through mere transplanting from the woods into the vineyards,
without the slow modifications which nearly all other plants have had to
undergo, one of our most important fruits. The domestication of four
species of American grapes has been briefly traced. The beginning of
American viticulture has been set, somewhat arbitrarily, at 1830, the date of
the publication of William Prince’s Treatise on the Vine. It remains now to
discuss the economic progress of the industry we have seen launched.
The twenty years following 1830 comprise a period of expansion in
grape-growing unmarked by the introduction of new types or of any new
varieties of particular note. During this time a grape and wine industry of
considerable magnitude was developed about Cincinnati, and the Ohio
River became known as the Rhine of America—a title long since lost and
now applied to the Keuka Lake region in New York. According to
Buchanan,[75] there were 1550 acres of grapes in the Ohio Valley within
twenty miles of Cincinnati; between forty and fifty acres near Hermann,
Missouri; a few vineyards at Belleville, Illinois; and wine was being made
from the Scuppernong grape in North and South Carolina. The inference
from Buchanan is that the above plantations were for the production of
wine; for he specifies that a few vineyards were in cultivation about New
York, Philadelphia and Burlington, New Jersey, “but more with a view to
supply the market with grapes, than to make wine.”

The last statement is significant for it indicates a change in the grape
industry which really gave life to the viticulture of eastern America. Until
about 1850, grapes were considered valuable and were cultivated only for
wine-making. Previous to this time the literature on the grape was
concerned more with wine-making than with cultivation, varieties or any
other phase of the industry. The American grapes, with few exceptions, do
not make good wines; there were few men in the country until within recent
years who understood wine-making; and the American people do not take
kindly to wines. It was not, therefore, possible to establish viticulture as an
industry of any magnitude in eastern America when grapes were used for
wine alone. It was only when the demand for table grapes was created and
when transportation and market facilities permitted the supply of the
demand that the industry took form and substance. It is a significant fact
that in those regions in the eastern United States in which grape-growing
has been founded and which are chiefly dependent on wine-making, the
industry has not prospered or has flourished but temporarily.
We have had Rafinesque’s survey of the grape industry of the country in
1830 and Buchanan’s in 1850. The next record, and a far more complete
one than either of the above, is found in a consular report made by E. M.
Erskine, Secretary of the British Legation at Washington, to the British
government in 1859. Mr. Erskine reported the acreage as follows:[76] “The
banks of the River Ohio are studded with vineyards, between 1,500 and
2,000 acres being planted in the immediate vicinity of Cincinnati, with
every prospect of a vast increase. At Cleveland, Ohio, on the southern shore
of Lake Erie, there are 100 acres under vine culture; at Hermann, on the
Missouri, 80 miles west of St. Louis, 150 or 200 acres are cultivated almost
entirely by Germans; at Booneville, higher up the same river; at Belleville,
on the ‘rolling prairies’ of Illinois; at Reading, in Pennsylvania; in
Kentucky, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, and generally, in at least twenty-
two out of the thirty-two States now constituting the Union, vineyards of
more or less promise and extent have been planted. * * *
“About 3,000 acres are cultivated as vineyards in the state of Ohio; 500
in Kentucky; 1,000 in Indiana; 500 in Missouri; 500 in Illinois; 100 in
Georgia; 300 in North Carolina; 200 in South Carolina, with every prospect
of a rapid increase in all. It is calculated that at least 2,000,000 gallons of
wine are now raised in the United States, the average value of which may
be taken at a dollar and a half the gallon.”

Grape-growing in New York was not considered worthy of mention by
Erskine; and Buchanan nine years before reported only a few vineyards
about New York City. In the regions of this State now almost wholly
devoted to grape-growing a start had hardly been made in 1850. Yet there
were some commercial vineyards at this time. Deacon Elijah Fay, the
pioneer grape-grower in what is now the great Chautauqua region, planted
the first vines in that district in 1818 and though grape-growing did not
become of importance until three or four decades later yet this planting was
the foundation upon which Deacon Fay built until, largely through his
efforts and example and those of his children, grapes were grown
everywhere about his home. It is doubtful, however, if there were a hundred
acres of commercial vineyards in this region when Erskine made his report
in 1859.
The first plantings made about Keuka Lake, now called the “Rhine of
America”, were made by the Rev. William Bostwick at Hammondsport
about 1830. He grew the Catawba and Isabella in a small way in his garden
and for years was the only grape-grower in this part of New York. The
commercial industry in this region was not started until 1853 when Andrew
Reisinger, a German vintner, planted two acres of Isabellas and Catawbas at
Harmonyville in the town of Pulteney. From this start viticulture in the
Keuka region grew apace and there must have been four or five hundred
acres of grapes planted when Erskine’s report was made in 1859. The fact
that the region was not mentioned in this report may be accounted for by
assuming that Erskine’s figures came from men engaged in making wine
and at this time wine was not made in large quantities in the Keuka district.
There had been experimental vineyards about New York City and along
the Hudson for a century before the time of which we are writing, but these,
as we have seen, being largely of foreign grapes, came to naught. Probably
native grapes were first planted there in a commercial way by the French
Huguenots who settled in Ulster and Orange Counties. At any rate there is
record of a vineyard planted by a Frenchman, John Jacques, near
Washingtonville in 1837. The varieties were Isabella and Catawba and there
were, all told, about half an acre. It is interesting to note that this vineyard is
still producing grapes and that some of the vines are as vigorous as in their
first maturity. Wine-making as an industry has existed in this region since
the vineyard of 1837 came into bearing but it was not until several years
later that table grapes were grown for the market. In 1859 there must have

been two or three hundred acres of grapes in commercial vineyards in the
country adjacent to the Hudson.
Adding five hundred acres from New York to the 6500 reported for the
United States by Erskine in 1859 we have 7000 acres for the whole country
—a small estimate, for several other states known to have considerable
acreages of commercial vineyards were not taken into account in Erskine’s
survey.
Before passing to a further consideration of grape statistics we must note
two important events for American viticulture which took place just
previous to the survey which we have been discussing. One of these
brought about a revolution,—almost brought into existence commercial
grape-growing; the other stimulated and laid the foundation of grape-
breeding in this country. The first was the introduction of the Concord
grape; the second was the production of hybrids between the European and
the native grapes.
The history of the Concord will be found in the discussion of that variety
in the chapter on Varieties of American Grapes. Its advent is noted here that
it may be set as a landmark in the development of American grape-culture.
It is first recorded in 1852 by the Massachusetts Horticultural Society as a
seedling exhibited by E. W. Bull. The qualities that have made the Concord
so important in commercial grape-growing are: Adaptability to varying sets
of cultural conditions; fair shipping qualities; hardiness, productiveness and
comparative immunity to fungi and insects. Its influence on the grape-
growing of the country has been great, too, because from it have come a
considerable number of the most valuable varieties of American grapes; as
Worden, Moore Early, Pocklington, Martha and Cottage, all pure-bred
seedlings and many cross-breds.
At a meeting of the American Pomological Society in Philadelphia in
1852, Dr. William W. Valk of Flushing, Long Island, exhibited several
bunches of fruit from a seedling grape which he had grown from seeds of
Black Hamburg produced from blossoms fertilized by Isabella.[77] The
cross had been made in 1845, the first fruit was borne in 1850, and in 1851
specimens of it were examined by Downing who wrote, “There can be no
doubt that this is the first genuine cross between the foreign grapes and our
natives.”[78] The name of the variety, given by the originator, is Ada. Dr.
Valk gave full accounts of his hybrid seedlings in the Horticulturist in 1851,

[79] and in the Proceedings of the American Pomological Society in 1852.
[80] He had previously written on the subject of hybridization, an interesting
paper having been contributed to Hovey’s Magazine as early as 1845.[81]
All available information shows that Valk’s is the first recorded hybrid
between a native and the foreign grape. Yet the honor of such a production
has usually been given to John Fisk Allen and to the grape, Allen’s Hybrid.
For the conception of hybridity between species we can go back to the
beginning of the cultivation of native grapes. Nearly thirty years before,
Nuttall, the then famous botanist of Harvard University, had recommended
such hybridization to American grape-growers.[82] Dufour mentions its
possibilities in his Vine Dresser’s Guide.[83] In 1830, Prince discussed the
whole matter and gave specific directions for hybridizing.[84] Indeed it is
not unlikely that Prince, who says he grew ten thousand seedling plants
“from an admixture under every variety of circumstance” grew the first
such hybrid but we have nothing more definite as to this than the above
statement.
In 1854, two years following its report of E. W. Bull’s “new seedling,”
the Concord, the Massachusetts Horticultural Society showed in its exhibits
another grape scarcely less worthy of note than the Concord. It was a hybrid
between the Golden Chasselas and the Isabella produced by John Fisk Allen
of Salem, Massachusetts. The new variety, the Allen’s Hybrid, mentioned in
a preceding paragraph, had some intrinsic value but, of more importance,
was the first introduction of its kind and started similar work which gave us
many interesting and some valuable grapes.
Soon after the production of Allen’s Hybrid, E. S. Rogers of Salem,
Massachusetts, and J. H. Ricketts of Newburgh, New York, began to give
grape-growers varieties, the results of hybrids between Vitis vinifera and
Vitis labrusca, so promising that for a time enthusiasm and speculation ran
riot. Possibly at no other period has the interest in grape-growing been so
keen as during the decade succeeding the introduction of these hybrids. It
was the “golden era” for the grape propagators. One old nurseryman tells of
carrying, during this boom, over a thousand dollars worth of rooted grape
cuttings on his back from the nursery to the express office.
Though there was no panic among grape-growers as the result of
speculation in hybrids, lovers of grapes the country over were greatly
disappointed in the hybrid varieties. The fruit of many of the hybrids
produced at this time is of superior quality and many of them are still grown

by amateurs. But the vines of all first generation hybrids with Vinifera
produced so far, lack hardiness, vigor and usually productiveness; they are
susceptible to fungi and the phylloxera and many of them must be cross-
pollinated to secure fruit. It is only when the blood of the native species
greatly predominates, as in Delaware, Brighton and Diamond, that we have
obtained sorts of commercial value through the admixture of foreign blood.
But the interest aroused by Allen’s Hybrid still continues and in every part
of the country may be found some man who hybridizes grapes with the
hope that through well planned crosses or a lucky chance he may obtain the
grape of grapes for America. Such attempts, stimulated by the hybrids of
the fifties, have produced most of our American varieties.
The time between 1853, the date of the introduction of the Concord, and
1880 can be singled out as the period in which viticulture made its great
growth in eastern America. The first limit is set because the Concord gave
commercial grape-growing its initial impulse; the second limit is put at
1880, because at about that time grapes and wine from California began to
compete with the eastern product to such an extent that prices fell and
plantings were curtailed. Curtailment did not begin so early as this in New
York but for the country at large the period of great expansion ended at
about 1880. Fortunately we have an accurate statistical report of the
condition of grape culture in the United States at this time. It is found in a
work entitled, A Report Upon the Statistics of Grape Culture and Wine
Production in the United States for 1880.[85] The report was compiled by
Dr. William McMurtrie under the direction of the Commissioner of
Agriculture.
Statistics are given for all of the states of the Union but a glance at the
tables shows that by this time viticulture had become a specialized industry
and that the areas devoted to it are more or less localized. The main areas,
with their acreage for 1880, may be set forth as follows:
The Eastern region, comprising the States of New York and
Pennsylvania, 14,590 acres.
The Middle region, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, 17,634 acres.
The Western region, Kansas and Missouri, 10,918 acres.
The Southern region, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina and
Georgia, 10,707 acres.
The Pacific region, California, Arizona and New Mexico, 35,518 acres.

Outside of these five regions there were in the United States, according
to McMurtrie’s report, 12,316 acres. The total acreage for the United States
in 1880 was 101,683 acres; the production of wine was 23,453,827 gallons.
Unfortunately the total production of grapes is not given.
The following data are taken from the agricultural statistics of 1890 and
show well the growth of viticulture in ten years though it is probable that
the figures for 1880 were far too low. For the Eastern region, 51,000 acres;
the Middle region, 42,633 acres; Western region, 17,306 acres; Southern
region, 17,092 acres; Pacific region, 213,230 acres; for the territory outside
of these divisions, 60,000 acres. Total area, 401,261 acres. Excluding the
acreage of the Pacific division we have 188,031 acres for American grapes,
assuming that all of the grapes grown on the Pacific Coast belong to Vitis
vinifera.
It is interesting to note that in 1890 four-fifths of the grapes grown in the
Eastern region, New York and Pennsylvania, were for table use and that in
round numbers the production for this purpose amounted to 60,687 tons,
requiring 5000 cars for transportation. Of grapes sold to wineries there were
15,172 tons. The varieties most largely grown were, in order named,
Concord, Catawba, Delaware, and Niagara.
In the Middle region, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, about half the grapes
grown were for table use and half for wine. By far the largest part of the
grapes grown in this region was in Ohio, only about one-fourth of the total
area being in the other two states. Between 1880 and 1890, viticulture
scarcely held its own in this division. The decrease in the value of the
product, competition with California, and, more particularly, ravages of
insects and fungi were the causes of the falling off in planting. In some
localities many vineyards were destroyed. The grapes sold for table use in
this region amounted to 50,337 tons; to wineries, 14,456 tons.
So, too, in the Western region, Missouri and Kansas, but little progress
was made during this ten years and for the same reasons, though the
devastation in Missouri was caused chiefly by black-rot, which begun to be
troublesome about 1875. The plantings in Missouri were largely for wine-
making but in Kansas, which contained 5542 of the 17,306 acres for this
region, about half of the crop was sold for table use. The grapes for table
use in this region amounted to 30,794 tons, for wineries, 8290 tons.

The crop in the Southern region was about equally divided between wine
and table grapes, the production in 1889 amounting to 1,165,832 gallons of
wine and 14,539 tons of table grapes. The new plantings about equalled the
acreage destroyed so that in total area the region was about holding its own.
The chief market for the table grapes was in the North where they were sold
early in the season at prices ranging from fifteen to twenty-five cents a
pound.
We are concerned with the Pacific region in that its grape products,
especially its wines, compete with those of eastern America. The growth of
viticulture in the Pacific region in the decade we are discussing was little
short of marvelous. In 1880 the acreage was 35,518 acres and in 1890,
213,230 acres—much greater than that of all the eastern regions, and the
production of grapes being more than proportionately greater because of the
greater productiveness of the vines. In this region 43,414 tons were sold for
table grapes; 173,037 tons for wine; 41,166 tons were made into raisins and
23,252 tons used for dried grapes and other purposes than table grapes. The
grand total for the region was 280,869 tons against 201,270 for all of
eastern America. These figures give an idea of how formidable a competitor
to eastern America California had become by 1890.
The census of 1900 shows but little increase in the total production of
American grapes. A few figures will show the relative status of viticulture
in the several regions in 1890 and 1900.
1890 1900
Tons of Tons of
grapes grown grapes grown
Eastern region 75,859 147,411
Middle region 64,793 58,917
Western region 39,084 14,784
Southern region 21,534 16,886
California region 280,869 362,323

All of the regions we have been discussing, in which native grapes are
grown, show a considerable falling off in production excepting the eastern
one where the increase more than counterbalances the decrease in the other
regions. The census report for 1900 shows three new states in the list of
those producing grapes in commercial quantities. In the decade preceding,
Michigan came up from an insignificant commercial production in 1890 to
fifth rank in 1900 with 20,765 tons. Iowa and Oklahoma, states from which

grapes were not reported in commercial quantities in 1890, produced 3701
and 3055 tons in 1900.
The shifting of grape areas indicated in the above paragraph was caused
for most part by the grape diseases. The mildew and rot had ruined the
grape industry in some of the older regions. The newer regions, as in
Michigan, either enjoy comparative immunity from these troubles or the
vineyards had not yet been attacked by them. In the case of the eastern
region, New York and Pennsylvania, in the Chautauqua district, along the
shores of Lake Erie in both states, where the production increased greatly
during this decade, the vineyards are almost wholly immune to black-rot
and are comparatively free from the mildew. In the other grape districts of
this region these troubles are kept well in check by spraying.
The statistics given in the last few paragraphs show how greatly the
grape-growing of eastern America has increased in the last half century.
When one considers that at the time Erskine made his survey in 1859 there
were but 6100 acres of grapes in the whole of this great region and that the
culture of the European varieties was impossible, the total acreage grown in
1900, namely, 237,998 acres, makes an astounding figure. The results
achieved seem all the greater when one considers that many of the best
varieties now grown are the first and scarcely any are further removed than
the second generation from wild plants. It is doubtful if any other cultivated
plants have attained such importance as our native grapes in so short a time
from the wild state. Yet their domestication has scarcely begun and few who
grow them realize their possibilities.
THE WINE[86] AND GRAPE JUICE INDUSTRIES.
For over 200 years the grapes grown on this continent were almost
wholly for wine-making. Yet the production of grapes was not sufficient to
sustain a wine industry until the middle of the nineteenth century. When,
with the introduction of new varieties of grapes and of better methods of
growing them, the crop became sufficient in volume to support wine-
making as an industry, its progress was checked by the enormous demand
for table grapes, a demand not known in other countries, and by the
cheapness of California wines. Furthermore the grapes most commonly
cultivated, as the Concord, Worden and Niagara, do not make good wines;
and knowledge and facilities for wine-making have not been such that the
best wines could be made with varieties adapted for the purpose. All of

these obstacles, to which we may add the fact that Americans are not a
wine-drinking people, have prevented the building up of a wine industry as
it exists in other grape-growing countries.
Although the United States stands second or third in the list of grape-
producing countries it took lowest rank in wine production in 1900, falling
below the small countries of Greece and Switzerland and such
comparatively undeveloped countries as Chili and Argentine. Since by far
the greater proportion of American wines come from the European grapes
of the Pacific coast, it can be seen that wine made from American grapes is
but a drop in the bucket in the world’s production. Reliable statistics of
viticulture in the United States were not taken until 1890, but careful
estimates, as we have seen, had been made by several men at different
periods. These with the last two census reports show the output of wine in
this country to be, in round numbers, as follows:
Gallons
1850 250,000
1860 500,000
1870 5,000,000
1880 15,000,000
1890 24,000,000
1900 30,000,000

According to the American Wine Press,[87] the leading authority on
wines in this country, the vintage of 1907 shows the following figures:
Gallons
Southern States 1,000,000
New Jersey 250,000
New York 4,000,000
Ohio 2,500,000
Missouri 1,500,000
California, dry 30,000,000
California, sweet 10,000,000
Western States 500,000
All other States 500,000
Total wine yield 50,250,000

Subtracting the product of California from the total we have
approximately the yield of wine from native grapes.

The manufacture of champagne[88] from native grapes is beginning to be
an important adjunct to grape-growing and is of especial importance in New
York which is the chief seat of the new industry. According to statistics
from the Bureau of Statistics of the Department of Commerce and Labor,[89]
more than two million bottles of genuine champagne wine are now
produced annually in the United States. The figures compiled by the Bureau
of Statistics show that the manufacture of champagne has quadrupled in ten
years and that New York is by far the largest producer in this class of wines.
It is held by the writers of the circular quoted above, and a careful study
seems to have been made of the subject, that the American product
compares favorably with that produced in other countries and that native
champagnes are steadily improving with the increased experience of the
American producer.
The largest manufacturers of champagne are located about Keuka Lake,
Steuben County, New York. About 75 per ct. of the total output of the
country is manufactured here. The process used is the French one of
fermentation in the bottle and a number of distinct brands are made which
in color, taste, sparkle and purity are rapidly approaching the high quality of
the celebrated French champagnes. Considerable champagne is also made
in Orange County in the southeastern part of New York, in Northern Ohio,
in Missouri, and a small amount from European grapes in California.
The manufacture of unfermented grape juice[90] is becoming an industry
in New York and promises to substantially increase the production of
grapes. Grape juice is what its name purports, the juice of the grape
undiluted, unsweetened and unfermented. A good grade of grape juice
contains no preservatives, the necessity for such being removed in the
process of making, the chief operation of which is sterilization by heat
whereby the germs of fermentation are killed. The product is an ancient
one, as the Greeks, Hebrews and Assyrians used it as new wine; but the
process of making an unfermented grape juice that could be kept for an
indefinite length of time is quite modern, and is the outcome of the
discoveries of the last half century regarding the control of the agents of
fermentation.
The grape juice industry of the country is largely confined to New York
and to the Chautauqua grape belt in the western part of the State. About
one-fifth of the grape crop of this region was turned into grape juice in
1907. The output of the Chautauqua region is as follows: 1904, 400,000

gallons; 1905, 600,000 gallons; 1906, 1,000,000 gallons; 1907, 1,500,000
gallons. The Concord is used almost entirely in the manufacture of grape
juice though a few other dark-colored grapes make a very good product.
There is but little demand for a light-colored grape juice but some is made.
Since the European grape does not make a good unfermented juice there is
no fear among growers of native grapes of competition from California or
Europe. The rapid growth which this industry has made is most encouraging
to grape-growers for it promises to furnish a permanent and profitable
demand for good grapes.
Raisins[91] are not made from American grapes.[92] So far no varieties of
the native species have been developed with sufficient sugar and solid
contents to make a raisin acceptable to the markets. Even were there
varieties from which raisins could be made, it is very doubtful if the climate
of eastern America during picking and curing time is such that raisins could
be made in competition with the product of California, now the greatest of
the world’s raisin producing regions, where the climate is almost perfectly
adapted to the industry.

CHAPTER III

THE VITICULTURE OF NEW YORK
The history of the viticulture of eastern United States shows that the
regions in which grapes have been most largely grown in the past have
come into prominence, had their day, and then suffered a decline. The
reasons for the more or less temporary character of grape regions are
becoming more and more apparent as our knowledge of grape-growing
increases. The grape, more than most other domesticated plants, is
profoundly influenced by climate, soil, cultural treatment, and insect and
fungus pests. In any region in which the grape succeeds at all well,
conditions are more favorable at the start of the industry than later; this is
especially true as regards soils, and the insect and fungus pests. In a
discussion of any phase of grape culture, in a broad sense, the conditions
under which the fruit is grown must receive careful consideration. We
therefore include in this chapter a discussion of the characters which most
strongly influence grapes in vine, fruit and general adaptability; also a brief
discussion of the regions in which native grapes have been successfully
grown in America; and, more particularly, an account of the viticulture and
the grape regions of New York.
In their wild state the various species of native grapes seem adapted to a
great diversity of soils and conditions. But under successful cultivation
varieties of the several species are confined to somewhat restricted regions
and even localities. Often a grape variety will succeed on one shore of a
lake or river and not on the other; on one slope of a hill but not another. It is
difficult to point out the determinants of successful grape culture.
Adaptability can be known positively in many cases only by trial; for
neither conditions of soil, nor climate, nor lay of land determines with
certainty the adaptability of a given locality. Oftentimes one variety of a
species may not be successful while another is completely so. Many
varieties reach perfection in one region or locality but not in another though
the conditions may seem very similar. So great is the influence of local
environment, oftentimes, that a variety grown in one locality might not be
recognized as the same grape when produced under other conditions.

The chief natural factors which govern the distribution of varieties of
grapes are: Latitude and altitude; temperature of air and soil; water supply;
the chemical and physical properties of the soil; air currents; and insects
and fungi.
Latitude and altitude very largely determine the annual temperature, the
amount and intensity of sunlight, and the length of the growing season—all
very important factors in growing grapes. Species and varieties of grapes
are usually adapted to regions having about the same latitude; northern
types do not succeed in the South nor the reverse. Length of season has
more to do with the adaptation of grapes than the degree of heat or cold, for
some southern sorts are hardy in vine in the North but the seasons in the
northern latitude are not sufficiently long for the fruit to mature. On the
other hand, northern varieties mature too quickly in the South and pass
through maturity to decay with too great rapidity. The metes and bounds of
latitude are often set aside in grape-growing by local modifications. Thus it
often happens that valleys in regions not generally adapted to viticulture are
so protected from cold winds, so open to sunshine, or are so free from fogs
or frosts as to furnish ideal conditions for grape-growing.
Probably the chief factor in determining the adaptability of a region to
grape culture is temperature. Each of the different species and varieties of
grapes requires a certain amount of warmth for its best development and
can endure but a certain degree of cold. The temperature of a region is
chiefly determined by latitude, altitude and proximity to large bodies of
water, though variations in the surface of the country are often important
modifying agents of temperature and especially influence spring and fall
frosts.
The grape does best in an equable temperature and does not thrive in
regions where there is a great daily range. Regions and seasons in which the
temperature is comparatively low in the growing months of May, June and
July and high, with much sunshine, in the maturing months of August,
September and October, produce the best grapes in the latitude of New
York. An average of from 55° to 65° for the first named period and of from
65° to 75° for the second are ideal temperature conditions for the grape.
This fruit is very sensitive to moisture conditions. Not only must the
total rainfall for the year be taken into consideration but its distribution
throughout the seasons must be considered. The grape does best with

comparatively little rainfall. When the rainfall is the least possible amount
for a good growth of vine the grape crop will be the largest, of best quality
and most free from fungi. Wet seasons, and especially wetness during the
months of maturing, are disastrous to both quantity and quality of grapes.
Thus, in New York it is not possible, with most varieties, to produce good
grapes if the average is above six inches each for the three growing months
and five inches each for the maturing months. It is far better for the crop
that it be as low as four inches for the first named period and two inches for
the second period.
Superfluous moisture in the soil favors too great a growth of vine,
checks and weakens the root system, prevents proper setting of fruit, and
favors fungi, but hinders the multiplication of phylloxera. In particular, a
comparatively dry soil is desirable for grapes because of its influence on the
development of the root system. In dry soils large root systems are
developed in the search for the water that the plant must have. When intense
droughts occur plants that have stood in damp soils have not sufficient roots
to supply the necessary water to the aerial parts and the vines suffer in
consequence. Some species and varieties are better fitted for withstanding
an excess of moisture than others.
The soil exercises a great influence in determining the suitability of a
region for viticulture. Several factors act as soil determinants: (1) Fertility;
(2) physical characters; (3) soil heat. It is necessary to study each species,
and even their varieties, to discover their powers of adaptation to different
soils and it is possible to indicate here the good and bad qualities of soils
only in the most general way. In the discussion of species and varieties the
soil preferences of the different botanical and horticultural groups will be
stated more fully.
Great fertility, as a natural characteristic, is not necessary in grape
regions. Fertilizers, and especially the use of stable manures and cover
crops, can be made to supply very largely a lack of fertility. Soils naturally
too rich produce an overdevelopment of vine. Some species, as Vitis
rupestris, grow naturally in very poor soils, the habitat of the latter being
dry ravines and stony places having comparatively little organic matter. The
varieties of Vitis rupestris promise well for stocks upon which to grow other
varieties in certain soils. In Europe calcareous or limy soils are not
considered well adapted to grape-growing, but in America we often find
very good vineyards on such soils.

The physical character of a soil has more to do with the welfare of the
grape than fertility. Sand and clay are the two distinct types of soils usually
found in general agricultural regions. As one or the other predominates soils
take their character. So far as growth alone is concerned these two types of
soil do not influence the vines much differently, but the fruit in quantity and
quality is greatly influenced by them. According as to whether sand or clay
is in excess a soil is loose or compact, retains or gives up water, and is
warm or cool. A compact soil is made so by an excess of clay or of very
fine sand. Grapes require a light friable soil and compactness is often a
serious defect. Usually species and varieties with large, thick roots are
better adapted to compact soils than those with small root systems, probably
because the strong roots have greater penetrating power than the weak ones.
Lightness and permeability of the soil may be influenced by subsoiling and
through the use of stable manure and cover crops, but a hard soil is
generally so ill adapted to grape-growing that this fruit should not be
planted on it.
The heat-retaining properties of a soil must always be taken into account
in growing grapes. The great preference which many varieties of grapes
show for sands, loams, shales and gravels, depends largely upon the greater
amount of heat found in such soils. In northern regions it is especially
needful that the soil furnish an abundance of bottom heat for the grape. The
removal of an excess of moisture is helpful in regulating soil heat; and,
other things being equal, a well-drained soil is warmest.
Grapes grow more or less well in any soil adapted to fruit-growing. It is
not true, even, that the grape is more particular as to soils than other fruits.
But the necessity of having great quantity and high quality of fruit in
profitable viticulture makes it very necessary to take their preferences as to
soil into strict account.
Air currents are of minor importance compared with the other factors
discussed yet are worthy of attention. They are chiefly of importance in
grape-growing in the suppression of fungi. It has long been noticed that in
regions where there are strong currents of air the dreaded black-rot and the
mildew are not nearly so harmful. Winds may be beneficial, too, when they
bring warm air, when moisture laden, when they keep frosty air in motion,
and possibly they have an effect on some small insects as the leaf-hopper.
On the contrary they may be detrimental when too dry, strong or cold.
Natural or artificial windbreaks may greatly modify the effects of wind

currents though their value is usually overestimated as their benefits are
often offset by the undesirable conditions caused.
Lastly, the prevalence or lack of insects and fungi in a region may decide
its value for viticulture. In several instances flourishing viticultural
industries have been destroyed in this country by insects or fungi, or both.
In other regions the present supremacy of commercial grape-growing is
almost wholly due to the fact that neither insects nor fungi are seriously
troublesome. The advent of spraying and a better knowledge of the life
histories of insects and fungi are lessening the importance of the parasite
factor in determining the value of a region for grape-growing, but it is still
of high importance.
We are now prepared to take up a discussion of the grape regions of New
York.
The states in which the growing of American grapes takes the rank of an
industry are, according to the census of 1900, in order of production: New
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri,
Georgia and Oklahoma. The value of the product in the leading state was
$2,763,711; in the last named state, $128,500. American viticulture, so far
as native grapes are concerned, is almost wholly confined to twelve states.
But viticultural interests are still further localized. In New York the industry
is divided into four great regions, the Chautauqua district, the Central Lakes
district, the Hudson district, and the Niagara district. In Pennsylvania and
Ohio grape-growing is largely confined to the shores of Lake Erie; in
Michigan to a small district about the towns of Lawton and Paw Paw; in
Missouri, Hermann is the representative point for grape culture.
THE CHAUTAUQUA DISTRICT.
Of the four grape regions of New York the Chautauqua district is by far
the most important though, excepting the Niagara, the most recent in
development. The Chautauqua grape belt lies along the southeastern shore
of Lake Erie. It averages about three miles in width and is about fifty miles
long. Its northeastern boundary is in Erie County but not far from the line
dividing Erie and Chautauqua Counties; its western boundary, in New York,
is the Pennsylvania line, an arbitrary division, for the district passes into
Pennsylvania. This narrow belt passes through the towns of Hanover,

Sheridan, Dunkirk, Pomfret, Portland, Westfield and Ripley in Chautauqua
County. Not all, but much, of the land is suitable for grape-growing.
The topography, geology, and soils of this grape-belt have been carefully
mapped and studied.[93][94]
The grape land is, as we have seen, a narrow strip of comparatively low
land which borders the shore of Lake Erie. On the southern boundary of this
low plain is a high hill or escarpment parallel to the lake and surmounting
the grape belt throughout its entire length. This escarpment, the “Hill”,
ranges from 500 to 700 feet above the plain and from 500 to 1000 feet
above the lake. The plain is gently rolling and ascends from the bluff of the
lake to the escarpment with a grade of from one to two hundred feet to the
mile, forming in some places well-marked foot-hills to the escarpment
proper.
The bed rock, according to Tarr[95] is upper Devonian shales and sand
stones in both plain and escarpment. On the face of the escarpment and on
the table lands of some of the foot-hills the soil is so thin that the plough
frequently touches bed rock. This seldom comes to the surface on the plain
except in stream beds and in shale ridges, but is to be found in fragments of
greater or less size and in more or less abundance throughout the soils of
the entire district. Everywhere on the plain may be seen ancient beach lines.
These rise usually in two well-defined terraces but not infrequently there
are from two to five distinct terraces between the lake and the escarpment.
All conditions point to the theory that these ridges are wave built and
therefore of lake origin. The plain, the gravel ridges, the foot-hills and the
high escarpment are the chief topographical features of the grape belt.
The grape soils of the district, as mapped by the Bureau of Soils of the
United States Department of Agriculture,[96] are Dunkirk clay, Dunkirk
gravel, Dunkirk gravelly loam, Dunkirk sandy loam and Dunkirk shale
loam. The grapes grown upon the several soils vary somewhat as to
quantity per acre, as to flavor and sugar content and as to shipping quality.
The largest areas of Dunkirk clay are found running back from the lake
east and west from Barcelona, in the neighborhood of Van Buren Point and
about Dunkirk. In these regions the soil is a clay loam from several inches
to a foot deep resting upon a stiffer and more tenacious clay. Vineyards
located on this soil are very productive but the quality is not as high as in

the fruit grown on the shale loam, though for most part superior to that
produced on the gravel and sandy loams.
Dunkirk gravel soils are found on the ridges at the foot of the escarpment
on the southern boundary of the district from Pennsylvania to the eastern
boundary of the grape district. Throughout most of this distance there are
from one to three parallel ridges varying from a few rods to a half mile in
breadth; at many places the ridges run into each other or have been brought
together by cultivation. It was upon this gravel that vines were first
successfully grown. Grapes upon this soil ripen a week or more earlier than
upon other soils and these lands are therefore largely planted with vineyards
to supply the early market and they have a larger proportion of early
varieties than vineyards on other soils. The Niagara is thought to do
especially well on Dunkirk gravel.
Dunkirk gravelly loam is found running through practically the whole
grape belt at the base or on the top of the gravel ridges; if at the base, to
lakeward of the ridges. It is a sandy loam with much fine gravel and is
underlaid at a depth of three feet with sand and shale fragments. On the
surface it much resembles the gravel soils having had considerable top
gravel brought there by washing and by cultivation. The grapes grown on
these soils are very similar to those produced on the gravels though there
are some minor differences. Some varieties produce larger berries on this
soil, and some sorts, it is claimed, a greater amount of wood.
The Dunkirk sandy loams occur in large irregular areas bordering the
lake or running from the lake bluff back to the escarpment. By far the
largest of these areas is found about Fredonia and Dunkirk and running east
and west of these towns. A second area is found in the neighborhood of
Brocton and Portland and especially to the north and west. There are
smaller areas east of Barcelona and northwest of Ripley. Nearly all of the
sandy loam soils are found on undulating or rolling land. The soil is a
brownish-yellow loam from a half foot to a foot in depth. There are some
deviations from the type and yet the true sandy loams can be very easily
recognized. The soil is of rather heavy texture making good farming land
and producing large crops of grapes of slightly inferior quality.
The Dunkirk shale loams are found upon the hill or escarpment. These
form the grape lands farthest removed from the lake. This soil is
comparatively thin, not averaging more than a half-foot in depth and is

hardly ever found a foot deep. It is brown in color with much coarse
fragmentary shale on the surface and underlaid with a considerable body of
heavy clay. Part of the shale loam land lies on slopes too steep and rough
for cultivation but the hillside table lands of this soil are especially well
adapted to grape-growing. The grapes grown here contain much sugar,
therefore keep and ship well, have a high flavor, and are especially sought
for in wine-making; grapes on these soils mature early, have tough skins,
but are only medium-sized berries. The yields are much more variable on
this soil than on the others because of the great variation in the depth of
soil. On deep soils of this loam the yield is all that could be desired.
Because of the lay of the land, and the nature of the soil, there is much
washing and cultivation must be done judiciously.
The climate is exceptionally favorable for the grape-grower in the
Chautauqua district. It is, if anything, of more importance than the land; for
grape soils are not uncommon, but a grape climate as near perfection as that
of this region is indeed rare. The influence of the lake in modifying the
temperature of the region is the chief climatic factor. This influence need
not be dwelt upon here for it is common knowledge that large bodies of
water temper cold winter weather, hold back vegetation in spring, equalize
night and day temperatures of summer, lengthen the growing season and
ward off autumn frosts. Each of these influences is highly favorable to the
growth of the grape. The escarpment on the southeastern boundary of the
belt has a most decided influence on the climate chiefly because it confines
the influence of the lake to a narrow belt. When the escarpment becomes
low, as at the two extremities of the belt, grape-growing ceases to be
profitable. When the distance between the lake and the escarpment is great,
the climatic conditions are not so favorable.
The air currents and rainfall of the region are especially favorable. The
in-shore breeze of the day and the off-shore breeze at night keep the air in
constant motion, thus preventing frosts in spring and autumn, and probably
cause in part the great degree of immunity to black-rot and mildew.
Unfortunately, data to determine accurately the rainfall of the district cannot
be had but such as have been taken indicate that the rainfall is
comparatively light for the maturing months of August, September and
October and not heavy for the three preceding growing months. Residents
of the grape belt claim that most of the heavy showers pass over the hills or
down the lake. The whole region is proverbially free from heavy dews. Rain

and dew are favorable to black-rot and other fungi and the lack of them still
further accounts for the immunity to these pests in the region.
The history of the rise of grape-growing in Chautauqua County forms an
interesting chapter in the economic development of New York. The first
vines in the Chautauqua district were planted by Elijah Fay[97] in 1818, near
the present town of Brocton. These were wild vines of Vitis labrusca from
Deacon Fay’s boyhood home in New England. The vines grew luxuriantly
but the fruit was not satisfactory and in 1822 this worthy pioneer obtained
at great trouble roots of Miller’s Burgundy, Sweetwater and Black
Hamburg. But the second experiment was even more disastrous than the
first as he got no fruit. The real start was made in 1824 when Mr. Fay
obtained vines of Catawba and Isabella from Prince of Flushing, Long
Island. The vines were trained on trellises. The vineyard covered a plot two
by eight rods in extent. From a rise of land near this spot one now sees
grapes everywhere, probably a greater acreage of them than can be seen
from any other spot east of the Rocky Mountains.
In 1830 Deacon Fay made ten gallons of wine, the first for the region. In
1834, Lincoln Fay, a nephew of Elijah Fay, started the sale of grape vines
but not many vines were sold for commercial plantings until as late as 1850.
In 1859 there were in the town of Portland but twenty acres of bearing
grape vines where now are thousands. During the decade that followed, the
Concord was generally introduced giving the viticulture of the region a
great impetus. Grapes were not yet grown for table use to any great extent
and a large acreage could not be used for wine-making. In 1859 a wine-
cellar was built by Fay, Ryckman[98] and Haywood at Brocton and for a
long while this company used almost the total crop of the region. It was not
until the early seventies that the grape-growers sought other markets than
the wine-cellars. In 1870 there were about 600 acres of vineyards in
Chautauqua County.
The first table-grapes of the region were packed in twenty-pound splint
baskets. Dunkirk was the primary marketing place and the fruit was shipped
from here to various large cities by through freight. The transportation
facilities were not satisfactory and in 1880 Jonas Martin of Brocton tried
the experiment of shipping a carload of grapes to Philadelphia. This was the
first carload of grapes sent from Chautauqua County. In 1906, 4690
carloads were shipped and 844 were converted into wine and grape juice,
representing all told $2,482,822.[99] Until 1883 the markets were confined

to nearby cities but in this year a carload was safely sent to Spokane, after
which time markets were found from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from
the Gulf to Upper Canada. The first grape-growers’ union was formed in
1886 as the Chautauqua Grape Growers’ Shipping Association and its
organization marked a new epoch in the grape industry of the district.
Smaller and larger organizations have since been formed and at the present
time about 80 per ct. of the entire crop is handled by a growers’ union
known as the Chautauqua and Erie Grape Company.
According to Mr. G. E. Ryckman, in the early days of the grape industry
in this region the fruit was shipped in round paper baskets holding from
three to five pounds; later these were made of wood. Sometime in the early
seventies twenty-pound splint baskets, which were supposed to be returned
to the owners, were introduced. These were superseded by the twelve-
pound climax basket; the size of this basket was soon reduced to ten
pounds, then to nine, then to eight. Meanwhile a small five-pound basket
made on the same lines as the larger one came into use but soon shrunk into
a four-pound receptacle. The eight and the four-pound climax baskets are
now generally used throughout the region. Increasing quantities are now
being shipped to large cities in trays with slatted tops holding about forty
pounds each; these grapes are used by the purchaser for wine-making. The
wine and grape juice industries of the region have been touched upon in the
general discussion of these industries.
An actual canvass made by this Station in the winter of 1906-7 shows
there are in the Chautauqua grape belt at this time 30,000 acres of grapes.
The census report of 1900 gave the number of vines for the county as
11,914,706, which at the usual number of vines per acre gives about 20,000
acres for the district. This figure was probably low, though that of the
Station for 1907 may be somewhat high. The acreage is distributed in towns
approximately as follows: Portland 9500; Westfield 5700; Ripley 5700;
Pomfret 4600; Hanover 1950; Sheridan 1950; Dunkirk 600. A
correspondent writes that the grape shipments for 1907 indicate a
considerably larger acreage for the towns of Hanover and Sheridan than are
here given. The average yield of grapes is a little less than two tons per acre
for the region. The value of vineyards varies from $100 to $400 per acre.
The crop for the past seven years calculated by The Grape Belt[100] from
figures secured from the railroads are as follows:

“Season of 1900 8000 carloads
“Season of 1901 6669 carloads
“Season of 1902 5062 carloads
“Season of 1903 2952 carloads
“Season of 1904 7479 carloads
“Season of 1905 5362 carloads
“Season of 1906 5634 carloads”

The seeming decrease in carloads shipped as the years progress is far
more than made up by the greater use of the fruit in local wineries and
grape juice factories.
According to figures gathered in the preparation of this work about 90
per ct. of the grape acreage of the region is set to Concord followed by 3 per
ct. of Niagara, 2 per ct. of Worden and 1 per ct. each for Moore Early and
Catawba with the remaining 3 per ct. made up of a dozen or more sorts
among which Delaware leads.
The shipping season in this district begins early in September and lasts
well into November though late varieties, as Catawba, and small lots of
Concord are held some weeks longer. Improved storage facilities are yearly
lengthening the season.
Several systems of pruning and training are in vogue in the district but
the majority of the vineyards are pruned and trained in a system peculiar to
Chautauqua County. The posts are from six to eight feet in height, one to
each three vines; two wires complete the trellis. The lower wire is from 28
to 32 inches from the ground and the second from 22 to 36 inches above the
first, the distance being changed as the vine comes to maturity. The grapes
are trained according to the upright system and the vines are renewed to
short horizontal arms and but few canes are taken out each year; the trunk
reaches only to the lower wire. The arms are loosely tied to the lower wire
and the canes and bearing shoots to the wire above. Cultivation varies
greatly but the best growers practice close cultivation and make use of
fertilizers; the cover crop is growing in favor. Spraying is not very general
as the region has been remarkably free from pests. The chief insects now
encountered are the grape-vine fidia,[101] the flea-beetle,[102] the grape leaf-
hopper[103] and the grape berry moth.[104] The several fungal diseases found
in this region are, about in order of importance, black-rot, downy mildew,
or “brown-rot,” powdery mildew, and anthracnose, or “bird’s-eye rot.”
THE CENTRAL LAKES DISTRICT

Several important areas of vineyards are grouped about the central lakes
in western New York. While there are at least three distinct localities in this
district, namely, the areas about the three lakes, Keuka, Canandaigua, and
Seneca, yet the soils, climate, varieties and methods of caring for vineyards
and product are so nearly alike that all may be treated as one district. The
vineyards are in five counties, Ontario, Yates, Schuyler, Steuben and
Seneca. The Keuka area, in Yates and Steuben Counties, is by far the
largest; and the region is often called the Keuka grape district. Vineyards
surround Keuka Lake and all but the northern end of Canandaigua Lake, but
only on the banks of the southern half of Seneca Lake are grapes grown.
The somewhat extensive vineyards about Naples, south of Canandaigua
Lake; Bath, south of Keuka Lake; and of Romulus between Seneca and
Cayuga Lakes, belong in the Central Lakes district.
The geology of the Central or Finger Lakes has been studied by many
workers and the geological history of these remarkable bodies of water is
now well known.[105] It is very generally agreed that these lakes fill, in part,
preglacial valleys and that the valleys were transformed into lakes by
glacial action. The basins of the lakes may have been and probably were
deepened by the erosive action of glaciers but it is fairly certain that there
were pre-existing valleys which were dammed by glacial deposit.
The topography is more or less rough and broken. The steep hillsides of
the lakes were formed not only by erosion but by the tilting of the land.
Beside these hillsides of the lakes to give character to the topography of the
region, there are ranges of hills and the remains of some moraines, so that
in general the land is very uneven. This is especially true of the parts of it
devoted to grape-growing though in some grape sections there are many
stretches of smooth and regular vineyards.
The soils of this great region vary much, as is always the case when land
is made by glacial erosion and deposit of glacial drifts. On a single farm the
soil may be thick and fertile in one part and thin and poor in another; it may
consist largely of clay in one part and of sand and gravel in others. The
grape soils in the Central Lakes region are, in particular, of miscellaneous
types, embracing, in one place or another, nearly all of the soils in the
Dunkirk series described in the discussion of the Chautauqua district.
Probably the Dunkirk clay loam, often very shaly and stony, is the most
common of the several soils of the region. There are also considerable areas
of a shaly soil which possibly do not belong to the Dunkirk types, not

having been influenced by water action as are true Dunkirk soils. On the
slopes and hillsides the land is sometimes rough and stony with but a thin
covering of soil and with out-croppings of bed rock. The influence of the
various soils on the grape has not been studied as in the Chautauqua district
but, as noted, the soils in the two districts are in many cases similar so that
the discussion of the influence of the several types given for the
Chautauqua district will apply in large part to the Central Lakes district.
The Central Lakes have a very perceptible influence on the climate of
the region. The lakes are deep and conserve warmth. The water of Seneca
Lake is so deep, and consequently warm, that it has been known to freeze
over only a few times in the past hundred years. The winter climate in this
region is much less severe than in adjacent territories. Not only does the
water modify the severity of the winter climate but the enclosing highlands
materially assist in keeping in the warmth of the valleys. Since the lakes
run, generally speaking, north and south, the winds are deflected to these
directions very largely. In the summer, both days and nights are cooler and
the climate more equable near the lakes. These modifications of climate are
all favorable to grape-growing.
The first grapes grown in this district, so far as records show, were set by
the Rev. William Bostwick at Hammondsport in 1830. The varieties were
Isabella and Catawba and these he succeeded in raising to perfection. From
this time onward scattering vines were planted in gardens about the three
lakes. About 1836 Mr. J. W. Prentiss, originator of the Prentiss grape,
planted a small vineyard at Pulteney from which considerable fruit was sent
to market from time to time and the vineyard was constantly enlarged. In
1853 a commercial vineyard was set out by Andrew Reisinger, a German
vine-dresser, consisting of two acres of Isabella and Catawba at
Harmonyville in the town of Pulteney. Reisinger trained, pruned and tilled
his vines, operations unheard of before in the district, and was rewarded
with crops and profits which stimulated grape culture in his and nearby
neighborhoods.
In 1855 the Hon. Jacob Larrowe and Mr. Orlando Shephard planted
small vineyards of Isabella and Catawba in Pleasant Valley near
Hammondsport and were so successful that in 1858 their vineyards were
greatly increased and others in the valley embarked in the business of vine-
culture. Viticulture was now fairly started and the industry grew apace from
1858 onward. In 1860 two hundred acres of grapes were set in Pleasant

Valley alone and elsewhere on Keuka Lake large plantings were made.
Grapes brought from fifteen to thirty cents per pound and a bearing
vineyard at this time was as good as a gold mine.
Plantings were begun in the Yates County portion of the Keuka district in
1855 when Mr. W. W. Shirland set a small vineyard of Isabella in Benton
township.
There seem to be no records as to the first plantings about Seneca and
Canandaigua Lakes but all available information indicates that plantings
about these two lakes came in the spreading of the industry from Keuka
Lake. E. A. McKay of Naples seems to have had a vineyard of some extent
as early as 1848 from which he sold fruit. There must have been vineyards
of considerable size about Avon in Livingston County in the early fifties;
for Larrowe, Shephard and others obtained cuttings at this place in 1855 for
their vineyards in Pleasant Valley. Who owned these Avon vineyards, and
what their extent was, does not appear.
The first commercial shipment of any considerable amount beyond the
towns nearby was made in 1854 when Mr. J. W. Prentiss shipped a ton of
Isabella packed in tubs to New York City. The tubs were made by cutting
apple barrels in half and were packed half full when a thin board partition
was put in after which the tub was filled and covered. The consignment
reached the city in fair condition and brought fifteen cents per pound but a
second ton shipped in the same way “broke” the market.
John Mead of the town of Benton introduced the Concord in this region
in 1861 and the same year Henry Rose of Penn Yan set the first Delaware to
be planted commercially in the district. The Concord soon took the place of
the Isabella but could not displace the Catawba as it did in the Chautauqua
district. The Delaware grew in favor and rapidly assumed third place in the
list of varieties about the three lakes, a position which it still maintains,
though it is closely followed by the Niagara.
By 1860 grape-growing had become so general that the need of further
outlets for the fruit was felt and the Pleasant Valley Wine Company was
formed for the manufacture of wine and brandy. For several years
following, this company used about one-third of the output of Pleasant
Valley, helping very materially to steady the market for the whole district. A
few years later another large company, the Urbana Wine Company, was
formed; and when still later it was discovered that the champagne made

about Keuka Lake was superior to that made in any other part of America
and that, with experience in making, it rivalled the champagne in France,
wine-making became an important adjunct to grape-growing in this district.
Now there are about twenty-five companies making wine and champagne
on or near the shores of the three lakes, the industry having its center on
Keuka Lake. Wine-making is still in its infancy and because of the demand
it creates for grapes, and the high prices paid by the wineries, will continue
to exert a most favorable influence on the viticulture of the district. There is
but little unfermented grape juice made about the Central Lakes.
A valuable asset of this district is its long range of season. Grapes ripen
from one to two weeks earlier about these lakes than they do in the
Chautauqua belt. Thus the Concords grown here are well out of the way of
those grown in the Chautauqua district. The Catawba, which ripens late and
is a “good keeper”, can be kept in fine condition until midwinter or later.
The range of season in this district, then, is from the first part of September
until February or even March.
Though there have been grape-growers’ unions for marketing the fruit of
this district at various times, most of it now goes through the hands of
individual buyers. An exception is the product of the large vineyards of
Niagaras in Seneca County, the fruit of which is marketed with that of the
product of other Niagara vineyards of the Niagara district of western New
York through a union of growers.
The grapes in this district are variously trained but the high renewal
system is used chiefly. In this system the head of the trunk is from twenty to
thirty inches from the ground. Usually the trellis has three wires, the lowest
about twenty inches from the ground and the others at distances of eighteen
inches apart. New canes are brought out from renewal stubs and once in
two or three years an attempt is made to bring them directly from the head
of the main trunk. This system is particularly well adapted to the Catawba
and Delaware so generally grown in the lake region. Thorough cultivation is
practiced and the fall cover crop of oats, barley or clover is coming into
favor.
It is difficult to ascertain the acreage in this district. Taking the figures of
the census of 1900 and those of a canvass made by this Station in the winter
of 1906-7 the acreage in the several counties is about as follows: Yates,
7940; Steuben, 5570; Ontario, 2630; Schuyler, 1014; Seneca, 1540; total

18,694. These figures are slightly larger than the estimates of grape-growers
and buyers but chiefly so because they take in scattered plantations
throughout the several counties. Thus in all of these counties there are a
surprisingly large number of Niagara vineyards in out-of-the-way places,
set during the Niagara boom of the eighties. To this Central Lakes district
might also be added 500 acres of commercial vineyards in Livingston
County; 250 in Cayuga and 250 in Tompkins Counties. The total valuation
of the crop in this district in 1900 was $943,964.
Insects are not as troublesome in the Central Lakes district as in the
Chautauqua district. The grape-vine fidia, or root-worm, one of the worst of
the insect pests of the grape, is not yet destructive in this region. The grape
leaf-hopper and the grape-vine flea-beetle are possibly the worst of the
insects infesting the grapes about these lakes.
But fungi are more troublesome than in the Chautauqua district;
probably because the climatic conditions are more favorable to the
development of these pests about these smaller lakes than near Lake Erie.
The five most troublesome diseases, named about in order of importance
are black-rot,[106] downy mildew,[107] or “brown-rot”, powdery mildew,[108]
anthracnose,[109] or “bird’s-eye rot” and chlorosis,[110] or “yellow-leaf”.
Vineyards are very generally sprayed in this district and usually with
satisfactory results. Grape-growers have learned that certain varieties are
much more susceptible to some of the diseases than others and plant
accordingly.
HUDSON RIVER DISTRICT.
The region along the Hudson River forms the third largest grape district
in New York. According to the census of 1890 there were 13,000 acres of
grapes in this district but in 1900 the returns gave less than half that
acreage. The great falling off was due to the taking out of a considerable
number of old vineyards which had been planted with too many varieties, or
with worthless varieties, or in some other respect were poorly set
plantations. It is doubtful whether the acreage in 1907 is greater than in
1900 but the industry is in a more healthful and prosperous condition now
than then.
An estimate of the present acreage, and its distribution, made in the
preparation of this work, gives the standing of the district as follows by

counties: Columbia, 865 acres; Dutchess, 448 acres; Orange, 865 acres;
Ulster, 4021 acres; total, 6199 acres. Beside the above there are, of course,
some scattering vineyards. There are only two or three wine-cellars in the
district and probably 95 per ct. of the product of the vineyards is sold for
table grapes or to those who make wine in small quantities.
The grape lands of the Hudson River Valley are found very largely in the
geological division known as the Taconic Province.[111] This province is a
broad valley which extends from Pennsylvania across New Jersey, taking in
Orange and parts of Ulster and Dutchess and Columbia Counties, then
passing out of the State. The rocks in this geological division are shales,
slates, schists, and limestones; and the soil is derived from these rocks. The
grape lands, for most part, are those in which there is much shale or slate
and in more or less coarse fragments, the finer particles being clay or
gravelly loams. The district is more or less hilly, some of the vineyards
being in valleys of a few acres extent, others in broad, gently undulating
plains and still others on comparatively steep hillsides.
The climate of the Hudson Valley changes rapidly as one goes up the
River because of the diversity of its physical features and the wide variety
of atmospheric influences to which it is subject. In the part of the Valley in
which grapes are grown the summer temperature is high owing to the
position between ranges of mountains and to the southerly winds which
prevail at this season. In the winter the winds are northerly and the
temperature is often low making the culture of tender grapes hazardous. The
influence of the river, really a broad estuary in the grape regions, at all
seasons is most favorable for fruit-growing.
The lowlands of the Hudson Valley receive a somewhat small amount of
rainfall as compared with the rest of New York because when moisture is
being carried inland from the Atlantic it is largely precipitated by the
mountains and highlands of New England. This is favorable to grape-
growing. Another desirable feature of the rainfall of this Valley is that the
maximum summer downfall is in July whereas in many parts of the State it
is in September or October. This relatively light rainfall in the maturing
months is more marked in this than in any other of the grape districts of the
State.
The recorded history of commercial viticulture dates back to 1827 when
Mr. Robert Underhill and his two sons, R. T. and W. A. Underhill, planted a

vineyard of Catawba and Isabella at Croton Point which eventually covered
seventy-five acres. For some years this vineyard practically supplied the
large markets of the region with grapes. In 1829, Rufus Barrett of New
Paltz, began shipping Isabella grapes in small quantities to the New York
market. Barrett lived in a settlement of French Huguenots, who after having
experimented more or less with European sorts, early in the nineteenth
century began planting native varieties. It is probable that Barrett obtained
his inspiration for planting and knowledge of vine-growing from these
Frenchmen.
In 1837 a French vintner, John Jacques, set out a vineyard for wine-
making at Washingtonville, Orange County. The varieties set were Catawba
and Isabella, purchased from Prince of Long Island. Some of these vines are
still living, vigorous and thrifty at three score years and ten. The original
plantation consisted of but a half acre but in 1838 this was increased to ten
acres. This is probably the oldest vineyard of native grapes in New York.
The third year from the planting of this vineyard wine was made, and has
been made at Washingtonville ever since, so that this community may claim
the oldest winery as well as the oldest vineyard in the State.[112]
William T. Cornell planted a vineyard of Isabellas near Clintonville,
Ulster County, in the year 1845. Mrs. Cornell and Mrs. William A.
Underhill were sisters, so that Cornell’s vines came from Croton Point. A. J.
Caywood, of Marlboro, was a brother-in-law of Mr. Cornell. Thus the
inspiration of this noted viticulturist to plant grapes, and to originate new
sorts, may be traced directly back to the Frenchman, Parmentier, who, as we
have seen, furnished the Underhills with their vines and gave them
instructions for their care. The Catawba and Isabella were grown almost
entirely until the introduction of the Delaware and Concord, after which the
first named sorts dropped out entirely, being subject to mildew and ripening
late in the season.
The Valley of the Hudson has more reason to be called the birthplace of
American viticulture than any other of the grape-growing districts of the
country. The grape and wine industries, as we have seen, were early started
here. Prince’s Linnæan Garden at the mouth of the Valley was the first
distributing agency for American grapes. Its owners did more than
distribute grapes, they distributed knowledge and trained men. A. J.
Caywood of Marlboro, J. H. Ricketts of Newburgh, Stephen Underhill at
Croton Point, Dr. A. K. Underhill at Charlton, Dr. C. W. Grant at Iona, W.

D. Barns of Middlehope, Dr. William M. Culburt of Newburgh, were
notable early originators and experimenters with grapes and from their
vineyards have come some of the best of our native varieties. Kniffin, the
Downings, and Buel are other familiar names in viticulture and horticulture
of those who lived on the Hudson and who have helped to invest the region
with sentiment and with interest for the grape grower.
The number of varieties grown in this region is far greater than in other
parts of the State; as would be expected from its having been the birthplace
of so many and from its nearness to large markets where fancy sorts can be
disposed of to advantage. The Concord leads in acreage followed in order
of acreage by Delaware, Niagara, Worden, Moore Early, Bacchus,
Pocklington, Campbell Early, Hartford and Vergennes after which come a
great number of less well-known sorts grown in acre or less quantities. The
value of the crop in this district in 1900 was $298,350.
During the early years of grape-growing along the Hudson the methods
of training were essentially those used in Europe. The vines were kept well
headed back and were trained to stakes of varying heights. It did not take
long to discover that for our native grapes the vines must be so trained as to
give the fruit and foliage the greatest possible amount of sunshine; to
regulate the bearing wood; to permit them to bear just so much and no more
fruit; and to control the height of the main trunk. Soon distinctive systems
for native grapes arose and one of the earliest of these originated with
William Kniffin of Ulster County. This system still bears his name and is
most generally used either as it was first practiced or in some of its
modifications. In the Kniffin system, and its modifications, the trunk is
carried to the top wire and the bearing shoots are allowed to droop; for this
reason this method of training is often called the drooping system in contra-
distinction to the upright systems hitherto mentioned in which the bearing
shoots are tied to wires above the canes from which they grow. The Hudson
Valley growers claim that the Kniffin system is especially desirable for the
strong growing sorts like Concord, Worden, and Niagara but admit that for
the slender shorter growing kinds like Delaware and Catawba the upright
system is best.
As is always the case when fruit is grown near to the market in which it
is sold, there is little uniformity in the packages in which it is shipped and
the manner in which the fruit is packed. Most of the fruit from the vineyards
along the Hudson goes to market in climax baskets of the two standard

sizes. Some of the growers pack two, or even three varieties, in one package
for the purpose of giving a range in color and quality. The shipping facilities
along the river are unexcelled. Most of the grapes go by boat down the
Hudson to New York City. In this case the fruit is loaded late in the evening
and reaches its destination early the next morning. The rail connections to
New England cities are good and large shipments go eastward by rail while
smaller quantities go inland and south. The fruit is not marketed through
unions nor has co-operative selling been tried, the nearness to market
obviating the necessity of co-operation.
The insect pests in this district are neither numerous nor particularly
destructive, the grape leaf-hopper and the grape-vine flea-beetle being most
common. Spraying for insects is not generally practiced. On the other hand
the fungus troubles are serious, the black-rot having been especially
destructive in some sections. The other diseases are much the same as in the
districts discussed. While all of the fungi of the district are amenable to
treatment yet spraying has not been generally practiced nor have the vines
been kept as vigorous and healthy through cultivation and fertilization as to
withstand the attacks of the several fungi. The decreased acreage of grapes
along the Hudson during the past decade or two is due in some measure to
the fact that the grape diseases have not been controlled. With better
knowledge of the life-habits of the insects and fungi which attack
vineyards, and means of combatting these pests, viticulture should regain
the prestige it once held in the Hudson Valley.
THE NIAGARA DISTRICT.
The Niagara district, the smallest of the several grape areas of the State,
lies along the Niagara river and the southern shore of Lake Ontario. In it are
about 4700 acres distributed in counties as follows: Erie, 2100; Niagara,
1250; Orleans, 375; Monroe, 700; Wayne, 380. In the southern part of Erie
County the vineyards are grown under conditions very similar to those we
have described in the Chautauqua district; the treatment given is much the
same; the grapes are marketed as are those in the district to the south and
west; and the Concord, as in the larger district, is the variety most largely
grown. But conditions in the northern and eastern part of the county more
nearly approach those along Niagara river and the Ontario shore so that the
county is included in the Niagara district.

In Niagara, Orleans, Monroe, and Wayne Counties the grape lands are in
what is known as the Ontario plain. This plain has for its western boundary
in the United States, Niagara River; for its northern boundary Lake Ontario;
to the south there is a high escarpment, the Niagara escarpment, or “the
mountain”, separating the Ontario plain from the Erie plain which is an
eastward extension of the low plain on the south shore of Lake Erie. The
Niagara escarpment may be seen well at Lewiston from which point it
stretches eastward toward Lockport and westward into Ontario. The
escarpment may be traced to the eastern end of Lake Ontario where it
disappears and the Erie and Ontario plains merge into one. In the grape-
growing counties the Ontario plain varies from four to nine miles in width.
The plain is more or less rolling throughout its entire length; but in few
places are the hills too steep for fruit-growing. The soils are sandy, gravelly,
or clay loams varying greatly in fertility and in adaptability for the grape. In
parts of the district the soils are stony and shaly. They belong, so far as they
have been studied, to the Dunkirk series and are therefore quite similar to
those of the Chautauqua district.
The climate, too, is much like that of the Chautauqua district. The
average midwinter temperature is comparatively high; the summer
temperature is equable; and the precipitation of rain and dew light as
compared with inland areas. The influence of the escarpment is not so
marked in the Niagara district as in the Chautauqua belt. A remarkable
feature of the climate of this district is that killing frosts rarely occur before
the close of October, giving a long maturing and harvesting season for the
grape. In the winter the daily range of temperature is small owing not only
to the influence of the water but to the fact as well that this season is a
period of great cloudiness for the region.
In Erie County much of the product of the southern part is marketed with
that of Chautauqua County but to the north, Buffalo makes a splendid local
market. Several varieties are grown for the home market but chiefly the
Concord and the Niagara. These are packed in the various styles of climax
baskets and in slatted crates—the latter for the home making of wine. The
fruit is carted to the market by the grower, or purchased in the field, in the
case of wine-making, by the consumer.
Niagara County is the home of the Niagara grape and this variety is
grown here almost exclusively. The product is sold very largely by the

grower in the open markets of Buffalo and Niagara Falls and is packed in
the several sizes of climax baskets. In the counties to the east of Niagara the
product, almost exclusively Niagaras, is sold at Rochester or neighboring
towns or shipped to the large eastern cities. Much of this fruit is sold
through the Niagara Grape Market Company, a co-operative union, with
headquarters at Lockport, New York.
The Niagara region is the newest of the grape districts of the State. There
were few plantings along the shore of Ontario until 1886 when the Niagara
grape was introduced and vineyards were put out in considerable numbers
throughout the whole extent of the district followed by still heavier
plantings during the succeeding several years. It was soon demonstrated
that the region was well adapted to grape-growing and especially for the
Niagara grape but that there were many soils and locations wholly
unsuitable for vineyards. Consequently during the years that followed the
bearing of the first grapes, many vineyards have been abandoned so that
there are now scarcely as many acres as at the close of the first period of
expansion about 1900. The insect and fungus pests are much the same as in
the Chautauqua district though the dreaded grape-vine fidia is not yet nearly
so common, but, on the other hand, the black-rot is far more destructive,
probably because the Niagara grape is very susceptible to this fungus.

CHAPTER IV

SPECIES OF AMERICAN GRAPES.
THE GENUS VITIS.
The genus Vitis was formed and named by Tournefort,[113] a French
botanist, more than two hundred years ago. In his work, Institutiones Rei
Herbariae, published in Paris in 1700, he gives the following description of
this genus:
“The Vitis is a genus of plant with a (A) flower shaped like a rose, with
many petals placed uniformly in a circle, out of the middle of which arises
the pistil (B), with stamens pressed together (C), the flower (D,E,F) folds
upward; the pistil develops into an edible berry (E), fleshy, full of juice, and
usually with four seeds (H,I), the seeds are pear-shaped (K).”
The capital letters in the parentheses refer to illustrations. These indicate
that Tournefort had a very clear conception of the flowering parts of a
grape. He gives twenty-one species under this genus of which nine are
American, one, however, being our Virginia creeper. Tournefort’s work is
all very indefinite; others of the species than those credited to America may
be American, and it is quite possible that of the nine some would not be
classed among the grapes to-day. Each species is credited to some previous
botanist and it is evident that Tournefort was a compiler rather than an
original worker with grapes.
The next botanist who contributed to our knowledge of this genus was
Linnaeus, the great Swedish systematist, who, in his Genera Plantarum,
1754, gives the following description of the flower (Like Tournefort’s,
Linnaeus’ book is written in Latin and the extracts here given are free
translations):
“Calyx. Five-toothed, small.
“Corolla. Petals five, rudimentary, small, caducous.
“Stamens. Filaments five, subulate, erect, spreading, caducous, anthers
simple.
“Pistil. Ovary egg-shaped, style none, stigma obtuse headed.

“Pericarp. Berry nearly round, large, one cell.
“Seeds. Five, plump, terminate cordate, base contracted, partially
divided into two cells.”
Linnaeus in his Species Plantarum of 1753, gives seven species as
belonging to this genus, three of which are credited to America. One,
however, Vitis arborea, is not classed among the grapes by present-day
botanists.
Marshall,[114] the first American botanist we have to consider, for neither
Tournefort nor Linnaeus had ever been on this continent, in his Arbustrum
Americanum, 1785, describes the genus Vitis in terms so nearly identical
with those of Linnaeus as to lead one to suspect that it is merely a
translation from the Genera Plantarum. Marshall gives five species. One of
these is certainly not a grape and one other is indeterminate.
Thomas Walter,[115] in his Flora Caroliniana, 1788, gives a brief
description of the genus very similar to the foregoing but he also speaks of
the masculine and feminine forms of the flowers, a point that does not seem
to have been noticed by any botanist of an earlier date. He speaks of the
corolla adhering at the top and coming off as a cap, one of the
distinguishing characters of Vitis. This latter point had, however, been noted
by Tournefort, and his figures show that this is what he means when he
speaks of the flower as folding upward. Tournefort, however, seems to have
been under the mistaken impression that Ampelopsis (Ampelopsis
quinquifolia Michx. is our common American form) opens its flowers in the
same way, as he includes this under Vitis. Walter gives only three species
and his descriptions of these are very brief.
The first European botanist who made an extensive study of American
plants in their habitats was André Michaux, a French botanist who traveled
extensively in North America at about the close of the eighteenth century. In
his Flora Boreali-Americana, which was published in 1803, he gives a brief
generic description of Vitis which includes all of the essential characters
given by Walter. He also questions the male and female characters
mentioned by Walter.[116] Michaux mentions five species of the American
grapes. His descriptions are clear and every species described can readily be
recognized so that there is no question among botanists as to what species
was meant in any instance.

An interesting contribution to our knowledge of the grapes of North
America is that of William Bartram.[117] Bartram’s opportunities for
becoming familiar with these plants were probably greater than those of any
other person of his day, he being a resident of America, and his father
having been a botanist, so that he was trained from childhood to observe
plants. The following is an extract from an article of Bartram’s in the
Domestic Encyclopedia, 1804:
“The most obvious characters which distinguish the grape vines of
America from those of the old continent are: 1. The berries of all the
American species and varieties that I have seen, approach the figure of an
oblate spheroid; that is, the poles are flattened, and the transverse diameter
is longer than the polar: however, I have observed that Alexander’s grape,
and some of the bul or bullet grapes, approach nearer to an oval or ellipsis
which is the figure of all foreign or European grapes that I have seen; viz. a
prolate spheroid. 2. Most of the American species and varieties have a
glaucous and yellowish pubescence on the under surface of their leaves. 3.
All that I have observed in the northern and eastern districts of the United
States are polygamous; i. e. those vines which bear fruit (female) have
hermaphrodite flowers (pentandria monogynia); but the males have only
five stamina, without any female organ, and are always barren. One should
suppose, from Walter so strongly marking this character as to induce him
to place the Vitis in the class Dioecia, when Linnaeus and the other
European botanists had placed it in Pentandria (he himself being an
European), that all the grape vines of the old continent are hermaphroditous
and Pentandrian. I know not from my own observation, whether the bull-
grape of Carolina is hermaphroditous or dioecious, and therefore rest
satisfied with Walter’s assertion.” Bartram gives four species.
Nuttall,[118] in his Genera of North American Plants and Catalogue of
the Species, gives a rather stereotyped description of the genus but in
addition in fine type he gives the following:
“Leaf simple and cordate, angularly or sinuately lobed, rarely digitate or
pinnate (Cissus?), flowers numerous, in compound racemes, not
uncommonly producing 4, 6 and 7 petals, with a corresponding number of
stamens, calix mostly entire, or obsoletely crenate, a glandulous disk
surrounding the germ; tendril dichotomous, sometimes producing flowers,
therefore analogous to a sterile raceme.”

It is evident that Nuttall was in doubt as to the distinguishing characters
between Vitis and the allied genus, Cissus. While he has the species of the
two genera in the same position they would now be placed, his reference to
pinnate-leaved species is somewhat misleading as no pinnate-leaved species
are known to-day in either Europe or America. He uses, however, the
distinguishing character between these two genera that we now accept, that
is, Vitis has petals that adhere at the tops and come off in the form of a cap
or calyptrum, while in Cissus the corolla does not fall off as a cap. Nuttall
mentions six species as belonging to this genus: Vitis labrusca, V. aestivalis,
V. cordifolia, V. riparia, V. rotundifolia, and V. palmata, with a question
mark after the last species. None is described. His work is apparently a
discriminating compilation of the work of earlier botanists.
Many other botanical workers wrote on this genus during the period
covered and some of them did very valuable work in describing the various
species but their work has not been referred to because it did not add to the
knowledge of the genus as a whole.
The first man to write a monograph on American grapes was Rafinesque,
[119] who published in 1830 a paper bound volume entitled American
Manual of the Grape Vine, etc. Rafinesque, who was long a resident of the
United States, had an opportunity to acquire knowledge on the subject upon
which he wrote second to none other. His description of the genus is similar
to that of his predecessors and very good; but here all similarity ends and
practically all value. After having made forty-one species, the greater
portion of which have names given by himself, he says: “By the above
enumeration of our Grapes I have done for this genus what Michaux did for
our Oaks. Owing to the great confusion of former authors, and the difficulty
of comparing the leaves and fruits of all the species, it is hardly as perfect
as I should wish. Rigid botanists may perhaps wish to reduce this species to
a minor number or consider some as hybrids: if they can find good
permanent collective characters, let them reduce our Grapes and Oaks to a
dozen species. But the angular or striated branches, the long or short
petioles, the oval, cordate or reniform leaves, etc., must always be deemed
essential specific characters, and several of my new species, such as V.
bracteata, V. angulata, V. peltata, V. canina, V. blanda, V. longifolia, V.
acerifolia, V. amara, V. prolifera, etc., must be deemed very distinct.” None
of those of which he says “must be deemed essential specific characters” is
now so considered and the species which must be “deemed very distinct”

are many of them unrecognized and none of them known by the name
which he gave.
Le Conte, about the middle of the last century, did much work in the
botany of grapes, publishing several papers in the Proceedings of the
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. These were in the nature of
monographs although they were not, so far as known, published separately.
He gives twelve species generally taken from other authors.
A little later than Le Conte, Engelmann of St. Louis, gave his attention to
the genus Vitis, clearing up a number of disputed points. His work was
published in various reports and later in the Bushberg Catalogue and Grape
Manual. Engelmann’s studies are particularly valuable in that he was the
first botanist working with grapes who lived in the middle west and the
territory over which he ranged in his botanical expeditions was
comparatively virgin. This was about the time of the reconstitution of the
French vineyards by the use of American roots as stocks on which to graft
their French vines to enable them to resist phylloxera. Many thousand
cuttings and rooted vines of American grapes were sent to France annually
for this purpose. The value of grafting on resistant stocks had stimulated an
interest among French scientists in grapes generally and particularly in the
American species. While their aid in separating species was but slight,
owing to their distance from the field where the plants were growing, yet
the investigations of Planchon, Millardet, and others as to the comparative
value of various characters in separating species, were of great importance.
These investigations were utilized by Engelmann to a considerable extent.
Owing to its simplicity, and somewhat perhaps to the place of publication,
his work obtained favor among grape-growers to a greater extent than that
of any of his predecessors. In his earlier writings he gives six species but in
the last edition of the Bushberg Catalogue thirteen are enumerated.

1. V. bicolor 6. V. labrusca
2. V. cordifolia 7. V. rupestris
3. V. rotundifolia 8. V. riparia
4. V. doaniana 9. V. vinifera
5. V. longii 10. V. aestivalis
CANES OF SPECIES OF VITIS

Shortly after and partly coincident with Engelmann, Munson, of Texas,
made valuable contributions to our knowledge of American grapes. Munson
is, what none of his predecessors had been, a cultivator of grapes and a
breeder of new varieties as well as a botanical student of the subject. The
region in which he lived was comparatively new to botanists, and it was
partly, perhaps, on this account that he raised the number of species from
the thirteen given by Engelmann to twenty-five. At the present time it
appears doubtful if all of these will ultimately be given specific rank. Many
of them undoubtedly will, and others of them will be recognized at least as
varieties. Munson is regarded to-day as the chief authority on grapes of the
semi-arid and mountainous districts of the West and is one of the leading
authorities on American viticulture.
The last man who has paid special attention to the grapes of North
America is Bailey, of Cornell. In his latest classification he gives twenty-
three species of American grapes. Bailey is the only American botanist of
experience and recognized standing in general botany who has paid special
attention to the grape. His monograph of the genus Vitis which, with some
changes, has appeared successively in Gray’s Synoptical Flora, The
Evolution of Our Native Fruits, and the Cyclopedia of American
Horticulture, is the most complete work we have on this subject. With his

permission we have followed his arrangement of species in The Grapes of
New York.
With this brief history of the formation of the genus Vitis as it now
stands we pass to a consideration of the botanical characters of Vitis.
From the time when botanists first commenced to work on the grape
there has been a constant search for taxonomic characters for separating the
various species clearly and distinctly. Many of the earlier descriptions,
while they are correct so far as they go, do not mention enough characters
to enable one to distinguish between similar species. It has been found that
dependence upon the shape of the leaf, size of berry, size of plant, date of
ripening, and similar characters, is very uncertain and unsatisfactory and
that, while these characters are always mentioned in descriptions as
indicating the intrinsic value of a species, they are of little value from a
systematic standpoint. There are, however, several characters of Vitis which
have great taxonomic importance.
One of the fundamental characters which determine a species is
continuous or intermittent tendrils, first noticed by Professor A. Braun[120]
of Berlin. Vitis labrusca, the common Fox grape, is peculiar in that there are
tendrils, or an inflorescence, opposite nearly every leaf; this arrangement is
known as continuous tendrils. All other species have two leaves with a
tendril opposite each and a third leaf without a tendril; such species are said
to have intermittent tendrils. Continuity of tendrils is a variable character
and to ascertain which of the two forms is present it is necessary to have
vigorous, healthy, typical canes. The lowest leaves of canes usually have no
opposite tendrils. This character is shown in the color-plates of the several
species.
A closely related character is that of the number of inflorescences borne
by a species. All species excepting Vitis labrusca average two
inflorescences to the cane but the last named species, at least in some of its
subdivisions, may bear from three to six inflorescences, each of course in
the place of a tendril opposite a leaf.
Professor Millardet of Bordeaux first called attention to the value of that
part of the cane known as the diaphragm as a means of distinguishing
species. The cane of the grape vine contains a large pith, and in most
species this pith is interrupted by woody tissue at the joints; this woody
tissue is the diaphragm. The presence or absence of the diaphragm and its

thickness are of taxonomic value. In Rotundifolia, the southern Fox grape,
the diaphragm is absent; in Riparia, the Riverbank grape, it is very thin; in
Rupestris it is slightly thicker; while Cordifolia, Aestivalis, and Labrusca
have thick diaphragms. This character is studied best in the year-old canes
of the grape. The color-plate of canes shows the range in thickness of
diaphragms as they occur in several species.

SEEDS OF SPECIES OF VITIS
[Natural Size and Enlarged]

The time of flowering is of considerable value in distinguishing species.
Unfortunately it requires live plants and a certain time of year in order that
this character be noted. The first American species to flower is Riparia.
Rupestris flowers shortly after; next, Labrusca; Aestivalis a little later,
although the Lincecumii variety of Aestivalis blooms slightly before
Labrusca; Cordifolia is very late in coming into bloom, and Cinerea still
later. Vinifera, the European grape, blooms shortly after Labrusca. The
cultivated offspring of all wild grapes retain the blooming characters of the
species from which they are derived.
Other characters that have been found of great value are those connected
with the seed. The ability to use the seed characters, however, cannot
readily be acquired except by the use of an illustrated manual and some
experience in selecting the seeds, as they are quite variable on the same

plant. The weight of the seeds differs in different species, but varies so
much inside the species that it is not of much value from a systematic
standpoint. In general, it may be said that the Labruscas have the largest and
heaviest seed of our American grapes; Riparia has the smallest seed, with
Aestivalis occupying an intermediate position. The size of the seeds in
Aestivalis, however, is more noticeable on account of the small size of the
fruit. The color-plate illustrates the different characters to be found in grape
seeds and a study of this plate with the technical descriptions of the several
species will show how important seeds become in classifying grapes.
Attention is called to the characters given by Bartram as distinguishing
the European from the American species. The first difference that he
mentions is in the shape of the fruit, that of the Vinifera being more or less
oval and that of American species roundish or oblate. Recent technical
descriptions of our American species give the fruit as spherical where the
shape is mentioned at all. On the other hand it is known that most of the
cultivated varieties of European grapes are oval. Does this mean that all of
our cultivated American varieties which show oval berries, such as Isabella,
Catawba, and others, contain Vinifera blood? It could not be said without
careful study that this is true but it is certainly worthy of consideration. This
point seems to have escaped the attention of our later-day botanists.
The sexual status of the grape has always been a source of
misunderstanding. The earlier botanists spoke of American vines as
dioecious, that is, bearing staminate and pistillate flowers on separate
individuals. In this, as was noted on page 98, they were corrected by
Bartram, in so far as American species were concerned, he stating that the
vines of America were polygamous (showing staminate and hermaphrodite
plants). Bartram did not presume to speak as to the sex of the flowers of the
Old World grape. Later it was determined that the cultivated varieties of
Europe were always hermaphrodite and that staminate forms were
unknown. Engelmann[121] explains this so well and with such apparent
satisfaction that we cannot do better than quote him here. “All the true
Grape-vines bear fertile flowers on one stock and sterile flowers on another
separate stock, and are therefore called polygamous, or, not quite correctly,
dioecious. The sterile plants do bear male flowers with abortive pistils, so
that while they never produce fruit themselves, they may assist in fertilizing
the others; the fertile flowers, however, are hermaphrodites containing both
organs—stamens and pistils—and are capable of ripening fruit without the

assistance of the male plants. Real female flowers without any stamens do
not seem ever to have been observed. Both forms, the male and the
hermaphrodite, or if preferred those with sterile and those with complete
flowers, are found mixed in their native localities of the wild plants, but of
course only the fertile plants have been selected for cultivation, and thus it
happens that to the cultivator only these are known; and as the Grape-vine
of the Old World has been in cultivation for thousands of years, it has
resulted that this hermaphrodite character of its flowers has been mistaken
for a botanical peculiarity, by which it was to be distinguished, not only
from our American Grape-vines, but also from the wild grapes of the old
world. But plants raised from the seeds of this as well as any other true
Grape-vine, generally furnish as many sterile as fertile specimens, while
those propagated by layering or by cuttings, of course, only continue the
individual character of the mother-plant or stock.” The accompanying plate
shows various forms of grape flowers.

FLOWERS OF VITIS

He further says in a foot-note: “These fertile plants, however, are of two
kinds; some are perfect hermaphrodites, with long and straight stamens
around the pistil, the others bear smaller stamens, shorter than the pistil
which soon bend downward and curve under it; these may be called
imperfect hermaphrodites, approaching females, and they do not seem to be
as fruitful as the perfect hermaphrodites, unless otherwise fertilized.”
Beach[122] tested many of our cultivated varieties by sacking the clusters
at blooming time and thus determined their capacity to fertilize themselves.

From the data thus secured he divides them into four classes: 1st. Those that
are able to fertilize themselves so that the clusters are perfect or varying
from perfect to somewhat loose. 2d. Those in which the clusters are
marketable, varying from moderately compact to loose. 3d. Clusters so
loose as to be unmarketable. 4th. Those which are self-sterile or showing no
fruit on covered clusters. Of 169 varieties tested, he found 38 belonging to
the first class, 66 to the second class, 28 to the third, and 37 to the fourth.
Later it was found that the reason why certain varieties were self-sterile
was on account of impotent and abortive pollen, the percentage of abortive
pollen grains varying with different varieties and this percentage
determining the degree of self-sterility. The upright or depressed stamen is
not an invariable criterion of the condition of the pollen although it is
usually. There are a few instances in which upright stamens bear impotent
pollen but these are very exceptional. Munson made similar tests of vines of
twenty-two[123] American species of vines secured from their habitats. In
every case he found that they showed only two forms, the staminate vines
and the self-sterile hermaphrodite, no perfect hermaphrodites being found.
While of some of the species the number of vines tested was a half dozen or
less, in most instances many vines were tested from different places. This is
particularly interesting in that it becomes a puzzle as to where our perfectly
hermaphrodite cultivated forms could have come from if such forms are not
present in the wild vines of our woods and prairies.
The structure of the bark is an important distinguishing character for
some species; in particular as to whether it peels off and whether in large
flakes or in narrow strips or shreds. So, too, the color of the bark is often of
taxonomic importance. The form and color of the leaves are often
considered, but these characters are variable and may be misleading. The
lobing of leaves is a fairly uniform character in most species, some having
lobed and others having entire leaves. As to color and texture, the upper
surface of the leaf in some species is smooth, glossy and shining and in
others rough and dull with varying shades of green. The lower surfaces
show similar variations with the addition of varying conditions of
pubescence and down or even of cobwebs. In young seedlings the shape
and surfaces of the leaves are apt to be quite different from those on the old
plants, a character of systematic importance with some species. The flower,
as compared with this organ in other genera, is of little importance in

distinguishing the species of Vitis, there being an unusual similarity in the
structure and appearance of the flowers of the several species.
The number of species of Vitis is very uncertain; as, indeed, is their
habitat, except that they are generally confined to the temperate or
subtropical regions. Some writers give the number as less than fifty but in
all territories the number seems to depend on the thoroughness with which
the region has been worked over botanically, and also on the judgment of
the botanist doing the work. Gray recognized four species as being
indigenous to America. Engelmann in his latest publication (Bushberg
Catalogue, 1883), thirteen, while Munson gives twenty-five. Bailey in
Gray’s Synoptical Flora, gives twenty-three species. Planchon (in 1887)
gives twenty-eight species for the world. Seventeen of these are credited to
America, ten to Asia, and one, the Vinifera, of unknown nativity. All of
these lists, however, are known to be incomplete. Bessey[124] says that the
grape is not native to the southern hemisphere, and Planchon credits none to
any section south of the equator. Bailey credits two to Australia in a work
not intended to cover more than those of American interest. And a
correspondent[125] from that continent writes us giving a list of nineteen
named and botanically described species indigenous to Australia. The
number of species of grapes in the world depends upon the arbitrary limits
set for a species and our knowledge of the genus is yet too meager to set
these limits with certainty.
SPECIES OF AMERICAN GRAPES.
CONSPECTUS OF NORTH AMERICAN SPECIES OF VITIS.
A. Skin of mature berry separating freely from the pulp.
B. Nodes without diaphragms; tendrils simple 1. V. rotundifolia.
2. V. munsoniana.
B.B. Nodes with diaphragms; tendrils forked.
C. Leaves and shoots glabrous at maturity and without bloom.
Tendrils intermittent (V. cinerea and V. arizonica are partial
exceptions and might be looked for under C.C.).
D. Leaves thin, light, bright green, generally glabrous
below at maturity except perhaps in the axils of the
veins (V. champini an exception) with a long or at
least a prominent point and usually long and sharp
teeth or the edge even jagged. (V. bicolor might be
looked for here.)
E. Leaves broader than long; petiolar sinus usually
wide and shallow. (V. treleasei might be
sought here.) 3. V. rupestris.

E.E. Leaves ovate in outline; petiolar sinus
usually medium to narrow.
F. Diaphragms thin; young shoots not red. 4. V. monticola.
5. V. riparia.
6. V. treleasei.
7. V. longii.
8. V. champini.
F.F. Diaphragms thick; young shoots
9. V. rubra.
bright red
D.D. Leaves thickish, dull colored or grayish green, often
holding some close dull pubescence below at maturity,
shoots and leaves nearly always more or less pubescent
when young; the teeth mostly short; the point mostly
rectangular and conspicuous.
E. Plants strong, climbing, with stout persistent
tendrils.
F. Young shoots cylindrical, glabrous or
very soon becoming so 10. V. cordifolia.
F.F. Young shoots angled, covered the 11. V. baileyana.
first year with tomentum or wool 12. V. berlandieri.
13. V. cinerea.
E.E. Plants scarcely climbing, tendrils perishing
when without support 14. V. arizonica.
D.D.D. Leaves orbicular, scallop shaped; species of the
Pacific Coast 15. V. californica.
C.C. Leaves rusty or white tomentose or glaucous blue below,
thick or at least firm. (V. cinerea, V. arizonica and possibly
V. californica might be sought here.)
D. Leaves flocculent or cobwebby or glaucous below
when fully grown (i. e. not covered with a thick dense
felt-like tomentum except sometimes in V. doaniana).
E. Shoots white tipped; ends of the growing
shoots and the under surface of the leaves 16. V. girdiana.
whitish or gray 17. V. doaniana.
E.E. Shoots rusty tipped; the unfolding leaves
and (except in V. bicolor) the young shoots distinctly
ferrugineous; mature leaves either rusty 18. V. aestivalis.
or bluish below or sometimes becoming green 19. V. bicolor.
in V. bicolor 20. V. caribæa.
D.D. Leaves densely tomentose or felt-like beneath
throughout the season; covering white or rusty white.
E. Tendrils intermittent 21. V. candicans.
22. V. simpsoni.
E.E. Tendrils mostly continuous 23. V. labrusca.
A.A. Skin and pulp of mature berry cohering. (Old World) 24. V. vinifera.

SHOOT OF VITIS ROTUNDIFOLIA

1. VITIS ROTUNDIFOLIA Michx.[126]
1. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc., 1771:339. 2. Michaux, 2:231. 1803. Muscadine grape. 3. Bartram, Dom.
Enc., 5:289, 290. 1804. V. Taurina; V. vulpina; Bull grape. 4. Muhlenberg, 1813:27. V. Verrucosa;
V. rotundifolia; Fox grape; Bull grape. 5. Pursh, 1:169. 1814. Bull grape; Bullet grape. 6. Nuttall,
1:143. 1818. 7. Elliott, 2:687. 1824. V. vulpina; Fox grape. 8. Rafinesque, 1830:16. V. vulpina; V.
muscadina; V. rotundifolia; V. incisa. 9. (?) Ib., 1830:17. V. angulata; Arkansas; Bushy grape;
Currant grape; False Scuppernong. 10. Ib., 1830:17. V. verrucosa; Warty grape. 11. (?) Ib.,
1830:17. V. peltata; V. Floridana. 12. Le Conte, Proc. Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci., 6:273. 1853. V. vulpina;
V. acerifolia; V. angulata; V. verrucosa; Bullace grape; Bull grape; Muscadine; Scuppernong. 13.
Weller, U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1853:306. Scuppernong. 14. Le Conte, Ib., 1857:231. V. vulpina; V.
acerifolia; V. angulata; V. verrucosa; Bullace grape; Bull grape; Muscadine; Skuppernong. 15.
White, Horticulturist, 12:457. 1857. V. vulpina. 16. Ravenel, U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1859:538. V.
vulpina; V. rotundifolia; Mustang; Bullace grape; Bullet grape; Bull grape. 17. Buckley, U. S. Pat.
Off. Rpt., 1861:484. Muscadine; Bullace. 18. Koch, Ill. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1868:81. V. vulpina;
Muscadine; Southern Fox grape. 19. Saunders, U. S. D. A. Rpt., 1869:83, 85. fig. V. vulpina; Bullace
grape. 20. Wylie, Jour. of Hort., 7:164. 1870. Scuppernong; Bullace. 21. Ib., Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt.,
1871:116. Scuppernong. 22. Engelmann, Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1872:62. V. vulpina; Southern Fox grape;
Bullace grape; Bullit grape; Muscadine. 23. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1883:10, 11, 13, 14, 19. V. vulpina; V.
rotundifolia; Southern Fox grape; Bullace grape; Bullit grape; Muscadine. 24. Bush, Ib., 1883:26. V.
vulpina. 25. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:138. V. vulpina; Scuppernong; Muscadine. 26. Ib.,
Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1885:97. Scuppernong; Muscadine. 27. Ib., Gar. Mon., 28:140. 1886. 28.
Planchon, De Candolle’s Mon. Phan., 5:362. 1887. Fox grape; Muscadine; Bullace; Bullet grape; V.
angulata; V. vulpina?. 29. Munson, Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. Muscadine. 30. Ib., U. S. D. A.
Pom. Bul., 3:14. 1890. 31. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474, 475. 1890. Muscadine. 32. Woodworth, Ark. Sta.
An. Rpt., 3:93. 1890. V. vulpina. 33. Munson, Am. Gard., 12:661. 1891. 34. Bailey, Ib., 14:353. 1893.

Scuppernong. 35. Munson, Bush. Cat., 1894:20, 22, 29. V. vulpina; Muscadine; Southern Fox grape.
36. Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:420. 1897. Muscadine; Southern Fox grape; Bullace; Bullit; Bull
grape. 37. Britton and Brown, 2:411. 1897. V. vulpina; Southern Fox grape; Bullace grape. 38.
Munson, Am. Gard., 20:688. 1899. 39. Ib., Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:219, 232, 234, 241, 272. 1900. fig.
Southern Muscadine. 40. Earle, Ala. Sta. Bul., 110:74. 1900. 41. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines,
1903:42, 43, 45. 42. Newman, S. C. Sta. Bul., 132:1. 1907. Bullis.
Vine variable in vigor, usually very vigorous, climbing high, sometimes, when without support,
shrubby and only three or four feet high; when growing in the shade often sending down aerial roots.
Wood hard, bark smooth, not scaling off except in old age, with prominent warty lenticels; shoots
short-jointed, angled, with fine scurfy pubescence; diaphragms absent; tendrils intermittent, simple.
Leaves below medium in size, broadly cordate or roundish; petiolar sinus rather wide, usually
shallow; margin with obtuse, wide teeth; not lobed; dense in texture, rather light green color, glabrous
above, glabrous or sometimes pubescent along veins below. Cluster small (6-24 berries), loose;
peduncle short; pedicels short, rather thick. Berries large, globular or somewhat oblate, black or
greenish-yellow; skin usually thick, tough, and with a musky odor; pulp rather tough; ripening
unevenly and dropping as soon as ripe. Seeds two to four, very large to medium, shaped something
like a coffee-berry, somewhat flattened, shallowly and broadly notched; beak very short; chalaza
rather narrow, slightly depressed with radiating ridges and furrows; raphe a narrow groove. Leafing,
flowering and ripening fruit very late. (See Plate.)

Rotundifolia, or the southern Fox grape, seems to have attracted the
attention of travelers in America from an early period. The references made
in the journals of the explorers of colonial times can frequently be
recognized as pertaining to this species. Rotundifolia seems to have escaped
the attention of botanists, however, until the time of Michaux, who named
and described it. Possibly the reason for its being overlooked was because
of the supposition that this was the species Linnaeus had described under
the name Vulpina.[127] The uncertainty as to who first described
Rotundifolia created a confusion that was not definitely cleared up for
nearly a hundred years and was responsible for the fact that half the
botanists called it Vitis rotundifolia and a nearly equal number Vitis vulpina.
Rafinesque, in 1830, described some three or four species within the bounds
of what is now known as Vitis rotundifolia. None of these, however, has
been accepted by later botanists.
The habitat of this species is southern Delaware, west through
Tennessee, southern Illinois, southeastern Missouri, Arkansas (except the
northwestern portions), to Grayson County, Texas, as a northern and
western boundary, to the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf on the east and south.
It becomes rare as one approaches the western limit but is common in many
sections of the great region outlined above, being most abundant on sandy,
well-drained bottom lands and along river banks and in swamps, thick
woodlands and thickets.

Vitis rotundifolia has for years been the favorite grape in many sections
of the South. This is largely due, no doubt, to the fact that they have been
usually compared with Labrusca or Labrusca-Vinifera varieties of northern
origin which are not well adapted to southern conditions. With the
introduction of native varieties of “bunch grapes”[128] of merit, the southern
species may lose in popularity. It must be said, considering the fact that
southern agricultural literature has been filled with recommendations of
Rotundifolia grapes for nearly a century, that the cultivation of varieties of
this species is comparatively limited.
The climate most suitable for Rotundifolia is that in which cotton grows
and it thrives best in the lower portions of the cotton belt of the United
States. On account of the late ripening of the fruit it requires a long season.
Vines of Rotundifolia have been known to withstand a winter temperature
as low as 12 degrees below zero, but under ordinary conditions this would
undoubtedly be much too severe for most Rotundifolias. They do not suffer
from the effects of hot summers but will not withstand drouth and are not
well adapted to semi-arid conditions. All growers of varieties of this species
agree that it does best on light sandy or alluvial soils; and while it may grow
on rather heavy clays, if all other conditions are favorable, its vigor will be
lessened.
The fruit of Rotundifolia is very characteristic. The skin is thick, has a
leathery appearance, adheres strongly to the underlying flesh, and is marked
with lenticel-like russet dots. The flesh is more or less tough but the
toughness is not localized around the seed as in the case of Labrusca. The
fruit and must of all the varieties of the species are characterized by a
strong, musky aroma and are lacking in sugar and acid. Some varieties yield
over four gallons of must per bushel. Wine-makers are divided in opinion as
to its value for wine-making, but at present the most promising outlook for
Rotundifolia varieties is as wine grapes. Rotundifolia does not produce fruit
suitable for the table chiefly because the berries ripen unevenly and when
ripe drop from the cluster. The common method of gathering the fruit of this
species is to shake the vines at intervals so that the ripe berries will drop on
sheets spread below the vines. The juice which exudes from the point where
the stem is broken off causes the berries to become smeared and gives them
an unattractive appearance. Owing, however, to the tough skin, the berries
do not crack as badly as other grapes would under the same conditions but
still they are not adapted to long distance shipments.

Under reasonably favorable conditions the vines attain great age and
great size, and when grown on arbors, as they usually are, and without
pruning, they cover a large area. The vines are planted from fifteen to forty
feet apart in the vineyard, and the first year or two are trained to posts. Later
the tops of these posts are connected by cross-bars and an arbor is thus
formed. Pruning usually consists of removing dead wood but a few growers
have always taken exception to the customary non-pruning method of
treating the Rotundifolia. Lately Newman, of South Carolina, has published
a bulletin[129] in which he recommends that the vines be pruned and raised
on a trellis as is customary with other grapes. He gives figures to show that
the damage to Rotundifolia vines is due to the bleeding that follows pruning
and that this bleeding may be obviated by pruning in the fall or early winter.
The success of such a practice would undoubtedly place the culture of
Rotundifolia varieties on a better commercial footing.
Rotundifolia is remarkably resistant to the attacks of all insects and to
fungal diseases. The phylloxera do not attack its roots and it is considered
as resistant as any other, if not the most resistant of all American species. It
is grown from cuttings only with difficulty. However, under favorable
circumstances, and with skilful handling, this is a successful method of
propagation. Under unfavorable circumstances, or where only a few vines
are desired, it is better to depend on layers. As a stock upon which to graft
other vines this species has not been a success. Wylie found great difficulty
in crossing Rotundifolia with other species, and the crosses did not thrive
under cultivation. Lately Munson has introduced several Rotundifolia
hybrids.
2. VITIS MUNSONIANA Simpson.
1. (?) Rafinesque, 1830:17. V. peltata; V. Floridana. 2. Munson, Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1885:97. V.
floridana; Florida grape. 3. Ib., Gar. Mon., 28:140. 1886. V. floridana; V. peltata; Florida grape.
4. Ib., Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. Everbearing grape. 5. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474, 475. 1890.
6. Ib., U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul., 3:14. 1890. 7. Ib., Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1893:116. Bird grape;
Everbearing grape. 8. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1894:20. Bird grape; Mustang grape of Chapman. 9. Bailey,
Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:421. 1897. Mustang grape of Florida; Bird grape; Everbearing grape. 10. Munson,
Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:232, 241. 1900. Florida Bird grape. 11. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 45.

Vine not very vigorous, a slender grower, usually running on the ground
or over low bushes. Canes slightly angular; internodes short; tendrils
intermittent, simple. Leaves smaller and thinner than Rotundifolia and
rather more circular in outline; not lobed; teeth rather open and spreading;

petiolar sinus V-shaped; both surfaces smooth, rather light green. Cluster
with more berries but about the same size as Rotundifolia. Berry one-third
to one-half the diameter, with thinner and more tender skin; black, shining;
pulp less solid, more acid and without muskiness. Seeds about one-half the
size of Rotundifolia, similar in other respects. Leafing, flowering, and
ripening fruit very late.
In 1830 Rafinesque described, under the name Vitis peltata, or Vitis
floridana, “a very singular species, lately found in Florida.” This
description is brief and includes many characters of no taxonomic value. In
1885 or 1886, Mr. J.H. Simpson of Manatee, Florida, sent a specimen of a
grape growing in his locality to Munson which was taken to be
Rafinesque’s Vitis peltata. He consequently described it under the name
Vitis floridana but the species was not generally accepted. Later Simpson
gave it the name Vitis munsoniana.
Its habitat is central and southern Florida and the Florida Keys, and it is
said to be the only grape growing on these Keys. It extends south of the
habitat of Rotundifolia and blends into this species at their point of meeting.
Munsoniana appears to be a variation of Rotundifolia, fitted to
subtropical conditions. It is tender, not enduring a lower temperature than
zero. In the matter of multiplication it differs from Vitis rotundifolia in that
it can be propagated readily from cuttings. Like Rotundifolia it is resistant
to phylloxera. The species is of no value horticulturally.
3. VITIS RUPESTRIS Scheele.
1. Scheele, Linn., 21:591. 1848. 2. Ravenel, U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1859:539. Mountain grape of
Texas. 3. Buckley, Ib., 1861:485. Rock grape. 4. Prince, Gar. Mon., 5:73. 1863. Bush grape of Texas.
5. Engelmann, Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1872:61. Sand grape; Sugar grape. 6. Jaeger, Mo. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,
1883:41. 7. Engelmann, Bush. Cat., 1883:10, 11, 12, 14, 18. Rock grape; Sand grape; Sugar grape.
8. Bush, Ib., 1883:21, 26. 9. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:132. Sand-beach grape; Sugar
grape. 10. Campbell, Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1885:84. 11. Munson, Ib., 1885:97, 98. 12. Ib., Soc. Prom.
Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. Sugar grape; Sand grape; Beach grape. 13. Planchon, De Candolle’s Mon.
Phan., 5:323, 346. 1887. Sand grape; Sugar grape; Mountain grape. 14. Munson, Gar. and For.,
3:474. 1890. 15. Ib., U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul., 3:7, 9. 1890. 16. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:659. 1891. 17. Ib.,
Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1893:116. Rock grape; Sand grape. 18. Munson, Bush. Cat., 1894:20, 22. 19.
Husmann, 1895:110, 188. 20. Britton and Brown, 2:411. 1897. Sand grape; Sugar grape. 21. Bailey,
Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:421. 1897. Sand grape; Sugar grape; Rock grape; Bush grape; Mountain grape.
22. Beach, N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:537, 557. 1898. 23. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:234, 235, 239, 259.
1900. Rock grape. 24. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 82.
Small, much branched shrub or sometimes, under favorable circumstances, slightly climbing.
Diaphragm thin but slightly thicker than Riparia; tendrils few, or, if present, weak, usually deciduous.
Leaves rather small; young leaves frequently folded on midrib; broadly cordate or reniform, wider

than long, scarcely ever slightly lobed, smooth, glabrous on both surfaces at maturity; petiolar sinus
wide, shallow; margin rather coarsely toothed, frequently a sharp abrupt point at terminal. Cluster
small. Berries small, usually larger than Riparia, color black or purple-black. Seeds small, not
notched; beak short, rather blunt; raphe slightly distinct to indistinct, usually showing as a narrow
groove; chalaza of medium size, pear-shaped, sometimes distinct, but usually a depression only.
Leafing, blossoming, and ripening early (blossoming soon after Riparia).

Rupestris seems to have been first described and named by Scheele in
1848 in a contribution on the flora of Texas to the periodical Linnaea.
Ravenel, in 1859, states that this grape is found in Texas and is there known
as the Mountain grape. It was mentioned and described by Buckley,
Engelmann, and all of the later botanists. (See Plate.)
This species is an inhabitant of southwestern Texas, extending eastward
and northward into New Mexico, southern Missouri, Indiana and Tennessee
to southern Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. Its favorite places
are gravelly banks and bars of mountain streams or the rocky beds of dry
water-courses. Rupestris is usually considered drouth-resistant but Munson
states that it is short-lived in the upland sandy soils in northern Texas,
where, owing to long droughts, the land dries out deeply. Here, he says, it is
not so successfully resistant to drouth as Lincecumii.[130]
This species is quite variable both in type and growth. It was introduced
into France at about the same time as Riparia, and the French vineyardists
selected the most vigorous and healthy forms for grafting stock. These pass
under the various names of Rupestris Mission, Rupestris du Lot, Rupestris
Ganzin, Rupestris Martin, Rupestris St. George, and others. In France they
are stated to have given particularly good results on bare, rocky soils with
hot, dry exposures. In California, Husmann[131] states, “It does not flourish
in dry locations here, and as it suckers profusely and does not take the graft
as readily as the two former classes [Riparia and Aestivalis], it is not largely
propagated.” It has not been sufficiently cultivated in this country east of
the Rocky Mountains so that it can be said what conditions of soil and
climate best suit this species other than the general conclusions that may be
drawn from the conditions present where the species is indigenous.

RUPESTRIS DU LOT

The clusters of fruit are small, with berries about the size of a currant
and varying from sweet to sour. The berry is characterized by much
pigment under the skin. The fruit has a sprightly taste wholly free from any
disagreeable foxiness. According to Munson, it is too unproductive to be
profitable. The sugar and acid content of the must is not known. Jaeger
states that Rupestris wine sent to France was there judged as decidedly the
best American claret yet tested.
Rupestris under cultivation is said to be very resistant to rot and mildew
of the foliage. It is considered hardy by those familiar with it in the
Southwest, and Campbell states that it withstood, without injury, 32 degrees
below zero at Delaware, Ohio. The attention of hybridizers was attracted to
this species over thirty years ago and various hybrids have been produced
by Jaeger, Munson, Campbell and Millardet, all of whom considered
Rupestris of great promise for grape-breeding. The root system of Rupestris
is peculiar in that the roots penetrate at once deeply into the ground instead
of extending laterally as in other species. Like those of Riparia, the roots are
slender, hard, and resistant to the phylloxera. The species is easily
propagated by cuttings. According to Husmann[132] the vines bench-graft
readily but are difficult to handle in field grafting.
VITIS RUPESTRIS DISSECTA Eggert.
1. Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:422. 1897. V. rupestris, var. DISSECTA.

Vitis rupestris dissecta was named by H. Eggert of St. Louis, the name
being placed on herbarium specimens but apparently not published by him.
According to Bailey it differs from the typical forms of the species in
having “more ovate leaves and very long teeth, and a strong tendency
towards irregular lobing.” It is found in Missouri.
4. VITIS MONTICOLA Buckley.[133]
1. Buckley, Proc. Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci., 1861:450. 2. Ib., U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1861:485. White
grape; Mountain grape. 3. Engelmann, Bush. Cat., 1883:10, 12, 14, 15, 16. Mountain grape of West
Texas. 4. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:134. Mountain grape. 5. Ib., Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt.,
1887:59. Mountain grape. 6. Ib., U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul., 3:13. 1890. V. Texana. 7. Ib., Gar. and For.,
3:474, 475. 1890. 8. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:586. 1891. Sweet Mountain grape. 9. Ib., Mich. Hort. Soc.
Rpt., 1893:116. 10. Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:422. 1897. Sweet Mountain grape. 11. Munson, Tex.
Sta. Bul., 56:230, 232, 234, 239, 260. 1900. Sweet Mountain grape. 12. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines,
1903:42, 96.
Vine of moderate vigor, climbing, or, in the absence of support, frequently shrubby. Canes very
slender; shoots angled, more or less pubescent; diaphragms medium to rather thin; tendrils medium
in size, intermittent, usually bifid, deciduous. Leaves with stipules short, broad; leaf-blade small and
thin, cordate, entire, notched or shortly three-lobed; petiolar sinus rather deep and medium to narrow
in width, sometimes overlapping, rounded; margin broadly and obtusely toothed; apex usually
acuminate; upper surface smooth, glossy; lower surface grayish-green, more or less pubescent when
young; pubescence confined chiefly to ribs and veins. Clusters short and broad, compact, with
medium to short peduncle. Berries medium to below in size, black or gray with thin bloom. Seeds
large, usually slightly notched; chalaza rather narrow; raphe a groove. Leafing, flowering, and
ripening fruit very late.

Vitis monticola was named and described by Buckley in 1861. There
seems to have been some misunderstanding by later botanists as to exactly
what Buckley’s species of this name is, and in spite of what has been
written on the subject, it seems as though some of the botanists are still
describing different species. The seed, in Engelmann’s figure, resembles
that of the Rupestris very closely, while as figured by Viala the seeds
resemble those of Cinerea or Cordifolia.
Monticola inhabits the limestone hills of central and southwestern Texas.
The fruit of this species has a very sweet and somewhat peculiar flavor.
The vines can be propagated from cuttings only with difficulty. The species
is adapted to a hot, dry climate and limestone land. It is found to be very
resistant to phylloxera and is sometimes recommended as a stock for
Vinifera but is not generally considered as valuable in this respect as
Berlandieri. It is without value for its fruit and is of no horticultural
importance to the eastern American grape-grower.

5. VITIS RIPARIA[134] Michx.
1. Tournefort, Inst. Rei Herb., 1:613. 1700. V. Canadensis aceris folio. 2. (?) Linnaeus, Sp. Pl.,
1753:203. V. vulpina. 3. (?) Walter, 1788:242. V. vulpina. 4. (?) Willdenow, 1:1181. 1797. V.
vulpina. 5. Michaux, 2:231. 1803. 6. (?) Bartram, Dom. Enc., 5:291. 1804. V. serotina; Winter
grape. 7. Pursh, 1:169. 1814. V. odoratissima. 8. Nuttall, 1818:143. 9. Elliott, 2:688. 1824. Winter
grape? 10. Torrey, Fl. of N. & M. Sta., 1826:121. 11. Rafinesque, 1830:15. River grape; Bermuda
vine; Mignonette vine. 12. Ib., 1830:16. V. odoratissima. 13. Prince, 1830:193. V. odoratissima;
Sweet scented. 14. Torrey, Fl. of N. Y., 1:147. 1843. Winter grape. 15. Le Conte, Trans. Phil. Acad.
Nat. Sci., 6:273. 1853. V. dimidiata. 16. Ib., 6:272. V. vulpina; V. aestivalis of some; V. cordifolia of
many; V. callosa; V. hyemalis; Winter grape. 17. Buckley, U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1861:483. V.
cordifolia, var. RIPARIA. 18. Saunders, U. S. D. A. Rpt., 1869:82, 85, 87. V. cordifolia, var.
RIPARIA. 19. Engelmann, Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1872:61. 20. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1883:10, 11, 12, 14, 18.
Riverside grape. 21. Bush, Ib., 1883:23. 22. Munson, Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1885:97, 98. Riverside
grape. 23. Ib., Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:131. Riverside grape. 24. Ib., Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt.,
1887:59. Riverside grape. 25. Planchon, De Candolle’s Mon. Phan., 5:323, 352. 1887. V. vulpina; V.
incisa; V. intermedia; V. odoratissima; V. Virginiana; V. Canadensis aceris folio. 26. Munson, U. S.
D. A. Pom. Bul., 3:9. 1890. 27. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. 28. Bailey, Am. Gard., 14:353. 1893.
fig. V. vulpina; V. riparia. 29. Husmann, 1895:175. V. cordifolia. 30. Ib., 1895:188. 31. Britton and
Brown, 2:410. 1897. fig. V. vulpina; V. riparia; V. cordifolia, var. riparia; Riverside grape; Sweet
scented grape. 32. Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:422. 1897. V. vulpina; Riverbank; Frost; V. riparia; V.
serotina; V. odoratissima; V. Illinoensis?; V. Missouriensis?; V. tenuifolia?; V. cordifolia, var. riparia;
V. vulpina, var. riparia. 33. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:218, 219, 230, 239, 260. 1900. V. vulpina;
Riverside; V. riparia. 34. Viala and Ravaz. Am. Vines, 1903:42, 104.
Vine vigorous to very vigorous, climbing. Shoots cylindrical or slightly angled, usually smooth,
slender; diaphragms thin; tendrils intermittent, slender, usually bifid. Leaves with large stipules; leaf-
blade medium to large, thin, entire, three, or lower ones often five-lobed; sinuses shallow, angular;
petiolar sinus broad, usually rather shallow; margin with incised, sharply serrate teeth of variable
size; of a light green color, glabrous above, usually glabrous but sometimes slightly pubescent on ribs
and veins below. Cluster medium to small, generally compact, shouldered; peduncle short. Berries
small to medium, black with a heavy blue bloom. Seeds usually two to four, small, usually slightly
notched, short, plump, with very short beak; chalaza narrowly oval, depressed, indistinct; raphe
usually a groove, sometimes slightly distinct. Very variable in flavor and time of ripening. (See
Plate.)

The first mention we have of Vitis riparia is by Tournefort in 1700, who,
without further description, calls it Vitis canadensis aceris folio, or Maple-
leaved Canadian grape.[135] Linnaeus in 1753 described mixed specimens of
Cordifolia and Riparia under the name of Vitis vulpina. His description is as
follows:[136] “Leaves cordate, dentate-serrate, glabrous on both sides.”
Walter and Willdenow copy the description of Linnaeus. The first
description which is clear, and the identity of which has never been
questioned, is that of Michaux in 1803, under the name Riparia. He says:
“Leaves unequally and sharply dentate, slightly 3-lobed. Petioles, veins and
margins pubescent. Called by French residents Vigne des battures. Habitat
along the banks and on the islands of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, etc.”

Bartram, in 1804, under the name of Vitis serotina, or Winter grape,
describes a vine which may be Riparia or may be Cordifolia as it has some
of the characters of both.

SHOOT OF VITIS RIPARIA

Linnaeus’ description seems to have thoroughly confused all of the
earlier botanists. They were in doubt, first, as to what species was intended
for Vulpina; second, as to the distinguishing characters between Riparia and
Cordifolia. Gray classed Riparia as a variety of Cordifolia. Engelmann was
the first to draw attention to the specific characters which separated these
two sorts and these he gives as follows: 1st. Riparia has thin diaphragms,
Cordifolia thick. 2d. Riparia blooms early, Cordifolia late. 3d. Riparia
propagates readily from cuttings, Cordifolia only with difficulty. 4th. Seeds
of the Riparia have indistinct or almost indistinct, depressed chalaza and
raphe, while the chalaza and raphe of the Cordifolia seeds are elevated and
distinct. To these Bush[137] added the further distinguishing character that
on the shoots the small terminal leaves of the Cordifolia open as soon as
formed, while those of Riparia remain folded for some days after they are
formed, become larger and then expand gradually.

Riparia is the most widely distributed of any American species of grape.
It has been found in parts of Canada north of Quebec and from thence
southward to the Gulf of Mexico. It is found from the Atlantic coast
westward, most botanists say to the Rocky Mountains, but Munson gives
the western limit as Salt Lake. Since Munson is more familiar with the
district lying west of the Rocky Mountains than any other botanist who has
paid attention to grapes, he is probably correct. Usually it is found on river
banks, on islands or in upland ravines.
Riparia has always been considered of great promise in the evolution of
American grapes. It can hardly be said that it has fulfilled expectations,
there probably being no pure variety of this species of more than local
importance, and the results of hybridizing it with other species have not
been wholly successful. The reason why attention was early turned to
Riparia was because of the qualities presented by the vine rather than those
of the fruit, particularly its hardiness and vigor. However, both of these
qualities are quite variable, and it is only reasonable to suppose that in such
a widely distributed species, plants found in a certain region would have
adapted themselves to the conditions there present; thus it should be
expected that the northern plants would be more hardy than those from the
South and the western prairie forms more capable of resisting drouth than
those from humid regions; this is found to be the case. It is consequently
impossible to say what conditions best suit this species; it may be said,
however, that it is adapted to a great variety of soils and locations; Riparia
vines, or certain ones of them, have withstood a temperature of 40 to 60
degrees below zero and they show equal ability in withstanding the
injurious effects of high temperatures in the summer. On account of its habit
of early blooming, the blossoms sometimes suffer from late frosts in the
spring.
While Riparia is not a swamp grape and is not found growing under
swampy conditions, it is fond of water. In the semi-arid regions always, and
in humid regions usually, it is found growing along the banks of streams, in
ravines, on the islands of rivers, and in wet places. It is not nearly so
capable of withstanding drouth as Rupestris. Riparia likes a rather rich soil
but in France has been found to do poorly on limestone land and calcareous
marls. The French tell us, however, that this is a characteristic of all our
American grapes and that the Riparia is more resistant to the injurious
effects of an excess of lime than either Rupestris or Aestivalis.

As was noted in the botanical description, the fruit of Riparia is usually
small, there being occasional varieties of medium size or slightly above.
The clusters are of medium size and, if judged from the standpoint of
number of berries, might frequently be called large. The flavor is usually
sharply acid but free from foxiness or any disagreeable wild taste. If eaten
in quantity, the acidity is apt to affect the lips and end of the tongue. When
the acidity is somewhat ameliorated, as in the case of thoroughly ripe or
even overripe and shriveled fruit, the flavor is much liked by many people.
The flesh is neither pulpy nor solid and dissolves in the mouth and separates
readily from the seed. The must of Riparia is characterized by an average
amount of sugar, varying considerably in the fruit from different vines, and
by an excess of acid. There is no disagreeable aroma, or foxiness, in the
juice of this species, but the wines made from pure must of Riparia grapes,
unless kept for a long time, or otherwise treated, are too sour. On this
account many recommend adding sugar and water to the must to reduce the
percentage of acid.
Riparia is very resistant to phylloxera, the roots are small in size, hard
and numerous and branch freely. The roots feed close to the surface and do
not seem to be well adapted to forcing their way through heavy clays or a
hardpan formation; but as such soils are unfavorable for all grapes, this
character is of little economic importance. Riparia grows readily from
cuttings and makes a good stock for grafting, and its union with other
species is usually permanent. At the time when Riparias were first sent to
France to be used as a stock in reconstituting the French vineyards, it was
found that many of the vines secured from the woods were of too weak
growth to support the stronger-growing Viniferas. On this account the
French growers selected the more vigorous forms of the Riparias sent them
to which they gave varietal names, as Riparia Gloire, Riparia Grand Glabre,
Riparia Scribner, Riparia Martin and others. With these selected Riparias
the graft does not outgrow the stock. Riparia is less resistant to rot than
Aestivalis but somewhat more resistant than Labrusca. The foliage is rarely
attacked by mildew. One of the chief failings of this species is the
susceptibility of the leaves to the attack of the leaf-hopper. This defect is
quite serious in some grape-growing regions. The Riparias are generally
late in ripening and it is found that the fruit is better in quality in long
seasons and that it should be left on the vines as late as possible. There are
some early ripening varieties of this species, however.

VITIS RIPARIA PRÆCOX Engelmann.
1. Price, 1830:194. V. odoratissima; June Grape. 2. Engelmann, Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1872:61. 3. Ib.,
Bush. Cat., 1883:18. June Grape. 4. Bailey, Am. Gard., 14:353. 1893. V. vulpina, var. PRÆCOX;
June Grape; V. riparia, var. præcox. 5. Ib., Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:422. 1897. V. vulpina, var. PRÆCOX;
June Grape.

The first record of Riparia Præcox is a statement by Prince in 1830 that
Nuttall had told him that the June Grape growing on the Mississippi was the
true Vitis odoratissima (a sweet scented Riparia which later botanists have
not recognized as a distinct species). In 1872 Engelmann refers to it, saying
that it grows on rocky river banks in the vicinity of St. Louis and that it is
brought to market in July. He says further in the Bushberg Catalogue that
from the first of July on, ripe fruit is to be found through August and
September. Bailey states in the American Gardening that Engelmann in his
herbarium had given this variety the name præcox but did not know
whether it had been published or not.
The variety differs from the typical form of Riparia only in the ripening
season and possibly in the berries averaging smaller. The early ripening
season might make it of horticultural importance as a breeding stock
although in other respects the fruit characters are not such as would
recommend it.
6. VITIS TRELEASEI Munson.[138]
1. Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:423. 1897. 2. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:230, 239. 1900. Smooth
Canyon Grape.
Plant shrubby and much branched, climbing little, the small and mostly short (generally shorter
than the leaves) tendrils deciduous the first year unless finding support, internodes short, the
diaphragms twice thicker (about 1-16 inch) than in V. riparia and shallow-biconcave; stipules less
than one quarter as large as in V. riparia; leaves large and green, very broad-ovate or even reniform-
ovate (often wider than long, thin, glabrous and shining on both surfaces, the basal sinus very broad
and open making no distinct angle with the petiole, the margin unequally notch-toothed (not jagged
as in V. riparia) and indistinctly three-lobed, the apex much shorter than in V. riparia; * * * cluster
small (2 to 3 inches long); the berries 1/3 inch or less thick, black with a thin bloom, ripening three
weeks later than V. riparia when grown in the same place, thin-skinned; pulp juicy and sweet; seeds
small. * * * Little known, and possibly a dry country form of V. riparia. In habit it suggests V.
arizonica var. glabra, from which it is distinguished, among other things, by its decidedly earlier
flowering and larger leaves with coarser teeth and less pointed apex.

According to Munson Vitis treleasei inhabits “ravines and gulches of
western New Mexico, Arizona and southern Utah.” This species was named
by Munson but the only description we have been able to find is that of

Bailey given above in which we have changed his “vulpina” to “riparia.”
The species is of no importance horticulturally.
7. VITIS LONGII Prince.[139]
1. Prince, 1830:184. Long’s Arkansas. 2. Engelmann, Bush. Cat., 1883:18. Long’s; V. Solonis. 3.
Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:132. V. Nuevo Mexicana; Wooly Riparia. 4. Ib., Soc. Prom. Ag.
Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. V. Novo Mexicana; Munson’s Riparia. 5. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. V.
Solonis. 6. Ib., U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul., 3:9. 1890. V. Solonis. 7. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:660. 1891. V.
solonis. 8. Ib., Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1893:116. V. solonis; Bush grape. 9. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1894:20,
22, 24. V. solonis; Sand grape; Beach grape; Bush grape. 10. Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:423. 1897. V.
Solonis; V. Nuevo Mexicana; Long’s. 11. Beach, N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:537, 557. 1898. V. solonis.
12. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:218, 230. 1900. V. Solonis; Gulch grape; Bush grape.

Vitis longii is a vigorous form of the Riparia type with pubescent young
growth, differing from the typical Riparia in having more circular, less
lobed leaves and more incised teeth. Its leaves are frequently pubescent
beneath. Another form with dentate margin of leaf has been known under
the name of Nuevo Mexicana or Novo Mexicana. The references to these
two forms are inextricably confused. Engelmann refers to this grape which
he says he found growing in the botanic garden of Berlin under the name of
Vitis solonis. After careful investigation he decided that this name was a
corruption of Vitis longii, or Long’s grape, which had been brought from the
headwaters of the Arkansas river by Major Long’s expedition into that then
unknown country in the early part of the last century. Many botanists
consider this a hybrid of two or more other species, Riparia, Rupestris,
Candicans and Cordifolia being offered as probable parents.
Its habitat is northern Texas “westward into New Mexico, eastward into
Oklahoma and northward into Kansas and southeastern Colorado.”
Vitis longii was first described by Prince in 1830. The fruit is small and
sour and it appears to be of no horticultural promise.
VITIS LONGII MICROSPERMA Bailey.

1. Munson, Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. V. Novo Mexicana Var.; Munson’s Riparia. 2.
Munson, Rev. Vit., 3:160.—. V. Solonis, var. MICROSPERMA (cited by 3). 3. Bailey, Gray’s Syn.
Fl., 1:423. 1897. V. Longii, var. MICROSPERMA; V. Solonis, var. microsperma.

Vitis longii microsperma is a small seeded, vigorous form of Vitis longii
growing on the Red River in north Texas. It is said to be more resistant to
drought than the normal form.
8. VITIS CHAMPINI Planch.[140]
1. Planchon, Journ. La Vigne amer., 6:22. 1882 (cited by 4). 2. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,
1885:137. 3. Ib., Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1885:101. 4. Planchon, De Candolle’s Mon. Phan., 5:323, 327,
328. 1887. Champin grape. 5. Munson, Gar. and For., 3:474, 475. 1890. 6. Ib., U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul.,
3:11. 1890. 7. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:661. 1891. Champin grape. 8. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1894:20, 22, 25. 9.
Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:423. 1897. 10. Beach, N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:536, 557. 1898. 11. Munson,
Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:232, 234, 235, 240, 268. 1900. fig. Adobe Land grape. 12. Viala and Ravaz, Am.
Vines, 1903:145.
Vine rather vigorous, climbing (sometimes semi-erect). Shoots thinly pubescent, somewhat
angled, generally cylindrical when mature; diaphragms thin; tendrils intermittent, strong, bifid or
trifid. Leaves small to rather large, slightly reniform or broadly cordate, usually entire but frequently
shortly three-lobed; petiolar sinus wide to medium; dark green, glabrous above with thin cobwebby
tomentum below, becoming more or less glabrous when mature. Clusters of small or medium size;
peduncle medium in length. Berries large, black, slight if any bloom, very persistent, of sweet flavor
and tender pulp. Seeds closely resembling Candicans. Blooms just before Labrusca. Variable in
ripening season.

Champini was named and described in 1882 by Planchon. He states that
it is probably a hybrid between Vitis candicans and Vitis rupestris and that it
is not distinctly defined and of a uniform character, but shows in its variable
forms different combinations of the characters of these two species. There
seems to be some doubt among other botanists as to the parentage of
Champini and it is variously credited to Candicans, Rupestris, Monticola
and Berlandieri.
This species is found growing in the limestone hills of southwestern
Texas, covering about the same area as Berlandieri. According to Munson it
is less common in the bottoms and is not so plentiful as the latter species.
Associated with it in different parts of its habitat are the four species
mentioned above as possible parents.
Champini is particularly well adapted to hot dry regions and will
withstand considerable lime in the soil. The species is susceptible to mildew
and black-rot. It can be readily grown from cuttings and grafts well in the
vineyard, though the different forms are quite variable in these respects. At
one time this species was considered of great promise as a stock for

Vinifera for hot, dry regions but as it has proved inferior to Berlandieri in its
capacity to withstand limy soils and phylloxera, and as it is not more
vigorous, it has been generally dropped. The berries are large and of pure
flavor, and as the vine is vigorous, it may prove of value as a source of
cultivated varieties for the Southwest but it is of little or no value to the
eastern grower.
9. VITIS RUBRA Michx.
1. Vahl,[141] Symb. Bot., 3:42. 1794. V. palmata. 2. Willdenow, 1:1180. 1797. V. palmata. 3.
Muhlenberg, 1813:27. V. palmata. 4. Pursh, 1:170. 1814. V. palmata. 5. Nuttall, 1:143. 1818. V.
palmata. 6. Rafinesque, 1830:18. V. palmata; Palmate grape. 7. Ib., 1830:18. V. virginiana; Virginia
grape. 8. Floy-Lindley, 1833:152. V. palmata; Palmated leaved. 9. (?) Le Conte, Proc. Phil. Acad.
Nat. Sci., 6:274. 1853. V. palmata; V. Virginiana; Bland’s grape. 10. (?) Ib., U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt.,
1857:231. V. palmata; Palmate-leaved vine; Bland’s grape; V. Virginiana. 11. Engelmann, Bush. Cat.,
1883:10, 11, 12, 14, 17. V. palmata; V. rubra; Red grape of the Mississippi Valley. 12. Munson, Am.
Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:133. V. palmata; V. rubra. 13. Ib., Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1885:97. V. palmata;
Palmate-leaved grape; V. rubra. 14. Ib., Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. V. palmata; Eggert’s
grape. 15. Planchon, De Candolle’s Mon. Phan., 5:352. 1887. V. riparia, var. PALMATA; V.
Virginiensis; V. Virginiana. 16. Ib., Ib., 5:354. 1887. V. palmata. 17. Sargent, Gar. and For., 2:340.
1889. fig. V. palmata; V. rubra. 18. Munson, Ib., 3:474, 475. 1890. V. palmata. 19. Munson, U. S. D.
A. Pom. Bul., 3:13. 1890. V. palmata. 20. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:586. 1891. 21. Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl.,
1:423. 1897. V. palmata; V. monosperma; V. rubra; V. riparia, var. palmata; Red grape; Cat grape.
22. Britton and Brown, 2:410. 1897. fig. V. palmata; Missouri grape. 23. Bailey, Ev. Nat. Fr.,
1898:105. V. palmata; Red grape; Cat grape. 24. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:230, 239. 1900. V.
palmata; Cat Bird grape. 25. Bailey, Cyc. Am. Hort., 4:1952. 1902. V. monosperma; Red grape. 26.
Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 113.
Vine slender, of only moderate vigor, climbing very high. Shoots smooth, angled, long-jointed,
bright red; diaphragms thick to medium; tendrils intermittent, long, usually bifid. Leaves with short,
broad stipules; leaf-blade broadly cordate in outline, rarely entire, frequently very deeply three or
even five-lobed, lobes long, acuminate; margin with broad, shallow, serrate teeth; petiolar sinus
rather broad and shallow; upper surface dull dark green, smooth; lower surface frequently somewhat
pubescent on ribs and veins; petioles red. Clusters medium to large, loose, seldom compound; long
peduncle. Berries small, black, without bloom, not juicy. Seeds one or two, large, plump, rounded,
with very short beak, slightly notched; chalaza narrow, rather indistinct; raphe indistinct.

Vitis rubra and Vahl’s Vitis palmata are badly confused. The species was
first described by Vahl in 1794, from plants cultivated in the Jardin des
Plantes in Paris and supposed to have been sent by some missionary from
the Mississippi Valley. It was so named on account of its tendency to five-
lobed leaves. Vahl erroneously gives its habitat as Virginia. About the same
time, Michaux discovered, on the banks of the Mississippi and adjacent
streams, a grape which he called Vitis rubra, on account of its characteristic
bright red shoots. The descriptions of these two varieties were copied from
time to time by other botanists, but with no additional details of any

importance until Engelmann, in 1883, made the claim that they were
identical. There is no question as to the identity of Michaux’s Rubra, but
some botanists question whether Palmata is a synonym. We have taken
Michaux’s name as the one to which there is no question, although
Engelmann was so careful a worker that it is highly probable that he is
correct in considering the two species synonymous. Munson considers the
species as probably a multiple “hybrid of Cordifolia with Riparia, with
possibly a trace of Cissus blood, indicated in the fruit, seed and leaf.” There
seems to be but little evidence to support this supposition. Planchon says it
is principally on the evidence of Millardet that he admits this as a separate
species and that perhaps it would be better to consider it a variety of Riparia
closely allied to Vahl’s Palmata.
Vitis rubra is an inhabitant of sandy, rich, moist, alluvial river bottoms in
Missouri and Illinois, to Louisiana and Texas, in which region it is quite
restricted and apparently not plentiful.
But little is known of the horticultural characters of Vitis rubra. In spite
of its having been classed with Riparia, it appears to resemble more closely
Vitis cordifolia, having the thick diaphragms and late blooming characters
of the latter species, but the seeds resemble those of Riparia. Rubra grows
readily from cuttings and the roots are said to be very resistant to
phylloxera. It is not sufficiently vigorous, however, to be recommended as a
stock. It is sometimes cultivated as an ornamental but is of no horticultural
importance beyond this.
10. VITIS CORDIFOLIA Michx.
1. (?) Linnaeus, Sp. Pl., 1753:203. V. vulpina. 2. (?) Marshall, 1785:165. V. Labrusca. 3. (?)
Walter, 1788:242. V. vulpina. 4. (?) Willdenow, 1:1181. 1797. V. Vulpina. 5. Michaux, 2:231. 1803.
6. (?) Bartram, Dom. Enc., 5:291. 1804. V. serotina. 7. (?) Muhlenberg, 1813:27. V. vulpina; V.
cordifolia; Winter grape. 8. Pursh, 1:169. 1814. V. incisa; V. vulpina; Winter grape; Chicken grape. 9.
Nuttall, 1:143. 1818. 10. Elliott, 2:688. 1824. 11. Rafinesque, 1830:15. V. vulpina; Frost grape;
Winter grape; Fox grape. 12. Prince, 1830:194. Winter grape; Chicken grape; Frost grape; V.
serotina; V. incisa; V. vulpina. 13. Torrey, Fl. of N. Y., 1:147. 1843. Winter grape; Frost grape. 14. Le
Conte, Proc. Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci., 6:273. 1853. V. pullaria; Chicken grape. 15. Darlington, Fl.
Cest., 1853:50. Chicken grape; Winter grape; Heart-leaved Vitis. 16. Buckley, U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt.,
1861:483. Winter grape; Fox grape. 17. (?) Saunders, U. S. D. A. Rpt., 1869:82, 85, 87. 18.
Engelmann, Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1872:60. Winter grape; Frost grape; Chicken grape. 19. Ib., Bush. Cat.,
1883:10, 11, 12, 14, 17. Frost grape. 20. Bush., Ib., 1883:24. 21. Munson, Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt.,
1885:97, 98. 22. Ib., Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:133. Frost grape; Sour or Pungent Winter grape. 23.
Planchon, De Candolle’s Mon. Phan., 5:323, 350. 1887. V. vulpina, var. cordifolia; V. vulpina; V.
Virginiana. 24. Munson, Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. 25. Ib., U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul., 3:12. 1890. 26.
Britton and Brown, 2:410. 1897. Frost grape; Chicken grape; Possum grape; Winter grape. 27.

Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:424. 1897. True Frost grape; Chicken grape; Raccoon grape; V. pullaria; V.
vulpina, var. cordifolia. 28. Beach, N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:557. 1898. 29. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bul.,
56:218, 231, 240. 1900. Sour Winter grape; Frost grape. 30. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42,
76.
Vine very vigorous, climbing. Shoots rather slender; internodes long, slightly angular, usually
glabrous, sometimes slightly pubescent; diaphragms thick; tendrils intermittent, long, usually bifid.
Leaves with short, broad stipules; leaf-blade medium to large, cordate, entire or sometimes
indistinctly three-lobed; petiolar sinus deep, usually narrow, acute; margin with rather coarse angular
teeth; point of leaf acuminate; upper surface rather light green, glossy, glabrous; glabrous or
sparingly pubescent below. Clusters medium to large, loose, with long peduncle. Berries numerous
and small, black, shining, little or no bloom. Seeds medium in size, rather broad, beak rather short;
chalaza oval or roundish, elevated, very distinct; raphe a distinct, cord-like ridge. Fruit usually sour
and astringent and frequently consisting of little besides skins and seeds. Leafing, flowering and
ripening fruit very late.

Owing to the fact that Cordifolia and Riparia have been badly confused
in the past, the limits of the habitat of this species are difficult to determine.
Pursh gives the northern limit as Canada, and Buckley speaks of its being
found at Lake Winnipeg, but all other, and some probably better informed,
authorities give the northern limit as New York or the Great Lakes. The
eastern limit is the Atlantic Ocean and the southern limit the Gulf of
Mexico. It extends westward, according to Engelmann, to the western limits
of the wooded portion of the Mississippi Valley in the North, and, according
to Munson, to the Brazos River, Texas, in the South. It is found along creeks
and river banks sometimes mixed with Riparia, having about the same soil
adaptations as that species. It is a very common species in the Middle States
and is frequently found growing on limestone soils but, according to Viala,
is not indigenous to such soils.
It might be said that this species was first described by Linnaeus in 1753
under the name Vulpina, as his description was from mixed specimens of
Cordifolia and Riparia. The first description, however, of which there is no
question is that of Michaux in 1803. From this time on there are many
descriptions under various names and much disagreement as to the limits of
the species and its relation to Riparia. Engelmann in 1872 states that Riparia
is generally a smaller plant than Cordifolia and that the fruit ripens earlier
and is pleasanter tasting. It was still considered by many botanists that these
differences were too slight to separate the forms as different species, but in
1883, Engelmann further enumerated other differences which are given
under the description of Vitis riparia. Since this time, the specific difference
of the two forms has never been questioned.

Cordifolia makes a good stock for grafting, being vigorous and forming
a good union with most of our cultivated grapes. It is seldom used for this
purpose, however, on account of the difficulty of propagating it by means of
cuttings. For the same reason vines of it are seldom found in cultivation. It
is probably of no importance horticulturally.
VITIS CORDIFOLIA FŒTIDA Engelm.
1. Engelmann, Am. Nat., 2:321. 1868. V. cordifolia, var. FŒTIDA. 2. Ib., Mo. Ent. Rpt.,
1872:60. 3. Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:424. 1897. V. cordifolia, var. FŒTIDA.

Apparently the first record of Vitis cordifolia foetida is Engelmann’s
mention of it in the American Naturalist of 1868. In 1872 he speaks as
though this is the common Mississippi Valley form, for he says: “In this
valley at least the fruit has a strongly and even fetidly-aromatic taste”. The
variety apparently is similar to the typical Cordifolia in every respect
excepting the aromatic fruit.
VITIS CORDIFOLIA SEMPERVIRENS Munson.
1. Munson, Rev. Vit., 5:165. f. 53. (cited by 2). 2. Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:424. 1897. V.
cordifolia, var. SEMPERVIRENS. 3. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:78. fig. of leaf.

Vitis cordifolia sempervirens is a south-Florida form of Cordifolia named
and first described by Munson in the Revue Viticole. It differs from typical
Cordifolia in having leaves which are thicker, narrower, more oblong, with
a long lanceolate point, completely glabrous and more or less glossy on
both surfaces. These leaves remain on the vines very late in the season. This
variety is said to be very resistant to an excess of lime in the soil.
VITIS CORDIFOLIA HELLERI Bailey.
1. Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:424. 1897. V. cordifolia, var. Helleri. 2. Viala and Ravaz, Am.
Vines, 1903:79. V. cordifolia var.

Vitis cordifolia helleri is first mentioned by Bailey in 1897. It differs
from the ordinary forms of Cordifolia in having more circular leaves
without the lanceolate point. Viala and Ravaz state that such forms are
found in clay soils. Bailey refers to it as an upland south-Texas form found
at altitudes of from 1600 to 2000 feet.
11. VITIS BAILEYANA Munson.

1. Munson, U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul., 3:14. 1890. V. Virginiana. 2. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474, 475.
1890. V. Virginiana. 3. Ib., Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1893:116. Possum grape. 4. Ib., Bush. Cat.,
1894:20. V. Virginiana. 5. Britton and Brown, 2:411. 1897. V. Virginiana. 6. Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl.,
1:424. 1897. Possum grape. 7. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:231, 240. 1900. Possum grape.
Vine climbing, but of only medium vigor (less vigorous than Cordifolia). Canes slender, with
short internodes, and with very many short side shoots; shoots angular, densely whitish or rusty
pubescent or woolly along the angles; mature canes round, nearly smooth; diaphragms thick; tendrils
intermittent, usually trifid. Leaves with blade long, cordate, frequently smaller than Cordifolia,
shortly but distinctly three-lobed (lobes mostly pointed and much spreading), bright green, but not
shining, above, gray below, slightly pubescent at maturity only on veins; apex short, acuminate, acute
or blunt; teeth comparatively small and notched-like, regular, not prominently acute. Clusters large;
peduncle long; pedicel slender, short, making the bunch very compact. Berries very small, black with
little or no bloom, intensely acid until very ripe or frosted. Seeds small to very small, slightly notched
on top; chalaza depressed, oblong-oval; raphe broad, slightly distinct. Leafing, flowering and
ripening fruit very late.

This species seems to have been first described by Munson in 1890
under the name of Vitis virginiana. In 1893 he issued a leaflet changing the
name to Vitis baileyana.
It is an upland species growing in the mountain valleys (800 feet and
upward) of southwestern Virginia, West Virginia, western North Carolina,
Tennessee, northern Georgia and the uplands of western central Georgia.
Baileyana can be propagated from cuttings only with difficulty. It is of
no importance horticulturally.
12. VITIS BERLANDIERI Planch.
1. Planchon, Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris, 91:425. 1880. (cited by 5). 2. Journ. La Vigne amer.,
1880:318. (cited by 5.) 3. Gar. Mon., 23:25. 1881. V. aestivalis, var. monticola; V. monticola seedling;
V. cordifolia coriacea. 4. (?) Engelmann, Bush. Cat., 1883:15. V. monticola. 5. Planchon, De
Candolle’s Mon. Phan., 5:323, 341. 1887. V. monticola. 6. An. Hort., 1889:101. 7. Munson, U. S. D.
A. Pom. Bul., 3:14. 1890. V. Monticola, Mil. 8. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474, 475. 1890. 9. Ib., Am. Gard.,
12:659. 1891. 10. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1894:20, 22, 29. V. monticola, Engelm. 11. Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl.,
1:425. 1897. Mountain grape; Spanish grape; Fall grape; Winter grape. 12. Beach, N. Y. Sta. An.
Rpt., 17:536, 557. 1898. 13. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:231, 234, 235, 240, 261. 1900. fig. Little
Mountain grape. 14. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 61.
Vine moderately vigorous, climbing; shoots more or less angled and pubescent; pubescence
remaining only in patches on mature wood; canes mostly with short internodes; diaphragms thick;
tendrils intermittent, long, strong, bifid or trifid. Leaves with small stipules; leaf-blade rather large,
broadly cordate, notched or shortly three-lobed; petiolar sinus rather open, V- or U-shaped, margin
with broad but rather shallow teeth, rather dark, glossy green above, grayish pubescence below when
young; becoming glabrous and even glossy except on ribs and veins, when mature. Clusters large,
compact, compound, with long peduncle. Berries small, black, with thin bloom, juicy, rather tart but
pleasant tasting when thoroughly ripe. Seeds few, medium to small, short, plump, oval or roundish
with short beak; chalaza oval or roundish, distinct; raphe narrow, slightly distinct to indistinct.
Leafing, flowering and ripening fruit very late.

This species was described under the name Vitis berlandieri by Planchon
in 1880. The description was made from herbarium specimens collected by
the Swiss botanist, Berlandier,[142] in Texas in 1834, and also from living
plants which had been shipped into France. Planchon states that this is the
Monticola of Engelmann, but not the Monticola of Buckley. Buckley’s
description is admittedly unsatisfactory but it does not seem that Planchon
is justified in saying that Engelmann was mistaken when the latter probably
had better opportunities for determining Buckley’s meaning than Planchon.
Berlandieri is a native of the limestone hills of southwest Texas and
adjacent Mexico. According to Munson, it grows “in the same region with
V. monticola but is less restricted locally, growing from the tops of the hills
all along down and along the creek bottoms of those regions.” Its great
virtue is that it withstands a soil largely composed of lime. It is superior to
all other American species in this respect. This and its moderate degree of
vigor (not quite so vigorous as Cinerea, according to Munson) has
recommended it to the French growers as a stock for their calcareous soils.
The roots are strong, thick and very resistant to phylloxera.
It is propagated by cuttings with comparative ease, but its varieties are
variable in this respect, some not rooting at all easily. While the fruit of this
species shows a large cluster, the berries are small and sour, and Berlandieri
is not regarded as having any promise for culture in America.
13. VITIS CINEREA Engelm.[143]
1. Engelmann, Gray’s Man., Edition 5. 1867:679. V. aestivalis, var. CINEREA. 2. (?) Ib., Am.
Nat., 2:321. 1868. V. aestivalis, var. CANESCENS. 3. Ib., Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1872:61. V. aestivalis, var.
CINEREA. 4. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1883:10, 11, 12, 14, 16. Downy grape of Mississippi Valley. 5.
Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:133. 6. Ib., Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1885:97, 98. Ashy-leaved grape;
Sweet Winter grape. 7. Ib., Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. Ashy grape; Sweet Winter grape. 8.
Planchon, De Candolle’s Mon. Phan., 5:323, 343. 1887. 9. Munson, U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul., 3:14.
1890. 10. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474, 475. 1890. 11. Britton and Brown, 2:409. 1897. V. aestivalis, var.
canescens; V. aestivalis, var. cinerea; Downy grape. 12. Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:425. 1897. Sweet
Winter grape. 13. Beach, N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:536, 557. 1898. 14. Munson Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:218,
231, 240. 1900. Sweet Winter grape; Ashy grape. 15. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 80.
Vine vigorous, climbing; shoots more or less angled, covered with grayish pubescence which
persists into winter; diaphragms thick to very thick; internodes medium to long; tendrils intermittent,
long and strong, bifid. Leaves large, cordate, seldom lobed but frequently notched; frequently
resembling a linden leaf; petiolar sinus medium in depth and width, rounded; margin shallowly but
sharply toothed; upper surface cobwebby when young, becoming glabrous and dull when mature;
lower surface and petiole covered with grayish cobwebby pubescence. Cluster large, rather loose;
peduncle long; pedicel slender. Berries small, black, with little if any bloom. Seeds small, plump,

short beak; chalaza round or oval, distinct; raphe ridge-like, distinct to slightly distinct. Ripening
very late, becoming sweet after frost.

Cinerea is very closely allied to Aestivalis and was for a long time
considered a part of that species. In 1867 Engelmann described it under the
name Vitis aestivalis, var. cinerea, but in 1883 he made it a species and it
has been generally regarded by botanists that the points of difference
between the two forms are such that the Cinerea deserves specific
recognition.
Its habitat is New York, west to Nebraska and Kansas with about 40
degrees as a northern limit, southward to the Gulf. Cinerea grows along
streams mostly in limy soils, and is seldom found in very dry land. It covers
about the same range as Cordifolia excepting that it grows nearer the Gulf
and extends across the Rio Grande into Mexico.
The species is very late in blooming, later even than Cordifolia. It can be
propagated from cuttings only with difficulty. It is probably of no
importance horticulturally unless it be for wet lands.
VITIS CINEREA FLORIDANA Munson.
1. Munson, U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul., 3:14. 1890. V. cinerea, var. FLORIDANA. 2. Munson, Gar.
and For., 3:474. 1890. V. cinerea, var. FLORIDANA. 3. Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:425. 1897. V.
cinerea, var. FLORIDANA.

Vitis cinerea floridana was named by Munson in 1890. It differs from
the regular form of Cinerea in having the growing tips and sometimes the
veins on the under side of the leaves more or less covered with rusty
tomentum. The cluster is also longer-peduncled and more compound. It is
found in Florida and Arkansas.
VITIS CINEREA CANESCENS Bailey.
1. Engelmann, Am. Nat., 2:321. 1868. V. aestivalis, var. CANESCENS. 2. Bailey, Gray’s Syn.
Fl., 1:425. 1897. V. cinerea, var. CANESCENS.

Vitis cinerea canescens was first mentioned by Engelmann in 1868 under
the name Vitis aestivalis, var. canescens. He does not describe it further
than to say that it approaches Cordifolia. Bailey’s determination of its
position was made from Engelmann’s herbarium specimens. He says: “A
form with rounded or heart-like leaves, the upper half of the leaf lacking the
triangular and 3-lobed shape of the type.” This variety has been found in
Missouri, Illinois and Texas.

14. VITIS ARIZONICA Engelm.
1. Engelmann, Am. Nat., 2:321. 1868. 2. Parry, U. S. D. A. Rpt., 1870:416. V. Arizonensis. 3.
Engelmann, Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1872:62. 4. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1883:10, 12, 14, 16. Arizona grape. 5.
Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:132. Arizona grape. 6. Ib., Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1885:97. Arizona
grape. 7. Planchon, De Candolle’s Mon. Phan., 5:323, 342. 1887. V. Californica; V. Arizonensis; V.
riparia. 8. Munson, Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. Arizona grape. 9. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474.
1890. 10. Ib., U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul., 3:10. 1890. 11. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:660. 1891. Canyon grape. 12.
Ib., Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1893:116. Gulch grape. 13. Munson, Bush. Cat., 1894:20. Canon grape.
14. Husmann, 1895:4, 189. 15. Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:425. 1897. Canon grape. 16. Beach, N. Y.
Sta. An. Rpt., 17:536, 557. 1898. 17. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:230, 239. 1900. Downy Canyon
grape. 18. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:102.
Vine weak in growth, shrubby or climbing moderately, numerous angular branchlets; diaphragms
thick. Leaves mostly small, cordate, with rather open rounded petiolar sinus, entire or indistinctly
three-lobed (sometimes distinctly lobed on young plants), coarsely and regularly toothed; thick, rigid,
slightly rugose above, when young, white-woolly below, becoming nearly glabrous with age.
Clusters small, compound; peduncle slender, of medium length. Berries black, small to medium in
size; pleasant in taste. Seeds two to three of medium size; chalaza oval in shape, slightly distinct;
raphe flat, usually inconspicuous, rarely prominent.

Arizonica was named and first described by Engelmann in 1868. It was
later described by Parry, botanist of the Department of Agriculture, from
specimens sent to him by Dr. Charles Smart, an army surgeon stationed in
southern Arizona, in 1867. Parry says that Engelmann considered it a
distinct species and had provisionally named it Vitis arizonensis. As to the
name, this is evidently an error in quoting Engelmann.
Its habitat is “Western Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Chihuahua
(Mexico), and South Utah.”
This grape is adapted only to the arid districts of the West. When raised
in humid climates it is subject to the attacks of mildew and black-rot. As
might be expected from its habitat, it endures intense drouths. It grows well
on limestone, pebbly, or alluvial soils. It has a considerable degree of
resistance to phylloxera, grows readily from cuttings, and according to
Munson, can withstand zero temperature without injury. As the European
grapes can be raised in its native country, it is not there regarded as
valuable, although the fruit is said to be rich in sugar and to be of pure
flavor. It has been used in California as a stock, but is not regarded in any
section very favorably and its use has never become extensive probably
owing to its lack of vigor. It suckers less than Rupestris. Arizonica blossoms
about the time of Labrusca. It is of no value to the grape-growers of the
East and probably of none to those of the West.

VITIS ARIZONICA GLABRA Munson.
1. Munson, Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. V. Arizonica, var. GLABRA. 2. Ib., U. S. D. A. Pom.
Bul., 3:10. 1890. V. Arizonica, var. GLABRA. 3. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:660. 1891. V. Arizonica, var.
GLABRA. 4. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1894:20. V. Arizonica, var. GLABRA. 5. Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl.,
1:426. 1897. V. Arizonica, var. GLABRA.

Vitis arizonica glabra was named by Munson in 1890. It differs from the
regular form in having glossy, glabrous leaves which are mostly larger and
thinner. The variety is found in the region from Albuquerque, New Mexico
to Truxton, Arizona, and northward into southern Utah.
15. VITIS CALIFORNICA Benth.[144]
1. Bentham, Bot. Sulph. Voy., 1844:10. 2. Buckley, U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1861:479, 483. California
grape. 3. Engelmann, Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1872:62. 4. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1883:10, 11, 12, 14, 15. California
grape. 5. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:137. 6. Planchon, De Candolle’s Mon. Phan., 5:323,
339. 1887. 7. Munson, Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. California grape. 8. Hammond, Gar. and
For., 2:39. 1889. Wild grape. 9. Munson, U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul., 3:10. 1890. 10. Ib., Gar. and For.,
3:474, 475. 1890. 11. Ib., Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1893:116. 12. Husmann, 1895:4, 189. 13. Bailey,
Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:426. 1897. 14. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:230, 239. 1900. North California grape.
15. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 50.
Vine vigorous, climbing, but shrubby if left without support; shoots cylindrical or slightly angled;
diaphragms of medium thickness to rather thin; tendrils intermittent, bifid or trifid. Leaves with
stipules medium to small; leaf broadly cordate; petiolar sinus variable, usually wide and open,
usually entire, sometimes slightly tri-lobed; teeth variable in size, blunt; smooth above and varying
below from glabrous to much whitish pubescence. Clusters small to medium, usually compact;
peduncle mostly long and slender. Berries small, black with rather abundant bloom. Seeds small to
medium, plump, slightly notched, if at all; chalaza oblong-oval; raphe slightly distinct or invisible.

Californica was named and described by Bentham in 1844. It was later
mentioned by Newberry, Torrey and others. As these descriptions were all
made either from herbarium specimens or by botanists traveling through the
region, they are not so definite as those made later.
The habitat of Californica is the northern half of California along
streams west of the Sierra Nevada mountains and north into Rogue River
Valley in southern Oregon, its northern limit.
This species is interesting in that it is a native of a region of North
America not originally infested with phylloxera, but in which phylloxera
has since been introduced. As might be suspected, it has little more
resistance to this insect than Vinifera and less than any other American
species. The roots are thick and fleshy, resembling Vinifera. The fruit, while
pleasant, is too small to be of cultural value. It is too tender for planting in
the open ground where the thermometer drops much below freezing.

California growers state that it does not flourish in dry shallow soils. It is
very susceptible to attacks of mildew, to which it usually succumbs when
planted east of the Rocky Mountains. Californica grows readily from
cuttings. It is sometimes used in its native country as an ornamental on
account of its highly colored autumn foliage but is otherwise of no value.
16. VITIS GIRDIANA Munson.
1. Munson, Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. California grape. 2. Ib., U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul.,
3:10. 1890. 3. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. 4. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:660. 1891. Valley grape. 5.
Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:426. 1897. Valley grape. 6. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:230, 239. 1900.
South California grape. 7. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:50. V. Californica, var. Girdiana.
Vine vigorous, climbing; shoots scarcely angled, more or less covered with grayish pubescence;
diaphragms medium to thick; tendrils intermittent, bifid or trifid. Leaves with medium to small
stipules; blade broadly cordate, rather thin, entire or obscurely three-lobed (sometimes distinctly
three-lobed on young shoots); petiolar sinus usually narrow, rather deep; margin with many small and
acute teeth; under surface covered with thick grayish persistent pubescence. Cluster medium to large,
compound, rather loose; peduncle of medium length, slender. Berries small, black, with thin bloom;
skin thin but tough; medium to late in ripening. Sweet when ripe with a sharp pungency in the skin.
Seeds similar to those of Vitis californica.

Girdiana was separated from Vitis californica by Munson in 1887. It is
closely allied to, and is by many botanists still considered a variety of
Californica. Wild hybrids with Vitis vinifera are frequently found in regions
where it is indigenous.
Girdiana inhabits southern California in the region west and north of
Yuma and the valleys of southern California southward into Mexico. Its
northern limit is approximately the Mojave desert. The individuals of the
species are very numerous, covering shrubs and trees in the regions where it
grows.
The species is very susceptible to mildew and black-rot, and like
Californica is not resistant to phylloxera. Girdiana is more sensitive to cold
than Vinifera. Analyses show that the fruit of the species is deficient in
sugar and acid. Girdiana is but little known but certainly is of no value to
the grape-growers of the East or North and probably of none to those of the
Southwest.
17. VITIS DOANIANA Munson.
1. An. Hort., 1889:101. 2. Munson, U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul., 3:9. 1890. 3. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474.
1890. 4. Ib., Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1893:116. Doan’s grape. 5. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1894:20, 22, 24.
Doan’s grape. 6. Sears, Gar. and For., 9:454. 1896. 7. Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:427. 1897. 8. Beach,

N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:536, 557. 1898. 9. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:232, 234, 235, 240, 268. 1900.
fig. Texas Panhandle Large Grape. 10. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:154.
Vine vigorous, climbing or shrubby if left without support; wood on mature canes cylindrical or
slightly angled; diaphragm thin; tendrils intermittent, bifid, rather weak. Leaves medium in size,
broadly cordate, notched or lobed and with a triangular apex; petiolar sinus medium in depth, usually
narrow; margins with rather large, notched-like teeth; upper surface of a peculiar bluish-green,
frequently somewhat rugose with more or less tomentum; lower surface usually with a dense whitish
pubescence which shows also on shoots. Cluster medium to small. Berries variable in size, average
medium, black with a thick bloom. Seeds somewhat resembling Labrusca but with shorter beak and
more distinct chalaza; has characteristic groove extending from chalaza to beak.

Doaniana is quite variable, some specimens being nearly glabrous at
maturity while others are densely covered with white pubescence. Munson
has separated the species into two forms which he calls the early Doaniana
and the late Doaniana. The species was described and named by Munson in
1890.
It is found chiefly in northwest Texas but it ranges from Oklahoma to
beyond the Pecos River in New Mexico. It is considered by Bailey and
Viala to be a probable hybrid with Vitis candicans as one of the parents.
Doaniana is exceedingly hardy, withstanding great cold as well as great
heat. It apparently prefers rather light soils as it is indigenous to sandbanks
along rivers and the beds of sandy ravines.
Munson states that in cultivation it does well in any but very limy soils.
The fruit is of comparatively good quality but the skin possesses some of
the pungency of Candicans. The berries are quite persistent, hanging to the
pedicel some time after ripe. The vines are not productive. The character of
the must is apparently unknown. The roots are hard, penetrate deeply into
the soil, and are resistant to phylloxera though somewhat variable in this
respect. Doaniana grows readily from cuttings and grafts well in the
vineyard. The species blossoms with or just before Labrusca. It is of
doubtful value to the southern grape-growers and is of no value in the
North.
18. VITIS AESTIVALIS Michx.
1. (?) Marshall, 1785:165. V. vinifera americana; American grape vine. 2. (?) Walter, 1788:242.
V. Labrusca. 3. Michaux, 2:230. 1803. 4. Bartram, Dom. Enc., 5:289. 1804. V. sylvestris; V.
occidentalis; Common Blue grape; Bunch grape. 5. Muhlenberg, 1813:27. V. intermedia; V.
aestivalis; Summer grape. 6. Pursh, 1:169. 1814. V. vulpina; V. labrusca; Summer grape. 7. Nuttall,
1:143. 1818. 8. Elliott, 2:688. 1824. 9. Torrey, Fl. of N. & M. Sta., 1826:121. 10. Rafinesque, 1830:9.
V. bracteata; V. labrusca; V. aestivalis; Sour grape. 11. Prince, 1830:199. V. intermedia; V.
sylvestris; V. occidentalis; Summer grape; Little grape; Bunch grape; Blue grape. 12. Torrey, Fl. of N.
Y., 1:146. 1843. V. intermedia; Summer grape. 13. Darlington, 1853:50. Little grape; Summer grape.

14. Le Conte, Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci., 6:272. 1853. V. araneosus. 15. Ib., Ib., 6:271. 1853. V.
bracteata; V. aestivalis; Duck-shot grape; Swamp grape. 16. Buckley, U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1861:481,
482. Frost grape; Chicken grape. 17. Stayman, Gar. Mon., 11:37, 38, 40. 1869. Summer grape. 18.
Grape Cult., 1:4, 7, 113. 1869. 19. Engelmann, Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1872:61. Summer grape. 20.
Engelmann, Bush. Cat., 1883:10, 11, 12, 14, 16. Summer grape. 21. Bush, Ib., 1883:22. 22. Munson,
Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:134. Summer grape. 23. Ib., Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1885:97, 98. Summer
grape. 24. Planchon, De Candolle’s Mon. Phan., 5:323, 334. 1887. Summer grape; Chicken grape;
Little grape. 25. Munson, Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. 26. Ib., U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul., 3:11. 1890. 27.
Ib., Bush. Cat., 1894:20, 22, 27, 28. Summer grape. 28. Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:427. 1897. Summer
grape; Bunch grape; Pigeon grape; V. sylvestris; V. occidentalis; V. Americana; V. Nortoni; V.
labrusca, var. aestivalis; V. bracteata; V. araneosus. 29. Britton and Brown, 2:409. 1897. Summer
grape; Small grape. 30. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:231, 234, 266. 1900. 31. Viala and Ravaz, Am.
Vines, 1903:42, 59.
Vine very vigorous; shoots slightly pubescent or smooth when young; diaphragms medium to
rather thick; tendrils intermittent, usually bifid. Leaves with short, broad stipules; leaf-blade medium
to very large, rather thin when young but becoming rather thick; petiolar sinus deep, usually narrow,
frequently overlapping; margin rarely entire, usually three- to five-lobed; teeth dentate, shallow,
medium wide; upper surface rather dark green; lower surface with more or less reddish or rusty
pubescence which, in mature leaves, usually shows in patches on the ribs and veins; petioles
frequently pubescent. Clusters medium to large, usually long, not much branched, with long
peduncle. Berries small to medium, with moderate amount of bloom, usually somewhat astringent.
Seeds two to three, of medium size to above, plump, usually smooth, not notched; chalaza oval,
distinct; raphe a distinct cord-like ridge. Leafing and ripening fruit late to very late. (See Plate.)

Vitis aestivalis is variable, particularly in its leaf characters, such as
quantity of pubescence, size, shape and thickness of leaf. Those who are
most familiar with it are of the opinion that in a general way the leaves
increase in thickness southward and that the pubescence diminishes in
quantity and becomes stiffer on dry, poor soils.

SHOOT OF VITIS AESTIVALIS

Aestivalis was probably described by some of the botanists before
Michaux’s day but, if so, none of the descriptions is sufficiently definite and
comprehensive to be recognized with certainty. Michaux was the first to
describe it under the name of Aestivalis. It seems to have been generally
known, as Bartram described it a short time later under the name of Vitis
sylvestris with Vitis occidentalis as a synonym. He says: “This is the most
common grape.” Owing to the great variation in the different forms of the
species as it was then understood, many of the later botanists gave
descriptions of it which did not agree. This uncertainty and the difficulty of
giving a description which would fit all of the forms has been relieved in a
measure; first, by the new species which have been created, such as Bicolor,
Monticola and Cinerea, from what would have once been regarded as
Aestivalis; and second, by the description and general acceptance of well-
known varietal forms, such as Lincecumii and Bourquiniana.
The division of the original species has also reduced the habitat
materially, confining it to the southeastern portion of the United States from
southern New York to Florida and westward to the Mississippi River.
Aestivalis grows in thickets and openings in the woods and shows no such
fondness for streams as Riparia or for thick timber as Labrusca, but is
generally confined to uplands. Under favorable circumstances the vines
grow to be very large.
Aestivalis is preeminently a wine grape. The fruit usually has a tart, acrid
taste, due to the presence of a high percentage of acid, but there is also a

large amount of sugar, the scale showing that juice from this species has a
much higher percentage of sugar than the sweeter tasting Labruscas. The
wine made from varieties of Aestivalis is very rich in coloring matter, and is
used by some European vintners to mix with the must of European sorts in
order to give the combined product a higher color. The berries are destitute
of pulp, have a comparatively thin, tough skin, and a peculiar spicy flavor.
The berries hang to the bunch after becoming ripe much better than do
those of Labrusca.
The species thrives in a lighter and shallower soil than Labrusca and
appears to endure drouth better, although not equaling in this respect either
Riparia or Rupestris. A southern or southeastern exposure gives better
results for Aestivalis or Aestivalis hybrid vines than a northern one. The
French growers report that Aestivalis is very liable to chlorosis on soils
which contain much lime. The leaves are never injured by the sun, and they
resist the attacks of insects, such as leaf-hoppers, better than any other
American species under cultivation. Aestivalis is rarely injured by rot or
mildew, according to American experience, but French growers speak of its
being susceptible to both.
The hard roots of Aestivalis enable it to resist phylloxera, and varieties
with any great amount of the blood of this species are seldom seriously
injured by this insect. An objection to Aestivalis, from a horticultural
standpoint, is that it does not root well from cuttings. Many authorities
speak of it as not rooting at all from cuttings, but this is an overstatement of
the facts, as many of the wild and cultivated varieties are occasionally
propagated in this manner, and some southern nurseries, located in
particularly favorable situations, make a practice of propagating it by this
method. It is doubtful, however, if it could be successfully propagated from
cuttings in New York. Varieties of this species bear grafting well, especially
in the vineyard. Aestivalis blooms just after Labrusca. As might be inferred
from its habitat, most cultivated varieties of this species require a longer
season to mature their fruit than that of New York. On this account it is
probable that Bicolor, once known as a northern form of Aestivalis, is more
promising horticulturally for the North than the true Aestivalis of the
Southeast.
VITIS AESTIVALIS LINCECUMII[145] Munson.

1. (?) Rafinesque, 1830:9. V. Multiloba; Dissected vine. 2. (?) Prince, 1830:183. V.
diversifolia. 3. U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1847:199. Post oak grape. 4. Buckley, Ib., 1861:485. V.
Linsecomii; Post-oak grape; Pine-wood grape. 5. Ib., Proc. Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci., 1861:450. V.
Linsecomii. 6. Engelmann, Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1874:74. 7. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1883:16, 23. Post-oak grape. 8.
Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:135. V. Lincecumii; Post-oak. 9. Planchon, De Candolle’s Mon.
Phan. 5:323, 338. 1887. V. Lincecumii; Post-oak grape; Vine Wood grape; V. aestivalis, var.
Lincecumii; V. incisifolia; V. multiloba? 10. Munson, U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul., 3:12. 1890. V.
Lincecumii. 11. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. V. Lincecumii. 12. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:585. 1891. V.
Lincecumii; Post-oak grape. 13. Ib., Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1893:116. V. Lincecumii; Post Oak grape.
14. McCluer, Ill. Sta. Bul., 28:257. 1893. V. Lincecumii; Post-oak grape. 15. Munson, Bush. Cat.,
1894:20, 22, 27. fig. V. Lincecumii; Texas Post-oak grape. 16. Husmann, 1895:110. V. Lincecumii;
Summer grape; Post Oak grape. 17. Munson, Rural N. Y., 56:610. 1897. V. Lincecumii; Post-oak
grape. 18. Mo. Sta. Bul., 46:62. 1899. V. Lincecumii; Texas Post Oak grape. 19. Munson, Tex. Sta.
Bul., 56:218, 231, 234, 235, 240, 261, 264. 1900. fig. V. Lincecumii; Post-oak grape. 20. Bailey, Cyc.
Am. Hort., 4:1954. 1902. V. diversifolia; Post-oak; Pine-wood; Turkey grape. 21. Viala and Ravaz,
Am. Vines, 1903:42, 57. V. Lincecumii; Post Oak.
Vine vigorous, sometimes climbing high upon trees, sometimes forming a bushy clump from two
to six feet high; canes cylindrical, much rusty wool on shoots; tendrils intermittent. Leaves very
large, almost as wide as long; entire or three-, five-, or rarely seven-lobed; lobes frequently divided;
sinuses, including petiolar sinus, deep; smooth above, and with more or less rusty pubescence below.
(The north-Texas, southwestern Missouri and northern Arkansas form shows little or no pubescence
but has fine prickly spines at base of shoots and shows much blue bloom on shoots, canes and the
under side of the leaves.) Fruit small to large, usually larger than typical Aestivalis, usually black
with heavy bloom. Seeds larger than Aestivalis, pear-shaped; chalaza roundish.

Lincecumii seems to have been first described by Rafinesque, in 1830
under the name Vitis multiloba. His description fits fairly well, and as the
source from which the vines were secured is within the habitat of the
species, there appears but little doubt as to its correctness. In the same year
Prince gives a very brief description of a grape from Texas under the name
Vitis diversifolia which is probably this grape. The first description of the
variety (or species) in such detail that it could not be mistaken was that of
Buckley in 1861, as Vitis linsecomii.
It inhabits the eastern half of Texas, western Louisiana, Indian Territory,
Arkansas and southern Missouri on high sandy land, frequently climbing
post-oak trees, hence the name, Post-oak grape, by which it is locally
known.
Lincecumii has attracted considerable attention through the work of H.
Jaeger and T. V. Munson in domesticating it, both of whom considered it
one of the most, if not the most, promising form from which to secure
cultivated varieties for the Southwest. The qualities which recommended it
to them are: First, its vigor; second, its capacity to withstand rot and
mildew; third, its hardiness and capacity to endure hot and dry summers

without injury; and fourth, the large cluster and berry which were found on
certain of the wild vines. It requires a longer season to mature than that of
New York and is, consequently, of but little interest to grape-growers in this
State. The fruit is characteristic because of its dense bloom, firm, yet tender
texture and the peculiar so-called Post-oak flavor. The cultivated varieties
have given satisfaction in many sections of the central western and southern
states. Like Aestivalis, it is difficult to propagate from cuttings.
The north-Texas glaucous form of this variety mentioned in the technical
description above is the Vitis aestivalis glauca of Bailey. This is the type of
Lincecumii that Munson has used in his breeding work.
VITIS AESTIVALIS BOURQUINIANA Bailey.[146]
1. Garber, Gar. Mon., 1:75. 1859. 2. Engelmann, Bush. Cat., 1883:16. (Varieties of southern
origin). 3. Bush, Ib., 1883:23. Southern Aestivalis. 4. An. Hort., 1889:101. V. Bourquina. 5.
Munson, Gar. and For., 3:474, 475. 1890. V. Bourquiniana; Southern Aestivalis. 6. Ib., U. S. D. A.
Pom. Bul., 3:12. 1890. V. Bourquiniana. 7. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:584. 1891. V. Bourquiniana;
Southern Aestivalis. 8. Popenoe and Mason, Kan. Sta. Bul., 44:117. 1893. V. Bourquiniana. 9.
Munson, Bush. Cat., 1894:20, 22, 27. V. Bourquiniana; Southern Aestivalis. 10. Husmann, 1895:6,
8. V. Bourquiniana. 11. Munson, Tex. Farm and Ranch, Feb. 8, 1896:10. V. Bourquiniana;
Southern Aestivalis. 12. Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:428. 1897. 13. Ib., Ev. Nat. Fr., 1898:81, 83, 114.
14. Munson, Am. Gard., 20:1688. 1899. V. Bourquiniana. 15. Ib., Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:231, 240, 261.
1900. V. Bourquiniana; Southern Aestivalis. 16. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:178. V.
Bourquiniana.

Bourquiniana greatly resembles Aestivalis and differs chiefly from this
species in having thinner leaves and in that the shoots and under side of the
leaves are only slightly reddish-brown in color and the pubescence usually
disappears at maturity; this pubescence is mostly of an ashy or dun color.
The leaves on some of the vines are more deeply lobed than is at all
common in Aestivalis. The fruit is considerably larger than that of
Aestivalis, sweeter and more juicy.
The botanical variety, Bourquiniana, is known only in cultivation. It is
mentioned by Garber in 1859 and by Engelmann in 1883. Speaking of
Aestivalis the latter says: “Unfortunately the typical forms cannot be
propagated by cuttings and there are a number of varieties which,
originating from a southern home, are not quite hardy here but on the other
hand have the advantage of being readily propagated by slips in some
favorable localities. * * * Unfortunately no wild plant from which these
varieties might have sprung is yet known but must be looked for in the

mountains and hills of the Carolinas and Georgia and only when found in a
wild state can we correctly judge of their botanical status.”
The name Bourquiniana was given by Munson, who ranks the group as a
species. He includes therein many southern varieties the most important of
which are: Herbemont, Bertrand, Cunningham, and Lenoir, these he groups
in the Herbemont section; and Devereaux, Louisiana and Warren, he puts in
the Devereaux section. Munson has traced the history of this interesting
group and states that it was brought from southern France to America over
150 years ago by the Bourquin family of Savannah, Georgia. Many
botanists have been of the opinion that Bourquiniana is a hybrid.
Engelmann says: “I will only state here that a slight suspicion exists of their
being hybrids between V. aestivalis and some form of vinifera though the
seeds are entirely those of the former and also the resistance to phylloxera.”
Millardet considers Bourquiniana to be a mixed hybrid of Aestivalis,
Cinerea and Vinifera. The hybrid supposition is certainly corroborated to a
degree at least by the characters being more or less intermediate between
the parent species and also by the fact that up to date no wild form of
Bourquiniana has been found.
Munson’s derivation of the origin has not been accepted by either French
or American botanists. In this connection Bailey says: “It is unassumable
that a native grape distributed through the Mediterranean region could have
escaped for centuries the critical search of European botanists and the
knowledge of hundreds of generations of vignerons to be discovered at last
transplanted in the new world.” Bush says: “This reminds us forcibly of the
‘Pedro Ximenes’ (called also White Green Riesling), which was believed to
have been brought to Spain from the banks of the Moselle by the man
whose name it bears.” Count Odart, a celebrated ampelograph, wittily said:
“If he (Ximenes) took any he took ALL, for no such vine grows now north
of the Pyrenees.’ Thus we also think: If Mr. Bourquin took any of the above
grapes he took ALL, for no Herbemont or Lenoir can now be found native
in Europe.”
The only northern variety of grape of any importance that is supposed to
have Bourquiniana blood is the Delaware,[147] and in this case only a
fraction of Bourquiniana blood is presumably present.
Bourquiniana can be propagated from cuttings more easily than the
typical Aestivalis but not so readily as Labrusca, Riparia or Vinifera. Many

of the varieties of Bourquiniana show a marked susceptibility to mildew
and black-rot; in fact, the whole Herbemont group is much inferior in this
respect to the Norton group of Aestivalis. The roots are somewhat hard,
branch rather freely and are quite resistant to phylloxera.
19. VITIS BICOLOR Le Conte.[148]
1. Le Conte, Proc. Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci., 6:272. 1853. V. aestivalis (Darlington). 2. Ib., U. S. Pat.
Off. Rpt., 1857:230. Two-colored-leaved vine. 3. Munson, Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. V.
Argentifolia; Blue grape. 4. An. Hort., 1889:101. 5. Munson, Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. 6.
Munson, U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul., 3:12. 1890. 7. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:585. 1891. Blue grape; Northern
Summer grape. 8. Ib., Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1893:116. Blue grape; Northern aestivalis. 9. Bailey,
Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:428. 1897. Blue grape; Northern Summer grape. 10. Britton and Brown, 2:409.
1897. Blue grape; Winter grape; V. aestivalis, var. bicolor. 11. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:231, 234,
240, 266. 1900. Blue grape. 12. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 59.
Vine vigorous, climbing; shoots cylindrical or slightly angled, with rather long internodes,
generally perfectly glabrous, usually showing much blue bloom, sometimes spiny at base;
diaphragms medium to thick; tendrils intermittent, long, usually bifid. Leaves with short, broad
stipules; leaf-blade medium to very large; roundish-cordate, usually three-, sometimes on older
growth shallowly five-lobed, rarely entire; petiolar sinus variable in depth, usually rather narrow;
margin irregularly dentate; teeth acuminate; glabrous above, usually glabrous below and showing
much blue bloom which sometimes disappears late in the season; young leaves sometimes slightly
pubescent; petioles very long. Cluster of medium size, compact, usually simple; peduncle long.
Berries small to medium, black with much blue bloom, rather acid but pleasant tasting when ripe.
Seeds small, plump, broadly oval, very short beak; chalaza oval, raised, distinct; raphe distinct,
showing as a cord-like ridge.

Bicolor is readily distinguished from Aestivalis by the absence of the
reddish pubescence, and by the bloom on the under side of the leaves and is
distinguished from the glaucous form of Lincecumii by the smaller fruit and
seeds. The species blooms slightly later than Aestivalis and Lincecumii. It
was named and described by Le Conte in 1853 and has been generally
recognized as a distinct species by later botanists.
The habitat of Bicolor is to the north of that of Aestivalis, occupying the
northeastern, whereas Aestivalis occupies the southeastern quarter of the
United States. Like Aestivalis it is not confined to streams and river-banks
but frequently grows on higher land also. It is found in north Missouri,
Illinois, southwestern Wisconsin, Indiana, southern Michigan, Ohio,
Kentucky, Pennsylvania, New York, southwestern Ontario, New Jersey and
Maryland, and is by some botanists reported as far south as western North
Carolina and west Tennessee.
The horticultural characters of Bicolor are much the same as those of
Aestivalis. About the only points of difference are that it is much hardier

(some of the Wisconsin vines stand a temperature as low as 20 degrees
below zero); it is said to be slightly less resistant to mildew and more
resistant to phylloxera. Like Aestivalis, Bicolor does not thrive on limy soils
and it is difficult to propagate from cuttings. The horticultural possibilities
of Bicolor are probably much the same as those of Aestivalis, though many
believe it to be more promising for the North. It is as yet cultivated but
little. Its chief defect for domestication is the small size of the fruit.
20. VITIS CARIBÆA De Candolle.[149]
1. De Candolle, Prodr., 1:634. 1824 (cited by Watson). 2. Chapman, Fl. Sou. States,—:71. (cited
by Watson). 3. Buckley, U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1861:483. 4. Engelmann, Bush. Cat., 1883:10, 12, 14,
15. 5. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:136. Caloosa. 6. (?) Ib., Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59.
Prof. Curtis’ grape. 7. Planchon, De Candolle’s Mon. Phan., 5:323, 330. 1887. 8. Munson, U. S. D.
A. Pom. Bul., 3:14. 1890. 9. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. 10. Ib., Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1893:116.
11. Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:428. 1897. 12. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 52.
Vine slender, climbing; shoots more or less woolly, or rarely nearly glabrous; diaphragms
medium to thick; tendrils intermittent, rarely continuous, bifid or frequently trifid. Leaves cordate,
usually entire when mature, frequently acuminate pointed; teeth shallow, wide, mucronate, slightly
rugose above, thick whitish or rusty pubescence below; stipules small. Clusters large, long, with
long, slender peduncle. Berries small to very small, purple or black with thin bloom, intensely acid
until very ripe. Seeds usually but one or two to the berry, small to very small (Engelmann states that
the Florida forms give larger seeds than those from the West Indies), notched; chalaza more or less
circular, depressed, usually distinct; raphe a groove or slightly distinct. Very variable.

Caribæa was first described by De Candolle and later by many other
botanists but the species is not yet well known owing to its habitat. Caribæa
is an inhabitant of the West Indies, middle and southern Florida, Louisiana,
eastern Mexico, Yucatan, and various portions of tropical America. It is said
to grow largely on lowlands.
The species is of no practical interest as it does not thrive and soon dies
in temperate climates. Its horticultural characters are unknown.
21. VITIS CANDICANS Engelm.
1. Engelmann, Gray’s Pl. Lindh., 2:166. 1845. 2. U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1847:198. Mustang grape.
3. Engelmann, Gray’s Pl. Wright., 1:32. 1852. 4. Vanzandt, Gar. Mon., 1:166. 1859. Mustang grape.
5. Affleck, Mag. Hort., 26:98. 1860. Mustang grape. 6. Buckley, U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1861:482. V.
Mustangensis; Mustang grape. 7. Engelmann, Am. Nat., 2:321. 1868. Mustang grape. 8. Koch, Ill.
Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1868:82. V. Mustangensis; Mustang grape. 9. Engelmann, Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1874:76.
V. Mustangensis; Mustang grape. 10. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1883: 10, 11, 12, 14, 15. V. Mustangensis;
Mustang grape. 11. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885: 137. V. Mustangensis. 12. Ib., Am. Pom. Soc.
Rpt., 1885:97, 98. Mustang grape. 13. Planchon, De Candolle’s Mon. Phan., 1887:323, 326. V.
Mustangensis; Mustang grape. 14. Munson, Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. Mustang grape. 15.
Ib., U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul., 3:10. 1890. 16. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1894:20, 22, 25. Mustang grape. 17. Ib.,
Rural N. Y., 56:610. 1897. Mustang. 18. Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:428. 1897. Mustang grape. 19.

Munson, Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:232, 234, 240, 267. 1900. Mustang grape. 20. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines,
1903:42, 54.
Vine very vigorous, climbing; shoots and petioles densely woolly, whitish or rusty; diaphragm
thick; tendrils intermittent (according to Munson, rarely four continuous). Leaves with medium to
large stipules; blade small to medium, broadly cordate to reniform ovate, frequently resembling those
of a poplar, entire or in young shoots and on young vines and sprouts usually deeply from three- to
five-, or even seven-lobed; teeth shallow, sinuate; petiolar sinus shallow, wide, sometimes lacking;
dull, slightly rugose above, dense whitish pubescence below. Clusters small. Berries medium to large,
black, purple, green, or even whitish, thin blue bloom or bloomless. Seeds usually three or four,
large, short, plump, blunt, notched; chalaza oval, depressed, indistinct; raphe a broad groove.

Candicans was described and named by Engelmann in his account of
certain plants sent from Texas by Lindheimer. In 1861 it was described by
Buckley who seems to have been unaware of the species having been
previously named.
The habitat of this grape extends from southern Oklahoma, as a northern
limit, southwesterly into Mexico. The western boundary is the Pecos River.
It is found on dry, alluvial, sandy or limestone bottoms or on limestone
bluff lands and is said to be especially abundant along upland ravines.
Candicans grows well on limestone lands enduring as much as 60 per ct. of
carbonate of lime in the soil. The species blooms shortly before Labrusca
and a week later than Riparia. It requires the long hot summers of its native
country and will stand extreme drouth but is not hardy to cold, ten or fifteen
degrees below zero killing the vine outright unless protected; and a lesser
degree of cold injuring it severely. The berries, which are large for wild
vines, have thin skins under which there is a pigment which gives them,
when first ripe, a fiery, pungent taste but which partly disappears with
maturity. The berries are very persistent, clinging to the pedicel long after
ripe. Candicans is difficult to propagate from cuttings. Its roots resist
phylloxera fairly well. It makes a good stock for Vinifera vines in its native
country but owing to the difficulty of propagation is seldom used for that
purpose. In the early days of Texas it was much used for the making of wine
but as it is deficient in sugar, and as the must retains the acrid, pungent
flavor, it does not seem to be well adapted for this purpose. It is not
regarded as having great promise for southern horticulture and certainly has
none for the North.
VITIS CANDICANS CORIACEA Bailey.
1. Shuttleworth Mss., Herb. Boiss. 2. Chapman, Fl. Sou. States,—:71 (cited by Watson, Planchon
and Bailey). V. caribea, var. CORIACEA. 3. Engelmann, Bush. Cat., 1883:15. V. CANDICANS,
Florida form. 4. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:136. V. Caribea; Caloosa. 5. Planchon, De

Candolle’s Mon. Phan., 5:323, 345. 1887. V. coriacea. 6. Munson, Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59.
V. coriacea; Leather-Leaf grape. 7. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. V. coriacea. 8. Ib., U. S. D. A.
Pom. Bul., 3:10, 11. 1890. V. coriacea. 9. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:661. 1891. V. coriacea; Leather-leaf
grape. 10. Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:429. 1897. Leather-leaf grape; Calloosa grape. 11. Munson,
Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:232, 240. 1900. V. coriacea; Leather-Leaf grape. 12. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines,
1903:42, 52. V. coriacea.

Coriacea is a Florida variety of Candicans, differing from the Texas
form, in having a shorter, somewhat smaller and comparatively thicker
seed; small stipules; quite variable leaves, intermediate in shape between
Labrusca and Candicans; and an absence of the fiery flavor. The blossoming
period is two or three weeks later than the Texas form.
This form of Candicans was named and described by Shuttleworth in a
manuscript now in the Herbarium Boissier at Geneva, Switzerland.
Botanists seem divided as whether to regard it as a separate species or as a
botanical variety. Its habitat is central and southern Florida.
Coriacea is more tender than the regular forms of Vitis candicans and
this alone would make it worthless to the northern cultivator even were it
otherwise valuable.
22. VITIS SIMPSONI Munson.
1. Munson, Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. Simpson’s grape. 2. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474, 475.
1890. 3. Ib., U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul., 3:12. 1890. 4. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:586, 661. 1891. 5. Ib., Mich.
Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1893:116. Palmetto-leaved grape. 6. Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl., 1:429. 1897. 7. Munson,
Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:232, 234, 240, 267. 1900. fig. Simpson’s grape. 8. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines,
1903:167.
Vine very vigorous, climbing; shoots cylindrical with much brownish pubescence; diaphragms
very thick; tendrils intermittent. Leaves with stipules short and broad; leaf-blade rather thin, large,
broadly cordate, usually considerably lobed; petiolar sinus of medium width and depth; margin
coarsely toothed; upper surface slightly rugose and of a dark-green; lower surface with rusty white
pubescence sometimes becoming almost a blue green; the shape of leaf and amount of pubescence
vary widely. Clusters large, loose; peduncle long; pedicel thick. Berries small to medium, more
tender in pulp and less astringent than Vitis aestivalis, black with moderate amount of bloom.
Leafing, blooming, and ripening fruit late.

Vitis simpsoni was named and briefly described by Munson in 1887. In
1891 he stated that the species is a hybrid of Vitis coriacea (here considered
a variety of Vitis candicans) crossed with Vitis cinerea. Bailey states that it
is probably a hybrid of Aestivalis crossed with Coriacea. Some forms of
Simpsoni are said to be very difficult to distinguish from Vitis labrusca.
Simpsoni prefers warm, sandy soils and is found in central and southern
Florida. It roots from cuttings with great difficulty; it is tender and will not

withstand cold winters. While it is very resistant to phylloxera and also to
mildew and black-rot, its leaves are said to be much attacked by leaf-rollers.
The blossoming period is just after Aestivalis. The berries are of good
flavor and might be of some value for the country along the Gulf Coast but
it is of no value for the North.
23. VITIS LABRUSCA[150] Linn.[151]
1. Linnaeus, Sp. Pl., 1:203. 1753. V. sylvestris Virginiana; V. vinifera sylvestris americana. 2.
Marshall, 1785:165. V. vulpina; Fox grape vine. 3. Walter, 1788:242. V. taurina. 4. Michaux, 2:230.
1803. V. taurina. 5. Bartram, Dom. Enc., 5:289. 1804. V. vulpina; Fox grape. 6. Muhlenberg,
1813:27. Fox grape. 7. Pursh, 1:169. 1814. V. taurina. 8. Nuttall, 1:143. 1818. 9. Elliott, 2:689. 1824.
V. taurina. 10. Torrey, Fl. of N. & M. Sta., 1826:120. 11. Rafinesque, 1830:10. V. latifolia; V.
taurina; V. Labrusca; Fox grape. 12. Ib., 1830:11. V. luteola; Variable grape. 13. Prince, 1830:180.
V. Labrusca, var. NIGRA; Black Fox; Purple Fox; V. taurina; V. vulpina. 14. Ib., 1830:181. V.
Labrusca, var. ALBA; White Fox. 15. Ib., 1830:182. V. Labrusca, var. ROSEA; Red Fox. 16.
Torrey, Fl. of N. Y., 1:146. 1843. Fox grape. 17. Darlington, Fl. Cest., 1853:50. Fox grape of the
Northern States, not of Va. 18. Le Conte, Proc. Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci., 1853:270. V. sylvestris; Fox
grape; V. occidentalis; V. vulpina; V. latifolia; V. canina; V. luteola; V. rugosa; V. ferruginea; V.
labruscoides; V. blanda; V. prolifera; V. obovata. 19. Ib., U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1857:228. Fox grape; V.
sylvestris; V. occidentalis; V. vulpina; V. latifolia; V. canina; V. luteola; V. rugosa; V. ferruginea; V.
labruscoides; V. prolifica; V. obovata. 20. Buckley, Ib., 1861:481. Frost grape. Fox grape of the
Northern States. 21. Stayman, Gar. Mon., 11:37, 38, 39, 40. 1869. Northern Fox Grape. 22.
Engelmann, Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1872:61. Fox grape; Northern Fox grape. 23. Ib., Bush. Cat.., 1883:9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 19. Fox grape; Northern Fox grape. 24. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:136. Fox
grape. 25. Ib., Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1885:97, 98, 101. 26. Planchon, De Candolle’s Mon. Phan.,
5:322, 324. 1887. Fox grape; Northern Fox grape; V. vinifera sylvestris americana; V. latifolia; V.
canina; V. luteola. 27. Munson, Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. Fox grape. 28. Pearson, Gar. and
For., 2:584. 1889. 29. Munson, U. S. D. A. Pom. Bul., 3:11. 1890. 30. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890.
31. Britton and Brown, 2:408. 1897. Northern Fox grape; Plum grape. 32. Bailey, Gray’s Syn. Fl.,
1:429. 1897. Fox grape; Skunk grape; V. vulpina; V. blandi. 33. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:232, 240.
1899. Northern Fox grape. 34. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 45.
Vine moderately vigorous, stocky, climbing; shoots cylindrical, densely pubescent; diaphragms
medium to rather thick; tendrils continuous, strong, bifid or trifid. Leaves with long, cordate stipules,
leaf-blade large, thick, broadly cordate or roundish; entire to three-lobed, frequently notched; sinuses
rounded; petiolar sinus variable in depth and width, V-shaped; margin with rather shallow, acute
pointed, scalloped teeth; upper surface more or less rugose, dark green, on young leaves pubescent,
becoming glabrous when mature; lower surface covered with dense pubescence, more or less whitish
on young leaves, becoming rusty or dun-colored when mature. Clusters small to medium, more or
less compound, usually shouldered, compact; pedicels thick; peduncle short to medium. Berries
medium to large; skin thick, covered with considerable bloom, strong musky or foxy aroma. Seeds
two to four, large, distinctly notched, beak short; chalaza oval in shape, indistinct, showing merely as
a depression; raphe, a groove. (See Plate.)

SHOOT OF VITUS LABRUSCA

Vitis labrusca, the northern Fox grape, is mentioned in many of the early
writings of this country, particularly in those describing New England. It
was probably described by other botanists before Linnaeus but if so their
descriptions are so meager that it cannot be definitely recognized. Linnaeus
in 1753, under Vitis labrusca, says: “Leaves cordate, slightly tri-lobed,
dentate, downy below.” Marshall in 1785 under the name Vitis vulpina, or
Fox grape, says: “This in manner of growth hath much the appearance of
the other kinds. The leaves are generally larger, and smooth, but whitish
underneath. The fruit or grapes are about the size of a common cherry and
have a strong scent, a little approaching to that of a Fox, whence the name
of Fox-grape. There are also varieties of this, some with whitish or reddish
fruit which is generally most esteemed, and others with black, of which are
our largest grapes.” From the time of Marshall on all of the botanists give
more or less complete descriptions of this species and except for the brief
misunderstanding at first as to the name, its identity has never been
questioned. At one time it was supposed to grow in the Mississippi Valley
but Engelmann demonstrated that what were taken for Labrusca vines in
Missouri were in reality strongly pubescent forms of Aestivalis.
Labrusca is indigenous to the eastern part of North America, including
the region between the Atlantic Ocean and the Alleghany Mountains. It is
sometimes found in the valleys and along the western slopes of the

Alleghanies. Many botanists say it is never found in the Mississippi Valley;
Munson reports specimens, however, from Indiana and Tennessee. In the
first-named area it ranges from Maine to Georgia. It has the most restricted
habitat of any American species of horticultural importance, being much
exceeded in extent of territory by Vitis rotundifolia, Vitis aestivalis, and
Vitis riparia.
Labrusca has furnished more cultivated varieties, either pure-breeds or
hybrids, than all other American species together. The reason for this is
partly, no doubt, due to the fact that it is native to the portion of the United
States first settled and is the most common grape in the region where
agriculture first advanced to the condition where fruits were desired. This
does not wholly account for its prominence, however, which must be sought
elsewhere. In its wild state Labrusca is probably the most attractive to the
eye of any of our American grapes on account of the size of its fruit, and
this undoubtedly turned the attention of those who were early interested in
the possibilities of American grape-growing to this species rather than to
any other.
The southern Labrusca is quite different from the northern form and
probably demands different conditions for its successful growth; in the
North at least two types of the species may be distinguished. Vines are
found in the woods of New England, which resemble Concord very closely
in both vine and fruit, excepting that the grapes are much smaller in size
and more seedy. There is also the large-fruited, foxy Labrusca, usually with
reddish berries, represented by such cultivated varieties as Northern
Muscadine, Dracut Amber, Lutie and others. Labrusca is peculiar amongst
American grapes in showing black-, white- and red-fruited forms of wild
vines growing in the woods. Because of this variability it is impossible to
give the exact climatic and soil conditions best adapted to the species. It is
reasonable to suppose, however, that the ideal conditions for this or any
other species are not widely different from those prevailing where the
species is indigenous. In the case of Labrusca this means that it is best
adapted to humid climates and that the temperature desired varies according
to whether the variety comes from the southern or northern form of the
species.
The root system of Labrusca does not penetrate the soil deeply,[152] but it
is said to succeed better in deep and clayey soils than Aestivalis.[153] In the
Southern and Middle States it does better on eastern and northeastern

slopes. As would be suspected from its original marshy home, it endures an
excess of water in the soil, and on the other hand requires more water for
successful growing than Aestivalis or Riparia. In spite of its ability to
withstand clayey soils, it seems to prefer loose, warm, well-drained sandy
lands to all others. The French growers report that all varieties of this
species show a marked antipathy to a limestone soil, the vines soon
becoming affected with chlorosis when planted in soils of this nature. In
corroboration of this Stayman reports that it is not found growing native in
clayey, limestone soils. The Labruscas succeed very well in the North and
fairly well in the middle West, as far south as Arkansas, where they are
raised on account of their fruit qualities but here the vines are not nearly so
vigorous and healthy as are those of other species. In Alabama they are
reported to be generally unsatisfactory, and in Texas the vines are short-
lived, unhealthy, and generally unsatisfactory, particularly in the dry
regions. There are some exceptions to this, as, for instance, in the Piedmont
region of the Carolinas, where, owing to elevation or other causes, the
climate of a southern region is semi-northern in its character.

SHOOT OF WYOMING

The fruit of Labrusca is large and usually handsomely colored. The skin
is thick, covering a layer of adhering flesh, which gives the impression of
its being thicker than it actually is; it is variable in tenderness, sometimes

tough, but in many of our cultivated varieties it is so tender as to be a
detriment in that it is inclined to crack on the vines in case of rain at
ripening time, and the berries to crush in transportation. The skin of this
species usually has a peculiar aroma, generally spoken of as foxy, and a
slightly acid, astringent taste. Beneath the skin there is a layer of juicy pulp,
quite sweet and never showing much acidity in ripe fruit. The center of the
berry is occupied by rather dense pulp, more or less stringy, with
considerable acid close to the seeds. Many people object to the foxy aroma
of this species, but, nevertheless, the most popular American varieties are
more or less foxy. Analyses have shown that Labrusca fruit is generally
characterized by a low percentage of sugar and acid, the very sweet tasting
fox grapes not showing as high a sugar content as some of the disagreeably
tart Aestivalis and Riparia sorts. This, in addition to the foxiness which
furnishes an excess of aroma in the wine, has prevented Labrusca varieties
from becoming favorites with the wine-makers. Must from these varieties is
adapted only for the making of dry wines, and when making wines of any
other class it is necessary to add sugar and water, the quantities being
governed by the final product desired.
In addition to the strong points already enumerated, it may be said that
Labrusca submits well to vineyard culture, is fairly vigorous and generally
quite productive. It grows readily from cuttings and in point of hardiness is
intermediate between Riparia, the hardiest of our American species, and
Aestivalis. The roots are soft and fleshy (for an American grape) and in
some localities quite subject to attacks of phylloxera. None of the varieties
of Labrusca have ever been popular in France on this account. In the wild
vines the fruit is inclined to drop from the vine when ripe. This defect is
known as “shattering” or “shelling” among grape-growers and it is a serious
weakness in certain varieties of Labrusca. It is said to be more sensitive in
its wild state to mildew and rot than any other American species[154] but the
evidence on this point does not seem to be wholly conclusive. In the South
and in some parts of the middle West the leaves of all varieties of Labrusca
sunburn and shrivel in the latter part of the summer. The vines do not
endure drouth as well as Aestivalis or Riparia and not nearly so well as
Rupestris. Pearson[155] reports that the Labruscas can be sprayed with
copper sulphate mixtures with much less danger to the leaves than can
Aestivalis.

24. VITIS VINIFERA Linn.
1. Linnaeus, Sp. Pl., 1:202. 1753. 2. Speechly, 1791:1. 3. Willdenow, Sp. Pl., 1:1180. 1797. 4.
Bartram, Dom. Enc., 5:289. 1804. 5. Rafinesque, 1830:7. Wine Grape. 6. Darlington, Fl. Cest.,
1853:49. Wine grape; Foreign grape. 7. Buckley, U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1861:480. European grape. 8.
Stayman, Gar. Mon., 11:38. 1869. European grape. 9. Bush, Grape Cult., 1:140. 1869. European
grape. 10. Engelmann, Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1874:74. 11. Moore, Mich. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1875:36. 12.
Engelmann, Bush. Cat., 1883:11, 12, 13, 14, 19. 13. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:137. 14. De
Candolle, Or. Cult. Pl., 1885:191. 15. Onderdonk, U. S. D. A. Rpt., 1887:652. 16. Planchon, De
Candolle’s Mon. Phan., 5:324, 355. 1887. 17. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1889:107, 109. 18. Husmann,
1895:29, 187. 19. Munson, Rural N. Y., 56:610. 1897. 20. Ib., Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:231, 233, 240. 1900.
Asiatic Wine grape. 21. Bailey, Cyc. Am. Hort., 4:1956. 1902. fig. of leaves. Wine grape; European
grape. 22. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 115.
Quite variable in vigor, not so high climbing as most American species. Tendrils intermittent.
Leaves rounded-cordate, rather thin, rather-smooth, and when young, shining, frequently more or less
deeply three-, five-, or even seven-lobed; usually glabrous but in some varieties the leaves and young
shoots are hairy and even downy when young; lobes rounded or pointed; teeth variable; petiolar sinus
deep, narrow, usually overlapping. Fruit, of cultivated varieties at least, very variable in size and
color. Berries of cultivated varieties usually oval though many varieties are globular fruited. Seeds
variable in size and shape, usually notched at upper end and characterized always by bottle-necked,
elongated beak; a rather broad, usually rough, slightly distinct chalaza situated rather high up on the
seed; raphe indistinct. Flowers soon after Labrusca. The roots are large, soft and spongy. A very
variable species.

SHOOT OF VITIS VINIFERA

Botanists have never agreed as to whether Vitis vinifera is a single
species or a combination of two or more species which has been cultivated
for so long that it is impossible to discover the original forms. The name,
Vitis vinifera, is usually credited to Linnaeus though it was used for this
grape before Linnaeus’ time by Bauhin and possibly by others. The
description of Linnaeus accompanying the name is very short, as follows:
Leaves sinuately lobed, glabrous. Many of the earlier botanists, Tournefort
for one, described numerous varieties as though they were species. As a
natural corollary of the uncertainty of the botanical status of Vitis vinifera
the original habitat of the species is not positively known. De Candolle, as
noted in the first part of this work, considered the region about the Caspian
Sea as the probable habitat of the Old World grape. There is but little doubt
that the original home of Vitis vinifera is some place in western Asia. There
is strong corroborative evidence of this in the fact that the climatic
conditions under which the species flourishes are such as are there found.
The first chapter in The Grapes of New York has been devoted to this, the
Old World grape, and for a discussion of the horticultural characters of the
species and of the efforts to cultivate it in America, the reader is referred to
that chapter.
Neither American nor European writers agree as to the exact climate
desired by Vinifera for the reason, probably, that all of the varieties in this
variable species do not desire the same conditions. There are certain phases
of climate, however, that are well agreed upon, as follows: The species
requires a warm, dry climate, and is more sensitive to change of
temperature than our American species. Stayman, who had had considerable
experience in raising Vinifera grapes in different places, says: Vinifera “will
not endure much rain or grow on wet land. It is only in a dry climate and on
high rolling situations that it will succeed, where there is not more than 31
inches of an annual rainfall and for the growing and maturing season 15
inches.” So far as soil alone is concerned, the French growers tell us that it
can be grown successfully in a wide variety of soils, being much less
particular in this respect than our American species. They state that it will
withstand and grow successfully in soils so strongly impregnated with lime
that any of the American sorts would succumb to chlorosis.
There are certain characters connected with the fruit of this species
which are peculiar to it and are not found in any of our American sorts.
First, the skin, which is attached very closely to the flesh and which is never

astringent or acid, is of good flavor and can be eaten with the fruit. Second,
the flesh is firm, yet tender, and uniform throughout, differing in this
respect from any of our American sorts, which frequently show a sweet,
watery and tender pulp close to the skin with a tough and more or less acid
core at the center. Third, the flavor is peculiarly sprightly, a quality known
as vinous, because it characterizes this species. It may be said in this
connection, however, that many Americans, accustomed to American
grapes, prefer the flavor of our native sorts to the vinous flavor of the Old
World grape. Europeans invariably, and Americans who live in Vinifera
raising sections, usually, deem the Vinifera flavor greatly superior. Fourth, a
strong adherence of the berry to the pedicel, the fruit never “shattering” or
“shelling” from the cluster.
Varieties of Vinifera have been selected for the making of wine through
so many centuries that this species has become the first and great wine-
making grape. Whatever the future may hold in store for American grapes,
there is no question but that at present the Viniferas are far superior to any
native Americans for wine-making purposes, both as to quality in general
and the number of kinds of wine which can be made.
The weak points of Vinifera are: First, an inability to withstand the cold
of our winters. The different varieties of Vinifera undoubtedly vary
considerably as to the exact amount of cold they will stand without injury.
All of them tried at this Station freeze to the ground even in the mildest
winters. Second, foliage particularly susceptible to the attack of mildew and
fruit susceptible to the attack of black-rot. Third, they generally require a
ripening season much longer than our climate affords. Fourth, the roots are
soft and spongy and very liable to the attack of phylloxera, though they
apparently penetrate more readily in dense clays and hard dry soils than any
of our American species.
In the various hybrids that have been made between American and
Vinifera varieties it is usually found that the desirable qualities of Vinifera
are taken in about the same proportion as the undesirable ones. The fruit is
improved in the hybrid but the vine is weakened. Quality is purchased at the
expense of hardiness and disease-resisting power. Vinifera may be grown
very readily from cuttings. This is of little cultural importance, however, as
both in Europe and America varieties of the species are usually grafted on
phylloxera-resistant stock.

CHAPTER V

THE LEADING VARIETIES OF AMERICAN GRAPES
ADIRONDAC.
(Labrusca, Vinifera?)

1. Mag. Hort., 27:490. 1861. 2. Horticulturist, 17:94, 132, 518. 1862. fig. 3. Mag. Hort., 28:447,
540. 1862. 4. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1862:160. 5. U. S. D. A. Rpt., 1863:127. 6. Mag. Hort., 30:25, 62,
140, 150, 208. 1864. 7. Mead, 1867:164. 8. Fuller, 1867:216. 9. Thomas, 1867:399. 10. Am. Pom.
Soc. Cat., 1867:44. 11. Grape Cult., 1:115. 1869. 12. Gar. Mon., 16:249. 1874. 13. Bush. Cat.,
1883:67. 14. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1883:56. 15. Montreal Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:82. 16. N. Y. Sta. An.
Rpt., 10:493. 1891.

Adirondac is an old variety now nearly or quite obsolete. It is probably a
seedling of Isabella which it greatly resembles in vine and fruit characters.
It is of the Labrusca type, belonging to the southern group of this species,
and like most of the southern Labruscas lacks in hardiness and vigor though
it surpasses its parent in the first quality. The vine makes a slow, weak
growth and is particularly susceptible to fungi. The quality of the fruit is
very good, juicy and vinous, with the slight foxy flavor peculiar to Isabella.
Its earliness, a week or ten days earlier than Concord, is one of its chief
points of merit. The Adirondac did not attain favor because of the many
faults of the vine and in the time of its cultivation was seldom found except
in the vineyard of the amateur. The claim is often made for this variety that
it is nearer the Black Hamburg in quality than any other American grape.
Adirondac was first exhibited by J. W. Bailey of Plattsburg, New York,
at the Montreal Horticultural Society Exhibition in Montreal in 1861. The
original vine was found in 1852 by J. G. Witherbee in his garden a short
distance from the shore of Lake Champlain in the town of Port Henry,
Essex County, New York. The variety was introduced by Bailey. On
account of its resemblance in vine to Isabella it is supposed by many to be a
seedling of that variety. Adirondac was placed on the grape list of the
American Pomological Society in 1867 and was dropped from it in 1883.
Vine variable in vigor and productiveness, injured in severe winters, subject to attacks of mildew
in unfavorable seasons. Foliage dark green, thick. Flowers semi-fertile, open in mid-season or earlier;
stamens upright. Fruit variable in season of ripening, usually in edible condition about ten days
before Delaware, does not always keep well. Clusters above medium to small, usually rather

compact, seldom shouldered. Berries not uniform in size averaging below Concord, roundish to
slightly oval on account of compactness of cluster, dark purplish-black, persistent. Skin intermediate
in thickness. Flesh unusually tender and melting, sweet, mild, good to very good but with an after
flavor which is not altogether agreeable. Seeds rather large, few in number. Must 82-1/2°-83°.

ADVANCE.
(Riparia, Labrusca, Vinifera.)

1. Mass. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1872:94. 2. U. S. D. A. Rpt., 1875:386. 3. N. J. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1881:11.
4. Bush. Cat., 1883:67, 152. 5. Va. Sta. Bul., 30:108. 1893.

Advance is an unimportant variety now to be found only in the vineyards
of experimenters. At the time of its introduction (1872) it was of much
interest as a hybrid between Riparia, Labrusca and Vinifera, Clinton being
one parent and Duke of Magenta, a grape resembling Black Hamburg, the
other. In quality of fruit it is an improvement over Clinton but
unfortunately, as with so many primary hybrids of our native species with
Vitis vinifera, the vine is tender and susceptible to fungi.
This variety was produced by J. H. Ricketts of Newburgh, New York,
and was first exhibited at the grape show in New York City in 1870.
Vine vigorous, productive, not very hardy, subject to attacks of mildew. Canes long, covered with
considerable blue bloom. Leaves rather large, thin, dark green. Fruit ripens in mid-season, appears to
keep well. Clusters above medium size, usually single-shouldered, the shoulder being connected to
the cluster by a rather long stem, medium in compactness and with many abortive fruits. Berries
medium to large, oval, dark purplish-black, covered with heavy blue bloom, persistent. Flesh
somewhat tender, flavor sweet and spicy with considerable resemblance to that of Clinton, quality
good.

AGAWAM.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

1. Mag. Hort., 23:86. 1857. (Rogers’ hybrids.) 2. Ib., 27:104, 489, 533. 1861. 3. Horticulturist,
17:26, 510. 1862. fig. 4. U. S. D. A. Rpt., 1863:130, 549. fig. 5. Horticulturist, 20:81. 1865. 6. Mag.
Hort., 31:68, 106, 333. 1865. 7. Husmann, 1866:124. 8. Fuller, 1867:230. 9. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat.,
1867:44. 10. Horticulturist, 24:126. 1869. 11. Grape Cult., 1:43, 153, 181, 262, 325. 1869. 12. Am.
Jour. Hort., 5:263. 1869. fig. 13. Barry, 1872:421. 14. Mich. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1875:387. fig. 15. Bush.
Cat., 1883:69. fig. 16. Gar. and For., 3:490. 1890. 17. Can. Hort., 17:191. 1894. col. pl. 18. N. Y. Sta.
An. Rpt., 15:433. 1896. 19. Ib., 17:526, 548, 552, 553. 1898. 20. W. N. Y. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1899:91.
21. Mo. Sta. Bul., 46:37, 43, 44, 46, 47, 55. 1899.
Randall (20).[156] Rogers’ No. 15 (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). Rogers’ No. 15 (10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15).

AGAWAM

Agawam is the most largely grown of Rogers’ hybrids both in the United
States and in New York, the qualities commending it being large size of
bunch and berry, rich, sweet, aromatic flavor, attractive appearance,
excellent keeping qualities, vigor of vine, and capacity for self-fertilization.
It has the distinction of being the only self-fertile variety among Rogers’
named hybrids. For a grape having its proportion of European parentage the
vine is vigorous, hardy and productive, though not equal to many pure-bred
American sorts in these respects. In severe winters it is precariously hardy
in New York. Its chief defects in fruit are a somewhat thick and tough skin,
coarse solid texture of pulp, and, for the European palate, its decidedly foxy
flavor. The vine is susceptible to the mildews and in many localities does
not yield well. In some markets Agawam is highly esteemed and in making
certain wines it is much sought for in blending because of the flavor it
imparts. Although it ripens soon after Concord it can be kept much longer
and really improves in flavor the first few weeks after picking. It may be
kept in good condition in common storage until January. Not uncommonly
it shrivels on the stem making a raisin. It seems to prefer somewhat heavy
soils, doing better on clay than on sand or gravel. The Agawam is often sold
in the markets as Salem which it resembles and by which it is surpassed in
quality.
For an account of the parentage and origin of Agawam see “Rogers’
Hybrids” of which this is No. 15. It was first mentioned as a variety about

1861. In 1869 Rogers gave the fruit the name Agawam from the Indian
name of a town in Hampden County, Massachusetts. It has become one of
the most, if not the most, popular of Rogers’ hybrids and is in some sections
raised to a considerable extent as a market sort. It is propagated and sold to-
day by practically all nurserymen. It was placed on the grape list of the
American Pomological Society fruit catalog in 1867 and is still retained
there.
Vine vigorous, usually hardy, medium to productive, subject to mildew. Canes of average length,
medium in number, rather thick, moderately dark brown; nodes enlarged, somewhat flattened;
internodes short to medium; diaphragm nearly thick; pith of average size; shoots tinged with green,
glabrous; tendrils intermittent to continuous, bifid to trifid.
Leaf-buds open in mid-season, of average size, long, somewhat thick, conical to nearly obtuse.
Young leaves tinged with carmine on lower side and along margin of upper side, prevailing color
pale green. Leaves of average size, thick; upper surface light green, dull, moderately smooth; lower
surface pale green, slightly pubescent, flocculent; leaf not lobed, terminus somewhat acute; petiolar
sinus deep, narrow, often overlapping; lateral sinus very shallow when present; teeth shallow, wide.
Flowers occasionally on plan of six, nearly self-fertile, open medium late; stamens upright.
Fruit ripens soon after Concord, keeps until mid-winter. Clusters variable averaging medium to
large, short, rather broad, tapering to somewhat cylindrical, sometimes single-shouldered, somewhat
loose; peduncle medium to short, nearly thick; pedicel of average length, usually thick, covered with
few warts, much enlarged at point of attachment; brush very short, pale green. Berries nearly large,
roundish to slightly oval, dark and dull purplish-red somewhat resembling Catawba, covered with
lilac bloom, very persistent. Skin thick, tough, adheres slightly to the pulp, contains no pigment,
somewhat astringent. Flesh pale green, translucent, tough, slightly stringy, rather solid, foxy, good in
quality. Seeds somewhat adherent, two to five averaging four, large, rather narrow, long, often with
slightly enlarged neck, blunt, brownish; raphe usually distinct, shows as a ridge in the bottom of a
broad groove; chalaza rather large, distinctly above center, not obscure.

ALEXANDER.
(Labrusca, Vinifera?)

1. Dom. Enc., 1804:291. 2. McMahon, 1806:235. 3. Johnson, 1806:164. 4. Adlum, 1823:139. 5.
Ib., 1823:140. 6. Dufour, 1826:5, 9, 24, 55, 116, 207, 247, 255. 7. Adlum, 1828:173. 8. Ib., 1828:174.
9. Prince, 1830:173, 216, 219. 10. Ib., 1830:174. 11. Ib., 1830:200. 12. Downing, 1845:253. 13. U. S.
Pat. Off. Rpt., 1847:462. 14. Ib., 1847:468. 15. Ib., 1856:434. 16. Bush. Cat., 1883:68.
Alexander’s (7, 15). Alexandria (15). Black Grape (16). Buck Grape (11). Cape (6, 15). Cape
grape (12, 13, 16). Cape of Good Hope grape (9, 10). Clifton’s Constantia (4, 8, 10). Clifton’s
Constantia (12, 16). Columbian (11). Constantia (6, 16). Madeira of York, Pa. (12). Rothrock of
Prince (16). Schuylkill Muscadel (5, 7, 13). Schuylkill Muscadel (9, 12, 14, 15, 16). Schuylkill
Muscadine (12). Spring Mill Constantia (9, 12, 16). Tasker’s grape (1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 12, 16). Vevay (13,
15, 16). Winne (11). Winne (12, 16). York Lisbon (16).

Alexander is now a grape of the past but no other of our American
varieties better deserves historical record. We have seen in the preceding
chapters how important a part it had in the evolution of our native grapes,

being one of the first wild grapes to be domesticated. The Alexander was a
coarse grape with so much foxiness of flavor that it did not please the early
growers, who had been accustomed to European sorts, as a table-grape, but
it made a very good wine of the claret type and was grown for this purpose
until displaced by the Catawba. It was wine made from this variety that
Thomas Jefferson[157] pronounced “worthy of the best vineyards of
France.” The early writers differ so in their estimates of the good and bad
qualities of this grape that it is hard to give its true characters at this late
date.
The early history of Alexander is really the history of two varieties: the
Schuylkill Muscadel and the Clifton Constantia. The first of these varieties
was, according to Bartram, found growing in the vicinity of Philadelphia on
the hills bordering the Schuylkill River in the neighborhood of an old
vineyard of European grapes. The finder, John Alexander, was gardener to
Governor Penn of Pennsylvania, into whose garden he introduced it a few
years before the American Revolution. It was later known as Tasker’s grape
from a Mr. Tasker of Maryland who cultivated it largely. The Clifton
Constantia, according to Adlum, originated with William Clifton of
Southwark, Philadelphia, who states that it was a chance seedling in his
garden. Adlum says that the two varieties had been confused, that “they are
much alike in the growth of the vine and the color of the grape but the
Schuylkill has rather the largest berries and is sweeter, and generally has a
small shoulder or branch with four or five grapes on it growing out from the
top of the bunch.” Prince also describes the varieties as separate, but he says
“they are generally cultivated and considered as synonymous.” Later
writers consider the two grapes identical.
Peter Legaux, the promoter of a vineyard company at Spring Mill, about
fourteen miles from Philadelphia, secured some vines of the Clifton
Constantia from Clifton and later introduced it under the name of Cape
grape stating that he had secured it from the Cape of Good Hope. Whether
he did this purposely and with intent to defraud or whether he had
accidentally mixed the cuttings secured from Clifton with some of a large
number of cuttings which had come from abroad will never be known.
When reproached for his deception he denied that this variety was a native
and continued to assert that he had secured it from the Cape of Good Hope.
In this he was strongly supported by Dufour who says: “I will also try to
save the character of our Cape grapes from being merely wild grapes,

because some are now found in the woods.” Legaux’s advertisement of this
variety had the effect of making it known at least and it is the opinion of
writers of that day that many were induced to try this grape under the
supposition that it was from the Cape of Good Hope who would have
scorned it had they supposed it to be a native. It came to be considerably
planted in all parts of the United States; was early introduced into the West
and preceded the Catawba as the popular grape around Cincinnati. It was
found worthless in New England and New York, the season not being long
enough to mature the fruit. With the introduction and dissemination of
Catawba it was gradually dropped from cultivation, the Catawba being
superior in quality, more resistant to rot and mildew and slightly earlier. It is
now unknown and it is doubtful if there are any living vines in cultivation.
Alexander is generally considered a variety of Labrusca but there is
much evidence to show that it is a hybrid of Labrusca and Vinifera. This
was the opinion of some of the earlier writers but later it was discredited.
Bartram gives as one of the distinguishing characters of Vinifera and
American vines that the first show oval berries while the latter do not, but
he makes an exception of Alexander. Why this should be an exception does
not seem apparent unless it be credited to hybridity. Furthermore, the season
of Alexander, which is very late, would also indicate foreign blood; a grape
native of the vicinity of Philadelphia would supposedly be able to ripen
itself in that locality, a thing that the Alexander seldom did perfectly, and it
is spoken of in southern Indiana as being very late. Its place of origin (“in
the vicinity of an old vineyard of European kinds”) would indicate that
there was an opportunity for hybridization to take place. The descriptions
strongly suggest some of the coarser-textured of Rogers’ hybrids.
This solution, if it be accepted, would account for the difference of
opinion as to its origin. Bartram and Prince could see enough of the
characters of the native in a hybrid so that they could be deceived into
claiming it as a native, and Dufour on the other hand could see enough of
the Vinifera characters so that he felt there was no question as to its being of
foreign origin.
Downing gives what is probably the most complete description of this
variety we now have, although it was made from fruit raised some distance
farther north than where the variety matures properly. He says: “It is quite
sweet when ripe and makes a very fair wine but it is quite too pulpy and
coarse for table use. The bunches are more compact and the leaves much

more downy than those of the Isabella. Bunches rather compact, not
shouldered. Berries of medium size, oval. Skin thick, quite black. Flesh
with a very firm pulp, but juicy, and quite sweet and musky, when fully
ripe, which is not till the last of October.” Dufour speaks of the berries
ripening unevenly, requiring the green ones to be picked out before sending
to the wine press.
ALEXANDER WINTER.
(Labrusca, Vinifera?)

1. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 11:613. 1892. 2. Ib., 14:275. 1895. 3. Ib., 17:526, 548, 553. 1898.

Alexander Winter is chiefly valuable because of the length of time it will
keep. As its name implies it is a winter grape. The flavor is most excellent
and when well grown the appearance of bunch and grape is attractive.
Another desirable quality is that the average number of seeds to the berry is
small, being only two. The great defect of the variety is that, even with
cross-pollinization, perfect clusters do not form. There are many green
berries, and when ripe there are always some small seedless berries
indicating imperfect fertilization. Vine and foliage indicate Labrusca
parentage but the fruit suggests an admixture of Vinifera. Although rarely
found in the gardens and vineyards of New York, Alexander Winter is well
worth a place in the garden of the amateur and of the grape-breeder because
of its excellent keeping qualities.
Alexander Winter was originated by S. R. Alexander, Bellefontaine,
Ohio, from a lot of mixed seed planted in 1884. It was received at this
Station in 1892. It seems not to have been tested elsewhere and is not
generally handled by nurserymen.
Vine vigorous, injured in severe winters, productive. Foliage irregularly roundish, dark green.
Flowers open in mid-season or earlier; stamens reflexed. It cannot be relied upon to set perfect
clusters when standing alone and even when growing in a mixed vineyard fails to set fruit well. Fruit
ripens about with Salem, keeps a long time in edible condition. Clusters above medium to small, very
heavily shouldered, loose, contain many small seedless fruits. Berries variable in size, the fully
developed fruits averaging medium to large, roundish, dull, light and dark red, covered with thin lilac
bloom or at times with faint tinge of grayish-blue, persistent. Skin covered with scattering dark-
colored dots, rather thick but tender. Flesh tender, vinous, with indications of Vinifera parentage,
sweetish to agreeably tart, flavor pleasing, good to very good in quality. Seeds large, few in number;
raphe sometimes shows as a raised cord.

(I) ALICE.
(Labrusca.)

1. Bush. Cat., 1894:84.

Alice is one of two New York seedlings of this name offered grape-
growers, neither of which is worth a permanent place in viticulture. This
grape is a white seedling of Martha, and much resembles that variety. It was
originated by J. A. Putnam, Fredonia, New York, who writes that the vine
was first fruited in 1890. On account of its close resemblance to Martha it
was generally considered unworthy of perpetuation and is now practically
obsolete.
(II) ALICE.
(Labrusca, Aestivalis?, Vinifera?)

1. Rural N. Y., 46:36. 1887. fig. 2. Ib., 47:161. 1888. 3. Amer. Gard., 9:7. 1888. fig. 4. N. Y. Sta.
An. Rpt., 11:613. 1892. 5. Amer. Gard., 16:423. 1895. fig. 6. Mass. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1895:233. 7. N. Y.
Sta. An. Rpt., 14:275. 1895. 8. Minn. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1896:134. fig. 9. Rural N. Y., 56:662, 679. 1897.
10. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:526, 548, 553. 1898.

A brief record of the origin, history and gross characters of Alice is
herewith given. The grape is of little value in New York.
This variety was found growing near an old stone wall by Ward D. Gunn
of Clintondale, Ulster County, New York, and was transplanted into his
vineyard in the spring of 1884. It was introduced by F. E. Young of
Rochester. This is a Labrusca, with a few characters that indicate Aestivalis
and Vinifera blood.
Vine vigorous to medium, hardy, produces fair crops. Leaves medium to large, sometimes
strongly rugose, with lower surface heavily pubescent. Flowers self-fertile or nearly so, open in mid-
season; stamens upright. Fruit ripens with Concord or slightly earlier, the different clusters varying in
season of ripening, ships well and keeps in good condition far into the winter. Clusters intermediate
in size, usually with a small single shoulder, medium to compact. Berries above medium to small,
roundish although frequently strongly compressed on account of compactness of cluster, rather dull,
pale red, somewhat lighter than Catawba, covered with thin lilac bloom, persistent. Skin very thick.
Flesh tender, vinous, somewhat foxy, sweet at skin to agreeably tart at center, good in quality,
resembling Diana or Catawba. The seeds, which are few in number, often show a rough granular,
warty surface around the chalaza.

ALLEN’S HYBRID.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

1. Mag. Hort., 20:474. 1854. 2. Ib., 21:182. 1855. 3. Essex Inst. Proc., 1:195. 1856. 4. Mag.
Hort., 26:66. 1860. 5. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1862:90. 6. Strong, 1866:330. 7. Mead, 1867:176, 187,
194. fig. 8. Ga. Sta. An. Rpt., 13:320. 1900. 9. Ga. Sta. Bul., 53:40. 1901.

A half century ago Allen’s Hybrid was the vine of promise in America. It
was the first named hybrid between Vitis labrusca and Vitis vinifera to be
disseminated and as such awakened the slumbering hopes of the
horticulturists of a continent. American grape-growers had all but given up
the expectation of ever growing the European grape in the New World when
Allen announced this hybrid. Auspicious hope! Grape-growers everywhere
hybridized grapes and the growing of the vine received an impetus
surpassed only by that of the introduction of the Concord. Botanists and
horticulturists had doubted the possibility and the practicability of crossing
the Old World grape with the New World species, when this variety
removed the doubt and led them to hope that we were to have varieties of
grapes in America possessing many of the coveted characters of the grapes
of Europe.
After its introduction the variety was tested wherever grapes were grown
in the United States and Canada,—and for a generation. Its high quality,
entirely free from what was then considered objectionable foxiness,
handsome appearance, with some other qualities of its Vinifera parent, at
first indicated that it was a most valuable acquisition; but it soon developed
the tenderness of vine and susceptibility to fungi and insects which have
come to be the distinguishing marks of the primary hybrids of native
species and the European grape. Its cultivation has long since ceased and it
has now a place only in the history of American grape-growing. It has been
one of the parents of a number of other grapes, chief of which is Lady
Washington, produced from a cross between Allen’s Hybrid and Concord.
The grape is lost to cultivation but the name should be perpetuated as
commemorating one of the great events in American viticulture.
Allen’s Hybrid was originated by John Fiske Allen of Salem,
Massachusetts. In the winter of 1843-44 he fertilized the blossoms of an
Isabella vine growing in a greenhouse with pollen from Chasselas de
Fontainbleau. Seeds were produced and planted the next year the vines of
which began to fruit in 1853 and 1854. One of these seedlings of greater
merit than the others was saved and named Allen’s Hybrid; the others were
destroyed.
“The vine is not hardy, and requires winter protection, but is vigorous and productive, ripening
quite early, and in sheltered situations is a desirable variety. Bunch medium to large, shouldered,
compact; berry medium to large, round, sometimes depressed; skin thin, white, changing to pale

yellow when fully ripe; flesh tender, juicy, sweet, rich, with a delicate slightly vinous flavor, and one
of the best in quality.”[158]

AMBER QUEEN.
(Vinifera, Riparia, Labrusca.)

1. Mass. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1870:33. 2. Ib., 1873:101. 3. Bush. Cat., 1883:70. 4. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt.,
8:342. 1889. 5. Ib., 17:548, 552. 1898. 6. Mo. Sta. Bul., 46:42, 44, 46, 76. 1899. 7. Ga. Sta. Bul.,
53:40. 1901.

Amber Queen is interesting chiefly as having sprung from three species,
Vitis vinifera, Vitis labrusca and Vitis riparia, and as showing the characters
of all in some degree. The fruit strongly indicates the Vinifera parentage,
the continuous tendrils Labrusca, and the vine, in vigor of growth and
several botanical characters, shows its descent from Riparia. The variety has
never been much grown, and when cultivated could be best characterized
by its faults—of not setting fruit well, susceptibility to mildew and black-
rot and of unproductiveness. It is, however, reasonably successful in
especially favorable localities.
The variety was first exhibited at a meeting of the Massachusetts
Horticultural Society in 1870. It was originated by N. B. White, Norwood,
Massachusetts, from seed of Marion fertilized with Black Hamburg. Bush
questions this parentage owing to the fact that Amber Queen frequently
shows continuous tendrils. In the vineyard of this Station, however, Marion
shows continuous as well as intermittent tendrils, indicating that it would be
quite possible for the Amber Queen to have inherited its aberrant tendrils
from that source.
Vine a strong grower, usually hardy, produces light crops except in favored locations, both leaves
and fruit subject to attacks of fungal diseases. Leaves above medium size, roundish, rather thick.
Flowers sterile or nearly so, practically incapable of setting fruit when self-fertilized, open about in
mid-season and bloom a long time; stamens reflexed. Fruit variable in season of ripening, sometimes
before, at other times after Concord, usually requires more than one picking to secure the fruit at its
best, does not keep well as the berries soon wither. Clusters variable in size but not large, usually
loose and open but sometimes compact. Berries not uniform in size, roundish to oval, dark red
covered with more or less lilac bloom, somewhat resembling Catawba in color, not very firm as the
berries soon shrivel, persistent. Flesh very juicy, soft and tender, mildly sweet at skin to acid at
center, good to very good in quality. Seeds variable in size, frequently with enlarged neck; chalaza
distinctly above center.

AMBROSIA.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

1. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 10:494. 1891. 2. Ib., 11:614. 1892. 3. Ib., 17:526, 545, 547, 553. 1898.

Ambrosia is a New York seedling which, though introduced nearly
twenty years ago, has not found favor with grape-growers. In quality, while
hardly worthy of its name, it ranks high and for this reason may be worth a
place in the vineyard of the amateur. On the Station grounds it shells badly,
differing in this respect from its supposed parent Salem.
The variety was originated by Alfred Rose of Penn Yan, New York, from
seed of Salem, planted in 1884. It was received for testing by this Station in
1888. There are no records of its having been tested elsewhere.
Vine vigorous, healthy, usually hardy, moderately productive. Leaves intermediate in size; lower
surface heavily tinged with bronze. Flowers occasionally on plan of six, fertile, open in mid-season
or earlier; stamens upright. Fruit ripens about with Concord or Delaware, appears to keep well.
Clusters large to medium, broadly and irregularly tapering, sometimes blunt at ends, usually not
shouldered or shoulder when present small and short, compact to medium. Berries large to above
medium, slightly oblate, attractive green changing to a yellow tinge, covered with a more or less gray
bloom, drop from clusters easily. Flesh rather transparent and tender, mild, sweetish from skin to
center, pleasant-flavored but somewhat variable in flavor and quality, ranking from medium to very
good. Seeds separate readily from the pulp, quite large; raphe often shows as a partly submerged
cord.

AMERICA.
(Lincecumii, Rupestris.)

1. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 11:614. 1892. 2. An. Hort., 1892:176. 3. Husmann, 1895:116, 125. 4. N. Y.
Sta. An. Rpt., 14:276. 1895. 5. Ib., 17:526, 548, 553, 1898. 6. Tex. Sta. Bul., 48:1149, 1152. 1898. fig.
7. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1899:29. 8. Mo. Sta. Bul., 46:43, 45, 46, 47. 1899. 9. Ga. Sta. An. Rpt.,
13:320. 1900. 10. Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:263, 274. 1900. fig. 11. Rural N. Y., 60:614. 1901. 12. Mo. Hort.
Soc. Rpt., 1904:305.

America is illustrated and described in The Grapes of New York chiefly
because of its possible value in breeding work. It may also be worth
growing in a limited way in this State for wine-making as it is reputed by all
who have tried it to be one of the best native grapes for a dark red wine and
to make a very good port. The notable qualities of the variety as it grows at
Geneva are: Vigor of growth, health of foliage, persistence of berries, high
sugar content and the peculiar flavor of the fruit, liked by some and not by
others. At least it can be said that the taste of America is new to northern
grape-growers; and, since it wholly lacks the foxy taste and aroma of
Labrusca, it offers possibilities for breeding varieties lacking the
distinguishing flavor of Concord and Niagara. This variety would probably
be somewhat objectionable in northern markets as a table fruit because of
the highly colored juice, which stains the hands and the lips. The flavor is
decidedly that of Vitis rupestris.

Its originator claims for America great resistance to heat and cold; and
our experience, though limited, confirms the claim. So, too, it is said to be a
suitable stock upon which to graft Vinifera varieties to resist phylloxera, a
matter concerning which our experience in this region offers nothing,
though the parentage strongly suggests such resistance to be the case. The
vigor of the vine and the luxuriance of the foliage, probably still more
marked farther south, cannot but make it an excellent sort for arbors. But
the fact must be emphasized that America is preeminently of interest to the
northern grape-grower because it gives him an opportunity to make use in
breeding work, of the qualities of Rupestris and Lincecumii, southern
species combined in this variety and thriving in the combination in northern
conditions.

AMERICA

The grape described here was originated by Munson from seed of Jaeger
No. 43 pollinated by a male Rupestris. It was received at this Station in
1892 which was practically the date of its introduction. America has been
widely tested by experiment stations and the reports of its behavior are
generally favorable.
Vine vigorous to very vigorous, usually hardy, produces heavy crops. Canes long, numerous, of
medium size, dark reddish-brown, covered with heavy blue bloom; nodes enlarged, strongly
flattened; internodes of average length; diaphragm medium in thickness; pith rather large; shoots
glabrous, covered with blue bloom; tendrils intermittent; long, bifid.

Leaf-buds open in mid-season, medium to small, of average length, rather thick, conical to
obtuse. Young leaves tinged on both sides, making the prevailing color rose-carmine. Leaves healthy,
inferior in size, rather thin; upper surface attractive medium green, glossy, smooth; lower surface
light green, hairy; veins indistinct; lobes lacking or faintly showing, terminal lobe acute; petiolar
sinus moderately deep and wide; teeth of average depth and width. Flowers sterile, usually on plan of
six, open late; stamens reflexed.
Fruit ripens with Concord or later, keeps well. Clusters nearly large, above medium length,
broad, tapering, somewhat cylindrical, irregular, usually single-shouldered, averaging two or three
bunches per shoot, usually compact; peduncle of medium length, rather thick; pedicel short, slender,
covered with few, small, inconspicuous warts; brush short, thick, with reddish tinge. Berries medium
to small, variable in size, roundish, attractive black or purplish-black, glossy, covered with heavy
blue bloom, persistent, somewhat soft. Skin thin, very tender, adheres slightly to the pulp, contains an
unusually large amount of purplish-red pigment, slightly astringent. Flesh dull white with faint
reddish tinge, translucent, not very juicy, tender, not stringy, melting, spicy, vinous, sweet, good in
quality. Seeds separate easily, two to five, average four, above medium size, long, of moderate width,
pointed, yellowish-brown; raphe prominent, cord-like; chalaza large, slightly above center,
irregularly circular, distinct.

There is a second variety under the name America, as Ricketts years ago
introduced an America which has probably passed from cultivation.
AMETHYST.
(Labrusca, Vinifera, Bourquiniana.)

1. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1903:82.

Amethyst is one of Munson’s hybrids as yet unknown to the grape-
growers of New York. It is a most excellent table grape, coming after the
Delaware which it much resembles in habit of growth and in fruit. It is a
stronger grower than Delaware, has proved to be as hardy, is seemingly not
attacked readily by black-rot, but like the Delaware is susceptible to
mildew. In quality it ranks with Delago, Brilliant, Goethe, Lindley and
Delaware, all parents one or two generations removed. According to
Munson it makes a good white wine. It is at least an amateur’s grape, to be
sought because of high quality. It was originated by T. V. Munson of
Denison, Texas, being first fruited in 1898. It is a cross of Delago and
Brilliant and was introduced in 1902.
Vine moderately vigorous, hardy, medium to productive, susceptible to attacks of mildew. Canes
intermediate in length, number and thickness, light and dark brown deepening in color at the nodes.
Leaves medium to nearly large, light green; lower surface pale green, pubescent. Flowers nearly
fertile to slightly sterile, open rather late; stamens upright. Fruit ripens after Delaware, keeps well.
Clusters medium to large, intermediate in length and width, usually single-shouldered, compact.
Berries above medium to small, roundish to oval, strongly narrowing toward the pedicel on account
of compactness of cluster, rather attractive dark red, covered with lilac bloom, usually persistent.
Skin thick, of average toughness. Flesh rather tough, solid, vinous, sweetish at skin to agreeably tart
at center somewhat resembling Brilliant, good to very good in quality. Seeds intermediate in size and
length, often with enlarged neck.

AMINIA.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

1. Mag. Hort., 31:333. 1865. 2. Mass. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1865:40. 3. N. Y. Agr. Soc. Rpt., 1870:276.
4. Mich. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1875:341. 5. Bush. Cat., 1883:70. 6. Ill. Sta. Bul., 28:252. 1893. 7. N. Y. Sta.
An. Rpt., 17:526, 548, 553. 1898. 8. Mo. Sta. Bul., 46:42, 44, 46, 48, 54. 1899. 9. Ga. Sta. An. Rpt.,
13:320. 1900.
Rogers’ No. 39 (1, 2, 3, 4). Rogers’ No. 39 (5).

Aminia is deserving the recognition of a color-plate and a full
description in this work because in quality it is one of the best early grapes
for New York. Besides being early and of good quality it keeps well. It
ripens with or a little after Moore Early and Hartford, producing berries of
high quality and attractive appearance but the bunches are small, variable in
size, not well formed as a rule, and the berries ripen unevenly. The vine is
vigorous, not as hardy as might be wished for in New York, nor as
productive as a commercial variety must be, and shows the weaknesses
characteristic of all of Rogers’ hybrids.

AMINIA

For an account of the origin of the Aminia see page 390 under “Rogers’
Hybrids.” In 1867 Bush secured vines of Rogers’ No. 39 from several
different sources. When these came into bearing he found he had three
different varieties. The original vine of Rogers’ No. 39 having been
destroyed it was impossible to determine which was the correct one. Bush
selected the best of these and to avoid further confusion, with the consent of
Rogers, named it Aminia. But in spite of Bush’s care there are still at least
two different varieties cultivated under this name. Although the Aminia is
found in many varietal vineyards, an examination of over forty of the
leading grape nurserymen’s catalogs shows only three who offer vines for
sale.
Vine vigorous, not always hardy, lacking somewhat in productiveness. Canes slightly rough,
long, medium in number, thickish, dark brown to reddish tinge; nodes enlarged, usually not flattened;
internodes medium to long; diaphragm somewhat thick; pith large; shoots pubescent; tendrils
intermittent, long to medium, trifid to bifid, persistent.
Leaf-buds open in mid-season, about medium in size and length, above average thickness,
prominent, obtuse to conical. Young leaves colored on both sides, prevailing color rather bright
carmine. Leaves large, of average thickness; upper surface medium green, rather dull, nearly smooth;
lower surface light green, slightly pubescent; veins distinct; lobes usually three, terminal lobe acute;
petiolar sinus rather deep, narrow, often closed and overlapping; basal sinus usually lacking; lateral

sinus nearly shallow, narrow; teeth somewhat shallow, inclined to wide. Flowers open in mid-season,
sterile; stamens reflexed.
Fruit ripens early, just after Hartford, keeps well. Clusters medium to small, of average length,
broad, irregular, somewhat conical, sometimes with a long shoulder, rather loose; peduncle long,
thick; pedicel longish, not slender, broad at point of attachment, covered with few warts; brush short,
thick, brownish-red. Berries range from large to small, decidedly variable, roundish, dull black,
covered with blue bloom, persistent, firm. Skin rather thick, somewhat tender, adheres considerably
to the pulp, contains a large amount of purplish-red pigment, slightly astringent. Flesh greenish,
translucent, moderately tender, rather solid and coarse, foxy, sweet at skin but somewhat acid at
center; quality good. Seeds adherent, one to six, average three and four, very large, long, fair width,
sharply pointed, light brown with yellow tinge; raphe obscure; chalaza large, above center, irregularly
circular to oval, distinct.

ANTOINETTE.
(Labrusca.)

1. N. J. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1881:10. 2. Rural N. Y., 48:801. 1889. fig. 3. Bush. Cat., 1894:86. 4. N. Y.
Sta. An. Rpt., 15:294. 1896. 5. Ib., 17:526, 545, 547, 553. 1898. 6. Kan. Sta. Bul., 110:235. 1902.

Antoinette is a white seedling of Concord which, on the Station grounds,
and in the State at large, has not shown sufficient merit to warrant its
recommendation. It is very similar to the several other white seedlings of
Concord, all of which have a decided varietal resemblance and which,
except in color of fruit, have the general characters of Concord.
T. B. Miner, of New Jersey, produced Antoinette from Concord seed
over thirty years ago.
Vine medium to vigorous, usually hardy, fairly productive. Canes medium to short, usually
roughened. Leaves of average size and thickness with lower surface heavily pubescent. Flowers open
in mid-season or earlier, fertile; stamens upright. Fruit ripens with Concord or slightly earlier, keeps
well. Clusters medium to small, cylindrical to tapering, usually not shouldered, variable in
compactness. Berries large to below medium, roundish, dark dull green or whitish, often with a tinge
of yellow, covered with heavy gray bloom, inclined to drop from pedicel, not firm. Skin usually
covered with small scattering dark dots, thin, variable in toughness. Flesh rather tough, sweetish next
the skin, tart at center, slightly foxy, good to very good in quality. Seeds separate from the pulp with
difficulty, not numerous, rather large, dark brown.

AUGUST GIANT.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

1. Mass. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1872:95. 2. Bush. Cat., 1883:72. 3. Ill. Sta. Bul., 28:252. 1893. 4. Col.
Sta. Bul., 29:18. 1894. 5. Bush. Cat., 1894:86. 6. Del. Sta. An. Rpt., 7:134, 136. 1895.

The originator of August Giant has managed to secure a hybrid of Vitis
labrusca and Vitis vinifera in which the fruit characters are decidedly those
of the latter species. In appearance of berry and in taste, when well grown,
August Giant greatly resembles Black Hamburg. The vine is unusually

vigorous and, considering its parentage, is quite hardy. The foliage is thick
and luxuriant, though somewhat subject to mildew. The vigor of vine,
beauty of foliage, and the high quality of the fruit make the variety a
desirable one for the amateur, especially where an ornamental vine is
wanted. The variety needs to be grown where the fruit can have a long and
favorable maturing season.
August Giant was originated by N. B. White of Norwood,
Massachusetts, in 1861 from seed of an early, large-berried red grape of the
Labrusca type, pollinated by Black Hamburg.

AUGUST GIANT

Vine very vigorous, usually hardy, not a heavy bearer, somewhat subject to mildew. Canes
medium to long, numerous, thick, light to dark brown; nodes enlarged, slightly flattened; internodes
below average length; diaphragm rather thick; pith large to medium; shoots slightly pubescent;
tendrils continuous, medium to long, bifid to trifid.
Leaf-buds open in mid-season, of average size, short, rather thick, conical to obtuse. Young
leaves tinged with carmine on lower side extending beyond border of upper side. Leaves medium to
very large, thick; upper surface dark green, glossy, smooth, slightly rugose on older leaves; lower
surface pale green to indistinct bronze, pubescent; veins rather indistinct; lobes usually three,
terminal lobe acute; petiolar sinus medium to deep, narrow, frequently closed and overlapping; lateral
sinus shallow to a mere notch; teeth shallow, narrow. Flowers open in mid-season, sterile; stamens
reflexed.

Fruit ripens about a week later than Moore Early, keeps well. Clusters of average size or
sometimes larger, medium to short, rather broad, irregularly tapering, not uniform, usually single-
shouldered, loose to nearly compact; peduncle long to medium in length, somewhat thick; pedicel
longish, thick, wide at attachment to berry, covered with numerous large warts; brush short, thick,
greenish or with brown tinge. Berries resemble Black Hamburg in general appearance but somewhat
variable, averaging large, oval to roundish, dark purplish-red or black, dull, covered with thick blue
bloom, hang well to pedicel, firm. Skin of average thickness, tough, adheres slightly to pulp, contains
a small amount of bright red pigment, strongly astringent. Flesh greenish, translucent, somewhat
tough, stringy, agreeably tart at skin but acid at center, good in quality, resembling Black Hamburg.
Seeds adherent, one to four, averaging three, large, rather broad, long, plump, somewhat blunt, light
brown; raphe usually obscure; chalaza somewhat large, above center, irregularly circular, distinct.

AUTUCHON.
(Riparia, Labrusca, Vinifera.)
1. Downing, 1869:530. 2. Grape Cult., 1:325, 334, 368. 1869. fig. 3. Horticulturist, 24:19, 1869.
4. Ib., 25:74. 1870. 5. Grape Cult., 2:265. 1870. 6. Barry, 1872:424. 7. Horticulturist, 27:14. 1872. 8.
Montreal Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1881:159. 9. Bush. Cat., 1883:71. fig. 10. Minn. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1884:249.
11. Can. Cen. Exp. Farms Rpt., 1891:134. 12. Traité gen. de vit., 5:200. 1903.
Arnold’s No. 5 (3). Arnold’s No. 5 (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12).

Autuchon was introduced about 1870 with great éclat. It was heralded as
the “best white grape in America—a veritable treasure.” Later it was grown
and somewhat widely tested in France. But in neither country has it come
up to expectations. In America it has proved to be somewhat tender to cold,
an unreliable bearer and subject to rot and mildew. In France it shows the
same weaknesses and is not as resistant to phylloxera as are other and better
American sorts. The quality of Autuchon is excellent, being that of its
European parent with the agreeable sprightliness of its American ancestor.
According to the reports regarding it from France it makes a “wine
remarkably white, vinous and fresh, slightly musky and agreeable, and of a
beautiful yellow color.”[159]
Autuchon was originated by Charles Arnold of Paris, Canada, from seed
planted in 1859, The parents are Clinton pollinated by Golden Chasselas. It
is not in the Station collection, and the following description is taken from
the Bushberg Catalogue.[160]
“Leaves dark green, very deep lobed and sharp pointed serratures; the unripe wood is very dark
purple, nearly black. Bunches very long, not heavily shouldered, rather loose; berries medium size,
round, white (green), with a moderately firm, but readily melting flesh, and an agreeable sprightly
flavor, resembling the White Chasselas. Skin thin, without astringency. Ripens with the Delaware.”

BACCHUS.
(Riparia, Labrusca.)

1. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1879 (cited by 2). 2. Gar. Mon., 22:176. 1880. 3. Mass. Hort. Soc. Rpt.,
1880:238. 4. Bush. Cat., 1883:72. fig. 5. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 9:326. 1890. 6. Ill. Sta. Bul., 28:252.
1893. 7. Tenn. Sta. Bul., Vol. 9:167. 1896. 8. Rural N. Y., 59:7. 1900.

Bacchus is a wine grape deemed worthy by its originator to bear the
name of the god of wine. It is an offspring of Clinton which it much
resembles in vine and leaf characters but surpasses in quality of fruit and in
productiveness. In New York Bacchus has very generally superseded
Clinton though neither is extensively grown. It is vigorous, productive,
hardy, free from mildew and adapted to a variety of soils; it requires a long
season for full maturity and cannot therefore be well grown in northern
locations though the seasons in the grape regions of New York are usually
sufficiently long. The wine-makers of the State mention it as one of the
most desirable grapes for a dark red wine. While it is generally too tart for a
dessert grape, yet if left on the vine until frost, as late as it can hang, it
becomes a good late table grape. Bacchus is one of the best, if not the best,
cultivated types of Riparia, or of the Clinton group of Riparia. Its special
points of merit from a broad standpoint are: Resistance to cold, resistance to
phylloxera, value for wine-making, freedom from fungi and insects,
productiveness, ease of multiplication, and capacity to bear grafts. For the
above qualities it offers exceptional opportunities to the plant-breeder. Its
most prominent limitations are: Poor quality for table use, inability to
withstand dry soils or droughts and non-adaptability to soils containing
much lime.

BACCHUS

There is no question about the origin of Bacchus. It is a seedling of
Clinton which, as mentioned above, it greatly resembles in every character.
The variety was originated by J. H. Ricketts of Newburgh, New York, and
was first exhibited by him before the American Pomological Society in
1879. It is well known in eastern United States and, as in New York, is
highly thought of as a wine grape.
Vine very vigorous, hardy, healthy, productive. Canes average in length, numerous, of medium
size, rather light to dark brown with some bloom at nodes which are somewhat enlarged and
flattened; internodes intermediate in length; diaphragm below average thickness; pith large to
medium; shoots nearly glabrous; tendrils continuous, of mean length, bifid.
Leaf-buds open early, of average size, rather short, thick, obtuse to conical. Young leaves faintly
tinged with carmine on lower side only, prevailing color pale green with faint carmine tinge. Leaves
medium to small, thin; upper surface dark green, glossy, smooth; lower surface dull green, not
pubescent; veins indistinct; lobes three in number, terminal lobe acuminate; petiolar sinus medium to
shallow, narrow sometimes nearly overlapping; basal sinus lacking; lateral sinus shallow, wide; teeth
of average depth and width. Flowers open early, sterile; stamens upright.
Fruit ripens late and keeps well, hanging a long time on the vine. Clusters small to medium,
below average length, rather slender, uniform, cylindrical, often single-shouldered, compact;
peduncle almost short, intermediate in size; pedicel short to medium, slender, covered with a few
small warts; brush short, wine-colored. Berries variable in size, below medium to small, roundish,
black, glossy, covered with a moderate amount of blue bloom, hang well to pedicels, firm. Skin thin,
of average toughness, adheres only slightly to the pulp, contains much wine-colored pigment, slightly
astringent. Flesh dark green, translucent, fine-grained, somewhat tough, vinous, sweet at skin to tart
near seeds, with slight Riparia spiciness, of medium quality, improving as the season advances. Seeds
cling to pulp, one to four, average two, often many abortive, above medium size, rather short and
wide, usually plump, sharply pointed, brownish; raphe obscure; chalaza above center, pear-shaped,
distinct. Must registers 95°-110°.

BAILEY.
(Lincecumii, Labrusca, Vinifera.)

1. Rural N. Y., 50:221, 222. 1891. fig. 2. Bush. Cat., 1894:159. 3. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 14:276.
1895. 4. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:526, 548, 553. 1898. 5. Tex. Sta. Bul., 48:1149, 1153. 1898. fig. 6. Am.
Pom. Soc. Cat., 1899:29. 7. Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:275. 1900. 8. Rural N. Y., 60:614. 1901.

In the Bailey are combined characters of three species, Vinifera,
Labrusca and Lincecumii—characters attained in three widely separated
regions, Europe, Massachusetts, and Texas. Moreover the characters of
Vinifera and Labrusca have been transmitted to Bailey through Triumph, in
which variety they are as well combined as in any other hybrid of the two
species. The Lincecumii parent, Big Berry, is at the head of Munson’s “Big
Berry Family” of hybrids; brought in from the wild, it is one of the best
representatives of its species. Bailey, therefore, has royal blood and if
parentage counts in grapes, it should prove valuable. Unfortunately New
York, at least the Station vineyard, is a little too far north for the fruit to
mature well. In cold winters the vine is liable to winter injury. In seasons
when the grapes have matured the appearance and quality of the fruit have
been such as to recommend it. Its vigor of vine and productiveness give it
additional value, and if not to be recommended for commercial plantings in
this State, it can surely be named as valuable for breeding purposes. The
name of the variety was bestowed upon it by its originator in honor of L. H.
Bailey, known by all grape-growers for his services to viticulture.
Bailey was originated by Munson from seeds of a wild Post-oak grape
called Big Berry, fertilized with pollen of Triumph. The seed was planted in
1887 and the original vine came into fruiting in 1889-90. The variety is now
very generally disseminated throughout the East, and the reports of its
behavior, in the North at least, generally accord with that from this Station
given above.
Vine vigorous, injured in severe winters, produces good crops of fruit. Canes dark reddish-
brown, of good length, of medium size and number. Leaves average in size, light green, dull to
slightly glossy, with very distinct veins on lower surface which is cobwebby. Flowers open late,
fertile; upright stamens.
Fruit ripens unevenly almost as late as Catawba, keeps well. Clusters rather large and long, not
very broad, often blunt at ends, cylindrical to irregularly tapering, usually not shouldered but
sometimes with a small, short shoulder, compact. Berries persistent, medium to large, vary in shape
from roundish to ovate on account of compactness of clusters, change in color from purplish-black to
black, covered with a heavy blue bloom. Skin medium to thin, strongly astringent, tough, adheres
somewhat to the pulp, contains a large amount of purplish-red pigment. Flesh moderately juicy and
tender, coarse, vinous, good in quality, releases the seeds rather easily. Seeds numerous, medium to

above in size, moderately broad, above medium to medium length, blunt, brownish; raphe buried in a
shallow, narrow groove; chalaza large, above center, circular to oval, distinct.

BANNER.
(Labrusca, Vinifera, Bourquiniana?)
1. U. S. D. A. Yr. Bk., 1906:361. col. pl.

Banner is one of the newer offerings for pomological honors. The
Station was not able to secure vines until 1906 and these have not yet
fruited. So far as is known it is not grown elsewhere in the State. Since the
variety has been well spoken of by horticulturists who have seen it, and
since it has been deemed worthy a place among the promising new fruits
illustrated and described in the Year Book of the United States Department
of Agriculture for 1906, the variety is discussed here. The technical
description of it is quoted from the above reference.
The variety was originated by Joseph Bachman of Altus, Arkansas, from
seed of Lindley pollinated by Delaware. The seed was planted in 1898. The
originator states that he suspects a Stark-Star vine growing alongside also
furnished pollen as the Lindley blossoms were unprotected.
“Cluster large, broad conical, heavily shouldered, very compact; stem short; berries globular, of
medium size, adhering tenaciously to the small green peduncles; skin moderately thick, and rather
tough; amber red and glossy, but covered with a profuse bloom; flesh translucent, juicy, and rather
meaty; seeds few, very small, brown; flavor refreshing subacid to sweet and aromatic; quality good to
very good. Season late August and early September in Franklin county, Arkansas, ten days or two
weeks later than Delaware.”

BARRY.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

1. U. S. D. A. Rpt., 1864:136. 2. Mass. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1865:40. 3. Mag. Hort., 34:345. 1868. 4.
Am. Jour. Hort., 5:11. 1869. fig. 5. Horticulturist, 24:126. 1869. 6. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1869:42. 7.
Grape Cult., 1:182, 326. 1869. 8. Bush. Cat., 1883:74. fig. 9. Mich. Bd. Agr. Rpt., 24:133. 1885. 10.
Ill. Sta. Bul., 28:252. 1893. 11. Rural N. Y., 52:671. 1893. 12. Tenn. Sta. Bul., Vol. 9:191. 1896. 13. N.
Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:526, 548, 549, 552, 553. 1898. 14. Tex. Sta. Bul., 48:1149, 1153. 1898. 15. N. Y.
Sta. An. Rpt., 18:370, 395. 1899.
Rogers’ No. 43 (1, 2, 3, 4). Rogers’ No. 43 (5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12).

Barry, first known as Rogers’ No. 43, was dedicated in 1869, by Rogers,
to Patrick Barry, distinguished nurseryman, pomologist and viticulturist.
Happily the variety is such that it should long honor the name it bears. The
Barry is one of our best black grapes, resembling in berry and somewhat in
flavor and keeping quality its European parent, Black Hamburg. The flavor

is delicate and sweet, the flesh tender, with thin skin and unobjectionable
seeds. The appearance of berry and bunch is attractive. The fruit keeps
splendidly, and as this is written, on the twenty-ninth of February, leap-year,
there are before the writer bunches of the Barry, kept in common storage
without wrapping or other special care, which are in perfect condition. The
vine is vigorous, hardy, and productive, but susceptible to mildew. The
ripening season is usually said to be that of the Concord but, while it may
color with the Concord it requires a longer time to ripen thoroughly and it is
not at its best, or even good, unless properly matured. For the table, for
winter keeping, and for an amateur grape in general the Barry may be
highly recommended.
For an account of the origin of Barry see page 390 under “Rogers’
Hybrids.” It is first mentioned separately from the rest of Rogers’ hybrids in
1864, though not named until 1869. Barry was placed on the list of the
American Pomological Society in 1869 where it is still retained. It is known
and grown in the garden throughout the grape regions of eastern America.

BARRY

Vine vigorous, usually hardy, productive, somewhat susceptible to mildew. Canes long to very
long, numerous, usually thick, dark brown to slightly reddish-brown covered with a small amount of
blue bloom; nodes not enlarged, very slightly flattened; internodes intermediate in length; diaphragm
of average thickness; pith medium to above in size; shoots nearly glabrous; tendrils intermittent, fair
length, bifid to trifid.

Leaf-buds open early, of average size, short, of medium thickness, obtuse to conical. Young
leaves heavily tinged with carmine on lower surface, faintly tinged along margin of upper surface,
prevailing color bright carmine. Leaves large to medium, of average thickness; upper surface light
green, slightly glossy, nearly smooth; lower surface pale green, somewhat pubescent; veins rather
indistinct; lobes vary from none to three, terminus acute; petiolar sinus deep, narrow, sometimes
closed and overlapping; basal sinus usually lacking; lateral sinus shallow and narrow; teeth shallow
to medium, of average width. Flowers open in mid-season, sterile; stamens reflexed. Fruit ripens with
Concord or later, keeps very late. Clusters variable in size, medium to short, very broad, slightly
tapering to nearly cylindrical, upper part of cluster often subdivides into several parts making
compound clusters, frequently double-shouldered, usually compact; peduncle short, medium to rather
stout; pedicel above average length, moderately thick, covered with few small warts, enlarged at
point of attachment with fruit. Berries large, oval to spherical, dark purplish-black to black, glossy,
covered with heavy blue bloom, adhere well to pedicel. Skin rather thin, tough, adheres strongly to
pulp, contains but little pigment, not very astringent. Flesh pale green, translucent, tender when
ripened under favorable conditions, stringy, vinous, pleasant-flavored, sweet next the skin, agreeably
tart at center, above average quality. Seeds slightly adherent, one to five, average three, nearly large
to medium, usually long, of mean breadth, deeply notched, rather blunt but often with slightly
enlarged neck, brownish; raphe usually obscure, sometimes showing as a faint ridge in a broad
groove; chalaza nearly small, pear-shaped or circular, above center, distinct.

BEACON.
(Lincecumii, Labrusca.)

1. Ga. Sta. An. Rpt., 13:312, 321. 1890. 2. An. Hort., 1892:176. 3. Bush. Cat., 1894:159. 4.
Husmann, 1895:126. 5. Rural N. Y., 55:592. 1896. 6. Tex. Sta. Bul., 48:1149, 1153. 1898. fig. 7. N. Y.
Sta. An. Rpt., 17:526, 548. 1898. 8. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1899:29. 9. Mo. Sta. Bul., 46:48, 76. 1899.
10. Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:275. 1900. fig. 11. Ga. Sta. Bul., 53:40, 51, 53. 1901. fig.
Big B Con (7).

Beacon is another of Munson’s hybrids, a cross between Labrusca and
Lincecumii. It was received at this Station in 1892 and has borne fruit many
times since so that there has been abundant opportunity to see grapes and
vine. The variety is not especially well adapted to New York as the fruit is
dull in color, lacking in quality, and shells somewhat badly. The vine is very
vigorous, bearing a handsome, compact mass of foliage which retains its
color and freshness throughout drouths and the heat of summer. In New
York it must compete with Concord in commercial vineyards and since it
does not equal that variety, taking its character as a whole, it cannot be
recommended as a market grape. Its quality and appearance are such that it
will never be largely grown by the amateur in the North. The variety,
however, is of much interest and of possible value to the grape-breeder.
Munson produced Beacon in 1887 from seed of Big Berry (a variety of
Lincecumii) pollinated by Concord, securing the first fruit in 1889. The

variety has been generally disseminated among grape specialists and
experiment stations and is now well known by grape-growers in general.
Vine a medium to very strong grower, not always hardy, productive. Canes short, medium to
rather slender, light brown. Leaves healthy, variable in size, rather thick, inclined to dark green,
sometimes rugose, with veins showing indistinctly through the slight pubescence of the lower
surface. Flowers open in mid-season, on plan of five or six, nearly fertile.
Fruit ripens with Concord or later and keeps fairly well. Clusters are attractive in general
appearance, of good size, rather long, medium to slightly slender, cylindrical to somewhat tapering,
usually single-shouldered, compact to medium. Berries medium but variable in size, roundish,
purplish-black to black, dull in appearance, covered with heavy blue bloom, inclined to shell in some
localities, moderately firm. Skin medium to thin, tough, adheres strongly to pulp, contains a large
amount of purplish-red pigment, astringent. Flesh moderately tender, slightly aromatic, spicy, vinous,
mildly subacid to agreeably tart, often with a noticeable Concord flavor, about as good as Concord in
quality. Seeds separate easily from the pulp, large to above medium, of average length, broad, blunt
to medium, slightly notched; raphe obscure; chalaza above center, irregularly circular to slightly oval.

BEAUTY.
(Labrusca, Vinifera, Bourquiniana?)

1. Downing, 1881:165 app. 2. Ill. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1881:163. 3. Mo. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1883:43. 4.
Kan. Sta. Bul., 14:85. 1890. 5. Bush. Cat., 1894:89. 6. Tex. Sta. Bul., 48:1149, 1153. 1898.

The grape which bears the name Beauty is an Aestivalis hybrid with
Labrusca, one of Jacob Rommel’s seedlings. It had the honor, according to
the Bushberg Catalogue,[161] of receiving at the Exposition at Bordeaux,
France, in 1880, the praise of having produced “the best American white
wine on exhibition.” According to the above authority Rommel stopped its
propagation and dissemination because of its susceptibility to fungi. The
variety is now practically lost to cultivation and was never largely grown in
New York.
Beauty is a cross between Delaware and Maxatawney originated by
Jacob Rommel of Morrison, Missouri, over thirty years ago. Bush questions
the parentage as given by Rommel and thinks it more likely Catawba and
Maxatawney. Rommel’s Beauty should not be confused with the Beauty of
Minnesota, a grape from the State for which it was named, which has been
discarded because of poor quality.
Vine fairly vigorous, usually healthy and hardy, produces medium to good crops. Canes long to
medium, numerous, dark reddish-brown often with a strong ashy-gray tinge, surface covered with
slight blue bloom. Leaves medium to rather large, dark green; lower surface covered with
considerable pubescence. Stamens upright. Fruit ripens between Delaware and Catawba, keeps and
ships well. Clusters intermediate in size, strongly tapering, often not shouldered, rather compact.
Berries small to medium roundish to slightly oval, dull dark red somewhat darker than Catawba,

covered with a large amount of dark lilac bloom, persistent, firm. Flesh tender, slightly foxy, sweet,
good to very good in quality. Chalaza very distinct.

BELL.
(Riparia, Labrusca, Bourquiniana, Vinifera.)
1. Rural N. Y., 45:733. 1886. fig. 2. Mich. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1893:118. 3. Ill. Sta. Bul., 28:263.
1893. 4. Va. Sta. Bul., 30:106. 1893. 5. Ga. Sta. Bul., 28:290. 1895. 6. Tenn. Sta. Bul., Vol. 9:168.
1896. 7. Kan. Sta. Bul., 73:181, 182. 1897. 8. Tex. Sta. Bul., 48:1149, 1153. 1898. 9. Va. Sta. Bul.,
94:142. 1898. 10. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1899:31. 11. Ga. Sta. Bul., 53:40, 52, 53. 1901.
Munson’s No. 21 (1, 2, 4). Willie Bell (4, 9).

Bell is still another of Munson’s hybrids, its parents being Elvira crossed
with Delaware. Its characters are chiefly those of Elvira and in particular it
has the Elvira flavor, which is somewhat against it for a table grape. As to
its value for wine-making there are no records though it may be assumed
that it has the same value for this purpose as the Elvira, which it so greatly
resembles in flavor. From its behavior here, this Station does not
recommend Bell for New York.
Munson produced Bell in 1881 from seed of Elvira pollinated by
Delaware. After having tested it thoroughly the originator disseminated it
and continues to offer it in his catalog; proof of its value for some of the
grape regions.
Vine a strong grower, hardy, usually produces full crops although a shy bearer in some localities.
Leaves vigorous, healthy, medium to very large. Flowers open before mid-season, nearly fertile;
stamens upright. Fruit ripens in mid-season or later, keeps well. Clusters intermediate in size and
length, frequently shouldered, compact to medium. Berries medium to small, roundish, dull green
sometimes with yellow tinge, covered with rather heavy gray bloom, persistent. Skin thin, very
tender, adheres considerably to the pulp. Flesh moderately juicy and tender, sweetish at skin to tart at
center, ranks about the same as Elvira in quality.

BERCKMANS.
(Riparia, Labrusca, Bourquiniana.)

1. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1871:114. 2. Ib., 1877:43. 3. Gar. Mon., 23:308. 1881. 4. Bush. Cat.,
1883:75. 5. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1889:24. 6. Ala. Sta. Bul., 10:8. 1890. 7. Ark. Sta. Bul., 39:27. 1896.
8. Rural N. Y., 56:823. 1897. 9. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:526, 545, 547, 553. 1898. 10. Tex. Sta. Bul.,
48:1149, 1153. 1898. 11. Mo. Sta. Bul., 46:37, 43, 44, 46, 48. 1899. 12. Kan. Sta. Bul., 110:245.
1902.
Delaware and Clinton No. 1 (1).

In Berckmans, generally speaking, we have the fruit of Delaware on the
vine of Clinton. Berckmans was disseminated nearly forty years ago and
though the fruit is seemingly better adapted for the market than Delaware,

and the vine much more vigorous, as hardy and as productive as its better
known parent, yet the variety is seldom grown other than as an amateur
grape. The berry and bunch resemble Delaware in shape; the fruit is of the
same color; bunch and berry are larger, but the vine is not quite as
productive; the flesh is firmer, making it a better shipper and it keeps better;
the quality is not so good, the flesh lacking tenderness, sweetness and
richness in comparison with Delaware. The vine of Berckmans is much
more vigorous and is less subject to mildew than that of Delaware, but there
are many reports that it suffers from leaf-hoppers and the rose bug, insects
which seem inordinately fond of its foliage. The vine characters are not as
good as those of Clinton. The variety seems illy adapted to some soils and
in particular does not color well if not suited in this respect. In spite of its
many good qualities, popular verdict has decreed that Berckmans is but an
amateur’s grape. The name commemorates the viticultural labors of P. J.
Berckmans, a contemporary and friend of Dr. A. P. Wylie of Chester, South
Carolina, who originated the variety and christened it Berckmans.
Berckmans was produced by Dr. A. P. Wylie[162] of Chester, South
Carolina, from Delaware seed fertilized by Clinton. The seed was planted in
1868 and the plant bore its first fruit in 1870, the variety being introduced
some years later.

BERCKMANS

Vine similar to Clinton in growth and foliage, vigorous to very vigorous, hardy, produces average
to good crops. Canes long, numerous, rather slender, light to dark brown; nodes prominent, flattened;
internodes short; diaphragm below medium thickness; pith medium to above in size; shoots not
pubescent; tendrils intermittent, long, bifid.
Leaf-buds intermediate in size, short, of average thickness, conical to nearly obtuse, open very
early. Young leaves decidedly pale green with faintest trace of carmine, prevailing color green on
both sides. Leaves medium to small, thin; upper surface light green, smooth; lower surface pale
green, not pubescent; veins inconspicuous; lobes vary from none to three, terminal lobe acute;
petiolar sinus medium to shallow, wide; basal sinus usually lacking; lateral sinus shallow; teeth
intermediate in depth and width. Flowers open rather early, fertile; stamens upright.
Fruit ripens with Delaware and keeps unusually well. Clusters attractive, much like Delaware in
shape and size but slightly longer and more often shouldered, compact to medium, averaging slightly
looser than either parent; peduncle rather short, slender; pedicel longish, slender, covered with but
few warts; brush short, light green. Berries intermediate in size, slightly larger than Delaware,
roundish to slightly oval, resemble Delaware in color but somewhat darker when well ripened,
covered with lilac bloom, persistent, of average firmness. Skin thin, somewhat tough, slightly
adhering to pulp, contains no pigment, nearly astringent. Flesh pale yellowish-green, translucent,
fine-grained, tender, inclined to melting, vinous, sweet to agreeably tart, sprightly, very good in
quality. Seeds separate easily from the pulp, one to four, average three, slightly below medium in
size, rather broad and blunt, brownish; raphe obscure; chalaza of average size, slightly above center,
irregularly oval, distinct.

BERTRAND.
(Bourquiniana.)

1. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1885:17. 2. Rural N. Y., 45:653, 660. 1886. fig. 3. Gar. Mon., 28:305.
1886. fig. 4. Bush. Cat., 1894:90. fig. 5. Texas Farm and Ranch, Feb. 8, 1896:11. 6. Ala. Sta. Bul.,
110:78. 1900.
Blue Seedling (1, 3). Blue Seedling (4, 5).

Bertrand is a southern variety, almost without question an offspring of
Herbemont, and so far as can be judged from the descriptions of others, we
not having seen the fruit, not nearly equal to its parent. The variety is hardy
only as far north as Maryland and even in that State must be planted in
sheltered situations.
Judge J. B. Jones, Herndon, Burke County, Georgia, found Bertrand as
an accidental seedling, which had germinated in the spring of 1878. Judge
Jones gives the species as being Cordifolia but Berckmans says it looks like
an Aestivalis; it is now generally classed in the Bourquiniana group. The
following description of this variety is compiled from various sources:
Vine vigorous. Cluster above medium to rather large, usually conical, most often shouldered,
moderately compact; peduncle long. Berries below medium in size, round, black with blue bloom;
flesh melting, juicy, very high flavored. Skin thin, tough. Ripens late. Seeds few. Very productive in
the South. Of value only for wine.

BLACK DEFIANCE.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

1. Mass. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1868:10. (No name given.) 2. Bush. Cat., 1883:75. 3. Okla. Sta. Bul.,
14:6. 1895. 4. Husmann, 1895:31. 5. Mo. Sta. Bul., 46:37, 43, 76. 1899. 6. Ga. Sta. Bul., 53:41. 1901.
Underhill’s 8-8 Hybrid (2).

Black Defiance is one of Stephen Underhill’s Vinifera-Labrusca hybrids,
at one time quite popular as a late table grape, but now superseded by
thriftier varieties. It ripens too late to be of much value in New York. When
phylloxera had driven French grape-growers to look to America for
varieties of grapes, and before grafting on resistant stocks was practiced in
that country, Black Defiance was looked upon with much favor in France
where it succeeded very well. The fruit is distinguished by the size, lustrous
blackness and handsome bloom of the berry. It is now rarely cultivated in
New York having been replaced by varieties more certain to mature in this
State.
Stephen Underhill of Croton-on-Hudson, New York, produced Black
Defiance from seed of Concord fertilized by Black Prince. It first fruited in
1866. The variety was introduced without the originator’s consent.
Black Defiance is described as follows:[163]

BLACK EAGLE

“Growth medium, shoots smooth; leaves large, more or less three-lobed, with uneven margin;
bunches large, oblong with large base, frequently branched; berries black, decidedly acid, pulp rather
firm, ripe July 22nd; defoliated on October 6, 1896. Not good for table use.”

BLACK EAGLE.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)
1. Mass. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1868:10. (No name given.) 2. Ohio Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1875-6:22. 3. Ib.,
1876-7:32. 4. Bush. Cat., 1883:75. fig. 5. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 12:618. 1893. 6. Tenn. Sta. Bul., Vol.
9:168. 1896. 7. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:527, 548, 553, 559. 1898. 8. Tex. Sta. Bul., 48:1149, 1153.
1898. 9. Mo. Sta. Bul., 46:37, 42, 44, 46, 48, 76. 1899. 10. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 18:370, 386, 396. 1899.
11. Kan. Sta. Bul., 110:240. 1902.
Underhill’s 8-12 (4).

Black Eagle is a full brother of Black Defiance which it much resembles
but surpasses for New York because it is fully three weeks earlier in
ripening. On our grounds its season is about with Concord. The quality of
Black Eagle is of the best, but the vine lacks in vigor, hardiness and
productiveness and the fruit is susceptible to black-rot. As the color-plate
shows, bunch and berry are large and attractive; bunches weighing nearly
two pounds have been grown for exhibition purposes and probably there are
few if any showier hybrid grapes than this when at its best. The leaf is that
of Vitis vinifera, deeply lobed, of a beautiful green, and with firm texture,
making with thrifty vines one of the most attractive grape plants to be found

in our vineyards. The variety is self-sterile. Black Eagle has wholly failed as
a commercial variety and its several weaknesses will prevent amateurs from
growing it largely, yet it is far too good a grape to give up altogether and
lovers of grapes should keep it in cultivation.
The variety originated with Stephen W. Underhill, Croton-on-Hudson,
New York, from seed of Concord pollinated by Black Prince. It first fruited
in 1866. The variety was sent out by Underhill for testing and was
introduced without the originator’s consent.
Vine medium to vigorous, not always hardy, not productive. Canes rather rough, medium to long,
of average number, thick, approaching dark reddish-brown, covered with slight blue bloom; nodes
strongly enlarged, slightly flattened; internodes above medium length; diaphragm thick; pith of
average size; shoots pubescent; tendrils continuous, long, bifid to trifid.
Leaf-buds intermediate in size, short, rather thick, pointed to conical, open very late. Young
leaves tinged with carmine on the under surface and along margin of upper surface making the
prevailing color a light rose-carmine. Leaves of average size, medium to thick; upper surface dark
green, slightly glossy, smooth to rugose; lower surface pale grayish-green, somewhat pubescent;
veins not distinct; lobes five in number, terminal lobe acute; petiolar sinus deep to narrow, often
closed and overlapping; basal sinus very wide and deep; lateral sinus wide at bottom narrowing
towards top, deep; teeth intermediate in depth and width. Flowers open in mid-season or later, fully
self-sterile; stamens reflexed.
Fruit ripens in mid-season, keeps well if picked before overripe. Clusters of large to average size,
rather long, tapering, varying from single-to double-shouldered, loose to compact; peduncle longish,
rather thick; pedicel long to medium, somewhat slender, covered with very few warts, enlarged at
point of attachment to fruit; brush short, pale green. Berries variable in size averaging large, slightly
oval, black, glossy, covered with a moderate amount of blue bloom, do not shatter, somewhat soft.
Skin thin, rather tender, adheres strongly to pulp, with slight amount of wine-colored pigment, not
astringent. Flesh pale green, translucent, somewhat tender, vinous, not foxy, sweet at skin to
agreeably tart at center, quality good. Seeds separate easily, one to four, average two or three, rather
large and broad, nearly long.

BLACK HAMBURG.
(Vinifera.)

1. Speechly, 1791:11,179. 2. London Hort. Soc. Cat., 1830:75. 3. Hoare, 1840:142. 4. Mag.
Hort., 9:245. 1843. 5. Ib., 13:43. 1847. 6. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1852:54. (For culture under glass.) 7.
Horticulturist, 15:125. 1860. 8. Mag. Hort., 26:110. 1860. 9. Can. Hort., 11:59. 1888.
Admiral (4). Black Gibralter (4). Black Hamburgh (2). Black Portugal of some (4). Black
Teneriffe (4). Blue Trollinger (4). Bocksaugen (4). Bommerer (4). Brown Hamburgh (4). Dutch
Hamburgh (4). Fleish Traube (4). Frakenthaler (4). Frankendale (4). Frankenthaler gros noir (4).
Gelbholziger Trollinger (4). Gibralter (4). Hampton Court Vine (4, 8). Hudler (4). Languedoc (4).
Lugiana nera (4). Malvasier of some (4). Mohrendutte (4). Pale Wooded Trollinger (4). Purple
Hamburgh (4). Red Hamburgh (4, of some 2). Richmond Villa Hamburgh (8). Salisbury Violet (4).
Schwarzeblauer Trollinger (4). Schwarzer Gutedel of some (4). Schwarzwelscher (4). Troller (4).
Trollinger (4). Valentines (4). Victoria (4). Warner’s (2, 4). Warner’s Black Hamburgh (2).
Warner’s Black Hamburgh (4). Warner’s Hamburgh (8). Weissholziger Trollinger (4). Welscher (4).

BLACK HAMBURG (Reduced Size)

Black Hamburg is a variety of Vitis vinifera, impossible to grow out of
doors in eastern America, but illustrated and described here because it is
one of the parents of many hybrids with American species and because it
represents, in fruit characters at least, about all that is desirable in a good
grape. Since it is a standard of excellence which American breeders of table
grapes have long sought to attain, we may name its points of superiority
over the table grapes now grown in our vineyards. 1st. Bunch and berry are
large, well formed, and uniform. 2nd. The fruits have a higher sugar and
solid content than most American grapes and keep better, ship better, make
better wine and will make raisins. 3d. The flavor, to most palates, is richer,
more delicate, and lacks the acidity of some American grapes and the
foxiness of others. 4th. The pulp and skin of Black Hamburg are more
tender than the varieties of the species of this country and the seeds are
readily separated from the pulp. 5th. The berries do not shell from the stem
readily. 6th. The vines are more compact in habit, make a shorter and
stouter annual growth, and hence require less pruning and training. 7th. The
fruit is borne in greater quantity, vine for vine or acre for acre. Added to the
above qualities which make it desirable as a parent when crosses are made
between the grapes of this country and Vitis vinifera, are comparative

hardiness among its kind, a short seasonal cycle of vegetation giving early
maturity to fruit, ability to stand more hardships than most of its species,
and especially ability to mature its fruit with as small amount of solar heat
as any of its species. Its weaknesses when planted out of doors in eastern
America are those of its species, which wholly prevent its successful
cultivation in the vineyards of this region and make it of interest and value
only in breeding and as an ideal toward which to breed.
The origin of Black Hamburg is apparently unknown. It was sent from
Hamburg, Germany, to England sometime in the early part of the eighteenth
century and it was in the latter country that it was given the several
variations of the name Hamburg. In the north of Europe it is known as
Frankendale or Frankenthal. Black Hamburg is grown in Europe chiefly as
a forcing grape. It is doubtful if all the synonyms refer to one seed variety,
but if not the same, they are so similar as to be difficult if not impossible to
distinguish from each other.
Vine vigorous, tender, productive. Canes long, numerous, rather thick to medium, light brown
but darker at nodes, covered with faint pubescence; nodes enlarged, slightly flattened; internodes
short to medium; diaphragm thick; pith large; shoots slightly pubescent; tendrils intermittent,
frequently several nodes with no tendrils, long, bifid to trifid, dehisce early.
Leaf-buds large to medium, rather long, somewhat thick, conical to obtuse. Leaves good size,
thin; upper surface light green, rather dull, of average smoothness; lower surface slightly lighter than
upper surface, with small amount of pubescence, hairy; veins moderately distinct; lobes vary from
none to five, terminal lobe nearly acute; petiolar sinus often strongly urn-shaped, of average depth,
nearly narrow, sometimes closed and overlapping; basal sinus shallow to narrow; lateral sinus rather
deep to narrow, often notched; teeth very irregular in depth and width.
Fruit ripens early in October, keeps well. Clusters large, long to medium, rather broad, cylindrical
to tapering, inclined to irregular, usually single-shouldered, nearly compact; peduncle medium to
short, somewhat thick; pedicel long, slender, covered with small, numerous, prominent warts; brush
short, thick, tinged with red. Berries rather large, oval to nearly roundish, dark purple to nearly black,
slightly glossy, covered with faint blue or lilac bloom, do not drop from pedicel, moderate in
firmness. Skin thin, tender, adheres to the pulp, contains no pigment, not astringent. Flesh pale green,
tender, fine-grained, vinous, sprightly, rather sweet and refreshing, very good to best. Seeds separate
easily, one to four averaging two or three, above medium size, long, rather narrow, sharply pointed,
brownish; raphe obscure; chalaza intermediate in size, decidedly above center, distinct, circular to
oval.

BLACK HAWK.
(Labrusca.)

1. U. S. D. A. Rpt., 1865:197. 2. Fuller, 1867:236. 3. Gar. Mon., 9:147, 214. 1867. 4. Ill. Hort.
Soc. Rpt., 1868:175. 5. Downing, 1869:531. 6. Grape Cult., 1:14, 15. 1869. 7. Mich. Pom. Soc. Rpt.,
1878:482. 8. Bush. Cat., 1883:75. 9. Mo. Sta. Bul., 46:37, 42, 44, 46. 1899.
Miller’s No. 4 (1, 6).

Black Hawk is a seedling of Concord which it greatly resembles but all
in all does not nearly equal. It is chiefly remarkable because of its very dark
green foliage which at a little distance seems almost black. It is rarely or
almost never cultivated in New York.
Samuel Miller of Calmdale, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, in the fifties
produced Black Hawk from Concord seed sent to him by E. W. Bull. The
stock was bought and the variety introduced by a Mr. Knox of Pittsburg.
The following description was compiled from various sources:
Vine hardy, resembles Concord except for foliage being much darker. Bunch medium to
sometimes large; berry medium to above, nearly round, black, of tender flesh but hardly good in
quality; sometimes shatters. Ripens with Concord or slightly before. Self-sterile. Rather late in
blooming.

BLACK IMPERIAL.
(Labrusca, Bourquiniana, Vinifera.)

1. Mo. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1891:127. 2. Bush. Cat., 1894:93. 3. Ga. Sta. Bul., 53:41. 1901.

Black Imperial is one of Dr. J. Stayman’s grapes. It has high quality and
is handsome in appearance but is so susceptible to fungi as to be almost
worthless and has now passed from cultivation.
Dr. J. Stayman of Leavenworth, Kansas, produced Black Imperial from
seed of Dutchess some time in the eighties. The variety was first called
Black’s Imperial. There was another variety preceding this which is
mentioned by Prince[164] and Fuller[165] in the sixties by the name of Black
Imperial.
The following description is taken largely from that of the originator:
Vine usually moderately vigorous and productive. Cluster large, shouldered, compact. Berries of
medium size, black, tender, juicy; flavor sweet, vinous; quality good to very good. Flowers self-
fertile. Quite subject to mildew and black-rot.

BLACK PEARL.
(Riparia, Labrusca?)

1. Mich. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1875:459. 2. Ohio Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1876-7:90. 3. Ib., 1882-3:49. 4. Bush.
Cat., 1883:75. 5. Mo. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1884:215. 6. Mo. Sta. Bul., 46:37, 43, 45, 46. 1899.
Schraidt’s Seedling (1, 2). Schraidt’s Seedling (3, 4).

Viticulturists agree that Black Pearl is but an improved Clinton,
notwithstanding the originator’s statement that it came from seed of
Delaware. Unfortunately the vine is not in the Station vineyard and our

estimate of its vine characters is taken from the descriptions of others.
According to the Bushberg Catalogue,[166] “The vine is a vigorous healthy
grower similar in appearance of growth and foliage to Elvira and Noah.”
The bunches and berries, as they have been sent to this Station, are larger
than Clinton and of better quality though of small value as a table fruit. It
seems well agreed among wine-makers that Black Pearl makes an
exceptionally good red wine equalling or surpassing any other of our
northern varieties for this purpose. Without doubt, from the many
testimonials as to its value for wine-making, it can be highly recommended
for this purpose and as a good starting point from which to breed wine
grapes. So far, though grown for more than thirty years, its culture is
confined to the islands in Lake Erie devoted to grape-growing and the
variety can hardly be said to be known in New York. It is probably too late
for most parts of New York as it ripens with Catawba.
Black Pearl was originated by Casper Schraidt of Put-in-bay, Ohio, over
thirty years ago. The originator states that it is a seedling of Delaware but
this has generally been discredited, as the vine is evidently of the Riparia
type. Bush says it is probably a seedling of Clinton or Taylor.
Vine a strong grower, does not winter-kill, usually a good yielder, susceptible to attacks of
mildew. Canes are long, numerous, and of average thickness. Leaves are intermediate in size.
Flowers open in mid-season or before, sterile or nearly so; stamens reflexed.
Fruit ripens with Catawba, keeps fairly well. Clusters small to medium, larger than Clinton,
medium to rather slender, tapering to cylindrical, often single-shouldered, intermediate to compact.
Berries below medium to very small, roundish, oblate or frequently compressed on account of
compactness of cluster, black, glossy, covered with a moderate amount of blue bloom, persistent,
firm. Skin thin, tender, adheres strongly to the pulp, contains an unusually large amount of purplish-
red pigment, astringent. Flesh moderately juicy, usually with a decided red tinge, nearly tender,
slightly spicy, tart, medium to below in flavor and quality. Seeds, which adhere but little to the pulp,
are medium to below in size, short to medium, broad, slightly notched, blunt, dark brown; raphe
obscure; chalaza central, oval to circular, distinct.

BRANT.
(Riparia, Labrusca, Vinifera.)

1. Downing, 1869:532. 2. Am. Jour. Hort., 6:91. 1869. fig. 3. Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1872:553. 4.
Bush. Cat., 1883:77. fig. 5. Kan. Sta. Bul., 44:119. 1893. 6. Tex. Sta. Bul., 48:1149, 1154. 1898.
Arnold’s No. 8. (1, 2, 4).

Brant and Canada are full brothers and so near alike that the two are
often confounded with each other. Neither has ever become popular in
North America because of their susceptibility to fungi. As Riparia and

Vinifera hybrids, the best of Arnold’s seedlings from crosses of these two
species, they are of interest and of possible value in grape-breeding. Since
Brant and Canada are so nearly alike a discussion of one will suffice for
both and this is reserved for Canada, the better known and more valuable of
the two varieties.
Charles Arnold of Paris, Canada, produced this variety sometime in the
sixties. It is a seedling of Clinton pollinated by Black St. Peters. The
following description of it is taken from Downing’s Fruits and Fruit-Trees
of America:[167]
“Vine strong, healthy grower. Foliage of a dark reddish green, deeply lobed. Smooth on both
sides. Bunch and berry medium, black. Flesh free from pulp, very juicy, sweet, and, when perfectly
ripe, rich and aromatic. Ripens early.”

BRIGHTON.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

1. Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1872:548. 2. Gar. Mon., 16:344. 1874. 3. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1881:24.
4. Downing, 1881:165 app. 5. Bush. Cat., 1883:78. fig. 6. Rural N. Y., 45:622. 1886. 7. Ill. Sta. Bul.,
28:258. 1893. 8. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:527, 540, 543, 545, 546, 548, 549, 552, 553, 559. 1898. 9. Ib.,
18:367, 371, 386, 396. 1899. 10. Mo. Sta. Bul., 46:37, 42, 44, 45, 48, 54. 1899. 11. Mich. Sta. Bul.,
169:164. 1899. 12. W. N. Y. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1899:91. 13. Mo. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1900:364. 14. Can.
Hort., 27:345, 392. 1904.
Trask (12).

Brighton is one of the few Labrusca-Vinifera hybrids which have
attained prominence in commercial vineyards. It has the distinction, too, of
being one of the first, if not the first, secondary or attenuated hybrid of
Labrusca with Vinifera, i. e., the offspring of a hybrid crossed with one of
the original parents or with a variety of the same species. The parents of
Brighton were Diana Hamburg, a hybrid of Vinifera crossed with Labrusca,
and Concord, a pure-bred Labrusca. As we have seen, the first or primary
hybrids of Vinifera with Labrusca have given grapes of high quality, but
lacking in vigor, in resistance to fungi and phylloxera, and for most part
infertile in bloom. The secondary hybrids have not shown the weaknesses
of the primary hybrids in nearly so marked a degree but have given, in
many instances, as in Brighton, Diamond and probably Delaware, varieties
of nearly as high quality. It is now generally recognized by viticulturists that
the secondary hybrids with Vinifera promise much more than do the
primary ones and it is no mean distinction that Brighton has of being the
first secondary hybrid brought about by the hand of man.

Brighton ranks as one of the leading amateur grapes in New York and is
among the ten or twelve chief commercial sorts of the State. Its good points
are: High quality, handsome appearance, certainty of ripening, being earlier
than Concord, vigorous growth, productiveness, adaptability to various
soils, and, for a hybrid, ability to withstand fungi. It is thus seen that the
infusion of foreign blood has given the fruit of Brighton some of the
excellencies of Vitis vinifera while the preponderance of Vitis labrusca
blood has preserved the vigor and hardiness of the native species. Brighton
has two serious defects which no doubt have kept it from taking higher rank
as a commercial variety: It deteriorates in quality very quickly after
maturity so that it cannot be kept for more than a few days at its best, hence
cannot be well shipped to distant markets; and it is self-sterile to a more
marked degree than any other of our commonly grown grapes. To have it at
its best the fruit should be thinned.
This grape is a signal example of a variety resulting from careful and
skilful work in grape-breeding. Its originator, Jacob Moore,[168] possessed
of a high degree of intelligence and an unusually keen sense of the latent
possibilities in plants, with unwearied perseverance spent years in the
attempt to produce grapes combining the good characters of the Old and the
New World grapes. As a result of his zeal and patience we have Brighton
and Diamond, the most valuable grapes of their class. Jacob Moore’s
demonstration of the value of the secondary hybrid, and these two grapes,
must serve to commemorate a life spent in self denial, imposed poverty and
comparative obscurity that horticulture might be enriched.
Brighton is a seedling of Diana Hamburg pollinated by Concord, raised
by the late Jacob Moore at Brighton, New York. The original vine fruited
for the first time in 1870 and fruit was first exhibited at the meeting of the
New York Horticultural Society in 1872.

BRIGHTON

Vine vigorous and hardy, producing average to good crops, often subject to mildew. Canes long,
numerous, thick, rather light brown; nodes slightly enlarged, usually flattened; internodes long to
medium; diaphragm thick; pith nearly large; shoots glabrous, slightly pubescent; tendrils continuous,
long, bifid.
Leaf-buds of average size, short, stout, conical to pointed, sometimes slightly compressed, open
moderately early. Young leaves lightly tinged with rose-carmine on lower surface, strongly tinged
along margin of upper surface. Leaves medium to large, thick; upper surface dark green, dull,
moderately smooth; lower surface pale green, slightly pubescent; veins not distinct; lobes three when
present, terminal lobe acute to acuminate; petiolar sinus nearly intermediate in depth and width;
lateral sinus shallow to medium in depth and width; teeth of average depth, narrow. Flowers open
somewhat late, sometimes on plan of six, sterile; stamens reflexed.
Fruit ripens somewhat unevenly about mid-season, keeps fairly well for a short time but
deteriorates rapidly after ripening. Clusters very large to medium, usually long, broadish, tapering,
often heavily shouldered, loose to compact; peduncle quite long; pedicel of average length,
somewhat thick, covered with few indistinct warts, broad at point of attachment to berry; brush pale
green with brown tinge, thick, short. Berries irregular, medium to rather large in size, roundish to
slightly oval, light and dark red, somewhat glossy, covered with dark lilac bloom, handsome,
persistent, not firm. Skin thickish, very tender, adheres considerably to the pulp, contains no pigment,
astringent. Flesh greenish, rather transparent, tender, slightly stringy, melting, aromatic, vinous, sweet
or agreeably tart to center of berry, very good in quality. Seeds separate easily, number one to five,
average three or four, above mean size, rather broad and sharply pointed, light brown with yellow
tinge; raphe shows as a narrow obscure groove; chalaza large, above center, irregularly circular,
distinct.

BRILLIANT.
(Labrusca, Vinifera, Bourquiniana.)

1. An. Hort., 1889:101. 2. Rural N. Y., 49:602. 1890. fig. 3. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1891:151, 159. 4.
Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1891:32. 5. Kan. Sta. Bul., 28:162. 1891. 6. Ill. Sta. Bul., 28:259. 1893. 7. N. Y.
Sta. An. Rpt., 12:618. 1893. 8. Bush. Cat., 1894:96. fig. 9. Husmann, 1895:124. 10. Can. Hort., 18:3,
4, 58. 1895. fig. 11. Ga. Sta. Bul., 28:290. 1895. 12. Tenn. Sta. Bul., Vol. 9:170, 171, fig., 195. 1896.
13. Kan. Sta. Bul., 73:183. 1897. 14. Rural N. Y., 58:22. 1899. 15. Mo. Sta. Bul., 46:43, 48. 1899. 16.
N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 18:396. 1899. 17. Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:275. 1900.

In Brilliant, one of Munson’s grapes, from Lindley crossed with
Delaware, we have a fine red grape in which the characters of the two
parents are so nearly equally combined that it cannot be said which it most
resembles. In cluster and size of berry, Brilliant resembles Lindley; in color
and quality of fruit it is about the same as Delaware, differing from it
chiefly in having more astringency in the skin and therefore not quite equal
to Delaware as a table grape. The vine is strong and hardy; season about
with Delaware. Brilliant does not crack or shell and therefore ships well,
and has very good keeping qualities, especially on the vine, where it will
often hang for weeks. The defects which have kept it from becoming one of
the standard commercial sorts in New York are: Marked susceptibility to
fungi but not more susceptible than Delaware; variable in size of cluster;
uneven in ripening; and lack of productiveness. Brilliant is well known by
amateur grape-growers in New York and is grown somewhat for the market.
All in all it is probably the best known and most widely grown of Munson’s
varieties in this State. In favorable situations, this variety may always be
expected to please the amateur, and the commercial grower will often find it
a profitable sort.
The seed which produced Brilliant was planted by Munson in 1883 and
the variety was introduced by him in 1887. It has been widely tested by
experimenters and grape-growers and is highly spoken of, whether in the
East, West, North or South.
Vine variable in growth averaging vigorous, usually hardy, not always productive. Canes long,
numerous, thick, darkish-brown; nodes enlarged, usually flattened; internodes long to medium;
diaphragm thick; pith large, shoots pubescent; tendrils intermittent, long, bifid.
Leaf-buds somewhat large, short, thick, obtuse to conical, open late. Young leaves heavily tinged
on both sides with mahogany-red changing to light carmine. Leaves medium to large, thick; upper
surface dark green, dull, rugose; lower surface grayish-green, downy; veins well defined; entire or
obscurely three-lobed with terminal lobe blunt to acute; petiolar sinus deep, narrow, V-shaped; basal
and lateral sinuses obscure and shallow when present; teeth intermediate in depth and width. Flowers
open medium late, fertile; stamens upright.
Fruit ripens unevenly, in season about with Delaware, keeps a long time. Clusters average larger
than Delaware, intermediate in length and breadth, often blunt, cylindrical to somewhat conical,
usually slightly shouldered, medium to compact; peduncle rather thick; pedicel medium to short,
thick, covered with few small warts, wide at point of attachment to berry; brush short, thick, pale

green with reddish-brown tinge. Berries average larger than Delaware, roundish to very slightly oval,
attractive dark red, not so brilliant as Delaware but more so than Brighton, rather glossy, covered
with abundant lilac bloom, adhere strongly to pedicel, firm. Skin rather thin and tough, adheres
considerably to pulp, contains no pigment, slightly astringent. Flesh pale green, rather transparent,
juicy, slightly stringy, inclined to tenderness when fully ripe, fine-grained, vinous, sweetish at skin
but tart next the seeds, good but not equal to Delaware. Seeds cling somewhat to pulp, one to four in
number, average three, rather large and broad, slightly elongated, plump, light brown; raphe obscure;
chalaza large, slightly above center, irregularly circular to slightly oval, distinct.

BRILLIANT

BROWN.
(Labrusca, Vinifera?)

1. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 12:619. 1893. 2. Bush. Cat., 1894:96. 3. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 14:277. 1895. 4.
Ib., 17:527, 548, 554. 1898. 5. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1899:90. 6. Rural N. Y., 59:722. 1900. 7. Ib.,
65:914. 1906. 8. Ib., 65:937. 1906. 9. Ib., 66:24. 1907.
Brown’s Early (7, 9). Brown Seedling (5, 6, 8).

Wm. B. Brown of Newburgh gives the history of the grape bearing his
name as follows:[169] “Brown’s seedling came up in my yard at Newburgh,
New York, about fifteen years ago [this statement was made in 1899] near
an Isabella vine. There was not and never had been any other vine in the
yard at that time.” The statement is further made that Charles Downing

examined the vine several times and said “there was no doubt but that it
was a seedling of the Isabella.” Brown was exhibited at the New York State
Fair in 1892 and was given a first prize. It was again exhibited at the
World’s Columbian Exposition in 1893 and was awarded a diploma and
honorable mention. The originator states that the variety “has been
exhibited in at least twenty-five fairs and has always received first prize.”
Since 1892 Brown has been several times described with favorable mention
in the horticultural press. This variety was distributed in 1907 to the
subscribers of the Rural New Yorker as Brown’s Early. In spite of the
encomiums of fairs and newspapers during the past fifteen or twenty years,
Brown has not received favorable recognition from the grape-growers of
New York. As the variety grows on the Station grounds the quality is only
good, not high, and the berries shatter badly.
Vine vigorous to medium, hardy, very productive. Canes medium to short, intermediate in
number, medium to slender, moderately dark brown. Leaves of average size and thickness, healthy,
rather light green, slightly glossy; veins well defined, distinctly showing through the thick bronze
pubescence of the lower surface. Flowers open medium early, nearly fertile; stamens upright.
Tendrils continuous; diaphragm below medium to thin.
Fruit ripens about with Hartford or a little earlier, appears to keep fairly well, inclined to shatter.
Clusters variable in size, averaging medium to small, of mean length, slender to medium, cylindrical
to slightly tapering, usually single-shouldered, loose to medium in compactness. Berries intermediate
in size, roundish to slightly oval, black, covered with rather thick blue bloom, inclined to shatter from
cluster soon after ripening, of average firmness. Skin intermediate in thickness and toughness,
adheres slightly to the pulp, contains a small amount of wine-colored pigment, astringent. Flesh juicy,
rather tough, fine-grained, foxy, mild next the skin to slightly tart at center, good in quality but not
equal to the best varieties. Seeds intermediate in size, medium to short, rather blunt, light brown;
raphe buried in a shallow groove; chalaza small, central to slightly above center, circular, moderately
distinct.

CAMPBELL EARLY.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

1. Ohio Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1892-3:48. 2. Rural N. Y., 52:829. 1893. fig. 3. Ib., 53:666. 1894. 4.
Bush. Cat., 1894:98. fig. (Frontispiece). 5. Rural N. Y., 55:419, 658. 1896. fig. 6. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt.,
1897:11, 48. 7. Rural N. Y., 57:182, 642. 1898. 8. Ib., 58:546, 786. 1899. 9. Mich. Sta. Sp. Bul., 27:9.
1904.
Campbell (9).

Probably no American grape has ever been more favorably received than
Campbell Early, or after introduction has been disseminated more rapidly.
The fact that it came from a grape-breeder who had already given
viticulture several valuable varieties, with the statement that this was the
result of years of experimenting and the greatest triumph of a life devoted to

improving grapes, gave warrant for the enthusiasm with which it was
received. Nor did first impressions belie the oft-made statement that
Campbell Early represented a phenomenal advancement in grape culture.
Bunch, berry and vine seemed to indicate that this was the best black
American grape under cultivation. Nearly two decades have passed since
Campbell Early was introduced, and though admitted by all to be a good
grape, yet it has hardly met the expectations of the grape-growers who from
almost every state and territory welcomed the newcomer.

CAMPBELL EARLY

The preeminently meritorious qualities of Campbell Early are: High
quality when mature; freedom from foxiness and from acidity about the
seeds; small seeds which easily part from the flesh; earliness of maturity,
ripening nearly a fortnight before Concord; large size and attractive
appearance of bunch and berry (the color-plate does not do the Campbell
Early justice as to size of berry and bunch); comparative hardiness of the
vine; and good shipping and keeping qualities. Campbell Early falls short
chiefly in not being adapted to as many soils and conditions as are some of
the varieties with which it must compete and in all but localities well
adapted to it the variety lacks productiveness. In other words it is somewhat
lacking in that elasticity of constitution so characteristic of Concord. Its
reputation for quality has suffered, and to the detriment of the variety,
because it attains its full color before it is ripe and is therefore often

marketed in an unripe condition. The fruit is quite variable in size as grown
under different conditions and somewhat so as grown in the same vineyard,
ranging in size of bunch from very large to small, differing somewhat in
shape and with some compact and with some loose clusters. The color of
the berry is not as attractive as that of Concord as it has less of the waxy
bloom which makes the last named sort so handsome.
But the weaknesses attributed to Campbell Early do not wholly explain
why so good a variety has seemingly failed to meet expectations. Can it be
that the fault is with the American grape-grower more than with the grape?
American growers are not yet willing to give varieties of grapes the
particular care that each may need for its best development, but seemingly
prefer to grow those sorts which are cosmopolitan as to environment and
which will thrive under a general treatment. It cannot be that the consumers
of this fruit care for less than a dozen of the several hundred American
grapes; or that under the varied conditions of half a continent over which
grow a score of species of wild grapes but a meager half dozen varieties can
be grown for commercial purposes. If our grape-growers were willing to
give the Campbell Early, and a score of other sorts of superior merit, the
special care that European vineyardists give the hundreds of varieties they
successfully grow, our viticulture would not long remain confined to the
culture of a few grapes of mediocre quality.
The name commemorates the services to viticulture of the originator of
the variety, Geo. W. Campbell[170] of Delaware, Ohio, who devoted a long
and active life to the improvement of the grape. The variety is a seedling of
Moore Early pollinated by another production of Campbell’s, which was a
seedling of Belvidere pollinated by Muscat Hamburg. Campbell Early bore
for the first time in 1892, and was soon after introduced by George S.
Josselyn of Fredonia, New York. It is now known and grown throughout the
grape regions of eastern America.
Vine vigorous to medium, hardy, productive to very productive. Canes of average length and
number, somewhat thick, dark reddish-brown, surface often roughened with small warts; nodes
intermediate in size, flattened; internodes medium to short; diaphragm of mean thickness; pith of
average size; shoots pubescent; tendrils intermittent, rather short, trifid to bifid.
Leaf-buds intermediate in size, inclined to long, slender to medium, pointed to conical, open
early. Young leaves heavily tinged on lower surface and along margin of upper surface with bright
carmine. Leaves medium to large, thick to medium; upper surface green, slightly glossy, intermediate
in smoothness; lower surface bronze to pale green, heavily pubescent; veins distinct; lobes often
three in number but usually entire, terminal lobe acute; petiolar sinus rather shallow, medium to
wide; basal sinus usually pubescent; lateral sinus varying from medium wide to a mere notch,

frequently dentate; teeth shallow to medium, narrow. Flowers fertile, open in mid-season; stamens
upright.
Fruit variable in season, extending through a long period, becomes marketable somewhat earlier
than Worden, keeps and ships unusually well. Clusters variable in size ranging from very large to
medium, rather long and broad, tapering to cylindrical, frequently single-shouldered, usually two
bunches per shoot, compact to slightly loose; peduncle short to medium, thick; pedicel below average
in length and thickness, covered with small numerous warts; brush long, light wine color. Berries
somewhat variable in size, usually large, roundish to slightly oval, dark purplish-black, rather dull as
the season advances, covered with heavy blue bloom, persistent, moderately firm. Skin medium to
thin, tough, does not crack, adheres slightly to the pulp, contains a small amount of dark red pigment,
somewhat astringent. Flesh greenish, translucent, juicy, varying from rather tough to nearly soft,
slightly coarse, not foxy, somewhat vinous, nearly sweet from skin to center, quality good and
improves by hanging on the vines, superior to Concord. Seeds separate readily from the flesh, one to
four, average three, of medium size and length, rather broad, light brown, often with yellowish tips;
raphe obscure; chalaza intermediate in size, slightly above center, oval, obscure.

CANADA.
(Riparia, Labrusca, Vinifera.)

1. Horticulturist, 22:363, 365. 1867. fig. 2. Rec. of Hort., 1868:44. 3. Downing, 1869:533. 4.
Bush. Cat., 1883:79. fig. 5. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 10:494. 1891. 6. Ib., 17:527, 548, 554, 559. 1898. 7.
Traité gen. de vit., 5:182. 1903.
Arnold’s No. 16 (1, 2, 5). Arnold’s No. 18 (3, 4, 7).

Canada is justly considered the most desirable of Arnold’s several
hybrids of Riparia and Vinifera and is well known in Europe as well as in
America. In France when American varieties were being largely used in the
reconstruction of the vineyards destroyed by phylloxera, Canada was one of
the prime favorites, because of its short period for fruit development and
maturity and the comparatively high quality of the wine which could be
made from it. In America it has never gained great popularity on account of
its susceptibility to fungal diseases. In this respect as in some others, it
shows Vinifera more than Riparia parentage; thus in shape, color and
texture of foliage, in the flavor of the fruit, and in the seeds there are
decided indications of Vinifera while the vine, especially in the slenderness
of the shoots, and the bunch and berry, shows Riparia. If, as is surmised,
there is some Labrusca in Clinton, the Riparia parent of Canada, there are
no discernible traces of the first named species in this variety. Canada and
Brant, its full brother, are often confused with each other but there are
numerous minor differences in buds, foliage, canes, in the shape of the
bunch, in the seeds and in the time of ripening which a reading of the
descriptions of the two varieties will reveal. Canada has little value as a
dessert fruit but makes a very good red wine, having, according to the

French, a most agreeable bouquet, but in America it is surpassed by other
wine grapes in so many characters that it can probably never attain a place
in this country for other than breeding purposes.
The grape to which Arnold[171] gave the name Canada is a seedling of
Clinton, a Labrusca-Riparia hybrid, fertilized by Black St. Peters, a variety
of Vitis vinifera. Arnold planted the seed which produced Canada and its
brother Brant about 1860. During the decade that followed the variety was
sent out as Arnold No. 16, but as it became more widely distributed the
name was changed to Canada.
Vine medium to very vigorous, hardy, not always healthy, usually productive. Canes long,
numerous, variable in size but averaging slender, nearly ash-gray at internodes to reddish-brown at
nodes, covered with a slight blue bloom; nodes enlarged, not flattened; internodes above medium to
short; diaphragm of average thickness, rather large; shoots strongly pubescent; tendrils intermittent,
nearly short, trifid to bifid.
Leaf-buds intermediate in size, short, of average thickness, conical to obtuse, open rather late.
Young leaves pale green with faintest trace of carmine, prevailing color green on upper and lower
sides. Leaves intermediate in size, medium to thin; upper surface light green, nearly smooth; lower
surface pale green, hairy; veins obscure; lobes five in number, often obscure, terminal lobe acute to
acuminate; petiolar sinus deep, medium to narrow; basal sinus variable in depth and width; lateral
sinus usually deep and narrow when well defined; teeth deep, wide. Flowers occasionally on plan of
six, somewhat fertile to partly sterile, open moderately early; stamens upright.
Fruit ripens in mid-season or later, keeps fairly well. Clusters intermediate in size, long to
medium, rather slender, uniform, often strongly cylindrical, sometimes single-shouldered, very
compact; peduncle short, slender; pedicel long, slender, nearly smooth; brush short, light brown.
Berries not uniform, average medium to small, roundish when not compressed by compactness of
cluster, attractive purplish-black to black, glossy, covered with heavy dark blue bloom, persistent,
firm. Skin thin, does not crack, rather tough, adheres but slightly to the pulp, contains a slight amount
of pigment, not astringent. Flesh rather dark green, very juicy, fine-grained, somewhat tender when
fully ripe, spicy, pleasant vinous flavor, nearly sweet to agreeably tart, ranking medium to above in
quality. Seeds separate readily from pulp, one to three, average two, intermediate in size and breadth,
of average length, blunt, light brown; raphe completely obscure; chalaza intermediate in size, slightly
above center, oval, distinct, somewhat obscure.

CANADA

CANANDAIGUA.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

Canandaigua has not been generally distributed and would not be
mentioned here were it not for its exceptional keeping qualities. To test the
keeping qualities of grapes in common storage, 265 varieties were put in the
fruit house at this Station in the fall of 1907. The test ended April 16, 1908,
when it was found that Canandaigua was in the best condition of all
varieties. Its quality is very good at picking time but seems, if anything, to
improve in storage, and it was as good at the end of the test as at the
beginning. Its vine characters are those of Labrusca-Vinifera hybrids and
such, as the variety grows on the Station grounds, as make it the equal of
the average cultivated hybrid of these two species. The characters of the
fruit, too, show plainly an admixture of Vinifera and Labrusca so combined
as to make the grapes very similar to the best of such hybrids. The variety is
quite worthy of trial.
Canandaigua is a chance seedling found by E. L. Van Wormer of
Canandaigua, New York, growing among wild grapes. Its high quality and
handsome appearance attracted his attention and the vine was put under
cultivation, after which its long-keeping qualities were discovered. Vines
were sent to this Station for testing in 1897. All of its characters indicate
that it is a hybrid between Labrusca and Vinifera.

Vine vigorous, doubtfully hardy, medium to productive. Tendrils semi-continuous to semi-
intermittent, bifid, dehisce early. Leaves large to medium, thin. Flowers sterile or sometimes partly
fertile, open in mid-season; stamens reflexed. Fruit ripens after mid-season, keeps unusually well.
Clusters variable in size, usually heavily single-shouldered, loose to medium. Berries large to
medium, slightly oval to roundish, black, covered with a fair amount of blue bloom, persistent. Flesh
firm, sweet and rich, good in quality, improving as the season advances. Seeds often long, with
enlarged neck; raphe shows as a partially obscured cord in a medium deep groove; chalaza above
center, distinctly pear-shaped.

CAPTAIN.
(Lincecumii, Rupestris, Labrusca, Vinifera.)

1. Rural N. Y., 60:637. 1901. 2. Mo. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1904:306. 3. Munson Cat., 1906-7:16.

Captain has not made a good showing in the Station vineyard and we
have no reports of it from other parts of the State. The clusters are large and
long but very loose and unattractive in appearance, and the fruit ranks low
in quality. We are forced to conclude, judging from the several seasons the
variety has fruited on these grounds, that it is of little value in New York.
The breeding of Captain is such that it could hardly be expected to thrive in
this latitude.
Captain was produced by T. V. Munson from seed of America fertilized
with R. W. Munson.
Vine vigorous, hardy, moderately productive. Canes long to medium, numerous, covered with
rather thick blue bloom; tendrils intermittent, bifid and trifid. Leaves very large to medium, thick, not
pubescent but very hairy along ribs. Flowers semi-fertile, open rather late; stamens upright. Fruit
ripens later than Concord, does not keep long although it ships well. Clusters large to above medium,
long, slender, sometimes double-shouldered, very loose. Berries very large to below medium,
inclined to roundish, black, covered with heavy blue bloom, persistent. Skin contains a large amount
of purplish-red pigment. Flesh medium juicy, coarse, tender, lacks character, tart from skin to center,
fair in quality. Seeds numerous, separate easily from the pulp.

CARMAN.
Lincecumii, Vinifera, Labrusca, Bourquiniana?

1. Gar. Mon., 28:304. 1886. 2. Rural N. Y., 50:221, fig., 643, 690. 1891. 3. Ib., 51:147, 607, 774.
1892. fig. 4. Husmann, 1895:127. 5. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1897:20. 6. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:548, 554.
1898. 7. Tex. Sta. Bul., 48:1149, 1154. 1898. fig. 8. Mo. Sta. Bul., 46:38, 43, 45, 49. 1899. 9. Rural N.
Y., 59:674, 690, 752, 770, 802, 819. 1900. 10. Ga. Sta. Bul., 53:41, 51, 52, 54. 1901.

The Carman is another grape having the characters of three species—
Vitis lincecumii, V. labrusca and V. vinifera—and hence of interest to grape
improvers at least. In the twenty-three years it has been known in New York
it has not become popular with grape-growers chiefly because it ripens too
late for this region and when ripe does not attain the high quality ascribed to

it elsewhere. Its most valuable character is that of long keeping, whether
while hanging on the vine or after harvesting.

CARMAN

T. V. Munson of Denison, Texas, raised Carman from seed of a wild
Post-oak grape taken from the woods, pollinated with mixed pollen of
Triumph and Herbemont. It was introduced in 1892 and placed on the
American Pomological Society fruit catalog list in 1897. The variety was
named in honor of E. S. Carman, for many years editor of the Rural New
Yorker, and a plant-breeder of note.
Vine very vigorous to medium, hardy, lacking in productiveness. Canes long, numerous, thick,
brown to reddish-brown; nodes but slightly enlarged, flattened; internodes long to medium;
diaphragm somewhat thick; pith above medium size; shoots very pubescent; tendrils intermittent,
long, trifid.
Leaf-buds rather large, nearly short, thick, conical to obtuse, open rather late. Young leaves
slightly tinged with rose on upper and lower sides. Leaves in good condition until injured by frost,
large, thick; upper surface light to dark green, somewhat glossy, older leaves rugose; lower surface
pale green, pubescent; veins indistinct; terminal lobe acute to obtuse; petiolar sinus deep to narrow;
basal sinus often absent or shallow; lateral sinus medium to shallow when present; teeth intermediate
in depth and width. Flowers on plan of five or six, fertile or nearly so, open very late; stamens
upright.
Fruit ripens just before Catawba, an excellent keeper. Clusters variable in size, of average length
and breadth, tapering to cylindrical, frequently single-shouldered, usually compact; peduncle above
medium length and thickness; pedicel short, slender, smooth with very slight swelling at point of

attachment to berry; brush short, slender, wine-colored. Berries inferior in size, roundish to slightly
oblate, dark purplish-black to black, glossy, covered with a fair amount of blue bloom, persistent,
firm. Skin rather thin, tough, nearly free from pulp, contains little or no pigment, not astringent. Flesh
yellowish-green, not juicy, somewhat tender when fully ripe, has some Post-oak flavor, vinous, spicy,
sweetish at skin to tart next the seeds, good to very good. Seeds separate easily from pulp, one to
four, average two or three, small, of mean length and breadth, blunt, brownish; raphe sometimes
cord-like; chalaza intermediate in size, slightly above center, oval to pear-shaped, distinct.

CATAWBA.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

1. Adlum, 1823:109, 139. 2. Ib., 1828:173. 3. Ib., 1828:176. 4. Prince, 1830:175. 5. Ib.,
1830:180. 6. U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1845:312, 938, 939. 7. Ib., 1847:462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 469.
8. Mag. Hort., 15:513. 1849. 9. West. Hort. Rev., 1:15. 1850. 10. U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1851:48, 49, 51.
11. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1852:54. 12. Buchanan, 1852:23, 71, 96, 106. 13. Elliott, 1854:244. 14.
Hooper, 1857:274. 15. Horticulturist, 16:120. 1861. 16. Mag. Hort., 28:506. 1862. 17. Ib., 29:73.
1863. 13. Gar. Mon., 5:73, 74, 184. 1863. 19. N. Y. Ag. Soc. Rpt., 1864:42. 20. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt.,
1867:43. 21. Fuller, 1867:220, 241, 248. 22. Gar. Mon., 9:214. 1867. 23. Horticulturist, 23:298.
1868. fig. of leaf. 24. Downing, 1869:533. 25. Barry, 1872:421. 26. Gar. Mon., 14:167. 1872. 27.
Ohio Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1875-6:72, 73. 28. Bush. Cat., 1883:80. fig. 29. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1883:118.
30. Am. Gard., 12:581. 1891. 31. Gar. and For., 8:487. 1895. 32. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 15:432. 1896.
33. Ib., 17:527, 540, 543, 544, 548, 552. 1898. 34. Ev. Nat. Fruits, 1898:53. 35. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt.,
18:367, 374, 386, 396. 1899. 36. Mo. Sta. Bul., 46:38, 43, 44, 45. 1899. 37. Kan. Sta. Bul., 110:235.
1902. 38. Rural N. Y., 61:722. 1902. 39. Traité gen. de vit., 6:282. 1903.
Arkansas (13). Catawba Tokay (4, 13, 18, 24, 39). Cherokee (15). Fancher (?24, 39). Keller’s
White (39). Lebanon Seedling (13, 18). Lincoln (9). Mammoth Catawba (39). Mead’s Seedling (39).
Merceron (39). Michigan (16, 17). Michigan (24, 39). Muncy (3). Muncy Pale Red (5). Muncy,
pale red? (4). Omega (39). Red Muncy (4?, 13, 18, 24, 28, 39). Rose of Tennessee (18). Saratoga (?
24, 39). Singleton (13, 18, 28,?39). Tekomah (39). Tokay (1). Tokay (4, 28, 39). Virginia Amber (18).
White Catawba (39).

From many points of view the Catawba is the most interesting of our
American grapes. The elasticity of constitution which enables it to adapt
itself to many environments and therefore to succeed in a vast region; its
possible existence for centuries in the wild state, for the records of a century
have not divulged the secret of its origin, of its ancestry, or of its
introduction; its high quality and attractive appearance which give it
intrinsic value as a table grape and for making wine; the fact that it was our
first great American grape and that after a century it is still one of the four
leading varieties of grapes cultivated in eastern America and that after this
lapse of time it is the chief of all northern varieties for wine-making; all
these make Catawba of prime interest to the grower of American grapes.
The Catawba, too, has had the rare distinction of having a poet, Longfellow,
sing its praises:

“Very good in its way is the Verzenay
Or the Sillery, soft and creamy,
But Catawba wine has a taste more divine,
More dulcet, delicious and dreamy.
There grows no vine, by the haunted Rhine,
By the Danube or Guadalquiver,
Nor island or cape, that bears such a grape
As grows by the beautiful River.”

CATAWBA

In Chapter II, American Grapes, we have seen how important a part the
Catawba played in the first grape regions of this country. It is still the
leading grape along the shores of Lake Erie in northern Ohio, and about the
Central Lakes of New York. In the latter region immense areas are devoted
to this variety, the product going to the general market and to the wine-
cellars where it is the chief sort used in the making of champagne. Its
characters are such that it is not too much to say that did it but ripen two
weeks earlier in the other grape regions of New York, the Chautauqua,
Hudson and Ontario regions, the Catawba would rival the Concord.
Because of late ripening in New York this variety is at its best only about

the Central Lakes and on land extending back from the water to an altitude
of one hundred feet above the lake surface; here as fine Catawbas are grown
as anywhere in the world. As to soil, it thrives in sand, gravel or clay
provided there be an abundance of food and humus, good drainage and
plenty of bottom heat.
Of all the commercial grapes grown in New York Catawba is the best
keeper, lasting until March or later. Because of its fine quality it often
brings a higher price than other varieties and its reputation as a dessert
grape would be still better were it not too often picked before fully ripe and
therefore sour and unpalatable. The Catawba is the standard red grape in the
markets, and other red varieties are often sold under its name. It makes a
good light-colored wine, which as has been said, is largely used as a base
for champagne. The vine is vigorous, hardy and productive but the foliage
and fruit are susceptible to fungi and this constitutes the chief defect of the
variety and accounts for the decline and the passing out of Catawba in many
of the grape regions of the past in the United States and its unpopularity in
some of the grape regions of the present. In its botanical characters, in its
adaptation, and in its susceptibilities it suggests Vitis vinifera crossed with
Vitis labrusca, a possibility to be discussed in a later paragraph.
The characters of Catawba seem readily transmissible to its offspring
and, beside having a number of pure-bred descendants which more or less
resemble it, it is one of the parents of a still greater number of cross-breeds
which, as a rule, inherit many of its characters. As with Catawba, most of its
progeny show Vinifera characters; as intermittent tendrils, the Vinifera color
of foliage, a vinous flavor wholly or nearly free from foxiness, and the
susceptibilities of Labrusca-Vinifera hybrids to certain insects, fungi, and
environmental conditions.
Catawba was introduced by John Adlum of the District of Columbia
about 1823. Adlum secured cuttings of this variety from a Mrs. Scholl of
Clarksburgh, Montgomery County, Maryland, in the spring of 1819. This
vine had been planted by Mrs. Scholl’s husband, who had since died. He
had always called it Catawba, but the family did not know from what
source it had been secured. Owing to the statement of a German priest that
it was the same as the Tokay of Hungary, Mr. Adlum called it by that name.
Some years later, when he found this to be a mistake, he changed the name
back to Catawba. Adlum found the same variety on a trellis on land
belonging to a Mr. J. Johnston, near Fredericktown, Maryland. He also

found a similar variety on a farm of his in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania,
which he introduced under the name of Muncy. Later these two varieties
were judged to be identical. Neither Adlum nor Prince was able to trace the
origin of Catawba, though both were among the chief viticulturists of their
day, were instrumental in distributing this variety, and had correspondents
in all parts of the Union.
In 1850, S. Mosher of Saloma Springs, Kentucky, wrote an article in the
Western Horticultural Review, giving an account of the finding of the
original vine by Dr. Solomon Beach, in 1821, on the farm of William
Murry, about ten miles from Asheville, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
The Murrys informed Beach that the grape was an old variety in the
neighborhood and that cuttings and roots had been sent to various places.
This story was later confirmed by Ravenel, who talked with a son of the
original Murry and was told that General Davy, in 1807, then United States
Senator from South Carolina, had secured some of the vines and had carried
some of them to Washington. This would account for its falling into the
hands of Adlum. It must be said, however, that it appears strange that none
of the many correspondents of Adlum or Prince, some of whom lived not
very far from where the Catawba was supposed to have been found, had
heard of this variety. That the Murrys had a vine growing on their farm of
peculiar excellence, is probable; that it was Catawba is by no means certain.
All that can be said is that the origin of Catawba is not positively known.
Catawba was introduced into the grape region around Cincinnati by
Longworth in 1825. The favorable reports of the variety from this region
undoubtedly did much to secure its early and wide distribution. In most
sections it was compared with the Alexander or Cape grape, and proved
itself easily the superior in both vine and fruit characters. Up to the time of
the introduction of Concord, Catawba was the most popular American grape
cultivated. After that time, the earlier season and superior vine of the former
variety enabled it to supplant Catawba in many sections. The Catawba was
placed on the grape list in the first American Pomological Society fruit
catalog in 1852.
The species to which Catawba belongs is uncertain. It is generally
classed as Labrusca, but practically all of those who have raised large
numbers of seedlings of the variety are of the opinion that it has some
Vinifera blood in its composition. The general appearance of the vine would
indicate Labrusca, but the vinous flavor of the fruit, the susceptibility to

mildew, the appearance of occasional seeds, and the character of the
seedlings, many of which resemble Vinifera more than the parent, all
indicate that there is a strain of Vinifera present.
Vine vigorous to medium, hardy, productive, subject to mildew in unfavorable seasons. Canes of
average length, numerous, rather thick, moderately dark brown with slight ash-gray tinge; nodes
enlarged, sometimes slightly flattened; internodes of mean length; diaphragm rather thin; pith rather
large; shoots slightly pubescent; tendrils continuous, of fair length, bifid to trifid.
Leaf-buds intermediate in size and thickness, short, conical to nearly obtuse, open moderately
late. Young leaves tinged rose carmine on upper and lower sides. Leaves large, of average thickness;
upper surface rather light green, dull, moderately smooth; lower surface grayish-white, heavily
pubescent; veins well defined; lobes sometimes three, terminal lobe acute; petiolar sinus deep,
narrow to medium; basal sinus often lacking; lateral sinus of average depth, narrow; teeth rather
shallow, narrow. Flowers fertile, open rather late; stamens upright.
Fruit late, one of the best keepers, lasting until March or later. Clusters large to medium, rather
long, usually broad, nearly cylindrical to tapering, single-shouldered to sometimes double-
shouldered, rather loose to compact; peduncle of average length, rather slender; pedicel variable in
length, intermediate in thickness, covered with but few small, inconspicuous warts, considerably
swollen at point of attachment to berry; brush short, pale green. Berries intermediate in size, oval to
roundish, dull purplish-red, covered with a moderate amount of lilac bloom, not inclined to drop from
pedicel, firm. Skin rather thick, variable in toughness, slightly adheres to pulp, with no pigment,
somewhat astringent. Flesh green, translucent, juicy, fine-grained, slightly tough to soft, depending
upon age, vinous, often sprightly with some foxiness, sweet and rich, very good in quality. Seeds
separate easily from flesh, frequently abortive, average two, medium size, broad, often with a short
prominent neck, distinctly notched, blunt, brownish; raphe obscure; chalaza large, above center, oval
to nearly roundish, rather distinct.

CAYUGA.
(Labrusca, Vinifera?)

1. Rural N. Y., 45:265. 1886. fig. 2. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 11:617. 1892. 3. Bush. Cat., 1894:100. 4.
Ga. Sta. Bul., 53:41, 54. 1901. fig.
Sharon (3).

Cayuga is probably a descendant of Isabella through Adirondac. It
resembles its parent in both its good qualities and its faults. The first are
beauty, quality and earliness of fruit; the second lack of vigor, susceptibility
to fungi and lack of hardiness. Although known since 1886, the Cayuga was
never widely distributed in New York and is now rarely found.
The variety was originated by D. S. Marvin, Watertown, New York, from
seed of Adirondac. Marvin, in a personal letter, says that the usually
imputed parentage of Eumelan crossed with Adirondac is a mistake, and
refers to another variety. Bush gives Sharon as a synonym of Cayuga but
this appears to be an error.

Vine not vigorous, lacks in hardiness, an uncertain bearer, unproductive. Tendrils continuous,
bifid. Leaves medium to small, inclined to dark green, thick. Flowers vary from nearly fertile to
almost sterile, open in mid-season; stamens upright. Fruit ripens as early as Champion. Clusters
variable in size, usually short and not shouldered, not uniform in compactness. Berries medium to
large but some years often small and seedless, much like Isabella in shape, unattractive in color,
ranging from dull reddish-purple to blackish, covered with blue bloom. Flesh tender, vinous, mild
from skin to center, variable in flavor and quality, ranking from fair to very good. The seed-coat is
often rough and warty.

CENTENNIAL.
(Labrusca, Aestivalis, Vinifera.)

1. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1881:66. 2. Bush. Cat., 1883:81. 3. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 9:330. 1890. 4. Ill.
Sta. Bul., 28:263. 1893. 5. Bush. Cat., 1894:101. fig. 6. Mass. Hatch. Sta. Bul., 37:12, 15. 1896. 7.
Ark. Sta. Bul., 39:28. 1896. 8. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:527, 548, 552. 1898. 9. Tex. Sta. Bul., 48:1149,
1154. 1898. 10. Mo. Sta. Bul., 46:38, 45, 46. 1899. 11. Ga. Sta. Bul., 53:41. 1901. 12. Kan. Sta. Bul.,
110:247. 1902.
Continental (1) but incorrectly.

Centennial is now scarcely heard of though at the time of its
introduction, shortly after the Centennial of 1876, it was looked upon as a
valuable acquisition. Its chief meritorious attributes are high quality and
attractive appearance; while its faults, which greatly outweigh its merits, are
lack of vigor, susceptibility to fungi, and lack of hardiness. Centennial is
much like Delaware and is surpassed by it in nearly all respects.
The variety was originated by D. S. Marvin, of Watertown, New York. It
is a cross between a Labrusca seedling of Marvin’s and a seedling of
Eumelan. It was first fruited in 1875, and was introduced in 1882 by the
originator. Vines were received by this Station in 1883. The tenderness and
lateness of ripening of Centennial, as well as its botanical characters,
indicate Vinifera blood.
The following description is a compilation from several sources:
Vine vigorous, somewhat tender, fairly productive. Leaves rounded, slightly three-lobed, smooth.
Clusters medium to small, compact, tapering or cylindrical, sometimes slightly shouldered. Berries
medium to small, pale red or amber color with thin white bloom, adhere firmly to pedicel. Skin rather
thick, tough. Flesh tender, juicy, sweet, resembling Delaware in flavor, good to very good. About the
same season as Concord.

CHALLENGE.
(Labrusca, Vinifera?)

1. Am. Jour. Hort., 4:72. 1868. 2. Ib., 7:102. 1870. 3. Bush. Cat., 1883:82. 4. Ill. Sta. Bul.,
28:259. 1893. 5. Mo. Sta. Bul., 46:38, 43, 45, 46. 1899. 6. Ga. Sta. Bul., 53:41. 1901. 7. Kan. Sta.
Bul., 110:238. 1902.

Some years ago Challenge was considered an excellent dessert grape,
being of good quality, hardy, and fairly healthy. Small plantations of it still
exist in New York, but it is rapidly passing out of cultivation.
Challenge was originated about 1860 by Archer Moore, of Hammonton,
New Jersey. He supposed it to have come from seed of Concord fertilized
by Royal Muscadine. The variety was introduced by William F. Bassett of
the same place. We do not have a vine of Challenge growing on the Station
grounds, and the description written below is compiled from various
sources.
Vine very vigorous; shoots slender, long. Leaf of medium size, dark green. Clusters rather large,
compact, tapering, usually shouldered. Berries medium in size, round, pale red to reddish-purple in
color with very thin bloom and inconspicuous dots, juicy, slightly acid; quality medium to good; not
separating readily from the seeds. Season shortly after Concord.

CHAMPION.
(Labrusca.)

1. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1871:69. 2. Am. Hort. An., 1871:83. 3. Horticulturist, 30:151. 1875. 4.
Mich. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1875:88, 295. 5. Gar. Mon., 20:47. 1878. 6. Montreal Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1879:93.
7. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1879. 8. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1881:36. 9. Bush. Cat., 1883:82. 10. Ib.,
1883:138. 11. Tenn. Sta. Bul., Vol. 9:172. 1896. 12. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:527, 528, 548, 552, 554.
1898. 13. Miss. Sta. Bul., 56:11. 1899. 14. Budd-Hansen, 2:374. 1902.
Beaconsfield (6, 8, 9, 11). Champion (10). Early Champion (5). Early Champion (9, 11).
Tallman? (5). Tallman Seedling (1, 2). Talman’s Seedling (10). Talman’s Seedling (9, 11).
Talman’s Seedling (4). Talman (10).

Champion is still a favorite early grape with some commercial growers
after having been grown for a generation, though its poor quality should
have driven it from cultivation years ago. Champion and Hartford are rivals
as early market grapes and for the distinction of being the poorest in quality
of all commonly cultivated grapes. The variety under consideration is
sourer and less agreeable to the taste than many wild grapes. The characters
which have kept it in cultivation are earliness, good shipping qualities,
though it does not keep well, productiveness, attractive appearance, and a
vigorous hardy vine. The hardiness of the vine and its short season of fruit
development and maturity make it a good variety for northern and cold
climates. This grape is best, in appearance of fruit, in quality, and in the
quantity produced, on a comparatively light sandy soil. As grape consumers
become more appreciative of quality, Champion will be grown less and less.
The origin of Champion is unknown. It was first grown about 1870 in
New York. In 1871 Elliott acknowledged receipt of specimens of this

variety from William Chorlton of Staten Island. It was at that time generally
known as Tallman or Tallman’s Seedling. At about the same time it was
being propagated and sold by R. J. Donnelly and J. I. Stone of Charlotte,
Monroe County, as Champion. Although many efforts have been made, no
one has succeeded in tracing the variety to the original vine. At one time it
was stated to have originated in the vicinity of New Orleans, Louisiana, but
later the southern Champion was found to be a different variety. This
variety was early introduced into Canada where it was known as
Beaconsfield, owing to its being first planted in that country in a large
vineyard owned by a gentleman of that name.

CHAMPION

Vine vigorous to very vigorous, hardy, productive to very productive. Canes intermediate in
length and number, of average size, rather dark brown; nodes enlarged, flattened; internodes medium
to below in length; diaphragm thick; pith nearly large; shoots pubescent; tendrils continuous, inclined
to long, bifid.
Leaf-buds of medium size, short, rather thick, obtuse to conical, open in mid-season. Young
leaves strongly tinged on lower side and along margin of upper side with carmine, making the
prevailing color rose carmine. Leaves medium to large, intermediate in thickness; upper surface dark
green, dull, rugose; lower surface dull gray often with trace of bronze, slightly downy; veins
indistinct; lobes usually three, often obscurely five, terminal lobe acute; petiolar sinus deep to
medium, of average width; teeth of fair depth, shallow. Flowers fertile, open medium early; stamens
upright.
Fruit ripens early, three weeks or more before Concord and about a week before Hartford, ships
well but does not keep well, as its season is very short. Clusters medium to small, of mean length and
breadth, blunt, cylindrical to slightly tapering, usually not shouldered, medium to compact; peduncle

short, rather thick; pedicel inclined to short, covered with small inconspicuous warts; brush whitish
tinged with brown. Berries medium to above in size, roundish, dull black covered with a moderate
amount of blue bloom, not always persistent, somewhat soft. Skin thick, tender, adheres considerably
to the pulp, contains a fair amount of light purplish pigment, astringent. Flesh light green,
translucent, juicy, fine-grained, tender, foxy, rather sweet next the skin, agreeably tart at center, poor
in quality. Seeds slightly adherent, one to five, average three, large, somewhat broad and long, blunt,
light brown; raphe obscure; chalaza of fair size, slightly above center, circular, obscure.

CHAUTAUQUA.
(Labrusca.)

1. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 11:618. 1892. 2. Ib., 13:602. 1894. 3. Bush. Cat., 1894:102. 4. N. Y. Sta. An.
Rpt., 17:528, 548, 554. 1898.

In appearance Chautauqua is very similar to Concord, its parent, but it
ripens a few days earlier and is of slightly better quality though it does not
differ in these respects sufficiently to make it more than an easily
recognized strain of Concord. Inasmuch as it originated, and for fifteen
years has been known, in the region where the Concord reigns supreme, and
has not yet come into prominence, it is fair to assume that it has some
weakness and that the parent will remain dominant.
Chautauqua is a volunteer seedling of Concord found in a Concord
vineyard near Brocton, Chautauqua County, New York, by H. T. Bashtite
who sent vines of it to this Station in 1892.
Vine medium to vigorous, not always hardy, not productive. Tendrils continuous, mostly trifid.
Leaves large, irregularly roundish, dark green; lower surface tinged with bronze. Flowers semi-fertile
to nearly fertile, open in mid-season or earlier; stamens upright. Fruit ripens in mid-season or a few
days earlier. Clusters medium to large, rather broad, sometimes single-shouldered, intermediate in
compactness. Berries unusually large, roundish to slightly oval, dark purplish-black, covered with
abundant blue bloom, shatter badly. Skin thin, very astringent. Flesh rather tough, vinous, sweet at
skin to acid at center, good to very good in quality. The pulp separates readily from the few broad and
plump seeds.

CLEVENER.
(Labrusca, Riparia, Aestivalis?)

1. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 10:494. 1891. 2. Ib., 11:618. 1892. 3. Rural N. Y., 52:381. 1893. 4. Bush.
Cat., 1894:103. 5. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:528, 548, 554. 1898.

There are two Cleveners discussed in American viticultural literature, the
origin and history of both of which are briefly set forth below. In these
general observations we need to consider but the northern one of the two
grapes. This variety has long been grown in New Jersey and in New York
and in both States is highly esteemed as a wine grape, the resulting wine

being well flavored and of a dark inky-red color. The fruit is remarkable in
coloring very early and in ripening very late. The vine is hardy, very
vigorous, succeeds in various soils and since it bears grafts well it seems an
excellent sort upon which to graft varieties which do not thrive on their own
roots. It is self-sterile and must be planted with some other variety to set
fruit well. Clinton makes an excellent pollenizer because it blooms at the
same time, and because two wine grapes may be thus grown together. In
spite of its good qualities, Clevener is hardly holding its own in the
commercial vineyards of the State and it is not a desirable fruit for the
amateur who wants a table grape.
The Clevener here described has been raised in the vicinity of Egg
Harbor, New Jersey, for about forty years, but its place and time of origin
are unknown. It is generally considered to be a Riparia but the continuous
tendrils and other botanical characters indicate a strong admixture of
Labrusca blood and possibly Aestivalis or Bicolor as the shoots and canes
show considerable bloom.
The other variety under the name Clevener is a southern grape strongly
resembling Rulander or Louisiana. Opinions differ as to whether it be of
Aestivalis or Bourquiniana blood. This variety is unknown in New York and
of its origin and history there is no information.
Vine a rampant grower, hardy, medium to productive, somewhat subject to attacks of leaf-
hoppers. Canes long, numerous, rather thick, dark reddish-brown, covered with a slight amount of
bloom; tendrils continuous, bifid. Foliage very healthy; leaves unusually large, intermediate in
thickness, dark green with well defined ribs showing through the thin pubescence of the under
surface. Flowers sterile, open very early; stamens reflexed.
Fruit ripens late, and appears to keep well. Clusters do not always fill well, small to medium,
rather short and slender, irregularly tapering, often with a medium-sized single shoulder, variable in
compactness. Berries small to medium, roundish to slightly flattened, black, rather glossy, covered
with blue bloom, persistent, firm. Skin rather tough, thinnish and inclined to crack, adheres slightly
to the pulp, contains an unusually large amount of dark purplish-red pigment. Flesh reddish-green,
moderately juicy, rather tender and soft, fine-grained, very slightly aromatic, spicy, neither so
sprightly nor so high-flavored as other varieties of the same season, not good enough in flavor and
quality in general for dessert purposes. Seeds separate rather easily from the pulp, intermediate in
size and length, medium to above in width, notched, nearly sharp-pointed, dark brown; raphe shows
as a very small cord; chalaza large, at center or slightly above, irregularly oval, distinct.

CLINTON.
(Riparia, Labrusca.)

1. Adlum, 1823:140. 2. Ib., 1828:176. 3. Prince, 1830:179. 4. Rafinesque, 1830:11. 5. N. Y. Ag.
Soc. Rpt., 1841:388. 6. Horticulturist, 2:121, 341. 1847. 7. Ib., 8:120. 1853. fig. 8. Am. Pom. Soc.
Rpt., 1860:82. 9. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1862:90. 10. Gar. Mon., 5:335. 1863. 11. Strong, 1866:332. 12.

Husmann, 1866:50, 102. 13. Fuller, 1867:219. 14. U. S. D. A. Rpt., 1869:85. fig. 15. Bush. Cat.,
1883:82. 16. Can. Hort., 11:43. 1888. 17. Bush. Cat., 1894:103, 104. fig. 18. Ev. Nat. Fruits,
1898:75. 19. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:528, 540, 544, 548, 554, 559. 1898. 20. Rural N. Y., 59:7, 306.
1900.
Worthington (1, 2, 3, 4). Worthington (15, 17).

Clinton is now but little grown, its place having been taken by better
varieties of its type. It has historical interest if not intrinsic value, for it
played an important part in the beginning of American viticulture. Most
viticulturists have ascribed to Clinton the distinction of being the first
cultivated “variety of Vitis riparia” but without question this honor belongs
to the Worthington of Adlum and Prince, with a strong probability that
Clinton may be Worthington renamed. But it was as Clinton that Vitis
riparia was disseminated for general culture and it is the name Clinton that
stands at the parental head of the long list of grapes now under cultivation
from this species; and so, in spite of its being the usurper of Worthington’s
honor, and whether or not it be the older variety under an assumed name, it
is probably best that Clinton continue to be considered the first of its race.
Clinton came into prominence, and brought the species to which it
belongs to the notice of grape-growers, because of its vigor, hardiness and
fruitfulness; and, later, its popularity was added to because of its immunity
to phylloxera. The vine is so vigorous that its growth is rank and because of
this and the straggling habit of growth it is very difficult to keep under
control on trellises and in most situations needs a great deal of room. It can
be grown in as high a latitude as any of our native grapes but it blooms so
early in the spring that the blossoms are often caught by late frosts in
northern climates. The immunity of Clinton to phylloxera led to its being
planted very largely in France some years ago but it has now been discarded
for better direct producers in that country. The defects of the variety are:
The fruit is too small and sour and the seeds and skins too prominent for a
market grape and the wine is not of high quality, being too raucous, though
the harshness disappears somewhat with age. The fruit colors early in the
season but does not ripen until late and therefore suffers greatly from birds.
A slight touch of frost is supposed to improve its flavor. This variety is so
sensitive to calcareous soils that where lime or chalk abounds the vines
often die out after a few years. Clinton bears grafts well, making a quick
and firm union with Labruscas and Viniferas, and roots very freely from
cuttings.

This variety has been much used in grape-breeding and its blood can be
traced in many valuable varieties, among which are most of the desirable
wine grapes for the North. The offspring of Clinton are usually very hardy
and this, taken with other desirable characters, makes it an exceptionally
good starting-point for breeding grapes for northern latitudes. Its seedlings
often show intermittent characters and otherwise indicate a strong strain of
Labrusca.

CLINTON

Clinton began to attract attention in New York about 1840. J. W. Bissell,
of Rochester, in the Horticulturist of January, 1848, writes that the vine
from which cuttings were taken was found by L. B. Langworthy, in the
garden of a Mr. Peebles above Waterford on the Hudson. The name Clinton
was given by Langworthy, who introduced it to the trade around Rochester
about 1835. There were other cultivated varieties growing in the Peebles
garden and the Clinton was not supposed to be a seedling. Although this
account of the origin of the Clinton was published in the then most popular
horticultural publication in the United States, there were no denials nor
corrections made in any of the succeeding numbers. In 1863 there appeared
in the Elmira Advertiser an account of the origin of this variety in which it
was stated that the seed from which this variety had sprung was planted by

Hugh White, then a member of Congress, in his father’s garden in
Whitesboro, in 1819. Two years later, so the story runs, when he was a
junior in Hamilton College, Clinton, New York, White transplanted the vine
east of the house of Dr. Noyes, with whom he then boarded. There were no
denials of this report, probably on account of the fact that the introducer at
Rochester was dead; and the account and Whitesboro as the place of origin
were later generally accepted by horticultural writers. In 1852 the Ohio
Pomological Society determined that the Worthington and the Clinton
grapes were identical. Later this was generally accepted by viticulturists as
being correct. The Worthington is an old sort known to Adlum and Prince,
and was said by the latter to have originated in the vicinity of Annapolis,
Maryland.
Clinton was placed on the grape list of the American Pomological
Society fruit catalog in 1862, where it has since been retained.
Clinton is usually considered a Riparia, as most of the botanical
characters indicate this species. However, occasional canes with continuous
tendrils are characteristic of Labrusca.

Vine a rank grower, healthy, hardy, productive. Canes long, numerous, slender to medium, brown
to reddish-brown; nodes enlarged, slightly flattened; internodes of average length; diaphragm thick to
medium; pith large; shoots smooth; tendrils usually intermittent but sometimes continuous, bifid.
Leaf-buds rather large and short, thick, obtuse to conical, open early. Young leaves very faintly
tinged with carmine on lower side only. Leaves hang until very late in the season, medium to small,
thin; upper surface dark green, smooth; lower surface pale green, not pubescent; veins indistinct;
petiolar sinus deep, medium to narrow, often urn-shaped; basal and lateral sinuses shallow to medium
when present; teeth of average depth, rather wide. Flowers fertile, open early; stamens upright.
Fruit colors early but is not edible until after mid-season. Clusters medium to small, of fair
length, slender, cylindrical, uniform, usually single-shouldered, compact; peduncle medium to short,
intermediate in thickness; pedicel nearly short, very slender, almost smooth; brush tinged with red.
Berries small to medium, roundish to slightly oval, dark purplish-black to black, glossy, covered with
rather thick blue bloom, adhere well to pedicel, firm. Skin very thin, tough, nearly free from pulp,
contains considerable wine-colored pigment, somewhat astringent. Flesh darkish green, very juicy,
fine-grained, slightly tough and solid, with some Riparia flavor, spicy, vinous, too tart for dessert use.
Seeds adherent, average two in number, intermediate in size, short, blunt, brownish; raphe obscure;
chalaza of average size, above center, pear-shaped to long oval, distinct. Must, 93°-98°.

CLOETA.
(Lincecumii, Rupestris, Labrusca, Vinifera.)

1. Rural N. Y., 60:637. 1901. 2. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1903:83. 3. Mo. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1904:306.

Cloeta comes from T. V. Munson and is of the same parentage as
Captain. Munson says of it:[172] “Probably the best of all American black
grapes.” But it does not sustain this high standard on the Station grounds
nor would it do so, we think, in other parts of the North. Munson further
states that it “requires hot, dry weather to acquire high quality” and this
explains why it does not succeed in this latitude as it does in Texas.
The variety was produced from seed of America pollinated by R. W.
Munson and was introduced by the originator in 1902.
Vine very vigorous, hardy, produces fair to good crops, susceptible to attacks of mildew. Canes
long, numerous, covered with considerable blue bloom; tendrils intermittent, bifid. Leaves small to
above medium, rather thick. Flowers bloom in mid-season; stamens upright. Fruit ripens after mid-
season, does not keep well. Clusters medium to small, not uniform, frequently single-shouldered,
intermediate in compactness. Berries medium to small, oval to roundish, black, covered with a fair
amount of blue bloom, very persistent, not firm. Skin very thin and tender, contains a large amount of
wine-colored pigment. Flesh somewhat tough and solid, sweet at skin to acid at center, spicy,
medium to above in quality. The numerous small seeds are usually not notched.

COLERAIN.
(Labrusca.)

1. Rural N. Y., 47:759. 1888. fig. 2. Bush. Cat., 1894:105. 3. Rural N. Y.,
53:616. 1894. 4. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 14:278. 1895. 5. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt.,

17:528, 548, 554. 1898. 6. Rural N. Y., 58:23. 1899. 7. Mich. Sta. Bul.,
169:165. 1899.
Colerain is one of the numerous white seedlings of Concord and one of
the few of these seedlings of sufficient merit to be kept in cultivation. It has
the characteristic foliage and habit of growth of its parent but is earlier by at
least a week, is of much higher quality and lacks somewhat the foxiness of
most Labruscas. Colerain is sprightly and vinous and neither seeds nor
skins are as objectionable as in the parent variety; the fruit hangs well to the
vine and keeps as well as most of the varieties of its class but owing to its
tender pulp does not ship well. It is reported to be more or less unproductive
in some localities. While Colerain has not attained commercial importance,
it is recognized as well worthy a place in home vineyards, and for this
reason and because it is one of the best if not the best of the white seedlings
of Concord it is given the honor of a color-plate and full description in The
Grapes of New York.
David Bundy of Colerain, Belmont County, Ohio, produced Colerain
from seed of Concord planted in 1880. The variety was soon after
introduced by the Colerain Grape Company of Colerain, Ohio.
Vine medium to vigorous, usually hardy, healthy, not always productive. Canes intermediate in
length and number, slender, dark reddish-brown; nodes of average size, flattened; internodes medium
to below; diaphragm thick; pith rather large; shoots pubescent; tendrils continuous, rather short, bifid.
Leaf-buds small, short, slender, pointed to nearly conical, open moderately late. Young leaves
lightly tinged on lower side and along margin of upper side with a faint trace of carmine. Leaves of
average size, nearly thick; upper surface light green, dull, moderately smooth; lower surface slightly
bronze, downy; veins rather distinct; leaf not lobed, terminus acute; petiolar sinus shallow to
medium, usually wide; basal and lateral sinuses very shallow when present; teeth shallow, of average
width. Flowers fertile, opening in mid-season or earlier; stamens upright.
Fruit ripens a week or more earlier than Concord, keeps fairly well but does not ship well.
Clusters attractive, averaging medium in size and length, somewhat slender, blunt, tapering to nearly
cylindrical, irregular, usually strongly shouldered, moderately compact; peduncle medium in length
and thickness; pedicel intermediate in length, inclined to slender, nearly smooth; brush of average
length, green. Berries usually below Niagara in size but somewhat variable, roundish to slightly oval,
light green, slightly glossy, covered with thin gray bloom, usually rather persistent. Skin unusually
thin, tender, adheres to pulp, contains no pigment, slightly astringent. Flesh pale green, translucent,
juicy, fine-grained, tender and soft when fully ripe, somewhat foxy, vinous, sweet, good in quality.
Seeds separate easily from the pulp, few in number, usually one to three, averaging two, rather small
and broad, notched, short to medium, nearly plump, brownish; raphe obscure; chalaza of average
size, slightly above center, circular to nearly oval, showing only as a depression.

COLUMBIAN IMPERIAL.
(Labrusca, Riparia.)

1. Ohio Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1893-4:30. 2. Bush. Cat., 1894:105. 3. Ohio Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1894-5:67,
70. 4. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 18:374, 387, 395. 1899. 5. Mo. Sta. Bul., 46:38, 43, 44, 45, 49. 1899. 6.
Mich. Sta. Bul., 169:166, 169. 1899. 7. Mo. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1899:57. 8. Ga. Sta. Bul., 53:42. 1901.
Columbian (3, 6). Imperial (3). Jumbo (1). Jumbo (2, 3).

Columbian Imperial is a showy, reddish-black, Labrusca-Riparia hybrid
chiefly remarkable for the great size of its berries; though the vine is so
exceptionally healthy and vigorous as to give it prominence for these
characters. The variety has remarkably thick, leathery leaves which seem
almost proof against either insects or fungi. The quality of the fruit,
however, is very inferior and the clusters are uneven as to the number of
berries and these shell off readily. The only possible value of the variety is
for exhibition purposes and for breeding to secure the desirable characters
named above. Columbian Imperial is a frequent adornment of the salesbook
of the fruit tree agents and the panegyrics heaped upon it by misinformed or
unscrupulous salesmen have given it a rather wide distribution in the
gardens of the amateur where it has no place whatever.
The parentage of Columbian Imperial is unknown. The fruit was
originated by J. S. McKinley, Morgan, Orient P. O., Ohio, in 1885. It was
introduced by the Columbian Grape Company, of Kingston, Ohio, under the
name Columbian, also by J. R. Johnson of Dallas, Texas, under the name
Columbian Imperial. Supposed by many to be of Labrusca-Riparia blood.
The Labrusca shows plainly; the Riparia little, if at all.
Vine vigorous to very vigorous, healthy, hardy, variable in productiveness. Canes long,
numerous, thick to medium, dark reddish-brown, unusually heavily pubescent and spiny; tendrils
continuous, long, bifid.

COLERAIN

Leaves healthy, variable in size, green, very thick; lower surface of young leaves pale green
shading into bronze on older leaves with little, if any, pubescence. Flowers, strongly self-fertile;
upright stamens. Fruit ripens late. Clusters medium in size, sometimes shouldered, and of average
compactness. Berries large, roundish to slightly oval, dull reddish-black covered with thin lilac or
faint blue bloom, not very persistent, firm. Skin thick, tough, contains no pigment. Flesh moderately
juicy, tough, nearly sweet at skin to decidedly acid at center, with no pronounced aroma, fair to good
in quality. Seeds adhere to the pulp, large to medium, plump, broad to medium, intermediate in
length, rather blunt.

CONCORD.
(Labrusca.)

1. Mag. Hort., 18:490, 522. 1852. 2. Ib., 19:524, 542. 1853. 3. Horticulturist, 9:124, 188, 236,
399, 515. 1854. 4. Mag. Hort., 20:63, fig., 431, 553. 1854. 5. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1854. 6. Ib.,
1858:233. 7. Grant, 1864:7, 12. 8. Gar. Mon., 11:39. 1869. 9. Mich. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1872:47. 10.
Bush. Cat., 1883:83, 84, fig., 147. 11. Mo. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1891:335. 12. Meehan’s Mon., 4:47. 1894.
13. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:528, 540, 543, 544, 548, 552. 1898. 14. Ev. Nat. Fruits, 1898:72. 15. Mo.
Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1900:360. 16. Traité gen. de vit., 6:178. 1903.
Bull’s Seedling (1).

The Concord is known by all. The most widely grown of the grapes of
this continent, it also represents the dominant type of our native species and
with its offspring, pure-bred and cross-bred, furnishes seventy-five per ct.
or more of the grapes of eastern America. In New York, approximately
seventy-five per ct. of all the grapes grown are Concords alone. The
preeminently meritorious character of Concord, which has enabled it to take
first place in American viticulture, is the elasticity of its constitution

whereby it adapts itself to varying conditions; thus the Concord is grown
with more or less profit in every grape-growing State in the Union and to an
extent not possible with any other grape. It succeeds on a greater number of
soils than any other variety. In the Chautauqua grape region there are six
distinct types of soil upon which grapes are grown and the Concord is the
leading grape on each of them.
A second character which commends Concord as a commercial variety is
its high degree of fruitfulness, as it gives large crops year in and year out.
Added to the above points of superiority are hardiness; ability to withstand
the ravages of both diseases and insects; comparative earliness and
therefore certainty of maturity in northern regions; fair size of bunch and
berry, good color, and an abundance of bloom, making a most handsome
grape. The Concord leaves out and blossoms somewhat late in the spring
and does not therefore often suffer from spring frosts and the fruit is not
easily injured by late frosts and hangs well on the vine.
The Concord is not, however, without faults. Its quality is not high, the
grapes lack richness, delicacy of flavor and aroma, and have a foxy taste
disagreeable to many; on the other hand, the fruit is sprightly and refreshing
and does not cloy the appetite as do richer grapes. The seeds and skin of
Concord are objectionable, the seeds being large and abundant and difficult
to separate from the flesh and the skin is tough and unpleasantly astringent.
The Concord does not keep nor ship well as compared with grapes having
Vinifera blood and it rapidly loses flavor after ripening; the skin is inclined
to crack and the berries to shell from the stems after picking. Concord is but
slightly resistant to phylloxera and in calcareous soils is subject to
chlorosis. It requires a rich soil and thrives best on a virgin soil; thus, in the
Chautauqua region of this State, much concern is now felt because of the
failing vineyards, most of which should not as yet have reached their prime.
While Concord is grown in the South, it is essentially a northern grape,
becoming susceptible to fungi in southern climates and suffering from
phylloxera in dry, warm soils.
Concord is a table grape and, to use an oft quoted expression coined by
Horace Greeley, it is “the grape for the millions.” It can be produced so
cheaply that no other grape can compete with it in the markets. The
dominance of Concord is not wholly desirable for viticulture, as by keeping
out better varieties, the consumer is prevented from obtaining grapes high
in quality; and by giving the grower a feeling of sufficiency in having this

sort, other varieties do not receive the consideration they deserve. The
variety is used somewhat for making red wines and a white wine as a base
for champagne but it is a poor wine grape, as much sugar must be added to
attain the amount of alcohol necessary for a good wine and the foxy taste is
not a pleasant flavor. Grape juice is made almost entirely from Concords
and during the past few years many carloads of grapes have been used in
the Chautauqua region for this purpose.

CONCORD

The botanical characters of Concord indicate that it is a pure-bred
Labrusca; thus the seed with obscure raphe and chalaza, the pubescence on
the under surface of the leaf, the flesh characters of the fruit, the continuous
tendrils, the diaphragm, all belong to Vitis labrusca. There are those,
however, who maintain that it is possibly a Labrusca-Vinifera hybrid,
basing their claim upon the upright stamens, the characters of some of the
seedlings, and the opinion expressed by Bull that a Catawba vine growing
near by had fertilized the seed from which Concord was raised.
Concord is a virile variety, having begotten a great number of valuable
offspring, both as pure-breeds and as cross-breeds. To these it has
seemingly transmitted its characters to a high degree. The reader who takes

the pains to look them up will find that many of these, even of the pure-
breeds, are white and that they are usually of higher quality than the parent,
indicating a white ancestor of Concord in which high quality was possibly
correlated with the light color.
The seed of a wild grape was planted in the fall of 1843 by E. W.
Bull[173] of Concord, Massachusetts, from which fruit was borne in 1849.
The wild grape from which the seed came had been transplanted from
beside a field fence to the garden in which there was at least another grape,
the Catawba, and the wild vine was open to cross-pollination. One of these
seedlings was named Concord and the variety was exhibited before the
Massachusetts Horticultural Society in the fall of 1852. The new grape was
introduced in the spring of 1854 by Hovey & Co., of Boston. From the time
of its introduction the growth of this variety in popularity was phenomenal.
In 1854, the year of its introduction, it was placed on the grape list of the
American Pomological Society fruit catalog as one of the “new varieties
which promise well.” In 1858 it was placed on the regular list of
recommended sorts where it has since been retained. Husmann states, in the
winter of 1855, that he secured buds at Hermann, Missouri, from Soulard of
Galena, Illinois. In other words, its culture had spread halfway across the
continent in the brief period of a year. Before 1860, vineyards of Concord
had been planted in Chautauqua County, this State. In 1865 it was awarded
a prize by the American Institute known as the Greeley prize, from its
donor, Horace Greeley, as the best grape for general cultivation.
Vine vigorous to very vigorous, hardy, healthy, usually productive of heavy crops. Canes above
medium length, of average number, above mean thickness, rather dark reddish-brown to brown;
nodes enlarged, flattened; internodes medium to long; diaphragm rather thick; pith large to medium;
shoots pubescent; tendrils continuous, long, bifid, sometimes trifid.
Leaf-buds medium to nearly large, short, below average thickness, conical to pointed, open in
mid-season. Young leaves lightly tinged on lower side and along margin of upper side, prevailing
color rose-carmine. Leaves large to medium, thick; upper surface dark green, slightly glossy, rather
smooth; lower surface light bronze, heavily pubescent; veins distinct; lobes three when present,
terminal lobe acute; petiolar sinus variable averaging medium in depth and width; basal sinus usually
lacking; lateral sinus obscure and frequently notched; teeth shallow, medium to narrow. Flowers
fertile, open in mid-season or earlier; stamens upright.
Fruit ripens about mid-season, keeps from one to two months. Clusters rather uniform, large to
medium, intermediate in length, wide, broadly tapering, usually single-shouldered, sometimes
double-shouldered, medium to rather compact; peduncle short to medium, thick; pedicel of average
length, thick, nearly smooth; brush intermediate in length, pale green. Berries medium to large,
roundish, slightly glossy, black covered with abundant blue bloom, not always persistent, firm. Skin
of average thickness, moderately tough, slightly adherent to pulp, contains a small amount of wine-
colored pigment, somewhat astringent. Flesh pale green, translucent, juicy, rather fine-grained,

somewhat tough and solid, slightly foxy, sweet at skin, inclined to tartness next the seeds, good in
quality. Seeds rather adherent, one to four in number, average three, nearly large, broad, distinctly
notched, plump, blunt, brownish; raphe obscure; chalaza of fair size, slightly above center, oval,
nearly obscure. Must 70°-80°.

COTTAGE.
(Labrusca.)

1. Am. Jour. Hort., 4:327, 334. 1868. 2. Horticulturist, 26:22. 1871. 3. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1879.
4. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1881:36. 5. Rural N. Y., 52:655. 1893. 6. Ill. Sta. Bul., 28:253. 1893. 7. Bush.
Cat., 1894:108. 8. Ill. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1895:131. 9. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:528, 545, 547, 554. 1898.
10. Mich. Sta. Bul., 169:169. 1899.

COTTAGE

In vine and fruit Cottage greatly resembles its parent, Concord, having,
however, remarkably large, thick, leathery leaves well shown in the color-
plate. It is noted, too, for its strong, branching root system. With good
foliage and good roots it is not surprising that it is a vigorous, thrifty grower
—if anything surpassing its parent in vigor of growth. The canes are so
rough as to be almost spiny indicating, seemingly, outbursts of growth-
force. The Cottage is of better quality than its parent having far less
foxiness and a richer, more delicate flavor. It is given credit, too, of being a
better shipper and a better keeper and is from one to two weeks earlier. Its

good qualities are offset, however, by the fact that it lacks in soil
adaptability, is comparatively unproductive, and ripens unevenly. It blooms
much earlier than Concord. Cottage is recommended as an early grape of
the Concord type for the garden and a standard variety for northern
localities. The variety is widely distributed in varietal vineyards.
Cottage is another of E. W. Bull’s seedlings, having been produced by
him from seed of Concord. It was introduced in 1869 and in 1879 it was
placed on the grape list of the American Pomological Society fruit catalog,
where it has since been retained.
Vine vigorous, healthy, hardy, produces average crops. Canes often rough and hairy, long to
medium, numerous, of fair thickness, rather dark brown, nodes slightly enlarged, not usually
flattened; internodes intermediate in length; diaphragm thinnish; pith of average size; shoots very
pubescent; tendrils continuous, of mean length, usually bifid.
Leaf-buds small to medium, short, of fair thickness, conical to pointed, open moderately early.
Young leaves tinged on lower side and faintly at the margin with red, making the prevailing color
pale green with light carmine tinge. Leaves large, thick; upper surface dark green, glossy, smooth to
slightly rugose; lower surface tinged with heavy bronze, with some pubescence; veins distinct; leaf
usually not lobed, with terminus acute to acuminate; petiolar sinus usually deep and wide; teeth
shallow, wide. Flowers fertile, open medium early; stamens upright.
Fruit ripens one or two weeks earlier than Concord, does not keep well. Clusters above medium
to small, below average length, moderately broad, cylindrical to slightly tapering, sometimes single-
shouldered, rather compact; peduncle somewhat long, intermediate in size; pedicel short, thick,
covered with few, inconspicuous, small warts, wide at point of attachment to berry; brush dark red.
Berries of average size, roundish, dull black, not glossy, covered with heavy blue bloom, drop badly
from pedicel, firm. Skin rather thick, somewhat tender, slightly adherent to pulp, contains
considerable dark purplish-red pigment, slightly astringent. Flesh juicy, tough, rather solid, foxy,
agreeably sweet next the skin, tart at seeds, good to medium. Seeds separate somewhat readily from
pulp, numerous, one to four, often four, above medium in size, rather broad, intermediate in length,
blunt, light brown; raphe does not show; chalaza rather large, usually at center, irregularly circular,
obscure.

CREVELING.
(Labrusca, Vinifera?)

1. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1858:225. 2. Ib., 1860:79. 3. Horticulturist, 15:538. 1860. fig. 4. Mag.
Hort., 27:103. 1861. 5. Horticulturist, 17:141. 1862. 6. Mag. Hort., 29:72. 1863. 7. Mead, 1867:163.
8. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1867:45. 9. Am. Jour. Hort., 4:60. 1868. 10. Downing, 1869:536. 11. Am.
Jour. Hort., 8:143. 1870. 12. Gar. Mon., 13:214, 279. 1871. 13. Bush. Cat., 1883:90. 14. N. Y. Sta.
An. Rpt., 17:528, 540, 544, 548, 554. 1898. 15. Ib., 18:374, 387, 395. 1899. 16. Kan. Sta. Bul.,
110:240. 1902.
Bloom (2, 3, 5, 13). Bloomburg (10). Catawissa (5). Catawissa (2, 6, 13). Catawissa Bloom (10).
Columbia Bloom (2, 4). Columbia County (10). Laura Beverly (9, 12). Laura Beverly? (10).

Creveling was long a favorite early black grape for the garden, where, if
planted in good soil and kept well trained, it produces fine clusters of large,

handsome, very good grapes of the Isabella type. Under any but the best of
care, however, it is unproductive and sets loose, straggling bunches. The
wood is soft, long-jointed, reddish in color, with a large pith and producing
but few laterals. It is markedly self-sterile.
The origin of the Creveling is uncertain. It was first introduced to the
public about 1857 by F. F. Merceron of Catawissa, Pennsylvania. It is said
to have been in cultivation in Columbia County, Pennsylvania, some years
previous to the date given. The name Creveling came from a family of that
name, who cultivated the variety and may possibly have originated it. It was
placed upon the grape list of the American Pomological Society fruit
catalog in 1867 and dropped from their list in 1899. It is still widely
cultivated in varietal vineyards.
Vine vigorous, not quite hardy, usually not very productive. Canes long, above medium in
number, rather thick, dark reddish-brown; nodes slightly enlarged, flattened; internodes medium to
long; diaphragm thick; pith large; shoots glabrous; tendrils usually continuous, long, trifid to bifid.
Leaf-buds rather large, short, thick, obtuse, open in mid-season. Young leaves tinged on upper
and lower sides with rose-carmine. Leaves below medium to large, thick; upper surface dark green,
dull, slightly rugose; lower surface pale green, rather pubescent; veins somewhat prominent; lobes
usually three, sometimes obscurely five, terminal lobe acute to blunt; petiolar sinus deep to narrow,
closed and sometimes overlapping; basal sinus very shallow when present; lateral sinus rather
shallow, narrow; teeth shallow, of average width. Flowers sometimes on plan of six, sterile, open in
mid-season or earlier; stamens reflexed.

CREVELING

Fruit ripens a few days later than Hartford, does not keep well. Clusters resemble Isabella in
general appearance, good size, medium to long, rather broad, irregularly tapering, usually single-
shouldered the shoulder often being connected to the cluster by a long stem, loose; peduncle long,
rather slender, often with a distinct reddish tinge; pedicel variable in length, thick, usually with no
warts, wide at point of attachment to berry; brush intermediate in length, thick, dark wine-color.
Berries medium to large, oval, dull black, covered with heavy blue bloom, persistent, rather firm.
Skin thick, tough, adheres considerably to the pulp, with a moderate amount of wine-colored
pigment, astringent. Flesh pale green, translucent, juicy, very stringy, tender, coarse, somewhat foxy,
sweet at skin to tart at center, good in quality. Seeds separate rather easily, one to five in number,
average two or three, above medium in size, broad, slightly notched, intermediate in length, blunt,
light brown; raphe shows as a narrow groove; chalaza of fair size, at center or slightly above, oval,
obscure.

CROTON.
(Vinifera, Labrusca, Bourquiniana.)

1. Am. Jour. Hort., 5:223, 224. 1869. fig. 2. Am. Hort. An., 1870:91, 92. fig. 3. Horticulturist,
25:275. 1870. 4. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1871:16. 5. Mich. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1872:546. fig. 6. Am. Pom.
Soc. Rpt., 1883:57. 7. Bush. Cat., 1883:87. fig. 8. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:528, 545, 547, 554. 1898. 9.
Ga. Sta. Bul., 53:42, 51. 1901.

The Croton is a feast both to the eye and the palate. The accompanying
color-plate does not do it justice as grown at its best, as it shows a loose,
straggling bunch, a characteristic of the variety only when poorly grown.
Unfortunately it has the fault of being difficult to grow well, being adapted
to but few soils and proving unfruitful, weak in growth, precariously tender,