The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Grapes of New York, by U. P. Hedrick

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere 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/license


Title: The Grapes of New York

Author: U. P. Hedrick

Release Date: June 15, 2014 [EBook #45978]

Language: English

Character set encoding: UTF-8

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




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)

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

Report of the New York Agricultural Experiment Station for the Year 1907
II

ALBANY
J. B. LYON COMPANY, STATE PRINTERS
1908

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

INDEX TO ILLUSTRATIONS

{1}

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:—

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{2} 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:—

His directions for pruning are equally fitting for present practice:—

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,{4} 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{5} 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{6} 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{7} 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{8} 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{9} 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{10} 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{11} 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{12} 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]{13} 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{14} 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]

{15}

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{16} 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{17} 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,{18} 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{19} 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{20} 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{21} 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]{22} 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,{23} 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.{24} 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.{25} 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.{26}

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{27} 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{28} 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.{29}

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 {30}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{31} 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 {32}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 {33}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{34} 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.{35}

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]

{36}

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{37} 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{38} 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,{39} 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{40} 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{41} 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{42} 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{43} 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{44} 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{45} 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{46} 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{47} 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. {48}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.”{49}

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.{50}

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{51} 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{52} 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{53} 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{54} 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{55} 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:{56} 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 {57}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.{58}

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 {59}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{60} 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{61} 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.

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.{62}

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 {63}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{64} 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:

According to the American Wine Press,[87] the leading authority on wines in this country, the vintage of 1907 shows the following figures:

Subtracting the product of California from the total we have approximately the yield of wine from native grapes.{65}

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{66} 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{67} 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.{68}

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.{69}

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{70} 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{71} 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{72} 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.{73}

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{74} 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{75} 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{76} 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{77} 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.{78} 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:{79}

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{80} 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,{81} 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{82} 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{83} 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{84} 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{85} 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{86} 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,{87}[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.{88}

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.{89}

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{90} 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{91} 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{92} 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{93} 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{94} 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.{95}

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.{96}

“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{97} 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:{98}

“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{99} 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{100} 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{101} 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   2. V. cordifolia   3. V. rotundifolia   4. V. doaniana   5. V. longii	6. V. labrusca   7. V. rupestris   8. V. riparia   9. V. vinifera 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{102} 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{103} 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.{104}

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{105} 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 {106}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.{107}

SPECIES OF AMERICAN GRAPES.
CONSPECTUS OF NORTH AMERICAN SPECIES OF VITIS.

SHOOT OF VITIS ROTUNDIFOLIA

1. VITIS ROTUNDIFOLIA Michx.[126]

Rotundifolia, or the southern Fox grape, seems to have attracted the attention of travelers in America from an early period. The references{110} 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{111} 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{112} 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.

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,{113} 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.

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{115} 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.

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.{116}

4. VITIS MONTICOLA Buckley.[133]

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.{117} 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.

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{119} 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{120} 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.{121}

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.

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{122} 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]

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{123} 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]

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.

Vitis longii microsperma is a small seeded, vigorous form of Vitis{124} 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]

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{125} 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.

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{127} 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.

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{128} 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.

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{129} 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.

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.

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.

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.

This species was described under the name Vitis berlandieri by Planchon in 1880. The description was made from herbarium specimens collected{131} 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]

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.{133}

VITIS CINEREA FLORIDANA Munson.

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.

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.

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.

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.{135}

15. VITIS CALIFORNICA Benth.[144]

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{136} 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.

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{137} to the grape-growers of the East or North and probably of none to those of the Southwest.

17. VITIS DOANIANA Munson.

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{138} 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.

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{139} 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{140} 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.

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.{142}

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]

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{144} 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]

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{146} 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]

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.{147}

21. VITIS CANDICANS Engelm.

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{148} 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.

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.

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]

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.{151} 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{152} 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{153} 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{154} 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.

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,{155} 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.{156} 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.{157}

CHAPTER V

THE LEADING VARIETIES OF AMERICAN GRAPES

ADIRONDAC.
(Labrusca, Vinifera?)

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.

ADVANCE.
(Riparia, Labrusca, Vinifera.)

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.

AGAWAM.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

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.

ALEXANDER.
(Labrusca, Vinifera?)

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{161} 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{162} 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{163} 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?)

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.

(I) ALICE.
(Labrusca.)

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?)

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.

ALLEN’S HYBRID.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

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{166} 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.

AMBER QUEEN.
(Vinifera, Riparia, Labrusca.)

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,{167} 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.

AMBROSIA.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

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.

AMERICA.
(Lincecumii, Rupestris.)

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.{169}

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.

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.)

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.{170} 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.

AMINIA.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

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’{171} 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.

ANTOINETTE.
(Labrusca.)

{172}

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.

AUGUST GIANT.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

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.{173}

AUGUST GIANT

AUTUCHON.
(Riparia, Labrusca, Vinifera.)

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,{174} 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]

BACCHUS.
(Riparia, Labrusca.)

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{175} 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.

{176}

BAILEY.
(Lincecumii, Labrusca, Vinifera.)

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.

BANNER.
(Labrusca, Vinifera, Bourquiniana?)

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.

BARRY.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

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

BEACON.
(Lincecumii, Labrusca.)

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{180} 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.

BEAUTY.
(Labrusca, Vinifera, Bourquiniana?)

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{181} of Minnesota, a grape from the State for which it was named, which has been discarded because of poor quality.

BELL.
(Riparia, Labrusca, Bourquiniana, Vinifera.)

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.

{182}

BERCKMANS.
(Riparia, Labrusca, Bourquiniana.)

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,{183} 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

BERTRAND.
(Bourquiniana.)

{184}

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:

BLACK DEFIANCE.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

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]

{185}

BLACK EAGLE

BLACK EAGLE.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

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.

BLACK HAMBURG.
(Vinifera.)

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 {187}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.

BLACK HAWK.
(Labrusca.)

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:

{189}

BLACK IMPERIAL.
(Labrusca, Bourquiniana, Vinifera.)

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:

BLACK PEARL.
(Riparia, Labrusca?)

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{190} 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.

BRANT.
(Riparia, Labrusca, Vinifera.)

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{191} 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]

BRIGHTON.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

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{192} 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.{193}

BRIGHTON

BRILLIANT.
(Labrusca, Vinifera, Bourquiniana.)

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{194} 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.

BRILLIANT

BROWN.
(Labrusca, Vinifera?)

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.

CAMPBELL EARLY.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

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{197} 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{198} 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.

CANADA.
(Riparia, Labrusca, Vinifera.)

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.{200}

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.

{201}

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.

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

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{202} 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.

CARMAN.
Lincecumii, Vinifera, Labrusca, Bourquiniana?

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{203} named in honor of E. S. Carman, for many years editor of the Rural New Yorker, and a plant-breeder of note.

CATAWBA.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

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:

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{205} 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{206} 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{207} 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.

{208}

CAYUGA.
(Labrusca, Vinifera?)

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.

CENTENNIAL.
(Labrusca, Aestivalis, Vinifera.)

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{209} 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:

CHALLENGE.
(Labrusca, Vinifera?)

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.

{210}

CHAMPION.
(Labrusca.)

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.{211}

CHAMPION

CHAUTAUQUA.
(Labrusca.)

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.{212}

CLEVENER.
(Labrusca, Riparia, Aestivalis?)

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{213} Aestivalis or Bourquiniana blood. This variety is unknown in New York and of its origin and history there is no information.

CLINTON.
(Riparia, Labrusca.)

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{214} 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,{215} 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.

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

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.

{217}

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.

COLUMBIAN IMPERIAL.
(Labrusca, Riparia.)

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.

{219}

COLERAIN

CONCORD.
(Labrusca.)

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{220} 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{221} 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{222} 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.

COTTAGE.
(Labrusca.)

COTTAGE

In vine and fruit Cottage greatly resembles its parent, Concord, having, however, remarkably large, thick, leathery leaves well shown in the color-plate.{223} 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.

CREVELING.
(Labrusca, Vinifera?)

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.

CROTON.
(Vinifera, Labrusca, Bourquiniana.)

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, and somewhat subject to mildew and rot in unfavorable situations. But when well grown the consensus of opinion among viticulturists is that it has few superiors among white grapes. It has a sweet, delicate Vinifera flavor, with melting flesh which readily separates from the few seeds. The fruit hangs on the vines until frost, and keeps well into the winter. The Croton is among green grapes what its parent, the Delaware, is among red grapes. In spite of its high quality it has never become widely distributed, failing utterly as a commercial variety, quality counting{226} for but little in grape markets. If this delicious fruit is to be saved to cultivation it must be by the hands of the amateur.

Croton came from Stephen W. Underhill[174] of Croton Point, New York, from seed of Delaware pollinated by Chasselas de Fontainbleau. The seed was planted in the spring of 1863 and the vine fruited for the first time in 1865. The grape was first exhibited at the Massachusetts Horticultural Society meeting in 1868. It was placed on the grape list of the American Pomological Society fruit catalog in 1871 but was dropped in 1883, chiefly on account of its susceptibility to fungal diseases.

{227}

CROTON

CUNNINGHAM.
(Bourquiniana.)

The Cunningham is not known in New York and in fact has been cultivated but little in America, but in France at one time it was one of the best known American grapes, both as a direct producer and as a stock for European varieties. It is not now largely grown in France, however, having been superseded by better American varieties for the uses for which it was formerly cultivated. It was much sought for by the French as a stock for large Vinifera cions, the size of the vine giving an opportunity for making a good graft. In the South, Cunningham is not largely grown as there are several other varieties of its class superior to it in quality of fruit and in vine characters as well. It seems everywhere to have been an exceedingly capricious grower and very particular as to soil and climate.{228} It is said to make a deep yellow wine of very good quality. It has little or no value as a table grape.

Cunningham originated in the garden of Jacob Cunningham of Prince Edward County, Virginia, about the year 1812. Cuttings of this vine were sent by Dr. D. N. Norton of Richmond to Prince in 1829. Prince introduced it to the public. Its botanical characters mark it as an offshoot of the Herbemont group of Bourquiniana.

The following description is a compilation from several sources:

CYNTHIANA.
(Aestivalis, Labrusca.)

Cynthiana is another southern grape impossible to grow in the North and therefore of but general interest for this work. There has long been a heated controversy as to whether this variety differs from Norton. The botanical differences between the two varieties are not greater than might be attributed to environment, soil, climate and culture; but side by side the two grapes ripen at different times, and the quality of the fruit, and more particularly of the wine, is such that the varieties must be considered as distinct. The distinction should be maintained for Cynthiana is the better grape of the two. It has been much grown in France for its intrinsic value and in the reconstruction of vineyards destroyed by phylloxera.{229}

CYNTHIANA

As the history given below shows, the variety is an old one but it, with Norton, was condemned by the early vineyardists because it could be propagated from cuttings only with the greatest difficulty. Like most of its species, Cynthiana is somewhat particular as to soil and location, preferring sandy or gravelly loams and not thriving on clays or limestones. While very resistant to phylloxera, it is not now much used as a resistant stock because of the superiority of varieties of Rupestris and because it is not easily propagated. It is very resistant to cryptogamic diseases, mildew, black-rot and anthracnose, and is a strong, vigorous grower. Its cycle of vegetation is long, the buds bursting forth early and the fruit maturing very late. It has no value as a table grape but according to the Bushberg Catalogue[175] it is the best American grape for red wine. So, too, according to Viala,[176] the wine from Cynthiana is the best of all the red wines produced from American vines. It is said by French wine-makers[177] to contain “an excess of all the elements which constitute the best ordinary wines, color, tannin, acidity, and bouquet,” and therefore to make a splendid base for blending with wine from varieties lacking in the above elements.

Cynthiana was received, some time in the fifties by Prince of Flushing, Long Island, from Arkansas where it is said to have been found growing in the woods. It was sent by Prince to Husmann at Hermann, Missouri, where it did so well and was so highly spoken of by Husmann and his neighbors that it soon became known to grape-growers. It was placed upon the grape list of the American Pomological Society fruit catalog in 1881, where it still remains. Like Norton, Cynthiana is often considered pure Aestivalis, although a strain of some other blood, probably Labrusca, is apparent. Because of the similarity of this variety and Norton the one is often grown as the other.

DAISY.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

Daisy is an unimportant seedling of Goethe. The only reason for its distribution was its delicate, spicy, pleasant flavor. It is probably not worth perpetuating.

Dr. J. Stayman, Leavenworth, Kansas, is supposed to have originated Daisy from seed of Goethe. On account of the fruit characters, Bush questions the parentage but as it grows at this Station the reputed parentage appears to be quite probably correct.

{231}

DELAWARE.
(Labrusca, Bourquiniana, Vinifera.)

Delaware is the American grape par excellence. Its introduction raised the standard of quality in our viticulture to that of the Old World, for there is no variety of Vitis vinifera more richly or more delicately flavored or with a more agreeable aroma than the Delaware. This variety is rightly used wherever American grapes are grown as the standard whereby to gauge the quality of other grapes. Added to high quality it is endowed with a constitution which enables it to withstand climatic conditions to which all but the most hardy varieties will succumb, and so elastic as to adapt it to many soils and conditions, and to bear under most situations an abundant crop. All of this makes it, next to the Concord, the most popular grape for garden, vineyard and wine-press, now grown in the United States. As with the Concord, its introduction gave American grape-growing a great impetus and it is a question whether or not, with its high quality, it has not had a more beneficial effect on the viticulture of the country than the Concord.

Beside the qualities named above for the Delaware, it matures sufficiently early to make its crops certain, is attractive in appearance, keeps well on the vine and in the package, ships well and is more immune than other commercial varieties to black-rot. Its faults are: The small size of the vine, slowness of growth, susceptibility of the foliage to mildew, its capriciousness in certain soils, and the small size of the berries. The first two faults make it necessary to plant the vines more closely than other commercial varieties stand. It succeeds best in deep, rich, well-drained,{232} warm soils but even on these it must receive good cultivation, close pruning, and in some cases the fruit must be thinned. It is, too, a necessity, where mildew is abundant, to spray with bordeaux mixture which keeps the disease well in check. Birds are very fond of this variety and it suffers in particular from the depredations of robins.

Delaware is the best American table grape and as such commands a premium in all of the markets, selling oftentimes for double the price of Concord. It is also much sought for by wine-makers both for Delaware wine and for blending in making champagne or other wines of high quality. It is grown North and South and westward to the Rocky Mountains, and is now proving especially profitable in many southern locations as an early grape to ship to northern markets. The Delaware is an especially desirable grape to cultivate in small gardens because of its delicious and handsome fruit, its compact habit of growth, and when in health, its ample and lustrous green, delicately formed leaves which make it one of the most ornamental of the grapes.[178]

Delaware is the parent of an interesting but not particularly valuable progeny; none of the pure-bred offspring nearly equal the parent though many of them inherit its fine color and high quality. Among its cross-bred offspring are some notable varieties, all of which are described in their proper places in this work. An interesting fact regarding the pure-bred progeny of Delaware is that, so far as we have records, it seems to have given very few black grapes though there are often white or rose-colored seedlings among them. Even in its cross-bred offspring, red, or some tint of it greatly predominates, indicating power in the transmission of color and suggesting the value of this variety in breeding red grapes.

DELAWARE

The Delaware grape was first brought to notice by Abram Thompson, editor of the Delaware Gazette of Delaware, Ohio. In the summer of 1849{233} he saw fruit of this variety which had been brought into town from one of the neighboring farms. An investigation disclosed that the variety was being raised on the farms of a Mr. Warford and of a Mr. Heath, near the banks of the Scioto River, a few miles from the town of Delaware, and that Warford had brought the variety from the State of New Jersey more than twenty years before. It was known in this neighborhood under the name of Heath, or Powell. Thompson sent fruit of the variety to A. J. Downing who gave it the name Delaware, after the town from which the samples had been sent. Thompson also brought it to the notice of the Ohio Pomological Society in the autumn of 1851. It was found that the Delaware vines secured by Warford could be traced back to the garden of Paul H. Provost, a Swiss of Frenchtown, Kingswood Township, Hunterdon County, New Jersey. Provost, at this time, was dead, and definite information was very difficult to secure as to where he had obtained his vines. One account was that they had been received from a brother residing in Italy, and in deference to this story, the variety was locally known as the Italian wine grape. Another story was to the effect that they had been brought to Provost’s place by a German who had been in this country only a short time but who had spent this interval with Hare Powell of Philadelphia. Whether the German secured the vines from the Old Country or from Powell is uncertain. There was a report that they had been secured from Powell and that he in turn had received them from Bland of Virginia. All of the stories as to how the vines came into Provost’s garden lack supporting evidence and some were of the opinion that it had grown in the garden as a seedling.

The Delaware at once attracted great attention and the horticultural journals were full of conflicting accounts of its history and of warm discussions as to its botany. In 1856 it was placed on the grape list of the American Pomological Society fruit catalog as “a new variety which promises well;” two years later it was placed on the list of recommended sorts.

There is still a difference of opinion as to the botany of this variety. The theory advanced by many when it was first introduced, that it is a pure Vinifera, has been abandoned. Millardet and others considered the Delaware a hybrid between Vinifera, Labrusca, Cinerea and Aestivalis. Munson holds that it is of Labrusca-Bourquiniana origin with a probable{234} slight admixture of Vinifera. He further states that he considers Elsinburgh probably one of the parents. Historically this is corroborated by the fact that Elsingburgh originated in New Jersey not far from where Provost lived.

DELAWBA.
(Labrusca, Vinifera, Bourquiniana.)

Of Delawba we can say but little, not having vines of it on the Station grounds. It is an offspring of Delaware crossed with Catawba, as the name indicates, and was introduced with the expectation that it would take the place of one or the other or both of its parents. However, it has made no impress upon the viticulture of this State though it has been tested here{235} and there in the several grape regions during the past ten years. The fruit resembles Catawba, though not as attractive, the berries averaging smaller, but it ripens almost as early as Delaware, a great point in its favor. The vine, too, is more like Catawba than the Delaware, being more vigorous and productive than the latter. The reports of this variety indicate that it is very promising but it seems not to be making headway as either a fancy or a commercial fruit probably because of characters lacking in the fruit.

Dr. L. C. Chisholm of Spring Hill, Tennessee, produced the Delawba some time about 1880 from seed of Delaware fertilized by Catawba. The variety was introduced in 1895, after having received high encomiums from various horticultural authorities. The following is a compiled description:

DEVEREAUX.[179]
(Bourquiniana.)

The Devereaux is an old southern grape now nearly obsolete because of its capriciousness as to location. When it can be grown it is of high quality and makes a very good wine. The variety is of only historical and botanical interest. In France the Devereaux was at one time considered a valuable wine grape.

An article in the Horticulturist[180] for 1857 states that the Devereaux{236} was found in the woods over forty years before that date by Samuel M. Devereaux, who lived near Sparta, Georgia. It has been considerably confused with varieties which resemble it. The name Lincoln, in particular, is a questionable synonym which Dr. Curtis of Hillsboro, North Carolina, in a letter to the Gardener’s Monthly for 1860,[181] states was found near the junction of the South Fork and Catawba Rivers by Dr. William McLean. It was known locally under the names of McLean and Hart. Later it was sent to Longworth, who gave it the name Lincoln.

The descriptions of this variety from various sources are conflicting. That given below is copied from the Bushberg Catalogue.[182]

DIAMOND.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)

DIAMOND

Diamond is surpassed in quality and beauty by few other grapes. When to its desirable fruit characters are added its earliness, hardiness, productiveness and vigor it is surpassed by no other green grape. Niagara is more productive and therefore more profitable in most localities but in{237} many essential characters it falls short of Diamond and the difference in productiveness is not marked. We usually accord Niagara first place among green grapes but Diamond rivals it for the honor. The former attained high rank not only through merit but by much advertisement while Diamond has made its way by merit alone. If we consider the wants of the amateur and of the wine-maker as well as those of the commercial vineyardist, unquestionably Diamond must be accorded a high place among the best all-around grapes.

Diamond is a diluted hybrid between Vitis labrusca and Vitis vinifera; the touch of the exotic grape given by the Vinifera parents has been just sufficient to give it the richness in flavor of the Old World grape and not overcome the refreshing sprightliness of our native fox grapes. It is without the insipid sweetness of the first or the foxiness of the latter. The Vinifera characters are wholly recessive in vine and foliage, the plant resembling very closely its American parent, Concord. Diamond is not as highly esteemed as a commercial variety as it deserves to be, for beside being of high quality the fruit packs, carries and keeps well. Were it known by consumers the demand for it would be such that it would command a fancy price and thereby more than make up for its lack in fruitfulness, but through the unfortunate condition of American fruit markets it is, more often than not, sold as Niagara and has not therefore established the reputation it should have in the markets. Diamond is in demand among wine-makers and especially for the making of champagnes. For the amateur it has few superiors, the chief drawback for the small garden being that robins prefer it to most other varieties and greatly reduce the crop. Diamond is well established in Canada and can be grown in as great a range of latitude as the Concord. The vine is as free from the attacks of fungi as the Concord but the fruit is a little more susceptible to cryptogamic diseases and especially to black-rot, though not attacked by fungi so much as Niagara.

The late Jacob Moore of Brighton, New York, originated Diamond about 1870 from Concord seed fertilized by Iona. It was introduced about 1885. It has gained in favor somewhat slowly, and was not placed on the grape list of the American Pomological Society fruit catalog until 1897.{238}

DIANA.
(Labrusca, Vinifera, Aestivalis?)

DIANA

When introduced Diana promised to be the popular grape of the North and especially of New England. Its many good qualities warranted the high hopes of those who first grew it but time revealed so many defects that the variety never became widely distributed although few grapes surpass it, or even equal it, in high quality and handsome appearance{239} when at its best. Diana is a seedling of Catawba and was hailed as superior to its parent in quality, appearance and earliness. It was the last named character that especially commended it to northern grape-growers. Catawba can be grown in New York only in the most favored locations and hardly at all in New England even in its southern parts. It fails in the North because the seasons are too short for the fruit to mature. Diana is about two weeks earlier than Catawba and it was therefore thought that the offspring, lacking the defect of the parent, would take the rank in the North that the older variety held in the South.

Diana bears a strong resemblance to Catawba, differing chiefly in having a lighter color, a delicate pale red or rose, and in being less pulpy and more juicy. Usually the bunches, too, are more compact, those of Catawba as grown in the North being as a rule loose and sometimes straggling. The flavor resembles that of Catawba but when well grown and fully ripe it is more delicate and has less of the wild taste. The grapes keep exceptionally well. But its great point of superiority over Catawba is its earliness; it ripens from ten days to a fortnight earlier, making possible, as said above, its culture far to the north. The defects of Diana are as marked as its good qualities. It is precariously tender in cold winters and in regions where Concord goes without protection Diana must be favored. The grapes ripen unevenly, many being green when others are mature, and berries and foliage are both susceptible to fungi. Lastly it is in many localities a shy bearer and is almost always capricious. During the first few years in bearing, the fruit of Diana is very imperfect in flavor and deficient in size, true of many grapes but particularly so of this one. The best qualities of Diana are not brought out until the vines are seven or eight years of age.

Perhaps no grape better illustrates the importance of local influences and of knowledge of the peculiarities of varieties than Diana. All grapes have their likes and dislikes but this one is capricious beyond most others. It wants, for instance, comparatively poor, dry, gravelly soil without any considerable amount of humus or nitrogen. On clays, loams, or rich soils, the vines make a rank growth and the fruits are few, late and of poor quality. So, too, it needs to be long pruned, and to have all surplus bunches removed leaving a comparatively small crop to mature, and these should{240} hang until frost. To the fact that Diana is so easily influenced must be attributed the great diversity of opinion as to its worth, some holding it to be a most excellent variety while in a nearby vineyard it is considered worthless.

In favorable situations Diana may be expected to make a most satisfactory grape for the amateur and where it does especially well it will prove a profitable variety for the local market. Its splendid keeping qualities make it a very desirable grape for late winter. It is even better in this respect than Catawba, one of the best keepers. While the pulp of Diana has the meaty structure which adapts it for long keeping its pulpiness is not objectionable as in some grapes and its thick skin has a rich, spicy flavor. Wine made from Diana is said to be second to none from our native grapes, equalling or surpassing that made from Catawba.

To Mrs. Diana Crehore of Milton, Massachusetts, is due the honor of having originated Diana. The variety was produced from seed of the Catawba open to cross-pollination, planted about 1834. It was exhibited before the Massachusetts Horticultural Society in 1843. The Pomological Congress at their second meeting in 1850 placed Diana on their list as a “new variety which promises well,” and in 1854 it was included in the American Pomological Society list of sorts recommended for general cultivation. The demand for this grape was so keen that in 1850 it was sold for $15 a vine.

The species of Diana is usually given as Labrusca but the Vinifera-like berries and the intermittent tendrils indicate Vinifera and the bloom on the shoots suggests a strain of either Bicolor or Aestivalis.

DIANA HAMBURG.
(Vinifera, Labrusca, Aestivalis?)

Diana Hamburg has long since passed from cultivation and was never widely grown. Its parentage is indicated in its name. It is worth discussion here only because it is an illustration of what can be done in grape-breeding and because it was one of the parents of several better known sorts chief of which is Brighton. The fruit of Diana Hamburg is that of the European parent, while the vine is more nearly that of Diana in appearance but quite that of Black Hamburg in constitution, being very susceptible to disease, somewhat tender, unproductive in our climate and ripening its fruit late.

Diana Hamburg was the first of Jacob Moore’s productions, having been raised from seed of Diana fertilized by pollen of Black Hamburg about 1860. It was first exhibited at the New York Agricultural Society meeting in September, 1864. For a few years it attracted some attention but soon passed from cultivation. The following description is compiled from various sources:{242}

DON JUAN.
(Vinifera, Labrusca.)

In spite of many good characters, as high quality, attractive appearance, and a vine above the average in vigor and hardiness, Don Juan has not become established in American viticulture. It has been tested by grape collectors for forty years and is now passing from even the collections. Its chief fault in this State is that it ripens too late.

Don Juan was originated by J. H. Ricketts of Newburgh, New York, over thirty years ago from seed of Iona pollinated by General Marmora. The originator claimed that Don Juan was a better grape than its parent, Iona, but it has fallen far short of this in the vineyards of the State. The connection of the name with the grape is not apparent.

DOWNING.
(Vinifera, Aestivalis, Labrusca.)