1. An. Hort., 1889:101. 2. Ia. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1890:117. 3. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 13:606. 1894. 4. Bush. Cat., 1894:174. fig. 5. Husmann, 1895:125. 6. Kan. Sta. Bul., 73:182. 1897. 7. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:535, 548, 556. 1898. 8. Tex. Sta. Bul., 48:1151, 1162. 1898. fig. 9. Mo. Sta. Bul., 46:41, 42, 44, 45, 53, 76. 1899. 10. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1899:31. 11. Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:271, 280. 1900.
Rommel is rarely found under cultivation in New York, lacking somewhat in robustness, hardiness and productiveness, and being very susceptible to the leaf-hopper. The variety comes from Munson of Denison, Texas, and is seemingly too far removed from the warm climate in which it originated to be profitable in New York. Besides the defects named above, it does not attain its natural high quality in this latitude and the grapes crack badly as they ripen. The bunch and berry are attractive in form, size and color as shown in the color-plate, though the illustration does not do justice to the size of the bunch, the season of 1908, in which the fruit was produced, having been cold and wet and therefore very unfavorable to this variety. At its best, Rommel is a very good table grape and the authorities say makes a very fine white wine. The variety is of interest to the student of grapes from the standpoint of its breeding, having very largely the vine characters of its maternal parent, Elvira, with somewhat better fruit. The name commemorates the service to viticulture of Jacob Rommel of Morrison, Missouri.
T. V. Munson originated Rommel in 1885 and introduced it in 1889. The parents are Elvira pollinated by Triumph. Rommel was placed on the grape list of the American Pomological Society fruit catalog in 1899.
Vine medium to vigorous, not always hardy, medium to productive, susceptible to injury by leaf-hoppers. Canes medium to long, moderately numerous, thick to medium, light to dark reddish-brown, surface somewhat rough; nodes enlarged, often flattened; internodes medium to short; diaphragm thick or nearly so; pith medium to large; shoots slightly glabrous; tendrils intermittent, medium to long, bifid to trifid.
Leaf-buds intermediate in size and thickness, short to medium, prominent, obtuse to conical, open very late. Young leaves tinged on under side and along margin of upper side with light rose-carmine. Leaves medium to above in size, roundish, thick; upper surface light green, dull, rugose; lower surface pale green, nearly free from pubescence but slightly hairy; leaf usually not lobed with terminus acute to acuminate; petiolar sinus medium to deep, narrow, often closed and overlapping; basal sinus lacking; lateral sinus very shallow when present; teeth medium to deep, of average width. Flowers semi-fertile, open moderately late; stamens upright.
Fruit ripens in mid-season, ships and keeps fairly well. Clusters variable in size, above medium to short, moderately broad, cylindrical to slightly tapering, usually single-shouldered, compact to medium; peduncle long to medium, thick; pedicel of average length, slender, usually smooth; brush short, pale green. Berries large to medium, oblate to roundish, frequently compressed on account of compactness of cluster, light green with yellow tinge, glossy, covered with a moderate amount of gray bloom, persistent, firm, but breaking easily under pressure. Skin thin, cracks badly, medium to tender, adheres very slightly to the pulp, contains no pigment, without astringency. Flesh greenish, translucent, juicy, tender and melting, slightly stringy, sweet to agreeably tart at center, variable in quality but ranks fair to good, appears to be better in some locations. Seeds separate easily from the pulp, one to four, average two, medium in size and length, rather broad, sharp-pointed, very plump, brownish; raphe buried in a somewhat wide groove; chalaza intermediate in size, above center, oval to circular, indistinct.
R. W. MUNSON.
(Lincecumii, Labrusca, Vinifera.)
1. Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1893:118. 2. Husmann, 1895:126. 3. Tex. Sta. Bul., 56:280. 1900. 4. Ga. Sta. Bul., 53:49. 1901. 5. Rural N. Y., 60:614, 726. 1901. 6. Ib., 62:790, 886. 1903. 7. Ia. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1904:239.
R. W. Munson, from Texas, is a somewhat promising variety for the North for its intrinsic value, and is certainly interesting from the standpoint of its breeding as it gives Northern growers a grape with a generous admixture of Lincecumii blood. Its several essential vine characters are very good though it is self-sterile and needs a companion variety which produces an abundance of pollen. Concord and Brilliant are recommended by the originator as notable pollenizers. R. W. Munson is particularly resistant to black-rot, making it valuable for regions where this fungus is a scourge. The fruit is sweet, juicy and very pleasantly flavored, with tender pulp, and while not of the highest quality yet a most pleasing and particularly refreshing grape. The variety is well worthy more extensive trial in New York.
T. V. Munson of Denison, Texas, raised the original vine of R. W. Munson from seed of Big Berry (a variety of Post-oak) pollinated by Triumph. The seed was planted in 1887 and the resulting variety introduced by the originator in the fall of 1894.
Vine vigorous, doubtfully hardy, productive, healthy. Canes medium to nearly long, intermediate in number, thick to medium, dark red; internodes medium to long; tendrils intermittent, bifid. Leaves healthy. Flowers sterile or nearly so, open late; stamens upright.
Fruit ripens about with Concord, does not keep well. Clusters below medium to small, rather short, often single-shouldered, compact to medium. Berries medium to large, slightly oblate, dull black covered with a medium amount of blue bloom, inclined to shatter considerably, not very firm. Skin thin, variable in toughness, not astringent. Flesh pale green, rather tender when fully ripe, peculiarly vinous, nearly sweet at skin to agreeably tart at center, slightly spicy and with some Post-oak flavor, good in quality. Seeds separate easily from the pulp, rather numerous, intermediate in size, length, and width. Raphe obscure in a very shallow groove; chalaza slightly above center, oval; obscure.
SAGE.
(Labrusca.)
1. Allen, 1848:134. 2. Horticulturist, 6:575. 1851. Ib., 7:87, 108. 1852. 4. U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1853:300, 301. 5. Mag. Hort., 24:91. 1858. 6. U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1859:48, 55, 66. 7. U. S. D. A. Rpt., 1864:134. 8. N. Y. Ag. Soc. Rpt., 1865:337. fig. 9.(?) Bush. Cat., 1894:151.
Mammoth (7, 8). ?Mammoth Sage (9). Sage (7, 8). Globe (8).
This variety, which is variously known under the names Sage, Mammoth Sage, Mammoth, and Globe, is of interest because it represents a type of large-fruited, early-ripening Labruscas which have been used frequently by breeders as the native parent in a Vinifera cross. A variety similar to this was used in particular by E. S. Rogers as the mother plant in making his notable crosses. They have also been used by White and others.
The original vine was a chance seedling found by Henry E. Sage about 1811 on the banks of a small stream near Portland, Connecticut. The variety was first brought to public notice by John Fiske Allen in 1848 through a very laudatory description which was much criticised by those who objected to the foxy aroma of the Sage but as warmly defended by others who liked the foxiness. The variety was later advertised and sent out by the Shaker community at Harvard, Worcester County, Massachusetts. Within a few years it seems to have been disseminated throughout eastern New England, and was particularly acceptable in those sections where Isabella failed to ripen. There is no evidence that it was ever planted except in gardens. With the introduction of Concord and other early varieties of higher quality the cultivation of the Sage was dropped. It is probably now obsolete.
The best description we have of Sage is the following, copied from the United States Department of Agriculture Report for 1864:
“It is much like most of the wild Fox grapes of this vicinity, [Massachusetts] but the berries are much larger, light chestnut or mahogany color, and they have a flattened or compressed shape, instead of being round, frequently an inch in diameter. The bunch is small with three to six berries in a round, ball-like cluster, with sometimes a side stem with one berry at the end of it for a shoulder. The stem of the bunch is not very long. The leaves usually are ‘entire’ with a short pointed termination at the end of the midrib, and two other points of the other divisions into which all American leaves are divided, making always either plainly, or in the rudimental state, five lobes. Thus the leaves are not much lobed, scarcely toothed, and have a rusty, woolly appearance. The young wood, last season’s growth, is hard and wiry and covered with bristles. The grape itself is sweet, but has a hard pulp, that some compare to a piece of India-rubber when eating it. It is early, and perfectly hardy, as much so as any wild grape in this vicinity.”
ST. LOUIS.
(Labrusca.)
1. Mo. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1899:54. 2. Ia. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1905:166. 3. Mich. Sta. Sp. Bul., 30:11. 1905.
As St. Louis grows on the Station grounds it is so similar to Worden and Concord that it would seem to be superfluous in the grape list of the State. But the variety is so highly recommended in the West, especially in the states from which the above references come, that it is possibly worthy of trial in the grape regions of New York as an early type of Concord.
St. Louis was introduced by Henry Wallis of Wellston, Missouri, about 1897. In 1900, he states that it is a seedling of Concord, was originated in St. Louis, and that it had created a sensation for twenty years in the St. Louis markets. The general character of both fruit and vine corroborates the Concord parentage though the frequently intermittent tendrils indicate there is a strain of other than Labrusca blood present.
Vine vigorous, hardy, medium to productive. Canes long to medium, intermediate in number, often rather thick, medium brown to nearly dark reddish-brown deepening in color at the nodes, covered with considerable pubescence; tendrils continuous to intermittent, bifid to trifid. Leaves very large to medium, variable in color, thick; lower surface grayish-white tinged with bronze; heavily pubescent. Flowers fertile or nearly so, open medium early; stamens upright. Fruit ripens about with Concord, or slightly earlier, keeps and ships well. Clusters large to medium, intermediate in length, rather broad, usually single-shouldered but occasionally with a double shoulder, medium to compact. Berries nearly large to medium, roundish, dull black, covered with thick blue bloom, persistent. Skin of average thickness and toughness. Flesh tough, foxy, sweet at skin to slightly acid at center, good in quality with a slight resemblance to Concord. Seeds do not separate easily from the pulp, medium to above in size and width, intermediate in length.
SALEM.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)
1. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1862:148. 2. U. S. D. A. Rpt., 1865:16. 3. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1867:114. 4. Mead, 1867:222. 5. Rec. of Hort., 1868:46. 6. N. Y. Ag. Soc. Rpt., 1868:228. 7. Mag. Hort., 34:7. 1868. 8. Horticulturist, 24:138. 1869. fig. 9. Grape Cult., 1:150, 181, 327. 1869. 10. Am. Jour. Hort., 5:264. 1869. 11. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1869:42. 12. Grape Cult., 2:148, 149, fig., 298. 1870. 13. Mich. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1877:205. 14. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1881:42, 138. 15. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 9:329. 1890. 16. Ill. Sta. Bul., 28:261. 1893. 17. Tenn. Sta. Bul., Vol. 9:187. 1896. 18. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:535, 542, 543, 544, 548, 553. 1898. 19. Mich. Sta. Bul., 169:175. 1899.
Rogers’ No. 22 (1, 2). Rogers’ No. 22 (3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15). Rogers’ No. 53 (4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17).
Salem is the one of Rogers’ hybrids of which the originator is said to have thought most and to which he gave the name of his place of residence. Taking all of its characters, the variety is as close an approximation to the ideal Rogers had in mind of a European grape and an American vine as any one of the score or more of his hybrids. Salem ranks among the best of these hybrids for either the garden or the commercial vineyard, and while commonly found in both it has not been sufficiently recognized by those who grow grapes for the market. It is difficult to say why it is not more largely grown as a market fruit in New York. The two chief faults, unproductiveness and susceptibility to mildew, are not found in all localities, and in these at least and especially near good markets, Salem ought to take high rank as a commercial fruit.
As compared with other hybrids of Vinifera and Labrusca, Salem is early, hardy, vigorous and fairly productive of handsome fruit of high quality both for table and for wine-making. Though the color-plate does not show it, there is a suggestion in bunch and berry of Black Hamburg, the paternal parent. So, too, there is such a suggestion in the flavor and the keeping quality and, as with the parent, the fruit neither cracks nor shatters and therefore ships well. To the two faults named above must be added that of pulpiness of berry, a defect common to many hybrids of the two species represented in Salem. It is useless to recommend for testing varieties that have been known as long and as widely grown as Salem but it is worth while, is almost a duty, in a work of this kind to urge further trials of some of the grapes of highest quality, as Salem, on a commercial basis. Such fruit properly grown, packed, and placed in the market ought to bring remunerative prices.
This one of Rogers’ hybrids is No. 22 of his Vinifera-Labrusca crosses. It early attracted favorable attention from the various cultivators who had received vines from the originator for testing. It was christened Salem by Rogers in 1867, two years earlier than his other hybrids were named. At about this time, owing to a confusion of this variety with some other, and charges that certain parties were sending out a black grape under the name Rogers’ No. 22, Rogers changed the number of Salem to 53.
Salem was placed on the grape list of the American Pomological Society fruit catalog in 1869 and was removed in 1871, reinstated in 1873, and has since been retained. It is possible that the dropping of the name from the catalog for the one year was a printer’s oversight as there is nothing in the body of the text to indicate a reason for such action. Salem has always been one of the most popular of Rogers’ hybrids and it is offered for sale to-day by practically all grape nurserymen.
Vine medium to vigorous, unusually hardy, variable in productiveness, susceptible to severe attacks of mildew. Canes long, of average number, intermediate in thickness, light to dark brown; nodes enlarged, usually not flattened; internodes medium to above in length; diaphragm thick; pith medium to above in size; shoots slightly pubescent; tendrils continuous to intermittent, long to medium, bifid to trifid.
Leaf-buds rather large, of average size, thick to medium, often compressed, roundish, obtuse to conical, open early. Young leaves faintly tinged on lower side with slight rose-carmine. Leaves variable in size, medium to thin; upper surface dark green, dull, of medium smoothness; lower surface pale green with slight bronze tinge, pubescent; veins moderately distinct; lobes none to three with terminus acute; petiolar sinus deep, narrow, often closed and overlapping; basal sinus lacking; lateral sinus shallow, narrow, often notched; teeth intermediate in depth and width. Flowers sterile, open in mid-season; stamens reflexed.
Fruit ripens slightly before Concord, keeps and ships well. Clusters medium to large, rather short and broad, tapering to cylindrical, frequently heavily single-shouldered, compact; peduncle short to medium, thick; pedicel medium to short, thick, covered with few small warts, enlarged at point of attachment to berry; brush short, pale green. Berries large to medium, roundish, very dark red, dull, covered with a medium amount of blue bloom, decidedly persistent, soft. Skin thick, intermediate in toughness, adheres strongly to the pulp, contains no pigment, astringent. Flesh slightly translucent, juicy, tender, somewhat stringy, moderately fine-grained, inclined to vinous, sprightly, sweet at skin but acid at center, good to very good in quality. Seeds one to six, average four, large, long and broad, blunt, brownish; raphe shows as a distinct cord-like ridge; chalaza small, roughened and frequently with radiating furrows, much above center, variable in shape, distinct.
SCUPPERNONG.[210]
(Rotundifolia.)
1. Amer. Farmer, 1:317. 1819. 2. Ib., 3:332. 1822. 3. Ib., 9:29, 30. 1827. 4. Ib., 9:139. 1827. 5. Prince, 1830:167. 6. Ib., 1830:170. 7. Downing, 1845:258. 8. Horticulturist, 12:457. 1857. 9. U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1857:231. 10. Gar. Mon., 5:73, 74. 1863. 11. Grape Cult., 1:38, 280, 292. 1869. 12. Ib., 3:60. 1871. 13. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1871:16. 14. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1881:40, 68, 147, 153, 155. 15. Gar. Mon., 28:140, 173. 1886. 16. Ala. Sta. Bul., 29:18. 1891. 17. Bush. Cat., 1894:177. fig. 18. Am. Gard., 20:688. 1899. 19. Ga. Sta. Bul., 53:49, 59. 1901. 20. N. C. Sta. Bul., 187:58, 60. 1903. 21. S. C. Sta. Bul., 132:18. 1907.
American Muscadine (5, 10, of the South 7). Bull (9, 17, of the South 7). Bullace (9, 17). Bullet (17, of the South 7). Fox grape of the South (7). Green Scuppernong (6). Green Muscadine (6). Hickman (3). Hickman (5, 10). Muscadine (9). Roanoke (4). Roanoke (5, 10, 17, of the South 7). Scuppernong (3, 4, 5). White Muscadine (11, 17). White Scuppernong (5). Wild green Muscadine (6). Yellow Muscadine (17).
The Scuppernong is preeminently the grape of the South. It is the chief representative of the great species Vitis rotundifolia, which runs riot in natural luxuriance from Delaware and Maryland to the Gulf, and westward from the Atlantic to Arkansas and Texas. The name Scuppernong was taken from the Indians and is now common in the geography of North Carolina; a river, a town, a lake, and a swamp all bear this appellation. Calvin Jones, an agriculturist of note in North Carolina during the early part of the last century, gives the following history of the name as applied to the grape it now distinguishes:[211] “This grape & wine had the name of Scuppernong given to them by Henderson & myself, in compliment to James Blount of Scuppernong, who first diffused a general knowledge of it in several well written communications in our paper—and it is cultivated with more success on that river than in any other part of the state, perhaps, except the Island of Roanoke.”
Scuppernong is said to have been found on Roanoke Island at the time of the landing of Sir Walter Raleigh’s colony. There is a tradition that an old vine now growing on this island is the original vine. At an early day it was quite common to propagate Scuppernong by seed, pulling out all vines bearing black fruit as soon as the color of the fruit could be determined. Because of this practice it is probable that there are many seminal varieties under the general name Scuppernong. All that seems to be required for a grape to pass under this name is that the vine should be a Rotundifolia and the fruit white.
In the horticultural accounts of the history of Scuppernong it is commonly spoken of as having been found wild during the latter part of the eighteenth century. But Lawson, writing about 1700, in the account quoted on page 37 of this work, describes with sufficient accuracy a white Rotundifolia which could hardly be any other than the Scuppernong. It is, thus, in a sense, a botanical as well as a horticultural variety. Its close relationship to the black form of Rotundifolia is attested by the fact that its seedlings are as often, probably more often, black than white. That Scuppernong is more distinct than the other varieties of Rotundifolia is indicated by the fact that of the ten cultivated varieties of Rotundifolia now grown in the South, James, Thomas, Eden, Meisch, Flowers, Memory, Seedlin, Tenderpulp, Jeter, and Scuppernong as given by Newman,[212] all are black but the last named.
Scuppernong vines are to be found on arbors, in gardens, or half wild, on trees and fences on nearly every farm in the South Atlantic States. As a rule, these vines receive little cultivation, are unpruned, and are given no care of any kind, but even under neglect they produce large and sure crops, are almost immune to mildew, rot, phylloxera, or other fungal or insect pests. The plants give not only an abundance of fruit but on arbors and trellises are much prized for their shade and beauty. The growth of the vine is prodigious; seemingly well authenticated reports state that vines are known which cover an acre of land; other tales, having at least the semblance of truth, are equally marvellous. Thus there are accounts of vines of this variety over a hundred years old and which bear 500 bushels of fruit and make 2000 gallons of wine.
The fruit, to a palate accustomed to other grapes, is not very acceptable, having a musky flavor and a somewhat repugnant odor, which, however, becomes with familiarity, it is said, quite agreeable. The pulp is sweet and juicy but is lacking in sprightliness. From the Scuppernong are made several very good wines and it would seem that the future of this and other varieties of Rotundifolia, from a commercial standpoint, lies largely in their value for wine. Quite aside from the quality of the fruit as a table grape, they are not suitable for the market from the fact that the berries drop from the bunch in ripening and become more or less smeared with juice so that as they are brought into market in quantity, their appearance is not at all appetizing.
Vine vigorous to rank, not hardy in the North, very productive. Canes long, numerous, slender, vary from ash-gray to grayish-brown; surface smooth, thickly covered with small, light brown dots; pith greenish; tendrils intermittent, simple. Leaves small, thin; upper surface light green, smooth; lower surface very pale green, slightly pubescent along the ribs, otherwise smooth; veins inconspicuous. Flowers open very late; stamens reflexed.
Fruit ripens late, even in the South, often ripening unevenly, appears to keep well but berries drop as they mature. Clusters small, roundish, not shouldered, loose. Berries very few per cluster, large, roundish, dull green often with brown tinge, not persistent, firm. Skin very thick and tough, covered with many small russet dots; no pigment. Flesh pale green, juicy, tender and soft, fine-grained, very foxy, sweet to agreeably tart, fair to good in quality. Seeds slightly adherent to pulp, large, medium to short, often very broad, not notched, quite blunt, plump, surface unusually smooth, brownish; raphe buried in a narrow, shallow groove; chalaza small, nearly central, elongated, rather obscure. Must 88°.
SECRETARY.
(Vinifera, Riparia, Labrusca.)
1. Grape Cult., 2:158. 1870. 2. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1871:41, 112. 3. Mass. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1872:94. 4. Horticulturist, 29:328. 1874. 5. Ohio Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1876-7:32. 6. N. J. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1881:11. 7. W. N. Y. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 27:21. 1882. 8. Bush. Cat., 1883:135. fig. 9. Mass. Hatch Sta. Bul., 37:11, 16. 1896. 10. Tex. Sta. Bul., 48:1151, 1162. 1898. 11. Mich. Sta. Bul., 169:176. 1899. 12. Mo. Sta. Bul., 46:41. 1891.
Injured by mildew and rot which nearly every year attack leaves, fruit and young wood, Secretary is able only in exceptional seasons and in favored localities to produce a crop of good grapes. Nevertheless it has many excellent qualities as an amateur grape and should not be lost to cultivation. The fact that it is the result of the fecundation of a Riparia by a Vinifera, both parents being excellent varieties, gives Secretary added interest and value and makes its perpetuation still further worth while.
There is no question as to the rank of the fruit characters of Secretary. Taken together they make it a grape of exceptionally high quality, the berries being meaty yet juicy, fine-grained and tender with a sweet, spicy, vinous flavor. The bunches are large, well formed with medium-sized, purplish-black berries covered with thick bloom, making a very handsome cluster. While the vine and foliage somewhat resemble those of Clinton, one of its parents, the variety is not nearly as hardy, vigorous or productive nor as healthy, falling short in all of these respects and making its culture in New York precarious. Moreover, in any but favored localities in this State, its maturity is somewhat uncertain. These defects of vine have kept Secretary from becoming of commercial importance and make it of value only to the amateur.
Secretary is one of the first productions of Ricketts of Newburgh. He grew the original vine from seed of Clinton fertilized by Muscat Hamburg. Planted in 1867, it is said to have borne a little fruit when one year old from the seed. Specimens of the variety were exhibited before the American Pomological Society in 1871. Ricketts sold the variety about 1875 to S. W. Underhill of Croton Point, New York, who introduced it a few years later. On account of its many weak points it has never been popular and it is apparently not offered for sale by any of the nurserymen to-day.
Vine not uniform in vigor, doubtfully hardy, quite variable in productiveness, inclined to be an uncertain bearer, subject to attacks of fungi. Canes medium to below in length, numerous, intermediate in thickness, light brown but conspicuously darker at nodes, surface covered with thin blue bloom; tendrils intermittent, bifid. Leaves small to medium, thin; upper surface light green, nearly dull, smooth; lower surface pale green, almost glabrous; veins indistinct. Flowers semi-fertile, open early; stamens upright.
Fruit ripens soon after Concord, keeps and ships well. Clusters medium to large, long to medium, of average width, cylindrical to tapering, frequently with a medium to large single shoulder, variable in compactness but often loose and with many abortive fruits. Berries large to medium, roundish to oval, somewhat flattened at point of attachment to pedicel, dark purplish-black, glossy, covered with thick blue bloom, persistent, firm. Skin intermediate in thickness, tough with wine-colored pigment. Flesh greenish, juicy, fine-grained, tender, vinous, sweet, good in quality. Seeds separate readily from the pulp, medium to nearly large, broad to medium, slightly notched, long to above medium, dark brown; raphe shows as a moderately distinct cord; chalaza small, above center, distinctly oval. Must 93°.
SENASQUA.
(Labrusca, Vinifera.)
1. Mass. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1868:10. 2. Downing, 1872:120 app. 3. Am. Jour. Hort., 8:9. 1870. fig. 4. U. S. D. A. Rpt., 1875:384. 5. Bush. Cat., 1883:138. fig. 6. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 9:327. 1890. 7. Ib., 11:636. 1892. 8. Ib., 17:535, 546, 547. 1898. 9. Ga. Sta. Bul., 53:49. 1901.
It is almost a sufficient characterization of Senasqua to say that it is a Labrusca-Vinifera hybrid. The merits and demerits of the cross-breeds of these two species are so similar in the varieties of them now in cultivation that they can be placed in a group having as few variations as can be found in the parent species. The characters of these hybrid grapes have been well discussed in writing of the varieties sent out by Rogers and the place of Senasqua is well designated when the statement is made that it is very similar to Rogers’ hybrids. The vine lacks somewhat in vigor, hardiness, productiveness and health. The grapes are of good quality and when well grown the variety is up to the average of such hybrids in fruit characters so far as the palate is concerned. Unfortunately the berries have a tendency to crack which is aggravated by the fact that the bunches are so compact as to crowd the berries and thus add to the cracking. Senasqua is one of the latest to open its buds and is therefore seldom injured by late frosts. This variety is hardly as well adapted for commercial viticulture as several other such hybrids and can be recommended only for the garden for the sake of variety.
Stephen W. Underhill of Croton Point, New York, originated Senasqua from seed of Concord pollinated by Black Prince. The seed was planted in 1863 and the resulting variety introduced about 1870. This variety, although it attracted much attention at the time of its introduction, was never popular. It was rather widely tested but was soon dropped and is to-day practically obsolete. The foliage and vines of Senasqua show little trace of Vinifera but the descent from the foreign species is plainly marked in the fruit.
Vine variable in vigor, sometimes weak and tender, medium to unproductive, somewhat susceptible to attacks of mildew. Canes short, few in number, above average size, light to dark reddish-brown; nodes enlarged, flattened; internodes short to medium; diaphragm thick; pith of medium size; shoots slightly pubescent; tendrils intermittent, long to medium, trifid to bifid.
Leaf-buds below average size, short, of medium thickness, conical, open very late, tinged on under side and slightly along margin of upper side with light rose-carmine. Leaves intermediate in size and thickness, light green, slightly glossy, medium to somewhat rugose; lower surface whitish-green, pubescent; veins distinct; leaf usually not lobed with terminus acute; petiolar sinus of average depth, medium to narrow; basal and lateral sinuses shallow and narrow when present; teeth intermediate in depth and width. Flowers fertile, open late; stamens upright.
Fruit ripens a little later than Concord, keeps well. Clusters large to medium, intermediate in length, broad to medium, irregularly tapering, usually with a small single shoulder, very compact with uneven surface; peduncle short to medium, thick; pedicel intermediate in length, thick, usually smooth, enlarged at point of attachment to fruit; brush short to medium, green with slight red tinge. Berries above medium in size, roundish, reddish-black to black, covered with heavy blue bloom, persistent, firm. Skin medium to thick, tender, inclined to crack, adheres strongly to the pulp, contains a fair amount of light wine-colored pigment, without astringency. Flesh greenish, translucent, very juicy, tender, meaty, vinous, somewhat spicy, sprightly, good in quality. Seeds separate readily from the pulp, one to five, average two, intermediate in size, rather long, narrow, usually one-sided, light brown; raphe buried in a narrow groove; chalaza small, above center, oval, obscure.
SHELBY.
(Labrusca, Riparia.)
1. Vineyardist, Oct. 15, 1893. 2. Rural N. Y., 53:683. 1894. 3. Bush. Cat., 1894:180. 4. Rural N. Y., 55:638, fig., 642. 1896. 5. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:535, 546, 547, 557. 1898. 6. Ga. Sta. Bul., 53:49. 1901.
Shelby is hardly worth cultivating in New York. It ripens at a time when there are many other grapes which surpass it in flavor and appearance. It has, however, been somewhat highly spoken of and grape experimenters may want to try the variety. The name is from Shelby, Ohio, the birthplace of the originator.
D. S. Marvin of Watertown, New York, originated the Shelby about 1880. It was introduced in the fall of 1894. The originator writes that the parentage of this variety is not positively known but it is supposed to be a Labrusca-Riparia cross. The botanical characters of the fruit and vine as it grows on the Station grounds verify this supposition.
Vine vigorous, variable in hardiness, medium to productive. Canes long, numerous, medium to slender; tendrils intermittent, sometimes continuous, bifid to trifid. Leaves uniform in size, green, often thin; lower surface grayish-green with tinge of bronze, strongly pubescent. Flowers fertile or nearly so, open in mid-season or earlier; stamens upright. Fruit ripens early, sometimes before Winchell, does not keep nor ship well. Clusters medium to below in size, short, frequently with a single shoulder, shorter and more compact than Winchell. Berries medium to small, roundish, light green to yellowish-green, covered with thin gray bloom, somewhat inclined to shatter. Skin thin, variable in toughness, peculiarly astringent. Flesh tough, stringy, foxy, sweet from skin to center, mild, fair to good in quality. Seeds do not separate readily from the pulp, not very numerous, medium to below in size, short, broad, plump.
STANDARD.
(Labrusca, Vinifera, Bourquiniana?)
1. Kan. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1886:187. 2. Mo. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1892:266. 3. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 11:637. 1892. 4. Bush. Cat., 1894:180. 5. Va. Sta. Bul., 94:136. 1898. 6. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:535, 548, 557. 1898. 7. Mo. Sta. Bul., 46:41. 1899.
Burr’s No. 2 (1).
Standard is said to be a full sister of Jewel, but it is not equal to the sister nor nearly equal to the reputed parent, Delaware. The variety seems to be thought highly of in the West and it is possible that it has greater value there than in New York. The quality of the grape is high and it is said to make a light-colored wine of good body, taste and aroma, but taking it all and all it does not rise above mediocre and cannot be recommended unless for trial.
The variety was originated by John Burr of Leavenworth, Kansas, from seed of Delaware planted about 1874. It was introduced in 1887 by Stayman & Black of Leavenworth, Kansas. There are few characters of either vine or fruit that show evidence of having come from Delaware.
Vine variable in vigor, usually hardy in ordinary seasons, productive. Canes short to medium, few in number, rather slender; tendrils continuous to intermittent, bifid to trifid. Leaves not very healthy, medium to small, moderately light green; lower surface tinged with bronze, pubescent. Flowers partly fertile, open in mid-season; stamens upright. Fruit ripens about with Concord, usually keeps fairly well. Clusters not uniform in size, short, frequently with a small single shoulder, compact to medium. Berries small to above medium, roundish, very dark reddish-black covered with a large amount of lilac bloom, sometimes shatter considerably from pedicel. Skin thin, rather tender. Flesh unusually pale green, somewhat stringy, vinous, tender, sweet from skin to center, good in quality. Seeds slightly adherent, medium to small, intermediate in width; chalaza oval, often distinctly above center.
STARK-STAR.
(Labrusca, Vinifera, Aestivalis.)
1. National Nur., 10:128, 133. 1902. 2. Rural N. Y., 62:788. 1903. 3. Ill. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1903:65, 208, 274, 276. 4. Mo. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1904:301.
Stark-Star is receiving careful attention in the South and Southwest but unfortunately it does not ripen early enough to promise well for this latitude. On the Station grounds it ripens after Catawba, which does not always mature. If the variety fulfills the high expectations of it in the region of its origin it is worthy a trial in the regions of this State where the Catawba ripens.
The variety was originated by Joseph Bachman of Altus, Arkansas, from seed of Catawba fertilized by Norton or Hermann. The seed was planted about 1892. Stark-Star was introduced by Stark Brothers, of Louisiana, Missouri.
Vine vigorous, hardy, healthy, productive. Canes medium to short, numerous, often slender, roughened; tendrils continuous to intermittent, bifid to trifid. Leaves large to medium, dark green, frequently thin; lower surface pale green, slightly pubescent, cobwebby. Fruit ripens later than Catawba, appears to be an excellent keeper. Clusters large, medium to long, inclined to broadness, frequently with a well marked short single shoulder, very compact. Berries medium to below in size, oval to roundish but frequently compressed on account of compactness of cluster, black when ripe, covered with blue bloom, persistent. Skin intermediate in thickness, tender. Flesh pale green, not very juicy, tough and solid, slightly aromatic and spicy, almost sweet, fair to good in quality. Seeds adhere somewhat to the pulp, numerous, medium to small, intermediate in length and width, plump; raphe shows as a distinct cord; chalaza distinctly above center to nearly central.
SUPERB.
(Labrusca, Vinifera, Aestivalis.)
1. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1891:126. 2. Mo. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1891:126. 3. Rural N. Y., 52:636. 1893. fig. 4. Bush. Cat., 1894:180. 5. Husmann, 1895:38. 6. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 18:396. 1899. 7. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1899:28, 8. Ga. Sta. Bul., 53:49. 1901.
The quality of Superb ranges from good to very good but the appearance of the fruit is against the variety. It resembles Eumelan, the reputed parent, in size, shape, and color but is not as attractive. The vine on the Station grounds is not such as to recommend it highly, and since it has been known for at least twenty years without having become at all popular with grape-growers, it may be assumed that the grape has weaknesses elsewhere as well as here.
A. F. Rice of Griswoldville, Georgia, originated this variety, it is said, from seed of Eumelan. The seed was planted in 1880 near South Weymouth, Massachusetts. Superb was placed on the grape list of the American Pomological Society fruit catalog in 1899.
Vine medium to vigorous, usually hardy, healthy, productive. Canes short to medium, few in number, often tapering, ash-gray changing to light or dark brown; tendrils continuous, bifid. Leaves healthy, medium to large, moderately light green; lower surface grayish-green, thinly pubescent, the pubescence being distributed in flecks. Flowers strongly self-fertile, open in mid-season or later; stamens upright. Fruit ripens before Concord, keeps and ships well. Clusters intermediate in size and width, medium to long, frequently with a long, loose single shoulder, compact. Berries medium to below in size, roundish to oval, dark purplish-black covered with thin blue bloom, persistent, not very firm. Skin thick, tough, without astringency. Flesh juicy, tender, aromatic, sweet from skin to center, spicy, good to very good in quality. Seeds separate readily from the pulp, medium to small, medium to long, sharp-pointed; raphe occasionally shows as a partially submerged cord in a broad groove; chalaza distinctly above center.
TAYLOR.
(Riparia, Labrusca.)
1. Valley Farmer, 1858:122. 2. Horticulturist, 14:486. 1859. 3. Ib., 15:34. 1860. 4. Gar. Mon., 2:68, 119, 163. 1860. 5. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1860:78. 6. Horticulturist, 19:156. 1864. 7. Husmann, 1866:104. 8. Fuller, 1867:231. 9. Grape Cult., 1:44, 74, 242, 291, 296. 1869. 10. Ill. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1881:161. 11. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1883:133. 12. Bush. Cat., 1883:20, 138. 13. Tex. Sta. Bul., 48:1151, 1162. 1898. 14. Mo. Sta. Bul., 46:41, 43, 45, 46, 76. 1899. 15. Ga. Sta. Bul., 53:49. 1901.
Bullitt (1, 4). Bullitt (3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12). Taylor (2, 5). Taylor (4, 11). Taylor Bullit (13, 14). Taylor’s Bullitt (8, 11). Taylor’s Bullitt (12).
Taylor is hardly known in New York nor, indeed, is it now much grown elsewhere. It is of interest for the part it has played in the grape culture of the past and especially for its worthy offspring. Many of these now outrank the parent in the regions and for the purposes for which Taylor is grown. In truth, the most valuable quality of Taylor seems to be its capacity for transmitting its good characters to its seedlings; some of course fall much below it, as a table or wine grape, but a considerable number quite equal it, and a few surpass it, but all resemble the parent vine much more than is common among grapes. While it is from the species to which Taylor belongs that we must look for our hardiest vines yet this grape and its offspring, though not particularly tender to cold, do best in southern regions as they require a long, warm summer and fall to mature properly. Taylor was long grown in both Europe and California as a grafting stock for the Old World varieties as a protection against phylloxera, and is still somewhat cultivated in these regions for that purpose.
The quality of the fruit of Taylor is from fair to good, the flavor being sweet, pure, delicate and spicy and the flesh tender and juicy, but the bunches are small, the flowers infertile so that the berries do not set well and give very imperfect and unsightly clusters. The skin is such, too, that it cracks badly, a defect that is seemingly transmitted to many of the seedlings of the variety. The vine is strong, healthy, hardy but not very productive. Taylor is essentially a wine grape, and it is not likely that it or many of the varieties bred from it will make table grapes. The wine is said to be exceptionally good, of great body and high flavor.
The original vine of Taylor was a wild seedling found in the early part of the last century on the Cumberland Mountains near the Kentucky-Tennessee line by a Mr. Cobb who planted the vine on his farm in Shelby County, Kentucky. Later the farm was sold to Cuthbert Bullitt. About 1840, the grape came to the attention of Judge John Taylor of Jericho, Henry County, Kentucky, an enthusiastic amateur horticulturist who secured the vine from Bullitt and sent cuttings to many grape-growers for testing. It was early introduced into the grape region of the middle West where it was widely tested but was never extensively planted owing to its lack of productiveness. Its culture has been on the wane for many years and only an occasional nurseryman in that section handles the variety to-day. This variety has, at different times, passed under the names Bullitt, Taylor, Taylor’s Bullitt, with various spellings of the name Bullitt.
The following description has been compiled from various sources: