Some

apple, Ortley, for instance, has nearly two dozen synonymous names, such as White Bellflower, Ohio Favorite, Detroit, Greasy Pippin, Inman, Yellow Pippin, jersey Greening, Warren Pippin, etc. Those older varieties of pears introduced from France are especially rich in synonyms. There is the common Easter Beurré, which has over a dozen, such as Doyenne d'Hiver, Beurré de Paques, Pater Noster, Beurré de la Pentecôte, Bergamotte de la Pentecôte, etc. times these synonymous names become so widely distributed and so well known as to supplant the proper names. We may cite among apples Jewett Red, which is generally known throughout New England as Nodhead. One of the most striking cases is that of the Abundance plum, which was first called Botan. The latter name, though entirely correct, has been superseded by the former. The variety is, however, still known as Botan in many sections. But other varieties also pass under the name of Botan, and this illustrates the second class of difficulties which arise in nomenclature. distinct varieties passing Satsuma-perhaps more.

There are also two

under the name The name Greasy

Pippin is applied to the Ortley apple, and to Grimes' Golden, and sometimes to other varieties.

There are two ways, theoretically at least, of settling such difficulties. The first is by authority, the second is by some code of rules. Not so very many years ago the former method was relied on, even in this country. Andrew Jackson Downing and Charles Downing, during their lifetime, stood so high among pomologists, and had the actual work of systematic pomology so much in their own hands, that their judgment was often accepted as final. So was the judgment of Dr. Warder among his associates. In the same way, but in a lesser degree, has the judgment of Professor Budd, Professor Bailey, and other pomologists, been accepted by those who believed them competent to settle such questions. But the circle of men who could be thus satisfied with the arbitrary decision of any one pomologist has grown relatively smaller year by year. Our country is now so large that one man can not understand nor control it all in any matter of a scientific sort. In one state one authority might be followed, but in another some other pomological dictator would be preferred; and

when these two wise men should disagree on certain names, what could the laymen do? Evidently we can not longer depend on such authority for the settlement of questions of nomenclature.

Formerly the American Pomological Society exercised a considerable influence in these affairs. Not infrequently its findings were accepted as putting an end to all further discussion. But the country has outgrown this method. For the same or similar reasons it is no longer possible for the Division of Pomology in our United States Department of Agriculture, or for any other institution or society, to exercise any final and arbitrary authority.

Our whole reliance must now be placed in some scientific system of nomenclature. We must have some simple, yet adequate, rules by which we can easily determine what the correct name of a variety is. In this respect horticulturists have much to learn from botanists and zoologists. They name the species of plants and animals, which they study according to rules upon which they are fairly well agreed, and though there are some inconsistencies, occasionally ridiculous ones,

yet on the whole the sciences of botany and zoology are immeasurably in advance of horticulture in this respect. We have, indeed, a code of rules for naming fruits; and though these rules are not above criticism, they are much in advance of the general practice in nomenclature. It is safe to say that no one fruit grower in a hundred has ever seen these rules. It is also plain that the rules are openly and flagrantly disregarded by many nurserymen and writers on horticultural topics. Of course some persons will never regard the rules, no matter how perfect they are, and no matter how strongly recommended by the leading pomologists and pomological societies. But the simpler and more fundamentally correct the rules are and the more widely they are understood, the more difficult will it become for any violations of them to gain a standing.

XI

THE LAZY CLUB CODE

VARIOUS attempts have been made in this country and in Europe to formulate a satisfactory set of working rules for pomological nomenclature. It would be interesting to trace the history of these efforts, but it is not essential. Instead of doing that, we shall examine, first, the so-called “Lazy Club Code for Pomological Nomenclature," and shall then take up briefly the rules of the American Pomological Society.

In introducing this Lazy Club code it is necessary to say that it has no official endorsement and no special public recognition. Nevertheless, it has been very widely discussed by American pomologists, who have in general expressed themselves favorably toward it. It doubtless gives the best pomological expression to the fundamental principles on which a scientific nomenclature is founded of any set of rules current in America, and it probably comes nearer covering the actual practice of