The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication · Charles Darwin
CHAPTER X. PLANTS _continued_—FRUITS—ORNAMENTAL TREES—FLOWERS.
FRUITS. GRAPES: VARY IN ODD AND TRIFLING PARTICULARS—MULBERRY: THE ORANGE GROUP—SINGULAR RESULTS FROM CROSSING— PEACH AND NECTARINE: BUD VARIATION—ANALOGOUS VARIATION—RELATION TO THE ALMOND—APRICOT—PLUMS: VARIATION IN THEIR STONES— CHERRIES: SINGULAR VARIETIES OF—APPLE—PEAR—STRAWBERRY: INTERBLENDING OF THE ORIGINAL FORMS—GOOSEBERRY: STEADY INCREASE IN SIZE OF THE FRUIT—VARIETIES OF—WALNUT—NUT—CUCURBITACEOUS PLANTS: WONDERFUL VARIATION OF. ORNAMENTAL TREES. THEIR VARIATION IN DEGREE AND KIND—ASH-TREE—SCOTCH-FIR—HAWTHORN. FLOWERS. MULTIPLE ORIGIN OF MANY KINDS—VARIATION IN CONSTITUTIONAL PECULIARITIES—KIND OF VARIATION—ROSES: SEVERAL SPECIES CULTIVATED—PANSY—DAHLIA—HYACINTH: HISTORY AND VARIATION OF. _The Vine (Vitis vinifera)._—The best authorities consider all our grapes as the descendants of one species which now grows wild in western Asia, which grew wild during the Bronze age in Italy,[1] and which has recently been found fossil in a tufaceous deposit in the south of France.[2] Some authors, however, entertain much doubt about the single parentage of our cultivated varieties, owing to the number of semi-wild forms found in Southern Europe, especially as described by Clemente[3] in a forest in Spain; but as the grape sows itself freely in Southern Europe, and as several of the chief kinds transmit their characters by seed,[4] whilst others are extremely variable, the existence of many different escaped forms could hardly fail to occur in countries where this plant has been cultivated from the remotest antiquity. That the vine varies much when propagated by seed, we may infer from the largely increased number of varieties since the earlier historical records. New hot-house varieties are produced almost every year; for instance,[5] a golden-coloured variety has been recently raised in England from a black grape without the aid of a cross. Van Mons[6] reared a multitude of varieties from the seed of one vine, which was completely separated from all others, so that there could not, at least in this generation, have been any crossing, and the seedlings presented “les analogues de toutes les sortes,” and differed in almost every possible character both in the fruits and foliage.
The cultivated varieties are extremely numerous; Count Odart says that he will not deny that there may exist throughout the world 700 or 800, perhaps even 1000 varieties, but not a third of these have any value. In the catalogue of fruit cultivated in the Horticultural Gardens of London, published in 1842, 99 varieties are enumerated. Wherever the grape is grown many varieties occur: Pallas describes 24 in the Crimea, and Burnes mentions 10 in Cabool. The classification of the varieties has much perplexed writers, and Count Odart is reduced to a geographical system; but I will not enter on this subject, nor on the many and great differences between the varieties. I will merely specify a few curious and trifling peculiarities, all taken from Odart’s highly esteemed work[7] for the sake of showing the diversified variability of this plant. Simon has classed grapes into two main divisions, those with downy leaves, and those with smooth leaves, but he admits that in one variety, namely the Rebazo, the leaves are either smooth, or downy; and Odart (p. 70) states that some varieties have the nerves alone, and other varieties their young leaves, downy, whilst the old ones are smooth.
The Pedro-Ximenes grape (Odart, p. 397) presents a peculiarity by which it can be at once recognised amongst a host of other varieties, namely, that when the fruit is nearly ripe the nerves of the leaves or even the whole surface becomes yellow. The Barbera d’Asti is well marked by several characters (p. 426), amongst others, “by some of the leaves, and it is always the lowest on the branches, suddenly becoming of a dark red colour.” Several authors in classifying grapes have founded their main divisions on the berries being either round or oblong; and Odart admits the value of this character; yet there is one variety, the Maccabeo (p. 71), which often produces small round, and large oblong, berries in the same bunch. Certain grapes called Nebbiolo (p. 429) present a constant character, sufficient for their recognition, namely, “the slight adherence of that part of the pulp which surrounds the seeds to the rest of the berry, when cut through transversely.” A Rhenish variety is mentioned (p. 228) which likes a dry soil; the fruit ripens well, but at the moment of maturity, if much rain falls, the berries are apt to rot; on the other hand, the fruit of a Swiss variety (p. 243) is valued for well sustaining prolonged humidity.
This latter variety sprouts late in the spring, yet matures its fruit early; other varieties (page 362) have the fault of being too much excited by the April sun, and in consequence suffer from frost. A Styrian variety (p. 254) has brittle foot-stalks, so that the clusters of fruit are often blown off; this variety is said to be particularly attractive to wasps and bees. Other varieties have tough stalks, which resist the wind. Many other variable characters could be given, but the foregoing facts are sufficient to show in how many small structural and constitutional details the vine varies. During the vine disease in France certain old groups of varieties[8] have suffered far more from mildew than others. Thus “the group of Chasselas, so rich in varieties, did not afford a single fortunate exception;” certain other groups suffered much less; the true old Burgundy, for instance, was comparatively free from disease, and the Carminat likewise resisted the attack. The American vines, which belong to a distinct species, entirely escaped the disease in France; and we thus see that those European varieties which best resist the disease must have acquired in a slight degree the same constitutional peculiarities as the American species.
_White Mulberry (Morus alba)._—I mention this plant because it has varied in certain characters, namely, in the texture and quality of the leaves, fitting them to serve as food for the domesticated silkworm, in a manner not observed with other plants; but this has arisen simply from such variations in the mulberry having been attended to, selected, and rendered more or less constant. M. de Quatrefages[9] briefly describes six kinds cultivated in one valley in France: of these the _ amourouso_ produces excellent leaves, but is rapidly being abandoned because it produces much fruit mingled with the leaves: the _antofino_ yields deeply cut leaves of the finest quality, but not in great quantity: the _claro_ is much sought for because the leaves can be easily collected: lastly, the _roso_ bears strong hardy leaves, produced in large quantity, but with the one inconvenience, that they are best adapted for the worms after their fourth moult. MM. Jacquemet-Bonnefont, of Lyon, however, remark in their catalogue (1862) that two sub-varieties have been confounded under the name of the roso, one having leaves too thick for the caterpillars, the other being valuable because the leaves can easily be gathered from the branches without the bark being torn. In India the mulberry has also given rise to many varieties. The Indian form is thought by many botanists to be a distinct species; but as Royle remarks,[10] “so many varieties have been produced by cultivation that it is difficult to ascertain whether they all belong to one species;” they are, as he adds, nearly as numerous as those of the silkworm.
_The Orange Group._—We here meet with great confusion in the specific distinction and parentage of the several kinds. Gallesio,[11] who almost devoted his life-time to the subject, considers that there are four species, namely, sweet and bitter oranges, lemons, and citrons, each of which has given rise to whole groups of varieties, monsters, and supposed hybrids. One high authority[12] believes that these four reputed species are all varieties of the wild _Citrus medica,_ but that the shaddock (_Citrus decumana_), which is not known in a wild state, is a distinct species; though its distinctness is doubted by another writer “of great authority on such matters,” namely, Dr. Buchanan Hamilton. Alph. De Candolle,[13] on the other hand—and there cannot be a more capable judge—advances what he considers sufficient evidence of the orange (he doubts whether the bitter and sweet kinds are specifically distinct), the lemon, and citron, having been found wild, and consequently that they are distinct. He mentions two other forms cultivated in Japan and Java, which he ranks undoubted species; he speaks rather more doubtfully about the shaddock, which varies much, and has not been found wild; and finally he considers some forms, such as Adam’s apple and the bergamotte, as probably hybrids.
I have briefly abstracted these opinions for the sake of showing those who have never attended to such subjects, how perplexing they are. It would, therefore, be useless for my purpose to give a sketch of the conspicuous differences between the several forms. Besides the ever-recurrent difficulty of determining whether forms found wild are truly aboriginal or are escaped seedlings, many of the forms, which must be ranked as varieties, transmit their characters almost perfectly by seed. Sweet and bitter oranges differ in no important respect except in the flavour of their fruit, but Gallesio[14] is most emphatic that both kinds can be propagated by seed with absolute certainty. Consequently, in accordance with his simple rule, he classes them as distinct species; as he does sweet and bitter almonds, the peach and nectarine, etc. He admits, however, that the soft-shelled pine-tree produces not only soft-shelled but some hard-shelled seedlings, so that a little greater force in the power of inheritance would, according to this rule, raise a soft-shelled pine-tree into the dignity of an aboriginally created species. The positive assertion made by Macfayden[15] that the pips of sweet oranges produced in Jamaica, according to the nature of the soil in which they are sown, either sweet or bitter oranges, is probably an error; for M. Alph. De Candolle informs me that since the publication of his great work he has received accounts from Guiana, the Antilles, and Mauritius, that in these countries sweet oranges faithfully transmit their character. Gallesio found that the willow-leafed and the Little China oranges reproduced their proper leaves and fruit; but the seedlings were not quite equal in merit to their parents. The red-fleshed orange, on the other hand, fails to reproduce itself. Gallesio also observed that the seeds of several other singular varieties all reproduced trees having a peculiar physiognomy, partly resembling their parent-forms. I can adduce another case: the myrtle leaved orange is ranked by all authors as a variety, but is very distinct in general aspect: in my father’s greenhouse, during many years, it rarely yielded any fruit, but at last produced one; and a tree thus raised was identical with the parent-form.
Another and more serious difficulty in determining the rank of the several forms is that, according to Gallesio,[16] they largely intercross without artificial aid; thus he positively states that seeds taken from lemon-trees (_C. lemonum_) growing mingled with the citron (_C. medica_), which is generally considered as a distinct species, produced a graduated series of varieties between these two forms. Again, an Adam’s apple was produced from the seed of a sweet orange, which grew close to lemons and citrons. But such facts hardly aid us in determining whether to rank these forms as species or varieties; for it is now known that undoubted species of Verbascum, Cistus, Primula, Salix, etc., frequently cross in a state of nature. If indeed it were proved that plants of the orange tribe raised from these crosses were even partially sterile, it would be a strong argument in favour of their rank as species. Gallesio asserts that this is the case; but he does not distinguish between sterility from hybridism and from the effects of culture; and he almost destroys the force of this statement by another[17] namely, that when he impregnated the flowers of the common orange with the pollen taken from undoubted _varieties_ of the orange, monstrous fruits were produced, which included “little pulp, and had no seeds, or imperfect seeds.” In this tribe of plants we meet with instances of two highly remarkable facts in vegetable physiology: Gallesio[18] impregnated an orange with pollen from a lemon, and the fruit borne on the mother tree had a raised stripe of peel like that of a lemon both in colour and taste, but the pulp was like that of an orange and included only imperfect seeds. The possibility of pollen from one variety or species directly affecting the fruit produced by another variety of species, is a subject which I shall fully discuss in the following chapter.
The second remarkable fact is, that two supposed hybrids[19] (for their hybrid nature was not ascertained), between an orange and either a lemon or citron, produced on the same tree leaves, flowers, and fruit of both pure parent-forms, as well as of a mixed or crossed nature. A bud taken from any one of the branches and grafted on another tree produces either one of the pure kinds or a capricious tree reproducing the three kinds. Whether the sweet lemon, which includes within the same fruit segments of differently flavoured pulp,[20] is an analogous case, I know not. But to this subject I shall have to recur. I will conclude by giving from A. Risso[21] a short account of a very singular variety of the common orange. It is the “_citrus aurantium fructu variabili,_” which on the young shoots produces rounded-oval leaves spotted with yellow, borne on petioles with heart-shaped wings; when these leaves fall off, they are succeeded by longer and narrower leaves, with undulated margins, of a pale-green colour embroidered with yellow, borne on footstalks without wings. The fruit whilst young is pear-shaped, yellow, longitudinally striated, and sweet; but as it ripens, it becomes spherical, of a reddish-yellow, and bitter.
_Peach and Nectarine (Amygdalus persica)._—The best authorities are nearly unanimous that the peach has never been found wild. It was introduced from Persia into Europe a little before the Christian era, and at this period few varieties existed. Alph. De Candolle,[22] from the fact of the peach not having spread from Persia at an earlier period, and from its not having pure Sanscrit or Hebrew names, believes that it is not an aboriginal of Western Asia, but came from the _terra incognita_ of China. The supposition, however, that the peach is a modified almond which acquired its present character at a comparatively late period, would, I presume, account for these facts; on the same principle that the nectarine, the offspring of the peach, has few native names, and became known in Europe at a still later period. Illustration: Peach and Almond Stones.
Andrew Knight,[23] from finding that a seedling-tree, raised from a sweet almond fertilised by the pollen of a peach, yielded fruit quite like that of a peach, suspected that the peach-tree is a modified almond; and in this he has been followed by various authors.[24] A first-rate peach, almost globular in shape, formed of soft and sweet pulp, surrounding a hard, much furrowed, and slightly flattened stone, certainly differs greatly from an almond, with its soft, slightly furrowed, much flattened, and elongated stone, protected by a tough, greenish layer of bitter flesh. Mr. Bentham[25] has particularly called attention to the stone of the almond being so much more flattened than that of the peach. But in the several varieties of the almond, the stone differs greatly in the degree to which it is compressed, in size, shape, strength, and in the depth of the furrows, as may be seen in fig. 42 (Nos. 4 to 8) of such kinds as I have been able to collect. With peach-stones also (Nos. 1 to 3) the degree of compression and elongation is seen to vary; so that the stone of the Chinese Honey-peach (No. 3) is much more elongated and compressed than that of the (No. 8) Smyrna almond.
Mr. Rivers, of Sawbridgeworth, to whom I am indebted for some of the specimens above figured, and who has had such great horticultural experience, has called my attention to several varieties which connect the almond and the peach. In France there is a variety called the Peach-Almond, which Mr. Rivers formerly cultivated, and which is correctly described in a French catalogue as being oval and swollen, with the aspect of a peach, including a hard stone surrounded by a fleshy covering, which is sometimes eatable.[26] A remarkable statement by M. Luizet has recently appeared in the ‘Revue Horticole,’[27] namely, that a Peach-almond, grafted on a peach, bore, during 1863 and 1864 almonds alone, but in 1865 bore six peaches and no almonds. M. Carriere, in commenting on this fact, cites the case of a double-flowered almond which, after producing during several years almonds, suddenly bore for two years in succession spherical fleshy peach-like fruits, but in 1865 reverted to its former state and produced large almonds.
Again, as I hear from Mr. Rivers, the double-flowering Chinese peaches resemble almonds in their manner of growth and in their flowers; the fruit is much elongated and flattened, with the flesh both bitter and sweet, but not uneatable, and it is said to be of better quality in China. From this stage one small step leads us to such inferior peaches as are occasionally raised from seed. For instance, Mr. Rivers sowed a number of peach-stones imported from the United States, where they are collected for raising stocks, and some of the trees raised by him produced peaches which were very like almonds in appearance, being small and hard, with the pulp not softening till very late in the autumn. Van Mons[28] also states that he once raised from a peach-stone a peach having the aspect of a wild tree, with fruit like that of the almond. From inferior peaches, such as these just described, we may pass by small transitions, through clingstones of poor quality, to our best and most melting kinds. From this gradation, from the cases of sudden variation above recorded, and from the fact that the peach has not been found wild, it seems to me by far the most probable view, that the peach is the descendant of the almond, improved and modified in a marvellous manner.
One fact, however, is opposed to this conclusion. A hybrid, raised by Knight from the sweet almond by the pollen of the peach, produced flowers with little or no pollen, yet bore fruit, having been apparently fertilised by a neighbouring nectarine. Another hybrid, from a sweet almond by the pollen of a nectarine, produced during the first three years imperfect blossoms, but afterwards perfect flowers with an abundance of pollen. If this slight degree of sterility cannot be accounted for by the youth of the trees (and this often causes lessened fertility), or by the monstrous state of the flowers, or by the conditions to which the trees were exposed, these two cases would afford a good argument against the peach being the descendant of the almond.
Whether or not the peach has proceeded from the almond, it has certainly given rise to nectarines, or smooth peaches, as they are called by the French. Most of the varieties, both of the peach and nectarine, reproduce themselves truly by seed. Gallesio[29] says he has verified this with respect to eight races of the peach. Mr. Rivers[30] has given some striking instances from his own experience, and it is notorious that good peaches are constantly raised in North America from seed. Many of the American sub-varieties come true or nearly true to their kind, such as the white-blossom, several of the yellow-fruited freestone peaches, the blood clingstone, the heath, and the lemon clingstone. On the other hand, a clingstone peach has been known to give rise to a freestone.[31] In England it has been noticed that seedlings inherit from their parents flowers of the same size and colour. Some characters, however, contrary to what might have been expected, often are not inherited; such as the presence and form of the glands on the leaves.[32] With respect to nectarines, both cling and freestones are known in North America to reproduce themselves by seed.[33] In England the new white nectarine was a seedling of the old white, and Mr. Rivers[34] has recorded several similar cases. From this strong tendency to inheritance, which both peach and nectarine trees exhibit,—from certain slight constitutional differences[35] in their nature,—and from the great difference in their fruit both in appearance and flavour, it is not surprising, notwithstanding that the trees differ in no other respects and cannot even be distinguished, as I am informed by Mr. Rivers, whilst young, that they have been ranked by some authors as specifically distinct. Gallesio does not doubt that they are distinct; even Alph. De Candolle does not appear perfectly assured of their specific identity: and an eminent botanist has quite recently[36] maintained that the nectarine “probably constitutes a distinct species.”
Hence it may be worth while to give all the evidence on the origin of the nectarine. The facts in themselves are curious, and will hereafter have to be referred to when the important subject of bud-variation is discussed. It is asserted[37] that the Boston nectarine was produced from a peach-stone, and this nectarine reproduced itself by seed.[38] Mr. Rivers states[39] that from stones of three distinct varieties of the peach he raised three varieties of nectarine; and in one of these cases no nectarine grew near the parent peach-tree. In another instance Mr. Rivers raised a nectarine from a peach, and in the succeeding generation another nectarine from this nectarine.[40] Other such instances have been communicated to me, but they need not be given. Of the converse case, namely, of nectarine-stones yielding peach-trees (both free and clingstones), we have six undoubted instances recorded by Mr. Rivers; and in two of these instances the parent nectarines had been seedlings from other nectarines.[41] With respect to the more curious case of full-grown peach-trees suddenly producing nectarines by bud-variation (or sports as they are called by gardeners), the evidence is superabundant; there is also good evidence of the same tree producing both peaches and nectarines, or half-and-half fruit; by this term I mean a fruit with the one-half a perfect peach, and the other half a perfect nectarine.
Peter Collinson in 1741 recorded the first case of a peach-tree producing a nectarine,[42] and in 1766 he added two other instances. In the same work, the editor, Sir J. E. Smith, describes the more remarkable case of a tree in Norfolk which usually bore both perfect nectarines and perfect peaches; but during two seasons some of the fruit were half and half in nature. Mr. Salisbury in 1808[43] records six other cases of peach-trees producing nectarines. Three of the varieties are named; viz., the Alberge, Belle Chevreuse, and Royal George. This latter tree seldom failed to produce both kinds of fruit. He gives another case of a half-and-half fruit. At Radford in Devonshire[44] a clingstone peach, purchased as the Chancellor, was planted in 1815, and in 1824, after having previously produced peaches alone, bore on one branch twelve nectarines; in 1825 the same branch yielded twenty-six nectarines, and in 1826 thirty-six nectarines, together with eighteen peaches. One of the peaches was almost as smooth on one side as a nectarine. The nectarines were as dark as, but smaller than, the Elruge. At Beccles a Royal George peach[45] produced a fruit, “three parts of it being peach and one part nectarine, quite distinct in appearance as well as in flavour.” The lines of division were longitudinal, as represented in the woodcut. A nectarine-tree grew five yards from this tree.
Professor Chapman states[46] that he has often seen in Virginia very old peach-trees bearing nectarines. A writer in the ‘Gardener’s Chronicle’ says that a peach tree planted fifteen years previously[47] produced this year a nectarine between two peaches; a nectarine-tree grew close by. In 1844[48] a Vanguard peach-tree produced, in the midst of its ordinary fruit, a single red Roman nectarine. Mr. Calver is stated[49] to have raised in the United States a seedling peach which produced a mixed crop of both peaches and nectarines. Near Dorking[50] a branch of the Téton de Vénus peach, which reproduces itself truly by seed,[51] bore its own fruit “so remarkable for its prominent point, and a nectarine rather smaller but well formed and quite round.” The previous cases all refer to peaches suddenly producing nectarines, but at Carclew[52] the unique case occurred, of a nectarine-tree, raised twenty years before from seed and never grafted, producing a fruit half peach and half nectarine; subsequently bore a perfect peach. To sum up the foregoing facts; we have excellent evidence of peach-stones producing nectarine-trees, and of nectarine-stones producing peach-Trees,—of the same tree bearing peaches and nectarines,—of peach-trees suddenly producing by bud-variation nectarines (such nectarines reproducing nectarines by seed), as well as fruit in part nectarine and in part peach,—and, lastly, of one nectarine-tree first bearing half-and-half fruit, and subsequently true peaches. As the peach came into existence before the nectarine, it might have been expected from the law of reversion that nectarines would have given birth by bud-variation or by seed to peaches, oftener than peaches to nectarines; but this is by no means the case.
Ideas discussed in this chapter
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.