Van Mons believed that an improved variety tended to return to its normal state—to its wild type; and although he did not believe that it could ever be entirely restored to its wild state, it might go so far as to make it worthless for useful purposes.
Knight believed in absolute decay; Van Mons, in retrocession. According to Knight’s theory, varieties of fruit
cease by the natural statute of limitation; according to Van Mons, they only fall from grace.
There can be no reasonable doubt that Van Mons held the truth, and as little, that Knight’s speculations were fallacious. Bad cultivation will cause anything to run out; no plant will perfect its tissues or fruit without the soil affords it elementary materials. The so-called exhausted varieties renew their youth when transplanted into soils suitable for them.
2. Against Van Mons’ method it is urged, that it enfeebles the constitution of plants; that, enfeebling is the very key of the process. This Mr. Downing urges with emphasis, saying that, “the Belgian method (Van Mons’) gives us varieties often impaired in their health in their very origin.” It is one thing to restrain the energy of a plant, and another to enfeeble it. It may be enfeebled until it becomes unhealthy, but rampant vigor is as really an unhealthy state as the other extreme. A tree refuses fruit and is liable to death from a coarse, open, rank growth, as much as from a languor which suppresses all growth.
No; that which we imagine Van Mons to have effected was a smaller, but more compact and fine growth. Nor are we aware that, as a matter of experience, the Belgian pears prove to be any more tender than the English. Doubtless, there are trees of a delicate and tender habit in the number, but as few, in proportion to the great number originated, as by any other method.
The two main objections to the plan are the time required, and the utter uncertainty of the results. To imitate the process would require a Van Mons’ patience, in which, probably, he was never surpassed, and his enthusiasm, which was extraordinary even for a horticulturist, a race of beings supposed to be anything but phlegmatic.
The uncertainty is such as to prevent any determinate improvement. We get, not what we may wish, but whatever may happen to come. Nothing that art can do would
affect the size, color, hardness, or in any respect, the general character of the fruit.
It is in these aspects that Knight’s method must always be preferred as a practical system. We can obtain a return for our labor in one-fifth the time; and, what is even more important, we can regulate, before-hand, the results within certain limits. The new fruit is to be made up of the qualities of its parents in various proportions. We cannot determine what the proportions shall be, but we can determine what parents shall be selected. Nor is it at all improbable that, when knowledge has become more exact by a longer and larger experience, the breeder of fruit may cross the varieties with nearly the same certainty of result as does the breeder of stock. It is upon this feature, the power which science has over the results to be obtained, that we look with the greatest interest; and we urge upon scientific cultivators the duty of perfecting our fruits by judicious breeding.