Leaf-buds open in mid-season, of average size, long, somewhat thick, conical to nearly obtuse. Young leaves tinged with carmine on lower side and along margin of upper side, prevailing color pale green. Leaves of average size, thick; upper surface light green, dull, moderately smooth; lower surface pale green, slightly pubescent, flocculent; leaf not lobed, terminus somewhat acute; petiolar sinus deep, narrow, often overlapping; lateral sinus very shallow when present; teeth shallow, wide. Flowers occasionally on plan of six, nearly self-fertile, open medium late; stamens upright.
Fruit ripens soon after Concord, keeps until mid-winter. Clusters variable averaging medium to large, short, rather broad, tapering to somewhat cylindrical, sometimes single-shouldered, somewhat loose; peduncle medium to short, nearly thick; pedicel of average length, usually thick, covered with few warts, much enlarged at point of attachment; brush very short, pale green. Berries nearly large, roundish to slightly oval, dark and dull purplish-red somewhat resembling Catawba, covered with lilac bloom, very persistent. Skin thick, tough, adheres slightly to the pulp, contains no pigment, somewhat astringent. Flesh pale green, translucent, tough, slightly stringy, rather solid, foxy, good in quality. Seeds somewhat adherent, two to five averaging four, large, rather narrow, long, often with slightly enlarged neck, blunt, brownish; raphe usually distinct, shows as a ridge in the bottom of a broad groove; chalaza rather large, distinctly above center, not obscure.
ALEXANDER.
(Labrusca, Vinifera?)
1. Dom. Enc., 1804:291. 2. McMahon, 1806:235. 3. Johnson, 1806:164. 4. Adlum, 1823:139. 5. Ib., 1823:140. 6. Dufour, 1826:5, 9, 24, 55, 116, 207, 247, 255. 7. Adlum, 1828:173. 8. Ib., 1828:174. 9. Prince, 1830:173, 216, 219. 10. Ib., 1830:174. 11. Ib., 1830:200. 12. Downing, 1845:253. 13. U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1847:462. 14. Ib., 1847:468. 15. Ib., 1856:434. 16. Bush. Cat., 1883:68.
Alexander’s (7, 15). Alexandria (15). Black Grape (16). Buck Grape (11). Cape (6, 15). Cape grape (12, 13, 16). Cape of Good Hope grape (9, 10). Clifton’s Constantia (4, 8, 10). Clifton’s Constantia (12, 16). Columbian (11). Constantia (6, 16). Madeira of York, Pa. (12). Rothrock of Prince (16). Schuylkill Muscadel (5, 7, 13). Schuylkill Muscadel (9, 12, 14, 15, 16). Schuylkill Muscadine (12). Spring Mill Constantia (9, 12, 16). Tasker’s grape (1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 12, 16). Vevay (13, 15, 16). Winne (11). Winne (12, 16). York Lisbon (16).
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 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 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 characters so that he felt there was no question as to its being of foreign origin.