The peaches of New York

by U. P. Hedrick

It must be noted that in all of the variations so far recorded there are no intermediate forms between the two fruits. The peach produced in these bud-variations is a peach and nothing but a peach; the nectarine, a nectarine and nothing but a nectarine. Even in those remarkable phenomena, of which several are recorded, in which the fruits are divided into halves or quarters, one or more segments being peach and one or more nectarine, there can be no mistake as to peach and nectarine in pubescence, color or flavor. The nectarine from the peach, thus becomes as clear-cut a case of discontinuous variation as can be. If we accept the mutation theory of the origin of species—new species arising suddenly at a single step—the nectarine is a species in process of birth.

As yet we are entirely ignorant in regard to the conditions under which the peach or the nectarine sports, the one producing the other. It is wholly a natural phenomenon, for no one has been able to cause the peach to produce the hairless form or the nectarine to bring forth a downy fruit. The relations of the two fruits have furnished a fertile field of inquiry for over a century but the problem is one of those mysterious ones in which there are many facts that cannot be fitted into a theory, so that our ignorance is as profound now as ever. There are, however, several theories which, without going into full detail, need to be stated.

The oldest notion is that the production of a nectarine on a peach-tree is due to the direct action of pollen from some nearby nectarine-tree on the ovary of the peach. This theory, wholly at variance with present knowledge, is also discredited by the many instances in which the sports occur when the two fruits are not growing in the same neighborhood or even region. Thus, within ten years, several cases of nectarines on peach-trees have occurred in this State where the nectarine is scarcely known. Besides, crossing these fruits shows no direct effect of pollen—as is true with nearly all other plants. Still further, when a branch of a peach has borne a nectarine it usually goes on year after year producing nectarines; and certainly impregnation of a flower by foreign pollen could not so profoundly modify a branch. There is so little foundation for this belief that it would not be mentioned were it not that many fruit-growers still look to the action of pollen as the explanation of the phenomenon.

Another, and a much more probable explanation, is that every sporting peach or nectarine-tree is a more or less remote hybrid. There is a growing belief that species are fixed and that crossing is the only source of new seed- or bud-forms. Certainly all who have crossed plants in any considerable numbers know that hybridity is at least one cause, and a frequent one, of mutations. It is possible that sometime in the past the peach and the nectarine were crossed, the offspring showing no trace of the cross, and that now there is an occasional disassociation of the characters brought together by such crossing. There are several objections to this hypothesis. One is that two forms sufficiently distinct to induce so striking a variation as a nectarine from a peach, must have differed in tree as well as in fruit-characters and that these differences would crop out just as smoothness of fruit so frequently does. Another, and less potent objection, is that the nectarine has never been found wild, that it never becomes naturalized, that it is shorter-lived and less vigorous and behaves in general like an artificial plant.

The third, and at present the most acceptable theory, is that we have in the nectarine from the peach what De Vries calls a retrogressive mutation. That is, an active character, in this case pubescence on the fruit, becomes latent and appears to be lost—a type of mutation frequent among cultivated plants. The nectarine, then, is a peach with one character subtracted. When the nectarine yields a peach, the character is restored. The one is a negative, the other a positive step; one is retrogressive, the other progressive mutation. The speculations as to what causes these mutations are as yet too vague to be profitable. Probably we can never make use of the cause by which mutations arise or of the conditions leading to them until we can induce these strange variations. That they are due to disturbances in the processes of cell-division is the theory now current—sufficiently comprehensive and sufficiently vague to be a most convenient explanation, at any rate.

Nectarines do not attain the perfection in New York reached west of the Rocky Mountains. The trees, possibly, are a little less manageable in the orchard, less vigorous and certainly more susceptible to pests. Nectarines, in particular, suffer more than peaches from the scourge of the crescent sign, curculio, a pest which finds all smooth-skinned stone-fruits much to its taste and the nectarine more than others. Then, too, whether fresh, canned or dried, fruit-buyers in America prefer the peach. This discrimination in favor of the peach is largely due to lack of knowledge of the nectarine, which, though different from the commoner fruit, is equally delectable, fresh or preserved, and certainly is a handsomer product preserved either by canning or evaporating. Indeed, the dried nectarine, with its beautiful, translucent, amber hue is the most attractive of all cured fruits. The nectarine-industry, however, belongs to California, where all conditions favor production, canning and curing.

KENTUCKY (Nectarine)

NEWTON (Nectarine)