Notwithstanding the illustrious work of Kaempfer, Thunberg, Siebold and Fortune in sending to Europe the choicest plants of Japan and China, Prunus triflora seems to have reached the Old World through America at a very recent date. At least the species was not cultivated for its fruit in Europe until introduced from the United States as Japanese plums, and even yet they are but barely known in European orchards. The species was introduced into this country from Japan about 1870 by a Mr. Hough of Vacaville, California. According to Bailey,[104] who has given much attention to these plums, Mr. Hough obtained his trees from a Mr. Bridges, United States Consul to Japan. John Kelsey, Berkeley, California, produced the first ripe fruit of the Triflora plums in America in 1876 and 1877, and impressed by their value began recommending them. Owing to Mr. Kelsey’s efforts the propagation of these plums was begun on a large scale about 1883 by W. P. Hammon & Co., of Oakland, who commemorated Mr. Kelsey’s labors by naming the plum after him. The success of the Kelsey started the importation and origination of varieties and a veritable boom in Japanese plums was soon under way.
This fruit is a most valuable addition to our pomology, no less than ninety-two varieties now being under cultivation in America. At first it was thought desirable only for the southern states, but it proved to be nearly as hardy as the Domestica plums in the northern states and was soon widely distributed north and south. Beyond question it has suffered from over-praise, which has led to over-planting. As was of necessity the case, many untested and worthless varieties were offered fruit-growers, and these, with the failure of some of the extravagant claims for the really meritorious varieties, have given the Triflora plums a bad reputation with many fruit-growers. Now we have cultivated plums of this species for forty years and there has been time for the excitement of their discovery and the consequent reaction to abate making it possible to arrive more nearly at their true place in pomology.
The plums of this species possess several striking features that commend them to fruit-growers. Undoubtedly the most valuable attribute of the Triflora plums as cultivated fruits is their wide range of adaptability. All must admit that this group of varieties is less valuable than the Domestica varieties where both succeed, but the Triflora plums are adapted to a much wider range of country and of conditions than the Domesticas. But even where both types of plums succeed the newer plum introduces several very desirable features quite aside from additional variety which the many distinct sorts furnish. Thus, as a species, the Trifloras are more vigorous, productive, earlier in coming in bearing and more free from diseases, especially black-knot and leaf-blight, than the Domestica plums. The Trifloras are also less subject to curculio than most of the native and European species. They keep longer and ship as well as the better known Europeans. As compared with native varieties the plums from Japan are larger, handsomer and better flavored and keep and ship better. Some disadvantages are that they blossom so early as to be often caught by spring frosts; they are quite subject to brown-rot; for most part they are tenacious clingstones; the species, all in all, is less hardy to cold than the Domestica plums; lastly, they are inferior in quality to the varieties from Europe. The last fault is so serious that, though the average for the Triflora plums is high, making them unquestionably more desirable inhabitants of the orchard than any of the native species, they cannot compete with the Domesticas where the two types can be equally well grown.
The botanical differences between these Asiatic plums and those from Europe and America are most interesting. In 1859 Asa Gray called attention to the striking resemblances between the east coast floras of Asia and America. The Triflora plum is one of the plants which furnishes substantial evidence of this similarity and of the dissimilarity of the east and west coast floras of the two hemispheres. In general aspect the trees of the Triflora plums in summer or winter are much more like those of the American species than like those from Europe or West Asia; so, too, the fruits are more alike in appearance and in quality, and the peach-like foliage of the Trifloras might easily be mistaken for that of some of our varieties of Hortulana or Munsoniana. In the manner in which the buds are borne and in vernation the resemblance of the Oriental species to the Americanas, Hortulanas and Munsonianas is again most striking. In Asiatic and American species the buds are borne in twos and threes, while in the European species they are more often single or double.
The importance of this similarity of the Triflora plums to the most common American species is seen when Gray’s reason for the likenesses between the two floras is considered. This, briefly, is that similar types of post-glacial plants should persist in areas having like geographical positions and like climates; hence east-coast plants in one hemisphere should be expected to be similar to those of the east coast of the other hemisphere and the same with the west coast. Triflora plums are near of kin to American plums, then, because they have been evolved under similar conditions. This is a reason why these plums from Japan are adapted to so wide a range of country in America, and why, too, they are so free from the fungus troubles which attack European plums, but from which American plums suffer but little.
As might be expected from their nearness of kin the Triflora plums hybridize readily with the American species and especially with the Hortulanas and Munsonianas, the species they most resemble. Unfortunately an amalgamation of the Oriental plums with the Americanas is not so easily accomplished and that with the Domesticas is still more difficult. Hybrids with Prunus simonii are easily made and the progeny as a rule have much merit. Hybrids of the Trifloras with our native species give most promising results, a number of them being described in The Plums of New York. The fact that the Trifloras have been cultivated for several centuries, at least, means in their hybridization with American species that there is an amalgamation of domesticated characters with the similar but wilder characters of our native species.
It has been very difficult to establish a satisfactory nomenclature for the Triflora plums now grown in America. In spite of the excellent work of Berckmans,[105] Bailey[106] and Waugh,[107] in bringing order out of what was at one time utter confusion, there is still a great deal of uncertainty as to the identification of some varieties. The confusion began with the first extensive importation of these plums from Japan when names which the Japanese applied to classes or groups or the localities from which the plums came were made to apply in America to definite varieties. Many of the names under which the plums were imported have had to be dropped and the varieties boldly renamed. Another source of confusion has been that these, of all plums, seem most variable under changed conditions. Local environment in many instances in America changes somewhat the habit and appearance of varieties, making it difficult to decide whether two or more specimens of the same sort from different localities are identical varieties or distinct. Curiously enough, too, the trees of some varieties of plums seem to bear unlike fruit in different years, especially in the matter of time of ripening; that is, trees of some varieties do not always ripen their fruit in the same sequence, being earlier than another variety one year and possibly later the next. All fruits are more or less variable in this respect, but the Triflora plums are remarkably so, a fact that has added to the confusion in their nomenclature, since it adds to the difficulty of identifying varieties.
The cultivated varieties of Prunus triflora are also very diverse as regards tree-characters, especially as to vigor, hardiness and time of maturity of the fruit. The differences seem to be horticultural or those that come from cultivation, rather than botanical. Indeed, it seems impossible to place the numerous varieties in horticultural groups that are marked with any great degree of definiteness. A distinction of groups based on color is sometimes made, but the one character is insufficient to have classificatory value. In Japan, according to Georgeson, a division of the species is made with shape as the line of division. He says[108] “The round plums are designated by the term botankio, while those of an oval or pointed shape are called hattankio.” The varieties are sometimes loosely grouped into yellow and red-fleshed sorts. A serviceable classification would have to be founded on several or a considerable number of characters. Such a classification at present is impossible.