Plant seldom becoming a true tree, usually, however, forming a small but distinct trunk with a twiggy, bushy top; bark thin, dark reddish-brown, slightly furrowed or roughened, scaly; branches slender, usually zigzag with long, thin thorns or spine-like branchlets; branchlets slender, zigzag, glabrous, glossy, bright red; lenticels few, scattered, yellowish, raised.
Winter-buds small, obtuse, free, brownish; leaves folded upward, lanceolate or oblong-lanceolate, pointed at both ends, thin, membranaceous, margins closely and finely serrate with minute teeth, tipped with glands; upper surface glabrous, lustrous, bright green, lower surface glabrous or pubescent in the axils of the veins, dull, two-thirds inch wide and from one to two inches long; petioles one-half inch long, slender, glabrous or tomentose, bright red with two red glands near or on the base of the leaf; stipules one-half inch long, narrow-lobed, serrate with gland-tipped teeth.
Flowers appearing with or before the leaves, small, less than one-half inch across, very numerous; umbels sub-sessile, two to four-flowered, from lateral spurs or buds; pedicels glabrous, slender, one-half inch in length; calyx-tube campanulate, glabrous; calyx-lobes obtuse, glabrous outside, margins ciliate, inner surface pubescent, reflexed; petals creamy in the bud, obovate, apex rounded, narrowing into a claw at the base; filaments and pistils glabrous, the latter shorter than the stamens.
Fruit ripening early; spherical or ovoid, three-quarters inch in diameter, bright red, sometimes yellow, glossy, with little or no bloom; dots numerous, very conspicuous; skin thin; flesh tender, juicy, yellow, subacid; quality rather poor; stone small, clinging, ovoid, turgid, slightly roughened, cherry-like, edges rounded, the dorsal one grooved.
The original home of Prunus angustifolia is not known. The inference is left in most of the botanies that the species is not indigenous in the region east of the Mississippi, but that it was brought by the aborigines from the southwestern section of the Mississippi Valley or possibly the southern Rocky Mountains or Mexico. The chief reason for the belief that it does not belong where it now grows is the fact that it is usually found near human habitations and on the margins of fields and as it was known to have been cultivated by the Indians,[133] it is supposed to have escaped from their semi-cultivated plantations. Bailey[134] dissents from the current view, holding that the plant behaves like a true native in regions where he has known it, Maryland in particular. It seems to the writer that Bartram’s supposition, given in the foot-note below, has been followed too closely. A careful study of recent botanical works indicates that the species is indigenous to the southeastern United States.
Whatever the original habitat may have been it is now found in the wild state from southern Delaware to Florida and westward to the Panhandle of Texas and southern Oklahoma. It is usually found on rich soils but is found as well in worn-out fields and pastures, most often in thickets of small trees or thorny shrubs or scraggly bushes, producing under the latter conditions a small fruit so like cherries as to give it the name in some localities “Mountain Cherry” (Maryland), and in others “Wild Cherry” (Louisiana).
There has been much confusion in regard to Prunus angustifolia. The older botanists very generally mistook this species for Michaux’s Prunus chicasa which, as stated in the foot-note on [page 82], is almost certainly not the plum under discussion. Practically all horticulturists ascribe to Prunus angustifolia a great number of cultivated varieties which cannot by any possibility belong here; indeed, it is doubtful if the species is cultivated at all other than very locally, and still more doubtful as to whether, as compared with other native plums, it is worth growing. In spite of this confusion the species is one of the most distinct of plums, and its characters are comparatively constant throughout the range. A careful reading of Humphrey Marshall’s description of Prunus angustifolia by subsequent botanists might have helped to keep this plum in its place. Marshall wrote of it:
“Prunus angustifolia. Chicasaw Plumb. This is scarcely of so large a growth as the former [P. americana], but rising with a stiff, shrubby stalk, dividing into many branches, which are garnished with smooth, lance-shaped leaves, much smaller and narrower than the first kind [P. americana], a little waved on their edges, marked with very fine, slight, coloured serratures, and of an equal shining green colour, on both sides. The blossoms generally come out very thick and are succeeded by oval, or often somewhat egg-shaped fruit, with a very thin skin, and soft, sweet pulp. There are varieties of this with yellow and crimson coloured fruit. These being natives of the Southern states, are somewhat impatient of much cold.”
The tree-characters given by Marshall are hardly those of the plum under cultivation which we have been calling Prunus angustifolia, and his statement that the species is “impatient of much cold” at once separates the cultivated “Angustifolias” from the true species. We shall contrast the tree-characters of the two groups of plums in the discussion of Prunus munsoniana. Of the hardiness of the two it may be said that the cultivated varieties which we have placed in the last named species are for the most part hardy as far north as Burlington, Vermont, while the true Prunus angustifolia cannot be grown to fruiting as far north as Geneva, New York. Its behavior, too, on the northern limit of its range, and the fact that it did not follow the aborigines northward as it seems to have followed them from place to place within its range, show that Prunus angustifolia belongs in the southern states.
This plum was well known by the early colonists of Virginia and southward. John Smith in Virginia, in 1607-9, and Strachey, writing a few years later, saw “cherries much like a damoizm, but for their taste and cullour we called them cherries.” Beverly in his History of Virginia, written in 1822, speaks of two sorts of plums, “the black and the Murrey Plum, both of which are small and have much the same relish with the Damasine”; the latter was probably the Angustifolia. Lawson in his History of Carolina speaks of several plums,[135] one of which, the Indian plum, must have been the fruit of the present discussion. Bruce[136] quotes a letter from William Fitzhugh, written in 1686, in which the latter speaks of the “Indian Cherry,” meaning of course, this plum; for it still passes under the same name.