Question the History of a pear or know some history? Post it here!

Van mons used both early premature seed harvest and rotting fruit for methods of cultivation among other tricks he had! He was an exceptional fruit breeder even among other exceptional fruit breeders. In modern times some may laugh at his methods but they have never matched his results nor would they laugh at him any longer when reminded of the facts! "
Van Mons’ Theory of Fruit-tree Breeding

Van Mons’ Theory of Fruit-tree Breeding

One thing is certain: Van Mons, the Belgian plant breeder, introduced many improved forms of pears and other fruit trees. How he accomplished this has been debated vigorously. Some writers praised Van Mons’ theory, while others attempted to discredit it by appeal to their own prejudices. Some experimenters (e.g., Rivers, 1855) claimed to have failed when they followed Van Mons’ methods, even though they chose only one or two aspects of that method.

Part of the confusion surrounds the word “variety”, which is even more vague and uncertain than “species”. Apparently, Van Mons did not regard his productions as new varieties—“Nature alone creates”. DeVries (1909) wrote:

He found all the sorts which he cultivated and put on the market, growing as such in the wild state and, as it happened, almost all of them in the Ardennes. The wild plants were thorny and their fruits small, tough and woody. As the result of being sown in a garden and under the influence of another climate they regularly lose their thorns and the tough consistency of their fruits, which become larger, fleshier and juicier. But the differences in form, color and taste and other valuable characters arose neither in, nor as a result of, cultivation; they already existed in the wild forms. His new kinds are nothing more nor less than already well-known cultivated forms which he has improved in respect of size and juiciness, by selection for two or three generations without altering their varietal characters in the very least. Van Mons was fully aware of the independence and constancy of these forms and it should be noted that he speaks of them as subspecies and not as varieties.

In this sense, size and fleshiness are not to be considered as varietal characters on the same level as form, color and taste. This may strike some readers as odd because we commonly regard a tree or strain that bears large fruit to be varietally distinct from one that bears small fruit; just as we regard a dwarf tree to be a different variety than a tall or columnar or weeping one. But sometimes our assumptions are mistaken. We do not assume that a ‘Granny Smith’ apple tree grafted to a dwarfing stock is a different variety than one on its own roots. And though a trumpet vine grafted to a catalpa may lose its vining character, we do not call it a new “variety”.

Part of Van Mons’ method was to collect pears before the seeds had matured, then left the fruit to rot before removing the seeds for planting. Other experimenters have done the same things with different fruit-bearing plants.

Goff (1891) found that, “The results suggest that in our climate, the tomato, at least its more rampant growing varieties, may be rendered more productive and earlier in maturing by a treatment that reduces the native vigor of the plant.” Furthermore, “The firmness of the fruit from the immature seed has been somewhat less than that from the ripe seed, the rind being slightly thinner.” This is just what Van Mons accomplished with pears. Similarly, Brown (1874) wrote, “…we are told by Von Martius that the Brazilians always propagate Willughbeia speciosa by unripe seeds, considering that the fruit from plants thus obtained is better than that from trees grown from matured seed.” Hemsley (1878) reported similarly, “it is stated that the Brazilians always employ unripe seeds to propagate Hancornia speciosa, a valuable fruit tree, believing that the fruit borne by trees raised from immature seeds is of a superior quality.” [Apparently Hemsley and Brown were referring to the same species, Hancornia speciosa Gomes. The allied genus Willughbeia is native to Borneo and Malaysia.]

Michurin (1915) observed the same superiority in pears raised from unripe seed:

In the autumn of 1901 about a dozen seeds—not fully ripe and still rather whitish, it should be noted—were taken from three hybrid fruits of a Ussurian pear tree that had been fertilized by pollen taken from a basket specimen of a Beurré Diel pear tree, and were planted in a box in the open air. The other four fruits were kept until January and the seeds taken from them were planted in the same box only in spring. After sprouting, the seedlings were lined out in beds. No sharp difference was noted either as regards the loss of shoots or the development of seedlings from the two plantings, but later when the trees bore fruit the difference did not fail to manifest itself in a somewhat original manner, namely, the trees of the second, spring, planting in which the dried seeds had been used, started fruit hearing in 1910, and also in 1911 and 1912, whereas the trees of the first, i.e., autumn, planting in which fresh, undried seeds had been used began fruit bearing only in 1913, but the quality of the fruits of the trees that grew from the dry seeds was incomparably worse. In the first place, they all proved to be early-summer ripening fruits, unfit to store for winter, and as regards taste they were very viscous, a characteristic of the Ussurian pear, although in size they were four limes as large as the fruits of the maternal tree. Then altogether inexplicable was the fact that all these trees of the second, spring, planting were less hardy to our climate and especially to the scorching of the stem’s bark by the sun. In contrast, three trees of the first, autumn, planting, when fresh seeds were used, yielded, firstly, late-ripening fruit capable of keeping in winter storage until the end of December, a great advantage for new varieties in orchards of our localities in Central Russia, and, secondly, the fruits have an excellent flavour and a flesh that is without granulation and melts in one’s mouth. Moreover, the trees themselves are noteworthy for complete hardiness to the climate of our locality, and of all our pear-tree varieties they are the only ones the bark of which does not suffer from sun-scorch.

As for allowing the fruit to rot, Desai (2004) wrote, “Upon extraction, the seeds were subjected or not subjected to fermentation, washing, and drying. Cucumber, melon, and watermelon reached full germinability by 35 dpa [days past anthesis], but squash required a longer period. Fermentation and drying were important for improving the germinability of immature seeds of cucumber, melon, and watermelon. Fermentation had a deleterious effect on immature seeds [of squash], but drying and washing improved germinability of squash seeds.”

Similarly, Peter Gideon, the “father” of Minnesota apples, explained in 1899, “I have had very good success with planting the cores, or the pomace fresh from the cider press, covering not more than one inch deep.” Again, the seeds were in contact with the rotting or fermenting pulp.

It is not surprising that germination of some seeds would be improved by this fermentation. Such seeds are commonly swallowed by fruit-eating animals, and must survive passage through their digestive systems. As Waldron (1891) reported:

The roses that grow the most abundant and fruitful [in North Dakota] are the Rosa blanda and the Rosa Engelmanni. The latter has a large fruit about two and one-half times long as broad, is rather juicy and of a flavor much like the thorn apple [Crataegus coccinea]. The rose hips of both species are eaten readily by the prairie chicken, grouse, antelope and rabbit, the indian also comes in for his share. I have seen this fruit in such quantities over large areas that it would have furnished food for hundreds of sheep.

Van Mons also insisted that seeds from young trees, bearing their first fruits, gave seedlings that varied in the preferred direction—assuming a more domesticated form—than seeds of old trees. Poiteau (1836) explained:

As soon as the young pear tree with which began his experiments, produced its first fruit, Mr. Van Mons sowed the seeds. There resulted a first generation, the individuals of which, although of very different kinds, did not resemble their parent. He cultivated them with care, and endeavored to hasten their growth, as much as possible, by all the known means in his power. These young trees yielded fruit, which were generally small, and almost all of them bad. He sowed the seed of these and obtained a second generation without interruption—which is very important—that were very different in kind, but did not resemble their parent, although they had a less wild appearance than their predecessors. These were cultivated with equal attention, and they fructified earlier than had the parent. The fruits of this second generation, also varied as much as the trees which bore them, but part of them appeared less near the wild state than the preceding; yet only a few possessed the requisite qualities to entitle them to preservation. Constant in his plan, Mr. Van Mons sowed the seeds and obtained a third continued generation, the greater part of the young trees of which, had a phasis of good augury, that is something of the physiognomy of our good domesticated pear trees, and they were consequently less various in appearance. Being carefully cultivated, as had been the preceding, these trees of the third generation, fructified earlier than the second generation. Several of them produced edible fruit, although not yet decidedly good, but sufficiently ameliorated to convince Mr. Van Mons that he had discovered the true path of amelioration, and that he should continue to follow it. He also recognized, with no less satisfaction, that the oftener the generations succeeded each other, without interruption, from parent to son, the more promptly did they fructify. The seed of the fruits of this generation, which had a good appearance, were sowed, and the trees managed as carefully as the preceding, and produced a fourth generation, the trees of which were a little less varied, and nearly all of them had an appearance of favorable augury; they fructified in a shorter time than the third generation; many of the fruits were good, several excellent, but a small number still bad. Mr. Van Mons took the seeds of the best kinds of these pears, sowed them and obtained a fifth generation, the trees of which were less various than the preceding, fructified sooner, and produced more good and excellent fruits, than those of the fourth.

Can the seeds of young trees yield plants of a different character than seeds of the same trees when older? Olsson-Seffer (1907), discussing rubber trees, reported:

I have noticed that seeds from young plants are fuller and more rounded than those from older trees. The seedling from such a seed has smoother and bigger leaves than those developing from seeds with a loose seed coats and ribs on their surface.
The root development is much stronger in a seedling from seed taken from a younger tree, and this is another reason why careful attention should be paid to the age of the parent tree.

Most of the changes noted above cannot be considered as “varietal” because they are conditioned by specific treatments that must be repeated each generation.

What exactly were the seedling characters that Poiteau described as having a “phasis of good augury”? Neill (1823) explained that, “Whenever a seedling indicated, by the blunt shape, thickness and woolliness of its leaves, or by the softness of its bark and fulness of its buds, the promise of future good qualities as a fruit-bearing tree, a graft was taken from it, and placed on a well-established stock: the value of its fruit was thus much sooner ascertained.”

Visser (1965) found a strong correlation between the absence of juvenile characters in apple seedlings and precocity. That is, seedlings that showed more juvenile (or “wild”) characters generally came into bearing later than those with fewer such characters. And Visser & De Vries (1970) further found a correlations between precocity and productivity in apples and pears. De Vries (1976a, b) found similar correlations in roses. De Vries & Dubois (1977) also found a correlation between length of juvenile period and the length of flower stems in roses.

It was Van Mons’ belief, in taking wildlings into cultivation for amelioration, “that, in order to improve the fruit, we must subdue or enfeeble the original coarse luxuriance of the tree. Keeping this in mind, Dr. Van Mons always gathers his fruit before fully ripe, and allows them to rot before planting the seeds, in order to refine or render less wild and harsh the next generation. In transplanting the young seedlings into quarters to bear, he cuts off the tap root, and he annually shortens the leading and side branches, besides planting them only a few feet apart. All this lessens the vigor of the trees, and produces an impression upon the nature of the seeds which will be produced by their first fruit; and, in order to continue in full force the progressive variation, he allows his seedlings to bear on their own roots.” (Downing, 1849)

Hansen (1904) also found increased variation in sccdlings of the Western Sand Cherry (Prunus besseyi). “The third generation is decidedly more variable than the first.”

Root-pruning would seem necessary to counter the increased root development noted above by Olsson-Seffer. However, root pruning is also an old technique for hastening fruiting in trees.

It is to be expected that when raising seedlings from a single parent, and then raising seedlings from them, some degree of inbreeding decline would result—even though there was probably some crossing among the siblings. Van Mons’ technique of planting the saplings closely in the nursery rows would have allowed him to identify those specimens which retained more of their constitutional vigor. That is, specimens that managed to flower and fruit despite crowding would undoubtedly be more productive, when given more room, than siblings that failed to flower. Troyer (1976) similarly observed an increased tendency towards production of multiple ears while selecting for earliness in corn. “We observed a cycle-by-density interaction wherein advanced cycles exhibited prolificacy at a low density after selection against barrenness at high densities.”

It is apparent from Poiteau’s account that part of Van Mons’ success was in the selection and selective improvement of certain charcters. This is what is commonly understood as “selective breeding”. However, the rest — particularly the use of immature seeds from young trees — is more properly described as “Physiological Predetermination”.

Vibert (1846) seems to have been following a breeding plan similar to that of Van Mons:

“I was at Rouen in September 1829, at the home of an English plantsman [W. C. Calvert] whose garden had been left to itself for a while, and noticed there, among the seedlings, a semi-double rose blooming, which, aside from its remontant qualities, showed characteristics I hadn’t seen in other sorts. Some cuttings of this rose were given to me, and, as the place had the name ‘Trianon,’ that is what I named the rose. Having sown seed of this rose for 8 or 9 years without having gotten more than one good variety, I sowed instead the seed of some flesh-colored semi-doubles [presumably offspring of the original Trianon] with foliage that was different; after having repeated this for three or four years, I was able to raise a white; and the seeds of this were what I subsequently sowed, for the most part. The greater part of my seed-bearers are in their 5th or 6th generation; and it is really quite extraordinary to see such diversity among plants springing from the same Type . . . The number of roses descending from my Perpetual Trianon, doubles and semi-doubles, has surpassed 40, and I am sure to add many to the number of doubles before too many years have passed. Many of these roses bloom in clusters of 50 to 60 blossoms; their diameter varies from 3-8 cm [ca. 1-3 inches]; most waft an elegant perfume. From purest white to light purple, all shades are found; but, above all, it is in the details of their appearance that Nature has exercised freedom: wood, leaves, thorns, manner of growth—all vary . . . Such, then, are the reasons I have set up a new division of Perpetuals . . . Let me add an important observation: Within this set of roses are plants which bloom the first year from seeds, which does not ordinarily happen with Chinas, Noisettes, or Bourbons; last year, 10 or 12 young plants bloomed in July. All of these roses coming from this Trianon seem to me to be very receptive to pollination from other varieties—or perhaps it is because of their own inherent qualities that they show so much variation, which seems to me to be the more likely explanation [signed: Vibert, Angers, June 28, 1846].”

Vibert’s rose seedlings apparently varied more than Van Mons’ pears because they originated with a hybrid—the “Trianon” rose, perhaps similar to Portlandica, and possibly pollinated by a Noisette. I do find it odd that Vibert’s Chinas and Noisettes were so slow in blooming. Perhaps I am surprised only because other breeders of the time followed the same program, increasing the precocity of garden roses in general. According to a writer in The Florist and Pomologist (1882):

“Adverting to the influence of selection on precocity, M. Carrière mentions the fact that while the seedling Roses of fifty years ago took six or eight years to produce their flowers, it is not now unusual to see them flowering the first year. There is, however, great variation in this respect between seedlings derived even from the same fruit, some seedlings requiring four, and others from eight to twenty years to fruit. The Duchesse d’Angouléme Pear only began to produce fruit thirty years after it was raised from the seed.”

Van Mons insisted that seedlings raised from the first fruits were more variable than those raised from seeds of mature plants. This may relate to phenotypic plasticity, where a given trait is more easily influenced by environmental conditions, and more subject to vegetative selection for extreme expressions. Breese, et al. (1965) found that Lolium perenne clones that had been propagated vegetatively for many years did not respond to somatic selection for greater or lesser production of tillers. To the contrary, seedlings responded more significantly.

  • A cockade is a knot of ribbons, usually worn on a hat, to indicate
    political allegiance. The Austrian cockade is black and yellow.
    Another aspect of Van Mons’ system seems to have been Genetic Transilience. This is particularly noteworthy in his discussion of a line of roses he had grown. In some selections, the flowers increased in fullness in subsequent generations, but the form and color did not vary in a useful way. In other selections, color and form were the predominant improvements. “We obtained several duplicates of the plants which had been late in bloom, and amongst other things the cocarde d’Autrich [Austrian cockade*], which was quite black, and which was taken from me when it came to flower.”

(to be continued)

Bibliography

Van Mons’ Theory of Fruit-tree Breeding

One thing is certain: Van Mons, the Belgian plant breeder, introduced many improved forms of pears and other fruit trees. How he accomplished this has been debated vigorously. Some writers praised Van Mons’ theory, while others attempted to discredit it by appeal to their own prejudices. Some experimenters (e.g., Rivers, 1855) claimed to have failed when they followed Van Mons’ methods, even though they chose only one or two aspects of that method.

Part of the confusion surrounds the word “variety”, which is even more vague and uncertain than “species”. Apparently, Van Mons did not regard his productions as new varieties—“Nature alone creates”. DeVries (1909) wrote:

He found all the sorts which he cultivated and put on the market, growing as such in the wild state and, as it happened, almost all of them in the Ardennes. The wild plants were thorny and their fruits small, tough and woody. As the result of being sown in a garden and under the influence of another climate they regularly lose their thorns and the tough consistency of their fruits, which become larger, fleshier and juicier. But the differences in form, color and taste and other valuable characters arose neither in, nor as a result of, cultivation; they already existed in the wild forms. His new kinds are nothing more nor less than already well-known cultivated forms which he has improved in respect of size and juiciness, by selection for two or three generations without altering their varietal characters in the very least. Van Mons was fully aware of the independence and constancy of these forms and it should be noted that he speaks of them as subspecies and not as varieties.

In this sense, size and fleshiness are not to be considered as varietal characters on the same level as form, color and taste. This may strike some readers as odd because we commonly regard a tree or strain that bears large fruit to be varietally distinct from one that bears small fruit; just as we regard a dwarf tree to be a different variety than a tall or columnar or weeping one. But sometimes our assumptions are mistaken. We do not assume that a ‘Granny Smith’ apple tree grafted to a dwarfing stock is a different variety than one on its own roots. And though a trumpet vine grafted to a catalpa may lose its vining character, we do not call it a new “variety”.

Part of Van Mons’ method was to collect pears before the seeds had matured, then left the fruit to rot before removing the seeds for planting. Other experimenters have done the same things with different fruit-bearing plants.

Goff (1891) found that, “The results suggest that in our climate, the tomato, at least its more rampant growing varieties, may be rendered more productive and earlier in maturing by a treatment that reduces the native vigor of the plant.” Furthermore, “The firmness of the fruit from the immature seed has been somewhat less than that from the ripe seed, the rind being slightly thinner.” This is just what Van Mons accomplished with pears. Similarly, Brown (1874) wrote, “…we are told by Von Martius that the Brazilians always propagate Willughbeia speciosa by unripe seeds, considering that the fruit from plants thus obtained is better than that from trees grown from matured seed.” Hemsley (1878) reported similarly, “it is stated that the Brazilians always employ unripe seeds to propagate Hancornia speciosa, a valuable fruit tree, believing that the fruit borne by trees raised from immature seeds is of a superior quality.” [Apparently Hemsley and Brown were referring to the same species, Hancornia speciosa Gomes. The allied genus Willughbeia is native to Borneo and Malaysia.]

Michurin (1915) observed the same superiority in pears raised from unripe seed:

In the autumn of 1901 about a dozen seeds—not fully ripe and still rather whitish, it should be noted—were taken from three hybrid fruits of a Ussurian pear tree that had been fertilized by pollen taken from a basket specimen of a Beurré Diel pear tree, and were planted in a box in the open air. The other four fruits were kept until January and the seeds taken from them were planted in the same box only in spring. After sprouting, the seedlings were lined out in beds. No sharp difference was noted either as regards the loss of shoots or the development of seedlings from the two plantings, but later when the trees bore fruit the difference did not fail to manifest itself in a somewhat original manner, namely, the trees of the second, spring, planting in which the dried seeds had been used, started fruit hearing in 1910, and also in 1911 and 1912, whereas the trees of the first, i.e., autumn, planting in which fresh, undried seeds had been used began fruit bearing only in 1913, but the quality of the fruits of the trees that grew from the dry seeds was incomparably worse. In the first place, they all proved to be early-summer ripening fruits, unfit to store for winter, and as regards taste they were very viscous, a characteristic of the Ussurian pear, although in size they were four limes as large as the fruits of the maternal tree. Then altogether inexplicable was the fact that all these trees of the second, spring, planting were less hardy to our climate and especially to the scorching of the stem’s bark by the sun. In contrast, three trees of the first, autumn, planting, when fresh seeds were used, yielded, firstly, late-ripening fruit capable of keeping in winter storage until the end of December, a great advantage for new varieties in orchards of our localities in Central Russia, and, secondly, the fruits have an excellent flavour and a flesh that is without granulation and melts in one’s mouth. Moreover, the trees themselves are noteworthy for complete hardiness to the climate of our locality, and of all our pear-tree varieties they are the only ones the bark of which does not suffer from sun-scorch.

As for allowing the fruit to rot, Desai (2004) wrote, “Upon extraction, the seeds were subjected or not subjected to fermentation, washing, and drying. Cucumber, melon, and watermelon reached full germinability by 35 dpa [days past anthesis], but squash required a longer period. Fermentation and drying were important for improving the germinability of immature seeds of cucumber, melon, and watermelon. Fermentation had a deleterious effect on immature seeds [of squash], but drying and washing improved germinability of squash seeds.”

Similarly, Peter Gideon, the “father” of Minnesota apples, explained in 1899, “I have had very good success with planting the cores, or the pomace fresh from the cider press, covering not more than one inch deep.” Again, the seeds were in contact with the rotting or fermenting pulp.

It is not surprising that germination of some seeds would be improved by this fermentation. Such seeds are commonly swallowed by fruit-eating animals, and must survive passage through their digestive systems. As Waldron (1891) reported:

The roses that grow the most abundant and fruitful [in North Dakota] are the Rosa blanda and the Rosa Engelmanni. The latter has a large fruit about two and one-half times long as broad, is rather juicy and of a flavor much like the thorn apple [Crataegus coccinea]. The rose hips of both species are eaten readily by the prairie chicken, grouse, antelope and rabbit, the indian also comes in for his share. I have seen this fruit in such quantities over large areas that it would have furnished food for hundreds of sheep.

Van Mons also insisted that seeds from young trees, bearing their first fruits, gave seedlings that varied in the preferred direction—assuming a more domesticated form—than seeds of old trees. Poiteau (1836) explained:

As soon as the young pear tree with which began his experiments, produced its first fruit, Mr. Van Mons sowed the seeds. There resulted a first generation, the individuals of which, although of very different kinds, did not resemble their parent. He cultivated them with care, and endeavored to hasten their growth, as much as possible, by all the known means in his power. These young trees yielded fruit, which were generally small, and almost all of them bad. He sowed the seed of these and obtained a second generation without interruption—which is very important—that were very different in kind, but did not resemble their parent, although they had a less wild appearance than their predecessors. These were cultivated with equal attention, and they fructified earlier than had the parent. The fruits of this second generation, also varied as much as the trees which bore them, but part of them appeared less near the wild state than the preceding; yet only a few possessed the requisite qualities to entitle them to preservation. Constant in his plan, Mr. Van Mons sowed the seeds and obtained a third continued generation, the greater part of the young trees of which, had a phasis of good augury, that is something of the physiognomy of our good domesticated pear trees, and they were consequently less various in appearance. Being carefully cultivated, as had been the preceding, these trees of the third generation, fructified earlier than the second generation. Several of them produced edible fruit, although not yet decidedly good, but sufficiently ameliorated to convince Mr. Van Mons that he had discovered the true path of amelioration, and that he should continue to follow it. He also recognized, with no less satisfaction, that the oftener the generations succeeded each other, without interruption, from parent to son, the more promptly did they fructify. The seed of the fruits of this generation, which had a good appearance, were sowed, and the trees managed as carefully as the preceding, and produced a fourth generation, the trees of which were a little less varied, and nearly all of them had an appearance of favorable augury; they fructified in a shorter time than the third generation; many of the fruits were good, several excellent, but a small number still bad. Mr. Van Mons took the seeds of the best kinds of these pears, sowed them and obtained a fifth generation, the trees of which were less various than the preceding, fructified sooner, and produced more good and excellent fruits, than those of the fourth.

Can the seeds of young trees yield plants of a different character than seeds of the same trees when older? Olsson-Seffer (1907), discussing rubber trees, reported:

I have noticed that seeds from young plants are fuller and more rounded than those from older trees. The seedling from such a seed has smoother and bigger leaves than those developing from seeds with a loose seed coats and ribs on their surface.
The root development is much stronger in a seedling from seed taken from a younger tree, and this is another reason why careful attention should be paid to the age of the parent tree.

Most of the changes noted above cannot be considered as “varietal” because they are conditioned by specific treatments that must be repeated each generation.

What exactly were the seedling characters that Poiteau described as having a “phasis of good augury”? Neill (1823) explained that, “Whenever a seedling indicated, by the blunt shape, thickness and woolliness of its leaves, or by the softness of its bark and fulness of its buds, the promise of future good qualities as a fruit-bearing tree, a graft was taken from it, and placed on a well-established stock: the value of its fruit was thus much sooner ascertained.”

Visser (1965) found a strong correlation between the absence of juvenile characters in apple seedlings and precocity. That is, seedlings that showed more juvenile (or “wild”) characters generally came into bearing later than those with fewer such characters. And Visser & De Vries (1970) further found a correlations between precocity and productivity in apples and pears. De Vries (1976a, b) found similar correlations in roses. De Vries & Dubois (1977) also found a correlation between length of juvenile period and the length of flower stems in roses.

It was Van Mons’ belief, in taking wildlings into cultivation for amelioration, “that, in order to improve the fruit, we must subdue or enfeeble the original coarse luxuriance of the tree. Keeping this in mind, Dr. Van Mons always gathers his fruit before fully ripe, and allows them to rot before planting the seeds, in order to refine or render less wild and harsh the next generation. In transplanting the young seedlings into quarters to bear, he cuts off the tap root, and he annually shortens the leading and side branches, besides planting them only a few feet apart. All this lessens the vigor of the trees, and produces an impression upon the nature of the seeds which will be produced by their first fruit; and, in order to continue in full force the progressive variation, he allows his seedlings to bear on their own roots.” (Downing, 1849)

Hansen (1904) also found increased variation in sccdlings of the Western Sand Cherry (Prunus besseyi). “The third generation is decidedly more variable than the first.”

Root-pruning would seem necessary to counter the increased root development noted above by Olsson-Seffer. However, root pruning is also an old technique for hastening fruiting in trees.

It is to be expected that when raising seedlings from a single parent, and then raising seedlings from them, some degree of inbreeding decline would result—even though there was probably some crossing among the siblings. Van Mons’ technique of planting the saplings closely in the nursery rows would have allowed him to identify those specimens which retained more of their constitutional vigor. That is, specimens that managed to flower and fruit despite crowding would undoubtedly be more productive, when given more room, than siblings that failed to flower. Troyer (1976) similarly observed an increased tendency towards production of multiple ears while selecting for earliness in corn. “We observed a cycle-by-density interaction wherein advanced cycles exhibited prolificacy at a low density after selection against barrenness at high densities.”

It is apparent from Poiteau’s account that part of Van Mons’ success was in the selection and selective improvement of certain charcters. This is what is commonly understood as “selective breeding”. However, the rest — particularly the use of immature seeds from young trees — is more properly described as “Physiological Predetermination”.

Vibert (1846) seems to have been following a breeding plan similar to that of Van Mons:

“I was at Rouen in September 1829, at the home of an English plantsman [W. C. Calvert] whose garden had been left to itself for a while, and noticed there, among the seedlings, a semi-double rose blooming, which, aside from its remontant qualities, showed characteristics I hadn’t seen in other sorts. Some cuttings of this rose were given to me, and, as the place had the name ‘Trianon,’ that is what I named the rose. Having sown seed of this rose for 8 or 9 years without having gotten more than one good variety, I sowed instead the seed of some flesh-colored semi-doubles [presumably offspring of the original Trianon] with foliage that was different; after having repeated this for three or four years, I was able to raise a white; and the seeds of this were what I subsequently sowed, for the most part. The greater part of my seed-bearers are in their 5th or 6th generation; and it is really quite extraordinary to see such diversity among plants springing from the same Type . . . The number of roses descending from my Perpetual Trianon, doubles and semi-doubles, has surpassed 40, and I am sure to add many to the number of doubles before too many years have passed. Many of these roses bloom in clusters of 50 to 60 blossoms; their diameter varies from 3-8 cm [ca. 1-3 inches]; most waft an elegant perfume. From purest white to light purple, all shades are found; but, above all, it is in the details of their appearance that Nature has exercised freedom: wood, leaves, thorns, manner of growth—all vary . . . Such, then, are the reasons I have set up a new division of Perpetuals . . . Let me add an important observation: Within this set of roses are plants which bloom the first year from seeds, which does not ordinarily happen with Chinas, Noisettes, or Bourbons; last year, 10 or 12 young plants bloomed in July. All of these roses coming from this Trianon seem to me to be very receptive to pollination from other varieties—or perhaps it is because of their own inherent qualities that they show so much variation, which seems to me to be the more likely explanation [signed: Vibert, Angers, June 28, 1846].”

Vibert’s rose seedlings apparently varied more than Van Mons’ pears because they originated with a hybrid—the “Trianon” rose, perhaps similar to Portlandica, and possibly pollinated by a Noisette. I do find it odd that Vibert’s Chinas and Noisettes were so slow in blooming. Perhaps I am surprised only because other breeders of the time followed the same program, increasing the precocity of garden roses in general. According to a writer in The Florist and Pomologist (1882):

“Adverting to the influence of selection on precocity, M. Carrière mentions the fact that while the seedling Roses of fifty years ago took six or eight years to produce their flowers, it is not now unusual to see them flowering the first year. There is, however, great variation in this respect between seedlings derived even from the same fruit, some seedlings requiring four, and others from eight to twenty years to fruit. The Duchesse d’Angouléme Pear only began to produce fruit thirty years after it was raised from the seed.”

Van Mons insisted that seedlings raised from the first fruits were more variable than those raised from seeds of mature plants. This may relate to phenotypic plasticity, where a given trait is more easily influenced by environmental conditions, and more subject to vegetative selection for extreme expressions. Breese, et al. (1965) found that Lolium perenne clones that had been propagated vegetatively for many years did not respond to somatic selection for greater or lesser production of tillers. To the contrary, seedlings responded more significantly.

  • A cockade is a knot of ribbons, usually worn on a hat, to indicate
    political allegiance. The Austrian cockade is black and yellow.
    Another aspect of Van Mons’ system seems to have been Genetic Transilience. This is particularly noteworthy in his discussion of a line of roses he had grown. In some selections, the flowers increased in fullness in subsequent generations, but the form and color did not vary in a useful way. In other selections, color and form were the predominant improvements. “We obtained several duplicates of the plants which had been late in bloom, and amongst other things the cocarde d’Autrich [Austrian cockade*], which was quite black, and which was taken from me when it came to flower.”

(to be continued)

Bibliography

Unripe Seeds Biblio
Arthur: Unripe seeds (1890)
Arthur: Unripe seeds (1895)
Arthur: Unripe seeds (1899)
Bradley: Fermented orange seeds (1726)
Bailey: Van Mons, Knight and the Production of Varieties (1896)
Breese, et al. Somatic selection in perennial ryegrass (1965)
Brown, R. (1874) Results of the Use of long-kept Seeds, A Manual of Botany pp, 525-526.
Desai, B. B. (2004) Seeds Handbook p. 296.
DeVries, D. P. (1976a) Juvenility in Hybrid Tea Roses, Euphytica 25: 321-328.
DeVries, D. P. (1976b) Selection of Hybrid Tea Rose Seedling for Cut Flower Yield, Euphytica 25: 361-365.
DeVries, D. P. and Dubois, L. A. M. (1977) Early Selection in Hybrid Tea Rose Seedlings for Cut Stem Length, Euphytica 26: 761-764.
DeVries, H. (1906) Species and Varieties pp. 75-78.
DeVries, H. (1909) Mutation Theory pp. 179-180.
Downing, A. J. (1849) The Van Mons Theory, Working Farmer 1(4): 62-63.
Gideon, P. M. (1899) Quoted in Apple Seedlings at Peter M. Gideon’s Place, The Minnesota Horticulturist 27(9): 352.
Goff, E. S. (1890) Earliness from Unripe Seed. Garden and Forest 3(132): 427.
Goff, E. S. (1892) A Breeding Experiment with Tomatoes, Rep. Wis. Exper. Sta. viii pp. 152-159.
Hemsley, W. B. (1878) The Garden 13: 262
Loudon, J. C. (1824) Propagating Pears, Encyclopedia of Gardening p. 707.
Manning, R. (1869) Van Mon’s Theory, Am. Jour. Hort. 5: 274-276.
Munson, W. M. (1907) Plant Breeding in its Relation to American Pomology, Maine Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. pp. 103-104.
Neill, P. (1823) Professor Von Mons.—New Pears, Horticultural Tour pp. 301-304, 306-311.
Olsson-Seffer, P. (1907) Rubber Planting in Mexico and Central America, Jamaica Dept. of Agric. Bulletin 5(10, 11): 205.
Poiteau, P. A. (1836) Theory of Van Mons’, Farmer’s Register 4(4): 222-232.
Poiteau, P. A. (1850) Revue of Theory of Van Mons. Jour. d’Horticulture Pratique de la Belgique pp. 206-207(1850)
Puvis, M. A. (1844) Multiplication of the varieties of any species by sowings, L’Agriculture Pratique pp. 413-416.
Rivers, T. (1855) Raising New Varieties of Pears from Seed, Horticulturist 10: 208-212.
Thomas, J. J. (1855) Production of New Varieties, The American Fruit Culturist pp. 24-27.
Troyer, A. F. and W. L. Brown (1976) Selection for Early Flowering in Corn: Seven Late Synthetics, Crop Science 16(6): 767-772.
Van Mons, J.-B. (1833) Fruit Trees
Van Mons, J.-B. (1835) Arbres Fruitiers
Visser, T. (1965) On the Inheritance of the Juvenile Period in Apple, Euphytica 14: 125-134.
Visser, T. and De Vries, D. P. (1970) Precocity and Productivity of Propagated Apple and Pear Seedlings as Dependent on the Juvenile Period, Euphytica 19: 141-144.
Visser, T., Verheagh, J.J. and de Vries, D.P. (1976) A Comparison of Apple and Pear Seedlings with Reference to the Juvenile Period. I. Seedling Growth and Yield. Acta Hort. (ISHS) 56: 205-214.
Visser, T. (1976) A Comparison of Apple and Pear Seedlings with Refrence to the Juvenile Period. II. Mode of Inheritance. Acta Hort. (ISHS) 56:215-218.
Waldron, C. B. (1891) Fruits in North Dakota, Ann. Rpt. Minn. Sta. Hort. Soc. 19: 170.
Weston, E. (1836) Knight and Van Mons, 8th Anniversary Mass. Hort. Soc.
"- http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Heredity/King/VanMons.html

5 Likes

There is some land close to me that has what I believe from a distance (~100 yards) are large pear trees. No one lives on this land or has in the last 15 years that I’ve been here. It looks like an old orchard area and there seems to be quite a few pears(?) on these trees this year. I’ve found out the owners name and I’m about to go knock on his door and ask permission to go look at them. I really know nothing about pears but if these trees are bearing fruit after how many years of no care then I want to check them out. There is also an old pecan orchard on this land. I wonder what else I’ll find if I can get out there.

2 Likes

Get pictures of the trees, leaves, fruit etc. and see if we can help identify them.

2 Likes

I talked to the owner. He’s given me permission to go look at them. He says they are Kieffer pears that are prob about 75-80 years old if not older. I’ll probably try to get out there soon but planning to go out of town Sunday and won’t be back until Wednesday so I don’t know if I’ll get out there before I go. How long do pear trees live?

Katy

2 Likes

I’ve seen pear trees that I know were 150 years old but they were ungrafted standards. Typically with new pears it’s partially determined by the rootstock but they should live at least 40 years.

He first told me that they were planted around 1900 and then started working out the time frame. The man that told him they were planted when he was a boy was 85 years old. He really didn’t say how long ago he was told that…he’s a retired gentleman himself so I guess it could have been 20 years ago that the 85 year old told him that :flushed::flushed::flushed:. I can tell by looking from a distance that they are old!! We had a drought here in 2011 that was history making and lots of trees died… I may try to go out and look at them later today.

1 Like

I have watched people core drill a tree for age before. If they take out a small core it does not hurt the tree and they can count the rings in the wood.

I know a little about the history of the old southern pear, the LeConte Pear. Captain John LeConte purchased a Chinese sand pear seedling from a nursery in Philadelphia and planted it on the LeConte Plantation in Liberty County GA in around 1850. It turned out that the tree was probably a hybrid with Bartlett being the pollen parent. As far as I know the LeConte Pear was the first fairly high quality soft pear that did well in all parts of Georgia, as well as Northern Florida. The family started selling the pairs sometime after the Civil War and by the 1880s Liberty County had a thriving industry growing and shipping LeConte pears up north because it would ripen before pears in the northern states.

I have a LeConte Pear tree. It is indeed a delicious pear. It’s very similar to Golden Boy which I suspect is a daughter variety. At least with my trees I find that Goldenboy is a much more vigorous tree, and the pears are larger on average and of slightly higher quality to the extend that the fruit is different at all. The folks at Just Fruits and Exotics where bought both trees have confirmed that they have had similar experienced the with both varieties. God bless.

Marcus

6 Likes

Pictures of the pear trees:

Leaves:

Fruit:

I couldn’t tell if there was a graft or not…old and grown up around the trunks.

Katy

4 Likes

That is an old kieffer pear. It looks great for being so old. A good pruning and some manure might keep it going another lifetime. I’m not a big advocate of pruning but that tree needs reshaping. Who knows Kate it will likely outlast us as is.

3 Likes

Probably! There were about 18 of them still standing. One was fresh dead (still standing) and there were a couple in heaps on the ground. Most had a few fruit and I really think someone had been picking them…none on the ground and there had been tractors or other vehicles in the area recently. No cattle in that pasture. Just from looking from the highway I think there had been more fruit than was there. The workers in the area, usually hispanics, are really good about not letting any food go to waste! They were definitely old trees…The leaves were in better shape than the ones on my trees that have been “taken care of”. There are two pecan orchards on the same property. Very old trees. I did not see any nuts on the trees or on the ground. Standing there in the orchards made you wonder what went on there in yesteryear.

Pecan Orchard

6 Likes

That must have been some orchard in its prime! Wish I could have seen it

2 Likes

Looking for a buttery pear? Part of finding good pears is to know the meaning of words eg. beurre (which means buttery) . The literal definition is a pear with the “meat soft and melting; – used with a distinguishing word; as, Beurre d’Anjou; Beurre Clairgeau” That means Beurré Bosc, Beurré Capiaumont, Beurre Hardy, Beurré d’Arenberg, Beurré Duval, Beurré superfin are all buttery tasting pears. Another thing I did when trying to track these buttery pears down is went to the ARS grin catalog https://www.ars-grin.gov/cor/catalogs/pyrcult.html and searched by beurre which yielded these results

Beurre Alexandre Lucas (3x) = PI 541132 (58.004) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS INFECTED

  • QUINCE COMPATIBLE, POLYPLOID (3x flow cytometry 2008)
    Beurre Auguste = PI 541329 (1067.002) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
    Beurre Capiaumont = PI 104532 (1073.004) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
  • QUINCE COMPATIBLE, DIPLOID (flow cytometry)
    Beurre Clairgeau = PI 541133 (59.002) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
  • LATE RIPE, FROST RESISTANT, MONOLINIA RESISTANT, DIPLOID (flow cytometry)
    Beurre Diel (3x) = PI 541141 (71.002) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
  • LATE RIPE, FIRE BLIGHT SUSCEPTIBLE, QUINCE COMPATIBLE, POLYPLOID (3x flow cytometry 2007)
    Beurre Dilly = PI 264192 (106.002) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
  • EARLY RIPE, SCAB RESISTANT, QUINCE COMPATIBLE
    Beurre Dubuisson = PI 255607 (72.004) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
  • LATE RIPE, QUINCE COMPATIBLE
    Beurre Easter = PI 483363 (75.002) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
  • VERY LATE RIPE, QUINCE COMPATIBLE, DIPLOID (flow cytometry)
    Beurre Flon = PI 105548 (1069.002) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
  • LATE RIPE, DIPLOID (flow cytometry)
    Beurre Fouqueray = PI 541143 (76.002) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
  • QUINCE COMPATIBLE
    Beurre Giffard = PI 541144 (77.002) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
  • QUINCE COMPATIBLE, EARLY RIPE, COLD HARDY (fruited in Anchorage), DIPLOID (flow cytometry)
    Beurre Gris = PI 541145 (78.002) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
  • FIRE BLIGHT SUSCEPTIBLE, ANCIENT
    Beurre Gris d’Hiver Nouveau = PI 541146 (79.002) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
  • LATE RIPE
    Beurre Hardy = PI 300691 (1187.001) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
  • FIRE BLIGHT SUSCEPTIBLE, VIRUS INDICATOR, QUINCE COMPATIBLE, MONOLINIA RESISTANT, DIPLOID (flow cytometry)
    Beurre Hardy - Royal Red = PI 541363 (480.002) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
  • FIRE BLIGHT SUSCEPTIBLE, RED SKIN, DIPLOID (flow cytometry)
    Beurre Henri Courcelle = PI 279329 (82.002) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
    Beurre Inflancka = PI 307539 (83.002) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
    Beurre Jean van Geert = PI 280030 (84.003) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
    Beurre Madame Henre Lamy = PI 131489 (1070.002) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
  • LATE RIPE, VERY LARGE FRUIT
    Beurre Millet = PI 541148 (86.002) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
  • LATE RIPE
    Beurre Naghin = PI 541515 (2123.002) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
    Beurre Phillippe Delfosse = PI 541149 (90.002) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
  • VERY LATE RIPE
    Beurre Six = PI 617675 (2620.001) - Pyrus communis L.
    Beurre Slucka = PI 307540 (91.003) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
  • LATE RIPE
    Beurre Superfin = PI 541150 (558.002) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS INFECTED
  • QUINCE COMPATIBLE, DIPLOID (flow cytometry)
    Beurre d’Amanlis (3x) = PI 541134 (60.002) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
  • QUINCE COMPATIBLE, POLYPLOID (3x flow cytometry 2007)
    Beurre d’Amanlis Panachee = PI 541135 (61.004) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
  • SPECIALTY, STRIPED FRUIT, QUINCE COMPATIBLE, POLYPLOID (3x)
    Beurre d’Angleterre = PI 541136 (62.003) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
  • VERY LATE RIPE, ANCIENT, SCAB RESISTANT
    Beurre d’Arenberg = PI 295083 (64.003) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
    Beurre d’Avril = PI 136621 (1068.002) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
  • VERY LATE RIPE
    Beurre de Bollwiller = PI 541137 (65.002) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
  • LATE RIPE
    Beurre de Jonghe = PI 263679 (68.002) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
  • LATE RIPE
    Beurre de Mortillet = PI 215325 (87.003) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
    Beurre de Nantes = PI 541139 (69.002) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED
    Beurre de Saint Nicolas = PI 541140 (70.003) - Pyrus communis L. - VIRUS TESTED

Even the USDA has a partial list so I checked google books Scott's Orchardist: Or Catalogue of Fruits Cultivated at Merriott, Somerset - John Scott (agriculturist.) - Google Books and checked again Beurre - Google Search. There are many remarkable pears out there or that were out there that would be worth growing most people have never heard of.

4 Likes

U.P. Hedrick, who wrote The Pears of New York, the quintessential book on pears, wrote in 1921 that “Tyson is the best pear of its season for the home orchard” and “No other variety offers so many good starting points for the pear-breeder.”

Though not as large or pretty as its rival, Bartlett, Tyson pears are extra-juicy, sweet and aromatic—and they grow on ultra-hardy trees.”-http://www.hobbyfarms.com/heirloom-pears-3/
Magness is on the list above as are Concorde which is a cross of Doyenné du Comice x Conférence. Conference was a seedling “The female parent is Leon Leclerc de Laval, the male parent is unknown. First discovered 1884, it was taken forward by T. Francis Rivers of the Rivers Nursery of Sawbridgeworth which sadly went out of business many decades ago. The variety was formally named Conference in 1895 at the British Pear Conference” - Your independent guide to pear tree Conference
Doyenné du Comice is an interesting and well known pear! “The parents are not known for this variety. It was bred in France at the Garden of Comice Horticole in Angers in the 1840s. Soon after it was introduced to England. “- Your independent guide to pear tree Doyenne du Comice
Magness like it’s parent Comice is quince compatible. Magness is a cross of “Seckel x Comice. This pear was released by the USDA in 1968 as a very high quality dessert pear that will survive under heavy fireblight pressure. Sometimes tardy to start bearing, but the fruit quality makes up for the light early cropping (branch-spreading will significantly help). Tardy cropping is much less a problem on the OHxF stocks. Mature trees are productive if good pollination is provided. Excellent keeper. Tree is vigorous and spreading.

Magness does not produce good pollen for any other cultivar.”- https://shop.cumminsnursery.com/shop/pear-trees/magness
No one really knows the parents of seckle “It is believed that Seckel pears were discovered growing as a wild sapling in an orchard outside of Philadelphia in the early 1800s. Though there are some that argue that Seckel pears grew from seeds left by German immigrants travelling west. Today, Seckel pears can be found growing in the US Pacific Northwest.”-http://www.specialtyproduce.com/produce/Seckel_Pears_6582.php

This article was written about warren "Market Watch: The magnificent Warren pear
The pear combines the best features of its Seckel and Comice ancestors. And its origin? Most likely Mississippi, of all places. It’s sweet and spicy, and it’s making a cameo appearance in Santa Monica.
November 25, 2011|By David Karp | Special to the Los Angeles Times

(David Karp )

With the partial exception of Bartletts, great locally grown pears are scarce at farmers markets in Southern California, where warm winters and disease render cultivation problematic. This makes it all the more special that Al Courchesne of Frog Hollow Farm, a rock star organic fruit grower from Brentwood, Calif., an hour east of San Francisco, will make a cameo appearance the next two Wednesdays at the Santa Monica farmers market to sell his legendary Warren pears.

Arguably the most delicious pear variety in the world, praised by the likes of Alice Waters, Martha Stewart Living and Oprah Winfrey, the Warren combines the best features of its ancestors, with the intensely sweet, rich, spicy flavor of Seckel, and the larger size and voluptuous juiciness of Comice. And the mystery of its origins, heretofore never fully unraveled, is almost as delicious as its flavor.

The trail that leads to the Warren starts with fire blight, a bacterial disease that makes growing most pears virtually impossible in areas where warm spring rains are common; a winter chill is also required, which is why very few European pears are cultivated in the southern half of California.

Historically, one of the few pears of quality that was resistant to blight was the Seckel, tiny but superbly flavored, and discovered near Philadelphia around 1760. Were it not for its diminutive size, it would doubtless be the preeminent pear on the market today.

Starting before 1900, pear breeders sought to hybridize the disease resistance of the Seckel into larger-fruited varieties. In 1920, Merton B. Waite, a U.S. Department of Agriculture breeder in Maryland, came up with a seedling of the Seckel called the Giant Seckel that bore much larger fruit, and was still blight-resistant. But it was not quite as flavorful, and it never became widely grown.

Breeders working for the USDA in the mid-20th century crossed the Giant Seckel and the Comice and in 1960 released Magness, which was blight-resistant and unequaled in flavor. It was fairly widely planted at first, but it soon proved to be an erratic producer and mostly disappeared from cultivation in subsequent decades.

A curiously similar variety named the Warren was discovered by a highly respected amateur fruit grower, Thomas O. Warren, in a most unlikely locale, Hattiesburg, Miss., about 1976. In the first published description of his namesake pear, a short article that appeared in Pomona magazine in 1986, Warren wrote that he found the original tree “growing in the backyard of a friend.” Its ancestry at first was unknown.

He shared bud wood with fellow enthusiasts in the North American Fruit Explorers organization. Another story, meanwhile, circulated that he had “found it planted in front of a post office and USDA soil conservation service office.” However, according to Ram Fishman, a nurseryman and fruit connoisseur who wrote an excellent online essay about Magness and Warren pears, when questioned further about the variety, Warren allowed that he discovered it among “the remains of a test site used by Mississippi State University.” Aha!

Some seedlings from the cross from which the Magness was selected were sent to a branch station in Meridian, Miss., that has long since closed, according to Kearneysville, W. Va.-based Richard Bell, the current pear breeder for the USDA. It is likely that this station sent some of the seedlings, or grafted trees, to Mississippi State for testing, and that the experimental orchard had been abandoned by the 1970s. The hot, humid conditions in the Deep South are murder on pear trees, most of which would have succumbed to fire blight, especially if unsprayed. A resistant tree would have been extremely conspicuous; if a pear tree could survive untended in Mississippi, it could make it anywhere.

Warren, who died last year at age 96, may have been concerned in the years just after his discovery that someone at the USDA would be miffed that he had filched their experimental variety, and so devised a story about finding it in a friend’s backyard. Today, no one would care about the pedigree of a relatively obscure pear, were it not that it is so supremely delicious and that it is one of the very few varieties that can be grown in blight-prone areas such as the Deep South and parts of California, particularly by home gardeners disinclined to spray.

As word of the prodigy spread, many observers noted that the Warren seemed very similar to the Magness; some maintained that they were identical. But there are slight differences: The Warren is more elongated, can have a richer ground color and red blush, and it is more resistant to fire blight. Also, according to Bell, unpublished analyses of enzymes of the two varieties by scientists at Oregon State University showed that they were very close but differed slightly, results consistent with the theory that they originated from different seeds of the same cross, of the Giant Seckel and the Comice." -http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/25/food/la-fo-market-watch-20111125

5 Likes

Warren and Magness appear to be taking their time producing which is expected.

2 Likes

The POTOMAC pear was released by USDA in 1993. Apparently the USDA and the Ohio State University cooperated on this cultivar. It came from the Kearneysville, WV station. It is a cross of Moonglow X Anjou pears. It is reportedly the highest quality fireblight resistant variety available to date. The skin is light green with moderately fine flesh with a taste like Anjou. Ripens two weeks after Bartlett. Its somewhat cold and heat tolerant surviving Zone 5-9. It keeps 8-10 weeks in refrigeration. The fruit is about 2 1/2". The link Ashspublications.org contains additional data about the pear as shown below.

H
ORT
S
CIENCE
, V
OL
. 31(5), S
EPTEMBER
1996
884
C
ULTIVAR
& G
ERMPLASM
R
ELEASES
H
ORT
S
CIENCE
31(5):884–886. 1996.
‘Potomac’ Pear
Richard L. Bell
1
and Tom van der Zwet
2
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Appalachian
Fruit Research Station, 45 Wiltshire Road, Kearneysville, WV 25430-9425
Roland C. Blake
3
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Ohio
Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH 44691
Craig K. Chandler
4, 5
and Joseph C. Scheerens
5
The Ohio State University, Department of Horticulture, Ohio Agricultural
Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH 44691
Additional index words. Pyrus communis
, fire blight,
Erwinia amylovora
, disease resistance,
fruit breeding
the United States for range of adaptation and
productivity under a variety of environmental
conditions and management systems.
Description
The fruit of ‘Potomac’ is ovate-pyriform or
obovate-obtuse pyriform in shape and is as-
signed an International Board for Plant Ge-
netic Resources (IBPGR) shape rating of 1.3
(Thibault et al., 1983; Fig. 2). Symmetry is
regular, with occasional slight bumpiness. The
cavity is obtuse and occasionally lipped. The
basin is open, narrow, medium in depth, with
a convergent, persistent calyx. Fruit are mod-
erate in size, averaging 68 mm in diameter
(Table 1), with a mean fruit weight of 167 g.
The core is small, averaging 21 mm in diam-
eter. The skin color is light green and the finish
is glossy with inconspicuous lenticels. In some
years, light calyx-end russet can develop. Fruit
sometimes have a light red blush on the sun-
exposed side. The stem is moderate in length
and thickness, flexible, and slightly oblique.
‘Potomac’ pear (
Pyrus communis
L.) com-
bines superior resistance to fire blight [
Erwinia
amylovora
(Burrill) Winslow et al.] with fruit
of good quality. Fire blight is the most serious
disease affecting pears in most production
regions of the northern hemisphere. All culti-
vars of major commercial importance, as well
as many of those available to home orchard-
ists, are highly susceptible to this bacterial
disease. Artificial inoculation of ‘Potomac’ in
orchard tests confirm ratings of incidence and
severity of natural fire blight. ‘Potomac’ was
approved for release in 1993 as a fresh-market
pear cultivar for commercial growers and for
home orchards.
Origin
‘Potomac’ originated from a cross of
‘Moonglow’
x
‘Beurre d’Anjou’ made in 1961
by H.J. Brooks. The seedlings of the progeny
were grown at the Beltsville Agricultural Re-
search Center, Beltsville, Md. ‘Potomac’ was
selected in 1968 and was tested under the
original seedling number US 62537-048. The
original source of resistance to fire blight is the
American cultivar Seckel (Fig. 1). The parent-
age is entirely derived from
P. communis
L.
germplasm. It has been tested as a clonal
selection, budded on ‘Bartlett’ seedling root-
stock, at the Beltsville Agricultural Research
Center; the Appalachian Fruit Research Sta-
tion, Kearneysville, W.Va.; the Ohio Agricul-
tural Research and Development Center,
Wooster; and several other agricultural ex-
periment stations in the United States and
Canada. Testing of ‘Potomac’ needs to be
completed at additional experiment stations in
Received for publication 4 Apr. 1996. Accepted for
publication 16 Apr. 1996. We gratefully acknowl-
edge the contributions of H.J. Brooks, W. Zook, and
G.L. Brenneman. The cost of publishing this paper
was defrayed in part by the payment of page charges.
Under postal regulations, this paper therefore must
be hereby marked
advertisement
solely to indicate
this fact.
1
Research Horticulturist.
2
Research Plant Pathologist.
3
Research Horticulturist, deceased.
4
Current address: Agricultural Research Center,
13138 Lewis, Gallagher Rd., Dover, FL 33527.
5
Associate Professor.
Fig. 2. Fruit of ‘Potomac’ pear. Ruler length is 12 mm.
Fig. 1. Pedigree of ‘Potomac’ pear.
885
H
ORT
S
CIENCE
, V
OL
. 31(5), S
EPTEMBER
1996
Harvest maturity is 14 days after ‘Bartlett’.
The flesh is creamy white. The flesh texture is
moderately fine, buttery, and juicy. Grit cells
are small and confined to a thin layer under the
skin. The flavor is subacid, with mild aroma,
and similar to ‘Beurre d’Anjou’ in character.
The fruit may be ripened after harvest without
postharvest chilling, but is as susceptible to
storage scald as ‘Beurre d’Anjou’ if stored for
more than 2 months in air at –1
°
C. It is,
therefore, not suitable for long-term commer-
cial storage without application of scald con-
trol measures.
The tree is moderately vigorous and spread-
ing. Flowers have white petals, and the anthers
are pink to red. Full bloom at Kearneysville
occurs with ‘Beurre d’Anjou’,

2 to 4 days
before ‘Bartlett’. ‘Potomac’ is self-incompat-
ible and reciprocally cross-compatible with
‘Bartlett’ and ‘Beurre d’Anjou’. Fruit are borne
on terminal flower buds of short lateral shoots
and spurs in young trees, but production shifts
almost exclusively to spurs as trees age. In a
preliminary yield trial on ‘Bartlett’ seedling
rootstock, ‘Potomac’ has been less precocious
than ‘Bartlett’, and with lower yield until 6
years after planting (Table 2). Yield per tree
rapidly surpassed ‘Bartlett’ after year 6, due in
part to loss of bearing surface to fire blight in
‘Bartlett’ trees.
Natural infection in individual trees has
been scored yearly for 8 to 16 years using the
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture fire blight scoring
system (van der Zwet et al., 1970). Fire blight
resistance of ‘Potomac’ is much greater than
that of either ‘Bartlett’ or ‘Beurre d’Anjou’,
with infrequent natural infections rarely ex-
tending further than current-season’s growth
(Table 3). The worst score ever recorded was
6 (10 = no symptoms) for a single 7-year-old
tree in Wooster, Ohio. Natural infections into
1-year-old wood or deeper (score of 8 or
lower) have only been observed in four of 28
trees. Artificial inoculations of actively grow-
ing shoot tips were conducted in May 1986,
1987, and 1991 using a mixture of three viru-
lent isolates (AFRS 259, 260, and 1112) sus-
pended in phosphate buffer diluted to a con-
centration of 1
×
10
8
colony-forming units
(cfu)/mL. A 26-gauge tuberculin syringe was
used to inject 25 to 50
μ
L of the suspension
into 10 or 20 shoots chosen from two to four
trees of each cultivar per year. Lesion length
and total shoot length were measured 8 weeks
after inoculation when disease progress had
ceased. In 1987, four open blossoms on each
of 25 flower clusters also were inoculated
when all trees were at full bloom. A 25-
μ
L
drop of the same isolate mixture, at 1
×
10
8
cfu/
mL, was placed into the floral cup of each
blossom using a micro-pipettor (Brinkmann
Instruments, Westbury, N.Y.). In 1991, open
blossoms of 20 clusters were spray-inoculated
with the same isolate mixture. Frequency of
infection (on the basis of blossoms in 1987 and
clusters in 1991) was scored 2 weeks after
inoculation, and severity of infection for each
cluster, based on progression of symptoms,
was scored at 8 weeks after inoculation.
The degree of resistance of shoots and
blossoms to fire blight infection was high
(Table 3). The resistance is expressed in re-
duced frequency and severity of infections.
The low blossom blight severity scores for
‘Potomac’ reflect the smaller percentage of
infected blossoms or clusters and the reduced
progression of infection through the spurs or
Table 1. Harvest date and fruit characteristics
z
of ‘Potomac’, ‘Bartlett’, and ‘Beurre d’Anjou’ pears.
Cultivar
Trait
Potomac
Bartlett
Beurre d’Anjou
No. years of data
17
17
5
Harvest date
y

  • 14
    0
  • 20
    Size (mm)
    Diameter
    68
    ±
    4
    66
    ±
    5
    54
    ±
    4
    Length
    76
    ±
    3
    81
    ±
    5
    64
    ±
    5
    Core size (mm)
    21
    ±
    3
    23
    ±
    2
    19
    ±
    3
    Flavor
    x
    6.8
    ±
    0.3
    6.4
    ±
    0.3
    5.1
    ±
    0.3
    Grit
    x
    7.5
    ±
    0.1
    6.1
    ±
    0.3
    7.3
    ±
    0.2
    Texture
    x
    6.9
    ±
    0.2
    6.2
    ±
    0.2
    6.6
    ±
    0.3
    Appearance
    x
    6.4
    ±
    0.3
    5.8
    ±
    0.3
    5.5
    ±
    0.3
    Russet
    w
    7.5
    ±
    0.3
    5.6
    ±
    0.4
    5.1
    ±
    0.4
    z
    Fruit samples of six to10 fruit were harvested at random from unthinned trees on one to three dates per year.
    Size data are based on all harvested fruit.
    y
    Optimum harvest date expressed in days after (+) ‘Bartlett’, which averages 20 Aug., 21 Aug., and 25 Aug.
    for Beltsville, Md.; Kearneysville, W.Va.; and Wooster, Ohio, respectively.
    x
    Flavor, grit, texture, and appearance scores are based on a 1 (poor) to 9 (excellent) scale in which a score
    of 6 is considered the threshold for acceptability; scores assigned to sample of six to 10 fruit; mean of
    evaluations of best harvest date sample per year, performed by trained evaluators at Beltsville, Kearneysville,
    and Wooster.
    w
    Russet scores are based on a percentage scale: 1 (100%) to 9 (0%).
    Table 2. Fruit yield data of ‘Potomac’ and ‘Bartlett’ at Kearneysville, W.Va.
    z
    No.
    Total yield
    Fruit wt
    Year
    Cultivar
    trees
    y
    (kg/tree)
    (g/fruit)
    1992
    Potomac
    10
    4.2 a
    209 a
    Bartlett
    5
    13.4 a
    126 b
    1993
    Potomac
    9
    52.6 a
    139 a
    Bartlett
    6
    19.5 b
    117 a
    1994
    Potomac
    x
    9
    58.5
    152
    z
    Ten trees of each cultivar were propagated on ‘Bartlett’ seedling rootstock and planted as 1-year-old trees
    in Nov. 1986. Data are reported as mean of harvested trees. Separation of cultivar means within years by
    Fisher’s protected
    t
    test,
    P

    0.05.
    y
    Number of trees without severe fire blight.
    x
    In 1994, fire blight either killed or severely damaged all ‘Bartlett’ trees. No fruit were harvested.
    Table 3. Fire blight development in response to epiphytotic and artificial shoot and blossom inoculation of
    ‘Potomac’, ‘Bartlett’, and ‘Beurre d’Anjou’.
    Cultivar
    Infection type
    n
    Potomac
    n
    Bartlett
    n
    Beurre d’Anjou
    Epiphytotic
    z
    Beltsville
    6
    9.7
    ±
    0.2
    67
    2.3
    ±
    0.3
    10
    1.2
    ±
    0.4
    Wooster
    8
    8.5
    ±
    0.4
    10
    3.1
    ±
    0.3
    4
    4.5
    ±
    1.0
    Kearneysville
    14
    9.3
    ±
    0.4
    40
    1.6
    ±
    0.2
    10
    2.4
    ±
    0.5
    Shoot inoculation (%)
    Infected
    40
    35 a
    40
    73 b
    20
    90 b
    Lesion length
    y
    40
    10.7 a
    40
    64.4 b
    20
    60.9 b
    Blossom inoculation
    1987
    Infected blossoms
    x
    100
    12
    100
    92
    100
    79
    Severity
    w
    25
    1.9 a
    25
    5.1 b
    25
    4.7 b
    1991
    Infected clusters (%)
    v
    20
    45
    20
    100


Severity
w
20
1.3 a
20
4.9 b


z
Mean (+
SE
) lowest (most severe) USDA fire blight infection score per tree: 1 = dead to 10 = no symptoms
(van der Zwet et al., 1970). n = number of trees. Data are based on 8 to 16 years after planting; exact number
of years varied with cultivar and location.
y
Mean lesion length as a percentage of current-season’s shoot length, 8 weeks postinoculation. n = number
of shoot tips inoculated. Mean of 3 years of data for ‘Potomac’ and ‘Bartlett’ and 2 years of data for ‘Beurre
d’Anjou’ at Kearneysville, W.Va. Mean separation by Waller–Duncan k ratio
t
test,
P

0.05, k = 100.
x
Percentage of infected blossoms, 2 weeks postinoculation; one year of data at Kearneysville.
w
Mean severity score per cluster: 0 = no infection, 1 = floral cup, 2 = ovary, 3 = pedicel, 4 = basal tissue of
cluster, 5 = spur or 1-year-old wood, 6 = 2-year or older wood; 8 weeks postinoculation. Mean separation
by Waller–Duncan k ratio
t
test,
P

0.05, k = 100.
v
Percentage of infected clusters, 2 weeks postinoculation; 1 year of data at Kearneysville.
1-year-old terminal shoots into older wood.
Inoculations with five individual isolates at
three locations for 2 years have given similar
results for shoot and blossom inoculations
(Bell et al., 1990; Bell and van der Zwet,
unpublished data).
H
ORT
S
CIENCE
, V
OL
. 31(5), S
EPTEMBER
1996
886
C
ULTIVAR
& G
ERMPLASM
R
ELEASES
Availability
The budwood supply for this cultivar is
limited and trees are not available from the
authors. Interested nurseries and research per-
sonnel should send requests for noncertified
budwood to R.L.B. Certified virus-free
budwood is available from IR-2/NRSP5.
Budwood of this release has been deposited in
the National Plant Germplasm System, where
it will be available for research purposes,
including development and commercializa-
tion of new cultivars.
Literature Cited
Bell, R.L., T. van der Zwet, W.G. Bonn, B.
Thibault, and P. Lecomte. 1990. Environ-
mental and strain effects on screening for fire
blight resistance. Acta Hort. 273:343–350.
Thibault, B., R. Watkins, and R.A. Smith (eds.).
1983. Descriptor list for pears (
Pyrus
). Intl.
Board Plant Genet. Resources, Rome.
van der Zwet, T., W.A. Oitto, and H.J. Brooks.
1970. Scoring system for rating the severity
of fire blight in pear. Plant Dis. Rptr. 54:835–
839.
‘Potomac’ is recommended for commer-
cial trial and use as a home-orchard cultivar in
areas where fire blight is a serious problem and
susceptible cultivars cannot be grown suc-
cessfully.
Potomac has been indexed for virus infec-
tion by the IR-2/NRSP5 program at Washing-
ton State Univ., Prosser, and has tested nega-
tive for apple stem grooving, apple stem pit-
ting, apple chlorotic leafspot, and pear vein
yellows viruses. Tests for stony pit have not
been completed.

2 Likes

Moonglow is a cross of Roi Charles de Wurtemburg pear x Michigan US 437. Michigan US 437 is a cross of Barseck x Bartlett and Barseck is a cross of BartlettxSeckel. This is all relevant as just mentioned because Potomac is a cross of moonglow x anjou so one might think the fireblight resistance goes back to the original cross of seckel and the same with moonglow and Barseck the FB resistance is from one cross. The key to making these better crosses is Michigan US437 pear. If you are interested in pear breeding you might be interested in this book Fruit Breeding - Google Books

2 Likes

PASSE CRASSANE
Origin:M. Boisbunel, France, about 1845.
Number one winter pear in Italy.
Additional: Passe-Crassane Pear is a variety developed by M. Boisbunel which was a nurseryman from Rouen, France. The pear was first available in 1845. Little more is known about the favorite pear in France.
AURORA aka (NY7620)
Origin: Marguerite Marillat x Williams’,
selected in 1950, named 1964, at New York
Agricultural Experimental Station, Geneva, USA.
BEURRÉ BOSC aka (KAISER ALEXANDER)
Origin: 1807, Open pollinated seedling, either
from Van Mons, Louvain, Belgium, or Haute-
Saone, France.
CORELLA
Origin: Probably a seedling of Forelle, Australia.
JOSEPHINE DE MALINES
Origin: Chance seedling from Major Esperen
of Malines, Belgium, 1830.
PACKHAM’S TRIUMPH
Origin: C.H.Packham, Molong, N.S.W.
Australia, about 1896. Thought to be a seedling
from Uvedale’s St. Germain x Williams’.
WILLIAMS’ BON CHRÊTIEN aka (BARTLETT)
Origin: Mr Stair, Aldermaston, about 1770,
introduced by Mr Richard Williams,
nurseryman, Turnham Green, England,
introduced by Tom Brewer, Roxbury,
Massachusetts, whose property became that of
Enoch Bartlett to USA.
Mock’s Red Williams’
(Sensation, Red Sensation)
Origin: Sport of Williams’. Walter Mock Snr,
Mahony Road, East Burwood, Victoria,
Australia, early 1930s.
WINTER COLE
Origin:Seedling of Winter Nelis raised by J.C.
Cole, Richmond, Victoria, Australia. Introduced
by J Brunning and Sons, late 1880s.
WINTER NELIS aka (HONEY PEAR)
Origin:Seedling from M. Jean Charles Nelis,
Malines, Belgium, early 1800s about 1814.
ABATÉ FÉTEL aka (ABBE FETELE)
Origin: Savoie, France, 1866, number one
pear in Italy
BEURRÉ HARDY
Origin: M. Bonnet, Boulogne-sur-Mer, France
about 1820.
BUTIRRA PRECOCE MORETTINI
Origin: Coscia x Williams’, bred by Morettini,
Florence, Italy, 1956.
BUTIRRA ROSATA MORETTINI
Origin: Coscia x Beurré Clairgeau, bred and
introduced 1960 by Morentini, Florence,
Italy.
CLAPP’S FAVOURITE
Origin: Flemish Beauty x Williams’. Bred by
Thaddeus Clapp, Dorchester, Massachusetts,
USA, before 1860.
CONCORDE
PATENT (FLEMINGS)
Origin: Conference x Doyenné du Comice, F.
Alston, East Malling, England, 1968, selected
1977.
CONFERENCE
Origin: Leon le Clare de Laval open pollinated
seedling, introduced to England by Thomas
Rivers, Sawbridgeworth, England, 1885, named
for the National Pear Conference in England in
1885.
DR JULES GUYOT
(WILLIAM PRECOCE, FRENCH
BARTLETT, LIMONERA)
Origin: M. Ernest Baltet of Troyes, Belgium,
1870, introduced to USA 1885.
DOYENNÉ DU COMICE
(DECANA DEL COMIZIO)
Origin:Horticultural Society of Maine and
Loire, Angers, France, 1849. To USA 1850,
seedling selection.
ELDORADO
Origin: Chance seedling probably Winter Nelis
x Williams’ by R. Patterson, Placerville,
California, U.S.A. 1945. (South African strain is
like a very early Williams’, flowers 2-3 weeks
before Williams’ and matures just before
Williams’, known as Early Bon Chretien)
FORELLE
PATENT (FLEMINGS)
Origin:Originated in Germany probably early
1700s, red pear probably a parent of Corella,
U.S.A.
HARROW DELIGHT
Origin:Williams’ x Purdue 80-51 (Old Home x
Early Sweet), R.E.C.Layne, Harrow, Ontario,
Canada.
HOWELL aka (JONAH’S SEEDLING)
Origin:A seedling of Jonah, Thomas Howell,
New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A. 1840.
LEMON BERGAMOT
Origin:Synonym. Passans de Portugal, origin
doubtful, grown in South Australia.
PRECOCE DI FIORANI
Origin:Beurré Gifford x Coscia, bred by
Pirovano-Manzo, ISF, Rome, Italy.
ROGUE RED
Origin:Comice x (Seckel x Farmingdale
seedling 122) 1969 by Prof. Frank Reimer,
Oregon, U.S.A.
Cocktail Pears
RED FACE (FACCIA ROSA)
Origin: Sicily, Italy
SAN GIOVANNI aka (ST JOHN)
Origin: South Italy, mentioned since 1660
HOOD
Origin: Florida, USA. unknown origin.
FLORDAHOME
Origin: Hood x Tenn, Florida.
FLA 39-40
Origin: W.B.Sherman, University of Florida.
FLA 57-75
Origin: W.B.Sherman, University of Florida.
FLA 58-45
Origin:W.B.Sherman, University of Florida.

1 Like

A little trick I learned from @scottfsmith several years ago when researching obscure pears. This is a great website http://pomologie.com/poire/index.html. Specifically you will be interested in this page the “GUIDE DES POIRES GUIDE OF PEARS” http://pomologie.com/poire/poire1/fpoires/varietes.html

2 Likes

I ordered a Duchesse d’ Angouleme pear for this spring. Now I’m worried I may be getting a Duchesse Bronzee instead. So how will I be able to tell? Also I wonder which nurseries are selling the REAL Duchesse d’ Angouleme pear?

1 Like