[********The text below has not yet been cleaned*********]

The genus Vitis was formed and named by Tournefort, a French botanist, more than two hundred years ago. In his work, Institutiones Rei Herbariae, published in Paris in 1700, he gives the following description of this genus:

"The Vitis is a genus of plant with a (A) flower shaped like a rose, with many petals placed uniformly in a circle, out of the middle of which arises the pistil (B), with stamens pressed together (C), the flower (D,E,F) folds upward; the pistil develops into an edible berry (E), fleshy, full of juice, and usually with four seeds (H,I), the seeds are pear-shaped (K)."

The capital letters in the parentheses refer to illustrations. These indicate that Tournefort had a very clear conception of the flowering parts of a grape. He gives twenty-one species under this genus of which nine are American, one, however, being our Virginia creeper. Tournefort's work is all very indefinite; others of the species than those credited to America may be American, and it is quite possible that of the nine some would not be classed among the grapes to-day. Each species is credited to some previous botanist and it is evident that Tournefort was a compiler rather than an original worker with grapes.

The next botanist who contributed to our knowledge of this genus was Linnaeus, the great Swedish systematist, who, in his Genera Plantarum, 1754, gives the following description of the flower (Like Tournefort's, Linnaeus' book is written in Latin and the extracts here given are free translations):

"Calyx. Five-toothed, small.

"Corolla. Petals five, rudimentary, small, caducous.

"Stamens. Filaments five, subulate, erect, spreading, caducous, anthers simple.

"Pistil. Ovary egg-shaped, style none, stigma obtuse headed.

"Pericarp. Berry nearly round, large, one cell.

"Seeds. Five, plump, terminate cordate, base contracted, partially divided into two cells."

Linnaeus in his Species Plantarum of 1753, gives seven species as belonging to this genus, three of which are credited to America. One, however, Vitis arborea, is not classed among the grapes by present-day botanists.

Marshall, the first American botanist we have to consider, for neither Tournefort nor Linnaeus had ever been on this continent, in his Arbustrum Americanum, 1785, describes the genus Vitis in terms so nearly identical with those of Linnaeus as to lead one to suspect that it is merely a translation from the Genera Plantarum. Marshall gives five species. One of these is certainly not a grape and one other is indeterminate.

Thomas Walter, in his Flora Caroliniana, 1788, gives a brief description of the genus very similar to the foregoing but he also speaks of the masculine and feminine forms of the flowers, a point that does not seem to have been noticed by any botanist of an earlier date. He speaks of the corolla adhering at the top and coming off as a cap, one of the distinguishing characters of Vitis. This latter point had, however, been noted by Tournefort, and his figures show that this is what he means when he speaks of the flower as folding upward. Tournefort, however, seems to have been under the mistaken impression that Ampelopsis (Ampelopsis quinquifolia Michx. is our common American form) opens its flowers in the same way, as he includes this under Vitis. Walter gives only three species and his descriptions of these are very brief.

The first European botanist who made an extensive study of American plants in their habitats was Andrč Michaux, a French botanist who traveled extensively in North America at about the close of the eighteenth century. In his Flora Boreali-Americana, which was published in 1803, he gives a brief generic description of Vitis which includes all of the essential characters given by Walter. He also questions the male and female characters mentioned by Walter.  [For instance,] Grapes are not to-day considered dioecious but polygamo-dioecious, a distinction which will be defined later.  [sentence moved from footnote in original text. -ASC] Michaux mentions five species of the American grapes. His descriptions are clear and every species described can readily be recognized so that there is no question among botanists as to what species was meant in any instance.

An interesting contribution to our knowledge of the grapes of North America is that of William Bartram.  Bartram's opportunities for becoming familiar with these plants were probably greater than those of any other person of his day, he being a resident of America, and his father having been a botanist, so that he was trained from childhood to observe plants. The following is an extract from an article of Bartram's in the Domestic Encyclopedia, 1804:

"The most obvious characters which distinguish the grape vines of America from those of the old continent are: 1. The berries of all the American species and varieties that I have seen, approach the figure of an oblate spheroid; that is, the poles are flattened, and the transverse diameter is longer than the polar: however, I have observed that Alexander's grape, and some of the but or bullet grapes, approach nearer to an oval or ellipsis which is the figure of all foreign or European grapes that I have seen; viz. a prolate spheroid. 2. Most of the American species and varieties have a glaucous and yellowish pubescence on the under surface of their leaves. 3. All that I have observed in the northern and eastern districts of the United States are polygamous; i. e. those vines which bear fruit (female) have hermaphrodite flowers (pentandria monogynia); but the males have only five stamina, without any female organ, and are always barren. One should suppose, from Walter so strongly marking this character as to induce him to place the Vitis in the class Dioecia, when Linnaeus and the other European botanists had placed it in Pentandria (he himself being an European), that all the grape vines of the old continent are hermaphroditous and Pentandrian. I know not from my own observation, whether the bull-grape of Carolina is hermaphroditous or dioecious, and therefore rest satisfied with Walter's assertion." Bartram gives four species.

Nuttall, in his Genera of North American Plants and Catalogue of the Species, gives a rather stereotyped description of the genus but in addition in fine type he gives the following:

"Leaf simple and cordate, angularly or sinuately lobed, rarely digitate or pinnate (Cissus?), flowers numerous, in compound racemes, not uncommonly producing 4, 6 and 7 petals, with a corresponding number of stamens, calix mostly entire, or obsoletely crenate, a glandulous disk surrounding the germ; tendril dichotomous, sometimes producing flowers, therefore analogous to a sterile raceme."

It is evident that Nuttall was in doubt as to the distinguishing characters between Vitis and the allied genus, Cissus. While he has the species of the two genera in the same position they would now be placed, his reference to pinnate-leaved species is somewhat misleading as no pinnate-leaved species are known to-day in either Europe or America. He uses, however, the distinguishing character between these two genera that we now accept, that is, Vitis has petals that adhere at the tops and come off in the form of a cap or calyptrum, while in Cissus the corolla does not fall off as a cap. Nuttall mentions six species as belonging to this genus: Vitis labrusca, V. aestivalis, V. cordifolia, V. riparia, V. rotundifolia, and V. palmata, with a question mark after the last species. None is described. His work is apparently a discriminating compilation of the work of earlier botanists.

Many other botanical workers wrote on this genus during the period covered and some of them did very valuable work in describing the various species but their work has not been referred to because it did not add to the knowledge of the genus as a whole.

The first man to write a monograph on American grapes was Rafinesque, who published in 1830 a paper bound volume entitled American Manual of the Grape Vine, etc. Rafinesque, who was long a resident of the United States, had an opportunity to acquire knowledge on the subject upon which he wrote second to none other. His description of the genus is similar to that of his predecessors and very good; but here all similarity ends and practically all value, After having made forty-one species, the greater portion of which have names given by himself, he says: "By the above enumeration of our Grapes I have done for this genus what Michaux did for our Oaks. Owing to the great confusion of former authors, and the difficulty of comparing the leaves and fruits of all the species, it is hardly as perfect as I should wish. Rigid botanists may perhaps wish to reduce this species to a minor number or consider some as hybrids: if they can find good permanent collective characters, let them reduce our Grapes and Oaks to a dozen species. But the angular or striated branches, the long or short petioles, the oval, cordate or reniform leaves, etc., must always be deemed essential specific characters, and several of my new species, such as V. bracteata, V. angulata, V. peltata, V. canina, V. blanda, V. longifolia, V. acerifolia, V. amara, V. prolifera, etc., must be deemed very distinct." None of those of which he says " must be deemed essential specific characters" is now so considered and the species which must be " deemed very distinct " are many of them unrecognized and none of them known by the name which he gave.

Le Conte, about the middle of the last century, did much work in the botany of grapes, publishing several papers in the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, These were in the nature of monographs although they were not, so far as known, published separately. He gives twelve species generally taken from other authors.

A little later than Le Conte, Engelmann of St. Louis, gave his attention to the genus Vitis, clearing up a number of disputed points. His work was published in various reports and later in the Bushberg Catalogue and Grape Manual. Engelmann's studies are particularly valuable in that he was the first botanist working with grapes who lived in the middle west and the territory over which he ranged in his botanical expeditions was comparatively virgin. This was about the time of the reconstitution of the French vineyards by the use of American roots as stocks on which to graft their French vines to enable them to resist phylloxera. Many thousand cuttings and rooted vines of American grapes were sent to France annually for this purpose. The value of grafting on resistant stocks had stimulated an interest among French scientists in grapes generally and particularly in the American species. While their aid in separating species was but slight, owing to their distance from the field where the plants were growing, yet the investigations of Planchon, Millardet, and others as to the comparative value of various characters in separating species, were of great importance. These investigations were utilized by Engelmann to a considerable extent. Owing to its simplicity, and somewhat perhaps to the place of publication, his work obtained favor among grape-growers to a greater extent than that of any of his predecessors. In his earlier writings he gives six species but in the last edition of the Bushberg Catalogue thirteen are enumerated.

1. V. bicolor

2. V. cordifolia

3. V. rotundifolia

4. V. doaniana

5. V. longii

6. V. labrusca

7. V. rupestris

8. V. riparia

9. V. vinifera

1O. V. aestivalis


Shortly after and partly coincident with Engelmann, Munson, of Texas, made valuable contributions to our knowledge of American grapes. Munson is, what none of his predecessors had been, a cultivator of grapes and a breeder of new varieties as well as a botanical student of the subject. The region in which he lived was comparatively new to botanists, and it was partly, perhaps, on this account that he raised the number of species from the thirteen given by Engelmann to twenty-five. At the present time it appears doubtful if all of these will ultimately be given specific rank. Many of them undoubtedly will, and others of them will be recognized at least as varieties. Munson is res ~ded to-day as the chief authority on grapes of the semi-arid and mountainous districts of the West and is one of the leading authorities on American viticulture.

The last man who has paid special attention to the grapes of North America is Bailey, of Cornell. In his latest classification he gives twenty-three species of American grapes. Bailey is the only American botanist of experience and recognized standing in general botany who has paid special attention to the grape. His monograph of the genus Vitis which, with some changes, has appeared successively in Gray's Synoptical Flora, The Evolution of Our Native Fruits, and the Cyclopedia of American Horticulture, is the most complete work we have on this subject. With his permission we have followed his arrangement of species in The Grapes of New York.

With this brief history of the formation of the genus Vitis as it now stands we pass to a consideration of the botanical characters of Vitis.

From the time when botanists first commenced to work on the grape there has been a constant search for taxonomic characters for separating the various species clearly and distinctly. Many of the earlier descriptions, while they are correct so far as they go, do not mention enough characters to enable one to distinguish between similar species. It has been found that dependence upon the shape of the leaf, size of berry, size of plant, date of ripening, and similar characters, is very uncertain and unsatisfactory and that, while these characters are always mentioned in descriptions as indicating the intrinsic value of a species, they are of little value from a systematic standpoint. There are, however, several characters of Vitis which have great taxonomic importance.

One of the fundamental characters which determine a species is continuous or intermittent tendrils, first noticed by Professor A. Braun of Berlin. Vitis labrusca, the common Fox grape, is peculiar in that there are tendrils, or an inflorescence, opposite nearly every leaf; this arrangement is known as continuous tendrils. All other species have two leaves with a tendril opposite each and a third leaf without a tendril; such species are said to have intermittent tendrils. Continuity of tendrils is a variable character and to ascertain which of the two forms is present it is necessary to have vigorous, healthy, typical canes. The lowest leaves of canes usually have no opposite tendrils. This character is shown in the color-plates of the several species.

A closely related character is that of the number of inflorescences borne by a species. All species excepting Vitis labrusca average two inflorescences to the cane but the last named species, at least in some of its subdivisions, may bear from three to six inflorescences, each of course in the place of a tendril opposite a leaf.

Professor Millardet of Bordeaux first called attention to the value of that part of the cane known as the diaphragm as a means of distinguishing species. The cane of the grape vine contains a large pith, and in most species this pith is interrupted by woody tissue at the joints; this woody tissue is the diaphragm. The presence or absence of the diaphragm and its thickness are of taxonomic value. In Rotundifolia, the southern Fox grape, the diaphragm is absent; in Riparia, the Riverbank grape, it is very thin; in Rupestris it is slightly thicker; while Cordifolia, Aestivalis, and Labrusca have thick diaphragms. This character is studied best in the year-old canes of the grape. The color-plate of canes shows the range in thickness of diaphragms as they occur in several species.

The time of flowering is of considerable value in distinguishing species. Unfortunately it requires live plants and a certain time of year in order that this character be noted. The first American species to flower is Riparia. Rupestris flowers shortly after; next, Labrusca; Aestivalis a little later, although the Lincecumii variety of Aestivalis blooms slightly before Labrusca; Cordifolia is very late in coming into bloom, and Cinerea still later. Vinifera, the European grape, blooms shortly after Labrusca. The cultivated offspring of all wild grapes retain the blooming characters of the species from which they are derived.

Other characters that have been found of great value are those connected with the seed. The ability to use the seed characters, however, cannot readily be acquired except by the use of an illustrated manual and some experience in selecting the seeds, as they are quite variable on the same plant. The weight of the seeds differs in different species, but varies so much inside the species that it is not of much value from a systematic standpoint. In general, it may be said that the Labruscas have the largest and heaviest seed of our American grapes; Riparia has the smallest seed, with Aestivalis occupying an intermediate position. The size of the seeds in Aestivalis, however, is more noticeable on account of the small size of the fruit. The color-plate illustrates the different characters to be found in grape seeds and a study of this plate with the technical descriptions of the several species will show how important seeds become in classifying grapes.

Attention is called to the characters given by Bartram as distinguishing the European from the American species. The first difference that he mentions is in the shape of the fruit, that of the Vinifera being more or less oval and that of American species roundish or oblate. Recent technical descriptions of our American species give the fruit as spherical where the shape is mentioned at all. On the other hand it is known that most of the cultivated varieties of European grapes are oval. Does this mean that all of our cultivated American varieties which show oval berries, such as Isabella, Catawba, and others, contain Vinifera blood? It could not be said without careful study that this is true but it is certainly worthy of consideration. This point seems to have escaped the attention of our later-day botanists.

The sexual status of the grape has always been a source of misunderstanding. The earlier botanists spoke of American vines as dioecious, that is, bearing staminate and pistillate flowers on separate individuals. In this, as was noted on page 98, they were corrected by Bartram, in so far as American species were concerned, he stating that the vines of America were polygamous (showing staminate and hermaphrodite plants). Bartram did not presume to speak as to the sex of the flowers of the Old World grape. Later it was determined that the cultivated varieties of Europe were always hermaphrodite and that staminate forms were unknown. Engelmann explains this so well and with such apparent satisfaction that we cannot do better than quote him here. "All the true Grape-vines bear fertile flowers on one stock and sterile flowers on another separate stock, and are therefore called polygamous, or, not quite correctly, dioecious. The sterile plants do bear male flowers with abortive pistils, so that while they never produce fruit themselves, they may assist in fertilizing the others; the fertile flowers, however, are hermaphrodites containing both organs stamens and pistils and are capable of ripening fruit without the assistance of the male plants. Real female flowers without any stamens do not seem ever to have been observed. Both forms, the male and the hermaphrodite, or if preferred those with sterile and those with complete flowers, are found mixed in their native localities of the wild plants, but of course only the fertile plants have been selected for cultivation, and thus it happens that to the cultivator only these are known; and as the Grapevine of the Old World has been in cultivation for thousands of years, it has resulted that this hermaphrodite character of its flowers has been mistaken for a botanical peculiarity, by which it was to be distinguished, not only from our American Grape-vines, but also from the wild grapes of the old world. But plants raised from the seeds of this as well as any other true Grape-vine, generally furnish as many sterile as fertile specimens, while those propagated by layering or by cuttings, of course, only continue the individual character of the mother-plant or stock." The accompanying plate shows various forms of grape flowers.

He further says in a foot-note: "These fertile plants, however, are of two kinds; some are perfect hermaphrodites, with long and straight





O 3

stamens around the pistil, the others bear smaller stamens, shorter than the pistil which soon bend downward and curve under it; these may be called imperfect hermaphrodites, approaching females, and they do not seem to be as fruitful as the perfect hermaphrodites, unless otherwise fertilized."

Beach tested many of our cultivated varieties by sacking the clusters at blooming time and thus determined their capacity to fertilize themselves. From the data thus secured he divides them into four classes: 1st. Those that are able to fertilize themselves so that the clusters are perfect or varying from perfect to somewhat loose. 2nd. Those in which the clusters are marketable, varying from moderately compact to loose. 3rd. Clusters so loose as to be unmarketable. 4th. Those which are self-sterile or showing no fruit on covered clusters. Of 169 varieties tested, he found 38 belonging to the first class, 66 to the second class, 28 to the third, and 37 to the fourth.

Later it was found that the reason why certain varieties were self-sterile was on account of impotent and abortive pollen, the percentage of abortive pollen grains varying with different varieties and this percentage determining the degree of self-sterility. The upright or depressed stamen is not an invariable criterion of the condition of the pollen although it is usually. There are a few instances in which upright stamens bear impotent pollen but these are very exceptional. Munson made similar tests of vines of twenty-two American species of vines secured from their habitats. In every case he found that they showed only two forms, the staminate vines and the self-sterile hermaphrodite, no perfect hermaphrodites being found. While of some of the species the number of vines tested was a half dozen or less, in most instances many vines were tested from different places. This is particularly interesting in that it becomes a puzzle as to where our perfectly hermaphrodite cultivated forms could have come from if such forms are not present in the wild vines of our woods and prairies.

The structure of the bark is an important distinguishing character for some species; in particular as to whether it peels off and whether in large flakes or in narrow strips or shreds. So, too, the color of the bark is often of taxonomic importance. The form and color of the leaves are often considered, but these characters are variable and may be misleading. The lobing of leaves is a fairly uniform character in most species, some having lobed and others having entire leaves. As to color and texture, the upper surface of the leaf in some species is smooth, glossy and shining and in others rough and dull with varying shades of green. The lower surfaces show similar variations with the addition of varying conditions of pubescence and down or even of cobwebs. In young seedlings the shape and surfaces of the leaves are apt to be quite different from those on the old plants, a character of systematic importance with some species. The flower, as compared with this organ in other genera, is of little importance in distinguishing the species of Vitis, there being an unusual similarity in the structure and appearance of the flowers of the several species.

The number of species of Vitis is very uncertain; as, indeed, is their habitat, except that they are generally confined to the temperate or subtropical regions. Some writers give the number as less than fifty but in all territories the number seems to depend on the thoroughness with which the region has been worked over botanically, and also on the judgment of the botanist doing the work. Gray recognized four species as being indigenous to America. Engelmann in his latest publication (Bushberg Catalogue, 1883), thirteen, while Munson gives twenty-five. Bailey in Gray's Synoptical Flora, gives twenty-three species. Planchon (in 1887) gives twenty-eight species for the world. Seventeen of these are credited to America, ten to Asia, and one, the Vinifera, of unknown nativity. All of these lists, however, are known to be incomplete. Bessey says that the grape is not native to the southern hemisphere, and Planchon credits none to any section south of the equator. Bailey credits two to Australia in a work not intended to cover more than those of American interest. And a correspondent from that continent writes us giving a list of nineteen named and botanically described species indigenous to Australia. The number of species of grapes in the world depends upon the arbitrary limits set for a species and our knowledge of the genus is yet too meager to set these limits with certainty.



A. Skin of mature berry separating freely from the pulp.

B. Nodes without diaphragms: tendrils simple..................... 1. V. rotundifolia.

2. V. munsoniana. B.B. Nodes with diaphragms; tendrils forked.

C. Leaves and shoots glabrous at maturity and without bloom. Tendrils intermittent (V. cinerea and V. arizonica are partial exceptions and might be looked for under C.C.).

D. Leaves thin, light, bright green, generally glabrous below at maturity except perhaps in the axils of the veins (V. champini an exception) with a long or at least a prominent point and usually long and sharp teeth or the edge even jagged. (V. bicolor might be looked for here.)

E. Leaves broader than long; petiolar sinus usually wide and shallow. (V. treleasei might be

sought here.)............................... 3. V. rupestris.

E.E. Leaves ovate in outline; petiolar sinus usually medium to narrow.

F. Diaphragms thin; young shoots not red. 4. V. monticola.

5. V. riparia.

6. V. treleasei.

7. V. longii.

8. V. champini. F.F. Diaphragms thick; young shoots

bright red.............................. 9. V. rubra.

D.D. Leaves thickish, dull colored or grayish green, often holding some close dull pubescence below at maturity, shoots and leaves nearly always more or less pubescent when young; the teeth mostly short; the point mostly rectangular and conspicuous.

E. Plants strong, climbing, with stout persistent tendrils.

F. Young shoots cylindrical, glabrous or very soon becoming so................

10. V. cordifolia.

F.F. Young shoots angled, covered the first year with tomentum or wool....... 11. V. baileyana.

12. V. berlandieri.

13. V. cinerea. E.E. Plants scarcely climbing, tendrils perishing

when without support....................... 14. V. arizonica.

D.D.D. Leaves orbicular, scallop shaped; species of the

Pacific Coast..................................... 15. V. californica.

C.C, Leaves rusty or white tomentose or glaucous blue below, thick or at least firm. (V. cinerea, V. arizonica and possibly V. californica might be sought here.)

D. Leaves flocculent or cobwebby or glaucous below when fully grown (i. e. not covered with a thick dense felt-like tomentum except sometimes in V. doaniana).

E. Shoots white tipped; ends of the growing shoots and the under surface of the leaves whitish or gray............................ 16. V. girdiana.

17. V. doaniana.

E.E. Shoots rusty tipped; the unfolding leaves and (except in V. bicolor) the young shoots distinctly ferrugineous; mature leaves either rusty or bluish below or sometimes becoming green in V. bicolor............................... 18. V. aestivalis.

19. V. bicolor.

20. V. caribaea. D.D. Leaves densely tomentose or felt-like beneath throughout the season; covering white or rusty white.

E. Tendrils intermittent....................... 21. V. candicans.

22. V. simpsoni.

E.E. Tendrils mostly continuous............... 23. V. labrusca.

A.A. Skin and pulp of mature berry cohering. (Old World)............... 24. V. vinifera.


1. Trans. Am. Phil Soc, 1771:339. 2. Michaux, 2:231. 1803. Muscadine grape. 3. Bartram, Doni. Enc., 5^289, 290. 1804. V. taurina; V. vulpina; Bull grape. 4. Muhlen-berg, 1813:27. V. verrucosa* V. rotundifolia; Fox grape; Bull grape. 5. Pursh, 1:169. 1814. Bull grape; Bullet grape. 6. Nuttall, 1:143. 1818. 7. Elliott, 2:687. 1824. V. vulpina; Fox grape. 8+ Rafmesque, 1830:16. V. vulpina* V. muscadina; V. rotundifolia; V. incisa. 9. (?) Ib., 1830:17. V. angulata; Arkansas; Bushy grape; Currant grape; False Scuppernong. 10. Ib.f 1830:17. V. verrucosa; Warty grape. 11. (?) Ib., 1830:17. V. peltata; V. Floridana. 12. Le Conte, Proc. Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci., 6:273. 1853. V. vulpina; V. acerifolia; V. angulata; V. verrucosa; Bullace grape; Bull grape; Muscadine; Scuppernong. 13. Weller, U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1853:306. Scuppernong. 14. Le Conte, Ib., 1857:231. V. vulpina; V. acerifolia; V. angulata; V. verrucosa; Bullace grape; Bull grape; Muscadine; Skuppernong. 15. White, Horticulturist, 12:457. 1857. V. vulpina. 16. Ravenel, U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1859:538. V. vulpina; V. rotundifolia; Mustang; Bullace grape; Bullet grape; Bull grape. 17. Buckley, U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1861:484. Muscadine; Bullace. 18. Koch, III. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1868:81. V. vulpina; Muscadine; Southern Fox grape. 19. Saunders, U.S.D.A. Rpt., 1869:83, 85. fig. V. vulpina; Bullace grape. 20. Wylie, Jour, of Hort., 7:164. 1870. Scuppernong; Bullace. 21. Ib., Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1871 :n6. Scuppernong. 22. Engelmann, Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1872:62. V. vulpina; Southern Fox grape; Bullace grape; Bullit grape; Muscadine. 23. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1883:10, 11, 13, 14, 19. V. vulpina; V. rotundifolia; South' em Fox grape; Bullace grape; Bullit grape; Muscadine. 24. Bush, Ib., 1883:26. V. vulpina. 25. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:138. V. vulpina; Scuppernong; Muscadine. 26. Ib., Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1885:97. Scuppernong; Muscadine. 27. Ib., Gar. Mon., 28:140. 1886. 28. Planchon, De Candolle's Mon. Phan., 5:362. 1887. Fox grape; Muscadine; Bullace; Bullet grape; V. angulata; V. vulpinaf. 29. Munson, Soc. Prom. Ag.Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. Muscadine. 30. Ib., U.S.D.A. Pom. Bui., 3:14. 1890. 31. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474, 475* 1890. Muscadine. 32. Woodworth, Ark. Sta. An. Rpt., 3:93. 1890. V. vulpina. 33. Munson, Am. Gard., 12:661. 1891. 34. Bailey, Ib., 14:353. 1893. Scuppernong. 35. Munson, Bush. Cat., 1894:20, 22, 29. V. vulpina; Muscadine; Southern Fox grape. 36. Bailey, Gray's Syn. Fl., 1:420. 1897. Muscadine; Southern Fox grape; Bullace; Bullit; Bull grape. 37. Britton and Brown, 2:411. 1897. V. vulpina; Southern Fox grape; Bullace grape. 38. Munson, Am. Gard., 20:688. 1899. 39* Ib., Tex. Sta. Bui., 56:219, 232, 234, 241, 272. 1900. fig. Southern Muscadine. 40. Earle, Ala. Sta. Bui., 110:74. 1900. 41. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 43, 45. 42. Newman, S. C. Sta. Bui., 132:1. 1907. Bullis.

Vine variable in vigor, usually very vigorous, climbing high, sometimes, when without support, shrubby and only three or four feet high; when growing in the shade often sending down aerial roots. Wood hard, bark smooth, not scaling off except in old age, with prominent warty lenticels; shoots short-jointed, angled, with fine scurfy pubescence; diaphragms absent; tendrils intermittent, simple. Leaves below medium in size, broadly cordate or roundish; petiolar sinus rather wide, usually shallow; margin with obtuse, wide teeth; not lobed; dense in texture, rather light green color, glabrous above, glabrous or sometimes pubescent along veins below. Cluster small (6-24 berries), loose; peduncle short; pedicels short, rather thick. Berries large, globular or somewhat oblate, black or greenish-yellow; skin usually thick, tough, and with a musky odor; pulp rather tough; ripening unevenly and dropping as soon as ripe. Seeds two to four, very large to medium, shaped something like a coffee-berry, somewhat flattened, shallowly and broadly notched; beak very short; chalaza rather narrow, slightly depressed with radiating ridges and furrows; raphe a narrow groove. Leafing, flowering and ripening fruit very late. (See Plate.)

Rotundifolia, or the southern Fox grape, seems to have attracted the attention of travelers in America from an early period. The references made in the journals of the explorers of colonial times can frequently be recognized as pertaining to this species. Rotundifolia seems to have escaped the attention of botanists, however, until the time of Michaux, who named and described it. Possibly the reason for its being overlooked was because of the supposition that this was the species Linnaeus had described under the name Vulpina. The uncertainty as to who first described Rotundifolia created a confusion that was not definitely cleared up for nearly a hundred years and was responsible for the fact that half the botanists called it Vitis rotundifolia and a nearly equal number Vitis vulpina. Rafinesque, in 1830, described some three or four species within the bounds of what is now known as Vitis rotundifolia. None of these, however, has been accepted by later botanists.

The habitat of this species is southern Delaware, west through Tennessee, southern Illinois, southeastern Missouri, Arkansas (except the northwestern portions), to Grayson County, Texas, as a northern and western boundary, to the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf on the east and south. It becomes rare as one approaches the western limit but is common in many sections of the great region outlined above, being most abundant on sandy, well-drained bottom lands and along river banks and in swamps, thick woodlands and thickets.

Vitis rotundifolia has for years been the favorite grape in many sections of the South. This is largely due, no doubt, to the fact that they have been usually compared with Labrusca or Labrusca-Vinifera varieties of northern origin which are not well adapted to southern conditions. With the introduction of native varieties of "bunch grapes" of merit, the southern species may lose in popularity. It must be said, considering the fact that southern agricultural literature has been filled with recommendations of Rotundifolia grapes for nearly a century, that the cultivation of varieties of this species is comparatively limited.

The climate most suitable for Rotundifolia is that in which cotton grows and it thrives best in the lower portions of the cotton belt of the United States. On account of the late ripening of the fruit it requires a long season. Vines of Rotundifolia have been known to withstand a winter temperature as low as 12 degrees below zero [-24°C -ASC], but under ordinary conditions this would undoubtedly be much too severe for most Rotundifolias. They do not suffer from the effects of hot summers but will not withstand drouth and are not well adapted to semi-arid conditions. All growers of varieties of this species agree that it does best on light sandy or alluvial soils; and while it may grow on rather heavy clays, if all other conditions are favorable, its vigor will be lessened.

The fruit of Rotundifolia is very characteristic. The skin is thick, has a leathery appearance, adheres strongly to the underlying flesh, and is marked with lenticel-like russet dots. The flesh is more or less tough but the toughness is not localized around the seed as in the case of Labrusca. The fruit and must of all the varieties of the species are characterized by a strong, musky aroma and are lacking in sugar and acid. Some varieties yield over four gallons of must per bushel. Wine-makers are divided in opinion as to its value for wine-making, but at present the most promising outlook for Rotundifolia varieties is as wine grapes. Rotundifolia does not produce fruit suitable for the table chiefly because the berries ripen unevenly and when ripe drop from the cluster. The common method of gathering the fruit of this species is to shake the vines at intervals so that the ripe berries will drop on sheets spread below the vines. The juice which exudes from the point where the stem is broken off causes the berries to become smeared and gives them an unattractive appearance. Owing, however, to the tough skin, the berries do not crack as badly as other grapes would under the same conditions but still they are not adapted to long distance shipments.

Under reasonably favorable conditions the vines attain great age and great size, and when grown on arbors, as they usually are, and without pruning, they cover a large area. The vines are planted from fifteen to forty feet apart in the vineyard, and the first year or two are trained to posts. Later the tops of these posts are connected by cross-bars and an arbor is thus formed. Pruning usually consists of removing dead wood but a few growers have always taken exception to the customary non-pruning method of treating the Rotundifolia. Lately Newman, of South Carolina, has published a bulletin in which he recommends that the vines be pruned and raised on a trellis as is customary with other grapes. He gives figures to show that the damage to Rotundifolia vines is due to the bleeding that follows pruning and that this bleeding may be obviated by pruning in the fall or early winter. The success of such a practice would undoubtedly place the culture of Rotundifolia varieties on a better commercial footing.

Rotundifolia is remarkably resistant to the attacks of all insects and to fungal diseases. The phylloxera do not attack its roots and it is considered as resistant as any other, if not the most resistant of all American species. It is grown from cuttings only with difficulty. However, under favorable circumstances, and with skilful handling, this is a successful method of propagation. Under unfavorable circumstances, or where only a few vines are desired, it is better to depend on layers. As a stock upon which to graft other vines this species has not been a success. Wylie found great difficulty in crossing Rotundifolia with other species, and the crosses did not thrive under cultivation. Lately Munson has introduced several Rotundifolia hybrids.

NOTE: All grapes, other than the Rotundifolia, are in the South known as "bunch grapes" because they are sold on the market in clusters, the Rotundifolia being sold off the stems.


i. (?) Rafinesque, 1830:17. V. peltata ; V. Floridana. 2. Munson, Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1885:97. V. floridana; Florida grape. 3. Ib., Gar. Mon., 28:140. 1886. V. floridana; V. peltata; Florida grape. 4. Ib., Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. Everbearing grape. 5. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474, 475. 1890. 6. Ib., U.S. D. A. Pom. Bui., 3:14. 1890. 7. Ib., Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1893:116. Bird grape; Everbearing grape. 8. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1894:20. Bird grape; Mustang grape of Chapman. 9. Bailey, Gray's Syn. Fl., 1:421. 1897. Mustang grape of Florida; Bird grape; Everbearing grape. 10. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bid., 56:232, 241. 1900. Florida Bird grape. 11. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 45.

Vine not very vigorous, a slender grower, usually running on the ground or over low bushes. Canes slightly angular; internodes short; tendrils intermittent, simple. Leaves smaller and thinner than Rotundifolia and rather more circular in outline; not lobed; teeth rather open and spreading; petiolar sinus V-shaped; both surfaces smooth, rather light green. Cluster with more berries but about the same size as Rotundifolia. Berry one-third to one-half the diameter, with thinner and more tender skin; black, shining; pulp less solid, more acid and without muskiness. Seeds about one-half the size of Rotundifolia, similar in other respects. Leafing, flowering, and ripening fruit very late.

In 1830 Rafinesque described, under the name Vitis peltata, or Vitis floridana, "a very singular species, lately found in Florida." This description is brief and includes many characters of no taxonomic value. In 1885 or 1886, Mr. J. H. Simpson of Manatee, Florida, sent a specimen of a grape growing in his locality to Munson which was taken to be Rafinesque's Vitis peltata. He consequently described it under the name Vitis floridana but the species was not generally accepted. Later Simpson gave it the name Vitis munsoniana.

Its habitat is central and southern Florida and the Florida Keys, and it is said to be the only grape growing on these Keys. It extends south of the habitat of Rotundifolia and blends into this species at their point of meeting.

Munsoniana appears to be a variation of Rotundifolia, fitted to subtropical conditions. It is tender, not enduring a lower temperature than zero. In the matter of multiplication it differs from Vitis rotundifolia in that it can be propagated readily from cuttings. Like Rotundifolia it is resistant to phylloxera. The species is of no value horticulturally.


1. Scheele, Linn., 21:591. 1848. 2. Ravenel, U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1859:539. Mountain grape of Texas. 3. Buckley, Ib., 1861:485. Rock grape. 4. Prince, Gar. Mon., 5:73. 1863. Bush grape of Texas. 5. Engelmann, Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1872:61. Sand grape; Sugar grape. 6. Jaeger, Mo. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1883:41. 7. Engelmann^ Bush. Cat., 1883:10, 11, 12, 14, 18. Rock grape; Sand grape; Sugar grape. 8. Bush, Ib., 1883:21, 26. 9. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt.} 1885:132. Sand-beach grape; Sugar grape. 10. Campbell, Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1885:84. 11. Munson, Ib., 1885:97, 98. 12. Ib., Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. Sugar grape; Sand grape; Beach grape. 13. Plan-chon, De Candolle's Mon. Phan.t 5:323, 346. 1887. Sand grape; Sugar grape; Mountain grape. 14. Munson, Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. 15. Ib., U.S.D.A. Pom. Bui., 3:7, 9. 1890. 16. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:659. 1891. 17. Ib., Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1893:116. Rock grape; Sand grape. 18. Munson, Bush. Cat., 1894:20, 22. 19. Husmann, 1895:110, 188. 20. Britton and Brown, 2:411. 1897. Sand grape; Sugar grape. 21. Bailey, Gray's Syn. Fl., 1:421. 1897. Sand grape; Sugar grape; Rock grape; Bush grape; Mountain grape. 22. Beach, N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:537, 557. 1898. 23. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bui., 56:234, 235, 239, 259. 1900. Rock grape. 24. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 82.

Small, much branched shrub or sometimes, under favorable circumstances, slightly climbing. Diaphragm thin but slightly thicker than Riparia; tendrils few, or, if present, weak, usually deciduous. Leaves rather small; young leaves frequently folded on midrib; broadly cordate or reniform, wider than long, scarcely ever slightly lobed, smooth, glabrous on both surfaces at maturity; petiolar sinus wide, shallow; margin rather coarsely toothed, frequently a sharp abrupt point at terminal. Cluster small. Berries small, usually larger than Riparia, color black or purple-black. Seeds small, not notched; beak short, rather blunt; raphe slightly distinct to indistinct, usually showing as a narrow groove; chalaza of medium size, pear-shaped, sometimes distinct, but usually a depression only. Leafing, blossoming, and ripening early (blossoming soon after Riparia).

Rupestris seems to have been first described and named by Scheele in 1848 in a contribution on the flora of Texas to the periodical Linnaea. Ravenel, in 1859, states that this grape is found in Texas and is there known as the Mountain grape. It was mentioned and described by Buckley, Engelmann, and all of the later botanists. (See Plate.)*******

This species is an inhabitant of southwestern Texas, extending eastward and northward into New Mexico, southern Missouri, Indiana and Tennessee to southern Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. Its favorite places are gravelly banks and bars of mountain streams or the rocky beds of dry water-courses. Rupestris is usually considered drouth-resistant but Munson states that it is short-lived in the upland sandy soils in northern Texas, where, owing to long droughts, the land dries out deeply. Here, he says, it is not so successfully resistant to drouth as Lincecumii.

This species is quite variable both in type and growth. It was introduced into France at about the same time as Riparia, and the French vineyardists selected the most vigorous and healthy forms for grafting stock. These pass under the various names of Rupestris Mission, Rupestris du Lot, Rupestris Ganzin, Rupestris Martin, Rupestris St. George, and others. In France they are stated to have given particularly good results on bare, rocky soils with hot, dry exposures. In California, Husmann states, "It does not flourish in dry locations here, and as it suckers profusely and does not take the graft as readily as the two former classes [Riparia and Aestivalis], it is not largely propagated." It has not been sufficiently cultivated in this country east of the Rocky Mountains so that it can be said what conditions of soil and climate best suit this species other than the general conclusions that may be drawn from the conditions present where the species is indigenous.

The clusters of fruit are small, with berries about the size of a currant and varying from sweet to sour. The berry is characterized by much pigment under the skin. The fruit has a sprightly taste wholly free from any disagreeable foxiness. According to Munson, it is too unproductive to be profitable. The sugar and acid content of the must is not known. Jaeger states that Rupestris wine sent to France was there judged as decidedly the best American claret yet tested.

Rupestris under cultivation is said to be very resistant to rot and mildew of the foliage. It is considered hardy by those familiar with it in the Southwest, and Campbell states that it withstood, without injury, 32 degrees below zero [-36°C -ASC] at Delaware, Ohio. The attention of hybridizers was attracted to this species over thirty years ago and various hybrids have been produced by Jaeger, Munson, Campbell and Millardet, all of whom considered Rupestris of great promise for grape-breeding. The root system of Rupestris is peculiar in that the roots penetrate at once deeply into the ground instead of extending laterally as in other species. Like those of Riparia, the roots are slender, hard, and resistant to the phylloxera. The species is easily propagated by cuttings. According to Husmann the vines bench-graft readily but are difficult to handle in field grafting.

VITIS RUPESTRIS DISSECTA Eggert. 1. Bailey, Gray's Syn. FL, 1:422. 1897. V. rupestris, var. dissecta.

Vitis rupestris dissecta was named by H. Eggert of St. Louis, the name being placed on herbarium specimens but apparently not published by him. According to Bailey it differs from the typical forms of the species in having "more ovate leaves and very long teeth, and a strong tendency towards irregular lobing." It is found in Missouri.


1. Buckley, Proc. Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci., 1861:450. 2. Ib., U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1861:485. White grape; Mountain grape. 3. Engelmann, Bush. Cat., 1883:10, 12, 14, 15, 16. Mountain grape of West Texas. 4. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:134. Mountain grape. 5. Ib., Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. Mountain grape. 6. Ib., U.S.D.A. Pom. Bui., 3:13. 1890. V. Texana. 7. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474, 475. 1890. 8. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:586. 1891. Siveet Mountain grape. 9. Ib., Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1893:116. 10. Bailey, Gray's Syn. FL, 1:422. 1897. Sweet Mountain grape. 11. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bui., 56:230, 232, 234, 239, 260. 1900. Sweet Mountain grape. 12. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 96.

Vine of moderate vigor, climbing, or, in the absence of support, frequently shrubby. Canes very slender; shoots angled, more or less pubescent; diaphragms medium to rather thin; tendrils medium in size, intermittent, usually bifid, deciduous. Leaves with stipules short, broad; leaf-blade small and thin, cordate, entire, notched or shortly three-lobed; petiolar sinus rather deep and medium to narrow in width, sometimes overlapping, rounded;, margin broadly and obtusely toothed; apex usually acuminate; upper surface smooth, glossy; lower surface grayish-green, more or less pubescent when young; pubescence confined chiefly to ribs and veins. Clusters short and broad, compact, with medium to short peduncle. Berries medium to below in size, black or gray with thin bloom. Seeds large, usually slightly notched; chalaza rather narrow; raphe a groove. Leafing, flowering, and ripening fruit very late.

Vitis monticola was named and described by Buckley in 1861. There seems to have been some misunderstanding by later botanists as to exactly what Buckley's species of this name is, and in spite of what has been written on the subject, it seems as though some of the botanists are still describing different species. The seed, in Engelmann's figure, resembles that of the Rupestris very closely, while as figured by Viala the seeds resemble those of Cinerea or Cordifolia.

Monticola inhabits the limestone hills of central and southwestern Texas.

The fruit of this species has a very sweet and somewhat peculiar flavor.

The vines can be propagated from cuttings only with difficulty. The species is adapted to a hot, dry climate and limestone land. It is found to be very resistant to phylloxera and is sometimes recommended as a stock for Vinifera but is not generally considered as valuable in this respect as Berlandieri. It is without value for its fruit and is of no horticultural importance to the eastern American grape-grower.


1. Tournefort, Inst. Rei Herb., 1:613. 1700. V. Canadensis aceris folio. 2. (?) Linnaeus, Sp. PI., 1753:203. V. vulpina. 3. (?) Walter, 1788:242. V. vulpina. 4. (?) Willdenow, 1:1181. 1797. V. vulpina. 5. Michaux, 2:231. 1803. 6. (?) Bartram, Dom. Enc, 5:291. 1804. V. serotina; Winter grape. 7. Pursh, 1:169. 1814. V. odoratissima. 8. Nuttall, 1818:143. 9. Elliott, 2:688. 1824. Winter grape? 10. Torrey, Fl. of N. et M. Sta., 1826:121. 11. Rafin-esque, 1830:15. River grape; Bermuda vine; Mignonette vine. 12. Ib., 1830:16. V. odoratissima. 13. Prince, 1830:193. V. odoratissima; Sweet scented. 14. Torrey, Fl. of N. Y., 1:147. 1843. Winter grape. 15. Le Conte, Trans. Phil. Acad. Nat. Sri., 6:273. 1853. V. dimidiata. 16. Ib., 6:272. V. vulpina; V. aestivalis of some; V. cordifolia of many; V. callosa; V. hyemalis; Winter grape. 17. Buckley, U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1861:483. V. cordifolia, var. riparia. 18. Saunders, U.S.D.A. Rpt., 1869:82, 85, 87. V. cordifolia, var. riparia. 19. Engelmann, Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1872:61. 20. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1883:10, 11, 12, 14, 18. Riverside grape. 21. Bush, Ib., 1883:23. 22. Munson, Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1885:97, 98. Riverside grape. 23. Ib., Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:131. Riverside grape. 24. Ib., Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. Riverside grape. 25. Planchon, De Candolle's Mon. Phan., 5:323, 352. 1887. V. vulpina; V. incisa; V. intermedia; V. odoratissima; V. Virginiana; V. Canadensis aceris folio. 26. Munson, U.S.D.A. Pom, Bui., 3:9. 1890. 27. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. 28. Bailey, Am. Gard., 14:353. 1893. fig. V. vulpina; V. riparia. 29. Husmann, 1895:175. V. cordifolia. 30. Ib., 1895:188. 31. Britton and Brown, 2:410. 1897. fig. V. vulpina; V. riparia; V. cordifolia, var. riparia; Riverside grape; Sweet scented grape. 32. Bailey, Gray's Syn. Fl., 1:422. 1897. V- vulpina; Riverbank; Frost; V. riparia; V. serotina; V. odoratissima; V. Illinoensisf; V. Miss ouriensisf; V. tenuifolia?; V. cordifolia, var. riparia; V. vulpina, var. riparia. 33. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bui., 56:218, 219, 230,

1 The description of Vitis vulpina by Linnaeus is so meager, including the leaves only, that for many years botanists were in doubt as to the species intended. Muhlenberg was the single exception when he gave Linnaeus' Vulpina and Michaux's Cordifolia as synonymous. Whether he did this from knowledge, or whether it was by chance, it is impossible to say. He states no reasons and consequently received no following among other botanists. Elliott supposed that Linnaeus intended to describe the southern Rotundifolia and this view seems to have been generally accepted.

In the late eighties or early nineties, Planchon first, and later Britton, by referring to Linnaeus' specimens, determined that the latter's Vulpina was the same as Riparia, and in accordance with botanical rules, presented the name Vulpina as the correct name for this species. Bailey, however, states (Ev. Nat. Fr., 1898:102) that he found two specimens in the Linnaeus collection labeled Vulpina, one of which was the true Riparia and the other Cordifolia. Since a change of the name would bring confusion to more than ninety years of botanical and horticultural literature, it seems inadvisable to make one on such contradictory evidence.

239, 260. 1900. V. vulpina; Riverside; V. riparia. 34. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 104.

Vine vigorous to very vigorous, climbing. Shoots cylindrical or slightly angled, usually smooth, slender; diaphragms thin; tendrils intermittent, slender, usually bifid. Leaves with large stipules; leaf-blade medium to large, thin, entire, three, or lower ones often five-lobed; sinuses shallow, angular; petiolar sinus broad, usually rather shallow; margin with incised, sharply serrate teeth of variable size; of a light green color, glabrous above, usually glabrous but sometimes slightly pubescent on ribs and veins below. Cluster medium to small, generally compact, shouldered; peduncle short. Berries small to medium, black with a heavy blue bloom. Seeds usually two to four, small, usually slightly notched, short, plump, with very short beak; chalaza narrowly oval, depressed, indistinct; raphe usually a groove, sometimes slightly distinct. Very variable in flavor and time of ripening. (See Plate.**********)

The first mention we have of Vitis riparia is by Tournefort in 1700, who, without further description, calls it Vitis canadensis aceris folio, or Maple-leaved Canadian grape. Linnaeus in 1753 described mixed specimens of Cordifolia and Riparia under the name of Vitis vulpina. His description is as follows:2 "Leaves cordate, dentate-serrate, glabrous on both sides." Walter and Willdenow copy the description of Linnaeus. The first description which is clear, and the identity of which has never been questioned, is that of Michaux in 1803, under the name Riparia. He says: "Leaves unequally and sharply dentate, slightly 3-lobed. Petioles, veins and margins pubescent. Called by French residents Vigne des battures. Habitat along the banks and on the islands of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, etc. "Bartram, in 1804, under the name of Vitis serotina, or Winter grape, describes a vine which may be Riparia or may be Cordifolia as it has some of the characters of both.

Linnaeus' description seems to have thoroughly confused all of the earlier botanists. They were in doubt, first, as to what species was intended for Vulpina; second, as to the distinguishing characters between Riparia and Cordifolia. Gray classed Riparia as a variety of Cordifolia. Engelmann was the first to draw attention to the specific characters which separated these two sorts and these he gives as follows: 1st. Riparia has thin diaphragms, Cordifolia thick. 2d. Riparia blooms early, Cordifolia late. 3d. Riparia propagates readily from cuttings, Cordifolia only with difficulty. 4th. Seeds of the Riparia have indistinct or almost indistinct, depressed chalaza and raphe, while the the chalaza and raphe of the Cordifolia seeds are elevated and distinct. To these Bush added the further distinguishing character that on the shoots the small terminal leaves of the Cordifolia open as soon as formed, while those of Riparia remain folded for some days after they are formed, become larger and then expand gradually.

Riparia is the most widely distributed of any American species of grape. It has been found in parts of Canada north of Quebec and from thence southward to the Gulf of Mexico. It is found from the Atlantic coast westward, most botanists say to the Rocky Mountains, but Munson gives the western limit as Salt Lake. Since Munson is more familiar with the district lying west of the Rocky Mountains than any other botanist who has paid attention to grapes, he is probably correct. Usually it is found on river banks, on islands or in upland ravines.

Riparia has always been considered of great promise in the evolution of American grapes. It can hardly be said that it has fulfilled expectations, there probably being no pure variety of this species of more than local importance, and the results of hybridizing it with other species have not been wholly successful. The reason why attention was early turned to Riparia was because of the qualities presented by the vine rather than those of the fruit, particularly its hardiness and vigor. However, both of these qualities are quite variable, and it is only reasonable to suppose that in such a widely distributed species, plants found in a certain region would have adapted themselves to the conditions there present; thus it should be expected that the northern plants would be more hardy than those from the South and the western prairie forms more capable of resisting drouth than those from humid regions; this is found to be the case. It is consequently impossible to say what conditions best suit this species; it may be said, however, that it is adapted to a great variety of soils and locations; Riparia vines, or certain ones of them, have withstood a temperature of 40 to 60 degrees below zero and they show equal ability in withstanding the injurious effects of high temperatures in the summer. On account of its habit of early blooming, the blossoms sometimes suffer from late frosts in the spring.

While Riparia is not a swamp grape and is not found growing under swampy conditions, it is fond of water. In the semi-arid regions always, and in humid regions usually, it is found growing along the banks of streams, in ravines, on the islands of rivers, and in wet places. It is not nearly so capable of withstanding drouth as Rupestris. Riparia likes a rather rich soil but in France has been found to do poorly on limestone land and calcareous marls. The French tell us, however, that this is a characteristic of all our American grapes and that the Riparia is more resistant to the injurious effects of an excess of lime than either Rupestris or Aestivalis.

As was noted in the botanical description, the fruit of Riparia is usually small, there being occasional varieties of medium size or slightly above. The clusters are of medium size and, if judged from the standpoint of number of berries, might frequently be called large. The flavor is usually sharply acid but free from foxiness or any disagreeable wild taste. If eaten in quantity, the acidity is apt to affect the lips and end of the tongue. When the acidity is somewhat ameliorated, as in the case of thoroughly ripe or even overripe and shriveled fruit, the flavor is much liked by many people. The flesh is neither pulpy nor solid and dissolves in the mouth and separates readily from the seed. The must of Riparia is characterized by an average amount of sugar, varying considerably in the fruit from different vines, and by an excess of acid. There is no disagreeable aroma, or foxiness, in the juice of this species, but the wines made from pure must of Riparia grapes, unless kept for a long time, or otherwise treated, are too sour. On this account many recommend adding sugar and water to the must to reduce the percentage of acid.

Riparia is very resistant to phylloxera, the roots are small in size, hard and numerous and branch freely. The roots feed close to the surface and do not seem to be well adapted to forcing their way through heavy clays or a hardpan formation; but as such soils are unfavorable for all grapes, this character is of little economic importance. Riparia grows readily from cuttings and makes a good stock for grafting, and its union with other species is usually permanent. At the time when Riparias were first sent to France to be used as a stock in reconstituting the French vineyards, it was found that many of the vines secured from the woods were of too weak growth to support the stronger-growing Viniferas.  On this account the French growers selected the more vigorous forms of the Riparias sent them to which they gave varietal names, as Riparia Gloire, Riparia Grand Glabre, Riparia Scribner, Riparia Martin and others.  With these selected Riparias the graft does not outgrow the stock. Riparia is less resistant to rot than Aestivalis but somewhat more resistant than Labrusca. The foliage is rarely attacked by mildew. One of the chief failings of this species is the susceptibility of the leaves to the attack of the leaf-hopper. This defect is quite serious in some grape-growing regions.  The Riparias are generally late in ripening and it is found that the fruit is better in quality in long seasons and that it should be left on the vines as long as possible. There are some early ripening varieties of this species, however.


i- Pr-ce, 1830:194. V. odoratissima; June Grape. 2. Engelmann, Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1872:61. 3. Ib., Buu Cat., 1883:18. June Grape. 4. Bailey, Am. Gard., 14:353. 1893. V. vulpina, var. prjecC; June Grape: V. riparia, var. prcBcox. 5. Ib., Gray's Syn. FL, 1:422. 1897. V. vulpina, vaPR^cox; june Grape.

The first record of Riparia Praecox is a statement by Prince in 1830 that Nuttall had told him that the June Grape growing on the Mississippi was the true Vis odoratissima (a sweet scented Riparia which later botanists have not recognized as a distinct species). In 1872 Engelmann refers to it, saying that it grows on rocky river banks in the vicinity of St. Louis and that it is brought to market in July. He says further in the Bushberg Catalogue that from the first of July on, ripe fruit is to be found through August and September] Bailey states in the American Gardening that Engelmann in his herbarium had given this variety the name pr(#co%********* but did not know whether it had been published or not.

The variety differs from the typical form of Riparia only in the ripening season and possibly in the berries averaging smaller. The early ripening season might make it of horticultural importance as a breeding stock although in other respects the fruit characters are not such as would recommend it.


i. Bailey, Gray's Syn. Fl.t 1:423. 1897. 2. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bui., 56:230, 239. 1900. Smooth Canyon Grape.

Plant shrubby and much branched, climbing little, the small and mostly short (generally shorter than the leaves) tendrils deciduous the first year unless finding support, internodes short, the diaphragms twice thicker (about 1-16 inch) than in V. riparia and shallow-biconcave; stipules less than one quarter as large as in V. riparia; leaves large and green, very broad-ovate or even reniform-ovate (often wider than long, thin, glabrous and shining on both surfaces, the basal sinus very broad and open making no distinct angle with the petiole, the margin unequally notch-toothed (not jagged as in V. riparia) and indistinctly three-lobed, the apex much shorter than in V. riparia; * * * cluster small (2 to 3 inches long); the berries -J inch or less thick, black with a thin bloom, ripening three weeks later than V. riparia when grown in the same place, thin-skinned; pulp juicy and sweet; seeds small. * * * Little frown, and possibly a dry country form of V. riparia. In habit it suggests V. dzonica var. glabra, from which it is ***Is there something missing here?***distinguished, among other things, by its decided earlier flowering and larger leaves with coarser teeth and less pointed apex.

According to Munson Vitis treleasei inhabits "ravines and gulches of western New Mexico, Arizona and southern Utah." This species was named by Munson but the only description we have been able to find is that of Bailey given above in which we have changed his "vulpina" to "riparia." The species is of no importance horticulturally.

7. VITIS LONGII Prince.1

1. Prince, 1830:184. Long's Arkansas. 2. Engelmann, Bush. Cat., 1883:18. Long's; V. Solonis. 3. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:132. V. Nuevo Mexicana; Wooly Riparia. 4. Ib., Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. V. Novo Mexicana; Munson's Riparia. 5. Ib.} Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. V. Solonis. 6. Ib., U.S.D.A. Pom. Bui., 3:9. 1890. V. Solonis. 7. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:660. 1891. V. solonis. 8. Ib., Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpi., 1893:116. V. solonis; Bush grape. 9. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1894:20, 22, 24. V. solonis; Sand grape; Beach grape; Bush grape. 10. Bailey, Gray's Syn. FL, 1:423. 1897. V. Solonis; V. Nuevo Mexicana; Long's. 11. Beach, N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:537, 557. 1898. V. solonis. 12. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bui., 56:218, 230. 1900. V. Solonis, Gulch grape; Bush grape.

Vitis longii is a vigorous form of the Riparia type with pubescent young growth, differing from the typical Riparia in having more circular, less lobed leaves and more incised teeth. Its leaves are frequently pubescent beneath. Another form with dentate margin of leaf has been known under the name of Nuevo Mexicana or Novo Mexicana. The references to these two forms are inextricably confused. Engelmann refers to this grape which he says he found growing in the botanic garden of Berlin under the name of Vitis solonis. After careful investigation he decided that this name was a corruption of Vitis longii, or Long's grape, which had been brought from the headwaters of the Arkansas river by Major Long's expedition into that then unknown country in the early part of the last century. Many botanists consider this a hybrid of two or more other species, Riparia, Rupestris, Candicans and Cordifolia being offered as probable parents.

Its habitat is northern Texas "westward into New Mexico, eastward into Oklahoma and northward into Kansas and southeastern Colorado."

Vitis longii was first described by Prince in 1830. The fruit is small and sour and it appears to be of no horticultural promise.


1. Munson, Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. V. Novo Mexicana Var. ; Munson1 s Riparia. 2. Munson, Rev. Vit., 3:160. . V. Solonis, var. microsperma (cited by 3). 3. Bailey, Gray's Syn. FL, 1:423. 1897. V. Longii, var. microsperma, V. Solonis, var. microsperma.

Vitis longii microsperma is a small seeded, vigorous form of Vitis

1 See page 21.

???********What is this referencing? p21 speaks of a failed attempt to grow vinifera****


longii growing on the Red River in north Texas. It is said to be more resistant to drought than the normal form.

1. Planchon, Journ. La Vigne amer., 6:22. 1882 (cited by 4). 2. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:137. 3. Ib., Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1885:101. 4. Planchon, De Candolle's Mon. Phan., 5:323, 327, 328. 1887. Champin grape. 5. Munson, Gar. and For., 3:474, 475. 1890. 6. Ib., U.S.D.A. Pom. Bui., 3:11. 1890. 7. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:661. 1891. Champin grape. 8. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1894:20, 22, 25. 9. Bailey, Gray's Syn. FL, 1:423. 1897. 10. Beach, N. Y.Sta. An. Rpt., 17:536, 557. 1898. 11. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bui., 56:232, 234, 235, 240, 268. 1900. fig. Adobe Land grape. 12. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:145.

Vine rather vigorous, climbing (sometimes semi-erect). Shoots thinly pubescent, somewhat angled, generally cylindrical when mature; diaphragms thin; tendrils intermittent, strong, bifid or trifid. Leaves small to rather large, slightly reniform or broadly cordate, usually entire but frequently shortly three-lobed; petiolar sinus wide to medium; dark green, glabrous above with thin cobwebby tomentum below, becoming more or less glabrous when mature. Clusters of small or medium size; peduncle medium in length. Berries large, black, slight if any bloom, very persistent, of sweet flavor and tender pulp. Seeds closely resembling Candicans. Blooms just before Labrusca. Variable in ripening season.

Champini was named and described in 1882 by Planchon. He states that it is probably a hybrid between Vitis candicans and Vitis rupestris and that it is not distinctly defined and of a uniform character, but shows in its variable forms different combinations of the characters of these two species. There seems to be some doubt among other botanists as to the parentage of Champini and it is variously credited to Candicans, Rupestris, Monticola and Berlandieri.

This species is found growing in the limestone hills of southwestern Texas, covering about the same area as Berlandieri. According to Munsonit is less common in the bottoms and is not so plentiful as the latter species. Associated with it in different parts of its habitat are the four species mentioned above as possible parents.

Champini is particularly well adapted to hot dry regions and will withstand considerable lime in the soil. The species is susceptible to mildew and black-rot. It can be readily grown from cuttings and grafts well in the vineyard, though the different forms are quite variable in these respects. At one time this species was considered of great promise as a stock for Vinifera for hot, dry regions but as it has proved inferior to Berlandieri in its capacity to withstand limy soils and phylloxera, and as it is not more vigorous, it has been generally dropped. The berries are large and of pure flavor, and as the vine is vigorous, it may prove of value as a source of cultivated varieties for the Southwest but it is of little or no value to the eastern grower.


1. Vahl,1 Symb, Bot., 3:42. 1794. V. palmata. 2. Willdenow, 1:1180. 1797. V. palmata. 3. Muhlenberg, 1813:27. V. palmata. 4. Pursh, 1:170. 1814. V. Palmata. 5. Nuttall, 1:143. 1818. V. palmata. 6. Rafinesque, 1830:18. V. palmata; Palmate grape. 7. Ib., 1830:18. V. virginiana; Virginia grape. 8. Floy-Lindley, 1833:152. V. palmata; Palmated leaved. 9. (?) Le Conte, Proc. Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci., 6:274. 1853. V. palmata; V. Virginiana; Bland's grape. 10. (?) Ib., U.S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1857:231. V. palmata: Palmate-leaved vine; Bland's grape; V. Virginiana. 11. Engelmann, Bush. Cat., 1883:10, 11, 12, 14, 17 V. palmata; V. rubra; Red grape of the Mississippi Valley. 12. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:133. V. palmata; V. rubra. 13. Ib., Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1885:97. V. palmata; Palmate-leaved grape; V. rubra. 14. Ib., Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. V. palmata; Eggert's grape. 15. Planchon, De Candolle's Mon. Phan., 5:352. 1887. V. riparia, var. palmata; V. Virginiensis; V. Virginiana. 16. Ib., Ib., 5:354. 1887. V. palmata. 17. Sargent, Gar. and For., 2:340. 1889. fig. V. palmata; V. rubra. 18. Munson, Ib., 3:474, 475. 1890. V. palmata. 19. Munson, U. S. D. A. Pom. Bui., 3:13. 1890. V. palmata. 20. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:586. 1891. 21. Bailey, Gray's Syn. Fl.y 1:423. 1897. V. palmata; V. monosperma; V. rubra; V. riparia, var. palmata; Red grape; Cat grape. 22. Britton and Brown, 2:410. 1897. fig. V. palmata; Missouri grape. 23. Bailey, Ev. Nat. Fr., 1898:105. V. palmata; Red grape; Cat grape. 24. Munson, Tex. Sta, Bui., 56:230, 239. 1900. V. palmata; Cat Bird grape. 25. Bailey, Cyc. Am. Hort., 4:1952. 1902. V. monosperma; Red grape. 26. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 113.

Vine slender, of only moderate vigor, climbing very high. Shoots smooth, angled, long-jointed, bright red; diaphragms thick to medium; tendrils intermittent, long, usually bifid. Leaves with short, broad stipules; leaf-blade broadly cordate in outline, rarely entire, frequently very deeply three or even five-lobed, lobes long, acuminate; margin with broad, shallow, serrate teeth; petiolar sinus rather broad and shallow; upper surface dull dark green, smooth; lower surface frequently somewhat pubescent on ribs and veins; petioles red. Clusters medium to large, loose, seldom compound; long peduncle. Berries small, black, without bloom, not juicy. Seeds one or two, large, plump, rounded, with very short beak, slightly notched; chalaza narrow, rather indistinct; raphe indistinct.

Vitis rubra and Vahl's Vitis palmata are badly confused. The species was first described by Vahl in 1794, from plants cultivated in the Jardin des Plantes in Paris and supposed to have been sent by some missionary from the Mississippi Valley. It was so named on account of its tendency to five-lobed leaves. Vahl erroneously gives its habitat as Virginia. About the same time, Michaux discovered, on the banks of the Mississippi and adjacent streams, a grape which he called Vitis rubra, on account of its characteristic bright red shoots. The descriptions of these two varieties were copied from time to time by other botanists, but with no additional details of any importance until Engelmann, in 1883, made the claim that they were identical. There is no question as to the identity of Michaux's Rubra, but some botanists question whether Palmata is a synonym. We have taken Michaux's name as the one to which there is no question, although Engelmann was so careful a worker that it is highly probable that he is correct in considering the two species synonymous. Munson considers the species as probably a multiple "hybrid of Cordifolia with Riparia, with possibly a trace of Cissus blood, indicated in the fruit, seed and leaf." There seems to be but little evidence to support this supposition. Planchon says it is principally on the evidence of Millardet that he admits this as a separate species and that perhaps it would be better to consider it a variety of Riparia closely allied to Vahl's Palmata.

Vitis rubra is an inhabitant of sandy, rich, moist, alluvial river bottoms in Missouri and Illinois, to Louisiana and Texas, in which region it is quite restricted and apparently not plentiful.

But little is known of the horticultural characters of Vitis rubra. In spite of its having been classed with Riparia, it appears to resemble more closely Vitis cordifolia, having the thick diaphragms and late blooming characters of the latter species, but the seeds resemble those of Riparia. Rubra grows readily from cuttings and the roots are said to be very resistant to phylloxera. It is not sufficiently vigorous, however, to be recommended as a stock. It is sometimes cultivated as an ornamental but is of no horticultural importance beyond this.


1. (?) Linnaeus, Sp. PL, 1753:203. V. vulpina. 2. (?) Marshall, 1785:165. V. Labrusca. 3. (?) Walter, 1788:242. V. vulpina 4. (?) Willdenow, 1:1181. 1797. V. Vulpina. 5. Michaux, 2:231. 1803. 6. (?) Bartram, Dom. Enc, 5:291. 1804. V. serotina. 7. (?) Muhlenberg, 1813:27. V. vulpina; V. cordifolia; Winter grape. 8. Pursh, 1:169. 1814. V.incisa; V. vulpina; Winter grape; Chicken grape. 9. Nuttall, 1:143. 1818. 10. Elliott, 2:688. 1824. 11. Rafinesque, 1830:15. V. vulpina; Frost grape; Winter grape; Fox grape. 12. Prince, 1830:194; Winter grape; Chicken grape; Frost grape; V. serotina; V. incisa; V. vulpina. 13. Torrey, Fl. of N. Y., 1:147. 1843. Winter grape; Frost grape. 14. Le Conte, Proc. Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci., 6:273. 1853. V. pullaria ; Chicken grape. 15. Darlington, Fl. Cest., 1853*50. Chicken grape; Winter grape; Heart-leaved Vitis. 16. Buckley, U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1861:483. Winter grape; Fox grape. 17. (?) Saunders, U.S.D.A. Rpt., 1869:82, 85, 87. 18. Engelmann, Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1872:60. Winter grape; Frost grape; Chicken grape. 19. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1883:10, 11, 12, 14, 17. Frost grape. 20. Bush., Ib., 1883:24. 21. Munson, Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1885:97, 98. 22. Ib., Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:133. Frost grape; Sour or Pungent Winter grape. 23. Planchon, De Candolle's Mon. Phan.f 5:323, 350. 1887. V. vulpina, var. cordifolia; V. vulpina; V. Virginiana. 24. Munson, Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. 25. Ib., U. S. D. A. Pom. Bui., 3:12. 1890. 26. Britton and Brown, 2:410. 1897. Frost grape; Chicken grape; Possum grape; Winter grape. 27. Bailey, Gray's Syn. FL, 1:424. 1897. True Frost grape; Chicken grape; Raccoon grape; V. pullaria; V. vulpina, var. cordifolia. 28. Beach, N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:557. 1898. 29. Munson, Tex. Sta. BuL, 56:218, 231, 240. 1900. Sour Winter grape; Frost grape. 30. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 76.

Vine very vigorous, climbing. Shoots rather slender; internodes long, slightly angular, usually glabrous, sometimes slightly pubescent; diaphragms thick; tendrils intermittent, long, usually bifid. Leaves with short, broad stipules; leaf-blade medium to large, cordate, entire or sometimes indistinctly three-lobed; petiolar sinus deep, usually narrow, acute; margin with rather coarse angular teeth; point of leaf acuminate; upper surface rather light green, glossy, glabrous; glabrous or sparingly pubescent below. Clusters medium to large, loose, with long peduncle. Berries numerous and small, black, shining, little or no bloom. Seeds medium in size, rather broad, beak rather short; chalaza oval or roundish, elevated, very distinct; raphe a distinct, cord-like ridge. Fruit usually sour and astringent and frequently consisting of little besides skins and seeds. Leafing, flowering and ripening fruit very late.

Owing to the fact that Cordifolia and Riparia have been badly confused in the past, the limits of the habitat of this species are difficult to determine. Pursh gives the northern limit as Canada, and Buckley speaks of its being found at Lake Winnipeg, but all other, and some probably better informed, authorities give the northern limit as New York or the Great Lakes. The eastern limit is the Atlantic Ocean and the southern limit the Gulf of Mexico. It extends westward, according to Engelmann, to the western limits of the wooded portion of the Mississippi Valley in the North, and, according to Munson, to the Brazos River, Texas, in the South. It is found along creeks and river banks sometimes mixed with Riparia, having about the same soil adaptations as that species. It is a very common species in the Middle States and is frequently found growing on limestone soils but, according to Viala, is not indigenous to such soils.

It might be said that this species was first described by Linnaeus in 1753 under the name Vulpina, as his description was from mixed specimens of Cordifolia and Riparia. The first description, however, of which there is no question is that of Michaux in 1803. From this time on there are many descriptions under various names and much disagreement as to the limits of the species and its relation to Riparia. Engelmann in 1872 states that Riparia is generally a smaller plant than Cordifolia and that the fruit ripens earlier and is pleasanter tasting. It was still considered by many botanists that these differences were too slight to separate the forms as different species, but in 1883, Engelmann further enumerated other differences which are given under the description of Vitis riparia. Since this time, the specific difference of the two forms has never been questioned.

Cordifolia makes a good stock for grafting, being vigorous and forming a good union with most of our cultivated grapes. It is seldom used for this purpose, however, on account of the difficulty of propagating it by means of cuttings. For the same reason vines of it are seldom found in cultivation. It is probably of no importance horticulturally.


1. Engelmann, Am. Nat., 2:321. 1868. V. cordifolia, var. fcetida. 2. Ib., Mo. Ent. Rpt.t 1872:60. 3. Bailey, Gray's Syn. FL, 1:424. 1897. V. cordifolia, var. fcetida.

Apparently the first record of Vitis cordifoUa foetida is Engelmann's mention of it in the American Naturalist of 1868. In 1872 he speaks as though this is the common Mississippi Valley form, for he says: "In this valley at least the fruit has a strongly and even fetidly-aromatic taste". The variety apparently is similar to the typical Cordifolia in every respect excepting the aromatic fruit.


1. Munson, Rev. Vit., 5:165. f. 53. (cited by 2). 2. Bailey, Gray's Syn. FL, 1:424. 1897. V. cordifolia, var. sempervirens. 3. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903 178. fig. of leaf.

Vitis cordifolia sempervirens is a south-Florida form of Cordifolia named and first described by Munson in the Revue Viticole. It differs from typical Cordifolia in having leaves which are thicker, narrower, more oblong, with a long lanceolate point, completely glabrous and more or less glossy on both surfaces. These leaves remain on the vines very late in the season. This variety is said to be very resistant to an excess of lime in the soil.


1. Bailey, Gray's Syn. FL, 1:424. 1897. V. cordifolia, var. Helleri. 2. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:79. V. cordifolia var.

Vitis cordifolia helleri is first mentioned by Bailey in 1897. It differs from the ordinary forms of Cordifolia in having more circular leaves without the lanceolate point. Viala and Ravaz state that such forms are found in clay soils. Bailey refers to it as an upland south-Texas form found at altitudes of from 1600 to 2000 feet.


1. Munson, U.S.D.A. Pom. Bui., 3:14. 1890. V. Virginiana. 2. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474, 475. 1890. V. Virginiana 3. Ib., Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1893:116. Possum grape. 4. Ib., Bush. Gat., 1894:20. V. Virginiana. 5. Britton and Brown, 2:411. 1897. V. Virginiana. 6. Bailey, Gray's Syn. FL, 1:424. 1897. Possum grape. 7. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bui., 56:231, 240. 1900. Possum grape.

Vine climbing, but of only medium vigor (less vigorous than Cordifolia). Canes slender, with short internodes, and with very many short side shoots; shoots angular, densely whitish or rusty pubescent or woolly along the angles; mature canes round, nearly smooth; diaphragms thick; tendrils intermittent, usually trifid. Leaves with blade long, cordate, frequently smaller than Cordifolia, shortly but distinctly three-lobed (lobes mostly pointed and much spreading), bright green, but not shining, above, gray below, slightly pubescent at maturity only on veins; apex short, acuminate, acute or blunt; teeth comparatively small and notched-like, regular, not prominently acute. Clusters large; peduncle long; pedicel slender, short, making the bunch very compact. Berries very small, black with little or no bloom, intensely acid until very ripe or frosted. Seeds small to very small, slightly notched on top; chalaza depressed, oblong-oval; raphe broad, slightly distinct. Leafing, flowering and ripening fruit very late.

This species seems to have been first described by Munson in 1890 under the name of Vitis virginiana. In 1893 he issued a leaflet changing the name to Vitis baileyana.

It is an upland species growing in the mountain valleys (800 feet and upward) of southwestern Virginia, West Virginia, western North Carolina, Tennessee, northern Georgia and the uplands of western central Georgia.

Baileyana can be propagated from cuttings only with difficulty. It is of no importance horticulturally.


1. Planchon, Compt. Rend, Acad. Sci. Paris, 91:425. 1880. (cited by 5). 2. Journ. La Vigne amer., 1880:318. (cited by 5.) 3. Gar. Mon., 23:25. 1881. V. aestivalis, var. monticola; V. monti-cola seedling; V. cordifolia coriacea. 4. (?) Engelmann, Bush. Cat., 1883:15. V. monticola. 5. Planchon, De Candolle's Mon. Phan., 5:323, 341. 1887. V. monticola. 6. An. Hort., 1889:101. 7. Munson, U.S.D.A. Pom. Bui., 3:14. 1890. V. Monticola, Mil. 8. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474, 475. 1890. 9. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:659. 1891- io+ Ib., Bush. Cat., 1894:20, 22, 29. V. monticola, Engelm. 11. Bailey, Gray's Syn. FL, 1:425. 1897. Mountain grape; Spanish grape; Fall grape; Winter grape. 12. Beach, N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:536, 557. 1898. 13. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bul.r 56:231, 234, 235, 240, 261. 1900. fig. Little Mountain grape. 14. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 61.

Vine moderately vigorous, climbing; shoots more or less angled and pubescent; pubescence remaining only in patches on mature wood; canes mostly with short internodes; diaphragms thick; tendrils intermittent, long, strong, bifid or trifid. Leaves with small stipules; leaf-blade rather large, broadly cordate, notched or shortly three-lobed; petiolar sinus rather open, V- or U-shaped, margin with broad but rather shallow teeth, rather dark,glossy green above, grayish pubescence below when young; becoming glabrous and even glossy except on ribs and veins, when mature. Clusters large, compact, compound, with long peduncle. Berries small, black, with thin bloom, juicy, rather tart but pleasant tasting when thoroughly ripe. Seeds few, medium to small, short, plump, oval or roundish with short beak; chalaza oval or roundish, distinct; raphe narrow, slightly distinct to indistinct. Leafing, flowering and ripening fruit very late.

This species was described under the name Vitis berlandieri by Planchon in 1880. The description was made from herbarium specimens collected by the Swiss botanist, Berlandier, in Texas in 1834, and also from living plants which had been shipped into France. Planchon states that this is the Monticola of Engelmann, but not the Monticola of Buckley. Buckley's description is admittedly unsatisfactory but it does not seem that Planchon is justified in saying that Engelmann was mistaken when the latter probably had better opportunities for determining Buckley's meaning than Planchon.

Berlandieri is a native of the limestone hills of southwest Texas and adjacent Mexico. According to Munson, it grows "in the same region with V. monticola but is less restricted locally, growing from the tops of the hills all along down and along the creek bottoms of those regions". Its great virtue is that it withstands a soil largely composed of lime. It is superior to all other American species in this respect. This and its moderate degree of vigor (not quite so vigorous as Cinerea, according to Munson) has recommended it to the French growers as a stock for their calcareous soils. The roots are strong, thick and very resistant to phylloxera.

It is propagated by cuttings with comparative ease, but its varieties are variable in this respect, some not rooting at all easily. While the fruit of this species shows a large cluster, the berries are small and sour, and Berlandieri is not regarded as having any promise for culture in America.


1. Engelmann, Gray's Man., Edition 5, 1867:679. V. aestivalis, var. cinerea. 2. (?) Ib., Am. Nat., 2:321. 1868. V. aestivalis, var. canescens. 3. Ib., Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1872:61. V. aestivalis, var. cinerea. 4. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1883:10, 11, 12, 14, 16. Downy grape of Mississippi Valley. 5. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt, 1885:133. 6. Ib., Am. Pom. Soc. RpL, 1885:97, 98. Ashy-leaved grape; Sweet Winter grape. 7. Ib., Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. Ashy grape; Sweet Winter grape. 8. Planchon, De Candolle's Mon. Phan., 5:323, 343. 1887. 9. Munson, U, S. D. A. Pom. Bid., 3:14. 1890. 10. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474, 475. 1890. 11. Britton and Brown, 2:40c). 1897. V. aestivalis, var. canescens; V. aestivalis, var. cinerea; Downy grape. 12. Bailey Gray's Syn. FL, 1:425. 1897. Sweet Winter grape. 13. Beach, N. Y.Sta.An.Rpt., 17:536, 557. 1898. 14. Munson Tex. Sta. Bui., 56:218, 231, 240. 1900. Sweet Winter grape; Ashy grape. 15. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, So.

Vine vigorous, climbing; shoots more or less angled, covered with grayish pubescence which persists into winter; diaphragms thick to very thick; internodes medium to long; tendrils intermittent, long and strong, bifid. Leaves large, cordate, seldom lobed but frequently notched; frequently resembling a linden leaf; petiolar sinus medium in depth and width, rounded; margin shallowly but sharply toothed; upper surface cobwebby when young, becoming glabrous and dull when mature; lower surface and petiole covered with grayish cobwebby pubescence. Cluster large, rather loose; peduncle long; pedicel slender. Berries small, black, with little if any bloom. Seeds small, plump, short beak; chalaza round or oval, distinct; raphe ridge-like, distinct to slightly distinct. Ripening very late, becoming sweet after frost.

Cinerea is very closely allied to Aestivalis and was for a long time considered a part of that species. In 1867 Engelmann described it under the name Vitis aestivalis, var. cinerea, but in 1883 he made it a species and it has been generally regarded by botanists that the points of difference between the two forms are such that the Cinerea deserves specific recognition.

Its habitat is New York, west to Nebraska and Kansas with about 40 degrees as a northern limit, southward to the Gulf. Cinerea grows along streams mostly in limy soils, and is seldom found in very dry land. It covers about the same range as Cordifolia excepting that it grows nearer the Gulf and extends across the Rio Grande into Mexico.

The species is very late in blooming, later even than Cordifolia. It can be propagated from cuttings only with difficulty. It is probably of no importance horticulturally unless it be for wet lands.


1. Munson, U.S.D.A. Pom. Bui., 3:14. 1890. V. cinerea, var. Floridana. 2. Munson, Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. V. cinerea, var. Floridana. 3. Bailey, Gray's Syn. FL, 1:425. 1897. V. cinerea, var. Floridana.

Vitis cinerea floridana was named by Munson in 1890. It differs from the regular form of Cinerea in having the growing tips and sometimes the veins on the under side of the leaves more or less covered with rusty tomentum. The cluster is also longer-peduncled and more compound. It is found in Florida and Arkansas.


1. Engelmann, Am. Nat., 2:321. 1868. V. aestivalis, var. canescens. 2. Bailey, Gray's Syn. FL, 1:425. 1897. V. cinerea, var. canescens.

Vitis cinerea canescens was first mentioned by Engelmann in 1868 under the name Vitis aestivalis, var. canescens. He does not describe it further than to say that it approaches Cordifolia. Bailey's determination of its position was made from Engelmann's herbarium specimens. He says: "A form with rounded or heart-like leaves, the upper half of the leaf lacking the triangular and 3-lobed shape of the type." This variety has been found in Missouri, Illinois and Texas.


1. Engelmann, Am. Nat., 2:321. 1868. 2. Parry, U.S.D.A. Rpt., 1870:416. V. Arizon-ensis. 3. Engelmann, Mo. Ent. Rpi., 1872:62. 4. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1883:10, 12, 14, 16. Arizona grape. 5. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:132. Arizona grape. 6. Ib., Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1885:97. Arizona grape. 7. Planchon, De Candolle's Mon. Phan., 5:323, 342. 1887. V. Californica; V. Arizomnsis; V.riparia. 8. Munson, Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. Arizona grape. 9. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. 10. Ib., U.S.D.A. Pom. Bui., 3:10. 1890. 11. Ib., Am. Gard.j 12:660. 1891. Canyon grape. 12. Ib., Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1893:116. Gulch grape. 13. Munson, Bush. Cat., 1894:20. Canon grape. 14. Husmann, 1895:4, 189. 15. Bailey, Gray's Syn. FL, 1:425. 1897. Canon grape. 16. Beach, N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:536, 557. 1898. 17. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bui., 56:230, 239. 1900. Downy Canyon grape. 18. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:102.

Vine weak in growth, shrubby or climbing moderately, numerous angular branch-lets; diaphragms thick. Leaves mostly small, cordate, with rather open rounded petiolar sinus, entire or indistinctly three-lobed (sometimes distinctly lobed on young plants), coarsely and regularly toothed; thick, rigid, slightly rugose above, when young, white-woolly below, becoming nearly glabrous with age. Clusters small, compound; peduncle slender, of medium length. Berries black, small to medium in size; pleasant in taste. Seeds two to three of medium size; chalaza oval in shape, slightly distinct; raphe flat, usually inconspicuous, rarely prominent.

Arizonica was named and first described by Engelmann in 1868. It was later described by Parry, botanist of the Department of Agriculture, from specimens sent to him by Dr. Charles Smart, an army surgeon stationed in southern Arizona, in 1867. Parry says that Engelmann considered it a distinct species and had provisionally named it Vitis arizonensis. As to the name, this is evidently an error in quoting Engelmann.

Its habitat is "Western Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Chihuahua (Mexico), and South Utah."

This grape is adapted only to the arid districts of the West. When raised in humid climates it is subject to the attacks of mildew and black-rot. As might be expected from its habitat, it endures intense drouths. It grows well on limestone, pebbly, or alluvial soils. It has a considerable degree of resistance to phylloxera, grows readily from cuttings, and according to Munson, can withstand zero temperature without injury. As the European grapes can be raised in its native country, it is not there regarded as valuable, although the fruit is said to be rich in sugar and to be of pure flavor. It has been used in California as a stock, but is not regarded in any section very favorably and its use has never become extensive probably owing to its lack of vigor. It suckers less than Rupestris. Arizonica blossoms about the time of Labrusca. It is of no value to the grape-growers of the East and probably of none to those of the West.


1. Munson, Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. V. Arizonica, var. glabra. 2. Ib., U. S. D. A, Pom. Bid., 3:10. 1890. V. Arizonica, var. glabra. 3. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:660. 1891. V. Arizonica, var. glabra. 4. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1894:20. V. Arizonica, var. glabra. 5. Bailey, Gray's Syn. FL, 1:426. 1897. V. Arizonica, var. glabra.

Vitis arizonica glabra was named by Munson in 1890. It differs from the regular form in having glossy, glabrous leaves which are mostly larger and thinner. The variety is found in the region from Albuquerque, New Mexico to Truxton, Arizona, and northward into southern Utah.


1. Bentham, Bot. Sulph. Voy., 1844:10. 2. Buckley, U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1861:479, 483. California grape. 3. Engclmann, Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1872:62. 4. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1883:10, 11, 12, 14, 15. California grape. 5. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:137. 6. Planchon, De Candolle's Mon. Phan., 5:323, 339. 18S7. 7. Munson, Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. California grape. 8. Hammond, Gar. and For., 2:39. 1889. Wild grape. 9. Munson, U.S.D.A. Pom. Bui., 3:10. 1890. 10. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474, 475. 1890. 11. Ib., Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1893:116. 12. Husmann, 1895:4, 189. 13. Bailey, Gray's Syn. Fl., 1:426. 1897. 14. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bui., 56:230, 239. 1900. North California grape. 15. Viala and Ravaz, Atn. Vines, 1903:42, 50.

Vine vigorous, climbing, but shrubby if left without support; shoots cylindrical or slightly angled; diaphragms of medium thickness to rather thin; tendrils intermittent, bifid or trifid. Leaves with stipules medium to small; leaf broadly cordate; petiolar sinus variable, usually wide and open, usually entire, sometimes slightly tri-lobed; teeth variable in size, blunt; smooth above and varying below from glabrous to much whitish pubescence. Clusters small to medium, usually compact; peduncle mostly long and slender. Berries small, black with rather abundant bloom. Seeds small to medium, plump, slightly notched, if at all; chalaza oblong-oval; raphe slightly distinct or invisible.

Californica was named and described by Bentham in 1844. It was later mentioned by Newberry, Torrey and others. As these descriptions were all made either from herbarium specimens or by botanists traveling through the region, they are not so definite as those made later.

The habitat of Californica is the northern half of California along streams west of the Sierra Nevada mountains and north into Rogue River Valley in southern Oregon, its northern limit.

This species is interesting in that it is a native of a region of North America not originally infested with phylloxera, but in which phylloxera has since been introduced. As might be suspected, it has little more resistance to this insect than Vinifera and less than any other American species. The roots are thick and fleshy, resembling Vinifera. The fruit, while pleasant, is too small to be of cultural value. It is too tender for planting in the open ground where the thermometer drops much below freezing. California growers state that it does not flourish in dry shallow soils. It is very susceptible to attacks of mildew, to which it usually succumbs when planted east of the Rocky Mountains. Californica grows readily from cuttings. It is sometimes used in its native country as an ornamental on account of its highly colored autumn foliage but is otherwise of no value.


1. Munson, Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. Calijornia grape. 2. Ib., U.S.D.A. Pom. Bui., 3:10. 1890. 3. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. 4. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:660. 1891. Valley grape. 5. Bailey, Gray's Syn. Fl., 1:426. 1897. Valley grape. 6. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bui., 56:230, 239. 1900. South California grape. 7. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:50. V. Californica, var. Girdiana.

Vine vigorous, climbing; shoots scarcely angled, more or less covered with grayish pubescence; diaphragms medium to thick; tendrils intermittent, bifid or trifid. Leaves with medium to small stipules; blade broadly cordate, rather thin, entire or obscurely three-lobed (sometimes distinctly three-lobed on young shoots); petiolar sinus usually narrow, rather deep; margin with many small and acute teeth; under surface covered with thick grayish persistent pubescence. Cluster medium to large, compound, rather loose; peduncle of medium length, slender. Berries small, black, with thin bloom; skin thin but tough; medium to late in ripening. Sweet when ripe with a sharp pungency in the skin. Seeds similar to those of Vitis californica.

Girdiana was separated from Vitis californica by Munson in 1887. It is closely allied to, and is by many botanists still considered a variety of Californica. Wild hybrids with Vitis vinifera are frequently found in regions where it is indigenous.

Girdiana inhabits southern California in the region west and north of Yuma and the valleys of southern California southward into Mexico. Its northern limit is approximately the Mojave desert. The individuals of the species are very numerous, covering shrubs and trees in the regions where it grows.

The species is very suspectible to mildew and black-rot, and like Californica is not resistant to phylloxera. Girdiana is more sensitive to cold than Vinifera. Analyses show that the fruit of the species is deficient in sugar and acid. Girdiana is but little known but certainly is of no value to the grape-growers of the East or North and probably of none to those of the Southwest.


1. An. Hort., 1889:101. 2. Munson, U.S.D.A. Pom. Bui., 3:9. 1890. 3. Tb., Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. 4. Ib., Mich. Hort. Sos. Rpt., 1893:116. Doan's grape. 5. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1894:20, 22, 24. Doan's grape. 6. Sears, Gar. and For., 9:454. 1896. 7* Bailey, Gray's Syn. Fl., 1:427. 1897. 8. Beach, N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt.t 17:536, 557. 1898. 9. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bui, 56:232, 234, 235, 240, 268. 1900. fig. Texas Panhandle Large Grape. 10. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:154.

Vine vigorous, climbing or shrubby if left without support; wood on mature canes cylindrical or slightly angled; diaphragm thin; tendrils intermittent, bifid, rather weak. Leaves medium in size, broadly cordate, notched or lobed and with a triangular apex; petiolar sinus medium in depth, usually narrow; margins with rather large, notched-like teeth; upper surface of a peculiar bluish-green, frequently somewhat rugose with more or less tomentum; lower surface usually with a dense whitish pubescence which shows also on shoots. Cluster medium to small. Berries variable in size, average medium, black with a thick bloom. Seeds somewhat resembling Labrusca but with shorter beak and more distinct chalaza; has characteristic groove extending from chalaza to beak.

Doaniana is quite variable, some specimens being nearly glabrous at maturity while others are densely covered with white pubescence. Munson has separated the species into two forms which he calls the early Doaniana and the late Doaniana. The species was described and named by Munson in 1890.

It is found chiefly in northwest Texas but it ranges from Oklahoma to beyond the Pecos River in New Mexico. It is considered by Bailey and Viala to be a probable hybrid with Vitis candicans as one of the parents. Doaniana is exceedingly hardy, withstanding great cold as well as great heat. It apparently prefers rather light soils as it is indigenous to sandbanks along rivers and the beds of sandy ravines.

Munson states that in cultivation it does well in any but very limy soils. The fruit is of comparatively good quality but the skin possesses some of the pungency of Candicans. The berries are quite persistent, hanging to the pedicel some time after ripe. The vines are not productive. The character of the must is apparently unknown. The roots are hard, penetrate deeply into the soil, and are resistant to phylloxera though somewhat variable in this respect. Doaniana grows readily from cuttings and grafts well in the vineyard. The species blossoms with or just before Labrusca. It is of doubtful value to the southern grape-growers and is of no value in the North.


1. (?) Marshall, 1785:165. V. vinifera Americana; American grape vine. 2. (?) Walter, 1788:242. V. Labrusca. 3. Michaux, 2:230. 1803. 4. Bartram, Doni. Enc., 5:289. 1804. V. sylvestris; V. occidentalis; Common Blue grape; Bunch grape. 5. Muhlenberg, 1813:27. V. intermedia; V. aeslivalis; Summer grape. 6. Pursh, 1:169. 1814. V. vulpina; V. labrusca; Slimmer grape. 7. Nuttall, 1:143. 1818. 8. Elliott, 2:688. 1824. 9. Torrey, Fl. of N. elf M. Sta.j 1826:121. 10. Rafinesque, 1830:9. V. bracteata; V. labrusca; V. aestivaUs', Sour grape. 11. Prince, 1830:199. V. intermedia; V. sylvestris; V. occidentalis; Summer grape; Little grape; Bunch grape; Blue grape. 12. Torrey, Fl. of N. Y., 1:146. 1843. V. intermedia; Summer grape. 13. Darlington, 1853:50. Little grape; Summer grape. 14. Le Conte, Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci., 6:272. 1853. V. araneosus. 15. Ib., Ib., 6:271. 1853. V. bracteata; V. aestivaUs; Duck-sho. grape; Swamp grape. 16. Buckley, U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1861:481, 482. Frost grape; Chicken grapet 17. Stayman, Gar. Mon., 11:37, 38, 40. 1869. Summer grape. 18. Grape Cult., 1:4, 7, 113. 1869. 19. Engelmann, Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1872:61. Summer grape. 20. Engelmann, Bush. Cat., 1883:10, 11, 12, 14, 16. Summer grape. 21. Bush, Ib., 1883:22. 22. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:134. Summer grape. 23. Ib,, Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1885:97, 98. Summer grape. 24. Planchon, De Candolle's Mon. Phan., 5:323, 334. 1887. Summer grape; Chicken grape; Little grape. 25. Munson, Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. 26. Ib., U.S.D.A. Pom. Bui., 3:11. 1890. 27. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1894:20, 22, 27, 28. Summer grape, 28. Bailey, Gray's Syn. FL, 1:427. 1897. Summer grape; Bunch grape; Pigeon grape; V. sylvestris; V. occidentalis; V. Americana; V. Nortoni; V. labrusca, var. aestivaUs; V. bracteata; V. araneosus. 29. Britton and Brown, 2:409. 1897. Summer grape; Small grape. 30. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bui., 56:231, 234, 266. 1900. 31. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 59.

Vine very vigorous; shoots slightly pubescent or smooth when young; diaphragms medium to rather thick; tendrils intermittent, usually bifid. Leaves with short, broad stipules; leaf-blade medium to very large, rather thin when young but becoming rather thick; petiolar sinus deep, usually narrow, frequently overlapping; margin rarely entire, usually three- to flve-lobed; teeth dentate, shallow, medium wide; upper surface rather dark green; lower surface with more or less reddish or rusty pubescence which, in mature leaves, usually shows in patches on the ribs and veins; petioles frequently pubescent. Clusters medium to large, usually long, not much branched, with long peduncle. Berries small to medium, with moderate amount of bloom, usually somewhat astringent. Seeds two to three, of medium size to above, plump, usually smooth, not notched; chalaza oval, distinct; raphe a distinct cord-like ridge. Leafing and ripening fruit late to very late. (See Plate.)

Vitis aestivalis is variable, particularly in its leaf characters, such as quantity of pubescence, size, shape and thickness of leaf. Those who are most familiar with it are of the opinion that in a general way the leaves increase in thickness southward and that the pubescence diminishes in quantity and becomes stiffer on dry, poor soils.

Aestivalis was probably described by some of the botanists before Michaux's day but, if so, none of the descriptions is sufficiently definite and comprehensive to be recognized with certainty. Michaux was the first to describe it under the name of Aestivalis. It seems to have been generally known, as Bartram described it a short time later under the name of Vitis sylvestris with Vitis occidentalis as a synonym. He says: "This is the most common grape." Owing to the great variation in the different forms of the species as it was then understood, many of the later botanists gave descriptions of it which did not agree. This uncertainty and the difficulty of giving a description which would fit all of the forms has been relieved in a measure; first, by the new species which have been created, such as Bicolor, Monticola and Cinerea, from what would have once been regarded as Aestivalis; and second, by the description and general acceptance of well-known varietal forms, such as Lincecumii and Bourquiniana.

The division of the original species has also reduced the habitat materially, confining it to the southeastern portion of the United States from southern New York to Florida and westward to the Mississippi River. Aestivalis grows in thickets and openings in the woods and shows no such fondness for streams as Riparia or for thick timber as Labrusca, but is generally confined to uplands. Under favorable circumstances the vines grow to be very large.

Aestivalis is preeminently a wine grape. The fruit usually has a tart, acrid taste, due to the presence of a high percentage of acid, but there is also a large amount of sugar, the scale showing that juice from this species has a much higher percentage of sugar than the sweeter tasting Labruscas. The wine made from varieties of Aestivalis is very rich in coloring matter, and is used by some European vintners to mix with the must of European sorts in order to give the combined product a higher color. The berries are destitute of pulp, have a comparatively thin, tough skin, and a peculiar spicy flavor. The berries hang to the bunch after becoming ripe much better than do those of Labrusca.

The species thrives in a lighter and shallower soil than Labrusca and appears to endure drouth better, although not equaling in this respect either Riparia or Rupestris. A southern or southeastern exposure gives better results for Aestivalis or Aestivalis hybrid vines than a northern one. The French growers report that Aestivalis is very liable to chlorosis on soils which contain much lime. The leaves are never injured by the sun, and they resist the attacks of insects, such as leaf-hoppers, better than any other American species under cultivation. Aestivalis is rarely injured by rot or mildew, according to American experience, but French growers speak of its being susceptible to both.

The hard roots of Aestivalis enable it to resist phylloxera, and varieties with any great amount of the blood of this species are seldom seriously injured by this insect. An objection to Aestivalis, from a horticultural standpoint, is that it does not root well from cuttings. Many authorities speak of it as not rooting at all from cuttings, but this is an overstatement of the facts, as many of the wild and cultivated varieties are occasionally propagated in this manner, and some southern nurseries, located in particularly favorable situations, make a practice of propagating it by this method. It is doubtful, however, if it could be successfully propagated from cuttings in New York. Varieties of this species bear grafting well, especially in the vineyard. Aestivalis blooms just after Labrusca. As might be inferred from its habitat, most cultivated varieties of this species require a longer season to mature their fruit than that of New York. On this account it is probable that Bicolor, once known as a northern form of Aestivalis, is more promising horticulturally for the North than the true Aestivalis of the Southeast.


i. (?) Rafinesque, 1830:9. V. Multiloba; Dissected vine. 2. (?) Prince, 1830:183. V. diversifolia. 3. U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1847:199. Post oak grape. 4. Buckley, Ib., 1861:485. V. Linsecomii; Post-oak grape; Pine-wood grape. 5. Ib., Proc. Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci., 1861:450, V. Linsecomii. 6. Engelmann, Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1874:74. 7. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1883:16, 23. Post-oak grape. 8. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:135. V. Lincecumii; Post-oak. 9. Planclion, De Candolle's Mon. Phan. 5:323, 338. 1887. V. Lincecumii; Post-oak grape; Vine Wood grape; V. aestivalis, var. Lincecumii; V. incisifolia; V. multilobaf 10. Munson, U.S.D.A. Pom. Bui., 3:12. 1890. V. Lincecumii. ii. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. V. Lincecumii. 12. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:585. 1891. V. Lincecumii; Post-oak grape. 13. Ib., Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1893:116. V. Lincecumii; Post Oak grape. 14. McCluer, III. Sta. Bui., 28:257. 1893. V. Lincecumii; Postoak grape. 15. Munson, Bush. Cat., 1894:20, 22, 27. fig. V. Lincecumii; Texas Post-oak grape. 16. Husmann, 1895:110. V. Lincecumii; Summer grape; Post Oak grape. 17. Munson, Rural N. Y., 56:610. 1897. V. Lincecumii; Post-oak grape. 18. Mo. Sta. Bul.t 46:62. 1899. V. Lincecumti; Texas Post Oak grape. 19. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bui., $6:218, 231, 234, 235, 240, 261, 264. 1900. fig. V. Lincecumii; Post-oak grape. 20. Bailey, Cyc. Am. Hort., 4:1954. 1902. V. diversifolia; Post-oak; Pine-wood; Turkey grape. 21. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 57. V. Lincecumii; Pest Oak.

Vine vigorous, sometimes climbing high upon trees, sometimes forming a bushy clump from two to six feet high; canes cylindrical, much rusty wool on shoots; tendrils intermittent. Leaves very large, almost as wide as long; entire or three-, five-, or rarely seven-lobed; lobes frequently divided; sinuses, including petiolar sinus, deep; smooth above, and with more or less rusty pubescence below. (The north-Texas, southwestern Missouri and northern Arkansas form shows little or no pubescence but has fine prickly spines at base of shoots and shows much blue bloom on shoots, canes and the under side of the leaves.) Fruit small to large, usually larger than typical Aestivalis, usually black with heavy bloom. Seeds larger than Aestivalis, pear-shaped; chalaza roundish.

Lincecumii seems to have been first described by Rafinesque, in 1830 under the name Vitis multiloba. His description fits fairly well, and as the source from which the vines were secured is within the habitat of the species, there appears but little doubt as to its correctness. In the same year Prince gives a very brief description of a grape from Texas under the name Vitis diversifolia which is probably this grape. The first description of the variety (or species) in such detail that it could not be mistaken was that of Buckley in 1861, as Vitis linsecomii.

It inhabits the eastern half of Texas, western Louisiana, Indian Territory, Arkansas and southern Missouri on high sandy land, frequently climbing post-oak trees, hence the name, Post-oak grape, by which it is locally known.

Lincecumii has attracted considerable attention through the work of H. Jaeger and T. V. Munson in domesticating it, both of whom considered it one of the most, if not the most, promising form from which to secure cultivated varieties for the Southwest. The qualities which recommended it to them are: First, its vigor; second, its capacity to withstand rot and mildew; third, its hardiness and capacity to endure hot and dry summers without injury; and fourth, the large cluster and berry which were found on certain of the wild vines. It requires a longer season to mature than that of New York and is, consequently, of but little interest to grape-growers in this State. The fruit is characteristic because of its dense bloom, firm, yet tender texture and the peculiar so-called Post-oak flavor. The cultivated varieties have given satisfaction in many sections of the central western and southern states. Like Aestivalis, it is difficult to propagate from cuttings.

The north-Texas glaucous form of this variety mentioned in the technical description above is the Vitis aestivalis glauca of Bailey. This is the type of Lincecumii that Munson has used in his breeding work.

1This name has been spelled "Lincecumii" and "Linsecomii." Buckley tells us ( U. S, Pat. Off. Rpt., 18611486) that this grape was named in honor of " Dr. Gideon Linsecom " of Long Point, Washington County, Texas. Engelmann changed the spelling to Lincecum without giving any reason for the change. Munson states that a daughter of Dr. Lincecum says that her father always spelled his name Lincecum. It is inconceivable that Buckley did not know how to spell his friend's name. There is other corroborative evidence that Buckley was either a poor penman, or did not read proof, or both. In his Latin description of this species nearly every other word is misspelled, and the mistakes are those of a printer rather than of one whose Latin is weak, such as "totis" for "lobis," etc. Munson says that on the different herbarium specimens of this species collected by Buckley, the name is spelled both ways but he is not able to tell which are in Buckley's hand. As the original error seems to be one by the printer or amanuensis it does not seem desirable to perpetuate it. We have consequently adopted the spelling of Engelmann and Munson.


i. Garber, Gar. Mon., 1:75. 1859. 2+ Engelmann, Bush. Cat.. 1883:16. (Varieties of southern origin). 3. Bush, Ib., 1883:23. Southern Aestivalis. 4. An. Hort., 1889:101. V. Bourquina. 5. Munson, Gar. and For., 3:474, 475. 1890. V. Bourquiniana; Southern Aestivalis. 6. Ib., U.S.D.A. Pom. Bui., 3:12. 1890. V. Bourquiniana. 7. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:584. 1891. V. Bourquiniana; Southern Aestivalis. 8. Popenoe and Mason, Kan. Sta. Bui., 44:117. 1893. V. Bourquiniana. 9. Munson, Bush. Cat., 1894:20, 22, 27. V. Bourquiniana; Southern Aestivalis. 10. Husmann, 1895:6, 8. V. Bourquiniana. ii. Munson, Tex. Farm and Ranch, Feb. 8, 1896:10. V. Bourquiniana; Southern Aestivalis. 12. Bailey, Gray's Syn. FL, 1:428. 1897. 13. Ib., Ev. Nat. Fr., 1898:81, 83, 114. 14. Munson, Am. Gard., 20:688. 1899. V. Bourquiniana. 15. Ib., Tex. Sta. Bui., 56:231, 240, 261. 1900. V. Bourquiniana; Southern Aestivalis. 16. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:178. V. Bourquiniana.

Bourquiniana greatly resembles Aestivalis and differs chiefly from this species in having thinner leaves and in that the shoots and under side of the leaves are only slightly reddish-brown in color and the pubescence usually disappears at maturity; this pubescence is mostly of an ashy or dun color. The leaves on some of the vines are more deeply lobed than is at all common in Aestivalis. The fruit is considerably larger than that of Aestivalis, sweeter and more juicy.

The botanical variety, Bourquiniana, is known only in cultivation. It is mentioned by Garber in 1859 and by Engelmann in 1883. Speaking of Aestivalis the latter says: "Unfortunately the typical forms cannot be propagated by cuttings and there are a number of varieties which, originating from a southern home, are not quite hardy here but on the other hand have the advantage of being readily propagated by slips in some favorable localities. * * * Unfortunately no wild plant from which these varieties might have sprung is yet known but must be looked for in the mountains and hills of the Carolinas and Georgia and only when found in a wild state can we correctly judge of their botanical status.'1

The name Bourquiniana was given by Munson, who ranks the group as a species. He includes therein many southern varieties the most important of which are: Herbemont, Bertrand, Cunningham, and Lenoir, these he groups in the Herbemont section; and Devereaux, Louisiana and Warren, he puts in the Devereaux section. Munson has traced the history of this interesting group and states that it was brought from southern France to America over 150 years ago by the Bourquin family of Savannah, Georgia. Many botanists have been of the opinion that Bourquiniana is a hybrid. Engelmann says: " I will only state here that a slight suspicion exists of their being hybrids between V. aestivalis and some form of vinifera though the seeds are entirely those of the former and also the resistance to phylloxera." Millardet considers Bourquiniana to be a mixed hybrid of Aestivalis, Cinerea and Vinifera. The hybrid supposition is certainly corroborated to a degree at least by the characters being more or less intermediate between the parent species and also by the fact that up to date no wild form of Bourquiniana has been found.

Munson's derivation of the origin has not been accepted by either French or American botanists. In this connection Bailey says: "It is unassumable that a native grape distributed through the Mediterranean region could have escaped for centuries the critical search of European botanists and the knowledge of hundreds of generations of vignerons to be discovered at last transplanted in the new world." Bush says: " This reminds us forcibly of the 'Pedro Ximenes' (called also White Green Riesling), which was believed to have been brought to Spain from the banks of the Moselle by the man whose name it bears. Count Odart, a celebrated ampelograph, wittily said: 'If he (Ximenes) took any he took all, for no such vine grows now north of the Pyrenees/ Thus we also think: If Mr. Bourquin took any of the above grapes he took all, for no Herbemont or Lenoir can now be found native in Europe."

The only northern variety of grape of any importance that is supposed to have Bourquiniana blood is the Delaware,1 and in this case only a fraction of Bourquiniana blood is presumably present.

Bourquiniana can be propagated from cuttings more easily than the typical Aestivalis but not so readily as Labrusca, Riparia or Vinifera. Many of the varieties of Bourquiniana show a marked susceptibility to mildew and black-rot; in fact, the whole Herbemont group is much inferior in this respect to the Norton group of Aestivalis. The roots are somewhat hard, branch rather freely and are quite resistant to phylloxera.


1. Le Conte, Proc. Phil. Acad. Nat. Set., 6:272. 1853. V. aestivalis (Darlington). 2. Ib., U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt, 1857:230. Two-colored-leaved vine. 3. Munson, Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. V. Argentifolia; Blue grape. 4. An. Hort., 1889:101. 5. Munson, Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. 6. Munson, U.S.D.A. Pom. Bui., 3:12. 1890. 7. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:585. 1891. Blue grape; Northern Summer grape. 8. Ib., Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1893:116. Blue grape; Northern aestivalis. 9. Bailey, Gray's Syn. FL, 1:428. 1897. Blue grape; Northern Summer grape. 10. Britton and Brown, 2:409. 1897. Blue grape; Winter grape; V. aestivalis, var. bicolor. 11. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bui., 56:231, 234, 240, 266. 1900. Blue grape. 12. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 59.

Vine vigorous, climbing; shoots cylindrical or slightly angled, with rather long internodes, generally perfectly glabrous, usually showing much blue bloom, sometimes spiny at base; diaphragms medium to thick; tendrils intermittent, long, usually bifid. Leaves with short, broad stipules; leaf-blade medium to very large; roundish-cordate, usually three-, sometimes on older growth shallowly five-lobed, rarely entire; petiolar sinus variable in depth, usually rather narrow; margin irregularly dentate; teeth acuminate; glabrous above, usually glabrous below and showing much blue bloom which sometimes disappears late in the season; young leaves sometimes slightly pubescent; petioles very long. Cluster of medium size, compact, usually simple; peduncle long. Berries small to medium, black with much blue bloom, rather acid but pleasant tasting when ripe. Seeds small, plump, broadly oval, very short beak; chalaza oval, raised, distinct; raphe distinct, showing as a cord-like ridge.

Bicolor is readily distinguished from Aestivalis by the absence of the reddish pubescence, and by the bloom on the under side of the leaves and is distinguished from the glaucous form of Lincecumii by the smaller fruit and seeds. The species blooms slightly later than Aestivalis and Lincecumii. It was named and described by Le Conte in 1853 and has been generally recognized as a distinct species by later botanists.

The habitat of Bicolor is to the north of that of Aestivalis, occupying the northeastern, whereas Aestivalis occupies the southeastern quarter of the United States. Like Aestivalis it is not confined to streams and river-banks but frequently grows on higher land also. It is found in north Missouri, Illinois, southwestern Wisconsin, Indiana, southern Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, New York, southwestern Ontario, New Jersey and Maryland, and is by some botanists reported as far south as western North Carolina and west Tennessee.

The horticultural characters of Bicolor are much the same as those of Aestivalis. About the only points of difference are that it is much hardier (some of the Wisconsin vines stand a temperature as low as 20 degrees below zero); it is said to be slightly less resistant to mildew and more resistant to phylloxera. Like Aestivalis, Bicolor does not thrive on limy soils 10 and it is difficult to propagate from cuttings. The horticultural possibilities of Bicolor are probably much the same as those of Aestivalis, though many believe it to be more promising for the North. It is as yet cultivated but little. Its chief defect for domestication is the small size of the fruit.

20. VITIS CARIBjEA De Candolle.

1. De Candolle, Prodr., 1:634. 1824 (cited by Watson). 2. Chapman, Fl. Sou. States, :7i. (cited by Watson). 3. Buckley, U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1861:483. 4. Engelmann, Busk. Cat., 1883:10, 12, 14, 15. 5. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:136. Caloosa. 6. (?) Ib., Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. Prof. Curtis' grape. 7. Planchon, De Candolle''s Mon. Phan., 5:323, 330. 1887. 8. Munson, U.S.D.A. Porn. Bui., 3:14. 1890. 9. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. 10. Ib., Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1893:116. 11. Bailey, Gray's Syn. Fl., 1:428. 1897. 12. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 52.

Vine slender, climbing; shoots more or less woolly, or rarely nearly glabrous; diaphragms medium to thick; tendrils intermittent, rarely continuous, bifid or frequently trifid. Leaves cordate, usually entire when mature, frequently acuminate pointed; teeth shallow, wide, mucronate, slightly rugose above, thick whitish or rusty pubescence below; stipules small. Clusters large, long, with long, slender peduncle. Berries small to very small, purple or black with thin bloom, intensely acid until very ripe. Seeds usually but one or two to the berry, small to very small (Engelmann states that the Florida forms give larger seeds than those from, the West Indies), notched; chalaza more or less circular, depressed, usually distinct; raphe a groove or slightly distinct. Very variable.

Caribaea was first described by De Candolle and later by many other botanists but the species is not yet well known owing to its habitat. Caribaea is an inhabitant of the West Indies, middle and southern Florida, Louisiana, eastern Mexico, Yucatan, and various portions of tropical America. It is said to grow largely on lowlands.

The species is of no practical interest as it does not thrive and soon dies in temperate climates. Its horticultural characters are unknown.


1. Engelmann, Gray's PI. Lindh., 2:166. 1845. 2. U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1847:198. Mustang grape. 3. Engelmann, Gray's PL Wright., 1:32. 1852. 4. Vanzandt, Gar. Mon., 1:166. 1859. Mustang grape. 5. Affleck, Mag. Hort., 26:98. i860. Mustang grape. 6. Buckley, U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1861:482. V. Mustangensis; Mustang grape. 7. Engelmann, Am. Nat., 2:321. 1868. Mustang grape. 8. Koch, III. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1868:82. V. Mustangensis; Mustang grape. 9. Engelmann, Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1874:76. V. Mustangensis; Mustang grape. 10. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1883: 10, 11, 12, 14, 15. V. Mustangensis; Mustang grape. 11. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885: 137. V. Mustangensis. 12. Ib., Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1885:97, 98. Mustang grape. 13. Planchon, De Candolle's Mon. Phan., 1887:323, 326. V. Mustangensis; Mustang grape. 14. Munson, Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. Mustang grape. 15. Ib., U.S.D.A. Pom. Bui., 3:10. 1890. 16. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1894:20, 22, 25. Mustang grape. 17. Ib., Rural N. Y., 56:610. 1897. Mustang. 18. Bailey, Gray's Syn. FLt 1:428. 1897. Mustang grape. 19. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bui., 56:232, 234, 240, 267. 1900. Mustang grape. 20. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 54.

Vine very vigorous, climbing; shoots and petioles densely woolly, whitish or rusty; diaphragm thick; tendrils intermittent (according to Munson, rarely four continuous). Leaves with medium to large stipules; blade small to medium, broadly cordate to reniform ovate, frequently resembling those of a poplar, entire or in young shoots and on young vines and sprouts usually deeply from three- to five-, or even seven-lobed; teeth shallow, sinuate; petiolar sinus shallow, wide, sometimes lacking; dull, slightly rugose above, dense whitish pubescence below. Clusters small. Berries medium to large, black, purple, green, or even whitish, thin blue bloom or bloomless. Seeds usually three or four, large, short, plump, blunt, notched; chalaza oval, depressed, indistinct; raphe a broad groove.

Candicans was described and named by Engelmann in his account of certain plants sent from Texas by Lindheimer. In 1861 it was described by Buckley who seems to have been unaware of the species having been previously named.

The habitat of this grape extends from southern Oklahoma, as a northern limit, southwesterly into Mexico. The western boundary is the Pecos River. It is found on dry, alluvial, sandy or limestone bottoms or on limestone bluff lands and is said to be especially abundant along upland ravines. Candicans grows well on limestone lands enduring as much as 60 per ct. of carbonate of lime in the soil. The species blooms shortly before Labrusca and a week later than Riparia. It requires the long hot summers of its native country and will stand extreme drouth but is not hardy to cold, ten or fifteen degrees below zero killing the vine outright unless protected; and a lesser degree of cold injuring it severely. The berries, which are large for wild vines, have thin skins under which there is a pigment which gives them, when first ripe, a fiery, pungent taste but which partly disappears with maturity. The berries are very persistent, clinging to the pedicel long after ripe. Candicans is difficult to propagate from cuttings. Its roots resist phylloxera fairly well. It makes a good stock for Vinifera vines in its native country but owing to the difficulty of propagation is seldom used for that purpose. In the early days of Texas it was much used for the making of wine but as it is deficient in sugar, and as the must retains the acrid, pungent flavor, it does not seem to be well adapted for this purpose. It is not regarded as having great promise for southern horticulture and certainly has none for the North.


1. Shuttleworth Mss., Herb. Boiss. 2. Chapman, Fl. Sou. States, '.71 (cited by Watson, Planchon and Bailey). V. caribea, var. coriacea. 3. Engelmann, Bush. Cat., 1883:15. V. candicans, Florida form. 4. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:136. V. Caribea; Caloosa, 5. Planchon, De CandolWs Mon. Phan., 5:323, 345. 1887. V. coriacea. 6. Munson, Soc. Prom. Ag. Set. Rpt., 1887:59. V. coriacea; Leather-Leaf grape. 7. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. V. coriacea. 8. Ib., U.S.D.A. Pom. Bui., 3:10, 11. 1890. V. coriacea. 9. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:661. 1891. V. coriacea; Leather-leaf grape. 10. Bailey, Gray's Syn. FL, 1:429. 1897. Leather-leaf grape; Calloosa grape. 11. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bui., 56:232, 240. 1900. V. coriacea; Leather-Leaf grape. 12. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 52. V. coriacea.

Coriacea is a Florida variety of Candicans, differing from the Texas form, in having a shorter, somewhat smaller and comparatively thicker seed; small stipules; quite variable leaves, intermediate in shape between Labrusca and Candicans; and an absence of the fiery flavor. The blossoming period is two or three weeks later than the Texas form.

This form of Candicans was named and described by Shuttleworth in a manuscript now in the Herbarium Boissier at Geneva, Switzerland. Botanists seem divided as whether to regard it as a separate species or as a botanical variety. Its habitat is central and southern Florida.

Coriacea is more tender than the regular forms of Vitis candicans and this alone would make it worthless to the northern cultivator even were it otherwise valuable.


I. Munson, Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. Simpson's grape. 2. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474, 475. 1890. 3. Ib., U. S. D. A, Pom, Bui., 3:12. 1890. 4. Ib., Am. Gard., 12:586, 661. 1891. 5. Ib., Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1893:116. Palmetto-leaved grape. 6. Bailey, Gray's Syn. Fl.y 1:429. 1897. 7. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bui., 56:232, 234, 240, 267. 1900. fig. Simpson's grape. 8. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:167.

Vine very vigorous, climbing; shoots cylindrical with much brownish pubescence; diaphragms very thick; tendrils intermittent. Leaves with stipules short and broad; leaf-blade rather thin, large, broadly cordate, usually considerably lobed; petiolar sinus of medium width and depth; margin coarsely toothed; upper surface slightly rugose and of a dark-green; lower surface with rusty white pubescence sometimes becoming almost a blue green; the shape of leaf and amount of pubescence vary widely. Clusters large, loose; peduncle long; pedicel thick. Berries small to medium, more tender in pulp and less astringent than Vitis aestivalis, black with moderate amount of bloom. Leafing, blooming, and ripening fruit late.

Vitis simpsoni was named and briefly described by Munson in 1887. In 1891 he stated that the species is a hybrid of Vitis coriacea (here considered a variety of Vitis candicans) crossed with Vitis cinerea. Bailey states that it is probably a hybrid of Aestivalis crossed with Coriacea. Some forms of Simpsoni are said to be very difficult to distinguish from Vitis labrusca.

Simpsoni prefers warm, sandy soils and is found in central and southern Florida. It roots from cuttings with great difficulty; it is tender and will not withstand cold winters. While it is very resistant to phylloxera and also to mildew and black-rot, its leaves are said to be much attacked by leaf-rollers. The blossoming period is just after Aestivalis. The berries are of good flavor and might be of some value for the country along the Gulf Coast but it is of no value for the North.


1. Linnaeus, Sp. PL, 1:203. I753- ^ sylvestris Virginiana; V. vinifera sylvestris americana. 2. Marshall, 1785:165. V. vulpina; Fox grape vine. 3. Walter, 1788:242. V. taurina. 4. Michaux, 2:230. 1803. V. taurina. 5. Bartram, Dom. Enc.t 5:289. 1804. V. vulpina; Fox grape. 6. Muhlenberg, 1813:27. Fox grape. 7. Pursh, 1:169. 1814. V. taurina. 8. Nuttall, 1:143. 1818. 9. Elliott, 2:689. 1824. V. taurina. 10. Torrey, Fl. of N. et M. Sta., 1826:120.

1 The name Labrusca is an old one originally applied to a grape growing wild in Italy. Engelmann states that this grape is still known to the Italians by the name Brusca. It was probably applied to the American species by Linnaeus under the mistaken supposition that our northern Fox grape was the same as the wild Italian species.

ii. Rafmesque, 1830:10. V. latifolia; V. taurina; V. Labrusca; Fox grape. 12. Ib., 1830:11. V. luteola; Variable grape. 13. Prince, 1830:180. V. Labrusca, var. nigra; Black Fox; Purple Fox; V. taurina; V. vulpina. 14. Ib., 1830:181. V. Labrusca, var. alba; White Fox. 15. Ib., 1830:182. V. Labrusca, var. rosea ; Red Fox. 16. Torrey, Fl. of N. Y., 1:146. 1843. Fox grape. 17. Darlington, Fl. Cest., 1853:50. Fox grape of the Northern States, not of Va. 18. Le Conte, Proc. Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci.. 1853:270. V. sylvestris; Fox grape; V. occidentalis; V. vulpina; V. latifolia; V. canina; V. luteola; V. rugosa; V. ferruginea; V. labruscoides; V. blanda; V. prolifera; V. obovata. 19. Ib., U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1857:228. Fox grape; V. sylvestris; V. occi* dentalis; V. vulpina; V. latifolia; V. canina; V. luteola; V. rugosa; V. ferruginea; V. labruscoides; V. prolifica; V. obovata. 20. Buckley, Ib., 1861:481. Frost grape. Fox grape of the Northern States. 21. Stayman, Gar. Mon., 11:37, 38, 39, 40. 1869. Northern Fox Grape. 22. Engelmann, Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1872:61. Fox grape; Northern Fox grape. 23. Ib., Bush. Cat., 1883:9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19. Fox grape; Northern Fox grape. 24. Munson, Am. . Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:136. Fox grape. 25. Ib., Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1885:97, 98, 101. 26. Planchon, De Candolle's Mon. Phan., ,5:322, 324. 1887. Fox grape; Northern Fox grape; V. vinifera sylvestris americana; V. latifolia; V. canina; V. luteola. 27. Munson, Soc. Prom. Ag. Sci. Rpt., 1887:59. Fox grape. 28. Pearson, Gar. and For., 2:584. 1889. 29. Munson, U.S.D.A. Pom. Bui., 3:11. 1890. 30. Ib., Gar. and For., 3:474. 1890. 31. Britton and Brown, 2:408. 1897. Northern Fox grape; Plum grape. 32. Bailey, Gray's Syn. FL, 1:429. 1897. Fox grape; Skunk grape; V. vulpina; V. blandi. ,33. Munson, Tex. Sta. Bui., 56:232, 240. 1899. Northern Fox grape. 34. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 45.

Vine moderately vigorous, stocky, climbing; shoots cylindrical, densely pubescent; diaphragms medium to rather thick; tendrils continuous, strong, bifid or trifid. Leaves with long, cordate stipules, leaf-blade large, thick, broadly cordate or roundish; entire to three-lobed, frequently notched; sinuses rounded; petiolar sinus variable in depth and width, V-shaped; margin with rather shallow, acute pointed, scalloped teeth; upper surface more or less rugose, dark green, on young leaves pubescent, becoming glabrous when mature; lower surface covered with dense pubescence, more or less whitish on young leaves, becoming rusty or dun-colored when mature. Clusters small to medium, more or less compound, usually shouldered, compact; pedicels thick; peduncle short to medium. Berries medium to large; skin thick, covered with considerable bloom, strong musky or foxy aroma. Seeds two to four, large, distinctly notched, beak short; chalaza oval in shape, indistinct, showing merely as a depression; raphe, a groove. (See Plate.)

Vitis labrusca, the northern Fox grape, is mentioned in many of the early writings of this country, particularly in those describing New England. It was probably described by other botanists before Linnaeus but if so their descriptions are so meager that it cannot be definitely recognized. Linnaeus in 1753, under Vitis labrusca, says: "Leaves cordate, slightly tri-lobed, dentate, downy below." Marshall in 1785 under the name Vitis vulpina, or Fox grape, says: "This in manner of growth hath much the appearance of the other kinds. The leaves are generally larger, and smooth, but whitish underneath. The fruit or grapes are about the size of a common cherry and have a strong scent, a little approaching to that of a Fox, whence the name of Fox-grape. There are also varieties of this, some with whitish or reddish fruit which is generally most esteemed, and others with black, of which are our largest grapes" From the time of Marshall on all of the botanists give more or less complete descriptions of this species and except for the brief misunderstanding at first as to the name, its identity has never been questioned. At one time it was supposed to grow in the Mississippi Valley but Engelmann demonstrated that what were taken for Labrusca vines in Missouri were in reality strongly pubescent forms of Aestivalis.

Labrusca is indigenous to the eastern part of North America, including the region between the Atlantic Ocean and the Alleghany Mountains. It is sometimes found in the valleys and along the western slopes of the Alleghanies. Many botanists say it is never found in the Mississippi Valley; Munson reports specimens, however, from Indiana and Tennessee. In the first-named area it ranges from Maine to Georgia. It has the most restricted habitat of any American species of horticultural importance, being much exceeded in extent of territory by Vitis rotundifolia, Vitis aestivalis, and Vitis riparia.

Labrusca has furnished more cultivated varieties, either pure-breeds or hybrids, than all other American species together. The reason for this is partly, no doubt, due to the fact that it is native to the portion of the United States first settled and is the most common grape in the region where agriculture first advanced to the condition where fruits were desired. This does not wholly account for its prominence, however, which must be sought elsewhere. In its wild state Labrusca is probably the most attractive to the eye of any of our American grapes on account of the size of its fruit, and this undoubtedly turned the attention of those who were early interested in the possibilities of American grape-growing to this species rather than to any other.

The southern Labrusca is quite different from the northern form and probably demands different conditions for its successful growth; in the North at least two types of the species may be distinguished. Vines are found in the woods of New England, which resemble Concord very closely in both vine and fruit, excepting that the grapes are much smaller in size and more seedy. There is also the large-fruited, foxy Labrusca, usually with reddish berries, represented by such cultivated varieties as Northern Muscadine, Dracut Amber, Lutie and others. Labrusca is peculiar amongst American grapes in showing black-, white- and red-fruited forms of wild vines growing in the woods. Because of this variability it is impossible to give the exact climatic and soil conditions best adapted to the species. It is reasonable to suppose, however, that the ideal conditions for this or any other species are not widely different from those prevailing where the species is indigenous. In the case of Labrusca this means that it is best adapted to humid climates and that the temperature desired varies according to whether the variety comes from the southern or northern form of the species.

The root system of Labrusca does not penetrate the soil deeply,112 but it is said to succeed better in deep and clayey soils than Aestivalis. In the Southern and Middle States it does better on eastern and northeastern slopes. As would be suspected from its original marshy home, it endures an excess of water in the soil, and on the other hand requires more water for successful growing than Aestivalis or Riparia. In spite of its ability to withstand clayey soils, it seems to prefer loose, warm, well-drained sandy lands to all others. The French growers report that all varieties of this species show a marked antipathy to a limestone soil, the vines soon becoming affected with chlorosis when planted in soils of this nature. In corroboration of this Stayman reports that it is not found growing native in clayey, limestone soils. The Labruscas succeed very well in the North and fairly well in the middle West, as far south as Arkansas, where they are raised on account of their fruit qualities but here the vines are not nearly so vigorous and healthy as are those of other species. In Alabama they are reported to be generally unsatisfactory, and in Texas the vines are short-lived, unhealthy, and generally unsatisfactory, particularly in the dry regions. There are some exceptions to this, as, for instance, in the Piedmont region of the Carolinas, where, owing to elevation or other causes, the climate of a southern region is semi-northern in its character.

The fruit of Labrusca is large and usually handsomely colored. The skin is thick, covering a layer of adhering flesh, which gives the impression of its being thicker than it actually is; it is variable in tenderness, sometimes tough, but in many of our cultivated varieties it is so tender as to be a detriment in that it is inclined to crack on the vines in case of rain at ripening time, and the berries to crush in transportation. The skin of this species usually has a peculiar aroma, generally spoken of as foxy, and a slightly acid, astringent taste. Beneath the skin there is a layer of juicy pulp, quite sweet and never showing much acidity in ripe fruit. The center of the berry is occupied by rather dense pulp, more or less stringy, with considerable acid close to the seeds. Many people object to the foxy aroma of this species, but, nevertheless, the most popular American varieties are more or less foxy. Analyses have shown that Labrusca fruit is generally characterized by a low percentage of sugar and acid, the very sweet tasting fox grapes not showing as high a sugar content as some of the disagreeably tart Aestivalis and Riparia sorts. This, in addition to the foxiness which furnishes an excess of aroma in the wine, has prevented Labrusca varieties from becoming favorites with the wine-makers. Must from these varieties is adapted only for the making of dry wines, and when making wines of any other class it is necessary to add sugar and water, the quantities being governed by the final product desired.

In addition to the strong points already enumerated, it may be said that Labrusca submits well to vineyard culture, is fairly vigorous and generally quite productive. It grows readily from cuttings and in point of hardiness is intermediate between Riparia, the hardiest of our American species, and Aestivalis. The roots are soft and fleshy (for an American grape) and in some localities quite subject to attacks of phylloxera. None of the varieties of Labrusca have ever been popular in France on this account. In the wild vines the fruit is inclined to drop from the vine when ripe. This defect is known as "shattering" or "shelling" among grape-growers and it is a serious weakness in certain varieties of Labrusca. It is said to be more sensitive in its wild state to mildew and rot than any other American species but the evidence on this point does not seem to be wholly conclusive. In the South and in some parts of the middle West the leaves of all varieties of Labrusca sunburn and shrivel in the latter part of the summer. The vines do not endure drouth as well as Aestivalis or Riparia and not nearly so well as Rupestris. Pearson reports that the Labruscas can be sprayed with copper sulphate mixtures with much less danger to the leaves than can Aestivalis.


1. Linnaeus, Sp. PL, 1:202. 1753. 2. Speechly, 1791:1. 3. Willdenow, Sp. PL, 1:1180. 1797. 4. Bartram, Dom. Enc., 5:289. 1804. 5. Rafinesque, 1830:7. Wine Grape. 6. Darlington, Fl. Cest.t 1853:49. Wine grape; Foreign grape. 7. Buckley, U. S. Pat. Off. Rpt., 1861:480. European grape. 8. Stayman, Gar. Mon., 11:38. 1869. European grape. 9. Bush, Grape Cult., 1:140. 1869. European grape. 10. Engelmann, Mo. Ent. Rpt., 1874:74. 11. Moore, Mich. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1875:36. 12. Engelmann, Bush. Cat., 1883:11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 13. Munson, Am. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1885:137. 14. De Candolle, Or. Cult. PL, 1885:191. 15. Onderdonk, U. S. D. A. Rpt., 1887:652. 16. Planchon, De Candolle's Mon. Phan., 5:324, 355. 1887. 17. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1889:107, 109. 18. Husmann, 1895:29, 187. 19. Munson, Rural N. Y., 56:610. 1897. 20. Ib., Tex. Sta. Bui., 56:231, 233, 240. 1900. Asiatic Wine grape. 21. Bailey, Cyc. Am. Hort.t 4:1956. 1902. fig. of leaves. Wine grape; European grape. 22. Viala and Ravaz, Am. Vines, 1903:42, 115-

Quite variable in vigor, not so high climbing as most American species. Tendrils intermittent. Leaves rounded-cordate, rather thin, rather-smooth, and when young, shining, frequently more or less deeply three-, five-, or even seven-lobed; usually glabrous but in some varieties the leaves and young shoots are hairy and even downy when young; lobes rounded or pointed; teeth variable; petiolar sinus deep, narrow, usually overlapping. Fruit, of cultivated varieties at least, very variable in size and color. Berries of cultivated varieties usually oval though many varieties are globular fruited. Seeds variable in size and shape, usually notched at upper end and characterized always by bottle-necked, elongated beak; a rather broad, usually rough, slightly distinct chalaza situated rather high up on the seed; raphe indistinct. Flowers soon after Labrusca. The roots are large, soft and spongy. A very variable species.

Botanists have never agreed as to whether Vitis vinifera is a single species or a combination of two or more species which has been cultivated for so long that it is impossible to discover the original forms. The name, Vitis vinifera, is usually credited to Linnaeus though it was used for this grape before Linnaeus' time by Bauhin and possibly by others. The description of Linnaeus accompanying the name is very short, as follows: Leaves sinuately lobed, glabrous. Many of the earlier botanists, Tournefort for one, described numerous varieties as though they were species. As a natural corollary of the uncertainty of the botanical status of Vitis vinifera the original habitat of the species is not positively known. De Candolle, as noted in the first part of this work, considered the region about the Caspian Sea as the probable habitat of the Old World grape. There is but little doubt that the original home of Vitis vinifera is some place in western Asia. There is strong corroborative evidence of this in the fact that the climatic conditions under which the species flourishes are such as are there found.

The first chapter in The Grapes of New York has been devoted to this, the Old World grape, and for a discussion of the horticultural characters of the species and of the efforts to cultivate it in America, the reader is referred to that chapter.

Neither American nor European writers agree as to the exact climate desired by Vinifera for the reason, probably, that all of the varieties in this variable species do not desire the same conditions. There are certain phases of climate, however, that are well agreed upon, as follows: The species requires a warm, dry climate, and is more sensitive to change of temperature than our American species. Stayman, who had had considerable experience in raising Vinifera grapes in different places, says: Vinifera "will not endure much rain or grow on wet land. It is only in a dry climate and on high rolling situations that it will succeed, where there is not more than 31 inches of an annual rainfall and for the growing and maturing season 15 inches." So far as soil alone is concerned, the French growers tell us that it can be grown successfully in a wide variety of soils, being much less particular in this respect than our American species. They state that it will withstand and grow successfully in soils so strongly impregnated with lime that any of the American sorts would succumb to chlorosis.

There are certain characters connected with the fruit of this species which are peculiar to it and are not found in any of our American sorts. First, the skin, which is attached very closely to the flesh and which is never astringent or acid, is of good flavor and can be eaten with the fruit.

Second, the flesh is firm, yet tender, and uniform throughout, differing in this respect from any of our American sorts, which frequently show a sweet, watery and tender pulp close to the skin with a tough and more or less acid core at the center. Third, the flavor is peculiarly sprightly, a quality known as vinous, because it characterizes this species. It may be said in this connection, however, that many Americans, accustomed to American grapes, prefer the flavor of our native sorts to the vinous flavor of the Old World grape. Europeans invariably, and Americans who live in Vinifera raising sections, usually, deem the Vinifera flavor greatly superior. Fourth, a strong adherence of the berry to the pedicel, the fruit never "shattering" or "shelling" from the cluster.

Varieties of Vinifera have been selected for the making of wine through so many centuries that this species has become the first and great wine-making grape. Whatever the future may hold in store for American grapes, there is no question but that at present the Viniferas are far superior to any native Americans for wine-making purposes, both as to quality in general and the number of kinds of wine which can be made.

The weak points of Vinifera are: First, an inability to withstand the cold of our winters. The different varieties of Vinifera undoubtedly vary considerably as to the exact amount of cold they will stand without injury. All of them tried at this Station freeze to the ground even in the mildest winters. Second, foliage particularly susceptible to the attack of mildew and fruit susceptible to the attack of black-rot. Third, they generally require a ripening season much longer than our climate affords. Fourth, the roots are soft and spongy and very liable to the attack of phylloxera, though they apparently penetrate more readily in dense clays and hard dry soils than any of our American species.

In the various hybrids that have been made between American and Vinifera varieties it is usually found that the desirable qualities of Vinifera are taken in about the same proportion as the undesirable ones. The fruit is improved in the hybrid but the vine is weakened. Quality is purchased at the expense of hardiness and disease-resisting power. Vinifera may be grown very readily from cuttings. This is of little cultural importance, however, as both in Europe and America varieties of the species are usually grafted on phylloxera-resistant stock.