The ranch. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1902-1914, 1905-04-15
More About Strawberry Nomencla-
ture,
ture.
&C. E. Flint, Blaine.)

mentS made by an "Or1glnatOr ana
also criticises him for those state
ments. In the first place he refers
to an article that said Originator"
had in the Northwest Horticulturist,
in which the statement was made that
the Kansas was perfect blooming
sort Well, did say it, for l am the
party he means.
When 1 wrote that article l was
thinking more of the point 1 wished
to bring out than of the fact in regard
to the strawberry bloom. The point
I wished to make was that it made a
difference even with perfect blooming
sorts by the side of what variety they
were planted. l do know that the
Kansas is imperfect, and 1 also know
that it makes a great difference
what variety is used to pollenize it.
With us the Kansas was pOllenized
by several different varieties and was
still not valuable berry. Accident
ally neighbor crossed it with De-
licious and got fine fruit.
| also further said in the article
referred to that certain writer's ap-
peared to copy the description of the
actions of their berries from the cata-
logs for the said descriptions did tally.
Mr.. Cowell took the whole load on
himself and accepted the coat" but
he denies that he copied anything, so
we will take his word for it.
| raised a strawberry from the seed,
that was a good late berry and put
it on the market as Late Washing
ton" Now, l may not be very we'll
posted, but l have studied all the
catalogs and l never saw any straw
berry with a washington" attached
to it, or l should never have given
it that name. Mr.. Cowell says that
any one keen enough to originate
new variety ought to be clever enough
to originate a new name. Perhaps
he had, but it is not always done; for
instance, look at the number of John
Smiths and the Joneses and even
few Cowells! What an awful tumble
there will be when we drop their first
names and call them all Smith or
Jones or Cowell! Is there any more
reason for dropping the first part of
the name of plant than there is for
dropping the first part of the name
of a man or an animal? I can't see
it.
If there are several berries in the
market that have the same name in
part then let's call them by their
names and not chop off part because
we are to lazy, or our neighbOrs are
too lazy to say the whole thing. II
Mr.. Cowell thinks l called my berry
the Washington to profit by the repu-
tation of other Washingtons he has
another "think" coming. We don't
have to do that kind of business in
this neck of the woods.
In regard to many berries being
sent out with several different names,
| have no doubt but there are men in
the berry business who are dishonest
enough to do that very thing, but as
to any of those who have been long
in the business and have a reputation
for honesty I think they are too wise
to say the least, to do such thing.
Any one who has grown seedlings
knows that there are dozens of the
seedlings that resemble very much
the parent Some may have the same
form, color, and flavor and yet be
either more or less prolific. If Mr..
Cowell should have a Seeding of
Candy, we will say, that was per-
feet Candy in everything except that
it was a very prolific bearer, would
he call it a Candy or would he give
it a new name? 1t would not be
right to call it Candy, because the