Stone-fruits fall naturally into two distinct groups. In the first the
leaves are rolled in the buds--convolute. The plums and the apricots
belong to this section. In the buds of the other group the leaves are
folded lengthwise along the midrib--conduplicate. To this section
belong almonds, peaches and cherries. The two sections seem to be
united in this matter of disposition of leaves in the bud, it should
be said in passing, by a few species of American plums which are
conduplicate in vernation. The second section is further subdivided
by very marked differences in the fruits. The fruits of the peach
and almond are larger than those of the cherry, less juicy,--in the
case of the almond almost dry,--hirsute (except in the nectarine),
and are borne without stems; and the blossoms usually appear long
before the opening of the leaves. Cherry-fruits are always juicy,
usually glabrous, and are borne on more or less distinct stems; and
the blossoms appear with the leaves. Botanists who put these fruits in
one genus usually redivide according to the characters given so that
the plum and apricot stand in one sub-genus (Euprunus), the almond and
peach in another (Amygdalus), and the cherry in a third (Cerasus).
Differentiating more closely, we find that it is not so easy to
distinguish between the peach and the almond. The likenesses are so
many and so apparent that it is not to be wondered that Knight, whose
theory we have discussed on a foregoing page, came to the conclusion
that the peach is a modified almond, or that Darwin, with his belief
that plants came sooner or later to express their environmental
conditions, should be inclined to believe that the peach is an
evolution from the almond. It is easy to imagine that countless ages
ago--how long since is but an invitation to argue--the two species
merged into one. Offspring of the parent-species once established in
distinct soil and climatic conditions--the peach in China, the almond
in southwestern Asia--differentiation began and in time each region was
represented by a species of its own. Such an occurrence is but one of
the commonplaces of evolution; but Knight, Lindley and Darwin thought
they saw evidence that the separation came after the almond, the
supposed parent-species, had been domesticated, the steps being from
fleshy almond to bad clingstone, to good clingstone, to freestone,
to nectarine. The arguments against such a descent have been given
elsewhere.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account