Many botanists hold that what American pomologists call the species is an assemblage of several botanical divisions. The early botanists distributed these plums in botanical varieties of one species. Thus Linnaeus, in 1753, divided _Prunus domestica_ into fourteen sub-species, and Seringe, in 1825, made eight divisions of the species. Both of these men include in this species, among others, plums which we now place in _Prunus cerasifera_, the Cherry plums, and _Prunus insititia_, the Damsons and Bullaces. Nearly all subsequent botanists who have not made two or more species of it have recognized from two to several sub-divisions of _Prunus domestica_. It is possible that what are called the Domestica plums should be distributed among several botanical divisions. But it is difficult to find any differential character sufficiently constant to distinguish more than one species for the several hundred varieties of these plums now under cultivation. Nor are there any cleavage lines sufficiently distinct to indicate that the edible varieties of the one species should be sub-grouped. In coming to these conclusions the writer has studied about three hundred varieties of Domestica plums growing on the grounds of this Station and about half as many more growing in other parts of the country, the whole number representing all of the various species and sub-species which other workers have made. The differences which have been most used to classify the varieties of Domestica in several botanic divisions have to do chiefly with the fruit, as size, shape, color and flavor, characters so modified by cultivation and selection that they are artificial and transitory and of little value in botanical classification. Moreover, the botanical groups which have been founded on these characters are much more indistinct than ordinarily in botany because of the merging at many points of one group into another. This indistinctness is greatly increasing year by year through the intercrossing of varieties. When the characters of no value to man, and, therefore, little modified by cultivation, are considered, it is scarcely possible logically to place Domestica plums in more than one species or to further sub-divide the one species. The botanists who have divided the Domestica plums into either greater or lesser botanical groups do not define their divisions with sufficient accuracy to make them clearly recognizable. Neither do they give the habitats of the wild progenitors with sufficient certainty to carry conviction that the groups were brought under cultivation from separate ancestors. Also, the several botanists who hold to the multiple species theory for the Domestica plums do not agree as to the limits of the different groups and give to them very different specific or variety names, showing that they have widely different ideas as a basis for their classification.