Full download text book at textbookfull.

com

Producing Shared Understanding for

Digital and Social Innovation: Bridging
Divides with Transdisciplinary
Information Experience Concepts and
Methods Faye
DOWLOAD Miller
HERE

https://textbookfull.com/product/producing-shared-
understanding-for-digital-and-social-innovation-
bridging-divides-with-transdisciplinary-
information-experience-concepts-and-methods-faye-
miller/

DOWLOAD NOW

Download more textbook from textbookfull.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship:

Fundamentals, Concepts, and Tools Luis Portales

https://textbookfull.com/product/social-innovation-and-social-
entrepreneurship-fundamentals-concepts-and-tools-luis-portales/

Understanding Digital Culture 2nd Edition Vincent

Miller

https://textbookfull.com/product/understanding-digital-
culture-2nd-edition-vincent-miller/

Designing Digital Work: Concepts and Methods for Human-

Centered Digitization Stefan Oppl

https://textbookfull.com/product/designing-digital-work-concepts-
and-methods-for-human-centered-digitization-stefan-oppl/

Bridging Occupational Organizational and Public Health

A Transdisciplinary Approach 1st Edition Georg F. Bauer

https://textbookfull.com/product/bridging-occupational-
organizational-and-public-health-a-transdisciplinary-
approach-1st-edition-georg-f-bauer/
New Trends in Business Information Systems and
Technology: Digital Innovation and Digital Business
Transformation Rolf Dornberger

https://textbookfull.com/product/new-trends-in-business-
information-systems-and-technology-digital-innovation-and-
digital-business-transformation-rolf-dornberger/

Liminality and Experience: A Transdisciplinary Approach

to the Psychosocial 1st Edition Paul Stenner (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/liminality-and-experience-a-
transdisciplinary-approach-to-the-psychosocial-1st-edition-paul-
stenner-auth/

Mathematics for Physicists Introductory Concepts and

Methods Alexander Altland

https://textbookfull.com/product/mathematics-for-physicists-
introductory-concepts-and-methods-alexander-altland/

Healthcare IT transformation: bridging innovation,

integration, interoperability, and analytics 1st
Edition Dodd

https://textbookfull.com/product/healthcare-it-transformation-
bridging-innovation-integration-interoperability-and-
analytics-1st-edition-dodd/

Social Computing and Social Media User Experience and

Behavior Gabriele Meiselwitz

https://textbookfull.com/product/social-computing-and-social-
media-user-experience-and-behavior-gabriele-meiselwitz/
Producing Shared
Understanding for Digital
and Social Innovation
Bridging Divides with
Transdisciplinary Information Experience
Concepts and Methods
Faye Miller
Producing Shared Understanding for Digital
and Social Innovation
 Faye Miller

Producing Shared
Understanding
for Digital and Social
Innovation
Bridging Divides with
Transdisciplinary Information
Experience Concepts and Methods
Faye Miller
Research and Career Development Consultancy
Human Constellation Pty Ltd
Canberra, Australia

ISBN 978-981-15-7371-2 ISBN 978-981-15-7372-9 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7372-9

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher,
whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting,
reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical
way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software,
or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover credit: Rotary Signal Emitter by Sculpture/Reuben Sutherland

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore
Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore
 For Raj

For Maura

In memory of James Alexander Miller

 Contents

1 Prologue 1
Retrofuturistic 1
Three Big Questions 3
How Do We Future Proof Our Digital Lives? 3
How Do We Produce Shared Understanding? 4
How Do We Educate for Responsible Innovation? 5
Eight Invisible Gaps that Need Bridging 8
Making Meaningful Work Across Boundaries 8
Transdisciplinary Collaboration and Competition 9
Human Impact and Responsible Digital Social
Innovation 9
Accessibility and Public Understanding of Social
Science 9
Inclusivity in Innovation 10
Tolerance, Empathy and Polarity in Shared
Understanding 10
Platforms for Transdisciplinary Interaction 10
Moments of Shared Understanding 11

vii
viii Contents

Transdisciplinary Producing 12
Fusionist 15
Analogue Experience Guide 15
Virtual and Augmented Reality Experience Creator 16
Innovation Manager 16
Social Change Agents 17
Co-producing Transdisciplinary Knowledge 18
Shared Understanding for Digital and Social Innovation 19
References 23

Part I Concepts

2 Revealing Transdisciplinary Invisible Work 31

The Makings of a Transdisciplinary Producer 31
Transdisciplinary Experiences and Cultures 36
Knowing the Gaps 37
Imagination and Creativity 38
Listening and Noticing 42
Bridging the Gaps 44
Problem Emergence and Multiple Stakeholders 44
Informed Learning and Personal Change 45
Revealing the Complex Social-Ecological System 47
Challenges for Social Change Agents: Revealing
Transdisciplinary Work 48
References 49

3 Informational Waves 51
Waves Across a Universe 51
Signs of Life 52
Sustainable Resources 55
Approaches 58
Objects 59
Concepts 60
Social-Ecological Information Experiences 61
Life Moments 67
 Contents ix

Movements 68
Self and Audience Awareness 69
Relatable Information 70
Balanced Critique 71
Holistic Approaches 72
Curated Waves 73
Embodied Waves 74
Expanding the Universe 77
Challenges for Change Agents: Understanding
and Creating Informational Waves 81
References 82

4 Transdisciplinary Resonance 85
Re-interpreting Waves 85
The Silver Lined Cloud of Resonance 86
Resonance in Cultural Shifts 87
Resonance Powers Waves 88
Informal Learning for Resonance 90
Common and Nuanced Resonance 91
Resonant Information and Learning Experiences 93
Understanding Yourself for Transdisciplinary Innovation 94
Understanding People for Transdisciplinary Innovation 97
Co-designing for Resonant Information and Learning
Experiences 100
Challenges for Change Agents: Understanding
and Developing Transdisciplinary Resonance 101
References 102

Part II Methods

5 Turning Resonant Waves into Shared Understanding 107

References 108

6 Moments 109
Moments as a Transdisciplinary Method 109
x Contents

Moments as Curated Waves 110

Accidental Moments 111
Chronotopes and Space-Time 112
Raw Moments in Collaboration 113
Translanguage Moments 114
Healing Moments 114
Challenges for Change Agents: Understanding
and Creating Moments 115
References 115

7 Paradoxes 117
Understanding Paradoxical Tensions 117
Paradoxes as a Transdisciplinary Method for Producing
Shared Understanding 120
Working Through Paradoxes 120
Problem: Formulating the Mess 124
Dilemma: Either/Or Thinking 125
Paradox: Discovering the Link with Both/And Thinking 126
Workable Certainty: Negotiated Understanding 127
Culturally Diverse Collaborations for Shared
Understanding 131
Understanding Social Innovation and Sustainable
Development Through Paradoxes 132
Challenges for Change Agents: Understanding
and Navigating Paradoxes 135
References 137

8 Dialogues 139
Sparking Dialogue about Dialogue Mapping 139
References 146

9 Paradigm Shifts Towards Co-producing Shared

Understanding 147
Informational Waves as Creative and Critical Capacity 148
Unifying Bridging Concepts 149
 Contents xi

Producing Shared Understanding as a Creative Model

for Digital and Social Innovation 149
Shared Understanding Brief for Transdisciplinary
Teamwork 150
Collaborative Information Experience and Co-designing
for Shared Understanding 151
References 158

Epilogue 159

Acknowledgements 161

Glossary 163

Index 171
 List of Figures

Fig. 9.1 Resonant waves in developing capacities for creativity,

critical thinking, communicating and collaborating 151
Fig. 9.2 Producing shared understanding creative model for digital
social innovation 152

xiii
 List of Tables

Table 7.1 Examples of working through paradoxes 128

Table 7.2 Traditional “And/Or” leadership compared with
paradoxical “Both/And” leadership 129
Table 9.1 Elements and questions of the shared understanding
brief 153

xv
 1
Prologue

Retrofuturistic
The first time I ever saw a live and spinning zoetrope—a pre-cinematic
animation device—was on a visit to the Exploratorium Museum of
Science, Art and Human Perception on San Francisco’s Pier 15, in March
2017. Derived from the Greek words zoe, meaning “life”, and tropos
meaning “turning”, a zoetrope is also known as a “wheel of life”.
This was my first “live” zoetrope experience because as a child I had
seen a static zoetrope in a detailed, illustrated entry about how motion
pictures were made, in a leather-bound antique encyclopedia volume
by Arthur Mee. As Mee’s encyclopedias for children were published in
mid-twentieth-century Europe, it is likely that I am in the minority of
millennials who have ever heard of Mee’s encyclopedia. I remember being
fascinated by countless entries that naturally unified the natural sciences,
social sciences, humanities and arts, spanning across several volumes.
Most school teachers said that the information held in those books was
quite archaic, and that I should have consulted the latest Britannica CD-
ROM or even the pre-Google search engine AltaVista in the mid-1990s
wave of the World Wide Web. But browsing these newer resources felt

© The Author(s) 2020 1

F. Miller, Producing Shared Understanding for Digital and Social Innovation,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7372-9_1
2 F. Miller

mechanical and limited. They were devoid of the fusing of ethical and
humanist wisdom and wonder, alongside scientific proofs.
Over knowing what we know, these classical texts inspired us to place
even higher value in being curious about what we do not know. Arthur
Mee was honest about his encyclopedia; although it was very thorough,
carefully presented and detailed, he made it clear to learning minds that it
was not the fountain of all knowledge once devoured. The real magic was
found in the unknown gaps in-between. Like the zoetrope, only through
the illuminated gaps in the wheel did the whole story come to life.
If I had been more deliberate and orderly in my early research, I might
never have randomly come across the zoetrope, as both an innovative
concept and a precursor invention which ultimately led to traditional
audiovisual motion picture and—as we know and love it today—digital
multimedia and animation, social media, GIFs, memes, live streaming
on reddit’s Public Access Network, YouTube, cat videos and Pixar.
A zoetrope is also known as a “wheel of life”. An illusion. A simulation.
Is digital life an illusion? Is reality a simulation? Is simulation a reality?

You realize the sun doesn’t go down it’s just an illusion caused by the
world spinning round—The Flaming Lips “Do You Realize?”

Also inside the Exploratorium that day, there was a sign in the Tinkering
Studio.
A quote from Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget in the early 1970s, when
transdisciplinary thinking was just taking flight:

To understand is to invent.

Quotes such as this reflect the assumptions prior to the Artificial Age—
that the social or environmental impact of any invention was a primary
consideration before unleashing it onto the universe. Now it appears to
be the opposite. The concept of the Anthropocene is driven by tech-
nocratic narratives—both utopian and dystopian—but not all of its
solutions will be technological ones. Furthermore, tech solutions to tech
problems seem paradoxical. We need to make sure that the problem is
not compounded by the “solution”.
 1 Prologue 3

Somewhere—in the mix of watching zoetropes live, thinking about

Piaget’s thoughts and exploring a very hands-on museum, lighting up
our imaginations—came the first sparks of this book.
To share understanding is to reinvent.

Three Big Questions

How Do We Future Proof Our Digital Lives?

In response to a 2018 newspaper headline ROBOKIDS: a hi-tech syllabus

for schools to future proof our young, I tweeted: “If you teach a child
how to be a robot, it’s likely an actual robot will be able to do their
future job. Teach the child how to be a human who can communicate
well with people and technologies. Then they should be future proof ”.
Rather ironically, the tweet went viral and I turned into an Influencer.
Not really—but one person did reply with “Well said” and the tweet was
kindly picked up and shared globally through The Conversation’s Science
and Technology Editor. I hope it made at least some people think and
act differently if “hi-tech” is now mainstream in our education system.
Technology is a tool made to help humankind. Humans are not tools
for tech to control. Technology is increasingly becoming dehumanizing
and unsustainable. Don’t get me wrong—I believe in the power and
magic of technology to make our lives better in some ways, but there is a
growing gap between technology and business development, policy and
legality, and fully understanding the intentions, processes and outcomes
for humans—those who design and build technologies and those who
use them on a daily basis.
In defining the unprecedented and long-term challenges associ-
ated with transformative social innovation for sustainability in the
Anthropocene, Per Olsson and colleagues highlighted a need for more
unifying focus on interactions, experiences and feedbacks for people-
planet-technology relationships (Olsson et al. 2017). Transdisciplinary
work is production, research or educational design that transcends the
boundaries of disciplinary perspectives, involving non-academic and
academic participants as equal participants in the process to reach a
4 F. Miller

common goal usually a solution to a problem of society at large. A

social-ecological system has two interrelated sides: external interactions
between people and things or machines (Informational Waves), and
internal experiences within human relationships built on trust and shared
understanding (Resonance). Transdisciplinary collaborations and social-
ecological systems’ approaches (more on these in Chapters 2 and 3)
can help us work towards major global well-being and quality of life
outcomes such as the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals
for 2030, plans for the life-changing contexts of the Anthropocene—
the current geological age recognizing humans as a force of nature, their
influence and impacts on the environment—and Globalization 4.0, with
its emphasis on the collaborative brain, co-creation and talent.
By revealing transdisciplinary invisible work and invisible problems
towards social innovation and shared understanding, we can ensure tech-
nology makes our lives better by using adaptive approaches and design
concepts. One of these adaptive approaches is the focus of this book—a
“resource awareness” mindset consisting of: informational waves, trans-
disciplinary resonance and shared understanding. These concepts repre-
senting much of the “invisible work” and “invisible problems” involved
in producing for shared understanding are explored in Chapters 2, 3
and 4. In light of developing responsible innovations, these emerging
concepts introduced in Part I: Concepts are defined from the literature
and perspectives in the humanities, arts, social sciences and the natural
sciences.

How Do We Produce Shared Understanding?

As identified in sustainability research, there is a need for more unifying

focus on interactions, experiences and feedbacks for people-planet-
technology relationships. At the same time, a climate of separatist,
polarizing or tribal mentalities is increasing as society becomes more
judgmental of differences of opinion and values, or refuses to see differ-
ences in harmonious coexistence without it being a betrayal. Shared
understanding as a concept and practice—that is both helped and
hindered by technological innovations—is something we desperately
 1 Prologue 5

need now and in the future. Digital and social innovations often do not
take a holistic look at their potential impacts and outcomes across an
ecosystem (Olsson et al. 2017). We need new ways of bridging divides
between different stakeholders around a digital innovation. Decisions
and actions based on myopic views prompt a need for broader under-
standing to prepare for long-term impacts. Transdisciplinary mindsets
prompt us to think and act beyond our individual personal agendas
and be guided by a mindset that encourages less ego-centrism and
more humility to make lasting impacts for community and global goals.
There is a need for balance of individual and communal considerations
through shared understanding. We can produce or co-produce shared
understanding in complex adaptive systems, consisting of informational
waves and transdisciplinary resonance, through approaches explored in
Part II: Methods, such as navigating paradoxes, capturing moments and
mapping dialogues.

How Do We Educate for Responsible Innovation?

With a focus on employment, particularly technical skills and training

for the science and technology workforce, mainstream education and
training for technology is sidestepping the growing need for safeguarding
people and their environments and ecologies from potential harmful
effects. Social science and information science research into technology
are working towards addressing many pressing ethical issues, which can
affect our quality of life, but these often theoretical or applied projects
are not collaboratively connecting into computer science and artifi-
cial intelligence work as much as they could be, especially in industry
contexts. We need more recognition of the growing importance of trans-
disciplinary work cultures and capacities which, by design, take into
consideration the effects and potential impacts of science and tech-
nology innovation on the environment and society. For example, the
book Human + Machine: Reimagining Work in the Age of AI (Daugherty
and Wilson 2018) identifies eight new “fusion skills” that are impera-
tive for success in an AI workplace, drawing on the blending of human
and machine talents within a business process to create better outcomes
6 F. Miller

than when each works independently (Accenture 2020; Daugherty and

Wilson 2018, pp. 186–205):
8 Fusion Skills for a Workplace of “Collaborative Intelligence”:

1. Rehumanizing time. As we no longer rely on the concept of

“machine time”, adopted to keep up with assembly lines and, later, to
computers in office environments, there’s a new way to think about
time and work. People will have more time to dedicate towards more
“human activities”, such as increasing interpersonal interactions and
conducting creative research.
2. Responsible normalizing. It’s time to rethink and responsibly shape,
or “normalize”, the purpose and perception of human-machine inter-
action as it relates to individuals, businesses and society as a whole.
3. Judgment integration. In some instances, a machine may be uncer-
tain about or lack the necessary business or ethical context to make
decisions. People must be prepared to sense where, how and when to
step into provide input.
4. Intelligent interrogation. People simply can’t probe massively
complex systems or predict interactions between complex layers of
data on their own. It’s imperative to have the ability to ask machines
the right “smart” questions across multiple levels.
5. Bot-based empowerment. A variety of bots are available to help
people be more productive and become better at their jobs. Prepare to
embrace the power of AI agents to extend your capabilities, reinvent
business processes and even boost your professional career.
6. Holistic (physical and mental) melding. In the age of human-
machine fusion, holistic melding will become increasingly important.
The full reimagination of business processes only becomes possible
when humans create working mental models of how machines work
and learn, and when machines capture user-behaviour data to update
their interactions.
7. Reciprocal apprenticing. In the past, technological education has
gone in one direction: People have learned how to use machines. But
with AI, machines are learning from humans, and humans, in turn,
 1 Prologue 7

learn again from machines. In the future, people will perform tasks
alongside AI agents to learn new skills and will receive on-the-job
training to work well within AI-enhanced processes.
8. Relentless reimagining. This hybrid skill is the ability to reimagine
how things currently are—and to keep reimagining how AI can trans-
form and improve work, organizational processes, business models
and even entire industries.

A recent research report by Tytler et al. (2019) lists the 100 Jobs of
the Future based on identification of future key skills and knowledge,
emphasizing the importance of developing transdisciplinary thinking
through STEM/STEAM at all levels of education and training. This
research points to a need for more dedicated education, mentoring
and training at elementary, secondary and university or college levels,
for bridging and intermediary roles in digital and social innovation—
essential roles for the future that cannot be easily automated. My own
teaching has a strong emphasis on developing soft skills and attributes for
successful projects and work placements, along with challenging expe-
riences for learning outside of comfort zones and nurturing personal
passions, perseverance and resilience. Employers and colleagues often
demand this, but educators often focus on science and technology
knowledge and skills only. In today’s social media and attention driven
society, people spend more time working to be more engaging and influ-
ential in their communication, how to convince someone of their point
of view, rather than developing capacities which are central to activating
responsible digital and social innovations such as listening, interpreta-
tion and perception abilities. This book is all about the soft skills—or
states of mind that enable soft skills—developed in the complex, invis-
ible spaces in-between. This reflects a paradigm shift from the common
understanding of communication, from being engaging and influential
to improving how we listen, perceive and interpret informational waves
to create transdisciplinary resonance and shared understanding.
Le Hunte (2020) emphasizes the importance of transdisciplinary
education and emergent creativity: “With the current thinking on the
future of work and the predictions that today’s graduate will have to work
across many fields, transdisciplinary learning becomes more important. It
8 F. Miller

has also been suggested that the future of research is transdisciplinary, as

advances of knowledge are more likely to take place between and across
disciplines, not simply within them. As universities take up the call to
work as incubation centres that forge futures for our industries, govern-
ments and society, creative transdisciplinary education will become far
more important” (p. 102).

Eight Invisible Gaps that Need Bridging

Making Meaningful Work Across Boundaries

Despite many recent efforts, we still have massive disconnects between

the worlds of theory, policy, practice, media and the general public.
Furthermore, there is a gap between career and human resource develop-
ment towards meaningful, sustainable and fulfilling work, and the incen-
tives or rewards offered by various institutions and groups potentially
involved in transdisciplinary innovation. Ideally, transdisciplinary and
socially innovative work should be made a priority and support resources
allocated accordingly. Institutions currently fund and reward multidis-
ciplinary projects—usually originating from universities—temporarily
combining more narrow disciplinary expertise. More meaningful work
needs to be done across boundaries, which clearly delineates the meaning
of transdisciplinary problem solving, innovation and understanding,
from interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary projects. Recent publica-
tions on increasing impact of contemporary social science research (i.e.
Alvesson et al., Return to Meaning: Social Science with Something to
Say, 2017) prompt an urgent need for new ways to produce and
communicate meaningful research findings, which facilitate collabora-
tions between different stakeholders within, across and beyond academia.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 GOLDEN DROP

Prunus domestica

1. Pom. Mag. 2:57, Pl. 1829. 2. Lond. Hort. Soc. Cat. 144. 1831. 3.
Kenrick Am. Orch. 256. 1832. 4. Downing Fr. Trees Am. 273. 1845. 5.
Floy-Lindley Guide Orch. Gard. 295, 383. 1846. 6. Thomas Am. Fruit Cult.
 332, fig. 258. 1849. 7. Mag. Hort. 15:486, 487 fig. 42. 1849. 8. Hovey Fr.
Am. 1:81. 1851. 9. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat. 54. 1852. 10. Elliott Fr. Book 410.
1854. 11. Ann. Pom. Belge 43, Pl. 1855. 12. Thompson Gard. Ass’t 515.
1859. 13. Mas Le Verger 6:29, fig. 15. 1866-73. 14. Hogg Fruit Man. 691,
729. 1884. 15. Mathieu Nom. Pom. 425. 1889. 16. Guide Prat. 155, 357.
1895. 17. Oregon Sta. Bul. 45:26 fig. 1897. 18. Colo. Sta. Bul. 50:34.
1898. 19. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt. 211. 1899. 20. Ohio Sta. Bul. 113:158, Pl.
XV. 1899. 21. Mich. Sta. Bul. 169:242, 244. 1899. 22. Waugh Plum Cult.
104 fig. 1901. 23. Va. Sta. Bul. 134:42. 1902. 24. Ohio Sta. Bul.
162:242, 254, 255. 1905.
Bury Seedling 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16. Coe 16, 21.
Coe’s 1, 2, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16. Coe Golden Drop 16, 23. Coe Golden Drop 21.
Coe’s Golden Drop Plum 1, 5, 11. Coe’s Golden Drop 5, 8, 13, 15, 16, 17,
22, 24. Coe’s Golden Drop 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 18, 20. Coe’s
Golden Drop Plum 13. Coe’s Plum 12, 13, 16. Coe (Pride) 15. Coe’s
Imperial 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16. Coe’s Rothgefleckte
Pflaume 13, 16. Coe’s Rotgefleckte Pflaume 15. Coe’s Plum 5. Cooper’s
Large 15, 16 incor. Coe’s Seedling 3. De Coe 16. Fair’s Golden 15, 16.
Fair’s Golden Drop 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16. Golden Drop 1, 2, 7, 8,
12, 14, 15, 16. Golden Drop Plum 16. Golden Gage 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12,
14, 15, 16. Goutte d’Or 13. Goutte d’Or 13, 16. Goutte d’Or de Coe 15, 16.
King of Plums 8. New Golden Drop 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15 16.
Nouvelle Goutte d’Or 15, 16. Parmentier? 15, 16. Prune Goutte d’Or De
Coé 11. Semis de Bury 15, 16. Silver Prune 17, 19. Silver Prune 22. The
Coe’s Plum 1. Waterloo of some 7, 8,? 14, 15.

Unfortunately this fine old plum, the largest, handsomest and best
of the yellow plums, is fit only for the amateur in New York and in
the hands even of the most careful of amateurs it does not reach the
perfection in either appearance or quality that is expected of it in
Europe or on the Pacific Coast of America. In spite of special efforts
to obtain specimens for illustration which would do this variety
justice, the color-plate of Golden Drop is far from satisfactory as
regards either size or color of the fruit. In this region trees of Golden
Drop lack constitution and while hardy in tree, the fruit-buds are
often caught by the cold. From lack of vigor and from injury by
freezing, the variety is not productive. The trees, too, are slow in
growth and the fruit needs a long season to reach perfect maturity,
often failing to ripen in parts of New York where other plums mature
well. Again, the trees are subject to nearly all the ills to which plums
are heir and have a somewhat precarious existence because of
insects and diseases though the fruit is not as subject to brown-rot
as is that of the Yellow Egg with which this variety is usually
compared. Golden Drop is seemingly fit for all purposes to which
plums are put—for dessert, cooking, canning, preserving and prune-
making. For the last named purpose it is unsurpassed for a light
colored prune of large size, readily selling at a fancy price in
delicatessen stores. The fruit when carefully picked and handled
keeps for a month or more, shrivelling somewhat but retaining its
flavor and pleasing flesh-characters. A task for the plant-breeder is
to breed a plum, of which one of the parents should be Golden Drop,
which will give to this region a plum as good as the Golden Drop in
regions where it is at its best. With all of its defects in the North and
East, it is yet worth growing for the home and often for the late
market.
Jervaise Coe, a market gardener, at Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk,
England, raised Golden Drop from a seed about 1809. Lindley
(References, 5) says, “He [the originator] informed me it was from
the stone of Green Gage, the blossom of which, he supposed, had
been fertilized by the White Magnum Bonum, the two trees of which
grew nearly in contact with each other in his garden.” From a study
of the fruit-characters this supposition is very probable. C. M. Hovey
in discussing the synonyms of this variety writes, “The French have
disseminated it considerably under the name of Waterloo; trees
received under that name have fruited in our collection this year, and
proved to be the Golden Drop.” Robert Hogg, in his Fruit Manual,
published in 1884, described Waterloo as a separate variety, found
at Waterloo, Belgium, and introduced by Dr. Van Mons; the
descriptions of the two are practically identical. The Silver Prune,
well known on the Pacific Coast, at one time supposed to be a new
variety, turned out upon investigation to be Golden Drop, though the
growers there continue to call it by the new name they have given it.
The variety under discussion came to America in 1823, when Knight,
of England, sent a tree of it to John Lowell of Massachusetts. In
1852, the American Pomological Society valued it sufficiently to place
it on the list of the fruits worthy of general cultivation.

Tree medium to large, vigorous, spreading or roundish, open-topped,

hardy, productive; branches ash-gray, roughish, with few, large lenticels;
branchlets short, stout, with internodes variable in length, greenish-red
changing to dull brownish-red becoming drab on the older wood, glabrous
early in the season but becoming pubescent at maturity, with numerous,
small lenticels; leaf-buds large, long, pointed, free.
Leaves folded upward, oval or obovate, one and three-eighths inches
wide, two and three-quarters inches long, thickish; upper surface dark
green, slightly rugose, pubescent, with the midrib but faintly grooved;
lower surface silvery-green, pubescent; apex abruptly pointed or acute,
base acute, margin serrate, eglandular or with small, dark glands; petiole
one-half inch long, pubescent, tinged red, with from two to three globose,
greenish-yellow glands usually at the base of the leaf.
Season of bloom medium, short; flowers appearing after the leaves, one
inch across, white, borne in clusters on lateral spurs, singly or in pairs;
pedicels five-eighths inch long, lightly pubescent, greenish; calyx-tube
green, narrowly campanulate, pubescent; calyx-lobes obtuse, sparingly
pubescent on both surfaces, glandular-serrate, reflexed; petals oval,
dentate, tapering to short, broad claws; anthers yellowish; filaments five-
sixteenths inch long; pistil glabrous, equal to the stamens in length.
Fruit very late, season of average length; two inches by one and one-
half inches in size, oval, tapering at the base to a short neck, slightly
compressed, halves equal; cavity very shallow and narrow, abrupt; suture
shallow and wide; apex depressed; color golden-yellow, occasionally with
a faint bronze blush, showing greenish streaks and splashes before full
maturity, overspread with thin bloom; dots numerous, small, russet,
conspicuous; stem three-quarters inch long, thinly pubescent, adhering
well to the fruit; skin tough, rather adherent; flesh light golden-yellow,
juicy, intermediate in firmness and tenderness, rather sweet, mild,
pleasant flavor; good to very good; stone free, one and three-eighths
inches by three-quarters inch in size, oval or ovate, slightly flattened,
irregularly ridged and roughened, acute at the base and apex; ventral
suture wide, often conspicuously winged; dorsal suture widely and deeply
grooved.

GOLIATH
 Prunus domestica

1. Prince Treat. Hort. 26. 1828. 2. Lond. Hort. Soc. Cat. 147, 153. 1831.
3. Kenrick Am. Orch. 260. 1832. 4. Mag. Hort. 9:164. 1843. 5. Downing
Fr. Trees Am. 300. 1845. 6. Floy-Lindley Guide Orch. Gard. 287, 383.
1846. 7. Thomas Am. Fruit Cult. 343. 1849. 8. McIntosh Bk. Gard. 2:531.
1855. 9. Hooper W. Fr. Book 245. 1857. 10. Cultivator 8:25 fig. 1860. 11.
Am. Pom. Soc. Cat. 86. 1862. 12. Hogg Fruit Man. 363. 1866. 13. Mas
Pom. Gen. 2:15, fig. 8. 1873. 14. Mathieu Nom. Pom. 432. 1889. 15.
Waugh Plum Cult. 105 fig. 1901.
Caledonian 1, 2, of some 5 & 8, 11, 12, 13, 14. Emperor 9. Goliath 1, 3.
Goliath 9, 13. Nectarine 1, of some 2 & 8, 11 & 14 incor. Pfirschenpflaume
14. Prune-Pêche? 14. Saint Cloud 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14. Steer’s
Emperor 2. Steers’ Emperor 4, 5, 8, 12, 13, 14. Wahre Caledonian 13, 14.
Wilmot’s Late Orleans 2, 5, 8, 12, 13, 14.

This old English plum has never been popular in America and is
now scarcely known on this continent. It is a large, handsome,
purple plum, as the illustration well shows, but seldom fit for
dessert. “Seldom fit” because it is quite variable in quality in some
seasons and under some conditions. It is an excellent culinary plum
and its firm, thick, meaty flesh fits it well for shipping. On the
grounds of this Station the trees behave very well in all respects and
usually bear very full crops of plums that would tempt purchasers in
any market. It has all of the characters usually ascribed to a money-
maker variety of any fruit and why not more grown in commercial
orchards cannot be said.
Nothing is known of the origin of this plum except that it is
English. William Prince, in 1828, wrote: “This plum is of very large
size, and has attracted much notice in England; but it is only recently
introduced to this country, where it has not yet produced fruit that I
am aware of.” The Nectarine plum was confused with the Goliath in
the early part of the Nineteenth Century, but Robert Thompson,[215]
the English horticulturist, separated them so satisfactorily that they
have ever since remained distinct in plum literature. He found that
this variety had pubescent shoots and fruit-stalks, while the same
parts of the Nectarine were glabrous, and that the season of Goliath
is considerably later. The American Pomological Society placed
Goliath on its fruit list in 1862, but dropped it in 1871.

Tree large, vigorous, round-topped, dense, hardy, very productive;

branches stocky, with fruit-spurs numerous, ash-gray, smooth except for
the large, raised lenticels; branchlets somewhat thick, short, with
internodes of medium length, green changing to dull brownish-drab,
heavily pubescent throughout the season, with few, inconspicuous, small
lenticels; leaf-buds of average size and length, conical, free.
Leaves somewhat flattened, obovate, two inches wide, three and five-
eighths inches long; upper surface dark green, nearly glabrous, with a
grooved midrib; lower surface heavily pubescent; apex obtuse or acute,
base acute, margin finely serrate, eglandular or with few, small dark
glands; petiole one-half inch long, thick, heavily pubescent, with a faint
red tinge, glandless or with from one to three large, globose, greenish-
yellow glands usually at the base of the leaf.
Blooming season early to medium, short; flowers appearing after the
leaves, one inch across, white; borne on lateral spurs, singly or in pairs;
pedicels nine-sixteenths inch long, pubescent, greenish; calyx-tube green,
campanulate, lightly pubescent; calyx-lobes, broad, obtuse, somewhat
pubescent, glandular-serrate, erect; petals unusually large, roundish,
finely crenate, not clawed; anthers yellowish; filaments five-sixteenths
inch long; pistil glabrous, longer than the stamens, with a large style and
stigma.
Fruit mid-season, ripening period short; one and five-eighths inches by
one and one-half inches in size, roundish-oblong, somewhat oblique,
truncate, compressed, halves unequal; cavity narrow, abrupt, usually
russeted; suture a line; apex flattened or depressed; color dark purplish-
red, lighter colored on the shaded side, overspread with thick bloom; dots
characteristic, numerous, large, russet, conspicuous, clustered about the
apex; stem thick, three-quarters inch long, thickly pubescent, adhering
well to the fruit; skin thin, sour, separating readily; flesh golden-yellow,
rather dry, firm, sweet, of mild, pleasant flavor; fair to good; stone free,
seven-eighths inch by three-quarters inch in size, roundish-oval,
somewhat flattened, blunt at the base and apex, roughened and
irregularly furrowed; ventral suture wide, winged, heavily furrowed; dorsal
suture with a wide groove variable in depth.

GONZALES
 GOLIATH

Prunus triflora ×

1. Kerr Cat. 1899-1900. 2. Vt. Sta. Bul. 67:13. 1898. 3. Ohio Sta. Bul.
162:252. 1905. 4. Penin. Hort. Soc. Rpt. 36. 1905. 5. Stark Bros. Cat.
1906.
 Gonzales 5. Red Gold 4. Red Gold 5.

Judging from the several published descriptions, Gonzales is a

very promising plum, for the South at least. The writers have not
seen the variety in the North, but there appear to be no reasons why
it should not succeed in some northern soils and climates. It is a
chance seedling found in Gonzales, Texas, about 1894, and was
introduced by F. T. Ramsey, Austin, Texas, in 1897. About all that can
be determined regarding its parentage is that it is the product of
some Japanese variety pollinated by a native. In 1901, Waugh used
this variety to typify a new species, Prunus hortulana robusta,
composed of a number of hybrids between Prunus triflora and native
species. The following description is compiled:

Tree vigorous, upright-spreading, open; leaves narrow, oval, tapering at

both ends; upper surface glabrous; margin minutely glandular, finely
crenulate; petiole short and slender, with two glands.
Fruit mid-season; resembles Burbank in size and shape; skin toughish;
color bright red, sometimes striped and splashed with dark red; flesh
yellow, tinged red, firm, sweet; good; stone of medium size, oval, clinging.

GRAND DUKE
 GRAND DUKE

Prunus domestica

1. Hogg Fruit Man. 703. 1884. 2. Mathieu Nom. Pom. 432, 434. 1889.
3. W. N. Y. Hort. Soc. Rpt. 39:100. 1894. 4. Can. Hort. 18:117, Pl. 1895.
5. Cornell Sta. Bul. 131:186, fig. 40 IV. 1896. 6. W. N. Y. Hort. Soc. Rpt.
 42:83. 1897. 7. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat. 25. 1897. 8. Mich. Sta. Bul. 169:245.
1899. 9. Ohio Sta. Bul. 113:159, Pl. XVI. 1899. 10. Can. Exp. Farm Bul.
2nd Ser. 3:52. 1900. 11. Waugh Plum Cult. 106 fig. 1901. 12. Ohio Sta.
Bul. 162:243 fig., 244, 254, 255. 1905.
Grossherzog’s Pflaume 2. Grand-Duc 2. Grand Duke 2.

Grand Duke, now probably the favorite late shipping plum in this
region, is, as stated in the history given below, a comparatively new
plum in America. Its great popularity, gained in less than a quarter
of a century, is due to much advertising by nurserymen coupled with
such intrinsic qualities as large size, the true prune shape which
seems most pleasing in some markets, handsome plum-purple and
more than all else a firm, meaty flesh which fits the variety
excellently for shipping. The flavor, as seems most often to be the
case with these large blue plums, is not pleasant and the plum is not
more than a second rate dessert fruit though it is very good in
whatever way cooked for the table. The trees grow poorly in the
nursery and even in the orchard are seldom large and vigorous
enough to be called first class, though usually hardy. Some years
ago plum-growers were advised to top-work this and other weak-
growing plums on stronger stocks, but those who have tried such
top-working usually condemn it because it is expensive and
ineffective and because it so often gives a malformed tree. The trees
come in bearing slowly but bear regularly and abundantly and hold
the crop well, the plums being unusually free from rot and hanging
in good condition a long time. Grand Duke deserves its popularity as
a market plum and probably no better variety can be selected in
New York for the last of the season.
Grand Duke is another of the many valuable plums produced by
Thomas Rivers, of Sawbridgeworth, England. It was grown from an
Autumn Compote stone and was sent out in 1876. When it was first
introduced into America is not known, but in 1888 cions of it were
distributed by Ellwanger and Barry[216] of Rochester, New York. In
1897, the American Pomological Society added this variety to its fruit
catalog list and recommended it for this State and neighboring
regions with similar climatic conditions.

Tree above medium in size, moderately vigorous, upright to slightly

spreading, usually hardy, productive; branches ash-gray, with small,
numerous lenticels; branchlets slender, short, with internodes of medium
length, greenish-red changing to brownish-red, many twigs retaining a
tinge of green, shining, glabrous, with numerous, small lenticels; leaf-buds
large, long, pointed, strongly appressed; leaf-scars large.
Leaves nearly flat, obovate, one and one-half inches wide, three inches
long, thick; upper surface shining, slightly rugose, pubescent only along
the grooved midrib; lower surface yellowish-green, lightly pubescent; apex
taper-pointed, base acute, margin serrate, eglandular or with small, dark
glands; petiole three-quarters inch long, nearly glabrous, slightly tinged
red along one side, glandless or with from one to three globose yellowish
glands on the stalk and base of the leaf.
Blooming season intermediate, short; flowers appearing after the
leaves, one inch across, white; borne in clusters on short lateral spurs and
buds, singly or in pairs; pedicels one-half inch long, slender, glabrous,
greenish; calyx-tube green, campanulate, glabrous; calyx-lobes lightly
pubescent, glandular-ciliate, slightly reflexed; petals obovate, entire,
short-clawed; anthers yellowish; filaments one-quarter inch long; pistil
pubescent at the base, longer than the stamens.
Fruit late, season medium; unusually large when well grown, two and
one-eighth inches by two inches in size, elongated-oval or slightly
obovate, halves unequal; cavity shallow, narrow, abrupt; suture wide,
variable in depth; apex flattened, somewhat depressed or occasionally
with a short, blunt tip; color dark reddish-purple or purplish-black,
overspread with thick bloom; dots numerous, small, brownish,
inconspicuous; stem three-quarters inch long, adhering well to the fruit;
skin variable in toughness, somewhat astringent, separating readily; flesh
golden-yellow, juicy, firm, sweet, mild, not high in flavor; good; stone
clinging, sometimes tinged red, one and one-eighth inches by seven-
eighths inch in size, irregularly oval, slightly flattened, roughish, acute at
the base and apex; ventral suture broad, slightly winged; dorsal suture
with a broad, shallow groove.

GUEII
 GUEII

Prunus domestica

1. Downing Fr. Trees Am. 3rd App. 181. 1881. 2. Can. Hort. 14:293, Pl.
1891. 3. Mich. Sta. Bul. 103:34, fig. 6. 1894. 4. Cornell Sta. Bul.
131:187. 1897. 5. Ont. Fr. Exp. Sta. Rpt. 120. 1898. 6. Mich. Sta. Bul.
 169:242, 245. 1899. 7. Ohio Sta. Bul. 113:159. 1899. 8. Am. Pom. Soc.
Cat. 39. 1899. 9. Waugh Plum Cult. 107. 1901. 10. Va. Sta. Bul. 134:42,
43 fig. 14. 1902.
Big Blue 1. Blue Magnum Bonum 1, 9. Bradshaw 1 incor. Geuii 3. Gueii
1. Guii 1, 6. Gweii 1.

Gueii is one of the standard plums of its season in New York,

ranking among the first half-dozen in number of trees growing in the
State, with many growers holding that it is the best general purpose
plum of all Domesticas. The popularity of Gueii is due to its being a
money-maker, as few would care to grow it for home consumption.
The quality of Gueii is poor, especially for dessert, and it cannot even
be called a particularly good-looking plum, though the illustration
scarcely does the plum justice, especially in size. But the variety
bears early and abundantly; the trees are large, vigorous, healthy
and hardy and the plums are hardly surpassed for shipping,
especially at the time at which the crop comes upon the market,
about mid-season, the best shipping plums maturing a little later.
The fruit is quite subject to brown-rot, a matter of more moment in
other regions than in New York, and yet in some seasons very
important in this State. The stone, curiously enough, sometimes
clings rather tightly and under other conditions is wholly free. It
could be wished that so popular a market plum were better in
quality, but since high quality is seldom correlated in plums with
fitness to ship well, it would be unfair to condemn Gueii for a market
fruit because it cannot be eaten with relish out of hand.
This plum, according to all accounts, originated with a Mr.
Hagaman, Lansingburgh, New York, about 1830. It was brought to
notice by John Goeway (Gueii) and was soon called by his name. For
years it was not much grown and it was not until 1899 that it was
placed on the fruit catalog list of the American Pomological Society.

Tree large, vigorous, spreading, open-topped, hardy, very productive;

branches ash-gray, roughened by longitudinal cracks and by numerous,
conspicuous, raised lenticels of various sizes; branchlets thick, of medium
length, with short internodes, green changing to dark brownish-drab, dull,
thickly pubescent throughout the season, with numerous, inconspicuous,
small lenticels; leaf-buds short, conical, free.
Leaves obovate or oval, one and seven-eighths inches wide, four inches
long, thick; upper surface dark green, with scattering fine hairs and with a
grooved midrib; lower surface silvery-green, thickly pubescent; apex
abruptly pointed or acute, base variable but usually acute, margin doubly
crenate, with small black glands; petiole five-eighths inch long, thick,
pubescent, tinged red.
Blooming season short; flowers appearing after the leaves, one and
one-eighth inches across, whitish; borne in clusters at the ends of spurs,
singly or in pairs; pedicels thirteen-sixteenths inch long, pubescent,
greenish; calyx-tube green, campanulate, pubescent towards the base;
calyx-lobes broad, obtuse, pubescent on both surfaces, glandular-serrate,
reflexed; petals roundish, entire, with very short, blunt claws; anthers
yellow; filaments three-eighths inch long; pistil glabrous, equal to the
stamens in length.
Fruit intermediate in time and length of ripening season; medium to
above in size, somewhat ovate, halves equal; cavity below medium in
depth and width, abrupt, rarely sutured; apex bluntly pointed; color dark
purplish-black, overspread with thick bloom; dots numerous, small, russet,
inconspicuous, clustered about the apex; stem medium in thickness and
length, pubescent, adhering well to the fruit; skin thin, tender, slightly
astringent, separating readily; flesh greenish-yellow changing to light
golden-yellow, dry, firm but tender, sweet, mild, somewhat astringent
towards the center; fair in quality; stone variable in adhesion but usually
clinging, large, ovate or oval, blunt at the base and apex, strongly
roughened and pitted; ventral suture faintly winged; dorsal suture acute
or lightly grooved.

GUTHRIE LATE
Prunus domestica

1. McIntosh Bk. Gard. 2:532. 1855. 2. Downing Fr. Trees Am. 919.
1869. 3. Hogg Fruit Man. 705. 1884. 4. Mathieu Nom. Pom. 434. 1889. 5.
Rivers Cat. 1898. 6. Am. Gard. Mag. 21:173. 1900.
Guthrie’s Minette 1. Guthrie’s Late Green 6. Guthrie Green 6. Guthrie’s
Late Green 2, 3, 4. Minette 2, 3, 4. Verte Tardive de Guthrie 4.
 Guthrie Late has never attained commercial importance in the
United States, being found only in collections; but in England,
according to Hogg, it is a very fine dessert plum, rivalling the Reine
Claude in quality and ripening a month later. On the grounds of this
institution it has failed because the fruits are small, dull in color and
do not keep well. Of the several varieties produced from seed of
Reine Claude by Charles Guthrie, Taybank, Dundee, Scotland, about
the middle of the last century, Guthrie Late is the best known.

Tree large, vigorous, round-topped, dense, productive; branches stocky;

branchlets pubescent; leaf-buds large, short, with a peculiar brush-like
apex; leaves folded upward, oval, one and seven-eighths inches wide,
three and one-half inches long, thick, rugose; margin crenate, eglandular
or with small, dark glands; petiole thick, glandless or with from one to
four globose glands; blooming season short; flowers appearing after the
leaves, one inch across, white tinged with yellow at the apex of the
petals; borne on lateral buds and spurs, singly or in pairs.
Fruit mid-season, ripening period long; of medium size, roundish-
truncate, dull greenish-yellow, often irregularly splashed and striped with
green, overspread with thin bloom; skin thin, slightly astringent; flesh light
golden-yellow, rather dry, fibrous, somewhat tender, sweet, pleasant in
flavor; of good quality; stone free, seven-eighths inch by five-eighths inch
in size, ovate or oval, medium turgid, with rough surfaces.

HALE
 HALE

Prunus triflora

1. Burbank Cat. 19. 1893. 2. Ibid. 1894. 3. Cornell Sta. Bul. 106:52.
1896. 4. Ga. Hort. Soc. Rpt. XI. 1897. 5. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat. 41. 1899. 6.
Cornell Sta. Bul. 175:147, 148, fig. 37. 1899. 7. Am. Gard. 21:36 1900.
 8. Waugh Plum Cult. 136. 1901. 9. Mich. Sta. Bul. 187:77, 79. 1901. 10.
W. N. Y. Hort. Soc. Rpt. 89. 1902. 11. Ohio. Sta. Bul. 162:254, 255. 1905.
12. Ga. Sta. Bul. 68:10, 30. 1905. 13. Mass. Sta. An. Rpt. 17:160. 1905.
J 1. J 3. Prolific 2. Prolific 3, 8, 12.

It is doubtful if the average person who grows the Hale would

recognize it as shown in The Plums of New York, as it is supposed to
be a yellow plum; nevertheless the illustration is a good one so far
as the fruits go at least. When mature on the trees the fruits are
yellow with a faint blush, but in storage the color quickly changes
into a pale red, becoming, when the plum is at its best in
appearance and quality, a light currant-red. Hale, though large and
handsome of fruit, is of questionable value, failing both in fruit and
tree. The flavor of this plum is good in the judgment of most fruit
connoisseurs, but others find it a little too sweet and somewhat
mawkish near the skin and close about the pit. All agree, however,
that the flesh clings too tightly to the stone for pleasant eating and
that the texture is too tender for good shipping. But it is the tree
that fails most markedly. Even on the grounds of this Station, where
the peach is practically hardy, Hale is but semi-hardy, failing most
often because with the best of care the wood does not ripen
properly. The habit of growth is not particularly good, the trees are
slow in coming in bearing, are not regularly productive and are
readily infected by brown-rot and the fruits much infested by
curculio. On the whole, it is to be regretted that Mr. Hale did not
choose a better plum to bear a name so distinguished in
horticulture.
Luther Burbank offered this plum, a cross between Kelsey and
Satsuma, for sale under the name J, in 1893, and the following year
as Prolific. J. H. Hale, South Glastonbury, Connecticut, purchased the
variety in 1894, and introduced it as the Hale in 1896. In 1899, the
American Pomological Society considered it worthy a place on its
fruit catalog list.

Tree above medium in size, vigorous, vasiform, open-topped, semi-

hardy, variable in productiveness; branches smooth except for the
numerous, small, raised lenticels, somewhat thorny, dark ash-gray, the
fruit spurs numerous; branchlets willowy, of medium thickness and length,
with short internodes, greenish-red changing to light brown, shining,
glabrous; lenticels numerous, small; leaf-buds small, short, obtuse, plump,
free.
Leaves sparse, folded upward, oblanceolate or narrowly obovate, one
and three-quarters inches wide, three and one-half inches long, thin;
upper surface glabrous except for scattering hairs, with a grooved midrib;
lower surface light green, glabrous except along the midrib and larger
veins; apex acute or abruptly pointed, base acute, margin finely serrate or
crenate, eglandular; petiole nine-sixteenths inch long, slender, tinged red,
glandless or with from one to four globose or reniform, greenish-yellow
glands on the stalk.
Blooming season early and of medium length; flowers appearing before
the leaves, white; borne in thin clusters on lateral buds and spurs, singly
or in pairs; pedicels long, glabrous, greenish; calyx-tube green,
campanulate, glabrous; calyx-lobes obtuse, with numerous hair-like
glands, nearly glabrous, erect; petals roundish-ovate, entire, not clawed;
anthers yellowish; filaments short; pistil glabrous except at the base,
much longer than the stamens.
Fruit early, season short; one and three-quarters inches in diameter,
roundish, halves equal; cavity of medium depth and width, abrupt,
regular; suture a line; apex roundish; color light or greenish-yellow, more
or less blushed with red on one side, becoming red at maturity, mottled,
with thin bloom; dots numerous, small, whitish, conspicuous only where
the skin is blushed; stem slender, five-eighths inch long, glabrous,
detaching easily from the fruit; skin thin, tough, adhering; flesh yellowish,
very juicy, fibrous, tender, melting next the skin but firmer at the center,
sweet except near the pit; good in quality; stone adhering, three-quarters
inch by five-eighths inch in size, roundish-oval, flattened, blunt but with a
small, sharp tip, rough; ventral suture narrow and rather conspicuously
winged; dorsal suture grooved.

HAMMER
 HAMMER

Prunus hortulana mineri × Prunus americana

1. Cornell Sta. Bul. 38:79. 1892. 2. Ia. Hort. Soc. Rpt. 275, 448. 1893.
3. Ibid. 334. 1894. 4. Wis. Sta. Bul. 63:24, 39. 1897. 5. Colo. Sta. Bul.
50:36. 1898. 6. Ia. Sta. Bul. 46:274. 1900. 7. Waugh Plum Cult. 150.
 1901. 8. Ont. Fr. Gr. Assoc. 144. 1901. 9. Ga. Sta. Bul. 67:274. 1904. 10.
S. Dak. Sta. Bul. 93:18. 1905. 11. Ohio Sta. Bul. 162:254, 255. 1905.

Hammer is one of the best native plums. On the Station grounds

the trees of this variety make the best orchard plants of any of the
native varieties, being large, vigorous, shapely and hardy, falling
short only in being a little uncertain in bearing. The fruits are good in
quality, handsome in appearance and keep and ship well, but crack
badly in unfavorable weather and, according to some writers, are
quite subject to brown-rot. Hammer extends the season of the
Americana plums considerably, for though a hybrid, it may best be
ranked with the Americanas, and is well worth planting in home
orchards in New York, where the native plums are too seldom found;
in particular, this variety can be recommended for the colder parts of
this State where Domestica and Insititia plums are not hardy.
Hammer is one of H. A. Terry’s numerous productions and was
grown from a seed of the Miner evidently fertilized by an Americana.
The blood of the latter is shown by its hardiness and its broad,
Americana-like foliage. The variety first fruited in 1888 and was sent
out in 1892.

Tree very large, vigorous, round-topped, widely spreading, hardy at

Geneva, an uncertain bearer; trunk and larger limbs shaggy; branches
long, rough, brash, thorny, dark ash-gray, with many, large lenticels;
branchlets thick, very long, with long internodes, green changing to dull
reddish-brown, glabrous, with raised lenticels of medium number and size;
leaf-buds small, short, obtuse, plump, free.
Leaves folded upward, oval or slightly obovate, two and one-eighth
inches wide, four inches long, thin; upper surface somewhat rugose;
lower surface pale green, very lightly pubescent along the midrib; apex
taper-pointed, base obtuse, often unsymmetrical, margin coarsely and
doubly serrate, eglandular; petiole three-quarters inch long, sparingly
pubescent along one side, tinged red, glandless or with from one to four
small, globose, greenish-brown glands on the stalk.
Blooming season medium to late, long; flowers appearing after the
leaves, fifteen-sixteenths inch across, white, with a disagreeable odor;
borne in clusters on lateral buds and spurs, in twos or in threes; pedicels
five-eighths inch in length, slender, glabrous, greenish; calyx-tube green,
campanulate, glabrous; calyx-lobes narrow, obtuse, thinly pubescent
within, glandular-serrate and with marginal hairs, somewhat reflexed;
petals ovate or oval, irregularly crenate, tapering below into claws of
medium length and breadth; anthers yellowish; filaments seven-sixteenths
inch in length; pistil glabrous, equal to or shorter than the stamens in
length.
Fruit mid-season, ripening period of average length; one and one-
quarter inches in diameter, roundish-oval, slightly compressed, halves
equal; cavity very shallow, narrow, flaring; suture an indistinct line; apex
roundish; color crimson overspread with thick bloom; dots numerous, very
small, light russet, inconspicuous; stem slender, five-eighths inch long,
glabrous, not adhering to the fruit; skin thick, tough, inclined to crack
under unfavorable conditions, separating readily; flesh golden-yellow,
juicy, fibrous, tender and melting, sweet, strongly aromatic; good; stone
semi-free, three-quarters inch by five-eighths inch in size, flattened,
roundish-oval, somewhat compressed at the base, abruptly pointed at the
apex, rough; ventral suture rather narrow, faintly ridged; dorsal suture
with a narrow, shallow groove.

HAND
 HAND

Prunus domestica

1. Horticulturist 2:436. 1847. 2. Ibid. 6:21 fig., 187, 294. 1851. 3. Am.
Pom. Soc. Rpt. 190, 214. 1856. 4. Downing Fr. Trees Am. 382. 1857. 5.
Hogg Fruit Man. 362. 1866. 6. Mas Pom. Gen. 2:19, fig. 10. 1873. 7. Ont.
 Fr. Exp. Sta. Rpt. 120. 1896. 8. Cornell Sta. Bul. 131:185. 1897. 9.
Waugh Plum Cult. 108 fig. 1901. 10. Budd-Hansen Am. Hort. Man. 314,
315 fig. 1903. 11. Mass. Sta. An. Rpt. 17:159. 1905.
Gen. Hand 1, 2. General Hand 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8. Genl. Hand 4. General
Hand 9, 10. Montgomery 3 incor.

Unproductiveness and uncertainty in bearing keep this magnificent

yellow dessert plum from being one of the most commonly grown of
all plums in America. Even with these handicaps, it has maintained
its popularity for a century, is grown in all collections and shown in
all exhibitions of note. It is the largest of the Reine Claude plums,
well molded, a golden-yellow and when allowed to become fully ripe
is most excellent in flavor and pleasing in all the flesh attributes of a
good dessert plum. It is not as high in quality as some other of the
Reine Claude plums, as, for example the Washington, with which it is
often compared, for it is a little coarser in flesh and not as sprightly,
but it is better than is commonly thought, because it is seldom
allowed to reach its best flavor by full maturity. The trees on the
Station grounds are all that could be asked for even in bearing; and
elsewhere size, vigor and hardiness are usually satisfactory but
productiveness is a weak point. The amateur should always plant
this variety and it would seem as if it were more often worth
planting in commercial orchards.
The history of this variety is well known. The original tree grew on
the place of General Hand, on the Conestoga River, about a mile
from Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and first fruited about 1790. Thirty
years later a Mr. Miller procured grafts and succeeded in growing
them. The variety was brought to the notice of fruit-growers by E.
W. Carpenter, a nurseryman of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, who sent
grafts to his brother, S. Carpenter, of Lancaster, Ohio, and Robert
Sinclair, Baltimore, Maryland. To the latter the introduction of the
Hand has been incorrectly attributed. In 1856, Hand was listed in
the fruit catalog of the American Pomological Society.

Tree large, vigorous, spreading, dense-topped, hardy, variable in

productiveness; branches dark ash-gray, rough, with small lenticels;
branchlets of medium thickness and length, with long internodes, green
changing to brownish-red, pubescent early in the season, becoming less
so at maturity, with few, inconspicuous, small lenticels; leaf-buds large,
long, obtuse, appressed; leaf-scars large.
Leaves folded backward, obovate or oval, two and three-eighths inches
wide, four and one-half inches long; upper surface dark green, rugose,
slightly hairy, with a shallow, grooved midrib; lower surface pale green,
pubescent; apex and base acute, margin finely and doubly serrate; petiole
three-quarters inch long, thickish, pubescent, tinged red, with from one to
four small, globose, greenish-brown glands on the stalk or base of the
leaf.
Blooming season intermediate in time, short; flowers appearing after
the leaves, one and one-quarter inches across, white; borne sparsely on
lateral buds and spurs; pedicels seven-eighths inch long, very pubescent,
greenish; calyx-tube green, campanulate, pubescent; calyx-lobes broad,
obtuse, pubescent on both surfaces, glandular-serrate, reflexed; petals
roundish or obovate, slightly crenate, with short, broad claws; anthers
yellowish; filaments three-eighths inch long; pistil lightly pubescent at the
base, equal to the stamens in length.
Fruit mid-season, ripening period long; one and three-quarters inches in
diameter, roundish-truncate or oblate, halves equal; cavity deep, flaring;
suture shallow, distinct; apex flattened or depressed; color yellow,
obscurely striped and mottled with green, overspread with thin bloom;
dots numerous, whitish, inconspicuous, clustered about the apex; stem
unusually long, averaging one and five-sixteenths inches in length, very
pubescent, adhering strongly to the fruit; skin thick, tough, slightly
astringent, separating readily; flesh golden-yellow, juicy, somewhat
fibrous, firm, sweet, with pleasant, mild flavor; very good; stone semi-free
or free, the cavity larger than the pit, seven-eighths inch by three-quarters
inch in size, broadly oval, turgid, blunt at the base and apex, slightly
roughened; ventral suture broad, sometimes winged; dorsal suture
broadly and deeply grooved.

HARRIET
Prunus domestica

1. Gard. Chron. 18:441. 1882. 2. Hogg Fruit Man. 705. 1884.

 Harriet is little known in America, but as the variety grows on our
grounds it appears to be somewhat desirable. The type is that of
Reine Claude, the fruit being slightly yellower; the quality is very
good and the tree-characters are good. It is doubtful, however, in
spite of these attributes to recommend it, whether, with the
multiplicity of plums of this type, the variety in question can make
headway in the United States. Harriet was originated by Thomas
Rivers, Sawbridgeworth, England, about 1870. While considerably
grown in England, it can hardly be said to be one of the leading
varieties in that country.

Tree medium in size and vigor, spreading, open, productive; branchlets

thick, very short, pubescent throughout the season; leaf-buds large, long,
tipped brush-like at the apex; leaves folded upward, oval, one and one-
half inches wide, two and three-quarters inches long, the young leaves
bright red when opening; margin serrate or almost crenate; petiole tinged
red, glandless or with one or two glands usually at the base of the leaf;
blooming season intermediate, short; flowers appearing after the leaves,
one inch across; borne on lateral buds and spurs, singly or in pairs.
Fruit mid-season, ripening period long; about one and three-eighths
inches in diameter, roundish-oblate, somewhat oblique, golden-yellow,
sometimes mottled with red, overspread with thin bloom; flesh golden-
yellow, firm, sweet, pleasant in flavor; of very good quality; stone clinging,
five-eighths inch by one-half inch in size, oval, turgid, with slightly
roughened surfaces.

HAWKEYE
 HAWKEYE

Prunus americana

1. Ia. Hort. Soc. Rpt. 287. 1887. 2. U. S. D. A. Rpt. 441. 1889. 3. Ia.
Hort. Soc. Rpt. 55, 85. 1890. 4. Cornell Sta. Bul. 38:38, 86. 1892. 5. Wis.
Sta. Bul. 63:40, 41. 1897. 6. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat. 24. 1897. 7. Colo. Sta.
 Bul. 50:37. 1898. 8. Ia. Sta. Bul. 46:274. 1900. 9. Waugh Plum Cult. 151.
1901. 10. Ont. Fr. Gr. Assoc. 144. 1901. 11. Wis. Sta. Bul. 87:13. 1901.
12. S. Dak. Sta. Bul. 93:19. 1905. 13. Ohio Sta. Bul. 162:254, 255.
1905.

This variety is a very satisfactory and widely planted Americana. It

is typical of its species; and its foliage, fruit and pit in the color-plate
herewith presented all represent Prunus americana very well. The
fruit of Hawkeye is more satisfactory than the tree, being both
attractive in appearance and pleasant to eat either out of hand or
cooked; the chief fault of the fruit is that it seems to be easily
infected with brown-rot. The trees are crooked in body and quite too
straggling and at the same time too dense in growth to make good
orchard plants. It requires very careful pruning and training to keep
the trees at all manageable. In some of the references given above
it is stated that Hawkeye on its own roots is a better tree than
otherwise propagated. This variety belongs in the middle west but it
might be grown for home use in northern New York where it is too
cold for the European plums.
Hawkeye is a seedling of Quaker grown by H. A. Terry,[217]
Crescent, Iowa. It first fruited in 1882 and the following year was
introduced by the originator. In the Iowa Horticultural Society Report
for 1887, Mr. Terry stated that the original tree had borne five crops
in succession and he believed it to be the most valuable variety in
cultivation for the West and Northwest. The American Pomological
Society placed this plum on its fruit catalog list in 1897.

Tree large, vigorous, rather upright at first, becoming spreading, low-

headed, hardy, usually productive, but variable in some locations,
susceptible to attacks of shot-hole fungus; branches numerous, dark
brown, rough, thorny, with numerous, large lenticels; branchlets long,
willowy, with internodes of medium length, green, changing to dull
reddish-brown, shining, glabrous, with numerous large, raised lenticels;
leaf-buds small, short, pointed, appressed.
Leaves tinged red late in the season, nearly flat, oval or slightly
obovate, two inches wide, four inches long, rather thin; upper surface
dark green, smooth, glabrous, with midrib and larger veins deeply
grooved; lower surface light green, lightly pubescent along the midrib and
larger veins; apex taper-pointed, base very abrupt, margin coarsely and
doubly serrate, the serrations often becoming spiny, eglandular; petiole
rather slender, nine-sixteenths inch in length, tinged with pink, sparingly
pubescent along one side, glandless or with one or two globose, greenish-
brown glands.
Blooming season intermediate in time and length; flowers appearing
with the leaves, showy on account of the numerous, pure white, flat
petals, with a somewhat disagreeable odor; borne in clusters on lateral
buds and spurs, in pairs; pedicels seven-sixteenths inch in length,
glabrous, green with a distinct reddish tinge on one side; calyx-tube red,
broadly obconic, glabrous; calyx-lobes short, obtuse, pubescent on both
surfaces, eglandular, with a hairy, serrate margin, somewhat reflexed;
petals ovate, crenate, but somewhat fringed, long and narrowly clawed;
anthers yellowish; filaments five-sixteenths inch long; pistil glabrous,
shorter than the stamens.
Fruit mid-season, ripening period of medium length; about one and
one-eighth inches in diameter, roundish-oval or ovate, not compressed,
halves equal; cavity unusually shallow, very narrow; suture an indistinct
line; apex roundish; color dull carmine, covered with thin bloom; dots
numerous, gray or reddish, nearly obscure, with almost none around the
base; stem slender, below medium in length; skin thick, tough, astringent,
adhering; flesh pale, dull yellow, very juicy, slightly fibrous, watery and
melting, sweet at first with a tart and somewhat astringent after-taste;
good; stone adhering to the pulp, seven-eighths inch by five-eighths inch
in size, roundish-oval, flattened, smooth, blunt at the base and apex,
conspicuously winged on the ventral suture, with a deep but narrow
groove on the dorsal suture.

HUDSON
 HUDSON

Prunus domestica

1. Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt. 289. 1889. 2. Mich. Sta. Bul. 103:35 1894. 3.
Ohio Hort. Soc. Rpt. 30:168. 1896-97. 4. Cornell Sta. Bul. 131:181 fig. 40
 III, 187. 1897. 5. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat. 25. 1897. 6. Can. Exp. Farm Bul.
2nd Ser. 3:52. 1900. 7. Waugh Plum Cult. 109. 1901.
Hudson River Purple 6. Hudson River Purple Egg 1, 3, 4. Hudson River
Purple Egg 2, 5, 7. Purple Egg 2.

Hudson is limited in cultivation, belonging almost wholly to the

Hudson River Valley where it has long been somewhat of a favorite
for both home and market planting. The variety has few qualities of
fruit to commend it especially outside of the region where it is now
grown and even here its value is probably overrated. The fruits are
of only medium size, not markedly attractive in appearance and the
quality is below the average among standard plums. The trees are
for most part very good in constitution and habit of growth and in
particular bear very well; they have the faults of not bearing early
and of being subject to black-knot. The variety, and perhaps it is
well, is being less planted than formerly.
Nothing is known of the origin of the Hudson except that it has
been grown in the Hudson River Valley for a good many years.
About 1870 it attracted the attention of S. D. Willard of Geneva, New
York, who, thinking it a valuable acquisition, commenced its
propagation. In 1897, it was listed by the American Pomological
Society as a successful variety for this region. J. R. Cornell, a well
informed fruit-grower of Newburgh, New York, in a letter written
February 21, 1910, says, “I recall Hudson very distinctly as it was
grown when I was a small boy over fifty years ago. I would not be
surprised, if the facts could be obtained, to learn that the variety
came from Europe, in fact, I incline to that opinion.”

Tree large, vigorous, spreading, very productive, hardy; branches ash-

gray, smooth except for the small, raised lenticels; branchlets slender, with
long internodes, greenish-red changing to brownish-red, dull, glabrous
early in the season becoming lightly pubescent at maturity, with small,
inconspicuous lenticels; leaf-buds below medium in size and length,
conical, strongly appressed.
Leaves flattened, obovate or oval, two inches wide, three and three-
quarters inches long; upper surface dark green, smooth, sparsely hairy