THE RUSSIAN apricot has been the subject of much diverse discussion during the last decade. By many it has been denounced in unmeasured terms, and , by others it is considered one of the most valuable of recent acquisitions. We have endeavored to arrive at definite knowledge of it by securing the correspondence which follows.
The Russian apricot was introduced into America by the Russian Mennonites who settled in Kansas many years ago. We have not seen any record of the date of the first introduction, but it is earlier than is commonly supposed. It was grown so long ago as 1876, and probably much earlier. By the Mennonites it is propagated by seeds, and many of the trees now planted throughout the country are unnamed and chance seedlings. It is not strange, since the apricot varies from seed in the same manner as other fruits, that conflicting and diverse experiences have resulted. In late years some of the best varieties have been selected and propagated under names. The chief of these are Alexis, Nicholas, Alexander, Budd, Gibb, Catherine. Some or all of these have been distributed under two names.
It is always said that the Russian apricot belongs to the Prunus Sibirica of botanists, and the statement, so far as we know, has never been controverted. But in fact it is nothing more than a hardy race of the common apricot, Prunus Armeniaca. The foliage of the two species is very unlike. Fig. 1 shows the leaves of the Alexander, a Russian variety. The leaves are broadly ovate with a short point, broad base, short and rounded teeth, and they are smooth and shining above and thick in texture. It will be noticed that the petioles or leaf-stalks bear conspicuous glands. Fig. 2 is a faithful illustration of the foliage of Prunus Sibirica (or P. Armeniaca, var. Sibirica, as Maximowicz prefers to call it). The leaves are narrower than in the other, with long points and long sharper teeth, and the glands are lacking or are rudimentary. The leaf is thinner than the other, not shining, and both above and below it is very sparsely hairy. The fruit of this Siberian apricot is small, hard and dry. The leaves of the Russian apricot vary considerably in different varieties, but they never assume the characters of Prunus Sibirica.
It is undoubtedly a fortunate circumstance that the Russian apricot has been regarded as belonging to the Siberian species. There are those who assume that individuals of the same species cannot differ perceptibly in hardiness, and if it had been known from the first that the Russian apricot is specifically the same as the older and common apricots, our literature would have abounded in statements that it is no hardier than the old sorts. But now that its greater hardiness appears to be admitted, we may reasonably hope to hold this as a proof that environment has much to do with the capability of a plant to endure severe climate. To be sure, there are almost no end of instances in which the same is true, but it is often necessary that a thing be proved to us while we are declaring that it is impossible ! If the Russian apricot possesses no other merit than hardiness, it is still worth keeping, for it is variable and is capable of improvement. L. H. B.
From Dr. T. H. Hoskins, Newport, Vt - l received young trees and specimens of fruit from Mr. Griesa, of Kansas, some six or seven years ago. The trees have grown well, but have been killed back in all winters when the mercury went down to 40°, which is so often in northeastern Vermont, that my apricot trees have not yet set any fruit buds. The trees sent me were seedlings, and there is an endless variety in the aspect and' growth of the young trees. Probably not one seedling in fifty is likely to be worthy of cultivation, but when a fruit of sufficiently good quality is obtained, we have advanced one step, and a long one.
One distinguished merit of the Russian apricot is that it sets its fruit quite as freely, both east and west, as the commonplum. It is well-known that along the Atlantic slope our apricot has always been found so shy a bearer as to be practically unknown among our commercial fruits. The Russian apricot, even if not sufficiently iron-clad for northeastern Vermont, may yet furnish a valuable fruit for lower New England and the middle states. In size, the specimens sent to me from Kansas were rather smaller than the Lombard plum. They looked like littlepeaches, and were eatable; but in comparison with California apricots, they would probably have been regarded as better adapted to the pig pen.
These apricots graft or bud readily on our wild plums, and are free growers, though they do not promise to make large trees. There will be no doubt considerable difference in this respect. They are well worth studying and experimenting with, but I think nobody has go far beyond the first stages in this work.

From John Craig, Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, Canada

The Russian apricots as a class - and they do not seem to differ much in variety as far as tested here - seem to rank in hardiness with the Lombard plum. The trees lost several inches of young wood last winter, and also show evidence of injury to the stem. Alexis and Catherine appear to be most promising. They have good foliage and are vigorous growers. The soil and treatment depend somewhat on the stocks upon which these apricots are worked. They are doing well in many places on sandy loam, which tends to hasten maturing of wood in the autumn.
In advance of more extended tests, it would not be safe to call them "a valuable acquisition." I do not think they will be grown to any extent inpeachgrowing districts, and it is questionable if they are sufficiently hardy to do well north of the peach line. They bud and graft readily on the myrobolan and American plum (P. Americana). The latter, on account of its hardiness, I consider the most desirable stock. Crown grafts on this have made a growth of from two to three feet since spring, when they were set.
Prunus Sibirica.Fig. 2. Prunus Sibirica.