Download the full version of the ebook now at ebooksecure.

com

(eBook PDF) Essentials of MATLAB Programming

3rd Edition

https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-
essentials-of-matlab-programming-3rd-edition/

Explore and download more ebook at https://ebooksecure.com

 Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.

(eBook PDF) MATLAB Programming for Engineers 6th Edition

https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-matlab-programming-for-
engineers-6th-edition/

ebooksecure.com

MATLAB Programming for Engineers 6th Edition Stephen J.

Chapman - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/matlab-programming-for-engineers-
ebook-pdf/

ebooksecure.com

(eBook PDF) Matlab: A Practical Introduction to

Programming and Problem Solving 4th Edition

https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-matlab-a-practical-
introduction-to-programming-and-problem-solving-4th-edition/

ebooksecure.com

(eBook PDF) Mental Health Nursing Dimensions of Praxis

Third Edition

https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-mental-health-nursing-
dimensions-of-praxis-third-edition/

ebooksecure.com
(eBook PDF) CJ 2019 1st Edition by James A. Fagin

https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-cj-2019-1st-edition-by-
james-a-fagin/

ebooksecure.com

(eBook PDF) Hurst's the Heart, 13th Edition

https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-hursts-the-heart-13th-
edition/

ebooksecure.com

(eBook PDF) Introduction to Finance: Markets, Investments,

and Financial Management, 16th Edition

https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-introduction-to-finance-
markets-investments-and-financial-management-16th-edition/

ebooksecure.com

5 Steps to a 5: AP Physics 1: Algebra-Based 2024 Elite

Student Edition Greg Jacobs - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/5-steps-to-a-5-ap-physics-1-algebra-
based-2024-elite-student-edition-ebook-pdf-2/

ebooksecure.com

(eBook PDF) Human Sexuality Diversity in Contemporary

America 9th

https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-human-sexuality-diversity-
in-contemporary-america-9th/

ebooksecure.com
(eBook PDF) Contacts: Langue et culture fran?aises (World
Languages) 9th Edition

https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-contacts-langue-et-culture-
franaises-world-languages-9th-edition/

ebooksecure.com
ESSENTIALS OF ESSENTIALS OF

CHAPMAN
MATLAB
PROGRAMMING
MATLAB
PROGRAMMING

ESSENTIALS OF
STEPHEN J. CHAPMAN STEPHEN J. CHAPMAN

THIRD EDITION

MATLAB
PROGRAMMING
To register or access your online learning solution or purchase materials
for your course, visit www.cengagebrain.com.

3E

THIRD EDITION
Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
 Preface | vii

The Advantages of MATLAB for Technical Programming

MATLAB has many advantages compared to conventional computer languages
for technical problem solving. Among them are:
1. Ease of use.
MATLAB is an interpreted language, like many versions of Basic. Like
Basic, it is very easy to use. The program can be used as a scratch pad
to evaluate expressions typed at the command line, or it can be used to
execute large prewritten programs. Programs may be easily written and
modified with the built-in integrated development environment, and de-
bugged with the MATLAB debugger. Because the language is so easy
to use, it is ideal for educational use, and for the rapid prototyping of
new programs.
Many program development tools are provided to make the pro-
gram easy to use. They include an integrated editor/debugger, online
documentation and manuals, a workspace browser, and extensive demos.
2. Platform independence.
MATLAB is supported on many different computer systems, and this
provides a large measure of platform independence. At the time of this
writing, the language is supported on Windows 7/8/10, Linux, and Mac
OS X 10.10 and 10.11. Programs written on any platform will run on all
of the other platforms, and data files written on any platform may be
read transparently on any other platform. As a result, programs writ-
ten in MATLAB can migrate to new platforms when the needs of the
user change.
3. Predefined functions.
MATLAB comes complete with an extensive library of predefined func-
tions that provide tested and prepackaged solutions to many basic tech-
nical tasks. For example, suppose that you are writing a program that
must calculate the statistics associated with an input data set. In most
languages, you would need to write your own subroutines or functions
to implement calculations such as the arithmetic mean, standard devia-
tion, median, etc. These and hundreds of other functions are built right
into the MATLAB language, making your job much easier.
In addition to the large library of functions built into the basic
MATLAB language, there are many special-purpose toolboxes available
to help solve complex problems in specific areas. For example, a user can
buy standard toolboxes to solve problems in Signal Processing, Control
Systems, Communications, Image Processing, and Neural Networks,
among many others.

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
viii | Preface

4. Device-independent plotting.
Unlike other computer languages, MATLAB has many integral plot-
ting and imaging commands. The plots and images can be displayed
on any graphical output device supported by the computer on which
MATLAB is running. This capability makes MATLAB an outstanding
tool for visualizing technical data.
5. Graphical user interface.
MATLAB includes tools that allow a programmer to interactively con-
struct a graphical user interface (GUI) for his or her program. With
this capability, the programmer can design sophisticated data analysis
programs that can be operated by relatively inexperienced users.

Pedagogical Features
This book is specifically designed to be used in a first-year “Introduction to
Programming/Problem Solving” course. It should be possible to cover this material
comfortably in a 9-week, 3-hour-per-week course. If there is insufficient time to
cover all of the material in a particular engineering program, Chapters 8 and 9
may be deleted, and the remaining material will still teach the fundamentals of
programming and using MATLAB to solve problems. This feature should ap-
peal to harassed engineering educators trying to cram ever more material into a
finite curriculum.
The book includes several features designed to aid student comprehension.
A total of 14 quizzes appear scattered throughout the chapters, with answers
to all questions included in Appendix C. These quizzes can serve as a useful
self-test of comprehension. In addition, there are approximately 150 end-of-
chapter exercises. Answers to all exercises are included in the Instructor’s Man-
ual. Good programming practices are highlighted in all chapters with special
Good Programming Practice boxes, and common errors are highlighted in Pro-
gramming Pitfalls boxes. End-of-chapter materials include Summaries of Good
Programming Practice and Summaries of MATLAB Commands and Functions.

Instructor Resources
A detailed Instructor’s Solutions Manual containing solutions to all end-of-
chapter exercises is available via the secure, password-protected Instructor
Resource Center at https://sso.cengage.com. The Instructor Resource Center
also contains helpful Lecture Note PowerPoint slides, the MATLAB source code
for all examples in the book, and the source code for all of the solutions in the
Instructor’s Solutions Manual.

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
 Preface | ix

A Final Note to the User

No matter how hard I try to proofread a document like this book, it is inevi-
table that some typographical errors will slip through and appear in print. If
you should spot any such errors, please drop me a note via the publisher at
[email protected], and I will do my best to get them eliminated
from subsequent printings and editions. Thank you very much for your help in
this matter.
I will maintain a complete list of errata and corrections at the Instructor
Resource Center mentioned above. Please check that site for any updates and/
or corrections.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank these reviewers who offered their helpful suggestion for
this edition:
David Eromom Georgia Southern University
Arlene Guest Naval Postgraduate School
Mary M. Hofle Idaho State University
Mark Hutchenreuther California Polytechnic State
University
Mani Mini Iowa State University
In addition I would like to acknowledge and thank my Global Engineering team
at Cengage Learning for their dedication to this edition:
Timothy Anderson, Product Director; Mona Zeftel, Senior Content Developer;
D. Jean Buttrom, Content Project Manager; Kristin Stine, Marketing Manager;
Elizabeth Murphy and Brittany Burden, Learning Solutions Specialists; Ashley
Kaupert, Associate Media Content Developer; Teresa Versaggi and Alexander
Sham, Product Assistants; and Rose Kernan of RPK Editorial Services, Inc.
They have skillfully guided every aspect of this text’s development and produc-
tion to successful completion.
In addition, I would like to thank my wife Rosa for her help and encourage-
ment over the more than 40 years we have spent together.
Stephen J. Chapman
Melbourne, Australia
November 8, 2015

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
MindTap Online Course

Essentials of MATLAB Programming is also avail-

able through MindTap, Cengage Learning’s digital
course platform. The carefully-crafted pedagogy
and exercises in this trusted textbook are made
even more effective by an interactive, customizable
eBook, automatically graded assessments, and a
full suite of study tools.
As an instructor using MindTap, you have at
your fingertips the full text and a unique set of tools,
all in an interface designed to save you time. Mind-
Tap makes it easy for instructors to build and cus-
tomize their course, so you can focus on the most
relevant material while also lowering costs for your
students. Stay connected and informed through real-
time student tracking that provides the opportunity
to adjust your course as needed based on analytics of
interactivity and performance. End-of-chapter assess-
ments test students’ knowledge of programming con-
cepts in each chapter. Tutorial videos help students
master MATLAB functionality, programming, and
concepts.

How does MindTap benefit instructors?

■ You can build and personalize your course by integrating your own
content into the MindTap Reader (like lecture notes or problem sets to
download) or pull from sources such as RSS feeds, YouTube videos, web-
sites, and more. Control what content students see with a built-in learning
path that can be customized to your syllabus.
x
Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
 MindTap Online Course | xi

MindTap saves you time by providing you and your

■

students with automatically graded assignments and

quizzes. These problems include immediate, specific
feedback, so students know exactly where they need
more practice.
■ The Message Center helps you to quickly and easily

contact students directly from MindTap. Messages

are communicated directly to each student via the
communication medium (email, social media, or
even text message) designated by the student.
■ StudyHub is a valuable studying tool that allows you to

deliver important information and empowers your stu-

dents to personalize their experience. Instructors can
choose to annotate the text with notes and highlights,
share content from the MindTap Reader, and create
flashcards to help their students focus and succeed.
■ The Progress App lets you know exactly how

your students are doing (and where they might be

struggling) with live analytics. You can see overall class engagement and
drill down into individual student performance, enabling you to adjust
your course to maximize student success.

How does MindTap benefit your students?

■ The MindTap Reader adds the abilities to have the content read aloud, to
print from the reader, and to take notes and highlights while also captur-
ing them within the linked StudyHub App.
■ The MindTap Mobile App keeps students connected with alerts and notifica-
tions while also providing them with on-the-go study tools like Flashcards and
quizzing, helping them manage their time efficiently.
■ Flashcards are pre-populated to provide a jump start on studying, and
students and instructors can also create customized cards as they move
through the course.
■ The Progress App allows students to monitor their individual grades, as
well as their level compared to the class average. This not only helps them
stay on track in the course but also motivates them to do more, and ulti-
mately to do better.
■ The unique StudyHub is a powerful single-destination studying tool that em-
powers students to personalize their experience. They can quickly and easily
access all notes and highlights marked in the MindTap Reader, locate book-
marked pages, review notes and Flashcards shared by their instructor, and
create custom study guides.
For more information about MindTap for Engineering, or to schedule a demon-
stration, please call (800) 354-9706 or email [email protected]. For those
instructors outside the United States, please visit http://www.cengage.com/contact/
to locate your regional office.
Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction to MATLAB 1

1.1 The Advantages of MATLAB 2
1.2 Disadvantages of MATLAB 3
1.3 The MATLAB Environment 4
1.3.1 The MATLAB Desktop 4
1.3.2 The Command Window 6
1.3.3 The Toolstrip 7
1.3.4 The Command History Window 8
1.3.5 The Document Window 8
1.3.6 Figure Windows 11
1.3.7 Docking and Undocking Windows 12
1.3.8 The MATLAB Workspace 12
1.3.9 The Workspace Browser 14
1.3.10 The Current Folder Browser 15
1.3.11 Getting Help 16
1.3.12 A Few Important Commands 18
1.3.13 The MATLAB Search Path 19
1.4 Using MATLAB as a Calculator 21
1.5 Summary 23
1.5.1 MATLAB Summary 23
1.6 Exercises 24

Chapter 2 MATLAB Basics 27

2.1 Variables and Arrays 27
xii
Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
 Contents | xiii

2.2 Creating and Initializing Variables in MATLAB 31

2.2.1 Initializing V
Variables in Assignment Statements 31
2.2.2 Initializing with Shortcut Expressions 34
2.2.3 Initializing with Built-in Functions 35
2.2.4 Initializing V
Variables with Keyboard Input 36
2.3 Multidimensional Arrays 38
2.3.1 Storing Multidimensional Arrays in Memory 39
2.3.2 Accessing Multidimensional Arrays with One Dimension 40
2.4 Subarrays 40
2.4.1 The end Function 41
2.4.2 Using Subarrays on the Left-Hand Side
of an Assignment Statement 41
2.4.3 Assigning a Scalar to a Subarray 43
2.5 Special Values 43
2.6 Displa
Displaying Output Data 46
2.6.1 Changing the Default Format 46
2.6.2 The disp Function 48
2.6.3 Formatted Output with the fprintf Function 48
2.7 Data Files 49
2.8 Scalar and Array Operations 52
2.8.1 Scalar Operations 52
2.8.2 Array and Matrix Operations 53
2.9 Hierarchy of Operations 56
2.10 Built-in MATLAB Functions 59
2.10.1 Optional Results 60
2.10.2 Using MA
MATLAB Functions with Array Inputs 60
2.10.3 Common MA MATLAB Functions 60
2.11 Introduction to Plotting 62
2.11.1 Using Simple xy Plots 62
2.11.2 Printing a Plot 63
2.11.3 Exporting a Plot as a Graphical Image 64
2.11.4 Multiple Plots 66
2.11.5 Line Color
Color, Line Style, Marker Style, and Legends 67
2.11.6 Logarithmic Scales 70
2.12 Examples 71
2.13 Debugging MATLAB Programs 78
2.14 Summary 80
2.14.1 Summary of Good Programming Practice 81
2.14.2 MA
MATLAB Summary 82
2.15 Exercises 85

Chapter 3 Two-Dimensional Plots 93

3.1 Additional Plotting Features for Tw
T o-Dimensional Plots 93
3.1.1 Logarithmic Scales 93
Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
xiv | Contents

3.1.2 Controlling x- and y-axis Plotting Limits 97

3.1.3 Plotting Multiple Plots on the Same Axes 100
3.1.4 Creating Multiple Figures 101
3.1.5 Subplots 101
3.1.6 Controlling the Spacing between Points on a Plot 104
3.1.7 Enhanced Control of Plotted Lines 107
3.1.8 Enhanced Control of Text Strings 108
3.2 Polar Plots 111
3.3 Annotating and Saving Plots 113
3.4 Additional T
Types of T
Two-Dimensional Plots 116
3.5 Using the plot Function with Two-Dimensional
T Arrays 121
3.6 Summary 123
3.6.1 Summary of Good Programming Practice 124
3.6.2 MATLAB Summary 124
3.7 Exercises 125

Chapter 4 Branching Statements and Program Design 129

4.1 Introduction to T
Top-Down Design T Techniques 129
4.2 Use of Pseudocode 133
4.3 The Logical Data TType 134
4.3.1 Relational and Logic Operators 134
4.3.2 Relational Operators 135
4.3.3 A Caution about the == and ~= Operators 136
4.3.4 Logic Operators 137
4.3.5 Logical Functions 142
4.4 Branches 144
4.4.1 The if Construct 144
4.4.2 Examples Using if Constructs 146
4.4.3 Notes Concerning the Use of if Constructs 152
4.4.4 The switch Construct 155
4.4.5 The try/catch Construct 156
4.5 More on Debugging MATLAB Programs 164
4.6 Summary 171
4.6.1 Summary of Good Programming Practice 171
4.6.2 MATLAB Summary 172
4.7 Exercises 172

Chapter 5 Loops and Vectorization 179

5.1 The while Loop 179
5.2 The for Loop 185
5.2.1 Details of Operation 192
5.2.2 Vectorization: A Faster Alternative to Loops 194
Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
 Contents | xv

5.2.3 The MATLAB Just-In-Time (JIT) Compiler 195

5.2.4 The break and continue Statements 198
5.2.5 Nesting Loops 200
5.3 Logical Arrays and Vectorization 201
5.3.1 Creating the Equivalent of if/else Constructs
with Logical Arrays 202
5.4 The MATLAB Profiler 204
5.5 Additional Examples 207
5.6 The textread Function 222
5.7 Summary 223
5.7.1 Summary of Good Programming Practice 224
5.7.2 MATLAB Summary 224
5.8 Exercises 225

Chapter 6 Basic User - Defined Functions 235

6.1 Introduction to MATLAB Functions 236
6.2 Variable Passing in MATLAB: The Pass-by-Value Scheme 242
6.3 Optional Arguments 253
6.4 Sharing Data Using Global Memory 258
6.5 Preserving Data between Calls to a Function 265
6.6 Built-in MATLAB Functions: Sorting Functions 270
6.7 Built-in MATLAB Functions: Random Number Functions 272
6.8 Summary 272
6.8.1 Summary of Good Programming Practice 273
6.8.2 MATLAB Summary 273
6.9 Exercises 274

Chapter 7 Advanced Features of User-Defined Functions 283

7.1 Function Functions 283
7.2 Local Functions, Private Functions, and Nested Functions 288
7.2.1 Local Functions 288
7.2.2 Private Functions 289
7.2.3 Nested Functions 290
7.2.4 Order of Function Evaluation 292
7.3 Function Handles 293
7.3.1 Creating and Using Function Handles 293
7.3.2 The Significance of Function Handles 296
7.3.3 Function Handles and Nested Functions 297
7.3.4 An Example Application: Solving Ordinary
Differential Equations 299
7.4 Anonymous Functions 305
7.5 Recursive Functions 306
7.6 Plotting Functions 307
Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
Visit https://testbankfan.com
now to explore a rich
collection of testbank or
solution manual and enjoy
exciting offers!
xvi | Contents

7.7 Histograms 310

7.8 Summary 316
7.8.1 Summary of Good Programming Practice 316
7.8.2 MATLAB Summary 317
7.9 Exercises 317

Chapter 8 Additional Data Types and Plot Types 325

8.1 Complex Data 325
8.1.1 Complex Variables 327
8.1.2 Using Complex Numbers with Relational Operators 328
8.1.3 Complex Functions 329
8.1.4 Plotting Complex Data 334
8.2 Strings and String Functions 338
8.2.1 String Conversion Functions 338
8.2.2 Creating Two-Dimensional Character Arrays 339
8.2.3 Concatenating Strings 340
8.2.4 Comparing Strings 340
8.2.5 Searching/Replacing Characters within a String 344
8.2.6 Uppercase and Lowercase Conversion 345
8.2.7 Trimming Whitespace from Strings 345
8.2.8 Numeric-to-String Conversions 346
8.2.9 String-to-Numeric Conversions 348
8.2.10 Summary 349
8.3 Multidimensional Arrays 355
8.4 Three-Dimensional Plots 357
8.4.1 Three-Dimensional Line Plots 357
8.4.2 Three-Dimensional Surface, Mesh, and Contour Plots 358
8.4.3 Creating Three-Dimensional Objects Using Surface
and Mesh Plots 365
8.5 Summary 368
8.5.1 Summary of Good Programming Practice 368
8.5.2 MATLAB Summary 369
8.6 Exercises 371

Chapter 9 Cell Arrays, Structures, and Handle Graphics 377

9.1 Cell Arrays 377
9.1.1 Creating Cell Arrays 379
9.1.2 Using Braces {} as Cell Constructors 380
9.1.3 Viewing the Contents of Cell Arrays 381
9.1.4 Extending Cell Arrays 381
9.1.5 Deleting Cells in Arrays 384
9.1.6 Using Data in Cell Arrays 385
9.1.7 Cell Arrays of Strings 385
Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
 Contents | xvii

9.1.8 The Significance of Cell Arrays 386

9.1.9 Summary of cell Functions 390
9.2 Structure Arrays 391
9.2.1 Creating Structure Arrays 391
9.2.2 Adding Fields to Structures 394
9.2.3 Removing Fields from Structures 395
9.2.4 Using Data in Structure Arrays 395
9.2.5 The getfield and setfield Functions 397
9.2.6 Dynamic Field Names 397
9.2.7 Using the size Function with Structure Arrays 399
9.2.8 Nesting Structure Arrays 399
9.2.9 Summary of structure Functions 400
9.3 Handle Graphics 401
9.3.1 The MATLAB Graphics System 402
9.3.2 Object Handles 403
9.3.3 Examining and Changing Object Properties 404
9.3.4 Changing Object Properties at Creation Time 404
9.3.5 Changing Object Properties after Creation Time 405
9.3.6 Examining and Changing Properties Using
Object Notation 405
9.3.7 Examining and Changing Properties Using
get/set Functions 407
9.3.8 Examining and Changing Properties Using
the Property Editor 409
9.3.9 Using set to List Possible Property Values 414
9.3.10 Finding Objects 415
9.3.11 Selecting Objects with the Mouse 417
9.4 Position and Units 420
9.4.1 Positions of figure Objects 420
9.4.2 Positions of axes and uicontrol Objects 421
9.4.3 Positions of text Objects 422
9.5 Printer Positions 425
9.6 Default and Factory Properties 425
9.7 Graphics Object Properties 427
9.8 Summary 428
9.8.1 Summary of Good Programming Practice 428
9.8.2 MATLAB Summary 429
9.9 Exercises 429

Appendix A UTF-8 Character Set 433

Appendix B MATLAB Input/Output Functions 435

Appendix C Answers to Quizzes 457

Appendix D MATLAB Functions and Commands 471

Index 479
Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
 Chapter 1
Introduction to MATLAB

MATLAB (short for MATrix LABoratory) is a special-purpose computer program

optimized to perform engineering and scientific calculations. It started life as a pro-
gram designed to perform matrix mathematics, but over the years it has grown into
a flexible computing system capable of solving essentially any technical problem.
The MATLAB program implements the MATLAB programming language and
provides a very extensive library of predefined functions to make technical pro-
gramming tasks easier and more efficient. This book introduces the MATLAB lan-
guage as it is implemented in MATLAB Version 2014B and shows how to use it
to solve typical technical problems.
MATLAB is a huge program, with an incredibly rich variety of functions. Even the
basic version of MATLAB without any toolkits is much richer than other technical
programming languages. There are more than 1000 functions in the basic MATLAB
product alone, and the toolkits extend this capability with many more functions in
various specialties. Furthermore, these functions often solve very complex prob-
lems (solving differential equations, inverting matrices, and so forth) in a single step,
saving large amounts of time. Doing the same thing in another computer language
usually involves writing complex programs yourself or buying a third-party software
package (such as IMSL or the NAG software libraries) that contains the functions.
The built-in MATLAB functions are almost always better than anything that
an individual engineer could write on his or her own because many people have
worked on them, and they have been tested against many different data sets. These
functions are also robust, producing sensible results for wide ranges of input data
and gracefully handling error conditions.
This book makes no attempt to introduce the user to all of MATLAB’s func-
tions. Instead, it teaches a user the basics of how to write, debug, and optimize
good MATLAB programs, plus a subset of the most important functions used to
solve common scientific and engineering problems. Just as importantly, it teaches

1
Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
2 | Chapter 1 Introduction to MATLAB

the scientist or engineer how to use MATLAB’s own tools to locate the right func-
tion for a specific purpose from the enormous list of choices available. In addition,
it teaches how to use MATLAB to solve many practical engineering problems, such
as vector and matrix algebra, curve fitting, differential equations, and data plotting.
The MATLAB program is a combination of a procedural programming language,
an integrated development environment (IDE) including an editor and debugger, and
an extremely rich set of functions to perform many types of technical calculations.
The MATLAB language is a procedural programming language, meaning that the
engineer writes procedures, which are effectively mathematical recipes for solving a
problem. This makes MATLAB very similar to other procedural languages such as C,
Basic, Fortran, and Pascal. However, the extremely rich list of predefined functions
and plotting tools makes it superior to these other languages for many engineering
analysis applications.

1.1 The Advantages of MATLAB

MATLAB has many advantages compared to conventional computer languages
for technical problem solving. Among them are:
1. Ease of use.
MATLAB is an interpreted language, like many versions of Basic. Like
Basic, it is very easy to use. The program can be used as a scratch pad to
evaluate expressions typed at the command line, or it can be used to exe-
cute large prewritten programs. Programs may be easily written and mod-
ified with the built-in integrated development environment and debugged
with the MATLAB debugger. Because the language is so easy to use, it is
ideal for the rapid prototyping of new programs.
Many program development tools are provided to make the program
easy to use. They include an integrated editor/debugger, online documen-
tation and manuals, a workspace browser, and extensive demos.
2. Platform independence.
MATLAB is supported on many different computer systems, providing a
large measure of platform independence. At the time of this writing, the
language is supported on Windows Vista/7/8/10, Linux, Unix and the
Macintosh. Programs written on any platform will run on all of the other
platforms, and data files written on any platform may be read transpar-
ently on any other platform. As a result, programs written in MATLAB
can migrate to new platforms when the needs of the user change.
3. Predefined functions.
MATLAB comes complete with an extensive library of predefined func-
tions that provide tested and prepackaged solutions to many basic tech-
nical tasks. For example, suppose that you are writing a program that
must calculate the statistics associated with an input data set. In most
languages, you would need to write your own subroutines or functions to
Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
 under side along the rib;
flowers in pairs
D.D. Pedicels more than twice as
long as the calyx-cup.
E. Flowers mostly single; leaves
hairy along the midrib on the
under side; petiole ⅕ as
long as the leaf-blade; a tree 6. P. cerasifera.
E.E. Flowers in threes; leaves
glabrous, petiole shining,
leaf-margins finely and
closely serrate, teeth
glandular-pointed; stamens
about 25 7. P. monticola.
E.E.E. Flowers in threes; leaves
glabrous, often shining, leaf-
margins finely and closely
serrate, teeth glandular-
pointed; stamens about 25 8. P. triflora.
B.B. Leaves upright, peach-like,
glabrous, veins very conspicuous,
under side barbate at axils of veins;
separated from all other plums by
the leaf-characters and by the
large, flattened, brick-red fruits 9. P. simonii.
A.A. Flowers in clusters of 3 or more,
rarely 2. American plums.
B. Plants trees. (P. angustifolia rarely a
tree.)
C. Leaves broad, mostly ovate or
obovate.
D. Leaves long-ovate or long-
obovate.
E. Flowers white.
 F. Leaf-serrations glandless,
acute; petiole usually
glandless; calyx-lobes
entire, glabrous on the
outer, pubescent on the
inner surface; stamens
about 30; stone turgid,
large, pointed at the apex 10. P. americana.
F.F. Leaf-serrations glandular,
wavy-crenate; petioles
glandular; calyx-lobes
glandular-serrate,
pubescent on the inner
surface; stamens about
20; stone turgid, small,
prolonged at the ends 11. P. hortulana.
E.E. Flowers fading to pink.
F. Leaf-serrations coarse,
rounded, glandular only
when young; petioles
biglandular; calyx-lobes
glandular-serrate, not
pubescent on the inner
surface; stamens about
30; fruit red; bloom light;
stone flat 12. P. nigra.
F.F. Leaf-serrations fine, acute,
glandular-pointed; petioles
biglandular; calyx-lobes
entire, pubescent on the
outer, tomentose on the
inner surface; fruits dark
purple; bloom heavy;
stone turgid, acute at the
ends 13. P. alleghaniensis.
 D.D. Leaves round-ovate, obtusely,
sometimes doubly serrate;
petioles glandless; calyx-lobes
pubescent on both surfaces;
fruit dark red or purplish; stone
turgid, pointed at both ends 14. P. subcordata.
C.C. Leaves narrow, lanceolate-ovate.
D. Leaves flat.
E. Leaves glabrous; fruits
globular, usually purple at
maturity but sometimes red
or orange-red; bloom thin;
stone turgid, cherry-like 15. P. umbellata.
E.E. Leaves pubescent.
F. Stone acute at both ends;
fruit purple. 16. P. mitis.
F.F. Stone rounded at base;
fruits variously colored 17. P. tarda.
D.D. Leaves more or less folded
upward.
E. Fruits small, ½ inch in
diameter, cherry-like; leaves
lanceolate, upper surface
glabrous, lustrous, lower
surface pubescent in axils of
veins, marginal teeth
glandless; petioles
biglandular; stone small,
ovoid, turgid, cherry-like;
rarely a tree; tender in New
York 18. P. angustifolia.
E.E. Fruits large, an inch in 19. P. munsoniana
diameter, plum-like; leaves
lanceolate, peach-like, upper
surface glabrous, lower
 surface pubescent along the
midrib; petioles with from 1
to 6 glands; stone
compressed and pointed at
both ends; usually a tree;
hardy in New York
B.B. Plants shrubs.
C. Fruits dark purple.
D. Leaves ovate, acute, finely
serrated; shoots becoming
glabrous; stones pointed at
both ends 20. P. maritima.
D.D. Leaves oval-orbicular, crenate-
serrate; shoots usually
pubescent; stone pointed only
at the base 21. P. gravesii.
C.C. Fruits red or orange, sometimes
yellow but never deep purple.
D. Fruits large, 1 inch in diameter;
leaves oblong-ovate, long-
pointed, margin serrate with
incurved sometimes glandular
teeth, upper surface glabrous,
lower surface pilose; petiole
with 1 or 2 glands; stone oval,
flattened 22. P. orthosepela.
D.D. Fruits small, ½ inch in
diameter.
E. Leaves small, ovate-lanceolate 23. P. gracilis.
or oval, margins finely and
evenly serrate, upper surface
glabrous, lower surface soft
pubescent; petioles short
and stout; fruits variable in
 color, mostly red; stone
turgid, pointed at both ends
E.E. Leaves oblong-ovate,
margins coarsely or doubly
serrate, glabrous above and
sparingly pubescent below;
petiole glandular; fruits
cherry-red 24. P. rivularis.

1. PRUNUS DOMESTICA Linnaeus

 PRUNUS DOMESTICA

1. Linnaeus Sp. Pl. 475. 1753. 2. Duhamel Traite des Arb. 2:93, 95, 96.
1768. 3. Seringe DC. Prodr. 2:533. 1825. 4. Hooker Brit. Fl. 220. 1830. 5.
London Arb. Fr. Brit. 1844. 6. De Candolle Or. Cult. Pl. 212. 1885. 7.
Schwarz Forst. Bot. 338. 1892. 8. Koch, W. Syn. Deut. und Schw. Fl.
1:727. 1892. 9. Dippel Handb. Laubh. 3:636. 1893. 10. Lucas Handb.
Obst. 429. 1893. 11. Waugh Bot. Gaz. 26:417-27. 1898. 12. Bailey Cyc.
Am. Hort. 1448. 1901. 13. Waugh Plum Cult. 14. 1901. 14. Schneider
Handb. Laubh. 1:630. 1906.
P. communis domestica. 15. Hudson Fl. Anglic. 212. 1778. 16. Bentham
Handb. Brit. Fl. 1:236. 1865.
P. œconomica (in part) and P. italica (in part). 17. Borkhausen Handb.
Forstb. 2:1401, 1409. 1803. 18. Koch, K. Dend. 1:94, 96. 1869. 19.
Koehne Deut. Dend. 316. 1893.

Tree reaching a height of 30 or 40 feet, vigorous, open-headed, round-

topped; trunk attaining a foot or more in diameter; bark thick, ashy-gray
with a tinge of red, nearly smooth or roughened with transverse lines;
branches upright or spreading, straight, stout and rigid, usually spineless;
branchlets usually pubescent, light red the first year, becoming much
darker or drab; lenticels small, raised, conspicuous, orange.
Winter-buds large, conical, pointed, pubescent, free or appressed;
leaves large, ovate or obovate, elliptical or oblong-elliptical, thick and firm
in texture; upper surface dull green, rugose, glabrous or nearly so, the
lower one paler with little or much tomentum, much reticulated; margins
coarsely and irregularly crenate or serrate, often doubly so, teeth usually
glandular; petioles a half-inch or more in length, stoutish, pubescent,
tinged with red; glands usually two, often lacking, sometimes several,
globose, greenish-yellow; stipules very small, less than a half-inch,
lanceolate, narrow, serrate, early caducous.
Flowers appearing after or sometimes with the leaves, showy, an inch
or more across, greenish-white to creamy-white; borne on lateral spurs or
sometimes from lateral buds on one-year-old wood, 1 or 2 from a bud in a
more or less fascicled umbel; pedicels a half-inch or more in length, stout,
green; calyx-tube campanulate, glabrous or pubescent, green; calyx-lobes
broadly oblong, obtuse, pubescent on both surfaces, glandular-serrate,
usually reflexed; petals white or creamy in the bud, oval to obovate,
crenate, notched or entire, claw short and broad; stamens about 30, equal
to or shorter than the petals; anthers yellow, sometimes tinged with red;
pistils about as long as the stamens, glabrous or pubescent.
Fruit of various shapes, mostly globular or sulcate, often necked, blue,
red or yellow; stem a half-inch or more long, stout, pubescent; cavity
shallow and narrow; apex variable, usually rounded; suture prominent or
sometimes but a line or indistinct; skin variable; dots small, numerous,
inconspicuous; flesh yellowish, firm, meaty, sweet or acid and of many
flavors; stone free or clinging, large, oval, flattened, blunt, pointed or
 necked, slightly roughened or pitted; walls thick; one suture ridged—the
other grooved.

Beside the comparatively well-known groups of Domestica

varieties, there are in Europe, with an occasional representative in
America, especially in herbaria, numerous other groups either a part
of Prunus domestica or possibly, in a few cases at least, hybrids
between it and other species. European botanists place some of
these in distinct species or sub-species; but few, however, even of
the recent writers on the botany of the plum, agree at all closely as
to the disposition of these edible and ornamental plums which may
be doubtfully referred to Prunus domestica. With this disagreement
between the best European authorities where these plums have long
been known, where some of them have originated, and all may be
found in orchards, botanic gardens and herbaria, it does not seem
wise at this distance to attempt a discussion of such doubtful forms.
It is certain, however, that Borkhausen’s Prunus italica and Prunus
œconomica, as given in the synonymy, are but parts of Prunus
domestica, the first including the Reine Claude plums and the latter
the various prunes. So, too, a wild form named by Borkhausen,
Prunus sylvestris, is probably a part of Prunus domestica.
Bechstein[4] gave specific names to a number of plums which
Schneider[5] holds are all cultivated forms of Prunus domestica.
These names are not infrequently found in botanical and
pomological literature, to the great confusion of plum nomenclature.
The following are Bechstein’s species:—Prunus exigua, Prunus
rubella, Prunus lutea, Prunus oxycarpa, Prunus subrotunda and
Prunus vinaria.
The plum in which the world is chiefly interested is the Old World
Prunus domestica. The Domestica plums are not only the best
known of the cultivated plums, having been cultivated longest and
being most widely distributed, but they far surpass all other species,
both in the quality of the product and in the characters which make
a tree a desirable orchard plant. How much of this superiority is due
to the greater efforts of man in domesticating the species cannot be
said, for the natural history of this plum, whether wild or under
cultivation, is but poorly known. It is not even certain that these
plums constitute a distinct species, there being several hypotheses
as to the origin of the Domestica varieties. Three of these
suppositions must be considered.
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.
A second theory is that Prunus domestica is derived from Prunus
spinosa and that Prunus insititia is an intermediate between the two.
[6] This hypothesis is based upon the supposition that when
Domestica plums run wild they revert to the Insititia or Spinosa
form. It is not difficult to test this theory. A study of the origin of the
several hundred Domestica and Insititia plums discussed in Chapters
III and IV of The Plums of New York does not show for any one of
them a tendency to reversion or evolution to other species; nor do
the descriptions indicate that there are many, if any, transitional
forms. During the two thousand years they have been cultivated in
Europe the Old World plums have been constant to type. Domestica
seedlings vary somewhat but they do not depart greatly from a well
marked type. Such very few striking departures as there seem to be
are more likely to have arisen through crossing with other species
than through reversion or evolution. This Station has grown many
pure seedlings or crosses of varieties of Domestica within the species
and has had opportunity of examining many more from other parts
of the State, and none of these show reversion to the other two Old
World species. Nor, as we shall see, is there much in what is known
of the history of these three species to lead to the belief that the
Domestica, Insititia and Spinosa plums constitute but one wild
species or have arisen from one.
It has been remarked that there are few, if any, transitional forms
between the Domestica and other European plums. It is a significant
fact that Prunus domestica can be hybridized with other species of
plums only with comparative difficulty, species of plums as a rule
hybridizing very freely. This is as true with the Insititia and Spinosa
as of other plums, there being few recorded hybrids of either of
these species with the one under discussion. Quite to the contrary
the varieties of the several pomological groups of Domestica plums
hybridize very freely. If all were of one species we should expect
many hybrids between the Domestica, Insititia and Spinosa plums.
We are now left with the third hypothesis, which is, as we have
indicated in a preceding paragraph, that the varieties of Domestica
plums belong to one species; or if they have come from more than
one species the wild forms have not been distinguished and must
have grown under much more nearly similar conditions than is the
case with Prunus domestica and any other species. Without
knowledge of more than one wild form, and in view of the
intercrossing of the varieties of these plums it seems best to
consider all as parts of one species, leaving to the pomologist the
division of the species into horticultural groups founded on the
characters which make the fruit valuable for cultivation.
Assuming, then, that the plums known in pomology as Domestica
plums belong to one species, the original habitat of the species may
be sought. In spite of the great number of varieties of plums now
grown in Europe and western Asia, and the importance of the fruit
both in the green and dried state, the history of the plums cannot be
traced with much certainty beyond two thousand years. Though
stones, without doubt those of the Insititia or Damson and the
Spinosa or Blackthorn plums, are found in the remains of the lake
dwellings in central Europe[7] the pits of Domestica plums have not
yet come to light. In the summer of 1909 the writer, in visiting
historic Pompeii, became interested in the illustrations of fruits in the
frescoes of the ancient buildings, but neither in the houses of the
ruined city nor in the frescoes in the museums in Naples could he
find plums, though several other fruits, as apples, pears, figs and
grapes were many times illustrated. An examination of the remains
of plants preserved in the museum at Naples taken from under the
ashes and pumice covering Pompeii gave the same results. No
stone-fruits were to be found, though if widely used these should
have been on sale in the markets of Pompeii at the time of the
destruction of the city, which occurred late in August,—the very time
of the year at which the examination was made and at which time
plums were everywhere for sale in Rome. This observation is but
another indication that plums were not well-known before the
beginning of Christianity, since Pompeii was destroyed in 79 A. D. In
Greek literature the references to plums are few before the Christian
era and these are more likely to some form of Insititia, as the
Damsons, rather than to the Domesticas.

Pliny gives the first clear account of Domestica plums and speaks of
them as if they had been but recently introduced. His account is as
follows:[8] “Next comes a vast number of varieties of the plum, the
particolored, the black, the white, the barley plum, so-called because it is
ripe at Barley harvest, and another of the same color as the last, but
which ripens later, and is of a larger size, generally known as the ‘Asinina,’
from the little esteem in which it is held. There are the onychina, too, the
cerina,—more esteemed, and the purple plum; the Armenian, also an
exotic from foreign parts, the only one among the plums that
recommends itself by its smell. The plum tree grafted on the nut exhibits
what we may call a piece of impudence quite its own, for it produces a
fruit that has all the appearance of the parent stock, together with the
juice of the adopted fruit; in consequence of its being thus compounded
of both, it is known by the name of ‘nuci-pruna.’ Nut-prunes, as well as
the peach, the wild plum and the cerina, are often put in casks and so
kept till the crop comes of the following year. All the other varieties ripen
with the greatest rapidity and pass off just as quickly. More recently, in
Baetica, they have begun to introduce what they call ‘malina,’ or the fruit
of the plum engrafted on the apple tree, and ‘amygdalina,’ the fruit of the
plum engrafted on the almond tree, the kernel found in the stone of these
last being that of the almond. Indeed, there is no specimen in which two
 fruits have been more ingeniously combined in one. Among the foreign
trees we have already spoken of the Damascene plum, so-called from
Damascus, in Syria, but introduced long since into Italy, though the stone
of this plum is larger than usual, and the flesh small in quantity. This plum
will never dry so far as to wrinkle; to effect that, it needs the sun of its
own native country. The myxa, too, may be mentioned as being the fellow
countryman of the Damascene; it has of late been introduced into Rome
and has been grown engrafted upon the sorb.”

While the records are somewhat vague it is probable that the

Domestica plums came from the region about the Caucasus
Mountains and the Caspian Sea and especially the section east of
these mountains and the sea. What seems to be the wild form of
this species has been found by several botanists in this great region.
[9] Here the Huns, Turks, Mongols and Tartars, flowing back and
forth in tides of war-like migration, maintained in times of peace a
crude agriculture probably long before the Greeks and Romans tilled
the soil. The plum was one of their fruits and the dried prune a
staple product. Here, still, to the east, west and north toward central
Asia, plums are among the common fruits and prunes are common
articles of trade. Even in the fertile oases of the great central Asian
desert, plums are cultivated, but whether domesticated here or
brought from elsewhere cannot be told. Koch,[10] speaking of prunes
in particular, gives the following account (translated) of their Asiatic
origin:

“According to my investigation Turkestan and the southern Altai

Mountains are the place of origin. When in the year 1844 I found myself
in Baku on the west coast of the Caspian Sea, I had plenty of opportunity
to draw accounts of the fruits of their native lands from the Turkestan and
Bokharan merchants, and was astonished over the high cultivation of
stone fruits in these places—at the same time I was able to taste dried the
most choice because best flavored, the Ali-Bokhara, that is Bokhara prune.
Some of these Bokharan prunes were transplanted a long time ago to
Trans-Caucasia and were especially cultivated in the ancient city and
residence of the Ruler of the modern Elizabethpol. Unfortunately the
cultivation is less now than in earlier times. A further spread toward the
west and toward Europe, I have not been able to follow. In Greece, the
prunes are even to-day an unknown fruit.”
 At about the time Pliny wrote, or somewhat before,
communication had been opened between the Romans and the
countries about the Caspian Sea, and a few centuries later the
devastating hordes of Asiatics came westward and for several
centuries continued to pour into eastern Europe. What more
probable than that they should have carried dried prunes as an
article of food in the invasions, and eventually, as they made
settlements here and there, have introduced the trees in Europe. It
is certain, at any rate, as we shall see, that several of the groups of
cultivated plums trace back to the Balkan countries of Europe and
the region eastward. There, now as then, the plum is a standard
fruit and prune-making a great industry.
The plum when first known in Europe, as described by Pliny and
other early writers, seems to have been a large and well-flavored
fruit, indicating that it had been under cultivation for a long while.
This, and the fact that the fruit was not known by the earliest writers
on agriculture, indicate that the plum was not originally an
inhabitant of southern Europe, as some suppose. It is likely that the
tree has escaped from cultivation and become naturalized in the
localities where it is now supposed to grow wild. Prunus domestica
has not been found wild nor under cultivation in eastern Asia, so far
as can be learned by the botanical and horticultural explorers of
China and nearby regions, Prunus triflora being the domesticated
plum of that part of the continent, though it may well be surmised
that some of the Domestica plums are cultivated in western China, a
region as yet but imperfectly explored for its plants.
Having briefly sketched the origin of the Domestica plums in the
Old World we may now consider their history in the New World—a
more satisfactory task, as data are abundant and reliable.
The Domestica plums are valuable food-producing trees in
America but have not attained here the relative importance among
fruits that they hold in Europe. From the earliest records of fruit-
growing in the New World the plum has been grown less than the
apple, pear, peach or cherry, while in Europe it is a question if it
does not rank first or second among the tree-fruits. The
comparatively restricted area which the Domestica plums now
occupy in America is due, perhaps, to the fact that they do not
possess in as high degree as the fruits named above the power of
adaptation to the trans-Atlantic environment. Without question the
feature of environment most uncongenial to plums in America is the
climate. The plum thrives best in an equable climate like that of
eastern and southern Europe and of western America, and cannot
endure such extremes of heat and cold, wet and dry, as are found in
parts of eastern America and in the Mississippi Valley. At best this
fruit lacks in what is called constitution, or ability to withstand
adverse conditions of any kind, whether of climate, culture, insects
or fungi. Thus in America this plum suffers severely not only from
climate but from several parasites, as curculio, black-knot, leaf-
blight, plum-pockets and other pests.
We find, therefore, that in North America the Domestica plums are
confined to favored localities on the Atlantic seaboard, the Great
Lakes region and the Pacific coast. In the first named area they are
to be found thriving to a limited degree in Nova Scotia and parts of
Quebec, somewhat in central New England, and particularly well in
the fruit-growing sections of New York, especially in the parts of this
State where the climate is made equable by large bodies of water.
South of New York, excepting in a few localities in Pennsylvania, but
few plums of this species are grown. The Domestica plums are
grown with indifferent success in southern Ontario and in Michigan,
and now and then an orchard is found to the south almost to the
Gulf. In the great Valley of the Mississippi and in the states of the
plains this plum is hardly known. Westward in the irrigated valleys of
the Rocky Mountains and the Great Basin, the climate is favorable
and the European plums are nearly as well-known as in any other
portion of the continent excepting the Pacific Coast.
It is in the last named region that the foreign plum reaches its
highest development in the New World. The trees in California,
Oregon and Washington are very thrifty and the plums are of large
size, handsome appearance and of high quality. Both tree and fruit
in this favored region are free from most of the insect and fungus
troubles with which the eastern plum-growers must contend.
Curculio and black-knot, scourges of eastern orchards, are not
troublesome on the western coast. In this region the Domesticas,
practically the only plums cultivated, succeed on either irrigated or
naturally watered lands.
It is probable that some of these plums were introduced into
America by the first colonists, but if so, the early records do not
show that the fruit was much grown in this country until toward the
end of the Eighteenth Century. Certainly during the first two
centuries of colonization in the New World there were no such plum
plantations as there were of the apple, pear and cherry. Among the
first importations of plums were those made by the French in
Canada, more particularly in Nova Scotia, Cape Breton, Prince
Edward Island and in favored situations such as the L’Islet County
and the Island of Montreal bordering and in the St. Lawrence River.
Peter Kalm in his Travels into North America in 1771 records the
culture of plums as far north as Quebec with the statement that
“Plum trees of different sorts brought over from France succeed very
well here,” adding further, “The winters do not hurt them.”[11] There
are other records to show that the French, always distinguished for
their horticultural tastes, if not the first to grow this fruit in America,
at least began its culture at a very early date.
In the voyages undertaken for exploration and commerce soon
after the discovery of America by Columbus the peach was
introduced in America by the Spanish; for soon after permanent
settlement had been made in the South the settlers found this fruit
in widespread cultivation by the Indians and its origin could only be
traced to the Spaniards who early visited Florida and the Gulf region.
William Penn wrote as early as 1683 that there were very good
peaches in Pennsylvania; “not an Indian plantation was without
them.”[12] The abundance of this fruit was noted by all the early
travelers in the region from Pennsylvania southward and westward
but though the wild plums are often mentioned there are no records
of cultivated plums until the colonies had long been established.
In Massachusetts some plums were planted by the Pilgrims, for
Francis Higginson, writing in 1629, says: “Our Governor hath already
planted a vineyard with great hope of increase. Also mulberries,
plums, raspberries, corrance, chestnuts, filberts, walnuts, smalnuts,
hurtleberries.”[13] The plums were Damsons, as a statement is made
a little later that the “Red Kentish is the only cherry and the Damson
the only plum cultivated.” A further reference to this plum is made
by John Josselyn, when, writing of a voyage to New England in
1663, he says, “The Quinces, Cherries, Damsons, set the dames a
work, marmalad and preserved Damsons is to be met with in every
house.”[14]
In 1797 there is the following concise account of the plums
cultivated in New England:[15]

“The better sorts which are cultivated are the horse plum, a very
pleasant tasted fruit, of large size; the peach plum, red toward the sun,
with an agreeable tartness; the pear plum, so-called from its shape, which
is sweet, and of an excellent taste; the wheat plum, extremely sweet,
oval, and furrowed in the middle, not large; the green-gage plum, which is
generally preferred before all the rest.”

A search in the colonial records of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and

Delaware shows no records of cultivated plums in these states until
the establishment of the Bartram Botanic Garden near Philadelphia
in 1728. Here John Bartram grew fruits, trees and flowers of many
kinds received through exchanges of indigenous species with
European correspondents. Among the plants sent over from Europe
to Bartram were several varieties of plums which were propagated
and distributed throughout Pennsylvania and nearby provinces. It
must not be supposed, however, that the Domestica plums had not
been grown in Pennsylvania previous to Bartram’s time. The plum
grows fairly well in localities of this region, and without question it
had been planted by the early colonists with seeds brought from
across the sea. But the absence of references to the plum, where
they abound to the apple, pear, peach, quince and cherry, shows
that this fruit was not much cultivated by the Quakers and Swedes
who settled in the three states watered by the Delaware.
In the southern colonies the Domestica plums grow but poorly,
and as the early settlers of these states were chiefly concerned with
tobacco and cotton, paying little attention to fruits, we should expect
the plum to have been neglected. Then, too, the peach, escaped
from the early Spanish settlements, grew spontaneously in many
parts of the South, furnishing, with the wild plums of the region, an
abundant supply of stone-fruits. Yet the plum was early introduced
in several of the southern colonies.
Thus Beverly,[16] writing in 1722 of Virginia, says: “Peaches,
Nectarines and Apricocks, as well as plums and cherries, grow there
upon standard trees,” with the further statement that these fruits
grew so exceedingly well that there was no need of grafting or
inoculating them. Lawson,[17] in his history of North Carolina,
written in 1714, says that the Damson, Damazeen and a large,
round, black plum were the only sorts of this fruit grown in that
state in 1714.
In South Carolina Henry Laurens, who should be accounted a
benefactor not only of that State but of the whole country as well,
about the middle of the Eighteenth Century grew in Laurens Square
in the Town of Amonborough all the plants suitable to that climate
that widely extended merchantile connections enabled him to
procure. Thus among fruits he grew olives, limes, Alpine
strawberries, European raspberries and grapes, apples, pears and
plums. John Watson, one of Laurens’ gardeners, planted the first
nursery in South Carolina. His plantation was laid waste in the
Revolution, though it was afterwards revived by himself and his
descendants and was still further continued by Robert Squib. The
plum in several varieties was largely grown and distributed from this
nursery.
 Charleston, South Carolina, was at the beginning of the
Nineteenth Century the southern center of horticultural activities and
the European plum was widely distributed from here at this time. Of
the several botanic gardens, really nurseries, in Charleston, one was
conducted by André Michaux who was sent by the French
Government in 1786 to collect American plants. Another was owned
by John Champneys at St. Pauls, near Charleston, and was managed
by a Mr. Williamson who grew all of the species of trees, fruits and
shrubs, native and foreign, which could be procured.[18] The third of
these gardens was owned by Charles Drayton at St. Andrews in
which not only exotic fruits were grown but those of the region as
well. The plum trees frequently mentioned in the records of the time
as growing in this region came from these nurseries.
In Florida, as has been stated, the peach was introduced by the
Spanish explorers, but if the plum were also planted by the
Spaniards it quickly passed out with the cessation of cultivation. But
later there are records[19] of this and nearly all of the fruits of
temperate and sub-tropic climates having been grown at St.
Augustine and Pensacola. In the remarkable colony[20] founded by
Dr. Andrew Turnbull at New Smyrna, Florida, in 1763, the plum was
one of the fruits cultivated. It is not probable, however, that the
culture of this fruit was ever extensive in Florida as it does not thrive
there.
William Bartram, son of John Bartram the founder of the Bartram
Botanic Garden, set out on a botanical expedition through the
Southern States in 1773, which lasted five years. He records[21]
numerous observations on the horticulture of both the colonists and
the Indians. At Savannah, Georgia, he found gardens furnished with
all the cultivated fruit trees and flowers in variety. One of the earliest
settlements made by the English in Georgia was Frederica, and here
he found the peach, fig, pomegranate and other trees and shrubs
growing about the ruins; though not specifically mentioned, the
plum had probably been planted here with the other fruits. At the
junction of the Coose and Tallapoosa rivers in Alabama, there were
thriving apple trees, which had been set by the French at Pearl
Island in the last named state. Between Mobile and New Orleans,
Bartram found peaches, figs, grapes, plums and other fruits growing
to a high degree of perfection and such also was the case on a
plantation on the Mississippi in Louisiana near Baton Rouge.
These several references to plums show that this fruit was at least
tried in early colonial times, but it was not until after the
establishment of fruit-growing as an industry that any extensive
plantings were made. Pomology really began in America, though it
languished for the first half-century, at Flushing, Long Island, about
1730 with the establishment of a commercial nursery by Robert
Prince, first of four proprietors. Just when this nursery, afterwards
the famous Linnaean Botanic Garden, began to offer plums cannot
be said, but in 1767 one of their advertisements shows that they
were selling plum trees. As a possible indication that the fruit was
not highly esteemed at this period, an advertisement of trees for
sale from this nursery in the New York Mercury of March 14th, 1774,
does not offer plums. But in 1794 the catalog of the nursery offers
plums in variety. Indeed, as we shall see, William Prince had at this
time taken hold of the propagation and improvement of the
Domestica plums with great earnestness.
William Prince, third proprietor of the nursery founded by his
grandfather says in his Treatise of Horticulture,[22] “that his father,
about the year 1790 planted the pits of twenty-five quarts of Green
Gage plums; these produced trees yielding fruit of every color; and
the White Gage [Prince’s Imperial Gage], Red Gage and Prince’s
Gage, now so well known, form part of the progeny of these plums,
and there seems strong presumptive evidence to suppose that the
Washington Plum was one of the same collection.” In 1828 the
Prince nursery was offering for sale one hundred and forty varieties
of plums which William Prince states[23] “are a selection only of the
choicest kinds, in making which, the commoner fruits have been
altogether rejected.” Of the kinds grown, there were over twenty
thousand trees.[24] To this nursery, to William Prince and to William
Robert Prince,[25] the fourth proprietor in particular, belong the
credit of having given plum-growing its greatest impetus in America.
Other notable nurseries founded at the close of the Eighteenth
Century, which helped to establish plum culture in America, were
those of the Kenricks, of William Coxe, and of David Landreth and
Son. The Kenrick Nursery was founded in 1790 at Newton,
Massachusetts, by John Kenrick, under whom and his sons, William
and John A., the business was continued until 1870.[26] During a
large part of this period the Kenrick Nursery probably grew, imported
and disposed of a greater quantity of fruit trees than any other
nursery in New England. Coxe’s nursery was established in 1806, at
Burlington, New Jersey, but he had been growing fruit for many
years previous and was thus a pioneer pomologist before becoming
a nurseryman. In his book, A View of the Cultivation of Fruit Trees,
published in 1817, the first American book on pomology, he says[27]
he had been “for many years actively engaged in the rearing,
planting and cultivating of fruit trees on a scale more extensive than
has been attempted by any other individual of this country.” The
third of these nurseries, that of David Landreth and Son, was
conducted in connection with the seed establishment of that family
founded in Philadelphia in 1784. Their collection of fruits was among
the most extensive of the time and must have forwarded the
cultivation of the plum in that region.[28]
A century ago the fruit-growing of the country was largely in the
hands of amateurs and patrons of horticulture. Many varieties of
plums must have been introduced by these lovers of plants. Among
such growers of fruit was William Hamilton of Philadelphia, who
introduced the Lombardy poplar in 1784, and who in 1800 was
growing all the plants and fruits procurable in Europe. Ezekiel Henry
Derby of Salem, Massachusetts, one of the founders of the
Massachusetts Society for Promoting Agriculture, grew many choice
foreign plants in his garden, greenhouse, orchard and arboretum,
and attained well merited fame as a horticulturist.[29] Dr. David
Hosack, botanist and founder in 1801 of the Elgin Botanic Gardens in
what is now New York City, was one of the most distinguished
patrons of pomology of his time and grew many new fruits and
plants from Europe, afterwards placing them in the hands of the
horticulturists of the country.[30]
These are but a very few of the many men who, having wealth
and leisure, were engaged in growing fruits and plants as an
avocation but were adding greatly to the material and knowledge of
those to whom fruit-growing was a vocation. As a further example of
how much these men contributed to horticulture, a purchase made
by a member of the New York Horticultural Society may be cited. At
a meeting of the Society held in July, 1822, he mentioned a list of
fruit trees which he had purchased in Europe, comprising 784
varieties.[31]
The period during which American pomology may be said to have
been in the hands of wealthy amateurs began shortly after the close
of the Revolution and did not fully merge into that of commercial
pomology until the close of the Civil War. Soon after the beginning of
the Nineteenth Century, horticulture, in fact all agriculture, was
greatly stimulated by the publication of agricultural books[32] and
magazines[33] and the formation of agricultural and horticultural
societies.[34] The frequency of the names of these publications of a
century ago in The Plums of New York is an indication of the
contributions they made to the culture of the plum.
Having briefly outlined the history of the Domestica plums, we
come now to a discussion of what we have under cultivation in this
fruit. The Domestica plums, 950 or more mentioned in this text, may
be divided into several more or less distinct pomological groups.
These groups are of interest because in their history the evolution of
the plum under consideration is further developed; because such
groups are serviceable to plum-growers, as each division has
adaptation for particular conditions or particular purposes; and
because of their value to the breeder of plums since the largest and
best differentiated groups, as a rule, have their characters most
strongly fixed and may be relied upon to best transmit them to their
offspring.
Groups of plums in pomology are founded for most part upon the
characters of the fruit since these are most readily recognized by
fruit-growers. Yet whenever possible, leaf, flower and tree-characters
are considered. The name given is usually that of the best known
variety in the group though in some of the divisions the name is that
of the variety which seems to be intermediate in character between
the other members of the group.
The groups of plums recognized by pomologists were far more
distinct as we go back in their history. For, in the past, each fruit-
growing region had a pomology of its own in which the varieties of
any fruit were few and similar, constituting but one, or at most a
very few types. The various groups of plums, therefore, largely
represent distinct plum-growing regions. With the increase in
intercourse between the countries of the world, cultivated plums
have been taken from place to place and as new varieties have
originated, often from crosses between varieties, the dividing lines
between divisions have been more or less broken down. The first of
the groups to be considered is:—
The Reine Claude or Green Gage Plums.—This group is so
distinctive in several characters that some botanists and pomologists
separate it from other Domestica plums as a sub-species or
species[35] and in common parlance its numerous varieties are very
generally grouped together as “green gages” as if it were quite a
distinct fruit from other plums. It comprises a considerable number
of relatively small, round, mostly green or golden plums of so high
quality as to make them standards in this respect for all plums. The
Reine Claude is one of the oldest types of which there are records.
Its varieties reproduce themselves without much variation from seed
though there are a few sorts, possibly crosses with some other
group, which are doubtfully referred to the Reine Claudes. The later
history of these plums is most interesting and is reliable, for the
group is recognized and discussed by almost every European or
American pomologist who has written in three centuries.[36] The
early history is not so well known.
Where the Reine Claude plums originated no one knows. Koch[37]
says he has eaten wild plums in the Trans-Caucasian region, which
must be recorded with the Reine Claudes, but on the next page he
advances the theory that the group is a hybrid between Prunus
domestica and Prunus insititia. Schneider[38] puts the Reine Claudes
in Prunus insititia. The group seems to be a connecting link between
the two species named above, having so many characters in
common with each that it is exceedingly difficult to choose between
the two as possible parent species. Prunus domestica probably
originated in the Caucasian or Caspian region, and it is likely, as
Koch suggests, that the Reine Claudes were brought from there.
This is substantiated by the early pomologists, who say these plums
came originally from Armenia and were known as the Armenian
plums, coming eventually by the way of Greece to Italy. If this
statement of its origin be true, Columella[39] knew the fruit, for he
says:

—“then are the wicker baskets cramm’d

With Damask and Armenian and Wax plums.”

And so, too, Pliny refers to them[40] in his enumeration of varieties

in which he says: “the Armenian, also an exotic from foreign parts,
the only one among the plums that recommends itself by its smell.”
Hogg[41] says the Reine Claudes were brought from Greece to
Italy and cultivated in the latter country under the name Verdochia.
Hogg does not give his authority and his statement cannot be
verified in any other of the modern European pomologies to which
the authors of this work have had access. The very complete history
of the agricultural and horticultural plants of Italy[42] by Dr. Antonio
Targioni-Tozzetti does not give this name. Be that as it may, some
variety of this group was introduced into England under the name
Verdoch and at an early date, for in 1629 Parkinson[43] enumerates
it in his sixty sorts describing it as “a great, fine, green shining plum
fit to preserve.” Rea[44] in 1676 also lists and describes it as does
Ray,[45] 1688.
It is doubtful if Parkinson, Ray and Rea had the true Reine Claude,
however, for the Verdacchio, according to Gallesio,[46] one of the
best Italian authorities, is an obovate-shaped fruit while the Claudia
is a round one. Gallesio says the Claudia was cultivated in many
places about Genoa under the name Verdacchio rotondo; about
Rome and through Modenese, for a long time, as the Mammola; in
Piedmont as the Claudia; and in Tuscany as the Susina Regina. Now
(1839) he says, “it is known in all Italy under the name Claudia, and
has become so common as to be found in abundance in the gardens
and in the markets.”
The name Reine Claude, all writers agree, was given in honor of
Queen Claude, wife of Francis I, the fruit having been introduced
into France during the reign of that monarch which began in 1494
and ended 1547, these dates fixing as accurately as possible the
origin of the name. Green Gage, the commonest synonym of either
the Reine Claude group or of the variety, comes from the fact that
this fruit was introduced into England by the Gage family. Phillips[47]
gives the following account of its introduction into England:

“The Gage family, in the last century, procured from the monastery of
the Chartreuse at Paris, a collection of fruit trees. When these trees
arrived at the Mansion of Hengrave Hall, the tickets were safely affixed to
all of them, excepting only to the Reine Claude, which had either not been
put on, or had been rubbed off in the package. The gardener, therefore,
being ignorant of the name, called it, when it first bore fruit, the Green
Gage.”

Because of the high esteem in which the plums of this group have
always been held in England the early English colonists probably
brought seeds or plants of the Reine Claudes to America. This
supposition is strengthened by the fact that Prince, in his efforts in
1790 to improve plums, chose the “Green Gage,” planting the pits of
twenty-five quarts of plums of this variety. McMahon, in his list of
thirty varieties of plums, published in 1806, gives the names of at
least seven varieties belonging to this group. The varieties of the
group first came into America, without doubt, under one of the
Green Gage names, but afterwards, probably in the early part of the
Nineteenth Century, importations from France brought several
varieties under Reine Claude names though the identity of the plums
under the two names seems to have been recognized in American
pomology from the first.
In appearance the trees of this group are low and the heads well
rounded. The bark is dark in color and cracks rather deeply. The
shoots are thick and do not lose their pubescence. The leaves are
large, broad, more or less wrinkled, coarsely crenate and sometimes
doubly serrated, a character not usually found in Domestica plums,
and bear from one to four glands. The fruit is spherical or ovoid,
green or yellow, sometimes with a faint blush, stems short and
pubescent, suture shallow, bloom thin, texture firm, quality of the
best, flesh sweet, tender, juicy, stone free or clinging.
The leading varieties of the Reine Claude plums are: Reine Claude,
Bavay, Spaulding, Yellow Gage, Washington, McLaughlin, Hand,
Peters, Imperial Gage, Jefferson and Bryanston.
The Prunes.—In western America plum-growers usually speak of
any plum that can be cured, without removing the pit, into a firm,
long-keeping product as a prune. Such a classification throws all
plums with a large percentage of solids, especially of sugar, into this
group. But in Europe the term is used to designate a distinct
pomological group.[48] Since we have a number of varieties of plums
long known as prunes and to which no other term can be nearly so
well applied, it seems wise to follow the established European
custom of using the term as a group name as well as for a
commercial product which is made for most part from these plums.
The prune, as an article of commerce, all writers agree, originated
in Hungary in the Sixteenth Century and was at that time a very
important trading commodity with Germany, France and southern
Europe. If, as Koch surmises (see page 17), the prunes originated in
Turkestan or farther east—and the statements of other botanists and
writers tend to show that his view is correct—the spread of the
varieties of this group westward is readily explained. In the
migrations of the Huns, from western Asia to eastern Europe, in the
first thousand years of the Christian era, some Magyar or Hun intent
on cultivating the soil brought with him the prune-making plums
which, finding a congenial home, became the foundation of the
prune industry of Hungary in the Sixteenth Century. In subsequent
commercial intercourse with western Europe the latter region was
enriched by these prune-making plums from Hungary.
In America this group is now by far the most important one
commercially, though prunes were not introduced into this country
until comparatively recent years. The early lists of plums do not
include any of the prunes and even as late as 1806 McMahon only
mentions in the thirty varieties given by him but one, “the Prune
Plum.” William Prince in 1828 speaks only of the “monstrous
prune,”[49] but in such a way as to lead one to believe that neither
it, nor any other prune, was then cultivated in America.[50] In 1831
William Robert Prince in his Pomological Manual describes from this
group only the German Prune and the “Agen Date,” or Agen. Indeed,
it was not until the beginning of the prune industry in California,
about 1870, that the varieties of this group began to be at all
popular though an attempt was made by the United States Patent
Office to start the prune industry on the Atlantic seaboard by the
distribution of cions of two prunes in 1854.[51]
The growth of the prune industry on the Pacific Coast is one of the
most remarkable industrial phenomena of American agriculture.
About 1856, Louis Pellier, a sailor, brought to San Jose, California,
cions of the Agen from Agen, France. Some time afterward a larger
plum, the Pond, was also imported from France, supposedly from
Agen, and to distinguish the two, the first was called Petite Prune,
by which name it is now very commonly known in the far west. The
first cured prunes from this region were exhibited at the California
State Fair in 1863; commercial orchards began to be planted about
1870, and the first shipments of cured prunes were probably made
in 1875.[52] In 1880 the output per annum was about 200,000
pounds; in 1900 the yearly capacity was estimated to be about
130,000,000 pounds, valued by the producers at $450,000.[53]
The typical varieties of this group are the Italian, German, Agen,
Tragedy, Tennant, Sugar, Giant, Pacific and the Ungarish.
The distinguishing characters of the group are to be found in the
fruit, which is usually large, oval, with one side straighter than the
other, usually much compressed with a shallow suture, blue or
purple, with a heavy bloom, flesh greenish-yellow or golden, firm,
quality good, stone free. The trees are various but are usually large,
upright and spreading with elliptical leaves having much pubescence
on the under surface.
The Perdrigon Plums.—The Perdrigons constitute an old but
comparatively unimportant group of plums.[54] The name comes
from an old time geographical division of Italy.[55] The Perdrigon
plums, especially the varieties having this name, have been grown
extensively for two centuries about Brignoles, France, where they
are cured and sold as Brignoles prunes. Since they are much grown
in what was formerly the province of Touraine, France, they are
sometimes called Touraine plums. The early pomological writers, as
the Princes, Kenrick, Coxe, and even Downing, described White,
Red, Violet, Early and Norman Perdrigon plums, but these are not
now listed in either the pomologies or the nurserymen’s catalogs of
this country though the group is represented by Goliath, Late
Orleans and Royal Tours. These plums might almost be included with
the Imperatrice group, differing only in the smaller and rounder
fruits.
The Yellow Egg Plums.[56]—There are but few varieties belonging
to this group, but these are very distinct, and include some of the
largest and handsomest plums. The origin of varieties of this group
can be traced back over three centuries and it is somewhat
remarkable that the size and beauty of the Yellow Egg Plums have
not tempted growers during this time to produce a greater number
of similar varieties. Rea,[57] in 1676, described the Yellow Egg under
“Magnum Bonum or the Dutch Plum” as “a very great oval-formed
yellowish plum, and, according to the name, is good as well as
great.” The Imperial, which afterward became the Red Magnum
Bonum, is mentioned by Parkinson[58] in 1629 as “Large, long,
reddish, waterish and late.” Earlier names in France, how early
cannot be said, were Prune d’Oeuf, yellow, white, red and violet, or
the Mogul with these several colors, and the Imperiale with the three
or four colors. Later the name d’Aubert was applied to the Yellow
Egg. Though this fruit was first known in England as the Imperiall,
and later as the Magnum Bonum, it has been grown for at least two
centuries in that country as the Yellow Egg, and under this name
came to America in the latter part of the Eighteenth Century.
Koch[59] places these plums in the Date-plum family. The varieties of
this group now grown and more or less well-known are Yellow Egg,
Red Magnum Bonum, Golden Drop and Monroe.
The characters which readily distinguish the Yellow Egg group are,
—the large size of the fruit, possibly surpassing all other plums in
size, the long-oval shape, more or less necked, yellow or purple
color and the yellow flesh. The plums are produced on tall, upright-
spreading trees.
The Imperatrice Plums.—This is a poorly defined assemblage of
varieties, of which dark blue color, heavy bloom, medium size and
oval shape are the chief characters. It is impossible to trace the
origin of the group or to refer varieties to it with accuracy. The
Imperatrice, of which Ickworth is an offspring, seems to have been
one of the first of the blue plums to receive general recognition, and
can as well as any other variety give name to the type. This group
contains by far the greatest number of varieties of any of the
divisions as here outlined, chiefly because the color, the size, and the
shape are all popular with growers and consumers. This has not
always been the case, for in the old pomologies, blue plums are
comparatively few in number, Parkinson, for instance, giving in his
list of sixty in 1629 not more than a half-dozen Domesticas that are
blue.
Among the varieties that fall into this group are:—Ickworth,
Diamond, Arch Duke, Monarch, Englebert, Shipper, Arctic, Smith
Orleans and Quackenboss.
About the only characters that will hold for this large and variable
group are those of the fruits as given above, though to these may be
added for most of the varieties included in the division, thick skin
and firm flesh, clinging stones and poor quality. The trees vary much
but are usually hardy, thrifty and productive, making the members of
the group prime favorites with commercial fruit-growers.
The Lombard Plums.—Just as the blue plums have been thrown in
the last named group, so we may roughly classify a number of red or
reddish or mottled varieties in one group. If the oldest name
applicable to this group were given it should be called after the
Diaper plums, well-known and much cultivated French sorts of two
and three centuries ago. Since they are no longer cultivated, and as
the Lombard seems to be a direct offspring of them and is fairly
typical of the division, the name chosen is as applicable as any.
These plums differ but little from those of the preceding group,
except in color and in having a more obovate shape, a more marked
suture, smaller size and possibly even greater hardiness and
productiveness, and if anything, even poorer quality, though to this
last statement there are several marked exceptions. In this group
are no doubt many varieties which are crosses between some of the
old red plums and varieties of the other groups given.
The following sorts may be named as belonging here:—Lombard,
Bradshaw, Victoria, Pond, Duane, Autumn Compote, Belle,
Middleburg and Field.

2. PRUNUS INSITITIA Linnaeus