In article ,
Sacha writes:
| On 14/8/08 16:14, in article ,
| "Martin" wrote:
|
| Blame the Romans?
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damson
|
| I always thought they were just wild plums.
|
| Thanks, Martin. Have printed that off for them outdoors!

But warn them it's got it hopelessly wrong! Here is the situation.

Prunus domestica originated in the Near East in prehistoric times
(or possibly JUST into historic ones), and spread west with the
Neolithic farmers. Insanely, it is classified by the botanical
taxonomists as introduced, to distinguish it from beech (which
is classified as native), despite them having almost identical
pollen records. But either could have been carried across the
channel by a bird. Bluntly, nobody knows, and the classifications
are nonsense.

They don't even know if it is a natural hexaploid or was bred;
anyway, it is a cross between P. spinosa and P. cerasifera, the
sloe and myrobalan. The wild ones are normally called bullaces
in the UK, but there is essentially no difference between a
damson and a bullace, and some people reserve the name bullace
for small, yellow plums. The first paragraph of the following
abstract explains all :-)

http://www.actahort.org/books/283/283_2.htm

If you tell the French people that a damson bears the same
relationship to a Victoria plum as a peche de vigne does to a
supermarket peach, they may understand.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.