We had some people in today who live in France and they were looking for
Damsons which they say seem to be unknown there (Paris and Corsica) This
got us onto what is the difference between a Damson and a Plum because both
are Prunus and probably domestica? I understand that damsons tend to make
smaller trees but if anyone can explain in terms of flavour or use,
enquiring minds would be really grateful. ;-)

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

On 14/8/08 16:14, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:08:32 +0100, Sacha wrote:

We had some people in today who live in France and they were looking for
Damsons which they say seem to be unknown there (Paris and Corsica) This
got us onto what is the difference between a Damson and a Plum because both
are Prunus and probably domestica? I understand that damsons tend to make
smaller trees but if anyone can explain in terms of flavour or use,
enquiring minds would be really grateful. ;-)

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!

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

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.

Oops. Sorry. I forgot to mention that the Romans DID introduce their
variety of 'plums of Damascus', and that bit is right. But the plant
was already established over much of the UK, under another name.
That was controversial for years, but pollen records have clarified
the situation.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 14/8/08 16:52, in article , "Nick
Maclaren" wrote:


Oops. Sorry. I forgot to mention that the Romans DID introduce their
variety of 'plums of Damascus', and that bit is right. But the plant
was already established over much of the UK, under another name.
That was controversial for years, but pollen records have clarified
the situation.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

English people living in bits of France, btw. ;-) But I will correct that
info and pass it on to them outdoors. What rather surprised me was just
how huge the Prunus grouping is. Given that taxonomists seem to spend half
their time confusing the likes of me by changing the name of some perfectly
happy and innocent plant, how is it that Prunus is such a big LUMP of a
thing?!

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

In message , Martin
writes
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:08:32 +0100, Sacha wrote:

We had some people in today who live in France and they were looking for
Damsons which they say seem to be unknown there (Paris and Corsica) This
got us onto what is the difference between a Damson and a Plum because both
are Prunus and probably domestica? I understand that damsons tend to make
smaller trees but if anyone can explain in terms of flavour or use,
enquiring minds would be really grateful. ;-)

Blame the Romans?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damson

I always thought they were just wild plums.

There is a smallish tree in the park just beyond my garden fence which
bears a damson-like fruit some years. It's a darn nuisance because
it drops them on my garden, and because small boys climb the tree and
throw them at my house if they spot them

I did try eating one, but it didn't taste like a plum, and the windfalls
were all bruised.
--
Gordon H

In article ,
Sacha writes:
|
| English people living in bits of France, btw. ;-) But I will correct that
| info and pass it on to them outdoors. What rather surprised me was just
| how huge the Prunus grouping is. Given that taxonomists seem to spend half
| their time confusing the likes of me by changing the name of some perfectly
| happy and innocent plant, how is it that Prunus is such a big LUMP of a
| thing?!

Dunno. But some genera have been very successful - especially if
they are somewhat promiscuous in their mating, as Prunus is.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Sacha writes

English people living in bits of France, btw. ;-) But I will correct that
info and pass it on to them outdoors. What rather surprised me was just
how huge the Prunus grouping is. Given that taxonomists seem to spend half
their time confusing the likes of me by changing the name of some perfectly
happy and innocent plant, how is it that Prunus is such a big LUMP of a
thing?!

The taxonomic system is an attempt to reflect the 'family tree' of the
plants involved. Therefore the assumption is that the various species of
Prunus are closely enough related to justify them all being in the same
genus (or, conversely, that they are not sufficiently different to
justify a split).

Or it could be that Prunus taxonmists tend to be 'lumpers' rather than
'splitters' ;-)

How many species does Prunus have? Thymus apparently has around 350
--
Kay

In article ,
K writes:
|
| The taxonomic system is an attempt to reflect the 'family tree' of the
| plants involved. Therefore the assumption is that the various species of
| Prunus are closely enough related to justify them all being in the same
| genus (or, conversely, that they are not sufficiently different to
| justify a split).
|
| Or it could be that Prunus taxonmists tend to be 'lumpers' rather than
| 'splitters' ;-)
|
| How many species does Prunus have? Thymus apparently has around 350

Well, there are about 70 in Bean. What is now Prunus used to be
half a dozen different genera, but they were 'lumped' - whether
that was justified or not, I can't say. The old Prunus was just
the plums.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Gordon H writes:
|
| There is a smallish tree in the park just beyond my garden fence which
| bears a damson-like fruit some years. It's a darn nuisance because
| it drops them on my garden, and because small boys climb the tree and
| throw them at my house if they spot them
|
| I did try eating one, but it didn't taste like a plum, and the windfalls
| were all bruised.

What did they taste like? And what is the stone like?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In message , K
writes
Sacha writes

English people living in bits of France, btw. ;-) But I will correct that
info and pass it on to them outdoors. What rather surprised me was just
how huge the Prunus grouping is. Given that taxonomists seem to spend half
their time confusing the likes of me by changing the name of some perfectly
happy and innocent plant, how is it that Prunus is such a big LUMP of a
thing?!

The taxonomic system is an attempt to reflect the 'family tree' of the
plants involved. Therefore the assumption is that the various species
of Prunus are closely enough related to justify them all being in the
same genus (or, conversely, that they are not sufficiently different to
justify a split).

Or it could be that Prunus taxonmists tend to be 'lumpers' rather than
'splitters' ;-)

How many species does Prunus have? Thymus apparently has around 350

Fide Wikipedia Prunus has 430 species. (I would have guessed 100-200.)

Hibiscus has about 300 (there's a proposal which would take it up to
700). Veronica 500. Euphorbia over 2000. Acacia over 1000 (but that
might be before it was broken, but the rump Acacia is much the biggest
of the new genera). Senecio 1500 (but that's likely to be broken up).
Vernonia of the order of 1000.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In message , Nick Maclaren
writes

In article ,
K writes:
|
| The taxonomic system is an attempt to reflect the 'family tree' of the
| plants involved. Therefore the assumption is that the various species of
| Prunus are closely enough related to justify them all being in the same
| genus (or, conversely, that they are not sufficiently different to
| justify a split).
|
| Or it could be that Prunus taxonmists tend to be 'lumpers' rather than
| 'splitters' ;-)
|
| How many species does Prunus have? Thymus apparently has around 350

Well, there are about 70 in Bean. What is now Prunus used to be
half a dozen different genera, but they were 'lumped' - whether
that was justified or not, I can't say. The old Prunus was just
the plums.

Prunus - plums
Amygdalus - almond
Armeniaca - apricot
Persica - peach
Cerasus - cherries
Padus - more cherries
Laurocerasus - cherry laurels

(per Komarov, 1971, fide Lee & Wen 2001)

But a single genus has been the most common position for a long time
(e.g. Bentham & Hooker, 1865).

Molecular systematics work doesn't support the split genera, but the
clade as a whole doesn't look well resolved. For the latest (April) word
on the topic see

http://www.plantsystematics.com/qika...g/jse08050.pdf

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley writes:
|
| Well, there are about 70 in Bean. What is now Prunus used to be
| half a dozen different genera, but they were 'lumped' - whether
| that was justified or not, I can't say. The old Prunus was just
| the plums.
|
| Prunus - plums
| Amygdalus - almond
| Armeniaca - apricot
| Persica - peach
| Cerasus - cherries
| Padus - more cherries
| Laurocerasus - cherry laurels
|
| (per Komarov, 1971, fide Lee & Wen 2001)
|
| But a single genus has been the most common position for a long time
| (e.g. Bentham & Hooker, 1865).
|
| Molecular systematics work doesn't support the split genera, but the
| clade as a whole doesn't look well resolved. For the latest (April) word
| on the topic see
|
| http://www.plantsystematics.com/qika...g/jse08050.pdf

Thanks. But it seems to be yet another single gene/whatever analysis,
and therefore as likely to be completely misleading as not!

Especially for a genus like Prunus :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message
from Sacha contains these words:

English people living in bits of France, btw. ;-) But I will correct that
info and pass it on to them outdoors. What rather surprised me was just
how huge the Prunus grouping is. Given that taxonomists seem to spend half
their time confusing the likes of me by changing the name of some perfectly
happy and innocent plant, how is it that Prunus is such a big LUMP of a
thing?!

hyperbole="slight"

Huh! If you want meddling boffins, look no further than mycology.
Practically every mycologist of note and many of none, classify fungi in
the genus of their own naming using different criteria.

/hyperbole

A mushroom can appear in one genus (say, Tricholoma) according to an
'authority', and in another (say, Lepista) according to another.

Obviously closely-related species get bunged out of one genus where it
had seemed well-established and dropped into another on (say) the colour
of spores.

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:

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 :-)

IME bullaces, if set loose and allowed to grow, are borne on much more
slender stock than damsons, which tend to be a chunkier tree altogether.

TAAAW, black bullaces (the fruit) are much more variable than cultivated
damsons, both in shape and size.

Locally, there's a tree I collect bullaces from, and I need a ten-foot
bamboo with a net on top to pick them. These are plump, sweet, and
plum-shaped, though small. Another stand about half a mile away are
little bigger than sloes, and pretty nearly spherical. In a hedge on the
smallholding I used to have, apart from the golden bullaces, there were
big, victoria plum-shaped black bullaces, about the size of the top
joint of a man's thumb.

I suspect that cross-pollination is alive and well...

To make a fruit-picking net: acquire enough thick fencing wire or
similar to make a loop large enough to accept a goodly-sized apple.

Bend it in the middle to make a tapered 'beak' like the spout of a jug,
and bend the rest into the loop.

Using a cloth bag of some sort - stocking, sock, etc, sew, stick or
staple it so that it is fixed to the loop, then lash the loop to a pole.

The 'beak' is so that you can manoeuvre the fruit into the bag, then
draw the loop back so that the stalk is in the point of the beak.

That way, the fruit finds it difficult to foil your intentions.

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig