Varieties That Have Persevered

As all of you know, the SSE Winter Yearbook contains descriptions of a few thousand tomatoes. All told, the SSE Heritage Farm holds seed samples of more than 3500 named varieties. One wonders how many of these are truly different, as there has certainly been far less than that number actually “developed” by seed companies or other plant breeders. Since the SSE lists only open-pollinated, or non-hybrid, varieties, and little breeding work on these types has been carried out since the advent of hybrids (probably in the 1950’s or so), many of the SSE listed types are probably mutations or sports, garden crossings, selections, and local or family renaming of known varieties. Untangling this web of variety confusion would be a daunting, if not impossible, task.

The point of this article, however, is to look at some of the significant tomatoes that have been developed and decide whether they still exist. A major sources for this information is a Michigan State agricultural bulletin from 1938 that described various tomato varieties available at that time. Old seed catalogs from the late 1800’s/early 1900’s provided additional information. One thing to keep in mind is that bees can cross tomatoes, and there is evidence that in areas where sweat bees are prevalent, this can become a problem. What this means is that it is likely that the old commercially released tomatoes, such as Stone or Acme, may not be exactly the same as they were when developed and released, since it is unlikely that any variety has been grown in isolation for the last 100 years or so.

Aside from the smaller fruited cherry, currant, plum and pear tomatoes, which have been known since the mid 1800’s and earlier, this article will focus upon larger, or slicing, tomatoes which were specifically developed by breeders or observant gardeners or farmers. A. W. Livingston was paramount in these early efforts, and he in fact released a number of named varieties between 1870 and 1900. These resulted primarily from noticing a distinctly different variety growing in a field or plot of another, such as one plant bearing red fruit in a plot of a pink variety. He also developed some of his varieties from seed that various customers sent to him.

Starting in about 1900, new varieties were created by crossing or hybridizing varieties, which is the method currently being used to create the many hybrids that populate the majority of today’s seed catalogs. The main difference is that rather than release the F1 generation (hybrid) seed, the process of growing out, selecting and, therefore, stabilizing open pollinated varieties was used. This is the manner in which Rutgers and Marglobe were derived. This process is used today for the development of new OP’s.

As I stated earlier in this article, the vast majority of tomatoes in the SSE collection were never commercially developed or available, being local or family developments or renamings. The following tomatoes were actually developed, named and offered in various seed catalogs, and are offered in the SSE Winter Yearbook. Listed will be the tomato name, color, and approximate date of introduction: Acme (pink, 1875), Golden Queen (yellow, 1882), Stone (red, 1889), Peach (fuzzy, pink, 1891), Ponderosa (pink, 1891), Dwarf Champion (pink, 1892), Earliana (red, 1900), Chalk’s Early Jewel (red, 1905), Livingston Globe (pink, 1905), Greater Baltimore (red, 1905), June Pink (pink, 1907), Bonny Best (red, 1908), Early Detroit (pink, 1909), Gulf State Market (pink, 1921), Abraham Lincoln (red, 1923), Cooper’s Special (pink, 1923), Winsall (pink, 1925), Marglobe (red, 1925), Break O’Day (red, 1931), Pritchard’s Scarlet Topper (red, 1931), Oxheart (pink, 1932), and Rutgers (red, 1937). In addition, there are tomatoes in the SSE collection that fit the description, but do not have the same name, as the following: Early Large Smooth Red (1868, like Large Early Red); White Apple (1887, like Transparent); Mikado, or Turner’s Hybrid (1889, like Brandywine); and Honor Bright (1898, perhaps like Lutescent).

Among those that are either extinct or otherwise renamed are: Large Yellow (1868), Tilden’s (1868), Large White China Sugar (1868), Large Red Fegee (1868), Keyes’ Early Prolific (1869), General Grant (1871), Hubbard’s Curled Leaf (1872), Trophy (1872), Canada Victor (1874), Hathaway’s Excelsior (1876), Early Conqueror (1876), Triumph (1879),Paragon (1880), Essex Early Hybrid (1891), Golden Trophy (1879), Alpha (1882), Favorite (1883), Optimus (1885), Beauty (1887), Cincinnati Purple (1887), Ignotum (1891), Royal Red (1893), Buckeye State (1895), Magnus (1901), and Dwarf Stone (1905).

It is interesting to note that some of the tomatoes that have persevered are rather unremarkable, such as Stone and Chalk’s Early Jewel, being rather ordinary red varieties. Some, such as Abraham Lincoln, no longer seem to match the descriptions originally used in the old seed catalogs. And, still other varieties that are so popular in the SSE, such as the bicolor beefsteaks (Ruby Gold, Big Rainbow, Georgia Streak, Marizol Gold, etc.) and long plum types (Long Tom, Opalka, Super Italian Paste), never appeared in the old catalogs; they may be imports from Europe, or varieties that were bred by home gardeners, or even mutations that showed up along the way.

I am constantly accumulating information on older varieties, and do not consider the above lists in any way complete. But, it gives us a place to start in trying to make sense out of the tomatoes that we have, and are missing from, the SSE collection. I hope that this article will encourage many of you to write to us and share some of your experiences with the varieties that you have collected or brought to the SSE, especially in their history.