242 JOURNAI, OF FORESTRY 



groups of longleaf pine on northern slopes on opposite sides of a ravine. 

 Tlie first of these groups contained five longleaf-pine trees scattered 

 over an area of approximately one-half acre, which had been repeatedly 

 cut over and cleared of undergrowth by repeated minor fires. One of 

 these individuals was a large, rugged patriarch. Aside from the five 

 specimens mentioned, there were no other longleaf-pine trees in the 

 group noticeable above the coarse grass, although at the time (July, 

 1913) no attempt was made to determine the presence of seedlings. 



The second group, separated from the former by a ravine and the 

 woody crown of a knoll, when first observed contained four longleaf- 

 pine trees, three of which had attained full cone-bearing age, the larger 

 being about six feet in girth. But one seedling was observed. The soil 

 in both situations was the same and the ground cover of Pteris, Te- 

 phrosia, and coarse grass was strikingly similar. 



The two groups were again visited in July, 191 5, prior to which a 

 fire had occurred in and near the first group, particularly over a culti- 

 vated adjacent field, which had grown up to weeds mixed with a scrub 

 growth of bush and brambles. The fire exposed a thriving colony of 

 young longleaf pine over the formerly cultivated field. Although the 

 seed trees stood on the border between the field and the copsewood, 

 reproduction was confined to the old field. The longleaf-pine seedlings 

 had, without a single exception, withstood the fire, while the weeds were 

 killed. 



The writer contends that the pine seedlings, save the strongest among 

 them, would have perished but for the timely interference of their 

 powerful ally, the fire, which swept away all rivals and left the pines 

 in undisputed possession of the soil. 



On the other side of the ravine the other group had not experienced 

 a fire and the single seedling found at the time of the first visit was 

 again found with difficulty. 



In the reviewer's opinion, the writer has drawn his conclusions from 

 the comparison of two sites where the conditions for natural reproduc- 

 tion were entirely unlike. In the first group reproduction is confined 

 to a formerly cultivated field. The burning revealed seedlings already 

 there. There were no abandoned cultivated fields similarly situated in 

 reference to the second group, and the inference is there were no seed- 

 lings to be revealed had a fire occurred. 



The article presents no convincing proof that fire made the repro- 

 duction on the abandoned field possible, but rather that the seedlings 

 that started there were able to survive the fire. Their presence there 

 and not elsewhere was most likely due to changed soil and cover con- 



