Current Literature 733 



practically similar plant associations, which is about 35 acres 

 per head, according to forest officers. 



In this connection it may be noted that this range reserve has, 

 within the past year, been turned over by the Bureau of Plant 

 Industry to the Forest Service, which is conducting further graz- 

 ing and range studies on it, which should produce additional 

 valuable data. 



J. D. G. 



Forest Products of Canada, 1914, 1915: Pulpwood; Poles and 

 Cross-Ties; Lumber, Lath and Shingles. Bulletins 54, 55, 56, 58B. 

 Dominion Forestry Branch. Ottawa, Canada. 1915 and 1916. 

 Pp. 18, 15, 62, 12. 



The improvement in methods of collecting statistics has one 

 serious drawback in their use ; it prevents useful direct comparison 

 with former years, which is the main object of statistical inquiry. 

 In the present report on lumber, the completeness of the figures 

 for Quebec and British Colimibia — and the report accentuates it — 

 is inimical to comparison with former years. No attempt is made 

 in any year to ascertain the degree of completeness of the data, and 

 no attempt to discuss with that knowledge present and past con- 

 ditions; they are simply set in juxtaposition. Since no statement 

 as regards the actual completeness is made, it may be assumed 

 that the totals are understatements. 



The total cut of lumber for Canada remains slightly below 4 

 billion feet b. m., at a value of 60 million dollars, to which a little 

 over 5 million is to be added for lath and shingles. Over 93 per 

 cent is coniferous limiber, 84 per cent of which is furnished by five 

 species, spruce (without species distinction) furnishing by far the 

 largest cut (36.5%), White pine (16.9%) and Douglas fir (15.3%) 

 sharing almost equally second rank, hemlock (8.5%) and fir 

 (6.5%), the last two together representing nearly the same as 

 the Douglas fir. In the small cut of hardwoods (6.8%), birch 

 and maple play the largest rdle, with basswood, elm and poplar 

 together making a second. 



In enumerating the species cut into lumber, the office still 

 suggests the presence of Betula lenta and populifolia. The oc- 

 currence of the former in Canada is altogether doubtful, and 

 neither it nor the latter, we venture to say, would be lumber 

 trees. 



