English limber and Underwood. 123 



transport. The introduction of coal, iron, wire and other 

 substitutes for wood also helped to ruin our old local markets 

 for woodland produce, with the result that coppice and timber 

 depreciated until producers were inclined to give up the 

 unequal fight as hopeless. To institute new and up-to-date 

 methods of timber production was almost impossible in many 

 cases, owing to want of capital and other reasons. The old 

 system of " coppice with standards " was looked upon as out of 

 date and hopeless. Since good clean timber was in demand, a 

 general system of high forest was advocated, similar to that in 

 vogue in many districts on the Continent, in order to produce 

 timber of equal quality to the foreign imports. 



In a country that for its size is unique in its variety of 

 geological formations, soils, aspects and local conditions, it was 

 inevitable that opinions should differ as to the trees to be 

 generally planted. Naturally, perhaps, we experimented with 

 all sorts of varieties and mixtures of trees without sufficient 

 consideration of their individual requirements and conflicting 

 peculiarities. 



The same causes led to the planting of mixtures of many 

 varieties in the hope that some, at least, would flourish. In 

 many cases the mixture itself was not so much at fault as the 

 want of method afterwards. Conifers were planted as " nurses " 

 to the hardwoods, and, since the nurse was not cut out when 

 originally intended, the nurse killed the child. It is impossible 

 to enumerate the advantages and disadvantages of different 

 mixtures, but, to instance only one as an illustiation, take the 

 familiar mixture of larch and Scots pine. The natural require- 

 ments of these two trees as to soil and general treatment are 

 very different. To ensure proper suppression of side-branches 

 in the Scots pine (which are specially objectionable in this tree), 

 it should be planted very close, and for many years it is impor- 

 tant not to thin too heavily, so that height and also clean growth 

 may be secured. The larch is about the most useless of all trees 

 for suppressing the side branches of Scots pine. In direct 

 opposition to the requirements of Scots pine, few trees really 

 require more light and room than larch. A thinning must be 

 therefore good for one and bad for the other. If it is intended 

 to cut out the Scotch in the thinnings to ensure a crop of 

 mature larch, few trees are more valueless than Scots pine 

 thinnings. Furthermore, few thinnings are more dangerous, 

 either when felled or when used as fencing rails, &c., close to 

 other trees of Scots pine, owing to the fine breeding ground 

 for the pine beetle which the poles provide, if left utibarked. 



Enough has been said to illustrate the importance of full 

 consideration before planting, even in the case of a mixture of 

 only two varieties. When, as is common, in addition to larch 



