33 
‘observed burrows less than one inch long, some of which 
containing a few eggs already laid, had been abandoned 
uncompleted by the beetles, apparently on account of the 
presence of a fluid which must have been sap, as no rain had 
fallen to account for it.” 
At a meeting of the Woolhope Club, at which I was present, 
and which was attended by a member of our club, the late Mr. 
Broome and other very great authorities on the subject of Fungi, 
the question was raised whether the attacks of the Fungi were the 
cause or the consequence of the tree being in a dying condition. 
The opinion of those present was (I think unanimous) that it was 
the consequence, and that Fungi did not appear on a healthy tree. 
It was not beetles or Fungi that killed these fine trees. 
My paper has already extended to too great a length, and I do 
not, therefore, propose to go into any minute account of the 
species and varieties of the Elm. This can be found in many 
easily accessible books. The account given in “ Selby’s British 
Forest Trees” is very interesting. The short account in 
* Hooker’s Students’ Flora of the British Islands” contains the 
present botanical view on the subject by the highest authority. 
To these I would refer. We have already seen that it is now 
considered that there are two species only, U/mus Camfpestris (the 
English Elm) and U/mus Montana (the Scotch Elm). 
The following is a good description of their difference in 
“habit :” (1) “In some Elms the branches and head are generally 
subordinate to an elongated conspicuous central trunk, as is seen 
in the usual growth and appearance of U/mus Campestris and 
most of its varieties. In U/mus Montana, on the contrary, the 
central column becomes divided at a greater or less height in the 
great diverging boughs or arms which form the head of the tree!” 
The chief dofantcal distinction is that in U/mus Campestris the 
fruit is deeply notched, the notch almost reaching the seed-bearing 
(1) ‘*Selby’s British Forest Trees,” p. 102. 
