770 



FARMERS' REGISTER— DIFFERENT SPECIES OF COTTON. 



in Georgia. The seed are scarce, and it will prob- 

 ably be some years before it is produced in abun- 

 dance. Indeed it is probable that the market ne- 

 ver will require a great quantity of it. 



I lei'l a curiosity to know what species ofcotton 

 it is which is now cultivated in Ea;ypt, and wheth- 

 er it is prejiared for market by the suw-giii I I 

 perceive by the Liverpool price currents, that the 

 Egyptian cotton ranks next to our sea islands, and 

 much above our upland cotton. This leads me to 

 suppose that it is not the G. herbaceum, (which 

 however has been long cultivated in Syria and the 

 Levant,) and I know not what other species it 

 may be. It" any of your correspondents, either in 

 this country, or in Europe, can give information 

 on this point, I sliould be glad if he would commu- 

 nicate it through the Register. It would al.so be 

 desirable to procure some of the seed of the Egyp- 

 tian cotton and have it tried in some of the south- 

 ern states. Our consul at Marseilles might pro- 

 cure the seed from Alexandria, and ship them to 

 the United States.* 



In my remarks on Mr. Spalding's article on cot- 

 ton, I have given the specific characters of the 

 gossypium barbadense. It may be well to add, as 

 an appendix to my remarks, the characters of all 

 the species then mentioned, as tarnished by the 

 Encyclopaedia of Plants — as Ibllows: 



1. " Gossypium herbaceum, [green seed cotton.] 

 Native country. East Indies — leaves 5 lobed, 1 

 glandular beneath: lobes round niucronate, Invol. 

 serrate, stem smooth." 



2. "G. hirsutum, [Mexican and Petit Gulf,] 

 South America — upper leaves undivided cordate; 

 lower 3-5 lobed with 1 gland beneath: branches 

 and petioles hirsute." 



3. "C?. barbadenss [sea island cotton?] liarba- 

 does — upper leaves 3 lobed; lower 5 lobed with 3 

 glands beneath; stem smoothish." 



4. " G. arboreum, [tree cotton,] East Indies — 

 leaves 5 lobed palmate; upper 3 lobed with 1 gland 

 beneath, Inv. tern. Cal. with 3 glands at base." 



II. B. CROOM. 



EGYPTIAN COTTON. 



To the Editor of the Farmers' Register. 



In my remarks on Mr. Spalding's essay on 

 cotton, I said — "It may be doubted whether Mr. 

 S. is correct in supposing that the wool of the Sea 

 Island cotton becomes less fine when carried south 

 of the St. Mary's." 



This doubt I must now retract, subsequent in- 

 quiry having satisfied me that the cotton of the 

 West Indies is not so fine as that of the Sea 

 Islands of Georgia and South Carolina, though 

 produced, as I suppose, from the same plant. 



In an article in a late periodical, purporting to 

 be an abstract of a lecture on the natural history 

 of the cotton plant, delivered in London by a Mr. 

 Aikin, it is stated that the wool of the Egyptian 

 cotton is long, fine, and silky, and that it has 

 lately "been improved by the introduction of the 

 seeds of the Sea Island cotton." How is this to 

 be understood? That the Sea Island cotton has 

 superseded that which was before cultivated? — or 



* We have made an attempt to gratify our corres- 

 pondent's wish to obtain cotton seed from Egypt, 

 which we hope will be successful. — Ed. 



does the lecturer mean that it has been crossed on 

 the other? But hybrid plants as well as hybrid 

 aninjals are, I believe, generally barren. 



A ditleronce, however, should be noted between 

 varieties of the same species, and hybrids, which 

 result from the mingling of ditl'erent species. 



II. B. CROOM. 



3Iarch, 1835. 



IIOXEY LOCUST AND MOUNTAIN LOCUST. 



To tlie Editor of the Farmers' Kegistef. 



* * * The Honey Locust (Gle- 

 ditschia) is native in the alluvial portions of Vir- 

 ginia and the Carolinas. The White or Moun- 

 tain Locust (Robinia pseudacasia) I think, is not. 

 Its native position is on the Allegany Mountains; 

 but it has been so much disseminated by trans- 

 plantation, as probably to lead you into an error in 

 this respect. If I am wrong, the error is common 

 to »1 the writers on the botany of North America. 

 I have seen it in great profusion on the ridges of 

 the Allegany Mountains; but I do not remember 

 to have seen it any where native in the low or 

 level countrj'. 



II. B, C. 



[With the great deference which is due from us, 

 confessedly ignorant of botany as we are, to the opin- 

 ions of one who possesses much knowledge on that 

 subject, we must still doubt the correctness of the in- 

 formation which our correspondent has received as to 

 both these trees. The honey locust is so rarely seen in 

 lower Virginia, except near dwellings, that it has there- 

 fore been supposed to be a foreign tree. But if this 

 opinion is incorrect, we can scarcely be mistaken in 

 supposing the other locust, which is called by the va- 

 rious and contradictory names of white, yellow, or 

 black locust, to be a native tree. In this neighbor- 

 hood, the general and long established name is "wild 

 locust" — which of itself is some evidence of its being 

 indigenous. But the mistake of botanists (if in this 

 matter they are mistaken) is probably caused by this 

 tree being almost never seen growing naturally 

 on any soils except a class that are very scarce in 

 lower Virginia — that is, such as contain a notable 

 proportion of calcareous earth, or lime in some form. 

 In this county, it would be impossible to find a locust 

 growing naturally, a mile from James River, and per- 

 haps, for many miles southward. But on steep river 

 banks, and in deep ravines, where the beds of shell 

 marl, or other calcareous matters have affected the soil, 

 this tree is one of the most vigorous, and rapid in 

 growth, and so general and abundant in the places least 

 touched by the labors of man, that it is scarcely pos- 

 sible that it could have been introduced from a distant 

 region. 



The locust is not the only tree so strictly limited to 

 our few soils containing lime, as to be scarcely known 

 to many residents of our country. A respectable 

 farmer who had moved from Surry county to Ken- 

 tucky, described to us the papaw, as a growth peculiar 

 to that region, and which he had never heard of in 

 Virginia. Yet he had lived 40 years within 20 miles 

 of James River, where, on the rich calcareous hill-sides, 

 the papaw grows and bears its fruit well, and exhibits 



