1835.] 



FARMERS' REGISTER. 



343 



CORRECTION OF MISTAKES RESPECTING THE 

 GROWTH AND SITUATION OF THE "MOUN- 

 TAIN LOCUST," or ROBINIA PSEUDAC ACIA. 



To the Editor of the Farmers' Register. 



In your 12th No. Vol. II. of the Register, is an 

 article on the "honey locust, 1 ' (Gleditschia,) and 

 "mountain locust," (Hobinia pseudacacia.^ Your 



correspondent II. 13. ('. saj s that the honey locust 

 is a native of the alluvial portions of Virginia, and 

 that the white or mountain locusl is a native of the 

 Allegany Mountains, and that this is the common 

 opinion of all writers on the botany of North 

 America. I see you differ in opinion with your 

 correspondent, and advance another which I 

 would hope to be correct, viz: "that this tree, the 

 white or mountain locust, is seldom seen growing 

 naturally on any soils, except such as contain a 

 notable proportion of calcareous earth or lime in 

 some form." You further say that it would be 

 impossible to find a locust growing naturally, a 

 mile from James River: but on river banks, and 

 in ravines, where shell marl or other calcareous 

 matters have affected the soil, it grows so abun- 

 dantly, and in places least touched by the labors 

 of man, that it is scarcely possible it could have 

 been introduced from a distant region. (Vol. II. 

 p. 710.) Two questions growing out of the opin- 

 ion of your correspondent H. B. C. and your own 

 views, are worthy of investigation, and facts may 

 establish the correct theory on the subject. 



Is the white locust indigenous to those portions 

 of Maryland and Virginia bordering on the Ches- 

 apeake or tide-water? And 



Does it when growing "naturally" indicate the 

 existence of calcareous matter or lime in the soil, 

 where, it grows vigorously and abundantly? 



My limited experience as an agriculturist, has 

 already satisfied me so thoroughly of the value of 

 calcareous matter in any distinct proportion to the 

 soil, that I deem it important to establish any 

 facts that may indicate or prove its existence: and 

 if your proposition be entirely correct, this portion 

 of Maryland has not been properly appreciated, 

 and its agricultural resources are susceptible of 

 much more profita*ble developement. This por- 

 tion of the state (I mean St. Mary's, Charles, and 

 the lower parts of Prince George's and Calvert 

 counties,) exhibits an uneven and irregular sur- 

 face of plains and swamps, hills and valleys, in- 

 tersected and watered by numerous creeks, 

 streams, and tributaries to the Potomac, the Wi- 

 comico, and the Patuxent. The hills consist 

 chiefly in diluvial deposites of clay, sand and gra- 

 vel, varying in depth. The plains exhibit a simi- 

 lar formation, and the valleys are covered by allu- 

 vial deposites, being chiefly the decomposed vege- 

 table matter washed from the adjacent highlands. 

 Extensive beds of shells marl, strata of green 

 sand, bine marl ami gypseous earth, are found on 

 the banks of the Potomac; and in some places on 

 the banks, and in ravines contiguous to its tributa- 

 ry streams, marl is also found. The fossil depo- 

 sites discovered, belong to the different tertiary ibr- 

 mations distinguished by geologists into the eocene, 

 miocene, and pliocene eras. There have also 

 been discovered in digging wells ,7 depo- 



sites, containing bones and teeth of animals; but 

 in no instance within my knowledge, have any 

 researches in this section been prosecuted to the 

 discovery of primary deposites, underlying the se- 



condary formation of organic remains. Neither 

 am I aware that in those places where shell marl, 

 or blue marl, green sand, or gypseous earth, has 

 been discovered in greatest abundance, in Charles, 

 St. Mary's, or Prince George's counties, that any 

 indications of a fresh water tertiary have been 

 manifested. As far as opinion has been express- 

 ed on the subject by geologists, these calcareous 

 deposites seem io be horizontal; and where disco- 

 vered in other situations than on the immediate 

 banks of the river, are covered by strata of sili- 

 cious or argillaceous earth, of various depth — and 

 when discovered in ravines, are covered by strata 

 of sand or clay, containing in some cases, more or 

 less decomposed vegetable matter. 



In such places on the banks of the rivers Poto- 

 mac and Patuxent, also on the tributary streams, 

 and in ravines where marl has been discovered, or 

 other calcareous matter, the locust grows most 

 vigorously, and no man who is acquainted with 

 its growth in this section, can hesitate to believe 

 that it is native and indigenous. It is to be found 

 on cliffs and in ravines where the labor of man 

 has never been directed, and in too great abun- 

 dance to admit the belief that it could have been 

 produced from seed scattered there by accident. 



But it grows equally abundantly and vigorous- 

 ly in those parts of our county, where there does 

 not appear to be any marl or calcareous matter, 

 or fossil deposite. There arc few portions of this 

 county, (Charles) where the- locust does not grow 

 in great abundance, and with surprising rapidity. 

 It does not thrive well on that kind of soil which 

 we commonly denominate cold, stiff white oak 

 land — nor does any thing grow well on such soils. 

 They seem to be incapable of improvement to any 

 great degree of fertility, defying alike the efforts 

 of skill, the labors of industry, and the improve- 

 ments of science. But on the brittle, friable lands, 

 containing a mixture of silicious and argillaceous 

 earth, even remote from watercourses, and where, 

 there is no indication of calcareous matter existing 

 in the soil, and on those too which are very unpro- 

 ductive, the locust is found in great abundance, 

 and when cut down is reproduced with surprising 

 rapidity. It is indeed almost as common as oak 

 or white, gum, and perhaps much more than wal- 

 nut or hickory. I would consider it of great inte- 

 rest to us to establish your position, that this tree, 

 the white or mountain Iccust, (Jiobinia pseudaca- 

 C(«,) "iieing ainiost never seen growing naturally 

 on any soils except such as contain a notable pro- 

 portion of calcareous earth, or lime, in some form." 

 I am not disposed to controvert the opinion, being 

 too much interested in the truth of the theory, and 

 solicitous for its being established. My ignorance 

 of botany, and limited knowledge of geology, for- 

 bid my advancing views opposed to the opinions 

 of men of science and observation. But the opin- 

 ion expressed by you is certainly at variance with 

 the general appearance of this county, and the 

 character of our soil, as indicated by its agricultu- 

 ral and natural products. 



The proposition that the white or mountain lo- 

 cust grows naturally and vigorously upon soils 

 containing a notable proportion of calcareous mat- 

 ter, is no doubt true. But is the corollary or con- 

 verse proposition equally true, that it does not 

 "•row naturally upon any other soils? It is known 

 to you thai recent geological examinations have, 

 thrown much light on the tertiary formation of 



