mii i i i Li .IC(7'AMC1 / \ . / / , 2N0 



As a matter of fact, I met with the greatest difficulty in idei 

 fag the eight or ten species and sub of oaks I had collected 



with so much care in the District of Columbia; moreover, it is 

 more than probable that all the kinds of oak occurring in this 

 region have not been met with by me up to date, and it is still more 

 probable that when I meet with them they will bring added 

 confusion to my investigations along these lines. 



In the light of this experience, it occurred to me to select some 

 typical American forest tree, well known and of economic value, of 

 wide range with respect to geographical distribution, and compare 

 what was said about it in standard botanies; this with the view of 

 testing the accuracy of such descriptions, and of entering a plea for 

 greater care in such and allied matters. 



In these days, an ever-increasing attention is being paid to the 

 question of heredity in all the representatives of the Vegetable and 

 Animal Kingdoms, in all parts of the world. There is no question 

 as to the importance of all this; but it would quickly be found 

 valueless — indeed harmful — if, in any or all instances, we find 

 ourselves incorrectly informed with respect to everything that 

 refers to the morphology and physiology of the types and the 

 pristine stock, that is, of the pure strain, in so far as it can be 

 differentiated. 



Having this in mind, and before consulting any text-books or 

 other literature on the subject, I asked myself what I knew about 

 such a tree as the Tulip Tree, its scientific name being, in so far as I 

 remembered it, Liriodendron tulipifera, from Greek words used by 

 Linnaeus to emphasize the fact that the flower of the tree reminded 

 one of a lily or a tulip — an idea that also passed, in part, to the 

 specific name. Then I turned to the botanies, and thus far, well 

 and good. However, I found but this one species of Liriodendron 

 described, and I began to wonder what was the name of another 

 with which I had long been familiar, and in which the flowers are at 

 least one-third smaller, of a somewhat darker green, and having 

 very little yellow and orange in their petals. Then, too, the marked 

 difference in the size of the dried fruit, in the fall and winter, is very 

 patent, it being also lighter in color as well as appreciably smaller. 

 This kind of Liriodendron is very well known to me; but it is not 

 nearly so abundant as the true tulipifera, or the species with the 

 large flowers. (Figs. 2 and 3.) 



Right here, however, I will say that this is a matter I will not 



