Ulmus 1885 



specimens, and doubt if it is really known by Continental botanists, who apply the 

 name to forms of U. montana with large leaves. 1 



U. major is usually called " Dutch elm " by foresters and carpenters, and has 

 been supposed by Miller and subsequent writers to have been introduced into 

 England from Holland in the reign of William III. In all probability the elm 

 which was then introduced was not U. major, but a vigorous form of U. montana. 

 It is difficult to see how the latter could have been U. major, a tree which is 

 apparently unknown in Holland. 2 (A. H.) 



Cultivation 



Though it is difficult to describe the habit of this elm, which is very 

 inferior to that of the true English elm, yet it is easy to recognise, even at 

 a distance, as I have repeatedly been able to foretell by the form alone before 

 reaching a tree, that it would have corky twigs on the trunk. It has been 

 largely planted in the neighbourhood of London, where, as elsewhere, it loses its 

 leaves three weeks or a month earlier than the true English elm. In Kensington 

 Gardens, where most of the elms appear to belong to this species, on 30th October 

 191 1, there was hardly a leaf left on the majority of the elms, whereas throughout 

 the Thames valley true English elms were still green in the hedgerows, and on my 

 own place a week later, after 16 of frost, they were only beginning to turn golden, 

 a colour which the Dutch elm seldom or never assumes. An immense deal of 

 trouble and expense and obloquy has fallen on those responsible for the care 

 of the London Parks because a wholesale lopping of the old elms was considered 

 necessary for the safety of passers-by, after several accidents had occurred from 

 falling branches. I am able through the courtesy of the Right Hon. Lewis Harcourt, 

 who, in 1905, was the Minister responsible for the London Parks, to give an illustra- 

 tion (Plate 396) showing the effect of this lopping after a period of some years. I 

 think it must be allowed that, however ugly they seem at first, they throw out 

 young branches with great rapidity and soon improve in appearance. 



This tree in some seasons produces a large quantity of seeds which are nearly 

 always infertile. On 13th May 1906, I noticed three trees growing in a row near the 

 North Lodge at Gatton Park, Surrey, their leaves being much more backward than 

 those of U. campestris, but none of the samarse which were sent me from these 

 trees seemed to have any perfect seed. 



1 Cf. Mathieu, Flore Forestiire, 302 (1897). U. major, Reichenbach, Icon. Fl. Germ. xii. 13, t. 665 (1850), is U. 

 montana. Michaux, N. Amer. Sylva, ii. 224, plate 129, fig. 2 (1819), describes and figures ordinary U. montana under the 

 name U. suberosa as the Dutch elm. 



2 In the large collection of specimens of wild and cultivated elms of Holland, which are preserved in the herbarium of 

 the Dutch Botanical Society at Haarlem, I found none identical with U. major of England. Most of the supposed wild elms 

 in Holland, as those on the dunes near Haarlem, are U. nitens, var. suberosa. Mr. Springer sent me a branch of a solitary 

 large elm growing on these dunes, which he supposed to be U. major ; but the leaves differ in being very scabrous on the 

 upper surface, and belong to a hybrid intermediate between U. ?i:ontana and U. major. 



U. major may be expected to occur on the continent ; but I have not seen any trees of the typical English form, either 

 wild or cultivated, in France, Belgium, and Holland. I have, however, specimens from a wild tree in a wood, near Gray, 

 Haute Saone, intermediate between U. major and U. nitens. 



U. corylifolia. Host, Fl. Austr. i. 239 (1827), judging from the description and a type specimen in the Kew Herbarium, 

 is allied to, but not identical with U. major. This is said to grow on the banks of streams in mountain woods in Austria. 



VII 2 H 



