14 HABIT [CH. 



Weeping Willow (Fig. 5) obviously differs from the Cedar 

 (Fig. 6) in the flexuous curves of its branches and especially 

 the pendulous twigs, which are in marked contrast with 

 the rigid prop-like principal branches of the Cedar bearing 

 their wide-spreading subsidiary branches extended right 

 and left, and often in or near the horizontal plane. Both 

 trees differ from our first two types in the prominence 

 of their lateral branches, making the stem a far less con- 

 spicuous object in the architecture. But one, the Willow, 

 is deciduous and bears foliage of a peculiarly light hue, 

 while the other, the Cedar, is evergreen and carries tufts 

 of stiff narrow leaves so numerous and so dark that the 

 tree appears almost black in certain lights. 



If all our trees exhibited broad characteristics as 

 marked as these, no one could experience much difficulty 

 in distinguishing them at a distance, and, although this is 

 by no means the case, it is easy to compare and contrast 

 many others with the types sketched. 



The merest tyro would at once refer the tall Cypress 

 (Fig. 3) to the fastigiate type, and the pendulous Ash to 

 that of the Weeping Willow, while the Larch (Fig. 67) 

 would remind him in its general architecture of the 

 pyramidal Fir, and in its thin foliage of pendulous twigs 

 of the Birch, but the majority of our trees present 

 features of conformation far more subtle than these. For 

 instance, while it is not difficult to trace resemblances 

 between the terraced crown of the Cedar and similar ter- 

 racing — but developed in very different ways and degrees 

 — in the masses of foliage of the Horse-chestnut, Beech, 

 &c., or between the graceful drooping of the pendulous 

 branches of the Birch and the weeping habit of the Willow; 

 these resemblances are combined with differences not always 

 easy to describe ; and when we try to characterise the 

 majority of our trees, such old-fashioned expressions as 



