CHAP. CV. CORYLA v CEvE. ^UE'llCUS. 174-1 



of the /?6bur as corrupting and rotting in the sea, concludes that the 

 term never can apply to our English oak. He supposes that it belongs 

 to Q. s. pubescens, confounding, as Martyn does, that variety with Q. 

 Ta&zin, which is not even a native of Britain, and is by no means common 

 on the Continent ; but, as the wood of Q. sessiliflora approaches nearer to 

 thai of Q. Tauzin than the wood of Q. pedunculata, our own opinion is, 

 that Willdenow and Burnet have approached nearer to the truth than 

 Smith. 



We have, however, deemed it most convenient to follow Linnaeus, in adopt- 

 ing the term /?6bur to designate a group of closely allied species, or perhaps 

 only varieties. 



Description. According to most authors and observers, there is little or no 

 difference in magnitude or general appearance between the entire full-grown 

 trees of Q. pedunculata and Q. sessiliflora ; though some affirm that the former 

 is a low spreading tree, and the latter a tall conical one. Fig. 1580. is given 



1580 



by that eminent artist J. G. Strutt, as characteristic of the general form 

 of both species. Both are described by Smith as large trees; and by 

 Willdenow as trees growing from 30 ft. to 50 ft. high, and as enduring for 

 500 years. According to Bosc (Mem. sur Ics CAcnes, &c.), Q. sessiliflora 

 may be known by its spreading branches, and Q. pedunculata by its com- 

 paratively fastigiate branches and pyramidal form. Some, on the contrary, 

 assert that Q. sessiliflora becomes a loftier and more pyramidal tree than 

 Q. pedunculata; and this is said to be particularly the case in Wyre 

 Forest, where, it is stated by Mr. Pearson, gardener to W. L. Childe, Esq., 

 one of the principal proprietors of the forest, to be almost as different in 

 appearance from Q. pedunculata, as Populus fastigiata is from P. monilifera. 

 At Ken Wood and Woburn Abbey, it cannot be said that the difference in 

 magnitude and general form is remarkable. We are strongly inclined to be- 

 lieve that there is no important and constant difference between the mode 

 of growth of the two species ; because we have found individuals of the one 



