]9S 



ECONOMIC BOTANY OF ALABAMA. 



even of minerals, and no doubt some important items 

 have been omitted. These omissions however will prob- 

 ably diminish in number in future statistics of this kind. 



TABLE 1. WOOD USED IN 1910, CLASSIFIED BY SPECIES. 



COMMON NAMES 



Long-leaf pine 



Slash pine 



Short-leaf pine (in- 

 cluding loblolly) -- 



Spruce pine 



Cypress 



Cedar 



Hickory 



Cottonwood 



Beech 



Chestnut 



"White oak 



Post oak 



Red oak 



Willow oak 



Elm 



Hackberry 



Magnolia 



Bay 



Poplar 



Sweet gum (red gum) 



Sycamore 



Haw 



Maple 



Dogwood 



Black gum 



Tupelo gum 



Persimmon 



Ash 



All others 



TECHNICAL NAMES 



Pinus palustris 

 Pinus Elliottii 



Total - 



Pinus Taeda, echinata 



Pinus glabra (and others?) 



Taxodium distichum, imbricarium 



Juniperus Virginiana 



Hicoria 



Populus deltoides, heterophylla-- 



Fagus grandifolia 



Castanea dentata 



Quercus alba, etc 



Quercus stellata, etc 



Quercus falcata, etc. 



Quercus Phellos, etc. 



Ulmus Americana, etc 



Celtis occidentalis, etc 



Magnolia grandiflora 



Magnolia glauca 



Liriodendron Tulipif era 



Liquidambar Styraciflua 



Platanus occidentalis 



Crataegus 



Acer 



Cornus florida 



Nyssa sylvatica, biflora 



Nyssa uniflora 



Diospyros Virginiana .__ 



Fraxinus Americana, etc. 



Thousand 

 feet used 



450,000 



168,000 



630 



1,620 



80 



5,280 



482 



315 



67 



12,000 



860 



5,600 



125 



570 



50 



515 



148 



12,000 



17,500 



7 



10 



25 



450 



486 



7,500 



326 



1,800 



60 



690,000 



Value 



$5,300,000 



1,940,000 



9,500 



24,300 



1,900 



111,000 



9,108 



3,250 



1,050 



240,000 



16,400 



95,000 



2,600 



8,490 



750 



5,225 



1,643 



185,000 



200,000 



70 



150 



430 



6,390 



5,120 



80,000 



4,900 



38,500 



900 



$8,400,000 



The fact that lumbermen recognize fewer species of 

 trees than botanists do, and often apply the same com- 

 mon name to two or more distinct species, is and always 

 will be a source of some confusion in such statistics as 

 this. 



