32 ECONOMIC BOTAXY OF ALABAMA 



Where the northern or southern boiuidary of a range is fairly- 

 definite, and the species extends beyond the Hmits of the state in 

 other directions ,a Hne is used ; and this is especially suitable when 

 two or more species are put on the same map. The distribution of 

 some species which occur only along streams is shown in solid 

 black. Two or more related species are sometimes put oh the same 

 map. either by the same method or by different methods. 



The majority of our trees and shrubs are either so generally 

 distributed over the state that a range map for them would not 

 mean anything (imless we had such detailed information about 

 them that their relative abundance could be indicated), or else 

 known from so few localities that a map would have no advantage 

 over a statement al)out them in the text. The 18 maps published 

 herewith show data for IS species of trees (large or small) and 

 !» of shrubs. 



NATURAL REGIONS, SOIL AND CLIMATE. 



The state can be divided for convenience into 15 natural 

 regions, each differing from adjoining ones in soil or topography 

 (though the boundaries may not be as sharp as they have to be 

 shown on the map), and some of them have subdivisions, making 

 21 divisions in all. The boundaries of the major divisions are in- 

 dicated by continuous lines, and of the subdivisions by dotted lines. 

 The names of the regions are given on the first map, but it has not 

 been thought necessary to include descriptions here, for they have 

 been pretty fully described in Monograph S (Economic Botany of 

 Alabama, Part 1, 1933) or in Special Report 11 (Resources of 

 Southern Alabama, 1920). But as the local distributit)n of species 

 depends largely if not mostly on soil and climate, some maps illus- 

 trating these factors are here presented. 



The first (Map 2) may be called a soil fertility map. It is 

 copied as closely as possible from one by Dr. Eugene A. Smith, 

 published in his "Report of Progress" for 18S1-2 and in the 6th 

 volume of the Tenth U. S. Census (1884), which shows for all 

 parts of the state the percent of area which was planted in cotton in 

 1880. As cotton was then (as now) the state's most valuable crop, 

 and the use of commercial fertilizers was then in its infancy, the 

 distribution of cotton was pretty closely correlated with the natural 



