110 ECONOMIC BOTANY OF ALABAMA 



of the chestnut {Endothia parasitica, chestnut canker) ai)pearecl in 

 New York City, and it has since spread out several hundred miles 

 from there, kining most of the trees in its path, but it does not 

 seem to have reached xA.labama yet.§ 



Although the chestnut is now rather scarce in southern Ala- 

 bama, large solitary and fairly healthy specimens of it in fields and 

 along roadsides are not uncommon m itiat part of the state, and it 

 is difficult to decide whether they are remnants of the original 

 forest or have been planted. The known distribution of native 

 trees is about as follows : 



lA. Common on cherty liills near Tennessee River, in Lauderdale and 

 Colbert Counties. 



IB. Cherty soils, Madison and Marshall Counties. 



IC. Colbert and Lawrence Counties; not common. Near Johnson's 

 Landing, Morgan County. 



2A. Frequent in most of the counties, making perhaps 2'/c of the forest, 

 especially eastward. Not common in vVmscon Lounty. 



2B. St. Clair, Tuscaloosa and Bibb Counties ; rather rare. 



3. Chert and sandstone ridges, Etowah, Jefferson, Shelby and Bibb 

 Counties. 



4. Rather common tliroughout. 



5. Cleburne, Randolph and Tallapoosa Counties ; not common. 



6A. Franklin, Fayette, Tuscaloosa, Bibb and Hale Counties ; rather 

 rare. 



6B. Tuscaloosa and Bibb Counties. 



6C. Hills near Prattville and McQueen, Autauga County. 



7. Formerly common near Sardis, Dallas County (Cocks). 



8. Along Chunnennuggee Ridge east of Union Springs. 



lOE. Pike and Coffee Counties; rare. Henry County (Sargent). 

 11(?). On north-facing escarpment at edge of pine hills a few miles 

 south of Monroeville, in about latitude 31° 30'. 



§For notes on the chestnut canker and its effects see the following 

 papers : 



H. Metcalf c& J. F. Collins. The present status of the chestnut bark 

 disease.— U. S. Bur. Plant Lidustrv, Bull. 141, part 5. Pp. 43-54, fig. 2, 

 pi. 4. 1909. 



(Same). The control of the chestnut bark disease. — U. S. Dept. Agric, 

 Farmers' Bull. 467. 24 pp., 4 figs. 1911. 



(Same). The present known distribution of the chestnut bark disease. 

 —Science II. 35:420-421. March 15, 1912. (See also pp. 985-986 of the 

 same volume.) 



Haven Metcalf. The chestnut bark disease. — U. S. Dept. Agric, Year- 

 book 1912:363-372, pi. 34-37. 1913. 



A. H. Graves. The future of the chestnut tree in North America. — 

 Pop. Sci. Monthly, 84:551-566, 4 text-figs. June, 1914. 



J. C. Nellis. Uses for chestnut timber killed bv the bark disease. — 

 U. S. Dept. Agric, Farmers' Bull. 582. 24 pp., 8 figs.' 1914. 



E. R. Hodson. Is American chestnut developing immunity to the 

 blight ?— Jour. Forestry, 18:693-700. Nov. 1920. (Contains a short bibli- 

 ography. ) 



G. F. Gravatt & R. P. Marshall. Chestnut blight in the southern Ap- 

 palachians. — U. S. Dept. Agric. Circ 370. 11 pp., 2 text-figs., 10 plates. 

 1926. 



