206 ECONOMIC BOTANY OF ALABAMA 



in 1892, nine species and one variety are assigned ranges extending 

 to or through Alal)an"ia. There are probably as many in this state 

 as in any other, and a large proportion of those discovered by the 

 Biltniore l)otanists a generation ago came from Ala])ama. 



Dr. Mohr spent the last two years of his life (18!)!)-iy()l) in 

 and aroimd Asheville. X. C, where he was in frequent consulta- 

 tion with Mr. Beadle and his associates (Biltmore being a suburb 

 of Asheville) ; and the treatment of Crataegus in his Plant Life of 

 Alabama therefore represents the latest available information 

 about that genus in this state at the time the book went to press 

 (about 1!)0U). That work lists 20 species, of which three are 

 designated as shrubs only, while most of the others range in size 

 from shrubs to trees. None of them are confined to Alabama. As 

 to their distribution within the state, !) are pretty widely distributed, 

 5 are chiefly northeastern, 4 northern but not specially northeast- 

 ern, and 2 southern. 



During Dr. Alohr's residence in Asheville Air. Beadle pub- 

 lished three papers on Crataccjits (Beadle 1-3 in bibliography), in 

 which 38 new s])ecies were proposed, most of them from Alabama, 

 but the second and third came out too late to be utilized liy Dr. 

 Mohr. At that time the Biltmore collectors were actively exploring 

 the southern states, and some of the results of their activities, as 

 far as Cralacyus is concerned, appeared in another ])aper by Mr. 

 Beadle, in 1902 (Beadle o in bibliography), in which were i)ro- 

 posed 31 new species from Alabama, and in his revision of the 

 genus for Small's Flora ( 1903 ). 



In the work just named O.'J species of Crataegus (just about 

 one-third of the total from North Carolina to Texas) are credited 

 to Alabama, bvleven of them are called trees only, 39 trees or 

 shrubs, and 13 shrubs only; Init of ccjurse there are all gradations 

 between trees and shrubs, and no two persons might agree on this 

 classification. Thirty-three of the species are supposed to be con- 

 fined to Alabama, while :50 are reported from one or more other 

 states. The shrubs ai)|)ear to be more local in distribution than 

 the trees, for nearly two-thirds of them, as compared with less 

 than half of the trees, are reported from Alabama only. 



The records of their distribution within the state depend largely 

 on the work of the Biltmore botanists ( 25 to 30 vears ago), which 



