March 30, 1912.] 



THE GARDENERS' CHRONICLE. 



199 



BRITISH ELMS. 



8. U. stricta Lindl. var. sarniensis comh. now 

 The Jersey Elm (= U. campestris var. sarnien- 



In 1808, Sir J. E. Smith expressed the opinion sig Loudon Arboret jj. ^ mQ , 



that the amount of confusion in the genus Ulmus 

 was a reproach to botanists. The confusion is as 

 great to-day as it was a century ago. .This un- 

 fortunate state of affairs is due largely to the 



by modern workers of the work 

 done on Elms by the early English botanists, 

 particularly by Goodyer and Miller. Another 



the 



n< lect 



contributory 



non-recognit ion, 

 of the old school, 



cause is 

 by systematic botanists 

 of the numerous forms of Elm — forms so 

 numerous as almost to suggest that Ulmus is 

 among trees what Rubus and Rosa are among 

 shrubs and Hieracium among herbs, and forms 

 only reduced to the following species, varieties 



9. U. glabra Hudson x nitens Moeneh.— (b) x 

 U. vegeta. The Huntingdon Elm (= U. glabra 

 Mill. var. vegeta Loudon Arboret., iii, 1404, 1838 

 = U. vegeta Ley in Joum. Bot., xlviii, 68, 1910). 



Of these nine Elms, the first four were founded 

 by Goodyer, so far back as the year 1636, in 

 the so-called " emaculate " edition of Gerard's 

 Her ball, really the second edition revised and 

 enlarged by Johnson. The fifth was founded by 

 Plukenet, the sixth by Plot, the seventh by 

 Lindley, and the last two by Loudon. 



Goodyer 's Four Elms. 



Goodyer's four Elms were accepted by all the 



and hybrids by a process of aggregation unknown early English botanists; and all except Parkin- 



among students of such genera. Gerard, in his 

 Herbal!, of 1597, recognised two species of Elm 

 in England ; and there are botanists among us 

 who apparently still believe in this simplicity of 

 the genus. 



It will tend to a better understanding of the re- 

 marks which follow if I tabulate at the outset 



son (Thcatr. Bot., 1640) used Goodyer's names; 

 but, although Parkinson used names which were 

 not adopted by the botanists of his day, there 

 is no doubt that his four Elms are precisely 

 those of Goodyer, for his descriptions are obvious 

 paraphrases of Goodyer's and his figures the 

 same. Ray accepted Goodyer's Elms and names 



FlG. 87. PEAR SOUVENIR DU CONGERS AT RUTHIN CASTLE GARDENS. 



the Elms that are discussed in 

 article : — 



the present 



1. Ulmus campestris L. Sp. PL, 225 (1753) 

 partim; fl. AngL, (1754). The English Elm 

 (- U. procera Salisbury Prodr., 391, 1796). 



2. U. sativa Miller Gard. Diet., ed. 8, no. 3 

 (1768). The Small-leaved Elm (= U. suberosa 

 i^nrhart, non auct. pi. = U. Plotii Druce*). 



3. U. nitens Moench Meth. PL, 333 (1794). 



in his Synopsis, and one of Kay's (and there- 

 fore Goodyer's) Elms was carefully singled out 

 by Linnaeus as being his Ulmus campestris. 

 Hudson (Fl. AngL, 1762) accepted Goodyer's 

 four Elms, and gave binomials (U. campestris L. 

 and U. glabra Huds.) to two of them. -Miller 

 accepted Goodyer's four Elms 

 mials to each of them. 



U. glabra Miller, later 



The Smooth-leaved Elm ( 

 non Hudson) 



ti 4 * St' glabra Hudson FL AngL, 95 (1762). 

 ile Wych Elm (= U. scabra Miller = U. mon- 

 tana Stokes) 



5. U. glabra Hudson x nitens Moench— (a) 



£11 j. hollandica - The Dutch Elm ( = U. 



Mlandica Miller Gard. Diet., ed. 8, no. 5, 1768 



u. major Smith EngL Bot., t. 2542, 1814). 



(1768?" SS? ™ lkr Gard ' Dict > ed ' 8 > ™- 6 

 l"68). Plot's Elm (but not U. Plotii Druce). 



Cornish Ehrf* LindIey 5 ^^-> 227 (1829). The 



ever, 

 with 



gave 

 Elm, 



Unfortunately, how- 

 Miller ignored the binomials of Hudson, 

 the result that some of his own, being 

 than Hudson's, cannot stand. Miller also 

 binomials to Plukenet's Elm and to Plot's 



• In Journ. 



the fifth and sixth Elms respectively in 

 the summary given above. It is obvious, there- 

 fore, that the importance of determining Good- 

 yer's and Miller's Elms cannot be over-estimated, 

 for on their identification turns the ques- 

 tion of the binomials which botanists must give 

 to them, assuming they are of specific rank. 

 Hence no account of the genus Ulmus is either 

 adequate or satisfactory, which fails to account 

 for each one of Goodyer's and Miller's Elmc. 



It is often said that pre-Linnsean names of 

 plants are very uncertain and very obscure. Into 

 this general question I do not at present propose 

 to enter ; but I must emphasise my opinion that, 



in general, those given by Goodyer to hie four 

 Elms can be determined without much difficulty. 

 This is because they were adopted by the early 

 writers, such as Ray, Hudson and Miller, and 

 by the early collectors, such as Banister, Buddie, 

 Petiver, Plukenet and Sloane, whose specimens, 

 with Goodyer '6 names attached, are preserved in 

 the herbarium of the British Museum. t Those 

 specimens establish the point that Goodyer's 

 names were used, and used definitely, consis- 

 tently and continuously, from his own time to 

 that of Miller's. The botanical names of Elms 

 which are adopted in this article arc based on 

 this historical continuity of Goodver's nanus, a 



continuity found, as above stated, both in litera- 

 ture and on herbarium sheets. Only if tins con- 

 tinuity is proved to be non-existent can the 

 specific names used in this article be overthrown 



by those botanists who accept the limitations of 

 species here adopted. 



The English Elm (U. campestris L.) 



Goodyer named his first Elm " Ulmus Volga- 

 tissima folio lato scabro." In the vernacular of 

 his day, it is " the common Elme." Goodyer 

 supplies a crude figure of this and his other 

 Elms. Of his first, he states that M this Elme 

 is a very great high tree," that " the bark of the 

 young trees and boughes. ... is smooth and 

 very tough," and that " the leaves, of a dark 

 green colour. . . . are two inches broad and 

 three inches long." The description and the 

 tolerable figure leave no doubt that Goodyer is 

 writing of our English Elm, the tallest and most 

 stately member of the genus, the one which 

 casts the deepest shade and holds its leaves 

 longest in autumn, and the one which is the com- 

 monest in the hedgerows and parklands of the 

 western and south-western counties of England, 

 especially Somerset, Oxfordshire and Worcester- 

 shire. t 



Parkinson (Theatr. Bot., p. 1403, 1640) named 

 this Elm U. vulgaris; but it is the .same Elm. 

 Other pre-Linneean botanists stuck to Goodyer's 

 clumsier but earlier name ; and it is this which 

 appears in the various works of John Ray. Now 

 one of Ray's works, the third edition of his 

 Synopsis (1724) has a value possessed by no 

 other pre-Linnaean British work; for Linnaeus 

 in his Flora Anglica (1754) takes this edition, 

 and, so far as he found it possible, applied his 

 binomials to the cumbersome pre-Linnaean names 

 therein used. 



It is well known and universally admitted that 

 it is impossible to obtain any clue to the type of 

 the Ulmus campestris L., Sp. PL, 225 (1753; but 

 in his FL AngL (1754), Linnaeus singles out 

 Goodyer's Ulmus vulgatissima folio lato 

 scabro as being precisely his U. campestris, 

 Goodyer's other three Elms . being quite 



Hence we are justified in restrict- 

 ing the name U. campestris, just as Linnaeus- 

 himself did, to Goodyer's first Elm, that is, to 

 the common or English Elm. Further, Hudson 

 (Fl. AngL, 1762) and Miller (Gard. Diet., 1768) 

 both used the name U. campestris for the 

 English Elm, and thus provide additional 

 reasons, if such were needed, for using the name 

 U. campestris in this sense, and in this sen&9 

 alone. C. E. Moss, D.Sc. 



(To be continued.) » 



ignored. 



A PROLIFIC PEAR TREE. 



In fig. 87 is illustrated a very fine Pear tree 

 in Ruthin Castle Gardens. Mr. H. Forder, the 

 gardener, informs us that it is growing on a 

 south wall, and has been planted about 18 years. 

 The illustration shows the beautiful crop of fruits 

 borne last season. The variety is Souvenir du 

 Congres, one of the finest Pears in season at the 

 end of August and the beginning of September, 

 being characterised by a juicy, yellowish- white 

 flesh and rich flavour. 



t\, U ^ 0Urn ' Northamptonshire Nat m« <:„ ^oo to enter; DM 1 HIUSL cnipuabiae mj upiiuuu m««,, 



*°v., 1911). See also IfrZchron.^ m%lt)^ ™' * whatever view be taken of pre-Linn*an names 



t In the Sloane collection, of which Mr. J. Britten is 

 preparing a catalogue. 



