141 
responds to the qualities of the hickory elm and invariably, where 
the red and slippery elm are separated, the hickory elm occurs 
but is not recognized as such, and where the slippery and red elm 
are not separated, the hickory elm is known and recognized. It 
prefers a well drained soil, similar to that of the slippery elm. 
The published records of the distribution are as follows: Dear- 
born (Collins) ; Franklin (Meyncke); Hamilton (Wilson); Noble (Van 
Gorder); Parke (Hobbs); Steuben (Bradner); Wayne (Petry and 
Markle). 
Additional records are: Jefferson, Posey and Wells (Deam). 
Economic uses. Wood hard, heavy, strong, flexible, close- 
grained with thick sap wood. Uses same as the two preced- 
ing. Supply is so limited as to be of no economic importance. 
4. Ulmus alata Michaux. Wincep Erm. Wanoo Eto. Plate 
64. Bark not deeply fissured, reddish-brown, branchlets with flat 
corky wings; leaves elliptic-oblong to ovate-oblong, 3-10 em. (1-4 
inches) long, nearly smooth above and hairy beneath when they 
unfold, becoming at maturity firm, dark green and smooth above, 
paler and pubescent below; fruit ripens before or with the unfolding 
of the leaves, pedicels 4-8 mm. (1%-!4 inch) long. 
Distribution. Northern Virginia and southern Indiana, south to 
Florida and west to Missouri and Arkansas. In Indiana it is a 
small tree and only locally found in a few counties bordering the 
Ohio River and in the southwestern part of the State. The record 
for the southwestern part of the State is based upon Dr. Schneck’s 
report of the plants of that part of the State. An examination of 
Dr. Schneck’s herbarium material for specimens of this species 
shows sheets with leaves and twigs only, which were at first labeled 
Ulmus alata and afterward the name T’homast was written above. 
The writer made diligent search for this species in Posey County 
but was unable to find it. Ulmus Thomasi was rarely found and 
since Dr. Schneck did not report Ulmus Thomasi and subsequently 
substituted this name on his herbarium sheets, it is believed the 
preceding location should be referred to Ulmus Thomast. 
The published records of the distribution are as follows: Clark 
(Baird and Taylor); Crawford (Blatchley); Gibson (Schneck); Har- 
rison (Blatchley); Miami (Gorby)*; Vigo (Blatchley) **. 
Additional records are: Crawford (Deam). 
Economic uses. ‘Too rare to be of any economic importance. 
*It is believed this record should be referred to U. Thomasi since the location is north of the 
range of U. alata and U. Thomasi was not reported from that locality where it occurs more or less 
frequently. 
**Mr. Blatchley says this record was founded on a leaf and twig specimen and may have been 
Thomasi. 
