232 
a ang number of eastern than western 
cou 
vag 1402. 'The first volume of the 
New Botanist's Guide has enabled me to 
make the preceding comments on the lon- 
gitudinal distribution of plants in England, 
by affording a more extensive compilation 
of localities than existed at the time the 
ncyclopedia was published. The i 
creased knowledge of local Botany in Scot- 
land will probably induce to some altera- 
tions in the lists for that country, but I 
may freely confess an inability to improve 
these lists until the second volume of that 
Guide is completed. 
1463. Are we entitled to call the Beech, 
the Sycamore, three species of Lime, and 
five species of Elm,” aboriginal natives” of 
Britain ? 
1464. Pinus sylvestris is considered as 
“ ascending, probably to the height of 
2,500 feet upon the hills, among the north- 
ern Grampians.” This is an important, 
and, in all probability, a correct statement, 
to which I shall have occasion presently to 
[= 
ude. i 
1465. The Chestnut is said (by Loudon) 
to ripen fruit! by the Firth of Forth; and 
I have been told that the Fig does so in 
Dumfriesshire. The Walnut is firm in ker- 
nel, but does not thoroughly ripen at Con- 
gleton, in Cheshire. 
1470. We come now to the observa- 
tions of Winch (Essay). This author 
considers the Beech (and, apparently, the 
Sycamore also) to be truly native in the 
north of England. See above, 1463. 
1472. Mr. Winch informed me that Rides 
spicatum 18 extinct, except in gardens. 
1474. The Juniper ascends much higher 
than 1,500 feet in Cumberland. I observed 
it in different places above 2,000 feet, and 
. . on one hill (Grisedale Pike) it rose above 
=, 2500 feet. It is very incorrect to call 
| Salix lata the “ usual attendant” of 
Salix herbacea. Few hills of 800 or 900 
E Lord John Campbell lately showed me a number 
Chestnut plants which he had raised from 
which had r at Ardencaple, Dumbarton- 
ieu 
Mom a es TUM Sm 
REMARKS ON THE BOTANY OF BRITAIN. 
diz herbacea, while the other is probably U^ 
e 
limited to the Scottish Highlands, and n 
very plentiful there 
1 It is slated that, Calluna ovis 
ris, Erica cinerea, and Erica Tetraliz | 
ascend to 3,000 feet of elevation, in the 
north of England. Unless this be a mis- 
print (in the original Essay of Winch), it M 
is certainly not a common occurrence. I 
believe no hills attain to this height in 
Durham or Northumberland. Most of - | 
those approaching to it, in Cumberland, | 
were carefully examined in 1833, when, 
contrary to my wishes, I could not finda — 
plant of the Calluna so high as 2,500 feet ; : : 
and the two Erice have a still lower limit. — 
Had we hills of 4,000 feet in this part of — — 
England, it is likely that plenty of Heath, . : 
the Calluna at least, would be found to 
3,000 feet; for it grows at this elevation in 
Scotland. But small and exposed summits, 
sheep and fire seem to forbid its growth 
now. The discrepancy between Mr. Winch 
and myself on this point, is particularly 
noticed, because I had given the Calluna 
as atest to distinguish certain ascending 
regions of vegetation, the uniformity of 
which would have been more complete, 
had this shrub prevailed on the mountains 
is a misprint for “100,” and “ fragrant” is 
probably a typographical improvement for 
“ frequent."'? 
1476. Oats are here said to be culti- 
vated up to nearly 2,000 feet. This is not. 
at all common in Britain; indeed, we sel- 
dom see any cultivation of corn above 
1,500 feet, a circumstance depending less — 
upon the absolute elevation, than on the 
physical configuration of the surface, and - 
the competition of more favourable situa- 
tions, ong yield greater returns for ex- — 
penditu 
1477. 4 would cordially join in the 
2 We: might be almost tempted to suppose a conspi- : 
rae r. Winch's Essay, on the part of the | 
Compositors, I ‘had occasion to quote his words about. 
ally, into “ sequestrated denes.” So, in 
** Juncus botanicus” and ** the Nie (Cage 
pecs look very like inte provements 
