109 
range. The stand of white pine described near Cumberland, 
Maryland is, however, quite possibly correct, since the present 
range of the white pine includes that region. According to Dr. 
Shreve, however, there is no such forest near there at the pres- 
ent time. 
CONCLUSIONS 
From the evidence given, we may say with reasonable 
certainty : 
1. That the woods were once much more open and many of 
the trees a great deal larger than they are at present. 
2. That the composition of the forests may have been differ- 
ent from that of today, but if it was, we have no evidence for 
assuming that the difference was very pronounced. 
I wish to thank Dr. Forrest Shreve for his reading and 
criticism of this paper. 
DESERT LABORATORY 
Tucson, ARIZONA 
Literature cited 
1. Shreve, Forrest, M. A. Chrysler, F. H. Blodgett, and F. W. Besley. 
The plant life of Maryland. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore. 1910. 
2. An American. (Anonymous) American Husbandry. Vols. I and II. 
London, 1775. 
- Josselyn, John. New England rarities, etc. London. 1672. 
4. Gronovius, J. F., and John Clayton. Flora virginica. London. 1739. 
5. Hartwell, Blair, Chilton, The present state of Virginia and the College. 
ay $727. 
6. Catesby, Mark. Natural history of Do Florida, and the Bahama 
Islands, etc. Vols. I and II. London. 1731- 
ear, Tobias. Observations on pps river J Poona the country adjacent, 
io A Hugh. Present state of Virginia. London. 1724 
11. Smith, Samuel. The his zi of the colony of Nova- Caesaria or New 
Jersey, etc. Bodiugton. New Jerse 65. 
. Penn, William. A further ae of the province of Pennsylvania. 
k 3. Darlington, William. Memorials of John Bartram and Humphrey 
SA Philadelphia. 1849. 
