218 Eleventh Annual Report 



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: JefTerson, 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. Winged Elm. Wahoo Elm. Plate 

 64. Bark not deeply fissured, reddish-brown, branchlets with flat 

 corky wings; leaves elliptic-oblong to ovate-oblong, 3-10 cm. (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. (H-J^ 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 Thomasi was written above. 

 The writer made dihgent 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 Thomasi. 



The pubhshed 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 tlie 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. 



