A, Gray—Forest Geography and Archeology. 183 
Art. XVII. — Forest Geography and Archeology; a Lecture 
delivered before the Harvard University Natural History Society, 
April 18, 1878; by Asa Gray. 
[Continued from p. 94.] 
Tux difference in the composition of the Atlantic and Pacific 
forests is not less marked than that of the climate and geograph- 
ical configuration to which the two are respectively adapted. 
ith some very notable exceptions, the forests of the whole 
northern hemisphere in the temperate zone (those that we are 
concerned with) are mainly made up of the same or similar 
kinds. Not of the same species; for rarely do identical trees 
occur in any two or more widely separated regions. But all 
round the world in our zone, the woods contain Pines and 
Firs and Larches, Cypresses and Junipers, Oaks and Birches, 
Willows and Poplars, Mapies and Ashes and the like. Yet 
with all these family likenesses throughout, each region has 
some peculiar features, some trees by which the country may 
at once be distinguished. 
Beginning by a comparison of our Pacific with our Atlantic 
forest, I need not take the time to enumerate the trees of the 
or example, it has no Magnolias, no Tulip-tree, no Papaw, 
no Linden or Basswood, and is very poor in Maples; no 
st-trees—neither Flowering Locust nor Honey Locust—nor 
any Leguminous tree; no Cherry large enough for a timber- 
tree, like our wild Black Cherry; no Gum-trees (Nyssa nor 
Liquidambar), nor Sorrel-tree, nor Kalmia; no Persimmon, or 
umelia; not a Holl 
timber-tree; no Catalpa, or Sassafras; not a single Elm, nor 
Hackberry; not a Mulberry, nor Planer-tree, nor Maclura; 
other things. But as to ordinary trees, if you ask what takes 
the place in Oregon and California of all these missing kinds, 
Which are familiar on our side of the continent, I must answer, 
nothing, or nearly nothing. There is the Madrofia (Arbutus) 
instead of our Kalmia (both really trees in some places) ; and 
