A. Gray— Forest Geography and Archeology. 189 
we can grow hardly one tree of the Pacific coast. England 
supports all of them, and all our Atlantic trees also, and like- 
wise the Japanese and North Siberian species, which do thrive 
here remarkably in some part of the Atlantic coast, especially 
the cooler-temperate ones. The poverty of the European sylva 
is attributable to the absence of our Atlantic American types, 
to its having no Magnolia, Liriodendron, Asimina, Negundo, 
no culus, none of that rich assemblage of Leguminous trees 
represented by Locusts, Honey-Locusts, Gymnocladus, and Cla- 
rastis (even its Cercis, which is hardly European, is like the 
Californian one mainly a shrub); no Nyssa, nor Liquidambar; 
no Kricacez rising to a tree; no Bumelia, Catalpa, Sassafras, 
Osage Orange, Hickory, or Walnut; and as to Conifers, no 
Hemlock Spruce, Arbor-vitee, Taxodium, nor Torreya. . 
compared with Northeastern Asia, Europe wants most of these 
same types, also the Ailantus, Gingko, and a goodly number 
of coniferous genera. I cannot point to any types tending to 
make up the deficiency, that is, to any not either in East North 
merica or in Northeast Asia, or in both. Cedrus, the true 
Cedar, which comes near to it, is only North African and Asian. 
Tneed not say that Europe has no Sequoia, and shares no special 
type with California. 
Now the capital fact is, that many and perhaps almost all of 
these genera of trees were well represented in Europe through- 
out the later Tertiary times. It had not only the same generic 
types, but in some cases even the same species, or what must 
oe as such, in the lack of recognizable distinctions between 
ossil remains and living analogues. Probably the European 
Miocene forest was about as rich and various as is ours of 
the present day, and very like it. The Glacial period came and 
assed, and ra types have not survived there, nor returned. 
nee the comparative poverty of the existing European 
By a at least, the probable explanation of the absence of 
ose 
