24 



As is quite to be expected, the rating arrived at from the summing 

 up of the qualities mentioned differs very considerably from the rating 

 which might be arrived at from the quality of immunity from insects. 

 Taking the large and medium-sized trees only (36 species in all), Mr. 

 Fernow's rating stands as follows, onl}'^ the total gained by the addition 

 of the ratings in the several qualities considered being given: 



Variety of tree. 



Total 



rating 



(Fernow). 



Insect 



rating 



(Howard). 



LARGE-SIZED TREES. 



Red oak ( Quereus rubra) 



Scarlet oak ( Quereus coccinea) 



Yellow oak ( Quereus velutina) 



American elm ( Vlmus americana) 



Sugar maple (Acer saccharum) 



Black maple {Acer nigrum) 



Tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) 



European linden { Tilia vulgaris) 



Small-leafed linden { TUia microphyUa) 



Sweet gum {Liquidamhar siyradfiua) 



White oak {Quereus alba) 



Bur oak (Quereus maerocarpa) 



Oriental plane tree (Platanua orienialis) 



Kentucky coffee tree ( Gfymnocladus divisus) 



American plane tree {Platanus occidentalis) 



Sycamore maple (Acej- pseudo-platanus) 



American linden ( Tilia americana) 



MEDIUM-SIZED TREES. 



Ked maple (Acerrubrum) 



Shingle oak ( Quereus imbricaria) 



Willow oak (Quereus phellos) 



Slippery elm ( Ulmus pvbescens) 



Norway maple (Acer platanoides) 



Box elder (Negundo negunclo) , 



European elm ( Ulmus campestris) 



Scotch elm ( Vlmus montana) 



Hackberry ( Celtis oceidentaiis) 



Silver-leafed maple (Acer saccharinum) 



Tree of heaven (Ailantlms glandulosa) 



Horae-chestnut ( JEseulus Mppocastanum) 



Japanese aophora (Sophorajaponiea) 



Hardy catalpa ( Catalpa speeiosa) 



Gingko ( Qingko biloba) 



Honey locust ( Gkditschia triaeanthos) 



Cottonwood (Populus rtmnilifera) 



Balm of Gilead (Populus balsamifera v. candieana) 

 Black locust ( Robinia pseuda^xicia) 



22 

 22 

 22 

 22 

 19 

 19 

 19 

 19 

 19 

 19 

 19 

 19 

 19 

 19 

 18 

 17 

 17 



22 

 21 

 21 

 21 

 20 

 20 

 19 

 19 

 19 

 17 

 16 

 16 

 16 

 16 

 16 

 15 

 15 

 16 

 14 



2.6 

 2.6 

 2.6 

 1.5 

 2.5 

 2.6 

 8.0 

 1,5 

 2.0 

 2.0 

 2.0 

 2.0 

 1.5 

 2.0 

 1.5 

 2.0 

 1.5 



2.0 



2.0 



2.6 



2.0 



2.0 



.0 



.5 



1.0 



1.5 



1.5 



2.5 



2.0 



2.5 



2.0 



3.0 



1.0 



.5 



.5 



.5 



The writer has made ratings of these same trees according to their 

 immunity from the attacks of insects, the trees most immune being 

 rated at 3 and those most attacked by insects at 0. The figures relat- 

 ing to insect attack are displayed above in a contrasted column next to 

 the total rating, and in order that the relative importapq^ ^rom the 



