1919] Fernald,— Ranges of Pinus and Thuja 53 
Hudson Bay north to Churchill, from the caleareous Gaspé Peninsula 
and from Nova Scotia (with the exception of Colchester county on 
the isthmus which connects with New Brunswick) Transeau, discuss- 
ing the ranges of forest trees, has issued a map! which carefully 
includes in the area where this species (as P. divaricata) is said by him 
to be “dominant,” the 850 miles of limestones along the southwest 
side of Hudson Bay, and his dotted lines, which form the boundaries, 
embrace between their eastern terminals all of Nova Scotia, New 
Brunswick and Gaspé, as well as all of central and nothern Maine. 
The absence of Pinus Banksiana from the west side of Hudson Bay, 
from Gaspé and from Nova Scotia has been sufficiently emphasized. 
Similarly in the region of Maine indicated on Transeau’s map the 
species has but few limited areas, these all,on the granites and quartz- 
ites of the upper Penobscot, Kennebec, and Androscoggin; but, 
although “Lumbermen call it a scarce tree in Northern Maine,” 2 
south of Transeau’s boundary it is truly dominant on some of the 
sterile regions of the Maine coast. Transeau’s map, then, which has 
been accepted by other ecologists as authoritative, represents Pinus 
Banksiana as “dominant” on 150,000 square miles of country from — 
which actually the tree is essentially unknown. To the ecologist 
this discrepancy may seem trivial. At least, when the present 
writer criticized * the inaccuracies of Harshberger’s work, where he 
made Anemone narcissiflora, which is actually unknown east of the 
alpine regions of Colorado, and Cassiope tetragona, unknown nearer 
than northernmost Labrador, typical forest plants of the Great Lake 
region, and confused Vallisneria spiralis of fresh water with the salt- 
water Eel Grass, Zostera marina, Cowles characterized these and the 
hundreds of other similar cases which crowd the pages of Harshberger’s 
work as errors which “to taxonomic specialists of local areas . . . loom 
large,” while “to those of broader view-point, however, the numerous 
errors will be subordinate.” + If such errors are merely “subordi- 
nate,” how preposterous an error, one would like to know, would be 
required to “loom large” in the mind of an ecologist? 
1 Transeau, Am. Nat. xx«xix. 875, fig. 1 (1905). 
? Goodale, Prelim. Report Nat. Hist. and Geol. Me. 127 (1861). 
3 Rwopora, xiii. 213-224 (1911). 
* Cowles, Bot. Gaz. liii, 181 (1912). 
