me (1911); Taylor (1915). 
ttle (1950); Wooton and Standley (1915). 
‘own (1921); Taylor (1915). Unpublished 
. Ogden and Stanley Smith at New York State 
\Ibany. 
ina.—Coker and Totten (1945); Pinchot and 
897); Roberts and Cruikshank (1941a). Unpub- 
ed maps by Albert E. Radford, Harry E. Ahles, and C. 
itchie Beil at University of North Carolina Herbarium. 
or th Dakota .—Stevens (1950). 
i aun (1961); Transeau and Williams (1929). 
ims jee hie Gibbs, and Mattoon (1939). Specimens 
exa ayned at University of Oklahoma Herbarium. 
yregon:—Benson. (1930); Peck (1961); Randall (1957); Sud- 
worth (1908). 
Pennsylvania.—Illick (1925 Unpublished maps by John 
M. Fogg, Jr., Edgar T. The: and others at University of 
Pennsylvania Herbarium. 
Rhode Island.—Russell (1900) . 
South Carolina~—Coker and Totten (1945); Roberts and 
Cruikshank (1941b). Unpublished maps by Albert E. 
Radford, Harry E. Ahles, and C. Ritchie Bell at University 
of North Carolina Herbarium. 
South Dakota.—McIntosh (1949); Over (1932); Ware (1936). 
Tennessee.—Shanks (1952). Unpublished maps by Aaron J. 
Sharp and Royal E. Shanks at University of ‘Tennessee 
Herbarium. 
Texas.—Cory and Parks (1937) ; 
and Sperry (1951) ; 
Arendale (1953). 
Utah.—Graham (1937). Unpublished thesis: Erdman, Kim- 
ball S. Classification and distribution of the native trees of 
Utah. 221 pp., illus. Brigham Young Univ., M. S. thesis. 
1961. 
Vermont.—Burns and Otis (1916); Dole (1937). 
Gould (1962) ; McDougall 
‘Texas Forest Service (1943); Vines and 
Virginia.—Evans (1942); Massey (1961). 
Washington. palace (1936); Mosher and Lunnum (1951) ; 
Piper (1906); St. John (1963); Sudworth (1908). Speci- 
mens ee at University of Washington Herbarium. 
West Virginia—Brooks (1920); Strausbaugh and Core 
(1952). Unpublished maps by Earl L. Core and Elizabeth 
Ann Bartholomew at University of West Virginia Herbar- 
ium. 
Wisconsin.—Fassett (1930). Unpublished maps by John W. 
Andresen from specimens at University of Wisconsin Her- 
barium and other herbaria. 
Wyoming.—Cary (1917); McDougall and 
Porter (1959). 
California.—Our principal sources of information for all 
of the pines that occur in California and adjacent parts of 
Nevada are the Vegetation Type Maps* and Soil-Vegetation 
Maps* prepared by the Pacific Southwest Forest and Range 
3agegley (1956); 
*Vegetation type and forest condition maps of California and western 
Nevada. September 20, 1963. U.S. Forest Serv., Pacific Southwest Forest 
and Range Expt. Sta., Berkeley, Calif. [List of available maps.] 
*Timber stand and soil-vegetation maps of California. January 1963. 
U.S. Forest Serv., Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Expt. Sta., Rerkeley, 
Calif. [List of available maps.] 
Experiment Station in cooperation with other agencies. We 
have also used the more detailed, unpublished information on 
which the older Vegetation Type Maps were based, Soil- 
Vegetation Maps currently being prepared for publication, 
data from the Forest Survey, and other unpublished informa- 
tion of the Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment 
Station. 
Canada.—Similar published references have been con- 
sulted for the maps of the eight species of Pinus native in 
Canada. Small distribution maps have appeared in the pub- 
lication, Native Trees of Canada (Canada Department of 
Forestry 1961). Halliday and Brown (1943) mapped the 
distribution of important forest trees from forest survey data, 
and Rowe (1959) mapped and described the forest types of 
Canada. Principal additional published sources, including 
floras and tree and forestry publications by Provinces, are: 
Alberta.—Moss (1959) 
British Columbia.—Garman (1963) ; 
(1918). 
Manitoba—Lowe (1943); Scoggan (1957). 
New Brunswick.—Morison (1938); Roland (1947). 
Newfoundland.—Rouleau (1956). 
Nova Scotia.—Roland (1947). 
Ontario.—White and Hosie (1946) . 
Quebec.—Hustich (1949); Marie-Victorin (1927, 1935). 
Saskatchewan.—Budd (1957) ; Fraser and Russell (1954). 
Yukon.—Hultén (1941); Porsild (1951) . 
Mexico.—The mapping of these pines differs from that 
of the other pines because of the scarcity of distribution in- 
formation other than the small-scale distribution maps and 
the lists of collection localities in Martinez (1948). His lists 
are the chief source of information for the Mexican distribu- 
tion of these species (the majority of the pines that occur in 
Mexico) : Pinus strobus, P. strobiformis (as P. ayacahuite var. 
brachyptera and P. reflexa), P. ayacahuite, P. cembroides, P. 
pinceana, P. nelsoni, P. leiophylla (including P. chihuahu- 
ana), P. lumholtzi, P. ponderosa (as P. arizonica), P. engel- 
mannii, P. durangensis, P. cooperi (as P. lutea), P. monte- 
zumae, P. hartwegii (including P. rudis), P. michoacana, P. 
psceudostrobus (including P. tenwifolia), P. douglasiana, P. 
teocote (including P. herrerai), P. lawsonii, P. patula, P. 
gregen, P. oocarpa, and P. pringlet. 
Many of the place names listed by Martinez could not be 
located on the available maps. Most of the others were lo- 
cated with the assistance of a recent gazetteer (U.S. Board 
on Geographic Names 1956). 
Another source of distribution information for many of 
the Mexican pines was the Mexican pine collection in the 
herbarium of the Institute of Forest Genetics at Placerville, 
Calif. Included in it are the 1960 and 1963 collections of 
E. L. Little, Jr., and the 1962 collections of North Carolina 
State College. We also used the species distribution map in 
the Guidebook to the Seminar and Study Tour of Latin 
American Conifers (Mexico Instituto Nacional de Investiga- 
ciones Forestales 1960). The approximate limits of the 
species were drawn with the help of topographic maps and 
several forest-type maps covering part or all of Mexico (Com- 
ision Forestal del Estado Michoacan 1958: Mexico Instituto 
Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales 1960; Leopold 1950). 
Whitford and Craig 
