26 
regular pinery form on the tracts of sandy loam and the red clays of 
Lake Superior, and it was invariabiy pinery proper, generally a mix- 
ture of White and Red (Norway) Pines, on all sandy and loamy sand 
districts. 
Along a line extending approximately through range 7 W., from Lake 
Superior to township 31 N., thence to the southwest corner of Mara- 
thon County, and thence east to Green Bay!’ this great forest changed 
in character. To the east and north of this line the Hemlock joined the 
hard woods and pine on all gravelly clay and loam lands. The Birch 
(not White Birch) disputed precedence among hard woods, so that we 
may designate the forest as Birch forest with admixtures. The Red 
Oaks were thinly scattered and the White Oaks practically wanting. 
To the south and west of this line the Hemlock generally did not grow 
at all, the Birch became scattering, White Oaks were abundant, and the 
oaks gave character to the hard-wood mixture, making the bodies of 
pure hard woods, which were much more common on this side of the 
line, distinctly Oak forests.’ 
Along the southern and western boundaries of the forest (in Portage, 
Dunn, St. Croix, and Polk counties) the dense cover of a variety of tall 
hard woods and conifers gave way rather suddenly to monotonous brush- 
woods, composed of scattered bushy oaks, either alone or mixed with 
Jack Pine. 
In almost all parts of the mixed forest of the loam lands the hard 
woods formed the body of the forest and the conifers the admixture. 
The hard woods were represented by trees of all sizes, from the seedling 
or sprout to the mature timber tree; they formed nearly all of the 
undergrowth, and this hard-wood forest showed every indication of 
thrift and permanence. The White Pine—Red (Norway) Pine did not 
grow on these loam lands—and Hemlock, on the other hand, were 
represented almost entirely by mature old timber standing isolated in 
groups or small bodies among the hard woods. Saplings, bushy young 
trees, and seedlings were comparatively scarce, an active reproduction 
was evidently not going on, and there is every reason to believe that 
both were losers in a long-fought struggle for possession of the ground 
in which a change in the general moisture conditions probably exerted 
considerable influence. For White Pine this was most conspicuous in 
the southern counties (Marathon, Langlade, and Dunn) and on the 
heaviest soils, where in many places the hard woods had entirely suc- 
ceeded in crowding out the pine, but wherever sand or gravel discour- 
aged the hard woods (in Wood, Barron, Price, and Sawyer counties), 
the pine held more nearly its own, and formed a fair proportion of the 
sapling timber. 
1Leaving out of consideration the counties along Lake Michigan, which were not 
visited. 
2The lines of distribution, as here laid down, refer only to the occurrence of trees 
as timber of economic importance, and not to their botanical distrrbution. 
