72 



THE SOUTHERN PLANTER 



The covering of ground with a. heap of marl, 

 six or more inches thick, did not intermix with 

 or affect the constitution of the covered soil— and 

 could not, until the marl was scattered, and not 

 effectually until after tillage. The hardy plants, 

 springing in the still favorable (i. e. acid) soil 

 below, pushed upward through the marl, as 

 through a mere inert and mechanically opposing 

 mass of matter, without leaving in the marl a 

 single living lateral rootlet, or deriving from it 

 the'least supply, whether nutritive or poisonous. 

 But however 'numerous have been, these and 

 other apparent exceptions and contradictions to 

 the rule, there is no agricultural fact or rule bet- 

 ter established in the now widely extended 

 marling region of Virginia, than that sorrel 

 always disappears, speedily and entirely, from 

 properly marled lands. Lime, different from 

 marl, is applied in light dressings, and never 

 enough at the first time of application, and, 

 therefore, will rarely at first make an acid 

 soil calcareous, even to the least excess of re- 

 maining free lime. Therefore, sorrel would not 

 be always removed by one application. But I 

 maintain, and no one will deny, that lime, when 

 serving to make soil equally calcareous, must 

 have the same effect on sorrel as marling. 



It is not for me to judge of the opposing facts 

 stated by Dr. Pendleton and the editor of the 

 American Farmer, as reported from their own 

 observations — and still further removed, and less 

 capable of being tested, are those reported to 

 them by other and anonymous witnesses. But, 

 if properly scrutinized by the actual observers, 

 I am confident that all these reported cases of 

 contradiction would have been found to be of as 

 little value for evidence, as were all of the many 

 other cases referred to above, as within my own 

 reach of observation or scrutiny. 



But besides the many such alleged and mis- 

 taken facts, and things correctly named but mis- 

 understood, which serve to confuse inquiry and 

 mislead deductions, there are other prevalent 

 errors in names which cause even true and cor- 

 rectly observed facts to mislead and deceive. 

 The common sorrel, rumex acetocella, so far 

 referred to, is called sheep-sorrel in lower Vir- 

 ginia. Another kind (which, however, is not of 

 the "same family," as Dr. P. supposes,) oralis 

 acetocella. is there called horse-sorrel. The for- 

 mer has leaves shaped like narrow and barbed 

 arrow points — and its growth indicates land 

 destitute of carbonate of lime, and deficient in 

 lime of any kind. The horse-sorrel is a trefoil 

 and pod-bearing plant, and its general growth 

 indicates a good soil, naturally rich, or other- 

 wise highly calcareous. Yet in many cases, 

 these two very different plants, are confounded 

 by their common name, and facts in regard to 

 one are applied most erroneously to the other. 

 Still worse — I have recently learned that in 

 some parts of upper Virginia, these two vulgar 

 na.i.es are reversed. This confounding, and 

 still more the exchange, of these names would 

 alone be enough to throw the discussion of the sob 

 jectinto utter confusion in regard to facts asserted 

 by witnesses applying the names differently. 



Again: Pines readily and certainly form the 

 entire second growth of nearly all the exhausted 

 fields, turned out of tillage, in the tide-water re- 

 gion; and also on much of the like lands of the 

 next adjacent higher region. These trees are 

 in both regions termed "old-field" pines. Yet 

 it is a remarkable fact, which however obvious 

 and plain, is not known or observed by many 

 persons, that the "old-field" pine, which makes 

 the almost universal second growth of the ex- 

 hausted lands of the tide-water region and a 

 little higher, is a different species from the pines 

 as generally covering old fields still higher up. 

 the country — as, for example, in Cumberland 

 county, where my attention was first drawn to 

 this difference. The second-growth pines there 

 all are of the same species of the first or forest 

 growth of both that and the tide-water region' — 

 i. e. the "woods" or "pitch" or "yellow" or 

 "short leaf" pine, (p in us variabilis ? ) The ^old- 

 field" pine of the tide- water (pinus tceda?) has 

 longer leaves, larger cones, and is almost wholly 

 of sap-wood. Further, on our yellowish clay 

 soils, originally of more fertility than the ordi- 

 nary and more sandy soils on tide-water, the 

 second growth is as generally of pine, but of 

 still a different kind — the "spruce," "river" or 

 "cedar" pine, (pinus inops?) having the shortest 

 leaves and smallest cones of all here named.' 



Now, as the seeds of all these kinds must; be 

 carried far by the winds, and plentifully diffused 

 everywhere, the almost entire possession of some 

 lands by either kind, amhexclueion of the other 

 kinds, in the same climate and like exposures, 

 must indicate different chemical constitution of 

 the soil, or very different conditions as to pro- 

 duction. My observations • of soils, &c. were 

 made} and views as to their improvement were 

 deduced, in the region -where our "old-field" 

 pine (P. tceda) was the almost exclusive second 

 growth. I deduced the opinion (which re- 

 mains unaltered,) that wherever the "old-field" 

 pine thus grew, generally and vigorously, thai 

 lime was certainly and greatly deficient, in the 

 soil, and that its application would certainly 

 cause speedy and great improvement and in- 

 crease of fertility. I went farther, and still main- 

 tain, that nothing else, without lime, would there 

 effect profitable and enduring fertility. Still* 

 farther, I maintained that on such soils, without 

 liming or marling, clover could not be grown 

 successfully, and that gypsum would have no 

 effect. But T freely confess that I erred in ico 

 much generalizing ray indications and rules, 

 and erroneously inferred the same to be strictly 

 true as to pine-bearing lands in general. I did 

 not then know that the "old-field" pines so 

 plenty on the red lands of some of the counties 

 of mid-land Virginia were of a different species — 

 that those lands refused to bear our "old-field" 

 pine — and also I have since learned that clover 

 succeeds there, and gypsum generally operates 

 well, and that lime has rarely been found bene- 

 ficial, on these higher pine- bearing, as well as 

 oilier lands ofthat region. Such were my mis- 

 takes, caused by too limited observation, and too 

 hastily reasoning from particular facts to general 



