^HAVING NO DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF THE CAL. OAKS, I AM REDUCED TO CON- 

 JECTURE AS TO NAMES. 



NOW ABOUT THE SOUTHERN LIVE OAK* I CAME ACROSS THE SPECIMEN YOU 



ALLUDE TO THE OTHER DAY, & NOTED YOUR REMARKS* LOSING AT THE DRIED SP. 

 IT DOES SEEM DIFFERENT FROM THE ORDINARY TYPE OF THE 0* VIRENS. BUT 

 I REMEMBER IT WAS A YOUNG TREE. & • NOTED ITS LARGE LEAVES AT THE TIME, 

 & THOUGHT OF THE HUGE LEAVES OF YOUNG ©. Tl NCTOR I A, BUT IF IT IS NOT 

 0. VIRENS, THEN MUCH OF THE * ' L I VE OAK*» OF THE GULF REGION IS IN THE 

 SAME FIX, FOR IT IS BY NO MEANS AN UNUSUAL TYPE. IT CERTAINLY HAS NO- 

 THING TO DO WITH Q„ AQUATICA, OF WHICH Q. LAURf FOLIA MICHX # IS CONSI- 

 DERED. A VAR* — ITS HABIT IS ALTOGETHER THAT «>F © „ VIRENS, AND Q. A©UAT # 

 IS NOT FOUND WITHIN 50 MILES. MOREOVER, I F I NO A SPE C I ME n|l.ABELE D BY 



YSFLF ,f O. LAURIFOLIA* f , TO WHICH YOU HAVE ADDED * • AQUATI CA • • # NOB THE 

 TWO ARE NOT IN THE LEAST ALIKE; THE LATTER LOOKING TO ME LIKE A HYBRID 

 BETWEEN AOUATICA AND PHELLOS , BE I NG POINTED AND 6 I NUA II! O i l LOBED, WHILE 

 MY '•LIVE OAK»» HAS LEAVES OF THE SHAPE OF Q # CINEREA, THOUGH OF VERY 

 DIFFERENT TEXTURE* EVIDENTLY THE TWO ARE WIDELY DIFFERENT} NOW , WHICH 

 IS LAURIFOLIA MICHX.f 



