ELM. 



51 



botanists to explain their nice peculiarities, and think 

 it sufficient to rank the whole under montana and 

 campestris, especially as the timber seems to range 

 into two kinds — Montana, with large leaves, heavy 

 annual shoots, somewhat zig-zag, thick towards the 

 point, thence drooping a little from gravity ; having 

 much sap-wood, and timber of great longitudinal 

 toughness, but, from the great quantity of sap-wood, 

 and want of lateral adhesion, it splits considerably in 

 drying ; — Campestris, with smaller leaves, more 

 numerous straight annual shoots, which are small to- 

 wards the point, thence more erect, has but little sap- 

 wood, and the timber also possessing greater lateral 

 adhesion, and less longitudinal, it does not crack 

 much in drying. We have noticed one broad-leaved 

 kind or variety, whose annual twigs often spring out 

 in tufts or knots from one point ; this seems to arise 

 from the shoot of the preceding year sometimes dy- 

 ing, probably nipped by frost, and the tuft of shoots 

 springing out from the knot at the lower extremity 

 of the dead twig. From this cause, it has not the 

 gi-aceful easy spread of branches of the U. 7nontana, 

 but assumes a more angular, stiff, upright figure. 

 We have heard this named Dutch Elm, but it does 

 not quite correspond with the elm in the parks at 

 London said to be Dutch. We consider it a kind 



D 2 



