388 



FALSE SHAG-BARK HICKORY. 



of the false shag-bark are shmmer and bear 

 hairy anthers, while the others are smooth, but 

 these dissimilarities need not be discussed here. 



^ The most 

 characteri s t i c 

 differences are 

 found in the 

 nuts. The 

 husks and nut- 

 walls of the 

 false shag- bark 

 are very thin, 

 and the husks 

 rarely split off 

 entirely, but the 

 divisions cling 

 together on 

 their lower por- 

 tions. The ma- 

 ture nut in fig- 

 ure 2 is an ad- 

 mirable repre- 

 sentation, and 

 figure 5 is an 

 illustration of a 

 characteri s t i c 

 cniss-section of 

 a nut with its 

 husk. The nut 

 of this species 

 is more con- 

 spicuously 

 beaked than 

 t h a t o f the 

 other species. 

 The husks and 

 Fig. io. Se( tion oi- Ti:unk of False nut-walls of the 

 SriAG-BARK. true shag-bark 



are very thick and heavy, and the four divisions of 

 the husk break away entirely and leave the nut free. 

 Figures 4 and 6 show these peculiarities. These 

 features of the fruits are so striking that they at 

 once clearly separate the species. The nut of the 

 false shag-bark is sweet and edible, but it is never- 

 theless inferior to that of the shag-bark, and all 

 who desire to plant hickory trees should be able to 

 distinguish the two. 



The thinness of the husk of the false shag-bark 

 and its disposition to split only part way down, al- 

 lies this species to the pig-nut {Ca)ya porcina of 

 botanies) ; and, in fact, closer observation is re- 

 quired to distinguish these two than those previously 

 discussed. But the fruit of the pig-nut is unmis- 

 takable. It is pear Rhnjied — reminding one strongly 



of a Seckel pear ; it lacks the point of the other ; 

 the tip looks like the "eye" or calyx of a little 

 pear. Is much less ridged, and the husk does not 

 split off. It is now the last of Maj-, but I have to- 

 day gathered the last year's nuts of the pig-nut and 

 the husks are still firm, although some of them have 

 cracked for a third or half their length. But even 

 when the husks crack, the divisions remain firmly 

 appressed to the nut, and never become loose as in 

 the case of the false shag-bark. The husks are 

 also thicker. The meat is acrid and inedible. The 

 smooth, regular, compact, pear-like nuts at once 

 distinguish this species. Figure 7 is a faithful il- 

 lustration of the fruit of the pig-nut. The nut it- 

 self — after the husk is removed — is slightly refuse 

 or hollowed 

 at the top, 

 and the 

 point is very 

 small. The 

 nut o f the 

 false shag- 

 bark, on the 

 other hand, 

 is nearly or 

 quite full on 

 top, and the 

 beak is 

 prominent. 



There are 

 other points 

 in which the 

 pig-nut dif- 

 fers from 

 the ^_f a 1 s e 

 s h a g-bark. 

 The most 

 striking dif- 

 erence lies 

 in the bark, 

 w h i c h is 

 close, f u r - 

 rowed much 

 like a bass- 

 wood, and is 

 never shag- 

 gy, so far as 

 I have ob- 

 served. 



Fig. 



Section of Trunk of Shag-bark. 

 It has seemed necessary to go somewhat into de- 

 tail in the description of these hickories, as they 

 have never been fully and properly characterized. 

 On account of unreliable field data, it is impos- 

 sible to determine the distribution of the false shag- 



