158 
NATURE NOTES 
Park, the seat of the Duke of Bedford. It is 90 feet high from the ground to the 
top of its branches One of the finest chestnut trees in England 
is at Studley Park, near Ripon. It is 112 feet high The most 
magnificent beech tree on record is at Knole Park, Kent ; its height is 105 feet.” 
The above is rather ancient history, and I trust that more modern records will 
be forthcoming. 
Dr. .Schlich, in his learned “ Manual of Forestry,” gives the following extreme 
heights of British forest trees : beech, about 110 feet, and under specially favour- 
able conditions more (in Normandy, 170 feet) ; hornbeam, 75 feet ; oak, no feet 
(in Normandy, 150 feet); ash, no feet; elm, no feet, favourably 125 feet; 
maple may reach 1 10 feet ; poplar, 1 10 feet ; lime, no feet ; silver fir, frequently 
120 feet, but single trees occasionally 150 feet; spruce, greatest height of indi- 
genous trees of temperate Europe, 150 feet ; Scotch pine, 120 feet ; Austrian pine 
seldom exceeds 75 feet in England ; Weymouth pine, 120 feet or more; larch, 
120 feet ; Douglas fir, imported from North America, will outgrow all European 
forest trees. 
I gather from this that the ordinary maximum heights of the principal British 
forest trees is the same for the different deciduous species, namely i to feet, and 
this is natural, for were it otherwise the taller trees would suffer from the wind. 
The character of the needles (leaves) of pines allows of a greater height without 
excessive punishment by wind. By similar reasoning, trees in sheltered valleys 
attain to greater heights than in exposed situations. I was much impressed last 
year, when in Austria, by the great height of pines in the valleys, and their value 
from a timber point of view, because of their arrow-like, straight, yet large, stems. 
Les Colondalles, Monlreux, Giles A. Daubeny. 
Switzerland, June b, 1902. 
In case you should be too much occupied yourself to reply to F. M. Millard’s 
enquiry on p. 1 19 of your June number as to the height of the tallest tree in 
England, may I refer him to your book on “ Familiar Trees,” in which you 
mention the height of a beech tree in Norbury Park, Surrey, as being 160 feet. 
I have not heard or read of any English tree (coniferous or deciduous), taller 
than that ; the Scotch fir at Warton, in Staffordshire, also referred to by you, 
being put at 120 to 140 feet, and an Abies excelsa, mentioned in the “ Encyclopaedia 
Britannica,” at 140. 
1 1 7, Thurlow Park Road, Dulwich, M. J. Teesdale. 
June 9, 1902. 
[I do rot remember my authority for the statements quoted. Neither was from 
personal observation. — E d., N.N.\ 
Orchis latifolia and. Orchis maculata.— Does a hybrid exist between 
the above plants ? Last year I forwarded several specimens to Professor Boulger 
which varied very much from Orchis maculata, and which were commented on in 
Professor Boulger’s paper in Nature Notes. On June 26 this year I visited the 
locality where the variable specimens were found, and growing in a damp place 
close to Orchis maculata proper, and also to the variable specimens, 1 found 
Orchis latifolia, with bracts half as long again as the flowers, broad leaves, sheath- 
ing the stems, not spotted, lip much broader than O. maculata, crenately notched, 
not deeply divided as in O. maculata. Sir J. E. Smith describes leaves in O. 
latifolia as unspotted, lip obscurely trifid, spur conical (Smith’s “ Compendium 
Florae Britannicae ”) ; Sir J. D. Hooker, in ‘‘Students’ Flora,” says leaves usually 
spotted in 0 . latifolia, and he describes the lip in O. maculata as deeply three- 
lobed. The flowers in the variation seem to be more like O. latifolia than 
O. maculata, and finding the former in flower this year at the same time, I 
■thought possibly a hybrid might occur between the two ? 
Cranbrook, fuly 9, 1902. 
A. W. Hudson. 
