FIFTEENTH REPORT. 
19c 
!> Calamagrostis Canadensis 
!> Enpatoriuin pnrpureuni 
<S Carex filiformis 
8 Danthonia spicata 
6 (Yerbascum Tha.psus) 
i Chrysanthemum Leucanthemum pinnatifidnm) 
r» Iris versicolor 
5 Eriophorum viridicarinatum 
4 (Trifolium pratense) 
4 Scirpus atrovirens? 
4 Valeriana uliginosa 
3 (Trifolium hybridum) 
3 ( Arctium minus) 
3 (Hypericum perforatum) 
3 Tlialictrum dasycarpum 
3 Aster macrophyllus 
3 Solidago sp. 
2 Juncus effusus 
2 ( Carduns arvensis) 
2 Osmunda cinnamomea 
2 Sium cicutaefolium 
2 Calla palustris 
The number of native herbs identified in this manner is rather large 
for such a well-wooded country, and compares favorably with the num- 
ber that might be seen in traveling a similar distance through the pine- 
barrens of the southeastern states. In the hardwood country between 
the boreal and Ihe southeastern coniferous forests the traveler by rail 
sees few herbs other than weeds, as I have pointed out elsewhere.* 
Another noteworthy character of the flora of this region is the Avide dis- 
tribution of the species. All but one or two of those listed grow also in 
northern New England, about 800 miles farther east, and nearlv as manv 
are reported also from New' Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Many are 
also represented in northern Eurasia by identical or closely allied species. 
Most of them also range several hundred miles farther north. (In the 
interior lumhvood region of the eastern United States, and still more in 
the coastal plain, the species of plants are much more localized.) 
More interesting still is the proportion of evergreens. Assuming that 
the figures given represent the relative abundance of the species in 
the primeval forests — a rather faulty assumption, to be sure, but one 
that will not be very misleading when comparisons are made between 
different sets of figures obtained in the same way — just about 46% of 
the trees, or 40 1 4% of all the woody plants listed (i. e., individuals, not 
species! are evergreen. 
The opinion seems to be prevalent among those ecologists who have 
given any thought to the matter that the proportion of evergreens in 
a given llora is determined primarily by some one or more climatic fac- 
tors. But the fact lhat different habitats so close together that their 
climate must be essentially the same in all particulars often differ 
Avidely in the proportion of evergreens sIioavs that it cannot be explained 
without reference to edaphic factors. 
♦ Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 37:411-412, 423, 1910. 
