<o2^G 
438 PROCEEDINGS OP THE ACADEMY OP 
then be considered in this relation. Moreover, hybrids, which 
cannot necessarily be abundant in nature, or there would not be 
the order we see, seldom come in more than one place, or if so, be 
exactly alike, and yet investigation shows this form to be by no ; 
means uncommon. Michaux rashly undertakes to say that there Missouri BoTIK 
is not another tree to be found within a hundred miles of Phila-. George Euge M 
delphia, yet Professor Buckley found one in a single day’s botan- 
izing in New Jersey near Camden, as recorded in our Proceedings ; 
he had himself found it during one day’s botanizing in Delaware 
as recorded in Gray’s manual. Professor Leidy, Mr Smith, Mr. 
Cope, and Mr. Burk have found it in New Jersey, and there were | 
now on the table specimens gathered by the latter gentleman 
near Woodbury, who had found two trees on this occasion, and ; 
had seen quite a number on other occasions. There is no 
doubt that when these casual visitors meet with trees, there is no 
great scarcity, and this is not in accordance with what we have to 
expect from hybrid trees. 
Now as we see in these specimens of Mr. Burk, as well as in 
the original drawing in Michaux, the venation is wholly distinct 
from QuercAiS Phellos, and Q. imbricaria^ and it is here that we 
find the best characters for distinguishing the species of oak. 
There is a petiole nearly an inch long in these specimens, and also 
in Michaux’s drawing, and more or less of a petiole in all the 
specimens he had seen; and, while the leaves of the Q. Pheilos • j « 
are thin, those of Q. heterophylla are coriaceous. A hybrid unites j 
the characters of two parents, but there were no two parents here | 
in the North which could unite and form a character like this, 
and so the supposed Bartram and Marshall progenies are out of 
the question. -r^ n • 
In the monograph on Gupuliferse by Alphonse De Condone in 
the ProdroTYius^ this oak is made a form of Q. aquatica, Ihis 
suggestion, misled by the probably historical error in regard to ^ 
the living Bartram tree, he had regarded as preposterous, and he | 
believed most North American botanists had agreed with him. -j 
The forms of leaf most familiar to Quercologists, in Quercus aqua- 
tica^ were the triangularly wedge-shaped, nearly sessile ones, com- 
mon in the South on mature trees. But further norjh, and in 
young and vigorous trees south, the leaves were petiolate, ap- 
proaching those now exhibited by Mr. Burk. Besides this there 
was in Michaux’s figure an outline of one of these forms of leaves, |‘_ 
which one could see by comparison with his figure of Q. hetero- 
phylla to be the same. The habit of growth ^ the trees of Q. | 
aquatica is very distinct from that of Q. Pheilos^ and Mr. Burk \ 
reports these trees in New Jersey to be so distinct from the Q. : 
Pheilos among which they grow, that he can distinguish them a 
long distance away. The only remaining difficulties to students | 
would be that De Candolle classes Q, aquatica^ variety heterophylla, 
among the “ sempervirentes^ while we know it is deciduous, and jj 
then that it is a too high northern range for this species. The first 
