CHARACTERISTICS OF TREES. 
291 
clearly-defined masses of light and shade, but 
the masses are small—too narrow and too nu- Fig. 82. 
merous to produce the grand effects of the 
larger openings in the oak and chestnut, though 
our cut shows larger lights and shadows than 
are usual in the maple. The brighter green 
and more abundant foliage of the maple make 
amends for this inferiority, but it is none the less an inferiority. 
An examination of the structure of these trees in winter will show 
why the oak and the chestnut mass their foliage 
more nobly. It is because they have fewer and 
larger branches, not radiating like those of the 
maple with uniform divergence, but breaking 
out here and there at right angles with the part 
from which they issue. The consequence is, 
that when they are in leaf, the projecting leaf surfaces and the 
shadow openings are larger and nobler in expression. The hick¬ 
ories are all observable for the massiveness of their lights and 
shadows, and, unlike the chestnut, they assume 
this character while yet young. By the shadows 
alone it would not be easy to distinguish a 
hickory from an oak or chestnut, though they 
are readily distinguishable at sight by difference 
of contour—the hickory being proportionally 
taller and squarer than the others. There is, 
however, a difference in the shadows that close observers will mark: 
the wood being more elastic, the branches of old trees bend to 
form curved lines, which give the shadows a similar general di¬ 
rection, as will be seen on Fig. 86. This effect 
may be seen in many other trees, and is more 
noticeable in the lower than the upper part of 
the tree. There are many species which can be 
distinguished readily by this peculiarity in their 
shadows in connection with their contours. The 
sassafras, Fig. 87, naturally takes an umbrella 
form of head, and its foliage divides into cur¬ 
vilinear strata, or rather appears so as seen 
Fig. 84. 
Fig. 83. 
