28 
JOURNAL  UN  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
January  14,  19C4. 
And  now  to  conclude  with  a  word  or  two  on  the  familiar 
expression,  “  Lilies,”  or,  as  elsewhere,  “  flowers  of  the  field.” 
These  so-called  Lilies  were  merely  a  general  term  for  the  usual 
and  multitudinous  flowers  growing  among  the  herbage  in  great 
quantities  broadcast  throughout  Palestine,  and  being  chiefly  of 
a  bulbous  type,  such,  for  instance,  as  the  Crocus,  Tulip, 
Anemone,  Narcissus,  and  Banunculus.  The  Song  of  Solomon, 
abounding  in  poetical  expressions,  has  several  references  to  this 
ubiquitous  “  Lily,”  behig  the  symbolical  emblem  of  loveliness 
and  purity.  Among  others,  we  call  to  mind  “  I  am  .  .  .  . 
the  Lily  of  the  Valleys,”  “  The  Lily  among  thorns,”  “  He 
feedeth  among  the  Lilies.” 
Again,  we  have  in  the  New  Testament  the  very  familiar, 
“  Consider  the  Lilies  of  the  field,  &c.”  The  writer  well 
remembers  the  delights  of  most  of  these  same  “  Lilies  ”  having 
their  habitat,  and  just  emerging  from  the  soil  in  all  their  early 
spring  freshness,  arrayed  in  their  wealth  of  perfect  simplicity 
as  implied  in  the  above  passage,  upon  the  hill  country  and 
mountain  valleys  between  the  regions  of  Hebron  and  Bethle¬ 
hem  and  the  wilds  of  Marsaba,  that  grim,  precipitous  abode  of 
monkish  anchorites,  and  the  desolate  shores  of  the  Dead  Sea. — 
Viator. 
- - 
Exotic  Conifers  in  Britain.* 
(Concluded  from  page  5.) 
The  early  introduction  of  exotic  trees  into  Great  Britain 
was  by  no  means  a  matter  of  chance.  On  the  contrary,  it  was 
the  result  of  a  strong  demand  on  the  part  of  landowners,  to 
satisfy  which  systematic  expeditions  were  organised,  either 
by  («)  existing  societies,  (h)  special  associations,  or  (c)  com¬ 
mercial  nurserymen.  In  all  cases,  other  plants  besides  trees 
received  attention,  though  in  some  cases  trees,  and  especially 
conifers,  were  the  main  object.  In  1823  David  Douglas  was 
engaged  by  the  Horticultural  Society  of  London,  and,  after 
a  short  visit  to  the  Eastern  States  of  North  America,  he  sailed 
in  1824  for  North-West  America,  where  he  remained  till  1827. 
After  two  years  at  home,  he  sailed  for  California  in  1829,  and 
met  with  a  tragic  death  in  the  Sandwich  Islands  on  July  12, 
1834.  To  Douglas  we  owe  many  of  our  most  valuable  conifers, 
r.r/.,  Pinus  insignis,  P.  Coulteri,  P.  Lambertiana,  P.  monticola, 
P.  ponderosa,  Abies  amabilis,  A.  bracteata,  A.  grandis,  A. 
nobilis,  Picea  sitchensis,  and  Pseudotsuga  Douglasi. 
It  was  also  the  Horticultural  Society  that  sent  Theodor 
Hartweg  to  North  America  in  1845,  the  most  notable  of  whose 
introductions  were  Sequoia  sempervirens  and  Cupressus 
macrocarpa.  In  1843  the  same  society  had  sent  Robert 
Fortune  to  China,  and  to  him  we  owe  Cryptomeria  japonica 
and  other  trees  of  lesser  importance.  The  cost  to  the  society 
of  despatching  collecting  expeditions  from  1840  to  1846 
amounted  to  £3,837  13s.  Id. 
In  1849  an  association  was  formed  in  Edij^burgh  which  had 
for  its  object  the  despatch  of  a  collector  to  North-West 
America.  This  association — known  as  the  Oregon  Botanical 
Expedition— was  supported  by  landowners  and  nurserymen, 
chiefly  Scottish,  each  subscriber  taking  at  least  one  share  of 
£5,  the  results  of  the  expedition  to  be  divided  amongst  the 
members  according  to  the  number  of  £5  shares.  The  sum 
subscribed  in  the  first  year  was  £950 ;  subsequently  increased 
to  £1,445,  most  members  taking  a  single  share,  though  some 
— chiefly  nurserymen — taking  four  to  six,  and  even  up  to  ten. 
John  Jeffrey  was  appointed  collector,  and  sailed  for  Montreal 
in  June,  1850,  reaching  the  district  west  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains  in  the  following  year. 
The  Hudson’s  Bay  Company  granted  him  a  free  passage, 
while  the  Admiralty  promised  to  assist  with  their  ships  on  the 
North-West  coast  of  America.  The  first  consignment  of  plants 
and  seed  arrived  from  San  Francisco  in  1852,  the  postage  of 
which  amounted  to  £135,  but  the  Post  Office  authorities 
geiierously  agreed  to  waive  their  claim.  To  Jeffrey  we  owe 
Abies  lasiocarpa,  T.  Mertensiana,  Thuja  gigantea,  Libocedrus 
decurrens,  Pinus  flexilis,  P.  Balfouriana,  P.  Murrayana,  and 
P.  Jeffreyi.t 
In  1854  an  expedition  was  undertaken  to  California  by 
INIessrs.  Beardsley  and  Murray,  and  the  result  of  their  efforts 
was  the  introduction  of  that  fine  tree,  Chammeyparis  Lawson- 
iana  and  one  or  two  others  of  much  less  importance. 
One  other  private  expedition  may  be  mentioned,  namely, 
that  of  John  Gould  Veitch,  a  member  of  a  famous  firm  of 
*  Translation  of  a  paper  contributed  by  Pr.  Somerville  to  the  Congress  of 
Forestry  Experimenfal  Stations,  Vienna,  September,  1903.  Reprinted  from  the 
Journal  of  the  Board  of  Agriculture. 
1  lam  indebtel  to  Professor  Bayley  Balfour  for  access  to  the  minutes  of  the 
Edinburgh  Oregon  Association,  and  for  the  perusal  of  some  of  Douglas’s 
co:respondence. 
English  nurserymen,  who,  in  1860,  set  out  for  Japan,  and  was 
instrumental  in  introducing  Larix  leptolepis,  Abies  firnia,  Picea 
polita,  P.  ajanensis,  P.  Alcockiana  and  others.  • 
The  number  of  species  of  conifers  that  find  conditions  more 
or  less  suitable  to  their  requirements  in  some  part  of  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland  considerably  exceeds  100.  Mr.  Dunn, 
in  his  census  prepared  for  the  Conifer  Conference  of  the  Royal 
Horticultural  Society  in  1891,  gives  the  dimensions  of  102 
species.  I  do  not,  however,  propose  to  include  in  this  paper 
any  that  are  not  at  least  fairly  common,  and  which  hold  out 
the  prospect  of  attaining  the  dimensions  of  useful  forest  trees. 
With  few  exceptions  exotic  trees  in  Great  Britain  are  grown 
in  isolated  positions,  so  that  their  stems  are  covered  with 
branches  quite  down  to  the  ground.  The  result  is,  that  for  any 
given  age,  their  girth  at  breast-height  is  greater  than  would  be 
the  case  with  trees  of  a  similar  age  grown  in  close  forest.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  height  is  probably  less  than  it  otherwise 
would  have  been.  The  circumference  is  given  at  4jft  from  the 
ground.  The  ages  given  are  calculated  from  the  time  of  plant¬ 
ing,  at  which  time  the  tree  would,  as  a  rule,  be  four  years  old, 
so  that  to  get  the  actual  age  from  the  time  of  sowing  the  seed 
the  figures  would  generally  have  to  be  increased  by  four. 
The  dimensions  given  for  the  vai’fous  species  are  not 
averages,  but  are  the  result  of  actual  measurement  of 
individual  trees  situated  in  the  districts  indicated.  As  a  rule, 
for  any  given  age,  the  largest  tree  has  been  selected.  Some 
may  think  that  this  is  not  a  fair  index  of  ivhat  a  particular 
species  may  be  expected  to  attain  to  at  any  given  age,  but  I 
am  disposed  to  think  that  the  maximum  height  recorded  for 
a  certain  age,  in  the  case  of  a  tree  grown  in  a  garden  or  park, 
is  more  likely  to  represent  what  may  be  looked  for  when  the 
same  species  is  grown  in  close  forest,  than  the  average  height 
of  all  the  trees  of  that  age  wmuld  be.  It  is  to  be  remembered 
that  the  figures  that  follow  are  taken,  for  the  most  part,  from 
“  specimen  ”  trees,  and  that  in  their  case  there  has  been  little 
application  of  the  law  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest.  Suppose 
that  forty  years  ago  an  order  was  given  to  a  nurseryman  for 
five  Douglas  Firs  about  3ft  high,  the  plants  supplied  might 
vary  from  three  to  six  years  of  age. 
A  Douglas  Fir  that  attains  the  height  of  3ft  in  three  years 
may  be  regarded  as  an  individual  with  a  natural  tendency  to 
vigorous  growth,  whereas  if  six  years  be  taken  to  reach  the 
same  height  the  particular  individual  is  manifestly  a  slow 
grower.  If  the  five  Douglas  Firs  were  intended  for  landscape 
effect,  each  would  be  set  out  with  abundance  of  room,  and,  no 
matter  whether  it  grew  fast  or  slow,  it  would  be  allowed  to 
survive.  At  the  end  of  forty  years  the  tallest  of  the  trees 
might  be  80ft,  while  the  smallest  might  not  exceed  40ft, 
giving  an  average  of,  say,  60ft.  But  if  a  number  of  Douglas 
Firs  were  planted  3ft  or  4ft  apart,  and  managed  in  true 
sylvicultural  fashion,  the  only  individuals  that  would  survive 
to  the  age  of  forty  years  ivould  be  those  with  a  natural 
tendency  to  rapid  growth;  all  the  others  would  long  before 
have  been  suppressed  or  removed  in  the  thinnings.  The 
average  height  of  the  wood  would  therefore  be  not  60ft,  but 
80ft ;  hence  it  follows  that  in  converting  the  results  of  arbori- 
cultural  treatment  into  terms  of  sylvicultural  treatment  we 
should  take  as  the  basis  of  our  calculations  not  the  average  but 
the  largest  trees.  I  am  aw’are,  of  course,  that  “  specimen  ” 
trees  are  usually  set  out  in  good  soil  and  in  well-sheltered  and 
otherwise  favourable  situations,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  they  . 
lack  the  “drawing-up”  influences  of  a  closely  stocked  wood. 
In  the  tables  [Which  we  have  had  to  omit. — Ed.  “J.  of  H.”] 
it  will  sometimes  be  found  that  a  young  tree  has  attained  to 
greater  dimensions  than  an  older  one.  The  reason  for  this 
may  be  explained.  In  dealing  with  any  particular  species  the 
choice  of  specimens  decreases  ivith  age,  that  is  to  say,  whereas 
we  may  have  twenty  measurements  of  twenty-year-old  trees 
from  which  to  select,  ive  may  not  have  more  than  one  or  two 
in  the  case  of  sixty-year-old  specimens  of  the  same  species. 
The  chances  of  being  able  to  record  the  dimensions  of  a 
“dominant”  tree  of  the  latter  age  are,  therefore,  relatively 
small. 
In  compiling  the  tables  free  use  was  made  of  Mr.  Dunn’s 
census,*  though  other  reliable  sources  have  also  been  drawn 
upon.  In  many  cases  I  have  been  able  to  secure  measurements 
in  June,  1903,  of  the  same  trees  whose  dimensions,  in  the  spring 
of  1891,  were  recorded  by  Mr.  Dunn.  In  this  way  a  record  of 
the  growth  made  during  the  last  twelve  years  has  been  obtained. 
In  some  cases  the  particular  tree  has  lost  its  top  in  the  interval 
between  the  two  measurements,  which  accounts  for  the'  height 
recorded  in  1903  being  sometimes  less  than  that  given  in  1891. 
Dr.  Somerville  then  proceeds  to  name  a  number  of  conifers 
in  alphabetical  order,  and  furnishes  tables  showing  where  the 
oldest  and  largest  trees  are  growing  in  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland. 
*  Jour.  Roy.  Hort.  Soc.  1891,  vol.  xiv.,  p.  4S1. 
