DONALD THISTLE

Reviewer of the past, and monarch of the present,

How thy strong rugged self speaks 'gainst the foibles of o'erpowering

man.

Though once thy time was measured all in moons,

As red skinned sons of Nature reckoned life,

Long since that all has changed; and in his stead,

The artificial white man drives the world;

And in the driving loses what is beautiful.

He cursed the nobler owners of the land,

And pushed them forth as sheep 'mongst hungry wolves,

As herds of cattle, bison, wretches, dogs,

He branded these first men who found life sweet.

And worse, he called them liars, sneaks, and thieves,
Yet had no worthier sons to fill their place.
All this, O Worthy Sire, thou hast seen, and more;
The love scene of the Indian maid has passed.
Beneath thy sturdy boughs, how oft a song

Of simple truth and melody was outward sent,

Through shade, across the silver sheen and on, until

It lost its echo in some distant woods.

How many a feathered songster of God's choir

Has loved and in your boughs to you, poured forth his song.
The greatest secrets hast thou overheard.

And yet, no harm when only thou dost hear,

For only after centuries of time,

When all the idle whisperers have gone,
Dos: thou consent to tell to anyone

The history of love in times before.

Full many a Spring has come and Summer gone,
And flocks of birds have often sung the songs,
And other woodland folk have trusted thee
For home, and shelter; where to rear their brood.
The Indian while he prayed unto the sun, his God,
Has lived, told secrets, and in thy shadow died.

Are my poor ears too harsh to catch thy words,
Thy note of truly 'most prophetic strain,
Must I then bear the evils of my race,

And never hear a word thou hast to say?

Or wilt thou drop just here and there a word

Of how the Springs have come and gone before.

How this one differs, or perhaps is like

Those former ones; and then just tell me this

Why in this busy world we have no time?

For thou hast lived for many moons serene and strong and loved,
And still remain, a noble gift to all posterity.

Necessity for Greater Accuracy in Describing American

Trees

Dr. R. W. SHUFELDT

Washington, D. C.

(Illustrated by reproductions of three of the author's photographs)

During the autumn of 1916, I paid some little attention to the various species of indigenous oak trees (Quercus) found growing in the woods and open country about the city of Washington. I collected, with great care, the fruit and leaves of ten or more of what appeared to me to be distinct species. I likewise photographed a number of oak trees of this region, as I found them growing in nature, for the purpose of comparing their different styles or manner of growth, collecting from these trees, as well as from others, numbers of acorns, leaves, branches, and so on. As my investigations progressed, I was reminded of what the late Professor Lester F. Ward-a most profound botanist-once said to me, at the time he had just described a new species of oak for the District of Columbia: "If you ever take up botany, be very cautious when you come to study the genus Quercus; they are a most puzzling lot, and liable to discourage you." When my collection and photographs came to be to some degree representative of this quercusine group of the Beach family (Fagacea), I submitted the material to Mr. P. L. Ricker, Assistant Botanist of the Division of Plant Industry, of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, and to his assistant, Mr. Peterström. Through their courtesy, all of my specimens were quickly identified, and these identifications I duly compared with the descriptions (illustrated) given in the last edition of Gray's "New Manual of Botany" (Robinson and Fernald edition). On page 338 of this work we are informed with respect to the oaks that "all the species [are] inclined to hybridize freely." In the case of the descriptions of some of the species, we are further told that the foliage is "extremely variable" (Q. falcata). Of Q. margaretta it is said that it "is possibly a hybrid of Q. stellata and Q. alba"; and in the case of Q. virginiana, that it may be a very large tree in rich soil, and a dwarf in sterile soil, the two varieties differing widely. Finally, in the case of others, as in the common Red oak (Q. rubra) for example, it is found "passing to var. ambigua along our northern border."

As a matter of fact, I met with the greatest difficulty in identifying the eight or ten species and subspecies of oaks I had collected with so much care in the District of Columbia; moreover, it is more than probable that all the kinds of oak occurring in this region have not been met with by me up to date, and it is still more probable that when I meet with them they will bring added confusion to my investigations along these lines.

In the light of this experience, it occurred to me to select some typical American forest tree, well known and of economic value, of wide range with respect to geographical distribution, and compare what was said about it in standard botanies; this with the view of testing the accuracy of such descriptions, and of entering a plea for greater care in such and allied matters.

In these days, an ever-increasing attention is being paid to the question of heredity in all the representatives of the Vegetable and Animal Kingdoms, in all parts of the world. There is no question as to the importance of all this; but it would quickly be found valueless-indeed harmful-if, in any or all instances, we find ourselves incorrectly informed with respect to everything that refers to the morphology and physiology of the types and the pristine stock, that is, of the pure strain, in so far as it can be differentiated.

Having this in mind, and before consulting any text-books or other literature on the subject, I asked myself what I knew about such a tree as the Tulip Tree, its scientific name being, in so far as I remembered it, Liriodendron tulipifera, from Greek words used by Linnæus to emphasize the fact that the flower of the tree reminded one of a lily or a tulip-an idea that also passed, in part, to the specific name. Then I turned to the botanies, and thus far, well and good. However, I found but this one species of Liriodendron described, and I began to wonder what was the name of another with which I had long been familiar, and in which the flowers are at least one-third smaller, of a somewhat darker green, and having very little yellow and orange in their petals. Then, too, the marked difference in the size of the dried fruit, in the fall and winter, is very patent, it being also lighter in color as well as appreciably smaller. This kind of Liriodendron is very well known to me; but it is not nearly so abundant as the true tulipifera, or the species with the large flowers. (Figs. 2 and 3.)

Right here, however, I will say that this is a matter I will not

FIG. 1. A perfect flower of the Tulip Tree (Liriodendron tulipifera; natural size, showing almost its entire form and structure. Superior view.

"The tulip tree, high up,

Opened in airs of June, her multitude

Of golden chalices to humming-birds

And silken winged insects of the sky."-Bryant.

enlarge upon further in this place; it is my intention, next summer, to photograph specimens of these smaller flowers and fruit, and publish the photographs in order to sustain what is set forth above. One thing is certain; this variety is not due to hybridization; for, according to all the standard botanies, we have but the one species of tulip tree in the United States. Moreover, I am satisfied that it is not due to differences in soil and climate, for both occur, in full health, in the same localities.

We may next consider the descriptions given of the general form and aspect of the full-grown tree as we meet with it in its normal environment. This is an important point in a full description of any tree-important to the botanist, to the explorer, and to the general observer. Turning to the last edition of Gray's Botany, we find this point ignored entirely; the description given merely states "A most beautiful tree, sometimes 40 m. high and 2-3 m. in diameter in the Western and Southern States, the timber commonly called POPLAR or WHITE WOOD" (p. 409). It goes without the saying that Liriodendron is no "poplar," and the form of the Tulip Tree is entirely overlooked in the description.

As to other botanical authorities, I select "The Trees of Northeastern America," by Charles S. Newhall, as an example. This is an authoritative work, as it has an introductory note by Nath. L. Britton, of Columbia College. With respect to the form and growth of Liriodendron tulipifera, Professor Newhall says: "Among the largest and most valuable of the North American trees. It is usually seventy to one hundred feet high, often much higher, with a straight, clear trunk, that divides rather abruptly at the summit into coarse and straggling branches." Michaux says: "Of all the trees of North America with deciduous leaves, the tulip tree, next to the buttonwood, attains the amplest dimensions, while the perfect straightness and uniform diameter of its trunk for upwards of forty feet, the more regular disposition of its branches, and the greater richness of its foliage, give it a decided superiority over the buttonwood and entitle it to be considered as one of the most magnificent vegetables of the temperate zone."

This quotation from Michaux appears in Newhall's account of the Tulip Tree in the work just cited, and is an improvement on the description of the author who quotes it. Passing, however, to Newhall's own account, be it noted that he says the Tulip Tree has a "Straight, clear trunk that divides rather abruptly at the