its construction, is yet in certain respects so different from it as
to convey a very distinct impression. I here disregard the younger
portions of the forest, for, in the light of the present discussion,
they are merely preparatory to the mature forest, destined to be
useful only after the completeness of age. In the older portions
the one distinguishing characteristic is simple dignity. To this one
quality all other points of excellence or beauty conform and adjust
themselves. The young tree or the casual shrub that may have found its
way into the company of the centenarians, is welcome; but the absorbing
interest lies in the noble grandeur of the old trees that have grown
up together. Some, under the influence of better soil or more light,
have done better than others; but they are all sound and stately trees,
and together represent the best product of the forest. Long ago other
trees that grew in their midst, but were less promising, were removed
for the sake of these. Under their continuous roof of foliage there
is a cool, deep shade. The ground is scattered with fern, or covered
with deep beds of leaves, or with the glossy needles of the conifers.
If the forest has originated from seeds borne by a generation of trees
that previously occupied the same spot, and the seeds germinated here
and there and sprouted into a new forest upon the removal of the old,
we shall now find the trees distributed in natural positions. Where,
however, the new forest has been planted, which is often the case with
the conifers, the trees stand in close rank and file, and we walk among
their columns as in natural aisles and corridors. Here there is hardly
a shrub to shut out the gloomy distance, and only at intervals a stray
intruder with exceptional powers of shade endurance, a dwarfed yew
tree, or a beech with refined, fan-like spray, comes into notice in the
vista.
* * * * *
If these are some of the changes that are wrought in forests through
the application of a new science, if, through forestry in Europe,
one kind of beauty has passed away and another kind has been called
forth, will our own forests, it may be asked, undergo in time similar
alterations? We cannot doubt that they will grow more artificial; but
under the modified application of the science of forestry to our own
conditions, so different from those of Europe, the esthetic changes to
be looked for would be difficult to predict. Nor would these changes
be predetermined, but, on the contrary, would depend very largely
upon chance. It should be noted that forestry and landscape art are
distinct; that the former, ordinarily, is not affected by the latter,
and has its own ends and aims—those of material usefulness. I say
_ordinarily_, because there are circumstances under which forestry
_might_, with slight modifications and without a compromise to its
own interests, adjust itself to some of the principles of landscape
art. Indeed, this possible adjustment has been a subject of interest
in Germany for more than twenty years, and the feasibility of a
relationship between landscape art and forestry has been practically
demonstrated by a noted German forester, Herr Heinrich von Salisch,
on his own estates. This gentleman has applied to them the practical
methods of approved forestry under such modifications as his experience
and taste suggested, and has thereby not only made his forest
profitable, but also more beautiful than it was before.[7]
With respect to our own forests it may be asserted that most of the
private forest holdings of the United States, and probably all our
national forest reserves,[8] as such, are destined primarily to serve
purposes of utility, and very often to serve such purposes only. There
are, however, a number of large forest estates owned by individuals,
and some belonging to commonwealths and municipalities, which are
esteemed as highly for their scenic character as for their material
value, and pass in the public mind as emphatically under the name of
parks as they occur to it in the light of financial investments. Such,
for instance, are the Adirondack State Park and several large private
forest estates in the same region, as well as certain large tracts of
exceptionally beautiful forest in the western part of North Carolina
and about the head waters of the Mississippi, which have now for some
time attracted wide attention as desirable public possessions.
In such forests as these, esthetic considerations might suggest
certain departures from the ordinary methods of forestry. Some people
apparently wish to go further, and believe that certain portions of
these tracts should remain entirely undisturbed, in order that their
primeval character may be preserved for the enjoyment of all future
generations.
The idea of a forest park, intact and inviolable, calls to mind our
national parks of the West, which were actually established by Congress
for that very purpose. Possessing, as they do, wonders of nature
and exceptional scenery, these parks have been thought worthy of
preservation solely for their own sakes. This difference in intention
chiefly distinguishes them from the national reserves; so that, while
the latter stand for the material benefit of the nation—whether it
be directly, in the value of the timber, or indirectly, through the
influence of the forest on the flow of streams—the value of the parks,
on the other hand, speaks out of their own countenance. Their merit
consists in the influence of beauty and sublime scenery on the moral
state of man. They are healthful, vigorous breathing-places, where
noise and smoke and harassing cares are laid aside.
It is well to bear this distinction in mind, because it appears not to
be clearly recognized. While the reserves do not necessarily exclude
some of the special advantages of the parks, their value lies, above
all, in their stores of wealth. In this connection it may be said, for
instance, that the designation “Adirondack Park,” that is currently
applied to the State forest of northern New York, is a somewhat
misleading expression; for, although its beauty is well known and
appreciated and the State Constitution at present even forbids any
cutting within its limits, yet the most competent judges believe that
the Adirondack forest is exceedingly well fitted for the purposes of
practical forestry. Indeed, several private tracts within that region
already constitute the best known examples of practical forestry
in our country. If, however, it is intended to separate certain
portions from the remainder, either within this region or that of the
proposed Minnesota reserve, and to preserve these for their unique or
exceptional character, these segregated tracts are parks in themselves,
and should so be called.
But the identity of our five national parks in the farther West is
unmistakable; and these would appear to suggest neither forestry
proper, nor landscape forestry, nor even landscape art. In them nature
speaks for herself. The tasteful and well judged construction of roads
and trails that shall be in harmony with the scenes through which they
pass, or, better still, that shall be as unobtrusive as possible, is
evidently a necessity if the parks are to be enjoyed by large numbers
of people. In exceptional cases the ax may be needed for the very
preservation of the forest. But the principal care should be to protect
these forests from fire, defacement, and spoliation. For to us and
future generations the parks stand, above all, as examples of the glory
of our primeval forests.
The groves of big trees in the national parks of California, the
geologic wonders of Yellowstone, and the specimens of arctic fauna
still living among the matchless glaciers of Mount Rainier, are
national possessions of great interest, for whose preservation not only
Americans, but distinguished Europeans also, have pleaded. These, then,
are ours for their own sakes; but most of our other national forest
possessions will undoubtedly have to submit to further development and
to the dictates of a sterner necessity.
NOTES
Note 1, page 5. There are about fifty distinct species of oak
indigenous to the United States.
Note 2, page 23. The bloom of the dogwood begins to wither and fall
with the appearance of the leaves. In the illustration facing page 22
several leaves are seen among the bloom, but they belong to the bough
of a neighboring tulip tree.
Note 3, page 47. The juniper berries are in reality transformed cones.
Note 4, page 52. The habit of the firs in early life is shown in the
plate facing page 125.
Note 5, page 63. Curiously enough, the old English conception of a
forest was chiefly that of a hunting ground, irrespective of the trees
growing there. Consequently some forests were very open stretches of
ground.
Note 6, page 71. The red-winged blackbird lingers in the Southern
States through the winter.
Note 7, page 163. German forestry—and, in a less degree, European
forestry also—is indebted to Herr von Salisch for elaborating the idea
that forest art can be united with practical, utilitarian forestry.
His book on “Forest Esthetics,” which fills a unique place in the
literature of forestry, is an exposition of this interesting subject,
based upon mature knowledge and experience.
Note 8, page 163. To the reader who is not familiar with the origin
of our forest reserves it may be of interest to know how they became
established. By an act of Congress of March 3rd, 1891, the President
was empowered to segregate from time to time, and for the benefit
of the American people, forest areas situated within the limits of
the public lands of the United States. In accordance with this act
proclamations were issued by Presidents Cleveland, Harrison, and
McKinley, reserving forest areas amounting thus far (September 1st,
1901) to 46,398,369 acres, or approximately 72,500 square miles.
There are, however, within these areas numerous _bona fide_ holdings
of private ownership, in which the owners are carrying on extensive
cutting of timber.
The reserves have been placed under the authority of the Commissioner
of the General Land Office, Department of the Interior, and are
entrusted to the care of specially appointed superintendents,
supervisors, and rangers. Some of these forest tracts are now
undergoing a careful study by experts in forestry, with the aim of
subjecting them to methods of treatment specially adapted to them, in
order that they may yield both useful material and a constant revenue,
without impairing the productive power or vitality of the forest.
The objects will thereby be fulfilled for which these reserves were
established.
INDEX TO THE NAMES OF TREES
and the Synonyms in Common Use
By special permission of the Division of Publications, U. S. Department
of Agriculture
NOTE.—_Only the trees that have been specially described or compared
are included in the index_
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PAGE
BROADLEAF TREES
Basswood _Tilia americana_ Linn. 113
Syn. American Linden
” Limetree
” Whitewood
” Beetree
Beech _Fagus atropunicea_ (Marsh.) Sudworth 16
Syn. Red Beech Syn. _Fagus ferruginea_ Ait.
” White Beech
Big Laurel _Magnolia fœtida_ (Linn.) Sargent 24
Syn. Magnolia Syn. _Magnolia grandiflora_ Linn.
” Bull Bay
Black Cherry _Prunus serotina_ Ehrh. 113
Syn. Wild Black Cherry
” Wild Cherry
” Rum Cherry
California Black Oak _Quercus californica_ (Torr.) Coop. 78
Syn. Black Oak
Canyon Live Oak _Quercus chrysolepis_ Liebm. 78
Syn. Live Oak
Chestnut _Castanea dentata_ (Marsh.) Borkh. 11
Syn. _Castanea vesca β americana_ Michx.
_Castanea vulgaris ν americana _ A. de C.
Flowering Dogwood _Cornus florida_ Linn. 16, 22, 73
Syn. Dogwood
” Boxwood
Honey Locust _Gleditsia triacanthos_ Linn. 17, 113
Syn. Black Locust
” Sweet Locust
” Thorn Locust
” Three-thorned Acacia
Hornbeam _Carpinus caroliniana_ Walt. 16
Syn. Blue Beech
” Water Beech
” Iron wood
Live Oak _Quercus virginiana_ Mill. 6, 110
Syn. _Quercus virens_ Ait.
Locust _Robinia pseudacacia_ Linn. 113
Syn. Black Locust
” Yellow Locust
Mountain Ash _Pyrus americana_ (Marsh.) de C. 113
Redbud _Cercis canadensis_ Linn. 73, 75
Syn. Judas Tree
Red Maple _Acer rubrum_ Linn. 12, 15, 112
Syn. Swamp Maple
” Soft Maple
” Water Maple
Red Oak _Quercus rubra_ Linn. 16
Syn. Black Oak
Sassafras _Sassafras sassafras_ (Linn.) Karst. 18, 112
Syn. _Sassafras officinale_ Nees & Eberm.
Scarlet Oak _Quercus coccinea_ Muenchh. 16
Syn. Red Oak
” Black Oak
Serviceberry _Amelanchier canadensis_ (Linn.) 75, 112
Syn. Juneberry Medic.
” Shad Bush
Sugar Maple _Acer saccharum_ Marsh. 12, 15
Syn. Hard Maple Syn. _Acer saccharinum_ Wang.
” Rock Maple
” Sugar Tree
Sweet Gum _Liquidambar styraciflua_ Linn. 16, 111
Syn. Red Gum
” Liquidamber
Sweet Magnolia _Magnolia glauca_ Linn. 73
Syn. Sweet Bay
” White Bay
” Swamp Laurel
” Swamp Magnolia
Tulip Tree _Liriodendron tulipifera_ Linn. 16, 24
Syn. Whitewood
” Sour Gum
” Pepperidge
Tupelo _Nyssa sylvatica_ Marsh. 16
Syn. Black Gum Syn. _Nyssa multiflora_ Wang.
” Sour Gum
” Pepperidge
White Birch _Betula populifolia_ Marsh. 19
Syn. Gray Birch
White Elm _Ulmus americana_ Linn. 21
Syn. American Elm
” Water Elm
” Elm
White Oak _Quercus alba_ Linn. 5
Yellow Birch _Betula lutea Michx._ f. 20
Syn. Gray Birch
CONIFERS
Arborvitæ _Thuja occidentalis_ Linn. 57
Syn. White Cedar
” Cedar
Bald Cypress _Taxodium distichum_ (Linn.) Rich. 40, 111
Syn. White Cypress
” Black Cypress
” Red Cypress
” Cypress
Big Tree _Sequoia washingtoniana_ (Winsl.) Sudworth 54
Syn. Sequoia
Syn. _Sequoia gigantea_ Decaisne.
Black Hemlock _Tsuga mertensiana_ (Bong.) Carr. 45
Syn. _Tsuga pattoniana_ (Jeffr.)
Engelm.
Blue Spruce _Picea parryana_ (André) Parry 127
Syn. _Picea pungens_ Engelm.
Bull Pine _Pinus ponderosa_ Laws. 39
Syn. Yellow Pine
Cuban Pine _Pinus heterophylla_ (Ell.) Sudworth 37
Syn. Slash Pine Syn. _Pinus cubensis_ Grieseb.
” Swamp Pine
Douglas Spruce _Pseudotsuga taxifolia_ (Lam.) Britton 48
Syn. Red Fir Syn. _Pseudotsuga douglasii_ Carr.
” Douglas Fir
” Yellow Fir
” Oregon Pine
Engelmann Spruce _Picea engelmanni_ Engelm. 53
Syn. White Spruce
Hemlock _Tsuga canadensis_ (Linn.) Carr. 43
Syn. Spruce
” Spruce Pine
Loblolly Pine _Pinus tæda_ Linn. 37
Syn. Oldfield Pine
” Shortleaf Pine
Lodgepole Pine _Pinus murrayana_ “Oreg. Com.” 38
Syn. Tamarack
” Spruce Pine
Longleaf Pine _Pinus palustris_ Mill. 37
Syn. Longleaved Pine
” Georgia Pine
” Yellow Pine
” Longstraw Pine
Lowland Fir _Abies grandis_ Lindl. 50, 52
Syn. White Fir
Pitch Pine _Pinus rigida_ Mill. 38
Red Fir.—See Douglas Spruce.
Red Juniper _Juniperus virginiana_ Linn. 45
Syn. Red Cedar
” Cedar
” Savin
Redwood _Sequoia sempervirens_ (Lamb.) Endl. 54
Syn. Sequoia
Silver Pine _Pinus monticola_ Dougl. 35
Syn. White Pine
Sugar Pine _Pinus lambertiana_ Dougl. 35
Western Hemlock _Tsuga heterophylla_ (Raf.) Sargent 45
Syn. Hemlock Syn. _Tsuga mertensiana_ of authors.
(Not Carr.)
White Cedar _Chamæcyparis thyoides_ (L.) B. S. P. 57
Syn. Juniper Syn. _Chamæcyparis sphæroidea_
Spach.
White Pine _Pinus strobus_ Linn. 31, 127