Remarks on California Trees.
BY HENRY N. BOLANDER.
Note.—Localities given with two !! I have not visited myself. I would also further remark that I am by no means sure of having correctly determined the two oaks—Quercus Douglasii and Garryana.
It may not be altogether amiss to offer some observations on the distribution and value, as specimens, of some of our trees which I have met with on my various trips over a portion of this State.
1. Pinus Sabiniana, Dougl. (Digger Pine.)
Invariably disposed over south-hillsides of the interior, occupying the driest expositions—Mount Diablo! Russian River Valley! Geysers! Auburn and Forest Hill! San José Valley! Near Mission San Antonio!! Mountains east of San Diego!!
As to its value there are a great many contradictory assertions made by farmers; some assert it yields an excellent wood for yokes and similar objects, while others denounce it as entirely useless.
2. Pinus Lambertiana, Dougl. (Sugar Pine.)
Pine Mountains near Geysers! Near Cloverdale! Forest Hill! Mountains east of San Diego!! Generally with Pinus ponderosa in groves, occupying the damper localities.
3. Pinus ponderosa, Dougl. (Yellow Pine.)
Russian River Valley! south of Clear Lake! Geysers! Auburn and Forest Hill! San José Valley! Blue Mountains!! (Mr. Dunn) Rocky Mountains!! New Mexico!!
4. Pinus insignis. Dougl. (Monterey Pine.)
Monterey! Carmelo Valley!
This species covers many thousand acres of land near and by Monterey and Carmelo, forming quite an extensive forest along the coast between these two places. Height, sixty to one hundred feet, and one to three feet diameter; outline very irregular, consisting often of only a few rigid spreading branches; foliage dense and of a vivid green color; cones persistent, often from ten to nineteen whorls; bark very thick and rimose. Wood extremely resinous and rather coarse-grained; excellent for street planks, bridges, and floors. At present it is no more in the market as lumber; the good timber has been all cut, and the saw-mill removed.
Considering that there is, besides this species, only Pinus muricata growing in that forest, which could not be confounded with the species in question—it is certainly most singular to meet with so many synonyms for it. Pinus radiata, Don.; Pinus Sinclairii and Pinus tuberculata, provided this last should not prove to be a good species. It is the more astonishing since trees and cones are of great conformity throughout the entire forest.
5. Pinus tuberculata, Don.
Santa Cruz! Ukiah! Oakland hills! Forest Hill! Eureka!!
In all these localities, it is a small tree, from twenty to thirty feet high, and from six to fourteen inches in diameter. It retains its lowest branches, which spread generally very much, often horizontally. The foliage seems to me less dense and less vivid-green, than that of the preceding. Young trees raised here, side by side, show the same differential characters. The cones from all these different localities are very uniform, and differ essentially from those of Pinus insignis at Monterey. The seeds, however, resemble each other very much. Both species grow near the coast, but on different soil. Pinus insignis, on a soil produced by the disintegration of a bituminous slate and granite; Pinus tuberculata, in all the above-mentioned localities, on a soil derived from metamorphosed sandstone. Should these two species be definitely united, after a thorough investigation, they would afford a most striking example of the influence of a different soil. It is certainly singular to find such a well-characterized form restricted to one locality only. This fact, however, would not stand isolated with us here; Abies bracteata, we find similarly confined to one locality only in California. Isolation is more or less a characteristic feature with all our trees, and there is probably no country where the influences of soil, climate, and exposition are so well and abruptly marked and unmistakably defined.
6. Pinus muricata, Don.
Monterey! Mendocino City!
In a moist depression at Monterey, I found a small group of this species, averaging about fifteen feet in height, and five to six inches in diameter. Bark reddish and nearly smooth; branches almost at a right angle with the main axis and generally from five to seven in a whorl; leaves of a darker vivid green, and more succulent and longer, than those of Pinus insignis, of which there were trees of the same size by the side of it; cones from three to seven, in a whorl very much aggregated and clustered. I counted seventeen whorls on a tree fifteen feet high. The lower portion of the trunk was clad with dead leaves.
At the same distance (about two miles) from the ocean, and scarcely a mile from the above-mentioned depression, I found another group (mixed with Cupressus macrocarpa) in a deeper but drier locality. Here the tree was altogether of a different aspect, inferior in all its parts. This very transition suggested strongly, that this pine and the one previously seen on the plains near Mendocino City, on a similar soil, might be of the same species.
Near Mendocino City, on the so-called plains, I found in great abundance a small pine tree, which I refer for the present to this species.
Height, five to twenty feet, but the greater number averaged only from five to fifteen feet. Only one tree which I noticed which was fifty-five inches in circumference, and twenty to twenty-five feet in height. It had a flattish top with the branches very much imbricated and so completely covered with cones, that it was really difficult to discover its foliage. But this tree was very exceptional, compared with the mass of little trees covering the plains. These had in general upright branches with numerous and slender branchlets; leaves shorter, denser, and of a darker green than Pinus contorta? which grows with it and is a larger tree altogether; bark reddish, very thin, exhaling a strong resinous odor, and but slightly rimose; cones two to four inches long (curved when long) and scarcely an inch thick, mostly in pairs, but sometimes in threes, reflexed. I counted fifteen sets of cones on a tree fifteen feet high.
7. Pinus contorta, Dougl.?
Head of Tomales Bay! Mendocino City!
Its manner of growth resembles that of Pinus insignis very much. It attains the same height, has the same irregular spreading branches, the same thick rimose bark and very resinous wood. The leaves are invariably in pairs and slightly silvery on the lower surface. The cones are scarcely two inches long with mostly reflex pedicles (umbo) on the slightly gibbous side and persistent for a great number of years.
From the River Albin to Mendocino City, it grows quite near the coast on a fertile and undulating plain, gently descending towards the ocean. At Mendocino City I found it to extend all over the plains about eight miles eastward.
Whether this species is identical with Pinus contorta or not I am unable to decide. Observations made by Mr. Geo. Wm. Dunn, on his recent travels through the Blue and Siskiyou mountains, have rather a tendency to show that Pinus contorta is altogether a different tree. I can state, however, most positively that this species cannot be confounded with Pinus muricata. Both species are two-leaved, but in every other respect they differ widely. The object of these remarks is only to point out the different species, met in my travels, and not to decide which name should have precedence. Murray’s discussion on the distribution of our Pines, in his “Notes on California Trees,” has not “struck” me as being so very correct. Endlicher, in his Synopsis Coniferarum, makes Pinus muricata a Taeda, which is also incorrect; it is a true Pinaster. It remains to decide only, whether the species at Mendocino City is P. contorta, or P. Murrayana, Balf.
8. Libocedrus decurrens, Torr. (California White Cedar.)
Forest Hill! (forming quite a large woods there). Rancheria Creek! Mendocino County. East of Salinas River, Monterey County. Dr. Canfield. East of San Diego!!
On the banks of Rancheria Creek, in the south-western part of Mendocino County, I found a small colony of this handsome tree. The largest were about forty to sixty feet high and two to three feet in diameter. Judging from the young after-growth, the tree seems likely to spread. I was informed that this is the only place in the county where it is to be found. In the latter part of September (1865) the tree had its aments strongly developed. Cones decidedly pendulous.
9. Cupressus macrocarpa, Hartw. (Monterey Cypress.)
Monterey! Tamal Pais (2,700 feet)! Mendocino City! and south-east of Clear Lake!
This species seems to be extremely variable. At Monterey, about two miles from the coast, I saw, upon exposed granite rocks, but slightly disintegrated, specimens only six inches high, bearing perfect cones. Going westward, at the same distance from the ocean, I found specimens in a depression associated with Pinus muricata, from ten to fifteen feet high, full with cones; and extending my walk to Cypress Point, a distance of three to four miles, I was surprised to find a large grove of this species, containing mostly large trees of great beauty and perfection. The average height may be from forty to sixty feet, and as they were (right at the point) almost all alike in thickness, I measured but three, finding their circumference to be one hundred and nineteen, one hundred and four, and one hundred and twenty inches, about four feet above the ground. At this point these trees are almost daily enveloped in a dense fog. Their branches are very densely imbricated and depressed, retaining the moisture to such an extent that the thick clusters of cones are quite mouldy. Between the cones and little dense branchlets settles a great deal of rubbish, which is almost dripping wet. It is undoubtedly owing to this very fact that so many seeds of this species, collected there, prove abortive.
Seeing so great a variation at Monterey, I do not hesitate to refer all specimens, seen at the other localities mentioned above, to this species at present.
On the plain near Mendocino City, that species exhibited about the same gradations, although not so strikingly as at Monterey.
10. Torreya Californica, Torr. (California Nutmeg.)
Paper Mill! Marin County. Ukiah! Mendocino City! Forest Hill!
Generally dispersed, only at Ukiah I found quite a group of this species. Wood valuable.
11. Taxus brevifolia, Nutt. (California Yew-Tree.)
Devil’s Cañon, near Forest Hill! A handsome tree, twenty to thirty feet high, with extremely slender and drooping branches. Dispersed but plenty.
Wood valuable.
12. Quercus agrifolia, Nées. (Live Oak.)
Oakland! Banks of Sacramento River! Clear Lake! Russian River Valley! Anderson Valley! Monterey!
Foliage extremely variable. On river banks and in expositions close to the coast, where it is almost daily enveloped in fogs, this species exhibits quite a uniformity; the figure of Quercus oxyadenia in Sitgreaves’ Report represents this form of it very well. In the valleys of the interior the shape of the leaves of one and the same tree is very different. Some have entire margins, while others have them pretty deeply dentated, often one side is entire and the other dentate. Some trees occur of which the young shoots have the leaves “coarsely sinuate-toothed, or obliquely sinuate-toothed; teeth very sharply acute with a broad base, cuspidate-awned,” and thus agree with Dr. Kellogg’s Quercus Morehus—while the older branches have much smaller and entire leaves. In Anderson Valley I saw several trees whose entire foliage agrees admirably with Dr. Kellogg’s. Had I not seen that tree on the shore of Borax Lake exhibiting both forms, I should be inclined to call it a good species. The cups of the acorns of these trees have the scales long and loosely imbricated, and the acorn is almost entirely immerged; but this is also the case with those of some trees that have a far different foliage. Thus far I have not been able to find good, distinctive, reliable characters. There are transitions in all parts, even on the same tree. As the tree has the habit of growing in groups, one might suppose that trees of one group, at least, should show a uniformity in botanical characters; this is not so: just the very extremes may be found in one and the same group. This phenomenon I observed throughout the whole length of Anderson Valley, a distance of some eighteen miles. On dry gravelly hillsides in the interior this tree presents still another form: Quercus Wislizeni, Englm.
The acorns ripen annually and differ also essentially in shape and size. Soil, climate, and exposition, offer in this case no satisfactory explanation for so great a variation in one species. Should it not be attributed to intrinsic peculiarities?
13. Quercus Garryana, Hook. (White Oak.)
On dry easterly hillsides and in valleys on a poor buff-colored clay. Santa Rosa Valley! Clear Lake! Searsville! Anderson Valley! San José Valley!
Exposition and soil agree in all these localities.
The bark of this tree is rather thin, whitish, and less coarsely rimose than any other of the Californian oaks. It is always a flat-topped, middle-sized tree, apparently of a very slow, almost stunted, growth. The whitish bark of trunk and branches, the glaucous foliage, and the light-green color of the acorns, which it yields, however, quite sparingly, give this tree, compared with other oaks especially, quite a pale and hoary appearance.
Farmers consider the fine-grained wood of this oak very valuable for many farming implements. It ranks highest among our oaks.
14. Quercus Douglasii, Hook. (Pale Oak.)
Anderson Valley!
The general aspect and habit of this tree resembles very much that of Quercus lobata, with which it grows in the low, flat portions of Anderson Valley. Its branchlets, however, are short, rigid, and erect, while those of Qu. lobata are mostly drooping. In fall, when laden with acorns, it presents a very striking difference by having its rather pale acorns densely aggregated and clustered at the extremities of the branchlets, resting, as it were, on the dark-green leaves. At a distance it may be mistaken for a full-bearing apple tree. It increases rapidly in number in Anderson Valley from south to north, outnumbering almost every other oak at the lower end of the valley. Its wood ranks next to that of Quercus Douglasii.
15. Quercus lobata, Nées. (Burr-Oak.)
The most common and largest oak in all the valleys of the interior of California. Thus far, I never found it on a hillside. It is this mighty oak, with its peculiar, gracefully-drooping branchlets, that gives character to the landscape of the Californian valleys. It is especially noted for its very long acorns; but they do not always attain that large size, and are never so conspicuously arranged as those of Qu. Garryana; they are usually in pairs. It may also be stated that this tree forms, on an average, about the longest trunk of Californian foliaceous trees. The acorns of this species form a principal part of the food of the Indians. On the Coast Range they seem to give, however, preference to those of Quercus Sonomensis. The wood ranks next to that of the preceding species.
These above-mentioned three species of oaks, belonging to the section of white oaks, are surely distinct. I met with no transitions thus far. They may be distinguished at a distance; every farmer distinguishes them, for there is quite a difference in the quality of the wood.
16. Quercus Sonomensis, Benth. (Black Oak.)
San Diego!! Anderson Valley! Auburn!
Eastern and northern hillsides in the Coast Ranges. It also occupies the more easterly-situated flats, among the redwoods, wherever they are too dry for redwood. Very seldom it is found in the valley; and when found, it occupies that portion of it which is adjacent to the hillsides, where there is generally a gravelly soil. It is always a middle-sized tree, having mostly numerous erect branches arranged like those of Acer saccharinum. In fall it sheds its leaves, which become buff-colored, before any other of our deciduous oaks. The wood of this tree is of a poor quality; used for fuel only.
17. Quercus chrysolepis, Liebm. (Drooping Live Oak.)
The most rare of all our oaks; it bears acorns but seldom, and even then very sparingly. I have not been able to satisfy myself whether they are biannual or not, but I am rather inclined to believe they are. Northern slopes near Cloverdale! in Anderson Valley! and near Forest Hill! Tree 30-40 feet high, with a rather smooth whitish bark, and mostly long, slender, drooping branches; evergreen. Of the quality of its wood I could not learn anything from settlers. The tree being rare, and occupying always moist slopes along gulches, it is not often cut down.
18. Quercus densiflora, Hook. (Chestnut Oak.)
Along the Coast Range, associated with the redwood, increasing northwards; from Santa Cruz to Mendocino City, at least, it occurs only in or close by the redwoods. This tree attains rather a large height in dense woods, and is then but sparingly branched. Leaves and acorns very considerable. Its wood is absolutely useless; it is very coarse grained, and like the redwood wet like a sponge when cut; it is extremely perishable. At Mendocino City log-men call it Water Oak.
19. Castanea chrysophylla, Dougl. (Chestnut.)
On the Oakland hills this species is but 3-6 feet high; blooms about the fourth of July, like the Eastern Castanea vesca, and bears perfect fruit. On the so-called plains at Mendocino City, however, it is a large tree, averaging from 50-125 feet in height, and 2-3 feet in diameter. Those trees were completely covered with blossoms on the twenty-third of September, 1865; settlers say they never found its fruit. Here, on the Oakland hills, it grows only on the outcropping of a white friable slate, destitute of all vegetable remains; at the Mendocino plains it is found to grow on a cemented gravel, upon which the water rests for some months after the rainy season. The supply of an aerial moisture during the dry season is in favor of the Oakland hills, judging by the lichenose vegetation of the two localities.
20. Sequoia sempervirens, Endl. (Redwood.)
This mighty tree belongs exclusively to the foggy regions of the Coast Ranges and the underlying metamorphic sandstone, for wherever either of these conditions is wanting, this tree does not exist. From the northern boundary line of the State down to the head of Tomales Bay it forms a continual forest, increasing in width northward. At Tomales Bay the chain is interrupted by a small bed of lime-rock. The interruption extending from the lower foot-hills of Tamalpais down to Belmont, is undoubtedly owing to the lowness of the hills. A connecting link is found, however, on the Oakland hills. That grove of redwoods, now almost entirely destroyed, affords the strongest evidences of the dependency of that species on the prevalence of heavy mists. From Belmont to a few miles below Santa Cruz is another narrow continuous chain, occupying mainly the leesides of the most western ranges and the deeper gulches eastward. From near the mouth of Salinas River to the head of Carmelo Valley, another long interruption is caused by a bituminous slate. The absence of redwood in this long interval can hardly be ascribed to any other cause, for it is known that Monterey and the adjacent regions are subject to heavier fogs than Santa Cruz. Pinus insignis and Cupressus macrocarpa occupy here those portions naturally belonging to the redwood and Tsuga Douglasii. Further south, from the head of Carmelo Valley to San Luis Obispo, the most southern limit, redwood occurs but sparingly, forming nowhere extensive groves. Associated with the redwood we find Tsuga Douglasii, a tree of a wide range, Torreya Californica, Arbutus Menziesii, Quercus densiflora, and in Mendocino County Abies grandis Dougl. There are also some shrubs and herbaceous plants truly characteristic to them, the shrubs increasing as underwood northward, belong mostly to the Ericaceous family. It is a noteworthy fact that the arborescent growth of the leeside of the first range of hills generally consists, almost exclusively, of Tsuga Douglasii, and that this tree forms the outskirt east and particularly westward. In Mendocino County Abies grandis unites with it for the same cause; there both trees form a dense belt, facing the ocean, and are encroaching fast on the redwood. In fact, the western portion of those redwoods show this encroachment most strikingly by a total absence of young redwood, and a dense, almost impenetrable, undergrowth of the two-mentioned species. The order of things is, however, reversed wherever the redwood has been cut. Its roots are imperishable, and as soon as the tree is cut they sprout and cover the soil rapidly to the exclusion of every other species—none being of so rapid a growth. The indestructibility of the roots prevents the clearing of such land; even large trunks cut down cover themselves, within two or three years, so completely with sprouts that they are hardly seen. The entire after growth now found on the Oakland hills, is owing solely to the indestructibility of its roots and stumps. The tenacity of life in this species, which is rather of rare occurrence in coniferous trees, shows itself also in the resistance it offers to fire, so frequent in those woods. Trees that have been bereft completely of their branches by fire, covered themselves in a few years entirely with young sprouts, giving the trunks the appearance of a pillar, or remind one of those old trunks covered with Rhus toxicodendron in the East. Fire is destructive to the young trees only; after they have obtained a thickness of two or three feet they are not liable to perish.
Another great beneficial feature in this species is the great power it possesses in condensing fogs and mists. A heavy fog is always turned into a rain, wetting the soil and supplying springs with water during the dry season. Springs in and near the redwoods are never in want of a good supply of water, and crops on the Coast Ranges are not liable to fail. The year of 1864 has proved my assertion beyond doubt; this fact is generally known—a great deal of land has been taken up since. It is my firm conviction that if the redwoods are destroyed—and they necessarily will be, if not protected by a wise action of our Government—California will become a desert, in the true sense of the word. In their safety depends the future welfare of the State; they are our safeguard. It remains to be seen whether we shall be benefited or not by the horrible experience such countries as Asia Minor, Greece, Spain, and France have made, by having barbarously destroyed their woods and forests. But with us here it is even of a more serious nature; wise governments would be able to replace them in those countries, but no power on earth can restore the woods of California when once completely destroyed!