Chapter IV: Part 4

[49] “The woolves be in some respect different from them in other countries. It was never known yet that a wolf ever set upon a man or woman: neither do they trouble horses or cows; but swine, goats, and red calves, which they take for deer, be often destroyed by them; so that a red calf is cheaper than a black one, in that regard, in some places.... They be made much like a mungrel; being big-boned, lank-paunched, deep-breasted; having a thick neck and head, prick ears and long snout, with dangerous teeth; long, staring hair, and a great bush-tail. It is thought by many that our English mastiff might be too hard for them: but it is no such matter; for they care no more for an ordinary mastiff than an ordinary mastiff cares for a cur. Many good dogs have been spoiled by them.... There is little hope of their utter destruction; the country being so spacious, and they so numerous, travelling in the swamps by kennels: sometimes ten or twelve are of a company.... In a word, they be the greatest inconveniency the country hath.”—_New-England’s Prospect_, _l. c._

[50] Spoken of again in the Voyages, pp. 94 and 193; and in Hubbard, Hist. N. England, p. 25. Josselyn’s may be compared with Lewis and Clark’s notice of the Indian dog (Travels, vol. ii. p. 165).

[51] Called also “lusern, or luceret,” in the Voyages, p. 85; the loup-cervier of Sagard (Hist. Can., 1636, _cit._ Aud. and Bachm. Vivip. Quad. N. A., p. 136); of Dobbs’s Hudson’s Bay, &c.; but more commonly called gray cat, or lynx, in New England. Wood calls it “more dangerous to be met withal than any other creature; not fearing either dog or man. He useth to kill deer.... He hath likewise a device to get geese: for, being much of the colour of a goose, he will place himself close by the water; holding up his bob-tail, which is like a goose-neck. The geese, seeing this counterfeit goose, approach nigh to visit him; who, with a sudden jerk, apprehends his mistrustless prey. The English kill many of these, accounting them very good meat.”—_New-Eng. Prospect_, _l. c._ Audubon and Bachman (_l. c._, p. 14) give a similar good account of the flesh of the bay-lynx, or common wild-cat.

[52] The raccoon is, or has been, an inhabitant of all North America (Godman, Nat. Hist., vol. i. p. 117), and was one of the first of our animals with which European naturalists became acquainted. Linnæus (Syst. Nat.) cites Conrad Gesner among those who have illustrated or mentioned it. Wood says they are “as good meat as a lamb;” and further, that, “in the moonshine night, they go to feed on clams at a low tide, by the seaside, where the English hunt them with their dogs.”—_New-Eng. Prospect_, _l. c._

[53] The author’s account of the Indian works in birch-bark and porcupine-quills is much fuller in his Voyages, p. 143.

[54] Wood’s account is far better.—_New-Eng. Prospect_, chap. vii. See page 53 of the Rarities for mention of the musk quash.

[55] See Voyages, pp. 88-91. Called _moos-soog_ (rendered “great-ox; or, rather, red deer”) in R. Williams’s Key (Hist. Coll., vol. iii. p. 223): but this is rather the plural form of _moos_; as see the same, _l. c._ p. 222, and note, and Rasles’ Dict. Abnaki, _in loco_. It is called _mongsöa_ by the Cree Indians; and, it should seem, _mongsoos_ by the Indians of the neighborhood of Carlton House; as see Richardson, in Sabine’s Appendix to Franklin’s Narrative of a Journey to the Polar Sea, pp. 665-6. “The English,” says Wood, “have some thoughts of keeping him tame, and to accustome him to the yoke; which will be a great commodity.... There be not many of these in the Massachusetts Bay; but, forty miles to the north-east, there be great store of them.”—_New-Eng. Prospect_, _l. c._ On hunting the moose, as practised by the Indians, see Josselyn’s Voyages, p. 136.

[56] Wood (N. E. Prospect, _l. c._) has but two kinds of deer: of which the first is the moose; and the second, called “ordinary deer,” and, in the vocabulary of Indian words, _ottuck_ (compare _attuck_ or _noonatch_, deer,—R. Williams, _l. c._; but _atteyk_, in the Cree dialect, signifies a small sort of rein-deer,—Richardson, in Appendix to Franklin’s Journey, p. 665; and it is observable that Rasles’ word for _chevreuil_ is _norke_), is our American fallow-deer. R. Williams also appears to distinguish with clearness but two; which are, perhaps, the same as Wood’s. Josselyn, in this book, passes quite over the common, or fallow-deer: but, making up in the Voyages for the fallings-short of the Rarities, he goes, in the former, quite the other way; reckoning the roe, buck, red deer, rein-deer, elk, _maurouse_, and _maccarib_. What is further said of these animals, where he speaks more at large, makes it appear likely that the second, third, and fourth names, so far as they have any value, belong to a single kind,—the “ordinary deer” of Wood (whose description possibly helped Josselyn’s), or our fallow-deer; to which the “roe” is also to be referred: and the “elk” he himself explains as the moose. But, beside these two kinds, Josselyn has the merit of indicating, with some distinctness, one, or possibly two, others,—the _maurouse_ and the _maccarib_. The _maurouse_—of which only the Voyages make mention—“is somewhat like a moose; but his horns are but small, and himself about the size of a stag. These are the deer that the flat-footed wolves hunt after.”—_Voyages_, p. 91. This is to be compared with the _mauroos_, rendered “_cerf_,” of Rasles’ Dict., _l. c._, p. 382; and, in such connection, is hardly referable to other than the _caribou_, or rein-deer,—a well-known inhabitant of the north-eastern parts of New England, and likely, therefore, to have come to the knowledge of our author; while there seems to be no testimony to its ever having occurred in Massachusetts and southward, where Wood and Williams made their observations. The last, or the _maccarib_, _caribo_, or _pohano_, of Josselyn, is described above; and, in the Voyages (p. 91), he only repeats that it “is not found, that ever I heard yet, but upon Cape Sable, near to the French plantations.” The “round” hoofs of the _maccarib_ might lead us to take this for the _caribou_ of Maine; the round track of which differs much from that of the fallow-deer. But the former is more likely to have been the American elk; so rare, it should seem, where it occurred, when our author wrote, and so little known in the New-England settlements, that his fancy, fed by darkling hearsay, could deck it with the honors of the “unicorn.”

[57] “There are two or three kinds of them,—one a great yellow fox; another grey, who will climb up into trees. The black fox is of much esteem.”—_Josselyn’s Voyages_, p. 82; where is also an account of the way of hunting foxes in New England. Wood has nothing special, but that some of the foxes “be black. Their furrs is of much esteem” (_l. c._) Williams (_l. c._) has “_mishquashim_, a red fox; _pequawus_, a gray fox. The Indians say they have black foxes, which they have often seen, but never could take any of them. They say they are manittooes.” Beside the common red fox, or _mishquashim_, we have in all these accounts—and also in Morell’s _Nova Anglia_, _l. c._, p. 129—mention of a black fox; which may have been the true black or silver fox, or, in part at least, the more common cross-fox (Aud. and Bachm., Viv. Quadr. N. A., p. 45); the pelt of which is also in high esteem. For Williams’s gray fox, see the next note. Josselyn’s climbing gray fox is perhaps the fisher (_Mustela Canadensis_, Schreb.), notwithstanding the color. According to Audubon (_l. c._, pp. 51, 310, 315), this is called the black fox in New England and the northern counties of New York. I have heard it more often called black cat in New Hampshire. But the true gray fox (_Vulpes Virginianus_) “has, to a certain degree, the power of climbing trees.” Newberry Zoology, Expl. for Pacific Railroad, vi, part 4, p. 40.

[58] “A creature much like a fox, but smaller.”—_Voyages_, p. 83. Probably the gray fox, called _pequawus_ by R. Williams (_Vulpes Virginianus_, Schreb.); which has not the rank smell of the red fox.—_Aud. and Bachm._, _l. c._, p. 168.

[59] “They told me of a young lyon (not long before) kill’d at Piscataway by an Indian.”—_Voyages_, p. 23. Higginson says that lions “have been seen at Cape Anne.”—_New-Eng. Plantation_, _l. c._, p. 119. “Some affirm,” says Wood, “that they have seen a lion at Cape Anne.... Besides, Plimouth men” (that is, men of old Plymouth, it is likely) “have traded for lion-skins in former times. But sure it is that there be lions on that continent; for the Virginians saw an old lion in their plantation,” &c.—_New-Eng. Prospect_, _l. c._ The animal here spoken of may well have been the puma or cougar, or American lion.

[60] “The rabbits be much like ours in England. The hares be some of them white, and a yard long. These two harmless creatures are glad to shelter themselves from the harmful foxes in hollow trees; having a hole at the entrance no bigger than they can creep in at.”—_Wood_, _New-Eng. Prospect_, _l. c._ Wood’s rabbit and Josselyn’s hare, so far as the summer coloring goes, appear to be the gray rabbit (_Lepus sylvaticus_, Aud. and Bachm., _l. c._ p. 173); and the white hare of Wood—as also, probably, the hare, “milk-white in winter,” of Josselyn—is doubtless the northern hare (_Lepus Americanus_, Erxl., Aud. and Bachm., _l. c._, p. 93).

[61] The Voyages mention, beside the quadrupeds above named, also the skunk (_ségankoo_ of Rasles’ Dict., _l. c._); the musquash (_mooskooéssoo_ of Rasles, _l. c._), for which see also p. 53 of this; otter; marten, “as ours are in England, but blacker;” sable, “much of the size of a mattrise, perfect black, but ... I never saw but two of them in eight years’ space;” the squirrel, “three sorts,—the mouse-squirril, the gray squirril, and the flying-squirril (called by the Indian _assapanick_).” Our author’s mouse-squirrel, which he describes, is the ground or striped squirrel: probably the “_anequus_, a little coloured squirrel” of R. Williams, _l. c._; and the _anikoosess_ (rendered _suisse_) of Rasles, _l. c._ The mattrise of our author is, according to him, “a creature whose head and fore-parts is shaped somewhat like a lyon’s; not altogether so big as a house-cat. They are innumerable up in the countrey, and are esteemed good furr.”—_Voyages_, p. 87. The sable is compared with the mattrise, at least in size; and the name is perhaps comparable with _mattegooéssoo_ of Rasles, _l. c._; but this is rendered _lièvre_. Wood adds to this list of our quadrupeds, mistakenly, the ferret; and R. Williams, the “_ockquutchaunnug_,—a wild beast of a reddish hair, about the bigness of a pig, and rooting like a pig;” which seems to answer, in name as well as habits, to our woodchuck, or ground-hog.

[62] The author’s attempt here at a general catalogue of the fishes, mollusks, &c., of the North-Atlantic Ocean, affords but a poor make-shift for such a list as we might fairly have expected from him of the species known to the early fishermen in the waters and seas of New England; and the account in his Voyages (pp. 104-15) is again an improvement on the present, and is confined to the inhabitants of our waters. The present editor has little to offer in elucidation of the list; which indeed, in good part, appears sufficiently intelligible. Compare Wood, New-Eng. Prospect, chap. x.

[63] “Like a herrin, but has a bigger bellie; therefore called an alewife.”—Voyages, p. 107. The other names, alize and allow, are doubtless corruptions of the French alose, also in use among London fishmongers to designate shad from certain waters.—_Rees’s Cyc._, _in loco_. The old Latin word _alosa_, supposed to have been always applied to the fish just mentioned, is adopted by Cuvier for the genus which includes our shad, alewife, and menhaden.

[64] The tunny is so called on the coast of New England.—_Storer’s Report on the Fishes of Mass._, p. 48.

[65] It is, notwithstanding, set down in the author’s list of fishes “that are to be seen and catch’d in the sea and fresh waters in New England.”—_Voyages_, p. 113. And compare Storer, Synops. (Mem. Am. Acad., N. S., vol. ii.), p. 300.

[66] See Voyages, p. 108. The first settlers esteemed the bass above most other fish. See Higginson’s New-England’s Plantation (Hist. Coll., vol. i. p. 120). Wood calls it (New-Eng. Prospect, chap. ix.) “one of the best fish in the country; and though men are soon wearied with other fish, yet are they never with bass. The Indians,” he says, eat lobsters, “when they can get no bass.” The head was especially prized; as see Wood, and also Roger Williams’s Key (Hist. Coll., vol. iii. p. 224). The fish is our striped bass (_Labrax lineatus_, Cuv.; Storer’s Report on Fishes of Mass., p. 7). Our author, at p. 37, again mentions it as one of the eight fishes which “the Indians have in greatest request.”

[67] See p. 96 as to the blue-fish, or horse-mackerel; and Storer, _l. c._, p. 57.

[68] The bonito of our fishermen is the skipjack.—_Storer_, _l. c._, p. 49.

[69] See p. 95.

[70] See p. 96. Josselyn’s character of the fish as food is confirmed by Dr. Storer, _l. c._, p. 69.

[71] The clam is one of the eight fishes mentioned at p. 37 as most prized by the Indians. “_Sickishuog_ (clams). This is a sweet kind of shell-fish, which all Indians generally over the country, winter and summer, delight in; and, at low water, the women dig for them. This fish, and the natural liquor of it, they boil; and it makes their broth and their nasaump (which is a kind of thickened broth) and their bread seasonable and savoury, instead of salt.”—_Williams’s Key, &c._, _l. c._ p. 224. “These fishes be in great plenty in most parts of the country: which is a great commodity for the feeding of swine, both in winter and summer; for, being once used to those places, they will repair to them as duly, every ebb, as if they were driven to them by keepers.”—_Wood_, _N. Eng. Prospect_, _l. c._ The mollusk thus approved is the common clam (_Mya arenaria_, L.); but the _poquauhock_, or quahog (_Venus mercenaria_, L.), “which the Indians wade deep and dive for” (R. Williams, _l. c._, p. 224), was also eaten by them, and the black part of the shell used for making their _suckauhock_, or black money. Wood speaks also of “clams as big as a penny white loaf, which are great dainties amongst the natives” (N. E. Prospect, _l. c._); doubtless the giant clam (_Mactra solidissima_, Chemn.) of Gould (Report on Invertebr. of Mass., p. 51), which is still esteemed as food.

[72] See p. 36; by which it appears that the author has in view the _meteauhock_ of the Indians; “the periwinkle, of which they make their _wompam_, or white money, of half the value of their _suckauhock_, or black money” (R. Williams, _l. c._): supposed to be _Buccinum undatum_, L. (Gould, _l. c._, p. 305); and possibly, also, one or two other allied shell-fish.

[73] “Cod-fish in these seas” (that is, Massachusetts Bay) “are larger than in Newfoundland,—six or seven making a quintal; whereas they have fifteen to the same weight.”—_New-Eng. Prospect_, _l. c._ Compare Storer, _l. c._, p. 121. Josselyn has an entertaining account of the sea-fishery, in his Voyages, pp. 210-13.

[74] See further of eels, and the author’s several ways of cooking them, in his Voyages, p. 111. At p. 37 of the Rarities, eels are mentioned among the fishes most prized by the Indians. “These eels be not of so luscious a taste as they be in England, neither are they so aguish; but are both wholesome for the body, and delightful for the taste.”—_Wood_, _New-Eng. Prospect_, chap. ix.

[75] See p. 37, where it is said to be one of the fishes which “the Indians have in greatest request.”—“_Poponaumsuog_” of R. Williams, _l. c._, p. 225. He says, “Some call them frost-fish, from their coming up from the sea into fresh brooks in times of frost and snow.”

[76] “Grampoise; Fr. _grandpoisson_;” corrupted grampus.—_Webster_, _Dict._

[77] “These hollibut be little set by while bass is in season.”—_Wood_, _l. c._, chap. ix.

[78] “The sea-hare is as big as grampus, or herrin-hog; and as white as a sheet. There hath been of them in Black-Point Harbour, and some way up the river; but we could never take any of them. Several have shot sluggs at them, but lost their labour.”—_Voyages_, p. 105. The _Lepus marinus_ of the old writers is a naked mollusk of the Mediterranean; _Laplysia depilans_, L.: but Josselyn’s was a very different animal.

[79] One of the fishes most valued by the Indians (p. 37); but “not much set by” by the English, according to Wood, _l. c._

[80] “I have seene some myselfe that have weighed 16 pound; but others have had, divers times, so great lobsters as have weighed 25 pound, as they assure me.”—_Higginson’s New-Eng. Plantation_, _l. c._, p. 120; with which compare Gould’s Report, &c., p. 360. “Their plenty makes them little esteemed, and seldom eaten.”—_Wood_, _New-Eng. Prospect_, chap. ix. At p. 37, Josselyn counts them among the fishes, &c., most esteemed by the Indians; but Wood (_l. c._) qualifies this in a passage already cited. The Indians, it seems, sometimes dried them, “as they do lampres and oysters; which are delicate breakfast-meat so ordered.”—_Josselyn’s Voyages_, p. 110. See the Indian way of catching lobsters, in Voyages, p. 140.

[81] “Munk-fish, a flat-fish like scate; having a hood like a fryer’s cowl” (p. 96). _Lophius Americanus_, Cuv., the sea-devil of Storer (Synops. of Amer. Fishes, in Mem. Amer. Acad., N. S., vol. ii. p. 381), is called monk-fish in Maine.—_Williamson_, _Hist._, vol. i. p. 157.

[82] See p. 97.

[83] “The muscle is of two sorts,—sea-muscles (in which they find pearl) and river-muscles.”—_Voyages_, p. 110. See p. 37, of the present volume, for an account of “the scarlet muscle,” which ... “yieldeth a perfect purple or scarlet juice; dyeing linnen so that no washing will wear it out,” &c. This could scarcely have been a _Purpura_ or _Buccinum_.

[84] See Voyages, p. 110. “The oysters be great ones,” says Wood; “in form of a shoe-horn: some be a foot long. These breed on certain banks that are bare every spring-tide.”—_New-Eng. Prospect_, chap. ix. This was in the waters of Massachusetts Bay, where Higginson (New-Eng. Plantation, _l. c._, p. 120) also speaks of their being found. The question whether the oyster is an indigenous inhabitant of our bay, or only an introduced stranger, is considered by Dr. Gould (Report on Invert. Animals of Mass., pp. 135, 365).

[85] One of the fishes “in greatest request” among the Indians (p. 37). Wood says it “is as good as it is in England, and in great plenty in some places.”—_New-Eng. Prospect_, chap. ix.

[86] “The shads be bigger than the English shads, and fatter.”—_Wood_, _l. c._

[87] “_Taut-auog_ (sheep’s-heads).” So Roger Williams’s Key, _l. c._, p. 224. It is probable, therefore, that our author had the fish that we call tautog in his mind here. What is now called sheep’s-head is not known in Massachusetts Bay and northward.—_Storer_, _l. c._, p. 36.

[88] See p. 34; and Wood, _l. c._, chap. ix.

[89] See p. 96. It appears to be the mollusk, the shell of which is well known as the razor-shell (_Solen ensis_, L.).—_Gould_, _Report_, p. 28.

[90] See p. 32. “The sturgeons be all over the country; but the best catching of them is upon the shoals of Cape Cod and in the river of Merrimack, where much is taken, pickled, and brought to England. Some of these be 12, 14, and 18 feet long.”—_Wood_, _New-Eng. Prospect_, chap. ix. R. Williams says that “the natives, for the goodness and greatness of it, much prize it; and will neither furnish the English with so many, nor so cheap, that any great trade is like to be made of it, until the English themselves are fit to follow the fishing.”—_Key_, _l. c._, p. 224. It is one of Josselyn’s eight fish which are in “greatest request” with the Indians (p. 37). He calls “Pechipscut” River, in Maine, “famous for multitudes of mighty large sturgeon.”—_Voyages_, p. 204.

[91] See Voyages, pp. 105-6.

[92] “This fish is much used for bait to catch a cod, hacke, polluck, and the like sea-fish.”—_Voyages_, p. 107. It is still so used.

[93] Described at p. 95.

[94] See p. 34 of this, and p. 109 of the Voyages, where the author says, “Of sea-turtles, there are five sorts; of land-turtles, three sorts,—one of which is a right land-turtle, that seldom or never goes into the water; the other two being the river-turtle and the pond-turtle.”—See also the author’s observations on sea-turtles, at p. 39 of the Voyages.

[95] “Trouts there be good store in every brook; ordinarily two and twenty inches long. Their grease is good for the piles and clifts.”—_Voyages_, p. 110.

[96] See Storer’s Report, p. 146.

[97] See p. 35; and Voyages, p. 104. “The natives cut them in several parcel, and give and send them far and near for an acceptable present or dish.”—_R. Williams_, _Key_, _l. c._, p. 224.

[98] See Voyages, p. 110. This is the common sea-egg; _Echinus granulatus_, Say.—_Gould’s Rep._, p. 344.

[99] See p. 24 and note.

[100] Our author’s account of the fishes of New England may take this of old Wood (N. E. Prospect, _l. c._) for a tail-piece. “The chief fish for trade,” says he, “is a cod; but, for the use of the country, there is all manner of fish, as followeth:—

“The king of waters,—the sea-shouldering Whale;
The snuffing Grampus, with the oily seal;
The storm-presaging Porpus, Herring-hog;
Line-shearing Shark, the Cat-fish, and Sea-dog;
The scale-fenced Sturgeon; wry-mouthed Hollibut;
The flouncing Salmon, Codfish, Greedigut;
Cole, Haddick, Hake, the Thornback, and the Scate,
(Whose slimy outside makes him seld’ in date;)
The stately Bass, old Neptune’s fleeting post,
That tides it out and in from sea to coast;
Consorting Herrings, and the bony Shad;
Big-bellied Alewives; Mackrels richly clad
With rainbow-colour, the Frost-fish and the Smelt,
As good as ever Lady Gustus felt;
The spotted Lamprons; Eels; the Lamperies,
That seek fresh-water brooks with Argus-eyes:
These watery villagers, with thousands more,
Do pass and repass near the verdant shore.”

[101] See p. 97.

[102] The account in the Voyages (pp. 114-23) is better; and Wood’s, in New-England’s Prospect, chap. xi. (to which last, Josselyn was possibly indebted), far better.

[103] See “the generating of these creatures,” in Voyages, p. 119. “Here, likewise,” says Wood, “be great store of frogs, which, in the spring, do chirp and whistle like a bird; and, at the latter end of summer, croak like our English frogs.”—_N. Eng. Prospect_, _l. c._ In his Voyages, Josselyn speaks (as Wood had done) of the tree-toad, and also of another kind of toad; and of “the eft, or swift, ... a most beautiful creature to look upon; being larger than ours, and painted with glorious colours: but I lik’d him never the better for it” (p. 119).

[104] Wood’s account (New-Eng. Prospect, _l. c._) is worth comparing with Higginson’s (New-England’s Plantation, _l. c._) and with Josselyn’s, both here and at pp. 23 and 114 of the Voyages. Wood justly says of this “most poisonous and dangerous creature,” that it is “nothing so bad as the report goes of him.... He is naturally,” he continues, “the most sleepy and unnimble creature that lives; never offering to leap or bite any man, if he be not trodden on first: and it is their desire, in hot weather, to lie in paths where the sun may shine on them; where they will sleep so soundly, that I have known four men to stride over them, and never awake her.... Five or six men,” he adds, “have been bitten by them; which, by using of snake-weed” (compare the preface to this, p. 119), “were all cured; never any yet losing his life by them. Cows have been bitten; but, being cut in divers places, and this weed thrust into their flesh, were cured. I never heard of any beast that was yet lost by any of them, saving one mare” (_l. c._). Of other serpents, Wood mentions the black snake; and Josselyn, in his Voyages (_l. c._), speaks of “infinite numbers, of various colours;” and especially of “one sort that exceeds all the rest; and that is the checkquered snake, having as many colours within the checkquers shadowing one another as there are in a rainbow.” He says again, “The water-snake will be as big about the belly as the calf of a man’s leg” which is, perhaps, the water-adder. Josselyn adds, “I never heard of any mischief that snakes did” (_l. c._); and so Wood: “Neither doth any other kind of snakes” (the rattle-snake always excepted, as no doubt dangerous when trodden on) “molest either man or beast.” There are perhaps no worse prejudices in common life, than those which breed cruelty. In the Voyages (p. 23), our author makes mention “of a sea-serpent, or snake, that lay quoiled up like a cable upon a rock at Cape Ann. A boat passing by with English aboard, and two Indians, they would have shot the serpent: but the Indians disswaded them; saying, that, if he were not kill’d outright, they would be all in danger of their lives.” This was from “some neighbouring gentlemen in our house, who came to welcome me into the countrey;” and it seems, that, “amongst variety of discourse, they told me also of a young lyon (not long before) killed at Piscataway by an Indian;” which, indeed, was possibly not without foundation. And as to the serpent, compare a Report of a Committee of the Linnæan Society of New England relative to a large marine animal, supposed to be a serpent, seen near Cape Ann, Mass., in August, 1817 (Boston, 1817); which contains also a full account of a smaller animal—supposed not to differ, even in species, from the large—which was taken on the rocks of Cape Ann.—See also Storer, Report on the Reptiles of Mass.; Supplement, p. 410.

[105] The author continues his entomological observations, in his Voyages, p. 115; and the account is fuller than Wood’s; _New-England’s Prospect_, chap. xi.

[106] Gerard by Johnson, p. 17,—_Carex flava_, L.; the first species of this genus indicated in North America, and common also to Europe. There is no doubt of the reference, taking Josselyn’s name to be meant for specific, and to refer to Gerard’s first figure with the same name. But it is certainly possible that our author had in view only a general reference to Gerard’s fourteenth chapter, “Of Hedgehog Grasse,” which brings together plants of very different genera; and, in this case, his name is of little account. Cutler (Account of Indig. Veg., _l. c._, 1785) mentions three genera of _Cyperaceæ_, but not _Carex_; nor did he ever publish that description of our true _Gramineæ_ “and other native grasses,” which, he says (_l. c._, p. 407), “may be the subject of another paper.” The first edition of Bigelow’s Florula Bostoniensis (1814) has seven species of _Carex_, which are increased to seventeen in the second edition (1824); the list embracing the most common and conspicuous forms. The genus has since been made an object of special study, and the number of our species, in consequence, greatly increased. A list of Carices of the neighborhood of Boston, published by the present writer in 1841 (Hovey’s Mag. Hort.), gives forty-seven species; and Professor Dewey’s Report on the Herbaceous Plants of Massachusetts, in 1840, reckons ninety-one species within the limits of his work.

[107] Johnson’s Gerard, p. 42,—English matweed, or helme (the other species being excluded, as not English, by our author’s caption); which I take to be _Calamagrostis arenaria_ (L.) Roth, of Gray, Man., p. 548; called sea-matweed in England, and common to Europe and America. But if the author only intended to refer to Gerard’s “Chapter 34, of Mat-weed,”—which is perhaps, on the whole, unlikely,—his name is of no value.

[108] Gerard, p. 46,—_Typha latifolia_, L.,—common to America and Europe.

[109] Gerard, p. 47,—_Stellaria graminea_, L.; for which our author mistook, as did Cutler a century after, the nearly akin _S. longifolia_, Muhl.

[110] Appears not to be meant for a specific reference to any of Gerard’s species; but only an indication of the genus, with the single distinguishing character of color, which was enough to separate the New-England plants from the only British one referred by Gerard to Iris. Both of our blue-flags are peculiar to the country.

[111] Not one of Gerard’s bastard daffodils, but his dog’s-tooth, p. 204 (_Erythronium_, L.). Our common dog’s-tooth was at first taken for a variety of the European, but is now reckoned distinct.

[112] Gerard, p. 205,—_Orchis_, L., etc. It is here clear that the name is used only in a general way. The second name (_Satyrion_), perhaps, however, makes our author’s notion a little more definite, and permits us to refer the plants he had probably in view to species of _Platanthera_, Rich. (Gray, Man., p. 444), of which only one is certainly known to be common to us and Europe.

[113] Gerard, em. p. 257,—_Nasturtium officinale_, L. Reckoned also by Cutler, and indeed naturalized in some parts of the country (Gray, Man., p. 30); but our author had probably _N. palustre_, DC. (marsh-cress), if any thing of this genus, and not rather _Cardamine hirsuta_, L. (hairy lady’s smock), in his mind. Both the last are common to us and Europe.—_Gray_, _l. c._

[114] Gerard, p. 192. _Lilium bulbiferum_ (the garden red lily) is meant; for which our author mistook our own red lily (_L. Philadelphicum_, L.).

[115] Of the two plants,—either of which may possibly have been in view of the author here,—the sorrell du bois, or white wood-sorrel of Gerard, p. 1101 (_Oxalis acetosella_, L.) which is truly common to Europe and America, and the sheep’s sorrel (Gerard, p. 397,—_Rumex acetosella_, L.), which inhabits, indeed, the whole northern hemisphere, but is taken by Dr. Gray to be a naturalized weed here, I incline to think the latter less likely to have escaped Josselyn’s attention than the former, and to be what he means to say appeared to him as native, in 1671. For the yellow wood-sorrel, see farther on.

[116] Gerard, em., p. 404,—_Ophioglossum vulgatum_, L.; common to us and Europe.

[117] Gerard, em., p. 409,—_Smilacina bifolia_ (L.), Ker; common to us and Europe.

[118] Gerard, em., p. 410. A mistake of our author’s, which can hardly be set right. The station is against the plant’s having been _Smilacina trifolia_ (L.), Desf. But it may be that _Clintonia borealis_ (Ait.) Raf., was intended.

[119] _Alisma plantago_, L., common to Europe and America; “called, in New England, water suck-leaves and scurvie-leaves. You must lay them whole to the leggs to draw out water between the skin and the flesh.”—_Josselyn’s Voyages_, p. 80. As to its medicinal properties, see Gerard, p. 419; and Wood and Bache, Dispens., p. 1293.

[120] _Plantago maritima_, L. (Gerard, p. 423), a native of Europe and America, is our only sea-plantain. One of the others was probably _Triglochin_.

[121] _Sagittaria sagittifolia_, L. (now called arrowhead), common to Europe and America; though here passing into some varieties which are unknown in the European Floras.

[122] _Gentiana saponaria_, L., peculiar to America, but nearly akin to the European _G. pneumonanthe_, L., which our author intended.—_Johnson’s Gerard_, _edit. cit._, p. 438.

[123] The plant is green hellebore (_Veratrum viride_, Ait.); so near, indeed, to the white hellebore (_V. album_, L.) of Europe, that it was taken for it by Michaux. In his Voyages, the author, after speaking of the use of opium by the Turks, says, “The English in New England take white hellebore, which operates as fairly with them as with the Indians,” &c. (p. 60); and see p. 76, further.

[124] _Polygonum lapathifolium_, L. (_Hydropiper_ of Gerard, p. 445),—for which, perhaps, _P. hydropiper_, L., was mistaken,—and _P. Persicaria_, L. (_Persicaria maculosa_ of Gerard, _l. c._), are what the author means; being the two sorts figured by Gerard himself. The third, added by Johnson, is unknown in this country; and the fourth belongs to a very different genus. _P. Persicaria_ is marked as introduced in the late Mr. Oakes’s catalogue of the plants of Vermont; and both this and _P. hydropiper_ are considered to be naturalized weeds by Dr. Gray (Man., p. 373). Josselyn’s testimony as to the former, as appearing to him to be native in 1671, is therefore not without interest; and possibly it is not quite worthless as to the latter.

[125] _Chamæsyce_, or spurge-time, of Gerard (_edit. cit._, p. 504), is _Euphorbia chamæsyce_, L., a species belonging to the Eastern continent; for which Sloane (_cit. L. Sp. Pl. in loco_) appears to have mistaken our _Euphorbia maculata_, L.; while Plukenet (_Alm. 372_, _cit. L._) recognizes the affinity of the same plants, calling the latter _Chamæsyce altera Virginiana_. Josselyn’s spurge-time may be _E. maculata_; but quite possibly, taking the station which he gives into the account, _E. polygonifolia_, L.

[126] There are “several sorts of spurge,” according to the Voyages (p. 78); of which this, which I cannot specifically refer, is possibly one.

[127] To this species of _Saxifraga_, L., unknown to our _Flora_ (Gerard, p. 528), our author, with little doubt, referred the pretty _S. Virginiensis_, Michx.—See p. 58 of this, note.

[128] Gerard, em., p. 535,—_Salicornia herbacea_, L. But Linnæus referred one of Clayton’s Virginia specimens (the rest he did not distinguish from _S. herbacea_) to a variety, _β. Virginica_ (which he took to be also European; _Sp. Pl._), and afterwards raised this to a species, as _S. Virginica_, _Syst. Nat._, vol. ii. p. 52, Willd. _Sp. Pl._, vol. i. p. 25. To this the more common glasswort of our salt marshes is to be referred; and we possess, beside, a still better representative of the European plant in _S. mucronata_, Bigel. (_Fl. Bost._, edit. 2, p. 2), which may perhaps best be taken for a peculiar variety (_S. herbacea_, _β. mucronata_, articulorum dentibus squamisque mucronatis, _Enum. Pl. Cantab._, Ms.; and _S. Virginica_ may well be another) of a species common to us and Europe. It is certain that we have plants strictly common to American and European Floras, in which the differences referable to difference of atmospheric and other like conditions are either not apparent or of no account; and it is possible that there are yet other species, now considered peculiar to America, which only differ from older European species in those characters—whether of exuberance mostly, or also of impoverishment—in which an American variety of a plant, common to America and Europe, might beforehand be expected to differ from an European state of the same. “Linnæus ut Tournefortii errores corrigeret, varietates nimis contraxit.”—_Link_, _Phil. Bot._, p. 222.

[129] _Hypericum perforatum_, L. (“_Hypericum_, _S. John’s-wort_; in shops, _Perforata_.”—_Gerard_, _edit. cit._, p. 539). The species is considered to have been introduced, by most American authors; and it is possible that Josselyn had _H. corymbosum_, Muhl., in his mind.

[130] _Hypericum quadrangulum_, L. (Gerard, p. 542); for which our author doubtless mistook _H. mutilum_, L. (_H. parviflorum_, Willd.), a species peculiar to America; to which Cutler’s _H. quadrangulum_ (Account of Indig. Veg., _l. c._, p. 474) is probably also to be referred.

[131] _Veronica arvensis_, L. (Gerard, p. 613),—a native, at present, of Europe, Asia, Northern Africa, and North America (Benth., in DC. Prodr., vol. x. p. 482); but considered to have been introduced here.

[132] _Veronica_, L. The species is perhaps _V. officinalis_, L.; which, together with _V. serpyllifolia_, L., is considered by Prof. Gray to be both indigenous and introduced here.—_Man. Bot._, pp. 200-1.

[133] _Hedeoma pulegioides_ (L.) Pers. (American pennyroyal), is doubtless meant. The specific name indicates its resemblance—in smell and taste particularly—to _Mentha pulegium_, L.; for which our author and Cutler (_l. c._, p. 461) mistook it. But the former is peculiar to America.

[134] _Mentha aquatica_, L. _Sp. Pl._ (Gerard, p. 684); for which it is likely our author (and also Cutler, _l. c._, p. 460) mistook _M. Canadensis_, L., Gray.

[135] _Nepeta cataria_, L. (Gerard, em., p. 682); considered by American botanists to have been introduced from Europe.

[136] _Agrimonia Eupatoria_, L. (Gerard, em., p. 712); common to America and Europe.

[137] _Xanthium strumarium_, L., Gray (Gerard, p. 809); common, as a species, to both continents; but in part, also, introduced.—_Gray_, _Man._, p. 212.

[138] _Nuphar advena_, Ait.,—the common American species,—is meant; and this, though resembling _N. lutea_, Sm., of Europe, is distinct from it.

[139] _Arum_, L. (Gerard, p. 381). The New-England species “differ,” as our author says, “from all the kinds” in the Old World.

[140] None of the species, presumably here meant, are common to America and Europe. Our author’s white violet is _Viola blanda_, Willd.

[141] All our true honeysuckles (“woodbinde, or honisuckles,”—Gerard, p. 891; _Caprifolium_, Juss.) are distinct from those of Europe; but what the author meant here is uncertain.

[142] _Convallaria_, L.; _Polygonatum_, Tourn.; _Smilacina_, Desf. Many botanists have referred our smaller Solomon’s seal to the nearly akin _C. multiflora_ of Europe; but Dr. Gray (Manual, p. 466) pronounces the former a distinct American species. The second of Josselyn’s species is the “_Polygonatum Virginianum_, or Virginian’s Salomon’s seale” of Johnson’s Gerard (p. 905), and also of Morison (Hist., _cit. L._), and earliest described and figured by Cornuti as _P. Canadense, &c._, which is _Smilacina stellata_, (L.) Desf.; peculiar to America. The third is set down by our author, at p. 56, among the “plants proper to the country;” and Wood (New-Eng. Prospect, chap. v.) mentions it among eatable wild fruits, by the same name. It is probably _Smilacina racemosa_, (L.) Desf.,—a suggestion which I owe to my friend Rev. J. L. Russell’s notes upon Josselyn’s plants, in Hovey’s Magazine (March, April, and May, 1858); papers which were published after the manuscript of this edition had passed from the hands of the editor,—and is also confined to this continent.

[143] _Geranium_, L. The first is _G. Carolinianum_, L., which nearly resembles Gerard’s dove’s-foot (p. 938); the second is _G. Robertianum_, L., common to us and Europe; and the third (Gerard, p. 940)—which cannot be _G. dissectum_—was meant, it is likely to be taken for synonymous with the fourth, or raven’s-claw,—doubtless our lovely _G. maculatum_, L., which belongs to that group of species which the old botanists distinguished by the common name _Geranium batrachioides_, or crow-foot geranium, which flowers in May, and is of well-known value in medicine; and the “knobby” root, attributed to Josselyn’s third kind, favors this opinion.

[144] The genus _Potentilla_, L., in general, is perhaps intended by cinque-foil; and although our author probably confounded the common and variable _Potentilla Canadensis_, L., with the nearly akin _P. reptans_ and _P. verna_, L., of Europe, yet the larger part of our New-England species are, with little doubt, common to both continents. What Josselyn referred to _Tormentilla_, L.,—a genus not now separated from _Potentilla_,—was probably a state of _P. Canadensis_, which resembles _P. reptans_, L., as remarked above (and was, indeed, mistaken for it by Cutler,—_l. c._, p. 453), as this does _Tormentilla reptans_, L.

[145] _Geum strictum_, Ait.,—not found in England, but European (Gray, Man., p. 116),—is indicated by the author’s phrase; and see the Voyages, p. 78, for his opinion of its medicinal virtue.

[146] _Fragaria vesca_, L. (the common wood-strawberry of Europe), is native here, according to Oakes (Catal. Verm., p. 12), “especially on mountains;” and I have even gathered it, but possibly naturalized, on the woody banks of Fresh Pond in Cambridge. Our more common strawberry was not separated from the European by Linnæus, but is now reckoned a distinct species. “There is likewise strawberries in abundance,” says Wood (New-England’s Prospect, _l. c._),—“very large ones; some being two inches about. One may gather half a bushel in a forenoon.”—“This berry,” says Roger Williams (Key, in Hist. Coll., vol. iii. p. 221), “is the wonder of all the fruits growing naturally in those parts. It is of itself excellent; so that one of the chiefest doctors of England was wont to say, that God could have made, but God never did make, a better berry. In some parts, where the natives have planted, I have many times seen as many as would fill a good ship, within few miles’ compass. The Indians bruise them in a mortar, and mix them with meal, and make strawberry-bread.” Gookin also speaks of Indian-bread.—_Mass. Hist. Coll._, vol. i. p. 150.

[147] The two plants here intended, and supposed by the author to correspond with the “wild angelica” and “great wilde angelica” of Gerard (pp. 999-1000), may perhaps be taken for the same which Cornuti (_Canad. Pl. Hist._, pp. 196-200), thirty years before, had designated as new,—Josselyn’s _Angelica sylvestris minor_ being _Angelica lucida Canadensis_ of Cornuti, which is _A. lucida_, L. (and probably, as the French botanist describes the fruit as “minus foliacea vulgaribus,” also _Archangelica peregrina_, Nutt.); and his _Angelica sylvestris major_ being _A. atropurpurea Canadensis_ of Cornuti, or _A. atropurpurea_, L.

[148] _Smyrnium aureum_, L. (golden Alexanders), now separated from that genus, was mistaken, it is quite likely, for _S. olusatrum_, L. (true Alexanders), to which it bears a considerable resemblance.—_Gerard_, p. 1019.

[149] _Achillea millefolium_, L. Oakes has marked this as introduced (Catal. Vermont, p. 17): but it appeared to our author, in 1672, to be indigenous; and Dr. Gray reckons it among plants common to both hemispheres.—_Statistics of Amer. Flora_, in Am. Jour. Sci., vol. xxiii. p. 70. The author’s reference is to common yarrow.—_Gerard_, p. 1072.

[150] _Aquilegia Canadensis_, L. As elsewhere, the author probably means here only that the genus is common to both continents.

[151] At p. 56, both of these are set down among the “plants proper to the country.” The first, to follow Gerard (p. 1108), is _Chenopodium botrys_, L.,—a native of the south of Europe, and considered as an introduced species here. It has reputation in diseases of the chest.—Wood & Bache, Dispens., p. 213. Josselyn’s oak of Cappadocia (Gerard, p. 1108) is an American species,—_Ambrosia elatior_, L. Cutler says of it (_l. c._, p. 489), “It has somewhat the smell of camphire. It is used in antiseptick fomentations.”

[152] _Galium aparine_, L. (Gerard, _edit. cit._, p. 1122), common to America and Europe.—Compare Gray, Man., p. 170.

[153] The “Filix mas, or male ferne,” of Gerard, _edit. cit._, p. 1128 (for, says he, of the “divers sorts of ferne ... there be two sorts, according to the old writers,—the male and the female; and these be properly called ferne: the others have their proper names”), is the collective designation of four species of _Aspidium_; of which all, according to Pursh, and certainly three, are natives of both continents,—_AA. cristatum_, _Filix mas_, _Filix fæmina_, and _aculeatum_, Willd. “_Filix fæmina_ (female ferne, or brakes,)” of Gerard, _l. c._ is _Pteris aquilina_, L.; also common to us and Europe. The other _Filices_ mentioned by our author are _Ophioglossum vulgatum_, L. (p. 42); and _Adiantum pedatum_, L. (p. 55).

[154] _Oxalis corniculata_, L. (Gerard, em., p. 1202), common to Europe and America.

[155] _Ulmus_, L. There are no species common to America and Europe.

[156] See the Voyages, p. 69, where the author has it “the line-tree, with long nuts: the other kind I could never find.” The former was _Tilia Americana_, L.,—a species peculiar to America.

[157] See p. 48; and Voyages, p. 69. None of our species are found in Europe.

[158] The plant intended is doubtless the same with that spoken of in the Voyages, p. 80.—“_Rosa solis_, sundew, moor-grass. This plant I have seen more of than ever I saw in my whole life before in England,” &c. Both our common New-England species of _Drosera_ are also natives of Europe.

[159] “Differing much from those in England. One sort of them bears a most beautiful flower” (p. 56, where it is rightly placed among plants “proper to the country”). The author refers here, doubtless, to _Apios tuberosa_, Moench. (ground-nut of New England), which was raised at Paris, from American seeds, by Vespasian Robin, and figured from his specimens by Cornuti (Canad., p. 200) in 1635; but it was celebrated, ten years earlier, in “Nova Anglia,”—a curious poem by the Rev. William Morrell, who came over with Capt. Robert Gorges in 1623, and spent about a year at Weymouth and Plymouth, publishing his book in 1625 (repr. Hist. Coll., vol. i. p. 125, &c.),—as follows:—

“Vimine gramineo nux subterranea suavis
Serpit humi, tenui flavo sub cortice, pingui
Et placido nucleo nivei candoris ab intra,
Melliflua parcos hilarans dulcedine gustus,
Donec in æstivum Phœbus conscenderit axem.
His nucleis laute versutus vescitur Indus:
His exempta fames segnis nostratibus omnis
Dulcibus his vires revocantur victibus almæ.”

[160] See p. 52 and Voyages (pp. 70, 81) for other notices of _Fungi_; and Voyages, p. 81, for the only mention of _Algæ_.

[161] Female pimpernell (Gerard, em., p. 617),—_Anagallis arvensis_, γ, Sm.; _A. cærulea_, Schreb.,—but scarcely differing, except in color, from the scarlet pimpernel, which has long (“in clayey ground,”—_Cutler_, _l. c._, 1785) been an inhabitant of the coasts of Massachusetts Bay, though doubtless introduced.

[162] _Hepatica triloba_, Chaix. (_Anemone hepatica_, L.), common to Europe and America; occurring occasionally with white flowers.—_Gerard_, em., p. 1203.

[163] _Rubus_, L. The red raspberry of this country is hardly other than an American variety of the European (_R. Idæus_, var. strigosus, caule petiolis pedunculis calyceque aculeato-hispidissimis, Enum. Pl. Agri Cantab, 1843, Ms.); upon which see Gray (Man., p. 121; and Statistics, &c., _l. c._, p. 81). _R. triflorus_, Richards., is also very near to, and was once considered the same as, the European _R. saxatilis_, L. The rest of our New-England raspberries and blackberries appear to be specifically distinct from those of Europe. The cloud-berry, mentioned at p. 60, is there set down among plants proper to the country; and may therefore not be the true cloud-berry (Gerard, p. 1273), or _Rubus chamæmorus_, L., which is common to both continents.

[164] The New-England gooseberries are peculiar to this country. The author no doubt intends _Ribes hirtellum_, Michx. (Gray, Man., p. 137); as see further his Voyages, p. 72.

[165] _Cratægus_, L. But the species are peculiar to this country, as Josselyn implies with respect to the haws which he notices. These, no doubt, included _C. tomentosa_, L., Gray; and perhaps, also, _C. coccinea_, L. Wood says, “The white thorn affords hawes as big as an English cherry; which is esteemed above a cherry for his goodness and pleasantness to the taste.”—_New-England’s Prospect_, chap. v. At page 72 of his Voyages, the author mentions “a small shrub, which is very common; growing sometimes to the height of elder; bearing a berry like in shape to the fruit of the white thorn; of a pale, yellow colour at first, then red (when it is ripe, of a deep purple); of a delicate, aromatical tast, but somewhat stiptick,”—which may be _Pyrus arbutifolia_, L. Higginson (New-England’s Plantation, _l. c._, p. 119) speaks of our haws almost as highly as Wood.

[166] Great toad-flax (Gerard, em., p. 550); _Linaria vulgaris_, Moench. Compare De Candolle (Geog. Bot., vol. ii. p. 716) for a sketch of the American history of this now familiar plant, which the learned author cannot trace before Bigelow’s date (Fl. Bost., edit. 1) of 1814. But it is certainly Cutler’s “snapdragon; ... blossoms yellow, with a mixture of scarlet; common by roadsides in Lynn and Cambridge” (_l. c._, 1785): though he strangely prefixes the Linnæan phrase for _Antirrhinum Canadense_, L.; and there seems no reason to doubt that Josselyn may very well have seen it in 1671.

[167] Gerard, p. 653 (_Teucrium_, L.). The author may have intended to reckon the genus only. Our species is peculiar to this continent.

[168] The designation is uncertain. The old botanists gave the name _Auricula muris_, or mouse-ear, to species of _Myosotis_, _Draba_, _Hieracium_, and _Gnaphalium_. Josselyn’s plant may most probably be _Antennaria plantaginifolia_, Hook. (mouse-ear of New England), which is very near to _A. dioica_ of Europe.—_Gray, Statistics, &c._, _l. c._, p. 81.

[169] _Quercus alba_, L.; _Q. rubra_, L.; and _Q. tinctoria_, Bartr. Wood’s account of the oaks (New-England’s Prospect, chap. v.) is similar. In his Voyages, p. 61, Josselyn gives us “the ordering of red oake for wainscot. When they have cut it down and clear’d it from the branches, they pitch the body of the tree in a muddy place in a river, with the head downward, for some time. Afterwards they draw it out; and, when it is seasoned sufficiently, they saw it into boards for wainscot; and it will branch out into curious works.”

[170] _Juniperus communis_, L.; common to both continents. But the author did not probably distinguish from it _J. Virginiana_, L.; which is frequent, and often dwarfish, near the sea.

[171] _Salix_, L.; the genus only meant here, it is likely.

[172] _Daphne Laureola_, L. (Gerard, p. 1404), with which Josselyn may have considered _Kalmia angustifolia_, L., in some sort allied. The latter has long been known in New England as dwarf or low laurel.

[173] _Myrica Gale_, L. (Gerard, p. 1414); common to Europe and America.

[174] _Sambucus_, L. Our _S. Canadensis_, L. differs very little from the common elder of Europe, except, as our author in his Voyages says (p. 71), in being “shrubbie,” and in not having “a smell so strong.”—_Cf._ DC. _Prodr._, vol. ii. p. 322; _Gerard_, p. 1421. The other North-American elder (_S. pubens_, Michx.) is at least equally near to the European _S. racemosa_, L., according to Prof. Gray.

[175] “There is a sort of dwarf-elder, that grows by the sea-side, that hath a red pith. The berries of both”—that is, of this and of the true elder mentioned above—“are smaller than English elder; not round, but corner’d.”—_Voyages_, p. 71. Gerard’s dwarf-elder (p. 1425) is _Sambucus ebulus_, L. Josselyn’s may have been a _Viburnum_; for this genus was confused with _Sambucus_ by the elder botanists. Wood (New-England Prospect, chap. v.) speaks of—

“Small eldern, by the Indian fletchers sought;”—

which was perhaps arrow-wood, or _Viburnum dentatum_, L.

[176] _Alnus_, Tourn. One of the three New-England species (_A. incana_, Willd.) is common to Europe and America. Another (_A. serrulata_, Willd.) “bears so great a resemblance,” says F. A. Michaux, to the common European alder (_A. glutinosa_, Willd.) “in its flowers, its seeds, its leaves, its wood, and its bark, as to render a separate figure unnecessary; the only difference observable between them” being “that the European species is larger, and has smaller leaves.”—_Sylva_, vol. ii. p. 114. Compare Gray, Statistics, &c., _l. c._, p. 83. _A. viridis_, our third species, is common to Europe and this country.

[177] _Corylus_, L. Our species, which are peculiar to America, are both indicated: the “filberd, ... with hairy husks upon the nuts,” being _C. rostrata_, Ait. (beaked hazel); and that “setting hollow from the nut,”—that is, larger than the nut.—_C. Americana_, Wangenh. (common hazel).

[178] _Carya_, Nutt. In the Voyages, p. 69, the author speaks of the “walnut, which is divers: some bearing square nuts; others like ours, but smaller. There is likewise black walnut, of precious use for tables, cabinets, and the like” (_Juglans nigra_, L.). “The walnut-tree,” continues Josselyn, “is the toughest wood in the countrie, and therefore made use of for hoops and bowes; there being no yews there growing. In England, they made their bowes usually of witch-hasel” (that is, witch-elm,—_Ulmus montana_, Bauh., Lindl.; as see Gerard, p. 1481: but _Carpinus_, “in Essex, is called witch-hasell,”—_ib._), “ash, yew, the best of outlandish elm; but the Indians make theirs of walnut.” This was hickory, and what Wood says belongs doubtless to the same. He calls it “something different from the English walnut; being a great deal more tough and more serviceable, and altogether heavy. And whereas our guns, that are stocked with English walnut, are soon broken and cracked in frost,—being a brittle wood,—we are driven to stock them new with the country walnut, which will endure all blows and weather; lasting time out of mind.” After speaking favorably of the fruit, he adds (New-Eng. Prospect, chap. vi.), “There is likewise a tree, in some parts of the country, that bears a nut as big as a pear,”—the butternut, doubtless (_Juglans cinerea_, L.). Josselyn has told us (p. 48) of the oil which the Indians managed to get from the acorns of the white oak. Roger Williams (Key, _l. c._, p. 220) says our native Americans made “of these walnuts ... an excellent oil, good for many uses, but especially for the anointing of their heads.” Michaux (_Sylva_, vol. i. p. 163) says the Indians used the oil of the butternut, and also (p. 185) of the shag-bark, “to season their aliments.” Williams adds (_l. c._), “Of the chips of the walnut-tree—the bark taken off—some English in the country make excellent beer, both for taste, strength, colour, and inoffensive opening operation.”

[179] _Castanea vesca_, Gaertn.; common to Europe and America. Our chestnut is considered to differ from the European only as an American variety of a species common to both continents might be expected to. “The Indians have an art of drying their chestnuts, and so to preserve them in their barns for a dainty all the year.”—_R. Williams_, _l. c._