lists for the island (Table 1-2) record only ’pine’ or 'pines’ without specifying the species. In fact the first differentiation of individual species in the records occurs in 17749. Thereafter, white pine (P. strobus), as either ’white pine’, ’yellow pine"°, ’fragrant pine’ or ’Weymouth pine"1 is listed by seventeen recorders; red pine (P. resinosa), as ’red pine’ or ’yellow pine’ is listed by eleven; and jack pine (P. banks/anal, as ’pitch pine’, is definitely listed by three”, and possibly by four”.

It may seem odd, given the differing characteristics and uses of the three pine species,

Baltic Sea area — see Albion (1926) (p. 26 ff.) and Sobey (2002) (pp. 162-64). The only certain use of the name ‘fir‘ for the pines that l have found in island records is Walter Johnstone’s (1822) explanation for his Scottish readership, that the ‘Pine‘ of the island was the same as “what we call Scotch fir at home“. It is just possible that another Scottish visitor, David Stewart (1831), the proprietor of Lot 47 (the lot that includes East Point), was also referring to pines in his statement “there are few firs" when describing the forests of his lot, since balsam fir was a tree less likely to attract attention compared with the conspicuous and valuable pine, such that someone would record a low level of it or its absence,

9 Patterson 1774. There had been references to red pine (under the name pin rouge) in the French period records of the 17203 and 17305 (see Sobey 2002, pp. 75-77; p, 171: footnote 109).

1° in the three occurrences of the name ‘yellow pine‘ in island records it is clear that two ([Cambridge] 1796?; Stewart 1806) refer to red pine Pinus resinosa (since the name ‘white pine‘ also occurs in both of their lists), while for the third (Hill 1839), the description of the species fits better the white pine, P. strobus. I note that Erskine (1960) takes Stewart's “Yellow Pine (pinus pinea)" to be the jack pine rather than the red pine. ln Erskine‘s support. I note that Titus Smith, the renowned Nova Scotia naturalist, used the name Pinus Pinea (seemingly in his survey journals of 1801 and 1802) as an alternative name for “Pinus Banks/ana, the Hudson’s Bay Pine or Mountain Pine", which can only be the jack pine (Gorham 1955). However, I think that Stewart‘s description fits the red pine and not the jack, and, in support of my view, I note also that the same Titus Smith used the name “Yellow Pine, Pinus Sy/vestn'a" for what can only be the red pine Pinus resinosa (Gorham 1955).

1‘ ‘Weymouth pine' is still the standard name of the species in the British Isles (eg. Press & Hosking 1992), where it has been planted as an ornamental and landscape tree since the seventeenth century, The Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford 1989, XX: 179) records on rather tenuous evidence, that it is named after the first Lord Weymouth “by whom the trees were extensively planted after its introduction into England in 1705” (see also Elwes & Henry, V: 1028). However, I rather suspect that its name may derive from Captain George Weymouth, who, according to Carroll (1973) (pp. 44-45), led an exploratory expedition to New England in 1605, returning with samples of the trees.

‘2 I note that Erskine (1960) takes Stewart's “pitch pine (pinus foeda)" to be the red pine rather than the jack pine. However, Stewart‘s description fits the jack pine and not the red pine.

13 The description connected with the fourth listing of pitch pine, that of Walsh (1803), as “large and may be converted to timber" does not fit the jack pine. One is tempted to think that he got the description of his “American or Weymouth pine” (“small & not often met with") mixed up with that of his “pitch pine”.

154

that almost half of the recorders did not distinguish between them, but this is due, I think, to the simplified generic nature of the early lists (even those of Samuel Holland”). It is only later with the more comprehensive and botanically- minded recorders that we get distinctions being made between the species.

General distribution and abundance — Under one name or other, pine occurs in thirty-one of the thirty—seven tree lists (Table 1-2) a high frequency rate“, and pine also has a high report rate in the tree tally (Table 1-1). Several of these records could be taken to suggest that ’pine' (species unspecified) was fairly abundant, especially before extensive settlement: Holland (1765: March) listed 'pine' as one of five principal trees of the island, while Patterson (1770) noted that away from the Charlottetown area, there were ”large pines in plenty”, while in 1774 he

noted that the island 'produces' 'white pine in pretty large quantities", adding that "there is scarcely a Lott but has some upon it". However,

Stewart (1806) did not consider any of the pine species to be abundant: white pine, he said, was ”not abundant”, the quantity of red pine was ”not great”, and there was ”very little pitch pine” [i.e. jack pine]. Walsh (1803) also said that the white pine was ”not often met with”‘6, while MacGregor (1828), also referring to white pine, noted that there was ”not more growing than will be required by the inhabitants”. Six years before, Johnstone (1822) had noted that pine (his details imply the white) was "now all cut everywhere near the shores”, while Hill (1839) (based at Cascumpecl, could similarly write of white pine, that though ”formerly very plentiful in the island”, it had been ”nearly all cut down and exported” — except, he said, for the Cascumpec district. Thus, by the end of the nineteenth century it is not surprising that Crosskill (1904) could list pine as one of the less common trees of the island, while Watson (post 1904) could say that white pine was ”fast diminishing” on the island, with large trees being ”scarce”, though he said small ones were found here and there throughout the province.

1‘ Holland 1765: March & October.

15 Of the six recorders who omitted it, four had either only a brief (Anon. 1877) or second-hand acquaintance (Martin 1837, Murray 1839, Monro 1855) With the island. The fifth, Gesner (1846), did spend several summers visiting all parts of the island; however, he was more interested in the geological strata than in the living

vegetation. The sixth, [Bain] (1882), did not include the conifer trees in his list.

16 But does he mean here the jack pine? (see footnote 13).