1777), and we can add to the evidence for the ’plundering’ of the pine on Lot 13 already cited, the ’mangling’ of the pine on part of Lot 3486, some of which was intended for export. By 1822, as noted above, Johnstone could say that ”it was cut everywhere near the shores”, and in similar vein, also as noted, MacGregor observed in 1828 that there was not more present than would be required by the inhabitants, while Hill in 1839 noted that "it had nearly all been cut down and exported” — except, he said, for the district of Cascumpec. This had occurred despite attempts by the Island’s House of Assembly to provide some protection to pine from illegal cutting“. By 1860, a reference by a witness to the Land Commission to ”the years pine timber was made” indicates that the days of the pine harvest were over“. However, that there was still some pine at the end of the nineteenth century is evident from Watson’s (post 1904) comment that white pine was ”fast diminishing", and that large trees were ”scarce". Finally, we should note that pine trees, and presumably again it was mostly the white pine, presented a particular nuisance in land clearance, since it took much longer for the stumps to rot away compared with the hardwood species on the same land“. Conclusion ~ The records indicate that white pine could occur either as single species stands, seemingly on sandy soils, though these seem to have not been common, or as a minority element in the upland hardwood forest, where its presence was an indicator of soils more desirable for clearance. Despite the destruction of a large area of pine forest in the north—east during the French regime, the pines, and especially the white, seem to have been still relatively abundant in the early decades of British settlement. However, from the earliest days the trees, being of a large size and containing very valuable wood useful in general building and joinery work, and for export, were selectively removed from the forest, such that by the early decades of the nineteenth century they were becoming much less plentiful, and by the 86 Stewart 1783. It was probably that part of Lot 34 that fronted the Hillsborough River. 3’ House of Assembly (1773-1849) (in 1780 and 1833). 88 Land Commission (1860): evidence of William McGowan, a delegate representing the people of Lots 44 and 45. 89 Selkirk (1803) says they took “sometimes 20 or 30 years“; MacGregor (1828) that they took "a much longer time" than the hardwoods. 162 mid-nineteenth century scarce. The two other species of pine seem in overall terms to have been less abundant than the white and much less general in their distribution, the red apparently occurring in scattered localities, perhaps as single species stands, some of which had already been destroyed by the fires of the French period. THE SPRUCES White spruce (Picea glaucal Black spruce (Picea mariana) Red spruce (Picea rubensl Identification and nomenclature — A problem for the early recorders was that the three species of spruce that occur on Prince Edward Island are very similar in general appearance“, and are also somewhat similar to the balsam fir. On top of this, some of the British period recorders, like the French before them, were not as familiar with conifer species, and especially the spruces and firs, as they were with broad—leaved trees.91 Even so, from the end of the eighteenth century, many of the more discerning recorders list all three species for the island (Table 1-3), while others recognize the presence of different species even if not naming them.92 However, in their comments about spruce in particular situations, the actual species is seldom named and we are left to guess the species from the context. For example, Selkirk (1803) records ten different comments on spruce in different situations, without naming the particular species.93 I suspect that he, and other 9° Because of hybridisation between the red and black spruces, even experts can have difficulties in identifying some individual trees (eg. see Manley 1971). 9‘ Spruces and firs are not native to the British Isles, though from as early as the sixteenth century European species of both genera had been planted in countryside estates: Norway spruce (Picea abies) was first planted about 1548, and silver fir (Abies alba) in 1603 (James 1981, p. 165; Elwes 8. Henry 1910, Vol. IV, p. 726; Vol. VI, p. 1351). It is evident that Selkirk (1803), for one, was familiar with both trees in the British Isles: he says that the spruce on the island “is not unlike ours” (probably meaning the Norway spruce), and that the island's fir “resembles the silver fif‘). 92 Oddly, Bain (1890), who is otherwise fairly thorough in his tree taxonomy, lists only one spruce for the island which he calls Abies nigra (he must mean black spruce) with the implication that all of the spruce trees on the island were of this one species. (I might add that the three spruce species were never distinguished in the written records of the French period for the island (see Sobey 2002, pp. 120-21).) 93 Another example: the Land Commission (1875) records the word ‘spruce‘ 45 times in the evidence of 25 different persons. However, only one, Robert Holton of Lot 9, uses a specific name, referring to ‘black spruce’ six times.