With respect to forest clearance, the maples were among those trees whose stumps did not present a great obstacle: Selkirk (1803) stated that the stumps could be removed five or six years after cutting, while MacGregor (1828) said four or five years. Both must have had in mind the sugar maple, as Lewellin (1832) recorded that ’white maple’ [i.e. A. rubrum] was destroyed with difficulty — a comment repeated in evidence to the Land Commission of 1875 where the ready ability of ’white maple’ to sprout from cut stumps, made, it was claimed, clearing such land very costly and difficult.411 One farmer in fact said that it was impossible to clear such land, the sprouts growing ”the height of a man in one year”, and the roots being especially difficult to remove (even a team of horses had problems uprooting the small roots), and that only by setting sheep to graze on the land

could such maples be "kept down”.412

Finally, the maples were one of those trees for which an aesthetic value is recorded: this was on account of their contribution to the leaf colour in the fall. John Stewart noted that the ”rich crimson and bright scarlet” of the maple leaves added to ”the beauty of the forest scenery in the autumn”‘”3. John MacGregor also alludes to the maples’ contribution to the autumn foliage, while Francis Bain included descriptions of the autumn colouration of the maples in both his notebooks

and in his school text”.

Conclusion — Sugar maple, and probably also red maple, were important elements of the island's upland hardwood forests, where they could occur either in mixtures with other hardwood species or in single species stands. They, however, made a smaller contribution to the total forest composition than did beech. it is not possible from the records to ascertain the relative contribution of the two maples to the upland forests, although it is likely that in the old-growth forests of the island, the sugar maple, being a highly shade-tolerant climax tree, made a far greater contribution than the less shade-tolerant red maple. However, in wet lowland areas it was the red maple that would have occmred, and because of its ability to re-

“1 Land Commission 1875: evidence of John Doughart of Lot

20, and William McNeill and Joseph Doucette of Lot 24 — it is McNeilI who names the species as ‘white maple‘ [i.e. red maple].

412

All in the testimony of William McNeill of Lot 24 (Land Commission 1875).

“3 Stewart 1806.

‘“ MacGregor 1323; Bain 1363-1384 (e.g. in 1870); Bain 1390.

sprout easily from cut stumps, it would have increased in cut—over areas in both the uplands and the lowlands. The sugar maple especially was highly valued both for its wood and for its sugar.

THE BIRCHES

Yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) White birch (Betula papyrifera) Grey birch (Betula popu/ifolia)

Identification and nomenclature — Prince Edward Island has three native birch species of tree size, two of which display the characteristic white bark (white birch and grey birch). The third species (yellow birch) is distinctly different: although the trunks of younger trees have a yellowish birch-like bark, the bark of older trees is not at all birch-like and has similarities to that of other broad—leaved trees such as the maples. However, its leaves and catkins are recognizably birch-like.

It may seem odd to us now, but throughout the British colonial period, and even into the twentieth century“, the species that we now know as the yellow birch was considered by many island recorders to comprise two separate species, which were distinguished under the names of ’black birch’ and ’yellow birch’.416 Eleven of the island list-makers list both of these names as if they were separate species (Table 1—5), including Stewart (1806) who provides an extended

description for each 'species’.417 In fact the only

island recorder who considered that the two trees may have been the same species, was Selkirk (1803) who noted that ”the yellow birch is said to

be the black half grown”.“18 Of the two names,

"5 e.g. Burke 1902.

“6 This error seems to stem from the fact that younger B. alleghaniensis trees. as just noted, differed in appearance, especially in their bark, from older trees. Contributing to the confusion was the fact that in the eastern North American deciduous forest there was another birch species similar to B. alleghaniensis, that was indeed called the black (or cherry) birch (B. lenta). However, this species, though once considered to occur from Newfoundland southwards (e.g. Elwes 8. Henry 1910, Vol, IV: 991) is now known to be more southerly in its distribution — its nearest occurrence to the Maritimes is in southern Maine (Farrar 1995) and it would never have occurred on Prince Edward Island. It thus seems that it was this valid botanical distinction in the deciduous forests further south that contributed to this botanical confusion in the north.

“7 As does also Moses Perley in his Report on the Forest Trees of New Brunswick (1847).

“3 Presumably the source of this opinion was the Surveyor General Thomas Wright who accompanied Selkirk to Pinette. I note from Fortier (1983) that a Judge Dodd who wrote A Sketch of

202