good size, but most of the larger trees seem to have been harvested by the second half of the nineteenth century.

THE ASHES

White ash (Fraxinus americana) Black ash (Fraxinus nigra)

Identification and nomenclature — Although many of the earlier recorders listed only the genus name ’ash' for the island, several of the more discerning (Table 1-7), beginning with Stewart (1806), recognized that two distinct species, black and white ash, occurred on the island.499

General distribution and abundance — ’Ash’ (or its two species) is found in only twenty of the thirty- seven tree lists (Table 1-7) and had only ten records in the tree tally (Table 1-1), both of which suggest that neither species was common on the island. This is supported by the comments of some of the recorders: Patterson (1774) said the "quantity" of ash was "not great”; Cambridge (1796) included it among the trees that he said were ”not in great plenty" and MacGregor (1832) among those that were ”not plentiful”. Similarly, Stewart (1806) said that white ash was ”in no great quantity on the Island". Also, Curtis (1775) in describing the forests of the New London area referred to ”some few ash”. Ash was also among the trees that Hill (1839) said were ”not numerous”, while Walsh (1803) included it among those trees of which he ”could discover no kinds, except a few trees which have been evidently planted”5°°. Sixty years later Sutherland (1861) could state that ”both [of the ash species] have become scarce in most parts of the Island” — though he may not have realized that they had never been common. Bain (1882) said that there were "a few ashes”, which, like oak, formed ”a very inconspicuous feature of our forest". However, at the beginning of the twentieth century, though Watson (post 1904) noted that white ash was ”scarce”, he said that black ash was “abundant” in wet lands of west Prince County, but ”not frequent" in Queens County.

‘99 MacGregor (1828), alone of all the recorders, said there were

three "varieties” of ash on the island, “black. grey and white“, the first two, he said, being "scarcely of any use". I do not know what his grey ash was.

5°” Whether it was the ash trees that had been planted — or rather

the other trees in his list — is not certain.

212

Specific areas The ashes were recorded in several areas, notably in the west of the province (Figure 1—11), and from the associated comments we can usually identify the species. The ash noted by Curtis (1775) as an element of the hardwood forests of the New London Bay area, would appear to have been white ash, as may also have been the species in the ”swales of superior ash” found by Craswell 8! Anderson (1856) in Lot 11 on the east side of the Western Road. However, the trees that Robert Gray (1793) recorded in a ’swamp’ in the centre of Lot 13 must have been black ash, as was also the ash in the "swamps of ash and cedar” recorded at Egmont Bay by Gesner (1846), and in an area of Lot 16, seemingly near the head of the South— West River [now Nebraska Creek] that ”overflowed” in winter“. So probably also were the "rugged ashes" that Bain (1883) observed from a railway carriage on the "deep mucky soils' in the "swampy" land between Miscouche and O'Leary, and the ash of the "ash swamps" of Lot

7502.503 Watson (post 1904) noted the presence of white ash near Kensington and at Campbelltown, and black ash at Montrose,

Miscouche and also near Kensington, noting that it was "abundant on wet lands of Prince County". Finally, witnesses to the Land Commission of 1875 noted ”a small strain of ash” in a particular part of Lot 7, while ash was also reported as occurring in the part of Lot 9 adjoining Lot 10, and in the Afton Road area of Lot 36.504

Tree sizes — We have only a few qualitative statements on the size of the two ash species: Stewart (1806) said white ash was sometimes found ”of a large diameter”, which is supported by Curtis's (1775) ash trees (presumably white), which were of a "considerable size”. The use of the word ”superior” to describe the ash trees in Lot 11 seems also to imply a large sizes“. As for black ash, Bain (1890) says that it was "a large tree”, which is supported by Gray's (1793)

50‘ Land Commission 1875: evidence of Donald Campbell.

502

Census 1841. 503 Selkirk (1803) while at Belfast noted that ash was one of the species associated with red spruce on “rich swamp", but he does not say that he came across such a swamp himself in that area. Rather. using information that he had received from others, he seems in that particular passage to be recording the trees that were indicators of soil quality in general.

50‘ Land Commission 1875: evidence of Amos McWilliams for Lot 7; of Alexander Anderson for Lot 9; and of H. Braddock for Lot 36.

505 Craswell & Anderson c. 1856.