are, a ie Rene aig /b4 G33 Bulletin of the Biological Society of Washington Wnt | No. { , ‘7 A SKETCH OF THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TOGETHER WITH AN INDEXED EDITION U. 8. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY’S 1917 MAP OF WASHINGTON AND VICINITY C Lion’ 87067 03226) I ne A "Bulletin of the Biological Society of Washington No. | A SKETCH OF THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TOGETHER WITH AN INDEXED EDITION U. 8S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY’S 1917 MAP OF WASHINGTON AND VICINITY W. L. McATEE OT LIBRA WASHINGTON, D. C. MAY, 1918 e NO AEN 2 ger oy, = CONTENTS. Historical eketoh 2.0... 8 Ce eee a eee THETOGNGION: > Fak ee ee ee CAS See TSOGIEE or soe. bi es ov eae Oe Sh in cat 14 TYRE Tears, 55 See itn CRS ew ot eee 24 PECY FIRVOPLODEAIOS a Sree oe ee gs ee 42 HESEERRE oH ete So ee, os Oe ea aa Sf hocd nea ae Batrachians and reptiles ..... ke 5 ee Ss 44 EG RE IRA. RS Te. ey EET ONE SS RR as aE” 46 Mami Sa 8 4 ee ee ee OAR BG eo 52 Karly History of Man in the District. . ....... 54 Distribution of life in the District of Columbia region . . 57 The Piedmont Plateau and Coastal Plain as faunal and floval provinces 6285s. a INS 57 Magnolia bogs near Washington, D. C., and their relation to the pine barrens ........... 74 Other types of collecting grounds in the District of Columbia region. . ..... . 90 Index to the U.S. Geological Survey’s 1917 Map of Wash- STIStG AOI SACI rise 6 0 SE Dae Py 4 110 Teironeie ss SB a UE a SoS 110 Biblicgrapny. . 62s las CORES ke ee ae List of tape filed ee a Eee tae 115 PAGE Ge gee. ss eS } ig RS a Se MAPS The Piedmont Plateau and the Coastal Plain in the vicinity of the District of Columbia. Page 61, also in pocket inside back cover. Washington and Vicinity. U. 8. Geological Survey, 1917. Quartered and with index ruling. In pocket inside back cover. [3] HISTORICAL SKETCH.' INTRODUCTION. From its proximity to Virginia, one of the first settled regions of the United States, the land from which the Dis- trict of Columbia was formed would be expected to have received some attention from the early explorers. Not only was the vicinity of the present District explored, but fortu- nately observations were made upon certain features of the natural history. Romantic expectation is further satisfied by the fact that none other than the redoubtable Captain John Smith made and recorded the first observations 2? upon the fauna of this neighborhood. We read in “The Third Book of the Proceedings and Accidents of the English Colony in Virginia” * that on “the 16 of June [1608] we fell with the river Patowomek. * * * Having gone so high as we could with the bote [this of course means to Little Falls] we met diuers Saluages in Canowes, well loaden with the flesh of Beares, Deere, and other beasts, whereof we had part.” Necessarily these “Beares” and “Deere” came from no great distance and must be regarded as part of the Dis- trict fauna of three hundred years ago. In the narrative of the return voyage, Captain Smith mentions “a few Beuers, Otters, Beares, Martins and Minks we found” (op. cit., p. 418). Thus bears were recorded along the Potomac both above and below the present site of Washington, and there is no doubt that they once roamed over all the territory now 1Read at the 556th meeting of the Biological Society of Washington, May 6, 1916. 2Such books as “A briefe and true report of the new found land of Virginia * * *’, by Thomas Harriot, 1588; “The historie of travaile into Virginia Brittania * * *’, written by William Strachey, 1611, pub- lished 1849; “* * * An account of several observables in Vir- * * * written by John Clayton, 1688, published 1694-5; ‘‘Notes on the State of Virginia * * *’”, written by Thomas Jefferson, 1781-2, published 1782, and others while containing information on the natural history of Virginia do not relate in any way to the region of the District of Columbia. 8 Works. Edited by Edward Arber, 1884, p. 417. [5] 6 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. included in the District. The pine marten is not usually recognized as a member of the District Fauna, but accord- ing to Wm. Palmer, there is a fairly certain record as late as about 1880; Smith’s statement therefore probably is correct. Larger game is mentioned by the next contributor to the natural history of the District, an account of whose expe- rience is quoted from Wm. T. Hornaday: “The earliest discovery of the bison in Eastern North America, or indeed anywhere north of Coronado’s route, was made somewhere near Washington, District of Columbia, in 1612, by an English navigator named Samuell Argoll,* and narrated as follows: ‘As soon as I had unladen this corne, I set my men to the felling of Timber, for the building of a Frigat, which I had left half finished at Point Comfort, the 19. of March: and returned myself with the ship into Pem- brook [Potomac] River, and so discovered to the head of it, which is about 65. leagues into the Land, and navigable for any ship. And then marching into the Countrie, I found great store of Cattle as big as Kine, of which the Indians that were my guides killed a couple, which we found to be very good and wholesome meate, and are very easie to be killed, in regard they are heavy, slow, and not so wild as other beasts of the wildernesse.’ “It is to be regretted that the narrative of the explorer affords no clew to the precise locality of this interesting dis- * eovery, but since it is doubtful that the mariner journeyed very far on foot from the head of navigation of the Potomac, it seems highly probable that the first American bison seen . by Europeans, other than the Spaniards, was found within 15 miles, or even less, of the capital of the United States, and possibly within the District of Columbia itself.” 5 An inducement for the early explorers to visit our region was the considerable Indian population. The country about the juncture of the Potomac and Anacostia rivers, especially, ORR RE SARIS ASL SESS aah dv ade TSP ee CES PT aL a Oe ‘Purchas: His Pilgrimes. (1625), Vol. IV, p. 1765. “A letter of Sir ACR ee el Argoll touching his Voyage to Virginia, and actions there. Writ- ___ ten to Master Nicholas Hawes, June, 1613.” me » Wm. T. The Mxtermination of the American Bison. Rep. Museum, 1886-7, (1889), p. 375. Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 7 was thickly settled and the waters there were favorite fishing resorts. The Indian village Nacostines (Anacostia). is spe- cifically mentioned by Henry Fleet who visited it in June, 1632, and obtained “800 weight of beaver.” This is good evidence of the abundance at that.time of these animals in country easily reached from Anacostia. Collateral evidence is afforded by the name Beaver Dam Branch still applied to a stream flowing into Eastern Branch through the town of Benning. Fleet, like the travellers previously mentioned, also ascended to Little Falls. He describes © the trip as follows: “On Monday the 25th of June, we set sail for the town of Tohoga, when we came to anchor two leagues short of the falls, being in latitude of 41, on the 26th of June [1632]. This place without all question is the most pleasant and healthful place in all this country, and most convenient for habitation, the air temperate in summer and not violent in winter. It aboundeth with all manner of fish. The Indians in one night commonly will catch thirty sturgeons in a place where the river is not above twelve fathoms broad. And as for deer, buffaloes, bears, turkeys, the woods do swarm with them, and the soil is exceedingly fertile, but above this place the country is rocky and mountainous like Cannida.” (p. 228.) Apparently none of the other early travellers recorded anything on the natural history of this region until Andrew Burnaby, whose visit was in 1759 but whose account of it was not published until 1775. He visited Mount Vernon in October, 1759, and in his reference to the event describes fish hawks capturing their prey and being robbed of it by the bald eagle. Shortly after describing the Potomac River, he says,’ evidently speaking of Virginia in general: “The forests abound with plenty of game of various kinds; hares, turkies, pheasants, woodcocks and partridges, are in (p. 9) the greatest abundance. In the mashes are found ¢Wleet, Henry. A brief journal of a voyage made in the bark ‘“War- wick” to Virginia and other parts of the continent of America. Printed in Neill, E. D. The English Colonization of America during the Seventeenth Century. London, 1871, pp. 221-237. 7 Burnaby, Andrew. Travels through the Middle Settlements in North America in the years 1759 and 1760. London, 1775, 106 pp. 8 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. soruses, a particular species of bird, more exquisitely deli- cious than the ortolan, snipes also and ducks of various kinds. The American shell drake and bluewing exceed all cof the duck kind whatsoever; and these are in prodigious numbers. In the woods there are variety of birds remark- able both for singing and for beauty; of which are the mocking-bird, the red-bird or nightingale, the blue-bird, the yellow-bird, the humming-bird, the Baltimore-bird, the sum- mer-duck, the turtle, and several other sorts. “Reptiles and insects are almost innumerable; some of them, indeed are harmless and beautiful, such as the black- snake, the head-snake, the garter-snake, the fire-fly, and sev- eral sorts of butterflies; but the rattle-snake and viper, and many others are exceedingly venemous and deadly.” [A footnote mentions the bull-frog and a small green frog which sits upon the boughs of trees.] “Of quadrupeds there are various kinds; squirrels of four or five different species” (p. 10) [a footnote, pp. 10-11, mentions the ground and fly- ing-squirrels, and the polecat or skunk], “Qpposums, racoons; foxes, beavers, and deer; and in the desorts and uninhabited parts, wolves, bears, panthers, elks or moose-deer, buffaloes, mountain-cats, and various other sorts.” (p. 11.) Many definite observations on the natural history of the District are recorded in a charming little book published in Paris in 1816. It has the rather forbidding title of “A chorographical and statistical description of the District of Columbia,” * but the contents are enlivened by shrewd com- ment on social customs of that day and enriched by informing references to many plants and animals. The author is David Baillie Warden who was upon consular duty in Washington. He dedicated his book to Mrs. Custis, who we are informed in the introduction accompanied him on some of his excur- sions. He regrets “that the difficulty of communication has prevented me from procuring other specimens of the birds and insects of this District, which would have enabled me de eespiste the nomenclature of objects of natural history. ; additions to this account by the same author are contained of "A Bien, Political and Historical Account of the United States aie.” 1819, pp. 182-219, he 5 a ‘ ~ Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 9 It will give me pleasure,” he continues, “to see this deficiency supplied by another, and the errors, into which I may have fallen, corrected with the same spirit which guided my researches.” (Dp. Vii.) Some of Mr. Warden’s pages are exceedingly interesting. His account of Great Falls is as follows: “Phe distance from Washington to the falls of the Potomac on the Virginia side is about twenty miles. By the bridge, above Georgetown, near the Little-Falls, it was five miles shorter; but some years ago this bridge was destroyed by the pressure of accumulated ice and water after a sudden thaw, and has not been since repaired. The wild and romantic scenery of the Great Falls, which.are seen most to advantage from the Virginia (p. 11) side is scarcely to be equalled. There is a stupendous projecting rock covered with cedar, where one may sit and gaze at the waters dash- ing with impetuosity over the rugged surface. At the close of winter vast masses of ice, rolling over the rocks with - hideous crash, present a scene truly sublime. «* * * Several delicious springs issue from a neighbor- ing hill, which commands an enchanting prospect. The trees which abound here most are willow, birch, cedar, and oaks, of different species. The yellow jessamine® is of a prodigious size. The prickly pear *® grows on the banks of the canal. White hore-hound * and sweet-fennel,?” of which there is great plenty, are employed py the inhabitants for medicinal drinks. The odour (p. 12) of aromatic plants seems to be rhuch stronger here than in the Low-Lands. Of wild cherries and strawberries there is great abundance. The banks of the river are infested by different species of snakes, particularly of black,!® rattle,** and copper-head snakes.” ?° (p. 13.) Mr. Warden evidently spent some time upon Analostan Island, and his notes form a fairly complete sketch of its natural history. At any rate they ave far more than has ® Bignonia radicans. 138 Coluber constrictor. 2 Cactus Opuntia. 44 Crotalus horridus. u Marrubium vulgare. 15 Coluber erythogaster. 12 Faeniculum dulce. 10 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. since been written on the place. The comment upon animals is quoted: “This island is the resort of various reptiles. We found the nest of the terrapin (T'estudo concentrica, or concentric tortoise), or fresh-water turtle, in the garden at the distance of about thirty feet from the water, containing nineteen eggs, laid close to each other, and the interstices filled with earth. The greater circumference of the egg was four inches and half; the lesser, three. The nest, or hole, was of an oval form, and four inches in depth. The eggs of this species are deposited from the first of June io the middle of July. Before the turtle commences the formation of the hole for her eggs, she urines on the spot, then scrapes out a little earth, again urines, and thus continues until the operation is finished. I saw another nest, from which the turtle was taken at the moment when she had placed herself in an almost erect position to deposit. her eggs, which she always performs during the day, and it is said, never returns to the spot. The young ones are hatched by the heat of the sun, and are (p. 144) supposed to remain in the nest till spring. Several persons, whom I consulted on this subject, assured me that they have turned them up with the plough at this season. The turtle, when shaken before she lays her eggs, makes a hollow noise, as if she contained water. One in this state weighed six pounds, which, it appears, is the common size. The species known by the name of the terrapin _is very shy, and ceases to walk as soon as it sees a person approach near it. When endeavoring to escape, it runs nearly as fast as a duck. The blacks make soup and eat the eggs of this species, of which they are very fond. _ “The snapping turtle (Testudo feroz) is also seen in the waters of this river, some of which weigh from forty to fifty pounds, and lay forty or fifty eggs. General Mason, some. ---—-years ago, caught one of a huge size which he threw into his canoe, and it attacked him so furiously therein that he _. Was obliged to leap into the water. The reptile followed, and thus made its escape. Its bite is severe and dangerous. ee vo species of fresh-water tortoise inhabit (p. 145) the island; namely, the painted tortoise, Hmys picta or Testudo picta, and the streaked tortoise, Emys virgulata. * * * cay sea "Nba ee ae f meta, i ay ool Org eis Fi re th iat § a \ . Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 11 “The head of the painted turtle manifested symptoms of life two hours after decapitation. Three cherry stones were found in the stomach. It is said that small snails are its daily food. This species is not eaten. The musk-rat (Castor zibethicus) inhabits the banks of this island. The surface peing now cleared, there is no place for its habitation, which was formerly constructed of vegetable substances, in the midst of the reeds of a marsh, and was generally five or six feet in height, and as many in breadth. The family reposed in a dry and neat apartment above the surface of the water, into which they descended when attacked, and retreated by a subterraneous passage to a neighbouring stream. If the family were numerous, there were three such passages; if otherwise, one or two only. A method of taking them, prac- ticed by the savages, was to discover and intercept this com- munication, by means of knots of twisted grass. The animal then returned to the water under its abode, where forced to seek air, it showed its head, and was struck dead with a stick or club. The muskrat abounds in the swamp (p. 147) adjoining the Potomac bridge, and is killed by the blacks in a curious manner. A square board, bearing a considerable weight of stones or mud, is placed in an inclined position, and is supported by three sticks in a particular manner. Parsnips are put underneath, of which the rats are very fond; while devouring them, they necessarily move one of these sticks, by which the board suddenly falls, and crushes them to death. The skin sells at twenty-five cents. “The deer, wild turkey, canvas back duck (supposed to be the Anas ferina of Linnaeus, or mildorin of Buffon), the wild goose, which inhabited this place about fifty years ago, have all disappeared. This species of duck, so delicious to the taste, was then sold for sixpence. “The following method was formerly employed to kill the wild goose (Anser canadensis). This bird, shy and cunning, feeds in the midst of a plain or open field, and forms a regular line, at the extremity of which is placed a centinel, to give warning in case of danger, which, if remote, is indi- eated by a certain position of (p. 148) the head, and if imminent, by a certain cry.. The sportsman, by means of a 12 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. docile horse, which concealed him from the view, approached slowly, until he brought them within the reach of his gun. “By an act of 1730, the shooting of deer was prohibited from the first of January to the first of August. The pen- alty was four hundred pounds of tobacco. By other acts of 1728, any master, mistress, owner of a family, or single tax- able person, was obliged to produce yearly, to the justice of the county, three squirrel-scalps, or crows’ heads. The pen- alty in this case was three pounds of tobacco. A premium of two pounds was given for every scalp more than three. The reward for a wolf’s head was two hundred pounds. “Annalostan Island abounds with birds of various kinds. The catbird (Musicapa vertice nigra—Catesby) is almost tame. When its nest is in danger, it makes a loud noise, and seems as if it would tear the face of the person who approached it. We saw in the garden a partridge nest, containing nineteen eggs. The humming-bird (Trochilus colubris) frequents (p. 149) this place. When caught, it feigns death, like the opossum (Didelphis opossum), and, by this means, escapes from the hand. We saw one thus escape from the pretty hand of Mrs. B—e. “The mocking-bird (Turdus polyglottus ) does not frequent this island, though it is seen on the adjacent borders of the river. Perhaps it has been expelled by the crow black-bird (Gracula quiscula), its natural enemy, which swarms in this place. It is a pity that so enchanting a spot is deprived of the notes of this inimitable songster.” (p. 150.) Mr. Warden’s observations on the method used by the terrapin to soften the earth before digging, and on the hum- ming bird feigning death are highly original and his mention of food found in the stomach of the painted terrapin undoubtedly is the first record of the food of this reptile based on scientific investigation. Besides the scattering _ natural history notes in Mr. Warden’s book, the volume contains also the first formal lists of plants (142 species) of the District of Columbia, of birds (32 Species), and of a group of insects (5 species of butterflies) that ever were ES ne published. Mr. Warden’s book thus marks the beginning of Scientific description of our natural history. | yah) =a : | Fi a: rs a a rs CO ae nt oe = IST sy nt tae alee aie arg Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 13 Some of the forerunners of what is now called the Wash- ington Guide contained interesting cemment on the natural history of the District. This is especially true of two which will be briefly reviewed. The first, published by Jonathan Elliot in 1830, is entitled “Historical Sketches of the Ten Miles Square forming the District of Columbia * * * also a description of the River Potomac—its fish and wild fowl, etc.” “The waters of the Potomac,” this writer says, “are frequented by a great variety of the finest wild fowl. Among the most rare and valuable are the canvass back duck, by some called white-backs. Myriads of them during the winter literally darken the stream of the river.” * * * He adds comment astonishing to the present day epicure: “The average price of canvas backs in Washington is about 75 cents, but they are frequently sold at 50 cents per pair.” (p. 60.) Other interesting comment on the prices of that time relate to the shad. “In the height of the season a single shad weighing from 6 to 8 pounds is sold in the market of the District for 6 cents, and by the hundred for from 3 to 4 dollars” (p. 428). Mr. Elliot gives many details relating to birds and fishes, of which we will cite only one anecdote relating to a fish. He comments upon the leaping habits of sturgeon, some of which he says weigh 150 pounds. One of these large stur- geon leaped into a ferry boat at Georgetown during the Revolutionary War, coming down on the lap of an American officer with such violence as to break his thigh, the injury later resulting in death. In 1801 *° was published “Philp’s Washington Described,” edited by William D. Haley, in which are annotated skeleton lists of the vertebrates and molluscs of the District with inieresting comment on the insects and plants. The editor states his obligations to Baron Osten Sacken, Professors 1%6From the Bulletin of the Proceedings of the National Institution for the Promotion of Science we learn that at the meeting of August 10, 1840, “the Department of Natural History was requested to prepare catalogues of the Animals and Vegetables of the District of Columbia” (Bul. I, No. 1, June-December 1840 (1841), p. 7). At the meeting of November 9, the same year, a manuscript entitled “Fauna Columbiana,’ by Dr. T. B. J. Frye, was presented (ibid. p. 10), but it was never published and it cannot now be found. 14 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. Henry, Baird, Ford, Gill, Ulke, and Jillson and Doctors Gale, Force and Foreman, and it is evident that his remarks on natural history were gathered from authentic sources. The scientific names are used with such precision that it is probable the proof was read by someone of scientific ability. Coues and Prentiss refer to the work in the following lan- guage: “A little book entitled ‘Washington Described,’ * * * contained cursory notices of the natural history of the District, prepared anonymously by several of the resi- dent naturalists ; and among these was a slight sketch of the Ornithology by one of the present writers.” 1” It seems probable, therefore, that we can accept the natural history statements at their face value. The fol- lowing species not recorded from the District in subsequent publications are mentioned by Haley: Among mammals, Peromyscus nuttallii, a species at present known from no nearer locality than Dismal Swamp, Va.; among birds the white ibis, a notorious wanderer like others of the heron tribe; and among reptiles Lampropeltis doliata clerica, add- ing a fourth to the varieties of this species of snake known to inhabit the District. With these interesting records is closed the introduction of the sketch of the natural history of the District of Columbia. We will now review what has been accomplished in the various branches of the subject, and first of all in botany. BOTANY. The first scientific paper thus far brought to light which mentions a plant possibly obtained within the limits of the District of Columbia flora is entitled “Remarks by Mr. James Petiver, Apothecary and Fellow of the Royal Society, | on some Animals, Plants, etc., sent to him from Maryland, _____ by the Reverend Mr. Hugh Jones,” ** and it was published in ____ the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of Lon- a don in November, 1698. ___ Under the heading “Aconitum baccis niveis et rubris. _ -#' Avifauna Columbiana. Bul. 26, U. S. Nat. Mus., 1883, p. 8. x at "§ Dette ccoss Roy. Soc. of London, Vol. XX, No. 246, , on har angeal ce id Ae Eh ies a a ie Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 15 Corn. 76, Raii H. Pl. 662,” is the statement: “Mr. Fisher, a friend of mine, brought me this root from Potuxen River in Maryland, and he tells me, they there call it, Rich-Root, and use it as a specifick against the Scurvy; they boyl about a pound of it in two gal- [p. 403] lons of cyder, till but two quarts remain, and being strained, they drink half a pint of it every morning, either alone, or mixt with any other drink. He assured me it cured him, and several other in the same ship he came from thence in.” (p. 404.) This statement leaves us in some doubt as to whether this concoction really had medicinal effect or whether like certain more modern compounds it was merely a variant of the cup that cheers. There is little doubt, however, that the plant mentioned is the white baneberry (Actaea alba), a species not now included in the District list. The next specific mention of a plant from the region of the District Flora appears to be that of Gronovius in the Flora Virginica of 1762. This flora based on material col- lected by Dr. John Clayton, and a large part of the original matter in which, consists of Clayton’s notes, might better be known as Clayton’s Flora Virginica. However that may be, it suffices for the present purpose to note that “Betula foliis rhombeo-ovatis, acuminatis duplicato-serratis” is recorded as occurring not far to the westward of the cata- racts of the river Potomac.’® In modern nomenclature this plant is the common river birch (Betula nigra), one so abundant and widespread that specific notes on distribution seem superfluous. It may be that records of this or other plants from our region are in the 1739 and 1743 parts of the Flora virginica, but these have not been available. Search of. Nuttall’s “Sylva,” Pursh’s “Flora,” and the Michauxs’ “Flora,” and “Sylva” have revealed no definite records of plants from the vicinity of the District. This is rather surprising since all of these botanists visited the locality and Nuttall worked in Washington for some time upon the collections of the National Institute. The visit of André Michaux is recorded in Washington’s diary for 19 Gronovius, mn “F.—Flora virginica exhibens plantas quas nobillissimus vir D. D. Johannes Claytonus, Med. Doct., etc.,.etc., in Virginia crescentes, observavit, et obtulit, 1762, p. 146. 16 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. June 19, 1786, the entry being: “A Mons. André Michaux, a botanist sent by the court of France to America, visited, dined and returned to New York whence he had come.” Certain subsequent entries relate to plants presented by Michaux and set out in the grounds at Mount Vernon. ‘The first 2° formal list of plants of the District of Colum- bia appeared in David Baillie Warden’s “Chorographical and Statistical Description of the District of Columbia” pub- lished in Paris in 1816. The list is entitled Florula Columbiana, ete. (see bibliography) and contains 142 species identified by the celebrated botanist, Joseph Correa de Serra, Ambassador from Portugal to the United States. Organized study of the plants of the District of Columbia began in 1817 with the formation of the Washington Botanical Society, March 20. The society had 13 charter members and added 7 later. The District was divided into four regions which were assigned to committees of members for study. The society was vigorously active until 1820, much less so in succeeding years and held a final meeting at which it adjourned sine die March 27, 1826. The results of its labors were a check list published in 1819, the Forula Columbiensis, containing names of 296 plants; a fuller list, the Florula Columbiana, published in the Washington Guide in 1822 and mentioning 460 species ; and the Florae Columbianae Prodromus of 1830 listing 912 species. The first was anonymous, and the last two appeared under the name of Dr. John A. Brereton. There is no doubt, however, that they are founded upon the entire her- barium of the Botanical Society to which Dr. Brereton con- tributed no more than certain other individuals. The next considerable wave of botanical activity in the District was due to the Potomac-Side Naturalists Club. This organization founded in 1858, languished during the 2 Rafinesque informs us (Rafinesque, C. S. Circular address on Botany and Zoology, followed by the Prospectus of Two Periodical Works; Annals of Nature and Somiology of North America, Philadelphia, 1816, page 12) that he prepared a Florula Columbica, or catalogue of. the plants found in the District of Columbia, 1804, which he gave Dr. B. 8. Barton _ for insertion in The Philadelphia Medical and Physical Journal. Dr. Bar- * ton acknowledged (op. cit. II, 1806, p. 177) this to be a fact and promised _ to publish the catalogue with additions—a forecast never fulfilled, Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 17 period from 1866 to 1873, when it was reorganized. In 1874 a committee was appointed to prepare a new catalog of the flora of the District, the members being Dr. George Vasey, Prof. J. W. Chickering, Dr. E. Foreman, Prof. Wm. H. Seaman, and Mr. L. F. Ward. Their revised list of 1083 species—The Flora Columbiana—was published in Field and Forest, the official organ of the Club, from April to December, 1876. A supplement containing 112 additional ~ species was published in 1878. Meanwhile one member of the Committee, L. F. Ward, pushed ahead independently, and in 1882 published a Guide to the Flora of Washington and Vicinity. It contained an important introductory chapter describing local collecting grounds, the flowering seasons, and containing statistics of the contents of the list and comparisons with other lists. It included also an appendix on plant collecting and making a herbarium, and a check list. All of these special features were separately published. One thousand two hundred and forty-nine species of vascular plants were listed. Six lists of additions have been published, appearing in 1884, 1886, 1892, 1896, April, 1901, and June, 1901. A share of the credit for these supplemental lists belongs to the Botanical Seminar founded in 1893 and the Wash- ington Botanical Club organized in 1898. These were merged in 1901 to form the Botanical Society of Washington. In 1906 a typewritten list of the vascular plants of the District of Columbia was prepared for the use of the Society. It contains 1,598 species and has been used for some years as a foundation upon which to build a more pretentious work on the District Flora. This paper now in manuscript in- eludes keys, brief descriptions and notes on distribution. BIBLIOGRAPHY. Warden, David Baillie. _Florula Columbiana, Sive enumeratio Plantarum in Territorio Columbiae sponte nascentium; or Catalogue of the plants, shrubs and trees which grow spontaneously in the District of Columbia. In “A Chorographical and Statistical Description of the District of Columbia, the seat of the general Government of the United 18 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. States, with an engraved plan of the District, and view of the Capitol. Paris, 1816, pp. 191-209. Lists 142 species including introduced and cultivated forms. Washington Botanical Society. - “FJorula Columbiensis: or a list of plants found in the District of Columbia; arranged according to the Linnaean system, under their respective classes and orders, etc., and exhibiting their gen- erally received common names, and time of flowering, during the years 1817 and 1818. Washington: printed for the Washington ~ Botanical Society by Jacob Gideon, Jun., 1819.” The work is a 14-page pamphlet giving a bare list of the technical and popular names of 296 species of flowering plants with tlie date of their observation in 1817 and 1818. It apparently was intended as a working list for the members of the Society.” Brereton, J. A. Botany of the District of Columbia, pp. 123-1388. Heading Florula Columbiana on p. 124. In Elliot, Wm., the Washington Guide, con- taining * * * Botany of the District of Columbia, Nov., 1822. 460 species listed. Exactly the same in Second Edition, 1826, and Second Edition with corrections and additions, 1830. In the “improved edition,” 1837, the botany occupies pp. 295-310, and the preface states that it has been “revised and corrected by Mr. Rich from the records of the Botanical Society of this place.” However, the number of species remains the same, and the changes, if any, are insignificant. Florae Columbianae Prodromus exhibens Enumerationem Plan- tarum Quae Hactenus Exploratae Sunt, or a prodromus of the Flora Columbiana exhibiting a list of all the plants which have as yet been collected. (1830) cover date 1831. 86 pp. “During the spring of 1825, after the dissolution of the late Wash- ington Botanical Society, a few gentlemen of the city devoted to Botany formed an association to explore and investigate de novo the indigenous plants of the District of Columbia. The association, under the name of ‘The Botanic Club,’ consisted of Wm. Mechlin, Wm. Rich, Alex. McWilliams, and the compiler, and in the following year of James W. Robbins, M. D.” The results of their labors are embodied in the “Prodromus,” which lists 912 species of plants. Gale, L. D. On the Oaks of the District of Columbia. Proc. Nat. Institute, N. S. Vol. I, No. 2 (1855-6), pp. 67-68, 2 figs. Read Nov. 21, 1853. Presented for publication May 21, 1855. Mentions 12 indigenous and 2 introduced species and gives notes jartram’s oak (Quercus heterophylla) and on dates of flowering. ‘from Coville, F. V. Records of the Columbia Hi p. 189. iS Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 19 Vasey, George. Exotic Trees in Washington. Field and Forest, Vol. I, Nos. 3-4, Aug.-Sept., 1875, pp. 17-19. 20 species mentioned. Rare and Noteworthy Trees in Washington. Field and Forest, Vol. I, Nos. 5-6, Oct.-Nov., 1875, pp. 33-37. About 52 species of ornamental trees native to the U. S., and a few foreign ones are mentioned. Ward, Lester F. Oaks of the Potomac Side. Field and Forest, Vol. I, Nos. 5-6, Oct.-Nov., 1875, pp. 39-42. 11 species, 3 varieties, 6 hybrids listed. (Committee. ) Flora Columbiana. A catalogue of the plants growing without cultivation in the District of Columbia. Field and Forest, Vol. I, Nos. 10-11, March-April, 1876, pp. 83-87. II, No. 1, July, 1876, pp. 13-15. II, No. 2, Aug., 1876, pp. 31-33. II, No. 3, Sept., 1876, pp. 45-46. II, No. 4, Oct., 1876, pp. 61-64. II, No. 5, Nov., 1876, pp. 86-88. _ II, No. 6, Dec., 1876, pp. 103-105. 1,083 species. Seaman, Wm. H. Edible Fungi. Field and Forest, Vol. I, Nos. 8-9, Jan.-Feb., 1876, p. 71. 27 species. Oldberg, Rudolph. Mosses of the District of Columbia. Field and Forest, Vol. II, No. 7, Jan., 1877, pp. 118-120. Musci, 97 species; Hepaticae, 29—126 in all. (Committee. ) Addenda to Flora Columbiana. Made during 1877. Field and Forest, Vol. 3, No. 9, Mar., 1878, p. 145; Vol. III, Nos. 10-11-12, April-May-June, 1878, p. 164. 112 species. 20 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. Ward, Lester F. Field and Closet Notes on the Flora of Washington and Vicinity. ( Abstract.) Bul. Philos. Soc. Wash. iv, 1881, pp. 64-119. Reprinted with explanatory notes in Glimpses of the Cosmos, Vol. II, 1913, pp. 360-425. Practically the same as the introduction to his Guide to the Flora of Washington. Guide to the Flora of Washington and Vicinity. Bul. 21, U. S. Natl. Museum, 1881, 264 pp., 1 map. A comprehensive local flora, listing 1,249 vascular plants and 131 cryptogams. A history of the making of this list is contained in Glimpses of the Cosmos, Vol. II, 1918, pp. 448-464. Check list of the Flora of Washington, D. C., and Vicinity. From Bul. U. S. National Museum, No. 22, 1882, pp. 148-207. A reprint with same pagination of the check-list in the Guide to the Flora of Washington. List of Plants added to the Flora of Washington from April 1, 1882, to April 1, 1884. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., Vol. II, pp. 84-87, April 10, 1884. 41 additions and a few corrections, Knowlton, F, H. Additions to the Flora of Washington and Vicinity from April 1, 1884, to April 1, 1886. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., Vol. III, pp. 106-110, 1886. 35 additions, besides 4 oak hybrids, here first catalogued. “Changes in nomenclature,” pp. 127-129. “New localities for rare species,” pp. 129-132; “Species excluded,” p. 132. Lehnert, E. A revision of the musci and hepaticae of Washington and vicinity with numerous additions. 2 Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., Vol. III, pp. 110-118, 1886. Containing 238 species, which is 111 in addition to the Oldberg list. : A list of the Lichens of Washington and Vicinity. BS ' Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., Vol. III, pp. 118-127, 1886. pee 251 species. - Baker, Frank. _ Native Trees of the National Zoological Park. Ann. Rep. Smiths. Inst. (1890), 1891, pp. 65-66. 46 species. a, Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 21 Hunter, W. Botany of the Zoological Park. Ann. Rep. Smiths. Inst. (1890), 1891, pp. 68-72. About 350 species listed. Sudworth, Geo. B. Trees of Washington, D. C. (cover title). Arborescent Flora (native and cultivated) of Washington. Forestry Division, 1891. 16 pp., 2 maps. Lists separately and locates on maps the trees in the Departient of Agriculture and White House grounds, and in Lafayette Square. Includes 324 species (exclusive of varieties), of which 90 (one doubt- fully) are said to be indigenous to the District of Columbia. Holm, Theodor. Third List of Additions to the Flora of Washington, D. C. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash.. Vol. VII, pp. 105-132, June 10, 1892. 75 additional species besides 2 oak hybrids. Fourth List of Additions to the Flora of Washington, D. C. Proc.: Biol. Soc. Wash., Vol. X, pp. 29-43, Feb. 26, 1896. 28 additional species. Ridgway, Robert. Additional notes on the native trees of the lower Wabash Valley. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 17, 1884, pp. 409-42, Pls. 10-15. This paper includes for comparative purposes a list of 28 species of trees formed on a 200-acre farm near Falls Church, Va., and a list of 47 species observed on a tract of 5 square miles near Laurel, Md. (pp. 417-418). Greene, E. L. Remarks on ascaulescent violets. Pittonia, 3, pp. 189-145, Dec. 16, 1896. Notes on 6 species occurring about the District region. Studies in the Compositae, 2. Some northern species of An- tennaria. Pittonia, 3, pp. 273-288, March 21, 1898. Three species from vicinity of D. C. Critical notes on Antennaria. Pittonia, 3, pp. 318-323, May 7, 1898. Four species of D. C. region discussed. Two new Gerardias. Pittonia, 4, pp. 51-52, Pls. 9-10, April 11, 1899. From D. C. \ 22 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. “Miller, G. 8, Jr. The dogbanes of the District of Columbia. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 18, pp. 79-90, Pl. II, Sept. 28, 1899. Synopsis of 7 species, 3 of them described as new. Greene, EB. L. Studies in the Compositae, 8. Pittonia, 4, pp. 243-284, Jan. 26, 1901. Describes 2 new species of Bidens from this region. Holm, Theodor. Fifth List of Additions to the Flora of Washington, DC; Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., Vol. XIV, pp. 7-22, April 2, 1901. 41 additions. Steele, Edward S. Sixth List of Additions to the Flora of Washington, D. C., and Vicinity. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., Vol. XIV, pp. 47-86, June 19, 1901. With descriptions of new species and varieties by Edward L. Greene, Alvah A. Eaton, and the Author. 151 additions; many are new varieties only; original descriptions of 3 forms. Greene, E. L. New or noteworthy violets, Pittonia, 5, pp. 87-106, Nov., 1902, 5 new species from the District flora. Miller, G. S., Jr. The species of Geum occurring near Washington. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 17, p. 101, April 9, 1904. Four species recorded; correction of previous record of a fifth. Brainerd, Ezra. Hybridism in the genus Viola—III. Rhodora, 8, pp. 49-61, Pls. 66-70, March, 1906. Notes on 7 hybrids from the Washington region. Ro kegt | ‘Burgess, B. 8. s s _ Species and Variations of Biotian Asters with discussion of vari- ability in Aster. M a a Torrey Botanical Club, 13, 1906, 419 pp., 108 figs. Bog species and 5 varieties from oo of Columbia Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 23 Greene, E. L. ; New species of Viola. Leaflets of Botanical Observation and Criticism, 1, pp. 214-219, June 5, 1906. 5 new species and 2 new varieties from the vicinity of Wash- ington, D. C. House, H. D. Violets of the District of Columbia. Rhodora, Vol. 8, July, 1906, pp. 117-122, Pls. 71-72. A list of 26 species and 19 hybrids. Ricker, P. L., Chairman of Seminar. A list of the Vascular Plants of the District of Columbia and vicinity, prepared for the use of the Botanical Society of Washing- ton, 133 pp., 1906. A typewritten working list containing 1,598 species exclusive of hybrids and varieties. Tidestrom, Ivar. Eiysium Marianum. First ed. Pt. 1, Ferns and Fern allies, pp. 1-63, Pls. 1-8 (bis.), 1906. Second ed., Pt. 1, Ferns and Fern Allies, pp. 1-68, Pls. 1-8 (bis.). Pt. 2, Evergreens, pp. 67-96, Pls. 10-12, 1908, Pt. 3, Salicaceae, Ceriferae, Betulaceae, pp. 1-60, Pls. 1-14, 1910. Shreve, F., Chrysler, M. A., Blodgett, F. H., and Besley, F. W. The Plant Life of Maryland. Special Publ. Md. Weather Service, Vol. III, 5383 pp., 38 Pls., 1910, Contains many references to plants of the vicinity of the District of Columbia. ‘Tidestrom, Ivar. Notes on the flora of Maryland and Virginia. Rhodora, 15, pp. 101-106, June, 1913. On 4 species of pines in the District flora. Greene, E. L. New species of Ranunculus. American Midland Nat., 3, No. 12, Nov., 1914, pp. 333-5. Four new species, 2 of them from this region. Violets of the District of Columbia, 1. Cybele Columbiana, Vol. 1, No. 1, Dec., 1914, pp. 7-33. An important discussion of the habitats and relationships of numerous violets of this region. Bartlett, H H. Twelve elementary species of Onagra. Cybele Columbiana, Vol. I, No. 1, Dec., 1914, pp. 37-56, Pls. 1-5. Four new forms from Washington. / 24 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. INSECTS. The first general natural historian of the District of Columbia—Warden—does not fail to pay some attention to insects. In fact he published the first local list for the region, it being the following :°? “Of our collection of insects, there remain in a state of preservation but five species of the genus Papilio, or butter- fly, which, however, are the most common in this District. Papilio cardui (Fabr.) Papilio plexippus (Cram.) Papilio polydamos (Cram.) Papilio astinous (Cram.) Papilio Tyrrhea (Fabr.)” None of these species are now considered to belong to the genus Papilio. Evidently Warden had collected a number of insects belonging to other groups, but like many entomolo- gists of later times had his plans spoiled by mishaps to his specimens. _ One of Warden’s popular notes on insects is of interest, but it should be explained that the first creature he names— the wood-louse—is not really an insect. He says: “Two insects abound in this place, and torment the lovers of nature; the wood-louse (Acarus Americanus, L.—A_ species of Zecca) (p. 167) and mosquito (Culex pipiens, L.). The former nearly the size of a common louse, conceals itself under the skin and clings closely to the flesh from which it is not easily extricated. Its colour is reddish, which becomes paler when the insect is satiated with blood. The bite excites considerable inflammation, and, in the eye, or ear, might be attended with dangerous consequences. The bite of the mosquito also creates inflammation, and it annoys _ the ear of the pensive or studious by its unpleasant buzz.” (p. 168.) - Progressive movements depend upon individuals and sel- - dom is this aphorism better illustrated than in the history of the study of Entomology in the District of Columbia. : Ae With the exception of the above quoted Warden notes of tS ae 2 Warden, Dr eh ke ‘chorographical and statistical Spas) of the ENS District of Columbia, Paris, 1816, p. = Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 2% 1816, up to the year 1859 apparently not an insect was recorded from the District and none had ever been orig- jnally described from the area. Then began the work of Baron Charles Robert von den Osten Sacken and those whom he interested and assisted, which laid such a splendid foundation for the study of certain groups not only for the District but for the United States. Baron Osten Sacken was secretary to the Russian legation from 1856 to 1862 and visited Washington from time to time up to the year 1877. In 1859, as indicated above, he published his first paper relating to the insect fauna of the Pistrict, and a splendid one it was. It dealt with the smaller erane-flies, of which 46 species were recorded from the Dis- trict of Columbia. All but four of these are new species, and 16 of them have the District as the sole place of capture, thus unquestionably making it their type locality. Osten Sacken was an indefatigable collector and he sent his speci- mens of all but a few families to Dr. Hermann Loew of Meseritz, Germany, who used them as a basis for a series of monumental systematic papers. Loew’s first article on this material also appeared in 1859, and it recorded from Wash- ington 7 species of the dipterous family Helomyzidae, five of them new. In his series known as the “Centuries,” Loew described 1,000 (!) species of North American flies. One hundred and fifty-seven of these species are recorded from the District of Columbia, of which 152 are new and 147 have the District as the sole and therefore type locality. Some 30 additional new species from Washington are described by this author in other papers. Baron Osten Sacken himself described more than 80 spe- cies of diptera from the District of Columbia and 40 of gall flies or Cynipidae. Together Osten Sacken and Loew record more than 350 species of flies from the Washington region of which more than 260 were described by them as new to science. Before the era of Osten Sacken was past, entomologists became a larger element in the scientific population of Wash- ington, most of them being attracted here by the rise of Entomology in the United States Department of Agricul- 26 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. ture. Among entomologists of this period, those paying most attention to the study of local insects were Henry Ulke, E. A. Schwarz, W. H. Ashmead, Theo. Pergande, and D. W. Coquillett. The latter described more than 40 new species of flies from the region; Mr. Ashmead described more than 240 species of Hymenoptera; while Mr. Ulke, with the assist- ance of Mr. Schwarz, issued the first list of beetles of the District including almost 3,000 species. The active workers of later years may be learned from the bibliographies below. The region of the District of Columbia is a rich collecting ground for entomologists, as numbers of visiting specialists have testified. Not only is there a great variety of ecologic conditions, but unspoiled places are easily reached in almost any direction. The development of such an enormous field as the whole group of insects, even for a limited area neces- sarily is slow. What has been accomplished in the various groups is indicated by the citation of the principal results in the following bibliographies. BIBLIOGRAPHY. GENERAL. Banks, Nathan. At the Ceanothus in Virginia. Ent. News XXIII, No. 3, March, 1912, pp. 102-110. 42 species of Hemiptera, 58 species of Coleoptera, 165 species of Hymenoptera, and 117 species of Diptera, recorded from Falls Church and vicinity. NEUROPTERA, Banks, Nathan. A list of Neuropteroid insects, exclusive of Odonata, from the vicinity of Washington, D. C. ; Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash., 6, No. 4, October, 1904, pp. 201-216, pl. Il. sere: ere: Eh all 174 species are recorded distributed as follows: Archiptera, - Bs Neuroptera, 47; Trichoptera, 54, _ Descriptions of New Nearctic Neuropteroid Insects. ‘Trans. Am. Ent. Soc., 32, pp. 1-20, pls. I-IT, Nov., 1905. 3 Bi erate f from the vicinity of District of Columbia. Natural History of District of Columbia—McA tee 27 A revision of the Nearctic Hemerobiidae. Trans. Am. Ent. Soc., 32, pp. 21-51, pls. III-V, Dec., 1905. 9 species recorded from Washington region. ra IBS A revision of the nearctic Coniopterygidae. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash., 8, Nos. 3-4, Sept.-Dec., 1906, pp. 77-86, pls. VI-VII. ; 3 species from the vicinity of District of Columbia, 1 new. New Trichoptera and Psocidae. Journ. N. Y. Ent. Soc., 15, Nos. 3, Sept., 1907, pp. 162-166. Four new species of Trichoptera and 2 of Psocidae from Wash- ington region. Occurrence of Dilar americana Leach. Ent. News XVIII, No. 10, Dec., 1907, p. 450. At Falls Church, Va., the type only known before. THYSANOPTERA. Hood, Ji D. An annotated list of the Thysanoptera of Plummer’s Island, Maryland. Ins. Insc. Mens., 5, Nos. 4-6, April-June, 1917, pp. 53-65. 69 species from the vicinity of Washington. ORTHOPTERA. Allard, H. A. The stridulations of some cone-headed grasshoppers (Conoce- phalus). ‘ Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash., II, No. 3, 1910, pp. 121-124, pl. VI. 3 species. The stridulations of some “katydids.” Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 23, pp. 35-40, 1910. 8 species. Xiphidion stridulations. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash., 18, No. 2 (1910), 1911, pp. 84-87. 5 species. The stridulations of some eastern and southern crickets (Orth.). Ent. News, 22, No. 4, April, 1911, pp. 154-157. 3 species. _ Locust stridulations (Orth.). Ent. News, 25, No. 10, Dec., 1914, pp. 463-466. 3 species. 28 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. Caudell, A. N. The Cyrtophylli of the United States. Journ. N. Y. Ent. Soc., 14, No. 1, March, 1906, pp. 32-45, pl. 1. 2 species. The Decticinae (a group of Orthoptera) of North America. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 32, 1907, pp. 285-410. 2 species. Three interesting Orthoptera from the vicinity of Washington, D. C. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash., 17, No. 4, Dec., 1915, p. 189. Hebard, Morgan. A revision of the species of the genus Nemobius (Orthoptera; Gryllidae) found in North America north of the Isthmus of Panama. Proc. Ac. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, pp. 394-492, figs. 1-31 (June, 1913), August 19, 19138. 8 species. The American species of the genus Miogryllus (Orthoptera; _ Gryllidae). Journ. N. Y. Ent. Soc., 23, No. 2, June, 1915, pp. 101-121. Only 1 species. The Blattidae of North America North of the Mexican Boundary. Mem, Am. Ent. Soc., 2, 284 and VI pp., 10 Pls., August 10, 1917. 13 Species from vicinity of District of Columbia, one new. Rehn, James A. G., and Hebard, Morgan. A review of the North American species of the genus Ischnoptera (Orthoptera). Proc. Ac. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, pp. 407-453, figs. 1-30 (April, 1910), July 25, 1910. 7 species. Studies in American Tettigoniidae (Orthoptera) I. A synopsis of the species of the genus Scudderia. Trans. Am. Ent. Soc., 40, No. 4, Dec., 1914, pp. 271-314. 2 species. tudies in American Tettigoniidae (Orthoptera) II, A synopsis of the species of the genus Amblycorypha found in America north of 3 Mexico. _ 'Prans. Am. Ent. Soc., 40, No. 4, Dec., 1914, PP. 315-340, oe Ee 3 eats and 1 subspecies. Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 29 Studies in American Tettigoniidae (Orthoptera) III. A synopsis of the species of the genus Neoconocephalus found in North America north of Mexico. . Trans. Am. Ent. Soc., 40, No. 4, Dec., 1914, pp. 365-413. 5 species. Studies in American Tettigoniidae (Orthoptera) IV. A synopsis of the species of the genus Orchelimum. Trans. Am. Ent. Soc., pp. 11-83, Pls. I-IV, April 9, 1915. 4 species. Studies in American Tettigoniidae (Orthoptera) V. A synopsis of the species of the genus Conocephalus (Xiphidium of authors) found in North America north of Mexico. Trans. Am. Ent. Soc., 41, No. 2, June, 1915, pp. 155-224, Pls. 15-20. 5 species. The genus Gryllus (Orthoptera) as found in America. Proc. Ac. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Vol. 67, Part 2, August, 1915, pp. 293-322, Pl. IV. 1 species. Studies in American Tettigoniidae (Orthoptera) VII. A revision of the species of the genus Atlanticus ( Decticinae). Trans. Am. Ent. Soc., Vol. 42, No. 1, March, 1916, pp. 33-99, Pls. VI-VIII. 3 species. Studies in the Dermaptera and Orthoptera of the Coastal Plain and Piedmont Region of the Southeastern United States. Proc. Ac. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Vol. 68, Part II, pp. 87-314, Pls. 12-14, May, 1916. 70 species recorded from vicinity of Washington. COLEOPTERA, Fall, H. C. Revision of the Ptinidae of Boreal America. Trans. Am. Ent: Soc., 31, pp. 97-296, Pl. VII. 26 species from region of District of Columbia, several of them new.. Revision of the species of Diplotaxis of the United States, Trans. Am. Ent. Soc., 35 pp. 1-97, Pl. 1, Jan.-March, 1909. 4 species from District of Columbia and vicinity, one new. A revision of the North American species of Pachybrachys. Trans. Am. Ent. Soc., 41, No. 3, Sept., 1915, pp. 291-486. Records 14 species from vicinity of District of Columbia. 30 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. Leng, Chas. W., and Shoemaker, Ernest. A new genus and species of Lampyridae. Journ. N. Y. Ent. Soc., 28, No. 1, March, 1915, pp. 55-56, Pl. 5. Neoceletes crateracollis n. gen. et. sp. Glencarlyn, Va., June, 23, 1912. Pierce, W. D. Miscellaneous contributions to the knowledge of the weevils of the families Attelabidae and Brachyrhinidae. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 45, pp. 364-426, May 23, 1913. Five species and 2 varieties listed from region of District of Columbia, one of the varieties new. Schwarz, EB. A. Coleoptera on black locust (Robinia pseudacacia). Proce. Ent. Soc. Wash. II, No. 1, April, 1891, pp. 73-76. 23 species. Smith, John B. Notes on the species of Lachnosterna of Temperate North America, with description of new species. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. XI, 1888 (1889), pp. 481-525, Pls. 48-60. Notes on collecting about Washington; 20 species obtained, 4 new (pp. 486-493). Ulke, Henry. A list of the beetles of the District of Columbia. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. XXV, pp. 1-57, 1902. 2,975 species; many ecological notes. HOMOPTERA, Baker, A. C., and Turner, W. F. 3 Some intermediates in the Aphididae. zs ss Poe. Ent. Soc. Wash., 18, No. 1, March, 1916 (April 5, 1916), pp. 10-14, Retords 6 species from vicinity of D. C. 3 Crawford, D. L. : : Se ame A contribution toward a monograph of the homopterous insects of the family Delphacidae of North and South America. _ Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., pp. 557-640, Pls. 44-49, March 4, 1914. : Records 5 sess from the District of Columbia. PS Are el Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 31 Gillette, C. P. American Leafhoppers of the subfamily Typhocybinae. Proc, U. S. Nat. Mus. 20, pp. 709-773, 149 figs., April 20, 1908. Mentions 18 species and varieties from the District of Columbia region, 5 of which are described as new. HETEROPTERA, Banks, Nathan. Notes on our species of Emesidae. Psyche, 16, April, 1909, pp. 48-48. 5 species from this region, one new. Bueno, J. R. de la Torre. The genus Notonecta in America north of Mexico. Journ. N. Y. Ent. Soc., 13, No. 3, Sept., 1905, pp. 143-167, Pl. 7. Records four species from District of Columbia and vicinity. - Heidemann, Otto. Note on the food-plants of some Capsidae from the vicinity of Washington, D. C. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. II, No. 2, June, 1892, pp. 224-226. 20 speces listed. Heteroptera found on ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthe- mum). Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. IV, No. 3, May, 1899, p. 217. 27 species from vicinity of Washington. Notes on North American Aradidae with descriptions of two new species. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. VI, No. 3, 1904, pp. 161-165. 5 species from region of District of Columbia. Notes on Heidemannia cixiiformis Uhler and other species of Isometopinae. : Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 9, April, 1908, pp. 126-130. x Two species from region of District of Columbia, one new. Knight, H. H. A revision of the genus Lygus as it occurs in America north of Mexico, with biological data on species from New York. Bul. 391, Cornell Agr. Exp. Sta., May, 1917, pp. 555-645, Pl. 23, figs. 158-208. 9 species from the vicinity, 4 new. 32 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. McAtee, W. L. Key to the Nearctic species of Paracalocoris (Heteroptera; Miridae). Ann. Ent. Soc. Am. 9, No. 4, Dec., 1916, pp. 366-390. Records from the vicinity of the District of Columbia, 5 species, 1 new and 12 varieties, 10 new. Key to the Nearctic species of Leptoypha and Leptostyla pecats 3a tera, Tingidae). Bul. Brooklyn Ent. Soc. 12, No. 3, July, 1917, pp. 55-64. 5 species. : Reuter, O. M. Bemerkungen ueber nearktische Capsiden, nebst Beschreibung neuer Arten. Acta. Soc. Sci. Fennicae 36, No. 2, 1909, iii, 86 pp. 34 species and 6 varieties from District of Columbia region, 18 species and 2 varieties new; 3 new genera. LEPIDOPTERA, Busck, A. A revision of the American moths of the family Gelechiidae, with descriptions of new species. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 25, pp. 767-938, Pls. 28-32, May 9, 1903. 45 species from around Washington, 5 of them new. A review of the Tortricid subfamily Phaloniinae with descriptions of new American species. Journ. N. Y. Ent. Soc. 15, No. 1, pp. 19-36, March, 1907. 6 species from Washington district, all new. Dietz, Wm. G. Revision of the genera and species of the Tineid subfamilies Amydriinae and Tineinae inhabiting North America. Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. 31, pp. 1-96, Pls. I-VI, Jan., 1905. 18 species from region of District of Columbia, 13 new. Revision of the Blastobasidae of North America. Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. 36, pp. 1-72, Pls. I-IV, Jan.-Mar., 1910. 11 species from region of District of Columbia, 8 new. eS Roy Dyar, H. G. AX The North American Nymphultnae and Scopariinae. Journ. N, Y. Ent. Soc. 14, No. 2, June, 1906, pp. 77-107. | _ 6 species from region of District of Columbia, 1 new. 7 oS ~ ag hcte of the North American Chrysauginae. fee Soc. Wash. 10, pp. 92-96, Sept., 1908. - Cade Sage 2 species from District of Columbia region. aft Bier tee CAs Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 33 A review of the North American Pyralinae. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 10, pp. 96-102, Sept., 1908. 5 species from vicinity of District of Columbia, 1 new. Kearfott, W. D. New North American Tortricidae. Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. 33, pp. 1-97, Jan.-Mar., 1907. 8 species from vicinity of District of Columbia, all new. DIPTERA. Alexander, C. P. New or little known crane-flies from the United States and Canada; Tipulidae, Ptychopteridae, Diptera, Part 3. Proc. Ac. Nat. Sci. Phila. 68, Part 8, Oct., 1916, pp. 486-549, Pls. 25-31. 12 species in all from vicinity of District of Columbia, 1 new. Back, E. A. The robber-flies of America, north of Mexico, belonging to the subfamilies Leptogastrinae and Dasypogoninae. Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. 35, pp. 137-400, Pls. II-XII, Apr.-Oct., 1909. 9 species. Banks, Nathan. {Conopid flies about Falls Church, Va.] Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash., Vol. VIII, Nos.. 3-4, Sept.-Dec., 1906, p. 108. 13 species. The Psychodidae of the vicinity of Washington. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash., Vol. VIII, Nos. 3-4, Sept.-Dec. 1906, pp. 148-151. 12 species, 4 of which are originally described. Eastern species of Rachicerus. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. XV, No. 1, 1913, p. 51. Key to 3 species all taken at nearby localities in Virginia. Notes and descriptions of Pipunculidae. Psyche 22, No. 5, Oct., 1915, pp. 166-170, Pl. 15. Notes on 22 species, 4 new; states he has taken 27 species of Pipunculus in Virginia. Notes on some Virginian species of Platypeza (Platypezidae, Dipt.). Journ. N. Y. Ent. Soc., Vol. XXIII, No. 4, Dec., 1915, pp. 213-216, Pie 15 8 species from Falls Church, Va., and vicinity, of which 5 are described as new. 34 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. Synopses of Zodion and Myopa with notes on other Conopidae. Ann. Ent. Soc. Am. 9, No. 2, June, 1916, pp. 191-200. List of 18 species taken at or near Falls Church, Va. Banks, N., Greene, C. T., McAtee, W. L., and Shannon, R. Cc. District of Columbia Diptera: Syrphidae. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., Vol. 29, pp. 173-203, Sept. 22, 1916. 136 species of which 3 besides one variety are described as new. Coquillett, D. W. Revision of the Tachinidae of America North of Mexico, a family of parasitic two-winged insects. Tech. Ser. Bul. No. 7, U. S. Div. Ent., 1897, 154 pp. 70 species, 11 new. On the habits of the Oscinidae and Agromyzidae reared at the United States Department of Agriculture. Bul. 10, N. S., U. S. Div. Ent., 1898, pp. 70-79. 9 species of Oscinidae and 8 of Agromyzidae. New Diptera in the U. S. National Museum. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. XXIII, pp. 593-618, Mar. 27, 1901. 13 new species of Ceratopogon. New Diptera from North America. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. XXV, pp. 88-126, Sept. 12, 1902. 8 new species, 7 of them Chiromidae and 4 of the genus Ceratopogon. New genera and species of diptera. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 9, Apr., 1908, pp. 144-148. 4 new species from region of District of Columbia, 2 two of them representing new genera. Cresson, E. T., Jr. Studies in North American Dipterology; Pipunculidae. Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. 36, pp. 267-329, Pls. V-IX, Dec., 1910-Jan., 1911. 14 species, 9 new. Howard, L. O. Notes on the mosquitoes of the United States; giving some account Thats of their structure and biology with remarks on remedies. S eS Se Bul. No. 25 N. S., U. S. Div. Ent., 1900, 70 pp., 22 figs. Bio ae ‘3 a oie: Americae septentrionalis indigena. sr Ent. Zeitschr., 1861-1872. Published separately in Berlin, Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 35 Die Nordamerikanischen Arten der Gattungen Tetanocera und Sepedon. Wiener Entomologische Monatschrift, Bd. III, Nr. 10, Oct., 1859, pp. 289-300. 7 species, 5 new. Diptera americana ab Osten-Sackenio collecta. Wiener Entomologische Monatschrift, Bd. IV, Nr. 3, Mar., 1860, pp. 79-84. 10 new species. Die Nordamerikanischen Dolichopoden. Neue Beitrige zur Kenntniss der Dipteren. Achter Beitrag, Berlin. 1861, 100 pp. 11 new species. ¢ Monographs of the Diptera of North America, Part I, On the North American Ephydrinidae. Smithsonian Misc. Col., Apr., 1862, pp. 129-172. 6 species. Monographs of the Diptera of North America, Part LI, On the North American Dolichopodidae. : Smiths. Misc. Col., Jan., 1864, 360 pp., Pls. 3-7. 28 species, 1 new. Die Amerikanischen Ulidina. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift, II, 1867, pp. 283-326. 3 species. Monographs of the Diptera of North America, Part III, The North American Ortalidae. Smiths. Misc. Col., Dec., 1873, pp. 71-209. 8 species, 3 new. Monographs of the Diptera of North America, Part III, Review of the North American Trypetina. Smiths. Misc. Col., Dec., 1873, pp. 211-330, Pls. 8-11. 4 species, 1 new. Malloch, J. R. The insects of the dipterous family Phoridae in the United States National Museum. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 43, pp. 411-529, Pls, 35-41, Dec. 14, 1912. Records 1 species of Trupheoneura, 1 of Chaetoneurophora, 2 of Paraspiniphora, 2 of Dohrniphora, 1 of Hypocera, 1 of ica 1 of Beckerina, 1 of Apocephalus, and 26 of Aphiochaeta. 36 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. A new genus and three new species of Phoridae from North America, etc. Psyche. 20, No. 1, Feb., 1913, pp. 23-26, fig. 1. All from this region. A revision of the species in Agromyza Fallen, and Cerodontha Rondani (Diptera). Ann: Ent. Soc. Am. VI, No. 3, Sept., 19138, pp. 269-336, Pls. 28-31. 18 species of Agromyza and 1 of Cerodontha. A synopsis of the genera of Agromyzidae, with descriptions of new genera and species. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 46, pp. 127-154, Pls. 4-6, Dec. 6, 1913. 1 species of Milichiella, 1 of Pholeomyia, 2 of Phyllomyza, and 1 of Paramyia, The genera of flies in the subfamily Botanobiinae with hind tibial spur. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 46, pp. 289-266, Pls. 23-24, Dec. 6, 1913. 4 species of Hippelates. Some undescribed North American Sapromyzidae. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 27, pp. 29-42, Mar. 20, 1914. 6 species, all new. American Black Flies or Buffalo Gnats. Tech. Bul. No. 26, U. S. Bur. Ent., Apr. 6, 1914, 82 pp. 6 pls. 1 species of Prosimulium and 3 of Simuliuwm. The Chironomidae or midges of Illinois, with particular reference to the species occurring in the Illinois River. Bul. III, State Lab. Nat. Hist. X, Art. VI, May, 1915, pp. 274-543, Pls. XVIII-XL. Records 40 species from the District of Columbia region, 7 of them new. Mitchell, E. G. Description of 9 new species of Gnats. Journ. N. Y. Ent. Soc. 16, No. 1, Mar., 1908, pp. 7-14. _ 7 of the 9 new species of the genus Chironomus were collected near Washington. Osten Sacken, C. R. von. _ New genera and species of North American Tipulidae with short palpi, with an attempt at a new classification of the tribe. _ Proce. Ac. Nat. Sci Philadelphia 2, Aug., 1859, pp. 197-256, Pls, 3-4. 46 —— 42 of them new. Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 37 Monographs of the Diptera of North America, Part I, On the North American Cecidomyidae. Smiths. Misc. Col., Apr., 1862, pp. 173-205, Pl. 1. 33 species, 25 new. Monographs of the Diptera of North America, Part IV, On the North American Tipulidae (part first). Smiths. Misc. Col., Jan., 1869, pp. 1-320, Pls. 1-4. 64 species, 5 new. A list of the Leptidae, Mydaidae and Dasypogonina of North America. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences II, Apr., 1874, to March, 1875 (Oct., 1874), pp. 169-187. 1 Leptid and 6 Asilids. Prodrome of a monograph of the Tabanidae of the United States. Part I. The genera Pangonia, Chrysops, Silvius, Haematopota, Diabasis. Mem. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist. II, Part IV, No. 1, Apr., 1875, pp. 365-397. Part II. The genus Tabanus. Mem. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist. II, Part IV, No. 4, Apr. 20, 1876, pp. 421-479. Supplement. Mem. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., Vol. II, Part IV, No. 6, March 2, 1878, pp. 555-560. Records 10 species in all, 3 new. Sturtevant, A. H. Notes on North American Drosophilidae with descriptions of twenty-three new species. Ann. Ent. Soc. Am. 9, No. 4, Dec., 1916, pp. 323-343. 6 new species. Townsend, C. H. Tyler. Notes on North American Tachinidae, sens. lat. with descriptions of new species. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. II, pp. 134-146, April 2, 1891. 5 species, 4 new. Notes on North American Tachinidae sens. str. with Se eg of new genera and species. Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. 18, pp. 349-382, Nov., 1891. 1 new genus and species. Contributions to the Dipterology of North America. I, Syrphidae. Trans, Am. Ent. Soc. 22, pp. 33-55, Mar., 1895. 18 species, 1 new. 38 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. Contributions to the Dipterology of North America II, Tabanidae, Conopidae, Tachinidae, etc. Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. 22, pp. 55-80, Mar., 1895. 8 species, 1 new. Notes on some interesting flies from the vicinity of Washington. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash., Vol. I, Nov. 4, Dec., 1888-Dec., 1889 (1890), pp. 254-255. 6 species, 1 undetermined. HYMENOPTERA, Ashmead, Wm. H. Descriptions of new Braconidae in the collection of the U. S. National Museum. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 1888, pp. 611-671, Sept. 25, 1889. 19 species, 18 new. Descriptions of new Ichneumonidae in the collection of the U. S. National Museum. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. XII, pp. 387- 451, Apr. 21, 1890. 13 species, all new. A monograph of the North American Proctotrypidae. Bul. 45, U. S. Nat. Mus., 1893, 472 pp., 18 pls. 194 species, 177 new. Descriptions of new parasitic hymenoptera. _ Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. 23, pp. 179-234, June, 1896. 33 species, 31 new. Banks, Nathan. Sleeping habits of certain hymenoptera. Journ. N. Y. Ent. Soc. 10, No. 4, Dec., 1902, pp. 209-214. Notes on 6 species at Falls Church, Va. Psammocharidae: Classification and Descriptions. Journ. N. Y. Ent. Soc. 19, No. 4, Dec., 1911, pp. 219-237. Includes 5 new species from region of District of Columbia. New species of Psammocharidae. Journ. N. Y. Ent. Soc. 22, No. 4, Dec., 1914, pp. 300-306. 4 new species from District of Columbia reaeon: ; Brailey, J. C. _-—~-—s« The Evaniidae, ensign-flies, an archaic family of hymenoptera. _~—s ‘Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. 34, pp. 101-194, Pis. V-XV, Apr.-June, 1908. ae, _ Notes on Evaniidae (Hym.). _ Geltsehr. f, Hym. Dipt., 1905, pp. 26-27. . $ easter these record 3 species, 2 new, from District of Columbia. : Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 39 Contributions toward a monograph of the Mutillidae and their allies of America north of Mexico. I. A Revision of Ephuta Say. Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. 42, No. 2, June, 1916, pp. 187-198. If. A Revision of Timulla Ashmead, etc., pp. 199-214. III. The Mutillidae of the Eastern United States, pp. 309-336. 20 species, 4 new. Cockerell, T. D. A. Notes on some bees from Virginia. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. XVII, No. 1, Mar., 1915, pp. 3-5. 8 species visiting sunflower and lima bean flowers at Falls Church, Va. Crawford, J. C. A new family of parasitic hymenoptera. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 11, No. 2, Aug., 1909, pp. 63-64, Pl, 5, Vanhorniidae, based on Vanhornia eucnemidarum, n. gen: et. sp. Lescriptions of new hymenoptera, 1. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 39, pp. 617-623, Feb. 25, 1911. Winnemana argei, n. gen. et. sp. Plummers Id., Md. Cushman, R. A. A revision of Hymenopterous insects of the tribe Cremastini of America north of Mexico. - Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 53, pp. 508-551, Aug. 22, 1917. 9 species from this vicinity, 7 new. Gahan, A. B. Aphidiinae of North America. Bul. 152, Maryland Agr. Exp. Sta., Apr., 1911, pp. 147-200, figs. 1-11. 13 species. Descriptions of 2 new genera and 6 new species of parasitic hymenoptera. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 14, No. 1, Jan.-Mar., 1912, pp. 2-8. 4 new species, representing also 2 new genera. A revision of the North American Ichneumon-flies of the sub- family Opiinae. Proc. .U S. Nat. Mus., Vol. 49, pp. 63-95, Pls. 34-35, Aug. 23, 1915. 5 species from District of Columbia region. Girault, A. A. A systematic monograph of the Chalcidoid Hymenoptera of the sub-family Signiphorinae. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 45, pp. 189-233, May 22, 1985. 4 species from District of Columbia. 40 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. New miscellaneous Chalcidoid Hymenoptera with notes on de scribed species. Ann. Ent. Soc. Am. 9, No. 3, Sept., 1916, pp. 291-308. 5 new species. Descriptions of miscellaneous North American Chalcidoid Hymen- optera of the family Eulophidae. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 51, pp. 39-52, Oct. 16, 1916. 9 species, 8 new. New species of parasitic hymenoptera. Bul. Brooklyn Ent. Soc. 11, No. 5, Dec., 1916, pp. 111-113. 7 new species. Descriptions of miscellaneous chalcid-flies. Ins. Inse. Mens, 4, Nos. 10-12, Jan. 12, 1917, pp. 109-121. 10 new species from the region of District of Columbia. Isely, Dwight. A synopsis of the petiolate wasps of the family Eumenidae (Hy- menoptera) found in America north of Mexico. Ann. Ent. Soc. Am. 10, No. 4, Dec., 1917, pp. 345-366. 2 species of Humenes and two of Zethus. Lovell, John H. The bees of Virginia—Prosopis, Sphecodes, Osmia. Ent. News XX, No. 10, Dec., 1909, pp. 412-417. 6 species of Prosopis, 1 new, 7 species of Sphecodes, and 6 species of Osmia recorded from Falls Church, Great Falls and other locali- ties in the vicinity of the District. Osten Sacken, C. R. On the Cynipidae of the North American Oaks and their galls. Proc. Ent. Soc. Phila. I, pp. 47-72, Oct., 1861. Describes 27 kinds of galls, with 25 scientific names of flies and inquilines, 18 of them new. Ueber die Gallen und andere durch Insecten Hervorgebrachte Pflanzendeformationen in Nord-America. _Entomologische Zeitung (Stettin) 22, No. 10-12, Oct.-Dec., 1861, pp. 405-423. Records, apparently, almost exclusively from the vicinity of Wash- ington, the following galls: Cynipidae, 35, 3 described as new; Cecidomyiidae, 34, 2 new; Hemiptera, 10, 2 new; Acarina, 3. Additions and corrections to the paper entitled: “On the Cynipidae a the North American Oaks and their Galls.” _ Proc. Ent. Soc. Phila. I, No. 8, Sept., 1862, pp. 241-259. Notes on 15 galls additional to previous paper with 8 scientific : - names, ‘s new. Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 41 Contributions to the natural history of the Cynipidae of the United States and of their galls. Proc. Ent. Soc. Phila., Vol. II, pp. 33-49, April. 1863. 4 new species. Contributions to the Natural History of the Cynipidae of the United States and their Galls. Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. III, pp. 54-64, Mar., 1870. 38 new species. 7 Rohwer, S. A. New sawflies in the collections of the United States National Museum. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 41, pp. 377-411, Oct. 14, 1911. ; Records \8 species from this region, 2 of them being represented by new varieties and 1 by a new subspecies. Notes on sawflies with descriptions of new species. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 48, pp. 205-251, Sept. 30, 1912. 10 species from this region, 9 new. A synopsis and descriptions of the Nearctic species of sawflies of the genus Xyela, with descriptions of other new species of sawflies. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 45, pp. 265-281, May 22, 1913. 6 species from District of Columbia region, all new. Descriptions of 2 new genera of parasitic hymenoptera. Psyche 21, No. 2, April, 1914, pp. 79-81. 2 new genera and species. Descriptions of new species of Hymenoptera. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. 49, pp. 205-249, July 16, 1915. 11 species of sawflies, 10 new, and 5 other new species from region of District of Columbia. Descriptions of 31 new species of Hymenoptera. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 53, pp. 151-176, June 5, 1917. 5 new species from the District of Columbia region. Viereck, H. L. Descriptions of 6 new genera and 31 new species of Ichneumon- flies. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 40, pp. 173-196, Apr. 17, 1911. 4 new species. Descriptions of 1 new family, 8 new genera, and 33 new species of Ichneumon flies. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 48, pp. 575-598, Dec. 31, 1912, Myersiidae new family based on Myersia laminata, n. gen. et. sp. . and 2 other new species, 1 representing a new genus. 6 2 Ks Sahks ‘ 42 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. Descriptions of 10 new genera and 23 new species of Ichneumon- flies, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 44, pp. 555-568, Apr. 18, 1913. 6 new species representing also 1 new genus and 1 new subgenus. One new genus and 5 new species of Ichneumon-flies. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 29, pp. 165-171, Sept. 6, 1916. All from vicinity of Washington. OTHER INVERTEBRATES. The work upon invertebrates, other than insects, of the District of Columbia, that has been embodied in local lists, has been upon 4 groups: the rotifers, the molluses, the spiders, and the daddy-long-legs or Phalangids. The list of shells was published in 1855 and includes 90 species; the spider list of 1893 enumerated 308 species; that relating to the daddy-long-legs in 1904, 10 species; and the catalog of rotifers or wheel-animalcules of 1913, 246 species. BIBLIOGRAPHY. Girard, Chas. Catalogue of recent shells and other molluses found in the District of Columbia, prepared from specimens in the cabinet of Dr. E. Foreman. Proc. Nat. Institute, N. S., Vol. I, No. 2 ( 1855-6), pp. 78-82. Read April 16, 1855; presented for publication June 11, 1855. 90 species enumerated. Marx, Geo. A list of the Araneae of the District of Columbia. Proc, Ent. Soc. Wash., Vol. II (1891), 1893, pp. 149-162. 308 species recorded. It is noted that 62 ‘undescribed species also had been collected. ; Banks, Nathan. Phalangids in the District of Columbia. Journ. N. Y. Ent. Soc. XII, No. 4, Dec., 1904, p. 256. 10 species listed. Harring, Harry K. A list of the rotatoria of Washington and vicinity, with descrip- * tions of a new genus and 10 new species. A Proc. U. S. National Museum, Vol. 46, pp. 387-405, Pls. 34-38, Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 43 A revision of the rotatorian genera Lepadella and Lophocharis with descriptions of 5 new species. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 51, pp. 527-568, Dec. 21, 1916. 6 species from District of Columbia region, 1 new. FISHES. Although uninteresting to many students of natural his- tory, fishes, in the region of the District of Columbia have received more attention than any group of vertebrates except birds. Three principal lists have been published and the number of species recorded now stands at 94. At least 14 of these species are known to have been introduced into the Potomac as food fishes; this number includes the spotted and forked-tail catfishes, carp, goldfish, tench, ide, two _ species of crappie, at least one sunfish, the goggle-eye, warmouth, the large-mouth and small-mouth black bass and the wall-eyed pike. The fact that tide-water ends in our vicinity makes the distribution of fishes particularly interesting. The number of true salt-water fishes that stray far enough upstream to be included in the District fauna is now placed at 14. Among these fishes are a shark, the menhaden, an anchovy, a Cyprinodon, the silvergar, the pipefish, pigfish, spot, whit- ing, angel-fish, a goby, toadfish, sea-robin and sole. Of the anadromous fishes or those which run up from salt water to fresh to spawn, we have 5 ascending as far. as Little Falls, namely, two species of sturgeons, and 3 of herrings, and 3 that keep on Great Falls, these being the shad, striped bass and white perch. It is recorded ** also that an Atlantic Salmon was caught in the Potomac about June 10, 1885. In addition to these there is the lamprey which runs into all sorts of small streams to spawn, and the eel which spawns in salt water and after ascending the river reaches almost all bodies of water, even those appar- | ently isolated. These fishes are of coastal affinities, but we have one species definitely characteristic of. the higher western country, that being the brook trout, which has been found in Difficult Run, Va. *% Wooldridge, J., Natural Advantages of the City of Washington, D. C., 1892, p. 38. 44 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. The fishes thus far captured in this region belong to 32 families of which that most numerously represented by species is the minnow family with 24. There are 12 species of sunfishes and basses, 8 of perches and darters, 7 of cat- fishes and 5 each of the sucker, and shad families. Twenty families are represented by only one species each. Of the species of fishes that have been described from this region at least 8 are now recognized as good species and one as a variety ; these are two minnows, Notropis hudsonius amarus Girard, Notropis analostanus Girard, a silver-side, Menidia beryllina Cope, and a darter Boleosoma effulgens Girard. BIBLIOGRAPHY. Smith, Hugh M., and Bean, Barton A. List of Fishes known to inhabit the waters of the District o Columbia and vicinity. Bul. U. S. Fish Commission, 1898 (1899), pp. 179-187, Lists 81 species. Bean, Barton A., and Weed, Alfred C. Recent additions to the fish fauna of the District of Columbia. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. XXIV, pp. 171-174, June 16, 1911. Lists 12 species, 11 of them additional to previous list. McAtee, W. L., and Weed, Alfred C. First list of the fishes of the vicinity of Plummers Island, Md. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. XXVIII, pp. 1-14, Feb. 12, 1915, Lists 54 species, 1 new to District list. Radcliffe, Lewis, and Welsh, W. W. A list of the fishes of the Seneca Creek, Montgomery County, Maryland, region. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 29, pp. 39-45, Feb, 24, 1916. Annotated list of 41 species, none additional to District list. BATRACHIANS AND REPTILES. Though these two groups are not closely related, custom- arily they are treated together, a procedure followed in the list by Dr. W. P. Hay the only report on these forms for the region of the District of Columbia. The batrachians inhabiting this vicinity comprise 14 species of salamanders, _ 8 toads, and 10 frogs, and the reptiles include 4 lizards, 21 snakes and 11 turtles. This tabulation includes two more __ batrachians than are listed by Dr. Hay, namely: Fowler’s ~ Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 45 toad, a species more perfectly understood now than then, and the spotted salamander. Three turtles also have been added, one of which, the northern wood tortoise (Clemmys insculpta), has been collected several times near Plummers Island, Md. The name of one snake is removed, the form being Natrix bisecta of Cope, which as Dr. Hay states was founded on an abnormal and unique specimen. This type specimen was collected in Washington, and the material upon which a species of tree frog, Hyla evittata, was de- scribed by Gerrit S. Miller was obtained nearby at Four-mile Run, Va. Only two of the species of snakes reported are venomous, namely: the copperhead and the rattlesnake. The former is common, but the latter apparently is extinct. Warden recorded * it in 1816. The species here verging on their northern limit are the mud eel (Siren lacertina), Holbrook’s salamander (Spelerpes guttolineatus), the brown-back lizard (Lygosoma laterale), the six-lined lizard (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus), the spotted racer (Callopettis guttatus), scar- let snake (Cemophora coccinea), and the keeled green snake (Cyclophis aestivus). Species venturing little beyond the Piedmont Plateau are the long-tailed triton (Spelerpes longicaudus), brown triton (Desmognathus fusca), and the Allegheny blacksnake (Callopeltis obsoletus), while the dia- mond back terrapin (Malaclemmys centrata) and the two turtles mentioned in the last item of the following bibliog- raphy belong to the coastal plain fauna. Whether the north- ern wood-tortoise (Clemmys insculpta) and the Jefferson Salamander (Ambystoma jeffersonianum fuscum) should also be considered as highland species or whether they exist here merely on the southern fringe of a more general range is. uncertain. BIBLIOGRAPHY. Fisher, A. K. Spelerpes guttolineatus Holbrook, in the vicinity of Washington, D. C. Am, Nat. 21, No. 7, July, 1887, p. 672. This and 4 other species captured near Munson Hill, Va. Ce Ae RS EES Sole SS SE EE LR al a a * Warden, D. B.—A chorographical and statistical description of the District of Columbia, 1816, p. 13. 46 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. Miller, Gerrit S., Jr. A new tree frog from the District of Columbia. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 13, pp. 75-78, Sept. 28, 1899. -Hyla evittata, n. sp., Four-mile Run, Va. Hay, W. P. A list of the batrachians and reptiles of the District of Columbia and vicinity. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. XV, pp. 121-145, figs. 1-3, June 20, 1902. Lists 56 species of which 1 is invalid and 3 are without definite records. ‘Stejneger, Leonhard. A salamander new to the District of Columbia. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 15, pp. 239-240, Dec. 16, 1902. Ambystona maculatum (punctatum), a species now known to be fairly common and widely distributed. A snake new to the District of Columbia. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash, 18, pp. 73-74, Feb. 21, 1905. Cemophora coccinea, Anacostia. Henshaw, H. W. An extension of the range of the wood tortoise. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. XX, p. 65, June 12, 1907. ‘Taken Aug. 19, 1906, near Plummers Island, Md. Allard, H. A. Fowler’s Toad (Bufo fowleri Putnam). Science N. S. XXVI, Sept. 20, 1907, pp. 383-384. Records this species from Washington, D. C. Dunn, E. R. A preliminary list of the reptiles and amphibians of Virginia. Copeia, No. 53, Jan. 25, 1918, pp. 16-27. Records 21 species of reptiles and 16 amphibians from Alexandria _ County, and 25 and 22, respectively, from Fairfax. Two species of turtles, Pseudemys concinna and Graptemys pseudogeographica are . additional to those recorded in previous publications. BIRDS. : Stine < of the earlier siicncinace to the birds of the region for the Potomae was Cohonguroton or river of swans. DeB. Randolph.’ Keim’s Illustrated “Handbook. Washington of interest. We are informed ™ that one of the Indian Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 47 It is said,*® however, that Occoquan was the farthest up river feeding place of the swans; but flocks of as many as 300 were seen there and of two kinds, both trumpeter and whooper. There is no later record of the trumpeter swan, however, and the whooper in modern books is called whistling swan to distinguish it from the European bird. The Potomac was a noted resort for the canvasback duck, the favorite ground for the species extending from Analostan Island to Craney Island 25 miles below. It is said that myriads of them were present, fairly covering the stream.” As if in prophecy one author (Elliot) deprecates the shoot- ing with large guns, especially at night. As we now know, it is due to this and similar practices that such large gatherings of these splendid birds are things of the past. Evidently it was not necessary in those early days for hunters to journey far from the city. In 1797, Francis Baily remarks : 7° “Game is plenty in these parts, and, what perhaps may appear to you remarkable, I saw some boys who were out a - shooting, actually kill several brace of partridges in what will be one of the most public streets of the city.” “In 1886 a flock of 30 to 40 wild turkeys flew over Georgetown going toward Chain Bridge and a man on the bridge killed 9 of them. 99 29 In the Proceedings of the National Institute for the Pro- motion of Science are various interesting notes relating to the birds of the District. The donations announced at the meeting of September 12, 1842, especially are noteworthy,” Four specimens of Leach’s petrel, one of Wilson’s petrel, and one Audubon shearwater were presented. The birds were taken the preceding month, August, 1842, and the records in each case are the first for the District. This ** Eliot, Jonathan. Historical Sketches of the Ten Miles Square form- ing the District of Columbia, etc., 1830, p. 431. % Hall, Basil. Travels in North America in the Years 1827 and 1828. Edinburgh, 1829, Vol. III, p. 68. % Journal of a tour in Unsettled Parts of North America in 1796 and 1797, London 1856, p. 128. ® Nile’s Weekly Register, 51, 128, October 22, 1836. *” Third Bulletin of the Proceedings of the National Institute for the Pro- motion of Science. Feb., 1842, to Feb., 1845, p. 251. 48 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. incursion of maritime species is undoubtedly that referred to by Haley, who says “during a violent easterly storm a few years ago, the Potomac was covered with multitudes of Mother Cary’s chickens (Thalassidroma leachii) which had been forced out of their usual course by the gale.** In the bulletin of the National Institute also are earlier records (all in 1842 and 1843) for the surf scoter (Second Bul., p. 148), the double-crested cormorant, old squaw (Third Bul., p. 262), snow bunting (Third Bul., p. 224), and yeliow rail (Third Bul., p. 320) than are cited in later pub- lications, and the only record for the ivory gull (Second Bul., p. 184). Of birds which once frequented the District but which now are gone we may mention: the passenger pigeon, now wholly extinct, the sandhill crane, Carolina parakeet, and prairie chicken.*? The wild turkey and the ruffed grouse no longer find congenial haunts within the District, but occur spar- ingly in some of the wildest adjoining territory. Practically the same is true of the pileated woodpecker, although this species being of a more roving disposition may, occasionally, be detected within our limits. The wood duck, once a breeder, within the District, now nests only in the more secluded parts of nearby stream valleys, but still occurs within the District during migration. These species have been driven away, either by direct persecution by man, or by the destruction of habitats essential to their welfare. Another bird, the black-throated bunting or dick-cissel, has departed for reasons of its own. Much territory here is - guited to its needs, but the bird has withdrawn from much of its former eastern range, including the District of Colum- bia. On the other hand, certain species have become more common in recent years. Among them.we may mention the _ erow blackbird, orchard oriole, Cape-May warbler, butcher- bird, robin, and the mockingbird. To replace the lost black- _ throated bunting another finch, Bachman’s sparrow, is ' gradually occupying this region as a breeding home. The 81 Washington Described, 1861, p. 27. -®In the National Museum is a specimen of prairie chicken that was taken in the Custis Spring marsh March 138, 1885. This isolated occurrence is rather mysterious. Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 49 © starling, a new-comer, sometimes abundant in winter, has also begun to nest in small numbers. | The English sparrow was introduced into Washington in 1871. The following contemporaneous account of the matter may not be entirely pleasing to those who have had dis- agreeable experience with this hardy little stranger. “A flock of imported sparrows was set at liberty in the public grounds in 1871, for the destruction of insects. Each year new cages are placed in the trees for the accommodation of their increased numbers. These useful birds are fed regu- larly every morning during the winter in Franklin, Lafay- ette and other squares.” 3% The first list of birds of the District of Columbia, that has so far come to light was published by David Baillie Warden in 1816. (See bibliography below.) It contained 32 species, among them the passenger pigeon, now extinct, and the snowy owl, a rare bird here. The beginning of the modern series of lists is that of Coues and Prentiss of 1861. It contains 225 species. Jouy increased this to 230 in 1875, and to 240 in 1877. The second edition of Coues and Prentiss’s work in 1883 contained 248 species. No other list appeared during the next 15 years, in which period a number of additions to the District avifauna were noted, the total number of species reaching 284 (See bibliography) as recorded by Richmond in 1898. This number is increased by one in Cooke’s list of 1908, which omits one living species listed by Richmond, the true total, therefore, being 286. The introduced starling (Sturnus vulgaris), which has been seen in numbers in and about the District since 1913 (a number breeding in 1917), is a species not included in any of the published lists. The European skylark and white-rumped sandpiper also have been recently observed. As noted in previous pages, the ivory gull, trumpeter swan, and white ibis are additional species which shave been recorded as visitants to this region but for which there are no definite records. % Keim’s Illustrated Handbook. Washington, etc., 1874, p. 39. 50 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. BIBLIOGRAPHY. Warden, David Baillie. [Birds seen in the District of Columbia.] A chorographical and statistical description of the District of Columbia, Paris, 1816, pp. 210-211. 32 species. Coues, Elliott, and Prentiss, D. Webster. List of birds ascertained to inhabit the District of Columbia, with the times of arrival and departure of such as are non-residents, and brief notices of habits, etc. Sixteenth Ann. Rep. Smiths. Inst., 1861 (1862), pp. 399-421, 226 species listed, 1 erroneously. Burroughs, John. Spring in Washington, with an eye to the birds. Atlantic Monthly, Vol. XXIII, May, 1869, pp. 580-591. Reprinted in Wake Robin, Cambridge, 1895, pp. 127-156. Notes on flowers; birds; crow roosts; orchard oriole breeding in Capitol grounds; other birds there; black-throated bunting; red- headed the most common woodpecker, more common than the robin; ‘and summer yellow-bird more common in town than out. Shufeldt, R. W. , Birds of the District of Columbia. Field and Forest, Vol. I, Nos. 8-9, Jan.-Feb., 1876, pp. 79-80. A list of 38 common permanent residents and 29 common winter residents, the latter including Zctopistes migratorius. Six other species are mentioned. Jouy, Pierre Louis. Catalogue of the Birds of the District of Columbia. Field and Forest, Vol. II, No. 9, Mar, 1877, pp. 154-156; No. 10, Apr., 1877, pp. 178-181. 240 species in all. Mr. Jouy read a list of 230 species of birds at a meeting of Potomac-side Naturalists Club, Nov. 15, 1875. Coues, E. and Prentiss, D. Webster. Remarks on Birds of the District of Columbia. _ Field and Forest, Vol. II, No. 11, May, 1877, pp. 191-193. Comment on Jouy’s Catalogue, with which these remarks were _also separately published, Washington, D. C., 1877, pp. 1-11. Jouy, Pierre Louis. Field Notes on some of the Birds of the District of Columbia. _ Field and Forest, Vol. III, No. 3, Sept., 1877, pp. 51-52. . Notes on 6 species, one, the lark sparrow, an addition to the list. Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 51 Roberts, W. F. Additions to the List of District Birds. Field and Forest, Vol. III, Nos. 10-12, Apr.-June, 1878, p. 172. Macrorhamphus griseus. Total now, 242. Coues, Elliott, and Prentiss, D. Webster. Avifauna Columbiana; being a list of birds ascertained to inhabit the District of Columbia, with the times of arrival and departure of such as are non-residents, and brief notices of habits, ete. The second edition revised to date and entirely rewritten. Bul. No. 26, U. S. Nat. Mus., 1888, 133 pp., 4 maps, 100 figs. Lists 248 species; describes various parts of the Washington region. : Henshaw, H. W. Ornithology of the Zoological Park, “Ann. Rep. Smith. Inst. (1890), 1891, pp. 66-68. 61 breeding species listed. A few migrants mentioned. Richmond, C. W. List of birds of the District of Columbia, Washington, D. C. July, 1896. Part I, pp. 1-12 (All issued). A regrettably uncompleted list, broken off at the fortieth species. Maynard, L. W. Birds of Washington and vicinity, including adjacent parts of Maryland and Virginia. With introduction by Florence A. Merriam (In revised edition Florence Merriam Bailey), pp. 11-18, and a list of all birds found in the District of Columbia by Dr. C. W. Richmond, pp. 178-186. Washington, D. C., 1898, 204 pp., 18 figs., revised edition 1902, 210 pp., 18 figs. Includes 292 forms; 1 hybrid, 5 subspecies of species otherwise represented and 2 extinct birds are listed, the true total being 284 living species. Bartsch, Paul. Notes on the herons of the District of Columbia. Smiths. Misc. Coll. 451, pp. 104-111, Pls. 32-38, Dec. 9, 1908. Habits and other notes for 9 species. Osgood, W. H. “Helminthophila lawrencei” near the District of Columbia. Auk XXIV, No. 38, July, 1907, pp. 342-343. Taken on Plummers Island, Md., May 12, 1907. This bird is a hybrid between H. chrysoptera and H. pinus, and therefore not an additional species to the District list. 52 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. Cooke, W. W. Bird Migration in the District of Columbia. First Ed. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., Vol. XXI, pp. 107-118, April 11, 1908. Second Ed. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., Vol. XXVI, pp. 21-26, Feb. 7, 1913. These two publications give detailed information on the migra- tion season of birds in the District and surrounding region, and bring the records of species observed up to date. The total number of forms listed is 294 of which 1 is extinct, 2 are hybrids and 6 are subspecies of species otherwise represented, leaving 285 living species known to occur in the vicinity of the District. One extinct bird, the Carolina Paroquet, and 1 living species, the American wigeon, listed by Richmond, were inadver- tently omitted. MAMMALS. The mammals that maintain existence in thickly popu- lated areas are small, inconspicuous and elusive. The larger forms that are compelled to live more or less in the open disappear. Among those which have inhabited the vicinity of the District of Columbia within historic times, but which are now locally extirpated, are buffalo, elk, white-tailed deer, wild-cat, puma, gray wolf, black bear, pine marten, beaver and black rat. The last-named species was introduced from the Old World, but disappeared before its later imported congener and rival, the brow: rat. Buffalo disappeared from Virginia and therefore from this vicinity soon after the establishment of the first permanent settlements, but gray wolves were present and destructive as late as 1728. - This is proved by the fact that in that year a law was passed placing a bounty of 200 pounds of tobacco upon each wolf scalp. Elk persisted in Virginia until 1844. Forty-one species of mammals are now known to live in the neighborhood of the city of Washington, of which three were described as new to science as late as 1910 to 1913. _ Two of these species are shrews, one of which is called % a _ Microsorex winnemana, and the third species is a bat named Myotis: winnemana. The —— name Son igang means Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 53 — “beautiful island” and alludes to Plummers Island, the Home of the Washington Biologists’ Field Club, near and upon which the types of the two species respectively were collected. Included in the total number for the region are the opossum, 5 species of squirrels, the woodchuck, 9 species of mice and rats, the musk-rat, rabbit, house-cat, 2 foxes, the raccoon, skunk, otter, mink, weasel, 5 shrews, 2 moles, and 8 species of bats. One other species, the golden mouse (Peromyscus nuttalli) of more southern distribution has been reported,** but the record needs verification. The rice rat (Oryzomys palustris) has been taken at Colonial Beach, Virginia, and sooner or later probably will be sien within the accepted limits of the District fauna. The red squirrel is about at its eastward limit in this region, ranging but little farther out upon the coastal plain, while the wood rat is restricted to the Piedmont Plateau. Cooper’s lemming mouse and Sorex fontinalis seem to be confined to sphagnum bogs; the distribution of . former is more to the northward and in the mountains. The District is at the northern limit of the range of the harvest mouse. BIBLIOGRAPHY. Bailey, Vernon. _ List of the mammals of the District of Columbia. _ Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., Vol. X, pp. 93-101, May 28, 1896. The list names 37 species (including Felis domestica) known to occur within 20 miles of the Capitol and most of them within the District limits. The record for the wildcat is conjectural and prob- ably should have been added to the list of locally extirpated species which consists of 7, the white-tailed deer and pine marten being omitted. Mearns, L. Z. \On the occurrence of the genus Reithrodontomys in Virginia. Am, Nat. 31, 1897, pp. 160-161. Records R. lecontii from Ft. Myer, Va. This form is now called R. humulis impiger. (See Howell, A. H., N. A., Fauna, 36, 1914, pp. 20-21.) “Haley, W. D. In Philip’s Washington Described, 1861, P. 23. ie 54 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. Preble, Edward A. A new Microsorex from the vicinity of Washington, D. C. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. XXIII, pp. 101-102, June 24, 1910. Microsorer winnemana sp. n. Type from bank of Potomac River near Stubblefield Falls, Va., April 25, 1903. Hollister, N. Remarks on the long-tailed shrews of the eastern United States with description of a new species. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 40, pp. 377-381, April 17, 1911. Describes Sorex fontinalis n. sp. from Beltsville, Md. This species was recorded as S. personatus, by Bailey. A District record for the long-nosed shrew (S. longirostris) aiso is given. Nelson, E. W. A new bat from the eastern United States. Proc, Biol. Soc. Wash. XXVI, pp. 183-184, Aug. 8, 1913. Myotis winnemana sp. n. Type from Plummer’s Island, Md., Aug. 31, 1907.. A. K. Fisher. EARLY HISTORY OF MAN IN THE DISTRICT. In certain localities about the District, relics of the aborigines are abundant and they throw much light on the mode of life of those tribes of the North American Indians that inhabited the neighborhood. These were of Algonquian stock, the tribes living in this region in Captain John Smith’s time being the Nacochtanks, Taukenets, and Moya- ones with headquarters respectively along Eastern Branch, near Mount Vernon, and near the mouth of the Piscataway River. The settlements of these tribes were broken up about 1676 by raids of the Susquesahanocs, and some of them retired to Virginia, where they joined the Pamunkeys, while those remaining in Maryland consolidated under the name of Piscataways. These removed to Pennsylvania about 1700, leaving this region in undisputed control of the white men. The Indians of this region spent their time in fishing, trapping, hunting, and fighting. The relics of their occupa- _tion of the land comprise every variety of stone implement _ common to the North American Indian, fish hooks, pottery both of clay and soapstone, and traces of mats and other fabrics. The richest localities for archaeologic finds are the _ eastern shore of Eastern Branch, the Maryland shore of the Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 55 Potomac near Cabin John and Little Falls, Virginia shore at Chain Bridge, opposite Analostan Island, and near mouth of Four-mile Run, the quartzite workshop along Piney Branch, and soapstone quarries near Tennallytown and Falls Church. BIBLIOGRAPHY. Holmes, W. H. A quarry workshop of the flaked-stone implement makers in the District of Columbia. Am. Anthropologist 3, No. 1, Jan., 1890, pp. 1-26, Pls. 1-4. On Piney Branch near Rock Creek. Brief note on further work, pp. 224-5. Excavations in an ancient soapstone quarry in the District of Columbia. Am. Anthropologist 3, No. 4, Oct., 1890, pp. 321-330. Rose Hill Quarry near Tennallytown. Distribution of stone implements in the tidewater country. Am. Anthropologist 6, No. 1, Jan., 1893, pp. 1-14, Figs. 1-2, Pls. 1-2. Kengla, Louis A. Contributions to the archaeology of the District of Columbia. An essay to accompany a collection of aboriginal relics presented for the Toner medal, 1882. 42 pp., 5 pls., 1 map. Washington, R. A. Waters & Son. 1883. Mason O. T., et al. _ The Aborigines of the District of Columbia and the lower Poto- mac—A Symposium, under the direction of the vice president of section D. The American Anthropologist, Vol. II, 1889, pp. 225-266, Pls. I-VII, 1 small figure (map). Consists of: Introduction by Otis T. Mason, pp. 225-227. The Geologic antecedents of man in the Potomac ~Valley. By W. J. McGee, pp. 227-234. The paleolithic period in the District of Columbia. By Thomas Wilson, pp. 235-241. Pls. I-IV. Ancient village sites and aboriginal slip emet god in the District of Columbia. By S. V. Proudfit, pp. 241-246, Pl. v.* Pottery of the Potomac Tide-water region. By W. H. Holmes, pp. 246-252, Pl. VI. The shell mounds of the Potomac and Wicomico. By Elmer R. Reynolds, pp. 252-259, 1 map. Indian tribes of the District of Columbia. By James Mooney, pp. 259-266, Pl. VII. 56 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. Mason, Otis T. The archaeology of the Potomac Tide-water region. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 12, pp. 367-370, Pls, 15-17, 1 fig., 1890. Proudfit, S. V. ~ Note on the turtle-back celt. Am. Anthropologist 1, No. 4, Oct., 1888, pp. 337-339. Work of Indians not of paleolithic man. A collection of stone implements from the District of Columbia. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 13, pp. 187-194, Pls. 10-14, 1890. Tooker, W. W. , On the meaning of the name Anacostia. _ Am, Anthropologist 7, No. 4, Oct., 1894, pp. 389-393. Derived from words meaning “at the trading town.” Wilson, Thomas. _ The paleolithic period in the District of Columbia. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 12, pp. 371-376, Pls. 18-21, 1890. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. The writer wishes to express his great appreciation of the following courtesies: for reading the whole manuscript of the preceding pages to Mr. William Palmer; for reading various sections, to Dr. Walter Hough, Mr. E. A. Preble and Mr. ‘P. L. Ricker. Natural History. of District of Columbia—McAtee 57 DISTRIBUTION OF LIFE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REGION. — THE PIEDMONT PLATEAU AND COASTAL PLAIN AS FAUNAL AND FLORAL PROVINCES. In previous chapters some reference has been made to species characteristic of the Piedmont Plateau and of the Coastal Plain. The common boundary of these physiographic provinces is known as the fall line, and its significance as a line of separation of faunas and floras is well worth fuller consideration. No matter where the naturalist may carry on his re- searches, he finds species that are near or at the limit of their range. One species leaves off at a certain place, another presses a little farther on; the observer finds himself at the northern limit of some forms, and at the eastern or western or southern limit of others. The problem of defining boundaries that seem significant because of their nearly or quite coinciding with a sufficient percentage of the totality of range limits usually is a most difficult one. To illustrate the case by local instances, it may be noted that present information indicates among others the following terminations of range as the Potomac River is ascended: Marshall Hall—Taxodium distichum, Polypremum pro- cumbens, Pluchea camphorata. | Hunting Creek—Sabbatia dodecandra, Micranthemum micranthemoides, Utricularia macrorhiza. Little River Marshes—Echinochloa_ walteri, Jussiaea decurrens, Cyperus erythrorrhizos, Cyperus michauxianus, Hyla evittata. New Cut Road—Liquidambar styracifiua. Chain Bridge Flats—Sagittaria rigida, Zizania aquatica, Scirpus debilis, Quercus prinoides. Great Falls—Rhynchospora corniculata, Carex decom- posita, Quercus michauxiana, Rumex verticillatus, Parony- chia dichotoma, [lex decidua. 58 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. Seneca Creek—Quercus digitata, Quercus phellos, Tecoma radicans. In the reverse direction there is a similar graduation in the ranges of the upland forms, for instance: Great Falls—Asplenium montanum, Rhus _ aromatica, Viburnum pubescens. Stubblefield Falls—Betula lenta. Little Falls—Baptisia australis, Lathyrus venosus, Cea- nothus ovatus, Allium cernuum, Eupatorium altissimum, Rudbeckia triloba, Coreopsis tripteris. Rosslyn—Bicuculla canadensis, Bicuculla cucullaria, Cornus alternifolia, Solidago canadensis. Marshall Hall—Cystopteris fragilis, Athyrium pycno- carpon. Occoquan—Pinus strobus, Tsuga canadensis, Rhododen- dron maximum. Charles County, Md.—Quercus imbricaria. If the whole catalogue of plants were searched for such records, and the whole body of other organisms laid under contribution, there would hardly be a rod of ground along the Potomac that would not be distinguished as the farthest point in the upward or downward extension of some species. No doubt a similar condition exists with reference to species whose chief ranges lie to the east and to the west of this region. As previously remarked, this state of affairs makes it difficult to point out significant lines between distributional areas. In a country without salient topographical features the odds against success are practically prohibitive. Where natural barriers exist the task is more hopeful. A barrier does exist in the vicinity of Washington, and its importance is such that the distribution of life of this area cannot be properly conceived nor adequately discussed without taking cognizance of it. This barrier and boundary line, or rather zone, is the common border of the Atlantic Coastal Plain and the Piedmont Plateau usually referred to as the Fall Line. So far as it conveys the idea of a sharp division between s ; physiographic provinces, the term Fall Line is a misnomer. Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 59 Indefinite and often ill-defined, the meeting place of these provinces—that higher bench at the foot of the Allegheny Mountain system, known as the Piedmont Plateau, and the lower land or Coastal Plain composed of materials *® car- ried down from the plateau and westward areas and marine sediments deposited during its several submergences below sea-level—is better called a zone, a zone of interdigitation. The irregular character of the boundary between the sur- fical deposits of the two provinces is due to two causes: (1) the rocks of the Piedmont are exposed eastward beyond the line of their higher outcrops by the erosion of stream valleys; and (2) westward of this line Coastal Plain forma- tions mantle the divides between such streams, sometimes to a distance of several miles. Hilltops far back in the Piedmont province bear caps of Coastal Plain deposits, an indication of the former extent of these sediments and of the vast amount of erosion necessary to have carried off the remainder of them. The reverse condition—that is, islands of Piedmont rocks in the Coastal Plain, does not exist for the reason that the rock surface dips steeply and is now exposed as far as the base-levelling action of the streams makes possible. The Piedmont Plateau originally was a shore line against which the Coastal Plain sediments were deposited and in its superficial characters, the boundary zone between these prov- inces still retains many of the characters of a strand. The upper border of this zone is undulating, suggesting the tongues of sand left on the beach by the last tide, the exposed rocky stream beds resemble the gullies cut here and there in the sand by the receding water, while the Coastal Plain debris capping the hills, is like the drift cast up by storm tides, patches of which hither and yon have not yet been washed back to the sea that upheaved them. The sedimentary deposits which make up the Coastal Plain are chief- ly clays, gravels and sands, which, with the exception of some sandstones, are unconsolidated. The estuarine streams of this region have broad open valleys with muddy vegetation-covered banks. The streams of the Pied- mont Province, on the contrary, flow in narrow gorges cut into and usual- ly across the structure of the metamorphic and igneous rocks. These rocks include granite gneiss, gneiss, schist, soapstone, serpentine, diorite and gabbro. 60 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. ' For expression, in a single line, of the boundary of the Piedmont Plateau and the Coastal Plain in the region of the District of Columbia, the line of the present easternmost outcrops of the metamorphic rocks (shown as a heavy line on map, which see, p. 61) will do as well as any. It does not coincide with a line connecting the principal waterfalls, for which the line is named, since these generally are some distance back from the actual edge of the outcrops. The boundary between Coastal Plain and Piedmont floras and faunas agrees well with the outcrop line north of the Potomac. Roughly the Potomac itself then becomes the: boundary as‘far down as the great bend north of Fredericks- burg, where the river cuts its way across the Coastal Plain. However, the Coastal Plain is recognizable as a tangible type on the Virginia side comprising the flood plain of the river and its tributaries. The hills have a prevailing Piedmont biota. Nevertheless, one must be prepared to find some Coastal Plain species accompanying their native geologic formations which cap the hills near the river. Conspicuous patches of these formations lying farther back are shown on the map by heavy broken lines. The Fall Line as a Faunal and Floral Line. Be it ever so indefinite and ill-defined, the fall-line must be: recognized as having some significance as a faunal and floral line because it lies between regions that have had very distinct geological histories. A succinct sketch of ‘this his- tory may be quoted from W. J. McGee, who says: “Today there is a lowland plain rising gently from the Atlantic and stretching mountainward to the elbow of the Delaware at Trenton and Philadelphia, to the embouchure of the Susquehanna into Chesapeake Bay, to the great elbow of the Potomac at Washington and Alexandria, to Fred- ericksburg, and to the bend of the James at Richmond. This lowland plain widens from a point at Sandy Hook to 150 miles at Cape Hatteras. Still further westward there lies _ an upland plain, 10 to 100 miles wide, overlooking the low- _ lands and overlooked by the mountains. Along the common ~hetaaary of the lowlands and the uplands the land surface _ drops from a mean altitude of 300 feet to less than 100 feet, Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 61 ae The Piedmont Plateau and the Coastal Plain in the Siidity. ‘f of the District of Columbia. Solid heavy line indicates eastern- | most outcrops of the metamorphic rocks. Broken heavy lines show the positions of important isolated bodies of Coastal Plain Deposits. Stream courses are dotted. 62 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. and the rivers cascade from narrow rock-bound gorges into broad tidal (p. 230) estuaries. Now, during the Columbia period, ocean water overwhelmed nearly all of the lowlands between the present coast and the fall line and washed the upland margin where now stand Fredericksburg, Washing- ton, Baltimore, and Philadelphia; and north of Philadelphia it swept still further inland, submerging the uplands to 300 and even 450 feet above present tide level. Then the Poto- mae embouched into open ocean at the “Three Sisters”; at the culmination of the submergence, shoal ocean-waters rolled over the highest land between Washington and the coast, and the Anacostia, the Patuxent, and Chesapeake Bay were not; while during even the inferior stages of water the lower Potomac was an estuary many times broader and deeper than today.” 36 The greater part of the Piedmont Plateau remained a land surface while the Coastal Plain was submerged several _ times. Not only was all land life on the Coastal Plain entirely extirpated during these submergences, but even during the emergences ecologic conditions for long periods and over great areas were radically different from those on the Plateau. The tide flats, the salt marshes, the low-lying flood-plains of the rivers which long characterized the landscapes after each emergence were not suited to the needs of most of the upland species. On the contrary, the land was occupied and held by species already adapted to the conditions. As the Coastal Plain was elevated after the last depression, upland species gradually advanced upon it, but to accom. - plish this they needed powers of migration and the ability to take and hold a place in the face of probably somewhat adverse conditions. Not all species were able to do this, and some, on account of lack of adaptiveness, or small ability to extend their ranges, required a very long time to _Yeach, or may not yet have reached, places in the coastal Plain ecologically suited to them. Conversely, certain other i zs _ species found only in the Coastal Plain the conditions neces- «The American Anthropologist, Vol. II, 1879, pp. 230-281. eee ee eee ee ee ee se ee ae ave J ’ wo” Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 63 sary to their welfare, as for instance the strand, salt marsh and pine barren plants, or for other reasons never were able to advance from the Coastal Plain to the uplands. It is obvious, therefore, that for reasons of geological history, if for no other, the fall-line must be granted some importance as a faunal and floral boundary. Inspection of the remarks upon distribution in the “Plant Life of Maryland” *’ reveals that approximately 163 ** (out of a total of 1,400) species of plants are restricted to the Coastal Plain, while 46 others are chiefly so. Corresponding figures for the Piedmont Plateau are 175 and 48. Search through the local herbarium for the District of Columbia region shows that out of a total of some 1,600 species 193 occur only on the Coastal Plain, and 86 others do not extend far upon the Piedmont. Similar statistics for the latter area are 308 and 76.°° Thus from 24 to 31 per cent of the plants of Maryland and the District of Columbia region are restricted in dis- tribution either to the Coastal Plain or the Piedmont Pla- teau, and an additional 6 to 11 per cent do not far overstep the boundary of these provinces. Lists of the most characteristic or best known species of the District of Columbia region are subjoined. In addition to these most of the species listed further on for Falls Church, Plummers Island, Little Falls and Great Falls also pertain to the Piedmont and those for the Magnolia bogs, and for Beltsville, Odenton, Hollywood, Riverdale, Hyatts- ville, Bladensburg, Benning and Hunting Creek mostly are characteristic of the Coastal Plain. *% Special Publication 3, Maryland Weather Service, 1910, 533 pp. % Halophytes are not excluded from this number, since of the 32 listed by Shreve (op. cit. pp. 83-85), 11 reach the Washington area. The reduc- tion in variety of halophytes, as one proceeds from the coast toward the Piedmont Plateau is gradual. If the fall line were farther west some of these plants» would range farther in that direction. The distribu- tion of fishes points to the same conclusions. - The figures for the Washington area are incomplete because the col- lections are not entirely worked up. For permission to use the herbarium the writer is indebted to Messrs. W. R. Maxon and P. C. Standley. The unfinished manuscript of the new catalog of the Washington flora also was kindly put at my disposal by Professor A. S. Hitchcock. 64 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. SELECTED SPECIES OF THE WASHINGTON FLORA THAT APPARENTLY ARE RESTRICTED TO THE PIEDMONT PLATEAU. Osmunda claytoniana Pteretis nodulosa Woodsia obtusa Filix bulbifera Dryopteris clintoniana goldiana hexagonoptera marginalis Camptosorus rhizophyllus Asplenium pinnatifidum trichomanes montanum Athyrium thelypteroides Pellaea atropurpurea (in natural situations) Cheilanthes lanosa Selaginella rupestris Isoetes engelmannii valida Pinus strobus pungens Tsuga canadensis Panicum gattingeri linearifolium xalapense annulum latifolium Muhlenbergia sobolifera schreberi Brachyelytrum erectum Eragrostis hypnoides capillaris frankii Melica mutica Uniola latifolia _ Festuca obtusa Bromus purgans incanus Elymus striatus Hystrix hystrix _ Hemicarpha micrantha at ees baldwiniana ___ Seirpus planifolius Carex nigro-marginata- jamesii frankii davisi albursina hirtifolia careyana platyphylla oligocarpa hitchcockiana torta Arisaema dracontium Commelina erecta Melanthium latifolium Allium tricoccum cernuum Erythronium albidum Lilium philadelphicum Vagnera stellata ’ Trillium sessile grandiflorum Iris cristata Sisyrinchium intermedium mucronatum Cypripedium parviflorum Blephariglottis peramoena Triphora trianthogphora Liparis loesellii Corallorhiza wisteriana Betula lenta Populus virginiana Quercus acuminata leana Hicoria cordiformis microcarpa ovata Ostrya virginiana Celtis crassifolia Cerastium oblongifolium Silene alba Delphinium tricorne Aconitum uncinatum Anemone virginiana Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 65 Anemone quinquefolia Clematis viorna Trautvetteria carolinensis Ranunculus septentrionalis Thalictrum caulophylloides revolutum Caulophyllum thalictroides Jeffersonia diphylla Bicuculla canadensis Dentaria diphylla Arabis dentata canadensis patens Sedum telephioides Mitella diphylla Ribes rotundifolium Aruncus aruncus Rubus odoratus Agrimonia gryposepala Baptisia australis Trifolium reflexum Stylosanthes biflora Meibomia paucifiora Meibomia grandiflora bracteosa Lathyrus venosus Oxalis grandis Ptelea trifoliata Polygala senega Tithymalus commutatus Tithymalopsis paniculata Chamaesyce preslii Floerkea proserpinacoides Rhus aromatica Euonymus atropurpureus Staphylea trifolia Acer saccharum Impatiens aurea Ceanothus ovatus Vitis rupestris Hypericum prolificum Viola conspersa pallens grandis filicetorum striata Cubelium concolor Dirca palustris .Oenothera prasina Panax quinquefolium Heracleum lanatum a Sanicula marylandica gregaria Brigenia bulbosa Zizia aurea Taenidium integerrima Cornus alternifolia stolonifera Rhododendron maximum Steironema hybridum Dodecatheon meadia Obolaria virginica Phlox subulata divaricata Polemonium reptans Hydrophyllum canadense ~ virginicum Ellisia nyctelea Phacelia covillei of purshii Mertensia virginica Lithospermum canescens Isanthus brachiatus Scutellaria saxatilis incana serrata versicolor Monarda clinopodia Blephilia hirsuta Clinopodium vulgare Koellia clinopodioides verticillata Penstemon penstemon 'Leptandra virginica Mecardonia acuminata Dasystoma virginica Veronica americana scutellata Utricularia gibba Conopholis americana Ruellia strepens Viburnum pubescens Diervilla diervilla Triosteum perfoliatum 66 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. Valeriana paucifiora Valerianella chenopodifolia woodsiana — Campanula americana Adopogon dandelion Hieracium paniculatum Eupatorium altissimum sessilifolium urticifolium verticillatum Laciniaria scariosa Solidago flexicaulis racemosa canadensis rigida rupestris Aster oblongifolius shortii concinnus cordifolius corrigiatus curvescens oviformis ericoides pilosus ‘Some well-known species which are chiefly confined to the Piedmont but which range more or less upon the Coastal Plain are: Osmunda claytoniana Lycopodium clavatum Chamaelirium luteum ' Lilium canadense Erythronium americanum Unifolium canadens? Juglans cinerea Quercus imbricaria Cimicifuga racemosa - Aquilegia canadensis _ Hepatica hepatica _ Sanguinaria canadensis _ Heuchera americana schreberi umbelliformis gracilescens phlogifolius sagittifolius sylvestris tradescanti EBrigeron philadelphicus Antennaria solitaria Polymnia canadensis Silphium trifoliatum Chrysogonum virginianum Rudbeckia triloba Helenium nudiflorum Heliopsis helianthoides Rudbeckia fulgida triloba : Helianthus divaricatus dowellianus Coreopsis tripteris Mesadenia reniformis Senecio pauperculus smallii Cirsium virginianum Saxifraga virginiensis Hydrangea arborescens Hamamelis virginiana Opulaster opulifolius Cercis canadensis Panax trifolia Aralia nudicaulis Pyrola spp. Sabbatia angularis Collinsonia canadensis Dianthera americana Viburnum cassinoides Senecio aureus Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 67 SELECTED SPECIES OF THE WASHINGTON FLORA THAT APPARENTLY ARE RESTRICTED TO THE COASTAL PLAIN. Lygodium palmatum Bromus villosus Dryopteris simulata Elymus striatus arkansanus Anchistea virginica Cyperus fuscus Lycopodium adpressum microdontus : carolinianum . rotundus Isoetes saccharata erythrorhizos Pinus taeda retrofractus Taxodium distichum Eleocharis ochreata Potamogeton amplifolius -_Olivacea compressus -quadrangulata robbinsii Scirpus fluviatilis Lophotocarpus calycinus sylvaticus Sagittaria subulata Fuirena hispida longirostra Rhynchospora macrostachya Erianthus saccharoides axillaris Paspalum longipilum gracilenta psammophilum Scleria triglomerata Echinochloa walteri Carex gracillima Panicum condensum conjuncta mattamuskeetense canescens disjuncta spretum bromoides columbianum thinium incomperta ensifolium lanuginosa virgatum cubense vestita stipitatum lacustris verrucosum folliculata clutei intumescens lucidum , collinsii lanuginosum abscondita pseudopubescens glaucodes addisoni debilis oligosanthes oblita scoparium typhinoides aculeatum louisianica Chaetochloa geniculata rostrata Cenchrus carolinianus bullata Aristida gracilis swanii Muhlenbergia schreberi palustris styloflexa Alopecurus geniculatus Eriocaulon decangulare Uniola laxa Chrospermum muscaetoxicum Panicularia obtusa Melanthium virginicum pallida Stenanthium robustum Festuca octoflora Tofieldia racemosa myuros Dioscorea paniculata . “i 68 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. Iris verna Sisyrinchium atlanticum Perularia flava Blephariglottis blephariglottis Pogonia ophioglossoides Ibidium odoratum Limodorum tuberosum Ophrys australis Acnida cannabina Chenopodium boscianum Cabomba caroliniana Magnolia virginiana Ranunculus obtusiusculus sceleratus Roripa sylvestris Radicula hispida ' Sarracenia purpurea Itea virginica Aeschynomene virginica Stylosanthes riparia Meibomia rigida Lathyrus palustris Strophostyles missouriensis Polygala lutea curtissii Tithymalopsis arundelana ipecacuanhae Ilex glabra Ascyrum stans Viola brittoniana nepetaefolia Ammannia koehnei Rhexia virginica mariana Ludwigia hirtella -Jussiaea decurrens Oenothera laciniata Oenothera sinuata Myriophyllum spicatum Clethra alnifolia Kalmia angustifolia Steironema lanceolata Polypremum procumbens Sabbatia dodecandra Bartonia paniculata Gentiana saponaria Koellia virginiana Lycopus uniflorus Gratiola sphaerocarpa Agalinis setacea Otophylla auriculata Micranthemum micranthemoides Utricularia subulata juncea Plantago aristata nuttallii cordata -Oldenlandia uniflora Viburnum nudum Evpatorium hyssopifolium cannabinum maculatum serotinum Erigeron ramosus Pluchea camphorata Solidago elliottii . odora puberula Aster concolor dumosus radula Helianthus angustifolius mollis giganteus Bidens connata Some well-known species which are chiefly confined to the Coastal Plain but which range more or less upon the Pied- mont ?° are: Lorinseria actahidt "Typha angustifolia Searcely any of them reach the Piedmont in Pennsylvania or northern New Jersey. —Witmer Stone. Rhynchospora corniculata Orontium aquaticum Peltandra virginica Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 69 Myrica carolinensis : Ilex laevigata Quercus digitata decidua phellos Hibiscus moscheutos lyrata Opuntia opuntia michauxiana Aralia spinosa prinoides Leucothoe racemosa Phoradendron flavescens Pieris mariana Drosera spp. Monarda punctata Liquidambar styraciflua Tecoma radicans Clitoria mariana Baccharis halimifolia Ilex opaca Arnica nudicaulis To put in another way the facts of plant distribution with reference to the Fall Line, it is evident that plants which prefer the higher elevations, that can exist only upon rock outcrops (including such well-known controllers of vegeta- tion as limestone and serpentine), or in the vicinity of water- falls, or that thrive best in deep humus, loams and clays, are chiefly restricted to the Piedmont. On the other hand, plants of the beaches, salt marshes, tide flats, pine barrens, and magnolia bogs and those that prefer lower elevations and such soils as sand and sandy loams are found almost exclu- sively in the Coastal Plain.‘ In general the conditions tend to restrict most of the aquatic and semi-aquatic groups to the Coastal Plain. Thus this province has the lion’s share of Potamogeton, Sagittaria, and of grasses and sedges in general, although such large genera as Panicum and Carex are more evenly divided. A number of other genera, as Quercus, Meibomia, Eupatorium, and Solidago also are about halved by the two regions. How- ever, some groups show a distinct preference for the Pied- mont, including the ferns, Ranunculaceae, Berberidaceae, Arabis, Saxifragaceae and Araliaceae. On the whole the series of plants which produce the early spring show of | flowers pertain to the Piedmont rather than to the Coastal . “Some interesting pairs of species may be cited as indicating the diverse conditions on the Piedmont and Coastal Plain as possible factors in speci- ation. They are (the Piedmont form in each pair being cited first): Uniola latifolia, U. laxa; Tofieldia glutinosa, T. racemosa; Iris cristata, _ Iverna; Lathyrus venosus L. palustris ; Stylosanthes biflora, S. riparla; Aralia racemosa, A. spinosa; Steironema hybridum, S. lanceolatum ; Vibur. num cassinoides, V. nudum; Helianthus divaricatus, H. mollis; and Senecio fs aureus and S. tomentosus. 70 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. Plain, perhaps for one reason on aceount of richer accumu- lations of humus. We have seen that the potency of ecologic requirements and of historical factors are such that about a third of the entire flora of the Washington area is confined (or nearly so) to one side of the Fall Line or the other.*? In proceeding from this conclusion to consideration of the part played by the Fall Line in delimiting faunal elements, we must recall not only the great diversity in edaphic conditions between the Piedmont and the Coastal Plain, but also the divergence between the more complete ecologic surroundings of animal life that consist of these conditions added to and modified by vegetation. Plants and plant associations have great influence on animal life, and the presence or absence of certain plants is the determining factor in the distribution of numerous ani- mals. This is especially true of insects, various species of which breed exclusively upon single host species. Such forms are frequent among the jumping plant lice (Psyl- lidae), ordinary plant lice (Aphidae), scale insects (Coc- cidae), leafhoppers (Jassidae), lace bugs (Tingidae), leaf bugs (Miridae), leaf beetles (Chrysomelidae), long-horned beetles (Cerambycidae), weevils (Rhynchophora), and but- terflies and moths (Lepidoptera). The influence of the different conditions above and below the fall line, upon another group of insects, the Orthoptera, members of which are not so restricted in feeding habits, as those mentioned, is brought out in a paper by Rehn and Hebard.*® They record 47 species as pertaining chiefly to the Piedmont, 101 to the Coastal Plain, while only 52 range generally over both areas. Ulke lists “4 23 species of beetles of austroriparian and 14 @In this connection note R. M. Harper's statement that “The rather vaguely defined ‘Austroriparian area’ of some botanists—or rather biolo- gists—is practically the coastal plain, and the boundary between that and the ‘Carolinian area’ is simply the fall-line, the cause of which is purely geological, and not climatic.” (Bul. Torrey Botanical Club, 31, No. 1, Jan., 1904, p. 10). _ #Rehn, J. A. G., and Hebard M. Studies in the Dermaptera and Orthop- tera of the Coastal Plain and Piedmont Region of the Southeastern United $tates. Proc. Ac. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 68, 1916, pp. 87-314, Pls. 12-14. #4 Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 25, 1902, pp. 3-4. Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 71 of alleghenian affinities, another way of saying that in this region they are restricted to the Coastal Plain and Piedmont Plateau respectively. Among hymenoptera, the following, I am informed by Mr. H. L. Viereck, are confined to the Coastal Plain: Perdita novi-angliae, P. halictoides, Andrena miserabilis, Bombius scutellaris, Pepsis clegans, Stictia carolina, and Bembix cinerea. Knowledge of the local dis- tribution of these and other groups of insects is not so detailed as in the case of the Orthoptera. If it were, sta- tistics as to their relation to the fall line would no doubt be fully as impressive. A similar distinction between the life of the Piedmont Plateau and the Coastal Plain is not so clearly reflected in the higher groups such as mammals and birds. Nor should it be expected. Both of these orders are much better equipped for migratory movements than either plants or insects and both are adaptable to a greater range of conditions. How- ever, some slight effect can be traced even in these higher groups. The wood rat, for instance, is certainly confined to the Piedmont, and the red squirrel seems not to venture much beyond. The woodchuck, chipmunk and otter are more at home in the Piedmont, while among the shrews, Micro- sorex, so far as known, occurs only on the Piedmont and Sorex fontinalis only in the Coastal Plain. The birds which as breeding species appear to respond to the differences in conditions on the two great divisions of our area are for the Piedmont: Nighthawk, Worm-eating Warbler, Kentucky Warbler and Bewick’s Wren; and for the Coastal Plain: Florida Gallinule, Least Bittern, Bank Swal- low, and Long-billed Marsh Wren. Among batrachians and reptiles Siren lacertina, Hyla evittata, Coluber guttatus, Lygosoma laterale and Malaclem- mys centrata belong to the Coastal Plain, while Spelerpes longicaudus, Coluber obsoletus, Crotalus horridus and Clem- mys insculpta are Piedmont forms. The influence of the fall line on the distribution of abor- iginal men and its control over city-building and the indus- tries of modern man are interesting topics concerning which the following is quoted from McGee: “Through the Potomac 72. Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. Valley passes one of the most strongly marked geologic and cultural boundaries on the face of the earth, * * * It is known to students of modern manufactures as the fall line because along it the rivers descend as abruptly as the land; and it is even more notable as a line of deflection than as one of declivity in rivers. The great waterways of the Middle Atlantic slope maintain their courses through Appalachian ranges and Piedmont hills alike; but on reaching the coastal lowlands they are turned aside literally by a sand bank * little higher than their depth, and thence hug the upland margin for scores of miles before finally finding their way into the ocean. So the coastal lowlands are nearly isolated by the tidal bays and river-elbows along their inner margin. Measured along the fall line, the Hudson is barred from the Rappahannock, 300 miles southward, by only 60 miles of land and unnavigable water. This remarkable physiography is now and ever has been reflected in the culture of the region. The pioneer settlers of the country ascended the tidal canals to the falls (p. 233) of the rivers, where they found, sometimes within a mile, clear, fresh water, the game of the hills and woodlands, and the fish and fowl of the estuaries, and, as the population increased, abundant water-power and excellent mill-sites, easy ferriage, and prac- ticable bridge-sites; here the pioneer settlements and vil- lages were located; and across the necks of the inter-estu- arine peninsulas the pioneer routes of travel were extended from settlement to settlement until the entire Atlantic slope was traversed by a grand social and commercial artery stretching from New England to the Gulf States. As the population grew and spread, the settlements, villages, and towns along the line of Nature’s selection waxed, and many _ of them yet retain their early prestige; and the early stage- route has become a great metropolitan railway and tele- . < graph route connecting North and South as they were con- fe ees of old in more primitive fashion. And just as these Sn Seta conditions influenced the white invader, so, and even ee or. ee ae . Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 173 more strongly, must they have influenced the migrations, settlements, industries, and character of the aboriginal mon- archs of the Potomac waters and woodlands.” 4¢ The Fall Line as a Barrier. The fall line has importance as an actual barrier to the spread of the fauna of the streams which cross it, since they are uniformly characterized by abrupt descent. The following illustrates this influence: Of the 80 species of fishes known to be native to the region of the District of Columbia, 8 which ascend the river to spawn are stopped either by Little Falls or Great Falls. Fourteen others are so dependent upon Coastal Plain conditions that they never ascend the river even as far as the falls. In other words, more than one-fourth of the native fish fauna is confined to the Coastal Plain. Three species of fishes, namely, the brook trout, trout perch, and Miller’s thumb, appears to be con- fined to waters above the fall line. These various categories of species are given in full in the following lists. What effect, if any, the fall line has upon the distribution of other aquatic creatures is unknown.?? Salt water fishes coming within the Washington area. Carcharhinus obscurus Leiostomus xanthurus Brevoortia tyrannus Menticirrus saxatilis Stolephorus mitchilli Chaetodipterus faber Cyprinodon variegatus Gobiosoma. bosci Tylosaurus marinus Opsanus tau Siphostoma fuscum Prionotus carolinus Orthopristus chrysopterus Achirus fasciatus Fishes ascending river to Little Falls. Acipenser sturio Pomolobus mediocris brevirostris pseudoparengus aestivalis rn “The American Anthropologist, Vol. II, 1879, pp. 233-234. W. J. McGee. “Except for a few reptiles and batrachians previously cited. 74 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. Fishes ascending river to Great Falls. Alosa sapidissima Morone americana Roccus lineatus Fishes occurring only in the Piedmont. Salvelinus fontinalis Cottus meridionalis Percopsis omiscomaycus BIBLIOGRAPHY. Darton, N. H., and Keith, Arthur. Description of the Washington Quadrangles. Geologic atlas of the United States. Washington Folio. 1901. pp. 1-7. Miller, B. L., Bonsteel, J. A., Alexander, W. H., Newell, F. H., Bauer, L. A., and Besley, F. W. Maryland Geological Survey. Prince George’s County. 1911. 251 pp., 13 pls., 3 figs. Topographical and geological maps in separate cover. Contains an extensive bibliography, pp. 33-68, many of the cita- tions in which relate to the coastal plain. Clark, W. B., and Miller, B. L. The Physiography and Geology of the Coastal Plain Province of Virginia, with chapters on The Lower Cretaceous, by E. W. Berry, and The Economic Geology, by T. L. Watson. Bul. No. IV, Virginia Geological Survey, 1912, 274 pp., 19 pls., 1 fig., geological map. Like the preceding this publication contains a valuable bibliog- raphy, pp. 19-45. MAGNOLIA BOGS NEAR WASHINGTON, D. C., AND THEIR RELATION TO THE PINE BARRENS. In treating the types of collecting grounds in the District of Columbia region, a task to which this chapter and the next are devoted, it is easiest to begin with an account of the most strikingly characterized areas. In the writer’s opinion this distinction clearly belongs in this region to the white sand and gravel bogs, or magnolia bogs, found only in the Coastal Plain formations. ; The name Magnolia Bogs is selected for the areas about _____to be discussed, because it has a certain currency, and be- cause the swamp magnolia or sweet bay (Magnolia vir- Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 15 giniana) probably is not absent from one of them (of any size), something which is not true of any other equally con- spicuous plant. These bogs are restricted to Coastal Plain formations, for it is only among those that the surficial deposits give the proper basal conditions. Where a surface layer, usually of coarse white gravel, or of gravel and sand mixed, is underlaid by an impervious layer of clay * and flushed by a constant flow of spring water, there grows with- out exception, and only there, some combination of the plants which characterize what are here called Magnolia bogs. Such bogs exist at a number of points along Indian Creek and its continuation the Eastern Branch, as at Ammendale, Hollywood, Riverdale, Hyattsville, Bladensburg, Reform School, Kenilworth and Deanewood. At the head of Brier Ditch, a tributary, similar boggy spots exist at Lanham; on the next tributary to the south are the Carter’s Lane and Lygodium bogs; and along Beaver Dam Branch, the -Magruder and Sarracenia bogs. On the other side of the valley and flowing into Paint Branch are the four Powder- mill bogs (others now drained once existed here) ; and tribu- tary to Northwest Branch the Brookland, Terra Cotta and Takoma bogs. Along Piney Branch and Rock Creek were the two Brightwood bogs, Holmead Swamp, and Magnolia Run Bog. The last four are all in the extreme edge of the main body of Coastal Plain formations. In the bed of, and across the creek from, Holmead and Magnolia Run bogs are exposures of Piedmont Rocks. Along Four-mile Run Valley, near Green Valley, and along the north side of Four-mile Run Hill and Hunting Creek, are similar boggy spots. Bogs of more or less the same nature exist at Laurel, Accotink (7), Suitland, Silver Hill, Surattsville, Savage, Arundel and Odenton. It may well be that a large number of such bogs await discovery. _ It is the writer’s purpose to describe in some detail the Magnolia bogs with which he is best acquainted, namely, the Powdermill bogs near Paint Branch (2 miles west of Belts- 48 By referring to the brief statement (p. 59) ‘Or the nature of Coastal Plain and Piedmont deposits, it will be seen that only the former include alternating clays and gravels, ¢ 76 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. ville, Md.), and to attempt to throw some light upon a ques- tion, inspired by consideration of these bogs, that is: Why we have no pine barrens in our region, nor indeed anywhere in the Maryland Coastal Plain? By way of introducing what at first thought may impress the reader as rather unrelated topics for discussion, I pre- sent a quotation relating to the Pine Barrens of New Jersey, from Dr. Witmer Stone, than whom there is no closer student of the Pine Barrens of that State, and with whom the writer esteems himself fortunate to have made two visits to this most interesting region. In his account of Polygala lutea, in that model local flora, “The Plants of Southern New Jersey,” 4” Dr. Stone says: “This is one of the showiest plants of the Pine Barrens, one of those that render the region so strikingly different from the uplands beyond the fall line. I well remember my first visit to the Pines, when the low moist spots were all dotted with the brilliant heads of the Polygala, with here and there. stalks of white-fringed orchis, and the small orange-fringed orchis, so like the Polygala in color, with Xyris and Bri- ocaulon and a host of other things hitherto unknown. The mosquitos and heat were nothing when such a natural flower garden lay before one’s eyes, and the poor flora of my upland pastures seemed to sink into insignifidance beside such riches.” Dr. Stone has here given us a vivid picture of his first impression of the Pine Barrens, and when the reader realizes that the same combination of plants Dr. Stone mentions may be seen in our own Magnolia bogs, as those at Odenton and Suitland, the query will seem less strange—why have We no pine barrens? To proceed with the details of the discussion, which neces- sitates description of typical Magnolia bogs, I will begin with the general surroundings of my favorite group—the _ Powdermill Bogs. These lie near the here sharply defined inner border of the Coastal Plain, and two of the four lied lie on top of what is really a Piedmont Hill. The Ky 3 a F- ao. fe Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 77 Piedmont, in the preponderance of sandy and gravelly soils. For instance, this region is the nearest to Washington, where one can walk long distances in soft sandy roads—an experience which on some of the hottest days makes a last- ing impression concerning the geological and other peculiari- ties of the Coastal Plain. As to the general flora of the area, the common oaks are Quercus marilandica, stellata and alba. The pines include Pinus rigida and virginiana, the latter more common; chest- nut and chinquapin abound, as do also sweet gum, dogwood and sassafras. The commonest shrubs are mountain laurel, pink azalea, blueberries and huckleberries. Among the herbs, Cypripedium acaule, Polygala incarnata, Baptisia tinctoria, Sarothra gentianoides and Chrysopsis mariana are the most characteristic of the indigenous species. The growth imme- diately surrounding the Magnolia bogs includes red maple, alder (Alnus rugosa), sour gum, holly (Jlex opaca) and Pinus virginiana. The bogs are fringed, or dotted with clumps of Magnolia virginiana, Myrica, swamp azalea, sheep laurel, Gaylussacia dumosa, Vaccinium corymbosum, Viburnum nudum and cas- sinoides and other shrubs named in the subjoined list. Around the bases of the shrub colonies are deep cushions of sphagnum in which grow some of our showiest orchids as Pogonia ophioglossoides and Limodorum. The open centers of the bogs, or interspaces between the shrub islands give a view of the surface stratum of these areas—the white gravel, or gravel and sand, flush to the surface or slightly overflowed with clear, cool spring water. In the water grow algae, and the lycopods, Utricularia, Sundews, Xyris, Tofieldia and many other of the plants mentioned below. On the slightest elevations of the gravel are clumps of lichens of the genus Cladonia, here growing in water, though elsewhere seen in the dryest possible situations.5° ' © Bog ecologists have invented a sublimated white ribbon conception of physiologically dry water. This brand is so charged with bog extract, it is alleged, that plants living in it do not imbibe so much as of the ordinary kind, hence willy-nilly have a physiologically dry experience. This theory will not serve to explain the presence of Cladonia in Magnolia bogs, how- ever, as the water is constantly flowing and as free from matters in solu- tion as is possible in natural waters, 7 - 78 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. The aspect and the plant associations of the Magnolia bogs as well as some of their animal inhabitants are unique in our region, and make these areas the objectives of pil- grimages by devotees of all branches of natural history. LIST OF VASCULAR PLANTS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE POW- DERMILL BOGS, WITH REMARKS QUOTED FROM STONE ON THE STATUS OF CERTAIN SPECIES IN THE NEW JER- SEY PINE BARRENS.” Osmunda regalis Pteridium aquilinum Anchistea virginica Dryopteris spinulosa thelypteris cristata Lycopodium adpressum carolinianum Sagittaria pubescens Andropogon glomeratus virginicus Panicum verrucosum virgatum cubense lucidum microcarpon mattamuskeetense ensifolium Calamagrostis cinnoides Eleocharis tenuis Eriophorum virginicum Fuirena hispida Rhynchospora alba glomerata gracilenta “especially abundant in the Pine Bar- rens.” “most plentiful in the Pine Barrens.” “one of the most characteristic plants of the bogs of the Pine Barren region.” “a characteristic Pine Barren bog species.” “common throughout the Pine Bar- Tens.” “plentiful in bogs in the Pine Barrens.” “plentiful in the Pine Barrens.” “especially abundant in the Pine Bar- rens.” “common in bogs of the Pine Barren * * * districts.” “frequent in bogs or swamps of the Pine Barrens * * * here reach- ing the northern limit of its range.” eo Fp ER SRS 2S SAAR ae ee eT % Some of these species have no especial relation to the boggy condi- : tions; in other words, they are merely of adventitious occurrence. ' Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 79 Scleria reticularis torreyana Carex leptalea intumescens folliculata Xyris torta (flexuosa) caroliniana Briocaulon decangulare Juncus effusus Tofieldia racemosa Smilax herbacea Gymnadeniopsis clavellata Pogonia ophioglossoides Limodorum tuberosum Ibidium cernuum gracilis Myrica carolinensis Magnolia virginiana Drosera rotundifolia longifolia (intermedia) Itea virginica Rubus hispidus Sanguisorba canadensis Aronia atropurpurea nigra Amelanchier intermedia Linum virginianum Polygala cruciata Rhus vernix Ilex verticillata laevigata Ascyrum stans Hypericum canadense densiflorum Viola cucullata primulifolia “frequent throughout the Pine Barren * * * Districts.” “Pine Barren swamps, the most plen- tiful species.” “bogs in the heart of the Pine Bar- rens, local. This plant is limited to the same area that the Abama inhabits, but is much rarer.” “most plentiful in the Pine Barrens and northern counties.” “frequent in the Pine Barrens.” “most abundant and uniformly distrib- uted in the Pine Barrens.” “common throughout the Pine Bar- rens.” “frequent in Pine Barren swamps.” “common in damp ground in the Pine Barrens.” “most abundant in the Pine Barrens.” “common in swamps of the Pine Bar- rens.” “common in the Pine Barrens.” “the most abundant small St. John’s Wort found in the Pine Barrens.” “plentiful in the Pine Barrens.” Rhexia virginica mariana Oxypolis rigidior longifolia Nyssa sylvatica Clethra alnifolia Azalea viscosa viscosa glauca Kalmia angustifolia Leucothoe racemosa Pieris mariana Xolisma ligustrina Gaylussacia dumosa Vaccinium corymbosum atrococcum Bartonia paniculata virginica Asclepias rubra Utricularia subulata Oldenlandia uniflora Viburnum dentatum cassinoides nudum Eupatorium verbenaefolium _rotundifolium Solidago erecta aspera elliottii “neg ecta” 52 Aster patens dumosus puniceus lateriflorus _ radula antrorsa : bagnatits lineariifolius ea sg an 80 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. “especially abundant in the Pine Bar- rens.” “very abundant in the Pine Barrens.” “most abundant in the Pine Barrens.” “very common in the Pine Barrens.” “plentiful throughout the Pine Bar- rens.” “frequent in ‘the Pine Barrens.” “frequent in the bogs of Pine Barrens.” “common in the Pine Barrens.” “frequent in * * * the Pine Bar- rens.” “frequent in swamps of the Pine Bar- rens.” “frequent in the Pine Barrens.” , “This is the most common Goldenrod in swamps and bogs of the Pine Barrens.” i “frequent in swamps of the Pine Bar- ane eT Se two, , Teel torms related to © nelecte, appear to need new * ¥ ‘ ak ae =e . “ee y Ee ee Pe es RE, . oh: PPI Et te ae * Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 81 From the foregoing list and quotations it is evident that the Powdermill Bogs contain many plants that are abund- ant in the Pine Barrens. Twenty-six ** of the species are among those mentioned by Stone (op. cit., pp. 76-78) as characteristic of the Pine Barren flora and their presence must be regarded as incontestable evidence of relationship. In addition to Pine Barren plants, the Powdermill Bogs, small as they are,°* have yielded certain species of insects which previously had been known only from Pine Barrens.” These include a crane-fly (Molophilus novacaesariensis Alex- ander), a deer-fly (Chrysops brimleyi Hine) and a_ bee (Dolichochile melittoides Viereck). One other deer-fly (Chrysops vitripennis Shannon) described from these bogs, and a Syrphid (Microdon scitulus Williston) known pre- viously only from Florida, probably pertain to the Pine Barren fauna. It is worthy of note, also, that a species of shrew (Sorex fontinalis) was described from one of the Powdermill bogs, and that all specimens thus far caught came from similar situations. Synaptomys cooperi, very local in the region, and Condylura cristata also occur in these bogs. 8% Four other true pine-barren species are common in the neighborhood. Also 41 other species of the bogs are plentiful in the Pine Barrens. 8 The largest has less than an acre of actual bog. 55 Speaking of insects of the New Jersey Pine Barrens, Dr. John B. Smith says: “The species on the whole resemble those of more Southern States and Georgian or even the Floridian forms are not uncommonly met with, and yet the only trace of real boreal species has been found in the deep cold swamps of Ocean County.” (The Insects of New Jersey, Ann. Rep. N. J. State Mus., 1909, (1910) p. 30.) This is eminently true also of the plants of the Pine -Barrens, numerous Northern forms here finding their Southern limit (at least so near the coast) among a flora closely related to that of the Southern Atlantic States. Among such Northern species may be mentioned Potamogeton _ Oakesianus, P. confervoides, Sporobolus uniflorous, Carex trisperma, OC, livida, Hypericum boreale, Corema conradii, Utricularia intermedia, Nemo- panthus mucronatus, Solidago uniligulata and Aster memoralis, In the local Magnolia bogs this element is represented by Dryopteris simulata, Unifolium canadense, Sanguisorba canadensis, Rubus hispidus, Hypericum canadense, Chamaedaphne calyculata (Glenburnie) and Vibur- num cassinoides. The prevailing affinities of the Pine Barren and Magnolia bog floras being austral, such instances of the presence in them of boreal plants weigh against the importance of temperature control. Obviously tempera- ture control cannot restrict to the same small bog, plants, which, on the basis of the climate of their respective ranges, presumably have almost opposite temperature requirements. 82 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. As implied in preliminary remarks on the Magnolia bogs, those of the Powdermill group, by no means harbor the whole suite of plant species known from the bogs. It is not perti- nent to the present discussion to attempt to list the whole flora of the bogs, but it is sought to include in the following itemization all of the plants of the local Magnolia bogs that are named in the list given by Stone (op. cit., pp. 77-78) of characteristic Pine Barren species. CHARACTERISTIC PINE BARREN PLANTS KNOWN FROM MAGNOLIA BOGS IN THE VICINITY OF WASHINGTON.”® Dryopteris simulata Lycopodium adpressum earolinianum Sparganium americanum Erianthus saccharoides Panicum longifolium ensifolium clutei Panicum lucidum columbianum thinium Bleocharis tuberculosa Rhynchospora alba axillaris gracilenta Scleria triglomerata re torreyana Carex bullata ss Xyris caroliniana < Ha Hriocaulon decangulare Juncus aristulatus cous mention. Hollywood, Suitland. Ammendéale, Hyattsville, Deanewood, Kenilworth, Magruder, Lanham, Ac- cotink, Magnolia Run. Terra Cotta, Brightwood. Hyattsville, Kenilworth. Holmead, Kenilworth, Hyattsville, Kenilworth. Riverdale, Lanham, Laurel. Magnolia Run, Takoma, Brookland. Takoma. Howard Hill, Brightwood, Holmead. Brightwood, Holmead, Magnolia Run. Hyattsville. Hollywood, Brookland, Holmead. Reform School, Kenilworth, Terra Cotta. Brightwood, Kenilworth. Hyattsville, Reform School, Sarra- cenia, Brightwood Savage, Hyattsville. Brightwood, Holmead, Takoma. Kenilworth. _% Names of bogs in which species are known to occur are cited by way its of authentication, but no effort has been made to give complete particulars % in this respect. Opoutrences in the Powdermill bogs are not given a Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 88 Tofieldia racemosa Smilax tamnifolia Blephariglottis blepharig- lottis cristata Ibidium praecox Sarracenia purpurea Itea virginica Clitoria mariana Linum floridanum Polygala lutea cruciata mariana Ascyrum stans Hypericum densiflorum Rhexia mariana Ludwigia hirtella Oxypolis rigidior longifolia Azalea viscosa viscosa glauca Kalmia angustifolia Pieris mariana Gaylussacia dumosa Vaccinium corymbosum Asclepias rubra Agalinis setacea (Gerardia holmiana) Utricularia subulata Eupatorium album album subvenosum Laciniaria graminfolia pilosa Solidago erecta Aster dumosus Doellingeria umbellata humilis Helianthus angustifolius Ammendale, Suitland. Hyattsville, Reform School, Terra Cotta, Laurel. Hyattsville, Odenton, Suitland, River- side. Suitland. Riverdale. Sarracenia Swamp, Laurel, Silver Hill. Terra Cotta. Abundant outside of bogs. Reform School. Odenton, Suitland, Laurel. Brightwood, Suitland. Riverdale, Hyattsville, Lanham. Hyattsville, Bladensburg, Brightwood. Surattsville, Hollywood. Kenilworth, Terra Cotta. Holmead. In most bogs. In most bogs. In most bogs. In a number of bogs; also elsewhere. Takoma, Magnolia Run, Lanham. In most bogs; elsewhere also. In most bogs. Terra Cotta, Takoma, Brookland, Lanham. Howard Hill, Surattsville. Hyattsville, Terra Cotta; also outside of bogs. Terra Cotta; also outside of bogs. Takoma, Terra Cotta, Magruder. Terra Cotta; common elsewhere. — Reform School; also outside of bogs. Terra Cotta. In most bogs. To the above may be added a list of characteristic Pine Barren Plants occurring about Washington or to the east- s 84 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. ward in Maryland and Delaware,®’ but not necessarily in bogs. Lycopodium alopecuroides Chamecyparis thyoides Pinus rigida Sagittaria longirostra Panicum meridionale spretum commonsianum Amphicarpon amphicarpon Sporobolus torreyanus Agrostis elata Cyperus cylindricus dentatus Eleocharis robbinsii torreyana tricostata Scirpus subterminalis Eriophorum tenellum -Rhynchospora torreyana fusca oligantha Cladium mariscoides Carex barrattii Newcastle County, Del. Tatnall, Kel- ler and Brown. Pocomoke, Wicomico and Nanticoke Rivers, Md. Common throughout. Oxon Run, Prince Georges County, Md. Numerous localities about District of Columbia, but apparently not in bogs. College Park, Md. Lewes and Cape Henlopen, Del. Ellendale, Del. Ellendale, Del. Williamson. Brookland, D. C.; Silver Hill, Md, Occurs about the District of Columbia but not in bogs. Little Gunpowder River and Salisbury, Md. Morris Pond and Milford, Del. Wil- liamson. Ellendale and Milford, Del. son. Caroline County, Md. Dorchester County, Md. Newcastle Co., Del. (Commons). Kel- ler and Brown. Felton, Del. District of Columbia. William- - Lewes, Del. Worcester County, Md. Tinicum, Del. Keller and Brown (lit- toralis). INE SRDS FSS Si EES ES On SO Dera NATE AIRE CTO 5? Delaware is included because physiographically it is a part of the region here treated. The records for the plants listed were gleaned first of all from the National Herbarium, and from “The Plant Life of Mary- land (Maryland Weather Service, Special Publication III, 1910). The records from these sources are given without further comment, When a “local record of a plant was available search was carried no further; Maryland occurrences were next looked up, and finally Delaware reports San on yet additional species were incorporated in the list. The authorities for Delaware records not obtained from the National Herbarium are indi- _ eated by surnames, the references in full being: Keller, Ida A. and Brown, Stewardson. Handbook of the Flora of Philadelphia and Vicinity, 1905, viii, 3690 pp. Soe ees Edward. Catalogue of the Phaenogamous and Filicoid Plants son, Cs, Notes on the Flora of Central and Southern Dela- , 9, No. 8, Aug, 1909, pp. 160-166, y Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 85 Carex walteriana exilis Orontium aquaticum Xyris fimbriata Eriocaulon septangulare Abama americana Smilax laurifolia walteri Gyrotheca tinctoria . Gymnadeniopsis integra Pogonia divaricata Ibidium vernale Betula populifolia Quercus marilandica ilicifolia Brasenia purpurea Meibomia stricta Lespedeza angustifolia Hypericum virgatum ovalifolium Tithymalopsis ipecacuanhae Ilex glabra Lechea minor racemulosa Rhexia aristosa Ludwigia linearis Proserpinaca pectinata Myriophyllum humile Chamaedaphne calyculata Oxycoccus macrocarpus Trichostema lineare Schwalbea americana ( Ellendale, Del. Millsboro, Del. Common about District, but as a rule not in bogs. Wicomico River, Md. Occurs about District, but not in bogs. Newcastle County, Del. Keller and Brown. Salisbury, Md. Salisbury, Md., and Patapsco River, . Md. Georgetown, Del. Felton, Del. Ellendale, Del. Williamson. Present in the District of Columbia region, but not in bogs. i New Castle County, Del. Tatnall. Abundant. Laytonsville and Goshen, Montgomery County, Md.; Odenton, Md. Occurs about the District of Columbia, but not in bogs. Ocean City, Md. Wicomico County and Ocean City, Md. Williamson. Ellendale, Del. Common. Surattsville, Prince Georges County, Md. Occurs about the District of Columbia. Plentiful about the District of Colum- bia. Ellendale, Del. Williamson. Worcester County, Md. Chesapeake Beach, Md. Occurs according to “Plant Life of Maryland.” Furnace Creek and Glenburnie, Md.™ Newcastle County, Del. Keller and Brown. Newcastle County, Del. Keller and Brown. Newcastle County, Del. Keller and Brown. % For a summary of the vegetation of the Glenburnie bog, see Science, 22, p. 15, July 7, 1905. 86 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. Utricularia cornuta cleistogama inflata purpurea clandestina fibrosa Galium pilosum puncticulosum Lobelia nuttallii " canbyi Sclerolepis uniflora Eupatorium leucolepis . Solidago stricta puberula fistulosa Aster spectabilis Anne Arundel County, Md. Georgetown, Del. Williamson. Dorchester County, Md. Morris Pond and Ellendale, Del. Wil- liamson. . ‘ Harford County, Md. Anne Arundel County, Md. Wicomico County and Leon, Md. Worcester County, Md. Ellendale and Georgetown, Del. Wil- liamson. Wicomico County, Md. Ellendale, Del. Occurs according to “Plant Life of Maryland.” Occurs about Washington, D. C. Ocean City, Md. Wicomico County, Md. Bidens trichosperma tenuiloba Worcester County, Bush River, Chop- tank River, Md. Nabalus virgatus Ellendale, Del.; Sussex County, Del. The 53 species 5° of plants found in Magnolia bogs in the vicinity of the District of Columbia added to the 71 occur- ring elsewhere in the Coastal Plain region to the eastward ° that are identical with species listed by Stone as character- istic of the Pine Barren flora of New Jersey make up 70.5 per cent * of that list (total, 173). % Polygala lutea, Polygala cruciata, Rhexia mariana, and Xyris caro- liniana are species recorded by Brereton, but included in the list of plants not found by Ward (Flora pp. 12-13), which have since been collected in Magnolia bogs. May we not also hope to discover in these bogs other plants mentioned, and with little doubt seen, by the vlder writers such as Chamaedaphne calyculata, Trichostema lineare, Arethusa bulbosa and Pogonia divaricata? © A number of other characteristic species are found in eastern Virginia, Three occurring in the Norfolk-Virginia Beach area may be mentioned: Nymphaea americana (variegata), Hudsonia ericoides and Aster gracilis. «1 This fact undermines considerable speculation based on the supposed absence of Pine Barren plants from Maryland and Delaware. For instance the following from Harshberger (Dr. J. W., The Vegetation of the New Jersey Pine Barrens, 1916, p. 2): “This isolated island of pine-barren plants was removed still further from contact with the Southern pine-bar- rens by the unequal depression of the coastal plain, so that with the excep- tion of the island vegetation, the typic coastal plain plants were extermi- nated in the depressed portion of the plain in Delaware and Mary- land * * * for Shreve has indicated the almost utter lack of pine- _ barren plants in Maryland.” Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 87 Seven-tenths of the distinctive Pine Barren plants, there- fore, occur in eastern Maryland and Delaware, yet there are no Pine Barrens. What is the reason? In considering this point it may be helpful to give a brief picture of the New Jersey Barrens. The soil is sand, one is tempted to say pure sand, loose and shifting where dry, and compact where wet. Gravel occurs in varying degrees being most abundant on the area known as the Plains, where the vegetation is depauperate and favorable conditions for plant growth evi- dently at the minimum. Poor soils rule, therefore, and with the poorest is associated the climax of vegetational features that have won for these areas the name “barrens.” Briefly noting the vegetation beginning with the largest growths, Pinus rigida is the only species, attaining tree stature in the dry parts of the typical Pine Barrens. Cha- maecyparis almost as exclusively occupies a corresponding position in the well-watered places where it is the most im- portant element of the cedar swamps. Over the ordinary surface of the Barrens, however, Pinus rigida reigns supreme. Next to it in stature are four oaks: Quercus marilandica, Q. stellata, Q. prinoides and Q. ilicifolia. A conspicuous characteristic of the undergrowth is the tendency of the species to occur in colonies. In the drier parts, here Arctostaphylos uva-ursi mats the surface, there Dendrium buxifolium monopolizes a space, or it may be Hudsonia ericoides, Gaultheria procumbens, Kalmia angustifolia or Gaylussacia or Vaccinium. In wet places Chamaedaphne calyculata, alder, clammy azalea, and Rhus vernix are conspicuous. The actual floor of the Barrens in dry sandy areas abounds with Cladonia and in the wet spots with sphagnum and Sarracenia. On wet bare sand grow the characteristic species of Lycopodium and that greatest treas- ure of the Pine Barrens—the little curly fern, Schizaea pusilla. Obviously the predominant elements of the Pine Barren flora are plants that either prefer the so-called poor ( pre- sumably acid) soils, or that find sanctuary in soils in which competition with the plants of neighboring areas is greatly 88 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. reduced or eliminated. Applying these facts to the situa- tion in Maryland and Delaware, and bearing in mind that 70.5 per cent of the characteristic pine barren plants are known to occur, it would seem that the chief reason for the lack of true Pine Barrens is that large tracts of the soils which Pine Barren plants are able to monopolize are wanting.®? The fact that some of the very elect ®* of the Pine Barren flora occur here and there tucked away in bogs, where they are protected from competition with the ordinary vegetation of the district, shows that our region had its chance for Pine Barrens in that there certainly was a movement of the Pine Barren flora over the area. This idea is further supported by the character of the fossil flora of the region which includes such Coastal Plain types as Osmunda, Taxodium, Myrica, Planera and Andro- meda. Even Dendrium, one species of which now is a char- acteristic Pine Barren plant, has been found. (See espe- cially papers by Dr. E. W. Berry, Bulletin Torrey Botanical Club, 33, 1906, pp. 103-182; 37, 1910, pp. 19-29, and American Naturalist, 48, 1909, pp. 482-436.) Leaving in abeyance the question of absolute origin of the Pine Barren flora, it may be stated that general agreement is to the effect that at one time there was a great body of this flora along much, possibly most of the Atlantic Coast. Then came one or more of the later subsidences to which the Coastal Plain has been subjected. These were exceedingly slow, of course, and there was ample time for plants to shift their stations in response to the ever encroaching coast line. In this connection consider R. M. Harper’s conclusions: “The most satisfactory system of geographical classification of the vegetation of temperate Eastern North America is one based on geology,” and “The coastal plain, which is defined on strictly geological grounds, is probably . the most distinct natural subdivision of temperate Eastern North America, differing notably from all other subdivisions in soil, topography, and geological history, and to a corresponding extent in its flora.” (A Phyto- _ geographical Sketch of the Altamaha Grit Region of the Coastal Plain of Georgia, Ann. N. Y. Ac. Sci. 17, Part I, 1906, p. 342). Also Witmer _ $tone’s remark: “I heartily agree with Dr. Hollick’s contention that ‘the _ - mechanical structure of the soil’ is the most potent factor in the distri- Rae ‘ bution of plants” (Plants of Southern New Jersey, p. 81). &Lycopodium carolinianum, Tofieldia racemosa, Abama americana, Shi ses lutea, Ludwigia hirtella, and others. Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 89 The struggle for place must have been intense, however, for conditions on the Piedmont were unfavorable. Probably in many cases a strip back of the beach was the only suitable habitat for the Pine Barren plants. During the last retro- grade movement, however, these plants must have found numerous favorable habitats, and where these have not been destroyed by drainage, by covering with other deposits, or by operations of man, the plants remain to this day. What happened may be compared to the movement of plants dur- ing the glacial periods. Their response to the progress of the ice is undoubted, and during the retreat of the glaciers bodies of northern plants were stranded here and there and have persisted usually on mountain tops where the condi- tions are most like those to which they were acclimated and where competition consequently was least severe. So with the Pine Barren plants. The movement of this flora toward, if not onto, the eastern part of the Piedmont Plateau, when the latter was depressed, and their retreat (before competing species) when it was again elevated must be compared to the flow and ebb of the tide, which leaves merely a bit of foam at one. point, a little pool at another, but, where conditions favor, a whole lagoon. What may be thought of as persistent spume from this vegetational tide are the few colonies of Pine Barren plants lodged in the Appalachian Mountains.** Our Magnolia bogs represent the * See especially Kearney T, H. “The lower austral element in the flora of the southern Appalachian region. A preliminary note.” (Science, N. S. 12, pp. 830-842, Nov. 30, 1900), and The Pine-Barren Flora in the East Tennessee Mountains. (Plant World, 1, No. 3, Dec., 1897, pp. 33-35). In the latter paper the following typical pine barren plants are mentioned: Eupatorium album, Ascyrum stans, Juncus aristulatus, Pogonia divaricata, and Itea virginica. The suggestion is made that “probably, * * * they are the lingering survivors of a more southern fiora, once widely dis- tributed over the southern Apalachian region.” (p. 35.) This theory is approved by Norman Taylor (Flora of the Vicinity of New York, 1915, pp. 25-26. The relict theory may be entertained, if we assume that the whole region over which Pine Barren plants are now found was once occupied by the Pine Barren flora, but -that this has since been crowded by an aggressive new flora out of all but the most favorable areas. But neces- sary premises for this conception do not seem probable, since it is doubt- ful whether the largely non-autophytic Pine Barren flora, which now seems to have such strict limitations as to soil and other edaphic condi- tions, ever was predominant in the soils resulting from simple disintegra- tion of the metamorphic rocks.. At any rate the relict hypothesis will not explain the presence of Pine Barren plants in our Magnolia Bogs and ’ 90 Bulletin 1, Biological Society of Washington, 1918. tide pools, while such areas as the Pine Barrens of New Jersey and Georgia are vast lagoons, and as it happens, the chief reservoirs of a tide that is not yet wholly still, and which may in future undergo movements similar to those we must believe have occurred in the past. In conclusion, therefore, it seems clear that the Magnolia Bogs of the vicinity of Washington harbor the survivors of one or more of the plant waves ® that accompanied each depression of the Atlantic Coast Region. The antiquity of some of these little waifs and the vicissitudes they have survived entitles them to our respect, while the slender thread upon which their continued existence depends com- mends them to our most considerate care. While the Magnolia bogs contain a large number of char- acteristic Pine Barren plants, and the District of Columbia, eastern Maryland, and Delaware together can boast repre- sentatives of seven-tenths of the typical Pine Barren species, there are no Pine Barrens in the region. The reason appears to be absence of considerable areas of the necessary surface deposits to permit extensive colonization of Pine Barren plants and to protect them from competition with other types of vegetation. OTHER TYPES OF COLLECTING GROUNDS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REGION. The writer neither expects to replace, nor hopes to equal in interest the delightful accounts of local collecting places that similar spots in the Coastal Plain which have been entirely and repeatedly submerged. That they have been left in these places by a tidal movement of the Pine Barren Flora, as above outlined, is the irresistable conclu- sion. Probably the occurrence of numerous pairs of closely related species in the Coastal Plain and Southern Appalachians may be taken as evidence of a similar movement, and further as proof of a lapse of time since the last commingling of the floras sufficient for the development of the diver- gences now shown. It seems more natural to regard the Coastal Plain rather than the region of Archean rocks as the ancestral home of a flora which shows such pronounced dependence upon silicious soils. R. M. Harper, especially, points out the probable recent origin of the Coastal Plain flora (Ann. N. Y. Ac. Sci. 17, Pt. 1, 1906, pp. 11-13). ®This tidal movement of plants occurred along our whole Atlantic Coast, and evidences of it as far North as Labrador, together with an interesting discussion of the matter have been published by Professor wm. ‘L. Fernald. (Rhodora, 13, July, 1911, pp. 135-162.) eT iets oy et ee 1 Natural History of District of Columbia—McAtee 91 may be found in the writings of Ward** and Coues.® Approaching the subject from a somewhat different point of view, only brief descriptions of localities will be given, but an effort will be made to point out distinctive features of various areas, and especially to name the peculiar or at least characteristic species that have been collected in each. In the last chapter, where the Magnolia bogs were treated in detail, the prevalence of sandy soils in the Coastal Plain was mentioned. This characteristic is especially noticeable at what have proved to be the most interesting collecting places in the Coastal Plain, one of which is Beltsville. The Powdermill Bogs, as stated in the foregoing chapter, are located about two miles west of Beltsville. They do not monopolize the interesting features of this region, however, as the country in all directions about them has proved to be good collecting ground. Among insects bee-flies (Bomby- liidae) and robber-flies (Asilidae) are especially numerous both in individuals and in species. Here only in the Wash- ington region have been captured Lepidophora, Systoechus, and Metacosmus of the former family, and only here and near Berwyn an undescribed species of Rhabdoselaphus of the same family. Of the Asilidae, Asilus johnsoni and Dasyl- lis champlaini have been collected only at Beltsville, and of Tabanidae or horseflies, Tabanus astutus and T. superju- mentarius have been obtained only here and 7. recedens and Chrysops cuclux here and in the Eastern Branch country toward Berwyn. Three species of Syrphidae: Microdon craigheadi, Eristalis saxorum and Xylota facialis, also have only been taken in the Powdermill vicinity. The bogs are an especially good place to find the Dascyllid beetle, Odon- tonyx trivittis. Interesting species of Elater are attracted @ Flora, 1881, pp. 17-26. Avifauna, 1883, pp. 11-27. Less compre- hensive, but nevertheless interesting matter bearing upon this subject was published by Dr. E. L. Greene, in Cybele Columbiana, 1, No. 1, Dec., 1914, pp. 11-14. Dr. Greene’s remarks apply’ chiefly to the Upper Potomac Val- ley. The “localities of special interest to the botanist” of Ward include the Rock Creek Region; the Upper Potomac Region; the Lower Potomac Region ; the Terra Cotta Region; the Reform School Region; the Holmead Swamp Region, and the Eastern Branch Region. Coues treats the Poto- mac River Region (High Island to Alexandria), the Eastern Branch Re- gion (Bladensburg to Giesboro) and the Rock Creek Region. me