Scientist Volume 38 Winter, 1975 Nos 1 CONTENTS Bird flowers in the eastern United States «1.0.0.0... Daniel F. Austin 1 Distribution of the river birch, Betula nigra, SE SS gS A ee on ee James L. Koevenig 13 Feeding habits of the white catfish SEIS EE Es ae ene ea Richard W. Heard 20 Plagusia depressa from thé northeastern Beme ORMEXICO.......>.............. | LA2a/ 0 On ees hae alae i Keitz Haburay 28 A new subspecies of Anolis baleatus Cope (Sauria: Iguanidae) from the Republica Dominicana ........ Albert Schwartz 30 An unusual habitat for the fish DL ae Fredrick W. Brockmann 35 Coloration changes in sub-adult largemouth bass exposed to light and dark background ................0....... E. J. Moyer and R. L. Wilbur 37 Biology texts utilized in Florida 2 eS cle a Se ee ee Barbara Ann Whittier 40 Some English comments on the Treaty of Versailles and the United States Senate George Osborn 46 Sedat isslicialic BRR BMS hey es 64 Citi ~~ QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE FLORIDA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES FLORIDA SCIENTIST QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE FLORIDA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Copyright © by the Florida Academy of Sciences, Inc. 1975 Editor: Harvey A. Miller Department of Biological Sciences Florida Technological University Orlando, Florida 32816 The Fioripa Scientist is published quarterly by the Florida Academy of Sciences, Inc., a non-profit scientific and educational association. Membership is open to individuals or institutions interested in supporting science in its broadest sense. Applications may be obtained from the Treasurer. Both individual and institutional members receive a subscription to the FLoripa Scientist. Direct subscription is available at $10.00 per calendar year. Original articles containing new knowledge, or new interpretation of knowledge, are welcomed in any field of Science as represented by the sections of the Academy, viz., Biological Sciences, Conservation, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Medical Sciences, Physical Sciences, Science Teaching, and Social Sciences. Also, contributions will be considered which present new applications of scientific knowledge to practical problems within fields of interest to the Academy. Articles must not duplicate in any substantial way material that is published elsewhere. Contributions from members of the Academy may be given priority. Instructions for preparation of manuscripts are inside the back cover. Officers for 1974 FLORIDA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Founded 1936 President: Dr. Ropert W. Lonc Treasurer: Dr. THomas S. Hopkins Department of Botany and Bacteriology Faculty of Biology University of South Florida University of West Florida Tampa, Florida 33620 Pensacola, Florida 32504 President-Elect: Dk. W1Li1aM H. Tart Editor: Dr. Harvey A. MILLER Division of Research Department of Biological Sciences University of South Florida Florida Technological University Tampa, Florida 33620 Orlando, Florida 32816 Secretary: Dr. IrvinG G. Foster Program Chairman: Dr. JosepH MULSON Department of Physics Department of Physics Kckerd College Rollins College St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Published by the Florida Academy of Sciences 810 East Rollins Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Printed by the Storter Printing Company Gainesville, Florida Florida Scientist QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE FLORIDA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Harvey A. Miller, Editor Vol. 38 Winter, 1975 No. 1 Biological Sciences BIRD FLOWERS IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES DANIEL F. AUSTIN Department of Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Asstract: The Ruby-Throat Hummingbird is known to feed from at least 31 plant species in 21 genera among 18 families. A review of prior records supplemented by personal observations seems to indicate that co-evolution may have occurred with some plants and the birds. A correlation also exists between flowering times and migration. THAT one organism can exert selective pressure on another has been documented in numerous cases and assumed in many others. Grant and Grant (1968) have shown that seven species of hummingbirds in the western United States exist with 129 species of plants with bird-flowers. Pollination of these plants is almost exclusively effected by birds. Thus, it is assumed that these bird-flowers evolved in response to bird visits. Unlike the west, studies of the bird-flowers in the eastern United States are scattered. The area east of the Rocky Mountains differs also in that the only hummingbird present is Archilochus colubris (L.), the Ruby-Throat. I have at- tempted in this paper to assimilate data available on bird visitation to the plants in the East, and to comment on the synchronization of plant flowering and hummingbird activities. Assuming that hummingbirds have exerted significant evolutionary pressure on the eastern flora, there should be discernible phenological correlations between plants and the birds’ activities. Several species of plants should exhibit characteristics of the “hummingbird syndrome” since most of the species in the eastern United States bloom for periods shorter than the nine months of bird residence. There should also be some species which have hummingbird flowers, but are not found elsewhere, i.e., endemic and/or autochthonous species. The existence of these correlations should indicate a long period of co-evolution between plants and birds. THE ORNITHOPHILOUS SYNDROME—Many popular publications on birds provide lists of plant species which are particularly favored by hummingbirds and will attract them to gardens (Tucker, 1968; Brenner, 1971). In such publications any flower visited by a hummingbird is considered a “bird flower”. Numerous 2 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 flowers visited by hummingbirds are known to be adapted for pollination by other organisms (Grant and Grant, 1965; Cruden, 1970), and to call these bird flowers is incorrect. These intelligent birds are opportunistic and will utilize any flower which produces enough nectar to make their efforts worthwhile. Ornithophilous flowers, those actually adapted for pollination by birds, have been discussed and described by numerous authors (vide van der Pijl, 1960, 1961; _ Meeuse, 1961; Percival, 1965; Faegri and van der Pijl, 1966, for numerous references). Moreover, it is usually easy to distinguish the endemic New World hummingbird flowers from the Old World types of bird flowers. Many of the same features are involved, but they differ in certain basic characteristics. Grant and Grant (1967a, 1967b, 1968) have discussed the features of North American bird flowers adapted for hummingbird pollination. Among the most obvious and important characteristics are red, orange, and yellow coloring, exserted stamens and stigmas situated in a position to deposit and collect pollen from the hovering birds, lack of fragrance, and the absence of the “landing platform” that is characteristic of bee flowers. The red color preference by hummingbirds has been the object of much discussion and difference of opinion (Porsch, 1924-1929, 1931; Pickens, 1930; Bene, 1947; Grant, 1966, inter alia). The flowers adapted for pollination by these birds in the United States are predominantly red, orange, or yellow or combina- tions of these colors. HUMMINGBIRD FLOWERS IN THE EASTERN UNITED StaTEs—For the eastern United States I have compiled a list of species with hummingbird flowers from numerous sources. Most important among the published sources have been Small (1933), Bené (1947), James (1948), Pickens (1955), Gleason and Cronquist (1963), Rickett (1967), Radford et al. (1968), and Long and Lakela (1971). The species and their blooming periods in different areas (Fig. 1-4) will be discussed in more detail later. Because of latitudinal and climatic variation, I have chosen to list only the months during which the plants initiate and terminate flowering. Numerous species which are definitely introduced and/or cultivated have been excluded (e.g., Hibiscus rosa-sinensis, Pyrostegia ignea, Buddleia lindleyana, Salvia coccinea). Certain questionable species also have been excluded (e.g., Dicliptera assurgens, Diervilla lonicera, Lonicera dioica, Ribes odoratum). These questionable species appear to be mostly adapted for pollination by other or- ganisms. Malvaviscus arboreus var. drummondii may not be native to the United States, but its inclusion in this list does not alter the major theme of the discussion, nor does it bias the major conclusions. The native' species in the eastern United States which are adapted for hum- mingbird pollination represent 31 species in 21 genera of 18 different families as listed below. Published reports of hummingbird visitation and pollination exist for two-thirds of these species; the others have not been documented. All of these species exhibit the characteristics described by Grant and Grant (1968) and others as being indicative of hummingbird flowers. ‘Only native or apparently native species are included in the list. Those species designated with an exclamation mark I have seen being pollinated by hummingbirds. No. 1, 1975] AUSTIN—BIRD FLOWERS 3 1. BALSAMINACEAE Impatiens capensis Meerb. (May-Oct.) Nf. and Que. to Sask., s. to S.C., Ala. and Okla. (Robertson, 1895; Taverner & Swales, 1907; Graenicher, 1910; James, 1948; Pickens, 1955; E. J. Tramer, pers. comm., 1971). Endemic. Impatiens provides an especially interesting case which deserves further study. Saunders (1936) and others have found Impatiens capensis particularly favored by hum- mingbirds. In many places this species is sympatric with the closely allied and similar [. pallida. Saunders (1936) noted that . . the pale jewelweed, Impatiens pallida, although nearly as common in Alleganey Park as the spotted species, is not a hummingbird flower. The hum- mingbird may possibly visit it at times as it does such flowers as fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium), but if so I have never had the good fortune to observe it. The flower is larger and wider at the mouth of the corolla, with a shorter, wider nectar tube. It is evidently adapted to bumblebees. Slight differences in two flowers of the same genus are perhaps more significant than we are inclined to think.” Graenicher (1910), in fact, has observed two species of Bombus (bumblebee), Clisodon terminalis (another long-tongued bee), and Rhingia nasica (a long-tongued syrphid-fly) on the flowers of I. pallida. From the literature it appears that these two species of plants are at least partially ethologically isolated. I have seen them growing together many times and have never noticed intermediates although Macior (personal communication) has found apparent hybrids in lowa. Observational and experimental studies should yield valuable data on their evolution. 2. BIGNONIACEAE Campsis radicans (L.) Seem. (July-Aug.) N. J. to O. and Io., s. to Fla. and Tex. (!) (Robertson, 1895; Allen, 1930; James, 1948; Pickens, 1955; Meeuse, 1961). Endemic. 3. BORAGINACEAE Cordia sebestana L. (all year) Fla. Keys, Everglade Keys, and W. I. (Pickens, 1955). Tropical species. 4. BROMELIACEAE Tillandsia balbisiana Schultes (Mar.-Sept.) s. pen. Fla. W. I., Mexico, C. A., and S. A. Tropical species. T. fasciculata Sw. (Jan.-Aug.) s. pen. Fla., W. I., Mex., C. A., and S. A. Tropical species. T. flexuosa Sw. (Aug.-Sept.) s. pen. Fla., W. I., and S. A. Tropical species. 5. CAMPANULACEAE Lobelia cardinalis L. (July-Sept.) Fla. to Tex., Ont. and N. B. (Trelease, 1879; Robertson, 1891, 1895; Graenicher, 1910; James, 1948; Pickens, 1955; Grant Grant, 1967b). Wide-ranging species. 6. CAPRIFOLIACEAE Lonicera canadensis Marsh. (May-June) N. S. and e. Que. to Sask., s. to Pa., O., Ind., and Minn. and in the mts. to N. C. Endemic. L. sempervirens L. (May-July) Conn. to Fla. and w. to Okla. (James, 1948; Pickens, 1955; J. Smith, pers. comm.) Endemic. 7. CARYOPHYLLACEAE Silene regia Sims. (July) O. to e. Mo., s. to Ala. and Ga. Endemic. 4 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 Figs. 1-4. Phenology of the hummingbird flowers in the United States. Letters at the top abbreviate the months of the year. Continuous flowering is indicated by solid lines below the scientific names; broken lines indicate occasional plants in flower beyond the regular blooming period. Fig. 1. Plants with hummingbird flowers in the northeastern U. S. Fig. 2. Plants with hummingbird flowers in NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES FIGURE 1 J E M A M J J A S O N D Ipomoea coccinea Monarda didyma Campsis radicans Lobelia cardinalis Castilleja septentrionalis Silene regia sa ae Silene rotundifolia Monarda fistulosa Impatiens capensis Lonicera sempervirens Silene virginica Castilleja coccinea Lonicera canadensis Castilleja sessiliflora Spigelia Aquilegia canadensis Aesculus pavia CAROLINAS FIGURE 2 J 1p M A M J J A S 0) N D Ipomoea coccinea Lobelia cardinalis Monarda didyma Monarda fistulosa Ipomopsis rubra Campsis radicans Lonicera canadensis Spigelia marilandica Impatiens capensis Evythting. 0, at ONL ae Silene virginica Castilleja coccinea Aesculus pavia Lonicera sempervirens Aquilegia canadensis No. 1, 1975 AUSTIN—BIRD FLOWERS 5 the Carolinas. Fig. 3. Plants with hummingbird flowers in the southern Florida region south of Lake Okeechobee. Fig. 4. Plants with hummingbird flowers in Texas. SOUTHERN FLORIDA FIGURE 3 J F M A M J J A BS) O N D Tillandsia flexuosa Hibiscus coccineus Ipomoea coccinea Rae Campsis radicans Tillandsia babisiana Spiranthes orchoides Lonicera sempervirens Erythrina herbacea Tillandsia fasciculata Cordia sebestana Exogonium microdactylum Hamelia patens Malvaviscus arboreus var. drummondii Clinopodium coccinea TEXAS FIGURE 4 Al} F M A M J J A S 6) N D Ipomoea coccinea Ipomopsis rubra Spigelia marilandica Monarda fistulosa Lobelia cardinalis Impatiens capensis Campsis radicans Erythrina herbacea Lonicera sempervirens Castilleja indivisa Castilleja sessiliflora Aesculus pavia Aquilegia canadensis Malvaviscus arboreus var. drummondii 6 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 S. rotundifolia Nutt. (June-Sept.) W. Va. and s. O. to Ala. and Ga. Endemic. S. virginica L. (May-Sept.) N. J. and w. N. Y. tos. Ont., s. to Ga., and Okla. (!) (James, 1948; Pickens, 1955). Endemic. 8. CONVOLVULACEAE Ipomoea coccinea L. (July-Oct.) Pa. and R. I. s. to Ga., w. to Ill., Kan., Okla., Ark. (van der Pijl, 1937; Pickens, 1955). Endemic. I. microdactyla Griseb. (Aug.-Mar.) Extreme southern Fla., W. I. (Goss and Austin, unpublished observations.) Tropical species. 9. HipPOCASTANACEAE Aesculus pavia var. pavia L. (Mar.-May) N. C. to Fla. and e. Tex., and inland tos. Ill. and s. Mo. (!) (Smith, 1915; James, 1948; Pickens, 1955). Endemie A case possibly similar to Impatiens occurs in Aesculus. There are presently two recognized varieties of Aesculus pavia in Texas—A. pavia var. pavia (red), and A. pavia var. flavescens (yellow). According to Correll and Johnston (1970) the red variety is confined to eastern Texas, the yellow to western. The two overlap on the eastern edge of the Edwards Plateau. In the overlap zone of Hays, Kendall, Comal, and Bexar counties, plants may be found that have yellow flowers that are deeply tinged or marked with red. This suggests that one variety has been ancestral to the other through geographic and ethologic isolation. Now that the geographic barrier has been removed, some gene exchange does occur because the ethological barriers are incomplete. This interpretation requires experimental and observational study for verification. 10. LABIATAE Clinopodium coccineum (Nutt.) Kuntze. (all year) Fla. to Ga. and Ala. Endemic. Monarda didyma L. (June-Aug.) Minn. to Mich., s. to N. J., W. Va. and O., and along the mts. to n. Ga. (Saunders, 1936; James, 1948; Pickens, 1955). Endemic. Monarda fistulosa L. (May-Aug.) Que. to Man. and B. C., s. to Ga., La., and Ariz. (Pickens, 1955; Grant & Grant, 1968). Wide-ranging species. 11. LEGUMINOSAE Erythrina herbacea L. (Feb.-May) Fla. to Tex. and N. C., (n. e. Mexico fide Standley, 1922; Robertson, 1927; Pickens, 1955). Tropical species. 12. LOGANIACAEAE Spigelia marilandica L. (May-Oct.) N. C. tos. Ind., s. Mo. and Okla., s. to Fla. and Tex. (James, 1948; Pickens, 1955). Endemic. 13. MALVACEAE Hibiscus coccineus Walt. (Aug.-Sept.) Ala., Ga., and Fla. (Pickens, 1955). Endemic. Malvaviscus arboreus var. drummondii (Torr. & Gray) Schery. (all year) s. Fla. to Tex., W. I., Mex. (James, 1948; Pickens, 1955; Janzen, 1967). Tropical species. 14. ORCHIDACEAE Spiranthes orchoides (Sw.) A. Rich. (Mar.-Aug.) Fla., Mex., C. A., S. A., W. L Tropical species. 15. POLEMONIACEAE Ipomopsis rubra (L.) Wherry (May-Sept.) Fla. to Tex., Okla. and N. C. (Wherry, 1936). Endemic. No. 1, 1975] AUSTIN—BIRD FLOWERS 7 16. RANUNCULACEAE - Aquilegia canadensis L. (Mar.-June) N. S. to Sask. s. to Fla. and Tex. (!) (Robertson, 1895; Schneck, 1901; Graenicher, 1910; Bent, 1940; James, 1948; Pickens, 1955; Macior, 1966). Endemic. 17. RuBIACEAE Hamelia patens Jacq. (all year) s. pen. Fla. & W. I. Tropical species. 18. SCROPHULARIACEAE Castilleja coccinea (L.) Sprengel. (May-Aug.) Mass. to Ont. and Man., s. to S. C., Miss. and Okla. (Robertson, 1895; Pickens, 1955). Endemic. C. indivisa Engelm. (Mar.-June) s.e. Okla., Tex. Endemic. C. sessiliflora Pursh. (May-July) Wisc. and n. Ill. to Sask., s. to Mo., Tex. and Ariz. Wide-ranging species. C. septentrionalis Lindley. (July-Aug.) Lab. and Nf. to Vt.; Keweenaw Point, Mich.; S. D. to Albta., s. to Col. and Utah. Endemic. Macranthera flammea (Bartr.) Penneli. (Aug.-Oct.) n. Fla. to e. La. and Ga. (Pickens, 1927; 1955). Endemic. SYNCHRONIZATION OF RuytTHMS—Migration: The Ruby-Throat migrates south during the winter (Fig. 5, 6) as do the hummingbirds of the western United States (Didymus, 1891; Floyd, 1937; Bent, 1940; Grant and Grant, 1967c). Most of the Ruby-Throats leave the continental United States during the winter to go to southern Mexico and Central America, but some go to Cuba, the Bahamas, and other islands of the Caribbean (Ridgway, 1911; Bent, 1940; Robbins et al., 1966). A few birds spend the winter in the Gulf Coast states (Brown, 1901). In winter they are fairly common in Miami (Bedell, 1921) and Key West (Howell, 1932). Although Sprunt (1954) stated that they seldom breed south of Lake Okeechobee, Florida, a few individuals are thought to be permanent residents of Jonathan Dickinson State Park in southeastern Martin County (Pantelidis and Hubbard, 1966). Similarly, Paulson (1959) and Cunningham (1961) stated that they breed in the area south of Lake Okeechobee. Hummingbirds are gone from most of the eastern United States during December, January, and February. The migrants start arriving back in the southern parts of the Gulf Coast states in late February (Helmuth, 1920) and early March (Scott, 1889, 1890) and are usually north to about Lake Okeechobee, Florida, by March first (Howell, 1932; Robbins et al., 1966). The northward migration in the eastern United States is thought to follow the movement north- ward of the 35°F isotherm (Percival, 1965). In Arkansas, Smith (1915) reported that the arrival of the Ruby-Throat and the blossoming of Aesculus pavia were coincident. Smith found the Ruby-Throat taking nectar from this plant for the first two weeks after their arrival in the spring. I have observed the same situation in Missouri. At the Missouri Botanical Garden Arboretum (Gray Summit) I have seen the first arrivals visiting Aesculus pavia. A few weeks later the flowers of this species were wilted, and the birds were visiting Aquilegia canadensis and Silene virginica. Robertson (1895) earlier suggested a close correlation between flowering season and bird migration; examination of Fig. 1-6 supports these observations. 8 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 In Texas, Ribes odoratum marks the arrival of the Ruby-Throat as it does two months later in North Dakota. Bent (1940) said that “.. about the earliest flower that the hummingbirds visit here is Ribes odoratum, cultivated from the Missouri River region. The next one, and the one where I always watch for them about May 20-25, is Caragana arborescens (Leguminosae: Asian), an introduced shrub that is much planted here. A little later the native Aquilegia canadensis and Lonicera dioica are available.” The data suggest that man’s cultivation of numerous exotic species may have changed or may be changing the migratory habits of these birds. Allen (1930) stated that “occasionally a few hummingbirds try to winter in Florida or in southern Texas, but hummingbird food is scarce, even there, in December and January, and most . . . go where food is a certainty.’ This contrasts with Howell (1932) who said that the birds were not uncommon as far north as Orlando in winter. Observation at the present time suggests that they are not common in Florida north of Miami during the winter. An official of the Florida Audubon Wad one ! lsochronal Migration Lines FIGURE 5 WRLAQ Figs. 5-6. Isochronal migration lines for Archilochus colubris. The letters beside points indicate earliest known dates of the month for arrival or departure of the birds. Fig. 5. Spring migration. Fig. 6. Autumnal migration. Compiled from data in Bent (1940) and Robbins et al. (1966). No. 1, 1975] AUSTIN—BIRD FLOWERS g Society (personal communication, 1971) suggested that the number of over-win- tering individuals in Florida might be increasing. The variety of exotic species now being cultivated in southern Florida provides an abundant source of winter food, and such an increase is credible. Accurate documentation of any bird increase during the winter months of the past 30 years would, however, be difficult. After the birds are mostly back in their summer ranges there is an increase in the number of hummingbird flowers in bloom (Fig. 1-4). In Texas six species bloom through March; in the Carolinas five species bloom through April; and in the Northeast nine species are flowering by May. These dates coincide well with the arrival of the birds in each area (Fig. 5-6). The synchronization of hummingbird arrival and initial spring flowering of Aesculus pavia, Aquilegia canadensis, etc. without doubt reflects a long history of co-existence in the East. The birds are somewhat governed by the temperatures as are the plants; this must have enhanced the synchronization of the two. Nesting: As the breeding season of the birds begins, a new series of species with hummingbird flowers begins to bloom (Fig. 1-4). Each month during the peak we Ad/—- SEPTEMBER S24 S16 __OCTOBER is ily i y, Ty, ASG CO My Whe May DECEMBER if 7 SaNuaRY Mp Li; FEBRUARY FIGURE 6 Sia 4 10 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 nesting season from May through July (Hine, 1894; Welter, 1935) initiates flowering for several new species. The birds commonly choose an area with an abundant nectar supply as nesting sites. Saunders (1936) believed that the distribution of hummingbirds in Quaker Run Valley, New York, was governed by the occurrence of Monarda didyma. His study showed that this nectar source was their most important flower at the beginning of their breeding season. Bent (1940) described a different situation in North Dakota where the preferred summer flower was Impatiens. Bent indicated that the hummingbirds’ nesting grounds were always associated with these plants. Tramer and Macior (personal communication) have observed the birds com- monly on Impatiens as have others, but that the birds choose either of the two species noted throughout their range for nesting sites is questionable. Pitelka (1942) found males establishing territories near abundant flower-food sources and the females choosing their polygamous mates. It appears likely that this terri- toriality-food source relationship is linked with a variety of species in different parts of the summer range. Monarda didyma appears dominant in New York; Impatiens capensis in North Dakota; and Campsis radicans and other species play major roles in other areas. This territoriality-food source relationship, and the quantity of food demanded by males, females, and young birds must have been important in the evolutionary selection of endemic hummingbird flowers. SuMMARY—The life of the single hummingbird species in the eastern United States, the Ruby-Throat, includes many facets which are closely synchronized with plants. This close synchronization apparently reflects a long period of coexistence and evolution. When this migratory bird returns to the United States in early spring, a series of plant species specially adapted for pollination by hummingbirds produces flowers which supply the arriving birds with nectar. Movement of birds from the south coastal areas north is indicated by flowering of these early spring species. As these birds arrive at their summer residence, a new series of plants provides nectar sources as the first series passes the flowering stage. During the nesting months and the following period of fledgling growth another series provides a nectar source. The hummingbird is an animal with a high metabolic rate requiring substan- tial sources of food. Because of this demand for constant food, plants in the eastern United States have been selected by hummingbirds until their flowers have evolved the characteristics of the hummingbird pollination syndrome. The number of bird species involved in the evolution is unknown, but hummingbirds have apparently been effective in the selection and evolution of 19 endemic and/or autochthonous species. These birds also assist in the reproduction of 11 other plant species with hummingbird flowers. Some of these 11 species are of southwestern affinity and possible origin; others are of West Indian origin. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS—This study began while being sponsored by a grant from the Division of Sponsored Research, Florida Atlantic University. The original ideas were expanded, researched, and documented while I participated in the Smithsonian Institution’s 1971 Summer Institute in Systematics (Species Diver- sity) funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation. Thanks for critical No. 1, 1975] AUSTIN—BIRD FLOWERS 11 review and comments on the original manuscript are due William G. D’Arcy (Missouri Botanical Garden), Verne Grant (University of Texas), Lazarus W. Macior (University of Akron), and Elliot J. Tramer (University of Toledo). LITERATURE CITED ALLEN, A. A. 1930. Rubythroat. Bird-Lore 32:223-231. BEDELL, E. 1921. The nonpareil wintering in Florida. Auk 38:460. Bene, F. 1947. The feeding and related behavior of hummingbirds with special reference to the Black-Chin, Archilochus alexandri (Boureier & Mulsant). Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 9:403-478. Bent, A. C. 1940. Ruby-throated Hummingbird. In Life Histories of North American Cuckoos, Goatsuckers, Hummingbirds and their Allies. Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus. 176:332-353. Dover ed. 1964. BRENNER, L. 1971. Summer is hummer time. Bull. St. Louis Audubon Soc. 38:6. Brown, E. J. 1901. Florida bird notes. Auk 18:199. Corre.i, D. anp M. Jonnston. 1970. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas. Texas Research Foundation. Renner. Crupen, R. W. 1970. Hawkmoth pollination of Mirabilis (Nyctaginaceae). Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 97:89-91. CunNINGHAM, R. L. 1961. A Field List of South Florida Birds. Little River Press, Inc. Miami. Dipymus (HeapE, M. J.). 1891. Florida hummingbirds. Forest and Stream 36:455. Farcri, K. anp L. Van Der Puy. 1966. The Principles of Pollination Ecology. Pergamon Press. Oxford. FLoyp, C. B. 1937. Ruby-throated hummingbirds (Archilochus colubris) in cold weather. Bird-Banding 8:79. G.eason, H. A. AND A. CronguistT. 1963. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. D. Van Nostrand Co. Princeton. GrRAENICHER, S. 1910. On hummingbird flowers. Bull. Wisc. Nat. Hist. Soc. 8:183-186. Grant, K. A. 1966. A hypothesis concerning the prevalence of red coloration in California hum- mingbird flowers. Amer. Nat. 100:85-97. AND V. Grant. 1967a. Effects of hummingbird migration on plant speciation in the California flora. Evolution 21:457-465. AND ___. 1967b. Records of hummingbird pollination in the western American flora Ilf. Arizona records. Aliso 6:107-110. AND _________. 1968. Hummingbirds and Their Flowers. Columbia Univ. Press. New York. Grant, V. AND K. A. Grant. 1965. Flower Pollination in the Phlox Family. Columbia Univ. Press. New York. AND . 1967c. Records of hummingbird pollination in the western American flora II. Additional California records. Aliso 6:103-105. Hewtmuth, W. T. 1920. Extracts from notes made while in naval service. Auk 37:255-261. Hine, J. L. 1894. Observations on the ruby-throated hummingbird. Auk 11:253-254. Howe tz, A. H. 1932. Florida Bird Life. Coward-McCann, Inc. New York. James, R. L. 1948. Some hummingbird flowers east of the Mississippi. Castanea 13:97-109. Janzen, D. H. 1967. Pollination systems in Costa Rica. Organization for Tropical Studies. Miami. (Mimeographed) Lone, R. W. ano O. Laxexa. 1971. Flora of Tropical Florida. Univ. of Miami Press. Coral Gables. Macior, L. W. 1966. Foraging behavior of Bombus (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in relation to Aquilegia pollination. Amer. J. Bot. 53:302-309. Meeuse, B. J. D. 1961. The Story of Pollination. Ronald Press Co. New York. PanTELipis, V. S. anp L. S. Hupparp. 1966. Birds of Jonathan Dickinson State Park. St. Lucie Audubon Soc. (Mimeographed) Pautson, D. R. 1959. List of birds regularly occurring in South Florida from Lake Okeechobee southward. (Mimeographed) Perciva_, M. S. 1965. Floral Biology. Pergamon Press. Oxford. Pickens, A. L. 1927. Unique method of pollination by the Rubythroat. Auk 44:24-27. 1930. Favorite colors of hummingbirds. Auk 47:346-352. 1955. The bird-flower as the apex of floral color display. Castanea 20:1-18. 12 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 Van Der Py, L. 1937. Disharmony between Asiatic flower-birds and American bird-flowers. Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenzorg. 48:17-26. . 1960. Ecological aspects of flower evolution I. Phyletic evolution. Evolution 14:403-416. . 1961. Ecological aspects of flower evolution II. Zoophilous flower classes. Evolution 15:44-59. Pirevka, F. A. 1942. Territoriality and related problems in North American hummingbirds. Condor 44:189-204. Porscu, O. 1924-1929. Vogelblumenstudien I, II. Jahrb. Wissensch. Bot. 63:553-706; 70:181-277. . 1931. Grellrot als Vogelblumenfarbe. Biol. Gen. 7:647-674. Raprorp, A. E., H. E. AHLEs AND C. R. Beuu. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Univ. North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill. Rickett, H. W. 1967. Wildflowers of the United States: Vol. 4: The Southeastern States. McGraw- Hill. New York. Ripcway, R. 1911. The birds of north and middle America. Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus. 50:1-859. Rossins, C. S., B. BRUNN AND H. S. Zim. 1966. Birds of North America. Golden Press. New York. RoBerTson, C. 1891. Flowers and insects VI. Bot. Gaz. 16:65-71. . 1895. The philosophy of flower seasons, and the phaenological relations of the en- tomophilous flora and the anthophilous insect fauna. Amer. Nat. 29:97-117. ___. 1927. Florida flowers and insects. Trans. St. Louis Acad. Sci. 25:277-324. SaunDERS, A. A. 1936. Ecology of the birds of Quaker Run Valley, Allegany State Park, New York. N. Y. State Mus. Handbook No. 16. SCHNECK, J. 1901. Notes on Aquilegia canadensis Linn. and A. vulgaris Linn. Bot. Gaz. 32:304-305. Scott, W. E. D. 1889. A summary of observations on the birds of the gulf coast of Florida. Auk 6:245-252. . 1890. On the birds observed at the Dry Tortugas, Florida, during parts of March and April, 1890. Auk 7:301-314. SMALL, J. K. 1933. Manual of the Southeastern Flora. Univ. North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill. Smitu, A. P. 1915. Birds of the Boston Mountains, Arkansas. Condor 30:136-138. SpRUNT, A., JR. 1954. Florida Bird Life. Coward-McCann Inc. and National Audubon Society. New York. STANDLEY, P. C. 1922. Trees and Shrubs of Mexico. Contr. U. S. Nat. Herb. 23:171-515. TAVERNER, P. A. AND B. H. Swates. 1907. The birds of Point Pelee. Wilson Bull. 19:133-153. TRELEASE, W. 1879. On the fertilization of several species of Lobelia. Amer. Nat. 13:427-432. Tucker, J. A. 1968. Florida Birds. L. S. Maxwell Publ. Co. Tampa. WELTER, W. A. 1935. Nesting habits of the ruby-throated hummingbirds. Auk 52:88-89. Wherry, E. T. 1936. Miscellaneous eastern Polemoniaceae. Bartonia 18:52-59. Florida Sci. 38(1):1-12. 1975. Biological Sciences DISTRIBUTION OF RIVER BIRCH, BETULA NIGRA, IN THE UNITED STATES James L. KoEVENIG Department of Biological Sciences, Florida Technological University, Orlando, Florida 32816 Asstract: The distribution of Betula nigra, the river birch, was determined for the United States by field observations over 13 years, personal communications from field botanists, data from herbarium specimens and literature reports. A plot of the species is given by counties. The species extends from the northern part of Florida into Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and New Hampshire and from the east coast into the eastern parts of Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. This northern range closely follows the southern limits of the last major continental glacier. THERE are numerous studies on distribution of vascular plants, but few deal with the nation-wide distribution of trees. Little (1949) and Preston (1948) gave the most extensive information on tree distribution in the United States; however, neither provided documentation and the accuracy of their maps is questionable. One of the most interesting tree ranges given by Little (1949) is for the river birch, Betula nigra. The southern and northern boundaries of this range cannot be easily explained by the usual climatic factors. This paper documents distribution of B. nigra in the United States, enabling an analysis of the factors limiting the range of this species. The river birch is uniquely suited to distributional studies because it is usually restricted to a distinct habitat, i.e., sandy alluvial bottom land bordering rivers, lakes or other wet low-lying areas; is morphologically distinct from other species of Betula; does not readily interbreed with other species of Betula (Clausen 1965); and is easily distinguished at considerable distances by its shaggy reddish bark. This facilitates the location and identification of specimens in the field, permits the acceptance of field reports of river birch by others as reliable and reduces the chance of misiden- tification of herbarium specimens. ProcepuRE— The distribution of B. nigra was determined by field observations over the past 13 years, by personal communications from field botanists (C. A. Brown, W. H. Duncan, R. M. Harper, A. R. Hodgdon, H. H. Iltis, A. J. Sharp, and S. Stevens) and by data from herbarium specimens and reliable literature reports (Bean, et al., 1956; Broadhead, 1867; Brown, 1945; Coulter, 1921; Davidson, 1957; Deam, 1940a, 1940b; Duncan, 1950; Emerson, 1878; Fink, 1896; Fitzpatrick and Fitzpatrick, 1901; Gorman, 1913; Grimm, 1950; Guldner, 1960; Harper, 1928; Jones and Fuller, 1955; Massey, 1961; Mattson and Alburtis, 1926; Mohr, 1901; Pool, 1929: Radford et al, 1968; Rosendahl, 1928, 1955; Rosendahl and Butters, 1928; Seymour, 1969; Shirley, 1938; Steyermark, undated; West and Arnold, 1956; Winter, 1936). Four hundred fifty-eight specimens from 13 herbaria (Clark 14 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 Univ., Michigan State Univ., Missouri Botanical Garden, Field Museum, Plant Research Institute at Ottawa, Smithsonian Institution, Univ. Cincinnati, Univ. Iowa, Univ. Kansas, Univ. Minnesota, Univ. Northern Iowa, Univ. Notre Dame, Univ. South Florida) were examined. Only two were misidentified with five others questionable (the specimens were too fragmentary to be positively iden- tified). Because of the low percentage of misidentification, distributional infor- mation was obtained from an additional 33 herbaria in the U. S. and Canada without examination of the specimens. These herbaria were: Alabama Polytech- nic Institute; Buffalo Soc. Natural Sciences; Duke Univ.; Emporia State Teachers Col.; Indiana Univ.; Kansas State Univ.; Kent State Univ.; Louisiana State Univ.; Marie-Victorin Herbarium at the Université de Montreal; North Carolina State Univ.; Oberlin Col. (since transferred to Miami Univ., Ohio); Ohio State Univ.; Osborn Botanical Labs, Yale Univ.; Rutgers Univ.; Samuel James Record Memorial Collection, Yale Univ.; Texas Research Foundation; Tracy Herbarium, Texas A & M Univ.; Tulane Univ.; Univ. Arkansas; Univ. Connecticut; Univ. Georgia; Univ. Kentucky; Univ. Maine; Univ. Michigan; Univ. New Hampshire; Univ. North Carolina; Univ. Oklahoma; Univ. Pennsylvania; Univ. Richmond; Univ. South Carolina; Univ. Tennessee; Univ. Wisconsin; Wisconsin State Univ., Eau Claire. All herbarium specimens could be located at least to county and sometimes to more defined locations; however, literature records provided only Fig. 1. Distribution of Betula nigra in the United States based on field observations, personal communications from field botanists, data from herbarium specimens and literature reports. No. 1, 1975] KOEVENIG—RIVER BIRCH 15 county locations. It was therefore necessary to plot distribution by county only, shading each county for which at least one documented, reliable noncultivated specimen or record existed. It is recognized that this introduces some distortion and error, however on a national scale this is minimal. When the error or distortion seems important it is mentioned. Fig. 2. The distribution of Betula nigra in the United States as determined by this study superim- posed over the distribution given by Little (1941). OBSERVATIONS AND Discussion—The distribution of B. nigra (Fig. 1) extends from northern Florida into Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Penn- sylvania, New York and New Hampshire and from the east coast west into the eastern parts of Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. This corresponds closely to the ranges given by Little (1949, Fig. 2) and Preston (1948), except for minor discrepancies in the western limit; the Appalachian Mountain area; an isolated region in Minnesota (on Little's map); parts of Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama; and disjunct populations in New England (Fig. 2). Some of the differences may be due to gaps in my data, however certain parts of Little’s map are questionable. For example, the isolated region near Mankato, Minnesota on Little’s map is most likely based on distributional infor- mation published by Rosendahl and Butters (1928). My field work in Minnesota did not confirm this report. Rosendahl and Butters probably were observing another species, since they stated that the fruit matured in the fall, while B. nigra fruit matures in June in Minnesota. In a later publication, Rosendahl (1955) states that the occurrence of B. nigra near Mankato is doubtful. B. nigra is a lowland 16 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 species and it is doubtful that it would be found in the Appalachian Mountain region except in valleys in the foothills, as stated by Grimm (1950) and plotted by Hough (1947). From my limited field work in this region, I have not observed any B. nigra trees in the mountains. Many of the records beyond the northernmost range given by Little (1949) are from reliable observers, but a few are based on herbarium specimens that have scanty documentation and may represent escapes from cultivation. This may be the source of the large population around Chicago and isolated plants in Michigan and northern Ohio. Little (1949) shows that B. nigra is absent from a major part of Louisiana and the Gulf coast of Mississippi and Alabama, but specimens were found to show the range extending into this area. Additional field work is needed in Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi to determine if gaps in my distribution map are real or represent a lack of data. Fig. 3. The distribution of Betula nigra in the United States superimposed over the limits of the Wisconsin glacial drift as proposed by Flint (1957). Two areas where river birch trees are conspicuously absent are the flood plain of the lower Mississippi River (Brown, 1945, and personal communication; Ewan, personal communication) and the immediate coastal areas. Because distribution is plotted by county (Fig. 1), the map may suggest that B. nigra is found on the coast, when in fact it may be only found inland in the coastal counties. Several disjunct populations shown in Fig. 1 are questionable. The plots in Nebraska, marked with a ““?”’, are based on a report that cannot be verified. Also, the two specimens reported may be escapes. Pool (1929) stated that he was unable to find any authentic specimens in Nebraska, although there were a few reports for the eastern part of that state. Winter (1936) questions the reliability of these No. 1, 1975] KOEVENIG—RIVER BIRCH LF reports. Four specimens have been reported from various parts of Michigan, however all but one specimen from Calhoun County were cultivated or ques- tionable. Otis (1931) did not list B. nigra in his book on Michigan trees. The reports of B. nigra for Erie and Portage Counties in Ohio, Chemung and Oneida Counties in New York, and Chittenden County in Vermont seem to be reliable. Fig. 4. The distribution of Betula nigra in the United States superimposed over the limits of the - Wisconsin glacial drift and moraine as given by the United States Geological Survey (1959). One aspect of B. nigra distribution not noted in Fig. 1 is that all authentic citations and specimens were from lowland wet areas bordering streams, rivers, lakes, ponds or other bodies of standing water. The only specimens reported from bluffs or upland woods were misidentified or the identification of the specimens was questionable due to the poor material. There were, however, cultivated specimens from upland or dry areas, indicating that river birch trees can grow there if planted and provided with enough water. These are indicated on the map (Fig. 1) with a “C”. The western and northern limits of range for B. nigra appear to be relatively static except for areas in New England (A. R. Hodgdon, personal communication) and Ohio (Brown, 1951), where isolated populations.are expanding fairly rapidly. Examination of B. nigra distribution (Fig. 1) raises some interesting questions. For example, why are there disjunct populations in Ohio, New York and New England, why are the northern and western limits static, or why is B. nigra absent from the lower Mississippi River flood plain? The northern limit for B. nigra closely follows the southern limits of the last major continental glacier, except for 18 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 several disjunct populations. Figure 3 shows river birch distribution superim- posed over the limits of the Wisconsin glacial drift as proposed by Flint (1957), while Fig. 4 compares B. nigra’s range with the limits of both the Wisconsin drift and moraine as presented by the U. S. Geological Survey (1959). This close correspondence and several of the other problems raised will be discussed elsewhere. The documented distribution pattern for B. nigra presented here provides the basis for such a discussion even though the distribution is subject to possible change as new data are obtained or the range changes due to environ- mental changes. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS~—I thank R. A. Davidson for guidance on early stage of this study 14 years ago at the Univ. Iowa and for writing for specimens. I thank the following for providing information on Betula nigra: W. F. Batson, J. H. Beaman, C. R. Beal, C. R. Brown, W. H. Camp, J. L. Carter, R. T. Clausen, IT. S: Cooperrider, D. S. Correll, E. E. Dale, W. H. Duncan, J. Ewan, D. E. Fairbrothers, M. J. Fay, M. H. Fulford, B. N. Gates, R. K. Godfrey, C. J. Goodman, F. W. Gould, M. L. Grant, J. W. Hardin, C. B. Heiser, Jr., G. M. Hocking, A. R. Hodgdon, L. C. Hulbert, H. H. Iltis, G. T. Jones, O. Lakala, R. L. McGregor, R. P. McIntosh, R. McVaugh, G. B. Ownbey, J. R. Reeder, C. D. Richards, E. Rouleau, H. A. Senn, A. J. Sharp, D. M. Smith, W. L. Stern, S. Stephens, J. C. Strickland, B. L. Turner, C. Weishaupt, E. T. Wherry, R. L. Wilber, J. S. Wilson, R. E. Woodson, Jr., and C. A. Zenkert. LITERATURE CITED Brean, R. C., C. H. KNowLTON anp A. F. Hitt. 1956. Plant distribution: Eleventh report of the committee on plant distribution. Rhodora 58:125-134. Braun, E. L. 1951. Plant distribution in relation to the glacial boundary. Ohio J. Sci. 51:139-146. BroaDHEAD, G. 1867. Distribution of trees and shrubs in Missouri. Ann. Rep. Missouri State Bull. Agric. 2:97-99. Brown, C. A. 1945. Louisiana trees and shrubs. Louisiana Forest. Comm. Bull. No. 1. CLAusEN, K. E. 1965. Studies of compatibility in Betula. p. 48-52. In Jt. Proc. 2nd Gen. Workshop Soc. Amer. Forest. and 7th Lake States Forest Tree Conf. U. S. Forest Serv. Pap. NC-6. Couxter, J. L. 1921. West Virginia trees. Agric. Expt. Sta. Bull. No. 175. West Virginia Univ. Morgantown. Davipson, R. A. 1957. The flora of southeastern Iowa. Ph.D. thesis. Univ. Iowa. Iowa City. Dram, C. C. 1940a. Trees of Indiana, 2nd ed. Cons. Comm. Div. Forestry Pub. No. 13. Fort Wayne Printing Co. Fort Wayne, Ind. . 1940b. Flora of Indiana. Wm. B. Buford Printer. Indianapolis, Ind. Duncan, W. H. 1950. Preliminary reports on the flora of Georgia. 2. Distribution of 87 trees. Amer. Midland Nat. 43:742-761. Emerson, G. B. 1878. A Report on the Trees and Shrubs Growing Naturally in the Forests of Massachusetts. Vol. I, 3rd ed. Little, Brown & Co. Boston. Fink, B. 1896. Spermaphyta of the flora of Fayette, Iowa. Iowa Acad. Sci. 4:81-107. Firzpatrick, T. J. AND M. F. L. Fitzpatrick. 1901. Betulaceae of Iowa. Iowa Acad. Sci. 8:169-177. Fiint, R. R. 1957. Glacial and Pleistocene Geology. Wiley. New York. Garman, H. 1913. The woody plants of Kentucky. Kentucky Agric. Expt. Sta. Bull. No. 169. Gates, F.C. 1940. Flora of Kansas. Agric. Expt. Sta., Kansas State Coll. Agric. & Applied Sci. Topeka, Kansas. Grimm, W. C. 1950. The Trees of Pennsylvania. Stackpole & Heck, Inc. New York. GuLpner, L. F. 1960. The vascular plants of Scott and Muscatine Counties, with some reference to adjoining areas of surrounding counties in Iowa and to Rock Island and Whiteside Counties in Illinois. Davenport Public Mus. Publ. in Bot. No. 1. Davenport, Iowa. No. 1, 1975] KOEVENIG—RIVER BIRCH 19 Harvow, R. M. anv E. S. Harrar. 1950. Textbook of Dendrology. McGraw-Hill Book Co. New York. Harper, R. M. 1928. Economic botany of Alabama, Part 2. Catalogue of the trees, shrubs and vines of Alabama, with their economic properties and local distribution. Geol. Surv. Alabama State Comm. Forest. Monogr. 9. Hoven, R. B. 1947. Handbook of the Trees of the Northern States and Canada. Macmillan Co. New York. Jones, G. N. anp G. D. Futter. 1955. Vascular Plants of Illinois. Univ. II. Press. Urbana. Litt te, E. L., Jr. 1949. Important forest trees of the United States. pp. 763-814. In Trees, the Yearbook of Agriculture. U. S. Dept. Agric. Washington, D. C. Massey, A. B. 1961. Virginia flora. Virginia Agric. Expt. Sta. Tech. Bull. No. 155. Mattson, W. R. anp S. S. ALBurtis. 1926. Forest Trees of the District of Columbia, Including Some Foreign Trees. Amer. Forest. Assn. Washington, D. C. Monr, C. 1901. Plant life of Alabama. Contrib. U. S. Nat. Herbarium 6. Washington, D. C. Oris, C. H. 1931. Michigan Trees: A Handbook of the Native and Most Important Introduced Species. Univ. Michigan Press. Ann Arbor. Poot, R. J. 1929. Handbook of Nebraska trees: A Guide to the Native and Most Important Introduced Species. 2nd ed. Contrib. Bot. Surv. Nebraska New Ser. No. 3. Preston, R. J. 1948. North American Trees. Iowa State Univ. Press. Ames. Raprorp, A. E., H. E. AHLES AND C. R. Bex. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Univ. North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill. ROSENDAHL, C. O. 1928. Trees and Shrubs of Minnesota. Univ. Minn. Press. Minneapolis. . 1955. Trees and Shrubs of the Upper Midwest. Univ. Minnesota Press. Minneapolis. AND F. K. Butters. 1928. Trees and Shrubs of Minnesota. Univ. Minnesota Press. Min- neapolis. SaRGENT, C. S. 1905. Manual of the Trees of North America. Houghton, Mifflin & Co. Boston. Seymour, F. C. 1969. The Flora of New England. Charles E. Tuttle Co. Rutland, Vermont. SHIRLEY, J. C. 1938. The woody plants of Oklahoma. Ph.D. thesis. Univ. California. Berkeley. STEYERMARK, J. A. (undated). Flora of Missouri. lowa State Univ. Press. Ames. Unitep States GEOLOGICAL SuRVEY. 1959. U. S. glacial map, east of the Rocky Mountains. Williams & Heintz, Lithograph Corp. Washington, D. C. West, E. anp L. E. ARNoLp. 1956. The Native Trees of Florida. Univ. Florida Press. Gainesville. Winter, J. M. 1936. An analysis of the flowering plants of Nebraska. Dept. Conserv. & Surv. Div. Bull. 13. Univ. Nebraska. Lincoln. Florida Sci. 38(1):13-19. 1975. Biological Sciences FEEDING HABITS OF WHITE CATFISH FROM A GEORGIA ESTUARY’ RICHARD W. HEARD Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, P. O. Drawer AG, Ocean Springs, Mississippi 39564 Asstract: The food habits of the white catfish, Ictalurus catus (L.), from North Newport River, an estuarine area of the Georgia coast, were studied. The digestive tracts of 174 specimens examined contained over 5000 recognizable food-items representing some 50 different species of organisms. Crustaceans, especially amphipods, comprised the most frequently occurring and most numerous organisms encountered. The variety of organisms recovered from the digestive tracts of white catfish in this study and from the stomachs of white catfish previously studied by others, indicate that this fish is an opportunistic, omnivorous feeder. Seasonal movements and diurnal feeding patterns for I. catus are briefly discussed. WHuiTteE CATFISH, Ictalurus catus (L.), occur in coastal streams and river mouths of the southeastern United States and have been widely introduced on the West Coast (Schwartz and Jachowski, 1965). It is reputed to be a good food fish, and recent studies indicate that it may be suitable for pond culture on a commercial basis (Perry and Avault, 1969). It has a greater tolerance for brackish water than do other ictalurids (Turner, 1966; Perry and Avault, 1969). Little information is available on the natural food of the white catfish. Turner (1966) reported the analysis of food from the stomachs of 4,434 white catfish collected in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region, an estuarine area on the California coast. Stevens (1959) gave data on the food of 178 specimens taken in fresh water from the Santee-Cooper Reservoir and Tailrace Sanctuary in South Carolina. Devaraj (1970) presented information on the food and feeding habits of white catfish in experimental freshwater ponds in Alabama. Van Engel and Joseph (1968) gave information on the diet of this species in the upper Chesapeake Bay. I know of no published data, however, on the food of I. catus from an estuarine area in the southeastern United States. The white catfish used in this study were collected in Liberty County, Geor- gia, during an ecological study of the upper North Newport River and one of its main tributaries, Riceboro Creek (Fig. 1). Like other tidal rivers of the south- eastern U. S. Atlantic coast, the North Newport River has two full tidal cycles every day. Tidal amplitudes in the study area were generally between 5 and 7 ft, and salinities ranged from less than 1%o at the upper stations to 20%o at Carr’s Neck Creek. The creeks and rivers in the study area are bordered by intertidal marshes of Juncus roemerianus Scheele and Spartina alterniflora Loiseleur- Deslongchamps, the latter becoming more predominant and expansive further ‘Contribution No. 283 from the University of Georgia Marine Institute. No. 1, 1975] HEARD—WHITE CATFISH 2] downstream. Heard and Sikora (1972), Dahlberg (1972) and Heard and Heard (1971) have given information on the fishes, invertebrates and ecology of this area. White catfish were collected from six locations (Fig. 1) with dip nets, seines and a 10-ft otter trawl during 1969 and 1970. The specimens were immediately fixed in 10% formalin and stored in 50% isopropyl alcohol. The standard length of each fish was recorded, and food material from the entire digestive tract was examined and identified with the aid of compound and dissecting microscopes. KE) = o RICEBORO SCALE IN MILES ) Fig. 1. Study area (Liberty County, Georgia) showing the location of the six sampling stations. The collections for this study were made possible by a grant from the Georgia Water Quality Control Board, No. UGA-D 2422-122 and by NSF grants sup- porting the R/V Kir Jones, Nos. GA 710, GB 7060 and GA 4497. Examination of specimens and preparation of the manuscript were done in the Parasitology Section, Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, and the Biology Department of the University of Southern Mississippi. I wish to thank Dr. B. J. Grantham, Dr. R. M. Overstreet, Dr. V. J. Henry, Dr. M. D. Dahlberg, Mr. W. B. Sikora and Mr. C. J. Durant for aid and assistance during this study. ResuLts—The 174 white catfish studied ranged in size between 4 and 27 cm SL. The food data are summarized in Tables 1-4. The digestive tracts of 171 of the fish examined yielded 5,492 recognizable food organisms representing over 50 species. The groups of organisms found were Crustacea, Insecta, Polychaeta, Vertebrata (fish), Mollusca, Bryozoa and Arachnida. Crustaceans occurred most frequently and were also the most numerous food items found. Discussion—Amphipods were the most common group of crustaceans en- countered in terms of incidence of occurrence (83%) and total numbers of or- ganisms (1566). Gammarus tigrinus, a typically oligohaline species, was the most common amphipod recovered, occurring in 77% of the fish examined. Turner 992 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 TABLE 1. Taxonomic list of organisms recovered from the digestive tracts of 174 white catfish from the upper North Newport River, Georgia. No. Fish Percent No. Species Positive Incidence Organisms BRYOZOA ( = Ectoprocta ) Plumatella repens L. 10 5.6 10 ANNELIDA POLYCHAETA Namalycastis abiuma (Muller in Grube, 1871 ) 5 2.8 5 Nereis succinea (Frey & Leuckart, 1847) 9 5:2 13 Scolecolepides viridis ( Verrill, 1873) 29 16.7 850 MOLLUSCA GASTROPODA Melampus bidentatus Say, 1822 3 i bse 5 Hydrobia sp. 2 La 3 Physa sp. 1 0.6 1 PELECYPODA Cyrenoidea floridana Dall, 1896 2 1.1 3 Macoma mitchelli Dall, 1895 1 0.6 1 ARTHROPODA CRUSTACEA Cladocera Daphnia cf. pulex (Leydig, 1860) 28 16.1 750 Copepoda Mesocyclops edax (Forbes, 1891) Pail 15.5 750 harpacticoids (unidentified ) 8 4.6 20 Ostracoda unidentified 14 S.1 4] Cirripedia Balanus improvisus Darwin, 1854 6 3.5 11 Mysidacea Neomysis americana (Smith, 1873) 2 1.1 2 Amphipoda Amphithoe valida Smith, 1873 1 0.6 1 Corophium aquafuscum Heard & Sikora, 1972 8 4.6 33 Corophium lacustre Vanhoffen, 1911 Dall IPAs 270 Gammarus tigrinus Sexton, 1939 134 77.0 1,136 Lepidactylus dytiscus Say, 1818 4 2.3 4 Melita nitida Smith, 1873 9 5.2 22 Monoculodes edwardsi Holmes, 1903 30 17.2 49 Orchestia grillus Bosc, 1802 6 3.5 8 Orchestia uhleri Shoemaker, 1930 1 0.6 1 Parapleustes aestuarius Watling & Maurer, 1973 4 2.3 43 Isopoda Aegathoa occulata (Say, 1818) 3 1.7 3 Cassidinidea lunifrons (Richardson, 1900) 8 4.6 12 Chiridotea sp. D) 1, 6 Cyathura polita (Stimpson, 1855) 83 47.7 235 Edotea montosa (Stimpson, 1853) 1 0.6 1 Probopyrus pandalicola (Packard, 1879) 3 ee 3 Sphaeroma destructor Richardson, 1897 Pa IPA I 39 Decapoda Natantia (Shrimps ) Alpheus heterochaelis Say, 1818 3 Wad 3 Palaemonetes pugio Holthuis, 1949 38 21.8 95 No. 1, 1975] HEARD—WHITE CATFISH 23 Table 1 (con’t.) No. Fish Percent No. Species Positive Incidence Organisms Brachyura (Crabs ) Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, 1896 13 7.5 18 Uca minax (LeConte, 1855) 28 16.1 42 Rhithropanopeus harrisii (Gould, 1841) 42, pe aa | 54 INSECTA Diptera chironomid midge larvae 56 322 240 tabanid larvae 7 4.0 7 unidentified larvae 7 4.0 8 unidentified adults 5 2.9 6 Coleoptera unidentified adults 9 5.2 10 unidentified larva 1 0.1 il Odonota dragonfly nymphs 3 lee 3 Hymenoptera unidentified ants 8 4.6 10 unidentified remains 17 9.8 19 ARACHNIDA unidentified spiders 5 2.9 5 CHORDATA VERTEBRATA (Fishes ) Anchoa mitchelli (Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1848 ) 1 0.6 1 Anguilla rostrata (Lesueur, 1817) u ] 0.6 1 unidentified gobies 2 off 2 unidentified species 13 7.9 15 (1966) in California and Van Engle and Joseph (1968) in Virginia found that crustaceans, specifically amphipods, were the most frequently occurring food organisms in white catfish from estuarine areas. Van Engle and Joseph (1968) reported amphipods in 57% of white catfish from the upper Chesapeake Bay area, but they did not identify the species. Turner (1966) found a tube-dwelling amphipod, Corophium sp., in over 90% of the young-of-the-year and in over 80% of juvenile and adult white catfish. I recovered Corophium spp. from the digestive tracts of 12% of the North Newport River specimens. Isopods occurred in 55.2% of the North Newport River catfish and made up 3.4% of the total organisms recovered. These crustaceans had the second highest incidence of occurrence. Cyathura polita (47.7%) and Sphaeroma destructor (12.1%) were the two most commonly encountered species. The bopyrid isopod, Probopyrus pandalicola, a branchial parasite of Palaemonetes pugio, was probably ingested with its shrimp host. Van Engle and Joseph (1968) found isopods in 17.4% of 88 stomachs of white catfish from Chesapeake Bay; however, these isopods only made up 1% of the total number of food organisms recovered. Turner (1966) found a single isopod species, Exosphaeroma oregonensis, in less than 2% of the fish examined. Decapod remains were recovered from 48.2% of the digestive tracts I examined. Although they constituted only 3.9% of the total number of organisms 24 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 recovered, in terms of biomass they may be one of the most important food groups of moderate and large white catfish. Van Engle and Joseph (1968) found decapods in 18.6% of the white catfish stomachs they examined. Turner (1966) found decapod remains in less than 5% of the stomachs he examined. TABLE 2. Occurrence of food groups from the digestive tracts of 174 white catfish from the upper North Newport River, Georgia. Ave. No. Ave. No. Food Food Organisms Percent Organisms For Each No. Fish Percent Total No. Of Total For All Positive Positive Incidence Organisms Organisms Fish Fish ARTHROPODA 170 97.7 4,582 83.43 26.33 26.95 CRUSTACEA 168 96.5 4,272 77.79 24.55 24.43 Amphipoda 144 82.8 1,566 28.51 9.00 10.88 Isopoda 96 Soe 299 5.44 Ngo) BUI Decapoda 84 48.2 212 3.86 22 2.52 Copepoda 35 20.0 770 14.02 4.43 22.00 Cladocera 28 16.1 750 13.66 4.31 26.79 Ostracoda 14 8.1 40 0.73 0.23 2.88 Cirripedia 6 3.4 ll 0.20 0.06 1.83 Mysidacea 2, el 9) 0.04 0.01 1.00 INSECTA 96 55.2 305 5.55 E75 3.18 Diptera 64 36.8 263 4,79 1.51 4.11 Coleoptera 10 Dail 11 0.20 0.06 1.10 Hymenoptera 8 4.6 10 0.18 0.06 1.25 Odonota 3 17 3 0.05 0.02 1.00 ARACHNIDA (Spiders) 5 2.9 5 0.09 0.03 1.00 ANNELIDA 37 213 868 15.80 4.99 23.46 BRYOZOA 10 Sy 10 0.18 0.06 1.00 MOLLUSCA 9 5.2, 13 0.24 0.07 1.44 GASTROPODA 6 3.4 9 0.16 0.05 1.50 PELECYPODA 3 hail 4 0.07 0.02 1.33 Two groups of small crustaceans, Copepoda and Cladocera, occurred frequently and in relatively large numbers in the digestive tracts of small white catfish collected from the upstream stations. These two groups, however, were rarely found in larger fish (over 10 cm) and in fish from the downstream stations. Two other groups of crustaceans, Ostracoda and Cirripedia (barnacles), also occurred in the digestive tracts but in relatively low numbers (less than 1% of total). All of the barnacles found were attached to small stones. Apparently white catfish cannot detach barnacles from objects but can eat those attached to small objects that can be ingested. Mysids were rare in the digestive tracts of the North Newport River catfish. These shrimplike crustaceans were found in only two fish (1.1%), both collected at downstream stations. Van Engle and Joseph (1968), however, found that mysid shrimps (Neomysis americana) were the second most frequently occurring (35.8%) group of food organisms and made up 26.7% of the total number of food organisms No. 1, 1975] HEARD—WHITE CATFISH 25 in Chesapeake Bay white catfish. Turner (1966) reported Neomysis awatchensis in 21.3% of fish less than one year old and in 32.3% of older fish. TABLE 3. Organisms occurring in over 5% of the white catfish digestive tracts. Ave No. Number Percent Ave. No. for Fish Percent Total No. of Total for all Positive Positive Incidence Organisms Organisms Fish Fish Gammarus tigrinus 134 77.0 1,136 20.68 6.53 8.48 Cyathura polita 83 47.7 235 4,29 1 B35) 2.83 Chironomid midge larvae 56 O22 240 4.37 1.38 4,29 Rhithropanopeus harrisii 42 24.1 54 0.98 0.31 1.29 Palaemonetes pugio 38 21.8 95 1.73 0.55 2.50 Monoculodes edwardsi 30 ie. 49 0.89 0.28 1.63 Scolecolepides viridis 29 16.7 850 15.48 4,89 29.3 Uca minax 28 16.1 42 0.76 0.24 1.50 Daphnia cf. pulex 28 16.1 750 13.66 4.31 26.79 Mesocyclops edax AU 15.5 750 13.66 4.31 Withee! Sphaeroma destructor 21 WAG 39 0.71 0.22 1.86 Corophium lacustre PAI Mest 270 4.92 1.55 12.86 Callinectes sapidus 13 el 18 0.33 0.10 1.38 Plumatella repens 10 5.6 10 0.18 0.06 1.00 Nereis succinea 9 pe 13 0.23 0.07 1.44 Melita nitida 9 5.2, 22 0.40 0.13 2.44 TOTALS NA NA 4,573 83.27 NA NA No Cumacea were found in the North Newport River catfish. Turner (1966) also reported no Cumacea in the white catfish he examined. Van Engle and Joseph (1968), however, found Cumacea in 17.4% of the stomachs examined; they made up 19% of the total number of organisms recorded. Insect remains were found in 55.2% of the stomachs from the North Newport River white catfish and made up 5.6% of the total number of food organisms. Chironomid midge larvae made up 78% of the total number of insects recovered. Chironomids have been reported to be an important food for white catfish in freshwater ponds in Alabama (Devaraj, 1970). In Chesapeake Bay, Van Engle and Joseph found insects (adults and larvae) in 13% of the fish examined. Most of these were recovered from fish taken in nearly freshwater conditions. Turner reported that larval diptera (Tendipedids) were a relatively common food, especially for small fish, in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta of California. Insects were found in 15.7% of white catfish from freshwater in the Santee-Cooper Reservoir in South Carolina; most of these were mayfly larvae. Polychaete worms occurred in 21.3% of the fish from the North Newport River and accounted for 15.8% of the total number of organisms recovered. Scolecolepides viridis and Nereis succinea were relatively common in fish from the downstream stations (A,B,C), and during the winter months they appeared to be an important part of the white catfish’s diet. Namalycastis abiuma, an oligohaline polychaete that can live in freshwater conditions, occurred in five fish collected at upstream Station F. Van Engle and Joseph (1968) found polychaetes, which made up 5.4% of the total food organisms, in 27.9% of stomachs from Chesapeake Bay 26 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 white catfish. Turner (1966) found polychaetes in less than 1% of California white catfish examined. Mollusks were rare in the digestive tracts of the North Newport River catfish. Van Engle and Joseph, however, found the coot clam Mulina lateralis in 26.7% of the stomachs they examined; it made up 25% of the total number of food or- ganisms recorded. Turner found the Asiatic clam Corbicula fluminea, a fresh- water species, in 4.7% of the fish he examined. Fish remains were present in 9.8% of the North Newport River catfish and occurred more frequently in larger specimens (Table 4). Turner (1966) reported fish remains in 3.1% of stomachs of California catfish and also found that most of the fish had been eaten by larger white catfish (over 20 cm). Data presented by Devaraj (1970) also indicate that consumption of fish by white catfish in experimental ponds was related to size. Stevens (1959), who studied white catfish from freshwater in the Santee-Cooper Reservoir in South Carolina, found crus- taceans in only 1.7% of 178 stomachs but found fish remains in 64.4% of these stomachs. Stevens, however, did not report the size of the white catfish studied. Van Engle and Joseph (1968) rarely found fish in the stomachs they examined. TABLE 4, Comparison of some food groups from the digestive tracts of white catfish under 14 cm with those of fish over 14 cm. under 14 cm SL over 14 cm SL (162 fish) (12 fish) Food Group % incidence % incidence Polychaeta 21.0 25.0 Amphipoda 84.0 66.7 Isopoda 55.6 50.0 Copepoda 21.6 0 Decapoda 45.7 100 Teleost 6.2 58.3 A comparison of the food data from white catfish collected at the upstream and downstream stations shows some noticeable differences. As expected, fresh- water and low salinity species such as Daphnia, Mesocyclops, chironomids, Corophium aquafuscum, Cassidinidea, Namalycastis, Physa, Cyrenoidea and Plumatella only occurred in fish from the upriver stations. Plumatella, Mesocyclops, Daphnia and Physa were common in a large treatment pond of a paper mill located adjacent to Riceboro Creek near Station F. Most of the specimens of these forms that were recovered from white catfish were probably released with the effluent from this pond. Mesohaline forms such as Alpheus, Neomysis, Parapleustes, Amphithoe and Edotea only occurred in fish from the downstream stations. Euryhaline and oligohaline species such as Callinectes, Rhithropanopeus, Uca, Palaemonetes, Gammarus, Corophium _ lacustre, Monoculodes, Cyathura, Sphaeroma, Nereis and Scolecolepides occurred throughout most of the sampling area. The wide variety of organisms recovered from digestive tracts of white catfish from the North Newport River and from stomachs of white catfish studied in other areas indicate that this species is an opportunistic omnivorous feeder. This No. 1, 1975] HEARD—WHITE CATFISH aif indiscriminate feeding behavior makes them very useful as “benthic samplers”’ for obtaining indirect data on the distribution and occurrence of invertebrate fauna. Some invertebrates were recovered from white catfish during this study which had not been observed in an invertebrate survey of this area by Heard and Heard (1971). For instance, the amphipod Monoculodes edwardsi was found in the stomachs and intestines of catfish collected at upstream stations E, F and G in salinities under 2%o. During the invertebrate survey the farthest upstream oc- currence of this amphipod was a single record from Station B. Limited data are available on the daily feeding activity of white catfish. Van Engel and Joseph (1968) reported that feeding of white catfish in Chesapeake Bay was © largely restricted to hours of darkness.’’ Devaraj (1970), however, found that white catfish maintained in freshwater ponds appeared to have “no definite peak times of feeding through periods of 24 hours.” My data indicate that at least some small white catfish feed during the daylight hours. One 4 cm specimen collected from Station H at 3:00 p.m. had over 100 amphipods (Corophium lacustre) in its stomach. All specimens examined were collected during daylight hours between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and approximately 40% of the stomachs from these fish were empty. Turner (1966) reported 84% of the 967 yearling white catfish had stomachs containing food, while only 68% of the 3,467 stomachs from larger fish had food, indicating that the younger fish were feeding more often than the larger ones. Turner, however, did not give any correlation between time of day and occurrence of empty stomachs. White catfish, which have a much greater tolerance for saline waters than do other ictalurids (Turner, 1966), appear to have a seasonal migration pattern. During the warmer months (April-November), white catfish were not found at downriver stations A and B. They appeared to move into these higher salinity areas in late fall, winter and early spring. During these cooler months they were collected downstream in the mesohaline areas of the estuary (Dahlberg, 1972). Two white catfish were taken at Station A where the salinity was 11%. White catfish have been collected from another area of the Georgia coast (Ossabaw Sound) in salinities as high as 17%o (Heard, unpublished data). Van Engle and Joseph (1968) also observed movement of white catfish into higher salinity (15%o) areas during cooler months. The factors controlling seasonal migration are not known. My data indicate that during cooler months food abundance decreased in the upstream areas and increased in the downstream areas. Benthic samples taken at downstream stations A and B during 1968-1970 contained greater numbers of polychaetes, amphipods and other invertebrates during winter and early spring than during warmer months. There may also be less competition for food with other fish species in the downstream areas in cooler months. The upstream migration of white catfish in the spring could be caused by several factors. The return of breeding fish up- stream to freshwater in the spring would be necessary, since white catfish ap- parently do not spawn in water of more than 2%o salinity (Perry and Avault, 1968). Increased competition from other fish species during warmer months and a 28 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 possible osmoregulatory problem associated with higher water temperature could also be factors. In future studies on estuarine populations of white catfish, the following points should be considered: 1) diurnal and seasonal feeding patterns comparing different age classes; 2) relationship of tidal cycles to feeding activity; 3) compe- tition for food and space with other fishes; 4) usefulness of white catfish as “benthic samplers” for invertebrates in low salinity waters; and 5) relationship of temperature and salinity to osmoregulation and seasonal movements. LITERATURE CITED Dau.berc, M. D. 1972. An ecological study of Georgia coastal fishes. Fishery Bull. 70:323-353. Devarayj, K. V. 1970. Food of channel catfish and white catfish in ponds that received supplemental food. Ph.D. dissertation. Auburn Univ. Auburn, Alabama. Hearp, R. W., anv J. E. HeEarp. 1971. Invertebrate fauna of the North and South Newport Rivers and adjacent waters. pp. 122-247. In An ecological survey of the North and South Newport Rivers and adjacent waters with respect to possible effects of treated kraft mill effluent. Final Report to Georgia Water Quality Control Board. , AND W. B. Sikora. 1972. A new species of Corophium Latreille, 1806 (Crustacea: Amphipoda) from Georgia brackish waters with some ecological notes. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 84:462-476. Perry, W.G., anp J. W. Avau_t, JR. 1968. Preliminary experiment on the culture of blue, channel and white catfish in brackish water ponds. Proc. 22nd Ann. Conf. Southeastern Assoc. Game Fish Comm. 1968:397-407. , AND ___. 1969. Culture of blue, channel and white catfish in brackish water ponds. Proc. 23rd Ann. Conf. Southeastern Assoc. Game Fish Comm. 1969:592-605. ScHwartTz, F. J., AND R. JacHowski. 1965. The age, growth, and length-weight relationship of the Patuxent River, Maryland, ictalurid white catfish, [ctalurus catus. Chesapeake Sci. 6:226-237. STEVENS, R. E. 1959. The white and channel catfishes of the Santee-Cooper Reservoir and Tailrace Sanctuary, Proc. 13th Ann. Conf. Southeastern Assoc. Game Fish Comm. 1959:203-219. Turner, J. L. 1968. Distribution and food habits of ictalurid fishes in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Fish. Bull. State California Dept. Fish Game. 136:130-143. Van ENGLE, W. A., AND E. B. Josepu. 1968. Characterization of coastal and estuarine fish nursery grounds as natural communities. U. S. Dept. Interior Fish Wildl. Serv. Final Rept. Florida Sci. 38(1):20-28. 1975. Biological Science PLAGUSIA DEPRESSA FROM THE NORTHEASTERN GULF OF MEXICO Ke1tz HABURAY Biology Department, Pensacola Junior College, Pensacola, Florida 32504 A SINGLE SPECIMEN Of the grapsoid crab, Plagusia depressa (Fabricius), was collected 19 January 1973 by the author and David Graham, a Pensacola Junior College student, who hand-captured it off the pilings of the Pensacola Beach Pier, Pensacola, Florida (Fig. 1). A second specimen of the same species was observed on the pilings but it was not captured. The specimen agreed fully with Williams (1965) description of Plagusia depressa. The specimen has been accessioned into No. 1, 1975] HABURAY—PLAGUSIA DEPRESSA 29 the crustacean collections of the U. S. National Museum (USNM—uncat.). Data for the specimen are as follows: carapace—female; length, 31.2 mm; width, 34.0 mm. Williams (1965) listed the range of this species as Beaufort, N. C. through West Indies to Pernambuco, Brazil; Bermuda, Azores; Madeira; West Africa, from Senegal to Gold Coast. Rathbun (1918) recorded P. depressa from the Dry Tortugas and Indian Key, Florida. The species has been collected on the east coast of Florida by Dr. Robert Gore (personal communication) and specimens collected from the Florida Keys are present in the Invertebrate Reference Collection, State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida. Felder (1973) reported the species from the vicinity of Port Aransas, Texas, and considers the species as uncommon; although it is occasionally seen on jetties along the south Texas coast (personal communication). Rouse (1969) does not include P. depressa in the collection of littoral crustaceans from the west coast of Florida from Chatham River in the Ten Thousand Islands to the upper Keys. em}' Fig. 1. Plagusia depressa collected off a piling at Pensacola Beach, Florida. The single specimen, herein described, constitutes the first published record of Plagusia depressa from the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. It extends the range of this species into the eastern half of the Gulf of Mexico from the previously recorded localities of the Dry Tortugas and Indian Key in the Florida Keys. I am indebted to Mr. Steve Foss, EPA, Gulf Breeze, Florida, for the pho- tograph of the crab. 30 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 LITERATURE CITED Fevper, D. L. 1973. An annotated key to crabs and lobsters (Decopoda, Reptantia) from coastal waters of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Louisiana State Univ. Sea Grant Rpt. -73-02. (in press) Ratusun, M. J. 1918. The grapsoid crabs of America. Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus. 97:332-334. Rouse, W. L. 1969. Littoral Crustacea from southwest Florida. Quart. J. Florida Acad. Sci. 32:127-152. Wixuias, A. B. 1965. Marine decapod Crustaceans of the Carolinas. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Fish. Bull. 65:223-224. Florida Sci. 38(1):28-30. 1975. Biological Sciences A NEW SUBSPECIES OF ANOLIS BALEATUS COPE (SAURIA: IGUANIDAE) FROM THE REPUBLICA DOMINICANA ALBERT SCHWARTZ Miami-Dade Community College, Miami, Florida 33167 Asstract: The subspecies is described from an isolated high valley in the eastern portion of the Dominican Cordillera Central. Comparisons are made with several adjacent subspecies, the rela- tionships discussed among the new subspecies and related subspecies, and a possible history of the species in this region is postulated. RECENTLY (Schwartz, 1974) I showed that the Hispaniolan giant anole (Anolis ricordi Duméril and Bibron) is best regarded as a composite of three full species (ricordi, baleatus Cope, barahonae Williams), and that each of these species in turn shows geographically correlated variation. Anolis baleatus is widespread throughout much of the Republica Dominicana with the exception of the southern Peninsula de Barahona (occupied by A. barahonae) and the eastern third of the country (occupied by A. ricordi which in this region “spills over’ from its primarily Haitian range into the Republica Dominicana). However, there are large areas in the latter country whence specimens remain unknown and in only two instances are intergrades known between two adjacent subspecies. Although A. baleatus is known to reach elevations in the Dominican Cordillera Central of 4000 ft (1220 m), the species is generally less abundant and less broadly distributed at high elevations than at low. I recognize eight subspecies of A. baleatus. These may conveniently be divided into those whose adult patterns are composed of crossbands (baleatus, caeruleolatus, multistruppus, fraudator), or of blotches (samanae, litorisilva, sublimis); one subspecies (scelestus) may have either bands or blotches as the major adult pattern elements, but in other subspecies either a banded or a blotched dorsum is stable, regardless of metachrosis. No. 1, 1975] SCHWARTZ—NEW SUBSPECIES OF ANOLE 31 In August 1973, I visited the village of Rancho Arriba with Gary C. Mosely, and a second visit was made to this isolated locality in March 1974 in the company of James W. Norton; I am grateful to both these men for their assistance in the field. Rancho Arriba is located on a new road which travels southwestward from Piedra Blanca on the main trans-Dominican road (Carretera Duarte) to San José de Ocoa on the southern slopes of the Cordillera Central. As one travels from Piedra Blanca at an elevation of 570 ft (174 m) southwestward, he gradually ascends the eastern face of the Cordillera Central until elevations of over 2600 ft (795 m) are reached; these upper slopes are now fairly well denuded and under cultivation, but there is some splendid deciduous forest in the ravines and oc- casionally above the road on the heights. After crossing this first ridge, the road descends to the valley wherein Rancho Arriba lies; the valley floor is at 2200 ft (670 m) and much of it is presently planted in rice. “Cafetales” and “cacaotales’, however, provide large shade trees which are optimal habitat for any of the Hispaniolan giant anoles. In addition, the Rio Nizao passes through the southern portion of the valley on its way from the Cordilleran uplands, and there remains gallery forest along much of its margin. Beyond the village of Rancho Arriba, the road once more ascends into the Cordillera Central, crossing the southeastern corner of that range and terminating at San José de Ocoa at an elevation of 1550 ft (475 m). In effect, then, the valley in which Rancho Arriba lies is totally isolated by high mountains on all sides; it would seem an ideal situation for local differentiation of wide-ranging species which occur elsewhere and have shown subspeciation in other portions of their ranges. Upon contacting residents of Rancho Arriba, we were advised that Anolis baleatus did indeed occur in the valley and residents of the village secured six specimens for me; these lizards were so obviously different from adjacent sub- species that in March 1974 my main objective was to secure additional specimens. In this we were successful, since two more A. baleatus were taken by natives. This short series of eight specimens differs in several ways from all other subspecies of A. baleatus and accordingly, I name the Rancho Arriba population as: Anolis baleatus altager, new subspecies. Ho.otyre: MCZ (Museum of Comparative Zoology) 132356, an adult male, from 0.5 km S. Rancho Arriba, 2200 ft (671 m), Peravia Province, Republica Dominicana, one of a series collected 23 August 1973 by native collectors. Original number ASFS (Albert Schwartz Field Series) V28218. ParaTyPEs: ASFS V28219-21, same data as holotype; ASFS V28247-48, same locality as holotype, 24 August 1973; ASFS V36483, Rancho Arriba, 2200 ft (671 m), Peravia Province, Republica Dominicana, 23 March 1974, native collector; ASFS V36525, 4 km NE Rancho Arriba, 2300 ft (702 m), Peravia Province, Republica Dominicana, 24 March 1974, native collector. Derinition: A subspecies of A. baleatus characterized by the combination of modally 3 snout scales between second canthal scales, 7 vertical rows of loreals, 3 scales between the supraorbital semicircles, moderate number of vertical dorsal 32 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 scales (16-19; mean 17.6), nuchal crest scales always very high, body crest scales always high, subocular scales always separated from supralabial scales by 1 row of scales, adult males basically pale grayish green to gray, blotched with darker gray-green to black, at times bordered with deep green, female (one specimen) dorsally almost black, flecked with yellow and not blotched or crossbanded; male dewlap almost always vivid orange (peach in one specimen), female dewlap bright orange, flecked with brown, the orange dewlap color extending anteriorly onto the entire throat and chin and in strong contrast with the blue to green labials, and in the female with dark green suffusions and markings laterally on the throat. DESCRIPTION OF HOLOTYPE: An adult male with a snout-vent length of 158 mm, tail (broken) 112 mm; snout scales at level of second canthals 3, 7 vertical rows of loreals, scales between the supraorbital semicircles not countable, -/5 scales between the interparietal and the supraorbital semicircles, vertical dorsals 16, horizontal dorsals 19, ventrals 26, 1 row of scales between the suboculars and supralabials, fourth toe lamellae on phalanges II and III 34, nuchal crest scales very high, body crest scales high (for methods of taking measurements and counts, see Schwartz, 1974); in life, dorsum grayish green, blotched with darker green; all labials blue to green, in strong contrast to vivid orange chin, throat, and dewlap; ventral ground color pale yellow-green; limbs and tail colored and blotched like dorsum; casque tan; eyeskin gray. VARIATION: The series of A. b. altager consists of 5 adult and 2 subadult males, and 1 adult female. The holotype is the largest male and the female (ASFS V28220) has a snout-vent length of 140 mm. The subadult males have snout-vent lengths of 117 mm (ASFS V28221) and 118 mm (ASFS V36525). Scale counts on the entire series are: snout scales at the level of the second canthal 2—4 (mode 3); vertical loreal rows 6—8 (mode 7); scales between supraorbital semicircles 2 or 3 (mode 3); scales between the interparietal and the supraorbital semicircles modally 5 (actual counts are 5/5—3 specimens; 4/5—1, 5/6—1; 6/6—1; —/5—1; 5 scales occur in 69% of the combinations); vertical dorsals 16—19 (M = 17.6); horizontal dorsals 19—23 (20.5); ventrals 19—27 (23.4); fourth toe lamellae on phalanges II and III 31—36; nuchal crest scales very high in all adults, body crest scales high in all adults; always one row of scales between the suboculars and the supralabials. Adult males were recorded in life as pale grayish green dorsally, blotched with darker gray-green, gray with a few scattered dark green to black spots bordered with deep green, and blotched gray and dull green; in no case are the greens involved bright. All labials are in strong contrast to the drab dorsal coloration; these scales are green to blue. In addition, males (with the exception of one) were recorded as having the dewlap vivid or bright orange, the color extending anteriorly onto the chin and throat, thereby making the green or blue labials even more conspicuous. The lower sides are at times blotched with deep green, and the venter varied from pale yellow-green to dull grayish green. The limbs are not banded but rather are colored and blotched like the dorsum; these colors and pattern continue onto the tail. The casque was recorded as tan to brown and the eyeskin gray. The single exceptional male (ASFS V36483) had a peach-colored dewlap and the chin and throat were recorded as yellow-green. The specimen has a snout-vent length of 145 mm and is considered an adult. The single female in the series is remarkably patterned and colored. In life, this lizard was almost black dorsally, with randomly scattered yellow flecks over the entire dorsum; the limbs were conspicuously banded with pale yellow-green and green, and the dewlap was bright orange flecked with brown. The chin and throat were concolorous with the dewlap, but there are dark green markings on the throat along the lower jaw and at the angle of the jaws. The two subadult males are generally like adult males. One subadult was more or less uniformly dark gray to black with neither blotches nor bands, but with the dewlap, throat, No. 1, 1975] SCHWARTZ—NEW SUBSPECIES OF ANOLE 33 and chin orange. The other subadult was dorsally bright green, vaguely marbled with bluish green; the limbs were banded bright green and yellow-green, and the dewlap was bright orange, the color extending anteriorly to the sublabials. The ventral color in this male was bluish to grayish green. Comparisons—Anolis b. altager lies geographically among four other sub- species: fraudator to the south on the southern slopes of the Cordillera Central; scelestus to the east in the Sierra de Yamasa and eastern Dominican lowlands; caeruleolatus to the northeast in the very mesic lowlands; and sublimis in the high uplands of the Cordillera Central to the northwest at elevations above 2000 ft (610 m). Of these subspecies, fraudator and caeruleolatus are crossbanded and are thus very distinctive in dorsal pattern from altager; A. b. sublimis is blotched; and A. b. scelestus may be either crossbanded or blotched. Of the blotched taxa, sublimis has a pale yellow-orange to orange dewlap but the color does not extend onto the chin and throat as it does in altager; rather these parts are pale green, flecked with darker green. In male scelestus, the dewlap is usually orange (although it has been recorded as deep yellow). The dorsum of male scelestus has been recorded as either olive green with pastel green crossbands or dark green flecked with lighter green; in female scelestus the dorsum is either olive green with pastel green crossbands or cream with some greenish to brownish green smudges, and the neck with alternating charcoal and pale blue streaks. I have no color notes on chin and throat in male scelestus but in females the area is dark green, marbled with yellow and pale green. In all these details, both male and female scelestus are quite different from both sexes in altager. Neither subspecies is so conspicuously blotched as is altager. Aside from the crossbanded condition in fraudator and caeruleolatus, the former differs from altager in having a white dewlap in females (adult males unknown) and the latter has the dewlap pale yellow-orange to orange in males, and yellow to orange in females. However, caeruleolatus, as its name implies, characteristically has sky-blue ventrolateral blotches at the junction of the dorsal and ventral colors. As far as scutellation is concerned, the following comments are pertinent. Scales between the second canthals are modally 2 in sublimis and scelestus, 3 in altager, and 4 in fraudator and caeruleolatus. Loreal rows are modally 7 in all these taxa except for fraudator (6) and caeruleolatus (8). Scales between the supraorbital semicircles are modally 3 in all subspecies concerned, 5/5 scales is the mode of scales between the interparietal and the semicircles in caeruleolatus, scelestus, and altager, but 4/4 in the mode in fraudator and sublimis. Means of vertical dorsals in these 5 subspecies range between a low of 15.4 in scelestus to a high of 19.2 in sublimis; the mean in altager is 17.6. Horizontal dorsal means range between 18.8 (scelestus) and 21.4 (fraudator) with a mean of 20.5 in altager. Means of ventral scales vary from 20.7 in fraudator to 25.1 in sublimis; the ventral mean in altager is 23.4. In all these cases there is much overlap of counts, although vertical counts of apparently small differences may be statistically significant (see table in Schwartz, 1974). In altager, nuchal crest scales are always very high and body crest scales are high. In caeruleolatus, the nuchal crest scales are usually high, and the body crest scales are usually moderate; in fraudator, the nuchal 34 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 scales are high in the single adult and the body crest scales are moderate. In all other associated subspecies, the nuchal scales are very high and the body scales are high, as in altager. The supralabials are modally separated from the suboculars by one row of scales in all taxa under consideration, and in fact this is the usual condition in A. baleatus. Comparisons of altager with remaining, and more distant, subspecies (balea- tus, samanae, litorisilvua, and multistruppus) are hardly necessary. Of these, mul- tistruppus and baleatus are prominently crossbanded. Although samanae is blotched, the dorsum is dark green, greenish, dull gray-green, brown, or blackish, and the male dewlap is dull yellow to pale yellowish orange or orange, with the throat green to yellowish or orange and mottled with black or gray. Anolis b. litorisilva is light blue-brown to light green-brown in a blotched pattern, and the male dewlap is bright orange. In males the chin and throat (including the labials) are bright orange, and in females pale yellow-green, without any strong contrast between the throat color and that of the labials. Of all the subspecies of A. baleatus, the largest is scelestus (males to 180 mm, females to 147 mm) and the smallest is multistruppus (males to 146 mm, females to 136 mm). Anolis b. altager resembles the subspecies samanae and litorisilva in having males about 158 mm in snout-vent lengths. Remarks—The nearest records of any subspecies of A. baleatus to the known range of A. b. altager are: fraudator, south of La Horma, Peravia Province (12 km airline from Rancho Arriba); caeruleolatus, La Cumbre, La Vega Province (22 km from Rancho Arriba); scelestus, 8 km N Yamasa, San Cristébal Province (48 km from Rancho Arriba); and sublimis, La Palma, 14 km E El Rio, La Vega Province (34 km from Rancho Arriba). Despite the proximity of fraudator and sublimis to the range of altager, the intervening areas encompass some of the high interior of the Cordillera Central. These higher elevations are often pine-clad and are unsuitable for A. baleatus. Thus intermediates between altager and sublimis or fraudator are neither known or expected; altager is separated very effectively from these subspecies by high elevations and unsuitable environments. In- tergradation between scelestus or caeruleolatus might be expected, although neither of these subspecies is known from the lower eastern foothills of the Cordillera Central. In fact, specimens from Banao and 1 km W Jayaco, both in La Vega Province and both close to, or actually on, the lower eastern slopes of the Cordillera Central, are apparently intergradient between A. b. multistruppus (which is associated with the northern foothills of the Central) and caeruleolatus (and possibly even scelestus) from the northeastern lowlands. There may be intergradation between this intermediate population and altager, but it remains unknown. It seems very likely that altager is an isolated population in a high valley in the Cordillera Central, a population which currently lacks genetic contact with populations outside of or on the lower peripheral slopes of that range. At a locality 15.7 km SW Piedra Blanca at an elevation of 1800 ft (550 m), and on the ascending outer slopes of the Cordillera Central, we have repeatedly searched at night for sleeping A. baleatus in a well-wooded ravine but have met with no success. It is difficult to accept that A. baleatus is absent from this locality, No. 1, 1975] SCHWARTZ—NEW SUBSPECIES OF ANOLE 35 which is more or less half-way by road between Piedra Blanca in the central valley and Rancho Arriba, and it would be most interesting to determine what taxon inhabits this locality. Possibly the area is occupied by altager X caeruleolatus intergrades, but I suspect that this outer montane slope will harbor anoles without evidence of genetic influence of altager. The name altager is a Latin translation of Rancho Arriba: altus + ager=high farm. LITERATURE CITED ScHwarzz, A. 1974. An analysis of variation in the Hispaniolan giant anole, Anolis ricordi Duméril and Bibron. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 146(2):89-146. Florida Sci. 38(1):30-35. 1975. Biological Sciences AN UNUSUAL HABITAT FOR THE FISH RIVULUS MARMORATUS FREDRICK W. BROCKMANN Applied Marine Ecology Station, North Barfield Drive, Marco, Florida 33937 ABSTRACT: A specimen was collected on Marco Island, Florida, from damp peat several hundred feet from the nearest water. A SPECIMEN Of Rivulus marmoratus Poey 39.2mm long was collected by me on Marco Island, Florida, 16 February 1973 under rather unusual circumstances. This species, a cyprinodontid, has been introduced to this country from Cuba and now is found in scattered localities throughout southern Florida. It is known to be euryhaline, occurring from zero to 28.4 ppt. salinity (Roessler, 1970). To reach Marco Island, unless its occurrence were the result of being released from an aquarium, Rivulus marmoratus would have had to cross the Marco River which normally has a salinity of greater than 28 ppt., i.e. 30-34 ppt. normally and higher during the dry season. Tabb and Manning (1961) state that this species is exceedingly difficult to collect for it burrows into the mangrove debris at the bottom of ponds, has extreme tolerance to hydrogen sulphide and can live in water foul enough to kill all but tarpon. I collected one of these hardy little fish under even more severe conditions than a stagnant pond. While searching an isolated part of Marco Island for antique bottles, Lee Ryall of Deltona’s engineering department turned over a large piece of rusting junk and discovered the fish among clods of partially dried peat. The area is an old nursery on the southern end of the island, and is somewhat isolated. Dredge and fill 36 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 operations have lowered water levels here so that the location had been 6 to 7 ft above and several hundred ft from the nearest body of water, a saline finger canal, for several months. The mud and peat in the surrounding area were dried and cracked into blocks that easily supported a man’s weight. Mr. Ryall replaced the piece of junk over the fish and 5 hr later took me to the site, where I found it still alive and in seemingly good condition among the slightly moist clods of peat. Its body was moist, but the abdomen was slightly shrunken, indicating that it had not fed for some time. There was no standing water among the peat clods nor anywhere near the area, and there had been no significant rainfall for several weeks. The Rivulus was in, and probably had been in, air for a considerable time, and may have had to travel overland many ft to its current location. The most likely explanation is that it retreated into an uninhabited fiddler crab burrow as the water level dropped due to dredging and the onset of the winter dry season. The burrow finally going dry, the fish was forced to seek water and food. An overland journey of considerable distance is indicated, as a brief search by Mr. Ryall and myself failed to find a burrow closer than about 6 ft. This may be a new behavioral and endurance record for Rivulus marmoratus. LITERATURE CITED RoEssLer, M. A. 1970. Checklist of fishes in Buttonwood Canal, Everglades National Park, Florida, and observations on the seasonal occurrence and life histories of selected species. Bull. Mar. Sci. 20:860-893. Tass, D.C. anp R. B. Manninc. 1961. A checklist of the flora and fauna of northern Florida Bay and adjacent brackish waters of the Florida mainland collected during the period July, 1957 through September, 1960. Bull. Mar. Sci. 11:552-649. Florida Sci. 38(1):35-36. 1975. Biological Sciences COLORATION CHANGES IN SUB-ADULT LARGEMOUTH BASS EXPOSED TO LIGHT AND DARK BACKGROUND! E. J. Mover AND R. L. WiLBuR’ Eustis Fisheries Research Laboratory, Eustis, Florida 32726 Asstract: A group of bass exposed to black sided aquaria darkened and fed poorly; those exposed to white sided aquaria were paler and fed well but, when backgrounds were reversed, anticipated response to black background was minimal. Stock tanks coated with white epoxy paint and others with black epoxy were used for holding largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) in the laboratory. After a few days it was noted that the fish in the black tanks appeared darker and those in the white tanks lighter. This prompted further investigation and experimenta- tion. Odiore (1957) reported that most fish respond to a dark background by increases in number and dispersion of pigment in their melanophores, although Fundulus shows little change unless first exposed to a light background. Color reduction in cod (Godus morhua) due to background change from dark to light was noted by Chinarina (1959). Expanding Chinarina’s observation, Peterson, et al. (1966) were able to confirm color change with spectral analysis, in which pigments were found to decrease as much as 38% in brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Two 265 1 aquaria were set up with aeration and charcoal-fiberglass cir- culating filtering systems on November 23, 1973. Water temperature in both aquaria several days later was 24°C and remained within 1°C during the course of the experiment. Water source was city water (Eustis, Florida) which had been dechlorinated at the laboratory. On November 27, 1973 four largemouth bass (Group I) with an average total length of 155 mm and average weight of 47 g were added to one aquaria, while four other bass (Group II) averaging 134 mm and 35 g were added to the second aquaria. All bass were obtained from a single progeny that had resulted from the artificial stripping of gametes from a single female and male in March 1973. The hatched fry were raised in the laboratory in specially prepared water troughs. On December 11, 1973 the aquarium containing the Group I bass was enclosed with black posterboard while the aquarium with Group II bass was covered with white posterboard. Tops of both aquaria were open to light from fluorescent lamps on the ceiling 3.17 m above the water surface. The lights were ‘Contribution from Federal Aid Restoration Funds under Dingell-Johnson F-24, State of Florida. Paper Number 15 of the Eustis Fisheries Research Laboratory, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. *Present address: Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2222 West Greenway Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85023. 38 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 generally turned off at about 8:00 p.m. and turned on about 8:00 a.m. On January 11, 1974 the Group I bass were switched from the black background aquarium to the white background aquarium, and the Group II bass were moved into the black background aquarium. Photographs of bass and notes of color change were taken every two weeks. Bass groups were fed fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) at a rate of 5% of their combined body weight per day throughout the experiment. One bass in Group I died on January 24, 1974 apparently from aggressive behavior of a slightly larger sibling. Fig. 1-6. Sub-adult largemouth bass showing variations in body pigments resulting from changes in background color. 1. Group I prior to background test; 2. Group II prior to background test; 3. Group I after 1 month exposure to black background; 4. Group II after 1 month exposure to white background; 5. Group I after 1 month exposure to black background; 6. Group II after 1 month exposure to white background. No. 1, 1975] MOYER AND WILBUR—LARGEMOUTH BASS 39 Our photographs (Fig. 1-6) illustrate that the initial exposure of the Group I bass to the black background resulted in a darkening of their overall color by intensifying the darkly pigmented blotches around the lateral line and vermiform patterns on the back. The Group II in the white background underwent a shift towards a lighter overall color, displaying less contrast between lightly and darkly pigmented areas. When the groups were switched, the darkly colored bass (Group I) lightened and the lightly colored group (Group II) darkened. During the 31 days that Group I was in the black tank they gained an average of 4 mm total length and 0.0 g weight, whereas Group II gained an average of 14 mm and 9 g while in the white tank. Upon tank reversal, Group I gained 14 mm and 17 g in 32 days in the white tank, and Group II gained 15 mm and 11 g in the black tank. Whereas Group I fed poorly and grew at a much lower rate while in the black tank, feeding and growth of Group II did not seem to be greatly affected by background color. Whether or not background color affects feeding rate and growth was not clearly demonstrated and perhaps warrants further investigation. LITERATURE CITED Curnarina, A. D. 1959. Changes in the pigmentation of the Gadus morhus morhua Z. depending on the background. Dokl. Acad. Nauk, Biol. Sect. (English transl.) 126:437. OpiornE, J. M. 1957. Color changes. pp. 387-401. In Brown, M. E. (Ed.) The Physiology of Fishes, 2. Academic Press. New York. Peterson, D. H., H. K. Jacer, G. M. Savace, G. N. WasHBuRN, AND H. Westers. 1966. Natural coloration of trout using xanthophylls. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 95:409-414. Florida Sci. 38(1):37-39. 1975. Science Teaching BIOLOGY TEXTS UTILIZED IN FLORIDA SECONDARY SCHOOLS BARBARA ANN WHITTIER Lyman High School, Longwood, Florida 32750 AssTRACT: A survey was conducted of first year biology textbooks and their utilization in Florida public high schools in the Spring of 1974. Of the 278 high schools listed in the Florida Educational Directory, 140 schools were randomly selected. Textbook utilization throughout the state was compared by geographic regions, school size and community size. Instructional time tended to be greater in small schools in small communities while the laboratory time tended to be greater in medium size schools in urban communities. INsTRUCTION in first year biology for secondary school students has undergone remarkable changes since the American Institute of Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) was begun in 1958. Since the publication of the BSCS texts with the first ten chapters of each of the three versions introduced on a commercial basis for the 1963-64 school year, much interest has been centered upon the degree of success achieved. Coley (1966) studied the initial impact of the BSCS in Florida but no one has attempted a parallel evaluation after the first ten years. The BSCS Curricula are kept current by means of the BSCS News Letter issued at irregular intervals by the BSCS Center at the University of Colorado. It is through the wide distribution of the BSCS News Letrer that teachers have the opportunity to update their materials and develop more effective methods of presenting the BSCS materials to students. MetHops—In this study we have sought to identify textbooks in use in the state. This information allows us, albeit indirectly, to determine the orientation of first year biology courses in Florida. We sought specific information on the relationship between texts and school environment, community size and student enrollment, the amount of formal instruction, laboratory instruction, geographic regions of the state and general use, based upon a teacher survey. In February, 1974, questionnaires were sent to 140 public high schools randomly selected in the State of Florida. Space was provided on the back of the questionnaire to permit participants to respond to a question soliciting personal opinions and the opinions of their peers on the effectiveness of the text presently in use and of their first year biology curriculum. All counties were represented and 66.4% (93) of the possible respondents returned the questionnaire for evaluation. Data thus accumulated were tabulated under appropriate categories. The state was divided into five geographic regions (Fig. 1), consistent with other studies undertaken by W. Esler, J. Armstrong and C. Dziuban (1974). No. 1, 1975] WHITTIER—BIOLOGY TEXTS IN FLORIDA 4] Response data were refined to correlate with community size, school enrollments, and grade levels within the school. Of the 93 schools represented in this survey, 82% have student populations above 600 and 36% over 1800. Most were located in small town or urban en- vironments with 39% characterized as small towns. The “typical” school surveyed is a high school with grades 9-12 or 10-12 as shown in Table 1. WINNS ok US NON) A ee) A 7 ANN 1s (| ws sh ope A AY > N 4 SAN AR eee NN WAN NS Xi ). Ras BSR LLL *, LEE Zz 1, wae. wees LEGEND TO THE FIVE GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS USED IN THIS STUDY "aa ‘ a | a_i zB Lia NORTHWEST NORTHEAST WU CENTRAL WEST SOUTH LI 74 Fig. 1. County map of Florida showing the limits of the geographic regions used in this study. Seven texts were reported in use for first year biology courses throughout the state. Listed in the order of the number of responses, they are as follows (number of responses in parentheses): Biological Science: An Inquiry Into Life (BSCS Yellow Version), 2nd ed. Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1968. (35) High School Biology: BSCS Green Version, 2nd ed. Rand McNally and Co., 1968. (35) Biological Science: Molecules to Man (BSCS Blue Version), 2nd ed. Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1968. (27) Otto and Towle. Modern Biology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965. (26) Smallwood. Biology. Silver Burdett and Co., 1971. (23) Wong. Ideas and Investigations in Science: Biology. Prentice-Hall, 1971. (15) Brandwein, et al. The Earth: Its Living Things, 2nd ed. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970. (11) 492 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 TABLE 1. Percentage response for geographic location, school community, enroll- ment, and grade levels for the schools in the sample population. 1. Geographic Northwest Northeast Central West South Location (93) (26) (15) (20) (12) (20) 28.0% 16.1% 21.5% 12.9% 21.5% 2. School Urban Small Town Rural Other Community (93) (27) (36) (20) (10) 29.0% 38.7% 21.5% 10.8% 3. Enrollment (93) 1800 1201-1800 601-1200 0-600 (34) (10) (32) (17) 36.6% 10.8% 34.4% 18.3% 4. Grade Levels kea12 (Ae 9-12 10-12 Other in School (93) ( 9) (10) (41) (30) (3) 9.7% 10.8% 44.1% 32.2% 3.2% Most respondents indicated that more than one text was used in their first year biology program. In fact, Table 2 shows 40 responses on textbook utilization provided by 26 respondents from the Northwest, a ratio of 1.5 texts for each student! Regrettably the questionnaire was not designed to explore the implica- tions of such ratios. Respondent: textbook ratios for the Northwest are 1:1.5, for the Northeast 1:2.1, for Central Florida 1:1.6, for the West Coast 1:2.1 and for the South 1:2.4, whereas over the entire state it is about 1:1.9, suggesting that many schools utilize two textbooks as alternates in first year biology programs. Some may have at least three texts from which to select. Some variations found in text selection seemed to correlate with school size. The five most utilized texts (Table 2) were selected by 17 small, 42 medium and 34 large schools as follows: BSCS Yellow—5 small, 10 medium, 17 large; BSCS TABLE 2. Responses correlating state geographic regions and textbook utilization. Geographic Regions of the State Northwest Northeast Central West South Total Textbook (26) (15) (19) (12) (20) ss o2 Yellow Version BSCS 6 8 8 6 7 = 35 Green Version BSCS 12 8 5 4 6 = 35 Blue Version BSCS 4 6 7 ] 9 = QQ The Earth: Its Living Things iL 4 1 2 3 eee Modern Biology 5 4 5 3 .: = aG Ideas and Investigations Y) 4 3 1 Sa 15 Biology 4 4 ] 7 Hh = 22 Other 3 3 0 1 ae 8 No. 1, 1975] WHITTIER—BIOLOGY TEXTS IN FLORIDA 43 Green—7 small, 15 medium, 16 large; BSCS Blue—2 small, 7 medium, 17 large; Modern Biology—8 small, 9 medium, 6 large; Biology—1 small, 7 medium and 13 large. Community size for 27 urban, 36 small town and 20 rural communities were compared to the five most utilized texts (Table 2) with the following results: BSCS Yellow—13 urban, 11 small town and 8 rural; BSCS Green—14 urban, 15 small town, and 6 rural; BSCS Blue—13 urban, 8 small town, and 3 rural; Modern Biology—4 urban, 11 small town and 6 rural; Biology—9 urban, 6 small town and 4 rural. The geographic data indicate that in the Northwest, the most widely used text was the BSCS Green Version; in the Northeast the BSCS Yellow and Green Versions appear to have equal usage. Respondents in Central Florida most frequently reported the use of the BSCS Yellow Version, while in the West, both the BSCS Green and Smallwood’s Biology were reported with equal frequency. In the South, both the BSCS Green Version and Modern Biology rank about equally in reports. Among 88 respondents to the question on instructional time, 65 met 0-275 min per wk, 19 met 276-385 min per wk and 4 met more than 385 min per wk. These proportions obtained for medium and large schools but 6 of 16 small schools met more than 276 min per wk. Responses concerning class time for the three time periods used was compared to the five most utilized texts (Table 2) with the following results: BSCS Yellow, 31 responses—27 at 0-275, 4 at 276-385; BSCS Green, 37 responses—30 at 0-275, 7 at 276-385; BSCS Blue, 25 responses—18 at 0-275, 6 at 276-385; 1 at more than 386; Modern Biology, 22 responses—17 at 0-275; 4 at 276-385, and | at more than 386; Biology, 21 responses—16 at 0-275; 3 at 276-385 and 2 at more than 386. TABLE 3. Response correlating textbooks and laboratory time allocation. Laboratory Time Allocation (Min. per wk.) 0-60 61-120 121-180 181-240 240 + Total Textbook 50 32 4 3 1 = 92 Yellow Version BSCS 19 12 ] 0 0 = 32 Green Version BSCS 22 12 3 1 0 = 38 Blue Version BSCS 13 10 1 1 ] = 26 The Earth: Its Living Things 8 1 IL 1 Oe — eel Modern Biology 18 4 i 0 OO = 38 Ideas and Investigations 9 4 2 1 a 16 Biology 13 9 0 1 ree ee Other 3 5 0 1 0 2 8 44 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 Separate laboratory experience, greater than | hr per wk is provided in 17 of 35 large schools, 13 of the 38 medium schools, and 4 of the 16 small schools; 61-120 min per wk was provided in 15 of the 35 large schools, 9 of the 38 medium schools and 3 of the 16 small schools; 121-180 min per wk was provided in 1 of the 35 large schools, 2 of the 38 medium schools and none from the small schools; 181-240 min per wk was provided in 1 of the 35 large schools, 1 of the 38 medium schools and 1 of the 16 small schools; only one school from the medium range provided greater than 240 min laboratory time per wk. Students in the Northwest and Central Florida regions appear to receive the greatest amount of exposure to laboratory with 14 schools in the Northwest offering more than | hr of laboratory time per wk, 5 taught more than 2 hr per wk, and 2 provided 3 hr a wk. In Central Florida, 9 provided 2 hr of laboratory time per wk, and two respondents reported 3 and 4 hr, or more. In the Northeast, only 2 indicated that more than | hr of laboratory was provided per wk. In the West 5 reported up to 2 hr of laboratory experience per wk, and in the South, 8 reported up to 2 hr laboratory per week. Laboratory time is correlated with frequently used texts in Table 3. Teacher experience varies little in our sample with teachers in the Northwest having 6-8 yr, the Northeast 7-9 yr, Central 6-8 yr, West 7-10 yr, and in the South 6-9 yr of teaching experience. It appears in our sample that the schools located within an urban and small town community have the largest number of teachers possessing more than 8 yr of teaching experience. Respondents who chose the unspecified category which included “ghetto,” “farm,” and “fishing community, ” appear to have the youngest faculty associates. DiscussioN AND CONCLUuSIONS: The seven texts most used for first year biology are somewhat different in level and content. Text selection may reflect some aspects of course emphasis beyond those parameters recorded above. The statements of level and content are based upon the Catalog of State Adopted Textbooks for 1973-74. High School Biology: BSCS Green.—Suitable for “average” students in grades 10-12, with content organized using the ecological and evolutionary approach. Laboratory exercises are included in each chapter. Most critics of the BSCS materials agree that of all the BSCS texts available, this is the most easily read and followed. This text was primarily used in schools with more than 1800 students, about equally in small towns and urban communities. Molecules to Man: BSCS Blue.—Suitable for “average” 10-12th graders, presenting a biochemical approach. Laboratory exercises are included in each chapter. The BSCS Blue Version was found primarily to be used by schools with student populations greater than 1800. Urban communities, more than any other type, make the most use of it. The Earth: Its Living Things (Brandwein, et al.)—Suitable for “low ability” 10th graders. This text was used primarily by schools with student enrollments of 0-600, and located in small towns. Modern Biology (Otto, Towle)—Uses the traditional approach to biology, and is reported easily followed by students in 9-12th grades. The greatest number of No. 1, 1975] WHITTIER—BIOLOGY TEXTS IN FLORIDA 45 users were in small towns or rural communities and in schools with student populations of 0-600. Ideas and Investigations Into Science: Biology (Wong)—Suitable for pupils of “low ability,” in 9th and/or 10th grade. It was primarily found in urban com- munities with schools having student enrollments greater than 1800. Biology (Smallwood)—Suitable for pupils of “average” and “above average” ability, in grades 9-10. It seems to be used within urban school communities, in schools with student populations greater than 1800. It is clear that the BSCS texts have a strong influence on biology teaching in Florida, and that there exist some modest regional differences in text selection, multiple text usage, instructional time available, and faculty experience. Small schools and those in “ghettos,” “farm,” and “fishing communities” seem to offer less laboratory time than others and to have less experienced teachers. These findings are essentially consistent with comparable data from elsewhere in the nation but specific information for Florida may be helpful for future planning leading to improved educational experiences for our students. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS~—I wish to recognize the support, advice and direction provided by Dr. John Armstrong and Dr. Charles Dziuban in the preparation of this paper. In addition I would like to acknowledge the advice of Dr. James Koevenig and Dr. Harvey A. Miller. Most of all I would like to recognize the support given by my husband, Dr. Henry O. Whittier. LITERATURE CITED BroLocicaL SciENCE CurricuLUM Stupy CommitTEE (BSCS). 1968a. Biological Science: An Inquiry Into Life. (BSCS Yellow Version) 2nd ed. Harcourt, Brace and World. New York. . 1968b. Biological Science: Molecules to Man. (BSCS Blue Version) 2nd ed. Houghton- Mifflin Co. New York. . 1968c. High School Biology: BSCS Green Version. 2nd ed. Rand McNally and Co. Chicago. BRANDWEIN, P. S., A. D. Beck, V. R. STRAHLER, M. J. BRENNAN AND D. S. Turner. 1970. The Earth: Its Living Things. 2nd ed. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. New York. Cory, J. W. 1966. The BSCS Study: Its present status as perceived by certain biology teachers in Florida high schools. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. Florida. Gainesville. Ester, W., J. ARMSTRONG AND C. Dziusan. 1974. A survey of science instruction in Florida’s elementary schools. Florida Technological Univ. Orlando. (unpublished manuscript) Fiorina DEPARTMENT OF Epucation. 1972-73. Florida Educational Directory. Textbook Services. Tallahassee. . 1973-74. State Adopted Textbooks in Florida. Catalog—1973-74. Tallahassee. SMALLWoop, W. L. 1971. Biology. Silver Burdett Co. Morristown, New Jersey. Florida Sci. 38(1):40-45. 1975. Social Sciences SOME ENGLISH COMMENTS ON THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES AND THE UNITED STATES SENATE GEORGE OSBORN 505 North Foster Street, Apt. 6, Dothan, Alabama 36301 BriTISHERS who were well acquainted with the United States Senate’s Cons- titutional role in treaty ratification early recognized the traditional mores that must be surmounted if President Wilson was to succeed in having the treaty of Versailles, including the charter for the League of Nations, accepted. As Sir Cecil Spring Rice expressed it bluntly the American people would have to “abandon the Monroe Doctrine and the Washingtonian tradition against entangling alliances” if the United States accepted any kind of league to maintain peace. Would the American people educate their rulers to the necessity of abandoning outmoded Washingtonian traditions and show them the necessity of accepting the role of world leadership which the gods of fate were bestowing upon them? The British Ambassador hoped for the best but he assured Lord Mt. Balfour that he would have nothing to do with any propaganda aimed to convince American leaders that America’s future lay in rejecting age-old continentalism and accepting a sig- nificant role in internationalism. In fact, James D. Whelpley, an English reporter of some note in America, had written months earlier that the United States would be “compelled by the force of circumstances and in self-defence to take her full share of responsibility as well as privileges accruing to a World Power of the first rank.” (1)! James Viscount Bryce, busy as ever in the interests of a successful peace settlement, read with misgivings a letter from Senator Henry Cabot Lodge opposing as untimely any efforts in Great Britain to raise a statue to Woodrow Wilson. While admitting to his long-time friend that there was a “very widespread desire for a League of Nations as a means of maintaining the peace of the world’, the Senator from Massachusetts contended that the Senate was “very adverse to any arrangements which would submerge our [American] indepen- dence and sovereignty in any international body to allow an international body in any way to control our Army and Navy.” | Senator Lodge, from his vantage position as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, spoke not merely a personal opinion but as a recognized leader of the Republican party. A. Lawrence Lowell, likewise a Republican, wrote Bryce, as did Lodge, about the strangeness of the American democracy “whose only spokesman at the peace conference’ was a President whose recent efforts to obtain a vote of confidence from the American people had failed miserably.(2) 'Editor’s Note: The nature of sources cited in this contribution is such that a numeral system of citations is used instead of the author, date, method employed in our usual editorial format. No. 1, 1975] OSBORN—TREATY OF VERSAILLES 47 Henry White, the aging Republican member of the American Peace Com- mission, wrote from Paris to Senator Porter McCumber that, “irrespective of every question of home politics’, unless the United States became a party to the League it would “come to nought.” Indeed, nearly all representatives of other nations at the Peace Conferences were chiefly, if not solely, concerned with their own nationalistic interests in a very narrow sense. This associate of Wilson on the peace delegation was not impressed with the British reception of Wilson’s plan for peace settlement. Nor was Sir William Wiseman, Chief of the British Military Intelligence in America, impressed with any American opposition to the treaty. He believed that the President would be able to force the Senate to ratify the treaty “without amendments or resolutions.” A week later Wiseman confessed to Colonel House that he regarded the treaty situation in America as good. Although the Republican objections were trifling, as Sir Wiseman saw them, he suggested that the President accept some mild Republican reservations “much as the Americans made to the Hague Conven- tion,’ and caused a fight in the United States Senate over ratification. To Sir Arthur C. Murray in the Department on British Foreign Affairs, Sir Wiseman was more outspoken for he wrote that Wilson would have to “‘accept some sort of interpretive resolution from the Republicans.” After having had lunch recently with the President at the White House, Sir Wiseman told Sir Murray that Wilson realized he was up against the powerful Republican party machine “which would hold up ratification of the treaty if they thought it suited their political purpose.” And to Sir Eric Drummond, Wiseman confided there were “indications that the Republicans” would attack the President.(3) On July 10, Wilson handed the treaty to the Senate for ratification with a fitting address. He offered his services and all the cooperation he possessed to the Senators and especially to the Committee on Foreign Relations. America’s role at the Conference was dictated by her reason in entering the war. She entered the war as the disinterested champion of right and she in the peace settlement sought no separation but only the restoration of rights and the assurance of liberty. Although old entanglements of every imaginative type stood in the way, the atmosphere of the Conference was created by “the hopes and aspirations of small nations.” Indeed, Wilson stated that in all quarters of the world old-fashioned relationships were “disturbed or broken and affairs were at loose ends.” In order to rectify these evils and provide justice in the future a “league of free nations had become a practical necessity.” It was an indispensable instrumentality for the maintenance of the new order “in the world of civilized man.” The League of Nations was not merely “an instrument to adjust and remedy old wrongs under a new treaty of peace; it was the only hope for mankind.” Would America, shouted Wilson climactically, “hesitate to accept this great duty? Dare we reject it and break the heart of the world?” To the traditionalists and continentalists the President said that our isolation ended at the turn of the century and America had just “reached her majority as a world power.” The only question remaining, the internationalist Wilson affirmed, was whether America could “require the moral leadership” that is offered her, 48 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 whether she would “accept or reject the confidence of the world.” Our par- ticipation in the war established our position as a world power and “nothing but by the hand of God” a new role and a new responsibility have come to these United States. America could not turn back. She could only go forward, “with lifted eyes and freshened spirit, to follow the vision. ’(4) After carefully reading the President’s message to the Senate and observing his actions towards the Senators, Sir Wiseman cabled Colonel House in Paris that Wilson was “dealing with the Senate oppositions seriously and patiently.” He was interviewing Senators daily. The Englishman stationed in the United States was ignorant as to what caused Wilson to “abandon his old defiant and contemptuous attitude” but it was certainly one of the wisest things he had ever done. According to Sir Wiseman the Senate fight centered around Senator Lodge and “unfor- tunately, the old gentleman’s point of view was utterly warped by his bitter personal hatred of Wilson.” Wiseman thought that the President had won over several opponents who had not previously committed themselves to the league’s covenant. While Wilson foresaw that he “may be obliged to agree to some reservations, he was entirely satisfied he had the support of the people and was most eager to tour the country for the League.” Wiseman regarded the situation very satisfactory, particularly as the President had “adopted a wise and patient attitude towards the Senate.” From London Viscount Bryce informed Lawrence Lowell that whatever the defects the Covenant in the treaty may have it was “an immense advance’ and Wilson deserved credit “for his tenacity.” The French didn’t like the Covenant nor did the Italians “while the British Government [except Robert Cecil] took only a lukewarm interest in it .. . and no one credited Lloyd George with more than an opportunist interest in anything.” As for the British people, Bryce wrote that only among the “educated people and the best of the working men” was the Covenant really valued. To Charles W. Eliot, Lord Bryce declared that, as faulty as the League Covenant was in some respects “we must do everything possible to get it ratified.” Lord Bryce urged James Ford Rhodes to remain “sanguine about America’s acceptance of the League of Nations’; it was the only chance of saving what remained of European Christianity. The distinguished Briton understood that “Wilson’s conduction of affairs lamentably failed to reach the level of his speeches and wondered why he had not begun at Paris by “declaring that America could pay no regard to secret treaties and that she would insist on a strict application of the Fourteen Points.’’(5) As the President put the finishing touches to his address to Congress the London Times announced that Wilson was beginning the hardest battle of his career. The senatorial situation, might “if superficially scrutinized appall the stoutest heart.” Whatever stand the President took he would be “buffeted by conflicting currents of vocal opinions.” The liberal idealists were opposing the whole peace settlement because it did not tally with Wilson’s principles and the conservatives were “ranged in sullen and serried opposition” because they op- posed all entangling alliances. The ultimate outcome, concluded the independent TIMES, was “beyond prophecy by anyone save a fool or a seer.” This widely read No. 1, 1975] OSBORN—TREATY OF VERSAILLES 49 London newspaper noted that Wilson was the first President to present a treaty personally to the Senate and to accompany it with a message of presentation which was delivered with the Senate’s doors open to the public. Yet another precedent was made when the Senate ordered that the treaty be printed immediately for public circulation. This speech, thought the London Times correspondent, who sat in the press gallery as Wilson spoke, was “‘an appeal rather than an argument, soothing and mellifluous rather than informing.” The President appealed to the nation rather than to the Senate and seemed to be looking over the heads of the Senators to a wider ring of listeners beyond. The address, the Times concluded, “would go down in history as, next to his fourteen points speech, the most important Senate document that Wilson produced. (6) The Spectator noted that the fight in America over the ratification of the Peace Treaty and the Covenant had begun in earnest and that the British could not help but look on with anxious concern as to the ultimate outcome. Although Wilson in his address to the Senate gave a “perfectly coherent and convincing account of the method” by which the peace settlement was made the Republican congressional majority had a distinct grievance in that the President did not consult them in peace negotiations. “Surely the President would have been wise to observe the spirit of the Constitution” and to have taken with him Republican Senators as well as his Democratic friends. Admittedly the Republicans had “good cause to be annoyed with the President,” but the only hope of the chaotic world lay in the “satisfactory working of the Treaty and the Covenant.” This weekly review asked if the whole world was to be “sacrificed to an American constitu- tional punctilio?”, and refused to believe that the Republican party which “included many of the finest brains and noblest and most experienced minds in America’ would not subject the greater cause of world peace to the lesser cause of political recognition.(7) As the hot, humid August weather of 1919 descended upon Washington the Senate Foreign Relations Committee continued public hearings on the peace treaty. From interested bystanders and partisan participants Lord James Bryce received personal reactions to the war of words waging in the United States Senate. Democratic leadership in the Senate was incompetent and “bitter feeling against the President” obscured the whole question. Provisions of the treaty were misrepresented constantly as every possible prejudice was appealed to. Wilson was silent, “letting his opponents flounder,” as he decided upon a plan to pursue. According to William H. Bucklin, Lord Robert Cecil, in private conversa- tions, revealed that his attitude on the future of the League was by no means optimistic. Sir William Wiseman believed that the “tiresome wrangle between the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the President’ would continue. Although no one doubted that the Senate would ratify the treaty and the League with interpretive reservations, Sir Wiseman felt certain that the Republicans under Senator Lodge were determined to waste as much time as possible. The American people were “simply bored with the whole thing” and demanded that the Administration turn its attention to the difficult industrial problems at home. 50 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 Wiseman doubted whether Wilson could “arouse much enthusiasm now by touring the country.” To Sir Eric Drummond, the erudite Wiseman was equally as frank: “If the President had been able to keep the Senate and the public's attention concentrated on the peace treaty he would have it through by now.” Unfortunately this was not true. Although the President wanted to get the treaty out of the way before he tackled domestic problems, “circumstances and his opponents have prevented him from doing this.” Despite these setbacks in the Senate, Sir Wiseman believed that Wilson was actually gaining strength throughout the country, “particularly in the West at the same time that opposi- tion to him was growing in the Senate and in the House. (8) On August 19, Wilson interviewed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the White House, to discuss the peace treaty, especially the League covenant. According to the Birmingham Post, the President informed the Senators he had no objection to reasonable interpretations of the Covenant provided “‘these did not contribute part of the formal ratification of the Covenant.” If however the interpretations were part of the formal ratifications, a long delay would inevitably follow, as the other Governments would have to accept in effect the language of the Senate as the language of the treaty before ratification. Wilson explained that the United States would be “under no legal obligation to participate in armed action abroad but she would be under a compelling “moral obligation” to do so. The London Times told its readers of the White House Conference which lasted nearly four hours of the “friendly and good-tempered President’’ submitting to a detailed cross-examination by the Republican Committee members. Although nothing important came out of the Conference, the Times concluded that the Republicans “left the Conference in the same frame of mind as they entered it. The treaty, they proclaimed, must be textually altered.” The SpEcTATOR was delighted that Wilson agreed to accept interpretive resolutions as the best solu- tion to a very frustrating situation. On August 23, the London Times announced that the President’s friends were anxiously waiting to see what he could do to mobilize public opinion so as to demand “a quick ratification of the treaty with or without interpretive resolu- tions.” The popular Times admitted that Wilson’s efforts to persuade Americans to accept the conclusion that economic conditions would be decidedly improved if the treaty quickly ratified had gone awry. The Spectator struck an even more pessimistic outlook when it announced that the whole treaty was in danger. What would America’s recent associated powers, especially Great Britain, think if she decided not to accept the “scheme of which Wilson was the chief inspirer if not the author?” This conservative review could not believe that this would hap- pen.(9) The Duke of Northumberland wrote the Nationa Review that although “the President of the United States more than any other [person] was responsible for this scheme [the League of Nations], he has done less than any other to give effect to it.” Leo Maxse expressed somewhat the same idea when he stated that the “League would never have been heard of on this side of the Atlantic but for the American President’s advocacy of it, nor would it have been discussed at Paris but for his insistance.” No. 1, 1975] OSBORN—TREATY OF VERSAILLES 51 To the British the American Senate scene was “an amazing and bewildering paradox.” Although the peace treaty critics, said the Specrator, shout that they “will never consent” to America being entangled in the affairs of the outside world, the outside world pressed in upon them and had its affairs endlessly discussed. In brief, the non-interferers were up to their necks in the task of interfering. It was all amazingly confusing. As for Wilson, the SPECTATOR claimed the fight for treaty ratification was only beginning. He would soon tour the country and impress upon the people the widely held desire for a “new age to save the world from war and to recognize the sanctity of international contracts, with the help of the League of Nations.(10) One of the obvious shortcomings in the treaty proponents strategy was the lack of any national educational program for ratification. With the best wishes of many Britishers, Wilson announced a transcontinental trip in an effort to create more interest in the treaty and in the hope that the people once aroused would demand of their senators ratification of the treaty of peace. In informing the English people of the President’s proposed tour, the London Times was “anxious for the sake of the old world and for the general interests of mankind to see the Covenent and the treaty ratified as soon as possible.” This metropolitan news- paper did not care in the least “what man or what party’ persuaded America that it was to her advantage “morally and materially” not to further delay world peace. Immediately, Wilson’s itinerary was made known the senatorial opposition announced that at least two Republican Senators would “camp on the President's trail.” The outlook, thought the London Times, continued to be very obscure until the effect of Wilson’s personal appeal to the people could be properly analyzed. In an atmosphere of apprehension, against his personal physician's advice, Wilson on September 3 left Washington on the last political fight of his meteoric career. Although reporters of the British press did not as a rule accompany an American President on his domestic speaking tours, Britishers were not without information about this transcontinental journey. In giving its readers details about the extended westward journey, the Times stated the first presidential speech would be made at Columbus, Ohio, on September 4, the last speech was scheduled for Louisville, Kentucky, on September 29, and that Wilson would deliver 30 addresses in between “to say nothing of the impromptu addresses from his train to small towns enroute.” In speeches at Columbus, Indianapolis, and St. Louis, Wilson, repeated the Times, endeavored to reach the heart of America. He called “dramatically on his opponents to produce a substitute if they did not want the League and used an American expression, ‘they must put up or shut up’.” After expressing faith in Great Britain, France and Japan, he denied that wars were made impossible under the League but declared they became “violently improbable.” The independent Times, concluded that his audiences “seemed far away and apathetic, and only occasionally did he stir enthusiasm at the outset of his speeches, but as he developed his subject, the applause seemed to come spontaneously and the demonstrations of approval were pronounced. (11) 52 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 The NationaL Review published Wilson’s entire address delivered at In- dianapolis with an appropriate introduction. While professing no opinion on the “struggle between the President and the Senate’, editor Leo Maxse regretted that the British press afforded its readers so “little opportunity to follow the discus- sion” in America. The more this extremely conservative nationalistic journal heard of the League of Nations, the less kindly the review felt towards it. For example, Wilson informed the world that there would be no contractual obliga- tions, “no compulsion” on the League to collectively support any of its members who may be the victims of aggression. All countries retained their “former right of individual judgment,’ and this editor Maxse did not relish. On September 8, the Times noted that Wilson’s westward speaking tour had not reacted on the Senate except that his vigorous speeches in the midwest “have decided sundry extremists to ‘take the stump’ against him.” This newspaper declared that the “highest hopes of the war and the best fruits of the long and laborious negotiations” at the peace conference were at stake in the American ratification fight. In brief, the Times said that the President was inviting his countrymen “to pronounce judgment upon his work” and that judgment was almost certain to decide the fate of the Covenent and of the treaty in the Senate.” To the Times any ideas “that the treaty could be rejected in any circumstances” was incredible. Any material changes in either the Covenant or the treaty could not possible be made” without substantive detriment, as well as the post- ponement, of world’s peace.” And for these reasons, if for no other, Great Britain and the Allied newspapers must wish the President success. While admitting that no power was completely satisfied with all provisions of either the Covenant or the treaty, the Times stated that all nations surrendered something in the interest of the common good and it hoped America would too. No doubt, Wilson had played his home political cards poorly, but he was appealing to fellow Americans “with new experiences in world affairs and with a renown, as a statesman con- versant with those affairs, such as no American ever enjoyed in Europe.” The Times took no stock in the idea that the greatness of Wilson’s fame must prejudice him in the eyes of some Republicans. In reproducing another of the President’s impressive addresses, the NATIONAL REvIEW spoke of his “remarkable campaign of education on behalf of the League of Nations” in which it was feared the speaker had “grievously overtaxed his strength.” Although this monthly magazine was skeptical about the League, it admired “the zeal and duration of its apostles.’’(12) As the Presidential train sped westward on the plains where traditional isolationism flourished, enthusiastic crowds greeted him and applauded warmly his points in behalf of the League’s Covenant and the treaty. Interestingly, the receptions accorded him were non-partisan. The London Tmes noted that he came as a crusader “and his eloquence in extemporaneous speech making” was deeply impressive. He was convincing, especially with businessmen on the necessity of America participating hereafter in the affairs of the world. Wilson was in good spirits and happy in the thoughts that he was awakening the people to a consciousness of America’s new obligations. No. 1, 1975] OSBORN—TREATY OF VERSAILLES 53 While the Times was reporting the President’s journey across the continent, Leo Maxse was analyzing the treaty struggle in the Senate. The editor of the NaTIoNaL Review believed Wilson was paying the penalty “of his exclusiveness, of his attempts to play autocrat—a role in which he was encouraged from the outset by the unmeasured adulation of the European Press, notably the British Press.” | By mid-September, as Wilson reached the far northwest, a significant London newspaper showed increasing pessimism about his success in the treaty fight. While rejoicing over the President’s large audiences, the Times believed his receptions were “as President of the United States’, as an eloquent speaker, and not as “an evangelist of the new world order.” Meanwhile, the people were mystified by his explanations of the Covenant and the treaty. They insisted that he and the Senate compromise their differences, settle the ratification struggle, get it out of the way and return to the increasingly grave domestic affairs. In the Pacific northwest Wilson was enthusiastically received amid confusion caused by an infiltration of radicals who, according to the Times, distributed Bolshevist propaganda. In a speech at Seattle a huge crowd “leaped to its feet and cheered for several minutes” when the President convincingly declared: “My fellow citizens, | am going to devote every influence I have and all the authority I have from this time on to see to it that no minority commands the United States.”” The Edinburgh Scotsman delighted in Wilson’s statement at Portland, Oregon: “We are going to see this thing [the peace treaty] through,” the President shouted, “as a descendant of Scottish Covenanters who had just put his hand to the new ‘Solemn League and Covenant’ of nations.” At San Francisco the President became extremely angry when a group of hecklers tried to prevent him from speaking. In this address, he emphasized the sound business judgment in America joining the League. If we rejected the League membership, it meant our isolation in the Councils of the World and the building of distrust abroad which would be “detrimental to the nation’s political and commercial interests.” Wilson, the Dublin Ir1sH Times told its readers, was “fighting a fierce battle not only for his dearest ideals, but for the fortunes of his party at the coming Presidential elections.” The Cardiff Sourh WaLes News repeated at length a speech made to a group of women in which the President told his interesting audience that the “world trusted the leadership of America” and continued: “We cannot desert humanity. We are the trustee of humanity. I cannot conceive a motive adequate to hold men off from this great enterprise.” The Liverpool Courter emphasized Wilson’s defense of freedom and the avoidance of war: “The heart of this treaty is that it gives liberty and indepen- dence to people who never could have got it for themselves,” he said. “Germany turned to the line of least resistance to establish her power, and unless the world makes that a line of absolute resistance, this war will have to be fought over again. (13) On September 19, Wilson spoke at a San Diego stadium from a glass enclosed platform to a huge throng of over 50,000 people, “his words being carried to the distant edges of the stadium by means of an electric device.” Here the President 54 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 again pointed out that the charge of British favorite position in the League Assembly was untenable. He accused his critics of wanting to upset the theory of equality among nations and of wishing to put America in a special position of privilege in the League. On September 21, Wilson’s train turned eastward from the Pacific Coast and began “a homeward stretch with the territory behind him converted to the League of Nations.’’ By the sheer force of his logic he had won great numbers to his point of view. At Reno, Nevada, the fatigued President told his listeners that the great democracies had drawn up the League Covenant “so that autocrats never again could enslave the peoples of the world for their own purposes.” The American doughboys did not fight with the purpose of coming back and having the same thing to do over again. At Salt Lake City, Utah, he answered those who feared America would be obliged to repeatedly send troops abroad by stating, “If you want to extinguish a fire in Utah you do not go to Oklahoma for a fire engine. If you want to extinguish a fire in the Balkans you do not send to the United States for troops. If any controversy should spread so that the aid of the United States became necessary, it would be so serious that the Nation would enter it anyway, League or no League.” Wilson’s idealism for international relations, said the Birmingham Post, was certainly evident as he continued: “to read the Covenant in any special way in which we prefer to read it in the interests of safety of America would be one of the most unacceptable things that could happen.” To a large audience in the Mormon Tabernacle he said if the Senate reservations were accepted into the treaty they would “cut the very heart out of the League of Nations.”’(14) According to the London Times, when Wilson declared he would regard certain reservations as a rejection of the treaty, he “foreshadowed the most vital struggle in the history of the American Congress.” This newspaper, as did other members of the English press, contended that a large majority of the American people wanted the Covenant and treaty ratified. The Times explained how the Senate could refuse what the majority wanted and stated its impossibility in Great Britain. Public opinion was “slowly rallying to the President” and when he returned to Washington a “showdown may be expected.” The President was gathering to his side the thoughtful people of both the Democratic and the Republican parties. His ire was aroused; the fight, concluded the TiMEs, was on. The Times’ confidence of Wilson’s triumph over the opposition Senators was not shared by Liverpool’s Courter which spoke of the President’s threats to the Republican senators and concluded that in the face of a Republican majority, the Senate did not “augur well for the speedy ratification in Washington.” The Edinburgh ScotsMAN was equally as dissatisfied with the League debate in America. “The question is,’ concluded the Scotsman, “whether the United States after having gone to war, is to stand aside from peace.” The Belfast NEWSLETTER announced that the President’s educational campaign was a great success. The NEWSLETTER did not believe the Republican senators would “incur the un- popularity of postponing the peace of the world and putting their country in an undignified position.”’(14) No. 1, 1975] OSBORN—TREATY OF VERSAILLES 59 On September 25, after a speech at Pueblo, Colorado, the President collapsed and his crusade was over. With ten speeches a day in overcrowded and overheated halls, it was too fatiguing, a super-human task. “The last ten days only will power kept him going.’ (15) If the American Senate and the nation remained ignorant of the nature and the superlative importance of the issue before them it was no fault of Wilson’s. On every occasion, concluded the Scotsman, Wilson “evoked an emphatic popular endorsement of his lecture and his counsel.’ The Nation thought Wilson’s tour would have a “place in political annals; it was remarkable for two reasons—(1) “because of its design as a price of public education in international affairs; (2) because it is Wilson who has done it.” This popular liberal journal contended that Wilson had failed to influence any votes in the Senate. Some said his journey came too late but the truth was that he was “overwhelmed by the facts of the world situation—the facts which beat him in Paris.”’(15) When the President was stricken, the Senate had before it a majority and a minority report from the Foreign Relations Committee. “The world’s destiny in the immediate future,’ stated the SaruRDAy REviEw, depended on which of the two reports was accepted or what kind of a compromise could be effected by the Senators. It was purely a political fight, correctly said this weekly review, “in which the merits or demerits of the League of Nations will not be a decisive factor. The minority report, proposed an immediate ratification of the treaty as it stood and could be dismissed as an impossibility. Suppose the Republicans defeated the peace treaty, asked the SarurDay Review and answered: “Europe would be left to its own devices, a seething cauldron of social and national hatreds; and the idealist school of British statesmen, isolated and disappointed, would be obliged from common decency to offer an asylum to Woodrow Wilson.” As the President began to slowly adjust to the ordeal of invalidism and while the Senators continued their running debate on the Covenant and the treaty, let us note briefly what some Britons privately were thinking of Wilson’s role in the treaty ratification struggle. Edward P. Bell, recently returned from an extended tour of the United States, felt that “sooner or later” the anti-Leaguers would be overwhelmed. To this Englishman the Senate fight against Wilson was “merely a struggle between progress and reaction, between advance and retreat.” America was constitutionally dynamic, affirmative, progressive and loathed retreat. He declared that he would be amazed if America retreated “into the obsolete trenches and dug-outs of her old isolationism.” Lord Bryce pressed upon Senator Lodge the change of heart among Britishers: “We have experienced the same kind of change that America has experienced. You have shown that you do not want Mexico or Central America, neither do we want any more territory.” Although the Covenant was far from perfect, England was in favor of accepting it because it offered the “only prospect of saving the world from a recurrence of those calamities,’ which had plagued the world for five years. Indeed, Lord Bryce believed that without something like the League of Nations “civilizations would be bankrupt in the old world.” In spite of all the faults the Covenant contained, Bryce urged Senator Lodge to “find means to accept” the League. The whole thing might have been better managed, said Bryce tactfully, if the faults were 56 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 capable of being amended. To Lawrence Lowell, Lord Bryce wrote that he thought the Covenant would pass the Senate but the “reservations may make trouble.” To Andrew D. White, Bryce confided that his American correspondents still thought the President would win and that the Senate was saving its face by reservations. “I have just returned from Paris,” Bryce wrote Charles Eliot a few days later, “and I have learned to appreciate more fully the bitterness, ignorance and unwisdom”’ which spoiled Wilson’s work at the Conference.(16) When the President’s illness became known throughout Great Britain, the SPECTATOR was among the periodicals that expressed sorrow. His collapse was due to the complete exhaustion of his labors at Paris. He “like many other men who love work,” had been doing too much and was now “paying the penalty for an overtaxed body and brain.’ While expressing the hope that he would make a speedy recovery, the Spectator declared it to be the duty of a President to look after his health so that when any crisis appeared “he may be fit to deal with it.” Wilson’s breakdown showed that it was “contrary to the public interest for our elected rulers to work themselves into a state of nervous exhaustion.” For consti- tutional reasons the vice president could not act for the president and therefore, while Wilson lay “incapacitated in his sick-bed, the Federal Machine will run by its own momentum.” An American president ill, said the British conservative review, means “an interregnum in which important public business would be suspended.” From the English viewpoint, the gravest consequence of his mishap was “‘further delay of the Peace Treaty and the League of Nations.” Peace loitered at the threshold but could not cross it while President Wilson lay ill at the White House. Then all British had “more than a personal reason for wishing the President a speedy restoration to health.” The Spectator concluded that Wilson, partly through the provisions of the Constitution and partly through his own perfectly legitimate belief in himself, had concentrated power in his own hands with regard to foreign as well as domestic affairs to such an extent that he had become indispensable to Europe as well as to America. The makers of the Constitution could not have “dreamed of America becoming the arbiter of Europe.” In short, President Wilson had taken “far too great a risk when he ~ undertook this gigantic task single-handed.” On October 14, the London Daity HERALD announced that three of the Allied and Associated Powers had ratified the Peace Treaty. This laborite newspaper declared that a League representing the “cunning and cruelty of the old Capi- talistic order” was not the beginning of a new order in world relations.(17) The New StaTEsMAN told its readers that the long delay of America on the peace treaty and the League was causing anxiety to its friends and not a little em- barrassment to the world at large.” For the delay of ratification by the United States Wilson could not be acquitted of the blame. Indeed, from the time of the Armistice he was “wrapped in the fog of his ideals” and showed himself “blind to the political signs in his own country.” Had he endeavored to conciliate the Republicans, had he been less partisan in choosing his friends and advisors at Paris he would not be involved in the bitter turmoil with the Senate. “By a grim irony,” concluded this liberal weekly, “the very man who once appeared like a No. 1, 1975] OSBORN—TREATY OF VERSAILLES 57. benevolent god pressing his gift upon a hesitating world, is now found fighting in the last ditch to save his gift from becoming an empty shadow.” The Nation with an eye on the proposed Senatorial reservations and opposition to the Covenant, asked if the League could be developed into something really useful in the solution of world problems. The real consequence, the worst effect of a Republican senatorial victory would be the blow it would give to the interna- tional idea of collective security throughout the world.(18) H. N. Brailsford expressed the conclusion of most Englishmen when he wrote that we assumed President Wilson had succeeded in creating a League of Nations for to that end he sacrificed everything else at Paris. “His astute Allies perceived his foible early in the peace proceedings and were shrewd enough to realize that each might have his way in matters of more vital concern, provided only that some kind of a charter for some kind of a League duly drafted and signed.” Wilson had set the seal of his place in history on the hope that the League would create some “measure of order and justice and contentment in the world.” But, concluded Brailsford, a “singular nemesis has overtaken this failure of statesmanship” in the grave doubt that America would enter the League. The NEw STATESMAN con- tended that apparently the treaty would be ratified only with Lodge reservations appended. Therefore, the British “either must compromise and worsen an already bad peace, or we must do what we can without America. The first of these alternatives seems to us unthinkable.” The League without America’s assistance at once would be heavily handicapped—nevertheless, it would function and it was not “unreasonable to hope that America may presently change her mind and come into it.” Beginning in October 1919, British opinion continued to suggest to Wilson it would be better to accept defeat for the treaty than to permit its emasculation by reservations.(19) Early in November, Lawrence Lowell informed Lord Bryce that in the Senate the “issue over the Covenant was narrowing.” All but a few of the proposed Amendments to the treaty were defeated. The question was in regard to the reservation; “and even the Democrats admit that the treaty cannot be passed without reservations of some kind.” From Bernard Henry, Lord Bryce learned that the peace treaty would soon pass the Senate with strong reservations but that Wilson may have the Democrats reject the treaty with the Lodge reservations. With these and other letters from American correspondents at his fingertips, Lord Bryce wrote that the attitude of Senators towards the League of Nations “as described to us through the newspaper is profoundly discouraging.” Since the Paris Conference was a melancholy failure, it emphasized the necessity for cooperation to create “a better and finer” international organization “and this League of Nations offers the only prospects.” To Lawrence Lowell, James Bryce confessed that if the League failed in the Senate, the whole idea would collapse because the British were the only people in Europe who cared for it. Apparently, there was no champion of the League in Congress “capable of defending it while Wilson was hors de combat.” Bryce and others were doing all they could to keep the flag of acceptance flying but the Senate actions were discouraging. George Otto Trevelyan, the distinguished English historian, confided to James Bryce that 58 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 the present plight of United States politics, “with the result of the renunciation by America of her high obligations, and the dominant position for the benefit, and almost the salvation, of mankind, which she had won by her sacrifices in the war, must be a sad grief to you, as it is to me.’ (20) On November 19, the Senate first began to vote on the treaty and adjourned without ratifying it. For the moment advocates of ratification were waiting to hear what the Wilsonites were going to do. In his sick bed in the White House the President was urged by Senator George M. Hitchcock, Herbert Hoover, Bernard M. Baruch, Colonel House and by Mrs. Wilson herself to accept compromising reservations to the Covenant but the invalid refused saying that he had “no moral right to accept any change in a paper I have signed without giving to every other signatory, even the Germans, the right to do the same thing. It is not I that will not accept; it is the Nation’s honour that is at stake.” When Lord Bryce read of the votes taken in the Senate he wrote that the British were “hoping against hope that the United States would still find a way of entering the League of Nations.” Without her, Great Britain would try to go on, but “without scant prospect of success. (21) From Paris Henry White informed Bryce that he “never anticipated the actual rejection of the Treaty” and he did not believe “such a catastrophe would have happened had not the President fallen ill and been unable to keep up his end of the struggle; for it is a catastrophe that our reputation for straight-forwardness, for coming to the rescue of those who are unable to take care of themselves to say nothing of the greatly enhanced position in the world which our success in the war created for us, cannot be utilized in helping to bring order out of chaos in a war-torn and shell-shocked Europe.” M. Story told Bryce he was “very much mortified” at the action of the Senate. Bernard Henry wrote that the defeat of the Treaty was not unexpected “but whether President Wilson was aware of what was taking place is hard to say.” The peace treaty with Senate Reservations would be adopted but there was absolutely no chance for Wilson’s Covenant. “What a pity there is no other strong man in the Senate or in the Cabinet,” confided Lord Bryce to M. Story, “to handle the treaty while the President is disabled.” It was always one of Wilson’s weak points that he did not “get sufficiently able men around him.” Lord Bryce honestly believed that if the “American people really understood” what was in the Covenant and the ratification fight had not become clouded by “some honest misconceptions and some dishonest misconceptions” that they would insist the League Covenant be adopted in all essentials.(22) Who was responsible for the rejection of the treaty, including the Covenant? Obviously, as we have just seen, Wilson did not believe himself guilty. From Senator Lodge, the leader of the opposition, Lord Bryce learned differently. “The Senate would have ratified the treaty with reservations,” wrote Lodge, “if it had not been for the President calling on all of his supporters to vote it down and they supplied more than the necessary third to defeat.” British opinion and thought did not accept the Senator’s stigma upon the President. In fact, Lord Bryce expressed himself frankly to James Ford Rhodes: “Whatever Wilson’s faults and blunders, the Republican leaders seem to me to be No. 1, 1975] OSBORN—TREATY OF VERSAILLES 59 running against the world in depriving it of the best chance for bettering its conditions that has appeared for centuries. Without the United States the League of Nations will come to little.” Bryce discussed more in detail the Senate impasse to M. Story. America did not bind itself by the Covenant any more than she did by any other treaty in which it was understood prima facie to be of perpetual duration. In what respect was the constitution or the rights of the Senate infringed upon, asked Lord Bryce, in the League more than in any other treaty? The fundamental question, as Viscount Bryce saw it, was would America gain as much by the Covenant and have as little danger of suffering as any other signatory power? He thought America could answer both affirmatively.(23) Bryce drew strength from the knowledge that his image of President Wilson was shared in various sources in America. From inside the British Embassy William Terrell wrote that the Senatorial-Presidential relations were “most depressing. Indeed, the leadership in the Senate was the worst in years. Nicholas Murray Butler, president of Columbia University, informed Bryce of the utter confusion in Washington. From Hiram Bingham Bryce read that everyone felt dreadfully about the deplorable conditions in the National Capital. From the viewpoint of a historian, James F. Rhodes concluded that the outlook was very bad. In fact, neither Lodge nor Wilson had “risen to the height of the oc- casion. (24) But what of British newspapers and journals? What image of Wilson were they conveying to their readers? George Lanbury, the pacifist anti-Capitalist editor of the London Datty HERaLp denounced the Republican Senators for “deadlocking the Peace Treaty” and charged Lodge with concern only for “the isolation of the United States from European Entanglements.” The liberal NATION announced that Europe’s idealists had lost “the participation of the greatest of world States in the greatest of world ideas.”’ The Spectator called its readers attention to several factors: 1) “America was always inclined to be the man in the Gospel who said, ‘I go not’ and went”; 2) The American constitution was designed with the “purpose of throwing obstacles in the way of rapid and unchecked action by the American Executive.” 3) A vitally important error committed by Wilson “when he did not associate with himself at the Peace Conference the chief of the Republican party.’ He was too proud to act as if “Les Etats Unis C'est Moi.” In denouncing the actions of the Senate, the Sarurpay Review stated that a great and responsible nation sent its President to Paris to negotiate a peace which was to settle the affairs of the world. This spokesman of America insisted that the institution of a League of Nations was the “most urgent and necessary step to be considered.” All participants accepted this decision and signed the treaty including the Covenant for the League. After exasperating delays, the American Senate destroyed the opportunity of the United States “to take a dignified and responsible part in international politics.” Indeed, concluded the review, America must accept the treaty as negotiated with the other signatories or she must reject the treaty altogether and negotiate a new one with the German Government on purely American lines, which was unthinkable. Less than a year ago Wilson was receiving the homage of Europe, as the political evangelist whose 60 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 message was clearly divine. And currently he was a sick and defeated politician in Washington. All the world was “moved and fascinated by this dramatic political story.” Meanwhile, regardless of the “policy momentarily adopted by the American Senate,’ the Spectator told its readers, that Great Britain “must go forward in making the League a living thing.” (25) Sydney Brooks, writing in the NINETEENTH CENTURY AND AFTER, discussed at length the status of the treaty in the United States, especially as it pertained to the ill President. The situation was so tangled “as to defy any confidential prediction of its upshot.’ The Senate action was “certainly a personal tragedy for Wilson for he had championed the idea during the war and in the peace settlement.” During Wilson’s Administration American foreign policy was always Wilson’s policy. His individuality, his temperament, his instructive ways of looking at things were all stamped absolutely upon America’s foreign policy. It was his disposition, his decision, and his opinions. But no President ever “stretched the prerogatives of his office so far as did Wilson when he pledged the United States to enter a world League for the maintenance of peace.” It was, continued Brooks, the President's stubbornness, his vindictiveness, which caused him to refuse to consult Republican leaders from the outset in the peace settlement. Wilson was temperamentally incapable of sharing “either credit or authority” and _ his exaggerated adulation at Paris further encouraged him to think whatever the opposition at home it would crumble before him. Brooks contended that there were two American mores that made America incompatible with an effective League of Nations. First, the Constitution with its rigid division of powers made it almost impossible to “cooperate regularly and with continuity in international enterprises.” Second, was the conviction that America should confine her poli- tical interests to her own continent. The war, concluded Brooks, “may or may not have made a new world” but it certainly did not make a “new America.” The SPECTATOR expressed great regret that the treaty was used as a “shuttlecock of American politics,” and stated that whatever America decided, the associated powers “must carry on the work of peace.” The New Europe thought there was no “exit from the impassé created by President Wilson’s protracted refusal to face the facts and by Europe’s blind acceptance of him in the role of the prophet autocrat.(26) British newspapers as well as the journals expressed themselves about Wilson’s illness and the Senate’s rejection of the treaty. The independent London Times expressed a popular conclusion: “We shall go on with saddened hearts and with weakened heads if America elects to stand aloof.” It was for her “and her alone to make the great decision.” The LirverrpooL DarLy Post anp Mercury said the Allied people had a right to know, “as early as possible” America’s decision with reference to the peace settlement. Sydney Brooks, writing in the London OurLook, declared that Wilson never had the “slightest warrant to commit the United States to the League of Nations.” By all means, Brooks wrote, the President should have taken no step “without consulting the Republican leadership and without conducting a simultaneous campaign of education throughout the country. He did neither.” On the contrary, he preferred to go his No. 1, 1975] OSBORN—TREATY OF VERSAILLES 61 own independent way, trusting his prestige and his eloquence to compel the triumph of his views. Now he is paying the penalty of “an excessive self-con- fidence.” Sir John F. Fraser, noted in the London Eveninc Sranparp that America was uncertain and confused. Her manner was “bewildering to the phlegmatic Briton.” The London Daity TELEGRAPH was even more pessimistic as it viewed the American scene. The failure of the Senate to ratify the treaty was absolute. “All talk of compromise between parties for or against ratification” was ended. The leaders of the Republican opposition declared “positively that the treaty was dead” and the Covenant could only be resuscitated by President Wilson again submit- ting it to the Senate. The London Morninc Post emphasized the well known fact that “again and again Wilson insisted that a durable peace settlement assured that the League would be established. Now, with the Senate’s rejection of the Covenant, the Allied Powers were forced to conclude that Wilson’s League idea was a ‘fantasy which might someday become a reality.” The London EvEeninc News concluded that from the first, America was suspicious of anything that savoured of her “entanglement in European affairs” and the more enthusiastic the Allies became to Wilson’s policy the “deeper that suspicion grew.” The Times said that the rejection by the Senate of the treaty had “altered every feature of the peace settlement,’ because by Wilson’s desire the Covenant was made the “cor- nerstone of peace.” The London Patt Maui GazeTTE commended the President for throwing “on the Senate the full responsibility for the crippling of the League of Nations” and added that he could not bring home too strongly to the American people “what was at stake in the default which the Senate determined to throw upon them.” Several members of the British press emphasized the impact the struggle between the President and the Congress had upon world conditions. The London GLosgE, for example, announced in its columns that America could “make or mar the promise of a better age, and we venture respectfully to remind them of that tremendous responsibility.” No League that did not include the United States could ever be “more than an unfulfilled aspiration, while any league of which they were a member would be a great fact dominating all mankind.” The London OssERVER noted that the paralysis of America in the deadlock ratification struggle was a “vast misfortune to mankind” and asked if America had “abdicated the moral and practical leadership of the world?” Month after month Britain and France shouldered heavier burdens, concluded the London DaiLy CHRONICLE, all because America could not determine her policy. The London Times shouted let America take up her share of the common burden which her own conscience tells her should be hers. To the London Datty Grapuic there was irony in the impassé over the ratification treaty fight and the great inconveniences it caused throughout Europe. It was one of the “great tragedies of the dying year in world’s statescraft. (27) On March 19, 1920, after days of renewed debate on the Lodge reservations, the Senators by a vote of 49 to 35 defeated ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. Many Americans joined Wilson in looking forward to the presidential election- 62 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 —“a great and solemn referendum,” Wilson called it—in November. Members of the British press expressed themselves upon the latest action of the Senate. The London G.Lose believed that upon the peace treaty, ““with its provisions for the avoidance of future wars, the hopes of mankind rested.’ The London Daity CHRONICLE agreed with the GLoBE and added that Great Britain must make the “best of an unfortunate issue.” If America could not aid in reconstruction, the British would never “cease to be grateful for her help in the war.’ The London Daity News contended the only hope lay in a “great spontaneous popular demand” through an appeal by the President. The London WestMInsTER GazeTTE dubbed the Senate action calamitous. President Wilson said in the next war there would be no neutrals, and he remained “perfectly right.” The London Morninc Post announced that Wilson could not “deliver the goods,” his checks were not “honored by his own bank.” This newspaper hoped there would be no more of Wilson’s “calamitous interventions in European affairs.” The London Times concluded that for America, the treaty, and the League were “dead for all but electioneering purposes until the choice of the President” was made in November.(28) The extended vigil was ended, the long agony was over. The Presidential election some eight months away was Wilson’s only hope. Of this abiding hope British opinion and thought were completely aware. LITERATURE AND RESOURCES CITED (1) Sir Cecil Spring Rice to Arthur J. Balfour, January 19, 1917, in Sir Cecil Spring Rice Papers, in British Public Records Office, London; hereafter cited as Spring Rice Papers. James D. Whelpley; “President Wilson’s Pro-Ally Propaganda”, ForTNIGHTLY REvIEw c.t. (January, 1917-June, 1917), 348-356. (2) Henry Cabot Lodge to James Viscount Bryce, January 16, 1919, in James Viscount Bryce Papers; in Bodelean Library in Oxford University, Oxford, England; hereafter cited as the Bryce Papers. A. Lawrence Lowell to id., January 1, 1919, ibid. (3) Henry White to Porter J. McCumber, June 23, 1919, in Henry White Papers in the Library of Congress: hereinafter the White Papers will refer to this collection. Sir William Wiseman to Sir Jan Malcolm July 1, 1919, in Sir William Wiseman Papers in Yale University Library; hereafter this collection will be cited as the Wiseman Papers. id. to Edward M. House July 11, 1919; id. to Sir Arthur C. Murray July 3, 1919; id. to Sir Eric Drummond July 3, 1919, ibid. (4) Baker, R. S., anp W. E. Dopp, eds. 1927. Public Papers of Woodrow Wilson: War and Peace 2 vols. I; 537-552. New York. (5) Sir William Wiseman to Edward M. House July 19, 1919, in Wiseman Papers; James Viscount Bryce to A. Lawrence Lowell July 18, 1919, in A. Lawrence Lowell Papers in Widener Library Harvard University; this collection will be cited as the Lowell Papers hereafter. Id. to Charles W. Eliot July 20, 1919 in Charles W. Eliot Papers in Widener Library, Harvard University; hereafter the Eliot Papers will refer to this collection. Id. to James Ford Rhodes August 22, 1919 in James Ford Rhodes Papers in Massachusetts Historical Society Collection, Public Library, Boston; hereafter cited as Rhodes Papers. (6) London Times July 9, 11, 12, 1919. (7) “The American Republicans and the Treaty”, Specrator: A WEEKLY Review oF POLITICs, LITERATURE, THEOLOGY AND Art CXXIII (July 5, 1919-December 27, 1919), 75-76. (8) William H. Bucklin to Georgina Bucklin, August 8, 1919 in William H. Bucklin Papers in Sterling Library, Yale University: hereinafter the Bucklin Papers will refer to this collection. Sir William Wiseman to Arthur Murray August 12, 1919, in Wiseman Papers id. to Eric Drummond, August 13, 1919. id. to Edward M. House August 26, 1919, ibid. (9) Birmingham Post, August 20, 1919. London Times August 22, 23, 1919. “The American Senate - and the Treaty”, Specrator CXXIII (July 5, 1919-December 27, 1919), 266-267. No. 1, 1975] OSBORN—TREATY OF VERSAILLES 63 (10) Duke of Northumberland, “Some Reflections on the League of Nations,’ Nationa Review, LXXIII (March, 1919-August, 1919), 647-651. There is a vague notion that the League “is a means of achieving Christian idealism. If this can be done by political means, what becomes of the Church’s mission?” Leo J. Maxse; “The Second Treaty of Versailles,” ibid., 814-816. “The American Senate and the Treaty”, SpecraTor CXXIII (July 5, 1919-December 27, 1919), 266-267. (11) London Tmes August 30, September 1, 4, 6, 1919. (12) “Woodrow Wilson: Minding Other People’s Business”, NationaL Review LXXIV (Sep- tember, 1919-February, 1920), 188-197. London TmeEs September 8, 9, 1919. Woodrow Wilson: “I am a Covenanter”, NaTionaL Review LXXIV (September, 1919-February, 1920), 388-395. (13) Leo J. Maxse; “After Amateur Strategy—Amateur Diplomacy’, NationaL Review LXXIV (September, 1919-February, 1920), 225-235. London Times, September 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 1919; Edinburgh Scotsman September 17, 20, 1919. Dublin In1sH Times September 18, 24, 1919. Cardiff Soutu Wa.es News September 19, 1919. Liverpool Courter September 20, 22, 1919. (14) Birmingham Post September 26, 1919; Leeds YorksHirE Post September 25, 1919; London Times September 29, 1919; Liverpool Courier September 26, 1919; Edinburgh Scorsman September 26, 1919; Belfast NEwsLETTER September 23, 1919. Most of Wilson’s opposition, said the NEwsLet- TER, came from the Irish-Americans “who would be glad to see the whole world at war if they could thereby establish an Irish Republic,” and from the German-Americans “who have allied with them now as they were all through the war.” (15) Edith B. Wilson to Bryan Whitlock September 30, 1919, in the Bryan Whitlock Papers in the Library of Congress: hereinafter the Whitlock Papers will refer to this collection. Edinburgh Scors- MAN September 26, 1919. “President Wilson’s Tour”, Nation XXV (April 5, 1919-September 27, 1919), 755-756. “If Wilson goes down he will owe his fall to the Secret treaties, the invasion of Russia, the masses of the forces of European Imperialism and the refusal of Great Britain to stand for a peace of justice and appeasement.” (16) “The Senate and the Versailles Treaty’, SaruRpay Review CXXVIII (July 5, 1919-December 27, 1919), 261-262. Edward P. Bell to Geoffrey Dawson September 10, 1919, in London Times September 11, 1919; James Bryce to Henry Cabot Lodge September 19, 1919. Id. to A. Lawrence Lowell September 20, 1919. Id. to Andrew D. White, September 30, 1919. “I think the Senate will ratify soon, for an enormous majority of American people—all walks and classes desire prompt ratification’—Charles W. Eliot to Bryce, September 8, 1919, all in Bryce Papers; “The mild Republican senators who desire to ratify the treaty with reservations . . . seem to hold the key to the position in their hands and will . . . secure ratification of the treaty with reservations’ —A. Lawrence Lowell to id., September 3, 1919 in Lowell Papers. James Bryce to Charles W. Eliot, October 3, 1919, in Bryce Papers. (17) “The President’s Illness”, Spectator CXXIII (July 5, 1919-December 27, 1919), 462-463. London Darty HERALD October 10, 1919. (18) “The League of Nations’, New StatTesMANn: A WEEKLY Review oF Po.itics AND LITERATURE XVI (October 4, 1919-March 27, 1920), 27-28. “There were good grounds for believing that the Senate would eventually ratify” the Covenant and the treaty. “What Sort of League?’, Nation XXVI (October 4, 1919-March 27, 1920), 52-53. “The Challenge to the League’, ibid., 138-139. (19) H. N. Brailsford, “America and the League”, London, Daity Heratp October 30, 1919. “President Wilson and the World’, New StatesMAN: A WEEKLY Review OF POLITICS AND LITERA- TURE XIV (October 4, 1919-March 27, 1920), 266-267. A. Lawrence Lowell to James Viscount Bryce November 4, 1919, in Lowell Papers. Bernard Henry to id., November 11, 1919, in Bryce Papers. (20) James Bryce to Charles W. Eliot November 14, 1919, in Eliot Papers. id. to A. Lawrence Lowell November 19, 1919, in Lowell Papers. George Otto Trevelyan to James Bryce November 19, 1919 in the George Otto Trevelyan Papers in the Bodelean Library, Oxford University, Oxford, England. This collection will be cited as the Trevelyan Papers. (21) Charles W. Eliot to id., November 20, 1919, in Eliot Papers. Edith B. Wilson, My Memoir (New York, 1939), 297. James Bryce to A. Lawrence Lowell November 29, 1919, in Lowell Papers. (22) Henry White to James Bryce November 25, 1919; White wrote that “the best service we can render is to get home as quickly as possible and endeavor . . . to represent the appalling conditions prevailing in many parts of Europe, the disaster that our non-participation in the healing process will be, and to try to make them realize the necessity for a compromise.” M. Story to id., November 26, 1919; Bernard Henry to id., November 21, 24, 1919, in Bryce Papers. James Bryce to M. Story November 27, 1919 in H. A. L. Fisher; James Bryce 2 vols. (New York, 1927), II, 231-233. (23) Henry Cabot Lodge to James Bryce December 2, 1919, in Bryce Papers. James Bryce to James Ford Rhodes December 6, 1919 in Rhodes Papers. id., to Charles W. Eliot December 18, 1919 in Eliot Papers. id. to M. Story December 22, 1919, January 14, 1920, in Bryce Papers. 64 FLORIDA SCIENTIST [Vol. 38 (24) William Terrell to James Bryce December 19, 1919. Nicholas M. Butler to id., December 26, 1919. Hiram Bingham to id., December 27, 1919; James F. Rhodes to id., December 31, 1919, all in Bryce Papers. A. Lawrence Lowell to id., December 20, 1919, in Lowell Papers. (25) George Lansbury; “The Corrupt Treaty”, London Daity HeraLp November 22, 1919; “The Internationalism of the Mind”, Natron XXVI (October 4, 1919-March 27, 1920), 257-258; “American Resolutions”, SPECTATOR CXXIII July 5, 1919-December 27, 1919), 680; “Has America Killed the League?”’”, SaturDAY Review-CXXVIII (July 5, 1919-December 27, 1919), 480; “If the Worst Comes”, . SPECTATOR CXXIII (July 5, 1919-December 27, 1919), 681. The Senate Reservation in regard to Article X did not kill the League. “The real trouble is found in the reservation under which America will not agree to the limitations of armaments. Here is the crux.” (26) Sydney Brooks, “Mr. Wilson and the Treaty”, NINETEENTH CENTURY AND AFTER LXXXVI (July, 1919-December, 1919), 1180-1188; “America and the Peace Treaty”, Spectator CXXIII (July 5, 1919-December 27, 1919), 851; “Going On Without America”, NEw Europe: A WEEKLY REVIEW OF ForEIGN AFFAIRS, XIII (December 25, 1919), 323-326. (27) London Times December 3, 1919; Liverpool Daity Post anp Mercury December 4, 1919. Sydney Brooks, “American Notes”, London OurLook December 6, 1919; Sir John Foster Fraser, “The Nervousness of America’, London Eveninc STANDARD December 11, 1919; London Darry TELEGRAPH December 13, 1919; London Morninc Post December 13, 1919; London Eveninc News December 18, 1919. London Times December 12, 31, 1919. London Patt Matt GazeETTE December 16, 1919; London GLospe December 26, 1919. London OsserverR December 21, 1917. London Dainty CHRONICLE December 16, 1919. London Darty Grapuic December 31, 1919. (28) London GLosBeE March 22, 1920; London Dartty CHRONICLE March 22, 1920; London DatLy News March 22, 1920; London WrEsTMINSTER GAZETTE, March 22, 1920; London Morninc Post, March 22, 1920; London Times March 22, 1920. Florida Sci. 38(1):46-64. 1975. TREASURER S NotE—This first issue of the FLoripa ScrentTisT is being dis- tributed to all members of the Academy who were active members and received the journal for 1974, as well as to our new members for 1975. We need the support of all members if our Academy is to grow and prosper as it should. If you have not paid your dues for 1975, still a bargain at $10.00, please do, and then we will not be forced to remove your name from the mailing list for the next issue now in press. Encourage your colleagues to join at $10.00; your students enjoy full privileges for $3.00. Application forms are available on request from me or the Florida Academy of Sciences, 810 E. Rollins St., Orlando, Florida 32803. Thomas S. Hopkins, Treasurer. INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS Rapid, efficient, and economical transmission of knowledge by means of the printed word requires full cooperation between author and editor. Revise copy before submission to insure logical order, conciseness, and clarity. Manuscripts should be typed double-space throughout, on one side of numbered sheets 84% by 11 inch, smooth, bond paper. A Carzon Copy will facilitate review by referees. Marcins should be 1% inches all around. Footnotes should be avoided. Give ACKNOWLEDGMENTs in the text. Apppess should be given following the author’s name. Azstracts should be typed double-spaced immediately following the address. Literature Citep follows the text. Double-space every line and follow the form in the current volume. TaBLEs are charged to authors at $25.00 per page or fraction. Titles must be short, but explanatory matter may be given. Type each table on a separate sheet, double-space, unruled, to fit normal width of page, and place after Literature Cited. Lecenps for illustrations should be grouped on a sheet, double-spaced, in the torm used in the current volume, and placed after Tables. Titles must be short but may be followed by explanatory matter. ILLUsTRATIONS are charged to authors ($20.00 per page or fraction). Drawings should be in India ink, on good board or drafting paper, and lettered by lettering guide or equivalent. Plan linework and lettering for reduction, so that final width is 4 5/8 inches, and final length does not exceed 7 inches. Do not submit illustrations needing reduction by more than one-half. Photographs should be of good contrast, on glossy paper. Do not write heavily on the backs of photographs. ProoFr must be returned promptly. Leave a forwarding address in case of extended absence. REPRINTS may be ordered when the author returns corrected proof. FLORIDA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES INSTITUTIONAL MEMBERS FOR 1974 Archbold Expeditions Miami-Dade Community College Barry College Mound Park Hospital Foundation Edison Community College Ormond Beach Hospital Florida Atlantic University Rollins College Florida Institute of Technology St. Leo College Florida Presbyterian College Stetson University Florida Southern College University of Florida Florida State University University of Miami Florida Technological University University of South Florida Jacksonville University University of Tampa Manatee Junior College University of West Florida Membership applications, subscriptions, renewals, changes of address, and orders for back numbers should be addressed to the Treasurer.