Chapter 27

[58]“A creature much like a fox, but smaller.”—Voyages, p. 83. Probably the gray fox, calledpequawusby R. Williams (Vulpes Virginianus, Schreb.); which has not the rank smell of the red fox.—Aud. and Bachm.,l. c., p. 168.[59]“They told me of a young lyon (not long before) kill’d at Piscataway by an Indian.”—Voyages, p. 23. Higginson says that lions “have been seen at Cape Anne.”—New-Eng. Plantation,l. c., p. 119. “Some affirm,” says Wood, “that they have seen a lion at Cape Anne.... Besides, Plimouth men” (that is, men of old Plymouth, it is likely) “have traded for lion-skins in former times. But sure it is that there be lions on that continent; for the Virginians saw an old lion in their plantation,” &c.—New-Eng. Prospect,l. c.The animal here spoken of may well have been the puma or cougar, or American lion.[60]“The rabbits be much like ours in England. The hares be some of them white, and a yard long. These two harmless creatures are glad to shelter themselves from the harmful foxes in hollow trees; having a hole at the entrance no bigger than they can creep in at.”—Wood,New-Eng. Prospect,l. c.Wood’s rabbit and Josselyn’s hare, so far as the summer coloring goes, appear to be the gray rabbit (Lepus sylvaticus, Aud. and Bachm.,l. c.p. 173); and the white hare of Wood—as also, probably, the hare, “milk-white in winter,” of Josselyn—is doubtless the northern hare (Lepus Americanus, Erxl., Aud. and Bachm.,l. c., p. 93).[61]The Voyages mention, beside the quadrupeds above named, also the skunk (ségankooof Rasles’ Dict.,l. c.); the musquash (mooskooéssooof Rasles,l. c.), for whichsee also p. 53of this; otter; marten, “as ours are in England, but blacker;” sable, “much of the size of a mattrise, perfect black, but ... I never saw but two of them in eight years’ space;” the squirrel, “three sorts,—the mouse-squirril, the gray squirril, and the flying-squirril (called by the Indianassapanick).” Our author’s mouse-squirrel, which he describes, is the ground or striped squirrel: probably the “anequus, a little coloured squirrel” of R. Williams,l. c.; and theanikoosess(renderedsuisse) of Rasles,l. c.The mattrise of our author is, according to him, “a creature whose head and fore-parts is shaped somewhat like a lyon’s; not altogether so big as a house-cat. They are innumerable up in the countrey, and are esteemed good furr.”—Voyages, p. 87. The sable is compared with the mattrise, at least in size; and the name is perhaps comparable withmattegooéssooof Rasles,l. c.; but this is renderedlièvre. Wood adds to this list of our quadrupeds, mistakenly, the ferret; and R. Williams, the “ockquutchaunnug,—a wild beast of a reddish hair, about the bigness of a pig, and rooting like a pig;” which seems to answer, in name as well as habits, to our woodchuck, or ground-hog.[62]The author’s attempt here at a general catalogue of the fishes, mollusks, &c., of the North-Atlantic Ocean, affords but a poor make-shift for such a list as we might fairly have expected from him of the species known to the early fishermen in the waters and seas of New England; and the account in his Voyages (pp. 104-15) is again an improvement on the present, and is confined to the inhabitants of our waters. The present editor has little to offer in elucidation of the list; which indeed, in good part, appears sufficiently intelligible. Compare Wood, New-Eng. Prospect, chap. x.[63]“Like a herrin, but has a bigger bellie; therefore called an alewife.”—Voyages, p. 107. The other names, alize and allow, are doubtless corruptions of the French alose, also in use among London fishmongers to designate shad from certain waters.—Rees’s Cyc.,in loco. The old Latin wordalosa, supposed to have been always applied to the fish just mentioned, is adopted by Cuvier for the genus which includes our shad, alewife, and menhaden.[64]The tunny is so called on the coast of New England.—Storer’s Report on the Fishes of Mass., p. 48.[65]It is, notwithstanding, set down in the author’s list of fishes “that are to be seen and catch’d in the sea and fresh waters in New England.”—Voyages, p. 113. And compare Storer, Synops. (Mem. Am. Acad., N. S., vol. ii.), p. 300.[66]See Voyages, p. 108. The first settlers esteemed the bass above most other fish. See Higginson’s New-England’s Plantation (Hist. Coll., vol. i. p. 120). Wood calls it (New-Eng. Prospect, chap. ix.) “one of the best fish in the country; and though men are soon wearied with other fish, yet are they never with bass. The Indians,” he says, eat lobsters, “when they can get no bass.” The head was especially prized; as see Wood, and also Roger Williams’s Key (Hist. Coll., vol. iii. p. 224). The fish is our striped bass (Labrax lineatus, Cuv.; Storer’s Report on Fishes of Mass., p. 7). Our author, atp. 37, again mentions it as one of the eight fishes which “the Indians have in greatest request.”[67]See p. 96as to the blue-fish, or horse-mackerel; and Storer,l. c., p. 57.[68]The bonito of our fishermen is the skipjack.—Storer,l. c., p. 49.[69]See p. 95.[70]See p. 96. Josselyn’s character of the fish as food is confirmed by Dr. Storer,l. c., p. 69.[71]The clam is one of the eight fishes mentioned at p. 37 as most prized by the Indians. “Sickishuog(clams). This is a sweet kind of shell-fish, which all Indians generally over the country, winter and summer, delight in; and, at low water, the women dig for them. This fish, and the natural liquor of it, they boil; and it makes their broth and their nasaump (which is a kind of thickened broth) and their bread seasonable and savoury, instead of salt.”—Williams’s Key, &c.,l. c.p. 224. “These fishes be in great plenty in most parts of the country: which is a great commodity for the feeding of swine, both in winter and summer; for, being once used to those places, they will repair to them as duly, every ebb, as if they were driven to them by keepers.”—Wood,N. Eng. Prospect,l. c.The mollusk thus approved is the common clam (Mya arenaria, L.); but thepoquauhock, or quahog (Venus mercenaria, L.), “which the Indians wade deep and dive for” (R. Williams,l. c., p. 224), was also eaten by them, and the black part of the shell used for making theirsuckauhock, or black money. Wood speaks also of “clams as big as a penny white loaf, which are great dainties amongst the natives” (N. E. Prospect,l. c.); doubtless the giant clam (Mactra solidissima, Chemn.) of Gould (Report on Invertebr. of Mass., p. 51), which is still esteemed as food.[72]See p. 36; by which it appears that the author has in view themeteauhockof the Indians; “the periwinkle, of which they make theirwompam, or white money, of half the value of theirsuckauhock, or black money” (R. Williams,l. c.): supposed to beBuccinum undatum, L. (Gould,l. c., p. 305); and possibly, also, one or two other allied shell-fish.[73]“Cod-fish in these seas” (that is, Massachusetts Bay) “are larger than in Newfoundland,—six or seven making a quintal; whereas they have fifteen to the same weight.”—New-Eng. Prospect,l. c.Compare Storer,l. c., p. 121. Josselyn has an entertaining account of the sea-fishery, in his Voyages, pp. 210-13.[74]See further of eels, and the author’s several ways of cooking them, in his Voyages, p. 111. Atp. 37of the Rarities, eels are mentioned among the fishes most prized by the Indians. “These eels be not of so luscious a taste as they be in England, neither are they so aguish; but are both wholesome for the body, and delightful for the taste.”—Wood,New-Eng. Prospect, chap. ix.[75]See p. 37, where it is said to be one of the fishes which “the Indians have in greatest request.”—“Poponaumsuog” of R. Williams,l. c., p. 225. He says, “Some call them frost-fish, from their coming up from the sea into fresh brooks in times of frost and snow.”[76]“Grampoise; Fr.grandpoisson;” corrupted grampus.—Webster,Dict.[77]“These hollibut be little set by while bass is in season.”—Wood,l. c., chap. ix.[78]“The sea-hare is as big as grampus, or herrin-hog; and as white as a sheet. There hath been of them in Black-Point Harbour, and some way up the river; but we could never take any of them. Several have shot sluggs at them, but lost their labour.”—Voyages, p. 105. TheLepus marinusof the old writers is a naked mollusk of the Mediterranean;Laplysia depilans, L.: but Josselyn’s was a very different animal.[79]One of the fishes most valued by the Indians(p. 37); but “not much set by” by the English, according to Wood,l. c.[80]“I have seene some myselfe that have weighed 16 pound; but others have had, divers times, so great lobsters as have weighed 25 pound, as they assure me.”—Higginson’s New-Eng. Plantation,l. c., p. 120; with which compare Gould’s Report, &c., p. 360. “Their plenty makes them little esteemed, and seldom eaten.”—Wood,New-Eng. Prospect, chap. ix. At p. 37, Josselyn counts them among the fishes, &c., most esteemed by the Indians; but Wood (l. c.) qualifies this in a passage already cited. The Indians, it seems, sometimes dried them, “as they do lampres and oysters; which are delicate breakfast-meat so ordered.”—Josselyn’s Voyages, p. 110. See the Indian way of catching lobsters, in Voyages, p. 140.[81]“Munk-fish, a flat-fish like scate; having a hood like a fryer’s cowl”(p. 96).Lophius Americanus, Cuv., the sea-devil of Storer (Synops. of Amer. Fishes, in Mem. Amer. Acad., N. S., vol. ii. p. 381), is called monk-fish in Maine.—Williamson,Hist., vol. i. p. 157.[82]See p. 97.[83]“The muscle is of two sorts,—sea-muscles (in which they find pearl) and river-muscles.”—Voyages, p. 110.See p. 37, of the present volume, for an account of “the scarlet muscle,” which ... “yieldeth a perfect purple or scarlet juice; dyeing linnen so that no washing will wear it out,” &c. This could scarcely have been aPurpuraorBuccinum.[84]See Voyages, p. 110. “The oysters be great ones,” says Wood; “in form of a shoe-horn: some be a foot long. These breed on certain banks that are bare every spring-tide.”—New-Eng. Prospect, chap. ix. This was in the waters of Massachusetts Bay, where Higginson (New-Eng. Plantation,l. c., p. 120) also speaks of their being found. The question whether the oyster is an indigenous inhabitant of our bay, or only an introduced stranger, is considered by Dr. Gould (Report on Invert. Animals of Mass., pp. 135, 365).[85]One of the fishes “in greatest request” among the Indians (p. 37). Wood says it “is as good as it is in England, and in great plenty in some places.”—New-Eng. Prospect, chap. ix.[86]“The shads be bigger than the English shads, and fatter.”—Wood,l. c.[87]“Taut-auog(sheep’s-heads).” So Roger Williams’s Key,l. c., p. 224. It is probable, therefore, that our author had the fish that we call tautog in his mind here. What is now called sheep’s-head is not known in Massachusetts Bay and northward.—Storer,l. c., p. 36.[88]See p. 34; and Wood,l. c., chap. ix.[89]See p. 96. It appears to be the mollusk, the shell of which is well known as the razor-shell (Solen ensis, L.).—Gould,Report, p. 28.[90]See p. 32. “The sturgeons be all over the country; but the best catching of them is upon the shoals of Cape Cod and in the river of Merrimack, where much is taken, pickled, and brought to England. Some of these be 12, 14, and 18 feet long.”—Wood,New-Eng. Prospect, chap. ix. R. Williams says that “the natives, for the goodness and greatness of it, much prize it; and will neither furnish the English with so many, nor so cheap, that any great trade is like to be made of it, until the English themselves are fit to follow the fishing.”—Key,l. c., p. 224. It is one of Josselyn’s eight fish which are in “greatest request” with the Indians (p. 37). He calls “Pechipscut” River, in Maine, “famous for multitudes of mighty large sturgeon.”—Voyages, p. 204.[91]See Voyages, pp. 105-6.[92]“This fish is much used for bait to catch a cod, hacke, polluck, and the like sea-fish.”—Voyages, p. 107. It is still so used.[93]Described at p. 95.[94]See p. 34of this, and p. 109 of the Voyages, where the author says, “Of sea-turtles, there are five sorts; of land-turtles, three sorts,—one of which is a right land-turtle, that seldom or never goes into the water; the other two being the river-turtle and the pond-turtle.”—See also the author’s observations on sea-turtles, at p. 39 of the Voyages.[95]“Trouts there be good store in every brook; ordinarily two and twenty inches long. Their grease is good for the piles and clifts.”—Voyages, p. 110.[96]See Storer’s Report, p. 146.[97]See p. 35; and Voyages, p. 104. “The natives cut them in several parcel, and give and send them far and near for an acceptable present or dish.”—R. Williams,Key,l. c., p. 224.[98]See Voyages, p. 110. This is the common sea-egg;Echinus granulatus, Say.—Gould’s Rep., p. 344.[99]See p. 24and note.[100]Our author’s account of the fishes of New England may take this of old Wood (N. E. Prospect,l. c.) for a tail-piece. “The chief fish for trade,” says he, “is a cod; but, for the use of the country, there is all manner of fish, as followeth:—“The king of waters,—the sea-shouldering Whale;The snuffing Grampus, with the oily seal;The storm-presaging Porpus, Herring-hog;Line-shearing Shark, the Cat-fish, and Sea-dog;The scale-fenced Sturgeon; wry-mouthed Hollibut;The flouncing Salmon, Codfish, Greedigut;Cole, Haddick, Hake, the Thornback, and the Scate,(Whose slimy outside makes him seld’ in date;)The stately Bass, old Neptune’s fleeting post,That tides it out and in from sea to coast;Consorting Herrings, and the bony Shad;Big-bellied Alewives; Mackrels richly cladWith rainbow-colour, the Frost-fish and the Smelt,As good as ever Lady Gustus felt;The spotted Lamprons; Eels; the Lamperies,That seek fresh-water brooks with Argus-eyes:These watery villagers, with thousands more,Do pass and repass near the verdant shore.”[101]See p. 97.[102]The account in the Voyages (pp. 114-23) is better; and Wood’s, in New-England’s Prospect, chap. xi. (to which last, Josselyn was possibly indebted), far better.[103]See “the generating of these creatures,” in Voyages, p. 119. “Here, likewise,” says Wood, “be great store of frogs, which, in the spring, do chirp and whistle like a bird; and, at the latter end of summer, croak like our English frogs.”—N. Eng. Prospect,l. c.In his Voyages, Josselyn speaks (as Wood had done) of the tree-toad, and also of another kind of toad; and of “the eft, or swift, ... a most beautiful creature to look upon; being larger than ours, and painted with glorious colours: but I lik’d him never the better for it” (p. 119).[104]Wood’s account (New-Eng. Prospect,l. c.) is worth comparing with Higginson’s (New-England’s Plantation,l. c.) and with Josselyn’s, both here and at pp. 23 and 114 of the Voyages. Wood justly says of this “most poisonous and dangerous creature,” that it is “nothing so bad as the report goes of him.... He is naturally,” he continues, “the most sleepy and unnimble creature that lives; never offering to leap or bite any man, if he be not trodden on first: and it is their desire, in hot weather, to lie in paths where the sun may shine on them; where they will sleep so soundly, that I have known four men to stride over them, and never awake her.... Five or six men,” he adds, “have been bitten by them; which, by using of snake-weed” (compare the preface to this, p. 119), “were all cured; never any yet losing his life by them. Cows have been bitten; but, being cut in divers places, and this weed thrust into their flesh, were cured. I never heard of any beast that was yet lost by any of them, saving one mare” (l. c.). Of other serpents, Wood mentions the black snake; and Josselyn, in his Voyages (l. c.), speaks of “infinite numbers, of various colours;” and especially of “one sort that exceeds all the rest; and that is the checkquered snake, having as many colours within the checkquers shadowing one another as there are in a rainbow.” He says again, “The water-snake will be as big about the belly as the calf of a man’s leg” which is, perhaps, the water-adder. Josselyn adds, “I never heard of any mischief that snakes did” (l. c.); and so Wood: “Neither doth any other kind of snakes” (the rattle-snake always excepted, as no doubt dangerous when trodden on) “molest either man or beast.” There are perhaps no worse prejudices in common life, than those which breed cruelty. In the Voyages (p. 23), our author makes mention “of a sea-serpent, or snake, that lay quoiled up like a cable upon a rock at Cape Ann. A boat passing by with English aboard, and two Indians, they would have shot the serpent: but the Indians disswaded them; saying, that, if he were not kill’d outright, they would be all in danger of their lives.” This was from “some neighbouring gentlemen in our house, who came to welcome me into the countrey;” and it seems, that, “amongst variety of discourse, they told me also of a young lyon (not long before) killed at Piscataway by an Indian;” which, indeed, was possibly not without foundation. And as to the serpent, compare a Report of a Committee of the Linnæan Society of New England relative to a large marine animal, supposed to be a serpent, seen near Cape Ann, Mass., in August, 1817 (Boston, 1817); which contains also a full account of a smaller animal—supposed not to differ, even in species, from the large—which was taken on the rocks of Cape Ann.—See also Storer, Report on the Reptiles of Mass.; Supplement, p. 410.[105]The author continues his entomological observations, in his Voyages, p. 115; and the account is fuller than Wood’s;New-England’s Prospect, chap. xi.[106]Gerard by Johnson, p. 17,—Carex flava, L.; the first species of this genus indicated in North America, and common also to Europe. There is no doubt of the reference, taking Josselyn’s name to be meant for specific, and to refer to Gerard’s first figure with the same name. But it is certainly possible that our author had in view only a general reference to Gerard’s fourteenth chapter, “Of Hedgehog Grasse,” which brings together plants of very different genera; and, in this case, his name is of little account. Cutler (Account of Indig. Veg.,l. c., 1785) mentions three genera ofCyperaceæ, but notCarex; nor did he ever publish that description of our trueGramineæ“and other native grasses,” which, he says (l. c., p. 407), “may be the subject of another paper.” The first edition of Bigelow’s Florula Bostoniensis (1814) has seven species ofCarex, which are increased to seventeen in the second edition (1824); the list embracing the most common and conspicuous forms. The genus has since been made an object of special study, and the number of our species, in consequence, greatly increased. A list of Carices of the neighborhood of Boston, published by the present writer in 1841 (Hovey’s Mag. Hort.), gives forty-seven species; and Professor Dewey’s Report on the Herbaceous Plants of Massachusetts, in 1840, reckons ninety-one species within the limits of his work.[107]Johnson’s Gerard, p. 42,—English matweed, or helme (the other species being excluded, as not English, by our author’s caption); which I take to beCalamagrostis arenaria(L.) Roth, of Gray, Man., p. 548; called sea-matweed in England, and common to Europe and America. But if the author only intended to refer to Gerard’s “Chapter 34, of Mat-weed,”—which is perhaps, on the whole, unlikely,—his name is of no value.[108]Gerard, p. 46,—Typha latifolia, L.,—common to America and Europe.[109]Gerard, p. 47,—Stellaria graminea, L.; for which our author mistook, as did Cutler a century after, the nearly akinS. longifolia, Muhl.[110]Appears not to be meant for a specific reference to any of Gerard’s species; but only an indication of the genus, with the single distinguishing character of color, which was enough to separate the New-England plants from the only British one referred by Gerard to Iris. Both of our blue-flags are peculiar to the country.[111]Not one of Gerard’s bastard daffodils, but his dog’s-tooth, p. 204 (Erythronium, L.). Our common dog’s-tooth was at first taken for a variety of the European, but is now reckoned distinct.[112]Gerard, p. 205,—Orchis, L., etc. It is here clear that the name is used only in a general way. The second name (Satyrion), perhaps, however, makes our author’s notion a little more definite, and permits us to refer the plants he had probably in view to species ofPlatanthera, Rich. (Gray, Man., p. 444), of which only one is certainly known to be common to us and Europe.[113]Gerard, em. p. 257,—Nasturtium officinale, L. Reckoned also by Cutler, and indeed naturalized in some parts of the country (Gray, Man., p. 30); but our author had probablyN. palustre, DC. (marsh-cress), if any thing of this genus, and not ratherCardamine hirsuta, L. (hairy lady’s smock), in his mind. Both the last are common to us and Europe.—Gray,l. c.[114]Gerard, p. 192.Lilium bulbiferum(the garden red lily) is meant; for which our author mistook our own red lily (L. Philadelphicum, L.).[115]Of the two plants,—either of which may possibly have been in view of the author here,—the sorrell du bois, or white wood-sorrel of Gerard, p. 1101 (Oxalis acetosella, L.) which is truly common to Europe and America, and the sheep’s sorrel (Gerard, p. 397,—Rumex acetosella, L.), which inhabits, indeed, the whole northern hemisphere, but is taken by Dr. Gray to be a naturalized weed here, I incline to think the latter less likely to have escaped Josselyn’s attention than the former, and to be what he means to say appeared to him as native, in 1671. For the yellow wood-sorrel,see farther on.[116]Gerard, em., p. 404,—Ophioglossum vulgatum, L.; common to us and Europe.[117]Gerard, em., p. 409,—Smilacina bifolia(L.), Ker; common to us and Europe.[118]Gerard, em., p. 410. A mistake of our author’s, which can hardly be set right. The station is against the plant’s having beenSmilacina trifolia(L.), Desf. But it may be thatClintonia borealis(Ait.) Raf., was intended.[119]Alisma plantago, L., common to Europe and America; “called, in New England, water suck-leaves and scurvie-leaves. You must lay them whole to the leggs to draw out water between the skin and the flesh.”—Josselyn’s Voyages, p. 80. As to its medicinal properties, see Gerard, p. 419; and Wood and Bache, Dispens., p. 1293.[120]Plantago maritima, L. (Gerard, p. 423), a native of Europe and America, is our only sea-plantain. One of the others was probablyTriglochin.[121]Sagittaria sagittifolia, L. (now called arrowhead), common to Europe and America; though here passing into some varieties which are unknown in the European Floras.[122]Gentiana saponaria, L., peculiar to America, but nearly akin to the EuropeanG. pneumonanthe, L., which our author intended.—Johnson’s Gerard,edit. cit., p. 438.[123]The plant is green hellebore (Veratrum viride, Ait.); so near, indeed, to the white hellebore (V. album, L.) of Europe, that it was taken for it by Michaux. In his Voyages, the author, after speaking of the use of opium by the Turks, says, “The English in New England take white hellebore, which operates as fairly with them as with the Indians,” &c. (p. 60); and see p. 76, further.[124]Polygonum lapathifolium, L. (Hydropiperof Gerard, p. 445),—for which, perhaps,P. hydropiper, L., was mistaken,—andP. Persicaria, L. (Persicaria maculosaof Gerard,l. c.), are what the author means; being the two sorts figured by Gerard himself. The third, added by Johnson, is unknown in this country; and the fourth belongs to a very different genus.P. Persicariais marked as introduced in the late Mr. Oakes’s catalogue of the plants of Vermont; and both this andP. hydropiperare considered to be naturalized weeds by Dr. Gray (Man., p. 373). Josselyn’s testimony as to the former, as appearing to him to be native in 1671, is therefore not without interest; and possibly it is not quite worthless as to the latter.[125]Chamæsyce, or spurge-time, of Gerard (edit. cit., p. 504), isEuphorbia chamæsyce, L., a species belonging to the Eastern continent; for which Sloane (cit. L. Sp. Pl. in loco) appears to have mistaken ourEuphorbia maculata, L.; while Plukenet (Alm. 372,cit. L.) recognizes the affinity of the same plants, calling the latterChamæsyce altera Virginiana. Josselyn’s spurge-time may beE. maculata; but quite possibly, taking the station which he gives into the account,E. polygonifolia, L.[126]There are “several sorts of spurge,” according to the Voyages (p. 78); of which this, which I cannot specifically refer, is possibly one.[127]To this species ofSaxifraga, L., unknown to ourFlora(Gerard, p. 528), our author, with little doubt, referred the prettyS. Virginiensis, Michx.—See p. 58 of this, note.[128]Gerard, em., p. 535,—Salicornia herbacea, L. But Linnæus referred one of Clayton’s Virginia specimens (the rest he did not distinguish fromS. herbacea) to a variety,β. Virginica(which he took to be also European;Sp. Pl.), and afterwards raised this to a species, asS. Virginica,Syst. Nat., vol. ii. p. 52, Willd.Sp. Pl., vol. i. p. 25. To this the more common glasswort of our salt marshes is to be referred; and we possess, beside, a still better representative of the European plant inS. mucronata, Bigel. (Fl. Bost., edit. 2, p. 2), which may perhaps best be taken for a peculiar variety (S. herbacea,β. mucronata, articulorum dentibus squamisque mucronatis,Enum. Pl. Cantab., Ms.; andS. Virginicamay well be another) of a species common to us and Europe. It is certain that we have plants strictly common to American and European Floras, in which the differences referable to difference of atmospheric and other like conditions are either not apparent or of no account; and it is possible that there are yet other species, now considered peculiar to America, which only differ from older European species in those characters—whether of exuberance mostly, or also of impoverishment—in which an American variety of a plant, common to America and Europe, might beforehand be expected to differ from an European state of the same. “Linnæus ut Tournefortii errores corrigeret, varietates nimis contraxit.”—Link,Phil. Bot., p. 222.[129]Hypericum perforatum, L. (“Hypericum,S. John’s-wort; in shops,Perforata.”—Gerard,edit. cit., p. 539). The species is considered to have been introduced, by most American authors; and it is possible that Josselyn hadH. corymbosum, Muhl., in his mind.[130]Hypericum quadrangulum, L. (Gerard, p. 542); for which our author doubtless mistookH. mutilum, L. (H. parviflorum, Willd.), a species peculiar to America; to which Cutler’sH. quadrangulum(Account of Indig. Veg.,l. c., p. 474) is probably also to be referred.[131]Veronica arvensis, L. (Gerard, p. 613),—a native, at present, of Europe, Asia, Northern Africa, and North America (Benth., in DC. Prodr., vol. x. p. 482); but considered to have been introduced here.[132]Veronica, L. The species is perhapsV. officinalis, L.; which, together withV. serpyllifolia, L., is considered by Prof. Gray to be both indigenous and introduced here.—Man. Bot., pp. 200-1.[133]Hedeoma pulegioides(L.) Pers. (American pennyroyal), is doubtless meant. The specific name indicates its resemblance—in smell and taste particularly—toMentha pulegium, L.; for which our author and Cutler (l. c., p. 461) mistook it. But the former is peculiar to America.[134]Mentha aquatica, L.Sp. Pl.(Gerard, p. 684); for which it is likely our author (and also Cutler,l. c., p. 460) mistookM. Canadensis, L., Gray.[135]Nepeta cataria, L. (Gerard, em., p. 682); considered by American botanists to have been introduced from Europe.[136]Agrimonia Eupatoria, L. (Gerard, em., p. 712); common to America and Europe.[137]Xanthium strumarium, L., Gray (Gerard, p. 809); common, as a species, to both continents; but in part, also, introduced.—Gray,Man., p. 212.[138]Nuphar advena, Ait.,—the common American species,—is meant; and this, though resemblingN. lutea, Sm., of Europe, is distinct from it.

[59]“They told me of a young lyon (not long before) kill’d at Piscataway by an Indian.”—Voyages, p. 23. Higginson says that lions “have been seen at Cape Anne.”—New-Eng. Plantation,l. c., p. 119. “Some affirm,” says Wood, “that they have seen a lion at Cape Anne.... Besides, Plimouth men” (that is, men of old Plymouth, it is likely) “have traded for lion-skins in former times. But sure it is that there be lions on that continent; for the Virginians saw an old lion in their plantation,” &c.—New-Eng. Prospect,l. c.The animal here spoken of may well have been the puma or cougar, or American lion.

[60]“The rabbits be much like ours in England. The hares be some of them white, and a yard long. These two harmless creatures are glad to shelter themselves from the harmful foxes in hollow trees; having a hole at the entrance no bigger than they can creep in at.”—Wood,New-Eng. Prospect,l. c.Wood’s rabbit and Josselyn’s hare, so far as the summer coloring goes, appear to be the gray rabbit (Lepus sylvaticus, Aud. and Bachm.,l. c.p. 173); and the white hare of Wood—as also, probably, the hare, “milk-white in winter,” of Josselyn—is doubtless the northern hare (Lepus Americanus, Erxl., Aud. and Bachm.,l. c., p. 93).

[61]The Voyages mention, beside the quadrupeds above named, also the skunk (ségankooof Rasles’ Dict.,l. c.); the musquash (mooskooéssooof Rasles,l. c.), for whichsee also p. 53of this; otter; marten, “as ours are in England, but blacker;” sable, “much of the size of a mattrise, perfect black, but ... I never saw but two of them in eight years’ space;” the squirrel, “three sorts,—the mouse-squirril, the gray squirril, and the flying-squirril (called by the Indianassapanick).” Our author’s mouse-squirrel, which he describes, is the ground or striped squirrel: probably the “anequus, a little coloured squirrel” of R. Williams,l. c.; and theanikoosess(renderedsuisse) of Rasles,l. c.The mattrise of our author is, according to him, “a creature whose head and fore-parts is shaped somewhat like a lyon’s; not altogether so big as a house-cat. They are innumerable up in the countrey, and are esteemed good furr.”—Voyages, p. 87. The sable is compared with the mattrise, at least in size; and the name is perhaps comparable withmattegooéssooof Rasles,l. c.; but this is renderedlièvre. Wood adds to this list of our quadrupeds, mistakenly, the ferret; and R. Williams, the “ockquutchaunnug,—a wild beast of a reddish hair, about the bigness of a pig, and rooting like a pig;” which seems to answer, in name as well as habits, to our woodchuck, or ground-hog.

[62]The author’s attempt here at a general catalogue of the fishes, mollusks, &c., of the North-Atlantic Ocean, affords but a poor make-shift for such a list as we might fairly have expected from him of the species known to the early fishermen in the waters and seas of New England; and the account in his Voyages (pp. 104-15) is again an improvement on the present, and is confined to the inhabitants of our waters. The present editor has little to offer in elucidation of the list; which indeed, in good part, appears sufficiently intelligible. Compare Wood, New-Eng. Prospect, chap. x.

[63]“Like a herrin, but has a bigger bellie; therefore called an alewife.”—Voyages, p. 107. The other names, alize and allow, are doubtless corruptions of the French alose, also in use among London fishmongers to designate shad from certain waters.—Rees’s Cyc.,in loco. The old Latin wordalosa, supposed to have been always applied to the fish just mentioned, is adopted by Cuvier for the genus which includes our shad, alewife, and menhaden.

[64]The tunny is so called on the coast of New England.—Storer’s Report on the Fishes of Mass., p. 48.

[65]It is, notwithstanding, set down in the author’s list of fishes “that are to be seen and catch’d in the sea and fresh waters in New England.”—Voyages, p. 113. And compare Storer, Synops. (Mem. Am. Acad., N. S., vol. ii.), p. 300.

[66]See Voyages, p. 108. The first settlers esteemed the bass above most other fish. See Higginson’s New-England’s Plantation (Hist. Coll., vol. i. p. 120). Wood calls it (New-Eng. Prospect, chap. ix.) “one of the best fish in the country; and though men are soon wearied with other fish, yet are they never with bass. The Indians,” he says, eat lobsters, “when they can get no bass.” The head was especially prized; as see Wood, and also Roger Williams’s Key (Hist. Coll., vol. iii. p. 224). The fish is our striped bass (Labrax lineatus, Cuv.; Storer’s Report on Fishes of Mass., p. 7). Our author, atp. 37, again mentions it as one of the eight fishes which “the Indians have in greatest request.”

[67]See p. 96as to the blue-fish, or horse-mackerel; and Storer,l. c., p. 57.

[68]The bonito of our fishermen is the skipjack.—Storer,l. c., p. 49.

[69]See p. 95.

[70]See p. 96. Josselyn’s character of the fish as food is confirmed by Dr. Storer,l. c., p. 69.

[71]The clam is one of the eight fishes mentioned at p. 37 as most prized by the Indians. “Sickishuog(clams). This is a sweet kind of shell-fish, which all Indians generally over the country, winter and summer, delight in; and, at low water, the women dig for them. This fish, and the natural liquor of it, they boil; and it makes their broth and their nasaump (which is a kind of thickened broth) and their bread seasonable and savoury, instead of salt.”—Williams’s Key, &c.,l. c.p. 224. “These fishes be in great plenty in most parts of the country: which is a great commodity for the feeding of swine, both in winter and summer; for, being once used to those places, they will repair to them as duly, every ebb, as if they were driven to them by keepers.”—Wood,N. Eng. Prospect,l. c.The mollusk thus approved is the common clam (Mya arenaria, L.); but thepoquauhock, or quahog (Venus mercenaria, L.), “which the Indians wade deep and dive for” (R. Williams,l. c., p. 224), was also eaten by them, and the black part of the shell used for making theirsuckauhock, or black money. Wood speaks also of “clams as big as a penny white loaf, which are great dainties amongst the natives” (N. E. Prospect,l. c.); doubtless the giant clam (Mactra solidissima, Chemn.) of Gould (Report on Invertebr. of Mass., p. 51), which is still esteemed as food.

[72]See p. 36; by which it appears that the author has in view themeteauhockof the Indians; “the periwinkle, of which they make theirwompam, or white money, of half the value of theirsuckauhock, or black money” (R. Williams,l. c.): supposed to beBuccinum undatum, L. (Gould,l. c., p. 305); and possibly, also, one or two other allied shell-fish.

[73]“Cod-fish in these seas” (that is, Massachusetts Bay) “are larger than in Newfoundland,—six or seven making a quintal; whereas they have fifteen to the same weight.”—New-Eng. Prospect,l. c.Compare Storer,l. c., p. 121. Josselyn has an entertaining account of the sea-fishery, in his Voyages, pp. 210-13.

[74]See further of eels, and the author’s several ways of cooking them, in his Voyages, p. 111. Atp. 37of the Rarities, eels are mentioned among the fishes most prized by the Indians. “These eels be not of so luscious a taste as they be in England, neither are they so aguish; but are both wholesome for the body, and delightful for the taste.”—Wood,New-Eng. Prospect, chap. ix.

[75]See p. 37, where it is said to be one of the fishes which “the Indians have in greatest request.”—“Poponaumsuog” of R. Williams,l. c., p. 225. He says, “Some call them frost-fish, from their coming up from the sea into fresh brooks in times of frost and snow.”

[76]“Grampoise; Fr.grandpoisson;” corrupted grampus.—Webster,Dict.

[77]“These hollibut be little set by while bass is in season.”—Wood,l. c., chap. ix.

[78]“The sea-hare is as big as grampus, or herrin-hog; and as white as a sheet. There hath been of them in Black-Point Harbour, and some way up the river; but we could never take any of them. Several have shot sluggs at them, but lost their labour.”—Voyages, p. 105. TheLepus marinusof the old writers is a naked mollusk of the Mediterranean;Laplysia depilans, L.: but Josselyn’s was a very different animal.

[79]One of the fishes most valued by the Indians(p. 37); but “not much set by” by the English, according to Wood,l. c.

[80]“I have seene some myselfe that have weighed 16 pound; but others have had, divers times, so great lobsters as have weighed 25 pound, as they assure me.”—Higginson’s New-Eng. Plantation,l. c., p. 120; with which compare Gould’s Report, &c., p. 360. “Their plenty makes them little esteemed, and seldom eaten.”—Wood,New-Eng. Prospect, chap. ix. At p. 37, Josselyn counts them among the fishes, &c., most esteemed by the Indians; but Wood (l. c.) qualifies this in a passage already cited. The Indians, it seems, sometimes dried them, “as they do lampres and oysters; which are delicate breakfast-meat so ordered.”—Josselyn’s Voyages, p. 110. See the Indian way of catching lobsters, in Voyages, p. 140.

[81]“Munk-fish, a flat-fish like scate; having a hood like a fryer’s cowl”(p. 96).Lophius Americanus, Cuv., the sea-devil of Storer (Synops. of Amer. Fishes, in Mem. Amer. Acad., N. S., vol. ii. p. 381), is called monk-fish in Maine.—Williamson,Hist., vol. i. p. 157.

[82]See p. 97.

[83]“The muscle is of two sorts,—sea-muscles (in which they find pearl) and river-muscles.”—Voyages, p. 110.See p. 37, of the present volume, for an account of “the scarlet muscle,” which ... “yieldeth a perfect purple or scarlet juice; dyeing linnen so that no washing will wear it out,” &c. This could scarcely have been aPurpuraorBuccinum.

[84]See Voyages, p. 110. “The oysters be great ones,” says Wood; “in form of a shoe-horn: some be a foot long. These breed on certain banks that are bare every spring-tide.”—New-Eng. Prospect, chap. ix. This was in the waters of Massachusetts Bay, where Higginson (New-Eng. Plantation,l. c., p. 120) also speaks of their being found. The question whether the oyster is an indigenous inhabitant of our bay, or only an introduced stranger, is considered by Dr. Gould (Report on Invert. Animals of Mass., pp. 135, 365).

[85]One of the fishes “in greatest request” among the Indians (p. 37). Wood says it “is as good as it is in England, and in great plenty in some places.”—New-Eng. Prospect, chap. ix.

[86]“The shads be bigger than the English shads, and fatter.”—Wood,l. c.

[87]“Taut-auog(sheep’s-heads).” So Roger Williams’s Key,l. c., p. 224. It is probable, therefore, that our author had the fish that we call tautog in his mind here. What is now called sheep’s-head is not known in Massachusetts Bay and northward.—Storer,l. c., p. 36.

[88]See p. 34; and Wood,l. c., chap. ix.

[89]See p. 96. It appears to be the mollusk, the shell of which is well known as the razor-shell (Solen ensis, L.).—Gould,Report, p. 28.

[90]See p. 32. “The sturgeons be all over the country; but the best catching of them is upon the shoals of Cape Cod and in the river of Merrimack, where much is taken, pickled, and brought to England. Some of these be 12, 14, and 18 feet long.”—Wood,New-Eng. Prospect, chap. ix. R. Williams says that “the natives, for the goodness and greatness of it, much prize it; and will neither furnish the English with so many, nor so cheap, that any great trade is like to be made of it, until the English themselves are fit to follow the fishing.”—Key,l. c., p. 224. It is one of Josselyn’s eight fish which are in “greatest request” with the Indians (p. 37). He calls “Pechipscut” River, in Maine, “famous for multitudes of mighty large sturgeon.”—Voyages, p. 204.

[91]See Voyages, pp. 105-6.

[92]“This fish is much used for bait to catch a cod, hacke, polluck, and the like sea-fish.”—Voyages, p. 107. It is still so used.

[93]Described at p. 95.

[94]See p. 34of this, and p. 109 of the Voyages, where the author says, “Of sea-turtles, there are five sorts; of land-turtles, three sorts,—one of which is a right land-turtle, that seldom or never goes into the water; the other two being the river-turtle and the pond-turtle.”—See also the author’s observations on sea-turtles, at p. 39 of the Voyages.

[95]“Trouts there be good store in every brook; ordinarily two and twenty inches long. Their grease is good for the piles and clifts.”—Voyages, p. 110.

[96]See Storer’s Report, p. 146.

[97]See p. 35; and Voyages, p. 104. “The natives cut them in several parcel, and give and send them far and near for an acceptable present or dish.”—R. Williams,Key,l. c., p. 224.

[98]See Voyages, p. 110. This is the common sea-egg;Echinus granulatus, Say.—Gould’s Rep., p. 344.

[99]See p. 24and note.

[100]Our author’s account of the fishes of New England may take this of old Wood (N. E. Prospect,l. c.) for a tail-piece. “The chief fish for trade,” says he, “is a cod; but, for the use of the country, there is all manner of fish, as followeth:—“The king of waters,—the sea-shouldering Whale;The snuffing Grampus, with the oily seal;The storm-presaging Porpus, Herring-hog;Line-shearing Shark, the Cat-fish, and Sea-dog;The scale-fenced Sturgeon; wry-mouthed Hollibut;The flouncing Salmon, Codfish, Greedigut;Cole, Haddick, Hake, the Thornback, and the Scate,(Whose slimy outside makes him seld’ in date;)The stately Bass, old Neptune’s fleeting post,That tides it out and in from sea to coast;Consorting Herrings, and the bony Shad;Big-bellied Alewives; Mackrels richly cladWith rainbow-colour, the Frost-fish and the Smelt,As good as ever Lady Gustus felt;The spotted Lamprons; Eels; the Lamperies,That seek fresh-water brooks with Argus-eyes:These watery villagers, with thousands more,Do pass and repass near the verdant shore.”

“The king of waters,—the sea-shouldering Whale;The snuffing Grampus, with the oily seal;The storm-presaging Porpus, Herring-hog;Line-shearing Shark, the Cat-fish, and Sea-dog;The scale-fenced Sturgeon; wry-mouthed Hollibut;The flouncing Salmon, Codfish, Greedigut;Cole, Haddick, Hake, the Thornback, and the Scate,(Whose slimy outside makes him seld’ in date;)The stately Bass, old Neptune’s fleeting post,That tides it out and in from sea to coast;Consorting Herrings, and the bony Shad;Big-bellied Alewives; Mackrels richly cladWith rainbow-colour, the Frost-fish and the Smelt,As good as ever Lady Gustus felt;The spotted Lamprons; Eels; the Lamperies,That seek fresh-water brooks with Argus-eyes:These watery villagers, with thousands more,Do pass and repass near the verdant shore.”

“The king of waters,—the sea-shouldering Whale;

The snuffing Grampus, with the oily seal;

The storm-presaging Porpus, Herring-hog;

Line-shearing Shark, the Cat-fish, and Sea-dog;

The scale-fenced Sturgeon; wry-mouthed Hollibut;

The flouncing Salmon, Codfish, Greedigut;

Cole, Haddick, Hake, the Thornback, and the Scate,

(Whose slimy outside makes him seld’ in date;)

The stately Bass, old Neptune’s fleeting post,

That tides it out and in from sea to coast;

Consorting Herrings, and the bony Shad;

Big-bellied Alewives; Mackrels richly clad

With rainbow-colour, the Frost-fish and the Smelt,

As good as ever Lady Gustus felt;

The spotted Lamprons; Eels; the Lamperies,

That seek fresh-water brooks with Argus-eyes:

These watery villagers, with thousands more,

Do pass and repass near the verdant shore.”

[101]See p. 97.

[102]The account in the Voyages (pp. 114-23) is better; and Wood’s, in New-England’s Prospect, chap. xi. (to which last, Josselyn was possibly indebted), far better.

[103]See “the generating of these creatures,” in Voyages, p. 119. “Here, likewise,” says Wood, “be great store of frogs, which, in the spring, do chirp and whistle like a bird; and, at the latter end of summer, croak like our English frogs.”—N. Eng. Prospect,l. c.In his Voyages, Josselyn speaks (as Wood had done) of the tree-toad, and also of another kind of toad; and of “the eft, or swift, ... a most beautiful creature to look upon; being larger than ours, and painted with glorious colours: but I lik’d him never the better for it” (p. 119).

[104]Wood’s account (New-Eng. Prospect,l. c.) is worth comparing with Higginson’s (New-England’s Plantation,l. c.) and with Josselyn’s, both here and at pp. 23 and 114 of the Voyages. Wood justly says of this “most poisonous and dangerous creature,” that it is “nothing so bad as the report goes of him.... He is naturally,” he continues, “the most sleepy and unnimble creature that lives; never offering to leap or bite any man, if he be not trodden on first: and it is their desire, in hot weather, to lie in paths where the sun may shine on them; where they will sleep so soundly, that I have known four men to stride over them, and never awake her.... Five or six men,” he adds, “have been bitten by them; which, by using of snake-weed” (compare the preface to this, p. 119), “were all cured; never any yet losing his life by them. Cows have been bitten; but, being cut in divers places, and this weed thrust into their flesh, were cured. I never heard of any beast that was yet lost by any of them, saving one mare” (l. c.). Of other serpents, Wood mentions the black snake; and Josselyn, in his Voyages (l. c.), speaks of “infinite numbers, of various colours;” and especially of “one sort that exceeds all the rest; and that is the checkquered snake, having as many colours within the checkquers shadowing one another as there are in a rainbow.” He says again, “The water-snake will be as big about the belly as the calf of a man’s leg” which is, perhaps, the water-adder. Josselyn adds, “I never heard of any mischief that snakes did” (l. c.); and so Wood: “Neither doth any other kind of snakes” (the rattle-snake always excepted, as no doubt dangerous when trodden on) “molest either man or beast.” There are perhaps no worse prejudices in common life, than those which breed cruelty. In the Voyages (p. 23), our author makes mention “of a sea-serpent, or snake, that lay quoiled up like a cable upon a rock at Cape Ann. A boat passing by with English aboard, and two Indians, they would have shot the serpent: but the Indians disswaded them; saying, that, if he were not kill’d outright, they would be all in danger of their lives.” This was from “some neighbouring gentlemen in our house, who came to welcome me into the countrey;” and it seems, that, “amongst variety of discourse, they told me also of a young lyon (not long before) killed at Piscataway by an Indian;” which, indeed, was possibly not without foundation. And as to the serpent, compare a Report of a Committee of the Linnæan Society of New England relative to a large marine animal, supposed to be a serpent, seen near Cape Ann, Mass., in August, 1817 (Boston, 1817); which contains also a full account of a smaller animal—supposed not to differ, even in species, from the large—which was taken on the rocks of Cape Ann.—See also Storer, Report on the Reptiles of Mass.; Supplement, p. 410.

[105]The author continues his entomological observations, in his Voyages, p. 115; and the account is fuller than Wood’s;New-England’s Prospect, chap. xi.

[106]Gerard by Johnson, p. 17,—Carex flava, L.; the first species of this genus indicated in North America, and common also to Europe. There is no doubt of the reference, taking Josselyn’s name to be meant for specific, and to refer to Gerard’s first figure with the same name. But it is certainly possible that our author had in view only a general reference to Gerard’s fourteenth chapter, “Of Hedgehog Grasse,” which brings together plants of very different genera; and, in this case, his name is of little account. Cutler (Account of Indig. Veg.,l. c., 1785) mentions three genera ofCyperaceæ, but notCarex; nor did he ever publish that description of our trueGramineæ“and other native grasses,” which, he says (l. c., p. 407), “may be the subject of another paper.” The first edition of Bigelow’s Florula Bostoniensis (1814) has seven species ofCarex, which are increased to seventeen in the second edition (1824); the list embracing the most common and conspicuous forms. The genus has since been made an object of special study, and the number of our species, in consequence, greatly increased. A list of Carices of the neighborhood of Boston, published by the present writer in 1841 (Hovey’s Mag. Hort.), gives forty-seven species; and Professor Dewey’s Report on the Herbaceous Plants of Massachusetts, in 1840, reckons ninety-one species within the limits of his work.

[107]Johnson’s Gerard, p. 42,—English matweed, or helme (the other species being excluded, as not English, by our author’s caption); which I take to beCalamagrostis arenaria(L.) Roth, of Gray, Man., p. 548; called sea-matweed in England, and common to Europe and America. But if the author only intended to refer to Gerard’s “Chapter 34, of Mat-weed,”—which is perhaps, on the whole, unlikely,—his name is of no value.

[108]Gerard, p. 46,—Typha latifolia, L.,—common to America and Europe.

[109]Gerard, p. 47,—Stellaria graminea, L.; for which our author mistook, as did Cutler a century after, the nearly akinS. longifolia, Muhl.

[110]Appears not to be meant for a specific reference to any of Gerard’s species; but only an indication of the genus, with the single distinguishing character of color, which was enough to separate the New-England plants from the only British one referred by Gerard to Iris. Both of our blue-flags are peculiar to the country.

[111]Not one of Gerard’s bastard daffodils, but his dog’s-tooth, p. 204 (Erythronium, L.). Our common dog’s-tooth was at first taken for a variety of the European, but is now reckoned distinct.

[112]Gerard, p. 205,—Orchis, L., etc. It is here clear that the name is used only in a general way. The second name (Satyrion), perhaps, however, makes our author’s notion a little more definite, and permits us to refer the plants he had probably in view to species ofPlatanthera, Rich. (Gray, Man., p. 444), of which only one is certainly known to be common to us and Europe.

[113]Gerard, em. p. 257,—Nasturtium officinale, L. Reckoned also by Cutler, and indeed naturalized in some parts of the country (Gray, Man., p. 30); but our author had probablyN. palustre, DC. (marsh-cress), if any thing of this genus, and not ratherCardamine hirsuta, L. (hairy lady’s smock), in his mind. Both the last are common to us and Europe.—Gray,l. c.

[114]Gerard, p. 192.Lilium bulbiferum(the garden red lily) is meant; for which our author mistook our own red lily (L. Philadelphicum, L.).

[115]Of the two plants,—either of which may possibly have been in view of the author here,—the sorrell du bois, or white wood-sorrel of Gerard, p. 1101 (Oxalis acetosella, L.) which is truly common to Europe and America, and the sheep’s sorrel (Gerard, p. 397,—Rumex acetosella, L.), which inhabits, indeed, the whole northern hemisphere, but is taken by Dr. Gray to be a naturalized weed here, I incline to think the latter less likely to have escaped Josselyn’s attention than the former, and to be what he means to say appeared to him as native, in 1671. For the yellow wood-sorrel,see farther on.

[116]Gerard, em., p. 404,—Ophioglossum vulgatum, L.; common to us and Europe.

[117]Gerard, em., p. 409,—Smilacina bifolia(L.), Ker; common to us and Europe.

[118]Gerard, em., p. 410. A mistake of our author’s, which can hardly be set right. The station is against the plant’s having beenSmilacina trifolia(L.), Desf. But it may be thatClintonia borealis(Ait.) Raf., was intended.

[119]Alisma plantago, L., common to Europe and America; “called, in New England, water suck-leaves and scurvie-leaves. You must lay them whole to the leggs to draw out water between the skin and the flesh.”—Josselyn’s Voyages, p. 80. As to its medicinal properties, see Gerard, p. 419; and Wood and Bache, Dispens., p. 1293.

[120]Plantago maritima, L. (Gerard, p. 423), a native of Europe and America, is our only sea-plantain. One of the others was probablyTriglochin.

[121]Sagittaria sagittifolia, L. (now called arrowhead), common to Europe and America; though here passing into some varieties which are unknown in the European Floras.

[122]Gentiana saponaria, L., peculiar to America, but nearly akin to the EuropeanG. pneumonanthe, L., which our author intended.—Johnson’s Gerard,edit. cit., p. 438.

[123]The plant is green hellebore (Veratrum viride, Ait.); so near, indeed, to the white hellebore (V. album, L.) of Europe, that it was taken for it by Michaux. In his Voyages, the author, after speaking of the use of opium by the Turks, says, “The English in New England take white hellebore, which operates as fairly with them as with the Indians,” &c. (p. 60); and see p. 76, further.

[124]Polygonum lapathifolium, L. (Hydropiperof Gerard, p. 445),—for which, perhaps,P. hydropiper, L., was mistaken,—andP. Persicaria, L. (Persicaria maculosaof Gerard,l. c.), are what the author means; being the two sorts figured by Gerard himself. The third, added by Johnson, is unknown in this country; and the fourth belongs to a very different genus.P. Persicariais marked as introduced in the late Mr. Oakes’s catalogue of the plants of Vermont; and both this andP. hydropiperare considered to be naturalized weeds by Dr. Gray (Man., p. 373). Josselyn’s testimony as to the former, as appearing to him to be native in 1671, is therefore not without interest; and possibly it is not quite worthless as to the latter.

[125]Chamæsyce, or spurge-time, of Gerard (edit. cit., p. 504), isEuphorbia chamæsyce, L., a species belonging to the Eastern continent; for which Sloane (cit. L. Sp. Pl. in loco) appears to have mistaken ourEuphorbia maculata, L.; while Plukenet (Alm. 372,cit. L.) recognizes the affinity of the same plants, calling the latterChamæsyce altera Virginiana. Josselyn’s spurge-time may beE. maculata; but quite possibly, taking the station which he gives into the account,E. polygonifolia, L.

[126]There are “several sorts of spurge,” according to the Voyages (p. 78); of which this, which I cannot specifically refer, is possibly one.

[127]To this species ofSaxifraga, L., unknown to ourFlora(Gerard, p. 528), our author, with little doubt, referred the prettyS. Virginiensis, Michx.—See p. 58 of this, note.

[128]Gerard, em., p. 535,—Salicornia herbacea, L. But Linnæus referred one of Clayton’s Virginia specimens (the rest he did not distinguish fromS. herbacea) to a variety,β. Virginica(which he took to be also European;Sp. Pl.), and afterwards raised this to a species, asS. Virginica,Syst. Nat., vol. ii. p. 52, Willd.Sp. Pl., vol. i. p. 25. To this the more common glasswort of our salt marshes is to be referred; and we possess, beside, a still better representative of the European plant inS. mucronata, Bigel. (Fl. Bost., edit. 2, p. 2), which may perhaps best be taken for a peculiar variety (S. herbacea,β. mucronata, articulorum dentibus squamisque mucronatis,Enum. Pl. Cantab., Ms.; andS. Virginicamay well be another) of a species common to us and Europe. It is certain that we have plants strictly common to American and European Floras, in which the differences referable to difference of atmospheric and other like conditions are either not apparent or of no account; and it is possible that there are yet other species, now considered peculiar to America, which only differ from older European species in those characters—whether of exuberance mostly, or also of impoverishment—in which an American variety of a plant, common to America and Europe, might beforehand be expected to differ from an European state of the same. “Linnæus ut Tournefortii errores corrigeret, varietates nimis contraxit.”—Link,Phil. Bot., p. 222.

[129]Hypericum perforatum, L. (“Hypericum,S. John’s-wort; in shops,Perforata.”—Gerard,edit. cit., p. 539). The species is considered to have been introduced, by most American authors; and it is possible that Josselyn hadH. corymbosum, Muhl., in his mind.

[130]Hypericum quadrangulum, L. (Gerard, p. 542); for which our author doubtless mistookH. mutilum, L. (H. parviflorum, Willd.), a species peculiar to America; to which Cutler’sH. quadrangulum(Account of Indig. Veg.,l. c., p. 474) is probably also to be referred.

[131]Veronica arvensis, L. (Gerard, p. 613),—a native, at present, of Europe, Asia, Northern Africa, and North America (Benth., in DC. Prodr., vol. x. p. 482); but considered to have been introduced here.

[132]Veronica, L. The species is perhapsV. officinalis, L.; which, together withV. serpyllifolia, L., is considered by Prof. Gray to be both indigenous and introduced here.—Man. Bot., pp. 200-1.

[133]Hedeoma pulegioides(L.) Pers. (American pennyroyal), is doubtless meant. The specific name indicates its resemblance—in smell and taste particularly—toMentha pulegium, L.; for which our author and Cutler (l. c., p. 461) mistook it. But the former is peculiar to America.

[134]Mentha aquatica, L.Sp. Pl.(Gerard, p. 684); for which it is likely our author (and also Cutler,l. c., p. 460) mistookM. Canadensis, L., Gray.

[135]Nepeta cataria, L. (Gerard, em., p. 682); considered by American botanists to have been introduced from Europe.

[136]Agrimonia Eupatoria, L. (Gerard, em., p. 712); common to America and Europe.

[137]Xanthium strumarium, L., Gray (Gerard, p. 809); common, as a species, to both continents; but in part, also, introduced.—Gray,Man., p. 212.

[138]Nuphar advena, Ait.,—the common American species,—is meant; and this, though resemblingN. lutea, Sm., of Europe, is distinct from it.

Back to Index Next