arnoUjaarno ~aVolume 53 Number 4 1993

Arnoldia (ISBN 004-2633; USPS 866-100) ispublished quarterly by the Arnold Arboretum ofHarvard University. Second-class postage paid atBoston, Massachusetts.

Subscriptions are $20.00 per calendar year domestic,$25.00 foreign, payable in advance. Single copies are$5.00 All remittances must be in U.S dollars, bycheck drawn on a U.S. bank, or by internationalmoney order. Send orders, remittances, change-of-address notices, and all other subscription-relatedcommunications to: Circulation Manager, Arnoldia,The Arnold Arboretum, 125 Arborway, Jamaica Plain,MA 02130-3519. Telephone 617/524-1718

Postmaster: Send address changes to:Arnoldia, Circulation ManagerThe Arnold Arboretum125 ArborwayJamaica Plain, MA 02130-3519

Karen Madsen, Editor

Editorial Committee

Phyllis AndersenRobert E. CookPeter Del Tredici

Gary KollerRichard Schulhof

Stephen A. Spongberg

Arnoldia is set in Trump Mediaeval typeface andprinted by the Office of the University Publisher,Harvard University.

Copyright © 1994. The President and Fellows of .

Harvard College

Luiodendron chmense

Page .

2 Emerald MetropolisKarl Haglund

18 The Waverly OaksCharles S. Sargent

20 Historic Plants in a New Setting:The Evolution of the Hunnewell BuildingLandscapeStephen A. Spongberg &> Peter Del Tredici

26 The Asian ConnectionRobert E. Cook

31 Introducing Weigela subsessilisStephen A. Spongberg

34 Chaenomeles x Superba ’Mandarin’Gary L. Koller

37 Index to Volume 53

Front cover: Winter at the Arnold Arboretum,looking down from Hemlock Hill to Valley Road.This photograph, by David Akiba, appears on thejacket of New England Natives. A Celebration ofPeople and Trees written by Sheila Connor, librarianof the Arnold Arboretum, and published by HarvardUniversity Press, 1994.

Inside front cover: The Hemlock Gorge Reservation,near the juncture of Wellesley, Needham, andNewton, was acquired by the Boston MetropolitanPark Commission (now the Metropolitan DistrictCommission) in 1895. From Report of the Board ofMetropohtan Park Commissioners, 1896.

Back cover: The Arboretum’s thirty-five-footLinodendron tuhpifera x chinense (a hybrid tuliptree) is moved to its permanent location in thelandscape of the Hunnewell Building. Photograph byPeter Del Tredici.

Inside back cover: "The Museum," the HunnewellBuilding, as designed by Longfellow, Alden & Harlow,Architects, in 1892. Pen-and-ink watercolor by HarryFenn for "The Tree Museum" by M C. Robbins,which appeared in the April 1893 issue of CenturyMagazine.

Emerald Metropolis

Karl Haglund .i

One hundred years ago the founders of Boston’s Metropolitan Park Commissionrealized a transcendentalist vision by reserving as public open space "the rockhills, the stream banks, and the bay and the sea shores" of the region.

At the height of the Panic of 1893 CharlesFrancis Adams and his brother Henry "packedup our troubles and made for Chicago" to seethe World’s Columbian Exposition. Like thou-sands of others they were captivated and aston-ished by the fantastic ensemble of images theysaw there-neoclassical buildings, all perfectlywhite, arrayed according to Frederick LawOlmsted’s site plan to display "the successfulgrouping in harmonious relationships of vastand magnificent structures." Employing thetalents of America’s best architects, the fair’s"White City" generated enormous enthusiasmfor what soon came to be called the City Beau-tiful movement.’ 1

In his autobiography, Henry Adams puzzledover the exhibits and the architecture of the

exposition. Given that these extraordinarywhite structures had been "artistically in-duced to pass the summer on the shore of Lake

Michigan," the question was, did they seem athome there? More than that, Adams wonderedwhether Americans were at home in the fair’sidealized New World city. But neither of theAdamses, in their published works or privatewritings, connected what they saw in Chicagowith Charles’ work as chairman of the Metro-

politan Park Commission in Boston.In January 1893 the six-month-old park

commission had published its report, writtenby Sylvester Baxter and Charles Eliot, thecommission’s secretary and landscape archi-tect ; Adams wrote the introduction. Their re-

port addressed the urban environment, but notby focusing on the city center as Chicago’sWhite City had done. Nor did they advocatetaking control of suburban development-street plans and public transportation as wellas parks-an approach that Olmsted and oth-ers had unsuccessfully urged in New York Cityin the 1870s. Looking instead to the marginsand the in-between spaces of the region, theyenvisioned an "Emerald Metropolis." Morethan a city in a park, more than a second Em-erald Necklace, more, even, than a system ofparks, it was a visual definition of the region’sstructure that could be sustained, they wereconvinced, even in the face of unimaginedgrowth. The Emerald Metropolis would helpBostonians feel at home by preserving whatEliot called "the rock-hills, the stream banks,and the bay and the sea shores" of greaterBoston-the natural edges, paths, and land-marks of the region. 2

The Idea Defined

Eliot and Baxter moved to shape the region byreserving as open space large tracts hithertounbuildable but now on the verge of develop-ment ; the shores of rivers and beaches still

marshy or shabbily built up; and the most pic-turesque remaining fragments of the aboriginalNew England landscape. The natural featuresof the region should establish the armature forurban development, not the existing haphaz-ard assemblage of streets, lots, railroads, and

3

By the 1890s the Middlesex Fells was entirely surrounded by rapidly growmg towns whose boundaries met inthe middle of the woods. The towns had already begun to purchase land around the ponds to protect their watersupply when the reservation was created m 1894, expandmg the protecuon of the watershed. This view looksacross Spot Pond toward Pickerel Rock. From Report of the Board of Metropolitan Park Commissioners, 1895.

streetcar lines. Once set aside, these reserva-tions would forever enhance the city’s fitnessfor human habitation, joining unique and char-acteristic landscapes to the placemakingpower of the city’s historic landmarks. Thepark commission’s plan offered the citizenry ofBoston an opportunity to see the metropolis inan entirely new way; the figure and ground ofthe region’s topographical features would betransposed.

Baxter and Eliot had begun formulatingthese ideas several years earlier. In February1890, Eliot responded to an editorial byCharles Sprague Sargent in his new periodicalGarden and Forest that since the cities andtowns around Boston had failed to act, the pro-vision of "well-distributed open spaces" forpublic squares and playgrounds would have towait for the establishment of a commission bythe legislature. Eliot, however, was concerned

with another sort of open space. He looked outfrom the State House and saw, within a ten-mile radius, many still-surviving remnants ofthe New England wilderness. There were halfa dozen scenes of uncommon beauty, "wellknown to all lovers of nature near Boston ...in daily danger of utter destruction." He urgedthe immediate creation of an association tohold "small and well-distributed parcels ofland ... just as the Public Library holds booksand the Art Museum pictures-for the use andenjoyment of the public." Generous men andwomen would bequeath these irreplaceableproperties to such a group, just as othersgive works of art to the city’s museums. Eliothelped organize a standing committee oftwenty-five, which set to work in the spring of1890. As an energetic member of the commit-tee, Baxter drew on his ties to newspaper edi-tors and writers across the state and to other

4

veterans of the twenty-year-old campaign topreserve the Middlesex Fells. The legislationto create a privately endowed Trustees of Pub-lic Reservations was signed in May of 1891.3Though Eliot did not note the distinction in

his letter, the analogy with the art museumand the public library suggested two ap-proaches to preserving open space, one privateand the other public. Even before the campaignto organize the Trustees was completed, Eliotand Baxter moved-first separately and thenjointly-to promote a public regional park au-thority. Eliot wrote a letter to his boyhoodfriend Governor William Russell in December1890, recommending that the State Board ofHealth develop a plan for metropolitan reser-vations. Three months later, Baxter wrote aseries of articles in the Boston Herald aboutwhat he called "Greater Boston." He tooscanned the ten-mile view from the StateHouse, but he described an image that was thevery inverse of Eliot’s fast-disappearing land-scapes. From that height he observed "a bil-lowy sea of buildings stretching away in nearlyevery direction, apparently without interrup-tion, as far as the feet of the chain of hills thatencircles the borders of the bay from Lynnaround to Milton." The pattern of construc-tion paid little heed to town boundaries, andthe limits of Boston covered only a fraction ofthe true city. The proper management of thisGreater Boston would be a regional commis-sion with authority over all the major publicservices-water supply, sewerage, fire, police,schools, highways, transit, parks. HereBaxter’s perspective joined with Eliot’s. Of allthese functions, Baxter reserved his lengthiestdescription for a chain of pleasure grounds ex-tending (under regional administration) fromLynn Beach and the Lynn Woods to the"mountain-like" Blue Hills range. Taken to-gether with the recently completed parks inthe City of Boston, these large woodland reser-vations would constitute one of the grandestpark systems in the world .4Olmsted urged Baxter to publish the Herald

articles in book form, and soon after Greater

Boston appeared, Eliot read it and proposedthat they work together to realize the metro-politan park system. At their urging the newlyorganized Trustees of Public Reservationsagreed to convene a meeting of park commis-sioners from across Greater Boston in Decem-ber 1891. After public hearings the followingspring, a temporary Metropolitan Park Com-mission was authorized by the legislature inJune 1892.5

Baxter’s concerns were the administrativeinefficiencies and parochial jealousies of themyriad cities and towns in the Boston basin,and Eliot knew firsthand how the wariness oftown officials affected the development of pub-lic open space. From his extensive explorationson the region’s fringes, he knew that town bound-aries often bisected the most scenic areas,especially along ponds and river valleys. Itwould be senseless, he said, for one town to actwithout the other, but too often one city hadrefused to spend money for fear that the adjoin-ing city would enjoy what it had paid for.6

So when the park commissioners planned aseries of daytrips through the district in Sep-tember and October of 1892, they invited cityofficials and prominent residents of the townsto join them. The secretary’s minutes recountthe itinerary of these ten excursions, whichtook the commissioners and their gueststhroughout the metropolitan district. Severalrequired transit by train, carriage, barge, andsteam launch, all in the same day. The placesthey visited were unfamiliar to most of themembers, and Baxter wrote later that the out-ings "were like voyages of discovery abouthome." Again and again the minutes of thesejourneys underline the fascination with ob-taining grand and scenic views. On Milton Hillthey found "one of the noblest prospects in theneighborhood of Boston." The outlook downthe valley of the Saugus River toward themeadowland, the serpentine stream, and theuplands "formed a picture of exceptionalcharm." The view from the twin summits of

Prospect Hill in Waltham was "wide and glori-ous." On their inspection tours the travelers

5

The park plan was bounded by the rock hills-the forest reservations laid out along the ring of hills thatsurround Boston about ten miles from the State House. The radial spokes of the park system were the threerivers 2014 the Mystic, the Charles, and the Neponset. The beaches of the bay and seashores comprised the thirdelement of the plan. Parks and parkways were proposed along the rivers, and parkways also linked RevereBeach with the Mystic River and the Middlesex Fells, the Charles River with Fresh Pond, Stony Brook withthe Arnold Arboretum, and the Blue Hills with Franklin Park. By 1899, over nine thousand acres ofreservations and parkways had been acquired. Cartography by Olmsted Brothers; from Report of the Board ofMetropolitan Park Commissioners, 1899.

6

Plans and Planners

What we now know as the Emerald Necklacewas conceived and executed as a single, unifiedwork by Frederick Law Olmsted. By contrast, itis impossible to attribute the authorship of themetropolitan park system to a single author.Except for relatively small parcels within thelarger reservations-for example, Revere Beach(1895) and the Charles River Esplanade (1936)2014MPC lands have been largely untouched by "de-sign." They represent the first metropolitanapplication of the idea of "reserving" naturallandmarks that began with Yellowstone,Yosemite, and Niagara Falls.

In the second half of the nineteenth century,many people campaigned to preserve variouswoodlands and undeveloped areas around Bos-ton-including the Lynn Woods, the MiddlesexFells, Beaver Brook, and the Blue Hills. Amongthe park advocates who took a comprehensive,metropolitan view, the most influentialincluded Robert Morris Copeland, SylvesterBaxter, and Charles Eliot.

Robert Morris CopelandA landscape gardener listed in Boston citydirectories from 1855 to 1872, Copeland pre-pared the plan for the village of Oak Bluffs onMartha’s Vineyard and wrote the popular bookCountry Life: A Handbook of Agriculture, Hor-ticulture, and Landscape Gardening. Duringthe park debates of post-Civil War Boston,Copeland wrote a remarkable editorial propos-ing a system of parks as well as a grand circularboulevard around Boston that would follow theits encircling ring of hills; bridges and ferriesacross the harbor islands were to complete theloop. Copeland suggested that the surroundingtowns "were now Boston," but their citizens"come here to earn money, and go home to en-joy it." It should be possible, he thought, tochoose park improvements that would benefitBoston as well as the surrounding suburbs, butthis task was beyond the means of individualcities and towns. He appears to have been thefirst to suggest a "metropolitan commission" asthe vehicle for this parkmaking.1

When Copeland moved to Vermont, his ideasfor a metropolitan system were advanced byhis former associate, the engineer NathanielBowditch. In 1874 Bowditch published a

metropolitan park plan that included many ofCopeland’s ideas and anticipated Eliot’s pro-posal of two decades later. For almost fifteenyears Copeland had lived in a house along BeaverBrook in Belmont, near the famous WaverlyOaks, an area he included in his metropolitansystem. When the MPC was organized in 1893,Beaver Brook was its first acquisition.

Sylvester Baxter

Having determined that he could not afford toattend the recently opened architecture schoolof the Massachusetts Institute of Technology(the first in America), Baxter went to work forthe Boston Daily Advertiser in 1871. It seemslikely that he would have read Bowditch’s 1874proposal for a metropolitan park system in theAdvertiser.From 1875 to 1877 Baxter studied at the uni-

versities of Leipzig and Berlin and was

especially interested in German municipal

Sylvester Baxter (above) and CharlesEliot (facing page) Photographs by ElmerChickering, ca. 1893, courtesy of MDCArchives

7

administration. On his return to Boston he be-came involved with Elizur Wright in the cam-paign to preserve "Stone’s Woods" in Malden,Medford, and Winchester. (He also promotedrenaming the area "the Middlesex Fells.") In1880 he wrote Olmsted, who had not yet movedto Boston, about the Fells.

Baxter’s interests covered an extraordinaryrange. In 1881 he joined an archeological expe-dition to investigate Zuni ruins in the South-west, and the following year wrote an articleabout the visit of several Zuni chiefs to Wash-

ington and Boston, where the Zuni conducted asunrise ceremony on the beach at Deer Island.He also wrote several books of poetry as well asa history of Mexican architecture. His abidinginterest, however, was his vision for GreaterBoston.2 .2

Charles Eliot

Periods of elation and tranquility (especiallywhen he was away from Cambridge in nearbycountryside or the wilds of Maine) alternatedwith recurring episodes of self-doubt and de-pression in Eliot’s early life. His mother diedwhen he was nine. By the time he began hisstudies at Harvard, his father had been presi-dent of the college for ten years and was well onhis way to Olympian status in American higher

education. The burden of family privilege andaccomplishment heightened Charles’ anxietieswhen as an upperclassman he realized he"could find no practical bent or ambitionanywhere about me." At one point in his senioryear he came near to giving up his studiesentirely.Not long after graduation a conversation

with his uncle Robert Peabody, an architectwho lived near Frederick Law Olmsted in

Brookline, persuaded Eliot that he should be-come a landscape architect. Since there wasthen no recognized training for the field, he en-tered Harvard’s Bussey Institution, where theDepartment of Agriculture and Horticulturewas located. The following spring Eliot was in-troduced by Peabody to Olmsted, who offeredhim an apprenticeship. Within a week he haddropped out of his classes and taken his firstinspection tour with Olmsted as a full-timeemployee of the firm. He soon discovered howwell his extracurricular pursuits had preparedhim for his profession-the childhood drawinglessons, the long hikes around Boston, the ado-lescent mapping of imaginary towns and realneighborhoods (like Norton’s Woods in Cam-bridge), the college summers organizing a groupof college friends to study the natural scienceson Mt. Desert Island.

After an apprenticeship of two years, Eliotleft for a year in Europe. On Olmsted’s advice,he ignored the monuments of the "Grand Tour"in favor of public parks, botanical gardens, citystreets, and landscape books in the BritishMuseum. He returned with an extraordinarybreadth of professional knowledge-from land-scape construction to styles and philosophies ofdesign. By 1892, after five years of managing hisown office, he was well equipped for his part inthe creation of the Metropolitan Park System.’

1 Robert Morris Copeland, "The Park Question,"Boston Daily Advertiser (December 2, 1869), 2.

2 [Sylvester Baxter] "Sylvester Baxter," in JamesPhmney Baxter, The Baxter Family A Collectionof Genealogies (N.p. 1921), 94-102.

3 [Charles W. Eliot] Charles Eliot, LandscapeArchitect (Boston- Houghton Mifflin, 1901), 1-34.

8

also noted unique and distinctive landscapes.They were deeply impressed with the remark-able beauty of the landscape of the ancientWaverly Oaks in Belmont and with the need topreserve them for the public.’The commissioners were able to see beyond

then-current conditions as well. The CharlesRiver shore "was marred by industries merelyin search of cheap land" and made ugly by"squalid hovels, dump heaps and other nui-sances." Its banks were "inky black" with foulsewage deposits, though they should be "apopular pleasure ground." There were a "num-ber of ugly fish houses and an equally uglyHotel" on Nahant Beach, but it was nonethe-less one of the most beautiful sites on the Mas-sachusetts coast. After their ten outings, allthe members presented their views before theboard, and then Baxter and Eliot drafted thereport.8

"Picturing" the Park SystemThe rationale for the Metropolitan Park Sys-tem drew on a reservoir of ideas that datedback more than a generation, ideas that hadnow gained widespread acceptance:The life history of humanity has proved noth-ing more clearly than that crowded popula-tions, if they would live in health and happiness,must have space for air, for light, for exercise,for rest, and for the enjoyment of that peacefulbeauty of nature which, because it is the oppo-site of the noisy ugliness of towns, is so

wonderfully refreshing to the tired souls oftownspeople.9

In Eliot’s summation, these general prin-ciples gave strong support for the concept ofthe park system. The real genius of the 1893report, though, was its integration and exten-sion of a series of earlier, less comprehensiveproposals for the Boston region.

In 1844 an eccentric Scot named RobertGourlay, residing in Boston for two years forthe treatment of insomnia, had proposed "con-necting and exhibiting to the greatest advan-tage those rare and beautiful features whichNature has here thrown together" so that "the

streams, the islands, and the promontories,-all may be made to harmonize in one grandpanorama ..." The landscape gardener RobertMorris Copeland had published a plan in 1869that encompassed not only the ring of hillsfrom Lynn to Quincy, but a grand circuit thatlinked the North Shore across harbor bridgesand ferries to the southern beaches (thoughhe believed the banks of the Charles wouldalways be needed for wharves and docks).Copeland was probably the first to call specifi-cally for a metropolitan commission to ex-ecute this ambitious plan. Separate campaignshad been forwarded for several of the large for-ests around Boston. Elizur Wright and othershad lobbied since the 1870s to create a "forestconservatory" at the Fells, and the Massachu-setts Horticultural Society in its reports hadurged the reservation of both the Fells and theWaverly Oaks. A "water park" for the CharlesRiver Basin had many advocates in the 1870sand 80s, among them Uriah Crocker andCharles Davenport.10The 1893 metropolitan scheme encompassed

the rivers and the shores of Greater Boston in

spite of their then-degraded state. Eliot sketchedthe symmetry of this plan near the end of his"Report of the Landscape Architect":As the ocean at Revere Beach was reached by aten-mile drive from Winchester down the val-ley of the Mystic River, so now the bay shore atSquaw Rock is reached by a ten-mile drive fromDedham down the lovelier valley of the

Neponset. Half-way between these northernand southern nverways we find Charles River,leading, by another course of ten miles, fromWaltham through the very centre of the metro-politan district to the basin just west of theState House. Nature appears to have placedthese streams just where they can best servethe needs of the crowded populations gatheringfast about them." I I

Here, as throughout the two men’s writings,images were crucial to their visionary narra-tives. During the report’s preparation Eliotwrote to the commissioners that his "specialwork" for the park commission was "the pic-turing by printed words, photographs, and

9

The most visionary acts of the park commission were the schemes to reclaim the riverbanks and beaches,which were occupied by tenements and industry. The transformation of Revere Beach required the relocationof streets and railroads and the demolition of numerous shanties and saloons. Photograph by Nathaniel L.Stebbms. From Report of the Board of Metropolitan Park Commissioners, 1898

maps of those open spaces which are still ob-tainable near Boston." The "details of the legalmachinery" could all be resolved once this"picturing" aroused the necessary public sup-port.12 Like others before and since who haveprojected greater Boston into the future, thetwo men appealed to the visual as well as themoral imagination.

Eliot divided his report’s twenty-five pagesof "picturing" into three parts. First was aphysical and historical geography of the parksdistrict, followed by a study of "the way inwhich the peculiar geography of the metropoli-tan district ought to govern the selection of thesites of public open spaces." Finally, Eliotdocumented the opportunities still availableto acquire open space according to the prin-ciples he had outlined. 13Those principles reflected widely expressed

contemporary concerns for public order andrational structure in American cities. A study

of the natural features of the region, Eliot be-lieved, would "bring forth the facts in thecase" and result in "the scientific selection oflands for public open space." Such "scientificplanning" would proceed from the greater tothe lesser, recognizing that the larger spacescould never be had if they were not acquired atthe right time. The larger reservations wouldoffer not only the "fresh air and play-room" ofsmaller spaces but also the "free pleasures ofthe open world of which small spaces can giveno hint." Executing these general principleswould require particular attention to the vi-sual and functional logic of the reservations’boundaries. Wherever possible the boundariesshould be established on public roads or onlines where roads would likely be built. Andthe commission should avoid taking "only halfa hill, half a pond or half a glen," since frag-ments of such landscape types would be lesssatisfying as natural scenery. 14

10

The Park Commission was authorized to build parkways in 1894 to create jobs in a time of recession. Primanlyintended for "pleasure vehicles, the parkways provided scenic access to the reservations. The Speedway, adeparture from the scenic values of the park system, was bmlt near Harvard’s Soldiers Field. The tidal flatsalong the lower Charles offered the only place near Boston for a mile-long course unmterrupted by crossstreets. From Report of the Board of Metropolitan Park Commissioners, 1902.

Picturing the park system also meant citingappropriate administrative models. ThoughEliot hinted at the possibilities for parkways,Baxter’s "Report of the Secretary" addressedthe issue of public roads in a regional contextand strongly advocated "Special Pleasure-ways" to link the metropolitan parks and res-ervations. One precedent was the boulevardsof Chicago, created by the Illinois boulevardact, which allowed the park commissioners toseek the consent of municipal authorities andabutting landowners to connect parks withsuch pleasure roads. Commonwealth Avenue,the parkways of the Emerald Necklace, theplanned improvements to Blue Hill Avenue,and the proposed parkway from the ArnoldArboretum to Stony Brook were cited as ex-amples, made possible because the annexationof several adjoining towns had given the Cityof Boston the necessary geographical range. By

contrast, the region north of the Charles River,carved up into many small cities and towns,lacked not only extensive parks but clearlydelineated routes to the center of Boston aswell.ls

In Baxter’s view, the proper structure for"the peculiar political geography" of the regionwas not annexation, however; it was the Met-ropolitan Sewerage Act of 1889. Baxter alsosaw a fiscal precedent near at hand for theCommission’s plans to reclaim degraded natu-ral areas. Olmsted’s recreative treatment of theBack Bay Fens was clearly both "the cheapestand most effective" remedy.16

Assembling the ReservationsThe effort of "picturing" the metropolitanparks in the report, aimed at Boston’s "high-handed and liberal" Yankee aristocracy, wascompletely successful. The "legal machinery"

11

was passed by the legislature and signed byGovernor Russell, permanently establishingthe Metropolitan Park Commission on June 3,1893. Charles Dalton, the chairman of the Bos-ton Park Commission, thought the reportwould be one of the most important contribu-tions to the literature of public parks evermade. Charles Francis Adams observed to theboard that "Our work is chiefly educational.We cannot expect to accomplish practical re-sults immediately, but to prepare the public todo something in these directions some yearshence.""

Eliot, however, had other intentions. Hemoved with what now seems almost incom-

prehensible speed to map the reservationboundaries, and the Park Commission ac-quired almost seven thousand acres of mostlyopen land in its first eighteen months. Its firsttaking, in 1893, was Beaver Brook, includingthe Waverly Oaks. Responding to the depres-sion, the legislature authorized funding for thedevelopment of parkways the next year. By1899, only six years after the park commissionwas established, the park system comprisedeleven reservations and seven parkways, total-ling over nine thousand acres.18At the heart of Eliot’s vision for the derelict

spaces along the rivers and shores was theCharles River Basin, extending upstream fromthe western slope of Beacon Hill. The basin, hepredicted, would become the central "court ofhonor" of the metropolitan district. Gourlay’svisionary drawings in 1844 had already imag-ined the basin as a single, designed space, butin 1893, the river was still a noisome expanseof sewage-laden tidal flats, unfit for the centralrole in any story of park design or civic fore-sightedness. The river’s frontage was occupiedby two prisons, three coal-burning powerplants, and numerous shabby commercial andindustrial structures. Two large slaughter-houses, one near the harbor and the otherdownstream from Watertown Square, dumpedoffal into the shallow waters. Even in the

elegant Back Bay, said Richard Henry Dana,where a public roadway should face the river,

there was instead "a contemptible scavenger’sstreet, thirty feet wide, backing up against theunmentionable parts of private houses."’9No single reservation took more of Eliot’s

time than the Charles. Before and during histenure as consultant to the MPC, he served onseveral state commissions organized to studythe river’s sanitary problems, and was also thelandscape architect for the new (1893) Cam-bridge Park Commission. Cambridge actedfirst, and at Eliot’s direction the city acquiredand began filling more than four miles of saltmarsh, almost the entire length of the city’ssouthern boundary. Though Eliot hoped thatsome of the region’s riverine marshes would bepreserved, he told the MPC that the ten milesof Charles River salt marsh below Watertown"must sooner or later be made usable." Like

many others, Eliot was persuaded that dam-ming the Charles near the harbor to create awater park would return annually increasingprofits to the community. A separate MPC ap-propriation for land acquisition along the riverwas passed in 1894, and over five hundredacres were purchased during the next threeyears. In spite of these extensive investments,the opposition-led by residents on the waterside of Beacon Street-successfully resistedthe construction of a dam until 1903. (The Es-planade was completed in 1936. )20

Reservations and Natural SceneryFor the forest lands, Eliot pressed vigorously toacquire as much of the identified reservationsas possible, but he struggled in vain to educatethe park board on the need for what he called"general plans" for each reservation beforeroads and structures were built. When the paceof acquisition slowed in 1896, he organized aproject to classify the broad categories of veg-etation throughout the park system. Publishedin 1898, a year after Eliot’s untimely death,Vegetation and Scenery is a detailed comple-ment to his planning principles outlined in the1893 report. Though in the earlier documenthe had advocated a "scientific" selection of

lands, the vegetation study would merely

12

record the existing conditions in the reserva-tions ; it was neither "an historical or even ascientific inquiry."21Here we are left to puzzle over what Eliot

meant by "historical" and "scientific." Cer-tainly the Vegetation report corroborated hisearlier statements that both the beauty andugliness of the existing vegetation were prima-rily the work of men, "chopped over, or com-pletely cleared, or pastured, or burnt over, timeand time again." While the reservations dif-fered sharply from each other topographically,recent human action had rendered the vegeta-tion of the woodlands very much alike and "re-

markably uninteresting. "21Then why-apart from a few scattered natural

and geologic oddities-had these forests beenacquired? Natural reservations, Eliot had said,"were the cathedrals of the modern world,"and the metropolitan reservations had beenacquired as a "treasure of scenery." The beachesand the river shores offered expansive waterviews, but the scenery of the rock hills wasproblematic. Only on the rocky summits andin the swamps was the vegetation "natural."The opportunity of the park system’s stewardswas to "control, guide, and modify" the forestgrowth so that the reservations would be"slowly but surely induced to present thegreatest possible variety, interest, and beautyof the landscape." Eliot encouraged his protegeArthur Shurcliff to sketch before-and-afterscenes in the reservations, and Shurcliff’sdrawings were included in the printed reportto "picture" the enhancement of the landscapethrough the judicious use of the axe.23

Standing in the way of such landscape im-provements, Eliot wrote, was a "small but in-fluential body of refined persons" who opposedthese efforts to adapt parks and reservations tonew requirements. He observed that thesepeople could live in a little bower and readThoreau with delight, but they could not un-derstand a whole landscape. They "talk of ’let-ting Nature alone’ or ’keeping nature natural’,as if such a thing were possible in a worldwhich was made for man." The idea that it

might be "sacrilegious" to control or modifythe existing verdure was nonsense. Even thesix thousand acres of the Blue Hills, situated asit was on the rim of the metropolis, did notconstitute a wilderness-in fact, the vegeta-tion was "really artificial in a high degree."Eliot’s priorities for both the large and smallreservations were clear: first, to safeguard thescenery of these natural areas before it was toolate; second, to make that scenery accessibleto the public; and finally, to enrich and en-hance the beauty of the reservations.24Even if there should be sufficient public sup-

port to accomplish the first and second ofthese tasks, could the enhancement of sceneryever be justified at public expense, when "or-dinary people will never appreciate the differ-ence" ? Eliot answered emphatically in theaffirmative. Following Olmsted, he arguedthat in the presence of "unaccustomed beautyor grandeur," even the average person experi-enced "sensations and emotions, the causes ofwhich are unrecognized and even unknown."This principle, he thought, was the basis forthe public commitment to schools, libraries,and art museums. It was well exemplified inmany already completed public parks, and inEliot’s mind it was the foundation for the met-ropolitan reservations .21

The Park System AcclaimedThe significance of the metropolitan parks waswidely acclaimed in Boston, in other Americancities, and especially in Europe. In November1893, after Eliot and Olmsted’s son John hadbecame his partners, Olmsted wrote to them:

... nothing else compares m importance to uswith the Boston work, meaning theMetropoh-tan quite equally with the city work. The twotogether will be the most important work ofour profession now in hand anywhere in theworld.... In your probable life-time, MuddyRiver [part of the Emerald Necklace], BlueHills, the Fells, Waverly Oaks, Charles River,the Beaches will be pomts to date from in thehistory of American Landscape Architecture,as much as Central Park. They will be theopening of new chapters in the art.26

13

The popularity of canoeing on the Charles River peaked dunng the two decades after the construction ofNorumbega Park and the Riverside Recreation Grounds m Newton and Weston in the 1890s. More than fourthousand canoes were said to be moored along the middle Charles. The regatta shown here was held at theWaltham Canoe Club about 1912. rust downstream of the canoe club is the smokestack of the AmericanWaltham Watch Company, and on the west side of the nver is Mt. Feake Cemetery. Farther downstream,below the Watertown Dam, the nverbanks were lined with slaughterhouses, power plants, and other pollutingindustries, and boating was dommated by the colleges and the rowmg clubs. Courtesy of the MDC ArchIves.

The endeavor of "picturing" the parks didnot end with the first report, nor was the audi-ence limited to Bostonians. The metropolitanpark commissioners prepared a one-ton plastertopographical model of the metropolitan areafor the Paris Exposition of 1900 that was laterexhibited at the Pan-American Exhibition inBuffalo (1901), at the Louisiana Purchase Expo-sition at St. Louis (1904), and at the Lewis andClark Centennial Exposition in Portland

(1905). A 1905 article by the secretary of theCity Parks Association on "The Developmentof Park Systems in American Cities" includeda lengthy description of the Boston metropoli-tan parks, and suggested that "readers have

doubtless so identified the park movementwith Boston as to be almost totally ignorantthat anything of a similar nature has been un-dertaken elsewhere."27

In 1910 the international competition forthe planning of Greater Berlin resulted in aninfluential exhibition and a widely circulatedtwo-volume catalog. A lavishly illustratedchapter on American park systems describedtheir significance as the basis for city plans andtheir importance in relieving urban conges-tion. Several pages were devoted to the Boston

city and metropolitan parks, with a full-pagemap of the metropolitan park system and pho-tographs of the Blue Hills and Revere Beach.

14

The section of the exhibit on American parkswas later mounted separately in several Ger-man cities.28The judgment of planners and civic officials

at the turn of the century has been echoed bymodern urban historians. In their view, it wasin America that "open space first emerged as apotential structural element for the entirecity." The work of Baxter and Eliot has beencalled "the most notable scheme of compre-hensive metropolitan park planning" in theUnited States and "the first such organizationof land in the world." Closer to home, an elo-quent study of the Back Bay Fens authenticatesthe reservations’ importance: "If Mount Au-burn Cemetery was the forerunner of the Fens,

the Metropolitan Park System represented itsevolutionary glory."29 2014 2014 - " «--

The Fate of the Idea

In 1919, the Park Commission merged withthe Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board tocreate the Metropolitan District Commission(MDC). More than a dozen new parkways wereconstructed in the next decade. The passage ofopen space bonds in the 1980s funded signifi-cant additions to the reservations, and todaythe park system comprises more than 16,000acres. After a hundred years’ experience withthis regional pattern of open space, it is fair toask what these reservations now mean in oururban lives.

Workmg double shifts for eight months, twenty-one people built this model under the direction of the"geographic sculptor" George Carroll Curtis. It took six months to make a wax model, then plaster casts weremade m ten sections The finished model was almost eleven feet in diameter and weighed one ton Its

handpainted surface was "planted" with 200,000 evergreen and deciduous trees and depicted 250 miles ofrailroads, 300 miles of streams, 2,750 miles of streets, and 157,000 dwellings. Even the Frog Pond on Boston

15

The founders of the park system were prac-tical enough to see that the water edges ofrivers and shores could provide open spacewithout taking large tracts off the tax rolls.The city’s ponds and rivers, as Eliot told theCambridge park commissioners, offered "per-manently open spaces provided by naturewithout cost"; capturing their edges for thepublic opened "these now unused and inacces-sible spaces with their ample air, light, andoutlook." But behind these matter-of-factstatements was a transcendentalist vision ofthe mystical power at the edges and margins ofthe natural world. The human craving for land-scapes is most deeply realized where earthconnects with water and sky. Emerson, whose

writings these park advocates knew well, de-clared that "in every landscape the point ofastonishment is the meeting of the sky andthe earth." The New England teacher HoraceMann put it more plainly: "Water is to thelandscape what the eye is to the face."30A hundred years ago Eliot was convinced

that reservations of scenery had become thecathedrals of the modern world. Are they now?The historian Sam Bass Warner has argued thatat the end of the twentieth century "we are

escaping a different city; we are in search of adifferent Mother Nature." It is not just thehighways everywhere, splitting the BlueHills and the Fells, and separating the Espla-nade from its neighborhood. Across the

Common and the bridge over the lake m the Public Garden were shown m scale. The model was exhibitedfust at the Paris Exposition of 1900, then at international expositions in Buffalo, St Louis, and Portland. Foralmost eighty years the model was displayed at Harvard Umversity museums. In 1980 it was moved to theBoston Museum of Science, at the geographical center of the Metropolitan Park System. From G. C. Curtis, ADescription of the Topographical Model of Metropolitan Boston, 1900.

16

country "greenways" are created on formerrailroad beds, along canals, and in other once-unimaginable "public open spaces," andOlmsted is acclaimed as the "father of the

greenways." Greenways, however, are no

longer peaceful byways for "restoring the tiredsouls of townspeople." We now jog, sunbathe,cycle, and skate in many reservations where,until recently, such activities were forbidden.Scenic reserves for many people have becomelandscapes of speed and motion.31The incursion of structures, highways, and

wheels of all kinds notwithstanding, the natu-ral landmarks of Greater Boston, drawn intothe public domain according to the park system’svisionary scheme, have shown surprising stead-fastness. Perhaps the past hundred years havevindicated the definition of stewardship thatBaxter and Eliot propounded: first, secure openspaces that reinforce the park system at everyopportunity, even if they cannot be developedimmediately (remembering the lesson of thereclaimed rivers and shores-that it is nevertoo late to acquire or recover public spaces);next, offer access for people without destroy-ing what has been reserved; and then when themeans permit, improve the natural domain-the hills, the rivers, and the shores-of theEmerald Metropolis.

Notes

1 Jack Shepherd, The Adams Chronicles’ Four

Generations of Greatness (Boston’ Little, Brown,1975), 424. Thomas S. Hmes, Burnham of Chicago.Architect and Planner (New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1974), quotes Daniel Burnham, the chiefarchitect of the Chicago Fair, on the color of thebuildings, 101; and Charles Eliot Norton, Harvardprofessor of fine arts, on their arrangement, 115.

Walter Creese unnecessarily simplifies the Metro-politan Park System by mapping it as "Eliot’s EmeraldNecklace" in "The Boston Fens," The Crowning of theAmerican Landscape: Eight Great Spaces and TheirBmldmgs (Pnnceton : Pnnceton University Press,1985). Henry Adams, The Education of HenryAdams (Boston: Houghton Mifflm, 1974), 340. For adiscussion of Olmsted and J. J. R. Croes’ 1876-77plans for the Bronx, see David Schuyler, The NewUrban Landscape’ The Redefinition of City Form mNmeteenth-Century America (Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press, 1986), 174-79. Charles

Eliot, "Report of the Landscape Architect," Reportof the Board of Metropolitan Park Commissioners(Boston: Wright & Potter, 1893), 91, cited below asMPC Report (1893).

3 Charles Eliot, "The Waverly Oaks," Garden andForest (March 5, 1890), 117-18. Eliot first proposedthat the association be called "The Trustees ofMassachusetts Scenery." The name chosen, "TheTrustees of Public Reservations," was the source ofsome confusion since the organization was privatelyorganized and funded. In 1954 it became "TheTrustees of Reservations." Its history is described inGordon Abbott, Jr., Saving Special Places- ACentennial History of the Trustees of Reservations:Pioneer of the Land Trust Movement (Ipswich, MA:Ipswich Press, 1993).

4 Charles Eliot to Governor William Russell,December 19, 1890, in [Charles W. Eliot] CharlesEliot, Landscape Architect (Boston: HoughtonMifflin, 1901), 356-57, hereafter cited as CharlesEliot. Sylvester Baxter, Greater Boston’ A Study fora Federahzed Metropolis Comprising the City ofBoston and Surrounding Cities and Towns (Boston:Philpott, 1891), 8 (reprinted from the Boston Herald).

5 Baxter’s recollection that Eliot proposed a jointeffort to realize the park system is found in his"Wonderful Progress During the Past Seven Years ofWork on the Great Metropolitan Park System,"Boston Sunday Herald (May 20, 1900), 41; and mBaxter, "Greater Boston’s Metropolitan Park

System," Boston Evening Transcript, Part Five

(September 29, 1923), 1.6 Eliot to Russell, quoted in Charles Eliot, 356.7 Minutes of the temporary Metropolitan Park

Commission, 1892.8 Ibid.

9 MPC Report (1893), 8210 Robert Fleming Gourlay, Plans for Beautifying New

York and For Enlargmg and Improving the City ofBoston (Boston. Crocker & Brewster, 1844), 17;Robert Morris Copeland, "The Park Question,"Boston Daily Advertiser (December 2, 1869), 2;"The Waverly Oaks," Transactions of theMassachusetts Horticultural Society for the Year1884, Part II (Boston: Massachusetts HorticulturalSociety, 1884), 272-73. According to Baxter, paintersconnected with the Boston Art Club had suggestedthat the club purchase the Waverly Oaks in the1870s; "By Bicycle to the Waverly Oaks-II,"Garden and Forest (August 17, 1892) 3(234): 387.Beginning in the 1870s, the Charles was frequentlycompared with rivers in European cities, especiallyHamburg’s Alster Basin, which served in a generalway as the model for the development of the

Esplanade in the 1930s. See City of Boston, CityDocument No 128 (1869), 7, 264

11 MPC Report (1893), 106. Baxter considered Eliot’s

17

"comprehensive reservation of the banks of thethree rivers" unique in a system of parkdevelopment, see Baxter, "Wonderful Progress," 40.

12 Charles Eliot, 383.13 MPC Report (1893), 82-110.14 MPC Report (1893), 83, 92; MPC Report (1894), 14.

For a broad view of the period, see Robert Wiebe, TheSearch for Order, 1877-1920 (New York: Hill &

Wang, 1967).15 Baxter included a draft "General Parkway Law" in

his part of the report. MPC Report (1893), AppendixB, 62-66.

16 MPC Report (1893), 3-19.17 The characterization of Boston politics in this period

as "both high-handed and liberal" is from MartinMeyerson and Edward C. Banfield, Boston. The JobAhead (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1966), 106; Dalton’s comment is cited in Baxter,"Wonderful Progress," 41.

18 Two decades later, Adams was still startled by thespeed of the Commission’s progress: "Whollyopposed to the policy of rapid growth and what Icould not but regard as premature development, Ifound myself powerless to check it. I was, in fact,frightened at our success in the work we had to do."By June 1895 Adams was "bored to death and fastgetting cross" with week-to-week administrativematters, and resigned from the board. Writing at theend of his life, however, he doubted "whether at anyperiod of my life, or in any way, I have done workmore useful or so permanent in character ... as

saving to the people of Massachusetts the Blue Hillsand the Middlesex Fells." Charles Francis Adams,Diary, June 10, 11, 1895; Charles Francis Adams,1835-1915, An Autobiography (Boston: HoughtonMifflin, 1916), 185.

19 Charles Eliot, "The Boston MetropolitanReservations," New England Magazine 15: 1

(September 1896), 117-118. Richard Henry Dana,letter to the editor, Boston Daily Advertiser, June13, 1874.

20 MPC Report (1897), 43.21 Charles Eliot, Vegetation and Scenery m the

Metropolitan Reservations of Boston (Boston:Lamson, Wolffe, 1898), 8 (hereafter cited as

Vegetation and Scenery).22 Vegetation and Scenery, 9; MPC Report (1895), 31.23 Olmsted, Olmsted & Eliot to the Metropolitan Park

Commission, June 22, 1896, quoted in Charles Eliot,655; Eliot, Vegetation and Scenery, 9, 22.

24 Charles Eliot, "The Necessity of Planning," Gardenand Forest (August 26, 1896), 342; Arthur A.Shurchff, "What Mr Eliot Said," 1897 ms. HoughtonLibrary, Harvard University; Eliot, Vegetation andScenery, 9, 22, MPC Report (1895), 32. For thecultural roots of urban landscape improvement, see

Richard Bushman, The Refmement of America:Persons, Houses, Cities (New York: Knopf, 1992).

25 MPC Report (1897), 51.26 Olmsted to Partners (John Olmsted and Charles

Eliot), October 28 and November 1, 1893, OlmstedPapers, Library of Congress. As Keith Morgan haspointed out, all but the first of these parks wereinitiated and directed by Eliot; Keith Morgan, "HeldIn Trust: Charles Eliot’s Vision for the New EnglandLandscape" (Bethesda, MD: National Association forOlmsted Parks, 1991), 1.

27 MPC Annual Report (1905), 30-31; Andrew WrightCrawford, "The Development of Park Systems inAmerican Cities," Annals of the American

Academy (1905), 22328 Chnstlane Crasemann Collins, "A Visionary

Discipline: Werner Hegemann and the Quest forthe Pragmatic Ideal," Center- A Journal forArchitecture m America 5 (1989), 79-80

29 Jon C. Teaford, The Unheralded Triumph. CityGovernment m America, 1870-1900 (Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984), 256-257;Creese, 168; Anthony Sutcliffe, Toward the PlannedCity. Germany, Britain, the United States, andFrance, 1780-1914 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981), ~,197; Creese, 183.

30 Eliot, Preliminary Report on the Location of Parksfor Cambridge (October 16, 1893); quoted in CharlesEliot, 423-24. George H. Snelhng, "Testimonials inFavor of the Modification of the Plan of Building onthe Back Bay Territory: April 2, 1860"; Ralph WaldoEmerson, "Nature," in Brooks Atkinson, ed., TheComplete Essays and Other Writings of RalphWaldo Emerson (NY: Random House, 1940), 410;Horace Mann is quoted in Creese, 192.

31 Olmsted, Olmsted & Eliot to the Metropolitan ParkCommission, June 22, 1896, quoted in Charles Eliot,655; Sam Bass Warner, Jr., "Open Spaces," NewRepublic 170 29 (March 23, 1974), 30; Noel Grove,"Greenways: Paths to the Future," NationalGeographic 177: 6 (June 1990), 93.

AcknowledgmentsEncouragement for this research was generouslyextended by the Metropolitan District Commissionand by Commissioner M. Ilyas Bhatti. Professor KeithMorgan, Julia O’Brien, MDC Director of Planning,and Sean Fisher, MDC Archivist, offered insightfulcomments. Special thanks is expressed to Katie andTony Strike.

Karl Haglund is the project manager of the New CharlesRiver Basin, the extension of the Charles RiverReservation from the Esplanade to Boston Harbor. Hehas written about historic architecture, urban design,and the landscapes of the American West.

The Waverly Oaks __ -~....... ~....._ _..~ _.. ___ _ _ ~

Charles S. Sargent

The impetus to preserve Beaver Brook, which in 1893 became the first of thereservations of the Metropolitan Park Commission, was the desire to save theWaverly Oaks. The founding director of the Arnold Arboretum advocated theirpreservation in this editorial in Garden and Forest, February 19, 1890.

There is in Belmont, one of the suburbs of Boston, and formerly a part of the ancient town ’

of Watertown, a group of Oaks which has come to be known in recent years as the WaverlyOaks, from the village near which they stand. These Waverly Oaks are, all things consid-ered, the most interesting trees in eastern Massachusetts, and although there are largerOaks in New England and in the Middle States, a group containing so many large trees isnot often seen now anywhere in eastern America. There are in this group twenty-three

- large Oaks and one large Elm growing on an area of two or three acres. The Oaks are allWhite Oaks, with the exception of a single Swamp White Oak. They occupy mainly theslopes of a terminal moraine, along the base of which flows Beaver Brook, the "SweetBeaver, child of forest still," sung by Lowell. The Waverly Oaks are well known to allBostonians interested in nature, and strangers not infrequently make the pilgrimage toBelmont to look upon these venerable products of Massachusetts soil.... The Committeeon Grounds of the Massachusetts Horticultural Society visited the Waverly Oaks on the28th of June, 1884, and the chairman, Mr. J. G. Barker, joined to its report printed in thetransactions of the society for that year ... a timely suggestion for their preservation.

This suggestion we desire to repeat and enforce.... The age which these trees haveattained and the vicissitudes they have survived entitle them to respect, and the people ofMassachusetts might wisely secure their preservation through the purchase and dedicationto public use of the land on which they stand.

The age of these Oaks can only be surmised. One famous naturalist is said to havedeclared that the smallest of them had existed through more than a thousand years. It isprobable that this statement is greatly exaggerated. The largest tree in the group girths sev-enteen feet three inches at three and a half feet from the ground. The principal tree in ourillustration is smaller, with a girth of only thirteen feet four inches, measured at the samedistance from the ground. An actual examination of the wood of this tree shows that ithas increased three inches in diameter during the last twenty-four years. Had it made thesame rate of growth during the whole period of its existence, it would have been 408 yearsold, and the largest tree in the group would be, with the same rate of increase, 508 yearsold. It is probable that they are both younger than these estimates make them. They mayhave grown less rapidly for several years at the beginning of their life, but there must havebeen a number of years, probably several hundred, when they increased more rapidly indiameter than they have during the last quarter of a century. The appearance of the treesjustifies this supposition. They are still healthy, and are growing with considerable vigor;

19

In 1892, Sylvester Baxter wrote of the oaks m Garden and Forest, "The proposition to secure thepreservation for public enjoyment dates somethmg like twenty years back. Some of the paintersconnected with the Boston Art Club then urged their purchase by that institution as a sketchmg-ground for Boston artists, as Fontainebleau serves for Pans. Fontainebleau, however, is notcomparable with the Waverly Oaks in any of the elements of landscape-beauty " Photograph byW. H. Rollms, from Garden and Forest, 1890.

but there can be no doubt that their period of most rapid development has passed, or that, <

while they may continue, with proper care, to live and increase slowly for centuries per-haps, they will grow less rapidly now that they did one or two hundred years ago. But aftermaking all due allowance for differences in the rate of growth at different periods in theexistence of these trees, it is safe to surmise that the youngest of them had attained to somesize before the Pilgrims landed on the shores of Massachusetts Bay, and that the oldest wasat that time a tree of some size....

The Waverly Oaks grow within a few hundred yards of the station at Waverly, onthe Boston & Fitchburg Railroad, on a piece of ground directly opposite the property of thetrustees of the Massachusetts General Hospital, occupied by the country home of that in-stitution. The whole region is undergoing rapid development, and houses are springing upon every side. The establishment of a small public park at this place, which need not ex-ceed three or four acres in extent to accomplish this object, would protect the trees fromthe dangers which now threaten them, and would make a valuable and interesting publicresort within walking or driving distance of the homes of a very large number of people.

As fate would have it, the oaks survived only a few decades beyond the establishment of theBeaver Brook Reservation. By the 1920s they had succumbed to ice storms and old age.

Historic Plants in a New Setting: The Evolution of ~~,

the Hunnewell Building Landscape

Stephen A. Spongberg and Peter Del Tredici ‘

The plantings and the landscape in the immediate vicinity of the Arboretum’sHunnewell Building have undergone repeated changes since the constructionof the building in 1892. The 1993 renovation of the building called for a land-scape renovation as well.

The need for plantings in the newly contouredlandscape in front of the Hunnewell Buildingprovided a valuable opportunity. It was achance to transform the area into a livingexhibit that would explore the history of theArboretum through plants. By planting speciesrelevant to the Arboretum’s botanical explora-tions of eastern Asia, we hoped to introducevisitors to the ancient connections betweenthe floras of Asia and North America that havebeen the focus of Arboretum research for wellover a century.

In 1858 Harvard’s Professor Asa Gray, argu-ably the preeminent botanist of his day,published a benchmark paper in which hehypothesized a close floristic relationshipbetween the floras of eastern North Americaand eastern Asia. Gray based his theory onsome of the first botanical specimens broughtto the West after the opening of Japan by Com-modore Matthew Perry in 1854. Later in thenineteenth century, Charles Sprague Sargent,the Arnold Arboretum’s founding director, in-augurated the Arboretum’s exploration of thefloras of eastern Asia with a full understandingof Gray’s hypothesis and an awareness of theclimatic similarities of the two regions.Sargent reasoned that many plants of easternAsiatic origin would prove hardy when culti-

vated in the Arnold Arboretum. As a conse-quence of a continuing series of Arboretumexpeditions to China, Japan, and Korea, scoresof new woody ornamentals have been intro-duced into Western gardens and now grow inclose association with their eastern NorthAmerican counterparts in the Arnold Arbore-tum and elsewhere across North America.The plants the Arboretum staff have chosen

for the new landscape demonstrate these closefloristic relationships and simultaneously re-inforce the original taxonomic planting estab-lished for the Arboretum by Sargent andlandscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted.This scheme followed the Bentham andHooker system of plant classification, whichwas then current and widely accepted, andarranged the plant families according to theirdegree of morphological complexity.The magnolia family falls near the begin-

ning of the Bentham and Hooker sequence,and several existing magnolias have been re-tained in the Hunnewell landscape, includingMagnolia kobus, M. zenii, a picturesquelymultistemmed star magnolia (M. stellata), andseveral varieties of the saucer magnolia (M. xsoulangeana).

For the majority of the new plantings theexisting collections of the Arboretum served

21

as the source. Large specimens were carefullydug, moved, and incorporated into the site, in-cluding three large specimens of Enkianthuscampanulatus and a solitary specimen ofE. perulatus, both from Japan. Among thelarger trees moved from another Arboretumlocation was a thirty-five-foot specimen of ahybrid tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera xLiriodendron chinensis) that truly exemplifiesthe close floristic relationships between Chinaand eastern North America. Only two speciesof the genus are known, one (L. tulipifera)widespread in eastern North America and theother (L. chinensis) of scattered and localizeddistribution in eastern and central China.Separated from one another in nature by thou-sands of miles on opposite sides of the globe,the two species now grow together in the Ar-boretum. While the two are distinct in form,they have remained similar enough geneticallyto produce hybrid progeny when artificiallycrossed. The hybrid plant now installed infront of the Hunnewell Building has specialArboretum associations. It was raised fromseeds obtained from intentional cross-

pollinations made by Professors Clifford Parksand Norton G. Miller (a former Arboretumstaff member) at the Coker Arboretum on thecampus of the University of North Carolinaat Chapel Hill. Interestingly, the tree ofLiriodendron chinensis that was used in these

experiments was a gift to the Coker Arbore-tum from the Arnold Arboretum; it had beengrown from the seed originally received fromthe Lu Shan Arboretum in China. And the

hybrid plant itself was a gift from the CokerArboretum to the Arnold Arboretum, receivedin 1981.Each of the plants that shape the newly

planted landscape has its own historical asso-ciations with the Arboretum. For example, thelarge specimens of the longstalk holly (Ilexpendunculosa) represent a species introducedinto Western gardens by Charles SpragueSargent when he first traveled to Japan in 1892.The Arboretum’s most famous plant collector,Ernest H. Wilson (1876-1930), is memorialized

The flower of Liriodendron tulipifera x chinense,which now grows in the landscape of the HunnewellBuilding. Photograph by Rdcz et) Debreczy.

by three individuals of the so-called three-flowered maple, Acer triflorum, which consti-tute a small grove along the curved ramp thatfacilitates wheelchair access to the building.This maple, introduced into cultivation in theWest by Wilson, is a distinctive ornamentaltree noted for its loose, papery, reddish- oryellowish-gray bark and for the spectaculargolden yellows and pumpkin shades of itsleaves in fall. Seeds of this species were col-lected by Wilson in October 1917 in the forestsof Korea and sent to the Arnold Arboretum.So impressed was Wilson by this handsomespecies in its native habitat that he wrote toSargent urging that all of the seed be sown. Heconsidered the plant to be the best ornamentallocated on his last expedition to Asia for theArboretum. The three young individuals inthe new Hunnewell planting will ensure thespecies’ continued presence at the Arboretumfor generations to come.The incorporation of two genera of the

Theaceae, or tea family, strengthens the taxo-nomic sequence that ordered the original

22

planting plan. The genus Stewartia is repre-sented by a wonderful thirty-foot specimen ofS. pseudocamellia, an early summer-floweringtree native to Japan and Korea with a dual or-namental value in its attractive camellia-likeflowers and its exfoliating, mottled bark.While two species of Stewartia are native tothe southeastern United States, they were notincluded in the Hunnewell landscape for rea-sons of hardiness and cultural requirements.Instead, a specimen of Franklinia alatamaha,the Franklin tree, has been chosen to representthe American branch of the tea family.Of all the woody plants native to the eastern

United States, few, if any, are surrounded bya more interesting history than Franklinia.Briefly told, it was first discovered growingon the banks of the Altamaha River in north-eastern Georgia in 1765 by John and WilliamBartram of Philadelphia, but it was not

brought into cultivation until 1773 when

William Bartram revisited the area. Like spe-cies of Stewartia, the Franklin tree producesbeautiful camellia-like flowers that appearcontinuously from late summer until fall,when its leaves turn scarlet. The plant quicklybecame a horticultural novelty even before1785, when it was described and named byHumphrey Marshall (John Bartram’s cousin) tohonor Benjamin Franklin, the foremost Ameri-can scientist, philosopher, and statesman ofthe day. As a consequence, it was soon extir-pated from its very limited native habitat andwas last seen as a naturally occurring plantin 1807. Although now extinct in the wild,Franklinia has persisted in cultivation, withthe majority of individuals in cultivation todayhaving originated from the plants in theBartrams’ Philadelphia garden.The photos below provide a visual summary

of changes in the Hunnewell Building’s frontyard over the past hundred years.

The Hunnewell Building under construction m 1892. All photos are from the Archives of the ArnoldArboretum.

Shortly after the Hunnewell Building was completed in 1892, Boston ivy (Parthenocissus tricuspidata)was planted on its walls. By May 1903, when the photo above was taken by T. E. Marr, the vines hadreached the roof, and other landscape elements began to assert themselves. The dominant feature m thephotograph is a hedge of barberry, Berberis sp., clearlyintended to separate the building from the pubhcthorough fare. Note also the large flowering shrubs planted in front of the building and the Hydrangea inflower behind the barberry hedge.

By 1917, when this photograph was taken, the Berberis hedge had been removed, along with many ofthe large flowering shrubs, producmg a much more open landscape. Two magnohas are clearly visiblein the photograph, a specimen of M. stellata m the left foreground and a M. x soulangeana in the rightbackground. The Boston ivy has been left to ramble freely over the front of the building, creatmg adramatic "Olmstedian effect typical of the period. Photo by G. R. King.

As the landscape matured, more magnolias were planted in front of the Hunnewell Building. In thisphotograph, taken in May of 1928, the magnolia theme is well established, with a young, leafless M.acuminata, in the center of the photo, poised to become a dominant feature m the future. In the leftforeground is M. x soulangeana ’Candolleana’ (AA #15160-A), which grows in the same spot today.Photo by Walter Merryman.

The same view 111 1952, with both the M acummata and M. ’Candolleana’ at full maturity

The Hunnewell Building in August 1992, a year before renovation. The several specimens of Magnoliastellata are over twenty feet tall and the Ilex pedunculosa over fifteen. The sheer mass of plants createsthe impression of an overgrown foundation planting that completely masks the bottom two stones ofthe building.

The new look of 1993. Photo by Warren Patterson

The Asian Connection , ,. ,

,

Robert E. Cook .-

.

While Arboretum horticulturists have tested the hardiness of east Asian plantsin the Boston climate, botanists have been theorizing about the causes of theirsimilarities to eastern North American plants, employing a range of methodsto investigate their relationships to one another.

Harvard botanists have long been entranced bythe flora of east Asia. Although the floristicsimilarity of eastern Asia and eastern NorthAmerica was first noted by Linnaeus in themiddle of the eighteenth century, it was

Harvard’s Asa Gray who in 1859 focused scien-tific attention on the many common or closelyrelated species found in the two regions andnowhere else. This disjunct pattern of distribu-tion seemed to suggest a once more extensiveflora now broken up into two smaller regionsby geological and climatic causes.Gray has been followed by numerous stu-

dents and staff (Sargent, 1894; Fernald, 1931;Hu, 1935; Li, 1952; Wood, 1971; Boufford andSpongberg, 1983; Tiffney, 1985) who have stud-ied and written about the causes of this rela-tionship. Inevitably, alternative explanationshave been postulated to account for the simi-larities of the floras. Perhaps a distinct florafound in one region migrated as a whole acrossa land bridge connection to the other region.The similarity might also result from therandom but repeated dispersal of individualspecies across great ocean barriers. Or theapparent similarity may not be real at all. Un-related species could have evolved similarmorphologies because the climate and soils ofthe two regions are similar.Over the last half century our understanding

of past climatic and geological history hasdeepened. We believe that whole continents,now separated by thousands of miles of ocean,were once connected as a single land mass. Weknow that major changes in the earth’s climatehave brought about repeated periods of glacia-tion in northern regions of the world as well ascycles of wet and dry periods in tropical re-gions, leading to massive dislocations of floraand fauna. Changes in sea level and the uplift-ing of mountain ranges have completely al-tered the shape of terrestrial land and inlandseas. Plant fossils discovered in high latituderegions such as Greenland, northern Europeand Asia, and the arctic lands of North Americaclearly demonstrate that many southern spe-cies were once more widely distributed.Each new piece of evidence about climate,

geology, or historical plant distributions hasbeen used by botanists to argue for one overanother cause of the striking similarity of thefloras on the two continents and the apparentclose relations of many of their species. As isso often the case in science, the real explana-tion for such a complex but distinct pattern islikely to be a combination of several factorsinteracting over long spans of time. The simi-larities seen in one group of plants may haveits own distinctive history of causes whencompared with a different group.

27

Liriodendron chinense photographed in Patung Hsein, China, altitude 4,000 feet, by E. H. Wilson in June1910. At 60 feet in height this individual is at the upper end in stature for its species. From the Archivesof the Arnold Arboretum.

28

A Common AncestryUnderlying all of this, and at the heart of theperceived pattern, is the belief that speciesfound in the two regions are indeed closelyrelated and that the pattern represents theremnants of a shared evolutionary history. Itcould be otherwise. Two species can appearvery similar in many characteristics and yetbe quite unrelated as in the case of Acerpseudoplatanus (Sycamore maple) and Pla-tanus occidentalis (Sycamore). This phenom-enon has been called convergent evolution

by botanists who strive to distinguish thismisleading similarity from true relationship.

What does it mean to say that two speciesare closely related? What constitutes a truerelationship? To an evolutionary botanist itmeans that they share a large number of genesin common because at some time in the pastthey shared a common ancestor. In essence,the two species were once one species, whichsubsequently split into two. Our most com-mon definition of a species is a group of inter-breeding individuals that do not interbreedwith any other such group. The members of a

species all share genetic information in a wayanalogous to the sharing of information amongmembers of a human population who use a

Liriodendron tulipifera, the Amencan tulip tree, photographed in North Carolina, is a far taller plant than itsChmese relative. For this individual, the height to the first limb alone is 65 feet. From the Archives of theArnold Arboretum.

29

common language or dialect. And just as isola-tion over time can lead to the development ofdistinct language dialects, so too can isolationtrigger the process of speciation in plants. Ifparts of a species’ population become isolatedfrom each other-perhaps by a geographicalbarrier such as a mountain range or a river-then the exchange of genetic information isinterrupted and the two isolated parts begin todevelop genetic differences. If this isolationcontinues long enough, the two isolated partsmay no longer be capable of interbreeding. Spe-ciation has occurred.The goal of the plant systematist is to orga-

nize the diversity of plant species in such away that their degree of relatedness (in thesense of shared genes due to shared common

ancestors) is revealed in the classification. Ide-ally, then, the names given to species and theway they are placed in genera and families willreflect our understanding of the history of spe-ciational events during evolution that led tothe diversity we see today.

Measuring RelatednessHow have systematists tried to measure thisdegree of relationship among species? Theearliest efforts, beginning with Linnaeus twohundred years ago, examined the degree ofmorphological similarity under the assump-tion that this accurately revealed the underly-ing genetic similarity. But we now know thatvery similar plant morphologies can developfrom very different sets of genes. Therefore,morphology may in many cases be misleading.

In their search for the characteristics thatmore closely represent the genetic identity ofspecies, botanists turned to the proteins thatconstitute the building blocks of tissues, or-gans, and mature morphologies. Through bio-chemical isolation and separation they wereable to evaluate a new set of characteristicsbelieved to be the direct products of genes.

In recent years this approach has been fur-ther eclipsed by the revolution in molecularbiology, which allows one to identify indi-vidual genes and compare sequences of genesas they are represented in two presumably

related species. Therefore, in theory, one candirectly measure the degree of genetic similar-ity. Molecular systematics, as it is called,promises to bring a higher order of evidence toquestions of the relationship between speciesthat may or may not have once shared a com-mon ancestor.

Genes can best be analyzed when they areextracted from living plant tissue that has beenquickly frozen in extremely cold temperatures.Researchers use a liquified form of nitrogen toachieve such temperatures. The need for livingtissue close at hand from a wide diversity ofplant species has greatly increased the impor-tance and value of well-documented collec-tions of trees such as are maintained with greatcare in the Arnold Arboretum. Samples fromthese specimens can be supplemented withfresh collections obtained on expeditions to thenative habitat of the species under consideration.

History of Two Tulip TreesThe value of this new, molecular approach canbe seen in recent work on a classic case of aChinese-eastern North American disjunctdistribution, the tulip tree. Liriodendron

tulipifera, which ranges from New England tonorthern Florida, appears closely related toLiriodendron chinense of central and easternChina. In addition to sharing a great deal ofmorphological similarity in leaf, flower, andfruit characteristics, these two species are ca-pable of cross pollination to form viable hybridoffspring. By these criteria, they might almostbe judged a single species. Yet the vast geo-graphical distance separating them clearly pre-vents such hybrids from forming naturally.Based only on morphological evidence, onemight conclude that these two species wereonce part of a large, interbreeding population(that is, sharing a common ancestor) and thatthe split into two populations had occurredrelatively recently.To obtain new evidence on the true genetic

similarity between these species, CliffordParks and Jonathan Wendel at the Universityof North Carolina extracted the genetic mate-rial (DNA) in leaf tissue from a large number of

30 .

samples throughout the range of both species,which would directly determine the degree ofdifference in selected genes. The result of theiranalysis revealed that approximately one andone-quarter percent of the genetic material dif-fered between the two species. Using statisti-cal models based on the rates at which geneticmaterial changes over time, these botanistswere able to estimate how long ago these twospecies shared a common ancestor. They con-cluded that L. tulipifera and L. chinense werepart of a single interbreeding populationtwelve and a half million years ago.

A Confirmation from Fossils

Parks and Wendel then turned to the fossilrecord to assess the historical evidence for pastdistributions of Liriodendron and other tem-perate deciduous species found in both Asiaand North America. They wished to test theirestimate based on genetic analysis against theactual dated presence of the species in particu-lar locations. Reviewing the discovery of fossilplants in western Canada and Alaska, and tak-ing into account the position of the continentsten to twenty million years ago, they con-cluded that a broadly distributed, temperateforest existed in a band across North Americathrough Alaska and into central Asia at thestart of this time period. A global cooling trendaround the middle of this time brought the in-vasion of coniferous forests into Alaska andnortheastern Russia, displacing deciduousforests to the south and effectively severingthe Asian connection. Fossil dating showedthat this disjunction occurred about thirteenmillion years ago.

Despite the great morphological similaritybetween L. tulipi fera and L. chinense and theirability to produce hybrid offspring, the mo-lecular and fossil evidence reinforce each otherand suggest that they have been separated formore than twelve million years. While theirgenes have continued to evolve during thisseparation, their morphologies have remainedrelatively unchanged, thus giving a false pic-ture of their degree of relatedness.

Parks and Wendel argue the need for similarstudies of other genera, such as maples ~(Acer), silverbells (Halesia), witchhazels(Hamamelis), and ginsengs (Panax), all ofwhich show an Asian-North American dis-

junct distribution. Clearly molecular system-atics, utilizing the rich living collections ofinstitutions such as the Arnold Arboretum,will provide a powerful tool for illuminatingour ancient Asian connection.

References

Boufford, D. E., and S. A. Spongberg. 1983. EasternAsian-North American phytogeographicalrelationships 2014 A history from the time ofLinnaeus to the twentieth century. Annals ofthe Missouri Botanical Garden 70: 423-39.

Fernald, M. L. 1931. Specific segregations and identitiesin some floras of eastern North America andthe Old World. Rhodora 33: 25-63.

Hu, H. H. 1935 A comparison of the ligneous flora ofChina and eastern North America. Bulletmof the Chinese Botanical Society 1: 79-97.

Li, H. L. 1952. Flonstic relationships between easternAsia and eastern North America. Transactionsof the American Philosophical Society 42:371-429.

Parks, C. E., and J. F. Wendel. 1990. Moleculardivergence between Asian and NorthAmerican species of Liriodendron(Magnollaceae) with implications forinterpretation of fossil floras. AmericanJournal of Botany 77 (10): 1243-56.

Sargent, C. S. 1894. Forest Flora of Japan Notes on theForest Flora of Japan. Boston: Houghton,Mifflin & Company.

Tiffney, Bruce H. 1985. Perspectives on the origin ofthe flonstic similarity between eastern Asiaand eastern North America. Journal of theArnold Arboretum 66: 73-94.

Wood, C. E., Jr. 1971. Some floristic relationshipsbetween the Southern Appalachians andwestern North America. In P. C. Holt [ed ],The Distributional History of the Blota ofthe Southern Appalachians. Part II. Flora,331-404. Virginia Polytechmcal Institute:State University Research Monograph 2.

Bob Cook is Director of the Arnold Arboretum andlectures m introductory biology at Harvard University.

Introducing Weigela subsessilis

Stephen A. Spongberg ’

The Arnold Arboretum is pleased to offer an ornamental shrub of intriguinglyvariegated color. _ .

Among the seeds collected in Korea on theArnold Arboretum’s 1977 collecting expedi-tion to Japan and Korea (Spongberg andWeaver, 1978; Spongberg, 1978; Weaver, 1978)were two lots representing a species of Weigelathat had not previously been grown and testedat the Arboretum. At the time the capsuleswere gathered, the identity of the species wasnot known. It was not until eleven yearslater-after plants grown from these seeds inthe Arboretum’s collection had flowered and

fruited, and herbarium voucher specimens hadbeen taken-that the plants were identified asWeigela subsessilis (Nakai) Bailey.When first described by the Japanese bota-

nist Takenoshin Nakai in 1918, this Koreanplant was placed in the genus Diervilla, agenus of shrubs that is now limited to threeNorth American taxa, while the Asian plantspreviously included in Diervilla have beengrouped in the exclusively Asian genusWeigela (Bailey, 1929; Hara, 1981). The spe-cific epithet, subsessilis, refers to the veryshort petioles of the opposite leaves, whichcause the leaves to appear stalkless, or sessile.The genus Weigela is well known for its

spring-flowering shrubs, many of which are ofconsiderable ornamental value. About twelve

species are native to eastern Asia, with eight ofthem occurring in Japan, three or four inChina, and four in Korea. Most of these speciesare also cultivated in North American and

European gardens, and several interspecific hy-

brids are known from which many cultivarshave been selected, named, and made availablein the nursery trade (Howard, 1965; Krussman,1986).Weigela subsessilis is apparently endemic to

the Korean peninsula, and the 1977 introduc-tion of the species into the collections of theArnold Arboretum may, in fact, have repre-sented its first successful introduction intoNorth American gardens. Alfred Rehder in-cluded it in his Manual of Cultivated Treesand Shrubs (1940), but he questioned whetherit had been introduced into cultivation inNorth America, and the species appears innone of the other standard references on culti-vated woody plants, including those by Bean(1980), Krussman (1986), and Dirr (1990). TheSupplement to the eighth revised edition ofBean (Clarke, 1988) credits its introductionfrom South Korea to the Royal Botanical Gar-dens, Kew, in 1982, five years after the ArnoldArboretum had obtained its two accessions ofseeds. One specimen in our herbarium (S. G.March, s. n. 5 April 1983) resulted from anearlier introduction by the United States De-partment of Agriculture (PI 371794), usingseed received from Professor T. Bok Lee of the

Department of Forestry, Seoul National Uni-versity, in March of 1972. However, the plantor plants resulting from that introduction andgrown at the U.S. National Arboretum

(#40580) were apparently never propagated ordistributed, except as herbarium specimens.

32

Weigela subsessihs. (a) flowering branchlet, (b) detail of matunng capsules; (c) individual leaf; (d) style;(e) open corolla tube and anthers (From Nakai, 1921).

The Arnold Arboretum collections now in-clude three accessions of Weigela subsessilis.Two plants accessioned under #1906-77 weregrown from seed collected on the wooded trailto the temple on Yongmun-san in Kyonggi-doProvince northeast of Seoul. Another set of

plants (#1901-77) was grown from seeds col-lected from plants growing on the wooded slopesof Kyebang-san in Kangwong-do Province, far-ther to the east. Plants of the third accession(#587-83) also trace their origin to seed col-lected on Kyebang-san by Chollipo Arboretumstaff and offered in their 1983 Index Seminum.These three sets of plants have had varying

results. Plants of the third accession (#587-83)have been incorporated into the Arboretum’scollections so recently that their performancehas not yet been evaluated. Plants of the sec-ond accession (#1901-77) were planted as a

group on the slope of Bussey Hill, along OakPath in a shaded, relatively dry location, buthave failed to grow well in this location.

By contrast, two plants of the first accession(#1906-77) that were planted in a sunny loca-tion in moist but well-drained soil alongBussey Hill Road near the Dana Greenhousedrive have performed very well. These twoshrubs are multiple-stemmed from the baseand have grown to about five feet in heightwith a spread of about three feet. Compact andtwiggy, these individuals have been free ofdisease and insect pests. Moreover, they haveproven to flower generously each spring, andthe gradual color changes in the flowers makethese plants intriguing ornamentals m thespring landscape.The flowers are produced on new growth

from second-year wood as the leaves are ex-

33

panding. Each inflorescence consists of clus-ters of three or four, even up to six flowers.When fully open, the flowers measure between2.5 and 3.5 cm in length. As the flower budsenlarge, they assume a yellowish-green colorthat gradually changes through various shadesof pink to a pale lavender when the flowers arein full bloom. Since inflorescences are profuseand individual flowers represent different

stages of maturation, the overall effect of theshrub is a unique combination of pastel colorsfrom pale yellowish-green to lavender.While these shrubs cannot be considered

year-round ornamentals, their profusion offlowers in early May recommend them for trialin New England gardens and elsewhere inNorth America. The species has proven hardyin the Boston region, but the limits of its har-diness in more northern climates has not beentested. Weigela subsessilis may also prove ofinterest to hybridizers interested in incorporat-ing both its interesting flower color and its flo-riferous habit in a new generation of hybridWeigela cultivars.

References

Bailey, L. H. 1929. The Case of Diervilla and Weigela.Gentes Herbarium 2: 39-54.

Bean, W. J. 1980. Trees and Shrubs Hardy in the British

Isles. Vol. 4. 8th ed. (D. L. Clarke, GeneralEd.). London: John Murray.

Clarke, D L. 1988. Trees and Shrubs Hardy m theBritish Isles Supplement London: JohnMurray

Hara, H. 1983. A Revision of Caprifoliaceae of Japanwith Reference to Allied Plants in OtherDistricts and the Adoxaceae Gmkgoana No.5 (Tokyo).

Howard, R. A. 1965. A Check-list of Cultivar Names inWeigela. Arnoldia 25:49-69.

Krussman, G. 1986. Manual of Cultivated Broad-leaved Trees a) Shrubs. Vol. 3. Portland, OR:Timber Press

Nakai, T. 1918. Botamcal Magazme (Tokyo) 32: 229.

- 1921. Flora Sylvatica Koreana 11: 88. t. 41.

Spongberg, S. A. 1978. Korean Adventure. Arnoldia 38:132-53.

- & R. E. Weaver, Jr. 1978. Notes from the ArnoldArboretum: Collecting Expedition to Japanand Korea. Arnoldia 38: 28-31.

Weaver, R. E., Jr. 1978. Japanese Journal. Arnoldia 38:82-101.

Stephen Spongberg is horticultural taxonomist at theArnold Arboretum and author of A Reumon of Trees’The Discovery of Exotic Plants and Their Introductionmto North Amencan and European Landscapes(Harvard University Press, 1990).

The Arnold Arboretum is pleased to offer to our Friends plants of Weigela subsessilis. Theywere propagated from rooted cuttings and are generally 12 to 18 inches tall. Donation,payable upon receipt of plants, is $20.00 per plant. Shipment will be in the spring of 1994.

Spring Plant Distribution, Dana GreenhouseThe Arnold Arboretum, 125 Arborway, Jamaica Plain, MA 02130

Chaenomeles x superba ’Mandarin’

Gary L. Koller

A superior cultivar of a robust, long-time favorite is offered for trial.

The flowering quince is an extremely toughshrub that’s available in a wide range of colors.

Blooming before its leaves appear, so early inspring that it very nearly has the garden to it-self, the plant is also grown for its dense habit.It is a genus of only three species, but theyoccur in an astonishing number of varieties.In 1963, when Claude Weber undertook toexamine and list the cultivars of all speciesand hybrid groups, she uncovered 550. In aidof the overwhelmed horticulturist, she offereda shorter list of 234, classified by color-white, white-and-pink, pink, orange, and red.These she further narrowed to 41 for specialcommendation.From this large company, we have singled

out one cultivar, Chaenomeles x superba’Mandarin’. Each of its single flowers radiatesa saturated reddish-orange, the Mandarinred that gave it its name, but what makes this

plant even more distinctive is the diseaseresistance of its foliage. Many floweringquinces drop their leaves in summer, but’Mandarin’ retains a full complement of lus-trous green foliage till frost. Characteristically,the plant takes a nicely rounded shape. Its richfoliage combined with full branching makes itan ideal low-maintenance shrub, useful as ahedge in itself or as a member of a varied groupof plants.

Its yellow-green fruits, which ripen in

autumn, are lightly fragrant and ovoid orobovoid in shape, something like a small,gnarled apple. They are edible and can be usedto make jams.

’Mandarin’ originated as a seedling at theClarke Nursery Company in San Jose, Califor-nia, where it was selectea for introduction intothe trade in 1947. Two small grafted plants ar-rived at the Arnold Arboretum in 1950. One ofthese (accession #281-50) has been growing inits present location in the Bradley Collectionof Rosaceaous Plants since 1958 at least. This

winter, as the plant approaches the age offorty-five, it has grown to about eight feet inheight and by the rooting of its ground-levelbranches has spread to a breadth of fifteen feet.

Size may limit the use of ’Mandarin’ in verysmall gardens, but it should be ideal for largergardens or for institutional, commercial, andpark plantings. ’Mandarin’ is quickly estab-lished and if planted two or three feet apart, ina few growing seasons it will simulate athicket that’s showy in flower and forms athorny year-round barrier to direct pedestriantraffic.Quinces grow well in almost any well-

drained, even droughty, acid soil. They willtolerate rocky soils, exposure to moderateamounts of salt spray, and even, it seems, at-

mospheric pollution. Full sun is required foroptimal flowering and fruit production, butmoderate shade is tolerated. The northernlimit of cold hardiness is not yet fully estab-lished, but ’Mandarin’ should prove hardy to atleast -10 degrees F. Plants damaged in winterstorms benefit from renewal pruning immedi-

ately following flowering.At the Arnold Arboretum, we have success-

fully repropagated ’Mandarin’ by cuttings,

35

Chaenomeles x superba ’Mandarin’, photographed by the author Its flowering season canbe extended from late winter to early spring by forcmg cut branches for mdoor display.

36

which avoids the understock suckering thatcan occur in grafted material. Reproductionfrom cuttings is vastly more cost efficient froma commercial viewpoint, resulting in lesscostly plants for gardeners. Softwood cuttingsare treated with IBA (indolebutyric acid) orKIBA (potassium salt of indolebutyric acid),stuck in a mixture of equal parts of sand andperlite, and misted intermittently until root-ing. The Bradley Collection includes tworepropagations from the original plant, onefrom hardwood cuttings taken in March 1983,the other from softwood cuttings taken in Julyof the same year. In general, the success ratewith softwood cuttings is close to 100 percentwhile with hardwood it is closer to 10 percent.

’Mandarin’ is well worth growing, not onlyas a brilliant addition to the early spring gar-den, but for its proven track record of problem-free performance.

Literature

Weber, Claude. 1963. Cultivars in the GenusChaenomeles. Arnoldia 23 (3): 17-75.

Wyman, Donald. 1969. Shrubs and Vines for AmericanGardens. New York: Macmillan, 159-162.

Gary Koller is Senior Horticulturist at the ArnoldArboretum and Lecturer in the Department of

Landscape Architecture at the Harvard GraduateSchool of Design.

The Arnold Arboretum is pleased to offer plants of Chaenomeles x superba ’Mandarin’ toour Friends. They were propagated from rooted cuttings and are generally 12 to 18 inches tall.Donation, payable upon receipt of plants, is $20.00 per plant. Shipment will be in the springof 1994.

Spring Plant Distribution, Dana GreenhouseThe Arnold Arboretum, 125 Arborway, Jamaica Plain, MA 02130

Index to Volume 53 (1993) ,

Numbers in parentheses refer to issues, those m boldface to illustrations of the entnes.

Abies balsamea (1): 27Acer (4): 30- campestre (1 21, 222014 pseudoplatanus (4): 28- tnflorum (4): 21Adams, Charles Francis (4) : 2, 11Adams, Henry (4): 2Alton, William (3): 13Akiba, David, photos by (2): front

cover; (3) front cover; (4) : frontcover

Allspice, Carolina (1). 13Amelanchier arborea (1): front coverAmerican Forestry Association ( 1 ):35

American Horticultural Society (3):3

Andersen, Phyllis, "Trees as UrbanInfrastructure: Book Review" (1): /:32-35; Book Notes (3): 31

Anderson, Larz, Bonsai Collection(1): 19

Aquilegia (1): 10Aquihna multiplex (1): 10Arnold Arboretum (1): 30; (2) : front

cover, 22, 23; (3)’ 3, 17, 18, 19, 22;(4): front cover, 18, 20-25, 22-25,31-32, 34, 36, inside back cover,back cover

Arnold Arboretum Weather StationData (1): 36

Arnold, Henry, "Sustainable Treesfor Sustainable Cities" (3): 4-12

"Asian Connection," Robert E.Cook (4). 26-30

Aster, China (1) 11- New England (1): 11Aster novae- anghae (1): 11- tradescantli (1). 11Averrhoa carambola (1): 22

Barberry (2): 17-18; (4) : 23Barcelona, Montjuic (1): 34Bartram, John (1) 11, 13, 14, 15; (4):22

Bartram, William (4) : 22Baster, John(l). 13Bauhima (3) : 11Baxter, Sylvester (4): 2-4, 6-8, 10,

14, 16, 19Beaver Brook [MA] (4) : 6, 11, 18-19Bentham and Hooker system of

plant classification (3): 14, 15, 17,18, 20; (4) : 20

Bentham, George (3). 14

Berberis sp. (4): 23- vulgans [1): 17-18Berlin, Greater, 1910 planningcompetition (4) : 13

Biltmore estate [NC] (3): 20Black stem rust disease (2): 17-18Blister rust fungus (1): 26Blue Hills [MA] (4): 5, 6, 12, 13Bonsai (1): 19-23Boston Metropolitan Park Commis-

sion (4): 2-17, 14-15Boston Public Garden (3|: 16Boston, Greater (4): 4, 5, 7-9, 13, 14-

15, 16Botanical gardens, historicaldevelopment of (2): 19

Botamcal Register (1): 16Botany, emergence of as a science

(2): 20Bowditch, Nathaniel (4): 6Brooklyn Botanical Garden (3): 18Browallia, spreading (1): 12Browalha (1): 12- ahenata (1): 12- demissa (1): 122014 elata[B): 12- grandiflora (1): 12Bussewitz, Al, photos by (1): front

cover, back coverBussey Institution |4): 7

Callistephus chmensis (1): 11Calycanthus (11: 9- flondus [I): 13Cambridge [MA] Park Commission

(4) : 11Camphor tree (3) : 27Candolle, Augustin Pyramus de (3):

14Candollean classification system (3) :

14, 15, 16, 17Carambola (1): 22Castanea dentata (2): 27, insideback cover

- sativa (2): 13Catesby, Mark(l): 13, 15Central Park Arboretum (3): 16, 17"Chaenomeles x superba ’Manda-

rin’," Gary L. Koller (4) : 34-36, 35Chamaecyparis obtusa ’Chabo-hiba’

|1): 19Champs Elysees (3): 7Charles River [MA] (4): 5, 6, 8, 10,

11, 12,13Chelsea Physic Garden (1): 12, 13

Chestnut, American (2): 26-27;inside back cover- sweet or Spanish (2): 13Chinese garden (1): 2-7Chollipo Arboretum [Korea] (4): 32Cmnamomum camphora (3) : 27City Beautiful movement 14): 2Clarkia [ID] fossil site (2): 3-9, 4Classification systems, taxonomic

(3): 13-23Clayton, John (1): 15Clusms, Carolus fl): 11Coevolution, concept as evidenced

in Thoreau’s writings (2): 24Coker Arboretum [NC] (4) : 21Colder, Cadwallader (1): 14Colder, Jane (1): 14Collinson, Peter (1): 11, 13, 15Columbine (1): 10Compression wood ( 1 27Conifer collection, Arnold Arbore-tum (3) : 18

Cook, Robert E., "Why Are BonsaiLeaves Small?" (1): 19-23; "TheAsian Connection" (4): 26-30

Copeland, Robert Morris (4): 6, 8Cornus florida (3): front coverCorylus avellana (2): 13, 14-colurna (2|: 13- maxima (2) : 13Crabapple, flowering (3): back coverCranberry bush, European (2): 18Crataegus laevigata (2): 14- oxycantha (2): 13Crocker, Uriah (4) : 8Crown imperial (1): 11Curtis’s Botanical Magazine (1): 11,

12, 13, 15, 16, 17Curtis, George Carroll (4) : 14-15Curtis, John |1): 15Curtis, William [1): 16Custis, John(l): 11Cypress, Hinoki (1): 19

Dalton, Charles (4): 11Dana, Richard Henry (4): 11 1Darwin, Charles (3): 15, 17Darwin, Erasmus (3): 13Davenport, Charles (4): 8Del Tredici, Peter, "The UprightWhite Pine" (1): 24-31; 3, 5, 6, 7;"Faith in a Seed and a Squirrel:Book Review and Excerpt" (2): 24-29 ; "Hibaku Trees of Hiroshima"with Hiromi Tsuchida (3): 24-29;

38 h

photo by (3) back cover; "HistoricPlants in a New Setting: TheEvolution of the Hunnewell

Building Landscape" with StephenA. Spongberg (4): 20-25, photo by(4) back cover

Derby Arboretum (3): 15, 16Disjunct plant distribution (4) : 26-30

DNA (2|- 3; (4): 29Dogwood, flowering (3) : front coverDowning, Andrew Jackson ( 1 25;

(3): 16

Edwards, Sydenham T. (1): 11, 12,13,16

Eliot, Charles (4) : 2-16, 7Ellis, John(l): 13Elm, American (1): 32; (3): 6Elm disease, Dutch (1): 32"Emerald Metropolis," Karl

Haglund (4): 2-17Emerald Necklace [Boston] (4) : 6Engler, Adolph (3): 14, 15, 20Enkianthus campanulatus (4): 21-perulatus (4): 21Environmental value of urban street

trees (3) : 10Epmasty, delayed (1): 27Esplanade [Boston] (4): 6, 11, 15Eucalyptus sp. (3): inside back cover

"Faith in a Seed and a Squirrel:Book Review and Excerpt," PeterDel Tredici (2): 24-29

Faxon, C. E., drawing by (2): insidefront cover, inside back cover

Figlar, R. B., "Stone Magnolias" (2):3-9, 4, photo by (2) back cover

Filbert (2): 13Fir, balsam (1): 27Fitch, John Nugent (1): 16Fitch, Walter Hood (1): 16, 17Forest succession, Thoreau’s

concept of (2): 24Fossil Bowl [Clarkia, ID] (2): 4, 5Fossils, leaf (2): 1, 2, 3-9, 7, back

cover; (4) : 30Fossil site, P-33 Miocene, Clarkia

[ID] (2): 3-9, 4Foster Botanical Garden (3): 21Fothergill, John(l): 14Fothergllla (1): 9, 142014 gardenn (1): 142014 major ( 1 inside back coverFranklin tree (4): 22Franklin, Benjamin (4) : 22Frankhma alatamaha (4): 22Fritillaria imperials (1): 11-12Fungus disease (1): 24

Garden, Alexander (1): 13, 14Garden and Forest (4): 3, 18Gardema (1): 14GeHong(l)-2, 3Gerard, John, Herball or GenerallHistone of Plants (1): 9, 10, 16

Gmgko biloba 11): 21, 22; (3): 29Ginseng (4): 30Gourlay, Robert (4): 8Gray, Asa (4): 20, 26Gypsy moth (2): 16

"Habit to Cultivate," Gary Koller(2): 21-23

Haglund, Karl, "Emerald Metropo-lis," (4): 2-17

Halesia (4): 30Halifax Public Garden (3): 16Hamamehs (4) : 30Hardhack, fountain (2): 21-23Harrison, Mary, "Plant History:Expanding the Horizons of aSmall Garden" (1): 8-18

Hawthorn, common (2) : 13, 14Hazelnut, European (2): 13, 14- Turkish (2): 13Heat islands [urban] (3) : 4, 6Hemlock Gorge Reservation [MA]

(4): inside front cover"Hibaku Trees of Hiroshima,"Hiromi Tsuchida and Peter DelTredici (3). 24-29

Higgmson, Francis (2): 12Hiroshima (3) : 24, 25-29; insideback cover

Hogg, Thomas (1): 15, 16Holden Arboretum [OH] (3): 20Holly, longstalk (4): 21Hooker, Joseph (1): 16; (3) : 14Hooker, William Jackson (1): 16Howard, Richard (3) : 3Hydrangea (4) : 23Hypencum (1): 14

Ilexpendunculosa (4): 21Impatiens (1). 9 9"Infinity in a Bottle Gourd,"KongjianYu(l):2-7

"Introducing Weigela su bsessihs,Stephen A. Spongberg (4): 31-33

Ivy, Boston (4): 23

Johnson, Thomas (1): 10, 16Josselyn, John (1): 9 9Juglans regia (2): 13Jussieu, Antome Laurent de (3): 14Jussieu, Bernard de (3): 14, 16

Kalm, Peter (1): 14-15Kalmia latifoha (1) : 14, 15

2014 latifoha f. rubra (1): back coverKew Gardens (3): 13Kew Magazine (1): 16Kienbaum, Francis (2) : 3Koller, Gary L., "A Habit toCultivate" (2): 21-23;"Chaenomeles x superba’Mandarin"’ (4): 34-36

Korner, Ch. (1): 21-23

Larch, European (1): 22Lanx decidua (1): 22Laurel, mountain (1): back cover,

14-15Leaf formation (1): 19-23Lee, T. Bok(4):31Leiden Botanical Gardens (1): 11Lighty, Richard W, Book Notes (3):30-31

Lilac (2): 17Lily, sunk (1): 12Linden collection, Arnold Arbore-tum (3): 22

- European (1): 22Lingering Garden [Suzhou, China]

(1 1:3-7Linnaeus, Carolus (1): 12, 13, 14; (3):

13; (4): 26, 29Lmodendron chmense (4) : 1, 21, 27,29-30

- hespena (2): back cover- tulipifera (4): 21; 28, 29-30- tuhpifera x chmense (4): 21, back

cover

Lmope spicata (1): 6 6Liu Yuan [Suzhou, China] (1): 3-7Loudon, John Claudius (3): 16Lu Shan Arboretum [China] (4): 21Lynn Woods [MA] (4): 6

Magnolia (4): 20- Clarkia fossil (2): 5, 7- cucumber (2) : inside front cover- saucer (4): 20- slope (2). 1, 7- star (4): 20Magnolia acummata (2): inside

front cover, 5, 6, 7, 9; (4): 242014 grandiflora (2): 5-9-kobus (4): 20-latahensis (2): 2, 3, 5, 82014 hhflora (2) : 9-stellata (4): 20, 24, 25- x soulangeana (4): 20, 23-- ’Candolleana’ (4): 242014 zenn (4): 20Maintenance of urban street trees

(3) : 11Malus (2): 18-’Donald Wyman’ (3): back cover

39

- sylvestns (2): 18Maple (4) : 28, 30- hedge (1): 22- three-flowered (4) : 21Marshall, Humphrey (4): 22Massachusetts Bay Colony (2): 12,

13, 15Massachusetts Horticultural Society

(3): 3; (4): 8, 18Medbury, Scot, "Taxonomy andArboretum Design" (3): 13-23

Medicinal herbs ("simples") (2): 16,19

Menstem(l): 20-23, 22Metasequoia glyptostroboides (2):

front coverMetropolitan District Commission

[Boston] (4): 14Metropolitan Park Commission

[Boston] (4): 2-17, 14-15Michaux, Andre (1): 15Middlesex Fells [MA] (4) : 3, 4, 6, 7,

8, 12Millar, Robert (1): 12Miller, Norton G. (4): 21Miller, Phillip (1): 12, 13Missouri Botanical Garden (3) : 20Molecular systematics (4): 29Moraea, Sara Lisa (1): 12Morgan, George H. (1): 30Morris Arboretum (3): 20Morus alba (2): 152014 mgia (2): 15Moses-in-the-Bullrushes (1): 9 9Moth, gypsy (2): 16Mulberry (2)- 15Munch, Ernst (1): 27Murray, J. A. (1): 14Mystic River [MA] (4): 5, 8

Nakai, Takenoshin (4): 31Neponset River [MA] (4): 5, 8Nerium indicum (3) : 27New York Botanical Garden (3): 18North Carolina Botanical Garden

(3): 21"Notes on Transatlantic Migrants,"Stephen A. Spongberg (2): 11-20

Oleander (3): 27Olmsted Brothers (3): 20, 21Olmsted, Frederick Law (1): 33; (3):

16, 17; (4): 2, 6, 7, 12, 16,20

Paleobotamcal detection (2): 7Panax (4) : 30Parkmson, John 1): 9, 10Parks, Clifford (2) : 8; (4) : 21, 29Parthenocissus tricuspidata (4): 23Pauley, Tristan (1): 32

Peabody, Robert (4): 7Peace Park, Hiroshima (3): 25Physic gardens [Europe] (2): 19Pine tree (3): 26, 27white 11): 24-31,26, 28- fastigiate (1): 24-31, 29, 30Pmnodes strobi (1 24Pmus strobus (1) : 24-31, 26, 28’Fastigiata’ (1): 24-31, 29, 302014 thunbergn (3): 26, 27Plane, London (1): 10,32Plant development (1): 19-23"Plant History: Expanding theHorizons of a Small Garden," "

Mary Harrison (1) : 8-18Plant migrations (2) 11-20Planting specifications, street trees(3): 8

Platanus occidentahs (1): 10, 33; (4):28

- onentahs (1): 102014 x acerifoha (1) : 10Plum, common (2) : 19Plymouth Plantation (2): 12, 13Prantl, Karl (3)- 14, 15, 20Prunus (2): 18- domestica (2): 19

Quince, flowering (4): 34-36, 35

Racz & Debreczy, photos by ( 1 ):inside front cover, inside backcover; (3). inside front cover

Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden[CA] (3). 20

Red oak (2): 26Redwood, dawn (2): front cover"Remembering Donald Wyman" (3):3

Research Institute of Ecology andBotany, Vacratot, Hungary (2): 22-23

Revere Beach [MA] (4): 6, 9, 13Rose, guelder (2): 10, 18Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew (1):

16; (4): 31Royal Horticultural Society

[London] (1): 16; (3) : 3Rust disease, black stem (2): 17-18

Sackville-West, Vita (1): 12Sahx sp. (3): 29Sargent, Charles Sprague (4): 3; "TheWaverly Oaks," 18-19; 20, 21

Schulhof, Richard, Book Notes (3):31-32

Scone Palace (3): 16Securinega suffruticosa (2): 21-23,22

Sericulture (2): 16

Serviceberry, downy (1): front coverShadblow ( 1 front coverShukukeien, garden in (3): 29Shurchff, Arthur |4): 12Silverbell (4): 30Smiley, Charles J. (2): 3, 4, 5, 6Smith College, plan of botanicgarden (3): 14

Smith, John (1): 8 8Snowball (2) : 10, 18Speciation in plants (4): 29-30Speedway [Boston] (4): 10Spiderwort |1): 9 9Spongberg, Stephen A., and PeterDel Tredici, "Historic Plants in aNew Setting: The Evolution ofthe Hunnewell Building Land-scape" (4): 20-25; "IntroducingWeigela subsessihs" (4): 31-33

St. Johnswort (1): 14Stashko, Edward, "Ecology for YourBackyard: Book Review" (2): 30-32

Stewartia malacodendron (1): 15- ovata (1): 15, 172014 pseudocamelha (1): 15, 17; (4): 22"Stone Magnolias," R. B. Figlar (2):3-9

Stourhead (3): 16Street trees (3): 4-12Stuart, John(l): 15"Sustamable Trees for Sustainable

Cities," Henry Arnold (3): 4-12Sycamore, American (1): 10, 33; (4):28

Synnga vulgaris (2): 17

Taoism (1): 2-3"Taxonomy and ArboretumDesign," Scot Medbury (3): 13-23

Tertiary Research Center, Univer-sity of Idaho (2): 5

Theorhidon, section, distribution of(2): 8

Thoreau, Henry David, book reviewof and excerpts from Faith in aSeed’ The Dispersion of Seeds andOther Late Natural HistoryWritings (2): 24-29

Thorn, white (2): 13, 14Tiha collection, Arnold Arboretum

(3): 22- cordata (1): 21, 22Tradescant, John (1): 8-9Tradescantia 1): 9 9- virginiana (1): 9 9"Trees as Urban Infrastructure:Book Review," Phyllis Andersen(1): 32-35

Trelease, William (3): 20

40

Trustees of Public Reservations[MA] (4): 4

Tsuchida, Hiromi, "Hibaku Trees ofHiroshima" with Peter DelTredici (3): 24-29; photo by (3):inside back cover

Tulip tree (4): 27, 28, 29- fossil leaf of (2): back cover- hybrid (4): 21, back cover

U.S. National Arboretum (4): 31U.S. Bureau of Forestry (1): 24University of Washington Arbore-tum (3) : 20, 21

"Upright White Pine" Peter DelTredici(l |: 24-31

Urban street trees (3): 4-12, 5, 7, 11Utilities, value of urban street trees

as (3): 4-12

Vaux, Calvert (3): 16, 17

Vegetation and Scenery, CharlesEliot (4): 11-12

Versailles (3): 14Viburnum opulus (2): 10, 18- sieboldii (3): inside front cover

Wallace, Alfred Russell (3): 15Walnut, English, Persian, or royal

(2): 13Waltham [MA] Canoe Club (4) : 13Waverly Oaks [MA] (4): 6, 8, 11, 12,

18-19

"Waverly Oaks," Charles S Sargent(4) : 18-19

Weather Station Data, 1992, ArnoldArboretum (1): 36

Weber, Claude (4): 34Weigela subsessihs (4)- 31-33, 32Wendel, Jonathan (2|: 8; (4): 29White pme weevil (1 24-26White, John (1): 8 8

"Why Are Bonsai Leaves Small?,"Robert E. Cook(l): 19-23

Willow tree (3): 28Wilson, E. H. (1): 30; (3): 3; (4) 21, 27Witch alder (1): inside back cover,

14

Witchhazel (4): 30World’s Columbian Exposition

[Chicago] (4): 2Wright, Ehzur (4): 7, 8Wyhe, Samuel (1): 13Wyman, Donald (3): 2, 3

Yu, Konguan, "Infinity in a BottleGourd: Understanding theChinese Garden (1): 2-7

Yuanmmg (1): 2, 3

Zelkova, Japanese (1): 22Zelkova serrata (1): 22

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT, AND CIRCULATION(Required by 39 U.S.C. 3685)

lA, Title of publication: Arnoldia. 1B, Publication number: 00042633. 2, Date of filing: 31 Dec. 1993. 3, Frequency ofissue: Quarterly. 3A, Number of issues published annually: 4. 3B, Annual subscription price: $20.00 domestic, $25.00foreign. 4, Complete mailing address of known office of publication: Arnold Arboretum, 125 Arborway, Jamaica Plain,Suffolk County, MA 02130-2795. 5, Complete mailing address of the headquarters of general business offices of thepublisher: Arnold Arboretum, 125 Arborway, Jamaica Plain, Suffolk County, MA 02130-2795. 6, Full names of the pub-lisher : Arnold Arboretum, 125 Arborway, Jamaica Plain, Suffolk County, MA 02130-2795. 6, Full names and completemailing address of publisher, editor, and managing editor: Arnold Arboretum, 125 Arborway, Jamaica Plain, SuffolkCounty, MA 02130-3519, publisher; Karen Madsen, Arnold Arboretum, 125 Arborway, Jamaica Plain, MA 02130-3519,editor. 7, Owner: The Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University, 125 Arborway, Jamaica Plain, MA 02130-3519. 8,Known bondholders, mortgagees, and other security holders owning or holding 1 percent or more of total amount of

bonds, mortgages, or other securities: none. 9, The purpose, function, and nonprofit status of this organization and theexempt status for federal income tax purposes have not changed during the preceding 12 months. 10, Extent and natureof circulation. A, Total number of copies. Average number of copies of each issue during preceding 12 months: 4,500.Actual number of copies of single issue published nearest to filing date: 4,500. B, Paid and/or requested circulation. 1,Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors, and counter sales. Average number of copies of each issue during pre-ceding 12 months: none. Actual number of copies of single issue published nearest to filing date: none. 2, Mail subscrip-tion. Average number of copies of each issue during preceding 12 months: 3,917. Actual number of copies of single issuepublished nearest to filing date: 3,910. C, Total paid and/or requested circulation. Average number of copies of each is-sue during preceding 12 months: 3,917. Actual number of copies of single issue published nearest to filing date: 3,910.D, Free distribution by mail, carrier, or other means (samples, complimentary, and other free copies). Average numberof copies of each issue during preceding 12 months: 222. Actual number of copies of single issue published nearest tofiling date: 222. E, Total distribution. Average number of copies of each issue during preceding 12 months: 4,139. Ac-tual number of copies of single issue published nearest to filing date: 4,132. F, Copies not distributed. 1, Office use, leftover, unaccounted, spoiled after printing. Average number of copies of each issue during preceding 12 months: 361.Actual number of copies of single issue published nearest to filing date: 368. 2, Return from news agents. Average num-ber of copies of each issue during preceding 12 months: none. Actual number of copies of single issue published nearestto filing date: none. G, Total. Average number of copies of each issue during preceding 12 months 4,500. Actual num-ber of copies of single issue published nearest to filing date: 4.500. 11, I certify that the statements made by me are cor-rect and complete. Karen Madsen, Editor.