Collections: 
0-9 | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

88 > Image 88 of Annual report. 1913

Part of Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station

' The Woody Plants of Kentucky. 5 L L ` l common creeper (Virginia?l, whortleberry, huekleberry, cran- i i _ p berry. K l In his life of Raflnesque, the author, R. E. Call, intimates that ; MMurtrie secured this list from Rafinesque who was at the time A. . ~ actively engaged in studying the botany of Kentucky. If this is t l true it explains in a manner the mountain plants included. > - Rafinesque knew the flora of much of the State, whereas MMurtrie 4 i aimed to present the flora of the region about Louisville. It seems y _ Q l ; hardly credible that the great laurel, red elder, mountain laurel E l and other species noted in the list have ever been found growing I wild at Louisville. I . The French-German, Rafinesque, was a` remarkable man in his [ j , T prime, of great mental and physical energy. He left a more endur- E 1 ; ing mark on the botany of Kentucky than any other pioneer writer. g ! i Some of his published species have never been collected by others _` 7 > T in the State. He was an indefatigable collector at a time when i _ the botany of the State was almost untouched either by the lumber- man, the agiculturist, or the botanist, and thus had opportunities , for study in the field not enjoyed by those who followed him. It is , _ unfortunate that he was unable somewhere to leave a complete f record of the work he did while here. He was made professor of fi f if natural sciences at the old Transylvania University in 1818, and il'? _ K for some years thereafter remained in Kentucky. T T , In 1833, Doctors Short and Peter, of Lexington, published J V their list of Kentucky plants in the Transylvania Journal of Medi- 1 cine. ln it are about one hnnllrcd and fift_v-three species of woolly ' ) _ plants, some of them probably observed in cultivation. The list Q i 0\ers the whole State, yet records only about thirty species more 1 l than Ml\Iurtries Louisville list. This is the most satisfactory , , T of the old lists, and bears evidence of having had the painstaking 1 , care which local lists should receive. Both men were gooil botanists. i and appear to have scrutinized the plants of liluegrass l(onlu