[The following synopsis has been prepared from the original article, which was read at the annual meeting held at Camden, January 6th, 1880, and which has since been issued by the author in pamphlet form:]

Probably no other species of oak has been more considered, and is still so little understood as the "Bartram Oak." A single tree on the bank of the Schuylkill, near Philadelphia, was all that was known for many years; but there are now several to be found, chiefly in the States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware. As the descriptions and references in our botanical works abound in interesting facts concerning this oak, I have collected all these that have come under my observation, and arranged them somewhat in the order of their publication, that they may form a continuous history.

The first reference is in a letter from Peter Collinson, of London, to John Bartram, dated March 5th, 1750-'51: "Pray what is the reason I have no acorns from that particular species of oak that Doctor Mitchell found in thy meadow?" "Memorials of John Bartram and Humphrey Marshall," by William Darlington, page 183; published at Philadelphia, 1849. That they were sent to Collinson there can be little doubt, judging from the personal history of John Bartram, as it has come down to us, that he was conscientious in the fulfilment of all his engagements; but if they were sent they seem to have failed to produce any succession, as no mention is made of this oak in "HORTUS COLLINSONIANUS, an account of the Plants cultivated by the late Peter Collinson," published by L.W. Dillwyn, in 1843; although many other plants are enumerated, the seeds from which they grew, or the plants themselves, had been sent by Bartram.

In 1810-'13, F. Andre Michaux published at Paris, "Historie des Arbres Forentiers de l'Amerique Septentrionale," (A History of the Forest Trees of North America), and therein is found the first published description of this oak, accompanied by a colored plate of the foliage and acorn, both natural size. An English translation of this splendid work, by Augustus L. Hillhouse, of New Haven, was printed at Paris with French types in 1817-'19, under the title of "THE NORTH AMERICAN SYLVA;" a second edition was afterwards produced at New Harmony, Indiana; and in 1850, J. Jay Smith, of Philadelphia, issued a third edition, still using the original copper plates for the figures. All that was known of the tree is summed up in these words on page 38 of volume 1st, of this last edition.

"QUERCUS HETEROPHYLLA. Q. foliis longe petiolatis, ovatolanceolatis, integris vel inoequaliter dentatis; glande subglobosa.

"Every botanist who has visited different regions of the globe must have remarked certain species of vegetables which are so little multiplied that they seem likely at no distant period to disappear from the earth. To this class belongs the Bartram Oak. Several English and American naturalists who, like my father and myself, have spent years in exploring the United States, and who have obligingly communicated to us the result of their observations, have, like us, found no traces of this species except a single stock in a field belonging to Mr. Bartram, on the banks of the Schuylkill, four miles from Philadelphia. This is a flourishing tree, thirty feet in height and eight inches in diameter, and seems formed to attain a much greater development. Its leaves are of an elongated oval form, coarsely and irregularly toothed, smooth above, and beneath of a dark green. The acorns are round, of a middle size, and contained in shallow cups lightly covered with scales.

"I was at first disposed to consider this tree as a variety of the Laurel Oak, to which it bears the greatest affinity: but the leaves of that species are never indented, and not a stock of it exists within a hundred miles of Philadelphia. Several young plants, which I received from Mr. Bartram himself, have been placed in our public gardens to insure the preservation of the species."

F.A. Michaux, as appears by his travels in America, published in London after his return to France in 1803, visited the residence of William Hamilton (now Woodland Cemetery) near Philadelphia; and he therein speaks of seeing William Bartram. As he arrived in Philadelphia from New York, about the 10th of June, 1802, and left Philadelphia for Pittsburg on the 27th of the same month, we are thus able to fix near the time at which the tree was observed by its Botanical author.

The following works contain notes, or a description of this book, and are here recorded somewhat in the order of the publication:

"Flora Americae Septentrionalis," by Frederick Pursh; published in London, 1814.

"Genera of North American Plants," by Thomas Nuttall; published in Philadelphia, 1818.

"Catalogous Plantarum Americae Septentrionalis," by Muhlenberg; published in Philadelphia, 1818.

"Florae Philadelphicae," by W.P.C. Barton; published in Philadelphia, 1818.

"The Universal Herbal, containing an account of all the known plants of the world," by Thomas Green; published at Liverpool, England, 1820.

"A Compendium of the Flora of the Northern and Middle States," by John Torrey, published in New York, 1826.

"Manual of Botany for North America," by Amos Eaton, published in Albany, New York, 1829.

"Catalogue of Plants, Indigenous or Cultivated, in the Gardens of Great Britain," by Robert Sweet, published in London. 1830.

"Botany of the Northern and Middle States," by Lewis C. Beck, published in Albany, 1833.

"Botany of North America," by Eaton and Wright, published in Troy, 1840.

"Supplement to Michaux's North American Sylva," by Thomas Nuttall, published in Philadelphia. 1842.

"Indigenous and Exotic Plants, cultivated in the Cambridge Botanic Garden," by P.N. Don, published in London, 1845.

"The Flora of Pennsylvania," by Henry R. Noll, published in Lewisburg, Penna., 1852.

"The American Handbook of Ornamental Trees," by Thomas Meehan, published in Philadelphia, 1853.

"Arbretum et Fruticetum Britannicum," by J.C. London, published in London, 1854.

"Catalogue of the Plants of New Castle Co., Delaware," by Edward Tatnall, published in 1860. This contains the first record I have seen of the finding of this oak out of Pennsylvania.

"Note on the Bartram Oak (Quercus heterophylla) by S.B. BUCKLEY," is the title of a paper published in the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, for 1861, on page 361. The author says "The Bartram Oak (Quercus heterophylla Mx.) has long been regarded by most American Botanists as a hybrid. Accompanied by Dr. Proctor, Editor of the Journal of Pharmacy, I lately went to Mount Holly, near Burlington, New Jersey, to see an Oak with leaves of varied forms, many of which correspond in shape with the figure of the Bartram Oak in Michaux's Sylva. It is less than one-fourth of a mile from the depot at Mount Holly, in a thicket near several willow oaks (Quercus phellos), of which it is plainly one. It has all the characteristics of body, limbs and acorns, peculiar to the willow oak. Many of the leaves also have the ordinary form of Quercus phellos. Michaux, in his description of the Q. heterophylla, says that several young plants of the Bartram Oak have been placed in the public gardens to insure the preservation of the species. One of these, which was grown from an acorn of the original Bartram Oak, was planted in the Bartram Garden: Col. Carr, who succeeded Bartram in the ownership and possession of the garden, showed this tree to Mr. Meehan, of Germantown, who had charge of the garden during two years. With Mr. Meehan, a few days since, I visited this tree. It also is a Quercus phellos. It has very few lobed leaves, indeed there is scarcely one in fifty of them lobed.

"In Mr. Durand's herbarium are specimens of Quercus phellos with lobed leaves like the Bartram Oak, which he received from Columbia county in this State, where such forms of the willow oak are said to be quite common along the banks of the Susquehanna. The Bartram Oak is not a hybrid, but a mere form of Quercus phellos, which like most American oaks, varies greatly in the shape of its leaves.

"Since writing the above, I have seen a specimen from the original Bartram Oak, which has both lobed and entire leaves, showing beyond question that it is a form of Q. phellos. This specimen is now in the general herbarium of the Academy of Natural Sciences at Philadelphia."

In 1862 the same author published "Note No. 2." in Proceedings of Academy of Natural Sciences, of Philadelphia, referring to other localities where this oak has been found.

Notes also appear in Gray's "Manual of the Botany of Northern United States," published in 1863; and in Wood's "Class Book of Botany," published same year.

In a little pamphlet entitled "An Account of the Bartram Garden," published in "The Horticulturist," in 1850, revised and corrected by the author, and now printed for the Central Fair in aid of the U.S. Sanitary Commission; sold at the Fete Champetre, held at Bartram, for the same object, May 18th, 1864; the following record appears:

"The Q. heterophylla, marked by its lobed leaves, was named by Michaux "Bartram's Oak," as it was produced from an acorn of his planting. The original tree grew at a short distance from the garden, and was cut down many years ago by mistake; but two trees raised from its acorns are flourishing near the oak walk, which, though they have lost the distinctive characteristics of the Bartram Oak, still differ from Q. phellos. It has been supposed, of late years, that the Bartram Oak is only a hybrid, not a distinct species, but trees with all Michaux's characteristics have been recently detected in Delaware."

In November, 1864, De Cendolle's "PRODROMUS," 16th volume, part 2, was published in Paris, describing therein all the oaks known at that time. In this work I find this oak is mentioned as a variety of Quercus Aquatica.

Reference is made to Q. heterophylla as a distinct species in the new edition of Paxton's "Botanical Dictionary," by Samuel Hereman, published in 1868.

In Gray's "Manual," 5th edition, 2nd issue, 1868, on page 453, is noted "Q. HETEROPHYLLA, Michx. (BARTRAM'S OAK), lately rediscovered in Delaware and New Jersey, T. Meehan, C.E. Smith, &c., - has laciniate leaves like those of vigorous young shoots of Q. aquatica, to which De Candolle refers as a variety. It is as likely to be a state of Q. phellos, with dilated and toothed or cut leaves."

In Mann's "Catalogue of Plants of the U.S. east of Mississippi," 1st edition in 1868, and 2nd edition, 1872, it is inserted as a distinct species.

Remarks on the Variations of Plants, referring among others to this particular oak, are recorded on page 125 of the "Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia," for the year 1872.

In a "Catalogue of Plants of New Jersey," by Oliver R. Willis, published in 1874, this oak is not mentioned, although it had been detected in the State many years before. In the revised edition of this work on page 56 I find "Q. heterophylla Mx. South Jersey, (Austin)." A specimen collected in Cape May county, by C.F. Austin, is now preserved in the herbarium of Charles F. Parker, Camden, New Jersey.

On page 39 of Field and Forest, volume 1st, published at Washington, D.C. 1875, is an article by Lester F. Ward, on "Oaks of the Potomac side," in which the author refers to Quercus heterophylla.

On page 415 of the "Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, of Philadelphia," for 1875, I find recorded:

"Prof. Leidy exhibited a branch of Quercus heterophylla which he had obtained from a large tree, growing on the farm of Mr. J.I. Bishop, in Burlington county, New Jersey. The foliage, he thought, indicated a hybrid between Q. phellos and Q. palustris. He recommended the introduction of this rare hybrid oak into our city park.

"At the same meeting some remarks on this oak were made by Aubrey H. Smith (See unpublished minutes of the meeting). He did not think Quercus heterophylla was a hybrid, although it had been stated that the early form of phellos resembled it.

"At the meeting of October 19th, 1875, (minutes not published), Prof. Cope exhibited specimens of Quercus heterophylla obtained about two miles from Haddonfield. Mr. Burk had informed him that he had also found it near Woodbury; the suspicion that this tree is related to Q. phellos was rather confirmed by the specimens exhibited.

"At the following meeting on November 2d, Thomas Meehan made a verbal communication regarding the history and classification of this oak.

In the "Oaks of the United States," by Dr. George Engelmann, published in the "Transactions of the Academy of Science, of St. Louis," Missouri, I find: "Q. heterophylla, Michx., must, I believe, be re-adopted as a distinct species, as it is neither a variety of aquatica nor Phellos, or a hybrid of any of these oaks. As I have not yet seen flower or fruit, my opinion, which stands alone in opposition to the best recent botanist, must, for the present, be taken for what it may be worth.

"I distinguish Michaux's species by its long and distinctly petioled leaves: which in vernation are revolute, and are glabrous from their earliest age. My specimens, natives from New Jersey, cultivated ones from Bartram's and Marshall's gardens, and from the European gardens at Verriere, Hernhausen and Prauge, the latter fertile, agree in this respect among themselves, and with Michaux's figure in his Sylva. In all these specimens the leaves are lanceolate, entire, or sinuate-dentate, 3 or mostly 4-6 inches long, 1-2 inches wide, on a petiole 3-9 lines long. In the allied species, Phellos, laurifolia, and aquatica, the petioles are usually inconspicuous, or merely 1-2 lines long; only Q. imbricaria, which is also readily distinguished by its pubescence, has plainly petioled leaves. I suspect that some specimens claimed for Phellos are entire leaved forms of the species in question. May these suggestions induce the local botanists of the lower Delaware region, the favorite home of this oak, to work up the species."

A few pages farther on the same author says :- "Q. heterophylla, Michx., has by some been considered a hybrid of some species, with entire, narrow leaves, and a lobed one; De Candolle takes it for a form of aquatica, and Gray partly for that, partly for a form of Phellos. I have above expressed my opinion that it is a good species, not to be confounded with the lobe-leaved forms of either."

At a later date, October 1877, in the same journal, this author gives the result of further investigation of the oaks of the United States. On page 54 he says:

"Q. Phellos + coccinea, Q. heterophylla, Michx., is distinguished by the petioled leaves of lanceolate outline, entire, sinuate, spinulose-dentate, coarsely serrate, or with simple, sometimes spreading or falcate, lobes; leaves of different form on the same tree, and often on the same branch, the uppermost leaves usually entire; or some trees more with entire, others more with dentate or with lobed leaves. Youngest leaves strongly revolute, pubescent, white-downy below, becoming glabrous in summer. Acorns subglobose to oval, 5-7 lines long, a little less wide, scarcely half immersed in the shallow hemispherical, somewhat turbinate, canescent cups; scales lanceolate, obtuse. Fruit of same size and very similar to that of palcator, but cup usually deeper and with larger scales."

"The typical specimen described by Michaux, found by him 'in a field belonging to Mr. Bartram, near Philadelphia,' has long since been destroyed, but its offspring was introduced into Europe, and the trees now seen in Bartram's garden, in West Philadelphia, at Marshall's place, in Marshalltown, and in J. Hoopes' garden, in West Chester, as well as those of the European garden at Verriere, Herrnhousen and Prague, the latter fertile, are believed to be its seedlings. Only within the last ten or fifteen years the tree has been re-discovered, and now numbers of individuals are known in low woods on both sides of the Delaware, below Philadelphia (six miles east of Camden, Smith, Leidy, Burk, Martindale, and two miles west of Wilmington, Commons, Canby), often in groups together, probably the offspring of some few original hybrid trees.

"A. DeCandolle and others viewed this hybrid as a form of aquatica, others as belonging to Phellos, while I was long inclined to follow Michaux in considering it as a distinct species. With aquatica, which does not grow within a hundred miles, it has no relationship; aside from other characters, the revolute vernation abundantly distinguishes it from that species; from Phellos it differs in the form and size of the leaves and their thick down in youth (in Phellos even the youngest leaves are almost glabrous), and in the larger acorn in a deeper cup bearing much larger and longer scales. That it is a hybrid is most probable on account of its great rarity and its so very variable foliage. One of its parents is undoubtedly Phellos; for the other we must look among the lobe-leaved black oaks of its neighborhood, falcata, ruba or coccinea. While the sometimes falcate lobes of the hybrid and the similarity of its acorns point to the first, and its frequency in those localities to the second, we find the texture of the leaf and its reticulation, as well as size and form of the cup and its scales intermediate between Phellos and tinctoria, and quite different from the other two species, and thus come to the conclusion that the former [Phellos and tinctoria], must be the parents.

From these extracts will be seen how unsettled has been, and still is, the proper status of this oak. Dr. Engelmann, in a recent letter to me, says: "It is a question whether that 'hybrid,' by general distribution, will not grow up to the dignity of a species." This I concur with entirely.

A short time since I learned that a tree of the Bartram Oak was growing about twelve miles north of Philadelphia, and near the Delaware river. I wrote at once to Dr. Charles R. King, at Andalusia, Pa., and received from him some fine specimens both of foliage and of fruit, which correspond with the figure as given by Michaux, with some trifling exceptions. He also writes: "The oak tree about which you have written to me stands upon the farm of Dr. George Fox, south of the State road running between Philadelphia and the Neshaminy, and about half way between what is known as 'Borie's' and my lane, some one hundred feet south of the river side of the road. It is a handsome tree, eight feet in circumference two feet above the ground, has no branches until ten feet above, and has spread uniformly so as to cover a circuit of sixty feet in diameter." This location is about fifteen miles from that of the original tree on the Bartram estate.

The trees near Mt. Holly I have seen (the re-discovery of which being the occasion of the preparation of this article); they present the same general character; are two in number, and possibly from the same root; the larger one is five feet seven inches, and the smaller four feet three inches in circumference, where they separate two feet six inches from the ground, and are about fifty feet high. These are doubtless the same trees that were visited by S.B. Buckley in 1861, as before noted. The grove of trees "six miles from Camden," were upon the farm of Dr. Howell, near Park Station, on the West Jersey Railroad. Several were growing in a woods within the space of two acres, but were all cut down a year or more ago, and a portion of the land cleared for farming purposes. The tree at Marshalltown is said to be a seedling from the original Bartram tree. It was visited a short time since by Prof. C.S. Sargent, of the Arnold Arboretum, near Boston, and William M. Canby, of Wilmington, Delaware, who measured it with this result: At three feet six inches from the ground it has a circumference of 7 feet and one-quarter of an inch, it is a very tall, spreading tree and probably 80 feet high. The Joshua Hoopes' tree, at West Chester, as I am informed by Joshua Hoopes, is now 3 feet 4 inches in circumference 12 inches from the ground, and probably about 35 feet high; this is a seedling from the tree at Marshalltown, and correspond with it in all particulars, and the Marshalltown tree is the same as figured by Michaux. The tree at Bartram's Garden is, I believe, clearly a willow oak (Quercus Phellos,) and, as stated by Meehan in the quotation made, very doubtful, indeed, if it be from an acorn gathered from the original tree. I have repeatedly examined it, and never yet have found a leaf upon it resembling the specimens of Q. heterophylla growing elsewhere; the whole habit of the tree is that of the willow oak. The specimens from near Wilmington, collected by A. Commons, are of the usual form; those from Cape May county, New Jersey, in the herbarium of Charles F. Parker, are the same. William M. Canby tells me he has specimens, collected by the late Dr. Curtis in North Carolina. I have fragments collected in Texas, by E. Hall, in 1872, which, though they are in every way smaller, I cannot distinguish from heterophylla.

Thomas Meehan informs me that "Dr. J.K. Eshleman, of Downington, Chester county, reports the existence of a tree about three miles from that town which is now between two and three feet in circumference, and to which he had taken Dr. Darlington and Joshua Hoopes when living."

The grove of trees "6 miles from Camden" were all young trees and four of them about the same size, probably 10 inches in diameter at the base; the rest smaller. The specimen near Mount Holly has growing, about two feet from its base, a seedling near two feet in height. The leaves on these young plants are not essentially different from those on older trees.

In conclusion I hope that the name given by Michaux, Quercus heterophylla, (Bartram Oak,) will continue to be maintained and its specific rank re-established, as the foregoing recital of facts, I believe, fully warrant.