| Abstract: | This biometrical study is based on a collection of nearly 500leaf samples from every ancient parish in the county. Most ofthe elms could be assigned to one of nineteen groups, 9 of U.carpinifolia, 1 of U. glabra, 2 of U. procera, 3 of putativeF1 U. carpinifolia x U. glabra, 3 of U. carpinifolia with suspectedintrogression from U. glabra, and 1 of U. carpinifolia x U.procera. U. glabra is indigenous. Most of the U. carpinifolia appearto have spread out from six centres of origin, mostly near thecoast. These elms are very similar to forms now occurring innorth-west France, and it is thought probable that they wereintroduced from there, possibly by the settlers responsiblefor the Red Hills salt workings shortly before the Roman occupation.One group of U. carpinifolia came from Cambridgeshire via theEssex branch of the river Cam. Of the two main populations ofU. procera, that characteristic of south-east Essex is believedto have come from northern Kent, probably from the Hoo peninsula,while the group found in south-west Essex is probably a laterintroduction from further west. Hybridization between introduced U. carpinifolia and nativeU. glabra has occurred on a very large scale and putative F1hybrids extend in a broad band across the county from the Hertfordshireborder to Suffolk. This hybridization most likely occurred duringthe clearing of the heavily forested part of northern Essexin pre-Conquest times. Subsequently, back crossing occurredbetween these hybrids and U. carpinifolia. Occasional hybridizationalso seems to have occurred between U. procera and the othertwo species. An outline of the probable history of the elm in eastern Englandas a whole concludes the paper. |
