The fungus (_Endothia parasitica_ And.) which causes the
chestnut blight kills the trees by girdling them and has no
direct effect upon the wood save possibly the four or five
growth rings of the sapwood.[45]

[Footnote 45: See Anderson, Paul J.: The morphology and life
history of the chestnut blight fungus. Bul. No. 7, Penna.
Chestnut Tree Blight Com., Harrisburg, 1914, p. 17.]

PARASITIC PLANT INJURIES.[46]

[Footnote 46: See York, Harlan H.: The anatomy and some of the
biological aspects of the "American mistletoe." Bul. 120, Sci.
Ser. No. 13, Univ. of Texas, Austin, 1909.

Bray, Wm. L.: The mistletoe pest in the Southwest. Bul. 166,
U.S. Bu. Plant Ind., Washington, 1910.

Meinecke, E.P.: Forest tree diseases common in California and
Nevada. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, 1914, pp. 54-58.]

The most common of the higher parasitic plants damaging timber
trees are mistletoes. Many species of deciduous trees are
attacked by the common mistletoe (_Phoradendron flavescens_). It
is very prevalent in the South and Southwest and when present in
sufficient quantity does considerable damage. There is also a
considerable number of smaller mistletoes belonging to the genus
_Razoumofskya (Arceuthobium)_ which are widely distributed
throughout the country, and several of them are common on
coniferous trees in the Rocky Mountains and along the Pacific
coast.

One effect of the common mistletoe is the formation of large
swellings or tumors. Often the entire tree may become stunted or
distorted. The western mistletoe is most common on the branches,
where it produces "witches' broom." It frequently attacks the
trunk as well, and boards cut from such trees are filled with
long, radial holes which seriously damage or destroy the value
of the timber affected.

LOCALITY OF GROWTH

The data available regarding the effect of the locality of
growth upon the properties of wood are not sufficient to warrant
definite conclusions. The subject has, however, been kept in
mind in many of the U.S. Forest Service timber tests and the
following quotations are assembled from various reports:

"In both the Cuban and longleaf pine the locality where grown
appears to have but little influence on weight or strength, and
there is no reason to believe that the longleaf pine from one
State is better than that from any other, since such variations
as are claimed can be found on any 40-acre lot of timber in any
State. But with l