Another member of the U. carpinifolia group may have come from Cambridgeshire. For Ulmus
procera he conjectures Roman or Anglo-Saxon origins, from areas mainly to the south and west
of Essex. Of the Hybrid Elms (Ulmus glabra x U. carpinifolia), Richens gives this as the last
major phase in the development of the Essex elm flora, massive hybridisation between the
introduced Ulmus carpinifolia and Ulmus glabra taking place between the Roman occupation
and the Norman Conquest. He recognises the possibility that many different types of Ulmus
carpinifolia may have been involved in hybridisation with Ulmus glabra.
Oliver Rackham (1986) does not agree with many of Richens' theories about the origins of
the Essex elms. There is now evidence that East Anglian Elm was present as well as Wych Elm
in the post-glacial period. Rackham also doubts the relevance of the archaeological evidence
that Richens uses at times to corroborate his theories.
Ronald Melville (1948) postulated a natural origin for the British Elms, colonisation taking
place over a land bridge at about 6-7,000 B.C. across what is now the Channel. The elms
colonised various valleys in southern England, the isolated elms evolving into distinctive
populations, producing the elms we see today. As Melville pointed out, the elm flora often
changes distinctly as one goes from one valley to another.
Melville assigned some elms collected in south-east Essex to vars media and rotundifolia
of Ulmus coritana Melville (Coritanian Elm). Richens (1967) could not relate any of his elms
to the Coritanian Elm and noted that Coritanian Elms collected in Suffolk did not biometrically
compare with any elms found in Essex (see Fig. 3). Richens points out that the River Stour
between Essex and Suffolk appears to be a significant elm boundary.
The value of Richens' paper lies in its publication date - 1967, some three or four years
before Dutch Elm Disease made its presence felt in Essex. Although Richens recorded only in
the closes around long established settlements in Essex and not in the wider countryside (i.e. in
ancient woodland or rural hedgerows), the detailed picture he gives us of the elms he recorded
and their distribution is the best account of Essex elms that has ever been published and its detail
is unlikely to be repeated for many decades (see Distribution Map).
Gibson 1862 and Jermyn 1974
Gibson, in the 'Flora of Essex' 1862, mentions four species of elm as occurring in Essex. Their
equivalents are given in Table 1. Due to the confused nature of the elm nomenclature of that
time, for example his Ulmus glabra Sm. would be included under Ulmus minor Mill, today and
his Ulmus montana With, is the tree we know as Ulmus glabra Huds. and the possibility he has
included what are now considered Hybrid Elms (Ulmus glabra x U minor) under his Wych
Elm (Ulmus montana), for example he notes '... Saling, some very fine trees', a possible
reference to elms, including the great elm on Great Saling green. I feel it is difficult to draw
conclusions from his accounts of these species. Gibson also lists an Ulmus suberosa Ehrh.
which is probably a reference to corky barked forms of Ulmus minor and Ulmus procera. Of
particular interest he records an elm gathered by one of the Forsters from Essex and figured in
Sowerby's English Botany (1804). The specimen was one of the Ulmus minor group.
Despite the publication of the R. H. Richens' paper in 1967, the account of elms in the Flora
of Essex (Jermyn 1974) is rather lacking in relevant detail. A reference to the R. H. Richens'
paper is not cited in the Flora of Essex and I suspect the existence of this paper was never brought
to Stanley Jermyn's notice. A marvellous opportunity was thus missed for giving this most
important group of Essex trees the treatment it merits. However, this is not an unusual fate for
elms in particular and trees in general.
27