The preceding description does not agree with that of _Betula lutea_ exactly, and has been drawn to cover the specimens at hand from Indiana which the author has from Allen, Crawford, Lagrange, Lake, Marshall, Porter and Steuben Counties. It has recently been reported from White County by Heimlich.[29] He says: "Specimens were taken from two trees about two miles south of Buffalo near the water's edge of the river." The writer has visited this locality and found here, and also on the island above the bridge a little farther down the river, _Betula nigra_, but could not find _Betula lutea_. Since Heimlich did not report _Betula nigra_, which unmistakably occurs here, I assume he has confused the two species. It is very local in its distribution, and appears to be confined to swamps, borders of lakes, and streams in the extreme northern part of the State. It has not been seen south of the northern end of the State, except a few small trees found clinging to the walls of the cliffs of a ravine about one mile east of Taswell in Crawford County. The walls of this ravine are about 25 meters high; associated with it were a few trees of hemlock, and on the top of the cliffs, laurel (_Kalmia latifolia_). Large trees of this species in Indiana are usually from 4-6 dm. in diameter and about 15 m. high. The number in any one station is usually few, although there were formerly patches where it was plentiful. Van Gorder[30] reports for Noble County _Betula lenta_ which should be transferred to this species, and he says: "There is a marsh of several acres of birch in Section 15 of York Township." The largest area now known is that contained in the large tamarack swamp near Mineral Springs in Porter County. In this swamp are found tamarack and white cedar. It was in this swamp that the writer found a peculiar form of birch which has been determined as _Betula Sandbergi_. Since this species[31] is recognized as a hybrid of _Betula papyrifera_ and _Betula pumila_ variety _glandulifera_, and the last parent of this hybrid is not found in the vicinity, a discussion of this form is not presented. In the immediate vicinity are found only _Betula lutea_ and _Betula pumila_. _Betula papyrifera_ is found about a mile distant to the south. It is assumed that this form is a cross between _Betula lutea_ and _Betula pumila_.