Nature and science
The tiny fern that made Quaker Bridge a botanical landmark
Documented history · Discovery date and credit disputed
A fern easy to mistake for a tuft of grass turned a Pine Barrens road crossing into a destination for botanists. The surviving records identify Quaker Bridge, but they do not settle exactly when the plant was first found there or who found it.
A botanical stop on a traveled road
Quaker Bridge was a crossing on the road between the Philadelphia area and Tuckerton, with a tavern that could accommodate travelers. That made a remote Pine Barrens locality reachable for plant collectors. In a July 1818 letter transcribed by historian Paul W. Schopp, botanist John Torrey described a June visit with William Cooper: they stayed two days at Thompson's Tavern and found several plants of interest. The one Torrey singled out was curly-grass fern, Schizaea pusilla. Cooper found the first specimen of their visit, and Torrey called the plant unusual enough that he initially questioned its classification. Schopp, “The Story of Quaker Bridge”.
The fern's small size and grasslike form help explain both the excitement of finding it and the uncertainty in early accounts of its range. The Rutgers Chrysler Herbarium displays a Torrey specimen from Quaker Bridge, dated only as possibly 1834. That specimen confirms the locality's place in botanical collecting; it should not be mistaken for a specimen proven to come from Torrey and Cooper's 1818 visit.
Who discovered it, and when?
The distinction between the first discovery and Torrey and Cooper's later finding matters. In 1868, the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia published memoranda attached to specimens in the New York Lyceum herbarium. A note signed by Torrey and Cooper credited C. W. Eddy with the original Quaker Bridge discovery, said John LeConte was with him and found specimens, and recorded a dispute over Frederick Pursh's claim of credit. A separate note signed by Cooper placed the first finding in 1805 and said he and Torrey found the plant again in June 1818. These are retrospective notes, published decades after the earliest collecting trip. Academy proceedings, 1868, p. 13.
Schopp identifies a conflicting piece of evidence: an 1812 letter from botanist Henry Muhlenberg to Zaccheus Collins that reportedly calls the fern a discovery of the preceding year by Pursh and Eddy. If accurately dated and transcribed, that wording points to 1811. The original 1812 manuscript was not independently examined for this entry, so 1811 remains a reported alternative, not a correction established here. Rutgers's herbarium poster repeats the conventional 1805 date. The surviving sources therefore support Quaker Bridge as the historic locality more firmly than they support a single discovery year or discoverer. Schopp's source comparison; Rutgers herbarium poster.
What the place on a map means
Quaker Bridge can be mapped as the named crossing and former tavern locality connected with these accounts. It cannot serve as a present-day plant-location pin. Torrey described where his party found the fern in 1818, but that historical observation does not establish a surviving population at the same spot. Rutgers labels its pictured Torrey specimen as possibly collected in 1834, adding another visit to the collecting history without fixing a modern patch of habitat. Schopp's transcription of Torrey's letter; Rutgers herbarium poster.
Sources and research limits
- Paul W. Schopp, “The Story of Quaker Bridge” — Historical investigation reproducing Torrey's 1818 letter and discussing the reported 1812 Muhlenberg letter; the manuscripts were not independently inspected.
- Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1868, p. 13 — Contemporary publication of retrospective specimen memoranda naming the collectors, an 1805 date and the 1818 revisit.
- Rutgers Chrysler Herbarium, David E. Fairbrothers poster — Identifies a Torrey specimen from Quaker Bridge, dated “possibly in 1834,” and gives the conventional 1805 discovery date.
The precise discovery date and division of credit remain unresolved in the sources checked. The entry gives no current location for this uncommon plant.