New York Metropolitan Flora

Key to the genera of Hamamelidaceae

1. Shrub or small tree; leaves crenate...Hamamelis
1. Tree; leaves palmately lobed...Liquidambar

List of Hamamelidaceae Genera

References to Hamamelidaceae

• Anderson, E.; Sax, K. 1935. Chromosome numbers in the Hamamelidaceae and their phylogenetic significance. J. Arnold Arbor. 16: 210-5.
• Anderson, G. J.; Hill, J. D. 2002. Many to flower, few to fruit: the reproductive biology of Hamamelis virginiana. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 67-78.
• Angelo, R.; Boufford, D. E. 2010. Atlas of the flora of New England: Magnoliidae and Hamamelidae. Rhodora 112: 244-326.
• Angelov, M. N. et.al. 1996. Long- and short-term flooding effects on survival and sink-source relationships of swamp-adapted tree species. Tree Physiology 16: 477-484.
• Baillon, H. 1871. Nouvelles notes sur les Hamamelidees. Adansonia 10: 120-37. (In French)
• Baillon, H. 1871. Saxifragacees. Hist. Pl. 3: 325-464. (In French; see English translation by M.M. Hartog, Nat. Hist. Pl. 3: 323-464. 1874)
• Battaglia, L. L.; Fore, S. A.; Sharitz, R. R. 2000. Seedling emergence, survival and size in relation to light and water availability in two bottomland hardwood species. J. Ecol. 88: 1041-1050.
• Berry, E. W. 1920. The geological history of the sweet gum and witch hazel. Pl. World 22: 345-54.
• Boerner, R. E. J. 1985. Foliar nutrient dynamics, growth, and nutrient use efficiency of Hamamelis virginiana in three forest microsites. Canad. J. Bot. 63: 1476-81.
• Bogle, A. 1970. Floral morphology and vascular anatomy of the Hamamelidaceae: the apetalous genera of Hamamelidoidae. J. Arnold Arbor. 51: 310-66.
• Bogle, A. L. 1986. The floral morphology and vascular anatomy of the Hamamelidaceae: subfamily Liquidambaroideae. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 73: 325-47.
• Bogle, A. L. 1968. Floral vascular anatomy and the nature of the hamamelidaceous flower. Ph.D. Dissertation Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN,
• Bogle, A. L.; Philbrick, C. T. 1980. A generic atlas of hamamelidaceous pollens. Contr. Gray Herb. 210: 29-103.
• Bonner, F. T. 1967. Germination of sweetgum seed in response to light. J. Forest. 65(5): 339.
• Bormann, F. H. 1953. Factors determining the role of loblolly pine and sweetgum in early old-field succession in the Piedmont of North Carolina. Ecol. Monogr. 23: 339-58.
• Bradford, J. L.; Marsh, D. L. 1978. Comparative studies of the witch hazels, Hamamelis virginiana L. and H. vernalis Sarg. Proc. Arkansas Acad. Sci. 31: 29-31. (Abstr. in Excerpta Bot., A, 33(1):19. 1979.)
• Britton, Elizabeth G. 1887. Elongation of the inflorescence in Liquidambar. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 14: 95-6.
• Brown, C. L.; Kormanik, P. P. 1967. Suppressed buds on lateral roots of Liquidambar styraciflua. Bot. Gaz. 128(3-4): 208-11.
• Chang, K. T. 1959. The pollen morphology of Liquidambar L. and Altinga Nor. Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Lenengrad) 44: 1375-80. (In Russian; English summary)
• Clark, A. W. 1919. Seasonal variation in water content and in transpiration of leaves of Fagus grandifolia, Hamamelis virginiana, and Quercus alba. Contr. Bot. Lab. Morris Abor. Univ. Pennsylvania 4: 105-43.
• Clatterbuck, W. K.; Hodges, J. D. 1988. Development of cherrybark oak and sweet gum in mixed, even-aged bottomland stands in central Mississippi, U.S.A. Canad. J. Forest Res. 18(1): 12-8.
• Coladoanto, M. 1993. Hamamelis virginiana. ()
• Coladoanto, M. 1992. Liquidambar styraciflua. ()
• Connor, S. 1995. Mystical, medicinal witch hazel. Arnoldia (Jamaica Plain) 55: 20-21.
• Crane, P. R.; Blackmore, S. (eds.) (1989): 1989. Evolution, systematics and fossil history of the Hamamelidae. 2 Vols. Oxford University Press, New York.
• Davidson, D. W. 1966. Response of six shrub species to light regimes in two controlled-environment rooms. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 93: 432-437.
• De Steven, D. 1983. Floral ecology of witch-hazel (Hamamelis virginiana). Michigan Bot. 22: 163-71.
• De Steven, D. 1982. Seed production and seed predation in a temperate forest shrub (witch-hazel, Hamamelis virginiana). J. Ecol. 70: 437-43.
• De Steven, D. 1983. Reproductive consequences of insect seed predation in Hamamelis virginiana. Ecology 64: 89-98.
• De Steven, D. 1991. Experiments on mechanisms of tree establishment in old-field succession: seedling emergence. Ecology 72: 1066-75.
• De Steven, D. 1991. Experiments on mechanisms of tree establishment in old-field succession: seedling survival and growth. Ecology 72: 1076-88.
• Den Uyl, D. 1962. Survival and growth of hardwood plantations on strip mine spoil banks of Indiana. J. Forest. 60(9): 603-6.
• Dillenburg, L. R.; Sullivan, J. H.; Teramura, A. H. 1995. Leaf expansion and development of photosynthetic capacity and pigments in Liquidambar styraciflua (Hamamelidaceae)- effects of UV-B radiation. Amer. J. Bot. 82(7): 878-85.
• Dillenburg, L. R.; Teramura, A. H.; Forseth, I. N.; Whigham, D. F. 1995. Photosynthetic and biomass allocation responses of Liquidambar styraciflua (Hamamelidaceae) to vine competition. Amer. J. Bot. 82(4): 454-61.
• Dillenburg, L. R.; Whigham, D. F.; Teramura, A. H.; Forseth, I. N. 1993. Effects of vine competition of availability of light, water, and nitrogen to a tree host Liquidambar styraciflua. Amer. J. Bot. 80: 244-52.
• Downs, R. J.; Borthwick, H. A. 1956. Effects of photoperiod on growth of trees. Bot. Gaz. 117(4): 310-26.
• Duncan, W. H. 1959. Leaf variation in Liquidambar styraciflua. Castanea 24: 99-111.
• Echternach, J. L.; Rose, R. K. 1987. Use of woody vegetation by beavers in southeastern Virginia USA. Virginia J. Sci. 38: 226-232.
• Endress, P. 1967. Systematische studie uber die verwandtschaftlichen Beziehungen zwischen den Hamamelidaceen und Betulaceen. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 87: 431-525. (In German, English summary)
• Endress, P. 1970. Die Infloreszenzen der apetalen Hamamelidaceen, ihre grundsatzliche morpholigische und systematische Bedeutung. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 90: 1-54. (In German, English summary)
• Endress, P. K. 1989. A supregeneric taxonomic classification of the Hamamelidaceae. Taxon 38: 371-6.
• Endress, P. K. 1987. Aspects of evolutionary differentiation of the Hamamelidaceae and the lower Hamamelidae. Pl. Syst. Evol. 162: 193-211.
• Endress, P. K. 1976. Die Androeciumanlage bei polyandrischen Hamamelidaceen und ihre systematische Bedeutung. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 97: 436-57. (In German, English summary)
• Erdtman, G. 1946. Pollen morphology and plant taxonomy. VII. Notes on various families. Svensk Bot. Tidskr. 40: 77-84.
• Ernst, W. R. 1963. The genera of Hamamelidaceae and Platanaceae in the southeastern United States. J. Arnold Arbor. 44: 193-210.
• Felter, H. W. 1922. The Eclectic Materia Medica, pharmacology and therapeutics (Liquidambar).
• Flint, F. F. 1957. Megasporogenesis and megagametogenesis in Hamamelis virginiana L. Virginia J. Sci. 8: 185-9.
• Flint, F. F. 1959. Development of the megagametophyte in Liquidambar styraciflua L. Madrono 15: 25-9.
• Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 1997. Flora of North America, Volume 3. Magnoliophyta: Magnoliidae and Hamamelidae. Oxford University Press, New York. , 590 pages.
• Fordham, A. J. 1961. Propagation of Liquidambar styraciflua. Arnoldia (Jamaica Plain) 21: 66.
• Foster, S. 2000. Witch hazel, Hamamelis virginiana.
• Fulling, E. H. 1953. American witch hazel - history, nomenclature and modern utilization. Econ. Bot. 7: 359-81.
• Gaut, P. C.; Roberts, J. N. 1984. Hamamelis virginiana seed germination. Pl. Propag. 34: 334-342.
• Gibson, H. H. 1905. American forest trees - 18. Red gum, Liquidambar styraciflua L. Hardwood Rec. 20: 12-5.
• Gleason, H. 1922. The witch hazels. J. New York Bot. Gard. 23: 17-9.
• Goldblatt, P.; Endress, P. 1977. Cytology and evolution in Hamamelidaceae. J. Arnold Arbor. 58(1): 67-71.
• Graenicher, S. 1906. Some notes on the pollination of flowers. Bull. Wisconsin Nat. Hist. Soc. 4: 12-21.
• Gregory, E. L. 1888. Development of corky-wings on certain trees II. Bot. Gaz. 13: 281-7.
• Hallier, H. 1903. Uber den Umfang, die Gliederung und die Verwandtschaft der Hamamelidaceen. Beih. Bot. Centralbl. 14: 247-60.
• Hengst, G. E.; Dawson, J. O. 1994. Bark properties and fire resistance of selected tree species from the central hardwood region of North America. Canad. J. Forest Res. 24: 688-96.
• Herrick, J. D.; Thomas, R. B. 2003. Leaf senescence and late-season net photosynthesis of sun and shade leaves of overstory sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) grown in elevated and ambient carbon dioxide concentrations. Tree Physiology 23: 109-118.
• Hesse, M. 1978. Entwicklungsgeschichte und Ultrastruktur von Pollenkitt und Exine bei nahe verwandten entomophilen und anemophilen Angiospermensippen: Ranunculaceae, Hamamelidaceae, Platanaceae und Fagaceae. Pl. Syst. Evol. 130: 13-42.
• Hicks, D. J.; Hustin, D. L. 1989. Response of Hamamelis virginiana L. to canopy gaps in a Pennsylvania oak forest. Amer. Midl. Naturalist 121: 200-4.
• Hoey, M. T.; Parks, C. R. 1994. Genetic diversity in Liquidambar styraciflua, L. formosana, and L. acalycina (Hamamelidaceae). Syst. Bot. 19(2): 308-16.
• Hoey, M. T.; Parks, C. R. 1991. Isozyme divergence between eastern Asian, North American, and Turkish species of Liquidambar (Hamamelidaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 78: 938-47.
• Hoffman, H. 1995. Witch hazel.
• Holbrook, N. M.; Putz, F. E. 1989. Influence of neighbors on tree form: Effects of lateral shade and prevention of sway on the allometry of Liquidambar styraciflua (Sweet Gum). Amer. J. Bot. 76(12): 1740-9.
• Holm, T. 1931. The seedling of Hamamelis virginiana L. Rhodora 33(388): 81-92.
• Holm, T. 1930. Leaf-variation in Liquidambar styraciflua. Rhodora 32: 95-100.
• Hooker, J. D. 1883. Hamamelis virginiana. Bot. Mag. 108: pl. 6684.
• Horne, A. 1914. A contribution to the study of the evolution of the flower, with special reference to the Hamamelidaceae, Caprifoliaceae, and Cornaceae. Trans. Linn. Soc. London Bot. 8: 239-309.
• Hosner, J. F. 1958. The effects of complete inundation upon seedlings of six bottomland tree species. Ecology 39: 371-3.
• Huebner, C. D.; Randolph, J. C.; Parker, G. R. 1995. Environmental factors affecting understory diversity in second-growth deciduous forests. Amer. Midl. Naturalist 134: 155-65.
• Ickert-Bond, S. M.; Pigg, K. B.; Wen, J. 2005. Comparative infructescence morphology in Liquidambar (Altingiaceae) and its evolutionary significance. Amer. J. Bot. 92: 1234-1255.
• Jenne, G. E. 1966. A study of variation in North American Hamamelis L. (Hamamelidaceae). M.S. Thesis Vanderbilt Univ.,
• Jensen, A. E. 1901. Structure of the stem bark of Hamamelis virginiana L. Pharm. Arch. 4: 121-123. (See also Proc. A. Pharm. Assoc. 49:409-413. 1901.)
• Jha, U. N. 1977. Chemotaxonomy of the Hamamelidaceae. J. Indian Bot. Soc. 56(1): 44-8.
• Jones, R. H. et al. et.al. 1994. Woody plant regeneration in four floodplain forests. Ecol. Monogr. 64: 345-67.
• King, B. L. 1997. An abnormal variant of sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua L.) from Caroline county, Virginia. Banisteria 9: 43-5.
• Kirchheimer, F. 1947. Uber verweigte Fruchtstande der Liquidambar styraciflua L. Planta 35: 106-9.
• Knapp, A. K.; Carter, G. A. 1998. Variability in leaf optical properties among 26 species from a broad range of habitats. Amer. J. Bot. 85: 940-946.
• Kormanik, P. P.; Brown, C. L. 1967. Root buds and the development of root suckers in sweetgum. Forest Sci. 13: 338-45.
• Kormanik, P. P.; Brown, C. L. 1969. Origin and development of epicormic branches in sweet gum.
• Kostel-Hughes, F.; Young, T. P.; Carreiro, M. M.; Wehr, J. D. 1996. Experimental effects of urban and rural forest leaf litter on germination and seedling growth of native and exotic northeastern tree species. (Abstract)
• Kostel-Hughes, F.; Young, T. P.; Wehr, J. D. 2005. Effects of leaf litter depth on the emergence and seedling growth of deciduous forest tree species in relation to seed size. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 132: 50-61.
• Lam, O. C.; Brown, C. L. 1974. Shoot growth and histogenesis of Liquidambar styraciflua L. under different photoperiods. Bot. Gaz. 135(2): 149-54.
• Li, H. M.; Mickey, L. J. 1988. Leaf architecture and systematics of the Hamamelidaceae sensu lato. Acta Phytotax. Sin. 26(2): 96-110. (In Chinese; English summary)
• Li, J. 1997. Systematics of the Hamamelidaceae based on morphological and molecular evidence. Ph.D. Dissertation Univ. New Hampshire, Durham, NH,
• Li, J. et.al. 2000. Phylogeny and biogeography of Hamamelis (Hamamelidaceae). Harvard Papers in Botany 5: 171-178.
• Li, J.; Bogle, A. L.; Donoghue, M. J. 1999. Phylogenetic relationships in the Hamamelidoideae inferred from sequences of trn non-coding regions of chloroplast DNA. Harvard Papers in Botany 4: 343-356.
• Li, J.; Bogle, A. L.; Klein, A. S. 1997. Interspecific relationships and genetic divergence of the disjunct genus Liquidambar (Hamamelidaceae) inferred from DNA sequences of plastid gene MATK. Rhodora 99: 229-40.
• Li, J.; Bogle, A. L.; Klein, A. S. 1999. Phylogenetic relationships of the Hamamelidaceae inferred from sequences of internal transcribed spacers (ITS) of nuclear ribosomal DNA. Amer. J. Bot. 86: 1027-1037.
• Li, J.; Bogle, A. L.; Klein, A. S. 1999. Phylogenetic relationships in the Hamamelidaceae: evidence from the nucleotide sequences of the plastid gene matK. Pl. Syst. Evol. 218: 205-219.
• Li, J.; Donoghue, M. J. 1999. More molecular evidence for interspecific relationships in Liquidambar (Hamamelidaceae). Rhodora 101: 87-91.
• Makarova, Z. I. 1957. A contribution to the history of the genus Liquidambar L. Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Lenengrad) 42: 1182-95. (In Russian)
• Malmo, B. 1958. Hamamelidaceae. Arbor. Bull. 21: 30-1.
• Martin, P. S.; Harrell, B. E. 1957. The Pleistocene history of temperate biotas in Mexico and eastern United States. Ecology 38: 468-80.
• Martindale, D. 1958. Silvical characteristics of sweetgum (Liquidambar syraciflua L.).
• Mathew, C. J. 1981. Embryological studies in Hamamelidaceae: development of female gametophyte and embryogeny in Hamamelis virginiana. Phytomorphology 30(2-3): 172-80.
• McApline, R. G. 1961. Yellow-poplar seedlings intolerant to flooding J. Forest. 59(8): 566-8. (Also Fraxinus & Liquidambar)
• McMillan, C. 1974. Differentiation in habitat response in Taxodium distichum, T. nucronatum, Platanus occidentalis, and Liquidambar styraciflua from the United States and Mexico. Vegetatio 29: 1-10.
• McMillan, C.; Winstead, J. E. 1976. Adaptive differentiation in Liquidambar styraciflua L. from eastern United States and northeastern Mexico under uniform environmental conditions. Bot. Gaz. 137(4): 361-7.
• Mears, J. A. 1973. Chemical constituents and systematics of Amentiferae. Brittonia 25(4): 385-94.
• Meehan, T. 1901. Hamamelis virginiana. Meehans' Monthly 11: 145-6.
• Mills, H. H.; Stephenson, S. L. 1999. Forest vegetation and boulder streams in the central Appalachian Valley and Ridge province, southwestern Virginia. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 126: 188-196.
• Mione, T. 1987. Comparative ontogeny of the inflorescences and flowers of Hamamelis virginiana and Loropetalum chinense (Hamamelidaceae). M.S. Thesis Univ. New Hampshire, Durham, NH,
• Mione, T.; Bogle, A. L. 1990. Comparative ontogeny of the inflorescence and flower of Hamamelis virginiana and Loropetalum chinense (Hamamelidaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 77(1): 77-91.
• Mitchell, R. S. (eds.) (1988): 1988. Platanaceae through Myricaceae of New York State. New York State Museum Bull. No. 464. The University of the State of New York, the State Education Department, Albany. , 98 pages.
• Mohana, R. P. 1974. Seed anatomy in some Hamamelidaceae and phylogeny. Phytomorphology 24: 113-39.
• Moore, J. E.; Lacey, E. P. 2009. A comparison of germination and early growth of four early successional tree species of the southeastern United States in different soil and water regimes. Amer. Midl. Naturalist 162: 388-394.
• Nash, G. V. 1919. Hamamelis virginiana. Addisonia 4: 43-4.
• O'Byrne, J. W. 1952. Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua L.). Va. Forests 7(5): 3,14.
• Paratley, R. D. 1986. Vegetation-environment relations in a conifer swamp in central New York. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 113: 357-371.
• Petersen, F. P.; Fairbrothers, D. E. 1985. A serotaxonomic appraisal of the "Amentiferae". Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 112: 43-52.
• Pope, P. E.; Chaney, W. R.; Rhodes, J. D.; Woodhead, S. H. 1983. The mycorrhizal dependency of four hardwood tree species. Canad. J. Bot. 61: 412-7.
• Putnam, B. L. 1896. Hamamelis virginiana. Bot. Gaz. 21: 170.
• Qui, Y. L. et.al. 1998. Phylogenetics of the Hamamelidae and their allies: parsimony analysis of nucleotide sequences of the plastid gene rbcL. Int. J. Plant Sci. 159: 891-905.
• Rabe, E. P. 1985. Distribution and growth response of Ailanthus altissima in the urban environment. M.S. Thesis Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY87 p. (Also Acer & Liquidambar)
• Randel, W. R.; Winstead, J. E. 1976. Environmental influence on cell and wood characters of Liquidambar styraciflua. Bot. Gaz. 137(1): 45-51.
• Rao, P. R. M. 1974. Seed anatomy in some Hamamelidaceae and phylogeny. Phytomorphology 24: 113-39.
• Reinsch, A. 1889. Uber die anatomischen Verholtnisse der Hamamelidaceae mit Rucksicht auf ihre systematische Gruppierung. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 11: 347-95.
• Rhoads, A. F.; Meyer, P. W.; Sanfelippo, R. 1981. Performance of urban street trees evaluated. J. Arboric. 7: 127-132.
• Roberts, B. R. 1980. Trees as biological filters. J. Arboric. 6(1): 20-3. (Sulphur dioxide & ozone)
• Samorodova-Bianki, G. B. 1957. De genera Liquidambar L. notulae systematicae. Bot. Mater. Gerb. Glavn. Bot. Sada SSSR 18: 77-89. (In Russian)
• Santamour, F. S. 1972. Chromosome number in Liquidambar. Rhodora 74(798): 287-90.
• Santamour, F. S.; McArdle, A. J. 1984. Cultivar checklist for Liqiudambar and Liriodendron. J. Arboric. 10: 309-312.
• Sargent, C. S. 1889. The Liquidambar. Gard. & Forest 2: 232-3.
• Schmitt, D. 1966. Pistillate inflorescence of sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua L.). Silvae Genet. 15: 33-5.
• Sharma, G. K.; Tyree, J. 1973. Geographic leaf cuticular and gross morphological variations in Liquidambar styraciflua L. and their possible relationship to environmental pollution. Bot. Gaz. 134(3): 179-84.
• Shaw, E.; Gibbs, R. D. 1961. Comparative chemistry and the relationship of the Hamamelidaceae. Nature 190: 463-4.
• Shi, S. et.al. 1998. Phylogeny of the Hamamelidaceae based on the ITS sequences of nuclear ribosomal DNA. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 26: 55-69.
• Shoemaker, D. M. 1905. On the development of Hamamelis virginiana. Bot. Gaz. 39: 248-66.
• Sionit, N. et al. et.al. 1985. Long term atmospheric CO2 enrichment affects the growth and development of Liquidambar styraciflua and Pinus taeda seedlings. Canad. J. Forest Res. 15: 468-71.
• Skvortsova, N. T. 1960. The structure of epidermis in the Hamamelidaceae. Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Lenengrad) 45: 712-7. (In Russian)
• Smith, R. F. 1967. The leaf dimorphism of Liquidambar styraciflua. Amer. Midl. Naturalist 77: 42-50.
• Sommer, S. A. 1986. The pollination and ecology and breeding system of Hamamelis virginiana L. (Hamamelidaceae). M.S. Thesis Univ. Maryland, College Park, MD,
• Stafford, P. J. 1988. Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of the Hamamelidae.
• Steyermark, J. 1956. Eastern witch hazel. Missouri Bot. Gard. Bull. 44: 99-101.
• Steyermark, J. A. 1934. Hamamelis virginiana in Missouri. Rhodora 36: 97-100.
• Sullivan, J. H.; Teramura, A. H.; Dillenburg, L. R. 1994. Growth and photosynthetic responses of field-grown sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua; Hamamelidaceae) seedlings to UV-B radiation. Amer. J. Bot. 81(7): 826-32.
• Thomas, J. L. 1961. Liquidambar. Arnoldia (Jamaica Plain) 21: 59-65.
• Tiffney, B. H. 1986. Fruit and seed dispersal and the evolution of the Hamamelidae. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 73: 394-416.
• Tippo, O. 1938. Comparative anatomy of the Moraceae and their presumed allies. Bot. Gaz. 100: 1-99.
• Tolley, L. C.; Strain, B. R. 1984. Effects of CO2 enrichment and water stress on growth of Liquidambar styraciflua and Pinus taeda seedlings. Canad. J. Bot. 62: 2135-9.
• Tong, K. 1930. Studien uber die Familie der Hamamelidaceae mit besonderer Berucksichtigung der Systematik und Entwicklungsgeschichte von Corylopsis. Ph.D. Dissertation Berlin72 p. (Also in Bull. Biol. Dept. Sci. Coll. Sun Yat-Sen Univ. 2:1-72. 1930.)
• Townsend, D. S. ; Meyer, A. D. 2002. Rapid recovery of witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana L.) by sprouting, following release from white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus Zimm.) browsing. Natural Areas Journal 22: 290-295.
• Trenk, F. B. 1925. Some soil and moisture relationships of sweetgum and river birch in southern Maryland. Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci. 32: 133-42.
• Venema, H. J. 1957. Hamamelis virginiana L. Nederl. Dendr. Ver. Jaarb. 20: 143-53. (In Dutch)
• Viable Herbal Solutions; Anonymous 2003. Herbal descriptions, witch hazel, Hamamelis virginiana.
• Vozzo, J. A.; Hacskaylo, E. 1964. Anatomy of mycorrhizae of selected eastern forest trees. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 91: 378-387.
• Weaver, R. E. 1976. The witch hazel family (Hamamelidaceae). Arnoldia (Jamaica Plain) 36(3): 69-109.
• Wen, J. 1999. A phylogentic and biogeographic study of Hamamelis (Hamamelidaceae), an eastern Asian and eastern North American disjunct genus. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 27: 55-66.
• Whigham, D. 1984. The influence of vines on the growth of Liquidambar styraciflua L. (sweetgum). Canad. J. Forest Res. 14: 37-9.
• Williams, G. J.; McMillan, C. 1971. Phenology of six United States provenances of Liquidambar styraciflua under controlled conditions. Amer. J. Bot. 58(1): 24-31.
• Williams, G. J.; McMillan, C. 1971. Frost tolerance of Liquidambar styraciflua native to the United States, Mexico, and Central America. Canad. J. Bot. 49: 1551-8.
• Wilson, B. F. 1998. Branches versus stems in woody plants: control of branch diameter growth and angle. Canad. J. Bot. 76: 1852-1856.
• Wilson, P. 1905. Altingiaceae. N. Amer. Fl. 22: 189.
• Winstead, J. E. 1969. Ecotypic differentiation in Liquidambar styraciflua L. Ph.D. Dissertation University of Texas, Austin, TX,
• Winstead, J. E. 1971. Populational differences in seed germination and stratification requirements of sweetgum. Forest Sci. 17: 34-6.
• Wisniewski, M.; Bogle, A. L. 1982. The ontogeny of the inflorescence and flower of Liquidambar styraciflua L. (Hamamelidaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 69(10): 1612-24.
• Zhang, Z. Y.; Lu, A. M. 1995. Hamamelidaceae: geographic distribution, fossil history and origin. Acta Phytotax. Sin. 33(4): 313-39. (In Chinese; English summary)
• Zhang, Z. Y.; Wen, J. 1996. The seed morphology in Hamamelidaceae and its systematic evaluation. Acta Phytotax. Sin. 34: 538-46. (In Chinese; English summary)
• de Ridder, M.; Wijnands, D. O. 1980. De systematiek van Hamamelis. Dendroflora 17: 6-8. (In Dutch)
• van Tieghem, P. 1898. Structure de quelques ovules et parti qu'on eu peut tirer pout amÚliorer la classification. J. Bot. (Morot) 12: 197-220.