without any spine [figs. 8 and 9].
about ; an inch long; wingless, th(
The seeds [fig. JO] are oblong, pale yellowish, marked with bri;
; wing being indissolubly adherent to the scale. The kernel is <
r, resembling that of Pinns Cembra. According to Gordon, the seedor
pleasant flavou
leaves are nine
This tree
ten, but mostly nine, in number.
is distinguished from all other Pines with which we arc ac-
• ig only one leaf in the sheath. The leaf has all the appear-
quainted, by he
ance of l)eing two leaves
Endlicher and other botai
to the two-leaved setflion. On exa
we sec that a single mid-rib runs
essentially only one leaf. Loudon
as having only one leaf, and to which M
c
:glutinated into one, and has thus deceived
:s, and led them to believe that the species belonged
ining the leaf closer, however, and more especially l)y c utting it across,
ip the centre of the leaf like a pith, shewing beyond doubt that it is
1 his " Arboretum," iv, p. 2158, describes a variety of Pinus syhestris
Ilodgkins, nurserj-man, Dunganstown, near Wicklow, who sent
it to the Horticultural Society's garden, gave the name <A mo>wphylla. This was in 1830. It proved,
however, to be only an abnormal or monstrous form of the species, the a[)parently single leaf being two
distind leaves slightly twisted together, and separating readily when taken beUveen the finger and thumb.
Geographical Distribution.—This tree was found b}- Fremont extensively s]M-ead over the mountains
of Northern California, from long 111° to 120' W „ an<l through a considerable range of latitude. It is
the tree alluded to repeatedly by him in the course of his narrative as the Nut Pine,
Dr Torrey, in his remarks on P. ediilis (" Mexican Boundary Report," ii. p. 208), immediately after
speaking of the synonymy of this species, makes one or two observations as to localities where "the tree" is
found, which we believe apply to this
extending farther north than New Me:
tree in his first expedition, as well as ir
expedition on the mountains of Califoi
Botanical Report of that expedition,"
We have received it from the Sier
pecies. the localities of P. cdulis being separately given, and not
ico. He says; " Colonel Fremont found extensive forests of the
his journey of 1S53-54. Dr Bigelow also found it in Whijipler's
iia, but in consequence of an oversight it was not included in the
, Nevada, at about the e latitude as Monterey,
History.—This species was first observed by Colonel Fremont on tlie Sierra Nevadji, in Northern
California, during his expedition to Oregon and California in 1843, It was described by Dr Torrey
in the "Botanical Report" appended to Colonel Fremont's account of the expedition (published in
1845). His description and figures are clear and charaaeristic, and should enable any one to
distinguish it without difficulty.
Endlicher, two years later, included it in his "Synopsis Coniferarum," but, without giving any
reason for it, altered the name from monophylla to Fremontiana, turning the former into a synonym,
and further altered the description from the statement that the leaves are solitary-, very rarely In pairs,
and terete (except in the very rare case of being in pairs, when they are semi-c>'lindrical) to the general
assertion that the leaves are in pairs, semi-cylindric, very rarely separated, for the most jxirt coalesced
into a single cylindrical leaf (" Folia gemina semi-cylindrica, rarissime discreta, plerumque in folium
cum coalita"), an assertion which, as wc have above shewn, is erroneous, in so far as it
s normally in pairs, and semi-cylindric. It seems to us that Endlicher was deceived
ce of the leaf, and supposed that, although not actually in twos, it was two leaves glued
1 two did appear in the sheath It was merely that the normal two leaves
the coalescence. If he had examined the interior of the leaf, and seen that
he would have recognised the error of this .suppositi<m. When two leaves
unicum cyl
makes the
by the ajip;
together: ;
had been liberated froi
it had only one mid-ri
that whe
.appear, it is an ordinary duplication, and their semi-cylindrical, instead of cylindrical, f(,rm
due to the pressure of the two leaves on each other in the bud while the tissues arc
impressionable. The normal leaf is single an.l cylindriail, and shews that that is the na
of the Pine leaf, however it may be afterwards altered by contiguity to others in die same sheath.
merely
:,ft and
ll fiirm
Alth(
Although Endliciiei- gives
o reason for changing the name fro
•e a figure and description of the s:
" Dr Torrey first gave the name of numophylla fi
: mostly solitary, but Professor Endlicher, who afterwards exai
Gordon, who two years later g
of the change was as follows
supposition that the leaves we
more perfect specimens, found that the leaves were ii
arose from Dr Torrey's specimens being gathered fror
Torrey's name of nwnophylla to that of Fremontiana,
discoverer,"
On this paragraph Dr Tor
Boundary Report," vol ii. p. 20J
Jouk), refers this species to P. f.
to P. Fremontiana by Professor Ei
e.-camined more perfect specimens
monophylla io Fremontiana. Mr
species, states that the origin
dla to this Pine from a
ed
twos and threes, and that the solitary leaves
stunted plants. He consequently altere<l Dr
in complimcnt to Captain Fremont, its first
ey afterwards (" Botanical Report in United States and Mexican
, 1859) remarks—"Gordon, in the work just quoted {Hort. Soc.
mophylla. Tor. and Frem,, the name <jf which he says was changed
dlicher (' Syn, Conif,' p 1S3) because that botanist ' having afterwards
found that the leaves were in twos and threes, and that the solitary'
leaves aroseJ ffrroom , Drr T orrey s
Endlicher has no remarks of this kii
Report, but he regards what I call
Still we arc incli
,ens being
:l. His en
ngle leaf as
:1 to think that Mr Got
: find that
nt's Second
.thered from stunted plants,' Nc
description is taken from mine in Iisisting
of two united leaves."
I's account is in the main correa Of course, the
statement as to the respective condition of Professor Endlicher's and Dr Torrey's specimens may have
been (must have been) a conjecture of his own; but the motive of the change of name assigned by him
seems ver>- pnibable. Whether the above was Endlicher's reason for changing the name or not, it is
clear that he was wrong in changing it. Dr Torrey's name, monophylla. is sound, well-founded, and
most charadteristic, and the rules of priority' require that it should be restored.
The next noticc of the spccies after Endlicher's is that by Gortlon, above referretl to, in the
Horticultural Society's Journal, iv. 293. Seeds and specimens of the cone were sent home by Hartweg,
who gi\-cs the following information reganling it {Horticultural Society's Journal, iii. 226) :—
vious to leaving Monterey, I was told by several persons that a kind of thin-shelled Pine-nut is
ionally brought for sale by the Indians to Santa Inez and Santa Barbara, without being able to learn
lore respecting it. Upon making fiirther inquiries at Santa Inez, I was told that the Indians bring
from a great distance, that the har\-est of them was ov
in Indians, Proceeding to a hut which was pointed out
.nquiring about the size of the cones, the Indian handed
of a small size, when, judge of my surprise, I recognised
„ p,.
th.
and, i
s found il ;eral t:
er that the !
; time, sooi
helled seed.
had on fo
presently shew,
Mr Gordon tells us furth.
tolerably good condition at tht
"Pinus with a thin-s
had apparently led Dr Lindloy and Mr C
under that name, although their addition, "
had been distributed, it would appear that
species, ami the error was retftificd in Mr
leaves arc generally in threes, hut nol
difference from Dr Ton-eys descripti
here observe that the nati\
in fad, in our specimens 1
reared in this country' that
in threes but those mentio
^rrounds for stating that they
of Me>
I was told that the Indians bn
but that I might procure a few from the
me, I bought a gallon of the fi-esh seeds,
i two, with the information that the trees
them those <if Pinus Llaveana, which I
this last point he was in error, as wc shall
leeds
specimt
ceived fr
.•c have occasi.
ed by Mr Gc
n threes
iived by the Horticultural Society, and being in
came up, and a portion was distributed under the name of
Hartweg's recognition of the cones as those of P. Llavemui
)rdon to take it for granted that it was so, and to ilistribute it
rith a thln-shdled seed," indicated doubt. But after the plants
t had been ascertained that it was not IJaveajia but Torrey's
Gordon's description. In that description he states that the
unfrequently In pairs, or even solitary,
n, in which they are said to be almost
which we ourselves possess entirely coi
California, wc have seen no leaves
This is a most material
sntirely solitary- We may
•espond with Dr Torrey's ,
n pairs. It is only in plants
for Hartweg expressly says that the seeds
[ ]
lally met with them; and we have never seen nor heard of any
clon. We, therefore, should have liked to know Mr Gordon's
His information could not be got from Hartweg's spedmens,
:ame far from where he was (he was at Santa Inez, in the coast-
B range.