F
rcgarclinn-which Loudon mentions the fullmving particulars. "The plant in the Horticultural Society's
garden, named there P. which was received from M. Godefroy about 1829, forms a (tunted
bufh 3 feet high and 4 or 5 feet broad. It is a grafted plant, and its Hunted appearancc may be chieflyowing
to the fcion having fwelled to a much greater thicknefs than the ftock, and to the buds having been
deftroyed by infects for feveral years pad The buds are fmall, about 2-8ths of an inch long, blunt-pcnntcd,
about 3-i6ths of an inch broad, brown, and covered with refm. The leaves are chiefly three in a flieath,
and from 2 inches to 3 inches long, with fliort black flieaths," {Arboretum, iv. p. 2269.)
The buds here correfpond with none of the fpecies we have been f])eaklng of, and we may be
Ijermitted to doubt whether they were not abnormally fmall in confeciuence of the injuries they had fuftained
o find an in previous years. We have been unable to I y trace of this plant now in the Royal Horticultural
Society's garden at Chifwick.
however, we find that it pafTcd withc)Ut alteration through the
ng neither new matter nor new ideas); but when we reach
a defcription of a fpecies, P- Sinclairii, which had in the
Walker-Arnott's Botany of Captain BcecJuys J 'oyage in the
To purfue the fynonymy of P. Californicc
hands of Antoine (his work as a rule contain
Endlicher (1847), we find it complicated by
me.antime (1841) appeared in Hooker
Bhjfom. Thefe gentlemen remark that that fpecies may prove to be the P. Califomica of Loifeleur, but
fay that the defcription of it is too incomplete to allow them to decide; and Endlicher adopts their
fuggelHon or arrives at it on confiderations of his own. Having come to that conclufion he wholly
abandons Loifeleur's imperfecfl defcription, and without a word of caution or notice (which we find not well
done in any one, but h
all of all in fuch an emin
as Endlicher) he adopts Hooker a
id An
.lefcriptionofP,
r/airii, merely condenfing it î
little.
nd gives their locality verbatim. I
e the
parallel paffages pr<;
ing what we fay :—
Pinus
OF BrEniK/H Vov,\üE IN THE BLOSSOM.'
;'j acicularibus eùmgalà gracilibus, fupra
,rgine afperis,/«iiVir bafi où/içKÛ fcds
cuneatis apidbus crafles elrMo-tdraiftruclis.
canaliculaüs dorfo convexis, m
a/rijis oblong, fquamis elongal
culo fi; ilofo
Trcda foliis ieynis clmgalis griuiliius. ßroiilis (faialiiusj
ngis obliquis apophyll elnalo fyramiäata Mragoim umbuiie bi
This r. s thf hills from Monterey h Camulo a
But whilfl we object to this mode of treating fynonymy, we muft alfo demur to the juftness of the
conclufion itfelf at which Endlicher arrived. Loifeleur gives the fize of the cone ol Pinus Califor7iica as
a thin! larger than that of P. pinaßer. Hooker and Arnott's defcription of P. Sinclairii makes it nearly
three times that of P. pinaßer. It may be that Endlicher has fpeculated upon Loifeleur having made a
mif^ake an<! faid a third when he meant to have faid three times, and thought that by correcting this miftake
everything would be reconciled. But if any fuch idea influenced him he Ihould have faid fo. If not, the
difference in fize remains unaccounted for; and it feems too great even for the ftarding difference in the
dimenfions, both of ci nd 1er
•^hich we do occafionally meet with both in Californian and Me;
fpecies of Conifers,
Lindley and Gordon's fuggeffion { J L
Hartweg's P. Benthamiafia finds more favour in o
Arnott is fo furprifingly fimilar as to be almofl id
[Journ. Hort. Soc.. iv. p. 213), except in the fize, vv
P. Benthamiana, as figured, are much larger than
The last author who has given an opinion
Ciordon's fuppofition, confiders that "Pinus Califo
.'. p. 816) that P. Sindairii
The figure of the cone giv
'ith that of Hartweg's fpecit
Hort. Soc.,
in our eyes
entical
hich is nearly d.nible.
hofe .;f P. Sinclairii
>n the fubjea is Carri
mica (Loifel,), adunca
sfynonymousw
m by Hooker ?
< given by Gor<
On the other hand, the leav of
ière, who, rejeéling Lindley and
(Bofc), Sinclairiana [miffake for
me fpecies." In fujiport of this
Sinclairii] (Hooker), and Coulteri (Don), may all be only one and the fam^
view he obferves, " The cone of P. Simlairiamt [Sinclairii], figured by Si
me very near, both in fize and form, that of P. Coulteri (Don), although the
William Hooker, appears to
apophyfis of the fcales bc lefs
projecting
projeding ; the protuberance, in place of being very much prolonged and recurvcd towards the fummit
of the cone, be much fliorter ; and although, in fine, the leaves be in twos, while thofe of P. Coulteri
are in threes,"
That M. Carrière is wrong in the laft of his premifes need n
which he deduces from them, nor of his qualifications to form one at
reader that the great projecting curved hooks on the fcales of the cc
inches in length and ftout in proportion, while the figure of P. Sine,
moi-e than as many lines. To our eyes, too, the form of the cone is
different. We had given M. Carrière confiderable credit for his
came upon this unguarded ftatement. We ffill think it a work of cc
we have no reafon to doubt the accuracy of anything but his judgm,
ftriking evidence of careleffnefs ir
accuracy of its defcriptions.
We have faid enough to flie-
Pinus Califomica. Correct and
ot affed our opinion of the judgment
all, Il will be fufficient to remind the
>ne of P. Coulteri arc more than two
lairii fhews a protuberance of fcarcely
wholly different, and the fize materially
Traité Gemral des Conifères until we
I work of this kind, the
)nfiderable merit as a compilalioi
ent. We regret, however, to fiin
.-alue of which depends wholly upo the
v that n.
;xpurgatc
I certain conclufioi
the text as we IT
n be arrived at regarding the identity of
t ftill remains doubtful to what fpecies
it fliould be referred. The proper courfe fliould be to delete the name from the lift of fpecies altogether.
If, for the fake of the intereff attached to it on account of La Peroufe, it be ftill affociatcd with fome fpecies
as a fynonym, more cannot be afl^ed, and more (hould not be given. We feel inclined to give the
preference to P. iifignis, as the fpecies which fliould be fo diftinguiflied.
Defcription.—fays that this tree reaches 100 feet in height. That is a miftake. It is of no great
fize either in height or diameter, feldom reaching the half of that magnitude. It is generally a ftraight
tapering tree, with regularly-difjjofed branches. While young it is pretty, with a cheerful green foliage.
It begins to bear cones at a v ery early age (before it is ten feet high"), which at firft are only produced
on the main ftem. The cones adhere to the tree for a long time. Jeffrey found trees with as many
as twenty whorls of cones on the trunk, the growth of as many years; and the branches were covered
with concs in the fame way as the trunk. Murray (MSS.) mentions having plucked, from the ftem
of a tree nearly a foot in diameter, an old cone growing within reach of his hand. It muft, of courfe,
have been of great age, and was nearly decayed. As the tree grows older, the branches as well as the
leading fhoot begin to bear cones; and as they do not fall off, but may be feen rotting on the ftem and
1 girth of three feet, the appearancc of the tree is then very peculiar:
The contrafl between the old and young cones is very great. Thofe
us belonging to the fame fpecies; but both were plucked
s thin, the tree cannot be called handfome. The timber is
; tree ha;
,vith frui
branches, even when the
it feems literally c
given in figs. 5 and 6 are fcarcely recognifable
from the fame tree by Murray. As the foliage
faid bv Gordon to be red and hard. Our informatio ;, that it is white.
Geographical Dijlribidion.—Pound on the coaft range (
iple, at Humboldt's Bay, It extends northwards fron
ids along the eaftern flope of the fame range, as far north
if 5000 feet.
if mountains, frequently near the fea, as,
I Monterey along the coaft range. It ;
as Shafta. Jeffrey found it in lat. 41, at
elevat:
Hißory.—Y'wAx difco\
fent home, Dr Coulter
next found it, in Auguil
miles north of Monterey,
ired by
found
1S46, i:
It wa
52; Murray and BeardOey in
introduce it into this country,
[ .0 ]
Dr Coulter, and defcribed by Don from the fpecimens which that explorer
it growing clofe to the fea-beach, mixed with other pines. Hartweg
I the minmtains of Santa Cmz, which lie not far from the fea, fome 60
; then firft introduced into this country. Jeffrey found it near Shaita in
S54; and Lobb, Bridges, and various other collectors, have fince helped
c Properties
I S B