The Cedar is a little more knotted than the Deodar, and under the microfcope the fpiral tubes of the latter
feem a little more open, and more frequent than in the former; but in other refpects no difference is
obfervable. The wood being young, and the fize not very great, it gives out little fcent at either end. In
burning, however, the Deodar is certainly the moft inflammable.
In refpect of rapidity of growth there is confiderable difference. Cedrus Atlantica
Difference in rap- jg . m u c h t h e f a f t e f t > q Deodara the next, and C. Libani the flowed
idity of growth. _ _ . .
The fpecific gravity of the Cedar of Lebanon is faid to have been determined to be
.61 v Captain W. Jones of the Bengal Engineers found the fpecific gravity of the Deodar,
Difference 111 1 . . . . ....
fpecific gravity, on an average of twenty trials, to be .680. But the teft of fpecific gravity is one which is
liable to be fo much affected by the age and condition of the tree, its ftate of drynefs when
weighed, and other particulars, that it is almoft impoffible to arrive at a fair comparifon. The fame fpecies
will give different refults, according to the climate, foil, and moifture of the place where it grows ; and pieces
of the fame tree, cut off at different times in its life, will contradict each other; and when, as in the above
inftance, an average.of twenty differing refults has to be ftruck, it may reafonably be difmiffed as valuelefs
for fuch a purpofe as determining the fpecific identity or difference of two nearly allied trees.
As to the relative durability of the timber of thefe two Cedars [C. Atlantica has fcarcely entered into
this part of the difpute), much conflicting evidence has been adduced. When we come to
Difference in fpeak of the properties of the Deodar, ample evidence will be given of its durability.
Of the timber. There can be no doubt about that. Doubts have, however, been thrown upon the
durability of the Libani. Loudon declares that it is " by no means durable;" but antient
authors are full of allufions to its fempiternal endurance; and he, with perfect fairnefs, refers to them,
although in oppofition to the view he has adopted. He attempts to reconcile the difcrepancy by fuppofing,
as others .have done, that the Antients, in fpeaking of the Cedar, meant fomething elfe, as the Juniper, or
fome other tree. This, however, can fcarcely be accepted as a true interpretation of their meaning, at any
rate in many cafes. It may be true in fome inftances, and it does not concern us to deny that the
knowledge of plants poffeffed by the Antients was not fo perfect as to prevent them at times applying the
fame names to more than one tree, and different, or even the fame, men applying the fame name to
different trees; but there are paffages regarding the Cedars which fcarcely admit of mifapplication. Eor
inftance, the Pfalmift fays, "The righteous fhall flourifh like the Palm tree, he (hall grow like a Cedar
in Lebanon." And the prophet Ezekiel thus defcribes it: " Behold, the Affyrian was a Cedar in
Lebanon with fair branches, and with a fliadowing fhroud, and of an high ftature; and his top was among
the thick boughs. . . . His boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long. . . . The Fir
trees were not like his boughs, and the Cheftnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the
garden of God was like unto him in his beauty." In neither of thefe quotations can there be any queftion
that it was no Juniper, but the Cedar of Lebanon itfelf, which was referred to. If fo, then the properties,
and among them the durability, afcribed to the fcriptural Cedar muft in fairnefs be allowed to be meant to
apply to the Cedrus Libani. Loudon's own expreflions on the fubject are; " The wood called Cedar by
the Antients was fuppofed to be fo incorruptible that the expreffion digitus cedro (worthy to be preferved
in Cedar) was applied to anything thought worthy of immortality." " Pliny tells us of a temple of Apollo
at Utica (the well-known city of that name in Africa) in which was found Cedar timber that, though nearly
2000 years old, was perfectly found." He alfo fpeaks of a ftatue of Diana carved in Cedar, which was
preferved in a temple at Saguntum in Spain, and had been brought there from Zante 200 years before the
burning of Troy.
We have thus fufficient evidence, regarding both the Cedar of Lebanon and the Deodar, to fhew
that the wood of each is of great durability. The fuppofed fpecific difference in this refpect, therefore,
difappears upon examination.
Some ftrefs has been laid upon a fuppofed difference in the ftrength of the timber, as indicating fpecific
diftinctnefs. Notwithftanding that the older authors gave ftrength as an attribute of the wood of the Cedar
of
of Lebanon, it is long fince its timber has been condemned as worthlefs, whilft, on the other hand, that of
the Deodar has been lauded for its ftrength and value. Probably neither deferves the full
Differences in amount of praife or difpraife that has been beftowed upon it: the Cedar is not fo bad, and
the ftrength of
the timber. the Deodar not fo good, as has been thought. It is from the Eaft Indians, and the authors
who have taken their information from them, that our belief in the ftrength of the Deodar
has been derived; and it has been acted upon by our countrymen to the extent of importing tons of feed,
and planting thoufands of acres in this country with the Deodar. It is fome time fince its right to fuch a
reputation has been challenged; and although the queftion is ftill fub judice, it is probable that if a decifion
were now to be preffed for, it would not be favourable to the Deodar. Adequate trials of the comparative
ftrength of the timber of the Cedar of Lebanon, the Deodar, and the Atlantic Cedar, have ftill to be made.
We have attempted to do fo with the fpecimen of the Deodar inarched on the Cedar of Lebanon, already
mentioned as in the collection of the Royal Horticultural Society, and which has certain advantages for the
comparifon, both having grown on the fame root, and of courfe having been fubjected exactly to the fame
climate, foil, fend other conditions. A piece of wood, 1 foot in length by 1 inch fquare, was taken from each
end of the flab, and each was placed between fupports 11 inches diftant, and weights were fufpended from the
centre, the fufpender bearing on the fpecimens being about a fourth of an inch in breadth. The breakage
was as follows :—The Cedar of Lebanon end broke under a weight of 3 78 lb.; the Deodar under a weight of
448 lb., or about i-6th more than the Cedar. But the deflection and fracture were even more remarkable.
The Cedar fliewed fcarcely any deflection at all. When weighted with 224 lb., it deflected 3-i6ths of an
inch; with 336 lb., it deflected 3-8ths of an inch; and at 378 lb. it broke in two with a fliort and fudden
fracture, and the deflection already indicated went back. The Deodar, on the other hand, did not begin to
deflect until a weight had been put on it which broke the Cedar: at 364 lb. it deflected an inch ; at 420 lb. an
inch and a half; and at 448 lb. an inch and three-quarters. It then broke in three with a fudden fracture and
loud report, fhort on the under fide and half through, fplit in half from the centre to the one end; the top
fide remained tough, and broke at about two inchcs from the centre, which remained permanently deflected.
The refult of this experiment exhibits a more marked difference between the two woods than we anticipated,
and a very decided fuperiority in the Deodar. Its actual ftrength is not particularly great; but it
contrafts very favourably with the Cedar, more efpecially as regards preliminary toughnefs. When it does
give way, it has the bad qualities of brittle woods, breaking with a loud report, and throwing pieces of
the wood into the air. The Cedar, on the other hand, does not even go through the pretence of not yielding
or yielding on conftraint, but breaks fliort off like a reed. There is one exception which may be taken
to this experiment, however—viz., that the climate or foil which would have fuited the one beft, was not the
moil fuitable for the other. We cannot difpute that it may be fo; therefore let allowance be made for the
objection: valeat quantum..
Thefe, we believe, are all the fpecific differences which have been alleged to exift between the three
kinds of Cedars, and the above is, we think, a fair eftimate of their value. The reader, however, may further
wifli to learn the conclufions which have been come to by the moft eminent authorities, on either fide, who
have expreffed an opinion on the fubject. A writer in the Gardeners' Chronicle (26th Feb. 1853), who may
fairly be affumed to be Dr Lindley, or at leaft to exprefs that botanift's views, fays: " Here, as in fo many
other cafes, the queftion refolves itfelf into one of words. It is maintained that thefe trees have defcendcd
from 6ne common ftock, in the lapfe of ages, and are, therefore, fpecifically the fame. We have nothing to
object. The negro and the white, the game-cock and the jungle-fowl, the lap-dog and the bloodhound, the
dog himfelf, indeed, and the wolf, have all, in turn, been pronounced by competent authority to be of identical
origin; and we are very far from queftioning the foundnefs of fuch opinions. The fame kind of
reafoning which juftifies fuch conclufions would undoubtedly lead irrefiftibly to the inference that the Scotch
rofe, the dog-rofe, and the Gallic rofe, nay, even the China rofe itfelf, have a common origin: for are they
not traceable the one into the other, by infenfible gradations, and innumerable intermediate forms ? But
[ 9 ] E although