PINETUM BRITANNICUM.
marked manner in most Cypresses, not excepting the Sequoia, sempervircx, which on the same branch often
presents both imbricated and distichous leaves ; that, as regards the struflure of the fruit and seed, the common
Red Wood (Sequoia sempervirew) and the Wellrngtmia are identical, the only difference betng that the
cones of the latter were larger: that the stniflnro was not like that of Sdmbfi&! and, finally, that the
wood of the two trees is similar, both abounding with the red colouring matter, soluble ,„ water, from winch
the Red Wood takes its name. At the time when this opinion was gtven, ne.ther Professor Asa Cray nor
Professor Decaisne had seen the male flowers, which, as was said by the former, were alone wanting to confirm
the perfefl generic identity of IVellmgtmia with Sequoia.
But further, if the generic name were to be abandoned, and the species placcd under Sequo,a. an
objefiion arises to the specific name gigantea, that that name had been already used by Endhchcr for
another Sequoia, of whose identity botanists are not certain, but which « generally believed to be only a
synonym of Sequoia „„per,ires, and the same specific name ought not to be used twice m the same gen«,
even although its previous use may have been erroneous, and merely a synonym of someth.ng else. 1 he
policy of such a rule is apparent, as its negleit would add unnecessarily to the mountain of confuston winch
already weighs down botanical nomenclature.
These were the scientific objections to the name given by Lindley to this species; but others have been
brought forward, principally by our Amencan friends, of a less tenable nature. Accord.ng to some of
them the name is objectionable as not paying sufficient respeel to Amencan prejudices. 1 he following
droll specimen of Transatlantic declamation, from the pen of a Dr Winslow, shews the objections on
this head:—
„The nam. that J S t applied'to thl, tree by Professor 1 M * m botanist. « * " " ' ' f » w
. m„ch unlike other C i t e « , « - «1, » be - — b.l . re,.ire decriptio. , be. gene,. Other 1 — , tank dtfferently. I 0
this however be has seen fit to apply .he mm rfm 1-» • ~ P - « • * P ™ ' - » — - » •*»«»
for !. must have ta. . — t a . M. h * . mind * Urn «"> A » ™ mmtm m* "I* -> 'PP
cation of . British „me, hew,,,, meritoriously M l wheb . name » worthy el M h.ao.r and renown . th.t "I »vAmffm, ™ d
strike the mind of the world 35 far more suitable to the most gigantic and remarkable vegetable «under indigenous to a country where his Heme is the
most distinguished ornament. As he and hi, generation declared themselves indepe.de,,« of .11 English rule and p.h.eal dtflmon, so Am.ne.n
mlists ,,„,, in .hi, tnse.xprcs, their ,=,pe.ltol dissent torn all British ..icliiic — T rf» " % — • » """ f
for eve, T , , , l , „ „ r * * * — » - P»P"'>' ™ " » d " " « - * *"» " T* ™ " " " ' I
r.r,„. The generic nam. indices ..paralleled grea.ne,, and grandeur: its .pecif. name, ,he only locality m the -odd where » found. No
name. be mom appropriate; and il it be ia aecoria.ce with the vie™ of Am.,fan b.t»li.ls, 1 .nr.. the scientific hononr of o.r cou.Uy ma,
be vindicated tan foreign indelicacy by boldly dtoding the nam, . . . applied to it. and by affi.i,, » i, ft» •< >'« »™<*™> — * »
, , „ all love and bo.o.r, a.d .each our ehild„. to adore. Under n.y and all d p — » , however, whether of per,».,,, or esti.c.-.n, ,h.
nam. of Wellington should be di«arded, and that of Washington attached to it, a.d trmumtitted to .he school, of future ages.
To this, the unreasoning, class of objections, there is of course no answer. ' the reasoning class,
the best answer whidi we have met with, besides his original justification of the genus above quoted, is
given in a short note by Dr Lindley. published, with his permission, in the - Edinburgh Ph.losoph.cal
Journal," in i860
. Notwithstanding the cmi.ism, of M. Decai,n., Dr Torrey, and Dr Seem..., 1 adhere .0 my opinion that W,Ui,,,o„i. i. .ece-rily di.-
dneiushcd from S ~ , . mfe. .11 the mod.r. dismemberment, of the old genera, Pi,:. C.fr,,,.,. and J J „ e , are to he ca.cell.d, a me,,.r. ,.
whth I should not eo»eur. 1. 1». not a little surprised me to find gentlemen who have no objeftion ,0 offer .0 M„, a* distinguished from P...,
S ~ itsdf from T.^iu,. Silagintlla from Ljc^.diu,. fam A#di.~. L„>,a and form H,t„„.. and .0 on, „ev.rthele,.
opposin,. the establishment of S.r.ly — M m m f m must fc that, . m M m become, stmpler and
distiucti'v. character, be ,.ugh. in small., and .mailer dileretiee, To appl, ,h. method of M t a t t . « W * <* »
the Coniferous seems to me utiphilosophical."
This was Dr Lindley's view in 1S60 1 but we are not sure that, before his death, his views had not
undergone a material change: not, perhaps, as regards the principles he enunciates, which are certainly
sound, but as regards the generic dismemberments of Conifers in general. In a criticism upon one of the
earlier numbers of our present work, he said that he regretted that we had maintained the subdivision Picea
as distinct from Abies, and we have often heard him in conversation stoutly maintain their identity. It