J "_ 1 c ' -* fc- 



182 DH. MAXWELL T. MASTERS's CONTKIBUXrOXS 



and wide apart ; another would have its foliage twice as thick ; 

 one would hare long leaves, as in Lowiana.^ another quite near 

 it would have them only half the length ; and even in colour a 

 great difference was constantly to be seen — one would be of a 

 darker green, another yellowish-olive, a third nearly white, and 



so on." 



Sargent, writing in the Gard. Chron, January 2, 1886, says : 

 ** A, grandisj as it grows in Vancouver's Island, looks certainly 

 different enough from A. concoJor of Southern Colorado ; but 

 there are no real characters to distinguish them, except the 

 length of the leaves and the number and position of the stomata, 

 not very valuable or constant indications. The cones and the 

 leaf-structure of the two species are identical, their bark does 

 not differ more than might be expected in individuals of the 

 same species scattered over such an immense territory and sub- 

 jected to such different climatic influences. I have traced this 

 species, or these species, from Vancouver's Island, inland at the 

 north to the extreme eastern limits of their distribution in that 

 direction, the western base of the Rockv Mountains, and Mon- 



tana. 



"Washingt 



and California to Arizona and Colorado. Por garden purposes 

 it will be wise, perhaps, to keep these species separate, and even 

 to admit A, Lowiana^ whicli is only the A. concolor of the Cali- 

 fornian Sierra Nevada ; but, looking at the matter broadly, I am 

 inclined to believe that these different forms — A. grandis at the 

 north, A. Lowiana or lasiocarpa in California; A, concolor in 

 Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado — distinct enough in 

 many minor respects, but not to be distinguished by essential 

 characters, must all be referred to one species of immense geo- 

 graphical distribution." 



Taking the broad view of species, the opinion of those best 

 qualified to give an opinion from having seen the species in their 

 native haunts is the more worthy of acceptance ; for, however 

 great the differences that are observable in particular instances, 

 they are not sufl&cient to invalidate the probability that they may 

 have sprung, at no very remote period relatively, from a common 



source. 



ort 



on as a compromise justifiable on the grounds of practical utility. 

 As it will be seen, it assumes the specific distinction of ^. grandis 

 and of A. concoJoTy referring the long-leaved form Lowiana, and 



