observed in many localities in Greece, Thessaly and 



Macedonia, and the synonymy cited by Dr. btapf 



reflects well the confusing diversity of opinion which has 



prevailed as to their relative status, the extreme views 



varying from that of Heldreich, who has considered that 



four distinct species are involved, and that of Parlatore, 



who has not only treated all of them as forms of one 



tree, but has regarded the Greek Silver Fir as merely a 



variety of the common Silver Fir of Central Europe. It 



is clear that with the practical cultivator the view of 



Parlatore can find no support; the differences between 



any form of the Greek Silver Fir and A. pectinate joe 



such as to induce the conclusion that they cannot be 



specifically the same as the Silver Fir of our coUections 



But the view of Heldreich has been found as difficult to 



accept Practically all authors who have diseased the 



sublet whether as the result of study of herbarium 



matrfal, W of examples in ^™«^%£$% 

 natural forest association, either look on the G-reek Silver 

 F^asone rather plastic and unstable species or believe 

 themselves able to distinguish two definite torms. 

 Among authors who take the latter view there is, how- 

 ever! difference of opinion as to whether these two 

 Grtek Silver Firs be distinct species or only varieties of 

 one moreover, those authors who recognise two are by 

 no meTns unanimous as to the areas to be ass.gned to 

 ^r Unaer who was the first to deal with the problem, 

 had made ^acquaintance of Napier's original tree in 

 r^halonia and of the Mount Parnassos form, A. Affix*: 

 fn Fuboea' hTwas satisfied that the two are but local 

 modSo'ns of the same species. Boissier, on the other 

 hand recognised two species, A. ^«fom«r, confined to 



from Aehaia to Central Arcadia f^gJggS* 

 Silver Fir he treated as a sligut variety, y 



