166 Rhodora [SEPTEMBER 
from three to eight with six about the general run. It will therefore 
be seen from the foregoing that the Linnaean detailed description of 
Pinus Balsamea is not only not characteristic, for the leaves may be 
entire and obtuse and the rows of stomata as low as three, but it is 
broad enough to include the leaves of what are now considered as 
four species included under two genera. Not only that but the real 
characters, found in the cones, upon which the genera and species 
are separated are not even touched upon by Linnaeus. The Linnaean 
description may, therefore, mean any one of two or more species and 
Pinus Balsamea Linn., as to the specific name, is the Balsam Fir; as 
to the description, an undefinable aggregate; and as to the synonyms, 
the Hemlock Spruce. 
Rehder claims that the Gronovian synonym, the Hemlock Spruce, 
is the type of Pinus canadensis Linn. because the Linnaean diagnosis 
“is taken nearly literally from the synonym of Gronovius." Further 
on he admits Abies canadensis Miller to be a new name for a different 
species because “ Miller does not quote Pinus canadensis Linnaeus as 
a synonym." Miller does not quote the binomial, it is true, but he 
does use the Linnaean specific name and he does use the Linnaean diag- 
nosis upon which Rehder lays so much stress and which “is taken 
nearly literally from the synonym of Gronovius. This shows as 
clearly as if " Miller “had expressly designated the Gronovian plant 
as the type of his species, that his" Abies canadensis “is based pri- 
marily on the plant described by Gronovius." In other words, if the 
Linnaean diagnosis is the type of Pinus canadensis to the exclusion 
of other matter not conspecific with it, the same must be true of 
Miller's Abies canadensis for the diagnosis and the specific name are 
the same in each and have the same origin thus making the two bino- 
mials synonymous even though Miller did not quote Pinus canadensis 
asasynonym. Rehder, therefore, fails to prove that Abies canadensis 
Miller is different from Pinus canadensis Linnaeus. Furthermore, 
since he insists that the Hemlock Spruce is the type of the latter it 
must also be the type of the former because the two, according to his 
own method of reasoning, have been proved to be synonymous. 
The fallacy is so evident that it needs no comment. 
Rehder doubts that Miller intended to transfer the Linnaean 
species from Pinus to Abies and that if he actually had such intention 
he misapplied the name under the laws of priority. The only law of 
priority that will apply here is the one giving the first author revising 
