186 Rheit (öken 
details may read the papers cited below, but there are certain state- 
ments or queries that must be challenged by any one at all familiar 
with the history of Botany. 
That Pinus balsamea L. (Sp. Pl. 1002, 1753) represents two species 
is agreed to by Rehder and Farwell, for the references to Ray, Pluke- 
net and Gronovius bring into that concept of the species, Tsuga 
- canadensis. 
It is well known, however, that Linnaeus never intended that the 
synonymy cited should be considered as necessarily belonging to the 
plant under which it was given, but that it was possible that such was 
the case. This view has been held for many years by Scandinavian 
botanists. “Synonyma paucissima in Evroparts plantis adhibui, 
contentus C. Bauhino & Iconographo praestantiore; in Exoticis vero 
plura, quum difficiliora minusque trita sint.” (L. Sp. Pl. ed. Intr.). 
.. -neque in multis synonymis, sed in genuinis differentiis specificis 
constat artis robur.” (L. Mant. 2: Praef. 1771.) 
The synonyms given by Linnaeus should therefore be valued as they 
were by him and no more. In the second edition of his Species 
Plantarum, Linnaeus establishes a new species Pinus canadensis, 
which from all appearances is taken out of Pinus balsamea. The new 
species is evidently based upon the plant of Gronovius ! as described. 
“Abies foliis solitariis confertis obtusis membranaceis.” . .. .Clayt. n. 
547. Linnaeus also cites Abies foliis piceae brevioribus, conis parvis 
biuncialibus laxis. Mill dict. t. 1, which is the plant now called Picea 
canadensis (Mill.) BSP. 
In discussing Pinus balsamea, Mr. Farwell argues as follows: “ Dur- 
ing the decade (1753-1763) above referred to Miller published and de- 
scribed under the old style of nomenclature four species of this group 
and later illustrated at least one of them, the White Spruce. These 
publications of Miller brought the species prominently before Linnaeus 
who readily recognized the claims of the White Spruce to specific rank 
and on the strength of Miller’s publications, accorded it such as Pinus 
canadensis in the second edition of the Species Plantarum. Rehder 
claims that the specific name in Pinus Balsamea is indicative of what 
Linnaeus meant and furthermore that it shows Linnaeus did not get 
all his information regarding the Balsam Fir from the Hemlock 
synonyms cited under it. Does not the same reasoning apply when 
considering P. canadensis? Or will Mr. Rehder deny that it does 
1 Flora Virginica, p. 191. 1743. 
