BULLETIN 
OF THE 
TORREY BOTANICAL CLUB. 
Vol- XIUl New York, August, 1885. [No. 8. 
Pinus edulisand P, monophylla. — On reading Dr. Newberry's 
note on these trees (Bulletin, p. 50), it occurred to me that I might 
have placed more value on the monophyllous character as a specific 
distinction than it deserved. Having plants of both of. some age 
growing on my grounds, and growing within a few score feet of each 
other, I thought to watch them closely this summer. The result is, 
I think Dr. Newberry's views correct. The observation led to some 
interesting facts which may be worth placing on record. 
Dr. Newberry believes the P. monophylla is " a somewhat dwarfed 
and depauperate form " of eduHs. That this is correct is evidenced 
by the tendency to produce free leaves, which, as I showed in my 
paper on Adnation in Coniferse, published some years ago in the Pro- 
ceedings of the Chicago meeting of the American Association for 
the Advancement of Science, is evidence of a decline in vegetative 
vigor and attendant on depauperate forms. 
In closely examining the young monophyllous growth early in the 
season, I found that by a light tap at the apex it divided and gave 
the two leaves of P. edulis. It is evident that the plant is only mo- 
nophyllous from the want of power, by reason of its depauperate 
condition, to burst the membrane enveloping the fascicle in its early 
stages. It would scarcely do to claim a specific character for a con- 
dition wMiich depends for its existence on a membrane so slight as this. 
It occurred to me then to examine the young growth of other species 
of pine, and I think I may almost say that, *' as a general rule, all 
pines are monophyllous in the early stages of growth "; at least the 
divisions of the fascicle are held together by a thin membrane which 
is ruptured by a tendency to recurve from the apex. The extreme 
point of the fascicle is free, and, with the tendency to recurve, divis- 
ion follows. On a vigorous specimen of white pine, about seven 
feet high, I found a very large number of monophyllous bundles — 
as many as ten on one growing branch. A light tap on the apex, as 
in the case of Pinus monophylla, separated the sections. It was my 
thought to send the results of my observations then, but concluded 
to wait to see how long these bundles would retain the monophyllous 
character. Little by little they split apart, till to-day there is but one 
left, so far as I can find. It is evident that, with a slightly weakened 
power to expand from the apex, the white pme might present a mo- 
nophyllous form. J . 1. V 
Another interesting fact, though not connected with the mam 
purpose of this note, is that the free apex of the monophyllous bun- 
die shows it to be composed of three leaves, each a tnfle shorter 
