45 
P. Cubensis, Grisebach (Mem. Am. Acad. viii, Pt. 2, 530, 1863). 
The first account of this Southern and West Indian pine is by 
Stephen Elliott, who considered it a variety of the common Lob- 
lolly Pine, calling it Pinus Tada, var. heterophylla, (Sketch Bot. 5S. 
C. and Ga. ii. 636, 1824). It was imperfectly known to Elliott, 
who observed it only in Georgia, its later-discovered geographical 
range not being known then, although he well recognized its dis- 
tinctness among the other mainland pines. His description lacks 
any mention of the cones, showing that he had not observed their 
very distinct appearance, yet his characterization of male flowers, 
leaves, bark, wood, and habitat, points unquestionably to the so- 
called Cuban Pine. Fortunately, the varietal name heterophylla 
is most fitting in its application to this pine, a marked feature of 
the species being that its leaves occur two and three in a sheath 
on the same branch. Since, therefore, the insular Pinus Cubensis 
and mainland forms are now known to be the same; there appears 
to be no good reason for not reinstating Elliott’s original varietal 
Name in specific rank. Dr. Engelmann did not hesitate to cite 
Elliott’s name as an equivalent of his own, later, P. E//ottit (Trans. 
St. Louis Acad. iv. 186, t. I, 2, 3, 1879), which in now to be con- 
sidered a synonym of Grisebach’s older P. Cudbensis. The name 
for the Cuban Pine would then become P. heterophylla (Ell.) =P. 
Teda var. heterophylla, ENiott (1. c., 1824) =P. Cubensis, Grisebach 
(l. c., 1863)= P. Cubensis, var. terthocarpa, Wright (in Griseb. Cat. 
Pl. Cub, 217 (1866)= P. Elfottii, Engelmann (I. c., 1879). 
Abies magnifica, Murray, (Proc. Royal Hort. Soc. Lond. iii. 318, 
ee ee 1863.) Murray seems to have published in 1860 another 
name for this species, A. campylocarpa, three years earlier than the 
now generally accepted A. magnifica. It is desirable if possible to 
reinstate the older A. campylocarpa, but the foundation upon which 
it rests appears to be insecure. The leaves described under A. 
campylocarpa might belong equally well to the closely related A. 
nobilis ; but the length of the cone noted excludes all other asso- 
Ciated species. The inference then to be drawn from the fact that 
no mention is made under A. campylocarpa of conspicuously ex- 
Serted bracts (common to A. nodilis) points circumstantially to A. — a 
magnifica as the only fir to which Murray could have applied his _ 
name. The Brlcertainty, however, seems too dere to warrant a 
