164 Dr. B. Seemann on the Mammoth-tree of Upper California. 



to a paper of his, in ' Silliman's Journal/ on the subject, which 

 would naturally lead us to expect that the name had there been 

 published by him. But such is not the case, as a careful search 

 of the said journal, and a conversation with Dr. Torrey during 

 my last visit to New York (1857) enable me to state. The 

 first time that the name of Sequoia gigantea occurs in Dr. Torrey's 

 own writings is in the Report just quoted, where, after alluding 

 to Dr. Bigelow^s Report (not yet received in Europe ?) for a full 

 account of the tree, he says : — " We have shown that in this 

 tree, as in many species of Juniperus, the leaves are dimorphous ; 

 we have also proved that there is no generic distinction between 

 the two trees (viz. S. gigantea, Torrey, and S. sempervirens, 

 Endl.). The male aments of S. gigantea, which were not known 

 to Lindley and Hooker, prove to be in all respects like those of 

 S. sempervirens.'^ Torrey^s views were borne out by Decaisne in 

 a communication to the Botanical Society of France (Bull, de la 

 Soc. Bot. de France, i. p. 72, 1854). Finally, after examining 

 the specimens in the Museum at Kew, and some that had come 

 into my possession, I stated that IVellingtonia was a congener of 

 Sequoia sempervirens ('Bonplandia,' iii. p. 27, in adnot. Jan. 15, 

 1855), at the same time changing the name into Sequoia Wel- 

 lingtonia, Seem. The time has now arrived when it must be 

 decided which of the three names ( Wellingtonia gigantea, Sequoia 

 Wellingtonia, or Sequoia gigantea) is to be adopted. After 

 every doubt respecting the generic identity of the Redwood and 

 the Mammoth-tree has been dispelled, there cannot be two 

 opinions about the retention of the name Wellingtonia gigantea ; 

 it must be given up, and one of the others take its place. 

 My reasons for rejecting the specific name "gigantea" were to 

 avoid a possible confusion with that strange compound, the 

 Sequoia gigantea of Endlicher, which belongs, as a synonym, 

 partly to S. sempervirens, Endl., partly to Pinus (Abies) bracteata, 

 Don. Torrey, not taking this danger into consideration, retained 

 Lindley^s specific name, which, under any other circumstances, 

 would have been the only true course to follow. I am fully aware 

 that, by putting S. gigantea, Torrey (nee Endl. !), and S. gigantea, 

 Endl. (nee Torrey !), that danger may be guarded against, as is 

 done in numerous instances, and that my name would have no 

 chance of being adopted on that account alone. But it has, be- 

 sides, the recommendation of enjoying the right of priority ; for, 

 as 1 have stated, although Dr. Torrey was undoubtedly the first 

 who determined the true systematic position of the tree under 

 consideration, he did not publish his name until 1857, whilst 

 mine was published in January 1855. The synonymy of the 

 Mammoth-tree and its ally, the Redwood, will therefore stand 

 as follows : — 



