400 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CALIFORNIA 



sempervirens was included in the new genus of Endlicher. So then, the true 

 scientific position of the Big Trees was first determined by members of the 

 California Academy of Natural Sciences. At the time of the presentation of 

 these specimens, an English collector of plants and seeds, Mr. William Lobb, 

 saw them, and having experience enough to know that they belonged to a 

 species new to the gardeners, immediately started for the grove and obtained 

 cones, wood and foliage, which he carried with him to England in the fall of 

 1853. Dr. Lindley hastily described these as Wellingtonia gigantea in the 

 Gardener's Chronicle for December 1853. 



In the meantime Drs. Kellogg and Behr pursued their studies of the great 

 tree, and at length being convinced that there was no generic difference between 

 it and the Taxodium sempervirens (now Sequoia sempervirens) instituted the 

 species Taxodium giganteum, described in the Proceedings of the Cal. Acad. 

 Nat. Sciences, May 7th, 1855, Vol. I, page 53. 



Previous to this, however, Seemann, in Bonplandia, 3, p. 27, January 15th, 

 1855, described it under the term of Sequoia Wellingtonia. Mr. Seemann 

 gives his reasons at length in the Magazine of Natural History, 3d Series, Vol. 

 3, p. 164, for discarding the genus Wellingtonia of Lindley, and says: "Dr. 

 Torrey was undoubtedly the first who determined the true systematic position 

 of the tree." Now this is an error, for Dr. Torrey's publication is dated in 

 August, 1855 ; whereas Drs. Kellogg and Behr's appeared May 7th, 1855. 



The principal thing to be determined in this matter now is, as to the name 

 and author, for these must accompany each other ; shall it be : 

 Sequoia gigantea Endlicher, May, 1847 ; 

 Wellingtonia gigantea Lindley, December, 1853 ; 

 Sequoia Wellingtonia Seemann, January 15th, 1855 ; 

 Taxodium giganteum Kellogg and Behr, May 7th, 1855 ; or 

 Sequoia gigantea Torrey, August, 1855? 

 There are a number of other names made use of and referred to by Seemann, 

 Murray and others ; but as they come to us without the least scientific authority, 

 they ought not to be considered. 



Dr. Lindley's genus falls to the ground almost by common consent. I will 

 refer here to a communication from Prof. Brewer, late of the geological survey 

 of this State. Before he left San Francisco, he sent Dr. W. J. Hooker one of 

 the large photographs of the " Grizzly Giant," one of the big trees in the 

 Mariposa grove ; he had written to Prof. Brewer, asking about " the Welling- 

 tonia, Washingtonia, I care not what you call it." In Prof. Brewer's answer, 

 he told him that he (the Prof.) did care what he called it, and also that it was 

 not a new genus, but a Sequoia. Dr. Hooker, in his answer to this, says : " I 

 heartily agree with you in all you say about the big tree ; it has now produced 

 good fruit in our gardens, and is as true a Sequoia as can be, and should have 

 no other name." So here we have high authority for discarding Lindley's 

 Wellingtonia. Yet this only settles the question as to the generic term ; Dr- 

 Hooker's opinion thus far has only given us Sequoia. 

 The next claimant in point of priority is Dr. Seemann, who rightly refers it to 



