296 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1884. 



there were some who regarded one as but a variety of the other. 

 But there were other distinctions : The cones were not quite the 

 same, and the seeds being very different in size and outline, so 

 that one could readily separate the seeds if mixed together. 

 There was in fact a whole series of distinctions, full3^ as great as 

 we could find in many well-recognized species, and which fully 

 entitled the two forms to full specific rank ; though in the face 

 of the evident facts that they are derivations of one original 

 parentage. Indeed, it was well known that when a plant changed 

 its character in one respect, it must do so in others ; plants in 

 some climates annual, would become perennial or suffrutescent in 

 others. The cotton-plant w^as a familiar example. In such cases 

 the foliage and other characters varied from those connected with 

 the annual form, and from this fact some botanists had regarded 

 Gossypium herbaceum and Gossypium arboreum as distinct 

 species. In the case of these two species of Finus, the one which 

 could not develop its ph3dlodes with two separate individuals, 

 would of necessity' present some peculiarities in the scales of the 

 cone, as these were, morphologically, but transformed phyllodes. 

 Under morphological laws, that which affected the leaves ought 

 to affect the carpels or other parts of fructification which were 

 modified from them. 



The true position of the species in development is that Pinus 

 edulis had the highest rank. In raising both species from seed 

 there was no difference whatever between the seedlings during 

 the first season. In these young and delicate plants, true leaves 

 were perfectly developed ; these were flat, linear lanceolate, and 

 of a deep glaucous hue. Pinus edulis assumed stout vigorous 

 branches the second year ; then the true leaves were suppressed, 

 a portion only being adnate with the stem forming a sort of 

 cushion, or as bud-scales, or bracts under tiie scales of the cone, 

 from the axis of which the ph3dlodes — secondary leaves, or 

 bundles of leaves of some authors — spring. In Pinus monophylla 

 only a few branches made phyllodes the second year, and he had 

 plants which were ten years old from the seed, wliich continued 

 to bear branches with true leaves almost equall3^ with those 

 bearing phyllodia. The monophyllous branches were never as 

 strong as those from Pinus edulis, and in ten years a plant of 

 Pinus edulis would be double the size of Pinus monophtjlla. 

 Assuming, as we might, that the tv/o had one parentage, we saw 

 that the one had less vigor of growth ; it retained more of its 

 juvenile characteristics, and retained them longer than the other; 

 and it never reached the power of development that Pinus edulis 

 had attained. We may say, with confidence, that Pinus mono- 

 phylla s\iTiing from the same parentage as Pinus edulis, find became 

 permanently different thi-oughout, b&ing subjected to condi- 

 tions unfavorable to a full development. It would appear that 

 the soil and climate of Nevada were not favorable to the usual 

 development of Pinus edulis, and hence, through the long course 



