420 SKETCH OF THE CONIFERS OF JAPAN. 



*we shall endeavour to decipher that species ; all that con- 

 cerns us now is to show that the tree from Foo-chow-foo, 

 figured in Paxton's Flower Garden and in the Flore des Serres, 

 is not it. These two figures are so unlike, that unless we had 

 the positive assurance of the describers, no one would suppose 

 that they could be meant for the same thing. Fortunately, there 

 is a genuine specimen of the species, sent by Fortune, preserved 

 in the British Museum, which enables us not only to reconcile 

 their discrepancies, or rather to point out where they are right and 

 ■where they are wrong, but also to give a more detailed descrip- 

 tion of the species than has yet been done. 



The figures of the leaves are correct in both the drawings 

 above referred to. The phyllulse and pulvini can scarcely be said 

 to be given in either. The figure of the cone from Fortune's 

 drawing is probably correct, with this qualification, that the tooth 

 of the bract is represented as cylindrical, like a canine tooth, 

 whereas it should be flat ; and we can scarcely suppose it to have 

 been of the same purple blue colour as the scales, although from 

 the dried specimens we learn that it has been of a rich purple. 



The figure of the cone in Paxton's Flower Garden is repre- 

 sented as growing pendent instead of erect (an error doubtless 

 attributable to the belief that it was identical with Siebold's tree). 

 It is thin instead of thick; and the tooth or midrib to the 

 bracts is omitted, whereas there is in this, as in every other bract 

 which we have seen, a projecting tooth. 



Next, as to its difference from A. Jezoensis. The figures 

 given of natural size being different from those magnified, it may 

 be that the worthy Dutchman has confounded two species together, 

 but as his description agrees with the magnified figures, we take 

 them to be the true representation of ^. Jeezonsis, The coloured 

 natural size drawing must either be dismissed as inaccurate, which 

 from its disconformity with the description it probably is, or must 

 be regarded as belonging to a totally different species, which 

 Jezoensis may possibly be Fortune's tree. The pulvini of Sie- 

 bold's A. Jezoensisy as already mentioned, are projecting as in 

 those of A. Alcocqniana (see p. 437 of this paper), making 

 the twigs very rough. Those of the Foo-chow-foo tree, which, 

 for distinction, I shall name Picea Fortuni, are not projecting, 

 but flat, leaving the twigs smooth. The phyllulfe are nume- 

 rous in the one, few in the other. The leaves of A. Jezoensis, 

 as represented in Siebold's magnified figure, are straight with 

 parallel sides ;' those of P. Fortuni are sabre-shaped and ex- 

 panded. The point of the leaf of -4. Jezoensis is produced into 



