SKETCH OP THE COKIFEKS OF JAPAN. Gil 



>" 



lines as their length, and Mr. A^eitch's are from 10 to 18— suffi- 

 ciently near, perhaps, to satisfy ordinary accuracy in description. 

 The figures of the seeds given by Siebold show the wing con- 

 siderably narrower than it is in Mr, Veitchs specimens; but the 

 edge of the wing is figured as somewhat rubbed, and in the 

 figure showing the seed in its position inside the scale it is broader. 

 The bract of the scale as figured by Siebold (fig. 160), although 

 not consistent with the proper and fully-developed raucronate 

 form (fig. 1C7), is the form usually seen, or that wKich from 

 detrition most usually occurs. In other respects Siebold's 

 description and figures correspond with Mr. Vcitch's specimens. 



Another point of some interest to determine regarding this 

 species is, whether it may not be the Japanese Larch noticed by 

 Ksempfer, which has been supposed by Dr. Lindley and other 

 authors to be the species from north-east China, described by 

 Lindley under the name of Abies Kmnpferu 



Kaempfer's riddle lies in the following words : — " Seosi vulgo 

 Kara Maatz Nomi^ Larix Conifera, nucleis pyramidatis, foliis 

 deciduis." 



Siebold makes no allusion to Ksempfer's work in relation to 

 this species. His Japanese synonym oi Kara Mats above quoted 

 may, therefore, be relied on as genuine, and not an inconsiderate 

 adoption of a name given by Ksempfer. That synonym is ob' 

 viously the same name as Ksempfer's Kara Maatz Nomi. Nowi, 

 ■we learn from Siebold elsewhere (see Abies Jiomolepis)^ is tho 

 Japanese for Abies, Maatz again, we are told by Ksempfer, is 

 the generic name for Pimts; and Siebold informs us, in regard 

 to the very species in question, that Kara Mats means Pine 

 from Kara, which he says is the Japanese name for North-easteru 

 Asia. Kaempfer's '"■ Kara Maatz Nomi'' would, therefore, seem 

 to mean '* Pine of the fir section from North-eastern Asia." 

 This may either be a descriptive name given by the Japanese 

 botanists, or it may be the common designation in ordinary use 

 among the Japanese traceable originally to this derivation, but 

 ceasing to have a descriptive meai^ing. 



The latter seems the most natural assumption, unless there 

 should be anything in either description wholly irreconcileable 

 with the other. Lindley thought that there was, for when, in 

 1 854, specimens of another species were sent by Fortune from 

 North-east China, he took it for Ksempfer's species, and adopting 

 Lambert's name, described it as Abies Ka;m]]feri, remarking that 

 Siebold's Abies Leptolepis, although bearing the same Japanese 



