148 ОХ ТНЕ SYNONYMY OF VARIOUS CONIFERS. 
descriptions are to be disregarded altogether whenever an author takes it 
into his head that they are erroneous, it appeared impossible to regard 
these two treesas the same. It is, therefore, satisfactory to find, from the 
actual examination of the specimens, that the correctness of Bongard's 
description is confirmed. * 
The answer.to the inquiry with which we started therefore, viz., 
cone closely resembling that of Mr. Veitch’s Japanese larch (Larix 
Japonica), but with the leaves of a Hemlock Spruce. It has not yet 
been introduced into this country. 
п.м 
а, nor any other person's taxifolia, but is а new 
Species not yet named, for 
Автєѕ ALBERTIANA, 
in honourable memory of the lamented P 
President of the Royal Horticultural Societ 
у. 
It has’ never been described, nor has it ever been published under 
lia, although that name acquired а certain 
rince Consort, the late 
ready. It was used by Tournefort (Inst. 515), 
з 3rd edit. p. 350, and Hist. Arbr. її. 
579), for the Common Silver Fir (Picea pectinata). By other culti- 
.Vators it was applied to Picea Cephalonica (see Endlicher's Synopsis 
nif. 98). It was, moreover, used by Lambert for the Douglas Fir 
work on the Genus Pinus, 2nd edit. i. 58, 
h, for the same tree (Flor. Bor. Amer. ii. 
volume describes Abies Douglasii under its 
ni e of his Abies taxifolia obviously belongs to А. 
Douglasii, although the description and figures are imperfect from 
had been mislaid). 
After so many usages or misusages of the name, it will not do to 
increase the confusion by now applying it to Jeffrey's tree. A name 
fe, попе more fitting can be suggested by any 
7 * 1 
опе соппес!ей with the Horticultural Society than that of their deeply : 
lamented President the Prince Consort. 
i Ro 
$ Ц alone Hi 
ich have it in their power to bestow upon t the 
delight to honour, is now &pplied with mournful feb торно 4 
The tree itself may be considered 
