ON THE SYNONYMY OF VARIOUS CONIFERS. 203 
` Newberry failed to identify his species with ours; that he was not in 
ignorance of the latter is obvious, from his remarks on other species 
described by us in the same paper,— but, for our part, we have had no 
difficulty in at once recognising the species from Dr. Newberry's figures 
and descriptions. "The only cireumstance that throws any doubt upon 
itis the portrait which he has given of the tree, which is that of a stiff, 
heavy spruce, while its real character is that of a light and graceful 
Deodar. Butas in this respect the portrait is equally inconsistent with 
Dr. Newberry's own description as it is with ours, and with that sub- 
sequently given by Mr. Lobb, it may be set aside as of no moment, 
and to be ascribed to the fault of the artist who drew it. In fact, he 
gives portraits of several firs (4. grandis, Williamsonii, Douglasüi, and 
Menziesii), all so alike in the drawing, that any one of them might, with- 
out discovery, be substituted for that of another. Dr. Newberry's own 
words are, “ It forms a tree one hundred feet in height, of which the 
form is rather spreading and irregular, but remarkably graceful." Mr. 
Lobb, in some remarks published regarding it by Mr. Low of Clapton, 
in an advertisement in the “ Gardeners’ Chronicle,” in 1861, says: “ In 
habit of growth and general appearance, it much resembles the Deodar, 
but being more thickly branched and more densely clothed with foliage, 
itis by far a handsomer tree." ‘This exactly corresponds with a drawing 
of the tree which we received from Mr. William Murray. 
In the same “ Remarks” Mr. Lobb says: ‘‘ This noble tree was first 
discovered by Dr. Newberry, оп the Cascade range in Oregon, in lat. 
44° north. Some time after it was noticed by Murray, on Scot's 
Mountain in California, in lat. 41° 20’ north, long. 122° 37’ west.” 
It can matter nothing to any one, whether the tree is to be called 
Abies Hookeriana, or Abies Williamsonii, or whether our description, or 
Newberry's, was the first; but as experience has shown that the only 
way of avoiding confusion is to adhere to the rule of priority of publica- 
tion, we shall not allow our modesty to prevent us putting Mr. Lobb 
right. As the species was discovered by W. Murray in 1854, and 
published by us in April, 1855 (loc. cit.), while it was only discovered 
by Newberry in 1855-6, and not published until 1857 (loc. cit.), the 
priority of the name Hookeriana cannot be disputed. 
But although it is thus secure from absorption in that of Abies 
Williamsonii, it does not follow that it is to be retained. It may be 
something else previously named. Mr. Gordon, in his Pinetum, pro- 
poses to merge it in Abies Pattoniana, or, as he erroneously calls it, А. 
Pattonii. We shall next consider whether he is right or not under an 
inquiry into the synonymy of that species. 
IV. What is Автез PATTONIANA ? 
This species was introduced by the Edinburgh Oregon Botanical 
Association. They sent out a young collector named Jeffrey, in 1850, 
to explore British Columbia and Oregon, and in 1851 they received from 
him seeds of a species of fir which he found on the Mount Baker 
range of mountains, in lat. 49° north. Hesays: “It made its appear- 
ance at the point where 4. Canadensis (?) disappears, that is at an 
VOL. III. R 
