ON THE SYNONYMY OF VARIOUS CONIFERS, 311 
5 is a copy of his figure of the scale and bract in the Horticultural 
Herbarium, and it will be seen that it is not “ ovate 
and acuminate,” as Lambert's, but “jagged and two- 
lobed,” as described by Lindley. To be sure, the latter 
adds, ** with an intermediate tooth,” while there is 
none in Loudon’s figure; but that tooth had no doubt 
been broken off in the specimen from which Loudon 
drew his figure. A central tooth or point is as rarely pie 5 — Seale an 
absent from а bract (which is merely a converted  bract of Abies ama- 
leaf) as is a point from a leaf; and in the present bilis. (Copied from 
case, when we find specimens subsequently received, mast 1. : 
in all other respects exactly the same, except in pos- 
sessing this tooth to the bract, we may safely assume that, as often happens, 
it had been broken off in Loudon’s specimens. If more proof were needed, 
it is to be found in the specimens of Loudon's А. «mabilis, which he says 
were so much alike to those of А. grandis, that he had been unable to dis- 
cover any difference, Specimens of scales, from Douglas's specimens, are 
preserved in Kew Museum, and they have the braet (fig. 9) in all respects 
exactly the same as Loudon's figure of the braet of Abies grandis, except 
that they have a central tooth, and are not so long. 
The bract in this species bears some distant resemblance to the 
conventional rays of lightning figured by artists in Jupiter’s hands, 
Tt is pale fawn-coloured, hard and shining, and looks as if it were brittle. 
As will be presently seen, this bract helps us over more than one style 
where the leaves fail us. 
As to the foliage of this species, we are able to speak with sufficient 
confidence, an original specimen of the twigs and leaves of Douglas's species 
being preserved in the Kew Herbarium. There are, so far as we can 
learn, no authentic seedling specimens of the tree raised from the seeds sent 
by Douglas, but there are a multitude of young plants all over the country 
raised from cuttings originally taken from the only plant that was 
reared. Мг. Barron, at Elvaston, gives us the following account of it :— 
“ The original plant of grandis raised from Douglas's seed (and the only 
one I could ever trace) fell into the hands of a nurseryman; I bought, 
I believe, the only cuttings raised from it.” We shall presently see that 
what was preserved at Chiswick as the original plant, was only a duplicate 
of Lambert’s grandis. The bark is reddish-brown, the leaves are not nu- 
merous nor placed close together, and are spread out distichally in a single 
row on each side of the twig, being twisted at the foot-stalk for this pu 
(fig. 6). There are no stomata on the upper side of the leaf (fig. 7), and about 
six rows on each side of the midrib on the under side (fig. 8). They are 
only slightly silvery beneath. The point of the leaf, on a careless inspec- 
tion, seems acute; looked at more carefully, there is a very slight noteh. 
Here then already, at the very commencement, we have two different 
species competing for the name of grandis. Which is to bear it? If же 
follow the well-established rules of priority of publication, Douglas's nomina- 
tion must go for nothing, for he never published it. It was noticed in 
the Companion to the Botanical Magazine, but without description. 
Dr. Lindley's cannot be adopted, for the name was already preoccupied by 
Li 
