812 ON THE SYNONYMY OF VARIOUS CONIFERS. 
Lambert's previous publication. Still less сап Loudon’s be received as 
of any faith in judgment, for one-half of his figures belong to Lambert's 
species, and the other half to Lindley’s, and the whole of his description 
to Lambert's, Undoubtedly, therefore, as a question of priority, the 
name 4. grandis ought to be reserved to Lambert's. Unfortunately 
the name has, by the tradition of thirty years, come to be so thoroughly 
identified with Douglas's grandis, that to alter it now would be attended with 
the greatest inconvenience. We suppose, however, that to allow authors 
an arbitrary and discretionary power to break the laws of priority when- 
ever it may seem to them expedient, would be attended with more serious 
injury to seience than an occasional reversal and uprooting of an old and 
well-established name; and therefore we bow to the law, and adopt Lam- 
bert's species as the type for grandis. 
But we have not yet done with the confusion attending them. Douglas's 
two species are both accounted for by Lambert and Lindley's descrip- 
tions of their respective grandis. Whilst these were still supposed to be 
the same, however, Douglas's amabilis seemed unrepresented, and Loudon 
Fig. 9 
Fig. 7 upper side. 2^ 
Fig. 8 under side, of leaf of A. amabilis. 
(Drawn from specimen at Elvaston.) 
We have seen that these do show sufficiently char istic features, but 
the advantage which Mr, "pd ор араң ct for 
. 
