ON THE SYNONYMY OF VARIOUS CONIFERS. Мы 
long time neutralised m an unfortunate жна of labels at Chiswick. 
Мг. Barron informs u 
“ Two specimens of. ja amabilis" (Lambert's grandis) “ grew in the 
Chiswiek Garden until lately : one was named grandis, and the other ama- 
bilis. Т joked Gordon about them in the presence of Glendinning. He 
held out for a time that they were distinct; when pressed to point out the 
difference, he admitted they were the same. I then asked him which name 
was right, and he seemed in doubt.” 
The truth is, that Loudon must have been describing from the cone of 
Lambert's grandis, and the bracts of Douglas’s grandis. This appears 
not only from his own statement, but by referrin 
а broken-down cone preserved at Kew as the amabilis of Douglas. 
Fig. 9 is copied from them, and it is obvious that the 
scale is that of Douglas's grandis. We cannot discover ,- 
that any entire cones of Douglas's collections remain. / = е 
His collections were purchased by the British Museum X 
at the sale of the Horticultural Society's eom 
but we can find no cones of this species in the collectio 
s to the name to be adopted for Douglas's noit Pi 9.—A. anshilis, 
species, we imagine that as Lambert has engrossed the 
name of grandis for amabilis, and Loudon has pub- (Drawn from Douglas’s 
lished both names with a proportion of the characters  *Pecimen at Kew 
of each in both descriptions, we may be allowed, with the view of making 
as little confusion as possible, to apply the name of amabilis to the portions 
of his latter description which belong to Douglas's grandis. It is in direct 
contradiction to both the discoverer and the author's intention; but if 
admissible, it will still preserve the names grandis and amabilis to the two 
species which Douglas so designated, only reversing their application. 
1842.—ABIES LASIOCARPA. 
The next species which was described deir seid to pg was 
Abies lasiocarpa, by Hooker in his Flor. Bor. Amer. ii. 163. His d ri 
tion is very short, and made from imperfect ‘materials, he not having see 
a perfect cone. The most important point noticed in it is that the eva 
are “late obovati vir denticulati анаара" The speci- 
mens, such as they are, however, are preserved at Kew, and from them 
we have taken the following memoranda:—The twig has the leaves 
arranged as in A. amabilis (grandis of Douglas) ‘The leaf is linear 
(fig. 10 and fig. 10а magnified twice), narrower than in the ordinary 
specimens of that species, and usually terminates in а point, although 
sometimes a very trifling emargination may be seen (fig. 11). There area 
few stomata on the upper side in the middle towards the tip, arranging 
themselves somewhat in rows at the part where they are most numerous (fig. 
19), and on the under side there are about six rows of stomata on each side 
of the midrib (fig. 13). The stomata are very small; the leaf is twisted at 
the base, and the twist is rather long, The scales preservéd at Kew are 
small, but have the lip slightly thickened as if they were mature. Fig. 14 
represents one. The cones, judging from the size of the scales, cannot have 
been larger than 24 inches long and 1} inch broad. Тһе bract is slightly 
+ 
