ON THE SYNONYMY OF VARIOUS CONIFERS. 315 
mistake that both No. 393 and No. 409 were issued to the subscribers to that 
association as 4. lasiocarpa, which has, no doubt, added greatly to the doubts 
and difficulties which prevail regarding Jeffrey's species. In point + fact, 
however, No, 393 is Douglas's grandis, and No. 409 is the lasioca 
Fig. 15, which is a representation of the scale and bract of the мењ 
сопе of 898, from the Edinburgh Royal Botanical Museum, at once settles 
the question that it is Douglas's grandis (our amabilis The specimens 
supplied to the.Kew collection are not quite so readily disposed of. They 
bear a couple of small cones, of which No. 9, in the plate of the compara- 
tive sizes of the cones, is the profile; and if we had not the key to them by 
knowing that they really аге No. 998 of Jeffrey, we might have trouble 
in identifying them. But on looking at them with this key, we see that 
they have all the marks of immaturity ; the scales are thin and narrow in 
the lip, and the seeds obviously only beginning to enlarge. 
amabilis, n 
of Jeffrey collection 
(Drawn from в en in 
Fig. 15. — Scale 2 bract Kew Museum.) Fig. 17. —Seale and braet of 
of A, А, lasiocarpa (Balf.). 
(Drawn from Јева №. (Copied from Dr. Greville’s 
393 in Edin. R. Bot. Mus.) g., verified and corrected.) 
Fig. 16 shows the bract and the outside of the scale, which is blackish- 
brown or bistre-coloured, purplish towards the base; inst bract is yellow 
towards the edges, purple towards the base, and has ts jagg 
formed on the same plan as the mature bract, but dis jags less pro 
nounced. On referring to the comparative table of magnified bracts at the 
end of this paper, it will be seen that it has the general characters of a 
bract of Douglas's gr andis not fully developed. 
Fig. 17 is the bract and scale of Balfour's lasiocarpa copied from Gre- 
ville’s drawing. If we compare it with the bract and scale of Lambert’s 
grandis, it will be seen that in Lambert's drawing the terminal tooth is 
short and nearly absent, and that the bract is there coloured grey instead 
of purple. The form of the seed is similar, but Lambert's is larger; 
Lambert’s cone, too, was larger, as may be seen by looking at the compa- 
rative table of outlines of cone. These differences are so trifling, that it 
may perhaps be thought that they are the same species. But the differ- 
ence in the foliage forbids this ‘iy io None of Jeffrey's seeds have 
produced the foliage shown in fi 
On the contrary, it is so like p of A. amabilis pb ы, 
that it is scarcely possible to distinguish them; the lea 
distichally, as in it, and, like it, have no stomata on the upper sedie of c 
leaf, and the same number of rows on the under side р а placed. 
