816 ON THE SYNONYMY OF VARIOUS CONIFERS, 
The size and form of the cone, scales and bracts show that it is distinet, 
but it can scarcely be said that the leaves do. 
1857.—ABIES AMABILIS AND GRANDIS ? 
Next in order of date we have to notice the observations of Dr. 
Newberry on Abies grandis and amabilis, published in 1857, in the 
United States Reports of Explorations from the Mississippi to the 
Pacific. Не attempts to unravel the differences between Abies grandis 
and Abies amabilis, and gives figures of the characters which he supposes 
to belong to each species; but we have not been able to profit so much 
and the stomata of the leaf, Still we think we can recoguise both 
of the species which he announces as the representatives of these two 
species. The first (making allowance for not sufficiently careful descrip- 
tion on the above points) seems to be correctly referred to Douglas 8 
grandis. The form of the cone (see comparative table) is that of this 
species. Fig. 18 is a copy of his drawing of the scale and bract, and No. 
8 of the comparative table of seeds is a copy of his figure of the seed. 
The leaf is represented as emargiuate, and with a twisted peduncle, but 
without any reliable indication of other characters. 
From the same causes we cannot tell whether the other, which Dr. New- 
berry supposes to be Douglas's amabilis, really belongs to that species OT 
not. He gives no descriptive characters, and the figures are subject to 
the same objection as in the other species. The cone is drawn of only 
half its natural size, but when figured of its full dimensions (No. 5 of com- 
parative views of cones), we see that it is about the size of Douglas’ 
amabilis, but not quite of the same shape. Fig. 19 is copied from his figure 
Ld 
y 
Fig. 18.— Scale and brat. Fig. 19.— Scale and bract. Fig. 20.—Leaf. , 
(Copied from Newberry's fig. (Copied from Newberry's (Copied from Newberry 8 
of his supposed A. grandis.) fig. of his supposed A. fig. of A. amabilis.) 
amabilis.) 
of the scale and bract ; and certainly, if they are strictly correct, they do 
not represent Douglas's amabilis. If they are to be taken as mere hazy 
resemblances, they may pass for it. His remarks correspond well with 
