INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 31 



may 



are innumerable 



away are observers by dominant ideas as to the form and 

 habit that plants should assume, that similar differences in 

 other species are seldom put down to a similar power of vary- 



i priori they should be, but are taken as 

 difference. To this proneness to attach 



1m 



portance to variation, we owe the separation of Pinus Pin- 

 draw from Webbiana, P. Khutrow or P. Morinda from P. 

 Smithiana ; nor is this all, for species have been made of the 

 commonest English plants which grow in the Himalaya, be- 



t when compared with 



plants 



same 



them 



of the several hundred European plants found in India, there 



many, more 



new names given to it. 



to 



in 



ty, etc. of woods, demand 



very unvarying dia 



gnostic 



That some woods are always 

 r worthless, is incontestable ; but 

 of very remarkable hardness or 

 very unusually marked quality; 

 Sissoo, Sal, etc., each vary much 



in quality, whilst the wood of other kinds is singularly va- 

 riable, as of the Indian Pines, Oaks, Laurels, Ebonies, etc. 

 With regard to the Pines, this is very much to be attributed 

 to the soil and climate, and consequent rapidity of growth 



are bo sportive in the Deodar, that we have seen many specimens of it that are 



as unlike what we caU the typical Deodar, as they are unlike the Cedar ; and 

 others that approach the latter very closely. There are very slight differences 



Algerine 



proving 



from the fact of the Algerine Cedar, in this respect, approaching the Himalay 



three 



