170 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CANADIAN INSTITUTE. 



The beautiful evergreen coniferous trees called " spruces," form a 

 marked feature of the wild foi'est lands of the Canadian Dominion, 

 especially in the Atlantic maritime districts, and in the tracts of 

 country lying around the great lakes. The spruces are valued, not 

 only for their large yields of useful lumber, applicable to so many 

 purposes of life on land and sea, and for the summer shade and 

 winter shelter which, as living trees, they afford our dwellings, but 

 they are likewise regarded with interest, and as having some import- 

 ance, from scientific points of view. How far the differences in struc- 

 ture and habit presented by the several species, and their aberrant or 

 so-called intermediate forms, are to be regai-ded as indicative of 

 genetic differences, or may be accounted for by the mere effects of 

 past or present external conditions, is a question of more than inci- 

 dental intei-est. It naturally leads to a comparison of these ti-ees 

 with their allies in other parts of the northern hemisjihere, far beyond 

 the range of the present Canadian forest, immense as it is, and to the 

 consideration of other facts bearing upon their probable ancestry, in 

 regard to which, however, the results, so far, are insulBcient to 

 warrant satisfactory conclusions. 



These trees, and their extra-Canadian allies, have been variously 

 described by botanists, at different times, under the several generic 

 names : Pinus, Abies, Ficea. Linneeus, upon whose system our 

 nomenclatui-e is founded, embraced under Pinus : the true pines, the 

 Lebanon cedar, the larch, the silver (or balsam) fir, and the hem- 

 lock. In selecting specific names for the silver fir and spruce, he 

 adopted those used by Pliny and other classical writers, who called 

 the spruce Picea, and the silver fir Abies. But he unfortunately 

 ti-ansposed these names, calling the spruce Pinus Abies, and the silver 

 fir F. Picea. This opened the way for much confusion, for when the 

 old aggregate genus Pinus came to be successively divided up int i 

 segregate genera, and the classical names were adopted as generic 

 ones, choice had to be made between two courses, — either to apply 

 these names so as to denote the trees intended by the classical writers, 

 or to use them, at variance with classical usage, in accordance with the 

 Linntean nomenclature. As has just been indicated, succeeding 

 botanists separated the true pines, and other mai'ked groups of the 

 Linnfean genus Pinus, into separate genei'a ; at first the spruces and 



