182 THE CORSICAN PINE. 
The foliage is also of a more silvery hue, with less inclination to 
be tufty or massed, and the tiers of branches much further apart, 
this being due to the quicker rate of growth. The cones of Laricio 
are much smaller, less spiny, and also less persistent than those of 
the Austriaca, and seldom stand so erect. 
To the French great credit is due for having first drawn attention 
to the value of Pinus laricio as a timber tree, for as early as the 
time of Louis XVI. it was used for various purposes in ship- 
building, such as for beams, flooring, and planking. In 1788 an 
investigation into the tree and the quality of its timber was set on 
foot, and two engineers were sent out by the Administration of the 
Marines to examine the principal forests in Corsica. Later on, in 
1814, the French Government, who appear to have always highly 
appreciated the pine, appointed M. Thouin to draw up a report on 
the cultivation and general management as well as value of the 
tree for economic purposes. 
Although introduced to this country as early as 1759, few trees 
of the Zaricio have attained a greater age than sixty years. This is 
attributable to the great scarcity of seeds, which, even so late as 
1822, could not be procured in sutlicient quantity for planting the 
royal forests of France, and which at that time led to many 
thousands of the Laricio being grafted on the Scots fir. The largest 
specimen of the Lavicto in this country is believed to be one at 
Kew, which probably is one of those introduced in 1759, and would 
therefore be about 125 years old. In 1838 Loudon figured this tree, 
it being at that time well branched to the ground, and about 85 
feet high. Selby, in his “ Forest Trees,” published in 1842, men- 
tions the same tree as being then 90 feet in height. It is now 88 
feet in height, with a girth of stem at 3 and 5 feet, of 8 feet 11 
inches and 8 feet 9 inches, respectively. At widest part the spread 
of branches is from 55 to 60 feet. The above measurements, taken 
October 29, 1884, were kindly furnished me by Mr Nicholson, of 
Kew, so that they may be relied upon as correct. 
It may seem strange that the tree has decreased in height by 
2 feet since Selby wrote in 1842; but this may be accounted for by 
one of the following suppositions—either that the tree lost its 
leader after being measured by Selby, or that the height he recorded 
was simply a guess. The latter is hardly probable, as Loudon, who 
figured the tree four years previous to Selby, gives it as being then 
85 feet in height,* or 5 feet less than when recorded in 1842 by 
* Loudon says, ‘‘ between 80 and 90 feet high.” See vol. iv., page 2205, 
of Arbor. et Fruti. 
