48 BOTANY. 



these trees the first agrees well with the descriptions of P. grandis, given by Douglas and 

 Nutall, and is the only tree which I saw in the region where Douglas obtained his specimens 

 to which their descriptions could be applied. I have, therefore, no doubt that the western 

 balsam fir is P. grandis. Of his P. amabilis Douglas left no description, sending home only 

 the cones and leaves. Of these, good figures and a brief description are given by Loudon, 

 (Arboret, 4, p. 2342.) 



As will be seen from the figures now published, (fig. ,) from specimens obtained by myself, 

 that there is an entire correspondence between Douglas P. amabilis and the &quot;silver fir&quot; of 

 the Cascade mountains, and I have, therefore, regarded them as identical. 



The difficulty which botanists have found in distinguishing Douglas P. grandis from 

 P. amabilis has apparently arisen from the want of a full description of P. amabilis, such as 

 Douglas alone could give. Lambert also states that the cones of P. grandis are 6| inches long 

 by 3^ broad, undoubtedly a mistake, as there is not a tree growing where Douglas obtained his 

 P. grandis which has large unornamented cones, except P. amabilis. P. nobilis is found in the 

 same region, but the large bract-covered cones of this species could never be confounded with 

 either of the two species in question. 



The figures of the cones of P. grandis, given by Loudon, (Arboret, 4, p, 2341,) are certainly 

 considerably unlike that which I now give (fig. 16) of the cone of what I have considered as 

 P. grandis ; and if they are accurately copied from Douglas specimens, and those specimens are 

 well preserved, I should be, perhaps, inclined to believe that Douglas had found on the Colum 

 bia a fir not now known there, and that he had left unnoticed the tree which, after the Douglas 

 spruce, is the most abundant. Every one who has attempted to preserve the perishable 

 cones of Picea is aware of the great difficulty with which they are made to retain their 

 perfect forms, and I think that the cone given by Loudon (1. c., fig. 2246) bears evidence of 

 distortion or composition. The arrangement of the scales in vertical rows is not in accordance 

 with nature s laws of phyllotaxis, at least in the pines, spruces, or firs ; and the descriptions of 

 the cones of P. grandis, given by Loudon (1. c.) and Lindley, (Penny Cyclop. Abies,) agree 

 perfectly with my specimens and the figure now given, which was made not alone from pre 

 served specimens but from drawings made in the field. 



The leaves figured by Loudon are represented as acute, while they are described to be obtuse 

 or emarginate. The seed and scale, also, as he gives them, are larger than would ever be 

 found in a cone but 3| inches long by 2 broad, and we may, therefore, suspect that, like the 

 leaves, it properly belongs to P. amabilis. 



The range of P. grandis is apparently very great. It is found in the Sierra Nevada, of Cali 

 fornia, down near the southern line of the State, and it is found -. at least as far north as the 

 British line. 



Dr. Bigelow (Bot. Whipple s Rep.} says the balsam fir of California is identical with P. 

 balsamea of the eastern States, but gives no other description of the tree, as it grows where he 

 observed it, than to note its dimensions far exceeding those of P. balsamea and the quality of 

 the timber furnished by it. While Dr. Bigelow s attainments as a botanist would give, with 

 me, great weight to his testimony, I cannot but suspect that, in this instance, he was misled 

 by the very apparent points of resemblance between the balsam firs of the east and west, and, 

 perhaps, had not an opportunity of examining the mature cones which furnish the best diag 

 nostic characters. In the Sierra Nevada, a few miles from the upper end of the Sacramento 

 valley, we found the western balsam fir growing in profusion and attaining a large size, but 



