86 



resemble those of the larch, but the cones, which 

 are more important, and the bark, are more like 

 the fir. 



C. Libaiii is believed to have been introduced 

 about the end of the Seventeenth Century. The 

 earliest records relating to it are to be found in 

 the Bible, but doubts have been expressed of the 

 cedar there referred to being the true cedar of 

 Lebanon. In some instances, it would appear 

 that the interpretation must be taken to mean 

 " a fragrant smelling wood," but where the 

 material is described as coming from the cedars 

 of Lebanon, such as in the building of Solomon's 

 temple, we see no reason to doubt the statement. 

 It is urged that the wood is spongy, and unsuited 

 for the purposes ascribed to it ; but we have no 

 knowledge of the quality of the cedar wood from 

 Lebanon. We believe that none exists. From 

 all accounts the distridl has been for many years 

 denuded of cedars, with the exception of a few 

 old relics. The wood of our home-grown article 

 is not necessarily a true indication of the quality 

 of the wood yielded by cedar trees which grew on 

 their native soil. We generally find, for instance, 

 that the wood of the Scotch pine, grown in 

 England, is soft and white, whereas the same 

 kind of pine wood that comes from Memel is 

 hard and red. 



We have no authentic knowledge of the 



