10 Common and Highland Vines^ 



Art. III. An Account of the Common and Highland Pines, (U 

 Jvund in Scotland. JJy J. G. 



Sir, 



It lias lately been ascertained that there is a variety of pine in Scotland 

 very ditTerent from, and greatly snperior to, the comnion tree of that 

 name, in size, quality, and durability. It has long been known, indeed, 

 that the wood of the one is preferable to that oi the other; yet people were 

 always inclined to reckon them both under the genera! title of Scotch 

 pine, and to take for granted that the ditterence nuist be occasioned by 

 a-'c, soil, or situation. That any or all of these causes can account for 

 thc'dirt'ercnce is, I think, far from probable. How can age be thought a 

 sufficient reason, while it is known that thousands of the connnon pine 

 liave arrived at maturity, ami thousamls have dieil, which at no |)criod of 

 their age were better than those which are every day felled for the most 

 ordinary [jurposes V How can soil or situation be given as a reason, while 

 it is known that the common [)ineis scattered over all Scotland, in as good 

 soils and situations as those in w hich the superior sort grows, and yet are 

 found, when cut up, to be but of inferior quahty ? 



This snperior variety abounds in the highland districts of Abernethy, in 

 Strathspey, and in the north of Scotland ; and the first individuals who col- 

 lected the seeds, and raised plants of this sort, were Messrs. Alexander and 

 John (irigor, nurserymen at Elgin and Forres, at whose nurseries plants of 

 these pines are always to be found, and for whose exertions the Highland 

 Society of Scotland awarded their premium. These gentlemen, in the short 

 period of two years (the time they require before being fit for transplanting), 

 raised and sold no less a quantity than two millions of the real highland 

 pine, and thus put into the possession of landholders a variety that pro- 

 duces wood eipial to that brought from Norway. 



The late Mr. Don of Forfar considered that this pine, which 1 have 

 termed a variety, should, on account of its great dissimilarity to the /-"inus 

 svlyestris,its long tufted leaves, and the hori/.ontal direction of its branches, 

 constitute a distinct species, which might, with jjropriety, be termed Z^iuus 

 horizontalis. The members of the Highland Society have ado|)ted his 

 opinion; and one of the most distinguished writers of the day (Sir Walter 

 Scott), in an article in the Quarlir/j/ Jieiicw, some years ago, pointed out, 

 with singular ellect, not only its peculiarity of shape, &c., but the amazing 

 durability of its wood. 



I shall reconl a circumstance that occurred in the north of Scotland, 

 which proves, beyond the reach of doubt, that there must be two distinct 

 species of Scotch pine. About fifty years ago, a young forester happened 

 to be travelling over that district in which tlie real highland pine abounds. 

 As he passed along, he observed a few small ones springing up among the 

 heath ; and being struck with the ap[)earance they presenteil, and having a 

 plantation of connnon ones going on at the time, he pulled one, wrappcil it 

 lip, and, having arrived at his plantation, he [)lantcd it along with the rest, 

 and placed u durable mark beside it. During the whole |)criod of its 

 growth, this tree presented a singular appearance ; and when it was felled 

 and cut uj) (which happened about ten years ago), it was found superior to 

 any of the surrounding ones. Now, this is a proof that nnist remove every 

 idea of a variation in soil, age, or situation accomplishing the existing dif- 

 ference; a proof that there are in Scotland forests of a pine superior to the 

 connnon, and remote enough from it to constitute a species. 



Shall I yet be told, then, that there is no difference? Yes; there are 

 .still some who maintain it: anil, but for this fact, 1 should have treated the 

 subject in a different manner. There are still some who have, through 



