THE PINES OF MEXICO. 



ROEZL'S SPECIES 



In the year 1857 there was published in the City of Mexico a "Catalogue de Graines de 

 Coniferes Mexicains," by B. Roezl & Cie., in which were described eighty-two new species of 

 Pinus. The full significance of this large list is better understood by a study of the localities 

 of the species ; they were, with one or two exceptions, collected in the Valley of Mexico and 

 on the neighboring mountains, a very limited area containing only a few species, each of which 

 had received from earlier investigators one or more names. The obvious mercantile character of 

 the Catalogue and the summary treatment the new species received at the hands of Parlatore, 

 together with the slight success that has followed the cultivation of these Pines in Europe, 

 have led to the neglect of Roezl's specimens and to the loss of many of them, and it is probably 

 impossible today to find a complete authentic set. No trace of the collection consulted by 

 Gordon (Pinetum, Appx. p. 71, foot note) can be found 



In 1858 Schlechtendal (Linnaea, xxix, 331) translated Roezl's descriptions into Latin, 

 making no attempt to decide their validity although expressing his doubts of the existence of 

 so many Mexican species (p. 356). Gordon {Pinetum, Appx. 1862) retained a few of 

 Roezl's species but reduced most of his names to synonyms. Gordon's determinations, which 

 were accepted by Henckel & Hochstetter {Syn. der Nadelh, p. 119, 1865), were embodied 

 with slight change in the second edition of his Pinetum (1875). 



Carriere {Trait, des Conif.) 1867 took issue with Gordon and undertook an independent 

 study of the new species, resulting in the acceptance of most of them, in the reduction of a few 

 to synonyms of others and in the creation of P. Roezlii Carr., to replace P. resinosa Roezl 

 (not Aiton). Seneclauze in the same year (Les Coniferes) published all of Roezl's species. 



Finally Parlatore {DC. Prodr. xvi, pt. 2; 1868) reduced the entire list to synonyms of seven 

 previously described species, a judgment accepted by Hemsley {Bot. Biol. Cent. Am., iii, 

 1883) and in the Index Kewensis, 1895. 



Of the eight authorities cited three only, Carriere, Gordon and Parlatore attempted in- 

 dependently to determine the validity of Roezl's Pines. Of these Carriere was poorly equipped 

 for such a task, being unable to recognize any of the established species, P. teocote, P. leiophylla, 

 P. Montezumae, &c. Gordon's work was marred by his inability to recognize P. pseudostrobus 

 which he confused with P. patula, and some forms of P. Montezumae which he referred to 

 P. pseudostrobus. Parlatore's determinations, on the other hand, are remarkable for their 

 accuracy. His collection at Florence, although not complete, is sufficiently so to test the 

 admirable quality of his work. 



It may be safely assumed that there is, in the entire list of Roezl's Catalogue, not a single 

 valid species, the six or seven Pines they represent having been described by previous authors 

 under sixteen specific names; therefore in order not to encumber the text with many useless 

 synonyms, some of which cannot now be verified, Roezl's Pines and their determinations by 

 Carriere, Gordon and Parlatore are given in a table on the opposite page. 



TABLE 



Column I. Species of various authors lettered in chronological order. 



Column II and III. Roezl's species numbered in alphabetical order. Opposite each species and under each 

 author is the number or letter indicating the determination of that author. 



