110 NATURAL HISTORY OP SCOTCH FIR. 



" The first remark to be made is, that Miller never pretended in 

 establishing his species, ^jm2«s rubra, to make any distinction from the 

 pinus sybestris of the authors who preceded him ; it is only a new 

 name, which, for some reason, he has given to this species. The 

 sentences from Ray, from Bauhin, from Duhamel, which they quote 

 as synonymous, leave no doubt as to this. Nevertheless, the 2^^''^^''^ 

 rubra of Miller, by a singular error, has been regarded as a second 

 species, made by him in the pwi^s sylvestris. This fact may be 

 explained naturally enough by the following circumstances : At 

 the same time that he established the 2)i>i'US sylvestris under the name 

 piiius rubra, Miller almost beside it described another species under 

 the name ^Ji/iws sylvestris, and among the numerous synonymes which 

 he assigns to the latter is to be found 2^i>^us sylvestris, No. 471, 

 Bauhin, wild pine of Geneva. For all readers, a little hasty in 

 forming a judgment, and there is no lack of such even among 

 botanists, there was here an indication, or even an evident proof that 

 Miller had established two species in the pinus sylvestris. Now, when 

 one reads the text even of the article relative to his No. 1, he sees 

 that the latter is no other than the maritime pine, or pine of Bordeaux. 

 In spite of the evidence of this fact, the contrary version has 

 prevailed, and some botanists, having to treat of the pines, have 

 adopted as distinct the two species, 2}i'>ius sylvestris and pinus rubra. 

 This basis adopted, it was necessary to find characteristics for the 

 latter ; now Miller did not furnish any, as with him the pinus rubra 

 being identical with the ])inus sylvestris of all authors, he had applied 

 to it the characteristics of the latter. 



" Hence have come distinctions which I will not call imaginary, 

 for doubtless they ai'e applicable to individuals, but certainly not 

 to all, nor do they possess the generality or the comprehensiveness 

 of specific descriptions. 



" This may be judged of by the examination which I am going to 

 make of the characteristics attributed to the P. rubra in the new 

 Duhamel and in the French Flora. 



" Differences between P. sylvestris and P. rubra. — Let us quote the 

 new Duhamel : 



" First, the wood of the first is rather reddish — no observations 

 to make on this point. 



" Second, the leaves are in general of a more glaucous green. 



" There are in my plantation several lots of the P. rubra of the 

 north, coming from diflferent provinces of Russia, and as well 

 characterised as possible. Their leaves are plainly less glaucous than 



