February io, 1892.] 



Garden and Forest. 



65 



However, under the laws of botanical nomenclature, 

 adopted by the International Congress at Paris, 1867, the 

 Article 49 (with remark under it) requires that Loiseleur's 

 name be restored, inasmuch as he sufficiently distinguished 

 the species, and, fortunately, Californica is a very appro- 

 priate name for the tirst-described California Pine. 



The treatment of the other species — the Narrow-cone 

 Pine — -must be more radical, involving the coining of a 

 new name, Pinus attenuata. P. tuberculata, Gordon, in four. 

 Hort. Soc, London, iv., 218 and f. (1844), and subsequent 

 publications. 



Mr. Gordon described correctly, and was the first author 

 to do so, the Narrow-cone Pine, which he supposed was 

 the same as the one described from meagre data, and 

 named P. tuberculata by Don (1. c. ) : but that Pine was a 

 small-coned form of the Monterey Pine, as the figure in 

 Lambert's Pinus, ist ed., iii., 131, t. 85, plainly shows, and 

 it is so cited by recent authors, hence the name tubercu- 

 lata was misapplied unintentionally to this abundantly dis- 

 tinct species, which may now bear the name attenuata. 



suggested by the tapering cones as well as the slender 

 habit of the trees when found in groves, f _ ^ 



Oakland, Cal. J . <j . LemniOU. 



[It is possible that the plant described by Loiseleur as 

 Pinus Californiana (not Californica) may be identical with 

 the species now commonly known as Pinus insignia. The 

 fact that the specimen upon which Loiseleur's species was 

 founded was gathered at Monterey points to this conclu- 

 sion. But the seeds of Pinus insignis are not edible, as he 

 represented them, and his description is so unsatisfactory 

 and faulty that it is impossible to recognize absolutely 

 from it the species he intended. Under these circum- 

 stances the only safe way is to pass over Loiseleur's name 

 entirely. This was the conclusion reached by Dr. Engel- 

 mann (see Brewer & Watson, Botany of Califoriiia, ii., 127), 

 who also discarded as too uncertain the Pinus adunca of 



Bosc {Cat. Hori. Paris, 247), first published in 1816 by 

 Poiret (Lam. Diet. Supple., iv., 418). The oldest name of 

 whose identity there can be no question is therefore Pinus 

 tuberculata of Don, and this, it would seem, must be taken 



