M*Nab — A Revision of the 8j3eeies of Abies. 679 



broader than thick, sides rounded, upper surface with a faint longitu- 

 dinal furrow, the midrib not prominent. Hypoderma consisting of a 

 few scattered cells under the upper epidermis, one or two at the sides 

 of the resin-canals, and a few inferiorly in the middle line. The resin- 

 canals are placed, one at each side of the leaf, close to the epidermis of 

 the under surface. The pallisade parenchyma is well developed on the 

 Tipper side, and below is parenchyma with well-marked intercellular 

 spaces communicating with the stomata. 



Fibro-vascular bundle double, the parts placed close together, the 

 whole surrounded by a well-marked sheath. 



The figure (Plate 46, fig. 4) is drawn from a specimen supplied to 

 me by my father, while PI. 46, fig. 4, a, is from a specimen sent under 

 the name of A. lasiocarpa. 



Much confusion exists in regard to this species, a confusion which 

 seems to have begun at the very beginning, and to have been made 

 «till worse by the Oregon Association distributing several plants under 

 one name. I have been able to examine many specimens, and shall 

 briefly give the result of my investigations. 



Specimens of grandis have reached me from three different sources, 

 all purporting to be grandis of Douglas. The first comes from the 

 Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, where it has been long cultivated, 

 and my father sends it to me with the note that it is a layer from one 

 of Douglas's original plants. The same plant is cultivated in the 

 Botanic Garden, Glasnevin, and is marked as the true grandis of 

 Douglas. The third specimen comes from Mr. Barron, of Elvaston Nur- 

 series, and was sent to me by Dr. Masters. All these have the same 

 foliage, and the same peculiar anatomical structure of the leaf, and the 

 peculiar scattered hypoderm cells. Assuming, then, that this plant is 

 probably the true grandis of Douglas, an examination of recently in- 

 troduced specimens will show a great deal of confusion. 



In the Museum and Herbarium of the E,oyal Botanic Garden, 

 Edinburgh, Jeffrey's original specimens are preserved, and I have 

 been enabled to examine them carefully, through the kindness of 

 Professor Balfour, F.R.S. In the Museum there is a cone in a net, 

 and lying beside the cone is a shoot with leaves, bearing a label in 

 •Jeffrey's handwriting. The cone is 5 inches long, by 2i- inches wide, 

 and shows the short pointed bract. There seems little doubt that the 

 cone belongs to the shoot, as shown by the examination of other spe- 

 •cimens. On the label is the following — 



Ficea. jSTo. 393. 



Along the banks of Eraser's River, from the Falls to the Ocean. 



Sept. 30, 1851. 



There is another cone in the collection, marked "P. lasiocarpa? 

 Jeffrey, 393." The cone is in pieces, and seems to have measured 

 about 4 inches by 2. No leaves are attached to this specimen. The 

 scale and bract is the same as that figured by Mr. Murray, Syn. Var. 

 Conif. p. 25, figure 32. 



