M'Nab — A liecmon of the SjJccies of Abies. 683 



are, in fact, the types of Mr. Murray's " bifolia," and one of the 

 specimens is marked " Ab. amabilis, Douglas, fid. Parlatore." An 

 unnamed specimen from Douglas also exists in Kew Herbarium (Plate 

 46, fig. 7, a.) _ 



When examining the specimens in the Royal Botanic Garden, 

 Edinburgh, I found a specimen marked " Picea magnifica robusta. 

 Oregon, Mr. Jeffrey, 1853." Two cones and a few leaves were pre- 

 served in the Museum, and I was able at once to refer the specimen, 

 to P. bifolia of Murray, or P. lasiocarpa. Hooker. 



The section of the leaf from the cone-bearing branch in Kew Her- 

 barium with the label, " Colville, Indian name ' Marcilp.' Hab. 

 East side of Cascade Mountains, latitude 49°]!^. Xot uncommon up 

 to 6000 feet above the sea. Aug., 1860," is figui'ed (Plate 47 fig. 9). 



After the most careful examination of these specimens I am com- 

 pelled to come to the conclusion that P. lasiocai-pa of Hooker is a good 

 species which has been confounded with other forms by subsequent 

 botanists. I further conclude that bifolia of Murray is a synonym of 

 P. lasiocarpa, Hooker. Prom an examination of the cones of grandis, 

 magnifica, and bifolia, I find that it is very difiicult to separate them by 

 external characters, all being hairy or " lasiocarpous ; " and as magni- 

 fica and bifolia are mixed in the Museum in Edinburgh, it shows that 

 thoroughly competent botanists may confound them. By an examination 

 of the bract, the two can be readily separated : the bract of magnifica 

 is large, while that of bifolia is very small. If we bear in mind that 

 amabilis, Douglas, and lasiocarpa, Hooker, were described witliin a 

 comparatively short time of each other, I feel constrained to consider 

 that the two things are and were distinct. Purther, when we consi- 

 der M. Roezl's note, mentioned above, that it is not a handsome plant, 

 I think we could hardly agree wdth Parlatore in calling it amabilis, 

 Douglas. The scale, but not the bract, of amabilis, Douglas, is figured 

 in Loudon's "Arboretum," and he mentions that the bract is very fhort 

 and pointed ; in fact, the cone he figured was bifolia, Murray. I feel 

 quite confident that the plant Douglas meant to call amabilis is magni- 

 fica of Murray, and not bifolia of Miu-ray, but in the absence of 

 authentic specimens, I think we should retain the name amabilis for 

 the plant long cultivated under that name, and retain the name of 

 lasiocai'pa, Hook., for this species, while we use A. MuiTay's name, 

 magnifica, for the species which Douglas undoubtedly meant should 

 be called amabilis. 



The scale and bract of Jeffrey's specimen in the Museum of the 

 Eoyal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, were examined. The cones, two 

 in number, are 6 inches long, by about 21 inches wide. Another 

 one in the same collection, 7^ inches long, and 2 inches wide, marked 

 " P. Pinsapo, from Eonda in Spain," belongs to the same species, viz., 

 lasiocarpa. Hook. 



This species is probably A. amabilis (Forbes), Bertrand, which 

 Bcrtrand says does not differ anatomically from A. Fraseri. 



