The new plant introduced into our collections 

 under the name of Biota Meldensis of Lawson, has 

 been involved in mystery. Some writers have con- 

 tended that it was a hybrid between the B. Orien- 

 talis of Don and the Juniperus Virginiana of Lin- 

 naeus ; others, that it was the type of a new genus ; 

 but most Conifer growers acknowledged their igno- 

 rance of its history. Having obtained positive 

 proof of its origin this season, by reason of a fully 

 developed cone, we can now place it as a mere 

 sport from the B. Orientalis. 



Upon examining the leaves we find them exactly 

 similar to those borne by its parent at a very early 

 age; in fact, they are the first system of leaves 

 common to the Arborvitses, which, by a strange 

 freak of nature, have not developed into the second 

 or true system. A careful comparison of this plant 

 with the young seedling of the Chinese Arborvitas 

 fully confirms this fact, not only in relation to the 

 general appearance of this rudimental foliage, but 

 in many other peculiarities common to the family, 

 such as the pungent odor emitted, the proneness of 

 the foliage to change to a reddish hue during win- 

 ter, &c. The American Arborvitae [Thvja occiden- 

 talis) is liable to the same sports, as is evidenced 

 in the var. ericoides of Booth, and in the new seed- 

 ling from the Mount Hope Nurseries at Rochester, 

 N. Y., called "Tom Thumb." 



In the arrangement of the genus Thuja we have 

 long felt doubtful where to place the plants hereto- 

 fore known as 1\ Slberica and T. pUcata ; but as 

 they have now perfected seeds freely, we should 

 have no hesitation in placing them as distinct forms 

 of the T. occidentalis, notwithstanding they have 

 hitherto been considered as species, and judged, I 

 feat, more by the.r outward character than by any 

 real distinctive qualities. T. plicata of Don has 

 been so long known and favored with a specific 

 title, that it is with considerable hesitation on my 

 own part designated as a variety; but the fruit 

 points unmistakably to the fact. 



It appears from foreign works and catalogues that 

 some confusion yet exists as to the proper title of 

 Taxus adpressa — some considering it a Cepha.Io- 

 faxiis and others a variety of the T. haccata — but \ 

 as its history has been fully given in a previous ; 

 number of the Gardener's MoRthhj, I onlv instance 

 it here as an inducement for us to depend more on 

 personal experience and less on the hearsay of 

 others. My own study of this plant fully confirms 

 its true specific character in a very marked manner. 



Students of botany will also find that the out- 

 ward forms of fruit will not always prove to be a 

 sure guide in determining a species, but that a 



careful analysis of its various parts is absolutely 

 necessary in every instance. Take the Biota ori- 

 entalis for an example, and in the numerous varie- 

 ties of this species we find an interesting study. 

 Scarcely one of these sports but what produces a 

 cone different in outward form from its parent, and 

 j^et no material difference can be distinguished in 

 the seeds or flowers. The growth of these various 

 plants are curiously unlike ; indeed, so very mani- 

 fest is the difference, that it requires a careful study 

 to eradicate the idea of a specific title for each. 

 And then again the fruit sports into such a variety 

 of forms that we are puzzled to ascertain what one 

 really constitutes the proper characters for a tech- 

 nical description ; but through all these dissimilari- 

 ties of mere outward appearance, which are so apt 

 to sway our judgraeni, the more reliable tests con- 

 tained in the seeds, as well as the interior arrange- 

 ment of the cones, rarely fail to assure us of their 

 infallibility. 



Of late there have been numerous Conifers per- 

 fecting their fruit under cultivation, which have 

 proven an interesting study to the writer, as it 

 doubtless has to many others ; but as the greater 

 portion of these are correctly named, and not liable 

 to be mistaken, it is useless to enumerate them [ 

 here. 



In concluding this subject I desire to offer a few 1 

 remarks on the G-reat Tree of California (Sequoia, 

 gi(,a:ifea of Endlicher), by way of illustrating the | 

 real value of knowledge when describing our trees I 

 and plants. Perhaps no one tree has ever bsen dis- ii 

 covered which has caused more controversy than j 

 this; and as the subject hasal^^s been considered t 

 as " neutral ground," and one WTiich admitted of a I 

 " free fight," I hope to be pardoned for expressing I 

 an opinion ill regard to the same. Having carefully | 

 studied the mature cones, as well as the leaves, &c., I 

 of this tree, I have yet to find any grounds on | 

 which Prof Lindley could base his oft-repeated as- | 

 sertions. Endlicher was undoubtedly correct when f 

 he annulled the names of WelUngtonia and ]Yash- 

 ingtonia and classed it with the Sequoia flimily. 

 Our English brethren, although persisting in their 

 new generic title for many years, are now commenc- 

 ing to see their error, for in Lawson 's recent work 

 it is called Sequoia WelUngtonia, which is Dr. See- 

 man's compromise. In a comparison of this species 

 with S. sempervirens, the above author says: — 



Every ground for holding tlie two trees to begen- 

 erically distinct has thus melted away, and nothing 

 remains but candidly to acknowledge that Welling- 

 tonia cannot be maintained as a 'distinct genus." > 

 ^This is a great step gained, but we are very sorry 



