The Taxonomic Position and the Scientific Name of the 
Big Tree known as Sequoia gigantea 
Harold St. John and Robert W. Krauss^ 
For nearly a century it has been cus- 
tomary to classify the big tree as Sequoia gigan- 
tea Dene., placing it in the same genus with 
the only other living species, Sequoia semper - 
virens (Lamb.) End!., the redwood. Both the 
taxonomic placement and the nomenclature 
are now at issue. Buchholz (1939: 536) pro- 
posed that the big tree be considered a dis- 
tinct genus, and he renamed the tree Sequoia- 
dendron giganteum (LindL) Buchholz. This 
classification was not kindly received. Later, 
to obtain the consensus of the Californian 
botanists, Dayton (1943: 209-219) sent them 
a questionnaire, then reported on and sum- 
marized their replies. Of the 29 answering, 
24 preferred the name Sequoia gigantea. Many 
of the passages quoted show that these were 
preferences based on old custom or sentiment, 
and that few of them were willing to accept 
whatever name proved correct under the laws 
of nomenclature. Only 3 of the 29, on con- 
sideration of the botanical characters of the 
big tree, came to the conclusion that it rep- 
resented a distinct genus and should be called 
Sequoiadendron; and of the three, two were 
willing to accept it only provisionally. The 
replies to this questionnaire make an interest- 
^ Department of Botany, University of Hawaii, 
Honolulu 14, Hawaii, and Department of Botany, 
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, re- 
spectively. Manuscript received August 27, 1953. 
ing psychological document, but its majority 
vote does not settle either the taxonomy or 
the nomenclature of the big tree. No more 
does the fact that "the National Park Service, 
which has almost exclusive custody of this 
tree, has formally adopted the name Sequoia 
gigantea for it” (Dayton, 1943: 210)- settle 
the question. 
The first issue is the generic status of the 
trees. Though the two species differ con- 
spicuously in foliage and in cone structure, 
these differences have long been generally 
considered of specific and not of generic value. 
Sequoiadendron, when described by Buchholz, 
was carefully documented, and his tabular 
comparison contains an impressive total of 
combined generic and specific characters for 
his monotypic genus. This is readily avail- 
able to botanists, so it does not seem necessary 
to quote it in full here, but it does seem 
appropriate to select and repeat those ma- 
croscopic characters of stem, leaf, and cone 
which seem of generic import. 
Sequoiadendron giganteum 
Staminate cones sessile 
Ovulate cones remaining 
green and attached to tree 
for many years after ma- 
turity of seeds, becoming 
5-7 cm. long, the axis 
very stout and woody, 
with 25-40 wedge-shaped 
scales that are not easily 
Sequoia sempervirens 
Staminate cones stipitate 
Ovulate cones turning 
brown and shedding the 
seeds at maturity, becom- 
ing 2-3 cm. long, the 
axis relatively slender, 
with 15-20 obliquely 
shield-shaped scales that 
are easily broken off, 
341 
