Sequoia gigantea — St. John AND Krauss 
347 
CONIFERAE 
S.D. I.— Abietineae. — T he Fir Tribe. 
§ 1. Intermedia. — The Intermediate Fir. 
§ 2. Picea. — The Pitch or Silver Fir. 
§ 3. Vera. — The True or Spruce Fir. 
S.D. II.— Cedrus.— The Cedar. 
S.D. III.— CuPRESSiNEAE.— The Cypress Tribe. 
§ 1. — Actinostrobeae, — The Rayed-scaled Cypress 
Sub. § 1.— OCTOVALVUS.— Eight-valved. 
Sub. § 2. Sexavalvus. — Six-valved. 
Sub. § 3 . — Quartovalvus. — F our-valved. 
§ 2. — Arthrotaxia. — Thejointed-branched Cypress. 
§ 3. — Cryptomeria. — The Cedar-like Cypress. 
§ 4. — Cupresstellata. — The Star-coned Cypress. 
§ 5. — Cuprespinnata. — The Feathery-sprayed Cy- 
press. 
§ 6. — Thuriferae.— The Arbor Vitae. 
Sub. § 1 . — Biota. — T he Oriental. 
Sub. § 2 .— Libocedrus.— T he very Fragrant. 
Sub. § 3 . — Thuja.— T he Occidental. 
§ 7.— Verae.— The True Cypress 
Sub. § 1 .— Chamaecyparis.— T he Ground Cy- 
press. 
Sub. § 2.— CUPRESSUS.— The Prototype. 
Sub. § 3 .— Retinospora.— R esinous-seeded. 
S.D. IV.— Gigantabies.— T he Giant or Mammoth Fir. 
By his arrangement Biota, Libocedrus, Thuja, 
Chamaecyparis, Cupressus, and Retinospora were 
made sub-sections; Picea and Cryptomeria were 
made sections; Abietineae, Cedrus, Cupressineae, 
and Gigantabies were his four sub-divisions; 
and Coniferae and Bacciferae were his two 
divisions. Genera, well accepted by botanists, 
were by Nelson made sub-sections, sections, 
or sub-divisions. In the taxonomic treatment, 
specific names were combined with all of 
these, forming apparent binomials. Gigan- 
tabies Wellingtoniana is one such. Surely, the 
combination of the name of a species with 
that of a sub-division does not make a bino- 
mial. Applicable sections of the 1952 Inter- 
national Code are: Article 13, ''A plant may 
therefore be classified in subordinated cate- 
gories in the following order: Regnum vege- 
tabile, Divisio, Subdivisio, Classis, Subclassis, 
Ordo, Subordo, Familia, Subfamilia, Tribus, 
Subtribus, Genus, Subgenus, Sectio, Subsec- 
tio, Species.” Then by Article 15, "The rela- 
tive order of the categories specified above 
in Art. 12-14 must not be altered. 
"Names given to taxa which are at the same 
time denoted by misplaced terms are treated 
as not validly published. ...” 
So, Gigantabies was not a generic name; 
Gigantabies Wellingtoniana was not a binomial, 
and the whole is illegitimate. 
Finally, the generic name Sequoiadendron 
was published for the monotypic genus of 
the big tree, by Buchholz (1939: 536). This 
was based upon Wellingtonia gigantea Lindl. 
and included the concepts and the synonyms 
published by Winslow, Decaisne, Seemann, 
Kellogg & Behr, Sudworth, and Kuntze. The 
generic name was effectively published and 
was accompanied by a Latin diagnosis, a type 
species was designated, and there was given 
a fully detailed comparison with Sequoia which 
he interpreted as represented by only one 
living species, the redwood, S. sempervirens . 
Sequoiadendron of Buchholz has now had 
some acceptance, as by Rehder (1940: 48-49; 
1949: 41), L. H. & E. Z. Bailey (1941: 680), 
Rickett (1950: 15), and Stebbins (1948: 95), 
and reaffirmation by Buchholz (1948: 90). 
The investigation by Buchholz was careful, 
detailed, and original. It revealed many 
morphological characters that were unknown 
before. It detailed the many important dif- 
ferences between the big tree and the red- 
wood. Buchholz classified the big tree as a 
separate genus and published for it the name 
Sequoiadendron. We have reviewed the same 
investigation and concur that Sequoiadendron 
is a good and distinct genus. The only flaw 
is in priority, as there is an earlier name, 
Americas. 
On every score the generic name Americas 
deserves to be outlawed. It was published in 
an anonymous advertising circular. It was 
seen by few botanists and was adopted by 
none. The pamphlet is excessively rare now; 
the copy consulted for us is in the library of 
the New York Botanical Garden. The anon- 
ymous writer made no botanical study of the 
tree or its trunk. He wrote no description of 
the tree, merely copied the one validating 
Wellingtonia gigantea. The only item contrib- 
uted by the anonymous writer was the sub- 
