348 
PACIFIC SCIENCE, Vol. VIII, July, 1954 
stitution of the name Amerkus for each 
occurrence of Wellingtonia in the original arti- 
cle by Lindley. He did not assert that the 
name Wellingtonia was illegitimate. That a new 
generic name was needed was an accident 
quite unknown to the anonymous writer. 
Neither the man nor the name deserves recog- 
nition. We think there is every reason for 
making the generic name Amerkus a nomen 
genericum rejiciendum. We propose that the 
next International Botanical Congress adopt 
Sequoiadendron Buchh. as a nomen genericum 
conservandum, and treat Amerkus as a nomen 
genericum rejiciendum. 
SPECIFIC EPITHET OF THE BIG TREE 
Though the waters one must traverse in 
reviewing the generic history of the big tree 
may seem somewhat turbid, they are nothing 
in comparison to the muddy, swirling waters 
one must sail over in the historic quest of the 
correct specific epithet. 
It was long thought that the first scientific 
name for the big tree was Sequoia gigantea 
Endl. (1847: 198). This was rejected by Buch- 
holz, as it had been by many others, but it 
needs careful analysis and discussion to dis- 
pose of it fully. We quote its original treat- 
ment in full: 
2. Sequoia gigantea Endl. 
Sequoia foliis linearibus {iVi-l") acutis subtus glauco 
pulverulentis. 
Taxodii species Douglas in Bot. Mag. Comp. 
II. 150. 
Abies religiosa Hook, et Arnott ad Beechey 160. 
non Humb. 
Taxodium sempervirens Hook, et Arnott ad Beechey 
392. Hooker Ic. t. 379. Habitat in California. (Dougl.) 
Arbor trecentorum pedum altitudinem attingens, 
trunci ambitu trigintapedali. 
In this same passage Endlicher described 
the new genus Sequoia, and his species No. 1 
was called 5. sempervirens Endl. [or as the 
authority should now be written, (D. Don 
in Lamb.) Endl.], the accepted name of the 
redwood, though his basonym was briefly 
attributed only to Lambert. 
Now, for S. gigantea Endl. The original 
publication included a description, a state- 
ment of the type locality (stated as habitat), 
and a collector, and the first synonym, Taxodii 
species, all of which rest upon the work of 
Douglas. Then, finally, there are two other 
synonyms which rest upon the work of Hook- 
er and Arnott, and of Hooker, and a diagnosis. 
Let us first consider these last two synonyms: 
Abies religiosa Hook, et Arnott ad Beechey 
160, non Humb. This, in the sense of Hooker 
and Arnott, is a mixture of several diverse 
species and genera, but it includes only the 
following reference to Californian trees, 'T 
was informed that there are trees of this spe- 
cies in the vallies between Santa Clara and 
Santa Cruz, 150 feet high, one of which was 
25 feet in circumference.” This is the only 
element in Abies religiosa sensu Hook. & Arn. 
which may have been based on Sequoia and 
might be selected with that in view to typify 
their specific concept. However, the only de- 
scription given is that of the stature, 150 feet 
high and 25 feet in circumference, and this 
was only a hearsay report. That would apply 
to a young specimen of the big tree, but is 
in no way distinctive of it, and certainly is 
incorrect as a description of the full stature 
of a mature or large specimen of the big tree 
which is 250-330 feet in height and 40-56 
feet in circumference at 10 feet above the 
base, or up to 90 feet at 6 feet above the base. 
The locality given, "in the vallies between 
Santa Clara and Santa Cruz,” is far distant 
from any known grove or occurrence of the 
big tree, all of which are east of the central 
valley of California and at 4,600-8,500 feet 
altitude on the western slopes of the Sierra 
Nevada Mountains. On the other hand, both 
the stature and the locality given by Hooker 
and Arnott tally exactly with the size and a 
well-known, still existing stand of the red- 
wood, Sequoia sempervirens. It is clear, then, 
that the only meager element in Abies religiosa 
sensu Hook. & Arnott, not of H.B.K., which 
applies to a Californian gymnosperm was 
probably in allusion to Sequoia sempervirens 
