Sequoia gigantea — St. John AND KraUSS 
lished account of remarks by Decaisne at a 
meeting of the Societe Botanique de France. 
He demonstrated specimens of the redwood 
and of the big tree, referred to W elUngtonia 
LindL, discussed the distinctive botanical 
characters, disagreed with Lindley that they 
formed two genera, then gave his conclusion 
that they were Sequoia sempervirens and Sequoia 
gigantea. This latter binomial has long been 
taken as Sequoia gigantea Dene., but it seems 
actually a transfer. Sequoia gigantea (LindL) 
Dene., based upon W elUngtonia giganteaYm^., 
and it has already been so interpreted by 
Little (1944: 276). Another interpretation 
might be that Sequoia gigantea Dene, was an 
independent new species, based upon a de- 
scription solely of the specimens at hand, sent 
to the Paris Museum by M. Boursier de la 
Riviere, consular agent of France. These pos- 
sible interpretations lose their importance 
when it is realized that the specific epithet is 
invalid in either case, being a later homonym 
of Sequoia gigantea Endl. (1847: 198). 
In 1854 the binomial Americus gigantea 
(LindL) Anon, was published. We have pre- 
viously dealt with the new generic name. The 
specific epithet was obviously one transferred 
from Wellingtonia gigantea LindL and was 
based upon the same description and speci- 
mens. It did not provide a new specific name. 
Two other new binomials were published 
in 1854. The name Taxodium W ashingtonium 
Winslow was printed in a weekly newspaper 
called the California Farmer (Winslow, 1854: 
58), and in the same paragraph another name, 
W ashingtonia Californica Winslow, was pro- 
posed. These names have been given varied 
treatments, accepted, corrected, or rejected, 
by various botanists. As this local farm news- 
paper is not readily available to botanists and 
as the exact wording of the proposals of 
Winslow is decisive, his whole one-page arti- 
cle is reproduced here (Fig. 1). It was a letter 
written by Dr. C. F. Winslow on August 8, 
1854, from Washington Mammoth Grove [or 
Calaveras Grove]. It was a description of his 
15 -mile trip by carriage road, the incidents of 
351 
the trip, and his impressions, stated at length 
in an elaborate and flowery style of writing. 
He stated the size of several of the big trees 
and quoted many details told him by the 
hotel proprietor. He gave a few descriptive 
details of leaves and cones. He alluded to the 
publication by the English botanist. Professor 
Lindley, of the tree as Wellingtonia Gigantea, 
but objected that this generic name honoring 
an English military hero was distasteful to 
and unacceptable by Americans. Then Wins- 
low renamed Lindley ’s Wellingtonia Gigantea 
as follows: "If the 'Big Tree’ be not a Taxo- 
dium, let it be called now and forever Taxo- 
dium W ashingtonium . If it should be properly 
ranked as a new genus, then let it be called 
to the end of time, Washingtonia Californica. 
The generic name indicates unparalleled great- 
ness and grandeur; its specific name, the only 
locality in the world where it is found. No 
names can be more appropriate, and if it be 
in accordance with the views of American 
botanists, I trust the scientific honor of our 
country may be vindicated from foreign in- 
delicacy by boldly discarding the name now 
applied to it, and by affixing to it that of the 
immortal man whose memory we all love and 
honor, and teach our children to adore. . . . 
Under any and all circumstances, however, 
whether of perpetuity or extinction, the name 
of Wellington should be discarded and that 
of Washington attached to it, and trans- 
mitted to the schools of future ages.” 
Now, to consider the two binomials pub- 
lished by Winslow. They were immediately 
reduced to the synonymy of his own Sequoia 
Wellingtonia Seem, by Seemann (1858: 345- 
346) in his second and extensive account of 
the tree, and he pointed out that the big tree 
had already been named as a genus by Lindley 
in 1853 and as a species by himself in Feb- 
ruary, 1855. Winslow’s names fell into the 
discard and received little attention. It appears 
that most of those botanists who have con- 
sidered his names at all have not consulted 
his original newspaper account, but one of 
the two reprintings of it that appeared in 
