
          The cones of those 4 pines are difficult
if not impossible to distinguish but
I believe it not probable that the
number of leaves should vary so much in
a single species, if, however, no other
good characters should be found, we would
have to unite all four of them, hard as
it may seem!

As to Newberry's P. cembroides I have
a notion that it is nothing but a
stunted alpine form of what I have
taken all along for P. flexilis, though
among the numerous forms , brought home
by all the travellers, I have seen no
such small cones; the scales however
and the nuts are not different.

But the question arises whether
what Nuttall and I have all along
taken for P. Flexilis, is not something
else? And I with you would as
you no doubt are able to, [?]
and solve any doubts which Newberry
seems to share; you say: "cones
erect," and [added: you] compare the scales with those
of P. rigida! While my flexilis is
said to have pendulous cones, which
can not at all [compare?] with P. rigida,
but the branches are certainly [underlined: flexible].
I do not have [James'?] work - and can
not compare his description.

Have Lewis & Clark's pines
named by Rafinesque, ever been
identified?
        