June 18, 1885. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
511 
which is light and soft, the great age to -which the tree attains may pro¬ 
bably be traced. Its form opposes an effectual resistance to the tempests 
which would overthrow ordinary trees. The history of these Baobabs, 
possibly of the very trees which Adanson’s account has rendered famous, 
reaches back to the discovery of the coast of Senegal and of the Cape de 
Verde Islands by Cadamosto in 1455, who in his narrative mentions the 
singular disproportion between the height and girth of these trees. But 
they were first fully described by the French naturalist Adanson, who 
examined them scarcely a century ago. The largest trunks measured by 
Adanson were 85 feet in circumference, or 27 feet in diameter. Golberry 
is said to have measured one that was more than 100 feet in girth, and M. 
Perrottet in 1824 met with many Baobabs in Senegambia varying from 
60 to 90 feet in circumference, yet still in a green old age, and showing no 
signs of decay ; but, on the contrary, if wounded in the smallest degree, 
they exuded a copious sap. There can therefore be no doubt respecting 
the prodigious size which these trees attain, and there is great reason to 
suppose that Humboldt was right in supposing them to be the oldest in 
existence. As to their actual age, the narrative usually given is the 
following. Adanson observed in 1749, at the Madelaine Islands, near 
Cape de Verde, some Baobab trees of 30 feet in diameter, upon the 
trunks of which he found inscriptions that had been made 300 years before 
by two English travellers ; that by cutting through 300 annual layers he 
discovered the vestiges of these inscriptions upon the wood, thus proving 
that they were actually made at the date assigned ; that by measuring the 
thickness of these layers he was enabled to judge of the rate of increase 
during the last three centuries ; that having thus obtained the rate of 
increase in old age, and having by actual inspection of young trunks, 
learned the rate of growth during the first 100 years, he deduced from 
these, combined data the almost inevitable conclusion that the trees in 
question were five or six thousand years old. In most accounts of the 
tree, the following table is also given as if drawn up by Adanson :— 
At 
1 year old it 
was 1 to li inch diam., and 5 
33 
20 
33 
1 foot 
„ 15 
33 
30 
33 
2 feet 
„ 22 
33 
100 
33 
4 
„ 29 
33 
1000 
13 
14 
„ 58 
5) 
2400 
3J 
18 
„ 64 
33 
5150 
33 
30 
» -3 
Nothing of this kind, however, was ever published by Adanson. His 
first account, which comprises all the principal facts, is given in the 
“ Voyage au Sbnbgal,” prefixed to his volume on the natural history of 
that country, and published soon after his return to France in 1753. 
Adanson simply relates that on his visit to the Madelaine Islands he found 
Baobab trees of 5 or 6 feet in diameter, which bore European names and 
dates deeply engraven on the bark. Two of these he took the trouble to 
renew, one of which was dated in the fifteenth, the other in the sixteenth 
century. The characters were about 6 inches in length, and as in breadth 
they occupied but a small part of the circumference of the trunk, Adanson 
reasonably inferred that they were not engraven in the early youth of 
these trees. He had previously seen in the island of Senegal trees of the 
kind, which were 63 and 65 feet in circumference ; but he does not 
intimate that he inspected the layers of wood in any case. He merely 
remarks that these inscriptions might furnish some evidence respecting 
the age which the Baobabs sometimes attained. “ For (says he) if we 
suppose that the inscriptions were engraven even in the early years of 
these trees, and that they have grown to 6 feet in diameter in the course 
of two centuries, we may calculate how many centuries they would 
require to attain the full diameter of 25 feet.” Soon afterwards Adanson 
communicated to the Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris a full account 
of the Baobab, which was published in their “ Memoirs ” for the year 1761; 
and, lastly, he wrote the article “ Baobab” for the supplement of the great 
French “ Encyclopaedia,” published in the year 1776. These accounts, al¬ 
though more detailed,embody no essential additions to what had been already 
given. He says that the trees in question were two in number, upon the 
bark of which the names of Europeans were engraved, with dates, some 
posterior to the year 1600 ; and others, as far back as 1555, were probably 
'he work of those who occupied Thevet, who in his voyage to Antarctic 
lands saw some of these trees that same year on a small island close to the 
Cape de Verde. Some of the dates appeared to be previous to 1500, but 
these were somewhat equivocal. Neglecting therefore the indistinct dates 
in the fourteenth century, continues Adanson, and even allowing that the 
inscriptions were made when the trees were very young, which is highly 
improbable, as they occupied less than an eighth of the entire circum¬ 
ference, it is evident that if the Baobab has attained 6 feet in diameter 
between 1555 and 1749—that is, in 200 years, it would require more 
than eight centuries to attain the diameter of 25 feet, supposing 
the growth to continue at a uniform rate. But Adanson goes on 
to say that trees grow the more slowly as they advance in age, 
so that such an estimate would fall below the truth. As to its 
rate of growth when young, he states that the tree acquires the diameter 
of 1 inch or 1^ inch in the first year, the diameter of 1 foot in ten years, 
and about 1J in thirty years, which certainly agree pretty well with the 
table I have just spoken of; but so far from having extended these data, 
aud employed them in the manner which is attributed to him, he says 
that although it might be desirable thus to employ them, a good know¬ 
ledge of geometry teaches that they are quite insufficient for that purpose. 
Hence, instead of attempting any precise determination, he merely offers 
the probable conjecture that these largest Baobabs may have been in 
existence for several thousand years, or nearly from the period of the 
universal deluge. The table has been so often published in the encyclo¬ 
paedias in this country, as well as in foreign works of great authority, that 
I have considered it necessary to point out to you at some length the 
uncertainty regarding its authenticity. I believe it was actually drawn 
up by Duchesne, a French writer on forest trees, since the commencement 
of the present ceotury, his only data being the observations of Adanson 
on trees up to the age of thirty years, aud his supposition that the largest 
ones might have been coeval with the deluge—from these the intermediate 
years were intercalated. 
But as already said, whatever doubts may be entertained as to their 
actual age, there is a strong presumption in favour of their being the 
most ancient living monuments in the world. On the western coast of 
Africa this tree is very liable to be attacked by fungi, which prey upon 
its heart-wood, and without changing its colour or general appearance, 
destroy the life of the plant, and render its timber very soft. Trees thus 
destroyed are hollowed out as mausolea or burial-places, to receive the 
dead bodies of physicians and magicians, and such other persons who, 
from their skill, are presumed by the superstitious natives to hold com¬ 
munion with evil spirits, and are therefore denied the common rites of 
sepulture. The bodies suspended in these chambers become dry and are 
well-preserved, like mummies, and are called in the language of the 
country Guiriots.—( Forestry.) 
SAXIFRAGA MACNABIANA. 
Again and again has it been urged upon those who give attention to 
hybridising in any of its forms that a correct account of the cross be 
published in some journal, or failing that, recorded in a private memo¬ 
randum ready when required. Not so very long ago considerable trouble 
was given to botanists by the appearance of a new Saxifrage under the 
name of S. Wallacei. The parents, as far as I can remember, were 
given along with other detailed aud necessary information, and for want 
of better knowledge it was named as above by a very competent authority. 
The plant on examination, however, turned out to be Bossier’s S. Cam- 
posii, a species collected by him in Spain, and which answered in every 
detail to the new form introduced as S. Wallacei. It is rather puzzling 
to know how the confusion came about; Mr. Wallace, of the Dean 
Cemetery, being confident of the cross, and of course the dried specimens 
of over half a century ago answered for Bossier. The plant is perfectly 
distinct from all other Saxifragas, coming nearest in general characters to 
S. Maweana, a species found in Morocco by Mr. Maw of Broseley, but on 
close examination specific characters are easily distinguished. The con¬ 
clusions to be drawn from the above appear to be that the plant as found 
by Bossier is a natural hybrid, which is most unlikely, for speculations 
are extremely vague as to what are the parents, or the seeds or seedlings 
have in some mysterious way got into the seed pot at the Dean, and so 
even deceived such an observer as Mr. Wallace. 
At present again the plant above mentioned, S. Macnabiana, is being 
located and its parents guessed at, not at all after the fashion recom¬ 
mended by science. Mr. Lindsay, Curator of the Edinburgh Botanic 
Gardens, who ought to know more about it than anyone else, states that 
it is supposed to have been raised by the late Mr. MacNab from a cross 
between S. Cotyledon and another species. It is hard to doubt the 
authority of such able plantsmen, but facts speak for themselves, and we 
must take things as we find them. S. Cotyledon is well known in gardens 
with its neat rosettes of almost spathulate leaves, broad, and regularly, 
and sharply serrated, the dense or numerous flower spikes invariably pure 
white, and with the petals narrowing to base or else of one breadth from 
the base to the point, few or no hairs, and entirely devoid of glands. The 
other parent suggested by Mr. Lindsay is S. linguiata, which has narrow 
crusted leaves, narrow but distinctly dilated at the base, especially in the 
rosettes, and said by Engler to be rarely clothed with hairs, and then they 
are sparse with few or no glands, and petals white, shaped much as in 
Cotyledon. S. Macnabiana, has long narrow leaves, hardly any difference 
in breadth from base to tip, the petals of the flowers blotched or spotted 
and quite obovate in shape, and the flower stalk densely covered with 
long glandular hairs. How it takes after either of the above described I 
am quite at a loss to see, and it appears to me after watching the Saxi¬ 
fragas side by side for a considerable time that S. Macnabiana is nothing 
more than a glorified S. Hostii (syn. S. elatior), and may not unlikely be 
a seedling sport from that plant. The leaves are exactly alike in shape, 
texture, and crustation ; the habit is quite the same as in S. Hostii, the 
thickly scattered glandular hairs, the obovate petals—in fact, S. Hostii is 
an exact fac-simile of S. Macnabiana, with the exception of the larger 
not more numerous spots or blotches. As will be seen from the above I 
claim nothing more for S. Macnabiana than a place as an improved garden 
form of S. Hostii. And why not ? Saxifragas have long been in cultiva¬ 
tion, and There is no reason why Saxifragas should not improve themselves 
as well as Poeonies, Daffodils, Aquilegias, and many other popular flowers ; 
indeed, I have seen far more variations in the common “ None-so-Pretty ” 
than can be traced between some of the forms of S. Hostii I have growing 
side by side with S. Macnabiana.—M. S. 
ROYAL BOTANIC SOCIETY. 
June 17th. 
The second Summer Show of this Society is always one of the principal 
horticultural events of the year, and no other exhibition attracts so many 
distinguished visitors. A most liberal schedule of prizes is provided, and 
the period at which it is held is well suited for obtaining an extensive and 
representative display of plants, flowers, and early fruits. The large marquee, 
too, is admirably adapted for effective arrangement of the exhibits, and 
