tzzis^h^ 
/ *S^~r * 7' 
i^xj^nnr -a. 
'e^C-r 
^ SV^T/lf <££ hzf* tf&t/j 
~Xr ^ Ae/u*^ , 
« v^sv:::. ~ w ~""/ ~ — />- -&m 
/ &c^>-*-3? €>yZh^j-^eJ- 
re irom 
plajpe where they we^e first felled. Looking at the 
logs as imported it seems wonderful that tHfey could 
haye been brought over the seas, in sufficient quantity 
to inake them remunerative;' 
|As we before said, many are the lessons to be learnt 
fn&m a^ visit to such places as our import docks. % The 
time thus spent is eeftaifity not wasted. J. R t ?.\ 
ABIES ENGELMANNI. 
Your correspondents who have been trying to clear 
up this knotty point appear only to get deeper into the 
dilemma. 
I went over to Knap Hill the other day, partly to 
see Mr. Waterer’s very beautiful Rhododendrons, but 
principally to have a peep at the new Spruce, about 
which we have heard so much. Wien I saw it I 
immediately recognised a very old friend, which, 
rightly or wrongly, we have been selling for the last 
ten years under the name of Abies Engelmanni. 
The plants which Mr. Waterer had under that name 
were so disfigured by spring frosts that they were very 
difficult to recognise, and I hesitated to express an 
opinion, although I had a very strong suspicion of 
what they were, which suspicion was thoroughly veri¬ 
fied yesterday on comparing one of these plants (which 
Mr. Waterer at my request kindly forwarded to us) 
with a batch of plants in our possession. 
In 1875 we purchased at Messrs. Stevens’ auction 
rooms two parcels of seed under the name of Abies 
Engelmanni; after a time we discovered that we had 
two distinct 
V 
:^^efi^o^oJ^ein^he Abies En^J-^ 
C2/i rzTX^ /^\ 
r ^ _ _ _ ^ ^ r-—' 
Zt &c 4 ^ -^«^g 
come to the ^conclusion that the 
early growing worthless variety is the one intended. 
The plant there referred to as Picea Menziesii I fully 
believe to be the Abies Menziesii Parryana of M. 
Andr 4 or Abies commutata of M. Roezl. 
And now I come to the gist of the matter. I must 
enter my protest against Abies Menziesii being mixed 
up in the controversy at all. Abies Menziesii, true, is 
a distinct species from either, and is not, that I am 
aware of, found in that locality, its babitat being in 
Northern California, and a variety of it very distinct 
although given by some authorities as a synonym, viz., 
Abies sitchensis being found as far north as the 
sland of Sitcha. 
The leaves of Abies Menziesii are much longer, 
wider and thinner than those of the variety which I 
will call for convenience Abies commutata, a leaf cut 
in two and strongly magnified presents a totally dif¬ 
ferent section. The leaves are much more thinly set, 
and only on the upper side of the branchlets, they are 
a vivid gre en above and glaucous beneath, whereas 
Abies commutata is rather more glaucous above than 
it is berteath. 
The habit is totally different, and the growth of 
Abies Menziesii in one season is double that of Abies 
commutata; above all, the cones are dissimilar. 
I have before me a cone of Abies Menziesii grown 
at Elvaston Castle, also a cone of Abies Menziesii 
pulled from a tree in the Rocky Mountains in North¬ 
ern California by our Mr. Syme, likewise a cone of 
Abies commutata sent home by M. Roezl in 1874, 
which, from his letter, is undoubtedly the same as the 
plants^referred to as growing in Denver city, and in 
Professor Sargent’s garden at Brookline. 
i The cones of the two species differ considerably, 
although I do not dispute that they are nearly allied. 
We have seedlings raised from seed sent out by M. 
Ortgies in 187.5 through Messrs. Sander & Co. as 
Abies commutata, which we fully believe to be the 
right thing, but it is impossible to speak positively 
about such young plants. The question now is what 
is to be the name, as, most certainly it is deserving of 
a name to itself, and should not be hung on to Abies 
Menziesii, from which it so much differs. John 
Barron, Elvaston Nurseries , Borrowash , Derby . 
k$? 
7 8 9 10 Missouri 
Botanical 
copyright reserved card e n 
