7 
599 ] engelmann—a synopsis op the American firs. 
name, in Dropmore Park as A. amabilis ; but, though now over 40 years 
old, seems not to have coned yet. In the same establishments another fir 
is cultivated, in Edinburgh as amabilis , in Dropmore as grandis, thus 
continuing the confusion which has existed from the first in regard to 
these names. I suspect this to be the real amabilis of Douglas, but take it 
for a variety of grandis," which —Douglas’ name being doubtful—may be 
designated as : 
Var. densifolia : Foliage denser than in the species, clustered on the 
upper side of the branches like that of Nordmanniana ; leaves dark glossy 
w green above, with 2 very conspicuous white bands below; hypoderm cells 
more crowded under the upper surface of the leaf; cones and seeds the 
same.—Apparently a mountain form of grandis , from the base of Mount 
Hood, E. Hall , mixed with subalpina, to British Columbia, Lyall. Doug¬ 
las found his amabilis in September, 1825, “on the mountains immediately 
south of the Grand Rapids of the Columbia,” together with A. nobilis ; 
but the cone sent home by him (at that time or later ?) was a much larger 
one, 5-6 inches long, 2^-3 thick, with lanceolate bracts; from its seeds the 
above-mentioned trees are said to have sprung. Unfortunately the large 
\ cone, figured by Lambert as grandis ; and by Loudon and in Pinet. Wo¬ 
burn, as amabilis , and'formerly preserved in the collection of the London 
Horticultural Society, seems to have been lost since the sale of that collec¬ 
tion; it may have been similar to Newberry’s cone oi fallax, described 
above.. 
The following species have been claimed for amabilis: A. subalpina 
is called so by Parlatore 1 . c., who seemed to rely on its native local¬ 
ity and on its leaves (or many of them) being entire, but overlooks other 
characters.—Var'. fallax of that species, taken for amabilis by New¬ 
berry, has a large cone and similar bracts, but is not in cultivation, as 
Douglas’ tree is supposed to be.— A. magnifica , the amabilis of the Cali¬ 
fornian botanists, has the large cones, the lanceolate bracts, and the entire 
leaves, claimed for amabilis; but the foliage is quite different, and so is 
its locality.— A. nobilis : Prof. McNab finds the leaves of the type specimen 
oi amabilis in Herb. Kew identical with nobilis leaves; I have examined 
the same leav.es and take them with scarcely a doubt for those of a form of 
grandis.—A. concolor has been named amabilis in some gardens.—Locally 
the “yellow fir” of Oregon, as Pseodotsuga Douglasii is often called, 
seems to have been also taken for amabilis , perhaps on account of its entire 
leaves.—There remains only the tree which I have designated as A. gran¬ 
dis var. densifiora, which, together with grandis itself, is the only western 
Abies (nobilis . excepted) which has sprung from Douglas’ Oregon seeds. 
No subalpina , magnifica or concolor has been in cultivation longer than 
the modern knowledge of California extends back and the influx of English 
seed collectors, beginning with Jeffrey in 1851. None of these species, then, 
can be Douglas’ amabilis , but every consideration points to the tree culti¬ 
vated under that name in Edinburgh. Prof. McNab has come to the same 
conclusion, but differs from me in considering it a distinct species. Fur- 
V 
