•2 
PINETUM BRITANNICUM. 
Fig- 5 - 
Fig. 6. 
Fig. 7. 
Fig. 8. 
broadeft diameter ; very hard, (lightly fhining, pale fawn colour. Scales difpofed fpirally, in five rows the one 
way, and eight rows the other,* thofe on the outfide neareft 
the bafe with their apophyfes bent backwards, and the reft 
on that fide with it gradually turning forwards as they 
approach the apex; the fide of the apophyfis next the apex 
ftrongly convex in them all, that toward the bafe lefs fo, and 
(lightly biconcave. The fcales on the inner fide 
of the cone only (lightly convex, or very nearly 
flat; a narrow doubly-curved tranfverfe thin line 
or keel runs acrofs the wideft part of the apo¬ 
phyfis, and in its centre there is a fmall dark- 
brown (lightly raifed umbo, which has a fmall 
tooth turned towards the bafe, but this is often 
rubbed or broken off. Another narrow raifed 
line runs ftraight down from this umbo, and a 
lefs evident one runs upwards. 
Fig. 9 reprefents a young frefh cone of 
laft year’s growth from Ireland, and which is 
very like that given of P. infignis by Lambert 
in his “Genus Pinus and fig. 10 is a copy of Gordon’s figure of P. radiata , in the “ Hort. Society’s 
Journal.” Fig. 11 reprefents the outfide of an individual fcale. Fig. 12 gives a lateral view of 
the same fcale. The feeds are rathei fmall, daik biown, 
not fpeckled, the wing comparatively long, but varying in 
length. Fig. 13 is a copy of the figure of the feed and 
wing, given by Loudon; and fig. 14 is that of P. radiata, 
copied from Gordon’s account of it in the “Hort. Society s 
Journal.” 
In the fynonyms at the head of this defcription, we 
have united the names of P. radiata 
and P. infignis , thefe, we are well 
affured, being one and the fame; but 
we have retained the name infignis 
in preference to that of radiata , 
although the latter had the advan- 
tage of a flight priority in pub¬ 
lication, becaufe the former was 
applied to the more ufual charadter 
of the fpecies, the latter to a more 
developed and lefs frequent ftage of 
the growth. 
Fig . 9 . The foie difference between the F i g . to. 
two is, that the cone of radiata is larger, and the fcales on its gibbous fide more developed, and 
the fize of the feeds contained in it correfpondingly greater. Mr Gordon further gives, as a 
diftinguifhing character, that in the wild fpecimens, although the cones of radiata are larger, the 
leaves 
* Gordon fays (“ Journ. Hort. Soc.,” iv. 216) that each cone contains from fourteen to fixteen rows of fcales. This is a miftake. It has only 
the ufual number, viz., five rows in one fpiral, and eight in the other. We know of no cone which has more than this number, although fome, as 
the Larches and Hemlock Spruces, have only five rows either way. 
