PINUS INSIGNIS. 
v i 
5 
foil, a marine neighbourhood, and a moift atmofphere, as fome of the points to be attended to in cultivating 
this fpecies to the greateft advantage. Its fuccefs in the Ifle of Wight juftifies this a priori conclufion. 
When it was firft introduced, it was faid that it would prove perfectly hardy in Britain ; and, indeed, fo it 
hands recorded hill in moft works on the fubjebf of Conifers. This, however, is certainly by no means 
unconditionally true. It has proved tolerably hardy in the fouth of England and Ireland; but farther to 
the north, efpecially in Scotland, its fuccefs—we fhould rather fay its furvivance or exiftence—is the excep¬ 
tion, not the rule. 
Mr Palmer made very full inquiries regarding this fpecies, and the refult fhews the efifedtof the winter 
of i860 upon the trees growing at 109 places, as follows, viz.:— 
Killed. 
Much Injured. 
Injured. 
Not injured. 
Total. 
England, . 
. . 62 
6 
3 
l6 
87 
Scotland, . 
10 
3 
1 
3 
17 
Ireland, 
. 
... 
1 
4 
5 
72 
9 
5 
23 
109 
So that, of thofe places which came within his inquiries, the refult appears to be, that in England 
the tree efcaped uninjured in only 1 out of 5 places; in Scotland at 1 out of 6 ; while in Ireland it efcaped 
at 4 out of 5. 
But a more detailed examination of his tables, as well as of the hiftory of the attempts to eftablifh this 
Pine in Britain, fhews that the only places where it can be planted freely and fearleffly are the weft and 
fouth-weft coafts. In the midland and northern counties, and throughout along the eaft coaft, although 
occafionally a much-injured tree may have recovered, or even a favourably planted fpecimen or one pro¬ 
tected either by nature or art (that is, by nature, by means of fituation or fnow; or by man, by artificial 
coverings), may have efcaped altogether: that has been the rare exception which proves the rule. 
As this is a tree naturally fo much defired, it may be ufeful to our readers to fee in more detail the 
ftatiftics of its hardinefs. The following Abftradf fhews fome refults arrived at by a critical examina¬ 
tion of Mr Palmer’s tables:— 
Counties in which the places 
reported on lie. 
ENGLAND. 
I. South-west Coast. 
Cornwall . 
Devon . 
Somerfet . 
II. 
South Coast. 
Ifle of Wight 
Hants . 
Suffex . 
Number of 
places where the 
tree wholly 
escaped, or was 
only slightly 
injured. 
III. South-east Coast. 
Kent . 
IV. 
West Coast. 
Anglefea . 
Chefter. 
Lancafter. 
Weftmoreland 
V. East Coast. 
Effex. 
Suffolk. 
Norfolk. 
Lincoln. 
York. 
Northumberland 
1 
3 
1 
1 
1 
1 
Number of 
places where 
some were killed 
or much injured, 
and some 
escaped. 
Number of places 
where all were 
killed or much 
injured. 
1 much injured 
1 killed 
2 killed 
Total. 
I 
i killed 
1 
1 
2 killed 
3 
1 killed 
2 nearly all killed 
8 all killed, 
1 much injured 
2 
6 
2 
1 
O 
o 
} 
I 
1 
2 
X 
2 
4 
1 
2 
9 
2 
Counties in which the places 
reported on lie. 
ENGLAND. 
VI. Inland Counties. 
Surrey,. 
Berks . 
Oxford. 
Buckingham. 
[ 19 1 
Gloucefter. 
Hereford . 
Wilts. 
Number of 
places where the 
tree wholly 
escaped, or was 
only slightly 
injured. 
Bedford 
Northampton 
Stafford . 
Cambridge .. 
Huntingdon .. 
Warwick. 
Leicefter . 
N ottingham .. 
Derby . 
Stafford . 
Denbigh . 
Salop . 
4 
Number of 
places where 
some were killed 
or much injured, 
and some 
escaped. 
4 
1 
1 (20 efcap¬ 
ed out of 
2000) 
Number of places 
where all were 
killed or much 
injured. 
2 killed 
2 killed 
3 nearly all killed 
1 killed 
3 fome much in 
jured, moft killed 
1 
3 killed 
2 killed 
x killed 
2 killed 
2 killed 
5 killed 
2 killed 
2 killed 
1 killed 
Total. 
4 
6 
2 
1 
3 
1 
o 
2 
1 
2 
2 
5 
2 
2 
1 
1 
