4 7 
PINUS MONOPHYLLA. 3 
Although Endlicher gives no reason for changing the name from monophylla to Fremontiana , Mr 
Gordon, who two years later gave a figure and description of the same species, states that the origin 
of the change was as follows: “Dr Torrey first gave the name of monophylla to this Pine from a 
supposition that the leaves were mostly solitary, but Professor Endlicher, who afterwards examined 
more perfedt specimens, found that the leaves were in twos and threes, and that the solitary leaves 
arose from Dr Torrey’s specimens being gathered from stunted plants. He consequently altered Dr 
Torrey’s name of monophylla to that of Fremontiana , in compliment to Captain Fremont, its first 
discoverer.” 
On this paragraph Dr Torrey afterwards (“Botanical Report in United States and Mexican 
Boundary Report,” vol. ii. p. 208, 1859) remarks—“Gordon, in the work just quoted (. Hort . Soc. 
Jour. ), refers this species to P. monophylla , Tor. and Frem., the name of which he says was changed 
to P. Fremontiana by Professor Endlicher (‘ Syn. Conif.,’ p. 183) because that botanist ‘having afterwards 
examined more perfect specimens, found that the leaves were in twos and threes, and that the solitary 
leaves arose from Dr Torrey’s specimens being gathered from stunted plants.’ Now we find that 
Endlicher has no remarks of this kind. His entire description is taken from mine in Fremont’s Second 
Report, but he regards what I call a single leaf as consisting of two united leaves.” 
Still we are inclined to think that Mr Gordon’s account is in the main corredt. Of course, the 
statement as to the respective condition of Professor Endlicher’s and Dr Torrey’s specimens may have 
been (must have been) a conjecture of his own; but the motive of the change of name assigned by him 
seems very probable. Whether the above was Endlicher’s reason for changing the name or not, it is 
clear that he was wrong in changing it. Dr Torrey’s name, monophylla , is sound, well-founded, and 
most characteristic, and the rules of priority require that it should be restored. 
The next notice of the species after Endlicher’s is that by Gordon, above referred to, in the 
Horticultural Society s Journal , iv. 293. Seeds and specimens of the cone were sent home by Hart- 
weg, who gives the following information regarding it (. Horticultural Society’s Journal , iii. 226) :— 
“ Previous to leaving Monterey, I was told by several persons that a kind of thin-shelled Pine-nut is 
occasionally brought for sale by the Indians to Santa Inez and Santa Barbara, without being able to learn 
any more respecting it. Upon making further inquiries at Santa Inez, I was told that the Indians bring 
them from a great distance, that the harvest of them was over, but that I might procure a few from the 
mission Indians. Proceeding to a hut which was pointed out to me, I bought a gallon of the fresh seeds, 
and, inquiring about the size of the cones, the Indian handed me two, with the information that the trees 
are of a small size, when, judge of my surprise, I recognised in them those of Pinus Llaveana , which I 
had on former occasions found in several parts of Mexico.” In this last point he was in error, as we shall 
presently shew. 
Mr Gordon tells us further that the seeds were received by the Horticultural Society, and being in 
tolerably good condition at the time, soon came up, and a portion was distributed under the name of 
“ Pinus Llaveana , with a thin-shelled seed.” Hartweg’s recognition of the cones as those of P. Llaveana 
had apparently led Dr Lindley and Mr Gordon to take it for granted that it was so, and to distribute it 
under that name, although their addition, “ with a thin-shelled seed,” indicated doubt. But after the plants 
had been distributed, it would appear that it had been ascertained that it was not Llaveana but Torrey’s 
species, and the error was rectified in Mr Gordon’s description. In that description he states that the 
leaves are generally in threes, but not unfrequently in pairs, or even solitary. This is a most material 
difference from Dr Torrey’s description, in which they are said to be almost entirely solitary. We may 
here observe that the native specimens which we ourselves possess entirely correspond with Dr Torrey’s; 
in fadfc, in our specimens received from California, we have seen no leaves in pairs. It is only in plants 
reared in this country that we have occasionally met with them; and we have never seen nor heard of any 
in threes but those mentioned by Mr Gordon. We, therefore, should have liked to know Mr Gordon’s 
grounds for stating that they are in threes. His information could not be got from Hartweg’s specimens, 
for Hartweg expressly says that the seeds came far from where he was (he was at Santa Inez, in the coast- 
[ 271 
B 
range, 
