PINUS TUBERCULATA. 
fJ* 
2 
the leaves. . . . The cone had the form of the great maritime pine ( Pinus pinajler), but a third longer 
in all its dimenfions. Under each of its fcales two feeds are found of the fize of thofe of P. Cembra , the 
kernel of which is good to eat.” No figure of the cone is given, and the cone itfelf difappeared from the 
Mufeum about the year 1814. So far as La Peroufe or Collignon’s fpecimen itfelf is concerned, therefore, 
we are confined to the above defcription. Now, by this time we know pretty well all the pines that are found 
in the immediate neighbourhood of Monterey; and the only fpecies with “ leaves in twos or threes which 
have feeds which can be compared in fize to thofe of Pinus Cembra , and of which the kernel is good to eat, 
are Pinus Sabiniana and P. Coulteri. No doubt the feeds of both of thefe fpecies are larger than thofe of 
P. Cembra , and have wings, which P. Cembra has not; but Collignon fpeakmg from recolledtion might have 
forgot their exact fize. They were and are ufed as an article of food or deffert at the Miffion, and by the 
fettlers as well as by the natives; and it is natural that he fhould remember this feature in the character of the 
fpecies. But if he really ever got or faw a fpecimen of the cone of P. Coulteri or P. Sabiniana , it is by no 
means natural, it is perfectly incomprehenfible—we fhould almoft fay perfectly impoffible—that he could have 
paffed it over without noticing its wonderful form, fize, and great hooked fcales. It is equally out of the 
queftion that Thouin, defcribing from the cone itfelf, fhould have overlooked them; and not only fo, but 
that he fhould have defcribed it as of the form of, but a third longer and larger than, P. pinajler. Our 
belief is that Collignon never collected the fpecimens himfelf at all, but, tailing the feeds at the Miffion or 
elfewhere, he expreffed a defire to get fpecimens of the cone. The men he employed to get thefe, infteacl 
of going to the more diftant fecond range on which they are chiefly to be found, would take the cones 
which were neareft to their hand; and as the cones of all the pines growing there are very impenetrably 
fealed up and difficult to open even when mature, it is not likely that he would be at the trouble of breaking 
them up (which, befldes, would fpoil the fpecimen), and fo difcover the impofture. Putting out of view 
the edible kernels, there are feveral three-leaved pines which grow in the neighbourhood of Monterey which 
would anfwer Thouin s defcription well enough. A cone like, but a third larger than, that of P. pinajler 
might apply equally well either to the prefent fpecies or to P. infignis or to P. Benthamiana , and, so far as 
that character goes, we remain in as great obfcurity as ever. 
Loifeleur informs us, however, that the feeds of Collignon’s cone had been fown at the Jardin des 
Plantes, and that twelve plants had been raifed from them, which, cultivated in the Orangery, had fucceeded 
very well. Moft of thefe plants were afterwards fent to botanic gardens in the fouth of France, but feveral 
remained in the J ardin des Plantes, of which one {till furvived in 1812 (when Loifeleur wrote), and it 
had reached the height of 7 feet. This plant furnifhed him with fome information as to the leaves. It 
may have been it which enabled him to fay that the cone was much longer than the leaves. He informs us 
that the leaves are 3 inches in length; and, reckoning the cones of P. pinajler at from 4 to 6 inches 
long, and adding a third to bring it up to Thouin’s requirements, we would have the cones from 7 to 8 
inches long as againft the leaves 3 inches long—a difference which would fairly entitle him to fay that 
the cones were “ much longer.” The leaves, he fays, were very flender and of a deep green, which is 
probably the feature on the {Length of which “it is now generally admitted that P. Calif or nica (Loifel.) 
and P. adunca (Bose) are fynonyms of P. infignis (Dougl.),” if Carriere be corredt in faying that this is 
generally admitted nowadays. P. adunca is a manufeript name of Bose, quoted in the Bon Jardinier as 
a fynonym of Loifeleur’s P. Californica , and need not be confldered. 
Of the twelve plants raifed from Collignon’s fpecimen, we learn from Loudon, on the authority of M. 
Vilmorin, that one found its way into the nurfery of M. Godefroy at Ville d’Avray, near Paris; and when 
Loudon wrote his Arboretum (1838), it was the only one which remained alive, thofe in the Jardin des 
Plantes having all died. Loudon mentions incidentally that Godefroy’s plant was protected every winter, 
while thofe in the Jardin des Plantes were planted in the open ground. M. Godefroy manufactured a 
good many young plants from this individual by inarching, and fent them out under the name of Pinus 
Montereyenfis (turned into Moutheragenfis in the Horticultural Society’s garden at Chifwick for the fake 
of Latinity, and quoted under that name by Loudon). The Horticultural Society got one fpecimen, 
[ 10 ] b regarding 
