ARAUCARIA IMBRICATA, 
In the “ Travels” here referred to, the following further notice of it occurs:— 
“ When we arrived at the first Arazicarias, the sun had just set; still some light remained for their examination. What first struck our 
attention were the thick roots of these trees, which lie spread over the stony and nearly naked soil, like gigantic serpents, 2 feet or 3 feet in thickness : 
they are clothed with a rough bark similar to that which invests the lofty pillar-like trunks from 50 feet to 100 feet in height. The crown of foliage 
occupies only about the upper quarter of the stem, and resembles a large depressed cone. The lower branches, eight or twelve in number, form a 
circle round the trunk; they diminish till they are but four or six in a ring, and are of most regular formation, all spreading out horizontally, and 
bending upwards only at their tips. They are thickly invested with leaves that cover them like scales, and are sharp pointed, above an inch broad, 
and of such hard and woody texture that it requires a sharp knife to sever them from the parent branch. The general aspect of the Araucaria is 
most striking and peculiar, though it undeniably bears a distant family likeness to the Pines of our country. The fruit, placed at the end of the 
boughs, are of regular globular form, as large as a man’s head, and each consists of beautifully imbricated scales that cover the seeds, which are the 
most important part of this truly noble tree.” (See Translation in “ Comp. Bot. Mag.,” i. p. 367.) 
Loudon says that the male tree has its leaves somewhat differently shaped from those of the female 
tree, and very much resembling those of A. Brasiliensis in shape, though of a different texture and colour. 
So far as we can judge from the growth of the tree in this country, this difference does not appear—at least, 
in the early state of the tree. Mr Barnes, who has had ample means of forming a judgment from the many 
fine specimens grown at Bicton, writes thus:— 
“ There is an erroneous idea prevalent, consequent upon what I conceive to be erroneous descriptions, as to the difference of shape, and habit, 
and hue of the male and female plant. I am perfectly satisfied that nobody can point out to me, in any way, the difference between the male and 
female Arazicaria before they have seen them shew their cones. We have a long avenue of large Araucarias here, as many of your readers may 
know, and many fine specimens in various parts of the grounds. I have seen three females producing cones, and have had fifteen males in full 
catkin during the early months of the spring season. I cannot understand how it is that travellers state there is such a difference to be seen 
between males and females in their native country : here I can perceive no trace of a variation of habit, though, perhaps, it may be developed at a 
maturer age. However, I cannot find a trace of difference, though I have had such a number of trees daily under observation for such a length of 
time. Besides, it appears unnatural that the female should be higher, producing its cones quite erect on the summit of its branches, as they describe 
it. The oldest Araucaria here is only about 30 feet high, its coning for so many years having prevented it from obtaining a nobler growth, the 
head being about 26 feet in diameter, with a clean stem of 13 feet to the first branch, and a bole 4 feet in circumference. As it grows on, the lower 
branches hang down, and eventually get exhausted, while it is growing freely and producing cones as large as a child’s head above. This speci¬ 
men seems falling into the way of the long, straight, and bare-stemmed trees described by travellers.” ( Gardeners Chronicle, June 1, 1867.) 
Mr Barnes further mentions that the catkins are not only produced in spring, but in every month of 
the year, from the extreme points of the shoots, in bunches of from two to ten, growing in the course of the 
season to about 4 or 6 inches in length, about the size of a Spruce cone, and so freely produced that, when 
ripe, the pollen flies about on a fine sunny day in clouds of a yellowish-brown colour. 
It has been thought that the tree grows more in the winter time than other trees, for all trees make 
some growth then, though it may generally be imperceptible. Mr Fowler,-forester at Castle Kennedy, 
found, by a comparison of measurement taken on six plants, in May, November, and February, that the 
average increase of height, from 3d May to 1 ith November, was nearly 10 inches, and from 1 ith November 
to 22d February lyi inch ( Scottish Gardener , v. it7). 
The tree does not always make fresh shoots every year, but it often, apparently, stands still for one year, 
or sometimes two years, and then starts and makes a shoot in the following year. On this point Mr 
M‘Nab, of the Edinburgh Botanic Garden, gives some information derived from the trees cut down after 
being killed by the frosts of 1860-61 and 1862-63. He says : “For many years past a good deal of specula¬ 
tion has been going on with reference to the tiers of branches as compared with the probable age of the 
trees. The cutting down of different sized trees in the garden has given us an opportunity of setting this 
matter, so far, at rest. The largest plant cut down was 24 feet 6 inches high, and 4 feet in circumference 
at the base. This plant has thirty perfect annual rings, and twenty perfect whorls of branches—proving that 
eighteen months are necessary to complete one internode and whorl. Two others cut down, both about 
16 feet in height, had fifteen perfect tiers of branches, besides an unbranched terminal shoot, and twenty- 
three annual rings. Many others, averaging 8 feet in height, have eight perfect whorls with unbranched 
terminal shoots, and about thirteen annual rings. To tell the age of a growing plant of Araucaria , count 
the tiers of branches and add one half the number, making allowance for the unbranched terminal shoot if 
any; this will give nearly the age of each tree” ( Edin . Phil. Journ ., 1862, p. 313). Mr M‘Nab rightly 
adds that it is not to be expected that plants ill treated, or growing in very exposed situations or bad 
[ 32 ] c undrained 
