CEDRUS ATLANTIC A. 
Identification. —CEDRUS ATLANTICA, Manetti, Cat. Horti Modic. Suppl., p. 9 (1844); Decaisne, in Revue Hort. 1853, p. 41 ; Carriere, 
TraitC Ghi. des Conif., p. 285 (1855) ; Gordon, Pinetum, p. 39 (1858). 
CEDRUS LIBANI, Var. Renou, Annal. Forest., iii. p. 2 (1854); Cosson, Annal. Science Nat., 4 ser., iv. p. 67 (1855), and 
v. p. 31 (1856). 
CEDRUS AFRICANA, (Gordon) Knight, Syn. Conif., p. 42 (1850). 
CEDRUS ELEGANS, Knight, Syn. Conif, p. 42 (1850). 
PINUS ATLANTICA, Endlicher, Syn. Conif., p. 137 (1847). 
ABIES ATLANTICA, Lindl. & Gord., Journ. Hort. Soc., v. p. 214 (1850). 
Engravings. —Cones and Leaves .—Renou, op. cit., pi. 1 and 2 ; Hooker, in Nat. Hist. Rev., Jan. 1862, pi. 3. 
Trees. —Article Cedrus Deodara in this work. 
Var. CEDRUS ARGENTEA, Renou, Annal. Forest., iii. p. 2 (1854). 
Specific Character .—Cedrus ramis nec pendulis nec horizontalibus, foliis brevioribus crassioribus a 
Cedro Libani et Cedro Deodara diversa, conis minoribus et magis cylindricis, squamis triangularibus, 
seminibus alis oblique expansis. 
Habitat in Monte Atlante. 
Fig. 1. 
A tree of the size of the Cedar of Lebanon and Deodar, and scarcely distinguishable from it. The 
characters which have been given for distinguishing them are, that instead of its habit being tabuliform, as 
in the former, or with a drooping leader and branchlets, as in the latter, it has them rigid and erect, the 
ends of its branches being straight and stiff, instead of hanging 
more or less, as in both the other Cedars. The leaves are 
more glaucous, shorter, thicker, stififer, and, consequently, more 
prickly than those of the other Cedars. Lig. 1 shews the 
usual size of the clusters of leaves. They have the same num¬ 
ber of rows of stomata as those of the Cedar of Lebanon, viz., 
three on the two under sides, and two on the upper two [see 
figs. 2 and 3], both, of course, subject to variation and irregularities. The 
foliage is usually darker in colour, and more glaucous. There seems to be no 
perceptible difference in the male flowers. The cone is smaller and more cylin¬ 
drical than that of the Cedar of Lebanon and Deodar, and is distinguished by a 
series of hollow dimples, much more marked than in the others. The group of 
cones in fig. 4 gives a good idea of its different forms and sizes. The 
middle-sized one may be taken as the typical example, but all four are common. 
They never reach the size of the cones of the Cedar or Deodar, and, so far as we 
have seen, they are never so much swollen or bellied out in the middle. These 
we have copied from a good collection of cones received from Mr Henry Vilmorin, of the well-known 
firm of Vilmorin, Andrieux, & Cie., of Paris, who, from his commerce in the seeds of this Cedar, is natur- 
[ 21 ] a ally 
Fig. 2. 
F >g- 3 - 
