PINETUM BRITANNICUM. 
V" 
8 
Difference in rap¬ 
idity of growth. 
Difference in 
fpecific gravity. 
The Cedar is a little more knotted than the Deodar, and under the microfcope the fpiral tubes of the latter 
feem a little more open, and more frequent than in the former; but in other refpedfs no difference is 
obfervable. The wood being young, and the fize not very great, it gives out little fcent at either end. In 
burning, however, the Deodar is certainly the moft inflammable. 
In refpedt of rapidity of growth there is confiderable difference. Cedrus Atlantica 
is by much the fafiefl, C. Deodara the next, and C. Libani the Howell. 
The fpecific gravity of the Cedar of Lebanon is faid to have been determined to be 
.613. Captain W. Jones of the Bengal Engineers found the fpecific gravity of the Deodar, 
on an average of twenty trials, to be .680. But the tefi of fpecific gravity is one which is 
liable to be fo much affedted by the age and condition of the tree, its ftate of drynefs when 
weighed, and other particulars, that it is almoft impoffible to arrive at a fair comparifon. The fame fpecies 
will give different refults, according to the climate, foil, and moiffure of the place where it grows ; and pieces 
of the fame tree, cut off at different times in its life, will contradidf each other; and when, as in the above 
inftance, an average of twenty differing refults has to be ffruck, it may reafonably be difmiffed as valuelefs 
for fuch a purpofe as determining the fpecific identity or difference of two nearly allied trees. 
As to the relative durability of the timber of thefe two Cedars (C. Atlantica has fcarcely entered into 
this part of the difpute), much conflicting evidence has been adduced. When we come to 
Difference m fpeak of the properties of the Deodar, ample evidence will be given of its durability. 
the durability 1111 1 
of the timber. There can be no doubt about that. Doubts have, however, been thrown upon the 
durability of the Libani. Loudon declares that it is “ by no means durable; ” but antient 
authors are full of allufions to its fempiternal endurance; and he, with perfedf fairnefs, refers to them, 
although in oppofition to the view he has adopted. He attempts to reconcile the difcrepancy by fuppofing, 
as others have done, that the Antients, in fpeaking of the Cedar, meant fomething elfe, as the Juniper, or 
fome other tree. This, however, can fcarcely be accepted as a true interpretation of their meaning, at any 
rate in many cafes. It may be true in fome inffances, and it does not concern us to deny that the 
knowledge of plants poffeffed by the Antients was not fo perfedt as to prevent them at times applying the 
fame names to more than one tree, and different, or even the fame, men applying the fame name to 
different trees; but there are paffages regarding the Cedars which fcarcely admit of mifapplication. For 
inftance, the PfalmifI fays, “ The righteous fliall ffourifli like the Palm tree, he fliall grow like a Cedar 
in Lebanon.” And the prophet Ezekiel thus defcribes it: “ Behold, the Affyrian was a Cedar in 
Lebanon with fair branches, and with a fhadowing fhroud, and of an high ffature; and his top was among 
the thick boughs. . . . His boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long. . . . The Fir 
trees were not like his boughs, and the Cheftnut trees were not like his branches ; nor any tree in the 
garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.” In neither of thefe quotations can there be any queftion 
that it was no Juniper, but the Cedar of Lebanon itfelf, which was referred to. If fo, then the properties, 
and among them the durability, afcribed to the fcriptural Cedar muff in fairnefs be allowed to be meant to 
apply to the Cedrus Libani. Loudon’s own expreffions on the fubjedt are; “ The wood called Cedar by 
the Antients was fuppofed to be fo incorruptible that the expreffion dignus cedro (worthy to be preferved 
in Cedar) was applied to anything thought worthy of immortality.” “ Pliny tells us of a temple of Apollo 
at U tica (the well-known city of that name in Africa) in which was found Cedar timber that, though nearly 
2000 years old, was perfedfly found.” He alfo fpeaks of a fiatue of Diana carved in Cedar, which was 
preferved in a temple at Saguntum in Spain, and had been brought there from Zante 200 years before the 
burning of Troy. 
We have thus Efficient evidence, regarding both the Cedar of Lebanon and the Deodar, to fhew 
that the wood of each is of great durability. The fuppofed fpecific difference in this refpedf, therefore, 
difappears upon examination. 
Some ftrefs has been laid upon a fuppofed difference in the ffrength of the timber, as indicating fpecific 
difiindtnefs. Notwithflanding that the older authors gave ffrength as an attribute of the wood of the Cedar 
of 
