CEDRUS DEODARA. 
9 
of Lebanon, it is long fince its timber has been condemned as worthlefs, whilft, on the other hand, that of 
the Deodar has been lauded for its ftrength and value. Probably neither deferves the full 
theftreng^h^f amoun ^ °f praife or difpraife that has been beffowed upon it: the Cedar is not fo bad, and 
the timber. the Deodar not fo good, as has been thought. It is from the Eaft Indians, and the authors 
who have taken their information from them, that our belief in the ftrength of the Deodar 
has been derived; and it has been adted upon by our countrymen to the extent of importing tons of feed, 
and planting thoufands of acres in this country with the Deodar. It is fome time fince its right to fuch a 
reputation has been challenged; and although the queftion is ftill fub judice, it is probable that if a decifion 
were now to be preffed for, it would not be favourable to the Deodar. Adequate trials of the comparative 
ftrength of the timber of the Cedar of Lebanon, the Deodar, and the Atlantic Cedar, have ftill to be made. 
We have attempted to do fo with the fpecimen of the Deodar inarched on the Cedar of Lebanon, already 
mentioned as in the collection of the Royal Horticultural Society, and which has certain advantages for the 
comparifon, both having grown on the fame root, and of courfe having been fubjedted exadtly to the fame 
climate, foil, and other conditions. A piece of wood, i foot in length by i inch fquare, was taken from each 
end of the flab, and each was placed between fupports 11 inches diftant, and weights were fufpended from the 
centre, the fufpender bearing on the fpecimens being about a fourth of an inch in breadth. The breakage 
was as follows :—The Cedar of Lebanon end broke under a weight of 378 lb.; the Deodar under a weight of 
448 lb., or about 1 -6th more than the Cedar. But the defledfion and fradture were even more remarkable. 
The Cedar fhewed fcarcely any defledtion at all. When weighted with 224 lb., it defledted 3-i6ths of an 
inch; with 336 lb., it defledted 3-8ths of an inch ; and at 378 lb. it broke in two with a fhort and fudden 
fradture, and the defledtion already indicated went back. The Deodar, on the other hand, did not begin to 
defied! until a weight had been put on it which broke the Cedar: at 364 lb. it defledted an inch ; at 420 lb. an 
inch and a half; and at 448 lb. an inch and three-quarters. It then broke in three with a fudden fradture and 
loud report, fhort on the under fide and half through, fplit in half from the centre to the one end; the top 
fide remained tough, and broke at about two inches from the centre, which remained permanently defledted. 
The refult of this experiment exhibits a more marked difference between the two woods than we antici¬ 
pated, and a very decided fuperiority in the Deodar. Its adtual ftrength is not particularly great; but it 
contrails very favourably with the Cedar, more efpecially as regards preliminary toughnefs. When it does 
give way, it has the bad qualities of brittle woods, breaking with a loud report, and throwing pieces of 
the wood into the air. The Cedar, on the other hand, does not even go through the pretence of not yield¬ 
ing or yielding on conftraint, but breaks fhort off like a reed. There is one exception which may be taken 
to this experiment, however—viz., that the climate or foil which would have fuited the one beft, was not the 
moft fuitable for the other. We cannot difpute that it may be fo ; therefore let allowance be made for the 
objection: valeat quantum. 
Thefe, we believe, are all the fpecific differences which have been alleged to exift between the three 
kinds of Cedars, and the above is, we think, a fair eftimate of their value. The reader, however, may further 
wifli to learn the concluftons which have been come to by the moft eminent authorities, on either fide, who 
have expreffed an opinion on the fubjecft. A writer in the Gardeners Chronicle (26th Feb. 1853), who may 
fairly be affumed to be Dr Lindley, or at leaft to exprefs that botanift’s views, fays: “ Here, as in fo many 
other cafes, the queftion refolves itfelf into one of words. It is maintained that thefe trees have defcended 
from one common ftock, in the lapfe of ages, and are, therefore, fpecifically the fame. We have nothing to 
objecft. The negro and the white, the game-cock and the jungle-fowl, the lap-dog and the bloodhound, the 
dog himfelf, indeed, and the wolf, have all, in turn, been pronounced by competent authority to be of iden¬ 
tical origin; and we are very far from queftioning the foundnefs of fuch opinions. The fame kind of 
reafoning which juftifies fuch concluftons would undoubtedly lead irrefiftibly to the inference that the Scotch 
ro fe, the dog-rofe, and the Gallic rofe, nay, even the China rofe itfelf, have a common origin: for are they 
not traceable the one into the other, by infenfible gradations, and innumerable intermediate forms ? But 
|- 9 ] e although 
