4 PINETUM BRITANNICUM. 
marked manner in most Cypresses, not excepting the Sequoia sempervirens , which' on the same branch often 
presents both imbricated and distichous leaves ; that, as regards the structure of the fruit and seed, the com¬ 
mon Red Wood (Sequoia sempervirens) and the Wellingtonia are identical, the only difference being that the 
cones of the latter were larger; that the structure was not like that of Sciadopitys; and, finally, that the 
wood of the two trees is similar, both abounding with the red colouring matter, soluble in water, from which 
the Red Wood takes its name. At the time when this opinion was given, neither Professor Asa Gray nor 
Professor Decaisne had seen the male flowers, which, as was said by the former, were alone wanting to con¬ 
firm the perfect generic identity of Wellingtonia with Sequoia. 
But further, if the generic name were to be abandoned, and the species placed under Sequoia , an 
objection arises to the specific name gigantea , that that name had been already used by Endlicher for 
another Sequoia , of whose identity botanists are not certain, but which is generally believed to be only a 
synonym of Sequoia sempervirens , and the same specific name ought not to be used twice in the same genus, 
even although its previous use may have been erroneous, and merely a synonym of something else. The 
policy of such a rule is apparent, as its negledt would add unnecessarily to the mountain of confusion which 
already weighs down botanical nomenclature. 
These were the scientific objections to the name given by Lindley to this species ; but others have been 
brought forward, principally by our American friends, of a less tenable nature. According to some of 
them the name is objectionable as not paying sufficient respeCt to American prejudices. The follow¬ 
ing droll specimen of Transatlantic declamation, from the pen of a Dr Winslow, shews the objections on 
this head :— 
“ The name that has been applied to this tree by Professor Lindley, an English botanist, is Wellingtonia gigantea. By him it is declared to be 
so much unlike other Coniferae, as not only to be a new species, but to require description as a new genus. Other botanists think differently. To 
this, however, he has seen fit to apply the name of an English hero, a step indicating as much personal arrogance or weakness as scientific indelicacy ; 
for it must have been a prominent idea in the mind of that person that American naturalists would regard with surprise and reluCtance the appli¬ 
cation of a British name, however meritoriously honoured, when a name so worthy of immortal honour and renown as that of Washington, would 
strike the mind of the world as far more suitable to the most gigantic and remarkable vegetable wonder indigenous to a country where his name is the 
most distinguished ornament. As he and his generation declared themselves independent of all English rule and political dictation, so American natu¬ 
ralists must in this case express their respeCfful dissent from all British scientific stamp aCts. If the big tree be a Taxodium , let it be called now and 
for ever Taxodium Washingtonium. If it should be properly ranked as a new genus, then let it be called to the end of time Washingtonia Cali- 
farnica. The generic name indicates unparalleled greatness and grandeur; its specific name, the only locality in the world where it is found. No 
names can be more appropriate; and if it be in accordance with the views of American botanists, I trust the scientific honour of our country may 
be vindicated from foreign indelicacy by boldly discarding the name now applied to it, and by affixing to it that of the immortal man whose mem¬ 
ory we all love and honour, and teach our children to adore. Under any and all circumstances, however, whether of perpetuity or extinction, the 
name of Wellington should be discarded, and that of Washington attached to it, and transmitted to the schools of future ages.” 
To this, the unreasoning, class of objections, there is of course no answer. To the reasoning class, 
the best answer which we have met with, besides his original justification of the genus above quoted, is 
given in a short note by Dr Lindley, published, with his permission, in the “ Edinburgh Philosophical 
Journal,” in i860:— 
“ Notwithstanding the criticisms of M. Decaisne, Dr Torrey, and Dr Seemann, I adhere to my opinion that Wellingtonia is necessarily dis¬ 
tinguished from Sequoia , unless all the modern dismemberments of the old genera, Pinus, Cupressus , and Thuja , are to be cancelled, a measure in 
which I should not concur. It has not a little surprised me to find gentlemen who have no objection to offer to Abies as distinguished from Picea, 
Sequoia itself from Taxodium , Selaginella from Lycopodium , Lastrea from Aspidium, Leskea and Neckera from Hypnum , and so on, nevertheless 
opposing the establishment of Wellingtonia. Surely systematical naturalists must allow, that, as structure becomes simpler and simpler, so must 
distinctive characters be sought in smaller and smaller differences. To apply the method of classification suitable for Rosacece to such an order as 
the Coniferous seems to me unphilosophical.” 
This was Dr Lindley’s view in i860 ; but we are not sure that, before his death, his views had not 
undergone a material change; not, perhaps, as regards the principles he enunciates, which are certainly 
sound, but as regards the generic dismemberments of Conifers in general. In a criticism upon one of the 
earlier numbers of our present work, he said that he regretted that we had maintained the subdivision Picea 
as distindf.from Abies , and we have often heard him in conversation stoutly maintain their identity. It 
appears 
