PINETUM BRITANNICUM. 
the trees from Clark’s, in the valley of the south fork of the Merced River, is over undulating spurs and 
ridges covered with magnificent forests of Pines, Firs, and Spruces, and almost without undergrowth, the 
smooth surface being broken only at wide intervals by outcrops of gneissic rocks. The trees are spread 
along a lateral valley, on the flank of the main ridge, in two groves, about half a mile apart, known as the 
Upper and Lower Grove. The number of trees of fair size in the Upper Grove is said to be 450 ; in the 
Lower nearly 200 ; or about 600 in all. 
A third grove, containing about 500 trees, has been found in Fresno county, eight miles south-east 
of the Mariposa trees. The trees in this grove are in a valley sheltered from high winds, consequently 
some of them are probably taller than any in Mariposa. Mr Clark, who visited them, says that two of the 
largest measure each 81 feet round the trunk, three feet above the ground. 
Another grove is reported by Mr Blake as having been discovered further south and east upon 
the Kaweeab (perhaps what in some maps is spelt Caweha), or Four Creeks, or about 50 miles 
from Visalia. This probably is the same as the station noted by Professor W. H. Brewer, of the 
State Geological Survey of California, in the letter to Sir William Hooker, to which we have already 
referred. He says:— 
“ An interesting discovery this year has been made of the existence of the big trees in great abundance on the western flanks of the Sierra 
Nevada, in about lat. 36° or 37° N. They are very abundant along a belt at 5000 to 7000 feet altitude, for a distance of more than 25 miles, some¬ 
times in groves, at others scattered through the forests in great numbers. You can have no idea of the grandeur they impart to the scenery, 
where at times a hundred trees are in sight at once over 15 feet in diameter, their foliage contrasting so finely with their bright cinnamon-coloured 
bark. I found trees larger than they occur further north, in the Calaveros and Mariposa Groves.” 
He adds, and in doing so confirms Mr Blake’s observation on the Mariposa Grove :•— 
“ There seems no danger of the speedy extinction of the species, as it is now known in quite a number of localities ; and, contrary to the 
popular notion, there are immense numbers of younger trees of all sizes, from the seedling up to the largest. There has been much nonsense 
and error published regarding them.” 
It thus appears that there is a belt, or rather a strip, of these interesting trees running along the 
western flank of the Sierra Nevada, parallel with its crest, for 120 miles or more, and at about the same 
elevation on the flank of the chain, much broken, it is true, by the many river valleys and deep ravines, 
but indicating a continuity before the river valleys were excavated to their present great depth. 
Besides the above well-authenticated localities, the tree is also said to have been met with in Carson 
Creek, a few miles to the north of the Mammoth Tree Grove ; and Carriere states that an officer of the 
French navy brought cones identical with those obtained in California, from a latitude about ten degrees 
north of those localities ; but the identity of these cones with those of the Wellingtonia has been doubted. 
It is said also to have been met with in various other parts of the Sierra Nevada ; but if so, it does not 
there attain the gigantic dimensions of those in the groves above mentioned. 
Whether its range may not be still more extensive we cannot yet say. Various reports of its having 
been observed in other districts have from time to time got into currency. For example, we learn from 
a San Francisco French newspaper,* of 17th November 1864, in which is published an account of the 
Alpes Calif orniennes, professing to be derived from the “ Travaux de la Commission Geologique de Cali¬ 
fornia,” that Dr Cooper states that he saw, in the mountains of San Diego, some trees of which the foliage, 
according to his belief, was intermediate between that of the Wellingtonia and the Red-wood ( Sequoia sem¬ 
per virens). This must obviously have been the Sequoia sempervirens , because we know that it at times 
assumes the foliage of the Wellingtonia, having some branches with imbricated leaves, and others with 
distichous foliage ; while the Wellingtonia has never been observed to shew distichous foliage. In the 
_ same 
* We regret that we cannot give the name of the paper from which we cite these quotations. We received them from a friend, who sent 
the article clipped out of the paper without its title. We are also unable to say how far the remarks quoted are extrafils from any Report of 
the Geological Commission of California, from which they are said to be taken, and which we have not seen, or merely the substance of the 
Report. 
