BOTANY. 
47 
Among the many sad things connected with the death of the lamented Douglas, was the loss 
which botanical science suffered in being deprived of the full exposition which he would have 
given, had he lived, of the specimens which he collected during his residence in California and 
Oregon. Of the vast material which was transmitted to England through his industry, much 
was described by him ; and his notes and descriptions have constituted a fund from which all 
have drawn who have had occasion to refer to the subject of the botany of the regions he visited. 
His descriptions were, however, generally brief, and only preparatory to a more elaborate work 
to be prepared by himself and others subsequent to his return. His specimens have since been 
carefully studied by Lindley, Hooker, Lambert, &c., and the published results, as might have 
been expected from the learning and ability of these botanists, have been of great scientific 
value, and as full and accurate as they could be in the circumstances. Nothing could compen¬ 
sate, however, for the want of his living testimony in reference to the thousand points of 
inquiry which would arise in the study of his specimens ; and none but himself could correct 
the inevitable errors which attended the transport, the packing and unpacking, the handling 
and examination of his plants. Who that has the care of collections in natural history does 
not find it almost a daily necessity to replace labels and return erratic fragments to their con¬ 
nections?—to do what, if left to other hands, would be so done as to obscure if not falsify facts. 
In speaking of Finns ponderosa , I have alluded to tlip consequences of the fact that an 
abnormal and distorted cone was made to stand the sole and unqualified representative of one 
of the noblest and the most widely distributed of western pines. I think we have evidence 
that a somewhat similar mistake has occurred in reference to the cones of Picea ( Piniis) grandis 
of Douglas. 
This tree is described (Dough & Lamb. Comp. Bot. Mag. II, p. 147) as “a noble tree, akin 
to P. balsamea, growing from 170 to 200 feet high, with a brown bark ; leaves emarginate at 
the apex ; cones lateral, solitary, cylindrical, obtuse, very similar to those of P. cedrus, but 
larger, six inches long, of a chestnut brown color, &c., (Loudon, Arboret, p. 2341.) In the 
description of P. amabilis (Loud. op. c. p. 2312) the cones are said to resemble those described 
as belonging to P. grandis , but to be twice as large as those of P. grandis sent home by 
Douglas, and botanists have since been unable to distinguish between these two species, and 
generally regard them as forms of the same. 
In the Cascade mountains, south of the Columbia, near where Douglas procured his speci¬ 
mens of P. grandis and P. amabilis, I found two firs growing which must be those designated 
by Douglas under these names. Of these one was indeed a noble tree which we had first met 
with in California, where, from its resemblance to P. balsamea , it has been called by the resi¬ 
dents, and by several botanists, the balsam fir, and considered identical with the eastern species. 
It grows very abundantly in the Cascade mountains; up to and beyond the Columbia it rises to 
the height of 200 feet; has emarginate leaves ; cones never more than three inches long, very 
obtuse, and having a depression at the summit, and resembles those of P. cedrus more than those 
of any other species. These cones are, however, always green or greenish brown, and never 
chestnut color ; they are also comparatively free from resin. 
The other tree to which I have referred is very unlike this, never attaining equal size, much 
more strict and conical in form where both grow in open grounds ; the foliage more dense; the 
leaves darker above, more glaucous below, entire, and often acute ; the cones double the size of 
those of the “balsam fir” of the same region; elliptical in form, rounded above, dark purple 
in color, and more resinous. The scales of the cones and bracts relatively much longer. Of 
