48 
BOTANY. 
these trees the first agrees well with the descriptions of P. grandis, given by Douglas and 
ISiutall, and is the only tree which I saw in the region where Douglas obtained his specimens 
to which their descriptions could he applied. I have, therefore, no doubt that the western 
balsam fir is P. grandis. Of his P. amabilis Douglas left no description, sending home only 
the cones and leaves. Of these, good figures and a brief description are given hy Loudon, 
(Arbor et, 4, p. 2342.) 
As will he seen from the figures now published, (fig. —,) from specimens obtained hy myself, 
that there is an entire correspondence between Douglas’ P. amabilis and the “silver fir” of 
the Cascade mountains, and I have, therefore, regarded them as identical. 
The difficulty which botanists have found in distinguishing Douglas’ P. grandis from 
P. amabilis has apparently arisen from the want of a full description of P. amabilis , such as 
Douglas alone could give. Lambert also states that the cones of P. grandis are 6J inches long 
hy 3^ broad, undoubtedly a mistake, as there is not a tree growing where Douglas obtained his 
P. grandis which has large unornamented cones, except P. amabilis. P. nobilis is found in the 
same region, hut the large bract-covered cones of this species could never he confounded with 
either of the two species in question. 
The figures of the cones of P. grandis , given hy Loudon, (Arboret, 4, p, 2341,) are certainly 
considerably unlike that which I now give (fig. 16) of the cone of what I have considered as 
P. grandis ; and if they are accurately copied from Douglas’ specimens, and those specimens are 
well preserved, I should he, perhaps, inclined to believe that Douglas had found on the Colum¬ 
bia a fir not now known there, and that he had left unnoticed the tree which, after the Douglas 
spruce, is the most abundant. Every one who has attempted to preserve the perishable 
cones of Picea is aware of the great difficulty with which they are made to retain their 
perfect forms, and I think that the cone given hy Loudon (1. c., fig. 2246) bears evidence of 
distortion or composition. The arrangement of the scales in vertical rows is not in accordance 
with nature's laws of phyllotaxis, at least in the pines, spruces, or firs ; and the descriptions of 
the cones of P. grandis , given hy Loudon (1. c.) and Lindley, (Penny Cyclop. Abies,) agree 
perfectly with my specimens and the figure now given, which was made not alone from pre¬ 
served specimens hut from drawings made in the field. 
The leaves figured hy Loudon are represented as acute, while they are described to he obtuse 
or emarginate. The seed and scale, also, as he gives them, are larger than would ever he 
found in a cone hut 3^ inches long hy 2 broad, and we may, therefore, suspect that, like the 
leaves, it properly belongs to P. amabilis. 
The range of P. grandis is apparently very great. It is found in the Sierra Nevada, of Cali¬ 
fornia, down near the southern line of the State, and it is found at least as far north as the 
British line. 
Dr. Bigelow (Pot. Whipple's Pep.) says the balsam fir of California is identical with P. 
balsamea of the eastern States, hut gives no other description of the tree, as it grows where he 
observed it, than to note its dimensions—far exceeding those of P. balsamea and the quality of 
the timber furnished hy it. While Dr. Bigelow’s attainments as a botanist would give, with 
me, great weight to his testimony, I cannot hut suspect that, in this instance, he was misled 
hy the very apparent points of resemblance between the balsam firs of the east and west, and, 
perhaps, had not an opportunity of examining the mature cones which furnish the best diag¬ 
nostic characters. In the Sierra Nevada, a few miles from the upper end of the Sacramento 
valley, we found the western balsam fir growing in profusion and attaining a large size, but 
