CHAP. CXIII.

CONl'FER^S. Pi'nUS.

2155

a. Timber Trees.

t P. s. 1 vulgaris, the common wild Pine {Jig. 2046., to our usualscale), is thus described by Don of Forfar. Branches forminga pyramidal head; leaves marginated, of a dark green colour,and but little glaucous underneath ; conesconsiderably elongated, and tapering to apoint, and the bark of the trunk very rugged.

“ This variety seems to be but short-lived,becoming soon stunted in its appearance, andit is altogether a very inferior tree to eithervariety 2, or variety 3.” (Cal. Mem., i. p. 123.)

The common wild pine of the French is, byLoiseleur Deslongchamps and some otherauthors, called simply P. sylvestris , whileothers again name it P. s. genevensis : but,whether the P. sylvestris of Loiseleur Des-longchamps (in the Nouveau Du Hamel ) andofBosc, and the P. s. genevensis of Delamarre(Traite Prat., &c., p. 23.) and of severalother French authors, apply to one and thesame variety ; and whether this variety be 2046

dentical with the P. s. genevensis of the Horticultural Society’sGarden, received from Noisette of Paris , and of which a plate isgiven in our last Volume; we are unable to decide. If they are thesame, which we think very likely to be the case, then the P. sylves-tris of the French is of little value as a timber tree, and veryinferior to even the P. s. vulgaris, or commonest variety of the Scotchpine found in Britain .

I P. s. 2 horizontalis; P. horizontalis Don of Forfar ; P. sylvestris var.montana Sang, Plant. Cal., p. 65.; the Speyside Pine , Hort.Soc.; the Highland Pine, Grigor in Gard. Mag., viii. p. 10.;the horizontal-branched wild Pine, Laws.; the red-wooded ScotchPine , Sang ; ? P. rubra Mill. Diet, and N. Du Ham. — This va-riety is described by Don of Forfar as being “strongly markedand permanent.” It “ is distinguished from the former by thedisposition of its branches, which are remarkable for their hori-zontal direction, and for a tendency to bend downwards close bythe trunk. The leaves are broader than those of the first variety,and serrulated, and not marginated. They are distinguishable at adistance by their much lighter and beautiful glaucous colour. Thebark of the trunk is not so rugged as in the preceding variety. Itscones are thicker, not so much pointed, and smoother. The treeseems to be a more hardy plant, being easily reconciled to veryvarious soils and situations. It grows very freely, and quicklyarrives at a considerable size.” Mr. Don also conjectures “ thatthe fir woods which formerly abounded in Scotland , the treesof which arrived at a large size, may have been of this variety orspecies.” “ I have certainly observed,” he adds, “ that the greaterpart of the fir woods of the present day, which are so much com-plained of, are of the common variety [P. s. 1 vulgaris]; at least,not more than one tree out of 10 or 12 is of the second and moredesirable kind [P. s. 2 horizontalis]. I think,” continues Mr. Don,“ that this is the most natural way of accounting for the supposeddecline of the Scotch fir in this country, for two reasons : 1st, be-cause var. 2 [P. s. 2 horizontalis] retains all the good qualitiesformerly attributed to the Scotch fir; and, 2dly, because, as var. 1[P. s. 1 vulgaris] produces its cones much more freely than theother, the seed-gatherers, who are paid by the quantity, and not bythe quality, would seize upon the former, and neglect the latter.”