PART III.

ARBORETUM AND FRUTICETUM.

2593

elevation of from 4000 ft. to near the regions of perpetual snow. Thetrees are all evergreen in their native country. They have entire leavesin the manner of Q. /hellos ; but, as the leaves of this species, as wehave seen in p. 1895., vary much as the plants grow up, their ultimateforms maybe lobate like those of Q. virens (see p. 1919.), which, asthere shown, are also entire when young. If the reader will look overthe figures ofMexican oaks, given between p. 1941. and p. 1949., he willfind some species resembling Q. /'hellos, and some resembling Q. virens.Fdgas. Page 1949., after last line, insert : —

“ Professor Mirbel, in the Memoires du Musee, makes the following obser-vations on this genus : —‘ The introduction into the genus fagus of three orfour species which had not been described modifies the generic character, andauthorises the division of the group into two distinct sections, as follows : —“ ‘ Gen. Char. Flowers monoecious. — Male, solitary or in aggregate heads.Perianth simple, membranaceous, 1-leaved; stamens 8—40.—Female, twinor ternal, in a 4-partite cupule. Perianth simple, adherent, 6-toothed.Ovary 3-celled, each cell containing 2 ovules. Style 1, short. Stigmas 3,awl-shaped. — Fruit 3-angled, 1-celled, 1-seeded. Seed pendulous. Radicleturned to one side, short. Cotyledons thick, fleshy. Perisperm none.

“ ‘ Sect. I. Cupule muricate, capsuliform. Ovaries included. Youngleaves plicate.

“ ‘ /Vigus sylvatica.

ferruginea.obit qua.

“‘Sect. II. Cupule involucriform; segments narrow, laciniate. Ovarieslaterally exserted. Young leaves not plicate.

“ ‘ /agus Dombeyt.

ietuloides.

dubia.’

“ Mirbel adds that he cites ‘ neither autarctica Forster, nor F. cochinchi-nensis Lour., nor the /Vigus which, according to Cunningham ( King’s Surveyof the Coasts of Australia, i. p. 158.), grows' in Van Diemen’s Land. Thedescription of the first is nothing, because the female flower is not yet known.The description of the second is so far from giving an accurate idea of thetree seen by Loureiro, that we may doubt whether or not it is a /agus ; andthe species of Van Diemen’s Land, mentioned by Cunningham, has neitherbeen described nor named.’ (Mirb. in Mem. Mus., xiv. p. 472.) The /agusmentioned by Cunningham is probably the F. Actuidides, as that is statedby Backhouse ( Gard. Mag., vol. xi. p. 40.; and Comp, to Sot. Mag., vol. ii.p. 40.) to be found wild in Van Diemen’s Land.”

F .sylvatica. 1970. 1. 16. from the bottom, insert: “The marriage beech atInverary, of which we have been favoured with a drawing by our friendW. A. Nesfield, Esq., from which fig. 2536. is engraved, is another ex-ample of inosculation ; the arm which unites the two trees being about20 ft. from the ground.

“ The beech tree is a non-conductor of lightning; and so notoriousis the fact in America , that the Indians, whenever the sky wears the ap-pearance of a thunder-storm, leave their pursuits, and take refuge underthe nearest beech tree. In Tennessee , the people consider it a com-plete protection. Dr. Becton, in a letter to Dr. Mitchell, states thatthe beech tree is never known to be struck by atmospheric electricity,while other trees are often shivered into splinters. ( American Paper,as quoted in Morn. Chron., October 21. 1837.) .”

D76., insert, after the paragraph headed “Lichens:” —

" The following list of additional fungi, found on the beech, has beens ®t to us by the Rev. M. J. Berkeley: — .Agaricus supinus Fr. ; A.corticalia Fr., also on hazel; A. spodoleucus Fr., A. ursinus Fr., A.fluxilis Fr. ; A. nidulans Pers., also on birch ; A. atrocaeruleus Fr.,planus Fr., A. nanus Pers., A. hispidulus Fr., A. placidus Fr., A. Linkij'V A. reticuliitus Pers., A. aleuriatus Fr., A. ephebius Fr., A. Vahid

8 E 2