that there is a difference between two given oaks; but why should one be referred to pedunculata, and the other to sessiliflora, when it has been ascertained that every botanical character, deducible from the length of the peduncle and petiole, the shape and size of the fruit, and form of the leaves, completely fails in discriminating them as species? We are at a loss to understand why Mr Loudon has preferred keeping them distinct, after having thrown together so many of our different limes and elms, upon testimony which, we will venture to say, is at least not stronger than that which he has brought forward in favour of the specific identity of our two oaks. We had supposed there might be some plausible reason for considering them to be distinct, whilst it was believed that there was a remarkable difference in their rate of increase; Q. sessiliflora forming wood, as it was said, more rapidly, and consequently of an inferior quality to that of Q. pedunculata; but Mr Loudon has denied even this to be the case. Notwithstanding the differences observable in extreme varieties, we are compelled to conclude, with Linnæus, that all forms assumed by our British oaks belong only to one species; of this species there may possibly be two very distinct varieties or races, recognisable under the very inappropriate names of pedunculata and sessiliflora; and of these Mr Loudon has further enumerated two subordinate varieties for the former, and nine for the latter; and doubtless a great many others might be characterised; and Mr Loudon himself alludes to four more described by Bosc, and adds figures and descriptions of fifteen others from Mr Bree. Although the acorns of our own oak are too austere to serve as food for man, yet there are species whose acorns are sweet, and to this day, those of the Q. gramuntia are highly esteemed in some parts of Spain. THE BEECH. No one who has seen the beech growing wild in the woods of our midland counties, and elsewhere on our chalk hills, will doubt it being truly indigenous with us. It is impatient of warmth, and in more southern climates, is to be met with chiefly in mountainous situations. Its claim to be indigenous would never have been disputed, but for the well-known assertion of Cæsar, that the 'fagus' was not to be found in Britain. Materia cujusque generis, ut in Gallia, est, præter fagum atque abietem.' (B. G., lib. 5, v. 12.) It has been conjectured that Cæsar neyer intended to allude to the beech; and some have supposed he meant a species of oak, others that he referred to the chestnut. In a recent paper in the Gardener's Magazine,' (January 7, 1839,) Mr Long has taken up the enquiry, and endeavours to prove that the fagus of Virgil and Cæsar was the same as the onyos of Theophrastus and early Greek authors, and เ was intended for the chestnut; whilst the fagus of Pliny was actually the beech. It is, in fact, very difficult to reconcile the different passages in Pliny where he alludes to the fagus; and it seems to us extremely likely that he has referred to both the chestnut and to the beech under this name. He distinctly enough, in one place, describes the beech, where he says-fagi glans, 'nucleis similis, triangula cute includitur;'-but then, in another, he describes the fruit as excellent, dulcissimum omnium fagi,' where he has evidently translated the passage in Theophrastus, γλυκότατα δὲ τὰ τῆς φηγοῦ. It is suggested by Mr Long, that the confusion which prevails between the different interpretations of castanea and fagus, may be greatly reduced, by supposing that certain cultivated varieties of chestnut have the latter appellation; whilst the wild stocks on which they were grafted were called by the former. If this suggestion should prove correct, it would seem that Virgil makes no mention of the beech, a tree of rare occurrence in Italy, and to be met with only at considerable elevations in that climate. CHESTNUT.-If the fagus' of Cæsar be the chestnut, as we have seen above it probably was, then we have the direct testimony of that accurate author against this tree being found in Britain in the time of his invasion. And though Sir J. E. Smith says that it now grows wild in the south and west of England, we are satisfied that this is from its having become naturalized, and not from its being truly indigenous there. There are, indeed, in England, a few chestnut-trees of prodigious antiquity;—and the celebrated specimen at Tortworth appears unquestionably to have been planted earlier than the Conquest, and is in all probability a relic from the Romans. This tree abounds particularly in Asia Minor, and is found in the warmer parts of temperate regions. Its great utility, in affording an abundant and wholesome article of food, caused it to be early and extensively cultivated. A notion long prevailed that its timber was of considerable value as a building material, and that it had been largely employed in our ecclesiastical and other edifices. Had this been really the case, we must have admitted its claim to be considered as a native would have been sufficiently established by such a fact; but it has been satisfactorily shown, that the timber, which was mistaken for the chestnut by numerous writers, Evelyn included, was in reality a variety of oak. The varieties of the common chestnut are very numerous, and between forty and fifty of them are cultivated in Piedmont. No attempt has been made to rank any of them as separate species, though they differ from each other quite as much as some limes, elms, and oaks, which have been considered to be distinct. Even the American chestnut, with its broader leaves, is admitted to be no more than a variety. As in the case of other trees, culture has greatly improved the fruit of the chestnut. In France, the varieties are referred to two classes, the chataigns and the marrons, of which the former is poor, and bears the same relation to the latter, that the common crab does to a cultivated apple. Several distinct and highly interesting species have been discovered in Nepal, none of which have as yet been introduced into this country; and the only other species of the genus in our gardens is the American dwarf chestnut (Castanea pumila), introduced so long ago as 1699, by the Duchess of Beaufort. YEW.-Although Mr Loudon has alluded to the doubts which have sometimes been expressed of the yew being strictly indigenous, we can hardly conceive that any one could admit a doubt upon the subject, who had ever seen this tree growing in some of our native woods. Among other localities for it, we may mention the woods about Boxley-hill in Kent, where it has every claim to be considered, in the strictest sense, a native. Individuals of this tree are unquestionably among the longest lived of all European plants; and great Britain, in particular, can boast of possessing some of the most venerable specimens of these living monuments of bygone ages. Mr Loudon has given us descriptions, figures, and interesting details of many of the most remarkable. THE FIR-TRIBE (Conifera).—The Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris), and the commun juniper (Juniperus communis), are the only two native plants of this natural order which now grow wild in Great Britain; and even the first of these is confined to Scotland. There is good evidence, however, for believing that the Scotch pine, and even the Norway spruce, were once abundantly distributed over England and Ireland. Both trees are very plentiful both in the aboriginal forests of Sweden, further to the north; and also in other countries of Europe further to the south of us. The immense tract of country, afterwards called Hatfield chase, was once an almost impenetrable forest; but the trees in it were partly cut down, and partly burnt by the Romans, not only to make a road through the country, but to drive the Britons from their fastnesses. Fallen forests, if the trees be not removed, soon become peat bogs. The forest of Hatfield, containing 180,000 acres, underwent this process, and remained a complete waste, only inhabited by red deer, till, in the time of Charles first, it was sold to Sir Cornelius Vermuiden, a Dutchman, who drained it, and brought it into use. When this forest was drained, many trees of extraordinary size were found, and, among others, the oak already mentioned. The pine and fir trees were, however, most abundant, and bore marks of having been burnt, some quite through, and others only on one side.'-P. 2115. There is no evidence to show that the larch was ever indigenous in this country; and Cæsar, in the passage already referred to, when speaking of the beech, expressly excludes the abies, which it is supposed means the silver fir. Mr Loudon, in his detailed account of the Norway spruce, does not allude to the probability of its having been indigenous, though this should seem to have been the case, if the passage we have just quoted about Hatfield chase may be trusted. He notices a probable source of error among our early botanists, who frequently gave the name of fir to the Scotch pine, in speaking of the latter tree. The natural order we are discussing has received especial favour from some of our nobility and country gentry; and several Pinetums have been planted for the cultivation of the different species. Mr Loudon has given detailed accounts of these; and certainly there are few trees of temperate climates more deserving attention, both on account of the numerous uses to which their timber may be applied, and of the great beauty and variety in the growth of the trees themselves. In reducing the many different forms, noticed in catalogues as distinct species, to their presumed station as varieties, Mr Loudon has the following important remark :— To observe the different forms assumed by the same species, they should be studied in all their native habitats; and to remark how all these different forms return to that of the species which may be considered the central or normal form, it is necessary to study them under cultivation in the same soil, situation, and climate. Many species of Abietinæ, that are very distinct in the forests of America, come very near to each other in the pinetums of Britain; and species which appear very distinct in the pure air and elevated situation of Dropmore, are hardly recognisable as different in the smoky atmosphere of the Hackney arboretum.-P. 2152. Notwithstanding our endeavour to direct the attention of practical men to the accumulation of facts, which may one day be of service in solving the great botanical problem of 'what is a spe'cies?' we must not forget also to warn them not to neglect the culture of distinct varieties, merely because they may have ascertained that they belong to the same species. However interesting the solution of such questions may be, to the physiologist especially, the planter will also find a vast difference between the growth and characters of distinct varieties of the same speciessome being better adapted to one soil and situation than another; so that there is not a greater difference between the timber of different species of the same genus, than between that of different varieties of the same species. The difference both in the external appearance and in the qualities of the timber of different trees of Pinus sylvestris, received a good deal of attention from Mr Don of Forfar, about 1810; and subsequently, from various authors, more especially the cultivators of the pine and fir tribe in France; but after all that has been done on the subject, we agree with M. Vilmorin, who has studied Pinus sylvestris in its various forms, more, we believe, than any other man, that its varieties can only be properly known and described by those who have studied them in collections, in which several plants of each sort have been planted in the same ground, and allowed to attain maturity there, both standing singly and in masses.'-P. 2154. At the present day, it is scarcely necessary to allude to the early prejudices which existed against this tree; but the following extract may serve as a warning in other cases, not to receive opinions for facts, or to accept the assertions of prejudiced and interested authorities without careful enquiry; and, when possible, to test their validity by direct experiment: The prejudice against the wood of the Scotch pine seems to have been at its greatest height between 1790 and 1810; for Marshall, writing in 1796, says, the Scotch pine should be invariably excluded from every soil and situation in which any other timber can be made to flourish. The north aspect of bleak and barren heights is the only situation in which it ought to be tolerated; and even there the larch is seen to outbrave it. In milder situations, the wood of the Scotch fir (pine) is worth little; and its growth is so licentious, as to overcome every thing that grows in its immediate neighbourhood; and this renders it wholly unfit to be associated with other timber-trees; we, therefore, now discard it entirely from all useful plantations.'—P. 2168. The opinion of Mr Davies and Mr Pontey is in direct contradiction to the above. At first sight,' says the latter, it seems natural to suppose such prejudices must be well founded; though, in fact, they rest on no better foundation than the prejudice that prevailed, less than a century ago, against foreign fir timber; namely, a prejudice the effect of inexperience. At that time, no workman could be found credulous enough to suppose that a roof made of it would answer the purpose as well as one made of oak; and yet now the tide of opinion is completely turned. An article which, apparently, has but little of either strength or durability, is found, by experience, to possess a very extraordinary degree of both.'— P. 2168. Prejudices unjustly raised in one quarter, are frequently met. by exaggerated expectations in another; and this seems to have been the case with regard to the larch. Since the Duke of Athole so satisfactorily proved the very great advantage of planting certain barren districts, admirably adapted to the growth of this tree, other persons have been induced to try it in very different situations, and have met with disappointment in a total failure. The larch, like every other tree, is restricted in its natural |