Pinus aristata Engelm.

  • Filed As

    Pinaceae
    Pinus aristata Engelm.

  • Collector(s)

    Collector unspecified 351

  • Location

    United States of America. Colorado. Near Gray's Peak.

  • Description

    "I am not quite sure about this--but I think it came frm near Gray's Peak. If not--it came from Sierra Nevada, Calif." notation on original label. "This is P. aristata Engelm. The Gray's Peak --Colorado locality is possible, the Sierra Nevada is not," annotation by D. K. Bailey, 1870. Phenology of specimen: Sterile.

  • Identifiers

    NY Barcode: 34577

    Occurrence ID: a53d1821-0604-4641-b361-8dae437050b4

  • Feedback

    Send comments on this specimen record

$4EW y0>
botan/ga
Rden
00034577
i© DEPOSITED 1946 ^
IN
a lJxjU*v<
EiDyS_§ll§i5-----^------: * ain quite sure that this specimen was
gathered by Dr. C.C. Parry in lg61 (not with Hall & Harbour in
1862 !) when he collected in the Pike's Peak Region (see Ewan J.
f- Ewan N.D., I.e.)* These 1861 collections all went first to Dr.
Torrey (Rodgers A.D. Ill, "John Torrey", 1942, p. 279), who then
distributed them, among others to Prof. Gray, and conifers to
Dr. Engelmann.
The numbering (No 351) roughly corresponds to other collection
numbers assigned by Dr. Parry in 1861 (!, e.g. 304, and 309 for
specimens of Gentiana described by Dr. Engelmann in Trans. Acad.
Sci. St. Louis 2, 214.ff, (1863)1868, etc...). Dr. Parry’s ori-
ginal determination "Abies”, although a true misidentification,
must not be wondered at too much, since in 1861 the classifica-
tion and nomenclature of Pinaceae had still been in a state of
flux. For America this matter had finally been settled by Dr. G.
Engelmann as late as 1863 (Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis 2, 210-
212, (1863)1868). In 1862 (Amer. Jour. Sci., ser. 2, 34,330-332)
Dr. Engelmann still classed all Pinaceae except Pinus under
Abies (!).
For a similar reason Dr. Torrey’s (the "x" in flexilis appears
to be characteristic of his handwriting) misidentification as
PiD^§_flexilis_James must be seen in the light of 1861: The con-
fusion existing then concerning the true Pi_flexilis published
by Dr. Edwin James in 1823 was resolved,later than 1861, again
by Dr. G. Engelmann (Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis 2, p. 208 ff,
(1863)1868). The annotations concerning the probable place of
collection are obviously again Dr. Parry’s, added at a much la-
ter date from recollection (Dr. Parry seems to have made poor
annotations in the field, see Rodgers A.D. Ill, I.e., p. 262).
By the way: The type of Pinus_flexilis, for which you searched
in vain among your holdings of James’ plants, does actually not
exist at all (see G. Engelmann in Amer. Jour. Sci., ser. 2, 34,
p. 331, 1862); James took notes only and did not collect a spe-
cimen (!!). It is very probable,, therefore, that James actually
did not collect any conifers at all and particularly neither of
the five species of Pinus (actually two pines (resinosa and fie—
xilis), a Picea (nigra), a Tsuga (canadensis), and an Abies
(balsamea)) enumerated by Dr. Torrey in Ann. Lyceum Nat. Hist.
N.Y. 2, p.249-250, 1828.
00034577