390 MR. C. C, LACAITA ON THE 
and Pannonia as habitat and four synonyms, of which only the third, Anchusa 
eralbido flore Clus., a haplotrichous species, is found in those lands. The 
specimen in Herb. Hort. Cliff. is haplotrichous, but being incomplete and 
obviously from cultivation, it would be rash to decide to which of the haplo- 
trichous forms that, as we shall see, are comprised in echioides B of Linnzus 
it should be referred. As far, therefore, as Hort. Cliff. is concerned, a haplo- 
trichous Onosma is signified, notwithstanding that the three other synonyms, 
(1) Symphytum echii folio angustiore, radice rubra, flore luteo Tourn., 
(2) Anchusa lutea minor C. B. P., and (3) Anchusa echioides lutea, Cerinthoides 
montana Column., all belong to a totally different species, the well-known 
asterotrichous plant of the Apennines, of which I shall speak as Columna's 
Onosma, because it was first observed by Fabio Colonna “in saxosis Aequi- 
colorum montibus," the country of the Aequicoli, now known. as the 
“Uicolano ” in tie Abruzzi, lying N.W. of the now drained bed of the Lago 
di Celano (Lacus Fucinus), and by him described and figured in the first 
edition of his * Eephrasis’ (1606), pp. 182, 183. 
When we come to the Spec. Plant. of 1753 we find the same two plants, 
still under the genus Cerinthe, but no longer lumped together. Now they 
are clearly separated into « (though Linnæus as in many other cases does 
not mark as a the plant first spoken of) and 8. The only alteration in ed. 2 
is the transfer from Cerinthe to Onosma and the addition of the inadequate 
diagnosis O. foliis lanceolatis hispidis, fructibus erectis, which, like the Hort. 
Cliff. synonym, applies indifferently to æ and to 8, and would cover sundry 
other species as well. 
Unfortunately, later authors have considered themselves at liberty to use 
the name echioides, without any qualification, for « or for B according to 
their own fancy, without following any principle. The result has been such 
confusion that many moderns would like to abandon the Linnean name alto- 
gether, though its abandonment has only led some of them deeper into the 
mire. The principle is surely quite clear that when Linnæus distinguishes 
an a and a 8 and the identity of each can be definitely ascertained, it is « 
that has the absolute right to the exclusive use of the specific name without 
qualification. There are indeed instances in which the Linnean & has by 
general consent and uniform practice been allowed the priority, but in each 
instance for some special reason such as does not exist in the present case. 
Unluckily, Linnæus has not distributed between a and 8 respectively the 
various habitats mentioned— Austria, Pannonia, Helvetia, Gallia, Italia. Had 
he done so it is probable that much confusion would have been avoided, for a 
is only found in Italy and Dalmatia, while 8 exists in some form in all the 
other lands in which « is unknown. 
(NorE.—I do not include O. helveticum under either a or PB, as it is, in 
my opinion, to be specifically distinguished from Columna’s Onosma ; 
O. vaudense belongs to 8.) 
