ONOSMAS OF LINNÆUS AND SIBTHORP, 391 
We must now proceed to further identification of æ and 8. In Spec. Plant. 
there follow after the Hort. Cliff. synonym, which includes both a and $, 
two others, referable to a alone, that are perfectly clear and absolutely 
decisive. They are Anchusa lutea minor C. B. P. and Anchusa echiotdes lutea, 
cerinthe (sic) flore, montana, Column. On reference to C. B. P. we find that 
his Anchusa IIT., lutea minor, has for its sole synonym Anchusa echioides lutea 
Column., and in my preceding note on Tournefort’s specimens it has been 
indicated that the Tournefort synonym quoted iu Hort. Cliff., but not in Sp. 
Pl. is precisely Columna’s plant. Tt is therefore Columna’s Onosma, as the 
sole representative of the Linnean echioides a, that is entitled to the specific 
name echioides. 
This view has already been clearly stated by Wettstein in Sched. ad Fl. 
Exs. Austr. Hung. no. 1411 (1886), alter which it was to be hoped that 
it would be universally accepted, as it has been by Jávorka in his excel- 
lent paper on the “Species Hungarice generis Onosma " in Ann. Mus. Nat. 
Hung. (1906). It is therefore disappointing to find it ignored by Rübel 
and Braun-Blanquet in their recent paper, * Zur Kenntniss der mitteleuropii- 
schen Onosma-Arten "— most. valuable for the forms of Switzerland and 
neighbouring regions, —in Vierteljahrsschr. Nat. Ges. Zürich, lvii. (1917), 
where they have followed Boissier and the French school in using the name 
echioides L. for the portion of the 6 of Linnzens. They have moreover intro- 
duced a fresh confusion on p 604 by identifying O. arenarium Waldst. et Kit. 
with echioides a instead of with 8, and have even been so careless as to quote 
the reference as Spec. Plant. ed. 1, p. 137 (1753). Is it concei rable that 
thev can have looked up that page without noticing that echioides there 
ocenrs under Cerinthe, not Onosma? It is a pity that bibliographical 
remissness should disfigure their otherwise careful study. 
It is also unfortunate that Simonkai, reviewing Jávorka's paper in Mag. 
Bot. Lapok, v. (1906), set up a new, worse than superfluous, name as follows: 
« O. Javorkw Simonk.= O. echioides Jávorka et Fl. Exs. Austr. Hung. 1911. 
Anchusa Columnæ ex habitu, sed neque ex icone neque ex descriptione ejus 
apparet foliorum asterotrichia, nee corollæ pubescentia." All this quibble 
only shows ignorance of Columna’s plant, which is proved by the specimens 
from the locus classicus to have pubescent corollæ and an asterotrichous indu- 
mentum. The figure agrees with the specimens as well as most old figures do, 
the size and manner of Columna’s drawings usually giving the impression of 
plants being smaller than they really are. Simonkai’s “nomen super- 
vacaneum,” as Haláesy has called it, would be peculiarly inappropriate 
even if a new name were required, for with the specimens distributed in Fl. 
Exs. Austr. Hung. Jävorka had nothing to do. It would have been more 
reasonable to have called them Wettsteinii. There is a further quibble about 
these specimens to be dealt with. They are not perfectly uniform; no. IT. 
from Trieste is not distinguishable from the typical plant of Colamna’s 
