DESCRIBED BY LINNJEUS ETC. 345 
vigorous forms which belong to S. rapunculoides, L. The whole 
belong to S. sPuRIA, L., and cannot be kept up, even as 
varieties. 
P. 90. S. tomentosa, L.! Six specimens on four sheets. After- 
wards corrected to MANULEA TOMENTOSA, Murr. Syst. Veg. 
p. 569. 
Species originally published in Linneus’s ‘Species Plantarum, 
ed. 2 (1763). 
P. 877. Selago lychnidea, L. No specimen. Afterwards 
changed to Erinus lychnideus, Thunb. Fl. Cap. p. 474, which 
latter is referred, with a *?," to Lyperia fragrans, Benth. ! in 
DC. Prodr. x. p. 358; “but Bentham quotes Burm. Afr. p. 138, 
t. 49. fiy. 4 (bona), which is the identical figure on which 
Linneus founded his plant; so that the Linnean name must fall 
under LyPERIA FRAGRANS, Benth.!, whether the plant of Thun- 
berg represents the same species or not. 
Species originally published in Bergius’s ‘Plante Capenses ’ 
(1767). 
In this work the following are enumerated :—A new species 
of Eranthemum, still remaining doubtful; two species of He- 
benstreitia, one of which is new; and five of Selago, three of 
which are new. Of these eight species, I have seen four in the 
herbarium of Bergius; the others are believed to be lost; but 
from the careful and lengthy descriptions, there is little diffi- 
culty in determining them. 
P. 2. Eranthemum parviflorum, Berg. Not seen. This spe- 
cies is founded on Commelyn, Hort. Amstel. ii. p. 119, t. 60, 
and Thymelea Africana foliis Lini, floribus in capitulum conges- 
tis, Herm. Catal. Pl. Afric. p. 33 (in Appendix to Burm. Thes. 
Zeylan.), and may not have existed in the herbarium of Bergius 
at all But his description says “Cal. quinquefidum " and 
“Stam. 2;”° while Commelyn says “ stamina quatuor " and “ pe- 
rianthio bipartito; ” the latter character in the drawing represents 
Hebenstreitia ; but the * corolla in quinque lacinos divisis " (sic) 
is quite wrong. Unless the type exists, I fear it must remain a 
puzzle; but it cannot be considered the type of Bergius unless it 
can be proved that he saw the specimen, and that Commelyn’s de- 
scription was made from the bad figure. Respecting Hermann’s 
LINN. JOURN.— BOTANY, VOL. XX. 2E 
