ON SOME CRITICAL SPECIES OF ECHIUM. 363 
A Revision of some Critical Species of Echium, as exemplified in the 
Linnean and other Herbaria ; with a Description of Echium judwum, 
a new Species from Palestine. By C. C. Lacarra, F.L.S. 
[Read 6th June, 1918.; 
INTRODUCTORY. 
THE five papers collected under the above title are offered as a quarry, from 
which any future monographer of the genus Echiwm may dig material. 
They are :— 
1. Five Critical Species of Echium: E. judeum, mihi, E. australe, 
Lam., Æ. Coineyanum, mihi, E. pyenanthum, Pomel, f. salman- 
ticum, Lag., pp» 366-379. 
2. The Genus Echium in the Herbaria of Tournefort, Jussieu, and 
Lamarck, pp. 379—384. 
3. The Echia of Sibthorp's Herbarium, pp. 384-392. 
4. The Linnean Species of Echium, pp. 392-427. 
5. The Echia of Miller's * Gardener’s Dictionary,’ pp. 427—438. 
The European Echia have been very badly treated by Linnæus. Out of 
the nine species mentioned by him or existing in his herbarium, one, 
rubrum, Jacq., though represented by no less than three specimens, seems 
entirely to have escaped his notice, the older synonym for it being twice 
quoted, but each time under a different species. Two others, ereticum and 
riolaceum, are such hopeless entanglements of contradictions that neither 
name can be used and both must be abandoned. Lusitanicum, though 
recognisable with certainty from the synonyms and the specimen, is Sail 
BEPARI There only remain vulgare, italicum, pyrenaicum, and planta- 
gineum, of which the descriptions are quite clear, though with regard to the 
last three tedious discussions are necessary to clear away the cobwebs spun 
by later botanists. 
Subsequent authors never studied this genus seriously till de Coincy nd 
itin hand. His valuable papers, some of ise posthumous, are scattered in 
Morot’s * Journal de Botanique, in Bull. Herb. Boiss., in Act. Congr. Internat. 
1900, and elsewhere. His death was a grave loss, but unfortunately he 
never consulted the Linnean specimens, or those of other old herbaria in 
England, nor does he quote a sufficient number of well-known exsiccata 
to bile his views quite clear in all instances. I have been obliged to differ 
LINN. JOURN,—BOTANY, VOL. XLIV., 2 
