368 MR. C. C. LACAITÀ : A REVISION of 
ECHIUM AUSTRALE. 
What is Echium australe, Lam. Tll. i. p. 412 (1791) ? De Coiney, in 
Morot's Journ. Bot. xiv. p. 326 (1900), identifies it with a plant from 
southern Spain, which I shall call Echium Coincyanum, distributed in 
Bourgeau’s exsiccata for 1849, no. 334, and for 1852, no. 1625. In a foot- 
note he remarks, “ Cette espèce a été confondue tantôt avec I E. ereticum, L., 
tantôt avec le grandifforum, tantôt avec l'angustifolium, Lam. ou Salzm., 
tantôt avec le pustulatum laxum, Herb. Boiss.” In spite of my great respect 
for de Coiney's knowledge of the genus Eehium, of which he has been the 
only serious student hitherto, I cannot doubt that in this case he has himself 
only increased the confusion, for Lamarck’s species is quite unlike the 
Bourgeau specimens, being, in fact, a garden form identical with the specimen 
of ereticum in the Linnean herbarium *, and undoubtedly derived from some 
variety of X. grandiflorum, Desf., probably from that which is found on the 
borders of France and Spain. 
Consequently, the names Æ. grandiflorum, Desf. (1798), and E. macran- 
thum, Roem. & Sch. (1809) +, must be replaced by that of Lamarck, which, 
moreover, cannot give way to J£ creticum, L., for, although the Linnean 
* See my paper on the Echia of hb. Linn., p. 396. 
T The name of grandiflorum for Desfontaines's species was altered to macranthum by 
Roemer and Schultes, Syst. iv. p. 20 (1819), “ob Æ. grandiflorum. antiquius Andr. et Vent.” 
Rouy, Fl. Fr. x. p. 309, adopts this alteration, also quoting the still earlier Æ. grandiflorum, 
Salish, But Æ. grandiflorum, Salisb. Prodr. p. 115 (1796), was only proposed by him as an 
equivalent for X. orientale, L, It was therefore still-born and must be ignored. Æ. grandi- 
lorum, Andr. Bot. Rep. tab. xx. dated May Ist, 1798, is identical with £. formosum, Pers. 
Syn. i. p. 163 (1805), now referred to a different genus as Lobostemon formosus, Lehm., and 
E. grandiflorum, Vent. Malmaison, p. 97 (1803), is identical with the grandiflorum of 
Andrews, 
The preference of Andrews's name is based on the assumption that it was published earlier 
than the first volume of Desfontaines's * Flora Atlantica.’ But of this I have not been able 
to find any evidence. Many copies of the ‘Flora Atlantica’ bear the date “anno VIII" 
on the titlepage of both volumes, which has led to that work being referred to the year 
1800. These titlepages are false. Earlier copies—for instance, that of the Linnean Society— 
bear the date * anno sexto reipubliez gallicæ” in both volumes, which is untrue for vol. ii. 
Evidence of the true dates is to be found in Cat. Bibl. Banks, vol. v.—itself published in 
1800, where at p. 71 the first vol. is said to be of “an VI” and at p. 214 the second is 
referred to “an VIL" Moreover, on p. 458 of the Linnean Society's copy of vol. ii. there 
is a note in Sir J. E. Smith's hand, “ Sept. 25, 1799,” proving that that volume cannot have 
come out later than 1799. Now “an VI” ran from Sept. 1797 to Sept. 1798, so that 
E. grandiflorum in vol, i. p. 166, may well have appeared before May Ist, 1708. Neverthe- 
less, it is strange that Desfontaines himself, in Hist. Arbr. i. p. 177 (1809), should have used 
the name grandiflorum in Andrews's and Ventenat's sense without any allusion to his own 
grandiflorum. At any rate, the priority of Andrews's name is so doubtful that, on the 
strictest interpretation of the rules, it does not justify the abandonment of so well-known 
and suitable a title as grandiflorum, Desf., for the Algerian Echium, especially as its rival is 
à Lobostemon. 
