SOME CRITICAL SPECIES OF ECHIUM. 313 
which would correspond to the garden form under discussion, and (b) 
macanthum with simple or nearly simple stems and corollas of 20-30 mm. 
This may correspond either to the Algerian grandifforum or to var. provinciale, 
but such closer determination is immaterial as far as the plant of Lamarck is 
concerned. 
Among the old specimens in the British Museum there are several that 
agree with Lamarek's type *. on which Solander has altered his original 
determination of eretieum to australe, perhaps regarding the name creticum 
as belonging to the very different Z. creticum angustifolium rubrum C. B. P.— 
E. elegans, There are also two specially interesting examples of /. australe 
Lam. in hb. Gay at Kew, both from the herbarium of L. C. Richard, On 
both Gay has noted “ proeul. dubio cultum " and added on one label, “ Je 
soupçonne que cette plante est provenue des graines de PE. grandiflorum, 
Desf.," and on the other “ J'ai vu cette plante dans l'herbier du Muséum, 
dans ceux de Desfontaines, de Jussieu, de Delessert, etc. ‘Tous les 
échantillons qui s'y trouvent ont été cultivés. Celui de l'herb. du Muséum 
a été pris au Jardin des Plantes le 3 Juillet, 1813. Tous sont remarquables 
par leurs feuilles larges, amincies à la base, et par leurs braetées trés 
allongées, les inférieures larges et Foliacées." — Gay's herbarium also contains 
the two specimens of. Bourgeau's quoted by de Coincy. The determination 
on their labels, “ E. angustifolium ? Lam. Salzm.," is due to Gay himself, who 
was a very close observer, and proves conclusively that he knew they were 
not F. australe, Lam., as grown in the Jardin des Plantes and as represented 
in herb. Juss.. Gay could not have seen Lamarck’s type, for in his time 
Lamarck’s herbarium was in Germany. 
It will be seen from what has been said that I do not accept the arrange- 
ment in Rouy, Fl. Fr. x. pp. 309, 310, where australe and macranthum are 
treated as distinct species on the ground of different size of the corollas and 
of the nueules, without any reference to different leaf-characters. But Rouy 
has obviously copied his measurements from those of de Coincy, quoting 
Bourgeau’s specimens together with Soc. Dauph. 3822 for australe. The 
nucules described for that species as “ trés-petites, 2-23 mm.” obviously 
belong to Coincyanum and not to australe, Lam. Lamarck’s type-specimen 
of australe has no ripe nucules ; see p. 384 belowf. 
* See a list of these in my Echia of hb. Linn., infra, pp. 401, 402. 
+ Since the above was written I have grown E. grandiflorum at Selham in Sussex from 
seed sent by M. Battandier of Algiers. Two sowings were made. The earlier flowered in 
July and resembled the Algerian plant in habit and size of corolla. But the later-sown 
plants, which did not begin to flower till September and continued till the hard frosts, were 
leafy and diffuse, with smaller corollas, exactly resembling the creticum of Herb. Linn. and 
confirming the opinion expressed in the text as to the specific identity of australe, Lam., 
grandiflorum, Desf., and creticum, Herb. Linn. 
