314 MR. C. C. LACAITA: A REVISION OF 
Ecnuiuw CorNCYANUM, nom. nov. 
Echium Coincyanum, mihi, — E. australe, Coiney, Rev. Esp. Crit. Echium in 
Morot’s Journ. Bot. xiv. p. 326 (1900), quoad exempla Bourgeauana, Rouy, 
Fl. Fr. x. p. 309 (1901), non Lam. Ill. i. p. 412 (1791), nee Poir. Dict. 
Encycl. viii. p. 672 (1808) =F. ereticum, Nym. Consp. Fl. Eur. p. 515 (1881), 
et. Willk. et Lange, Prodr. Fl. Hispan. ii. p. 487 (1870), pro maxima parte, 
non L.— E. angustifolium, Salzm. (et aliorum) in schedis, non Lam. 
Tn my note on X. australe, Y have pointed out that de Coiney confused two 
different species under that name, having united to the true australe, Lam., 
a plant best known from certain exsiccata of. Bourgeau, to distinguish which 
I propose the name Coneyanum. It would have been prsterable to call this 
species after M. Bourgeau but for the existence of Æ. Bourgeanum, an 
arborescent species iom Teneriffe, 
Echium Coineyanum is based on Bourgeau's no. 334 of the year 1849 from 
the Tajo de Ronda in Andalusia, no. 1625 of 1852 from the Sierra San Felipe 
de Jativa, and I may add, though it is not mentioned by de Coincy, his 
identical no. 989 of 1850 from the Sierra de Segura. The Kew herbarium 
contains two examples of eaeh of these numbers in excellent condition. 
No. 334 was determined by J. Gay as “ E. angustifolium? Lam. Salzm.” 
meaning that though uncertain whether it really is Lamarck’s angustifolium 
(which it is not) he considered it the same plant that Salzmann had collected 
“ad vias circa Malagam abunde ” and labelled * Æ. angustifolium, Lam. DC.” 
This determination of Gay’s proves that he knew the plant not to be 
E. australe, Lam. of herb. Juss. ete., and as grown in the Jardin des 
Plantes. The similar naming of nos. 989 and 1625 is due to Cosson. 
I have examined these species with some care. The stem-leaves are not 
oval but oblong ; the corollas are large, 20-25 mm., mostly blue (in sicco), 
not dull reddish as in Æ. australe, and less obliquely eut. The presence of 
hairs on the filaments of E. Coineyanum is not quite certain and should be 
carefully observed on the living plant. De Coincy says “au moins un des 
trois filets postérieurs poilus, ordinairement tous les trois,” and in a footnote 
“ Pai trouvé des exceptions.” It is impossible to say whether these 
observations of his were made on specimens of Coincyanum or on true 
australe, but I think more probably on Coineyanum. In Bourgeau’s 
specimens I could find none on the first examination, when two corollas 
were boiled for dissection, although I was assisted by the defter fingers and 
younger eyes of Mr. Hutchinson of the Kew herbarium. Subsequently in a 
corolla opened without boiling I found a very few sparse hairs on two 
filaments. My apparently contradictory results seem to agree with 
de Coiney’s. The filaments of australe, on the contrary, are always 
remarkably hairy. 
