SOME CRITICAL SPECIES OF ECHIUM. ato 
Besides the three Bourgeau numbers, which must be regarded as the types, 
I consider the following specimens to be referable to Æ. Coincyanum * :— 
1. Salzmann in hb. Gay ; ad vias circa Malagam ; as F. angustifolium, 
Lam. 
. Willkomm anno 1845, no. 902, from Malaga as pustulatum. 
3. Porta et Rigo, it. ii. hisp., no. 151, from Almeria as ereticum. 
Wolley-Dod anno 1912, nos. 412, 473, and 610, from Gibraltar at 
the Mediterranean steps as ereticum. 
5. Roffey, March 1, 1916 (in hb. Mus. Brit.), from Tajo de Ronda. 
bho 
Apr 
I have met with no specimen of Coineyanum in the old herbaria earlier 
than that of Salzmann. 
ECHIUM rycsANTHUM — E. ANGUSTIFOLIUM, Lam. (1791), non 
Mill. (1768), nec Thunb. (1811). 
Echium angustifolium, Mill. Gard. Dict. (1768), and E. angustifolium, Lam. 
Ill. i. p. 412 (1791), were wrongly synonymised by Poiret in Diet. Encycl. 
viii. p. 671, since when Miller's species has been entirely ignored or quoted 
without any discussion of its identity. 
It is undoubtedly the plant known to the old botanists as Æ. ereticum 
angustifolium rubrum, C. B. P., and, as I hope I have established in my notes 
on Miller's Echia, is the oldest name for E. elegans, Lehm., plentiful in 
Greece and the Levant. But Æ. angustifolium, Lam., is a totally different 
species from Spain, closely allied to Æ. humile, Desf., and figured in Barr. ic. 
1011 as Lycopsis angustifolia minor hispanica. After Lamarck’s time it 
became a source of perplexity and was confused by Salzmann, J. Gay, and 
Cosson with /, Coincyanum, mihi. Eventually Rouy rediscovered the species 
in 1879 at Jativa and at Hellin, the latter station being close to Tobarra, 
whence Lamarck had the type-specimen still to be seen in his herbarium. 
Rouy describes it fully in his Exe. Bot. ii. p. 16 (or in Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr. 
xxix. p. 123). It has been discussed at length by de Coiney in Morot's 
Journ. Bot. xiv. p. 106 and xvi. p. 215. 
* A good many other Spanish specimens of * pustulatum " and *ereticum" probably 
belong to Coincyanum. Collectors meeting with plants that look like possible pustulatum 
in Spain should make quite sure in vivo whether the filaments are perfectly glabrous, as in 
true pustulatum, Sibth. Porta & Rigo, It. iii. no. 142, seems to be a mixture, being an 
instance of the bad practice of those collectors in distributing specimens from more than one 
locality under the same number. This no, 142 is labelled “ supra Calpe,” which is on the 
coast between Valencia and Alicante, and also * Sierra de la Fuensanta," which is inland 
near Murcia. 
On a specimen in lib. Cosson from S.W. Morocco leg. Mardochée, 1875, Rouy has pencilled 
“australe.” It is certainly not australe Lam., but I think it is Coineyanum, which very 
probably extends to Morocco. I had not time to search for it in Cosson's magnificent 
herbarium of North African plants now at the Paris Museum. 
