216 MR. €. C. LACAITA : A REVISION OF 
Lamarck’s species is very near Æ. humile, Desf. (1791), which is not 
known from Spain, although Porta and Rigo distributed angustifolium, Lam., 
under that name. De Coincy separates these two specifically in Journ. Bot. 
xiv., but in his Enum. Echium Fl. Atl. in vol. xvi. Æ. humile and some other 
North African chia are subordinated as varieties to Z. angustifolium, Lam. 
Unquestionably the name angustifolium, Lam., must give way to angusti- 
folium, Mill., and Lamarek's species receive a new name, Now de Coincy 
identifies with angustifolium a certain E. pyenanthum, Pomel, which is the 
name substituted by that author in Nouv. Mat. Fl. Alp. fase. 2, p. 276 
(1876) * for his earlier X. densiflorum, described fully in Nouv. Mat. p. 92 
(1874), but abandoned as a name owing to the existence of E. densiflorum, 
DC. Cat. Monsp. p. 108 (1813), a shrubby species introduced from “Teneriffe 
or Madeira," though apparently no longer found there. 
E. pycnanthum, Pomel, is therefore the lawful name by which the angusti- 
folium of Lamarck should be cailed, or, if reduced to a variety, Æ. humile, 
Desf., var. pycnanthum (Pomel), nov. comb. (= E. angustifolium, Lam.. var. 
pyenanthum, Coincy ). 
EcHICM SALMANTICUM. 
The identity of this species can only be established by cireumstantial 
evidence, as no authentic specimens are known and all that Lagasea says 
of his species in Nov. Gen. et Spec. p. 10 (1816) is *foliis radicalibus 
lanceolatis ; staminibus longissimis glabris, corollæ fauce subpervia. 
E. Lusitanicum, Linn. ? Hab, cirea Salmanticam. Augusto floret.” 
The purport of this note is to make known J. Gay’s description ew vivo of 
the plant cultivated in his day as Mehium salmanticum, and to support the 
position taken up by Coutinho in Bol. Soc. Brot. xxi. p. 115 (1905), where 
E. salmanticum of Lagasca is identified with Æ. polycaulon, Boiss., Diagn. xi. 
p. 92 (1849), rather than with Æ. lusitanicum, L.= E. italicum, Brot.= 
FE. Broteri, Samp. Boissier’s species was described from a plant in herb. 
Pavon from the valley of Plasencia in Estremadura, and carefully 
distinguished by him from Æ. lusitanicum, L., as represented in Jussieu’s 
herbarium. Bat practically this plant is only known from specimens 
collected by Bourgeau (no. 2467 of the year 1863) on the banks of the river 
Plasencia. These were distributed at first as Æ. vulgare, but the label was 
afterwards corrected by Reuter to Æ. polycaulon. 
The arguments in favour of the identification of E. salmanticum with 
* In the separate copies p. 296, but p. 40 where included in Bull. Soc. Sci. Alg. for 
1876. There is no heading * ZZ. pycnanthum,” but a single line introducing the name forms 
the last of the paragraph describing E. onosmoides. Battandier had referred E. pyenanthum 
to E. sericeum, Vahl, a very different species, in Batt. et Trab., FI. Alg. p. 609 (1888), but 
in Fl. Synopt. Alg. et Tun. p. 235 (1904), and in the suppl. to Fl. Alg. p. 67 (1910), 
de Coincy’s opinion is accepted and pyenanthum is quoted as synonymous with angustifolium, 
Lam. 
