382 MR. C. C. LACAITA : A REVISION OF 
no. 6620 sine nomine “ex h. r. Paris," labelled by Gay “E. grandiflorum 
Desf.?" This also is identical with Z. ereticum of hb. Linn. 
4 6621 “ FE. foliis angustis et villosis T. R. H. 136 ex hb. Isnardi," no note 
by Gay. There are four sheets of a much branched plant. This 
synonym is referred by Jussieu in Barr. p. 16 to Anchusa angustis 
villosis fol. hisp. Barr. Ie. 577, which is Echium hispanicum Asso, 
Mant. Stirp. Arag. p. 162 (1781). As I had not seen Pau's 
specimens of Asso’s Echium at the time T was in Paris, I could 
not recognise it in these sheets, and dare not express an opinion 
from memory. 
, 6622 two sheets : 
ED A hispanicum verrucosum annuum anguiiifoliuh ex hb. P. 
et hb. Charles” is identical with no. 6621. 
(2) * E. rosmarinifolium (? Roris-marini folio) T. EH. 120 6x 
hb. Charles," may also be hispanicum, Asso, or the Spanish plant 
commonly called pustulatum. I cannot say, for the reason 
mentioned above. Both (1) and (2) are labelled by Gay 
* E. tuberculatum Hfg. & Lk. ? " which they are not. 
„ 6630 six sheets : 
(1) “E. ereticum angustifolium rubrum ex hb. Isnardi, ^ 
labelled by Gay “ E. creticum a Poir. ex hb. Desf.,” is identical 
with hb. Tournefort no. 589. It is Æ. angustifolium, Mill. 
— E. elegans, Lehm. I have examined the specimens in 
Desfontaines's herbarium at Florence referred to by Gay. 
There are three, on which Gay has noted “Ex hisce tribus 
speciminibus suum Æ. creticum elaboravit Poiret in Dict. viii. 
p. 670, quorum duo Syriaca, meum ined. Æ. Tournefortii, tertium 
JEgyptiaeum E. prostratum. Delil. Æg. sistit." Nos. 1 and 2 
came from Labillarditre, who collected in Syria, but they are 
sine loco. They are E. angustifolium, Mill.— E. elegans, Lehm. 
No. 3, sent from Egypt by Delile himself, is typical Æ. sericeum, 
Vahl, which is Delile's prostratum. 
(2) sine loco ; my MS. abbreviated note is illegible. 
(3) “misit D. Thunberg e Tripoli" is apparently also 
angustifolium. 
(4) sine loco, labelled by Gay “Je ne puis distinguer cette 
plante du E. plantayineum.” This is certainly not angustifolium, 
but is either plantagineum or maritimum. I did not examine it 
minutely. 
(5) and (6) are both angustifolium= elegans. 
I cannot now explain the lacune in the numbers between 6607 and 6611 
and between 6622 and 6630, I may have accidentally missed some sheets, 
