_ 
. 
S 
p 
14. 
hg aes M COMPONE T, TUN 
SOME CRITICAL SPECIES OF ECHIUM. 383 
III. Hers. Lamarck. 
* Echium vulgare” sine loco. It is. 
* Echium rubro flore montis aurei," presumably Mont D'Or. It is vulgare 
fl. roseo. ^ 
* Echium plantagineum Vahl” is E. plantagineum, L., a specimen with 
fine large radical leaves. 
* Echium elongatum Lam. an Echium majus et asperius fl. albo? Ses 
fleurs sont d'un blanc un.peu incarnat., les corolles sont courtes" An 
unknown later hand has added * Echium glomeratum Poir.,” which it 
is not, being precisely Æ. italicum, L. (as already noted by de Coiney) 
=altissimum, Jacq. 
* Echium fruticosum L.” is Lobostemon fruticosus, Buek. 
. “ Echium argenteum Berg. 40 et Lam. Ill., Pluk. Tab. 341. f. 8” is 
Lobostemon argenteus, Buek, the plant figured by Jacquin Hort. 
Scheenb. i. p. 34, as E. fruticosum, but not the plant named 
E. argenteum in the Linnean herbarium (see my paper on the 
Echia of Linnæus, infra, p. 396). 
* Echium capitatum” is Lobostemon capitatus, Buek. 
“ Echium capitatum var. 8? is Lobostemon spherocephalus, Buek. 
* Echium spicatum” is Lobostemon spicatus, Buek. 
. “ Echium strictum Lam. Ill.” is E. strictum, L. fil. 
. “ Echium falcatum Lam. Ill." with a label in later writing ** Lophost. 
glaber Buek," which apart from the mis-spelling, is probably right. 
2. * Echium candicans L. suppl.” is that species. 
3. “ Echium italicum . . . . (illegible) Pernegul. Echium asperrimum Lam. 
Ill." is precisely E. pyramidale, Lap., with whose type-specimens I 
have compared it, and therefore is Æ. pyrenaicum, Desf. 
* Echium angustifolium Lam. Ill. E. hispanicum Tobarra = Barr, Ic. 
1011." This is the type of Lamarck’s species, which Poiret wrongly 
identified with Æ. angustifolium, Mill. Salzmann, J. Gay, and Cosson 
misinterpreted this name, applying it to a very different species, 
E. Coineyanum, mihi. But Rouy re-discovered the true plant in 
1879 not far from Tobarra, and later collectors have distributed it 
as E. humile, Desf. But de Coincy, who discusses it fully in Morot’s 
Journ. Bot. xiv. p. 106, and xvi. p. 215, points out that it is not true 
humile. The name angustifolium suits admirably, but is unavailable 
owing to the priority of Miller's angustifolium. It must therefore be 
called E. pyenanthum, Pomel, Nouv. Mat. Fl. Atl. fasc. 2, p. 40 (but 
p. 296 in some copies, where the paging is consecutive with the 
author's earlier publication), where the name is substituted for 
E. densiflorum, Pomel, owing to the existence of the earlier Æ. densi- 
florum, DC. Barr. Ie. 1011, Lycopsis angustifolia minor hispanica, 
