284 MR. C. €. LACAYITA : A REVISION -OF 
certainly represents the plant of Lamarck, who, however, was wrong 
in quoting for it ££. hispanicum, for which see note on no. 6621 of 
Herb. Jussieu, 
15. ** Echium australe Lam. illustr.,? with a later label in an unknown hand 
“ Echium lusitanicum ?,” a ridiculous suggestion that may be dis- 
missed. This, again, is an important type. It is absolutely identical 
with the specimen of E. creticum in herb. Linn. No doubt a garden 
plant, originally derived from E. grandiflorum, Dest., but not from 
the narrow-leaved, upright form of that species found in Dept. Var. 
The flowers are badly dried and look smaller than they really are. 
There are no ripe nueules, so that de Coincy’s description of them in 
Morot, Journ. Bot. xiv. p. 327, where he mixes up Lamarck’s australe 
with Æ. Coincyanum, mihi, cannot have been derived from Lamarck’s 
type. 
16. * Echium creticum Lam. ill," labelled by a later hand * Hehium cre- 
ticum?” Three examples: one “ex D. Sonnerat," the others sine 
loco. "They are all Æ. plantagineum, L., to which Lamarck’s creticum 
has long ago been referred. 
17. * Petit rameau détaché d'une sommité fleurie d'un. Echium frutiqueux 
des Canaries," labelled by a later hand ** chium aculeatum Poiret,” 
which it may well be. 
ILI. 
THE ZCHIA OF SIBTHORPS HERBARIUM. 
The specimens in Sibthorp's herbarium, now at Oxford, were originally 
tied up in bundles corresponding to Sibthorp’s different journeys and the 
districts from which they came. But the individual specimens are without 
any indication of locality or determination by Sibthorp himself, the only 
writing on the sheets being in Smith's hand, except in the caseof plants from 
the island of Zante, which were not collected by Sibthorp, but purchased 
from a druggist of the island, who has written on some of them the local 
Greek name. 
Smith tells us, in Rees’s Cyclopedia sub voce Sibthorp, that the plan of the 
* Prodromus was drawn out by Dr. Sibthorp, but nothing of the ‘Flora Græca’ 
except the figures was prepared, nor any botanical descriptions. ‘* The final 
determination of the species," he says, ** the distinction of such as were new, 
and all eritieal remarks have fallen to the lot of the editor." He has not 
always been very happy in these determinations and remarks. In the genus 
Echium alone he has fallen into two grave errors. But we must remember 
that he had not the copious material collected by later travellers, which 
makes it so easy for us to criticise his work. 
