386 ' MR. C. C. LACAITA : A REVISION OF 
Prodr. i. p. 125 for Byzantium and Laconia. The latter station seems to me 
very doubtful for typical vulgare, whieh is not found on the shores of the 
Mediterranean. 
(1I.) Ecnruu rusrULATUM, labelled by Smith “ Heh, pustulatum Sibth. list 
of figures.” This is certainly the plant represented in Fl. Gr. tab. 180, 
although in a more advanced state than the figure. In Prodr., l c., and FI. 
Gr. ii. p. 68, Sibthorp is said to have found this species “in Sicilia tantum. 
Nevertheless, it agrees perfectly with the example collected by him in the 
kingdom of Naples, now in Herb. Banks, but wrongly referred by Smith to 
E. hispidum, whose expression “in agro Neapolitano” must, I think, be 
understood to mean “in the kingdom of Naples," not “in the vicinity of 
Naples,” where that precise form is not found, though it occurs in southern 
Calabria as well as in Sicily. Among some rough notes of Smith's at Oxford 
I have come across “ Mehium hispidum Sibth. from Naples; stem very bristly ; 
flowers smallish, blue," which is sufficient to exclude the real hispidum, It is 
possible that Sibthorp himself may at some time have confused pustulatum 
with the very different Greek plant figured as hispidum. Modern specimens, 
which entirely agree with both the above Sibthorp specimens, are :— 
1. Todaro, Fl. Sic. no. 931, from Messina, a locality also quoted by 
Gussone, Fl. Sic. Syn. i. p. 232, for E. pustulatum. 
2. Thomas in Hb. Gay at Kew, from Calabria, anno 1816. 
3. Arcangeli in Hb. Kew, from Cape Spartivento in Calabria. 
4. Tenore in Hb. Kew, from southern Italy, without precise locality. 
I am unable to see any real distinetion between the above and two well- 
known exsiecata from Nicolosi on the slopes of Etna, viz. :— 
5. Strobl, Fl. Ztn., 24. vi. 1872. 
6. Lojacono, Pl. It. Select. no. 72. 
Nevertheless, these were referred to by their collectors to a form that 
Gussone, l.c., and Lojacono, Fl. Sie. iv. 2, p. 76, supposed to be distin- 
guishable from pustulatum, and wrongly referred to Æ. tuberculatum, Hoffmg. 
et Link, quoting Nicolosi as a locality. "True Æ. tuberculatum, Hotfmp. et 
Link, as interpreted by de Coincy in Morot, Journ. Bot. xiv. p. 303 (1900), 
and by Coutinho, Fl. de Portugal, p. 500 (1913), and represented by the 
following specimens, does not exist in any part of Italy * :— 
* Alph. de Candolle remarks in Prodr. x. p. 19, under Æ. tuberculatum, “omnia ex verbis 
cl. auct. Nemo specimina authentica vidit et omnes de hac specie disposuerunt. Pater 
diversas plantas ex Italia, Gallia et Hispania sub hoc nomine in herb. consociavit, sed 
communio dissocianda.” This judicious observation has been overlooked by many French 
and Italian authors, e. g., by Loret, Glanes d'un Botaniste, in Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr. vi. p. 406 
(1859), who, though he properly declines to identify the so-called pustulatum of southern 
France with Sibthorp's pustulatum, unfortunately refers it to tuberculatum, Hoffmg. & Link. 
