SOME CRITICAL SPECIES OF ECHIUM. 387 
7. Schultz, Herb. Norm. no. 1429; S. José prope Conimbricam, 
Maio 1882, leg. Moller (in Herb. Bailey at Manchester). 
8. Fl. Lus. Exs. Hort. Bot. Conimbr. no. 110; Coimbra, Quinta das 
Maias, Aprili 1886, leg. Moller, but named * pustulatum " (Herb. 
Mus. Brit.). 
9. J. Daveau, Herb. Lusit. 1878; Penna de Pau, environs de 
Lisbonne (Herb. Kew). 
10. Burchell, Cat. in Lusit. lect. no. 565, as E. vulgare (Herb. Kew). 
The common Echium that replaces Æ. vulgare in Istria and the greater 
part of continental Italy is by no means identical with Sibthorp’s type 
of pustulatum, and is quite different from the Portuguese tuberculatum, 
though usually known by one or other of these names. It seems inter- 
mediate between vulgare and pustulatum, and may well be known as 
E. vulgare var. grandiflorum, Bert., under which name it has been admirably 
described by Bertoloni, Fl. It. ii. pp. 348, 350. It is the pustulatum of 
Koch and of many Italian authors, but the tuberculatum of Gussone’s 
Neapolitan herbarium. J. Gay noticed the difference between true pustu- 
latum of Sibthorp and this form, which he proposed to call E. Tenoreanum. 
His MS. notes attached to the Calabrian specimen of pustulatum in his 
herbarium (no. 2 above) are interesting. “Æ. pustulatum, Fl. Gr. Prodr. 
planta sicula. Fl. G. t. 180 optima... . Sibthorpii icon. in Fl. Graec. meum 
calabrieum specimen optime refert; rami floriferi longiuseuli et omnes 
partes hispidissime ; sed tota planta nimium viridis, quod forte uni pictori 
tribuendum. Unum quod Parisis vidi sieulum E. pustulati specimen, 
in hb. Fontanesii exstat, in monte Ætna a D. Schouw lectum. Hnic in 
sesquipedalem longitudinem porrecto et simplicissimo spicule sunt 11, 
brevissime vix unciales, extrorsum arcuate, unde habitu certe differt. 
Hoc vero non nisi ab state juniore pendere videtur. Convenit vero cum 
His treatment of the subject loses much of its value owing to his conception of pustulatum 
being based on a Bourgeau specimen from southern Spain, which is not Sibthorp’s species, 
and has been referred by de Coincy to E. pycnanthum (angustifolium, Lam., non Mill.), 
but his remarks on the French plant are interesting: “ Quoique PE. pustulatum de Toulouse 
et de la Flore de France ait un facies un peu différent de celui de l'E. vulgare ordinaire, et 
qui suffit le plus souvent pour empécher de le confondre avec lui, on óprouve néanmoius, 
lorsqu'on étudie chaque organe, une sorte d'impossibilité d'y reconnaitre des caractères 
stables et vraiment spécifiques. Celui notamment qui est relatif à la forme de la panicule 
est tellement variable, et par suite si peu distinetif, qu'il me parait sans valeur." He does 
not seem to have been aware that the nucules of these southern plants are not those 
of typical vulgare. Rouy, on the other hand, Fl. Fr. x. p. 317, being well aware that the 
French plant is not the true Portuguese tuberculatum, refers the former back to pustulatum 
treated as a subspecies of vulgare: but that he had no clear idea of pustulatum appears from 
his quoting both Bourgeau, no. 1314, and Todaro, no. 931, as representing it, though these 
two exsiccata belong to different species. 
