k 
i 
: 
] 
SOME CRITICAL SPECIES OF ECHIUM. 399 
folium, Mill., to the exclusion of E. creticum latifolium, which explains why 
the specimen of the latter in Herb. Hort. Cliff. bears no name. 
We next find in Hort. Ups. p. 35 (1748) “ Echium calycibus fructiferis 
distantibus [1]; E. caule simplici f. caulinis linearibus etc. Hort. Cliff. 43 [2]; 
E. ereticum angustifolium et latifolium rubrum Bauh, Pin. 254 [3]: Æ. rubro 
flore Raj. hist. 499 [4]: Hab. in Syria unde semina habui [5]; Differt (sc. 
ab. KE. italico, specie priecedenti) caule magis ramoso, magis folioso, foliis 
magis ovatis, corollis maximis rubris [6].” So here confusion begins. To 
analyse the six statements I have numbered : [1] is his new diagnosis which 
he afterwards repeats in Sp. Pl. It is very characteristic of the herbarium 
specimen, of some examples of X. plantagineum, and also of E. grandiflorum, 
but is inapplicable to K. angustifolium. [2] Can only apply to E. angusti- 
folium. [3] Mixes up Bauhin’s two very distinct species. [4] Is quoted in 
error, as this synonym belongs to /. rubrum, Jacq. See my notes on that 
species. [5] Seeds of Æ. angustifolium may well have come from Syria, 
where that kind is plentiful, as well as in Greece and Crete, but neither 
angustifolium nor any other Syrian plant could have given rise to the 
herbarium specimen *. [6] The whole of this observation only agrees with 
the herbarium specimen, admitting of Clusius No. I. The **corollis maximis 
rubris" is very important. It is consistent with only two species, viz. 
E. amenum, Fisch. & Mey., and £. australe, Lam., var. macranthum, Coutinho 
= E. grandiflorum, Desf. But E. amenum is out of the question, so that 
grandiflorum is the only alternative. Both * maximis" and “rubris” are 
fatal to Æ. eretieum, Fl. Gr., which notoriously is Æ. parviflorum, Moench, 
and “ maximis " excludes Æ. angustifolium. 
We now come to Z4 creticum, Sp. Pl. p. 139, where there is no fresh 
diagnosis but only the quotation of three synonyms, that from Hort. Ups. f, 
that from Hort. Cliff., and the Æ. ereticum latifolium et angustifolium, C. B. P. 
Also * Habitat in Creta? and the obs. ** stamina non longiora labio breviore 
corolla.” The note about the stamens agrees fairly well with the herbarium 
and with Æ. grandiflorum, but excludes Æ. angustifolium. 
Some further light (?) is thrown by two incidental remarks in Mant. ii. 
p. 202, where Linnzeus says of Æ. plantagineum “ corolle violaceze, non 
cæruleæ Æ. vulgaris nec breviores Æ. cretici? and “bracteæ longitudine 
* [t is possible that Linneus may have received the seeds of his herbarium specimen 
from his frequent correspondent Gouan, who might easily have obtained E. australe from 
Southern France and forwarded it under the name of creticum without mentioning its origin. 
In the British Museum there is a specimen like that of Linnæus from Hort. Gouan, unnamed 
by him, but labelled by Solander first ereticum and subsequently lusitanicum ! ! 
f Linneus bere strangely misquotes his own Hort. Ups. by altering fructiferis to fructes- 
centibus and adding the words caule procumbente, which are not found in Hort. Ups. 
