SOME CRITICAL SPECIES OF ECHIUM. 401 
de Candolle’s ‘Prodromus?’ are inextricable muddles of plants and of 
synonyms. 
The conclusion then is :— 
(1) The Linnean specimen and other similar garden forms should be 
called E. australe, Lam., not E. ereticum. 
(2) E. ereticum, L., is a confusion of two totally distinct species, and a 
confusion so intricate that the name cannot be used for either of 
them, or indeed for any species, but must be rejected as a nomen 
confusum. 
The following old specimens, all undoubtedly garden plants, are the same 
as that of the Linnean Herbarium. All except the last two are at the 
British Museum :— 
1. From Hort. Cliff., unnamed. 
2. Herb. Miller, labelled in Miller's hand “ Æ. calycibus fructescentibus 
ete. H. U. 35 ; E. ereticum latifolium rubrum” and by Solander 
“ E. creticum.” This is the smaller piece on a sheet, the larger 
piece on which is Æ. plantagineum, although the names seem 
intended to apply to both pieces. 
. Chelsea garden, no. 1367 of 1749, labelled ** Æ. ereticum angustifolium 
rubrum C. B. P4" “ angustifolium” being obviously a slip of the 
pen for * latifolium.” 
4. Herb. Leche ; two pieces, one labelled originally “ lusitanicum ? but 
subsequently * eretieum L. H. S." (Linuzi Hortus Siccus), the other 
labelled * ereticum Sp. Pl. 139.” 
Hort. Gouan, unnamed by him but labelled by Solander first “ ereti- 
cum ” and subsequently * lusitanicum.” 
Herb. Pallas, labelled originally “ violaceum” and then by Solander 
LI 
os 
or 
for) 
also “violaceum”? There are two pieces on the sheet, one being 
creticum, Herb. Linn. but the other plantagineum. 
7 and 8. Herb. Pallas, both labelled originally ‘ creticum,” 
then by 
Solander first “ ereticum ” but subsequently “australe.” 
9. Herb. Pallas, labelled originally “ E. creticum hortense,” then by 
Solander first “ ereticum ? and subsequently “australe.” There are 
two pieces on the sheet, one being ereticum, Herb. Linn., but the 
other is Æ. amaenum, Fisch. & Mey. 
diére. Il y rapporte l'E. cret. latif. rubr. de Tournefort, et en lisant sa descr. on croirait 
qu'il a vu cette plante dans l'herbier de Tournefort. I] est pourtant certain qu'elle n'y est 
point. A sa place on trouve IE. cret. angustif. rubr. Tourn. que Poiret rapporte mal à sa 
var. B. et qui est identique avec les échantillons de Labillardiére." Gay is right, but in 
herb. Desf., besides the Labillardiére specimens from Syria, which are just E. angustifolium, 
Mill., there is one of Delile's from Egypt, which is typical Æ. sericeum, Vahl (see my notes 
on herb. Jussieu, no. 6630). Now typical sericeum has even narrower leaves than angusti- 
folium, which is the probable explanation of how Poiret came to misepply the two Bauhin 
phrases adopted by ‘Tournefort. 
