408 - MR. C. C. LACAITA : A REVISION OF 
only scraps of plants, gathered in a very early stage, but they have the 
thick yellow coat of bristles. My list C contains the only herbarium 
specimens that I have yet met with of var. siculum. 
T have not seen sufficient material from Asia Minor and beyond to attempt 
to determine or discuss the Oriental forms. Those that I have seen are 
referable to italicum sensu lato, not to pyrenaicum. 
To conclude: Mehium italicum, L., regarded as specifically distinct from 
I. pyrenaicum (L.), Desf., presents at least three or four marked forms in 
Europe :— 
l. typicum = K. altissimum, Jacq. = K. lineavifolium, Moench, Suppl. 
p. 149 (1802). See specimen list A. 
2, var. luteum (Lap. pro specie) = Æ. albereanum, Deb. & Naud. See 
specimen lists A and D. 
3. var, Biebersteinii, mihi= E. asperrimum, M.B., non Lam.= K. pyra- 
midatum, DC. pro parte. See specimen list B. 
4. var. siculum, mihi — E. italicum, Guss., Lojac, et auct. sie. omn, See 
specimen list C. 
* 
To come to Æ. pyrenaicum * ; this species first appears in Sp. Pl. ed. 1 as 
var. B of italicum to correspond to the Lycopsis of C. Bauhin. Then in ed. 2, 
after Lycopsis has again been quoted, there is added, * corollis minoribus, 
extus presertim superne pilosis, et magis regularibus ab Æ. italico differre 
videtur, nisi hiec omnia e loco." This is no help to the identification of var. 
B, for in pyrenaicum the corollas have indeed more and longer hairs tban 
in italicum, but they are neither smaller nor more regular. In the Appendix, 
p. 1678, Linnæus refers to Hudson's Fl. Angl, which had appeared in the 
* I fear that it must be called pyrenaicum, Desf. Fl. Atl. i. p. 164 (1797-1798), as the 
rules will hardly allow us to say pyrenaicum, L. Mant. (1771), in spite of the occurrence of 
the name in the ‘ Mantissa ’ and the use of it as specific by Linnæus in his unpublished MS. 
and herbarium, and of its quotation by Willdenow, Sp. Pl. i. p. 786 (1708). These dates 
are correct, notwithstanding those that appear on the titlepage of Willdenow’s first 
volume, and in some copies of the ‘Flora Antlantica.’ For evidence of the true date of 
Fl. Atl. i., see the note to E. australe in my paper on “ Five Critical Species of Echium,” 
supra, p. 368. 
Unfortunately, a date so late as 1797-1798 admits of the doubt whether this species ought 
not rather to be called Æ. asperrimum, Lam. Ill. i. p. 412 (1791). I think we shall be 
justified in rejecting Lamarck's name as ambiguous, though its claims are arguable. 
Poiret, Diet. Encyc. viii. p. 668 (1808), who should have known what Lamarck meant, uses 
the name for the compound of italicum and pyrenaicum, quoting as synonymous italicum, L., 
altissimum, Jacq., and pyrenaicum, L. Mant. Rouy also, Fl. Fr. x. p. 904, seems to consider 
it ambiguous, for he does not adopt it, but quotes it pro parte for both italicum and 
pyrenaicum. In Lam. Fl. Fr. ii. p. 451 (1778), we find italicum and pyrenaicum both under 
E. italicum ; the former as italicum, L.— E. majus et asperius fl. albo, Toum., and the latter 
as var. G— E. majus et asperius fl. dilute purpureo, Tourn. But in Ill. Z c, Lamarck only 
says of asperrimum “ E, caule ramoso, pilosissimo; corollis calyce longioribus; staminibus 
exsertis. Ex Europa australi. Æ. italicum, L.?" The synonym italicum is queried, and 
there is no allusion to his own previous use of that name. The diagnosis would cover 
various other species besides italicum and pyrenaicum. So far, therefore, asperrimunm seems 
