e. SOME CRITICAL SPECIES OF ECHIUM, 409 
same year (1762), but the reference throws no light on either italicum or 
pyrenaicum, for Hudson had altogether misinterpreted italicum and its var. 
B *. neither of which grow in England or Jersey. But in Linnwus's own 
interleaved copy of the 2nd ed. of Sp. Pl., now in the possession of the Linnean 
Society, he has written opposite Æ. italicum the following note : “ pyrenaicum 
Ech. majus et asperius flore dilute purpureo T. 135. Totum valde hispidum 
ut fere urens; corolla calyce latior (sie ; obviously a slip of the pen), subin- 
carnata, Filamenta corolla longiora saturate rubra. Anth. cæruleæ. Sna. 
levia, apice subtrigona, quasi dente intermedio s. interiore productiori. 
Lycopsis monspeliaca flore dilute purpureo Moris. blæs. Magn. monsp." 
This is obviously a description from life of the plant grown in Hort. Ups., of 
which a specimen labelled “ pyrenaicum " is in the herbarium. The under- 
lining of the Bauh. Pin. 255 in this copy indicates that at the time he had a 
specimen in the herbarium. There cannot be a shadow of doubt that the 
description refers precisely to the plant called pyrenaicum by Desfontaines also 
and pyramidale by Lapeyrouse, Abr. Pyr. p. 90 (1813). I have examined 
Tournefort's own specimen of /. majus et asperius fl. dilute purpureo (no. 586 
in his herb.) and found it identical with that of Linnzeus’s pyrenaicum and 
with authentic Lapeyrouse specimens of pyramidale at Kew and Mus. Brit. 
It is to be noted that in this MS. entry, Linnzeus uses the name pyrenaicum 
as that of a species, and not as var. 8 of italicum. He does the same on 
the sheet in the herbarium. — It is impossible to guess why in the published 
description in the * Mantissa’ of 1771, p. 334, he should have headed it 8 and 
not with the name pyrenaicum, though the language there used seems to 
indicate that he still regarded it as specifically different from italicum. 
The * Mantissa ^ varies very slightly from that MS. entry. After quoting as 
synonyms for var. B those of Tournefort and Morison there follow the words 
“ Echium pyrenaicum vulgo," and then * Simillimum Z. italico, hispidum et 
fere urens, stimulis albis. Cor. calyce non latior, subincarnata (nec alba), 
infundibuliformis, fere regularis, calyce duplo longior, extus pubescens palli- 
diorque. Filam. duplo longiora, saturate rubra. Anth. cæruleæ. Sem. 
lx via, apice trigona, quasi denticulo intermedio s. interiore productiore." 
A most admirable description, agreeing perfectly with that given by 
to be a nomen dubium to be rejected. On the other hand, Lamarck's immediately following 
species, E. elongatum (which puzzled Poiret), is defined * E. caule erecto piloso, longissime 
spicato; corollis vix calyeem superantibus, staminibus exsertis. Fl. albi, parvi, sessiles." 
If this diagnosis be compared with that of asperrimwm it will be noticed that it contains 
three characters by which italicum (altissimum) differs from pyrenaicum, viz.: the erect stem 
and very long spike, the smaller corollas, and their white colour. Now Lamarck’s 
herbarium contains two specimens bearing on the question. One, labelled “ E. elongatum, 
Lam., an E. majus asperius fl. albo?” is E. italicum. The other, labelled * E. italicum. 
E. asperrimum, Lam. IL," is pyrenaicum. Considering the way in which Poiret and Rouy 
have treated asperrimum, I hardly think these labels are cogent enough to force us to 
abandon the appropriate, admirably described, old name of E. pyrenaicum. 
* See my Zchia of Miller's * Gardener's Dictionary,’ infra, p. 423. 
