SOME CRITICAL SPECIES OF ECHIUM. 417 
Lehmann]. Exstat in herb. Tournef. sine nomine et loco. Racemi in 
specimine Tournefort minus quam in meo evoluti, dimidio breviores." 
Then on another slip “ Xbre. 1834. Fragment d'un échantillon conservé 
dans l'herbier de Tournefort * sans nom et sans localité, que je suppose 
appartenir à l X. lusitanicum de Linné. Cette méme plante se trouve 
dans Vherb. de Vaillant ! sous le nom de Leh. amplissimo folio Lusit. 
Tourn. Inst. = /7. tingitanum altissim. flore variegato I 0x: 3.440; no; 5. 
La plante de ces deux herbiers a les épis de moitié plus courts qu'il ne 
sont dans Pherbier de M. de Jussieu, mais cela tient probablement à 
Page des échantillons, moins avancés, moins développés dans l'herbier de 
Tournefort et de Vaillant.” 
It is thus quite certain that Tournefort’s synonym refers to /. Broteri, 
Samp. There are several old specimens agreeing with Æ. Broteri at the 
British Museum, which bear out this conclusion and moreover indicate that 
the plant was in cultivation in the 18th century. I wiil quote :— 
(1) Herb. Sloane, vol. 166, p. 109, among Petiver's Hort. Sice. Hispanic etc., comm. 
Salvador and labelled “ E. amplissimo folio Lusitanicum Tourn.” Though 
Salvador lived at Barcelona, it is clear from other Portuguese species sent by 
him to Petiver that he collected in Portugal. 
(2) Herb. Sloane, vol. 198, p. 48, among Petivers Pl. Rayan, also labelled 
E. amplissimo, etc. 
(3) Hort. Cliff. labelled by the first hand Echium sylvestre hirsutum maculatum, 
C. B. P., which words have been cancelled (by the same hand ?) and replaced 
by creticum angustifolium rubrum. The unknown second hand added creticum. 
This specimen is an instance of the utter untrustworthiness of the names 
written in Herb. Hort. Cliff. 
(4) Herb. Gronovii, labelled E. folio amplissimo etc., Town., then E. corollis stamine 
longioribus, but the last phrase has been cancelled and replaced by Æ. caule 
erecto piloso etc., the Linnean diagnosis cf E. italicum. This alteration points to 
an observer who had noticed the agreement of the specimen with Æ. italicum, 
Brot., but overlooked the fact that Brotero's is not Linn:us's italicum. 
(5) Hort. Chelsea. A fine specimen labelled by Solander first ? italicum and then 
Echium lusitanicum, L. M. 
B. Royen’s synonym, * Æ. caule simplici, foliis caulinis lanceolatis. sericeis, 
floribus spicatis lateralibus, Lugdb. p. 407," is uselessly indefinite in itself, 
but Lehmann, Asperif. p. 452, under X. lusitanicum (which to him meant 
E. Broteri) observes, “ asservantur in herbario Vahliano exemplaria ab ipso 
Royeni Museo a Brugmanno data.” It is therefore clear that this synonym 
also refers to Æ. Broteri. 
The Linnean specimen bears no writing in the hand of Linn:eus himself, 
but an old label in that of Jan Burman saying * chium lusitanicum folio 
amplissimo Tourn." Now Burman’s entire herbarium was brought by his 
* Unfortunately this fragment is missing at Kew, perhaps lost when the plants were 
mounted, 
