426 MR. C. C. LACAITA : A REVISION OF 
-Ó 
Herb. Sloane, vol. 306, p. 156, among Uvedale’s Plante Rayan, 
as “E. hispanicum verrucosum angustifolium, Dni. Vaillant; an 
FE. foliis angustis villosis Tourn." I have not detected hairs on the 
filaments of this specimen. 
Herb. Sherard (at Oxford); from Dr. Dillenius as “ Echium 
perlatum. Vaill." 
Hort. Cliff., labelled by the first hand “ E. foliis angustis et villosis 
Tourn.,” but by the second “fruticosum,” which is then erased and 
altered to “argenteum,” both the latter names belonging to South 
nz 
A^ 
African species now referred to Lobostemon. 
Herb. Gronov., labelled “ Fehium foliis angustis et villosis Tourn. 136. 
Anchusa angustis villosis foliis, Boce. Mus. 2. 84, t. 78; E. perlatum 
a transcript 
rs 
angustifolium Hispanicum quorundam." This label is 
of Boerhaave, Ind. alt. Pl. p. 194 (1720). 
Herb. Miller, labelled by him * Æ. caule ramoso aspero, foliis calloso- 
verrucosis, staminibus corolla longioribus ; Echium ereticum C. B. T 
then by Solander first “orientale” and afterwards “ angustifolium 
Mill. Dict. no. 6." 
Although the labels of the above specimens may point to Æ. angustifolium, 
Lam., they do not belong to that remarkable species, which has nothing to 
do with angustifolium, Mill. They are good instances of the wild shots of the 
or 
old botanists at the names of their garden plants. 
6. Hort. Chelsea, no. 2067 of 1763, labelled * Æ. corollis stamine 
longioribus L. Sp. Pl.” (which is the diagnosis of Æ. lusitanicum) 
and “ Æ. amplissimo folio lusitanicum Tourn.” 
7. Hort. Chelsea, labelled by Solander ** Æ. ereticum," on the same sheet 
as a piece of plantagineum, labelled by him * orentale." 
8. Herb. Smith, labelled “ Æ. genevense Fairb.; FE. creticum? Own 
garden, Marlboro’ St. 1788. 
Tournefort's herbarium unfortunately does not contain a specimen of his 
E. foliis angustis et villosis, nor have I been abie to determine precisely the 
plants bearing that title in herb. Jussieu, no. 6621. No. 6622 ** E. Roris 
marini folio Tourn. 136” is very like some of the old Mus. Brit. examples. 
But the difficulty of an exact determination of the violaceum of herb. Linn. 
is immaterial, for, whatever it be, it conflicts so absolutely with the diagnosis 
and synonyms that the name must certainly be abandoned. 
(VII.) ECHIUM VULGARE, 5p. Pl. p. 139 (1753), had already been men- 
tioned in Hort. Cliff. p. 43 (1737), as X. caule simplici, foliis caulinis lanceo- 
latis, floribus spicatis ex alis," and again in Fl. Suec. p. 56 (1745), as found 
in Sweden, with the words of the diagnosis very slightly altered. In Hort, 
