ENTE 
SOME CRITICAL SPECIES OF ECHIUM. 429 
chalky lands in most parts of England” establish the identity. We therefore 
get the following synonymy :— 
(1) Echium anglicum, Mill. E. vulgare, Huds. ed. 12 4. vulgare, L., 
var. parviflorum, St. Am.* = E. Wierzbickii, Haberl., and 
(2) Echium vulgare, Mill. E. vulgare, L.-— E. anglicum, Huds. ed. 1 
=H. vulgare var. anglicum, Huds. ed. 2. Bauhin’s synonym 
should, of course, belong to Miller's Æ. vulgare, not to his 
7. anglicum, where for some obscure reason he has wrongly 
placed it. 
Here the matter might end were it not for the unfortunate introduction, 
as a synonym, both by Miller and by Hudson, of Lobel's Lycopsis anglica or 
Lycopsis altera anglica. This is no doubt what led to Linnzus assigning 
Anglia as a habitat of Echium italicum, to which species he very rightly, in 
Sp. PL, transferred Lobel's name as var. 8. To trace the origin of the 
error as to Lobel’s plant, and the confusion to which it has given rise, 
involves a long digression. 
Lobel, in his * Stirpium Adversaria nova,’ p. 249 (1570), describes a plant 
under the name of Lycopsis, vel Lycapsis degener Anchusa, Æginetæ. Mathioli 
Cynoglossum. He tells us in very awkward Latin that it was first shown to 
him by Assatius, not far from the shore at Frontignan, and that he after- 
wards raised it from seed at London in England. He also states that it has 
no real similarity to Anchusa, except in the colour of the root, the hispid stem 
and leaves, and the tangled hairiness of the flowers ; and that it has the 
flowers of /Zehium fimbriatum f, of a dilute purple colour, with slender stamens. 
Now the only Echium growing in the Montpellier neighbourhood to which 
this account could apply is Æ. pyrenaicum. Lobel’s plant is figured in his 
Stirp. Hist. p. 312 (1576), as “ Lycopsis altera anglica Advers. p. 249 
perperam Cynoglossum Matthioli” alongside of ** Kehium sive Buglossum 
silvestre.” The figure in question certainly represents Echium pyrenaicum. 
The corollas are clearly intended for those of either Æ. italicum or £F. pyre- 
naicum, but the broad pyramidal branching is more like pyrenaicum. The 
corollas especially, as well as the ramification, forbid the identification with 
E. plantagineum, which was made by ©. Bauhin and by Ray, and for other 
reasons might be tempting. 
The same pair of figures recur in the * Kruydtboeck,’ p. 684 (1581), and in 
Ie. Stirp. p. 579, in both editions of 1581 and 1591, and are again found 
in Dodoens, Stirp. Hist. p. 620 (1583), under the names of /ehiwm and 
chit altera species, and in Gerard, Hist. Pl. p. 802 (1633), as chium vulgare 
and Lycopsis anglica. Thus Echii altera species, Dod., is identical with 
* Wrongly attributed to Schur, Enum. Pl. 'Trans. p. 470, which is much later (1866). 
T I have not ascertained what plant he alludes to as E. fimbriatum. 
