SOME CRITICAL SPECIES OF ECHIUM. 437 
Chelsea Garden in 1749, no. 1367, labelled “ E. ereticum angustifolium rubrum, 
C. B. P," where “ angustifolium” obviously is a slip of the pen for latifolium, 
is the Æ. creticum of Herb. Linn., but another, labelled by Solander 
* FE. ereticum," is a variety of E. pustulatum, S. & S., or one of the allied 
Mediterranean forms. There is also a sheet with no indication of where 
its contents grew, labelled in Miller's handwriting * Æ. calycibus. fruetes- 
centibus ete., H. U. 35: E. ereticum latifolium rubrum" and by Solander 
^ E. ereticum.” Unfortunately, it contains two pieces belonging to different 
species, the smaller being really Æ. ereticum, Herb. Linn., but the larger 
F. plantagineum. 
Therefore I think we must consider Æ. creticum, Mill, to be a nomen 
confusum. This is immaterial, as it does not affect the interpretation of 
E. eveticum, L. 
Miller’s sixth sort is ECHIUM ANGUSTIFOLIUM caule ramoso, aspero, foliis 
calloso-verrucosis, staminibus corolla longioribus. E. creticum angustifolium 
rubrum, C. B. P., 254. “This sixth sort hath branching stalks which grow 
a foot and a half long, declining toward the ground ; they are covered with 
stinging hairs; the leaves are four inches long and not more than half 
an inch broad ; they are pretty much warted and are hairy. The flowers 
grow in loose spikes from the side of the stalks, and also at the end of the 
branches; they are of a reddish-purple colour, but not so large as those of. 
the former sort, and the stamina of these are longer than the petal. This 
is also an annual plant which grows naturally in Crete.” 
From the excellent description and from the synonym this is certainly 
Echium hispidum, Sibth. et Sm., Fl. Gr. Prodr. i. p. 125 (1806), Fl. Gr. 
tab. 181 =F. elegans, Lehm. Asperif. p. 459 (1818) =Æ. Sibthorpii, Roem. et 
Sch. Syst. iv. p. 26 (1819). Lehmann's and Roemer’s names were only created 
to replace that of Sibthorp, owing to the existence of an earlier homonym, 
FE. hispidum, Thunb., a Cape plant, now referred to the genus Lobostemon. 
We must boldly adopt Miller's name of angustifolium, if the rule of priority 
is to be adhered to. To such a course three objections might be raised. Firstly, 
that it would cause two changes in accepted nomenclature, for, as E. angusti- 
folium, Lam., would have to give way to Æ. angustifolium, Mill., the name of 
that species too would have to be changed. Secondly, Miller calls his plant 
annual, whereas elegans is stated by Haláesy in Consp. Fl. Gr. ii. p. 338, to 
be perennial. Such a mistake in this genus is very easy to make, unless the 
writer is well acquainted with the plant in its native haunts. Moreover, 
many Mediterranean coast perennials will not survive the damp of English 
autumns, even if they resist the frost of winter, and have to be treated as 
annuals in English gardens, where alone Miller knew his plants. Ithink 
we may fairly brush aside this objection. 
Thirdly, the presence of an inconvenient specimen in Herb. Miller with 
202 
