166 Dr. Smith'j Remarks on feme Foreign Specks of ' Orobancfe. 



Bauhin juftly cenfures Lobel's figure, as wanting the fpurs ; he alfo 

 enquires whether this plant may not be what Clufius mentions in 

 his Hiflon'a, as " a plant like his Pfeudo-leimodoron, but much paler, 

 found in the wood of Gramont, and feveral other woods about 

 Montpeliier." There can be no doubt of the Pfeudo-leimodoron of 

 Clufius, Hljl. Plant. 270, being the Orchis abortiva, though a figure 

 of Ophrys Nidus Avis, by an error common in books with wooden 

 cuts, is put for it *. The defcription in that work is indeed copied 

 from his Stirpes Pannonica?, where the plant is named Limodorutn 

 aujlriacum, without any figure ; and the paler variety, which he 

 remembered to have feen formerly near Montpeliier, is alfo there 

 mentioned. I confider therefore the defcriptions of John Bauhin 

 and Clufius, and the nrft or left-hand figure of Lobel's Icones, p. 269, 

 as clearly belonging to Orchis abortiva, and having nothing to do 

 with any Orobancbe. With refpecl: to the fecond or right-hand 

 figure of Lobel, copied into Bauhin's work by miftake, it as indubi- 

 tably, I think, reprefents the Orobancbe lately published in Tab. 423 

 ofEng/i/fr Botany, by the name of c&rulea, which feveral authors there 

 mentioned have taken for the Linnaean lavis : it cannot however 

 remain, when the above errors are cleared away, as the true lavis 

 becaufe it is not in fact fmooth, neither do the flamina project out 

 of the flower; though Morifon, in his copy of this figure, JW/. 12. 

 /. 16./ 2, has in one flower fo reprefented them ; for the compiling 

 and copying tribe of authors are fure to add fomething every now 

 and then to the general flock of error, how little foever they may 

 fupply to that of folid knowledge. The flyle indeed projects in 

 Lobel's figure, and all its copies ; the item too is reprefented fmooth, 

 and the form of the corolla is very ill exprefTed : yet thefe figures 

 can be defigned for nothing elle than our O. carulea. 



* Villars points out this error b his Planus de Dauphin?> vol. ii. p. 40. 



The 



