i68 Dr. Smith'* Remarks on feme Foreign Species of Orobanche, 



no doubt of his having, in the paragraph above referred to, in- 

 tended the Orobanche c&rulea, though he either did not read, or did 

 not attend to, Bauhin's defcription. He has moreover a repetition 

 of Orchis abort iva, p. 23, n. 114. 



I beg leave to conclude with a reference to one original author at 

 leaft, who really ftudied and underftood the plants he enumerated, 

 as well as the books he quoted, Magnol in his Botanicum Monf- 

 pellienfe. 



This writer, p. 195, evidently defcribes the Orchis abortiva by the 

 name of Orobanche magna purpurea Monfpeffulana, I. B, referring alfo 

 to Lobel and Clnfius. He mentions having often gathered the 

 plant in the wood of Gramont in April and May, and juftly criti- 

 cifes the figures of the above authors. ** The lower lip of the 

 flower in Cluflus's figure," he obferves, " is cloven, which is not the 

 cafe in the Montpellier plant." This figure I have already pointed 

 out as reprefenting the Ophrys Nidus Avis, Magnol farther remarks, 

 that " the figure of Bauhin is faulty, there being no proportion 

 between the flem and flowers ; and that it is a copy of the 

 Orobanche quarta of Lobel. The figure of Lobel," he adds, " would 

 have been better if the roots had been drawn as in that of Clufius 

 and the flowers reprefented with fhort fpurs." — From all this there 

 can be no queftion about the plant of Magnol ; and Gouan, though 

 he quotes him under Orobanche icevis, Hort. Monfp. 308, exprefTes a 

 fufpicion that he meant the Orchis abortiva : but neither of thefe 

 writers, nor any following one that I can find, has hit upon the 

 true caufe of all the confufion that has enveloped the plants in 

 queftion, which is John Bauhin's having copied one fio-ure of 

 Lobel for the other. Magnol has our Orobanche casrulea, p. 196, by 

 the name of Oral wnchefubceeruho for e, five fecunda Clufti; and mentions 



having 



