206 ‘Dr. Smrvu's Objervations vt 
| Podiceli teretes, purpurei, lucidi, glaberrimi. Calyx tubulofo-cam- 
panulatus, refinofo-punr&tatus,: “glaberrimus, dentibus ciliatis, 
~ quandoque dorfo hirfutis. -.Corz//a magna, purpurea, glabra, refi- 
! Ux seges E Stamina longitudine. varia. 
-This is a very ditin& fpécies of Meniba,ofteh cultivated in pus 
avhere it is fometimes called Heart-mint, or. Red-Mint, and found . 
wild in different parts of the kingdom yet it has never been well 
underftood by late writers), .Linnzcus appears not to have known it, 
for it is not in his herbarium, and he confounds its fynonyms with 
© his M. fativa. Whether Hudfon comprehended this fpecies under - 
‘his rubra, T kno w no means of determining. | It appears clearly to be’ 
what Ray and Dillenias intended in the places above quoted, both 
from what they have faid upon the fubject, and the fpecimens in 
all the old heibariums. Thofe in the collection of Sherard have a 
. number of meam of the old authors in his hand-writing, Some 
‘other han -has added the fynonym of Rivinus, Mentha verticillata. 
Probably this may have been done by Dillenius, for he has firft in- 
ferted the Mint by that name in the Synopfis ; but I very much doubt 
"its propriety. A loofe ticket, in the hand of Samuel Dale I believe, 
has the fynonym of C. Bauhin, and “ I have found this in three 
^feveral places." On another loofe ticket is written with a pencil, 
in a hand I am. ‘unacquainted. with, “ Odor Menthæ hortenfis. 
“Hackney river at the ferry houfe. Sept. init." Hence we learn 
‘that the conjecture of Mr. Edward Forfter, of the M. /ativa of Lin- 
- næus being the mint Dillenius had from the Hackney river, fee 
E.g. Bot. 448, however probable, i is not exactly truc. Dillenius 
“indeed as well as Ray confounded M. fativa with the mint of the 
"Hackney river; but I fufpect they did fo from the report of Bobart 
| ud d brother, without comparing fpecimens. My reafons for 
