Ie. Dr. SurrH's Account of 
G. montanum panicula fpadiceà craffiore. Tournef. Inf. 524. 
Nardus fpuria Narbonenfis. C. Baub. Pin. 13. 
= Nardus Gangitis {puria Norbonæ. Lob, Adverfar. 43. 
The laft fynonym is added on the authority of Micheli, as well 
as from the defcription and incomplete figure of Lobel. Micheli 
alfo confirms the fynonym of Tournefort. 
Hence we learn, that Linnzus has totally mifapplied the above 
fynonyms of Bauhin and Lobel, in quoting them as belonging to 
his Nardus Gangitis. That the latter is quite a different plant, ap- 
pears from his own Herbarium; and Linnæus has committed a 
greater error in his quotation of Morifon; for inftead of fection 
8, t. 13, fig. ultima of that author, the figure he fhould have 
quoted is the laft but one, the figura ultima being quite a different 
plant from all the above: and yet I am afraid the differentia fpeci- 
fica in Species Plantarum (fpicà recurvà) was made from too 
great an attention to this mifquoted figure*. At any rate, that 
character is very bad, as being equally applicable to the common 
Nardus ftricta. What is fill more unfortunate is, that the N. Gan- 
gitis is no Nardus at all, but appears to belong rather to Rottbollia, 
or at leaft to the fame genus with Rottbollia incurvata (ZEgilops 
incurvata Linn.), as probably does the Nardus T homz likewife. 
The foregoing obfervations exhibit a feries of errors and mifcon- 
ceptions, which can fcarcely be paralleled in the botanical hiftory 
of any other plant, and thofe the errors of the greateft men ; owing 
to which, the Anthoxanthum paniculatum and Nardus Gangitis 
have been enveloped in more obfcurity, and the labours of enqui- 
* The figure of Morifon is fo confufed, that this error could hardly be avoided. Ie 
is certain, however, that all his three {pikes of flowers belong to the laft figure, 
6 ring 
