19 
Dr. Smitu’s Remarks on 
have no original fpecimens of thefe two plants, I cannot de- 
termine the matter with abfolute certainty. The long de- 
fcription of V. pilofa, Sp. Pl. 1664, is by Linnæus erafed from 
his own copy, which looks as if he had not been quite clear 
in his ideas on the fubject. 
32. V. agrefiis, and 
an V. arvenfisy are both always found with white flowers in the 
environs of Rome. 
~~ 
37. V. romana uk certainly to be excluded. All its fynonyms, in 
the firft edition of Species Plantarum, belong to V. acinifolia; 
and the fpecimen in the Linnean Herbarium, from which the 
fpecific difference (as well as the defcription, Mant. 317) was 
made, is moft certainly nothing elfe than V. peregrina. - 
: V. romana, lion. Flo. Ped. No. 289, t. 85, f. 2, Villars Dauph. 
vi. P A feems alfo to me to bea variety of V. acinifolia, 
38. Y. acinifalia. T The yos of Vallone is excelent 
39. V. peregrina. Its fpecific character ought to be thus amended : 
V. floribus folitariis feffilibus, foliis oblongis obtufiufculis den- 
tatis integrifque, caule ere&o. ! 
Fig. 407 of Flo. Dan. feems to be intended i this plant, 
but it is one of the moft wretched that can be conceived; the 
leaves are there reprefented as ovate and acute. Morifon’s 
figure, § i. t. 24, f. 19, expreffes tolerably well the upper 
part of the plant with entire leaves. 
- This fpecies is a native of Sweden and Denmark. I have alfo 
a wild fpecimen gathered by Commerfon at Buenos Ayres. 
The 
