206 Mr. ArzrLIUs's Hiflory of 
Trifolium aliud montanum majus, "Y hal. who appear to treat of fpecies 
different from thofe of Clufius. Gefner fays only that his Trifo- 
lium is larger and more common than. pratenfe: but thefe remarks, 
though brief, give more reafon to fuppofe he meant Trifol, me- 
dium, than. a/pefre; which latter is rather a ícarce plant, and 
but little refembling our common clover, On the other hand, 
Thalius deferibes his Trifolium as having oblongum quafique fhicatum 
capitulum; adding that the Trifol. {picatum, which Tragus. calls 
Cytifus, only differs from it by having longer leaves as well as fpikes. 
Now the Cytifus of Tragus being Trifol. rubens. a, it is alfo pro- 
bable that the plant of Thalius is its variety 8 ; and if this be the 
cafe, C. Bauhin would have done better had he placed this quota- 
tion under his Trifolium fpica oblonga rubra. Perhaps this author, 
never fcrupulous in his quotations, meant, however, by his firft. 
mentioned Trifolium, the real a/efire. 
But, at all events, Bauhin has been indifcriminately quoted by 
every fucceeding writer that had occafion to treat of either 77/fo- 
lium alpejire. or E SAESP Among the authors more. immediately fuc- 
had pportunity of confulting John 
Bivhin, oe, escam Tournelore and Boerhaave. Both the 
firft-mentioned, in their Hiftorie Plantarum, have copied the 
defcription of Clufius ; and thus there is no doubt but their Tri- 
folium was the true z//ef/re. But Ray has made a miftake in add- 
ing Ger. Em, 1186. 4, and Park. 1103. 1; for both thefe treat of 
Trifolium fpica oblonga rubra, C. B. under which name he has like- 
wife quoted them, and confequently twice on the fame page, and 
under two different fpecies. Here I muft alfo notice another mif- - 
take committed by Ray, or rather, perhaps, by his editor Dillenius. 
In his Hiftory, aswell as both the firft editions of his Synopfis, he has 
defcribed a Trifolium which. is the real medium, without referring to 
2 any 
