220 © Mr. Arzerius’s Hifory of 
pannonicum, alpefre, rubens B, and rubens a; but it will be broken if, 
inftead of rubens @, the medium is inferted, whofe form and appear- 
ance are very different from all the other three. It is true, the 
figure of his Trifolium majus iii, feems rather to refemble the medium 
than the rubens, being hairy and fomewhat branched. But the 
fame may be faid of his figure of Irifolii majoris iii altera fpecies : 
and thus neither of thefe figures of Clufius can be taken for Trifol. 
rubens, or elfe both of them muft. I believe, however, the latter 
opinion is the fafeft, as his defcriptions fo well agree with 77/02. 
rubens, and as it is not yet perfectly certain whether this plant 
does not at times become branched. Laftly, as to the hairs which 
Clufius has reprefented in the edge of his figures, I believe they 
are rather meant to reprefent their fine teeth, than any hairinefs. 
Having endeavoured to prove that the Trifolium majus iii of 
Clufius ought to be confidered as the fecond variety of Tr ifol. ru- 
bens with broader leaves and fhorter fpikes, I íhall conclude by 
citing a few fynonyms, as an addition to thofe quoted in the pre- 
ceding article of Tn Tee motile Thefe are— 
— BO CTNIN OL PP 271 760, 
* Mid Et Trifolium majus ill, Ibid. p. 762. Et ejufa. 
Hif, vi. p. 245, n. ii *. 
Trifolium fpica oblonga rubra. Bauh. Pin, p. 328. Ray, 
Hifl. i. p. 044, n. 7. * 
Trifolium purpureum majus, folio et fpica breviore. Bauh, 
Hifi. à. p. 375, fig. inf. 
Trifolium majus tertium purpureum, eur Bauh. Hi GA. 
ii. f. 375. * 
The figure of John Bauhin, as well as thofe of Gerarde, Par- 
kinfon, and Morifon, as already mentioned, are only re-impreflions 
of the original of Clufius, whofe defcription is likewife copied in 
6 part 
