three Species of Trifolium. 223 
his Imagines, have each given us a copy on a fmaller fcale, en- 
graved fo that the figure is reverfed. Neither of them can be called 
good, but that of Dodonzus is the beft ; and of this we find a re- 
impreffion in the fecond edition of his Imagines, as alfo in the 
French, Dutch, and Englifh tranflations of his Pemptades, and in 
both editions of Turner’s Herbal. At laft John Bauhin, in his 
Hiftory, has given us a new and fmall copy of the figure of Fuchfius, 
altered for the worfe, though not reverfed. 
Matthiolus, in his Commentary on Diofcorides, publifhed 
in Latin at Venice, 1554, in folio, began a new fet of figures. 
He reprefents the plant, diminifhed, pretty well, with many 
ftems from the fame root; but, as to the floral leaves, he has. 
committed the fame fault with Fuchfius, and rather in a 
greater degree. It appears to me as if he had had the figure of the 
latter by him when he made his own, for they have an imperfect 
refemblance to each other, except that the figure of Matthiolus 
has the points of the foliola rounder, and the fpikes longer. This 
figure has afterwards been reprinted, or with more or lefs va- 
riation copied, in various works. Exaét re-impreffions of it I have 
feen in the fecond Latin edition of the Commentary of Matthiolus, 
in the Latin Compendium > of the fame author, in the French 
tranflation by Moulin, and the Italian one by Coftantini, and 
another later in the fame language; further, in the Hiftoria Lug- 
dunenfis, which Linnzus calls Dalechampii, and the French tranf- 
lation of it ; and, laftly, in the Diofcorides in Spanifh, by De La- 
guna. It muft be remarked that Matthiolus, in his Compendium, 
has committed two errors; firft, in tranfpofing the figures of 
Trifol. pratenfe and montanum ; and, fecondly, that in the defcription 
belonging to the latter, but inferted under the former, he mentions 
it as having purple flowers. 
Of 
