three Species of Trifolium. | 225 
tary of Matthiolus in Latin, of which I have feen a fubfequent 
edition. 
The ten remaining figures of Trifol. pratenfe are all to be regarded 
as originals, and are publifhed by Rivinus, Zannichelli, the author 
of Spectacle de la Nature, Blackwell, Weinman, Kniphof, Knorr, 
Regnault, Zorn, and Profeffor Vahl. All thefe are genuine in this 
refpeét—that they are intended to reprefent the honey-fuckle Tre- 
foil, as is evident from their pofture, ftipulæ, foliola, and clofe 
floral leaves, &c. But that of Kniphof is, as ufual, a very poor 
one; which indeed I would have paffed over in filence, but that 
it has been referred to by more than one author. : The figures of 
. Zannichelli, Weinman, and Zorn are fomewhat better ; and thofe 
of, Blackwell .and Regnault tolerably good: but both thefe 
authors, as well as Zorn, have been unfortunate in reprefenting 
the fegments of the calyx very different from nature. The figures 
of Rivinus and Knorr are pretty good. That in Spect. de la 
Nature is an indifferent one, and appears to be made from 
the cultivated variety : indeed it is pity that the otherwife good 
figure of Profeffor Vahl feems to be alfo drawn from a 
cultivated fpecimen; for the whole of its. pofture- nearly ap- 
proaches to that of Trifoi medium, the leaves being too much 
pointed to reprefent the wild plant. But its principal diftin- 
guifhing charaéteriftics, the broad and awned ftipule, as well as 
the feffile {pike placed between two oppofite ternate feffile leaves, 
are very well expreffed. 
Of all the figures now mentioned, Linnæus himfelf has 
quoted none but that of Camerarius, in both editions of the 
" Flora Suecica and Species Plantarum; that of John Bauhin 
only in Hortus Cliffortianus; and that of Rivinus alone in 
his firt Flora. ‘To particularize which of thefe figures all 
e. Gg other 
