226 | Mn. Arzetius’s Hiffory of 
other authors have referred to, would be too tedious; it fuffices 
to mention, that I have feen a few of each fet quoted, but, 
what is furprifing, moftly thofe of inferior merit; whereas 
. the good one of Fuchfius has been in this century quoted xi no 
one but Haller and Dr. Stokes. 
It feems, therefore, that the Trifol. pratenfe, as having been 
known from the earlieft ages, and being one of the moft common 
plants in Europe, ought to have been exempt from the confufion 
in which many others are involved, and which is more excufable 
when fome rare or lefs known plant is in queftion. Still it ftands 
‘unfortunately in the fame predicament; and Cafpar Bauhin, ac- 
. cording to his ufual practice, began the confufion: for his Trifo- 
lium pratenfe purpureum, with his perplexed defcription and mifplaced 
citations, comprehends at leaft three diftinét fpecies, befides the 
genuine pratenfe; under which laft his Trifolium pratenfe purpureum 
is generally quoted by moft authors, who thereby have authorifed 
the blunder of Bauhin, not to mention other feparate miftakes 
committed by fome of them. I therefore efteem it neceffary in this 
place to enumerate all the plants which I — senum EA 
for the Trifol pratenfe, ore confounded with it. But I fhall p 
fpeak of 
Trifolium pratenfe purpureum minus, foliis cordatis. Rays 
Syn. ii. p. 328, n. s. * tab. 15, fig. I. 7 
This Haller has introduced as a different fpecies in his Stirp. 
Helv. p. 585, n. 13*, but in his Hift. i. p. 164, n; 378 *, he has 
inferted it as a variety of another Trefoil, which certainly is the 
ochroleucum ; and on the other hand adduced the authors really be- 
longing to this latter, under Trifol. pratenfé, as I am going to ob- 
ferve. Linnzus, probably mifled by Haller, has alfo brought in 
this plant of Ray's, under his Trifol. ochroleucum, in Syft. Nat. 
tom, 
