several British Species of Hicracium. 2.03 



* Folia lanceolata, acuta, Caules et calyces nigris setts adspersi; 

 folia hispida minimis pilis. In hortum academician iranslata 1742, 

 cmdem bipedalem 1743, et fores quasi in umbellam, longis pedun- 

 culis innixos, producebat." All this suits my Auricula, 



I now proceed to the evidence of the Linnaean herbarium, 

 which is much more conclusive here than in the former instance. 



In that collection is a specimen of what I understand as 

 H. Auricula, marked as such by Linnaeus himself, and a^reeinsr 

 with all that he says about it. This is pinned to another, num- 

 bered 7, and both together were unquestionably considered by 

 Linnaeus, when he wrote his first edition of Sp. PL, as EL Auri- 

 cula, to which the number refers in that work, and his copy of 

 the book is marked, indicating that he had the plant. But 

 when he wrote his 2d edition of Sp. PL, he distinguished between 

 these two specimens, elaborately describing the latter by the 

 name of cymosum, and leaving the other with its original deno- 

 mination of Auricula. I conceive this decides the question be- 

 tween H. dubium and Auricula, and that the 2 species are mis- 

 taken for each other in the Fl. Danica. How far the cymosum, 

 Ehrhart's ambiguum f may be really distinct from the Auricula is 

 another question. It appears to me only a larger plant The 

 cymosum of most authors appears to be the for entinum of Allioni. 

 It may perhaps be not uninteresting to give here the opinion of 

 my late friend Mr. Davall, whose accuracy and penetration I 

 have daily opportunities of proving, concerning these and the 

 neighbouring species in Haller's Ilistoria and Nomenclator. 



His No. 50 is, of course, H. aurantiacum. 



51 prcemorsum. 

 51* cymosum. 



52 Auricula. 



53 dubium. 



vol. ix. 2 ii His 



