296 Dr. Suites Remarks 
confefs myfelf unable to find a fpecific difference between them, 
and am perfuaded Mr. Hudfon is right in making 1t a variety 
in his Flora Anglica, for that it is what he intends by his del- 
toides f, I learned from himfelf, and his quotation of Dille- 
nius, fig. 384, evinces it. The laft mentioned author gives this 
as a Britih plant on report only ; nor do I know any certain 
inftance of its being found wild, except Mr. Lightfoot's autho- 
rity in Flora Scotica, where it is rightly given as D. glaucus 
of Linnæus. One cannot but wonder Mr. Hudíon íhould 
have applied this denomination, with its diferentia fpecifica, to 
another plant, the Chedder pink, at the fame time quoting 
Dill. £ 385, which has nothing to do with D. glaucus, and 
which. Linnzus, indeed, by no lefs an error, makes a variety 
of his D. virgineus. This point I have already cleared up 
in Enghíh Botany, t. 62, defcribing the Chedder pink as a new 
fpecies by the name of D. cæfus, of which therefore I {hall fay 
no more at prefent. 
#7. D. arenarius. For this little-known fpecies Linnzus is the 
only certam authority. The fpecimen: in his herbarium is from 
Sweden. The fynonyms of Bauhin and Clufius he has erafed 
from his own copy of Species Plantarum, and furely the 
zirmerius flos tertius of Dodonzus, p. 176, ought alfo to be 
flruck out. Nor do I find any good reafon to depend on the 
fynonyms of Le Monnier and Sauvages, 
Neither has this any right to a place in our Flora Anglica. 
Mr. Hudíon has affured me he meant, by his D. arenarius, 
the common pheafant’s eye pink of the gardens, which occurs 
fometimes apparently wild on old walls, and feems to belong 
to D. Caryophyllus, 
I9. D. wr- 
