on the Genus Dianthus, k 207 
19. D. virgineus. Linnezus having originally defcribed this in the 
firft edition of Species Plantarum from Burfer's Herbarium, pre- 
ferved at Upfal, without having any fpecimen in his own, I had no 
means of determining it with certainty but byapplying to Profeffor 
Thunberg, who very obligingly fent me a drawing of the original 
fpecimen, by which it clearly appears this is no other than the 
plant Profeffor Jacquin has rightly taken for virgineus, and 
figured in his Flora Aufiriaca, vol. 5. append. t. 15. I have it from 
himfelf. Linnzus, towards the latter part of his life, having 
had this pink in his garden at Upfal from the Alps, defcribed 
it afrefh, forgetting it was his own virgineus; and forgetting 
alfo that he had already named one Dianthus alpinus, he gave 
that denomination to this fuppofed few fpecies. The latter error 
however his {on corrected, publifhing it in the Supplement 
by the name adapts. But another fault occurs in that work 
à ynonym, Caryophylleus primus, C/z/. hif. 
p. 282, figura tenuis. Linnzus wrote it fgwré tenus, meaning 
that the figure, not the defcription, agreed with his plant. I 
beg leave however to affert that neither 1s by any means re- 
ferable to it. This is the very fame individual figure, printed. 
in Dodonzus by the name of Armerius flos tertius, above men- 
tioned. For what it was intended, I do not prefume to deter- 
mine ; unlefs it may be my cæfus, with which the defcription 
of Clufius agrees pretty well Yet here the weighty opinion 
of Dillenius in Hort. Eltham. is againft me. The fynonyms. 
of this genus form the moft inextricable botanical labyrinth I. 
ever yet entered. 
I gathered D. virgineus on the white limeftone rocks op- 
pofite the poft-houfe on Mount Cenis in Auguft 1787. The 
ftems were decumbent, not proftrate, and the flowers appeared 
to me inodorous. Linnzus remarks the contrary. It ought to. 
Vor. II. Q q be 
= LI 
