268 Dr. SwiTm's Remarks 
20, 
_be removed tothe divifion of Flores /olitarii, plures in eadem caule. 
The fpecimen in Burfer’s Herbarium, being’ a meagre one, - 
fuBciently fhews why Linnæus placed it among thofe whofe 
{tems are fingle-flowered. I have reafon to think, from the 
information of my moft accurate friend Mr. Davall, F. L. S. this 
is commonly taken for D. Caryophyllus in Switzerland. What 
Haller has called it I do not yet know. * His account of this 
genus is as confufed as any body's. | 
D. arboreus. Of this Linnzus had no fpecimen, and he con- 
founds under it two very different fpecies... His fpecific charac- 
ter, folus fubulatis, agrees beft with the plant of Tournefort ; 
but in his own copy ofeSp. Plant. he has erafed that fynonym, 
iceming thus to intend Bauhin's for his real arboreus. Yet he 
_ has added as a fynonym, Caryophyllus arboreus fylveftris, 
Alpin. Exot. 39. +. 38, juftly obferving that the figure is bad. 
Indeed ío execrable is this figure, and fo incomplete the de- 
{cription, not a word being faid whether the figure be of the 
natural fize or diminifhed, which in this cafe would determine 
the point, that I cannot tell to which of thefe two moft differ- 
. ent fpecies it belongs. Suppofing it not to be a much dimi- 
nifhed reprefentation, it muft be Tournefort’s Caryophyllus 
creticus arboreus, juniperi folio, Coro//. 23. which I fhall here- 
after defcribe, and with which Alpinus's defcription of the 
« flender leaves refembling thofe of wild pinks, and the fmall 
flowers," agrees much better than with Bauhin's plant. The 
latter, which I venture to confider as the real D. arboreus of 
Linnæus, is very tolerably figured and pede in John 
Bauhin's Hifloria, vol. 3. 328. 
|. 21. D. fruticofus. Y am perfuaded, from Toutatis own {pecimens, 
this is only a variety of the laft mentioned arboreus, having 
8 | . broader 
