100 TUl^ JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



0. PisciDiA Spreug. Pugill. i. 47 (1813). The doubt wliich has 

 attached to this name can now be dispelled. Sprengel based his 

 species on " Vicia Piscidia Forst. mscpt. In herbario Forsteri sub 

 hoc nomine aderat nusquam descripta planta." The drawing by 

 Forster in the Department of Botany bears the two names Vicia 

 Piscidia and Galega littoralis ; the plant, published under the latter 

 name by G. Forster in his Prodromua, p. 52, is Cracca purpurea, L. 



" Orobus pykenaicus Linn. Sp. PI. 729 = Lathyrus montanus." 

 The synonyms quoted by Linnaeus for this plant represent, as 

 demonstrated by Lapeyrouse in an excellent and interestmg paper 

 in Mem. Mus. Nat. Hist. Paris, ii. 292-301 (1815), two species. No 

 type exists in Linnteus's herbarium at the Linnean Society, and he 

 indicates by the sign f which he appends to the descriptive phrase 

 cited from Sauvages that the material on which it is founded is un- 

 satisfactory. The synonyms quoted are : — 



" Orobus pyrenaicus, foliis nervosis. Tounief. inst. 235 [393] . 



*' Orobus pyrenaicus latifolius nervosus. Pluk. phijt. 210 f. 2." 

 Each of these is made by Lapeyrouse the type of a species — 0. 

 Tournefortii and 0. Phikenetii respectively ; both are referred in the 

 Index Kewensis— the former doubtfully and the latter without hesi- 

 tation — to L. montanus [Bernh.] . 



So far as Plukenet's plant is concerned, a reference to his speci- 

 men preserved in Herb. Sloane, xcvii. fol. 44, which his figure 

 accurately represents, confirms this determination. Tournefort's 

 synonym, however, presents more difficulty. 



Lapeyrouse {I. c. 396) speaks of having found in Tournefort's 

 herbarium " des magnifiques individus de son orobe des Pyrenees," 

 and proceeds to show their distinctness from the Petiverian plant 

 with which Linnaeus had united them. He considers Tournefort's 

 plant a new species between 0. luteus and 0. vermis: " elle se 

 rapproche du premier par son port et son feuillage, et du second par 

 ses feuilles et ses fleurs." Subsequent authors — e.g. WiUkomm 

 and Lange — have referred 0. Tournefortii to L. luteus. Nyman 

 (Consp. 204), who has seen the type specimens, says : " 0. Tourne- 

 fortii Lap. (sec. specc. hort. paris.) est var intermedia subangustifolia, 

 qualis pi. Bourg. alp. Saband. 69." Taking luteus in a large sense, 

 0. Tournefortii would appear from Lapeyrouse's excellent figure 

 to be nearest that species ; but those who have so decided 

 seem to have overlooked the fact that Lapeyrouse describes the 

 flowers as purple, and we do not find that those of luteus vary to 

 that colour. 



This description is borne out by the specimen in Clifibrt's Her- 

 barium, which bears the Tournefortian synonym in Linnseus's 

 handwriting, and has been named pyrenaicus by whoever added the 

 Linnean specific names to the sheets of that collection. This 

 specimen so exactly corresponds with Lapeyrouse's figure that it 

 might have been the original ; and the flowers are unmistakably 

 purple. It is probable that this specimen was sent by Touruefort 

 to Linnaeus, and that a specimen in Herb. Sloane, cccxxvi. appen- 

 dix, fol. 23 — which is certainly the same — came also from Tourne- 

 fort. Lapeyrouse, however (Hist. Abr. PI. Pyr. Supp. 108 (1818)), 



