CKEPIS ^"l■DlCAULIS L. AND LEOXTOBON HIKTUS L. 99 



1. Colonna, Ecphrasis, p. 244 (1606), with figure on p. 243, 

 describes Sieracium alterum saxatile montftnuin, "quod inter 

 saxorum rimas oriri observavi." This plant from the habitat, the 

 descri])tion, and ' the figui'e is certainly Aparyia saxatilis Ten. 

 (transferred by Reiehenbach to Leontodon), for which it is quoted 

 by Tenore himself in Fl. Nap. ii. p. 168 and Sylloge, p. 593, so here 

 we have safe ground. L. saxatilis is nearly, if not quite, identical 

 with L. crispus Vill. *, and for the purpose of this inquiry may be 

 treated as identical. Villars, Dauph. iii. p. 85, quotes Colonna's 

 name as synonymous with crispus. 



2. Caspar Bauhin, Prodr. p. 63 (1620), describes and figures as 

 no. i., Hieracium denfis leonis folia (sic •pro/olio) hirsntie aspeimm 

 minus, adding " Monspelii provenit " and " florem aureum." The 

 figure is very like that of Colonna and clearly represents L. crispus, 

 not L. ViUarsii, and far less Tlirincia hirta. It is quoted by 

 Villars for crisp>us, and by Linnaeus for L. Jiispidus \aY. /3. in Sp. PI. 

 ed. 1, p. 799, but for C'repis nudicaulis on p. 805 and for L. liirtus 

 in ed. 2, j). 1123. This plant will hereafter be referred to as CB. i. 



3. Ibidem, no. ii., Hieracivm minus glahruin, " apud nos circa 

 autumnum florens, in agris reperitur." In the same author's Pinax 

 this becomes no. viii., H. minus glahrtim foliis eleganter virentibus ; 

 " hoc 2 est in Prodr.," a phrase which puts it far away from the 

 Jiirtus of Linn., who does not cite it. It is only mentioned here, 

 because, as we shall see, Villars, commenting on Dillenius, misused this 

 no. ii. Ray mentions it in Hist. i. p. 236, among species that he 

 had not seen. Its identity is uncertain ; might it not be L. autum- 

 nalis ? 



4. Ibidem, p. 66, no. xix., Hieracium pumilum saxatile as- 

 perum, radice prcemorsa. " In Alpibus provenit," and " florem sub- 

 luteum," with a figure which will not do for L. ViUarsii or for 

 i. crispus. This has been refeiTed to Tlirincia hirta by Hudson, 

 Fl. Angl. p. 297 (1762), and others. Villars mentions it three times, 

 under L. liirtns at p. 83, L. proteiformis at p. 89, and Hi^oseris 

 taraxacoides at p. 167, but from the notes on pp. 89 and 167 his 

 own opinion was clearly in favour of L. proteiformis=^L. hispidus 

 L., and I think correctly, for neither the root iior the leaves shown in 

 the figure are those of Thrincia hirta. If Bauhin's account be read 

 through, it will be seen that he grouped three or foiu- different plants 

 under the above phrase, which does not facilitate their identification. 

 Ray, Hist. i. p. 246, under this name describes leaves " longis jiedi- 

 culis (sic) donata, uncias tres quatuorve longa, semiunciam lata," 

 and also calls the flower " subluteum." This may point to Thrincia 

 hirta, but the identity remains exceedingly doubtful. Linnaeus only 

 quotes this Bauhin name for L. hirtus in the Mantissa, where he has 

 copied from Gerard several fresh synonyms that conflict with those of 

 his earlier works. This will be ix'fen-ed to as CB xix. 



5. C. Bauhin, Pinax, p. 127 (1623), no. x., Hieracium dentis 

 leonis folio hir.sutie asperum minus laciniatnin, quoting as synony- 

 mous Colonna's plant. .This CB x. therefore is Leontodon .•saxatilis, 



* Ball in Ann. Nat. Hist. vi. considers them specifically distinct, giving 

 characters in support of his opinion. 



h2 



