ON HIEHACIUM AURANTIACUM L. 03 



differences in habit and foliage. The two British forms appear to 

 me to show more essential differences than any of Naegeli and 

 Peter's primary groups, and I am therefore disposed to treat these 

 two forms as two full species, under which many of the collaborators' 

 subspecies may be placed. Taking this view, it becomes necessary 

 to consider whether the Linnean type is correctly hxed by Naegeli 



and Peter. . . 



Hieracium aurantiacum is thus described by Linnaeus m Species 



Plantarum, p. 801 (1753) :— ....... 



"Hieracium foliis integris, caule subnudo simphcissnno piloso 

 corymbifero. Hort. Cliff. 388. Hort. Ups. 238. 



"H. hortense floribus atropurpurascentibus. Bauh. pin. 128. 



proclr. 05. ■*>'■> • i oo 



" H. alpinum non laciniatum, flore tusco. Bauh. pin. 12s. 



prodr. 05. 



" H. germanium I. Col. ecphr. 2, p. 28, t. 30. 



" Pilosella polyclonos repens major syriaca, flore ample aurantiaco. 

 Moris, hist. 3, p.*78, t. 8. f. 7. 



" Habitat in Syria, Helvetia." 



In the second "edition (1703) the habitat becomes "In Syria, 

 Helvetia?, Austriaeque sylvis." . 



It will be observed that Linnaeus here furnishes no diagnosis, but 

 relies entirely on citations from older works. The first of these 

 is from his own Hortus Cliffortianus (1737), where the meagre 

 description is of less importance than the citations, all of which, with 

 one doubtful exception and excluding C. Bauhin's H. alpinum non 

 laciniatum, distinctly relate to a broad-leaved garden-plant. The 

 exception is Pilosella inclica Cornuti, Canada, p. 209 (1035), a 

 plant said to have been brought from the Indies, of which little is 

 known, but which is represented in the Sloane Herbarium (H. S. 

 319 f '203) by what seems to be the broad-leaved garden form of 

 H ' aurantiacum. The final citation in Hort. Cliff, is Auricula 

 muris hispanica from the posthumous Historia of John Bauhm, 11. 

 p 1010 (1051), which gives a full and accurate account of the plant, 

 mentioning its underground stolons, its large, rough, distantly denti- 

 culate leaves, some exceeding two inches in breadth, and the notable 

 colour of its flowers. An interesting remark is that the author first 

 saw this plant in 1008 in the royal garden at Stuttgart, 



Linnams's second reference, his Hortus Upsaliensis (1748), adds 

 nothing material to the first one. The third citation, from Caspar 

 Bauhin's Prodromus (1020) andPwMM? (1623), describes a garden-plant 

 with leaves three inches broad ; and the fourth, from the same works, 

 a smaller plant which the author suggests is the wild form of the 

 larger one It is remarkable that the native habitat of this wild form 

 is given as Eastern Switzerland (Rhaetia), whence Naegeli and Peter 

 record their broad-leaved subspecies claropurpureum and spano- 

 clicetium In the Pinax a reference is given under the garden-plant 

 to a figure in Besler's Hortus Eystettensis (1013) which clearly 

 recalls our broad-leaved Scottish form. . . 1pl „, 



Linnams's fifth citation, from F. Columna s Ekpkrasis (1010), 

 concerns a cultivated plant obtained from the mountains of Germany, 



