194 Ewart and Tovey : 



EcHiUM vioLACEUM, L., Of Echiuui plaiitagiueum, L. 

 "Paterson's Curse." (Boragiiiaceae). 



Aftfi- the last visit of the British Association some doubt was- 

 raised as to the correct name for the above plant, and it was even 

 suggested that it might be Echium italicum. The latter suggestion, 

 was, however, naerely due to the plant having been seen in fruit 

 only. To decide the former question specimens were submitted to 

 Dr. Lacaita, who has been specialising on the genus Echium. In 

 his reply given beneath, the decision is made that the name given 

 to the plant by Bentham in 1869, and under which the plant was 

 proclaimed, is not correct, and that the name should be Echium 

 plantagineum. As the point is one of some importance. Dr. 

 Lacaita's reasons are given in full : — 



" As to Echium plantagineum and Echium violaceum, the plant 

 often called violaceum, especially by English botanists, is, as you 

 rightly say, identical with E. plantagineum, but it is not E. viola- 

 ceum, L. The violaceum of Sp. PI. is a muddle of two species, quite 

 unlike each otiiev, neither of which is E.jjlantagineum. The 

 synonyms all refer to E.rubrum, Jacq., a' very distinct species. It 

 is the only Echium with a clubbed instead of a trifid stigma. The 

 definition of the genus lx)th in Bentham and Hooker, and in Engler, 

 requires modification in that respect. But the observation describes 

 a plant cultivated in Hort. Uppslana, which is represented by the 

 specimen in the Linnean Herbarium. This plant is neither rubrum, 

 nor, as pointed out by Moris in his Flora Sardoa long ago, is it 

 E. plantagineum (E. violaceum auctt, plur.). Moris says it is very 

 like tlie Sardinian (and Italian) plant known as E. pustulatum S. 

 and S. It is very like it, but as far as I can form an opinion with- 

 out dissection of the corolla, Avhich is inadmissable in Linnean type- 

 specimen.><, it is more probably the Pcu'tuguese and Spanish E. rnsu- 

 latum, Lange, which, to this day, is grown at Kew, and taken 

 under the misnomer of " E. plantagineum," or " E. creticum." 



It is curious that Linneaus should never have recognised E. 

 rubrum, for there are three fine examples of it in his herbariimi,. 

 two sheets being loose, l)ut the third is pinned to the sheet of E. 

 italicum. None of these three sheets bears any writing of Linneus,. 

 who left them undetermined. 



E. plantagineum is always easilv recognised by — - 

 1. Plantain-like basal leaves. . 



2. Amplexicaul upper leaves. 



3. Peculiar thin texture of corolla in dried plant. 



