LINNEAN SOCIEXr Or LONDON. 93 



the original theses, and not from the reprints in ' Amceuitates 

 Academicse,' iv. pp. 261-296, where several names were changed, 

 e. g. Antirrhinum siictrteum and A. molle became A. junceum and 

 A. glaucum respectively, and Potentilla heptaphyUa is changed to 

 P. opaca. Further, Dianihus hyssopifolius was changed in ' Am. 

 Acad.' to D. superbus, Oeranium versicolor became G. striatum, 

 and Hieramim tomentosmn was renamed ^ncZr^aZa lanata. Several 

 names also occur which were not published with diagnosis till 

 later ; such are Convolvulus Dorycnium, Silene quadrijida, Psidium 

 Cujavus, Myrtus Leucadendra, Dolichos tetragonolohus and D. 

 'prunens, which appeared in the tenth edition of the ' Systema' in 

 1759, the last four being mentioned only by name in ' Herb. 

 Amb.' 



There remain three names in the list deserving of special 

 attention : (1) Sison ammoides, a manuscript and unpublished name 

 for Seseli ammoides, Sp. PI. ; (2) Lupinus stoloniferus, Cent. I., was 

 not brought forward in ' Am. Acad.' and proves to be L. hirsutus, 

 Sp. PL ; and (3) Trifolium retusum, which has escaped all recog- 

 nition in later works, proves to be that species described in 

 ' Demonstrationes plantarum,' p. 21, in a footnote as " Trifolium 

 capitidis fructus imbricafis, calycibus reflexis patulis corolla lonr/i- 

 oribus. Habitat in Hispania, Loefl." etc. [These seven lines as 

 well as the name " retusum," were not reprinted in ' Am. Acad.' 

 iii. p. 419 (1756).] This is the " Trifolium retusum album, caly- 

 cibus reflexis patidis" of Loefling's ' Iter hispanicum,' Stockholm, 

 1758, p. 88. A reference to the Linnean Herbarium shows the 

 specimen, as unfortunately is so often the case, without any note 

 of its origin, to be Trifolium stnctum, Linn. ! the word '^retusum" 

 being written by Linne at the base of the specimen. 



In concluding these remarks on the volume specified, I may 

 perhaps be permitted to refer to the Herbarium itself. It 

 must not be allowed to escape our minds that the Linnean 

 Herbarium differs in many respects from the modern idea of an 

 herbarium. Carl von Linne in a multitude of cases described his 

 species from the books of his predecessors, and his dried plants 

 were frequently used to modify the diagnoses of the previously 

 described species. It was only when he was strictly confined to 

 a single specimen that Linne was forced to keep to the plant 

 actually under his eyes, and to describe it as would now be done 

 with newly found plants. 



I have formerly set forth the method by which the Linnean 

 Herbarium came into being, and how it grew (Proc. Linn. Soc. 



