208 DID SCBIBOXIUS LA-HGUS UECOED ANY BRITISH PLANTS. 



Bistorta, quae quod vel solum isthic fere, vel felicius proveniat, Herba 

 Britannica dicitur, cujus facuitatem miram in profligando chronico 

 quodam morbo, difficilis alioqui curationis, experimento mihi cognitam, 

 non est hujus loci commemorare. Et praeterea Empetron, quae et 

 Petrifindula, BritanniaB prope peculiaris, cujus ad urinas ciendas, et 

 expurgandos calculos, renumque ac vesicae sabulosam materiam, usus 

 perquam necessarius est. Postremo vero, Crooum ad oor exhilarandum, 

 et sedandos dolores utile, cujus fortasse non est ubique terrarum quam 

 in agris Essexio, Suffolcio, et Cantabrigiensi tarn ubei provectus : 

 quae sane omnia, atque ; istis longe plura quae ad medicinam pertinent, 

 Scribonium in Britannia ohservare potuisse, atque etiam dilig enter 

 olservasse, mihi quidem minime fit diilium.''^ Op. cit. pp. 137-8. The 

 italics are our own. 



Turning to Scribonius Largus himself, I can only find the follow- 

 ing passage (S. L. De Compositionibus Medicamentorum. Argen. 

 1786) : — ''Idem praestat et hiera botane, et trifolium acutum, quod 

 o^vrpi^vXXov Graeci appellant : nascitur et hoc Siciliae plurimum, 

 nam in Italiae regionibus nusquam eam vidi herbam, nisi in Lunae 

 portu, quum Britanniam peteremus cum deo nostro Caesare, plurimum 

 super circundatos montes." (P. 91.) 



The single point then remaining was to identify Lunae portus, 

 which, in the opinion of all the authorities I have seen, is the modern 

 Gulf of Spezia, in which region Largus must have found his plants 

 before embarking for Britain. 



Dr. Plot, in his anxiety to say all he could for the honour of his 

 native place, appears to have settled in his own mind that Milton was 

 the part alluded to, and perhaps adopted without due consideration 

 the views of Twyne. I do not find mention of any British port 

 bearing the name of Lunae portus, so that we cannot suppose that 

 there were two similarly named localities, and thus get out of the 

 difficulty. 



That Hasted should copy Plot's statement unsuspectingly is not 

 surprising, from his naive remarks in the course of his work, on 

 county botany. Thus in his preface (vii.) he says, *' Though I am 

 but little acquainted with the study of Botany, yet I thought the 

 insertion of curious plants observed by our botanists in the several 

 parishes of our county would not be unpleasing to several of my 

 readers who are encouragers of that science. Unluckily, Mr. Ray's 

 Synopsis of British Plants was not put into my hands — for I own I 

 was not acquainted with the book before — till after the Lath of Sutton- 

 at-Hone was printed off." This paragraph appeared in 1778. The 

 preface being dated May 1st of that year, when Ray's Synopsis in its 

 original form had been issued nearly ninety years (1690), and the 

 Dillenian edition more than fifty. Hudson's Flora, second edition, 

 appeared the same year, the first edition having been published 

 in 1762. 



The final result of these enquiries is to show that Turner is the 

 first Kentish botanist (1548), and, however interesting it might be to 

 have records of even a few plants for a thousand and more years, yet 

 Scribonius Largus cannot help us. 



