101 
In the present case nos. 5 and 6 fail us for there 1s no reference 
to Q. Aegilops in the Hort. Cliff. The definition in Sp. Pl. (1753), 
p. 996, is Q. folits ovato-oblongis glabris serrato-repandis, repeated 
in ed. 2 (1763), p. 1414, with the alteration of serrato- -repandis to 
serrato-dentatis. In both editions follows “ nascitur calyce 
nore The habitat assigned is Hispania. The synonyms are 
in ed Quercus calyce echinato, glande majore. Bauh. Pin. 
( 
420; (2) 2) Geers glans Aegilops aspris ‘Bauh. hist. i. p- 77 fructus. 
It is important to note that the reference to J. Bauhin’s Historia 
is limited to the fructus. The second edition, whilst repeating 
these two synonyms, adds Mill. Dict. t. 215 to the diagnosis, as if 
that diagnosis were Miller’s, nator it is Linné’s own, including 
the alteration to serrato-dentat 
Now although the diagnosis = itself is utterly insufficient os 
any possible epee the observation ‘‘ calyce 0’ 
once narrows the field to the Vallonea and some similar ae 
excluding all oaks that grow in Spain, but agreeing with the 
synonyms, which, as will appear, undoubtedly refer to the Val- 
lonea. On the other hand, “ foliis glabris’’ either excludes the 
Vallonea, or must be neither more nor less than a mistake on the 
part of Linnaeus. The leaves of Vallonea oaks, though glabrous, 
or almost, on the upper surface, are invar iably pubescent beneath. 
Miller, Get Dict. ed. vii. (1759), says ‘‘ leaves on their underside 
a little downy ”’ and in Fig. Pl. (referred to by Linnaeus for the 
figure), ‘‘ covered on their under side with an almost imperceptible 
hoary down.’’ These remarks should have called Linné’s attention 
to the matter in his second edition, though of course they were not 
before him when he Seas sf glabris ’? in the first. Martelli in 
Nuoy. Giorn. Bot, It. xx. p. 428 (1888) suggests that Q. Libani 
Olivier, which has glabrous | atte and especially its var. callicarpa 
Kotschy, should be regarded as the type of Q. Aegilops L. But 
there are fatal objections to this proposal; there is no evidence 
that Linnaeus had ever seen or heard of the Libani oak; it does 
not remove the difficulty of the supposed Spanish aaa ‘and the 
ordinary Vallonea acorn or cup of commerce, on w the earlier 
synonyms of Linnaeus were based, comes from tee where 
Q. Libani does not grow. I have failed to trace any passage in 
the earlier authors which could have suggested to Linnaeus that 
unfortunate ‘‘ foliis glabris,’’ and have little doubt that he was 
only speaking of the upper surface and did not in 1753 know any- 
thing about the lower surface. 
The reference to Miller’s pene of Plants is all-important. 
The plate in question, drawn by his brother-in-law Ehret, bears 
the date of 2ist February, 1758, though the title-page of the 
volume is dated 1760. It is quite a good representation of the 
Vallonea oak with unripe acorns. No doubt the sharply serrated 
leaves of this figure were what induced Linnaeus to alter his 
description of him in Sp. Pl. ed, 2. The text, vol. ii. p. 143, states 
clearly that the tree grows in the Levant, and 1s practically iden- 
tical with the ce eo of it in Gard. Dict. ed. vii. (1759), repeated 
almost verbally in ed. viii. (1768). 
Miller knew this oe well. He declares (Fig. Pl. loc. cit.) that 
the greater part of the trees then in England had been raised in 
