28G 



pertinent Observations, not only upon tlie natural History and 

 the old and neiv Geography of those Parts, but likewise in 

 relation to the Commerce, Religion and Manners of the different 

 People inhabiting there,''* Tournefort was appointed leader of 

 the expedition, and the details, were arranged between him and 

 Louis Phelypeaux, Thus it was that the 22 letters in which the 

 account of the expedition is given were all addressed to 

 Munseigneur the Count de Pontchartrain, and Tournefort was 

 more than justified in dedicating to him one of his most hand- 

 some discoveries. Jerome Plielypeaux, whose name is coupled 

 with that of Louis, was the latter's son, and, from 1699, his 



Minister 



ma 



x 



faea in tHe account of tlie journey, but tliis is easily understood 

 ■when we consider that the letters were written on the journey 

 and not published until 1717 — that is, 9 years after the 

 death of the author. The other species referred by Tourne- 

 fort to Phelipaea, viz., " P. lusitanica, flore luteo," was recorded 

 by Grisley in his " Viridarium Lusitanicum " as early as 16G1 

 under the name " Orohanche elcgantissima xerna, flore luteo."^ 

 A drawing- and a carbon impression of it marked " D. Tourn. e 

 Portugalia D. Sherard " is in Morison's Herbarium, and a 

 description was published by Bobart in Morison's Plautarum 

 Historia, vol. iii. (1G99) p. 502. Whether Tournefort had it 

 from Grisley or collected it himself when in Portugal in 1688, 

 as is most likely, is uncertain. In any case there is no reference 

 to it in his " Institutiones Eei Herbariae " (1700), and its inclu- 

 sion in Phelipaea may have been merely an afterthought or an 

 error due to the haste with which the Corollarium was prepared,, 

 there being only five months between Tournefort's return from 

 the Orient and the passing of his paper by the Academy on 

 December 9, 1702. However that may be, the mistake became 

 subsequently the source of much confusion. 



The first to continue and even aggravate the error was Linnaeus 

 who in his Species Plantarum (1753) p. GOG, reduced Tournefort's 

 two species to varieties of one species which he transferred to 

 Lathraea as L. Phelypaea, the Portuguese plant standing as the 



type ' and the oriental as var. /3 . When towards the end 

 of the 18th century the Russians discovered what we now know 

 to be a congener of Tournefort's P. orientalis, flore cocclneo they 

 farst put it down as Lathraea Phelypaea [Guldenstaedt, Eeisen d. 

 Eussland i. (1737) p. 422 and Pallas Herb. ; Georgi, Beschreib. 

 d. Land, d.^ Russ. Eeich. iii. (1800) p. 1102] but subsequently 

 transterred it to Orohanche as 0. coccinea, assuming that it was- 

 identical with Tournefort's Oriental Phelipaea [Marschall v. 



nanQf q""; ^-^H" ^""'' ^™'^) P" ^' ^^^ El. Tauro-Caucas. ii. 

 (1808) p. 84; 111. (1819) p. 418, and Cent. PI. Ear. Ross. ii. (1832) 



[Marsch 



Meer. {\mO\ Ai^r* 17Q1 



Will den 



and. 



(1800) p. 354 accepted Marschall's name 0. coccinea for the 

 Oriental plant, although he had some doubt as to identity of his 

 and Tournefort s ppecies. Meanwhile Desfontaines, in Floriu 



• Tournefort, Voyage into the Levant (Engl. Transl., 1741) 1, i. 



r^ 



