107 
plant trom Crete figured b Gesner, is me pies Soca in 
Greece, Crete and Syria. This latter form, i the leaves are 
lepidote petals render its separation comparatively easy. 
The prostrate variety from Egypt varies also in the shape and 
that would indicate this variety as being of the nature of a 
“te id. 
synonymy shows, writers from 1554 onwards have 
sxteatotied to identify the Tournesol with one or other of two 
plants described by Dioscorides and with at least one plant 
described by Pliny. Among modern eit Geiseler in 1807 
accepted the identification of the species both with — Avorpémtov 
T) puxpov of the Greeks and with Heliotropion tricocco 
the Romans. The ini’ other authors to do this have been Pax 
and Hoffman, who in 1912 were prepared to accept the former 
but were doubtful about the latter determination: ‘ Diese 
Pflan they have remarked, ‘war schon den Arzten des 
hein: Altertums bekannt; sie is das 7Avotpdémuov puxpov des 
Dioscorides und " vielleicht das Heliotropon tricoccon des 
t heophrastus are few and scattered was only 
natural in remarks addressed to readers who must have been 
familiar with the plant intend Su s they are, however 
these characters are precise; none of them are incompatible with 
the identity of his kr athesahad with 7d ué Dioscorides 
After the simultaneous appearance in 1554 of the editions of 
Dioscorides by Mattioli tnd Castell-Branco the former published 
a trenchant review of some of his rival’s conclusions. It is 
tee that although they had come to different decisions as 
to the identity of *Avotpémtoy To wéya, no comment was made by 
Mattioli. There would have been ample justification for the 
criticism, had it been offered, that, as there is nothing xabatrep 
cxopriov ovpd about the inflorescence of the Tournesol, that plant 
could not possibly be #AvoTpémiov To uéya. Apparently the -_ 
nesol was a plant wn ‘ulate Mattioli was not acquainted, an 
this may account for his silence 
The identification by Clusius éf the Tournesol with HALOTPOTLOV 
