353 



of the species intended. This evidence is readily available, and 

 is unequivocal. Under G. linoides Linnaeus gave only three 

 citations : Hart. Cliffort., p. 54, n. 1 ; Roy. lugdb., 433 ; Breyn. 

 Gent., p. 175, t. 90. The specimens alluded to in the first and 

 second citations still exist ; they are specifically identical, and belong 

 to the well-known garden-plant whereof Breynius has supplied 

 a figure that is remarkable for its fidelity, particularly when the 

 date of its appearance (1678) is considered. The Linnean Herbari u m 

 now contains four specimens on two sheets, all named G. linoides 

 by Linnaeus himself, but all added to the Herbarium after 1753. 

 On the first sheet there are three specimens, two of which represent 

 G. linoides as limited in the Species Plantarum ; the third, from 

 its position on the sheet, was apparently attached after the other 

 two ; it is not G. linoides, Linn., but is the plant that, as their 

 original specimens show, is G. linoides, Thunb., not of Linn., 

 G. linoides, var. subulata, E. Mey., G. vulgaris, var. intermedia, 

 Cham., and G. gracilis, Salisb., not of Michx. We know that 

 Linnaeus became acquainted with this plant in, or prior to, 1767, 

 since it is to its existence that we owe the intercalation of a new 



. This plant was fully described in 1821 by Jarosz 

 p., p. 11) as G. emarginata, and, like C. gracilis, is 



character, " calycis f oliola subulata," accurate as regards G. gracilis, 

 but incorrect as regards G. linoides, which occurs in the twelfth 

 edition of the Systema Naturae. The other sheet of G. linoides 

 in the Linnean Herbarium has a solitary specimen which is neither 

 G. linoides nor G. gracilis; it is the plant that we know from 

 their original specimens to be G. linoides, Berg., not of Linn., 

 G. unijlora, Eckl., not of Lamk, G. linoides, var. Zeyheri, Griseb. ; 

 G. linoides, var. brevisepala, Schoch, and C. vulgaris, var. lych- 

 noides Cham. rri --" ~i««* -«>•«« -PniNr /laa^ihorl in 1R21 bv Jarosz 



(PL Nov. Gap , m _ _, ...... 



best considered a'valid' species. We know that Linnaeus had not 

 seen this plant in. 1767, but that he became acquainted with it 

 between 1767 and 1774, since it is to its existence that we owe the 

 substitution in the thirteenth edition of the Systema Vegetabilnim 

 of the fresh character " calyces semi-5fidi obtusi," true as regards 

 G. emarginata, but incorrect as regards both G. linoides and 

 G. gracilis, for the equally incorrect character " calycis foliola 

 subulata " of the twelfth edition of the Systema Naturae. 



P. J. BBRGIUS in 1767 (Descr. PL Gap., pp. 43-47) described three 

 species of Chironia from S. Africa ; C. linoides, C. lychnoides and 

 0. frutescens. The last of these, as the description and citations 

 show, is C. frutescens, Linn., and therefore Orphiumjmtescem, 

 E- Mey. Thanks to the kind help of Professor V. B. Wittrock, 

 now in charge of the Bergian collection, it has been possible to 

 ascertain definitely what the others are. C. Imoides, tferg., 

 although the description given is preceded by citations that m me 

 main refer to C. linoides, Linn., is not the plant so named by 

 Linnaeus, but is the plant described as C. .emarginata by 

 Jarosz. C. lychnoides, Berg., first described by Bergius mlb, 

 quite different from the plant to which Linnaeus ascribed this 

 name in 1771, and is merely the well-known garden-plant wincn 

 in 1753 Linnaeus had named C. linoides. 



.From Lamarck's account of Ghironia {Encyc. Math.,i.,vV- ^ 



737) we learn that in 1783 he possessed specimens of only low 

 true Chirmiiae. These were 0. lychnoides, under which he noted 



