Dr. Smirn’s Remarks on fome Foreign Species of Orebanche. 165 
deed to the fpecific definition of levis, caule fimpliciffimo levi, famini= 
bus exfertis; but there is no reafon to believe that definition was made 
from the contemplation of this fpecimen, rather than from the 
fynonyms and figures quoted in the Species Plantarum: and as Lin- 
nus never farther defcribed the fpecimen, nor referred to Gmelin, 
neither did he ever mention Siberia as the native country of his 
Orobanche levis, this can never be taken for fuch, even though there. 
fhould prove to be no other exifting, as we now hope to demontftrate; 
more efpecially as this Siberian fpecimen proves a Lathrea, having a- 
monophyllous quadrifid calyx, and the true habit of that genus. 
In order clearly to underftand the hiftory of this miftaken fpecies, 
the Orobanche levis, it is neceffary to analize its fynonyms chronolo-. 
gically. We begin therefore with 
OROBANCHE magna purpurea monfpeffulana. Bauhin’s Hi/t. Plant.. 
vol. ii. p. 782. 
This plant is evidently taken up by John Bauhin from Lobel, 
in whofe Icones, p- 269, we find two figures. The firft reprefents, 
I think unqueftionably, though rudely, the Orchis abortrva of Lin- 
nzus, and is marked Orobanche major e Gramuntio luco Mon/pellienfium. 
The fecond exhibits a true Orobanche, and is marked Orobanche. 
quarta. Now it appears that the defcription of John Bauhin be- 
longs to the firft of thefe plants, though he, or his editor, has by 
_ miftake annexed to that defcription a copy of the fecond figure: 
Whether the defcription be taken from any of Lobel’s other publi- 
cations, I have not been able to determine, nor is that point: of any 
confequence ; it is fufficient that it agrees altogether with the Orchis 
above mentioned, and not with any Orobanche, the flowers being 
defcribed “ like thofe of an Orchis with fhort fpurs, and the root like 
the upper part of that of an Orbis, but without any tefficuli or bulbs.” 
Bauhin 
