166 Dr.Smuirts’s Remarks on fame Foreign Species of Orabanches 
Bauhin juftly cenfures Lobel’s figure, as wanting the {purs; he alfo 
enguires whether this plant may not be what Clufius mentions in 
his Hifloria,.as “a plant like his P/éwdy-leimodoron, but much paler, 
found in the wood of Gramont, and feveral other woods about, 
Montpellier.” There, can be.no. doubt jof the ;P/eudo-leimodoron. of. 
Clufius, Hé/?. Plant. 270, being the Orchis abortiva, though a figure 
of Opbrys Nidus Avis, by, an error common in books with wooden 
cuts, is put for it... The defcription in that work is indeed copied. 
from his Stirpes Pannonica, where the plant is named Limedorum 
aufriacum, without any figure ; and the) paler variety, which he. 
remembered to haye feen, formerly, near Montpellier, is alfo there 
mentioned. I-confider therefore the defcriptions of John Bauhin. 
and Clufius, and the firft or left-hand figure of Lobel’s, Icones, p. 269, 
as clearly belonging to Orchis abortiva, and having nothing to do 
with any Orobanche. With refpeét to the fecond or right-hand 
figure of Lobel, copied into Bauhin’s work by miftake, it as indubi- 
tably, I think, reprefents the Orabanche lately publithed in Tad. 423 
of Exglifh Botany, by the name of cerulea, which feveral authors there. 
mentioned have taken for the Linnean Jevis: it cannot however 
remain, when the above errors are cleared away, as the true /ews, 
becaufe it is not in fact fmooth, neither do the ftamina project out 
of the flower ; though Morifon, in his copy of this figure, /ec. 12. 
t.16. ff 2» has i in one flower fo reprefented them ; for the compiling 
and copying tribe of authors are fure to add fomething every now 
and then to the genet al ftock of error, how little foever they may 
{upply to that of folid knowledge. The ftyle indeed projects. in 
Lobel’s figure, and all its copies ; ; the {tem too is reprefented {mooth, 
and the form of the. corolla i is very ill expreffed : yet thefe figures 
can be defigned for nothing elfe than our O, caerulea. 
* Villars points out this error in his Plantes de Dauphiné, vol. ii p. 40. 
The 
