168 Dr. Smitu’s Remarks on fome Foreign Species of Orobanche. 
no doubt of his having, in the paragraph above referred to, in- 
tended the Orobanche cerulea, though he either did not read, or did 
not attend to, Bauhin’s defcription. -He has moreover a repetition 
of Orchis abortiva, p. 23, °n. I14.) 
I beg leave to conclude with a reference to one original author at 
leaft, who really {tudied and underftood the plants he enumerated, 
as well as the books he quoted, Magnol in his Botanicum Mon/~ 
fellienfe. >t) 
This writer, p. 195, evidently defcribes the Orchis abortiva by the 
name of Orcbanche magna purpurea Monfpeffulana, 1. B, referring alfo 
to Lobel and Clufius. He mentions having often gathered the 
plant in the wood of Gramont in April and May, and juftly criti- 
cifes the figures of the above authors. “The lower lip of the 
flower in Clufius’s figure,” he obferves, “is cloven, which is not the 
cafe in the Montpellier plant.” This figure have already pointed 
out as reprefenting the Ophrys Nidus Avis. Magnol farther remarks, 
that “ the figure of Bauhin is faulty, there being no- proportion 
between the ftem and flowers; and that it is a copy of the 
Orobanche quarta of Lobel. ‘The figure of Lobel,” he adds, “ would 
have been better if the roots had been drawn as in that of Clufius, 
and the flowers reprefented with fhort fpurs.’—From all this there 
can be no queftion about the plant of Magnol; and Gouan, though 
he quotes him under Orobanche levis, Hort. Monjp. 308, expreffes a 
fufpicion that he meant the Orchis abortiva: but neither of thefe 
writers, nor any following one that I can find, has hit upon the 
true caufe of all the confufion that has enveloped the plants in 
queftion, which is John Bauhin’s having copied one figure of 
Lobel for the other. Magnol has our Orobanche caerulea, p. 196, by 
the name of Orobanche fubceruleo flore, five fecunda Clu fi; and mentions 
having 
