Five Britifo Species of Orobanche. 177 
herentes,—deflorate und cum ftylo exferte. Pifillum, germen 
oblongum, nitidum, pilofiufculum; ftylus filiformis, pilofiufculus, 
apice pubefcens, purpurafcens; ftigma bilobum, lobis globofis, 
Havis, diftantibus, medio tranfversé rimofum. Pericarpium, cap- 
fula ovato-oblonga, longitudinalitér dehifcens, unilocularis bi- 
valvis ; Semina minuta, numerofa, fubturbinata, reticulato-cellu- 
lofa. Receptacu/a, quatuor linearia Jateralia, adnata. 
Floret Junio. 4. 
Habitat in dumetis fterilioribus, et in locis incultii—Thorp, Brook, 
-Baconfthorp. 
As this fpecies has generally paffed for O. major, and has been 
figured and defcribed as fuch by the authors of the Flora Londinenjjs 
and Engli/b Botany, 1 have retained that trivial name, though it is 
now fufpeéted not to be that of Linnzus, nor the O. major Garyo- 
pAyllune olens, fo often mentioned, of C. Bauhin. Of the many 
fynonyms to O. major, quoted by Reichard in his edition of the 
Syftema Plantarum of 1780, vol. 3. p. 183, it is extremely difficult 
which to refer to our plant: we may fafely however exclude thofe 
from Bauhin Pim. 87 —Loefling, p- 151, original edition,—and Pol- 
lich, No. 600. _ Dr. Withering, in his gd edition of the Bot. Arrange- 
ment, has judicioufly excluded the long defcription of Loefling. I 
dare not quote any of his fynonyms, for want of fufficient marks of 
difcrimination: the figures he refers to in Morrifon xii. 16. 1. Ge- 
rard em. p. 1311, Clufus i. p. 270, Dodonzus p. 552, and Lobel 
Ic. ii. 8g, are copies of each other, and, if meant for our plant, are 
very bad reprefentations of it. J. Bauhin’s ii. p. 780, is equally un- 
certain; that of Matthiolus p. 536, copied in Gerara’s Herbal, if 
edition, p. 1130, and that of Tabernemontanus, p. 684, though not 
fatisfactory, are a great deal better. 
Vor, IV. Aa 2, Oro- 
