LINN.'EUS' "FLORA ANGLICA " 155 



plants unidentified or even alluded to by Linnaeus. Many of 

 these, it is true (as of those given in the " Flora "), are forms 

 and varieties, and several are aliens, but there are many of 

 his own species which it is surprising that Linnaeus did not 

 identify, such as Euphorbia hiberna 312.5 (which is quoted 

 from Dill. Hort. Elth. in the " Sp. PL," 462, 1753, and 662, 

 1762),^ Trifolium striatum 432,9, Saxifraga umbrosa 355.3, 

 Linu)n perenne 362.3 (which he cites in '• Sp. PL," p. 277, 1753 

 and 398, 1762, from Ray's " Ang. ," meaning the " Synopsis," 

 and gives Cambridge as the habitat), Anthericuni serotinuni 

 374.3, see " Sp. PL," 294, 1753, 444, 1762, each citing the 

 "Synopsis," Cryptogranmie crispa 126.9, although cited from 

 the "Synopsis" in " Sp. PL," 1522, Fagopyrum 144, Leontodo7i 

 Iiispidiiui 126.9, Allium Scorodoprasuvi IJ 0.6^ J uncus inflexus 

 432.3, and others. 



Now let us glance at the identifications which he has made. 

 Many of the commoner and widely diffused species which 

 Caspar Bauhin had enumerated in his " Pinax " are necessarily 

 correct, but when we come, as I have said, to more critical 

 species, and especially to the new plants added by Dillenius to 

 the " Synopsis," we shall find that he breaks down in numerous 

 instances. Without exhausting the matter, I find upwards of 

 a hundred wrong identifications, some necessarily trivial, but 

 others of a serious nature. Some are common alike to the 

 " Species Plantarum " and to the" Flora Anglica, " but many 

 are restricted to the latter work. Space will not allow of the 

 whole of these erroneous identifications being given, but the 

 following may be mentioned. The figures of the references 

 are taken from Clarke's reprint. 



Name in " Flora Anglica." ^^"'^^^'^ "?"^^ corresponding to the 



= name in Rays Synopsis. 



136.2. Salicornia fruticosa = S. perennis Miller. 



This is treated as a variety of ^S". eiiropcea in " Sp. PI." p. 1753. But 

 if the " Fl. Angl." is valid, our British plant becomes Salicornia 

 fruticosa. In the 2nd ed., " Sp. HI.," it is also given as a species, 

 but other synonyms which do not refer to our British species 

 are added, and there is no reference to " Fl. Angl." or Ray's 

 " Synopsis." 



'This illustrates my case. Between the two editions of the " Sp. PI.," and 

 subsequently to the " Fl. Angl.," Hudson publishes his " Fl. Angl." in 1762, and 

 Linnaeus cites Hudson's name. 



