BUBANI’S FLORA PYRENAEA 47 
is Bubani in doubt as to that author’s having had just this species 
in view. He thinks that uncertain; and the name as a name 
is credited to Linnaeus alone. ‘The bibliographic paragraph 
following the name numbers 37 definite references—references 
by volume, page, and often of figured illustration—to almost as 
many different authors early and late. In the midst of this bibli- 
ography are quoted four binary names for this pine, all of them 
about two hundred years older than Linnaeus’ Pinus Pinea; 
yet is Bubani the ablest kind of a champion of the principle of 
priority without reference to, or predilection for, Linnaeus and 
the year 1753. He is one of a long list of botanists who have 
brought to the front many pre-Linnaean binary names, reducing 
the Linnaean equivalents of them to synonymy. How is it that 
he has done otherwise in this instance? He has not explained 
the case, and again we must make a guess; but it is needful that 
we present those four sixteenth-century names which are written 
down as synonyms. They are P. domestica, Mattioli (1565), P. 
sativa, Anguillara (1561), P. vulgatissima, Lobel (1570), P. Italica, 
Camerarius (1588). The first two are equally indicative of a 
cultivated thing, and from such a point of view as Bubani would 
take, are unsuited to be the name of a wild tree, or a wild type, 
as one may say. The third is bad for the same reason, conveying 
the idea, true enough as a fact, that the tree is widely disseminated 
under cultivation; though in a state of nature, that is, in that 
condition which every systematist must regard as the typical 
one, Pinus Pinea is of a much restricted habitat, being only 
maritime along certain Mediterranean shores. As for the last 
of the four, many authors anterior to Bubani were averse to geo- 
graphic plant names as apt to be false or misleading; and this pine 
is not more fitly donominated Jtalica than it would have been 
had it been called Hispanica or Gallica. 
Bubani’s third species of pine illustrates another mode of 
expression. The line meaning the species is simply 
Pinus Pyrenaea, La Peyrouse! 
This is a rather recently discovered species; at least, it was 
unknown to earlier botanists; hence no call for the usual paren- 
thetic citations; yet the bibliographic paragraph is extentive, 
and the list of synomyms is large, for, according to Bubani’s 
judgment two or three segregates from it that have been proposed 
