270 FREDERIC EHRHART'S 



Linnjeus for his Salvia paniculata, be wrong, 



Salvia africana Mill. diet. ed. 8. is nothing else 



than S. paniculata L. and therefore the synonym 



of Miller is either improperly applied to S. africana 



Reichh. Syst. vol. 1. p. 69. Hottuyn Pfl. Syst. vol. 



3. p. 42. Etling. Salv. p. 21, &c. or both the 



mentioned species are one and the same plant.* 



Crocus has a spatha monophylla according to 



LiNNiEus, but I have always found a spatha 



duplicata in Crocus vernus. The outer one is a 



tube, which, opening at the top at one side, lets 



out the flower ; the inner is awl-fhaped, nearly 



surrounding the tube of the flower, and inclosed 



by the outer spatha as far as the top. Both are 



opposite each other like the glumes of the grasses.f 



Schoenus fuscus L. is not a variety of Schoenus 



albus, as Hudson thinks, but a distinct species. 



1 



* The plant figured by Miller, (ic. tab. 225. fig. 1.) appears to be 

 Salvia africana L. and therefore Reich a rd's and Etlinger's refer- 

 ences are right. In Willdenow's edition of the species plantarum, 

 both S. africana and S. paniculata are referred to Miller's figure. T. 



•j-The same observation has been made before by Jacquin, in his 

 Fl. austr. V. pag. 48. where he describes Crocus vernus : 



" Slpprhni h<ec (folia) f.orl sclent spathis vaginantibus, obsolete albcntibusfarnis 

 quandoque quatcrnis, tit nesciam cur Linnaus dixerit spatham univalvem radi- 



