LOBEL AND PENA’s ASTERS 403 
Lobel’s figure, Os. 188, intended for this Aster luteus fruticosus and labelled 
Aster Ltalorum, was a sak idigt Matthioli’s figure for Aster Atticus, and represent- 
ing Aster Amellus L. Mis y this figure, C. Bauhin in 1623 in his Pézax enumer- 
ated an ‘‘ Aster Atticus si Hi ”? which had no existence in nature, being a com- 
posite founded on Pena and Lobel’s description of their yellow-flowered Aster Jtalorum, 
lus Dodoens’ imaginary second or TS ee Aster as dics Clusius’ Aster 
Atticus paige which latter Proves to be the purple Aster A 
© give a correct interpretation of Soe and Lobel's ” Kina Italorum ”’ 
was ss spans in his Botanicum Monspeliense of 1676); ee ee who 
cleared up the subject in his Histoire des plantes...de Paris, 1698, showing how Pena 
and Lobel, and afterward C. Bauhin, had confused the two wholly te yellow and 
purple Pe 
3: r acris L. = Galatella punctata DC., and scp the Ga/atella pane a 
of csi & Nees) Pena and Lobel’s third species, ‘* Aster m orbonensium tripolii 
e, Lynariae eg medio purpureum,”’ Adv. 1 ‘* Aster Pt cnetabine Narbon- 
7 Lobel, 189, in reference made in another description ; figured 4dv. 147, 
with description, gob fh ‘cs Ane nly eer our nope of masasgeienes Aster 
and of the Amelus Vergilianus ; except t 
Places and stony hills, as an olivetum near Montpellier and another ‘ ad Castrum novum. 
The flowers certainly present the figure of little stars, with their many leaflets ee 
golden and purple, glistening with the mingled brilliance of Tripolium [mixto fulgo 
micantes Tripolii]. For by Dioscorides something purple mixed with poole is depicted, 
as is seen when he says, ‘ florum partem purpuream bubonis presidio esse.’ So indeed 
it is to be rendered, and so doctissimus Marcellus rendered it. In its slender virgate 
stems, a foot or a foot and a half high from one fibrous sod of root [it resembles 
Amellus]. little oblong leaves, narrower than in the preceding [/nu/a salicina] 
resemble Lynaria [ Lénaria vulgaris of modern botany and of Bock, Gesner and Ces- 
alpino]. It is similar on the whole but smaller and more slender than Tripolium, which 
expresses the Amelus Vergilianus still more clearly, both in locality, along streams and 
meadow borders and more open valleys, and in aspect of flower, leaves and stems, for 
Sometimes it grows wee and purple and its cymes show a beautiful forest of purpled 
Stars 2r the yellow 
(Jnula montana L.) ‘Aster montanis Seen to ries Obs. 189] 
iaplex praegrandi Helenii flore,’? Adv. 148, figure 149, with the description, ‘‘ These 
two plants merit the name of Aster, which, perivieety aa in rey lofty mountains of 
the Allobroges and Proven e, show a single blossom of shining magnitude. It is 
almost of the magnitude, cas and form of Helenium (J#u/a Helenium L.) on a single 
stem a cubit hi h, which is straight and slender, bearing brownish leaves in size like 
the Aster Italicus (Jnula salicina L.) and so similar that they are evidently the same 
[genus of ] plants. Succisae, aut Britannicae, Lugdunensis. [Succisa was a nam e used 
for “Nth by many contemporaries, as Matthioli, Fuchs, and Dodoens ; and under 
the name Succisa this /zu/a montana may have been c ultivated in Leyden, and also 
5: (Jnula montana L.) “Aster montanus hirsutus,’’ Adv, 148, with name in 
in misplaced above the yk nee ; figured as “ [Aster] Alter folio et caule hir- 
Sutis, e aah- and deactihea nother, in height and in flower, is not unlike the pre- 
ceding, but with stem and ce hirsute, longer, . the same size and shape as our 
small Cynoglossum ; ; but with the root less fibrous.’ h 
Tabernaemontanus, 1588, distinguished this from the preceding, calling that 
“Aster montanus luteus mas,’’ and this ‘‘ Aster montanus luteus femina.”’ u 
