DECANDllIA— DIGYNIA. Dianthus. 289 



Armerius flos tertius. Dod. Petnpt. 176./. 



Caryophyllus sylvestris humilis, flore unico. Bauh. Pin. 209. 



C. virgineus. Ger. Em. 594./. 12. 



C. repens humilis minimus vulgatissimus rubellus. Lob. Ic. 445./ 



C. sylvestris, Alsines, holosteae arvensis glabrae foliis, flore unico, 



calyce barbato. Pliik. Almag. 87. Phjt. t. 81 ./. 3, very bad. 

 Caryophylleus flos sylvestris primus. Clus. Hist. v. 1. 282. f, with 



an excellent and correct description. 

 Tunica rupestris, folio csesio molli, flore carneo. Dill. Elth. 401. 



t. 298./ 385. 



On dry limestone rocks, very rare. 



On the abrupt precipices of Chedder rocks, Somersetshire. Brewer, 

 Dillenius, Lightfoot, and others. 



Perennial. June, July. 



Root woody, branched at the crown, with many leafy tufts. Herbage 

 very glaucous. Stems from 4 to 6 inches high, erect, simple, 

 leafy, smooth, quadrangular, very rarely indeed bearing more 

 than one flower. Leaves linear -lanceolate, rather bluntish, 

 various in breadth, rough-edged j the radical ones numerous, 

 crowded ; those on the stem about 3 pair. Fl. delightfully fra- 

 grant, of a delicate pale rose-colour. Cat. furrowed, with 4 

 roundish-ovate, striated, bluntly pointed, scales. Petals doubly, 

 or unequally, notched, streaked, and bearded with purplish hairs, 

 on the disk, towards the claw. 



The old synonym and figure of Clusius, Lobel, Gerarde, Dodo- 

 nseus, &c., hitherto left in great uncertainty, can scarcely belong 

 to any species but this ; which, though little understood, proves, 

 as Lobel says, a very general plant. I have wild specimens from 

 Piedmont, Switzerland, Bohemia and Germany. Some call it 

 glaucus, some virgineus, and others piumariiis ; all erroneously, 

 except that Linnseus did indeed refer it, as a variety, to his vir- 

 gineus, but without comparing specimens, nor do they materially 

 accord. Nothing can be better than the description in Clusius, 

 which is of primary authority. Dillenius having rejected the 

 .synonyms of Dodonaeus and Clusius for the species in question, 

 I was led into the same error j see Tr. of Linn. Soc. v. 2. 297 ; 

 though Mr. Dryander warned me, at the time, that he had found 

 Dillenius incorrect in synonyms ; which his edition of Ray's 

 Synopsis too often confirms. 



VOL. II, u 



