NOTE ON ERICA BRUNIADES 257 
that these are the plant generally rite bee as FE. bruniades L. 
n the Species Planter um bipee 354; ed. 2, 504), however, 
Laval places as a synon - Eriocephalus bruniades erice- 
formis mon salar irate globulorum instar interius cavis 
et densa lanugine tecti luk. Mant. 69, t. 847, f i 
phrase belongs, not to EH. bruniades, but to E. capitata, Hoge is 
a on the same plate and occurs on Bessy same page me 
> feos m for 
suffrutex peramments” this is sdihinlly aie ty Salisb ome 
Trans. vi. 888) for his vellerijtora, which i i Db mmon mt consent 
“EU, OW ich, although cited by every one, from Linneus to 
and the “9” is part of the reference—* fol. 69, pl. [planta] 9”— 
to the Mantissa. The Plukenet phrase ‘ Eriocephalus Bruniades 
” ete., must be transferred to E. capitata Li.; the 
very characteristi istakable, and the 
original drawing shows ho gure came about. neeus’s 
oes under FE. bruniades of « Brioeephalus bealated erice- 
formis,” ete., was clearly an inadvertence; Dryander, in our copy 
of Ray's Haver, | iii. (Dendrologia, p. 97, where Plukenet’s “fig, 9” 
is rightly placed) notes “this is bruniades L., Herb. Sherard, in 
his own handwritin 
This ‘fig. 9” ma kes another appearance in Burmann’s Flora 
Capensis Prowdéom mus, P. where it is the sole citation for his 
Erica abrotanoides; this esis first on Messrs. Guthrie and Bolus’s 
I cannot help sasioed regret that the example set by Mr. 
Hiern in his portion of the lora Capensis has not been Glouel’ in 
—e.g. Masson, Nelson, Robertson (“False Bay, April, 1772” 
—very unsatisfactory specimens, which perhaps should be referred 
villosa), and Thunberg (his #. capitata, authenticated by him- 
self), ae: John Roxburgh. But on this head I shall probably have 
more to say at a later peri 
