THE GENUS TELEPHIUM 297 
601.—Clusius* gives the first clear description of the plant, 
sibaiug out that it is not the true “ Telephium ”’ of Dioscorides, 
but another plant altogether, rb as he thought, of the same 
genus :—‘‘ Septimum Téelephit genus, mihi Vienne Austri natum 
) a : post 
etiam Francofurti ad Menum crevit Joanni Mylero Pharmacopwo 
semine, quod acceptum Neapoli 4 Doctissimo humanissimoque viro 
Ferrante Imperato Telephii legitimi nomine ipsi communicabam 
ex cujus Myleri horto plantam unam eruebam, quam pictori ex- 
pri i vero hujus plantam 
Francofurtum mittebat cum aliis stirpibus Amplissimus vir Jac. 
gnot iptaé nota, quam n d 
frequentem in hortis nasci assereret.—Multas autem 4 summo 
radicis capite producit tenues virgas, summa tellure diffusas, pedales, 
interdum breviores, aliquando longiores, non sunt enim omnes 
equalis longitudinis, aioe incondito ordine sepiunt multa folia, 
reser 
n 
ant, rariora plerumque socio folia) minora quam reliquorum 
generum, minus crassa, neque adeo succulenta, neque adeo an 
coloris i ocaeerg viridis, cui erugineum qui pis iam admixtum 
extrem 
coc: ion errr onuste, quibus mnrescenibus neieedua 
angulosa vascula exili, fusco semine plana: radix minimi digiti 
pare interdum adquirit, lenta, are is _ aliquot 
ramos divisa, et quibusdam fibris donata, vivax, et singulis annis 
Crass. novas virgas producens, veteribus corruptis. Floret cum 
rassu 
1623.—C. Bauhin,+ eet Clusius, seven species. 
Although he cites the genus as of Dioscorides aa Pliny, he so far 
misconstrues these ancient authorities in that he does not include 
ose 
Plinii’’; but which Bauhin calls ‘ ‘* Capparis meres folio 
(p. 480). Of ne seven “species ”’ of an given by Bauhin, 
the first three are Sedum telephium L., n, 4 is Sedum maximum Suter, 
n. 5 is Sedum rape L., n. 6 is T. Imperati, and n. 7, which 
Bauhin wrongly believed was the true Telephium of Dioaeurides, is 
Coronilla es Koch. N. 6, to which Bauhin gives the name 
of *‘ Telephium ri inal folio non deciduo,” includes the synonyms 
of Camerarius and Clusius. The same plant occurs again later on 
in the work under Cistus (p. 465) as “ : Cistus folio Majorane ”’; so 
cer a was noé particularly fortunate in his conception of this 
He would not have fallen into error had he correctly 
pooled Dalechamp’s § description, which is as follows :—‘“ Aliam 
res atags Plantarum Historia, tom. 2, lib. iiii. cap. 45, p. lxvii, cum fig. 
Antw 
t Pans «, p. 286 (Basel, 1623). 
t Eephrasis, i. p. 132, t. 131 (Rome, 1616). 
§ Hist oria Generalis Plantarum, lib. vii. cap. 40, p. 869, cum fig. (Leyden, 
1587). 
