WHAT IS ASTRAGALUS HYPOGLOTTIS ? 219 



known to me, is not found in Spain. If, therefore, this plant was 

 not unknown to Linnaeus, it may be that it was included by him 

 under A. arenarius, as he indicates this from England, where it is 

 not found, and cites as a synonym, Raj. Angl. tab. 12, f. 3, which, 

 without doubt, absolutely represents A. danicus." Again in his 

 Pugilhcs, p. 373 (1865), he repeats, more forcibly still, the objec- 

 tions to the identification with A. danicus, but makes no attempt 

 to determine what species A. hypoglottis L. really is. 



Notwithstanding this, Bunge (loc. cit.), without any allusion 

 to Lange's argument, returned in 1868 to the old idea, because he 

 believed, wrongly, as will be shown further on, that he had found 

 Linnaeus's type, not in Herb. Linn., but in a specimen from the 

 CHlfort's herbarium at the British Museum, which specimen is 

 undoubtedly ^. danicus. The synonymy Bunge gives is : "A. hyj^o- 

 glottis L. herb. Cliffort., DC. Astr. p. 94, n. 18, tab. 14. excl. descr. 

 leguminis. Syn. A. arenarius Pall. Astr. p. 43, n. 46, tab. 34, 

 optima! A. danicus Retz. Obs. Bot. 3, p. 41." Then on p. 84: — 

 •' Hiec species in herbario Cliff ortiano, nunc Mus. Brit, manu 

 Linn^i nommQ ' A.liijiooglottis' designata, est ipsissima ; 'Glaux 

 exigua montana purpurea nostra Raj.' ex herb. Vaill., et nomen 

 servare debet, quamvis ab ipso herb. Linneano alia species sub falso 

 nomine asservatur. In errorem duxit enim assertio Candolleana 

 leguminis loculos esse monospermos. In herb. Candolleano enim 

 sub nomine ^. hyjjoglottidis in eodem folio plures congestae species ; 



(1) A. hypoglottis verus, cui etiam adscriptum nomen A. danicus ; 



(2) A. pentaglottis; (3) A. Glaux; (4) A. vicicBfoUus." 



It is to be regretted that Bunge's observations on Linnean 

 specimens which he inspected are not reliable. In Dr. Pampanini's 

 exhaustive paper on A, alopecuroides L. (N. Giorn. Bot. It. n. s. 

 xiv. 327-481 (1907) ), it is pointed out that a plant so labelled in 

 the Linnean herbarium, which Bunge declared to be the true 

 A. alopecuroides, is obviously A. narhoncnsis, a species well-known 

 to Bunge, and easily distinguishable, owing to its having a 

 different number of bracts to the flowers. 



Bunge's statements brought Lange into the field again in a 

 paper, " Bidrag til Synonymiken for nogle kritiske Arter fra 

 Danmarks og Nabolandenes Floraer," in Oversigt K. Dansk. 

 Vidensk. Selsk. Forhandl. for 1873, pp. 126-144, with two plates, 

 a French translation of which" is printed in the Resume du Bull. 

 Ac. Roy. Dan. for the same year (pp. 45-56). Lange there accepts 

 Bunge's erroneous statement about the specimen from Hort. Chff., 

 having no clue to lead him to suspect its accuracy, and devotes 

 himself to pointing out that there might have been a confusion of 

 labels, and to emphasising the greater importance of the descrip- 

 tion, and its absolute incompatibility with A. danicus. Observing, 

 however, that Bunge alludes to another specimen — the one in 

 Herb. Linn. — as a "different species," there bearing "a false 

 name," he requested Trimen to examine the specimens of 



* " Sur la synonymie de quelques especes des flores du Danemark et des 

 pays voisins." 



