WHAT IS ASTRAGALUS HYPOGLOTTIS 



223 



Astragalus 

 pumilus, sili- 

 qua epiglotti- 

 dis forma. 



epiglottis. 



The word " epiglottis " is written in different, apparently more 

 recent, ink, and in a different hand from the rest of the label. 

 Both are handwritings which occur frequently in the Chffort 

 herbarium. Their identity is not known, but neither of them 

 is that of Linnaeus. 



(2) The next specimen, also from the Hortus Cliffortianus, 

 is the one rehed on by Bunge to prove that A. hypoglottis is 

 A. danicus, and unquestionably this specimen is A. danicus as he 

 states. But he fell into the error of supposing that the name 

 " hypoglottis " on the sheet to which the specimen is attached 

 was written by Linnaeus. The label is precisely as follows : — 



Astragalus 

 repens minor, flore 

 caeruleo, siliqua Epi- 

 glottidi simili. 



hypoglottis. 



As in the case of (1), the word ''hypoglottis " is written in a 

 different, apparently more recent, ink, and in a different hand 

 from the rest of the label. Neither hand is that of Linnceus ! 



This disposes of Bunge's statement. Nevertheless, it might 

 be supposed, for other reasons, that this is the type of A. hypo- 

 glottis. If, for instance, the diagnosis on the label had been one 

 quoted by Linnaeus as a synonym of A. hypoglottis, or even if it 

 corresponded with one of the diagnoses of Astragali in Hort. Cliff., 

 or were quoted there as a synonym of some species which could 

 be plausibly maintained to include, in confusion with other species, 

 the plant afterwards named hypoglottis. But the expression 

 "Astragalus repens minor, flore caeruleo, siliqua Epiglottidi simili " 

 is not found at all in the Hortus Cliffortianus nor anywhere else 

 in Linnaeus's works, nor have I as yet been able to trace it in any 

 earlier author. 



The real interest of this specimen lies in the proof it affords 

 that A. danicus was grown in Cliffort's garden, and was therefore 

 almost certainly known to Linnaeus in his earlier life. Indeed, 

 Lange's supposition, that perhaps Linnaeus had never seen this 

 species, is a most improbable one. Why Linnaeus did not publish 

 this diagnosis in the Hortus Cliffortianus must remain a mystery. 



