226 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



(4) ''Habitat in Hispania." This is absolutely conclusive 

 against danicus. 



In Lange's words (p. 52) we are perfectly justified 



(a) in rejecting the use made by Sibthorp, Alton, Smith, 

 DC, &c., of the name hypoglottis ; 



(b) in excluding from A. arenarins of Linnaeus the Enghsh 

 synonyms and their localities, and applying to them the name 

 of A. danicus = A. hyijoglottis DC. non L. ; 



(c) in searching for a Spanish species to which the Linnean 

 characters of A. hypoglottis apply. 



In other words, hypoglottis must be a plant that grows in 

 Spain. It must also bear a resemblance to A, pentaglottis. These 

 two conditions are fulfilled by A. purpureus. Lange's own 

 suggestion of A. asperulus satisfies the first condition, but the 

 second is absolutely fatal to it. 



Of A. purpureus Lange speaks as follows, on p. 53: — "The 

 confusion of the names epiglottis and hypoglottis, united to the 

 circumstance that the specimen in Linnseus's herbarium marked 

 epiglottis,-'' but altered by Smith to hypoglottis, belongs to A. pur- 

 pureus, gives some air of truth to the hypothesis that the latter is 

 the true A. hypoglottis, all the more that the true A. epiglottis 

 differs so much from A. purpureus that one cannot suppose that 

 Linnaeus confused these two species." t Besides, A. pupureus 

 has been found in Spain, so that on that side there would be no 

 objection to this hypothesis. But the characters indicated for 

 A. hypoglottis — root annual, stems procumbent, heads with 8-10 

 flowers, legume recurved like a hook (recourbee en crochet) and 

 bifurcated at the summit — suit A. purpureus as little as they do 

 A. danicus, wherefore this interpretation of the name is not 

 satisfactory." 



Let us examine these five objections : — 



(1) The annual root. This is grave if there are no " excep- 

 tional circumstances." But when we consider that in the MS. 

 alterations to the second edition of the Species Plantarum, already 

 referred to, Linnaeus actually altered the sign of epiglottis from 

 annual to perennial, and then altered it back to annual in the 

 Ma7itissa, it becomes evident that he was quite capable of an 

 oversight in this respect. Moreover, we have no evidence that 

 he ever cultivated A. purpureiis. Consequently, he could only 

 know its duration from the appearance of dried specimens. But 

 the specimen in his herbarium shows no root and gives no infor- 

 mation about its duration. 



(2) The expression " caulescens prostratus," for which Lange 

 substitutes " langstrakte Staengler," " tiges couchees." But why 

 should this conflict with A. purpureus any more than the phrase 

 "caulescens procumbens " conflicts with A. peiitaglottis or with 



* Lange says, " Designe par DC. comme epiglottis,'' but this is obviously 

 a slip of the pen, as the name on the sheet is in Linnseus's hand, and DC. has 

 nothing to do with it. 



t Yet, as seen above, he did confuse them, and A. pentaglottis with them 

 till after ed, 2 of Sp. PI. 



