245 



TWO LINUMS OF MILLEE'S DICTIONARY ed. 8 (1768). 

 By James Britten, F.L.S. 



LiNUM HISPANICUM Mill. 



In the Index Keiuensis '• Linum hispanicum Mill. Gard. Diet, 

 ed. viii. n. 7 " is given as synonymous with L. angustifoliujii 

 Huds., and Mr. Williams (Prod. Fl. Brit. p. 485) recognizing that, 

 if this were so, Miller's name (being the earlier) would have to 

 stand for the species, adopts it, placing L. angustifolmm as a 

 synonym. He quotes Miller's description, and adds : " Any 

 doubt about the identity of this plant with L. angustifolium is 

 set at rest by the examination of Miller's type-specimen of 

 L. Jiis^ajiicum in Herb. Mus. Brit., which agrees exactly 

 with the current descriptions of L. angustifolmm in English 

 floras." 



As Miller's specimens presented to my eye no resemblance to 

 any of the numerous examples of L. angustifolium in the National 

 Herbarium, and as Dr. Rendle concurred with me in failing to see 

 any correspondence between them, it seemed worth while to look 

 further into the matter, which I have done with the following 

 results. 



Planchon (in Hook. Lond. Journ. Bot. vii. 174 (1848) ), who 

 had seen the specimens — there are two — on which Mr. Williams 

 relies, refers them without doubt to Linum perenne var. anglicum. 

 One of them corresponds very closely with t. clxvi. fig. 2, of 

 Miller's Figures of Fla^its "described in the Gardeners Dictionary " 

 (1757) ; this however is cited by Linnaeus (Sp. PL ed. 2, 397) and 

 by Miller as representing L. perenne (n. 6), from which in the 

 letterpress accompanying the plate Miller first separates the 

 English plant usually so called ; this he subsequently (Gard. 

 Diet. n. 5) named L. anglicum. 



The specific distinctness of the two was accepted by Schiede, 

 who in Linncea (i. 72 (1826) ), after describing L. perenne, of 

 which he distinguishes three forms, says : " Affine Lino anglico 

 Mill., cui adjungo L. montanum Schl., sed differt fruetibus deflexis, 

 qui in hoe constanter ereeti sunt " ; and by Mr. Williams {pp. cit. 

 483), who regards the L. perenne of English floras as distinct 

 from "the Linnean L. perenne in its restricted sense." Syme 

 (Engl. Bot. ed. 3, ii. 183), as Mr. WiUiams points out, had indi- 

 cated the same conclusion, and a comparison of specimens tends 

 to confirm this view. We have specimens of both L. anglicum 

 and L. perenne from Chelsea Garden, collected in 1757 and 1761, 

 during Miller's curatorship, one of the latter being from his 

 herbarium. Neither specimen of L. perenne corresponds as closely 

 with Miller's figure as does the one of L. hispanicum mentioned 

 above. The three plants — L. perenne, L. anglicum, and L, his- 

 panictim — stand respectively as nn. 5, 6, and 7 in the Dictionary, 

 and to my mind represent L. perenne in its wider sense ; 

 how far they may be separable as species or forms does not 



