Leguminous Plants. IW 
Laciucaoi the ancients. Even the milky juice, whence the 
name Lactuca^ points out this identity. But some related plants 
seem also to have received this name. The Lactuca with 
thistle-leaves, mentioned by Theophrastus (H. PI. 1. vii. c. 
s. 5.), is probably a curled variety ; but the broad-stalked, from 
the stems of which garden-gates were made, was, although a 
monstrous production {caitle Jasciato), yet a related species^ 
Under the name Lactuca sativa^ there are at present two spe-^ 
cies included. Where the Lactuca grows wild, is quite unknown. 
The wild Lactuca of the ancients (Dioscorid. 1. xxvi. c. 61.) is . 
Lactuca mrosa. The Lactuca was known in very early times. 
The ancients seem to have eaten a great many plants of the 
natural order SemiJlosculosfE^ which Theophrastus reckons up 
under the names vTco^oi^t^f and. 
which were called from the similarity of their leaves. 
Dioscorides cites (1. iv^ c. 97.), which is translated 
Senecioy and the description of which agrees pretty well with 
Senecio vulgaris^ or some related species. But this plant is not 
eatable. Dioscorides also does not speak of its use as greens, 
and does not cite this plant along with the other plants used as 
greens. Galen says nothing whatever respecting it. Probably 
the word had received a different meaning in later times, 'r^ro- 
is compared by Theophrastus with (Hist. PI. 1. vii. 
c. 11. s. 4.); but it is said to be smoother, softer to the eye 
rn TT^ocro^zi), and sweeter. The comparison between it 
and Cichorium shews, that the plants which have been taken 
for it, Hyoseris, Hedypnois, Hypochoeris^ Linn, do not belong 
to it. K.v^^vd'hos. is mentioned in this passage alone. is de- 
scribed (c. 11. s. 4.) as not eatable. The word is used among 
the names of garden-greens, and among the Cichoraceae by 
Theophrastus only, and by Pliny, who translates these passages. 
Bauhin does not comprehend why Theophrastus quotes this 
plant among the garden-greens, and yet afterwards says it is 
not eatable. If we insert the which has occasioned so much 
perplexity to Schneider, the passage (1. vii. c. 4. s. 1.) then inti- 
mates that these plants were also named simply on ac- 
count of their resemblance to Cichoriim. It is quite in Vain to 
endeavour to ascertain these plants, especially as later writers 
do not mention many of them. To me they seem partly to d@w 
VOL. VI. NO. 11. JANtARY 1822. « ' I 
