## 3 Results and Discussion  
The SPME-chromatographic analyses allowed for the identification of a large number of volatile components in the various samples. In detail, 39 components were detected and identified in _A. millefolium_ collected in A while 29 in those collected in B and C, and 37 in D. Significant qualitative and quantitative differences were observed between both the colors (white, pink, and deep pink) of the flowers and between the geographical areas in which they grew. With regard to collection point A (Table 1), the white specimens showed a balanced content of sesquiterpenes (47.8%) and monoterenes (47.6%), while the two pink sampleswere characterized by a higher percentage of monoterpenes (79.1% and 72.9%, respectively). Among the monoterpenes, \(\alpha\)-pinene (11.2%) and 1,8-cineole (10.6%) were the most abundant in the white morphotype; \(\beta\)-myrcene (17.3%) and 1,8-cineole (13.7%) in the pink one; and \(\alpha\)-pinene (36.2%) followed by \(\beta\)-pinene (8.9%) in deep pink. \(\gamma\)-Muurolene (17.5%) was instead the main sesquiterpene in all three types of _A. millefolium_ (white 17.5%; pink 8.9%, deep pink 16.8%). Some compounds were exclusive to only one of the three morphotypes. For example, \(\alpha\)-copaene (15.5%), (-)-cis-carryl acetate (4.6%), trans-carved (1.5%), isopinocampone (1.4%), and others with percentages ranging between 0.2% and 1.5% were detected in the white morphotype. \(\beta\)-Myrcene (17.3%), cyclogenariol (4.4%), \(\alpha\)-ocimene (1.9%), and other minor compounds (0.2% to 0.9%) were characteristic of the pink morphotype. In contrast, the compounds identified in the deep pink morphotype were common to the other two. Concerning the samples collected in point B (Table 2), the monoterpends abounded on the sesquiterpenoids for all three morphotypes (76.6% vs. 20.0% in the white, 72.0% vs. 27.4% in the pink, 68.5% vs. 31.4% in the deep pink). In total, 23 compounds were detected in the pink sample, 15 in the white, and 10 in the deep pink (Table 2). Among the monoterpenes, sabinene (20.2%) was the main one in the white morphotype while 1,8-cineole (24.7%) and \(\beta\)-pinene (42.0%) were the main ones in the pink and deep pink, respectively. Among the sesquiterpenes, germacrene D (14.5%) was the most abundant in the white, while \(\beta\)-caryophyllene prevailed in both the pink (14.8%) and deep pink (17.9%) morphotypes. The monoterpenes camphene (1.8%), limonene (1.4%), and terpinen-4-ol (5.3%) as well as the sesquiterpene \(\alpha\)-farnesene (1.9%) were found only in the white sample. Several compounds such as \(\alpha\)-pinene (7.7%), \(\beta\)-myrcene (0.5%), isoterpionee (0.2%), lavandul (0.9%), lavanduly acetate (0.6%), \(\alpha\)-cubehene (0.4%), \(\alpha\)-copaene (3.4%), cis-murola-4(14), 5-diene (0.6%), and \(\beta\)-copaene (4.5%) were present only in the pink sample. In contrast, zingiberene (3.9%) was the only compound in the deep pink sample. All others were also common to the white and pink morphotypes. Even in the white, pink, and deep pink samples collected in point C (Table 3), the monoterpends (76.0%, 69.9%, 56.5%) were higher than the sesquiterpenoids (24.0, 29.1%, 43.1%). In detail, \(\beta\)-pinene (32.4%, 19.5%, 32.5%) and 1,8-cineole (12.9%, 12.2%, 14.7%) were the main monoterpenes and \(\gamma\)-calenne (12.1%, 18.0%, 27.9%) was the most abundant sesquiterpene. Three monoterpenes compounds such as \(\alpha\)-pinene (1.4%), \(p\)-cymrene (1.2%), and trans-sabinene hydrate (0.5%), and the sesquiterpenes humulene (0.6%), \(\alpha\)-farnesene (0.9%) and germacrene D (0.8%) were characteristic of the white sample. Only borrowel (2.6%) was typical of the pink sample, while \(\alpha\)-terpineol (0.5%), \(\alpha\)-cubehene (0.2%), \(\gamma\)-muurolene (2.7%), and germacrene B (1.2%) distinguished the deep pink morphotype.