**4. Conclusions**

The results described above can give us some useful information. First, the results of our analysis, performed by using SPME technique, are not in agreemen<sup>t</sup> with previous described scent composition [31,70–72]. This difference may depend on several factors: first of all, the different location of the plants under study. The different environmental conditions could induce plants to adopt different strategies for pollination. Second, the different analysis methodology could play a significant role. Furthermore, we can observe that every species adopts a different strategy. *D. viridis* has a scent where terpenes are the main components. This statement is applicable also to *D. romana*; however, it is noteworthy that the terpenes involved in the scent are different from those observed in the other species. The scent of *D. incarnata* only included hydrocarbons as components; hydrocarbons are present in the scent of *D. saccifera* but, in this case, caryophyllene is also present in relevant amount. Finally, terpenes were detected in the scent of *D. sambucina*, as in *D. viridis* and in *D. romana*, but the compounds involved in the scent, with the exception of caryophyllene, are different from those observed in the other species.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, M.D. and V.A.R.; methodology, R.R.; investigation, R.R., L.V. and M.M.; data curation, R.L.; writing—original draft preparation, V.A.R. and M.D.; writing— review and editing, M.D., V.A.R. and R.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
