130 TWO OLD AMEEICAN TYPES. 



It might perhaps be impossible to ascertain what plant Linnaeus 

 meant by his descriptive phrase, if there were no specimen in his 

 herbarium. There is a specimen of Gronovius's plant in the National 

 Herbarium, where there are also two gatherings from Plukenet of 

 his plant. Dr. Greene assumes that Plukenet knew two forms — 

 one glabrous, " typical V. atlmitica,'' and the other pubescent. He 

 also lays stress on the view that Plukeuet's figure, t. 447, fig. 9 

 (erroneously cited by Dr. Greene as 114, fig. 7), represents a gla- 

 brous plant, and that "had Linnaeus but given precedence to [this] , 

 we should have been compelled to accept V. atlantica for the type of 

 pahiiata." But Plukenet's plant in Herb. Sloane xcii, f. 125 is 

 without doubt the type of the figure cited, so far as the four leaves are 

 concerned, although the flower has been added; and this specimen 

 is in part distinctly pubescent, while the petioles and peduncle in 

 Plukenet's other specimen (Herb. Sloane Ixxxviii, 136) are pubescent 

 throughout. 



Having carefully compared the Linnean, Gronovian, and Pluke- 

 netian types, I find no difierence between them, except that one 

 leaf in Plukenet's specimen (Hb. Sloane Ixxxviii, fol. 136) is almost 

 entire ; this, however, is the case in other examples of palmata, e. g. 

 in specimens from Bartram in Herb. Brinks. The lobing of the leaf 

 of V. palmata, as shown in a very fine series from Rugel, is extremely 

 variable. The plant figured by Dr. Britton as F. palmata in his 

 Iliuntrated Flora well represents the species in question, except that 

 the leaves in the types are not so much lobed. 



A comparison of our large series of specimens with Dr. Britton's 

 figure and description of V. atlantica suggests the possibility that 

 that plant may be only an extreme form of V. palmata, but I have 

 not studied the genus sufficiently to justify me in forming a definite 

 conclusion. 



II. HeLIOCAEPUS AMERICANA L. 



Mr. J. N. Rose has recently published (Contrib. U. S. Herb, 

 vol. V. No. 3, pp. 125-129 (1897)) a revision of Heliocarpus, on 

 which I propose to offer a few remarks. The author states in his 

 introduction that "the type of the genus is H. americanus, one of 

 the rarest species of all, although much material has been referred 

 to it"; this, as he says, was based upon the figure (t. xvi.) and 

 description in the Hortus Cliffortianus. 



The brief history of the genus is as follows : — Linnaeus (Gen. 

 PI. ed. 1, p. 157 (1737) ) diagnoses it as Heliocarpos, referring to it 

 Montia of Houstoun. The main figure in Hortus Clijf'ortianus 

 (which is reproduced by Mr. Eose) was from a plant grown in 

 Cliffort's garden ; the fruit was supplied by Miller, as is acknow- 

 ledged by Linnaeus on the plate. The genus* was named from the 

 character afforded by the fruit. 



There are in the Banksian Herbarium Houstoun's specimens 

 from Vera Cruz, which are the type of Miller's description in Gard, 



* See also Critica Botaiiica, p. 97, where Linnaius instances Heliocarpus as 

 coming under " nomina generica, quae characterem essentialem, vel iaciem 

 plantas exhibent, optima sunt." 



