SA ieee A A. < eee i . 
, Ten or eleven years ago when I first saw ae 
mens of Montia fontaua, the then recent transfer oO 
Claytonia species to Montza did not seem to me to | 
course. A short time before seeing the A/on¢za, I he 
not published, in my list of Idaho plants of 1896, a con 
which I had intended to publish under Montia. Thi: 
concerning the relationship of the plants deterred me ‘frot 
publishing until an opportunity could be had to properly stu: 
the subject. Meanwhile, some of our most conservative botan- 
ists adopted these new Montias, and so the matter rested. ; 
Recently in Mem. Nat. Acad. Sci. 10: 27-37. 1905, Theo- 
dor Holm published “A Morphological and Anatomical Study” 
of Claytonza, and shows that ‘“‘a glance at the literature and a 
consideration of the species themselves must necessarily con- 
vince éven the most critical systematist that CZayéonza, as here- cs 
tofore defined, can not possibly be confounded with MZonzza, nor 
Montia with Claytonza.” He argues, however, that because 
“the floral structure appears essentially the same,” the different _ 
groups of species should not be separated into genera. The 
present tendency (and it is likely to continue and grow stronger) 
is to segregate into separate genera plants which resemble each 
other, instead of calling them sections of genera. Acting on 
this principle it will be seen that C/layéonza is composed of sev- 
eral genera. Mazocrene, among others, has already been sepa- 
rated by Rydberg. 
Naiocrene filicaulis (Dougl.) 
Claytonia filicaulis Dougl.; Hook. Fl. Bor. Am. 1: 224. pi. 
72. 1834. 
Strangely enough, this plant has long been considered a 
synonym of Claytonta parvifolta, notwithstanding the differen- 
ces called for in the description and in the illustration. The 
entire petals and veined leaves at once distinguish it. Mr. E. P. 
