110 Watson: THE GENUS HELIOCARPUS 
was followed in 1857 by Seemann’s publication of H. arborescens, 
which does not belong in this genus, In 1858, Turczaninow 
added three species, H. tomentosus, H. appendiculatus and H. 
trichopodus, and, five years later, H. oblongifolius. 
In 18 chumann, unable to accept the seven described 
species, ceduced them all to H. americanus with the two varieties 
typicus and popayanensis. His argument is based upon the 
existence of intermediate types. It is quite evident from his 
article that he had a very limited amount of material and that 
his examination was not very minute, for most of these species 
are distinct even to a casual observer, 
Schumann cites for H. americanus var. typicus: Regnell ITI. 
285 from Brazil, Mosen 3825, Riedel 424, Balansa 2295. Of 
these I have seen only Regnell IIT. 285, which does not resemble 
H. americanus in the least. Schumann does not mention separate 
types for his two varieties, and the specimens cited include, as 
might be expected, widely varying plants. 
In the same year, Sereno Watson published descriptions of 
three new species, H. Palmeri, H. polyandrus, and H. attenuatus, 
all clearly distinct. Eleven years later, Robinson added H. 
glanduliferus, characterized by red glands on the stem and ex- 
cessive glandulosity of the lower serrations of the leaves.. At 
about the same time, Rose published, in the first of the papers 
already noted, a synopsis of the genus in which he enumerated 
fifteen species, including several of his own. The following 
year E. G, Baker published his brief review of Rose’s synopsis, 
offering some remarks on the earlier species, and endeavoring to 
establish the identity of H. americanus. 
It may be well, at this point, to interrupt our chronology to 
discuss this type of the species. The situation is peculiar. It 
must be remembered that Linnaeus preserved no specimen of 
the plant he described, and his description is only fairly com- 
plete. The drawing represents a plant with stipules and with- 
out either fruits or flowers. As stipules in this genus are early 
deciduous, and as the drawing presents neither fruit nor flower, 
we conclude that the drawing is from an immature plant. On 
the same plate, however, is a drawing of a single fruit, which, so 
_ Linnaeus informs us, was sent to him by Miller, presumably 
from the Chelsea Garden. It is not explicitly stated that the 
two drawings were made from parts of the same plant. _Nor 
